Dist. 5
Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word · Distinction 5
DISTINCTIO V.
Cap. I. Si persona vel natura personam [vel naturam] assumserit, et si natura Dei incarnata sit.
Praeterea inquiri oportet, cum ex praemissis constet, Verbum Dei carnem et animam simul assumsisse in unitatem personae; quid horum potius concedendum sit, scilicet quod persona personam, vel1 natura naturam, vel persona naturam, vel natura personam assumserit; et an ita conveniat dici, divinam naturam esse incarnatam, sicut Deus incarnatus et Verbum incarnatum sane dicitur. (Quaestiones quatuor principales.) — Haec inquisitio sive quaerendi ratio iuxta sacrarum auctoritatum testimonia partim implicita atque perplexa, partim vero explicita est et aperta. (Quaestio incidens.) Certum est enim et sine ambiguitate verum, quod non natura personam, nec persona personam, sed persona naturam assumsit. (Resp. ad 3. quaest.) Quod Sanctorum subditis comprobatur testimoniis et astruitur documentis. Ait enim Augustinus in libro de Fide ad Petrum2: (Fulgentius.) «Deus unigenitus, dum conciperetur, veritatem carnis accepit ex Virgine; et cum nasceretur, integritatem virginitatis servavit in Matre». Et paulo post: «Sic Deus humanam naturam in unitatem personae suscepit, quod se humilians per misericordiam incorruptae Virginis uterum ex ea nasciturus implevit. Formam ergo servi, id est naturam servi, in suam accepit Deus ille personam». Item: «Deus enim Verbum non accepit personam hominis, sed naturam». Item: «Dei Filius unigenitus, ut carnem hominis animamque mundaret, susceptione carnis animaeque rationalis incarnatus est». — His aliisque pluribus auctoritatibus evidenter ostenditur, non naturam personam, nec personam personam, sed personam naturam accepisse. — De quarto vero quaestionis articulo (4. quaestione), scilicet utrum natura naturam assumserit, scrupulosa etiam inter doctos quaestio est, quia et in hoc plurimum dissentire videntur qui auctoritate praeclari aliisque doctiores in sacra Pagina exstiterunt3. Nec tantum alii ab aliis, verum etiam iidem a se ipsis dissonare videntur, sicut subiecta capitula docent.
Legitur enim in Concilio Toletano sexto4 traditum sic (Auctoritates pro 1. parte.): «Solum Verbum caro factum est et habitavit in nobis; et cum tota Trinitas operata sit formationem suscepti hominis — quoniam inseparabilia sunt opera Trinitatis — solus tamen Filius accepit hominem in singularitatem personae, non in unitatem divinae naturae, id est, id quod est proprium Filii, non quod commune
est Trinitati». Item in Concilio Toletano undecimo5: «Unius substantiae credimus Deum Patrem et Filium et Spiritum sanctum, non tamen dicimus, ut huius Trinitatis unitatem Maria Virgo genuerit, sed tantum Filium, qui solus naturam nostram in unitatem personae suae assumsit. Incarnationem quoque huius Filii Dei tota Trinitas operata esse credenda est; solus tamen Filius formam servi accepit in singularitatem personae». — His insinuari videtur, quod persona tantum naturam, non natura naturam assumserit. Si enim quod commune est Trinitati non accepit hominem: ergo non natura divina, quae communis est tribus personis. (Pro 2. parte.) — Cui videtur obviare quod Augustinus ait in libro de Fide ad Petrum6 (Dubium 1.): «Nec divinitas, inquit, Christi aliena est a natura Patris, secundum id quod in principio erat Verbum; nec humanitas eius aliena est a natura Matris, secundum id quod Verbum caro factum est. Illa enim natura, quae semper genita manet ex Patre, naturam nostram sine peccato suscepit, ut nasceretur ex Virgine». — Hac auctoritate videtur tradi, quod divina natura humanam suscepit; ubi vehementer moveri possumus, quod eam genitam aeternaliter ex Patre dicit, nisi forte naturam pro persona hic accipiat; alioquin, si dixerimus, naturam tribus personis communem genitam esse, occurrunt nobis ex adverso quae in tractatu de Trinitate disseruimus7, ubi diximus, non naturam naturam, sed personam personam genuisse; quia, si natura genuisset naturam, cum una eademque sit natura Trinitatis, eadem res se ipsam genuisset; quod Augustinus8 posse fieri negat. — Sed alibi certum reperimus documentum, quo natura naturam assumsisse monstratur. Ait enim Augustinus (Augustinus.) in libro primo de Trinitate9: «Etiam se ipso Christus minor factus est, formam servi accipiens. Neque enim sic accepit formam servi, ut amitteret formam Dei, in qua erat aequalis Patri, ut et in forma servi et in forma Dei idem ipse sit unigenitus Filius Patris, quia forma Dei accepit formam servi». Si autem forma Dei formam servi accepit, sine dubio natura naturam accepit. Formae enim nomine natura significatur, ut Augustinus evidenter docet in libro de Fide ad Petrum10 (Dubium 2.): «Cum, inquit, de Christo audis, quia in forma Dei erat, oportet agnoscere firmissimeque tenere, in illo formae nomine naturalem plenitudinem debere intelligi. In forma igitur Dei erat, quia in natura Dei Patris semper erat, de qua natus erat». Hilarius quoque in libro duodecimo de Trinitate11 ait: «Esse in forma Dei non alia intelligentia est, quam in Dei manere natura». — Didicisti, nomine formae intelligentiam fieri naturae, et audisti, quod forma Dei formam servi suscepit; unde consequens est, quod natura divina naturam humanam suscepit. Quod etiam Hieronymus (Hieronymus.) in Explanatione fidei12 evidenter insinuat inquiens: «Passus est Filius Dei, non putative, sed vere; secundum illud passus est, quod pati poterat, id est non secundum illam substantiam, quae assumsit, sed secundum illam, quae assumta est». — Ex quo apparet, divinam substantiam assumsisse humanam. — Ex verbis autem Augustini superius13 positis, adhibita diligentia, innui videtur, solum Verbum carnem factum et naturam solum suscepisse humanam, et divinam naturam eandem accepisse. Ait enim: «Trinitas nos sibi reconciliavit per hoc, quod solum Verbum carnem ipsa Trinitas fecit. In quo sic veritas incommutabilis manet divinae humanaeque naturae, ut sicut vera semper est eius divinitas, quam de Patre habet, ita vera semper atque incommutabilis eius sit humanitas, quam sibi unitam summa divinitas gerit». — Ecce, et solum Verbum dixit carnem factum, et humanitatem divinitati unitam. Idem quoque superius14 dixit, «servilem formam a solo Filio susceptam, quam tota Trinitas fecit». Iam facile est agnoscere, quam diversa et multiplicia super quaestione proposita auctores tradiderunt; ideoque posteriores ea legentes varias atque contrarias, ex praedictis occasionem sumentes, promunt sententias.
Nos autem omnis mendacii et contradictionis notam a sacris Paginis secludere cupientes, orthodoxis Patribus atque catholicis doctoribus, nulla pravae intelligentiae suspicione notatis, consentimus dicentes, et personam Filii assumsisse naturam humanam, et naturam divinam humanae naturae in Filio unitam eamque sibi unisse vel assumsisse. (Concordia auctoritatum.) Unde et vere incarnata dicitur. (De divina natura incarnata.) Quod vero dicitur solus Filius formam servi accepisse15, per hoc non excluditur divina natura ab acceptione servilis formae, sed aliae duae personae, Pater scilicet et Spiritus sanctus. Item et illud aliud, scilicet id quod est proprium Filii, non quod commune est Trinitati, hominem accepit, sic oportet intelligi, id est, proprie in hypostasi Filii, non in tribus communiter personis, divina natura humanam naturam sibi univit. Qui sensus ex verbis Ioannis Damasceni16 confirmatur, qui totam divinam naturam in una hypostaseon incarnatam esse evidenter asserit dicens: «In humanatione17 Dei Verbi aimus omnem et perfectam naturam deitatis in una eius hypostaseon incarnatam esse, id est unitam esse humanae naturae, et non partem parti. Omni enim humanae naturae aimus unitam esse omnem deitatis naturam vel substantiam». (Dubium 3.) Item: «Eadem est natura in singula hypostaseon, id est personarum; et quando dicimus, naturam Verbi incarnatam esse, secundum beatos Athanasium et Cyrillum, deitatem dicimus esse unitam carni, et unam naturam Dei Verbi incarnatam confitemur. Verbum autem et quod commune est substantiae possidet et quod proprietatis est habens hypostaseos»18, id est per-
sonae. — Ex his manifeste ostenditur, quod natura divina incarnata est. Unde et eadem vere dicitur suscepisse humanam naturam.
Cap. II. An divina natura debeat dici caro facta.
Sed quaeritur, utrum eadem divina natura debeat dici caro facta, sicut Verbum dicitur caro factum. Si enim idem est incarnari quod est carnem fieri, videri potest ita debere dici, quod sit caro facta, sicut dicitur incarnata. (Quaest. incidens solvitur.) — Ad quod dicimus, quia, si illud dictum in sacra Scriptura reperiretur, ex eadem intelligentia acciperetur, qua, cum dicitur incarnata. Sed quia illud auctoritas subticuit, atque locutionis modus nimiam videretur19 facere expressionem, si natura divina diceretur caro facta; melius hoc silere puto vel negare quam temere asserere, ne, si illud dicatur, convertibilitas naturae in naturam significari putetur. — Ex praemissis20 indubitabiliter constat, quod persona Verbi sive natura hominis naturam, scilicet carnem et animam, assumsit, sed non personam hominis. Si autem natura divina naturam hominis accepit (Obiectio.), quare non dicitur facta homo, vel esse homo, sicut Verbum Dei? (Solutio.) — Ad quod dici potest, quod Dei Filius dicitur factus homo, vel esse homo, non solum quia21 hominem assumsit, sed quia ipsum in unitatem et singularitatem sui, id est personae, accepit. Natura autem divina hominem quidem accepit, id est, hominis formam sibi univit, sed non in singularitatem et unitatem sui. Servata enim proprietate ac diversitate duarum naturarum, personae singularitas exstitit. Ideoque non sic dicitur divina natura esse homo, vel facta homo, sicut Dei Filius. (Dubium 4.) — Quidam tamen indifferenter utrumque concedunt.
Cap. III. Quare non accepit personam hominis, cum assumserit hominem, quod quidam probare nituntur.
Ideo vero non personam hominis assumsit, quia (Redit ad principalem quaest.) caro illa et anima illa non erant unita in unam personam, quam assumserit, quia non ex illis constabat persona, quando illis unitum est Verbum. Nam sibi invicem sunt unita simul, cum Verbo unita sunt22. Altera tamen unione invicem unita sunt illa duo, scilicet anima et caro, alia unione Verbo unita sunt; quia alia est unio animae illius ad carnem, et alia est unio Verbi ad animam illam et carnem. Non ergo accepit Verbum Dei personam hominis, sed naturam, quia non erat ex carne illa et anima illa composita persona una, quam Verbum acceperit23, sed accipiendo univit et uniendo accepit. (Opponitur.) Hic a quibusdam opponitur, quod persona assumserit personam. Persona enim est «substantia rationalis individuae naturae24»; hoc autem est anima: ergo si animam assumsit, et personam. (Resp.) — Quod ideo non sequitur, quia anima non est persona, quando alii rei est unita personaliter, sed quando per se est. Absoluta enim a corpore persona est25, sicut Angelus. Illa autem anima nunquam fuit, quin esset alii rei coniuncta. Ideoque non, ea assumta, persona est assumta. (Obiicitur iterum.) — Aliter quoque nituntur probare, Verbum Dei assumsisse personam, quia assumsit aliquem hominem. Assumsit enim hominem Iesum Christum: ergo aliquem hominem. Quod autem hominem Iesum Christum assumserit, Augustinus in Expositione Symboli26 sub anathemate tradit dicens: «Si quis dixerit atque crediderit, hominem Iesum Christum a Filio Dei assumtum non fuisse, anathema sit». Qui etiam in pluribus scripturae locis27 huiusmodi utitur locutionibus: «ille homo a Verbo Dei est assumtus»; «ille homo factus est Christus». Et Propheta, de homine Christo loquens, Deo ait28 (Resp.): Beatus, quem elegisti et assumsisti. Ex quibus consequi videtur, quod aliquis homo assumtus sit a Verbo, et ita persona sit assumta a persona. — Sed quia hoc nefas est dicere aut sentire, praemissae locutiones eisque similes secundum hanc intelligentiam sane accipi debent, ut homo Christus, sive homo ille, sive quidam homo dicatur assumtus a Verbo sive unitus Verbo, non quia hominis persona sit assumta vel unita Verbo, sed quia anima illa et caro illa assumta sunt et unita Verbo, in quibus subsistit persona Dei et hominis, ut ad hominis naturam, non ad personam respicias, cum assumtum, vel unitum, vel quendam, vel aliquem in huiusmodi locutionibus scriptura memorat. Quocirca, cum quaeritur sine proposita auctoritate, an aliquis, vel quidam homo sit assumtus a Verbo, vel unitus Verbo; sine distinctione intelligentiae non est hic29 reddenda responsio, quoniam multiplex praemissa est quaestio; sed instantiam quaerentis ita determinato: si de hominis persona quaeris, respondeo: non; si de hominis natura, dico: est.
---
DISTINCTION V.
Chap. I. Whether person or nature has assumed person [or nature], and whether the nature of God has been incarnate.
Further, it must be inquired, since from what precedes it is established that the Word of God assumed flesh and soul together into the unity of person, which of these is rather to be granted, namely whether person assumed person, or1 nature nature, or person nature, or nature person; and whether it is fitting to say in this way that the divine nature has been incarnate, just as God is rightly said to be incarnate and the Word incarnate. (The four principal questions.) — This inquiry, or manner of seeking, according to the testimonies of the sacred authorities, is partly implicit and perplexed, partly explicit and open. (An incidental question.) For it is certain and true without ambiguity that not nature assumed person, nor person person, but person assumed nature. (Reply to the 3rd question.) This is confirmed by the testimonies set down by the Saints and is established by documents. For Augustine says in the book On Faith, to Peter2: (Fulgentius.) «The only-begotten God, while he was being conceived, took the truth of flesh from the Virgin; and when he was born, he preserved the integrity of virginity in his Mother». And a little after: «Thus God took up human nature into the unity of person, in that, humbling himself through mercy, he filled the womb of the incorrupt Virgin, about to be born of her. Therefore that God took the form of a servant, that is the nature of a servant, into his own person». Likewise: «For God the Word did not take the person of man, but the nature». Likewise: «The only-begotten Son of God, that he might cleanse the flesh and soul of man, was incarnate by the assumption of flesh and rational soul». — By these and many other authorities it is evidently shown that not nature took person, nor person person, but person took nature. — But concerning the fourth article of the question (the 4th question), namely whether nature assumed nature, there is a question scrupulous even among the learned, because in this too those who were eminent in authority and more learned than others in sacred Scripture3 seem greatly to disagree. And not only do some differ from others, but even the same authors seem to be at variance with themselves, as the chapters set down below teach.
For it is read that in the Sixth Council of Toledo4 this was handed down (Authorities for the 1st part.): «The Word alone was made flesh and dwelt among us; and although the whole Trinity wrought the formation of the man assumed — since the works of the Trinity are inseparable — yet the Son alone took the man into the singularity of person, not into the unity of the divine nature, that is, that which is proper to the Son, not what is common
to the Trinity». Likewise in the Eleventh Council of Toledo5: «We believe the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit to be of one substance; yet we do not say that the Virgin Mary begot the unity of this Trinity, but only the Son, who alone assumed our nature into the unity of his person. The Incarnation of this Son of God also is to be believed to have been wrought by the whole Trinity; yet the Son alone took the form of a servant into the singularity of person». — By these it seems to be intimated that person only assumed nature, not nature nature. For if what is common to the Trinity did not take man: therefore neither did the divine nature, which is common to the three persons. (For the 2nd part.) — To this there seems to be opposed what Augustine says in the book On Faith, to Peter6 (Doubt 1.): «Neither, he says, is the divinity of Christ foreign to the nature of the Father, according to that which in the beginning was the Word; nor is his humanity foreign to the nature of the Mother, according to that which the Word was made flesh. For that nature which ever remains begotten from the Father took up our nature without sin, that it might be born of the Virgin». — By this authority it seems to be conveyed that the divine nature took up the human; in which we can be greatly moved, because he says that it was begotten eternally from the Father, unless perhaps he here takes nature for person; otherwise, if we should say that the nature common to the three persons was begotten, there occur against us the things which we discussed in the treatise On the Trinity7, where we said that not nature begot nature, but person person; because, if nature had begotten nature, since the nature of the Trinity is one and the same, the same thing would have begotten itself; which Augustine8 denies can come to pass. — But elsewhere we find a sure document by which it is shown that nature assumed nature. For Augustine says (Augustine.) in the first book On the Trinity9: «Christ was made less even than himself, taking the form of a servant. For he did not so take the form of a servant as to lose the form of God, in which he was equal to the Father, so that both in the form of a servant and in the form of God he himself is the only-begotten Son of the Father, because the form of God took the form of a servant». But if the form of God took the form of a servant, without doubt nature took nature. For by the name of form nature is signified, as Augustine evidently teaches in the book On Faith, to Peter10 (Doubt 2.): «When, he says, you hear concerning Christ that he was in the form of God, you must acknowledge and most firmly hold that in him by the name of form natural fullness ought to be understood. He was therefore in the form of God, because he was ever in the nature of God the Father, of which he was born». Hilary too in the twelfth book On the Trinity11 says: «To be in the form of God is no other understanding than to remain in the nature of God». — You have learned that by the name of form an understanding of nature comes about, and you have heard that the form of God took up the form of a servant; whence it follows that the divine nature took up the human nature. This also Jerome (Jerome.) in his Exposition of the Faith12 evidently intimates, saying: «The Son of God suffered, not in appearance, but truly; according to that he suffered which was able to suffer, that is not according to that substance which assumed, but according to that which was assumed». — From which it appears that the divine substance assumed the human. — But from the words of Augustine set down above13, if diligence be applied, it seems to be intimated that the Word alone was made flesh and took up the human nature alone, and that the divine nature took up the same. For he says: «The Trinity reconciled us to itself through this, that the Trinity itself made the Word alone flesh. In which the incommutable truth of the divine and human nature so remains, that just as his divinity, which he has from the Father, is ever true, so his humanity, which the supreme divinity bears united to itself, is ever true and incommutable». — Behold, he said both that the Word alone was made flesh, and that the humanity was united to the divinity. The same author also said above14 that «the servile form was taken up by the Son alone, which the whole Trinity made». Now it is easy to recognize how diverse and manifold are the things the authors handed down upon the proposed question; and therefore those who come after, reading them, bring forth various and contrary opinions, taking occasion from the foregoing.
But we, desiring to remove every mark of falsehood and contradiction from the sacred Pages, agree with the orthodox Fathers and catholic doctors, marked with no suspicion of perverse understanding, saying both that the person of the Son assumed human nature, and that the divine nature was united to the human nature in the Son, and united or assumed it to itself. (Concord of the authorities.) Whence it is also truly said to be incarnate. (On the divine nature incarnate.) But as to what is said, that the Son alone took the form of a servant15, by this the divine nature is not excluded from the taking of the servile form, but the other two persons, namely the Father and the Holy Spirit. Likewise that other point also, namely that «that which is proper to the Son, not what is common to the Trinity, took man», must be so understood, that is, that properly in the hypostasis of the Son, not in the three persons in common, the divine nature united the human nature to itself. This sense is confirmed by the words of John Damascene16, who evidently asserts that the whole divine nature was incarnate in one of the hypostases, saying: «In the becoming-human17 of God the Word we say that the whole and perfect nature of the deity was incarnate in one of his hypostases, that is, that it was united to the human nature, and not part to part. For we say that to all human nature the whole nature or substance of the deity was united». (Doubt 3.) Likewise: «The nature is the same in each of the hypostases, that is, of the persons; and when we say that the nature of the Word was incarnate, according to the blessed Athanasius and Cyril, we say that the deity was united to the flesh, and we confess one incarnate nature of God the Word. But the Word possesses both what is common to the substance and what belongs to property, having a hypostasis»18, that is, a per-
son. — From these things it is manifestly shown that the divine nature was incarnate. Whence the same is also truly said to have taken up the human nature.
Chap. II. Whether the divine nature ought to be said to have been made flesh.
But it is asked whether the same divine nature ought to be said to have been made flesh, just as the Word is said to have been made flesh. For if to be incarnate is the same as to be made flesh, it can seem that it ought to be said in this way, that it has been made flesh, just as it is said to be incarnate. (The incidental question is resolved.) — To which we say that, if that expression were found in sacred Scripture, it would be taken in the same understanding by which, when it is said, it is incarnate. But because authority has kept silence on that, and the mode of expression would seem19 to make an excessive declaration, if the divine nature were said to have been made flesh; I think it better to keep silent on this or to deny it than rashly to assert it, lest, if it be said, a convertibility of nature into nature be thought to be signified. — From what precedes20 it is indubitably established that the person of the Word, or the nature of the man, assumed nature, namely flesh and soul, but not the person of man. But if the divine nature took the nature of man (Objection.), why is it not said to have been made man, or to be man, just as the Word of God? (Solution.) — To which it can be said that the Son of God is said to have been made man, or to be man, not only because21 he assumed man, but because he took him into the unity and singularity of himself, that is, of his person. But the divine nature indeed took man, that is, it united the form of man to itself, but not into the singularity and unity of itself. For, the property and diversity of the two natures being preserved, the singularity of person came to be. And therefore the divine nature is not said to be man, or made man, in the same way as the Son of God. (Doubt 4.) — Some, however, indifferently concede both.
Chap. III. Why he did not take the person of man, although he assumed man, which some endeavor to prove.
But he did not take the person of man for this reason, that (He returns to the principal question.) that flesh and that soul were not united into one person, which he assumed, because the person was not constituted from them, when the Word was united to them. For they are united to one another at the same time, when they are united to the Word22. Yet by one union those two are united to one another, namely soul and flesh, by another union they are united to the Word; because one is the union of that soul to the flesh, and another is the union of the Word to that soul and flesh. Therefore the Word of God did not take the person of man, but the nature, because there was not from that flesh and that soul one composite person which the Word might have taken23, but by taking he united and by uniting he took. (It is objected.) Here it is objected by some that person assumed person. For person is «a rational substance of individual nature24»; but this is the soul: therefore if he assumed the soul, he also assumed person. (Reply.) — Which does not follow for this reason, that the soul is not a person when it is united personally to another thing, but when it exists through itself. For absolved from a body it is a person25, like an Angel. But that soul never was without being joined to another thing. And therefore, it being assumed, person was not assumed. (It is objected again.) — In another way too they endeavor to prove that the Word of God assumed person, because he assumed a certain man. For he assumed the man Jesus Christ: therefore a certain man. And that he assumed the man Jesus Christ, Augustine in his Exposition of the Symbol26 hands down under anathema, saying: «If anyone shall say and believe that the man Jesus Christ was not assumed by the Son of God, let him be anathema». He also in many places of Scripture27 uses expressions of this kind: «that man was assumed by the Word of God»; «that man was made Christ». And the Prophet, speaking of the man Christ, says to God28 (Reply.): Blessed is he whom you have chosen and assumed. From which it seems to follow that a certain man was assumed by the Word, and so that person was assumed by person. — But because this is impious to say or to think, the foregoing expressions and those like them must be soundly understood according to this understanding, that the man Christ, or that man, or a certain man is said to be assumed by the Word or united to the Word, not because the person of man was assumed or united to the Word, but because that soul and that flesh were assumed and united to the Word, in whom subsists the person of God and man, so that you may look to the nature of man, not to the person, when Scripture mentions «assumed», or «united», or «a certain one», or «some one» in expressions of this kind. Wherefore, when it is asked, without an authority proposed, whether some, or a certain man was assumed by the Word, or united to the Word; without a distinction of understanding a response is not here29 to be given, since the question proposed is manifold; but the instance of the one asking determine thus: if you ask concerning the person of man, I respond: no; if concerning the nature of man, I say: it is.
---
- Cod. E et edd. 1, 8 repetunt quod.Codex E and editions 1, 8 repeat quod.
- Cap. 2. n. 17. (auctor huius libri est S. Fulgentius); seq. locus est ibid. n. 18, ubi respicitur Phil. 2, 6. 8: et pro Sic Deus codd. et ed. 6, Hic Deus. Tertius locus est ibid. c. 17. n. 60; quartus ibid. c. 2. n. 17.Chap. 2, n. 17 (the author of this book is St. Fulgentius); the next passage is at the same place, n. 18, where Phil. 2, 6. 8 is regarded: and for Sic Deus the codices and ed. 6 read Hic Deus. The third passage is at the same place, c. 17, n. 60; the fourth at the same place, c. 2, n. 17.
- Cod. E et edd. 1, 8 sic legunt: qui in sacra Pagina auctoritate praeclari, alii doctores (ed. 8 doctiores) exstiterunt.Codex E and editions 1, 8 read thus: who in sacred Scripture, eminent in authority, other doctors (ed. 8 more learned) were eminent.
- Cap. I, apud Isidorum Mercatorem ad lit., in quo textu ed. Migne (t. 130, col. 487) pro singularitatem personae... unitatem naturae habet singularitate personae... unitate naturae. Similiter in seq. textu legitur unitate pro unitatem, singularitate pro singularitatem.Chap. I, in Isidore Mercator on the passage, in which text the Migne edition (vol. 130, col. 487) for singularitatem personae... unitatem naturae has singularitate personae... unitate naturae. Likewise in the following text unitate is read for unitatem, singularitate for singularitatem.
- In prologo.In the prologue.
- Cap. 2. n. 14 (interpolate); ubi respicitur Ioan. I, 1. 14.Chap. 2, n. 14 (interpolated); where John I, 1. 14 is regarded.
- Libr. I. d. V. c. I.Book I, dist. V, c. I.
- Libr. I. de Trin. c. I. n. I.Book I, On the Trinity, c. I, n. I.
- Cap. 7. n. 14. et c. 11. n. 22.Chap. 7, n. 14, and c. 11, n. 22.
- Cap. 2. n. 19.Chap. 2, n. 19.
- Num. 6.N. 6.
- Ad Damasum (inter opera Hieronymi).To Damasus (among the works of Jerome).
- Dist. I. c. 3, ubi est etiam seq. locus de Fide ad Petrum c. 2. n. 23.Dist. I, c. 3, where there is also the following passage from On Faith, to Peter, c. 2, n. 23.
- Dist. II. c. 3.Dist. II, c. 3.
- Cod. E et edd. I, 8 tradiderint.Codex E and editions I, 8 read tradiderint.
- Cod. E et edd. I, 8 assumsisse. Haec secunda propositio ex Concilio Toletano supra cit.Codex E and editions I, 8 read assumsisse. This second proposition is from the Council of Toledo cited above.
- Libr. III. de Fide orth. c. 6. — Paulo inferius pro una hypostaseon, quod habet cod. D, Vat. cum nonnullis edd. male unam hypostasin.Book III, On the Orthodox Faith, c. 6. — A little below, for una hypostaseon, which codex D has, the Vatican edition with some editions wrongly reads unam hypostasin.
- Cod. D incarnatione, ed. S inhumanatione. Paulo inferius ante hypostaseon Vat. cum codd. A B E omittit eius. — Seq. locus ibid. in fine capituli.Codex D reads incarnatione, ed. S inhumanatione. A little below, before hypostaseon, the Vatican edition with codices A B E omits eius. — The following passage is at the same place, at the end of the chapter.
- Edd. 1, 8 videtur, minus bene.Editions 1, 8 read videtur, less well.
- Hic c. I. — Quae sequuntur conveniunt cum Hugone, II. de Sacram. p. I. c. 9.Here c. I. — What follows agrees with Hugh, On the Sacraments, II, p. I, c. 9.
- Edd. I, 8 bis quo pro quia, et primo loco conveniunt etiam codd. B C E.Editions I, 8 read quo twice for quia, and in the first place codices B C E also agree.
- Vat. aliaeque edd. omittunt unita sunt, refragantibus codd. B C D E et edd. I, 5, 8.The Vatican and other editions omit unita sunt, against codices B C D E and editions I, 5, 8.
- Edd., excepta 5 et 8, accepit, refragantibus codd.The editions, except 5 and 8, read accepit, against the codices.
- Boethius de Una Persona et duabus naturis c. 3.Boethius, On the One Person and Two Natures, c. 3.
- De hac sententia Magistri cfr. Comment. hic a. 2. q. 3.On this opinion of the Master cf. the Commentary here, a. 2, q. 3.
- Potius est Serm. 233. (alias 129 de tempore), qui inscribitur Serm. I. de Fide catholica, n. 2, ubi verbotenus ista inveniuntur.It is rather Sermon 233 (otherwise 129, on time), which is entitled Sermon I, On the Catholic Faith, n. 2, where these things are found word for word.
- Enarrat. in Ps. 56. n. 5; I. de Praedest. Sanctor. c. 15. n. 30. Enarrat. in Ps. 64. n. 7.Enarration on Ps. 56, n. 5; I, On the Predestination of the Saints, c. 15, n. 30. Enarration on Ps. 64, n. 7.
- Psalm. 64, 5.Ps. 64, 5.
- Codd. B C D sic. Deinde post respondeo cod. E et edd. I, 5, 8 addunt quod.Codices B C D read thus. Then after respondeo codex E and editions I, 5, 8 add quod.