← Back to Distinction 22

Dist. 22, Art. 1, Q. 2

Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word · Distinction 22

Textus Latinus
p. 454

Quaestio II. Utrum Christus, secundum quod homo, fuerit in loco determinato, an ubique.

Secundo quaeritur, utrum Christus, secundum quod homo, fuerit in loco determinato, an ubique. Et quod fuerit in loco determinato, videtur:

1. Quia Christus, secundum quod homo, non fuit, nisi ubi fuit anima eius, vel caro; sed anima eius, vel caro non fuit nisi in loco determinato: ergo nec Christus, secundum quod homop454-1.

2. Item, Christus, secundum quod homo, «assumsit humanam naturam in atomop454-2»; sed humana natura in atomo est humana natura in individuo, et individuum est necessario hic et nunc, et ita in loco determinato: ergo Christus, secundum quod homo, est in loco determinato.

3. Item, cuicumque convenit moveri secundum locum, convenit ei esse in loco determinato; sed Christus, secundum quod homo, descendit ad inferos et ascendit ad caelosp454-3: ergo etc.

4. Item, quod Christus sit in pluribus locis, secundum quod homo, hoc non habet, nisi quia sub Sacramentop454-4: si ergo tunc sub Sacramento non erat, ergo in aliquo loco ipsum existere oportebat.

Sed contra: 1. Quaecumque sunt unita inseparabiliter, ubicumque unum est, et reliquump454-5; sed humana natura unita est inseparabiliter et erat tunc Verbo Dei unita, quod est ubique: ergo si Verbum est ubique, et humana natura in Verbo.

2. Item, quaecumque sunt idem in supposito, ubicumque est unum, et reliquum — si enim aliqua duo accidentia uniantur in uno subiecto, impossibile est, unum esse alicubi, ubi non sit reliquum — sed humana natura et divina uniuntur in una hypostasip454-6: si ergo divina natura est ubique et non in loco determinato, necessario sequitur, quod et humana natura in Christo.

3. Item, haec est vera: iste homo est Filius Dei ubique, ergo a simplici conversap454-7: Filius Dei est ubique homo; sed ubicumque est homo, ibi est eius humanitas: ergo etc.

4. Item, demonstretur quicumque locus, Christus est ibi; aut ergo est ibi homo, aut non-homo — homo enim et non-homo opponuntur immediate — sed non est ibi non-homo: ergo est ibi homo: ergo Christus est ubique homo: igitur secundum humanam naturam non est in loco determinato nec fuit in triduo.

5. Item, bene sequitur: hoc est, et non est homo, ergo est non-homo: ergo similiter bene sequitur: Christus fuit ubique, et non fuit ubique homo, ergo fuit ubique non-homo; sed haec est falsa: ergo aliqua praemissarum; sed non nisi ista: Christus non fuit ubique homo: ergo eius opposita vera: Christus fuit ubique homo: ergo idem quod prius.

6. Item, «quidquid convenit Filio Dei per naturam, convenit illi homini per gratiamp454-8»: cum ergo haec sit vera: Filius Dei est ubique; haec similiter erit vera: iste homo est ubique; sed bene sequitur: homo albus est ubique, ergo est ubique homo, et est ubique albus: ergo similiter bene sequitur: iste homo est ubique: ergo est ubique homo: redit ergo idem quod prius, scilicet quod Christus secundum humanitatem nec nunc nec in triduo fuit in loco determinato.

Conclusio

Christus, secundum quod homo, non fuit ubique, sed in loco determinato.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod quaestio ista potest esse de re, et potest esse de sermone. Tunc est quaestio de re, quando quaeritur, utrum humanitas Christi fuerit, ubicumque fuit Divinitas; et ad istam quaestionem de plano respondendum est, quod non; quia divina natura est immensa et infinita, unde nullum locum sibi determinat; sed humana natura, cum sit creata et finita, locum sibi determinat. Unde non erat, ubicumque Divinitas erat, sed vel in sepulcro ratione corporis, vel in inferno ratione animae, sicut dicit Magister in litterap454-9. — Et nunc similiter; ratione humanitatis, quantum est de se, in uno tantum loco est; quod vero sit in pluribus, hoc est sub Sacramento, secundum quod dicit Innocentiusp454-10,

p. 455

scilicet quod Christus dicitur esse alicubi sacramentaliter, alicubi personaliter, alicubi localiter: localiter est in caelo, sacramentaliter est in altari, personaliter ubique. Et sic humana natura in Christo habet, ut sit in loco determinato; et si de re fiat quaestio, satis plana est responsio.

Si autem fiat quaestio de sermone, hoc est, si quaeratur de veritate istius: iste homo est ubique, et iste est ubique homo; hic respondendum est, quod iste terminus homo potest subiici, vel praedicari. Quando subiicitur, tunc est locutio vera. Et ratio huius est: quia cum dicitur: iste homo est ubique, hoc pronomen iste potest demonstrare personam Christi, vel singulare hominisp455-1. Si personam Christi, sic absque dubio vera est: iste homo est ubique. Si vero singulare hominis, adhuc vera est, sed non per propriam naturam, sed per communicationem idiomatum, quia «quod convenit Filio Dei per naturam, convenit isti homini per gratiam.»

Si autem ponatur ex parte praedicati, tunc est locutio falsa, quia iste terminus homo praedicatur ratione formae, et hoc adverbium ubique determinat praedicatum; et ita significatur per hoc, quod forma humanitatis se extendat ad omnem locum in Christo; et hoc quidem falsum est, eop455-2 quod habet locum determinatum. Unde sicut haec est falsa: Christus semper fuit homo, quia significatur ex hoc, quod humanitas Christi non habuit principium in tempore; ita similiter haec est falsa: Christus est ubique homo, quia ex hoc significatur, quod humana natura Christi sit ubique. — Concedendae sunt igitur rationes ostendentes, quod humana natura Christi sit in loco determinato et fuerit in triduo.

1. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod quaecumque sunt unita inseparabiliter, extendunt se ad omnem locum aequaliter; dicendum, quod illud habet veritatem, quando aliqua duo unibilia sic uniuntur, quod unum non excedit reliquum. Quando autem unum est maioris ambitus quam reliquum, non habet veritatem: et sic est in proposito; natura enim divina est immensa, sed natura humana est limitata. Et est simile: quia animal inseparabiliter praedicatur de homine, et tamen alicubi est animal, ubi non est homop455-3.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod illa quae sunt unum in supposito, concomitanturp455-4 se in omni loco inseparabiliter; dicendum, quod quoddam est suppositum, quod non excedit formam suam; et de tali supposito habet veritatem sermo praemissus. Quoddam vero est suppositum, quod excedit aliquam formam, cuius est suppositum, sicut hypostasis Christi se habet respectu humanae naturae, quia primum esse non habet a natura humana, sed a natura divinap455-5; et de tali supposito non habet veritatem.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod haec est vera: iste homo est Filius Dei ubique, ergo conversa est vera: Dei Filius est homo ubique; dicendum, quod haec, si quis attendat, non est eius conversa; et hoc patet, quia in conversione alicuius propositionis quod determinabat praedicatum debet fieri determinatio ex parte subiecti, alioquin non fiet recta conversio, sicut patet aspicienti. Et ideo, cum in hac locutione: homo est Filius Dei ubique, adverbium illud determinat praedicatum ratione istius attributi, quod est esse Filius Dei; eius conversa non est haec: Filius Dei est homo ubique, secundum quod ubique determinat hoc attributum, quod est esse hominem; sed haec: Filius Dei, existens ubique, est homo; et haec quidem est vera, unde quamvis in ratione praedicta videatur arguere a simplici conversa, non tamen arguit.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod si Christus est hic et non est homo, ergo est hic non-homo; dicendum, quod illud tenet in his quae sunt unius naturae tantum, ratione cuius sunt, ubicumque sunt. In Christo vero non tenet, quia non solum habet naturam humanam, sed divinam, per quam potest esse alicubi, ubi non est per humanam. Unde in processu illo est peccatum secundum consequensp455-6: non est hic homo, ergo est hic non-homo. Ista enim habet tres causas veritatis: non est hic homo: aut quia non est hic, aut quia non est homo, aut quia est hic et est homo, sed tamen humanitas eius non est in isto loco; et in isto sensu habet locutio veritatem. Et si obiiciat, quod homo et non-homo opponuntur immediate; dicendum, quod verum est, quantum est de se, sed non est verum, addita determinatione. Haec enim duo non opponuntur immediate: albus homo et albus non-homo, quia neutrum horum vere praedicatur de homine nigrop455-7.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod bene sequitur: est, et non est homo, ergo est non-homo, ergo similiter bene sequitur: est hic, et non est hic homo, ergo est hic non-homo; dicendum, quod non est simile,

p. 456

quia pluribus de causis potest ista verificari de aliquo: iste non est hic homo, quam ista: iste non est homo, propter determinationem adiunctam. Et ideo in praedicto processu est deceptio secundum consequens, a pluribus causis veritatis ad unamp456-1.

6. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod haec est vera: iste homo est ubique, ergo iste est ubique homo; dicendum, quod non sequitur, quia in prima attribuitur ei esse ubique ratione divinae naturae, in secunda ratione humanae. Nec est simile de hoc quod obiicit de homine albo, quia suppositum istius termini album, cum sit hic et nunc, non se extendit ad aliquem locum, ad quem non extendit se eius proprietas; non sic autem est de persona Verbi et de natura humana.

Scholion

I. Ubiquistarum error, ex Eutychetis fontibus, vel ex male intellecta doctrina de communicatione idiomatum manans et olim inter Protestantes late diffusus, reprobatus est iam an. 787 a Synodo oecumenica VII. (Sess. 8.) hoc anathematismo: «Si quis Christum, Deum nostrum, circumscriptum (περιγραπτόν) non confitetur secundum humanitatem, a. s.». — Argumentum primarium Ubiquistarum exploditur hic in solut. ad I. — Quaestio autem principalis Scholasticorum hoc loco versatur tantum circa veritatem sermonis sive quarundam locutionum huc spectantium. Conveniunt autem iidem in hoc, quod falsa sit locutio: Christus est homo ubique sive ubique homo; vera autem: iste homo est ubique. S. Thom. (hic a. 2.) etiam locutionem: Christus, secundum quod homo, est ubique, non penitus reprobat, scilicet quatenus veritatem suppositi importat, non autem, quatenus importat veritatem naturae. — Ratio, quam hic S. Bonav. affert, a Petr. a Tar. (hic q. I. a. 2.) sic exprimitur: «Terminus homo a parte subiecti supponit pro persona, a parte praedicati pro natura, quia in praedicato est locus formae ratione inhaerentiae praedicati ad subiectum». — Solutio ad 2. confirmatur a S. Thoma (S. c. Gent. IV. c. 49. ad 3. obiect.): «Hypostasis non extenditur extra terminos illius naturae, ex qua subsistentiam habet. Non autem Verbum Dei subsistentiam habet ex natura humana, sed magis naturam humanam ad suam subsistentiam vel personalitatem trahit; non enim per illam, sed in illa subsistit. Unde nihil prohibet, Verbum Dei esse ubique, licet humana natura, a Verbo Dei assumta, ubique non sit» (cfr. hic dub. 3. in fine). — De communicatione idiomatum et de regula, quod attributa unius naturae non possint praedicari de altera in abstracto sumta, cfr. supra d. 6. a. I. q. I, praesertim ad 6, d. 7. 8. passim, d. 11. a. 2. q. I; S. Thom., S. III. q. 16. a. 4-6.

II. Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 19. m. 5. — S. Thom., hic a. 2; cfr. S. III. q. 16. a. 5. ad 3, et q. 52. a. 1-3. — B. Albert., hic a. 3. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. — Richard. a Med., hic a. I. q. 2. — Durand., hic q. 2. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 2.

III. Quoad seq. (3.) quaestionem multi antiqui Scholastici conveniunt in opinione, quod intercesserint horae 40 a morte Christi ad momentum resurrectionis (cfr. Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 23. m. 5. q. incid.); alii cum S. Bonav. computant horas 36; item docent, quod Salvator probabilius non prius resurrexerit quam in aurora. De diversis circa hanc rem opinionibus antiquorum vide hic pag. 457, nota 9; de difficultatibus exegeticis respectu harum aliarumque quaestionum, quae tempus passionis et resurrectionis respiciunt, consule etiam auctores recentiores. De hac 3. quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. q. 20. m. 3. a. 1-3. — S. Thom., III. Sent. d. 21. q. 2. a. I. 2; S. III. q. 53. a. 2. — B. Albert., hic a. 6. — Petr. a Tar., III. Sent. d. 21. q. 3. a. I. 2. — Richard. a Med., III. Sent. d. 21. a. 3. q. 2. — Durand., hic q. 5. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 3. — Biel, hic q. unica.

---

English Translation

Question II. Whether Christ, insofar as he is man, was in a determinate place or everywhere.

Secondly it is asked whether Christ, insofar as he is man, was in a determinate place or everywhere. And that he was in a determinate place seems to be the case:

1. Because Christ, insofar as he is man, was not except where his soul or flesh was; but his soul or flesh was only in a determinate place: therefore neither was Christ, insofar as he is manp454-1.

2. Likewise, Christ, insofar as he is man, «assumed human nature in an atomp454-2»; but human nature in an atom is human nature in an individual, and an individual is necessarily here and now, and thus in a determinate place: therefore Christ, insofar as he is man, is in a determinate place.

3. Likewise, to whatever it belongs to be moved with respect to place, it belongs to it to be in a determinate place; but Christ, insofar as he is man, descended to the lower regions and ascended to the heavensp454-3: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, that Christ is in several places, insofar as he is man, this he does not have except because he is under the Sacramentp454-4: if therefore he was not then under the Sacrament, then it was necessary for him to exist in some place.

On the contrary: 1. Whatever things are united inseparably, wherever one is, there is also the otherp454-5; but human nature was united inseparably and was then united to the Word of God, which is everywhere: therefore if the Word is everywhere, the human nature is also in the Word.

2. Likewise, whatever things are the same in supposit, wherever the one is, there is also the other — for if any two accidents are united in one subject, it is impossible for one to be somewhere where the other is not — but human nature and divine nature are united in one hypostasisp454-6: if therefore the divine nature is everywhere and not in a determinate place, it necessarily follows that the human nature in Christ is too.

3. Likewise, this is true: this man is the Son of God everywhere, therefore by simple conversionp454-7: the Son of God is everywhere man; but wherever man is, there is his humanity: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, let any place whatever be pointed out, Christ is there; either therefore man is there, or non-man — for man and non-man are immediately opposed — but non-man is not there: therefore man is there: therefore Christ is everywhere man: therefore according to his human nature he is not in a determinate place, nor was he in the triduum.

5. Likewise, this follows validly: this is, and is not man, therefore it is non-man: therefore likewise this follows validly: Christ was everywhere, and was not everywhere man, therefore he was everywhere non-man; but this is false: therefore some one of the premises is; but it is none except this one: Christ was not everywhere man: therefore its opposite is true: Christ was everywhere man: therefore the same as before.

6. Likewise, «whatever belongs to the Son of God by nature belongs to that man by gracep454-8»: since therefore this is true: the Son of God is everywhere; this likewise will be true: this man is everywhere; but this follows validly: a white man is everywhere, therefore he is everywhere a man, and is everywhere white: therefore likewise this follows validly: this man is everywhere: therefore he is everywhere man: therefore the same returns as before, namely that Christ according to his humanity was in a determinate place neither now nor in the triduum.

Conclusion

Christ, insofar as he is man, was not everywhere, but in a determinate place.

I respond: It must be said that this question can be about the thing (de re) and can be about the expression (de sermone). The question is about the thing when it is asked whether the humanity of Christ was wherever the Divinity was; and to this question it must be answered plainly that it was not; because the divine nature is immense and infinite, whence it determines no place for itself; but the human nature, since it is created and finite, determines a place for itself. Hence it was not wherever the Divinity was, but either in the tomb by reason of the body, or in the lower regions by reason of the soul, as the Master says in the textp454-9. — And now likewise; by reason of the humanity, insofar as it is of itself, it is in only one place; but that it is in several places, this is under the Sacrament, according to what Innocent saysp454-10,

namely that Christ is said to be somewhere sacramentally, somewhere personally, somewhere locally: locally he is in heaven, sacramentally he is on the altar, personally everywhere. And thus the human nature in Christ has it that it is in a determinate place; and if the question be made about the thing, the response is plain enough.

But if the question be made about the expression, that is, if it be asked about the truth of this statement: this man is everywhere, and this one is everywhere man; here it must be answered that this term man can be made the subject or predicated. When it is made the subject, then the statement is true. And the reason for this is: that when it is said, this man is everywhere, this pronoun this can point to the person of Christ, or to the singular of manp455-1. If the person of Christ, then without doubt it is true: this man is everywhere. But if the singular of man, it is still true, yet not by its proper nature, but by the communication of idioms, because «what belongs to the Son of God by nature belongs to this man by grace.»

But if it be placed on the side of the predicate, then the statement is false, because this term man is predicated by reason of the form, and this adverb everywhere determines the predicate; and thus it is signified by this that the form of humanity extends itself to every place in Christ; and this indeed is false, sincep455-2 it has a determinate place. Hence just as this is false: Christ was always man, because it is signified by this that the humanity of Christ had no beginning in time; so likewise this is false: Christ is everywhere man, because by this it is signified that the human nature of Christ is everywhere. — The arguments are therefore to be granted which show that the human nature of Christ is in a determinate place and was so in the triduum.

1. To that which is objected, that whatever things are united inseparably extend themselves to every place equally; it must be said that that holds true when any two unitable things are so united that the one does not exceed the other. But when the one is of greater extent than the other, it does not hold true: and so it is in the case at hand; for the divine nature is immense, but the human nature is limited. And there is a parallel: because animal is inseparably predicated of man, and yet animal is somewhere where man is notp455-3.

2. To that which is objected, that those things which are one in supposit accompany one another inseparably in every place; it must be said that there is a certain supposit which does not exceed its form; and of such a supposit the foregoing statement holds true. But there is a certain supposit which exceeds some form of which it is the supposit, as the hypostasis of Christ stands with respect to the human nature, because it does not have its first being from the human nature, but from the divine naturep455-5; and of such a supposit it does not hold true.

3. To that which is objected, that this is true: this man is the Son of God everywhere, therefore the converse is true: the Son of God is man everywhere; it must be said that this, if one attends carefully, is not its converse; and this is clear, because in the conversion of any proposition that which determined the predicate must become a determination on the side of the subject, otherwise there will not be a correct conversion, as is clear to one who looks. And therefore, since in this statement: man is the Son of God everywhere, that adverb determines the predicate by reason of that attribute which is to be the Son of God; its converse is not this: the Son of God is man everywhere, insofar as everywhere determines this attribute, which is to be man; but rather this: the Son of God, existing everywhere, is man; and this indeed is true, whence although in the aforesaid reasoning it seems to argue by simple conversion, nevertheless it does not so argue.

4. To that which is objected, that if Christ is here and is not man, therefore he is here non-man; it must be said that that holds in those things which are of one nature only, by reason of which they are wherever they are. But in Christ it does not hold, because he has not only a human nature, but a divine, through which he can be somewhere where he is not through the human. Hence in that process there is a fallacy of the consequentp455-6: he is not here man, therefore he is here non-man. For this has three causes of truth: he is not here man: either because he is not here, or because he is not man, or because he is here and is man, but nevertheless his humanity is not in that place; and in that sense the statement has truth. And if one objects that man and non-man are immediately opposed; it must be said that this is true, insofar as it is of itself, but it is not true once a determination is added. For these two are not immediately opposed: a white man and a white non-man, because neither of these is truly predicated of a black manp455-7.

5. To that which is objected, that this follows validly: it is, and is not man, therefore it is non-man, therefore likewise this follows validly: it is here, and is not here man, therefore it is here non-man; it must be said that it is not parallel,

because this can be verified of something for several causes: this one is not here man, than this: this one is not man, on account of the determination adjoined. And therefore in the aforesaid process there is a deception of the consequent, from several causes of truth to onep456-1.

6. To that which is objected, that this is true: this man is everywhere, therefore this one is everywhere man; it must be said that it does not follow, because in the first there is attributed to him to be everywhere by reason of the divine nature, in the second by reason of the human. Nor is it parallel with what he objects about the white man, because the supposit of this term white, since it is here and now, does not extend itself to any place to which its property does not extend itself; but it is not so with the person of the Word and the human nature.

Scholion

I. The Ubiquist error, springing from the sources of Eutyches, or from a misunderstood doctrine of the communication of idioms, and once widely diffused among the Protestants, was already condemned in the year 787 by the Seventh Ecumenical Synod (Session 8) with this anathema: «If anyone does not confess that Christ, our God, is circumscribed (περιγραπτόν) according to his humanity, let him be anathema». — The primary argument of the Ubiquists is exploded here in the solution to the first [objection]. — But the principal question of the Scholastics in this place turns only on the truth of the expression, or of certain locutions pertaining to it. They agree, moreover, in this, that the locution is false: Christ is man everywhere or everywhere man; but true: this man is everywhere. St. Thomas (here a. 2) does not entirely reject even the locution: Christ, insofar as he is man, is everywhere, namely insofar as it imports the truth of the supposit, but not insofar as it imports the truth of the nature. — The reason which St. Bonaventure here adduces is expressed by Peter of Tarentaise (here q. I, a. 2) thus: «The term man, on the side of the subject, supposits for the person, on the side of the predicate for the nature, because in the predicate there is place for the form by reason of the inherence of the predicate in the subject». — The solution to the second [objection] is confirmed by St. Thomas (Summa contra Gentiles IV, c. 49, reply to obj. 3): «The hypostasis is not extended beyond the limits of that nature from which it has subsistence. But the Word of God does not have subsistence from the human nature, but rather draws the human nature to its own subsistence or personality; for it subsists not through it, but in it. Hence nothing prevents the Word of God from being everywhere, although the human nature, assumed by the Word of God, is not everywhere» (cf. here dubium 3, at the end). — On the communication of idioms and on the rule that the attributes of one nature cannot be predicated of the other taken in the abstract, cf. above d. 6, a. I, q. I, especially at obj. 6, d. 7, 8 passim, d. 11, a. 2, q. I; St. Thomas, Summa III, q. 16, a. 4-6.

II. Alexander of Hales, Summa p. III, q. 19, m. 5. — St. Thomas, here a. 2; cf. Summa III, q. 16, a. 5, ad 3, and q. 52, a. 1-3. — B. Albert, here a. 3. — Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit. — Richard of Middleton, here a. I, q. 2. — Durandus, here q. 2. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 2.

III. As to the following (3rd) question, many ancient Scholastics agree in the opinion that 40 hours intervened from the death of Christ to the moment of the resurrection (cf. Alexander of Hales, Summa p. III, q. 23, m. 5, q. incid.); others with St. Bonaventure reckon 36 hours; likewise they teach that the Savior more probably did not rise before the dawn. On the various opinions of the ancients concerning this matter, see here p. 457, note 9; on the exegetical difficulties with respect to these and other questions which regard the time of the passion and resurrection, consult also more recent authors. On this 3rd question: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. q. 20, m. 3, a. 1-3. — St. Thomas, III Sent. d. 21, q. 2, a. I, 2; Summa III, q. 53, a. 2. — B. Albert, here a. 6. — Peter of Tarentaise, III Sent. d. 21, q. 3, a. I, 2. — Richard of Middleton, III Sent. d. 21, a. 3, q. 2. — Durandus, here q. 5. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 3. — Biel, here the single question.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 2.
    See here the text of the Master, c. 2.
  2. Ut dicit Damascenus, III. de Fide orthod. c. 11. Cfr. supra pag. 15, nota 4, et d. 5. a. 2. q. I. arg. 4. ad oppos. in fine. — De minori cfr. supra pag. 453, nota 2.
    As Damascene says, On the Orthodox Faith III, c. 11. Cf. above p. 15, note 4, and d. 5, a. 2, q. I, arg. 4, at the end of the reply to the opposed. — On the minor [premise] cf. above p. 453, note 2.
  3. Vide hic lit. Magistri c. 2. et 4. — Sententia maioris ab Aristot., V. Phys. text. 8. (c. 1.) sic exprimitur: «Omne quod movetur, in loco est». Damascen., IV. de Fide orthod. c. I: Ascendere e terra in caelum et rursus descendere actiones sunt circumscripti corporis. Sic enim, inquit, rursus veniet ad vos, quemadmodum vidistis eum euntem in caelum (Act. 1, 11.).
    See here the text of the Master, cc. 2 and 4. — The thought of the major [premise] is expressed by Aristotle, Physics V, text 8 (c. 1) thus: «Everything that is moved is in a place». Damascene, On the Orthodox Faith IV, c. I: To ascend from earth into heaven and again to descend are the actions of a circumscribed body. For thus, he says, he will come again to you, just as you saw him going into heaven (Acts 1:11).
  4. Cfr. IV. Sent. d. 10. p. I. q. 3. — Mox codd. A K N verbis in aliquo loco adiungunt determinato.
    Cf. IV Sent. d. 10, p. I, q. 3. — Shortly after, codices A K N add determinate to the words in some place.
  5. Codd. AKU ubicumque est unum, est et reliquum. In fine arg. cod. S addit ubique; ante humana in edd. et codd. deficit et.
    Codices A K U read wherever one is, there is also the other. At the end of the argument, codex S adds everywhere; before human in the editions and codices the word and is lacking.
  6. Cfr. supra d. 6. a. 2. q. I.
    Cf. above d. 6, a. 2, q. I.
  7. Vide supra pag. 175, nota 10.
    See above p. 175, note 10.
  8. Haec propositio a Scholasticis modo Ambrosio tribuitur (cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. XIV. c. 2.), modo Augustino (cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. IV. c. 2. et d. VI. c. 2.).
    This proposition is attributed by the Scholastics now to Ambrose (cf. above the text of the Master, d. XIV, c. 2), now to Augustine (cf. above the text of the Master, d. IV, c. 2, and d. VI, c. 2).
  9. Hic c. 2. Cfr. Athanas., Oratio de incarnat. Verbi, n. 17; Hilar., X. de Trin. n. 16; Fulgent., II. ad Trasim. c. 17. seq. — Proxime post edd. omittunt Et nunc.
    Here c. 2. Cf. Athanasius, Oration on the Incarnation of the Word, n. 17; Hilary, On the Trinity X, n. 16; Fulgentius, To Trasimund II, c. 17 ff. — Immediately after, the editions omit And now.
  10. Libr. IV. de Sacro Altaris mysterio, c. 8, ubi haec quaestio ponitur: licet autem corpus dominicum sit in loco [scil. in caelo] locale, quaeritur tamen, utrum in Sacramento sit locatum localiter etc. Cfr. ibid. c. 27. Vide etiam IV. Sent. d. X., ubi ex III. Decret. de Consecrat. d. 2. c. 44. illud Augustini (in Ioan. Evang. tr. 30. n. I.) affertur: «Donec saeculum finiatur, sursum est Dominus; sed tamen etiam hic nobiscum est veritas Domini. Corpus enim, in quo resurrexit, in uno loco esse oportet; veritas autem eius ubique diffusa est». Item illud: «Una persona est Deus et homo, ubique per id quod est Deus, in caelo per id quod homo est» (August., Epist. 187. alias 57. c. 3. n. 10.).
    Book IV, On the Sacred Mystery of the Altar, c. 8, where this question is raised: although the Lord's body is local in place [namely in heaven], it is nevertheless asked whether in the Sacrament it is placed locally, etc. Cf. ibid. c. 27. See also IV Sent. d. X, where from the Decretum III, On Consecration, d. 2, c. 44, that saying of Augustine (On the Gospel of John, tract 30, n. I) is cited: «Until the world is ended, the Lord is above; but nevertheless even here with us is the truth of the Lord. For the body in which he rose again must be in one place; but his truth is diffused everywhere». Likewise that saying: «One person is God and man, everywhere by that which he is God, in heaven by that which he is man» (Augustine, Epist. 187, alias 57, c. 3, n. 10).
  11. Cfr. supra d. II. a. 2. q. 2, ubi ad solvendam huic similem quaestionem (ad quam infra circa finem corp. spectatur) pronomen iste in similem modum distinguitur.
    Cf. above d. II, a. 2, q. 2, where, in order to solve a question similar to this (to which reference is made below near the end of the body), the pronoun this is distinguished in a similar way.
  12. Codd. A K S pro eo quod. Paulo inferius pro non habuit codd. G H I L aa non habuerit, cod. K non habet.
    Codices A K S read because in place of [since]. A little below, for did not have codices G H I L aa read should not have had, codex K does not have.
  13. Aliud exemplum est ipse homo, in quo, licet corpus et anima intime sint coniuncta, tamen anima tota est in toto corpore et tota in singulis eius partibus, quod de corpore non valet.
    Another example is man himself, in whom, although body and soul are intimately joined, nevertheless the whole soul is in the whole body and whole in each of its parts, which does not hold for the body.
  14. Cod. T concomitant, plures codd. inepte vel communicant vel communicantur.
    Codex T reads accompany [active], several codices ineptly read either communicate or are communicated.
  15. Cfr. supra d. 6. a. I. q. I. ad 4.
    Cf. above d. 6, a. I, q. I, to obj. 4.
  16. Vide supra pag. 99, nota 7. De seqq. cfr. supra pag. 252, nota 7. — In initio solut. pro et non est homo edd. et non est hic homo et subinde illius naturae pro unius naturae nec non paulo post sed etiam divinam pro sed divinam. Circa finem solut. pro quantum est de se edd. quantum est de re.
    See above p. 99, note 7. On what follows cf. above p. 252, note 7. — At the beginning of the solution, for and is not man the editions read and is not here man, and then of that nature for of one nature, and likewise a little after but also divine for but divine. Near the end of the solution, for insofar as it is of itself the editions read insofar as it is of the thing.
  17. Cfr. Aristot., II. Periherm. c. I. (c. 10.).
    Cf. Aristotle, On Interpretation II, c. I (c. 10).
  18. Vide solut. ad 4.
    See the solution to obj. 4.
← Dist. 22, Art. 1, Q. 1Dist. 22, Art. 1, Q. 3→