Dist. 19, Part 2, Divisio Textus
Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity · Distinction 19
COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XIX.
Pars II.
De aequalitate probata per exclusionem inaequalitatis.
Sed nunc iam ad propositum redeamus.
HUIUS PARTIS TEXTUM VIDE SUPRA P. 337.
DIVISIO TEXTUS.
Supra ostendit Magister, divinas personas aequari quantum ad magnitudinem positive1 per hoc, quod una essentia est in singulis tota. Hic ostendit, quod est summa in eis aequalitas, et hoc facit excludendo ab eis omnem2 rationem inaequalitatis. Et dividitur haec pars in tres partes. In prima ostendit, quod non cadit ibi ratio totius3 integri. In secunda ostendit, quod non cadit ibi ratio generis et speciei4, ibi: Hic adiiciendum est, quod tanta est aequalitas etc. In tertia ostendit, quod non cadit ibi ratio numeri, ibi: Quod autem Ioannes dicit etc5.
Prima iterum pars habet6 duas. In prima, quia fecerat digressionem, continuat dicta dicendis. In secunda vero ostendit, quod ibi non cadit ratio totius et partis, ibi: Nec est aliqua trium personarum.
Item secunda pars, in qua ostendit, quod in divinis non cadit ratio universalis sive generis et speciei, habet duas partes. In prima ostendit, quod non est in divinis accipere genus nec speciem nec individuum. In secunda vero contra hoc opponit auctoritate Damasceni, ibi: His autem videntur adversari quaedam. Prima habet duas: primo ostendit, quod non est ibi ratio7 generis vel speciei vel individui; secundo, quod non est ibi ratio materialis principii, ibi: Notandum etiam, quod essentia divina non est materia. Similiter pars, in qua obiicit contra hoc, habet duas: in prima ostendit, quod cadit ibi ratio universalis et individui, ratione8 Damasceni; in secunda solvit. Primum facit ibi: His autem videntur adversari etc.; secundum, ibi: Haec autem quae hic dicuntur, licet in singulis sermonibus.
Quod autem Ioannes dicit etc. Haec est tertia particula in qua ostendit, quod in divinis non cadit ratio numeri, et haec pars habet quatuor partes. In prima, praemisso quod in aequalitate personarum non cadit ratio numeri, ostendit, quibus modis differre numero non conveniat personis, et quibus modis conveniat. In secunda ostendit, quod in divinis personis tanta est magnitudo in una persona, quanta in tribus, ibi: Sciendum est ergo. In tertia ostendit, quod Deus non potest dici triplex sive multiplex, ibi: Praeterea, cum Deus dicatur trinus. In quarta ostendit differentiam inter pluralitatem, quae est in Trinitate, et pluralitatem9 quae est in creaturis corporalibus, ultimo capitulo: In rebus corporeis non tantum etc.
Et notandum, quod tota summa et fundamentum totius distinctionis in hoc verbo consistit, quod divina essentia est magnitudo una non multiplicata, et tota non divisa est in qualibet personarum; ideo necesse est, quod personae sint omnino aequales in10 magnitudine. Nec potest ibi cadere ratio totius universalis, quia illud multiplicatur in partibus: nec totius integri, quia illud dividitur in partes nec est totum in qualibet parte; et ita nec ratio materialis principii, nec ratio numeri.
TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.
Ad intelligentiam huius partis quatuor quaeruntur.
Primo, utrum in divinis sit ponere totum integrale.
Secundo, utrum sit ponere totum universale.
Tertio, utrum in divinis personis sit principium materiale.
Quarto, utrum in divinis sit differentia secundum numerum.
---
COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XIX.
Part II.
On equality proved by the exclusion of inequality.
But now let us return to our proposition.
FOR THE TEXT OF THIS PART, SEE ABOVE P. 337.
DIVISION OF THE TEXT.
Above the Master showed that the divine persons are made equal with respect to magnitude positively1 by the fact that one essence is whole in each of them. Here he shows that there is in them the highest equality, and this he does by excluding from them every2 account of inequality. And this part is divided into three parts. In the first he shows that the account of an integral whole3 does not apply there. In the second he shows that the account of genus and species4 does not apply there, at: Here it must be added, that so great is the equality etc. In the third he shows that the account of number does not apply there, at: But what John says etc5.
The first part again has6 two. In the first, because he had made a digression, he connects what has been said with what is to be said. In the second, however, he shows that the account of whole and part does not apply there, at: Nor is any one of the three persons.
Likewise the second part, in which he shows that in divine matters the account of a universal — that is, of genus and species — does not apply, has two parts. In the first he shows that in divine matters one cannot take a genus nor a species nor an individual. In the second, however, he objects against this by the authority of the Damascene, at: But to these things certain things seem to be opposed. The first has two: first he shows that the account7 of genus or species or individual does not apply there; secondly, that the account of a material principle does not apply there, at: It must also be noted, that the divine essence is not matter. Similarly the part in which he objects against this has two: in the first he shows that the account of universal and individual does apply there, by the reasoning8 of the Damascene; in the second he resolves it. He does the first at: But to these things there seem to be opposed etc.; the second, at: But these things which are said here, although in particular discourses.
But what John says etc. This is the third particle in which he shows that in divine matters the account of number does not apply, and this part has four parts. In the first, having premised that in the equality of the persons the account of number does not apply, he shows in which modes differing in number does not befit the persons, and in which modes it does befit them. In the second he shows that in the divine persons there is as much magnitude in one person as in three, at: It must be known therefore. In the third he shows that God cannot be called threefold or manifold, at: Moreover, since God is called triune. In the fourth he shows the difference between the plurality which is in the Trinity and the plurality9 which is in corporeal creatures, in the last chapter: In corporeal things not only etc.
And it must be noted that the whole sum and foundation of the entire distinction consists in this word, that the divine essence is one magnitude not multiplied, and whole undivided in each of the persons; therefore it is necessary that the persons be altogether equal in10 magnitude. Nor can the account of a universal whole apply there, because that is multiplied in its parts; nor of an integral whole, because that is divided into parts and is not whole in each part; and thus neither the account of a material principle, nor the account of number.
TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.
For the understanding of this part four things are asked.
First, whether in divine matters an integral whole is to be posited.
Secondly, whether a universal whole is to be posited.
Thirdly, whether in the divine persons there is a material principle.
Fourthly, whether in divine matters there is difference according to number.
---
- Sequimur maiorem partem codicum addendo positive, pro quo aliqui ut BU aa cc cum ed. 1 potentiae, cod. D et potentiam ponunt. In Vat., fere omnibus mss. et ed. 1 refragantibus, post ad adiicitur aeternitatem et. Paulo ante plures codd. ut A F G H T Z cum ed. 1 aequales loco aequari.We follow the greater part of the codices in adding positive ("positively"), in place of which some such as BU aa cc, with edition 1, put potentiae, codex D puts et potentiam. In the Vatican edition, against the resistance of nearly all the manuscripts and edition 1, after ad there is added aeternitatem et ("eternity and"). A little earlier several codices such as A F G H T Z, with edition 1, [read] aequales in place of aequari.
- Vat. cum aliquibus tantum codicibus minus apte communem pro omnem.The Vatican edition, with only some codices, less aptly [reads] communem in place of omnem.
- Fide plurimorum mss. et ed. 1 expunximus additum et.On the authority of most manuscripts and edition 1 we have expunged the added et.
- Vat. adiunxit vel individui, quod deest in mss.The Vatican edition added vel individui ("or of an individual"), which is missing in the manuscripts.
- Mss. Sciendum igitur est tantam aequalitatem loco Quod autem Ioannes dicit etc.; sed lectio mss. est falsa, quia omittitur capitulum illud, in quo Magister ostendit in divinis non cadere rationem numeri. Idem mendum mss. recurrit paulo infra, ubi huius partis subdivisio datur, et in qua consequenter mss. exhibent tantum tres partes, omissa prima parte, quae est in Vat.The manuscripts [read] Sciendum igitur est tantam aequalitatem in place of Quod autem Ioannes dicit etc.; but the reading of the manuscripts is false, because that chapter is omitted in which the Master shows that the account of number does not apply in divine matters. The same error of the manuscripts recurs a little below, where the subdivision of this part is given, and in which consequently the manuscripts exhibit only three parts, the first part being omitted, which is in the Vatican edition.
- Ex antiquioribus mss. et ed. 1 substituimus habet loco in.From the older manuscripts and edition 1 we have substituted habet in place of in.
- Aliqui tantum mss. cum Vat. natura.Only some manuscripts, with the Vatican edition, [read] natura.
- Plures codd. ut HPQZ cc et ed. 1 auctoritate.Several codices such as HPQZ cc and edition 1 [read] auctoritate.
- Mutila lectio Vat., in qua omittuntur verba quae est in Trinitate et pluralitatem, resarcitur ex mss. et ed. 1, sicut et paulo post substituimus ultimo capitulo loco ibi.The mutilated reading of the Vatican edition, in which the words quae est in Trinitate et pluralitatem ("which is in the Trinity, and the plurality") are omitted, is repaired from the manuscripts and edition 1; just as a little after we substituted ultimo capitulo ("in the last chapter") in place of ibi ("there").
- In Vat. et cod. cc deest in. Paulo ante pauci mss. ut VX indivisa pro non divisa.In the Vatican edition and codex cc the word in is missing. A little earlier a few manuscripts such as VX [read] indivisa in place of non divisa.