← Back to Distinction 19

Dist. 19, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 2

Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity · Distinction 19

Textus Latinus
p. 344

QUAESTIO II.

Utrum in divinis sit summa aequalitas.

Secundo quaeritur, utrum in divinis sit summa aequalitas. Et quod sic, videtur hoc modo.

1. Sicut dicitur ab Augustino in libro de Fide ad Petrum1, «non dicitur aliquis maior alio, nisi aut quia praecedit aetate, aut quia excedit magnitudine, aut quia superat potestate»: sed nihil horum est in divinis, ut probat Augustinus et Magister2: ergo nihil est ibi inaequalitatis: ergo est ibi summa aequalitas.

2. Item, non potest maior aequalitas cogitari3 quam ubi unum aequatur uni et unum pluribus et unum omnibus; sed in divinis tantus est Filius, quantus est Pater, et tantus Filius, quantus Pater et Spiritus sanctus, et tantus etiam4, quantus omnes tres: ergo etc.

3. Item, unitas in quantitate, sicut dictum est5, facit aequalitatem: ergo ubi summa unitas, ibi summa aequalitas; sed hoc est in divinis: ergo etc.

4. Item, status non est nisi in summo; sed status est in illa aequalitate per reductionem omnium ad ipsam: ergo etc.

Contra: 1. Augustinus in libro octoginta trium Quaestionum6: «Si omnia essent aequalia, non essent omnia»: ergo omnimoda aequalitas tollit perfectionem7. Si ergo nihil ponendum in Deo, quod repugnat perfectioni, in divinis personis non est omnimoda aequalitas.

2. Item, maior est aequalitas, quae attenditur secundum quantitatem continuam et discretam, quam8 secundum continuam tantum9; sed in divinis non est aequalitas secundum quantitatem discretam, quia ibi est trinitas et ita imparilitas: ergo in divinis non est omnimoda aequalitas.

3. Item, maior est aequalitas, quae attenditur secundum potentiam et sapientiam et bonitatem, quam quae10 secundum sapientiam et potentiam tantum; sed in divinis non est aequalitas secundum bonitatem: ergo non est ibi summa aequalitas. Probatio minoris: bonum est diffusivum sui11; sed magis diffundit se Filius quam Spiritus sanctus, quia producit sibi aequalem, et etiam Pater quam Filius: ergo etc.

Quaeritur ergo, quare Augustinus non ostendit aequalitatem in12 sapientia et bonitate? et iterum, quare non ex parte loci, sicut magnitudinis et etiam aliarum differentiarum quantitatis? Quod cum non faciat, non videtur assignare omnimodam aequalitatem, sed solum in parte13; aut si omnimodam ostendit, insufficienter procedit.

Conclusio. Summa est divinarum personarum aequalitas in aeternitate quoad originem, in magnitudine quoad omnia quae habent in se, in potentia quoad effectus.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod in divinis est summa aequalitas, et summa etiam assignatur ab Augu-

p. 345

stino, quoniam14 sufficienter ostenditur remotio omnis inaequalitatis per illa tria, quae sunt aeternitas, magnitudo et potentia.

Horum trium distinctio et sufficientia ab aliquibus accipitur15 sic. Quia enim in divinis non est extensio molis nec aggregatio multitudinis, ideo non est ibi quantitas continua intrinseca16 nec discreta, sed loco eius est quantitas virtutis, quae tangitur per hoc membrum, quod est potentia. Quia vero Deus suo ambitu complectitur omnem durationem, ideo est ibi quantitas aeternitatis correspondens tempori. Quia vero ambitu suae immensitatis complectitur omnem locum et locatum, ideo est ibi quantitas magnitudinis correspondens loco. Et sic patet17, cum non sit aliam quantitatem accipere ibi, quod sufficienter in illis ostenditur aequalitas et consistit.

Sed haec distinctio non est conveniens, tum quia non est in Deo nisi18 quantitas virtutis; et ita non deberet ibi esse nisi unum membrum, nec debet illa distingui contra alias; tum etiam, quia magnitudo in divinis non tantum attenditur quantum ad ambitum localitatis, sed etiam quantum ad intensionem bonitatis. Unde dicitur in sexto libro de Trinitate19, quod in «spiritualibus idem est maius et melius». Et propter hoc quantitas virtutis non tantum attenditur in operatione, sed etiam in re20 considerata in omnimoda absolutione.

Ideo possumus aliter horum trium distinctionem et sufficientiam assignare. In omni quod est, contingit hanc triplicem considerationem habere. Potest enim aliquid considerari in comparatione ad suam originem sive a parte ante; et sic unum maius est altero, quando origo eius est prior; et contra hoc est aequalitas aeternitatis. Potest iterum considerari in se; et sic dicitur unum altero maius, quia maioris extensionis, vel quia maioris valoris. Contra hanc21 est in Deo aequalitas magnitudinis, ut haec aequalitas non tantum dicatur per comparationem ad localitatem, sed etiam ad sapientiam et bonitatem et ad omne quod facit alterum altero dici maius, quia22 melius. Unde Augustinus et Magister in hac distinctione probant aequalitatem magnitudinis per aequalitatem virtutis sive in virtute. Potest etiam tertio considerari per comparationem ad effectum: et sic dicitur maius, quia potentius; et contra hoc est aequalitas potentiae. Quoniam igitur rem23 non contingit pluribus modis considerari, si est aequalitas in istis, summa est: et cum ostenditur in istis, summa ostenditur, et perfecta inductione proceditur. Et sic patet illud24 quod ultimo quaerebatur.

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur primo, quod aequalitas repugnat perfectioni: dicendum, quod verum est: perfectioni universi, quae aggregata est ex diversitate; non sic est in Deo.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod maior est aequalitas secundum utramque quantitatem etc.; dicendum, quod summa aequalitas non est in quantitate continua nec discreta, quia ibi unum non aequatur pluribus; sed hic25 est perfectissima aequalitas: ideo solum secundum quantitatem virtutis attenditur.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de bonitate, quia diffusivum etc.; dicendum, quod emanatio personae non attenditur secundum rationem bonitatis essentiae, sed magis fecunditatis personae vel in persona; et ideo non sequitur, quod si Spiritus sanctus non producit, quod propter hoc habeat minus de bonitate. Unde notandum, quod duplex est diffusio, scilicet intra vel26 extra. Diffusio intra est, quando persona procedit a persona in27 unitate naturae; et haec non est proprie diffusio, et haec non consequitur bonum, quia bonum, sed bonum in hypostasi, quae aliam producere nata est; et ideo secundum hanc diffusionem non dicitur una persona altera melior. Est28 alia diffusio extra, quae attenditur in productione effectus; et secundum hanc rationem attenditur diffusio proprie et ratio boni. Et quia in hac una persona alteram non excedit, quia indivisa sunt opera Trinitatis: ideo hac non est una melior alia29.

p. 346
Scholion

I. In conclusione omnes conveniunt. Sed circa S. Augustini probationem et circa sufficientiam membrorum divisionis, quae ponit, duplex affertur expositio. Prima, quae est Alexandri et Alberti, S. Doctori non probatur; secundam et meliorem cum ipso approbat etiam S. Thom., S. I. q. 42. a. 1. ad 1. Ut fundamenta primae opinionis melius perspiciantur, haec ex Alex. Hal. (loc. infra cit.) referimus: «Aequalitas respicit quantitatem, sive quod per modum quantitatis signatur. Omnis autem quantitas aut est mensurans intra, aut extra: si intra, aut est virtutis, aut molis; quantitas vero molis non cadit in divinis, sed quantitas virtutis; et hoc dicitur per potentiam. Item quantitas mensurans extra est duplex, scil. tempus et locus; et quantitati, quae est tempus in inferioribus, respondet aeternitas in divinis; ei autem quantitati, quae est locus, respondet magnitudo in divinis, non qua Deus circumscribatur in loco, sed qua est inter omnia non inclusus, et qua ipse continet et locat omnia. Sic ergo quantitas in divinis est virtutis, quae est potentia; et durationis, quae est aeternitas; et locationis sive continentiae activae, qua ipse continet et locat omnia, et haec dicitur magnitudo. Quia ergo in Deo non est ponere pluribus modis quantitatem, ideo quantum ad haec tria solum in divinis assignatur aequalitas».

II. Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 47. m. 5. — B. Albert., hic a. 3; S. p. I. tr. 11. q. 47. m. 2. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 1. 3. — Aegid. R., hic 1. princ. q. 3. — Henr. Gand., S. a. 70. q. 2.

---

English Translation

QUESTION II.

Whether in the divine [persons] there is supreme equality.

Secondly it is asked, whether in the divine [persons] there is supreme equality. And that there is, is seen in this way.

1. As is said by Augustine in the book On Faith to Peter1, "no one is called greater than another, except either because he precedes in age, or because he exceeds in magnitude, or because he surpasses in power": but none of these is in the divine [persons], as Augustine and the Master prove2: therefore there is nothing of inequality there: therefore there is supreme equality there.

2. Likewise, no greater equality can be thought3 than where one is equated to one and one to many and one to all; but in the divine [persons] the Son is as great as the Father is, and the Son is as great as the Father and the Holy Spirit are, and [each one] is also as great4 as all three: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, unity in quantity, as has been said5, makes equality: therefore where there is supreme unity, there is supreme equality; but this is in the divine [persons]: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, rest is only in the highest; but rest is in that equality through the reduction of all [equalities] to it: therefore etc.

On the contrary: 1. Augustine in the book of the Eighty-three Questions6: "If all things were equal, all things would not be": therefore equality of every kind takes away perfection7. If therefore nothing is to be posited in God which is repugnant to perfection, in the divine persons there is not equality of every kind.

2. Likewise, greater is the equality which is regarded according to continuous and discrete quantity, than8 [the equality] according to continuous [quantity] only9; but in the divine [persons] there is not equality according to discrete quantity, since there [there] is trinity and so unevenness: therefore in the divine [persons] there is not equality of every kind.

3. Likewise, greater is the equality which is regarded according to power and wisdom and goodness, than that which10 [is regarded] according to wisdom and power only; but in the divine [persons] there is not equality according to goodness: therefore there is not supreme equality there. The proof of the minor: the good is diffusive of itself11; but the Son diffuses himself more than the Holy Spirit, since he produces [one] equal to himself, and likewise the Father [more] than the Son: therefore etc.

It is asked therefore, why does Augustine not show equality in12 wisdom and goodness? and again, why not on the side of place, as [he does] of magnitude and also of the other differences of quantity? Since he does not do this, he does not seem to assign equality of every kind, but only in part13; or if he does show equality of every kind, he proceeds insufficiently.

Conclusion. Supreme is the equality of the divine persons in eternity as to origin, in magnitude as to all things which they have in themselves, in power as to effects.

I respond: It must be said, that in the divine [persons] there is supreme equality, and supreme [equality] is also assigned by Augu-

stine, since14 sufficiently is shown the removal of all inequality through those three [things], which are eternity, magnitude, and power.

The distinction and sufficiency of these three is taken15 by some in this way. For since in the divine [persons] there is no extension of mass nor aggregation of multitude, therefore there is not there continuous intrinsic16 quantity nor discrete; but in place of it there is the quantity of power, which is touched by this member, which is power. But because God by his ambit embraces every duration, therefore there is there the quantity of eternity corresponding to time. But because by the ambit of his immensity he embraces every place and every located thing, therefore there is there the quantity of magnitude corresponding to place. And thus it is plain17, since there is no other quantity to be taken there, that sufficiently in those [three] equality is shown and consists.

But this distinction is not fitting, both because there is not in God except18 the quantity of power; and so there ought not to be there but one member, nor ought that to be distinguished against the others; and also because magnitude in the divine [persons] is not regarded only with respect to the ambit of locality, but also with respect to the intensity of goodness. Whence it is said in the sixth book On the Trinity19, that in "spiritual things the same [thing] is greater and better." And on account of this the quantity of power is regarded not only in operation, but also in the thing20 considered in every kind of absoluteness.

Therefore we can in another way assign the distinction and sufficiency of these three. In everything that is, it happens that one can have this threefold consideration. For something can be considered in comparison to its origin or from the part-before; and thus one [thing] is greater than another, when its origin is prior; and against this is the equality of eternity. It can again be considered in itself; and thus one [thing] is called greater than another, either because of greater extension, or because of greater value. Against this21 is in God the equality of magnitude, so that this equality is not said only by comparison to locality, but also to wisdom and goodness and to everything which makes one [thing] be called greater than another, because22 better. Whence Augustine and the Master in this distinction prove the equality of magnitude through the equality of power, or in power. It can also thirdly be considered by comparison to effect: and thus it is called greater, because more powerful; and against this is the equality of power. Since therefore the thing23 cannot be considered in more ways, if there is equality in these, it is supreme: and when it is shown in these, supreme [equality] is shown, and one proceeds by perfect induction. And thus is plain that24 which was last asked.

1. To that, then, which is objected first, that equality is repugnant to perfection: it must be said, that it is true: [repugnant] to the perfection of the universe, which is aggregated out of diversity; it is not so in God.

2. To that which is objected, that greater is the equality according to both quantities etc.; it must be said, that supreme equality is not in continuous nor in discrete quantity, since there one [thing] is not equated to many; but here25 is most perfect equality: therefore [it] is regarded only according to the quantity of power.

3. To that which is objected concerning goodness, that [it is] diffusive etc.; it must be said, that the emanation of a person is not regarded according to the account of the goodness of the essence, but rather of the fecundity of the person or in the person; and therefore it does not follow, that if the Holy Spirit does not produce, that on account of this he should have less of goodness. Whence it is to be noted, that diffusion is twofold, namely within or26 without. Diffusion within is, when a person proceeds from a person in27 the unity of nature; and this is not properly diffusion, and this does not follow upon the good, because [it is] the good, but [upon] the good in a hypostasis, which is born to produce another; and therefore according to this diffusion one person is not called better than another. There is28 another diffusion outside, which is regarded in the production of an effect; and according to this account is regarded diffusion properly and the account of the good. And since in this one person does not exceed another, since the works of the Trinity are undivided: therefore in this [respect] one is not better than another29.

Scholion

I. In the conclusion all agree. But concerning St. Augustine's proof and the sufficiency of the members of the division which he posits, a twofold exposition is offered. The first, which is that of Alexander and Albert, is not approved by the Holy Doctor; he, together with him [the Master], approves the second and better [exposition], as also does St. Thomas, S. I, q. 42, a. 1, ad 1. That the foundations of the first opinion may be better perceived, we report these [words] from Alex. of Hales (place cited below): "Equality regards quantity, or what is signified by way of quantity. But every quantity is either measuring within, or without: if within, it is either of power, or of mass; but the quantity of mass does not fall in divine matters, but the quantity of power; and this is said through power. Likewise the quantity measuring without is twofold, namely time and place; and to the quantity which is time in lower things, eternity in divine matters corresponds; but to the quantity which is place, magnitude in divine matters corresponds, not [magnitude] by which God is circumscribed in place, but by which he is among all [things] not enclosed, and by which he himself contains and locates all [things]. Thus therefore the quantity in divine matters is of power, which is power; and of duration, which is eternity; and of location or active containment, by which he himself contains and locates all [things], and this is called magnitude. Since therefore in God quantity is not to be posited in many ways, therefore only with respect to these three is equality assigned in divine matters."

II. Alex. of Hales, S. p. I, q. 47, m. 5. — B. Albert, here a. 3; S. p. I, tr. 11, q. 47, m. 2. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1, q. 1, 3. — Aegidius Romanus, here 1 princ., q. 3. — Henry of Ghent, S. a. 70, q. 2.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Cap. 1. n. 4, ubi haec propositio ad Trinitatem applicata, non ut generalis, sicut hic exhibetur, invenitur. Vide lit. Magistri, c. 1.
    Chapter 1, n. 4, where this proposition is found applied to the Trinity, not as general, as it is here presented. See the text of the Master, c. 1.
  2. Hic c. 1. seqq., in quibus etiam Augustini probationes reperies.
    Here c. 1 ff., in which you will also find Augustine's proofs.
  3. Vat. cum cod. cc excogitari. Mox cod. W si loco ubi.
    The Vatican edition with codex cc [reads] excogitari. Soon after, codex W [reads] si in place of ubi.
  4. Codd. non consentiunt inter se; maior eorum pars cum ed. 1 exhibet lectionem in textum receptam, alii ut V Z aa bb ff adiungunt unus, alii cum Vat. repetunt Filius. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 11.
    The codices do not agree among themselves; the greater part of them with edition 1 exhibits the reading received into the text, others such as V, Z, aa, bb, ff add unus, others with the Vatican edition repeat Filius. See here the text of the Master, c. 11.
  5. In quarto fundam. praeced. q. — Paulo infra cod. Y haec pro hoc.
    In the fourth fundamentum of the preceding question. — A little below codex Y [reads] haec in place of hoc.
  6. Quaest. 41: Quia non essent omnia, si essent aequalia.
    Question 41: Because all things would not be, if they were equal.
  7. Fide plurimorum mss. et ed. 1 expunximus hic male additum in divinis, sicut et paulo infra post nihil adiunctum est; deinde substituimus repugnat loco repugnet, nec non adiecimus personis ac consequenter delevimus ut superfluum ibi post non est.
    On the authority of most manuscripts and edition 1 we have expunged here the badly added in divinis, as also a little below the est added after nihil; then we have substituted repugnat in place of repugnet, and likewise added personis, and consequently deleted ut as superfluous there after non est.
  8. In cod. bb additur bene quae.
    In codex bb quae is fittingly added.
  9. Quantitas continua est cuius partes copulantur ad eundem terminum communem, seu cuius partes sunt unitae; discreta vero cuius partes sunt ab invicem disiunctae, v. g. numerus. Cfr. Aristot., de Praedicam. c. de Quantitate.
    Continuous quantity is that whose parts are joined to the same common terminus, or whose parts are united; but discrete [quantity] is that whose parts are disjoined from one another, e.g. number. Cf. Aristotle, Categories, chapter on Quantity.
  10. In multis mss. ut A F H I T W X Y Z ee ff et ed. 1 deest quae.
    In many manuscripts such as A, F, H, I, T, W, X, Y, Z, ee, ff, and edition 1, quae is lacking.
  11. Haec propositio colligitur ex Dionys. libr. de Caelest. Hierarch. c. 4. § 1. seq., et de Div. Nom. c. 4. § 1. seqq., ubi dicit, proprium esse divinae bonitati se aliis communicare.
    This proposition is gathered from Dionysius's book On the Celestial Hierarchy c. 4, § 1 ff., and On the Divine Names c. 4, § 1 ff., where he says it is proper to the divine goodness to communicate itself to others.
  12. Codd. H M addunt potentia.
    Codices H and M add potentia.
  13. Auctoritate plurium mss. ut G H I L O Y Z ff substituimus parte pro partem.
    On the authority of several manuscripts such as G, H, I, L, O, Y, Z, ff we have substituted parte for partem.
  14. Codd. L O quam loco quoniam, qui et mox ponunt ostendit remotione pro ostenditur remotio.
    Codices L and O [read] quam in place of quoniam, and they likewise place ostendit remotione for ostenditur remotio.
  15. Cod. W ostenditur.
    Codex W [reads] ostenditur.
  16. Vat. extensiva pro intrinseca, sed obstat auctoritas mss. et ed. 1. Explicationem accipe ex Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 47. m. 5, qui locus hic in Scholio legitur. Omnino idem dicit B. Albert. (S. p. I. tr. 11. q. 47. m. 2): Dicendum, quod in veritate quantitas in creatis, penes quam attenditur aequalitas, duplex est, scil. magnitudinis et virtutis. Et ea quae est magnitudinis duplex est, scil. intus et extra mensurans: intus: longitudo, latitudo, profundum: extra: locus. Similiter esse rei, ut dicit Gilbertus, mora mensuratur; et haec mora est tempus. Quantitas autem virtutis proprie non mensuratur nisi obiecto circa quod est virtus. Et dicimus eos aequales virtute, qui et in aequalia possunt obiecta, sive illa virtus sit intellectualis sive operativa. Cfr. etiam B. Albert., hic a. 3.
    The Vatican edition [reads] extensiva for intrinseca, but the authority of the manuscripts and of edition 1 stands against it. Take the explanation from Alex. of Hales, S. p. I, q. 47, m. 5, which passage is read here in the Scholion. B. Albert (S. p. I, tr. 11, q. 47, m. 2) says altogether the same: It must be said, that in truth the quantity in created [things], with respect to which equality is regarded, is twofold, namely of magnitude and of power. And that which is of magnitude is twofold, namely measuring within and without: within: length, breadth, depth: without: place. Likewise the being of a thing, as Gilbert says, is measured by duration; and this duration is time. But the quantity of power properly is not measured except by the object about which the power is. And we call those equal in power, who can [act] upon equal objects, whether that power is intellectual or operative. Cf. also B. Albert, here a. 3.
  17. Fide mss. et ed. 1 expunximus additum quod.
    On the authority of the manuscripts and of edition 1 we have expunged the added quod.
  18. Mendum Vat., in qua omittitur nisi, correximus ex mss. et ed. 1. Paulo infra cod. 1 deberet loco debet.
    A defect of the Vatican edition, in which nisi is omitted, we have corrected from the manuscripts and edition 1. A little below codex 1 [reads] deberet in place of debet.
  19. Cap. 8. n. 9.
    Chapter 8, n. 9.
  20. Vat. minus congrue et contra antiquiores codd. nec non ed. 1 ut res pro in re.
    The Vatican edition, less fittingly and against the older codices and edition 1, [reads] ut res in place of in re.
  21. Cod. X hoc.
    Codex X [reads] hoc.
  22. Cod. T et loco quia.
    Codex T [reads] et in place of quia.
  23. Vat. cum cod. cc, fundamentum argumentationis repetens, minus bene nec non contra antiquiores codd. cum ed. 1 ergo ratio aequalitatis loco igitur rem.
    The Vatican edition with codex cc, repeating the foundation of the argumentation, less well and against the older codices with edition 1, [reads] ergo ratio aequalitatis in place of igitur rem.
  24. Ex plurimis mss. et ed. 1 supplevimus illud in principio sequentis propositionis ergo.
    From most manuscripts and edition 1 we have supplied illud at the beginning of the following proposition ergo.
  25. Fide plurimorum mss. ut ed. 1 substituimus hic pro haec.
    On the authority of most manuscripts as [also of] edition 1 we have substituted hic in place of haec.
  26. Cod. Y et loco vel.
    Codex Y [reads] et in place of vel.
  27. Vat. cum cod. cc, aliis mss. cum ed. 1 obnitentibus, omittit male in. Mox post diffusio, multis codd. ut A C D E K R S T U X etc. cum edd. 2, 3 consentientibus, posuimus et haec pro et hoc. Dein nonnulli codd. ut A Y sequitur loco consequitur.
    The Vatican edition with codex cc, against the other manuscripts together with edition 1, badly omits in. Soon after diffusio, with many manuscripts such as A, C, D, E, K, R, S, T, U, X etc., together with editions 2 and 3 consenting, we have placed et haec for et hoc. Then some manuscripts such as A and Y [read] sequitur in place of consequitur.
  28. In cod. M additur et.
    In codex M et is added.
  29. Vat. cum uno alterove codice altera. Paulo ante cod. O post ideo adiungit in.
    The Vatican edition with one or another codex [reads] altera. A little before, codex O after ideo adds in.
← Dist. 19, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 1Dist. 19, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 3→