Bonaventure — Opera Omnia

Dist. 15, Art. 1, Q. 1

Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word · Distinction 15

Textus Latinus

p. 330

Articulus I. De defectibus assumtis a Christo in generali.

Quaestio I. Utrum congruum fuerit, tales defectus in Christo reperiri.

Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum congruum fuerit, tales defectus in Christo reperiri. Et quod sic, videtur.

Fundamenta. 1. Ad Hebraeos secundo^p330-1: Debuit per omnia fratribus assimilari, ut misericors fieret et fidelis pontifex ad Deum: si ergo decebat, Christum in se habere illa quae faciunt ad fidelitatem et misericordiam, et haec sunt illa, in quibus nobis assimilatur secundum statum miseriae, cuiusmodi sunt defectus et poenalitates: ergo huiusmodi in Christo reperiri debent.

2. Item, ad Hebraeos quarto^p330-2: Non habemus pontificem, qui non possit compati infirmitatibus nostris, tentatum per omnia pro similitudine absque peccato. Ex isto verbo arguitur ita: bonus pontifex debet compati his qui ignorant et errant; sed Christus assumsit humanam naturam, ut fieret noster pontifex: ergo debuit ea in se assumere, quae faciunt ad compassionem. Huiusmodi autem sunt defectus et poenalitates nostrae naturae: ergo etc.

3. Item, Christus ad hoc assumsit naturam humanam, ut nobis in illa mereretur vitam aeternam, quam primus parens nobis abstulerat; sed meritum praecipuum consistit in tolerantia passionum et defectuum humanorum: si ergo decuit Christum praecipuo merito mereri, decuit per consequens, huiusmodi defectus et passiones in ipso reperiri^p330-3.

4. Item, ad hoc assumsit Christus humanam naturam, ut eam curaret satisfaciendo, et curando satisfaceret; sed praecipuum, quod facit ad culpae curationem et satisfactionem, est poenalis humiliatio^p330-4: ergo videtur, quod decuit huiusmodi reperiri in Christo.

Ad oppositum. Sed contra: 1. Sicut summae iustitiae repugnat defectus culpae, sic summae potentiae repugnat defectus fragilitatis et impotentiae; sed Deum summe iustum non decuit habere defectum culpae, nec in se nec in natura assumta: ergo pari ratione nec defectum poenalitatis et impotentiae.

2. Item, sicut culpa sine poena subsequente est inordinata, sic poena sine culpa praecedente^p330-5; sed non decet Deum facere aliquid inordinatum circa se nec circa naturam sibi unitam: ergo si nullam habuit culpam, nec in se nec in natura sibi unita; videtur, quod nullos debuit defectus assumere neque passibilitates ad culpam consequentes secundum rectum ordinem.

3. Item, Christus assumsit humanam naturam ad curandum eam non solum a culpa, sed etiam a defectibus et passionibus culpam consequentibus; sed contraria contrariis curantur, tam in corporalibus quam in spiritualibus: ergo magis debuit assumere fortitudinem et impassibilitatem ad curandam nostram debilitatem et infirmitatem quam defectus nostros naturales. Et hoc est quod videtur Propheta petere, Isaiae quinquagesimo primo^p330-6: Consurge, consurge; induere fortitudinem brachium Domini.

4. Item, Christus venit ad pugnandum et devincendum adversarium^p330-7; sed defectus huiusmodi plus sunt ordinati ad deficiendum quam ad vincendum, maxime cum pugnatur contra fortem adversarium: ergo videtur, quod potius tales defectus debuit Christus reiicere quam in se assumere.

Conclusio.

Congruum fuit, Christum assumere naturam nostram cum defectibus et passibilitatibus.

Conclusio. Respondeo: Dicendum, quod absque dubio congruum fuit, Christum assumere naturam nostram cum defectibus et passibilitatibus; et hoc triplici ex causa, Triplex ratio, principaliter videlicet propter pretium nostrae salutis, propter exemplum virtutis et propter fulcimentum nostrae fragilitatis.

Prima. Propter pretium nostrae salutis, quia proposuerat nos redimere non corruptibilibus auro et argento, sed pretioso sanguine suo^p330-8, et animam suam ponere pro animabus nostris. Ad hoc autem non esset idoneus, nisi naturam deficientem et passibilem assumsisset; et propterea defectus nostros et poenalitates debuit in se ipso habere.

p. 331

Secunda. — Alia etiam ex causa congruum fuit hoc ipsum, videlicet propter exemplum virtutis, specialiter autem humilitatis, patientiae et pietatis, quibus mediantibus pervenitur ad caelum, et in quibus Christus voluit nos imitari ipsum, secundum illud Matthaei undecimo^p331-1: Discite a me, quia mitis sum et humilis corde. —

Tertia. Tertia ratio est propter fulcimentum nostrae fragilitatis, ob quam natura rationalis habet in se difficultatem ad credendum vera, et irascibilis ad sperandum ardua, et concupiscibilis ad amandum bona. Et ideo voluit Christus non tantum nobis similari in natura, sed etiam in defectibus et poenalitatibus, ut, manifestando in se veritatem humanae naturae, praeberet fulcimentum nostrae rationali ad credendum; ostendendo nihilominus immensitatem suae misericordiae per susceptionem nostrae miseriae, praeberet irascibili fulcimentum ad sperandum; ostendendo magnitudinem suae benevolentiae, praeberet concupiscibili incitamentum ad se amandum. — Et ideo licet incongruum videatur, huiusmodi defectus reperiri in Christo, si per se considerentur; tamen, si ad finem referantur, magna reperitur congruitatis condecentia^p331-2. — Et ideo concedendae sunt rationes, quae sunt ad partem istam.

Solutio oppositorum. 1. Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur in contrarium, quod sicut summam iustitiam dedecet^p331-3 iniquitatem, sic summam potentiam dedecet infirmitatem; dicendum, quod huiusmodi similitudo tenet, si comparetur infirmitas et culpa ad naturam divinam; in natura enim divina, sicut nulla potest esse iniustitia, sic nulla potest esse impotentia. Notandum. Si autem comparentur ad naturam assumtam, sic non habet veritatem, pro eo quod ipsa infirmitas potest esse materia exercendae virtutis; virtus enim fortitudinis exercetur potissime in perpessione terribilium, eorum maxime, quae mortem inducunt^p331-4. Culpa vero et iniquitas omnino adversatur iustitiae et vituperabile reddit subiectum, in quo est; infirmitas vero reddit magis laudabile, quando coniuncta est interiori virtuti animi secundum statum meriti. Et ideo non est simile hinc et inde.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod poena sine culpa est inordinata; dicendum, quod est poena necessitate inflicta, et est poena voluntate assumta. Poena duplex. Prima ergo poena inordinata est, nisi culpa praecesserit in eo qui punitur; secunda vero ordinem habet, sive culpa praecesserit in eo qui punitur, sive in eo, pro quo ipse velit puniri; et sic est in proposito. Nam Christus voluit huiusmodi defectus et poenalitates in se habere pro reparanda humana natura^p331-5.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Christus assumsit humanam naturam, ut eam curaret; dicendum, quod verum est. — Quod obiicit, quod contraria contrariis curantur; dicendum, quod illud veritatem habet, si fiat comparatio medicinae ad causam et principium aegritudinis; et sic non habet instantiam in proposito, quia principium corruptionis totius humanae naturae fuit delectatio inordinata in esu ligni vetiti. Et ideo defectus et poenalitates nostrae aegritudini contrariantur et adversantur, pensata eius causa et origine^p331-6. Aliter. — Aliter potest dici, quod cum dicitur: contraria contrariis curantur, hoc intelligitur quantum ad prima curantia, sicut est gratia, quae curat culpam; quantum vero ad proxima veritatem non habet, quia dolor est medicina doloris^p331-7. Sic et in proposito est intelligendum.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod defectus plus valent ad deficiendum quam ad vincendum; dicendum, quod est virtus naturalis, et est virtus moralis; et secundum hoc, duplex est pugna, et duplex est victoria: una, quae virtutem naturalem respicit; altera, quae virtutem moralem. Virtus duplex. Pugna igitur et victoria contra peccatum spectat ad virtutem moralem. Christus autem, cum venit ad vincendum adversarium, venit ad expugnandum et devincendum peccatum; et ideo competebat ei virtus moralis, ut posset superare. Virtus autem naturalis in nullo conferebat ad hanc victoriam, quin potius eius oppositum; maxime enim vincitur et diabolus et peccatum in humilitate et patientia. Notandum. Propter quod dicitur: Virtus in infirmitate perficitur, secundae ad Corinthios duodecimo^p331-8. — Cum ergo dicitur, quod defectus plus valent ad succumbendum quam ad vincendum; dicendum, quod illud non habet veritatem, nisi intelligatur de pugna et victoria in eodem genere, in quo sunt illi defectus; et ideo non habet locum in proposito, ubi est victoria per fortitudinem iustitiae, non per fortitudinem potentiae. Et de hac fortitudine dicebat Propheta: Induere fortitudinem brachium Domini. — Aliter. Posset tamen intelligi de fortitudine potentiae. Ad fortitudinem enim iustitiae in praesenti in merito subsequitur fortitudo potentiae in praemio, sicut patet in Christo, quia, etsi passus est ex infirmitate, surrexit tamen ex virtute^p331-9.

p. 332

Scholion

I. Circa materiam huius et seq. distinctionis errores inter se oppositi exorti sunt, reprobati ab Ecclesia. Nam impium et immanem errorem, qui negavit, Christum secundum divinitatem fuisse impassibilem, ita ut « Dei Filius passionem crucis secundum Deitatem sustinuerit », Nicolaus I. an. 863 in Synodo Romana (can. 8.) exsecratus est. E contrario a pluribus animae et carni Christi vera passibilitas abiudicata est (cfr. infra d. 16. a. 1. q. 4. et supra pag. 328, nota 2.). Uterque error configitur iam a S. Damaso in Synodo Romana (an. 378 vel 379) 14. anathematismo: « Si quis dixerit, quod in passione crucis dolorem sustinebat Filius Dei Deus, et non caro cum anima, qua induerat formam servi, quam sibi acceperat, sicut ait Scriptura, a. s. ». — De conclusionibus trium huius articuli quaestionum non potest inter catholicos esse dubium.

II. De 1. quaestione: Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 5. m. 1. 3. — Scot., III. Sent. d. 7. q. 3. n. 3; Report. ibid. q. 4, et hic q. unica passim. — S. Thom., hic a. 1; S. III. q. 14. a. 1. — B. Albert., hic a. 1. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 1. 2. — Durand., de hac et 2. seqq. qq. hic q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., de hac et 2. seqq. qq. hic q. 1. — Biel, de hac et seqq. qq. hic q. unica.

III. In solutione seq. (2.) quaestionis a B. Alberto (hic a. 5.) docetur primus modus distinguendi defectus, de quo dicit auctor, quod « habeat calumniam ». Hunc tamen modum vult defendere Dionys. Carth. hac ratione, quod « aegritudines illae causantur potius ex complexionis defectu et corruptione, quam ex ipsa complexione; item causantur ex ea magis concomitanter quam directe causaliter ».

De hac 2. quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. m. 2. — Scot., tangit rem in utroque Scripto III. Sent. d. 21. q. unica. — S. Thom., hic a. 2; S. loc. cit. a. 4. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., loc. cit. a. 3.

---

English Translation

Article I. On the defects assumed by Christ in general.

Question I. Whether it was fitting that such defects be found in Christ.

Concerning the first point one proceeds thus and it is asked whether it was fitting that such defects be found in Christ. And that it was so, seems [to be the case].

Fundamenta. 1. To the Hebrews, chapter two^p330-1: He had in all things to be made like his brethren, that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest toward God: if, therefore, it was becoming that Christ have in himself those things which make for fidelity and mercy, and these are the things in which he is made like us according to the state of misery, of which kind are defects and penalties: therefore such things ought to be found in Christ.

2. Likewise, to the Hebrews, chapter four^p330-2: We have not a high priest who cannot have compassion on our infirmities, tempted in all things by way of likeness, without sin. From this word one argues thus: a good high priest ought to have compassion on those who are ignorant and err; but Christ assumed human nature, that he might become our high priest: therefore he ought to assume in himself those things which make for compassion. But such are the defects and penalties of our nature: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, Christ assumed human nature for this, that in it he might merit eternal life for us, which the first parent had taken away from us; but the chief merit consists in the bearing of human sufferings and defects: if, therefore, it was becoming that Christ merit by a chief merit, it was becoming consequently that such defects and sufferings be found in him^p330-3.

4. Likewise, for this Christ assumed human nature, that he might heal it by making satisfaction, and that in healing he might satisfy; but the chief thing that makes for the healing of fault and for satisfaction is penal humiliation^p330-4: therefore it seems that it was becoming that such things be found in Christ.

To the opposite. On the contrary: 1. Just as the defect of fault is repugnant to the highest justice, so the defect of frailty and impotence is repugnant to the highest power; but it was not becoming for God, supremely just, to have the defect of fault, neither in himself nor in the assumed nature: therefore by parity of reasoning neither the defect of penalty and impotence.

2. Likewise, just as fault without a penalty following is disordered, so [is] penalty without a fault preceding^p330-5; but it is not becoming for God to do anything disordered concerning himself or concerning the nature united to himself: therefore if he had no fault, neither in himself nor in the nature united to himself; it seems that he ought to assume no defects nor passibilities consequent upon fault, according to right order.

3. Likewise, Christ assumed human nature to heal it not only from fault, but also from the defects and passions consequent upon fault; but contraries are healed by contraries, both in bodily and in spiritual matters: therefore he ought rather to assume fortitude and impassibility to heal our weakness and infirmity than our natural defects. And this is what the Prophet seems to ask, Isaiah fifty-one^p330-6: Arise, arise; put on strength, O arm of the Lord.

4. Likewise, Christ came to fight and utterly conquer the adversary^p330-7; but such defects are more ordered to failing than to conquering, especially when one fights against a strong adversary: therefore it seems that Christ ought rather to cast off such defects than to assume them in himself.

Conclusio.

It was fitting that Christ assume our nature with defects and passibilities.

Conclusion. I respond: It must be said that without doubt it was fitting that Christ assume our nature with defects and passibilities; and this for a threefold cause, A threefold reason, principally namely on account of the price of our salvation, on account of the example of virtue, and on account of the support of our frailty.

First. On account of the price of our salvation, because he had purposed to redeem us not with corruptible gold and silver, but with his own precious blood^p330-8, and to lay down his soul for our souls. But for this he would not be fit, unless he had assumed a deficient and passible nature; and therefore he had to have our defects and penalties in himself.

Second. — From another cause too this same thing was fitting, namely on account of the example of virtue, and especially of humility, patience, and piety, by means of which one comes to heaven, and in which Christ willed us to imitate himself, according to that [word] of Matthew, chapter eleven^p331-1: Learn of me, for I am meek and humble of heart. —

Third. The third reason is on account of the support of our frailty, by reason of which the rational nature has in itself a difficulty toward believing true things, and the irascible toward hoping for arduous things, and the concupiscible toward loving good things. And therefore Christ willed not only to be made like us in nature, but also in defects and penalties, so that, by manifesting in himself the truth of human nature, he might furnish a support to our reason for believing; by showing nonetheless the immensity of his mercy through the taking up of our misery, he might furnish to the irascible a support for hoping; by showing the greatness of his benevolence, he might furnish to the concupiscible an incitement for loving himself. — And therefore although it seems unfitting that such defects be found in Christ, if they be considered in themselves; yet, if they be referred to their end, a great seemliness of fittingness is found^p331-2. — And therefore the reasons that are for this side are to be granted.

Solution of the opposing arguments. 1. To that, then, which is first objected to the contrary, that just as iniquity ill-befits the highest justice^p331-3, so infirmity ill-befits the highest power; it must be said that such a likeness holds, if infirmity and fault be compared to the divine nature; for in the divine nature, just as there can be no injustice, so there can be no impotence. Note. But if they be compared to the assumed nature, then it does not hold true, for the reason that infirmity itself can be the matter of exercising virtue; for the virtue of fortitude is exercised most of all in the enduring of terrible things, and most of all of those which bring on death^p331-4. But fault and iniquity are wholly opposed to justice and render blameworthy the subject in which they are; whereas infirmity renders [the subject] more praiseworthy, when it is joined to the interior virtue of the soul according to the state of merit. And therefore the two cases are not alike.

2. To that which is objected, that penalty without fault is disordered; it must be said that there is a penalty inflicted by necessity, and there is a penalty assumed by will. Penalty twofold. The first penalty, then, is disordered, unless fault has preceded in the one who is punished; but the second has order, whether fault has preceded in the one who is punished, or in the one for whom he himself wills to be punished; and so it is in the matter at hand. For Christ willed to have such defects and penalties in himself for the repairing of human nature^p331-5.

3. To that which is objected, that Christ assumed human nature to heal it; it must be said that this is true. — As to what it objects, that contraries are healed by contraries; it must be said that this holds true if the comparison be made of the medicine to the cause and principle of the sickness; and so it has no force against the matter at hand, because the principle of the corruption of the whole of human nature was the disordered delight in eating of the forbidden tree. And therefore the defects and penalties are contrary and opposed to our sickness, its cause and origin being weighed^p331-6. Otherwise. — Otherwise it can be said that when it is said: contraries are healed by contraries, this is understood as to the first healing agents, such as is grace, which heals fault; but as to the proximate [agents] it does not hold true, because pain is the medicine of pain^p331-7. So too is it to be understood in the matter at hand.

4. To that which is objected, that defects avail more for failing than for conquering; it must be said that there is a natural virtue and there is a moral virtue; and according to this, the fight is twofold, and the victory is twofold: one which regards natural virtue, the other which [regards] moral virtue. Virtue twofold. The fight, therefore, and the victory against sin pertains to moral virtue. But Christ, when he came to conquer the adversary, came to vanquish and utterly conquer sin; and therefore moral virtue was suited to him, that he might be able to overcome. But natural virtue contributed nothing to this victory, but rather its opposite; for both the devil and sin are most of all conquered in humility and patience. Note. On account of which it is said: Virtue is made perfect in infirmity, second to the Corinthians, chapter twelve^p331-8. — When, therefore, it is said that defects avail more for succumbing than for conquering; it must be said that this does not hold true, unless it be understood of the fight and victory in the same genus in which those defects are; and therefore it has no place in the matter at hand, where there is victory through the fortitude of justice, not through the fortitude of power. And of this fortitude the Prophet was speaking: Put on strength, O arm of the Lord. — Otherwise. It could nonetheless be understood of the fortitude of power. For upon the fortitude of justice in the present life, in merit, there follows the fortitude of power in the reward, as is plain in Christ, because, although he suffered from infirmity, yet he rose from power^p331-9.

Scholion

I. Concerning the matter of this and the following distinction, mutually opposed errors arose, reprobated by the Church. For the impious and monstrous error which denied that Christ was impassible according to his divinity, so that « the Son of God endured the passion of the cross according to the Deity », Nicholas I in the year 863, in the Roman Synod (canon 8), execrated. On the contrary, by many the true passibility of the soul and flesh of Christ was denied (cf. below d. 16. a. 1. q. 4. and above p. 328, note 2). Each error is transfixed already by St. Damasus in the Roman Synod (in the year 378 or 379), in the 14th anathematism: « If anyone shall say that in the passion of the cross the Son of God as God sustained pain, and not the flesh with the soul, with which he had clothed himself in the form of a servant which he had taken to himself, as Scripture says, let him be anathema ». — Concerning the conclusions of the three questions of this article there can be no doubt among Catholics.

II. On the 1st question: Alex. of Hales, S. p. III. q. 5. m. 1. 3. — Scotus, III. Sent. d. 7. q. 3. n. 3; Report. ibid. q. 4, and here q. unica throughout. — St. Thomas, here a. 1; S. III. q. 14. a. 1. — B. Albert, here a. 1. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1. a. 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1. q. 1. 2. — Durandus, on this and the 2 following questions, here q. 1. — Dionysius Carthusianus, on this and the 2 following questions, here q. 1. — Biel, on this and the following questions, here q. unica.

III. In the solution of the following (2nd) question, by B. Albert (here a. 5) there is taught the first mode of distinguishing the defects, of which the author says that « it labors under a calumny ». This mode, however, Dionysius Carthusianus wishes to defend by this reasoning, that « those sicknesses are caused rather from a defect and corruption of the complexion than from the complexion itself; likewise they are caused by it more concomitantly than directly and causally ».

On this 2nd question: Alex. of Hales, loc. cit. m. 2. — Scotus, touches the matter in both his Writings, III. Sent. d. 21. q. unica. — St. Thomas, here a. 2; S. loc. cit. a. 4. — Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit. a. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, loc. cit. a. 3.

---

Apparatus Criticus

Vers. 17.
Verse 17.
Vers. 15. — Verba deinde subnexa tangunt eiusdem Epist. c. 5, 1. 2: Omnis namque pontifex ex hominibus assumtus... qui condolere possit iis qui ignorant etc.
Verse 15. — The words then appended touch the same Epistle, c. 5, vv. 1–2: For every high priest taken from among men... who can have compassion on those who are ignorant etc.
Luc. 24, 26: Nonne haec oportuit pati Christum etc. — In maiori pro assumsit edd. 1, 2 cum nonnullis codd. sumsit.
Luke 24, 26: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things etc. — In the major [premise], for assumsit editions 1, 2 with some codices [read] sumsit.
Cfr. infra d. 20. q. 2. seqq. — Pro praecipuum Vat. pretium.
Cf. below d. 20. q. 2 and following. — For praecipuum the Vatican [edition reads] pretium.
Vide II. Sent. 36. a. 2. q. 1. seq.
See II. Sent. 36. a. 2. q. 1 and following.
Vers. 9. In textu allegato pro brachium codd. F G 1 L T U V aa bb substituunt brachii. — De hoc arg. cfr. supra pag. 261, nota 2.
Verse 9. In the text alleged, for brachium codices F G 1 L T U V aa bb substitute brachii. — On this argument cf. above p. 261, note 2.
Cfr. infra lit. Magistri, d. XIX. c. 1, et ibid. Comment. a. 1. q. 3.
Cf. below the text of the Master, d. XIX. c. 1, and there the Commentary, a. 1. q. 3.
Epist. I. Petr. 1, 18. seq. — Ioan. 10, 15: Animam meam pono pro ovibus meis.
1 Epistle of Peter 1, 18 and following. — John 10, 15: I lay down my soul for my sheep.
Vers. 29. Cfr. supra pag. 263, nota 3.
Verse 29. Cf. above p. 263, note 3.
Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 1. — Cod. U congruitas et condecentia. Pro magna cod. S maxima.
Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 1. — Codex U [reads] congruitas et condecentia. For magna codex S [reads] maxima.
Codd. K M O annectunt assumere. Paulo inferius pro si comparetur cod. bb si comparentur, et deinde pro Si autem comparentur codd. G H Z et edd. 1, 2 Si autem comparetur. Proxime post pro assumtam cod. U humanam.
Codices K M O annex assumere. A little below, for si comparetur codex bb [reads] si comparentur, and then for Si autem comparentur codices G H Z and editions 1, 2 [read] Si autem comparetur. Immediately after, for assumtam codex U [reads] humanam.
Ut exponit Aristot., III. Ethic. c. 6. seq. — Circa finem solut. pro interiori edd. inferiori, perperam.
As Aristotle expounds, III. Ethics c. 6 and following. — Near the end of the solution, for interiori the editions [read] inferiori, wrongly.
Vide II. Sent. d. 36. a. 2. q. 2. in corp.
See II. Sent. d. 36. a. 2. q. 2 in the body [of the article].
Cfr. supra d. 12. a. 1. q. 1. ad 1. — Aliquanto superius pro medicinae codd. A H I Z medicamenti, nonnulli codd. et edd. 1, 2 medici.
Cf. above d. 12. a. 1. q. 1. ad 1. — Somewhat higher up, for medicinae codices A H I Z [read] medicamenti, some codices and editions 1, 2 [read] medici.
Hieronym., Epist. 117. (alias 47.) n. 2: Venena serpentino pelluntur antidoto. Quod satis dolet maiori dolore expellitur. — Paulo superius pro prima edd. praevia.
Jerome, Letter 117 (otherwise 47), n. 2: Poisons are driven off by a serpentine antidote. What pains enough is expelled by a greater pain. — A little higher up, for prima the editions [read] praevia.
Vers. 9. — Paulo superius ante eius oppositum cod. Z interserit ad; subinde pro maxime edd. exhibent magis.
Verse 9. — A little higher up, before eius oppositum codex Z inserts ad; thereupon for maxime the editions exhibit magis.
Epist. II. Cor. 13, 4: Nam etsi crucifixus est ex infirmitate, sed vivit ex virtute Dei. — Post fortitudo potentiae cod. S subdit in futuro.
2 Epistle to the Cor. 13, 4: For although he was crucified from infirmity, yet he lives from the power of God. — After fortitudo potentiae codex S adds in futuro. ---

← Dist. 15, Divisio Textus Dist. 15, Art. 1, Q. 2→