|
S. Bonaventurae Bagnoregis |
St. Bonaventure of Bagnoregio |
Commentaria in Quatuor Libros Sententiarum |
Commentaries on the Four Books of Sentences |
|
Magistri Petri Lombardi, Episc. Parisiensis |
of Master Peter Lombard, Archbishop of Paris |
|
SECUNDI LIBRI |
BOOK TWO |
COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM II. |
COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION II |
|
PARS II. |
PART II |
|
ARTICULUS II.
Quaestio II. |
ARTICLE II
Question 2 |
|
Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
|
Latin
text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
|
|
QUAESTIO II.
Utrum Angelus simul et semel sit in pluribus locis. |
QUESTION 2
Whether an Angel is ever and at once in several places? |
|
SECUNDO QUAERITUR, utrum unus Angelus simul et semel sit in pluribus locis, an tantum in uno. Et quod in pluribus locis, videtur: |
SECOND THERE IS ASKED, whether one Angel is ever and at once [simul et semel]* in several places, or only in one. And that (he can be) in several places, seems: |
|
1. Primo per Augustinum, qui dicit, « quod Angelus ibi est, ubi vult », in libro de Civitate Dei;1 sed existens in caelo, vult esse in terra: ergo existens in caelo, est in terra: ergo simul est in pluribus locis. |
1. First through (St.) Augustine, who says, « that an Angel is there, where he wills », in the book On the City of God;1 but as one existing in Heaven, he wills to be on Earth: therefore existing in Heaven, he is on Earth: therefore he is at once in several places. |
|
2. Item, Damascenus dicit, « quod ibi est, ubi operatur »; sed Angelus vel est vel potest esse motor caeli, et motor operatur super totum mobile: ergo unus Angelus in utraque parte circumferentiae . . . |
2. Likewise, (St. John) Damascene says, « that he is there, where he works »; but an Angel either is and/or can be the mover of a heaven, and a mover works upon the whole mobile (sphere): therefore one Angel can be on each side of the circumference . . . |
|
1 Collectum videtur ex libro XXII. c. 30. n. 1, ubi de aeterna felicitate hominum loquens ait: Certe ubi volet spiritus, ibi protinus erit corpus. — Paulo inferius post terra cod. Q adiungit simul. 2 Libr. I. de Fide orthod. c. 13. Textum vide infra pag. 79, nota 5. |
1 (Which) seems (to have been) gathered from Book XXII, ch. 30, n. 1, where speaking of the eternal felicity of men, he says: Certainly where (his) spirit will will (to be), there (his) body will be immediately [protinus]. — A little below this codex Q reads at once on Earth [terra simul]. 2 On the Orthodox Faith, Bk. I, ch. 13. See (this) text below, on p. 79, footnote 5. |
|
|
* [Trans. note: Here ever and at once translates simul et semel in reverse order, the sense of the Latin being: whether one Angel is ever at the same moment in several places. The reverse order (ever and at once, rather than at once and ever) is necessary in English, since to say is at once and ever is equivocal, being capable of being understood in the sense of is at once and always, which is not the sense of the Latin phrase. The Latin phrase simul et semel is often rendered in English as at any and the same time or at one and the same time; however, since the Latin phrase does not speak expressly of time, and since an Angel according to the measure of its duration of existence is outside of time, it seems better to avoid this other English translation in regard to the presence of Angels in a place, since, as St. Bonaventure says, previously, even the empyrean Heaven, where the Angels were created, is outside of time as we reckon it. However, in English the use of ever in the sense of at some time or at any time is more usualy in indefinite constructions not assertive ones, and thus in assertions the entire phrase will be rendered as at one and the same (moment), since in assertions, the sense is the same.] |
p. 79
|
caeli potest esse simul et semel. Ergo si magis distat una pars circumferentiae ab alia quam caelum a terra, patet etc. |
of a heaven at one and the same (moment). Therefore, if one part of the circumference is more distant from another than the heaven (is) from the Earth, it is clear that etc.. |
|
3. Item, quanto aliquid simplicius est, tanto in pluribus reperitur.1 Et ratio huius est, quia tanto magis recedit a coarctatione et magis appropinquat ad divinum esse, quod ubique est. Ergo si Angelus inter creaturas maxime ad Deum appropinquat, videtur, quod simul et semel in pluribus locis esse possit, sicut universale propter suam simplicitatem est ubique et semper. |
3. Likewise, as much as anything is more simple, so much is it found in more.1 And the reason for this is, because as much as it recedes more from being constrained [a constrictione], it also approaches more toward the Divine ‘Being’, which is everywhere. Therefore if an Angel, among creatures, approaches toward God most of all, it seems, that he can be at one and the same (moment) in several places, just as a universal, on account of its simplicity, is everywhere and always. |
|
4. Item, spiritus glorificatus non habet cogitationes volubiles, immo potest per donum gloriae simul multa cogitare;2 sed intellectus per naturam in unico instanti non aspicit nisi ad unicum intelligibile, et per gloriam simul videt multa: ergo pari ratione videtur, quod Angelus glorificatus simul possit esse in diversis locis. |
4. Likewise, a glorified spirit does not have inconstant [volubiles] thoughts, nay he can, through the gift of glory, think of many (things) at once;2 but an intellect, through nature, in a unique instant gazes upon naught but a unique intelligible, and through glory it will see many (intelligibles) at once: therefore for an equal reason it seems, that a glorified Angel can be at once in diverse places. |
|
5. Item, corpus nunquam potest elevari, nec per gloriam, nec per unionem, ut sit excelsius3 spiritu glorioso; sed corpus Christi per gratiam unionis potest esse in locis diversis: ergo pari ratione, ut videtur, et Angelus gloriosus. |
5. Likewise, a body can never be elevated, neither through glory, nor through union, to be more eminent [excelsius]3 than a glorious spirit; but Christ’s Body through the grace of (the Hypostatic) Union can be in diverse places: therefore for an equal reason, as it seems, an glorious Angel (can be) also. |
|
CONTRA: 1. Ambrosius in libro de Spiritu sancto:4 « Omnis creatura certis suae naturae est circumscripta limitibus »; sed quod potest esse unum et idem totum et secundum actum ita in hoc loco, quod etiam in alio, non est circumscriptum: ergo vel Angelus non est creatura, vel, si sit, in pluribus locis simul esse non potest. |
ON THE CONTRARY: 1. (St.) Ambrose in the book On the Holy Spirit (says):4 « Every creature has been circumscribed according to the certain limits of its own nature »; but what can be one [unum] and the same whole, and according to act, thus in this place, that (it is such) also in another, is not circumscribed: therefore either an Angel is not a creature, and/or, if it is, it cannot be in several places at once. |
|
2. Item, Damascenus in libro primo:5 « Angelus dicitur esse in loco, quia adest intelligibiliter et circumscribitur, ubi et operatur, non enim potest secundum idem in diversis locis operari »: ergo idem quod prius. |
2. Likewise, (St. John) Damascene (says) in (his) first book:5 « An Angel is said “to be in a place”, because he is there [adest] intelligibly and he is circumscribed, where he working, for he cannot work, according to the same, in diverse places »: therefore (the conclusion is) the same as before. |
|
3. Item, si Angelus simul esset in diversis locis, non indigeret mitti nec moveri; sed moventur Angeli, sicut patet per Scripturam veteris et novi Testamenti:6 ergo etc. |
3. Likewise, if an Angel would be at once in diverse places, he would not need to be sent nor to move; but the Angels do move, just as is clear through the Scripture of the Old and New Testament:6 ergo etc.. |
|
4. Item, si Angelus simul et semel esse posset in diversis locis, simul et semel posset in uno loco tacere et in alio loco loqui, in uno moveri et in alio quiescere: ergo duo opposita simul et semel essent vera de eodem. |
4. Likewise, if an Angel could ever and at once be in diverse places, he could at one and the same (moment) be silent in one place and speak in another place, move in one place and rest in another: therefore two opposites would be at one and the same (moment) true of the same (being). |
|
5. Item, ponatur, eundem Angelum simul esse Parisius et Romae; quaero, utrum de Urbe posset ire Parisius. Si non; quaero, quid impedit? Et non est dare. Si sic; sed nihil movetur ad id quod habet: ergo non potest ire Parisius; aut si vadit Parisius et ibi se invenit, simul fuit prius praesens et absens, et post bis est ibi praesens; quae omnia sunt inconvenientia et absurda: ergo etc. |
5. Likewise, let it be posited, that the same Angel is at once at Paris and at Rome; I ask, “Whether he could journey [ire] from the City to Paris?” If not; I ask, “What impedes (him)?” And there is no granting (of any impediment for him). If so, but according to that which he has, nothing is moved: therefore he cannot journey to Paris; or if he does go [vadit] to Paris and finds himself there, he was at once present and absent beforehand, and afterwards he is present there twice; all of which are unfitting and absurd: ergo etc.. |
|
CONCLUSIO.
Angelus simul et semel est tantum in uno loco. |
CONCLUSION
An Angel is ever and at once only in one place. |
|
RESPONDEO: Dicendum, quod cum Angelus habeat esse individuatum, habet esse hic et nunc;7 quia vero habet esse limitatum et virtutem limitatam, habet esse in uno hic sive in uno loco tantum. Quoniam ergo tam individuatio quam limitatio naturaliter et inseparabiliter inest Angelo, hinc est, quod Angelum simul et semel oportet esse tantum in uno loco; et hoc dicunt auctoritates, et rationes probant. — Et ideo concedendae sunt pro eo, quod verum concludunt. |
I RESPOND: It must be said, that since an Angel has an individuated ‘to be’ [esse], he has a here and now ‘to be’;7 but because he has a limited ‘to be’ and a limited virtue, he as (his) ‘to be’ only in one here or in one place. Therefore, since both individuation and limitation are naturally and inseparable in an Angel, hence it is, that it is necessary [oportet] that an Angel be at one and the same (moment) only in one place; and this the authorities say, and the reasons prove. — And for that reason they are to be conceded in virtue of this, that they conclude truly. |
|
1. Ad illud quod obiicitur primo, quod ibi est, ubi vult; dicendum, quod illud non est dictum per concomitantiam simultatis, quod in eodem instanti, in quo est velle esse in quocumque loco, sit esse; sed ideo dictum est, quia esse in loco volito sequitur velle sine mora temporis magna, propter velocitatem angelicam, ut Damascenus8 dicit. Sequitur etiam esse in loco tali vel tali velle Angeli ad nutum, quia Angelus non vult, nisi quod competit naturae suae. Unde non vult ibi esse in instanti, sed in eo tempore, in quo scit se posse pervenire. Eodem modo intelligendum est verbum praedictum de corpore glorioso. |
1. To that which is objected first, that (an Angel) is there, where he wills; it must be said, that it has not been said through the concomitance of a togetherness, that in the same instant, in which there is a willing [velle] to be in whatsoever place, it is that he is (there); but it is said for this reason, that ‘ being in the placed willed’ follows the willing without a great delay of time, on account of the velocity of the Angel, as (St. John) Damascene8 says. ‘Being in such and/or such a place’ also follows the willing of the Angel at his command [ad nutum], because the Angel does not will, but what suits his own nature. Wherefore he does not will to be there in an instant, but in that time in which he knows that he can arrive. In the same manner the aforesaid word concerning a glorious body must be understood. |
|
2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod ibi est, ubi operatur; dicendum, quod operari alicubi est dupliciter: vel mediate, vel immediate; immediate, ut puta anima operatur in manu; sed mediante manu anima9 nautae operatur in tota navi, quia movendo manum movet temonem, et movendo temonem totam navem movet; nec tamen oportet, quod sit in tota navi, sed ubi operatur primo. — Per hunc modum . . . |
2. To that which is objected, that (an Angel) is there, where he works; it must be said, that ‘to work somewhere’ is in a twofold manner: either mediately, and/or immediately; immediately, as for example as the soul works in the hand; but by means of the hand the soul9 of a pilot works in the whole ship, because by moving (its) hand it moves the tiller [temonem],* and by moving the tiller it moves the whole ship; nor yet is it necessary [oportet], that it be in the whole ship, but (only) where it is first at work. — Through this standard of measure . . . |
|
1 Cfr. Aristot., XI. Metaph. c. 1. (X. c. 1.), de quo vide tom. I. pag. 638, nota 1. — De simili, quod in ultima prop. argumenti profertur, vide Aristot., I. Poster. c. 24. (c. 31.), quod iam in tom. I. pag. 642, nota 4. allegatum est. 2 August., XV. de Trin. c. 16. n. 26: « Fortassis etiam volubiles non erunt nostrae cogitationes, ab aliis in alia euntes atque redeuntes, sed omnem scientiam nostram uno simul conspectu videbimus ». In minori alluditur ad verba Aristot., II. Topic. c. 4. (c. 10.): Contingit enim plura scire, intelligere autem non. 3 Plures codd. ut F U aa bb excellentius. Mox codd. K T U Y aa cc et ed. 1 propter gratiam pro per gratiam. 4 Libr. I. c. 7. n. 81. — In minori cod. cc et ed. 1 secundum totum pro secundum actum. 5 De Fide Orthod. c. 13: Angelus autem, etsi non ad modum corporis ita in loco continetur, ut formam et figuram recipiat, in loco tamen esse dicitur, quia spirituali modo [noetvV] adest et agit, prout naturae suae consentaneum est; nec alibi est, sed ibi intelligibili modo [noetvV] circumscribitur, ubi et operatur. Neque enim in diversis locis eodem tempore operari potest. Dei namque solius est ubique simul operari. Nam Angelus quidem ob naturae pernicitatem, ac quia prompte ac celeriter pertransit, in diversis locis operatur etc. — Cfr. etiam II. c. 3. 6 Isai. 6, 6; Daniel 10, 2 et 20; Luc. 1, 19. 7 Cfr. supra pag. 77, nota 2. 8 Vide hic nota 5. et II. de Fide orthod. c. 3, ubi dicit, quod Angelus confestim invenitur ibi divinus iusserit nutus, velocitate naturae. 9 Plures codd. ut C R S bb sed mediate anima. |
1 Cf. Aristotle, Metaphysics, Bk. XI, ch. 1 (Bk. X, ch. 1), concerning which see Sent., Bk. I, d. 37, p. I, a. 1, q. 1, p. 638, footnote 1. — On the simile, which is proffered in the last proposition of the argument, see Aristotle, Posterior Analytics, Bk. I, ch. 24 (ch. 31), which has already been cited in Sent., Bk. I, d. 37, p. I, a. 2, q. 1, p. 642, footnote 4. 2 (St.) Augustine, On the Trinity, Bk. XV, ch. 16, n. 26 (says): « Perhaps even our thoughts will not be inconstant [volubiles], going and returning from these and those [ab aliis in alia], but we shall see all our knowledge together in one sight ». In the minor there is an allusion to the words of Aristotle, Topics, Bk. II, ch. 4 (ch. 10): For one happens to know several (things), but not to intellect (several things). 3 Several codices, such as F U aa and bb, have more excellent [excellentius]. Next codices K T U Y aa and cc, and edition 1, have on account of the grace [propter gratiam] for through the grace [per gratiam]. 4 Book I, ch. 7, n. 18. — In the minor codex cc and edition 1 have and according to the whole [et secundum totum] for and according to act [et secundum actum]. 5 On the Orthodox Faith, ch. 13: But an Angel, even if he is not contained thus in a place according to the manner of a body, to receive a form and a figure, yet is said “to be in a place”, because in a spiritual manner [noetvV] he is at hand and acts, insofar as it is suitable [consentaneum est] to his nature; nor is he elsewhere, but he is circumscribed there in an intelligible manner [noetvV], where he is also working. For neither can he work in diverse places at the same time. For indeed to God alone does it belong to work everywhere at once. For an Angel, indeed, on account of the agility [pernicitatem] of (his) nature, since he passes through (places) both promptly and swiftly, works in diverse places etc.. — Cf. also Bk. II, ch. 3. 6 Isaiah 6:6; Daniel 10:2,20; Lk. 1:19. 7 Cf. above in the previous question, p. 77, footnote 2. 8 See here footnote 5, and On the Orthodox Faith, Bk. II, ch. 3, where he says, that an Angel is found without delay there (where) the Divine command [nutus] has ordered (him to be), by the swiftness of (his) nature. 9 Several codices, such as C R S and bb, have but mediately the soul [sed mediate anima] for but by means of the hand the soul [sed mediante manu anima]. |
|
|
* [Trans. note: The tiller was the long beam attached to the rudder, by which the rudder of a wooden ship was moved.] |
p. 80
|
intelligendum est in proposito, quod, etsi Angelus esset motor caeli vel movens, primo moveret unam1 partem, sicut illam, super quam esset influentia motoris, et in illa esset, non in tota re mobili vel mota. Sic etiam intelligendum est de Angelis, qui subverterunt Sodomam.2 |
(the argument) in the proposed must it be understood, that, even if an Angel were the mover of a heaven and/or moving (a heaven), he would first move one1 side, such as that, upon which the influence of the mover was, and in that he would be, not in the whole movable and/or moved thing. Thus also must it be understood of the Angels, who overturned Sodom.2 |
|
3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de simplicitate, dicendum, quod esse simplex est dupliciter: aut per privationem partium componentium in esse naturae, aut per privationem partium constituentium in esse definito3 sive in genere. Quando ergo dicitur, quod quanto aliquid simplicius, tanto in pluribus; hoc dicitur de simplicitate secundo modo, quam scilicet habet genus respectu speciei, et ideo in pluribus reperitur quam species. Cum autem dicimus Angelum simplicem, hoc est secundum aliud genus simplicitatis; ideo nihil ad propositum. |
3. To that which is objected concerning simplicity, it must be said, that ‘to be simple’ [esse simplex] is in a twofold manner: either through the privation of the component parts in the ‘being’ of the nature [in esse naturae], or through a privation of constituent parts in ‘being in a definite (manner)3 or in a genus’. When, therefore, it is said, that “as much as something (is) more simple, so much (is it) in more”; this is said of simplicity in the second manner, which, namely, has a genus in respect of a species, and for that reason it is found in more than the species (is). But when we say that an Angel (is) simple, this is (said) according to the other genus of simplicity; for that reason (it is worth) nothing regarding the proposed. |
|
4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de pluralitate cognoscibilium, quae intelligit simul et semel; dicendum, quod non est simile duplici ratione: quia vis cognitiva magis efficitur deiformis per gloriam, quam vis motiva motu exteriori. Praeterea, aliud est, quia Deus et exemplar4 divinum in glorificatis est ratio cognoscendi secundum rem et essentiam; ideo intellectus glorificatus multa cognoscit, ita quod non dispergitur, sed circa unum colligitur. Sed Angelum esse in pluribus locis, hoc non potest esse per collectionem virtutis ad unum locum, sicut intellectus ad unum primum cognoscibile; et ideo non est simile. |
4. To that which is objected concerning the plurality of cognizables, which (a glorified intellect) understands at one and the same (moment); it must be said, that it is not similar for a twofold reason: because the cognitive force is made more deiform through (the light of) glory, than the motive force by an exterior movement. Besides, it is one thing, that God and a divine exemplar4 is, in the glorified, the reason for cognizing according to thing and essence; for that reason a glorified intellect cognizes many (things), such that it is not dispersed, but is gathered together about one [unum]. But that an Angel is in several places, this cannot be through the collection of (his) virtue at one place, just as an intellect (gathers its virtue) for one, first cognizable; and for that reason it is not similar. |
|
5. Ad illud quod obiicitur de corpore Christi, dicendum, quod non est locus a minori, nec a simili, quia corpus Christi in pluribus locis est, quia multa convertuntur in ipsum. — Et si quaeras, quare magis congruit aliqua in ipsum converti quam in aliud corpus; ratio huius est, quia cibus, in quo uniuntur et reficiuntur omnia membra Christi. — Et si quaeras, quare cibus est huiusmodi? eadem quaestio est de carbone, quare calefacit? Propter coniunctionem cum igne. Sic caro Christi repleta est delectatione, ut carbo ignitus igne, et hoc tactum est diffusius in primo libro et in quarto.5 |
5. To that which is objected concerning the Body of Christ, it must be said, that the point (of the argument) is not a minori, nor a simili, because the Body of Christ is in several places, because many (hosts) are converted into It (i. e. Christ’s Body). — And if you ask, “For what reason is it more congruent that some (hosts) are converted into It than into another body?”; the reason for this is, because (It is) the food, in which all the members of Christ are united and refected. — And if you ask, “For what reason is It food of this kind?”, the same is the question concerning charcoal [carbone], “Why does it produce heat [calefacit]?” (Answer:) On account of (its) conjunction with fire. Thus the Flesh of Christ has been filled full with delight, as coal ignited with fire, and this has been touched upon more diffusely in the First Book and in the Fourth.5 |
|
SCHOLION. |
SCHOLIUM |
|
I. Responsio negativa auctoris, quae communiter approbatur, intelligenda est de locis virtuti Angeli adaequatis, et de potentia naturali. De locis vero inadequatis, qui intra sphaeram activitatis huius Angeli sunt, contrarium tenetur. Si autem respicitur ad potentiam Dei absolutam, Scotus (hic q. 7. et IV. Sent. d. 10. q. 2.) certissimum esse censet, virtute divina Angelum etiam in adaequatis locis pluribus esse posse; de quo alii dubitant. |
I. The negative response of the author, which is commonly approved, is to be understood of places adequated to the virtue of an Angel, and of (his) natural power. But concerning non-adequated places, which are within the sphere of activity of this Angel, the contrary is held. But if one regards the absolute power of God, (Bl. John Duns) Scotus (here in q. 7, and in Sent., Bk. IV, d. 10, q. 2) judges it most certain, that by Divine Virtue an Angel can also be in several adequated places; concerning which others doubt. |
|
II.. Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 32. m. 3. — S. Thom., I. Sent. d. 37. q. 3. a. 2; S. I. q. 52. a. 2. — B. Albert., S. p. I. tr. 18. q. 73. m. 2. a. 2. — Petr. a Tar., I. Sent. d. 37. q. 4. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., I. Sent. d. 37. a. 2. q. 3. |
II.. Alexander of Hales, Summa., p. II, q. 32, m. 3. — St. Thomas, Sent., Bk. I, d. 37, q. 3, a. 2; Summa. , I, q. 52, a. 2. — Bl. (now St.) Albertus (Magnus), Summa., p. I, tr. 18, q. 73, m. 2, a. 2. — (Bl.) Peter of Tarentaise, Sent., Bk. I, d. 37, q. 4, a. 2. — Richard of Middleton, Sent., Bk. I, d. 37, a. 2, q. 3. |
|
1 Cod. F primam; cod. aa aliquam; multi codd. perperam illam, contra codd. K L cc et ed. 1, in quibus exhibetur nostra lectio. 2 Gen. 19, 13. 3 Plures codd. ut F K T bb cc et ed. 1 definitivo. 4 Vat. quia idem exemplar. Paulo inferius post ideo cod. I prosequitur cum intellectus glorificatus multa cognoscit, cognoscit ita quod etc., quae lectio probatur mutila lectione multorum codd., qui exhibent quidem particulam cum, sed non repetunt verbum cognoscit. Dein nonnullli codd. ut A K T Y dispartitur pro dispergitur. 5 Libr. I. Sent. d. 37. p. I. a. 2, q. 1, et IV. Sent. d. 10. p. I. q. 1, ubi exemplum de carbone ignito adscribitur Damasceno, qui IV. de Fide orthod. c. 13. ait: Carbonem vidit Isaias (6, 2); carbo non est simplex lignum, sed igni unitum [hnwmenon puri]; sic quoque panis communionis non simplex est panis, sed divinitati unitus. — Cod. L transponit diffusius post in primo libro et. |
1 Codex F reads the first side [primam partem] for one side [unam partem]; codex aa has instead some part [aliquam partem]; many codices have faultily the former (side) [illam partem], contrary to codices K L and cc, and to edition 1, in which our reading is exhibited. 2 Gen. 19:13. 3 Several codices, such as F K T bb and cc, and edition 1 have in a definitive (manner) [definitivo]. 4 The Vatican edition reads that the same divine exemplar [quia idem exemplar divinum] for that God and a divine exemplar [quia Deus et exemplar divinum]. A little below this after for that reason [ideo] codex I proceeds thus: when a glorified intellect cognizes many (things), it cognizes (them) such that etc. [cum intellectus glorificatus multa cognoscit, cognoscit ita quod etc.], which reading is proven by the mutilated reading of many codices, which exhibit, indeed, the particle when [cum], but do not repeat the verb it cognizes [cognoscit]. Then not a few codices, such as A K T and Y, have divided [dispartitur] for dispersed [dispergitur]. 5 Sent., Bk. I, d. 37, p. I, a. 2, q. 1, and Sent., Bk. IV, d. 10, p. I, a. 1, where the example of a lit charcoal is ascribed to (St. John) Damascene, who On the Orthodox Faith, Bk. IV, ch. 13 says: Isaiah (6:2) saw a charcoal; charcoal is not a simple piece of wood, but one (that has been) united to fire [hnwmenon puri]; thus, too, the Bread of communion is not simple bread, but one(that has been) united to the Divinity. |
This English Translation
and the digitization
of the Latin and English texts, the HTML markup, all emendations and
corrections of the Latin text, and all notes by the Translator, are © 2007,
2008 by Br. Alexis Bugnolo. The / symbol is used to indicate that the
text which follows appears on the subsequent page of the Quaracchi Edition. The
translation of the notes in English corresponds to the context of the English
text, not that of the Latin text; likewise they are a freer translation than
that which is necessitated by the body of the text. Items in square [ ]
brackets contain Latin terms corresponding to the previous English word(s), or
notes added by the English translator.
Items in round ( ) brackets are terms implicit in the Latin syntax or which are
required for clarity in English.