I. Brief Reply of Others to the Question and Rejection of it

20. Here someone [Bonaventure] draws a distinction about the higher part: that as this part is a nature Christ did thus grieve, because this part is founded in the soul that was grieving; or, on the other hand, that as this part is the higher part, or is his reason, he did not thus grieve, because not with respect to the object that his reason had regard to.

21. An argument against this distinction is that no predicate is said to be present in anything because of something that is accidental to the reason for the inherence of the predicate/accident (just as a man is not said to build insofar as he is musical, even if someone musical happens to be a builder); therefore Christ’s soul will not be said to grieve according to the higher part if the sorrow is present in some accident that is accidentally joined to the higher part; such is the reason [or higher part] of Christ as it is nature and has to the soul the respect of foundation, as foundation of the sorrow.

22. In confirmation of this reasoning is that the soul could in this way be said to understand according to the will, that is, as the will is nature and not as it is will, for the soul itself, which is a will, does understand.

23. Again, it does not belong to the soul to grieve as it is distinguished from the power or powers, just as neither does it thus belong to the soul to have regard to the object about which it grieves; but the soul itself, taken by itself alone, is a unity in its lower and higher part not as it regards some object but as it is first act; therefore it cannot, as it is a unity in both these parts, be the reason that one or other of the parts should grieve; therefore it does not thus belong to the soul to grieve. Therefore the higher part will not be said to grieve because of the soul (which is the same soul as in the grieving lower part), for it is not the same as it.

24. Again, if the higher part did come to know grief for the soul, this would be most of all because of its separation from the body (and the soul as it is nature does properly perfect the body and does have a natural inclination to the body); but the consequent is false, because the higher part was made impassible in the separation of the soul from the flesh; so it was not then saddened.