← Back to Distinction 21

Dist. 21, Art. 2, Q. 2

Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity · Distinction 21

Textus Latinus
p. 384

QUAESTIO II.

Utrum dictio exclusiva solus vere addatur termino personali respectu praedicati communis.

Secundo quaeritur, utrum dictio exclusiva vere addatur termino personali respectu praedicati1 communis, ut vere dicatur: solus Pater est Deus. Et quod sic, videtur auctoritate et ratione.

1. Auctoritate sic: Ecclesia cantat: «Tu solus altissimus, Iesu Christe2»; et illud: «Deo Patri sit gloria eiusque soli Filio», et consimiles multae inveniuntur.

2. Item, Matthaei undecimo3: Nemo novit Filium nisi Pater; sed nemo nisi Pater et solus Pater convertuntur: ergo solus Pater novit, et hoc praedicatum est essentiale: ergo etc.

3. Item, ratione videtur, quia dictio exclusiva addita alicui non excludit nisi alium; sed tres personae non habent alietatem respectu praedicati substantialis: ergo addita uni non excludit aliam respectu talis praedicati; sed si non excludit, locutio est vera: ergo etc.

4. Item, dictio exclusiva addita alicui non excludit quod est in eo ut pars, ut addita4 Petro non excludit pedem Petri: ergo cum maiori identitate sit Filius in Patre quam pes in Petro, addita Patri, non excludit Filium.

Contra:

1. Nec Pater solus nec Filius solus nec Spiritus sanctus solus Deus est: ergo non vere additur respectu termini communis.

2. Item, omnis propositio, in qua praedicatum communius est subiecto, addita exclusione ad subiectum, est falsa, quia nullum tale praecise convenit subiecto; sed talis est haec et consimiles: solus Pater est Deus: ergo etc.

3. Item, dictio exclusiva addita alicui excludit omne illud quod ponit associationem cum termino; et hoc patet, quia privat associationem; sed Filius ponit associationem cum Patre: unde Pater cum Filio est Pater cum alio.

4. Item, dictio exclusiva excludit omne aliud, et maxime oppositum; sed relativa sunt una differentia oppositionis5; ergo addita uni relativo excludit aliud: ergo addita Patri excludit Filium; et si hoc, omnes tales sunt falsae.

CONCLUSIO.

Dictio exclusiva addita termino personali respectu praedicati communis tunc admitti potest, si removet formam subiecti ab aliis; non vero, si removet formam praedicati.

Respondeo: Dicendum6, quod hic est duplex positio. Quidam enim simpliciter et sine distinctione concedunt has et consimiles: solus Pater est Deus; et positio eorum est, quod dictio exclusiva addita uni relativorum non excludit reliquum. Et ratio huius positionis est, quia7 non excludit quod consequitur ad terminum et intelligitur in termino, ut addita homini non excludit animal. Sed unum relativorum intelligitur in altero et consequitur ad alterum: ergo addita uni non excludit alterum. Et si opponatur, quod solus excludit oppositum, dicunt, quod relativa et8 sunt differentiae oppositionis et entis: oppositionis, secundum quod ad idem; et

p. 385

sic addita uni excludit aliud; unde sequitur: iste est tantum Pater, ergo non est Filius. Secundum9 quod ad diversos comparantur, sunt differentiae entis; et sic posito uno, ponitur et reliquum; et ideo unum non excluditur ab alio, quia dictio exclusiva illud10 solum aliud excludit, quod non necessario concomitatur.

Sed haec positio non videtur conveniens. Dictio enim exclusiva privat associationem: ergo excludit omne illud quod ponit circa ipsam associationem; et ideo addita Patri excludit Filium.

Et propter hoc alia est opinio, quod dictio exclusiva addita Patri excludit Filium; et haec positio magis est probabilis. Secundum hanc positionem procedendo, distinguendae sunt huiusmodi locutiones, secundum quod distinguit Augustinus, et Magister tangit11; quia solus potest facere exclusionem respectu compositionis intellectae circa subiectum, vel respectu compositionis principalis. Si primo modo, tunc est sensus: solus Pater est Deus, id est ille qui solus est Pater, est Deus; et tunc removet formam termini subiecti ab aliis, non formam praedicati; et sub hoc sensu verae sunt omnes. Et sub hoc sensu accipit Augustinus12: «Solus Spiritus sanctus est tantus, quantus est Pater et Filius».

Si autem faciat exclusionem respectu principalis compositionis, locutio est falsa, et omnes falsae sunt, proprie loquendo, nisi addatur determinatio, ut arctetur exclusio, ut patet, cum dicitur: «Tu solus altissimus, Iesu Christe, cum sancto Spiritu». Similiter13: «Deo Patri sit gloria eiusque soli Filio» etc14.

1. Et sic patet primum.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur secundo, quod solus Pater aequipollet huic: nemo nisi Pater; dicendum, quod falsum est; quia nemo distribuit pro natura, non pro persona; solus autem additur termino personali, ideo excludit personam; ideo proprie loquendo, haec est falsa: solus Pater novit Filium, quamvis haec sit vera: nemo novit Filium nisi Pater, quia sensus est: nemo, id est nulla natura15, nisi ille qui est eiusdem naturae, ut Pater.

3. 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod dictio exclusiva excludit alium; dicendum, quod excludit omne aliud vel alium, quod non praedicatur nec subiicitur, sed associatur, sive sit aliud in forma, sive in supposito. Et quoniam Pater cum Filio respectu praedicati substantialis associatur16, ideo respectu illius excluduntur invicem; et quia pars non associatur, ideo non excluditur. Unde identitas maior vel minor nihil facit ad exclusionem, sed ratio associandi vel non associandi. Et si obiiciat17, quod addita definito non excludit definitionem, et antecedenti, non excludit consequens; breviter dicendum, quod si consequens ita sequitur, quod non ponat associationem, et definitio non claudat in se diversum, tunc non excludit. Si vero aliter est, tunc excludit, et contradictorie opposita implicantur in antecedente: unde hic implicatur contradictio: tantum Pater est. Huic autem positioni concordat Augustinus18, qui negat hanc: solus Pater est Deus, et consimiles.

---

English Translation

QUESTION II.

Whether the exclusive word solus is truly added to a personal term in respect of a common predicate.

Secondly it is asked whether the exclusive word is truly added to a personal term in respect of a common predicate1, so that it is truly said: the Father alone is God. And that this is so seems [to be the case] by authority and by reason.

1. By authority thus: the Church sings: «Thou alone [art] Most High, Jesus Christ2»; and that [verse]: «To God the Father be glory and to His only Son»; and many similar [formulae] are found.

2. Likewise, Matthew eleven3: No one knows the Son except the Father; but no one except the Father and the Father alone are convertible: therefore the Father alone knows, and this predicate is essential: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, by reason it appears [thus], because an exclusive word added to something does not exclude anything except another; but the three persons do not have otherness in respect of a substantial predicate: therefore added to one it does not exclude another in respect of such a predicate; but if it does not exclude, the locution is true: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, an exclusive word added to something does not exclude what is in it as a part, just as added4 to Peter it does not exclude the foot of Peter: therefore since the Son is in the Father with greater identity than the foot is in Peter, added to the Father it does not exclude the Son.

On the contrary:

1. Neither the Father alone nor the Son alone nor the Holy Spirit alone is God: therefore it is not truly added in respect of a common term.

2. Likewise, every proposition in which the predicate is more common than the subject, with an exclusion added to the subject, is false, because no such [predicate] precisely belongs to the subject; but such is this and similar [propositions]: the Father alone is God: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, an exclusive word added to something excludes everything that posits association with the term; and this is plain, because it deprives [it] of association; but the Son posits association with the Father: hence the Father with the Son is the Father with another.

4. Likewise, an exclusive word excludes everything else, and most of all the opposite; but relatives are one differentia of opposition5; therefore added to one relative it excludes the other: therefore added to the Father it excludes the Son; and if so, all such [propositions] are false.

CONCLUSION.

An exclusive word added to a personal term in respect of a common predicate can then be admitted, if it removes the form of the subject from others; but not if it removes the form of the predicate.

I respond: It must be said6 that here there is a twofold position. For some without qualification and without distinction concede these and similar [propositions]: the Father alone is God; and their position is that an exclusive word added to one of relatives does not exclude the other. And the reason for this position is that7 it does not exclude what follows upon the term and is understood in the term, just as added to man it does not exclude animal. But one of relatives is understood in the other and follows upon the other: therefore added to one it does not exclude the other. And if it be objected that solus excludes the opposite, they say that relatives both8 are differentiae of opposition and of being: of opposition, insofar as [referred] to the same; and

so added to one it excludes the other; whence it follows: this one is only Father, therefore he is not Son. Insofar as9 they are compared to diverse [things], they are differentiae of being; and so when one is posited, the other also is posited; and therefore one is not excluded by the other, because the exclusive word excludes only that10 other [thing] which does not necessarily accompany [it].

But this position does not seem fitting. For the exclusive word deprives [a term] of association: therefore it excludes everything that posits with respect to the association itself; and therefore added to the Father it excludes the Son.

And on account of this there is another opinion, that an exclusive word added to the Father excludes the Son; and this position is more probable. Proceeding according to this position, locutions of this sort must be distinguished, in the way Augustine distinguishes and the Master touches upon11; because solus can effect an exclusion in respect of a composition understood concerning the subject, or in respect of the principal composition. If in the first way, then the sense is: the Father alone is God, that is, He who alone is the Father, is God; and then it removes the form of the subject term from others, not the form of the predicate; and under this sense all are true. And under this sense Augustine takes [it]12: «The Holy Spirit alone is as great as the Father and the Son [together]».

But if it makes an exclusion in respect of the principal composition, the locution is false, and all are false, properly speaking, unless a determination is added so that the exclusion may be restricted, as is plain, when it is said: «Thou alone [art] Most High, Jesus Christ, with the Holy Spirit». Likewise13: «To God the Father be glory and to His only Son» etc14.

1. And so the first is plain.

2. To that which is objected secondly, that the Father alone is equivalent to this: no one except the Father; it must be said that it is false; because nemo (no one) is distributed for nature, not for person; but solus is added to a personal term, therefore it excludes a person; therefore properly speaking, this is false: the Father alone knows the Son, although this is true: no one knows the Son except the Father, because the sense is: no one, that is, no nature15, except the one who is of the same nature, as the Father.

3. 4. To that which is objected, that an exclusive word excludes another; it must be said that it excludes everything else (aliud) or another (alium) which is neither predicated nor made subject, but is associated, whether it be other in form or in supposit. And since the Father is associated16 with the Son in respect of a substantial predicate, therefore in respect of that one they exclude one another; and because a part is not associated, therefore it is not excluded. Hence greater or lesser identity does nothing toward exclusion, but [only] the ground of associating or not associating. And if it be objected17, that added to a defined term it does not exclude the definition, and to an antecedent it does not exclude the consequent; briefly it must be said that if the consequent so follows that it does not posit association, and the definition does not enclose in itself something diverse, then it does not exclude. But if it is otherwise, then it does exclude, and contradictorily opposed [propositions] are implied in the antecedent: whence here a contradiction is implied: only the Father is. With this position Augustine agrees18, who denies this: the Father alone is God, and similar [propositions].

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. In plurimis mss. deest praedicati, pro quo cod. X cum ed. 1 termini, sed contra praedeterminata in exordio huius articuli.
    In most manuscripts praedicati ("of the predicate") is missing, in place of which codex X with edition 1 [reads] termini ("of the term"), but against what was predetermined at the beginning of this article.
  2. In hymno angelico: Gloria in excelsis Deo etc. — Proxime sequens stropha invenitur in Breviario Romano in fine hymni ad Primam.
    In the angelic hymn: Gloria in excelsis Deo ("Glory to God in the highest") etc. — The strophe immediately following is found in the Roman Breviary at the end of the hymn at Prime.
  3. Vers. 27.
    Verse 27.
  4. Vat. contra codd. et ed. 1 ut si dictio exclusiva addi­tur, et paulo infra participio addita praefigit dictio exclusiva.
    The Vatican edition, against the codices and edition 1, [reads] ut si dictio exclusiva addi­tur ("as if the exclusive word is added"), and a little below to the participle addita it prefixes dictio exclusiva.
  5. Cfr. Aristot., de Praedicam. c. de Oppositis. — Mox maior pars codd. pro aliud ponit alium, in qua lectione in voce relativo subaudias terminum.
    Cf. Aristotle, Categories, c. On Opposites. — Next, the greater part of the codices in place of aliud ("other thing") puts alium ("another [person]"), in which reading in the word relativo one is to understand terminum ("term").
  6. Ex mss. et ed. 1 supplevimus Dicendum, quod.
    From the manuscripts and edition 1 we have supplied Dicendum, quod ("It must be said that").
  7. Subaudi: dictio exclusiva. Paulo infra, postulantibus plurimis mss. et ed. 1, post et consequitur adiecimus propositionem ad.
    Understand: dictio exclusiva ("the exclusive word"). A little below, on the demand of most manuscripts and edition 1, after et consequitur we have added the preposition ad.
  8. In Vat. deest et, quod tamen a mss. et edd. 1, 2, 3, 6 exhibetur. Paulo infra post idem codd. OZ addunt referuntur, codd. 1 aa bb cum ed. 1 comparantur. Dein post addita supple: dictio exclusiva solus. Hinc errat Vat. paulo post contra mss. et ed. 1 ponendo excludunt loco excludit.
    In the Vatican edition et ("and") is missing, which nevertheless is exhibited by the manuscripts and editions 1, 2, 3, 6. A little below, after idem codices OZ add referuntur ("are referred"); codices 1 aa bb with edition 1 [add] comparantur ("are compared"). Then after addita supply: dictio exclusiva solus ("the exclusive word solus"). Hence the Vatican edition errs a little later, against the manuscripts and edition 1, by putting excludunt in place of excludit.
  9. In paucis codd. ut PQ additur autem.
    In a few codices such as PQ autem ("however") is added.
  10. Ex mss. et sex primis edd. substituimus illud pro illa, in qua Vaticanae lectione consequenter particula solum consideratur ut dictio exclusiva, de qua est quaestio, ideoque et litteris italicis exhibetur, sed minus bene. Paulo ante Vat., obnitentibus antiquioribus mss. et ed. 1, perperam omittit ideo.
    From the manuscripts and the first six editions we have substituted illud in place of illa, in which Vatican reading the particle solum is consequently considered as the exclusive word about which the question is, and is therefore also exhibited in italic letters, but less well. A little earlier the Vatican edition, against the resistance of the older manuscripts and edition 1, wrongly omits ideo.
  11. Hic, in lit. c. 1, ubi et verba Augustini habentur.
    Here, in the littera [of Lombard] c. 1, where also the words of Augustine are held.
  12. Libr. VI. de Trin. c. 8. n. 9; vide supra d. XIX. lit. Magistri, c. 12. — Paulo ante post Et plurimi codd. cum ed. 1 addunt sic; in cod. M adiicitur talis.
    Book VI On the Trinity, c. 8, n. 9; see above d. XIX, littera of the Master, c. 12. — A little earlier, after Et, very many codices with edition 1 add sic ("thus"); in codex M talis ("such") is added.
  13. In Vat. et cod. cc desideratur propositio haec: Similiter: Deo Patri sit gloria eiusque soli Filio etc., quae autem exstat in ceteris mss. et ed. 1.
    In the Vatican edition and codex cc this proposition is wanting: Similiter: Deo Patri sit gloria eiusque soli Filio ("Likewise: To God the Father be glory and to His only Son") etc., which however stands in the other manuscripts and edition 1.
  14. Explicationem horum verborum vide infra dub. 3.
    For the explanation of these words see below dub. 3.
  15. Vat. cum uno alterove tantum codice creatura; sed vide infra dub. 1. Mox post naturae codd. H bb adiungunt cum eo, ac dein post ut cod. H addit est.
    The Vatican edition with only one or another codex [reads] creatura ("creature"); but see below dub. 1. Next after naturae codices H bb add cum eo ("with him"), and then after ut codex H adds est ("is").
  16. Ita aliqui codd. ut I T Z; alii cum Vat. associantur. Paulo infra post maior pauci codd. et loco vel.
    Thus some codices such as I T Z; others with the Vatican edition [read] associantur ("they are associated"). A little below, after maior a few codices [read] et in place of vel.
  17. Ita maior pars mss. cum ed. 1; ceteri autem obiicias, Vat. obiiciatur, quae et mox post quod praeter fidem mss. et sex primarum edd. addit dictio exclusiva, certe supplendum.
    Thus the greater part of the manuscripts with edition 1; but the rest [read] obiicias ("you might object"); the Vatican edition [reads] obiiciatur ("it might be objected"), which also a little after, after quod, against the testimony of the manuscripts and the first six editions adds dictio exclusiva ("the exclusive word"), certainly to be supplied.
  18. Libr. VI. de Trin. c. 9. n. 10; hic in lit. Magistri, c. 2.
    Book VI On the Trinity, c. 9, n. 10; here in the littera of the Master, c. 2.
← Dist. 21, Art. 2, Q. 1Dist. 21, Dubia→