Dist. 8, Dubia
Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word · Distinction 8
## DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.
Dub. I.
In parte ista sunt quaestiones circa litteram, et primo quaeritur de hoc quod dicitur: Res, quae non est de Patre genita, non videtur de Matre nata. Sed contra: Humana natura non est ex Patre genita, ergo non est de Matre nata. — Item, Christus secundum humanam naturam «conceptus est de Spiritu sancto et natus ex Maria Virgine», ita quod Spiritus sanctus non est eius pater, licet Virgo sit eius mater1: ergo non videtur praedictus sermo veritatem habere.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod Magister loquitur de illa nativitate, qua res aliqua dicitur nasci, ita quod vindicat sibi proprietatem sive denominationem filiationis. Hoc autem non habet humana natura in Christo; et ideo non est recta instantia contra illud quod dicit Magister in littera2.
Dub. II.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Unam nativitatem ex Patre veneramur, quae est supra causam, rationem, tempus et naturam. Sed contra: Generatio Filii Dei ex Patre est generatio naturalis; sed generatio naturalis est secundum naturam, non supra naturam: ergo etc.; ergo falsum dicit, quod sit supra naturam.
(Quaestio incidens.) Iuxta hoc quaeritur: penes quae distinguuntur illa quatuor, quae in auctoritate proponuntur? Videtur enim, quod non sit nisi verborum inculcatio.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod natura non accipitur ita communiter, sed pro natura creata; unde non vult dicere, quod generatio Filii sit supra naturam aeternam, quae est natura naturans, sed super naturam creatam, quae consuevit dici natura naturata3.
(Ad quaesitum incidentem.) Et nota, quod ista quatuor distinguuntur sic, ut causa referatur ad naturam angelicam, ratio ad naturam humanam, tempus ad virtutem caelestem, et natura ad virtutem4 inferioris creaturae, ut sit sensus: generatio illa est supra causam, id est virtutem angelicam; et rationem, id est virtutem humanam; et tempus, id est operationem caelestem; et naturam, id est virtutem inferiorem. — (Aliter.) Vel aliter, ut causa referatur ad virtutem agentem, et ratio ad potentiam agnoscentem, et tempus ad mensuram limitantem, et natura ad modi operandi consuetudinem5.
Dub. III.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod Christus natus est homo ex muliere in tempore conceptionis. Videtur enim falsum dicere, quia conceptio illa non fuit in tempore, sed in instanti. — Item, si conceptio sua fuit similis nostrae quantum ad tempus, ergo non videtur verum quod subiungit, quod fuit supra legem nostrae conceptionis.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod conceptio dupliciter accipitur. (Duplex conceptio.) Uno modo dicitur conceptio ipsa operatio naturae in formatione corporis usque ad susceptionem animae. Alio modo dicitur conceptio large in nutritione et perfectione corporis usque ad partum et egressum ipsius de ventre. Si igitur primo modo dicatur conceptio, sic Christi conceptio non fuit secundum nos, sed supra nos, nec fuit in tempore, sed in instanti. Si autem secundo modo dicatur conceptio large, sic fuit secundum nos, quia novem mensibus nutritus fuit et crevit in utero Matris, ut alii homines, antequam nasceretur. Et hoc sufficientius habitum est supra6.
---
## DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.
Doubt I.
In this part there are questions concerning the text, and first it is asked about this which is said: A thing which is not begotten of the Father does not seem to be born of the Mother. But, on the contrary: The human nature is not begotten of the Father; therefore it is not born of the Mother. — Likewise, Christ according to his human nature "was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary," in such a way that the Holy Spirit is not his father, although the Virgin is his mother1: therefore the aforesaid statement does not seem to hold the truth.
I respond: It must be said that the Master is speaking of that nativity by which a thing is said to be born in such a way that it claims for itself the property or denomination of filiation. But the human nature in Christ does not have this; and therefore there is no valid objection against what the Master says in the text2.
Doubt II.
Likewise it is asked about this which he says: We venerate one nativity from the Father, which is above cause, reason, time, and nature. But, on the contrary: The generation of the Son of God from the Father is a natural generation; but a natural generation is according to nature, not above nature: therefore etc.; therefore he says falsely that it is above nature.
(Incidental question.) Alongside this it is asked: by what are those four things distinguished which are set forth in the authority? For it seems that it is nothing but a piling-up of words.
I respond: It must be said that nature is not taken so generally, but for created nature; whence he does not mean to say that the generation of the Son is above eternal nature, which is nature naturing, but above created nature, which is wont to be called nature natured3.
(To the incidental question.) And note that those four things are distinguished thus, so that cause refers to the angelic nature, reason to the human nature, time to the heavenly power, and nature to the power4 of the lower creature, so that the sense is: that generation is above cause, that is, above the angelic power; and above reason, that is, the human power; and above time, that is, the heavenly operation; and above nature, that is, the lower power. — (Otherwise.) Or otherwise, so that cause refers to the acting power, and reason to the knowing potency, and time to the limiting measure, and nature to the customary mode of operating5.
Doubt III.
Likewise it is asked about this which he says, that Christ was born a man of a woman at the time of conception. For it seems false to say so, because that conception was not in time, but in an instant. — Likewise, if his conception was like ours as regards time, then it does not seem true what he adds, namely that it was above the law of our conception.
I respond: It must be said that conception is taken in two ways. (Twofold conception.) In one way conception is called the very operation of nature in the formation of the body up to the reception of the soul. In another way conception is called broadly the nutrition and perfecting of the body up to the birth and its egress from the womb. If therefore conception is taken in the first way, then Christ's conception was not according to us, but above us, nor was it in time, but in an instant. But if conception is taken in the second way, broadly, then it was according to us, because for nine months he was nourished and grew in the womb of the Mother, like other men, before he was born. And this has been treated more sufficiently above6.
---
- Cfr. supra d. 4. a. 1. q. 2. — Pro natus ex Maria Virgine, quod in Symb. Apost. habetur, multi codd. natus de Maria Virgine.Cf. above, d. 4, a. 1, q. 2. — For born of Mary the Virgin, which is found in the Apostles' Creed, many codices read born from Mary the Virgin.
- Hic c. 1. Vide supra a. 1. q. 1.Here, c. 1. See above, a. 1, q. 1.
- Haec naturae distinctio fundamentum est totius libri condemnati Erigenae de Divisione naturae (cfr. II. Sent. d. 1. p. I. a. 3. q. 2. in scholio). Eadem tangitur etiam ab August., XV. de Trin. c. 1. n. 1: «Deus est natura, scilicet non creata, sed creatrix». Cfr. ibi XIV. c. 9. n. 12. et II. de Anima et eius origine, c. 3. n. 5.This distinction of nature is the foundation of the whole condemned book of Erigena On the Division of Nature (cf. II Sent., d. 1, p. I, a. 3, q. 2, in the scholion). The same is touched upon also by Augustine, On the Trinity XV, c. 1, n. 1: "God is a nature, namely not created, but creating." Cf. there XIV, c. 9, n. 12, and On the Soul and its Origin II, c. 3, n. 5.
- Codd. N Y subiiciunt inferiorem vel.Codices N, Y add the lower, or.
- Cfr. de hoc dubio Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.Cf. on this doubt Peter of Tarentaise and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text.
- Dist. 3. p. II. a. 3. q. 2.Dist. 3, p. II, a. 3, q. 2. ---