actum sacramentalem quem exercet in sacramento penitentie penitentem absolvit a debito eterne pene ad quam obligatus erat ex peccato, quem tamen Deus se solo prius a morte peccati suscitaverat et per cordis contritionem iustificaverat. Patet ex conclusione, cum usque ad perceptionem sacramenti penitens teneatur reus et per ministerium sacerdotis eius reatus solvatur.

Preterea cum sacerdos dicat se solvere exercendo potestatem clavium, aut vere solvit aut non. Si vere solvit, aut a debito eterne pene, et habetur propositum, aut a debito pene temporalis, et hoc non, tum quia penitens post absolutionem factam a sacerdote non teneretur aliter satisfacere hic vel in futuro, quod est falsum, quia, nulla purgatoria pena interveniente, statim post absolutionem volaret ad celum si mox decederet, quod constat falsum esse. Consequentia prima patet, quia si post absolutionem tenetur penitens satisfacere hic vel in futurum, non est a sacerdote absolutus a temporali. Tum etiam quia sacerdos post absolutionem factam penitentem ad penam temporalem satisfactoriam ligat, et non nisi pro reatu pene temporalis quam, si non hic expleverit, in futurum satisfaciet purgatoria pena. Igitur cum absolvebat, non absolvebat a temporali pena, et per consequens absolvebat ab eterna pena.

Si vero³³⁹ dicitur quod sacerdos non vere solvit, sed tantum ostendit solutum, tunc inepta est forma sacramenti, et sacerdos dicit se facere quod non facit, et sacramentum hoc tantum signat et non efficit remissionem peccatorum, cum tamen ad³⁴⁰ remissionem peccatorum sic principaliter institutum. Sacramenta autem evangelice legis sunt ad efficiendum instituta unumquodque ad suum effectum, qui in sacramento penitentie est remissio peccatorum. Licet enim plures alias utilitates penitentes consequantur per ipsum, non tamen est propter eas principaliter institutum, sed ad remissionem peccatorum.

Secunda propositio corollaria est ista: stat aliquem esse in caritate et non esse dignum vita eterna. Patet de iustificato per contritionem cordis et nondum soluto a reatu peccati per
sacramentum remissionis peccatorum. Talis enim quamdiu per culpam obligatur ad penam
tamdiu est indignus vita eterna beata. Obligatur autem ad penam iam per caritatem iustificatus
donec per sacramentum remissionis peccatorum eius reatus solvatur, sicut ex dictis beati
Augustini superius adductis patet.

Patet etiam propositio de cathecismo proficiente et recte vivente, quod esse non potest sine
caritate, [211vb] et tamen indignus est vita beata, quia secundum beatum Augustinum 13
sermone *Super Johannem*,³⁴¹ “adhuc³⁴² sarcinam³⁴³ peccatorum suorum portat” donec per
baptismum renascatur et Ecclesie incorporetur.

<Quarta conclusio>

Quarta conclusio: stat aliquem in sola fide sacramenti sine sacerdotali absolutione salvari.

Patet conclusio per beatum Augustinum in libro *De penitentia*,³⁴⁴ et habetur in textu dist. 17
huius IVti,³⁴⁵ de desiderante sacerdotem cui nec tempus nec locus concedit, qui, si in tali
impossibilitate decedit, ex solo desiderio consequitur³⁴⁶ veniam et “supplet ibi sacramentum
omnipotentis benignitas,”³⁴⁷ ut habetur dist. 4a.³⁴⁸

Ex hac conclusione sequitur hec corollaria propositio, scilicet quod³⁴⁹ omnipotentis
benignitas, supplens vicem sacramenti in eo qui sacramentum habere non potuit, non supplet
nisi cum totum tempus vite exspiraverit. Patet, quia quamdiu vixerit peccator, tamdiu est in
statu quo possit habere sacramentum, et remanens manet reatus et obligatur ad sacramentum;
igitur etc.

Preterea, si propositio non sit vera, sit quod in A instanti ante mortem peccatoris
suppleverit omnipotentis benignitas. Contra: post A remanet vel remanere potest tempus quo
possit recipere sacramentum et obligabitur, igitur adhuc manent reatus. Preterea, non est causa
quare in A quam ante A, igitur vel statim cum primo iustificatur, et hoc non per supra dicta,
vel primo cum totum tempus exspiraverit et status quo subicitur sacramentis, et habetur propositum. Preterea si post A posset habere sacramentum et negligeret, et cum tali negligentia decederet, decederet utique cum reatu³⁵⁰ priorum peccatorum, igitur non erat facta remissio in A, et per consequens suppleverat omnipotentis benignitas. Et antecedens probatur, quoniam si ante A potuisset habere sacramentum et neglexisset, et cum tali negligentia decessisset in A, decessisset utique cum reatu priorum peccatorum, alias reduceremus usque ad primum instans iustificationis, igitur simpliciter post A decederet cum³⁵¹ reatu priorum peccatorum.

Et sic patet quid sit dicendum ad questionem.

Explicit questio quarti principii disputata Bononie per reverendum magistrum Augustinum de Roma nunc ibidem regentem 1398. Utimam. Utimam. Utimam.
<footnote n="1">¹ For Favaroni’s biography, see Gino Ciolini, *Augustino da Roma (Favaroni †1443) e la sua cristologia* (Florence, 1944); the well-documented Daniela Gionta, “Agostino Favaroni,” in *Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani*, 45 (1995): [http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/agostino-favaroni_%28Dizionario_Biografico%29/](http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/agostino-favaroni_%28Dizionario_Biografico%29/)(accessed 15 July 2022); and Adolar Zumkeller, O.E.S.A., *Theology and History of the Augustinians School in the Middle Ages*, ed. John E. Rotelle, O.S.A. (Villanova, PA, 1996), 52–54 and 107–108. For an updated list of his texts, see Marco Toste, “Augustinus de Favaronibus,” in *C.A.L.M.A.: Compendium Auctorum Latinorum Medii Aevi (500–1500)* (Florence, 2001), 1.4:502–505.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Nicholas Toner dedicated a study to this treatise to establish how orthodox or unorthodox Favaroni’s position was on sin and justification. See Nicholas Toner, O.S.A., *The Doctrine of Original Sin and Justification according to Augustine of Rome (Favaroni) †1443* (Louvain, 1958).</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ See Willigis Eckermann, “Augustinus Favaroni von Rom und Johannes Wyclif: Der Ansatz Arer Lehre über die Kirche,” in *Scientia Augustiniana*, ed. Cornelius P. Mayer and Willigis Eckermann (Würzburg, 1975), 323–48; and Adolar Zumkeller, O.S.A., “Die Augustinereremiten in der Auseinandersetzung mit Wyclif und Hus, ihre Beteiligung an den Konzilien von Konstanz und Basel,” *Analecta Augustiniana* 28 (1965): 5–56.</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ Willigis Eckermann, *Opera inedita historiam XXII sessionis concilii Basilensis respicentia: Augustini de Roma OESA Contra quosdam errores haereticorum, et Defensorium sacramenti unitatis Christi et Ecclesiae, atque Henrici Kalteisen OP Propositiones in condamnatione libelli Augustini de Roma* (Rome, 1978).</footnote>
⁵ Willigis Eckermann, “Zur Hermeneutik theologischer Aussagen: Überlegungen Heinrich Kalteisens OP auf dem Basler Konzil zu Propositionen des Augustinus Favaroni von Rom OESA,” *Augustiniana* 25 (1975): 24–42.

⁶ The date of the manuscript is noted at the end of *principium* III (fol. 209rb), where Favaroni is mentioned as currently being regent master in Bologna: “Explicit questio tertii principii super tertium *Sententiarum* reverendi et subtilis doctoris magistri Augustini de Roma nunc regentis Bononie ordinis Fratrum Hermitarum sancti Augustinis 1398.” On the still unstudied *Sentences* commentaries of the Augustinians, see Eric L. Saak, *Creating Augustine: Interpreting Augustine and Augustinianism in the Later Middle Ages* (Oxford, 2012), 226. There are also cases of authors whose texts have been lost. See Monica Brinzei, “Nouveaux témoignages sur les textes perdus d’Onofre de Florence OESA (1336–1403), bachelier en théologie à Paris,” *Archives Doctrinale et Littéraire du Moyen Âge* 87 (2020): 59–86.

⁷ Stegmüller mentions the *Abbreviatio I Sententiarum Augustini de Roma* in Firenze, Leopoldina cod. 14. See Friedrich Stegmüller, *Repertorium Commentariorum in Sententias Petri Lombardi* (Würzburg, 1947), 1:129 (no. 284). A list of Becchi’s texts can be found in Davide A. Perini, *Bibliographia augustiniana cum notis biographicis: Scriptores Itali* (Florence, 1929), 1:103–105.

⁸ See Harald Berger, “Albertus de Saxonia (1390), Conradus de Waldhausen (1369) und Ganderus recte Sanderus de Meppen (1401/06): Eine Begegnung in Prag im Jahr 1364,” *Mitteilungen de Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung* 106 (1998): 31–50, at 40 n. 35.

⁹ His commentaries on Aristotelian texts confirm the general trend that “[m]endicant commentaries on the Aristotelian corpus were, in the fourteenth century, usually composed after the *Sentences* commentary and before magisterial regency.” See William J. Courtenay, “Friedrich von Regensburg and Fribourg Cordeliers 26,” in *Die Philosophie im 14. und 15.*
Jahrhundert: In memoriam Konstanty Michalski (1879–1947), ed. Olaf Plut (Amsterdam, 1988), 603–13, at 607 n. 17. For the manuscripts of these texts, see Salesius Friemel, *Die theologische Prinzipienlehre des Augustinus Favaroni von Rom O.E.S.A. (†1443)* (Würzburg, 1950), 25–26. For the *Ethics*, see also David A. Lines, *Aristotle's Ethics in the Italian Renaissance (ca. 1300–1650)* (Leiden, 2002), 190–91, 423, and 482–83.

¹⁰ Charles H. Lohr, “Medieval Latin Aristotle Commentaries. Authors A-F,” *Traditio* 23 (1967): 313–413, at 371–12; and idem, *Latin Aristotle Commentaries*, I.1, *Medieval Authors A-L* (Florence, 2013), 70–71.

¹¹ Samual Harrison Thomas, “The Works of Magister Adam of Bocfeld (Bochermefort),” *Medievalia et Humanistica* 2 (1944): 55–87, esp. 72–75; and Silvia Donati, “English Commentaries before Scotus, A Case-Study: The Discussion on the Unity of Being,” in *A Companion to the Latin Medieval Commentaries on Aristotle’s Metaphysics*, ed. Fabrizio Amerini and Gabriele Galluzzo (Leiden, 2014), 137–207, esp. 140 n. 12.

¹² Dom J. Leclercq, “L’idée de la royauté du Christ pendant le grand schisme et la crise conciliaire,” *Archives d’Histoire Doctrinale et Littéraire du Moyen Âge* 24 (1949): 249–65, at 261–64; Gonzalo Diaz, “Tratado inédito ‘De principatu papae’ de Augustin Favaroni, O.S.A. († 1443),” *Analecta Augustiniana* 53 (1990): 95–192; Enrico Pispisa, “Il ‘De principatu papae’ di Agostino Favaroni,” in *Dante nel pensiero e nella esegesi dei secoli XIV e XV: Atti del Convegno di studi realizzato dal Comune di Melfi in collaborazione con la Biblioteca Provinciale di Potenza e il Seminario di studi danteschi di Terra di lavoro. Melfi, 27 settembre-2 ottobre 1970*, ed. Adalgisa Borraro and Pietro Borraro (Florence, 1975), 375–84, esp. 378–82; and Aldo Vallone, *Antidantismo politico nel XIV secolo* (Naples, 1973), 137–40.

¹³ See more recently Thomas M. Izbicki, “The Revival of Papalism at the Council of Basel,” in *A Companion to the Council of Basel*, ed. Michiel Decaluwé, Thomas M. Izbicki, and Gerald Christianson (Leiden, 2017), 137–63, at 146–47; Alphons V. Müller, *Agostino Favaroni e la*
teologia di Lutero (Rome, 1914); and Eduard Stakemeier, *Der Kampf um Augustin auf dem
Tridentium* (Paderborn, 1937).

14 Jean Gerson, “Gerson aux Messieurs de Navarre, Bruges, 29 avril 1400,” in *Oeuvres
Complètes: L’oeuvre ecclésiastique (253a–291)*, ed. Palemon Glorieux (Paris, 1960), 2:30–35.

15 See, for example, Nancy Spatz, “Principia: A Study and Edition of Inception Speeches
Delivered before the Faculty of Theology of Paris, ca. 1180–1286” (Ph.D. diss., Cornell
University, 1992). For comments on *principia* as presented in the statutes of Bologna, see
Siegfried Wenzel, *Of Sins and Sermons* (Leuven, 2015), 146–47.

16 Francesco Ehrle, *I più antichi statuti della facoltà teologica dell’Università di Bologna*
(Bologna, 1932), 21, 1. 1–8.

17 Ehrle, *I più antichi statuti*, 21, 1. 8–19, and 22, 1. 1–18.

18 Ehrle, *I più antichi statuti*, 46–47.

19 I am currently editing Conrad’s *principia*, but see Chris Schabel, Monica Brînzei, and Mihai
Maga, “A Golden Age of Theology at Prague: Prague *Sentences Commentaries*, ca. 1375-1385,
with a Redating of the Arrival of Wycliffism in Bohemia,” *Acta Universitatis Carolinae –
Historia Universitatis Carolinae Pragensis* 55 (2015): 19–39, at 21–30. For William’s second
*principium*, see Chris Schabel, “The Franciscan Guglielmo Centueri of Cremona’s Bologna
Principium* of 1368, with an Appendix on Whether God Can Make the Past Not to Have Been,”
in *Principia on the Sentences*, ed. Monica Brinzei and William Duba (Turnhout, forthcoming).

20 For a presentation of the manuscript, see Friemel, *Die theologische Prinzipienlehre* (n. 9
above), 24.

21 I am grateful to Eef Overgaauw, the director of the medieval manuscript department of the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin - Preußischer Kulturbesitz, who allowed me to inspect all the manuscripts that came from Erfurt; I was thus able to compare their medieval shelfmarks to
that of the manuscript lat. fol. 852. For the list of the manuscripts from Erfurt, see Sigrid Krämer, *Handschriftenerbe des Deutschen Mittelalters* (München, 1989), 1:211.

²² For a discussion of the dual meaning of *collatio* in relation to *principia* on the *Sentences*, see Chris Schabel, “The Victorine Pierre LeDuc’s *Collationes, Sermo finalis*, and *Principia* on the *Sentences*, Paris 1382–3,” *Archives d’Histoire Doctrinale et Littéraire du Moyen Age* 87 (2020): 237–334, at 238–39.

²³ See Damasus Trapp, “Augustinian Theology of the 14th Century: Notes on Editions, Marginalia, Opinions and Booklore,” *Augustiniana* 6 (1956): 146–274, at 269; and Ueli Zahnd’s database: “Heraldic Puns in Medieval *Principia*,” https://puns.zahnd.be/ (accessed 15 July 2022).

²⁴ See Emidio de Felice, *Dizionario dei cognomi italiani* (Milan, 1978), 122. I thank Irene Zavattero for assistance on this point.

²⁵ Roughly contemporary Parisian examples are John Regis’s *principia* in Paris, BnF, lat. 15156, fols. 34r–55v; those of Peter Gracilis in London, British Library, A 10, fols. 1r–11v, 126r–134r, 192r–197v, and 215r–219v; and especially those of Pierre d’Ailly: Petrus de Alliaco, *Questiones super primum, tertium et quartum librum Sententiarum: Principia et questio circa prologum*, ed. Monica Brînzei (Turnhout, 2013), 3–9, 45–52, 77–84, and 102–108.

²⁶ A transcription of the three *collationes* can be consulted here: https://debate-erc.com/rhyming-philosophical-stanzas/ (accessed 15 July 2022).

²⁷ Bernard of Clairvaux appears frequently in principal speeches, for example, in those of Pierre d’Ailly: Petrus de Alliaco, *Principia et questio circa prologum*, 45–47 and 75–81.

²⁸ The Latin editions in the Appendix will be cited by *principium* (in Roman numerals) and line numbers throughout the article.
<footnote n="29"><sup>29</sup> *Acta Capitulorum Generalium Ordinis Fratrum B.V. Mariae de Monte Carmelo*, ed. Gabriel Wessels, O. Carm. (Rome, 1912), 1:101. It should be noted that Carlo of Bologna is assigned for the first year, 1387–1388, but Antonio for the following *two* years and Johannes Cranemer for the two years after that. In 1381 three Carmelites had been assigned for one year each (*Acta*, 1:89), but in 1393 it was decided that Carmelite bachelors in Italian universities would lecture for two years, first on Books I–II and then on Books III–IV (*Acta*, 1:107). The shift may have occurred with Antiono in 1388. Ehrle, *I più antichi statuti* (n. 16 above), 106 (no. 89) lists an *Antonius de Mediolano ordinis Carmelitarum*, but gives no further information.</footnote>

<footnote n="30"><sup>30</sup> *Acta Capitulorum Generalium*, 1:99, 101, 106, and 122.</footnote>

<footnote n="31"><sup>31</sup> Ehrle, *I più antichi statute* (n. 16 above), 106 (no. 91) and 107 (no. 96); and Raffaele P. Taucci, “I Maestri della facoltà teologica di Bologna,” *Studi Storici Sull’ordine dei Servi di Maria* 1 (1933): 24–42, at 30. On the Order of Servites of Mary, see Conrad Borntrager, “The Marian Spirituality of the Medieval Religious Orders: Medieval Servite Marian Spirituality,” *Marian Studies* 52 (2001): 229–45. Lorenzo Opimo of Bologna authored the only extant text on the *Sentences* by a Servite. It survives in two manuscripts and an early printed edition: Chris Schabel, “Lorenzo Opimo of Bologna, Teaching Doctor of the Servites during the Reformation, and His *Sentences* Lectures at the University of Paris in 1370–71,” *Bulletin of the John Rylands Library* 98 (2022) and 99 (2023), forthcoming.</footnote>

<footnote n="32"><sup>32</sup> Ciolini, *Agostino da Roma* (n. 1 above), 27–30.</footnote>

<footnote n="33"><sup>33</sup> *Liber de causis, Edition établie à l’aide de 90 manuscrits avec introduction et note*, ed. Adriaan Pattin (Leuven, 1966), 46. A more extended discussion on causality occurs in Favoroni’s *Principium II*.</footnote>

<footnote n="34"><sup>34</sup> The referent in Rimini’s text is in Gregorius Ariminensis, *Lectura super I et II Sententiarum*, I, dist. 1, q. 2, ed. Damasus Trapp, Manuel Santos-Noya, and Manfred Schulze (Berlin/New York 1979) 65, lines 5–6.</footnote>
<footnote n="35">³⁵ Jean Rousset, “Hugolin d’Orvieto: Une controverse à la Faculté de Théologie de Bologne au XIVᵉ siècle,” *Mélanges d’Archéologie et d’Histoire* 47 (1930): 63–91; Adolar Zumkeller, “Hugolin von Orvieto über Urstand und Erbsünde,” *Augustiniana* 3 (1953): 35–62 and *Augustiniana* 4 (1954): 164–93; and Amos Corbini, “Notitia intuitiva and complexe significabile in the 1340s at Paris: From Alphonsus Vargas Toletanus to Peter Ceffons,” in *Philosophical Psychology in Late Medieval Commentaries on Peter Lombard’s Sentences: Actes of the XIVth Annual Symposium of the S.I.E.P.M.* (Nijmegen 28–30 October 2009), ed. Monica Brinzei and Chris Schabel (Turnhout, 2020), 3–38.</footnote>

<footnote n="36">³⁶ See Kassian Lauterer, *Konrad von Ebrach S.O. Cist. (†1399): Lebenslauf und Schrifttum* (Rome, 1962); and Monica Brinzei and Chris Schabel, “Les Cisterciens de l’université: Le cas du commentaire des Sentences de Conrad d’Ebrach (†1399),” in *Les Cisterciens et la transmission des textes (XIIᵉ-XVIIIᵉ siècles)*, ed. Thomas Falmagne et al. (Turnhout, 2018), 453–86.</footnote>

<footnote n="37">³⁷ Friemel mentions another example of an Augustinian rejecting Hugolino: Hiltalingen. Friemel, *Die theologische Prinzipienlehre* (n. 9 above), 145. The new edition of Hiltalingen’s commentary (Book I, *Principium* and questions 1–3) contains many references to Hugolino, but in almost all cases Hiltalingen follows his doctrinal position. His disagreement is not at all comparable to Favaroni’s position. For example, Hiltalingen refers to different passages from Hugolino’s Prologue than the ones that Favaroni cites with reference to the relationship between philosophy and theology: “Ex quo primo patet, quod Hugolinus quaestione 1 prologi articulo 3 conclusione 1 minus proprie accipit philosophicam scientiam, quia solum scripturam ab Aristotele de hac scientia tradita<m>.” See Johannes de Basilea OESA, *Lectura super quattuor libros Sententiarum. Super primum librum. Principium primum*, Quaest. 1–3, ed. Venicio Marcolino, with Monica Brinzei and Carolin Oser-Grote (Würzburg, 2016), 1:224–25. Moreover, Hiltalingen does not mention Hugolino in his *Principium*, but, as Marcolino</footnote>
discovered, he introduces Hugolino in his *Vesperiae* (Munich, Clm 26711, fol. 397va: “Hoc corollarium concordat cum domino et magistro Hugolino libro 3, questione 1, circa medium”). On occasion, Hiltalingen is also in opposition to Rimini. For example, in his question 1, where he deals with the nature of the object of theology, after reproducing five pages verbatim from Rimini, Hiltalingen adds: “Sed, quamvis ista opinio sit multum famosa, mihi tamen non apparet vera, tum propter dicta in se posita, tum propter implicata, tum etiam propter multa inconvenientia ad ipsam sequentia”: Iohannes de Basilea OESA, *Lectura Super IV libros Sententiarum*, I, q. 1, ed. Marcolino, 1:238.

<footnote n="38">³⁸ This criticism corresponds to Hugolinus de Urbe Veteri, *In I Sent., Prol.*, q. 1, a. 1, concl., in *Commentarius in Quattuor Libros Sententiarium* I, ed. Willigis Eckermann, O.S.A. (Würzburg, 1980), 1:62.</footnote>

<footnote n="39">³⁹ Hugolinus de Urbe Veteri, *In I Sententiarum, Prologue*, q. 1, art. 2, ed. Eckermann, 62, lines 371–73: “Sumatur verbi gratia, materia prima sit A. De A novit philosophia, quod est subiectum transmutationis, pura potentia nec quid nec quantum et cetera.” In his *Prologue*, Hugolino often stresses the incompatibility between the philosophical and theological understanding of *Deum esse*, especially in art. 2 and art. 3. On Hugolino’s position on Aristotelian philosophy, see Francesco Corvino, “La polemica antiaristotelica di Ugolino da Orvieto nella cultura filosofica del sec. XIV,” in *Filosofia e cultura in Umbria tra Medioevo e Rinascimento: Atti del IV Convegno di studi umbri* (Perugia, 1967), 407–58; and on his critique of philosophy in the *Prologue* of Hugolino’s *Sentences*, see Silvia Magnavacca, “Notas sobre el rechazo de la filosofia en Hugolino de Orvieto,” *Rivista di storia della filosofia* 61 (2006): 181–92. For a more detailed analysis, see Martijn Schrama, “La foi et la théologie dans le Prologue du Commentaire des Sentences de Hugolin d’Orvieto,” in *Schwerpunkte und Wirkungen des Sentenzenkommentars Hugolins von Orvieto, O.E.S.A.*, ed. Willigis Eckermann O.S.A.</footnote>
(Würzburg, 1990), 145–96, esp. 145 and 157–60 for the relation between philosophy and
theology.

⁴⁰ Hugolinus de Urbe Veteri, *In I Sententiarum, Prologus*, q. 1, art. 2, ed. Eckermann, 62, lines 384–85: “Similiter de homine novit philosophia, quod est rationalis, capax scientiae et virtutis.”

⁴¹ Hugolinus de Urbe Veteri, *In I Sententiarum, Prologus*, q. 1, art. 2, ed. Eckermann, 62, lines 380–84: “Item secundo capio ‘intelligentiam’ de qua novit philosophicus, quod movet orbem, et hoc forsitan falsum est. Ideo non novit. Item quod intelligit se, et intelligit Deum esse primum motorem. Sed theologia novit de eo illuminationes, revelationes, visiones in verbo, fruitionem perpetuam, gaudium et certitudinem et cetera.”

⁴² See, for example, this summary of *De anima*: Hugolinus de Urbe Veteri, *In I Sententiarum, Prologus*, q. 1, art. 2, ed. Eckermann, 67, lines 518–24: “Si Aristoteles in toto tractatu *De anima*, cum probat, quod anima est potentialiter multa, quod multos habet actus distinctos, quod eget organo et in alia operatione non, et quos est forma corporis et cetera, continue subintelligeret in mente et in probatione sua, quod anima quaelibet est materia prima vel unus lapis vel unus punctus, accidens invisibile et cetera, tunc omnia sic esse probata ab ipso, essent simpliciter falsa secundum eius acceptionem.” According to Schrama, “Hugolin revient à une objection (..) selon laquelle l’existence de Dieu se rangerai par les vérités philosophiques. Il estime que c’est le moment d’en finir avec tous les penseurs qui ne sont pas illuminés par Dieu, et il vise notamment Aristote. Car ce dernier ne parle pas de Dieu, mais il parle de quelque chose dont, à tort, il croit que c’est Dieu. Par suite, il se trouve dans l’erreur.” See Schrama, “La foi et la théologie dans le Prologue,” 159.

⁴³ Hugolinus de Urbe Veteri, *In I Sententiarum, Prologus*, q. 1, art. 2, ed. Eckermann, 66, lines 513–17: “Significabile illud primum verum, scilicet ‘Deum esse’, non est idem apud theologicum et mentem Aristotelis. Patet, quia in praedicato ly ‘esse’ stat pro infinito esse
simpliciter actuativo immediate omnis esse, in subiecto stat pro deo trinitate et apud Aristotelem
erat impossibile aliquod tale significatum esse subiecti vel praedicati. Igitur non est idem.”

⁴⁴ For example, Augustinus Favaroni de Roma, *Prologus*, in Berlin, Staatsbibliothek, lat. fol. 852, fol. 194rb: “Igitur, cum queritur de aliquo vero, utrum sola theologia illud ostendat, iste doctor <Hugolinus> in rationibus suis non accendit ad considerationem theologicam et ad considerationem alterius scientie, sed ad quid dixerint phylosophi docentes alias scientias, ideo deficit. Secundo deficit in rationibus suis, quoniam si ad doctrinam philosophorum respiciebat, debebat respicere ad doctrinam eorum philosophorum qui in eorum positionibus fuerunt excellentiores et veritati propinquiores, antequam diceret quod nulla alia doctrina etc. Tales autem fuerunt Platonici, ipse vero respexit Aristotelem, ideo rationes tales nullum habent stabile fundamentum etc.” Similar ideas are repeated in *Prologus*, art. 2, in Berlin, Staadtbibliothek, lat. fol. 852, fols. 169–80. For a preliminary investigation of some fragments of this text, see Friemel, *Die theologische Prinzipienlehre* (n. 9 above), 126–52, esp. 142–44.

⁴⁵ For an analysis of Hugolino’s rejection of non-pagan philosophers, see Daniela Gionta, “Filosofi precristiani e Rivelazione: Analogie e contrasti tra Ugolino da Orvieto e Egidio da Viterbo,” in *Schwerpunkte und Wirkungen*, ed. Eckermann, 124–33, at 124–26.

⁴⁶ Isabelle Draelants calls the use of this quotation from Paul “l’herménutique de l’invisible à travers le visible grâce aux propriétés des choses” in eadem, “Modèles épistémologiques de l’enquête encyclopédique sur la nature des choses *ob posteritatis utilitatemi*,” in *Modèles scientifiques, modèles littéraires: Actes du XLVe Congrès de la SHMESP* (Paris, 2015), 235–60, esp. 242–44. For a history of the medieval usage of Romans 1:20 in *Sentences* commentaries, see Monica Calma, “La connaissance philosophique de la Trinité selon Pierre d’Ailly et la fortune médiévale de la proposition *Monas genuit monadem*,” *Przeglad Tomistyczny* 15 (2009): 121–47.
⁴⁷ Augustinus Favaroni de Roma, *Prologus*, in Berlin, Staatsbibliothek, lat. fol. 852, fol. 170va: "scientia metaphysica dictat intellectui viatoris Deum esse primum et summum intelligens semper se actualissime intelligentem."

⁴⁸ Augustinus Favaroni de Roma, *Prologus*, art. 2, in Berlin, Staatsbibliothek, lat. fol. 852, fol. 171rb: "Aliquam nobilem veritatem scientia metaphysica concludit de Deo, quam non potest concludere theologia. Probatur, quoniam veritas enuncians de Deo illam rationem formalem, secundum quam Deus est subiectum in theologia, est nobilis veritas de Deo, ut patebit infra. Et talem concludit metaphysica de Deo. . . quam tamen theologia non potest concludere, quia nulla scientia probat suum subiectum."

⁴⁹ Averroes, *In Arist. Phys.*, 1, comm. 81, vol. 4, fol. 47va: . . . "declaratum est in Posterioribus Analyticis quod impossibile est aliquam scientiam declarare suum subiectum esse, sed concedit ipsum esse, aut quia manifestum per se, aut quia demonstratum in alia scientia. Unde Avicenna peccavit maxime, cum dicit quod primus Philosophus demonstrat primum esse, et processit in hoc in suo libro de scientia Divina per viam quam existimavit esse necessariam, et essentialem in illa scientia, et peccavit peccato manifesto." A very clear description of this example and its importance for medieval metaphysics is provided in Jenny E. Pelletier, *William Ockham on Metaphysics. The Science of Being and God* (Leiden, 2013), 259 n. 86.

⁵⁰ Friemel, *Die theologische Prinzipienlehre* (n. 9 above), 152.

⁵¹ See the recent and extensive introduction to Ripa’s lecture on *Sentences*: Iohannes de Ripa, *Lectura Super primum Sententiarum. Distinctio Secunda*, ed. Andrea Nannini (Rome, 2020), v-cxxx.

⁵² Johannes de Ripa, *Determinationes: Texte critique avec introduction, notes et tables*, ed. André Combes (Paris, 1957), q. 1, 80–167, esp. art. 3, 80–153; and the still unedited Johannes de Ripa, *Lectura*, I, q. 29, available in French translation in Francis Ruello, *La théologie naturelle de Jean de Ripa (XIVe siècle)* (Paris, 1992), 625–39.
⁵³ For a detailed description of the different steps of his condemnation, see Zumkeller, *Theology and History of the Augustinian School* (n. 1 above), 52–54 and 182–85. The proposition *Duae naturae, divinitas et humanitas, sunt unus Christus* of Jan Huss had been condemned at the Council of Constance in 1415. See the discussion of this parallel in Ciolini, *Agostino da Roma* (n. 1 above), 32–33.

⁵⁴ Ciolini, *Agostino da Roma* (n. 1 above). An updated list of these texts can be consulted in Alcuin database: http://www.alcuin.de/philosopher.php?id=296 (accessed 17 July 2022).

⁵⁵ For example, distinction 26 of book I of John of Ripa is introduced by this title: “Utrum rationes suppositales personarum divinarum realiter distinctive sint rationes formaliter absolute vel relative.” This question is analyzed by Ernst Borchert, *Die Trinitätslehre des Johannes de Ripa* (Munich/Vienna, 1974), 1:475–95 and 2:876–84.

⁵⁶ In fact, Ciolini asks himself: “Cosa è dunque questa ratio suppositalis a cui il nostro Teologo affida tutto l’edificio della sua dottrina cristologica?” and remarks that “Il Favaroni non è molto esplicito in proposito” concerning this concept. See Ciolini, *Agostino da Roma* (n. 1 above), 36.

⁵⁷ This discussion is rooted in distinction 6 of book III of Peter Lombard’s *Sentences* (cap. 2, 50–52), where he presents the position of Hugh of Saint-Victor from *De sacramentis* and *De verbo incarnato* on the definition *Homo est Deus*. In this passage Favaroni makes no reference to Lombard.

⁵⁸ See the explanations of Ciolini, *Agostino da Roma* (n. 1 above), and all the passages he quotes in his book. See also Zumkeller, *Theology and History of the Augustinian School* (n. 1 above), 107.

⁵⁹ His erroneous theses were the subject of a complaint in 1430. During the summer of that year Favaroni wrote a defense, which has been edited by Willigis Eckermann from Basel, Universitätsbibliothek, A.IV.17, fol. 320, in idem, *Opera inedita historiam* (n. 4 above).

⁶⁰ Zumkeller, *Theology and History of the Augustinian School* (n. 1 above), 107.
<footnote n="61">⁶¹ For example, the *Lectura in epistulam beati Pauli ad Romanos*, in Roma, Biblioteca Angelica, 376, fols. 106–249; the *Commentarius in Apocalypsim*, in Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Chigiano B.VII.118, fols. 1–120; or the *De peccato per originem tracto (or Tractatus de iustificatione)*, in Chigiano B.VII.118, fols. 200ra–24ra. On these texts, see the list in Ciolini, *Agostino da Roma* (n. 1 above), 89–92.</footnote>

<footnote n="62">⁶² Toner, *The Doctrine of Original Sin and Justification* (n. 2 above), 80–81.</footnote>

<footnote n="63">⁶³ Toner, *The Doctrine of Original Sin and Justification* (n. 2 above), 81. Toner refers here to the misunderstanding of Müller, who read Favaroni as a pre-Lutherian propagandist: Alphons V. Müller, *Luthers theologische Quellen* (Giessen, 1912), 16.</footnote>

<footnote n="64">⁶⁴ Toner, *The Doctrine of Original Sin and Justification* (n. 2 above), 89–104, presents Favaroni’s position on justice and the tripartite system on law conceived by Favaroni: secular, mosaic, and evangelic justice.</footnote>

<footnote n="65">⁶⁵ We find, for example, in *In epistulam ad Romanos*, the same authorities – Hugh, Anselm, and Augustine – with reference to the same titles. See the quotations in Toner and his analysis of the sacrament of penance: Toner, *The Doctrine of Original Sin and Justification* (n. 2 above), 83–88.</footnote>

<footnote n="66">⁶⁶ For *principia* in Paris in 1369–1370, see Monica Brînzei, “When Theologians Play Philosopher: A Lost Confrontation between James of Eltville and His *Socii* on the Perfection of Species and Its Infinite Latitude,” in *The Cistercian James of Eltville († 1393): Author in Paris and Authority in Vienna*, ed. Monica Brînzei and Chris Schabel (Turnhout, 2018), 43–77.</footnote>

<footnote n="67">⁶⁷ Eric L. Saak, “The Reception of Augustine in the Later Middle Ages,” in *The Reception of the Church Fathers in the West: From the Carolingians to the Maurists*, ed. Irena Backus, 2nd ed. (Leiden, 1997), 1:367–404, esp. 373. On the “Augustinian School,” see Irena D. Backus, *Historical Method and Confessional Identity in the Era of the Reformation (1378–1615)* (Leiden, 2003), 1–14.</footnote>
<footnote n="68">⁶⁸ Averr., *In Arist. Phys.* V.5, com. 5, 209rC.</footnote>

<footnote n="69">⁶⁹ nulla] substantias* *add. sed del.*</footnote>

<footnote n="70">⁷⁰ Arist. *Physic*. II.7, 198a 27–28 (AA 2, no. 87).</footnote>

<footnote n="71">⁷¹ per] pro *a. c.*</footnote>

<footnote n="72">⁷² Arist., *De caelo de mundo* I.2, 269a24–25.</footnote>

<footnote n="73">⁷³ Arist., *Physic*. II.1, 193a30.</footnote>

<footnote n="74">⁷⁴ infinitare] finitare *a. c.*</footnote>

<footnote n="75">⁷⁵ motorem] *iter*.</footnote>

<footnote n="76">⁷⁶ Arist., *Physic*. II.1, 193a30.</footnote>

<footnote n="77">⁷⁷ cum] *iter*. *et exp.*</footnote>

<footnote n="78">⁷⁸ Arist., *Physic*. VII.1, 242a–b; et *Physic*. VIII.1, 250b–51a.</footnote>

<footnote n="79">⁷⁹ philosophis] physicis*</footnote>

<footnote n="80">⁸⁰ Cf. Arist., *Metaph*. XI.7, 1073a5 sqq.</footnote>

<footnote n="81">⁸¹ existimationem] estimationem *a. c. s. l.*</footnote>

<footnote n="82">⁸² Arist., *Metaph*. II.2, 994b.</footnote>

<footnote n="83">⁸³ secunda] *s. l.*</footnote>

<footnote n="84">⁸⁴ simpliciter primum ens] primum ens simpliciter *a. c.*</footnote>

<footnote n="85">⁸⁵ huic] *a. add. sed exp.*</footnote>

<footnote n="86">⁸⁶ Arist., *De anima* II.7, 419a.</footnote>

<footnote n="87">⁸⁷ sue] nature *add. sed del.*</footnote>

<footnote n="88">⁸⁸ Arist., *Physic*. VIII.3, 202a16–17.</footnote>

<footnote n="89">⁸⁹ Averr., *In Arist. De anima* III, com. 4, 384–85.</footnote>

<footnote n="90">⁹⁰ Averr., *In Arist. Phys.* III, com. 17, 92C. Cf. Arist., *Physic*. III, 202a16–17.</footnote>

<footnote n="91">⁹¹ quam] *s. l.*</footnote>

<footnote n="92">⁹² et] *add. in marg.*</footnote>
<footnote n="93">⁹³ facto] non *add. sed exp.*</footnote>

<footnote n="94">⁹⁴ Anselm. Cant., *Monol.* 1, 56.</footnote>

<footnote n="95">⁹⁵ igitur] etc. *add. sed exp.*</footnote>

<footnote n="96">⁹⁶ Anselm. Cant., *Monol.* 1, 56.</footnote>

<footnote n="97">⁹⁷ enim] e? *a. c. in marg.*</footnote>

<footnote n="98">⁹⁸ non vere] v. n. *a. c.*</footnote>

<footnote n="99">⁹⁹ citra] deum *add. sed exp.*</footnote>

<footnote n="100">¹⁰⁰ quamcumque aliam causam] quacumque alia causa</footnote>

<footnote n="101">¹⁰¹ *Lib. de causis* 1, 46.</footnote>

<footnote n="102">¹⁰² Greg. Arim., *In I Sent.*, 1.2, vol. IV, 6.</footnote>

<footnote n="103">¹⁰³ Aug., *Gr. et lib. arb.* I.2.4, 213.</footnote>

<footnote n="104">¹⁰⁴ Aug., *De vera relig.* IV.6, 119.</footnote>

<footnote n="105">¹⁰⁵ Anselm. Cant., *Monol.* 1, 56.</footnote>

<footnote n="106">¹⁰⁶ idem] dedu *del.*</footnote>

<footnote n="107">¹⁰⁷ Boeth., *Cons.* III.11.14, 61.</footnote>

<footnote n="108">¹⁰⁸ Boeth., *Cons.* III.11.14, 61.</footnote>

<footnote n="109">¹⁰⁹ positivum possibile] *tr. a. c.*</footnote>

<footnote n="110">¹¹⁰ Boeth., *Cons.* III.11.14, 61.</footnote>

<footnote n="111">¹¹¹ Aug., *De fide et operib.* II.2, 2–4.</footnote>

<footnote n="112">¹¹² Aug., *Sup. Gen. contr. Manich.* I.6.10, 76–77.</footnote>

<footnote n="113">¹¹³ Ioh. Ripa, *De gradu supremo* 2, 201.</footnote>

<footnote n="114">¹¹⁴ productionem] ex nihilo *add. sed del.*</footnote>

<footnote n="115">¹¹⁵ de] nihilo *add. sed del.*</footnote>

<footnote n="116">¹¹⁶ influxu] fluxu *a. c. s. l.*</footnote>

<footnote n="117">¹¹⁷ omnipotens] quintum corollarium *add. sed del.*</footnote>
¹¹⁸ et] *add. sed exp.*

¹¹⁹ est] *add. sed exp.*

¹²⁰ plena] poni *add. sed del.*

¹²¹ Boeth., *Cons.* III.12, 60–63.

¹²² lumen] lumine *a. c.*

¹²³ intellectus] lumen *add. sed del.*

¹²⁴ manuducentis] manudicentis *a. c. s. l.*

¹²⁵ circulum] et *add. sed del.*

¹²⁶ quadrari] quadraeri *a. c.*

¹²⁷ inydoneas] ydoneas *a. c. s. l.*

¹²⁸ Aug., *Gen. ad litt.* II.5.9, 39.

¹²⁹ non patitur] *iter. et del.*

¹³⁰ infallenti] infallentei *a. c.*

¹³¹ Henr. Gand., *Summa* 1.1, 1.

¹³² secondo] modo *del.*

¹³³ aliquod] aliquod *add. sed del.*

¹³⁴ vicinare] ni *add. sed del.*

¹³⁵ Anselm. Cant., *Monol.* 1, 56.

¹³⁶ Anselm. Cant., *Monol.* 1, 56.

¹³⁷ premittit] *in marg.*

¹³⁸ Anselm. Cant., *Monol.* 1, 56.

¹³⁹ principia] et *add. sed del.*

¹⁴⁰ Anselm. Cant., *Monol.* 1, 56.

¹⁴¹ concludibile] conclusibile *a. c.*

¹⁴² visibilibus] visibililibus *a. c.*
<footnote n="143">¹⁴³ Cf. Richard. S. Vict., *Trin.*, Prol., 82.</footnote>

<footnote n="144">¹⁴⁴ Aug., *Conf.* VII.7.13, 101.</footnote>

<footnote n="145">¹⁴⁵ Aug., *Conf.* VII.7.13, 101.</footnote>

<footnote n="146">¹⁴⁶ quia hominis] quod omnis</footnote>

<footnote n="147">¹⁴⁷ patet] cor *add. sed del.*</footnote>

<footnote n="148">¹⁴⁸ Aug., *Civ.* X.23, 296.</footnote>

<footnote n="149">¹⁴⁹ Aug., *Civ.* X.23, 296.</footnote>

<footnote n="150">¹⁵⁰ telete] theletis</footnote>

<footnote n="151">¹⁵¹ Aug., *Civ.* X.23, 296.</footnote>

<footnote n="152">¹⁵² Aug., *De peccat. merit. et rem.* I.25.36, 35.</footnote>

<footnote n="153">¹⁵³ hominis] omnis</footnote>

<footnote n="154">¹⁵⁴ ipse] ipsum</footnote>

<footnote n="155">¹⁵⁵ Aug., *Civ.* X.23, 296.</footnote>

<footnote n="156">¹⁵⁶ aut] ex parte *add. sed exp.*</footnote>

<footnote n="157">¹⁵⁷ Aug., *De vera relig.* 36.66, 230.</footnote>

<footnote n="158">¹⁵⁸ Richard. S. Vict., *Trin.*, Prol., 82.</footnote>

<footnote n="159">¹⁵⁹ Maxime] sensibilia *add. sed exp.*</footnote>

<footnote n="160">¹⁶⁰ Aug., *De vera relig.* 36.66, 230.</footnote>

<footnote n="161">¹⁶¹ naturaliter] non aliter</footnote>

<footnote n="162">¹⁶² unitate] brevitate</footnote>

<footnote n="163">¹⁶³ ita simile sit] *iter*.</footnote>

<footnote n="164">¹⁶⁴ id] *iter*.</footnote>

<footnote n="165">¹⁶⁵ Aug., *De vera relig.* 36, 230.</footnote>

<footnote n="166">¹⁶⁶ Aug., *De vera relig.* 36, 230.</footnote>

<footnote n="167">¹⁶⁷ Hug. Urb. Vet., *Comm.*, *Prol.*, 1.1.1, t. 1, 62.</footnote>
<footnote n="168">¹⁶⁸ Aug., *Trin.* II, Prol. 1, 81.</footnote>

<footnote n="169">¹⁶⁹ articuli] *in marg.*</footnote>

<footnote n="170">¹⁷⁰ actualitatis] actualitis</footnote>

<footnote n="171">¹⁷¹ cui] non *add. sed del.*</footnote>

<footnote n="172">¹⁷² activi] activii *a. c.*</footnote>

<footnote n="173">¹⁷³ scilicet] cui *add. sed del.*</footnote>

<footnote n="174">¹⁷⁴ qualibet re] *tr. a. c.*</footnote>

<footnote n="175">¹⁷⁵ in] actu *add. sed del.*</footnote>

<footnote n="176">¹⁷⁶ aliqualiter] activa *add. sed del.*</footnote>

<footnote n="177">¹⁷⁷ cum] secunda *add. sed del.*</footnote>

<footnote n="178">¹⁷⁸ cuiuscumque] effectus *add. sed del.*</footnote>

<footnote n="179">¹⁷⁹ Ægid. Roman., *Tr. de primo princ.* 4, 7v.</footnote>

<footnote n="180">¹⁸⁰ latitudo] ca *add. sed del.*</footnote>

<footnote n="181">¹⁸¹ excederet] excedereret *a. c.*</footnote>

<footnote n="182">¹⁸² quecumque] ca *add. sed del.*</footnote>

<footnote n="183">¹⁸³ totam] totam *add. sed del.*</footnote>

<footnote n="184">¹⁸⁴ ad] *s. l.*</footnote>

<footnote n="185">¹⁸⁵ infinitam] *in marg.*</footnote>

<footnote n="186">¹⁸⁶ tantum] transferat *a. c.*</footnote>

<footnote n="187">¹⁸⁷ activitatem] d *add. sed del.*</footnote>

<footnote n="188">¹⁸⁸ effectus] *p. c.*</footnote>

<footnote n="189">¹⁸⁹ infinitam] activitatem *add. sed del.*</footnote>

<footnote n="190">¹⁹⁰ Ps. Dionys., *De div. nom.* 4.1, 145–50.</footnote>

<footnote n="191">¹⁹¹ Ægid. Roman., *Tr. de primo princ.* 5, 10r.</footnote>

<footnote n="192">¹⁹² Ægid. Roman., *In II Sent.* 2.6, 31.</footnote>
<footnote n="193">¹⁹³ sicut] sol *add. sed del.*</footnote>

<footnote n="194">¹⁹⁴ cui] perfectiores *add. sed. del.*</footnote>

<footnote n="195">¹⁹⁵ Ps. Dionys., *De div. nom.* 5, 323–24.</footnote>

<footnote n="196">¹⁹⁶ Ps. Dionys., *De div. nom.* 5, 323–24.</footnote>

<footnote n="197">¹⁹⁷ Thom. Aq., *Quaest. disp. de malo* 4.6, ad. 15 (Utrum peccatum originale ab Adam derivetur in omnes qui seminaliter ab ipso procedunt).</footnote>

<footnote n="198">¹⁹⁸ Ægid. Roman., *In II Sent.* 2.5, 26–29.</footnote>

<footnote n="199">¹⁹⁹ Henr. Gand., *Summa*, non inveni.</footnote>

<footnote n="200">²⁰⁰ Arist., *Metaph.* II.2, 994a–b.</footnote>

<footnote n="201">²⁰¹ Arist., *Metaph.* II.2, 994a–b.</footnote>

<footnote n="202">²⁰² Arist., *Phys.* VIII.1, 252a11.</footnote>

<footnote n="203">²⁰³ a Deo] abeo *a. c.*</footnote>

<footnote n="204">²⁰⁴ causarum] celum *add. sed del.*</footnote>

<footnote n="205">²⁰⁵ non] non *add. sed del.*</footnote>

<footnote n="206">²⁰⁶ Arist., *Metaph.* XII.7, 1072b33–35.</footnote>

<footnote n="207">²⁰⁷ sustentat] sustentatur</footnote>

<footnote n="208">²⁰⁸ Arist., *Metaph.* II.7, 198a20.</footnote>

<footnote n="209">²⁰⁹ enim] enim *add. sed del.*</footnote>

<footnote n="210">²¹⁰ motum] quod *add.*</footnote>

<footnote n="211">²¹¹ Averr. *In Arist. Lib. Metaph.* II, comm. 7, 168vb–69ra.</footnote>

<footnote n="212">²¹² cum] *add. sed del.*</footnote>

<footnote n="213">²¹³ habeant] *add. sed del.*</footnote>

<footnote n="214">²¹⁴ in] *iter*.</footnote>

<footnote n="215">²¹⁵ Averr., *In Arist. Phys.* VIII, comm. 33, 169va.</footnote>

<footnote n="216">²¹⁶ plura] una *add. sed del.*</footnote>
217 ideo predixit] ipso produxit

218 Averr., *In Arist. Phys.* VIII, comm. 33, 169vb.

219 primo] primus

220 ex] pre add. sed del.

221 *Lib. De causis* 1.3, 134.

222 effectum] esse add. sed del.

223 *Lib. De causis* 1.3, 134.

224 quod] que

225 ipsam] ipsum

226 ipsam] ipsum

227 ipsum] et add. sed del.

228 Aug., *Trin.* III.7.12, 139.

229 Aug., *Trin.* III.8.13, 141.

230 Vide Aug., *Trin.* III.7.12, 138.

231 Aug., *Trin.* III.8.13, 141.

232 illius floritionis] tr.; arboris add. sed. del.

233 Vide supra 00-00.

234 aut] cum propositum add. sed del.

235 Aug., *Trin.* XIII.19.24, 416.

236 exortis] ortis a. c. s. l.

237 esset] esse a. c. s. l.

238 Deo] dicit add. sed del.

239 includit] cum add. sed del.
<footnote n="240">²⁴⁰ igitur] Istam primam conclusionem cum suis corollariis retractavit iste doctor tractatu 4°
ad dominum Karolum de Malatestis in declaratione primi dubii primi dubii (!) principalis etc.
*add. in marg. infra*</footnote>

<footnote n="241">²⁴¹ infinita] finita *a. c.*, in *s. l.*</footnote>

<footnote n="242">²⁴² talis] est *add. sed del.*</footnote>

<footnote n="243">²⁴³ nature] nacetur</footnote>

<footnote n="244">²⁴⁴ unio] unita</footnote>

<footnote n="245">²⁴⁵ aliud] suppositaretur *add. sed del.*</footnote>

<footnote n="246">²⁴⁶ est] anime *add. sed del.*</footnote>

<footnote n="247">²⁴⁷ ypostatica] per se *add. sed del.*</footnote>

<footnote n="248">²⁴⁸ precise sumpta] sumpta precise *a. c.*</footnote>

<footnote n="249">²⁴⁹ ipsi] ipse</footnote>

<footnote n="250">²⁵⁰ Aug., *Civ. XII.9*, 363.</footnote>

<footnote n="251">²⁵¹ probatur] easdem *add. sed del.*</footnote>

<footnote n="252">²⁵² Ps. 144:7.</footnote>

<footnote n="253">²⁵³ Aug., *In Ps. 144.10*, 2095.</footnote>

<footnote n="254">²⁵⁴ patet] tertio *add. sed exp.*</footnote>

<footnote n="255">²⁵⁵ Anselm. Cant., *Monol*. 15, 28, 30–29, and 3.</footnote>

<footnote n="256">²⁵⁶ probatur] consequens *add. sed exp.*</footnote>

<footnote n="257">²⁵⁷ Anselm. Cant., *Monol*. 15, 28–29.</footnote>

<footnote n="258">²⁵⁸ Vide Aug., *De spir. et litt. ad Marcel*. 1.36, 83.</footnote>

<footnote n="259">²⁵⁹ modo] *s. l.*</footnote>

<footnote n="260">²⁶⁰ ypostatica] quam *add. sed del.*</footnote>

<footnote n="261">²⁶¹ et] antecedens *add. sed del.*</footnote>

<footnote n="262">²⁶² nec] eidem *add. sed exp.*</footnote>
263 consimilis] de add. sed del.

264 Petr. Lomb., *Sent.* III.5.1, 41–46.

265 Petr. Lomb., *Sent.* III.5.2, 46.

266 et] sicut *a. c. s. l.*

267 potest] vere add. sed del.

268 unitatem] *p. c.*

269 alio] autem* add. sed del.

270 Reverendus baccalarius de ordine carmelitarum, id est Antonius Masazana. *Textus non extat.*

271 Petr. Lomb., *Sent.* III.1.3, 26.

272 eiectam] electam

273 responsio] facta add. sed del.

274 est] Deus add. sed del.

275 concretive] *p. c.*

276 Boeth., *Cons.* III.10.25, 55.

277 est] ad add. sed del.

278 sic] primum add. sed del.

279 quo operativum] cooperationum

280 natura divina] iter.

281 alie] hec anime vel anime add. et del.

282 Bacalarius de ordine servorum Sancte Marie, id est Antonius de Alexandria vel Ludovicus de Venetiis. Vide Ehrle, *I più antichi statuti* (n. 16 above), 104 (no. 37). *Textus non extat.*

283 Coloss. 2:3.

284 unionis] nom add. sed del.

285 intensius] anime Christi add. sed del.
²⁸⁶ institutionem] institutionem a. c.

²⁸⁷ primum] ab add. sed del.

²⁸⁸ probatur] de (-)co* (-)us* casus add. in marg.

²⁸⁹ Innocent. III, *Decretal.* 43.2, 648–49.

²⁹⁰ Innocent. III, *Decretal.* 43.2, 648.

²⁹¹ aliquo] *actu add. sed del.*

²⁹² sacramenti] *add. in marg.*

²⁹³ Aug., *Retract.* II.18, 153, apud Petr. Lomb., *Sent.* IV.4.4, 256. Vide etiam Innocent. III, *Decretal.* 43.2, 648.

²⁹⁴ Ambros., *De ob. Valent.*, nn. 29–30, 344, apud Petr. Lomb., *Sent.* IV.4.4, 256. Vide etiam Innocent. III, *Decretal.*, 43.2, 648.

²⁹⁵ Petr. Lomb., *Sent.* IV.4.4, 256.

²⁹⁶ probatur] preissit *add. sed del.*

²⁹⁷ capitulo] unico *add. sed. del.*

²⁹⁸ Innocent. III, *Decretal.* 43.3, 648.

²⁹⁹ Innocent. III, *Decretal.* 43.3, 648.

³⁰⁰ ipse] ipsius

³⁰¹ Innocent. III, *Decretal.* 43.3, 648.

³⁰² Innocent. III, *Decretal.* 43.3, 648.

³⁰³ Petr. Lomb., *Sent.* IV.4.7, 262.

³⁰⁴ Vide Fulg. Rusp., *Fid.* 3.43, 1424, apud Petr. Lomb., *Sent.* IV.5.4, 264.

³⁰⁵ Petr. Lomb., *Sent.* IV.4.7, 262.

³⁰⁶ Ioh. 3:5.

³⁰⁷ sacramenti] et *add. sed del.*

³⁰⁸ sed] nullus *add. sed del.*
³⁰⁹ Innocent. III, *Decretal.* 43.3, 648.

³¹⁰ Innocent. III, *Decretal.* 43.2, 648.

³¹¹ Petr. Lomb., *Sent.* IV.4.4, 255.

³¹² Anselm. Cant., *Cur Deus* I.12, 22.

³¹³ premissa] *a add. sed del.*

³¹⁴ Petr. Lomb., *Sent.* IV.8, 280–86.

³¹⁵ Petr. Lomb., *Sent.* IV.12, 304–11.

³¹⁶ incrementum] gratie *add. sed del.*

³¹⁷ principaliter esse institutum] esse institutum principaliter *a. c.*

³¹⁸ Rom. 5:10.

³¹⁹ satisfactoria] priusp *add. sed del.*

³²⁰ Petr. Lomb., *Sent.* IV.18.4, 357.

³²¹ Hugo S. Vict., *De sacram.* II.14.7, 565.

³²² Non dist. 19, sed dist. 18; vide Petr. Lomb., *Sent.* IV.18.4, 357.

³²³ Hugo S. Vict., *De sacram.* II.14.7, 565.

³²⁴ iustificationem] iustitionem *a. c.*

³²⁵ Petr. Lomb., *Sent.* IV.4–5, 251–68.

³²⁶ Petr. Lomb., *Sent.* IV.4.2, 253.

³²⁷ manet] homine *iter. sed del.*

³²⁸ in] animo *add. sed del.*

³²⁹ ut] nulla *add. sed del.*

³³⁰ consecratur] *an add. sed del.*

³³¹ Aug., *C. Iulianum* 6.19.62, 860–61.

³³² per] *s. l.*

³³³ applicatur] im *add. sed del.*
<footnote n="334">³³⁴ Aug., *C. Iulianum* 6.19.62, 860–61.</footnote>

<footnote n="335">³³⁵ Aug., *C. Iulianum* 6.19.62, 861.</footnote>

<footnote n="336">³³⁶ etiam de sacramento] de sacramento etiam *a. c*.</footnote>

<footnote n="337">³³⁷ sibi] *s. l.*</footnote>

<footnote n="338">³³⁸ Hugo S. Vict., *De sacram.* II.14.7, 565.</footnote>

<footnote n="339">³³⁹ vero] vere</footnote>

<footnote n="340">³⁴⁰ ad] *s. l.*</footnote>

<footnote n="341">³⁴¹ Vide Aug., *Super Johan.* 121.4, 667; apud Petr. Lomb., *Sent.* IV.18.5, 359.</footnote>

<footnote n="342">³⁴² adhuc] seatiamen *add. sed del.*</footnote>

<footnote n="343">³⁴³ sarcinam] sartiamen</footnote>

<footnote n="344">³⁴⁴ Vide Petr. Lomb., *Sent.* IV.17.1, 344.</footnote>

<footnote n="345">³⁴⁵ Petr. Lomb., *Sent.* IV.17.1, 344.</footnote>

<footnote n="346">³⁴⁶ consequitur] ve *add. sed del.*</footnote>

<footnote n="347">³⁴⁷ Vide Aug., *De bapt. ctr. Donat.* IV.24, 260; apud Petr. Lomb. *Sent.* IV.4.4, 258.</footnote>

<footnote n="348">³⁴⁸ Petr. Lomb., *Sent.* IV.4.4, 258.</footnote>

<footnote n="349">³⁴⁹ quod] omni *add. sed. del.*</footnote>

<footnote n="350">³⁵⁰ reatu] post *add. sed del.*</footnote>

<footnote n="351">³⁵¹ cum] *a add. sed del.*</footnote>