|
S. Bonaventurae Bagnoregis |
St. Bonaventure of Bagnoregio |
Commentaria in Quatuor Libros Sententiarum |
Commentaries on the Four Books of Sentences |
|
Magistri Petri Lombardi, Episc. Parisiensis |
of Master Peter Lombard, Archbishop of Paris |
|
SECUNDI LIBRI |
BOOK TWO |
COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XVI. |
COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XVI |
|
ARTICULUS II.
Quaestio I. |
ARTICLE II
Question 1 |
|
Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
|
Latin
text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
|
|
ARTICULUS II.
De imagine secundum considerationem relatam. |
ARTICLE II
On the image (of God) according to a related consideration? |
|
Consequenter quaeritur de imagine secundum considerationem relatam. Et circa hoc quaeruntur tria. |
Consequently there is asked concerning (Gods) image according to a related consideration. And about this three (questions) are asked. |
|
Primo quaeritur, utrum ratio imaginis principalius reperiatur in Angelo quam in anima. |
First there is asked, whether the reckoning of (Gods) image is found more principally in the Angel than in the soul. |
|
Secundo, utrum principalius in viro quam in femina. |
Second, whether (it is found) more principally in a man than in a woman. |
|
Tertio, utrum principalius reperiatur in cognitiva quam in affectiva.8 |
Third, whether it is found more principally in the cognitive (part) than in the affective one.8 |
|
8 Multi codd. cum ed. 2 hic activa, sed infra in ipsa quaestione affectiva. |
8 Many codices, together with edition 2, have the active one [activa], but below in the Question itself the affective one [affectiva]. |
p. 400
|
QUAESTIO I.
Utrum imaginis ratio principalius reperiatur in Angelo quam in anima. |
QUESTION 1
Whether the reckoning of the image (of God) is found more principally in the Angel than in the soul? |
|
CIRCA PRIMUM sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum ratio imaginis principalius reperiatur in Angelo quam in anima. Et quod sic, videtur. |
ABOUT THE FIRST (the argument) is advanced thus and there is asked, whether the reckoning of the image is found more principally in the Angel than in the soul. And it seems, that (it is) so. |
|
1. Super illud Ezechielis vigesimo octavo:1 Tu signaculum similitudinis, Gregorius: « quanto subtilior est natura, tanto in ea imago divinitatis similius insinuatur impressa ». |
1. On that (verse) of Ezekiel in the twenty-eight (chapter):1 Thou the seal of a similitude, (Pope St.) Gregory (the Great says): « as much as (a creature) is more subtle in nature, so much is there more similarly wrought in it [in ea insinuatur] the impressed image of the Divinity ». |
|
2. Item, sapiens artifex in nobiliori tabula nobiliorem describit picturam: si igitur imago in creatura est quasi quaedam pictura tabulae impressa, sicut dicit Magister in littera,2 ergo perfectiori et nobiliori modo imago divinitatis inscribi debet in Angelo quam in anima. |
2. Likewise, a wise craftsman sketches a more noble picture upon a more noble tablet [tabula]: if, therefore, the image (of God) in the creature is as if a certain picture impressed upon a tablet, just as Master (Peter) says in the text,2 therefore the image of the Divinity ought to be inscribed in a more perfecta and more noble manner in the Angel than in the soul. |
|
3. Item, ex eo dicitur creatura rationalis imago Dei, quod capax Dei est;3 sed angelicus spiritus capacior est quam humanus, cum sit virtuosior et expeditior: ergo in eo imago divinitatis est eminentius impressa. |
3. Likewise, the rational creature is said (to be) an image of God from this, that it is able to grasp God;3 but the angelic spirit is more able to grasp (Him) than the human (spirit), since it is more virtuous and more unimpeded [expeditior]: therefore in it the image of the Divinity is more eminently impressed. |
|
4. Item, imago consistit in memoria, intelligentia et voluntate;4 sed memoria perfectiori modo habet actum suum in Angelo quam in homine, similiter intelligentia et voluntas memoria enim eius tenet sine oblivione, et intelligentia intelligit sine inquisitione, et voluntas diligit sine retardatione, quorum opposita sunt in anima ergo etc. |
4. Likewise, the image (of God in man) consists in (his) memory, intelligence and will;4 but memory has its own act in a more perfect manner in the Angel than in man, likewise intelligence and will for his memory holds without forgetfulness, and (his) intelligence understands without inquiring, and (his) will loves [diligit] without being hindered [sine retardatione], the opposite of which are in the soul ergo etc.. |
|
CONTRA: 1. Expressius repraesentat summam Trinitatem quod repraesentat non solum quantum ad unitatem substantiae, sed etiam quantum ad distinctionem personarum; sed homo expressius repraesentat distinctionem personarum, quia in homine est personalis discretio per originem, in Angelis autem non:5 ergo expressius repraesentat Trinitatem homo quam Angelus. Sed in quo est expressior repraesentatio, est expressior imago: ergo etc. |
ON THE CONTRARY: 1. (That) more expressly represents the Most High Trinity which represents not only as much as regards the Unity of (Its) Substance, but also as much as regards the distinction of (Its) Persons; but man represents more expressly the distinction of the Person, because in man there is a personal discretion through origin, but in the Angels (there is) not:5 therefore man represents the Trinity more expressly than the Angel. But in that which there is a more express representation, there is a more express image: ergo etc.. |
|
2. Item, evidentius imitatur alterum quod imitatur quantum ad substantiam et modum existendi, quam quod imitatur solum quantum ad alterum; sed anima repraesentat Trinitatem summam, et prout est in se ipsa, et prout est in rebus, ut sic in qualibet parte corporis sit tota, sicut summa essentia est in creatura:6 ergo expressius imitatur Deum quam Angelus. Sed quod expressius imitatur excellentius sua imagine insignitur: ergo etc. |
2. Likewise, (that) more evidently imitates the other which imitates (it) as much as regards (its) substance and manner of existing, than which imitates (it) only as much as regards one of the two; but the soul represents the Most High Trinity, both insofar as It is in Its very self, and insofar as It is in things, such that it is thus whole in any part of the body, just as the Most High Essence is in the creature:6 therefore it imitates God more expressly than the Angel (does). But what imitates (Him) more expressly is marked more excellently with His image: ergo etc.. |
|
3. Item, expressius repraesentat Deum quod repraesentat ipsum non solum in se, sed secundum quod est principium aliorum, quam quod aliquo modo tantum; sed homo repraesentat Deum non solum, ut ens est in se, sed etiam, ut est principium aliorum, quia « sicut ex uno Deo omnia, ita ex uno homine omnes homines », sicut vult Glossa, primae ad Corinthios undecimo:7 ergo, si quod expressius repraesentat, rationem imaginis participat eminentius, patet etc. |
3. Likewise, (that) more expressly represents God which represents Him not only in Himself, but according to which He is the Principle of others, than that which (represents) in some manner only; but man represents God not only, as He is a being in itself [ens in se], but even, as He is a principle of others, because « just as all (are) out of the One God, so all men (are) out of one man », just as the Gloss on the eleventh (chapter) of (St. Pauls) First (Letter) to the Corinthians7 wants: therefore, if what represents more expressly, participates more eminently in the reckoning of (His) image, it is clear that etc.. |
|
4. Item, plenius repraesentat aliquid quod repraesentat ipsum per maiorem accessum ad suam totalitatem; sed homo repraesentat Deum, in quantum est exemplar et spiritualium et corporalium, Angelus autem altero tantum modo: ergo in homine excellentiori modo reperitur imago.8 |
4. Likewise, (that) represents something more fully which represents it through a greater approach [accessum] to its totality; but man represents God, inasmuch as He is the Exemplar of (things) both spiritual and corporal, but the Angel only in one of the two manners: therefore in man the image (of God) is found in a more excellent manner.8 |
|
5. Item, quanto exemplum magis unitur exemplari,9 tanto magis conformatur ei; et quanto magis natum est uniri, tanto magis natum est conformari; sed natura humana unitur divinae in unitate personae, quod quidem non facit angelica: ergo expressior est in ea imago, quam sit in Angelo. |
5. Likewise, as much as an example is more united to (its) exemplar,9 so much is it more conformed to it; and as much as it is bound to be united, so much is it more bound to be conformed; but human nature is united to the Divine (Nature) in the unity of a Person, which indeed the angelic does not do: therefore the image (of God) is more expressed in it, than it is in the Angel. |
|
6. Item, per considerationem Philosophi:10 « Si optimum in uno genere est melius optimo in alio genere, et est simpliciter hoc illo melius »; sed Christus, qui est optimus inter homines, excellentiori modo insignitus est imagine Dei quam optimus Angelus: ergo imago Dei in homine quam in Angelo reperitur excellentius. |
6. Likewise, through a consideration of the Philosopher:10 « If the best in one genus is better than the best in another genus, the former (genus) is also simply better than the latter »; but Christ, who is the best among men, has been marked in a more excellent manner with the image of God than the best Angel: therefore the image of God is found more excellently in man than in the Angel. |
|
CONCLUSIO.
Ratio imaginis in Angelo et anima quoad aliquid est aequae principaliter, quoad aliquid in Angelo magis principaliter, quoad aliquid minus. |
CONCLUSION
The reckoning of (Gods) image is in an equally principal manner in the Angel and the soul regarding something, in the Angel (it is there) more principally in regard to one thing, less (principally) in regard to something (else). |
|
RESPONDEO: Ad praedictorum intelligentiam notandum est, quod quidam dicere voluerunt, quod creaturam magis esse ad imaginem Dei potest . . . |
I RESPOND: For an understanding of the aforesaid it must be noted, that certain (authors) wanted to say, that that a creature is more to the image of God can . . . |
|
1 Vers. 12. Verba Gregorii habentur in Homil. 34. in Evang. n. 7, ubi loquitur de Angelo et dicit: Ut quo in eo subtilior est natura, eo in illo imago Dei similius insinuetur expressa. Cfr. XXXII. Moral. c. 23. n. 47. Paulo superius Vat. in homine pro in anima. 2 Hic c. 3. in fine. 3 August., XIV. de Trin. c. 8. n. 11. 4 Cfr. I. Sent. d. 3. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. 5 Vide supra pag. 103, nota 6. et 104, nota 5. 6 In libro de Spiritu et anima (inter opera Augustini) c. 18: Sicut enim Deus ubique est totus in toto mundo et in omni creatura sua; sic anima ubique tota in toto corpore suo, tanquam mundo suo. Cfr. I. Sent. d. 8. p. II. q. 3. 7 Vers. 7. Glossa haec invenitur in Expositione super loc. cit., quae olim Ambrosio tribuebatur. Cfr. Beda. Hexaλm. (Super Gen. 1, 26.) et Hugo a S. Victor., Sent. tract. 3. c. 2. Aliquanto superius plures codd. cum Vat. quam quod altero pro quam quod aliquo. 8 In cod. T additur quam in Angelo. 9 Cod. O Item quanto magis exemplum imitatur exemplar. Vat., post exemplum addito seu exemplatum, substituit cum multis codd. innititur pro unitur, quod exhibent codd. Q W X aa. 10 Libr. III. Topic. c. 2. De minori cfr. Glossa ordinaria in Hebr. 2, 9, quae infra in corp. quaest. allegatur. Cod. F ergo et simpliciter pro et est simpliciter. |
1 Verse 12. The words of (Pope St.) Gregory (the Great) are had in his 34th Homily On the Gospels, n. 7, where he is speaking of the Angel and says: So that by that, by which nature is more subtle in him, the expressed image of God is wrought more similarly in him. Cf. Morals on the Book of Job, Bk. XXXII, ch. 23, n. 47. A little above this, the Vatican edition has in man [in homine] for in the soul [in anima]. [Trans. note: In the words of St. Gregory insinuatur, which is rendered here as wrought means more specifically, to introduce by turning, and seems to be used here in reference to a wax seal [signaculum], which is formed by being impressed by a signet, such that a slight twist or turn is necessitated to make the impression.] 2 Here in ch. 3, at the end. 3 (St.) Augustine, On the Trinity, Bk. XIV, ch. 8, n. 11. 4 Cf. Sent., Bk. I, d. 3, p. II, a. 1, q. 1. 5 See above d. 3, p. I, a. 2, q. 1, p. 103, footnote 6, and p. 104, footnote 5. 6 In the book On Spirit and the Soul (numbered among the works of St. Augustine), ch. 18: For just as God is everywhere Whole in the whole world and in every one of His creatures; so the soul (is) everywhere whole in its whole body, as in its own world. Cf. Sent., Bk. I, d. 8, p. II, a. 3. 7 Verse 7. This Gloss is found in the Exposition on the passage cited, which was one attributed to (St.) Ambrose. Cf. (St.) Bede (the Venerable), Hexaλmeron., (on Gen. 1:26), and Hugo of Saint Victor, Sent., tract 3, ch. 2. Somewhat above this several codices, together with the Vatican edition, have in only one of the two manners [quam quod altero] for in some manner only [quam quod aliquo]. 8 In codex T there is added than in the Angel [quam in Angelo]. 9 Codex O reads Likewise, as much as an example imitates more (its) exemplar [Item quanto magis exemplum imitatur exemplar]. The Vatican edition, after example [exemplum], having added or copy [seu exemplatum], substitutes with many codices leans upon [innititur] for is united to [unitur], which codices Q W X and aa exhibit. 10 (Aristotle), TopicsΈ Bk. III, ch. 2. On the minor (of the argument), cf. the Glossa ordinaria, on Heb. 2:9, which is cited below in the body of the Question. Codex F has therefore the former (genus is) also [ergo et simpliciter] for the former (genus) is also [et simpliciter]. |
p. 401
|
dici dupliciter: vel extensive, vel intensive. Si extensive, sic dixerunt, quod homo magis repraesentat Deum quam Angelus, quia in pluribus ratione corporis sibi uniti, utpote in spiritualibus et corporalibus et in modo existendi in rebus et secundum etiam modum producendi res. Et sic dicunt procedere rationes ad secundam partem.1 Nam quod de Christo obiicitur, non valet; illud enim est singulare privilegium nec est naturae, sed potius gratiae. Si autem dicatur una creatura magis esse ad imaginem quam alia intensive, quia expressius repraesentat; sic dicunt, Angelum magis esse ad imaginem Dei, quam sit homo; sicut ostendunt auctoritates et rationes ad oppositum. Et hoc insinuat Gregorius, cum dicit: « Quanto subtilior est natura, tanto in ea imago Trinitatis similius insinuatur impressa ». Et rationes etiam consequentes ostendunt, quod sicut excellentior est natura angelica, sic excellentiores habet potentias et maiorem habet capacitatem et digniori modo est imagine Dei insignita. Et secundum hanc viam plana est responsio ad quaestionem propositam et ad obiecta. |
be said in a twofold manner: either extensively, and/or intensively. If extensively, thus they said, that man represents God more than the Angel (does), because (he represents Him) in several (manners) by reason of the body united to him, as for example in spiritual and corporal (things) and in the manner of (his) existing in things and even according to (his) manner of producing things. And thus they say proceed the reasons for the second side.1 For what is objected concerning Christ, is not valid; for that is a singular privilege nor does it belong to nature, but rather to grace. But if one creature be said to be more to the image (of God) than another intensively, because it represents (Him) more expressly; thus they say, that the Angel is more to the image of God, than man is; just as the authorities and reason for the opposite show. And (Pope St.) Gregory (the Great) insinuates this, when he says: « As much as (a creature) is more subtle in nature, so much is there wrought in it the impressed image of the Trinity ». And the consequent reasons also show, that just as the angelic nature is more excellent, so it has more excellent powers and has a greater capacity and is marked in a more dignified manner with the image of God. And according to this way the response to the proposed Question and to the objects is plain. |
|
Sed licet iste modus dicendi probabilis videatur, non modicam tamen habet calumniam ratione utriusque partis distinctionis. Quod enim dicatur imago magis esse in homine extensive quam in Angelis, hoc verbis Augustini non consonat, qui rationem imaginis dicit esse in anima praecise secundum partem supremam, sicut patet in decimo quarto et decimo quinto de Trinitate.2 Similiter, quod dicatur universaliter expressior esse imago Dei in Angelo quam in anima propter maiorem dignitatem naturae, hoc non videtur consonare Glossae, quae dicit super illud, secundo3 ad Hebraeos: Eum qui modicum minoratus est ab Angelis; ibi dicit Glossa, quod « natura mentis humanae, qualem Christus assumsit, solus Deus maior est ». Et Augustinus hoc innuit in pluribus locis; et pie creditur et communiter sentitur, quod Virgo Maria magis inter omnes Angelos accedit ad Deum. |
But though this manner of speaking of theirs seems probable, yet it is not a little calumniated [modicam habet calumniam] by reason of each part of (their) distinction. For that the image (of God) is said to be more in man extensively than in the Angels, this is not consonant with the words of (St.) Augustine, who says that the reckoning of (Gods) image is in the soul precisely according to (its) supreme part, just as is clear in the fourteenth and fifteenth (books) On the Trinity.2 Similarly, that the image of God is said to be more express in the Angel than in the soul on account of (his) greater dignity of nature, this does not seem to be consonant with the Gloss, which says on that (verse), in the second (chapter) of Hebrews:3 Him, who for a little was made less than the Angels; there the Gloss says, that « that the nature of the human mind, of the kind which Christ assumed, God alone is greater ». And (St.) Augustine hints at this in several passages; and it is piously believed and commonly thought, that the Virgin Mary approaches God more (than any does) among all the Angels. |
|
Propterea est alius modus dicendi, quod cum expressio imaginis consistat in convenientia ordinis et proportionis,4 intensio dignitatis imaginis consistit secundum intensionem convenientiae quantum ad proportionem, vel ordinem. |
On account of this there is another manner of speaking, that since the expression of the image consists in a convening of order and of proportion,4 the intensity [intensio] of the dignity of the image consists according to the intensity of the convening as much as regards proportion, and/or order. |
|
Attendendum autem, quod convenientia creaturae rationalis ad Deum secundum ordinem quaedam est de esse imaginis, et quaedam de bene esse. De esse imaginis est, quod creatura immediate ordinetur ad Deum; de bene esse vero est, quod creatura, quae est imago, praeponatur aliis, quae tenent rationem vestigii; et quod alia ordinentur in ipsam tanquam in finem. Et sic triplex est ordo in creatura rationali, secundum quem conformatur Deo. Primus, quod immediate nata est Deo coniungi; et hic est essentialis imagini, et in hoc Angelus et anima aequiparantur, quia utriusque « mens immediate ab ipsa prima veritate formatur ».5 Secundus est, quo praeponitur creatura, quae est imago, aliis creaturis; et in hoc Angeli praecellunt, quia non solum bestiis, sed etiam hominibus rectores sunt deputati, secundum illud, Ecclesiastici decimo septimo:6 In unamquamque gentem praeposuit rectores, Glossa: id est Angelos; et iste est ordo, quo creatura irrationalis regitur a Deo mediante rationali. Tertius est ordo, quo creaturae irrationales ad rationalem ordinantur tanquam in finem, propter quem sunt factae, et mediante illo in ultimum finem principalem;7 et secundum hunc ordinem magis convenit homo cum Deo quam Angelus; magis enim facta sunt et corporalia et sensibilia propter homines quam propter Angelos. Et sic patet, quod ratio imaginis, prout attenditur in convenientia ordinis, quantum ad id quod est de esse, in homine et Angelo reperitur aequaliter, quia uterque ordinatur in Deum immediate. Quantum vero ad illud, quod est de bene esse, scilicet quantum ad ordinem respectu creaturarum, se habent per modum excedentis et excessi. Angelus enim magis convenit quantum ad ordinem sub ratione regiminis; homo vero magis quantum ad ordinem, qui attenditur in ratione finis. |
Moreover one must attend, that a certain convening of the rational creature with God according to order concerns the being of the image, and a certain one concerns the well being (of the image). It concerns the being of the image, that the creature is ordered immediately to God; but it concerns the well being (of the image), that the creature, which is the image, is placed before the others, which have the reckoning of the vestige; and that the others are ordered unto it as unto an end. And thus there is a threefold order in the rational creature, according to which it is conformed to God. The first, that it is bound to be conjoined immediately to God; and this is essential to the image, and in this the Angel and the soul are equally peered [aequiparantur], because of each « the mind is formed immediately by Prime Truth Itself ».5 The second is, that the creature, which is the image, is placed before other creatures; and in this the Angels pre-excel, because they have been deputed rulers not only for the bests, but even for men, according to that (verse), in the seventeenth (chapter) of Ecclesiasticus:6 Over each nation He has placed rulers, the Gloss (says): that is, the Angels; and this is the order, in which the irrational creature is ruled by God by means of the rational (creature). The third is the order, by which irrational creatures are ordered to the rational (creature) as unto the end, for the sake of which they were made, and by means of that unto (their) principal final end;7 and according to this order man convenes with God more than the Angel (does); for both corporal and sensible (creatures) have been made more for the sake of men than for the sake of the Angels. And thus it is clear, that the reckoning of (Gods) image, insofar as it is attained in a convening of order, as much as regards that which concerns (its) being, is found equally in man and in the Angel, because each is ordered unto God immediately. But as must as regards that, which concerns (its) well being, that is, as much as regards (its) order in respect of creatures, (man and Angel) hold themselves through the manner of one exceeding and one exceeded. For the Angel convenes (with creatures) more as much as regards the order (which is attained) under a reckoning of governance [regiminis]; but man more as much as regards the order, which is attained in a reckoning of an end. |
|
Consimili modo reperimus et aequalitatem et mutuum excessum in expressione imaginis, quae attenditur secundum convenientiam proportionis; quia quaedam est convenientia habitudinis, quae est de esse imagnis, quaedam de bene esse. Illa est de esse, quae consistit in comparatione ad intrinseca sicut ad potentias; et in hac homo et Angelus adaequantur, quia ita bene est distinctio et origo et aequalitas et consubstantialitas in potentiis animae, in memoria scilicet, intelligentia et voluntate, sicut in potentiis Angeli. Illa vero convenientia habitudinis est de bene esse, quae attenditur in comparatione creaturae rationalis ad aliquod extrinsecum, utpote ad corpus, quod est ipsa inferius. Haec autem dupliciter potest esse expressior: vel privative vel positive. Si positive; sic anima est imago ex- / -pressior . . . |
In a consimilar manner we find both an equality and a mutual excess in the expression of the image, which is attained according to a convening of proportion, because there is a certain convening of habitude, which concerns the being of the image, a certain one (which concerns) the well being (of the image). That, which consists in the comparison to intrinsic (things), such as to the powers, concerns the being (of the image); and in this man and Angel are adequated, because there is as well a distinction and origin and equality and consubstantiality in the powers of the soul, that is, in the memory, intelligence and will, as in the powers of the Angel. But that convening of habitude, which is attained in the comparison of the rational creature to something extrinsic, such as to the body, which is inferior to it, concerns the well being (of the image). Moreover this (well being of the image) can be more express in a twofold manner: either privatively and/or positively. If positively; thus the soul is a more express / image . . . |
|
1 Codd. cum edd. 1, 2 primam partem. Arg. autem 6. de Christo probare vult perfectionem imaginis intensivam. 2 Libr. XIV. c. 8. n. 11. et XV. c. 6. n. 10. Paulo superius aliqui codd. cum ed. 1 hoc verbum Augustino pro hoc verbis Augustini. 3 Vers. 9: Eum autem, qui modico quam Angeli minoratus est. Glossa ordinaria in hunc locum est August., II. contra Maximin. c. 25: Natura vero humana, qualem naturam Christus humane mentis assumsit, quae nullo peccato potuit depravari, solus maior est Deus. Cfr. VI. de Trin. c. 6. n. 10. et XIII. c. 17. n. 22. De B. Maria Virg. vide Sermonem de Assumt. eiusdem, (inter opera S. Hieronymi) in quo c. 7. dicitur, quod Maria exaltata sit super choros Angelorum. 4 Cfr. supra a. 1. q. 1. in corp. 5 Vide supra pag. 45, nota 5. 6 Vers. 14. Vulgata: rectorem. Glossam refert Rabanus et Lyranus in hunc locum. 7 Cfr. supra d. 15. a. 2. q. 1. |
1 The codices, together with editions 1 and 2, have for the first side [primam partem]. But the 6th argument wants to prove, concerning Christ, the intensive perfection of the image. 2 Book XIV, ch. 8, n. 11, and Bk. XV, ch. 6, n. 10. A little above this some codices, together with edition 1, have this word . . . with (St.) Augustine [hoc verbum Augustino] for this . . . with the words of (St.) Augustine [hoc verbis Augustini]. 3 Verse 9: But Him, who for a little was made less than the Angels [Eum autem, qui modico quam Angeli minoratur est]. The Glossa ordinaria on this passage is from (St.) Augustine, Against Maximinus, Bk. II, ch. 25: But than the human nature, which nature of human mind Christ assumed, which could be depraved by no sin, God alone is greater. Cf. On the Trinity, Bk. VI, ch. 6, n. 10, and Bk. XIII, ch. 17, n. 22. On the Blessed Virgin Mary, see the Sermon On the Assumption (numbered among the works of St. Jerome), in which in ch. 7 there is said, that Mary has been exalted above the choirs of the Angels. 4 Cf. above a. 1, q. 1, in the body (of the Question). 5 See above d. 1, p. II, a. 2, q. 2, p. 45, footnote 5. 6 Verse 14. In the Vulgate: a ruler [rectorem] for rulers [rectores]. The Gloss is reported by (St.) Rabanus (Maurus) and (Nicholas) of Lyra, on this passage. 7 Cf. above d. 15, a. 2, q. 1. |
p. 402
|
ex- / -pressior, quae in hoc, quod coniungitur corpori ita, quod per illud est principium aliorum, et per illud totum inhabitat, magis repraesentat Deum, qui est principum omnium et qui unus est in omnibus. Si autem privative; sic Angelus magis repraesentat Deum, quia Deus est spiritus purus, omnino impermixtus et indepedens a creaturis omnibus; et hoc repraesentat angelicus spiritus, dum est a corpore secundum actum et aptitudinem separatus. Et pro tanto dicitur esse subtilior a Gregorio, et in eo imago divinitatis esse expressior. Et sic patet, quod quantum ad convenientiam proportionis, quae est de essentia imaginis, inter hominem et Angelum potest esse aequalitas; quantum vero ad illam, quae est de bene esse, se habent sicut excedentia et excessa. |
a more express / image, which in this, that it is conjoined to the body thus, that through the latter it is a principle of others, and it indwells though that whole, represents God more, who is the Principle of all and who is One in all. But if privatively; thus the Angel represents God more, because God is a pure spirit, entirely unmingled with and independent from all creatures; and this the angelic spirit represents, when it is separate from the body according to act and aptitude. And in proportion to this [pro tanto] it is said by (St.) Gregory to be more subtle, and in this the image of the Divinity (is said) to be more expressed. And thus it is clear, that as much as regards the convening of proportion, which concerns the being of the image, there can be an equality between man and Angel; but as much as regards that, which concerns the well being (of the image), they hold themselves as ones exceeding and ones exceeded. |
|
Ex praedictis igitur patet responsio ad quaestionem propositam. Cum enim quaeritur, utrum principalius vel expressius sit imago Dei in Angelo quam in anima; respondendum, quod quantum ad aliquid est aeque principaliter, quantum ad aliquid magis principaliter, quantum ad aliquid minus, sicut explanatum est. Et in hoc patet responsio ad rationes ad utramque partem, quae procedunt secundum diversas vias, secundum quas veritatem possunt concludere, quia non habent oppositionem. |
From the aforesaid, therefore, the response to the proposed Question is clear. For when there is asked, whether the image of God is more principally and/or more expressly in the Angel than in the soul; it must be responded, that as much as regards something it is (there) in an equally principal manner, as much as regards something (it is there) more principally, as much as regards something (else) less (principally), just as has been explained. And in this the response to the reasons, which proceed according to the diverse ways, according to which they can conclude (at) the truth, is clear, because they are not opposed [non habent oppositionem]. |
|
3. 4. Ad illud tamen quod obiicitur de maiori capacitate, dici potest, quod non cogit. Angelus enim capacitatem gratiae habet in comparatione ad sursum, in qua comparatione non excedit naturam mentis humanae. Quod autem natura angelica dicatur excedere humanam, hoc est in comparatione ad corpus, ad quod non habet inclinationem secundum quod anima;1 et ideo maioritas dignitatis in natura angelica respectu animae non facit ad excellentiam imaginis sive illius capacitatis, quae est in natura humane mentis, secundum quod anima est capax Dei. Similiter nec aliud, quod sequitur, cogit; quia maior vivacitas memoriae vel intelligentiae potius facit ad intensionem similitudinis quam ad imaginis maiorem expressionem. Similitudo enim consistit in proprietatibus naturalibus, imago vero in origine et habitudine; et quamvis potentiae in Angelis sint vivaciores quam in animabus,2 et ideo Deo similiores; eundem tamen habent ordinem et habitudinem, sicut ostensum est supra. Unde magis proprie conceditur, quod Angelus sit Deo similior quam homo, quam possit concedi, quod Angelus sit magis imago; et hoc vult dicere auctoritas Gregorii. |
3. 4. To that, nevertheless, which is objected concerning a greater capacity, it can be said, that it is not cogent. For the Angel has a capacity for grace in comparison to (what is) above, in which comparison he does not exceed the nature of the human mind. Moreover that the angelic nature is said to exceed the human one, this is in comparison to the body, to which it does not have an inclination according to what the soul (has);1 and for that reason the majority of dignity in the angelic nature in respect of the soul does not work toward the excellence of the image or of that capacity, which is in the nature of the human mind, according to which the soul is able to grasp God. Similarly neither is the other, which follows, cogent; because a greater vivacity of memory and/or of intelligence works rather toward the intensification of the similitude than for the greater expression of the image. For the similitude (of God and creature) consists in (its) natural properties; but the image (of God in the creature consists) in (its) origin and habitude; and although the powers in the Angels are more vivacious than (those) in souls,2 and for that reason more similar to God; yet they have the same order and habitude, just as has been shown above. Wherefore it is more properly conceded, that the Angel is more similar to God than man, than it can be conceded, that the Angel is more an image; and this does the authority of (St.) Gregory want to say. |
|
Rationes vero ad oppositum procedunt et concludunt maiorem expressionem quantum ad illud quod est accidentale imagini, excepta illa, quae fundatur super unionem; ad quam dicendum, quod non cogit, pro eo quod substantia, quae minus capax est gratiae per naturam, potest effici magis capax per aliquam gratiam gratis datam, quae disponit et ampliat capacitatem naturae ad susceptionem gratae gratum facientis. Unde esto, quod natura angelica esset magis capax gratiae quam humana natura secundum naturalem potentiam sicut videtur rationabiliter esse ponendum, ut natura angelica sit excellentior, et excellentiori naturae debeatur excellentior potentia et capacitas nihilominus tamen per aliquod donum divinitus sibi gratis datum potest elevari capacitas animae usque ad capacitatem Angeli, et quodam modo ampliorem. Nam donum gratiae gratis datae disponit ad gratiam gratum facientem; et sic possibile est fuisse in Christo et beata Virgine. Et sic patent obiecta ad utramque partem. |
On the other hand, the reasons for the opposite proceed and conclude (for) a greater expression as much as regards that which is accidental to the image, except that, which is founded upon the (Hypostatic) Union; to which it must be said, that it is not cogent, in virtue of this that a substance, which is less capable of grace through nature, can be made more capable through some grace freely given, which disposes and amplifies the capacity of (its) nature for the susception of the grace which makes one pleasing. Wherefore let it be, that the angelic nature would be more capable of grace than the human nature according to (its) natural power just as seems to be reasonably posited, as the angelic nature is more excellent, and to a more excellent nature there is owned a more excellent power and capacity yet, nevertheless, through some gift divinely given to it the capacity of the soul can be raised to the capacity of an Angel, and (made) in a certain manner more ample. For a gift of the grace freely given disposes for the grace which makes one pleasing; and in this manner it is possible that there was (a greater capacity) in Christ and the Blessed Virgin. And thus the objections to each side are clear. |
|
SCHOLION. |
SCHOLIUM |
|
I. Multi Scholastici cum S. Thoma, Richardo a Med. et Scoto potius primam sententiam in resp. notatam sequuntur, sed aliis verbis expressam, quam etiam S. Bonav. probabilem videri asserit. Hi dicunt, quod simpliciter loquendo et secundum id, in quo primo consideratur ratio imaginis, imago Dei in Angelis est magis expressa; sed secundum quid, et respectu habito ad aliquas proprietates consequentes et accidentales, quas recenset etiam S. Bonav., imago magis invenitur in hominibus quam in Angelis. Ratio autem principalis eorum est, quia natura intellectualis perfectior est in Angelis quam in hominibus. Quae ratio in genere certissima est, licet quoad animam Christi et B. Virgine a S. Doctore non sub omni respectu concedatur. Praeterea, ratio imagini, secundum Alex. Hal. et S. Doctorem (a. 1. q. 1.) non solum attenditur secundum naturae intrinsecam perfectionem, essentiam divinam repraesentantem, sed etiam, quatenus per convenientiam, quae dicitur proportionis, repraesentantur personalia in divinis; sub quo respectu imago Trinitatis aequaliter est in utrisque, et etiam, quatenus mens immediate ordinem habet ad Deum. Etiam Alex. Hal. (S. p. II. q. 62. m. 5. a. 2. ad 2.) dicit, quod « imago, licet dicatur de Angelo, et sit [in eo] maior expressio ratione simplicitatis, non tamen ratione eorum, in quibus consistit principalis ratio imaginis ». Sed hoc opinionum dissidium non est magni momenti, immo facile componi posse videtur. |
I. Many Scholastics, together with St. Thomas, Richard of Middleton and (Bl. John Duns) Scotus, follow rather the first sentence noted in the Response, but expressed in other words, which even St. Bonaventure asserts seems to be probable. These say, that simply speaking and according to that, in which the reckoning of the image is first considered, the image of God is more expressed in the Angels; but secundum quid, and in the respect had to other consequent and accidental powers, which even St. Bonaventure cites, the image is found more in men than in Angels. Moreover their principal reason is, that the intellectual nature is more perfect in the Angels than in men. Which reason in general is most certain, though in respect of the soul of Christ and the Blessed Virgin is not conceded by the Seraphic Doctor in every respect. Besides, the reckoning of the image, according to Alexander of Hales and the Seraphic Doctor (a. 1, q. 1) is not only attained according to the intrinsic perfection of the nature, representing the Divine Essence, but also, to the extent that the personal (perfections) among the Divine (Persons) are represented through a convening, which is said (to be one) of proportion, under which respect the image of the Trinity is equally in each, and even, to the extend that the mind has an order immediately to God. Even Alexander of Hales (Summa., p. II, q. 62, m. 5, a. 2, in reply to n. 2) says, that « the image, though it be said of an Angel, and (even though) there is (in him) a greater expression by reason of the simplicity (of his nature), yet not by reason of those (things), in which the principal reckoning of the image consists ». But this disagreement [dissidium] of opinions is not of great moment, nay it seems that they can easily be reconciled. |
|
II. Scot., in Sum. Hier. de Montefortino, t. II. p. I. q. 93. a. 3. S. Thom, hic q. unica. a. 3; S. I. q. 93. a. 3. B. Albert., hic a. 3. Petr. a Tar., hic q. unica, a. 4. Richard. a Med., hic q. 4. Aegid. R., hic a. 2. q. 1. |
II. (Bl. John Duns) Scotus, in the Summa Scoti of Jerome of Montefortino, tome II, p. I, q. 93, q. 3. St. Thomas, here in the q. sole, a. 3; Summa., I, q. 93, a. 3. Bl. (now St.) Albertus (Magnus), here in a. 3. (Bl.) Peter of Tarentaise, here in the q. sole, a. 4. Richard of Middleton, here in q. 4. Giles the Roman, herein a. 2, q. 1. |
|
III. Quoad sequentem quaest. manifestum est, quod imago Dei in viro non potest magis esse quam in muliere, nisi quoad quaedam accidentalia, quibus dignitas viri declaratur, vel ut dicit S. Doctor, quoad « bene esse sive ad clariorem expressionem »; minime autem quoad id quod proprie ratio imaginis est. De hoc tractant S. Thom., S. loc. cit. a. 4. ad 1. B. Albert., hic a. 4. Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. a. 5. Richard. a Med., hic q. 6. Aegid. R., hic q. 2. a. 2. |
III. In regard to the following Question it is manifest, that the image of God in a man [viro] cannot be greater than that in a woman, except in regard to certain accidentals, by which the dignity of a man is declared, and/or as the Seraphic Doctor says, in regard to the « well being or clearer expression » (of the image); but least of all in regard to that which is properly the reckoning of the image. Treating of this matter are St. Thomas, loc. cit., a. 4, in reply to n. 1. Bl. (now St.) Albertus (Magnus), here in a. 4. (Bl.) Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit., a. 5. Richard of Middleton, here in q. 6. Giles the Roman, here in q. 2, a. 2. |
|
1 Vat. sicut anima. 2 Vat. falso animalibus. |
1 The Vatican edition has just as the soul (has) [sicut anima] for according to what the soul (has) [secundum quod anima]. 2 The Vatican edition has falsely in animals [in animalibus]. |
This English Translation and the
digitization of the Latin and English texts, the HTML markup, all
emendations and corrections of the Latin text, and all notes by the Translator,
are © 2007, 2008 by Br. Alexis Bugnolo. The / symbol is used to indicate
that the text which follows appears on the subsequent page of the Quaracchi
Edition. The translation of the notes in English corresponds to the context of
the English text, not that of the Latin text; likewise they are a freer translation
than that which is necessitated by the body of the text. Items in square [ ]
brackets contain Latin terms corresponding to the previous English word(s), or
notes added by the English translator.
Items in round ( ) brackets are terms implicit in the Latin syntax or which are
required for clarity in English.