Dist. 4, Dubia
Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word · Distinction 4
Dub. I.
In parte ista sunt quaestiones circa litteram, et primo quaeritur de hoc quod dicitur: Uno nominato, tres intelliguntur; quia, nominata essentia, non de necessitate intelligitur persona1: ergo nominata una persona, multo minus intelligitur alia. — Item, si, nominata una persona, intelligitur alia: ergo dicto, quod Pater generet, videtur, quod et Filius generet.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod persona2 potest nominari respectu actus substantialis, vel personalis. Si respectu actus essentialis; quia una essentia est in tribus, et quidquid essentiale convenit uni, convenit alteri; et una persona nominata, nominatur et altera per necessitatem consequentiae, maxime cum actus ille est respectu effectus creati, in quo relucent appropriata tribus personis3. — Et sic patet responsio ad utramque obiectionem: utraque enim currit secundum praedicationem aliquam, quae ita convenit uni, quod alio modo est extranea alteri.
Dub. II.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicitur, quod nati ex aqua et Spiritu sancto non dicuntur filii aquae, sed matris Ecclesiae. Si enim Ecclesia non dicitur mater nisi secundum aliquam translationem, et similitudo translativa4 potest reperiri in aqua, sicut et in Ecclesia; videtur, quod possint dici filii aquae, sicut filii Ecclesiae. — Iuxta hoc quaeritur (Quaestio connexa), cum lumbricus naturaliter nascatur ex homine, quare non dicitur filius eius5?
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod filius et pater non solum dicuntur ab originis habitudine, sed debent (Duo ad rationem filii spectant) habere expressam similitudinem. Quoniam igitur aqua non habet expressam similitudinem ad eum qui renascitur, sed potius ad gratiam, per quam renascitur; Ecclesia autem6 expressam habet similitudinem ad eum qui in ea nascitur, quae nihil aliud est quam congregatio fidelium: ideo renati ex aqua dicuntur filii Ecclesiae, non filii aquae. — Per hanc eandem rationem (Ad quaest. connexam) lumbricus non debet dici filius hominis, quamvis ex ipso nascatur, per hoc quod non habet ad eum similitudinem. Et ideo recte Augustinus7 infringit illud argumentum per illa exempla: hoc nascitur ex illo, ergo est filius eius; quia filiatio plus dicit quam nativitas. Nam filiatio dicit originem cum assimilatione8.
Dub. III.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Dicuntur etiam filii gehennae non ex illa nati, sed ad illam praeparati. Ex hoc enim, quod aliquid praeparatur ad aliquid post suum esse, videtur potius rationem patris9 quam filii in se habere: ergo videtur, quod potius deberent vocari patres gehennae quam filii.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod duplicem habet proprietatem filius respectu patris: una attenditur quantum ad emanationem, et altera quantum ad possessionis hereditationem10; et prima antecedit, et secunda subsequitur. Et filii gehennae dicuntur non ratione primae proprietatis, sed ratione secundae, ad quam praeparantur per aliquam assimilationem in perversis actibus, in quibus imitantur diabolum, cuius habitatio est gehenna11.
Dub. IV.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod divina gratia fuit Christus corporaliter repletus. Si enim gratia non fuit in corpore, sed spiritu; non videtur, quod fuerit repletus corporaliter, sed spiritualiter.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod hoc verbum, quo Christus dicitur repletus corporaliter gratia, tripliciter exponitur (Triplex expositio). Uno modo dicitur repletio corporalis per oppositionem ad umbram figurae; veritas enim se habet ad figuram sicut corpus ad umbram; unde repletus corporaliter dicitur, id est vere, non tantum figurative12. — Alio modo potest exponi, ut dicatur corporaliter repleri, quia ipsum corpus fuit in unitatem personae assumtum. Unde per corporalem repletionem intelligimus perfectam corporis et gratuitam animae unionem. — Tertio modo potest exponi, ut dicatur corporaliter repletus per similitudinem ad triplicem dimensionem: quia deitas fuit in Christo per essentiam, sicut in omnibus creaturis, et ita per modum longitudinis; et per gratiam, sicut in omnibus Sanctis, et sic per modum latitudinis; et per unionem, et sic per modum profunditatis. Et istud tactum fuit plenius expositum in primo libro, distinctione trigesima septima13.
Dub. V.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Natus de Spiritu sancto, quia eum fecit. Hoc enim non habetur in Symbolo14; sed «conceptus de Spiritu sancto, natus ex Maria Virgine». Quaeritur ergo, quare magis attribuitur conceptio Spiritui sancto quam nativitas?
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod utrumque potest attribui utrique15; in Symbolo tamen magis attribuitur (Notandum) ipsa conceptio Spiritui sancto quam nativitas, propter sanctificationem, quae fuit in ipsa conceptione, et quia nomen nativitatis plus appropinquat ad actum generationis, et ipsa conceptio ad fabricationem corporis. Unde magis proprie dicitur conceptus de Spiritu sancto. Haec enim praepositio de tenetur ibi non materialiter nec substantialiter, sed potestative16. Et ipsa conceptio potissime Spiritui sancto habet attribui.
Dub. VI.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Conceptus de Spiritu sancto... quia per gratiam Dei et operationem etc. Si enim haec est ratio, videtur pari ratione, quod Spiritus sanctus eum genuit; et hoc probatur per Glossam, Matthaei tertio17: Potens est Deus de lapidibus etc.: «In huius rei testimonium Deus genuit de Sara filium»: ergo videtur, quod multo fortius possit dici, quod generavit filium de Virgine Maria, si concepit de Spiritu sancto.
Respondeo: Dicendum est ad hoc, quod, sicut in sequenti capitulo18 habetur, differt generare et facere (Differt generare et facere): quia facere dicit operationem virtutis effectivae sive causae efficientis, maxime per voluntatem; generare vero dicit productionem alicuius per modum naturae, maxime cum attenditur quantum ad deductionem rei in esse. Et ideo non conceditur aliquo modo, quod ipsum genuit, quia ipsum formavit ex Virgine per voluntatem et gratiam, non per naturam. — Quod vero obiicit de Glossa, debet exponi causaliter: Deus genuit filium de Sara, id est fecit, ut Sara filium gigneret. Locutiones autem impropriae non sunt extendendae19.
---
Dub. I.
In this part there are questions concerning the text, and first it is asked about that which is said: When one is named, three are understood; for, when the essence is named, the person is not of necessity understood1: therefore, when one person is named, much less is another understood. — Likewise, if, when one person is named, another is understood: therefore, given that the Father generates, it seems that the Son too generates.
I respond: It must be said that a person2 can be named with respect to a substantial act, or a personal one. If with respect to an essential act; then because one essence is in the three, and whatever essential belongs to one belongs to another; and when one person is named, the other too is named by the necessity of consequence, especially when that act is with respect to a created effect, in which there shine forth the things appropriated to the three persons3. — And thus the reply to both objections is clear: for each proceeds according to some predication, which so belongs to one that in another way it is foreign to the other.
Dub. II.
Likewise it is asked about that which is said, that those born of water and the Holy Spirit are not called sons of the water, but of mother Church. For if the Church is called mother only according to some transferred [sense], and a transferred likeness4 can be found in water, just as in the Church; it seems that they could be called sons of the water, just as sons of the Church. — In connection with this it is asked (a connected question), since the earthworm is naturally born from man, why it is not called his son5?
I respond: It must be said that son and father are named not only from the relation of origin, but they must (two things pertain to the account of a son) have an express likeness. Since therefore water does not have an express likeness to him who is reborn, but rather to the grace through which he is reborn; whereas the Church does6 have an express likeness to him who is born in her, which [Church] is nothing other than the congregation of the faithful: therefore those reborn of water are called sons of the Church, not sons of the water. — By this same reasoning (to the connected question) the earthworm must not be called the son of man, although it is born from him, by the fact that it does not have a likeness to him. And therefore Augustine7 rightly refutes that argument by those examples: this is born from that, therefore it is its son; for sonship says more than birth. For sonship says origin together with assimilation8.
Dub. III.
Likewise it is asked about that which he says: They are called sons of Gehenna also not as born of it, but as prepared for it. For from this, that something is prepared for something after its own being, it seems rather to have in itself the account of a father9 than of a son: therefore it seems that they ought rather to be called fathers of Gehenna than sons.
I respond: It must be said that a son has a twofold property with respect to a father: one is regarded as to emanation, and the other as to the inheriting of a possession10; and the first precedes, and the second follows. And they are called sons of Gehenna not by reason of the first property, but by reason of the second, for which they are prepared through some assimilation in perverse acts, in which they imitate the devil, whose dwelling is Gehenna11.
Dub. IV.
Likewise it is asked about that which he says, that Christ was bodily filled with divine grace. For if grace was not in the body, but in the spirit; it does not seem that he was filled bodily, but spiritually.
I respond: It must be said that this word, by which Christ is said to be bodily filled with grace, is expounded in three ways (a threefold exposition). In one way bodily filling is said by opposition to the shadow of a figure; for truth is to a figure as a body to a shadow; whence he is said to be filled bodily, that is, truly, not only figuratively12. — In another way it can be expounded, so that he is said to be filled bodily, because the body itself was assumed into the unity of the person. Whence by bodily filling we understand the perfect and gratuitous union of the body and the soul. — In a third way it can be expounded, so that he is said to be filled bodily by a likeness to the threefold dimension: because the deity was in Christ by essence, as in all creatures, and thus by the mode of length; and by grace, as in all the Saints, and thus by the mode of breadth; and by union, and thus by the mode of depth. And this was touched upon and more fully expounded in the first book, in the thirty-seventh distinction13.
Dub. V.
Likewise it is asked about that which he says: Born of the Holy Spirit, because he made him. For this is not had in the Creed14; but «conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary». It is asked, therefore, why conception is rather attributed to the Holy Spirit than birth?
I respond: It must be said that each can be attributed to each15; in the Creed, nevertheless, the conception itself is rather attributed (to be noted) to the Holy Spirit than the birth, on account of the sanctification which was in the conception itself, and because the name of birth approaches more nearly the act of generation, and the conception itself the fabrication of the body. Whence he is more properly called conceived of the Holy Spirit. For this preposition of is taken there not materially nor substantially, but by power16. And the conception itself is most fittingly to be attributed to the Holy Spirit.
Dub. VI.
Likewise it is asked about that which he says: Conceived of the Holy Spirit... because by the grace of God and operation etc. For if this is the reason, it seems by parity of reasoning that the Holy Spirit generated him; and this is proved by the Gloss, on Matthew chapter three17: God is able from stones etc.: «In testimony of this thing God generated a son from Sara»: therefore it seems that it could much more strongly be said that he generated a son from the Virgin Mary, if she conceived of the Holy Spirit.
I respond: It must be said to this that, as is had in the following chapter18, to generate and to make differ (to generate and to make differ): for to make says the operation of an effective power or of an efficient cause, especially through the will; whereas to generate says the production of something by the mode of nature, especially when it is regarded as to the bringing forth of a thing into being. And therefore it is in no way conceded that he generated him, because he formed him from the Virgin by will and grace, not by nature. — But as for what he objects from the Gloss, it must be expounded causally: God generated a son from Sara, that is, he made it that Sara might beget a son. But improper expressions are not to be extended19.
---
- Libr. III. de Fide orthod. c. 12. — Pro obiicitur codd. K Z quaeritur.Book III of On the Orthodox Faith, c. 12. — For obiicitur codd. K Z read quaeritur.
- Respicitur antiph. Salve Regina.Reference is made to the antiphon Salve Regina.
- Quod ex eo elucet, quod multi, qui Deum confitentur, nesciunt, immo negant Trinitatem. — Edd. Pater. — Cfr. I. Sent. d. 3. p. 1. q. 2. in fine; dub. 3. seq. et d. 34. q. 3. — Circa finem dubii pro quae ita edd. quod ita. — Cfr. de hoc dubio Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 8. m. 3. a. 1. in fine; B. Albert., hic a. 3; S. Thom., Petr. a Tar., Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.; Aegid. R., hic dub. 1. lit.Which is clear from the fact that many who confess God do not know, nay deny, the Trinity. — The editions read Pater. — Cf. I Sent. d. 3, p. 1, q. 2 at the end; dub. 3 following, and d. 34, q. 3. — Near the end of the doubt, for quae ita the editions read quod ita. — Cf. on this doubt Alexander of Hales, Summa p. III, q. 8, m. 3, a. 1 at the end; Bl. Albert, here a. 3; St. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise, Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text; Giles of Rome, here dub. 1 of the text.
- Aristot., VI. Topic. c. 2: Omnes enim transferentes secundum aliquam similitudinem transferunt.Aristotle, Topics VI, c. 2: For all who transfer [a word] transfer it according to some likeness.
- Cfr. verba August. hic in lit. Magistri, c. 2. — Cod. Q filius hominis.Cf. the words of Augustine here in the Master's text, c. 2. — Cod. Q [reads] filius hominis.
- Pro autem non pauci codd. et edd. 1, 2 vitiose quae. Mox pro nascitur cod. U renascitur, et subinde pro quae nihil Vat. quia nihil.For autem not a few codices and editions 1, 2 read faultily quae. Soon, for nascitur cod. U [reads] renascitur, and thereupon for quae nihil the Vatican [edition reads] quia nihil.
- Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 2. — Cod. Y Magister.Cf. here the Master's text, c. 2. — Cod. Y [reads] Magister.
- Hoc dubium eiusque solutionem exhibent etiam B. Albert., hic a. 6; S. Thom., Petr. a Tar., Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.; Aegid. R., hic dub. 2. lit.This doubt and its solution are presented also by Bl. Albert, here a. 6; St. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise, Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text; Giles of Rome, here dub. 2 of the text.
- Codd. HLN (T a prima manu) V aa cc temporis, cod. S temporis vel patris.Codd. HLN (T by the first hand) V aa cc [read] temporis, cod. S temporis vel patris.
- Edd. cum nonnullis codd. hereditatem.The editions with some codices [read] hereditatem.
- De hoc dubio scripserunt B. Albert., hic a. 7; S. Thom., Petr. a Tar., Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.; Aegid. R., hic dub. 4. lit.On this doubt have written Bl. Albert, here a. 7; St. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise, Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text; Giles of Rome, here dub. 4 of the text.
- De hac et seq. expositione repletionis corporalis cfr. August., Enarrat. in Ps. 67, 17. n. 23. Cfr. etiam Glossa ordin. in Coloss. 2, 9. et in Ps. 67, 17.On this and the following exposition of bodily filling cf. Augustine, Expositions on the Psalms 67, 17, n. 23. Cf. also the Ordinary Gloss on Colossians 2, 9, and on Psalm 67, 17.
- Part. 1. a. 3. q. 2. in corp. — De hoc dubio tractat Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 8. m. 3. a. 4. in fine, ubi tertiam memoratarum expositionum sic defendit: «Est enim Deus in rebus tribus modis: in omnibus creaturis est per continentiam et conservationem, in Sanctis est per gratiam et caritatem, in Christo vero est per unionem [ut docet Hugo de S. Vict., Quaest. in Epist. ad Coloss. q. 10.]. Primus modus comparatur dimensioni longitudinis, quia secundum illum modum dicitur, quod attingit a fine usque ad finem fortiter et disponit omnia suaviter (Sap. 8, 1.). Secundus modus comparatur dimensioni latitudinis, quia caritas est latitudo spiritualis; unde omnis consummationis vidi finem, latum mandatum tuum nimis (Ps. 118, 96.). Tertius modus, qui est per unionem, comparatur profunditati, quia ille modus intimus est. Eph. 3, 18: Ut possitis comprehendere, quae sit longitudo, quantum ad primum; latitudo, quantum ad secundum; [et sublimitas] et profundum, quantum ad tertium, ut sublimitas referatur ad humanam naturam, quae sublimata est ad unionem cum divina, et profundum referatur ad divinam, quae intime per unitatem personae unita est ad humanam» etc. Cfr. B. Albert., hic a. 10, et Aegid. R., hic dub. 5. lit.Part 1, a. 3, q. 2 in the body. — On this doubt Alexander of Hales treats, Summa p. III, q. 8, m. 3, a. 4 at the end, where he thus defends the third of the mentioned expositions: «For God is in things in three ways: in all creatures he is by containing and conservation, in the Saints he is by grace and charity, in Christ indeed he is by union [as Hugh of St. Victor teaches, Questions on the Epistle to the Colossians q. 10]. The first mode is compared to the dimension of length, because according to that mode it is said that he reaches from end to end mightily and orders all things sweetly (Wis. 8, 1). The second mode is compared to the dimension of breadth, because charity is spiritual breadth; whence I have seen an end of all perfection, thy commandment is exceeding broad (Ps. 118, 96). The third mode, which is by union, is compared to depth, because that mode is the innermost. Eph. 3, 18: That you may be able to comprehend what is the length, as to the first; the breadth, as to the second; [and height] and depth, as to the third, so that height be referred to the human nature, which is raised to union with the divine, and depth be referred to the divine, which is intimately united to the human through the unity of the person» etc. Cf. Bl. Albert, here a. 10, and Giles of Rome, here dub. 5 of the text.
- Scil. Apostolorum. — Codd. G K T U natus de Maria Virgine.Namely [the Creed] of the Apostles. — Codd. G K T U [read] born of the Virgin Mary.
- Codd. U X sibi i. e. Spiritui sancto, in cuius lectionis praesidium adduci posset Magister, hic in lit. c. 2, nec non B. Albert., hic a. 11. Pro nostra lectione stat S. Thom., hic circa lit. — De seq. propos. cfr. supra d. 3. p. 1. a. 2. q. 2.Codd. U X [read] sibi, i.e. to the Holy Spirit, in support of which reading the Master could be adduced, here in the text c. 2, as also Bl. Albert, here a. 11. For our reading stands St. Thomas, here on the text. — On the following proposition cf. above d. 3, p. 1, a. 2, q. 2.
- Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 2. in fine. — Vide de hoc dubio B. Albert., hic a. 11; S. Thom., hic circa lit.; Aegid. R., hic dub. 6. lit.Cf. here the Master's text, c. 2 at the end. — See on this doubt Bl. Albert, here a. 11; St. Thomas, here on the text; Giles of Rome, here dub. 6 of the text.
- Vers. 9. — Glossa, quae est ordinaria, invenitur apud Strabum et Lyranum.Verse 9. — The Gloss, which is the Ordinary [Gloss], is found in [Walafrid] Strabo and [Nicholas of] Lyra.
- Lit. Magistri, c. 3. — Aliquanto inferius post genuit cod. K addit nisi.The Master's text, c. 3. — Somewhat below, after genuit, cod. K adds nisi.
- Cfr. B. Albert., hic a. 12; S. Thom., Petr. a Tar., Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.Cf. Bl. Albert, here a. 12; St. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise, Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text. ---