Dist. 20, Art. 2, Q. 1
Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity · Distinction 20
ARTICULUS II.
De ordine in divinis.
Consequenter est quaestio secundo loco de secundo articulo, scilicet1 utrum in divinis sit ordo. Et circa hoc quaeruntur duo.
Primo quaeritur, utrum ordo sit ibi2 ponendus.
Secundo, utrum ordo naturae.
QUAESTIO I.
Utrum in divinis sit ratio ordinis.
Quod in divinis sit ordo, ostenditur:
1. Primo per Augustinum contra Maximinum3: «Cum dicitur Filius a Patre, non significatur inaequalitas substantiae, sed ordo naturae».
2. Item, hoc videtur auctoritate Ecclesiae, quia Ecclesia nominationem Trinitatis exprimit ordinate. Dicitur enim in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti, et hic ordo nunquam mutatur: ergo etc.
3. Item, principium dicit rationem ordinis. «Primum enim et principium, dicit Philosophus4, idem dico»; sed in divinis Pater est principium Filii, ergo primus. Sed ubi hoc, ibi ordo: ergo etc.
4. Item, ordo dicit rationem completi esse et boni — «esse enim, ut dicit Boethius5, est quod ordinem retinet servatque naturam»; similiter et bonum — sed in divinis perfectissime est ratio esse et boni: ergo est ibi ratio ordinis.
5. Item, ubicumque sunt plures, inter quos non est ordo, sunt inordinati; sed in divinis personis est pluralitas: ergo si non est ibi ordo, est inordinatio et confusio; sed inordinatio et confusio repugnat6 divinis; ergo est ibi ordo.
Contra: 1. Eusebius7: «In divinis est numerus, sed non ordo».
2. Item, hoc ipsum videtur ex ratione ordinis. Augustinus de civitate Dei8: «Ordo est parium dispariumque sua unicuique tribuens loca dispositio»; sed in divinis non est distinctio locorum: ergo etc.
3. Item, ordo contrariatur simultati9, ergo ubi est ordo, non est omnimoda simultas; sed ubi non est omnimoda simultas, non est perfecta aequalitas: ergo cum in divinis sit omnimoda et perfecta aequalitas, nullus est ibi ordo.
4. Item, si ordo est in divinis, aut est quid essentiale, aut notionale. Non essentiale, quia ubi ordo, ibi distinctio; in divinis autem non est distinctio secundum essentiam: ergo etc. Nec quid notionale, quoniam idem est notio et proprietas, sed ordo nullius personae est proprietas10: ergo etc.
5. Item, ubi est ordo, ibi est dependentia et inclinatio; nihil enim ordinatur ad aliquid, nisi ad illud habeat inclinationem; in divinis autem nulla est dependentia: ergo ibi nullus omnino ordo11.
6. Item, ordo praesupponit numerum; sed in divinis non cadit differentia secundum numerum, ut ostensum est supra12: ergo nec ordo.
CONCLUSIO.
Ordo ponendus est in divinis, sed solummodo ordo secundum originem.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod triplex est ordo, scilicet secundum positionem, secundum antecessionem et secundum originem.
Ordo secundum positionem dicitur aliquorum, quorum unum est superius, aliud inferius. Et hoc potest esse dupliciter: vel in loco, vel in dignitate. Et hic ordo non cadit in divinis, sicut ostendit prima ratio sumta ab Eusebio, et secunda sumta ab Augustino, sicut patet.
Ordo vero secundum antecessionem dicitur esse eorum, quorum unum prius est, alterum vero posterius; et hoc dicitur dupliciter: aut quia antecedit duratione sive tempore, aut prius naturali intelligentia sive cognitione. Et hic ordo non est in divinis, sicut probat ratio tertia, quia hic ordo tollit aequalitatem et simultatem, quorum utrumque perfecte est in divinis.
Ordo autem secundum originem sive secundum emanationem est producentis ad productum13. Et iste ordo est in divinis, quia ibi est ordo principii et
principiati, sive producentis et producti, et hunc ordinem esse in divinis probant rationes primae.
Ad 4. Quod obiicitur quarto, quod ordo non est quid notionale nec essentiale14; dicendum, quod est notionale; sed notionem contingit dupliciter significare: aut sub propria ratione, ut cum dicitur generatio; aut sub communi ratione, communitate, inquam, rationis, ut cum dicitur ordo, notio, proprietas17 — sicut individuum est communis intentio — et sub hac communitate non distinguit, tamen in suis inferioribus distinctionem supponit.
Ad 5. Ad illud quod obiicitur: ubi est ordo, ibi dependentia; dicendum, quod ordo importat habitudinem, et quia habitudo in creaturis ratione imperfectionis dicit dependentiam, ideo in creaturis importat dependentiam; in divinis autem habitudo15 solum ponit comparationem et connexionem et nullam dependentiam et inclinationem: ideo etc.
Ad 6. Ad illud quod ultimo obiicitur, quod ordo praesupponit numerum; dicendum, quod sicut in divinis numerus distrahit16 a ratione numeri, quia ibi est distinctio hypostasum tantum, ita ordo a ratione ordinis simpliciter, quia, quamvis ibi sit ordo, non tamen est ibi antecessio, sed solum originis emanatio.
Vel aliter dicendum, quod non semper praesupponit distinctionem secundum numerum, nisi intelligatur de ordine locali sive secundum positionem. Nam ordo secundum naturam et secundum naturalem intelligentiam attenditur inter superius et inferius, inter quae non cadit numerus. Et ita patet illud.
I. Richard. a Med. (hic q. 3.) dicit: «Ordo simpliciter importat ordinatorum distinctionem et distinctorum mutuam habitudinem prioris et posterioris gradus. Quamvis autem personae inter se sint distinctae et habeant mutuam habitudinem inter se, gradum tamen prioris et posterioris non habent, quia nulla prior est alia duratione nec dignitate nec etiam secundum naturam». Unde merito concludit, quod, sicut in divinis non dici debet numerus nisi cum determinatione, scil. numerus personarum, sic non debet dici, quod in divinis est ordo simpliciter, sed cum determinatione, scil. ordo originis, non quo unus sit prior alio, sed quo unus est ab alio. Eandem sententiam Seraphicus, distinctis variis ordinis speciebus, pluribus conclusionibus tuetur et in solut. ad ult. clarius explicat. Quod hic dicit de numeris iam supra d. 19. p. II. q. 4. probatum est.
II. Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 46. m. I. — Scot., de hac et seqq. Quodlib. q. 1. et 4. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 3; S. I. q. 42. a. 3, q. 33. a. 1. ad 3. — B. Albert., de hac et seq. hic a. 7; S. p. I. tr. 9. q. 41. m. 2. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. unic. a. 4. — Richard. a Med., hic q. 3. — Aegid. R., hic 2. princ. q. unica. — Henr. Gand., S. a. 52. q. 1. — Durand., de hac et seq. hic q. 2. — Dionys. Carth., de hac et seq. [hic].
---
ARTICLE II.
On order in the divine.
Consequently the question is in the second place concerning the second article, namely1 whether in the divine there is order. And concerning this two things are asked.
First it is asked whether order is to be posited there2.
Secondly, whether order of nature.
QUESTION I.
Whether in the divine there is the account of order.
That in the divine there is order, is shown:
1. First through Augustine Against Maximinus3: «When the Son is said to be from the Father, an inequality of substance is not signified, but an order of nature».
2. Likewise, this is seen by the authority of the Church, for the Church expresses the naming of the Trinity in an ordered way. For it is said in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and this order is never changed: therefore etc.
3. Likewise, principle expresses the account of order. «For the first and principle, says the Philosopher4, I call the same»; but in the divine the Father is the principle of the Son, therefore he is first. But where this is, there is order: therefore etc.
4. Likewise, order expresses the account of complete being and of the good — «for being, as Boethius says5, is what retains order and preserves nature»; and likewise the good — but in the divine the account of being and of the good is most perfectly: therefore there is there the account of order.
5. Likewise, wherever there are several things, among which there is no order, they are unordered; but in the divine persons there is plurality: therefore if there is no order there, there is unorderedness and confusion; but unorderedness and confusion is repugnant6 to the divine; therefore there is order there.
On the contrary: 1. Eusebius7: «In the divine there is number, but not order».
2. Likewise, this same thing is seen from the account of order. Augustine On the City of God8: «Order is the disposition assigning to each its own places, of equal and unequal things»; but in the divine there is no distinction of places: therefore etc.
3. Likewise, order is contrary to simultaneity9, therefore where there is order, there is not complete simultaneity; but where there is not complete simultaneity, there is not perfect equality: therefore since in the divine there is complete and perfect equality, there is no order there.
4. Likewise, if order is in the divine, either it is something essential, or notional. Not essential, because where there is order, there is distinction; but in the divine there is no distinction according to essence: therefore etc. Nor [is it] something notional, since notion and property are the same, but order is the property of no person10: therefore etc.
5. Likewise, where there is order, there is dependence and inclination; for nothing is ordered to anything, unless it has an inclination toward it; but in the divine there is no dependence: therefore there is no order at all there11.
6. Likewise, order presupposes number; but in the divine there does not occur difference according to number, as was shown above12: therefore neither order.
CONCLUSION.
Order is to be posited in the divine, but only order according to origin.
I respond: It must be said that order is threefold, namely according to position, according to antecedence, and according to origin.
Order according to position is said of those things of which one is higher, the other lower. And this can be in two ways: either in place, or in dignity. And this order does not occur in the divine, as the first reason taken from Eusebius shows, and the second taken from Augustine, as is plain.
But order according to antecedence is said to be of those things of which one is prior, while the other is posterior; and this is said in two ways: either because it precedes in duration or in time, or [because it is] prior in natural intelligence or cognition. And this order is not in the divine, as the third reason proves, because this order takes away equality and simultaneity, both of which are perfectly in the divine.
But order according to origin or according to emanation is [the order] of the producer to the produced13. And this order is in the divine, because there is there the order of principle and
of that-from-the-principle, or of the producer and the produced; and that this order is in the divine the first reasons prove.
To 4. As to what is objected fourth, that order is neither something notional nor essential14; it must be said that it is notional; but notion can be signified in two ways: either under its proper account, as when one says generation; or under a common account — by community, I say, of account — as when one says order, notion, property17 — just as individual is a common intention — and under this community it does not distinguish, yet in its lower [members] it presupposes distinction.
To 5. To that which is objected: where there is order, there is dependence; it must be said that order imports a relation, and because in creatures relation by reason of imperfection expresses dependence, therefore in creatures it imports dependence; but in the divine, relation15 only posits comparison and connection and no dependence and inclination: therefore etc.
To 6. To that which is objected last, that order presupposes number; it must be said that just as in the divine number is drawn16 away from the account of number, because there is there a distinction of hypostases only, so order [is drawn] from the account of order simply, because, although there is order there, nevertheless there is no antecedence there, but only emanation of origin.
Or otherwise it must be said that [order] does not always presuppose distinction according to number, unless it be understood of local order or [order] according to position. For order according to nature and according to natural intelligence is regarded between higher and lower, between which number does not occur. And so that [argument] is plain.
I. Richard of Mediavilla (here q. 3) says: «Order simply imports the distinction of the things ordered and the mutual relation of the distinct things of a prior and posterior grade. Now although the persons among themselves are distinct and have a mutual relation among themselves, nevertheless they do not have a grade of prior and posterior, because none is prior to another in duration, nor in dignity, nor even according to nature». Whence he rightly concludes that, just as in the divine number ought not to be said except with a determination, namely number of persons, so it ought not to be said that in the divine there is order simply, but with a determination, namely order of origin, not by which one is prior to another, but by which one is from another. The Seraphic Doctor maintains the same opinion, the various species of order being distinguished, with several conclusions, and explains it more clearly in the solution to the last [objection]. What he says here about numbers has already been proved above d. 19, p. II, q. 4.
II. Alex. of Hales, Summa p. I, q. 46, m. I. — Scotus, on this and the following [questions], Quodlibet qq. 1 and 4. — St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 3; Summa I, q. 42, a. 3, q. 33, a. 1, ad 3. — Bl. Albert, on this and the following, here a. 7; Summa p. I, tr. 9, q. 41, m. 2. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. unic., a. 4. — Richard of Mediavilla, here q. 3. — Giles of Rome, here 2. princ., q. unica. — Henry of Ghent, Summa a. 52, q. 1. — Durandus, on this and the following, here q. 2. — Dionysius the Carthusian, on this and the following, [here].
---
- Aliqui codd. ut Y Z cum ed. 1 illud. Mox post potentiam in cod. bb additur vel naturam.Some codices such as Y Z with edition 1 [read] illud. Next, after potentiam, in codex bb there is added vel naturam.
- Ex mss. et ed. 1 substituimus ibi loco in divinis, quod et paulo infra post Secundo, utrum Vat. praeter fidem mss. et ed. 1 addit.From the manuscripts and edition 1 we have substituted ibi ("there") in place of in divinis ("in the divine"), which the Vatican edition, against the authority of the manuscripts and edition 1, also adds a little below after Secundo, utrum.
- Libr. II. c. 14. n. 8. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 3. circa finem. — Ex cod. T posuimus contra loco ad. Vat., obnitentibus mss. et ed. 1, post Maximinum addit ubi dicit.Book II, c. 14, n. 8. See here the littera of the Master, c. 3, near the end. — From codex T we have placed contra in place of ad. The Vatican edition, with the manuscripts and edition 1 resisting, after Maximinum adds ubi dicit ("where he says").
- Libr. I. Poster. c. 2. — Totum hoc tertium argumentum abest a Vat. et cod. cc, exstat tamen in aliis mss. et ed. 1.Book I Posterior [Analytics], c. 2. — This whole third argument is absent from the Vatican edition and codex cc, but is extant in the other manuscripts and in edition 1.
- Libr. IV. de Consol. Prosa 2.Book IV On Consolation, Prose 2.
- Cod. V repugnant.Codex V [reads] repugnant ("are repugnant").
- Colligitur ex libro S. Eusebii Vercellens. de Trin. Confessione, ubi n. 8. ait: «Haec ergo sancta Trinitas, quae unus est et verus Deus, non recedit a numero nec capitur numero. In relatione enim personarum numerus cernitur. In divinitatis vero substantia quid innumeratum sit, non comprehenditur». Et ibid. n. 10: «Nec tamen tres istae personae separabiles existimandae sunt, cum nulla ante aliam, nulla post aliam, nulla sine alia vel exstitisse vel quidpiam operasse aliquando credatur».It is gathered from the book of St. Eusebius of Vercelli On the Confession of the Trinity, where in n. 8 he says: «This holy Trinity therefore, which is one and true God, neither departs from number nor is grasped by number. For in the relation of the persons number is discerned. But in the substance of the divinity what is unnumbered is not comprehended». And in the same place, n. 10: «Nor however are these three persons to be esteemed separable, since none is believed ever to have existed or to have done anything before another, after another, or without another».
- Libr. XIX. c. 13. n. 1, ubi Vat. falso partium disparium loco parium dispariumque. Mox cod. V dispositio pro distinctio.Book XIX, c. 13, n. 1, where the Vatican edition wrongly [reads] partium disparium in place of parium dispariumque. Next codex V [reads] dispositio in place of distinctio.
- Cfr. Aristot., de Praedicam. c. de Priori et Simul.Cf. Aristotle, Categories, chapter On the Prior and the Simultaneous.
- Cod. X, addito in principio huius argumenti tertio disiunctionis membro, scil. aut personale, hic adiungit Item non personale, quia ordo est communis, persona non. Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 46. m. 1. in simili obiectione tria membra ponit, scil. aut est essentia aut persona aut notio, et respectu secundi membri ait: «Item nec potest dici, quod iste ordo sit persona, immo est personarum, quia dicit habitudinem personarum ad personas». Et B. Albert., S. p. I. tract. 9. q. 41. m. 2. a. 1. tria obiectionis membra proferens, de secundo ait: «Nec (ordo dicit) personam: ordo enim personarum est, persona autem personarum non est; sicut non sunt ordinata ordo, sed ordo est ordinatorum». Attamen iam per se manifestum est, quod ordo non dicit personam; unde hoc divisionis membrum omitti potuit; vel dic, quod sub notionali comprehenditur personale.Codex X, with a third member of the disjunction added at the beginning of this argument, namely or personal, here adjoins Likewise not personal, because order is common, person is not. Alexander of Hales, Summa p. I, q. 46, m. 1, in a similar objection puts forward three members, namely either it is essence or person or notion, and with respect to the second member he says: «Likewise neither can it be said that this order is a person, rather it is of persons, because it expresses the relation of persons to persons». And Bl. Albert, Summa p. I, tract. 9, q. 41, m. 2, a. 1, putting forward three members of the objection, says of the second: «Nor (does order express) a person: for order is of persons, but person is not of persons; just as the things ordered are not order, but order is of the things ordered». Yet it is already manifest of itself that order does not express a person; whence this member of the division could be omitted; or say that under notional the personal is comprehended.
- Nonnulli codd. ut V Z praemittunt verbum est.Some codices such as V Z prefix the word est.
- Dist. 19. p. II. q. 4.Distinction 19, part II, question 4.
- In codd. aa bb additur et hoc dupliciter: vel secundum quod unum est ab alio essentialiter, et sic non est in divinis, sed solum in his inferioribus; vel secundum quod unum est ab alio personaliter tantum.In codices aa bb there is added and this in two ways: either according as one is from another essentially, and thus it is not in the divine, but only in these lower [things]; or according as one is from another personally only.
- Plurimi codd. cum edd. 1, 2, 3 loco essentiale ponunt personale, quod vel est lapsus librariorum, vel signum, quod hic et in ipsa obiectione tertium divisionis membrum, ut non necessario enumerandum, omissum sit, sicut supra a nobis fide codicis X observatum est. — Paulo ante fide antiquiorum mss. et ed. 1 delevimus Ad illud, quod Vat. verbis quod obiicitur praefigit. Mox cod. A notionale pro notionem.Very many codices with editions 1, 2, 3 in place of essentiale put personale, which is either a slip of the scribes, or a sign that here, and in the objection itself, the third member of the division was omitted as not necessarily to be enumerated, as has been observed above by us on the testimony of codex X. — A little before, on the testimony of the older manuscripts and edition 1, we have deleted Ad illud, which the Vatican edition prefixes to the words quod obiicitur. Next codex A [reads] notionale in place of notionem.
- Vat. cum cod. cc, aliis tamen codd. cum ed. 1 reluctantibus, omittit hic habitudo et paulo infra ideo.The Vatican edition with codex cc, with the other codices and edition 1 nevertheless resisting, here omits habitudo, and a little below ideo.
- Cod. X distrahitur, scilicet numerus in divinis trahitur a sensu proprio ad improprium. Cfr. supra d. 19. p. II. q. 4, et dub. 2.Codex X [reads] distrahitur, namely numerus in divinis trahitur a sensu proprio ad improprium ("number in the divine is drawn from a proper to an improper sense"). Cf. above d. 19, p. II, q. 4, and dub. 2.
- In codd. aa bb additur principium, cuius mentionem facit et S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 3. ad 4.In codices aa bb there is added principium ("principle"), which St. Thomas also mentions, here q. 1, a. 3, ad 4.