title: Dist. 1, Dubia

title_alt: Dubia circa litteram Magistri — Distinctio I

title_alt: Doubts concerning the text of the Master — Distinction I

source_text:
<!-- page 42 -->

### DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

### Dub. I.

In parte ista circa litteram quaeruntur plura, et primo de hoc quod dicit: *Eorum vero quaedam sunt, quorum usus omnis est in significando, non in iustificando.* Sed contra: Omnia Sacramenta sunt medicinae, quia secundum Hugonem de sancto Victore[^1] *Sacramenta omni tempore fuerunt medicinae*; sed omnis medicina habet effectum in curando: ergo et Sacramenta similiter; sed ista curatio est iustificatio: ergo omni tempore Sacramenta habuerunt iustificare.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod dupliciter est considerare Sacramenta veteris Legis, scilicet in se sive ratione operis operati; et sic erant tantum ad significandum; vel ratione fidei annexae sive caritatis sive ratione operis operantis; et sic erant ad iustificandum Sacramenta legalia, praeter Circumci\[sionem\][^2].

### Dub. II.

*Omne igitur signum res est aliqua.* Opponitur de ista divisione. Videtur enim Magister male dividere, quia superius non dividitur contra suum inferius; sed res est superius ad signum: ergo etc.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod verum est, quod superius in sua generalitate acceptum non dividitur contra suum inferius; sed contractum[^3] bene potest dividi. Hic autem res[^4] contrahitur ad standum pro re non significante.

### Dub. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Magister: *Non autem e converso omnis res signum.* Videtur enim male dicere, quia signum est quod ducit in aliud cognoscendum; sed omnis res ducit in aliud, quia omnis res est causa, vel effectus. Causa autem ducit in cognitionem effectus[^5] et e converso. Si dicas, quod non omne, quod ducit, est signum, sed quod ducit in prius; tunc omnis creatura est signum, cum ducat in Deum.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod duplex est signum, scilicet naturale et institutum. De primo non intenditur hic, sed de secundo; unde non valet obiectio ad propositum, quoniam hic[^6] intenditur de signo ex institutione, sicut sunt signa vocalia et sacramentalia.

### Dub. IV.

Item videtur Magister male dicere in hoc quod dicit: *Primum de rebus, postea de signis.* Videtur enim dicere[^7] debuisse potius e converso, quia signum ducit in cognitionem rei: ergo prius esset agendum vel dicendum de signis quam de rebus.

<!-- page 43 -->

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod prior est cognitio signi quam rei, respectu cuius est signum; sed non oportet, quod omnis rei. Unde ipse primo agit de rebus, quarum sacramenta non sunt signa.

### Dub. V.

Item videtur, quod ista divisio rerum: *Aliae sunt quibus fruendum* etc., sit male assignata respectu divisi, quia divisum simplicius est dividentibus et dividentibus aliquid est[^8] commune; sed Deo nihil est simplicius nec est aliquid commune Deo et creaturae: ergo etc.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod est divisio unius communis secundum nomen tantum; et sic est divisio aequivoci; est alia divisio communis secundum nomen et rem; et haec est divisio univoci; est etiam tertia medio modo; et ista est analogi, ubi non est communitas secundum unitatem naturae[^9], sed secundum similitudinem proportionis; et haec communitas est rationis.

### Dub. VI.

Item videtur mala divisio quantum ad membra: videtur enim, quod tertium membrum sit superfluum. Omni enim re aut est utendum, aut fruendum: ergo tertium superfluit.

Item, sicut est res, quae fruitur et utitur, ita est res, qua fruendum est et utendum, ut Christus: ergo qua ratione ponitur[^10] tertium membrum, deberet poni quartum.

**Respondeo:** Omnis res, quae est natura aliqua, aut est finis; et sic est res, qua fruendum; aut deducens ad finem; et sic est res, qua utendum; aut ad finem perveniens; et sic est res, quae fruitur et utitur, ut homo: et sic accipiuntur membra. Et est ista divisio satis conveniens huic scientiae, quia cum theologia sit de Creatore et de creaturis, utile est, ut theologus doceat, quomodo homo per alias res tendat in Deum.

### Dub. VII.

Item opponitur de hoc quod dicit: *Res, quibus fruendum*; quia si[^11] tres sunt res per se et non per accidens, et a diversitate rerum est diversitas sive multiplicitas fruitionis: ergo sicut sunt tres res, sic erunt tres fruitiones.

Item, tres articuli sunt, quia[^12] de tribus personis: ergo a simili et tres fruitiones.

**Respondeo:** Quod res accipitur hic communiter ad essentiam et personam propter sui generalitatem; et quia sumtum[^13] est hoc vocabulum *res* ab actu animae, ideo tres dicuntur res, quia tres personae, sed tamen una res, quia una bonitas est in eis. Quia ergo una bonitas, ideo et una fruitio, quamvis tres res. — Et quoniam articulus dicit quid a parte animae distinguentis, scilicet intellectus, et fruitio respicit ipsam[^14] divinam essentiam et bonitatem et unionem affectus communiter, ideo fruitio est una.

### Dub. VIII.

Item obiicitur de hoc quod dicit: *Omnis, qui fruitur, utitur*; quia videtur falsum, quoniam stulti[^15] homines similiter et bestiae fruuntur, quia propter se delectantur in delectabili, sed non utuntur. Si dicas, quod dicitur translative; quare non similiter transfertur verbum *utendi*?

**Respondeo:** *Uti* importat libertatem in sua generali acceptione, in speciali importat libertatem cum relatione ad aliud; *frui* importat libertatem cum delectatione; et licet nec libertas nec collatio[^16] conveniat brutis, convenit eis tamen delectatio. Ideo *uti* nullo modo convenit brutis; *frui* autem convenit eis aliquo modo, licet improprie[^17].

### Dub. IX.

Item videtur male dicere, quod in homine spes ponenda non est, quia[^18] de beata Virgine cantatur *Vita, dulcedo et spes* ab Ecclesia, quae non errat.

<!-- page 44 -->

Item, Ionae primo[^19]: *Accessit ad eum gubernator*; Glossa: « Naturale est homini magis de aliis quam de se in periculis confidere ».

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod sperare de aliquo est dupliciter, aut sicut de adiutore, aut sicut de salvatore. Prima spes potest esse in homine, secunda non. — Vel est sperare finale praemium; et hoc debet esse tantum in Deo; vel temporale beneficium; et hoc potest esse in homine. Primum si ponitur[^20] in homine, meretur maledictionem, secundum non.

### Dub. X.

Item quaeritur, quare dicit de homine: *Itaque frater, ego fruar te in Domino*, magis quam de asino vel de alia creatura, cum in omnibus creaturis reluceat vestigium divinae bonitatis.

**Respondeo:** Quod dicatur[^21] aliquis aliquo frui in Deo, non facit repraesentatio, sed magis inhabitatio. Unde conversa est propria, videlicet haec: *Ego fruar Domino in te*, dum per opera sciam, Deum habitare in te; et est figurativa locutio.

### Dub. XI.

Item quaeritur de hac solutione Augustini, qua solvit auctoritatem praedictam per illam determinationem *in Domino*. Sed Ecclesiastici octavo[^22] simpliciter dicitur: *Fruere magnatis*. Item, Deuteronomii vigesimo octavo[^23]: *Filios generabis et filias, et non frueris eis*; ex hoc implicat, quod, si non peccarent, fruerentur.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod praedicta solutio non est generalis, sed solum ad propositam auctoritatem. Et ideo recurrendum est ad solutionem praedictam extra litteram in quaestionibus[^24], quod, cum *frui* accipiatur communiter et proprie, in praedictis locutionibus accipitur communiter tantum.

### Dub. XII.

Item non videtur valere quod dicit Magister: *Si enim nec fruitur, nec utitur* etc., quia Deus diligit se, non tamen utitur, quia non diligit se propter aliud; nec fruitur, quia ubi fruitio, ibi est inhaerentia et indigentia, ut dicit Augustinus[^25]; Deus autem utroque caret etc.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod fruitio de sui generali ratione dicit amoris unionem, scilicet fruibilis cum fruente. Quoniam igitur contingit aliquid uniri sibi et alii, contingit non tantum frui alio, sed etiam se ipso; sed ubi est unio ad alterum, ibi est dependentia, inhaerentia et indigentia; ubi vero ad se ipsum, si ipsum est summum bonum, ibi[^26] non est inhaerentia nec dependentia vel indigentia, sed omnimoda sufficientia. Si vero ipsum bonum deficiens est, indiget; et inde est, quod solus Deus se ipso perfecte fruitur, nihil autem aliud ab ipso potest perfecte se ipso frui. Solus enim Deus est summum bonum et diligit se fruendo se, diligit etiam alia fruendo se: et ita nec fruitio Dei nec usus est cum indigentia, sicut nostra fruitio et usus.

### Dub. XIII.

Item obiicitur de hoc quod dicit: *Quia bonus est, sumus*: ergo quia ab aeterno bonus est, ab aeterno sumus.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum breviter, quod hoc est, quia *bonus* dicit causam[^27]. Sed est causa naturalis et necessaria, et causa voluntaria. Bonitas autem divina est causa nostri esse et boni esse per modum voluntatis, non naturae; haec autem causa non ponit effectum statim, cum est.

### Dub. XIV.

Item, adhuc obiicitur, quare similiter non sequitur: quia iustus est, iusti sumus[^28]? Si dicas, quod iustitia non est eius dispositio in quantum causa; contra: sapientia est dispositio Dei in quantum causa: ergo pari ratione, quia sapiens est, sapientes sumus. Si tu dicas, quod non est dispositio immediata, sicut bonitas; obiicitur de voluntate, quae est immediatissima, et tamen non sequitur: quia volens est, volentes sumus.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod ratio huius consequentiae triplex est. Una est, quia bonitas est conditio causae in quantum causa; secunda est, quia

<!-- page 45 -->

est proxima ad actum[^29]; tertia, quia dispositio generalis, in qua consistit vestigii ratio; dicit enim respectum ad finem. Unde sicut Deus unus imprimit unitatem, ita bonus bonitatem.

### Dub. XV.

Item obiicitur de hoc quod dicitur: *Ut scilicet ametur propter se ipsam tantum*, quia sicut *per se* ad *per accidens*, ita *propter se* ad *propter aliud*. Sed nihil, quod convenit alicui per accidens, convenit per se: ergo nihil, quod convenit alicui propter aliud, convenit propter se. Si ergo virtutes sunt appetendae propter aliud, non ergo propter se.

**Respondeo:** Sicut dicit Philosophus[^30], « Idem est finis et propter quod ». Finis autem dupliciter est: uno modo finis ultimus, qui propriissime est finis, in quo est status; alio modo finis sub fine, qui[^31] dicitur proprie terminus. Sic et *propter quod* diversificatur; unde uno modo excludit finem, alio modo non, ut dicit Magister.

Quod ergo obiicitur de *per se*; dico, quod, sicut *per se* uno modo opponitur ei quod est *per aliud* — et sic idem est *per se* et *secundum quod ipsum*, sive primum universale[^32] — alio modo opponitur ei quod est *per accidens*: sic et *propter se* dupliciter accipitur. Uno modo opponitur ei quod est *propter aliud*, alio modo ei quod est *per accidens*, quia[^33] ad illud accidentaliter ordinatur. Secundum hoc distinguit Magister *propter se*, et consequenter *honestum* sive *fruibile*, et ipsam denique fruitionem[^34].

### Dub. XVI.

Item obiicitur de hoc quod dicit: *Et quaedam sunt res, per quas fruimur, ut virtutes.* Videtur quod solis potentiis possit frui anima[^35]. Sine omni enim virtute potest frui bono creato; ergo cum magis sit fruibile bonum increatum, et anima magis ad hoc nata est, poterit eo frui solis potentiis.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod summum bonum est quod supra nos est; ad hoc ergo, quod illi uniamur, necessario intervenit duplex medium: medium unum, per quod anima nata est uniri alii a se diverso; et hoc est potentia; aliud speciale[^36] supra hoc, quod ipsam sublevet; et hoc est virtus. Quod obiicitur non est simile, quia potentia per se potest deficere et inclinari, sed non per se elevari[^37].

---

english:
### DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

### Doubt I.

In this part, concerning the text, many things are asked, and first concerning what he says: *"But of these certain are those whose whole use is in signifying, not in justifying."* But on the contrary: All the Sacraments are medicines, because according to Hugh of St. Victor[^1] *the Sacraments were medicines at every time*; but every medicine has its effect in curing: therefore the Sacraments likewise; but this curing is justification: therefore at every time the Sacraments had to justify.

**I respond:** It must be said that the Sacraments of the Old Law are to be considered in two ways, namely in themselves or by reason of the work-worked (*opus operatum*); and thus they were only for signifying; or by reason of attached faith or of charity or by reason of the work-working (*opus operans*); and thus the legal Sacraments were for justifying, except Circumci\[sion\][^2].

### Doubt II.

*"Therefore every sign is some thing."* It is objected concerning this division. For the Master seems to divide badly, because a superior is not divided against its inferior; but *thing* is superior to *sign*: therefore etc.

**I respond:** It must be said that it is true that a superior, taken in its generality, is not divided against its inferior; but contracted[^3] it can well be divided. Here, however, *thing*[^4] is contracted to stand for a thing that does not signify.

### Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked concerning what the Master says: *"But not conversely is every thing a sign."* For he seems to speak badly, because a sign is what leads to the knowing of another; but every thing leads to another, because every thing is a cause or an effect. Now the cause leads to the knowledge of the effect[^5] and conversely. If you say that not everything which leads is a sign, but what leads to something prior; then every creature is a sign, since it leads to God.

**I respond:** It must be said that there is a twofold sign, namely *natural* and *instituted*. The first is not intended here, but the second; whence the objection does not hold against the proposition, since here[^6] it is treated of the sign by institution, as are vocal and sacramental signs.

### Doubt IV.

Likewise the Master seems to speak badly in this that he says: *"First concerning things, afterwards concerning signs."* For he seems[^7] rather to have ought to have said the converse, because the sign leads to the knowledge of the thing: therefore one should first treat or speak of signs rather than of things.

**I respond:** It must be said that the knowledge of the sign is prior to that of the thing in respect of which it is a sign; but it is not necessary that [it be so] of every thing. Hence he first treats of things of which the sacraments are not signs.

### Doubt V.

Likewise it seems that this division of things, *"Some are those by which one is to enjoy"* etc., is badly assigned with respect to what is divided, because what is divided is simpler than the dividing members, and to the dividing members something is[^8] common; but nothing is simpler than God, nor is there anything common to God and creature: therefore etc.

**I respond:** It must be said that there is a division of one common thing according to name only; and this is the division of an *equivocal*; there is another division of what is common according to name and reality; and this is the division of a *univocal*; there is also a third in a middle way; and this is the division of the *analogous*, where there is not community according to unity of nature[^9], but according to likeness of proportion; and this community is one of reason (*rationis*).

### Doubt VI.

Likewise the division seems bad as to its members: for it seems that the third member is superfluous. For of every thing one must either use or enjoy: therefore the third is superfluous.

Likewise, just as there is a thing which enjoys and uses, so there is a thing by which one is to enjoy and to use, as Christ: therefore by the same reasoning by which the third member is posited[^10], a fourth ought to be posited.

**I respond:** Every thing which is some nature is either an end; and thus it is a thing by which one is to enjoy; or leading to the end; and thus it is a thing by which one is to use; or arriving at the end; and thus it is a thing which enjoys and uses, as man: and so the members are taken. And this division is sufficiently fitting to this science, because, since theology is concerning the Creator and creatures, it is useful that the theologian teach how man tends to God through other things.

### Doubt VII.

Likewise it is objected against this that he says: *"Things by which one is to enjoy"*; because if[^11] there are three things *per se* and not by accident, and from the diversity of things comes the diversity or multiplicity of enjoyment: therefore as there are three things, so there will be three enjoyments.

Likewise, there are three articles, because[^12] [they are] of three persons: therefore by similar reasoning, three enjoyments.

**I respond:** That *thing* is here taken commonly for both essence and person on account of its generality; and because[^13] this word *thing* is taken from an act of the soul, therefore three are called *things*, because three persons, but nevertheless one *thing*, because one goodness is in them. Therefore since there is one goodness, there is also one enjoyment, although three *things*. — And since *article* signifies something from the side of the distinguishing soul, namely the intellect, and enjoyment respects the[^14] divine essence and goodness and union of affection in common, therefore enjoyment is one.

### Doubt VIII.

Likewise it is objected against this that he says: *"Everyone who enjoys, uses"*; because this seems false, since foolish[^15] men and likewise beasts enjoy, because for the sake of themselves they delight in what is delightful, but they do not use. If you say that it is said by transference, why is the word *to use* not similarly transferred?

**I respond:** *To use* (*uti*) imports liberty in its general acceptance; in its special [acceptance] it imports liberty with relation to another; *to enjoy* (*frui*) imports liberty with delight; and although neither liberty nor comparison[^16] (*collatio*) belongs to brutes, delight does belong to them. Therefore *to use* in no way belongs to brutes; *to enjoy* however belongs to them in some way, though improperly[^17].

### Doubt IX.

Likewise [the Master] seems to speak badly, that hope is not to be placed in man, because[^18] of the Blessed Virgin is sung by the Church (which does not err) *"Life, sweetness and hope."*

Likewise, in Jonah, chapter one[^19]: *"The pilot approached him"*; the Gloss: « It is natural for man to confide rather in others than in himself in dangers ».

**I respond:** It must be said that to hope concerning someone is twofold, either as concerning a helper, or as concerning a saviour. The first hope can be in man, the second cannot. — Or it is to hope for final reward; and this ought to be only in God; or temporal benefit; and this can be in man. The first, if placed[^20] in man, deserves the curse, the second not.

### Doubt X.

Likewise it is asked, why he says of man: *"Therefore, brother, I shall enjoy thee in the Lord"*, rather than of an ass or of another creature, since in all creatures the vestige of divine goodness shines forth.

**I respond:** That someone be said[^21] to enjoy something in God is not due to representation, but rather to indwelling. Whence the converse is proper, namely this: *"I shall enjoy the Lord in thee"*, when through deeds I know God to dwell in thee; and it is a figurative manner of speech.

### Doubt XI.

Likewise it is asked concerning this solution of Augustine, by which he solves the aforesaid authority by that determination *"in the Lord."* But in Ecclesiasticus chapter eight[^22] it is said simply: *"Enjoy a great man."* Likewise, Deuteronomy chapter twenty-eight[^23]: *"Thou shalt beget sons and daughters, and shalt not enjoy them"*; from this it is implied that, if they did not sin, they would enjoy.

**I respond:** It must be said that the aforesaid solution is not general, but only to the proposed authority. And therefore one must have recourse to the solution aforesaid outside the text, in the questions[^24], that, since *frui* is taken commonly and properly, in the aforesaid locutions it is taken commonly only.

### Doubt XII.

Likewise what the Master says does not seem to hold: *"For if [God] neither enjoys nor uses"* etc., because God loves himself, yet does not use, because he does not love himself on account of another; nor does he enjoy, because where there is enjoyment, there is inherence and indigence, as Augustine says[^25]; but God lacks both etc.

**I respond:** It must be said that enjoyment in its general account signifies the union of love, namely of the enjoyable with the enjoyer. Therefore since it happens that something is united to itself and to another, it happens that one not only enjoys another, but also oneself; but where there is union to another, there is dependence, inherence and indigence; but where [there is union] to oneself, if that very self is the highest good, there[^26] is no inherence nor dependence nor indigence, but every kind of sufficiency. But if the good itself is deficient, it has need; and hence it is that God alone perfectly enjoys himself, but nothing other than himself can perfectly enjoy itself. For God alone is the highest good and loves himself by enjoying himself, and loves other things also by enjoying himself: and thus neither God's enjoyment nor use is with indigence, as is our enjoyment and use.

### Doubt XIII.

Likewise it is objected against this that he says: *"Because [God] is good, we are"*: therefore because he is good from eternity, we are from eternity.

**I respond:** It must be said briefly, that this is so because *good* signifies a cause[^27]. But there is a natural and necessary cause, and a voluntary cause. The divine goodness, however, is the cause of our being and well-being by way of will, not of nature; and this cause does not posit the effect immediately, when it is.

### Doubt XIV.

Likewise, it is further objected: why does it not follow similarly: because he is just, we are just[^28]? If you say that justice is not his disposition insofar as he is cause; on the contrary: wisdom is the disposition of God insofar as he is cause: therefore by parity of reasoning, because he is wise, we are wise. If you say that it is not an immediate disposition, like goodness; it is objected concerning the will, which is most immediate, and yet it does not follow: because he is willing, we are willing.

**I respond:** It must be said that the reason of this consequence is threefold. One is that goodness is a condition of cause as cause; the second is that

it is proximate to act[^29]; the third, that it is a general disposition, in which consists the account of vestige; for it bespeaks respect to the end. Whence just as the one God impresses unity, so the good [God impresses] goodness.

### Doubt XV.

Likewise it is objected against this that is said: *"That it may be loved on account of itself alone,"* because as *per se* is to *per accidens*, so *for its own sake* is to *for the sake of another*. But nothing which belongs to something *per accidens* belongs to it *per se*: therefore nothing which belongs to something *for the sake of another* belongs *for its own sake*. If therefore the virtues are to be sought *for the sake of another*, therefore not *for their own sake*.

**I respond:** As the Philosopher says[^30], « The end and *that for the sake of which* are the same ». Now the end is twofold: in one way the ultimate end, which most properly is the end, in which there is rest; in another way the end under the end, which[^31] is properly called the terminus. So also *that for the sake of which* is diversified; whence in one way it excludes the [ultimate] end, in another way not, as the Master says.

As to what is objected concerning *per se*; I say that, just as *per se* is in one way opposed to that which is *per aliud* — and thus *per se* and *insofar as it is itself* (*secundum quod ipsum*), or *first universal*[^32], are the same — in another way it is opposed to that which is *per accidens*: so also *for its own sake* (*propter se*) is taken in two ways. In one way it is opposed to that which is *for the sake of another*, in another way to that which is *per accidens*, because[^33] [the latter] is ordered to that [end] accidentally. According to this the Master distinguishes *for its own sake*, and consequently the *honourable* or *enjoyable*, and finally enjoyment itself[^34].

### Doubt XVI.

Likewise it is objected against this that he says: *"And certain are things through which we enjoy, as the virtues."* It seems that the soul can enjoy by the powers alone[^35]. For without any virtue it can enjoy a created good; therefore since the uncreated good is more enjoyable, and the soul is more born for this, it will be able to enjoy it by the powers alone.

**I respond:** It must be said that the highest good is that which is above us; for the soul to be united to it, therefore, a twofold medium necessarily intervenes: one medium, through which the soul is born to be united to another different from itself; and this is the *power* (*potentia*); another, a special[^36] [medium] above this, which raises it up; and this is *virtue*. What is objected is not similar, because the power *per se* can fail and be inclined [downward], but cannot *per se* be elevated[^37].

---

la: Libr. I. *de Sacram.* p. 8. c. 12. (ed. Paris. 1526): *Si quis igitur quaerat tempus institutionis Sacramentorum, sciat, quia quamdiu morbus est, tempus medicinae est.*

en: Book I *On the Sacraments*, part 8, c. 12 (Paris ed., 1526): *"If anyone therefore asks the time of the institution of the Sacraments, let him know that, as long as there is disease, it is the time of medicine."*

la: Cod. Z addit: *supple, quae non tantum erat ad significandum ratione operis operati, sed ad iustificandum.*

en: Codex Z adds: *"supply, [the Circumcision] which was not only for signifying by reason of the work-worked, but for justifying."*

la: Hoc est, si genus per differentiam ad speciem contrahitur.

en: That is, if a genus is contracted through a difference to a species.

la: Codd. LO satis bene: *Sic est hic, et res contrahitur.*

en: Codices L and O quite well: *"So it is here, and the [term] thing is contracted."*

la: Plures codd. ut ACLORTWX etc. indebite omittunt: *causa autem ducit in cognitionem effectus.*

en: Several codices such as A, C, L, O, R, T, W, X etc. improperly omit: *"now the cause leads to the knowledge of the effect."*

la: Contradicentibus codd. et edd. 1, 2, 3, perperam Vat. loco *hic* habet *hoc* et post *sacramentalia* superflue addit *tale ergo signum non est omnis res; licet omnis res sit signum primo modo.*

en: Against the codices and editions 1, 2, 3, the Vatican edition wrongly has *hoc* in place of *hic*, and after *sacramentalia* superfluously adds *"such a sign therefore is not every thing; although every thing is a sign in the first way."*

la: Multi codd. ut ACFGKLOUWX etc. cum edd. 1, 2, 3, 6 *dixisse*.

en: Many codices such as A, C, F, G, K, L, O, U, W, X etc. together with editions 1, 2, 3, 6 [read] *dixisse* [for *dicere*].

la: Praeferimus lectionem mss. et edd. 1, 2, 3 lectioni Vat. *divisum debet esse* loco *aliquid est*, utpote subnexis conformiorem.

en: We prefer the reading of the manuscripts and of editions 1, 2, 3 to the Vatican reading *divisum debet esse* in place of *aliquid est*, as more conformable to what follows.

la: Ex fere omnibus mss. et ed. 1, 2, 3 emendavimus interpolationem Vat.: *est tertia medio modo, et ista est analogi, sicut ista est, ubi non est communitas creaturae et Creatori secundum naturae participationem, sed.* Deinde in fine responsionis codd. D I X Y ee addunt *et per hoc patet responsio, quia obiectio procedit de divisione univoci; haec autem divisio est analogi.* Placet haec additio, utpote continens applicationem principii. Cfr. supra a. 3. q. 1. ad 1.

en: From nearly all the manuscripts and editions 1, 2, 3 we have emended the Vatican interpolation: *"there is a third in a middle way, and this is of the analogous, as this is the [one], where there is no community of creature and Creator according to participation of nature, but."* Then at the end of the response codices D, I, X, Y, ee add *"and through this the response is clear, because the objection proceeds from the division of the univocal; but this division is of the analogous."* This addition is pleasing, as containing an application of the principle. Cf. above a. 3, q. 1, ad 1.

la: Refragantibus mss. et ed. 1, habet Vat. *ponit*. Cod. dd omittit *ut Christus* et deinde legit *ergo tertium superfluit, vel qua ratione.*

en: Against the manuscripts and edition 1, the Vatican has *ponit*. Codex dd omits *ut Christus* and then reads *"therefore the third is superfluous, or by what reason."*

la: Supplevimus ex mss. et ed. 1 *si*. Paulo post cod. R *ad diversitatem* loco *a diversitate*.

en: We have supplied *si* from the manuscripts and edition 1. A little after, codex R has *ad diversitatem* in place of *a diversitate*.

la: Contra codd. omittit Vat. *quia*.

en: Against the codices, the Vatican omits *quia*.

la: Vat. contra mss. et edd. 1, 2, 3 *assumtum* et paulo infra post *tamen* addit *aeque bene*.

en: The Vatican, against the manuscripts and editions 1, 2, 3, has *assumtum*, and a little below after *tamen* adds *aeque bene*.

la: Fide fere omnium codd. et edd. 1, 2, 3 suffecimus *ipsam* et paulo infra pro *effectus* posuimus *affectus*.

en: On the faith of nearly all the codices and editions 1, 2, 3 we have substituted *ipsam*, and a little below for *effectus* we have placed *affectus*.

la: Codd. inter se non conveniunt; nam alii, ut ACGKLORSUVWX etc. cum ed. 1 loco *stulti* ponunt *multi*, qui et dein fere omnes omittunt *similiter et bestiae*, dum e contra alii ut FH (T a secunda manu correctus), omissis verbis *stulti homines similiter et*, retinent *bestiae*, (codd. H T *bruta*); edd. 4, 5, 6 loco *multi* habent *mali*. Verba Augustini, in quibus obiectio fundatur, sunt: *Et frui quidem cibo et qualibet corporali voluptate non adeo absurde existimantur et bestiae; uti autem aliqua re non potest nisi animal, quod rationis est particeps. Scire namque, quo quidque referendum sit, non datum est rationis expertibus, sed neque ipsis rationalibus stultis* (83. Qq. q. 30.).

en: The codices do not agree among themselves; for some, as A, C, G, K, L, O, R, S, U, V, W, X etc. with edition 1, in place of *stulti* put *multi*, and then nearly all omit *similiter et bestiae*; while on the contrary others, as F, H (T corrected by a second hand), omitting the words *stulti homines similiter et*, retain *bestiae* (codices H, T have *bruta*); editions 4, 5, 6 in place of *multi* have *mali*. The words of Augustine on which the objection is founded are: *"And indeed beasts also are not absurdly thought to enjoy food and any bodily pleasure; but to use any thing belongs only to an animal which is partaker of reason. For to know to what each thing is to be referred is not given to those without reason, nor even to rational fools themselves"* (*83 Questions*, q. 30).

la: Substituimus ex plurimis mss. ut ACFGHIKOSTUVWXZ etc. et ed. 1 *collatio* pro *relatio*; cod. R legit *delectio*. Paulo supra cod. O post *relatione* addit *vel collatione*.

en: We have substituted *collatio* for *relatio* on the basis of very many manuscripts, such as A, C, F, G, H, I, K, O, S, T, U, V, W, X, Z etc., and edition 1; codex R reads *delectio*. A little above, codex O after *relatione* adds *vel collatione*.

la: Cfr. August. loc. cit.; insuper B. Albert., hic a. 17. ad 2. — Thom., hic q. 1. a. 1. et S. I. II. q. 11. a. 2. — Scot., hic q. 5. — Richard., hic a. 2. q. 2. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 3.

en: Cf. Augustine, *loc. cit.*; further, Bl. Albert, here a. 17, ad 2. — Thomas, here q. 1, a. 1, and *Summa Theol.* I-II, q. 11, a. 2. — Scotus, here q. 5. — Richard, here a. 2, q. 2. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 3.

la: Ope codd. et ed. 1 expunximus particulam *et*, quam Vat. ponit post *quia*.

en: By the aid of the codices and edition 1 we have expunged the particle *et*, which the Vatican places after *quia*.

la: Vers. 6. Textus Glossae interlinearis apud Lyranum est: *Naturale est, unumquemque in suo periculo plus de alio quam de se sperare.*

en: Verse 6. The text of the interlinear Gloss in Lyranus is: *"It is natural that everyone in his own danger hopes more in another than in himself."*

la: Vat. contra multos codd. ut AFGKTWX etc. et sex primas edd. *ponatur*.

en: The Vatican, against many codices such as A, F, G, K, T, W, X etc. and the first six editions, [has] *ponatur*.

la: Vat. contra mss. et ed. 1 *dicitur*. Paulo infra Vat. contra codd. CISTVWXZ etc. et ed. 1 post *conversa* supervacanee addit *per consequens*.

en: The Vatican, against the manuscripts and edition 1, [has] *dicitur*. A little below, the Vatican, against codices C, I, S, T, V, W, X, Z etc. and edition 1, after *conversa* superfluously adds *per consequens*.

la: Vers. 10. Ita codd. et ed. 1 ac Hugo de S. Charo in hunc locum; Vulgata vero *serire magnatis*; Vat. autem citando Ecclesiasten 7, 15. legit *fruere bonis*.

en: Verse 10. Thus the codices and edition 1, and Hugh of St. Cher on this passage; but the Vulgate [has] *serire magnatis* ("to serve the great"); the Vatican, however, citing Ecclesiastes 7:15, reads *fruere bonis*.

la: Vers. 41. — Mox post *fruerentur* in Vat. additur *eis*.

en: Verse 41. — Shortly after, after *fruerentur* in the Vatican is added *eis*.

la: Hic, a. 2. q. 1. in corp. — Deinde Vat. praeter fidem omnium codd. et sex primarum edd. post *quod* omittit *cum* et post *praedictis* contra antiquiores mss. loco *locutionibus* ponit *auctoritatibus*.

en: Here, a. 2, q. 1, in the body. — Then the Vatican, against the faith of all the codices and the first six editions, after *quod* omits *cum*, and after *praedictis*, against the older manuscripts, in place of *locutionibus* places *auctoritatibus*.

la: Libr. I. *de Doctr. christ.* c. 31. n. 34: *Sed si fruitur, eget bono nostro, quod nemo sanus dixerit.* — Ex antiquioribus codd. cum ed. 1 post *ibi* adiecimus *est*.

en: Book I *On Christian Doctrine*, c. 31, n. 34: *"But if [God] enjoys, he has need of our good, which no sane person would say."* — From the older codices with edition 1 we have added *est* after *ibi*.

la: Auctoritate codd. et ed. 1 supplevimus *ibi*. Paulo infra cod. dd post *dependentia* habet *nec* pro *vel*.

en: On the authority of the codices and edition 1 we have supplied *ibi*. A little below, codex dd after *dependentia* has *nec* in place of *vel*.

la: Vat. *quod hoc quia bonus est dicit causam*, sed secuti sumus auctoritatem mss. et ed. 1. Mox lectio Vat. minus recta *sed est aliqua causa naturalis etiam necessaria et est aliqua causa voluntaria* castigatur ex codd. et ed. 1. Paulo infra Vat. post *naturae*, contradicentibus mss. et ed. 1, addit *et necessitatis*.

en: The Vatican [has] *quod hoc quia bonus est dicit causam*, but we have followed the authority of the manuscripts and edition 1. Shortly the less correct Vatican reading *sed est aliqua causa naturalis etiam necessaria et est aliqua causa voluntaria* is corrected from the codices and edition 1. A little below the Vatican after *naturae*, against the manuscripts and edition 1, adds *et necessitatis*.

la: Ope mss. et ed. 1 expunximus verba, quae Vat. hic addit *sicut quia bonus est, boni sumus*.

en: By the aid of the manuscripts and edition 1 we have expunged the words which the Vatican here adds: *"as because he is good, we are good."*

la: Absque ulla auctoritate codd. et ed. 1 hic Vat. addit: *quae cum bonum sit sui communicativum, de sui ratione importat communicabilitatem, importat etiam voluntatem, quae duo ponunt effectum in actu.* Paulo ante, obnitentibus mss. et ed. 1, ponit Vat. *dispositio* pro *conditio* et paulo infra post *dicit* omittit *enim*. — Hoc et praecedens dubium fuse ab Alex. Hal. explicantur S. 1. q. 17. m. 9. — De ratione vestigii cfr. infra d. 3. p. 1. q. 2. in fine et ibidem dub. 6.

en: Without any authority of the codices or edition 1, the Vatican here adds: *"which since good is self-communicative, by its account imports communicability, and also imports will, which two place the effect into act."* A little before, against the manuscripts and edition 1, the Vatican places *dispositio* for *conditio*, and a little below after *dicit* omits *enim*. — This and the preceding doubt are extensively explained by Alex. of Hales, *Summa* 1, q. 17, m. 9. — On the account of *vestige* cf. below d. 3, p. 1, q. 2, at the end, and there dub. 6.

la: Libr. II. *Phys.* text. 29. (c. 3.), ubi iuxta ed. Venet. 1489: *Dicitur etiam (causa) secundum finem intentum, et hoc est illud propter quod.*

en: Book II *Physics*, text 29 (c. 3), where according to the Venice ed. of 1489: *"A cause is also said according to the intended end, and this is *that for the sake of which*."*

la: Vat. cum pluribus codd. F G K etc. *et* pro *qui*.

en: The Vatican with several codices F, G, K etc. [has] *et* in place of *qui*.

la: Propositio haec, ex Aristot., I. *Poster.* text. 11. (c. 4.) sumta, iuxta antiquam versionem (ed. Venet. apud Octavianum Scotum, 1538) sic exhibetur: « *Per se* autem et *secundum quod ipsum*, idem, ut *per se* lineae inest punctus et rectum: etenim secundum quod linea ». Et paulo ante: « *Universale* autem dico, quod utique et de omni sit et per se et secundum quod ipsum… *Universale* tale est tunc, quando in quolibet et primo monstretur ». — S. Thomas in Commentario ad hunc locum observat, quod hic « *universale* non hoc modo accipitur, prout omne quod praedicatur de pluribus dicitur universale, secundum quod Porphyrius determinat de quinque universalibus; sed dicitur hic *universale* secundum quandam adaptationem vel adaequationem praedicati ad subiectum, cum scilicet neque praedicatum invenitur extra subiectum neque subiectum sine praedicato… Primo dicit, quod *universale*, scilicet praedicatum, est etiam quod de omni est, id est, universaliter praedicatur de subiecto; et etiam *per se*, scilicet inest ei, convenit subiecto, secundum quod ipsum subiectum est. Multa enim de aliquibus praedicantur universaliter, quae non conveniunt ei *per se* et *secundum quod ipsum est*. Sicut omnis lapis coloratus est, non tamen secundum quod lapis, sed secundum quod ipsum est superficiem habens » (ed. Parmae 1865). — Vocatur illud *primum universale*, quando universale praedicatum non solum in quolibet est, de quo praedicatur, sed et primo demonstratur inesse ei, de quo praedicatur; sic, ut in exemplo ab Aristotele persistemus, habere tres angulos aequales duobus rectis non convenit primo isosceli, sed triangulo (quia isosceli convenit in quantum triangulus est), adeoque et *primum universale* trianguli, non isoscelis est. Plura videsis apud S. Thomam loc. cit. et Scot. in I. *Poster.* q. 15-39. — Ad normam ed. operum Aristot. et codd. nec non ed. 1 substituimus in propositione praedicta post *per se* particulam *et* pro *quod*.

en: This proposition, taken from Aristotle, I *Posterior [Analytics]*, text 11 (c. 4), according to the old version (Venice ed., Octavianus Scotus, 1538) is given thus: « *Per se* and *insofar as it is itself* are the same, as *per se* the point and the straight belong to a line: for [they belong to it] insofar as it is a line ». And a little before: « By *universal* I mean that which is at once of every [instance] and *per se* and insofar as it is itself… A *universal* is such then, when in any [instance] and *first* it is demonstrated [to belong] ». — St. Thomas in his Commentary on this passage observes that here « *universal* is not taken in this way, as everything which is predicated of many is called universal, according to which Porphyry determines the five universals; but here *universal* is said according to a certain adaptation or adequation of predicate to subject, when, namely, neither the predicate is found outside the subject nor the subject without the predicate… First he says that *universal*, namely the predicate, is also that which is *of every* [instance], that is, is predicated universally of the subject; and also *per se*, namely is in it, belongs to the subject insofar as the subject itself is. For many things are predicated of some [subjects] universally which do not belong to it *per se* and *insofar as it is itself*. As every stone is coloured, yet not insofar as it is stone, but insofar as it has a surface » (ed. Parma 1865). — That is called *first universal*, when the universal predicate not only is in every [instance] of which it is predicated, but is first demonstrated to be in that of which it is predicated; thus, to persist in the example from Aristotle, to have three angles equal to two right angles does not belong first to the isosceles, but to the triangle (because it belongs to the isosceles insofar as it is a triangle), and so the *first universal* of triangle, not of isosceles, it is. See more in St. Thomas *loc. cit.* and Scotus in I *Posterior [Analytics]*, q. 15-39. — To the norm of the editions of Aristotle's works and of the codices, and also of edition 1, we have substituted in the aforesaid proposition after *per se* the particle *et* in place of *quod*.

la: Praeter fidem mss. et sex primarum edd. hic Vat. addit *aliud*.

en: Against the faith of the manuscripts and the first six editions, the Vatican here adds *aliud*.

la: In solutione huius dubii concordat Richard., hic a. 2. q. 3. ad 1.

en: In the solution of this doubt Richard agrees, here a. 2, q. 3, ad 1.

la: Auctoritate mss. et ed. 1 delevimus verba hic a Vat. adiecta *sine omni virtute*, utpote quae iam satis indicantur particula exclusiva *solis*.

en: On the authority of the manuscripts and edition 1 we have deleted the words here added by the Vatican *sine omni virtute*, as being already sufficiently indicated by the exclusive particle *solis*.

la: Additur hic a Vat. *vel spirituale*, quod deest in fere omnibus codd. et ed. 1; pauci codd., ut H U W cc loco *speciale* ponunt minus recte *spirituale*. Paulo ante cod. R pro *intervenit* habet *concurrit*, et cod. X loco *unum* satis bene legit *generale*.

en: Here the Vatican adds *vel spirituale*, which is lacking in nearly all the codices and edition 1; a few codices, as H, U, W, cc, in place of *speciale* place, less correctly, *spirituale*. A little before, codex R for *intervenit* has *concurrit*, and codex X in place of *unum* quite well reads *generale*.

la: Quo sensu virtutibus sit fruendum, vide supra a. 3. q. 2. et II. *Sent.* d. 18. a. 1. q. 2. — B. Albert., hic a. 21. — Aegid. R., hic l. princ. q. 2.

en: In what sense the virtues are to be enjoyed, see above a. 3, q. 2, and II *Sent.*, d. 18, a. 1, q. 2. — Bl. Albert, here a. 21. — Giles of Rome, here book [I], at the beginning, q. 2.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity

title: Dist. 2

title_alt: Littera Magistri, Distinctio II (Caps. I–V)

title_alt: Text of the Master, Distinction II (Chs. 1–5)

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 46 -->

### Distinctio II.

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

Hoc itaque[^1] vera ac pia fide tenendum est, «quod Trinitas sit unus et solus verus Deus, ut ait Augustinus in primo libro *de Trinitate*[^2], scilicet Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus; et[^3] haec Trinitas unius eiusdemque substantiae vel essentiae dicitur, creditur et intelligitur, quae est summum bonum, quod purgatissimis mentibus cernitur. Mentis enim humanae acies invalida in tam excellenti luce non figitur, nisi per iustitiam fidei enutriatur». Idem in libro primo *Retractationum*[^4]: «Non approbo quod in oratione dixi: *Deus, qui non nisi mundos verum scire voluisti*. Responderi enim potest, multos etiam non mundos multa scire vera. De hac igitur re[^5] summa et excellentissima cum modestia et timore agendum est, et attentissimis auribus atque devotis audiendum, ubi quaeritur unitas Trinitatis, Patris scilicet et Filii et Spiritus sancti, quia nec periculosius alicubi erratur, nec laboriosius aliquid quaeritur, nec fructuosius aliquid invenitur[^6]». Proinde omnis, qui audit et legit ea quae de ineffabili et inaccessibili luce Deitatis[^7] dicuntur, studeat imitari atque servare, quod venerabilis Doctor Augustinus in primo libro *de Trinitate*[^8] de se ipso ait: «Non pigebit me, inquit, sicubi haesito, quaerere, nec pudebit, sicubi erro, discere. Quisquis ergo audit haec vel legit, ubi pariter certus est, pergat mecum; ubi pariter haesitat, quaerat mecum; ubi errorem suum cognoscit, redeat ad me; ubi meum, revocet me. Ita ingrediamur simul caritatis viam, tendentes ad eum de quo dictum est[^9]: *Quaerite faciem eius semper*».

#### Cap. II.
*Quae fuerit intentio scribentium de Trinitate.*

«Omnes autem catholici tractatores, ut in eodem[^10] Augustinus ait, qui de Trinitate, quae Deus est, scripserunt, hoc intenderunt secundum Scripturas docere, quod Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus unius sint[^11] substantiae et inseparabili aequalitate unus sint Deus, ut sit unitas in essentia et pluralitas in personis; ideoque non sunt tres dii, sed unus Deus, licet Pater Filium genuerit, et ideo Filius non sit qui Pater est; Filiusque a Patre sit genitus, et ideo Pater non sit qui Filius est; et Spiritus sanctus nec Pater sit nec Filius, sed tantum Patris et Filii Spiritus utrique coaequalis et ad Trinitatis pertinens unitatem». «Teneamus igitur[^12], Patrem et Filium et Spiritum sanctum unum esse naturaliter Deum, ut ait Augustinus in libro *de Fide ad Petrum*[^13]; neque tamen ipsum Patrem esse qui Filius est; nec Filium ipsum esse qui Pater est; nec Spiritum sanctum ipsum esse qui Pater est aut Filius. Una est enim Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti essentia, quam Graeci *usian*[^14] vocant, in qua non est aliud Pater, aliud Filius, aliud Spiritus sanctus, quamvis sit personaliter alius Pater, alius Filius, alius Spiritus sanctus».

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

Ceterum, ut in libro primo *de Trinitate*[^15] Augustinus docet: «Primum secundum auctoritates sanctarum Scripturarum, utrum fides ita se habeat, demonstrandum est. Deinde adversus garrulos ratiocinatores, elatiores[^16] quam capaciores, rationibus catholicis et similitudinibus congruis ad defensionem et assertionem[^17] fidei utendum est, ut eorum inquisitionibus satisfacientes, mansuetos plenius instruamus, et illi, si nequiverint invenire quod quaerunt, de suis mentibus potius quam de ipsa veritate vel de nostra dissertione conquerantur».

<!-- page 47 -->

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

Proponamus ergo in medium veteris ac novi Testamenti auctoritates, quibus divinae Unitatis atque Trinitatis veritas demonstretur. Ac primum ipsa Legis exordia occurrant, ubi Moyses ait[^18]: *Audi Israel, Dominus Deus tuus Deus unus est.* Item[^19]: *Ego sum Dominus Deus tuus, qui eduxi te de terra Aegypti; non erunt tibi alii dii praeter me.* Ecce hic significavit unitatem divinae naturae. «Deus enim et Dominus, ut ait Ambrosius in primo libro *de Trinitate*[^20], nomen est naturae, nomen est potestatis». Item alibi Deus loquens ad Moysen ait[^21]: *Ego sum qui sum, et si quaesierint nomen meum, vade et dic eis: Qui est, misit me ad vos.* Dicens enim *Ego sum*, non *Nos sumus* et *Qui est*, non *Qui sumus*, apertissime declaravit, unum solum Deum esse. In Cantico etiam Exodi[^22] legitur: *Dominus, omnipotens nomen eius*; non ait *Domini*, unitatem volens significare. Personarum quoque pluralitatem et naturae unitatem simul ostendit Dominus in Genesi dicens[^23]: *Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram.* Dicens enim *faciamus* et *nostram*, pluralitatem personarum ostendit: dicens vero *imaginem*, unitatem essentiae. Ut enim dicit Augustinus in libro *de Fide ad Petrum*[^24]: «Si in illa natura Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti una esset tantum persona, non diceretur: *Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram.* Cum enim dicit *ad imaginem*, ostendit, unam naturam esse, ad cuius imaginem homo fieret; cum vero dicit *nostram*, ostendit, eundem Deum non unam, sed plures esse personas». Hilarius quoque in libro tertio *de Trinitate* dicit, his verbis significari, quod in Trinitate nec diversitas est, nec singularitas vel solitudo, sed similitudo et pluralitas sive distinctio. Ait enim sic[^25]: «Qui dixit: *Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram*, invicem esse sui similes in eo quod dicit: *imaginem et similitudinem nostram*, ostendit». «Imago enim sola non est, et similitudo non sibi[^26] est: neque diversitatem duobus admisceri alterius ad alterum similitudo permittit». Item idem in quarto libro[^27]: «Absolutius voluit intelligi, significationem hanc non ad se tantum esse referendam, dicendo: *Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram*; professio enim consortii sustulit intelligentiam singularis[^28], quia consortium aliquod non potest esse sibi ipsi solitario, neque rursum solitudo solitarii vocem faciamus, neque quisquam alieno a se loquitur *nostram*. Uterque sermo, scilicet *faciamus* et *nostram*, ut solitarium eundemque non patitur, ita neque diversum a se alienumque significat. Solitario convenit *faciam* et *meam*; non solitario vero convenit dicere *faciamus* et *nostram*. Uterque sermo, ut non solitarium tantum, ita neque differentem esse vel diversum esse significat. Nobis quoque nec solitarius, nec diversus est confitendus. Ita ergo Deus ad communem sibi cum Deo imaginem eandemque similitudinem hominem reperitur operari; ut nec significatio efficientis admittat intelligentiam solitudinis, nec operatio constituta ad eandem imaginem vel similitudinem patiatur diversitatem divinitatis[^29]».

In his verbis Hilarius[^30] pluralitatem personarum voluit intelligi nomine consortii, atque significavit, nomine consortii vel pluralitatis non poni aliquid, sed removeri. Pluralitas enim vel consortium personarum cum dicitur, solitudo et[^31] singularitas negatur; cum dicimus, plures esse personas, significamus, quod non est una sola. Ideo[^32] Hilarius volens ista subtiliter et sane intelligi, ait: «Professio consortii sustulit intelligentiam singularis[^33]», non dicit *posuit aliquid*. Ita etiam cum dicimus tres personas, singularitatem et solitudinem tollimus, et quod Pater non est solus, nec Filius est solus, nec Spiritus sanctus est solus, significamus, et[^34] quod nec Pater tantum est et Filius, nec Pater tantum et Spiritus sanctus, nec Filius tantum et Spiritus sanctus. De hoc autem in sequenti[^35] plenius agetur, ubi etiam secundum quid similes dicantur tres personae, et utrum aliquo modo sit ibi diversitas vel differentia, ostendetur.

Nunc vero ad propositum redeamus et ad ostendendam[^36] personarum pluralitatem atque essentiae divinae unitatem alias Sanctorum auctoritates inducamus. Moyses dicit[^37]: *In principio creavit Deus caelum et*

<!-- page 48 -->

*terram*, per *Deum* significans Patrem, per *principium* Filium. Et pro eo quod apud nos dicitur *Deus*, Hebraica veritas habet *heloym*, quod est plurale huius singularis, quod est *hel*. Quod ergo non est dictum *hel*, quod est Deus, sed *heloym*, quod potest interpretari *dii* sive *iudices*, ad pluralitatem personarum refertur. Ad quam etiam illud attinere videtur, quod diabolus per serpentem dixit[^38]: *Eritis sicut dii*, pro quo in Hebraeo habetur *heloym*, ac si diceret: *eritis sicut divinae personae*. Ille etiam maximus Prophetarum et regum, David, qui suam ceteris praefert intelligentiam dicens[^39]: *Super senes intellexi*, unitatem divinae naturae ostendens ait[^40]: *Dominus nomen est illi*; non dicit *Domini*. Alibi etiam eiusdem unitatem et aeternitatem simul ostendens ait ex persona Dei[^41]: *Israel, si me audieris, non erit in te Deus recens, neque adorabis Deum alienum*. «Aliud horum, ut dicit Ambrosius in libro primo *de Trinitate*[^42], significat aeternitatem, aliud unitatem substantiae indifferentis, ut neque posteriorem Patre, neque alterius divinitatis Filium vel Spiritum sanctum esse credamus. Nam si Patre posterior est Filius vel Spiritus sanctus, recens est; et si unius non est divinitatis, alienus est; sed nec posterior est, quia recens non est, nec alienus, quia ex Patre natus est Filius, ex Patre processit[^43] Spiritus sanctus. Alibi quoque distinctionem personarum insinuans ait[^44]: *Verbo Domini caeli firmati sunt, et Spiritu oris eius omnis virtus eorum*. Alibi etiam ait[^45]: *Benedicat nos Deus, Deus noster, benedicat nos Deus, et metuant eum omnes fines terrae*. Trina enim confessio Dei trinitatem exprimit personarum; unitatem vero essentiae aperit, cum singulariter subiungit *eum*. Isaias quoque dicit[^46], se audisse Seraphim clamantia: *Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus, Dominus Deus*. Per hoc quod dicit ter *Sanctus*, Trinitatem significat: per hoc quod subdit *Dominus Deus*, unitatem essentiae. David quoque aeternam Filii generationem aperte insinuat ex persona Filii dicens[^47]: *Dominus dixit ad me: Filius meus es tu, ego hodie genui te*. De hac ineffabili generatione Isaias ait[^48]: *Generationem eius quis enarrabit?* In libro quoque Sapientiae aeternitas Filii cum Patre monstratur, ubi Sapientia ita loquitur[^49]: *Dominus possedit me in initio viarum suarum, antequam quidquam faceret a principio: ab aeterno ordinata sum, antequam terra fieret; necdum erant abyssi, et ego iam concepta eram: necdum fontes necdum montes aut colles, et ego parturiebar: adhuc terram non fecerat et cardines orbis terrae: quando praeparabat caelos, aderam: quando appendebat fundamenta terrae, cum eo eram cuncta componens, et delectabar per singulos dies, ludens coram eo*. Ecce apertum[^50] de aeterna genitura testimonium, quo ipsa Sapientia perhibet, se ante mundum conceptam esse et parturiri, id est genitam esse, et apud Patrem aeternaliter existere. Ipsa etiam alibi ait[^51]: *Ego ex ore Altissimi prodii, primogenita ante omnem creaturam*. Michaeas quoque Propheta aeternam Verbi generationem et temporalem ex Maria simul insinuavit dicens[^52]: *Et tu, Bethlehem Ephrata, parvulus es in millibus Iuda: ex te egredietur qui sit dominator in Israel, et egressus eius ab initio, a diebus aeternitatis*.

De Spiritu sancto etiam expressa documenta in veteri Testamento habemus. In Genesi[^53] enim legitur: *Spiritus Domini ferebatur super aquas*. Et David dicit: *Quo ibo a Spiritu tuo?* Et in libro Sapientiae dicitur: *Spiritus sanctus disciplinae effugiet fictum, benignus est enim spiritus sapientiae*. Isaias[^54] quoque ait: *Spiritus Domini super me* etc.

<!-- page 49 -->

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

Nunc vero post testimonia veteris Testamenti de fide sanctae Trinitatis et Unitatis ad novi Testamenti auctoritates accedamus, ut in medio duorum animalium[^55] (id est Testamentorum) cognoscatur veritas, et forcipe de altari sumatur calculus, quo tangantur ora fidelium. Dominus itaque Christus unitatem divinae essentiae ac personarum trinitatem aperte insinuat dicens Apostolis[^56]: *Ite, baptizate omnes gentes in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti*. «In nomine utique ait, ut Ambrosius ait in libro primo *de Trinitate*, non in nominibus», ut unitas essentiae ostendatur; per nomina tria, quae supposuit, tres esse personas declaravit. «Ipse etiam ait: *Ego et Pater unum sumus*. *Unum* dixit, ut ait Ambrosius in eodem libro, ne fiat discretio potestatis et naturae; et addidit *sumus*, ut Patrem Filiumque cognoscas, scilicet ut perfectus Pater Filium perfectum genuisse credatur, et quod Pater et Filius unum sint, non confusione personae, sed unitate naturae». Ioannes quoque in Epistola canonica ait[^57]: *Tres sunt, qui testimonium perhibent in caelo: Pater, Verbum et Spiritus sanctus, et hi tres unum sunt*. Ipse etiam in initio Evangelii sui ait: *In principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum*; ubi aperte ostendit, Filium semper et aeternaliter fuisse apud Patrem, ut alium apud alium. Apostolus quoque aperte trinitatem distinguit dicens[^58]: *Misit Deus Spiritum Filii sui in corda nostra*. Et alibi[^59]: *Si spiritus eius, qui suscitavit Iesum, habitat in nobis* etc. Item alibi trinitatem atque unitatem evidentissime commendat dicens: *Quoniam ex ipso, et per ipsum, et in ipso sunt omnia, ipsi gloria*. «*Ex ipso* dicit, ut Augustinus in libro *de Trinitate*[^60] ait, propter Patrem; *per ipsum* dicit propter Filium; *in ipso* propter Spiritum sanctum». Per hoc vero, quod non ait *ex ipsis*, *per ipsos* et *in ipsis*, nec ait *ipsis* gloria, sed *ipsi*, insinuavit, hanc Trinitatem unum Dominum Deum esse. Sed quia singulae pene syllabae novi Testamenti hanc ineffabilis Unitatis atque Trinitatis veritatem concorditer insinuant, inductioni testimoniorum super hac re supersedeamus et rationibus congruisque similitudinibus ita esse, prout infirmitas nostra valet, ostendamus.

---

english:
<!-- page 46 -->

### Distinction II.

#### Chapter I.
*On the Trinity and the Unity.*

Therefore[^1] it must be held by true and pious faith, «that the Trinity is the one and only true God, as Augustine says in the first book *On the Trinity*[^2], namely the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and[^3] this Trinity is said, believed, and understood to be of one and the same substance or essence, which is the highest good, which is discerned by the most purified minds. For the gaze of the human mind, weak as it is, is not fixed upon so excellent a light unless it be nourished through the righteousness of faith». The same author in the first book of the *Retractations*[^4]: «I do not approve what I said in prayer: *O God, who hast willed that none but the pure should know truth*. For one may answer that many even of those who are not pure do know many true things. Therefore concerning this matter[^5], the highest and most excellent, we must proceed with modesty and fear, and listen with most attentive and devout ears, where the unity of the Trinity is sought, namely of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; for nowhere is one led astray more dangerously, nor anything sought more laboriously, nor anything found more fruitfully[^6]». Therefore everyone who hears and reads what is said about the ineffable and inaccessible light of the Deity[^7] should strive to imitate and observe what the venerable Doctor Augustine in the first book *On the Trinity*[^8] says of himself: «It will not weary me», he says, «wherever I hesitate, to inquire, nor will it shame me, wherever I err, to learn. Therefore whoever hears or reads these things, where he is equally certain, let him go on with me; where he equally hesitates, let him inquire with me; where he recognizes his own error, let him return to me; where mine, let him recall me. Thus let us together enter the way of charity, tending toward Him of whom it is said[^9]: *Seek His face evermore*».

#### Chapter II.
*What was the intention of those who wrote on the Trinity.*

«Now all Catholic treatise-writers, as Augustine says in the same place[^10], who have written on the Trinity, which is God, have intended this — to teach according to the Scriptures that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are[^11] of one substance, and by inseparable equality are one God, so that there is unity in essence and plurality in persons; and therefore they are not three gods, but one God, although the Father has begotten the Son, and therefore the Son is not He who is the Father; and the Son has been begotten by the Father, and therefore the Father is not He who is the Son; and the Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son, but only the Spirit of the Father and of the Son, coequal to both and pertaining to the unity of the Trinity». «Let us therefore hold[^12] that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are by nature one God, as Augustine says in the book *On Faith to Peter*[^13]; nevertheless that the Father is not He who is the Son; nor is the Son He who is the Father; nor is the Holy Spirit He who is the Father or the Son. For one is the essence of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, which the Greeks call *usia*[^14], in which the Father is not one thing, the Son another, the Holy Spirit another, although personally the Father is one, the Son another, the Holy Spirit another».

#### Chapter III.
*What order should be observed when treating of the Trinity.*

Furthermore, as Augustine teaches in the first book *On the Trinity*[^15]: «First, according to the authorities of the holy Scriptures, it must be shown whether the faith holds thus. Then against garrulous reasoners, more lofty[^16] than capacious, we must use catholic reasonings and fitting likenesses for the defense and assertion[^17] of the faith, so that, by satisfying their inquiries, we may more fully instruct the meek; and they, if they cannot find what they seek, may complain rather of their own minds than of the truth itself or of our discourse».

<!-- page 47 -->

#### Chapter IV.
*On the testimonies of the Old Testament by which the mystery of the Trinity is declared.*

Let us therefore set forth the authorities of the Old and New Testaments, by which the truth of the divine Unity and Trinity may be demonstrated. And first let the very beginnings of the Law come up, where Moses says[^18]: *Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God is one God*. Likewise[^19]: *I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt; thou shalt have no other gods besides me*. Behold, here he signified the unity of the divine nature. «For *God* and *Lord*, as Ambrose says in the first book *On the Trinity*[^20], is the name of nature, the name of power». Likewise elsewhere God speaking to Moses says[^21]: *I am who I am; and if they ask my name, go and tell them: He who is, has sent me to you*. For by saying *I am*, not *We are*, and *Who is*, not *Who are*, He most clearly declared that there is one only God. In the Canticle of Exodus also it is read[^22]: *The Lord, omnipotent is His name*; he does not say *of Lords*, wishing to signify unity. The plurality of persons and the unity of nature the Lord at once showed in Genesis, saying[^23]: *Let us make man to our image and likeness*. For by saying *let us make* and *our*, He showed the plurality of persons; but by saying *image*, the unity of essence. For as Augustine says in the book *On Faith to Peter*[^24]: «If in that nature of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit there were only one person, it would not be said: *Let us make man to our image and likeness*. For when He says *to the image*, He shows that there is one nature, to whose image man was being made; but when He says *our*, He shows that the same God is not one but several persons». Hilary also in the third book *On the Trinity* says that by these words it is signified that in the Trinity there is neither diversity, nor singularity or solitude, but likeness and plurality or distinction. For he speaks thus[^25]: «He who said: *Let us make man to our image and likeness*, showed by what He says — *our image and likeness* — that they are mutually like one another». «For an image is not solitary, nor is a likeness to itself[^26]: nor does likeness allow diversity to be mingled in two from one to the other». Likewise the same author in the fourth book[^27]: «He wished it to be understood more absolutely that this signification was not to be referred to Himself alone, when He said: *Let us make man to our image and likeness*; for the profession of partnership took away the understanding of the singular[^28], because no partnership can belong to one solitary by itself, nor again can the solitude of one alone use *let us make*, nor does anyone speak *our* to one alien to himself. Each expression, namely *let us make* and *our*, just as it does not allow a solitary and the same one, so neither does it signify a different one and one alien from himself. To one solitary it is fitting to say *I will make* and *my*; but to one not solitary it is fitting to say *let us make* and *our*. Each expression, just as it signifies not solitary only, so neither does it signify a different or diverse being. Nor must we confess Him as solitary, nor as diverse. Thus then God is found to operate man with respect to a common image and likeness shared with God; so that neither the signification of the agent admits the understanding of solitude, nor does the operation, established to the same image or likeness, suffer the diversity of divinity[^29]».

In these words Hilary[^30] wished the plurality of persons to be understood by the name of partnership; and he signified that by the name of partnership or plurality something is not posited but rather removed. For when plurality or partnership of persons is spoken of, solitude and[^31] singularity is denied; when we say there are several persons, we signify that there is not one alone. Therefore[^32] Hilary, wishing these things to be understood subtly and soundly, says: «The profession of partnership took away the understanding of the singular[^33]» — he does not say *posited something*. So too when we say three persons, we take away singularity and solitude, and we signify that the Father is not alone, nor is the Son alone, nor is the Holy Spirit alone, and[^34] that there is neither only the Father and the Son, nor only the Father and the Holy Spirit, nor only the Son and the Holy Spirit. But of this it shall be more fully treated in what follows[^35], where it shall also be shown in what respect the three persons are said to be alike, and whether there is in any way diversity or difference there.

But now let us return to our purpose, and to show[^36] the plurality of persons and the unity of the divine essence let us bring forward other authorities of the Saints. Moses says[^37]: *In the beginning God created heaven and*

<!-- page 48 -->

*earth*, signifying by *God* the Father, by *beginning* the Son. And in place of what among us is said *God*, the Hebrew truth has *heloym*, which is the plural of this singular, *hel*. Therefore that *hel* — which is *God* — is not said, but *heloym*, which can be interpreted *gods* or *judges*, refers to the plurality of persons. To which also that seems to pertain which the devil through the serpent said[^38]: *You shall be as gods*, for which in Hebrew there is *heloym*, as if he were saying: *you shall be as divine persons*. That greatest of Prophets and kings also, David, who prefers his own understanding above the rest, saying[^39]: *I have understood above the elders*, showing the unity of the divine nature, says[^40]: *The Lord is the name to Him*; he does not say *of Lords*. Elsewhere also showing at once His unity and eternity he says from the person of God[^41]: *Israel, if thou wilt hearken to me, there shall not be in thee a new God, neither shalt thou worship a strange God*. «One of these, as Ambrose says in the first book *On the Trinity*[^42], signifies eternity, the other the unity of indifferent substance, so that we may believe neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit to be later than the Father, nor of another divinity. For if the Son or the Holy Spirit is later than the Father, He is new; and if He is not of one divinity, He is alien; but neither is He later, since He is not new, nor is He alien, since the Son is born from the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds[^43] from the Father. Elsewhere also, suggesting the distinction of persons, he says[^44]: *By the word of the Lord the heavens were made firm, and by the breath of His mouth all their power*. Elsewhere also he says[^45]: *May God bless us, our God, may God bless us, and let all the ends of the earth fear Him*. For the threefold confession of God expresses the trinity of persons; but the unity of essence it discloses, when in the singular it adds *Him*. Isaiah also says[^46] that he heard the Seraphim crying: *Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God*. By saying thrice *Holy*, he signifies the Trinity; by adding *Lord God*, the unity of essence. David also openly suggests the eternal generation of the Son, speaking from the person of the Son[^47]: *The Lord said to me: Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee*. Of this ineffable generation Isaiah says[^48]: *Who shall declare His generation?* In the book of Wisdom also the eternity of the Son with the Father is shown, where Wisdom thus speaks[^49]: *The Lord possessed me in the beginning of His ways, before He made anything from the beginning: I was set up from eternity, before the earth was made; the depths were not yet, and I was already conceived: neither did the fountains of waters as yet spring out, neither were the mountains or hills established, and I was being brought forth: He had not yet made the earth, nor the cardinal points of the world: when He prepared the heavens, I was present: when He fixed the foundations of the earth, with Him I was, ordering all things, and I was delighted every day, playing before Him*. Behold, an open[^50] testimony of the eternal birth, by which Wisdom herself bears witness that she was conceived and brought forth before the world — that is, begotten — and that she exists eternally with the Father. She also elsewhere says[^51]: *I came out of the mouth of the Most High, the firstborn before all creatures*. The prophet Micah also at once suggested the eternal generation of the Word and the temporal generation from Mary, saying[^52]: *And thou, Bethlehem Ephrata, art a little one among the thousands of Judah: out of thee shall come forth He that is to be ruler in Israel, and His going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity*.

Concerning the Holy Spirit also we have express documents in the Old Testament. For in Genesis[^53] it is read: *The Spirit of the Lord moved over the waters*. And David says: *Whither shall I go from Thy Spirit?* And in the book of Wisdom it is said: *The Holy Spirit of discipline shall flee from the deceitful, for the spirit of wisdom is benign*. Isaiah[^54] also says: *The Spirit of the Lord is upon me*, etc.

<!-- page 49 -->

#### Chapter V.
*On the testimonies of the New Testament pertaining to the same.*

Now after the testimonies of the Old Testament concerning the faith of the Holy Trinity and Unity, let us proceed to the authorities of the New Testament, that in the midst of two living creatures[^55] (that is, of the Testaments) the truth may be known, and that with the tongs from the altar the coal may be taken with which the lips of the faithful are touched. Therefore the Lord Christ openly suggests the unity of the divine essence and the trinity of persons, saying to the Apostles[^56]: *Go, baptize all nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit*. «*In the name* He says, as Ambrose says in the first book *On the Trinity*, not *in the names*», so that the unity of essence may be shown; by the three names which He set down, He declared that there are three persons. «He also says: *I and the Father are one*. He said *one*, as Ambrose says in the same book, lest there be a separation of power and nature; and He added *we are*, that you may know the Father and the Son, namely that the perfect Father is to be believed to have begotten a perfect Son, and that the Father and the Son are one, not by confusion of person, but by unity of nature». John also in his canonical Epistle says[^57]: *There are three who give testimony in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one*. He also at the beginning of his Gospel says: *In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God*; where he openly shows that the Son was always and eternally with the Father, as one with another. The Apostle also openly distinguishes the Trinity, saying[^58]: *God sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts*. And elsewhere[^59]: *If the Spirit of Him who raised up Jesus dwell in us*, etc. Likewise elsewhere he most evidently commends Trinity and Unity, saying: *Because from Him, and through Him, and in Him are all things, to Him be glory*. «*From Him* he says, as Augustine in the book *On the Trinity*[^60] says, on account of the Father; *through Him* he says on account of the Son; *in Him* on account of the Holy Spirit». But by this — that he did not say *from them*, *through them*, and *in them*, nor did he say *to them* be glory, but *to Him* — he suggested that this Trinity is one Lord God. But since nearly every syllable of the New Testament harmoniously suggests this truth of the ineffable Unity and Trinity, let us forbear from adducing more testimonies on this matter, and by reasonings and fitting likenesses let us show, as far as our weakness allows, that it is so.

---

la: Ed. 4 *quoque*, sed perperam, cum non sit hic adiicientis sermo, sed ex praecedentibus continuantis. Mox, inverso ordine verborum, edd. 1, 8 *sit unus solus et verus Deus*; Vat. et ed. 9 *unus sit et solus verus Deus*.

en: Edition 4 reads *quoque*, but wrongly, since this is not the speech of one adding something, but of one continuing from what precedes. Soon after, with the order of the words inverted, editions 1 and 8 read *sit unus solus et verus Deus*; the Vatican edition and edition 9 read *unus sit et solus verus Deus*.

la: Cap. 2. n. 4: «Quod Trinitas sit unus et solus verus Deus, et quam recte Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus unius eiusdemque substantiae vel essentiae dicatur, credatur, intelligatur... et esse illud summum bonum, quod purgatissimis mentibus cernitur... quia humanae mentis acies invalida in tam excellenti luce non figitur, nisi per iustitiam fidei nutrita vegetetur».

en: Augustine, *On the Trinity* I, c. 2, n. 4: «That the Trinity is the one and only true God, and how rightly the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are said, believed, understood to be of one and the same substance or essence... and that this is the highest good, which is discerned by the most purified minds... because the gaze of the human mind, weak as it is, is not fixed upon so excellent a light unless, nourished by the righteousness of faith, it be quickened».

la: Vat. omittit *et*.

en: The Vatican edition omits *et*.

la: Cap. 4. n. 2: «Non approbo quod in oratione dixi: *Deus, qui nisi mundos verum scire noluisti*». Haec orantis verba leguntur *Soliloq.* libr. I. c. 1. n. 2. — Paulo ante Vat. et codd. B E *item* pro *idem*. Infra vero cod. D *immundos* pro *non mundos*.

en: Augustine, *Retractations* I, c. 4, n. 2: «I do not approve what I said in prayer: *O God, who hast willed that none but the pure should know truth*». These words of the one praying are read in *Soliloquies* I, c. 1, n. 2. — Shortly before, the Vatican edition and codices B and E read *item* for *idem*. Below, codex D reads *immundos* for *non mundos*.

la: Sequimur codd. A B D E. Cod. C *de hac re igitur*. Edd. 1, 8 *de hac ergo re*. Vat. cum ceteris: *de hac re ergo*. Paulo infra cod. E *devotissimis* pro *devotis*.

en: We follow codices A, B, D, E. Codex C reads *de hac re igitur*. Editions 1 and 8 read *de hac ergo re*. The Vatican edition with the rest: *de hac re ergo*. Slightly below, codex E reads *devotissimis* for *devotis*.

la: August., I. *de Trin.* c. 3. n. 5, sed circa principium *scilicet* additum est a Magistro.

en: Augustine, *On the Trinity* I, c. 3, n. 5; but near the beginning the *scilicet* has been added by the Master [Lombard].

la: Vat. et edd. 2, 3, 4, 7, 9 *divinitatis*.

en: The Vatican edition and editions 2, 3, 4, 7, 9 read *divinitatis* [in place of *Deitatis*].

la: Cap. 2. n. 4, in quo textu loco *audit haec* Vat. cum codd. ABE et pluribus edd. legit *audit hoc*, sed contradicente originali.

en: *On the Trinity* I, c. 2, n. 4, in which text in place of *audit haec* the Vatican edition with codices A, B, E and several editions reads *audit hoc*, but the original contradicts.

la: Nempe *de Trin.* I. c. 4. n. 7, sed nonnullis adiunctis vel immutatis. Ed. Vat. cum ceteris praeter 1 legit: *ut in eodem I. libro de Trinitate cap. 4*. Ex his ea expunximus, quae omnes codd. cum ed. 1 omittunt.

en: Namely *On the Trinity* I, c. 4, n. 7, but with several things added or changed. The Vatican edition with the rest except 1 reads: *as in the same first book On the Trinity, c. 4*. From these we have struck out what all the codices, with edition 1, omit.

la: Vat. sola et mendose legit *sit* pro *sint*.

en: The Vatican edition alone, and faultily, reads *sit* for *sint*.

la: Vat. sola omittit *et*; infra ipsa legit: *Teneamus ergo* pro *igitur*.

en: The Vatican edition alone omits *et*; below, it reads *Teneamus ergo* in place of *igitur*.

la: Cap. 1. n. 5. Hoc opus nunc communiter tribuitur Fulgentio Ruspensi († 533).

en: [Pseudo-Augustine,] *On Faith to Peter*, c. 1, n. 5. This work is now commonly attributed to Fulgentius of Ruspe († 533).

la: Graece: οὐσίαν. Praeter Vat. et ed. 6 omnes codd. et edd. miro errore legunt *homousion* (*consubstantialem*).

en: In Greek: οὐσίαν. Except for the Vatican edition and edition 6, all the codices and editions, by a strange error, read *homousion* (*consubstantialem*, "consubstantial").

la: Cap. 2. n. 4. In textu Vat. cum edd. 4, 6, 9 *primo* pro *primum*.

en: *On the Trinity* I, c. 2, n. 4. In the text the Vatican edition with editions 4, 6, 9 reads *primo* for *primum*.

la: Vat. contra fidem codd., edd. 1, 6, 8 et textum Aug. addit *magis*.

en: The Vatican edition, against the witness of the codices, of editions 1, 6, 8, and of Augustine's text, adds *magis*.

la: Codd. ACD cum Vat. et edd. 4, 5, 6, 8 *assertione*, quod tamen minus concordat cum originali.

en: Codices A, C, D with the Vatican edition and editions 4, 5, 6, 8 read *assertione*, which however agrees less with the original.

la: Deut. 6, 4; Vulgata et apud Aug. *Audi Israel, Dominus Deus noster Dominus unus est*, sed apud Ambros., I. *de Fide ad Gratian.* *Deus tuus Deus unus est*, ut in textu Magistri.

en: Deuteronomy 6:4; the Vulgate and Augustine read *Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord*, but Ambrose, *On Faith to Gratian* I, reads *thy God is one God*, as in the Master's text.

la: Exod. 20, 2. 3; ubi Vulgata post *Aegypti* legit: *de domo servitutis non habebis deos alienos coram me*, et codd. B D E et edd. 1, 3 *dii alieni* loco *alii dii*.

en: Exodus 20:2–3; where the Vulgate after *Aegypti* reads: *out of the house of bondage, thou shalt not have strange gods before me*; and codices B, D, E and editions 1, 3 read *dii alieni* in place of *alii dii*.

la: Sive *de Fide ad Gratian.* c. 1. n. 7, ubi: *Deus enim et Dominus nomen magnificentiae, nomen est potestatis*. Vat. cum edd. 4, 5, 6, 9: *Deus enim, ut ait Ambrosius in primo libro de Trinitate, nomen est naturae, Dominus vero nomen est potestatis*.

en: Or Ambrose, *On Faith to Gratian* c. 1, n. 7, where: *For God and Lord is the name of magnificence, it is the name of power*. The Vatican edition with editions 4, 5, 6, 9: *For God, as Ambrose says in the first book On the Trinity, is the name of nature; but Lord is the name of power*.

la: Exod. 3, 14: *Ego sum qui sum*. Ait: *sic dices filiis Israel: Qui est, misit me ad vos*.

en: Exodus 3:14: *I am who I am*. He says: *Thus thou shalt say to the children of Israel: He who is hath sent me to you*.

la: Exod. 15, 3: *Dominus quasi vir pugnator, omnipotens nomen eius*.

en: Exodus 15:3: *The Lord is like a warrior, omnipotent is His name*.

en: Genesis 1:26.

la: Vat. et ed. 4 mendose *ad*. — Cap. 1. n. 5: «Si enim in illa... una esset persona, non diceretur *ad imaginem nostram*, sed *ad imaginem meam*, nec dixisset *faciamus*, sed *faciam*. Si vero in illis tribus personis tres essent intelligendae vel credendae substantiae, non diceretur *ad imaginem nostram*, sed *ad imagines nostras*; una enim imago trium naturarum inaequalium esse non potest. Sed, dum ad unam imaginem unius Dei homo factus dicitur, una sanctae Trinitatis essentialiter divinitas intimatur».

en: The Vatican edition and edition 4 read *ad* faultily. — *On Faith to Peter*, c. 1, n. 5: «For if in that [nature]… there were one person, it would not be said *to our image*, but *to my image*, nor would He have said *let us make*, but *I will make*. But if in those three persons three substances had to be understood or believed, it would not be said *to our image*, but *to our images*; for one image of three unequal natures cannot exist. But since man is said to be made to one image of the one God, the one essentially divine nature of the Holy Trinity is intimated».

la: Libr. III. *de Trin.* n. 3; sed plura ibi adiunguntur.

en: Hilary, *On the Trinity* III, n. 3; but many things are added there.

la: Vat. cum edd. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 transponit verba sic: *sibi non est*.

en: The Vatican edition with editions 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 transposes the words thus: *sibi non est*.

la: *De Trin.* n. 17.

en: Hilary, *On the Trinity* IV, n. 17.

la: Contra codd. et edd. 1, 8 Vat. cum ceteris edd. *singularitatis*, et paulo post ipsa cum nonnullis edd. *nec potest*, et in fine propositionis cod. D *loqueretur*; ceteri codd. cum edd. 1, 8 *loquetur*. Immediate post Vat. cum nonnullis edd. *ergo*, edd. 1, 3, 8 *enim* pro *igitur*.

en: Against the codices and editions 1, 8, the Vatican edition with the other editions reads *singularitatis*; and a little after, the same with some editions reads *nec potest*; and at the end of the proposition codex D reads *loqueretur*; the other codices with editions 1, 8 read *loquetur*. Immediately after, the Vatican edition with some editions reads *ergo*, and editions 1, 3, 8 *enim*, in place of *igitur*.

la: Haec ex Hilario loc. cit. n. 18 passim sunt excerpta.

en: These things are excerpted, in various places, from Hilary at the cited passage, n. 18.

la: Vat. et nonnullae edd. *vel*. Mox cod. D *Ideoque* pro *Ideo*.

en: The Vatican edition and several editions read *vel*. Soon after, codex D reads *Ideoque* for *Ideo*.

la: Vat. iterum cum multis edd. *singularitatis*.

en: The Vatican edition again, with many editions, reads *singularitatis*.

la: Edd. 2, 7 omittunt *et*; cod. C mutata interpunctione sic: *solus. Significamus etiam quod*.

en: Editions 2 and 7 omit *et*; codex C, with the punctuation altered, reads thus: *solus. Significamus etiam quod*.

la: Dist. XIX, XXIV, XXXI, et XXXIV, huius libri. Paulo infra cod. B *quod* pro *quid*.

en: Distinctions XIX, XXIV, XXXI, and XXXIV of this book. Slightly below, codex B reads *quod* for *quid*.

la: Vat. cum edd. 1, 3 *ostendendum*.

en: The Vatican edition with editions 1, 3 reads *ostendendum*.

en: Genesis 1:1.

la: [Marginal rubric in the Quaracchi printing: *Aliae auctoritates*. The OCR preserves the marginal heading at this point in the text.]

en: [Marginal rubric in the Quaracchi printing: *Other authorities*. The marginal heading appears in the right margin at this point in the text.]

la: Gen. 1, 1 (continuation of the citation across the page-break).

en: Genesis 1:1 (continuation of the citation across the page-break).

la: Gen. 3, 5. — Paulo post contra codd. et edd. 1, 3, 8 Vat. cum ceteris edd. *hebraico* pro *hebraeo*.

en: Genesis 3:5. — Shortly after, against the codices and editions 1, 3, 8, the Vatican edition with the other editions reads *hebraico* for *hebraeo*.

la: Psalm. 118, 100. — Paulo ante solummodo edd. 1, 3, 8 verbo ceteris praemittunt *praecedentibus*.

en: Psalm 118:100. — Slightly before, only editions 1, 3, 8 prefix *praecedentibus* to the word in the others.

la: Psalm. 67, 6. — Vulgata et codd. D E in hoc textu omittunt *est*, quod tamen legitur apud Hieronymum, Augustinum, Bedam in hunc locum.

en: Psalm 67:6. — The Vulgate and codices D, E in this text omit *est*, which however is read in Jerome, Augustine, and Bede on this passage.

la: Sive *de Fide ad Gratian.* c. 2. n. 68.

en: Or Ambrose, *On Faith to Gratian*, c. 2, n. 68.

la: Vat. et edd. 2, 4, 5, 7, 9 *procedit*, quod minus correspondet praecedenti *passus est*.

en: The Vatican edition and editions 2, 4, 5, 7, 9 read *procedit*, which corresponds less to the preceding *passus est*. [The body reads *natus est*; the apparatus reference to *passus est* is a printer's slip in the Quaracchi apparatus (confirmed 600dpi p.48 eyes-on).]

en: Psalm 32:6.

la: Psalm. 66, 7. 8. — Verba immediate sequentia: *Trina enim confessio* etc. a Magistro in *Explanat. Psalm.* (loc. cit.) attribuuntur S. Ambrosio, in quo tamen ea reperire non potuimus; sed leguntur sine nomine auctoris apud Abaelardum, *Theologia christiana*. Ex ipso non pauca accepit Magister. Argumento simul et exemplo sint, quae hic ex laudato opere (Patrolog. Latin. tom. CLXXVIII. col. 1227–28) describimus: *Ad hanc quoque pluralitatem divinarum personarum illud attinere videtur, quod... per serpentem dictum est: Eritis sicut dii (Gen. 3, 5.), quod, ut superius dictum est, in Hebraeo sonat Eloim... Ait itaque maximus ille Prophetarum et regum, David, qui suam ceteris intelligentiam praeferens dicit: Super omnes docentes me intellexi, super senes intellexi; ait, inquam, distinctionem Trinitatis patenter insinuans: Verbo Domini caeli firmati sunt, et spiritu oris eius omnis virtus eorum (Psalm. 32, 6.). Qui et alibi Unitatem pariter cum Trinitate insinuat dicens: Benedicat nos Deus, Deus noster, benedicat nos Deus, et metuant eum omnes fines terrae (Psalm. 66, 7.)... Trina quippe confessio Dei Trinitatem exprimit personarum... Unitatem vero divinae substantiae Psalmista in eodem aperit, cum post trinam divini nominis prolationem unum tantummodo Deum in tribus personis intelligens, non subiunxit eos pluraliter, sed eum singulariter. Huic et illud consonat Isaiae, qui dicit, se vidisse Seraphim et audisse clamantia: Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus, Dominus Deus Sabaoth (Isai. 6, 3.).*

en: Psalm 66:7–8. — The words immediately following — *For the threefold confession*, etc. — are attributed by the Master in *Explanationes Psalmorum* (cited place) to St. Ambrose, in whom however we have not been able to find them; but they are read without an author's name in Abelard, *Christian Theology*. The Master took not a few things from him. Let what we here transcribe from the praised work (Patrologia Latina, vol. CLXXVIII, cols. 1227–28) serve at once as argument and example: *To this plurality of divine persons that also seems to pertain which… was said through the serpent: You shall be as gods (Gen. 3:5), which, as said above, in Hebrew sounds Eloim… So that greatest of Prophets and kings, David, who preferring his own understanding above the rest says: Above all my teachers I have understood, above the elders I have understood; he says, I tell you, openly suggesting the distinction of the Trinity: By the word of the Lord the heavens were made firm, and by the breath of His mouth all their power (Ps. 32:6). And he elsewhere also together suggests the Unity with the Trinity, saying: May God bless us, our God, may God bless us, and let all the ends of the earth fear Him (Ps. 66:7)… For the threefold confession of God expresses the Trinity of persons… But the Psalmist opens up the Unity of the divine substance in the same place, when after the threefold utterance of the divine name, understanding only one God in three persons, he subjoined not them in the plural but Him in the singular. To this also accords that of Isaiah, who says he saw the Seraphim and heard them crying: Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of Sabaoth (Is. 6:3).*

en: Isaiah 6:3.

la: Psalm. 2, 7. — Edd. 1, 3, 8 verbo *dicens* praemittunt *ita*.

en: Psalm 2:7. — Editions 1, 3, 8 prefix *ita* to the word *dicens*.

en: Isaiah 53:8.

la: Prov. 8, 22–30. — Vat. et edd. 4, 5, 7, 9, contradicente etiam Vulgata, legunt *Dominus possedit me ab initio* pro *in initio*.

en: Proverbs 8:22–30. — The Vatican edition and editions 4, 5, 7, 9, with the Vulgate also contradicting, read *The Lord possessed me from the beginning* for *in the beginning*.

la: Vat. et edd. 4, 7 *aptum*. Mox post *genitam* auctoritate cod. D et edd. 1, 5, 8 supplevimus *esse*. Deinde codd. AE et edd. 1, 3 male: *Ipsa enim*.

en: The Vatican edition and editions 4, 7 read *aptum*. Soon after *genitam*, on the authority of codex D and editions 1, 5, 8, we have supplied *esse*. Then codices A, E and editions 1, 3 wrongly read: *Ipsa enim*.

la: Eccli. 24, 5. — Paulo post cod. D pro *Verbi* legit *Christi generationem*.

en: Sirach 24:5. — Shortly after, codex D reads *generation of Christ* for *of the Word*.

la: Mich. 5, 2, ubi Vulgata verbo *egreditur* praemittit *mihi*. Cod. D pro *Ephrata* habet *terra Iuda*; item cum codd. A E post *parvulus* addit *eius*. Quam lectionem Hieronymus hunc ipsum Michaeae locum exponens commemorat et explodit; ed. cit. tom. VI. col. 488.

en: Micah 5:2, where the Vulgate prefixes *mihi* to the word *egreditur*. Codex D for *Ephrata* has *terra Iuda*; likewise, with codices A, E, after *parvulus* it adds *eius*. Jerome, expounding this very place of Micah, mentions and rejects this reading; in the cited edition, vol. VI, col. 488.

la: Cap. 1, 2; sequens locus est Psalm. 138, 7.

en: Genesis 1:2; the following passage is Psalm 138:7.

la: Cap. 1, 5. 6. — Paulo ante Vat. omittit *Et* ante *in libro* contra codd. et edd. 1, 3, 5, 8.

en: Wisdom 1:5–6. — Slightly before, the Vatican edition omits *Et* before *in libro*, against the codices and editions 1, 3, 5, 8. [The Isaiah citation following corresponds to Is. 61:1.]

la: Habac. 3, 2; secundum versionem Septuaginta: *In medio duorum animalium cognosceris*; Vulgata: *In medio annorum notum facies*. Tamen codd. omnes, excepto B, et edd., excepta 8, legunt *duum* pro *duorum*. Omnes codd. et ed. 1 omittunt *id est Testamentorum*, quae verba videntur esse glossa. Ista applicatio huius textus est Augustini in XVIII. *de Civ. Dei*, c. 32. Verba *forcipe de altari* etc. alludunt ad Isai. 6, 6: *Et volavit ad me unus de Seraphim, et in manus eius calculus, quem forcipe tulerat de altari*. — In initio huius propositionis codd. ABC omittunt *vero* post *Nunc*.

en: Habakkuk 3:2; according to the Septuagint version: *In the midst of two living creatures shalt Thou be known*; the Vulgate: *In the midst of the years thou shalt make known*. However all the codices, except B, and all the editions, except 8, read *duum* for *duorum*. All the codices and edition 1 omit *id est Testamentorum*, which words seem to be a gloss. This application of this text belongs to Augustine in *On the City of God* XVIII, c. 32. The words *with the tongs from the altar*, etc., allude to Isaiah 6:6: *And one of the Seraphim flew to me, and in his hand was a coal, which he had taken with the tongs from the altar*. — At the beginning of this proposition, codices A, B, C omit *vero* after *Nunc*.

la: Matth. 28, 19; Vulgata: *Euntes ergo docete omnes gentes: baptizantes eos in nomine Patris* etc. Sed apud Ambros. *de Trin.* sive *de Fide ad Gratian.* I. c. 1. n. 8: «Ite, baptizate gentes in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti. In nomine utique, non in nominibus. Ipse etiam dicit: Ego et Pater unum sumus, Ioan. 10, 30; *unum* dixit, ne fiat discretio potestatis et naturae; *sumus* addit, ut Patrem Filiumque cognoscas, quod perfectus Pater perfectum Filium genuisse credatur, et Pater et Filius unum sint, non confusione personae, sed unitate naturae». — Vat. cum cod. C et nonnullis edd. omittit *libro* post *in eodem*; insuper Vat. aliaeque edd. omittunt *et* post *discretio potestatis*. Denique codd. ABC et edd. 1, 8 male omittunt *personae* post *confusione*.

en: Matthew 28:19; the Vulgate: *Going therefore, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father*, etc. But in Ambrose, *On the Trinity* or *On Faith to Gratian* I, c. 1, n. 8: «Go, baptize the nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. *In the name*, certainly, not *in the names*. He also says: I and the Father are one, John 10:30; He said *one* lest there be a separation of power and nature; He added *we are*, that you may know the Father and the Son, that the perfect Father is to be believed to have begotten a perfect Son, and that the Father and the Son are one, not by confusion of person, but by unity of nature». — The Vatican edition with codex C and several editions omits *libro* after *in eodem*; moreover the Vatican edition and other editions omit *et* after *discretio potestatis*. Finally codices A, B, C and editions 1, 8 wrongly omit *personae* after *confusione*.

la: Cap. 5, 7, ubi Vulgata cum cod. D et edd. 1, 8 *testimonium dant* pro *testimonium perhibent*; sed *perhibent* legitur etiam apud Hyginum Papam, *Epistola de Fide et reliquis causis*, relata ab Isidoro Mercatore, Patrolog. Latin. tom. CXXX. col. 109, et apud Cyrillum Alexand. libr. *Thesaur.* assert. XXXIV, Patrolog. Graec. tom. LXXV. col. 615.

en: 1 John 5:7, where the Vulgate with codex D and editions 1, 8 reads *testimonium dant* for *testimonium perhibent*; but *perhibent* is also read in Pope Hyginus, *Letter on the Faith and other matters*, reported by Isidore Mercator, Patrologia Latina vol. CXXX, col. 109, and in Cyril of Alexandria, *Thesaurus*, assertion XXXIV, Patrologia Graeca vol. LXXV, col. 615.

la: Galat. 4, 6, ubi Vulgata *corda vestra* pro *corda nostra*, quod hic et alibi habet Magister. *Nostra* pro *vestra* utuntur etiam Ambros. in hunc locum et August. in Psalm. 118, serm. 14. n. 2, *de Verbis Evangel. Matth.* serm. 71. n. 29, nec non vetus lectio Hieronymi nunc ad calcem amandata.

en: Galatians 4:6, where the Vulgate has *your hearts* for *our hearts*, which the Master has here and elsewhere. *Nostra* for *vestra* is also used by Ambrose on this passage and Augustine on Psalm 118, sermon 14, n. 2, and *On the Words of the Gospel of Matthew*, sermon 71, n. 29, as well as in the old reading of Jerome now banished to the foot.

en: Romans 8:11, and soon after Romans 11:36.

la: Libr. I. c. 6. n. 12: *Ex ipso, ex Patre; per ipsum, per Filium; in ipso, in Spiritu sancto*. Codd. B C D et edd. 1, 8 *Ex ipso ait*, et subinde *dicit* pro *ait*. Omittunt *dicit*, quod postea sequitur, edd. 1, 8. Tum in codd. D E non *Per hoc*, sed *Propter hoc*. — Vat. contra codd. et edd. 1, 8 omittit *Dominum*.

en: Augustine, *On the Trinity* I, c. 6, n. 12: *From Him, from the Father; through Him, through the Son; in Him, in the Holy Spirit*. Codices B, C, D and editions 1, 8 read *Ex ipso ait*, and thereafter *dicit* for *ait*. Editions 1, 8 omit *dicit*, which follows after. Then in codices D, E, not *Per hoc*, but *Propter hoc*. — The Vatican edition, against the codices and editions 1, 8, omits *Dominum*.

method: LLM-assisted translation from the Quaracchi Latin, verified chunk-by-chunk against the printed plates (apparatus roster, cross-references, page/gutter boundaries).

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0