<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><?xml-model href="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/lombardpress/lombardpress-schema/1.0.0/src/out/critical.rng" type="application/xml" schematypens="http://relaxng.org/ns/structure/1.0"?><?xml-model href="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/lombardpress/lombardpress-schema/1.0.0/src/out/critical.rng" type="application/xml" schematypens="http://purl.oclc.org/dsdl/schematron"?><TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0">
<teiHeader>
<fileDesc>
<titleStmt>
<title>Lectio 3</title>
<author>Peter Gracilis</author>
<editor>Jeffrey C. Witt</editor>
<editor>John T. Slotemaker</editor>
<respStmt>
<name>Stefano Menegatti</name>
<resp>Proof reader and collaborater</resp>
</respStmt>
</titleStmt>
<editionStmt>
<edition n="1.0.0">
<title>Lectio 3</title>
<date when="2023-04-06">April 06, 2023</date>
</edition>
</editionStmt>
<publicationStmt>
<authority>SCTA</authority>
<availability status="free">
<p>Published under a <ref target="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)</ref></p>
</availability>
</publicationStmt>
<sourceDesc>
<listWit>
<witness xml:id="L" n="lon">London, British Museum Royal 10 A I</witness>
</listWit>
</sourceDesc>
</fileDesc>
<encodingDesc>
<schemaRef n="lbp-critical-1.0.0" url="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/lombardpress/lombardpress-schema/1.0.0/src/out/critical.rng"/>
<editorialDecl>
<p>Encoding of this text has followed the recommendations of the LombardPress 1.0.0
guidelines for a critical edition.
</p>
</editorialDecl>
</encodingDesc>
<revisionDesc status="draft">
<listChange>
<change when="2023-04-06" status="peer-reviewed" n="1.0.0">
<p>Peer Reviewed</p>
</change>
<change when="2014-03-19" status="draft" n="0.0.0">
<p>File Started for the first time.</p>
</change>
</listChange>
</revisionDesc>
</teiHeader>
<text xml:lang="la">
<front>
<div xml:id="starts-on">
<pb ed="#L" n="18-r"/>
</div>
</front>
<body>
<div xml:id="pg-b1q3">
<head xml:id="pg-b1q3-Hd1e3724">Lectio 3</head>
<div xml:id="pg-b1q3-Dd1e3727" type="circa-textum">
<head xml:id="pg-b1q3-Hd1e3729">Circa textum</head>
<p xml:id="pgb1q3-d1e88">
<cit>
<quote xml:id="pg-b1q3-Qhivapf" source="http://scta.info/resource/pll1d2c1-d1e3473" type="lemma" synch="1-6">
Hoc itaque vera ac pia fide
</quote>
<bibl>
<name>Lombardus</name>,
<title>Sent.</title>
I, d. 2, c. 1
(I, 61, ll. 12).
</bibl>
</cit>,
etc.
Postquam <name xml:id="pg-b1q3-Nd1e133" ref="#Lombard">Magister</name>
praemisit quaedam necessaria praeambula in prima distinctione,
hic consequenter se continuat ad dicenda in hac distinctione secunda
quae in duas partes principales dividitur.
Nam in prima ponit studentium informationem Sacrae Scripturae,
secundo insequitur et probat multipliciter suam intentionem.
Secunda ibi,
<cit>
<quote xml:id="pg-b1q3-Qd1e3744" source="http://scta.info/resource/pll1d2c4-d1e3473" synch="1-4">
proponamus, ergo in medium
</quote>
<bibl>
<name>Lombardus</name>,
<title>Sent.</title>
I, d. 2, c. 4
(I, 63, ll. 19).
</bibl>
</cit>.
</p>
<p xml:id="pg-b1q3-d1e152">
Prima in tres dividitur
quia primo docet qualiter studentes se debent ad eam disponere,
secundo quae et qualia pro ipsius intellectu debent credere et supponere,
tertio qualiter debent in ea procedere.
Secunda ibi,
<cit>
<quote xml:id="pg-b1q3-Qd1e3753" source="http://scta.info/resource/pll1d2c3-d1e3473" synch="1-5">
ceterum ut in primo
</quote>
<bibl>
<name>Lombardus</name>,
<title>Sent.</title>
I, d. 2, c. 3
(I, 63, ll. 9).
</bibl>
</cit>,
et tertia ibi,
<cit>
<quote xml:id="pg-b1q3-Qd1e3763">
<app>
<lem type="conjecture-supplied">
<supplied>...<!-- need to supply what should go in the blank left in ms --></supplied>
</lem>
<rdg wit="#L" type="variation-absent"><gap extent="3" unit="words"/></rdg>
</app>
</quote>
<bibl>Non invenimus.</bibl>
<!--NOTE: there is, of course, no way to determine this “…”.
That said, we could supply it with what
other such as H. Gorkum used. Gorkum, like Gracilis, uses a threefold division of each
distinction.
Ueli said this 3 fold division was commonly accepted, so, we could use Gorkum’s
suggetsion for this “…”
-->
</cit>.
Prima posset dividi tres
secundum tres dispositiones quas ponit.
Nam docet quod quilibet studens debet esse mundus et virtuosus,
attentus et studiosus,
tranquillus et non litigiosus.
Secunda ibi,
<cit>
<quote xml:id="pg-b1q3-Qd1e3775" source="http://scta.info/resource/pll1d2c1-d1e3511" synch="1-4">
de hac ergo re
</quote>
<bibl>
<name xml:id="pg-b1q3-Nd1e189">Lombardus</name>,
<title>Sent.</title>
I, d. 2, c. 1
(I, 62, ll. 1).
</bibl>
</cit>.
Tertia ibi,
<cit>
<quote xml:id="pg-b1q3-Qd1e3784" source="http://scta.info/resource/pll1d2c1-d1e3524" synch="1-4">
proinde omnis qui audit
</quote>
<bibl>
<name>Lombardus</name>,
<title>Sent.</title>
I, d. 2, c. 1
(I, 62, ll. 5).
</bibl>
</cit>.
</p>
<p xml:id="pg-b1q3-d1e224">
Secunda pars principalis dividitur in duas.
Primo ponit suam conclusionem seu intentionem et probat eam testimoniis legis antiquae,
secundo declarat eam testimoniis legis evangelicae.
Secunda ibi,
<cit>
<quote xml:id="pg-b1q3-Qd1e3793" source="http://scta.info/resource/pll1d2c4-d1e3723" synch="1-4">
nunc vero ad propositum
</quote>
<bibl>
<name>Lombardus</name>,
<title>Sent.</title>
I, d. 2, c. 4
(I, 65, ll. 24).
</bibl>
</cit>.
Prima dividitur in duas.
Primo probat essentiae simplicem unitatem,
secundo personarum triplicem alteritatem et harum aeternam aequalitatem.
Secunda ibi,
<cit>
<quote xml:id="pg-b1q3-Qd1e3802" source="http://scta.info/resource/pll1d2c4-d1e3570" synch="1-3">
personarum aequalitatem
</quote>
<bibl cert="medium">
<name>Lombardus</name>,
<title>Sent.</title>
I, d. 2, c. 4
(I, 64, ll. 9).
</bibl>
<note xml:lang="en">
Identification is somewhat uncertain,
as Lombard has "personarum quoque pluralitatem"
rather than "personarum aequalitatem".
</note>
</cit>.
Secunda pars nunc vero ad propositionem in tres dividitur
quia primo ponit unitatem essentiae et trinitatem personarum simul ostendit,
secundo durationem aeternitatis annectit, tertio se excusat quod non plures auctoritates ad hoc adducit.
Secunda ibi,
<cit>
<quote xml:id="pg-b1q3-Qd1e3811" source="http://scta.info/resource/pll1d2c5-d1e3596" synch="1-6">
ipse et necessario sui evangelii
</quote>
<bibl>
<name>Lombardus</name>,
<title>Sent.</title>
I, d. 2, c. 5
(I, 68, ll. 3).
</bibl>
</cit>.
Tertia ibi,
<cit>
<quote xml:id="pg-b1q3-Qd1e3821" source="http://scta.info/resource/pll1d2c5-d1e3677" synch="1-7">
sed quia singulae poenae syllabae novi Testamenti
</quote>
<bibl>
<name>Lombardus</name>,
<title>Sent.</title>
I, d. 2, c. 5
(I, 68, ll. 15).
</bibl>
</cit>.
Et haec est divisio.
</p>
</div>
<div xml:id="pg-b1q3-Dd1e3830" type="quaestio">
<head xml:id="pg-b1q3-Hd1e3832">
Quaestio
</head>
<head xml:id="pg-b1q3-Hd1e286" type="question-title">
Utrum possit probari per textum Sacrae Scripturae trinus et unus esse conditor creatae naturae
</head>
<p xml:id="pgb1q3-d1e119">
Utrum possit probari per textum Sacrae Scripturae trinus et unus <supplied>esse</supplied> conditor
creatae naturae.
</p>
<div xml:id="pg-b1q3-Dd1e3836" type="rationes-principales">
<head xml:id="pg-b1q3-Hd1e3838">Rationes principales</head>
<p xml:id="pgb1q3-d1e122" n="Ratio 1">
Quod non primo quia Deus non est trinus et unus, igitur.
Antecedens probatur
quia nullum incommunicabile est communicabile tribus.
Sed Pater est incommunicabilis et essentia divina communicabilis.
Ergo Pater non est essentia
et consequenter potest argui de Filio et Spiritu Sancto.
</p>
<p xml:id="pgb1q3-d1e125" n="Ratio 2">
Secundo,
quia per nullum textum falsum potest illud probari.
Sed textus Scripturae videtur falsus aut saltem improprius, ergo etc.
Minor patet
<ref xml:id="pg-b1q3-Rd1e3879" corresp="#pgb1q3-Qldpdpc">
<title ref="#hab">Habacuc</title> 2
</ref>,
ubi dicitur
<cit>
<quote xml:id="pgb1q3-Qldpdpc" source="http://scta.info/resource/hab2_11" synch="2-5">
lapis de pariete clamabit
</quote>
<bibl>Habacuc 2:11.</bibl>
</cit>.
Item,
<app>
<lem type="conjecture-corrected"><corr><name xml:id="pg-b1q3-Nd1e328">Isaiah</name></corr></lem>
<rdg wit="#L"><name xml:id="pg-b1q3-Nd1e332" ref="#IsidoreOfSeville">Isidorus</name></rdg>
</app>
valet
<cit>
<quote xml:id="pg-b1q3-Qd1e3872" source="http://scta.info/resource/is63_17" synch="2-14">
Errare nos fecisti de viis tuis et <sic>indurare fecisti</sic> cor nostrum,
<pb ed="#L" n="18-v"/>
ne timeremus te?
</quote>
<bibl>Isaiah 63:17.</bibl>
<note xml:lang="en">The text clearly says Isidorus, but these would seem to be a clear mistake since
Gracilis is listing places in the bible that suggest that the Holy Scriptures are a "false text".</note>
</cit>
Item,
<cit>
<quote xml:id="pg-b1q3-Qd1e3887" source="http://scta.info/resource/lc7_22" synch="13-16">
caeci vident,
claudi ambulant
</quote>
<bibl>Lucas 7:22.</bibl>
</cit>,
etc.
Item,
<ref xml:id="pg-b1q3-Rd1e3921" corresp="#pg-b1q3-Qd1e3902">
<unclear><name xml:id="pg-b1q3-Nd1e366" ref="#Lombard">Magister</name></unclear> 5
</ref>,
<cit>
<quote xml:id="pg-b1q3-Qd1e3902">
nihil est probabile
per Scripturam quae diminuerit fidem
</quote>
<bibl>Non invenimus.</bibl>
<note xml:lang="en">This text is not directly found in Lombard.
It is possible that he means to cite the end (c. 5) of d. 2,
which makes some sense. There the content is close, but the wording is different.
See
<ref xml:id="pg-b1q3-Rd1e3936" target="http://scta.info/resource/pll1d2c5-d1e3677">Lombardus, Sent. I, d. 2, c. 5 (I, 68, ll. 15).</ref>
</note>
</cit>,
sed probare evidenter et articulos est diminuere
fidem et eam evacuare, ergo.
</p>
<p xml:id="pgb1q3-d1e163" n="In oppositum">
In oppositum videtur esse <name xml:id="pg-b1q3-Nd1e390" ref="#Lombard">Magister</name> in hac distinctione.
Item,
<ref xml:id="pg-b1q3-Rd1e3947" corresp="#pgb1q3-Qpshder">
<name xml:id="pg-b1q3-Nd1e395" ref="#Augustine">Augustinus</name>
XIV <title ref="#deTrinitate">De Trinitate</title>,
capitulo primo
</ref>
dicit quod
<cit>
<quote xml:id="pgb1q3-Qpshder" source="http://scta.info/resource/adt-l14-d1e1535@99-109">
per studium huius scientiae fides saluberrima gignitur,
defenditur, et roboratur
</quote>
<bibl>
<name>Augustinus</name>,
<title>De Trinitate</title>
XIV, c. 1, n. 3
(CCSL 50A, 424, ll. 59-61).
</bibl>
</cit>.
</p>
</div>
<div xml:id="pg-b1q3-Dd1e3934">
<head xml:id="pg-b1q3-Hd1e3936">Conclusio 1</head>
<p xml:id="pgb1q3-d1e188" n="Conclusio">
Primo conclusio: licet haec propositio,
<mentioned>si Deus est, ipse est trinus et unus</mentioned>,
possit ex primo principio
sufficienter deduci,
<app>
<lem type="conjecture-corrected"><corr>tamen</corr></lem>
<rdg wit="#L" facs="18v/6">tantum</rdg>
</app>
<mentioned>Deum trinum esse et unum</mentioned>
non potest ex eo principio primo evidenter concludi.
Prima <supplied>pars</supplied> patet quia,
ex opposito consequentis,
sequitur oppositum antecedentis, ergo.
Consequentia bona, quamvis non sciamus eam evidenter esse bonam.
Antecedens probatur,
nam sequitur, Deus non est trinus et unus, ergo Deus non est.
Quanta enim necessitate haec est necessaria <mentioned>Deus est</mentioned>,
tanta necessitate est haec <mentioned>Deus est trinus et unus</mentioned>.
Secunda pars probatur
quia si posset ex primo principio evidenter
concludi aut a priori,
et hoc non
quia nullum tale est possibile esse, nec a posteriori.
Tum primo, cum quilibet effectus creatus sit finitus,
demonstraret primam causam esse finitam.
Tum secundo, cum omnis demonstratio procedat ab effectu creato ad causam summam, est insufficiens
quia plures habet dissimilitudines quam similitudines.
Et, dato quod posset illo modo suaderi
primam causam esse,
adhuc nullo modo convinceretur evidenter ipsum trinum esse.
Ad hoc sunt
<ref xml:id="pg-b1q3-Rd1e3995" corresp="#pg-b1q3-Qnepsir">
verba <name xml:id="pg-b1q3-Nd1e455" ref="#Lombard">Magistri</name> in hac distinctione
</ref>
dicens,
<cit>
<quote xml:id="pg-b1q3-Qnepsir" source="http://scta.info/resource/pll1d3c1-d1e3654@11-28">
Non enim per creaturarum contemplationem sufficiens notitia Trinitatis
potest haberi sine doctrinae vel superioris inspirationis revelatione
</quote>
<bibl>
<name>Lombardus</name>,
<title>Sent.</title>
I, d. 3, c. 1
(I, 71, ll. 20-24).
</bibl>
</cit>.
</p>
<p xml:id="pgb1q3-d1e217" n="Corollarium 1">
Primum corollarium:
quod multae propositiones de Deo dictae seu formabiles
sunt ex primo principio deducibiles.
Patet ex conclusione, et confirmatur de ista
<mentioned>Deus non est lapis</mentioned> <supplied>quod</supplied> potest ex illo deduci,
quia eius opposita includit contradictionem.
Nam sequitur, Deus est lapis essentialiter,
ergo Deus est Deus,
ergo Deus est intelligens,
ergo Deus non est lapis.
Consequentia prima patet
quia idem praedicatur de se ipso.
Secunda patet
quia quam necessario
Deus est Deus tam necessario Deus est intelligens.
Et tertia patet
quia nullum intelligens est lapis essentialiter.
</p>
<p xml:id="pgb1q3-d1e229" n="Corollarium 2">
Secundum corollarium:
licet omnis evidentia arguat certitudinem,
non tamen omnis certitudo infert evidentia.
Prima patet quia omnis sciens evidenter conclusionem est certus de illa.
Secunda patet quia <mentioned>Deum esse trinum</mentioned> est certissimum, quia
fide creditum, et tamen de hoc articulo non habemus evidentiam.
</p>
<p xml:id="pgb1q3-d1e241" n="Corollarium 3">
Tertium corollarium:
quam repugnat nihil esse simpliciter,
tam repugnat tria supposita distincta non esse realiter.
Ex quo sequitur ultra hanc consequentiam esse necessariam,
nulla tria sunt, igitur nihil est.
Patet quia sequitur, nulla tria sunt, ergo tria
divina supposita non sunt, igitur nullus Deus est, ergo nihil est.
Ex quo adhuc infertur quod sequitur bene, unum est, ergo tria sunt
quia tria divina supposita sunt.
Patet consequentia
quia oppositum consequentis infert oppositum antecedentis
quia sequitur,
nulla tria sunt,
ergo tria divina supposita non sunt,
ergo nullum unum est.
</p>
</div>
<div xml:id="pg-b1q3-Dd1e4007">
<head xml:id="pg-b1q3-Hd1e4009">
Conclusio 2
</head>
<p xml:id="pgb1q3-d1e251" n="Conclusio">
Secunda conclusio:
quam est necesse in divinis unam esse
supersimplicem essentiae unitatem,
tam est necesse illam esse
trinam realem pluralitatem seu alteritatem. Haec patet ex dictis in prima.
Confirmatur
quia sic est de facto sicut conclusio significat,
ergo sic esse est necesse.
Antecedens patet ex fide.
Consequentia probatur,
quia qualitercumque intrinsece est in divina essentia,
talis esse est necesse.
Patet per
<cit>
<ref xml:id="pg-b1q3-Rd1e4049" target="http://scta.info/resource/pll1d2c2-d1e3473">
<name xml:id="pg-b1q3-Nd1e509" ref="#Lombard">Magistrum</name> in hac distinctione
</ref>
<bibl>
<name xml:id="pg-b1q3-Nd1e517">Lombardus</name>,
<title>Sent.</title>
I, d. 2, c. 2
(I, 62, ll. 15-24).
</bibl>
<!-- need to leave note explain reference connection; also need to double check that target url points to the right place -->
</cit>.
Item per
<ref xml:id="pg-b1q3-Rd1e4064" corresp="#pg-b1q3-Qd1e4042">
<name xml:id="pg-b1q3-Nd1e530" ref="#RichardOfStVictor">Ricardum</name>,
libro primo
<title ref="#RichardOfStVictor_deTrinitate">De Trinitate</title>,
capitulo 27
</ref>,
dicentem
<cit>
<quote xml:id="pg-b1q3-Qd1e4042" source="http://scta.info/resource/stRiVi-d1e86">
<!-- source is liber 14; no id yet for c. 19 -->
confidenter fateamur personas
in deitate secundum substantiam deitas et substantiam significare
<pb ed="#L" n="19-r"/>
et plures ibi personas,
non plures substantias esse quia sunt plures habentes unum
et indifferens esse ex differenti proprietate, unitas
</quote>
<bibl>
<name>Richardus De Sancto Victore</name>,
<title>De Trinitate</title>
IV, c. 19
(Ribaillier 183, ll. 48-52).
</bibl>
</cit>.
Ad hoc sunt verba
<ref xml:id="pg-b1q3-Rd1e4091" corresp="#pg-b1q3-Qd1e4061">
<name xml:id="pg-b1q3-Nd1e556" ref="#Lombard">Magistri</name>
in hac distinctione,
principio
</ref>
<cit>
<quote xml:id="pg-b1q3-Qd1e4061" source="http://scta.info/resource/pll1d2c1-d1e3473" synch="1-2">
hoc itaque
</quote>
<bibl>
<name xml:id="pg-b1q3-Nd1e569">Lombardus</name>,
<title>Sent.</title>
I, d. 2, c. 1
(I, 61, ll. 1).
</bibl>
</cit>,
etc.
</p>
<p xml:id="pgb1q3-d1e287" n="Corollarium 1">
Primum corollarium:
non solum in divinis est solitudo vel naturae singularitas seu simplicitas,
sed etiam vera et realis
trium personarum aequalium trinitas.
Patet ex conclusione,
unde
<ref xml:id="pg-b1q3-Rd1e4110" corresp="#pg-b1q3-Qd1e4082">
<title ref="#io">Iohannes</title> IV
</ref>,
<cit>
<quote xml:id="pg-b1q3-Qd1e4082" source="http://scta.info/resource/io14_16" synch="6-9">
alium paracletum dabit vobis
</quote>
<bibl>Iohannes 14:16.</bibl>
</cit>.
Item,
<ref xml:id="pg-b1q3-Rd1e4128" corresp="#pg-b1q3-Qd1e4098">
<title ref="#Iio">I Iohannis</title>
</ref>,
<cit>
<quote xml:id="pg-b1q3-Qd1e4098" source="http://scta.info/resource/Iio5_7" synch="2-6">
tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in caelo
</quote>
<bibl>I Iohannes 5:7.</bibl>
</cit>.
Item
<ref xml:id="pg-b1q3-Rcn39d8" corresp="#pg-b1q3-Qd1e4109">
<name xml:id="pg-b1q3-Nd1e613" ref="#Athanasius">Athanasius</name>
</ref>,
<cit>
<quote xml:id="pg-b1q3-Qd1e4109">
alia est persona Patris
</quote>
<bibl>
<title>Symbolum Quicumque</title>
(Denzinger n. 75, p. 51).</bibl>
</cit>,
etc.
</p>
<p xml:id="pgb1q3-d1e323" n="Corollarium 2">
Secundum corollarium:
licet paternum notionale
<unclear cert="medium">dicere</unclear> sit Filium aequalem sibi producere,
tamen non quodlibet suppositum divinum dicens
vel intelligens est Spiritum Sanctum producens.
Prima pars est
<ref xml:id="pg-b1q3-Rd1e4157" corresp="#pg-b1q3-Qd1e4129">
<name xml:id="pg-b1q3-Nd1e638" ref="#Augustine">Augustini</name>
libro <title ref="#deTrinitate">De Trinitate</title>
</ref>,
dicentis,
<cit>
<quote xml:id="pg-b1q3-Qd1e4129" source="http://scta.info/resource/adt-l15-d1e1848" synch="80-105">
Pater dicens se genuit
Verbum sibi aequale per omnia;
non enim integre perfecteque se dixisset si aliquid minus se vel amplius
esset in eius Verbo quam in se ipso
</quote>
<bibl>
<name>Augustinus</name>,
<title>De Trinitate</title>
XV, 14, 23
(CCSL 50A, 496, ll. 8-10).
</bibl>
</cit>.
Secunda pars probatur
quia cum quaelibet persona divina se et alia a se intelligat,
sequitur quod Filius produceret se Filium vel alium non se.
<supplied>Primum non est</supplied>
quia nihil se potest producere vel generare
<cit>
<ref xml:id="pg-b1q3-Rd1e653" target="http://scta.info/resource/adt-l1">
secundum <name xml:id="pg-b1q3-Nd1e670" ref="#Augustine">Augustinum</name>
</ref>
<bibl>
<name>Augustinus</name>,
<title>De Trinitate</title>
I, 1, 1
(CCSL 50, 28, ll. 35-36).
</bibl>
</cit>,
nec secundum quia sic esset
quaternitas in divinis,
quod est impossibile et contra conclusionem.
</p>
<p xml:id="pgb1q3-d1e350" n="Corollarium 3">
Tertium corollarium:
quam est necesse in Divinis tria supposita esse,
tam est impossibile Spiritum Sanctum ad intra
aliquid producere.
Patet ex dictis quia ipsum ad intra non producere est verum,
ergo necessarium, ergo oppositum eius est impossibile.
</p>
</div>
<div xml:id="pg-b1q3-Dd1e4147">
<head xml:id="pg-b1q3-Hd1e4149">
Conclusio 3
</head>
<p xml:id="pgb1q3-d1e361" n="Conclusio">
Tertio conclusio:
licet theologus per textum scripturae
non possit Deum esse trinum evidenter ostendere,
tamen potest, per eundem,
meritorie Trinitatem sufficienter ostendere,
<app>
<lem n="ostendere"/>
<rdg wit="#L" type="variation-present" facs="19r/17">sufficienter</rdg>
</app>
approbare, et deducere.
Prima patet
quia obiectum illius articuli non potest evidenter ad contradictionem deduci,
ut patet ex
<cit>
<ref xml:id="pg-b1q3-Rcm381d" target="http://scta.info/resource/pgb1q3-d1e188">
prima conclusione
</ref>
<bibl>
Vide supra.
</bibl>
</cit>.
Secunda pars probatur
quia ille articulus est sufficienter
in Sacra Scriptura expressus, ergo.
Antecedens patet in hac distinctione,
unde
<ref xml:id="pg-b1q3-Rd1e4196" corresp="#pg-b1q3-Qd1e4161">
<name xml:id="pg-b1q3-Nd1e715" ref="#Lombard">Magister</name>
</ref>,
<cit>
<quote xml:id="pg-b1q3-Qd1e4161" source="http://scta.info/resource/pll1d2c5-d1e3677" synch="3-15">
singulae pene syllabae novi testamenti hanc ineffabilem
unitatis veritatem atque Trinitatis concorditer insinuant
</quote>
<bibl>
<name xml:id="pg-b1q3-Nd1e730">Lombardus</name>,
<title>Sent.</title>
I, d. 2, c. 1
(I, 68, ll. 15-16).
</bibl>
</cit>.
Sed quod meritorie possit inquiri
et per Scripturam doceri et deduci arguitur
<ref xml:id="pg-b1q3-Rd1e4214" corresp="#pg-b1q3-Qd1e4188">
ex dictis <name xml:id="pg-b1q3-Nd1e741" ref="#Augustine">Augustini</name>
</ref>
et allegatur a
<cit>
<ref xml:id="pg-b1q3-Rd1e4222" corresp="#pg-b1q3-Qd1e4188" target="http://scta.info/resource/pll1d2c1-d1e3511" synch="40-43">
<name xml:id="pg-b1q3-Nd1e750" ref="#Lombard">Magistro</name> in hac distinctione
</ref>
<bibl>
<name>Lombardus</name>,
<title>Sent.</title>
I, d. 2, c. 1
(I, 62, ll. 4-5).
</bibl>
</cit>,
dicens quod
<cit>
<quote xml:id="pg-b1q3-Qd1e4188" source="http://scta.info/resource/adt-l1-d1e27" synch="90-93">
hac Trinitate nihil fructuosius invenitur
</quote>
<bibl>
<name>Augustinus</name>,
<title>De Trinitate</title>
I, 3, 5
(CCSL 50, 32, ll. 9-11).
</bibl>
</cit>.
Item,
<ref xml:id="pg-b1q3-Rd1e4246" corresp="#pg-b1q3-Qd1e4203">
<name xml:id="pg-b1q3-Nd1e781" ref="#Lombard">Magister</name> in prologo
</ref>
<cit>
<quote xml:id="pg-b1q3-Qd1e4203" source="http://scta.info/resource/pll1prol-cadzdd" synch="41-44">
delectat nos veritas pollicentis
</quote>
<bibl>
<name xml:id="pg-b1q3-Nd1e794">Lombardus</name>,
<title>Sent.</title>
I, prol.
(I, 63, ll. 6-7).
</bibl>
</cit>,
scilicet spes habendi vitam aeternam
quae fuit una de causis moventibus ad compilationem huius operis.
</p>
<p xml:id="pgb1q3-d1e404" n="Corollarium 1">
Primum corollarium:
nullus Sacrae Scripturae textus in suo proprio sensu est falsus.
Contra
<cit>
<ref xml:id="pg-b1q3-Rd1e4270">
<name xml:id="pg-b1q3-Nd1e810" ref="#Ockham">Ockham</name>
in <title ref="#SentencesOckham">Scripto super Sententias</title>
</ref>
<bibl>
<name>Ockham</name>,
<title>Sent.</title> I, d. 2, q. 2
(OT, II, 61, ll. 14 - 62, ll. 4)
et
d. 47, q. 1
(IV, 682, ll. 1- 683, ll. 9).
</bibl>
</cit>.
Patet
quia aliter articuli fidei non possent per huius textum probari nec deduci,
immo Scriptura redderetur suspecta.
</p>
<p xml:id="pgb1q3-d1e420" n="Corollarium 2">
Secundum corollarium:
quod studere in Sacra Scriptura est circumstantia augens merita.
Patet, si in caritate et propter Deum fiat et fidei Catholicae non repugnet.
Immo studere in qualibet scientia non prohibita est meritorium,
si imperetur a bono actu voluntatis,
<cit>
<ref xml:id="pg-b1q3-Rd1e4287">
ut ostendit <name xml:id="pg-b1q3-Nd1e834" ref="#per-U89ddd">Facinus</name>
</ref>
<bibl>
<name>Facinus de Ast</name>,
non invenimus.
</bibl>
</cit>.
</p>
<p xml:id="pgb1q3-d1e433" n="Corollarium 3">
Tertium corollarium est
<cit>
<ref xml:id="pg-b1q3-R8de8ze" target="http://scta.info/resource/pgb1q3-d1e361">
pars quaestionis affirmativa
</ref>
</cit>,
scilicet quod potest probari per textum Sacrae Scriptura, etc.
Patet per dicta.
</p>
</div>
<div xml:id="pg-b1q3-Dd1e4259">
<head xml:id="pg-b1q3-Hd1e4261">
Obiectiones
</head>
<p xml:id="pgb1q3-d1e443">
<cit>
<ref xml:id="pg-b1q3-Rd1e854" target="http://scta.info/resource/pgb1q3-d1e188">
Contra primam conclusionem
</ref>
<bibl>
Vide supra.
</bibl>
</cit>,
arguitur,
per rationem naturalem possumus cognoscere
et deducere divinam essentiam esse,
ergo et Trinitatem personarum.
Consequentia nota
quia quidquid cognoscitur de essentia divina
vere competit Trinitati. Antecedens patet per
<ref xml:id="pg-b1q3-Rd1e4319">
<name xml:id="pg-b1q3-Nd1e877" ref="#Cicero">Tullium</name>,
<title>De natura deorum</title>,
libro secundo,
post principium
</ref>,
<cit>
<quote xml:id="pg-b1q3-Qd1e4286" source="http://scta.info/resource/pobgqw-d1e51">
omnibus enim innatum est et in anima quasi insculptum esse Deo
</quote>
<bibl>
<name>Cicero</name>,
<title>De natura deorum</title>
II, 4, 12
(Ax, 54, ll. 5-7).
</bibl>
</cit>.
Ad idem est
<cit>
<ref xml:id="pg-b1q3-Rd1e4342" target="http://scta.info/resource/aconf-l8-d1e113">
<name xml:id="pg-b1q3-Nd1e904" ref="#Augustine">Augustinus</name>,
<title ref="Confessions">Confessionum</title>,
capitulo octavo
</ref>
<bibl>
<name>Augustinus</name>,
<title>Confessiones</title>
VIII, 2
(CCSL 27, 114-116).
</bibl>
</cit>
loquens de <name xml:id="pg-b1q3-Nd1e922" ref="#Platonists">Platonicis</name>,
ubi dicit quod ipse ratione devenerit
ad notitiam non solum divinae essentiae,
sed etiam Trinitatis.
</p>
<p xml:id="pgb1q3-d1e467">
Secundo sic, omnis perfectio reperta in creaturis debet Deo attribui.
Sed generare est perfectio in creatura, ergo.
</p>
<p xml:id="pgb1q3-d1e470">
Tertio,
quanto natura est actualior,
tanto
<pb ed="#L" n="19-v"/>
est fecundior.
Sed divina natura est infinita actualiter,
ergo infinitae fecunditatis.
</p>
<p xml:id="pgb1q3-d1e475">
Quarto,
omne bonum est sui ipsius communicativum naturaliter.
Sed Deus est infinitum bonum, ergo.
Maior est
<cit>
<ref xml:id="pg-b1q3-Rd1e4377" target="http://scta.info/resource/KJde3s-d1e107">
<!-- target to c. 4 only -->
<name xml:id="pg-b1q3-Nd1e942" ref="#Dionysius">Dionysius</name>,
<title ref="#deDivinisNominibus">De divinis nominibus</title>,
capitulo 12
</ref>
<bibl>
<name>Pseudo-Dionysius</name>,
<title>De divinis nominibus</title>,
cap. 4
(Dionysiaca I, 199).
</bibl>
<note xml:lang="en">
See: Julien Peghaire, L’aziom bonum est diffusivum sui dans le neoplatonisme et le thomisme.
J.P. Jossua, L’axiome bonum est diffusivum sui chez S. Thomas d’Aquin.
</note>
</cit>.
Et minor est
<cit>
<ref xml:id="pg-b1q3-Rd1e4394" target="http://scta.info/resource/anselmprosologion">
<name xml:id="pg-b1q3-Nd1e968" ref="#Anselm">Anselmus</name>
in suo <title ref="#Proslogion">Proslogion</title>,
capitulis multis
</ref>
<bibl>
<name>Anselmus</name>,
<title>Proslogion</title>
2, 3, 13, 20
(Schmitt I, 101-103, 110-111, 115-116).
</bibl>
</cit>.
</p>
<p xml:id="pgb1q3-d1e499">
<cit>
<ref xml:id="pg-b1q3-Rd1e975" target="http://scta.info/resource/pgb1q3-d1e251">
Contra secundam conclusionem
</ref>
<bibl>Vide supra.</bibl>
</cit>,
si essent tres personae, etc.,
sequitur quod in divinis est relatio et oppositio relationis,
vel ergo erit una tantum vel plures.
Si solum unam, ergo erunt tantum duo supposita seu duae personae.
Si vero plures, ergo erunt ibi ad minus quattuor supposita quod est haeresis.
Patet consequentia
quia omnis oppositio relativa requirit duo extrema,
scilicet generare et generari, spirare et spirari.
</p>
<p xml:id="pgb1q3-d1e502">
Secundo sic,
Deus omni modo est idem
quo simpliciter est melius esse idem quam non idem.
Sed esse idem essentialiter
<app>
<lem type="conjecture-supplied"><supplied>et</supplied></lem>
<rdg wit="#L" facs="19v/9">est</rdg>
</app>
personaliter est melius quam non esse sic idem,
ergo.
Maior patet per
<cit>
<ref xml:id="pg-b1q3-Rd1e4435" target="http://scta.info/resource/adcmon-c15-d1e167" synch="36-40">
<name xml:id="pg-b1q3-Nd1e1015" ref="#Anselm">Anselmum</name>,
<title ref="#Monologion">Monologion</title>
15
</ref>
<bibl>
<name>Anselmus</name>,
<title>Monologion</title>
15
(Schmitt I, 28-29).
<!-- dbcheck, target a little fuzzy.
if anselm ref is to "melius esse idem quam non idem",
then wee see this as line 27;
also should the above phrase be treated as a quotation and then connected to this ref
-->
</bibl>
</cit>.
Minor patet quia quod convenit Patri et cuilibet personae est melius ipsum quam non ipsum.
Sed esse idem essentialiter et personaliter convenit cuilibet personae,
ergo sic idem melius ipsum quam non ipsum.
Minor patet, quia quaelibet persona personaliter
et essentialiter est idem essentiae divinae.
</p>
<p xml:id="pgb1q3-d1e518">
Tertio,
sequitur quod sunt tres aeternae personae divinae,
et tamen non sunt tres aeternae.
Consequens implicat.
Patet consequentia
quia per conclusionem et corollarium eius sunt tres coaeternae personae, ergo et aeternae.
Sed quod non sunt tres aeternae patet per
<ref xml:id="pg-b1q3-Rd1e1037">
<name xml:id="pg-b1q3-Nd1e1039" ref="#Athanasius">Athanasium</name>
</ref>
dicentem,
<cit>
<quote xml:id="pg-b1q3-Qd1e4427">non tres aeterni, sed unus aeternus</quote>
<bibl>
<title>Symbolum Quicumque</title>
(Denzinger n. 75, p. 51).
</bibl>
</cit>.
</p>
<p xml:id="pgb1q3-d1e526">
Quarto
<cit>
<ref xml:id="pg-b1q3-Rd1e1053" target="http://scta.info/resource/pgb1q3-d1e323">
contra secundum corollarium
</ref>
<bibl>Vide supra.</bibl>
</cit>,
<cit>
<quote xml:id="pg-b1q3-Qd1e961" source="http://scta.info/resource/pgb1q3-d1e526@30-33" type="incipit">si per intelligere</quote>
</cit>, etc.,
sequitur quod quaelibet persona producet Filium.
Patet consequentia
quia quaelibet intelligit aliquid,
sequitur ergo quod producit se vel aliquid ex se per intelligere vel diligere.
Confirmatur
quia, si cum simplicitate stat Trinitas personarum,
pari ratione potest stare quaternitas
quia non videtur ratio quare Filius
non possit producere Filium per suum intelligere sicut Pater.
</p>
<p xml:id="pgb1q3-d1e535">
<cit>
<ref xml:id="pg-b1q3-Rd1e1066" target="http://scta.info/resource/pgb1q3-d1e361">
Contra tertiam conclusionem
</ref>
<bibl>Vide supra.</bibl>
</cit>,
Deum esse trinum nullibi in Sacra
<app>
<lem type="conjecture-supplied"><supplied>Scriptura</supplied></lem>
<rdg wit="#L" facs="19v/21">sacra</rdg>
</app>
invenitur expressum,
ergo.
Probatur antecedens quia,
cum Scriptura habeat plures sensus et intellectus,
posset adversarius dicere quod Christus
et alii de Trinitate loquentes non sunt locuti ad sensum,
sed mystice et figuraliter.
</p>
<p xml:id="pgb1q3-d1e545">
<cit>
<ref xml:id="pg-b1q3-Rd1e1089" target="http://scta.info/resource/pgb1q3-d1e404">
Contra primum corollarium
</ref>
<bibl>Vide supra.</bibl>
</cit>,
quia multae sunt propositiones quae videntur falsae in sensu litterali,
sed ille est proprius sensus Scripturae,
ergo.
Antecedens patet
<ref xml:id="pg-b1q3-Rd1e4514" corresp="#pg-b1q3-Qd1e4486">
<title ref="#io">Iohannes</title>
<app>
<lem type="conjecture-supplied"><supplied>10</supplied></lem>
<rdg wit="#L">4</rdg>
</app>
</ref>
ubi Christus dicit,
<cit>
<quote xml:id="pg-b1q3-Qd1e4486" source="http://scta.info/resource/io10_9">
ego sum ostium
</quote>
<bibl>Iohannes 10:9.</bibl>
</cit>.
Item,
<cit>
<quote xml:id="pg-b1q3-Qd1e4495" source="http://scta.info/resource/io15_1">
ego sum vitis vera
</quote>
<bibl>Iohannes 15:1.</bibl>
</cit>.
Confirmatur hoc quia Scripturae
<app>
<lem type="conjecture-supplied"><supplied>doctores</supplied></lem>
<rdg wit="#L">doctorum</rdg>
</app>
inter se contradicunt, ergo.
Antecedens patet de
<cit>
<ref xml:id="pg-b1q3-Rd1e4565" target="http://scta.info/resource/adcd-l18">
<name xml:id="pg-b1q3-Nd1e1147" ref="#Augustine">Augustino</name>
</ref>
<bibl>
<name>Augustinus</name>,
<title>De civitate Dei</title>
XVIII, 31
(CCSL 48, 648-650).
</bibl>
</cit>
et
<cit>
<ref xml:id="pg-b1q3-Rd1e4575">
<name xml:id="pg-b1q3-Nd1e1165" ref="#Jerome">Ieronimo</name>,
<title>Super epistola Pauli ad Galatas</title>,
in multis passibus
</ref>
<bibl>
<name>Hieronymus</name>,
<title>Commentarius in epistulam ad Galatas</title>
3, 5, 21 (PL 26, 445).
</bibl>
</cit>.
Item,
confirmatur antecedens quia evangelistae inter se videntur discordare.
Patet quia, ob hoc,
videtur
<cit>
<ref xml:id="pg-b1q3-Rd1e1184">
<name xml:id="pg-b1q3-Nd1e1186" ref="#Augustine">Augustinus</name>
fecisse librum
<title ref="#DeConsensuEvangelistarum">
De concordia Evangelistarum
</title>
</ref>
<bibl>
<name>Augustinus</name>,
<title>De concordia Evangelistarum</title>,
non invenimus.
</bibl>
</cit>.
</p>
<p xml:id="pgb1q3-d1e578">
Item,
contra
<cit>
<ref xml:id="pg-b1q3-Rd1e1196" target="http://scta.info/resource/pgb1q3-d1e361">conclusionem</ref>
<bibl>Vide supra.</bibl>
</cit>
et
<cit>
<ref xml:id="pg-b1q3-Rd1e1206" target="http://scta.info/resource/pgb1q3-d1e420">secundum corollarium</ref>
<bibl>Vide supra.</bibl>
</cit>:
quia studentes theologiam periculo errandi se exponunt,
ergo nullus eam debet studere,
nec eius meritorium est studium.
Patet antecedens, quia ibi miscentur dicta
philosophorum et haereticorum
quae legere in propriis locis
non licet nec expedit,
ut patet de <name xml:id="pg-b1q3-Nd1e1220" ref="#Jerome">Ieronimo</name>,
qui graviter fuit
percussus eo quod legit libros
<name xml:id="pg-b1q3-Nd1e1223" ref="#Cicero">Ciceronis</name>,
ut habetur in
<cit>
<ref xml:id="pg-b1q3-Rd1e1222">eius legenda</ref>
<bibl>
<name>Jacobus de Voragine</name>,
<title>Legenda Aurea de Sancto Hieronimo</title>
(1490, n. 142, f. z5va).
</bibl>
<!-- see https://books.google.com/books?id=GooLBv8Km98C&dq=legenda+aurea&source=gbs_navlinks_s
might be an earlier source from 1470, but I can't find a copy of it.
https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basis/goldenlegend/GoldenLegend-Volume5.asp#Jerome
for English translation and mention of 1470 first edition.
-->
</cit>.
</p>
<p xml:id="pgb1q3-d1e587">
Item,
per studium theologiae acquiritur habitus faciliter credendi,
ergo per illud perdit studens unam circumstantiam augentem meritum.
Antecedens patet.
Et consequentia probatur
quia difficultas credendi est circumstantia augens meritum, unde
<ref xml:id="pg-b1q3-Rd1e4616">
<name xml:id="pg-b1q3-Nd1e1247" ref="#Jerome">Ieronimus</name>
in quaedam epistola
</ref>,
<cit>
<quote xml:id="pg-b1q3-Qd1e4574">
res maioris est meriti,
quae maioris est laboris
</quote>
<bibl>
<name>Pseudo-Hieronymus</name>,
<title>Epistula</title>
13, 2
(PL 30, 164).
</bibl>
</cit>.
Item,
<ref xml:id="pg-b1q3-Rd1e4631" corresp="#pg-b1q3-Qd1e4592">
<name xml:id="pg-b1q3-Nd1e1268" ref="#Ambrose">Ambrosius</name>,
in libro
<title>De Cain et Abel</title>
</ref>,
<cit>
<quote xml:id="pg-b1q3-Qd1e4592" source="http://scta.info/resource/ambDeC-d1e59">
<!-- target is book 2; no ids yet for lower level objects -->
omnis virtus in labore consistit
</quote>
<bibl>
<name>Ambrosius</name>,
<title>De Cain et Abel</title>
II, 2, 8
(CSEL 31.1, 384, ll. 17-18).
</bibl>
</cit>.
</p>
<p xml:id="pgb1q3-d1e605">
Ad idem,
videtur esse
<cit>
<ref xml:id="pg-b1q3-Rd1e4654" target="http://scta.info/resource/aristneth-l2">
<name xml:id="pg-b1q3-Nd1e1297" ref="#Aristotle">Philosophus</name>,
II
<title ref="#Ethics">Ethicorum</title>
</ref>
<bibl>
<name>Aristoteles</name>,
<title>Nicomachean Ethics</title>
II, 3
(1105a26-b15).
</bibl>
</cit>,
ex quibus videtur sequi quod eligibilior esset status simplicis
<pb ed="#L" n="20-r"/>
fidelis viatoris quam profundi ac subtilis doctoris.
</p>
</div>
<div xml:id="pg-b1q3-Dd1e1332">
<head xml:id="pg-b1q3-Hd1e1334">Responsiones</head>
<p xml:id="pgb1q3-d1e623">
<cit>
<ref xml:id="pg-b1q3-Rd1e1315" target="http://scta.info/resource/pgb1q3-d1e443">
Ad primam
</ref>
<bibl>Vide supra.</bibl>
</cit>,
quidquid sit de antecedente, negatur consequentia.
Ad probationem,
dicitur quod Trinitas divina ab aliquo cognoscitur
<supplied>et</supplied> aliquo non cognoscitur Trinitas divina.
</p>
<p xml:id="pgb1q3-d1e629">
<cit>
<ref xml:id="pg-b1q3-Rd1e1331" target="http://scta.info/resource/pgb1q3-d1e443">
Ad dictum <name xml:id="pg-b1q3-Nd1e1339" ref="#Augustine">Augustini</name>
de <name xml:id="pg-b1q3-Nd1e1342" ref="#Platonists">Platonicis</name>
</ref>
<bibl>
Vide supra.
</bibl>
</cit>,
primo dicitur quod
<name xml:id="pg-b1q3-Nd1e1353" ref="#Augustine">Augustinus</name>
non dicit se invenisse in libro
<name xml:id="pg-b1q3-Nd1e1356" ref="#Platonists">Platonicorum</name>,
sed in libro cuiusdam
<name xml:id="pg-b1q3-Nd1e1359" ref="#Platonists">Platonici</name>.
Sed plures fuerunt
<name xml:id="pg-b1q3-Nd1e1362" ref="#Platonists">Platonici</name> post adventum Christi,
sicut
<name xml:id="pg-b1q3-Nd1e1366" ref="#Porphyry">Porphyrius</name>,
<name xml:id="pg-b1q3-Nd1e1369" ref="#Plotinus">Plotinus</name>,
et <name xml:id="pg-b1q3-Nd1e1372">Apuleius</name>, qui forte fuerunt boni.
</p>
<p xml:id="pg-b1q3-d1e1259"><!-- new1 -->
Secundo potest dici quod, si aliquid noverit de Trinitate,
hanc habuerit ex divina inspiratione, sicut dicit
<cit>
<ref xml:id="pg-b1q3-Rd1e4706">
<name xml:id="pg-b1q3-Nd1e1379" ref="#Augustine">Augustinus</name>
de hermete Mercurii in sermone
<title>Contra quinque haereses</title>
</ref>
<bibl>
<name>Pseudo-Augustinus</name>,
<title>Tractatus contra quinque haereses</title>
3, 1-21
(CCM 60, 264-268).
</bibl>
</cit>.
</p>
<p xml:id="pgb1q3-d1e670">
<cit>
<ref xml:id="pg-b1q3-Rd1e1396" target="http://scta.info/resource/pgb1q3-d1e467">
Ad secundam
</ref>
<bibl>Vide supra.</bibl>
</cit>,
primo posset maior negari
quia mereri vel posse mereri est perfectio in creatura,
non tamen potest Deo attribui.
</p>
<p xml:id="pg-b1q3-d1e1293"><!-- new2 -->
Secundo, posset negari minor
quia forte generare vel posse generare
non est perfectio simpliciter potissime in divinis
quia, secundum quod communiter arguitur,
cum Filius hoc non potest,
careret aliqua perfectione.
</p>
<p xml:id="pgb1q3-d1e676">
<cit>
<ref xml:id="pg-b1q3-Rd1e1411" target="http://scta.info/resource/pgb1q3-d1e470">
Ad tertiam
</ref>
<bibl>Vide supra.</bibl>
</cit>,
posset concedi consequens
quod divina natura in suppositis Patris et Filii est infinitae fecunditatis
quia Pater producit Filium in omnibus sibi aequalem,
<supplied>et</supplied> Pater et Filius <supplied>producunt</supplied>
Spiritum Sanctum eis consubstantialem.
</p>
<p xml:id="pgb1q3-d1e680">
<cit>
<ref xml:id="pg-b1q3-Rd1e1430" target="http://scta.info/resource/pgb1q3-d1e475">
Ad quartam
</ref>
<bibl>Vide supra.</bibl>
</cit>,
conceditur tota ratio,
nec ex hoc concluditur evidenter Trinitas personarum in divinis,
immo aeque probaretur per illa media quaternitas et quinternitas,
immo forte melius quam trinitas.
</p>
<!-- seems to be a missing response to the first argument against the second conclusion -->
<p xml:id="pgb1q3-d1e693">
<cit>
<ref xml:id="pg-b1q3-Rd1e1445" target="http://scta.info/resource/pgb1q3-d1e502">
Ad aliud
</ref>
<bibl>Vide supra.</bibl>
</cit>,
posset negari minor.
Et ad probationem,
dicitur quod,
licet quaelibet persona sit
idem essentiae personaliter et essentialiter,
tamen non convenit esse idem omnibus tribus personis
simul ad invicem personaliter.
Item,
potest dici quod maior illa,
qua dicitur quod convenit Patri
et cuilibet personae est melius ipsum quam non ipsum,
est vera si non sit <unclear cert="medium">relativum</unclear> sed solum includens relationem.
</p>
<p xml:id="pgb1q3-d1e699">
<cit>
<ref xml:id="pg-b1q3-Rd1e1461" target="http://scta.info/resource/pgb1q3-d1e518">Ad tertiam</ref>
<bibl>Vide supra.</bibl>
</cit>,
dicitur quod aeternum vel aeternae potest stare substantive,
et sic non sunt tres aeterni,
sed unus aeternus,
vel adiective et sic possunt dici tres aeterni vel aeternae.
</p>
<p xml:id="pg-b1q3-d1e1351"><!-- new3 -->
Secundo, posset dici quod magis proprie dicitur
<supplied>quod</supplied> Pater, Filius, et Spiritus Sanctus
sunt coaeterni quam aeterni,
ideo <name xml:id="pg-b1q3-Nd1e1478" ref="#Athanasius">Athanasius</name>
primum concedit et secundum negat.
</p>
<p xml:id="pgb1q3-d1e706">
<cit>
<ref xml:id="pg-b1q3-Rd1e1481" target="http://scta.info/resource/pgb1q3-d1e526">Ad quartam</ref>
<bibl>Vide supra.</bibl>
</cit>,
negatur consequentia.
Et ad probationem,
dicitur secundum
<ref xml:id="pg-b1q3-Rd1e4765" corresp="#pg-b1q3-Qd1e1492">
<name xml:id="pg-b1q3-Nd1e1498" ref="#ThomasStrasbourg">
Thomas de Argentina
</name>,
distinctione secunda primi,
articulo primo
</ref>
<cit>
<quote xml:id="pg-b1q3-Qd1e1492" source="http://scta.info/resource/HuYgTa-e21636-d1e965@4-51">
quod
<mentioned>dicitur</mentioned>
sumitur dupliciter in divinis.
Uno modo proprie, et sic idem est quod verbum concipere,
et sic sumit ipsum
<cit>
<ref xml:id="pg-b1q3-Rd1e4782" target="http://scta.info/resource/adt-l7-d1e845@70-102">
<!-- end of text range is still fuzzy -->
<name xml:id="pg-b1q3-Nd1e1519" ref="#Augustine">Augustinus</name>,
VII
<title ref="#deTrinitate">De Trinitate</title>
</ref>
<bibl>
<name>Augustinus</name>,
<title>De Trinitate</title>
VII, 1, 1
(CCSL 50, 244, ll. 20- 245, ll. 30).
</bibl>
</cit>,
dicens quod non nisi Pater est dicens ad intra.
Alio modo sumit
<mentioned>dicere</mentioned>
pro perfecte intelligere
</quote>
<bibl>
<name>Thomas de Argentina</name>,
<title>Sent.</title>
I, d. 2, q. 2, a. 1
(Genoa 1585, 30v).
</bibl>
</cit>,
et sic quaelibet persona dicit se,
et conformiter posset dici de
<mentioned>intelligere</mentioned>.
Sic accipit
<cit>
<ref xml:id="pg-b1q3-Rd1e4801">
<name xml:id="pg-b1q3-Nd1e1547" ref="#Anselm">Anselmus</name>,
<title ref="#Monologion">Monologion</title>,
<unclear cert="low">57</unclear> et 59 capitulis
</ref>
<bibl>
<name>Anselmus</name>,
<title>Monologion</title>
57 and 59
(Schmitt I, 68-70).
</bibl>
</cit>
ubi dicit singulae personae se dicunt et quaelibet illarum se dicit.
Si autem quaeritur evidens ratio
quare Filius non producit Filium per suum dicere sicut Pater,
potest dici cum
<cit>
<ref xml:id="pg-b1q3-Rd1e4826">
<name xml:id="pg-b1q3-Nd1e1571" ref="#Anselm">Anselmo</name>,
<title ref="#Monologion">Monologion</title>,
85 et 68 capitulis</ref>
<bibl>
<name>Anselmus</name>,
<title>Monologion</title>
60 et 59
(Schmitt I, 70-71).
</bibl>
<note xml:lang="en">
Basel v. 1, p. 365,
has the same discussion.
There, Basel quotes Monologion 57-59 earlier,
and, following that,
discusses 60 and 59 (in that order).
It seems Gracilis is modeling his text on that discussion,
but his numeration is corrupted as 85 and 68.
</note>
</cit>,
quod hoc transcendit omnis intellectus humani
<app>
<lem type="conjecture-corrected"><corr>actum</corr></lem>
<rdg wit="#L" facs="20r/31">active</rdg>
</app>
et est a nobis in via inexplicabile.
Per idem
patet ad confirmationem,
cum dicitur,
<cit>
<quote xml:id="pg-b1q3-Qd1e1453" source="http://scta.info/resource/pgb1q3-d1e526@42-43">quod eadem ratione</quote>
<bibl/>
</cit>, etc.,
negatur consequentia.
Et cum dicitur,
<cit>
<quote xml:id="pg-b1q3-Qd1e1461" source="http://scta.info/resource/pgb1q3-d1e526@47-50">quia non videtur ratio</quote>
<bibl>Vide supra.</bibl>
</cit>,
etc.,
dicitur quod,
licet illam proprie nec perfecte sciamus,
tamen ad haec aliqua est,
et ideo credendo debemus captivare intellectum.
</p>
<p xml:id="pgb1q3-d1e756">
<cit>
<ref xml:id="pg-b1q3-Rd1e1607" target="http://scta.info/resource/pgb1q3-d1e535">
Ad primam contra tertiam conclusionem
</ref>
<bibl>Vide supra.</bibl>
</cit>,
negatur antecedens,
nam patet
<cit>
<ref xml:id="pg-b1q3-Rd1e4860" target="http://scta.info/resource/mt28_19">
<title ref="#mt"><unclear>Matthaeus</unclear></title>
ultimo
</ref>
<bibl>Matthaeus 28:19.</bibl>
</cit>,
<cit>
<ref xml:id="pg-b1q3-Rd1e4872">
<title ref="#io">Ioahnnes</title> primo
</ref>
<bibl>Iohannes 1:1-18.</bibl>
</cit>,
et etiam
<cit>
<ref xml:id="pg-b1q3-Rd1e4883">
in
<title ref="#liberextra">Decretis Romanorum Pontificum</title>
</ref>
<bibl>
<title>Decreti Romanorum Pontificum</title>.
Cf. Damasus I (Denzinger n. 152-177, p. 86-88),
Leo I (ibid., 284, p. 133), Hormisdas (ibid., 267, p. 173-174),
Pelagius I (ibid., 441, p. 202),
et Leo IX (ibid., 680-682, p. 310-311).
<!-- further explanation of this is needed -->
</bibl>
</cit>,
quibus, qui contradiceret, censeretur haereticus.
Nolo tamen dicere illa
<title ref="#liberextra">Decreta</title> esse Scriptura Sacra.
</p>
<p xml:id="pgb1q3-d1e768">
<cit>
<ref xml:id="pg-b1q3-Rd1e1664" target="http://scta.info/resource/pgb1q3-d1e545">Ad secundam</ref>
<bibl>Vide supra.</bibl>
</cit>,
primo posset antecedens negari,
loquendo de propositionibus quae non solum narrative,
sed et assertive ponuntur in textu Sacrae Scripturae.
</p>
<p xml:id="pg-b1q3-d1e1550"><!-- new4 -->
Secundo, pro intellectu,
nota quod ille dicitur sensus proprius alicuius
Scripturae quem sensum
<app>
<lem type="conjecture-corrected"><corr>auctor</corr></lem>
<rdg wit="#L" facs="20r/39">actor</rdg>
</app>
Scripturae per ipsam intendit.
Hoc ostendit
<cit>
<ref xml:id="pg-b1q3-Rd1e4898">
<name xml:id="pg-b1q3-Nd1e1682" ref="#RichardFitzRalph">Armacanus</name>,
libro primo
<title ref="#deQuaestionibusArmenorum">De quaestionibus Armenorum</title>
tunc principium illius libri
</ref>
<bibl>
<name>Richardus Armachanus</name>,
<title>Summa</title>
I, 1
(Paris 1512, 2ra).
</bibl>
</cit>.
</p>
<p xml:id="pgb1q3-snqefp">
<!-- while there's no reference here we need a linkRelation that
makes it clear this is a second response to argument referenced by "ad secundum" in the above paragraph
if this paragraph becomes separated from the above paragraph, this connection to the motivating argument is lost -->
<pb ed="#L" n="20-v"/>
Secundo, nota quod,
cum Scriptura habeat plures sensus,
si veritas alicuius textus non potest haberi secundum unum sensum, est
recurrendum ad alium cui aliae Scripturae magis concordat.
Et est summe cavendum,
ne figurativa locutio ad litteram accipiatur,
et e converso ne vera et propria locutio ad figuram mutetur et figurativa putetur.
</p>
<p xml:id="pgb1q3-d1e781">
<!-- same concern as above -->
Tertio,
notandum quod,
licet per Scripturam quandoque significetur unum per similitudinem,
tamen non oportet propter hoc
quod idem in quolibet loco per illud idem significetur unum per similitudinem.
Ista notabilia ponit
<cit>
<ref xml:id="pg-b1q3-Rd1e4918" target="http://scta.info/resource/addc-l3">
<name xml:id="pg-b1q3-Nd1e1715" ref="#Augustine">Augustinus</name>,
III
<title ref="#deDoctrinaChristiana">De doctrina Christiana</title>
</ref>
<bibl>
<name>Augustinus</name>,
<title>De doctrina Christiana</title>
III
(CCSL 32, 77-116).
</bibl>
</cit>,
et ponit de omnibus exemplum.
</p>
<p xml:id="pgb1q3-d1e791">
<!-- NOTE: Ad confirmationem statements normally don't get a new paragraph. But this is preceeded by three responses to the main argument
before turning to the confirmatio. Attaching this to the above paragraph would create the impression that this has some special connection to the third response -->
<cit>
<ref xml:id="pg-b1q3-Rd1e1731" target="http://scta.info/resource/pgb1q3-d1e545@36-58">
Ad confirmationem
</ref>
<bibl>Vide supra.</bibl>
</cit>,
dicitur quod doctores non sunt Sacrae Scripturae
<app>
<lem>auctores</lem>
<rdg wit="#L" facs="20v/8">actores</rdg>
</app>,
sed tantum expositores.
<cit>
<ref xml:id="pg-b1q3-Rd1e1634" target="http://scta.info/resource/pgb1q3-d1e545@59-78">De evangelistis</ref>
<bibl>Vide supra.</bibl>
</cit>
dicitur quod in nullo passu discordant realiter, et insignum
<cit>
<ref xml:id="pg-b1q3-Rd1e1760">huius liber</ref>
<bibl>
<name>Augustinus</name>,
<title>De concordia Evangelistarum</title>,
non invenimus.
</bibl>
</cit>
ille non vocatur
<mentioned>de discordia</mentioned>
sed
<mentioned><supplied>De</supplied> concordia Evangelistarum</mentioned>.
Si tamen diceretur
<mentioned>de discordia</mentioned>
illa non esset vera et realis,
sed solum aestimata vel opinata et verbalis.
</p>
<p xml:id="pgb1q3-d1e806">
<cit>
<ref xml:id="pg-b1q3-Rd1e1754" target="http://scta.info/resource/pgb1q3-d1e578">Ad aliud</ref>
<bibl>Vide supra.</bibl>
</cit>,
negatur antecedens, si studeat qualiter debet.
Debet enim talis non quaerere intelligere ut credat,
sed
<cit>
<quote xml:id="pg-b1q3-Qd1e4896" source="http://scta.info/resource/adcpros-c1">
credere ut intelligat
</quote>
<bibl>
<name>Anselmus</name>,
<title>Prosologion</title>
1
(Schmitt I, 100, ll. 18-19).
</bibl>
</cit>,
ut dicit
<ref xml:id="pg-b1q3-Rd1e4953" corresp="#pg-b1q3-Qd1e4896">
<name xml:id="pg-b1q3-Nd1e1784" ref="#Anselm">Anselmus</name>
in fine prologi sui
<title ref="#Proslogion">Proslogion</title>
</ref>.
Ad probationem,
<cit>
<quote xml:id="pg-b1q3-Qd1e1666" source="http://scta.info/resource/pgb1q3-d1e578@29-32" type="paraphrase">
de dictis haereticorum
</quote>
<bibl>Vide supra.</bibl>
</cit>,
etc.,
dicitur quod legere talia dicta
ad verorum eruditionem et falsorum
reprobationem est licitum.
Sed illa legere ad credulitatem vel imitationem seu
assertionem <supplied>vel</supplied> vanitatem
vel delectionem inordinatam non est licitum.
<cit>
<ref xml:id="pg-b1q3-Rd1e1834">
Et forte <name xml:id="pg-b1q3-Nd1e1794" ref="#Jerome">Ieronimus</name>
ideo fuit flagellatus et percussus
quia illa cum delectionem legebat, quia forte amore illorum
meliora et utiliora omittebat.
</ref>
<bibl>
<name>Hieronymus</name>,
<title>Epistula</title>
22, 30, 16,
Ad Eustochium
(CSEL 54, 189, ll. 9 - 191, ll. 15).
</bibl>
</cit>
</p>
<p xml:id="pgb1q3-d1e822">
<cit>
<ref xml:id="pg-b1q3-Rd1e1797" target="http://scta.info/resource/pgb1q3-d1e587">Ad ultimam</ref>
<bibl>Vide supra.</bibl>
</cit>,
dicitur quod,
licet studens facilius credat,
non tamen propter hoc eius meritum minuitur
quia loco eius
circumstantiae acquirit alias meliores, sicut intensius credere vel extensius, expressius, et verius. Per huiusmodi enim habitum subordinat
fidem suam caritati et in Deum dirigit actualiter.
</p>
<p xml:id="pgb1q3-d1e828">
<!-- not a clear reference here, but this is a response to http://scta.info/resource/pgb1q3-d1e605 -->
Secundo, posset dici negando antecedens quia non semper subtilior theologus facilius credit,
immo occurrunt sibi plures rationes et
instantiae quas simplices fideles non advertunt.
</p>
<p xml:id="pgb1q3-d1e831">
Ex dictis patet quod
non sequitur ex eis,
per studium theologiae acquiritur notitia respectu articuli fide superior,
ergo idem est evidens et inevidens, evidens per scientiam, inevidens per fidem.
Sed bene sequitur quod assentit articulo per aliquod medium
quod non facit scientificam evidentiam.
</p>
<p xml:id="pgb1q3-d1e840">
<cit>
<ref xml:id="pg-b1q3-Rd1e1821" target="http://scta.info/resource/pgb1q3-d1e122">Ad primam rationem in oppositum</ref>
<bibl>Vide supra.</bibl>
</cit>,
primo posset dici quod,
sumendo <mentioned>communicabile</mentioned> ut communicatum alteri,
est distinctum ab illo cui communicatur.
Sic dicitur quod essentia proprie non est communicabilis.
</p>
<p xml:id="pgb1q3-d1e843">
<!-- this is also a response to the first principle argument, though no explicit reference is made.
Needs a link relation to conveny this -->
Secundo, dicitur,
sequendo scholam communem et modum loquendi doctoris,
quod essentia est communicabilis et non persona.
Et tunc illa maior potest intelligi dupliciter.
Uno modo nullum incommunicabile est communicabile tribus,
id est, non est illud quod communicatur tribus,
et sic maior est falsa.
Alio modo nullum incommunicabile,
id est, ipsum non potest communicari tribus,
et tunc maior est vera, sed forma arguendi non valet.
</p>
<p xml:id="pgb1q3-aadqsr">
<!-- needs ref to both http://scta.info/resource/pgb1q3-d1e125 and http://scta.info/resource/pgb1q3-d1e163 -->
<!-- need a better mechanism for asserting refs to two targetss. Should be able to just separate by space,
but build scripts needs adjusting. This is true for quotation references to more than one bible quotation as well-->
Ad alias duas,
patet per dicta quod sit respondendum.
</p>
</div>
</div>
<div xml:id="pg-b1q3-Dd1e4948" type="et-conclusiones">
<head xml:id="pg-b1q3-Hd1e4950">
Conclusiones
</head>
<p xml:id="pgb1q3-d1e85" n="Conclusio 1">
<cit>
<quote xml:id="pg-b1q3-Qhivhiv" source="http://scta.info/resource/pll1d2c1-d1e3473@1-3">
Hic itaque vera
</quote>
<bibl>
<name xml:id="pg-b1q3-Nd1e1871">Lombardus</name>,
<title>Sent.</title>
I, d. 2, c. 1
(I, 61, ll. 12).
</bibl>
</cit>.
Haec secunda distinctio continet tres conclusiones sententionaliter.
Prima: quod
<cit>
<quote xml:id="pg-b1q3-Qd1e1950" source="http://scta.info/resource/adt-l1-d1e24@19-26">
<!-- from Lombard: http://scta.info/resource/pll1d2c1-d1e3473@10-16-->
Trinitas divinarum personarum est unus solus et verus Deus
</quote>
<bibl>
<name>Augustinus</name>,
<title>De Trinitate</title>
I, 2, 4
(CCSL 50, 31, ll. 3).
</bibl>
</cit>.
</p>
<p xml:id="pgb1q3-scqeap" n="Conclusio 2">
Secunda conclusio:
quod in Deo est
unitas essentiae seu substantiae et trinitas personarum.
<cit>
<quote xml:id="pg-b1q3-Qd1e1935" source="http://scta.info/resource/adt-l1-d1e36" synch="42-99">
Ideo non sunt tres dii sed unus Deus,
licet Pater genuerit Filium,
et ideo Filius non sit qui Pater est Filiusque
<app>
<lem>a</lem>
<rdg wit="#L" type="correction-substitution" facs="20v/37">
<subst>
<add>a</add>
<del>ag</del>
</subst>
</rdg>
</app>
Patre genitus sit.
Ideo Pater non sit qui Filius est
<app>
<lem n="est"/>
<rdg wit="#L" type="correction-deletion" facs="20v/37">
<del>tertia conclusio</del>
</rdg>
</app>
et Spiritus Sanctus nec Pater sit nec Filius, sed tantum
<pb ed="#L" n="21-r"/>
Patris et Filii Spiritus utrique coaequalis et consubstantialis.
</quote>
<bibl>
<name>Augustinus</name>,
<title>De Trinitate</title> I, 4, 7
(CCSL 50, 34, ll. 6-11).
</bibl>
</cit>
Nec ibi est aliud et aliud neutraliter sed alius et alius personaliter.
</p>
<p xml:id="pgb1q3-d1e90" n="Conclusio 3">
Tertia conclusio:
quod omnes catholici tractatores qui de Trinitate
quae Deus est scripserunt hoc secundum scripturas docere intendunt
quod Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus sunt unius substantiae
et essentiae et inseparabili aequalitate unus est Deus.
Et hoc unitas in essentia et trinitas in personis probatur
in textu per multa scriptura et doctorum sanctorum testimonia.
Addit autem
<ref xml:id="pg-b1q3-Rmcpphd" corresp="#pg-b1q3-Qsbsfpc">
<name xml:id="pg-b1q3-Nd1e1921" ref="#Lombard">Magister</name>
circa principium huius distinctionis
</ref>
quod hoc
<cit>
<quote xml:id="pg-b1q3-Qsbsfpc" source="http://scta.info/resource/pll1d2c1-d1e3473">
<seg type="qs">summum bonum</seg>,
scilicet Deus Trinitas,
<seg type="qs">solis mentibus per fidem purgatis cernitur</seg>
</quote>
<bibl>
<name xml:id="pg-b1q3-Nd1e1940">Lombardus</name>,
<title>Sent.</title>
I, d. 2, c. 1
(I, 61, ll. 16-17).
</bibl>
</cit>.
Et hoc de distinctione ista.
</p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</text>
</TEI>