Dist. 4, Art. 2, Q. 1
Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word · Distinction 4
Articulus II. De conceptione Christi in comparatione ad gratiam intervenientem.
Consequenter quaeritur de conceptione Christi in comparatione ad gratiam intervenientem. Et circa hoc quaeruntur tria.
Primo quaeritur de gratia illa in comparatione ad merita Ecclesiae.
Secundo, in comparatione ad meritum Virginis Mariae.
Tertio, in comparatione ad dignitatem naturae assumtae.
Quaestio I. Utrum Christi incarnatio fuerit ex mera gratia, an eam impetrarunt merita sanctorum Patrum.
Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum Christi conceptio vel incarnatio fuerit ex mera gratia, an hoc impetraverunt sanctorum Patrum merita. Et quod fuerit ex mera gratia, videtur.
1. (Fundamenta.) Ad Titum tertio1: Apparuit benignitas et humanitas Salvatoris nostri non ex operibus iustitiae; sed apparitio illa benignitatis et humanitatis est Filii Dei humanatione, sicut in Glossa dicitur: « Cum benignus et humanatus Deus noster apparuit »: ergo videtur, quod Filii Dei humanatio non fuerit mediantibus nostris meritis.
2. Item, super illud Psalmi 4: Respice in testamentum sanctum tuum; Glossa: « Meminit promissionis, quia merita deficiunt »2; et loquitur de promissione incarnationis: ergo etc.
3. Item, de eo quod per merita acquiritur, non tantum tenemur ad gratiarum actiones, sicut pro eo quod gratis datur; sed de Christi donatione tenemur ad omnimodas gratiarum actiones: ergo videtur, quod illam non impetraverint merita Ecclesiae.
4. Item, quod est fundamentum totius meriti Ecclesiae meritis eius non potest reddi; sed Christi incarnatio est fundamentum totius meriti Ecclesiae, quia per ipsum, quotquot sunt, reconciliati sunt Deo et Patri, nec aliquis salvatur nisi per eum3: ergo non videtur, quod incarnatio Christi per merita Patrum sive ipsius Ecclesiae poterit impetrari.
Sed contra: (Ad oppositum.) 1. super illud Psalmi 6: Propter miseriam inopum et gemitum pauperum; Glossa, ibi: « Exsurgam, id est mittam Filium, propter gemitum pauperum, qui pro malis gemunt et peccatis conteruntur; nam aliter non essent digni auxilio »4: ergo si propter gemitum facti sunt digni missione Filii Dei, videtur, quod incarnatio sive Filii Dei conceptio eorum meritis impetrata fuerit.
2. Item, qui meretur principale meretur et accessorium5; sed incarnatio Filii Dei fuit ordinata ad nostram glorificationem; sed nostram glorificationem potuerunt Sancti mereri: ergo et conceptionem Christi.
3. Item, qui meretur quod maius est, mereri potest et quod minus est6; sed maius est nostra beatificatio, quam sit Filii Dei incarnatio, quia illud est finis istius: ergo cum meruerunt sancti Patres suam beatitudinem, meruerunt ergo Filii Dei conceptionem.
4. Item, qui petit aliquid in oratione ex caritate, perseveranter, pie et ad salutem, meretur illud quod petit, maxime cum talis rei petitio Deo placet; sed antiqui Patres maximo desiderio petebant Filii Dei incarnationem, et hoc perseveranter, pie et ad salutem, et Deo placebat, quod tale quid peterent7: ergo videtur, quod meruerunt Filii Dei incarnationem.
### Conclusio Incarnatio Christi quoad essentiam non cadit sub merito; quoad circumstantiam temporis aliquo modo cadit sub merito sanctorum Patrum; quoad efficaciam quodam modo cadit sub merito, quodam modo non.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod de beneficio incarnationis, sicut de aliis beneficiis divinis, est (Distinctio.) tripliciter loqui; videlicet quantum ad substantiam vel essentiam, et quantum ad efficaciam, et quantum ad circumstantiam8. Si loquamur de ipso quantum (Conclusio 1.) ad essentiam, sic dicendum, quod illud beneficium erat supra sanctorum Patrum merita, propterea quia non est iustae retributionis, sed dignationis eminentissimae; et non sequitur merita hominis lapsi, sed potius est fundamentum omnis meriti, quia nullus Deo placere potuit post lapsum absque fide istius beneficii, vel in generali, vel in speciali9. (Notandum.) Secundum hanc viam procedunt rationes et auctoritates ad primam partem adductae.
Si vero loquamur de beneficio incarnationis (Subdistinctio.) quantum ad efficaciam; sic, cum eius efficacia esset duplex, videlicet quod ordinabatur ad liberationem a servitute culpae, et a reatu carentiae visionis Dei, quodam modo cadit sub merito, quodam modo non. — (Conclusio 2. duplex.) Quantum ad liberationem a reatu carentiae divinae visionis et captivationis diaboli, hoc meruerunt sancti Patres, et cadit sub merito; quantum vero ad ereptionem de statu culpae, non cadit sub merito, nisi quis large sumat meritum ad meritum congrui et condigni10.
Si vero loquamur de beneficio incarnationis (Conclusio 3.) quantum ad temporis circumstantiam; potest concedi absque calumnia, quod cadit sub merito praecedentis Ecclesiae. Sancti enim Patres flagrantissimis desideriis meruerunt incarnationis accelerationem; in quorum persona dicit Isaias, sexagesimo quarto11: Utinam dirumperes caelos et descenderes etc. — Et sic patet, quod incarnationis beneficium quantum ad essentiam non cadit sub merito; quantum vero ad temporis circumstantiam cadit sub merito sanctorum Patrum; quantum vero ad efficaciam mediam quodam modo cadit sub merito, quodam modo non. — Et quoniam rationes inductae ad primam partem currunt quantum ad illud quod est sive quantum ad excellentiam sui in se, ostendunt ipsum non cadere sub merito praecedentis Ecclesiae; ideo sunt concedendae.
Ad ea quae obiiciuntur in contrarium:
(Solutio oppositorum.) 1. Ad illud quod primo obiicitur in contrarium de Glossa Psalmi: Propter miseriam inopum et gemitum pauperum; dicendum, quod Glossa illa intelligitur de beneficio incarnationis quantum ad efficaciam nostrae liberationis a poena, sicut patet ex ipsa Glossa; vel quantum ad accelerationem temporis, sicut colligitur ex ipsa littera12. Si tu obiicias, quod Deus non citius incarnatus est, quam disposuerat ab aeterno, propter merita Patrum; dicendum quod propter merita Patrum Deus praeviderat, se acceleraturum; et sic fecit, sicut praeviderat.
2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod qui meretur principale meretur et accessorium; dicendum, quod (Notandum.) illud habet instantiam, quando illud accessorium non solummodo praeparat ad praemium, sed etiam praeparat ad meritum. Et quoniam Christi incarnatio praebebat sanctis Patribus viam merendi per fidem ipsius, hinc est, quod illa propositio non habet veritatem in proposito. — Potest etiam alio modo (Alia instantia.) praedictae locutioni instari. Non enim habet veritatem, quando illud accessorium non necessario adhaeret principali; et tale est incarnatio Filii Dei. Potuit enim Deus alio modo genus humanum glorificare et salvare quam per Filii incarnationem: propter hoc non sequitur, quodsi sancti Patres meruerunt sui glorificationem, quod13 Christi incarnationem. — Posset tamen concedi, quod quantum ad efficaciam liberationis potuerunt sancti Patres mereri beneficium incarnationis, non tamen simpliciter, sicut prius ostensum est.
3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod qui meretur quod maius est, meretur et quod minus; dicendum, quod (Notandum.) praedicta propositio instantiam habet in gratia et gloria; quia gloria cadit sub merito, gratia vero non14; sic et instantiam potest habere in proposito. — Posset etiam responderi per (Alia solutio.) interemptionem assumtionis15. Cum enim assumit, quod maior est glorificatio quam incarnatio; dicendum, quod falsum est, nisi glorificatio intelligatur cum praesuppositione incarnationis, vel nisi intelligatur respectu alicuius personae specialis, utpote respectu Petri vel Pauli — melius enim est Petro videre Deum in gloria, quam humanam naturam a Verbo esse assumtam — simpliciter tamen loquendo, melius est, Filium Dei incarnari, quam Petrum glorificari; quia Filii Dei incarnatio valet toti generi humano, Petri
glorificatio sibi soli. Et ideo non sequitur, quodsi aliquis potest sibi mereri suam glorificationem, quod mereatur Christi conceptionem.
4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod qui petit perseveranter, pie et ad salutem, meretur16; dicendum, quod verum est, si petat pro se; sed nullus petiit, quod Filius Dei assumeret se, et ideo nullus hoc meruit; petendo tamen aliis merebantur vitam aeternam sibi; et ideo non infructuose orabant. — Posset etiam dici, quod adhuc habet illud (Aliter.) instantiam: quando quis quaereret a Deo excellentiam gloriae Petri, qui esset parvae caritatis, non hoc meretur, quia hoc quod petit, merita sua excedit. Per hunc modum et in proposito potest instantia inferri.
I. Quoad hanc et seq. quaestionem evidens est communis sententia, quod humana Christi natura nullatenus potuerit mereri unionem hypostaticam, et quod nec Sancti veteris Testamenti nec ipsa B. Virgo potuerint eandem mereri merito proprie dicto i. e. merito condigni, sive incarnatio consideretur in ordine intentionis vel praedefinitionis divinae, sive in ordine exsecutionis. Loquendo autem de merito congrui et de antiquis Patribus et sanctissima Matre Dei, Scholastici communiter distinguunt ipsam incarnationem in se et quoad circumstantias, « videlicet temporis, generis et personae » (Aegid. II., hic q. 3. a. 1.), et concedunt, quod istae circumstantiae, praesertim acceleratio temporis, potuerint aliquo modo cadere sub rationem meriti. Addit autem S. Bonaventura tertium distinctionis membrum, scilicet quoad efficaciam, de quo hic proprie non est quaestio. — A nonnullis recentioribus hic adhibetur distinctio inter ordinem intentionis et exsecutionis (quam etiam Richard. a Med. hic innuit); unde etiam paulo aliter quaestionem resolvunt, de quo cfr. Suarez in p. III. Summae t. I. disp. 10. sect. 5-8.
II. Quoad B. V. Mariam, de qua agitur in seq. quaestione, nonnulli posteriores Scholastici affirmare voluerunt, eandem meruisse de condigno esse Matrem Dei sive ipsam dignitatem maternitatis divinae; quod ceteri communiter negant, cum non nisi de congruo hoc meruerit. Addunt autem iidem, quod ipsa dispositionem ad talem dignitatem, id est tam eminentem sanctitatis gradum, ut congrue potuerit esse Mater Dei, praevenientibus singularibus gratiis, etiam de condigno meruerit. — Nec aliud in re S. Bonav. sentit, dum praeter meritum de congruo, quod eadem habuit ante annuntiationem, etiam meritum digni (non autem condigni) post consensum eidem attribuit. — De triplici distinctione meriti, qua utitur hic S. Bonav., cfr. II. Sent. d. 27. a. 2. q. 2. 3. Richard. a Med. (hic a. 3. q. I.) ad rem dicit: « Illud meritum, quo B. Virgo meruit fieri Mater Dei, potest vocari meritum decentiae, vel congruitatis, vel secundum aliquos meritum dignitatis ».
III. Alii Scholastici de utraque quaestione simul tractare solent: Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 8. m. 3. a. 2. — Scot., III. Report. d. 7. q. 4. — S. Thom., hic q. 3. a. 1; S. III. q. 2. a. 11. — B. Albert., hic a. 8. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 2. 3. — Aegid. II., hic q. 3. a. 1. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 2. — Biel de hac et seqq. qq. hic q. unica.
---
Article II. On the conception of Christ in comparison to the intervening grace.
Consequently it is asked concerning the conception of Christ in comparison to the intervening grace. And concerning this three things are asked.
First, it is asked concerning that grace in comparison to the merits of the Church.
Second, in comparison to the merit of the Virgin Mary.
Third, in comparison to the dignity of the assumed nature.
Question I. Whether Christ's incarnation was from pure grace, or whether the merits of the holy Fathers obtained it.
Concerning the first the procedure is thus, and it is asked whether Christ's conception or incarnation was from pure grace, or whether the merits of the holy Fathers obtained this. And that it was from pure grace, it seems.
1. (Foundations.) To Titus, chapter three1: The kindness and humanity of our Savior appeared, not from works of righteousness; but that appearing of kindness and humanity is the becoming-human of the Son of God, as is said in the Gloss: « When our God, kind and made-human, appeared »: therefore it seems that the becoming-human of the Son of God was not through the mediation of our merits.
2. Likewise, upon that of Psalm 4: Look upon thy holy testament; the Gloss: « He calls to mind the promise, because merits fail »2; and it speaks of the promise of the incarnation: therefore etc.
3. Likewise, for that which is acquired through merits, we are not bound to thanksgivings as much as for that which is given freely; but for the gift of Christ we are bound to thanksgivings of every kind: therefore it seems that the merits of the Church did not obtain it.
4. Likewise, that which is the foundation of the whole merit of the Church cannot be rendered by its merits; but Christ's incarnation is the foundation of the whole merit of the Church, because through him, however many there are, they have been reconciled to God and the Father, nor is anyone saved except through him3: therefore it does not seem that the incarnation of Christ could be obtained through the merits of the Fathers or of the Church itself.
On the contrary: (To the opposite.) 1. upon that of Psalm 6: Because of the misery of the needy and the groaning of the poor; the Gloss, there: « I will arise, that is, I will send the Son, because of the groaning of the poor, who groan over evils and are contrite for sins; for otherwise they would not be worthy of help »4: therefore if because of their groaning they were made worthy of the sending of the Son of God, it seems that the incarnation or conception of the Son of God was obtained by their merits.
2. Likewise, he who merits the principal merits also the accessory5; but the incarnation of the Son of God was ordered to our glorification; but the Saints were able to merit our glorification: therefore also the conception of Christ.
3. Likewise, he who merits what is greater can also merit what is lesser6; but our beatification is greater than the incarnation of the Son of God, because the latter is the end of it: therefore since the holy Fathers merited their own beatitude, they therefore merited the conception of the Son of God.
4. Likewise, he who asks for something in prayer from charity, perseveringly, piously, and unto salvation, merits that which he asks, especially when the asking of such a thing pleases God; but the ancient Fathers asked for the incarnation of the Son of God with the greatest desire, and this perseveringly, piously, and unto salvation, and it was pleasing to God that they should ask for such a thing7: therefore it seems that they merited the incarnation of the Son of God.
### Conclusion The incarnation of Christ, as to its essence, does not fall under merit; as to the circumstance of time it in some way falls under the merit of the holy Fathers; as to its efficacy it in one way falls under merit, in another way it does not.
I respond: It must be said that concerning the benefit of the incarnation, as concerning the other divine benefits, one may speak (Distinction.) in three ways; namely as to its substance or essence, and as to its efficacy, and as to its circumstance8. If we speak of it as to (Conclusion 1.) its essence, then it must be said that that benefit was above the merits of the holy Fathers, for the reason that it is not of just retribution, but of a most eminent condescension; and it does not follow upon the merits of fallen man, but rather is the foundation of all merit, because no one was able to please God after the fall without faith in this benefit, either in general or in particular9. (Note.) Along this way proceed the reasons and authorities adduced for the first side.
But if we speak of the benefit of the incarnation (Subdistinction.) as to its efficacy; then, since its efficacy was twofold, namely that it was ordered to liberation from the servitude of sin, and from the guilt of the lack of the vision of God, it in one way falls under merit, in another way it does not. — (Conclusion 2, twofold.) As to liberation from the guilt of the lack of the divine vision and from the captivity of the devil, the holy Fathers merited this, and it falls under merit; but as to deliverance from the state of sin, it does not fall under merit, unless one takes merit broadly for the merit of congruity and of condignity10.
But if we speak of the benefit of the incarnation (Conclusion 3.) as to the circumstance of time; it can be granted without cavil that it falls under the merit of the preceding Church. For the holy Fathers by their most ardent desires merited the hastening of the incarnation; in whose person Isaiah says, in the sixty-fourth [chapter]11: Would that thou wouldst rend the heavens and come down etc. — And thus it is clear that the benefit of the incarnation, as to its essence, does not fall under merit; but as to the circumstance of time it falls under the merit of the holy Fathers; but as to its efficacy, the middle one, it in one way falls under merit, in another way it does not. — And since the reasons brought forward for the first side run as to that which is or as to its excellence in itself, they show that it does not fall under the merit of the preceding Church; therefore they are to be granted.
To the things which are objected to the contrary:
(Solution of the objections.) 1. To that which is first objected to the contrary from the Gloss on the Psalm: Because of the misery of the needy and the groaning of the poor; it must be said that that Gloss is understood of the benefit of the incarnation as to the efficacy of our liberation from punishment, as is clear from the Gloss itself; or as to the hastening of the time, as is gathered from the text itself12. If thou objectest that God was not incarnated sooner than he had disposed from eternity, on account of the merits of the Fathers; it must be said that on account of the merits of the Fathers God had foreseen that he would hasten; and thus he did, as he had foreseen.
2. To that which is objected, that he who merits the principal merits also the accessory; it must be said that (Note.) this has an instance, when that accessory not only prepares for the reward, but also prepares for merit. And since Christ's incarnation provided for the holy Fathers a way of meriting through faith in it, hence it is that that proposition does not hold true in the matter at hand. — One can also in another way (Another instance.) make an instance against the aforesaid statement. For it does not hold true when that accessory does not necessarily adhere to the principal; and such is the incarnation of the Son of God. For God could have glorified and saved the human race in another way than through the incarnation of the Son: on account of this it does not follow that if the holy Fathers merited their own glorification, they therefore merited13 the incarnation of Christ. — It could however be granted that as to the efficacy of liberation the holy Fathers were able to merit the benefit of the incarnation, yet not simply, as was shown before.
3. To that which is objected, that he who merits what is greater merits also what is lesser; it must be said that (Note.) the aforesaid proposition has an instance in grace and glory; because glory falls under merit, but grace does not14; so too it can have an instance in the matter at hand. — One could also reply through (Another solution.) the destruction of the assumption15. For when one assumes that glorification is greater than the incarnation; it must be said that it is false, unless glorification be understood with the presupposition of the incarnation, or unless it be understood with respect to some particular person, as with respect to Peter or Paul — for it is better for Peter to see God in glory than that the human nature be assumed by the Word — yet speaking simply, it is better that the Son of God be incarnated than that Peter be glorified; because the incarnation of the Son of God avails for the whole human race, but Peter's
glorification for himself alone. And therefore it does not follow that if someone can merit for himself his own glorification, he therefore merits the conception of Christ.
4. To that which is objected, that he who asks perseveringly, piously, and unto salvation, merits16; it must be said that it is true, if he asks for himself; but no one asked that the Son of God should assume himself, and therefore no one merited this; yet by asking for others they were meriting eternal life for themselves; and therefore they did not pray fruitlessly. — It could also be said that that [proposition] still has (Otherwise.) an instance: when someone should ask of God the excellence of the glory of Peter, being of little charity, he does not merit this, because what he asks exceeds his merits. In this manner too an instance can be inferred in the matter at hand.
I. As to this question and the following, it is the evident common opinion that the human nature of Christ in no way could merit the hypostatic union, and that neither the Saints of the Old Testament nor the Blessed Virgin herself could merit the same by merit properly so called, i.e. by the merit of condignity, whether the incarnation be considered in the order of intention or of divine predefinition, or in the order of execution. But speaking of the merit of congruity and of the ancient Fathers and the most holy Mother of God, the Scholastics commonly distinguish the incarnation itself in itself and as to its circumstances, « namely of time, of kind, and of person » (Aegidius II, here q. 3, a. 1), and grant that these circumstances, especially the hastening of the time, could in some way fall under the account of merit. But St. Bonaventure adds a third member of the distinction, namely as to its efficacy, of which there is properly no question here. — By some more recent [writers] a distinction is here employed between the order of intention and of execution (which Richard of Mediavilla also here intimates); whence also they resolve the question somewhat differently, on which cf. Suarez in p. III of the Summa, t. I, disp. 10, sect. 5-8.
II. As to the Blessed Virgin Mary, who is treated in the following question, some later Scholastics wished to affirm that she merited de condigno to be the Mother of God, or the dignity of the divine maternity itself; which the rest commonly deny, since she merited this only de congruo. But the same add that she merited even de condigno the disposition to such a dignity, that is, so eminent a degree of holiness that she could fittingly be the Mother of God, by singular graces going before. — Nor does St. Bonaventure in substance think otherwise, when besides the merit de congruo, which she had before the annunciation, he attributes to her also a merit of worth (but not of condignity) after her consent. — On the threefold distinction of merit which St. Bonaventure uses here, cf. II Sent., d. 27, a. 2, q. 2, 3. Richard of Mediavilla (here a. 3, q. I) says to the point: « That merit, by which the Blessed Virgin merited to become the Mother of God, may be called a merit of fittingness, or of congruity, or according to some a merit of dignity ».
III. Other Scholastics are accustomed to treat both questions together: Alexander of Hales, S. p. III, q. 8, m. 3, a. 2. — Scotus, III Report., d. 7, q. 4. — St. Thomas, here q. 3, a. 1; S. III, q. 2, a. 11. — Blessed Albert, here a. 8. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 2, 3. — Aegidius II, here q. 3, a. 1. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 2. — Biel on this and the following questions, here in a single question.
---
- Vers. 4. seq. — Glossa habetur apud Lyranum ut interlinearis. — In minori ante Filii Dei humanatione [edd. humanatio] codd. K P Q R interserunt in.Verse 4 f. — The Gloss is found in Lyra as interlinear. — In the minor [premise], before the becoming-human of the Son of God [editions: becoming-human], codices K P Q R insert in.
- Psalm. 73, 20. — Glossa, quae est ordinaria, habetur apud Strabum et Lyranum ac sumta videtur e Cassiodoro, qui dicit: Quia non erant bona, quae delinquentis populi commemorare potuisset, meminit promissionis dominicae, quae semper impletur.Psalm 73, 20. — The Gloss, which is the Ordinary, is found in Strabo and Lyra and seems to be taken from Cassiodorus, who says: Since there were no good things which he could call to mind of the offending people, he calls to mind the Lord's promise, which is always fulfilled.
- Cfr. Act. 4, 12; Rom. 5, 11. seqq.; Coloss. 1, 20.Cf. Acts 4, 12; Rom. 5, 11 ff.; Col. 1, 20.
- Psalm. 11, 6. — Glossam exhibet Petr. Lombard. in hunc loc. — In fine Glossae cod. Q supplet gratiae.Psalm 11, 6. — Peter Lombard presents the Gloss on this passage. — At the end of the Gloss codex Q supplies of grace.
- Nam, ut in 42. regula iuris (VI. Decret. libr. V. in fine) praedicatur: Accessorium naturam sequi congruit principalis. — Mox pro sed nostram glorificationem potuerunt cod. T quam poterant.For, as is laid down in the 42nd rule of law (Sext of the Decretals, book V, at the end): It is fitting that the accessory follow the nature of the principal. — Soon, for but the Saints were able [to merit] our glorification codex T reads than they were able.
- Regula iuris 35: Plus semper in se continet quod minus est.Rule of law 35: What is greater always contains within itself what is lesser.
- Cfr. illud Isai. 64, 1. seqq.: Utinam dirumperes caelos etc. — De conditionibus orationem efficacem reddentibus, quae hic insinuantur, cfr. II. Sent. d. 27. a. 2. q. I. arg. 1. ad oppos. et q. 2. fundam. 5, et Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 26. m. 5. a. 3. § 1.Cf. that of Isaiah 64, 1 ff.: Would that thou wouldst rend the heavens etc. — On the conditions which render prayer efficacious, which are here intimated, cf. II Sent., d. 27, a. 2, q. I, arg. 1 to the opposite, and q. 2, foundation 5, and Alexander of Hales, S. p. IV, q. 26, m. 5, a. 3, § 1.
- Vat. cum cod. U et nonnullis aliis supplet temporis.The Vatican edition with codex U and some others supplies of time.
- Cfr. II. Sent. d. 27. a. 2. q. I, ubi similis argumentatio fere eadem occurrit. — Paulo inferius pro eius efficacia cod. U eius effectus.Cf. II Sent., d. 27, a. 2, q. I, where a similar argumentation, almost the same, occurs. — A little below, for its efficacy codex U reads its effect.
- Vide quaest. seq. in corp., et II. Sent. d. 27. a. 2. q. 2. in corp. — Paulo superius pro ad ereptionem cod. Z ad redemptionem, cod. bb ad exemptionem.See the following question in the body, and II Sent., d. 27, a. 2, q. 2, in the body. — A little above, for to deliverance codex Z reads to redemption, codex bb to exemption.
- Vers. 1. — Paulo ante codd. K Z bb voci flagrantissimis praefigunt suis.Verse 1. — A little before, codices K Z bb prefix to the word most ardent the word their own.
- Psalm. 11, 6: Propter miseriam inopum et gemitum pauperum nunc exsurgam, dicit Dominus.Psalm 11, 6: Because of the misery of the needy and the groaning of the poor I will now arise, says the Lord.
- Supple cum Vat. meruerint. — Quod finis etiam alio modo genus humanum salvare potuisset, ostenditur infra d. 20. q. 6.Supply with the Vatican edition they merited. — That the end could also in another way have saved the human race is shown below, d. 20, q. 6.
- Cfr. II. Sent. d. 27. a. 2. q. l. (ad 3. ibid. similis obiectio solvitur) et 3.Cf. II Sent., d. 27, a. 2, q. l (at the reply to 3 there a similar objection is solved) and 3.
- Sive per negationem minoris. Cfr. I. Sent. pag. 87, nota 4.Or through the negation of the minor [premise]. Cf. I Sent., p. 87, note 4.
- Codd. et edd. 1, 2 ante meretur repetunt quod. Mox pro assumeret se cod. U assumeret carnem pro se tantum. In fine solut. pro inferri cod. K ferri.Codices and editions 1, 2 repeat that before merits. Soon, for should assume himself codex U reads should assume flesh for himself only. At the end of the solution, for be inferred codex K reads be borne.