← Back to Distinction 16

Dist. 16, Dubia

Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity · Distinction 16

Textus Latinus
p. 285

Dubium I.

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo dubitatur de hoc quod dicit, quod Filius in quantum missus, id est factus, minor est Patre. Contra quod sic obiicitur: omnis actus, secundum quem aliquem contingit fieri minorem, est indignitatis. Si ergo Filius ratione missionis est minoratus, ergo missio pertinet ad indignitatem1. Item, quandocumque aliquis de aequali fit minor, mutatur; sed Filius ante missionem erat aequalis, et modo est minor: ergo etc.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod quaedam dicuntur de Filio Dei per essentiam, quaedam per2 unionem, quae tanta fuit, ut faceret hominem Deum et Deum hominem. Essentialiter loquendo, nullo modo Filius Dei est minor: sed hoc dictum est per unionem, quia omnia quae dicuntur de homine, possunt dici de Filio Dei; et ita patet, quod nulla ex hoc est indignitas, nulla mutabilitas in eius persona; et sic solvitur utrumque obiectum, quia utraque ratio procedit, intellecto3 quod secundum eandem naturam fieret minor, secundum quam erat aequalis, et ita desineret esse aequalis. Nunc autem simul est minor et aequalis4.

Dubium II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod se ipso etiam minor est Filius. Videtur enim male dicere, quia maior diversitas importatur per hoc quod est maior et minor, quam per hoc quod est alius et alius, quia prima non cadit in divina natura, secunda sic. Si ergo haec est vera: Filius est minor se, ergo et haec: Filius est alius et alius, et ita duae personae, quod non conceditur.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod verum est, quod maiorem diversitatem dicunt maior et minor, quia diversitatem virtutis et naturarum; sed ad hanc5 diversitatem, quamvis sit maior, non sequitur diversitas in persona, quia plures naturae possunt esse in una persona. Quoniam ergo in Christo cadit diversitas naturarum et ita virtutum, non autem personarum: ideo dicitur maior et minor ratione diversarum virtutum, non autem alius et alius, cum non habeat diversas personas6.

Dubium III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod minoratus est paulo minus ab Angelis. Videtur enim falsum, quia super illud ad Hebraeos secundo7: Eum qui modico quam Angeli minoratus est, dicit Glossa: « Natura humanae mentis, qualem Christus assumsit, quae nullo peccato potuit depravari, solus Deus maior est ». Item, beata Virgo, quae est pure creatura, est super omnes Angelos exaltata: ergo etc.

p. 286

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod est loqui de Christo in comparatione ad Angelos quantum ad quatuor, scilicet quantum ad gratiam et quantum ad naturam mentis et quantum ad naturam corporis et quantum ad statum passibilitatis. Quantum ad gratiam est simpliciter maior; quantum ad naturam mentis saltem non fuit minor, quia, sicut dicit Glossa8: « Minor Angelis fuit corpore, non mente »; quantum ad naturam corporis minor fuit; quantum autem ad statum9 passibilitatis fuit minor et modico minoratus, quia status passibilitatis in statum gloriae et honoris paulo post convertendus erat10.

Dubium IV.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Hilarius, quod Pater est maior Filio, quia si verum est quod dicit, cum idem sit in Deo sapientia, potentia, bonitas et magnitudo: ergo si11 maior est, et est potentior et sapientior et melior. Praeterea, in Deo non est magnitudo molis, sed virtutis: ergo si Pater est maior, est potentior; quod stare non potest. Item, maior aut dicit essentiam, aut notionem. Non essentiam, quia essentia sunt aequales; si notionem, quaero: quam? Si tu dicas, quod paternitatem; contra: comparatio secundum maius et12 minus non attenditur nisi in comparticipantibus, unde non dicitur: cygnus est albior corvo; sed Filius non est comparticipans paternitatem: ergo etc. Item quaeritur: quare13 non dicitur maior Spiritu sancto?

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod in Patre est auctoritas respectu Filii et Spiritus sancti, in Filio respectu Spiritus sancti, et ideo in Patre maior auctoritas et maior fecunditas; et quia nullum nomen ita competit ad exprimendam auctoritatem, sicut hoc nomen magnus: ideo dicit Hilarius, quod Pater est maior Filio. Ex hoc patent obiecta, quia maior non dicit essentiam, sicut potentia et sapientia, sed dicit notionem. Si quaeras: quam? dico, quod dicit notionem communiter, sed tamen in ratione principii, sicut subauctoritas in ratione emanantis14; et hinc est, quod Pater dicitur maior Filio, quia etsi uterque habeat notionem in ratione principii, Pater tamen in ratione principii tantum15, et ideo plus habet de ratione auctoritatis; Spiritus autem sanctus nullius personae est principium, et ideo non comparatur eis secundum maioritatem16.

Dubium V.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Maior itaque donans est, sed minor etc. Videtur enim falsum, quia quocumque modo accipiatur maior, dicitur relative ad minorem: ergo si est ponere Patrem maiorem, est ponere Filium minorem. Item, Pater dicitur maior, quia habet auctoritatem supra Filium: ergo cum Filius habeat subauctoritatem respectu Patris, debet dici minor.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod nihil impedit, quare Filius non dicatur minor Patre ratione subauctoritatis, sicut Pater maior17, nisi quia nomina indignitatis in Deo non debent ad usum trahi; vel quia sancti Doctores, quantum possunt, se elongant ab haereticorum fallacia. Ideo cum Hilarius dixisset Patrem maiorem, noluit, quod Filius diceretur minor, ne videretur illa maioritas non tantum auctoritatis, sed etiam inaequalitatis. Et quamvis Hilarius diceret in Patre auctoritatem, non tamen legitur dixisse in Filio subauctoritatem; sed illud verbum est additum in consuetudinem disputantium18.

---

English Translation

Doubt I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the littera, and first there is doubt about what he says, that the Son, insofar as he is sent, that is, made, is less than the Father. Against which it is objected thus: every act, according to which something is made less, is of unworthiness. If therefore the Son by reason of mission is made less, then mission pertains to unworthiness1. Likewise, whenever someone from being equal becomes less, he is changed; but the Son before mission was equal, and now is less: therefore etc.

I respond: It must be said, that some things are said of the Son of God by essence, some by union2, which was so great that it made man God and God man. Speaking essentially, in no way is the Son of God less; but this was said by reason of union, because all things which are said of the man can be said of the Son of God; and so it is clear that there is no unworthiness from this, no mutability in his person; and thus both objections are resolved, since both reasonings proceed [only] if it is understood3 that he became less according to the same nature according to which he was equal, and so would cease to be equal. But now he is at the same time less and equal4.

Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked about what he says, that the Son is less even than himself. For it appears to speak ill, because greater diversity is implied by the [pair] greater and less than by one and another, since the first does not fall in the divine nature, but the second does. If therefore this is true: the Son is less than himself, then also this: the Son is one and another, and so two persons — which is not granted.

I respond: It must be said, that it is true that greater and less state a greater diversity, namely a diversity of power and of natures; but to this5 diversity, although it is greater, there does not follow a diversity in person, because several natures can be in one person. Therefore since in Christ there falls a diversity of natures and so of powers, but not of persons: therefore he is called greater and less by reason of the diverse powers, but not one and another, since he does not have diverse persons6.

Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked about what he says, that he was made a little less than the Angels. For it appears false, because on that [text] of Hebrews 27: Him who was made a little less than the Angels, the Gloss says: "The nature of the human mind, such as Christ assumed, which could be depraved by no sin, only God is greater than it". Likewise, the blessed Virgin, who is purely a creature, is exalted above all the Angels: therefore etc.

I respond: It must be said, that one can speak of Christ in comparison to the Angels with respect to four things, namely with respect to grace, with respect to the nature of mind, with respect to the nature of body, and with respect to the state of passibility. With respect to grace he is simply greater; with respect to the nature of mind he was at least not less, because, as the Gloss says8: "He was less than the Angels in body, not in mind"; with respect to the nature of body he was less; but with respect to the state9 of passibility he was less and made a little less, because the state of passibility was a little after to be converted into the state of glory and honor10.

Doubt IV.

Likewise it is asked about what Hilary says, that the Father is greater than the Son; because if what he says is true, since wisdom, power, goodness, and greatness are the same in God: therefore if11 he is greater, he is also more powerful and wiser and better. Furthermore, in God there is no greatness of mass, but [only] of power: therefore if the Father is greater, he is more powerful; which cannot stand. Likewise, greater either states essence or notion. Not essence, because [the persons] are equal in essence; if [it states] notion, I ask: which? If you say paternity; on the contrary: a comparison according to more and12 less is attended only among co-participants, whence it is not said: the swan is whiter than the raven; but the Son is not co-participant in paternity: therefore etc. Likewise it is asked: why13 is he not called greater than the Holy Spirit?

I respond: It must be said, that in the Father there is authority with respect to the Son and the Holy Spirit, in the Son with respect to the Holy Spirit, and therefore in the Father there is greater authority and greater fecundity; and because no name fits as well to express authority as the name great: therefore Hilary says that the Father is greater than the Son. From this the objections are clear, because greater does not state essence, like power and wisdom, but states notion. If you ask: which? I say that it states notion commonly, but yet in the account of principle, just as sub-authority [does] in the account of one emanating14; and hence it is, that the Father is called greater than the Son, because although both have notion in the account of principle, the Father is in the account of principle only15, and therefore has more of the account of authority; but the Holy Spirit is the principle of no person, and therefore he is not compared to them according to greatness16.

Doubt V.

Likewise it is asked about what he says: Greater therefore is the giver, but less etc. For it appears false, because in whatever mode greater is taken, it is said relatively to a less one: therefore if there is to be posited a greater Father, there is to be posited a less Son. Likewise, the Father is called greater because he has authority over the Son: therefore since the Son has sub-authority with respect to the Father, he ought to be called less.

I respond: It must be said, that nothing impedes why the Son should not be called less than the Father by reason of sub-authority, just as the Father [is called] greater17, except that names of unworthiness in God ought not to be drawn into use; or because the holy Doctors, as much as they can, distance themselves from the fallacy of heretics. Therefore when Hilary had said the Father [is] greater, he did not wish that the Son be called less, lest that greatness should appear [to be] not only of authority but also of inequality. And although Hilary said there is authority in the Father, yet he is not read to have said sub-authority in the Son; but that word was added by the custom of those disputing18.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Auctoritate antiquiorum mss. et ed. 1 removimus Dei, quod Vat. cum cod. cc perperam addit.
    On the authority of the older manuscripts and edition 1 we have removed Dei, which the Vatican [edition] with codex cc wrongly adds.
  2. Ed. 1 propter.
    Edition 1 [reads] propter.
  3. Cod. I intelligendo; cod. dd utraque obiectio, quia utraque obiectio procedit intelligendo.
    Codex I [reads] intelligendo; codex dd [reads] utraque obiectio, quia utraque obiectio procedit intelligendo.
  4. Cfr. hic q. 3. ad 1. et 2.
    Cf. here q. 3, ad 1 and 2.
  5. Cod. Z loco hanc ponit talem, Vat. naturae, ed. 1 vero talem naturae; alii codd. exhibent lectionem in textum receptam.
    Codex Z places talem in place of hanc; the Vatican [edition reads] naturae; edition 1 [reads] talem naturae; the other codices give the reading received into the text.
  6. Idem dubium solvunt B. Albert., hic a. 11. — Richard. et Petrus, hic in expos. lit.
    The same doubt is resolved by B. Albert, here a. 11. — Richard and Peter [of Tarentaise], here in the expositio litterae.
  7. Vers. 9, in quo textu Vat. contra Vulgatam, antiquiores codd. et ed. 1 ab Angelis loco quam Angeli. Glossa mox citata sic a Lyrano (Hebr. 2, 9.) exhibetur: « Natura humanae mentis, quae ad imaginem Dei sine peccato, qualem Christus assumsit, solus maior est Deus ». Vat. absque ulla auctoritate mss. et ed. 1 super omnes pro solus Deus. Paulo ante plurimi codd. post falsum omittunt quia.
    [Hebrews 2,] verse 9, in which text the Vatican [edition], against the Vulgate, the older codices, and edition 1, [reads] ab Angelis in place of quam Angeli. The Gloss soon cited is given thus by Lyra (Hebr. 2, 9): "The nature of the human mind, which [is made] to the image of God without sin, such as Christ assumed, only God is greater [than it]". The Vatican [edition], without any authority of the manuscripts and edition 1, [reads] super omnes for solus Deus. A little before, most codices after falsum omit quia.
  8. Apud Lyranum loc. cit.: Minor ergo Angelis corpore, non mente. Maiores tamen Angeli et homines (homine?) dici possunt, quia maiores sunt hominis corpore. Maiores sunt et animo, sed in eo tantum quod peccati originalis merito corpus aggravat ipsum animum; sed hoc non in Christo etc.
    In Lyra at the place cited: Therefore [he was] less than the Angels in body, not in mind. Yet the Angels can be called greater also than men, because they are greater than man in body. They are greater also in mind, but only in that the body, by reason of original sin, weighs down the mind itself; but this is not [the case] in Christ etc.
  9. Licet plurimi codd. cum Vat. et ed. 1 habeant materiam, praeferimus tamen lectionem codd. L M O, utpote quae membris divisionis a S. Doctore superius positis respondet.
    Although most codices with the Vatican [edition] and edition 1 have materiam, we nevertheless prefer the reading of codices L, M, O, inasmuch as it corresponds to the members of the division placed above by the Holy Doctor.
  10. Cfr. B. Albert., hic a. 12. — S. Thom., hic expos. text. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1 a. 7, et expos. text. — Richard. a Med., hic q. 6. — Aegid. R., hic circa lit. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 2, in fine.
    Cf. B. Albert, here a. 12. — St. Thomas, here in the expositio textus. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 7, and in the expositio textus. — Richard of Mediavilla, here q. 6. — Aegidius Romanus, here circa litteram. — Dionysius Carthusianus, here q. 2, at the end.
  11. Supple cum aliquibus mss. ut FHWY aa bb Pater.
    Supply with some manuscripts (FHWY, aa, bb): Pater.
  12. Fide antiquiorum mss. et ed. 1 substituimus et loco aut. Paulo infra ed. 1 comparticipans Patri in paternitate pro comparticipans paternitatem. — De hac ratione vide supra d. 8. p. I. dub. 4.
    On the faith of the older manuscripts and edition 1 we have substituted et in place of aut. A little below, edition 1 [reads] comparticipans Patri in paternitate for comparticipans paternitatem. — On this reasoning see above d. 8, p. I, dub. 4.
  13. In cod. bb additur uterque.
    In codex bb is added uterque.
  14. Vide supra d. 13. dub. 4. et d. 15. p. I. q. 1. ad 2. et 3, ac infra d. 20. a. 1. q. 2. ad 4, et d. 27. p. I. q. 2. ad 3.
    See above d. 13, dub. 4, and d. 15, p. I, q. 1, ad 2 and 3; and below d. 20, a. 1, q. 2, ad 4, and d. 27, p. I, q. 2, ad 3.
  15. Ed. 1 addit scilicet, non principiati.
    Edition 1 adds scilicet, non principiati [namely, not of one having a principle].
  16. Ita vetustiores codd. cum ed. 1, dum Vat. cum recentiore cod. cc auctoritatem ponit, sed perperam, quia auctoritas est terminus medius conclusionis eliciendae. Cod. dd minoritatem, bene et in eodem sensu cum aliis codd.
    Thus the older codices with edition 1, while the Vatican [edition] with the more recent codex cc places auctoritatem, but wrongly, because authority is the middle term of the conclusion to be drawn. Codex dd [reads] minoritatem, rightly and in the same sense as the other codices.
  17. In cod. K additur Filio.
    In codex K is added Filio.
  18. Vat. contra plurimos codd. et ed. 1 consuetudine. — De hoc et praecedenti dubio agunt B. Albert., hic a. 13; S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard., hic in expos. textus.
    The Vatican [edition], against most codices and edition 1, [reads] consuetudine. — This and the preceding doubt are treated by B. Albert, here a. 13; St. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise, and Richard, here in the expositio textus.
← Dist. 16, Art. 1, Q. 3