(1) These words of St Augustine are not quoted by St Thomas, but. are here added to clarify the quotation. The full force of St. Auglistine's rather grudging admission of rational argument in his dispute, with the Aria Felician can only the appreciated when read in its context as a reply to Felician's demansd.

(2) Innitatur et adducatur, corresponding to the two modes of knowledge of Divine Things distinguished in the following article.

(3) Words in square brackets are added by the translator in the hope of clarifying the meaning.

(4) Comprehendere, literally “to grasp completely in the hand.” Technically, St. Thomas understands this to mean, “to know a thing in every way in which it is knowable” (cf. Summa, I. xii, 7).

(5) St Thomas had proved this at length in the proceeding Question (Article 2) of this work, and bad shown that (pace many of his modern “interpreres") thology is confined to “knowledge that” and excludes all “ knowledge what.”

(6) Demonstrativa . . . Persuasoria. The first is apodictic in Aristotle's sense, compelling assent and generating certain knowledge. The second is not “persuasive” (i.e. convincing) in the English sense opinion or probability, or merely clarifies what is otherwise known.

(7) Passiones, literally “sufferings” or “undergoings”. A deliberately clastic word which (as St Thomas shows in his reply) may cover any predicate of the subject, besides that which affects the subject in itself.

(8) Forma simples, the expression of Boethius: any “form'’ or “act” which is not compounded with matter (therefore, for St Thomas, incluing angels), but here used of the Absolute Act which is God.

(9) Fides cst de non apparentibus, cf. Hebrews xi, 1.

(10) Cuiuslibet scientia: principium est intellectus (as distinct from ratio).

(11) The Clementine Vulgate has permanebitis Douai continue) where St Thomas reads intelligetis (as do also St Augustine and St Anselm.

(12) Vulgate: scientia; Douai: knowledge; Greek gnosis. It will be ermarked that this whole Question is concerned with the ancient problem of the relation of pistis and gnosis.

(13) See Aristotle’s Metaphysics, 983a 10, and 1026a 24.

(14) Dea scientiarum. Presumably St Thomas is relying on a faulty translation of theia epistemon in Metaph. 983a.6.

(15) Sicut proprium contra diffinitionem. The idea seems to be that Wisdom is evsent.ia1 Science (i.e. that expressed by the definition), while the other “sciences” are as “propria” flowing from this source.

(16) In thc previous Question of this work; cf. Summa I. i. ‘7 ad 1, ii, 2 ad 2.

(17) St Thomas had explained this at length in the previous Question (Expos. super Boethium de Trin. I, art. ii.) .

(18) Literally, “As a medical man believes the Natural Philosopher that there are four elements.”

(19) Rationibus physicis. This title, added by editors, has been constructed from the first sentence in the usual fashion. The expression is unusual, and is presumably borrowed by St Thomas from the quotation from St Ambrose presented in the third objection. St Thomas‘s own question had been concerning rationibus philosophicis (see page i.). The article itself covers the legitimacy of using “physical” or “natural” arguments and reasonings, philosophical arguments and reasonings (which come to the same thing) and also philosophical and even poetical documenta or texts.

(20) Physicis argumentis.

(21) Adapted from Sehaff-W-ace translation, in Nicene Library.

(22) Quis etiam ridendus, vel ridendo non rideat?

(23) The Lethielleux (Mandonnet) edition reads impossibile, which is plainly contrary to St Thomas’s meaning. Here and in the “ad 6um” one suspects that some marginal comment of a dissentient reader has crept into the text.

(24) A theological conclusion, in thc strict sense of the word, is one in which the content of a revealed major proposition is analysed by means of a minor proposition discoverable by natural reason. St Thomas’s image of the water changed into wine vividly supports the thesis of Fr Marin Sola, O.P., that the conclusion is therefore homogeneous with the major, and not the minor, premiss. (See his L’éuolulion homogène du dogme.)

(25) Omitting lmmo solum in errorem ducunt (al. volentes). See Note 23.

(26) Novis, new, presumably in the sense of novel or unfamiliar. The word does not occur again in the course of the article.

(27) This and succeeding quotations from this work are slightly adapted from Marcus Dods’ translation.

(28) Adapted from Darboy’s translation.