Dist. 4, Dubia
Book II: On the Creation of Things · Distinction 4
DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.
DUB. I.
In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et quaeritur primo de hoc quod dicit: Beati nunquam fuerunt qui ceciderunt, quia sui eventus ignari fuerunt. Contra: ad hoc quod aliquis sit beatus, non oportet scire omnia, sed sufficit Deum cognoscere. — Item, beatitudo non est aliud quam clara visio Dei; sed ad hoc non requiritur cognitio eventus: ergo etc.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod ad beatitudinem non solum dos visionis requiritur, sed perfectae tentionis. Perfecta autem tentio non est, nisi quando est cum securitate; securitas autem non est, nisi cum1 est securitas de permansione; et quia hoc Angeli habere non potuerunt, saltem qui lapsuri erant, quia falsum erat, ipsos permansuros: ideo beati non fuerunt.
Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod sufficit Deum cognoscere; dicendum, quod falsum est, immo oportet etiam perfecte tenere. Et quod subiungit, quod aperta et clara visio Dei est tota merces; dicendum est, hoc esse verum per concomitantiam; vix enim aut nunquam est ita aperta Dei visio, quin sit futurae permansionis certitudo; aut si non est, non est in illa perfecta beatitudo. Hanc autem visionem apertam, quae est facie ad faciem2, non habuerunt Angeli ante confirmationem, immo simul Dei visionem habuerunt et tentionem, licet ante aliquatenus cognoscerent et amarent, sive ad haec duo habiles essent.
DUB. II.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Beati esse non poterant, si damnationis incerti erant. Contra: certitudo damnationis potius est contraria beatitudini quam consona: ergo si certitudo nihil confert ad gloriam, ergo incertitudo nullo modo impedit gloriam sive beatitudinem perfectam.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod de aliquo futuro dupliciter potest haberi certitudo: vel in partem affirmativam, vel in partem negativam; et sicut ad beatitudinem oportet habere certitudinem de eius perpetuatione futura, ita oportet habere certitudinem de miseria nunquam futura; ista enim duo sunt omnino inseparabilia. Certitudo ergo damnationis nunquam futurae confert ad gloriam. Et quoniam incertitudo aeque privat certitudinem respectu affirmationis, sicut et respectu negationis; ideo incertitudo negationis ita repugnat3, sicut incertitudo permansionis. Et sic habet intelligi illud verbum.
DUB. III.
Item quaeritur de divisione perfecti. Videtur enim insufficiens, quia non tantum est perfectio secundum naturam, sed etiam secundum gratiam et gloriam; et secundum gratiam multiplex genus perfectionis. — Item quaeritur, quare magis accipitur unum genus perfectionis secundum tempus, quam secundum aliud accidens?
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod perfectum dicit complementum sive completionem, in qua est status. Status autem ponitur in aliquo dupliciter; aut simpliciter, aut in genere. Si simpliciter, sic est status, [et] sumitur tertium membrum; si in genere creaturae, hoc dupliciter: aut in quantum exit a Deo; et sic habet rationem vestigii, et reperitur haec perfectio in omni creatura, quando perducta est ad modum, speciem et ordinem sibi competentem. Alio modo, in quantum creatura redit in Deum; et sic est perfectio gloriae; et hanc vocat Magister perfectionem secundum naturam. Unde ponendum, quod est perfectio secundum essentiam, et secundum participationem; et hoc dupliciter, vel secundum egressum, vel secundum regressum.
DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.
DOUBT I.
In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and it is asked first about this which he says: The blessed never were those who fell, because they were ignorant of their own outcome. On the contrary: for someone to be blessed, it is not necessary to know all things, but it suffices to know God. — Likewise, blessedness is nothing other than the clear vision of God; but for this the knowledge of the outcome is not required: therefore etc.
I respond: It must be said that for blessedness not only the dowry of vision is required, but [the dowry] of perfect holding. But perfect holding does not exist except when it is with security; and security does not exist except when1 there is security concerning perseverance; and since the Angels could not have this — at least those who were going to fall, because it was false that they would persevere — therefore they were not blessed.
To that which is objected, that it suffices to know God; it must be said that it is false; rather, it is also necessary to hold perfectly. And as for what he adds, that the open and clear vision of God is the whole reward; it must be said that this is true by concomitance; for scarcely ever, or never, is the vision of God so open that there is not [also] a certainty of future perseverance; or if there is not, there is not in that [vision] perfect blessedness. But this open vision, which is face to face2, the Angels did not have before the confirmation; rather, they had the vision of God and the holding [of him] at the same time, although before [that] they knew and loved [him] to some extent, or were apt for these two [things].
DOUBT II.
Likewise it is asked about this which he says: They could not be blessed, if they were uncertain of damnation. On the contrary: certainty of damnation is rather contrary to blessedness than consonant [with it]: therefore if certainty contributes nothing to glory, then uncertainty in no way impedes glory or perfect blessedness.
I respond: It must be said that concerning some future [thing] certainty can be had in two ways: either toward the affirmative part, or toward the negative part; and just as for blessedness it is necessary to have certainty of its future perpetuation, so it is necessary to have certainty of misery never being in the future; for these two are altogether inseparable. Certainty, then, of damnation never being in the future contributes to glory. And since uncertainty equally deprives [one] of certainty in respect of affirmation, as also in respect of negation; therefore uncertainty of the negation is just as repugnant3 as uncertainty of perseverance. And thus that word is to be understood.
DOUBT III.
Likewise it is asked concerning the division of "perfect." For it seems insufficient, because there is perfection not only according to nature, but also according to grace and glory; and according to grace [there is] a manifold kind of perfection. — Likewise it is asked, why one kind of perfection is taken rather according to time than according to some other accident?
I respond: It must be said that "perfect" denotes a completion or completeness, in which there is a state. But a state is posited in something in two ways: either simply, or in a kind. If simply, then it is a state, [and] the third member is taken; if in the kind of creature, this [is] in two ways: either insofar as it goes forth from God — and so it has the character of a vestige, and this perfection is found in every creature, when it has been brought to the measure, species, and order befitting it. In another way, insofar as the creature returns into God; and so it is the perfection of glory; and this the Master calls perfection according to nature. Whence it must be posited that there is a perfection according to essence, and according to participation; and this in two ways, either according to going forth, or according to return.
- Aliqui codd. quando, Vat. ubi.Some codices [read] quando (when), the Vatican edition ubi (where).
- Epist. I. Cor. 13, 12. — Cfr. de hoc dubio S. Thomas et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.First Letter to the Corinthians 13:12. — Cf. on this doubt St. Thomas and Richard of Mediavilla, here near the text [of the Master].
- Supple: beatitudini. — Paulo ante non pauci codd. cum primis edd. certitudo negationis; perperam. Aliquanto superius plures codd. cum Vat. falso nunquam futura pro nunquam futurae.Supply: to blessedness. — A little before, not a few codices with the first editions [read] certitudo negationis; wrongly. Somewhat above, several codices with the Vatican edition falsely [read] nunquam futura for nunquam futurae.