Dist. 5, Dubia
Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word · Distinction 5
The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation; La. gives the Quaracchi apparatus entry, En. its translation.
DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.
Dub. I.
In parte ista sunt quaestiones circa litteram, et primo de hoc quod dicit, quod nec divinitas aliena erat a natura Patris, nec humanitas a natura Matris. Sed in Patre et Filio est una divinitas: ergo in Matre et Filio est una humanitas: ergo sicut Pater et Filius sunt unus Deus, ita Mater et Filius unus homo.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod non est omnimoda similitudo notanda in verbo praemisso. Nam unitas naturae increatae respectu creaturae, et persona respectu personae, etsi habeant aliquam conformitatem, propter hoc quod creatura est similis Creatori1 in natura, et persona est similis personae; magna tamen est differentia; quia natura divina non multiplicatur in personis, sed natura humana habet multiplicari in diversis personis — unde duo homines duas habent humanitates — et sic non cogit illa ratio, quia in verbo proposito non attenditur omnimoda similitudo2.
Dub. II.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: In forma Dei erat etc.; quia forma dicit respectum ad informatum, informatum autem dicit materiam; Deus autem nullam habet materiam: ergo nec habet formam.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod forma dupliciter dicitur (Dupliciter forma): uno modo per privationem materiae, et sic Deus est forma; alio modo per comparationem ad materiam, quam perficit, et hoc modo Deus non ponitur esse forma. Primo modo intelligitur verbum propositum, secundo modo fit3 obiectio. — Aliter: Vel aliter: est enim loqui de forma, secundum quod dicit relationem ad informatum secundum rem, vel secundum quod dicit habitudinem secundum modum intelligendi. Et primo modo obiicit, et secundo modo accipitur in divinis, quia ipsa deitas se habet in ratione formae respectu Dei; nulla tamen est differentia Dei ad suam divinitatem4.
Dub. III.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod in humanatione Dei Verbi sumus omnem et perfectam naturam deitatis incarnatam esse. Sed contra: Hoc signum omnem distribuit pro suppositis5: ergo si tres personae sunt hypostases illius naturae, videtur, quod omnes sint incarnatae. Si tu dicas, quod hoc signum omnem non tenetur syncategorematice vel ut signum, sed potius ut adiectivum, et tantum valet omnem quantum et perfectam; videtur esse nugatio omnem et perfectam.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod omnem non tenetur ibi distributive, sicut dictum est6, sed tantum valet p. 143 dicere omnem naturam divinitatis, quantum perfectam. Nec est ibi nugatio, quia et non tenetur ibi copulative, sed expositive, et accipitur et pro id est. — Aliter: Aliter potest dici, quod omnem privat vel removet divisionem partis a parte, perfectam vero ponit completionem, ita quod sit sensus: divina natura est incarnata in sua perfectione, ita quod non secundum partem et partem; et quod hic intellectus sit verus, haberi potest per litteram sequentem1b.
Dub. IV.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicitur: Non sic divina natura dicitur esse homo, vel facta homo, sicut Dei Filius. Videtur enim falsum, quia homo praedicatur de omni eo quod2b praedicatur Filius Dei; et haec est vera: divina natura est Filius Dei: ergo haec est vera: divina natura est homo.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod est praedicatio (Duplex praedicatio) per identitatem et per denominationem. Et praedicatio per denominationem, illa magis servat proprietatem praedicationis, quam illa quae est per identitatem. Unde haec est magis propria: Filius Dei generatur, quam ista: divinitas est generatio, sicut ostensum fuit in primo libro3b. Et quoniam Filius Dei est suppositum humanae naturae, non sic divina natura; hinc est, quod ista est magis propria: Filius Dei est homo, quam ista: divina natura est homo. Ideo Magister non simpliciter eam negat, sed dicit, quod non est ita propria; nec est ita passim in usum adducenda, pro eo quod ad nimiam expressionem appropinquat4b.
---
DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.
Doubt I.
In this part there are questions concerning the text, and first about what he says, that neither was the divinity foreign to the nature of the Father, nor the humanity to the nature of the Mother. But in the Father and the Son there is one divinity: therefore in the Mother and the Son there is one humanity: therefore just as the Father and the Son are one God, so the Mother and the Son are one man.
I respond: It must be said that no complete likeness is to be noted in the foregoing statement. For the unity of the uncreated nature in respect of the creature, and of person in respect of person, although they have some conformity, on account of the fact that the creature is like the Creator1 in nature, and person is like person; nevertheless the difference is great; for the divine nature is not multiplied in persons, but human nature is to be multiplied in diverse persons — whence two men have two humanities — and so that reasoning does not compel [the conclusion], because in the statement proposed no complete likeness is intended2.
Doubt II.
Likewise it is asked about what he says: He was in the form of God, etc.; because form states a respect to that which is informed, and that which is informed states matter; but God has no matter: therefore neither does he have a form.
I respond: It must be said that form is spoken of in two ways (Form in two ways): in one way by the privation of matter, and thus God is a form; in another way by comparison to the matter which it perfects, and in this way God is not held to be a form. In the first way the statement proposed is understood, in the second way the objection arises3. — Otherwise: Or otherwise: for there is a way of speaking of form according as it states a relation to that which is informed according to the thing, or according as it states a relationship according to the mode of understanding. And in the first way it raises the objection, and in the second way it is taken in divine matters, because the deity itself stands in the character of a form in respect of God; yet there is no difference of God to his divinity4.
Doubt III.
Likewise it is asked about what he says, that in the becoming-human of the Word of God we [hold] the whole and perfect nature of the deity to have been incarnate. On the contrary: This sign whole distributes for the supposits5: therefore if the three persons are hypostases of that nature, it seems that all are incarnate. If you say that this sign whole is not taken syncategorematically or as a sign, but rather as an adjective, and whole is worth as much as perfect; it seems to be a redundancy [to say] whole and perfect.
I respond: It must be said that whole is not taken there distributively, as has been said6, but is only worth saying the whole nature of the divinity, as much as perfect. Nor is there a redundancy there, because the and is not taken there conjunctively, but expositively, and the and is taken for that is. — Otherwise: It can be said otherwise, that whole deprives or removes a division of part from part, while perfect posits completion, so that the sense is: the divine nature is incarnate in its perfection, in such a way that [it is] not according to part and part; and that this understanding is true can be had from the text following1b.
Doubt IV.
Likewise it is asked about what is said: The divine nature is not said to be man, or made man, in the same way as the Son of God. For it seems false, because man is predicated of everything of which2b Son of God is predicated; and this is true: the divine nature is the Son of God: therefore this is true: the divine nature is man.
I respond: It must be said that there is a predication (Twofold predication) by identity and by denomination. And the predication by denomination preserves the propriety of predication more than that which is by identity. Whence this is more proper: the Son of God is generated, than this: the divinity is generation, as was shown in the first book3b. And since the Son of God is the supposit of the human nature, not so the divine nature; hence it is that this is more proper: the Son of God is man, than this: the divine nature is man. Therefore the Master does not simply deny it, but says that it is not so proper; nor is it so to be brought into use everywhere, for the reason that it approaches too great an expression4b.
---
- In codd. et edd. legitur sic: Nam unitas [edd. interiiciunt creatae] naturae in creatura respectu creaturae... propter hoc quod [edd. inserunt aliqua] creatura est similis creaturae — quam lectionem, etsi in se non sit falsa, tamen ut incongruam reprobandam duximus, eo quod, ea admissa, revera non est comparatio inter divinam et humanam naturam ac personam, nec connexus cum verbis, quae sequuntur. Ceterum non correximus nisi duos solos errores, qui certo librariorum incuria irrepserunt, substituentes enim increatae pro in creatura et Creatori pro creaturae. Mox pro non multiplicatur in personis cod. bb non multiplicatur in diversis personis. — Quod autem terminus persona de divina persona et humana non dicatur nisi analogice, probatum est I. Sent. d. 25. a. 2. q. 2.In the codices and editions it reads thus: For the unity [the editions interpolate created] of nature in the creature in respect of the creature... on account of the fact that [the editions insert some] the creature is like the creature — which reading, although in itself it is not false, we have nonetheless judged to be rejected as incongruous, because, once it is admitted, there is in truth no comparison between the divine and the human nature and person, nor any connection with the words that follow. For the rest, we have corrected only two errors, which certainly crept in through the carelessness of the copyists, namely substituting uncreated for in the creature and to the Creator for of the creature. Next, for is not multiplied in persons codex bb has is not multiplied in diverse persons. — But that the term person is not said of the divine person and the human except analogically, was proven in Sent. I, d. 25, a. 2, q. 2.
- Cfr. de hoc dub. S. Thom., hic circa lit.; Aegid. R., hic dub. 1. lit.Cf. on this doubt St. Thomas, here on the text; Aegidius Romanus, here doubt 1 on the text.
- Codd. P Q currit.Codices P Q read currit [it runs].
- Cfr. Boeth., de Trin. c. 2. — Hoc dub. solvunt etiam B. Albert., hic a. 7; S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.; Aegid. R., hic dub. 2. lit.Cf. Boethius, On the Trinity, c. 2. — This doubt is also resolved by Blessed Albert, here a. 7; St. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise, and Richard of Middleton, here on the text; Aegidius Romanus, here doubt 2 on the text.
- Cfr. Aristot., I. Periherm. c. 5. (c. ?.). — Terminus omnis vocatur signum et terminus syncategorematicus [derivatur a σύν i. e. cum, et κατηγορέω i. e. significo], quia solum alteri termino adiunctus tribuit illi certum significandi modum. — Pro omnem cod. K bb bis omne.Cf. Aristotle, On Interpretation I, c. 5 (c. ?). — The term every is called a syncategorematic sign and term [it is derived from σύν, i.e. "with," and κατηγορέω, i.e. "I signify"], because only when joined to another term does it confer on it a determinate mode of signifying. — For every codices K, bb twice [have] every [neuter].
- Scil. in obiectione procedente.Namely, in the objection proceeding [above].
- Hic c. 1. in fine, ubi dicitur: Unitatem esse humanae naturae, et non partem parti etc. — Paulo superius cod. Z verbo completionem praemittit veram. — Cfr. de hoc dub. B. Albert., hic a. 13; S. Thom., hic circa lit.; Aegid. R., hic dub. 3. lit.Here c. 1, at the end, where it is said: That there is a unity of human nature, and not of part to part, etc. — A little above, codex Z prefixes true to the word completion. — Cf. on this doubt Blessed Albert, here a. 13; St. Thomas, here on the text; Aegidius Romanus, here doubt 3 on the text.
- Edd. de quo.The editions [read] of which.
- Dist. 5. a. 1. q. 1, ubi etiam species praedicationis exponuntur. — Pro Filius Dei generatur multi codd. et edd. 1, 2 vitiose Filius Dei generat, et pro divinitas est generatio cod. K deitas est generata.Dist. 5, a. 1, q. 1, where the species of predication are also expounded. — For the Son of God is generated many codices and editions 1, 2 wrongly [read] the Son of God generates, and for the divinity is generation codex K [reads] the deity is generated.
- Vide de hoc dub. S. Thom., hic circa lit., et Aegid. R., hic dub. 4. lit.See on this doubt St. Thomas, here on the text, and Aegidius Romanus, here doubt 4 on the text.