← Back to Distinction 25

Dist. 25, Dubia

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

Textus Latinus
p. 551

# Dubia circa litteram Magistri

Dub. I.

In parte ista sunt quaestiones circa litteram, et primo quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Fides magna dicitur cognitione et articulorum quantitate, vel constantia et devotione. Videtur enim primo hic esse superfluitas, quia magister Hugop551-2 non ponit nisi duo, secundum quae attenditur profectus fidei, videlicet cognitionem et affectionem; Magister vero ponit hic quatuor: ergo videtur, quod ille sit diminutus, vel ipse superfluus. — Item, eadem fide, qua creditur unus articulus, creduntur et ceterip551-3: ergo non videtur, quod dicatur magna ab articulorum quantitate.

Respondeo: Dicendum est ad hoc, quod fides dupliciter habet magnitudinem: unam per comparationem ad obiectum, et haec attenditur in articulorum quantitate, et vocatur hic articulorum quantitas ipsorum articulorum dignitas; articuli enim non sunt de quacumque veritate, sed de Veritate summap551-4. Et penes hoc quantitas fidei aequalis est secundum diversitatem temporum, aequalis est etiam secundum pluralitatem articulorum, quantum ad id quod est in eis principale, scilicet quantum ad ipsam primam Veritatem; quantum vero ad connotatum bene posset concedi, quod unus articulus est dignior alio, ut illi qui sunt de Divinitate, digniores sunt, quam illi qui sunt de humanitatep551-5.

Habet etiam magnitudinem per comparationem ad subiectum; et quia fides respicit subiectum secundum triplicem vim, videlicet secundum potentiam intellectivam et secundum potentiam affectivam et secundum potentiam interpretativamp551-6; secundum hoc attenditur in fide magnitudo secundum triplicem modum, videlicet per comparationem ad intellectivam dicitur magna cognitione, per comparationem ad affectivam dicitur magna devotione, per comparationem ad interpretativam dicitur magna constantia. Tunc enim fides constans est, quando aliquis libere confitetur quod creditp551-7. Et sic patet praedictorum quatuor numerus et sufficientia.

Aliter potest dici et magis secundum intentionem Magistri, quod cum fides respiciat intellectum et affectum, secundum quod suprap551-8 habitum est, magnitudo eius sumitur tam ex parte huius quam ex parte illius. A parte autem intellectus dupliciter potest attendi maior magnitudo in fide: aut quia clarius cognoscit ipsum creditum, aut quia cognoscit ipsum in pluribus sive distinctius. Primo modo dicitur fides magna cognitione; secundo, articulorum quantitate, quia articulos novit melius distinguere. — Similiter ex parte affectus dupliciter attenditur magnitudo: aut quia firmius adhaeret, aut quia intensius. Primo modo dicitur esse magna constantia, secundo modo dicitur magna devotione. Sic ista quatuor reducuntur ad illa duo, quae ponit magister Hugo. — Et per hoc patet responsio ad obiecta; patet etiam, quod non est aliqua contrarietas, nec est superfluitasp551-9.

Dub. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Quibusdam videtur, quod suffecerit illis quatuor tantum credere, scilicet nativitatem et mortem et resurrectionem et adventum ad iudicium. Cum enim isti articuli ita bene essent ignoti, sicut alii; videtur, quod non magis tenerentur cognoscere istos quam alios. — Quaeritur ergo: quare magis debebant ista credere de Mediatore quam alia?

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod ista quatuor principaliter debebat habere fides illorum, quibus innitebaturp551-10 tanquam magis opportuna. Nam primum quidem credebant tanquam ipsius fidei Mediatoris fundamentum, videlicet ipsam nativitatem. — Secundum vero, videlicet ipsam passionem, ut provocaret ad amorem. — Tertium vero, scilicet ipsam resurrectionem, ut sublevaret ad spem. — Quartum

p. 552

vero, scilicet adventum ad iudicium, ut gubernaret per timorem. Et quia omnibus erat necessarium ad salutem recte credere, amare, sperare et timere; ideo oportuit, aliquosp552-1 quatuor istos articulos credere explicite, ut alii qui innitebantur credendo implicite, salvari possent.

Vel aliter. Quia nullus poterat merito suo liberari a contagione vel obligatione peccati originalis, oportuit, quod crederent, se per meritum Christi posse salvari et per satisfactionem eius. In merito autem est istap552-2 quatuor considerare, videlicet personam satisfacientis et modum satisfaciendi et eius praemium et praemiandi modum. Quantum ad personam satisfacientis, oportebat credere nativitatem; quantum ad modum satisfaciendi, oportebat credere passionem; quantum ad praemium, oportebat credere resurrectionem; quantum ad modump552-3, oportebat credere adventum ad iudicium.

Dub. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit de Ioanne Baptista, quod de morte Christi et descensu ad inferos dubitasse videtur. Si enim mori et ad inferos descendere est articulus, et Ioannes de hoc dubitavit: ergo fuit infidelis. Sed constat, Ioannem non fuisse infidelem, cum Dominus laudet eum ibi, Matthaei undecimop552-4: ergo non dubitavit. — Item, Ioannes ei perhibuerat testimonium et aliis notum fecerat Christum: ergo non videtur, quod ipse dubitaverit, cum misit discipulos suos ad Christum. Et hoc est quod dicit Chrysostomus super undecimump552-5 Matthaei: «Ioannes, qui a Spiritu sancto didicerat, quidquid audierat, qui ceteris praedicaverat, qui testimonium perhibuerat, qui columbam viderat, quare sic quaerit? Si ignorat, quomodo testis fuit Ioannes? Tu ante signa divulgaveras; modo post mortuos suscitatos, cum iam omnibus quasi notus est, nunquid tibi non notus? Absit». Si tu dicas, quod non dubitavit, sed ad modum dubitantis se habuit; obiicitur contra hoc auctoritate Ambrosii super Lucamp552-6, ubi sic ait: «Ioannes novit Dei Filium, sed non ipsum ad inferos descensurum». Item, Lucae septimop552-7 in Glossa: «Poterat pius vates, quem venturum praedixerat, non moriturum credidisse». Hoc ipsum dicit Gregorius in quadam Homilia, et tangitur in littera.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod sancti Doctores in hac quaestione dissentire videntur. Nam quidam videntur velle, ipsum non dubitasse; alii vero videntur velle dicere, ipsum dubitasse. Et ex hac ipsa contrarietate quidam haeretici sumserunt occasionem errandi, ut dicerent, Ioannem damnatum esse, quia in fine dubitavit in fidep552-8. Sed certe ab hoc discordat textus evangelicus, in quo praecipue laudatur Ioannes; discordant etiam omnes doctores catholici, et etiam universalis Ecclesia, quae Ioannem non tantum sanctum, sed etiam sanctissimum praedicat et in eius nativitate et decollatione solemnizatp552-9. — Ideo, licet sancti Doctores videantur sibi dissentire, idem tamen sentiunt secundum rem.

Propter quod intelligendum est, quod triplex est modus dubitandi. Est enim quaedam dubitatio proveniens ex infidelitate, sicut dubitaverunt Iudaei; et est dubitatio proveniens ex tarditate, sicut dubitaverunt discipuli, quibus dicitur Lucae ultimop552-10: O stulti et tardi corde ad credendum; et est dubitatio proveniens ex pietate, sicut aliquis ex

p. 553

passione magna et admiratione ad modum dubitantis se habet. — Dicendum est igitur, quod primo et secundo genere dubitationis Ioannes nullo modo dubitavit, dubitaverunt tamen discipuli eius; et sic intelligunt Sanctip553-1, qui dicunt, eum non dubitasse, sed dubitationi discipulorum consuluisse. Ideo enim eos misit ad Christum, ut videntes mirabilia, quae faciebat, converterentur ad ipsum. Si autem loquamur de tertio genere dubitationis, sic dixerunt alii Sancti, Ioannem dubitasse non dubitatione vacillationis, sed potius cuiusdam admirationis et compassionis, quae facit, hominem se habere ad modum dubitantis; Lucae septimo et Matthaei undecimop553-2: «Non fide, sed pietate dubitavit». Et sic patet, quod nulla est contrarietas inter auctoritates praemissas.

Dub. IV.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Fides, spes, caritas et operatio secundum aliquid aequalia sunt. Sed contra: contingit, aliquam habere habitus virtutum et non operationemp553-3: ergo videtur, quod operatio non aequetur ipsis habitibus. — Item, primae ad Corinthios decimo tertiop553-4: Si habuero fidem, ita ut montes transferam, caritatem non habuero etc.: ergo videtur, quod aliquis possit habere magnam fidem, ita quod nullam habeat caritatem.

Respondeo: Dicendum breviter, quod illa quatuor aequalia sunt, secundum quod dicitur super illud Apocalypsis vigesimo primop553-5, quod latera civitatis erant aequalia. Dicitur enim ibi, quod «latera civitatis sunt fides, spes, caritas et operatio». De modo autem aequalitatis ipsarum virtutum dicetur infrap553-6 planius, ubi est quaestio et sermo specialis. Ad praesens autem tantum dixisse sufficit, quod haec quatuor sunt aequalia secundum rationem merendi, quando sunt informata gratia. Tantum enim ipsa caritas est meritoria in suo actu, quantum et fides, in uno et eodem homine. Similiter tantum meretur operatio procedens ab habitu, quantum placet ipse habitus. Quia enim una est gratia gratum faciens, quae facit, animam Deo placere per habitus et operationes; hinc est, quod necesse est, ista quatuor esse aequalia secundum divinamp553-7 acceptionem, ac per hoc secundum efficaciam merendi.

Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod habitus possunt esse sine operibus; dicendum, quod non assignatur hic aequalitas habituum ad operationes in omnibus, sed in his qui habent habitus simul cum ipsis operationibus ab ipsis egredientibus. Praeterea, non intelligit de operibusp553-8 exterioribus, immo de operationibus interioribus, quae consistunt in motu et usu liberi arbitrii. Et ille quidem usus bonitatem habet iuxta mensuram habitus virtutis gratuitae; illa enim praecipue est, «quae habentem perficit et opus eius bonum redditp553-9». Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod magna fides potest haberi sine caritate; dicendum, quod Apostolus ibi loquitur de fide informi; sed littera ista intelligi habet de fide formata. — Et ista sufficiant circa litteram; nam illa quae praemittunturp553-10 de fide Cornelii, satis per se sunt plana.

English Translation
p. 551

# Doubts concerning the text of the Master

Doubt I.

In this part there are questions concerning the text, and first it is asked about what he says: Faith is called great by cognition and by the quantity of articles, or by constancy and devotion. For first it seems that here there is superfluity, because master Hughp551-2 sets down only two things according to which the progress of faith is regarded, namely cognition and affection; but the Master here sets down four: therefore it seems that either he is deficient, or the Master is superfluous. — Likewise, by the same faith by which one article is believed, the others also are believedp551-3: therefore it does not seem that it should be called great from the quantity of articles.

I respond: It must be said to this that faith has greatness in two ways: one through comparison to the object, and this is regarded in the quantity of articles, and what is here called the quantity of articles is the dignity of the articles themselves; for articles are not about just any truth, but about the supreme Truthp551-4. And in this respect the quantity of faith is equal according to the diversity of times, it is equal also according to the plurality of articles, as to that which is principal in them, namely as to the first Truth itself; but as to the connoted element it might well be granted that one article is more worthy than another, as those which are about the Divinity are more worthy than those which are about the humanityp551-5.

It has greatness also through comparison to the subject; and because faith regards the subject according to a threefold power, namely according to the intellective power and according to the affective power and according to the interpretative powerp551-6; according to this the greatness is regarded in faith according to a threefold mode, namely through comparison to the intellective it is called great by cognition, through comparison to the affective it is called great by devotion, through comparison to the interpretative it is called great by constancy. For then faith is constant, when one freely confesses what he believesp551-7. And thus the number and sufficiency of the aforesaid four is clear.

It can otherwise be said, and more according to the intention of the Master, that since faith regards the intellect and the affect, according as was held abovep551-8, its greatness is taken both on the part of the one and on the part of the other. But on the part of the intellect a greater greatness can be regarded in faith in two ways: either because it knows the thing believed more clearly, or because it knows it in more things or more distinctly. In the first way faith is called great by cognition; in the second, by the quantity of articles, because it knows how to distinguish the articles better. — Likewise on the part of the affect greatness is regarded in two ways: either because it adheres more firmly, or because more intensely. In the first way it is said to be great by constancy, in the second way it is called great by devotion. Thus these four are reduced to those two which master Hugh sets down. — And through this the response to the objections is clear; it is also clear that there is no contrariety, nor is there superfluityp551-9.

Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked about what he says: To some it seems that it sufficed for them to believe only those four, namely the nativity and the death and the resurrection and the coming to judgment. For since these articles were just as well unknown as the others, it seems that they were not bound to know these any more than the others. — It is asked therefore: why ought they rather to believe these concerning the Mediator than other things?

I respond: It must be said that the faith of those upon which it rested ought to have these four principallyp551-10, as more opportune. For the first indeed they believed as the foundation of the very faith of the Mediator, namely the nativity itself. — The second indeed, namely the passion itself, that it might provoke to love. — The third indeed, namely the resurrection itself, that it might raise up to hope. — The fourth

p. 552

indeed, namely the coming to judgment, that it might govern through fear. And because it was necessary for all unto salvation rightly to believe, to love, to hope, and to fear; therefore it was fitting that somep552-1 should believe these four articles explicitly, so that others who relied upon them by believing implicitly might be saved.

Or otherwise. Because no one could by his own merit be freed from the contagion or obligation of original sin, it was fitting that they believe that they could be saved through the merit of Christ and through his satisfaction. But in the merit there are thesep552-2 four to consider, namely the person of the one making satisfaction and the manner of making satisfaction and its reward and the manner of rewarding. As to the person of the one making satisfaction, it was fitting to believe the nativity; as to the manner of making satisfaction, it was fitting to believe the passion; as to the reward, it was fitting to believe the resurrection; as to the mannerp552-3, it was fitting to believe the coming to judgment.

Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked about what he says concerning John the Baptist, that he seems to have doubted concerning the death of Christ and his descent to the lower regions. For if to die and to descend to the lower regions is an article, and John doubted about this: therefore he was unfaithful. But it is established that John was not unfaithful, since the Lord praises him there, in the eleventh chapter of Matthewp552-4: therefore he did not doubt. — Likewise, John had borne testimony to him and had made Christ known to others: therefore it does not seem that he doubted, since he sent his disciples to Christ. And this is what Chrysostom says on the eleventh chapterp552-5 of Matthew: «John, who had learned from the Holy Spirit whatever he had heard, who had preached to the others, who had borne testimony, who had seen the dove, why does he ask thus? If he is ignorant, how was John a witness? You had divulged the signs beforehand; now after the dead have been raised, when he is already as it were known to all, is he not known to you? Far be it». If you say that he did not doubt, but bore himself after the manner of one doubting; it is objected against this by the authority of Ambrose on Lukep552-6, where he says thus: «John knew the Son of God, but not that he would descend to the lower regions». Likewise, in the seventh chapter of Lukep552-7 in the Gloss: «The pious seer could have believed that the one whom he had foretold would come would not die». Gregory says this same thing in a certain Homily, and it is touched on in the text.

I respond: It must be said that the holy Doctors seem to disagree in this question. For some seem to mean that he did not doubt; but others seem to mean to say that he did doubt. And from this very contrariety certain heretics took occasion to err, so as to say that John was damned, because in the end he doubted in faithp552-8. But certainly the evangelical text disagrees with this, in which John is especially praised; all the catholic doctors also disagree, and even the universal Church, which proclaims John not only holy, but even most holy, and solemnizes both his nativity and his beheadingp552-9. — Therefore, although the holy Doctors seem to disagree among themselves, nevertheless they hold the same thing in reality.

On account of which it must be understood that there is a threefold mode of doubting. For there is a certain doubt arising from unfaithfulness, as the Jews doubted; and there is a doubt arising from slowness, as the disciples doubted, to whom it is said in the last chapter of Lukep552-10: O foolish and slow of heart to believe; and there is a doubt arising from piety, as someone from

p. 553

great passion and admiration bears himself after the manner of one doubting. — It must be said therefore that by the first and second kind of doubting John in no way doubted, yet his disciples did doubt; and thus the Saintsp553-1 understand it, who say that he did not doubt, but provided for the doubt of his disciples. For he sent them to Christ for this reason, that seeing the marvels which he was doing, they might be converted to him. But if we speak of the third kind of doubting, thus other Saints have said that John doubted, not with the doubt of wavering, but rather of a certain admiration and compassion, which makes a man bear himself after the manner of one doubting; in the seventh chapter of Luke and the eleventh of Matthewp553-2: «He doubted not by faith, but by piety». And thus it is clear that there is no contrariety among the authorities adduced.

Doubt IV.

Likewise it is asked about what he says: Faith, hope, charity, and work are in some respect equal. But on the contrary: it happens that someone has the habits of the virtues and not the operationp553-3: therefore it seems that the operation is not equal to the habits themselves. — Likewise, the thirteenth chapter of the first letter to the Corinthiansp553-4: If I should have faith, so as to move mountains, but have not charity etc.: therefore it seems that someone can have great faith, such that he has no charity.

I respond: It must be said briefly that those four are equal, according to what is said upon that passage of the twenty-first chapter of the Apocalypsep553-5, that the sides of the city were equal. For it is said there that «the sides of the city are faith, hope, charity, and work». But concerning the manner of the equality of the virtues themselves it will be said more plainly belowp553-6, where there is a special question and discourse. For the present it suffices to have said only this, that these four are equal according to the account of meriting, when they are informed by grace. For charity itself is meritorious in its act just as much as faith, in one and the same man. Likewise the work proceeding from a habit merits just as much as the habit itself pleases. For since there is one sanctifying grace, which makes the soul please God through the habits and operations; hence it is that these four must necessarily be equal according to the divinep553-7 acceptance, and through this according to the efficacy of meriting.

To that, therefore, which is objected, that habits can be without works; it must be said that here the equality of habits to operations is not assigned in all cases, but in those who have habits together with the operations themselves issuing from them. Furthermore, he does not understand it of exterior worksp553-8, but rather of interior operations, which consist in the motion and use of free choice. And that use indeed has goodness according to the measure of the gratuitous habit of virtue; for it is especially this which «perfects its possessor and renders his work goodp553-9». To that which is objected, that great faith can be had without charity; it must be said that the Apostle there speaks of unformed faith; but this text must be understood of formed faith. — And let these things suffice concerning the text; for those things which are set forth before itp553-10 concerning the faith of Cornelius are plain enough of themselves.

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Libr. I. de Sacram. p. X. c. 4. Vide supra a. 2. q. 3. in corp.
    Book I of On the Sacraments, p. X, c. 4. See above, a. 2, q. 3, in the body.
  2. Cfr. supra d. 23. a. 1. q. 3.
    Cf. above, d. 23, a. 1, q. 3.
  3. Vide supra d. 24. a. 3. q. 2. — Paulo superius pro hic articulorum quantitas sola Vat. haec articulorum quantitas, refragantibus codd. et aliis edd.
    See above, d. 24, a. 3, q. 2. — A little above, in place of hic articulorum quantitas the Vatican edition alone reads haec articulorum quantitas, against the codices and the other editions.
  4. Cfr. supra d. 24. a. 1. q. 2.
    Cf. above, d. 24, a. 1, q. 2.
  5. Sive sermocinalem, vel loquendi. Cfr. opuscul. de Reductione artium ad theolog. — Subinde pro secundum hoc Vat. secundum haec; cod. aa hoc modo attenditur etiam fidei magnitudo etc.
    Or the discursive [power], or [the power] of speaking. Cf. the little work On the Reduction of the Arts to Theology. — Thereupon, in place of secundum hoc the Vatican edition reads secundum haec; codex aa in this manner the greatness of faith is also regarded etc.
  6. Rom. 10, 10: Corde enim creditur ad iustitiam, ore autem confessio fit ad salutem.
    Romans 10:10: For with the heart it is believed unto justice, but with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
  7. Dist. 23. a. 1. q. 2. — Inferius post secundo cod. X repetit modo.
    D. 23, a. 1, q. 2. — Below, after secundo codex X repeats modo.
  8. Vide supra a. 2. q. 3. — Cfr. de hoc dubio B. Albert. hic a. 5.
    See above, a. 2, q. 3. — Cf. on this doubt Blessed Albert, here a. 5.
  9. Cod. K innitebantur.
    Codex K reads innitebantur [were resting].
  10. In edd. desideratur aliquos, pro quo codd. A K posuerunt omnes; sed cfr. supra a. 1. q. 2, q. 3. ad 5.
    In the editions aliquos [some] is wanting, for which codices A K have set omnes [all]; but cf. above, a. 1, q. 2, q. 3, to 5.
  11. Edd. In merito autem isto est quatuor.
    The editions read In merito autem isto est quatuor [But in this merit there are four].
  12. Codd. U Z bb supplent praemiandi. — Cfr. de hoc dubio supra a. 1. q. 2; B. Albert. hic a. 6; Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.
    Codices U Z bb supply praemiandi [of rewarding]. — Cf. on this doubt above, a. 1, q. 2; Blessed Albert, here a. 6; Peter of Tarentaise and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text.
  13. Vers. 11.
    Verse 11.
  14. Vers. 3. — Verba Chrysostomi, hic abbreviata, habentur in eius homil. 36. (alias 37.) super Matth. n. 1. — In omnibus fere codd. scriptum est (perperam) super 11. Ioannis; in edd. legitur Augustinus super 11. Ioannis. Cfr. August., Serm. 66. n. 3. seq.
    Verse 3. — The words of Chrysostom, here abbreviated, are had in his homily 36 (alias 37) on Matthew, n. 1. — In almost all the codices it is written (wrongly) on 11 of John; in the editions is read Augustine on 11 of John. Cf. Augustine, Sermon 66, n. 3 f.
  15. Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 69. m. 3. a. 2, haec verba Ambrosio non simpliciter tribuit, sed ea affert ut verba Glossae, ex Ambrosio delibata (« dicit Ambrosius in Glossa »). S. Bonav. in Comment. super Luc. 7, 19. ait: « Ambrosius vero vult, quod dubitaverit non ex infidelitate aut tarditate, ut discipuli, sed quadam pietate, sicut dicitur in Glossa ». Cui sententiae revera concordare videntur illa verba Ambrosii, V. in Luc. 7, 19. n. 93: « Non cadit igitur in talem prophetam tanti erroris suspicio. Itaque si intellectus simplicis forma compugnat, spiritualem quaeramus figuram. Et quia supra iam diximus (in Luc. c. 3.), in Ioanne typum esse Legis, quae praenuntia fuit Christi, recte Lex... plenum exitum testimonii dominicae dispensationis sine Evangelii nequit astipulatione perferre ». Quibus verbis idem Ambros. deinde n. 98. (unde Glossa ordinaria, quae paulo post affertur, sumta est) adiungit recensionem dictorum 11, 3. dicit: « Et est sensus: Manda mihi, quia interficiendus ab Herode et ad inferna descensurus sum, utrum te et in inferis debeam nuntiare, qui nuntiavi superis, an non conveniat Filio Dei, ut gustet mortem, et alium ad haec sacramenta missurus es ». Eadem verba habentur apud Hieronymum in Matth. 11, 3. Cfr. Gregor., I. Homil. in Evang. homil. 6. n. 1, et I. Homil. in Ezech. homil. 1. n. 5.
    Alexander of Hales, Summa p. III, q. 69, m. 3, a. 2, does not attribute these words simply to Ambrose, but adduces them as words of the Gloss, drawn from Ambrose (« Ambrose says in the Gloss »). St. Bonaventure in his Commentary on Luke 7:19 says: « But Ambrose means that he doubted not from unfaithfulness or slowness, like the disciples, but from a certain piety, as is said in the Gloss ». With which judgment those words of Ambrose, V, on Luke 7:19, n. 93, indeed seem to agree: « There falls not, then, upon such a prophet the suspicion of so great an error. And so if the form of the simple understanding contends against it, let us seek the spiritual figure. And because we have already said above (on Luke c. 3) that in John there is a type of the Law, which was the forerunner of Christ, rightly the Law... cannot carry through the full issue of its testimony to the Lord's dispensation without the corroboration of the Gospel ». To which words the same Ambrose then, n. 98 (whence the ordinary Gloss, which is adduced a little after, is taken), adds a recension of the sayings of 11:3, saying: « And the sense is: Make known to me, since I am to be killed by Herod and am to descend to the lower regions, whether I ought to announce you also among those in the lower regions, I who have announced you to those above, or whether it does not befit the Son of God to taste death and to send another for these mysteries ». The same words are had in Jerome on Matthew 11:3. Cf. Gregory, I Homilies on the Gospels, homily 6, n. 1, and I Homilies on Ezekiel, homily 1, n. 5.
  16. Vers. 19. — Glossa, ut iam in annotatione praecedenti observavimus, sumta est ex Ambros. in hunc loc. n. 98. dicente: Nonnulli etiam de ipso Ioanne sic intelligunt, magnum quidem ita prophetam, ut Christum agnosceret, annuntiaret remissionem peccatorum futuram, sed tamen non tanquam dubium, sed tanquam pium vatem, quem venturum crediderat, non credidisse moriturum. Non igitur fide, sed pietate dubitavit etc. — Pro pius vates edd. et multi codd. (alii sunt dubiae lectionis) prius vates. — De Gregor. vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 3.
    Verse 19. — The Gloss, as we have already observed in the preceding annotation, is taken from Ambrose on this passage, n. 98, who says: Some also understand it thus of John himself, that he was indeed so great a prophet that he recognized Christ and announced the future remission of sins, but yet not as one doubting, but as a pious seer, who believed that the one he had believed would come would not die. Therefore he doubted not by faith, but by piety, etc. — In place of pius vates the editions and many codices (others are of doubtful reading) read prius vates. — On Gregory see here the text of the Master, c. 3.
  17. B. Albert., hic a. 7: Ego puto, quod temeritas sit dicere, Ioannem dubitasse, et initium haeresis Manichaeorum, qui dicunt, eum dubitasse, et ideo eum esse damnatum. — Edd. omittunt in fine.
    Blessed Albert, here a. 7: I think that it is rashness to say that John doubted, and the beginning of the heresy of the Manichaeans, who say that he doubted and was therefore damned. — The editions omit in fine [in the end].
  18. Die 24. Iunii et 29. Augusti. — Mox post sancti Doctores edd. subdunt catholici.
    On the 24th of June and the 29th of August. — Soon after sancti Doctores the editions add catholici [catholic].
  19. Vers. 25. — Paulo inferius pro sicut edd. sicut cum.
    Verse 25. — A little below, in place of sicut the editions read sicut cum.
  20. Hilar., Comment. in Matth. c. 11. n. 2: Tali igitur Ioannes exemplo non suae, sed discipulorum ignorantiae consulit etc. Cfr. Chrysost. et August., locis supra citt., nec non Qq. ex Novo Testam. (inter opera August.) p. II. q. 10; Ambros., V. in Luc. n. 95. — Cod. V intelligunt quidam Sancti. Paulo inferius pro mirabilia codd. A K miracula.
    Hilary, Commentary on Matthew c. 11, n. 2: By such an example, therefore, John provides not for his own ignorance, but for that of the disciples, etc. Cf. Chrysostom and Augustine, at the places cited above, and also Questions on the New Testament (among the works of Augustine), p. II, q. 10; Ambrose, V, on Luke, n. 95. — Codex V reads intelligunt quidam Sancti. A little below, in place of mirabilia codices A K read miracula.
  21. Luc. 7, 19; Matth. 11, 3. — Glossam vide supra pag. 552, nota 7. — Cfr. de hoc dubio Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 69. m. 3. a. 2; B. Albert., hic a. 7; S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 2. quaestiunc. 3. ad 1; Petr. a Tar., hic circa lit.; Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. 1. ad 5.
    Luke 7:19; Matthew 11:3. — For the Gloss see above p. 552, note 7. — Cf. on this doubt Alexander of Hales, Summa p. III, q. 69, m. 3, a. 2; Blessed Albert, here a. 7; St. Thomas, here q. 2, a. 2, sub-question 3, to 1; Peter of Tarentaise, here on the text; Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 3, q. 1, to 5.
  22. Quod accidit e. gr. in parvulis baptizatis. Cfr. supra d. 23. a. 2. q. 2. ad 5. et dub. 2. — Edd. 1, 2 cum bene multis codd. operationum.
    Which happens, for example, in baptized infants. Cf. above, d. 23, a. 2, q. 2, to 5, and doubt 2. — Editions 1, 2 with very many codices read operationum.
  23. Vers. 2.
    Verse 2.
  24. Vers. 16: Et civitas in quadro posita est, et longitudo eius tanta est, quanta et latitudo. — Glossa ordinaria apud Strabum et Lyranum: Quatuor latera, fides, spes, caritas, operatio, quae sunt aequalia; quia quantum quis credit, tantum sperat; quantum sperat, tantum diligit; quantum diligit, tantum operatur. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 5.
    Verse 16: And the city is placed foursquare, and its length is as great as its breadth. — The ordinary Gloss in Strabo and Lyra: Four sides, faith, hope, charity, work, which are equal; because as much as one believes, so much he hopes; as much as he hopes, so much he loves; as much as he loves, so much he works. Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 5.
  25. Dist. 36. q. 5. — Mox pro sufficit codd. A K N Z sufficiat.
    D. 36, q. 5. — Soon, in place of sufficit codices A K N Z read sufficiat.
  26. Pro divinam edd. dictam, et paulo inferius assimilatur pro assignatur, et deinde quae habent pro qui habent.
    In place of divinam the editions read dictam, and a little below assimilatur for assignatur, and then quae habent for qui habent.
  27. Non pauci codd. atque edd. operationibus; mox pro operationibus complures codd. operibus.
    Not a few codices and editions read operationibus; soon, in place of operationibus very many codices read operibus.
  28. Est definitio virtutis data ab Aristot., II. Ethic. c. 6. Cfr. supra pag. 470, nota 8. — De solut. seq. cfr. supra d. 23. a. 2. q. 1. seq.
    This is the definition of virtue given by Aristotle, II Ethics c. 6. Cf. above p. 470, note 8. — On the following solution cf. above, d. 23, a. 2, q. 1 f.
  29. Hic in lit. Magistri, c. 4. — Cfr. de hoc dubio B. Albert., hic a. 9; S. Thom., hic circa lit.; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 5. a. 2. quaestiunc. 2.
    Here in the text of the Master, c. 4. — Cf. on this doubt Blessed Albert, here a. 9; St. Thomas, here on the text; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 5, a. 2, sub-question 2.
← Dist. 25, Art. 2, Q. 3