← Back to Distinction 8

Dist. 8, Art. 2, Q. 2

Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word · Distinction 8

Textus Latinus
p. 193

Quaestio II. Utrum in Christo sint duae filiationes.

Secundo quaeritur, utrum in Christo sint filiationes duae. Et quod sic, videtur.

(Ad oppositum.) 1. Generatio est ratio sive causa filiationis, sicut actio causa relationis1; sed in Christo est duplex generatio: ergo est duplex filiatio; multiplicata enim causa, multiplicari videtur et effectus.

2. Item, multiplicato uno relativorum, necessario multiplicatur et reliquum, eo quod « relativorum est ad aliud se habere », et « quoties dicitur unum oppositorum, toties dicitur reliquum », sicut vult Philosophus2: sed Christus secundum generationem aeternam est Filius Patris, secundum generationem temporalem est filius Matris: ergo etc.

3. Item, diversarum productionum diversi sunt termini; sed generatio temporalis et aeterna sunt diversae productiones: ergo si utraque terminatur ad Christum, secundum quod est filius, necesse est, Christum esse filium alium et alium: igitur in eo sunt filiationes plures.

4. Item, idem est esse natum et esse filium; sed si aliqua sunt eadem, numerato uno, numeratur et reliquum: ergo si Christus est bis natus, habet duplicem filiationem.

5. Item, abstracta filiatione aeterna, est intelligere filiationem temporalem, et e converso: ergo si illa sunt diversa, quorum unum est intelligere, abstracto alio, igitur filiatio aeterna et temporalis est alia et alia in Christo3.

(Fundamenta.) Sed contra: 1. Filiatio est proprietas personalis; sed in Christo non est nisi una persona: ergo non est nisi una sola filiatio.

2. Item, sicut Christus habet Patrem et Matrem, ita quilibet alius est natus ex patre et ex matre; sed nullus dicitur habere duas filiationes, quia genitus est ex patre et ex matre: ergo pari ratione in Christo non erunt duae filiationes, quia natus est Christus ex Patre et ex Virgine4.

3. Item, ex hoc quod aliquis magister habet plures discipulos, hodie unum et cras alium, non habet diversos magistratus5: ergo pari ratione nec Christus debet dici habere plures filiationes ex hoc, quod genitus est a Patre prius et a Matre posterius.

4. Item, si alia persona nata esset de Virgine, esset confusio in proprietatibus personalibus propter pluralitatem filiationum, sicut dicit Anselmus6: si p. 194 ergo in incarnatione Verbi nulla facta est proprietatum confusio, videtur, quod nulla facta sit filiationum plurificatio.

5. Item, numerata proprietate, numeratur subiectum, ut si sunt duae albedines, sunt duo alba: ergo si sunt duae filiationes, sunt duo filii: ergo si in Christo sunt duae filiationes, in Christo sunt duo filii, et si Christus est duo filii, Christus est duo. Sed haec est falsa, sicut improbata est supra7, et habetur in Symbolo: « Non duo tamen, sed unus est Christus »: igitur falsum est, duas filiationes esse in Christo.

### Conclusio. Cum in Christo non sint plures personae, non sunt plures in eo filiationes, licet dicatur bis natus, quia filiatio proprie personam respicit et non naturam nisi ratione personae.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod quamvis concedatur, in Christo duas esse nativitates, non tamen concedi debet, duas esse filiationes. — (Tres comparationes in filiatione.) Et ratio huius est, quia, cum filiatio sit relatio, comparationem habet ad tria: ad subiectum in quo est, et ad terminum ad quem est, et ad principium a quo est. (Principium.) Numerus autem relationis secundum differentiam formalem sive specificam causatur a principio, a quo est, sicut paternitas et dominium sunt duae relationes in aliquo homine, quae numerantur non ratione eius in quo sunt, principaliter, sed ratione eius a quo sunt; quia possunt esse duae relationes in homine respectu eiusdem. (Subiectum.) — Plurificatio autem relationis secundum numerum non venit principaliter ratione eius a quo est, nec ratione ad quem, sed ratione subiecti eius in quo8, quoniam proprietas subiecti numerari habet ratione suppositi. (Conclusio.) Et quoniam subiectum filiationis est ipsa persona, non natura nisi ratione personae; hinc est, quod cum in Christo non sint plures personae, non possunt esse plures filiationes. — Ideo concedendae sunt rationes ad hoc inductae.

(Solutio oppositorum.) 1. Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur, quod generatio est causa filiationis; iam patet responsio, quia relatio non multiplicatur ex parte causae, sed ex parte subiecti. — (Quaestio incidens.) Si autem quaeratur, quare multiplicatur generatio in Christo et non filiatio, cum utraque respiciat personam; dicendum, (Ratio 1.) quod generatio significat per modum actionis; actio autem et passio non solum recipit numerationem ex parte subiecti, sed etiam ex parte mensurae, et ex parte principii. Et quoniam aliud est principium, et alia est mensura, temporalis et aeterna; ideo alia potest dici et alia generatio9, quamvis non filiatio. — (Ratio 2.) Alia etiam est ratio, quia, etsi generatio respiciat personam, tamen per consequens respicere potest et naturam. Unde humana natura in Christo potest dici nata, non tamen potest dici filia, quia filiatio proprie respicit personam. Et quia in Christo est pluralitas naturarum et unitas personae; ideo possunt dici plures generationes, quamvis non possint dici plures filiationes.

(Notandum.) 2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod multiplicato uno relativorum, multiplicatur et reliquum; dicendum, quod illud verum est de multiplicatione formali et de eo correlativo, a quo dependet correlativum dependentia essentiali; quando autem correlativum10 multiplicatur multiplicatione materiali, non habet veritatem; sicut est quando unus homo generat plures filios, et unus magister docet plures discipulos; tunc enim relatio, quae est in ipso, non dependet ab unoquoque eorum nisi dependentia accidentali, et desinente uno, salvatur relatio in altero. Unde quando quis generat post primum filium alium, non nascitur in eo nova paternitas, sed primae paternitati innascitur novus respectus, quia pater est plurium, quam prius erat. Sic est intelligendum in proposito; unde Christus generatione temporali non acquirit novam filiationem, sed incipit esse filius alterius, scilicet Virginis.

(Notandum.) 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod diversarum productionum diversi sunt termini; dicendum, quod verum est, quando illae productiones sunt disparatae, ita quod una non supponit aliam; sic autem non est in proposito, quia nativitas temporalis praesupponit aeternam nativitatem. Et ideo non oportet, filium esse alium et alium, quamvis alia et alia generatione generetur; sufficit enim, ut dictum fuit11, ad pluralitatem generationum pluralitas naturarum, non sic autem ad pluralitatem filiationum.

(Notandum.) 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod idem est esse natum et esse filium; dicendum, quod etsi de eodem dicatur, tamen filiatio proprie dicit relationem, et nativitas sive generatio ipsam productionem; re- p. 195 latio autem et actio ex alia et alia causa habent numerari12. Et ideo non sequitur, quod si plurificetur productio, quod plurificatur filiatio.

(Notandum.) 5. Ad illud quod obiicitur ultimo, quod est intelligere filiationem temporalem, abstracta filiatione aeterna; dicendum, quod hoc non est propter diversitatem relationis in se, sed propter diversitatem respectuum; sicut si aliquis sit pater duorum, potest intelligi esse pater unius, ita quod non alterius; et si aliquis videatur a duobus, potest intelligi videri ab uno, ita quod non ab alio. Ex hoc tamen non potest concludi, quod sit diversitas secundum rem, sed secundum rationem. Diversitatem autem secundum rationem voco illam, quae solum est secundum respectum et comparationem.

Scholion

I. Solutio huius quaestionis non caret gravi difficultate nec opinionum diversitate inter ipsos catholicos, praeterquam quod occasionem dedit origini haeretici erroris, qui adoptianismus vocatur, de quo infra d. 10. a. 2. q. 1. agitur. Contra Nestorium constat, quod Christus ut hic homo, spectata unius suae personae constitutione, est unus Filius Dei naturalis. Si autem filiatio consideratur ut relatio, et speciatim quaeritur tum de relatione hominis Christi ad Deum ut suum principium, tum de relatione, qua Christus refertur ad Matrem; tunc diversae sententiae exortae sunt. « Quidam attendentes ad causam filiationis, quae est nativitas, ponunt in Christo duas filiationes, sicut et duas nativitates; alii vero attendentes ad subiectum filiationis, quod est persona vel hypostasis Filii, ponunt unam tantum filiationem, sicut et unam hypostasim vel personam » (ita S. Thom., S. III. q. 35. a. 5.). Hanc secundam sententiam tenent antiquiores Scholastici: Alex. Hal., B. Albert., S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Dionys. Carth. cum nostro auctore; quorum fundamentum principale est, « quod subiectum filiationis est ipsa persona, non natura nisi ratione personae » (hic in corp.). Addit tamen S. Thom. (loc. cit.): « Quantum ad aliquid utraque opinio dicit verum. Nam si attendamus ad perfectas rationes filiationis, oportet dicere duas filiationes secundum dualitatem nativitatum; si autem attendamus ad subiectum filiationis, quod non potest esse nisi suppositum aeternum, non potest esse in Christo realiter nisi filiatio aeterna ». Conveniunt Ss. Thom. et Bonav. etiam in solutione 2. arg. ad oppositum, docentes, Filium Dei (Christum) referri ad Matrem non nisi relatione rationis filiationis temporalis, ita ut multiplicentur quidem respectus, sed non reales relationes. Nam « ex hoc, quod Filius Dei refertur ad Matrem, non oportet, quod habeat aliam filiationem secundum rem, sed alium respectum relationis » (S. Thom., hic a. 5. ad 2.). Primam autem opinionem Richard. a Med. (hic a. 2. q. 2.) sic explicat: « Dicendum sine praeiudicio, quod in Christo sunt duae filiationes: una respectu Patris, quae non refertur ad Matrem, et alia temporalis respectu Matris, quae refertur ad Matrem, quae sibi convenit ratione humanae naturae ». Et in solut. ad 4. dicit, filiationem et relationem respectu Matris esse realem. Nihilominus cum ceteris vult (ad 1.), hinc minime sequi errorem, quod propter duas filiationes in Christo sint duo filii. Duas filiationes reales in Christo esse, docet etiam Scotus (hic in utroque Scripto q. 1.) et arguit contra illud secundae opinionis fundamentum, quod filiatio sit proprie personae, non naturae, simulque contendit, relationem filiationis ad Matrem esse realem, quam assertionem Suarez (in p. III. Sum. t. II. disp. 12. sect. 2.) dicit esse sententiam theologorum communiorem. Huic suffragatur quoque Aegid. R., qui ipsis S. Thomae principiis nititur sententiam sui magistri evertere. Etiam Durand. reapse eandem viam sequitur, licet verbis mediam quandam sententiam se sequi profiteatur. Ast Henr. Gand. (Quodl. 4. q. 3.) asserit: « Unica est realis relatio filiationis in Filio Dei ad duas generationes et nativitates »; et subiungit ad explicandam suam opinionem, « quod ipsa filiatio aeterna de novo respicit Matrem propter novam naturam ».

II. Praeter laudatos: Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 10. m. 3. — B. Albert., hic a. 2. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 2. — Aegid. R., hic q. 3. a. 2. et dub. lat. 1-5. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 2.

III. Sequens (3.) quaestio agit non contra Adoptianos, qui negant Christum, quatenus est homo, esse Filium Dei naturalem (de quo cfr. infra d. 10. a. 2. q. 1.), sed proprie de Christi nativitate temporali respectu Matris, de qua iam plura dicta sunt supra d. 4. a. 3. q. 1-3. — Plurimi antiqui Scholastici hanc rem tantum tangunt in quaestione, utrum in Christo sint duae nativitates (cfr. hic q. 1.). Speciatim de ipsa tractant: Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 10. m. 5. a. 2. — Aegid. R., hic q. 3. a. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 3. — Dionys. Carth., loc. cit.

---

English Translation

Question II. Whether in Christ there are two filiations.

Secondly it is asked whether in Christ there are two filiations. And that there are, it seems thus.

(To the contrary [for the affirmative].) 1. Generation is the ground or cause of filiation, just as action is the cause of relation1; but in Christ there is a twofold generation: therefore there is a twofold filiation; for when the cause is multiplied, the effect too seems to be multiplied.

2. Likewise, when one of two correlatives is multiplied, the other is necessarily multiplied also, because « it belongs to correlatives to be related to one another », and « as often as one of the opposites is said, so often is the other said », as the Philosopher holds2: but Christ according to the eternal generation is the Son of the Father, according to the temporal generation he is the son of the Mother: therefore, etc.

3. Likewise, of diverse productions the terms are diverse; but the temporal and the eternal generation are diverse productions: therefore if each is terminated at Christ, insofar as he is a son, it is necessary that Christ be one and another son: therefore in him there are several filiations.

4. Likewise, to be born and to be a son are the same; but if some things are the same, when one is numbered, the other is numbered also: therefore if Christ was born twice, he has a twofold filiation.

5. Likewise, with the eternal filiation abstracted, the temporal filiation can be understood, and conversely: therefore if those are diverse, one of which can be understood when the other is abstracted, then the eternal and the temporal filiation are one and another in Christ3.

(Foundations [for the contrary].) On the contrary: 1. Filiation is a personal property; but in Christ there is but one person: therefore there is but one single filiation.

2. Likewise, just as Christ has a Father and a Mother, so anyone else is born of a father and of a mother; but no one is said to have two filiations because he was begotten of a father and of a mother: therefore by parity of reasoning there will not be two filiations in Christ because Christ was born of the Father and of the Virgin4.

3. Likewise, from the fact that some master has several disciples, today one and tomorrow another, he does not have diverse masterships5: therefore by parity of reasoning neither ought Christ be said to have several filiations from the fact that he was begotten of the Father first and of the Mother afterward.

4. Likewise, if another person had been born of the Virgin, there would be confusion in the personal properties on account of the plurality of filiations, as Anselm says6: if p. 194 therefore in the incarnation of the Word no confusion of properties was made, it seems that no plurification of filiations was made.

5. Likewise, when a property is numbered, the subject is numbered, just as if there are two whitenesses there are two white things: therefore if there are two filiations there are two sons: therefore if in Christ there are two filiations, in Christ there are two sons, and if Christ is two sons, Christ is two. But this is false, as was disproved above7, and is held in the Creed: « Yet not two, but one is Christ »: therefore it is false that there are two filiations in Christ.

### Conclusion. Since in Christ there are not several persons, there are not several filiations in him, although he is said to have been born twice, because filiation properly regards the person and not the nature except by reason of the person.

I respond: It must be said that although it is conceded that in Christ there are two nativities, it ought not nonetheless be conceded that there are two filiations. — (Three comparisons in filiation.) And the reason for this is that, since filiation is a relation, it has a comparison to three things: to the subject in which it is, and to the term to which it is, and to the principle from which it is. (Principle.) Now the number of a relation according to formal or specific difference is caused by the principle from which it is, just as paternity and lordship are two relations in some man, which are numbered not by reason of that in which they are, principally, but by reason of that from which they are; for there can be two relations in a man with respect to the same thing. (Subject.) — But the plurification of a relation according to number does not come principally by reason of that from which it is, nor by reason of that to which it is, but by reason of the subject in which it is8, since a property of a subject must be numbered by reason of the supposit. (Conclusion.) And since the subject of filiation is the person itself, not the nature except by reason of the person; hence it is that, since in Christ there are not several persons, there cannot be several filiations. — Therefore the reasons adduced for this are to be conceded.

(Solution of the contrary arguments.) 1. To that, then, which is objected first, that generation is the cause of filiation; the response is already clear, because the relation is not multiplied on the part of the cause, but on the part of the subject. — (An incidental question.) But if it be asked why generation is multiplied in Christ and not filiation, since each regards the person; it must be said, (Reason 1.) that generation signifies by the mode of action; but action and passion receive numeration not only on the part of the subject, but also on the part of the measure, and on the part of the principle. And since the principle is one thing, and the measure another, the temporal and the eternal; therefore the generation can be called one and another9, although the filiation cannot. — (Reason 2.) There is also another reason, because, even if generation regards the person, nonetheless by consequence it can also regard the nature. Hence the human nature in Christ can be said to be born, yet it cannot be said to be a daughter, because filiation properly regards the person. And because in Christ there is a plurality of natures and a unity of person; therefore several generations can be said, although several filiations cannot be said.

(Note.) 2. To that which is objected, that when one of two correlatives is multiplied the other is multiplied also; it must be said that this is true of formal multiplication and of that correlative on which the correlative depends with an essential dependence; but when the correlative10 is multiplied by a material multiplication, it does not hold true; as is the case when one man begets several sons, and one master teaches several disciples; for then the relation which is in him does not depend on each one of them except with an accidental dependence, and when one ceases, the relation is preserved in the other. Hence when one begets, after the first son, another, no new paternity is born in him, but to the first paternity a new respect is born, because he is the father of more than he was before. So it is to be understood in the matter at hand; hence Christ by the temporal generation does not acquire a new filiation, but begins to be the son of another, namely of the Virgin.

(Note.) 3. To that which is objected, that of diverse productions the terms are diverse; it must be said that this is true when those productions are disparate, such that one does not presuppose the other; but it is not so in the matter at hand, because the temporal nativity presupposes the eternal nativity. And therefore it is not necessary that the son be one and another, although he is begotten by one and another generation; for it suffices, as was said11, for the plurality of generations that there be a plurality of natures, but not so for the plurality of filiations.

(Note.) 4. To that which is objected, that to be born and to be a son are the same; it must be said that although it is said of the same thing, nonetheless filiation properly states a relation, and nativity or generation [states] the production itself; for re- p. 195 lation and action are numbered from one and another cause12. And therefore it does not follow that if the production is plurified, the filiation is plurified.

(Note.) 5. To that which is objected last, that the temporal filiation can be understood with the eternal filiation abstracted; it must be said that this is not on account of a diversity of the relation in itself, but on account of a diversity of respects; just as if someone is the father of two, he can be understood to be the father of one, such that he is not [the father] of the other; and if someone is seen by two, he can be understood to be seen by one, such that he is not [seen] by the other. From this, however, it cannot be concluded that there is a diversity according to the thing, but according to reason. And I call that a diversity according to reason which is only according to respect and comparison.

Scholion

I. The solution of this question is not without grave difficulty nor without a diversity of opinions among the Catholics themselves, besides that it gave occasion to the origin of the heretical error which is called adoptianism, of which there is treatment below at d. 10, a. 2, q. 1. Against Nestorius it is established that Christ as this man, considering the constitution of his single person, is one natural Son of God. But if filiation is considered as a relation, and the question is asked specifically both about the relation of the man Christ to God as his principle, and about the relation by which Christ is referred to the Mother; then diverse opinions arose. « Some, attending to the cause of filiation, which is the nativity, posit in Christ two filiations, just as also two nativities; others, however, attending to the subject of filiation, which is the person or hypostasis of the Son, posit only one filiation, just as also one hypostasis or person » (so S. Thomas, Summa III, q. 35, a. 5). This second opinion the older Scholastics hold: Alexander of Hales, B. Albert, S. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise, and Dionysius the Carthusian together with our author; whose principal foundation is « that the subject of filiation is the person itself, not the nature except by reason of the person » (here in the body). Yet S. Thomas adds (loc. cit.): « In a certain respect each opinion states something true. For if we attend to the perfect accounts of filiation, two filiations must be stated according to the duality of nativities; but if we attend to the subject of filiation, which can be nothing but the eternal supposit, there can be in Christ really only the eternal filiation ». Ss. Thomas and Bonaventure agree also in the solution of the 2nd argument to the contrary, teaching that the Son of God (Christ) is referred to the Mother only by a relation of reason of temporal filiation, such that respects are indeed multiplied, but not real relations. For « from the fact that the Son of God is referred to the Mother, it does not follow that he have another filiation according to the thing, but [only] another respect of relation » (S. Thomas, here a. 5, ad 2). But Richard of Mediavilla (here a. 2, q. 2) explains the first opinion thus: « It must be said, without prejudice, that in Christ there are two filiations: one with respect to the Father, which is not referred to the Mother, and another, temporal, with respect to the Mother, which is referred to the Mother, which belongs to him by reason of the human nature ». And in the solution to 4 he says that the filiation and the relation with respect to the Mother is real. Nonetheless with the rest he holds (ad 1) that there by no means follows from this the error that on account of two filiations there are two sons in Christ. That there are two real filiations in Christ, Scotus too teaches (here in each Writing, q. 1) and argues against that foundation of the second opinion, that filiation is proper to the person, not to the nature, and at the same time contends that the relation of filiation to the Mother is real, which assertion Suárez (in pt. III of the Summa, t. II, disp. 12, sect. 2) says to be the more common opinion of the theologians. To this Aegidius Romanus also lends support, who strives by S. Thomas's very own principles to overturn the opinion of his master. Durandus too in fact follows the same path, although in words he professes to follow a certain middle opinion. But Henry of Ghent (Quodl. 4, q. 3) asserts: « There is a single real relation of filiation in the Son of God to two generations and nativities »; and he adds, to explain his opinion, « that the eternal filiation itself anew regards the Mother on account of the new nature ».

II. Besides those already cited: Alexander of Hales, Summa pt. III, q. 10, m. 3. — B. Albert, here a. 2. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 3, a. 2. — Aegidius Romanus, here q. 3, a. 2, and dub. lat. 1-5. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 2.

III. The following (3rd) question treats not against the Adoptianists, who deny that Christ, insofar as he is man, is a natural Son of God (concerning which cf. below d. 10, a. 2, q. 1), but properly of Christ's temporal nativity with respect to the Mother, concerning which many things have already been said above at d. 4, a. 3, q. 1-3. — Very many of the ancient Scholastics touch on this matter only in the question whether in Christ there are two nativities (cf. here q. 1). Specifically they treat of it: Alexander of Hales, Summa pt. III, q. 10, m. 5, a. 2. — Aegidius Romanus, here q. 3, a. 3. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2, q. 3. — Dionysius the Carthusian, loc. cit.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Secundum Aristot., V. Metaph. text. 20. (IV. c. 15.) triplex est relationis fundamentum et causa sive, ut in corp. quaest. dicitur, principium a quo, scil. unitas et numerus (convenientia et disconvenientia), actio et passio, et mensura ac mensurabile. — De minori cfr. q. praeced. — In fine arg. cod. Z voci effectus praefigit eius.
    According to Aristotle, Metaphysics V, text 20 (IV, c. 15), the foundation and cause of relation — or, as is said in the body of the question, the principle from which — is threefold, namely: unity and number (agreement and disagreement), action and passion, and measure and measurable. — On the minor premise cf. the preceding question. — At the end of the argument codex Z prefixes eius to the word effectus.
  2. De Praedicam. c. de His quae ad aliquid: Est autem esse iis quae ad aliquid sunt idem ac ad aliquid aliquo modo se habere. Cfr. supra pag. 170, nota 7. Et I. Topic. c. 13. dicit: Si enim alterum [oppositorum] multipliciter dicitur, et reliquum. Et V. Ethic. c. 1. ait: Si unum multis modis dicitur, alterum quoque dicatur. Cfr. de Praedicam. c. de Quali.
    Categories, c. On Things in Relation to Something: « For to be, for things that are in relation to something, is the same as to be related in some way to something. » Cf. above p. 170, note 7. And in Topics I, c. 13, he says: « For if one [of the opposites] is said in many ways, so is the other. » And in Ethics V, c. 1, he says: « If one is said in many ways, let the other be said [in many ways] too. » Cf. Categories, c. On Quality.
  3. Aristot., VII. Topic. c. 1: « Nam [si sunt eadem] quaecumque alteri accidunt, et alteri oportet accidere » etc. Ibid. etiam haec habetur sententia, quam pro seq. arg. illustrando hic afferimus: Si potest alterum sine altero esse; non erit enim idem ad [ei] idem.
    Aristotle, Topics VII, c. 1: « For [if they are the same] whatever befalls the one must also befall the other », etc. There too is found this maxim, which we cite here to illustrate the following argument: « If the one can be without the other; for it will not be the same as [identical to] the same. »
  4. Edd. cum nonnullis codd. adiungunt matre.
    The editions, with some codices, add matre.
  5. B. Albert., hic a. 2. ait: Ponamus, unum magistrum hodie habere unum discipulum et cras alium et ita successive usque ad mille, oportebit secundum hoc, quod mille magistri generarentur in ipso, quod absurdum est.
    B. Albert, here a. 2, says: Let us suppose one master to have today one disciple and tomorrow another, and so successively up to a thousand; according to this it would be necessary that a thousand masterships be generated in him, which is absurd.
  6. De Fide Trin. c. 8, et II. Cur Deus homo, c. 9. Cfr. supra pag. 17, nota 3. et 7. — Pro de Virgine codd. I. bb ex Virgine.
    On the Faith of the Trinity, c. 8, and Cur Deus homo II, c. 9. Cf. above p. 17, note 3 and 7. — For de Virgine codices I and bb [read] ex Virgine.
  7. Dist. 6. a. 1. q. 1. — Symbolum hic memoratum est Athanasianum. — De maiori cfr. q. praeced. in corp. et tom. I. pag. 411, nota 6 nec non tom. II. pag. 58, nota 2.
    Dist. 6, a. 1, q. 1. — The Creed here mentioned is the Athanasian. — On the major premise cf. the preceding question in the body, and tome I, p. 411, note 6, as well as tome II, p. 58, note 2.
  8. Codd. P bb addunt est. Paulo superius post nec ratione cod. K adiicit eius. Edd., consentientibus nonnullis codd., constructionem huius proposit. non modice mutaverunt, siquidem, post verba sed ratione subiecti eius in quo interiecta vocula Et, cum hac vocula novam incipiunt propositionem, quam cum seq. immediate connectunt, omisso quoniam ante subiectum filiationis. Pro Et quoniam subiectum filiationis cod. I Quoniam ergo subiectum etc., alii codd. Quoniam subiectum etc.
    Codices P and bb add est. A little above, after nec ratione, codex K inserts eius. The editions, with some codices agreeing, altered the construction of this sentence not a little, since, after the words sed ratione subiecti eius in quo they interpose the particle Et, and with this particle begin a new sentence, which they connect immediately with what follows, omitting quoniam before subiectum filiationis. For Et quoniam subiectum filiationis codex I [reads] Quoniam ergo subiectum, etc.; other codices [read] Quoniam subiectum, etc.
  9. Supple: secundum numerum.
    Supply: according to number.
  10. Pro quando autem correlativum cod. X si dicatur de relativo quod, edd. sed si unum correlativum. In fine solut. edd. voci Virginis praefigunt hominis.
    For quando autem correlativum codex X [reads] si dicatur de relativo quod, the editions [read] sed si unum correlativum. At the end of the solution the editions prefix hominis to the word Virginis.
  11. Hic in solut. ad 1. et q. praeced. ad 6. — Aliquanto superius pro supponit codd. Z bb praesupponit, et mox pro praesupponit codd. G H L N T U W Y nec non edd. 1, 2 perperam non praesupponit (vel non supponit). — Cfr. supra a. 1. q. 2.
    Here in the solution to 1 and in the preceding question, ad 6. — Somewhat above, for supponit codices Z bb [read] praesupponit, and shortly after, for praesupponit codices G H L N T U W Y as well as editions 1 and 2 wrongly [read] non praesupponit (or non supponit). — Cf. above a. 1, q. 2.
  12. Cfr. corp. quaest. huius et praeced.
    Cf. the body of this question and of the preceding one. ---
← Dist. 8, Art. 2, Q. 1Dist. 8, Art. 2, Q. 3→