b. Specifically

286. This first conclusion is, second, proved specifically because ‘every understanding that is in Christ here is also in him there’; for every such operation now abstracts from here and now; but if Christ’s soul were to understand precisely according to the mode of understanding of a soul that is a wayfarer, it would not have intuitive understanding of this or that object without concomitant sensation of the same; therefore since it would have that understanding the same here as there, it follows that it would also have the requisite sensation for it here and there.

287. It is proved third as follows, because the passion of sense appetite, such as pain, would be the same here as there; therefore the sensation would be the same. The proof of the antecedent is that death would thus have followed here as there; but it followed there on extreme pain; therefore here too. The proof of the first consequence is that there is no same effect without the same cause, and this when not positing a miracle and when meaning a natural cause precisely; but pain is an effect of sensation or of an object that is sensed; therefore there cannot be the same pain without, in the absence of a miracle, the same sensation.

288. Some reply [Richard of Middleton] that an act of imagination in Christ would be sufficient for this, namely for the pain.

289. Against this in two ways:

First: the response destroys itself, for it is not possible for an act of imagination to be in something in which an act of sense cannot be, because imagination is a movement caused by sense, On the Soul 3.3.428b11-12.

Second, because imagination is not the cause of the same specific pain as is the pain caused by external sense; otherwise someone dreaming would be pained with a pain of the same species as the pain of someone awake.