← Back to Distinction 17

Dist. 17

Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word · Distinction 17

Textus Latinus
p. 361

DISTINCTIO XVII.

Cap. I. Si omnis Christi oratio, vel voluntas impleta sit.

Post praedicta considerari oportet, utrum Christus aliquid voluerit vel oraverit, quod factum non sit. Hoc enim aestimari potest per id quod ipse aitp361-1: Pater, si possibile est, transeat a me calix iste. Verumtamen non sicut ego volo, sed sicut tu vis. Hic namque voluntatem suam a Patris voluntate discernere videtur.

Cap. II. De voluntatibus Christi secundum duas naturas.

Quocirca ambigendum non est, diversas in Christo fuisse voluntates iuxta duas naturas, divinam scilicet voluntatem et humanam. Et humana voluntas est affectus rationis, vel affectus sensualitatis, et alius est affectus animae secundum rationem, alius secundum sensualitatem; uterque tamen dicitur humana voluntas. Affectu autem rationis id volebat, quod voluntate divina, scilicet pati et mori, sed affectu sensualitatis non volebat, immo refugiebat. Nec tamen in eo caro contra spiritum, vel contra Deum concupiscebat, quia, ut ait Augustinusp361-2, «nonnullum est vitium, cum caro concupiscit adversus spiritum». «Caro autem dicta est concupiscere, quia hoc secundum ipsam agit anima, sicut anima per aurem audit et per oculum videt. Caro enim nihil nisi per animam concupiscit; sed concupiscere dicitur, cum anima carnali concupiscentia spiritui reluctatur, habens carnalem delectationem de carne et a carne adversus delectationem, quam spiritus habet. Ipsius autem carnalis concupiscentiae causa non est in anima sola nec in carne sola; ex utroque enim fit, quia sine utroque delectatio talis non sentitur». Talis igitur rixa talisque concertatio in anima Christi nullatenus esse potuit, quia carnalis concupiscentia ibi esse nequivit. Dei etiam voluntas erat et rationi placebat, ut id secundum carnem vellet, quatenus veritas humanitatis in eo probaretur. Nam qui hominis naturam suscepit quae ipsius sunt subire debuit. Ideoque sicut in nobis duplex est affectus, mentis scilicet et sensualitatis, ita et in eo debuit esse geminus affectus, ut mentis affectu vellet mori, et sensualitatis affectu nollet, sicut in viris sanctis fit. Petro enim ipsa Veritas dicitp361-3: Cum senueris, extendes manus tuas, et alius cinget te et ducet, quo non tu vis, scilicet ad mortem. Quod exponens Augustinus dicit, quod Petrus «ad illam molestiam nolens est ductus, nolens ad eam venit, sed volens eam vicit; et reliquit affectum infirmitatis, quo nemo vult mori, qui adeo est naturalis, ut eum Petro nec senectus abstulerit. Unde etiam Dominus ait: Transeat a me calix iste; sed vicit eum vis amoris». Ergo et in Christo secundum humanitatem et in membris eius geminus est affectus: unus rationis, caritate informatus, quo propter Deum quis mori vult; alter sensualitatis, carnis infirmitati propinquus et eip361-4 coniunctus, quo mors refugitur. Ut enim ait Augustinusp361-5: «Pius mentis ratione cupit dissolvi et esse cum Christo, sensu autem carnis refugit et recusat. Hoc habet humanus affectus, quoniam diligit vitam, odit mortem». Secundum istum affectum Christus mori noluit, nec obtinuit quod secundum istum affectum petiit.

Ex affectu igitur humano, quem de Virgine traxit, volebat non mori et calicem transire orabat. Unde Bedap361-6: «Orat, transire calicem, quia homo erat, dicens: Pater, si fieri potest, transeat a me calix iste. Ecce, habes voluntatem humanam expressam. Vide iam rectum cor: Sed non quod ego volo, sed quod tu vis. Unde alibi: Non veni facere voluntatem meam, quam, scilicet temporaliter, sumsi de Virgine, sed voluntatem eius qui misit me, quam scilicet aeternus habui cum Patre». — Hic aperte dicit, duas in Christo fuisse voluntates, secundum quas diversa voluit. Hieronymusp361-7 quoque super illum locum: Spiritus promptus est, caro autem infirma, dans intelligi, hic duas voluntates exprimi, ait ita: «Hoc contra Eutychianos, qui dicunt in Christo unam tantum voluntatem. Hic autem ostendit humanam, quae propter infirmitatem carnis recusat passionem, et divinam, quae prompta est perficere

p. 362

dispensationem». Augustinusp362-1 etiam duas in Christo asserit voluntates, dicens: «Quantum distat Deus ab homine, tantum voluntas Dei a voluntate hominis. Unde hominem gerens Christus ostendit privatam quandam hominis voluntatem, in qua et suam et nostram figuravit, qui caput nostrum est, et ad eum sicut membra pertinemus. Pater, inquit, si fieri potest, transeat a me calix iste. Haec humana voluntas erat, proprium aliquid et tanquam privatum volens. Sed quia rectum vult esse hominem et ad Deum dirigi, subdit: Non quod ego volo, sed quod tu vis; ac si diceret: Vide te in me, quia potes aliquid proprium velle, ut Deus aliud velit. Conceditur hoc humanae fragilitati». Idem alibip362-2: Christus in passione duas expressit voluntates in se secundum duas naturas; ait enim: Pater, si fieri potest, transeat a me calix iste. Ecce, habes hominis voluntatem, quam ad divinam continuo dirigens, ait: Verumtamen, non sicut ego volo, sed sicut tu. Ambrosius etiam in libro secundo de Fidep362-3: «Scriptum est: Pater, si fieri potest, transfer a me calicem hunc. Verba Christi sunt, sed quo modo et in qua forma dicantur, adverte: hominis substantiam gerit, hominis assumsit affectum. Non ergo quasi Deus, sed quasi homo loquitur». «Suscepit quidem voluntatem meam. Mea est voluntas, quam suam dixit, cum ait: Non sicut ego volo, sed sicut tu vis». «Cum autem dixit: Omnia quae habet Pater, mea sunt, quia nihil excipitur, sine dubio, quam Pater habet, eandem et Filius habet voluntatemp362-4». «Eadem est Christi voluntas, quae paterna». «Una ergo voluntas est Patris et Filii». «Sed alia voluntas hominis, alia Dei, ut scias, vitam in voluntate hominis esse, passionem autem Christi in voluntate divina, ut pateretur pro nobis». — His testimoniis evidenter docetur, in Christo duas fuisse voluntates; quod quia negavit Macarius archiepiscopus, in Metropolitanap362-5 Synodo condemnatus est. Et ex affectu humano sensualitatis quidem, non rationis, illud voluit et petiit, quod non impetravit. Nec ideo petiit, ut impetraret, quia sciebat, Deum non esse facturum illud; nec illud fieri volebat affectu rationis, vel voluntate Divinitatis. Ad quid ergo petiit? Ut membris formam praeberet, imminente turbatione, clamandi ad Dominum et subiiciendi voluntatem suam divinae voluntati, ut, si pulsante molestia tristanturp362-6, pro eiusdem amotione orent; sed si nequeunt vitare, dicant quod ipse Christus. Non ergo ad insipientiam fuit, quod Christus clamans non auditur ad salutem corporalem. Bonum quidem petiit, scilicet ut non moreretur, sed melius erat, ut moreretur; quod et factum est.

Cap. III. De capitulis quibusdam Ambrosii et Hilarii, ubi de dubitatione et timore Christi agitur.

Ceterum non parum nos movent verba Ambrosii, quibus significare videtur, Christum secundum humanum affectum de potentia Patris dubitasse, sic dicens in libro secundo de Fidep362-7: «De quo dubitat? de se, an de Patre? De eo utique, cui dicit: Transfer, dubitat hominis affectu. Nam Deus de Patre non dubitat nec de morte formidat. Propheta etiam non dubitat, qui nihil Deo esse impossibile asserit. Num infra homines constitues Deum? Propheta non dubitat, et Filium dubitare tu credis? Ut homo ergo dubitat, ut homo locutus est». — His verbis innui videtur, quod Christus, non in quantum Deus est vel Dei Filius, sed in quantum homo, dubitaverit affectu humano. Quod ea ratione dictum accipi potest, non quia ipse dubitaverit, sed quia modum gessit dubitantis et hominibus dubitare videbatur.

Illud etiam ignorandum non est, quod Hilarius asserere videtur, Christum non sibi, sed suis orasse, cum dixit: Transfer a me calicem hunc, sicut nec sibi, sed suis timuit; nec eum voluisse, ut sibi non esset passio, sed ut a suis transiret calix passionis, ita inquiensp362-8: «Si passio honorificatura eum erat, sicut, Iuda exeunte, ait: Nunc honorificatus est Filius hominis; quomodo tristem eum metus passionis effecerat? Nisi forte tam irrationabilis fuerit, ut pati mortem timuerit, quae patientem se glorificatura esset? Sed forte timuisse usque eo existimabitur, ut transferri a se calicem deprecatus sit dicens: Pater, transfer calicem hunc a me. Quomodo enim per patiendi metum transferri deprecaretur a se quod per dispensationis studium festinaret implere? Non enim convenit, ut pati nolit quod pati velit; et cum pati eum velle cognosceres, religiosius fuerat hoc confiteri, quam ad id impiae stultitiae prorumpere, ut cum assereres, ne pateretur, orasse, quem pati velle cognosceres». «Non ergo sibi tristis, neque sibi orat transire calicem, sed discipulis, ne in eos calix passionis incumbat, quem

p. 363

a se transire orat, ne in his scilicet maneatp363-1». «Non enim rogat, ne secum sit, sed ut a se transeat. Deinde ait: Non sicut ego volo, sed sicut tu vis. Humanae in se sollicitudinis significans consortium, sed non discernens sententiam sibi communis cum Patre voluntatis». «Pro hominibus ergo vult transire calicem, per quem omnes tentandi discipuli erant; et ideo pro Petro rogatur, ne deficiat fides eius». «Sciens igitur, haec omnia post mortem suam desitura, usque ad mortem tristis est, et scit, hunc calicem non posse transire, nisi biberit; ideo ait: Pater mi, si non potest transire calix iste, nisi bibam illum, fiat voluntas tua, sciens, consummata in se passione, metum calicis transiturum, qui, nisi eum bibisset, transire non posset, nec finis terroris, nisi consummata passione, terrori succederet, quia post mortem eius per virtutum gloriam apostolicae infirmitatis scandalum pelleretur». — Intende, lector, his verbis pia diligentia, ne sint tibi vasa mortis.

---

English Translation
p. 361

DISTINCTION XVII.

Chap. I. Whether every prayer or will of Christ was fulfilled.

After the foregoing it must be considered whether Christ willed or prayed for anything which was not done. For this can be estimated from what he himself saysp361-1: Father, if it is possible, let this chalice pass from me. Yet not as I will, but as thou wilt. For here he seems to distinguish his own will from the will of the Father.

Chap. II. On the wills of Christ according to the two natures.

Wherefore it must not be doubted that there were diverse wills in Christ according to the two natures, namely the divine will and the human. And the human will is an affect of reason, or an affect of sensuality, and one is an affect of the soul according to reason, another according to sensuality; yet each is called the human will. Now by the affect of reason he willed that which [he willed] by the divine will, namely to suffer and to die, but by the affect of sensuality he did not will it, nay he shrank from it. Yet there was not in him flesh against spirit, or [lust] against God, because, as Augustine saysp361-2, «there is some vice when the flesh lusts against the spirit». «But the flesh is said to lust, because according to it the soul does this, just as the soul hears through the ear and sees through the eye. For the flesh lusts nothing except through the soul; but it is said to lust, when the soul by carnal concupiscence struggles against the spirit, having a carnal delight from the flesh and from the flesh against the delight which the spirit has. But the cause of this carnal concupiscence is not in the soul alone nor in the flesh alone; for it arises from both, since without both such delight is not felt». Such strife, therefore, and such conflict could in no way be in the soul of Christ, because carnal concupiscence could not be there. The will of God also it was, and it was pleasing to reason, that he should will this according to the flesh, so that the truth of [his] humanity might be proved in him. For he who took up the nature of man had to undergo what belongs to it. And therefore, just as in us there is a twofold affect, namely of the mind and of sensuality, so also in him there had to be a twin affect, that by the affect of the mind he should will to die, and by the affect of sensuality should not will it, as happens in holy men. For to Peter the Truth itself saysp361-3: When thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee and lead thee whither thou wilt not, namely to death. Expounding which, Augustine says, that Peter «was led to that trouble unwilling, came to it unwilling, but willing he overcame it; and he left behind the affect of weakness, by which no one wishes to die, which is so natural that not even old age took it away from Peter. Whence the Lord also says: Let this chalice pass from me; but the force of love overcame it». Therefore also in Christ according to [his] humanity and in his members there is a twin affect: one of reason, informed by charity, by which one wishes to die for the sake of God; the other of sensuality, near top361-4 and conjoined with the weakness of the flesh, by which death is shunned. For as Augustine saysp361-5: «The pious man by the reason of the mind desires to be dissolved and to be with Christ, but by the sense of the flesh shrinks back and refuses. This the human affect has, because it loves life, hates death». According to this affect Christ did not will to die, nor did he obtain what according to this affect he sought.

Therefore from the human affect, which he drew from the Virgin, he willed not to die and prayed that the chalice might pass. Whence Bedep361-6: «He prays that the chalice pass, because he was man, saying: Father, if it be possible, let this chalice pass from me. Behold, you have the human will expressed. See now the upright heart: But not what I will, but what thou wilt. Whence elsewhere: I came not to do my own will, which, namely temporally, I took from the Virgin, but the will of him who sent me, which namely as eternal I had with the Father». — Here he plainly says that there were two wills in Christ, according to which he willed diverse things. Jeromep361-7 also, on that passage: The spirit is willing, but the flesh weak, giving to understand that here two wills are expressed, says thus: «This is against the Eutychians, who say that in Christ there is only one will. But here he shows the human [will], which on account of the weakness of the flesh refuses the passion, and the divine, which is ready to fulfill

p. 362

the dispensation». Augustinep362-1 also asserts that there were two wills in Christ, saying: «As far as God is distant from man, so far is the will of God from the will of man. Whence bearing [the person of] man, Christ showed a certain private will of man, in which he figured both his own and ours, who is our head, and to whom we belong as members. Father, he says, if it be possible, let this chalice pass from me. This was the human will, willing something proper and as it were private. But because he wills man to be upright and to be directed toward God, he adds: Not what I will, but what thou wilt; as if he were to say: See yourself in me, for you can will something proper, while God wills another thing. This is conceded to human frailty». The same elsewherep362-2: Christ in the passion expressed two wills in himself according to the two natures; for he says: Father, if it be possible, let this chalice pass from me. Behold, you have the will of the man, which, directing it at once to the divine, he says: Yet, not as I will, but as thou. Ambrose also in the second book On Faithp362-3: «It is written: Father, if it be possible, transfer this chalice from me. They are the words of Christ, but in what manner and in what form they are said, attend: he bears the substance of man, he took up the affect of man. Therefore he speaks not as God, but as man». «He took up indeed my will. Mine is the will, which he called his own, when he said: Not as I will, but as thou wilt». «But when he said: All things that the Father has are mine, since nothing is excepted, without doubt, the same will which the Father has the Son also hasp362-4». «The will of Christ is the same as the Father's». «There is therefore one will of the Father and of the Son». «But one will is the man's, another God's, that you may know that life is in the will of the man, but the passion of Christ in the divine will, that he might suffer for us». — By these testimonies it is evidently taught that there were two wills in Christ; and because Macarius the archbishop denied this, he was condemned in the Metropolitanp362-5 Synod. And from the human affect of sensuality indeed, not of reason, he willed and sought that which he did not obtain. Nor did he seek it in order to obtain it, because he knew that God would not do it; nor did he will it to be done by the affect of reason, or by the will of the Divinity. For what, then, did he seek it? That he might offer a form to [his] members, that, with trouble pressing on, of crying to the Lord and of subjecting their will to the divine will, so that, if when trouble strikes they are saddenedp362-6, they may pray for its removal; but if they cannot avoid it, they may say what Christ himself [said]. It was not, therefore, for foolishness that Christ crying out is not heard unto bodily safety. He sought indeed a good thing, namely that he might not die, but it was better that he should die; which also was done.

Chap. III. On certain chapters of Ambrose and Hilary, where there is treatment of the doubting and fear of Christ.

But the words of Ambrose move us not a little, by which he seems to signify that Christ according to the human affect doubted of the power of the Father, saying thus in the second book On Faithp362-7: «Of whom does he doubt? of himself, or of the Father? Of him surely, to whom he says: Transfer, he doubts by the affect of man. For God does not doubt of the Father nor fear death. The Prophet also does not doubt, who asserts that nothing is impossible to God. Will you set God below men? The Prophet does not doubt, and do you believe the Son to doubt? As man therefore he doubts, as man he spoke». — By these words it seems to be intimated that Christ, not insofar as he is God or the Son of God, but insofar as he is man, doubted by a human affect. Which can be understood as said for this reason, not because he himself doubted, but because he bore the manner of one doubting and seemed to men to doubt.

This too must not be ignored, that Hilary seems to assert that Christ prayed not for himself, but for his own, when he said: Transfer this chalice from me, just as neither for himself, but for his own did he fear; nor did he wish that for himself there should be no passion, but that the chalice of passion might pass from his own, saying thusp362-8: «If the passion was going to honor him, as, when Judas went out, he says: Now is the Son of man glorified; how had the fear of the passion made him sad? Unless perhaps he was so irrational as to fear to suffer death, which was going to glorify him who suffered? But perhaps it will be supposed that he so far feared, that he prayed that the chalice might be transferred from him, saying: Father, transfer this chalice from me. For how through fear of suffering would he pray that there be transferred from him what through zeal for the dispensation he was hastening to fulfill? For it is not fitting that he should be unwilling to suffer what he wills to suffer; and when you knew that he willed to suffer, it had been more religious to confess this than to break out into that impious folly, so that, when you would assert that he prayed not to suffer, [you assert it of him] whom you knew to will to suffer». «Not for himself therefore is he sad, nor for himself does he pray that the chalice pass, but for the disciples, that the chalice of passion may not fall upon them, which

p. 363

he prays may pass from him, that is, that it may not remain in thesep363-1». «For he does not pray that it be not with him, but that it pass from him. Then he says: Not as I will, but as thou wilt. Signifying a fellowship of human solicitude in himself, but not distinguishing a judgment of the will common to himself with the Father». «For men, therefore, he wills the chalice to pass, by which all the disciples were to be tempted; and therefore for Peter he is prayed for, that his faith may not fail». «Knowing, therefore, that all these things were to cease after his death, he is sad even unto death, and knows that this chalice cannot pass unless he drink it; therefore he says: My Father, if this chalice cannot pass unless I drink it, thy will be done, knowing that, the passion being consummated in himself, the fear of the chalice would pass, which, unless he had drunk it, could not pass, nor would the end of terror succeed the terror, unless the passion were consummated, because after his death, through the glory of [his] virtues, the scandal of the apostolic weakness would be driven away». — Attend, reader, to these words with pious diligence, lest they be to you vessels of death.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Matth. 26, 39. — Cfr. de hac dist. Hugo de S. Vict., Sum. Sent. tr. I. c. 17. — Pro aestimari solummodo Vat. et ed. 8 bene existimari.
    Matthew 26:39. — Compare on this distinction Hugh of St. Victor, Summa Sententiarum tr. I, c. 17. — For aestimari only the Vatican edition and edition 8 [read], well, existimari.
  2. Libr. XIX. de Civ. Dei, c. 4. n. 3, ubi locus Scripturae est Gal. 5, 17. Seq. locus ex locis eiusdem, X. de Genesi ad lit. c. 12. n. 20. 21, et de Continentia, c. 8. n. 19, collectus, legitur sic in Glossa ordinaria ad Gal. 5, 17. — Immediate ante cod. D post contra spiritum addit vel spiritus contra carnem.
    Book XIX On the City of God, c. 4, n. 3, where the Scripture passage is Galatians 5:17. The following passage, collected from passages of the same [author], On Genesis according to the Letter X, c. 12, nn. 20, 21, and On Continence, c. 8, n. 19, is read thus in the ordinary Gloss on Galatians 5:17. — Immediately before, codex D after contra spiritum adds vel spiritus contra carnem.
  3. Ioan. 21, 18, quem locum continuo exponit S. August., tr. 123. n. 5, et est etiam in Glossa ibid. Locus Scripturae est Matth. 26, 39.
    John 21:18, which passage Saint Augustine expounds at length, Tractate 123, n. 5, and it is also in the Gloss there. The Scripture passage is Matthew 26:39.
  4. Codd. DG et edd. 1, 8 ideo ei.
    Codices DG and editions 1, 8 [read] ideo ei.
  5. Epist. 140. (alias 120.) c. 6. n. 16. Locus Scripturae est Phil. 1, 23. Pro Pius, quod habent codd. BCD et ed. 1 cum originali (homo pius), in aliis Paulus. Deinde post quoniam Vat. cum codd. AE addit qui.
    Letter 140 (alias 120), c. 6, n. 16. The Scripture passage is Philippians 1:23. For Pius, which codices BCD and edition 1 have with the original (homo pius), in others Paulus. Then after quoniam the Vatican edition with codices AE adds qui.
  6. Comment. in Marc. 14, 36, et in Glossa ibid. Locus alter Scripturae est Ioan. 6, 38. — Pro homo erat, dicens edd. 1, 6 homo est, dicens, ed. 8 homo est Deus.
    Commentary on Mark 14, 36, and in the Gloss there. The other Scripture passage is John 6:38. — For homo erat, dicens editions 1, 6 [read] homo est, dicens, edition 8 homo est Deus.
  7. Apud Hieronymum non invenitur, sed haec verba sunt ex Beda, ad hunc locum (Marc. 14, 38.), collecta et praecise inveniuntur in Glossa ibid.
    It is not found in Jerome, but these words are from Bede, on this passage (Mark 14:38), collected, and are found precisely in the Gloss there.
  8. Enarrat. II. serm. 1. in Ps. 32. (v. 1.) n. 2, in quo textu pro qui caput cod. E et ed. 8 cum originali quia caput. — Locus Scripturae est Matth. 26, 39. Cfr. I. Sent. d. XLVIII. c. 1, et ibi Comment. S. Bonaventurae.
    Enarration II, sermon 1, on Psalm 32 (v. 1), n. 2, in which text for qui caput codex E and edition 8 with the original [read] quia caput. — The Scripture passage is Matthew 26:39. Compare I Sent., d. XLVIII, c. 1, and there the Commentary of St. Bonaventure.
  9. Verbotenus apud Petrum Lomb. in Glossa ad Ps. 93, 15, excerpta ex August. Enarrat. in illum locum n. 19. — In fine loci Scripturae iam citati post sicut tu codd. AD et edd. 1, 8 addunt vis.
    Word for word in Peter Lombard in the Gloss on Psalm 93:15, excerpted from Augustine's Enarration on that passage, n. 19. — At the end of the Scripture passage already cited, after sicut tu codices AD and editions 1, 8 add vis.
  10. Cap. 5. n. 41. 42. Seq. locus est ibid. c. 7. n. 53 cum locis Scripturae iam citatis.
    Chapter 5, nn. 41, 42. The following passage is there, c. 7, n. 53, with the Scripture passages already cited.
  11. Ibid. c. 6. n. 51. Locus Scripturae est Ioan. 16, 15. Seq. locus ibid. parum superius; tertius ibid. n. 50; ultimus ibid. c. 7. n. 52.
    Ibid., c. 6, n. 51. The Scripture passage is John 16:15. The following passage is there a little above; the third there, n. 50; the last there, c. 7, n. 52.
  12. Ita codd. et edd. 1, 3, 7; in Vat. et aliis Archiepiscopus Antiochiae in Constantinopolitana Synodo. Lectio codd. confirmatur ab Hugone, Sum. Sent. tr. I., c. 17. De Macario, patriarcha Antiocheno, cfr. Anastasius Biblioth., de Vitis Roman. Pontif. n. 81 (S. Agathonis). Quod sequitur convenit cum Comment. Petri Lombardi in Ps. 21, 6.
    So the codices and editions 1, 3, 7; in the Vatican edition and others Archbishop of Antioch in the Synod of Constantinople. The reading of the codices is confirmed by Hugh, Summa Sententiarum tr. I, c. 17. On Macarius, patriarch of Antioch, compare Anastasius the Librarian, On the Lives of the Roman Pontiffs n. 81 (of St. Agatho). What follows agrees with the Commentary of Peter Lombard on Psalm 21:6.
  13. Cod. E et edd. 1, 8 turbantur, cod. C contristantur.
    Codex E and editions 1, 8 [read] turbantur, codex C contristantur.
  14. Cap. 5. n. 43. 42. Codd. et ed. 1 citant III. libr. de Trinitate. Post asserit Vat. cum aliis edd., exceptis 2, 3, 7, addit Omnia quaecumque voluit, fecit [Ps. 113, 3.]. Sed falso; nam Ambrosius respicit ad Iob 22, 17, qui locus apud ipsum legitur: Impossibile enim tibi nihil est. Vulgata: Quasi nihil posset facere Omnipotens, aestimabant eum.
    Chapter 5, nn. 43, 42. The codices and edition 1 cite the third book On the Trinity. After asserit the Vatican edition with the other editions, except 2, 3, 7, adds All things whatsoever he willed, he did [Ps. 113:3]. But falsely; for Ambrose refers to Job 22:17, which passage in him is read: For nothing is impossible to thee. The Vulgate: They esteemed him as though the Almighty could do nothing.
  15. Libr. X. de Trin. n. 29. 30, ubi respicitur Ioan. 13, 31. In quo textu post ut pati originale et codd., exceptis B E et Erf., omittunt mortem, insuper edd. 1, 8 omittunt pati, refragante etiam originali. Infra pro ut pati nolit quod pati velit originale in ed. Maurina: ut pati nollet qui pati vellet; sed ibi additur: «In prius vulgatis: ut pati nolit quod pati velit, quod immutamus potiorum mss. auctoritate». Nos autem secuti sumus nostros codd. Vat. cum pluribus edd. nolit qui pati venit.
    Book X On the Trinity nn. 29, 30, where John 13:31 is referred to. In which text after ut pati the original and the codices, except B, E, and Erfurt, omit mortem, moreover editions 1, 8 omit pati, the original also resisting. Below, for ut pati nolit quod pati velit the original in the Maurine edition [reads]: ut pati nollet qui pati vellet; but there is added: «In the earlier vulgate [editions]: ut pati nolit quod pati velit, which we change on the authority of the better manuscripts». But we have followed our codices [and] the Vatican edition with several editions [reading] nolit qui pati venit.
  16. Ibid. n. 37. Seq. locus ibid. paulo superius; tertius ibid. n. 38; ultimus ibid. n. 39. — Pro ideo pro Petro rogatur, cod. E cum pluribus edd. rogat, refragante etiam originali; respicitur ibi Luc. 22, 32. In fine pro vasa mortis edd. 1, 8 causa mortis.
    Ibid., n. 37. The following passage is there a little above; the third there, n. 38; the last there, n. 39. — For ideo pro Petro rogatur, codex E with several editions [reads] rogat, the original also resisting; Luke 22:32 is referred to there. At the end, for vasa mortis editions 1, 8 [read] causa mortis.
Dist. 17, Divisio Textus→