← Back to Distinction 16

Dist. 16, Dubia

Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word · Distinction 16

Textus Latinus
p. 359

DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

Dub. I.

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et incidit quaestio circa verba Hilarii, quae videntur esse falsa et dubia et erronea; quae si dicamus esse retractata, iuxta quod priusp359-4 tactum fuit, semota erit omnis calumnia; quia tamen scriptura huius retractationis non est propalata, ideo sunt verba Hilarii, secundum quod possumus, verificanda.

Primo enim est dubium de illo verbo, quod dicit: Passus quidem Christus dum caeditur, dum suspenditur, dum moritur etc. Videtur enim dicere duo contraria, quod in corpore Christi fuerit vera passio, et tamen non fuerit verus dolor, quod non videtur esse intelligibile, quod corpus animatum vere patiebatur, et tamen vere non dolebat. — Et si tu velis dicere, quod hoc intelligat quantum ad personam Verbi; hoc nihil est, quia, sicut dolor est alienus a persona Verbi, ita et passio; et Hilariusp359-5 dicit, quod «passus fuit, licet non doluerit». — Similiter si tu dicere velis, quod non doluit, id est, non habuit causam et meritum doloris; similiter potes dicere, quod non habuit meritum passionis.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod ista verba Hilarii, etsi videantur esse contra fidem, tamen pro fide sunt; et hoc patet, si attendatur causa dicendip359-6. Contra enim illos loquitur Hilarius, qui dicebant, Christum omnino succubuisse passioni et a passione esse superatum; contra quos dicit Hilarius, quod etsi Christus vere passus fuerit, non tamen doluit, hoc est, passionibus non succubuit. Non enim vult negare sensum et experimentum passionis, sed vim et dominium passionis. Et quod iste sit intellectus, patet ex modo loquendi et ex serie verborum et ex proprietate verborum: quia dolor dicit comparationem ad voluntatem, secundum quod dicit Augustinus decimo quartop359-7 de Civitate Dei, quod «dolor est dissensus ab his rebus, quae nobis nolentibus accidunt». Quoniam ergo nec voluntas Christi divina nec voluntas creata passionibus succubuit; ideo non concedit Hilarius, Christum doluisse, hoc est, ipsum nolentem passionibus subiacuisse. Unde cum dicitp359-8: «Virtus corporis sine sensu poenae vim poenae in se desaevientis excepit» etc.; virtus corporis dicitur voluntas rationalis, regitiva illius corporis; haec excepit vim poenae sine sensu poenae, hoc est sine dissensu a poena, quia voluit pati. — Et hoc ostendit series litterae sequentis. Probat enim, quod corpus illud non potuit dolere, quia «potuit undis superferri». Constat enim, quod corpus Christi non superferebatur undis per naturam ipsius corporis, quodp359-9 ponderosum erat, sed per imperium voluntatis. — Hoc ipsum patet per aliam rationem, quam subdit: quia «caro Christi concepta fuit de Spiritu sancto, ideo ille homo fuit habens corpus ad patiendum, sed naturam non habens ad dolendum». Ex cuius rationis et litterae intellectu manifestatur, esse verum quod prius dictum est. Quia enim caro illa concepta fuit de Spiritu sancto, ideo passibilitatem habuit, non contra voluntatem, sed ex voluntate; et hoc est quod dicit: «habens corpus ad patiendum, passus est», scilicet ex voluntate; «sed naturam non habens ad dolendum», id est ad patiendum contra dissensum voluntatisp359-10.

p. 360

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod praedicta littera exponi potest triplici modo secundum triplicem modum exponendi praecedentiap360-7: uno modo, ut illud referatur ad Verbum increatum, de quo concedit Hilarius, quod potuit pati, sed non esse passibile, quia, «licet passionibus se subdiderit, non tamen est demutatum patiendop360-8». — Alio modo potest exponi, sicut exponit Magister, ut per hoc quod est passibile, notetur dispositio consurgens ex culpae merito, quam removet Hilarius a Christo, quamvis in eo vere fuerit passio. — Tertio modo potest exponi, ut per hoc quod est passibile, notetur plena subiectio patientisp360-9 respectu passionis; et huiusmodi in Christo non fuit, cuius mens, ratio et voluntas passionibus superferebatur. Et quod iste sit intellectus, patet per litteram sequentem. Ait enim sicp360-10: «Pati potuit, passibilis esse non potuit, quia passibilitas naturae infirmae est significatio, passio autem est eorum quae sunt illata perpessio». Et sic vult Christo attribuere passionis sufferentiam et removere subiacentiam.

Dub. II.

Item dubitabile est de hoc quod dicit: Nec fieri potest, ut eius timor significetur in verbis, cuius fiducia continetur in factis. Videtur enim contradicere ei quod dicitur Marci decimo quartop360-1: Coepit Iesus pavere et taedere. Videtur etiam contradicere aliis Sanctis, qui dicunt, eum vere timuisse. Videtur etiam contradicere sibi ipsi, quia dicitp360-2, quod «Christus pro Apostolis tristatus fuit usque ad mortem». Si tristis fuit, quare non similiter timuit?

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod Hilarius non intendit removere timorem a Christo, secundum quod timorem ei attribuit Scriptura, et Sancti, sed secundum quod attribuebant haeretici, qui dicebant, eum timuisse ex defectu securitatis; et talis est timor pusillanimitatis, de quo indubitanter verum est, quod non fuit in Christo. Unde valde attendendum est, quod Hilariusp360-3 a Christo non removet tristitiam, removet tamen timorem, quia timor consuevit consurgere ex defectu virtutis et pusillanimitate, tristitia vero surgit frequenter ex virtute et pietate. — Et quod iste sit intellectus, patet ex probatione sequenti. Probat enim, quod in Christo non fuit infirmitas, nec fuit pusillanimitas. Pusillanimitas non fuit, quia «armatis obvius prodiit»; infirmitas non fuit, quia «ad eius occursum consternata persequentium agmina, supinatis corporibus, conciderunt». Unde non excludit a Christo timoremp360-4, sed timorem obviantem voluntati; sic etiam dolorem, sicut patet aspicienti seriem litterae.

Dub. III.

Item dubitabile est tertio de hoc quod dicit in illa notula tracta de Synodis: Pati potuit et passibilis esse non potuit. Videtur enim verbum illud implicare contradictionem in semetipso, quia «cuius est potentia, eius est actusp360-5»: ergo si fuit passibilis, potuit pati; et si potuit pati, fuit passibilis. — Praeterea, passibile nihil aliud est quam potens pati: ergo videtur, quod in praedicta locutione idem removetur a sep360-6.

Dub. IV.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod ultimo dicit, Christum de omni statu hominis aliquid accepisse; quia secundum hoc videtur, quod Christus fuit in quadruplici statu. Nos autem non ponimus, Christum fuisse nisi in statu viatoris et comprehensoris. — Item, falsum videtur dicere, cum dicit, quod Christus de tertio statu assumsit plenitudinem gratiae: quia gratia non perficitur nisi per gloriam, iuxta illud quod dicit Apostolus primae ad Corinthios decimo tertiop360-11: Cum venerit quod perfectum est, evacuabitur quod ex parte est: ergo plenitudo gratiae non fuit assumta secundum statum viae, sed secundum statum patriae.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod ille quadruplex status reduci habet ad duplicem. Sub statu enim viae comprehenduntur tres status, scilicet innocentiae, naturae lapsae et status sub lege gratiae. Illos autem quatuor status enumerat Magister ad maiorem declarationem conditionum ipsius naturae assumtae.

p. 361

Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod plenitudo gratiae non habetur nisi secundum statum gloriae; dicendum, quod est plenitudo gratiae vel simpliciter, vel respectu operis meritorii: plenitudo gratiae simpliciter spectat ad statum gloriae, sicut obiicit; plenitudo vero respectu operis meritorii spectat ad statum viae. Et de hac intelligit Magister in littera, sicut patet apertep361-1.

---

English Translation

DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

Doubt I.

In this section there are doubts concerning the text, and a question arises concerning the words of Hilary, which seem to be false and doubtful and erroneous; and if we should say that they were retracted, according to what was touched on beforep359-4, all calumny will be removed; but because the writing of this retraction has not been published, therefore the words of Hilary are to be verified, in so far as we are able.

For first there is a doubt about that statement which he makes: Christ indeed suffered while he was struck, while he was hung up, while he died, etc. For he seems to say two contraries: that in the body of Christ there was true suffering, and yet that there was not true pain — which does not seem to be intelligible, that an ensouled body was truly suffering, and yet was truly not in pain. — And if you wish to say that he understands this with respect to the person of the Word, this is nothing, because, just as pain is foreign to the person of the Word, so too is suffering; and Hilaryp359-5 says that «he suffered, although he did not feel pain». — Likewise, if you wish to say that he did not feel pain, that is, did not have the cause and merit of pain, you can likewise say that he did not have the merit of suffering.

I respond: It must be said that these words of Hilary, even though they seem to be against the faith, are nevertheless in favor of the faith; and this is clear if the cause of his saying itp359-6 is attended to. For Hilary speaks against those who said that Christ wholly succumbed to suffering and was overcome by suffering; against whom Hilary says that, even though Christ truly suffered, nevertheless he did not feel pain, that is, he did not succumb to the sufferings. For he does not wish to deny the sensation and the experience of suffering, but the force and the dominion of suffering. And that this is the meaning is clear from the manner of speaking and from the sequence of the words and from the property of the words: for pain states a relation to the will, according to what Augustine says in the fourteenth bookp359-7 of On the City of God, that «pain is a dissent from those things which happen to us against our will». Since therefore neither the divine will of Christ nor his created will succumbed to the sufferings, therefore Hilary does not concede that Christ felt pain, that is, that he, being unwilling, lay under the sufferings. Hence when he saysp359-8: «The power of the body received in itself the force of the punishment raging against it without the sensation of the punishment», etc.; the power of the body is called the rational will, ruling over that body; this received the force of the punishment without the sensation of the punishment, that is, without dissent from the punishment, because it willed to suffer. — And this is shown by the sequence of the following text. For he proves that that body could not feel pain, because «it could be borne up over the waves». For it is established that the body of Christ was not borne up over the waves by the nature of the body itself, whichp359-9 was heavy, but by the command of the will. — This same thing is clear by another reason, which he adds: because «the flesh of Christ was conceived of the Holy Spirit, therefore that man had a body for suffering, but did not have a nature for feeling pain». From the understanding of this reasoning and of the text it is made manifest that what was said before is true. For because that flesh was conceived of the Holy Spirit, therefore it had passibility, not against the will, but from the will; and this is what he says: «having a body for suffering, he suffered», namely from the will; «but not having a nature for feeling pain», that is, for suffering against the dissent of the willp359-10.

I respond: It must be said that the aforesaid text can be expounded in a threefold way, according to the threefold manner of expounding the preceding thingsp360-7: in one way, so that it is referred to the uncreated Word, of whom Hilary concedes that he could suffer, but not be passible, because, «although he subjected himself to the sufferings, nevertheless he was not changed by sufferingp360-8». — In another way it can be expounded, as the Master expounds it, so that by the fact that it is passible there is denoted a disposition arising from the merit of fault, which Hilary removes from Christ, although in him there was truly suffering. — In a third way it can be expounded, so that by the fact that it is passible there is denoted the full subjection of the one sufferingp360-9 with respect to the suffering; and such was not in Christ, whose mind, reason, and will were borne up above the sufferings. And that this is the meaning is clear through the following text. For he says thusp360-10: «He could suffer, he could not be passible, because passibility is the signification of an infirm nature, but suffering is the undergoing of those things which are inflicted». And thus he wishes to attribute to Christ the bearing of suffering and to remove the subjection.

Doubt II.

Likewise it is doubtful concerning this which he says: Nor can it be that the fear of him should be signified in words, whose confidence is contained in deeds. For it seems to contradict that which is said in Mark, the fourteenth chapterp360-1: Jesus began to be afraid and to be weary. It seems also to contradict the other Saints, who say that he truly feared. It seems also to contradict himself, because he saysp360-2 that «Christ was sorrowful for the Apostles unto death». If he was sorrowful, why did he not likewise fear?

I respond: It must be said that Hilary does not intend to remove fear from Christ in so far as Scripture and the Saints attribute fear to him, but in so far as the heretics attributed it, who said that he feared from a defect of security; and such is the fear of faint-heartedness, of which it is undoubtedly true that it was not in Christ. Hence it must be very much attended to that Hilaryp360-3 does not remove sorrow from Christ, but does remove fear, because fear is wont to arise from a defect of virtue and from faint-heartedness, whereas sorrow frequently arises from virtue and piety. — And that this is the meaning is clear from the following proof. For he proves that in Christ there was no infirmity, nor was there faint-heartedness. There was no faint-heartedness, because «he went forth to meet those who were armed»; there was no infirmity, because «at his approach the bands of his pursuers, thrown into confusion, fell back with their bodies overturned». Hence he does not exclude fearp360-4 from Christ, but fear opposing the will; and so too pain, as is clear to one who looks at the sequence of the text.

Doubt III.

Likewise it is doubtful, thirdly, concerning this which he says in that little note drawn from On the Synods: He could suffer and could not be passible. For that statement seems to imply a contradiction within itself, because «of that whose is the potency, of it is the actp360-5»: therefore if he was passible, he could suffer; and if he could suffer, he was passible. — Besides, passible is nothing other than able to suffer: therefore it seems that in the aforesaid statement the same thing is removed from itselfp360-6.

Doubt IV.

Likewise it is asked concerning this which he says lastly, that Christ received something from every state of man; because according to this it seems that Christ was in a fourfold state. But we do not posit that Christ was except in the state of wayfarer and of comprehensor. — Likewise, he seems to say something false when he says that Christ assumed the fullness of grace from the third state: because grace is not perfected except through glory, according to that which the Apostle says in the first epistle to the Corinthians, the thirteenth chapterp360-11: When that which is perfect shall have come, that which is in part shall be done away: therefore the fullness of grace was not assumed according to the state of the way, but according to the state of the homeland.

I respond: It must be said that that fourfold state is to be reduced to a twofold one. For under the state of the way are comprehended three states, namely of innocence, of fallen nature, and the state under the law of grace. But those four states the Master enumerates for the greater explanation of the conditions of the assumed nature itself.

To that which is objected, that the fullness of grace is not had except according to the state of glory, it must be said that there is a fullness of grace either simply, or with respect to meritorious work: the fullness of grace simply pertains to the state of glory, as the objection has it; but the fullness with respect to meritorious work pertains to the state of the way. And it is of this that the Master understands in his text, as is clearly evidentp361-1.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Supra a. I. q. I. ad I. — Mox pro semota codd. I L N T U Z aa remota.
    Above, art. I, q. I, reply to 1. — Soon, for semota (removed) codices I L N T U Z aa read remota (removed).
  2. Libr. X. de Trin. n. 23. — Duplex explicatio verbi Hilarii, quae hic affertur, habetur hic in lit. Magistri, c. I. seq., nec non in Comment. a. I. q. I. ad I, vide ibi scholion. — Paulo superius pro non dolebat, quod habent codd. U Z bb (N a secunda manu) edd. non doleat, codd. H K patiatur pro patiebatur.
    Book X of On the Trinity, n. 23. — The twofold explanation of Hilary's statement, which is here brought forward, is found here in the text of the Master, c. I and following, as also in the Commentary, art. I, q. I, reply to 1; see the scholion there. — A little above, for non dolebat (he was not in pain), which codices U Z bb (N by a second hand) have, the editions read non doleat (let him not be in pain); codices H K read patiatur (let him suffer) for patiebatur (he was suffering).
  3. Cfr. supra pag. 347, nota I.
    Cf. above, p. 347, note 1.
  4. Cap. 6. et c. 15. n. 2. — Vide supra pag. 354, nota I.
    Chapter 6 and chapter 15, n. 2. — See above, p. 354, note 1.
  5. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. I, ubi etiam Hilarii verba invenies, quibus probationes subnexae innituntur.
    See here the text of the Master, c. I, where you will also find Hilary's words, on which the proofs subjoined rest.
  6. Codd. N U quia.
    Codices N U read quia (because).
  7. Cfr. de hoc dubio Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 18. m. 1; B. Albert., III. Sent. d. 15. a. 10. seq.; S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard., III. Sent. d. 15. hic circa lit. — Locis citatis solvuntur etiam duo dubia seqq.
    Cf. on this doubt Alexander of Hales, Summa, pt. III, q. 18, member 1; Bl. Albert, Sentences III, d. 15, a. 10 and following; St. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise, and Richard, Sentences III, d. 15, here concerning the text. — At the places cited the two following doubts are also resolved.
  8. Vers. 33. — Testimonia Sanctorum de timore Christi habentur supra lit. Magistri, d. XV. c. I.
    Verse 33. — The testimonies of the Saints concerning Christ's fear are found above in the text of the Master, d. XV, c. I.
  9. Libr. X. de Trin. n. 36. seqq. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 2. — Pro Videtur etiam non pauci codd. incongrue Videtur enim. Subinde post sibi ipsi cod. O subiungit in fine distinctionis (scil. d. 15.). Vide supra pag. 345, nota I. Pro quia dicit codd. A K bb qui dicit, alii codd. quod dicit.
    Book X of On the Trinity, n. 36 and following. See here the text of the Master, c. 2. — For Videtur etiam (it seems also) not a few codices incongruously read Videtur enim (for it seems). Then after sibi ipsi codex O subjoins in fine distinctionis (namely d. 15). See above, p. 345, note 1. For quia dicit (because he says) codices A K bb read qui dicit (who says), other codices quod dicit (which he says).
  10. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. I. et 2, ubi et subnexa tanguntur. — Mox pro pusillanimitate Vat. perperam pusillanimitatis.
    See here the text of the Master, c. I and 2, where the subjoined matters are also touched on. — Soon, for pusillanimitate (faint-heartedness, ablative) the Vatican edition wrongly reads pusillanimitatis (of faint-heartedness).
  11. Cod. bb quemcumque [a] Christo timorem, edd. cum paucis codd. omnem timorem. Inferius post sic etiam codd. E G I L N T U V X Z aa interserunt ad, codd. K H bb et.
    Codex bb reads quemcumque [a] Christo timorem (whatever fear from Christ); the editions with a few codices read omnem timorem (all fear). Below, after sic etiam (so too), codices E G I L N T U V X Z aa insert ad, codices K H bb et.
  12. Aristot., de Somno et vigilia, c. I.
    Aristotle, On Sleep and Waking, c. I.
  13. Edd. a se ipso.
    The editions read a se ipso (from its very self).
  14. In I. dubio adhibitum. — Edd. cum multis codd. incongrue exponentium praecedentium. Nostram lectionem tuentur codd. H (K primitus) M O bb; in cod. A scriptum est expositivum praecedentia.
    Employed in the first doubt. — The editions with many codices incongruously read exponentium praecedentium. Our reading is upheld by codices H (K originally) M O bb; in codex A it is written expositivum praecedentia.
  15. Verba Hilarii sumta sunt ex eius lib. de Synodis, n. 49. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 2. — De expositione seq. cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. I. — Paulo inferius et etiam in tertia expositione post ut per hoc quod cod. N supplet dicit.
    Hilary's words are taken from his book On the Synods, n. 49. See here the text of the Master, c. 2. — On the following exposition cf. here the text of the Master, c. I. — A little below, and also in the third exposition, after ut per hoc quod codex N supplies dicit.
  16. Edd. cum uno alteroque cod. passibilitatis.
    The editions, with one or another codex, read passibilitatis (of passibility).
  17. Libr. de Synodis, n. 49. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 2. — Pro infirmae edd. vitiose infimae.
    The book On the Synods, n. 49. Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 2. — For infirmae (infirm) the editions faultily read infimae (lowest).
  18. Vers. 10.
    Verse 10.
  19. Cfr. de hoc dubio B. Albert., hic a. 5; S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.
    Cf. on this doubt Bl. Albert, here a. 5; St. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise, and Richard of Mediavilla, here concerning the text. ---
← Dist. 16, Art. 2, Q. 3