Bonaventure — Opera Omnia

Dist. 46, Art. 1, Q. 1

Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 46

Textus Latinus

p. 956

Articulus I. De mitigatione poenae malorum.

Quaestio I. Utrum per suffragia Ecclesiae aliqua mitigatio fiat damnatis.

The numbered footnotes below are page-qualified because Quaracchi restarts its footer numbering on every printed page: notes 4 and 5 of page 956, notes 1 through 11 of page 957, and notes 1 through 4 of page 958. Notes 1 through 3 of page 956 anchor in the preceding divisio chunk and are rendered there.

Quantum ergo ad primum sic proceditur, et ostenditur, quod per suffragia Ecclesiae aliqua mitigatio fiat damnatis:

1. Primo per Augustinum in Enchiridio⁴, qui dicit, quod «quibus prosunt vel ad hoc prosunt, ut plena fiat remissio, vel ut tolerabilior sit eis damnatio»: ergo si damnatio est in damnatis, videtur, quod illa possit mitigari.

2. Item, Augustinus⁵ dicit, quod poena Arii non est determinata, quia augetur, secundum quod peccantes suo errore multiplicantur; sed Deus pronior est ad miserandum quam ad condemnandum: ergo si in statu, in quo sunt, potest eorum poena augeri, potest et minui.

p. 957

3. Item, impossibile est, multorum preces non exaudiri; sed Ecclesia orat pro omnibus baptizatis¹ et fidelibus, qui moriuntur, de quibus non constat, quod vadant in infernum; sed multi talium damnantur: ergo si Ecclesia non frustra orat, patet etc.

4. Item, ratione videtur: quia plus placet Deo improportionaliter poena, quam quis sustinet voluntarius, quam illa quam quis sustinet invitus²; sed damnatus poenam sustinet invitus, aliquis vir iustus, qui ei suffragatur, pro eo sustinet voluntarius: ergo iste plus solvit Deo pro illo patiendo, quam ille pro se: ergo si Dominus dimittit quod minus placet pro eo quod magis; patet etc.

5. Item, iste punit se ex caritate et pro eo qui est in inferno: ergo Deus acceptat hanc poenam pro illo; sed non punit bis in id ipsum³: ergo etc.

Contra:

1. Augustinus de Cura pro mortuis agenda⁴ dicit, quod «Ecclesiae suffragia pro valde bonis sunt gratiarum actiones, pro valde malis sunt qualescumque vivorum consolationes»: ergo non prosunt valde malis; sed valde mali sunt qui sunt in inferno: ergo etc.

2. Item, auctoritas dicit⁵, quod «in inferno nulla est redemptio», et Ecclesia istud cantat: ergo si nulla redemptio est ibi, videtur, quod nulla sit mitigatio.

3. Item, Ecclesia non facit suffragia pro damnatis; quod patet, quia in Corpore Christi, in quo est specialiter suffragium defunctorum, ut dicit Magister supra distinctione duodecima⁶, non fit memoria nisi pro vivis, et illis qui sunt in purgatorio, et qui sunt in paradiso; sed faceret, si damnatis prodesset: ergo etc.

4. Item, ratione videtur: quia damnati non sunt ex caritate diligendi; quod patet, quia non sunt ordinati ad vitam: ergo cum caritas faciat suffragium acceptabile, nullum suffragium pro eis factum Deo est acceptum: ergo nec debet pro eis fieri⁷.

5. Item, suffragia facta pro Beatis, quia sunt in termino, non augent gloriam: ergo cum damnati similiter sint in termino, non minuunt eis poenam.

6. Item, quod non minuit de culpa nec de poena, quia tantae culpae debetur⁸ tanta poena; sed damnatorum culpa non potest minui: ergo etc.

7. Item, si minuat, aut extensive, aut intensive. Si intensive: ergo cum non sit intensione infinita, tota poterit auferri per suffragia. Si ergo extensive; sed infinita est extensione, et ab infinito nihil adimitur. Si dicas, quod est finita ex parte ante, et ex illa est diminutio, quia est poenae dilatio: ergo tunc «dedecus peccati est sine decore iustitiae⁹».

Conclusio

Suffragia damnatis non prosunt, nec Ecclesia intendit pro eis rogare.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod aliquorum fuit positio, ut magistri Praepositivi¹⁰, quod suffragia damnatis prosunt, non tamen omnibus, quia non valde malis, sed mediocriter, ut puta illis qui habuerunt opera bona, per quae merentur ab aliis adiuvari. Sed in modo positionis diversificati sunt.

Nam quidam dicunt, quod prosunt ad dimissionem¹¹ poenae quantum ad interpolationem; et ideo non totaliter aufertur, sed solum ad modicum temporis. — Sed ista positio non videtur conveniens. Cum enim deordinatio culpae non recipiat intermissionem, quomodo reordinatio poenae recipiet?

p. 958

Ideo dicunt alii, quod fit remissio simpliciter, non ad tempus; sed tamen nunquam tota poena aufertur, quia fit ablatio secundum proportionem geometricam, non secundum proportionem arithmeticam¹, id est, quando fit, remittitur primo aliquota pars poenae, in secunda vice adimitur tantum, non secundum quantitatem, sed secundum proportionem, ut si primo aufertur centesima pars, similiter et secundo et tertio centesima pars eius quod remanet; et ideo semper remanet. — Sed certe istud non solvit, quia suffragia sequentia non minus valent quam praecedentia: ergo tantundem de poena faciunt remitti secundum quantitatem poenae remissae.

Ideo dicunt tertii, quod prosunt non in ablationem² totalis poenae nec ad ablationem de parte poenae diminuendo puniens, sed fortificando subiectum, ut melius et tolerabilius portet. — Sed ista opinio non videtur posse stare: quia, si fortificatur, aut fortitudine gratiae, aut naturae; non gratiae, hoc constat; non naturae, quia haec fortitudo non est a natura: ergo nullo modo.

Ideo est aliorum opinio communior et verior, quod suffragia damnatis non prosunt, nec Ecclesia intendit orare pro eis.

Ad argumenta pro parte affirmativa:

1. Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur in contrarium, quod prosunt ad tolerabiliorem damnationem; dicendum, quod non intelligit de damnatione facta in inferno, ubi nulla est redemptio, sed in purgatorio. Et vult dicere, quod illis dupliciter prosunt: vel liberando, ut illos qui parum habent de cremabili; vel mitigando quantum ad illos qui multum³.

2. Ad aliud dicendum, quod non est simile: quia remissio debet fundari super fundamentum caritatis; et quoniam Arius habet malam voluntatem, ideo potest augeri poena eius et non remitti.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod multorum preces exaudiuntur; dicendum, quod ubi constaret Ecclesiae, quod esset damnatus, non oraret; sed non constat, ergo orat, quia aut valet, si non est damnatus; aut si est damnatus, revertitur in sinu suo⁴.

4. 5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod plus placet Deo poena voluntaria quam involuntaria; dicendum, quod est verum, unde Deus remunerat virum iustum pro illa poena; sed ista poena voluntaria non potest assumi nec acceptari pro eo qui non habet caritatem. Et ideo patet sequens.

Scholion

I. Praepositivus in corp. citatus, postquam circa finem suae Summae in quaest. de igne purgatorii retulit opinionem nunc communem, prosequitur: «Aliis videtur, quorum sententia communior est, quod et illis qui sunt in inferno mediocriter mali, prosunt orationes et alia ad mitiorem poenam» (quod multiplici distinctione termini mereri explanare et defendere studet); deinde addit, quod «una et eadem [Ecclesiae] oratio valet uni ad remissionem, alii ad mitigationem». Ad obiectionem, quod hoc modo tota poena possit tolli; dicit, eam minui posse, sed non tolli; «et si concederetur, quod meritis Ecclesiae usque ad diem iudicii poena tolli [supple: possit], ultra tamen non posset. Sed nec vermis malae conscientiae posset ei ab Ecclesia mitigari. Haec sententia mansuetior, sed prima facilior». — Secundam opinionem hic relatam de modo talis mitigationis poenarum, quae scil. fiat non secundum eandem quantitatem, sed secundum eandem proportionem, teste S. Thoma (supra d. 45. q. 2. a. 2. quaestiunc. 1; Suppl. q. 71. a. 5.), tenuerunt sequaces Gilberti Porretani, cuius errores quidam in Concilio Rhemensi sub Eugenio III. reprobati sunt. — Tertius vero modus a S. Thoma tribuitur Antissiodorensi, qui re vera (Sum. p. IV. tr. 14. q. 1.) prolixe pro utraque opinione argumenta affert et solvit; attamen in fine concludit: «Dicimus sine praeiudicio melioris sententiae, quod illa quae dicit, quod suffragia [damnatis] non prosunt, probabilior est et magis consonat divinis eloquiis»; nec in editione citatae Summae mentio fit illius modi, quem S. Thom. auctori tribuit.

De 1. et 2. quaestione praeter S. Thomam: Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 39. m. 3. a. 3. 4. — Scot., supra d. 21. n. 13. — B. Albert., hic a. 1. 2. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 4. a. 1. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 1. 4. — Durand., supra d. 45. q. 2. — Dionys. Carth., de toto art. hic q. 1. 2.

II. De 3. quaestione S. Thom. cum plerisque aliis commentatoribus Lombardi non agit specialiter, tamen in sequente quaestione in solut. ad 2. cum S. Bonav. docet, respectu effectus Deum misericordius agere cum uno quam cum alio. — In solutione 4. quaestionis cum eodem negat, Deum iustius agere cum uno quam cum alio, licet maiorem poenam vel minorem inferat uni quam alii, sive, ut auctor noster ait, licet magis vel minus severe agat. — De 3. et 4. q. Alex. Hal., loc. cit. et a. 5.

De 4. praecipue quaestione: S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 2. quaestiunc. 4. — Petr. a Tar. rem tangit hic q. 3. a. 1. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 4.

---

English Translation

Article I. On the mitigation of the punishment of the wicked.

Question I. Whether through the suffrages of the Church any mitigation is granted to the damned.

As regards the first, one proceeds thus, and it is shown that through the suffrages of the Church some mitigation is granted to the damned:

1. First, through Augustine in the Enchiridion⁴, who says that "those to whom they are of profit, are profited either to this end, that full remission be made, or that their damnation be more tolerable": therefore, if damnation is in the damned, it seems that it can be mitigated.

2. Likewise, Augustine⁵ says that the punishment of Arius is not fixed, because it is increased in proportion as those who sin by his error are multiplied; but God is more inclined to have mercy than to condemn: therefore, if in the state in which they are their punishment can be increased, it can also be diminished.

p. 957

3. Likewise, it is impossible that the prayers of many should not be heard; but the Church prays for all the baptized¹ and the faithful who die, concerning whom it is not established that they go to hell; yet many such are damned: therefore, if the Church does not pray in vain, the point is plain, etc.

4. Likewise, it seems so by reason: because a punishment which someone bears willingly pleases God disproportionately more than that which someone bears unwillingly²; but the damned man bears his punishment unwillingly, while some just man who offers suffrage for him bears it willingly on his behalf: therefore this man pays God more by suffering for that one than that one pays for himself: therefore, if the Lord remits what pleases less on account of what pleases more, the point is plain, etc.

5. Likewise, this man punishes himself out of charity and on behalf of him who is in hell: therefore God accepts this punishment for him; but He does not punish twice for the same thing³: therefore, etc.

On the contrary:

1. Augustine, On the Care to Be Had for the Dead⁴, says that "the suffrages of the Church are, for the very good, acts of thanksgiving; for the very wicked they are consolations of some kind for the living": therefore they do not profit the very wicked; but the very wicked are those who are in hell: therefore, etc.

2. Likewise, the authority says⁵ that "in hell there is no redemption", and the Church sings this: therefore, if there is no redemption there, it seems that there is no mitigation.

3. Likewise, the Church does not make suffrages for the damned; which is plain, because in the Body of Christ, in which there is especially the suffrage of the dead, as the Master says above in the twelfth distinction⁶, no memorial is made except for the living, and for those who are in purgatory, and for those who are in paradise; but it would do so if it profited the damned: therefore, etc.

4. Likewise, it seems so by reason: because the damned are not to be loved out of charity; which is plain, because they are not ordered to life: therefore, since charity makes a suffrage acceptable, no suffrage made for them is acceptable to God: therefore neither ought it to be made for them⁷.

5. Likewise, suffrages made for the Blessed do not increase their glory, because they are at their term: therefore, since the damned are likewise at their term, they do not diminish their punishment.

6. Likewise, what does not diminish anything of guilt does not diminish anything of punishment either, because to so great a guilt so great a punishment is owed⁸; but the guilt of the damned cannot be diminished: therefore, etc.

7. Likewise, if it diminishes, it does so either extensively or intensively. If intensively: therefore, since it is not infinite in intensity, the whole could be taken away by suffrages. If therefore extensively: but it is infinite in extension, and from the infinite nothing is taken away. If you say that it is finite on the side of the prior, and that the diminution comes from that, because it is a deferral of punishment: therefore then "the disgrace of sin is without the comeliness of justice⁹".

Conclusion

Suffrages do not profit the damned, nor does the Church intend to pray for them.

I respond: It must be said that it was the position of some, such as master Praepositivus¹⁰, that suffrages profit the damned, yet not all of them, because not the very wicked, but the moderately wicked — such, for instance, as had good works, by which they merit to be helped by others. But they differed in the manner of the position.

For some say that they profit toward a remission¹¹ of punishment as regards interpolation; and therefore it is not taken away wholly, but only for a short space of time. — But this position does not seem fitting. For since the disorder of guilt does not admit of intermission, how shall the reordering of punishment admit of it?

p. 958

Therefore others say that remission is made simply, not for a time; yet nevertheless the whole punishment is never taken away, because the removal is made according to geometrical proportion, not according to arithmetical proportion¹ — that is, when it happens, an aliquot part of the punishment is first remitted; on the second occasion just as much is taken away, not according to quantity, but according to proportion, so that if at first a hundredth part is taken away, likewise on the second and third occasion a hundredth part of what remains; and therefore something always remains. — But surely this does not solve the difficulty, because subsequent suffrages are not worth less than preceding ones: therefore they cause just as much of the punishment to be remitted according to the quantity of the punishment remitted.

Therefore a third group say that they profit not toward the removal² of the whole punishment, nor toward a removal of part of the punishment by diminishing what punishes, but by strengthening the subject, so that it may bear it better and more tolerably. — But this opinion does not seem able to stand: because, if it is strengthened, it is either by the strength of grace or of nature; not of grace, this is agreed; not of nature, because this strength is not from nature: therefore in no way.

Therefore the opinion of others is more common and more true, namely that suffrages do not profit the damned, nor does the Church intend to pray for them.

To the arguments for the affirmative part:

1. To that, then, which is first objected to the contrary, that they profit toward a more tolerable damnation; it must be said that he does not understand it of the damnation inflicted in hell, where there is no redemption, but in purgatory. And he means to say that they profit those in two ways: either by freeing, as those who have little that is combustible; or by mitigating, as regards those who have much³.

2. To the other it must be said that the case is not alike: because remission ought to be founded upon the foundation of charity; and since Arius has an evil will, therefore his punishment can be increased and not remitted.

3. To that which is objected, that the prayers of many are heard; it must be said that where it were established to the Church that a man was damned, it would not pray; but it is not established, therefore it prays, because either it avails, if he is not damned; or, if he is damned, it returns into her own bosom⁴.

4. 5. To that which is objected, that a voluntary punishment pleases God more than an involuntary one; it must be said that this is true, whence God rewards the just man for that punishment; but that voluntary punishment cannot be taken up nor accepted on behalf of him who does not have charity. And thus what follows is plain.

Scholion

I. Praepositivus, cited in the body, after he had, toward the end of his Summa in the question on the fire of purgatory, reported the opinion now common, goes on: "It seems to others, whose opinion is more common, that prayers and other things profit even those who are in hell as moderately wicked, toward a milder punishment" (which he strives to explain and defend by a manifold distinction of the term to merit); then he adds that "one and the same prayer [of the Church] avails for one man toward remission, for another toward mitigation". To the objection that in this way the whole punishment could be taken away, he says that it can be diminished, but not taken away; "and if it were granted that by the merits of the Church the punishment could be taken away up to the day of judgment, beyond that it nevertheless could not. But neither could the worm of an evil conscience be mitigated for him by the Church. This opinion is gentler, but the first is easier." — The second opinion reported here concerning the manner of such mitigation of punishments — namely, that it takes place not according to the same quantity, but according to the same proportion — was held, on the testimony of St. Thomas (above, d. 45, q. 2, a. 2, quaestiuncula 1; Suppl. q. 71, a. 5), by the followers of Gilbert de la Porrée, certain of whose errors were reprobated in the Council of Rheims under Eugene III. — The third manner, however, is attributed by St. Thomas to the Auxerrean, who in fact (Summa p. IV, tr. 14, q. 1) at length brings forward and solves arguments for both opinions; yet at the end he concludes: "We say, without prejudice to a better opinion, that the view which says that suffrages do not profit [the damned] is more probable and accords better with the divine utterances"; nor in the edition of the cited Summa is any mention made of that manner which St. Thomas attributes to its author.

On questions 1 and 2, besides St. Thomas: Alexander of Hales, Summa p. I, q. 39, m. 3, a. 3, 4. — Scotus, above, d. 21, n. 13. — Bl. Albert, here a. 1, 2. — Peter of Tarantaise, here q. 4, a. 1, 2. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 2, q. 1, 4. — Durandus, above, d. 45, q. 2. — Denis the Carthusian, on the whole article, here q. 1, 2.

II. On question 3, St. Thomas, with most of the other commentators on Lombard, does not treat of it specially; nevertheless in the following question, in the solution to the second, he teaches with St. Bonaventure that with respect to the effect God acts more mercifully with one than with another. — In the solution of the fourth question he denies with the same, that God acts more justly with one than with another, although He inflicts a greater or a lesser punishment on one than on another — or, as our author says, although He acts more or less severely. — On questions 3 and 4, Alexander of Hales, in the place cited, and a. 5.

On the fourth question especially: St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 2, quaestiuncula 4. — Peter of Tarantaise touches on the matter here, q. 3, a. 1, 2. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 1, q. 4.

---

Apparatus Criticus

4
Cap. 110, n. 29. Vide supra lit. Magistri, d. XLV. c. 2. — Inferius pro ergo si damnatio edd. ergo si punitio.
Ch. 110, n. 29. See above in the text of the Master, d. XLV, c. 2. — Below, for ergo si damnatio the editions read ergo si punitio.
5
Hanc sententiam, quae etiam Hieron. tribuitur, Guliel. Antissiod., S. p. IV. tr. 14. q. 1, sic exhibet: «Item dicit Augustinus, quod incerta est poena Arii, quia incertum est, quot per eius doctrinam fuerint subvertendi». Illum locum inveniendum relinquimus aliis. — De minori, in qua plures codd. miserendum pro miserandum, vide supra pag. 333, nota 3. — Subinde pro ergo si multi codd. sed si, inter quos cod. K post augeri addit ergo.
This opinion, which is also attributed to Jerome, William of Auxerre (Summa p. IV, tr. 14, q. 1) presents thus: "Likewise Augustine says that the punishment of Arius is uncertain, because it is uncertain how many will have been subverted by his teaching." We leave the finding of that passage to others. — On the minor premiss, in which several codices read miserendum for miserandum, see above, p. 333, note 3. — Thereafter, for ergo si many codices read sed si, among which cod. K after augeri adds ergo.
1
Ex cod. aa substituimus baptizatis pro damnatis, cod. P omittit baptizatis et.
From cod. aa we have substituted baptizatis for damnatis; cod. P omits baptizatis et.
2
Rationem vide supra d. 20. p. I. q. 2. circa finem corp.
For the reason see above, d. 20, p. I, q. 2, near the end of the body.
3
Nahum 1, 9. Cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. XV. c. 1. — Superius ante pro eo codd. M U omittunt et.
Nahum 1:9. Compare above, the text of the Master, d. XV, c. 1. — Above, before pro eo, codices M and U omit et.
4
Potius Enchirid. c. 110. n. 29, supra in lit. Magistri, d. XLV. c. 2, allegatum. Loco a S. Bonav. citato c. 1. n. 2. et c. 18. n. 22. invenitur conclusio: Sunt enim quos nihil omnino adiuvant ista, sive pro eis fiant, quorum tam mala sunt merita, ut neque talibus digni sint adiuvari etc.
Rather the Enchiridion, c. 110, n. 29, cited above in the text of the Master, d. XLV, c. 2. In the place cited by St. Bonaventure, c. 1, n. 2, and c. 18, n. 22, this conclusion is found: For there are those whom these things help not at all, even if they are done for them, whose merits are so evil that they are not worthy to be helped by such things, etc.
5
Cod. aa subiungit: secundum Septuaginta, ubi dicitur septimo Iob (v. 9.): Sicut consumitur nubes et pertransit, sic qui descenderit ad inferos, non ascendet (translatio Septuaginta interpretum: Tanquam nubes expurgata de caelo; si enim homo descenderit ad infernum, ultra non ascendet). Cfr. supra pag. 939, nota 7.
Cod. aa adds: according to the Septuagint, where it is said in the seventh chapter of Job (v. 9): As a cloud is consumed and passes away, so he who has descended to the lower regions shall not come up (the translation of the Seventy interpreters: Like a cloud swept clean from the sky; for if a man has descended to hell, he shall not come up again). Compare above, p. 939, note 7.
6
Cap. 4. Cfr. ibid. Comment. p. I. a. 3. q. 3, ubi agitur de significatione trium partium hostiae fractae in Missa, ad quam respiciens cod. aa inferius post paradiso addit: et ob haec tres partes fiunt.
Ch. 4. Compare there the Commentary, p. I, a. 3, q. 3, where the signification of the three parts of the broken host in the Mass is treated; with reference to which cod. aa below, after paradiso, adds: and on this account three parts are made.
7
Vide August., XXI. de Civ. Dei, c. 24. n. 1. seq.
See Augustine, City of God XXI, c. 24, n. 1 f.
8
Plures codd. defertur.
Several codices read defertur.
9
August., III. de Lib. Arb. c. 15. n. 44: Nullo autem temporis intervallo ista dividuntur... ut sit in ea peccati dedecus sine decore vindictae. — De infinito cfr. Aristot., VI. Phys. text. 61. seqq. (c. 7.). — Superius ex codd. G L aa bb supplevimus tota. Pro Si ergo cod. L Si vero, cod. G Si, et pro quia est cod. V quae est.
Augustine, On Free Choice III, c. 15, n. 44: But these are divided by no interval of time... so that in it there should be the disgrace of sin without the comeliness of vengeance. — On the infinite, compare Aristotle, Physics VI, text 61 ff. (c. 7). — Above, from codices G, L, aa, bb we have supplied tota. For Si ergo cod. L reads Si vero, cod. G Si; and for quia est cod. V reads quae est.
10
Vide scholion ad hanc quaest. — De valde et mediocriter malis vide supra lit. Magistri, d. XLV. c. 2. — Inferius pro per quae cod. L propter quae.
See the scholion on this question. — On the very and the moderately wicked see above, the text of the Master, d. XLV, c. 2. — Below, for per quae cod. L reads propter quae.
11
Codd. O R T aa diminutionem. Inferius pro sed solum codd. G L (E a secunda manu) quia aufertur solum, cod. aa sed aufertur solum, cod. K (I a secunda manu) vero post temporis addit mitigatur. Subinde pro reordinatio codd. I K M ordinatio, alii et ed. 1 perperam deordinatio.
Codices O, R, T, aa read diminutionem. Below, for sed solum codices G, L (E by a second hand) read quia aufertur solum, cod. aa sed aufertur solum, while cod. K (I by a second hand) after temporis adds mitigatur. Thereafter, for reordinatio codices I, K, M read ordinatio; the others and ed. 1 wrongly deordinatio.
1
De duplici hac proportione cfr. Boeth., II. de Arithmet. c. 40. seqq. — Secuti sumus cod. bb, dum alii codd. et ed. 1 legunt: secundum proportionem arithmeticam, non secundum proportionem geometricam, quam falsam lectionem (cfr. B. Albert., hic a. 2, et S. Thom., d. 45. q. 2. a. 2. quaestiunc. 1.) Vat. correxit sic: non secundum proportionem arithmeticam, sed secundum etc. Inferius pro eius quod remanet, quod praebent codd. E G L aa, alii codd. eius remanet, vel eius, pro remanet, edd. eiusdem partis remanet.
On this twofold proportion compare Boethius, On Arithmetic II, c. 40 ff. — We have followed cod. bb, while the other codices and ed. 1 read: according to arithmetical proportion, not according to geometrical proportion — a false reading (compare Bl. Albert, here a. 2, and St. Thomas, d. 45, q. 2, a. 2, quaestiuncula 1) which the Vatican edition corrected thus: not according to arithmetical proportion, but according to etc. Below, for eius quod remanet, which codices E, G, L, aa provide, other codices read eius remanet, or eius, pro remanet; the editions eiusdem partis remanet.
2
Plures codd. ad ablationem (cod. H absolutionem).
Several codices read ad ablationem (cod. H absolutionem).
3
Cfr. supra d. 15. p. I. q. 6. in corp.
Compare above, d. 15, p. I, q. 6, in the body.
4
Respicitur Ps. 34, 13: Et oratio mea in sinu meo convertetur. Cfr. August., XXI. de Civ. Dei, c. 24. n. 1. — Edd. in sinum suum. Superius pro quod ubi cod. R quodsi.
Reference is made to Ps. 34:13: And my prayer shall be turned into my bosom. Compare Augustine, City of God XXI, c. 24, n. 1. — The editions read in sinum suum. Above, for quod ubi cod. R reads quodsi. ---