← Back to Distinction 40

Dist. 40, Art. 1, Q. 2

Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word · Distinction 40

Textus Latinus
p. 887

Quaestio II. De differentia secundum effectum, videlicet quod Lex vetus fuerit occidens, Lex nova sit vivificans.

Secundo quaeritur de differentia, quae assignatur penes effectum, videlicet quod Lex vetus erat lex occidens, Lex vero nova est lex vivificans, quam Magister ponit in littera1; et hoc accipitur ex secundae ad Corinthios tertio, ubi dicit Apostolus: Littera occidit, spiritus autem vivificat; et ex eo quod dicitur ad Romanos septimo, et ad Galatas secundo, et primae ad Corinthios decimo quinto: Virtus peccati Lex. Et ex pluribus aliis locis sumi potest ex verbis Apostoli.

Sed contra hanc differentiam obiicitur primo ratione primae partis:

1. Quia dicitur ad Romanos septimo2: Lex quidem sancta, et mandatum sanctum et iustum; Glossa: « Iustum, iustificans »; sed nihil sanctum et iustum occidit: ergo Lex non occidit.

2. Item, cum dicitur Lex occidens, aut intelligitur de Lege servata, aut de Lege non servata3. Si de Lege servata, constat, quod hoc est falsum. Si de Lege non servata; sed similiter Evangelium non observatum occidit, quia peccat qui non observat Legem evangelicam, sicut peccabat qui non observabat Legem scriptam: ergo Lex evangelica est lex occidens: ergo penes hoc non debet assignari differentia.

3. Item, si est Lex occidens, aut ergo per causam, aut per occasionem, aut per ostensionem. Si per causam4; et quod est causa spiritualis occisionis est simpliciter malum: ergo Lex mala est: verum ergo dixit Manichaeus, quod Lex vetus fuit a malo deo. Si per occasionem5: cum ergo frequenter homo sumit occasionem peccandi de virtutibus et bonis operibus, de quibus superbit; tunc ergo virtus et bona operatio debent dici occidere, quod omnino absurdum est. Si per ostensionem, quia ostendit peccati morbum6: ergo cum Evangelium similiter ostendat peccati morbum, tunc Evangelium debet dici lex occidens: ergo penes hoc nulla est differentia.

Item, obiicitur contra secundam partem differentiae, qua dicitur, quod Evangelium est lex iustificans.

4. Lex enim consistit in doctrina7; sed iustificatio consistit in gratia: ergo videtur, quod iustificatio nihil pertineat ad Legem evangelicam.

p. 888

5. Item, si Evangelium dicitur iustificare, aut sua instructione, aut sua observatione, aut alio modo. Sua instructione non; multi enim Evangelium audiunt et non iustificantur. Non enim auditores Legis, sed factores iusti sunt apud Deum, sicut dicitur ad Romanos secundo8. Si sua observatione; sed similiter Lex vetus iustificabat, secundum quod dicitur Matthaei decimo nono: Si vis ad vitam ingredi, serva mandata; et Beda dicit, quod « iustitia Legis suo tempore custodita non solum temporalia, sed etiam aeterna bona conferebat ».

6. Item, Lex Evangelii consistit in praeceptis et consiliis; sed praecepta et consilia consistunt in operibus bonis, iustitia autem non causatur in nobis ex operibus bonis, immo magis e converso9: non videtur ergo, quod effectus Legis evangelicae aliquo modo sit iustificatio.

### Conclusio. Lex nova iure dicitur vivificans, quia triplici modo iustificat; Lex vero vetus, secundum litteralem tantum sensum observata, dicitur occidens per occasionem, non per causam.

Respondeo: Ad praedictorum intelligentiam est notandum, quod multipliciter dicitur aliquid iustificare sive iustificans: uno modo effective; et sic solus Deus dicitur iustificare. Alio modo formaliter; et sic gratia dicitur iustificare, quae informat ipsam animam, expellendo obliquitatem culpae et dando rectitudinem iustitiae10. Tertio modo dicitur aliquid iustificans non solum in habitu, verum etiam in effectu; et sic caritas iustificat, sive fides, quae per caritatem operatur11. Quarto modo dicitur aliquid iustificans in ipsius iustitiae exercitatione et usu; et hoc modo mandata Dei, in quibus iustitia exercetur, iustificare dicuntur, quando modo debito observantur12.

His praesuppositis, intelligendum est, quod in Lege veteri tria erant consideranda, similiter et in Lege nova, videlicet moventia, et ista erant promissa; dirigentia, et ista erant praecepta; adiuvantia, et ista erant Sacramenta: quia, secundum quod dicit Hugo13, « Sacramenta sunt adiutoria, ut per praecepta veniatur ad promissa ». — Similiter haec tria sunt in Lege evangelica, sed differenter: quia in Lege nova secundum primam faciem ista omnia sunt spiritualia, quia promissa sunt aeterna, praecepta sunt spiritualia, et Sacramenta sanctificantia; et ita promissa excitant hominem ad amorem aeternorum, qui est amor caritatis; praecepta dirigunt sufficienter in via morum, docendo vitare omne peccatum; Sacramenta sanant animam a vulneribus peccatorum. Et sic Legi evangelicae competit iustificare secundum triplicem modum, videlicet formaliter ratione gratiae sacramentalis, et in effectu ratione amoris spiritualis, et in exercitio ratione multiplicis boni operis, ad quod dirigitur homo per consilia et praecepta14.

In Lege autem veteri erat aliter haec tria considerare: quoniam Lex vetus dupliciter potest observari et intelligi, videlicet secundum intellectum spiritualem; et sic quodam modo concordat cum Lege evangelica, et qui spiritualiter Legem observabant viri evangelici erant, quia Lex praegnans erat Evangelio15. Alio modo potest observari secundum intellectum litteralem; et sic ab Evangelio distinguitur secundum tria praedicta, quia in Lege erant promissa temporalia et praecepta exterius regulantia et Sacramenta figuralia; et sic ratione promissorum non excitabatur homo ad amorem spiritualem, ratione praeceptorum non dirigebatur ad iustitiam interiorem, ratione Sacramentorum non adiuvabatur, ut posset faciliter Legem ipsam implere: et ideo deerat sibi iustificatio16. Et quia erat ibi ostensio culpae, et non aderat adiutorium gratiae: dabatur per consequens occasio ipsi concupiscentiae, ut traheret ad mortem; et ideo Lex Moysaica secundum litteralem sensum dicitur lex occidens per occasionem, non per causam. Et hoc ipsum dicit textus

p. 889

ad Romanos septimo17: Peccatum per mandatum, occasione accepta, seduxit me et per illud occidit. Ibi Glossa: « Ex prohibitione namque, ubi caritas deficit, desiderium mali crescit, quo aucto, dulcius fit quod prohibetur, et ita peccatum fallit dulcedine falsa; et ita per mandatum occidit, quia reatus praevaricationis accessit. Gladio ergo, quem portabas, te inimicus occidit, armis tuis te interemit ». Unde sicut, cum quis armatus portat cultellum, ut se defendat, per quem ab inimico occiditur, illa cultelli portatione dicitur occidi non per causam, sed per occasionem; sic intelligendum est in Lege. Et sic patet intellectus praedictae differentiae.

1. Ad illud vero quod obiicitur, quod Lex sancta et mandatum sanctum et iustum, id est iustificans; dicendum, quod hoc verum est, quia Lex iuncta est gratiae adiutrici; verum est etiam, quantum est de se et de principali intentione legislatoris; nihil tamen prohibet ex accidenti et per occasionem inducere oppositum: sicut cultellus secundum principalem intentionem ferentis est armatura defensionis, et tamen occasionaliter contingit, quod sit instrumentum occisionis ipsius portantis18.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, utrum Lex occidat observata, vel non observata; dicendum, quod non observata. Et si obiiciat, quod similiter Evangelium non observatum occidit; dicendum, quod non est simile hinc et inde: quia Lex secum portat onus et non habet annexum adiutorium secundum suum litteralem sensum. Evangelium vero de se adiutorium habet ipsius gratiae; et ita non praebet mortis occasionem, quia gratia minuit concupiscentiam, quae suo vigore in servitutem peccati captivabat, secundum quod dicit Apostolus ad Romanos septimo19: Video aliam legem in membris meis repugnantem legi mentis meae, et captivantem me in servitutem peccati; et post exclamat: Infelix ego homo, quis me liberabit de corpore mortis huius? Gratia Dei per Iesum Christum Dominum nostrum.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Lex non potest dici occidere per occasionem, quia tunc similiter bona opera et virtutes dicerentur occidere; dicendum, quod non est simile: quia bona opera, quantum est de se, non efferunt, sed potius humiliant et in gratia servant; Lex vero per se ipsam onerabat, et in hoc, quod manifestabat peccatum et non dabat gratiae adiutorium, occasionem dabat intensionis libidinis et aggravationis contemptus. Unde quod dicatur esse occasio peccati, hoc non solum est ratione positionis, sed etiam ratione defectus. — Et si tu obiicias, quod qualitercumque occideret, non debebat20 Dominus dare Legem, cum quaerat nostram salutem; dicendum, quod Dominus in latione Legis, etsi daret eam carnalibus ad confringendam eorum duritiam, ut quodam modo manuducerentur ad gratiam recognoscendo infirmitatem suam21, principaliter tamen dabat eam propter spiritualiter intelligentes, qui salvabantur et merebantur in ipsius Legis observatione. Deus enim praeponderat salvationem unius iusti damnationi multorum impiorum.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod cum Lex Evangelii spectet ad doctrinam, non iustificabat22; dicendum, quod Lex Evangelii non dicitur iustificare, prout legitur et cognoscitur, sed prout in opere servatur et secundum eam vivitur; hoc autem fit per Sacramentorum susceptionem, aeternorum exspectationem et mandatorum impletionem; et secundum hoc assequitur plenam iustificationem. Et ideo ratio illa non valet.

5. Ad illud vero quod obiicitur, quod sicut Lex evangelica observata iustificat, ita Lex Moysaica, sicut dicit Beda; dicendum, quod Beda intelligit non de observantia litterali, sed de observantia spirituali, secundum quam Lex conformis erat Evangelio. Nos autem dicimus, Legem occidentem esse secundum observantiam litteralem, quae respiciebat ipsam communitatem, sicut praedictum est.

6. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Lex evangelica attenditur in praeceptis, quae respiciunt opera; dicendum, quod non tantummodo Lex Evangelii claudit in se praecepta, immo claudit in se promissa et Sacramenta, et magis dicitur iustificare ratione Sacramentorum quam ratione praeceptorum. Nihilominus tamen ratione praeceptorum potest dici

p. 890

iustificare quarto modo iustificandi, videlicet quantum ad exercitationem et usum iustitiae, non autem quantum ad iustitiae infusionem. — Et sic patet, quomodo intelligenda est ista differentia, quod Lex Moysaica est occidens, et Lex evangelica est vivificans; patet etiam, qualiter haec dicitur23 iustificare, et illa occidere.

---

English Translation
p. 887

Question II. On the difference with respect to the effect, namely that the old Law was killing, the new Law is life-giving.

Secondly, inquiry is made concerning the difference that is assigned with respect to the effect, namely that the old Law was a killing law, but the new Law is a life-giving law, which the Master sets down in the text1; and this is taken from the second [Letter] to the Corinthians, chapter three, where the Apostle says: The letter kills, but the spirit gives life; and from what is said to the Romans, chapter seven, and to the Galatians, chapter two, and in the first [Letter] to the Corinthians, chapter fifteen: The strength of sin is the Law. And from many other passages it can be gathered from the words of the Apostle.

On the contrary, objection is raised first against the first part, by reason [of it]:

1. For it is said to the Romans, chapter seven2: The Law indeed is holy, and the commandment holy and just; the Gloss: « Just, that is, justifying »; but nothing holy and just kills: therefore the Law does not kill.

2. Likewise, when "killing Law" is said, it is understood either of the Law observed, or of the Law not observed3. If of the Law observed, it is established that this is false. If of the Law not observed; but likewise the Gospel not observed kills, because he sins who does not observe the evangelical Law, just as he sinned who did not observe the written Law: therefore the evangelical Law is a killing law: therefore with respect to this no difference ought to be assigned.

3. Likewise, if it is a killing Law, then it is so either through cause, or through occasion, or through manifestation. If through cause4; and that which is the cause of spiritual killing is simply evil: therefore the Law is evil: therefore the Manichaean spoke truly, that the old Law was from an evil god. If through occasion5: since, then, a man frequently takes occasion for sinning from the virtues and good works in which he prides himself; then virtue and good action ought to be said to kill, which is altogether absurd. If through manifestation, because it manifests the disease of sin6: therefore, since the Gospel likewise manifests the disease of sin, then the Gospel ought to be called a killing law: therefore with respect to this there is no difference.

Likewise, objection is raised against the second part of the difference, by which it is said that the Gospel is a justifying law.

4. For the Law consists in doctrine7; but justification consists in grace: therefore it seems that justification does not pertain at all to the evangelical Law.

p. 888

5. Likewise, if the Gospel is said to justify, [it does so] either by its instruction, or by its observance, or in some other way. Not by its instruction; for many hear the Gospel and are not justified. For not the hearers of the Law, but the doers are just before God, as is said to the Romans, chapter two8. If by its observance; but likewise the old Law justified, according to what is said in Matthew, chapter nineteen: If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments; and Bede says that « the justice of the Law, kept in its own time, conferred not only temporal but also eternal goods ».

6. Likewise, the Law of the Gospel consists in precepts and counsels; but precepts and counsels consist in good works, while justice is not caused in us out of good works, but rather the contrary9: it does not seem, therefore, that the effect of the evangelical Law is in any way justification.

### Conclusion. The new Law is rightly called life-giving, because it justifies in a threefold manner; but the old Law, observed only according to the literal sense, is called killing through occasion, not through cause.

I respond: For the understanding of the foregoing it must be noted that a thing is said to justify or to be justifying in many senses: in one sense effectively; and thus God alone is said to justify. In another sense formally; and thus grace is said to justify, which informs the soul itself, expelling the obliquity of fault and giving the rectitude of justice10. In a third sense a thing is said to be justifying not only in habit, but also in effect; and thus charity justifies, or faith, which works through charity11. In a fourth sense a thing is said to be justifying in the exercise and use of justice itself; and in this manner the commandments of God, in which justice is exercised, are said to justify, when they are observed in the due manner12.

These things being presupposed, it must be understood that in the old Law three things were to be considered, and likewise in the new Law: namely, things that move, and these were the promises; things that direct, and these were the precepts; things that help, and these were the Sacraments: because, as Hugh says13, « The Sacraments are aids, so that through the precepts one may come to the promises ». — Likewise these three are in the evangelical Law, but differently: because in the new Law, at its first appearance, all these are spiritual, since the promises are eternal, the precepts are spiritual, and the Sacraments sanctifying; and so the promises rouse a man to the love of eternal things, which is the love of charity; the precepts direct him sufficiently in the way of morals, by teaching [him] to avoid every sin; the Sacraments heal the soul from the wounds of sins. And thus it belongs to the evangelical Law to justify according to the threefold manner, namely formally by reason of sacramental grace, and in effect by reason of spiritual love, and in exercise by reason of manifold good work, to which a man is directed through the counsels and precepts14.

But in the old Law these three were to be considered otherwise: for the old Law can be observed and understood in two ways, namely according to the spiritual understanding; and thus in a certain manner it agrees with the evangelical Law, and those who observed the Law spiritually were evangelical men, because the Law was pregnant with the Gospel15. In another way it can be observed according to the literal understanding; and thus it is distinguished from the Gospel according to the three aforesaid things, because in the Law there were temporal promises and precepts regulating outwardly and figural Sacraments; and so by reason of the promises a man was not roused to spiritual love, by reason of the precepts he was not directed to interior justice, by reason of the Sacraments he was not helped to be able more easily to fulfill the Law itself: and therefore justification was lacking to him16. And because there was there a manifesting of fault, and the help of grace was not present: occasion was consequently given to concupiscence itself, that it might draw [one] to death; and therefore the Mosaic Law, according to the literal sense, is called a killing law through occasion, not through cause. And this very thing the text says

p. 889

to the Romans, chapter seven17: Sin, taking occasion through the commandment, seduced me and through it killed [me]. There the Gloss: « For from the prohibition, where charity is lacking, the desire of evil grows, and when this has grown, what is prohibited becomes sweeter, and so sin deceives with a false sweetness; and so through the commandment it kills, because the guilt of transgression has been added. With the sword, then, which you carried, the enemy killed you, with your own arms he slew you ». Hence, just as, when an armed man carries a knife to defend himself, by which he is killed by the enemy, by that carrying of the knife he is said to be killed not through cause, but through occasion; so it is to be understood in the Law. And thus the meaning of the aforesaid difference is clear.

1. To that which is objected, that the Law is holy and the commandment holy and just, that is, justifying; it must be said that this is true, because the Law is joined to assisting grace; it is also true, as far as concerns itself and the principal intention of the lawgiver; nevertheless nothing prevents [it] from inducing the opposite accidentally and through occasion: just as the knife, according to the principal intention of the one carrying it, is an armament of defense, and yet it happens occasionally that it is an instrument of killing the very one who carries it18.

2. To that which is objected, whether the Law kills [when] observed, or not observed; it must be said, [when] not observed. And if one should object that likewise the Gospel not observed kills; it must be said that the case is not alike on both sides: because the Law carries with itself a burden and does not have help annexed according to its literal sense. But the Gospel of itself has the help of grace itself; and so it does not afford occasion of death, because grace diminishes concupiscence, which by its force was holding [men] captive in the servitude of sin, according to what the Apostle says to the Romans, chapter seven19: I see another law in my members fighting against the law of my mind, and holding me captive in the servitude of sin; and afterward he exclaims: Unhappy man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death? The grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

3. To that which is objected, that the Law cannot be said to kill through occasion, because then likewise good works and virtues would be said to kill; it must be said that the case is not alike: because good works, as far as concerns themselves, do not puff up, but rather humble and keep [one] in grace; the Law, however, of itself burdened, and in this, that it manifested sin and did not give the help of grace, it gave occasion for the intensification of lust and the aggravation of contempt. Hence that it is said to be an occasion of sin, this is not only by reason of positing, but also by reason of defect. — And if you object that, in whatever way it would kill, the Lord ought not20 to have given the Law, since He seeks our salvation; it must be said that the Lord, in the giving of the Law, even though He gave it to carnal [men] for breaking down their hardness, that they might in a certain way be led by the hand to grace by recognizing their own weakness21, nevertheless principally gave it for the sake of those understanding spiritually, who were saved and merited in the observance of the Law itself. For God outweighs the salvation of one just man against the damnation of many wicked.

4. To that which is objected, that since the Law of the Gospel pertains to doctrine, it did not justify22; it must be said that the Law of the Gospel is not said to justify, as it is read and known, but as it is kept in work and lived according to; and this comes about through the reception of the Sacraments, the expectation of eternal things, and the fulfillment of the commandments; and according to this it attains full justification. And therefore that argument has no force.

5. To that which is objected, that just as the evangelical Law observed justifies, so [does] the Mosaic Law, as Bede says; it must be said that Bede understands [it] not of literal observance, but of spiritual observance, according to which the Law was conformed to the Gospel. But we say that the Law is killing according to literal observance, which regarded the community itself, as has been said.

6. To that which is objected, that the evangelical Law is attended to in precepts, which regard works; it must be said that the Law of the Gospel does not only enclose in itself precepts, but rather encloses in itself promises and Sacraments, and is more said to justify by reason of the Sacraments than by reason of the precepts. Nevertheless it can still be said, by reason of the precepts, to

p. 890

justify in the fourth manner of justifying, namely as to the exercise and use of justice, but not as to the infusion of justice. — And thus it is clear how this difference is to be understood, that the Mosaic Law is killing, and the evangelical Law is life-giving; it is also clear how the latter is said23 to justify, and the former to kill.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Hic c. 2. — Primus textus Scripturae est II. Cor. 3, 6. secundus Rom. 7, 6: Nunc autem soluti sumus a Lege mortis etc. Tertius est Gal. 2, 16. seqq.: Scientes autem, quod non iustificatur homo ex operibus Legis etc. Quartus est I. Cor. 15, 56: Virtus vero peccati Lex. Cfr. Rom. 7, 11: Nam peccatum, occasione accepta per mandatum, seduxit me, et per illud occidit. Ibid. 8, 2: Lex enim spiritus vitae in Christo Iesu liberavit me a Lege peccati et mortis. — Mox pro et hoc edd. cum uno alteroque cod. et haec.
    Here, chapter 2. — The first scriptural text is II Cor. 3:6, the second Rom. 7:6: But now we are loosed from the law of death, etc. The third is Gal. 2:16ff.: But knowing that man is not justified by the works of the Law, etc. The fourth is I Cor. 15:56: But the strength of sin is the Law. Cf. Rom. 7:11: For sin, taking occasion through the commandment, seduced me, and through it killed [me]. Ibid. 8:2: For the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus has freed me from the law of sin and death. — Further on, for et hoc the editions, with one or two codices, read et haec.
  2. Vers. 12. — Glossa, quae est ordinaria apud Strabum et Lyranum, integre sic sonat: Sanctum, in se; et iustum, id est iustificans peccatorem; et bonum, id est utile, acquirens vitam. Cfr. Haymo, in hunc locum: Lex sancta, iusta et bona est; quia sanctitatem, iustitiam, bonitatem praedicat et observatores suos sanctos, iustos et bonos facit.
    Verse 12. — The Gloss, which is the ordinary one in Strabus and Lyra, runs in full thus: Holy, in itself; and just, that is, justifying the sinner; and good, that is, useful, acquiring life. Cf. Haymo, on this passage: The Law is holy, just, and good; because it proclaims holiness, justice, goodness, and makes its observers holy, just, and good.
  3. Codd. K L Lege observata... non observata.
    Codices K L: of the Law observed... not observed.
  4. Petr. Lombard. super illud Rom. 7, 6: Nunc autem soluti sumus a Lege mortis, refert hanc Glossam: Nunc autem, cum sumus Christi, soluti sumus, remissis peccatis, a Lege quae est causa mortis, id est peccati. Aucta est enim concupiscentia [secundum August., 83 Qq. q. 66. n. 2.], cum Lex prohiberet, ubi non erat fides etc. — De opinione Manichaeorum cfr. supra pag. 867, nota 11. — Pro et quod cod. K sed quod.
    Peter Lombard, on Rom. 7:6, But now we are loosed from the law of death, cites this Gloss: But now, since we are Christ's, we are loosed, our sins remitted, from the law which is the cause of death, that is, of sin. For concupiscence was increased [according to Augustine, 83 Questions, q. 66, n. 2], when the Law prohibited, where there was no faith, etc. — On the opinion of the Manichaeans, cf. above, p. 867, note 11. — For et quod, codex K reads sed quod.
  5. Rom. 7, 11: Nam peccatum, occasione accepta per mandatum etc. Cfr. ibid. v. 8.
    Rom. 7:11: For sin, taking occasion through the commandment, etc. Cf. ibid., v. 8.
  6. Rom. 7, 7: Sed peccatum non cognovi nisi per Legem etc. Cfr. ibid. 3, 20, et August., de Spiritu et lit. c. 3. n. 8. — Inferius pro debet dici cod. A dicitur.
    Rom. 7:7: But I did not know sin except through the Law, etc. Cf. ibid. 3:20, and Augustine, On the Spirit and the Letter, c. 3, n. 8. — Below, for debet dici, codex A reads dicitur.
  7. Rom. 15, 4: Quaecumque enim scripta sunt, ad nostram doctrinam scripta sunt. — Superius pro iustificans codd. A N obficans, cod. F iustificans vel vivificans.
    Rom. 15:4: For whatever things have been written, have been written for our instruction. — Above, for iustificans, codices A N read obficans, codex F iustificans or vivificans.
  8. Vers. 13. — Seq. textus est Matth. 19, 17. — Verba Bedae, in Marc. 10, 18, sunt: Notandum sane, quod iustitia... non solum bona terrae, verum etiam suis cultoribus vitam conferebat aeternam.
    Verse 13. — The following text is Matt. 19:17. — The words of Bede, on Mark 10:18, are: It must indeed be noted that the justice [of the Law]... conferred not only the goods of the earth, but even eternal life upon its cultivators.
  9. Cfr. Rom. 3, 24. seqq. et 4, 2. seqq. Petr. Lombard., in Rom. 3, 27. seq.: Non enim ex ipsis [operibus] est iustitia, sed ipsa sunt ex iustitia; ideoque non iustitiam operum, sed opera iustitiae dicimus. Vide etiam supra pag. 388, nota 2. — In fine arg. pro iustificatio cod. Z iustificare.
    Cf. Rom. 3:24ff. and 4:2ff. Peter Lombard, on Rom. 3:27f.: For justice is not from those [works], but they are from justice; and so we speak not of the justice of works, but of the works of justice. See also above, p. 388, note 2. — At the end of the argument, for iustificatio, codex Z reads iustificare.
  10. Hunc duplicem modum iustificationis insinuat August., Epist. 185. (alias 50.) c. 9. n. 37: Iustus enim et iustificans non est nisi Deus. Et ibid. n. 40: Dominus itaque Christus et iustus est et iustificans; nos autem iustificati gratis per gratiam ipsius. Cfr. II. Sent. d. 26. q. 2.
    This twofold manner of justification Augustine suggests, Letter 185 (otherwise 50), c. 9, n. 37: For none is just and justifying except God. And ibid., n. 40: And so the Lord Christ both is just and is justifying; but we are justified freely by His grace. Cf. II Sent., d. 26, q. 2.
  11. Gal. 5, 6. Vide supra lit. Magistri, d. XXIII. c. 3. seq.
    Gal. 5:6. See above the text of the Master, d. XXIII, c. 3f.
  12. August., Enarrat. in Ps. 118. serm. 6. n. 1: Iustificationes enim sunt non dicta, sed facta iustitiae, opera scilicet iustorum, quae imperat Deus. Ideo autem Dei dicuntur, quamvis a nobis fiant, quia, nisi ipso donante, non fiunt. — Superius pro exercitatione (cfr. Ps. 118, 23: Servus autem tuus exercebatur in iustificationibus tuis) cod. A exsecutione. Inferius pro erant consideranda edd. sunt consideranda.
    Augustine, Expositions of the Psalms, Ps. 118, sermon 6, n. 1: For the justifications are not the sayings, but the doings of justice, namely the works of the just, which God commands. And they are called God's, although they are done by us, because, unless He gives [it], they are not done. — Above, for exercitatione (cf. Ps. 118:23: But your servant was exercised in your justifications), codex A reads exsecutione. Below, for erant consideranda, the editions read sunt consideranda.
  13. Libr. I. de Sacram. p. XII. c. 4.
    On the Sacraments, Book I, part XII, c. 4.
  14. August., Enarrat. in Ps. 129, 1. n. 3: Illa [Lex vetus] timoris fuit, est alia lex caritatis. Lex caritatis dat veniam peccatis, delet praeterita, admonet de futuris, in via non deserit comitem, comes fit ei quem ducit in via. — Aliquanto superius pro sanant animam cod. aa sanant hominem.
    Augustine, Expositions of the Psalms, Ps. 129, [sermon] 1, n. 3: That [old Law] was of fear, there is another law of charity. The law of charity gives pardon for sins, blots out the past, admonishes concerning the future, does not desert its companion on the way, becomes a companion to him whom it leads on the way. — Somewhat above, for sanant animam, codex aa reads sanant hominem ["heal the man"].
  15. August., Serm. 25. (alias 19. de Diversis) c. 2. n. 2: Spiritualiter intellecta [Lex vetus], Evangelium est. Et Serm. 130. n. 1: Lex vetus hordeum est ad evangelicum triticum. Magna in illis libris de Christo mysteria continentur. Unde ait ipse: Si crederetis Moysi, crederetis et mihi; de me enim ille scripsit (Ioan. 5, 46.). Sed quomodo in hordeo medulla sub palea latet, sic in velamento mysteriorum Legis latet Christus. Cfr. XV. contra Faustum, c. 2.
    Augustine, Sermon 25 (otherwise 19, On Various Matters), c. 2, n. 2: Understood spiritually, [the old Law] is the Gospel. And Sermon 130, n. 1: The old Law is the barley for the evangelical wheat. Great mysteries concerning Christ are contained in those books. Hence He Himself says: If you believed Moses, you would also believe me; for he wrote of me (John 5:46). But just as in barley the pith lies hidden beneath the husk, so in the veil of the mysteries of the Law Christ lies hidden. Cf. Against Faustus XV, c. 2.
  16. Cfr. August., de Spiritu et lit. c. 4. n. 6. seqq., et Isidor., II. Differentiar. c. 33. n. 123. seqq. — Pro faciliter cod. Z facilius.
    Cf. Augustine, On the Spirit and the Letter, c. 4, n. 6ff., and Isidore, Differences, Book II, c. 33, n. 123ff. — For faciliter, codex Z reads facilius.
  17. Vers. 11. — Glossa, quae est ordinaria apud Strabum et Lyranum, delibata est, ultima propositione excepta, ex August., I. de Diversis Quaest. ad Simplic. q. 1. n. 5. Cfr. 83 Qq. q. 66. n. 5, et Expos. proposit. ex Epist. ad Rom. n. 39. — Pro accessit codd. G K Y accrescit.
    Verse 11. — The Gloss, which is the ordinary one in Strabus and Lyra, is excerpted, except for the last proposition, from Augustine, On Various Questions to Simplician, Book I, q. 1, n. 5. Cf. 83 Questions, q. 66, n. 5, and Exposition of Propositions from the Letter to the Romans, n. 39. — For accessit, codices G K Y read accrescit.
  18. Hieron., Epist. 121. (alias 151.) c. 8: Quomodo medicina non est causa mortis, si ostendat venena mortifera, licet his mali homines abutantur ad mortem, et vel se interficiant, vel insidientur inimicis; sic Lex data est, ut peccatorum venena monstret... Quodsi subintrante Lege... vitio nostro et incontinentia feramur contra scita legalia, videtur Lex causa esse peccati, quae, dum prohibet concupiscentiam, quodam modo eam inflammare cognoscitur etc. Cfr. August., XV. contra Faustum, c. 8, et XIX. c. 7. — Circa initium solut. pro quia Lex codd. H Z bb planius quando Lex.
    Jerome, Letter 121 (otherwise 151), c. 8: Just as medicine is not the cause of death if it points out deadly poisons, although evil men misuse them to death, and either kill themselves or lie in wait for enemies; so the Law was given, that it might show the poisons of sins... But if, the Law having entered in... we are carried by our own vice and incontinence against the legal decrees, the Law seems to be the cause of sin, which, while it prohibits concupiscence, is in a certain manner known to inflame it, etc. Cf. Augustine, Against Faustus XV, c. 8, and XIX, c. 7. — Near the beginning of the solution, for quia Lex, codices H Z bb read more plainly quando Lex.
  19. Vers. 23, ubi Vulgata in lege peccati pro in servitutem peccati. — Seq. textus est ibid. v. 24. seq. — Isidor., II. Differ. c. 33. n. 123: Inter Legem et Evangelium hoc interest, quod in Lege littera est, in Evangelio gratia. Et ibid. n. 128: Nam praecepta legalia, quae illi populo data sunt, comparatione meliorum etiam non bona dicuntur, quia quae praecipiunt non perficiunt; gratia vero Evangelii quod exterius imperat interius ut perficiatur iuvat. Ezechielis etiam testimonio (20, 25.) dicitur: Dedi eis praecepta non bona.
    Verse 23, where the Vulgate has in the law of sin for in the servitude of sin. — The following text is ibid., v. 24f. — Isidore, Differences II, c. 33, n. 123: Between the Law and the Gospel this difference exists, that in the Law there is the letter, in the Gospel grace. And ibid., n. 128: For the legal precepts, which were given to that people, are by comparison with better ones even called not good, because what they command they do not bring to completion; but the grace of the Gospel helps that what it commands outwardly may be perfected inwardly. By the testimony of Ezekiel also (20:25) it is said: I gave them precepts that were not good.
  20. Edd. debet. Inferius pro servant cod. A conservant.
    The editions [read] debet. Below, for servant, codex A reads conservant.
  21. Quam rationem insinuat August., Epist. 145. (alias 144.) n. 3; Epist. 196. (alias 200.) c. 2. n. 5. seq., et de Spiritu et lit. c. 9. n. 15. — Superius pro confringendam edd. cum pluribus codd. constringendam, cod. V conscindendam. Subinde pro duritiam, ut edd. A malitiam duritiae et. Inferius pro qui salvabantur et merebantur cod. U qui salvarentur et mererentur. In fine solut. pro impiorum cod. K peccatorum.
    This reasoning Augustine suggests, Letter 145 (otherwise 144), n. 3; Letter 196 (otherwise 200), c. 2, n. 5f., and On the Spirit and the Letter, c. 9, n. 15. — Above, for confringendam, the editions with several codices [read] constringendam, codex V conscindendam. Then, for duritiam, as the editions A [read] malitiam duritiae, etc. Below, for qui salvabantur et merebantur, codex U [reads] qui salvarentur et mererentur. At the end of the solution, for impiorum, codex K [reads] peccatorum.
  22. Edd. quod ideo non iustificet. Inferius pro servatur cod. A observatur.
    The editions [read] quod ideo non iustificet ["that therefore it does not justify"]. Below, for servatur, codex A reads observatur.
  23. Cod. U dicatur. — Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.
    Codex U [reads] dicatur. — See the scholion to the preceding question. [I.e. the article-master scholion of QUAESTIO I, whose §III prospectively surveys this question penes effectum — the killing Law «non quidem effective, sed occasionaliter ex sua imperfectione».]
← Dist. 40, Art. 1, Q. 1Dist. 40, Art. 1, Q. 3→