← Back to Distinction 16

Dist. 16, Art. 1, Q. 1

Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word · Distinction 16

Textus Latinus
p. 345

Articulus I. De passione doloris, prout respicit animam et carnem communiter.

Quaestio I. Utrum in Christo fuerit vera passio doloris.

Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum in Christo fuerit vera passio doloris. Et quod sic, ostenditur.

1. Isaiae quinquagesimo tertiop345-3: Vidimus eum novissimum virorum, virum dolorum et scientem infirmitatem; sed constat, quod non intelligit Propheta de scientia simplicis notitiae: ergo intelligit de scientia experientiae: ergo vere expertus est passiones doloris.

2. Item, in persona eius dicitur in Psalmop345-4: Ego sum pauper et dolens; sed Christus vere fuit pauper et mendicus temporaliter: ergo vero dolore fuit afflictus.

3. Item, anima coniuncta corpori passibili vere dolet, corpore patientep345-5; sed anima Christi iuncta fuit carni, quae non tantum fuit passibilis, immo etiam passa: ergo verum dolorem fuit perpessa.

4. Item, satisfactio facta est per poenam doloris; sed Christus veraciter satisfecit, quia vere languores nostros ipse tulit, et dolores nostros ipse portavitp345-6: ergo veraciter doluit.

5. Item, non est magnum quid habere patientiam in illa passione, quae nullum infert dolorem; sed patientia Christi multum commendatur in tolerantia passionump345-7: ergo videtur, quod Christus verum dolorem in semetipso persenserit.

p. 346

6. Item, aut vere patiebatur et dolebat, aut non. Si sic, habeo propositum; si non vere patiebatur, et videbatur pati: ergo seducebat oculos spectantium in sua passione, pari ratione et in qualibet alia sua operatione; et si hoc, totum Evangelium est mendacium, et eius miracula falsa, et fides christiana inanis per omniap346-1: si igitur huiusmodi sunt falsa et erronea, restat etc.

Sed contra: 1. Hilarius in decimo libro de Trinitatep346-2: « Virtus corporis sine sensu poenae vim poenae in se desaevientis excepit »; sed verus dolor non est sine sensu poenae: ergo in Christo non fuit verus dolor.

2. Item, Dionysius ad Ioannem Evangelistamp346-3: « Absit, ut ego ita insaniam, ut credam, Sanctos aliquid pati, sed corporis passiones, secundum solum quod eas diiudicent, ipsos sentire credo »: si ergo hoc verum est, Sancti non sentiunt passiones nisi secundum iudicium, non ergo secundum experientiam: ergo patiendo non habent dolorem verum: ergo multo minus nec Sanctus Sanctorum, scilicet Christus.

3. Item, Moyses ieiunavit quadraginta diebus et quadraginta noctibus sine aliqua corporis laesione propter continuam contemplationemp346-4: si ergo perfectio contemplationis aufert passionem et sensum famis, pari ratione videtur, quod auferat sensum doloris in carne passibili. Sed in Christo fuit continua contemplatio et perfectissima: ergo videtur, quod nulla fuerit in eo doloris experientia.

4. Item, ratione videtur. « Natura agens praestantior est patientep346-5 »; et natura assumta praestantior est omni alio: ergo non videtur, quod ab aliqua alia natura possit affligi vel laedi.

5. Item, res, quae est ablativa laesionis et doloris, passioni doloris non est subiecta; sed manus Christi curavit alienos dolores solo tactup346-6: ergo videtur, quod nullum dolorem potuerit perpeti.

6. Item, si anima Petri poneretur in inferno, ab ignibus non cruciaretur, quia non habet in se causam, per quam debeat dolere: ergo si anima Christi nullam causam passionis in se habebat, videtur, quod nullum dolorem sentiebat in carne quantumcumque passibili. Si ergo dolor est passio ipsius animae potius quam carnis, sicut dicit Augustinusp346-7; videtur, quod in Christo non fuerit dolor verus.

Conclusio

Vera doloris passio fuit in Christo.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod absque dubio, sicut Evangelium dicit, et fides catholica sentit, vera doloris passio fuit in Christo. In ipso enim fuit caro passibilis et perforabilis, fuit etiam virtus sentiendi, secundum quam anima compatitur corpori laeso. Quoniam ergo haec duo verum dolorem faciunt, scilicet vera laesio et verus laesionis sensusp346-8, et haec duo vere fuerunt in Christo; indubitanter tenendum est, quod in Christo fuit vera doloris passio. — Nam si aliquis aliter dicat, secundum quod quidam haereticip346-9 dicunt, et est error antiquus Saracenorum, quod Christus, etsi videretur pati et dolere, non tamen veraciter habuit dolorem et passionis sensum; non solum evacuat fidem Christi et Christi Evangelium, sed etiam evacuat redemptionem nostram et dicit, Christum non esse Christum. Dum enim dicit, ipsum non fuisse veraciter passum; dicit, ipsum non satisfecisse, ac per hoc non genus humanum esse redemptum. Dum vero dicit, ipsum simulasse se pati; dicit, ipsum esse mendacem, et ita nec vere fuisse Dei Filium nec Dei nuntium, et ita nec mediatorem, sed potius deceptorem. Et propterea qui dicunt, Christum non veraciter doluisse vel passum fuisse; etsi videantur ipsum exterius honorare, secundum veritatemp346-10 blasphemant ipsum impiissime. — Rationes igitur probantes, ipsum veraciter doluisse, sunt concedendae.

1. Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur de auctoritate Hilarii, tripliciter respondetur. Quidam enim dicunt, Hilarium verba illa retractasse. Unde audivi, Parisiensem episcopum Gulielmum referre, se librum illius retractationis vidisse et perlegissep346-11. — Aliter

p. 347

potest dici, quod Hilarius in verbo praedicto et in aliis ibidem positis non excludit sensum doloris a Christo secundum humanam naturam, sed secundum divinam; unde verba illa referenda sunt ad Christi personam. Et hoc quidem confirmatur, quia, sicut dicit idem Hilariusp347-1, « intelligentia dictorum ex causis est assumenda dicendi ». Hilarius enim in verbis praemissis excludere voluit errorem Arii, qui dicebat, Christum secundum se totum passum fuisse. — Tertio modo respondetur, quod Hilarius non vult ostendere, Christum non habuisse verum dolorem, sed non habuisse causam doloris; et hunc quidem modum solvendi innuit Magister in litterap347-2, et satis est rationabilis, secundum quod in expositione litterae melius apparebit.

2. Ad illud vero quod obiicitur de auctoritate Dionysii, dicendum, quod Dionysius non voluit dicere nec sensit, quod beatus Ioannes et alii Sancti non experirentur dolorem in tormentis, sed vult commendare constantiam mentis, quaep347-3 non magis commovebatur ex experientia sensus, quam commoveretur ex sola consideratione et iudicio rationis.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de Moyse, dicendum, quod etsi dulcedo contemplationis quodam modo ipsum reficeret et a sensibus exterioribus abstraheret, adeo ut naturales virtutes quodam modo consopiret, ut non ita consumerent et cibum requirerent; tamen quod tanto tempore ieiunavit sine aliqua sui laesione, hoc fuit per speciale beneficium et divinum miraculum. Et ideo hoc non habet locum in proposito, quia Christus in passione sua non exercuit miracula potentiae, sed potius usus est armis patientiae.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod natura agens praestantior est patiente; dicendum, quod illud non oportet intelligi, quod sit verum simpliciter, sed solum secundum aliquam conditionem. Quia enim lapis laedit pedem, non oportet, quod lapis sit nobilior pede, sed sufficit, quod excedat in aliqua conditione, utpote in duritia et soliditate; et sic est in proposito. Quamvis enim clavus non esset nobilior carne Christi, erat tamen durior et solidior. Et si tu obiicias mihi de anima, quod non possit pati; dicendum, quod anima patiebatur per accidens, scilicet compatiendo carni. Vel secundum Augustinum in sexto Musicaep347-4, anima sumit occasionem patiendi ex carne; verumtamen patitur ex se; occasione accepta aliunde. — Potest etiam dici, quod illud verbum habet intelligi secundum institutionem naturae, non secundum dispensationem misericordiae et punitionem iustitiae, quorum primum respicit animam Christi, reliquum animam peccatricem, sicut in quadragesima quartap347-5 distinctione libri quarti habetur expresse.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod manus Christi fuit curativa dolorum: dicendum, quod hoc fuit virtute latentis divinitatis; et secundum illam virtutem, concedo bene, quod pati non poterat nec dolere. Ex hoc tamen non sequitur, quod fuerit doloris expers. Erat enim ibi alia virtus creata, secundum quam dolere poterat, scilicet potentia animae sensitiva.

6. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod anima Petri non pateretur in inferno; dicendum, quod non est simile, quia anima Petri post purificationem perfectam non est passibilis ex causa propria, nec ex dispensatione divina propter salutem alienam; non autem sic est de anima Christi, quae dispensative et voluntarie passibilitatem habuit, cum carni passibili coniuncta fuit, sicut ex lectione praecedentip347-6 habitum fuit.

Scholion

I. Dolorem sensibilem in Christo fuisse, ex ipsis s. Scripturae verbis manifeste sequitur; unde non est verisimile, S. Hilarium contrarium unquam docuisse et postea retractasse, ut hic solut. ad 1. et etiam a S. Thoma (cfr. supra pag. 346, nota 11.) secundum auctoritatem alienam narratur. Alibi enim (in Ps. 53. n. 12.) idem passibilitatem non a natura assumta, sed a « Divinitatis natura » excludit. Vide defensionem Hilarii in editione Maurina, X. de Trin. n. 23. nota b. c. Ipse S. Bonav. hic duos modos verba Hilarii (hic lit. Magistri, c. 1. 2.) sane interpretandi ponit, quibus infra in dub. 3. tertium modum addit, scilicet, quod Hilarius nihil intenderit nisi excludere necessitatem subiacendi dolori (cfr. etiam dub. 1.). Similem expositionem habet S. Thom. (S. III. q. 15. a. 5. ad 1.), qui etiam cum nostro auctore duo ad sensibilem dolorem praerequiri docet, nempe laesionem corporis et sensum laesionis. De dolore in sensu formali eiusque radicibus plura satis subtiliter disputat (arguendo contra Henricum Gand.) Scot., hic q. unica n. 5. seqq.

p. 348

De hac et seq. quaestione ceteri commentatores agunt in praecedenti distinctione. Praeter locos citt.: Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 18. m. 1. et m. 2. a. 1. — S. Thom., d. 13. a. 3. quaestiunc. 1. — B. Albert., d. 15. a. 2. — Petr. a Tar., d. 15. q. 4. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., d. 15. a. 2. q. 1-3. — Durand., d. 15. q. 2. — Dionys. Carth., d. 15. q. 2. — Biel, d. 15. q. unica.

II. De seq. (2.) quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. m. 5. a. 1. — Scot., loc. cit. n. 18. seqq. — S. Thom., loc. cit. quaestiunc. 3; S. III. q. 46. a. 6. — B. Albert., hic a. 2. 3. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. quaestiunc. 2. — Richard. a Med., loc. cit. a. 4. q. 3. — Durand., loc. cit. q. 3. — Dionys. Carth., loc. cit. q. 3.

---

English Translation

Article I. On the suffering of pain, insofar as it concerns the soul and the flesh in common.

Question I. Whether in Christ there was a true suffering of pain.

Concerning the first point one proceeds thus, and it is asked whether in Christ there was a true suffering of pain. And that there was, is shown.

1. Isaiah, chapter fifty-threep345-3: We saw him as the lowliest of men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with infirmity; but it is certain that the Prophet does not understand this of the knowledge of simple cognition: therefore he understands it of the knowledge of experience: therefore he truly experienced the sufferings of pain.

2. Likewise, in his person it is said in the Psalmp345-4: I am poor and sorrowful; but Christ was truly poor and a beggar in temporal things: therefore he was afflicted with true pain.

3. Likewise, a soul joined to a passible body truly grieves, the body sufferingp345-5; but the soul of Christ was joined to flesh that was not only passible, but indeed also suffered: therefore it endured true pain.

4. Likewise, satisfaction is made through the penalty of pain; but Christ truly made satisfaction, because he truly bore our infirmities, and carried our sorrowsp345-6: therefore he truly grieved.

5. Likewise, it is no great thing to have patience in that suffering which brings on no pain; but the patience of Christ is greatly commended in the bearing of sufferingsp345-7: therefore it seems that Christ felt true pain in himself.

6. Likewise, either he truly suffered and grieved, or not. If so, I have my point; if he did not truly suffer, and seemed to suffer: then he deceived the eyes of those who beheld him in his passion, and by the same reasoning in any other of his operations; and if this is so, the whole Gospel is a lie, and his miracles false, and the Christian faith empty in every respectp346-1: if therefore such things are false and erroneous, it remains, etc.

On the contrary: 1. Hilary in the tenth book On the Trinityp346-2: « The strength of the body, without sense of penalty, received the force of the penalty raging within itself »; but true pain is not without sense of penalty: therefore in Christ there was no true pain.

2. Likewise, Dionysius to John the Evangelistp346-3: « Far be it that I should be so mad as to believe that the Saints suffer anything, but I believe that they perceive the sufferings of the body only insofar as they judge them »: if therefore this is true, the Saints do not perceive sufferings except according to judgment, therefore not according to experience: therefore in suffering they do not have true pain: therefore much less does the Holy of Holies, namely Christ.

3. Likewise, Moses fasted forty days and forty nights without any injury of the body on account of continual contemplationp346-4: if therefore the perfection of contemplation takes away suffering and the sense of hunger, by the same reasoning it seems that it would take away the sense of pain in passible flesh. But in Christ there was continual and most perfect contemplation: therefore it seems that there was no experience of pain in him.

4. Likewise, it seems so by reason. « The acting nature is more excellent than the one acted uponp346-5 »; and the assumed nature is more excellent than every other: therefore it does not seem that it could be afflicted or injured by any other nature.

5. Likewise, a thing which removes injury and pain is not subject to the suffering of pain; but the hand of Christ cured the pains of others by mere touchp346-6: therefore it seems that he could undergo no pain.

6. Likewise, if the soul of Peter were placed in hell, it would not be tormented by the fires, because it does not have in itself a cause on account of which it ought to grieve: therefore if the soul of Christ had no cause of suffering in itself, it seems that it felt no pain in flesh however passible. If therefore pain is a suffering of the soul itself rather than of the flesh, as Augustine saysp346-7; it seems that in Christ there was no true pain.

Conclusion

A true suffering of pain was in Christ.

I respond: It must be said that, without doubt, as the Gospel says and the catholic faith holds, a true suffering of pain was in Christ. For in him there was passible and pierceable flesh, there was also the power of perceiving, according to which the soul suffers along with the injured body. Since therefore these two things make true pain, namely true injury and true sense of injuryp346-8, and these two truly were in Christ; it must be held without hesitation that in Christ there was a true suffering of pain. — For if anyone says otherwise, according to what certain hereticsp346-9 say, and it is the ancient error of the Saracens, that Christ, although he seemed to suffer and grieve, nevertheless did not truly have pain and the sense of suffering; he not only empties out the faith of Christ and the Gospel of Christ, but also empties out our redemption and says that Christ is not Christ. For when he says that he did not truly suffer; he says that he did not make satisfaction, and on this account that the human race is not redeemed. But when he says that he simulated suffering; he says that he is a liar, and so that he was neither truly the Son of God nor the messenger of God, and so neither a mediator, but rather a deceiver. And therefore those who say that Christ did not truly grieve or suffer; even though they seem to honor him outwardly, in truthp346-10 they blaspheme him most impiously. — The reasons therefore proving that he truly grieved are to be granted.

1. To that, then, which is objected first concerning the authority of Hilary, the answer is threefold. For some say that Hilary retracted those words. Whence I have heard that William, the bishop of Paris, reports that he saw and read through the book of that retractionp346-11. — Otherwise

it can be said that Hilary, in the aforesaid statement and in the others placed in the same passage, does not exclude the sense of pain from Christ according to the human nature, but according to the divine; whence those words are to be referred to the person of Christ. And this indeed is confirmed, because, as the same Hilary saysp347-1, « the understanding of statements is to be taken from the causes of speaking ». For Hilary in the foregoing words wished to exclude the error of Arius, who said that Christ according to his whole self had suffered. — In a third way it is answered that Hilary does not mean to show that Christ did not have true pain, but that he did not have a cause of pain; and this manner of solving the Master indeed hints at in the textp347-2, and it is reasonable enough, as will better appear in the exposition of the text.

2. But to that which is objected concerning the authority of Dionysius, it must be said that Dionysius did not wish to say nor did he hold that the blessed John and the other Saints did not experience pain in their torments, but he wishes to commend the constancy of the mind, whichp347-3 was no more moved by the experience of sense than it would be moved by mere consideration and the judgment of reason.

3. To that which is objected concerning Moses, it must be said that, although the sweetness of contemplation in a certain way refreshed him and drew him away from the exterior senses, so much so that it in a certain way lulled the natural powers, so that they did not consume and require food as they otherwise would; nevertheless that he fasted for so long a time without any injury to himself, this was through a special benefit and a divine miracle. And therefore this has no place in the matter at hand, because Christ in his passion did not exercise the miracles of power, but rather used the arms of patience.

4. To that which is objected, that the acting nature is more excellent than the one acted upon; it must be said that this need not be understood to be true absolutely, but only according to some condition. For because a stone injures the foot, it is not necessary that the stone be nobler than the foot, but it suffices that it exceed it in some condition, namely in hardness and solidity; and so it is in the matter at hand. For although the nail was not nobler than the flesh of Christ, it was nevertheless harder and more solid. And if you object to me about the soul, that it cannot suffer; it must be said that the soul suffered by accident, namely by suffering along with the flesh. Or, according to Augustine in the sixth book of the Musicp347-4, the soul takes the occasion of suffering from the flesh; nevertheless it suffers of itself, the occasion having been received from elsewhere. — It can also be said that that statement is to be understood according to the institution of nature, not according to the dispensation of mercy and the punishment of justice, of which the first regards the soul of Christ, the latter the sinful soul, as is expressly had in the forty-fourthp347-5 distinction of the fourth book.

5. To that which is objected, that the hand of Christ was curative of pains: it must be said that this was by the power of the hidden divinity; and according to that power, I grant indeed that he could not suffer nor grieve. From this, however, it does not follow that he was free of pain. For there was there another created power, according to which he could grieve, namely the sensitive power of the soul.

6. To that which is objected, that the soul of Peter would not suffer in hell; it must be said that it is not similar, because the soul of Peter after perfect purification is not passible from a cause of its own, nor from divine dispensation for the salvation of another; but it is not so with the soul of Christ, which by dispensation and voluntarily had passibility, when it was joined to passible flesh, as was had from the preceding lecturep347-6.

Scholion

I. That sensible pain was in Christ follows manifestly from the very words of Sacred Scripture; whence it is not likely that St. Hilary ever taught the contrary and afterward retracted, as is here narrated in the solution to 1, and also by St. Thomas (cf. above page 346, note 11) on another's authority. For elsewhere (in Ps. 53, n. 12) the same author excludes passibility not from the assumed nature, but from the « nature of the Divinity ». See the defense of Hilary in the Maurist edition, X On the Trinity n. 23, note b. c. St. Bonaventure himself here sets down two ways of soundly interpreting Hilary's words (here the text of the Master, c. 1, 2), to which below in dubium 3 he adds a third way, namely that Hilary intended nothing but to exclude the necessity of being subject to pain (cf. also dubium 1). St. Thomas has a similar exposition (S. III, q. 15, a. 5, ad 1), who also teaches with our author that two things are prerequired for sensible pain, namely injury of the body and the sense of injury. Concerning pain in the formal sense and its roots, Scotus disputes much rather subtly (arguing against Henry of Ghent), here in the single question, n. 5 and following.

Concerning this and the following question the other commentators treat in the preceding distinction. Besides the places cited: Alex. of Hales, S. p. III, q. 18, m. 1 and m. 2, a. 1. — St. Thomas, d. 13, a. 3, little question 1. — B. Albert, d. 15, a. 2. — Peter of Tarentaise, d. 15, q. 4, a. 1. — Richard of Middleton, d. 15, a. 2, q. 1-3. — Durandus, d. 15, q. 2. — Dionysius the Carthusian, d. 15, q. 2. — Biel, d. 15, single question.

II. Concerning the following (2nd) question: Alex. of Hales, loc. cit. m. 5, a. 1. — Scotus, loc. cit. n. 18 and following. — St. Thomas, loc. cit. little question 3; S. III, q. 46, a. 6. — B. Albert, here a. 2, 3. — Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit. little question 2. — Richard of Middleton, loc. cit. a. 4, q. 3. — Durandus, loc. cit. q. 3. — Dionysius the Carthusian, loc. cit. q. 3.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Vers. 2. seq. In testimonio allato pro infirmitatem plurimi codd. infirmitates. — De minori vide supra d. 14. a. 3. q. 2. — In fine arg. pro passiones doloris codd. E U passionem doloris, cod. A dolores passionis.
    Verse 2 and following. In the testimony adduced, for infirmitatem very many codices read infirmitates. — On the minor premise see above d. 14, a. 3, q. 2. — At the end of the argument, for passiones doloris codices E U read passionem doloris, codex A dolores passionis.
  2. Psalm. 68, 30.
    Psalm 68:30.
  3. Cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. XV. c. 1. — Paulo ante pro coniuncta codd. A N U Z iuncta. In fine arg. cod. K supplet anima eius.
    Cf. above the text of the Master, d. XV, c. 1. — Shortly before, for coniuncta codices A N U Z read iuncta. At the end of the argument codex K supplies anima eius.
  4. Isa. 53, 4. — Subinde post veraciter cod. U subiicit ipse.
    Isaiah 53:4. — Thereafter, after veraciter codex U adds ipse.
  5. Cfr. Marc. 8, 31; 9, 11; Luc. 9, 22; 24, 26. et 46.
    Cf. Mark 8:31; 9:11; Luke 9:22; 24:26 and 46.
  6. Vide supra pag. 44, nota 4. — In principio arg. pro Si sic edd. Si vere, sic.
    See above page 44, note 4. — At the beginning of the argument, for Si sic the editions read Si vere, sic.
  7. Num. 23. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 1.
    Num. 23. Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 1.
  8. Epist. 10, ubi textus origin. loco vocis Sanctos habet Vos. Edd. in hoc testimonio pro sed corporis passiones, secundum solum substituerunt secundum corporis passiones, sed solum.
    Epistle 10, where the original text in place of the word Sanctos has Vos. The editions, in this testimony, for sed corporis passiones, secundum solum substituted secundum corporis passiones, sed solum.
  9. Exod. 34, 28, Deut. 9, 18. — Pro continuam cod. W perfectam. In fine arg. pro fuerit multi codd. fuit.
    Exod. 34:28, Deut. 9:18. — For continuam codex W reads perfectam. At the end of the argument, for fuerit many codices read fuit.
  10. Aristot., III. de Anima, text. 19. (c. 5.); verba ipsa videsis tom. II. pag. 748, nota 1; cfr. August., XII. de Gen. ad lit. c. 16. n. 33. De altero enuntiato, scil. quod natura assumta praestantior sit omni alio (edd. alia), cfr. supra pag. 266, nota 5.
    Aristotle, III On the Soul, text 19 (c. 5); the words themselves you may see in tom. II, page 748, note 1; cf. Augustine, XII On Genesis according to the Letter c. 16, n. 33. On the other statement, namely that the assumed nature is more excellent than every other (editions: alia), cf. above page 266, note 5.
  11. Matth. 8, 3. et 15; Marc. 6, 5; Luc. 13, 13; 22, 51. Cfr. Hilar., X. de Trin. n. 32. et 46.
    Matt. 8:3 and 15; Mark 6:5; Luke 13:13; 22:51. Cf. Hilary, X On the Trinity n. 32 and 46.
  12. Libr. VII. de Gen. ad lit. c. 19. n. 25; XIV. de Civ. Dei, c. 18. n. 2; XXI. c. 3. n. 2. Magister supra in lit. d. XV. c. 1. idem colligit ex August. XII. de Gen. ad lit. c. 24. n. 51.
    Book VII On Genesis according to the Letter c. 19, n. 25; XIV On the City of God, c. 18, n. 2; XXI, c. 3, n. 2. The Master above in the text, d. XV, c. 1, gathers the same from Augustine, XII On Genesis according to the Letter c. 24, n. 51.
  13. Cfr. tom. II. pag. 482, nota 3. — Paulo superius pro secundum quam anima cod. U per quam anima.
    Cf. tom. II, page 482, note 3. — A little above, for secundum quam anima codex U reads per quam anima.
  14. Vide supra d. 2. a. 2. q. 1. — De Saracenis cfr. Damasc., de Haeres. n. 101. Mamed, ut ibi refertur, Christum Dei Verbum esse dicit eiusque spiritum, sed creatum et servum... Hunc cum Iudaei per summum nefas in crucem agere voluissent apprehendissentque, ipsius quidem umbram affixerunt cruci (Sur. 3-4.); Christus vero nec crucem nec mortem subiit. Eum quippe Deus, quia sibi carissimus erat, transtulerat in caelum.
    See above d. 2, a. 2, q. 1. — On the Saracens cf. Damascene, On Heresies n. 101. Mamed (Muhammad), as is there reported, says that Christ is the Word of God and his spirit, but created and a servant... When the Jews, by the greatest impiety, wished to drag him to the cross and had seized him, they affixed only his shadow to the cross (Surahs 3-4); but Christ underwent neither cross nor death. For God, because he was most dear to him, had translated him into heaven.
  15. Edd. subiiciunt tamen. Mox pro Rationes igitur non pauci codd. Rationes vero.
    The editions add tamen. Soon after, for Rationes igitur not a few codices read Rationes vero.
  16. Huius retractationis mentionem faciunt etiam B. Albert., hic d. 15. a. 10, et S. Thom., hic d. 13. circa lit. Mamertus Claudianus (+ 473 aut 474), II. de Statu animae, c. 9. n. 3. ait: Sed quoniam beatus Hilarius opinionis huiusce vitium virtute confessionis abolevit, sic sustinet reprehensionis stylum, quod non patitur detrimenta meritorum.
    Mention of this retraction is also made by B. Albert, here d. 15, a. 10, and St. Thomas, here d. 13, near the text. Mamertus Claudianus († 473 or 474), II On the State of the Soul, c. 9, n. 3, says: But since blessed Hilary abolished the fault of this opinion by the virtue of his confession, he so bears the pen of reproof that he suffers no loss of merits.
  17. Libr. IV. de Trin. n. 14, ubi S. Doctor verbis hic allegatis adiungit: Quia non sermoni res, sed rei est sermo subiectus. Cfr. ibid. I. n. 30. — Pro idem, quod a codd. A 11. aa abest, codd. B E F G K M T U habent ibidem, cod. D ibi.
    Book IV On the Trinity n. 14, where the holy Doctor adjoins to the words here alleged: Because the matter is not subject to the discourse, but the discourse to the matter. Cf. ibid. I, n. 30. — For idem, which is absent from codices A 11 aa, codices B E F G K M T U have ibidem, codex D ibi.
  18. Hic c. 1. Vide infra dub. 1-3. circa lit.
    Here c. 1. See below dubia 1-3 on the text.
  19. Ita codd. A 11 bb, cod. K quia, plures alii codd. nec non edd. 1, 2 quo, Vat. qua. Mox pro ex experientia codd. A K experientia tantum, cod. G per experientiam; in pluribus codd. legitur et experientia sensus, qua etc.
    So codices A 11 bb, codex K quia, several other codices as well as editions 1, 2 quo, the Vatican edition qua. Soon after, for ex experientia codices A K have experientia only, codex G per experientiam; in many codices is read et experientia sensus, qua etc.
  20. Cap. 5. n. 8. seqq. Cfr. eiusdem lib. de Quantit. animae, c. 23. n. 41. seqq. et c. 29. n. 56. seqq. — De prima ratione vide Aristot., I. de Anima, text. 62. seqq. (c. 4.). Damasc., III. de Fide orthod. c. 26, dicit, quod anima, « corpore inciso, ipsa non incisa condolet et compatitur corpori ». — Paulo superius pro non possit non pauci codd. non posset.
    Chapter 5, n. 8 and following. Cf. the same author's book On the Quantity of the Soul, c. 23, n. 41 and following, and c. 29, n. 56 and following. — On the first reason see Aristotle, I On the Soul, text 62 and following (c. 4). Damascene, III On the Orthodox Faith c. 26, says that the soul, « the body being cut, it itself uncut grieves with and suffers along with the body ». — A little above, for non possit not a few codices read non posset.
  21. Part. II. a. 3. q. 2. — Pro reliquum edd. secundum.
    Part II, a. 3, q. 2. — For reliquum the editions read secundum.
  22. Dist. praeced. a. 1. q. 3. — Pro lectione edd. cum pluribus codd. locutione. Cod. bb habuit cum carne possibili, cui coniuncta fuit etc., quae lectio explicat mutilam lectionem aliorum codd., qui etiam exhibent cum carne, sed omittunt cui.
    The preceding distinction, a. 1, q. 3. — For lectione the editions with many codices read locutione. Codex bb had cum carne possibili, cui coniuncta fuit etc., which reading explains the mutilated reading of the other codices, which also exhibit cum carne, but omit cui.
← Dist. 16, Divisio TextusDist. 16, Art. 1, Q. 2→