Dist. 40, Dubia
Book II: On the Creation of Things · Distinction 40
## DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.
Dub. I.
In parte ista sunt quaestiones circa litteram, et primo quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Ambrosius, quod affectus tuus operi tuo nomen imponit. Ergo si aliquis committit adulterium, intendens facere simplicem fornicationem; videtur, quod illud peccatum debeat dici fornicatio, non adulterium. — Item, ex eodem affectu potest quis moveri ad credendum in Deum et ad amandum ipsum: ergo si opus trahit nomen ab affectu, videtur, quod credere et amare sint opus eiusdem speciei et eiusdem virtutis, et eodem nomine debeant nominari.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod aliquid nominari contingit dupliciter, videlicet in generali et in speciali. Nomina generalia in moribus sunt bonum et malum. Specialia vero sunt nomina specialium differentiarum, ut specialium virtutum et vitiorum. Cum ergo dicitur, quod affectus operi nomen imponit, hoc intelligitur de nomine generali; ipse vero obiicit de nomine speciali1.
Dub. II.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Iustitia merito punit eum qui dicit, se subtraxisse superflua diviti, ut praeberet pauperi. Videtur enim, quod talem iustitia iniuste punit. Habere enim superflua vitium est: ergo resecare superflua est virtutis. Similiter, dare pauperi unde alatur, hoc virtutis est: si ergo iniustum est, aliquem puniri pro opere virtutis, iniuste facit iustitia, quae talem punit2. — Item, idem Deus, qui praecepit filiis Israel, quod furarentur vasa Aegyptiorum, Exodi duodecimo3; idem praecepit, eleemosynam dari pauperibus; sed illi qui furati sunt vasa, volentes implere mandatum divinum, non peccaverunt: ergo pari ratione ille qui furatur, ut det pauperi, furando non peccat. — Item, in omni peccato est conversio inordinata ad bonum commutabile4; sed iste qui furatur, ut det pauperi, nihil amat inordinate nec aliquid amat ex cupiditate: ergo videtur, quod non peccat aliquo modo.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod talis absque dubio peccat, quia facit contra divinum mandatum; facit etiam contra proximum, quia « rem eius, ipso invito, contractat5 »; et ideo iuste punitur non solum a Deo, verum etiam a proximo. — Ad illud vero quod obiicitur, quod iuste facit, dum resecat superflua; dicendum, quod ad unumquemque spectat resecare superflua propria; superflua autem aliena resecare non spectat, quando non est constitutus super eum nec dominus nec iudex; et ideo cum aliena superflua resecat, quod non suum est usurpat; et propter hoc punitur de iniustitia.
Ad illud quod obiicitur de filiis Israel, dicendum, quod non est simile, quia Dominus dispensavit cum eis, quando praecepit eis, quod furarentur; immo quod plus est, res alienas in dominium eorum transtulit; et hoc bene poterat, quia ipse est Dominus omnium6. Hoc autem Domini praeceptum, quo Dominus praecepit facere eleemosynam, non se extendit ad bona aliena, sed ad propria; unde nullo modo illi mandato repugnat, quo praecipitur non furari; immo illud supponit, et illud cum illo concordat, secundum quod dicitur Proverbiorum tertio7: Honora Dominum de tua substantia.
Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod nihil amat inordinate; dicendum, quod inordinatio amoris dupliciter potest esse: aut quia amatur res, quae non debet, aut quia amatur res amplius, quam debeat. Et dum quis facit contrarium eius quod Deus praecipit, sive moveatur magna affectione, sive parva, peccat; et est eius affectio inordinata, non ex magnitudine dilectionis, sed ex contemptu divinae prohibitionis.
Dub. III.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod Iudaei crucifigendo Christum arbitrabantur, se obsequium praestare Deo. Hoc enim videtur esse falsum, quia, sicut dicitur Sapientiae secundo8, ex malitia et invidia Christum condemnaverunt morte turpissima; et Matthaei vigesimo septimo dicitur: Sciebat enim, quod per invidiam tradidissent eum: si ergo sciebant, se male facere, non arbitrabantur, obsequium se praestare Deo.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod hoc non dicitur quantum ad omnes Iudaeos, sed quantum ad simplices, qui per maiores decepti sunt. Maiores enim Iudaei, sicut principes sacerdotum et scribae, moti sunt ex invidia et malitia, quia bene cognoscebant eius sanctitatem et innocentiam, quamvis lateret eos divinitas; simplices vero et populares moti sunt ex ignorantia. Audientes enim a maioribus, quod blasphemasset, putabant, se occidendo Christum blasphemum interficere, et sic obsequium Deo praestare. Ista tamen ignorantia non excusat, pro eo quod opera, quae Christus fecit, non solum magnis, sed etiam parvis notitiam sanctitatis eius praestare poterant.
---
## DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.
Doubt I.
In this section there are questions concerning the text, and first it is asked concerning what Ambrose says, that your disposition imposes a name on your work. Therefore if someone commits adultery, intending to commit simple fornication, it seems that that sin ought to be called fornication, not adultery. — Likewise, from the same disposition someone can be moved to believe in God and to love him: therefore if a work takes its name from the disposition, it seems that to believe and to love are a work of the same species and of the same virtue, and ought to be named by the same name.
I respond: It must be said that something happens to be named in two ways, namely in a general and in a special manner. General names in matters of conduct are good and evil. But special names are the names of special differences, such as of special virtues and vices. When, therefore, it is said that the disposition imposes a name on the work, this is understood of the general name; but he raises his objection concerning the special name1.
Doubt II.
Likewise it is asked concerning what he says: Justice deservedly punishes him who says that he has taken away superfluous goods from a rich man in order to provide for a poor man. For it seems that justice punishes such a man unjustly. For to have superfluous goods is a vice: therefore to cut off superfluous goods belongs to virtue. Similarly, to give to a poor man wherewith he may be nourished is a matter of virtue: if, therefore, it is unjust that anyone be punished for a work of virtue, the justice that punishes such a man acts unjustly2. — Likewise, the same God who commanded the children of Israel to steal the vessels of the Egyptians, Exodus chapter twelve3; the same commanded that alms be given to the poor; but those who stole the vessels, wishing to fulfill the divine command, did not sin: therefore by parity of reasoning he who steals in order to give to a poor man does not sin by stealing. — Likewise, in every sin there is a disordered turning toward a changeable good4; but this man who steals in order to give to a poor man loves nothing in a disordered way nor loves anything out of cupidity: therefore it seems that he does not sin in any way.
I respond: It must be said that such a man without doubt sins, because he acts against the divine command; he also acts against his neighbor, because « he handles his property against his will5 »; and therefore he is justly punished not only by God, but also by his neighbor. — But to that which is objected, that he acts justly in cutting off superfluous goods, it must be said that it belongs to each one to cut off his own superfluous goods; but to cut off another's superfluous goods does not belong to him, when he is set over that man neither as lord nor as judge; and therefore when he cuts off another's superfluous goods, he usurps what is not his own; and on account of this he is punished for injustice.
To that which is objected concerning the children of Israel, it must be said that it is not similar, because the Lord dispensed with them when he commanded them to steal; nay, what is more, he transferred the goods of others into their ownership; and this he could rightly do, because he himself is the Lord of all6. But this command of the Lord, by which the Lord commanded that alms be given, does not extend to the goods of others, but to one's own; whence it in no way conflicts with the command by which it is enjoined not to steal; nay, it presupposes it, and accords with it, according to what is said in Proverbs chapter three7: Honor the Lord with thy substance.
To that which is objected, that he loves nothing in a disordered way, it must be said that the disorder of love can be in two ways: either because a thing is loved which ought not to be, or because a thing is loved more than it ought to be. And when someone does the contrary of what God commands, whether he is moved by great affection or by little, he sins; and his affection is disordered, not from the greatness of love, but from contempt of the divine prohibition.
Doubt III.
Likewise it is asked concerning what he says, that the Jews, in crucifying Christ, thought that they were rendering service to God. For this seems to be false, because, as is said in Wisdom chapter two8, out of malice and envy they condemned Christ to a most shameful death; and in Matthew chapter twenty-seven it is said: For he knew that they had delivered him up out of envy: if therefore they knew that they were doing evil, they did not think that they were rendering service to God.
I respond: It must be said that this is not said with respect to all the Jews, but with respect to the simple, who were deceived by their elders. For the greater Jews, such as the chief priests and the scribes, were moved by envy and malice, because they well recognized his holiness and innocence, although his divinity lay hidden from them; but the simple and the common people were moved by ignorance. For hearing from their elders that he had blasphemed, they thought that by killing Christ they were slaying a blasphemer, and thus rendering service to God. Yet this ignorance does not excuse, for the reason that the works which Christ did were able to give knowledge of his holiness not only to the great, but also to the lowly.
---
- Vide scholion ad I. quaest. huius articuli.See the scholion on the first question of this article.
- Codd. CKRSTXZ bb et alii effectu, quae lectio repugnat contextui.Codices CKRSTXZ bb and others read effectu ("by the effect"), a reading which conflicts with the context.
- Cfr. de hoc dubio S. Thom., hic circa lit.; Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.; Aegid. R., hic dub. lit. 1.Compare on this doubt St. Thomas, here on the text; Peter of Tarentaise and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text; Giles of Rome, here, doubt on the text 1.
- Vers. 35. seq. Cfr. ibid. 3, 22. et 11, 2. — De praecepto eleemosynam indigentibus erogandi vide Deut. 15, 7. seqq.Verse 35 and following. Compare ibidem 3, 22 and 11, 2. — On the precept of bestowing alms upon the needy, see Deuteronomy 15, 7 and following.
- Iustinian., IV. Institut. iur. civ. tit. 1. § Furtum: Furtum autem fit, non solum cum quis intercipiendi causa rem alienam amovet, sed generaliter dum quis alienam rem, invito domino, contrectat. — Mox pro iuste cod. C recte, edd., excepta 1, iste. — Cfr. supra pag. 802, nota 3. — Paulo inferius pro non peccat edd., excepta 2, non peccet.Justinian, Institutes of Civil Law IV, title 1, § Theft: "Now theft occurs, not only when someone removes another's property for the sake of stealing it, but generally whenever someone handles another's property against the owner's will." — Soon after, in place of iuste ("justly") codex C has recte ("rightly"); the editions, except the first, iste ("this one"). — Compare above, page 802, note 3. — A little further on, in place of non peccat ("does not sin"), the editions, except the second, read non peccet.
- Libr. I. Paral. 29, 11: Cuncta enim quae in caelo sunt et in terra, tua sunt. — Cfr. August., II. Quaest. in Pentateuch. q. 6. et 39. — Mox pro praecepit cod. F praecipit, cod. bb praeceperat.1 Paralipomenon (Chronicles) 29, 11: "For all things that are in heaven and on earth are thine." — Compare Augustine, Questions on the Pentateuch II, q. 6 and 39. — Soon after, in place of praecepit ("commanded") codex F has praecipit ("commands"), codex bb praeceperat ("had commanded").
- Vers. 9. — Paulo inferius pro nihil edd. praeter 1 nec.Verse 9. — A little further on, in place of nihil ("nothing") the editions, except the first, read nec ("nor").
- Vers. 20; Morte turpissima condemnemus eum. — Seq. loc. Script. est loc. cit. v. 18. Cfr. de hoc dub. S. Thom. et Petr. a Tar., hic circa lit.; Aegid. R., hic dub. lit. 7.Verse 20: "Let us condemn him to a most shameful death." — The following scriptural passage (the Matthew citation) is the same place cited, verse 18. Compare on this doubt St. Thomas and Peter of Tarentaise, here on the text; Giles of Rome, here, doubt on the text 7.