← Back to Distinction 1

Dist. 1, Art. 2, Q. 3

Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word · Distinction 1

Textus Latinus
p. 28

Quaestio III. Quae trium personarum fuerit ad incarnationem magis idonea.

Tertio quaeritur, quae trium personarum fuerit ad incarnationem magis idonea. Et ostenditur primo, quod persona Patris.

Quoad Patrem.

1. Illius enim est recreare, cuius est creare1; sed creatio maxime attribuitur et convenit potentiae Patris, ergo et recreatio: ergo pari ratione videtur, quod et incarnatio.

2. Item, illius est filios adoptare, cuius est generare; sed incarnatio ordinatur ad adoptionem, sicut dicitur ad Galatas quarto2: ergo videtur, quod maxime competit ei, cui convenit generare: ergo maxime convenit Patri incarnari.

3. Item, Filius totum, quod habet, habet a Patre3: ergo magis decet Patrem habere aliquid, quod non habeat Filius, quam Filium, quod non habeat Pater: si igitur incarnatio facit, humanam naturam haberi a persona, quae incarnatur, videtur, quod hoc magis competat personae Patris quam personae Filii.

p. 29

Quod autem magis competat personae Spiritus sancti, ostenditur:

4. Quia quod maxime habet rationem gratiae maxime competit missioni Spiritus sancti; sed quod Deus factus est homo, hoc est summa gratia, sicut vult Augustinus decimo tertio de Trinitate4: ergo videtur, quod hoc magis debuerit esse in persona Spiritus sancti quam in persona Filii.

5. Item, Spiritus amoris facit nos filios Dei adoptivos, secundum illud ad Romanos octavo5: Non accepistis spiritum servitutis iterum in timore, sed spiritum etc.: ergo si incarnatio est, ut fiamus filii Dei adoptivi; videtur, quod incarnatio maxime debuerit esse in persona Spiritus sancti.

6. Item, mitti dicit subauctoritatem in misso6, ergo ei magis convenit mitti, in quo magis reperitur ratio subauctoritatis; sed ratio subauctoritatis magis reperitur in persona Spiritus sancti quam Filii: ergo si incarnatio est in carnem missio, videtur, quod magis conveniat Spiritui sancto quam Filio.

Quod autem magis competat Filio, videtur.

Quoad Filium. Fundamenta.

1. Magis decet personam mediam tenere rationem mediatoris quam aliam; sed incarnatio est ordinata ad effectum mediatoris7, persona autem media in Trinitate est persona Verbi: ergo etc.

2. Item, magis decet Filium Dei esse hominis8 filium quam aliam personam; sed per incarnationem ille qui incarnatur, efficitur Virginis filius: ergo videtur, quod personam Filii incarnari sit magis decens et congruum.

3. Item, convenientius est, Filium supplicare Patri9 quam aliam personam; sed incarnatio ad hoc ordinatur, ut sit aliquis mediator, qui pro hominibus intercedat ad Deum: ergo etc.

Conclusio.

Convenientius fuit, Filium incarnari quam aliam personam divinam.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod persona Verbi ad incarnationem inter ceteras personas fuit magis idonea, sive loquamur de ipsa incarnatione in se, sive prout ordinata est ad humani generis redemptionem.

Ratio 1. triplex. Si enim loquamur de ipsa incarnatione in se, magis congruum fuit, personam Filii incarnari, et in quantum est Imago, et in quantum est Verbum, et in quantum est Filius. In quantum est Imago, quia homo assumtibilis erat ratione dignitatis imaginis; et quia Filius est Imago Patris, ideo magis conveniens erat, Filii personam assumere creaturam10. — Rursus, quia Filius Dei Verbum est Patris, sic procedit ab ipso, ut Pater se manifestet per ipsum; et ideo, sicut ad intentionis manifestationem verbum intelligibile copulatur voci sensibili, sic ad divinitatis revelationem Verbum Patris congruum fuit uniri carni11. — Postremo, quia Filius est semel genitus ab aeterno, et sic congruebat, Deum carnem assumere, ut esset de genere hominum, et ita hominis filium; et ideo decebat ipsum magis incarnari quam Patrem vel Spiritum sanctum. Et hoc est quod dicit Augustinus in libro de Trinitate, et Magister in littera12, quod Dei Filius « non quaesivit nisi matrem in terris, quia iam habebat Patrem in caelis ». — Magis igitur decens fuit, Filium incarnari quam aliam personam, si loquamur de ipsa incarnatione in se.

Ratio 2. triplex. Fuit etiam magis congruum, si loquamur de ipsa incarnatione per comparationem ad generis humani redemptionem; et hoc apparet, si consideremus hominis lapsum, et reparandi modum, et reparationis fructum. Si consideremus hominis lapsum, videbimus, quod lapsus fuit appetendo falsam Dei similitudinem et aequalitatem; et quia Filio primo attribuitur aequalitas, hinc est, quod quasi ex ipso sumsit homo lapsus occasionem; et ideo inde sumere debuit reparationem. Et hoc dicit Bernardus13 explanans illud quod dicitur Ionae primo: Propter me orta est haec tempestas; tollite me et mittite in mare. Aut certe in hoc, quod homo praesumserat Dei similitudinem, directe contra Filium peccavit; et ideo Filio magis competebat vindicta et indulgentia.

p. 30

Et hoc est quod dicit Anselmus in libro Cur Deus homo14: « Homo, pro quo erat oraturus, et diabolus, quem erat expugnaturus, ambo falsam Dei similitudinem praesumserant. Unde specialius adversus Filium peccaverunt. Illi itaque, cui specialiter fit iniuria, convenientius attribuitur culpae vindicta et indulgentia ». — Rursus, si consideremus modum reparationis, magis competit Filio. Reparati enim sumus per mediatoris obedientiam et supplicationem; et quia magis competit, filium supplicare patri et obedire: hinc est, quod magis competit personae Filii incarnari quam alii. Unde Anselmus in libro Cur Deus homo15: « Convenientius sonat, Filium supplicare Patri quam aliam personam ». — Postremo, si consideremus reparationis fructum vel effectum, magis competebat Filio incarnari: quia incarnatio ad hoc ordinatur, ut simus filii Dei: si ergo posterius per illud habet reduci, quod est prius in eodem genere16, congruum fuit, ut filii Dei efficeremur per eum qui est Filius naturalis. Unde Augustinus in quarto de Trinitate17: « Ut homo ex Deo nasceretur, primo ex ipsis natus est Deus. Oportuit enim, ut per eum efficeremur filii adoptivi, qui est Filius naturalis ».

Et sic patet per omnem modum, quod convenientius fuit, Filium incarnari quam alium. — Unde concedendae sunt rationes, quae ad hoc inducebantur.

Solutio oppositorum. 1. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Patri magis convenit opus recreationis, sicut creationis; dicendum, quod Pater sic est auctor recreationis, sicut et creationis; et sicut per Verbum omnia fecit, sic et per Verbum omnia refecit18. Sed ex hoc non sequitur, quod Pater magis debuerit incarnari, quia incarnatio non respicit personam auctoris, sed mediatoris. Et quia ratio mediationis non convenit Patri, sed potius Filio; hinc est, quod non sequitur, quod incarnatio magis conveniat Patri quam Filio; immo potius e converso.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de adoptione, dicendum, quod verum est, quod adoptio convenit Patri tanquam principali auctori; sed hoc non debet facere nisi per Filium, cuius tota est hereditas, et per quem alii ad hereditatem debent admitti19.

3. Ad illud vero quod obiicitur, quod Filius habet a Patre quidquid habet; dicendum, quod Filius dicitur aliquid habere per naturalem originem20, Distinctio. aliquid per gratuitam unionem. Et si primo modo intelligatur, quidquid habet, habet a Patre, ita quod idem, quod est in Filio a Patre, est in Patre a se ipso, in essentialibus loquendo. Si autem loquamur de eo quod habet per gratuitam unionem, sic habet a Patre tanquam a principio effectivo, non tanquam a generante; quia secundum illud Filius est minor Patre, et quia magis decet, Filium secundum humanam naturam esse minorem Patre; hinc est, quod isto modo magis competit, Filium habere aliquid, quod non habeat Pater, quam e converso21.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod magis convenit Spiritui sancto, quia haec est summa gratia; dicendum, quod per illam rationem non concluditur, quod incarnatio debeat fieri in persona Spiritus sancti, sed quod opus incarnationis debeat attribui Spiritui sancto; et hoc melius videbitur infra22. Et similiter respondendum est ad hoc quod sequitur de adoptione.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur de missione, dicendum, quod missio in carnem fuit ad redimendum a servitute; et quia oportet, prius hominem liberari a servitute quam adoptari in filium; hinc est, quod missio in carnem ei personae competebat, cui primo

p. 31

competebat mitti; et quia persona Filii habet mitti solum a Patre, persona Spiritus sancti habet mitti ab utroque: hinc est, quod primo decebat Filium mitti in carnem, ut, redemptione facta, idem ipse cum Patre mitteret Spiritum sanctum in mentem. Et hoc est quod dicit Apostolus ad Galatas quarto: Cum venit plenitudo temporis, misit Deus Filium suum etc.; et post: Ut adoptionem filiorum Dei etc.; et post: Quoniam autem estis filii Dei, misit Deus Spiritum Filii sui in corda vestra. Propterea non sequitur, quod si maior ratio subauctoritatis est in Spiritu sancto quam in Filio, quod propterea debuerit in carnem mitti; immo potest inferri contrarium. Pater enim, quia a nullo est, non debuit mitti. Et hoc est quod dicit Augustinus quarto de Trinitate23: Conveniens non erat, ut Pater ab alio mitteretur, quia ab alio non erat. Conveniens autem fuit, ut primo Filius mitteretur, quia a solo Patre est, deinde Spiritus sanctus, qui est a Patre et a Filio. Primo Filius venit, ut homines liberarentur; deinde Spiritus sanctus, ut homines beatificarentur.

Scholion

I. In hac et seq. (4.) quaestione afferuntur rationes congruentiae, pro modulo nostrae cognitionis satis aptae, ut divina sapientia in modo incarnationis peragendae agnoscatur et laudetur. Ad rationes, quas auctor noster affert, reduci possunt quaedam ab aliis Scholasticis notatae, v. g. ea quae respectu 3. quaestionis profert Alex. Hal. de duplici convenientia secundum appropriata et propria divinarum personarum, quae divisio etiam a S. Thom. in Coment. repetitur.

De hac 3. quaestione tractant: Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 2. m. 5. a. 1. — Scoti loci collecti in Sum. Hier. de Montefortino, l. IV. q. 3. a. 8. — S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 2; S. III. q. 3. a. 8; S. c. Gen. IV. c. 42. — B. Albert., hic a. 7. 8. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 3. — Ægid. R., hic q. 2. a. 4. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 3. — Biel, hic q. 2.

II. De 4. quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. q. 8. m. 1. — Scoti loci collecti ibid. q. 1. a. 5. 6. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 4; S. III. q. 1. a. 5. 6. — B. Albert., hic a. 1. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 5. — Ægid. R., hic q. 2. a. 5. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 8.

---

English Translation

Question III. Which of the three persons was more fitting for the incarnation.

Thirdly it is asked, which of the three persons was more fitting for the incarnation. And it is shown first, that the person of the Father [was].

Concerning the Father.

1. For to recreate belongs to him to whom it belongs to create1; but creation is most attributed and proper to the power of the Father, therefore also recreation: therefore by parity of reasoning it seems that the incarnation [belongs to him] as well.

2. Likewise, to adopt sons belongs to him to whom it belongs to beget; but the incarnation is ordered to adoption, as is said in Galatians 42: therefore it seems that it most belongs to him to whom it belongs to beget: therefore it most belongs to the Father to be incarnate.

3. Likewise, the Son has the whole of what he has from the Father3: therefore it is more fitting for the Father to have something which the Son does not have, than for the Son to have something which the Father does not have: if therefore the incarnation makes human nature be had by the person who is incarnate, it seems that this more belongs to the person of the Father than to the person of the Son.

That it more belongs to the person of the Holy Spirit is shown:

4. Because that which most has the character of grace most belongs to the mission of the Holy Spirit; but that God became man is the highest grace, as Augustine holds in the thirteenth book of On the Trinity4: therefore it seems that this ought rather to be in the person of the Holy Spirit than in the person of the Son.

5. Likewise, the Spirit of love makes us adoptive sons of God, according to that text of Romans 85: You have not received the spirit of bondage again in fear, but the spirit etc.: therefore if the incarnation exists in order that we may become adoptive sons of God, it seems that the incarnation ought most to be in the person of the Holy Spirit.

6. Likewise, to be sent expresses a subordinate authority in the one sent6, therefore being sent more belongs to him in whom the character of subordinate authority is more found; but the character of subordinate authority is more found in the person of the Holy Spirit than of the Son: therefore if the incarnation is a being-sent into flesh, it seems that it more befits the Holy Spirit than the Son.

That it more befits the Son is seen as follows.

Concerning the Son. The arguments.

1. It more befits the middle person to hold the role of mediator than another; but the incarnation is ordered to the effect of a mediator7, and the middle person in the Trinity is the person of the Word: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, it more befits the Son of God to be the son of a man8 than another person; but through the incarnation the one who is incarnate is made the son of the Virgin: therefore it seems that for the person of the Son to be incarnate is more becoming and fitting.

3. Likewise, it is more fitting for the Son to supplicate the Father9 than another person; but the incarnation is ordered to this, that there be some mediator who intercedes with God on behalf of men: therefore etc.

Conclusio.

It was more fitting for the Son to be incarnate than another divine person.

Respondeo: It must be said that the person of the Word, among the other persons, was more fitting for the incarnation, whether we speak of the incarnation in itself, or insofar as it is ordered to the redemption of the human race.

First, threefold reason. For if we speak of the incarnation in itself, it was more congruous for the person of the Son to be incarnate, both insofar as he is Image, and insofar as he is Word, and insofar as he is Son. Insofar as he is Image, because man was assumable by reason of the dignity of the image; and because the Son is the Image of the Father, therefore it was more fitting that the person of the Son should assume the creature10. — Again, because the Son of God is the Word of the Father, he proceeds from him in such a way that the Father manifests himself through him; and therefore, just as for the manifestation of an intention the intelligible word is joined to a sensible voice, so for the revelation of the divinity it was congruous that the Word of the Father be united to flesh11. — Lastly, because the Son is once begotten from eternity, and thus it was congruous that God should assume flesh, so as to be of the race of men, and so the son of a man; and therefore it became him to be incarnate rather than the Father or the Holy Spirit. And this is what Augustine says in the book On the Trinity, and the Master in the text12, that the Son of God « sought nothing but a mother on earth, because he already had a Father in heaven ». — It was therefore more becoming for the Son to be incarnate than another person, if we speak of the incarnation in itself.

Second, threefold reason. It was also more congruous, if we speak of the incarnation by comparison to the redemption of the human race; and this appears if we consider man's fall, and the manner of his repair, and the fruit of the repair. If we consider man's fall, we shall see that the fall was by seeking a false likeness and equality with God; and because equality is first attributed to the Son, hence it is that, as it were from him, fallen man took the occasion [of his fall]; and therefore from thence he ought to take his repair. And this Bernard says13 in expounding that which is said in Jonah 1: On account of me this tempest has arisen; take me up and cast me into the sea. Or certainly in this, that man had presumed the likeness of God, he sinned directly against the Son; and therefore vengeance and pardon more befitted the Son.

And this is what Anselm says in the book Why God Became Man14: « The man, for whom he was to pray, and the devil, whom he was to overcome, had both presumed a false likeness of God. Whence they sinned more especially against the Son. To him, therefore, to whom the injury is especially done, the vengeance and pardon of the fault is more fittingly attributed ». — Again, if we consider the manner of the repair, it more befits the Son. For we have been repaired through the obedience and supplication of the mediator; and because it more befits the son to supplicate and obey the father: hence it is that it more befits the person of the Son to be incarnate than another. Whence Anselm in the book Why God Became Man15: « It sounds more fitting that the Son supplicate the Father than another person ». — Lastly, if we consider the fruit or effect of the repair, it more befitted the Son to be incarnate: because the incarnation is ordered to this, that we be sons of God: if therefore the latter must be brought back through that which is prior in the same genus16, it was congruous that we should be made sons of God through him who is the natural Son. Whence Augustine in the fourth book of On the Trinity17: « That man might be born of God, first God was born of those very ones. For it was necessary that we be made adoptive sons through him who is the natural Son ».

And thus it is clear in every way that it was more fitting for the Son to be incarnate than another. — Whence the arguments which were brought forward for this are to be granted.

Solution of the opposing arguments. 1. To that which is objected, that the work of recreation more befits the Father, as does that of creation; it must be said that the Father is the author of recreation just as of creation; and just as he made all things through the Word, so also he remade all things through the Word18. But from this it does not follow that the Father ought rather to be incarnate, because the incarnation does not regard the person of the author, but of the mediator. And because the character of mediation does not befit the Father, but rather the Son; hence it is that it does not follow that the incarnation more befits the Father than the Son; rather the contrary.

2. To that which is objected concerning adoption, it must be said that it is true that adoption befits the Father as the principal author; but he ought to do this only through the Son, whose the whole inheritance is, and through whom others must be admitted to the inheritance19.

3. To that which is objected, that the Son has from the Father whatever he has; it must be said that the Son is said to have something by natural origin20, Distinction. something by gratuitous union. And if it be understood in the first way, whatever he has, he has from the Father, in such a way that the same thing which is in the Son from the Father is in the Father from himself, speaking of essentials. But if we speak of that which he has by gratuitous union, then he has it from the Father as from an effective principle, not as from a begetter; because according to this the Son is less than the Father, and because it more befits that the Son according to human nature be less than the Father; hence it is that in this way it more befits the Son to have something which the Father does not have, than the contrary21.

4. To that which is objected, that it more befits the Holy Spirit, because this is the highest grace; it must be said that by that reason it is not concluded that the incarnation ought to be done in the person of the Holy Spirit, but that the work of the incarnation ought to be attributed to the Holy Spirit; and this will be better seen below22. And similarly an answer is to be given to that which follows concerning adoption.

5. To that which is objected concerning the mission, it must be said that the mission into flesh was for redeeming from bondage; and because it is necessary that man first be freed from bondage before being adopted into sonship; hence it is that the mission into flesh befitted that person to whom it first

befitted to be sent; and because the person of the Son has being-sent only from the Father, the person of the Holy Spirit has being-sent from both: hence it is that it first became the Son to be sent into flesh, so that, the redemption accomplished, he himself together with the Father might send the Holy Spirit into the mind. And this is what the Apostle says in Galatians 4: When the fullness of time came, God sent his Son etc.; and after: That we might receive the adoption of the sons of God etc.; and after: But because you are sons of God, God sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts. Therefore it does not follow that if a greater character of subordinate authority is in the Holy Spirit than in the Son, that for that reason he ought to be sent into flesh; rather the contrary can be inferred. For the Father, because he is from no one, ought not to be sent. And this is what Augustine says in the fourth book of On the Trinity23: It was not fitting that the Father be sent by another, because he was not from another. But it was fitting that first the Son be sent, because he is from the Father alone, then the Holy Spirit, who is from the Father and the Son. First the Son came, that men might be freed; then the Holy Spirit, that men might be beatified.

Scholion

I. In this and the following (4th) question are brought forward reasons of congruity, sufficiently apt for the measure of our knowledge, so that the divine wisdom in the manner of carrying out the incarnation may be recognized and praised. To the reasons which our author brings forward can be reduced certain ones noted by other Scholastics, e.g. those which, with respect to the 3rd question, Alexander of Hales adduces concerning the twofold congruity according to what is appropriated and what is proper to the divine persons, which division is also repeated by St. Thomas in his Commentary.

On this 3rd question treat: Alex. of Hales, S. p. III. q. 2. m. 5. a. 1. — Scotus's passages collected in the Summa of Hieronymus de Montefortino, bk. IV. q. 3. a. 8. — St. Thomas, here q. 2. a. 2; S. III. q. 3. a. 8; S. against the Gentiles IV. c. 42. — Bl. Albert, here a. 7. 8. — Petr. a Tar., here q. 3. a. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2. q. 3. — Giles of Rome, here q. 2. a. 4. — Dionysius Carthusianus, here q. 3. — Biel, here q. 2.

II. On the 4th question: Alex. of Hales, loc. cit. q. 8. m. 1. — Scotus's passages collected ibid. q. 1. a. 5. 6. — St. Thomas, here q. 1. a. 4; S. III. q. 1. a. 5. 6. — Bl. Albert, here a. 1. — Petr. a Tar., here q. 2. a. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2. q. 5. — Giles of Rome, here q. 2. a. 5. — Dionysius Carthusianus, here q. 8.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. August., de Verbis Apostoli, serm. 176. (alias 20.) c. 5. n. 5: Nemo recreat, nisi qui creat; nemo reficit, nisi qui fecit. Cfr. tom. II. pag. 633, nota 3. — Quod in minori proponitur, Symbol. Apost. exprimit verbis: Credo in Deum, Patrem omnipotentem, Creatorem etc. — Proxime post pro sed creatio cod. Z sed creare.
    Augustine, On the Words of the Apostle, serm. 176 (alias 20), c. 5, n. 5: No one recreates except him who creates; no one remakes except him who made. Cf. tom. II, p. 633, note 3. — What is proposed in the minor premise the Apostles' Creed expresses in the words: I believe in God, the Father almighty, Creator etc. — Just after, for sed creatio codex Z reads sed creare.
  2. Vers. 5: Ut eos... redimeret, ut adoptionem filiorum reciperemus.
    Verse 5: That he might redeem them... that we might receive the adoption of sons.
  3. Cfr. Ioan. 5, 19. seqq. — Paulo inferius post quam Filium edd. supplent habere.
    Cf. John 5, 19 ff. — A little below, after quam Filium the editions supply habere.
  4. Cap. 19. n. 24: In rebus enim per tempus ortis illa summa gratia est, quod homo in unitate personae coniunctus est Deo. — In maiori cod. Z inter missioni et Spiritus sancti interserit personae.
    C. 19, n. 24: For among things that arise through time, this is the highest grace, that man is conjoined to God in unity of person. — In the major premise codex Z inserts personae between missioni and Spiritus sancti.
  5. Vers. 15. — Ante filios Dei codd. A N supplent esse, pro quo non pauci alii codd. cum edd. 1, 2 substituunt et.
    Verse 15. — Before filios Dei codices A N supply esse, in place of which not a few other codices, with editions 1, 2, substitute et.
  6. Cfr. 1. Sent. d. 15. p. I. q. 1. 3. et dub. 5, ubi etiam de minori subsumta videsis, in qua codd. Z bb pro quam Filii substituunt quam in persona Filii. — Quod incarnatio sit missio in carnem, August. exponit, ut videre est supra pag. 17, nota 4.
    Cf. 1 Sent. d. 15, p. I, q. 1, 3, and dub. 5, where you may also see concerning the minor premise assumed, in which codices Z bb substitute quam in persona Filii for quam Filii. — That the incarnation is a mission into flesh, Augustine explains, as can be seen above, p. 17, note 4.
  7. Vide supra pag. 19, nota 6.
    See above, p. 19, note 6.
  8. Multi codd. et edd. 1, 2 omittunt hominis, Vat. addit vel Virginis. — De hoc et seq. arg. cfr. hic corp. quaest.
    Many codices and editions 1, 2 omit hominis, the Vatican edition adds vel Virginis. — On this and the following argument cf. here the body of the question.
  9. Respicitur Hebr. 5, 7. Cfr. ibid. 7, 25. et Rom. 8, 34.
    Hebrews 5, 7 is referred to. Cf. ibid. 7, 25 and Rom. 8, 34.
  10. Tertull., de Resurrect. carnis, c. 6. ait: » Quodcumque enim limus exprimebatur, Christus cogitabatur homo futurus, quod et limus et caro Sermo [Verbum], quod et terra tunc. Sic enim praefatio Patris ad Filium: Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram. Et fecit hominem Deus. Id utique quod finxit, ad imaginem Dei fecit illum, scilicet Christi... Ita limus ille, iam tunc imaginem induens Christi futuri in carne, non tantum Dei opus erat, sed et pignus ». Iren. V. contra Haeres. c. 16. n. 2. ait: In praeteritis enim temporibus dicebatur quidem secundum imaginem Dei factum esse hominem, non autem ostendebatur. Adhuc enim invisibile erat Verbum, cuius secundum imaginem homo factus fuerat. Propter hoc autem et similitudinem facile amisit. Quando autem caro Verbum Dei factum est, utraque confirmavit: et imaginem enim ostendit veram, ipse hoc fiens, quod erat imago eius; et similitudinem firmans restituit, consimilem faciens hominem invisibili Patri per visibile Verbum. Cfr. Rom. 5, 14; 8, 29; II. Cor. 4, 4; Coloss. 1, 18. et supra a. 1. q. 1. fundam. 3. nec non infra d. 2. a. 1. q. 1. seq. — Pro creaturam in edd. habetur carnem.
    Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh, c. 6, says: » For whatever clay was being expressed, Christ was being thought of as the man to come, who is both clay and flesh — the Word [Word], who is also earth then. For thus is the Father's preface to the Son: Let us make man to our image and likeness. And God made man. That very thing which he fashioned, he made to the image of God, namely of Christ... Thus that clay, already then putting on the image of the Christ to come in the flesh, was not only God's work but also a pledge ». Irenaeus, Against Heresies V, c. 16, n. 2, says: For in past times it was indeed said that man had been made according to the image of God, but it was not shown. For the Word, according to whose image man had been made, was still invisible. And on this account he also easily lost the likeness. But when the flesh became the Word of God, it confirmed both: for it showed the image to be true, becoming himself that which was his image; and confirming the likeness it restored it, making man like to the invisible Father through the visible Word. Cf. Rom. 5, 14; 8, 29; 2 Cor. 4, 4; Col. 1, 18, and above a. 1. q. 1. fund. 3, and also below d. 2. a. 1. q. 1 f. — For creaturam the editions have carnem.
  11. Cfr. August., XV. de Trin. c. 11. n. 20. Cfr. etiam 1. Sent. d. 27. p. II. q. 4. — Paulo superius pro intelligibile edd. atque aliqui codd. intellectuale. Paulo inferius pro congruebat, Deum edd. congruebat, eum.
    Cf. Augustine, On the Trinity XV, c. 11, n. 20. Cf. also 1 Sent. d. 27, p. II, q. 4. — A little above, for intelligibile the editions and some codices read intellectuale. A little below, for congruebat, Deum the editions read congruebat, eum.
  12. Non ad verbum quidem, sed sententialiter August., II. de Trin. c. 5. n. 8; IV. c. 20. n. 27. seq., et hic in lit. Magistri c. 1; ad verbum autem illa sententia expressa habetur in August., tr. 2. in Ioan. Evang. n. 15.
    Not indeed word for word, but in sense, Augustine, On the Trinity II, c. 5, n. 8; IV, c. 20, n. 27 f., and here in the text of the Master, c. 1; word for word that statement is found expressed in Augustine, Tract. 2 on John's Gospel, n. 15.
  13. Serm. 1. de Adventu Domini, n. 4: Revera enim principes nostri Adam et Eva... inobedientes et socii furum; qui quod Filii Dei est... surripere tentant. Nec dissimulat iniuriam Filii Pater... Quid agat Filius, videns pro se zelare Patrem et nulli penitus parcere creaturae? Ecce, inquit, occasione mei creaturas suas Pater amittit. Altitudinem meam primus angelus affectavit... Scientiam quoque, quae nihilominus mea est, surripere voluit homo... ecce, propter me angelos perdidit multos, homines universos. Ergo ut sciant, quia et ego diligo Patrem, per me recipiat quos quodam modo propter me amisisse videtur. Si propter me tempestas haec orta est, ait Ionas (1, 12.), tollite me et mittite in mare.
    Sermon 1 On the Advent of the Lord, n. 4: For truly our first parents Adam and Eve... were disobedient and companions of thieves; who tried to steal what belongs to the Son of God... Nor does the Father conceal the injury done to the Son... What is the Son to do, seeing the Father zealous on his behalf and sparing no creature at all? Behold, he says, on my account the Father loses his creatures. The first angel coveted my loftiness... My knowledge likewise, which is no less mine, man wished to steal... behold, on my account he lost many angels and all men. Therefore, that they may know that I too love the Father, let him receive back through me those whom in a certain way he seems to have lost on my account. If on my account this tempest has arisen, says Jonah (1, 12), take me up and cast me into the sea.
  14. Libr. II. c. 9, quem locum textus originalis sic exhibet: Homo... similitudinem Dei per propriam voluntatem praesumserant. Unde quasi specialius adversus personam Filii peccaverunt, qui vera Patris similitudo creditur. Illi itaque, cui specialius fit... vindicta aut indulgentia. — In initio testimonii edd. verbum oraturus commutarunt in moriturus.
    Bk. II, c. 9, which passage the original text presents thus: Man... had presumed the likeness of God by his own will. Whence they sinned, as it were, more especially against the person of the Son, who is believed to be the true likeness of the Father. To him, therefore, to whom the injury is more especially done... vengeance or pardon. — At the beginning of the testimony the editions changed the word oraturus into moriturus.
  15. Libr. II. c. 9. Cfr. de Fide Trinit. c. 5.
    Bk. II, c. 9. Cf. On the Faith of the Trinity, c. 5.
  16. Cfr. Aristot., II. Metaph. text. 4. (l. brevior c. 1.) et tom. II. pag. 94, nota 4.
    Cf. Aristotle, Metaphysics II, text 4 (in the shorter book, c. 1) and tom. II, p. 94, note 4.
  17. Cap. 20. n. 27. seq., sed sententialiter tantum (de quo vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 1.). Cfr. etiam II. de Trin. c. 5. n. 7. seqq. et XIII. c. 19. n. 24. Codd. et edd. hic et in fine quaest. lectorem delegant ad libr. III. de Trin., ubi neque haec neque similis sententia reperit; at in S. August., tr. 2. in Ioan. Evang. n. 15. habetur fere ad verbum. Legitur enim ibi: Ut autem homines nascerentur ex Deo, primo ex ipsis natus est Deus. Christus enim Deus et Christus natus ex hominibus... natus ex Deo, per quem efficeremur, et natus ex femina, per quem reficeremur. Noli ergo mirari, o homo, quia efficeris filius per gratiam, quia nasceris ex Deo secundum Verbum eius. Prius ipsum Verbum voluit nasci ex homine, ut tu securus nascereris ex Deo etc.
    C. 20, n. 27 f., but only in sense (on which see here the text of the Master, c. 1). Cf. also On the Trinity II, c. 5, n. 7 ff. and XIII, c. 19, n. 24. The codices and editions here and at the end of the question refer the reader to bk. III On the Trinity, where neither this nor a similar statement is found; but in St. Augustine, Tract. 2 on John's Gospel, n. 15, it is had almost word for word. For there one reads: But that men might be born of God, first God was born of those very ones. For Christ is God and Christ was born of men... born of God, through whom we might be made, and born of a woman, through whom we might be remade. Do not wonder, therefore, O man, that you are made a son through grace, because you are born of God according to his Word. First the Word itself willed to be born of man, that you, made secure, might be born of God etc.
  18. August., Enarrat. in Ps. 142. n. 17: Tu es Deus meus, qui Creator meus, qui creasti me per Verbum tuum, et recreasti me per Verbum. Sed creasti me per Verbum Deum manentem apud te; recreasti per Verbum carnem factum propter nos. Cfr. Enarrat. in Ps. 45. n. 14. — Paulo inferius pro mediationis edd. et nonnulli codd. mediatoris, ubi prosequitur cod. cc non convenit magis Patri quam Filio; hinc est. Circa finem solut. non pauci codd. convenit pro conveniat.
    Augustine, Enarrat. on Ps. 142, n. 17: You are my God, who are my Creator, who created me through your Word, and recreated me through the Word. But you created me through the Word remaining God with you; you recreated me through the Word made flesh for our sake. Cf. Enarrat. on Ps. 45, n. 14. — A little below, for mediationis the editions and some codices read mediatoris, where codex cc continues non convenit magis Patri quam Filio; hinc est. Toward the end of the solution not a few codices read convenit for conveniat.
  19. Rom. 8, 17: Si autem filii, et heredes; heredes quidem Dei, coheredes autem Christi. — Pro debent admitti codd. M O admittuntur, et paulo ante pro alii cod. bb filii.
    Rom. 8, 17: But if sons, also heirs; heirs indeed of God, and joint-heirs with Christ. — For debent admitti codices M O read admittuntur, and a little before, for alii codex bb reads filii.
  20. Plurimi codd. et edd. 1, 2 ordinem, quae lectio explicari poterit textu 1. Sent. d. 20. a. 2. q. 2, ubi ordo naturae in divinis admitti posse docetur, quatenus non dicat nisi ordinem naturalis originis.
    Very many codices and editions 1, 2 read ordinem, which reading can be explained by the text of 1 Sent. d. 20, a. 2, q. 2, where it is taught that an order of nature can be admitted in the divine [persons], insofar as it expresses nothing but the order of natural origin.
  21. Cfr. August., IV. de Trin. c. 19. n. 26. seqq.
    Cf. Augustine, On the Trinity IV, c. 19, n. 26 ff.
  22. Dist. 4. a. 1. q. 1. — Paulo inferius pro quod sequitur cod. K quod non sequitur.
    Dist. 4. a. 1. q. 1. — A little below, for quod sequitur codex K reads quod non sequitur.
  23. Cap. 20. n. 27. seqq. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 1. — Paulo inferius pro quia a solo codd. A N P Q T U V et edd. 1, 2 qui a solo; dein codd. A V bis demum pro deinde; denique in fine solut. cod. V post Spiritus sanctus addit qui est a Patre et a Filio.
    C. 20, n. 27 ff. See here the text of the Master, c. 1. — A little below, for quia a solo codices A N P Q T U V and editions 1, 2 read qui a solo; then codices A V twice read demum for deinde; finally at the end of the solution codex V adds after Spiritus sanctus the words qui est a Patre et a Filio.
← Dist. 1, Art. 2, Q. 2Dist. 1, Art. 2, Q. 4→