← Back to Distinction 2

Dist. 2, Art. 2, Q. 1

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

Textus Latinus
p. 43

Articulus II. De natura assumta quoad suarum partium integritatem.

Consequenter quaeritur de natura assumta quantum ad suarum partium integritatem. Et quantum ad hoc quaeruntur tria.

Primo quaeritur, utrum Christus1 assumserit veram carnem.

Secundo quaeritur, utrum Christus habuerit veram animam rationalem.

Tertio quaeritur, utrum Christus assumendo carnem humanam habuerit speciem communem.

p. 44

Quaestio I. Utrum Christus assumserit veram carnem.

Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum Christus assumserit veram carnem. Et quod sic, probatur:

1. Per illud quod dicitur Lucae ultimo2: Palpate et videte; quoniam spiritus carnem et ossa non habet: si ergo Christus post resurrectionem veram carnem habuit, necessario sequitur, quod ante.

2. Item, Damascenus3: « Quod erat inassumtibile erat incurabile »: ergo quod fuit curabile fuit assumtibile, et quod fuit curatum fuit assumtum; sed non tantum anima, sed etiam caro receperunt per Christum curationem: ergo etc.

3. Item, non nascitur homo ex homine nisi ex carne; sed Christus natus et conceptus fuit ex Maria Virgine4: ergo veram ex ea traxit carnem.

4. Item, caro vera est necessario de vera constitutione hominis: ergo si Christus caruit vera carne, caruit vera humanitate; et si vera humanitate caruit, caruit vero sanguine et vero pretio redemptionis5: ergo tota fides nostra est inanis. Quod si hoc dicere est haereticae impietatis, haereticum est et verae fidei adversarium ponere, Christum non habuisse veram carnem humanam.

Sed contra: 1. Ad Galatas quinto6: Caro concupiscit adversus spiritum; sed in Christo non fuit aliqua concupiscentia vel inordinatio: ergo nec vera caro.

2. Item, Ioannis tertio7: Qui de terra est de terra loquitur; qui de caelo venit super omnes est. In hoc autem assignatur differentia Christi ad alios homines; sed alii homines de terra sunt, quia corpus eorum est de terra: ergo corpus Christi non fuit de terra nec de aliis elementis, sicut alia corpora: ergo non videtur, quod habuerit veram carnem humanam.

3. Item, unio praesupponit in unibili rationem imaginis — unde creatura irrationalis non habet in se congruitatem ad unionem8 — sed humana caro non habet in se imaginem Dei, quia illa est in superiori portione rationis: ergo non videtur, quod a Verbo Dei habeat assumi.

4. Item, excellentior est gratia unionis quam fruitionis; sed fruitio non convenit ipsi9 carni: ergo multo minus nec unio ad deitatem: ergo Christus non assumsit veram carnem.

5. Item, unio facit communicationem idiomatum10; sed caro Christi non recipit communicationem idiomatum quantum ad proprietates divinas, caro enim non est Deus: ergo non videtur, quod sit unita vel assumta a Verbo Dei.

Conclusio

Christus veram humanam carnem verumque corpus humanum habuit.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod circa hoc fuit triplex modus dicendi; et duo sunt haeretici11, tertius est catholicus.

Quidam dicere voluerunt, quod Christi caro non erat caro vera, sed caro phantastica; et hoc quidem dicebant, quia indecens eis videbatur, Deum uniri naturae corporeae. — Sed hi, dum voluerunt vitare apparens inconveniens, inciderunt in verum inconveniens; et dum voluerunt Deo reddere laudem apparenter, in blasphemiam inciderunt veraciter.

p. 45

Ponere enim, quod Christus carnem habuit12 phantasticam, est perfecto attribuere imperfectionem, et veritati deceptionem. Si enim verum corpus non habuit, perfectus homo non fuit. — Item, si verum corpus non habuit, vere passus non fuit: ergo cunctos credentes in eum decepit. Si igitur hoc dicere est Deum impie blasphemare, patet, quod manifestus error est ponere, quod verum corpus non assumsisset13.

Et ideo alii dixerunt, quod Christus verum corpus habuit et veram carnem; sed caro illa non fuit terrestris, sed caelestis. De caelo enim carnem illam attulisse Christum dixerunt, quia non decebat ipsum habere carnem peccatricem, tum quia concupiscit adversus spiritum, tum etiam quia auctorem habet diabolum. Et hunc suum errorem munire volunt per illud primae ad Corinthios decimo quinto14: Primus homo de terra terrenus, secundus homo de caelo caelestis; et per illud quod dicitur Ioannis tertio: Qui de caelo venit super omnes est. — Sed hic error pessimus repugnat veritati incarnationis et reparationis: veritati incarnationis, quia Christus, secundum quod sacra Eloquia15 testantur, fuit ex semine David secundum carnem, qui natus fuit de Maria Virgine, quae fuit de stirpe David. — Repugnat autem veritati reparationis, quia, si non habuit carnem terrestrem, sed caelestem, non habuit passibilem; si etiam non habuit carnem terrestrem16, non habuit carnem de nostro genere; et si haec vera sunt, nec vere patiebatur, nec homo per ipsum vere redimebatur. Si ergo haec duo impietatis sunt et blasphemiae, planum est, quod iste modus dicendi falsus est et haereticus17.

Et ideo est tertius modus dicendi verus et catholicus, quod Christus veram humanam carnem habuit, ita quod caro illa et verum corpus fuit et vere carni nostrae in natura consimilis. — Non enim decebat in ipsa veritate invenire deceptionem et oculorum ludificationem, quia veritas non novit fallere. Nec decebat in perfectissimo Dei Filio invenire imperfectionem, quia perfectissimus non novit deficere; et ideo, sicut apparebat, sic verum corpus et perfectum18 de nostro genere et de utero beatae Virginis assumsit verissime. — Et concedendae sunt rationes hoc ostendentes.

1. Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur in contrarium, dicendum, quod illud verum est de carne, in qua viget fomes concupiscentiae, et talis caro est peccatrix19; talis autem caro fuit in Adam post peccatum et in posteris concupiscentialiter genitis. Sed talis caro non fuit in Adam ante peccatum, nec in Christo, qui non fuit conceptus in libidine, sed Spiritus sancti virtute; et pro tanto dicitur eius caro esse caelestis et venire desursum, quia assimilatur altitudini humanae naturae, quae fuit in Adam quantum ad privationem omnis immunditiae20.

2. Et per hoc patet responsio ad sequens obiectum. Non enim dicitur Christus venire de caelo, quia caro eius descenderit de caelo, sed quia missus est a Patre; caro enim formata est secundum divinam operationem carens originali peccato et omni rebellione. Et in hoc erraverunt impii Manichaei, sicut superius ostensum est in secundo libro21; quia crediderunt, quod caro terrestris de sui natura repugnaret spiritui, tanquam haberet ortum a Deo malo; et in hunc errorem inciderunt, quia nescierunt distinguere inter vitium et naturam.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod unio praesupponit rationem imaginis in suo unibili; dicendum, quod hoc verum est vel in se, vel in ratione annexi; et quamvis caro humana in se non habeat rationem imaginis, tamen unita est animae factae ad imaginem Dei.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod excellentior est gratia unionis quam fruitionis; dicendum, quod verum est per comparationem ad idem, utpote ad animam, quae Deo fruitur et Deo unitur, quia excellentior est gratia unionis quam fruitionis et eam praesupponit; tamen respectu corporis secus est, quia gratia fruitionis non est nata esse in corpore sive circa corpus, cum ponat solum habitum creatum, qui habet habilitare potentiam cognoscitivam. Sed gratia unionis in corpore non ponit alicuius habitus collationem, sed solum substantificationem ipsius corporis assumti in persona22 divina, sicut in hypostasi, quae quidem est ex mera et gratuita

p. 46

bonitate Dei; et propterea non sic repugnat nec sic est extranea, sicut gratia fruitionis.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur de communicatione idiomatum, dicendum, quod, sicut infra23 patebit, idiomata non communicantur ipsi naturae assumtae, vel partibus eius, sed communicantur ipsi rei naturae. Nam haec est falsa: Filius Dei est caro, vel anima rationalis, quamvis haec sit vera: Filius Dei est homo.

Scholion

I. Conclusiones huius et seq. quaestionis sunt de fide, ut patet pluribus antiquis decretis Ecclesiae contra Doketas, manichaeismo vel gnosticismo addictos, et contra Apollinaristas docentes, ipsum Verbum Christo vice animae rationalis fungi. Uterque error etiam definitionibus Concilii Viennensis (an. 1311. 1312.) reprobatur his verbis: « Confitemur, unigenitum Dei Filium in iis omnibus, in quibus Deus Pater existit, una cum Patre aeternaliter subsistentem, partes nostrae naturae simul unitas, ex quibus in se verus Deus existens fieret verus homo, humanum videlicet corpus passibile et animam intellectivam seu rationalem, ipsum corpus vere per se et essentialiter informantem, assumsisse ex tempore in virginali thalamo ad unitatem suae hypostasis et personae ».

II. Utramque quaestionem multi antiqui doctores unica quaestione absolvunt, vel etiam non explicite tractant. De utraque igitur tractant: Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 4. m. 4. — Scot., hic q. 2. 3, d. 16. q. 2. n. 7; Report., hic q. 1. 2, d. 16. q. 2. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 3. quaestiunc. 1-3; S. III. q. 5. a. 1-4; S. c. Gent. IV. c. 30-33. — B. Albert., hic a. 7. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 1. — Aegid. R., hic q. 1. a. 1. et dub. lat. 1. — Durand., hic q. 2. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 5. — Biel, hic q. unica.

---

English Translation

Article II. On the assumed nature with respect to the integrity of its parts.

Next there is inquiry concerning the assumed nature with respect to the integrity of its parts. And concerning this three things are asked.

First it is asked, whether Christ1 assumed true flesh.

Second it is asked, whether Christ had a true rational soul.

Third it is asked, whether Christ, in assuming human flesh, had a common species.

Question I. Whether Christ assumed true flesh.

Concerning the first one proceeds thus, and it is asked, whether Christ assumed true flesh. And that he did is proved:

1. By that which is said in the last [chapter] of Luke2: Handle and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones: if therefore Christ after the resurrection had true flesh, it necessarily follows that he had it before.

2. Likewise, Damascene3: « What was unassumable was incurable »: therefore what was curable was assumable, and what was cured was assumed; but not only the soul, but also the flesh received healing through Christ: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, a man is not born of a man except from flesh; but Christ was born and conceived of the Virgin Mary4: therefore he drew true flesh from her.

4. Likewise, true flesh belongs necessarily to the true constitution of a man: therefore if Christ lacked true flesh, he lacked true humanity; and if he lacked true humanity, he lacked true blood and the true price of redemption5: therefore our whole faith is vain. But if to say this is of heretical impiety, it is heretical and an adversary of the true faith to hold that Christ did not have true human flesh.

Sed contra: 1. In the fifth [chapter] to the Galatians6: The flesh lusteth against the spirit; but in Christ there was no concupiscence or disorder: therefore neither true flesh.

2. Likewise, in the third [chapter] of John7: He that is of the earth speaketh of the earth; he that cometh from heaven is above all. But in this is marked the difference of Christ from other men; but other men are of the earth, because their body is of the earth: therefore Christ's body was not of the earth nor of the other elements, as are other bodies: therefore it does not seem that he had true human flesh.

3. Likewise, union presupposes in what is unitable the character of an image — whence an irrational creature does not have in itself a fittingness for union8 — but human flesh does not have in itself the image of God, because that is in the higher portion of reason: therefore it does not seem that it may be assumed by the Word of God.

4. Likewise, the grace of union is more excellent than [the grace] of fruition; but fruition does not belong to flesh9 itself: therefore much less union to the deity: therefore Christ did not assume true flesh.

5. Likewise, union effects a communication of idioms10; but the flesh of Christ does not receive the communication of idioms with respect to the divine properties, for the flesh is not God: therefore it does not seem that it is united or assumed by the Word of God.

Conclusio

Christ had true human flesh and a true human body.

Respondeo: It must be said that concerning this there were three ways of speaking; and two are heretical11, the third is catholic.

Some wished to say that the flesh of Christ was not true flesh, but phantasmal flesh; and this indeed they said, because it seemed unfitting to them that God should be united to a corporeal nature. — But these, while they wished to avoid an apparent unfittingness, fell into a true unfittingness; and while they wished to render praise to God apparently, they fell into blasphemy truly.

For to hold that Christ had12 phantasmal flesh is to attribute imperfection to the perfect, and deception to the truth. For if he did not have a true body, he was not a perfect man. — Likewise, if he did not have a true body, he did not truly suffer: therefore he deceived all who believe in him. If therefore to say this is to blaspheme God impiously, it is plain that it is a manifest error to hold that he did not assume a true body13.

And therefore others said that Christ had a true body and true flesh; but that flesh was not earthly, but heavenly. For they said that Christ brought that flesh from heaven, because it was not fitting for him to have sinful flesh, both because it lusts against the spirit, and also because it has the devil as its author. And they wish to fortify this error of theirs by that text of the first [letter] to the Corinthians, the fifteenth [chapter]14: The first man was of the earth, earthy; the second man, from heaven, heavenly; and by that which is said in the third [chapter] of John: He that cometh from heaven is above all. — But this most wicked error contradicts the truth of the incarnation and of the reparation: the truth of the incarnation, because Christ, according as the sacred Scriptures15 testify, was of the seed of David according to the flesh, who was born of the Virgin Mary, who was of the stock of David. — But it contradicts the truth of the reparation, because, if he did not have earthly flesh, but heavenly, he did not have passible [flesh]; if also he did not have earthly flesh16, he did not have flesh of our kind; and if these things are true, neither did he truly suffer, nor was man truly redeemed through him. If therefore these two are of impiety and blasphemy, it is clear that this way of speaking is false and heretical17.

And therefore there is a third way of speaking, true and catholic, that Christ had true human flesh, in such wise that that flesh was both a true body and truly like to our flesh in nature. — For it was not fitting to find in the truth itself deception and a deluding of the eyes, because truth knows not how to deceive. Nor was it fitting to find imperfection in the most perfect Son of God, because the most perfect knows not how to fail; and therefore, as it appeared, so he most truly assumed a true and perfect18 body of our kind and from the womb of the blessed Virgin. — And the reasons showing this are to be granted.

1. To that, therefore, which is first objected to the contrary, it must be said that that is true of flesh in which the tinder of concupiscence is vigorous, and such flesh is sinful19; but such flesh was in Adam after sin and in his posterity begotten concupiscently. But such flesh was not in Adam before sin, nor in Christ, who was not conceived in lust, but by the power of the Holy Spirit; and to that extent his flesh is said to be heavenly and to come from above, because it is likened to the height of human nature, which was in Adam with respect to the privation of all uncleanness20.

2. And by this the response to the following objection is plain. For Christ is not said to come from heaven because his flesh descended from heaven, but because he was sent by the Father; for the flesh was formed according to the divine operation, lacking original sin and all rebellion. And in this the impious Manichees erred, as was shown above in the second book21; for they believed that earthly flesh by its own nature was repugnant to the spirit, as though it had its origin from an evil god; and they fell into this error, because they did not know how to distinguish between vice and nature.

3. To that which is objected, that union presupposes the character of an image in what is unitable; it must be said that this is true either in itself, or in the character of what is annexed; and although human flesh in itself does not have the character of an image, nevertheless it is united to a soul made to the image of God.

4. To that which is objected, that the grace of union is more excellent than [the grace] of fruition; it must be said that this is true by comparison to the same thing, namely to the soul, which enjoys God and is united to God, because the grace of union is more excellent than [that] of fruition and presupposes it; nevertheless with respect to the body it is otherwise, because the grace of fruition is not born to be in the body or about the body, since it posits only a created habit, which has [the function] of enabling the cognitive power. But the grace of union in the body does not posit the conferral of any habit, but only the substantification of the assumed body itself in the divine person22, as in a hypostasis, which indeed is from the mere and gratuitous

goodness of God; and therefore it does not so contradict nor is it so foreign, as the grace of fruition.

5. To that which is objected concerning the communication of idioms, it must be said that, as will appear below23, the idioms are not communicated to the assumed nature itself, or to its parts, but are communicated to the thing of the nature itself. For this is false: The Son of God is flesh, or a rational soul, although this is true: The Son of God is man.

Scholion

I. The conclusions of this and the following question are of faith, as is plain from many ancient decrees of the Church against the Docetists, addicted to Manichaeism or Gnosticism, and against the Apollinarists who teach that the Word itself functioned in Christ in place of a rational soul. Each error is also reproved by the definitions of the Council of Vienne (a.d. 1311, 1312) in these words: « We confess that the only-begotten Son of God, subsisting eternally together with the Father in all those things in which God the Father exists, assumed in time, in the virginal chamber, the parts of our nature united together, from which, existing in himself as true God, he might become true man, namely a passible human body and an intellective soul or rational [soul], truly informing the body itself per se and essentially, unto the unity of his hypostasis and person ».

II. Many ancient doctors treat both questions in a single question, or even do not treat them explicitly. Both, therefore, are treated by: Alex. of Hales, Summa, p. III, q. 4, m. 4. — Scotus, here q. 2, 3; d. 16, q. 2, n. 7; Reportata, here q. 1, 2; d. 16, q. 2. — St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 3, quaestiunculae 1-3; Summa III, q. 5, a. 1-4; Summa contra Gent. IV, c. 30-33. — Bl. Albert, here a. 7. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 3. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1, q. 1. — Giles of Rome, here q. 1, a. 1, and dub. lat. 1. — Durandus, here q. 2. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 5. — Biel, here q. unica.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. In multis codd. desideratur vox Christus, cuius loco codd. A F substituunt Verbum, qui et proxime post omittunt veram.
    In many codices the word Christ is wanting, in place of which codices A F substitute Word, which [codices] also immediately after omit true.
  2. Vers. 39. Cfr. August., Serm. 237. (alias 145. de Tempore).
    Verse 39. Cf. Augustine, Sermon 237 (alias 145, on the Season).
  3. Libr. III. de Fide orthod. c. 6. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 1. in fine. — Iren., V. contra Haeres. c. 12. n. 6. Cfr. supra pag. 29, nota 7.
    Book III, On the Orthodox Faith, c. 6. See here the text of the Master, c. 1, at the end. — Irenaeus, V Against Heresies, c. 12, n. 6. Cf. above p. 29, note 7.
  4. Ut profitemur in Symbolo Apostol. Cfr. Luc. 1, 31. seqq.
    As we profess in the Apostles' Creed. Cf. Luke 1, 31 ff.
  5. Respicitur illud I. Petr. 1, 18. 19: Scientes, quod non corruptibilibus auro vel argento redempti estis... sed pretioso sanguine etc.; et subinde illud I. Cor. 15, 14: Si autem Christus non resurrexit... inanis est et fides vestra. Cfr. ibid. v. 17. Hoc argumento utitur Tertull., III. adversus Marcion. c. 8. dicens: Vere autem pati phantasma non potuit. Eversum est igitur totum Dei opus. Totum christiani nominis et pondus et fructus, mors Christi negatur... Negata vero morte, dum caro negatur, nec de resurrectione constabit... Proinde resurrectione Christi infirmata, etiam nostra subversa est... atque ita inanis est fides nostra etc. — Pro impietatis edd. pravitatis.
    Reference is made to that text of I Peter 1, 18-19: Knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, as gold or silver... but with the precious blood etc.; and thereupon that text of I Cor. 15, 14: But if Christ be not risen again... your faith is also vain. Cf. ibid. v. 17. Tertullian uses this argument, III Against Marcion c. 8, saying: But truly a phantasm could not suffer. The whole work of God is therefore overthrown. The whole weight and fruit of the Christian name, the death of Christ, is denied... but with his death denied, while his flesh is denied, neither will the resurrection stand... accordingly, with Christ's resurrection invalidated, ours too is subverted... and thus our faith is vain etc. — For impiety the editions read depravity.
  6. Vers. 17. — De minori cfr. infra d. 12. a. 2. q. 1. seq. et d. 13. a. 1. q. 2.
    Verse 17. — On the minor [premise] cf. below d. 12, a. 2, q. 1 f., and d. 13, a. 1, q. 2.
  7. Vers. 31. — Paulo inferius ante nec de aliis codd. F G H Z interserunt item.
    Verse 31. — A little below, before nor of the others, codices F G H Z insert likewise.
  8. Cfr. supra a. 1. q. 1, ubi et seq. arg. insinuatur. — De minori cfr. I. Sent. d. 3. p. II. a. 1. q. 2. — Vat. ad unionem istam personalem.
    Cf. above a. 1, q. 1, where also the following argument is intimated. — On the minor [premise] cf. I Sent. d. 3, p. II, a. 1, q. 2. — The Vatican [edition] reads to that personal union.
  9. Edd. Christi. Mox pro deitatem codd. G H L N T U V Z divinitatem.
    The editions read of Christ. Presently, for deity, codices G H L N T U V Z [read] divinity.
  10. De communicatione idiomatum cfr. supra pag. 14, nota 3. locum Damasceni.
    On the communication of idioms cf. above p. 14, note 3, the passage of Damascene.
  11. Has duas opiniones haereticas earumque auctores Tertull., de Carne Christi, c. 1. impugnat dicens: Marcion, ut carnem Christi negaret, negavit etiam nativitatem; aut ut nativitatem negaret, negavit et carnem, scilicet ne invicem sibi testimonium redderent et responderent nativitas et caro, quia nec nativitas sine carne, nec caro sine nativitate. Quasi non eadem licentia haeretica et ipse potuisset aut, admissa carne, nativitatem negare, ut Apelles, discipulus et postea desertor ipsius [qui volebat, ut ibid. c. 6. habetur, Christum carnem habuisse, non ex Virgine natam, sed de substantiis superioris mundi mutuatam]; aut et carnem et nativitatem confessus, aliter illas interpretari, ut condiscipulus et condesertor eius Valentinus [qui, ut ibid. c. 13. memoratur, Christum contendebat carnem habuisse spiritualem]. Cfr. etiam Tertull., III. adversus Marcion. c. 8. seqq., et adversus Valentinianos, c. 1. seqq.; Iren., contra Haeres., III-V. passim; August., de Haeresib. c. 11; Athanas., Epist. ad Epict., n. 7; Fulgent., I. ad Trasim. c. 5. — Paulo inferius pro quidem Vat. cum paucis codd. quidam.
    Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ, c. 1, attacks these two heretical opinions and their authors, saying: Marcion, in order to deny Christ's flesh, denied also his nativity; or in order to deny his nativity, he denied also his flesh, namely lest nativity and flesh should render testimony to one another and answer mutually, since there is neither nativity without flesh, nor flesh without nativity. As though by the same heretical license he himself could not also either, having admitted the flesh, deny the nativity, like Apelles, his disciple and afterward his deserter [who wished, as is held ibid. c. 6, that Christ had flesh, not born of the Virgin, but borrowed from the substances of the higher world]; or, having confessed both flesh and nativity, interpret them otherwise, like his fellow-disciple and fellow-deserter Valentinus [who, as is recorded ibid. c. 13, contended that Christ had spiritual flesh]. Cf. also Tertullian, III Against Marcion c. 8 ff., and Against the Valentinians, c. 1 ff.; Irenaeus, Against Heresies, III-V passim; Augustine, On Heresies c. 11; Athanasius, Letter to Epictetus, n. 7; Fulgentius, I to Trasimund c. 5. — A little below, for indeed the Vatican [edition] with a few codices [reads] certain ones.
  12. Cod. U habuerit. Mox pro perfecto codd. F H O U perfectioni.
    Codex U [reads] had. Presently, for to the perfect, codices F H O U [read] to perfection.
  13. Edd. bene assumserit, cod. bb assumsit. — De his duabus rationibus, quibus Marcionis doctrina haeretica refellitur, cfr. Iren., III. contra Haeres. c. 22. (alias 32.) n. 1. et V. c. 1. n. 2. nec non Tertull., locc. citt.
    The editions rightly [read] would assume, codex bb assumed. — On these two reasons, by which the heretical doctrine of Marcion is refuted, cf. Irenaeus, III Against Heresies c. 22 (alias 32) n. 1, and V c. 1 n. 2, as well as Tertullian, the passages cited.
  14. Vers. 47. — Seq. Script. loc. est Ioan. 3, 31. — Mox post error pessimus codd. A K U W subiiciunt est et.
    Verse 47. — The following Scripture passage is John 3, 31. — Presently after most wicked error codices A K U W add is and.
  15. Rom. 1, 3; Ioan. 7, 42; Matth. 1, 16. seqq.; Luc. 1, 27. seqq. — Paulo inferius pro Repugnat autem codd. G H E Z bb Repugnat etiam.
    Rom. 1, 3; John 7, 42; Matt. 1, 16 ff.; Luke 1, 27 ff. — A little below, for but it contradicts codices G H E Z bb [read] it also contradicts.
  16. Cod. K addit sed caelestem.
    Codex K adds but heavenly.
  17. Cfr. Iren., III. contra Haeres. c. 16. (alias 17.) seqq. et Tertull. locc. citt.
    Cf. Irenaeus, III Against Heresies c. 16 (alias 17) ff. and Tertullian, the passages cited.
  18. Post perfectum codd. G H K Z inserunt et.
    After perfect codices G H K Z insert and.
  19. Cod. bb supplet quod caro concupiscit etc.
    Codex bb supplies that the flesh lusteth etc.
  20. Cfr. infra d. 3. p. II. a. 2. q. 1, et August., Enarrat. in Ps. 80. n. 10; V. contra Iulian. Pelagian. c. 15. n. 54. seqq., ubi etiam videsis de responsione ad seq. obiectum.
    Cf. below d. 3, p. II, a. 2, q. 1, and Augustine, Exposition on Ps. 80, n. 10; V Against Julian the Pelagian c. 15, n. 54 ff., where also you may see concerning the response to the following objection.
  21. Dist. 1. p. I. a. 2. q. 1, d. 31. a. 1. q. 1. in corp. et d. 34. n. 1. q. 1. — Mox pro de sui natura codd. F G H K L P Q Z de natura sua.
    Dist. 1, p. I, a. 2, q. 1; d. 31, a. 1, q. 1, in the body; and d. 34, n. 1, q. 1. — Presently, for by its own nature codices F G H K L P Q Z [read] by its nature.
  22. Vat. natura. Paulo superius eadem Vat. pro cognoscitivam substituit intellectivam et dein sustentificationem pro substantificationem. Paulo inferius pro sicut in hypostasi codd. M O sive in hypostasi. — De habitu creato, potentiam cognoscitivam habilitante, vide infra d. 14. a. 1. q. 1. seqq.
    The Vatican [edition reads] nature. A little above, the same Vatican [edition] substitutes intellective for cognitive, and then sustentification for substantification. A little below, for as in a hypostasis codices M O [read] or in a hypostasis. — On the created habit, enabling the cognitive power, see below d. 14, a. 1, q. 1 ff.
  23. Dist. 6. a. 1. q. 1. ad 6. et d. 8-11. — Mox post naturae assumtae Vat. addit id est in abstracto captae, et post rei naturae subiungit id est naturae in concreto acceptae. — Res naturae idem est ac suppositum, et sumta est haec locutio ex Hilario (cfr. I. Sent. d. 23. a. 1. q. 2, d. 34. q. 1. et ibi scholia et loc. cit. II. Sent. d. 6. a. 1. q. 1. ad 6.).
    Dist. 6, a. 1, q. 1, ad 6, and d. 8-11. — Presently after the assumed nature the Vatican [edition] adds that is, taken in the abstract, and after thing of the nature subjoins that is, the nature taken in the concrete. — Thing of the nature is the same as supposit, and this expression is taken from Hilary (cf. I Sent. d. 23, a. 1, q. 2; d. 34, q. 1, and the scholia there and the place cited, II Sent. d. 6, a. 1, q. 1, ad 6).
← Dist. 2, Art. 1, Q. 3Dist. 2, Art. 2, Q. 2→