Dist. 22, Dubia
Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word · Distinction 22
## DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.
Dub. I.
In parte ista sunt quaestiones circa litteram, et primo quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Lux verae Sapientiae illuminabat infernum. Videtur enim hoc esse falsum, quia, sicut obscuritas repugnat caelo empyreop464-6, sic luminositas repugnat inferno: ergo sicut caelum empyreum nunquam habet obscurari, sic videtur, quod infernus nunquam habeat illuminari. — Item, damnati debueruntp464-7 carere omni consolatione et maxime consolatione, quae est in aspectu lucis aeternae: ergo si lux illa corporalis non erat, quia sine corpore ad inferna descendit, sed magis spiritualis; videtur, quod in inferno irradiare non debeat.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod secus est de irradiatione lucis materialis et lucis spiritualis. Nam irradiatio lucis materialis immutat visum naturaliter, irradiatio vero lucis spiritualis immutat voluntarie; unde nullus eam videt, nisi cui se ostendit voluntarie. Et ideo lux ista splendere dicitur in inferno et infernum illuminasse, quia aliquos de inferno irradiabat, non tamen omnes, quia nec omnes volebat illuminare, nec omnes habebant oculos proportionales.
Ad illud vero quod obiicitur de empyreo, dicendum, quod non est simile: quamvis enim sit bonum omnino impermixtum malop464-8, non tamen oportet, quod sit malum omnino impermixtum bono. Et propterea decebat Deum eos qui erant in tenebris illuminare, non tamen eos qui erant in lumine obscurarep464-9.
Dub. II.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Utique totus eodem tempore erat in inferno. Hoc enim videtur falsum, quia aut hoc quod est totum refertur ad naturam, aut ad personam. Ad naturam non, quia Christus secundum totam naturam non erat simul in caelo et in inferno. Si ad personam, adhuc videtur falsum, quia supra distinctione sextap464-10 dictum est, quod persona Christi componitur ex tribus substantiis et duabus naturis; et est illa compositio inexplicabilis: ergo si totus Christus erat in caelo et in inferno, videtur, quod illae duae naturae simul essent in caelo et in inferno; quod falsum est et absurdum. — Item, differentiam contingit assignari inter hoc signum omne et hoc signum totum, quia omne distribuit pro partibus subiectivis, et totum pro partibus integralibusp464-11: ergo si Christus non habebat partes integrales nisi secundum humanam na-
turam; cum dicitur, quod totus Christus fuit in caelo et in inferno; implicatur hoc de Christo secundum naturam humanam, quod simpliciter est falsum pro tempore illo.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod hoc nomen totus aliquando tenetur ut signump465-1, aliquando ut adiectivum. Secundum quod tenetur ut signum, sic distribuit in aliquas partes, ut cum dicitur: totus Petrus est albus. Secundum quod accipitur ut nomen adiectivum, sic totum uno modo dicitur idem quod perfectum, alio modo idem quod habens partem et partemp465-2. Cum ergo dicit Magister, quod Christus erat totus in caelo, totus ibi dicitur perfectus, quia persona Christi perfectissima simul erat in caelo et in terra et in inferno.
Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod persona illa erat composita; dicendum, quod nec proprie erat composita, nec hoc nomen totus accipitur ibi collective, vel distributive; quia non significat collectionem, aut divisionem, sed potius perfectionemp465-3. — Et per hoc patet responsio ad sequens.
Dub. III.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Totus est ubicumque est, sed non totum. Videntur enim illa duo esse incompossibilia, quia totus et totum idem significant: ergo si totus erat in caelo et in inferno, necessario sequitur, quod totum. — Item, ubicumque ego sum, necesse est, me esse totum: ergo pari ratione videtur de Christo, quia, ubicumque est aliquid, necesse est, esse omne illud, quod naturaliter est in eo.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod, sicut Magister subiungit, «totus refertur ad personam, sed totum ad naturamp465-4». Et ratio huius est discretio sexus importata per genus masculinum, et confusio per neutrum; et quoniam persona Christi secundum se totam, ubicumque erat, tota erat, cum sit unica et simplicissima; natura vero cum non solum sit in Christo simplex, utpote divina, sed etiam composita, utpote humana, nec illa possit esse ubique: ideo concedit Magister, quod totus erat ubique, sed non totum, quia totus refertur ad Divinitatem, totum autem ad Divinitatem et humanitatem.
Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod totus et totum idem significant; dicendum, quod verum est, quantum est de impositione prima, sed ratione discretionis, importatae per generis consignificationem, in rationep465-5 usus unum consuevit referri ad personam, et alterum ad naturam.
Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod ubicumque ego sum, necesse est, me esse totum; dicendum, quod non est simile, quia in me persona non se extendit ultra naturam; sic autem non est in Christo, sicut in praecedentibusp465-6 dictum fuit.
Dub. IV.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Nemo ascendit in caelum, nisi qui descendit de caelo. Videtur enim hoc esse falsum, quia, si solus Christus descendit de caelo: ergo solus Christus ascendit in caelum, et nullus alius; quod est haereticum dicere. — Item, hoc videtur falsum alia ratione, cum dicitur descendisse de caelo: aut enim hoc dicitur secundum naturam divinam, aut secundum humanam. Secundum divinam non, quia secundum illam non mutat locum; secundum humanam non, quia secundum illam non fuit in caelo.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod ascendere uno modo idem est quod propria virtute scandere sine adminiculo virtutis alienae; et hoc modo soli Christo convenit. Alio modo ascendere idem est quod sursum scandere; et hoc modo convenit aliis Sanctisp465-7; in praemissa autem auctoritate accipitur primo modo. — Vel aliter: est ascendere in caelum empyreum, et est ascendere in caelum Trinitatisp465-8. Cum ergo dicitur: Nemo ascendit etc.; hoc non dicitur quantum ad ascensum in empyreum, sed quantum ad ascensum in caelum Trinitatis; et iste ascensus non est ascensus ad locum, sed potius ad dignitatem et aequalitatem Patris. Nec est secundum acquisitionem novae dignitatis in Christo, sed propter manifestationem eius quodp465-9 habuit ab aeterno. Unde sicut dicitur descendisse non propter hoc, quod in eo fuerit Divinitas minorata, sed propter hoc, quod in assumtione humanitatis apparuit minorata; sic etiam dicitur ascendisse, quia in ascensione eius sublimitas est manifestata. Unde iste descensus et ascensus conveniebat divinae personae secundum divinam naturam, relatam tamen ad humanam. — Et per hoc patet responsio ad utramque obiectionem prius factam; utraque enim currit de ascensu et descensu localip465-10.
Dub. V.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Haec de corrigia calceamenti etc.: quid intelligitur per corrigiam? et quid per calceamentum? et quid per regem Idumaeae? et quid per ossa eius?
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod calceamentum est humanitas Christi, tegens pedem Divinitatis. Corrigia vero calceamenti est unio Divinitatis et humanitatis. Rex Idumaeae est Christus ratione naturae mortalis assumtae, iuxta illud quod dicitur in Psalmop466-1: In Idumaeam extendam calceamentum meum. Ossa regis Idumaeae sunt sacramenta Christi occulta et difficiliora ad perscrutandum. Haec usque ad cinerem consumuntur, quando per ignem curiositatis adeo vult quis ea penetrare usque ad minima, ut devotio exstinguatur. — Et hoc quidem dicit Magister non esse faciendum, quia, cum loquimur de Christo quantum ad eius incarnationem et passionem, vel etiam cogitamus, repleri debemus devotione, ne, dum tam magna et immensa beneficia corde arido cogitamus, per elationem inflemur et per ingratitudinem arescamus. — Sed quis ad haec tam idoneus? Ideo sanum consilium reputo dicere cum Ioanne: Non sum dignus, ut solvam corrigiam calceamentorum eiusp466-2. Credo enim, quod huius calceamenti alligatura, quanto curiosius et audacius eam quis solvere voluerit, tanto strictius alligatur. Ideo sequendo Magistrum, finis imponatur circa sermonem de Christo quantum ad incarnationis et passionis mysterium, quod exsuperat omnem sensump466-3.
---
## DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.
Doubt I.
In this part are questions concerning the text, and first there is inquiry concerning what he says: The light of true Wisdom was illumining hell. For this seems to be false, because, just as darkness is repugnant to the empyrean heavenp464-6, so luminosity is repugnant to hell: therefore just as the empyrean heaven can never be darkened, so it seems that hell can never be illumined. — Likewise, the damned oughtp464-7 to be deprived of all consolation, and most of all the consolation which is in the sight of eternal light: therefore if that light was not corporeal — since he descended to hell without a body — but rather spiritual, it seems that it ought not to irradiate in hell.
I respond: It must be said that the matter is otherwise with the irradiation of material light and of spiritual light. For the irradiation of material light alters sight naturally, but the irradiation of spiritual light alters it voluntarily; hence no one sees it, except him to whom it shows itself voluntarily. And therefore that light is said to shine in hell and to have illumined hell, because it irradiated some out of hell, yet not all, because it did not will to illumine all, nor did all have proportioned eyes.
But to that which is objected concerning the empyrean, it must be said that there is no parallel: for although the good be wholly unmixed with evilp464-8, it is nevertheless not necessary that the evil be wholly unmixed with good. And therefore it befitted God to illumine those who were in darkness, yet not to darken those who were in lightp464-9.
Doubt II.
Likewise there is inquiry concerning what he says: Assuredly he was wholly in hell at the same time. For this seems false, because either this which is whole (totum) is referred to the nature, or to the person. To the nature it is not, because Christ according to his whole nature was not at once in heaven and in hell. If to the person, it still seems false, because above, in distinction sixp464-10, it was said that the person of Christ is composed of three substances and two natures; and that composition is inexplicable: therefore if the whole Christ was in heaven and in hell, it seems that those two natures would be at once in heaven and in hell; which is false and absurd. — Likewise, a difference can be assigned between this sign every (omne) and this sign whole (totum), because omne distributes for subjective parts, and totum for integral partsp464-11: therefore if Christ had integral parts only according to the human na-
ture; when it is said that the whole Christ was in heaven and in hell; this is implied of Christ according to the human nature, which is simply false for that time.
I respond: It must be said that this noun whole (totus) is sometimes taken as a signp465-1, sometimes as an adjective. According as it is taken as a sign, thus it distributes into certain parts, as when it is said: the whole Peter is white. According as it is taken as an adjective noun, thus whole (totum) in one way is said to be the same as perfect, in another way the same as having part and partp465-2. When therefore the Master says that Christ was wholly in heaven, whole there is said to be perfect, because the most perfect person of Christ was at once in heaven and on earth and in hell.
To that which is objected, that that person was composite; it must be said that it was neither properly composite, nor is this noun whole taken there collectively or distributively; because it does not signify collection or division, but rather perfectionp465-3. — And by this the reply to what follows is made clear.
Doubt III.
Likewise there is inquiry concerning what he says: He is wholly (totus) wherever he is, but not the whole (totum) of him. For those two seem to be incompossible, because totus and totum signify the same thing: therefore if totus was in heaven and in hell, it necessarily follows that totum. — Likewise, wherever I am, it is necessary that I be whole: therefore by parity of reasoning it seems so of Christ, because, wherever anything is, it is necessary that there be all that which is naturally in it.
I respond: It must be said that, as the Master subjoins, «totus is referred to the person, but totum to the naturep465-4». And the reason for this is the distinction of sex carried by the masculine gender, and the confusion carried by the neuter; and because the person of Christ according to its whole self, wherever it was, was whole, since it is single and most simple; but the nature, since it is not only simple in Christ, as being divine, but also composite, as being human, and the latter cannot be everywhere: therefore the Master concedes that totus was everywhere, but not totum, because totus is referred to the Deity, but totum to the Deity and the humanity.
To that, then, which is objected, that totus and totum signify the same thing; it must be said that this is true, so far as concerns the first imposition, but by reason of the distinction carried by the consignification of gender, in the manner ofp465-5 use the one has been wont to be referred to the person, and the other to the nature.
To that which is objected, that wherever I am, it is necessary that I be whole; it must be said that there is no parallel, because in me the person does not extend itself beyond the nature; but it is not so in Christ, as was said in the foregoingp465-6.
Doubt IV.
Likewise there is inquiry concerning what he says: No one ascends into heaven, except him who descended from heaven. For this seems to be false, because, if Christ alone descended from heaven: therefore Christ alone ascends into heaven, and no other; which is heretical to say. — Likewise, this seems false for another reason, when he is said to have descended from heaven: for either this is said according to the divine nature, or according to the human. According to the divine not, because according to it he does not change place; according to the human not, because according to it he was not in heaven.
I respond: It must be said that to ascend in one way is the same as to mount by one's own power without the support of another's power; and in this way it belongs to Christ alone. In another way to ascend is the same as to mount upward; and in this way it belongs to the other Saintsp465-7; but in the aforesaid authority it is taken in the first way. — Or otherwise: there is ascending into the empyrean heaven, and there is ascending into the heaven of the Trinityp465-8. When therefore it is said: No one ascends, etc.; this is not said with respect to ascent into the empyrean, but with respect to ascent into the heaven of the Trinity; and that ascent is not an ascent to a place, but rather to the dignity and equality of the Father. Nor is it according to the acquisition of a new dignity in Christ, but on account of the manifestation of that whichp465-9 he had from eternity. Hence just as he is said to have descended not because the Deity was diminished in him, but because in the assumption of the humanity it appeared diminished; so also he is said to have ascended, because in his ascension his sublimity was manifested. Hence that descent and ascent befitted the divine person according to the divine nature, yet as related to the human. — And by this the reply to both objections previously made is made clear; for each of them runs concerning local ascent and descentp465-10.
Doubt V.
Likewise there is inquiry concerning what he says: These things concerning the strap of the sandal, etc.: what is understood by the strap? and what by the sandal? and what by the king of Idumaea? and what by his bones?
I respond: It must be said that the sandal is the humanity of Christ, covering the foot of the Deity. But the strap of the sandal is the union of the Deity and the humanity. The king of Idumaea is Christ by reason of the assumed mortal nature, according to that which is said in the Psalmp466-1: Into Idumaea I will extend my sandal. The bones of the king of Idumaea are the sacraments of Christ, hidden and rather difficult to investigate. These are consumed unto ashes when, through the fire of curiosity, someone wishes so to penetrate them down to the least things that devotion is extinguished. — And this indeed the Master says is not to be done, because, when we speak of Christ as regards his incarnation and passion, or even think of it, we ought to be filled with devotion, lest, while we think of such great and immense benefits with a dry heart, we be puffed up through elation and dried up through ingratitude. — But who is so fit for these things? Therefore I reckon it sound counsel to say with John: I am not worthy to loose the strap of his sandalsp466-2. For I believe that the binding of this sandal, the more curiously and boldly someone shall wish to loose it, the more tightly it is bound. Therefore, following the Master, let an end be imposed upon the discourse concerning Christ as regards the mystery of the incarnation and the passion, which surpasses all understandingp466-3.
---
- Cfr. II. Sent. d. 2. p. II. a. I. q. I.Cf. II Sent., d. 2, p. II, a. 1, q. 1.
- Cod. H debuit, codd. K N Z debebat, cod. S debuerat.Codex H reads debuit, codices K N Z debebat, codex S debuerat.
- Cfr. II. Sent. d. I. p. I. a. 2. q. I. et d. 34. a. 1. q. I.Cf. II Sent., d. 1, p. I, a. 2, q. 1, and d. 34, a. 1, q. 1.
- Cfr. de hoc dubio B. Albert., hic a. 5; S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 2. quaestiunc. 1; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 2. quaestiunc. 1; Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. I.Cf. concerning this doubt B. Albert, here a. 5; St. Thomas, here q. 2, a. 2, little-question 1; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 2, little-question 1; Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2, q. 1.
- Lit. Magistri, c. 3. et Comment. a. I. q. 2. Ibid. a. 2. q. 2. ostenditur etiam, compositionem illam esse specialem. — Codd. allegant dist. 7, ubi Magister quaestionem in dist. 6. inceptam exsequitur et habet verba: inexplicabilis est istius unionis... ratio (c. 2.). Cfr. ibid. dub. I.Text of the Master, c. 3, and Commentary, a. 1, q. 2. In the same place, a. 2, q. 2, it is also shown that that composition is special. — The codices cite dist. 7, where the Master carries out the question begun in dist. 6 and has the words: the account of this union is inexplicable (c. 2). Cf. in the same place, dub. 1.
- Petr. Hispan., Summul. tr. de Distributione: Signorum distributivorum substantiae, alia sunt distributiva partium integralium, ut totus; alia sunt signa distributiva partium subiectivarum [sive inferiorum v. gr. speciei respectu generis], ut omnis, nullus. Cfr. Aristot., V. Metaph. text. 31. (IV. c. 26.); — Paulo superius pro contingit edd. convenit, cod. A exhibet consuevit.Peter of Spain, Summulae, tract On Distribution: «Of the distributive signs of substance, some are distributive of integral parts, as totus (whole); others are signs distributive of subjective parts [or of inferiors, e.g. of the species in respect of the genus], as omnis (every), nullus (none)». Cf. Aristotle, Metaphysics V, text 31 (IV, c. 26); — A little above, for contingit the editions read convenit, codex A exhibits consuevit.
- Cfr. supra pag. 142, nota 5. — Subinde codd. A K Z bb vocabulo adiectivum praefigunt nomen, et post pauca pro in aliquas [cod. O alias] partes Vat. substituit in omnes partes. In rem esse ducimus ex Petri Hispani Summul. tr. de Distributione (§ de hoc signo totus) afferre haec: totus Socrates est albus; est enim sensus: Socrates secundum quamlibet sui partem est albus. Unde ad istam: totus Socrates est albus, immediate sequitur ista: Socrates secundum quamlibet sui partem est albus, ad quam sequitur: quaelibet pars Socratis est alba etc.Cf. above, p. 142, note 5. — Thereupon codices A K Z bb prefix the noun to the word adiectivum, and shortly after, for in aliquas [codex O alias] partes the Vatican edition substitutes in omnes partes. We judge it to the point to adduce these things from Peter of Spain's Summulae, tract On Distribution (§ on this sign totus): the whole Socrates is white; for the sense is: Socrates according to each of his parts is white. Hence from this: the whole Socrates is white, there immediately follows this: Socrates according to each of his parts is white, from which follows: each part of Socrates is white, etc.
- Cfr. Aristot., III. Phys. text. 63. (c. 6.), et V. Metaph. text. 31. (IV. c. 26.), ubi duplex haec acceptio totius proponitur.Cf. Aristotle, Physics III, text 63 (c. 6), and Metaphysics V, text 31 (IV, c. 26), where this twofold acceptation of whole (totius) is set forth.
- Vide supra d. 5. dub. 3. — Huius dubii solutionem invenis etiam apud B. Albert., hic a. 3, et apud Petr. a Tar., hic circa lit.See above, d. 5, dub. 3. — The solution of this doubt you find also in B. Albert, here a. 3, and in Peter of Tarentaise, here on the text.
- Hic lit. c. 3.Here, text c. 3.
- Cod. A et ratione.Codex A reads et ratione.
- Quaest. 2, ubi etiam in scholio addito alii auctores nominantur, qui de hoc dubio tractant.Question 2, where also, in the added scholion, other authors are named who treat of this doubt.
- Cfr. August., in Ioan. Evang. tr. 12. n. 8. seq., et Serm. 263. (alias 174. de Tempore et 90. de Diversis) n. 3.Cf. Augustine, On the Gospel of John, tract 12, n. 8 f., and Sermon 263 (otherwise 174 On the Season and 90 On Diverse Matters), n. 3.
- Sive ad celsitudinem Divinitatis; de quo vide II. Sent. d. 2. p. II. dub. 2.Or to the loftiness of the Deity; concerning which see II Sent., d. 2, p. II, dub. 2.
- Codd. A Z bb perperam quam.Codices A Z bb wrongly read quam.
- Cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. XVIII. c. 3. et Comment. dub. 2. seq. Cfr. etiam Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 23. m. 4. et 6; B. Albert., hic a. 7. seqq.; S. Thom., hic q. 3; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3; Richard. a Med., hic a. 4. q. 2.Cf. above, text of the Master, d. XVIII, c. 3, and Commentary, dub. 2 f. Cf. also Alexander of Hales, Summa, p. III, q. 23, m. 4 and 6; B. Albert, here a. 7 ff.; St. Thomas, here q. 3; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 3; Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 4, q. 2.
- Psalm. 59, 10. Gregor., I. Homil. in Evang. homil. 7. n. 3: Quis enim nesciat, quod calceamenta ex mortuis animalibus fiunt? Incarnatus vero Dominus veniens quasi calceatus apparuit, quia in Divinitate sua morticina nostrae corruptionis assumsit. Unde etiam per Prophetam dicit: In Idumaeam extendam calceamentum meum. Per Idumaeam quippe gentilitas, per calceamentum vero assumta mortalitas designatur. In Idumaeam ergo Dominus calceamentum suum se extendere asserit, quia, dum per carnem gentibus innotuit, quasi calceata ad nos Divinitas venit. Sed huius incarnationis mysterium humanus oculus penetrare non sufficit... Corrigia ergo calceamenti est ligatura mysterii. Ioannes itaque solvere corrigiam calceamenti eius non valet, quia incarnationis eius mysterium nec ipse investigare sufficit, qui hanc per prophetiae spiritum agnovit. Quid est ergo dicere: Non sum dignus solvere corrigiam calceamenti eius (Marc. 1, 7.), nisi aperte et humiliter suam ignorantiam profiteri? — Hieronym., exponens illud Amos 2, 1: Eo quod incenderit ossa regis Idumaeae usque ad cinerem, ait: Sic ossa regis Idumaeae comburere non debemus et in cinerem favillamque dissolvere. Iudaei transferunt intelligentiam spiritualem in carnes Idumaeas, sensumque regium, qui versatur in littera et est solidissimus atque firmissimus, genealogiis quibusdam et traditionibus superfluis enervant atque comminuunt et in pulverem rediguni; et non solum illi hoc faciunt, sed omnes haeretici etc.Psalm 59[58]:10. Gregory, Homilies on the Gospel, bk. I, homily 7, n. 3: «For who would not know that sandals are made from dead animals? But the Lord, coming incarnate, appeared as it were shod, because in his Deity he took up the dead remains of our corruption. Hence also through the Prophet he says: Into Idumaea I will extend my sandal. For by Idumaea the Gentile world, but by the sandal the assumed mortality, is designated. Into Idumaea therefore the Lord asserts that he extends his sandal, because, when he became known to the Gentiles through the flesh, the Deity came to us as it were shod. But the human eye does not suffice to penetrate the mystery of this incarnation... The strap of the sandal, therefore, is the binding of the mystery. And so John is not able to loose the strap of his sandal, because not even he suffices to investigate the mystery of his incarnation, who recognized it through the spirit of prophecy. What then is it to say: I am not worthy to loose the strap of his sandal (Mark 1:7), except openly and humbly to profess his own ignorance?» — Jerome, expounding that text of Amos 2:1: Because he burned the bones of the king of Idumaea unto ashes, says: «Thus we ought not to burn the bones of the king of Idumaea and dissolve them into ash and embers. The Jews transfer the spiritual understanding into the Idumaean flesh, and the royal sense, which abides in the letter and is most solid and most firm, they enervate and crush by certain genealogies and superfluous traditions and reduce to dust; and not only do they do this, but all heretics» etc.
- Marc. 1, 7; Ioan. 1, 27. — Paulo ante edd., pluribus omissis, sed sanum consilium reputet dicere cum Ioanne; cod. C cum quis [quidem?] ad hoc nullus sit idoneus, ideo sanum etc. Paulo inferius pro strictius cod. Y fortius, edd. arctius, quae et subinde pro Magistrum exhibent medium.Mark 1:7; John 1:27. — A little before, the editions, with several things omitted, read but let him reckon it sound counsel to say with John; codex C since no one [indeed?] is fit for this, therefore sound etc. A little below, for strictius codex Y reads fortius, the editions arctius, which also thereupon for Magistrum exhibit medium.
- Phil. 4, 7. — Cfr. de hoc dubio B. Albert., hic a. 11; S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.Phil. 4:7. — Cf. concerning this doubt B. Albert, here a. 11; St. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise, and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text.