title: Dist. 15, Art. 2, Q. 3

source_text:
<!-- page 339 -->

### Quaestio III. *Utrum in Christo fuerit passio vel affectio irae.*

Tertio quaeritur, utrum in Christo fuerit passio vel affectio irae. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. In quocumque est ponere zelum vindictae, est ponere motum irae; sed in Christo fuit zelus vindictae, sicut patet, quando eiecit ementes et vendentes de templo[^p339-6]: ergo videtur, quod habuit in se affectionem irae.

2. Item, detestari malum non est aliud quam irasci malo; sed in Christo fuit mali detestatio perfecta: ergo in Christo fuit passio, quae est ira.

3. Item, sicut rationalis ordinatur ad discutiendum, sic irascibilis ordinatur ad irascendum: ergo sicut in Christo ex parte rationalis fuit usus prudentiae, sic ex parte irascibilis fuit affectio irae.

4. Item, plus competit ira statui viae quam statui patriae; sed Dominus in die iudicii irascetur malis, ut saepe in Scriptura dicitur: ergo multo fortius affectum irae habuit in statu viatoris.

**Sed contra:** 1. Super illud Iob quinto[^p339-10]: *Virum stultum interficit iracundia;* Gregorius: « Ira per vitium oculum mentis excaecat, ira per zelum turbat »; sed oculus mentis in Christo nec excaecari potuit nec turbari, cum in ipso esset in continuo usu contemplationis: ergo non videtur, quod in eo aliqua affectio irae fuerit.

2. Item, Damascenus[^p339-11] definiens iram dicit, quod « ira est vindex laesae concupiscentiae »; et iterum, quod « ira est desiderium repunitionis »; sed in Christo nec fuit laesio concupiscentiae nec amor vindictae: ergo nec in eo fuit passio irae.

3. Item, Christus ita fuit perfecte mitis, sicut et humilis[^p339-12]; sed in Christo ita fuit perfecta humilitas, quod nulla fuit superbia: ergo ita fuit perfecta mansuetudo, quod nulla ira.

4. Item, « ira secundum naturam est accensio sanguinis circa cor, secundum quod vult Philosophus[^p339-13] et Damascenus, ex evaporatione fellis »: ergo si hoc dicit passionem foedam, quae habet secum inquietationem et perturbationem coniunctam; videtur, quod talis passio in Christo non sit ponenda.

<!-- page 340 -->

### Conclusio.

> In Christo fuit affectus irae, prout dicit affectum detestationis et commotionem partis sensualis, quae tamen subiecta est rationi.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod ira uno modo dicit pure *affectionem*[^p340-1], et sic dicitur ira affectus detestationis alicuius mali, vel apparentis mali. Alio modo ira dicit affectum cum poena; et sic ira habet perturbationem et inquietationem annexam. Hoc autem potest esse in triplici differentia: quia aut perturbatio illa solum tangit *potentias inferiores* et nullo modo tangit *oculum mentis;* aut tangit *oculum mentis* ad tempus turbando, sed non excaecando[^p340-2]; aut *oculum mentis* attingit ipsum perturbando et obnubilando. Et secundum hoc motus irae in quadruplici differentia reperitur, secundum quod colligitur ex dictis Sanctorum: uno modo pure dicit affectum detestationis; et hoc modo potuisset esse in Adam in statu innocentiae[^p340-3]. — Alio modo dicit motum detestationis cum inquietatione et perturbatione partis sensualis sine aliqua perturbatione mentis, et hoc modo fuit in Christo affectio irae; sicut enim dicit Evangelium[^p340-4]: *Infremendo conturbavit semetipsum.* — Tertio modo dicit affectum detestationis cum commotione et perturbatione non solum partis sensualis, sed etiam rationis ad tempus; et hoc modo reperitur ira in viris iustis, qui irascuntur ira per zelum, de quibus dicit Gregorius[^p340-5], quod « inde mens perturbata proficit, ut clarescat; sicut oculus per collyrium immissum ad tempus turbatur, ut postmodum clarior efficiatur ». — Quarto modo ira dicit affectum detestationis cum commotione sensualitatis et etiam mentis, ita quod commotio illa habet secum perturbationem mentis annexam, vel ad illam est ordinata; et sic est ira per vitium, et reperitur in peccatoribus et prohibetur a Domino[^p340-6].

Et per hanc distinctionem patet responsio ad quaestionem et ad rationes ad utramque partem. Quodam enim modo fuit in Christo passio irae sive affectio irae, videlicet prout dicit affectum detestationis et commotionem partis sensualis, quae tamen subiecta est rationi. Et sic procedunt rationes ad primam partem inductae probantes, affectionem irae in Christo fuisse, ut aspicienti patet; et ideo sunt concedendae. Quodam etiam modo non fuit, videlicet prout dicit perturbationem oculi mentalis, et prout dicit affectum repunitionis, in quantum ille affectus est ex libidine vindictae, non ex zelo iustitiae; sic enim est passio perturbans.

**Ad oppositorum solutionem:**

*Ad 1. 2.* Et hoc modo procedunt duae primae rationes ad secundam partem; et propterea secundum illam viam verum concludunt et concedi possunt.

*Ad 3.* Ad illud vero quod obiicitur, quod in Christo nulla fuit superbia, ergo nulla debuit esse ira, quia fuit perfectus in mansuetudine sicut in humilitate; dicendum, quod non est simile, quia superbia directe nominat vitium, et ideo semper oppositum habet cum humilitate, et propterea non potest stare cum perfecta humilitate. Ira autem non semper nominat vitium, immo etiam nominat virtutem; ideo non sic oppositionem[^p340-7] habet cum mansuetudine. Et propter hoc non sequitur, quod si fuit perfectae mansuetudinis, quod propter hoc non habuerit affectionem irae.

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod ira est ex accensione[^p340-8] sanguinis circa cor; dicendum, quod illud verum est in nobis, in quibus caro repugnat spiritui, et sensualitas rationi, qui non tantum habemus corruptionem poenalitatis, immo etiam foeditatis; hoc autem non oportet esse in Christo. — Si quis tamen diceret, in Christo fuisse accensionem sanguinis, sed moderate, non videtur esse inconveniens[^p340-9].

---

english:
<!-- page 339 -->

### Question III. *Whether in Christ there was a passion or affection of anger.*

Thirdly it is asked, whether in Christ there was a passion or affection of anger. And that there was, it seems.

1. In whomever there is to be posited a zeal for vengeance, there is to be posited a movement of anger; but in Christ there was a zeal for vengeance, as is clear, when he cast out those buying and selling from the temple[^p339-6]: therefore it seems that he had in himself an affection of anger.

2. Likewise, to detest evil is nothing other than to be angry at evil; but in Christ there was a perfect detestation of evil: therefore in Christ there was a passion, which is anger.

3. Likewise, just as the rational [power] is ordered to discerning, so the irascible is ordered to being angry: therefore just as in Christ on the side of the rational there was a use of prudence, so on the side of the irascible there was an affection of anger.

4. Likewise, anger befits the state of the way more than the state of the fatherland; but the Lord on the day of judgment will be angry at the wicked, as is often said in Scripture: therefore much more strongly did he have an affection of anger in the state of the wayfarer.

**On the contrary:** 1. Upon that text of Job, chapter five[^p339-10]: *Anger slays the foolish man;* Gregory: « Anger through vice blinds the eye of the mind, anger through zeal disturbs it »; but the eye of the mind in Christ could neither be blinded nor disturbed, since in him it was in the continual use of contemplation: therefore it does not seem that there was in him any affection of anger.

2. Likewise, Damascene[^p339-11], defining anger, says that « anger is the avenger of an injured concupiscence »; and again, that « anger is the desire for repayment »; but in Christ there was neither an injury of concupiscence nor a love of vengeance: therefore neither was there in him a passion of anger.

3. Likewise, Christ was as perfectly meek as he was humble[^p339-12]; but in Christ the humility was so perfect that there was no pride: therefore the meekness was so perfect that there was no anger.

4. Likewise, « anger according to nature is a kindling of the blood about the heart, according to what the Philosopher[^p339-13] and Damascene hold, from the evaporation of the bile »: therefore if this denotes a foul passion, which has joined to it disquiet and disturbance; it seems that such a passion is not to be posited in Christ.

<!-- page 340 -->

### Conclusion.

> In Christ there was an affect of anger, inasmuch as it denotes an affect of detestation and a commotion of the sensual part, which nevertheless is subject to reason.

**I respond:** It must be said that anger in one way denotes purely an *affection*[^p340-1], and thus anger is called an affect of detestation of some evil, or of an apparent evil. In another way anger denotes an affect with punishment; and thus anger has disturbance and disquiet annexed to it. And this can be in a threefold difference: for either that disturbance touches only the *lower powers* and in no way touches the *eye of the mind;* or it touches the *eye of the mind* by disturbing it for a time, but not by blinding it[^p340-2]; or it reaches the *eye of the mind* itself by disturbing and beclouding it. And according to this the movement of anger is found in a fourfold difference, according to what is gathered from the sayings of the Saints: in one way it denotes purely an affect of detestation; and in this way it could have been in Adam in the state of innocence[^p340-3]. — In another way it denotes a movement of detestation with disquiet and disturbance of the sensual part without any disturbance of the mind, and in this way there was in Christ an affection of anger; for as the Gospel says[^p340-4]: *Groaning, he troubled himself.* — In a third way it denotes an affect of detestation with commotion and disturbance not only of the sensual part, but also of reason for a time; and in this way anger is found in just men, who are angry with anger through zeal, of whom Gregory says[^p340-5] that « thereby the disturbed mind makes progress, so that it grows clear; just as the eye is for a time disturbed by the eye-salve applied to it, so that afterwards it may be made clearer ». — In a fourth way anger denotes an affect of detestation with commotion of the sensuality and also of the mind, so that that commotion has annexed to it a disturbance of the mind, or is ordered to it; and thus anger is through vice, and is found in sinners and is forbidden by the Lord[^p340-6].

And through this distinction the response to the question and to the reasons on both sides is clear. For in a certain way there was in Christ a passion of anger or affection of anger, namely inasmuch as it denotes an affect of detestation and a commotion of the sensual part, which nevertheless is subject to reason. And thus the reasons adduced for the first part proceed, proving that an affection of anger was in Christ, as is clear to one who looks; and therefore they are to be conceded. And in a certain way it was not, namely inasmuch as it denotes a disturbance of the mental eye, and inasmuch as it denotes an affect of repayment, insofar as that affect is from a craving for vengeance, not from a zeal for justice; for thus it is a disturbing passion.

**On the solution of the opposing arguments:**

*To 1 and 2.* And in this way the first two reasons proceed to the second part; and therefore along that way they conclude truly and can be conceded.

*To 3.* As for that which is objected, that in Christ there was no pride, therefore there ought to have been no anger, since he was perfect in meekness as in humility; it must be said that the case is not alike, because pride directly names a vice, and therefore it always has the opposite [relation] with humility, and therefore it cannot stand with perfect humility. But anger does not always name a vice; rather it even names a virtue; therefore it does not have such an opposition[^p340-7] with meekness. And on account of this it does not follow that, if he was of perfect meekness, on account of this he did not have an affection of anger.

*To 4.* As for that which is objected, that anger is from a kindling[^p340-8] of the blood about the heart; it must be said that this is true in us, in whom the flesh struggles against the spirit, and the sensuality against reason, who have not only the corruption of penalty but even of foulness; but this need not be in Christ. — If, however, anyone should say that in Christ there was a kindling of the blood, but a moderate one, it does not seem to be unfitting[^p340-9].

---

la: Ioan. 2, 17. Cfr. Marc. 11, 15. et Luc. 19, 45. — In principio quaest. pro *Tertio* codd. A N T U X *Tertio loco.*

en: John 2:17. Cf. Mark 11:15 and Luke 19:45. — At the beginning of the question, for *Tertio* the codices A N T U X read *Tertio loco.*

la: Vers. 2, ubi pro *Virum* Vulgata habet *Vere,* et pro *interficit* codd. G H N U X bb *interficiet.* — Pro *Gregorius,* cuius dictum habetur in V. Moral. c. 45. n. 82, codd. K Y substituerunt *Glossa.* Paulo inferius pro *in ipso esset* cod. K *ipse esset.*

en: Verse 2, where for *Virum* (the man) the Vulgate has *Vere* (truly), and for *interficit* (slays) the codices G H N U X bb [read] *interficiet* (shall slay). — For *Gregorius,* whose saying is found in *Morals* V, c. 45, n. 82, the codices K Y substituted *Glossa.* A little below, for *in ipso esset* cod. K [reads] *ipse esset.*

la: Libr. II. de Fide orthod. c. 16. Cfr. Aristot., II. Rhetor. c. 3. (c. 2.), et I. de Anima, text. 16. (c. 1.).

en: [Damascene,] *On the Orthodox Faith* II, c. 16. Cf. Aristotle, *Rhetoric* II, c. 3 (c. 2), and *On the Soul* I, text 16 (c. 1).

la: Matth. 11, 29: *Discite a me, quia mitis sum* etc.

en: Matthew 11:29: *Learn of me, for I am meek,* etc.

la: Libr. I. de Anima, text. 16. (c. 1.): « Differenter autem definiet naturalis et dialecticus unumquodque ipsorum. Ut ira quid est? Hic enim appetitum recontristationis (ἀντιλυπήσεως) aut aliquid huiusmodi; ille autem fervorem sanguinis aut calidi circa cor ». Cfr. ibid. text. 63. (c. 4.). Damasc., II. de Fide orthod. c. 16. ait: *Ira est fervor eius qui circa cor est sanguinis, ex evaporatione fellis.*

en: *On the Soul* I, text 16 (c. 1): « The natural philosopher and the dialectician will define each of these differently. As, what is anger? For the former [defines it as] an appetite for retaliation (ἀντιλυπήσεως) or something of this kind; the latter, however, [as] a fervor of the blood or of the heat about the heart ». Cf. ibid., text 63 (c. 4). Damascene, *On the Orthodox Faith* II, c. 16, says: *Anger is a fervor of the blood that is about the heart, from the evaporation of the bile.*

la: Cod. K *affectionem.*

en: Cod. K [reads] *affectionem.*

la: Edd. *excedendo.*

en: The editions [read] *excedendo.*

la: August., XIV. de Civ. Dei, c. 19. docet, ante peccatum in paradiso iram ad exercendam iustam coercitionem non fuisse vitiosam.

en: Augustine, *On the City of God* XIV, c. 19, teaches that before sin, in paradise, anger for exercising a just coercion was not vicious.

la: Ioan. 11, 33. Cod. F cum Vulgata: *Infremuit spiritu et turbavit se ipsum.* Cfr. q. praeced. in corp.

en: John 11:33. Cod. F, with the Vulgate: *He groaned in the spirit and troubled himself.* Cf. the preceding question in the body.

la: Libr. V. Moral. c. 45. n. 82: *Unde mens turbatur, ne videat, inde proficit, ut ad videndum verius clarescat; sicut infirmanti oculo, cum collyrium immittitur, lux penitus negatur; sed inde eam post paululum veraciter recipit, unde hanc ad tempus salubriter amittit.*

en: *Morals* V, c. 45, n. 82: *Whence the mind is disturbed, so that it may not see, thence it makes progress, so that for seeing it may grow more truly clear; just as to an ailing eye, when the eye-salve is applied, the light is utterly denied; but thence it truly recovers it after a little while, whence for a time it salubriously loses it.*

la: Matth. 5, 22. Bernard., Epist. 69. n. 1. scripsit haec: *Itaque, dilectissime, irascere et noli peccare. Peccabis autem non minus nimis irascendo, quam omnino non irascendo. Siquidem non irasci, ubi irascendum sit, nolle emendare peccatum est; plus vero irasci, quam irascendum sit, peccatum peccato addere est.* — Mox pro *ad utramque partem* cod. K *utriusque partis.*

en: Matthew 5:22. Bernard, *Letter* 69, n. 1, wrote this: *Therefore, most beloved, be angry and sin not. But you will sin no less by being too angry than by not being angry at all. Since indeed not to be angry, where one ought to be angry, is to be unwilling to amend a sin; but to be angry more than one ought is to add sin to sin.* — Shortly after, for *ad utramque partem* cod. K [reads] *utriusque partis.*

la: Ita edd. et complures codd., in aliis *oppositum.*

en: So the editions and several codices, in others *oppositum.*

la: Codd. F G I L N T V Z *accessione;* cod. U *ira est accensio.*

en: The codices F G I L N T V Z [read] *accessione;* cod. U [reads] *ira est accensio.*

en: See the scholion on the first question of this article. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p339-{L,R}-*.png` and `/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p340-{L,R}-*.png` (printed pp.339–340, PDF 361–362; offset pdf = printed + 22). English freshly translated, literal. Per the Vol II/III override, the column-band PDF read is authoritative wherever the IA djvu OCR cascade-fragments (Respondeo, Solutio, footers); the OCR was consulted only for clean running prose and marker spacing.

**Alignment.** Opener reads *Tertio quaeritur, utrum in Christo fuerit passio vel affectio irae* — matches `title_la`. This is q3 (the *ira* question), no q-swap.

**Page-split map.**
- **p.339** (running head `DIST. XV. ART. II. QUAEST. III. 339`): QUAESTIO III title + opener + Fundamenta 1–4 + Sed contra 1–4 (Sed contra 1 begins bottom-left, continues into the right column).
- **p.340** (running head `340 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.`): CONCLUSIO + Respondeo (the *quadruplex ira* exposition) + the *Et per hanc distinctionem* response + *Ad oppositorum solutionem* (Ad 1.2 / Ad 3 / Ad 4). q3 closes at `...non videtur esse inconveniens` (top-right of p.340), after which `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI` and `DUB. I.` begin (the next chunk).

**Apparatus — per-page restart.**
- p.339 footers: **markers 1–5 belong to q2** (its Solutio spillover) and are captured in `bon-sent-III-d15-a2-q2`; **markers 6–13 are q3's** and are picked up here as `[^p339-6]` (Ioan 2,17), `[^p339-10]` (Iob/Gregorius), `[^p339-11]` (Damasc. de Fide orthod. II c.16), `[^p339-12]` (Matth 11,29), `[^p339-13]` (Aristot. de Anima). The shared page-339 footer sequence is split by body anchor, per the override.
- p.340 footers: markers 1–9 are q3's (`[^p340-1..9]`).

**Hand-offs.**
- *Picked up from a2-q2:* p.339 footer markers 6–13 (q3's *ira* notes). q2 retained p.339 markers 1–5.
- *Forwarded to d15-dubia:* the boundary is **raw 23832** (`DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI`), at the top-right of p.340. The dubia chunk's body opens with `DUB. I.` Expect at least **DUB. I** (and likely further DUB. headers in the d.15 dubia run); the chunk runs raw 23832 → next ARTICULUS/DISTINCTIO boundary. The **p.340 footer marker 10** (`Cfr. Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 44. seqq. (c. 4.)`, anchored to the dubia body's *augetur¹⁰*) belongs to that dubia chunk and is **not** captured here.

**Scholion.** `has_scholion: false` — verified on the page: no SCHOLION header is printed between QUAESTIO III and the DUBIA. q3's scholion content is forward-covered by a2-q1's scholion §III (on *ira*); p.340 footer `[^p340-9]` (q3's own apparatus) explicitly directs *Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.*

**[?] flags.** None — the region was fully legible at 450 dpi.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word

title: Dist. 15, Dubia

title_alt: Dubia circa litteram Magistri (Dist. XV)

title_alt: Doubts concerning the text of the Master (Dist. XV)

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 340 -->

## DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

### Dub. I.

In parte ista sunt quaestiones circa litteram, et primo quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Simplam accepit ille vetustatem, ut nostram duplam consumeret.* Videtur enim hoc inconvenienter esse dictum, quia simile non consumitur per suum simile, immo augetur[^p340-10]: ergo vetustas nostra non consumitur per vetustatem Christi assumtam. — Praeterea, quod consumit aliud est illo potentius: ergo si vetustas Christi consumsit nostram, potius debuit esse dupla respectu nostrae, quam nostra dupla respectu suae.

<!-- page 341 -->

— Praeterea, vetustas Christi non consumsit nostram nisi per modum meriti; sed meritum debet commensurari[^p341-1] praemio: ergo nec simpla nec dupla debuit esse respectu nostrae, sed aequalis.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod tam poena quam culpa ad veterem hominem pertinet, quia in primaria conditione homo fuit creatus absque culpa et poena, et secundum haec duo in nobis est duplex vetustas; in Christo autem fuit poena sine culpa, et ideo vetustas simpla; fuit enim poena cum gratia. Et propterea per poenam Christi cum gratia nos merebamur liberari a culpa et a poena, ita quod vetustas poenae, iuncta novitati gratiae, consumit duplicem vetustatem, salvata[^p341-2] oppositione, salvata nihilominus debita proportione. Ideo verbum Augustini in littera verum est et rationabile.

Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod vetustas non opponitur vetustati; dicendum, quod verum est ratione sui, opponitur tamen ratione novitatis gratiae coniunctae. — Et per hoc patet sequens, quia ratione gratiae coniunctae illa vetustas simplex excedit nostram duplicem. Propter hoc enim, quod Christus gratiam habuit non ad mensuram, perfecte nobis meruit liberationem a poena et a culpa[^p341-3].

### Dub. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Hos defectus assumsit ad ostensionem verae humanitatis*, quia, si isti defectus non sunt *de veritate* humanae naturae, non faciunt ad verae humanitatis ostensionem. Quod autem non sint *de veritate* humanae naturae, ostendit Anselmus[^p341-4] tali ratione: humana natura uno modo est *vera* secundum statum corruptionis et incorruptionis; sed isti defectus non competunt ei secundum statum incorruptionis: ergo non sunt de veritate humanae naturae. — Item, Christus post resurrectionem *veram* humanitatem ostendit, et tamen ipsis Apostolis defectus et poenalitates non ostendit[^p341-5]: ergo non videtur, quod huiusmodi defectus facerent ad *veritatis* humanae naturae ostensionem.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum est, quod est ostendere *veritatem* humanae naturae *simpliciter*, vel *secundum statum*; dico igitur, quod huiusmodi defectus assumti fecerunt ad ostensionem verae humanitatis *secundum statum* corporis animalis, et sic Christus volebat ostendere; voluit enim se nobis conformare: *in similitudinem* enim *hominum factus est*, ut dicit Apostolus[^p341-6], *et habitu inventus est ut homo.*

Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod illud non facit ad ostensionem *verae* humanitatis, quod non est *de veritate* humanae naturae; dicendum, quod falsum est. Aliquid enim annexum alicui statui humanae naturae potest esse ostensivum veritatis. «Accidentia enim partem magnam conferunt ad cognoscendum *quod quid est*[^p341-7]», quamvis non sint de essentia rei. — Ad ultimum patet responsio per ea quae dicta sunt.

### Dub. III.

Item quaeritur de intellectu veritatis istarum auctoritatum, quas adducit in illo capitulo[^p341-8]: *Quaedam tamen reperiuntur in Sanctorum tractatibus* etc. Videtur enim, quod illae auctoritates verum dicant, quae dicunt, Christum non timuisse. Scribitur enim primae Ioannis quarto[^p341-9]: *Perfecta caritas foras mittit timorem*; sed Christus perfectissimam habuit caritatem: ergo nullus in eo videtur timor fuisse. — Item, Augustinus, libro Octoginta trium Quaestionum[^p341-10]: «Signum perfectionis est nullus timor»; sed in Christo fuit summa perfectio: ergo nullus in eo fuit omnino timor. — Item, nullus timet quod potest effugere; sed Christus certus erat, omnem poenam se posse effugere: ergo videtur, quod nihil timebat.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod timor est in triplici differentia: quidam enim est *gratuitus*, quidam *libidinosus*, quidam *naturalis* quasi inter utrumque medius. — Timor autem *gratuitus* est in triplici differentia: quidam enim est timor *poenae*, quidam est timor *offensae*, quidam *reverentiae*. Prima et secunda[^p341-11] non fuit in Christo, pro eo quod perfecta caritas foras mittit timorem utrumque; sed secundum tertiam differentiam fuit in Christo, quia sic a perfecta caritate non expellitur, sed potius consummatur, secundum illud Isaiae undecimo[^p341-12]: *Replebit eum spiritus timoris Domini*; et secundum illud Psalmi: *Timor Domini sanctus permanet in saeculum saeculi.* — Et per hoc patet responsio ad primum obiectum.

Est et alius timor *libidinosus*, et iste similiter in multiplici differentia est: quia est timor *mundanus*, et est timor *humanus*; et nullus istorum fuit

<!-- page 342 -->

in Christo nec etiam in viro perfecto; et sic intelligitur verbum Augustini, quod «signum perfectionis est nullus timor». — Et per hoc patet responsio ad secundum.

Est iterum timor in tertia differentia, timor scilicet *naturalis*, et iste est in triplici differentia: quidam[^p342-1] est *sensualitatis praevenientis rationem*, quidam *sensualitatis subiacentis rationi*, quidam vero est ipsius *partis rationalis*. Primus timor est naturae corruptae et quodam modo *inordinatae*, similiter et tertius; secundus vero est naturae corruptae, sed tamen *ordinatae*. Quoniam ergo in Christo, quamvis esset defectus passibilitatis, non tamen fuit defectus inordinationis et vitiositatis; hinc est, quod fuit in eo timor medio modo, non primo[^p342-2] vel tertio. — Et per hoc patet tertio obiectum. Patent etiam auctoritates, quae in littera dicuntur. Nam omnes illae auctoritates, quae dicunt, Christum non timuisse, hoc dicunt, non quia velint a Christo omnem timorem removere, cum auctoritas Isaiae dicat contrarium; sed quia non fuit in eo timor, qui rationem eius praeveniret, vel rationem eius perturbaret; securissima enim fuit et bene noverat, quod nihil poterat sibi evenire vel inferri, quod ipsa prius non desideraret et vellet[^p342-3].

### Dub. IV.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Vere contristatus est, sed non passio eius dominatur animo, verum propassio est.* Ex hoc enim vult dicere, quod in Christo fuerit propassio. **Sed contra**; super quinto[^p342-4] Matthaei dicit Glossa, quod «propassio est subitus motus, cui ex ratione non consentitur»; sed talis motus est veniale peccatum, secundum quod ibi innuitur, et iste non fuit in Christo: ergo propassio non fuit in eo. — Item, subitum est illud quod praevenit iudicium rationis et quod est ex surreptione; sed Christus nihil per surreptionem egit: ergo non habuit in se motum subitum, ergo nec propassionem. — Item, Christus timuit mortem non ob aliud, nisi quia praevidit eam; sed non praevidit eam nisi secundum rationem: ergo timuit eo timore, qui est secundum rationem; et iste timor est passio, non propassio: ergo nulla est responsio Magistri.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod propassio secundum generalem nominis sui acceptionem dicitur esse passio diminuta; haec autem est illa quae sistit infra rationem, ut ratio est, et ita propassio dicit passionem partis sensualis, vel virtutis naturalis; et hoc modo vult dicere Magister[^p342-5] et Hieronymus, huiusmodi passiones fuisse in Christo. Erant enim ex horrore sensualitatis, non rationis partis in quantum rationalis.

Ad illud vero quod obiicitur, quod definitur propassio, quod est motus subitus; dicendum, quod ibi definitur propassio, secundum quod est in nobis, in quibus sensualitas movetur praeter iudicium rationis; in Christo autem non fuit hoc. Et ideo patet responsio ad illa duo, quae primo obiiciuntur.

Ad illud vero quod obiicitur, quod timor mortis non potuit esse nisi in ratione; dicendum, quod ratio praevidens mortem instantem fecit imaginationem mortis in ipsa parte sensuali; qua quidem facta, sensualitas mota fuit et horrore mortis concussa. — Et si tu dicas, quod hic non est ordo cognitionis, ut deveniatur a ratione in sensualitatem; dicendum, quod hoc est verum in nobis, in quibus est scientia per acquisitionem ab inferiori. In Christo autem aliter esse potuit, qui fuit plenus scientia[^p342-6], et in quo fuit obedientia perfecta virium inferiorum respectu superiorum. Praeterea, nos ipsi *imaginari* possumus quod volumus, quamvis non possimus, quando volumus, *sentire* exterius[^p342-7]. Et ita timor in Christo de morte futura potuit esse in parte sensuali, ut merito secundum Hieronymum et Magistrum possit et debeat dici propassio[^p342-8].

---

english:
<!-- page 340 -->

## DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

### Doubt I.

In this part there are questions concerning the text, and first it is asked about what he says: *He took up a single oldness, that he might consume our double oldness.* For this seems to be said unfittingly, since like is not consumed by its like, but rather is increased[^p340-10]: therefore our oldness is not consumed by the oldness assumed by Christ. — Furthermore, that which consumes another thing is more powerful than it: therefore if Christ's oldness consumed ours, it ought rather to have been double with respect to ours, than ours double with respect to his.

<!-- page 341 -->

— Furthermore, Christ's oldness did not consume ours except by way of merit; but merit ought to be commensurate[^p341-1] with the reward: therefore it ought to have been neither single nor double with respect to ours, but equal.

**I respond:** It must be said that both punishment and fault pertain to the old man, because in his primary condition man was created without fault and punishment, and according to these two there is in us a double oldness; but in Christ there was punishment without fault, and therefore a single oldness; for it was punishment together with grace. And therefore through Christ's punishment together with grace we merited to be freed from fault and from punishment, so that the oldness of punishment, joined to the newness of grace, consumes the double oldness, the opposition being preserved[^p341-2], and the due proportion being nonetheless preserved. Therefore the saying of Augustine in the text is true and reasonable.

To that, then, which is objected, that oldness is not opposed to oldness; it must be said that this is true by reason of itself, yet it is opposed by reason of the newness of grace joined to it. — And by this what follows is plain, that by reason of the joined grace that single oldness exceeds our double one. For on account of this, that Christ had grace not by measure, he perfectly merited for us liberation from punishment and from fault[^p341-3].

### Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked about what he says: *He assumed these defects for the showing forth of true humanity*, because, if these defects are not *of the truth* of human nature, they do not make for the showing forth of true humanity. But that they are not *of the truth* of human nature, Anselm shows[^p341-4] by such a reasoning: human nature is *true* in one way according to the state of corruption and of incorruption; but these defects do not belong to it according to the state of incorruption: therefore they are not of the truth of human nature. — Likewise, after the resurrection Christ showed forth *true* humanity, and yet to the Apostles themselves he did not show forth defects and penalties[^p341-5]: therefore it does not seem that defects of this kind would make for the showing forth of the *truth* of human nature.

**I respond:** It must be said that there is a showing forth of the *truth* of human nature *simply*, or *according to a state*; I say therefore that defects of this kind, assumed, made for the showing forth of true humanity *according to the state* of the animal body, and this Christ wished to show; for he wished to conform himself to us: for *he was made in the likeness of men*, as the Apostle says[^p341-6], *and in habit was found as a man.*

To that, then, which is objected, that what is not *of the truth* of human nature does not make for the showing forth of *true* humanity; it must be said that this is false. For something annexed to some state of human nature can be a manifestation of the truth. «For accidents contribute a great part toward knowing *what a thing is*[^p341-7]», although they are not of the essence of the thing. — To the last point the response is plain through the things that have been said.

### Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked about the understanding of the truth of those authorities which he adduces in that chapter[^p341-8]: *Yet certain things are found in the treatises of the Saints* etc. For it seems that those authorities speak the truth which say that Christ did not fear. For it is written in the first [Epistle] of John, chapter four[^p341-9]: *Perfect charity casts fear out of doors*; but Christ had the most perfect charity: therefore no fear seems to have been in him. — Likewise, Augustine, in the book of the Eighty-three Questions[^p341-10]: «The sign of perfection is no fear»; but in Christ there was the highest perfection: therefore there was in him no fear at all. — Likewise, no one fears what he can escape; but Christ was certain that he could escape every punishment: therefore it seems that he feared nothing.

**I respond:** It must be said that fear is of a threefold difference: for one is *gratuitous*, one *libidinous*, one *natural*, as it were a mean between the two. — Now *gratuitous* fear is of a threefold difference: for one is the fear of *punishment*, one is the fear of *offense*, one of *reverence*. The first and the second[^p341-11] were not in Christ, because perfect charity casts both out of doors; but according to the third difference it was in Christ, because thus it is not expelled by perfect charity, but rather is consummated, according to that of Isaiah, chapter eleven[^p341-12]: *The spirit of the fear of the Lord shall fill him*; and according to that of the Psalm: *The fear of the Lord is holy, enduring for ever and ever.* — And by this the response to the first objection is plain.

There is also another fear, the *libidinous*, and this likewise is of a manifold difference: for there is a *worldly* fear, and there is a *human* fear; and none of these was

<!-- page 342 -->

in Christ nor even in the perfect man; and thus is understood the saying of Augustine, that «the sign of perfection is no fear». — And by this the response to the second is plain.

Again there is fear in the third difference, namely *natural* fear, and this is of a threefold difference: one[^p342-1] is of *the sensuality going before reason*, one of *the sensuality lying subject to reason*, and one indeed is of *the rational part* itself. The first fear is of corrupted and in some way *disordered* nature, and likewise the third; but the second is of corrupted, yet *ordered*, nature. Since therefore in Christ, although there was a defect of passibility, yet there was no defect of disorder and viciousness; hence it is that there was in him fear in the middle way, not the first[^p342-2] nor the third. — And by this the third objection is plain. The authorities also which are said in the text are plain. For all those authorities which say that Christ did not fear, say this, not because they wish to remove all fear from Christ, since the authority of Isaiah says the contrary; but because there was not in him a fear that would go before his reason, or that would disturb his reason; for it was most secure and knew well that nothing could happen or be inflicted upon it which it did not first desire and will[^p342-3].

### Doubt IV.

Likewise it is asked about what he says: *He was truly made sorrowful, but his passion does not dominate the soul; it is rather a propassion.* For by this he wishes to say that in Christ there was a propassion. **On the contrary**; upon the fifth [chapter][^p342-4] of Matthew the Gloss says that «a propassion is a sudden motion, to which it is not consented from reason»; but such a motion is a venial sin, according to what is there intimated, and this was not in Christ: therefore there was no propassion in him. — Likewise, the sudden is that which goes before the judgment of reason and which is from a stealthy seizure; but Christ did nothing through stealthy seizure: therefore he had in himself no sudden motion, therefore neither a propassion. — Likewise, Christ feared death for no other reason than because he foresaw it; but he did not foresee it except according to reason: therefore he feared with that fear which is according to reason; and this fear is a passion, not a propassion: therefore the Master's response is null.

**I respond:** It must be said that a propassion, according to the general acceptation of its name, is said to be a diminished passion; and this is that which stops short of reason, insofar as it is reason, and so a propassion means a passion of the sensual part, or of the natural power; and in this way the Master[^p342-5] and Jerome wish to say that passions of this kind were in Christ. For they were from the horror of the sensuality, not of the rational part insofar as it is rational.

To that, then, which is objected, that a propassion is defined as a sudden motion; it must be said that there a propassion is defined according to what it is in us, in whom the sensuality is moved apart from the judgment of reason; but in Christ this was not so. And therefore the response to the two points which are first objected is plain.

To that, then, which is objected, that the fear of death could not be except in reason; it must be said that reason, foreseeing imminent death, made an imagination of death in the sensual part itself; and this being made, the sensuality was moved and struck with the horror of death. — And if you say that here there is no order of cognition, such that one might come from reason into the sensuality; it must be said that this is true in us, in whom there is knowledge through acquisition from what is lower. But in Christ it could be otherwise, who was full of knowledge[^p342-6], and in whom there was perfect obedience of the lower powers with respect to the higher. Furthermore, we ourselves can *imagine* what we will, although we cannot, when we will, *sense* outwardly[^p342-7]. And so the fear of future death could be in Christ in the sensual part, so that deservedly, according to Jerome and the Master, it can and ought to be called a propassion[^p342-8].

---

la: Cfr. Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 44. seqq. (c. 4.).

en: Cf. Aristotle, *On the Soul* II, text 44 and following (c. 4).

la: Ita codd. A bb, non pauci alii codd. *consummari*, nonnulli et edd. *conformari*.

en: So codices A, bb, and not a few other codices read *consummari*; some, and the editions, read *conformari*.

la: Edd. *salea*, codd. F T *salca tamen*.

en: The editions read *salea*; codices F, T read *salca tamen*.

la: Cfr. de hoc dubio S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: Cf. on this doubt St. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise, and Richard of Mediavilla, here, concerning the text.

la: Libr. II. Cur Deus homo, c. 11: *Si pertineret ad veritatem humanae naturae mortalitas, nequaquam posset esse homo, qui esset immortalis; non ergo pertinet ad sinceritatem humanae naturae corruptibilitas sive incorruptibilitas, quoniam neutra facit, aut destruit hominem* etc.

en: Book II of *Why God Became Man*, c. 11: *If mortality pertained to the truth of human nature, there could in no way be a man who was immortal; therefore corruptibility or incorruptibility does not pertain to the integrity of human nature, since neither makes, nor destroys, a man*, etc.

la: Cfr. Luc. 24, 39; Ioan. 20, 20. seqq. — Mox pro *huiusmodi defectus* cod. K *huiusmodi poenalitates*.

en: Cf. Luke 24:39; John 20:20 and following. — Shortly after, for *defects of this kind* codex K reads *penalties of this kind*.

la: Phil. 2, 7. — Paulo superius pro *fecerunt* edd. *fuerunt* et deinde *corruptionis* pro *corporis animalis*.

en: Phil. 2:7. — A little earlier, for *made* (fecerunt) the editions read *were* (fuerunt), and then *of corruption* for *of the animal body*.

la: Ut ait Aristot., I. de Anima, text. 11. (c. 1.). Verbis *quod quid est* (τὸ τί ἐστιν) significatur quidditas sive essentia. — De solut. huius dubii vide Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 5. m. 3; B. Albert., hic a. 6; S. Thom., hic circa lit.

en: As Aristotle says, *On the Soul* I, text 11 (c. 1). By the words *what a thing is* (τὸ τί ἐστιν) the quiddity or essence is signified. — On the solution of this doubt see Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. III, q. 5, m. 3; Bl. Albert, here, a. 6; St. Thomas, here, concerning the text.

la: Cap. 1. circa finem.

en: Chapter 1, near the end.

la: Vers. 18.

en: Verse 18.

la: Quaest. 36. n. 1.

en: Question 36, n. 1.

la: Edd. cum nonnullis codd. supplent *differentia*.

en: The editions, with some codices, supply *difference*.

la: Vers. 3. Pro *spiritus* codd. G I K L T Z aa bb *spiritu*. — Seq. textus est Ps. 18, 10.

en: Verse 3. For *spiritus* codices G, I, K, L, T, Z, aa, bb read *spiritu*. — The following text is Ps. 18:10.

la: Codd. A I K. adiiciunt *enim*.

en: Codices A, I, K add *enim* (for).

la: Non pauci codd. perperam *secundo*.

en: Not a few codices wrongly read *secundo* (the second).

la: Cfr. infra d. 34. p. II. dub. 1; Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 5. m. 2. a. 1. § 3; B. Albert., hic a. 8; S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 2. quaestiunc. 3; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 1. quaestiunc. 4; Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. 3.

en: Cf. below, d. 34, p. II, dub. 1; Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. III, q. 5, m. 2, a. 1, § 3; Bl. Albert, here, a. 8; St. Thomas, here, q. 2, a. 2, quaestiuncula 3; Peter of Tarentaise, here, q. 3, a. 1, quaestiuncula 4; Richard of Mediavilla, here, a. 3, q. 3.

la: Vers. 28. Glossa apud Strabum et Lyranum sonat sic: *Passio dicitur quae est mors in domo. Propassio est animi subitus affectus vel irae vel amoris, passio quaedam animi forma vel deliberatio ex consensu; unde dicitur aliquis iracundus vel amator.* — Hieronymus in hunc Matth. loc. ait: *Inter passionem et propassionem hoc interest, quod passio reputatur in vitium; propassio, licet initii culpam habeat, tamen non tenetur in crimine... Si vero consenserit... de propassione transivit ad passionem.* — Codd. allegant c. 7, edd. c. 26, ad quem ulteriorem loc. spectat expositio Hieron., quae hic in lit. Magistri, c. 2. affertur.

en: Verse 28. The Gloss in Strabo and Lyra reads thus: *That is called a passion which is a death in the house. A propassion is a sudden affection of the soul, whether of anger or of love; a passion is a certain settled form of the soul, or a deliberation from consent; whence someone is called wrathful or a lover.* — Jerome on this place of Matthew says: *Between a passion and a propassion there is this difference, that a passion is reckoned a vice; a propassion, though it has the fault of a beginning, is nonetheless not held as a crime... But if it has consented... it has passed from propassion to passion.* — The codices cite c. 7, the editions c. 26, to which latter place pertains the exposition of Jerome that is here brought forward in the text of the Master, c. 2.

la: Hic. c. 2, ubi et Hieronymi verba inveniuntur. — Paulo superius pro *sistit* codd. A H N W *consistit*, edd. *sistitur*. Paulo inferius pro *non rationis* [codd. A K Q bb *rationalis*] *partis in quantum rationalis* edd. *non ratione partis rationalis*.

en: Here, c. 2, where also the words of Jerome are found. — A little earlier, for *sistit* (stops) codices A, H, N, W read *consistit*, the editions *sistitur*. A little below, for *non rationis* [codices A, K, Q, bb *rationalis*] *partis in quantum rationalis* the editions read *non ratione partis rationalis*.

la: Cfr. supra d. 14. a. 3. q. 1. seq.

en: Cf. above, d. 14, a. 3, q. 1 and following.

la: Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 60. (c. 5.): *Intelligere in ipso est* [i. e. in hominis potestate est], *cum vult; sentire autem non est in ipso; necessarium est enim esse* [adesse] *sensibile.* — Edd. *quod volumus sentire* pro *quando volumus, sentire*. Mox pro *in parte* cod. V *ex parte*.

en: Aristotle, *On the Soul* II, text 60 (c. 5): *To understand is in his own power* [i.e. it is in man's power], *when he wills; but to sense is not in his power; for it is necessary that the sensible thing be* [be present]. — The editions read *quod volumus sentire* for *quando volumus, sentire* (when we will, to sense). Shortly after, for *in parte* codex V reads *ex parte*.

la: Cfr. de hoc dubio B. Albert., hic a. 9; S. Thom. et Petr. a Tar., hic circa lit.; Richard. a Med., hic a. 4. q. 4. et circa lit.

en: Cf. on this doubt Bl. Albert, here, a. 9; St. Thomas and Peter of Tarentaise, here, concerning the text; Richard of Mediavilla, here, a. 4, q. 4, and concerning the text.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p34{0,1,2}-{L,R}-*.png`), per the VOL II OVERRIDE (PDF column-bands authoritative for Vol III). Raw OCR span 23832–23987. Printed pp.340–342 (PDF 362–364, offset pdf = printed + 22), confirmed by running-head TEXT: p.341 `DIST. XV. DUBIA. 341`; p.342 `342 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.` (the dubia opener sits top-of-column on p.340, whose running head is `340 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.`).

**DUB. count: 4** — DUB. I (Simplam vetustatem / single vs. double oldness), DUB. II (defectus assumti ad ostensionem verae humanitatis), DUB. III (Christum non timuisse / the threefold division of fear: gratuitus / libidinosus / naturalis), DUB. IV (Vere contristatus est — propassio in Christ). No further DUB. headers before DISTINCTIO XVI.

**Page-split map.**
- **p.340** (PDF 362): DUB. I opener only — the *In parte ista…* lead and its *Videtur* objections (left-column foot continuing to right-column top). Apparatus: only marker **10** belongs here (`augetur¹⁰` → Aristot. de Anima text 44); p.340 markers **1–9** belong to the preceding quaestio a2-q3 (the *ira* notes) and were captured there. **Hand-off picked up: p.340 marker 10**, as forwarded by a2-q3.
- **p.341** (PDF 363): DUB. I body (Praeterea + Respondeo + replies) → DUB. II (full) → DUB. III opener (Videtur + Respondeo through *libidinous* fear, broken mid-sentence at column foot). Apparatus markers **1–12** (`[^p341-1..12]`), per-page restart.
- **p.342** (PDF 364): DUB. III conclusion (libidinous + natural fear, replies) → DUB. IV (full: Sed contra + Respondeo + Solutio). Apparatus markers **1–8** (`[^p342-1..8]`), per-page restart.

**Apparatus total: 21 entries** (p.340 ×1 + p.341 ×12 + p.342 ×8).

**No scholion.** Dubia carry no scholion (`has_scholion: false`). The dubia on *ira* / *timor* are forward-covered by the a2-q1 scholion (cf. the a2-q3 footer `Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.`).

**Hand-offs forwarded.** None outstanding — d.15 is **COMPLETE** on this chunk's promotion. The next distinction **DISTINCTIO XVI** begins at **raw 23991** (the bare semantic header; the page-top running head `DISTINCTIO XVI. 343` is at raw 23988). The seam is clean: the p.342 right-column footer (markers 5–8) closes the DUB. IV apparatus with no leak into DISTINCTIO XVI, and the DUB. IV Solutio ends grammatically complete at *…possit et debeat dici propassio*. DISTINCTIO XVI opens fresh on p.343 with its own COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XVI / DIVISIO TEXTUS. Offset reminder: pdf = printed + 22. (d.20 is the next Vol III decade-polish gate — not yet.)

**[?] flags:** none — the region is fully legible at 450 dpi.

method: LLM-assisted translation from the Quaracchi Latin, verified chunk-by-chunk against the printed plates (apparatus roster, cross-references, page/gutter boundaries).

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0


title: Dist. 16

title_alt: Distinctio XVI — textus Magistri Sententiarum

title_alt: Distinction XVI — text of the Master of the Sentences

source_text:
<!-- page 343 -->

### DISTINCTIO XVI.

### Cap. I. *De quibusdam capitulis Hilarii obscuris, quibus a carne Christi dolores submoveri videntur.*

Verumtamen magis movent ac difficiliorem afferunt quaestionem verba Hilarii, quibus videtur tradere, ictus et vulnera et huiusmodi sic in Christum incidisse, ut passionis dolorem non incuterent, sicut telum, tractum per aquam vel ignem vel aëra, ea facit, quae et, cum trahitur per corpora animata, quia perforat et compungit, non tamen dolorem ingerit, quia non sunt illae res capaces doloris. Ita et corpus Christi sine sensu poenae vim poenae excepisse dicit, quia, sicut corpus nostrum non habet talem naturam, ut valeat calcare undas, ita corpus Christi dicit non habuisse naturam nostri doloris, quia non habuit naturam ad dolendum.

Ait enim in decimo libro de Trinitate[^p343-1]: « Unigenitus Deus hominem verum secundum similitudinem nostri hominis, non deficiens a se Deo, sumsit. In quo, quamvis aut ictus incideret, aut vulnus descenderet, aut nodi concurrerent, aut suspensio elevaret, afferrent quidem haec *impetum* passionis, non tamen *dolorem* passionis inferrent; ut telum aliquod aquam perforans, vel ignem compungens, vel aëra vulnerans, omnes quidem has passiones naturae suae infert, ut perforet[^p343-2], ut compungat, ut vulneret, sed naturam suam in hoc passio illata non retinet, dum in natura non est vel aquam forari, vel pungi ignem, vel aëra vulnerari, quamvis naturae teli sit et vulnerare et compungere et forare. Passus quidem Christus est, dum caeditur, dum suspenditur, dum moritur; sed in corpus irruens passio nec non fuit passio, non tamen naturam passionis exercuit, dum et poenali ministerio poena desaevit, et virtus corporis sine sensu poenae vim poenae in se desaevientis excepit. Habuit sane illud dominicum corpus doloris nostri naturam, si corpus nostrum id naturae habet, ut calcet undas et fluctus desuper eat nec clausae domus obstaculis arceatur. At vero si dominici corporis solum ista natura sit, ut feratur in humidis et sistat in liquidis et structa transcurrat; quid per naturam humani corporis carnem ex Spiritu sancto conceptam iudicamus? Caro illa de caelis est, et homo ille de Deo est, habens ad patiendum corpus, et passus est, sed naturam non habens ad dolendum ». Idem in eodem[^p343-3]: « Videamus, an ille passionis ordo infirmitatem in Domino doloris permittat intelligi. Dilatis enim causis, ex quibus metum Domino haeresis ascribit, res ipsas, ut gestae sunt, conferamus. Neque enim fieri potest, ut timor eius significetur in verbis, cuius fiducia contineatur in factis. Timuisse igitur, haeretice[^p343-4], passionem videtur? Sed ob ignorantiae huius errorem Petrus et *satanas* et *scandalum* est. Anne timuit qui armatis obvius prodiit? Et in corpore eius infirmitas fuit, ad cuius occursum consternata persequentium agmina supinatis corporibus conciderunt? Quam igitur infirmitatem dominatam huius corporis credis, cuius tantam habuit natura virtutem? Sed forte dolorem vulnerum timuit? Quem, rogo, o tu dominicae infirmitatis assertor, penetrantis carnem clavi habuit terrorem, qui excisam aurem solo restituit attactu? Producens haec autem manus clavum dolet, et sentit vulnus qui alteri dolorem vulneris non reliquit? Pungendae carnis metu tristis est, cuius in attactu caro post caedem sanatur »? Item[^p343-5]: « Collatis igitur dictorum gestorumque virtutibus, demonstrari non est ambiguum, in natura corporis eius infirmitatem corporeae naturae non fuisse, et passionem illam, licet corpori illata sit, non tamen naturam dolendi corpori intulisse; quia, licet forma corporis nostri esset in Domino, non tamen vitiosae infirmitatis nostrae forma erat in corpore, quod ex conceptu Spiritus sancti Virgo progenuit ». — Audisti, lector, verba Hilarii, quibus dolorem excludere videtur. Sed si, excussa sensus et impietatis hebetudine, praemissis diligenter intendas atque ipsius scripturae circumstantiam inspicias; dictorum rationem atque virtutem percipere utcumque poteris et intelligentiam arguere non attentabis. Intelligitur enim ea ratione dixisse, dolorem passionis in Christum non incidisse, et virtutem[^p343-6] corporis Christi excepisse vim poenae sine sensu poenae, quia causam et meritum doloris in se non habuit. Quod videtur notasse, ubi ait: « Non habens naturam ad dolendum ». Et ideo non iudicanda est caro illius secundum naturam nostri corporis; nec in eo etiam dominium habuit passio; ita etiam non habuit naturam ad timendum, vel tristandum, quia non habuit talem naturam, in qua esset causa timoris, vel tristitiae. Itaque necessitas timendi non fuit in eo, sicut est in nobis; nec natura doloris fuit in eo, sicut est in nobis.

### Cap. II. *De tristitia Christi et eius causa secundum eundem.*

Tristitiam tamen in eo fuisse, consequenter asserit, sed *causam* eius exstitisse non suam mortem, sed defectum Petri et aliorum Apostolorum. Dicit enim, Christum non *propter* mortem, sed *usque ad* mortem tristem fuisse, his verbis[^p343-7]: « Interrogo, quid sit tristem esse *usque ad* mortem. Non enim eiusdem significationis est, tristem esse *propter* mortem et *usque ad* mor-
<!-- page 344 -->
tem, quia, ubi *propter* mortem tristitia est, illic mors *causa* tristitiae est; ubi vero tristitia *usque ad mortem* est, mors non tristitiae est *causa*, sed *finis* ». « Adeo autem non propter mortem suscepta est tristitia, ut sit destituta per mortem ». « Non ergo sibi tristis est, sed illis qui in scandalo per infirmitatem carnis erant futuri, quos monet orare, ne *inducantur in tentationem*; qui ante polliciti erant se non scandalizari ».

NOTULA. Hilarius in libro de Synodis[^p344-1]: Cum haec passionum genera infirmitate carnis afficiant, Deus tamen, Verbum caro factum, non potuit ad se demutabilis esse patiendo. Verbum enim, quia caro factum est, licet se passioni subdiderit, non tamen demutatum est possibilitate patiendi. *Pati* potuit, et *passibilis* esse non potuit, quia *passibilitas* naturae infirmae significatio est, *passio* autem eorum est, quae sunt illata, perpessio.

### Cap. III. *An in Christo fuerit necessitas patiendi et moriendi, quae est defectus generalis.*

Hic oritur quaestio ex praedictis ducens originem. Dictum est enim supra[^p344-2], quod Christus in se nostros defectus suscepit praeter peccatum. Est autem hominis quidam generalis defectus, qui peccatum non est, scilicet *necessitas patiendi*, vel *moriendi*. Unde corpus nostrum non tantum *mortale*, sed etiam *mortuum* dicitur, quia non tantum *aptitudinem* moriendi, sed etiam necessitatem habet. Ideo quaeritur, utrum *necessitas* talis in Christi corpore[^p344-3] fuerit. De aptitudine enim moriendi, quod in eo fuerit, ambiguum non est, quae etiam ante peccatum in homine fuit, quando aliquis in eo non fuit defectus; nec igitur *mortalitas* illa tunc in eo fuit defectus, quia natura ei erat. Unde etiam quidam talem *mortalitatem* in nobis non esse defectum non improbe tradunt, sed *necessitatem* moriendi, vel patiendi, quae etiam *mortalitas* dicitur, vel *passibilitas*. Dicitur enim homo nunc *passibilis*, vel *mortalis*, non modo propter *aptitudinem*; sed etiam propter *necessitatem*. Sed nunquid hic defectus fuit in Christi carne? Anima quoque eius, cum *passibilis* exstiterit ante mortem, nunquid *necessitatem* patiendi habuit? Si enim *necessitas patiendi*, vel *moriendi* fuit in Christo, non videtur sola voluntate miserationis defectus nostros accepisse. — Ad quod dici potest, Christum *voluntate*, non *necessitate* suae naturae hos defectus, sicut alios, suscepisse[^p344-4], scilicet necessitatem *patiendi* in anima, simul autem *patiendi* et *moriendi* in carne. Verum hanc necessitatem non habuit ex *necessitate* suae conditionis, quia a peccato immunis, sed ex sola *voluntate* accepit, de nostra infirmitate ponens *tabernaculum suum in sole*, scilicet sub temporali mutabilitate et labore. Unde super Epistolam ad Hebraeos[^p344-5] auctoritas dicit, quod « sicut hominibus aliis iure et lege naturae statutum est semel mori, ita et Christus eadem necessitate et iure naturae semel oblatus est, et non saepe ». Nec ideo dicit *iure naturae*, quod ex natura suae conditionis hunc defectum traxerit, qui etiam non provenit nobis ex natura, secundum quod prius est instituta, sed ex ea peccato vitiata. Et ideo dicitur hic defectus *naturalis*, quia quasi pro natura inolevit, in omnibus diffusus.

### Cap. IV. *De statibus hominis, et quid Christus de singulis acceperit.*

Et est hic notandum, Christum de omni statu hominis aliquid accepisse, qui omnes venit salvare. Sunt enim quatuor status hominis: primus ante peccatum, secundus post peccatum et ante gratiam, tertius sub gratia, quartus in gloria. De *primo* statu accepit immunitatem peccati. Unde Augustinus[^p344-6] illud Ioannis Evangelistae exponens: *Qui desursum venit super omnes est*, dicit: « Christum venisse desursum, id est de altitudine humanae naturae ante peccatum, quia de illa altitudine assumsit Verbum Dei humanam naturam, dum non assumsit culpam, cuius assumsit poenam ». Sed poenam assumsit de statu *secundo* et alios defectus; de *tertio* vero gratiae plenitudinem; de *quarto* non *posse peccare* et Dei perfectam contemplationem. Habuit enim simul bona *viae* quaedam et bona *patriae*, sicut et quaedam mala *viae*.

---

english:
<!-- page 343 -->

### DISTINCTION XVI.

### Chap. I. *On certain obscure chapters of Hilary, by which sorrows seem to be removed from the flesh of Christ.*

Nevertheless, what move us more, and raise a more difficult question, are the words of Hilary, by which he seems to hand down that blows and wounds and the like so befell Christ that they did not inflict the sorrow of passion — just as a dart, drawn through water or fire or air, does those things which it also does when it is drawn through animate bodies, namely, that, because it pierces and pricks, it does not nevertheless cause sorrow, since those things are not capable of sorrow. So too he says that the body of Christ received the force of punishment without the sensation of punishment, because, just as our body does not have such a nature that it is able to tread the waves, so he says that the body of Christ did not have the nature of our sorrow, because it did not have a nature for grieving.

For he says in the tenth book *On the Trinity*[^p343-1]: « The Only-begotten God took on a true man according to the likeness of our manhood, not falling away from himself as God. In whom, although a blow might fall, or a wound descend, or knots concur, or hanging lift him up, these would indeed bring the *impulse* of passion, yet they would not inflict the *sorrow* of passion; just as some dart piercing water, or pricking fire, or wounding air, inflicts indeed all these passions of its own nature, so as to pierce[^p343-2], to prick, to wound, but the passion inflicted does not retain its nature in this, since it is not in the nature of things either for water to be bored, or fire to be pricked, or air to be wounded, although it belongs to the nature of a dart both to wound and to prick and to bore. Christ indeed suffered, while he is struck, while he is hung up, while he dies; but the passion rushing upon his body both was and was not a passion, yet it did not exercise the nature of passion, since the punishment raged on with a penal service, and the power of the body without the sensation of punishment received the force of the punishment raging within it. That dominical body indeed had the nature of our sorrow, if our body has it of its nature that it tread the waves and go over the waters above and not be hindered by the obstacles of a closed house. But if it is the sole nature of the dominical body that it be borne upon moist things and stand upon liquids and run across solid structures; how shall we judge, by the nature of a human body, the flesh conceived of the Holy Spirit? That flesh is from heaven, and that man is from God, having a body for suffering, and he suffered, but not having a nature for grieving ». The same in the same place[^p343-3]: « Let us see whether that order of the passion permits weakness of sorrow to be understood in the Lord. For setting aside the causes by which heresy ascribes fear to the Lord, let us compare the things themselves, as they were done. For it cannot be that fear should be signified in the words of one whose confidence is contained in his deeds. Did he then, O heretic[^p343-4], seem to fear the passion? But on account of the error of this ignorance Peter is both *Satan* and *scandal*. Did he fear who came forth to meet armed men? And was there weakness in his body, at whose approach the dismayed bands of his pursuers fell down with bodies overthrown? What weakness, then, do you believe to have mastered this body, whose nature had so great a power? But perhaps he feared the sorrow of wounds? What terror, I ask, O you who assert the Lord's weakness, did he have of the nail piercing his flesh, who restored the severed ear by a mere touch? And does this hand, producing them, feel pain at the nail, and does he feel a wound who did not leave to another the sorrow of a wound? Is he sad with fear of his flesh being pierced, at whose touch the flesh is healed after the blow »? Likewise[^p343-5]: « When therefore the powers of his words and deeds are compared, it is not doubtful to demonstrate that in the nature of his body there was no weakness of bodily nature, and that that passion, although it was inflicted on the body, did not nevertheless bring upon the body the nature of grieving; because, although the form of our body was in the Lord, yet the form of our vitiated weakness was not in the body which the Virgin brought forth from the conception of the Holy Spirit ». — You have heard, reader, the words of Hilary, by which he seems to exclude sorrow. But if, having shaken off the dullness of sense and of impiety, you attend diligently to what has been set forth and inspect the very context of the scripture; you will be able somehow to perceive the ground and force of the things said, and you will not attempt to accuse his understanding. For he is understood to have said, with this reasoning, that the sorrow of passion did not befall Christ, and that the power[^p343-6] of Christ's body received the force of punishment without the sensation of punishment, because it had not in itself the cause and merit of sorrow. Which he seems to have noted where he says: « Not having a nature for grieving ». And therefore his flesh is not to be judged according to the nature of our body; nor did passion have dominion in it either; so too it did not have a nature for fearing, or for being made sad, because it did not have such a nature in which there was the cause of fear, or of sadness. And so the necessity of fearing was not in him, as it is in us; nor was the nature of sorrow in him, as it is in us.

### Chap. II. *On the sadness of Christ and its cause, according to the same author.*

That sadness nevertheless was in him, he asserts consequently, but that the *cause* of it was not his own death, but the failing of Peter and of the other Apostles. For he says that Christ was sad not *because of* death, but *unto* death, in these words[^p343-7]: « I ask, what it is to be sad *unto* death. For it is not of the same signification, to be sad *because of* death and *unto* dea-
<!-- page 344 -->
th, since, where there is sadness *because of* death, there death is the *cause* of the sadness; but where there is sadness *unto death*, death is not the *cause* of the sadness, but its *end* ». « And so sadness was so far not undertaken because of death, that it is destroyed by death ». « Therefore he is sad not for himself, but for those who through the weakness of the flesh were going to be in scandal, whom he warns to pray, lest they be *led into temptation*; who had before promised that they would not be scandalized ».

NOTULA. Hilary in the book *On the Synods*[^p344-1]: Though these kinds of passions afflict by the weakness of the flesh, God nevertheless, the Word made flesh, could not by suffering become changeable in himself. For the Word, because it was made flesh, although it subjected itself to passion, was nevertheless not changed by the possibility of suffering. He was able *to suffer*, and could not be *passible*, because *passibility* is the signification of an infirm nature, while *passion* is the enduring of those things which are inflicted.

### Chap. III. *Whether there was in Christ a necessity of suffering and of dying, which is a general defect.*

Here arises a question deriving its origin from what has been said. For it was said above[^p344-2] that Christ took upon himself our defects except sin. Now there is a certain general defect of man which is not sin, namely the *necessity of suffering*, or *of dying*. Whence our body is called not only *mortal*, but also *dead*, because it has not only the *aptitude* for dying, but also the necessity. Therefore it is asked whether such a *necessity* was in Christ's body[^p344-3]. For concerning the aptitude for dying, that it was in him, there is no doubt, which also was in man before sin, when there was no defect in him; nor therefore was that *mortality* then a defect in him, because it was natural to him. Whence also some, not improperly, hand down that such *mortality* in us is not a defect, but the *necessity* of dying, or of suffering, which also is called *mortality*, or *passibility*. For man is now called *passible*, or *mortal*, not only on account of *aptitude*, but also on account of *necessity*. But was this defect in Christ's flesh? Did his soul too, since it was *passible* before death, have a *necessity* of suffering? For if a *necessity of suffering*, or *of dying*, was in Christ, he does not seem to have received our defects by the will of compassion alone. — To which it can be said that Christ undertook these defects, like the others, by *will*, not by the *necessity* of his nature[^p344-4], namely the necessity of *suffering* in the soul, but at once of *suffering* and *dying* in the flesh. But he did not have this necessity from the *necessity* of his condition, since he was immune from sin, but received it from his *will* alone, placing, out of our weakness, *his tabernacle in the sun*, that is, under temporal mutability and labor. Whence on the Epistle to the Hebrews[^p344-5] the authority says that « just as it is appointed for other men by the right and law of nature to die once, so also Christ by the same necessity and right of nature was offered once, and not often ». Nor does he say *by right of nature* because he drew this defect from the nature of his condition, which also does not come to us from nature as it was first instituted, but from nature vitiated by sin. And therefore this defect is called *natural*, because it grew in as it were in place of nature, diffused into all.

### Chap. IV. *On the states of man, and what Christ received of each.*

And here it is to be noted that Christ received something of every state of man, who came to save all. For there are four states of man: the first before sin, the second after sin and before grace, the third under grace, the fourth in glory. Of the *first* state he received immunity from sin. Whence Augustine[^p344-6], expounding that saying of John the Evangelist, *He who comes from above is above all*, says: « Christ came from above, that is, from the height of human nature before sin, because from that height the Word of God assumed human nature, while it did not assume guilt, whose punishment it assumed ». But he assumed punishment from the *second* state and the other defects; from the *third* the fullness of grace; from the *fourth* the *not being able to sin* and the perfect contemplation of God. For he had at once certain goods *of the way* and goods *of the fatherland*, just as also certain evils *of the way*.

---

en: Number 23.

la: Codd. *foret*. Infra pro *Passus quidem* edd. 1, 8 *Passus invenitur quidem*, et deinde omittunt *est*. Denique pro *dominicum corpus* edd. 1, 8 cum originali *Domini corpus*, et inferius iterum cum codd. A C E, at contra originale, *Domini corporis*.

en: The codices read *foret*. Below, for *Passus quidem* editions 1, 8 read *Passus invenitur quidem*, and then omit *est*. Finally, for *dominicum corpus* editions 1, 8, with the original, read *Domini corpus*, and again below, with codices A C E, but against the original, *Domini corporis*.

la: Ibid. n. 26. et 27. In textu plura a Magistro omissa sunt.

en: Ibid., nn. 26 and 27. In the text many things were omitted by the Master.

la: In originali sic: Timuisse tibi, o haeretice, Dominus gloriae passionem videtur? — Mox respicitur Matth. 16, 23. et Ioan. 18, 6. — Paulo inferius post *Anne timuit* edd., exceptis 1, 8, addunt *mori*, refragante etiam originali.

en: In the original thus: « Does the Lord of glory seem to you, O heretic, to have feared the passion? » — Shortly after, Matthew 16:23 and John 18:6 are looked back to. — A little below, after *Anne timuit*, the editions, except 1 and 8, add *mori*, the original also dissenting.

la: Ibid. n. 35.

la: Edd. 1, 8 *virtute*; post *Christi* cod. A et Vat. cum edd. 4, 5, 6, 9 addiciunt *sibi*.

en: Editions 1, 8 read *virtute*; after *Christi*, codex A and the Vatican edition, with editions 4, 5, 6, 9, add *sibi*.

la: Ibid. n. 36; in quo textu edd., excepta 1, 8, ante *Non enim* adiciunt *et tristem esse propter mortem*, refragantibus edd. et originali. Seq. locus est ibid. paulo inferius; tertius n. 37. in fine, ubi respicitur Matth. 26, 41.

en: Ibid., n. 36; in which text the editions, except 1 and 8, before *Non enim* add *and to be sad because of death*, the editions and the original dissenting. The following passage is ibid., a little below; the third is at n. 37, at the end, where Matthew 26:41 is looked back to. <!-- page 344 -->

la: Num. 49. — Sequens notula Hilarii in edd. et codd. vel deest, vel ad marginem est posita, sed in diversis edd. non eodem loco. — Cum verbis, quae sequuntur: *Hic oritur*, in codd. aliis et edd. incipit haec d. XVI.

en: Number 49. — The following note of Hilary in the editions and codices is either lacking, or placed in the margin, but in different editions not in the same place. — With the words which follow, *Hic oritur*, this Dist. XVI begins in other codices and editions.

la: Dist. XV. c. 1.

en: Dist. XV, c. 1.

la: Ita codd. A C E et edd. 1, 7; in ceteris *carne*. Infra pro *natura ei*, quod habet Vat. et edd. 4, 9, edd. 6, 8 *naturae eius*, in reliquis et codd. *naturae ei*.

en: Thus codices A C E and editions 1, 7; in the rest, *carne*. Below, for *natura ei*, which the Vatican edition and editions 4, 9 have, editions 6, 8 read *naturae eius*, in the remaining ones and the codices *naturae ei*.

la: Codd. A B C *accepisse*.

en: Codices A B C read *accepisse*.

la: Cap. 9, 27, et est Glossa ordinaria apud Lyranum. — Paulo superius respicitur Ps. 18, 6. — Infra pro *traxerit* edd. 1, 8 *contraxerit*, quae simul cum cod. E post *prius est* addunt *nobis*.

en: Chap. 9:27, and it is the Glossa Ordinaria in Lyra. — A little above, Psalm 18:6 is looked back to. — Below, for *traxerit*, editions 1, 8 read *contraxerit*, which, together with codex E, add *nobis* after *prius est*.

la: Glossa super Ioan. 3, 31, apud Lyranum relata cum nomine Augustini. — De prima huius cap. propositione cfr. Boeth., de Una Persona et duabus naturis etc. c. 8. De quatuor statibus II. Sent. d. XXV. c. 6. et hic in Comment. dub. 4.

en: A gloss on John 3:31, reported in Lyra under the name of Augustine. — On the first proposition of this chapter cf. Boethius, *On the One Person and Two Natures*, etc., c. 8. On the four states, II Sent., d. XXV, c. 6, and here in the Commentary, dub. 4. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from 450 dpi PDF bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p34{3,4}-{L,R}-*.png` (Vol III = Vol II override: two-column djvu OCR cascade-shatters body/footers, so the column-band PDF read is authoritative). Raw span 23991–24119 used only to bound the chunk and cross-check headers. This is the *littera Magistri* (Lombard's text) for DISTINCTIO XVI: Cap. I–IV, the Hilary-on-the-passion material. The COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XVI / DIVISIO TEXTUS (raw 24120) begins the **divisio** chunk and is NOT included here.

**Page-split map.** printed pp.343–344 (pdf 365–366, offset +22), confirmed by running-head TEXT (`DISTINCTIO XVI. 343` top of p.343; `344 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III` top of p.344), not OCR digits. The Cap. II quotation splits mid-word across the page boundary: p.343 ends `…tristem esse propter mor-`, p.344 resumes `-tem`. Page break placed at that exact split in both Latin and English.

**Apparatus** (13 entries, per-page restart):
- p.343 → `[^p343-1..7]` (7 entries). Notes 1 and 4 span the two-column footer (L start, R-band continuation in the band layout); 5–7 sit in the R footer band. Read from `/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p343-{L-2,R-2}.png`.
- p.344 → `[^p344-1..6]` (6 entries). Notes 1–4 in the L footer band, 5–6 in the R footer band (`vol3-p344-{L-2,R-2}.png`).

**Hand-offs picked up:** NONE. The d.15→d.16 seam was clean (d.15 DUB. IV closed grammatically at *…possit et debeat dici propassio*; p.342 R footer carried no leak forward). This littera opens fresh on p.343.

**Hand-off forwarded (to `bon-sent-III-d16-divisio`):** the COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XVI / DIVISIO TEXTUS / TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM begins at **raw 24120** (printed p.344, lower column / continuing). **No migrating footer:** the littera closes grammatically complete at Cap. IV *…sicut et quaedam mala viae.* on p.344 R, and all six p.344 footer notes anchor to the littera body (Cap. I–IV markers). The COMMENTARIUS opens its own page-footer sequence. Seam is CLEAN.

**[?] flags:** NONE. All bands legible at 450 dpi. (Editorial marginal labels — *Verba Hilarii*, *Dubium 1–4*, *Explicatio*, *Determinatio*, *Glossa*, *Augustinus* — are Quaracchi marginalia, trimmed from the body per the OCR-cleanup rule; the structural `NOTULA.` opener within Cap. II is retained as part of Lombard's text block.)


title: Dist. 16, Divisio Textus

title_alt: Commentarius in Distinctionem XVI — De passione doloris et passibilitate specialiter

title_alt: Commentary on Distinction XVI — On the passion of pain and on passibility specially

source_text:
<!-- page 345 -->

## COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XVI.
### *De passione doloris et passibilitate specialiter.*

*Verumtamen magis movent ac difficiliorem afferunt quaestionem etc.*

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Supra egit Magister de passionibus in Christo repertis in quadam generalitate. In hac autem parte specialiter descendit ad determinandum de doloris passione et passibilitate. Dividitur autem pars ista in duas. In quarum prima inquirit, utrum passio doloris fuerit in Christo secundum veritatem[^p345-1]. In secunda vero, utrum fuerit in eo secundum patiendi necessitatem, ibi: *Hic oritur quaestio ex praedictis* etc., ubi signatur distinctio decima sexta.

Prima pars dividitur in tres partes. In quarum prima ponit Magister dubitationem circa passionem doloris in Christo, quae ex verbis Hilarii habet ortum. In secunda vero subiungit verba Hilarii, quae videntur esse dubia, ibi: *Ait enim sic Hilarius in decimo libro de Trinitate.* In tertia vero illa verba explanat, ibi: *Audisti, lector, verba Hilarii* etc.

Similiter secunda pars, in qua agit de patiendi necessitate, tres habet particulas. In prima movet dubitationem[^p345-2]. In secunda vero ponit determinationem illius quaestionis, ibi: *Ad quod dici potest, Christum voluntate* etc. In tertia vero subiungit quoddam dictum notabile ad maiorem praecedentium explanationem, ibi: *Et est hic notandum, Christum de omni statu hominis* etc.

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam autem huius partis incidit hic quaestio de passione doloris in Christo, circa quam principaliter quaeruntur duo. Primo enim inquirendum est de passione doloris, prout respicit animam et carnem communiter. Secundo vero, prout respicit animam specialiter.

Circa primum quaeruntur tria.

Primo quaeritur de doloris veritate.

Secundo vero de doloris acerbitate.

Tertio vero de dolendi sive patiendi necessitate.

### ARTICULUS I.
*De passione doloris, prout respicit animam et carnem communiter.*

---

english:
<!-- page 345 -->

## COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XVI.
### *On the passion of pain and on passibility specially.*

*Nevertheless, they move [us] more and bring forward a more difficult question, etc.*

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

Above, the Master treated of the passions found in Christ under a certain generality. But in this part he descends specially to determine concerning the passion of pain and concerning passibility. Now this part is divided into two. In the first of these he inquires whether the passion of pain was in Christ according to truth[^p345-1]. In the second, whether it was in him according to the necessity of suffering, where it says: *Here arises a question from what has been said*, etc., where the sixteenth distinction is marked.

The first part is divided into three parts. In the first of these the Master sets out a doubt concerning the passion of pain in Christ, which has its origin from the words of Hilary. In the second he adds the words of Hilary, which seem to be doubtful, where it says: *For Hilary speaks thus in the tenth book On the Trinity.* In the third he explains those words, where it says: *You have heard, reader, the words of Hilary*, etc.

Likewise the second part, in which he treats of the necessity of suffering, has three little parts. In the first he raises a doubt[^p345-2]. In the second he sets out the determination of that question, where it says: *To which it can be said that Christ by [his] will*, etc. In the third he adds a certain notable saying for the greater explanation of the foregoing, where it says: *And here it is to be noted that Christ, of every state of man*, etc.

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

Now for the understanding of this part there arises here a question concerning the passion of pain in Christ, concerning which principally two things are asked. For first it must be inquired concerning the passion of pain, insofar as it regards the soul and the flesh in common. Second, insofar as it regards the soul specially.

Concerning the first, three things are asked.

First it is asked concerning the truth of the pain.

Second, concerning the bitterness of the pain.

Third, concerning the necessity of grieving or of suffering.

### ARTICLE I.
*On the passion of pain, insofar as it regards the soul and the flesh in common.*

---

la: Edd. cum pluribus codd. perperam exhibent *virtutem*, et mox edd. solae omittunt verba *ubi signatur distinctio decima sexta*. — A verbis *Hic oritur quaestio etc.*, a quibus in nostra editione oritur 3. cap. d. 16, tum apud B. Albertum tum apud S. Thomam incipit d. 16; cfr. supra pag. 344, nota 1.

en: The editions, with several codices, wrongly give *virtutem*, and presently the editions alone omit the words *where the sixteenth distinction is marked*. — From the words *Here arises a question, etc.*, from which in our edition the 3rd chapter of d. 16 begins, the d. 16 begins both in Blessed Albert and in St. Thomas; cf. above, p. 344, note 1.

la: Edd. *quaestionem*.

en: The editions [read] *quaestionem* [question].

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p345-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` (printed p.345 = pdf 367; offset pdf = printed + 22). Page confirmed by running-head TEXT `DIST. XVI. ART. I. QUAEST. I.` / `345` (OCR digit-mangled the running head as `34c`). Raw OCR span for this chunk: **24116–24148** (COMMENTARIUS header through the ART. I subtitle). The QUAESTIO I body (`Circa primum sic proceditur...`, raw 24150) is the next chunk, d16-a1-q1.

**Page-split map.** Entire divisio is on printed **p.345**. Apparatus: p.345 → `[^p345-1]`, `[^p345-2]` (2 entries — the two DIVISIO TEXTUS markers). Footer note 3 (`Vers. 2. seq...`) and following on p.345 anchor to the QUAESTIO I body and forward to d16-a1-q1.

**ART. I / ART. II question counts (chunker-question settlement).** The TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM lists **two articles** ("principaliter quaeruntur duo"): ART. I = *prout respicit animam et carnem communiter*; ART. II = *prout respicit animam specialiter*. For ART. I the TRACTATIO explicitly lists **THREE questions** ("Circa primum quaeruntur tria"): q1 = *de doloris veritate* (of the truth of the pain); q2 = *de doloris acerbitate* (of the bitterness of the pain); q3 = *de dolendi sive patiendi necessitate* (of the necessity of grieving or suffering). **ART. I therefore genuinely has q1/q2/q3 — the `a1-q2` skeleton is MISSING and must be created.** The existing `a1-q1` (veritate) and `a1-q3` (necessitate) names are correct; the gap is the acerbitate question = `a1-q2`. **ART. II** has **THREE questions**, confirmed from the running heads: `DIST. XVI. ART. II. QUAEST. I.` (raw 24675), `QUAEST. II.` (raw 24807), `QUAEST. III.` (raw 24940). ART. II's three sub-questions are introduced at the head of ART. II itself, not in this divisio's TRACTATIO (which lists only ART. I's three).

**Hand-offs picked up:** NONE. The d16-littera closed grammatically complete on p.344; no footer migrated in. The COMMENTARIUS opens a fresh page-footer sequence on p.345.

**Hand-off forwarded to d16-a1-q1:** the QUAESTIO I body begins at **raw 24150** (`Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum in Christo fuerit vera passio doloris...`), on printed **p.345**. The ART. I opener / QUAESTIO I title (`ARTICULUS I.` + subtitle + `QUAESTIO I. Utrum in Christo fuerit vera passio doloris.`) is folded into a1-q1 per the multi-chapter convention. **Migrating footers:** p.345 footer notes **3 and following** (`3 Vers. 2. seq...`, `4`, `5`, `6`, `7`, `8`, etc.) belong to a1-q1's body and must be set there as `[^p345-3]`+ (a1-q1 continues onto p.347 per the next running head at raw 24249). Seam is CLEAN.

**[?] flags:** NONE — p.345 fully legible at 450 dpi.