← Back to Distinction 23

Dist. 23, Art. 2, Q. 4

Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word · Distinction 23

Textus Latinus
p. 494

Quaestio IV. Utrum fides informis expellatur per adventum gratiae.

Quarto quaeritur de ipsius fidei informis duratione, et est quaestio, utrum fides informis omnino expellatur per adventum gratiae. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Maior est convenientia fidei formatae ad gloriam, quam sit fidei formatae ad fidem informem, pro eo quod gloria non est aliud quam gratia consummata; sed gloria superveniens evacuat habitum fidei formatae, sicut vult Apostolusp494-5: ergo superveniente fide formata, tollitur fides informis et evacuatur.

2. Item, maius lumen absorbet minus lumen: ergo si lumen gratiae gratum facientis superexcellit incomparabiliter lumen gratiae gratis datae, videtur ergo, quod fides informis per gratiam supervenientem habeat expellip494-6.

3. Item, fides informis nunquam est nisi in peccatore, nam in omni iusto est fides formata; sed gratia gratum faciens nunquam potest esse cum peccato: ergo nunquam potest esse cum fide informi: ergo necessario eam in adventu suo expellit.

4. Item, omnes virtutes simul infundunturp494-7, ergo cum infunditur caritas, infunditur fides formata; sed impossibile est, duo accidentia eiusdem speciei esse in eodem subiecto: ergo impossibile est, duas fides esse in eadem anima: ergo necesse est, fidem informem expelli ad adventum gratiae.

5. Item, aut lumen gratiae gratum facientis sufficit ad credendum, aut non; si non: ergo gratia gratum faciens non sufficit ad promerendum salutem; si sufficit, et superfluum est facere per plura, quod potest fieri per pauciorap494-8: ergo videtur, quod superveniente gratia gratum faciente, superfluat habere fidem informem.

Sed contra: 1. Gratia non expellit nisi culpam, vel consequens ad culpam; sed fides informis nec est culpa nec consequens ad culpam: ergo fides informis non expellitur a gratia superveniente.

p. 495

2. Item, sicut se habet actus ad actum, ita se habet habitus ad habitum; sed gratia gratum faciens facit credere in Deum, gratia vero gratis data facit Deo crederep495-1: si igitur credere in Deum non expellit credere Deo, sed potius praesupponit; videtur, quod gratia gratum faciens non expellat fidem informem.

3. Item, magis conveniunt dona infusa cum infusis, quam infusa cum acquisitis; sed gratia gratum faciens, cum infunditur, non expellit habitus acquisitosp495-2: ergo multo fortius non expellit habitum fidei informis, qui est infusus.

4. Item, sicut se habet culpa ad fidem formatam, ita se habet gratia ad fidem informem; sed culpa, cum superinducitur, etsi expellat formam fideip495-3, non tamen expellit ipsam fidem, quia iam faceret hominem infidelem: ergo pari ratione gratia gratum faciens, cum superinducitur, etsi tollat informitatem fidei, non tamen tollit substantiam habitus.

5. Item, si habitus fidei informis tollitur in iustificatione impii, ergo cum aliquis recidivat in peccatum, aut efficitur infidelis, aut datur ei novus habitus fidei; sed infidelis non efficitur, sicut patet, nec novus habitus datur, quia non decet, ut peccanti in ipso actu peccati infundatur donump495-4 gratis datum: ergo non videtur, quod habitus fidei informis per gratiam supervenientem habeat expelli.

Conclusio. Fides informis per gratiae adventum non expellitur quoad habitum et usum, sed tantum quoad defectum.

Respondeo: Ad praedictorum intelligentiam est notandum, quod cum dico fidem informem, dico in fide tria, videlicet habitum et ipsius habitus usum et defectum annexum; et quantum ad haec tria potest tripliciter intelligi, quod fides informis expellatur sive evacuetur per gratiam supervenientem. Et secundum hunc triplicem modum intelligendi tres fuerunt circa hoc opiniones.

Quidam namque dicere voluerunt, quod a gratia superveniente fides informis expellitur non solum quantum ad informitatis defectum, sed etiam quantum ad usum et quantum ad habitum. Et hoc quidem dixerunt propterea, quia gratia superveniens secum fert omnes virtutes; et quia non est opportunum necp495-5 est possibile, in uno et eodem esse duas fides; cum fides formata superinducatur cum gratia et quantum ad formae complementum et quantum ad usum et quantum ad habitum: ideo ad eius ingressum fides informis omnino expellitur. Et sic ponunt, eam expelli propter incompossibilitatem et inutilitatemp495-6. Et si tu obiicias eis, quod tunc per culpam efficitur homo infidelis; respondent breviter, quod Deus sua gratuita bonitate, quia non permittit, hominem totaliter cadere, infundit ei habitum fidei informis, ne omnino pereat in eo fundamentum spiritualis aedificii; unde sicut ex malis eliciuntur bona, sic contingit, in culpae transgressione alicui infundi habitum informem.

Sed quia illud non videtur multum rationabile, quod Deus dona gratiae ipsi peccanti et sep495-7 a se avertenti infundat in ipsa aversione; ideo alius modus est dicendi, quod sicut per peccatum non introducitur habitus fidei informis, sed introducitur defectus et alius credendi modus; sic etiam per gratiam non excluditur ipsius fidei informis habitus, sed solum usus et defectus. Et si tu obiicias, quod frustra erit habitus sine usu; respondent, quod non frustra est, pro eo quod ceditp495-8 in dispositionem respectu fidei formatae; et praeterea remanet, ut homo utilitatem habeat de eo in tempore opportuno. — Sed quoniam actus et usus fidei informis est credere et assentire primae Veritati in omnibus articulis, et iste usus potissime competit usui gratiae; cum aliquid non tollatur nisi per suum oppositum, non videtur rationabile usquequaque dicere, quod per adventum gratiae tollatur usus fidei informis, cum potius videatur in ea perfici et compleri.

Et propterea est tertius modus dicendi, qui videtur probabilior esse praedictis, quod fides informis per adventum gratiae excluditur quantum ad solum defectum, salvo habitu et usu; et hoc quidem videtur satis rationabile, cum gratia opponatur habitui illi infuso solum ratione informitatis, sicut habitus opponitur privationip495-9. — Concedendae sunt igitur rationes ostendentes, habitum fidei informis per supervenientem gratiam non expelli.

Ad argumenta: Ad 1. Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur in contrarium, quod maior est convenientia fidei formatae ad gloriam quam informis ad gratiam; dicendum, quod maior convenientia dupliciter potest attendi: aut secundum comparationem aliquorum in genere gratuiti, aut secundum ordinationem habitus ad

p. 496

actum. Si primo modo; sic maior est convenientia fidei formatae ad gloriam quamp496-1 ad fidem informem, quia utrumque est gratiae gratum facientis. Si secundo modo; sic maior est convenientia fidei formatae ad informem, quam fidei formatae ad gloriam, pro eo quod actus fidei informis non habet oppositionem cum actu fidei formatae, sed actus fidei formatae, qui quidem est credere non apparentia et videre per speculum et in aenigmatep496-2, magnam repugnantiam habet cum statu gloriae; ideo non sic evacuat, sicut evacuatur. Hoc autem infra melius manifestabitur, cum de evacuatione fidei agetur.

Ad 2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod maius lumen absorbet minus lumen; dicendum, quod illud non intelligitur de luminibus, quae sunt ad invicem ordinata, sed de his quae habent quandam oppositionem et repugnantiam, nisi intelligatur absorbere quantum ad apparentiam. Et quoniam lumen fidei informis ordinem habet ad lumen gratiae, non oppositionem; hinc est, quod ab ipso non absorbetur, sed magis in esse salvaturp496-3.

Ad 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod fides informis non est nisi in peccatoribus et cum peccato; dicendum, quod hoc verum est ea ratione, qua fides informis nominat defectum formae, non secundum quod nominat habitum. Et ideo ex hoc non potest concludi, quod per gratiam advenientem tollatur fidei informis habitus, sed solum quod tollatur informitatis defectus.

Ad 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod omnes virtutes simul infunduntur; dicendum, quod verum est quantum ad illud quod est in eis formale; quantum autem ad materiale sive ad habitum substratum, non habet veritatem, nisi quando non invenit habitum in subiecto, quem informetp496-4; et ideo cum gratia adveniens invenit habitum fidei informis, non oportet, quod superinducatur nova fides. — Praeterea, ratio illa in alio deficit, quia gratia gratum faciens cum gratia gratis data non est eiusdem speciei; et ita procedit ex falsa suppositione.

Ad 5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod lumen gratiae gratum facientis debet sufficere ad credendum; dicendum, quod sufficit gratia gratum faciens, cum praesuppositione tamen gratiae gratis datae. Dona enim gratiae gratum facientis non excludunt dona gratiae gratis datae, immo magis illa in suo adventu complent et perficiunt, et quodam modo ab eis vigorantur et perficiuntur. Ideo non sequitur, quod adveniente gratia gratum faciente, superfluat habitus fidei informis; nec remanente habitu informi, propter hoc lumen gratiae gratum facientis sit insufficiens. Unumquodque enim donum Dei sufficiens est secundum id, ad quod habet ordinemp496-5.

Scholion

I. Haec et seq. (5.) quaestio intime cohaerent earumque solutio dependet a principiis, quae ponuntur in quaestione generali, quomodo caritas sit forma virtutum, vel in speciali quaestione, « utrum fides formata et informis specie differant » (S. Thom., hic q. 3. a. 1. quaestiunc. 3.). — Hanc 4. quaestionem S. Thom. (S. II. II. q. 4. a. 4.) aliique etiam hac formula exprimunt: Utrum eadem numero sit fides formata et informis. — Primam in corp. relatam opinionem tenuit Guliel. Antissiodorensis (Summa aurea, p. III. tr. 5. c. 1. q. 4.), cum explicite doceat, fidem informem, adveniente fide formata, perire tum quoad actum tum quoad habitum. Fundamentalis ratio ipsius est eiusdem assertio, quod utriusque fidei habitus essentialiter differant, quia secundum ipsum fides informis « innititur testimoniis Scripturarum et miraculorum »; fides gratuita vero est per illuminationem, qua « anima assentit primae Veritati propter se et super omnia ». Sed hoc ipsum fundamentum primae opinionis a S. Bonav. aliisque reprobatur; econtra communiter tenetur: « Fides formata et informis non distinguuntur sicut diversi habitus, sed sicut habitus perfectus et imperfectus » (S. Thom., de Verit. q. 14. a. 4.). Hoc dicitur de isto habitu in genere moris, sed in genere naturae hi « habitus sunt penitus idem » (idem hic q. 3. a. 1. quaestiunc. 3.). Denique cum S. Bonav. communiter docetur, quod caritas est fidei forma non intrinseca et essentialis, sed extrinseca et accidentalis (S. Thom., S. II. II. q. 4. a. 3. ad 3.; cfr. infra d. 36. q. 6, praesertim ad 3.). — De hac 4. quaestione: Alex. Hal. (de hac et seq. q.), S. p. III. q. 64. m. 6. — S. Thom., locc. citt. et hic q. 3. a. 4. quaestiunc. 1-3. — B. Albert., hic a. 9. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 4. a. 4. quaestiunc. 1. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 5. q. 3. — Durand., de hac et seq. q. hic q. 8. — Dionys. Carth., de hac et seq. q. hic q. 3.

II. De seq. (5.) quaestione, quae est maioris momenti, cfr. hic dub. 3, infra d. 25. dub. 4, d. 27. a. 1. q. 1, praesertim ad 3, q. 3. ad 3; II. Sent. d. 41. dub. 1. — Informatio fidei aliarumque virtutum, quae fit per gratiam vel caritatem sive, ut dicit S. Thom. (hic q. 3. a. 1. quaestiunc. 1. ad 3.), a gratia mediante caritate, intelligitur secundum quandam analogiam, quam habet cum informatione intrinseca et proprie dicta, qua in rebus naturalibus ex materia et forma fit unum per essentiam. Ex caritate autem et fide non fit unum essentialiter, sed unum « secundum quandam ordinationem et directionem in finem » (hic ad 4.), dum gratia superveniens communicat fidei tum in ordine ad meritum tum in recte intendendo fine ultimo (vide finem corp.) eandem perfectionem et rectitudinem, quae caritati est essentialis. Sed fidei extrinsecus haec perfectio advenit, ut explicatur exemplo lucis, quae superfunditur coloribus. Sed de hoc et de solutione ad 6. cfr. II. Sent. d. 27. a. 1. q. 2. et scholion et praecipue infra d. 36. q. 6. — De hac 5. quaestione: S. Thom., hic q. 3. a. 1. quaestiunc. 1; S. III. q. 4. a. 3. — B. Albert., hic a. 10. 11. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 4. a. 4. quaestiunc. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 5. q. 1.

---

English Translation

Question IV. Whether unformed faith is expelled by the coming of grace.

Fourthly, inquiry is made concerning the duration of unformed faith itself, and the question is whether unformed faith is wholly expelled by the coming of grace. And that it is, seems [to be the case].

1. There is a greater agreement of formed faith with glory than there is of formed faith with unformed faith, because glory is nothing other than consummated grace; but supervening glory empties out the habit of formed faith, as the Apostle holdsp494-5: therefore, when formed faith supervenes, unformed faith is taken away and emptied out.

2. Likewise, a greater light absorbs a lesser light: therefore, if the light of sanctifying grace incomparably surpasses the light of grace freely given, it seems therefore that unformed faith must be expelled by supervening gracep494-6.

3. Likewise, unformed faith is never except in a sinner, for in every just person there is formed faith; but sanctifying grace can never be together with sin: therefore it can never be together with unformed faith: therefore it necessarily expels it at its coming.

4. Likewise, all the virtues are infused togetherp494-7, therefore when charity is infused, formed faith is infused; but it is impossible for two accidents of the same species to be in the same subject: therefore it is impossible for two faiths to be in the same soul: therefore it is necessary that unformed faith be expelled at the coming of grace.

5. Likewise, either the light of sanctifying grace suffices for believing, or it does not; if not: then sanctifying grace does not suffice for meriting salvation; if it does suffice, then it is superfluous to do through more what can be done through fewerp494-8: therefore it seems that, when sanctifying grace supervenes, it is superfluous to have unformed faith.

On the contrary: 1. Grace expels nothing but fault, or what follows upon fault; but unformed faith is neither a fault nor a consequence of fault: therefore unformed faith is not expelled by supervening grace.

2. Likewise, as act stands to act, so habit stands to habit; but sanctifying grace makes one believe in God (credere in Deum), whereas grace freely given makes one believe God (Deo credere)p495-1: if therefore believing in God does not expel believing God, but rather presupposes it; it seems that sanctifying grace does not expel unformed faith.

3. Likewise, infused gifts agree more with infused gifts than infused with acquired; but sanctifying grace, when it is infused, does not expel acquired habitsp495-2: therefore much more does it not expel the habit of unformed faith, which is infused.

4. Likewise, as fault stands to formed faith, so grace stands to unformed faith; but fault, when it is superinduced, although it expels the form of faithp495-3, nevertheless does not expel faith itself, since [otherwise] it would already make the man an unbeliever: therefore by parity of reasoning sanctifying grace, when it is superinduced, although it takes away the unformedness of faith, nevertheless does not take away the substance of the habit.

5. Likewise, if the habit of unformed faith is taken away in the justification of the ungodly, then when someone relapses into sin, either he is made an unbeliever, or a new habit of faith is given to him; but he is not made an unbeliever, as is evident, nor is a new habit given, since it is not fitting that to one sinning in the very act of sin a giftp495-4 freely given should be infused: therefore it does not seem that the habit of unformed faith must be expelled by supervening grace.

Conclusion. Unformed faith is not expelled by the coming of grace with respect to its habit and use, but only with respect to its defect.

I respond: For an understanding of the foregoing it must be noted that, when I say unformed faith, I name in faith three things, namely the habit, and the use of that habit, and the defect annexed to it; and with respect to these three things it can be understood in three ways that unformed faith is expelled or emptied out by supervening grace. And according to this threefold manner of understanding there have been three opinions on this point.

For some have wished to say that by supervening grace unformed faith is expelled not only with respect to the defect of unformedness, but also with respect to its use and with respect to its habit. And this indeed they said because supervening grace brings with itself all the virtues; and because it is neither fitting norp495-5 possible that there be two faiths in one and the same [subject]; since formed faith is superinduced together with grace both as to the completion of form and as to use and as to habit: therefore at its entrance unformed faith is wholly expelled. And so they hold that it is expelled on account of incompossibility and uselessnessp495-6. And if you object against them that then through fault a man is made an unbeliever; they answer briefly that God, by His gratuitous goodness, because He does not permit man to fall totally, infuses into him the habit of unformed faith, lest the foundation of the spiritual edifice perish utterly in him; whence, just as from evils goods are drawn out, so it happens that in the transgression of fault the unformed habit is infused into someone.

But because this does not seem very reasonable—that God should infuse the gifts of grace into the sinner himself, and into onep495-7 turning away from Him, in the very turning-away; therefore there is another way of speaking: that just as through sin the habit of unformed faith is not introduced, but rather a defect and another mode of believing is introduced; so also through grace the habit of unformed faith itself is not excluded, but only its use and defect. And if you object that a habit without use will be in vain; they answer that it is not in vain, because it yieldsp495-8 toward a disposition with respect to formed faith; and besides, it remains so that the man may have the benefit of it at the opportune time. — But since the act and use of unformed faith is to believe and to assent to the First Truth in all the articles, and this use most belongs to the use of grace; since nothing is taken away except by its opposite, it does not seem reasonable to say in every respect that by the coming of grace the use of unformed faith is taken away, since rather it would seem to be perfected and completed in it.

And therefore there is a third way of speaking, which seems more probable than the foregoing: that unformed faith is excluded by the coming of grace only with respect to the defect, the habit and use being preserved; and this indeed seems sufficiently reasonable, since grace is opposed to that infused habit only by reason of unformedness, just as a habit is opposed to a privationp495-9. — Therefore the arguments showing that the habit of unformed faith is not expelled by supervening grace are to be granted.

To the arguments: To 1. To that, then, which is first objected to the contrary, that there is a greater agreement of formed faith with glory than of unformed [faith] with grace; it must be said that greater agreement can be considered in two ways: either according to a comparison of certain things in the genus of the gratuitous, or according to the ordering of the habit to

the act. If in the first way; thus there is a greater agreement of formed faith with glory thanp496-1 with unformed faith, because each belongs to sanctifying grace. If in the second way; thus there is a greater agreement of formed faith with unformed [faith] than of formed faith with glory, because the act of unformed faith does not have opposition with the act of formed faith, but the act of formed faith, which indeed is to believe things not apparent and to see through a mirror and in an enigmap496-2, has a great repugnance with the state of glory; therefore it does not so empty out, as it is emptied out. But this will be better manifested below, when the emptying-out of faith is treated.

To 2. To that which is objected, that a greater light absorbs a lesser light; it must be said that this is not understood of lights which are ordered to one another, but of those which have a certain opposition and repugnance, unless it be understood to absorb with respect to appearance. And since the light of unformed faith has ordering to the light of grace, not opposition; hence it is that it is not absorbed by it, but rather is preserved in beingp496-3.

To 3. To that which is objected, that unformed faith is only in sinners and with sin; it must be said that this is true by the reason whereby unformed faith names a defect of form, not according as it names a habit. And therefore from this it cannot be concluded that by the coming of grace the habit of unformed faith is taken away, but only that the defect of unformedness is taken away.

To 4. To that which is objected, that all the virtues are infused together; it must be said that this is true with respect to that which is formal in them; but with respect to the material, or to the underlying habit, it does not hold true, except when it does not find a habit in the subject which it may informp496-4; and therefore when supervening grace finds the habit of unformed faith, it is not necessary that a new faith be superinduced. — Moreover, that argument fails in another respect, because sanctifying grace is not of the same species as grace freely given; and so it proceeds from a false supposition.

To 5. To that which is objected, that the light of sanctifying grace ought to suffice for believing; it must be said that sanctifying grace suffices, yet with the presupposition of grace freely given. For the gifts of sanctifying grace do not exclude the gifts of grace freely given, but rather complete and perfect them at their coming, and in a certain way are invigorated and perfected by them. Therefore it does not follow that, when sanctifying grace supervenes, the habit of unformed faith is superfluous; nor, the unformed habit remaining, is the light of sanctifying grace on this account insufficient. For each gift of God is sufficient according to that to which it has orderingp496-5.

Scholion

I. This question and the following (5th) are intimately connected, and their solution depends on the principles set down in the general question, how charity is the form of the virtues, or in the special question, "whether formed and unformed faith differ in species" (St. Thomas, here q. 3, a. 1, subquaestion 3). — This 4th question St. Thomas (Summa II-II, q. 4, a. 4) and others also express by this formula: Whether formed and unformed faith are numerically the same. — The first opinion reported in the corpus was held by William of Auxerre (Summa aurea, p. III, tr. 5, c. 1, q. 4), since he explicitly teaches that unformed faith, when formed faith supervenes, perishes both as to act and as to habit. His fundamental reason is his own assertion that the habits of the two faiths differ essentially, because according to him unformed faith "leans on the testimonies of the Scriptures and of miracles"; whereas gratuitous faith is through illumination, by which "the soul assents to the First Truth for its own sake and above all things." But this very foundation of the first opinion is rejected by St. Bonaventure and others; on the contrary it is commonly held: "Formed and unformed faith are not distinguished as diverse habits, but as a perfect and an imperfect habit" (St. Thomas, de Veritate q. 14, a. 4). This is said of that habit in the genus of morals, but in the genus of nature these "habits are entirely the same" (the same, here q. 3, a. 1, subquaestion 3). Finally, with St. Bonaventure it is commonly taught that charity is the form of faith not intrinsically and essentially, but extrinsically and accidentally (St. Thomas, Summa II-II, q. 4, a. 3, ad 3; cf. below d. 36, q. 6, especially ad 3). — On this 4th question: Alexander of Hales (on this and the following q.), Summa p. III, q. 64, m. 6. — St. Thomas, the places cited, and here q. 3, a. 4, subquaestions 1-3. — Bl. Albert, here a. 9. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 4, a. 4, subquaestions 1, 3. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 5, q. 3. — Durandus, on this and the following q., here q. 8. — Dionysius the Carthusian, on this and the following q., here q. 3.

II. On the following (5th) question, which is of greater moment, cf. here dub. 3, below d. 25, dub. 4, d. 27, a. 1, q. 1, especially ad 3, q. 3 ad 3; II Sent. d. 41, dub. 1. — The informing of faith and of the other virtues, which is brought about through grace or charity, or as St. Thomas says (here q. 3, a. 1, subquaestion 1, ad 3), by grace mediating charity, is understood according to a certain analogy which it has with the intrinsic and properly-so-called informing, by which in natural things from matter and form one thing is made per essence. But from charity and faith one thing is not made essentially, but one thing "according to a certain ordering and direction toward an end" (here ad 4), while supervening grace communicates to faith—both in the order toward merit and in rightly intending the ultimate end (see the end of the corpus)—the same perfection and rectitude which is essential to charity. But this perfection comes to faith from without, as is explained by the example of light, which is poured over colors. But on this and on the solution to [argument] 6, cf. II Sent. d. 27, a. 1, q. 2, and the scholion, and especially below d. 36, q. 6. — On this 5th question: St. Thomas, here q. 3, a. 1, subquaestion 1; Summa III, q. 4, a. 3. — Bl. Albert, here a. 10, 11. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 4, a. 4, subquaestion 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 5, q. 1.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Epist. I. Cor. 13, 10. seqq.
    First Letter to the Corinthians 13:10ff.
  2. Guliel. Antissiod., S. p. III. tr. 19. q. 3. ait: Sicut enim, sole lucente, cessat lumen lunae et stellarum, sic, lucente in microcosmo sole iustitiae per veram fidem, cessat lumen omnium virtutum informium, quae sunt ad modum stellarum aliquantulum lucentium in nocte peccati. — Paulo ante pro ergo si cod. U sed.
    William of Auxerre, Summa p. III, tr. 19, q. 3, says: For just as, while the sun shines, the light of the moon and stars ceases, so, when the sun of justice shines in the microcosm through true faith, the light of all the unformed virtues ceases, which are after the manner of stars shining somewhat in the night of sin. — A little before, for ergo si codex U [reads] sed.
  3. Cfr. infra d. 36. q. 1. — Quod impossibile sit, plura accidentia eiusdem speciei esse in eodem subiecto, monstratum est tom. II. pag. 119, nota 8. Cfr. Aristot. V. Phys. text. 35. seqq. (c. 4.). — In codd. hoc quartum arg. exhibetur quinto loco.
    Cf. below d. 36, q. 1. — That it is impossible for several accidents of the same species to be in the same subject was shown in tom. II, p. 119, note 8. Cf. Aristotle, Physics V, text 35ff. (c. 4). — In the codices this fourth argument is presented in the fifth place.
  4. Vide supra pag. 277, nota 1. — Paulo ante pro si sufficit codd.; U V et alii si sufficeret et dein pro superfluum est codd. U V soli superfluum esset; cum codd. A K Z ante superfluum est supplevimus et. Paulo inferius pro superfluat codd. A K U superfluum est [cod. K sit].
    See above p. 277, note 1. — A little before, for si sufficit the codices [read thus]; U V and others si sufficeret, and then for superfluum est codices U V alone superfluum esset; with codices A K Z we supplied et before superfluum est. A little below, for superfluat codices A K U [read] superfluum est [cod. K sit].
  5. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 4. et infra dub. 3. — In fine arg. pro expellat multi codd. expellit.
    Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 4, and below dub. 3. — At the end of the argument, for expellat many codices [read] expellit.
  6. Vide infra d. 33. q. 1. et 3.
    See below d. 33, q. 1 and 3.
  7. Scil. caritatem. Cfr. infra d. 36. q. 6.
    Namely charity. Cf. below d. 36, q. 6.
  8. Codd. A K T adiungunt gratiae.
    Codices A K T add gratiae.
  9. Codd. A K U Z adtexunt etiam.
    Codices A K U Z append etiam.
  10. Edd. 1, 2 omittunt et inutilitatem. Pro inutilitatem cod. G substituit innibilitatem, Vat. unitatem. Mox pro efficitur edd. 1, 2 fit, Vat. fieret. Subinde pro respondent codd. A K respondetur, cod. Z respondebunt, qui cod. etiam proxime post omittit breviter. Paulo inferius pro quia edd. qua.
    Editions 1, 2 omit et inutilitatem. For inutilitatem codex G substitutes innibilitatem, the Vatican [ed.] unitatem. Soon, for efficitur editions 1, 2 [read] fit, the Vatican [ed.] fieret. Thereupon, for respondent codices A K [read] respondetur, codex Z respondebunt, which codex also immediately after omits breviter. A little below, for quia the editions [read] qua.
  11. Codd. non habent se, quod edd. non male suppleverunt; tamen, teste Forcellini, accusativus se interdum omittitur. Inferius pro credendi modus Vat. credendi motus.
    The codices do not have se, which the editions not badly supplied; nevertheless, according to Forcellini, the accusative se is sometimes omitted. Below, for credendi modus the Vatican [ed. reads] credendi motus.
  12. Pro cedit codd. A P Q cadit. Paulo inferius pro utilitatem codd. N (K a secunda manu) aa necessitatem, quod et in cit. Supplemento ad Sum. Alex. Hal., collat. 38. a. 3, habetur. Deinde pro competit complures codd. competat.
    For cedit codices A P Q [read] cadit. A little below, for utilitatem codices N (K by a second hand) aa [read] necessitatem, which is also found in the cited Supplement to the Summa of Alexander of Hales, collation 38, a. 3. Then, for competit several codices [read] competat.
  13. Quomodo habitus opponatur privationi, exponit Aristot., de Praedicam. c. de Oppositis, et X. Metaph. text. 15. seqq. (IX. c. 4.).
    How a habit is opposed to a privation Aristotle explains, Categories, in the chapter on Opposites, and Metaphysics X, text 15ff. (IX, c. 4).
  14. Cod. Z subdit gratiae.
    Codex Z adds gratiae.
  15. Epist. I. Cor. 13, 12. Codd. Z bb cum Vulgata omittunt et post speculum. — De evacuatione fidei cfr. infra d. 31. a. 2. q. 1.
    First Letter to the Corinthians 13:12. Codices Z bb, with the Vulgate, omit et after speculum. — On the emptying-out of faith cf. below d. 31, a. 2, q. 1.
  16. Cfr. supra pag. 320, nota 5.
    Cf. above p. 320, note 5.
  17. Ita codd. A K L; in aliis et edd. informat.
    Thus codices A K L; in the others and the editions [it reads] informat.
  18. Cod. li ordinare.
    Codex li [reads] ordinare.
← Dist. 23, Art. 2, Q. 3Dist. 23, Art. 2, Q. 5→