← Back to Distinction 2

Dist. 2, Art. 1, Q. 2

Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word · Distinction 2

Textus Latinus
p. 39

Quaestio II. Utrum maior sit congruitas ad unionem in humana natura quam in Angelo, an e converso.

Secundo quaeritur, utrum maior sit congruitas ad unionem in humana natura quam in Angelo, an e converso. Et quod maior sit in Angelo, videtur.

1. Deus spiritus est, sicut dicitur Ioannis quarto1: ergo creatura, quae plus habet de ratione spiritualitatis, plus convenit cum Deo; et quae plus convenit cum Deo, plus est ei unibilis in unitate personae: cum ergo natura angelica sit spiritualior quam humana, videtur etc.

2. Item, natura assumta, eo ipso quo assumta est, exaltata est super ceteras creaturas; sed quanto creatura est excellentior, tanto est idoneior exaltari: ergo cum natura angelica iure ceteris anteponatur — iuxta quod dicit Richardus de sancto Victore2: Ipsa est totius universitatis caput — videtur, quod magis decens fuerit, ipsam uniri quam humanam naturam.

3. Item, natura angelica passa est ruinam et in malum culpae et in malum poenae: ergo si divina misericordia condescendit miseriae, cum3 maiorem abundantiam miseriae contingat reperire in angelica natura quam in humana; videtur, quod maior sit in ea congruitas ad unionem quam in humana.

4. Item, natura assumta principium est nostrae reparationis: si ergo conveniens est, ut reparatio fiat per ea, per quae fuit destructio; cum angelus fuerit principium totius praevaricationis, videtur, quod Angelus debuerit assumi ad complendum mysterium4 redemptionis: et ita maior fuit congruitas in natura angelica quam humana.

p. 40

Sed contra:

1. Assumtio est actus personae habentis distinctionem secundum originem, cuiusmodi distinctio est in divinis personis: ergo illa natura, in qua habet esse distinctio personalis secundum originem, maiorem habet congruitatem ad unionem personalem, quam illa quae caret huiusmodi distinctione; sed in hominibus est huiusmodi distinctio, in Angelis vero non5: ergo etc.

2. Item, assumtio creaturae ad Creatorem in unitate personae fuit ad humilitatis commendationem6; sed maior apparet humilitatis dignatio in assumtione hominis mortalis quam spiritus immortalis: ergo videtur, quod magis congruum fuerit ad unionem humana natura quam angelica.

3. Item, assumtio est principaliter propter generis assumti reparationem; sed angeli, qui lapsi sunt, peccaverunt peccato irremediabili, sicut superius in secundo7 fuit ostensum, homines vero peccato remediabili: ergo magis congruum fuit assumere humanam naturam quam angelicam.

4. Item, Deus, quidquid facit, congruentissime facit; sed Deus nusquam Angelos apprehendit, ad Hebraeos secundo8: ergo maior fuit congruentia ad unionem in humana natura quam in angelica.

Conclusio

Maior fuit congruentia ad unionem in creatura humana quam in angelica.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod absque dubio maior fuit congruentia ad unionem in creatura humana quam in angelica. Et hoc quidem satis manifestat ipsa operatio divina. Deus enim nusquam Angelos apprehendit, sed semen Abrahae apprehendit.

Ratio autem maioris congruentiae dupliciter accipitur, videlicet secundum humanae naturae institutionem et secundum eiusdem reparationem.

Secundum namque humanae naturae institutionem maior est congruitas in humana natura quam in angelica; et hoc triplici de causa. — Prima est propter personalem discretionem, quae quidem in humana9 reperitur secundum originem, et non in angelica; et ideo magis congruebat, quod persona Filii, quae distinguitur a persona Patris secundum originem, eam naturam acciperet, in qua proprietatem filiationis retineret; et hoc quidem factum est in humanae naturae assumtione. Nam idem ipse, qui ab aeterno erat Patris Filius, ex tempore factus est filius Virginis matris.

Secunda ratio est propter maiorem divini exemplaris repraesentationem, ratione cuius homo dicitur minor mundus. Anima enim rationalis non tantum repraesentat Deum, prout consideratur in se, sed in quantum unitur corpori, quod regit et in quo toto inhabitat, sicut Deus in maiori mundo; et hoc pluries dicit Augustinus10. Ratione huius maioris conformitatis maior erat ratio unibilitatis.

Tertia ratio est propter multiplicem hominis compositionem. Quia enim homo compositus est ex natura corporali et spirituali, et quodam modo communicat cum omni creatura, sicut dicit Gregorius11; hinc est, quod cum humana natura assumitur et deificatur, quodam modo omnis natura in ea exaltatur, dum in suo simili Deitati unitur. Et hinc est, quod assumtio humanae naturae plus facit ad totius universi perfectionem quam angelicae. — Et ideo maior est in ea congruitas ad unionem etiam secundum suam institutionem.

Similiter et secundum reparationem maior congruitas in ea reperitur ad unionem triplici ex causa, scilicet quia homo magis indigebat, et minus indignus erat, et amplius ei proderat, ut Filius Dei assumeret naturam suam. — Magis indigebat, quia totus lapsus fuerat12; minus indignus erat, quia per alium corruerat; amplius ei proderat, quia adhuc in malo obstinatus non erat. — Quoniam igitur divina misericordia ista tria pensat in beneficiis, quae impendit; hinc est, quod Deus, qui est dives in misericordia, propter nimiam caritatem, qua dilexit nos13, magis assumsit humanam naturam quam angelicam, quia maior reperiebatur in ea congruentia ad suscipiendum tantum beneficium divinae misericordiae, ut per illud relevaretur a miseria. — Haec autem ratio, quae sumta est ad humani generis reparationem, efficacior et principalior est quam praecedens, quia, sicut supra14 ostensum fuit, praecipua incarnationis ratio fuit humani generis reparatio.

p. 41

Ad 1. Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur, quod Angelus ratione spiritualitatis plus convenit cum Deo quam homo; dicendum, quod etsi plus convenit intensive, non tamen plus convenit extensive. Homo enim convenit in spiritualitate ratione animae, et corpus superadditum facit ad conformitatis maioritatem; et sic utroque, videlicet spiritu et corpore, maior fit repraesentatio exemplaritatis divinae15. Praeterea, praecipua ratio congruentiae respectu unionis non attenditur respectu maioris convenientiae in spiritualitate, sed potius ratione maioris idoneitatis ad suscipiendum beneficium divinae misericordiae.

Ad 2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de exaltatione naturae assumtae, dicendum, quod etsi Angelus altior sit natura quam homo, per gratiam tamen unionis decuit magis hominem quam Angelum exaltari, et ad confutandam superbiam luciferi, qui Deo voluit aequari, et ad commendandam gratiam Dei, ut appareat, quod sublimatio in gloria non sit ex natura, sed potius ex gratia divina16. — Et haec est etiam ratio, quare Dominus noster Iesus Christus magis elegit pauperes et ignobiles quam potentes, ut confunderet alta et fortia, et non gloriaretur in conspectu eius omnis creatura, quia Regi saeculorum immortali et invisibili, soli Deo, debet esse honor et gloria17.

Ad 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Angelus magis indigebat quam homo; dicendum, quod falsum est. Homo enim totaliter indigebat, quia totaliter lapsus fuerat: Angelus vero non. Et si tu obiicis, quod angelus lapsus magis indigebat quam homo lapsus; dicendum, quod etsi magis indigebat, minus tamen dignus erat, quoniam ex maiori superbia peccaverat. Unde Bernardus in Canticum18: « Quis tam indiget misericordia, sicut miser? et quis tam indignus est misericordia, sicut miser superbus »? Praeterea, ipsa assumtio angelicae naturae angelo lapso non prodesset, quia, cum obstinati sint universaliter in malitia, non inflammarentur ad humilitatem nec ad caritatem per exhibitionem tanti beneficii et exempli. Et illud videmus hodie in multis peccatoribus, quibus propter suam perversitatem valde parum prodest incarnatio Christi.

Ad 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod praevaricatio sumsit exordium ab Angelo, ergo et reparatio similiter debet ab illo inchoare; dicendum, quod praevaricatio humani generis sumsit exordium a daemone et ab homine; sed ab homine tanquam a principali auctore, a daemone sicut a suggestore; et quoniam Christus auctor est nostrae redemptionis, ideo magis debet homo assumi19 quam angelus, ut sic reparatio directe respondeat lapsui. Et quemadmodum in lapsu diabolus decepit Evam, sic in reparatione Gabriel instruxit Mariam20. Et quemadmodum in primo Adam facta est nostrae praevaricationis consummatio, sic per secundum Adam facta est nostrae redemptionis perfectio. — Et sic patet responsio ad ea quae obiiciebantur.

Scholion

I. Egregie et copiose S. Doctor conclusionem satis communem probat. Quidam autem, ut B. Albert. (hic a. 2.), ulterius progressi, penitus negabant, naturam angelicam esse assumtibilem, praesertim quia ab ea inseparabilis sit discretio personalis. Etiam Petrus a Tar. (hic q. 1. a. 1.) vult, quod praescindendo a potentia Dei absoluta, « nec creatura pure corporalis nec pure spiritualis unibilis est in personalitate aliena, cum non debeat per unionem dari personalitas habere non valenti, nec auferri sine transmutatione eiusdem numero naturae possit habenti ». Sed alii doctores communiter cum S. Thoma (S. III. q. 4. a. 1. ad 3.) nolunt « excludere totaliter congruitatem assumtionis angelicae naturae », licet desit congruitas ex parte necessitatis.

II. Praeter laudatos auctores: Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 2. m. 6. — Scot., hic q. 1. n. 5; Report. hic q. 2. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 1. quaestiunc. 2; S. art. cit. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 3. — Aegid. R., hic p. I. q. 1. a. 3. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 1.

III. De sequenti (3.) quaestione: S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 2; S. III. q. 4. a. 5. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., loc. cit. q. 2. — Aegid. R., loc. cit. a. 2. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 3.

---

English Translation

Question II. Whether the fittingness for union is greater in human nature than in an angel, or conversely.

Secondly it is asked whether the fittingness for union is greater in human nature than in an angel, or conversely. And that it is greater in the angel, it seems.

1. God is a spirit, as is said in John, chapter four1: therefore the creature that has more of the character of spirituality is more in agreement with God; and what is more in agreement with God is more uniteable to him in unity of person: since therefore the angelic nature is more spiritual than the human, it seems, and so forth.

2. Likewise, the assumed nature, by the very fact that it is assumed, is exalted above the other creatures; but the more excellent a creature is, the more fit it is to be exalted: therefore since the angelic nature is by right set before the rest — according to what Richard of Saint Victor says2: It is the head of the whole universe — it seems that it would have been more becoming for it to be united than human nature.

3. Likewise, the angelic nature suffered a fall both into the evil of fault and into the evil of punishment: therefore if the divine mercy condescends to misery, since3 a greater abundance of misery happens to be found in the angelic nature than in the human; it seems that there is in it a greater fittingness for union than in the human.

4. Likewise, the assumed nature is the principle of our reparation: if therefore it is fitting that reparation be made through those things by which the destruction came about; since the angel was the principle of the whole transgression, it seems that the Angel ought to have been assumed for the completing of the mystery4 of redemption: and so the fittingness was greater in the angelic nature than in the human.

Sed contra:

1. Assumption is the act of a person having distinction according to origin, of which kind is the distinction in the divine persons: therefore that nature in which there is distinction of person according to origin has a greater fittingness for personal union than that which lacks such a distinction; but in men there is such a distinction, whereas in angels there is not5: therefore, and so forth.

2. Likewise, the assumption of a creature to the Creator in unity of person was for the commending of humility6; but a greater condescension of humility appears in the assumption of a mortal man than of an immortal spirit: therefore it seems that human nature was more suitable for union than the angelic.

3. Likewise, assumption is principally on account of the reparation of the assumed kind; but the angels who fell sinned with an irremediable sin, as was shown above in the Second Book7, whereas men sinned with a remediable sin: therefore it was more fitting to assume human nature than the angelic.

4. Likewise, God, whatever he does, he does most fittingly; but God nowhere takes hold of the Angels, in Hebrews, chapter two8: therefore the fittingness for union was greater in human nature than in the angelic.

Conclusion

The fittingness for union was greater in the human creature than in the angelic.

Respondeo: It must be said that without doubt the fittingness for union was greater in the human creature than in the angelic. And this indeed the divine working sufficiently shows. For God nowhere takes hold of the Angels, but takes hold of the seed of Abraham.

Now the ground of the greater fittingness is taken in two ways, namely according to the institution of human nature and according to its reparation.

For according to the institution of human nature the fittingness is greater in human nature than in the angelic; and this for a threefold cause. — The first is on account of the personal distinction, which indeed is found in the human nature9 according to origin, and not in the angelic; and therefore it was more fitting that the person of the Son, who is distinguished from the person of the Father according to origin, should take that nature in which he would retain the property of sonship; and this indeed was done in the assumption of human nature. For the very same one who from eternity was the Son of the Father, in time became the son of the Virgin mother.

The second ground is on account of the greater representation of the divine exemplar, by reason of which man is called a lesser world. For the rational soul represents God not only as it is considered in itself, but inasmuch as it is united to the body, which it rules and in the whole of which it dwells, as God in the greater world; and this Augustine says many times10. By reason of this greater conformity there was a greater ground of uniteability.

The third ground is on account of the manifold composition of man. For since man is composed of a corporeal and a spiritual nature, and in a certain way communicates with every creature, as Gregory says11; hence it is that when human nature is assumed and deified, in a certain way every nature is exalted in it, while in its like it is united to the Deity. And hence it is that the assumption of human nature does more for the perfection of the whole universe than that of the angelic. — And therefore the fittingness for union is greater in it even according to its institution.

Likewise also according to reparation a greater fittingness is found in it for union, from a threefold cause, namely because man had more need, and was less unworthy, and it profited him more, that the Son of God should assume his nature. — He had more need, because he had wholly fallen12; he was less unworthy, because he had been corrupted through another; it profited him more, because he was not yet obstinate in evil. — Since therefore the divine mercy weighs these three things in the benefits which it bestows; hence it is that God, who is rich in mercy, on account of the exceeding charity with which he loved us13, assumed human nature rather than the angelic, because there was found in it a greater fittingness for receiving so great a benefit of the divine mercy, that through it he might be relieved from misery. — Now this ground, which is taken from the reparation of the human race, is more efficacious and more principal than the preceding, because, as was shown above14, the chief ground of the incarnation was the reparation of the human race.

To the 1. To that, then, which is objected first, that the Angel by reason of spirituality is more in agreement with God than man; it must be said that although it is more in agreement intensively, nevertheless it is not more in agreement extensively. For man agrees in spirituality by reason of the soul, and the superadded body makes for a greater conformity; and thus by both, namely spirit and body, a greater representation of the divine exemplarity comes about15. Moreover, the chief ground of fittingness in respect of union is not regarded in respect of greater agreement in spirituality, but rather by reason of greater suitability for receiving the benefit of the divine mercy.

To the 2. To that which is objected concerning the exaltation of the assumed nature, it must be said that although the Angel is higher in nature than man, nevertheless by the grace of union it was becoming that man rather than the Angel be exalted, both for the confounding of the pride of Lucifer, who wished to be made equal to God, and for the commending of the grace of God, that it might appear that elevation into glory is not from nature, but rather from divine grace16. — And this is also the reason why our Lord Jesus Christ chose rather the poor and ignoble than the powerful, that he might confound the high and strong things, and that no creature might glory in his sight, because to the King of ages, immortal and invisible, to God alone, ought to be honor and glory17.

To the 3. To that which is objected, that the Angel had more need than man; it must be said that it is false. For man had wholly need, because he had wholly fallen: but the Angel had not. And if you object that the fallen angel had more need than fallen man; it must be said that although he had more need, nevertheless he was less worthy, since he had sinned out of greater pride. Hence Bernard on the Canticle18: « Who so needs mercy as the wretched? and who is so unworthy of mercy as the proud wretch »? Moreover, the assumption itself of the angelic nature would not profit the fallen angel, because, since they are universally obstinate in malice, they would not be kindled to humility nor to charity by the showing of so great a benefit and example. And this we see today in many sinners, to whom on account of their perversity the incarnation of Christ profits very little.

To the 4. To that which is objected, that the transgression took its beginning from the Angel, therefore the reparation likewise ought to begin from him; it must be said that the transgression of the human race took its beginning from the demon and from man; but from man as from the principal author, from the demon as from the suggester; and since Christ is the author of our redemption, therefore man ought to be assumed19 rather than the angel, so that the reparation may directly correspond to the fall. And just as in the fall the devil deceived Eve, so in the reparation Gabriel instructed Mary20. And just as in the first Adam the consummation of our transgression came about, so through the second Adam the perfection of our redemption came about. — And thus the answer to the things that were objected is clear.

Scholion

I. Excellently and copiously the holy Doctor proves a conclusion that is fairly common. But some, such as Blessed Albert (here a. 2.), going further, utterly denied that the angelic nature is assumeable, especially because the personal distinction is inseparable from it. Peter of Tarentaise also (here q. 1. a. 1.) holds that, prescinding from the absolute power of God, « neither a purely corporeal nor a purely spiritual creature is uniteable in an alien personality, since personality ought not to be given through union to one not able to have it, nor be taken away from one having it without transmutation of the same numerical nature ». But other doctors commonly, with St. Thomas (S. III. q. 4. a. 1. ad 3.), are unwilling « to exclude totally the fittingness of an assumption of the angelic nature », although the fittingness is lacking on the side of necessity.

II. Besides the authors praised: Alexander of Hales, S. p. III. q. 2. m. 6. — Scotus, here q. 1. n. 5; Reportata here q. 2. — St. Thomas, here q. 1. a. 1. quaestiuncula 2; S. art. cit. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 1. q. 3. — Giles of Rome, here p. I. q. 1. a. 3. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 1.

III. On the following (3.) question: St. Thomas, here q. 1. a. 2; S. III. q. 4. a. 5. — Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit. a. 2. — Richard of Middleton, loc. cit. q. 2. — Giles of Rome, loc. cit. a. 2. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 3.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Vers. 24. — Gregor., XXXII. Moral. c. 23. n. 47: Et licet homo ad similitudinem Dei creatus sit (Gen. 1, 27.), Angelo tamen quasi maius aliquid tribuens, non eum ad similitudinem Dei conditum, sed ipsum signaculum Dei similitudinis dicit (Ezech. 28, 12.), ut quo subtilior est in natura, eo in illo similitudo Dei plenius credatur expressa. Cfr. Isidor., I. Sent. c. 10. n. 6.
    Verse 24 [John 4]. — Gregory, Moralia XXXII, c. 23, n. 47: And although man was created to the likeness of God (Gen. 1:27), yet attributing to the Angel something as it were greater, [Scripture] says that he was not made to the likeness of God, but calls him the very seal of God's likeness (Ezek. 28:12), so that, the subtler he is in nature, the more fully the likeness of God is believed to be expressed in him. Cf. Isidore, Sentences I, c. 10, n. 6.
  2. Libr. IV. de Trin. c. 25: Quod ergo est in operatione humana humani corporis effigies sine capite, hoc esse videtur in operatione divina universalitatis fabrica sine optimo genere creaturae [scil. Angelo]. Cfr. II. Sent. d. 1. p. II. a. 2. q. 2. — Paulo superius cod. R. post ceteris addit aliis.
    On the Trinity IV, c. 25: Therefore, what in a human work is the figure of a human body without a head, this seems to be in the divine work the fabric of the universe without the best kind of creature [namely, the Angel]. Cf. Sentences II, d. 1, p. II, a. 2, q. 2. — A little before, cod. R after ceteris adds aliis.
  3. Edd. et... convenit reperiri. Codd. A E G L T V omittunt et, pro quo codd. F U bene substituunt cum, a nobis in textum receptum; qui etiam deinde cum aliis codd. pro convenit exhibent contingat.
    The editions [read] et... convenit reperiri. Codd. A E G L T V omit et, in place of which codd. F U rightly substitute cum, received by us into the text; which [codices] also then, with other codices, in place of convenit present contingat.
  4. Vat. ministerium.
    The Vatican edition [reads] ministerium.
  5. Vide verba, quae tom. II. pag. 103, nota 6. et pag. 104, nota 5. e Richardo a S. Vict., IV. de Trin. c. 13. seqq. attulimus. Cfr. etiam Anselm., II. Cur Deus homo, c. 21. — Circa initium arg. codd. M O pro cuiusmodi habent qualis.
    See the words which in vol. II, p. 103, note 6, and p. 104, note 5, we adduced from Richard of St. Victor, On the Trinity IV, c. 13 ff. Cf. also Anselm, Cur Deus homo II, c. 21. — Near the beginning of the argument codd. M O in place of cuiusmodi have qualis.
  6. Cfr. Phil. 2, 6. seqq. Cfr. etiam August., de Praedest. Sanctor. c. 18. n. 31. — Pro ad Creatorem codd. M O a Creatore. Circa finem arg. pro congruum cod. Q melius congrua.
    Cf. Phil. 2:6 ff. Cf. also Augustine, On the Predestination of the Saints c. 18, n. 31. — In place of ad Creatorem codd. M O [read] a Creatore. Near the end of the argument, in place of congruum cod. Q better [reads] congrua.
  7. Dist. 7. p. I. a. 1. q. 1. et d. 21. a. 3. q. 2.
    Dist. 7, p. I, a. 1, q. 1, and d. 21, a. 3, q. 2.
  8. Vers. 16.
    Verse 16 [Heb. 2].
  9. Codd. A F K N addunt natura. Pro discretionem edd. et nonnulli codd. distinctionem. Cfr. II. Sent. d. 3. p. I. a. 2. q. 1. seqq.
    Codd. A F K N add natura. In place of discretionem the editions and several codices [read] distinctionem. Cf. Sentences II, d. 3, p. I, a. 2, q. 1 ff.
  10. In libro de Spiritu et anima (inter opera August.) c. 18. et 35. Cfr. II. Sent. d. 16. a. 2. q. 1. — Vat. post Augustinus interiiciens quod, sequentia falso ut Augustini verba exhibet.
    In the book On the Spirit and the Soul (among the works of Augustine) c. 18 and 35. Cf. Sentences II, d. 16, a. 2, q. 1. — The Vatican edition, interposing quod after Augustinus, falsely presents what follows as the words of Augustine.
  11. Libr. VI. Moral. c. 16. n. 20. et II. in Evang. homil. 29. n. 2. Idem docet August., Serm. 43. (alias 27. de Verbis Apostoli) c. 3. n. 4.
    Moralia VI, c. 16, n. 20, and Homilies on the Gospel II, homily 29, n. 2. The same Augustine teaches, Sermon 43 (otherwise 27, On the Words of the Apostle) c. 3, n. 4.
  12. De hac prima ratione (quia totus lapsus fuerat) cfr. August., Enchirid. c. 28. n. 9; de secunda (quia minus indignus erat) cfr. August., Exposit. Epist. ad Gal. 3, 19. n. 24. nec non Anselm., II. Cur Deus homo, c. 21. et etiam tom. II. pag. 506, nota 6; de tertia ratione cfr. Bernard., Serm. 1. de Adventu Domini, n. 4. seq. et II. Sent. d. 7. p. 1. a. 1. q. 1. — Pro in malo obstinatus codd. minus bene in malum obstinatus.
    On this first ground (because he had wholly fallen) cf. Augustine, Enchiridion c. 28, n. 9; on the second (because he was less unworthy) cf. Augustine, Exposition of the Epistle to the Galatians 3, 19, n. 24, and also Anselm, Cur Deus homo II, c. 21, and also vol. II, p. 506, note 6; on the third ground cf. Bernard, Sermon 1 on the Advent of the Lord, n. 4 f., and Sentences II, d. 7, p. 1, a. 1, q. 1. — In place of in malo obstinatus the codices less well [read] in malum obstinatus.
  13. Eph. 2, 4. — Paulo inferius pro suscipiendum codd. B C D E G H L (N a prima manu) T U V aa suscitandum. Subinde pro ut codd. A T ut et, edd. et ut. Post pauca pro ad humani generis reparationem Vat. ab humani generis reparatione.
    Eph. 2:4. — A little below, in place of suscipiendum codd. B C D E G H L (N by the first hand) T U V aa [read] suscitandum. Then in place of ut codd. A T [read] ut et, the editions et ut. After a few [words], in place of ad humani generis reparationem the Vatican edition [reads] ab humani generis reparatione.
  14. Dist. 1. a. 2. q. 2.
    Dist. 1, a. 2, q. 2.
  15. Cfr. II. Sent. d. 16. a. 2. q. 1. — Pro maior fit cod. H maior fuit.
    Cf. Sentences II, d. 16, a. 2, q. 1. — In place of maior fit cod. H [reads] maior fuit.
  16. Cfr. August., XIII. de Trin. c. 17. n. 22.
    Cf. Augustine, On the Trinity XIII, c. 17, n. 22.
  17. Epist. I. Tim. 1, 17. In praecedentibus respicitur I. Cor. 1, 26. seqq. — Paulo superius post pauperes cod. G addit quam divites et dein pro et non substituit ut non.
    Epistle, 1 Tim. 1:17. In what precedes, reference is made to 1 Cor. 1:26 ff. — A little above, after pauperes cod. G adds quam divites and then in place of et non substitutes ut non.
  18. Serm. 51. n. 5, sed tantum sententialiter. Verba ipsa sumta sunt ex August., III. de Lib. Arb. c. 10. n. 29, ubi sic legitur: Quid enim tam opus habetis misericordia quam miser? Et quid tam indignum misericordia quam superbus miser? — Paulo inferius pro universaliter edd. 1, 2 naturaliter.
    Sermon 51, n. 5, but only in sense. The very words are taken from Augustine, On Free Choice III, c. 10, n. 29, where it reads thus: For what has such need of mercy as the wretched? And what is so unworthy of mercy as the proud wretch? — A little below, in place of universaliter the editions 1, 2 [read] naturaliter.
  19. Pro magis debet homo assumi quam angelus, quam lectionem ex codd. R U bb restauravimus, edd. magis debet reparatio inchoari ab homine quam ab angelo. Pro assumi codd. K M O esse, cod. C reparari; in aliis codd. omnino deest assumi, quin aliquod aliud verbum substitutum sit pro eo.
    For magis debet homo assumi quam angelus, quam — a reading which we have restored from codd. R U bb — the editions [read] magis debet reparatio inchoari ab homine quam ab angelo. In place of assumi codd. K M O [read] esse, cod. C reparari; in other codices assumi is entirely absent, without any other word being substituted for it.
  20. Cfr. Gen. 3, 1. seqq.; Luc. 1, 28. seqq. Vide etiam tom. II. pag. 516, nota 10, et Serm. 2. de Symbolo ad catechum. (inter opera August.) c. 4. n. 4. Quoad subnexa cfr. Rom. 5, 14. seqq. et I. Cor. 15, 22. seqq. — Pro nostrae praevaricationis consummatio cod. H omnium praevaricatio; pro praevaricationis cod. H damnationis, codd. A G L N T V aa et edd. 1, 2 falso redemptionis; cod. H subinde pro sic per secundum exhibet sic in secundo.
    Cf. Gen. 3:1 ff.; Luke 1:28 ff. See also vol. II, p. 516, note 10, and Sermon 2 on the Symbol, to the catechumens (among the works of Augustine) c. 4, n. 4. As to what follows, cf. Rom. 5:14 ff. and 1 Cor. 15:22 ff. — In place of nostrae praevaricationis consummatio cod. H [reads] omnium praevaricatio; in place of praevaricationis cod. H [reads] damnationis, codd. A G L N T V aa and editions 1, 2 falsely redemptionis; cod. H then in place of sic per secundum presents sic in secundo.
← Dist. 2, Art. 1, Q. 1Dist. 2, Art. 1, Q. 3→