← Back to Distinction 44

Dist. 44, Part 1, Dubia

Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 44

Textus Latinus
p. 917

## DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

Dub. I.

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod resurgentibus non eadem assignatur statura, sed aetas. Videtur enim male dicere: quia duplex est quantitas, scilicet temporis et extensionis3; sed qui habuerunt diversam quantitatem molis in diversa resurgent: ergo qui diversam habuerunt aetatem in diversa resurgent. — Item, impossibile est, quod est praeteritum non esse praeteritum4: ergo impossibile est, quod aliquis, qui habuit annos centum, non habuerit centum: ergo impossibile est, quod habeat solum triginta duos annos. Sed in hac aetate resurrexit Christus: ergo impossibile est senibus in hac aetate resurgere. — Item, si resurgentibus computatur aetas, aut ergo ab instanti nativitatis, aut resurrectionis. Si ab instanti nativitatis, tunc erunt plus quam centum anni, immo quam mille in aliquibus; si ab instanti resurrectionis, tunc non habebit5 aliquis unam horam, nedum quod triginta annos. — Item, Dominus nulli detrahet de quantitate molis, sed addet his qui minus habent: ergo pari ratione de aetate, cum senectus sit venerabilis6.

Ad haec omnia respondendum, quod aetas resurgentium dupliciter potest intelligi: aut per comparationem ad principium durationis, sicut assignatur nobis nunc secundum computationem ab initio nostri esse; et sic non computatur aetas in resurgentibus, quia transierunt omnem aetatem et extra statum talem sunt. Alio modo aetas attenditur secundum dispositionem et valitudinem corporis; et sic accipitur aetas iuvenilis. Omnes enim tales et tanti resurgent in corpore, quales fuissent in aetate iuvenili; et ita aetas non nominat durationem, sed corporis dispositionem. Si enim Deus modo crearet hominem in eo habitu et statu, quem habet vir in trigesimo anno; tunc diceretur creare7 in aetate virili, non ratione computationis temporis, sed habitudinis corporis. Et per haec patent obiecta.

Dub. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Ut significaret perfectionem virium. Videtur enim male dicere; quoniam, si femina non est vir, nec quantum ad sexum nec quantum ad virium perfectionem, quia sexus femineus attestatur infirmitati; ergo videtur, quod mulier non resurgat aliquo modo. — Item, sicut dicit Philosophus8, «femina est vir occasionatus»: ergo si occasiones non resurgunt in natura quantum ad electos, nec feminae resurgent. — Item, in resurrectione erunt sicut Angeli Dei9, et hoc erit, quia corpus conformabitur animae; sed in Angelis non est distinctio sexus nec in animabus: ergo etc. — Item, sexus distinctio est propter generationem; sed ibi non erit generatio: ergo etc.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod, sicut dicit Augustinus vigesimo secundo de Civitate Dei10, aliqui voluerunt dicere, quod sexus femineus non resurget propter praedictam auctoritatem Apostoli: Donec occurramus omnes in virum perfectum; sed sicut ipse dicit, ibi dicitur vir non a sexu, sed a virtute, non corporis, sed mentis, per quem modum p. 918 mulier facta vir est, secundum quem modum dicitur in Psalmo1: Beatus vir, qui non abiit in consilio etc.; quod intelligi etiam potest de muliere. Et ideo auctoritas ista non negat resurrectionem mulierum; sed manifesta ratio confirmat. Quoniam enim sexus femineus est naturalis et a Deo formatus, qui formavit virilem — quod patet, quia sine ipso non esset perfectio speciei — et in corporibus nostris «natura servabitur, et vitia detrahentur2»: sicut viri resurgent cum sexu virili, non propter generationem, sed propter perfectionem et decorem quantum ad electos, sic feminae in sexu femineo; quia tunc a membris illis dedecus et inhonestas per omnia auferetur, et quod excitavit ad libidinem, excitabit ad Dei laudem.

Quod ergo primo obiicitur, quod dicit defectum virium; dicendum, quod hoc est solum secundum statum praesentem, ibi autem relinquetur sexus et tolletur infirmitas.

Quod obiicitur, quod femina est vir occasionatus; dicendum, quod est loqui de naturae intentione universali, et sic femina est de intentione naturae, quae intendit salvare speciem3; et est loqui de intentione naturae singularis, quae desiderat rem facere, quanto meliorem et perfectiorem potest, et quod non faciat, hoc est praeter intentionem propter aliquam occasionem incidentem. Et hoc modo est hic, quia natura de semine4 faceret virum, si posset; sed quia vel est defectus in virtute et caliditate, vel etiam est debilis coagulatio in semine, vel non directe recipitur in matrice; hinc est, quod mulier generatur et dicitur vir occasionatus. Tamen quia istam occasionem necesse est evenire, nec sine ea potest natura salvari in esse; ideo natura, quae intendit salvari, utrumque sexum intendit. Et sic patet illud.

Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod erunt sicut Angeli; dicendum, quod non est omnimoda similitudo, sed quantum ad hoc, quod erunt immunes ab operibus carnis5.

Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non erit generatio; dicendum, quod sicut erit vis generativa non ad usum generandi, sed ad perfectionem hominis; sic etiam erunt membra genitalia ad perfectionem corporis6.

Dub. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod non est fas dicere, quod in resurrectione accedat corpori magnitudo. Videtur enim falsum, quia nanus nec habuit nec habiturus fuit sufficientem magnitudinem in hac vita: ergo nani7 boni, quorum corpora sunt deformia, sic erunt in caelesti patria. — Item, qui caret manibus nunquam erat habiturus manus: ergo resurget sine manibus: ergo potest fieri additio membrorum officialium, quia non resurget sine manibus. Quodsi hoc, multo fortius videtur a parte membrorum consimilium, sicut maioris staturae.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod statim, ex quo corpus humanum generatum est, statutum est, quantum debet esse mole, licet nos non percipiamus; quia iam est ibi totum ratione8; esse autem ratione hoc est esse in quantitate virtutis, quae distinguitur contra quantitatem molis; et hoc est esse secundum potentiam virtutis augmentativae. Quantum ergo natura potest istum augmentare, qui nunc parvulus est, tantus debet esse ratione, et tantus erit mole, nisi impediatur per occasionem. — Secundum hoc intelligendum, quod quantitas rationis in aliquo potest deficere a statu competente speciei, vel superabundare, vel sufficere. Quod sufficiat, hoc est de integritate naturae; tunc autem dicitur sufficere, quando potest tantum corpus producere, quantum competit humanae naturae, quae determinatos habet terminos, sive in parvitate, sive in magnitudine9; inter quos statura Christi tenere medium creditur tanquam perfectissima. Et quamdiu ab illa statura non receditur, ita quod deformitas generetur, dicitur virtus augmentativa sive quantitas rationis sufficiens, et resurget unusquisque secundum staturam illi quantitati competentem. — Si vero receditur adeo, ita quod deformitas generetur sive in superfluo, sive in diminuto; dicendum, quod tunc quantitas rationis fuit occasionata, et non p. 919 fuit perfecta, sed vitiata; et ideo oportet tunc detrahi, vel addi, non ad naturae mutationem, sed potius ad vitiositatis ablationem.

Et sic totum patet, quia Augustinus1 loquitur, salva integritate et perfectione naturae. Unde generaliter intelligere dat, quod quantum ad quantitatem rationis nec fiet additio nec subtractio, nisi etiam fuerit vitii deformatio. Quantum ad quantitatem molis fiet additio in his, in quibus non fuit perducta ad quantitatem rationis; nec oportet, quod Dominus adducat materiam aliunde ad perficiendum, sed possibile est, quod de illo uno totum extrahat; sicut creditur, quod quinque panes sine appositione inter quinque millia hominum multiplicavit per virtutem infinitam2. — Potest tamen esse, quod aliunde addat, et fortasse in illis panibus fecit, et utrumque miraculum fuit. Aliud tamen probabilius videtur.

Dub. IV.

Item quaeritur de isto exemplo Augustini: Sed quemadmodum, si statua cuiuslibet solubilis metalli etc. Videtur enim istud exemplum non valere: quia aliud est artificiatum et aliud statua illa, quae primo fuit fusa, et illa quae post fusa fuit: ergo videtur, si Deus sic reparat, quod alius fuit homo post quam ante.

Ad hoc volunt aliqui dicere, quod exemplum Augustini perfecte conforme est quantum ad modum et identitatem reparationis et reparati: quantum ad modum, quia non oportet singula ad sua loca redire; quantum ad identitatem, quoniam, sicut in statua materia subiecta est eadem semel et iterum fusa, sed forma artificialis3 est alia; sic in corpore resurrectionis eadem est materia, sed forma carnis et accidentia generata sunt alia; sed tamen homo non est alius, quia forma ultimo completiva et primaria materia secundum substantiam est una et eadem. Unde si statua haberet animam, ipsa diceret: ego sum renovata, quia haberet eandem materiam et eandem formam ultimam, quamvis non haberet intermedias. Sic et in proposito dicunt se habere, quod formae intermediae iteratae sunt aliae; attamen homo idem est, maxime ratione formae, quia tota ratio personalitatis venit ex parte animae.

Sed tamen istud non sufficit, pro eo quod resurrectio dicitur esse corporum humanorum magis proprie quam coniunctorum4. Si ergo resurrectio debet esse eiusdem, necesse est, quod corpus humanum sit idem; sed nunquam est idem corpus, nisi sit eadem caro: ergo oportet, quod caro, quae est forma intermedia, sit eadem; pari ratione et de aliis formis intermediis; et si oportet, quod caro sit eadem, oportet, quod partes officiales, ut manus et pes, sint eaedem. — Amplius, Iob decimo nono5 expresse dicitur: In carne mea videbo Deum, Salvatorem meum: ergo eadem erit caro. Non ergo rectum videtur exemplum Augustini.

Et ideo dicendum ad hoc, quod opera Dei solum non inveniunt perfectam similitudinem in operibus nostris, maxime istud, cum sit supra naturam iterare eandem formam numero6; ideo non est intelligendum, istud exemplum adduci quantum ad hoc, sed solum quantum ad hoc, quod sicut artifex creatus reparat de materia eiusdem statuae statuam consimilem, ita quod non oportet, partes ad eadem loca redire; sic Deus reparat de materia corporis tui corpus, quod non tantum simile, sed idem est in substantia; nec oportet, singula ad singula membra redire, ubi est superexcrescentia, quae generaret indecentiam, quia quantum ad hoc loquitur Augustinus, ut patet in littera7.

---

English Translation
p. 917

## DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

Dub. I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first it is asked about what he says, that to those rising again the same stature is not assigned, but age. For it seems to be badly said: because quantity is twofold, namely of time and of extension3; but those who had a different quantity of mass will rise again in different [quantities]: therefore those who had a different age will rise again in different [ages]. — Likewise, it is impossible that what is past should not be past4: therefore it is impossible that someone who had a hundred years should not have had a hundred: therefore it is impossible that he should have only thirty-two years. But Christ rose again at this age: therefore it is impossible for the aged to rise again at this age. — Likewise, if age is reckoned for those rising again, then either from the instant of birth or of resurrection. If from the instant of birth, then there will be more than a hundred years, indeed more than a thousand in some; if from the instant of resurrection, then no one will have5 even one hour, much less thirty years. — Likewise, the Lord will take away nothing from anyone's quantity of mass, but will add to those who have less: therefore by parity of reasoning concerning age, since old age is venerable6.

To all these it must be responded that the age of those rising again can be understood in two ways: either by comparison to the beginning of duration, as it is assigned to us now according to the reckoning from the beginning of our being; and in this way age is not reckoned in those rising again, because they have passed through every age and are outside such a state. In another way age is regarded according to the disposition and health of the body; and in this way youthful age is taken. For all such and so great will rise again in a body such as they would have been at the youthful age; and thus age does not name duration, but the disposition of the body. For if God were now to create a man in that condition and state which a man has in his thirtieth year, then he would be said to create7 at a virile age, not by reason of the reckoning of time, but of the condition of the body. And by these things the objections are made clear.

Dub. II.

Likewise it is asked about what he says: That it might signify the perfection of powers. For it seems to be badly said; since, if a woman is not a man, neither as to sex nor as to the perfection of powers, because the female sex bears witness to weakness; therefore it seems that a woman does not rise again in any way. — Likewise, as the Philosopher says8, «a woman is a misbegotten man»: therefore if misbegotten things do not rise again in nature as regards the elect, neither will women rise again. — Likewise, in the resurrection they will be as the Angels of God9, and this will be because the body will be conformed to the soul; but in the Angels there is no distinction of sex, nor in souls: therefore etc. — Likewise, the distinction of sex is for the sake of generation; but there there will be no generation: therefore etc.

I respond: It must be said that, as Augustine says in the twenty-second [book] of the City of God10, some wished to say that the female sex will not rise again on account of the aforesaid authority of the Apostle: Until we all meet into a perfect man; but as he himself says, there "man" is said not from sex, but from virtue, not of the body, but of the mind, in which manner p. 918 a woman is made a man, in which manner it is said in the Psalm1: Blessed is the man who has not walked in the counsel etc.; which can also be understood of a woman. And therefore that authority does not deny the resurrection of women; rather manifest reason confirms it. For since the female sex is natural and formed by God, who formed the male — which is clear, because without it there would not be the perfection of the species — and in our bodies «nature will be preserved, and the defects will be taken away2»: just as men will rise again with the male sex, not for the sake of generation, but for the sake of perfection and beauty as regards the elect, so [will] women in the female sex; because then from those members all disgrace and dishonor will be entirely removed, and what excited to lust will excite to the praise of God.

To what is therefore first objected, that he states a defect of powers; it must be said that this is only according to the present state, but there sex will be retained and weakness will be removed.

To what is objected, that a woman is a misbegotten man; it must be said that there is a speaking about the universal intention of nature, and thus a woman is [part] of the intention of nature, which intends to preserve the species3; and there is a speaking about the intention of the singular nature, which desires to make a thing as much better and more perfect as it can, and that it does not do so, this is beside the intention on account of some occurring occasion. And in this way it is here, because nature would make a man from the seed4, if it could; but because either there is a defect in the power and heat, or also there is a weak coagulation in the seed, or it is not directly received in the womb; hence it is that a woman is generated and is called a misbegotten man. Yet because it is necessary for this occasion to occur, nor can nature be preserved in being without it; therefore nature, which intends to be preserved, intends both sexes. And thus that is clear.

To that which is objected, that they will be as Angels; it must be said that there is not an entire likeness, but as to this, that they will be immune from the works of the flesh5.

To that which is objected, that there will be no generation; it must be said that just as there will be a generative power not for the use of generating, but for the perfection of the man; so also the genital members will be for the perfection of the body6.

Dub. III.

Likewise it is asked about what he says, that it is not right to say that in the resurrection magnitude accrues to the body. For it seems false, because a dwarf neither had nor was going to have sufficient magnitude in this life: therefore good dwarfs7, whose bodies are deformed, will be thus in the heavenly fatherland. — Likewise, he who lacks hands was never going to have hands: therefore he will rise again without hands: therefore an addition of functional members can be made, because he will not rise again without hands. But if this, it seems much more strongly [so] on the part of uniform members, as of greater stature.

I respond: It must be said that immediately, from when the human body was generated, it was determined how much it ought to be in mass, although we do not perceive it; because the whole is already there in its formal principle (ratione)8; but to be in the formal principle is to be in the quantity of power, which is distinguished against the quantity of mass; and this is to be according to the potency of the augmentative power. Therefore as much as nature can augment this one, who is now a little child, so much he ought to be in his formal principle, and so much he will be in mass, unless he is impeded by an occasion. — According to this it must be understood that the quantity of the formal principle in something can fall short of the state befitting the species, or superabound, or suffice. That it suffice, this is of the integrity of nature; and then it is said to suffice, when it can produce as much body as befits human nature, which has determinate limits, whether in smallness or in magnitude9; among which the stature of Christ is believed to hold the middle as most perfect. And as long as one does not depart from that stature, such that deformity is generated, the augmentative power or quantity of the formal principle is called sufficient, and each one will rise again according to the stature befitting that quantity. — But if one departs so far, such that deformity is generated either in excess or in defect; it must be said that then the quantity of the formal principle was occasioned, and was not p. 919 perfect, but vitiated; and therefore it must then be diminished or added to, not for a change of nature, but rather for the removal of the defect.

And thus the whole is clear, because Augustine1 speaks with the integrity and perfection of nature preserved. Hence he gives generally to understand that, as regards the quantity of the formal principle, there will be neither addition nor subtraction, unless there has also been a deformity of defect. As regards the quantity of mass, there will be addition in those in whom it was not brought to the quantity of the formal principle; nor is it necessary that the Lord bring matter from elsewhere for perfecting [it], but it is possible that from that one [body] he draw out the whole; just as it is believed that he multiplied five loaves without any adding among five thousand men by infinite power2. — Yet it can be that he adds from elsewhere, and perhaps he did so in those loaves, and each was a miracle. Yet another [view] seems more probable.

Dub. IV.

Likewise it is asked about that example of Augustine: But just as, if a statue of any meltable metal etc. For it seems that this example is not valid: because the artifact is one thing and that statue which was first cast is another, and [another] that which was cast afterward: therefore it seems, if God restores in this way, that the man afterward was other than before.

To this some wish to say that the example of Augustine is perfectly conformable as regards the mode and the identity of the restoration and of the thing restored: as to the mode, because it is not necessary that the individual [parts] return to their own places; as to the identity, because, just as in the statue the underlying matter is the same, cast once and again, but the artificial form3 is other; so in the body of the resurrection the matter is the same, but the form of the flesh and the generated accidents are other; but nevertheless the man is not other, because the ultimately completive form and the primary matter are, according to substance, one and the same. Hence if the statue had a soul, it would say: I am renewed, because it would have the same matter and the same ultimate form, although it would not have the intermediate [ones]. Thus also in the case at hand they say it holds, that the intermediate forms repeated are other; yet the man is the same, especially by reason of the form, because the whole account of personhood comes from the side of the soul.

But nevertheless this does not suffice, for the reason that the resurrection is said to be of human bodies more properly than of composites4. If therefore the resurrection ought to be of the same [thing], it is necessary that the human body be the same; but a body is never the same, unless the flesh be the same: therefore it must be that the flesh, which is an intermediate form, be the same; by parity of reasoning also concerning the other intermediate forms; and if it must be that the flesh be the same, it must be that the functional parts, such as hand and foot, be the same. — Further, in Job the nineteenth5 it is expressly said: In my flesh I shall see God, my Saviour: therefore the flesh will be the same. Therefore the example of Augustine does not seem correct.

And therefore it must be said to this, that the works of God alone do not find a perfect likeness in our works, especially this one, since it is above nature to repeat numerically the same form6; therefore it must not be understood that this example is adduced as regards this [point], but only as regards this, that just as a created artificer restores from the matter of the same statue a similar statue, in such a way that it is not necessary that the parts return to the same places; so God restores from the matter of your body a body which is not only like, but the same in substance; nor is it necessary that the individual [parts] return to the individual members, where there is a superabundance which would generate unseemliness, because as regards this Augustine speaks, as is clear in the text7.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. 3
    Cfr. Aristot., de Praedicam. c. de Quanto. — Codd. R S T bb addunt sive molis. — De minori cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 1.
    Cf. Aristotle, On the Categories, the chapter On Quantity. — Codices R S T bb add or of mass. — On the lesser cf. here the text of the Master, c. 1.
  2. 4
    Vide I. Sent. d. 42. q. 3. — De aetate Christi resurgentis cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 1.
    See Book I of the Sentences, d. 42, q. 3. — On the age of the rising Christ cf. here the text of the Master, c. 1.
  3. 5
    Ex codd. R S T bb supplevimus aliquis. Subinde pro nedum quod edd. qui ante habuit.
    From codices R S T bb we have supplied aliquis [anyone]. Then for nedum quod the editions [read] qui ante habuit.
  4. 6
    Sap. 4, 8: Senectus enim venerabilis est etc.
    Wisdom 4:8: For venerable old age is etc.
  5. 7
    Edd., pro Si... modo crearet posito sic... tunc crearet, omittunt quem habet... creare (cod. U creari). — Idem dub. solvitur a S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 3. quaestiunc. 1. et circa lit., et a Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 8.
    The editions, having put thus... then he would create for If... were now to create, omit which... to create (codex U creari). — The same doubt is resolved by St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 3, little-question 1 and concerning the text, and by Richard of Middleton, here a. 1, q. 8.
  6. 8
    Libr. II. de Generat. animal. c. 3. Vide tom. II. pag. 483, nota 5.
    Book II On the Generation of Animals, c. 3. See volume II, p. 483, note 5.
  7. 9
    Matth. 22, 30: In resurrectione enim neque nubent neque nubentur, sed erunt etc.
    Matthew 22:30: For in the resurrection they will neither marry nor be given in marriage, but will be etc.
  8. 10
    Cap. 17. (ubi etiam rationes ponuntur pro resurrectione sexus feminei, quae inferius tanguntur) et c. 18, in quo exponit verba Apostoli Eph. 4, 13: Donec occurramus omnes in unitatem fidei et agnitionis Filii Dei in virum perfectum etc.
    Chapter 17 (where also reasons are set down for the resurrection of the female sex, which are touched upon below) and c. 18, in which he expounds the words of the Apostle, Eph. 4:13: Until we all meet into the unity of faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, into a perfect man etc.
  9. 1
    Psalm. 1, 1. (August. loc. cit. allegat Ps. 111, 1: Beatus vir, qui timet Dominum; utique ibi sunt et feminae, quae timent Dominum). — Pro vir est cod. L dicitur vir. Inferius pro sed edd. sicut, quae etiam subinde omittunt naturalis et, quod codd. F H P R S T praebent, et pro quo alii codd. substituunt virilis et, cod. O sicut virilis et. Post pauca pro virilem plures codd. mulierem.
    Psalm 1:1. (Augustine in the passage cited adduces Ps. 111:1: Blessed is the man who fears the Lord; assuredly there too are also women, who fear the Lord.) — For vir est [is a man] codex L [reads] dicitur vir [is called a man]. Below, for sed [but] the editions [read] sicut [just as], which also thereupon omit naturalis et [natural and], which codices F H P R S T provide, and for which other codices substitute virilis et [virile and], codex O sicut virilis et. A little after, for virilem [male] several codices [read] mulierem [woman].
  10. 2
    August., XXII. de Civ. Dei, c. 17.
    Augustine, Book XXII of the City of God, c. 17.
  11. 3
    Cfr. Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 34. seq. (c. 4.), et II. de Generat. et corrupt. text. 39. (c. 10.), ubi etiam illud: In omnibus quod melius est, desiderare naturam semper. Cfr. de hac solut. II. Sent. d. 20. q. 6. ad 1.
    Cf. Aristotle, Book II On the Soul, text 34 f. (c. 4), and Book II On Generation and Corruption, text 39 (c. 10), where also this: In all things nature always desires what is better. Cf. on this solution Book II of the Sentences, d. 20, q. 6, ad 1.
  12. 4
    Cod. U de se, edd. cum pluribus codd. de femina. Verba est hic, quia supplevimus ex cod. F, pro quibus alii codd. vel quia hic, vel quia haec, vel quia.
    Codex U de se, the editions with several codices de femina [about a woman]. The words est hic, quia we have supplied from codex F, for which other codices [read] vel quia hic, vel quia haec, vel quia.
  13. 5
    Cfr. August., XXII. de Civ. Dei, c. 17.
    Cf. Augustine, Book XXII of the City of God, c. 17.
  14. 6
    Idem dub. solvunt S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 3. quaestiunc. 3; Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 10.
    The same doubt is resolved by St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 3, little-question 3; Richard of Middleton, here a. 1, q. 10.
  15. 7
    Edd. cum aliquot codd. varii.
    The editions with some codices [read] varii [various].
  16. 8
    August., XXII. de Civ. Dei, c. 14: Hunc perfectionis modum sic habent omnes, ut cum illo concipiantur atque nascantur; sed habent in ratione, non in mole, sicut ipsa iam membra omnia sunt latenter in semine etc. — De quantitate molis et virtutis cfr. supra pag. 399, nota 4. — Superius pro statutum est codd. vel statim scitur, vel statim scit (codd. F O addunt natura), vel statim scimus, cod. B statim tantum est ratione sui virtute, et pro quantum... mole codd. R S T U X bb quantae... molis.
    Augustine, Book XXII of the City of God, c. 14: All have this measure of perfection in such a way that they are conceived and born with it; but they have it in the formal principle, not in mass, just as the members themselves are already all latently in the seed etc. — On the quantity of mass and of power cf. above p. 399, note 4. — Above, for statutum est the codices [read] either statim scitur, or statim scit (codices F O add natura), or statim scimus, codex B statim tantum est ratione sui virtute, and for quantum... mole codices R S T U X bb [read] quantae... molis.
  17. 9
    Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 41. (c. 4.): Natura autem constantium omnium terminus est et ratio magnitudinis et augmenti. — Aliquanto inferius pro secundum staturam, quod exhibent codd. E Z, alii codd. et edd. secundum statum.
    Aristotle, Book II On the Soul, text 41 (c. 4): But for all constant things there is a limit and formal principle of magnitude and of growth. — Somewhat below, for secundum staturam [according to stature], which codices E Z exhibit, other codices and the editions [read] secundum statum [according to state].
  18. 1
    In textu huius dubii. — Superius edd., pro adeo posito ab ea, subinde omittunt fuit occasionata, et (cfr. dub. praeced., ubi eodem sensu dicitur femina vir occasionatus).
    In the text of this doubt. — Above, the editions, having put ab ea for adeo, thereupon omit fuit occasionata, et (cf. the preceding doubt, where in the same sense a woman is called a misbegotten man).
  19. 2
    Matth. 14, 15. seqq. et Ioan. 6, 9. seqq. — Ex cod. F substituimus inter pro in. Superius pro perducta multi codd. producta. — Idem dub. solvitur a S. Thom., hic circa lit.
    Matthew 14:15 ff. and John 6:9 ff. — From codex F we have substituted inter for in. Above, for perducta many codices [read] producta. — The same doubt is resolved by St. Thomas, here concerning the text.
  20. 3
    Ita codd. R S T bb, cod. O artificii, in aliis et edd. artificis. Infra pro renovata Vat. revocata.
    Thus codices R S T bb, codex O artificii, in others and the editions artificis. Below, for renovata the Vatican [edition reads] revocata.
  21. 4
    Cod. aa addit et hoc est, quia corpus solum resurgit proprie.
    Codex aa adds and this is, because the body alone properly rises again.
  22. 5
    Vers. 26. Vulgata omittit Salvatorem.
    Verse 26. The Vulgate omits Salvatorem [my Saviour].
  23. 6
    Cfr. supra d. 43. a. 1. q. 4. et 5.
    Cf. above, d. 43, a. 1, q. 4 and 5.
  24. 7
    Hic c. 2. — Cfr. supra a. 2. q. 2; B. Albert., hic a. 11; […]
    Here c. 2. — Cf. above a. 2, q. 2; Blessed Albert, here a. 11; […]
← Dist. 44, Part 2, Art. 3, Q. 2Dist. 44, Part 2, Dubia→