S. Bonaventurae Bagnoregis
S. R. E. Episc. Card. Albae
atque Doctor Ecclesiae Universalis

St. Bonaventure of Bagnoregio
Cardinal Bishop of Alba
& Doctor of the Church

Commentaria in Quatuor Libros Sententiarum

Commentaries on the Four Books of Sentences

Magistri Petri Lombardi, Episc. Parisiensis

of Master Peter Lombard, Archbishop of Paris

PRIMI LIBRI

BOOK ONE

COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM VIII.

COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION VIII

PARS I.

PART I

ARTICULUS II.

 

Quaestio I.

ARTICLE II

 

Question 1

 

Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1882, Vol 1, pp. 156-158.
Cum Notitiis Originalibus

 

 

Latin text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1882, Vol. 1, pp. 156-158.
Notes by the Quaracchi Editors.

 

ARTICULUS II.

 

De immutabilitate Dei.

ARTICLE II

 

On the Immutability of God.

Consequenter secundo loco est quaestio de secunda proprietate divini esse, scilicet immutabilitate. De qua duo quaeruntur:

Consequently in the second place is the question concerning the second property of the Divine ‘Being’ [esse], that is immutability. Of which two (questions) are asked:

Primo quaeritur, utrum immutabilitas sit in Deo.

First there is asked, whether immutability is in God.

Secundo, utrum sit Dei proprietas.

Second, whether it is a property of God.

QUAESTIO I.

 

Utrum Deus sit immutabilis.

QUESTION 1

 

Whether God is immutable.

QUOD IMMUTABILITAS sit in Deo, ostenditur hoc modo.

THAT IMMUTABILITY is in God, is shown in this manner.

1. Omnis mutatio aut est secundum substantiam, aut secundum accidens;1 sed Deus non mutatur secundum substantiam, quia omne tale est corruptibile, Deus autem sive divina substantia, cum non habeat principium, est incorruptibilis: ergo etc.

1. Every change [mutation] either is according to substance, or according to accident;1 but God is not changed [mutatur] according to substance, because every such (thing) is corruptible, but God or the Divine Substance, since it does not have a principle, is incorruptible: ergo etc..

2. Item, nec secundum accidens, quia in Deo non est accidens: ergo nulla in eo est mutatio.

2. Likewise, neither according to accident, because in God there is not an accident: therefore there is no change in Him.

3. Item, omne quod mutatur, per prius est in potentia quam in actu,2 et in tali differt actus a potentia; sed Deus est purus actus: ergo nullo modo mutatur.

3. Likewise, everything which is changed, is through (a consideration of what is) prior, in potency rather than in act,2 and in such (its) act differs from (its) potency; but God is pure act: therefore in no manner is He changed.

4. Item, fiat deductio Richardi.3 « Omnis mu- / -tatio

4. Likewise, let Richard (of St. Victor)'s deduction be made.3 « Every change

1 Vide Aristot., V. Phys. text. 1. seqq. ac XI. Metaph. c. 10. (X. c. 11.).
2 Aristot., XII. Metaph. text. 8 (XI. c. 2.): Omne mutatur ex potentia ente in actu ens.
3 Libr. II. de Trin. c. 3: Sciendum itaque, quia omnis mutatio est aut de statu in statum meliorem, aut de statu in statum deteriorem, aut de statu in statum priori aequalem; ubi autem nihil horum esse potest, vera incommutabilitas inest. — Mox ed. 1 optima pro verissime, et cod. K in fine argumenti divinae essentiae pro divino esse.

1 See Aristotle, Physics, Bk. V, text 1 ff., and Metaphysics, Bk. XI, ch. 10 (Bk. X, ch. 11).
2 Aristotle, Metaphysics, Bk. XII, text 8 (Bk. XI, ch. 2): Everything is changed from a being (in) potency to a being in act.
3 On the Trinity, Bk. II, ch. 3: And so it must be known, that every change is either from a state into a better state, or from a state into a lower state [statum deteriorem], or from a state into a state equal to the prior one; but where there can be nothing of these, there is true incommutability. — Then edition 1 has best [optima] in place of most truly [verissime], and codex K at the end of the argument has with the Divine Essence [divinae essentiae] in place of with the Divine ‘Being’.

 

p. 157

 

« Omnis mu- / -tatio aut est in statum meliorem aut deteriorem aut parem »; sed nullo istorum modorum mutatur divina natura, quia non in meliorem, quia verissime est; non in deteriorem, quia a semetipsa est; non in aequalem, quia perfecta est: ergo nullo modo convenit divino esse mutabilitas.

change is either into a better or a lower [deteriorem] or a comparable [parem] state »; but in none of these manners is the Divine Nature changed, because not into a better, because It most truly is; not into a lower, because It is by Its very self; not into an equal, because It is perfect: therefore in no manner does mutability convene with the Divine “Being”.

CONTRA: 1. Sapientiae septimo:1 Omnibus mobilibus mobilior est sapientia: ergo etc. Si dicatur, quod sapientia dicitur mobilis per causam, eo quod facit alia moveri; contra: nihil dat quod non habet; sed Deus dat omnibus motum:2 ergo motus vel mutatio maxime est in Deo.

ON THE CONTRARY: 1. In the seventh (chapter) of Wisdom:1 More mobile than all movables is Wisdom: ergo etc.. If it be said, that Wisdom is said to be mobile [mobilis] through (the manner of) a cause, for this that it causes others to be moved; on the contrary: nothing gives what it does not have; but God gives movement [motum]2 to all: therefore movement and/or change is most greatly in God.

2. Item, omne quod nunc est aliquid, quod non prius, est mutatum;3 sed Filius Dei est homo, ab aeterno autem non fuit homo: ergo est mutatus. Si dicas, quod homo praedicatur de Filio Dei non per inhaerentiam, sed per unionem; et unio est relatio, et relatio advenit sine mutatione, ut de nummo fit pretium, ut dicit Augustinus in quinto de Trinitate:4 contra: Ambrosius5 ita arguit contra haereticum, qui posuit Filium ex tempore genitum a Patre, quia si hoc, tunc Pater factus est de non Patre Pater, ergo mutatur: ergo similiter in proposito.

2. Likewise, everything which is now something, because (it was) not before, has been changed;3 but the Son of God is a man, moreover from eternity He was not a man: therefore He has changed. If you say, that man is predicated of the Son of God not through inherence, but through union; and union is a relation, and a relation comes without a change, as a price comes to be from a coin, as (St.) Augustine says in the fifth (book) On the Trinity:4 on the contrary: (St.) Ambrose5 thus argues against the heretic, who posited that the Son (was) begotten by the Father in time [ex tempore], because if (He would be) in this (manner), then the Father has become the Father from a non-Father, therefore He has changed: therefore similarly in the proposed.

3. Item, quicumque de non agente fit agens, mutatur mutatione, quae est ab otio in actum;6 sed Deus de non creante factus est creans: ergo est mutatus. Si dicas, quod Deus de non agente fit agens non propter mutationem sui, sed propter mutationem effectus producti, sicut sol de non illuminante fit illuminans; contra: non quia creatura est, ideo Deus creat, sed quia Deus creat, creatura fit sive producitur. Per prius est ergo Deum agere, quam creaturam fieri: ergo cum posterius non sit causa prioris, non quia creatura fit de non ente ens, Deus fit de non creante creans, sed e converso; et ita mutatio est ratione agentis,7 non effectus.

3. Likewise, whatsoever from not-acting becomes acting, is changed by a change, which is from leisure [ab otio] into act;6 but God from not-creating has become creating: therefore He has been changed. If you say, that God from not-acting becomes acting, not on account of a change of Himself, but on account of the change of an produced effect, just as the sun from not-illuminating becomes illuminating (with the advent of dawn); on the contrary: not because there is a creature, does God for that reason create, but because God creates, a creature is made or is produced. Therefore, it is through (a consideration of what is) prior, that God acts, rather than that a creature is made: therefore since the posterior is not a cause of the prior, not because a creature is made a being from a non-being, does God become creating from not-creating, but conversely; and thus  the change is according to the reckoning of the agent,7 not of the effect.

4. Item, Deus aliquid vult, quod prius non voluit, quia ex tempore voluit creare, quod non voluit ab aeterno; sed quicumque vult aliquid, quod non prius, mutatus est:8 ergo etc. Si tu dicas, quod ab aeterno voluit creare mundum in illo instanti,9 sicut ego volo audire missam cras; contra: voluntas Dei est causa rerum proxima et immediata; sed posita causa proxima et immediata, ponitur effectus: ergo si ab aeterno voluit, ab aeterno mundus fuit.

4. Likewise, God wills something, which He does not will before, because He has willed to create in time [ex tempore], what He has not willed (to create) from eternity; but whosoever wills something, which (he did) not (will) before, has been changed:8 ergo etc.. If you say, that from eternity He willed to create the world in that instant,9 just as I will to hear Mass tomorrow; on the contrary: the Will of God is the cause of things proximate and immediate; but having posited a proximate and immediate cause, the effect is posited: therefore if from eternity He did will (it), from eternity the world came to be.

CONCLUSIO.

 

Deus est omnino immutabilis et secundum locum, quia immensus, et secundum tempus, quia aeternus, et secundum formam, quia simplex; et quia immutabilis, ideo omnia movet.

CONCLUSION

 

God is entirely immutable both according to place, because (He is) immense, and according to time, because (He is) eternal, and according to form, because (He is) simple; and because (He is) immutable, for that reason He moves all (things).

RESPONDEO: Dicendum quod, sicut dicit Boethius,10 « Deus stabilis manens dat cuncta moveri ». Unde divina essentia est immutabilis. Non enim mutatur loco, quia ubique est; non tempore, quia aeternitas simul est; non forma, quia pure actus est. Unde mutationem secundum formam tollit simplicitas, secundum tempus tollit aeternitas, secundum locum tollit immensitas.

I RESPOND: It must be said, that just as (St. Severinus) Boethius says,10 « God, remaining stable, grants that all other (things) to be moved ». Whence the Divine Essence is immutable. For It is not changed according to place, because It is everywhere; not according to time, because It is at once Eternity; not according to form, because It is purely act. Whence simplicity bears off mutation according to form, eternity bears its off according to time, immensity bears it off according to place.

Et ideo in Deo est summa stabilitas, et inde omnis motus causalitas; quia, sicut probat Augustinus11 et vult Philosophus, omnis motus procedit ab immobili; ut cum movetur manus, stat cubitus, et movetur cubitus, stante humero. Quia ergo Dei sapientia est stabilis,12 ideo omnia movet.

And for that reason in God there is a most high stability, and hence the causality of every movement; because, just as (St.) Augustine proves11 and the Philosopher wants, every movement proceeds from the immoveable; as when the hand is moved, the elbow stands still, and the elbow is moved, with the shoulder standing still [stante humero]. Therefore because the Wisdom of God is stable,12 for that reason it moves all (things).

1. Quod ergo obiicitur de sapientia, quod dicitur mobilis; dicendum, quod mobile dicitur active de ea, quia facit moveri,13 non passive, sicut sensibile de animali.

1. What is therefore objected concerning Wisdom, that it is called mobile [mobilis]; it must be said, that “mobile” is said of it actively, because it causes (others) to be moved,13 not passively, as just as “sensible” (is said) of an animal.

Et ad illud quod obiicitur, nihil dat alteri quod non habet; dicendum, quod tripliciter est aliquid habere, scilicet formaliter, exemplariter, causaliter;14 et quodlibet istorum modorum quod habet dare potest. Primo autem modo non habet Deus motum, sed secundo et tertia sic.

And to that which is objected, (that) nothing gives to the other what it does not have; it must be said, that to have something is in a threefold manner, that is formally, exemplarily, causally;14 and in any of those manners one can give what he has. In the first manner, moreover, God does not have movement, but in the second and third He does [sic].

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de relatione, dicen- / -dum . . .

2. To that which is objected concerning relation, it must be / said . . .

1 Vers. 24.
2 Ed. 1. moveri, quo alluditur ad illud Boethii, III. de Consol. Metro 9: Stabilisque manes das cuncta moveri.
3 Vide Aristot., V. Phys. text. 7. et VI. text. 32. et 73. (c. 3. et 8.).
4 Cap. 16. n. 17: Nummus autem cum dicitur pretium, relative dicitur nec tamen mutatus est, cum esse coepit pretium. Nota tamen, quod relatio pretii in nummo est tantum accidentalis, relatio vero, quae est in unione hypostatica, est substantialis. Explicationem huius exempli vide infra d. 30. dub. 3.
5 Libr. I. de Fide, c. 9: Nam si Pater esse coepit, Deus ergo primo erat, postea Pater factus est. — Vat. cum cod. cc post tunc contra lios codd. et ed. 1 omittit Pater. Ed. 1 post si hoc addit esset.
6 Simila habetur Aristot., VIII. Phys. text. 7, et II. de Anima, text. 45. (c. 4.), ubi sic: Faber autem mutatur solum in actum ex otio.
7 Aliqui codd. ut K V efficientis.
8 Averroes in libro Destructio Destructionum, disput. 1. dub. 1. et in Comment. super VIII. Physic. text. 15. ex hac propositione impossibilitatem creationis deducere conatur. — Paulo ante post ex tempore voluit codd. aa bb satis bene addunt mundum.
9 Cod. W addit in quo creatus est.
10 Libr. III. de Consol. Metro 9, post quem textum cod. Z addit Psalmus (101,28.): mutabis res et mutabuntur etc. Paulo infra cum plerisque codd. ut A S T V W etc. et ed. 1 legimus pure loco purus, quod habet Vat.
11 Libr. VIII. de Genes. ad lit. c. 24. — Verba Aristotelis in libro de Motu animalium c. 1. haec sunt: Verumtamen principium, in quantum principium, quiescit, mota particula, quae subest: veluti brachio moto, cubitus, toto autem membro, humerus (ed. Ven. 1584).
12 Cod. W addit et immobilis. Mox cod. F Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur.
13 Vat. cum cod. cc motum, sed contra ceteros mss. et ed. 1.
14 Cfr. Dionys., de Div. Nom. c. 5. — Mox codd. inter se dissentiunt; alii siquidem habent quodlibet pro quolibet, alii cum ed. 1 dari loco dare, alii ut A T bb cc ponunt quodlibet et dari; melius legeretur et quod quolibet istorum modorum habet, dare potest.

1 Verse 24.
2 Ed. 1 has to be moved [moveri], by which there is an allusion to (St. Severinus) Boethius, Consolation on Philosophy, Bk. III, Metro 9: And remaining stable Thou dost grant all (things) to be moved [Stabilique manens das cuncta moveri].
3 See Aristotle, Physics, Bk. V, text. 7, and Bk. VI, texts 32 and 73 (chs. 3 and 8).
4 Chapter 16, n. 17: Moreover a coin [nummus] when it is said (to be) the price, is said relatively, nor, however, has it been changed, when it undertook to be the price. — Note however, that the relation of price unto a coin is only accidental, but the relation, which is in the Hypostatic Union, is substantial. For an explanation of this example see below d. 30, dubium 3.
5 On the Faith, Bk. I, ch. 9: For if the Father undertook to be, therefore first there was God, the Father was made afterwards. — The Vatican text together with codex cc after then [tunc], contrary to the other codices and edition 1, omits the Father [Pater]. Edition 1 has if He would be in this (manner) [si hoc esset].
6 A similar passage is had in Aristotle, Physics, Bk. VIII, text 7, and On the Soul, Bk. II, text 45 (ch. 4), where he (speaks) in this manner: But the worker is changed solely from idleness into act.
7 Some codices as K and V have of the one effecting [efficientis].
8 Averroes in the book The Destruction of Destructions, disputation 1, dubium 1, and in Commentary on the Physics, Bk. VIII, text 15, strives to deduce from this proposition the impossibility of creation. — A little before this at He willed to create codices aa and bb add sufficiently well the world [mundum].
9 Codex W adds in which it was created [in quo creatus est].
10 On the Consolation of Philosophy, Bk. III, Metro 9, after which text codex Z adds Psalm (101,28): Thou shall change things and they shall be changed etc. [Psalmus: mutabis res et mutabuntur etc.]. A little below this along with very many codices as A S T V W etc. and edition 1, we read purely [pure] in place of pure [purus], which the Vatican text has.
11 A Literal Exposition of Genesis, Bk. VIII, ch. 24. — The words of Aristotle in the book On the Movement of Animals, ch. 1, are these: Nevertheless, a principle, in as much as (it is) a principle, rests, in respect to a moved particle, which is beneath it: just as if with an arm moved, the elbow (rests), but in respect to the whole member, the shoulder does (Venetian edition of 1584).
12 Codex W adds and immoveable [et immobilis]. Next codex F has To that, therefore, which is objected [Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur].
13 The Vatican text together with codex cc has movement [motum], but contrary to all the other manuscripts and edition 1.
14 Cfr. Dionysius (the Areopagite),On the Divine Names, ch. 5. — Next the codices disagree among themselves; some indeed have any [quodlibet] in place of in any [quolibet], others together with edition 1 have be given [dari] in place of give [dare], others as A T bb and cc have both any and be given; though and what one has in any of those manners, one can give [et quod quolibet istorum modorum habet, dare potest.] would read better.

 

p. 158

 

dicen- / -dum, quod relatio, cum dicitur de novo,1 de necessitate ponit mutationem in altero extremorum, nec oportet quod in utroque. Ideo ista relatio, quae est personae ad personam, ponit mutationem in altera personarum; et una mutata, mutatur et reliqua, quia eadem sunt essentia: ideo de necessitate, si2 de non-Patre fieret Pater, mutaretur. Relatio autem essentiae ad essentiam non de necessitate ponit mutationem, nisi in altero extremorum, quia cum diversae sint essentiae, potest unum mutari, altero non permutato:3 et ideo in relatione ad creaturam semper intelligitur in creatura facta mutatio, non in Deo. Tamen proprie loquendo, sicut alibi patebit,4 Deus non refertur ad creaturam, nisi secundum dici et modum loquendi.

it must be / said, that “relation”, when it is said of (something) new,1 of necessity posits a mutation in one of the two extremes, and it is not proper that (it be) in both. For that reason that relation, which is of a person to a person, posits a mutation in one of the two persons; and with one changed, the rest is also changed, because they are the same essence: for that reason of necessity, if2 the Father came to be from a non-Father, He would be changed. Moreover a relation of an essence to an essence does not of necessity posit a mutation, except in one of the two extremes, because when the essences are diverse, one can be changed, with the other of the two thoroughly unchanged [non permutato]:3 and for that reason in a relation to a creature a mutation is always understood to have been caused in the creature, not in God. Nevertheless [tamen] properly speaking, just as will be shown elsewhere,4 God is not referred to a creature, except according to a meaning [dici] and a manner of speaking.

Posset tamen aliter dici, sicut supra tactum est,5 quod non est simile: quia relatio personalis dat personae existere, non sic autem relatio ad creaturam; et ideo sequitur: si incipit esse Pater, incipit esse; non autem sequitur: si6 Deus incipit esse homo, incipit esse. Et ideo bene valet argumentum Ambrosii, quodsi Pater incepisset gignere, quod esset mutatus, quia incepisset esse, non quia ab uno statu in alterum mutatus esset.

However, it could be otherwise said, just as has been touched upon above,5 that it is not similar: because a personal relation grants a person to exist, not so, however, a relation to a creature; and for that reason it follows: if He began to be the Father, He began to be; moreover it does not follow: if6 God began to be a man, He began to be. And for that reason the argument of (St.) Ambrose is very valid [bene valet], that if the Father would have begun to beget, because He had been changed, that He would have begun to be, not that He would have been changed from one state into the other.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quando de non agente etc.; dicendum, quod est agens, quod est sua actio, et est agens, quod non est sua actio, sed actio est ab ipso.7 Agens, quod non est sua actio, sic agit, quod inter ipsum et effectum cadit medium, quod disponit ipsum; et tale agens nunquam fit agens de non agente, quin mutetur, quia novum8 sibi advenit. Sed agens, quod est sua actio, agit se ipso; et ideo inter ipsum et effectum non cadit aliquod medium ipsum disponens; et ideo cum de non agente fit agens, quia nihil novum sibi accidit, ideo non mutatur. Tale agens Deus est.

3. To that which is objected, when from a non-acting etc.; it must be said, that there is an agent, which is its own action, and there is an agent, which is not its own action, but is an action by itself.7 The agent, which is not its own action, so acts, that between itself and (its) effect there falls a medium, which disposes it; and such an agent never becomes acting from a non-acting, unless it be changed, because there becomes present (something) new8 to itself [novum sibi advenit]. But an agent, which is its own action, acts by its very self; and for that reason between itself and (its) effect there does not fall any disposing medium; and for that reason since the agent comes to be from a non-agent, because nothing new accedes to itself, therefore it is not changed. Such an agent is God.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de voluntate, dicendum, quod causa proxima et immediata dicitur tripliciter: aut respectu substantiae, aut dispositionis, aut actus; respectu substantiae, inter quam9 et effectum non cadit alia substantia media causans; respectu dispositionis, cui non additur nova dispositio ad effectum producendum; respectu actus, quando actui coniungitur. Dico ergo, quod Dei voluntas fuit causa proxima et immediata ab aeterno respectu substantiae et dispositionis, sed10 non respectu actus; quia actui non coniungitur voluntas nisi pro tempore, in quo vult agere, ut patet, cum dicitur: volo cras legere, voluntas non copulatur actui nisi pro tempore crastino.

4. To that which is objected concerning the will, it must be said, that a proximate and immediate cause is said in a threefold manner: either in respect of substance, or of disposition, or of act; in respect of the substance, between which9 and (its) effect there does not fall another, middle causing substance; in respect of the disposition, to which there is not added a new disposition to produce the effect; in respect of the act, when it is conjoined to an act. Therefore I say, that the Will of God was the proximate and immediate cause from eternity in respect of the substance and disposition (of the world), but10 not in respect of the act (of creating); because to the act the Will was not conjoined except for the time, in which He willed to act, as is clear, when there is said: "I will to read tomorrow", the will is not conjoined to the act except for the time of tomorrow [pro tempore crastino].

SCHOLION.

SCHOLIUM

I. Quoad diversas species mutationis et immutabilitatis cfr. q. seq., et quoad solut. ad 1. S. Thom., S. I. q. 9. a. 1. ad 2.

I. In regard to the diverse species of mutation [mutationis] and immutability, cf. the following question, and in regard to the solution to n. 1, St. Thomas, Summa., I, q. 9, a. 1 to n. 2.

II. Immutabilitas Dei iam in Nicaeno Concilio definita est. Cfr. Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 4. m. 1. a. 2. — Scot., hic. 5; Report., hic q. 2. de rerum principio q. 3. — S. Thom., hic q. 3. a. 1; S. loc. cit. — B. Albert., hic q. 16. seqq.; S. p. I. tr. 4. q. 21. m. 1. 2. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 4. a. 1. — Aegid. R., hic 3. princ. q. 1. — Henr. Gand., de hac et seq. q.; S. a. 30. — Durand., de hac et seq. q.; hic q. 3. — Dionys. Carth., de hac et seq. q.; hic q. 4. — Biel, de hac et seq. q.; hic q. 7.

II. The immutability of God has already been defined in the Council of Nicea. Cf. Alexander of Hales, Summa., p. I, q. 4, m. 1, a. 2. — (Bl. John Duns) Scotus, here in q. 5; Reportatio., here in q. 2 on the principle of things (and) q. 3. — St. Thomas, here in q. 3, a. 1; Summa., loc. cit.. — Bl. (now St.) Albert (the Great), here in a. 16 ff.; Summa., p. I, tr. 4, q. 21, m. 1 and 2. — (Bl.) Peter of Tarentaise, here in q. 4, a. 1. — Giles the Roman, here in 3rd princ. q. 1. — Henry of Ghent, on this and the following question; Summa., a. 30. — Durandus, on this and the following question; here in q. 4. — (Gabriel) Biel, of this and the following question; here in q. 7.

1 Plures codd. ut A C L R U V X omittunt de novo, sed male. Cod. W. de duobus et ed. 1 de persona divina loco de novo, sed inepte. Cod G cum de novo advenit.
2 Codd. aa bb addunt Deus.
3 Vat. praeter fidem mss. et ed. 1 una mutari, altera non permutata, ac immediate post omittit et; aliqui codd. ut A aa bb cum ed. 1 mutato pro permutato.
4 Infra d. 30. q. 3. — Mox post dici ed. 1 vel secundum modum loquendi.
5 Dist. 7. dub. 4. Vide etiam infra d. 26. q. 3. — Immediate post Vat. omittit quod non est, quae lectio corrupta resarcitur ope mss. et edd. 1, 2, 3.
6 Vat. cum cod. cc hic loco si, et post homo addit igitur, sed obstat auctoritas aliorum mss. et ed. 1.
7 Vat. contra fere omnes codd. et ed. 1 omittit non bene sed actio est ab ipso, pro quio cod. Q sed actio est aliquid ab ipso. Paulo ante post obiicitur in cod. V et ed. 1 deest quando.
8 Auctoritate mss. et ed. 1 expunximus hic additum quid.
9 Ex mss. et ed. 1 hic substituimus inter quam loco cum inter eam et paulo infra cui pro cum.
10 Vat. cum cod. cc contra alios codd. et ed. 1 minus clare et pro sed.

1 Very many codices as A C L R U V X omit of (something) new [de novo], but badly. Codex W has of two (things) [de duobus] and edition 1 has of a Divine Person [de persona divina] in place of of (something) new [de novo], but ineptly. Codex G reads when it arrives from (something) new [cum de novo advenit].
2 Codices aa and bb add God.
3 The Vatican text, not trusting in the manuscripts and edition 1, has the feminine form [una mutari, altera non permutata], and immediately after this it omits and [et]; the other codices as A aa and bb together with edition 1 have unchanged [non mutato] in place of thoroughly unchanged [non permutato].
4 Below in d. 30, q. 3. — Then after a meaning [dici] edition 1 reads and/or according to a manner of speaking [vel secundum modum loquendi].
5 Distinction 7, dubium 4. See also below d. 26, q. 3. — Immediately after this the Vatican text omits that it is not [quod non est], which corrupt reading is repaired with the help of the manuscripts and editions 1, 2 and 3.
6 The Vatican text together with codex cc has this does not follow: God [non sequitur hic: Deus], and after man it adds therefore [igitur], but the authority of the other manuscripts withstand this.
7 The Vatican text contrary to nearly all the codices and edition 1 omits, not well, but is an action by itself [sed actio est ab ipso], in place of which codex Q has but an action is a something by itself [sed actio est aliquid ab ipso]. A little before this after is objected [obiicitur], when [quando] is lacking in codex V and edition 1.
8 On the authority of the manuscripts and edition 1 we have expunged the here added something [quid: which is however necessary to be infer in English context].
9 From the manuscripts and edition 1 we have here substituted between which [inter quam] in place of when between it [cum inter eam] and a little below this to which [cui] in place of when [cum].
10 The Vatican text together with codex cc, contrary to the other codices and edition 1, has less clearly and [et] in place of but [sed].

The English translation here has been released to the public domain by its author. The / symbol is used to indicate that the text which follows appears on the subsequent page of the Quaracchi Edition. The translation of the notes in English corresponds to the context of the English text, not that of the Latin text; likewise they are a freer translation than that which is necessitated by the body of the text. Items in square [ ] brackets contain Latin terms corresponding to the previous English word(s), or notes added by the English translator. Items in round ( ) brackets are terms implicit in the Latin syntax or which are required for clarity in English.