← Back to Distinction 25

Dist. 25, Art. 2, Q. 1

Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word · Distinction 25

Textus Latinus
p. 545

Articulus II. De profectu fidei secundum diversitatem temporum.

Consequenter quaeritur de profectu fidei secundum diversitatem temporum. Et circa hoc quaeruntur tria. Primo quaeritur, utrum fides creverit quantum ad credendorum multitudinem; Secundo, utrum creverit quantum ad luminis plenitudinem; Tertio quaeritur, utrum profecerit quantum ad cognitionisp545-5 certitudinem.

Quaestio I. Utrum fides creverit quoad credendorum multitudinem.

Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum fides creverit vel profecerit quantum ad credendorum multitudinem. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Exodi sextop545-6: Nomen meum Adonai non indicavi eis; igitur ex hoc textu patet, quod aliquid cognoverunt Patres sequentes, quod non cognoverunt praecedentes, quia revelavit Dominus Moysi, quod non revelavit Patribus: ergo videtur, quod fides nostra aliquid cognoscat nunc, quod fides Patrum non cognoscebat: crevit igitur fides quoad credibilia.

2. Item, sicut Lex evangelica se habet ad Legem Mosaicam quantum ad moralia, sic fides Legis novae ad fidem veteris Legis quantum ad credibilia; sed Evangelium super Legem veterem addit multa consiliap545-7: ergo videtur, quod fides Legis novae se extendat ad plura credibilia quam fides Legis veteris.

3. Item, incarnatio Christi, passio, resurrectio et ascensio et huiusmodi proponuntur omnibus credenda, qui sunt in nova Lege; sed haec non proponebantur illis qui erant in Lege Mosaicap545-8: ergo etc.

4. Item, aliquid cognovit Ecclesia post adventum Christi, quod latebat Angelos, ergo multo fortius cognoscit aliquid et credit, quod latebat homines puros: videtur ergo, quod fides creverit quantum ad ea quae per ipsam creduntur et cognoscuntur. Primo manifestatur per hoc quod dicitur ad Ephesios tertiop545-9: Ut innotescat Potestatibus et Principatibus per Ecclesiam multiformis sapientia Dei.

Sed contra: Ad oppositum. 1. Tota fides christiana continetur in Lege nova, et tota Lex nova continetur in veteri, quia rota est in rota, secundum quod dicitur Ezechielis primop545-10: si ergo fides primorum Patrum prae-

p. 546

cedentium adventum Christi claudebat in se, quidquid erat Legis veteris, claudebat et per consequens, quidquid erat Legis novae: videtur ergo, quod fides secundum tempora diversa non creverit quantum ad credibilia.

2. Item, mutato obiecto, mutatur habitus: ergo si fides secundum diversa tempora haberet aliquod obiectum novum, videlicet si aliquid crederet, quod prius non credidisset, secundum diversa tempora mutata esset; sed «fides secundum diversa tempora non est mutata», secundum quod dicit Augustinusp546-1, et habetur in littera: ergo videtur, quod non profecit quantum ad credibilia.

3. Item, omne quod est verum modo de praeterito, aliquando fuit verum de futuro: ergo sicut modo verum est, Christum esse incarnatum, natum et passum; ita verum erat in praeterito, Christum esse incarnandum, nasciturum et passurum; et qua ratione nunc est credibile de praeterito, eadem ratione erat tunc credibile de futuro: ergo non videtur, quod creverit fides quantum ad numerum credibiliump546-2.

4. Item, quamvis caritas profecerit aliquo modo secundum intensionem et fervorem, non tamen profecit quantum ad diligendorum multitudinem — tot enim fuerunt diligibilia in veteri Lege, quot et in novap546-3 — ergo consimili ratione videtur et circa fidem et credibilia, quod etiam proficiente fide, credibilia propter hoc non sint multiplicata.

Conclusio.

Fides processu temporis profecit, non quidem novorum articulorum additione, sed implicitorum explicatione.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod credibilia multiplicari dupliciter potest intelligi: vel quantum ad novorum articulorum additionem, vel quantum ad implicitorum explicationemp546-4. Si primo modo intelligatur, sic non est concedendum, fidem profecisse quantum ad credendorum multitudinem; si secundo modo, sic profecit secundum processum temporis, quia quod uno tempore credebatur implicite et quasi uno articulo, processu temporis explicatum est et quasi distinctum in multa credibilia; sicut suprap546-5 dicebatur, quod sufficiebat aliquo tempore credere Redemptorem futurum; nunc autem circa ipsum Redemptorem septem articuli explicantur, et multa ex illis consequentia et eis annexa manifestantur. — Et hoc est quod dicit magister Hugo de sancto Victore in libro de Sacramentisp546-6: «Ante Legem, inquit, Deus Creator credebatur, et ab eo salus et redemptio exspectabatur; per quem autem et quo modo eadem salus implenda et perficienda foret, exceptis paucis, quibus hoc scire singulariter in munere datum erat, a ceteris fidelibus non cognoscebatur. Sub Lege autem persona Redemptoris praedicabatur mittenda; quae autem ipsa persona foret, hoc est homo, vel Angelus, vel Deus, nondum manifestabatur; soli enim hoc cognoverunt, qui per Spiritum illuminati fuerunt. Sub gratia autem manifeste iam ab omnibus praedicatur et creditur et modus redemptionis et qualitas personae Redemptoris». — Et sic patet, quod fides profecitp546-7 quantum ad credibilium multitudinem, non nova addendo, sed quodam modo implicita explicando. Qualitas enim personae Redemptoris et modus redemptionis sciri non potest aperte, nisi sub quadam articulorum multitudine et distinctione. — Concedendae sunt igitur rationes ad primam partem inductae, quae ostendunt, fidem aliquo modo profecisse secundum credibilium multitudinem.

1. Ad illud vero quod primo obiicitur in contrarium, quod Lex nova est in veteri, sicut rota in rota; dicendum, quod rota non habet esse in rota nisi secundum implicationem quandam, quia quod in Lege nova est explicite in veteri Lege erat implicite. Unde ex hoc non sequiturp546-8, quod fides in Lege nova non profecerit secundum articulorum multitudinem, explicando per multos quod in uno continebatur implicite; sed quod non crevit addendo aliquid extraneum, quod quidem in Lege veteri nec explicite nec implicite fuisset contentum.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod mutato obiecto, mutatur habitus; iam patet responsio: quia ista multiplicatiop546-9 articulorum, secundum quam dicimus fidem profecisse, non mutat obiectum secundum substantiam, sed solum secundum accidens, quia implicitum explicat; et ideo ex hoc non potest inferri, quod fides essentialiter sit mutata.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod omnia quae credimus de praeterito, fuerunt credibilia de futuro; dicendum, quod verum est; sed licet omnia illa,

p. 547

quae nos modop547-1 credimus, ab aliquibus personis ex speciali munere Dei cognoscerentur et crederentur explicite, universitati tamen populi non proponebantur credenda nisi implicite; unde et populus communiter exspectabat Messiam sive Redemptorem, nihil cogitantes de Filii Dei incarnatione, vel passione, vel resurrectione. Nunc autem omnia haec sunt explicata, nec tantum sunt credibilia, immo actu credita et ad credendum proposita; et quantum ad hoc dicimus ea esse multiplicata, licet quantum ad veritatem rei non sint augmentata.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod caritas non profecit quantum ad numerum; dicendum, quod si loquamur de isto modo proficiendi, concedi potest eo modo de caritate, sicut concessum est de fide: quoniam in Lege veteri non praecipiebatur diligere inimicum nisi implicite, sed hoc in Lege evangelica explicaturp547-2: sic et in fide suo modo est intelligendum, sicut prius tactum est. Loquimur enim hic de profectu fidei et caritatis per comparationem ad communem populi statum, non quantum ad privilegium speciale quarundam personarum.

Scholion

I. Insinuatur a S. Bonav. hic et in seqq. quaestionibus duplex modus, quo aliquid in articulo continetur, scilicet vel ita, ut in uno articulo virtualiter contineantur alii articuli, postea determinate proponendi, ut passio et mors Christi in mysterio redemptionis; vel ita, ut in articulo contineatur non quidem alius articulus, sed aliquid, quod ut conclusio in eo contineatur (Cfr. S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 2. quaestiunc. 1. ad 5.). Substantia igitur fidei semper remanente eadem, per explicationem crevit etiam numerus articulorum credendorum; sed haec explicatio, sive primo modo sumta, completa fuit in Evangelio; ast alio sensu sumta explicatio fidei proficere potest et in singulis hominibus et in tota Ecclesia. Hoc docet Concil. Vatican. (c. 4. de fide et ratione): «Crescat igitur et multum vehementerque proficiat tam singulorum quam omnium, tam unius hominis quam totius Ecclesiae, aetatum ac saeculorum gradibus, intelligentia, scientia, sapientia; sed in suo dumtaxat genere, in eodem scilicet dogmate, eodem sensu eademque sententia» (Vinc. Lirin. Commonit. n. 28.). Cfr. hic q. 2. 3. et dub. 1. — S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 2. quaestiunc. 1; S. II. II. q. 1. a. 7. — B. Albert., hic q. 1. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 5. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic q. 5. q. 1, a. 4. q. 2.

II. In praecedentibus agitur de profectu fidei quoad obiecta, in seqq. (nempe 2. et 3.) quaestionibus de profectu quoad actus, de quo etiam occurrit sermo hic dub. 1. Supposita doctrina antea explicata, facile haec intelliguntur; ab aliis autem Lombardi commentatoribus vel tantum tanguntur vel breviter expediuntur. — De utraque (2. et 3.) quaestione: S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 2. quaestiunc. 1; S. loc. cit. q. 3. a. 4. — B. Albert., hic a. 5. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 5. a. 2. quaestiunc. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 4. q. 2. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. unica, circa finem.

---

English Translation

Article II. On the progress of faith according to the diversity of times.

Consequently there is inquiry concerning the progress of faith according to the diversity of times. And concerning this three things are inquired. First it is asked whether faith has grown as to the multitude of things to be believed; Second, whether it has grown as to the fullness of the light; Third it is asked whether it has progressed as to the certitude of cognitionp545-5.

Question I. Whether faith has grown as to the multitude of things to be believed.

Concerning the first one proceeds thus and there is inquiry whether faith has grown or progressed as to the multitude of things to be believed. And that it is so, it seems.

1. Exodus sixp545-6: My name Adonai I did not make known to them; therefore from this text it is evident that the later Fathers knew something which the preceding ones did not know, because the Lord revealed to Moses what he did not reveal to the [earlier] Fathers: therefore it seems that our faith now knows something which the faith of the Fathers did not know: therefore faith has grown as to the things to be believed.

2. Likewise, as the evangelical Law stands to the Mosaic Law as to morals, so the faith of the new Law [stands] to the faith of the old Law as to the things to be believed; but the Gospel adds many counselsp545-7 over and above the old Law: therefore it seems that the faith of the new Law extends to more things to be believed than the faith of the old Law.

3. Likewise, the incarnation of Christ, the passion, the resurrection and the ascension and such things are set forth to be believed by all who are in the new Law; but these were not set forth to those who were in the Mosaic Lawp545-8: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, the Church knew something after the coming of Christ which lay hidden from the Angels, therefore much more strongly does it know and believe something which lay hidden from mere men: therefore it seems that faith has grown as to those things which are believed and known through it. This is first manifested through what is said to the Ephesians, chapter threep545-9: That the manifold wisdom of God may be made known to the Powers and Principalities through the Church.

On the contrary: To the opposite. 1. The whole Christian faith is contained in the new Law, and the whole new Law is contained in the old, because the wheel is in the wheel, according as is said in Ezekiel, chapter onep545-10: if therefore the faith of the first Fathers preceding the

coming of Christ enclosed in itself whatever was of the old Law, it enclosed also, and consequently, whatever was of the new Law: therefore it seems that faith, according to the diverse times, has not grown as to the things to be believed.

2. Likewise, the object being changed, the habit is changed: therefore if faith, according to the diverse times, had some new object, namely if it believed something which it had not believed before, it would have been changed according to the diverse times; but «faith according to the diverse times has not been changed», according as Augustine saysp546-1, and is held in the text: therefore it seems that it has not progressed as to the things to be believed.

3. Likewise, everything that is now true concerning the past, was at some time true concerning the future: therefore just as it is now true that Christ was incarnate, born, and suffered; so it was true in the past that Christ was to be incarnate, to be born, and to suffer; and by whatever account it is now credible concerning the past, by the same account it was then credible concerning the future: therefore it does not seem that faith has grown as to the number of things to be believedp546-2.

4. Likewise, although charity has progressed in some way as to intensity and fervor, yet it has not progressed as to the multitude of things to be loved — for there were as many things lovable in the old Law as in the newp546-3 — therefore by a like account it seems also concerning faith and the things to be believed, that even though faith progresses, the things to be believed are not on that account multiplied.

Conclusion.

Faith in the process of time has progressed, not indeed by the addition of new articles, but by the explication of things implicit.

I respond: It must be said that the things to be believed being multiplied can be understood in two ways: either as to the addition of new articles, or as to the explication of things implicitp546-4. If it be understood in the first way, then it is not to be granted that faith has progressed as to the multitude of things to be believed; if in the second way, then it has progressed according to the process of time, because what at one time was believed implicitly and as it were in one article, in the process of time was explicated and as it were distinguished into many things to be believed; just as abovep546-5 it was said that it sufficed at some time to believe in the Redeemer to come; but now concerning the Redeemer himself seven articles are explicated, and many things consequent upon them and annexed to them are manifested. — And this is what master Hugh of St. Victor says in the book On the Sacramentsp546-6: «Before the Law, he says, God was believed as Creator, and from him salvation and redemption was awaited; but through whom and in what manner the same salvation was to be fulfilled and perfected, except for a few to whom it was singularly granted as a gift to know this, by the rest of the faithful it was not known. But under the Law the person of the Redeemer was preached as to be sent; but who that person would be, that is, man, or Angel, or God, was not yet manifested; for those alone knew this who were illumined by the Spirit. But under grace [it] is now manifestly preached and believed by all, both the manner of redemption and the quality of the person of the Redeemer». — And thus it is evident that faith has progressedp546-7 as to the multitude of things to be believed, not by adding new things, but in a certain way by explicating things implicit. For the quality of the person of the Redeemer and the manner of redemption cannot be known openly, except under a certain multitude and distinction of articles. — Therefore the reasons adduced for the first side, which show that faith has in some way progressed as to the multitude of things to be believed, are to be granted.

1. But to that which is objected first to the contrary, that the new Law is in the old, as the wheel in the wheel; it must be said that the wheel does not have being in the wheel except according to a certain implication, because what in the new Law is explicit was implicit in the old Law. Hence from this it does not followp546-8 that faith in the new Law has not progressed as to the multitude of articles, by explicating through many what was contained implicitly in one; but [it follows] that it did not grow by adding something extraneous which had not been contained in the old Law either explicitly or implicitly.

2. To that which is objected, that the object being changed, the habit is changed; the response is now evident: because that multiplicationp546-9 of articles, according to which we say that faith has progressed, does not change the object as to substance, but only as to accident, because it explicates the implicit; and therefore from this it cannot be inferred that faith has been essentially changed.

3. To that which is objected, that all the things which we believe concerning the past were credible concerning the future; it must be said that this is true; but although all those things

which we now believep547-1 were known and believed explicitly by certain persons from a special gift of God, yet to the universality of the people they were not set forth to be believed except implicitly; whence also the people commonly awaited the Messiah or Redeemer, thinking nothing of the incarnation of the Son of God, or the passion, or the resurrection. But now all these things are explicated, and they are not only credible, nay rather actually believed and set forth to be believed; and as to this we say that they are multiplied, although as to the truth of the matter they are not augmented.

4. To that which is objected, that charity has not progressed as to number; it must be said that if we speak of that mode of progressing, it can be granted concerning charity in the same way as it was granted concerning faith: since in the old Law it was not commanded to love the enemy except implicitly, but this is explicated in the evangelical Lawp547-2: so also in faith it is to be understood in its own way, as was touched on before. For we are speaking here of the progress of faith and charity by comparison to the common state of the people, not as to the special privilege of certain persons.

Scholion

I. There is insinuated by St. Bonaventure here and in the following questions a twofold mode by which something is contained in an article, namely either so that in one article other articles are virtually contained, to be set forth determinately afterward, as the passion and death of Christ in the mystery of redemption; or so that in an article there is contained not indeed another article, but something which is contained in it as a conclusion (Cf. St. Thomas, here q. 2. a. 2. quaestiuncula 1. ad 5.). Therefore, the substance of faith always remaining the same, by explication the number of articles to be believed also grew; but this explication, taken in the first mode, was complete in the Gospel; but taken in another sense, the explication of faith can progress both in individual men and in the whole Church. This the Vatican Council teaches (c. 4. On faith and reason): «Let there therefore grow and let there much and vehemently progress, of single persons as of all, of one man as of the whole Church, by the degrees of ages and of centuries, understanding, knowledge, wisdom; but only in its own kind, that is, in the same dogma, the same sense and the same judgment» (Vincent of Lérins, Commonitorium n. 28.). Cf. here q. 2. 3. and dub. 1. — St. Thomas, here q. 2. a. 2. quaestiuncula 1; Summa II–II q. 1. a. 7. — B. Albert, here q. 1. — Petr. a Tar., here q. 5. a. 1. — Richard of Middleton, here q. 5. q. 1, a. 4. q. 2.

II. In the preceding [question] there is treated the progress of faith as to objects, in the following questions (namely 2 and 3) the progress as to acts, concerning which discourse also occurs here in dub. 1. Given the doctrine explained before, these things are easily understood; but by the other commentators on Lombard they are either merely touched upon or briefly dispatched. — On both (2 and 3) questions: St. Thomas, here q. 2. a. 2. quaestiuncula 1; Summa loc. cit. q. 3. a. 4. — B. Albert, here a. 5. — Petr. a Tar., here q. 5. a. 2. quaestiuncula 1. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 4. q. 2. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. unica, near the end.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Pro cognitionis cod. Z assensus, quae lectio infra in ipsa (3.) quaest. communis est.
    For cognitionis codex Z reads assensus, which reading below in question (3) itself is the common one.
  2. Vers. 3. Codd. G H I L T W aa Nomen unum, Adonai etc.
    Verse 3. Codices G H I L T W aa [read] Nomen unum, Adonai etc.
  3. Cfr. Matth. 5, 17, seqq. et 19, 21.
    Cf. Matthew 5, 17, ff. and 19, 21.
  4. Vide supra a. 1. q. 2.
    See above, a. 1. q. 2.
  5. Vers. 10. Cfr. supra pag. 539, nota 4.
    Verse 10. Cf. above, page 539, note 4.
  6. Vers. 16: Quasi sit rota in medio rotae; de quibus verbis Gregorius (I. Homil. in Ezech. homil. 6. n. 12.) dicit: Quid in Testamenti veteris littera Testamentum est hoc... nisi quod novum latuit per allegoriam? Unde et rota eadem, quae iuxta animalia apparuit, quatuor facies habere describitur etc. — Mox pro primorum, quod ab edd. abest, codd. A K bb priorum, et subinde pro Legis veteris et Legis novae cod. Z in Lege veteri et in Lege nova.
    Verse 16: As if there were a wheel in the midst of a wheel; concerning which words Gregory (I. Homily on Ezekiel, homily 6. n. 12.) says: What is this in the letter of the Old Testament... but that the New lay hidden through allegory? Whence also the same wheel, which appeared beside the living creatures, is described as having four faces, etc. — Soon after, for primorum, which is absent from the editions, codices A K bb [read] priorum, and thereupon for Legis veteris and Legis novae codex Z [reads] in Lege veteri and in Lege nova.
  7. Vide supra pag. 315, nota 2. Cfr. etiam hic lit. Magistri, c. 1, ubi asseritur, eandem esse fidem Patrum et nostram. — De maiori cfr. supra pag. 214, nota 3. et pag. 470, nota 8, in fine.
    See above, page 315, note 2. Cf. also here the text of the Master, c. 1, where it is asserted that the faith of the Fathers and ours is the same. — On the major [premise] cf. above, page 214, note 3. and page 470, note 8, at the end.
  8. Cfr. supra d. 24. a. 1. q. 3. circa finem corp. atque ad 1. et 5.
    Cf. above, d. 24. a. 1. q. 3. near the end of the body and at [replies] 1 and 5.
  9. Vide infra d. 28. q. 6. — Paulo superius post fervorem codd. A B K addunt male diligendorum. In fine arg. pro non sint complures codd. non sunt.
    See below, d. 28. q. 6. — A little above, after fervorem codices A B K wrongly add diligendorum. At the end of the argument, for non sint several codices [read] non sunt.
  10. Cfr. supra a. 1. q. 1. ad 5. — Pro explicationem edd. explanationem. Paulo inferius pro multitudinem, quam lectionem e codd. A G K V restituimus, edd. (et infra circa finem corp. bis etiam nonnulli codd.) multiplicationem.
    Cf. above, a. 1. q. 1. ad 5. — For explicationem the editions [read] explanationem. A little below, for multitudinem, which reading we have restored from codices A G K V, the editions (and below near the end of the body, twice, also some codices) [read] multiplicationem.
  11. Art. 1. q. 2. et d. 24. a. 1. q. 3. in fine corp. — Septem articulos de Redemptore videsis supra a. 1. q. 1. in fine corp. — Paulo superius pro processu temporis explicatum codd. A K in processu temporis explicitum.
    Art. 1. q. 2. and d. 24. a. 1. q. 3. at the end of the body. — The seven articles concerning the Redeemer you may see above, a. 1. q. 1. at the end of the body. — A little above, for processu temporis explicatum codices A K [read] in processu temporis explicitum.
  12. Libr. 1. p. X. c. 6. circa finem. In testimonio allato textus origin. pro praedicabatur exhibet praedicebatur, deinde verbo illuminati praemittit singulariter [codd. A K voci Spiritum adiungunt sanctum] et mox omittit ab ante omnibus praedicatur.
    Book 1. p. X. c. 6. near the end. In the testimony cited, the original text reads praedicebatur for praedicabatur, then before the word illuminati it prefixes singulariter [codices A K adjoin sanctum to the word Spiritum] and soon after omits ab before omnibus praedicatur.
  13. Codd. A G (H primitus) K L T U V aa proficit. Inferius pro non potest edd. non potuit.
    Codices A G (H originally) K L T U V aa [read] proficit. Below, for non potest the editions [read] non potuit.
  14. Pro non sequitur codd. A G K non potest concludi. Mox pro multitudinem multi codd. multiplicationem, et deinde pro crevit codd. K bb creverit, edd. 1, 2 cum pluribus codd. falso credit.
    For non sequitur codices A G K [read] non potest concludi. Soon after, for multitudinem many codices [read] multiplicationem, and then for crevit codices K bb [read] creverit, [while] editions 1, 2 with several codices wrongly [read] credit.
  15. Codd. A K multitudo.
    Codices A K [read] multitudo.
  16. Pro nos modo, quam scripturam invenimus in cod. X, codd. M O U Z quae modo, alii codd. minus congrue quae nunc modo, edd. quae nunc. Inferius pro nihil cogitantes edd. nihil cogitans.
    For nos modo, which reading we find in codex X, codices M O U Z [read] quae modo, other codices less fittingly quae nunc modo, the editions quae nunc. Below, for nihil cogitantes the editions [read] nihil cogitans.
  17. Levit. 19, 18; Matth. 5, 43. seq. — Pro diligere inimicum edd. diligi inimicus.
    Leviticus 19, 18; Matthew 5, 43. f. — For diligere inimicum the editions [read] diligi inimicus. ---
← Dist. 25, Art. 1, Q. 3Dist. 25, Art. 2, Q. 2→