← Back to Distinction 40

Dist. 40, Art. 1, Q. 3

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

Textus Latinus
p. 890

Quaestio III. De differentia utriusque Legis quantum ad onus annexum, videlicet quod Lex sit lex gravitatis, Evangelium vero lex suavitatis.

Tertio quaeritur de differentia Legis et Evangelii quantum ad onus annexum. Dicitur enim Lex Moysaica esse lex gravitatis, et Lex evangelica dicitur esse lex suavitatis. Et ista differentia trahitur ex undecimo1 Matthaei: Iugum enim meum suave est, et onus meum leve; et decimo quinto Actuum dicit beatus Petrus: Hoc est onus, quod neque nos neque patres nostri portare potuimus. Contra istam differentiam opponitur sic:

1. In prima Canonica Ioannis2 dicitur: Mandata eius gravia non sunt: ergo si Lex vetus continet mandata Dei, videtur, quod non sit onerosa nec gravis.

2. Item, ad Romanos decimo tertio3: Qui diligit proximum Legem implevit; sed hoc est valde facile, cum sit omnino in cordis nostri potestate: ergo facile fuit observare Legem: ergo Lex illa debet dici lex facilitatis, non gravitatis.

3. Item, si Lex Moysaica dicitur esse lex gravitatis, aut hoc dicitur respectu hominis virtuosi, aut respectu peccatoris et iniusti. Si respectu virtuosi; contra: qui virtuosus est caritatem habet et amat, et omnia facilia sunt amanti4. Si respectu peccatoris; sed respectu talis Lex Evangelii non tantummodo est gravis, immo omnino importabilis: ergo non videtur, quod penes gravitatem debeat differentia Legis novae et veteris assignari.

Item, obiicitur contra secundam partem differentiae:

4. Quia « ars et virtus circa difficilia5 »: ergo ubi maior est virtus, ibi maior debet esse difficultas; sed perfectioris virtutis sunt homines in Lege nova quam in veteri: ergo videtur, quod Lex nova debeat esse maioris gravitatis et difficultatis.

5. Item, difficilius est cohibere manum et animum quam manum tantum; sed Evangelium cohibet manum et animum, Lex vero manum tantum6: ergo maioris difficultatis est Lex evangelica quam Lex Moysaica.

6. Item, quod apponit ad alterum est illo difficilius; sed Lex Evangelii se habet ex additione ad Legem veterem, sicut patet ex quinto7 Matthaei: ergo maior est gravitas et difficultas in Lege Evangelii quam in Lege veteri: ergo nulla est praedicta differentia.

### Conclusio. Licet Lex evangelica quoad arduitatem praeceptorum sit gravior Lege veteri, iure tamen dicitur lex suavitatis, haec vero lex gravitatis.

Respondeo: Ad praedictorum intelligentiam est notandum, quod de his duabus Legibus est loqui tripliciter: aut ratione praeceptorum obligantium, aut ratione affectionum moventium, aut ratione Sacramentorum adiuvantium. Si ratione praeceptorum obligantium; sic se habent sicut excedentia et excessa. Nam quantum ad numerum Lex8 erat gravior propter multitudinem iudicialium et caerimonialium; quantum vero ad perfectionem et arduitatem gravius et difficilius est Evangelium, sicut difficilius est vivere secundum exigentiam perfectionis quam secundum sufficientiam iuris communis9. Et sic

p. 891

quodam modo ratione oneris praeceptorum excedit Lex, in difficultate quodam modo Evangelium. — Alio modo est comparare istas duas Leges ad invicem ratione affectionum moventium; et sic levius est Evangelium, quia, cum in observantia Legis evangelicae moveat amor — qui alleviat onus et non sentit laborem, sicut dicit Bernardus10, sed potius delectationem in eo quod facit — ratione affectionis moventis Lex evangelica est facilis et suavis. Sed econtra, affectio movens ad observantiam Legis Moysaicae timor erat; et illi timori iuncta erat gravis punitio, quod significatum est Exodi decimo septimo11, ubi dicitur, quod manus Moysi erant graves. Et quia timor de se poenam habet et exterius iunctus erat poenae; hinc est, quod quantum ad hoc Lex Moysaica multo gravior erat quam evangelica. — Tertio modo est istas Leges comparare ad invicem ratione Sacramentorum adiuvantium; et sic multo levior est Lex evangelica quam Moysaica, quia Sacramenta illius Legis multum habebant ponderis et parum habebant de efficacia virtutis; econtra est in Sacramentis novae Legis, quia parvam habent difficultatem et multam habent utilitatem12. Hinc est, quod secundum hanc comparationem Lex nova non tantummodo dicitur levior Lege Moysaica, immo dicitur iugum levitatis, et illa dicitur onus gravitatis. — Unde concedendum est, praedictam differentiam esse recte assignatam.

1. Ad illud vero quod primo obiicitur in contrarium de auctoritate Ioannis, dicendum, quod dupliciter est loqui de ipsis mandatis: aut per comparationem ad naturam sanam, aut per comparationem ad infirmam. Si per comparationem ad naturam sanam; sic dicit, mandata eius non esse gravia, quia sunt naturae consona. Si autem per comparationem ad naturam infirmam, quae habet difficultatem ad bonum et pronitatem ad malum; sic mandata eius et gravia sunt et difficilia; et quantum ad hanc viam, videlicet per comparationem ad naturam infirmam et lapsam, assignatur praedicta differentia13.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod qui diligit proximum Legem implevit; dicendum, quod Lex arctatur ibi ad mandata Decalogi, quae spectant ad secundam tabulam, secundum quod ipse Apostolus explanat14. Unde in hoc non clauduntur caerimonialia et iudicialia, maxime illa quae ad proximum non ordinant; et illa quidem observare est satis difficile: et ideo non sequitur, quodsi facile sit proximum diligere, quod propter hoc facile sit observare totam Legem. — Praeterea, alius defectus est ibi: quia, licet facile sit diligere proximum ei qui ducitur amore; ei tamen qui regitur servili timore, valde est difficile, quod diligat proximum sicut se et in nullo proximum laedat, tunc potissime, quando ab eo laeditur et gravatur15.

3. Ad illud quod quaeritur, utrum dicatur Lex gravis homini virtuoso, vel non virtuoso; dicendum, quod intelligitur de homine virtuoso, cui etiam difficilia sunt opera et praecepta illa caerimonialia, sicut baptismata calicum et urceorum16, et vitatio immunditiarum carnalium, in quibus potius consistit iustitiae significatio quam exercitatio. Unde quod dicitur, quod virtus reddit opus facile; hoc est verum quantum ad proprium actum. — Aliter potest dici, quod dupliciter est loqui de homine virtuoso: aut quantum ad profectum in bono, aut quantum ad statum perfectionis. Licet autem quantum ad statum perfectionis efficiantur sibi omnia facilia, tamen quantum ad profectum multa sunt ipsi homini habenti virtutem difficilia, et hoc ratione defectus ipsius naturae corruptae, cui difficile est cooperari virtuti et gratiae, nisi fulciatur magno iuvamine.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod ars et virtus est circa difficile; dicendum, quod hoc est verum de difficili, secundum quod sonat in perfectionem arduitatis, non autem, secundum quod sonat in onus gravitatis et laboris. Et ideo non sequitur, quod Evangelium sit difficilius, quamvis sit in eo perfectius virtutis exercitium. — Praeterea, quod17 dicitur virtus esse circa difficile, hoc est circa difficile ipsi

p. 892

naturae privatae virtute, non autem respectu ipsius naturae informatae et elevatae per gratiam et virtutem, per quem quidem modum in Lege Evangelii elevatur.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod difficilius est cohibere manum et animum quam manum tantum; dicendum, quod verum est, quantum est de genere operis et respectu hominis non habentis caritatem; sed in Lege nova his qui volunt eam servare et custodire, datur gratia et caritas, quae ita reddit facilem ad refrenandum animum, sicut timor reddebat ad refrenandum manum18.

6. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Lex Evangelii se habet per additionem ad Legem veterem; dicendum, quod additiones illae, quae sunt in Lege nova faciunt ad caritatis cumulum; et quia, secundum quod caritas augetur, secundum hoc alleviatur pondus: hinc est, quod additiones illae potius alleviant quam gravant. Non enim omnia addita aggravant, sed quaedam alleviant, sicut pennae in avibus19 et rotae in curribus et vela in navibus, quia sine istis multo graviores sunt. Per hunc modum intelligendum est in additione facta in Evangelio, quae quidem facit ad caritatis profectum, cuius est nos sursum levare ad modum pennae, ad bona opera continue ordinare et movere ad modum rotae, per aquas tentationum et tribulationum traducere ad modum veli; et ille solus, qui hanc caritatem habet, spectat ad Legem Evangelii, quam multo melius et utilius est desiderare, quam habere omne donum scientiae et prophetiae; quia qui addit scientiam addit onus et dolorem20; qui vero caritatem addit et multiplicat sibi meritum et consolationem21.

---

English Translation
p. 890

Question III. On the difference of the two Laws with respect to the burden annexed, namely that the Law is a law of gravity, but the Gospel a law of sweetness.

Thirdly, inquiry is made concerning the difference of the Law and the Gospel with respect to the burden annexed. For the Mosaic Law is said to be a law of gravity, and the evangelical Law is said to be a law of sweetness. And this difference is drawn from Matthew, chapter eleven1: For my yoke is sweet, and my burden light; and in Acts, chapter fifteen, blessed Peter says: This is a burden which neither we nor our fathers were able to bear. Against this difference it is objected thus:

1. In the first Canonical [Letter] of John2 it is said: His commandments are not heavy: therefore if the old Law contains the commandments of God, it seems that it is not burdensome nor heavy.

2. Likewise, to the Romans, chapter thirteen3: He who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the Law; but this is very easy, since it is altogether within the power of our heart: therefore it was easy to observe the Law: therefore that Law ought to be called a law of facility, not of gravity.

3. Likewise, if the Mosaic Law is said to be a law of gravity, either this is said with respect to the virtuous man, or with respect to the sinner and the unjust. If with respect to the virtuous; on the contrary: he who is virtuous has charity and loves, and all things are easy to one who loves4. If with respect to the sinner; but with respect to such a one the Law of the Gospel is not only heavy, but rather altogether unbearable: therefore it does not seem that the difference of the new Law and the old ought to be assigned with respect to gravity.

Likewise, objection is raised against the second part of the difference:

4. Because « art and virtue [are] about difficult things5 »: therefore where there is greater virtue, there ought to be greater difficulty; but men of more perfect virtue are in the new Law than in the old: therefore it seems that the new Law ought to be of greater gravity and difficulty.

5. Likewise, it is more difficult to restrain the hand and the mind than the hand alone; but the Gospel restrains the hand and the mind, the Law only the hand6: therefore the evangelical Law is of greater difficulty than the Mosaic Law.

6. Likewise, that which adds to another is more difficult than it; but the Law of the Gospel stands by addition to the old Law, as is clear from Matthew, chapter five7: therefore there is greater gravity and difficulty in the Law of the Gospel than in the old Law: therefore the aforesaid difference is null.

### Conclusion. Although the evangelical Law is, as to the arduousness of its precepts, heavier than the old Law, nevertheless it is rightly called a law of sweetness, and the latter a law of gravity.

I respond: For the understanding of the foregoing it must be noted that these two Laws can be spoken of in a threefold manner: either by reason of the obligating precepts, or by reason of the moving affections, or by reason of the helping Sacraments. If by reason of the obligating precepts; thus they stand to each other as the exceeding and the exceeded. For as to number the Law8 was heavier on account of the multitude of judicial and ceremonial [precepts]; but as to perfection and arduousness the Gospel is heavier and more difficult, just as it is more difficult to live according to the requirement of perfection than according to the sufficiency of the common law9. And thus

p. 891

in a certain manner, by reason of the burden of the precepts, the Law exceeds [the Gospel], [and] in difficulty in a certain manner the Gospel [exceeds the Law]. — In another way these two Laws are to be compared with each other by reason of the moving affections; and thus the Gospel is lighter, because, since in the observance of the evangelical Law love moves [one] — which lightens the burden and does not feel the labor, as Bernard says10, but rather [finds] delight in what it does — by reason of the moving affection the evangelical Law is easy and sweet. But on the contrary, the affection moving to the observance of the Mosaic Law was fear; and to that fear was joined a grave punishment, which was signified in Exodus, chapter seventeen11, where it is said that the hands of Moses were heavy. And because fear of itself has punishment and was outwardly joined to punishment; hence it is that as to this the Mosaic Law was much heavier than the evangelical. — In a third way these Laws are to be compared with each other by reason of the helping Sacraments; and thus the evangelical Law is much lighter than the Mosaic, because the Sacraments of that [old] Law had much weight and had little of the efficacy of virtue; the contrary is the case in the Sacraments of the new Law, because they have little difficulty and have much usefulness12. Hence it is that, according to this comparison, the new Law is not only said to be lighter than the Mosaic Law, but rather is called the yoke of lightness, and that [old one] is called the burden of gravity. — Hence it must be granted that the aforesaid difference is rightly assigned.

1. To that which is first objected to the contrary from the authority of John, it must be said that the commandments themselves can be spoken of in two ways: either by comparison to sound nature, or by comparison to infirm [nature]. If by comparison to sound nature; thus he says that His commandments are not heavy, because they are consonant with nature. But if by comparison to infirm nature, which has difficulty toward the good and a proneness toward evil; thus His commandments are both heavy and difficult; and as to this way, namely by comparison to infirm and fallen nature, the aforesaid difference is assigned13.

2. To that which is objected, that he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the Law; it must be said that Law is there restricted to the commandments of the Decalogue which pertain to the second tablet, according as the Apostle himself explains14. Hence in this are not included the ceremonial and judicial [precepts], especially those which do not order [one] toward the neighbor; and those indeed are quite difficult to observe: and therefore it does not follow that if it is easy to love the neighbor, that on this account it is easy to observe the whole Law. — Moreover, there is another defect there: because, although it is easy to love the neighbor for him who is led by love; yet for him who is governed by servile fear, it is very difficult to love the neighbor as himself and to injure the neighbor in nothing, then most of all, when he is injured and burdened by him15.

3. To that which is asked, whether the Law be called heavy for the virtuous man, or for the non-virtuous; it must be said that it is understood of the virtuous man, for whom those ceremonial works and precepts also are difficult, such as the baptisms of cups and pitchers16, and the avoidance of carnal uncleannesses, in which there consists rather the signification of justice than its exercise. Hence, as to what is said, that virtue renders the work easy; this is true as to the proper act. — Otherwise it can be said that the virtuous man can be spoken of in two ways: either as to advance in the good, or as to the state of perfection. But although as to the state of perfection all things are made easy for him, nevertheless as to advance many things are difficult for the man himself who has virtue, and this by reason of the defect of corrupt nature itself, for which it is difficult to cooperate with virtue and grace, unless it be supported by a great help.

4. To that which is objected, that art and virtue are about the difficult; it must be said that this is true of the difficult, according as it sounds toward the perfection of arduousness, but not according as it sounds toward the burden of gravity and labor. And therefore it does not follow that the Gospel is more difficult, although there is in it a more perfect exercise of virtue. — Moreover, as to what is said17, that virtue is about the difficult, this is about the difficult to

p. 892

the private virtue of nature, but not with respect to nature itself when informed and elevated through grace and virtue, in which manner indeed it is elevated in the Law of the Gospel.

5. To that which is objected, that it is more difficult to restrain the hand and the mind than the hand alone; it must be said that it is true, as far as concerns the kind of work and with respect to a man not having charity; but in the new Law, to those who wish to keep and guard it, grace and charity are given, which render [one] as easy to restraining the mind, as fear rendered [one] to restraining the hand18.

6. To that which is objected, that the Law of the Gospel stands by addition to the old Law; it must be said that those additions which are in the new Law make for the increase of charity; and because, according as charity is increased, according to this the weight is lightened: hence it is that those additions rather lighten than weigh down. For not all things added weigh down, but certain ones lighten, like feathers in birds19 and wheels in chariots and sails in ships, because without these [the latter] are much heavier. In this manner it is to be understood concerning the addition made in the Gospel, which indeed makes for the advance of charity, whose [office] is to lift us upward in the manner of a feather, to order [us] continually to good works and to move [us] in the manner of a wheel, to carry [us] through the waters of temptations and tribulations in the manner of a sail; and he alone who has this charity belongs to the Law of the Gospel, which it is much better and more useful to desire than to have every gift of knowledge and prophecy; because he who adds knowledge adds burden and sorrow20; but he who adds charity multiplies for himself merit and consolation21.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Vers. 30. — Seq. textus est Act. 15, 10: Nunc ergo quid tentatis Deum, imponere iugum super cervices discipulorum, quod neque etc.
    Verse 30. — The following text is Acts 15:10: Now therefore why do you tempt God, to impose a yoke upon the necks of the disciples, which neither etc.
  2. Cap. 5, 3.
    Chapter 5, [verse] 3.
  3. Vers. 8. — Paulo inferius pro cordis nostri non pauci codd. cum edd. 1, 2 cordis sui, cod. Z tantum cordis.
    Verse 8. — A little below, for cordis nostri ["of our heart"] not a few codices with editions 1 and 2 [read] cordis sui ["of his heart"], codex Z only cordis ["of the heart"].
  4. Bernard., Serm. 1. in Dom. Palmarum, n. 2: Amanti nil difficile est. August. in Ioan. Evang. tr. 48. n. 1: Nostis enim, quoniam qui amat non laborat. Omnis enim labor non amantibus gravis est. Serm. 70. (alias 9. de verbis Domini) c. 3. n. 3: Omnia enim saeva et immania prorsus facilia et prope nulla efficit amor.
    Bernard, Sermon 1 on Palm Sunday, n. 2: To one who loves nothing is difficult. Augustine, on the Gospel of John, tractate 48, n. 1: For you know that he who loves does not labor. For every labor is heavy to those who do not love. Sermon 70 (otherwise 9, On the Words of the Lord), c. 3, n. 3: For love makes all things, [however] fierce and monstrous, altogether easy and well-nigh nothing.
  5. Secundum Aristot., cfr. supra pag. 488, nota 1.
    According to Aristotle; cf. above, p. 488, note 1.
  6. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 1. Vide etiam Guliel. Antissiodor., S. p. IV. tr. 1. c. 2, ubi hunc loquendi modum tribuit Augustino. Alex. Hal., S. p. III: q. 56. m. 6. a. 2. § 4, allegat Glossam super illud Phil. 3, 9: Iustitia, quae ex fide est: « Iustitia non vera, quae ex Lege est, quae manus comprimit, non animum, quae timore, non amore servire facit. » B. Albert., hic a. 3, affert Glossam super Exod. 20, 17. Sed Strabus et Lyranus neque hanc neque illam Glossam exhibent. Invenitur autem hic loquendi modus tum in Comment. super Psalmos, qui est inter opera Bedae, tum apud Haym. in Ps. 18, 8.
    Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 1. See also William of Auxerre, Summa, part IV, tract 1, c. 2, where he attributes this manner of speaking to Augustine. Alexander of Hales, Summa, part III, q. 56, m. 6, a. 2, § 4, adduces the Gloss on Phil. 3:9, the justice which is from faith: « Not the true justice, which is from the Law, which compresses the hand, not the mind, which makes [one] serve through fear, not through love. » Blessed Albert, here in a. 3, brings forward the Gloss on Exod. 20:17. But Strabus and Lyra exhibit neither this nor that Gloss. This manner of speaking is found, however, both in the Commentary on the Psalms, which is among the works of Bede, and in Haymo on Ps. 18:8.
  7. Vers. 21. seqq. — Cfr. supra pag. 821, nota 4.
    Verse 21ff. — Cf. above, p. 821, note 4.
  8. Codd. K Z addunt vetus, et post gravior cod. A adiicit videlicet.
    Codices K Z add vetus ["old"], and after gravior codex A adds videlicet ["namely"].
  9. Matth. 7, 14: Quam angusta porta et arcta via est, quae ducit ad vitam, et pauci sunt, qui inveniunt eam. — De perfectione sufficientiae etc. cfr. supra d. 30. q. 3. in corp. — Cod. Z pro secundum sufficientiam, substituit secundum exigentiam.
    Matt. 7:14: How narrow is the gate and strait the way that leads to life, and few there are who find it. — On the perfection of sufficiency, etc., cf. above, d. 30, q. 3, in the body. — Codex Z, for secundum sufficientiam, substitutes secundum exigentiam.
  10. Serm. in Cantic. serm. 85. n. 8: Ubi autem amor est, labor non est, sed sapor. Cfr. de Natura et dignitate amoris (inter opera Bernardi), c. 5. n. 12. et infra pag. 892, nota 2. — De hac differentia Legis et Evangelii vide supra q. 1. — Superius pro in observantia codd. H U Z (N aa a secunda manu) ad observantiam, nonnulli codd. observantia, edd. 1, 2 observatio, quae etiam subinde cum Vat. substituunt moveatur pro moveat.
    Sermon on the Canticle, sermon 85, n. 8: But where there is love, there is no labor, but savor. Cf. On the Nature and Dignity of Love (among the works of Bernard), c. 5, n. 12, and below, p. 892, note 2. — On this difference of the Law and the Gospel, see above, q. 1. — Above, for in observantia, codices H U Z (N aa by a second hand) [read] ad observantiam, some codices observantia, editions 1, 2 observatio, which also subsequently, with the Vatican [edition], substitute moveatur for moveat.
  11. Vers. 12. Gregor., II. Homil. in Evang. homil. 33. n. 8, haec verba exponens dicit: Moyses quippe sedit in lapide, cum Lex requievit in Ecclesia. Sed haec eadem Lex manus graves habuit, quia peccantes quosque non misericorditer pertulit, sed severa districtione percussit. — Seq. locus Scripturae est I. Ioan. 3, 18.
    Verse 12. Gregory, Homilies on the Gospel, Book II, homily 33, n. 8, expounding these words, says: Moses indeed sat upon a stone, when the Law came to rest in the Church. But this same Law had heavy hands, because it did not bear with all who sinned mercifully, but struck [them] with severe strictness. — The following scriptural passage is I John 3:18.
  12. August., XIX. contra Faustum, c. 13, de Sacramentis novae Legis dicit, quod sint « virtute maiora, utilitate meliora, actu faciliora, numero pauciora, tanquam iustitia fidei revelata » etc. Cfr. infra dub. 3, et IV. Sent. d. 1. p. 1. q. 1. seq. — Superius post levior est in cod. A addatur adhuc. Idem cod. A circa finem corp. iugum suavitatis et levitatis pro iugum levitatis.
    Augustine, Against Faustus XIX, c. 13, says of the Sacraments of the new Law that they are « greater in virtue, better in usefulness, easier in act, fewer in number, as the justice of faith revealed » etc. Cf. below, dubium 3, and IV Sent., d. 1, p. 1, q. 1f. — Above, after levior est, in codex A let adhuc be added. The same codex A, near the end of the body, [reads] iugum suavitatis et levitatis for iugum levitatis.
  13. Bernard., de Praecepto et dispens. c. 10. n. 23: Non potest portare caro infirma quod solus spiritus promptus experitur, iugum esse suave et onus leve. Christi quippe iugum et onus est et omnino importabile, nisi Christi aeque spiritui... Mandatum quidem sanctum et iustum, sed tu te noris esse carnalem, venumdatum sub peccato (Rom. 7, 12. 14.). Cfr. Epist. 462. (alias 385.) n. 4, et August., Serm. 70. (alias 9. de Verbis Domini) c. 2. n. 2.
    Bernard, On Precept and Dispensation, c. 10, n. 23: The infirm flesh cannot bear what the ready spirit alone experiences, [namely] that the yoke is sweet and the burden light. For the yoke and burden of Christ is also altogether unbearable, unless [it be] to a spirit equally Christ's... The commandment indeed [is] holy and just, but know yourself to be carnal, sold under sin (Rom. 7:12, 14). Cf. Letter 462 (otherwise 385), n. 4, and Augustine, Sermon 70 (otherwise 9, On the Words of the Lord), c. 2, n. 2.
  14. Vide supra pag. 827, nota 6. — Paulo inferius post in hoc cod. K supplet verbo.
    See above, p. 827, note 6. — A little below, after in hoc, codex K supplies verbo ["by the word"].
  15. Cfr. II. Sent. d. 28. a. 1. q. 3. ad 2.
    Cf. II Sent., d. 28, a. 1, q. 3, ad 2.
  16. Marc. 7, 8. — De lege immunditiae cfr. Levit. 5, 2 seq., et c. 11. seqq. Explicationem vide apud Alex. Hal., S. p. III.
    Mark 7:8. — On the law of uncleanness, cf. Lev. 5:2f., and c. 11ff. For the explanation, see Alexander of Hales, Summa, part III.
  17. Codd. A G cum. Paulo inferius pro circa difficile ipsi naturae cod. U respectu ipsius naturae.
    Codices A G [read] cum. A little below, for circa difficile ipsi naturae, codex U [reads] respectu ipsius naturae.
  18. Cfr. II. Sent. d. 28. a. 1. q. 3. — Pro refrenandum animum cod. U retrahendum manum et animum. In initio solut. pro cohibere multi codd. prohibere.
    Cf. II Sent., d. 28, a. 1, q. 3. — For refrenandum animum, codex U [reads] retrahendum manum et animum. At the beginning of the solution, for cohibere, many codices [read] prohibere.
  19. August., Enarrat. in Ps. 59. n. 8: Iugum enim meum lene est et sarcina mea levis est. Alia sarcina premit et aggravat te, Christi autem sarcina sublevat te; alia sarcina pondus habet, Christi sarcina pennas habet. Nam et avi, si pennas detrahas, quasi onus tollis, et quo magis onus abstulisti, eo magis in terra remanebit. Quam exonerare voluisti, iacet; non volat, quia tulisti onus; redeat onus, et volat. Talis est Christi sarcina etc. Idem docet Bernard., Epist. 72. n. 2, ubi etiam exemplum de quadriga affert: Quid et de quadriga dicam? Haec nimirum, admota iumento, sarcinam, quae ab ipso moveri non poterat, auget quidem, sed portabiliorem facit. Onus oneri additur, et minus onerat. Sic et oneri gravissimo Legis accedens quadriga Evangelii et auxit perfectionem et difficultatem minuit etc. Cfr. Epist. 385. (alias 341.) n. 3, et de Natura et dignitate amoris (inter opera Bernardi), c. 5. n. 12. — Paulo superius verbis additiones illae cod. A addit quae sunt in Lege.
    Augustine, Expositions of the Psalms, Ps. 59, n. 8: For my yoke is gentle and my burden light. Another burden presses and weighs you down, but the burden of Christ lifts you up; another burden has weight, the burden of Christ has feathers. For even in a bird, if you take away the feathers, you take away as it were a burden, and the more you have taken away the burden, the more it remains on the ground. The [bird] you wished to unburden lies still; it does not fly, because you have taken away its burden; let the burden return, and it flies. Such is the burden of Christ, etc. The same Bernard teaches, Letter 72, n. 2, where he also brings forward the example of the four-horse team: And what shall I say of the four-horse team? This indeed, [when] yoked to the beast, increases the load which could not be moved by [the beast] itself, yet makes it more bearable. Burden is added to burden, and it burdens less. So too the four-horse team of the Gospel, joining the most grave burden of the Law, both increased perfection and diminished difficulty, etc. Cf. Letter 385 (otherwise 341), n. 3, and On the Nature and Dignity of Love (among the works of Bernard), c. 5, n. 12. — A little above, to the words additiones illae codex A adds quae sunt in Lege.
  20. Eccle. 1, 18, ubi Vulgata, quam Vat. cum codd. 1, 2 sequitur: Qui addit scientiam addit et laborem. — Inferius pro meritum cod. U virtutem. In fine edd. 1, 2 addunt ex Eccle. 1, 8: Cunctae namque res difficiles, non potest eas homo explicare sermone.
    Eccles. 1:18, where the Vulgate, which the Vatican [edition] with codices 1, 2 follows: He who adds knowledge adds also labor. — Below, for meritum, codex U [reads] virtutem. At the end, editions 1, 2 add from Eccles. 1:8: For all things are difficult; man cannot explain them by speech.
  21. Edd. hic subiungunt conclusionem, quam nos cum codd. ultimo dubio annectimus, quae incipit a verbis: Sufficit enim scire etc. — Vide scholion ad 1. quaestionem.
    Here the editions append a conclusion, which we, with the codices, attach to the last dubium, [and] which begins with the words: For it suffices to know, etc. — See the scholion to the first question. [I.e. the article-master scholion of QUAESTIO I, whose §IV prospectively surveys this question penes exercitium sive onus annexum — the lex gravitatis / lex suavitatis difference; the scholion is not repeated here.]
← Dist. 40, Art. 1, Q. 2Dist. 40, Dubia→