Bonaventure — Opera Omnia

Dist. 12, Art. 1, Q. 1

Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word · Distinction 12

Textus Latinus

p. 261

ARTICULUS I. De congruitate naturae assumtae quoad genus.

QUAESTIO I. Utrum decuerit Filium Dei assumere humanam naturam de massa perditionis.

Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum decuerit Filium Dei assumere humanam naturam de massa perditionis sive de genere Adam. Et quod non, videtur.

1. Alterius qualitatis et naturae debet esse morbus et medicina^p261-2: ergo si Christus ratione naturae assumtae fuit humani generis medicina, videtur igitur, quod eius caro non debuerit formari de massa corrupta.

p. 262

2. Item, nobili formae nobilis debet aptari materia^p262-1: ergo si anima Christi fuit purissima et immunis ab omni peccato, videtur, quod caro Christi debuerit esse ab omni corruptione aliena: non ergo de massa corrupta, ac per hoc nec de genere Adam.

3. Item, improperium parentum redundat in prolem, secundum quod dicit Sapiens^p262-2; sed Christus debuit esse omnino immunis ab omni peccati improperio: ergo non debuit esse de genere hominis primi.

4. Item, debitum parentum imputatur proli; sed mediator debuit esse absque omni debito, ut eius solutio omnino acceptaretur a Deo, sicut dicit Anselmus^p262-3: ergo non debuit exire de genere Adae.

Sed contra: 1. Ad Hebraeos secundo^p262-4: Qui sanctificat et qui sanctificatur, ex uno omnes; sed Christus est qui sanctificat, qui vero sanctificantur sunt filii Adam: videtur igitur, quod sicut alii sunt de genere Adae, ita Christus fuerit et debuerit esse.

2. Item, pro culpa hominis non decet nisi hominem satisfacere, ergo pro culpa omnium filiorum Adae et ipsius Adae nullus debet satisfacere, nisi qui sit filius Adam; sed Christus satisfecit pro culpa nostra: ergo debuit esse de nostro genere et de nostra massa^p262-5.

3. Item, si homo stetisset, nulli alii generi creaturae esset obnoxius, tanquam per ipsum haberet stare: ergo si homo per Christum revocatur in pristinam dignitatem, videtur, quod nulli alii generi creaturae debuit esse obnoxius, tanquam per illud resurgeret. Sed resurrexit per Christum: ergo videtur, quod Christus secundum carnem debuit esse de genere carnis vitiatae^p262-6.

4. Item, tanto congruentior est mediator, quanto proximior est utriusque generi: si ergo congruentissimus mediator fuit Christus inter homines peccatores et Deum^p262-7: ergo debuit esse de genere hominum peccatorum.

CONCLUSIO.

Magis congruum fuit, quod Filius Dei assumeret carnem de genere Adam quam aliunde, licet Deus aliter disponere potuisset.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod absque dubio Dei Filius potuisset carnem assumere aliunde quam de massa corrupta, sive aliunde, quam ex his qui processerunt de genere Adam^p262-8; magis tamen congruebat, quod de genere Adae carnem assumeret. Et licet multae sint congruentiae, quae nos latent, iuxta multiformitatem sapientiae Dei, tamen secundum verba et dicta Sanctorum quatuor possunt rationes congruentiae assignari^p262-9.

Prima est propter conservandam rectitudinem iustitiae, ut videlicet eiusdem generis esset satisfactor et praevaricator. Nam si alterius generis esset, non attribueretur eidem generi satisfactio, cui et offensio; ac per hoc non recte servaretur iustitiae rectitudo, quae ab illo genere requirit emendam, in quo reperit praecedentem offensam.

Secunda est propter manifestandam dulcedinem misericordiae, ut videlicet ipse Dominus, qui ab homine contemptus fuerat tanquam ab adversario et inimico, ipse idem generi humano uniretur in Christo in unitatem personae; in quo manifestatur mira Dei condescensio in hoc, quod ipse genus humanum sibi inimicum coniungere voluit in indissolubile vinculum, iuxta illud quod dicitur ad Romanos quinto^p262-10: Commendat autem caritatem suam Deus etc.

p. 263

Tertia ratio est ad declarandam ordinationem sapientiae, quae quidem ordinatio nullo potest infringi vitio. Decreverat enim Deus et ordinaverat, ut genus humanum totum multiplicaretur et disseminaretur ex uno, propter repraesentationem illius universalis principii, quod Deus est; nec hoc per peccatum infringi debuit: et ideo Christus, mediator Dei et hominum^p263-1, homo verus, non aliunde, sed de massa totius generis humani debuit formari.

Quarta vero ratio est ad conservandam altitudinem humanae naturae, quam Deus in tanta dignitate condiderat, ut nulli alii generi creaturae, sed soli Deo esset obnoxia. Si ergo non modicum est obnoxia Redemptori, decens est, ut Redemptor aut solum esset Deus, aut si haberet in se genus naturae creatae, hoc esset de genere illius massae, quae ortum habet a lumbis Adae.

Propter has igitur quatuor rationes congruentiae, quae apparent manifeste et a verbis Sanctorum habent firmitatem, concedendum est, quod non solum fuit congruum, quod Christus assumeret carnem de nostro genere ad reparationem humanae naturae, verum etiam hoc magis fuit congruum, quam quod alio modo faceret, licet alio modo facere posset^p263-2. — Unde rationes hoc probantes sunt concedendae.

1. Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur, quod alterius naturae debet esse morbus et medicina; dicendum, quod verum est pro eo tempore, in quo res potest dici medicina, alterius, inquam, generis, non quantum ad naturam, sed quantum ad vim curativam; et sic fuit in Christo, quia ipse non erat infectus corruptione concupiscentiae, sed habebat in se plenitudinem gratiae. Unde et Apostolus^p263-3 dicit, quod primus homo fuit de terra terrenus, secundus de caelo caelestis, non propter diversitatem naturae vel materiae, sed propter differentiam quantum ad qualitatem virtutis et vitii, gratiae et culpae. — Quodsi velit instare, quod morbus et medicina sunt diversarum naturarum simpliciter; dicendum, quod hoc habet locum in medicina, cuius operatio est per vim naturae, non per actum voluntatis deliberativae.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod nobilis materia debet respondere nobili formae; dicendum, quod verum est de materia disposita dispositione ultima,^p263-4 quae est necessitas; sed de materia remota non oportet, quoniam omnis nobilitas consurgit ex forma ipsi materiae superaddita. Et quoniam massa humani generis non est proxima materia respectu animae Christi; ideo non sequitur, quod corpus Christi non fuerit de illa massa; sed caro organizata et perfecta complexione^p263-5 aptata fuit illius materia; et de hac bene licet inferre, quod valde nobilis fuit, cum ad nobilissimam animam aptata esset; unde optime fuit complexionata et ab omni corruptione et foeditate concupiscentiae aliena. Ex hoc tamen non licet inferre, quod non fuerit sumta de illa corruptionis massa; ita enim pura fuit illa caro per virtutem Spiritus agentem, sicut si de caelesti substantia sumta fuisset^p263-6.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod improperium parentum redundat in filium; dicendum, quod verum est, cum filius est imitator scelerum patris^p263-7; cum autem ei contrarius et oppositus est quantum ad mores, non debet in eum iuste redundare, nisi ipse filius mera sua benignitate improperium patris portare velit et sustinere. Et sic in proposito intelligendum est fuisse. Unde Christus non ex merito, vel necessitate sustinuit improperium Adae, sed ex mera sua benignitate, ut, dum ipse sustineret pro alio quod ex se non meruit, alius liberaretur ab improperio, quod ex sua culpa promeruit.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod debitum parentum imputatur proli; dicendum, quod hoc verum est, cum proles succedit parentibus in hereditate; et quoniam Christus a parentibus concupiscentiam non hereditavit, per quam homo obligatur^p263-8 poenae; hinc est, quod nullius poenae fuit debitor, sed liberalis et voluntarius persolutor.

p. 264

SCHOLION.

I. Duae huius articuli quaestiones continuant disputationem de congruitate incarnationis ex parte rei assumtae, quae inchoata est supra d. 2. a. I. q. 1–4. Cum opera Dei omnia sint maxime congrua, respectu habito ad eorum finem, de ipsis conclusionibus non potest esse dubium, nec de principalibus rationibus congruentiae.

De I. quaestione: Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 2. m. 8. — Scot. tangit rem in utroque Scripto d. 20. q. unica. — S. Thom., III. Sent. d. 2. q. 1. a. 2. quaestiunc. 2; S. III. q. 4. a. 6. — B. Albert., hic a. 2. — Petr. a Tar., II. Sent. d. 2. q. I. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. I. q. I. — Durand. hic q. 3. — Dionys. Carth., de hac et seq. q. hic q. 3. — Biel, de hac et seqq. qq. hic q. unica.

De seq. (2.) quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. m. 9. — S. Thom., Comment. loc. cit. quaestiunc. 3. — B. Albert., hic a. 4. — Petr. a Tar. rem tangit loc. cit. ad 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. I. q. 2.

---

English Translation

Article I. On the fittingness of the assumed nature with respect to its kind.

Question I. Whether it was fitting that the Son of God should assume human nature from the mass of perdition.

Concerning the first point one proceeds thus, and it is asked whether it was fitting that the Son of God should assume human nature from the mass of perdition, that is, from the kind of Adam. And it seems that it was not.

1. Disease and medicine ought to be of another quality and nature^p261-2: therefore, if Christ by reason of the assumed nature was the medicine of the human race, it seems then that his flesh ought not to have been formed from the corrupt mass.

2. Likewise, to a noble form noble matter ought to be fitted^p262-1: therefore, if Christ's soul was most pure and free from all sin, it seems that Christ's flesh ought to have been alien from all corruption: therefore not from the corrupt mass, and on account of this neither from the kind of Adam.

3. Likewise, the reproach of parents redounds upon the offspring, according to what the Wise Man says^p262-2; but Christ ought to have been entirely free from every reproach of sin: therefore he ought not to have been of the kind of the first man.

4. Likewise, the debt of parents is imputed to the offspring; but the mediator ought to have been without any debt, so that his payment might be entirely accepted by God, as Anselm says^p262-3: therefore he ought not to have come forth from the kind of Adam.

On the contrary: 1. To the Hebrews, chapter two^p262-4: He that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one; but Christ is he who sanctifies, while those who are sanctified are the sons of Adam: it seems therefore that, just as the others are of the kind of Adam, so also Christ was and ought to have been.

2. Likewise, for man's fault none is fitting to make satisfaction except man; therefore for the fault of all the sons of Adam and of Adam himself none ought to make satisfaction except one who is a son of Adam; but Christ made satisfaction for our fault: therefore he ought to have been of our kind and of our mass^p262-5.

3. Likewise, if man had stood firm, he would have been subject to no other kind of creature, inasmuch as he would have his standing through himself: therefore if man is recalled through Christ to his pristine dignity, it seems that he ought to have been subject to no other kind of creature, as though he should rise again through it. But he rose again through Christ: therefore it seems that Christ according to the flesh ought to have been of the kind of vitiated flesh^p262-6.

4. Likewise, the mediator is the more fitting the nearer he is to both kinds: if therefore Christ was the most fitting mediator between sinful men and God^p262-7: therefore he ought to have been of the kind of sinful men.

Conclusion.

It was more fitting that the Son of God should assume flesh from the kind of Adam than from elsewhere, although God could have arranged it otherwise.

I respond: It must be said that without doubt the Son of God could have assumed flesh from elsewhere than from the corrupt mass, that is, from elsewhere than from those who proceeded from the kind of Adam^p262-8; yet it was more fitting that he should assume flesh from the kind of Adam. And although there are many fittingnesses which lie hidden from us, according to the manifold character of God's wisdom, nevertheless according to the words and sayings of the Saints four grounds of fittingness can be assigned^p262-9.

The first is for the sake of preserving the rectitude of justice, namely so that the one making satisfaction and the transgressor should be of the same kind. For if he were of another kind, the satisfaction would not be attributed to the same kind to which the offense also belongs; and on account of this the rectitude of justice would not be rightly preserved, which requires amends from that kind in which it finds the preceding offense.

The second is for the sake of manifesting the sweetness of mercy, namely so that the Lord himself, who had been despised by man as by an adversary and enemy, the very same should be united to the human kind in Christ into a unity of person; in which is manifested God's wondrous condescension in this, that he willed to join to himself the human kind, which was hostile to him, in an indissoluble bond, according to that which is said to the Romans, chapter five^p262-10: But God commendeth his charity etc.

The third ground is for declaring the ordering of wisdom, which ordering indeed can be infringed by no vice. For God had decreed and ordained that the whole human kind should be multiplied and disseminated from one, for the sake of representing that universal principle which God is; nor ought this to have been infringed through sin: and therefore Christ, the mediator of God and men^p263-1, a true man, ought to have been formed not from elsewhere, but from the mass of the whole human kind.

The fourth ground is for the sake of preserving the loftiness of human nature, which God had established in such great dignity that it should be subject to no other kind of creature, but to God alone. If therefore it is in no small measure subject to the Redeemer, it is fitting that the Redeemer should either be God alone, or, if he had in himself a kind of created nature, this should be of the kind of that mass which takes its origin from the loins of Adam.

On account of these four grounds of fittingness, therefore, which appear manifestly and have their firmness from the words of the Saints, it must be conceded that not only was it fitting that Christ should assume flesh from our kind for the repair of human nature, but also that this was more fitting than that he should do it in another way, although he could do it in another way^p263-2. — Hence the grounds proving this are to be conceded.

1. To that, therefore, which is objected first, that disease and medicine ought to be of another nature; it must be said that this is true for the time in which a thing can be called medicine — of another kind, I say, not with respect to nature, but with respect to curative power; and so it was in Christ, since he was not infected by the corruption of concupiscence, but had in himself the fullness of grace. Hence the Apostle^p263-3 also says that the first man was of the earth, earthy; the second from heaven, heavenly, not on account of a diversity of nature or matter, but on account of a difference with respect to the quality of virtue and vice, of grace and fault. — But if one wishes to insist that disease and medicine are simply of diverse natures; it must be said that this has its place in a medicine whose operation is through the power of nature, not through an act of deliberative will.

2. To that which is objected, that noble matter ought to correspond to a noble form; it must be said that it is true of matter disposed by an ultimate disposition^p263-4, which is necessity; but of remote matter it does not hold, since all nobility arises from the form superadded to the matter itself. And since the mass of the human kind is not the proximate matter with respect to Christ's soul, it does not follow that Christ's body was not of that mass; but the flesh, organized and fitted by a perfect complexion^p263-5, was its matter; and of this it is well permitted to infer that it was very noble, since it was fitted to a most noble soul; whence it was excellently complexioned and alien from all corruption and the foulness of concupiscence. Yet from this it is not permitted to infer that it was not taken from that mass of corruption; for so pure was that flesh through the power of the working Spirit, as if it had been taken from a heavenly substance^p263-6.

3. To that which is objected, that the reproach of parents redounds upon the son; it must be said that it is true when the son is an imitator of the crimes of the father^p263-7; but when he is contrary and opposed to him with respect to morals, it ought not justly to redound upon him, unless the son himself by his own mere kindness wishes to bear and sustain the reproach of the father. And so it is to be understood to have been in the case at hand. Hence Christ sustained the reproach of Adam not from merit or necessity, but from his own mere kindness, so that, while he himself sustained for another what he did not merit of himself, the other might be freed from the reproach which he had merited by his own fault.

4. To that which is objected, that the debt of parents is imputed to the offspring; it must be said that this is true when the offspring succeeds the parents in the inheritance; and since Christ did not inherit concupiscence from his parents, through which man is bound^p263-8 to punishment; hence it is that he was debtor to no punishment, but a liberal and voluntary payer.

Scholion.

I. The two questions of this article continue the disputation on the fittingness of the incarnation on the part of the thing assumed, which was begun above at d. 2, a. I, q. 1–4. Since all the works of God are most fitting, regard being had to their end, there can be no doubt about the conclusions themselves, nor about the principal grounds of fittingness.

On Question I: Alexander of Hales, Summa, p. III, q. 2, m. 8. — Scotus touches the matter in both Scripta, d. 20, q. unica. — St. Thomas, III Sent., d. 2, q. 1, a. 2, quaestiuncula 2; Summa III, q. 4, a. 6. — Bl. Albert, here a. 2. — Peter of Tarentaise, II Sent., d. 2, q. I, a. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. I, q. I. — Durandus, here q. 3. — Dionysius the Carthusian, on this and the following question, here q. 3. — Biel, on this and the following questions, here q. unica.

On the following (2nd) question: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. m. 9. — St. Thomas, Commentary, loc. cit. quaestiuncula 3. — Bl. Albert, here a. 4. — Peter of Tarentaise touches the matter loc. cit. ad 3. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. I, q. 2.

---

Apparatus Criticus

Gregor., II. Homil. in Evang. homil. 32. n. 1: Arte medicinae calida frigidis, frigida calidis curantur. — Paulo inferius pro quod eius caro codd. E G (I primitus) L T U V X aa quod ei caro.
Gregory, Bk. II of the Homilies on the Gospel, homily 32, n. 1: By the art of medicine hot things are cured by cold, cold things by hot. — A little below, for quod eius caro ("that his flesh") the codices E G (I in the first hand) L T U V X aa read quod ei caro ("that to him flesh").
Aristot., II. de Generat. animal. c. 3. Vide tom. II. pag. 380, nota 1, ubi ipsa Philosophi verba allata sunt. — Pro nobili edd. nobiliori, pro aptari codd. K T Z adaptari, pro materia codd. I L V Z aa natura.
Aristotle, II On the Generation of Animals, c. 3. See vol. II, p. 380, note 1, where the Philosopher's own words are cited. — For nobili ("noble") the editions read nobiliori ("more noble"); for aptari ("be fitted") the codices K T Z read adaptari ("be adapted"); for materia ("matter") the codices I L V Z aa read natura ("nature").
Eccli. 3, 12. 13: Ne glorieris in contumelia patris tui; non enim est tibi gloria eius confusio. Gloria enim hominis ex honore patris sui, et dedecus filii pater sine honore.
Ecclesiasticus 3:12–13: Glory not in the dishonour of thy father; for his shame is no glory to thee. For the glory of a man is from the honour of his father, and a father without honour is the disgrace of the son.
Libr. I. Cur Deus homo, c. 22. et II. c. 11. — Subinde pro exire edd. esse.
Bk. I of Why God Became Man, c. 22, and Bk. II, c. 11. — Thereupon, for exire ("to come forth") the editions read esse ("to be").
Vers. 11. — In fine arg. edd. voculae ita adiungunt etiam.
Verse 11. — At the end of the argument the editions add to the little word ita also etiam.
Sic et Anselm., II. Cur Deus homo, c. 8. Cfr. August., de Vera Relig. c. 16. n. 30. — Pro ipsius Adae cod. N ipsius etiam Adae.
So also Anselm, II Why God Became Man, c. 8. Cf. Augustine, On True Religion, c. 16, n. 30. — For ipsius Adae ("of Adam himself") the codex N reads ipsius etiam Adae ("also of Adam himself").
Cfr. Anselm., II. Cur Deus homo, c. 8. et I. c. 5, nec non August., XIII. de Trin. c. 18. n. 23.
Cf. Anselm, II Why God Became Man, c. 8, and Bk. I, c. 5, as well as Augustine, XIII On the Trinity, c. 18, n. 23.
Cfr. supra pag. 19, nota 6. — Paulo superius pro utriusque generi codd. K P Q R aa bb utrique generi, codd. M O utrique extremo.
Cf. above, p. 19, note 6. — A little above, for utriusque generi ("to both kinds") the codices K P Q R aa bb read utrique generi ("to each kind"), the codices M O utrique extremo ("to each extreme").
Cfr. verba August. hic in lit. Magistri, c. 1. allegata, nec non infra d. 20. q. 6. — Pro verbo processerunt codd. H I K L T aa praecesserunt, codd. G Z praecesserant.
Cf. the words of Augustine cited here in the Master's text, c. 1, as well as below at d. 20, q. 6. — For the word processerunt ("proceeded") the codices H I K L T aa read praecesserunt ("went before"), the codices G Z praecesserant ("had gone before").
August. et Anselm., quos iam supra allegavimus, praecipue primam et quartam rationem afferunt; de secunda ratione cfr. Chrysost., Homil. 5. in Epist. ad Hebr. n. 1. 2; de tertia Fulgent., de Incarn. Filii Dei, n. 14, et II. Sent. d. 18. a. 1. q. 1. et dub. 1. Cfr. etiam Hugo de S. Vict., I. de Sacram. p. VIII. c. 10, et Richard. a S. Vict., I. de Emmanuele, c. 10. seqq. — Mox pro conservandam cod. bb observandam. Paulo inferius pro quae ab illo genere requirit emendam cod. F nisi ab illo genere inquireret et emendam.
Augustine and Anselm, whom we have already cited above, adduce especially the first and fourth grounds; on the second ground cf. Chrysostom, Homily 5 on the Epistle to the Hebrews, n. 1, 2; on the third Fulgentius, On the Incarnation of the Son of God, n. 14, and II Sent., d. 18, a. 1, q. 1, and dub. 1. Cf. also Hugh of St. Victor, I On the Sacraments, p. VIII, c. 10, and Richard of St. Victor, I On Emmanuel, c. 10 ff. — Presently, for conservandam ("preserving") the codex bb reads observandam ("observing"). A little below, for quae ab illo genere requirit emendam ("which requires amends from that kind") the codex F reads nisi ab illo genere inquireret et emendam ("unless it should inquire amends from that kind").
Vers. 8. — Paulo superius pro mira Dei codd. A bb mira divinae pietatis. Deinde pro indissolubile vinculum cod. Z (bb a secunda manu) in indissolubili vinculo, cod. K per indissolubile vinculum. Paulo inferius voci sapientiae Vat. praemittit divinae.
Verse 8. — A little above, for mira Dei ("God's wondrous") the codices A bb read mira divinae pietatis ("the wondrous of divine piety"). Then for indissolubile vinculum ("indissoluble bond") the codex Z (bb in a second hand) reads in indissolubili vinculo ("in an indissoluble bond"), the codex K per indissolubile vinculum ("through an indissoluble bond"). A little below, the Vatican edition prefixes divinae ("of the divine") to the word sapientiae ("wisdom").
Epist. I. Tim. 2, 5. — Paulo ante pro nec hoc per multi codd. cum edd. 1, 2, verbis perperam transpositis, nec per hoc. In enuntiato, quod sequitur, Vat. ante altitudinem interiicit dignitatem et ac deinde pro condiderat substituit constituerat.
1 Timothy 2:5. — A little before, for nec hoc per ("nor this through") many codices, together with editions 1, 2, with the words wrongly transposed, read nec per hoc ("nor through this"). In the statement which follows, the Vatican edition inserts dignitatem et ("dignity and") before altitudinem ("loftiness"), and then substitutes constituerat ("had constituted") for condiderat ("had established").
Vat. potuisset.
The Vatican edition reads potuisset ("could have").
Epist. I. Cor. 15, 47. — August., I. de Doctr. christ. c. 14. n. 13: Et quemadmodum medici, cum alligant vulnera, non incomposite, sed apte id faciunt... sic medicina Sapientiae per hominis susceptionem nostris est accommodata vulneribus, de quibusdam contrariis curans, et de quibusdam similibus... Quia ergo per superbiam homo lapsus est, humilitatem adhibuit ad sanandum... Ad eadem contraria pertinet, quod etiam exemplo virtutum eius vitia nostra curantur. Iam vero similia quasi ligamenta membris et vulneribus adhibita illa sunt, quod per feminam deceptus per feminam natus, homo homines, mortalis mortales, morte mortuos liberavit. Cfr. supra d. 3. p. I. a. 2. q. 1. et p. II. a. 2. q. 1. seq., nec non Gregor., XXIV. Moral. c. 2. n. 2. — Paulo superius edd. omittunt inquam.
1 Corinthians 15:47. — Augustine, I On Christian Doctrine, c. 14, n. 13: And just as physicians, when they bind up wounds, do so not carelessly but aptly... so the medicine of Wisdom, through the taking-on of man, was accommodated to our wounds, curing some by contraries and some by likenesses... Since therefore man fell through pride, he applied humility to heal him... To the same contraries it pertains that our vices are cured also by the example of his virtues. But now the likenesses are, as it were, bandages applied to limbs and wounds, in that, deceived through a woman, born through a woman, a man freed men, a mortal mortals, by death the dead. Cf. above d. 3, p. I, a. 2, q. 1, and p. II, a. 2, q. 1 f., as well as Gregory, XXIV Morals, c. 2, n. 2. — A little above, the editions omit inquam ("I say").
Id est, in qua (dispositione ultima) materia cogitur ad recipiendam illam formam. Cfr. tom. II. pag. 471, nota 2. — Pro necessitas Vat. necessitatis, et mox pro materiae cum edd. 1, 2 naturae.
That is, [the disposition] in which (the ultimate disposition) the matter is compelled to receive that form. Cf. vol. II, p. 471, note 2. — For necessitas ("necessity") the Vatican edition reads necessitatis ("of necessity"), and presently for materiae ("of matter"), with editions 1, 2, naturae ("of nature").
Edd. et non pauci codd. completione. Cfr. supra d. 3. p. II. a. 3. q. 2, II. Sent. d. 17. a. 2. q. 2. ad 6. et q. 3.
The editions and not a few codices read completione ("completion"). Cf. above d. 3, p. II, a. 3, q. 2, II Sent., d. 17, a. 2, q. 2, ad 6, and q. 3.
Vide supra d. 3. p. II. a. 2. q. 1. seq. — Post Spiritus cod. bb (K Z a secunda manu) adiicit sancti.
See above d. 3, p. II, a. 2, q. 1 f. — After Spiritus ("Spirit") the codex bb (K Z in a second hand) adds sancti ("holy").
Cfr. II. Sent. d. 33. a. I. q. I. — Bene multi codd. minus congrue sceleris patrum, cod. A sceleris paterni. Paulo inferius post iuste Vat. interserit quantum ad poenam.
Cf. II Sent., d. 33, a. I, q. I. — Indeed many codices read, less fittingly, sceleris patrum ("of the crime of the fathers"), the codex A sceleris paterni ("of the paternal crime"). A little below, after iuste ("justly") the Vatican edition inserts quantum ad poenam ("with respect to punishment").
Edd. cum pluribus codd. obligatus est.
The editions, with several codices, read obligatus est ("is bound").

← Dist. 12, Divisio Textus Dist. 12, Art. 1, Q. 2→