← Back to Distinction 18

Dist. 18, Dubia

Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity · Distinction 18

Textus Latinus
p. 333

DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

DUB. I.

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo dubitatur de hoc quod dicit, quod relatio non apparet in hoc nomine spiritus. Videtur enim dicere falsum, quia spiritus dicitur, quia spiratur: ergo refertur ad spirantem; ergo apparet in eo relatio. Item, videtur quod magis appareat quam in1 hoc nomine donum, quia «relativa dicuntur, quae hoc ipsum, quod sunt, aliorum sunt»2; sed spiritus eo quod spiritus, habet esse a spirante; donum vero non oportet quod habeat esse a donante; ergo non videtur in hoc tantum apparere relatio.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod tam donum quam spiritus dicitur relative; sed tamen relatio magis apparet in hoc nomine donum quam in hoc

p. 334

nomine spiritus, quia donum semper dicit respectum ad dantem, spiritus autem3 non, immo potest accipi absolute.

Vel aliter dicendum, quod Augustinus non dicit, quod relatio non appareat in hoc nomine spiritus, sed quod non appareat in hoc nomine spiritus sanctus. Quamvis enim dicatur esse spiritus spiratoris, non tamen dicitur esse spiritus sanctus spiratoris.

Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod magis spiritus dicit habitudinem respicientem esse4 quam donum; dicendum, quod verum est in his quibus accidit esse donum, sed in Spiritu sancto, qui ideo est, quia donum, non habet locum ista obiectio.

DUB. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod Filius nascendo accepit, ut sit ipsa substantia. Videtur enim male dicere, quia in omni eo quod inest Filio per nativitatem, distinguitur Filius a Patre, quia nativitas est proprietas distinctiva: ergo si5 Filius nascendo accepit, ut sit essentia vel substantia: ergo Pater in substantia distinguitur a Filio. Item, quod Filius nascendo accepit sive quod Filius est nascendo est natum: ergo substantia est nata, si Filius nascendo est substantia. Omne enim, quod nascendo accipitur6, a nativitate habet ortum.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod aliqui distinxerunt istam locutionem: Filius nascendo est divina substantia sive Deus, quia gerundium7 potest dicere concomitantiam, et sic simpliciter est vera; vel causam, et sic est8 multiplex, quia cum dico: Filius est Deus sive divina substantia, tria dico, scilicet subiectum, compositionem et praedicatum. Potest ergo hoc gerundium nascendo dicere causalitatem respectu subiecti, vel respectu compositionis, vel respectu praedicati. Si respectu subiecti, tunc est sensus: Filius nascendo etc., scilicet9 qui est Filius nascendo, vel qui nascendo habet, ut sit Filius, est Deus; et sic est vera. Si respectu compositionis, sic est sensus: Filius est Deus nascendo, id est, hoc praedicatum convenit subiecto per nativitatem; et sic adhuc locutio est vera. Si respectu praedicati, sic est sensus: Filius est Deus sive substantia divina nascendo, ita quod nasci sive nativitas sit principium sive origo Deitatis; et in hoc sensu est falsa.

Magister tamen istam locutionem non distinguit, sed simpliciter concedit, et satis probabiliter, quoniam praedicta distinctio non videtur habere radicem10. Cum enim gerundium natum sit determinare compositionem — quia omnino nihil est dicere: homo nascendo et huiusmodi — et cum compositio praedicati, sive essentiae sive omnium quae attribuuntur Filio, conveniant subiecto per nativitatem, locutio11 habet veritatem. Nec valent obiectiones in contrarium adductae, quia nativitas non distinguit illud quod per nativitatem habetur sive quod est in nascente, sed eum solum, qui nascitur: et ideo non sequitur, quod substantia sit distincta, nec quod ipsa nascatur, quamvis per generationem habeatur12.

DUB. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod Filius nativitate non est essentia. Videtur falsum dicere, quia cum nascendo sit essentia, pari ratione videtur, quod nativitate; et hoc videtur per auctoritatem Hilarii in littera.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod absque dubio ista est distinguenda: Filius nativitate est divina essentia; quia ablativus potest construi in ratione formae, vel in ratione principii. Si in ratione formae, sic est falsa, quia nativitas non est causa formalis respectu praedicati essentialis. Si in ratione principii, sic habet veritatem, quia omnia quae conveniunt Filio, conveniunt ei per nativitatis originem. Sed Magister, quia accipit gerundium13 in ratione principii, ideo cum gerundio simpliciter concedit; et quia accipit ablativum in ratione formae, ideo cum ablativo simpliciter negat; magis enim iudicat secundum14 usum loquendi quam secundum virtutem sermonis.

DUB. IV.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Neque per defectionem, aut protensionem, aut derivationem; quomodo15 differunt illa tria?

Respondeo: Quidam dicunt sic, quod per defectionem producitur aliquid de materia per formae praeex-

p. 335

istentis corruptionem, sicut ex grano frumenti herba; per protensionem producitur aliquid16 per praeexistentis formae permanentiam et inductionem formae artificialis, sicut vas fit de argento; per derivationem, quod producitur per praeexistentis formae permanentiam sola locali mutatione, ut rivus ex fonte et lacus ex rivo.

Aliter potest dici, quod materiale principium, ex quo res est, aut est materiale et transiens formaliter, et sic est defectio; aut est materiale et permanens, et sic est protensio; aut est materiale et permanens et agens, et sic est derivatio; et horum exempla sunt manifesta17.

DUB. V.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicitur: Aliud est quod accepimus, ut essemus, aliud, ut sancti essemus. Videtur enim male dicere, quia sicut sine Spiritu Dei non possumus sancti esse, ita nec esse: ergo videtur, quod Spiritu sancto18 non tantum accepimus, ut essemus sancti, sed etiam ut essemus.

Respondeo: Potest ad hoc dici, quod hoc dictum est per appropriationem. Quamvis enim a Spiritu sancto habeamus esse et sanctum esse, appropriate tamen habemus sanctum esse: ideo non sic accipi19 dicitur in nostri esse productione, sicut in sanctificatione.

Aliter tamen potest dici, quod, sicut dare ordinatur ad habendum, ita et accipere; et quia nullus habet Spiritum sanctum, quantumcumque Spiritus sanctus operetur in eo, nisi qui potest eo frui, et omnis talis est sanctus: ideo Spiritus sanctus non dicitur, proprie loquendo, dari nec accipi nisi a Sanctis20.

DUB. VI.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Tollam de spiritu tuo, quia hoc non potest dici quantum ad substantiam, ergo quantum ad effectum sive gratiam: ergo videtur quod gratia transferatur ab uno in alium. Si tu dicas, hoc esse dictum per conformitatem; obiicitur, quod21 pari ratione posset dici, quod tolleret de spiritu aliorum et daret Moysi.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod illud intelligitur de spiritu quantum ad effectum; et haec praepositio de importat conformitatem simul22 et partialitatem, sed non quantum ad partem constituentem secundum veritatem, sed secundum proportionem; quoniam effectus Spiritus sancti multo plus abundavit in Moyse quam in aliis, ut23 quasi alii partem gratiae suae viderentur habere. Et dicitur tollam quantum ad sollicitudinem, quia dum dona Spiritus sancti aliis sunt communicata, sollicitudo Moysi est diminuta, et pars illius sollicitudinis est24 aliis commissa.

---

English Translation

DOUBTS ON THE MASTER'S TEXT.

Doubt I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the littera, and first there is doubt about what he says, that the relation does not appear in this name spirit. For it appears to say falsely, because spirit is so called, because it is breathed-forth: therefore it is referred to the one breathing-forth; therefore relation appears in it. Likewise, it appears that [relation] appears more [in spirit] than in1 this name gift, because «relatives are said to be those things which, this very thing which they are, are said to be of others»2; but spirit by the very fact that it is spirit has its being from the one breathing-forth; gift, however, need not have its being from the giver; therefore it appears that relation does not appear in this [name gift] more.

I respond: It must be said that both gift and spirit are said relatively; but yet relation appears more in this name gift than in this

name spirit, because gift always says a respect to the giver, but spirit3 does not, but rather can be taken absolutely.

Or it can be said otherwise, that Augustine does not say that the relation does not appear in this name spirit, but that it does not appear in this name Holy Spirit. For although [the Holy Spirit] is said to be the spirit of the breather-forth, yet Holy Spirit is not said to be of the breather-forth.

To that which is objected, that spirit states a relationship regarding being4 more than gift; it must be said that this is true in those things to which it is accidental to be a gift, but in the Holy Spirit, who is for this reason because [he is] gift, this objection has no place.

Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked about what he says, that the Son by being-born received that he might be the very substance. For it appears to say wrongly, because in everything which is in the Son through nativity, the Son is distinguished from the Father, because nativity is a distinctive property: therefore if5 the Son by being-born received that he might be essence or substance: therefore the Father is distinguished from the Son in substance. Likewise, that which the Son received by being-born, or that which the Son is by being-born, is born: therefore substance is born, if the Son by being-born is substance. For everything that is received6 by being-born has its origin from the nativity.

I respond: It must be said that some have distinguished this locution: The Son by being-born is the divine substance, or God, because the gerund7 can state concomitance, and so simply it is true; or cause, and so it is8 multiple, because when I say The Son is God or the divine substance, I say three things, namely subject, composition, and predicate. Therefore this gerund by being-born can state causality with respect to the subject, or with respect to the composition, or with respect to the predicate. If with respect to the subject, then the sense is: The Son by being-born etc., namely9 he who is Son by being-born, or who by being-born has [it] that he is Son, is God; and so it is true. If with respect to the composition, then the sense is: The Son is God by being-born, that is, this predicate belongs to the subject through nativity; and so still the locution is true. If with respect to the predicate, then the sense is: The Son is God or the divine substance by being-born, in such a way that to be born or nativity is the principle or origin of the Deity; and in this sense it is false.

The Master, however, does not distinguish this locution, but simply concedes it, and quite probably, since the aforesaid distinction does not seem to have a root10. For since the gerund is naturally apt to determine the composition — for it is altogether nothing to say a man by being-born and the like — and since the composition of the predicate, whether of the essence or of all those things which are attributed to the Son, belong to the subject through nativity, the locution11 has truth. Nor are the objections adduced to the contrary valid, because nativity does not distinguish that which is had through nativity, or that which is in the one being born, but only him who is born: and therefore it does not follow that the substance be distinct, nor that it itself be born, although it be had12 through generation.

Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked about what he says, that the Son by nativity is not essence. It appears to say falsely, because since by being-born he is essence, by parity of reason it appears that [he is so] by nativity also; and this appears through the authority of Hilary in the text.

I respond: It must be said that without doubt this [locution] is to be distinguished: The Son by nativity is the divine essence; because the ablative can be construed in the manner of form, or in the manner of principle. If in the manner of form, so it is false, because nativity is not the formal cause with respect to the essential predicate. If in the manner of principle, so it has truth, because all things which belong to the Son, belong to him through the origin of nativity. But the Master, because he takes the gerund13 in the manner of principle, therefore with the gerund he simply concedes; and because he takes the ablative in the manner of form, therefore with the ablative he simply denies; for he judges more according to14 the usage of speaking than according to the strict force of the expression.

Doubt IV.

Likewise it is asked about what he says: Neither by defection, or by protension, or by derivation; how15 do those three differ?

I respond: Some say thus, that by defection something is produced from matter through the corruption of a pre-existing

form, as the blade [of grass] from a grain of wheat; by protension something is produced16 through the permanence of a pre-existing form and the introduction of an artificial form, as a vessel is made from silver; by derivation, that which is produced through the permanence of a pre-existing form by local change alone, as a stream from a fountain and a lake from a stream.

It can be said otherwise, that the material principle from which a thing is, is either material and transient formally, and so it is defection; or it is material and permanent, and so it is protension; or it is material and permanent and agent, and so it is derivation; and the examples of these are manifest17.

Doubt V.

Likewise it is asked about what is said: One thing is what we have received in order that we might be, another, that we might be holy. For it appears to say wrongly, because just as without the Spirit of God we cannot be holy, so neither [can we] be: therefore it appears that by the Holy Spirit18 we have not only received that we might be holy, but also that we might be.

I respond: It can be said to this, that this was said by appropriation. For although from the Holy Spirit we have being and holy being, yet by appropriation we have holy being: therefore he is not so said to be received19 in the production of our being, as in [our] sanctification.

Yet it can be said otherwise, that, just as giving is ordered to having, so also receiving; and because no one has the Holy Spirit, no matter how much the Holy Spirit may operate in him, except him who is able to enjoy him, and every such one is holy: therefore the Holy Spirit is not said, properly speaking, to be given or received except by the Holy20.

Doubt VI.

Likewise it is asked about what he says: I will take from your spirit, because this cannot be said with respect to substance, therefore with respect to effect or grace: therefore it appears that grace is transferred from one into another. If you say that this was said by conformity; the objection is raised, that21 by parity of reason it could be said, that he would take from the spirit of others and give to Moses.

I respond: It must be said that this is to be understood of the spirit with respect to effect; and this preposition from imports conformity together with22 partiality, but not with respect to a part constituting [it] according to truth, but according to proportion; because the effect of the Holy Spirit abounded much more in Moses than in others, so that23 the others might seem to have, as it were, a part of his grace. And it is said I will take with respect to solicitude, because while the gifts of the Holy Spirit were communicated to others, the solicitude of Moses was diminished, and a part of that solicitude was24 committed to others.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Libr. 1. de Fide orthod. c. 9. Vide supra d. 2. dub. 3.
    Book 1 On the Orthodox Faith c. 9. See above d. 2, dub. 3. [Reference to John Damascene.]
  2. Aristot., de Praedicam. c. de Relativis: Ad aliquid vero talia dicuntur, quaecumque hoc ipsum quod sunt aliorum esse dicuntur. — Aliqui codd. ut V Y aliorum dicuntur loco aliorum sunt. Paulo ante in Vat. male deest quem[?], exstat autem in mss. et primis edd. Dein cod. dd post apparet adiungit verba certe supplenda relatio in hoc nomine spiritus.
    Aristotle, Categories, chapter on Relatives: But those things are said to be in-relation-to-something, whatsoever, this very thing which they are, are said to be of others. — Some codices such as V, Y [read] aliorum dicuntur in place of aliorum sunt. A little before, in the Vatican [edition] quem[?] is wrongly absent, but it is found in the manuscripts and the first editions. Then codex dd after apparet adjoins the words, certainly to be supplied, relatio in hoc nomine spiritus.
  3. Multi codd. ut A F H K S T V X Y etc. cum ed. 1 addunt sanctus.
    Many codices such as A, F, H, K, S, T, V, X, Y etc., with edition 1, add sanctus.
  4. Vat. cum cod. cc omittit esse, quae et mox falso sed Spiritus sanctus, quia pro sed in Spiritu sancto, qui; lectionem in textum receptam exhibent antiquiores codd. (uno alterove legente quia loco qui) cum ed. 1.
    The Vatican [edition] with codex cc omits esse, which also soon [reads] wrongly sed Spiritus sanctus, quia in place of sed in Spiritu sancto, qui; the reading received into the text is exhibited by the older codices (with one or another reading quia in place of qui) with edition 1.
  5. In aliquibus mss. ut S X et ed. 1 minus apte omittitur si.
    In some manuscripts such as S, X, and edition 1, si is less aptly omitted.
  6. Vat. contra fere omnes codd. et ed. 1 accepit, sed melior est lectio mss., quia generalior.
    The Vatican [edition], against nearly all the codices and edition 1, [reads] accepit, but the reading of the manuscripts is better, because more general.
  7. Aliqui codd. hic, sed plures codd. cum ed. 1 infra bis gerundivum loco gerundium.
    Some codices [read so] here, but more codices with edition 1, twice below, [read] gerundivum in place of gerundium.
  8. Fide plurimorum mss. et ed. 1 supplevimus est.
    On the faith of most manuscripts and edition 1 we have supplied est.
  9. Vat. id est.
    The Vatican [edition reads] id est.
  10. Cod. K rationem. Paulo ante cod. V hanc loco istam.
    Codex K [reads] rationem. A little before, codex V [reads] hanc in place of istam.
  11. Vat. cum cod. cc, aliis codd. et ed. 1 refragantibus, ideo pro locutio.
    The Vatican [edition] with codex cc, the other codices and edition 1 contradicting, [reads] ideo in place of locutio.
  12. Eandem difficultatem fere eodem modo solvunt B. Albert., hic a. 7. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 5. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic q. 3. — Durand., hic q. 2. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 4. — Et breviter Alex. Hal., S. p. 1. q. 42. m. 3. a. 1. ad 8.
    B. Albert resolves the same difficulty in nearly the same way, here a. 7. — St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 5. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here q. 3. — Durandus, here q. 2. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 4. — And briefly Alexander of Hales, Summa p. 1, q. 42, m. 3, a. 1, ad 8.
  13. Plures codd. cum ed. 1 hic et paulo infra gerundivum.
    Many codices with edition 1, here and a little below, [read] gerundivum.
  14. In cod. N additur communem. Cod. O Magister tamen potius, et cod. X Magister enim plus loco magis enim. Mox pauci codd. ut A dd veritatem pro virtutem. — In solutione huius dubii consentiunt B. Albert., hic a. 8. — Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic in expos. lit.
    In codex N is added communem. Codex O [reads] Magister tamen potius, and codex X Magister enim plus in place of magis enim. Soon a few codices such as A, dd [read] veritatem in place of virtutem. — In the solution of this doubt B. Albert agrees, here a. 8. — Peter of Tarentaise and Richard of Mediavilla, here in the expositio litterae.
  15. Multi codd. ut A S T V W X etc. quo pro quomodo.
    Many codices such as A, S, T, V, W, X etc. [read] quo in place of quomodo.
  16. In multis mss. et ed. 1 omittitur aliquid. Paulo infra cod. X sicut nascitur de argento statua loco sicut vas fit de argento.
    In many manuscripts and edition 1 aliquid is omitted. A little below, codex X [reads] sicut nascitur de argento statua in place of sicut vas fit de argento.
  17. Haec verba Hilarii simili modo explicantur a B. Alberto, hic a. 9, et a S. Thoma, Petro et Richardo, hic in expos. lit. S. Thomas tamen verba per protensionem intelligit sic: quando producitur ex re manente coniuncta sibi, sicut ramus ex arbore.
    These words of Hilary are explained in a similar manner by B. Albert, here a. 9, and by St. Thomas, Peter, and Richard, here in the expositio litterae. St. Thomas, however, understands the words per protensionem thus: when something is produced from a thing remaining joined to itself, as a branch from a tree.
  18. Ita codd. et ed. 1; cod. Y bene a Spiritu sancto; Vat. Spiritum sanctum.
    So the codices and edition 1; codex Y rightly [reads] a Spiritu sancto; the Vatican [edition] Spiritum sanctum.
  19. Cod. Y accipit, qui et paulo supra post Aliter omittit tamen. Mox cod. Z habet loco potest.
    Codex Y [reads] accipit, which also a little above after Aliter omits tamen. Soon codex Z [reads] habet in place of potest.
  20. Vat. nisi Sanctis et a Sanctis. — Plura de hoc vide supra d. 14. a. 2. q. 1. et 2.
    The Vatican [edition reads] nisi Sanctis et a Sanctis. — More on this see above d. 14, a. 2, q. 1 and 2.
  21. Aliqui codd. ut F G H Z etc. cum ed. 1 quia.
    Some codices such as F, G, H, Z etc., with edition 1, [read] quia [in place of quod].
  22. Fide mss. et edd. 1, 2, 3 substituimus simul loco similiter. Paulo ante cod. Z cum ed. 1 post importat satis bene addit ibi. Mox post partem ponendo constituentem sequimur lectionem plurium mss. ut G H I O ee ff et ed. 1, quae in se clarior est et confirmari videtur minus apta lectione multorum codd. construentem, cod. H continentem; Vat. habet conferentem et continentem. Explicationem sensus accipe ex Richardo, hic in expos. lit. dicente: Haec praepositio de non dicit ibi partitionem substantiae Spiritus sancti vel gratiae, quae fuit in Moyse, sed quod aliis daretur gratia Spiritus sancti in minori abundantia, ita quod haberent quasi rationem partis respectu abundantiae gratiae, quae erat in Moyse. Vel loquitur de ablatione quoad usum sollicitudinis, non quoad habitum. — Vide etiam S. Thomam et Petrum, hic in expos. lit.
    On the faith of the manuscripts and editions 1, 2, 3 we have substituted simul in place of similiter. A little before, codex Z with edition 1, after importat, quite suitably adds ibi. Soon, after partem, by placing constituentem we follow the reading of many manuscripts such as G, H, I, O, ee, ff, and edition 1, which in itself is clearer and seems to be confirmed by the less apt reading of many codices construentem, codex H continentem; the Vatican [edition] has conferentem and continentem. Take the explanation of the sense from Richard, here in the expositio litterae, who says: This preposition "from" does not state there a partition of the substance of the Holy Spirit, or of the grace which was in Moses, but that the grace of the Holy Spirit was given to others in lesser abundance, in such a way that they had as it were the relation of a part with respect to the abundance of grace which was in Moses. Or it speaks of removal as to the exercise of solicitude, not as to the habit. — See also St. Thomas and Peter, here in the expositio litterae.
  23. Vat. ut quod alii quasi, sed obstant fere omnes antiquiores codd. cum ed. 1.
    The Vatican [edition reads] ut quod alii quasi, but nearly all the older codices stand against [it], with edition 1.
  24. Ed. 1 omittit est.
    Edition 1 omits est.
← Dist. 18, Art. 1, Q. 6