Dist. 12, Dubia
Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity · Distinction 12
DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.
Dubium I.
In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo de argumento haeretici, quod facit ibi: Aut nato iam Filio, aut non nato. Videtur enim istud argumentum necessarium, quia cuiuslibet contradictionis necessarium est alteram partem esse veram1; sed natum et non natum opponuntur contradictorie: ergo necesse est alteram partem dare2, quod Spiritus sanctus procedat aut nato iam Filio, aut non nato: cum igitur Magister3 et Augustinus respondeant interimendo utramque partem, videntur male respondere.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod haereticus in sua quaestione quaerebat de ordine generationis Filii ad processionem Spiritus sancti, et quaerebat de ordine secundum durationem et tempus, non secundum rationem intelligendi, et quaerebat, utrum prius natus est Filius, quam processit4 Spiritus sanctus, aut e converso. Et utrumque falsum erat; ideo Magister et Augustinus considerantes intentionem haeretici sive interrogationem secundum sensum, in quo eam proponit, simpliciter et bene respondent eam interimendo.
Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod divisio haeretici est per contradictoria; dicendum, quod falsum est; quia propositio contradictoria accipitur negando compositionem principalem5; sed ipse fert negationem ad compositionem non principalem, sed intellectam in hoc quod est nato6; et ideo causa falsitatis semper remanet. Haec enim est falsa: Spiritus sanctus procedit, nato Filio; quia notatur, quod nativitas Filii praecedat processionem Spiritus sancti. Haec iterum est falsa: processit, non nato Filio; quia notatur, quod nativitas Filii non fuerit simul cum processione Spiritus sancti. Sed haec est vera: Spiritus sanctus non processit, nato prius Filio; quia simul fuit nativitas Filii et processio Spiritus sancti7.
Dubium II.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicitur: Quidquid Unigenito dedit, gignendo dedit. Videtur male dicere, quia si hoc; sed8 dedit ei spirationem, ergo dedit eam gignendo, ergo spiratio est genita. Sed quidquid dicitur in divinis concrete, dicitur et abstracte, sed non convertitur: ergo si spiratio est genita, spiratio est generatio, quod est contra omnes modo9.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod defectus est in utroque argumento.
Solutio 1. Nam illud non valet: dedit generando spirationem, ergo generavit spirationem; sicut non sequitur: generando dedit Filio essentiam, ergo essentia est genita. Aliqua enim per generationem dicuntur dari, quae non dicuntur generari.
Solutio 2. Et iterum alia ratio non valet: spiratio est genita, ergo spiratio est generatio. Sicut enim infra patebit10 de duabus notionibus unius personae, verum est, quod una praedicatur de altera denominative, non in abstractione; et ideo non valet illa ratio, immo est ibi accidens. Quod ergo dicitur: quidquid praedicatur denominative et abstracte, verum est de essentia; sed non est verum de proprietate personae; et haec infra melius patebunt11.
Dubium III.
Item dubitatio est de hoc quod dicit Hieronymus: Credimus in Spiritum sanctum, qui de Patre proprie procedit. Videtur enim falsum dicere, quia proprium est quod convenit uni soli12: ergo si de Patre procedit proprie, non ergo de Filio. Si tu dicas, quod non dicit proprie contra communitatem, sed contra improprietatem: ergo videtur quod improprie procedat a Filio.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod proprie non dicit proprietatem sive solitudinem, sed sonat in13 auctoritatem, sicut principaliter.
Solutio 1. Sicut enim Pater principaliter dicitur spirare, quia hoc non habet ab alio; ita etiam proprie, quia hanc conditionem, non habere ab alio, nulli communicat; ita videtur dicere Magister.
Alia solutio. Potest tamen dici, quod uno modo proprium dicitur contra communitatem; alio modo contra improprietatem; tertio modo accipitur pro appropriatione14; et sic accipitur hic. Quamvis enim spiratio aeque vere et proprie conveniat Patri et Filio, tamen Hieronymus appropriat eam Patri propter auctoritatem15.
Dubium IV.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Hilarius loquens ad Patrem: Ex te per eum Spiritus sanctus tuus est. Videtur enim male dicere dicendo per eum, quia, ut dicit Praepositivus16, per cum verbis transitivis significat subauctoritatem, sed cum absolutis auctoritatem; ut patet, cum dicitur: ego sum sapiens per Deum, in Deo notatur auctoritas. Cum ergo dicitur, quod Spiritus sanctus est a Patre per Filium, in Filio notatur auctoritas.
Respondeo:
Solutio aliorum. Dicendum, quod aliqui voluerunt dicere, quod haec est impropria: Spiritus sanctus est a Patre per Filium sive procedit; et debet resolvi in hanc: Spiritus sanctus spiratur a Patre per Filium; et consentiunt rationi praedictae.
Non probatur. Sed cum ista sit vera: creatura procedit a Patre per Filium, et haec similiter: exit vel procedit: non video rationem, quare similiter illa verba Hilarii non proprie dici [possint].
Solutio vera. Et17 propterea est dicendum, quod quamvis procedere non sit verbum transitivum quantum ad modum significandi, quia non construitur cum accusativo; quia tamen aequivalet18 transitivo, ut cum dicitur: procedit a Patre per Filium, iudicandum est sicut de verbo transitivo; et ideo dicit subauctoritatem19.
---
DOUBTS ON THE TEXT OF THE MASTER (Distinction XII).
Doubt I.
In this part there are doubts on the text, and first on the heretic's argument which he makes there: Either when the Son was already born, or when He was not yet born. For that argument seems necessary, because it is necessary that one part of any contradiction be true1; but born and not born are contradictorily opposed: therefore it is necessary to grant one part2, that the Holy Spirit proceeds either when the Son was already born, or when He was not yet born: since therefore the Master3 and Augustine reply by killing both parts, they seem to reply badly.
I respond: It must be said that the heretic in his question was asking about the order of the generation of the Son to the procession of the Holy Spirit, and was asking about the order according to duration and time, not according to the order of understanding, and was asking whether the Son was born first, before the Holy Spirit proceeded4, or conversely. And both were false; therefore the Master and Augustine, considering the intention of the heretic — that is, the question according to the sense in which he proposed it — reply simply and well by killing it.
To that, then, which is objected, that the heretic's division is by contradictories; it must be said that this is false; because a contradictory proposition is taken by negating the principal composition5; but he carries the negation to a composition that is not principal, but understood in the [participle] born6; and therefore the cause of falsity always remains. For this is false: The Holy Spirit proceeded, the Son [already] born; because it is signified that the nativity of the Son precedes the procession of the Holy Spirit. This too is false: He proceeded, the Son not [yet] born; because it is signified that the nativity of the Son was not at the same time as the procession of the Holy Spirit. But this is true: The Holy Spirit did not proceed, the Son being born first; because the nativity of the Son and the procession of the Holy Spirit were at the same time7.
Doubt II.
Likewise it is asked about what is said: Whatever He gave to the Only-begotten, He gave by begetting. He seems to say [this] badly, because if so; but8 He gave Him spiration, therefore He gave it by begetting, therefore spiration is begotten. But whatever is said in the divine [persons] concretely is also said abstractly — though not conversely: therefore if spiration is begotten, spiration is generation, which is against everyone today9.
I respond: It must be said that there is a defect in both arguments.
Solution 1. For this does not hold: He gave by begetting spiration, therefore He begot spiration; just as it does not follow: by begetting He gave the essence to the Son, therefore the essence is begotten. For some things are said to be given by generation which are not said to be generated.
Solution 2. And again the other reasoning does not hold: spiration is begotten, therefore spiration is generation. For as will appear below10 concerning the two notions of one person, it is true that one is predicated of the other denominatively, not in abstract; and so that reasoning does not hold — rather, an accident is committed there. So when it is said: whatever is predicated denominatively is also [predicable] abstractly, this is true of essence; but it is not true of property of a person; and these things will appear better below11.
Doubt III.
Likewise there is a doubt about what Jerome says: We believe in the Holy Spirit, who properly proceeds from the Father. For he seems to say [something] false, because property is what belongs to one alone12: therefore if [the Spirit] proceeds properly from the Father, He does not [proceed properly] from the Son. If you say that he does not say properly against commonness but against improperness: then it seems that He proceeds improperly from the Son.
I respond: It must be said that proprie does not denote property or solitude, but rings of13 authority, like principally.
Solution 1. For just as the Father is said to spirate principally because He does not have this from another; so also properly, because this condition — not to have from another — He communicates to no one. So the Master seems to say.
Another solution. Yet it can be said that in one way proper is said against commonness; in another way against improperness; in a third way it is taken for appropriation14; and so it is taken here. For although spiration belongs as truly and properly to the Father and the Son, yet Jerome appropriates it to the Father on account of authority15.
Doubt IV.
Likewise it is asked about what Hilary, addressing the Father, says: From Thee, through Him, is Thy Holy Spirit. For he seems to say [it] badly by saying through Him, because, as Prepositivus says16, per (through) with transitive verbs signifies sub-authority, but with absolute [verbs] authority; as is plain when it is said: I am wise through God, in God authority is denoted. When therefore it is said that the Holy Spirit is from the Father through the Son, in the Son authority is denoted.
I respond:
The solution of others. It must be said that some have wished to say that this is improper: The Holy Spirit is from the Father through the Son, or proceeds; and it should be resolved into: The Holy Spirit is spirated by the Father through the Son; and they consent to the aforesaid reasoning.
Not proven. But since creature proceeds from the Father through the Son is true, and likewise goes out or proceeds: I do not see why those words of Hilary similarly cannot be said properly.
The true solution. And17 therefore it must be said that, although to proceed is not a transitive verb in mode of signifying — because it is not construed with the accusative — yet because it is equivalent18 to a transitive [verb], as when it is said: He proceeds from the Father through the Son, it is to be judged as if [it were] a transitive verb; and so it denotes sub-authority19.
---
- Aristot., I Periherm. c. 6 (c. 8).Aristotle, On Interpretation I, c. 6 (c. 8).
- In cod. Y additur videlicet.In codex Y videlicet is added.
- Hic, c. 1, ubi et verba Augustini habentur.[Lombard,] here, c. 1, where Augustine's words are also given.
- Unus alterve codex ut I bb cum ed. 1 natus esset Filius quam processisset.A codex or two, as I bb, with ed. 1 read natus esset Filius quam processisset.
- Id est, copulam, quae hic fit verbo procedit.That is, the copula, which here is made by the verb procedit.
- B. Albert., hic a. 2. ad ult. ait: Dicendum, quod licet natum et non natum habeant modum oppositionis contradictoriorum, tamen propositiones, in quibus ponuntur, non sunt contradictoriae, istae scilicet: aut processit iam nato, aut processit iam non nato, quia negatio non fertur ad compositionem (copulam), et ideo sunt ambae affirmativae. — Similia dicit Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 1. ad 1.Bl. Albert, here a. 2, ad ult., says: «It must be said that, although born and not born have the mode of opposition of contradictories, yet the propositions in which they are placed are not contradictory — namely these: He proceeded the [Son] already born, or He proceeded the [Son] not yet born — because the negation is not carried to the composition (copula), and therefore both are affirmative». — Peter of Tarantasia says similar things, here q. 1, a. 1, ad 1.
- Cfr. hic, q. 1; et Richard., hic q. 1. ad ult.Cf. here, q. 1; and Richard [of Mediavilla], here q. 1, ad ult.
- Vat. absque auctoritate mss. et edd. 1, 2, 3, 6 esset verum loco sed; simili elliptica locutione S. Bonav. saepius utitur.The Vatican, without the authority of the manuscripts and editions 1, 2, 3, 6, [reads] esset verum in place of sed; the Holy Doctor often uses such an elliptical expression.
- Ita fere omnes codd. cum ed. 1; cod. cc omittit modo, pro quo Vat. modernos.So nearly all the codices with ed. 1; codex cc omits modo, in place of which the Vatican has modernos.
- Dist. 33, qq. 3 et 4. — Mox post verum est Vat. cum cod. cc, aliis tamen codd. et ed. 1 refragantibus, addit dicere. Paulo infra post denominative in cod. T apponitur sed.D. 33, qq. 3 and 4. — Just after verum est the Vatican with codex cc — though the other codices and ed. 1 resist — adds dicere. A little below, after denominative, in codex T sed is appended.
- Loco paulo supra citato. — Antiquiores codd. cum ed. 1 in eo conveniunt, quod in ultima propositione adiungant a Vat. et cod. cc omissum melius, sed in eo dissentiunt, quod alii ut A G H I T etc. cum ed. 1 exhibent lectionem nostram, alii modo singulari et hoc infra melius patebit; cod. Z et hoc similiter melius patebit. — De solutione huius dubii vide etiam B. Albert., hic a. 7.At the place just cited above. — The older codices with ed. 1 agree in adding melius, omitted by the Vatican and codex cc, in the last proposition; but they disagree in that some, as A G H I T etc., with ed. 1 present our reading, others in the singular et hoc infra melius patebit; codex Z reads et hoc similiter melius patebit. — On the solution of this doubt see also Bl. Albert, here a. 7.
- Aristot., I Topic. c. 4, et Porphyr., de Praedicab. c. de Proprio. — Paulo infra fide antiquiorum mss. et ed. 1 substituimus dicit, scilicet Hieronymus, loco dicitur.Aristotle, Topics I, c. 4, and Porphyry, On the Predicables, ch. On the Proper. — A little below, on the testimony of the older manuscripts and ed. 1, we have substituted dicit (sc. Jerome) in place of dicitur.
- Auctoritate fere omnium mss. et trium primarum edd. restituimus praepositionem in; familiaris siquidem est S. Doctori haec locutio sonare in.On the authority of nearly all the manuscripts and the first three editions, we have restored the preposition in; for the expression sonare in (to ring of) is familiar to the Holy Doctor.
- Plurimi codd. cum tribus primis edd. per appropriationem. Melius legeretur pro appropriato. Paulo infra mss. cum sex primis edd. perperam Filius loco Hieronymus.Very many codices with the first three editions read per appropriationem. It would be better read pro appropriato. A little below the manuscripts with the first six editions wrongly read Filius in place of Hieronymus.
- Solutioni consentit S. Thom., S. I. q. 36. a. 3. ad 2, et Scot., hic q. 2.St. Thomas agrees with the solution, S. I, q. 36, a. 3, ad 2, and Scotus, here q. 2.
- Vat. praeter fidem mss. et ed. 1 Priscianus.The Vatican, against the testimony of the manuscripts and ed. 1, [reads] Priscianus.
- In Vat. omittitur Et, refragantibus mss. et ed. 1.In the Vatican Et is omitted, with the manuscripts and ed. 1 resisting.
- Ed. 1 aequipollet. Paulo infra post Filium codd. H V addunt tantum valet ac si diceretur, producitur.Ed. 1 reads aequipollet. A little below, after Filium, codices H V add tantum valet ac si diceretur, producitur («it has the same force as if it were said, He is produced»).
- Explicationem textus Hilarii et significationem praepositionis per vide etiam in S. Thom., S. I. q. 36 a. 3, in corp. et ad 1; B. Albert., hic a. 6; Scot., hic q. 2.For the explanation of the text of Hilary and the signification of the preposition per, see also St. Thomas, S. I, q. 36, a. 3, in corpore and ad 1; Bl. Albert, here a. 6; Scotus, here q. 2.