← Back to Distinction 15

Dist. 15, Part 2, Dubia

Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity · Distinction 15

Textus Latinus
p. 273

DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

DUB. I.

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo dubitatur de situ primi capituli huius partis. Videtur enim, quod Magister non debeat hic ponere tractatum de missione Filii, quia missio Filii est incarnatio; sed de eius incarnatione agetur1 in tertio: ergo ibi deberet agere de missione, non hic.

Respondeo: Dicendum2, quod Magister incidenter introducit hic tractatum de missione Filii propter explicationem missionis Spiritus sancti. Posset tamen dici, quod Magister hic agit de missione Filii in mentem principaliter, sed de missione Filii in carnem per accidens, ut distinguat a missione Filii in mentem. De illa autem missione, quae est in carnem, specialiter et principaliter agit in tertio, et ideo3 aliter ibi quam hic.

DUB. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Non eo ipso, quod de Patre natus est, missus dicitur Filius. Videtur enim dicere falsum et contra Gregorium4, qui dicit: «Eo modo mittitur Filius, quo generatur».

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod Augustinus loquitur cum praecisione, ut intelligatur: non eo ipso tantum; Gregorius autem cum praesuppositione manifestationis. Vel aliter: Augustinus loquitur de generatione aeterna, Gregorius de temporali; unde nulla ibi5 est omnino contradictio.

DUB. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod ante incarnationem missus est ad omnes Sanctos, qui ante fuerunt. Quaeritur ergo, utrum post incarnationem plenius sit datus Filius et Spiritus sanctus. Et quod sic, videtur, quia status Legis fuit status imperfectionis, status Evangelii status perfectionis. Lex enim neminem duxit ad perfectionem6, sed Evangelium dicit: Estote perfecti, Matthaei quinto7: ergo etc.

Item, de Spiritu sancto videtur hoc specialiter, quia scribitur Ioannis septimo8: Spiritus nondum erat datus, quia Iesus nondum erat glorificatus; hoc non dicitur, quod nullo modo ante fuerit datus, sed quia non ita abundanter: ergo etc.

Item, maior cognitio et dilectio est tempore Legis gratiae, quam tempore Legis scriptae: ergo etc.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod plenius dari potest dupliciter intelligi: aut intensive, aut extensive. Si extensive, sic pluribus datus est Spiritus sanctus tempore Legis gratiae, quia in omnem terram exivit sonus eorum9 etc., non tantum ad unam gentem. Si intensive, hoc est quantum ad generalem statum, aut quantum ad speciales personas; quantum ad generalem statum in novo Testamento,

p. 274

quantum ad speciales personas in veteri Testamento; et sic se habent ut excedentia et excessa, quia in veteri Testamento fuerunt aliqui viri Evangelici; et sic procedunt rationes ad utramque partem. In veteri enim10 Testamento fuerunt aliqui abundantes in sapientia, ut Salomon, aliqui in patientia, ut Iob, aliqui in mansuetudine, ut Moyses, aliqui in fide, ut Abraham, aliqui in devotione, ut David, aliqui in miraculorum operatione11, ut Elias.

DUB. IV.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod missus est ad Angelos. Videtur enim falsum, quia Angelus dicitur nuntius seu missus: sed ad missum non est missio: ergo etc. Si tu dicas, quod alio modo mittitur; contra: qui semper est praesens non indiget missione; sed Angelus semper contemplatur Deum ut praesentem: ergo etc.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod missio Sapientiae sive Filii est ad creaturam illustrandam, sicut missio Spiritus sancti ad creaturam sanctificandam. Et quoniam Angeli nec ex se fuerunt sapientes nec ex se fuerunt sancti, ideo oportuit, quod a principio mitteretur eis Sapientia, quae est Filius, et etiam12 Spiritus sanctus. Unde Augustinus13 loquitur pro statu glorificationis; proprie autem non dicitur mitti nunc, nisi dicatur large mitti ad manifestationem alicuius occulti14.

DUB. V.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Secundum quod aliquid aeternum mente capimus, non in hoc mundo sumus. Videtur enim falsum dicere, quia aut hoc15 dicit secundum animam, aut secundum carnem. Non secundum carnem, hoc constat: ergo secundum animam: ergo videtur, quod anima, quando Deum cognoscit, sit in caelo sive extra mundum. Item hoc videtur ratione, quia capere aeternum, est magis capi: ergo si quod capitur a capiente locatur, ergo anima locatur in aeternitate, ergo extra tempus. Praeterea, quod cognoscitur et amatur, aut trahitur ad cognoscentem et amantem, aut e converso16; sed dum Deum amamus et cognoscimus, non trahimus Deum ad nos, sed nos ad Deum, sicut dicitur in quarto de Divinis Nominibus17: ergo etc.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod locus habet naturam continentis et quietantis18. Esse ergo in hoc mundo est dupliciter: aut quantum ad veritatem et continentiam, aut quantum ad quietem. Augustinus autem loquitur non primo19 modo, quod anima et corpus vere egrediantur hunc mundum, dum mente capit Deum, sed intelligit quantum ad quietem, quia affectus animae non requiescit in temporalibus, quibus superfertur, sed in aeternis20, et quantum ad hoc intelligit Dionysius. — Et secunda ratio intelligitur, quod amatum trahit, non localiter mutando, sed sibi conformando, quia amans transformatur in amatum, et cognoscens conformatur cognito21.

DUB. VI.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Augustinus: Pater est principium totius Divinitatis, vel si melius dicitur, Deitatis. Videtur enim male dicere, quia aut hoc est per generationem, aut per spirationem. Sed si hoc: ergo Pater generat vel spirat Deitatem, quod est contra Magistrum, supra distinctione quinta22, ubi dicit, quod essentia nec generat nec generatur. — Praeterea quaeritur, quare dicit: «Vel si melius dicitur Deitatis»?

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod Augustinus non

p. 275

simpliciter dicit, quod sit principium Divinitatis, sed cum hac determinatione, totius. Et quoniam in simplicissimo non cadit aliqua totalitas, nisi extenso nomine totalitatis ad personarum pluralitatem, ideo Deitas sive Divinitas stat ut in personis; tamen quia non potest trahi ad personas, cum sit nomen abstractum, praedictus sermo exponendus est, sicut supra exponit Magister locutiones consimiles.

Quod quaeritur: quare dicitur Deitatis melius? dicendum, quod divinum potest dici de creaturis, secundum quod dicitur homo divinus; sed Deus solius Dei est proprium; ideo Deitas magis proprie dicit formam Dei quam Divinitas: ideo melius dicitur Deitatis quam Divinitatis.

---

English Translation
p. 273

DOUBTS ON THE LETTER OF THE MASTER.

DOUBT I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the letter, and first it is doubted concerning the placement of the first chapter of this part. For it seems that the Master ought not to put here a treatise on the mission of the Son, since the mission of the Son is the Incarnation; but his Incarnation will be treated1 in [Book] III: therefore he ought to treat of his mission there, not here.

I respond: It must be said2 that the Master here introduces incidentally a treatise on the mission of the Son for the sake of explaining the mission of the Holy Spirit. It can also be said that the Master here treats principally of the mission of the Son into the mind, but only incidentally of the mission of the Son into the flesh — in order to distinguish [the latter] from the mission of the Son into the mind. But of that mission which is into the flesh, he treats specially and principally in [Book] III, and therefore3 differently there than here.

DOUBT II.

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says: Not by that very thing by which he was born of the Father is the Son said to be sent. For he seems to speak falsely and contrary to Gregory4, who says: «In that mode by which the Son is generated, [in that] he is sent».

I respond: It must be said that Augustine speaks with precision, so that it is understood: not only by that very thing; but Gregory speaks with the manifestation [in the creature] presupposed. Or otherwise: Augustine speaks of eternal generation, Gregory of temporal; whence there is no contradiction at all there5.

DOUBT III.

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says — that before the Incarnation [the Son] was sent to all the Saints who were before. It is asked, therefore, whether after the Incarnation the Son and the Holy Spirit have been more fully given. And that they have, seems [clear], since the state of the Law was a state of imperfection, [whereas] the state of the Gospel is a state of perfection. For the Law led no one to perfection6; but the Gospel says: Be ye perfect, Matthew 57: therefore etc.

Likewise, this seems specially [clear] of the Holy Spirit, since it is written in John 78: The Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified; this is not said because he was in no way given before, but because not so abundantly: therefore etc.

Likewise, the cognition and love [of God] is greater in the time of the Law of grace than in the time of the Law as written: therefore etc.

I respond: It must be said that to be more fully given can be understood in two ways: either intensively or extensively. If extensively, then the Holy Spirit was given to more in the time of the Law of grace, since into all the earth their sound went out9, etc., not only to one nation. If intensively, this is either as to the general state, or as to special persons; as to the general state, in the New Testament,

p. 274

[but] as to special persons, in the Old Testament; and so they stand related as exceeding and exceeded — for in the Old Testament there were certain Evangelical men; and so the arguments proceed to either side. For in the Old Testament10 there were some abounding in wisdom, like Solomon; some in patience, like Job; some in meekness, like Moses; some in faith, like Abraham; some in devotion, like David; some in the working of miracles11, like Elijah.

DOUBT IV.

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says — that [the Son] was sent to the Angels. For it seems false, since angel is so called as messenger or one sent: but to the one sent there is no mission: therefore etc. If you say that he is sent in another mode; on the contrary: he who is always present has no need of mission; but the angel always contemplates God as present: therefore etc.

I respond: It must be said that the mission of Wisdom or of the Son is for illuminating the creature, just as the mission of the Holy Spirit is for sanctifying the creature. And since the angels were neither of themselves wise nor of themselves holy, therefore it was necessary that from the beginning Wisdom — who is the Son — should be sent to them, and also12 the Holy Spirit. Whence Augustine13 is speaking with regard to the state of glorification; but properly [he] is not now said to be sent — unless he is said in a wide sense to be sent for the manifestation of something hidden14.

DOUBT V.

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says: Insofar as we grasp anything eternal in the mind, we are not in this world. For he seems to speak falsely, since either he says this15 of the soul, or of the flesh. Not of the flesh — this is plain: therefore of the soul: therefore it seems that the soul, when it knows God, is in heaven or outside the world. Likewise this seems [clear] by reason, since to grasp the eternal is rather to be grasped: therefore if what is grasped by the grasper is located [in him], then the soul is located in eternity, [and] therefore outside time. Furthermore, what is known and loved is either drawn to the knower and lover, or conversely16; but while we love and know God, we do not draw God to ourselves, but ourselves to God, as is said in the fourth [book] On the Divine Names17: therefore etc.

I respond: It must be said that place has the nature of that which contains and that which brings to rest18. Therefore to be in this world is twofold: either as to truth and containment, or as to rest. Augustine, however, speaks not in the first19 mode (so that the soul and body truly go forth from this world while the mind grasps God), but he understands [it] as to rest — because the affection of the soul does not rest in temporal [things], over which it is carried, but in eternal20; and Dionysius understands it accordingly. — And the second argument is to be understood [thus]: that what is loved draws [the lover], not by changing [his] location, but by conforming [him] to itself, since the lover is transformed into the loved, and the knower is conformed to the known21.

DOUBT VI.

Likewise it is asked concerning what Augustine says: The Father is the principle of the whole Divinity — or if better said, of the Deity. For he seems to speak badly, since either this is by generation or by spiration. But if so: then the Father generates or spirates the Deity — which is against the Master, above in distinction 522, where he says that the essence neither generates nor is generated. — Furthermore it is asked: why does he say «Or if better said, of the Deity»?

I respond: It must be said that Augustine does not

p. 275

simply say that [the Father] is the principle of the Divinity, but with this qualification: of the whole. And since in what is most simple there does not fall any totality — except by extending the name of totality to the plurality of persons — therefore Deity or Divinity stands as in the persons; yet because it cannot be drawn over to the persons (since it is an abstract name), the foregoing speech must be expounded just as the Master above expounds similar locutions.

As for what is asked — why is Deity said to be better? — it must be said that divine (divinum) can be said of creatures, insofar as a man is called divine; but God (Deus) is proper to God alone; therefore Deitas more properly asserts the form of God than Divinitas: and therefore it is better said of the Deity than of the Divinity.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Adstipulantibus vetustioribus mss. et ed. 1, posuimus agetur pro agitur. Paulo infra post non cod. V satis bene addit autem.
    With the older manuscripts and ed. 1 in agreement, we have set agetur (future) for agitur (present). A little further on, after non, codex V quite well adds autem.
  2. Supplevimus ex antiquis codd. et ed. 1 hoc; mox substituimus hic loco hunc.
    From the old codices and ed. 1 we have supplied hoc; soon after we have substituted hic in place of hunc.
  3. Ed. 1 ita pro ideo.
    Ed. 1 reads ita in place of ideo.
  4. Homil. 26. n. 2. in Evang. Cfr. supra huius d. q. 2.
    Homily 26, n. 2, on the Gospel. Cf. above, in q. 2 of this distinction.
  5. Ad fidem antiquiorum mss. et ed. 1 adiecimus ibi.
    On the testimony of the older manuscripts and ed. 1 we have added ibi.
  6. Epist. ad Hebr. 7, 19: Nihil enim ad perfectum adduxit lex.
    Epistle to the Hebrews 7:19: For the law brought nothing to perfection.
  7. Vers. 48.
    Verse 48 [Matt. 5:48].
  8. Vers. 39. — Mox unus alterque codex ut A cum ed. 1 quia loco quod, sed minus bene.
    Verse 39 [John 7:39]. — Soon after, one or another codex (such as A) with ed. 1 reads quia in place of quod, but less well.
  9. Psalm. 18, 5. — Mox post hoc est Vat. addit dupliciter aut, quod deest in mss., licet aliqui eorum ut V X Y habeant cum ed. 1 aut hoc est quantum.
    Psalm 18:5. — Soon after hoc est, the Vatican edition adds dupliciter aut, which is missing in the manuscripts, although some of them (such as V, X, Y) with ed. 1 have aut hoc est quantum.
  10. Vat. cum cod. cc minus bene omittit enim, quod tamen exstat in aliis codd. et ed. 1.
    The Vatican edition with codex cc less well omits enim, which is nevertheless present in the other codices and ed. 1.
  11. Vat. opere pro operatione, sed castigatur ope mss. et ed. 1. — Quaestionem hic propositam invenies fusius pertractatam apud Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 73. m. 2. a. 4. — S. Thom., hic q. 5. a. 2. — B. Albert., hic a. 18. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 4. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 5. q. 1. — Aegid. R., hic 2. princ. q. 2. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 5.
    The Vatican edition reads opere for operatione, but is corrected with the help of the manuscripts and ed. 1. — The question here proposed you will find more fully treated in Alex. Hal., Summa p. I, q. 73, m. 2, a. 4. — St. Thom., here q. 5, a. 2. — Bl. Albert, here a. 18. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 4, a. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 5, q. 1. — Giles of Rome, here, second principal q. 2. — Dionys. Carth., here q. 5.
  12. In Vat. et cod. cc incongrue deest etiam, quod in ceteris codd. et ed. 1 invenitur.
    In the Vatican edition and codex cc etiam is unfittingly absent, which is found in the other codices and ed. 1.
  13. Libr. IV. de Trin. c. 20. n. 27, ex quo textus huius dubii sumtus est; vide lit. Magistri, c. 8.
    Book IV of On the Trinity, c. 20, n. 27, from which the text of this doubt is taken; see the Letter of the Master, c. 8.
  14. De hoc specialiter agunt Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 73. m. 3. a. 2. — S. Thom., hic q. 5. a. 1. quaestiunc. 3. — B. Albert., hic a. 19. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 1. quaestiunc. 2. — Aegid. R., hic 2. princ. q. 1. collat. 2. — Dionys. Carth., hic a. 5. q. 1.
    On this specifically Alex. Hal., Summa p. I, q. 73, m. 3, a. 2. — St. Thom., here q. 5, a. 1, quaestiuncula 3. — Bl. Albert, here a. 19. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 1, quaestiuncula 2. — Giles of Rome, here, second principal q. 1, collat. 2. — Dionys. Carth., here a. 5, q. 1, treat especially of this.
  15. Supplevimus fide vetustiorum mss. et ed. 1 hoc.
    On the testimony of the older manuscripts and ed. 1 we have supplied hoc.
  16. Quoad primam partem huius propositionis sequimur lectionem multorum mss. ut F G H I K S T X Y Z dd ee ff, dum Vat. falso habet quod cognoscit et amat, et ed. 1 quod cognoscitur et amat. Quoad secundam vero partem exhibemus lectionem cod. Y, quae et in se distinctior est et cum subnexis concordat, a qua non multum dissidet lectio cod. M trahitur ad cognoscentem et in amantem; pro quo maior pars mss. cum ed. 1 trahitur a cognoscente in amantem, Vat. autem cum aliquibus codd. trahitur a cognoscente et amante. — Mox ed. 1 cum loco dum, et paulo infra post sed nos in cod. dd additur trahimur.
    As to the first part of this proposition, we follow the reading of many manuscripts (F, G, H, I, K, S, T, X, Y, Z, dd, ee, ff), while the Vatican edition wrongly has quod cognoscit et amat, and ed. 1 has quod cognoscitur et amat. As to the second part we display the reading of codex Y, which is both more distinct in itself and concords with what follows; from which the reading of codex M, trahitur ad cognoscentem et in amantem, does not much differ; for which the majority of the manuscripts with ed. 1 [read] trahitur a cognoscente in amantem, while the Vatican edition with some codices [reads] trahitur a cognoscente et amante. — Soon after, ed. 1 reads cum in place of dum; and a little further on, after sed nos, in codex dd trahimur is added.
  17. Cap. 3. 11: Non ut trahentes ubique praesentem, et nusquam virtutem, sed ut memoriis et invocationibus nosmetipsos iniungentes ei et adunantes.
    Chap. 3, [§] 11 [of On the Divine Names]: Not as drawing him who is everywhere present and nowhere [absent in] power, but as joining and uniting ourselves to him by remembrances and invocations.
  18. Cfr. Aristot., IV. Phys. text. 41. et 48. (c. 4. et 5.).
    Cf. Aristotle, Physics IV, text 41 and 48 (cc. 4 and 5).
  19. Vat. praeter fidem mss. et edd. 1, 2, 3, 6 proprio loco primo, sicuti et mox contra plures vetustiores codd. ut A G T Z dd egrediatur pro egrediantur.
    The Vatican edition, against the testimony of the manuscripts and editions 1, 2, 3, 6, reads proprio in place of primo; likewise soon after, against several older codices (A, G, T, Z, dd), it reads egrediatur (sg.) in place of egrediantur (pl.).
  20. Mss. cum quinque primis edd. transponunt verba sed aeternis post in temporalibus, sed minus bene, eo quod verba immediate sequentia quibus superfertur tunc in sensu parum usitato accipienda essent, scil. in hoc: per quae affectus fertur super temporalia, qui non concordat cum modo loquendi alias a S. Doctore usurpato respectu huius verbi superferri, cfr. infra d. 17. p. I. dub. 5, ubi habetur superferri passionibus. — Mox Vat. absque auctoritate codd. et ed. 1 intelligitur pro intelligit.
    The manuscripts with the first five editions transpose the words sed aeternis after in temporalibus, but less well — since the words immediately following, quibus superfertur, would then have to be taken in a sense scarcely used, namely through which the affection is borne above temporal things; this does not accord with the manner of speaking otherwise employed by the Holy Doctor concerning this verb superferri — cf. below d. 17, p. I, dub. 5, where one finds superferri passionibus. — Soon after, the Vatican edition, without the authority of the codices and ed. 1, reads intelligitur in place of intelligit.
  21. Eadem Augustini verba exponunt S. Thom., hic q. 3. a. 3. — B. Albert., hic a. 20. — Petr. a Tar. et Richard., hic circa lit. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 5. in fine.
    The same words of Augustine are expounded by St. Thom., here q. 3, a. 3. — Bl. Albert, here a. 20. — Peter of Tarentaise and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the letter [of the Master]. — Dionys. Carth., here q. 5 in fine.
  22. Cap. 1. — Paulo ante ed. 1 et loco vel.
    Chap. 1 [of d. 5]. — A little before, ed. 1 reads et in place of vel.
← Dist. 15, Part 1, Dubia