← Back to Distinction 9

Dist. 9, Art. 1, Q. 4

Book II: On the Creation of Things · Distinction 9

Textus Latinus
p. 247

Quaestio IV. A quo ordo Angelorum denominetur.

Quarto quaeritur de ordinum nominatione; super quod dicit Gregorius1, quod «unusquisque ordo ab eo denominatur, quod plenius accepit in munere». Obiicitur autem contra hoc:

1. Quia quod non contingit cognoscere non contingit nominare2; sed angelici spiritus sunt nobis ignoti, ergo sunt innominabiles. Si tu dicas, quod ipsi se nobis notificant, dum revelant; tunc ex hoc sequitur, quod uno solo nomine debeant nominari. Sic enim nominamus, sicut cognoscimus: ergo si per revelationem cognoscimus, omnes debemus nominare et dicere revelatores: ergo non est ibi ponere nominum distinctiones.

2. Item, «a digniori debet fieri denominatio»3; sed caritas est excellentissimum donum, quod est in Angelis: ergo omnes debent denominari a caritate, ergo omnes debent dici Seraphim.

3. Item, «omnia dona sunt omnibus communia», sicut dicit Gregorius et Magister in littera4; sed denominatio angelicorum ordinum fit a donis gratuitis: ergo omnia nomina eorum debent esse communia, quemadmodum et dona.

4. Item, si unusquisque ordo denominatur ab eo quod plenius accepit in munere; et supremus ordo omnia dona gratiarum plenius accepit quam ordines inferiores: ergo debet denominari ab omnibus donis: ergo habebit nomina omnium ordinum, sicut dona.

p. 248

5. Item, si dicitur ordo denominari ab eo quod plenius accepit in munere, aut excessus plenitudinis notatur respectu aliorum ordinum, aut respectu aliorum donorum. Si respectu aliorum ordinum, cum ordo inferior in nullo dono aliquem superiorum ordinum excellat, a nullo debet denominari. Si vero dicitur respectu aliorum donorum, tunc aut dona Angelorum erunt inaequalia, aut a nullo fiet denominatio. Sed dona gratiarum in eodem sunt aequalia, sicut infra patebit in tertio5: ergo a nullo donorum potest denominari inferior ordo.

6. Item, in imagine reformata dilectio adaequatur cognitioni: ergo si ordo Cherubim denominatur a plenitudine scientiae, erit in eo similiter plenitudo dilectionis gratuitae: ergo nomen Cherubim et Seraphim eidem ordini Angelorum debet attribui et non aliis.

7. Item, cum ordo Cherubim denominatur a plenitudine scientiae, aut denominatur a plenitudine scientiae respectu inferiorum, aut respectu superiorum. Non respectu inferiorum, quia talis cognitio in eis non est nobilissima: denominatur ergo a cognitione respectu superiorum. Sed haec cognitio est sapientia: ergo denominatur a plenitudine sapientiae. Sed sapientia est excellentissimum omnium donorum: ergo Cherubim denominatur ab excellentissimo dono: ergo videtur, quod sit ordo supremus, vel quod dignior ordo non denominetur a digniori nomine.

8. Item, cum Angeli habeant quaedam nomina, quae sunt eis propria, quaedam, quae sunt communia, quaedam, quae sunt propria et possunt esse communia; quaeritur, quae sit istorum nominum ratio et differentia.

Conclusio

Angelorum denominatio quoad nomina singulis ordinibus propria sumta est a donis gratiarum secundum diversos status et gradus, in quibus distinguuntur et ordinantur.

Respondeo: Ad horum intelligentiam est notandum, Nominari possunt tripliciter. quod Angeli nominari possunt per ea quae sunt eis naturalia, nominari etiam possunt per ea quae sunt eis gratuita, nominari etiam possunt per aliqua, quae quodam modo sunt eis naturalia, quodam modo gratuita. — Secundum naturalia. Si denominantur per ea quae sunt eis naturalia, cum eorum natura non innotescat nobis in singulari, sed in communi, sic habent nominari nominibus communibus, sumtis a natura et forma communi; et hoc dupliciter: vel a communi remoto, et sic dicuntur caelestes essentiae; vel a communi propinquo, et sic dicuntur caelestes spiritus. — Secundum gratuita. Si autem denominentur secundum dona gratuita, sic, quia in ipsis differenter habent statum et gradum, et ita distinctionem, sic per illa6 habent ordines nominari nominibus propriis; propriis inquam sive respectu daemonum, sive respectu aliorum ordinum, sicut dicuntur Seraphim et Throni. — Secundum utraque. Si autem fiat denominatio ab his quae possunt esse naturalia, uno modo accipiendo, et alio modo accipiendo, gratuita; sic nomina possunt esse communia et propria7: communia inquam bonis et malis, et propria bonis, sicut principatus et potestates, quae si dicantur a naturali proprietate, conveniunt daemonibus, si vero a dono gratuito, conveniunt sanctis Spiritibus; vel communia omnibus ordinibus, propria vero aliquibus, sicut Angeli et Virtutes. Si enim dicantur a naturalibus donis, utpote a limpiditate scientiae et fortitudine8 potentiae; sic, quia haec duo sunt in omnibus, omnes possunt dici Angeli, scilicet habiles ad revelandum; omnes etiam Virtutes, id est fortes ad operandum. Si autem dicantur a dono gratiae, secundum quod sunt ad haec officia specialiter deputati, scilicet ad mysteria revelanda et miracula facienda; sic sunt quorundam ordinum nomina propria. — Conclusio. Ex his igitur colligitur, quod denominatio Angelorum quantum ad nomina propria singulis ordinibus sumta est a donis gratiarum secundum diversos status et gradus, in quibus distinguuntur et ordinantur, sicut praedictum est9.

In modo autem accipiendi nomina ista, tria sunt consideranda. Tria consideranda. Primum quidem, quod unum donum dignius est altero, sicut caritas dicitur esse donum excellens inter alia. Secundum vero est, quod ordo superior in omnibus donis excellit inferiores. Tertium vero est, quod denominatio debet fieri a digniori. — Secundum hoc igitur, cum novem sint status, in quibus ordines angelici habeant disponi secundum differentem gratuitorum praecellentiam, ordo supremus vindicat sibi nomen a dignissimo dono et statu; ordo sequens a dono et statu magis accedente ad summum, et haec est plenitudo scientiae; et sic de aliis descendendo usque ad infimum. Unde in denominatione consideratur duplex excessus: et doni ad donum, et ordinis ad ordinem10. Et istud vult dicere Gregorius, quod «unusp. 249quisque ordo eius rei censetur nomine, quam plenius accepit in munere», plenius, inquam, respectu inferiorum, nisi donum illud sit tantae dignitatis et excellentiae, quod ab ipso debeat denominari aliquis ordinum superiorum; sicut patet, quia ordo Cherubim plenius accepit caritatem quam aliquis inferiorum ordinum, ab ipsa tamen non denominatur, quia, cum sit donum praecellentissimum, excellentissimo ordini appropriatur. — His visis, facile est respondere ad obiecta.

Solutio oppositorum. 1. Ad illud enim quod obiicitur, quod non sint noti; dicendum, quod verum est de cognitione, quae est per acquisitionem; sed non est verum de cognitione, quae est per revelationem, qualiter cognovit beatus Paulus et beatus Ioannes Evangelista; et ideo ipsi potuerunt denominare et alios erudire, sicut Paulus erudivit Dionysium11. Notandum. Omnium tamen Angelorum nomina sumta sunt de sacra Scriptura, sicut Seraphim de Isaiae sexto12, Cherubim de Psalmis et de aliis locis Scripturae, Throni de Danielis septimo13; Dominationes, Principatus, Potestates, Virtutes ex diversis locis Epistolarum Pauli, Angeli et Archangeli tam ex novi quam ex veteris Testamenti diversis locis. Quoniam igitur sacra Scriptura fuit divinitus inspirata, non humanitus adinventa, impositio nominum Angelorum potius fuit ex Dei revelatione quam ex humana investigatione.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod denominatio debet fieri a digniori; dicendum, quod non solum hoc attendendum est, quod denominatio rei fiat a digniori, sed etiam, quod nomen, quod pluribus convenit, attribuatur digniori; et ideo, quamvis omnes ordines a dono caritatis et ardoris denominari possent, quia tamen donum illud in supremo ordine praecellit, solus ille ordo ab eo debet denominari.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod omnia dona omnibus sunt communia; dicendum, quod sicut supra tactum fuit14, etsi sit in donis communitas quantum ad habitum, est tamen distinctio quantum ad statum. Denominatio autem non solum respicit substantiam habitus, sed etiam praecellentiam status.

4. 5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod ordo debet denominari ab eo munere, quod plenius accepit; dicendum, quod hoc non intelligendum est de omni eo quod plenius accepit, sed de eo quod plenius accepit et est in ipso dignissimum, maxime si ille sit ordo dignissimus; et si ordo sit immediate sequens illum, debet denominari ab eo quod immediate sequitur praecellentissimum donum; et sic consequenter descendendo usque ad infimum. Et sic patet responsio ad hoc et ad sequens, quoniam supremus a supremo debuit denominari, quia illud dignissimum est et plenissime accepit. Infimus vero ab infimo dono, quia, cum in omnibus excedatur ab aliis, nomen sumtum a dono ultimo sibi debuit relinqui, non quia illud plenius aliis possideret, sed quia alii denominati sunt ab eo quod plenius possidebant. Ex hoc consequenter factum est, ut infimus ordo denominaretur ab infimo dono. — Et si obiicitur, quod unum donum non est excellentius alio, quia dona sunt aequalia; dicendum, quod etsi sint aequalia intensive, nihilominus tamen est in eis praerogativa alicuius excellentiae, sicut caritas dicitur ab Apostolo15 maior esse fide et spe.

6. Ad illud quod obiicitur: ubi maior est cognitio, maior est dilectio; dicendum, quod verum est, ad minus in gloria. Unde sicut in Seraphim est maior plenitudo dilectionis, est16 amplior plenitudo cognitionis; nec Cherubim dicuntur, quia sit in eis amplior plenitudo cognitionis simpliciter, sed respectu inferiorum ordinum.

7. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod donum sapientiae est excellentissimum; dicendum, quod sapientia, secundum quod est donum excellentissimum, est dicta a sapore, non a sapere, et ita includit caritatem17; sed sapientia sive scientia, a qua denominantur Cherubim, nominat Dei cognitionem, quae etsi sit nobilissima cognitio et ordinata ad affectionem et ideo possit dici sapientia, non tamen est ita nobilis, ut dilectio, a qua est sapor. Et ideo in illa ratione in nomine sapientiae fit aequivocatio.

8. Ad illud quod ultimo quaeritur, iam patet responsio ex praedictis.

Scholion

I. Solutio quaestionis nititur hoc principio, quod omnis denominatio est a forma completiva et digniore, nisi haec forma in maiore gradu competat superiori. In hoc enim casu nomen dignioris formae superiori reservatur; inferior autem nominatur ab alia forma. Exemplum affert Petr. a Tar. (hic q. unica, a. 3.): «Sicut homo non denominatur a sensitiva potentia, quia habet nobiliorem, nec ab intellectiva, quia habet eam incomplete [Angeli autem completius], sed a ratione».

II. S. Thom., hic q. unica, a. 4; S. I. q. 108. a. 5; S. c. Gent. III. c. 80. — B. Albert., hic a. 5. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 2. — Aegid. R., hic q. 2. a. 1. dub. lat. 2. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 3. — Biel, hic q. 1.

---

English Translation
p. 247

Question IV. From what each order of Angels is named.

Fourthly it is asked concerning the naming of the orders; on which Gregory1 says that «each order is named from that which it received more fully as a gift». But it is objected against this:

1. Because that which it does not happen [for us] to know it does not happen [for us] to name2; but the angelic spirits are unknown to us, therefore they are unnameable. If you say that they make themselves known to us when they reveal [things], then from this it follows that they ought to be named by one single name. For we name in the way that we know: therefore, if we know [them] through revelation, we ought all to name [them] and call them revealers: therefore there is no place there for distinctions of names.

2. Likewise, «a naming ought to be made from the worthier»3; but charity is the most excellent gift that is in the Angels: therefore all ought to be named from charity, therefore all ought to be called Seraphim.

3. Likewise, «all gifts are common to all», as Gregory and the Master say in the text4; but the naming of the angelic orders is made from the gratuitous gifts: therefore all their names ought to be common, just as the gifts also [are].

4. Likewise, if each order is named from that which it received more fully as a gift; and the supreme order received all the gifts of graces more fully than the inferior orders: therefore it ought to be named from all the gifts: therefore it will have the names of all the orders, just as [it has] the gifts.

p. 248

5. Likewise, if an order is said to be named from that which it received more fully as a gift, either the excess of fullness is noted with respect to the other orders, or with respect to the other gifts. If with respect to the other orders, since an inferior order excels none of the superior orders in any gift, it ought to be named from none. But if it is said [to be] with respect to the other gifts, then either the gifts of the Angels will be unequal, or a naming will be made from none. But the gifts of graces in the same [angel] are equal, as will be made clear below in [Book] three5: therefore an inferior order can be named from none of the gifts.

6. Likewise, in the reformed image love is made equal to knowledge: therefore, if the order of the Cherubim is named from the fullness of knowledge, there will be in it likewise a fullness of gratuitous love: therefore the name Cherubim and Seraphim ought to be attributed to the same order of Angels and not to others.

7. Likewise, since the order of the Cherubim is named from the fullness of knowledge, either it is named from the fullness of knowledge with respect to the inferior [orders], or with respect to the superior [orders]. Not with respect to the inferior, because such knowledge in them is not the noblest: therefore it is named from knowledge with respect to the superior. But this knowledge is wisdom: therefore it is named from the fullness of wisdom. But wisdom is the most excellent of all the gifts: therefore the Cherubim are named from the most excellent gift: therefore it seems that it is the supreme order, or that the worthier order is not named from the worthier name.

8. Likewise, since the Angels have certain names which are proper to them, certain which are common, certain which are proper and can be common; it is asked what is the account and difference of these names.

Conclusion

The naming of the Angels, as to the names proper to the individual orders, is taken from the gifts of graces according to the diverse states and grades in which they are distinguished and ordered.

I respond: For the understanding of these things it must be noted They can be named in three ways. that the Angels can be named through those things which are natural to them, can also be named through those things which are gratuitous to them, [and] can also be named through certain things which are in one way natural to them, in another way gratuitous. — According to natural [endowments]. If they are named through those things which are natural to them, since their nature does not become known to us in particular, but in common, they thus have to be named by common names taken from a common nature and form; and this in two ways: either from the remote common [character], and so they are called heavenly essences; or from the proximate common [character], and so they are called heavenly spirits. — According to gratuitous [gifts]. But if they are named according to the gratuitous gifts, then, since in these they have a state and grade differently, and thus a distinction, the orders in this way have to be named through them6 by proper names; proper, I say, whether with respect to the demons or with respect to the other orders, as they are called Seraphim and Thrones. — According to both. But if the naming is made from those things which can be — taken in one way — natural, and — taken in another way — gratuitous; then the names can be common and proper7: common, I say, to the good and the wicked, and proper to the good, like Principalities and Powers, which, if they are named from a natural property, belong to the demons, but if from a gratuitous gift, belong to the holy Spirits; or [they can be] common to all the orders, but proper to certain ones, like Angels and Virtues. For if they are named from the natural gifts — namely, from the clarity of knowledge and the fortitude8 of power — then, since these two are in all, all can be called Angels, that is, fit for revealing; all also Virtues, that is, strong for working. But if they are named from the gift of grace, according as they are specially deputed to these offices — namely, to revealing mysteries and working miracles — then they are the proper names of certain orders. — Conclusion. From these things, therefore, it is gathered that the naming of the Angels, as to the names proper to the individual orders, is taken from the gifts of graces according to the diverse states and grades in which they are distinguished and ordered, as has been said9.

But in the manner of taking these names, three things are to be considered. Three things to be considered. The first indeed, that one gift is worthier than another, as charity is said to be a gift excellent among the others. The second is that a superior order excels the inferior ones in all the gifts. The third is that a naming ought to be made from the worthier. — According to this, therefore, since there are nine states in which the angelic orders have to be arranged according to a differing precellence of the gratuitous [gifts], the supreme order claims for itself a name from the worthiest gift and state; the following order from a gift and state more closely approaching the highest, and this is the fullness of knowledge; and so concerning the others, descending down to the lowest. Hence in the naming a twofold excess is considered: both of gift over gift, and of order over order10. And this is what Gregory means [when he says] that «eachp. 249order is reckoned by the name of that thing which it received more fully as a gift», more fully, I say, with respect to the inferior [orders], unless that gift be of such dignity and excellence that one of the superior orders ought to be named from it; as is clear, since the order of the Cherubim received charity more fully than any of the inferior orders, yet is not named from it, because, since it is a most precellent gift, it is appropriated to the most excellent order. — These things having been seen, it is easy to respond to the objections.

Solution of the opposing [arguments]. 1. To that, then, which is objected — that they are not known — it must be said that this is true of the knowledge which is through acquisition; but it is not true of the knowledge which is through revelation, in which manner blessed Paul and blessed John the Evangelist knew [them]; and therefore they were able to name [them] and to instruct others, as Paul instructed Dionysius11. Note. Nevertheless the names of all the Angels are taken from sacred Scripture, as Seraphim from Isaiah six12, Cherubim from the Psalms and from other places of Scripture, Thrones from Daniel seven13; Dominations, Principalities, Powers, Virtues from diverse places of the Epistles of Paul, Angels and Archangels from diverse places both of the New and of the Old Testament. Since, therefore, sacred Scripture was divinely inspired, not humanly devised, the imposition of the names of the Angels was rather from the revelation of God than from human investigation.

2. To that which is objected — that a naming ought to be made from the worthier — it must be said that not only must this be attended to, that the naming of a thing be made from the worthier, but also that a name which befits several should be attributed to the worthier; and therefore, although all the orders could be named from the gift of charity and ardor, yet because that gift precels in the supreme order, that order alone ought to be named from it.

3. To that which is objected — that all gifts are common to all — it must be said that, as was touched on above14, although there is in the gifts a commonness as to the habit, there is nevertheless a distinction as to the state. But the naming regards not only the substance of the habit, but also the precellence of the state.

4. 5. To that which is objected — that an order ought to be named from the gift which it received more fully — it must be said that this is not to be understood of everything which it received more fully, but of that which it received more fully and is the worthiest thing in it, especially if that be the worthiest order; and if an order be that which immediately follows it, it ought to be named from that which immediately follows the most precellent gift; and so consequently descending down to the lowest. And thus the response to this and to the following [objection] is clear, since the supreme [order] had to be named from the supreme, because that is the worthiest and it received [it] most fully. But the lowest [had to be named] from the lowest gift, because, since it is exceeded by the others in all [things], the name taken from the last gift had to be left to it — not because it possessed that more fully than the others, but because the others were named from that which they possessed more fully. From this it consequently came about that the lowest order was named from the lowest gift. — And if it is objected that one gift is not more excellent than another, because the gifts are equal; it must be said that, even if they are equal intensively, there is nevertheless in them a prerogative of some excellence, as charity is said by the Apostle15 to be greater than faith and hope.

6. To that which is objected — that where knowledge is greater, love is greater — it must be said that this is true, at least in glory. Hence, just as in the Seraphim there is a greater fullness of love, [so] there is16 a fuller fullness of knowledge; nor are they called Cherubim because there is in them a fuller fullness of knowledge absolutely, but with respect to the inferior orders.

7. To that which is objected — that the gift of wisdom is the most excellent — it must be said that wisdom, according as it is the most excellent gift, is named from sapor (taste, savor), not from sapere (to be wise), and thus includes charity17; but the wisdom or knowledge from which the Cherubim are named denotes the knowledge of God, which, although it is the noblest knowledge and ordered to affection and therefore can be called wisdom, is nevertheless not so noble as the love from which is the savor. And therefore in that argument an equivocation is made in the name of wisdom.

8. To that which is asked last, the response is now clear from the foregoing.

Scholion

I. The solution of the question rests on this principle, that every naming is from the completive and worthier form, unless this form belongs in a greater grade to the superior [thing]. For in this case the name of the worthier form is reserved to the superior; but the inferior is named from another form. Peter of Tarentaise (here, the single question, a. 3) offers an example: «Just as a man is not named from the sensitive power, because he has a nobler [one], nor from the intellective, because he has it incompletely [whereas the Angels {have it} more completely], but from reason».

II. St. Thomas, here, the single question, a. 4; Summa I, q. 108, a. 5; Summa contra Gentiles III, c. 80. — Blessed Albert, here, a. 5. — Peter of Tarentaise, at the place cited. — Richard of Mediavilla, here, a. 1, q. 2. — Giles of Rome, here, q. 2, a. 1, dub. lat. 2. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here, q. 3. — Biel, here, q. 1.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. In Evang. hom. 34. n. 14. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 3. seq.
    [Gregory,] Homilies on the Gospels, hom. 34, n. 14. See here the text of the Master, c. 3 f.
  2. Cfr. I. Sent. d. 22. q. 1.
    Cf. I Sentences, d. 22, q. 1.
  3. Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 49. (c. 4.). Vide tom. I. pag. 14, nota 7.
    Aristotle, On the Soul II, text 49 (c. 4). See vol. I, p. 14, note 7.
  4. Hic c. 3.
    Here, c. 3 [of the text of the Master].
  5. Dist. 36. a. 1. q. 5. — Paulo superius post tunc cod. aa prosequitur cum dona Angelorum sint aequalia, a nullo fiet denominatio etc.
    [III Sentences,] dist. 36, a. 1, q. 5. — A little above, after tunc (then), codex aa continues cum dona Angelorum sint aequalia, a nullo fiet denominatio (since the gifts of the Angels are equal, a naming will be made from none) etc.
  6. Vat. per illam.
    The Vatican edition reads per illam (through it [fem. sing.]).
  7. Plures codd. ut H T W bb ee post possunt esse addunt et; cod. A verbo gratuita praemittit possunt esse. Paulo inferius Vat. post primum conveniunt adiicit etiam et post secundum subiungit solum.
    Several codices, such as H T W bb ee, after possunt esse (can be) add et (and); codex A prefixes possunt esse to the word gratuita. A little below, the Vatican edition, after the first conveniunt (they belong), adds etiam (also), and after the second appends solum (only).
  8. Plurimi codd. cum ed. 2 formatione.
    Very many codices, with edition 2, [read] formatione (by the formation) [for fortitudine].
  9. Hic et q. 2. et in Praenotatis ad hanc distinctionem.
    Here, and [in] q. 2, and in the Prefatory Notes to this distinction.
  10. Quod in cod. Q (a secunda manu in marg.) ita explicatur: Unde denominantur a donis secundum gradum excellentiae ipsorum ordinum, ut excellenti primo gradu detur donum excellentiae primae, et excellenti secundo gradu donum excellentiae secundae, et sic de aliis gradatim descendendo usque ad infimum.
    Which in codex Q (by a second hand in the margin) is explained thus: Hence they are named from the gifts according to the grade of excellence of the orders themselves, so that to [the order] excelling in the first grade is given the gift of the first excellence, and to [the order] excelling in the second grade the gift of the second excellence, and so concerning the others, gradually descending down to the lowest.
  11. Cfr. supra pag. 241, nota 5. — Immediate post cod. aa Omnia pro Omnium.
    Cf. above, p. 241, note 5. — Immediately after, codex aa [reads] Omnia for Omnium.
  12. Vers. 2. et 6. — Cherubim nominantur in Ps. 17, 11; 79, 2; 98, 1; Gen. 3, 24; Isai. 37, 16; Ezech. 10, 1.
    [Isaiah 6,] verses 2 and 6. — The Cherubim are named in Psalms 17:11; 79:2; 98:1; Genesis 3:24; Isaiah 37:16; Ezekiel 10:1.
  13. Vers. 9. — De seqq. nominibus Dominationes etc. cfr. Rom. 8, 38; I. Cor. 15, 24; Eph. 1, 21; 3, 10; Col. 1, 16; 2, 10; I. Tim. 3, 16.
    [Daniel 7,] verse 9. — Concerning the following names, Dominations etc., cf. Romans 8:38; I Corinthians 15:24; Ephesians 1:21; 3:10; Colossians 1:16; 2:10; I Timothy 3:16.
  14. Quaest. 2. ad 4.
    [Above,] question 2, ad 4.
  15. Epist. I. Cor. 13, 13.
    [The Apostle,] Epistle I to the Corinthians 13:13.
  16. Cod. cc et ed. 1 ita est; supple: in eis.
    Codex cc and edition 1 [read] ita est (it is so); supply: in eis (in them).
  17. Cfr. III. Sent. d. 35. a. 1. q. 1. et supra pag. 129, nota 2.
    Cf. III Sentences, d. 35, a. 1, q. 1, and above, p. 129, note 2. ---
← Dist. 9, Art. 1, Q. 3Dist. 9, Art. 1, Q. 5→