← Back to Distinction 11

Dist. 11, Dubia

Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity · Distinction 11

Textus Latinus
p. 217

DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

Dubium I.

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram et primo de hoc quod dicit: In principalibus Conciliis, quae apud eos celebrata sunt. Quaeritur ergo, quae sunt illa quatuor principalia Concilia?

Respondeo: Et dicendum, quod fuerunt quatuor principalia1 Concilia Apostolorum in Ecclesia primitiva, ut dicit quaedam Glossa super Actus2. Primum fuit ad electionem Matthiae, Actuum primo3; secundum ad electionem septem diaconorum, Actuum sexto4; tertium fuit ad non imponenda legalia gentibus, Actuum decimo quinto5; quartum ad tolerandum legalia ad tempus, Actuum vigesimo primo6.

Concilia vero Patrum principalia apud Graecos similiter fuerunt quatuor, scilicet Nicaenum, Ephesinum, Chalcedonense et Constantinopolitanum.

Dubium II.

Item quaeritur de expositione illa, quam ponit Magister super illud: Qui aliud docuerit vel aliter praedicaverit etc.; et exponit: id est, contrarium docuerit vel contrario modo etc.; quia non videtur ista expositio probabilis, eo quod ille qui contradicit articulis, excommunicatus est ipso iure: ergo non oportebat pro contrario dare sententiam: ergo videtur, quod pro diverso tulerunt sententiam. Praeterea, unde venit ista expositio? Pro Deo!7 quare non dixerunt: quisquis contradixerit?

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod sicut dicit Anselmus8: Omnis veritas sacrae Scripturae potest dici, quae sacrae Scripturae non contradicit, propter suam generalitatem et dignitatem; et ideo praedicta expositio habet hic locum. Nec fuit inconveniens exprimere excommunicationem haereticorum, quia sancti Patres in Conciliis ordinabant quae iuris erant, et propterea9 ad terrorem est dictum; et maluerunt dicere aliud, quamvis intellexerint contrarium, ut magis compescerent ora praesumptuosorum, ne adinvenirent novitates in fide. Secundum veritatem autem excommunicationis sententia non se extendit nisi ad contradicentes; quia non fuit eorum intentio, praecludendi viam ad explanationem fidei faciendam maiorem, si Deus alios magis illuminaret; et si hoc dixissent, constat quod non bene moti fuissent, et sententia eorum merito abolenda esset10.

Dubium III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod non est aliud Spiritum sanctum esse Filii quam esse a Filio. Sed contra: aliud est dicere cappa Socratis quam cappa facta a Socrate: ergo similiter videtur in proposito; aut si non, quaeritur ratio11.

Et dicendum, quod genitivus, quamvis denominetur ab habitudine principii, tamen aliam habitudinem importat, immo alias12, ut possessionis; sed cum in divinis non cadat diversitas nec habitudo nisi originis, ratione materiae in divinis determinatur ad habitudinem principii; et ideo in Deo idem est dicere Spiritus Filii, quod Spiritus procedit a Filio.

p. 218

Praeterea, alia est ratio, quia Spiritus, secundum quod est nomen absolutum, sicut hoc nomen Deus, non habet proprie idioma cum genitivo, quia tunc idem esset dicere Spiritus Filii quod Deus Filii: ergo oportet, quod accipiatur Spiritus, secundum quod dicitur a spiratione; et sic est nomen importans originem: ergo sicut sequitur: Filius Patris, ergo Filius qui est a Patre, et ita est dicere Spiritus Filii, id est, Spiritus qui est a Filio.

Dubium IV.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Non sine me et sine meo et Patris arbitrio etc. Videtur male dicere, quia qui habet arbitrium super aliquem habet dominium super illum13: ergo videtur secundum hoc, quod Spiritus sanctus sit inferior Filio. Si tu dicas, quod arbitrium dicat voluntatem; hoc nihil est, quia14 similiter cum una voluntas sit trium, similiter Filius non loquitur sine arbitrio Spiritus sancti, et Pater similiter; quod non dicitur proprie.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod Spiritus sanctus est Patri et Filio consubstantialis, ita quod a Patre et Filio procedit; operatio ergo Spiritus sancti communis est Patri et Filio, et similiter aeque habet esse15 a Patre et Filio; ita quod non est dicere, quod habeat locutionem propriam, nec quod habeat locutionem a se; et haec duo voluit excludere Dominus cum dixit: Non loquetur a semetipso16, ut excludatur ratio proprii et ratio primi principii. Et hoc exponens Didymus contra rationem proprii dicit: Non sine me; contra rationem primi principii dicit: Sine meo et Patris arbitrio; et arbitrium non importat dominium vel17 causalitatem, sed solum auctoritatem in Patre et Filio respectu Spiritus sancti vel eius operationis.

---

English Translation

DOUBTS ON THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

Doubt I.

In this part there are doubts on the text, and first on what he says: In the principal Councils which were celebrated among them. It is asked, then, which were those four principal Councils?

I respond: And it must be said that there were four principal1 Councils of the Apostles in the primitive Church, as a certain Gloss on Acts says2. The first was for the election of Matthias, Acts 13; the second for the election of the seven deacons, Acts 64; the third for not imposing the legal observances on the gentiles, Acts 155; the fourth for tolerating the legal observances for a time, Acts 216.

The principal Councils of the Fathers among the Greeks were likewise four, namely Nicaea, Ephesus, Chalcedon, and Constantinople.

Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked about that exposition which the Master places upon the words Whoever shall have taught another thing or preached otherwise etc.; and he expounds: that is, who shall have taught the contrary or in a contrary way etc.; because that exposition does not seem probable, because he who contradicts the articles is excommunicated ipso iure: therefore it was not necessary to give a sentence against the contrary: therefore it seems that they passed a sentence against the diverse. Moreover, whence comes that exposition? For God's sake!7 why did they not say: whoever shall contradict?

I respond: It must be said that, as Anselm says8: Every truth which does not contradict sacred Scripture can be said [to belong to] sacred Scripture, on account of its generality and dignity; and therefore the aforesaid exposition has place here. Nor was it unfitting to express the excommunication of heretics, because the holy Fathers in the Councils ordained the things that pertained to discipline (quae iuris erant), and on that account9 [it was] said for the sake of terror; and they preferred to say another thing (aliud), although they understood the contrary, in order more strongly to restrain the mouths of the presumptuous, lest they invent novelties in the faith. According to truth, however, the sentence of excommunication does not extend except to those who contradict; because it was not their intention to preclude the way to a fuller explanation of the faith, if God should illuminate others more; and if they had said this, it is plain that they would not have been well moved, and their sentence would deservedly be liable to abolition10.

Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked about what he says, that it is not anything else for the Holy Spirit to be of the Son than to be from the Son. But on the contrary: it is one thing to say the cape of Socrates, and another the cape made by Socrates: therefore it seems likewise in the case at hand; or if not, the reason is asked11.

And it must be said that the genitive, although it be denominated from the relation of principle, yet it imports another relation, indeed others12, such as that of possession; but since in the divine being there falls no diversity nor relation save that of origin, by reason of the matter in the divine being [the genitive] is determined to the relation of principle; and therefore in God to say Spirit of the Son is the same as [to say] the Spirit proceeds from the Son.

Moreover, there is another reason, because Spirit, insofar as it is an absolute name, like the name God, does not properly have an idiom with the genitive, because then it would be the same to say Spirit of the Son as God of the Son: therefore it must be the case that Spirit be taken according as it is said from spiration; and so it is a name importing origin: therefore just as it follows: Son of the Father, [therefore] Son who is from the Father, so also to say Spirit of the Son is to say: the Spirit who is from the Son.

Doubt IV.

Likewise it is asked about what he [the Master] says: Not without me and without my and the Father's arbitrium [decision] etc. He seems to say [this] badly, because he who has arbitrium over someone has dominion over him13: therefore it seems according to this that the Holy Spirit is inferior to the Son. If you say that arbitrium denotes will; this is nothing, because14 similarly, since the will is one of the three, likewise the Son does not speak without the arbitrium of the Holy Spirit, and the Father likewise; which is not properly said.

I respond: It must be said that the Holy Spirit is consubstantial with the Father and the Son, in such a way that He proceeds from the Father and the Son; therefore the operation of the Holy Spirit is common to the Father and the Son, and likewise [the Holy Spirit] has being equally15 from the Father and the Son; in such a way that it is not [right] to say that He has a proper speaking, nor that He has speaking from Himself; and these two the Lord wished to exclude when He said: He shall not speak from Himself16, in order that the formal character of proper and the formal character of first principle might be excluded. And expounding this, Didymus, against the formal character of proper, says: Not without me; against the formal character of first principle he says: Without my and the Father's arbitrium; and arbitrium does not import dominion or17 causality, but only authority in the Father and the Son with respect to the Holy Spirit or to His operation.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Ex vetustioribus mss. et ed. 1 supplevimus principalia.
    From the older manuscripts and ed. 1 we have supplied principalia.
  2. Cap. 21, 21. Vide apud Lyranum.
    [Glossa Ordinaria,] cap. 21, 21. See in Nicholas of Lyra.
  3. Vers. 15 seqq.
    Acts 1:15 ff.
  4. Vers. 2 seqq.
    Acts 6:2 ff.
  5. Vers. 6 seqq.
    Acts 15:6 ff.
  6. Vers. 18 seqq. — Paulo ante ed. 1 toleranda loco tolerandum.
    Acts 21:18 ff. — Just before, ed. 1 reads toleranda in place of tolerandum.
  7. Vat. praeter fidem mss. et ed. 1 pro hac interiectione ponit et quaeritur.
    The Vatican, against the testimony of the manuscripts and ed. 1, places et quaeritur in place of this interjection [Pro Deo!].
  8. Libr. de Conc. praesc. Dei cum libr. arb. q. 3, c. 6: Quoniam ipsa (S. Scriptura), sicuti nulli adversatur veritati, ita nulli favet falsitati, hoc ipso quia non negat, quod ratione dicitur eius auctoritate suscipitur. — Et paulo post: Sic itaque sacra Scriptura omnis veritatis, quam ratio colligit, auctoritatem continet, cum illam aut aperte affirmat aut nullatenus negat.
    [Anselm,] On the Concord of God's Foreknowledge with Free Choice, q. 3, c. 6: «For since [Sacred Scripture], just as it is opposed to no truth, so favors no falsehood, by this very fact that it does not deny what is said by reason, [that truth] is received by its authority». — And a little after: «So, then, sacred Scripture contains the authority of every truth which reason gathers, when [Scripture] either openly affirms it or in no way denies it».
  9. Vat. contra multos codd. ut A F G H I T X Z etc. et ed. 1 praeterea, sed minus bene, quia verba quae iuris erant hic significant decretum ad disciplinam spectans, non stricte ad fidem. Vat. et paulo infra intellexerunt loco intellexerint. Mox aliqui codd. ut V W X praesumptuosa pro praesumptuosorum.
    The Vatican, against many codices (A F G H I T X Z etc.) and ed. 1, reads praeterea, but less well, because the words quae iuris erant here signify a decree pertaining to discipline, not strictly to faith. The Vatican, a little below, also reads intellexerunt in place of intellexerint. Just after, some codices, as V W X, read praesumptuosa in place of praesumptuosorum.
  10. S. Doctor loquitur tantum hypothetice et praecise de prohibitione explanationis, quatenus est res disciplinaris; minime autem supponit — quod innuit nota marginalis in Vaticana ed. — decreta Concilii vere generalis in rebus fidei esse reformabilia.
    The Holy Doctor speaks only hypothetically and precisely about the prohibition of [further] exposition, insofar as it is a matter of discipline; he by no means supposes — as a marginal note in the Vatican edition indicates — that the decrees of a truly general Council in matters of faith are reformable.
  11. Unus alterve cod. ut V bb quare non loco quaeritur ratio.
    A codex or two, as V bb, read quare non in place of quaeritur ratio.
  12. Vat. desunt verba immo alias, quae tamen habentur in pluribus codd. et ed. 1.
    In the Vatican the words immo alias are missing, which however are found in several codices and in ed. 1.
  13. Vat. cum cod. cc illud, et paulo ante aliquid loco aliquem, sed obest auctoritas antiquiorum codd. et ed. 1.
    The Vatican with codex cc reads illud, and just before aliquid in place of aliquem, but the authority of the older codices and of ed. 1 stands against [the Vatican reading].
  14. Cod. Z cum ed. 1 addit tunc.
    Codex Z with ed. 1 adds tunc.
  15. In cod. bb additur et loqui.
    In codex bb et loqui is added.
  16. Ioan. 16, 13.
    John 16:13.
  17. Ex antiquis mss. et ed. 1 substituimus vel loco sive.
    From the ancient manuscripts and ed. 1 we have substituted vel in place of sive.
← Dist. 11, Art. 1, Q. 2