Dist. 31, Dubia
Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word · Distinction 31
# Dubia circa litteram Magistri
Dub. I.
In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Caritas, quae deseri potest, nunquam vera fuit; quoniam secundum hoc videtur, quod immutabilitas sit de veritate caritatis: ergo si homo in via semper mutabilis est a malo in bonum, videtur, quod nunquam habeat veram caritatem. Si dicas, quod Magister dicit inferius1, quod veritas illa « non refertur ad caritatis essentiam, sed ad eius efficaciam »; hoc non solvit: primum, quia multi viatores habent caritatem, quae perducit eos ad veram beatitudinem; et tamen, quamdiu viatores sunt, possunt caritatem deserere: igitur ista duo possunt simul stare, quod caritas possit deseri et quod fuerit vera. — Item, caritas viae et patriae sunt unius rationis2: ergo si de veritate caritatis patriae est, ut sit immutabilis: videtur similiter, quod sit de veritate caritatis viae. Et sic videtur simpliciter sentire Augustinus, quod caritas vera nunquam amittatur3; sed hoc est simpliciter falsum, sicut manifeste scitur per experimentum: ergo etc.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod verbum illud sane potest intelligi, ut fiat vis in duplici verbo: primo, ut fiat vis in verbo ex parte subiecti, in hoc quod dicitur: « caritas, quae deseri potest ». Aliqua enim proprietas sive qualitas deseritur propter hoc, quod non potest resistere impellenti; aliqua deseritur ex mera voluntate habentis. Cum ergo dicit Augustinus, quod caritas non est vera, quae potest deseri; hoc intelligit de illo amore, qui non habet efficaciam resistendi; talis enim amor, qui potest a superveniente tentatione violentia quadam expelli, non meretur dici amor caritatis, cuius est Deum carissimum habere et propter se et super omnia diligere et propter amatum omnia faciliter tolerare. — Aliter potest intelligi, ut fiat vis in hoc quod dicit: « nunquam vera fuit »; quod virtus vera dicitur dupliciter: aut quia habet operationem sibi debitam4, aut
quia perducit ad finem, propter quem est. Et in verbo proposito dicitur caritas non esse vera, quae deseri potest, quia, si deseritur, finis debitus non acquiritur; ideo potius vana quam vera est reputanda. Nec loquitur hic Augustinus de quacumque potentia deserendi caritatem, sed de potentia, quae est actui coniuncta.
Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod mutabilis et immutabilis non est eadem ratio5; dicendum, quod illud intelligitur de eo quod est immutabile per naturam, non de illo quod est immutabile per divinae largitatis beneficentiam et continuae bonitatis influentiam, sicut est caritas perfecta in patria6.
Dub. II.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Quorundam nomina Christus dicit esse scripta in libro vitae, qui postea abierunt retro. Quod enim scriptum est in libro vitae, cum ille liber sit immutabilis, deleri non potest: ergo videtur, quod non sit possibile, ut aliqui, qui scripti sunt, postea vadant retro et deleantur de illo libro. — Est igitur quaestio, utrum aliquis de illo libro possit deleri. Et quod sic, videtur per illud quod dicitur in Psalmo7: Deleantur de libro viventium; et Exodi trigesimo secundo: Aut dimitte eis hanc noxam, aut dele me de libro vitae. Sed in contrarium est quod dicitur super illud Apocalypsis tertio8: Non delebo eum; Glossa: « Liber vitae est praescientia Dei, in qua omnia sunt constantia ».
Iuxta hoc quaeritur de libro vitae, quid sit et quis eius usus.
Respondeo: Ad hoc breviter dicendum est — quantum spectat ad propositum, quia quaestio ista determinatur in quarto libro9, in tractatu de resurrectione — quod cum liber vitae sit divina dispositio, secundum quam aliquis ordinatur ad vitam et reputatur esse dignus vita, aliquis potest dici dupliciter scribi in illo libro: vel secundum praesentis iustitiae reputationem, vel secundum finalis gratiae praevisionem. Et primo modo dicitur scribi in libro vitae, quia scribuntur eius merita; secundo autem modo, non solum quia10 scribuntur eius merita, sed etiam quia ipse ordinatur ad vitam secundum praedestinationem divinam. Qui primo modo scribitur deletur quantum ad praesentem iustitiam, quia iam non reputatur dignus vita: qui secundo modo scribitur nunquam deletur. Deletio autem illa non dicit aliquam immutationem factam circa ipsum Deum, sed solum circa meritum immutatum. — Et sic patet responsio ad obiecta.
Dub. III.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Christus tantum electos dilexit et eorum salutem optavit. Sed contra: latior fuit caritas in Christo quam in nobis; sed nos non diligimus solummodo electos, verum etiam praescitos: ergo et Christus. — Item, illos dilexit Christus, quos voluit salvos fieri; sed secundum quod dicitur primae ad Timotheum secundo11: Ipse vult, omnes homines salvos fieri: ergo videtur, quod tam electos quam reprobos dilexerit. — Item, Angeli non tantum serviunt electis, immo etiam malis, et eos quibus serviunt, volunt perducere ad vitam: ergo diligunt eos ex caritate: ergo multo fortius videtur, quod Christus ex caritate omnes dilexerit; et si hoc verum est, tunc non est verum quod Magister dicit.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod sicut in primo libro12 dictum fuit, voluntas in Deo distinguitur secundum duplicem modum. Est enim voluntas in Deo antecedens et voluntas consequens: voluntas antecedens est solummodo ex ipso, voluntas vero consequens pendet ex causa nostra. Per hunc modum dupliciter distinguenda est dilectio in Christo, videlicet dilectio, quae est secundum voluntatem antecedentem, et hac quidem omnes diligebat, quia omnes ad salutem pervenire cupiebat, quantum est ex se; et dilectio secundum voluntatem consequentem, et hac, quia respicit merita finalia13, non omnes diligebat nec omnes ad salutem pervenire cupiebat. Et de hac ultima intelligit Magister, ipse autem opponit de prima. — Et per hoc patet responsio ad obiecta14.
---
# Doubts concerning the text of the Master
Dub. I.
In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first it is asked concerning that which he says: Charity which can be abandoned was never true; since according to this it seems that immutability belongs to the truth of charity: therefore if a man on the way is always changeable from evil to good, it seems that he never has true charity. If you say that the Master says below1 that that truth « is not referred to the essence of charity, but to its efficacy »; this does not solve [it]: first, because many wayfarers have charity which leads them to true beatitude; and yet, as long as they are wayfarers, they can abandon charity: therefore these two can stand together, that charity can be abandoned and that it was true. — Likewise, the charity of the way and [the charity] of the fatherland are of one account2: therefore if it belongs to the truth of the charity of the fatherland that it be immutable: it seems likewise that it belongs to the truth of the charity of the way. And thus Augustine seems simply to hold that true charity is never lost3; but this is simply false, as is manifestly known by experience: therefore etc.
I respond: It must be said that that statement can soundly be understood, so that the stress be made on a twofold word: first, so that the stress be made on the word on the part of the subject, in this that it is said: « charity which can be abandoned ». For a certain property or quality is abandoned on account of this, that it cannot resist what impels [it]; another is abandoned from the mere will of the one having [it]. When therefore Augustine says that charity is not true which can be abandoned; he understands this of that love which does not have the efficacy of resisting; for such a love, which can by a supervening temptation be expelled by a certain violence, does not deserve to be called the love of charity, whose [property] it is to hold God most dear and to love [Him] for His own sake and above all things and to bear all things easily for the sake of the beloved. — Otherwise it can be understood, so that the stress be made on this that he says: « it was never true »; for a true virtue is so called in two ways: either because it has the operation due to it4, or
because it leads to the end on account of which it is. And in the statement set forth charity is said not to be true, which can be abandoned, because, if it is abandoned, the due end is not acquired; therefore it is to be reckoned rather vain than true. Nor does Augustine here speak of any power whatsoever of abandoning charity, but of the power which is joined to the act.
To that which is objected, that the changeable and the immutable are not the same account5; it must be said that that is understood of that which is immutable by nature, not of that which is immutable by the beneficence of the divine bounty and the influx of continual goodness, such as is perfect charity in the fatherland6.
Dub. II.
Likewise it is asked concerning that which he says: Christ says that the names of certain ones are written in the book of life, who afterwards went back. For that which is written in the book of life, since that book is immutable, cannot be blotted out: therefore it seems that it is not possible that any who are written should afterwards go back and be blotted out of that book. — There is therefore the question whether anyone can be blotted out of that book. And that it can [be], seems [the case] from that which is said in the Psalm7: Let them be blotted out of the book of the living; and in Exodus thirty-two: Either forgive them this fault, or blot me out of the book of life. But to the contrary is that which is said upon that of Apocalypse three8: I will not blot him out; the Gloss: « The book of life is the foreknowledge of God, in which all things are constant ».
Alongside this it is asked concerning the book of life, what it is and what is its use.
I respond: To this it must be said briefly — as far as pertains to the matter at hand, because this question is determined in the fourth book9, in the tractate on the resurrection — that since the book of life is the divine disposition, according to which one is ordered to life and reckoned to be worthy of life, one can be said to be written in that book in two ways: either according to the reckoning of present justice, or according to the foresight of final grace. And in the first way one is said to be written in the book of life, because his merits are written; but in the second way, not only because10 his merits are written, but also because he himself is ordered to life according to divine predestination. He who is written in the first way is blotted out as regards present justice, because he is now no longer reckoned worthy of life: he who is written in the second way is never blotted out. But that blotting-out does not assert any change made concerning God Himself, but only concerning the merit [that is] changed. — And thus the response to the objections is evident.
Dub. III.
Likewise it is asked concerning that which he says: Christ loved only the elect and desired their salvation. But on the contrary: charity was broader in Christ than in us; but we do not love only the elect, but also the foreknown: therefore Christ also [did]. — Likewise, Christ loved those whom He willed to be saved; but according to that which is said in the first [letter] to Timothy, the second [chapter]11: He wills all men to be saved: therefore it seems that He loved the reprobate as much as the elect. — Likewise, the Angels do not serve only the elect, nay even the evil, and those whom they serve they will to lead to life: therefore they love them out of charity: therefore much more strongly it seems that Christ loved all out of charity; and if this is true, then that which the Master says is not true.
I respond: It must be said that, as was said in the first book12, the will in God is distinguished according to a twofold mode. For there is in God an antecedent will and a consequent will: the antecedent will is solely from Himself, but the consequent will depends on a cause on our part. By this mode the love in Christ is to be distinguished in two ways, namely the love which is according to the antecedent will, and by this indeed He loved all, because He desired all to come to salvation, as far as is from Himself; and the love according to the consequent will, and by this, because it regards final merits13, He did not love all nor desire all to come to salvation. And of this last [love] the Master understands [it], but he himself objects concerning the first. — And by this the response to the objections is evident14.
---
- Cap. I. — Pro quod Magister cod. bb sicut Magister.Chapter I. — For quod Magister codex bb [reads] sicut Magister.
- Cfr. supra a. 3. q. I.Cf. above, a. 3, q. I.
- In verbis huius dubii. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. I, ubi etiam alii loci ex August. afferuntur. — Mox pro amittatur plurimi codd. amittitur.In the words of this doubt. Cf. here the littera of the Master, c. I, where also other passages from Augustine are adduced. — Soon, for amittatur very many codices [read] amittitur.
- Aristot., IV. Meteor. text. 54. (c. ult.): Omnia autem sunt terminata opere; omnia enim, quae possunt facere suum opus, vere sunt, ut oculus, si videt; quod autem non potest, aequivoce, ut mortuus, aut lapideus, neque enim serra lignea, nisi ut imago. — De secunda vi veri cfr. supra pag. 488, nota 9. — Pro sibi debitam cod. A ita debitam fini.Aristotle, Meteorology IV, text 54 (last chapter): But all things are determined by their operation; for all things which can do their own work truly are, as the eye, if it sees; but that which cannot, [is] equivocally, as a dead [eye], or one of stone, for neither [is] a wooden saw [a saw], except as an image. — On the second force of true cf. above, page 488, note 9. — For sibi debitam codex A [reads] ita debitam fini.
- Edd. quod immutabilitas sit de veritate caritatis.The editions [read] quod immutabilitas sit de veritate caritatis.
- Cfr. de hoc dubio S. Thom., hic circa lit.Cf. on this doubt St. Thomas, here near the littera.
- Psalm. 68, 29. — Seq. Script. locus est Exod. 32, 31. seq.Psalm 68:29. — The following scriptural passage is Exodus 32:31 f.
- Vers. 5. — Glossa est ordinaria, in qua Strabus pro sunt constantia exhibet continentur. Cfr. de hac Glossa August., XX. de Civ. Dei, c. 15.Verse 5. — The Gloss is the Ordinary [Gloss], in which Strabo exhibits continentur for sunt constantia. Cf. on this Gloss Augustine, On the City of God XX, c. 15.
- Dist. 43. a. 2. q. 1. seqq. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. I. — Inferius post ad vitam cod. U addit secundum praedestinationem.Distinction 43, a. 2, q. 1 ff. Cf. here the littera of the Master, c. I. — Below, after ad vitam codex U adds secundum praedestinationem.
- Non pauci codd. omittunt quia.Not a few codices omit quia.
- Vers. 4. — Inferius cod. Z verbo dilexerit praemittit ipse.Verse 4. — Below, codex Z prefixes ipse to the word dilexerit.
- Cfr. de hoc dubio Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 33. m. 5. a. 2; B. Albert., hic a. 6; S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 2. quaestiunc. 3; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 2; Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 3.Cf. on this doubt Alexander of Hales, Summa, part I, q. 33, m. 5, a. 2; Blessed Albert, here a. 6; St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 2, sub-question 3; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 2; Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2, q. 3.
- Dist. 46. q. 1. in corp. et ibid. pag. 728, nota 2, ubi in dicto Damasceni occurrit etiam illa de voluntate consequente loquutio pendens ex causa nostra.Distinction 46, q. 1 in the body, and in the same place page 728, note 2, where in the saying of [John] Damascene there occurs also that expression concerning the consequent will, depending on a cause on our part.
- Hoc dubium solvitur etiam a B. Alberto, hic a. 11; a S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 3. quaestiunc. 1; a Petr. a Tar., hic circa lit.This doubt is solved also by Blessed Albert, here a. 11; by St. Thomas, here q. 2, a. 3, sub-question 1; by Peter of Tarentaise, here near the littera.