Theoria pathologica de dolore

XVIII.
But that those who argue against [it] bring forward that there is a single cause for one thing, they assume nothing but the principle.

XIX.
Therefore, the author of the second opinion, Averroes in 2 Collectanea, ch. 21, did not philosophize correctly. For what he assumes—that the solution of the continuum is made from intemperance—simple ulcers and their cure indicate to be false.

XX.
Likewise, the solution of the continuum will by no means always be the offspring of intemperance: since the former consists in the division of parts, the latter in an excess of qualities.

XXI.
We also wonder that he denied that the solution of unity is the object of any sense: since secondary qualities, which are for the most part its producers, so manifestly affect the sense of touch.

XXII.
Finally, some think they defend him in vain, while they relate that every division of unity brings about intemperance. For the prick of a needle will be the author of pain before either the air or the influx of humor, from which alone intemperance can happen here, exert their forces.

XXIII.
The vindicators of the third opinion also rashly seek the patron Galen, 4 On Simples, ch. 2, and 2 On Medications According to Place, ch. 10.

XXIV.
And it does not favor [the view] that they say vehement heat, as in fevers, effects no pain even in the thorax, a sensible part. For if such heat is felt, why not also the pain?

XXV.
Then, we deny that fire does not inflict pain unless by dissolving unity: and therefore we do not accept the similar consequence of the remaining qualities which they desire.

A 3 Quar-