← Back to Distinction 28

Dist. 28, Dubia

Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word · Distinction 28

Textus Latinus
p. 633

# Dubia circa litteram Magistri

Dub. I.

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Nec speciali praecepto opus erat hoc tradi, ut quisque se vel corpus suum diligat etc. Hoc enim non videtur verum, quia, si praecepta data sunt ad dirigendum affectiones nostras, cum maxime contingat unumquemquep633-4 errare circa dilectionem sui, videtur, quod de hoc maxime debuit praeceptum dari. — Item, in praeceptis caritatis non praecipitur amor carnalis, sed spiritualis; sed difficillimum est se ipsum spiritualiter diligere: si hoc ergo necessarium est ad salutem, videtur, quod hoc debuerit specialiter praecipi. Si dicas, quod non oportuit praecipere, quia in aliis duobus praeceptis includiturp633-5; tunc quaeritur: quare dilectio proximi non includitur, sed exprimitur?

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod triplex est ratio, quare non oportet, speciale mandatum dari de dilectione sui, vel corporis: una est, quam reddit Augustinus, et habetur in litterap633-6, quia satis intelligitur per hoc quod dicitur: Sicut te ipsum. Alia ratio est, quia ad hoc ipsum inclinat natura. Tertia ratio est, quia diligere Deum ex toto corde et ex tota anima et ex tota mente, hoc est se ipsum spiritualiter amare. Ille enim se spiritualiter amat, qui cor et corpus ad honorem Dei totaliter exponit: et sic dilectio sui implicatur in illis duobus mandatis, et qui bene exsequitur primum mandatum facilitatem habet et rectitudinem ad diligendum se ipsum; et propterea non oportuit tertium mandatum addi, secundum quod dicit Augustinusp633-7.

Et per hoc patet determinatio obiectorum. Nam illud quod obiicit, quod circa dilectionem sui est obliquatio et difficultas; iam patet: quia satis instruitur homo per illa duo mandata ad obliquitatis et difficultatis illius remotionem.

Ad illud quod ultimo quaeritur: quare non sic implicite datur mandatum de dilectione proximi, sicut de dilectione sui? dicendum, quod ratio huius est, quia non est ita in inclinatione et appetitu naturae converti ad alterum, sicut converti ad se ipsum; et praetereap633-8, difficillimum est proximum diligere, maxime quando est ei adversarius: ideo congruum fuit, de hoc speciale mandatum dari.

Dub. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Manifestum est, omnem hominem proximum esse deputandum. Obiicitur enim de beata Virgine: si enim proximus est ille qui est iuxta nos, et beata Virgo non tantum supra nos, sed «supra Angelos exaltata estp633-9»; non videtur, quod tantum diligenda sit ut proxima, sed magis ut domina. — Item, honoranda est beata

p. 634

Virgo speciali honore, qui dicitur hyperduliap634-1: ergo speciali amore amanda: non ergo videtur, quod sub nomine proximi intelligatur, per quem intelligimus illud quod est iuxta.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod nomine proximi intelligitur omnis homo cuiuscumque sexus, cuiuscumque dignitatis, cuiuscumque virtutis. Unde et dilectio gloriosae Virginis includitur sub dilectione proximi.

Ad illud vero quod obiicitur, quod non est iuxta nos, sed magis supra; dicendum, quod licet sit supra nos ratione dignitatis gratiae et conceptionis nobilissimae, est tamen iuxta nos secundum conformitatem naturae; et quoniam dilectio respicit similitudinem, honor autem respicit dignitatemp634-2, hinc est, quod dilectio eius generaliter sub dilectione proximi continetur, quamvis veneratio ipsius aliis superponatur. — Verum est tamen, quod ipsa speciali affectu ab omnibus debet diligi; sed ex hoc non sequitur, quod dilectio eius non debeat sub dilectione proximi contineri, quia, quantumcumque aliqua creatura magno affectu sit amanda, per prius ipsa caritas ordinat animum ad diligendam salutem propriam, sicut melius infrap634-3 manifestabitur. — Per hoc patet responsio ad obiecta, quoniam ipse arguit de dignitatis sublimitate, cum obiicitp634-4, quod beata Virgo est supra nos, secundum quam est veneranda; sub nomine vero proximi continetur quantum ad naturae conformitatem, secundum quam est diligenda.

Dub. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Manifestum est, praecepto dilectionis proximi etiam sanctos Angelos contineri. Sed contra: sancti Angeli quantum ad dignitatem naturae et quantum ad eminentiam gratiae et quantum ad excellentiam gloriae supra nos sunt: ergo videtur, quod non debeant proximi nostri, sed domini reputari. — Item, Christus dominus noster est, qui fuit paulo minus ab Angelis minoratus, secundum quod dicitur in Psalmop634-5: ergo videtur, quod ipsi Angeli sint sicut domini nostri, non sicut proximi reputandi.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod quamvis Angeli supra nos sint sive quantum ad dignitatem naturae, sive quantum ad sublimitatem gratiae; tamen quantum ad actum dilectionis non sunt supra nos diligendi, pro eo quod caritas nostra principaliter respicit summum Bonum, in quod facit tendere et ad quod inclinat; secundo vero respicit subiectum, quod informat; tertio vero respicit aliud subiectum consimile, cum quo ligatp634-6; unde quantumcumque creatura sit in se ipsa excellens, tamen secundum legem caritatis iuxta est, et ideo sub nomine proximi debet contineri.

Ad illud ergo quod obiicit, quod supra nos sunt sub ratione naturae, gratiae et gloriae; iam patet responsio: quia, quamvis sint supra nos secundum ordinem universi, non tamen sunt supra nos secundum ordinem caritatisp634-7. — Potest etiam aliter dici, quod quamvis sint supra nos ratione simplicitatis, spiritualitatis et incorruptibilitatis, sunt tamen iuxta nos ratione imaginis, secundum quam nos et ipsi habemus immediate in Deum ordinarip634-8; et ratione huius possunt nostri proximi appellari.

Et per hoc patet responsio ad illud quod obiicitur de Christo, quod illud dicitur ratione passibilitatis assumtaep634-9.

Dub. IV.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Christum, in quantum homo est, sicut nos diligere debemus. Contra: Christus est caput nostrum secundum conformitatem naturae assumtaep634-10; sed caput magis est diligendum quam aliud membrum: ergo plus debemus diligere Christum, secundum quod homo, quam nos. — Item, tantum debemus diligere Redemptorem, quantum et Creatorem; sed Creator est diligendus plus quam nos: ergo et Redemptor. Sed Christus, in quantum homo, est Redemptorp634-11: ergo Christum, in quantum est homo, debemus diligere plus quam nos.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod cum dicitur: Christus, in quantum homo, diligendus est quantum nos, vel plus quam nos, haec determinatio in quantum potest importare unitatem personae, vel conditionem naturae, iuxta illud quod dictum fuit su-

p. 635

pra distinctione undecimap635-1. Et si importet unitatem personae; sic diligendus est supra nos, quia sic est noster creator, redemptor et salvator. Si vero importet conditionem naturae assumtae, sic diligendus est iuxta nos, et sic est proximus noster. Unde si consideremus Christum solum ratione humanitatis, hoc est pure ratione naturae creatae, non debetur ei principalitas dilectionis, sicut nec adoratio latriaep635-2; nec hoc modo dicitur redemptor noster, vel caput, quia tam ratio redemptoris quam capitis respicit personam secundum utramque naturam. — Et per hoc patet responsio ad obiectap635-3.

English Translation
p. 633

# 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: There was no need for it to be handed down by a special precept, that each one should love himself or his own body etc. For this does not seem true, because, if precepts are given to direct our affections, since it most of all happens that everyonep633-4 errs concerning love of himself, it seems that about this a precept ought most of all to have been given. — Likewise, in the precepts of charity carnal love is not commanded, but spiritual; but it is most difficult to love oneself spiritually: if therefore this is necessary for salvation, it seems that this ought to have been specially commanded. If you say that it was not necessary to command [it], because it is included in the other two preceptsp633-5; then it is asked: why is the love of neighbor not included, but expressed?

I respond: It must be said that there is a threefold reason why it is not necessary that a special commandment be given concerning love of oneself or of the body: one is that which Augustine gives, and is had in the textp633-6, because it is sufficiently understood by what is said: As thyself. Another reason is that nature inclines to this very thing. The third reason is that to love God from the whole heart and from the whole soul and from the whole mind, this is to love oneself spiritually. For he loves himself spiritually who totally devotes his heart and body to the honor of God: and thus love of oneself is implied in those two commandments, and he who well fulfills the first commandment has facility and rectitude for loving himself; and on that account it was not necessary that a third commandment be added, according as Augustine saysp633-7.

And by this the determination of the objections is clear. For that which it objects, that concerning love of oneself there is deviation and difficulty; this is now clear: because man is sufficiently instructed by those two commandments for the removal of that deviation and difficulty.

To that which is asked last: why is the commandment concerning love of neighbor not given so implicitly, as the one concerning love of oneself? it must be said that the reason for this is that it is not so [natural] in the inclination and appetite of nature to be turned toward another, as to be turned toward oneself; and besidesp633-8, it is most difficult to love one's neighbor, especially when he is hostile to him: therefore it was fitting that a special commandment be given concerning this.

Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked about what he says: It is manifest that every man is to be reckoned a neighbor. For it is objected concerning the blessed Virgin: for if a neighbor is he who is beside us, and the blessed Virgin is not only above us, but «exalted above the Angelsp633-9»; it does not seem that she is to be loved only as a neighbor, but rather as a lady. — Likewise, the blessed

p. 634

Virgin is to be honored with a special honor, which is called hyperduliap634-1: therefore she is to be loved with a special love: therefore it does not seem that she is understood under the name of neighbor, by which we understand that which is beside [us].

I respond: It must be said that under the name of neighbor is understood every man of whatever sex, of whatever dignity, of whatever virtue. Whence also the love of the glorious Virgin is included under the love of neighbor.

But to that which is objected, that she is not beside us, but rather above; it must be said that although she is above us by reason of the dignity of grace and of her most noble conception, she is nevertheless beside us according to the conformity of nature; and since love regards likeness, but honor regards dignityp634-2, hence it is that the love of her is generally contained under the love of neighbor, although the veneration of her is set above the others. — It is nevertheless true that she ought to be loved with a special affection by all; but from this it does not follow that the love of her ought not to be contained under the love of neighbor, because, however much some creature is to be loved with great affection, charity itself first orders the soul to love its own salvation, as will be better shown belowp634-3. — By this the response to the objections is clear, since he argues from the sublimity of dignity, when he objectsp634-4 that the blessed Virgin is above us, according to which she is to be venerated; but under the name of neighbor she is contained as to the conformity of nature, according to which she is to be loved.

Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked about what he says: It is manifest that even the holy Angels are contained under the precept of love of neighbor. But on the contrary: the holy Angels, as to the dignity of nature and as to the eminence of grace and as to the excellence of glory, are above us: therefore it seems that they ought not to be reckoned our neighbors, but lords. — Likewise, Christ is our Lord, who was made a little less than the Angels, according as it is said in the Psalmp634-5: therefore it seems that the Angels themselves are to be reckoned as our lords, not as neighbors.

I respond: It must be said that although the Angels are above us either as to the dignity of nature, or as to the sublimity of grace; nevertheless as to the act of love they are not to be loved above us, for the reason that our charity principally regards the supreme Good, toward which it makes [us] tend and to which it inclines; but secondly it regards the subject which it informs; but thirdly it regards another like subject, with which it bindsp634-6; whence however much a creature is excellent in itself, nevertheless according to the law of charity it is beside [us], and therefore ought to be contained under the name of neighbor.

To that, therefore, which it objects, that they are above us under the aspect of nature, grace and glory; the response is now clear: because, although they are above us according to the order of the universe, they are nevertheless not above us according to the order of charityp634-7. — It can also be said otherwise, that although they are above us by reason of simplicity, spirituality and incorruptibility, they are nevertheless beside us by reason of the image, according to which both we and they have to be ordered immediately to Godp634-8; and by reason of this they can be called our neighbors.

And by this the response is clear to that which is objected concerning Christ, that that is said by reason of the assumed passibilityp634-9.

Doubt IV.

Likewise it is asked about what he says: We ought to love Christ, inasmuch as he is man, as ourselves. On the contrary: Christ is our head according to the conformity of the assumed naturep634-10; but the head is more to be loved than another member: therefore we ought to love Christ, according as he is man, more than ourselves. — Likewise, we ought to love the Redeemer as much as the Creator; but the Creator is to be loved more than ourselves: therefore also the Redeemer. But Christ, inasmuch as he is man, is the Redeemerp634-11: therefore we ought to love Christ, inasmuch as he is man, more than ourselves.

I respond: It must be said that when it is said: Christ, inasmuch as he is man, is to be loved as much as ourselves, or more than ourselves, this determination inasmuch as can import unity of person, or condition of nature, according to what was said a-

p. 635

bove in the eleventh distinctionp635-1. And if it imports unity of person; thus he is to be loved above us, because thus he is our creator, redeemer and savior. But if it imports the condition of the assumed nature, thus he is to be loved beside us, and thus he is our neighbor. Whence if we consider Christ only by reason of his humanity, that is, purely by reason of the created nature, the primacy of love is not owed to him, just as neither the adoration of latriap635-2; nor in this way is he called our redeemer, or head, because both the character of redeemer and that of head regard the person according to each nature. — And by this the response to the objections is clearp635-3.

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Multi codd. atque edd. unumquodque.
    Many codices and the editions read unumquodque.
  2. Ut dicit Magister, hic c. 1.
    As the Master says, here c. 1.
  3. Hic c. 1. — Subinde pro intelligitur codd. A K bb intelligebatur.
    Here c. 1. — Thereupon, in place of intelligitur codices A K bb read intelligebatur.
  4. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 1. — Superius pro dilectio sui edd. dilectio ipsius.
    See here the text of the Master, c. 1. — Above, in place of dilectio sui the editions read dilectio ipsius.
  5. Edd. et propter hoc. — Cfr. de hoc dubio Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.
    The editions read et propter hoc. — Cf. on this doubt Peter of Tarentaise and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text.
  6. Ut Bernardus docet nec non Hieronymus; de quo vide supra pag. 57, nota 5. Edd., supra pro si enim substituto sicut enim, hic ante non videtur inserunt ergo.
    As Bernard teaches, and also Jerome; on which see above p. 57, note 5. The editions, having substituted above sicut enim for si enim, here before non videtur insert ergo.
  7. Cfr. supra d. 9. a. 1. q. 3. — Paulo inferius pro sub nomine edd. exhibent sub ratione et in fine arg. adiiciunt nos.
    Cf. above, d. 9, a. 1, q. 3. — A little below, in place of sub nomine the editions exhibit sub ratione and at the end of the argument add nos.
  8. Pro dignitatem codd. B C D G humilitatem (fortasse a librariis vitiose scriptum pro sublimitatem, quae lectio habetur circa finem respons.), alii codd. et edd. 1, 2 humiliationem. Paulo ante pro secundum conformitatem codd. A K per conformitatem.
    In place of dignitatem codices B C D G read humilitatem (perhaps written corruptly by the scribes for sublimitatem, which reading is had near the end of the response), other codices and editions 1, 2 humiliationem. A little before, in place of secundum conformitatem codices A K read per conformitatem.
  9. Dist. seq. quaest. 3. — Verbis per prius edd. praemittunt tamen.
    The following distinction, q. 3. — To the words per prius the editions prefix tamen.
  10. Edd., pro ad obiecta substituto ad obiectum, omittunt cum obiicit, deinde pro quod ponunt quia. — De hoc dubio cfr. Petr. a Tar., hic circa lit.
    The editions, having substituted ad obiectum for ad obiecta, omit cum obiicit, then in place of quod put quia. — On this doubt cf. Peter of Tarentaise, here on the text.
  11. Psalm. 8, 6. — Paulo superius post sed domini cod. Z supplet nostri.
    Psalm 8:6. — A little above, after sed domini codex Z supplies nostri.
  12. Cfr. supra d. 27. a. 1. q. 1. in corp. et ad 1. — Edd., paulo superius secundo vero mutato in et hoc modo, sic prosequuntur: respicit subiectum, ad quod informat. Secundo modo respicit aliquod subiectum consimile, quod ligat. Proxime post pro quantumcumque codd. E F G I L N T V exhibent quantacumque, et mox post iuxta edd. supplent nos.
    Cf. above, d. 27, a. 1, q. 1, in the body and to 1. — The editions, a little above having changed secundo vero into et hoc modo, continue thus: it regards the subject which it informs. In a second mode it regards some like subject which it binds. Immediately after, in place of quantumcumque codices E F G I L N T V exhibit quantacumque, and soon after iuxta the editions supply nos.
  13. Edd. secundum ordinem sub ratione caritatis. Superius eaedem edd. omittunt gratiae.
    The editions read secundum ordinem sub ratione caritatis. Above, the same editions omit gratiae.
  14. Cfr. II. Sent. d. 15. a. 2. q. 1. — Circa finem solut. pro quod illud dicitur cod. V quia illud dicitur.
    Cf. II Sentences, d. 15, a. 2, q. 1. — Near the end of the solution, in place of quod illud dicitur codex V reads quia illud dicitur.
  15. Cfr. de hoc dubio B. Albert., hic a. 5; S. Thom., hic circa lit.
    Cf. on this doubt Blessed Albert, here a. 5; St. Thomas, here on the text.
  16. Vide supra d. 13. a. 2. q. 1. seq.
    See above, d. 13, a. 2, q. 1 f.
  17. Cfr. supra d. 19. a. 2. q. 1.
    Cf. above, d. 19, a. 2, q. 1.
  18. Art. 2. q. 1. seqq. et praesertim d. 10, tam in lit. Magistri, c. 1, quam in Comment. a. 1. q. 1. seqq. — Superius edd. omittunt quantum nos, vel, inferius post quia sic addunt supra nos.
    Article 2, q. 1 ff., and especially d. 10, both in the text of the Master, c. 1, and in the Commentary, a. 1, q. 1 ff. — Above, the editions omit quantum nos, vel, [and] below after quia sic add supra nos.
  19. Cfr. supra d. 9. a. 1. q. 1. — Mox pro ratio edd. cum paucis codd. nomen.
    Cf. above, d. 9, a. 1, q. 1. — Soon, in place of ratio the editions with a few codices read nomen.
  20. Hoc dubium solvunt etiam B. Albert., hic a. 7; S. Thom. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.
    This doubt is also solved by Blessed Albert, here a. 7; St. Thomas and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text.
← Dist. 28, Art. 1, Q. 6