← 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.

Cap. I

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 sanctus2.

Cap. II

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 horresco». 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.

p. 178

Cap. IV

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».

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, nisi quia volebat intelligi, hoc ad maiorem evidentiam et expressionem veritatis dici quam illud? His etenim verbis omnis calumniandi versutis haereticis obstruitur aditus, quibus Christi secundum deitatem generatio sine initio et sine fine esse ac perfecta monstratur. Non autem adeo aperte25 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 Trinitate26 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[^27], 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

p. 179

si gignenti est infinitum gignere, et nascenti etiam est infinitum nasci. Medium enim quid inter nativitatem Dei Filii et generationem Dei Patris nec ratio 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 ea 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 est? 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 professio est35».

---

English Translation

Distinction IX

On the distinction of the three persons.

Cap. I

Now let us approach the distinction of the three persons. Let us therefore hold, as Augustine teaches in the book On the Faith, to Peter1, that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are naturally one God, yet that the Father Himself is not the one who is the Son, nor is the Son Himself the one who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit Himself the one who is the Father or the Son. For one is the essence of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, in which the Father is not one thing, the Son another, and the Holy Spirit another, although personally the Father is one, the Son another, and the Holy Spirit another2.

Cap. II

On the co-eternity of the Father and the Son.

For the Son was begotten by the Father, and therefore is another, yet the Father was not before the Son; for the three persons are co-eternal to one another. But against this the heretic objects, as Ambrose reports in the first book On the Trinity3: «Everything which has been born has a beginning; and therefore, since the Son is, He has a beginning and began to be; which has been said in this manner by the mouth of the heretics». «For Arius himself, as Augustine recalls in the sixth book On the Trinity4, is reported to have said: If He is Son, He was born; if He was born, there was when He was not Son».

He who says this «does not understand that to have been born of God is also to be everlasting, so that the Son is co-eternal to the Father, just as the splendor which is begotten from fire and is diffused is coeval to it, and would be co-eternal if the fire were eternal5».

Likewise: «If the Son of God, says Augustine, is the virtue and wisdom of God, and God was never without virtue and wisdom, the Son is co-eternal to God the Father. But the Apostle says6: That Christ is the virtue of God and the wisdom of God; either therefore there was not, when there was no Son, or at some time God did not have virtue and wisdom, which it is the part of a madman to say». For it is plain that, since He always had wisdom, He always therefore had a Son.

To the same Arian question Ambrose7 also responds in this manner: «I, I say, confess that the Son was born; what remains of impiety I shudder at». For it is written in the Old Testament8, to mention but one of many: Before me there was no other God, and after me there shall not be. Who therefore 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 not be: this one has no one prior, that one no one 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, since no one is father to himself; when you name the Son, you also confess the Father, since no one is son to himself. And so neither can the Son be without the Father, nor the Father without the Son: always therefore is the Father, and always also is the Son».

Likewise: «Tell me, I say, heretic, was there a time when the omnipotent God was not Father, and was God? For if He began to be Father, God therefore was first, and afterward was made Father. How then is God immutable? For if He was first God, and afterward Father, surely He was changed by the addition of generation». «But may God avert this madness10».

Cap. III

On the ineffable and intelligible mode of generation.

«But you ask of me, says Ambrose11, how, if He is Son, He does not have the Father as prior? I in turn ask of you: when or how do you suppose 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 even that of the Angels; it is above the Powers and above the Angels and above the Cherubim and above the Seraphim and above all sense, since 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?» «Therefore put your hand to your mouth; it is not permitted to scrutinize the heavenly mysteries. It is permitted to know that He was born; it is not permitted to discuss how He was born. The former it is not permitted me to deny; to seek the latter is fearful». For that generation is ineffable; whence Isaiah13: Who shall declare His generation?

Yet certain men, presuming on their own ingenuity, say that that generation can be understood, and other things of this sort, leaning on that authority of Jerome on Ecclesiastes14: «In the sacred Scriptures 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 for this reason, that the eternal generation of the Son can be fully understood or explained by any mortal, but because something concerning it can be understood or said. Some, however, take this as said of the temporal generation of Christ.

p. 178

Cap. IV

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. Of this Gregory on Job16 says: «The Lord God Jesus, in that He is the virtue and wisdom of God, was born of the Father before the ages, or rather, since He neither began to be born nor ceased, let us say more truly always born; we cannot, however, say is always being born, lest He seem to be imperfect. But truly, that He may be designated as eternal and perfect, let us say both always and born, inasmuch as 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, since what is not made cannot properly be called perfect»; but stammering, as we are able, we sound forth the lofty things of God. «And the Lord, condescending to the words of our infirmity, says: Be ye perfect, even as your heavenly Father is perfect17». Upon that passage of the Psalm: I have today begotten thee, Augustine18 thus speaks of this generation of the Son: «Although by what He says, today, that day can also be understood on which Christ was born according to His humanity; nevertheless, since 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 present only, since whatever is eternal always is; yet it is more divinely understood 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 future, because it is eternal. For He therefore20 said I have begotten, lest it be thought new, namely, lest it seem to have begun; He said today, lest the generation seem past. «From these words of the Prophet, therefore, as John Chrysostom21 says, nothing else is made manifest than that from the very essence of the Father the Son has always been begotten».

But Origen on Jeremiah22 says that the Son is always being generated by the Father, in these words: «Our Savior is the wisdom of God; but wisdom is the splendor of eternal light: therefore our Savior is the splendor of brightness. But splendor is not born once and ceases, but as often as the light arises from which the splendor arises, so often arises also the splendor of brightness: thus therefore the Savior 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, begot». By these words Origen openly shows that it can and ought rightly to be said: The Son is always being born; which seems contrary to that previously cited word of Gregory, namely, «we cannot say: is always being born».

But lest such great authors seem to contradict themselves in so great a matter, let us interpret those24 words of Gregory benignly. «The Lord Jesus, he says, was born of the Father before the ages, or rather, since 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 is always born, than that, namely, that He was born of the Father before the ages? For the sincere and Catholic faith holds and preaches the latter just as it does the former. Why then does he say: «Let us say more truly», when both are equally true, unless because he wished it to be understood that this is said for greater evidence and expression of the truth than that? For by these words every approach for cunning heretics to make calumny is shut off, by which it is shown that the generation of Christ according to deity is without beginning and without end and is perfect. The truth, however, is not so openly25 manifested when it is said: The Son was begotten of the Father before the ages, or, The Son is always being born of the Father. And therefore Gregory says that «we cannot say, is always being born»; not, I say, so suitably, not so congruously to the explanation of the truth; yet it can be said, if it be soundly 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. Therefore He is always being born, that is, His nativity is everlasting.

Hilary also says, in the seventh book On the Trinity26, that the Son is born from the Father, in these words: «The living God is the power of an eternal living nature; and what is born from Him with the sacrament of His knowledge could not be other than living. For when He says: As the living Father has sent me[^27], so I live by the Father, He taught that life is in Him through the living Father». Behold, here you have it, that28 the Son is born from the Father. Likewise in the same book29: «When Christ says: As the Father has life in Himself, so He has given to the Son to have life in Himself, He has testified that all His living things are from the Living One. But what is born living from the living has the perfect of nativity without newness of nature. For it is not new that what is generated from the living comes into the living, since it is not from nothing; and life which takes nativity from life must, by the unity of nature and the sacrament of perfect nativity, both30 live in the living and have living life in itself». Behold, here too you have it, that the living Son is generated from the Living One. Likewise in the same31: «In God the whole that is, lives; for God is life, and from life there can be nothing but living; nor is the nativity from derivation, but from power. And so, while the whole that is, lives, and while the whole that is born from Him is power, the Son has nativity, not change». And here he says that He is born. Likewise in the ninth book On the Trinity32: «The Father grants the Son to be as much as He Himself is, to whom He imparts, by the sacrament of nativity, the being of the image of innascibility, whom He generates from Himself in His own form». Here he says that the Father generates the Son.

Let us therefore say that the Son was born of the Father before the ages and is always being born of the Father, but more congruously always born; and let us confess that the same is from eternity and co-eternal to the Father, that is, to the Author. For the Father is, by generation, the Author of the Son, as in what follows33 will be shown. Therefore as the Father is eternal, so also is the Son eternal, but the Father without an Author, the Son not so, since the Father is innascible, the Son born. And as Hilary says in the twelfth book On the Trinity34: «It is one thing to be eternal always without an Author, another to be co-eternal to the Father, that is, to the Author. But where the Father is Author, there also is nativity; since just as nativity is from the Author, so also from an eternal Author is an eternal nativity. But everything that always is, is also eternal; yet not everything that is eternal is also unborn; since what is born from eternity has eternal being, that which has been born. But what is not born, is, with eternity, not born; but what is born from eternity, if it is not eternally born, then the Father will not also be eternal Author. If anything therefore should be lacking from eternity to Him who is born from the eternal Father, that very thing it is not doubtful was lacking to the Author, since

p. 179

if to the Begetter it is infinite to beget, to the Born also it is infinite to be born. For neither reason nor sense admits any middle between the nativity of God the Son and the generation of God the Father, since both in generation there is nativity, and in nativity there is generation, since without each neither is: each therefore is without interval of itself».

Cap. V

On the objections of the heretics striving to prove that the Son is not co-eternal to the Father.

«But the heretic will say: everything that has been born was not always, since it was born unto this, that it might be. No one doubts that those things which are born in human affairs at some time were not. But it is one thing to be born from that which always was not, and another to have been born from that which always is. There, neither did he who is father always exist, nor is he always father; and he who is not always father did not always beget. But where the father always is, the son always is. And if it is always proper to God the Father that He is always Father, it is necessary that it be always 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 born? Therefore we confess God the only-begotten as born, but born before the ages, neither being before being born nor born before being; since for that which was to be born is no longer to be born, but to change itself by being born. But this exceeds human sense and the understanding of the world. The reason of human understanding does not grasp this, but it is the profession of faithful prudence35».

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Cap. I. n. 5. — In principio distinctionis omnes codd. omittunt trium.
    Cap. 1, n. 5. — At the beginning of the distinction all 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, from Genitus est to alius.
  3. Cap. 11. 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.
    Cap. 11, n. 73. — Only the Vatican edition and eds. 1, 6, 8 cite this book under the name de Fide ad Gratianum; 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).
    Cap. 1, n. 1, from which the two authorities that follow are also taken. In the first text, only the Vatican edition and eds. 4, 6, following Augustine's original, add tempus before quando. But the well-known saying of Arius is: There was a time when he was not (ἦν ποτε, ὅτε οὐκ ἦν).
  5. Sola Vat. perperam omittit aeternus.
    Only the Vatican edition erroneously omits aeternus.
  6. I. Cor. I, 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. Shortly before, after coaeternus, the Vatican edition and eds. 4, 9 add ergo.
  7. Loc. cit. — Ex eodem libro c. 8. n. 55 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. 55, 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.
    Isa. 43:10.
  9. Respicitur illud Ioan. 14, 9. et 10. — Paulo supra post priorem Vat. contra originale, codd. et edd. 1, 8 adiicit et.
    Reference is to John 14:9–10. — Shortly above, after priorem, the Vatican edition, against the original, codices, and eds. 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 eds. 1, 8, here add: because he always had wisdom, he always had the Son, which words, since they are not free from suspicion of interpolation, we have not admitted into the text.
  11. Libr. I. de Fide ad Gratian. c. 10. n. 64. et 65. — In principio huius loci sola Vat. habet pro habeat. Mox in codd. BCD E et ed. 1 deest quando vel, quod tamen est in originali.
    Book I, de Fide ad Gratianum, c. 10, nn. 64 and 65. — At the beginning of this passage, only the Vatican edition has pro for habeat. Shortly after, in codices BCD E and ed. 1, quando vel is absent, which however is 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.
    Phil. 4:7. The words that follow below, put your hand to your mouth and it is not permitted to search, refer to Sir. 5:14 and 3:22.
  13. Cap. 53, 8.
    Isa. 53:8.
  14. Cap. 3.
    Ch. 3.
  15. Vat. cum paucis edd. dicit.
    The Vatican edition with a few other editions reads dicit.
  16. Libr. XXIX. Moral. c. I. in principio. Etiam verba, quae sequuntur post resonamus, ibidem inveniuntur. In principio primi loci codd. ABDE et edd. 1, 8 omittunt Iesus.
    Book XXIX, Moralia, c. 1, at the beginning. The words that follow after resonamus are also found there. At the beginning of the first passage, codices ABDE and eds. 1, 8 omit Iesus.
  17. Matth. 5, 48. — Paulo ante Vat. et edd. 3, 4, 7, 9 resonemus pro resonamus.
    Matt. 5:48. — Shortly before, the Vatican edition and eds. 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. — Shortly before, the Vatican edition erroneously reads Psalmista. The same Vatican edition and ed. 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 eds. 1, 5, 9 in the text add the following: Whence also Augustine, in his book of 83 Questions, discussing the one always born (q. 37), says: "born" is better than "always being born," because one who is always being born is not yet born and never has been or will be born, if he is always being born. For to be born and to have been born are different things, and therefore he is never a Son if he has never been born; but he is a Son because he has been born, and always a Son because eternal, therefore always born.
  20. Vat. contra codd. et edd. 1, 8 omittit enim.
    The Vatican edition, against the codices and eds. 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 2, near the end, but with not a few changes.
  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.
    Prov. 8:25 according to the Septuagint; Vulgate: before the hills I was brought forth. — Some editions cite thus: in the book of Wisdom for of the Wise One, an error which the codices also support; ed. 9 reads thence he says in Prov. 8, Wisdom.
  24. Sola Vat. omittit illa.
    Only the Vatican edition omits illa.
  25. 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 eds. 4, 5, 6, 9 superfluously add semper; codices BC, omitting aperte, read semper. Immediately after, codex D and eds. 1, 8 read monstratur for manifestatur.
  26. Num. 27. — Textus Scripturae, ab Hilario citatus, est Ioan. 6, 58, ubi Hilarius ponit per Patrem loco propter Patrem, quod habet Vulgata.
    N. 27. — The Scripture text cited by Hilary is John 6:58, where Hilary has per Patrem in place of propter Patrem, which is what the Vulgate has.
  27. Codd. quod loco quia. Postea cod. D et edd. 1, 8 de Patre loco ex Patre.
    Codices read quod in place of quia. Afterward, codex D and eds. 1, 8 read de Patre in place of ex Patre.
  28. 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 Scripture text is John 5:26, where the Vulgate and eds. 1, 2, 5, 9 read semetipso for se. Then after ex vivente, codex D adds the gloss Patre, and codex A reads omnino vitam suam for omnia viva sua.
  29. 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.
    Eds. 1, 8 omit et, which our other authorities have with Hilary; shortly after, the same particle et after Ecce is omitted by codex D and ed. 8.
  30. 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: Attende quod totum for In Deo totum. Then eds. 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, against the original and incorrectly, read ex virtute nativitatis for ex virtute nativitas. Immediately after, the Vatican edition with most editions erroneously reads si for sic, which is found in the original and eds. 5, 6, 8, 9.
  31. 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.
    N. 54, where, against the codices, eds. 5, 9, and the original, the other editions have impartit for impertit. Then the Maurist edition of Hilary reads in formam suam for in forma sua.
  32. Immediate post, et Dist. XV. circa finem.
    Immediately after, and Dist. XV near the end.
  33. 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.
    N. 21. — In this text, near the middle, for ex aeterno, eds. 1, 8 incorrectly read ab aeterno, and shortly after, codices DE read qui Pater for et Pater.
  34. In hoc textu Vat. et edd. omnes contra codd. nostros et originale professionis loco professio.
    In this text, the Vatican edition and all other editions, against our codices and the original, read professionis in place of professio.
  35. In hoc textu Vat. et edd. omnes contra codd. nostros et originale professionis loco professio.
    In this text, the Vatican edition and all other editions, against our codices and the original, read professionis in place of professio. ---
Dist. 9, Divisio Textus→