S. Bonaventurae Bagnoregis
S. R. E. Episc. Card. Albae
atque Doctor Ecclesiae Universalis

St. Bonaventure of Bagnoregio
Cardinal Bishop of Alba
& Doctor of the Church

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 XVII.

COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XVII

ARTICULUS I.

 

Quaestio III.

ARTICLE I

 

Question 3

 

Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1885, Vol. 2, pag. 416-418.
Cum Notitiis Originalibus

 

 

Latin text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1885, Vol. 2, pp. 416-418.
Notes by the Quaracchi Editors.

 

QUAESTIO III.

 

Utrum anima Adae fuerit producta ante corpus, vel postea.

QUESTION 3

 

Whether the soul of Adam was produced before the body, and/or afterward?

TERTIO QUAERITUR, utrum anima Adae producta fuerit ante corpus, vel postea.  Et quod ante, videtur:

THIRD THERE IS ASKED, whether the soul of Adam was produced before the body, and/or afterward.  And that (it was) before, seems:

1. Per textum Genesis primo:1  Faciamus hominem ad imaginem etc.; hoc dictum est sexta die; sed post septimam subditur:  Formavit Deus hominem de limo terrae:  ergo si prima formatio refertur ad animam, secunda ad corpus, prius fuit facta anima quam corpus.

1. Through the text of Genesis in the first (chapter):1  Let Us make man to Our image etc.; this was said on the Sixth Day; but after the Seventh (Day) there is subjoined:  God formed man from the slime of the earth:  therefore if the first formation is referred to the soul, the second to the body, the soul was made before the body.

2. Item, hoc videtur ratione.  Sicut homo ex parte corporis communicat cum animalibus brutis, ita ex parte animae communicat cum Angelis:2  ergo sicut corpus hominis productum est eodem die cum animalibus brutis, sic spiritus eius rationalis debuit produci eodem die cum Angelis:  ergo etc.

2. Likewise, this seems by reason.  Just as man on the part of (his) body communicates with the brute animals, so he communicates on the part of (his) soul with the Angels:2  therefore just as the body of man was produced on the same day with the brute animals, so his rational spirit ought to have been produced on the same day with the Angels:  ergo etc..

3. Item, anima Adae se habet ad corpus sicut aeviternum ad temporale, et sicut aevum ad tempus;3 sed aevum est prius tempore, et aeviternum prius temporali:  ergo prius videtur debuisse produci anima Adae quam corpus, cui debebat uniri.

3. Likewise, the soul of Adam holds itself to (his) body just as an eviternal (does) to a temporal, and just as the aevum (does) to time;3 but the aevum is prior to time, and an eviternal prior to a temporal:  therefore it seems that the soul of Adam ought to have been produced before the body, to which it ought to have been united.

4. Item, substantia spiritualis, a corpore non dependens quantum ad esse, non dependet quantum ad productionem; sed spiritus rationalis Adae ab eius corpore non dependebat quantum ad esse:  ergo nec quantum ad productionem.  Corpus autem a spiritu dependebat, quia sine illo permanere non poterat:  ergo si absolutum est ante dependens,4 prius debuit produci anima quam corpus.

4. Likewise, a spiritual substance, not dependent upon [a] the body as much as regards (its) ‘to be’, is not dependent as much as regards (its) ‘being produced’ [productionem]; but the rational spirit of Adam was not dependent upon his body as much as regards (its) ‘being’:  therefore neither as much as regards (its) production.  But (his) body was dependent upon (his) spirit, because without it, it could not perdure [permanere]:  therefore if the absolute is before the dependent,4 the soul ought to have been produced before the body.

5. Item, maior est distantia inter spirituale et corporale, quam sit inter corpora miscibilia¸ sed corpora miscibilia prius producta sunt separatim, quam sint ad invicem mixta ad constitutionem tertii:  ergo anima prius debuit produci quam corpori uniri:  ergo non est creata in corpore, sed extra.5

5. Likewise, there is a greater distance between the spiritual and corporal, than there is between mixable bodies, but mixable bodies were produced separately before they were mixed with one another for the constitution of a third:  therefore the soul ought to have been produced before being united to the body:  therefore it was not created in the body, but outside of (it).5

1  Vers. 26.  Seq. textus test Gen. 2, 7.

2  Cfr. supra pag. 398, nota 5.

3  Vide supra d. 2. p. I. a. 1. q. 1.   —  Ibid. a. 2. q. 1. minor insinuatur.

4  Simile ex Aristot., I. Ethic. c. 6. de absoluto et relativo occurit supra pag. 49, nota 3.

5  Vat. extra corpus.

1  Verse 26.  The following text is Gen. 2:7.

2  Cf. above d. 16, a. I, q. 3, p. 398, footnote 5.

3  See above d. 2, p. I, a. 1, q. 1.  —  Ibid., in a. 2, q. 1, the minor (of the argument) is insinuated.

4  The simile from Aristotle, Ethics, Bk. I, ch. 6, concerning the absolute and the relative occurs above in d. 1, p. II, a. 3, q. 2, p. 49, footnote 3.

5   The Vatican edition has outside of the body [extra corpus].

 

p. 417

 

6. Item, tanto aliquid prius debet produci, quanto magis appropinquat primariae rerum origini; sed anima plus appropinquat ad Deum, qui est principium omnium, quam corpus humanum, cum sit ei similior in simplicitate et spiritualitate:  ergo etc.

6. Likewise, anything ought to be produced as much before, as it approaches more the primary origin of things; but the soul approaches God, who is the Principle of all, more than the human body (does), since it is more similar to Him in simplicity and spirituality:  ergo etc..

CONTRA:  1. Genesis secundo:1  Formavit Deus hominem de limo terrae, et inspiravit in faciem eius spiraculum vitae; quod exponitur, id est, spiritum fecit; sed spiraculum vitae spirare nihil aliud est quam animam hominis creare:  ergo si prius creavit corpus, quam spiraculum inspiraret, prius ergo produxit corpus quam animam.

ON THE CONTRARY:  1. In the second (chapter) of Genesis1 (there is written):  God formed man from the slime of the earth, and breathed into his face the breath of life; which is expounded, “that is, He gave (him) breath” [spiritum fecit]; but “to breath the breath of life” is nothing other than “to create the soul of man”:  therefore if He created the body before He breathed the breath of life into (it), therefore He produced the body before the soul.

2. Item, anima naturaliter est forma corporis;2 sed naturalis forma aut simul producitur cum materia, aut sequitur materiam:  ergo aut anima non est forma naturalis, aut si est forma naturalis, producta est post corpus, vel simul cum corpore:  non ergo ante.

2. Likewise, the soul naturally is the form of the body;2 but the form of nature [naturalis forma] is either produced together with the matter, or follows the matter:  therefore either the soul is not the form of the nature, or if it is the form of the nature, it has been produced after the body, and/or together with the body:  therefore not before.

3. Item, quanto forma nobilior est, tanto ultimior; sed anima rationalis nobilissima est inter omnes formas naturales:  ergo ultima:  ergo produci debuit post vegetabilem et sensibilem.3

3. Likewise, as much as a form is more noble, so much (is it) more ultimate [ultimior]; but the rational soul is the most noble among all natural forms [formas naturales]:  therefore (it is) the ultimate (form):  therefore it ought to have been produced after the vegetable and sensible (soul).3

4. Item, ordinata productio procedit ab imperfecto ad perfectum:4  si ergo perfectio omnium operum facta est in homine, et maxime quantum ad animam, videtur, quod homo quantum ad animam produci debuit ultimo post omnia.

4. Likewise, an ordered production proceeds from the imperfect to the perfect:4  if, therefore, the perfection of all works came to be in man, and most of all as much as regards (his) soul, it seems, that man as much as regards (his) soul ought to have been produced after all (things).

5. Item, si anima producta esset ante corpus, cum haberet usum liberi arbitrii, nihil esset impediens nec retardans:  ergo videtur, quod ante unionem ad corpus meruisset vel demeruisset:  ergo corpus non esset particeps omnis meriti ipsius animae, nec anima deberet remunerari in corpore; quodsi hoc falsum est, planum est, animam Adae ante corpus suum non fuisse productam.5

5. Likewise, if the soul were produced before the body, since it had the use of free will, there would be nothing impeding nor retarding (it):  therefore it seems, that it would have merited and/or demerited before union with the body:  therefore the body would not be a participant in every merit of the soul itself, nor would the soul have to [deberet] be remunerated in the body; which if this is false, it is plain, that the soul of Adam was not produced before his body.5

6. Item, si anima Adae ante corpus esset producta:  aut appetivisset uniri corpori, aut non.  Si non:  ergo unio eius ad corpus non esset naturalis, nec unio eius ad corpus fieret per naturam; si sic:  appetebat ergo corpus, quod non habebat.  Si ergo corpus ei differebatur, ipsa in appetendo affligebatur:  ergo poena erat ei ante culpam.6

6. Likewise, if the soul of Adam were produced before the body:  either it would have desired to be united to the body, or not.  If not.  therefore its union with the body would not be natural, nor would its union with the body come to be through nature; if so:  therefore it desired the body, which it did not have.  If, therefore, the body was kept from it [ei differebatur], it was afflicted in desiring (it):  therefore there was a punishment for it before the fault (of Adam’s sin).6

CONCLUSIO.

 

Anima Adae producta fuit in corpore.

CONCLUSION

 

The soul of Adam was produced in the body.

RESPONDEO:  Dicendum, quod quamvis circa istam quaestionem videatur dubitasse egregius doctor Augustinus,7 quia utraque pars videtur posse sustineri probabiliter, et ordo congruus servari utrobique; tenendum est tamen tanquam verum et magis congruum, quod anima Adae producta fuerit in corpore, nec Deus eam produxerit ante corporis formationem.  —  Licet enim videatur satis rationabiliter posse dici, quod Deus animam ante corpus eius produxerit, ut ostenderetur,8 eam a corpore non dependere, sed per se posse subsistere; ut etiam cum hoc pariter ostenderet conformitatem eius et naturae angelicae tam in rationis capacitate, per quam est anima imago, quam in beatitudine, ad quam anima et Angelus habeat ordinari:  longe tamen rationabilius videtur ponere, quod anima producta sit statim cum corpore, tum quia anima unitur corpori ut perfectio naturalis, cui naturaliter appetit copulari, adeo, ut sine illo poena sit ei esse et ab illo sequestrari; tum etiam, quia unitur sicut motor mobili, ita quod sine ipso non potest mereri nec demereri; et ideo non debuit ante corpus produci, ne ante culpam puniretur, et ne absque corpore meretur vel demereretur.  —  Huic autem positioni non tantum9 concordat ratio, immo etiam Scripturae suffragatur auctoritas, quae dicit, post productionem et formationem hominis10 Deum sibi vitae spiraculum inspirasse.  —  Huic igitur parti tanquam probabiliori et securiori adhaerendo, concedere possumus rationes hanc partem astruentes.

I RESPOND:  It must be said, that although the outstanding doctor (St.) Augustine7 seems to have been in doubt about this question, because each side seems to be able to be sustained in a probable manner, and a congruent order is observed on each side; yet it must be held as true and more congruent, that the soul of Adam was produced in (his) body, and that God did not produce it before the formation of the body.  —  For though it seems sufficiently reasonable to be able to say, that God produced the soul before his body, so that there might be shown8, that it does not depend upon the body, but is able to subsist through itself; (and) so that one might also show with this its conformity to even the angelic nature both in (its) capacity of reason, through which the soul is an image (of God), and in the beatitude, to which the soul and the Angel has (its) ‘being ordered’:  yet it seems by far more reasonable to posit, that the soul was produced immediately with the body, both because the soul is united to the body as (its) natural perfection, to which it naturally desires to be joined, to such an extent, that it is a punishment for it to be without it and to be sequestered from it; and also, because it is united (to it) as a mover to a movable, such that without the latter it cannot merit nor demerit; and for that reason it ought not have been produced before the body, lest it be punished before (Adam’s) fault, and lest it merit and/or demerit apart from the body.  —  Moreover not only9 does reason concord with this position, nay also the authority of Scripture supports (it), which says, that after the production and formation of man10 God breathed into him the breath of life.  —  Therefore adhering to this side as the more probable and secure one, we can concede the reasons supporting [astruentes] this side.

1. Ad illud vero quod obiicitur in contrarium de textu, dicendum, quod alteram eorum est dictum per recapitulationem, vel primum est dictum per anticipationem.  Melius tamen est dicere, quod Scriptura illud recapitulat, ut addat.11

1. To that, however, which is objected unto the contrary concerning the text (of Genesis), it must be said, that the other of the two of them has been said through recapitulation, and/or the first has been said through anticipation.  Yet it is better to say, that Scripture recapitulates it, to add.11

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod corpus simul productum est cum brutis, ergo etc.; dicendum, quod non est simile; productio enim corporis sic concordat productioni brutorum animalium, ut pro- / -ductio . . .

2. To that which is objected, that the body was produced together with the brutes, therefore etc.; it must be said, that it is not similar; for the production of the body thus concords with the production of brute animals, that the pro- / -duction . . .

1  Vers. 7.  —  Cfr. supra q. 1. ad 1, ubi expositio huius textus habetur.

2  Vide supra pag. 82, nota 1.  —  De minori ait Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 26. (c. 2.):  Uniuscuiusque enim actus in eo, quod potentia existit, et in propria materia aptus natura est fieri.

3  Huius arg. expositionem vide supra d. 15. a. 2. q. 2. in corp.

4  Cfr. supra pag. 330, nota 5.

5  Cfr. infra d. 18. a. 2. q. 2. fundam. 3.  —  Cod. cc et ed. 1 post usum liberi arbitrii subiungit et.

6  Hoc arg. tangit August., VII. de Gen. ad lit. c. 25. n. 36. seqq. ex X. de Civ. Dei, c. 30.  Cfr. Aristot., I. de Anima, text. 53. (c. 3.).  —  Cod. cc et ed. 1 antequam culpa.

7  Libr. VII. de Gen. ad lit. c. 24. n. 35. seqq.

8  Plures codd. cum Vat. ostenderet.  —  De seq. prop. cfr. supra d. 16. a. 2. q. 1, et d. 1. p. II. a. 2. q. 2.

9  Vat. perperam tamen.

10  Scriptura ponit hic totum pro parte, scil. corpore.

11  Vide August., VI. de Gen. ad lit. c. 1. n. 1. seqq.

1  Verse 7.  — Cf. above q. 1, in reply to n. 1, where the exposition of this text is had.

2  See above d. 2, p. II, a. 2, q. 3, p. 82, footnote 1.  —  On the minor (of the argument) Aristotle says, On the Soul, Bk. II, text 26 (ch. 2):  For the act of each one in this, that it exists in a power, is also apt by nature to come to be in its own matter.

3  See the exposition of this argument above in d. 15, a. 2, q. 2, in the body (of the Question).

4  Cf. above d. 13, Doubt 2, p. 330, footnote 5.

5  Cf. below in d. 18, a. 2, q. 2, 3rd argument of the fundament.  —  Codex cc and edition 1 after the use of free will [usum liberi arbitrii] subjoins and [et].

6  (St.) Augustine touches upon this argument, On a Literal Exposition of Genesis, Bk. II, ch. 25, n. 36 ff., and On the City of God, Bk. X, ch. 30.  —  Cf. Aristotle, On the Soul, Bk. I, text. 53 (ch. 3).  —  Codex cc and edition 1 have before the fault (of Adam’s sin) [antequam culpa] for before the fault (of Adam’s sin) [ante culpa].

7  On a Literal Exposition of Genesis, Bk. VII, ch. 24, n. 35 ff..

8  Several codices, together with the Vatican edition, have to show [ut ostenderet] for so that there might be shown [ut ostenderet].  On the following proposition cf. above d. 16, a. 2, q. 1, and d. 1, p. II, a. 2, q. 2.

9  The Vatican edition has faultily reason does not however [tamen] for not only does reason [tantum].

10  Scripture posits there the whole for the part, that is for the body.

11  See (St.) Augustine, On a Literal Exposition of Genesis, Bk. VI, ch. 1, n. 1, ff..

 

p. 418

 

pro- / -ductio rationalis spiritus non discordet, immo potius illorum imperfectionem sua dignitate consummet;1 productio vero spiritus sic concordat productioni Angelorum, ut minime concordet productioni corporum humanorum, quae quidem spectant ad terrae ornatum, cuius ornatus productio spectat ad diem sextum.

the pro- / -duction of the rational spirit does not discord (with the same), nay rather (it concords so that) it consummates their imperfection with its own dignity;1 but the production of the spirit thus concords with the production of the Angels, that it concords least of all with the production of human bodies, which indeed pertain to the ornament of the earth, the production of whose ornament pertains to the sixth day.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de comparatione aeviterni ad temporale, dicendum, quod etsi substantia aeviterna ex parte post se plus extendat quam temporalis, utpote quia caret fine; non tamen oportet, quod a parte ante, maxime, si sit talis, quae sui productione appetitum rei temporalis habeat terminare; et sic fuit in anima Adae.  Et praeterea, si2 illud possit esse verum de aeviterno, quod pure habet rationem aeviterni, non tamen habet veritatem de eo, quod sic habet rationem aeviterni, quod etiam temporalis.  Anima enim rationalis, etsi in quantum spiritus et ens per se habeat rationem aeviterni in quantum tale, tamen, in quantum animat corpus transmutabile, habet tempore mensurari.

3. To that which objected from the comparison of the eviternal to the temporal; it must be said, that even if an eviternal substance on the part of (its) afterward extends itself more than the temporal (does), for example because it lacks an end; yet it is not necessary [non oportet], that (it do so) on the part of (is) before, most of all, if it be such, that in its production it has to terminate an appetite for a temporal thing; and thus was it in the soul of Adam. And besides, if2 that can be true of an eviternal (being), which has purely the reckoning of an eviternal, yet it does not have truth of that, which has the reckoning of an eviternal thus, that (its also has the reckoning) of a temporal. For the rational soul, even if as much as regards (its) spirit and being has through itself the reckoning of an eviternal inasmuch as (it is) such, yet, inasmuch as it animates a transmutable body, it has to be measured by time.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod anima non dependet a corpore quantum ad esse; dicendum, quod etsi non dependeat a corpore tanquam indigens eo ad sui conservationem, dependet tamen per appetitus sui inclinationem, quam habeat ad ipsum, sicut forma ad materiam propriam; et ideo, sicut forma producitur in materia, sic anima Adae produci debuit in proprio corpore.

4. To that which is objected, that the soul does not depend upon the body as much as regards (its) ‘to be’; it must be said, that even if it does not depend upon the body as one indigent in that regarding its own conservation, yet it is depended through its inclination of appetite, which it has for that, just as a form (is) for its proper matter; and for that reason, just as a form is produced in the matter, so the soul of Adam ought to have been produced in its own body.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur de corporibus miscibilibus, dicendum, quod non est simile, quia elementa, quae miscentur, non dependet ab invicem, et unum potest habere esse completum sine altero; non sic autem est de anima et eius corpore, quorum utrumque ab altero dependet.3

5. To that which is objected concerning mixable bodies, it must be said, that it is not similar, because the elements, which are mixed, do not depend upon one another, and one can have a complete ‘to be’ without the other; but it is not so concerning the soul and its body, each of which depends upon the other.3

6. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod anima origini primae magis approximat; dicendum, quod cum Deus sit alpha et omega, principium et finis,4 et rationalis creatura in utraque habitudine sit ei propinqua; proprie tamen loquendo, angelica natura plus ei appropinquat in ratione principii, et humana plus in ratione finis:  ideo inter omnes creaturas prior omnium creata est sapientia,5 sive creatura angelica, et dignitate et origine; et post omnia producta est anima humana tanquam finis omnium et consummatio.  Et ideo quamvis multum approximet Deo, in quantum tenet rationem originis, non minus tamen approximat Deo, in quantum habet rationem finis; et ideo competentius fuit, eam produci posterius quam prius.  Haec dicta sunt de anima Adae; nam de aliis animabus infra6 suo loco quaeretur.

6. To that which is objected, that the soul approaches the Prime Origin more; it must be said, that though God is the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End;4 and the rational creature in each habitude is near Him; yet properly speaking, the angelic nature approaches Him more in the reckoning of the Beginning, and the human more in the reckoning of the End:  for that reason among all creatures wisdom was created prior to all,5 or the angelic creature, both in dignity and in origin; and after all the human soul was produced as the end and consummation of all.  And for that reason, though it approaches God more, inasmuch as He holds the reckoning of the Origin, yet it approaches God less, inasmuch as He has the reckoning of the End; and for that reason it was more suitable [competentius], that it be produced after than before.  These (words) have been said of the soul of Adam; for concerning other souls (the answer) will be sought below6 in its own place.

SCHOLION.

SCHOLIUM

I. Praeexistentia animarum in genere, quam cum Platone Origenes docuit, censurata est a Concilio generali V. (ut communius dicitur) can. 1. his verbis:  « Si quis fabulosam animarum praeexistentiam et, quae ex illa consequitur, monstruosam restitutionem asseruerit a. s. ».  De hoc errore S. Doctor cum aliis commentatoribus agit infra d. 18. a. 2. q. 2.  Hoc autem loco speciatim tractatur de anima primi parentis, quia ob rationes speciales Augustinus magis de hac dubitavit quam de illis, ut loco citato exponitur.

I. The pre-existence of souls in general, which Origin taught together with Plato, was censured, as is commonly said, by the Fifth General Council, in (its) first canon, in these words:  « If anyone will have asserted the fabulous pre-existence of souls and, that which is consequent from this, the monstrous restitution (of the same to God) anathema sit ».  The Seraphic Doctor, together with the other commentators, deal with this error below in d. 18, a. 2, q, 2.  But in this place there is a treatment of the soul of the first parent in particular, because on account of special reasons (St.) Augustine doubted more concerning his than concerning the others, as is expounded in the cited passage.

II. Alii auctores antiqui hanc specialem quaestionem non explicite tractant, sed etiam tangunt (vel hic, vel d. 17. vel 18.) in generali quaestione de praeexistentia animarum.  Alex. Hal. eam tangit S. p. II. q. 60. m. 2. a. 2.

II. Other ancient authors does not explicitly treat of this special Question, but touch upon it (either here, and/or in d. 17, and/or in d. 18) in the general question concerning the pre-existence of souls.  Alexander of Hales touches upon it in (his) Summa, p. II, q. 60, m. 2, a. 2.

De hac speciali quaestione tractant:  S. Thom., S. I. q. 91. a. 4. ad 3.  —  B. Albert., hic a. 2; S. p. II. tr. 12. q. 72. m. 4. a. 1.  —  Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 3. quaestiunc. 1.  —  Aegid. R., hic. q. 2. a. 2.

Treating of this special question are:  St. Thomas, Summa., I, q. 91, a. 4, in reply to n. 3.  —  Bl. (now St.) Albertus, here in a. 2; Summa., p. II, tr. 12, q. 72, m. 4, a. 1.  —  (Bl.) Peter of Tarentaise, here in q. 1, a. 3, quaestiuncula 1.  —  Giles the Roman, here in q. 2, a. 2.

1  Cfr. supra d. 15. a. 2. q. 2. in corp. et ad 5; d. 1. p. II. a. 2. q. 2. ad 2.  —  Multi codd. cum ed. 1 incongrue consummat; Vat. cum ceteris edd. conservet.  Paulo inferius non pauci codd. productio corporum pro productioni corporum, et dein Vat. quae quidem spectat pro quae quidem spectant.

2  Intellige cum Vat. etsi, quae etiam aliquanto inferius cum edd. 3, 4. omittit verba etsi in quantum usque ad tamen.

3  Non pauci codd. non dependet; erronee.  In aliquibus horum codd. error iam a secunda manu correctus fuit.

4  Apoc. 22, 13:  Ego sum alpha et omega, primus et novissimus, principium et finis.

5  Eccli. 1, 4.  —  Cfr. de his supra d. 2. p. I. a. 2. q. 3; d. 10. a. 2. q. 2. ad 2; d. 15. a. 2. q. 1. seq.

6  Dist. 18. a. 2. q. 2.

1  Cf. above d. 15, a. 2, q. 2, in the body (of the Question), and in reply to n. 5; d. 1, p. II, a. 2, q. 2, in reply to n. 2.  —  Many codices, together with edition 1, incongruously have nay rather it consummates [consummat] for nay rather (it concords so that) it consummates [consummet]; the Vatican edition, together with all the other editions, has nay rather (it concords so that) it conserves [conservet].  A little below this not a few codices read so that the production of human bodies concords least of all [productio corporus] for so that it concords lest of all with the production of human bodies [productioni corporum], and then the Vatican edition reads which (production of the human bodies) indeed pertains [quae quidem spectat] for which (human bodies) indeed pertain [quae quidem spectant].

2  Understand together with the Vatican edition even if [etsi], which (edition) together with editions 3 and 4 also omits somewhat below this, the words even if . . . such, yet [etsi in quantum . . . tamen].

3  Not a few codices have erroneously does not depend [non depended] for depends [dependet].  In some of these codices the error has already been corrected by a second hand.

4  Apoc. 22:13:  I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End [Ego sum alpha et omega, primus et novissimus, prinicpium et finis.]

5  Eccli. 1:4.  —  On these, cf. above d. 2, p. I, a. 2, q. 3; d. 10. a. 2, q. 2, in reply to n. 2; d. 15, a. 2, q. 1 f ..

6  Distinction 18, a. 2. q. 2.

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.