| 6524 E.g., Matt 5:19; 22:38; cf. Mussies, «Greek in Palestine,» 1042. 6525 E.g., Glasson, Moses, 72; Sanders, John, 212; Beasley-Murray, John, 114. 6526 See t. Móed Qat. 2:13; Sukkah 4:17; Sipra Emor par. 12.236.1.1; b. Sukkah 47ab; p. Ned. 6:1, §1; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 28:8; Pesiq. Rab. 52:6; cf. Jub. 32:27–29; m. Sukkah 4:6; p. Roš Haš. 1:3, §43; the seventh day in Lev. Rab. 37:2. 6527 Though not part of the festival proper, it is treated as such when dealing with vows of abstention during the festival, etc. (e.g., p. c Erub. 3:1, §6). 6528 The «great day» could also have eschatological significance ( Joel 2:11, 31 Zeph 1:14; Mal 4:5 ; cf. Jer 30 Hos 1:11 ; Acts 2:20; Rev 6:17; 16:14), but there is no internal evidence in the Gospel to support a double entendre here (cf. «great day» in 19:31). By this period, «great» could mean «greatest» (cf., e.g., Mussies, «Greek in Palestine,» 1042). 6529 E.g., Marcus, «Rivers,» suggests a midrash on Isa 12in which the Hebrew for «from wells of salvation» is understood as «from Jesus» belly.» 6530 Westcott, John, 123; Longenecker, Exegesis, 153. Glasson, Moses, 48, finds evidence in the early linking of the water from the rock with manna, as in 1Cor 10 ; b. Šabb. 35a; etc. Some texts associate the water drawing with Num 29 (e.g., p. Roš Haš. 1:3, §43; Ecc1. Rab. 7:14, §3). Menken, «Origin,» cites the related Ps 78:16, 20 (77:16, 20 LXX), though taking «living» from Zech 14:8. 6531 T. Sukkah 3:11. The artistic attestation of this motif is considerably less founded than the Sukkoth motifs above, especially if Leon, Jews, 214, is correct about the Christian nature of the fragment in Rome; but the OT text is commonly cited in antiquity. 6532 See Carson, John, 326–27. 6533 E.g., its creation on the eve of the first Sabbath (b. Pesah. 54a); it comes up from the abyss (Tg. Neof. 1 on Num 21:6 ; Tg. Neof 1 on Deut 32:10 ) or travels with Israel (L.A.B. 11:15; t. Sukkah 3:11; b. Šabb. 35a; Num. Rab. 19:36; Tg. Neof. 1 on Deut 2:6 ; 1Cor 10:4 ). Sib. Or. 3.439–440 may include an allusion from Asia, but other biblical sources are possible. The story of Moses getting water from the rock was already in Scripture stored in the temple (explicitly in Josephus Ant. 3.38), but Josephus says that Moses promised a «river» from it (Ant. 3.36). |
| Although a unity rooted in love would address other issues as well, one matter of unity the Gospel surely addresses is ethnic unity. The emphasis on the Samaritans» ready acceptance of Jesus points in this direction (4:39–42), as does Jesus» objective of «one flock,» probably referring to the influx of Gentile Christians to follow (10:16; cf. 11:52). Unity also challenges the secessionists of 1 John. John 17:22–23 repeats and amplifies the basic thoughts of 17:21: Jesus wants the disciples to be one as he and the Father are one that the world may recognize the divine origin of both Jesus and his disciples. 9489 Beasley-Murray notes that the Qumran community «called themselves the unity» but sought unity between themselves and angelic saints above, whereas in John the unity is rooted in God " s work in Christ. 9490 The church has already «achieved in Christ» the miracle of unity, as in Gal 3:28 , though in practice the early church clearly continued to experience divisions (Acts 6:1; 3 John 9–12 ); 9491 believers must work to keep the unity of the Spirit that Christ established. But in any case, the loving unity between the Father and the Son provides a model for believers, not necessarily a metaphysical, mystical ground for it. 9492 Jesus and the Father mutually indwell each other (17:21; also 10:38; 14:10); by Jesus dwelling in them and with the Father dwelling in him (cf. also 14:23), Jesus» followers would experience God " s presence in such a way that unity would be the necessary result (17:23). John would probably view the inability of believers to walk in accord with one another as, first of all, a failure to accede to the demands of the divine presence both share. Jesus receives glory (17:22, 24) and gives it to believers (17:22) that they may glorify God (cf. 17:21, 23; 15:8); 9493 if they are to glorify God as Jesus does, however (17:4), they must love him and one another to the extent that he did, to the point of death (21with 12:32–33). As in Paul " s theology, believers who would share Jesus» glory must first share his suffering ( Rom 8:18 ; 2Cor 4:17 ; cf. Eph 3:13; 2 Thess 1:5–6, 10). Jesus shared with them teaching (17:14) and everything he had received from the Father (15:15), as the Spirit continues to mediate to believers (16:13–15). Now Jesus says that he has shared with his disciples God " s «glory» (17:22); this statement directly fulfills 1:14, for the glory that Moses could see only in part the disciples now witness in full (see comment on 1:14–18). The law was given through Moses, but the full revelation of God " s character is given to the disciples in Jesus Christ (1:17). 9494 Believers who walk in this revelation of God " s character cannot divide from one another (17:22). |
| 7932 Xenophon Mem. 1.1.4 (divine direction); Boring et a1., Commentary, 292–93, cites Plutarch Oracles at Delphi 21. 7935 McNeil, «Quotation,» and Whitacre, John, 318, also cite Targumic support for a use of Isa 9relevant to this passage, but cf. Chilton, «John xii34.» 7936 E.g., 1 En. 41:1; 2 Bar. 40:3; Midr. Pss. 72:17; cf. Pss. So1. 17:4; see introduction to Christol-ogy; Keener, Matthew, 487–88 and sources cited there. 7937 E.g., 1QS 2.16; 3.13,24,25; 1QM 1.1,9, 11, 13; 3.6; 13.14–15; 4Q176 frg. 12, 13, co1. 1, lines 12, 16; frg. 10–11, 7–9, 20, 26, line 7 (Wise, Scrolls, 235); 4Q298 frg. 1, co1. 1, line 1; 4Q548 lines 10–15. The parallel between Qumran and NT usage (also Luke 16:8; 1 Thess 5:5) is often noted, e.g., Charlesworth, «Comparison,» 414; Vellanickal, Sonship, 36; Wilcox, «Dualism,» 95. The stereotypical expression «sons of light» is the only point at which the Gospel and the Johannine Epistles fail to observe the distinction between Jesus as God " s «son» (υις) and others as his «children» (τκνα, τεκνα, παιδα; see Snodgrass, «ΠΝΕΥΜΑ,» 197 η. 54). 7944 With Michaels, John, 218. See comment on 3:14. Tg. Isa. 52:13–53:4, however, speaks of the Messiah " s strength (52:13) and of only Israel " s sufferings (53:3–4). 7948 Evans, «Isaiah 6:9–10,» also noting that church fathers found in it a predestinarian emphasis. Hollenbach, «Irony,» suggests that the language is ironic because Isaiah " s Judah and John " s «Jews» do not wish to turn or see. 7950 In the NT as a whole, it appears 26 times, especially in Luke-Acts (15 times); and 61 times in the LXX. 7951 E.g., T. Dan 2:2, 4; T. Jos. 7:5; T. Levi 13(associated with hardness, as here); Seneca Ep. Luci1. 50.3; Benef. 5.25.5–6; Epictetus Diatr. 1.18.4; 2.20.37; 2.24.19; 4.6.18; Marcus Aurelius 4.29. For classical parallels, see Renehan, «Quotations,» 20 (though noting that the NT source is the OT– «Quotations,» 21). 7953 Perhaps referring to Sinai. In 2 En. 65:2, eyes to see and ears to hear constituted part of the divine image in humanity. |
| 45. Ταρκωνδμαντος Эгейский в Киликии (Νικ 91 Ant 24 Αντ 1). – У Филосторгия (по сообщению Никиты) приводится в числе тех, qui ab Ario steterunt на никейском соборе. 46. Ερηνικς – кафедра неизвестна. 47. Πτρος [ср. Гиндарский в Килисирии (Νικ 69 Ant 14 Αντ 14? 28?). 48. Πηγσιος Арвокадамский в Килисирии (Νικ 70). 49. Εφχιος Тианский в Каппадокии (Νικ 95) – один из «мужей апостольских» по Афанасию Великому I. c. 50. Ασκληπις Газский в Палестине (Νικ 37) – решительный антиарианин. Александр Александрийский писал ему особое послание. Вскоре после никейского собрания он был низложен евсевианами Ath. de fuga 4. hist. arian. 5. Сердикский собор его оправдал (Ath-apol. c. ar. n. 47). 51. λφειος Апамийский в Килисирии (Νικ 53 Νκσ 4 Ant 11 Αντ 11). Судя по Eus. V. C. III, 62 он был около 333 года в числе евсевиан. 52. Βσσος Зевгмский в Килисирии (Νικ 62 Ant 12 Αντ 2). 53. Γερντιος Ларисский в Килисирии (Νικ 63 Νκσ 12). 54. σχιος Малой Александрии в Киликии (Νικ 92 Ant 20 Αντ 15). 55. Αδιος – кафедра неизвестна. 56. Τερντιος – кафедра неизвестна. Отлучены были этим собором. 57. Феодот Лаодикийский в Килисирии (Νικ 52 Ant 17 [Theodorus] Αντ 10). 58. Наркисс Нерониадский в Киликии (Νικ 85 cf. 93 (дублет). Ανκ 13 Νκσ 13 Ant 23 Αντ 20) и 59. Евсевий Кесарийский в Палестине [Νικ 25 Ant 1 Αντ (отдельно от прочих)]. Таким образом, из 59-ти (58) епископов, упоминаемых в этом послании – 50 (или 51, если считать и Евсевия присутствовали и на никейском вселенском соборе. Из остальных 8-и один (Луп Тарсский) не мог явиться в Никею потому, что уже умер; но на соборе присутствовал его преемник. Из остающихся 7-ми епископов 13, 35, 36, 37, 46, 55, 56), имен которых мы не встречаем в никейских списках, двое (13 и 35) присутствовали на позднейшем антиохийском соборе, издавшем каноны, на котором мы встречаем всего 25 (или 26, считая Аетия Лиддского) из членов этого собора 6, 9, 12, (13), 14, 15, 16, 20, 22, (24), 25, 28, (32?), 33, 34 – 35, (40), 45, 47, 51, 52, 54, 57, 58, 59 – в скобках имена, засвидетельствованные лишь одним списком]. Из бывших членов анкирского собора на этом антиохийском соборе мы встречаем 5 епископов, из бывших членов неокесарийского собора – 7 епископов 3, 7, 27, 39, 58 для обоих соборов 53 для одного неокесарийского). Из них только одного Лупа Тарского мы не встречаем в никейских списках. – 5 имен 36, 37, 46, 55, 56) новооткрытого послания не встречаются больше нигде, и кафедры этих 5-ти епископов потому нам совершенно неизвестны. |
| What is most significant about the interaction, however, is that while Jesus» own people accuse him of being a «Samaritan» (8:48) or a «Galilean» (7:40–52), the Samaritan woman recognizes Jesus as a «Jew» (4:9), and he agrees (4:22). 5392 This is one of the clues that John " s use of the title «Jews» in the Fourth Gospel is usually an ironic polemical device. Jesus» opponents» right to the title is then undermined by various clues in John " s narrative (see section on «the Jews» in our introduction, ch. 5). 5. The Gift of Living Water (4:10–14) Jesus provides water greater than that of Jacob and greater than Samaritan holy sites. The informed reader will probably think back to «born of water» in 3:5. Whether her tone includes ridicule or not cannot be ascertained on the basis of her respectful address κριε (4:11, 15, 19; cf. 4:49; 5:7; 6:34). 5393 On Jesus addressing her as γυν (4:21), see comment on 2:4. Jesus» identity, which she will later understand (4:25–26) and declare (4:29), is as yet unknown to her, for if she knew, she would ask for his gift (4:10). 5394 5A. Greater Than Our Father Jacob (4:12) Jesus» superiority to Jacob is central to this story. When the Samaritan woman asks whether Jesus can be greater than Jacob (4:12), it is possible that her tone is mocking; 5395 in any case, she recognizes that to provide water the way he claims, Jesus would have to be greater than Jacob who once provided water (according to a later Jewish and perhaps Samaritan tradition, miraculously). 5396 Nevertheless, the informed reader, knowing the true answer, catches John " s irony, a technique the author also applies elsewhere (7:42; 11:50; 18:38; 19:2–3). 5397 At a different well, Jacob provided water for the flocks ( Gen 29:10 ), but Jesus provides water for whoever would drink, perhaps alluding to the Johannine portrait of disciples as Jesus» sheep (10:3–4). Jacob allegedly «gave» this parcel of land to Joseph (4:5,12); 5398 but the «gift» of God (4:10; cf. 3:16,27; perhaps 3:34) is greater. That Jesus has asked the woman to «give» him a drink (4:7) explicitly contrasts with his own gift (4:10), contrasting (or linking) the human weakness he has endured with the great source of divine blessing he remains. She eventually does ask him for his gift (4:15), although asking with the same sort of misunderstanding found in the crowd " s request for bread in 6:34. |
| 35 Paedag. I 1, Migne VIII, c. 252, cp. Cohort. ad gentes cap. II, ibid. 229; Strom. VI 11, Migne IX, c. 312; Strom. VI 18, ibid. c. 396. 36 Strom. VI 18, Migne IX, c. 396; Strom. VI 8, Migne IX, c. 289; Str. VI 15, Migne IX 333, 336 и др. 37 Clem. Al. Strom. VI 12, Migne IX, 320: «τελειτατον γαϑν γυσις, δ ατν οσα αρετ» и далее « δεξμεϑα ον τν γυσιν ο τν ποβαινντων, φιμενοι, λλ» ατο νικα το γινσκειν σπαζμενοι, ––– ξις γνωστκ δονς βλαβες παρεχομνη κα νν κα ες στερον». 38 Clem. Al. Str. VII 1 9, Migne IX с. 401; Gregor. Thaumaturg. Op. cit. cap. VI n.79, ed. Koetschau S. 16. 50 Clem. Alex. Paedag. II 2, Migne VIII c. 420 « τελεα γρ σοφα ϑεων οσα χα νϑρωπνων πραγμτων πιστημη, μ π ε ρ ι λ α β ο ς α τ λ α ». Ср. Strom. VI 8, Migne IX с. 289; Strom. VI 10 с. 304. 51 Clem. Al. Strom. I, 5, Migne VIII c. 721, ср. 725 « φιλοσοφια πιτδευσις (или συνϑεραπαινς) σοφιας ». 52 Greg. Thaum. op. cit., cap. VIII, n. 109, S. 22; cf. cap. VII, n. 106, S. 21. Cp. Clem. Al. Strom. I 28, Migne VIII c. 924 и др. 55 Euseb. VI 18, Schw. р. 237. О преподавании теории музыки, которая входила в курс высшей пифагорейской школы (Вилльман цит. соч. I 179),прямых указаний не имеется, хотя у Климента она перечисляется в списке наук «подготовительных» к гносису на первом месте (музыка, арифметика, геометрия, астрономия, диалектика). Strom. VI 10, Migne IX 300–301. Ср. Str. I 9, Migne VIII c. 740, где упоминается и «φυσικ ϑεωρα». 57 Clem. Al. Str. I 9, Migne VIII 740–741; Greg. Thaum. op. cit. VIII, n. 109–110, S. 21–22; Euseb. VI 18, р. 238. 61 Strom. I 9, Migne VIII с. 741. Такое же точно суждение о бесполезности риторики (τ μικρν τοτο κα οκ ναγκαον μϑημα) и о заменимости её «логикой» высказывался и св. Григорий Чудотворец , основываясь на авторитете Оригена : цит. соч. cap. VII, n 107, cf. 106, Koetschau S. 21. Не смотря на эти ясные указания, доселе можно встречать утверждение, что риторика входила в программу Александрийской школы. См., напр., P. Ssumank, Das Hochschul wesen im romischen Kaiserreich bis bis zum Ausgang der Antike (Beilage zum Programm der Kón. Obtrrealschule zu Posen), Posen 1912, S. 12. |
| 56 ‘quod si quis non paruerit sciat me quidquid contra edictum meum retentum fuerit, in commissum vindicaturum.’ 58 Ep. iv. 22, vi. 22. 31: delation, vi. 22. 2, 31. 3–5–6–9, arbitriumi udicantis, vi. 22. 5, 31. 12, use of consilium, iv. 22. 3, vi. 22. 5, 31. 12. 59 Relegatio and deportatio in varying degrees replace the death penalty, which was the poena legis for matestas, Tac. Ann. xiv. 50, xv. 71. 60 In the Pisonian trials the method seems mostly to be inquisitorial, with indices, informers, taking the place of delatores, accusers, ibid. xv. 56, 66, 67. 1. But in 69. 1: ‘non crimine non accusatore existente, quia speciem iudicis induere non potest, ad vim dominationis conversus.’ 72 BGU, 611, col. ii. For the Sc. Turpilianum, D. 48. 16. 7, see below, 52, 113 ff. Absentee defendants are in a different category. In an Egyptian cognitio of A.D. 89 the Prefect gives them a second chance of appearance before condemnation in absence, FIRA, iii, no. 169. The lawyers were tender towards them, a year’s grace being allowed them by a rule not later than Trajan, D. 48. 17. 5. See further Lecture Five, p. 114 n. 3. 73 Pliny Ep. x. 96. 3. For the triple citation see D. 48. 1. 10, discussed in Lecture Five, p. 117 n. 3. 81 Callistratus, D. 48. 19. 28. 3. Cf. Sent. Pauli, v. 21. 1: ‘primum fustibus caesi civitate pelluntur. perseverantes autem in vincula publica coniciuntur aut in insulam deportantur.’ 83 Liddell and Scott quote only Hosea 7:2 (Sept.) for the sense of ‘punish’ and the noun form in Hebrews 12:9. Arndt–Gingrich, Lexicon of the N.T. s.v. ‘B’, quote no N.T. parallel for sense ‘whip’. 85 For the association of beatings with the severer penalties, cf. Sent. Pauli, v. 18. 1, 21. 1. 90 D. 48. 22. 7. 11–13. He raises the nice question: ‘an interdicere quis alicui possit provincia in qua oriundus est cum ipse ei provinciae praesit quam incolit.’ 91 D. i. 18. 3. Mommsen made too much of interdum. There were other matters apart from criminal offences in which a man was subject only to his proper authority. A rescript of Pius, D. 48. 2. 7. 4, concerns slaves of a dominus who is refused revocatio in provinciam suam in order to exercise the usual right to defend them. But this provides no parallel for ingenui, who were not pieces of property. |
| Central to the story is the contrast between the two occasions of faith in the account, one preceding the sign, and the other signs-faith, but in this case a signs-faith that confirms faith. 5699 Juxtaposed with the man who experiences a sign yet betrays Jesus (5:11–15), this incident reveals that signs may, yet need not, lead to faith. 5700 The faith of the «whole household» (4:53) was a natural corollary of the sign and the faith of their pater familias, head of the household (Acts 10:2; 16:31–32; 18:8). The Roman world expected families to share the faith of the head of the household, 5701 and while exceptions to this expectation were frequent, they remained a minority of instances. The request for Jesus to «come down» reflects the fact that Capernaum, on the lake and nearly seven hundred feet below the level of the Mediterranean sea, was lower in elevation than Cana. 5702 If one assumes a fifteen-mile walk and the word of healing being spoken at the seventh hour (1P.M., in 4:52), it is not surprising that the man is met by his servants the day after his sons healing (4:50–52). 5703 Except during protracted marches, people often travelled only twenty miles in a day, and would start early in the morning. The father undoubtedly stopped in a town on the way before the approach of dusk, resuming his trek along the same road in the morning. Some have suggested that his failure to show greater urgency in returning home merely reflects his confidence. 5704 That the healing occurred simultaneously with Jesus» announcement underlines the long-distance character of the miracle, hence its dramatic impact. 5705 When the suppliant fears that if Jesus delays, his son will die (4:49), he prefigures Marthás and Mary " s assurance that Jesus could help Lazarus, but only in the present life (11:21, 32). John normally avoids the verb ζ and noun ζω except when referring to eternal life, but makes an exception here. 5706 Is it possible that John intends the restoration of life here as an allusion to Christ " s gift of eternal life (cf. |
| 45 De part. anim. 64la 18: απελθοσης γουν (της ψυχς) οκτι ζων στι; Meteor. IV.12, 389b 31: νεκρς νθρωπος ομνυμος. 46 On Aristoxenus, see Zeller, II.2, s. 888 and note: ap. Cicer. Tusc. 1.10.20, ipsius corporis intentionem quandam (animam); ap. Lactantium, Instit. VII. 13, qui negavit omnino ullam esse animam, etiam cum vivit in cor pore; on Dikaearchus, Zeller, s. 889f and notes: Cicer. Tusc. 1.10.21, nihil esse omnino animum et hoc esse nomen totum inane; Sext. Pyrrh. 11.31, μη εναι την ψυχν; Math. VII, 349, μηδν εναι αυτν παρ τ πς χον σμα; on Strato, Zeller, s. 9l6f and notes. 49 Alexander of Aphrodisias, in De anima, 16.2 Bruns; 21.24: φθαρτο σματος εδος; cf. Zeller, III.l, s. 712ff. 50 De anima, 129a 28: νοητικ ψυχ; Eth. Nicom. X.7, 1178a 6: «since reason more than anything else is man,» επερ τουτο μλιστα νθρωπος. 51 R. D. Hicks, p. 326; E. Rohde, Psyche, Seelencult und Unsterb-lichkeitsglaube der Griechen, 3 Aufl. (193), B. II, s. 305, suggested that the whole doctrine of Nous was simply a survival of Aristotlés early Platonism. This idea was taken up by W. Jaeger, op. cit., p. 332: «In this connection the third book On the soul, which contains the doctrine of Nous, stands out as peculiarly Platonic and not very scientific. This idea is an old and permanent element of Aristotlés philosophy, one of the main roots of his metaphysics . .. On and around the psycho-physical theory of the soul was subsequently constructed, as it appears, without, however, bridging the gulf between two parts whose intellectual heritages were so different.. . The doctrine of Nous was a traditional element, inherited from Plato.» 52 De gen. anim. II.3, 736b 27: λεπεται δ τν νουν μνον θραθεν πεισιναι και θειον ειναι μνον, οθν γαρ ατο κοινωνε σωματικ ενργεια; De anima, 4l3b 25: εοικε ψυχς γνος τερον εναι, και τοτο μνον ενδχεται χωριζεσθαι καθπερ το διον του φθαρτο; 430a 5: soul and body cannot be separated, οκ " στιν ψυχ χωριστ του σματος; «there is, however, no reason why some parts (of the soul) should not be separated, if they are not actualities of any body whatsoever,» δια το μηθνος εναι σματος εντελχειας; 430a 17: κα ουτος νους χωριστς και απαθς και αμιγς, τη ουσα ν ενργεια . . ., χωρισθες δ» εστι, μνον τουθ» οπερ εστιν, και τοτο μνον θνατον και διον .. , δ παθητικς νους φθαρτς και νευ τοτο ουδν. |
| 101 Евхаристиа 3. Taken from Faber, Dominica 2 Post Pentecosten, No. 1 «S. Eucharistia coena magna», sect. 3 «Ex epulis selectissimis». 11. 1–6 cf Faber: «Deinde cibus Eucharisticus mira arte confectus est. Nam primo per consecrationem uno verbo et in momento mutatur panis in Corpus Christi.» 11. 7–8 cf Faber: «Secundo, accidentia panis remanent sine subiecto.» 11. 9–14 cf Faber: «Tertio, Christus cum tota sua naturali quantitate est in parva hostia et in quavis eius parte, si frangatur.» Евхаристиа 4. Taken from Faber, ibid., sect. 6 «Ex maximo periculo». 11. 1–6 cf Faber: «Hinc canit Ecclesia: Mors est malis, vita bonis, vide paris sum ptionis quam sit dispar exitus.» 11. 7–14 cf Faber: «Sic mel nocet cholericis, prodest phlegmaticis. Sic eadem columna illuminavit Hebraeos, excoecavit Aegyptios. Exod. 14. ut habetur ex Chaldaeo. Sic ex eodem fonte Hebraei hauriebant aquam claram, Aegyptii vero sanguinem, ut scribit Iosephus. Sic ex eodem flore apis sugit mel, aranea venenum.» 11. 15–16 are not taken from Faber. Евхаристиа 5. Taken from Meffreth, In Festo Corporis Christi, No. 2. 11.1–10 cf Meffreth: «Multa mirabilia sunt in hoc Sacramento, vt dicit Thom: de Argen: in Compend: Theolog: verita: li. 6. Primum est quod ibi est corpus Christi in tanta quantitate, sicut fuit in cruce, & sicut iam est in coelo, nec tarnen excedit terminos illius formae.» 11. 11–14 cf Meffreth: «Secundum quod ibi sunt accidentia sine subiecto.» 11. 15–16 cf Meffreth: «Tertium quod conuertitur ibi panis in corpus Christi, nec etiam annihilatur.» 11. 17–22 cf Meffreth: «Quartum quod corpus non augetur ex multarum hostiarum consecratione, nec minuitur ex multarum hostiarum sumptione.» 11. 23–28 cf Meffreth: «Quintum quod idem corpus in numéro est in locis pluribus sub omnibus hostijs consecratis.» 11. 29–32 cf Meffreth: «Sextum quod quando diuiditur hostia non diuiditur corpus Christi, sed sub qualibet parte totus est Christus.» 11. 33–40 cf Meffreth: «Septimum quando tenetur hostia in manibus, & videtur oculis corpus Christi, nec tangitur nec videtur, sed haec tantum modo circa species sunt.» 11. |
|
|
