Dist. 19, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 3
Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity · Distinction 19
QUAESTIO III.
Utrum aequalitas divinarum personarum sit reciproca.
Tertio quaeritur, utrum in divinis sit aequalitas cum conversione. Et quod non, videtur hoc modo.
1. Chrysostomus1 super illud ad Hebraeos primo: Qui cum sit splendor etc.: «Filius est aequalis Patri, non Pater Filio».
2. Item, Hilarius2: «Imago, si perfecte implet illud cuius est ipsa, coaequatur ei, non illud suae [imagini]».
3. Item, Augustinus in primo libro de Doctrina christiana3: «In Patre unitas, in Filio aequalitas»: ergo videtur, quod Pater non sit aequalis Filio, ut Filius Patri.
4. Item, Dionysius4: «In causalibus et causatis non recipimus reciprocationem»; sed Pater est principium Filii: ergo etc.
Contra: 1. Omne relativum aequiparantiae denominat extrema secundum modum consimilem5; sed aequalitas est relatio aequiparantiae: ergo similis reciprocatio.
2. Item, unum in quantitate facit aequalitatem; sed sicut Filius est unum cum Patre, ita Pater unum cum Filio quantum ad substantiam et quantitatem: ergo sicut Filius est aequalis Patri, ita Pater Filio: ergo est ibi reciprocatio.
3. Item, aequalitas mutua et reciprocata6 maior est quam non reciprocata: ergo si in divinis est summa aequalitas, patet etc.
4. Item, omne quantum comparatum quanto aut est maius, aut minus, aut aequale; sed Pater est quantus virtute, et similiter Filius: aut ergo Pater est maior virtute Filio, aut minor, aut aequalis; sed non maior aut minor: ergo aequalis7.
CONCLUSIO.
Relatio aequalitatis in divinis est reciproca; sed actus coaequationis non dicitur de Patre respectu Filii.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod aequalitas est ibi cum conversione8, non tantum quia divina, sed etiam quia aequalitas de sui ratione dicit reciprocationem in quantum aequalitas. Et9 secundum hoc credendum est, quod Pater est aequalis Filio et Filius Patri.
Et ad intelligentiam obiectorum notandum10, quod dupliciter est loqui de aequalitate: aut prout dicit respectum aequiparantiae, aut prout ultra respectum concernit actum coaequationis11. In quantum dicit respectum aequiparantiae, sicut ostendunt rationes, necesse est, quod sit ibi reciprocatio; sed in quantum ulterius concernit actum coaequationis, sic dicit rationem imitationis: et sic non convenit Patri respectu Filii, quia importaret subauctoritatem in Patre12. Unde non dicitur Pater coaequari Filio, quia Filium non imitatur nec perfecte nec imperfecte. Et est simile, si dicatur: hoc cum illo. Potest enim dupliciter intelligi: aut13 prout dicit duorum coniunctionem; et sic de necessitate attenditur secundum conversionem; si enim iste vadit cum illo, necesse est etiam, quod verum sit e converso. Alio modo hoc cum illo dicit associationem, et ita quandam subauctoritatem in associante; et sic dicitur, quod miles vadit cum rege, non e converso, quia miles associat regem14, non e converso. Similiter intelligendum est in aequalitate.
Ad 1, 2, 3, 4. Et ex his patent auctoritates Sanctorum, quia15 loquuntur de aequalitate secundo modo, praeter illam Dionysii, ad quam respondendum, quod non habet locum in proposito, quia Dionysius loquitur proprie de causa, secundum quod causa dicitur illud cuius esse sequitur aliud16, et ita differt per essentiam ab effectu, et hoc modo non cadit in Deo respectu personae.
I. Aequalitas conversim dicta idem est ac mutua sive reciproca. — Distinctionem inter simplicem relationem aequalitatis et aequalitatem cum actu coaequationis Sanctus adhibet etiam infra d. 31. p. 1. q. 3. Eandem habet etiam S. Thom. et Alex. Hal. locis infr. citt. et etiam Richard., qui ad mentem S. Thom. quoad aequalitatem cum actu coaequationis addit: «Sed quia de virtute sermonis hoc nomen aequale non videtur importare nisi relationem aequiparantiae, quia quod importet coaequationem videtur magis ex modo loquendi, secundum quem non consuevimus proprie dicere veritatem: rex est cum milite, sed miles est cum rege; ideo de virtute sermonis, nisi essent auctoritates, quae videntur sonare ad contrarium, videretur posse concedi simpliciter, quod Pater est aequalis Filio».
II. Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 54. m. 1. a. 2. 3. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 2; S. I. q. 42. a. 1. ad 3. — B. Albert., hic a. 4; S. p. I. tr. II. q. 47. m. 3. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 2. — Aegid. R., hic 1. princ. q. 2. — Henr. Gand., S. a. 68. q. 2.
---
QUESTION III.
Whether the equality of the divine persons is reciprocal.
Thirdly it is asked, whether in divine matters there is equality with convertibility. And that there is not, seems [to be shown] in this manner.
1. Chrysostom1 on that text to the Hebrews 1: Who, since he is the splendor etc.: «The Son is equal to the Father, [but] not the Father to the Son».
2. Likewise, Hilary2: «An image, if it perfectly fulfils that of which it is itself [the image], is coequated to it, not it to its [image]».
3. Likewise, Augustine in the first book On Christian Doctrine3: «In the Father is unity, in the Son equality»: therefore it seems that the Father is not equal to the Son as the Son [is equal] to the Father.
4. Likewise, Dionysius4: «In causes and things caused we do not admit reciprocation»; but the Father is the principle of the Son: therefore etc.
On the contrary: 1. Every relative of equiparance denominates its extremes according to a like manner5; but equality is a relation of equiparance: therefore there is a like reciprocation.
2. Likewise, oneness in quantity makes equality; but just as the Son is one with the Father, so the Father [is] one with the Son with respect to substance and quantity: therefore just as the Son is equal to the Father, so the Father [is equal] to the Son: therefore there is reciprocation there.
3. Likewise, mutual and reciprocated6 equality is greater than equality not reciprocated: therefore if in divine matters there is the highest equality, it is plain etc.
4. Likewise, every quantum compared to a quantum either is greater, or less, or equal; but the Father is a quantum in power, and likewise the Son: therefore either the Father is greater in power than the Son, or less, or equal; but not greater or less: therefore equal7.
CONCLUSION.
The relation of equality in divine matters is reciprocal; but the act of coequation is not said of the Father with respect to the Son.
I respond: It must be said that equality is there with convertibility8, not only because they are divine, but also because equality from its own account expresses reciprocation insofar as it is equality. And9 according to this it must be believed that the Father is equal to the Son and the Son to the Father.
And for the understanding of the objections it must be noted10 that there is a twofold way of speaking of equality: either as it expresses the regard of equiparance, or as beyond the regard it concerns the act of coequation11. Insofar as it expresses the regard of equiparance, as the reasons show, it is necessary that there be reciprocation there; but insofar as it further concerns the act of coequation, it then expresses the account of imitation: and thus it does not belong to the Father with respect to the Son, because it would imply a sub-authority in the Father12. Hence the Father is not said to be coequated to the Son, because he does not imitate the Son either perfectly or imperfectly. And it is similar, if it be said: this [is] with that. For it can be understood in two ways: either13 as it expresses a conjunction of two; and thus of necessity it is taken according to convertibility; for if this one goes with that one, it is necessary also that the converse be true. In another way this with that expresses association, and thus a certain sub-authority in the one associating; and thus it is said that the soldier goes with the king, not the converse, because the soldier associates the king14, not the converse. The like is to be understood concerning equality.
To 1, 2, 3, 4. And from these the authorities of the Saints are clear, because15 they speak of equality in the second way, except that of Dionysius, to which it must be responded that it has no place in our proposition, because Dionysius speaks properly of cause, according as that is called cause whose being some other follows16, and thus it differs by essence from its effect, and in this way it does not occur in God with respect to a person.
I. Equality said convertibly is the same as mutual or reciprocal. — The distinction between the simple relation of equality and equality with the act of coequation the Saint employs also below in d. 31, p. 1, q. 3. The same is held also by St. Thomas and Alexander of Hales in the places cited below, and also by Richard, who in line with the mind of St. Thomas, regarding equality with the act of coequation, adds: «But because by force of the expression this name equal does not seem to import anything but the relation of equiparance, because the fact that it should import coequation seems [to depend] rather on the manner of speaking, according to which we are not accustomed properly to say truly: the king is with the soldier, but the soldier is with the king; therefore by force of the expression, were there not authorities which seem to sound to the contrary, it would seem that one could simply concede that the Father is equal to the Son».
II. Alexander of Hales, Summa p. I, q. 54, m. 1, aa. 2, 3. — St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 2; Summa I, q. 42, a. 1, ad 3. — Bl. Albert, here a. 4; Summa p. I, tr. II, q. 47, m. 3. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 3. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1, q. 2. — Giles of Rome, here, 1st principal, q. 2. — Henry of Ghent, Summa a. 68, q. 2.
---
- Homilia 2. ad Hebr. n. 2. ait: «Per splendorem vero aequalitatem ostendit et eius cum Patre propinquitatem... Deinde subiunxit: Et character seu figura. Figura enim seu character est alius ab exemplari prototypo; alius autem non omnino, sed in eo quod attinet ad hypostasin. Nam hic quoque character ostendit, nullam esse diversitatem, sed plane in omnibus perfectam similitudinem eius cuius est character et figura». In Comment. super IV. libr. Sent. ad Hannibaldum Hannibaldensem Romanum, quod inter opera S. Thomae habetur, hic q. 1. a. 2. idem textus occurrit et Glossae Chrysostomi adscribitur. Sed verbotenus in Glossa ordinaria non invenitur. In fine Glossae dicitur: «Splendor autem et figura sicut et imago proprie ad personam Filii referuntur et relative dicuntur». — Homil. 75. (al. 74.) n. 4. in Ioan. a Chrysostomo dicitur: «Si quis vero dixerit, maiorem esse Patrem, ut Filii principium, non huic contradicemus. At hoc non facit Filium alterius esse substantiae». Quae verba sicut et ea quae ex Glossa sunt allegata, eatenus hic attentione digna sunt, quia S. Bonav. in corp. quaest. conceptibus imitationis et subauctoritatis utitur ad stabiliendam secundam conclusionis partem, scil. sub aliquo respectu inter Patrem et Filium non esse aequalitatem mutuam.Homily 2 on Hebrews, n. 2, says: «By splendor he shows the equality and his nearness to the Father... Then he added: And character or figure. For the figure or character is other than the prototypal exemplar; yet not wholly other, but in what pertains to hypostasis. For here too the character shows that there is no diversity, but plainly in all things a perfect likeness of that of which it is the character and figure». In the Commentary on the Four Books of the Sentences to Hannibald the Hannibaldensian, of Rome, which is held among the works of St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 2, the same text occurs and is ascribed to a Gloss of Chrysostom. But verbatim it is not found in the ordinary Gloss. At the end of the Gloss it is said: «Splendor and figure, as also image, are properly referred to the person of the Son and are said relatively». — Homily 75 (al. 74), n. 4, on John, by Chrysostom, it is said: «If anyone shall say that the Father is greater, as the principle of the Son, we will not contradict this. But this does not make the Son to be of another substance». Which words, like those alleged from the Gloss, are worthy of attention here insofar as St. Bonaventure in the body of the question uses the concepts of imitation and sub-authority to establish the second part of the conclusion, namely that under a certain respect there is not between the Father and the Son a mutual equality.
- August., VI. de Trin. c. 10. n. 11, sententiam Hilarii de his tribus nominibus, quae Trinitati appropriantur: aeternitas, imago et munus, referens proponit ista verba de imagine. Vide infra d. XXXI. p. II. in princ. lit. Magistri.Augustine, VI On the Trinity, c. 10, n. 11, reporting the opinion of Hilary on these three names which are appropriated to the Trinity — eternity, image, and gift — sets forth these words concerning the image. See below, d. XXXI, p. II, at the beginning of the text of the Master.
- Cap. 5. n. 5.Chapter 5, n. 5.
- De Div. Nom. c. 9. § 6, ubi initium huius textus in Graeco sic exhibetur Ἐπὶ δὲ τοῦ αἰτίου καὶ τῶν αἰτιατῶν, quod diverse a diversis transfertur; codd. cum ed. 1 praestant lectionem in textum receptam; Vat. loco causalibus ponit causis.On the Divine Names c. 9, § 6, where the beginning of this text is given in Greek thus: Ἐπὶ δὲ τοῦ αἰτίου καὶ τῶν αἰτιατῶν, which is variously translated by various [translators]; the manuscripts with edition 1 furnish the reading received into the text; the Vatican edition in place of causalibus puts causis.
- Relatio aequiparantiae communiter definitur: est ea cuius extrema sunt eiusdem rationis seu eodem nomine nominantur, v. g. amicus (est enim amicus amici amicus), similis, aequalis; huic opponitur relatio disquiparantiae, i. e. cuius extrema sunt alterius rationis, ut relatio patris ad filium.A relation of equiparance is commonly defined: it is that whose extremes are of the same account or are named by the same name, e.g. friend (for a friend is a friend of a friend), like, equal; opposed to it is the relation of disquiparance, i.e. one whose extremes are of another account, as the relation of father to son.
- Postulantibus antiquioribus mss. et ed. 1, substituimus reciprocata pro reciproca.At the request of the older manuscripts and edition 1, we have substituted reciprocata for reciproca.
- Mutila lectio Vat. et cod. cc, in qua verba sed non maior aut minor: ergo aequalis omittuntur, resarcitur ope vetustiorum mss. et ed. 1.[?]The mutilated reading of the Vatican edition and codex cc, in which the words sed non maior aut minor: ergo aequalis are omitted, is repaired by the help of the older manuscripts and edition 1.[?]
- Sequimur codd. I Z addendo cum conversione, quia de hoc S. Doctor principaliter quaestionem instituit, quod tamen in aliis mss. et Vat. nec non ed. 1 perperam deest. Cod. H (primitus) et K reciproca pro cum conversione; cod. T (in marg. a posteriore manu) reciproca sive cum conversione. Mox post quia aequalitas fide mss. et edd. 1, 2, 3 expunximus et cum aequalitas, quo addito subnexa perturbentur necesse est.We follow codices I, Z by adding cum conversione, because the Holy Doctor principally institutes the question concerning this, which nevertheless in the other manuscripts and the Vatican edition and edition 1 is wrongly missing. Codex H (originally) and K [read] reciproca in place of cum conversione; codex T (in the margin by a later hand) reciproca sive cum conversione. Soon after quia aequalitas, on the testimony of the manuscripts and editions 1, 2, 3 we have struck out et cum aequalitas; if it were added the subsequent text would necessarily be disturbed.
- Supplevimus ex antiquioribus mss. et ed. 1 Et, et paulo infra post Pater fide mss. et sex primarum edd. adiecimus est. Plures codd. ut F M T Z aa bb ee concedendum loco credendum.From the older manuscripts and edition 1 we have supplied Et, and a little below, after Pater, on the testimony of the manuscripts and the first six editions we have added est. Several codices such as F, M, T, Z, aa, bb, ee [read] concedendum in place of credendum.
- In cod. V additur est.In codex V est is added.
- Passivo modo sumtum.Taken in a passive sense.
- Lectio mss. et sex primarum edd. quia importat auctoritatem in Patre contextui repugnat. Mox plures codd. ut A B C O L O R S V Y Z proprie loco perfecte. Paulo infra Vat. cum cod. cc, aliis codd. cum ed. 1 obnitentibus, incongrue addit sic post Et. Dein in cod. T a manu suppari in margine post cum illo adiungitur vadit, forsan propter subnexa; in qua lectione melius hic poneretur pro hoc.The reading of the manuscripts and the first six editions, quia importat auctoritatem in Patre ("because it imports authority in the Father"), is repugnant to the context. Soon after, several codices such as A, B, C, O, L, O, R, S, V, Y, Z [read] proprie in place of perfecte. A little below, the Vatican edition with codex cc, against the other codices with edition 1, incongruously adds sic after Et. Then in codex T by a near-contemporary hand, in the margin after cum illo, vadit is appended, perhaps on account of what follows; in which reading it would better be put here in place of hoc.
- Plures codd. ut A C F L O R S T W etc. omittunt aut, pro quo cod. U habet scilicet.Several codices such as A, C, F, L, O, R, S, T, W, etc. omit aut, for which codex U has scilicet.
- Id est, se socium adiungit regi. Cfr. Robertus, Thesaurus linguae lat., voc. associare. — In Vat. et cod. cc male desunt verba quia miles usque e converso, quae tamen exstant in antiquioribus mss. et ed. 1. Mox, mss. et edd. 1, 2, 3 consentientibus, substituimus in loco cum.That is, he joins himself as companion to the king. Cf. Robertus, Thesaurus of the Latin language, s.v. associare. — In the Vatican edition and codex cc the words quia miles through e converso are wrongly missing, which nevertheless are extant in the older manuscripts and edition 1. Soon after, with the manuscripts and editions 1, 2, 3 in agreement, we have substituted in in place of cum.
- Codd. dissentiunt inter se; alii ut F G H ee cum ed. 1 exhibent lectionem in textum receptam; alii ut A I K S T W Y ff ponunt qui, Vat. quae loco quia.The codices disagree among themselves; some like F, G, H, ee with edition 1 present the reading received into the text; others like A, I, K, S, T, W, Y, ff put qui; the Vatican edition [puts] quae in place of quia.
- Cfr. supra pag. 120. nota 7.Cf. above, p. 120, note 7.