← Back to Distinction 2

Dist. 2, Dubia

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

Textus Latinus
p. 56

## DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

Dub. I.

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et quaeritur primo de hoc quod dicit: Omnia quae in nostra natura plantavit, Dei Verbum assumsit. Sed contra: Deus plantavit in primo homine immortalitatem: ergo assumsit immortalitatem; quod falsum est, quia mortalis fuit. — Item, in natura nostra plantavit utrumque sexum, scilicet femininum et masculinum: ergo utrumque assumsit; quod similiter falsum est.

Respondeo: Dicendum est, quod quaedam plantavit Deus in natura nostra, quae respiciunt ipsius constitutionem; quaedam, quae respiciunt statum et accidentalem dispositionem. Cum ergo dicitur1, quod omnia assumsit quae plantavit, omnia dicit ibi quae sunt de ipsius constitutione. — Cum ergo ipse arguit contra hoc de immortalitate et sexus distinctione, non instat secundum veritatem, sed propter praedicati commutationem paralogizat vel sophistice instat2; et per hoc patent illa duo obiecta.

Dub. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit contra haereticos: Si visibilia munda visibilibus immundis inquinari non possunt, quanto magis immutabilis veritas. Videtur enim ratio illa non valere. Quamvis enim radii solis non inquinentur ex foeditate illuminabilis, anima tamen, quae spiritualior est, inficitur ex coniunctione carnis3. — Praeterea, Filius Dei est passibilis propter assumtionem carnis passibilis, ergo similiter factus est carnalis; sed spiritus foedatur et inficitur, quando carnalis efficitur: ergo videtur, quod haereticus verum dixit in hoc, quod dicebat, divinitatem ex sui societate cum carne maculari.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod exemplum illud4 contra haereticos et ratio est bona et efficax. Radius enim a rebus foedis non inquinatur propter hoc, quia non communicat in materia transmutabili nec etiam ab eis dependet. Si ergo Veritas multo magis a rebus foedis distat et est independens, necessario sequitur, quod multo minus est contaminabilis. — Nec valet illud de anima, propter hoc quod anima, etsi sit spiritualis, habet tamen a corpore dependentiam et inclinationem.

Ad illud vero quod obiicitur, quod Filius Dei passibilis factus est; dicendum, quod illud verum est propter communicationem idiomatum5, non quia patiatur secundum divinam naturam, sed secundum naturam assumtam. — Et similiter potest concedi, quod sit carnalis, secundum quod carnalis nominat naturam, sed non secundum quod nominat vitium, quia suscepit carnis passibilitatem, non vitiositatem6. Cum ergo obiicit, quod spiritus inficitur, cum carnalis efficitur; dicendum, quod non valet, quia obiicit de carnali, prout sonat in vitium.

Dub. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod caro non fuit prius concepta et postmodum assumta. Videtur enim falsum, quia quod non est non potest assumi; sed caro, quae nondum concepta est, nondum est: ergo non est assumtibilis: ergo necesse est, quod caro prius concipiatur, quam assumatur. — Item, non est assumtio nisi carnis iam organiza­tae;

p. 57

sed ante7 organizationem praecedit formatio, formationem praecedit consolidatio, consolidationem conceptio: ergo a primo, ante assumtionem est conceptio.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod est loqui de conceptione quantum ad ordinem temporis et quantum ad ordinem naturae8. Si loquamur quantum ad ordinem naturae, sic prior est conceptio quam assumtio, sicut illae rationes ostendunt. Si autem quantum ad ordinem temporis, sic non decet nec oportet, ipsum esse; non, inquam, oportet9, quia utrumque fuit per virtutem infinitam, quae subito potuit facere; non decuit, quia mulier non carnis frustum, sed virum debuit circumdare10 in angelica annuntiatione. Illud autem melius patebit in sequenti distinctione, ubi Magister inquirit istam quaestionem.

Dub. IV.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit circa finem: Angelo annuntiante et Spiritu adveniente, mox in utero Verbum caro. Incarnatio enim excellentius opus est quam gratiae infusio; sed gratiae infusio non fit per angelicam annuntiationem: ergo nec incarnatio. — Item, Deus vicinior erat beatae Virginis cordi per gratiam quam angelicae menti — unde Bernardus11: « Virgo creditur exaltata super omnes ordines Angelorum » — ergo potius debuit transire illuminatio per beatam Virginem ad Angelum quam e converso.

Est igitur quaestio: quare conceptionem Filii Dei praecessit angelica annuntiatio? — Quaeritur etiam, de quo ordine Angelus ille fuerit. Non enim videtur fuisse de superioribus Angelis, quia dicit Dionysius12, quod « qui praeeminent usum exterioris officii nunquam habent ». Nec de inferioribus, quoniam illi mysterium incarnationis ignoraverunt et per Ecclesiam didicerunt. Unde quaerit Isaias sexagesimo tertio13: Quis est iste, qui venit de Edom? sicut exponit Gregorius.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod incarnationem debuit praecedere angelica annuntiatio, sicut hominis praevaricationem praecessit diabolica tentatio, ut sic ordo reparationis correspondeat ordini praevaricationis. Unde sicut diabolus tentavit mulierem, ut eam pertraheret ad dubitationem, et per dubitationem pertraheret ad consensum, et per consensum ad lapsum; sic Angelus nuntiavit Virgini, ut nuntiando excitaret ad fidem, et per fidem ad consensum, et per consensum ad concipiendum Dei Filium per Spiritum sanctum14.

Alia etiam ratio ordinis fuit ibi: quia beata Virgo erat in statu viatricis, sed Angelus in statu comprehensoris; et ideo voluntatem Domini clarius pro illo tempore agnoscebat, quia Deum videbat Angelus facie ad faciem, beata Virgo per speculum in aenigmate15. — Rursus, Angelus erat Dei servus et minister; et beata Virgo electa est et praeelecta fuerat, ut esset Dei mater. Quia ergo congruum est nescientem erudire per nuntium intelligentem et cognoscentem voluntatem Dei; congruum est etiam, ministrum famulari dominae suae: hinc est, quod decens et congruum fuit mysterium incarnationis per Angelum Virgini nuntiare16.

Tertia etiam ratio congruentiae potest assignari: quia incarnatio et humani generis redemptio non tantum faciebat ad reparationem lapsus humani, verum etiam ad reparationem ruinae angelicae17; et ideo Angeli beati non debuerunt excludi. Unde sicut sexus muliebris non excluditur a cognitione mysterii incarnationis et etiam resurrectionis, sic etiam nec angelicus nuntius; immo utrumque Deus Angelo me­diante nuntiat mulieri, incarnationem scilicet beatae

p. 58

Virgini, et resurrectionem Magdalenae.

Et sic patet, quod decens fuit, ante incarnationem praecedere angelicam nuntiationem propter triplicem ordinem18, videlicet reparationis generis humani, ministerii angelici et lapsus angelici restaurandi.

Quod ergo dicitur de gratia, quod non fit per angelicum ministerium; dicendum, quod gratia infunditur per ministerium humanum et per verbum humanum; sed incarnatio, quae est principium totius glorificationis, non per hominem debuit nuntiari, sed potius per Angelum19. — Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod proximior erat Virgo Maria Deo quam Angelus; dicendum, quod verum est quantum ad gratiam electionis20, sed non quantum ad gratiam comprehensionis.

Ad illud quod obiicitur, de quo ordine fuit: dicendum, quod probabiliter creditur, quod fuerit de ordine Archangelorum, sicut canit Ecclesia21. Unde si dicatur Gabriel fuisse summus inter Angelos, hoc non intelligitur de Angelo, secundum quod est nomen naturae, sed secundum quod est nomen nuntii, et nuntii, secundum quod ad nuntianda exteriora progreditur22; et hoc nihil impedit, quin Gabriel scire potuerit mysterium incarnationis, et alii Angeli potuerint ignorare. — Vel posset dici, quod inferiores Angeli scierunt mysterium incarnationis, sed quaerebant profunda divini consilii; et hoc melius cognoverunt post Filii exaltationem et veritatis praedicationem, quibus explicita et manifestata est multiformis Dei sapientia23.

---

English Translation

## DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

Dub. I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and it is asked first about what he says: All things which he planted in our nature, the Word of God assumed. But on the contrary: God planted immortality in the first man: therefore he assumed immortality; which is false, since he was mortal. — Likewise, in our nature he planted each sex, namely female and male: therefore he assumed each; which is likewise false.

I respond: It must be said that God planted in our nature certain things which regard its constitution; certain things which regard its state and accidental disposition. When, therefore, it is said1 that he assumed all the things which he planted, all there means the things which belong to its constitution. — When, therefore, he argues against this from immortality and the distinction of sex, he does not press the objection according to the truth, but rather, through a shifting of the predicate, he reasons fallaciously or presses the objection sophistically2; and through this those two objections are answered.

Dub. II.

Likewise it is asked about what he says against the heretics: If clean visible things cannot be defiled by unclean visible things, how much more the immutable truth. For that reasoning seems not to hold. For although the rays of the sun are not defiled by the foulness of what is illuminated, yet the soul, which is more spiritual, is infected by its conjunction with the flesh3. — Moreover, the Son of God is passible on account of the assumption of passible flesh, therefore likewise he became carnal; but the spirit is befouled and infected when it becomes carnal: therefore it seems that the heretic spoke truly in this, in that he said that the divinity is stained by its association with the flesh.

I respond: It must be said that that example4 against the heretics, and the reasoning, is good and effective. For the ray is not defiled by foul things, because it does not share in transmutable matter, nor even depend upon them. If therefore the Truth stands much further from foul things and is independent of them, it necessarily follows that it is much less contaminable. — Nor does that objection about the soul hold, on account of the fact that the soul, although it be spiritual, nevertheless has from the body a dependence and an inclination.

But as to that which is objected, that the Son of God was made passible; it must be said that this is true on account of the communication of idioms5, not because he suffers according to the divine nature, but according to the assumed nature. — And likewise it can be conceded that he is carnal, insofar as carnal names the nature, but not insofar as it names vice, because he took on the passibility of the flesh, not its viciousness6. When therefore he objects that the spirit is infected when it becomes carnal; it must be said that it does not hold, because he objects of the carnal as it sounds toward vice.

Dub. III.

Likewise it is asked about what he says, that the flesh was not first conceived and afterward assumed. For it seems false, because what is not cannot be assumed; but the flesh which is not yet conceived is not yet: therefore it is not assumable: therefore it is necessary that the flesh be first conceived before it is assumed. — Likewise, there is no assumption except of flesh already organized;

for before7 organization there precedes formation, formation is preceded by consolidation, consolidation by conception: therefore from the first, before the assumption there is conception.

I respond: It must be said that conception may be spoken of with respect to the order of time and with respect to the order of nature8. If we speak with respect to the order of nature, then conception is prior to assumption, as those arguments show. But if with respect to the order of time, then it neither befits nor is it required that it be so; not, I say, required9, because each came about through an infinite power, which could do it instantaneously; it did not befit, because it was not a fragment of flesh, but a man, that the woman ought to encompass10 in the angelic annunciation. But this will better appear in the following distinction, where the Master inquires into this question.

Dub. IV.

Likewise it is asked about what he says toward the end: With the angel announcing and the Spirit coming, at once in the womb the Word [was made] flesh. For the incarnation is a more excellent work than the infusion of grace; but the infusion of grace does not come about through angelic annunciation: therefore neither the incarnation. — Likewise, God was nearer to the heart of the blessed Virgin through grace than to the angelic mind — whence Bernard11: « The Virgin is believed to be exalted above all the orders of Angels » — therefore rather ought the illumination to pass through the blessed Virgin to the Angel than the reverse.

There is, therefore, the question: why did the angelic annunciation precede the conception of the Son of God? — It is also asked, of what order that Angel was. For he does not seem to have been of the higher Angels, because Dionysius says12 that « those who are preeminent never have the use of an exterior office ». Nor of the lower, since those were ignorant of the mystery of the incarnation and learned it through the Church. Whence Isaiah asks in the sixty-third chapter13: Who is this who comes from Edom? as Gregory expounds.

I respond: It must be said that the angelic annunciation ought to precede the incarnation, just as the diabolical temptation preceded man's transgression, so that thus the order of reparation might correspond to the order of transgression. Whence, just as the devil tempted the woman, that he might draw her to doubt, and through doubt draw her to consent, and through consent to the fall; so the Angel announced to the Virgin, that by announcing he might rouse her to faith, and through faith to consent, and through consent to conceiving the Son of God through the Holy Spirit14.

There was also another reason of the order there: because the blessed Virgin was in the state of a wayfarer, but the Angel in the state of a comprehensor; and therefore he recognized the will of the Lord more clearly for that time, because the Angel saw God face to face, the blessed Virgin through a glass in a riddle15. — Again, the Angel was God's servant and minister; and the blessed Virgin was elect and pre-elect, that she should be the mother of God. Since therefore it is fitting that one who does not know be instructed by a messenger who understands and knows the will of God; it is fitting also that a minister serve his lady: hence it is that it was decent and fitting that the mystery of the incarnation be announced to the Virgin through an Angel16.

A third reason of congruity can also be assigned: because the incarnation and the redemption of the human race made not only for the reparation of the human fall, but also for the reparation of the angelic ruin17; and therefore the blessed Angels ought not to be excluded. Whence, just as the female sex is not excluded from knowledge of the mystery of the incarnation and also of the resurrection, so neither is the angelic messenger; nay, both does God announce to the woman through the Angel — namely, the incarnation to the blessed

Virgin, and the resurrection to Magdalene.

And thus it is plain that it was decent that the angelic announcement precede the incarnation on account of a threefold order18, namely, of the reparation of the human race, of the angelic ministry, and of the angelic fall to be restored.

As to what is said about grace, that it does not come about through angelic ministry; it must be said that grace is infused through human ministry and through a human word; but the incarnation, which is the principle of all glorification, ought not to be announced through a man, but rather through an Angel19. — As to that which is objected, that the Virgin Mary was nearer to God than the Angel; it must be said that this is true with respect to the grace of election20, but not with respect to the grace of comprehension.

As to that which is objected, of what order he was: it must be said that it is probably believed that he was of the order of Archangels, as the Church sings21. Whence, if Gabriel be called the highest among the Angels, this is not understood of an Angel insofar as it is the name of a nature, but insofar as it is the name of a messenger, and of a messenger insofar as he goes forth to announce exterior things22; and this in no way prevents Gabriel from having been able to know the mystery of the incarnation, while the other Angels could be ignorant of it. — Or it could be said that the lower Angels knew the mystery of the incarnation, but were seeking out the depths of the divine counsel; and they knew this better after the exaltation of the Son and the preaching of the truth, by which the manifold wisdom of God is made explicit and manifest23.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Cod. N supplet Deus. Pro dicitur in codd. A U habetur dicit.
    Codex N supplies Deus. For dicitur codices A U have dicit.
  2. Cfr. Aristot., I. et II. Elench., praecipue I. c. 3. (c. 6.), ubi omnes syllogismi sophistici ad ignorantiam reducuntur redargutionis (elenchi) i. e. ad ignorantiam syllogismi contradictionis, qua scil. ignorantur quae ad veram contradictionem et instantiam requiruntur. — Pro praedicati commutationem edd. praedicti commutationem. — Cfr. de hoc dubio B. Albert., hic a. 7; S. Thom. et Petr. a Tar., hic circa lit.; Aegid. R., hic dub. lit. 7.
    Cf. Aristotle, Sophistical Refutations I and II, especially I, c. 3 (c. 6), where all sophistical syllogisms are reduced to an ignorance of refutation (elenchus), that is, to an ignorance of the syllogism of contradiction, by which, namely, the things required for a true contradiction and counter-instance are unknown. — For praedicati commutationem the editions read praedicti commutationem. — Cf. on this doubt Bl. Albert, here a. 7; St. Thomas and Peter of Tarentaise, here on the text; Giles of Rome, here doubt on the text 7.
  3. Cfr. II. Sent. d. 31. a. 2. q. 1. — Pro spiritualior Vat. spiritualis, edd. 1, 2 spiritualiter. Mox Vat., post Filius Dei addito verbo factus, cum edd. 1, 2 omittit passibilis post assumtionem carnis. Post pauca pro verum dixit cod. E verum dixerit, codd. A U verum dicat.
    Cf. Sentences II, d. 31, a. 2, q. 1. — For spiritualior the Vatican reads spiritualis, editions 1, 2 spiritualiter. Then the Vatican, after Filius Dei having added the word factus, together with editions 1, 2 omits passibilis after assumtionem carnis. Shortly after, for verum dixit codex E reads verum dixerit, codices A U verum dicat.
  4. Codd. bb et Vat. subiiciunt hoc.
    Codices bb and the Vatican add hoc.
  5. Edd. 1, 2 cum sit facta a Spiritu sancto tanquam efficiente etc. In fine solut. pro discretionem codd. G W Z et edd. 1, 2 habent distinctionem, in Vat. legitur distinctionem vel discretionem.
    Editions 1, 2 [read] since it was effected by the Holy Spirit as by an efficient [cause] etc. At the end of the solution, for discretionem codices G W Z and editions 1, 2 have distinctionem, in the Vatican is read distinctionem vel discretionem.
  6. Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.
    See the scholion on the preceding question.
  7. Cod. N omittit ante.
    Codex N omits ante.
  8. Cfr. Aristot., de Praedicam. c. de Priori et c. de Simul.
    Cf. Aristotle, Categories, the chapter on the Prior and the chapter on the Simultaneous.
  9. Edd. 1, 2 ipsam esse, antequam oportet, Vat. ipsam esse, antequam assumatur. Mox pro non decuit edd. ut decuit.
    Editions 1, 2 [read] ipsam esse, antequam oportet, the Vatican ipsam esse, antequam assumatur. Then for non decuit the editions read ut decuit.
  10. Respicitur illud Ierem. 31, 22: Quia creavit Dominus novum super terram: femina circumdabit virum. Cfr. infra d. III. lit. Magistri, c. 4, et Comment. p. II. a. 3. q. 2. — Huius dubii solutio invenitur etiam apud Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 8. m. 2; B. Albert., hic a. 14; S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 3; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 3; Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 4; Aegid. R., hic q. 2. a. 4.
    Reference is made to Jeremiah 31:22: For the Lord has created a new thing upon the earth: a woman shall encompass a man. Cf. below d. III, text of the Master, c. 4, and Commentary p. II, a. 3, q. 2. — The solution of this doubt is found also in Alexander of Hales, Summa p. III, q. 8, m. 2; Bl. Albert, here a. 14; St. Thomas, here q. 2, a. 3; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 3; Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2, q. 4; Giles of Rome, here q. 2, a. 4.
  11. Serm. in Dominica infra Octav. Assumt. B. M. V. n. 8: Iam in eo, quod tam reverenter atque officiosissime ab Archangelo salutata est, ut iam tunc in regali solio supra omnes caelestium ordines legionum exaltatam cernere videretur... excellentissimum nobis Virginis nostrae meritum et singularis gratia commendatur. Cfr. Serm. 4. in Assumt. B. M. V. n. 1, et Serm. in Nativ. B. M. V. n. 9. In epistola ad Paulam et Eustochium directa (olim Hieronymo tributa) de die Assumt. B. M. V. legitur c. 7: Haec est dies praeclara, in qua meruit [Maria] exaltari super choros Angelorum. — Pro Bernardus codd. A U substituunt Gregorius, qui reapse in libro Respons., sive Antiphonar., pro festo Assumtionis B. V. dicit: Exaltata est sancta Dei Genitrix super choros Angelorum.
    Sermon on the Sunday within the Octave of the Assumption of the Bl. Virgin Mary, n. 8: Already in this, that she was so reverently and most dutifully saluted by the Archangel, so that even then she might be seen exalted upon a royal throne above all the orders of the legions of the heavenly hosts... is commended to us the most excellent merit and singular grace of our Virgin. Cf. Sermon 4 on the Assumption of the Bl. V. M., n. 1, and the Sermon on the Nativity of the Bl. V. M., n. 9. In the epistle directed to Paula and Eustochium (once attributed to Jerome) on the day of the Assumption of the Bl. V. M., it is read c. 7: This is the illustrious day on which [Mary] merited to be exalted above the choirs of Angels. — For Bernardus codices A U substitute Gregorius, who indeed in the book of Responses, or Antiphonary, for the feast of the Assumption of the Bl. V. says: The holy Mother of God is exalted above the choirs of Angels.
  12. De Caelest. Hierarch. c. 5 sententialiter; at verba hic allata inveniuntur in Gregor., II. in Evang. Homil. 34. n. 12. Cfr. tom. II. pag. 261, nota 3.
    On the Celestial Hierarchy c. 5, in substance; but the words here adduced are found in Gregory, II on the Gospels, Homily 34, n. 12. Cf. tom. II, p. 261, note 3.
  13. Vers. 1. — Glossa ordinaria in hunc loc. (apud Strabum) Augustino docenti, « quod omnes Angeli ab ipsa creatione sua statim cognoverunt in contemplatione sui Creatoris quidquid ipse erat facturus », opponit Hieronymi de hac re sententiam: « Hieronymus autem aperte declarat [super hunc loc.], quia quidam Angeli, donec perficeretur, mysterium incarnationis ad plenum non cognoverunt ». Exponens Eph. 3, 10, idem Hieronymus affirmat, Principatus et Potestates sacramentum incarnationis didicisse per Ecclesiam. Cfr. tom. II. pag. 118, nota 8. Gregor., II. in Evang. homil. 34. n. 8: Hi autem, qui minima nuntiant, Angeli... vocantur. — Pro ignoraverunt Vat. et plures codd. ignorant.
    Verse 1. — The ordinary Gloss on this place (in Strabo), to Augustine teaching « that all the Angels from their very creation immediately knew, in the contemplation of their Creator, whatever he was about to do », opposes Jerome's opinion on this matter: « But Jerome openly declares [on this place] that certain Angels, until it was accomplished, did not fully know the mystery of the incarnation ». Expounding Eph. 3:10, the same Jerome affirms that the Principalities and Powers learned the sacrament of the incarnation through the Church. Cf. tom. II, p. 118, note 8. Gregory, II on the Gospels, homily 34, n. 8: But those who announce the least things are called Angels. — For ignoraverunt the Vatican and several codices read ignorant.
  14. Vide supra pag. 41, nota 7.
    See above p. 41, note 7.
  15. Epist. I. Cor. 13, 12, in quo testimonio edd. cum non paucis codd. pro in aenigmate exhibent et aenigma. — Cfr. Dionys., de Caelest. Hierarch. c. 4. § 4. — Paulo ante pro agnoscebat codd. M O S cognoscebat, et immediate post pro quia Deum Vat. edd. et Deum.
    [Cf.] the Epistle I Cor. 13:12, in which testimony the editions, with not a few codices, for in aenigmate present et aenigma. — Cf. Dionysius, On the Celestial Hierarchy c. 4, § 4. — Shortly before, for agnoscebat codices M O S read cognoscebat, and immediately after, for quia Deum the Vatican [and] editions read et Deum.
  16. nuntiari Vat. edd.; al. nuntiare.
    nuntiari the Vatican [and] editions; others nuntiare.
  17. Cfr. II. Sent. d. 9. q. 5. et 7. — Paulo ante cod. G post lapsus humani supplet generis. Aliquanto inferius pro immo utrumque edd. immo ut patet. Subinde pro nuntiat cod. N nuntiavit.
    Cf. Sentences II, d. 9, q. 5 and 7. — Shortly before, codex G after lapsus humani supplies generis. Somewhat below, for immo utrumque the editions read immo ut patet. Thereupon for nuntiat codex N reads nuntiavit.
  18. Cod. N ordinationem.
    Codex N [reads] ordinationem.
  19. Codd. M O adiiciunt comprehensionis. Cod. W ante potius per Angelum inserit sine dubio.
    Codices M O add comprehensionis. Codex W, before potius per Angelum, inserts sine dubio.
  20. Codd. M O reparationis, omittentes dein sed... comprehensionis. Mox pro obiicitur cod. W aptius quaeritur, et post pauca pro dicendum cod. N dici potest.
    Codices M O [read] reparationis, omitting thereafter sed... comprehensionis. Then for obiicitur codex W more aptly [reads] quaeritur, and after a little, for dicendum codex N [reads] dici potest.
  21. B. Albert., II. Sent. d. 3. a. 15: Sicut canit Ecclesia dicens: Gabrielem Archangelum scimus divinitus te esse affatum. Cfr. antiph. ad Magnificat in II. Vesp. S. Gabrielis Archangeli (die 24. Martii). — Cod. N voci Ecclesia praefigit sancta mater.
    Bl. Albert, Sentences II, d. 3, a. 15: As the Church sings, saying: We know that the Archangel Gabriel was sent by God to address thee. Cf. the antiphon at the Magnificat in II Vespers of St. Gabriel the Archangel (24 March). — Codex N prefixes to the word Ecclesia [the words] sancta mater.
  22. Cfr. II. Sent. d. X. lit. Magistri, c. 1. seq. et Comment. a. 1. q. 1. seq.
    Cf. Sentences II, d. 10, text of the Master, c. 1 ff., and Commentary a. 1, q. 1 ff.
  23. Eph. 3, 10. Cfr. August., V. de Gen. ad lit. c. 19. n. 38. seq. — Aliquanto superius pro Vel posset cod. N exhibet Vel etiam posset, et post pauca pro sed quaerebant substituit sed tamen non adverterant. Circa finem solut. cod. A explicita commutavit in explicata. — Cfr. de hoc dubio B. Albert., III.
    Eph. 3:10. Cf. Augustine, V On the Literal Meaning of Genesis c. 19, n. 38 ff. — Somewhat above, for Vel posset codex N presents Vel etiam posset, and after a little, for sed quaerebant substitutes sed tamen non adverterant. Toward the end of the solution codex A changed explicita into explicata. — Cf. on this doubt Bl. Albert, [Sentences] III.
← Dist. 2, Art. 3, Q. 3