← Back to Distinction 14

Dist. 14, Part 2, Art. 2, Q. 1

Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 14

Textus Latinus
p. 335

Articulus II. De effectu poenitentiae iteratae.

Quaestio I. Utrum necesse sit resurgere in aequali caritate, vel etiam in maiori.

Consequenter quantum ad secundum articulum quaeritur de effectu poenitentiae iteratae. Et circa hoc quaeruntur tria. Primo quaeritur, utrum necesse sit resurgere in aequali caritate, vel etiam in maiori. Secundo quaeritur, utrum perfecta poenitentia restituat in pristinum gradum. Tertio, utrum perfecta poenitentia restituat homini opera bona prius mortificata per culpam.

Circa primum proceditur sic.

1. Ad Romanos octavo1: Diligentibus Deum omnia cooperantur in bonum; Glossa: « Etiam lapsus in mortale »; sed si resurgerent in minori caritate, non cooperaretur eis in bonum: ergo etc. Si dicas, quod casus reddit cautiores et diligentiores; contra: augmentata una virtute, augmentantur et omnes2: ergo si aliquis est prudentior etc.

2. Item, Dominus per Ezechielem, decimo octavo3, de peccatore poenitente: Omnium iniquitatum eius non recordabor amplius; sed si minorem reddit caritatem, recordatur: ergo etc. Si dicas, quod intelligitur de recordatione ad poenam aeternam; contra: diminutionem gratiae sequitur diminutio gloriae: ergo si in minori caritate resurgit, minorem gloriam habebit: ergo cum ablatio gloriae et diminutio boni aeterni sit poena: patet etc.

3. Item, Augustinus ad Macedonium4, loquens de recidivantibus: « Deus facit, oriri super tales lumen suum, nec minus tribuit, quam ante tribuerat, largissima dona vitae ac salutis ». Si dicas: quantum est de se; contra: mensura gratiae est secundum donationem illius5: ergo si prius magna et larga, et nunc; et sic etc.

4. Item, ratione videtur: quia, sicut determinat Magister6, per poenitentiam opera mortificata vivificantur, quia fiunt remuneratione digna: ergo remunerabuntur opera prius facta; sed constat, quod secundum quod meruerunt: ergo tantum habebunt gloriae, ex quanta caritate sunt facta: ergo necesse est, quod in aequali resurgat, cum nullus possit praemiari ultra quantitatem caritatis finalis.

5. Item, difficilius est resurgere quam resistere, ergo maioris virtutis et gratiae: cum ergo per gratiam, quam habuit, non restiterit peccato; ad hoc, quod resurgat, necesse est habere maiorem.

6. Item, Deus nihil mali permittit fieri, de quo non eliciat bonum aequale, vel maius; quia, si hoc esset, aliquando turpitudo remaneret in universo7: ergo si permittit hunc peccare peccato, quod adimit tantum de gratia, necesse est, quod tantum, vel plus restituat.

Contra: 1. Contingit perfectum cadere; sed cum resurgit, statim non est perfectus, quia « nemo repente fit summus8 »: ergo non necesse est, quod resurgat in aequali.

2. Item, minima caritas potens est delere omnem culpam; sed non est necesse isti de gratia, nisi quantum sufficit ad delendam culpam: ergo non necesse est, quod in aequali, si9 potest in minori.

3. Item, Deus in donatione gratiae de congruo considerat dispositionem suscipientis10; sed possibile est, quod qui magnam caritatem habuit parum se disponat: ergo possibile est, ipsum parvam caritatem recipere.

4. Item, « quanto gradus altior, tanto casus gravior11 », et quanto gravior est casus, tanto minus est homo dispositus ad gratiam: ergo ex hoc, quod maiorem habuit caritatem, minus est dispositus: ergo potius resurget in minori quam in aequali.

5. Item, iste nihil meretur propter caritatem, a qua cecidit, similiter nec per aliquid, quod habeat12: ergo gratiae donatio omnino est a liberalitate Dei: ergo potest esse maior, minor et aequalis.

p. 336
Conclusio. Probabilius est, quod resurgens per poenitentiam a peccato resurgat vel in maiori, vel in minori, vel in aequali gratia, secundum quod se melius praeparet et divina gratia dispenset.

Respondeo: Ad hoc dixerunt quidam, quod semper in aequali, vel maiori oportet resurgere. — Et ratio eorum super hoc est, quod Dominus non permitteret, electum cadere, nisi videret, quod deberet sibi prodesse. Ulterius dicunt, quod Dominus semper electos in meliori statu vitae accipit; tertio, quia remuneratur opus, quantum meruit radix, ex qua fuit. — Sed positionem hanc credo falsam, sicut monstratum est13; et rationem positionis minus congruam, tum quia fundatur super falsum, tum quia super incertum. Super falsum, in hoc quod dicit, quod remuneratio operis respicit radicem, ex qua facta sunt; quod falsum est; sed potius radicem, in qua reviviscunt; nunquam enim remunerarentur, nisi finalis caritas superveniret. Nihil enim efficaciter est dignum remuneratione sine finali perseverantia14. Alia duo sunt dubia, scilicet quod Deus semper electos in meliori statu accipiat, et quod semper prosit casus ad augmentum gratiae, cum videamus signa ad contrarium.

Ideo credo, quod probabilior est alia opinio, quod resurgat in aequali et maiori et minori, secundum quod se melius praeparat, et divina largitas dispensat.

p. 337

1. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod casus cooperatur in bonum; dicendum, quod hoc dicitur non ratione gratiae augmentandae, sed recuperatae conservandae. Et utilius est modicum de gratia habere usque in finem quam multum ad tempus tantum.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non recordatur Deus iniquitatum; dicendum, quod verum est; unde non dat ei minorem gratiam merito peccatorum, sed quia non bene se praeparat ad tantam gratiam.

3. Ad illud Augustini ad Macedonium dicendum, quod Deus paratus est, si homo se disponeret; et hoc dicit pro aliquibus, non pro omnibus, quia illud Apostoli18: Ubi abundavit etc., verum fuit alicubi, sed non ubique.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de vivificatione, dicendum, sicut patebit16, quod opus vivificari est dignum remuneratione fieri, et opera remunerabuntur secundum mensuram caritatis finalis.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod fortius est resurgere; dicendum, quod fortius quantum ad actum, sed non oportet, quod ex fortiori habitu, quia nec in resistendo nec in resurgendo operari est necesse secundum totam virtutem voluntatis19.

6. Ad aliud dicendum, quod elicit bonum non facienti semper, sed in universo, et hoc est declaratio summae misericordiae et iustitiae; et aliquo modo facienti, nisi negligat, quia habet maiorem occasionem fervoris et humiliationis ex ipso casu.

Scholion

I. In responsione ad 1. huius articuli quaestionem S. Thom., Scot., B. Albert., Petr. a Tar., Richard. a Med. aliique illius aetatis S. Bonaventurae consentiunt, docentes, quod mensura gratiae et virtutum infusarum respondent ultimae dispositioni poenitentis, et quod per consequens restitutio gratiae fiat quandoque in maiori, quandoque in minori, quandoque in aequali gradu; quam sententiam etiam Alex. Hal. (S. p. IV. q. 12. m. i. a. 3.) praefert, quin alteram sententiam improbabilem esse censeat. — Sed oritur difficultas ex alio principio communiter recepto, quod scilicet opera meritoria peccato mortificata per subsequentem poenitentiam reviviscunt, id est iterum efficacia fiant ad perducendum in gloriam aeternam, cum manserint in acceptatione divina. Si enim merita reviviscunt prorsus eadem et cum toto iure ad gloriam ipsis proportionatam, etiam quando dispositio poenitentis fuerit minima ast sufficiens; et si superadditur meritum ex ipso actu poenitentiae procedens: tunc sequeretur, quod resurgens maiora merita ad gloriam essentialem acquirendam semper haberet, quam prius habuerit. Scot. (IV. d. 22. q. unica n. 8.) aliquo modo hoc alterum concedit; nihilominus (ibid. n. 9. 10.) approbat responsionem praenotatam ad 1. quaestionem pro primo instanti iustificationis; unde supponit, primam gratiam posterius, cum fuerit maior dispositio, vel saltem in instanti mortis, integram redire. — Alii vero recentiores docent, in instanti iustificationis semper redire totam gratiam proportionatam praecedentibus meritis; quod, licet sit contrarium conclusioni 1. quaestionis, censetur esse probabile. — Sed cum Alexandro Hal. S. Thomas videtur aliter docere, quod scilicet poenitens, sicut non resurgit semper in eodem gradu gratiae, sic nec resurgat in eodem gradu meritorum, et per consequens nec in eodem iure ad gloriam essentialem, quod habuit ante lapsum. Hinc S. Thom. dicit (S. III. q. 89. a. 5. ad 3.): « Ille qui per poenitentiam resurgit in minori caritate, consequetur quidem praemium essentiale secundum quantitatem caritatis, in qua invenitur; habebit tamen gaudium maius de operibus in prima caritate factis quam de operibus, quae in secunda fecit; quod pertinet ad praemium accidentale » (cfr. III. Sent. d. 31. a. i. quaestiunc. 1. 2. 3, et hic q. 2. a. 2. S. loc. cit. n. 2.). Idem docet Richard. a Med. — Pro hac quaestione illustranda servit III. Sent. d. 31. a. 1. q. 2. 3.

II. De 1. quaestione praeter citatos: B. Albert., hic a. 30. — Petr. a Tar., III. Sent. d. 31. q. 1. a. 3, et hic a. 8, quaestiunc. 1. — Richard. a Med., III. Sent. d. 31. a. 1. q. 2. et 3. q. hic q. 5. — Dionys. Carth., de hac et 2 seqq. qq. hic q. 6.

III. Seq. (2.) quaestio est de resurrectione in « aequali statu dignitatis » (ut dicit Alex. Hal., loc. cit.) sive « in pristina dignitate » (ut dicit S. Thom. S. loc. cit. a. 4.). Quaestio ab his doctoribus intelligitur de dignitate secundaria, scilicet de innocentia et integritate, sive quoad ablationem reliquiarum peccati; qua formula alii utuntur. De distinctione inter dignitatem et puritatem cfr. infra d. 15. p. II. dub. 10. Eadem haec quaestio a S. Thoma extenditur ad dignitates in foro Ecclesiae. — De eadem praeter locos citt.: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. et a. 4. — Scot., hic q. 4. — S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 1. quaestiunc. 3. — B. Albert., hic a. 33. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. ad 1. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 7. q. 2. ad 3, a. 8. q. 1. ad 1.

IV. De 3. quaestione cfr. Bonav., III. Sent. d. 23. a. 2. q. 5. ad 2, et infra d. 22. a. 1. q. 1. ad 2; et quod opera satisfactoria infra d. 15. p. I. a. 1. q. 4. — De eadem: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. a. 6. — Scot., IV. Sent. d. 22. q. unica n. 7. seqq.; Report. ibid. n. 6. — S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 3; S. loc. cit. a. 6. — B. Albert., hic a. 21. 22. 23. — Petr. a Tar. rem tangit infra d. 22. q. 1. a. 1. ad 4. — Richard. a Med., hic n. 2.

---

English Translation

Article II. On the effect of repeated penance.

Question I. Whether it is necessary to rise again in equal charity, or even in greater.

Consequently, as to the second article, it is asked concerning the effect of repeated penance. And concerning this three matters are asked. First it is asked whether it is necessary to rise again in equal charity, or even in greater. Second it is asked whether perfect penance restores into the former degree. Third, whether perfect penance restores to a man the good works previously mortified through fault.

As to the first, one proceeds thus.

1. To the Romans the eighth1: To those who love God all things work together unto good; the Gloss: "Even a lapse into mortal [sin]"; but if they rose again in less charity, it would not work together for them unto good: therefore etc. If you say that the fall renders [them] more cautious and more diligent; on the contrary: one virtue being augmented, all are augmented2: therefore if someone is more prudent etc.

2. Likewise, the Lord through Ezekiel, the eighteenth3, concerning the penitent sinner: Of all his iniquities I will remember no more; but if he restores less charity, he remembers: therefore etc. If you say that it is understood of remembering unto eternal punishment; on the contrary: a diminution of glory follows a diminution of grace: therefore if he rises again in less charity, he will have less glory: therefore since the removal of glory and the diminution of the eternal good is a punishment: it is clear etc.

3. Likewise, Augustine to Macedonius4, speaking of those who relapse: "God makes his light to rise upon such, nor does he grant less than he had granted before, the most ample gifts of life and health." If you say: as far as it is in itself; on the contrary: the measure of grace is according to his giving5: therefore if [it was] great and ample before, [it is] also now; and so etc.

4. Likewise, it seems by reason: because, as the Master determines6, through penance mortified works are vivified, because they become worthy of reward: therefore the works previously done will be rewarded; but it is agreed that [it will be] according as they merited: therefore they will have as much glory as the charity out of which they were done: therefore it is necessary that he rise again in equal [charity], since no one can be rewarded beyond the quantity of the final charity.

5. Likewise, it is more difficult to rise again than to resist, therefore [it is a matter] of greater virtue and grace: since therefore by the grace which he had he did not resist the sin; in order that he rise again, it is necessary to have a greater [grace].

6. Likewise, God permits no evil to happen out of which he does not elicit an equal or greater good; because, if this were [so], at some time a foulness would remain in the universe7: therefore if he permits this [man] to sin with a sin which takes away so much of grace, it is necessary that he restore as much, or more.

On the contrary: 1. It happens that a perfect [man] falls; but when he rises again, he is not at once perfect, because "no one becomes highest suddenly8": therefore it is not necessary that he rise again in equal [charity].

2. Likewise, the least charity is able to blot out every fault; but it is not necessary for this [man] [to have] of grace except as much as suffices to blot out the fault: therefore it is not necessary that [he rise again] in equal [charity], if9 he can in less.

3. Likewise, God in the giving of grace by congruity considers the disposition of the one receiving10; but it is possible that he who had great charity dispose himself little: therefore it is possible that he receive little charity.

4. Likewise, "the higher the degree, the graver the fall11," and the graver the fall is, the less the man is disposed to grace: therefore from this, that he had greater charity, he is less disposed: therefore he will rather rise again in less than in equal [charity].

5. Likewise, this [man] merits nothing on account of the charity from which he fell, likewise nor through anything which he may have12: therefore the giving of grace is altogether from the liberality of God: therefore it can be greater, less, and equal.

p. 336
Conclusion. It is more probable that one rising again through penance from sin rises again either in greater, or in less, or in equal grace, according as he better prepares himself and divine grace dispenses.

I respond: To this some have said that one must always rise again in equal or greater [charity]. — And their reasoning upon this is that the Lord would not permit an elect [person] to fall unless he saw that it ought to profit him. Further they say that the Lord always receives the elect in a better state of life; thirdly, because the work is rewarded according as the root, from which it was, merited. — But this position I believe false, as has been shown13; and the reasoning of the position less congruous, both because it is founded upon what is false, and because [upon] what is uncertain. Upon what is false, in this, that it says that the reward of the work regards the root from which they were done; which is false; but rather the root in which they revive; for they would never be rewarded unless final charity supervened. For nothing is efficaciously worthy of reward without final perseverance14. The other two are doubtful, namely that God always receives the elect in a better state, and that the fall always profits unto the augmentation of grace, since we see signs to the contrary.

Therefore I believe that the other opinion is more probable, that he rise again in equal and greater and less [charity], according as he better prepares himself, and divine bounty dispenses.

p. 337

1. To that which is objected, that the fall works together unto good; it must be said that this is said not by reason of grace to be augmented, but of [grace] recovered to be conserved. And it is more useful to have a little of grace unto the end than much only for a time.

2. To that which is objected, that God does not remember iniquities; it must be said that it is true; whence he does not give him less grace by the merit of [his] sins, but because he does not well prepare himself for so great a grace.

3. To that [saying] of Augustine to Macedonius it must be said that God is prepared, if a man should dispose himself; and this he says for some, not for all, because that [saying] of the Apostle18: Where [sin] abounded etc., was true somewhere, but not everywhere.

4. To that which is objected concerning vivification, it must be said, as will appear16, that for a work to be vivified is for it to be made worthy of reward, and the works will be rewarded according to the measure of the final charity.

5. To that which is objected, that it is more difficult to rise again; it must be said that [it is] more difficult as to act, but it is not necessary that [it be] from a stronger habit, because neither in resisting nor in rising again is it necessary to operate according to the whole power of the will19.

6. To the other [argument] it must be said that he elicits good not always for the one doing [evil], but in the universe, and this is a declaration of the highest mercy and justice; and in some manner for the one doing [it], unless he be negligent, because he has a greater occasion of fervor and humiliation from the fall itself.

Scholion

I. In the response to the 1st question of this article, St. Thomas, Scotus, B. Albert, Peter of Tarentaise, Richard of Mediavilla, and others of the age of St. Bonaventure agree, teaching that the measure of grace and of the infused virtues corresponds to the final disposition of the penitent, and that consequently the restitution of grace comes about sometimes in a greater, sometimes in a less, sometimes in an equal degree; which opinion even Alexander of Hales (Summa p. IV. q. 12. m. i. a. 3.) prefers, without judging the other opinion to be improbable. — But a difficulty arises from another principle commonly received, namely that meritorious works mortified by mortal sin revive through subsequent penance, that is, become again efficacious for leading into eternal glory, since they remained in the divine acceptation. For if the merits revive altogether the same and with the whole right to the glory proportioned to them, even when the disposition of the penitent was minimal yet sufficient; and if there is superadded a merit proceeding from the very act of penance: then it would follow that one rising again would always acquire greater merits unto essential glory than he previously had. Scotus (IV. d. 22. q. unica n. 8.) in some manner concedes this latter; nevertheless (ibid. n. 9. 10.) he approves the aforenoted response to the 1st question for the first instant of justification; whence he supposes that the first grace returns later in full, when there has been a greater disposition, or at least in the instant of death. — But others more recent teach that in the instant of justification the whole grace proportioned to the preceding merits always returns; which, although it is contrary to the conclusion of the 1st question, is judged to be probable. — But with Alexander of Hales St. Thomas seems to teach otherwise, namely that the penitent, just as he does not always rise again in the same degree of grace, so neither rises again in the same degree of merits, and consequently not in the same right to essential glory which he had before the lapse. Hence St. Thomas says (Summa III. q. 89. a. 5. ad 3.): "He who through penance rises again in less charity will indeed obtain the essential reward according to the quantity of charity in which he is found; he will however have greater joy concerning the works done in the first charity than concerning the works which he did in the second; which pertains to the accidental reward" (cf. III Sent. d. 31. a. i. subq. 1. 2. 3, and here q. 2. a. 2. Summa loc. cit. n. 2.). Richard of Mediavilla teaches the same. — For illustrating this question III Sent. d. 31. a. 1. q. 2. 3 serves.

II. Concerning the 1st question, besides those cited: B. Albert, here a. 30. — Peter of Tarentaise, III Sent. d. 31. q. 1. a. 3, and here a. 8, subq. 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, III Sent. d. 31. a. 1. q. 2 and 3. q., here q. 5. — Dionysius the Carthusian, concerning this and the 2 following questions, here q. 6.

III. The following (2nd) question is concerning rising again in "an equal state of dignity" (as Alexander of Hales says, loc. cit.) or "in the former dignity" (as St. Thomas says, Summa loc. cit. a. 4.). The question is understood by these doctors of the secondary dignity, namely of innocence and integrity, or as to the removal of the remnants of sin; which formula others use. Concerning the distinction between dignity and purity, cf. below d. 15. p. II. dub. 10. This same question is extended by St. Thomas to dignities in the forum of the Church. — Concerning the same, besides the places cited: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. and a. 4. — Scotus, here q. 4. — St. Thomas, here q. 2. a. 1. subq. 3. — B. Albert, here a. 33. — Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit. ad 1. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 7. q. 2. ad 3, a. 8. q. 1. ad 1.

IV. Concerning the 3rd question cf. Bonaventure, III Sent. d. 23. a. 2. q. 5. ad 2, and below d. 22. a. 1. q. 1. ad 2; and that the satisfactory works [are vivified] below d. 15. p. I. a. 1. q. 4. — Concerning the same: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. a. 6. — Scotus, IV Sent. d. 22. q. unica n. 7 ff.; Reportata ibid. n. 6. — St. Thomas, here q. 2. a. 3; Summa loc. cit. a. 6. — B. Albert, here a. 21. 22. 23. — Peter of Tarentaise touches the matter below d. 22. q. 1. a. 1. ad 4. — Richard of Mediavilla, here n. 2.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. 1
    Vers. 28. — De Glossa vide tom. III. pag. 678, nota 5, in qua ex verbis Augustini obiectio subnexa (casus reddit cautiores) sumta est.
    Verse 28. — Concerning the Gloss see vol. III, p. 678, note 5, in which from the words of Augustine the objection subjoined (the fall renders [them] more cautious) is taken.
  2. 2
    Propter connexionem earum. Cfr. III. Sent. d. 36. q. 1. et 3.
    On account of their connection. Cf. III Sent. d. 36. q. 1 and 3.
  3. 3
    Vers. 22: Omnium iniquitatum eius, quas operatus est, non recordabor.
    Verse 22: Of all his iniquities which he has done, I will not remember.
  4. 4
    Epist. 153. (alias 54.) c. 3. n. 7, ubi textus originalis solem suum (Matth. 5, 45.) pro lumen suum et tribuebat [quod etiam plures codd. cum ed. 1 habent] pro tribuerat; cfr. tamen hic lit. Magistri, c. 4.
    Epistle 153 (alias 54) c. 3. n. 7, where the original text [reads] solem suum (Matthew 5, 45) for lumen suum, and tribuebat [which also several codices with ed. 1 have] for tribuerat; cf. however here the text of the Master, c. 4.
  5. 5
    Eph. 4, 7: Unicuique autem nostrum data est gratia secundum mensuram donationis Christi. Cfr. Rom. 12, 3. et II. Cor. 10, 13.
    Ephesians 4, 7: But to each one of us grace is given according to the measure of the giving of Christ. Cf. Romans 12, 3 and II Corinthians 10, 13.
  6. 6
    Hic in lit. c. 2. Cfr. infra q. 3. — Inferius post ex quanta caritate sunt facta fide plurium codd. et ed. 1 omisimus superfluam propositionem, quae repetit praecedentem: et tantam gloriam, ex quanta caritate sunt facta [ita Vat. cum pluribus codd.; plures alii codd. et tanta gloria (erit), in quanta caritate sunt facta]. Tamen, si primo loco poneretur gratiae pro gloriae, lectio illa sustineri posset.
    Here in the text c. 2. Cf. below q. 3. — Below, after out of as much charity as they were done, on the faith of several codices and ed. 1 we have omitted a superfluous proposition which repeats the preceding: and as much glory as the charity out of which they were done [so the Vatican [edition] with several codices; several other codices and there will be as much glory as the charity in which they were done]. Nevertheless, if in the first place gratiae were put for gloriae, that reading could be sustained.
  7. 7
    Vide verba August. tom. II. pag. 770, nota 1. allegata. Cfr. etiam I. Sent. lit. Magistri, d. XLVI. c. 4, et Comment. q. 6.
    See the words of Augustine alleged in vol. II, p. 770, note 1. Cf. also I Sent. text of the Master, d. XLVI. c. 4, and the Commentary q. 6.
  8. 8
    Ut dicunt Gregor. et Bernard. tom. III. pag. 678, nota 3. citati, nec non Beda, II. de Tabernaculo etc. c. 13. — Post sed cod. U legit: tamen resurgit, et cum resurgit etc.
    As Gregory and Bernard say, cited in vol. III, p. 678, note 3, as also Bede, On the Tabernacle II. etc. c. 13. — After but codex U reads: yet he rises again, and when he rises again etc.
  9. 9
    Codd. A G K Y planius sed. Superius pro delendam non pauci codd. deflendam.
    Codices A G K Y more plainly [read] sed (but). Above, for delendam (to blot out) not a few codices [read] deflendam (to bewail).
  10. 10
    Hieronym., in Matth. 25, 15: Non pro largitate et parcitate alteri plus et alteri minus tribuens, sed pro accipientium viribus.
    Jerome, on Matthew 25, 15: Not giving to one more and to another less according to liberality and sparingness, but according to the strength of the recipients.
  11. 11
    Richard. a S. Vict., de Verbo incarnato, c. 14: Quanto gradus altior, tanto casus deterior. Hinc est enim, quod multo difficilius renovatur ad vitam ad unius criminis lapsum quilibet christianus quam qualiscumque infidelis etc. Cfr. tom. II. pag. 750, nota 3; Libellus de dignitate sacerdot. (inter opera Ambrosii) c. 3. et Isidor., III. Sent. c. 31. n. 4.
    Richard of St. Victor, On the Incarnate Word, c. 14: The higher the degree, the worse the fall. For hence it is that any Christian whatever is renewed unto life much more difficultly at the lapse of one crime than any unbeliever whatever etc. Cf. vol. II, p. 750, note 3; the Booklet on the dignity of the priesthood (among the works of Ambrose) c. 3, and Isidore, III Sent. c. 31. n. 4.
  12. 12
    Vat. nec aliquid, quod habebat. Pro cecidit nonnulli codd. recedit.
    The Vatican [edition reads] nor anything which he had. For cecidit (he fell) some codices [read] recedit (he recedes).
  13. 13
    In fundam. Cfr. III. Sent. d. 31. a. 1. q. 3. — Superius pro meruit cod. F meretur.
    In the fundamentum. Cf. III Sent. d. 31. a. 1. q. 3. — Above, for meruit (it merited) codex F [reads] meretur (it merits).
  14. 14
    Hieronym., in Ezech. 18, 21: Sicut iustum, antea peccatorem, non praegravant antiqua delicta, sic peccatorem, qui prius iustus fuerit, non iuvant veteres iustitiae. Unusquisque enim in quo invenietur, in eo iudicabitur.
    Jerome, on Ezekiel 18, 21: Just as old transgressions do not weigh down the just man who was formerly a sinner, so the former justices do not help the sinner who was previously just. For each one will be judged in that in which he is found.
  15. 15
    Codd. A G K Y planius sed. Pro delendam non pauci codd. deflendam. — Spectat ad arg. Contra 2.
    Codices A G K Y [read] planius sed. For delendam not a few codices [read] deflendam. — Pertains to the 2nd Contra argument.
  16. 16
    Spectat ad solut. ad 4: opus vivificari. Vide infra q. 3.
    Pertains to the solution ad 4: for a work to be vivified. See below q. 3.
  17. 17
    Respicit arg. Contra 5: similiter nec per aliquid, quod habeat. Cfr. III. Sent. d. 31. a. 1. q. 3.
    Regards the 5th Contra argument: likewise nor through anything which he may have. Cf. III Sent. d. 31. a. 1. q. 3.
  18. 18
    Rom. 5, 20.
    Romans 5, 20.
  19. 19
    Ita codd. N aa, alii nobilitatis, Vat. virtutis nobilitatem.
    Thus codices N aa, others [read] nobilitatis, the Vatican [edition] virtutis nobilitatem.
Cited by

2 further references address the article or printed page this question belongs to, rather than the question itself.

← Dist. 14, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 3Dist. 14, Part 2, Art. 2, Q. 2→