S. Bonaventurae Bagnoregis
S. R. E. Episc. Card. Albae
atque Doctor Ecclesiae Universalis

St. Bonaventure of Bagnoregio
Cardinal Bishop of Alba
& Doctor of the Church

Commentaria in Quatuor Libros Sententiarum

Commentary on the Four Books of Sentences

Magistri Petri Lombardi, Episc. Parisiensis

of Master Peter Lombard, Archbishop of Paris

PRIMI LIBRI

BOOK ONE

COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM II

COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION
II

DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

DOUBTS ON THE TEXT OF MASTER PETER

 

Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1882, Vol 1, pp. 59-62.
Cum Notitiis Originalibus

 

 

Latin text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1882, Vol. 1, pp. 59-62.
Notes by the Quaracchi Editors.

 

DUB. I.

DOUBT I

In parte ista circa litteram primo est dubitatio de hoc quod dicit Magister, quod purgatissimis mentibus cernitur. Videtur enim male dicere, quia nulla mens, dum est in via, purgatissima est, sed tantum in patria.

In this part there is first a doubt [dubitatio] about the text concerning this which Master (Peter) says, that it is discerned [cernitur] by the most purified minds. For he seems to speak badly, because no mind, while it is in the wayfarer's state [in via], is the most purified, but only in the Fatherland.

RESPONDEO: Dicendum, quod mens ad hoc quod Deum contempletur perfecte, indiget purgari quoad intellectum et affectum; ideo dicit per iustitiam fidei, id est per fidem, quae facit iustum in opere et per se purgat inellectum, sed iustitia affectum. Utriusque autem prugationis triplex est gradus. Nam intellectus purgatus est, cum abstrahitur a sensibilibus speciebus, purgatior, cum mundatur a phantasticis imaginibus, purgatiisimus, cum a philosophicis1 rationibus. Gradus purgationis affectus sunt isti: purgatus est affectus, cum mundatur a cupla, purgatior, cum a sequela, purgatissimus, ab occasione;2 et in hoc statu idoneus est contemplari.

I RESPOND: It must be said, that the mind for this, that it contemplate God perfectly, needs to be purged in regard to (its) intellect and affection [affectum]; for that reason he says “through the justice of faith”, that is through the “faith”, which makes one just in work and by itself [per se] purges the intellect, but justice (purges) the affection. But there is a threefold grade of the purgation of both. For the intellect is purged, when it is abstracted from sensible species, more purged, when it is cleansed from images of the phantasm, most purged, when by philosophical1 reasons. The grades of the purgation of the affection are these: the affection is purged, when it is cleansed from fault, more purged, when (it is cleansed) from (its) consequences [sequela], most purged, (when it is cleansed) from the occasion (of fault);2 and in this state it is fit [idoneus] to contemplate.

DUB. II.

DOUBT II

Item opponitur de hoc quod dicit: Mentis humanae acies invalida in tam excellenti luce non figitur etc. Videtur enim, quod etiam3 mundata non figatur ibi, quia quantumcumque mundetur, adhuc excedit lux illa improportionabiliter aciem mentis: ergo si propter sui excellentiam non potest videri a non habente fidem, nec etiam ab habente.

Likewise there is opposition [opponitur] concerning this which he says: the weak insight [acies invalida] of the human mind is not fixed in such an excellent light, etc.. For it seems, that even3 (when) cleansed it is not fixed there, because howsoever much it be cleansed, that light still improportionably [improportionabiliter] exceeds the insight of the mind: therefore is on account of its excellence it cannot be seen by one not having the faith, neither also by one having (it).

RESPONDEO: Differt dicere: considerare et figi et comprehendi. Considerari potest a mente immunda; sed figi in illa non potest nisi mens pura; comprehendere non potest nisi immensa.4 Ratio autem, . . .

I RESPOND: It is different thing [differt] to say: “to consider” and “to be fixed” and “to be comprehended”. It can be considered by an unclean mind; but ‘to be fixed in It’ none can but a pure mind; none can comprehend It but a immense (mind).4 But the reason, . . .

1 Ita codd. L O contra Vat., quae habet physicis; in multis codd. propter abbreviationem lectio est dubia. Sed nostram praeferendam esse, patet ex doctrina S. Doctoris alibi tradita. In perfecta siquidem contemplatione iuxta doctrinam Seraphici Doctoris, quam sumsit ex Dionysio Areopagita de Mystica theol., oportet « et sensus deserere et intellectuales operatones et sensibilia et invisibilia » (Itinerar. mentis, c. 7. circa finem.). Has rationes philosophicas S. Doctor enumerat in libro Incendium amoris, c. 1. ante finem, ubi dicit, quod ille, quem perfectus contemplator diligit, « non est demonstrabilis, definibilis, opinabilis ». Cfr. ibid. c. 3. in fine; Breviloq. p. V. c. 6; II. Sent. d. 23. a. 2. q. 3. ad 6; Hexaëm. Serm. 2. circa finem et Serm. 20. circa medium; Comment. in Luc. IX, 28. — Quoad solutionem huius dubii cfr. Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 2. m. 2. a. 2. — B. Albert., hic a. 3. — Richard et Petr. a Tar., hic in expositione litterae.
2 Contra auctoritatem mss. et edd. 1, 3, 6 Vat., applicando praedicta ad obiectionem, addit hoc autem possibile est fieri in via; ideo dicit Magister: Purgatissimis mentibus etc. Paulo ante plurimi codd. cum ed. 1 post purgatior et omnes codd. cum edd. 1, 3, 6 post purgatissimus omittunt cum, a Vat. additum.
3 Ex antiquis mss. et ed. 1 adiecimus etiam, quod Vat. cum cod. cc minus bene omittit. Paulo infra cod. I excellit pro excedit; in fine obiectionis cod. dd addit eam.
4 Vat. contra mss. et ed. 1 textum variis additionibus corrumpit ita legendo: Considerari potest lux divina a mente non munda, ut a Philosophis; sed figi non potest in illa nisi mens a vitiis pura, comprehendi non potest nisi in patria.

1 Thus codices L and O against the Vatican text, which has physical [physicis]; in many codices on account of the abbreviation the reading is doubtful. But that ours it to be preferred, is clear form the doctrine of the Seraphic Doctor handed down elsewhere. If indeed in perfect contemplation, according to the doctrine of the Seraphic Doctor, which is taken from Dionysius the Areopagite's On Mystical Theology, it is proper « to both desert the senses and the intellectual operations, both sensibles and invisibles » (Itinerarium mentis in Deum, about the end of ch. 7). These philosophical reasons the Seraphic Doctor enumerates in the book The Fire of Love, before the end of ch. 1., where he says, that He, whom the perfect contemplator loves [diligit], is not demonstrable, definable, opinable ». Cf. ibid., at the end of ch. 3; Breviloquium, p. V, ch. 6; Sent., Bk. II, d. 23, a. 2, q. 3, in reply to n. 6; Hexaëmeron, about the end of Sermon 2, and about the middle of Sermon 20; Commentary on Luke, 9:28. — In regard to the solution of this doubt cf. Alexander of Hales, Summa., p. I, q. 2, m. 2, a. 2. — Bl. (now St.) Albert (the Great), here in a. 3. — Richard (of Middleton) and Peter of Tarentaise, here in the exposition of the text.
2 Against the authority of the manuscripts and editions 1, 2, and 6, the Vatican text, by applying the aforesaid to the objection, adds but this is possible to be done in the wayfarer’s state; [in via] for that reason Master (Peter) says: By most purified minds etc. A little before this very many of the codices together with edition 1 after more purged and all the codices together with editions 1, 3 and 6, after most purged omit the when [cum], added by the Vatican text.
3 From the ancient manuscripts and edition 1 we have inserted even [etiam], which the Vatican text together with codex cc omits less well. A little below this codex I has excels in place of exceeds; at the end of the objection codex dd adds it.
4 The Vatican text, against the manuscripts and edition 1, corrupts the text with various additions by reading thus: The Divine Light can be considered by a mind not cleansed, as by Philosophers; but none can be fixed in It except a mind pure of vices, It cannot be comprehended except in the Fatherland.

 

p. 60

 

quare non potest figi, est duplex: una, quia est supra intellectum, et ideo intellectus in ea non figitur, nisi habeat gluten affectus, sed statim recidit;1 alia ratio, quia oculus sanus est illi luci proportionabilis qualitative, etsi non quantitative; sed oculus infirmus sive lippus utroque modo est imporportionabilis, et ideo non figitur.

why it cannot be fixed, is twofold: one, because it is above the intellect, and for that reason the intellect is not fixed in it, unless it has the gluten [gluten] of affection, but immediately falls back;1 the other reason, because a healthy eye is proportionable to that light qualitatively, even if not quantitatively; but the infirm or bleary [lippus] eye is improportionable in each manner, and for that reason it is not fixed (there).

DUB. III.

DOUBT III

Item obiicitur de hoc verbo Ambrosii: Deus et Dominus nomen est naturae et nomen potestatis, quia dicit Damascenus,2 quod hoc nomen Deus imponitur ab operatione, unde dicitur ab aithein, quod est ardere, vel a theein, quod est fovere, vel a theasthai, quod est videre.

Likewise there is an objection [obiicitur] concerning this word of (St.) Ambrose: God and Lord is a name of nature and a name of power, because (St. John) Damascene says,2 that this name “God” is imposed by operation, whence it is said from (the word) aithein, which is to burn, and/or from theein, which is to warm, and/or from theasthai, which is to see.

RESPONDEO: Dicendum, quod de hoc nomine, et consimilibus est loqui dupliciter: aut quantum ad id cui imponitur; et sic est nomen naturae, quia ei imponitur quod3 est summa natura; aut quantum ad id a quo imponitur; et sic est nomen operationis, quia imponitur ab operatione.

I RESPOND: It must be said, that concerning this name, and those exactly like it [consimilibus], there is a twofold manner of speaking: either as much as regard that upon which it is imposed; and thus it is a name of a nature, because it is imposed upon that which3 is the Most High Nature; or as much as regards that by whom it is imposed; and thus it is a name of an operation, because it is imposed by an operation.

DUB. IV.

DOUBT IV

Item quaeritur de hac circumlocutione: Ego sum qui sum, utrum hoc nomen: Ego sum etc., sit nomen essentiae, vel personae. Et quod personae, videtur, quia pronomen demonstrativum certam significat personam. Et iterum, loqui est actus personae. Si forte dicas, quod ego, quia significat originem, stat pro persona Patris, sum, quia significat actum egredientem, pro persona Filii, qui, relativum utrumque nectens, stat pro persona Spiritus sancti; hoc nihil est, quia pro eodem stat relativum et antecedens.

Likewise there is asked of this circumlocution: I am who am, whether this name: “I am etc.”, is a name of an essence, and/or of a person. And that (it is) of a person, it does seem, because a certain demonstrative pronoun signifies a person. And again, speaking is an act of a person. If perhaps you say, that “I”, because it signifies origin, stands for the Person of the Father, “am”, because it signifies an act of stepping forth, the Person of the Son, “who”, the relative tying both, stands for the Person of the Holy Spirit; this is nothing, because the relative and antecedent stand for the same one.

RESPONDEO: Dicendum, quod illud nomen qui est, et Ego sum qui sum est nomen essentiae proprie: hoc4 enim est quaedam circumlocutio, significans entitatem in omnimoda perfectione et absolutione, et hoc est nomen proprium divinae substantiae. Et quod obiicitur, quod pronomen significat certam personam; dicendum, quod persona ibi dicitur certum suppositum Verbi, et hoc est substantia et natura.5

I RESPOND: It must be said, that that name “who is”, and “I am who am” is properly a name of an essence: for this4 is a certain circumlocution, signifying an entity in every manner of perfection and absoluteness [absolutione], and this is the proper Name of the Divine Substance. And what is objected, that a pronoun signifies a certain person; it must be said, that a person is there said (to be) a certain supposit of the Word, and this is a substance and a nature.5

DUB. V.

DOUBT V

Item quaeritur de hac auctoritate: Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram, utrum imago stet ibi pro essentia aut pro persona.6 Si pro essentia, ergo idem est dicere imaginem nostram, quod essentiam nostram; si pro persona, non debet dici nostra, sed mea; si pro imagine creata, nihil ad propositum, quia per hoc non probatur unitas naturae.

Likewise there is asked of this authority: Let us make man to Our image and Our similitude, whether “image” stands there for the Essence or for a Person.6 If for the Essence, therefore saying “Our image” is the same, as [quod] “Our essence”; if for a Person, there ought to be said not “Our”, but “My”; if for the created image, it is nothing regarding the proposed, because through this the unity of the nature is not proven.

RESPONDEO: Dicendum, quod, secundum quod Sancti hic accipiunt, imago et similitudo dicit essentiam et relationem.7 Importat enim imago unitatem cum distinctione, et similitudo similiter propter intrinsecam relationem. Et ideo in hoc nomine imago et similitudo quantum ad aliquid suae significationis notatur unitas essentiae, quantum ad aliquid notatur pluralitas personarum. Et ideo aliter exponit Augustinus, aliter exponit Hilarius.8 Augustinus considerat partem significati, scilicet essentiae unitatem; sed Hilarius totum. Unde dicit, quod nomine imaginis et similitudinis simul intelligitur unitas et pluralitas. Similiter Augustinus in hoc quod est, faciamus et nostram, considerat solum consignificatum; et ideo pluralitatem. Hilarius vero considerat significatum et consignificatum, et9 ideo in utroque dicit intelligi pluralitatem et unitatem.

I RESPOND: It must be said, that, according to what the Saints here accept, “image” and “similitude” mean essence and relation.7 For “image” conveys [importat] unity with distinction, and “similitude” similarly, on account of (its) intrinsic relation. And for that reason in this name “image” and “similitude”, as much as regards one of its significations [ad aliquid suae significationis] a unity of essence is noted, as much as regards the other [ad aliquid] a plurality of persons is noted. And for that reason (St.) Augustine expounds (it) in one manner, (St.) Hilary (of Poitiers) expounds (it) in another.8 (St.) Augustine considers part of the (its) signified, that is the Unity of the Essence; but (St.) Hilary the whole. Whence he says, that by the name of image and similitude there is understood together [simul] the Unity (of the Essence) and the Plurality (of Persons). Similarly (St.) Augustine in that which is, the “let us make” and “our”, considers only the consignified; and for that reason the Plurality. But (St.) Hilary considers the signified and the consignified, and9 for that reason he says that in each there is understood the Plurality and the Unity.

DUB. VI.

DOUBT VI

Item Hilarius dicit: Neque diversitatem duobus admisceri alterius ad alterum similitudo permittit.

Likewise (St.) Hilary says: Neither does the similitude of one to the other permit the diversity to be mixed into the two.

SED CONTRA: Similitudo est rerum differentium eadem qualitas: ergo similitudo compatitur secum differentiam.

ON THE CONTRARY: A similitude is the same quality of differing things: therefore similitude is compatible with difference with itself.

RESPONDEO: Dicendum, quod est similitudo secundum accidens, et similitudo secundum substantiam. Et haec est duplex, secundum totum et se- / -cundum partem.

I RESPOND: It must be said, that there is a similitude according to accident, and a similitude according to substance. And this is twofold, according to the whole and ac- / - cording to the part.

1 Plures codd. ut A I S Y etc. cum ed. 1 secuti posuimus recidit pro recedit. Mox post proportionabilis Vat., non consentientibus mss. et ed. 1, ita prosequitur: secundum qualitatem, etsi non secundum quantitatem; sed si oculus sit infirmus sive lippus, sicut est in non habente fidem, utroque etc.
2 Libr. I. de Fide. orthod. c. 9, ubi sic ait: Secundum nomen est Qeos (id est Deus), quae vox vel a verbo qeein ducta est, quia currat et omnia circumobeat vel ab aiqein id est urere: Deus enim ignis consumens est, vel denique apo tou qeasqai , hoc est, quia omnia conspiciat. — Faventibus mss. et ed. 1, post Damascenus addidimus quod.
3 Cod. R qui. In fine responsionis ope codd. et ed. 1 substituimus operatione loco opere.
4 Graecam constructionem haec pro hoc exhibent codd. A C G I K S T U aa cc ff cum ed. 1.
5 De hoc Dei nomine Qui est cfr. infra d. 22. q. 3. et Alex. Hal., S. p. I. a. 49. m. 4. a. 1.
6 Cod. K hic addit aut pro imagine creata, sed non bene, quia agitur tantum de imagine, in quantum Deum concernit; et si S. Doctor postea dicit si pro imagine creata hoic dicit magis excludendo, quam tanquam membrum disiunctionis exhibendo, ut patet ex ipsius verbis. Paulo infra post persona cod. K satis bene adiungit aut una aut pluribus; non pluribus, quia deberet dicere imagines; si pro una.
7 Quamvis mss. cum edd. 1, 2, 3 non faveant, reliquimus tamen et relationem, cum contextus et doctrina S. Doctoris infra d. 31. p. II. a. 1. q. 1 et 2. tradita id apertissime exigant. Paulo ante Vat. contra codd. et ed. 1 doctores sancti. Cod. R legit secundum quod hic accipiuntur, imago et similitudo dicunt essentiam.
8 Verba August. et Hilar. vide supra in textu Magistri, c. 4. — Paulo post ope mss. et. ed. 1 mutavimus secundum in scilicet.
9 Supplevimus ex mss. particulam et.

1 We have decided to follow the very many of the codices as A I S Y etc. together with edition 1, which have falls back [recidit] in place of recedes [recedit]. Then after proportionable the Vatican text, not consenting with the manuscripts and edition 1, proceeds thus: according to quality, even if not according to quantity; but if the eye is infirm or bleary, as in one not having the faith, in each manner it is improportionable etc..
2 On the Orthodox Faith, Bk. I, ch. 9, where he thus says: According to name He is Qeos (that is God), which the voice derives from the word qeein, because He runs and circumobviates all things, and/or from aitqein that is to burn: for God is a consuming fire, and/or lastly (from) apo tou qeasqai , that is, because He inspects [conspiciat] all things. — Favoring the manuscripts and edition 1, we have added that [quod] after Damascene.
3 Codex R has Him who [ei qui]. At the end of the response with the help the codices and edition 1 we have substituted operation [operatione] in place of work [opere].
4 The Greek construction, this [haec] in place of this [hoc], is exhibited by codices A C G I K S T U aa cc ff together with edition 1.
5 Concerning this name of God, Who is, cf. below in d. 22, q. 3, and Alexander of Hales, Summa., p. I, q. 49, m. 4, a. 1.
6 Codex K here adds or for the created image, but not so well, because he deals here only with the image, inasmuch as it concerns God; and if the Seraphic Doctor afterwards says if for the created image, he says this more by excluding, than by exhibiting it as a member of the disjunction, as is clear from his own words. A little below this after person codex K sufficiently well inserts either (for) one or many; not (for) many, because he would ought to have said “images”; if for one.
7 Although the manuscripts and editions 1, 2 and 3 do not favor it, we have, however, left and relation, since the context and the doctrine of the Seraphic Doctor below in d. 31, p. II, a. 1, q. 1 and 2, having handed it down most openly, require it. A little before this the Vatican text against the codices and edition 1 has holy doctors [sancti doctores]. Codex R reads according to what is here accepted, “image” and “similitude” mean essence.
8 The words of (Sts.) Augustine and Hilary can be seen above in the text of Master (Peter), ch. 4. — A little after this with the help of the manuscripts and edition 1, we have changed according [secundum] into that is [scilicet].
9 We have supplied from the manuscripts the particle and [et].

 

p. 61

 

se- / -cundum partem. Similitudo secundum accidens, vel secundum partem substantiae admittit diversitatem;1 sed non similitudo secundum totum. Et quoniam in divina essentia est summa simplicitas, ideo non potest esse similitudo secundum accidens neque secundum partem: et ideo similitudo non compatitur diversitatem naturae.2

ac- / -cording to part. A similitude according to accident, and/or according to part of the substance admits a diversity;1 but not a similitude according to the whole. And since in the Divine Essence there is a Most High Simplicity, for that reason there cannot be a similitude according to accident nor according to a part: and for that reason a similitude is not compatible with a diversity of nature.2

DUB. VII.

DOUBT VII

Item obiicitur de hoc quod dicit Magister: Significavit, nomine consortii non poni aliquid, sed removeri, quia ex hoc videtur, quod omnis numeralis dictio secundum ipsum nihil ponit, sed tantum privat; sed hoc videtur falsum. Cum enim in divinis sit vera pluralitas personarum, non tantum privative, sed etiam positive videntur3 dici.

Likewise there is an objection concerning this which Master (Peter) says: He did signify, by the name of “a sharing” and/or of “plurality” that nothing other be posited, but (rather) be removed, because from this it seems, that the saying of every numeral according to this posits nothing, but only deprives [privat]; but this seems false. For since among the divine there is a true plurality of Persons, they seem3 to be spoken of not only privatively, but also positively.

RESPONDEO: Haec fuit positio Magistri, quae communiter non tentetur, quia non habet veritatem, sicut infra melius patebit.4 Tamen Magister excusatur, quia dixit, quod non ponunt aliquid nomina numeralia, quia important numerum, qui non est proprie in divinis. Numerus enim causatur ex unitatem aggregatione et distinctione; et distinctio unitatum fit tripliciter: continui divisione, formarum disparatione,5 gradu sive ordine. Quoniam igitur in divinis non est aggregatio nec talis6 distinctio, ideo nec numerus proprie.

I RESPOND: This was the position of Master (Peter), which is not commonly held, because it does not have the truth, as will be seen better below.4 However Master (Peter) is excused, because he said, that numeral names do not posit anything, because they convey [important] number, which is not properly among the divine. For number is caused from unity by aggregation and distinction; and the distinction of unities is made in a threefold manner: by division of the continuous, by separation [disparatione] of forms,5 by grade or order. Therefore since among the divine there is no aggregation nor such6 a distinction, for that reason neither (is there) number properly (speaking).

DUB. VIII.

DOUBT VIII

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: In principio creavit Deus, quare magis hoc nomen Deus stet sive supponat pro persona Patris quam pro persona Filii, et quomodo Trinitas intelligatur ex hoc.

Likewise there is asked of this which he says: In the beginning God created, why this name “God” stands or supposes more for the Person of the Father than for the Person of the Son, and in what manner is the Trinity understood from this.

RESPONDEO: Ad hoc dicendum, quod7 octo modis innuitur nobis personarum pluralitas in Scriptura. Primo modo significatione; Matthaei ultimo:8 In nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. Secundo modo9 consignificatione; Genesis in principio, ubi nos habemus Deus, Hebraei habent Heloym, quod est nominativus pluralis huius singularis Hel. Tertio modo suppositione, ut cum dicitur: Deus genuit Deum; Proverbiorum octavo:10 Ante omnes colles generavit me Dominus. Quarto modo appropriatione, ut ibi:11 In principio creavit Deus etc. Deus enim ibi Patri appropriatur et Principium Filio. Quinto modo iteratione, ut Isaiae sexto:12 Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus Dominus Deus Sabaoth. Sexto modo ordine verborum; Psalmus:13 Benedicat nos Deus, Deus noster, benedicat nos Deus. Septimo modo connotatione in actu missionis, ut cum dicitur ad Galatas quarto:14 Misit Deus etc. Octavo modo apparitione, sicut apparuerunt Abrahae tres viri; Genesis decimo octavo.15

I RESPOND: To this it must be said, that7 in eight manners the plurality of the Persons is hinted to us in Scripture. In the first manner by signification; in the last (chapter) of (St.) Matthew:8 In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. In the second manner9 by consignification; at the beginning of Genesis, where we have “God” [Deus], the Hebrews have Eloim, which is the nominative plural of this singular El. In the third manner by supposition, as when there is said: “God begot God”; in the eighth (chapter) of Proverbs:10 Before all the hills the Lord has generated Me. In the fourth manner by appropriation, as there:11 In the beginning God created etc. For there “God” is appropriated there to the Father and The Beginning to the Son. In the fifth manner by iteration, as in the sixth (chapter) of Isaiah:12 Holy, Holy, Holy the Lord God Sabaoth. In the sixth manner by the order of words; the Psalm:13 May He bless us God, our God, may He bless us God. In the seventh manner by connotation in the act of mission, as when there is said in the fourth (chapter) to the Galatians:14 God sent etc.. In the eighth manner by apparition, just as the three men appeared to Abraham; in the eighteenth (chapter) of Genesis.15

DUB. IX.

DOUBT IX

Item obiicitur de hoc quod dicit: Ille etiam maximus Prophetarum, quia super illud Matthaei decimo septimo:16 Apparuerunt illis Moyses et Elias, dicit Glossa: « Elias fuit maximus Prophetarum »: non ergo David.

Likewise there is an objection concerning this which he says: Also that greatest of the Prophets and kings, David, because on that (verse from) the seventeenth (chapter) of (St.) Matthew:16 There appeared to them Moses and Elijah, the Gloss says: « Elijah was the greatest of the Prophets »: therefore David (was) not.

RESPONDEO: Spiritus prophetiae, in maiori abundatia datus, prophetam Domini facit excellentiorem. Potest ergo dupliciter dari in maiori abundatia: aut quia ad plura, aut quia ad altiora. Eliae datus est ad plura, quia ad futurorum praevisionem et miraculorum operationem; sed David ad altiora, quia, sicut patet ex eius prophetia, plura vidit et17 clarius, quia prophetia intellectuali.

I RESPOND: The spirit of prophecy, given in greater abundance, made him a more excellent prophet of the Lord. Therefore it can be given in a greater abundance in a twofold manner: either because (its is) for more, or because (it is) for higher ones. Elijah was given (it) for more, because (it was) for a prevision of future things and the working of miracles; but David for higher ones, because, as is clear from his prophecy, he saw more and17 and more clearly, because (it was by) an intellectual prophecy.

DUB. X.

DOUBT X

Item obiicitur de hoc quod dicit: Dominus possedit me; quia possesio est rei inferioris, ordo / rei posterioris, . . .

Likewise there is an objection concerning this which he says: The Lord possessed me; because possession belongs to an inferior thing, order / to a posterior thing, . .

1 Cod. K addit substantiae.
2 Plura de hac re vide d. 31. p. I. a. 1. q. 1. et 2.
3 Codd. F X et edd. 4, 5 videtur.
4 De ista sententia Magistri cfr. infra d. 24. a. 2. q. 1.
5 Multi codd. ut A C F G K L O R S T X Z etc. cum edd. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 minus congruenter dispersione, alii dispositione; Vat. disperatione; codd. H P Q ee ff et ed. 1 exhibent lectionem in textum receptam.
6 Vat. contra mss. taliter.
7 Ex mss. et ed. 1 adiecimus quod.
8 Verse 10.
9 Ex mss. adiecimus modo; deinde ope mss. post principio delevimus creavit, ita ut in principio non sit ipse s. Scripturae textus, sed locum textus indicet. Mox in Vat. deest habent et post huius additur nominativi, sed contra codd. et ed. 1. Cod. X numerus loco nominativus.
10 Vers. 25, ubi Vulgata legit: Ante colles ego partuirebar, dum ed. s. Scripturae Brixensis an 1496 addit omnes, cum qua Vat. convenit et adiungit: id est, generavit me Dominus. Pro lectione codd. militant et translatio ex Septuaginta: omnes colles generat me, et August., I. de Trin. c. 12. n. 24: ante omnes colles genuit me; Cyprian., II. Testimon. c. 1; Hilar., XII. de Trin. n. 37. et Iustinus, Dialog. cum Tryph. n. 64.
11 Gen. 1, 1. — Vat. contra mss. omittit ut. Paulo post codd. cum ed. 1 nimis abbreviate: Deus Patri et Principium Filio.
12 Vers. 3.
13 66:6.
14 Vers. 4.
15 Vers. 2. — Vat. obnitentibus mss. et ed. 1 apparuerant. — Cfr. de hoc dubio Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 67. m. 4, qui septem horum modorum enumerat. Idem fere repetit Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 4.
16 Vers. 3.
17 In Vat. desideratur et, quod mss. cum ed. 1 exhibent. — De prophetia intellectuali seu visione cfr. II. Sent. d. 10. a. 3. q. 2 in corp; Hexaëm. Serm. 9; Centiloq. p. III. sect. 46. — S. August., XII. de Genes. ad lit. c. 6. et seqq. ac libr. contra Adimantum, Manichaei discipulum, c. 28. — De quaestione: quis fuerit simpliciter maximus Prophetarum, vide St. Thom., S. II. II. q. 174. a. 4, ubi dicit: quod licet quantum ad aliquid aliquis alius Prophetarum fuerit maior Moyse, simpliciter tamen Mosyes fuit omnibus aliis maior. Lyranus in praefatione super Psalterium rationes S. Thomase nititur infringere; Dionys. Carth. in prooemio Expos. in Psalmos contrarias opiniones reconciliare conatur.

1 Codex K adds of substance.
2 For more on this matter see d. 31, p. I, a. 1, q. 1 and 2.
3 Codices F and X and editions 4 and 5 have it seems.
4 On this sentence of Master (Peter) cf. below in d. 24, q. 2, q. 1.
5 Many codices as A C F G K L O R S T X Z etc. together with editions 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 have less congruently dispersion, others disposition; the Vatican text has disperatione; codices H P Q ee and ff and edition 1 exhibit the reading received in the text (above).
6 The Vatican text, against the manuscripts, has nor a distinction in such a manner [taliter].
7 From the manuscripts and edition 1 we have inserted that [quod].
8 Verse 10.
9 From the manuscripts we have inserted manner; then with the help of the manuscripts we have deleted created after at the beginning, so that at the beginning [in principio] is not itself a text of Sacred Scripture, but indicates a place in the text. Then in the Vatican text there is lacking have and after of this there is added nominative, but against the codices and edition 1. Codex X has number in place of nominative.
10 Verse 25, where the Vulgate reads: Before the hills I was born, while the Brixen edition of Sacred Scripture (1496 A.D.) adds all [omnes], with which the Vatican text agrees and adjoins: that is, the Lord generated Me. On behalf of the reading the codices and the translation from the Septuagint militate: before all the hills He generates Me, and (St.) Augustine, On the Trinity, Bk. I, ch. 12, n. 24: before all the hills He generated Me; (St.) Cyprian, Testimonies, Bk. II, ch.. 1; (St.) Hilary (of Poitiers), On the Trinity, Bk. XII, n. 37 and (St.) Justin, Dialogue with Trypho, n. 61.
11 Gn 1:1. — The Vatican text against the manuscripts omits as. A little after this the codices together with edition 1 in an exceedingly abbreviated manner have: God for the Father and Beginning for the Son.
12 Verse 3.
13 66:6.
14 Verse 4.
15 Verse 2. — The Vatican text disagreeing with the manuscripts and edition 1 has had appeared. — Cf. on this doubt Alexander of Hales, Summa, p. I, q. 67, m. 4, who enumerates seven of these manners. Richard of Middleton nearly repeats the same, here in a. 2. q. 4.
16 Verse 3.
17 In the Vatican text there is wanting the and, which the manuscripts and edition 1 exhibit. — On intellectual prophecy and vision cf. Sent., Bk. II, d. 10, a. 3, q. 2 in the body (of the question); Hexaëmeron, Sermon 9; Centiloquium, p. III, section 46. — St. Augustine, On the Literal Exposition of Genesis, Bk. XII, ch. 6 ff. and the book Against Adimantus, a disciple of Manichee, ch. 28. — On the question: who was simply the greatest of the Prophets, see St. Thomas, Summa., II. II., q. 174, q. 4, where he says: that though as much as regards one of some other of the Prophets Moses was the greater, however simply (speaking) Moses was greater than all of them. (Nicholas) of Lyra in his preface to On the Psalms strives to infringe upon the reasons of St. Thomas; (Bl.) Denis the Carthusian in his foreword to Exposition on the Psalms undertakes to reconciles the contrary opinions.

 

p. 62

 

rei posterioris, conceptio similiter sonat in sexus fragilitatem et partus similiter; quae1 non conveniunt divinis.

to a posterior thing, conception resounds similarly unto the fragility of the sex and similarly (unto the fragility) of giving birth [partus]; none of which1 convene with divine things.

RESPONDEO: Sapientia describitur per comparationem ad effectus et per comparationem ad principium. Et quoniam per comparationem ad effectus habet in se thesaurum infinitum in numerositate, et habet ordinem in discretione, ideo describitur per verbum possidendi et ordinandi.2 Per comparationem ad suum principium emanat emanatione intriseca in eo, quod est de substantia emanantis; ideo discribitur per verbum conceptionis et parturitionis.

I RESPOND: Wisdom is described through a comparison to an effect and through a comparison to a principle. Since through a comparison to an effect it both has in itself a treasure infinite in numerosity, and has order in discretion, for that reason it is described by the word for being possessed and for being ordered.2 Through a comparison to its principle it emanates by an intrinsic emanation in that which concerns the substance of the one emanating; for that reason it is described by the word for conception and parturition.

1 Vat. contra antiquiores codd. cum ed. 1 addit omnia.
2 Praeter fidem mss. et ed. 1, constructione mutata, Vat. hic ita prosequitur: Describitur etiam per comparationem ad suum principium, a quo emanat. Paulo infra cod. R omittit praepositionem in et plures codd. ut K M X Y ee post emanantis addunt emanatione perfecta.

1 The Vatican text against the more ancient codices together with edition 1 adds all [omnia].
2 Not trusting in the manuscripts and edition 1, having changed the construction, the Vatican text here proceeds thus: It is described also through a comparison to its principle, from which it emanates. A little below this codex R omits the preposition in [Trans Note: thus reading for the reason that it concerns] and very many of the codices as K M X Y and ee after of the one emanating [emanantis] adds by a perfect emanation [emanatione perfecta].  [Trans. note:  Regarding discretion, cf. the “Rationale for the Translation of Peculiar Latin terms” in the Introduction to this English translation.]

The English translation here has been released to the public domain by its author. The / symbol is used to indicate that the text which follows appears on the subsequent page of the Quaracchi Edition. The translation of the notes in English corresponds to the context of the English text, not that of the Latin text; likewise they are a freer translation that that which is necessitated by the body of the text. Items in square [ ] brackets contain Latin terms corresponding to the previous English word(s), or notes added by the English translator. Items in round ( ) brackets are terms implicit in the Latin syntax or which are required for clarity in English.