title: Capitula

title_alt: INCIPIUNT CAPITULA PRIMI LIBRI SENTENTIARUM

source_text:
<!-- page 17 -->

# INCIPIUNT CAPITULA PRIMI LIBRI SENTENTIARUM[^p17-15].

### Distinctio I.

**Cap. I.** Omnis doctrina est de rebus vel de signis.

**II.** De rebus, quibus fruendum est vel utendum, et de his quae fruuntur et[^p17-16] utuntur.

**III.** Quid sit frui vel[^p17-17] uti.

### Distinctio II.

**Cap. I.** De Trinitate et Unitate.

**II.** Quae fuerit intentio scribentium[^p17-18] de Trinitate.

**III.** Quis ordo sit servandus, cum de Trinitate agitur.

**IV.** De testimoniis veteris Testamenti, quibus Trinitatis mysterium declaratur.

**V.** De testimoniis novi Testamenti ad idem pertinentibus.

### Distinctio III.

**Cap. I.** De cognitione Creatoris per creaturas, in quibus Trinitatis vestigium apparet.

**II.** De imagine et similitudine Trinitatis in anima humana.

**III.** De similitudine creantis et creatae[^p17-19] trinitatis.

**IV.** De Trinitatis unitate[^p17-20].

### Distinctio IV.

**Cap. I.** Utrum Deus Pater se Deum genuerit[^p17-21].

**II.** Utrum Trinitas de uno Deo praedicetur, sicut unus Deus de[^p17-22] tribus personis.

### Distinctio V.

**Cap. I.** Utrum divina essentia genuerit Filium, vel genita sit a
<!-- page 18 -->
Patre, vel de ipsa natus sit Filius, vel Spiritus sanctus procedens[^p18-1].

**II.** Quod Filius non est de nihilo, sed de aliquo, non tamen de materia, sic[^p18-2] et Spiritus sanctus.

**III.** Quare Verbum Patris dicatur Filius naturae[^p18-3].

### Distinctio VI.

Utrum Pater voluntate genuerit Filium, an necessitate[^p18-4], et an volens vel nolens sit Deus.

### Distinctio VII.

**Cap. I.** Utrum Pater potuerit[^p18-5] vel voluerit gignere Filium.

**II.** An[^p18-6] posse gignere Filium sit aliqua potentia in Patre, quae non sit in Filio.

### Distinctio VIII.

**Cap. I.** De veritate ac proprietate divinae essentiae.

**II.** De incommutabilitate eiusdem.

**III.** De simplicitate eiusdem.

**IV.** De corporali et spirituali creatura, quomodo sit multiplex et non simplex.

**V.** Quod[^p18-7] Deus, cum sit simplex, tamen multipliciter dicitur.

**VI.** Quod Dei simplicitas nulli praedicamentorum subiicitur.

**VII.** Quod Deus abusive dicitur substantia.

**VIII.** Quod non est in Deo aliquid, quod non sit Deus.

### Distinctio IX.

**Cap. I.** De distinctione trium personarum.

**II.** De coaeternitate Patris et Filii.

**III.** De ineffabili et inintelligibili[^p18-8] generationis modo.

**IV.** Utrum debeat dici: semper gignitur Filius vel semper genitus est.

**V.** De obiectionibus haereticorum nitentium probare, Filium non esse coaeternum Patri.

### Distinctio X.

**Cap. I.** De Spiritu sancto, quod[^p18-9] amor Patris et Filii proprie dicitur, cum sit in Trinitate amor, qui est Trinitas, sicut Verbum proprie dicitur sapientia, et tamen tota Trinitas dicitur sapientia.

**II.** Quod eadem nomina proprie et universaliter accipiuntur.

**III.** Quod Spiritus sanctus sicut Patri et Filio est communis, ita commune nomen habet proprium.

### Distinctio XI.

**Cap. I.** Quod Spiritus sanctus procedit a Patre et Filio, quem tamen Graeci a Filio procedere diffitentur.

**II.** De convenientia Latinorum et Graecorum[^p18-10] in sensu et differentia in verbis.

### Distinctio XII.

**Cap. I.** Utrum Spiritus sanctus prius[^p18-11] vel plenius procedat a Patre quam a Filio.

**II.** Quod Spiritus sanctus principaliter et proprie dicitur procedere a Patre.

### Distinctio XIII.

**Cap. I.** Quare[^p18-12] Spiritus sanctus, cum sit de substantia Patris, non dicatur genitus, sed tantum procedens.

**II.** Cur Filius dicatur procedere, cum Spiritus sanctus non dicatur gigni.

**III.** Quod non potest mortalis distinguere inter generationem Filii et processionem Spiritus sancti.

**IV.** Utrum Spiritus sanctus debeat dici ingenitus, cum non sit genitus.

### Distinctio XIV.

**Cap. I.** De gemina processione Spiritus sancti, temporali et aeterna.

**II.** Quod non solum dona Spiritus sancti, sed etiam ipse Spiritus sanctus[^p18-13] datur hominibus et mittitur.

**III.** An[^p18-14] viri sancti possint dare Spiritum sanctum.

### Distinctio XV.

**Cap. I.** Quod Spiritus sanctus a se ipso datur et Filius a se ipso mittitur.

**II.** Quomodo intelligenda sit missio utriusque.

**III.** Quod a Spiritu sancto etiam[^p18-15] Filius sit missus.

**IV.** Quod Filius etiam sit datus[^p18-16] a se ipso.

**V.** Quomodo intelligendum sit illud[^p18-17]: A me ipso non veni.

**VI.** Utrum semel tantum sit missus Filius, an saepe.

**VII.** De duobus modis missionis Filii.

**VIII.** Quod secundum alterum modum semel sit missus, secundum alterum saepe, et secundum alterum modum dicitur missus in mundum, secundum alterum non.

**IX.** Quare Pater non dicitur missus.

**X.** Quod Filius et Spiritus sanctus non sunt quasi[^p18-18] minores Patre, quia missi.

### Distinctio XVI.

**Cap. I.** De missione Spiritus sancti, quae fit duobus modis, visibiliter et invisibiliter[^p18-19].

**II.** Quod Filius, secundum quod homo, non modo Patre, sed Spiritu sancto etiam minor est.

### Distinctio XVII.

**Cap. I.** Quod Spiritus sanctus est caritas, qua diligimus Deum et proximum.
<!-- page 19 -->
**II.** Quod fraterna[^p19-1] dilectio est Deus nec Pater vel Filius, sed tantum Spiritus sanctus.

**III.** Quod non est dictum per causam illud: Deus caritas est, sicut illud: Tu es patientia mea et spes mea.

**IV.** Quomodo Spiritus sanctus mittatur vel detur nobis.

**V.** Utrum Spiritus sanctus augeatur in homine, vel minus et[^p19-2] magis habeatur vel detur, et an detur habenti et non habenti.

**VI.** Quod aliqui dicunt, caritatem Dei et proximi non esse Spiritum sanctum.

### Distinctio XVIII.

**Cap. I.** Utrum concedendum sit, per donum dari dona.

**II.** Utrum Spiritus sanctus eadem ratione dicatur donum, qua datum sive donatum.

**III.** Quod sicut Filius nascendo accepit non tantum, ut esset Filius, sed etiam essentia[^p19-3], ita Spiritus sanctus procedendo accepit non tantum, ut esset donum, sed ut esset essentia.

**IV.** Quod Spiritus sanctus dicitur donum et donatum secundum duos modos praedictos processionis, qui[^p19-4], secundum quod donum est, refertur ad Patrem et Filium; secundum quod datum, ad eum qui dedit et ad eos quibus datur.

**V.** An Filius, cum sit nobis datus, possit dici noster, ut Spiritus sanctus.

**VI.** Utrum Spiritus sanctus ad se ipsum referatur.

### Distinctio XIX.

**Cap. I.** De aequalitate trium personarum.

**II.** Quod aeternitas et magnitudo et potentia in Deo unum est[^p19-5], etsi videantur diversa.

**III.** Quod aliqua personarum aliam non excedit magnitudine, quia non est maior una persona quam alia, nec maius aliquid duae quam una, nec tres quam duae vel una.

**IV.** Quomodo dicitur Pater esse in Filio et Filius in Patre et Spiritus sanctus in utroque.

**V.** Quod nulla personarum pars est in Trinitate.

**VI.** Quare tres personae dicantur summe unum.

**VII.** Cum dicimus, tres personas esse unam essentiam, nec ut genus de speciebus nec ut speciem de individuis praedicamus, quia non est essentia genus, et persona species, vel essentia species et personae individua.

**VIII.** Quod nec[^p19-6] secundum materialem causam dicuntur tres personae una essentia.

**IX.** Nec ita dicuntur tres personae una essentia ut tres homines una natura vel unius naturae.

**X.** Utrum tres personae differant numero, quae proprietatibus distinctae sunt.

**XI.** Quare tres personae simul non sunt maius aliquid quam una.

**XII.** Quod Deus non est dicendus triplex, sed unus.

### Distinctio XX.

**Cap. I.** Quod aliqua personarum non excedit aliam potentia[^p19-7].

**II.** Quod non minus potest Filius quam Pater.

**III.** De obiectionibus haereticis contra hoc[^p19-8] et responsionibus catholicis.

### Distinctio XXI.

**Cap. I.** Quomodo possit dici solus Pater vel solus Filius vel solus Spiritus sanctus, cum sint inseparabiles.

**II.** Utrum debeat dici solus Pater est Deus, vel solus Filius est Deus, vel solus Spiritus sanctus est Deus; an Pater est solus Deus, Filius est solus Deus, Spiritus sanctus est solus Deus.

**III.** Quomodo Trinitas dicatur[^p19-9] solus Deus, cum ipsa sit cum spiritibus et animabus sanctis.

### Distinctio XXII.

**Cap. I.** De nominum differentia[^p19-10], quibus utimur loquentes de Deo.

**II.** De his[^p19-11] quae temporaliter Deo conveniunt et relative dicuntur.

**III.** De hoc nomine, quod est Trinitas[^p19-12].

**IV.** De his[^p19-13] quae proprie ad singulas personas pertinent, et de his quae unitatem essentiae significant.

### Distinctio XXIII.

**Cap. I.** De hoc nomine, quod est[^p19-14] persona, quod cum secundum substantiam dicatur, non singulariter, sed pluraliter accipitur in summa.

**II.** Qua necessitate dictum sit[^p19-15] tres personae a Latinis, et a Graecis tres hypostases vel substantiae.

**III.** Quare non dicimus, Patrem et Filium et Spiritum sanctum esse tres Deos, ut tres personas.

**IV.** Cur non dicimus tres essentias, ut tres personas.

**V.** Quod in Trinitate non est diversitas vel singularitas vel solitudo, sed unitas et trinitas et distinctio et identitas.
<!-- page 20 -->
**VI.** Quod non debet dici Deus multiplex.

### Distinctio XXIV.

Quid significetur his nominibus unus[^p20-1], duo vel duae, tres vel tria, trinus vel trinitas, plures vel pluralitas, distinctio vel distinctae, cum his utimur loquentes de Deo.

### Distinctio XXV.

**Cap. I.** Quid significetur hoc nomine persona in plurali numero, scilicet cum dicitur personae[^p20-2].

**II.** De triplici acceptione huius nominis persona in Trinitate.

**III.** Ex quo sensu dicatur alia persona Patris, alia Filii[^p20-3], sive alius in persona Pater, alius Filius.

**IV.** De hoc nomine hypostasis.

### Distinctio XXVI.

**Cap. I.** De proprietatibus personarum et de nominibus earum relativis.

**II.** Quod non omnia dicuntur de Deo secundum substantiam, quaedam enim secundum relationem, nihil tamen secundum accidens.

**III.** Quare dicatur, proprium esse Unigeniti Filium Dei esse, cum etiam homines sint filii Dei.

**IV.** Quod homo dicitur filius Trinitatis et Trinitas pater hominum.

**V.** Quod Spiritus sanctus eadem proprietate donum dicitur, qua Spiritus sanctus, et utroque modo relative ad Patrem et[^p20-4] Filium.

**VI.** Utrum Pater vel Trinitas ipsa vel Filius[^p20-5] possit dici Spiritus sanctus.

**VII.** Quod non omnia[^p20-6], quae relative dicuntur, suis ad se vicissim respondent vocabulis.

### Distinctio XXVII.

**Cap. I.** Quae sint[^p20-7] illae proprietates, quibus distinguuntur personae.

**II.** Quod non est omnino idem dicere: esse patrem et genuisse vel habere filium.

**III.** Quod proprietates determinant hypostases, non substantiam, id est naturam.

**IV.** De generali regula eorum quae ad se, et eorum quae relative dicuntur.

**V.** An secundum substantiam dicatur Deus de Deo et huiusmodi.

### Distinctio XXVIII.

**Cap. I.** Quod non tantum tres sunt proprietates personarum.

**II.** An solus Pater debeat dici non-genitus vel non-Filius, sicut dicitur ingenitus.

**III.** De proprietate, quam notat ingenitus.

**IV.** Responsio Ambrosii contra Arianos de ingenito.

**V.** An diversum sit esse Patrem et esse Filium.

**VI.** Si[^p20-8] sapientia genita dicitur secundum relationem, vel secundum substantiam.

**VII.** De imagine.

### Distinctio XXIX.

**Cap. I.** De principio.

**II.** Quod ab aeterno Pater est principium et Filius, sed[^p20-9] non Spiritus sanctus.

**III.** Quomodo Pater sit principium Filii, et ipse[^p20-10] cum Filio Spiritus sancti.

**IV.** An eadem notione[^p20-11] Pater et Filius sint principium Spiritus sancti.

### Distinctio XXX.

**Cap. I.** De his quae temporaliter de Deo dicuntur, et relative secundum accidens, quod non Deo, sed creaturis accidit.

**II.** An Spiritus sanctus dicatur datum vel donatum relative ad se, cum a se detur.

### Distinctio XXXI.

**Cap. I.** An Filius dicatur aequalis vel similis Patri secundum substantiam.

**II.** De sententia sancti Hilarii, qua in Trinitate personarum propria ostendit.

**III.** Quare Patri attribuitur unitas.

**IV.** Quare Pater et Filius dicantur esse[^p20-12] unum vel unus Deus, sed non unus.

**V.** Quare dicitur esse aequalitas in Filio.

**VI.** Quare in Spiritu sancto dicitur esse utriusque[^p20-13] concordia vel connexio.

### Distinctio XXXII.

**Cap. I.** Utrum Pater vel Filius ea dilectione diligat[^p20-14], quae procedit ab utroque, id est Spiritu sancto.

**II.** Utrum Pater sit sapiens sapientia, quam genuit[^p20-15].

**III.** An Filius sit sapiens se ipso vel per se ipsum.

**IV.** An una tantum sit sapientia Patris[^p20-16].

**V.** Sicut in Trinitate est dilectio, quae est Trinitas, et tamen Spiritus sanctus est dilectio, quae non est Trinitas, nec ideo sunt duae dilectiones, ita et de sapientia.
<!-- page 21 -->
**VI.** Quare Pater non dicitur sapiens sapientia genita, sicut dicitur diligens dilectione, quae ab ipso procedit.

### Distinctio XXXIII.

**Cap. I.** Utrum proprietates personarum sint ipsae personae vel divina usia.

**II.** Quomodo proprietates possint esse in natura Dei nec eam[^p21-1] determinent.

### Distinctio XXXIV.

**Cap. I.** De verbis Hilarii, quibus secundum pravorum intelligentiam videtur dicere, non idem esse divinam naturam et rem naturae, et non idem esse Deum et quod Dei est.

**II.** Utrum ita possit dici: unus Deus trium personarum, ut dicitur una essentia trium personarum; et tres personae unius Dei, ut tres personae unius essentiae.

**III.** Quod potentia, sapientia, bonitas in Scriptura interdum ad personas distincte referuntur.

**IV.** Quare Patri potentia, Filio sapientia, Spiritui sancto bonitas tribuatur, cum sit una potentia, sapientia, bonitas trium.

**V.** De hoc nomine homousion, ubi in auctoritate receptum sit, et quid significet.

### Distinctio XXXV.

**Cap. I.** De scientia, praescientia, providentia, dispositione et praedestinatione Dei.

**II.** De quibus sit praescientia vel providentia.

**III.** De quibus dispositio.

**IV.** De quibus praedestinatio.

**V.** De quibus providentia.

**VI.** De quibus sapientia vel scientia.

**VII.** Utrum praescientia vel dispositio vel praedestinatio Dei esse potuerit, si nulla essent futura.

**VIII.** Quod scientia Dei est de temporalibus et aeternis.

**IX.** Quomodo omnia dicuntur esse in Deo et vita in eo.

### Dictinctio XXXVI.

**Cap. I.** Utrum omnia debeant dici esse in Dei essentia, ut in Dei cognitione vel praescientia[^p21-2] esse dicuntur.

**II.** Qua ratione bona dicuntur esse in Deo et non mala.

**III.** Utrum idem sit: omnia esse ex Deo et[^p21-3], per ipsum et in ipso.

**IV.** Quod omnia sunt in quolibet trium et per ipsum et in ipso.

**V.** Quod non omnia, quae ex Deo sunt, etiam de ipso sunt.

### Distinctio XXXVII.

**Cap. I.** Quibus modis dicitur Deus esse in rebus.

**II.** Quod Deus non ubicumque est habitat, sed e converso[^p21-4].

**III.** Ubi erat Deus, antequam esset[^p21-5] creatura.

**IV.** Quod Deus, cum sit in omnibus rebus essentialiter, non tamen coinquinatur sordibus rerum.

**V.** Cum Deus sit ubique et semper, non tamen localis, nec loco nec tempore movetur.

**VI.** Quibus modis aliquid dicatur locale vel[^p21-6] circumscriptibile.

**VII.** Quid sit mutari secundum tempus.

**VIII.** Utrum spiritus creati sint locales et circumscriptibiles.

**IX.** Quod Deus est ubique sine locali motu.

### Distinctio XXXVIII.

**Cap. I.** An scientia vel praescientia Dei sit causa rerum vel e converso.

**II.** Utrum praescientia Dei possit falli.

### Distinctio XXXIX.

**Cap. I.** Utrum scientia Dei possit augeri vel minui vel aliquo modo mutari.

**II.** An Deus possit noviter vel ex tempore scire vel praescire aliquid.

**III.** Utrum Deus possit scire plura, quam scit[^p21-7].

**IV.** Quod Deus et semper et simul scit omnia.

### Distinctio XL.

**Cap. I.** An aliquis praedestinatus possit damnari vel reprobus salvari.

**II.** Quid sit reprobatio Dei, et in quibus consideretur, et quis[^p21-8] sit praedestinationis effectus.

### Distinctio XLI.

**Cap. I.** Utrum aliquod sit meritum obdurationis vel misericordiae.

**II.** De variis super hoc carnalium opinionibus.

**III.** An ea quae semel scit Deus vel praescit, semper sciat vel praesciat et semper scierit vel[^p21-9] praescierit.

### Distinctio XLII.

**Cap. I.** De omnipotentia Dei, quare dicatur omnipotens, cum nos multa possimus[^p21-10], quae ipse non possit.

**II.** Quomodo dicatur Deus omnia posse.

**III.** Quod omnipotentia Dei secundum duo consideretur[^p21-11].

### Distinctio XLIII.

**Cap. I.** Invectio contrà illos qui dicunt, Deum nil posse, nisi quod vult et facit.

### Distinctio XLIV.

**Cap. I.** An Deus possit facere aliquid melius, quam facit, vel alio vel[^p21-12] meliori modo.

**II.** Utrum Deus semper possit omne quod potuit.

### Distinctio XLV.

**Cap. I.** De voluntate Dei, quae essentia Dei est, et de signis eius.

**II.** Quod, licet idem sit Deo velle quod esse[^p21-13], non tamen potest dici, Deus omnia esse quae vult.
<!-- page 22 -->
**III.** De intelligentia harum locutionum: Deus scit vel[^p22-1] Deus vult, Deus scit omnia vel vult aliquid.

**IV.** Quod Dei voluntas summe bona causa est omnium, quae naturaliter sunt, cuius causa non est quaerenda, quia prima et summa causa est omnium.

**V.** Quibus modis accipitur[^p22-2] Dei voluntas.

**VI.** Quod praeceptio, prohibitio, permissio, consilium, operatio nomine voluntatis interdum[^p22-3], intelliguntur.

**VII.** Utrum Deus velit ab omnibus fieri ea quae praecipit, vel non fieri[^p22-4] quae prohibet.

### Distinctio XLVI.

**Cap. I.** Quod voluntas Dei, quae ipse est, in nullo cassari potest.

**II.** Quomodo intelligendum sit illud: Volui congregare filios tuos, et noluisti; et illud: Qui vult omnes homines salvos fieri.

**III.** Utrum mala Deo volente vel nolente fiant.

**IV.** Quomodo intelligendum sit illud Augustini: Mala fieri bonum est.

**V.** De multiplici acceptione boni.

**VI.** Quod mala universitati valent.

**VII.** Quod in Deo non est causa, ut sit homo deterior.

### Distinctio XLVII.

**Cap. I.** Quomodo[^p22-5] voluntas Dei de homine impletur, quocumque se vertat.

**II.** Ex quo sensu quaedam dicuntur fieri contra Dei voluntatem.

**III.** Quare praecepit Deus omnibus bona facere et mala vitare, etsi[^p22-6] non id ab omnibus vult impleri.

### Distinctio XLVIII.

**Cap. I.** Quod homo aliquando bona voluntate aliud vult quam Deus, et mala idem quod Deus.

**II.** Quod Dei voluntas per malas hominum voluntates impletur.

**III.** Utrum placuerit viris sanctis, quod Christus pateretur et moreretur.

**IV.** Utrum passiones Sanctorum debeamus velle.

---

english:
<!-- page 17 -->

# HERE BEGIN THE CHAPTERS OF THE FIRST BOOK OF THE SENTENCES[^p17-15].

### Distinction I.

**Chap. I.** All doctrine is of things or of signs.

**II.** Of things which are to be enjoyed or to be used, and of those which both enjoy and[^p17-16] use.

**III.** What it is to enjoy or[^p17-17] to use.

### Distinction II.

**Chap. I.** Of the Trinity and the Unity.

**II.** What was the intention of those who wrote[^p17-18] concerning the Trinity.

**III.** What order is to be kept when the Trinity is treated of.

**IV.** Of the testimonies of the Old Testament by which the mystery of the Trinity is declared.

**V.** Of the testimonies of the New Testament pertaining to the same.

### Distinction III.

**Chap. I.** Of the knowledge of the Creator through creatures, in which the vestige of the Trinity appears.

**II.** Of the image and likeness of the Trinity in the human soul.

**III.** Of the likeness of the creating and of the created[^p17-19] trinity.

**IV.** Of the unity of the Trinity[^p17-20].

### Distinction IV.

**Chap. I.** Whether God the Father begot Himself as God[^p17-21].

**II.** Whether the Trinity is predicated of the one God, as the one God is predicated of[^p17-22] the three persons.

### Distinction V.

**Chap. I.** Whether the divine essence begot the Son, or was begotten by
<!-- page 18 -->
the Father, or whether the Son was born of it, or the Holy Spirit proceeds from it[^p18-1].

**II.** That the Son is not from nothing, but from something, yet not from matter, and so[^p18-2] also the Holy Spirit.

**III.** Why the Word of the Father is called the Son of nature[^p18-3].

### Distinction VI.

Whether the Father begot the Son by will or by necessity[^p18-4], and whether God is willing or unwilling.

### Distinction VII.

**Chap. I.** Whether the Father was able[^p18-5] or willed to beget the Son.

**II.** Whether[^p18-6] the power to beget the Son is some potency in the Father which is not in the Son.

### Distinction VIII.

**Chap. I.** Of the truth and property of the divine essence.

**II.** Of the immutability of the same.

**III.** Of the simplicity of the same.

**IV.** Of the corporeal and the spiritual creature, how it is manifold and not simple.

**V.** That[^p18-7] God, although He is simple, is nevertheless said in manifold ways.

**VI.** That God's simplicity is subject to none of the predicaments.

**VII.** That God is called substance improperly.

**VIII.** That there is not in God anything which is not God.

### Distinction IX.

**Chap. I.** Of the distinction of the three persons.

**II.** Of the co-eternity of the Father and the Son.

**III.** Of the ineffable and unintelligible[^p18-8] manner of the generation.

**IV.** Whether it ought to be said: the Son is always begotten, or is always begotten already.

**V.** Of the objections of the heretics striving to prove that the Son is not co-eternal with the Father.

### Distinction X.

**Chap. I.** Of the Holy Spirit, that[^p18-9] He is properly called the love of the Father and the Son, although in the Trinity there is a love which is the Trinity, just as the Word is properly called wisdom, and yet the whole Trinity is called wisdom.

**II.** That the same names are taken both properly and universally.

**III.** That the Holy Spirit, just as He is common to the Father and the Son, so has a common name as His own.

### Distinction XI.

**Chap. I.** That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, whom nevertheless the Greeks deny to proceed from the Son.

**II.** Of the agreement of the Latins and the Greeks[^p18-10] in sense and their difference in words.

### Distinction XII.

**Chap. I.** Whether the Holy Spirit proceeds sooner[^p18-11] or more fully from the Father than from the Son.

**II.** That the Holy Spirit is said principally and properly to proceed from the Father.

### Distinction XIII.

**Chap. I.** Why[^p18-12] the Holy Spirit, although He is of the substance of the Father, is not called begotten, but only proceeding.

**II.** Why the Son is said to proceed, although the Holy Spirit is not said to be begotten.

**III.** That a mortal cannot distinguish between the generation of the Son and the procession of the Holy Spirit.

**IV.** Whether the Holy Spirit ought to be called unbegotten, since He is not begotten.

### Distinction XIV.

**Chap. I.** Of the twofold procession of the Holy Spirit, the temporal and the eternal.

**II.** That not only the gifts of the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit Himself[^p18-13] is given to men and is sent.

**III.** Whether[^p18-14] holy men can give the Holy Spirit.

### Distinction XV.

**Chap. I.** That the Holy Spirit is given by Himself and the Son is sent by Himself.

**II.** How the mission of each is to be understood.

**III.** That by the Holy Spirit also[^p18-15] the Son was sent.

**IV.** That the Son also was given[^p18-16] by Himself.

**V.** How that saying is to be understood[^p18-17]: I came not of Myself.

**VI.** Whether the Son was sent only once, or often.

**VII.** Of the two manners of the Son's mission.

**VIII.** That according to the one manner He was sent once, according to the other often, and according to the one manner He is said to have been sent into the world, according to the other not.

**IX.** Why the Father is not said to be sent.

**X.** That the Son and the Holy Spirit are not as it were[^p18-18] less than the Father because they are sent.

### Distinction XVI.

**Chap. I.** Of the mission of the Holy Spirit, which comes about in two manners, visibly and invisibly[^p18-19].

**II.** That the Son, according as He is man, is less not only than the Father, but also than the Holy Spirit.

### Distinction XVII.

**Chap. I.** That the Holy Spirit is the charity by which we love God and neighbour.
<!-- page 19 -->
**II.** That brotherly[^p19-1] love is God, and is neither the Father nor the Son, but only the Holy Spirit.

**III.** That this saying is not spoken by way of cause: God is charity, as this is: Thou art my patience and my hope.

**IV.** How the Holy Spirit is sent or given to us.

**V.** Whether the Holy Spirit is increased in a man, or is had or given less and[^p19-2] more, and whether He is given to one who has Him and to one who has Him not.

**VI.** That some say that the charity of God and of neighbour is not the Holy Spirit.

### Distinction XVIII.

**Chap. I.** Whether it is to be granted that gifts are given through the Gift.

**II.** Whether the Holy Spirit is called Gift on the same account on which He is called given or bestowed.

**III.** That just as the Son by being born received not only that He should be Son, but also essence[^p19-3], so the Holy Spirit by proceeding received not only that He should be Gift, but that He should be essence.

**IV.** That the Holy Spirit is called Gift and given according to the two aforesaid manners of the procession, which[^p19-4], according as He is Gift, is referred to the Father and the Son; according as He is given, to Him who gave and to those to whom He is given.

**V.** Whether the Son, since He has been given to us, can be called ours, as the Holy Spirit is.

**VI.** Whether the Holy Spirit is referred to Himself.

### Distinction XIX.

**Chap. I.** Of the equality of the three persons.

**II.** That eternity and magnitude and power in God are one thing[^p19-5], even though they seem diverse.

**III.** That no one of the persons exceeds another in magnitude, since one person is not greater than another, nor are two anything greater than one, nor three than two or one.

**IV.** How the Father is said to be in the Son and the Son in the Father and the Holy Spirit in both.

**V.** That no one of the persons is a part in the Trinity.

**VI.** Why the three persons are called supremely one.

**VII.** That when we say that the three persons are one essence, we predicate it neither as a genus of species nor as a species of individuals, since essence is not a genus and person a species, nor essence a species and the persons individuals.

**VIII.** That neither[^p19-6] according to a material cause are the three persons called one essence.

**IX.** Nor are the three persons called one essence as three men are one nature or of one nature.

**X.** Whether the three persons differ in number, being distinguished by properties.

**XI.** Why the three persons together are not anything greater than one.

**XII.** That God is not to be called threefold, but one.

### Distinction XX.

**Chap. I.** That no one of the persons exceeds another in power[^p19-7].

**II.** That the Son can do no less than the Father.

**III.** Of the heretical objections against this[^p19-8] and the catholic answers.

### Distinction XXI.

**Chap. I.** How the Father alone or the Son alone or the Holy Spirit alone can be spoken of, since they are inseparable.

**II.** Whether it ought to be said, the Father alone is God, or the Son alone is God, or the Holy Spirit alone is God; or, the Father is God alone, the Son is God alone, the Holy Spirit is God alone.

**III.** How the Trinity is called[^p19-9] God alone, although it is together with the holy spirits and souls.

### Distinction XXII.

**Chap. I.** Of the difference of the names[^p19-10] which we use in speaking of God.

**II.** Of those things[^p19-11] which belong to God temporally and are said relatively.

**III.** Of this name, which is Trinity[^p19-12].

**IV.** Of those things[^p19-13] which pertain properly to the several persons, and of those which signify the unity of the essence.

### Distinction XXIII.

**Chap. I.** Of this name, which is[^p19-14] person, which, although it is said according to substance, is taken not in the singular but in the plural in the sum.

**II.** By what necessity it was said[^p19-15], three persons by the Latins, and by the Greeks three hypostases or substances.

**III.** Why we do not say that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are three Gods, as we say three persons.

**IV.** Why we do not say three essences, as we say three persons.

**V.** That in the Trinity there is no diversity or singularity or solitude, but unity and trinity and distinction and identity.
<!-- page 20 -->
**VI.** That God ought not to be called manifold.

### Distinction XXIV.

What is signified by these names: one[^p20-1], two, three, threefold or trinity, several or plurality, distinction or distinct, when we use them in speaking of God.

### Distinction XXV.

**Chap. I.** What is signified by this name person in the plural number, that is, when persons is said[^p20-2].

**II.** Of the threefold acceptation of this name person in the Trinity.

**III.** In what sense the person of the Father is called one and that of the Son another[^p20-3], or the Father another in person and the Son another.

**IV.** Of this name hypostasis.

### Distinction XXVI.

**Chap. I.** Of the properties of the persons and of their relative names.

**II.** That not all things are said of God according to substance, for some are said according to relation, yet nothing according to accident.

**III.** Why it is said to be proper to the Only-begotten to be the Son of God, although men also are sons of God.

**IV.** That man is called the son of the Trinity and the Trinity the father of men.

**V.** That the Holy Spirit is called Gift by the same property by which He is called Holy Spirit, and in both manners relatively to the Father and[^p20-4] the Son.

**VI.** Whether the Father or the Trinity itself or the Son[^p20-5] can be called Holy Spirit.

**VII.** That not all things[^p20-6] which are said relatively answer one another mutually by their own words.

### Distinction XXVII.

**Chap. I.** What those properties are[^p20-7] by which the persons are distinguished.

**II.** That it is not altogether the same to say: to be a father, and to have begotten or to have a son.

**III.** That the properties determine the hypostases, not the substance, that is, the nature.

**IV.** Of the general rule of those things which are said in relation to themselves, and of those which are said relatively.

**V.** Whether God is said of God according to substance, and the like.

### Distinction XXVIII.

**Chap. I.** That the properties of the persons are not only three.

**II.** Whether the Father alone ought to be called non-begotten or non-Son, as He is called unbegotten.

**III.** Of the property which unbegotten notes.

**IV.** The answer of Ambrose against the Arians concerning the unbegotten.

**V.** Whether to be the Father and to be the Son are diverse.

**VI.** Whether[^p20-8] begotten wisdom is said according to relation, or according to substance.

**VII.** Of the image.

### Distinction XXIX.

**Chap. I.** Of the principle.

**II.** That from eternity the Father is a principle, and the Son, but[^p20-9] not the Holy Spirit.

**III.** How the Father is the principle of the Son, and He Himself[^p20-10] together with the Son the principle of the Holy Spirit.

**IV.** Whether by the same notion[^p20-11] the Father and the Son are the principle of the Holy Spirit.

### Distinction XXX.

**Chap. I.** Of those things which are said of God temporally, and relatively according to accident, which befalls not God but creatures.

**II.** Whether the Holy Spirit is called given or bestowed relatively to Himself, since He is given by Himself.

### Distinction XXXI.

**Chap. I.** Whether the Son is called equal to or like the Father according to substance.

**II.** Of the opinion of Saint Hilary, by which he sets forth the proper characters of the persons in the Trinity.

**III.** Why unity is attributed to the Father.

**IV.** Why the Father and the Son are said to be[^p20-12] one thing or one God, but not one person.

**V.** Why equality is said to be in the Son.

**VI.** Why the concord or connexion of both[^p20-13] is said to be in the Holy Spirit.

### Distinction XXXII.

**Chap. I.** Whether the Father or the Son loves[^p20-14] with that love which proceeds from both, that is, with the Holy Spirit.

**II.** Whether the Father is wise with the wisdom which He begot[^p20-15].

**III.** Whether the Son is wise by Himself or through Himself.

**IV.** Whether there is only one wisdom of the Father[^p20-16].

**V.** That, just as in the Trinity there is a love which is the Trinity, and yet the Holy Spirit is a love which is not the Trinity, nor are there therefore two loves, so also concerning wisdom.
<!-- page 21 -->
**VI.** Why the Father is not called wise with begotten wisdom, as He is called loving with the love which proceeds from Him.

### Distinction XXXIII.

**Chap. I.** Whether the properties of the persons are the persons themselves or the divine *usia*.

**II.** How the properties can be in the nature of God and yet not determine it[^p21-1].

### Distinction XXXIV.

**Chap. I.** Of the words of Hilary, by which, according to the understanding of the perverse, he seems to say that the divine nature and the thing of the nature are not the same, and that God and what is of God are not the same.

**II.** Whether it can be said thus: one God of three persons, as one essence of three persons is said; and three persons of one God, as three persons of one essence.

**III.** That power, wisdom, goodness are in Scripture sometimes referred distinctly to the persons.

**IV.** Why power is attributed to the Father, wisdom to the Son, goodness to the Holy Spirit, although the power, wisdom and goodness of the three is one.

**V.** Of this name *homousion*, where it was received into authority, and what it signifies.

### Distinction XXXV.

**Chap. I.** Of the knowledge, foreknowledge, providence, disposition and predestination of God.

**II.** Of what things there is foreknowledge or providence.

**III.** Of what things disposition.

**IV.** Of what things predestination.

**V.** Of what things providence.

**VI.** Of what things wisdom or knowledge.

**VII.** Whether the foreknowledge or disposition or predestination of God could have been, if there were nothing future.

**VIII.** That the knowledge of God is of things temporal and eternal.

**IX.** How all things are said to be in God, and life in Him.

### Distinction XXXVI.

**Chap. I.** Whether all things ought to be said to be in the essence of God, as they are said to be in the knowledge or foreknowledge of God[^p21-2].

**II.** By what account good things are said to be in God and not evil things.

**III.** Whether it is the same: that all things are from God, and[^p21-3] through Him and in Him.

**IV.** That all things are in each of the three, and through Him and in Him.

**V.** That not all things which are from God are also of Him.

### Distinction XXXVII.

**Chap. I.** In what manners God is said to be in things.

**II.** That God does not dwell wherever He is, but the converse[^p21-4].

**III.** Where God was before the creature was[^p21-5].

**IV.** That God, although He is in all things essentially, is nevertheless not defiled by the foulness of things.

**V.** That although God is everywhere and always, He is nevertheless not local, nor is He moved either in place or in time.

**VI.** In what manners something is called local or[^p21-6] circumscriptible.

**VII.** What it is to be changed according to time.

**VIII.** Whether created spirits are local and circumscriptible.

**IX.** That God is everywhere without local motion.

### Distinction XXXVIII.

**Chap. I.** Whether the knowledge or foreknowledge of God is the cause of things, or the converse.

**II.** Whether the foreknowledge of God can be deceived.

### Distinction XXXIX.

**Chap. I.** Whether the knowledge of God can be increased or diminished or in any manner changed.

**II.** Whether God can know or foreknow anything anew or in time.

**III.** Whether God can know more things than He knows[^p21-7].

**IV.** That God knows all things both always and at once.

### Distinction XL.

**Chap. I.** Whether one predestined can be damned, or one reprobate be saved.

**II.** What the reprobation of God is, and in what things it is to be considered, and what[^p21-8] the effect of predestination is.

### Distinction XLI.

**Chap. I.** Whether there is any merit of hardening or of mercy.

**II.** Of the various opinions of carnal men upon this.

**III.** Whether the things which God once knows or foreknows He always knows or foreknows, and has always known or[^p21-9] foreknown.

### Distinction XLII.

**Chap. I.** Of the omnipotence of God: why He is called omnipotent, although we can do many things[^p21-10] which He cannot.

**II.** How God is said to be able to do all things.

**III.** That the omnipotence of God is considered[^p21-11] according to two things.

### Distinction XLIII.

**Chap. I.** An invective against those who say that God can do nothing except what He wills and does.

### Distinction XLIV.

**Chap. I.** Whether God can make anything better than He makes, or in another or[^p21-12] a better manner.

**II.** Whether God can always do everything that He could.

### Distinction XLV.

**Chap. I.** Of the will of God, which is the essence of God, and of the signs of it.

**II.** That, although to will is the same for God as to be[^p21-13], it cannot nevertheless be said that God is all the things which He wills.
<!-- page 22 -->
**III.** Of the understanding of these locutions: God knows or[^p22-1] God wills, God knows all things or wills something.

**IV.** That the supremely good will of God is the cause of all things which are naturally, the cause of which is not to be sought, because it is the first and supreme cause of all things.

**V.** In what manners the will of God is taken[^p22-2].

**VI.** That precept, prohibition, permission, counsel, operation are sometimes[^p22-3] understood under the name of will.

**VII.** Whether God wills that all men do the things which He commands, or do not do[^p22-4] the things which He forbids.

### Distinction XLVI.

**Chap. I.** That the will of God, which He Himself is, can in nothing be made void.

**II.** How that saying is to be understood: I would have gathered thy children together, and thou wouldest not; and that saying: Who will have all men to be saved.

**III.** Whether evils come about with God willing or unwilling.

**IV.** How that saying of Augustine is to be understood: That evils come about is good.

**V.** Of the manifold acceptation of the good.

**VI.** That evils avail for the universe.

**VII.** That in God there is no cause that a man should be worse.

### Distinction XLVII.

**Chap. I.** How[^p22-5] the will of God concerning man is fulfilled, whithersoever he turns himself.

**II.** In what sense certain things are said to come about against the will of God.

**III.** Why God commanded all men to do good and to shun evil, even though[^p22-6] He does not will that it be fulfilled by all.

### Distinction XLVIII.

**Chap. I.** That a man sometimes with a good will wills something other than God does, and with an evil will the same as God does.

**II.** That the will of God is fulfilled through the evil wills of men.

**III.** Whether it was pleasing to holy men that Christ should suffer and die.

**IV.** Whether we ought to will the passions of the Saints.

---

la: Hanc tabulam exhibemus, adhibitis 19 codicibus mss., quos in Prolegomenis cap. 3. indicavimus. Addidimus autem distinctiones, ad quas referuntur capitula.

en: We present this table, using the 19 manuscript codices which we have indicated in the Prolegomena, c. 3. We have, however, added the distinctions to which the chapters are referred.

la: Codd. C F P Q R S T *vel.*

en: Codices C F P Q R S T have *vel.*

la: Cod. B *et.* Particula *vel* a scriptoribus sequioris latinitatis crebro usurpatur in sensu copulativo.

en: Codex B has *et.* The particle *vel* is frequently used by writers of later Latinity in a copulative sense.

la: Cod. I *scribendi.*

en: Codex I has *scribendi.*

la: Cod. E *creaturae* et cod. L pro *creantis* habet *creatoris.*

en: Codex E has *creaturae,* and codex L has *creatoris* for *creantis.*

la: Codd. A B G L: De Trinitate *et* Unitate, sed perperam, tum quia eiusmodi titulo inscribitur I. praecedentis dist. capitulum, tum quia in praesenti capitulo agitur praecipue de unitate Trinitatis.

en: Codices A B G L have: Of the Trinity *and* the Unity — but wrongly, both because the first chapter of the preceding distinction is entitled with a title of this kind, and because in the present chapter it is chiefly the unity of the Trinity that is treated.

la: Codd. G H L M addunt *an alium Deum.*

en: Codices G H L M add *an alium Deum.*

la: Cod. D *in,* sed male.

en: Codex D has *in,* but wrongly.

la: Supple: *sit,* vel lege cum edd. 7, 9 *processerit.*

en: Supply: *sit,* or read with edd. 7, 9 *processerit.*

la: Codd. A B *sicut.*

en: Codices A B have *sicut.*

la: Codd. C K L *natura,* sed male.

en: Codices C K L have *natura,* but wrongly.

la: Codd. A B D verbum *voluntate* post *Filium* locant; postea codd. A E K M P R S T cum ed. 1 omittunt *et;* demum codd. C et R pro *vel* habent *an.*

en: Codices A B D place the word *voluntate* after *Filium;* afterwards codices A E K M P R S T with ed. 1 omit *et;* finally codices C and R have *an* for *vel.*

la: Ed 1 praemittit *vel* ante *potuerit.*

en: Ed. 1 sets *vel* before *potuerit.*

la: Cod. H *Utrum.*

en: Codex H has *Utrum.*

la: Cod. E hic et deinceps *Item* loco *Quod.*

en: Codex E here and thereafter has *Item* in place of *Quod.*

la: Codd. cum edd. 1, 9 *intelligibili,* quod licet explicari possit, castigavimus tamen ope edd. 2, 7.

en: The codices, with edd. 1, 9, have *intelligibili;* which, although it can be explained, we have nevertheless corrected by the help of edd. 2, 7.

la: Codd. D H L *qui* pro *quod.* Mox codd. A C E I Q R S T post *Filii* adiiciunt *et.*

en: Codices D H L have *qui* for *quod.* Presently codices A C E I Q R S T add *et* after *Filii.*

la: Codd. B K N *Graecorum et Latinorum.*

en: Codices B K N have *Graecorum et Latinorum.*

la: Per lapsum librariorum multi codd. et ed. 1 *proprius* pro *prius,* cod. H *per prius.*

en: Through the slip of the copyists many codices and ed. 1 have *proprius* for *prius;* codex H has *per prius.*

la: Codd. A L *Quod.*

en: Codices A L have *Quod.*

la: Codd. F P R S T et ed. 1 addunt *Deus,* quod et legunt codd. C H N, omisso tamen *sanctus* in C H, et *Spiritus sanctus* in N.

en: Codices F P R S T and ed. 1 add *Deus,* which codices C H N also read, though *sanctus* is omitted in C H, and *Spiritus sanctus* in N.

la: Codd. M N *utrum.*

en: Codices M N have *utrum.*

la: Ita legas, ut *etiam* iungas cum *sancto,* non cum *Filius,* quo germanum habeas sensum. In cod. B deest *etiam.*

en: So read that you join *etiam* with *sancto,* not with *Filius,* that you may have the genuine sense. In codex B *etiam* is wanting.

la: Cod. C *datur.*

en: Codex C has *datur.*

la: Deest *illud* in codd. A E F K M P R T et ed. 1.

en: *Illud* is wanting in codices A E F K M P R T and ed. 1.

la: Omittitur *quasi* in codd. C H P R.

en: *Quasi* is omitted in codices C H P R.

la: Inter titulum hunc et sequentem habetur haec rubrica in cod. H: *Cum sit Filius minor Patre secundum formam creatam, in qua apparuit, cur non Spiritus sanctus similiter.* Idem reperitur in codd. G L, eo excepto, quod pro *Cum sit Filius* legatur *Cur Filius sit* et omittatur *creatam cur* et *similiter;* in cod. G post *apparuit* additur *et.*

en: Between this title and the following, this rubric is found in codex H: *Cum sit Filius minor Patre secundum formam creatam, in qua apparuit, cur non Spiritus sanctus similiter.* The same is found in codices G L, with this exception, that for *Cum sit Filius* is read *Cur Filius sit,* and *creatam cur* and *similiter* are omitted; in codex G, after *apparuit,* *et* is added.

la: Codd. B E N P T *superna,* Magistri texto refragante. Mox codd. M P *non* pro *nec;* codd. E R *nec* pro *vel.*

en: Codices B E N P T have *superna,* against the Master's text. Presently codices M P have *non* for *nec;* codices E R have *nec* for *vel.*

la: Codd. E H et edd. 7, 9 *vel;* codd. H P primo loco ponunt *magis.* Mox codd. A C E S: *vel non habenti,* pro *et non habenti;* sed male.

en: Codices E H and edd. 7, 9 have *vel;* codices H P put *magis* in the first place. Presently codices A C E S have *vel non habenti* for *et non habenti;* but wrongly.

la: Intellige cum cod. I *sed ut esset essentia.* In fine tituli edd. 7, 9 non male legunt: *sed etiam ut.*

en: Understand with codex I *sed ut esset essentia.* At the end of the title edd. 7, 9 read, not badly: *sed etiam ut.*

la: Codd. A F I K P Q S *quod* pro *qui.*

en: Codices A F I K P Q S have *quod* for *qui.*

la: Cod. E *sunt* et cod. R *sint.* Mox in codd. B Q verbo *videantur* additur *esse.* Mox post *persona* in codd. B D G H N et edd. 7, 9 deest *quam.*

en: Codex E has *sunt* and codex R *sint.* Presently in codices B Q *esse* is added to the verb *videantur.* Presently, after *persona,* *quam* is wanting in codices B D G H N and edd. 7, 9.

la: Codd. B D P Q R S T *non.*

en: Codices B D P Q R S T have *non.*

la: Codd. B Q *potestate.* Pro *excedit* codd. G H L N O Q R legunt *excellit.*

en: Codices B Q have *potestate.* For *excedit* codices G H L N O Q R read *excellit.*

la: Cod. D *haec.*

en: Codex D has *haec.*

la: Codd. A C F O P S hic addunt *est.*

en: Codices A C F O P S here add *est.*

la: Codd. A C E F I M O P Q R T et ed. 1 *differentiis;* mox codd. B E *utuntur* pro *utimur.*

en: Codices A C E F I M O P Q R T and ed. 1 have *differentiis;* presently codices B E have *utuntur* for *utimur.*

la: Codd. A F R *illis.*

en: Codices A F R have *illis.*

la: Codd. C E G H L M et edd. 1, 7, 9 paucis immutatis hic addunt: *De illis quae temporaliter Deo conveniunt et non dicuntur relative;* ubi codd. H M *his* pro *illis* legunt, et C E cum ed. 1 omittunt *non.* Cod. T solum habet: *et de illis quae temporaliter Deo conveniunt.* Sequimur auctoritatem meliorum et plurimorum mss., qui hanc partem tituli ex ipso textu Magistri a rubricistis fortassis transumtam penitus omittunt.

en: Codices C E G H L M and edd. 1, 7, 9, with a few changes, here add: *De illis quae temporaliter Deo conveniunt et non dicuntur relative;* where codices H M read *his* for *illis,* and C E with ed. 1 omit *non.* Codex T has only: *et de illis quae temporaliter Deo conveniunt.* We follow the authority of the better and the greater number of the manuscripts, which omit altogether this part of the title, taken over perhaps by the rubricators from the Master's own text.

la: Cod. D *illis.*

en: Codex D has *illis.*

la: Codd. D H omittunt *quod est.* Mox particula *cum* deest hic quidem in multis codd. et ed. 1, habetur tamen in omnibus infra, ubi hic titulus capitulo praemittitur; ubi etiam edd. 7, 9 post *dicatur* inserunt particulam *tamen.*

en: Codices D H omit *quod est.* Presently the particle *cum* is wanting here indeed in many codices and in ed. 1, yet it is found in all of them below, where this title is prefixed to the chapter; where also edd. 7, 9 insert the particle *tamen* after *dicatur.*

la: Cod. D *dictae sint,* cod. C *dicuntur,* codd. P R S T *dicamus;* mox cod. D omittit *esse.*

en: Codex D has *dictae sint,* codex C *dicuntur,* codices P R S T *dicamus;* presently codex D omits *esse.*

la: Solus cod. B et edd. 7, 9 addunt *vel una,* quae verba infra in ipso textu Magistri habentur. Mox codd. C F P S T *utamur* pro *utimur.*

en: Codex B alone and edd. 7, 9 add *vel una,* which words are found below in the Master's own text. Presently codices C F P S T have *utamur* for *utimur.*

la: Verba post *numero* omittuntur in cod. D. Codd. E R *tres personae.*

en: The words after *numero* are omitted in codex D. Codices E R have *tres personae.*

la: In cod. M et edd. 1, 2, 7, 9 post *alia Filii* addunt *alia Spiritus sancti* et similiter post *Filius* addunt *alius Spiritus sanctus.*

en: In codex M and edd. 1, 2, 7, 9 they add *alia Spiritus sancti* after *alia Filii,* and likewise after *Filius* they add *alius Spiritus sanctus.*

la: Septem codd. et ed. 1 *vel* in sensu copulativo.

en: Seven codices and ed. 1 have *vel* in a copulative sense.

la: Edd. 2, 7, 9 transponunt sic: Pater vel Filius vel Trinitas ipsa.

en: Edd. 2, 7, 9 transpose thus: Pater vel Filius vel Trinitas ipsa.

la: Plurimi codd. et ed. 1 hic male *omnino,* qui tamen in textu *omnia* legunt. Mox cod. C *ad invicem,* ed. 1 *suis vicissim,* ubi ceteri codd. *a se vicissim* pro *ad se vicissim,* quod cod. M et ed. 7, 9 habent.

en: Very many codices and ed. 1 have here, wrongly, *omnino,* though in the text they read *omnia.* Presently codex C has *ad invicem,* ed. 1 *suis vicissim,* where the remaining codices have *a se vicissim* for *ad se vicissim,* which codex M and edd. 7, 9 have.

la: Codd. nonnulli *sunt.*

en: Some codices have *sunt.*

la: Cod. K *An.*

en: Codex K has *An.*

la: Codd. A D F S *et* pro *sed;* mox codd. E R *sed non cum Filio Spiritus S.*

en: Codices A D F S have *et* for *sed;* presently codices E R have *sed non cum Filio Spiritus S.*

la: Codd. E R *et ipse Filius principium Spiritus sancti.*

en: Codices E R have *et ipse Filius principium Spiritus sancti.*

la: Codd. E R *ratione.*

en: Codices E R have *ratione.*

la: *Esse* deest in codd. B D M.

en: *Esse* is wanting in codices B D M.

la: In codd. G L N M clare scriptum reperitur *utriusque,* quod correspondet textui, ceteri codd. et omnes edd. eius loco habent *virtus.*

en: In codices G L N M *utriusque* is found clearly written, which corresponds to the text; the remaining codices and all the editions have *virtus* in its place.

la: Edd. 2, 7, 9 *se diligant;* cod. S addit *vel diligatur.* Mox codd. B C E S: *i. e. Spiritus sanctus,* cod. S tamen addit *vel Spiritu sancto.*

en: Edd. 2, 7, 9 have *se diligant;* codex S adds *vel diligatur.* Presently codices B C E S have: *i. e. Spiritus sanctus;* codex S, however, adds *vel Spiritu sancto.*

la: Codd. G H L M hic adnectunt: *Utrum Filius sit sapiens sapientia genita vel ingenita.* Paulo ante cod. C cum quatuor edd. male: sapientia *qua* genuit.

en: Codices G H L M here attach: *Utrum Filius sit sapiens sapientia genita vel ingenita.* A little before, codex C with four editions has, wrongly: sapientia *qua* genuit.

la: Codd. A C E cum ed. 1 iungunt hunc titulum cum sequenti, in quo cod. B post *in Trinitate est* addit *una.*

en: Codices A C E with ed. 1 join this title with the following, in which codex B adds *una* after *in Trinitate est.*

la: Codd. C H O *eandem,* cod. B *ipsam.*

en: Codices C H O have *eandem,* codex B *ipsam.*

la: Codd. P Q R S T *praesentia,* sed male.

en: Codices P Q R S T have *praesentia,* but wrongly.

la: Codd. P Q R S T *vel.*

en: Codices P Q R S T have *vel.*

la: In cod. D falso: *Quod Deus ubicumqae est habitat, sed non e converso.*

en: In codex D, falsely: *Quod Deus ubicumqae est habitat, sed non e converso.*

la: Codd. B G L M Q hic addunt *aliqua.* In fine seq. tit. cod. O *earum* pro *rerum.*

en: Codices B G L M Q here add *aliqua.* At the end of the following title codex O has *earum* for *rerum.*

la: Codd. A E P R cum ed. 1 *aut.*

en: Codices A E P R with ed. 1 have *aut.*

la: Codd. A B G L N Q *sciat.*

en: Codices A B G L N Q have *sciat.*

la: Codd. A E P Q R S *quid,* cod. B *qui.* Iidem cum codd. Q T post *effectus* addunt *vel modus.*

en: Codices A E P Q R S have *quid,* codex B *qui.* The same, with codices Q T, add *vel modus* after *effectus.*

la: Pro secundo et tertio *vel* plurimi codd. et edd. *et.*

en: For the second and the third *vel* very many codices and editions have *et.*

la: Codd. A M P Q R S T *possumus;* mox solus cod. D cum edd. 2, 7, 9 *potest* pro *possit.*

en: Codices A M P Q R S T have *possumus;* presently codex D alone, with edd. 2, 7, 9, has *potest* for *possit.*

la: Codd. E Q cum edd. 2, 7, 9 *consideratur.*

en: Codices E Q with edd. 2, 7, 9 have *consideratur.*

la: Codd. C S omittunt *vel.*

en: Codices C S omit *vel.*

la: Cod. B transponit *esse* et *velle* et deinde omittit *omnia.*

en: Codex B transposes *esse* and *velle* and thereafter omits *omnia.*

la: Codd. B D G H I K N omittunt *vel.* Cod. A omittit ultima sex verba.

en: Codices B D G H I K N omit *vel.* Codex A omits the last six words.

la: Cod. D *accipiatur.*

en: Codex D has *accipiatur.*

la: Codd A B C E Q omittunt *interdum.* Pro *intelliguntur* in cod. L *accipiuntur.*

en: Codices A B C E Q omit *interdum.* For *intelliguntur* codex L has *accipiuntur.*

la: Codd. E R adiiciunt *ea.*

en: Codices E R add *ea.*

la: Codd. B F L M N *Quod.*

en: Codices B F L M N have *Quod.*

la: Pro *etsi* codd. B D G H I L N Q et ed. 1 *sed,* codd. P S *si.* In principio huius tituli codd. P Q R S T cum ed. 1 *praecipit* pro *praecepit.*

en: For *etsi* codices B D G H I L N Q and ed. 1 have *sed,* codices P S *si.* At the beginning of this title codices P Q R S T with ed. 1 have *praecipit* for *praecepit.*

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Printed pp. 17–22 (PDF 119–124, offset `pdf = printed + 102`), raw
`bonaventure_vol1_raw.txt` L11285–~12253. **All 209 chapter titles across 48 distinctions were read
off the 450 dpi bands**, column by column, thirteen columns in all; the IA djvu OCR served only as a
cross-check. That inversion of the Vol I rule is not optional here: the raw's Roman numerals garble
throughout the table (`DlSTINCTIO`, `DlSTIPiCTIO`, `DlSTINXTIO`, `DISTmCTIO` all occur), the
pt-2-style letter rot sets in from ~L11414 (`Oninis` for *Omnis*, `Dous soit` for *Deus scit*), and
p. 22's whole column is rotted past use. Book III's capitula were re-set at the plate for the same
reason.

**★★★ THE TABLE RUNS ONTO p. 22 — EVERY EARLIER NOTE IN THIS REPO SAID pp. 17–21.** Distinctions
XLV (cc. III–VII) through XLVIII print at the **top third of p. 22**, in both columns, and the
`COMMENTARIUS IN PROLOGUM MAGISTRI.` display heading stands *below them, on the same leaf,* at
mid-page. The resume note's "~p. 21" was a projection from the raw, where p. 22's running head
(`COMMENTARIUS IN PROLOGUM.`) sits *above* the table's last entries and reads like a boundary. **It
is a running head, not a boundary** — the asymmetric-running-head class again. The span was fixed
positively on the display heading.

**★★ BOOK I's TABLE PRINTS NO CLOSING FORMULA — the third distinct answer in three books.** Book II
closes on `EXPLICIUNT CAPITULA SECUNDI LIBRI.`; Book IV prints none and was closed on the next
display heading; **Book I prints none either.** After `IV. Utrum passiones Sanctorum debeamus velle.`
the right column simply stops, white paper follows, and the next matter is the display heading. The
end was fixed from the heading, never from the white space. **Do not carry any of the three forward
as a constant.**

**★★★ p. 22 CARRIES TWO INDEPENDENTLY NUMBERED FOOTER REGISTERS ON ONE LEAF, AND BOTH START AT 1.**
The left block opens with this table's nn. 1–6, and then — still inside the left block — prints the
sub-heading **`NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM.`** in spaced caps, under which a *fresh* sequence begins at
n. 1 and runs 1–2 in the left block and 3–6 in the right. Those six are the Commentarius's, anchored
in the `DIVISIO TEXTUS` and `DUB. I` below the display heading, and **they forward whole to
`bon-sent-I-prol-comm`.** ⚠ **Ownership is what is forwarded here, and nothing more.** Their
anchors appear to fall at `moverunt`¹, `ibi`², `tangit`³, `ipsum`⁴, `dicit`⁵ and `virtutis`⁶ — but
that was read at whole-page scale, for structure, and each note's content corroborates it only
loosely (n. 6's *Vat. addit* indicium sits oddly against `virtutis`). **Re-derive every position and
column at the band; adopt none of it.** A reader
dividing p. 22's register by number alone would give this chunk twelve notes and pair four of them
to nothing. **The tell is the printed sub-heading, and it is the only tell** — nothing about the
numbering says a new sequence has begun.

**Per-page register (77 entries owned).**

| page | notes owned | block split | anchor split | relation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17 | nn. 15–22 (inherited) | all eight in the right block, below the littera's nn. 13–14 | n. 15 on the display heading, nn. 16–18 L-col, nn. 19–22 R-col | register **shared with `bon-sent-I-littera`**, which owns nn. 1–14 |
| 18 | nn. 1–19 | nn. 1–11 L, nn. 12–19 R | nn. 1–10 L, nn. 11–19 R | left block **overruns by one** |
| 19 | nn. 1–15 | nn. 1–9 L, nn. 10–15 R | nn. 1–5 L, nn. 6–15 R | left block **overruns by four** |
| 20 | nn. 1–16 | nn. 1–8 L, nn. 9–16 R | nn. 1–7 L, nn. 8–16 R | left block **overruns by one** |
| 21 | nn. 1–13 | nn. 1–7 L, nn. 8–13 R | nn. 1–4 L, nn. 5–13 R | left block **overruns by three** |
| 22 | **nn. 1–6 only** | nn. 1–6 L, then `NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM.` | nn. 1–4 L-col, nn. 5–6 R-col | register **shared with `bon-sent-I-prol-comm`** — see above |

**★ THE BLOCK AND THE ANCHORS COME APART ON EVERY ONE OF THE FIVE LEAVES THIS CHUNK OWNS WHOLE,
AND ALWAYS IN THE SAME DIRECTION** — the left block overruns the column division by one, four, one
and three notes on pp. 18–21. **A four-leaf run in one direction licenses nothing** (the Itinerarium
paid for that at c3, where five same-direction leaves were followed by a reversal). Every split
above was derived from the anchor, at 2.2–2.6×.

**★★ THE TABLE'S GUTTER IS A FOURTH MEASURE ON p. 17, AND THE WINDOW CONSENSUS IS WORTHLESS ON
EVERY LEAF.** p. 17 stacks the littera's body (**923**), the chapter table (**928**) and the footer
register (**934**) — three regions, three values, and the table's had never been measured. On the
table region the row windows return **993 on 278 px runs**; on p. 22's they spread 1035–1106 on
140–281 px runs; on p. 20 they agree perfectly at 1053 **on a 12 px run**. All three are the
ragged-table artifact the Book II capitula identified: a chapter list's short entries make the left
column's own white space read as gutter. **Every value below is the printed centre rule, taken from
the direct per-column ink profile and confirmed by cropping and looking:**
p. 17 = **928** (band 901–955, rule 927–931) · p. 18 = **1067** (1043–1091, rule 1064–1068) ·
p. 19 = **938** (919–957, rule 940–945) · p. 20 = **1071** (1047–1096, rule 1071–1072, peak only 408
— the rule inked lightly on this leaf) · p. 21 = **947** (924–971, rule 943–949) · p. 22 = **1060**
(1036–1085, rule 1058–1063). **On a table, the rule *is* the gutter.**

**⛔ FOUR DEFECTIVE SORTS ON THESE LEAVES, ALL TRANSCRIBED AS PRINTED, NONE FLAGGED.** The reading
is certain in every case; what is uncertain is only whether Quaracchi meant it, and that is not a
reading question.
1. **`DICTINCTIO XXXVI.`** — p. 21, left column: the display heading prints a `C` where every other
   one of the forty-eight prints an `S`. Confirmed at 2.2×. The Latin keeps it; **the English
   heading reads `Distinction XXXVI.`**, since a Latin compositor's slip carried into English would
   assert nothing.
2. **`ubicumqae`** — p. 21 n. 4, inside Quaracchi's italic quotation of cod. D's false reading.
   Checked at 5×: a fully formed italic `a`, not a half-inked `e`, so it is not the `sent·ntias`
   class from `bon-sent-I-proem-q4`. Sense requires *ubicumque*; the plate does not print it.
3. **`Ed 1 praemittit`** — p. 18 n. 5: the edition siglum stands with **no point after `Ed`**, alone
   among the seventy-seven. Read at 3.6×. Likewise **`Codd ABCEQ`** at p. 22 n. 3.
4. **`contrà`** — p. 21, d. XLIII: a grave accent, printed. Kept.
⚠ A fifth mark was *rejected*: `DISTINCTIO XLII.` on p. 21 appears at low resolution to carry a
grave over its final `O`. At 4× it is a thin fleck standing between the `I` and the `O`, over
neither — **stray ink of this copy, and DISTINCTIO takes no accent in any case.** Read as
`DISTINCTIO`. The two were told apart only by magnifying both; the `contrà` accent sits squarely
over its letter and is the same weight as the surrounding ink.

**★ THE EDITION SIGLUM `1` IS THE CHRONIC CASE AND IT FIRED FOURTEEN TIMES HERE.** `ed. 1` / `edd.
1, 9` print a serif `1` that the raw renders now `4`, now `I`, and that reads as `4` in any
whole-page view (pp. 18 nn. 4, 5, 8, 11 · 19 nn. 10, 12, 14 · 20 nn. 3, 4, 6 · 21 n. 6 · 22 nn. 1,
5, 6). Every one was settled on a 2.2–3.6× band. Sigla runs were read the same way; no run in this
chunk needed the alphabetical-order disambiguator, all of them being short.

**★ TWO DISTINCTIONS PRINT THEIR SINGLE CHAPTER WITH NO `Cap. I.` LABEL — d. VI and d. XXIV**
(p. 18 and p. 20), where the title simply hangs under the display heading in the continuation
indent. Rendered as printed, with no supplied label. **This is not the dropped-`Cap.` class**: d. XL
and d. XLIII each have their `Cap. I.` set normally, and d. XLIII has only one chapter too. Compare
Book II's d. IV, which prints its lone chapter *with* the label — **the convention is not constant
even inside one volume.**

**★ THE CAPITULA LIST AND THE MASTER'S TEXT ARE PRINTED AS THEY STAND.** Quaracchi's own n. 15 says
the *distinction numbers* in this table are the editors' addition (*Addidimus autem distinctiones,
ad quas referuntur capitula*); the chapter titles are the codices'. Where the list and the text
disagree, both are printed and neither harmonised — the rule Book IV's d. 24 lectors/doorkeepers
established. n. 12 on p. 19 is this table's own instance: Quaracchi drop a clause the rubricators
had probably lifted from the Master's text, and say so.

**Column map.** p. 17 = the heading, dd. I–II (L) and dd. III–V c. I (R) · p. 18 = d. V c. I
(carried over) – d. XI (L) and dd. XII–XVII c. I (R) · p. 19 = d. XVII c. II – d. XIX c. VII (L) and
d. XIX c. VIII – d. XXIII (R) · p. 20 = d. XXIII c. VI – d. XXVIII c. I (L) and d. XXVIII c. II –
d. XXXII (R) · p. 21 = d. XXXII c. VI – d. XXXVII c. II (L) and d. XXXVII c. III – d. XLV c. II (R)
· p. 22 = d. XLV c. III – d. XLVI c. IV (L) and d. XLVI c. V – d. XLVIII (R). Every column break
falls mid-distinction except p. 22's; three of them fall mid-title (`genita sit a` / `Patre`,
`sapientia` / `VI. Quare`, `esse quae vult` / `III. De intelligentia`).

**Verification.** The three guard-rail audits **cannot see this chunk** — all three select on
`bon-sent-{I,II,III,IV}-d(\d+)-` and a `distinctio: 0` chunk matches none of them; run with
`--min-d 0 --max-d 0` they print a clean verdict on **0 chunks audited**, and `audit-paraphrase.py`
additionally *overwrites* `manual-review/d1-d40-paraphrase-audit.md` with an empty report. **None
were run.** In their place: marker pairing verified mechanically (**77 Latin anchors, 77 English
anchors, identical order, 77 defs, no duplicates, no orphans**), structural parity verified
(**207 numbered chapter titles in each language plus the two unlabelled ones = 209**, 48 distinctions
in each), `build-content.mjs` **2059 → 2060, all translated**, plus `polish-style-scan` and
`build-citations.py` on the same commit, and the plate discipline recorded above. Zero `[?]` flags.

**⚠⚠ SCOPED DEFECT FOUND, NOT FIXED — `bon-sent-I-d25-littera` `[^17]` CITES `supra pag. 19,
nota 3`, AND THAT IS NOT p. 19 n. 3.** The note is about 1 John 5:7 and cod. C's *dant* for
*perhibent;* p. 19 n. 3 — read off the band in this session — is *Intellige cum cod. I* sed ut esset
essentia. The note Quaracchi actually points at is **`bon-sent-I-d2-littera` `[^57]`**, whose whole
subject is `testimonium dant` against `testimonium perhibent` in 1 John 5:7, and that chunk sits on
**printed pp. 46–49**. The reading is almost certainly **`pag. 49`** — the chronic `1`/`4` serif
class, on a leaf nobody has re-read. **Not corrected: d.25's plate was not opened, and a digit is
settled at the band or not at all.** Hand it to whoever works d.25's littera; `49` still needs its
`nota 3` confirmed against p. 49's register.

**★★★ AND NOTE HOW IT SURFACED, BECAUSE THE MECHANISM IS GENERAL AND IT CUTS THE WRONG WAY.**
Before this chunk existed, pp. 17–22 were unowned, so that citation resolved to **`dangling`** — a
QA line, visibly unsettled. **The moment this chunk claimed p. 19, the same wrong citation resolved
to `chunk`, cleanly, and the corpus QA-flag count went DOWN by one (202 → 201).** A mis-transcribed
page number does not stay loud as the corpus fills in; **it goes quiet and starts pointing
confidently at a real and wrong chunk**, and it will read to every later session as a settled
cross-reference. The site will render it as a *Cited by* card on this page. **Corollary for every
chunk that closes a gap in a page range: the flags that *disappear* on your commit deserve the same
look as the ones that appear** — the standing instruction to report your own chunk's flags
separately from the corpus total is not enough to catch this, because your chunk's own count here
is zero.