← Back to Distinction 21

Dist. 21, Dubia

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

Textus Latinus
p. 386

DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

DUB. I.

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo dubitatur de hoc quod dicit Magister, quod proprie tota Trinitas est solus Deus, quia videtur velle negare istam: «Pater est solus Deus»; sed haec videtur esse vera per expositionem, quia Pater est Deus et non alius a Deo vel aliud: ergo etc. Item, praedicatum, quod dicitur de tota Trinitate, non potest esse nisi praedicatum essentiale; ergo cum solus Deus sit praedicatum essentiale1 — quia aliter non diceretur de tota Trinitate — et essentiale praedicatum dicitur de qualibet persona singillatim: ergo Pater est solus Deus.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod quando solus per se additur ad praedicatum, ita quod non intelligitur a parte subiecti, improprius est sermo, sive dicatur de Trinitate tota, sive de Patre. Nec vult dicere Augustinus, quod solus Deus praedicetur de tota Trinitate, ita quod non de Patre. Sed in illis locutionibus: soli Deo honor et gloria2, et consimilibus solus Deus non accipitur pro unica persona, excludendo alias personas, sed pro tota Trinitate, excludendo alias naturas; et Magister ita accipit, ac si Augustinus vellet dicere3, quod hoc, scilicet solus Deus, praedicaretur de Trinitate, et non de Patre. Sed ipse vult, quod supponat pro ipsa Trinitate; pro Patre vero si supponat, non tamen praecise supponit pro solo Patre; et ideo Augustinus concedit, quod sola Trinitas est solus verus4 Deus, non tamen solus Pater. Unde et Magister non dicit, quod Pater non sit solus Deus, sed quod non proprie dicitur. Et illud manifestum est, si inspiciatur, qualiter solus debet addi ad praedicatum5.

DUB. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Trinitatem dicimus solum Deum, quamvis semper sit cum Sanctis, cum inseparabilis sit a rebus aliis et intimus omnibus: propter quid magis dicit6 esse cum Sanctis quam cum aliis?

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod quamvis Deus sit in omnibus et cum omnibus, tamen specialiter dicitur esse cum Sanctis propter effectum gratiae inhabitantis, per quam ipsi conformantur et cari et similes ei fiunt. Unde Proverbiorum octavo7: Deliciae meae esse cum filiis hominum, dicit Sapientia Dei. Unde Dominus vobiscum dicitur hominibus, non bestiis.

DUB. III.

Item quaeritur de hac locutione: Nemo novit Filium nisi Pater, quia, cum nemo componatur ex non et homo, ergo nemo idem est quod nullus homo; sed «dictio exceptiva non excipit nisi contentum sub termino8». Unde nihil est dictum: nullus homo currit nisi asinus. Cum ergo Pater non contineatur in suppositione huius nominis homo, patet etc. Si tu dicas, quod ampliatur ex usu distributio importata per istum terminum nemo ultra quam ad homines; tunc ego quaero: pro quo stat? aut pro creato, aut pro increato? Si pro creato, nulla est exceptio, quia simpliciter vera; et praeterea, Pater non est ibi contentum. Si pro increato, simpliciter et totaliter est9 falsa: ergo per exceptionem non potest verificari. Si tu dicas, quod pro utroque; quomodo potest hoc esse, cum nihil habeant commune? Et si habent commune, aut hoc quod10 est nemo distribuit pro essentiis, aut pro personis; si pro essentiis: ergo non debet excipi Pater; si pro personis: ergo debet excipi Spiritus sanctus, sicut et Pater; alioquin locutio est11 falsa.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod nemo distribuit communiter pro omni12 cognoscente sive habente vim cognitivam, et distribuit nemo non pro supposito tantum sive persona, sed pro natura. Unde Pater non excipitur, quia persona, sed quia eiusdem naturae cum Filio; et ideo implicatur in illa exceptione Filius et Spiritus sanctus, et ideo locutio habet veritatem.

Vel dic, quod nemo distribuit pro hominibus13, et nisi tenetur non exceptive, sed adversative, sicut dicitur secundae ad Timotheum secundo14: Ad nihil valet nisi ad subversionem audientium.

---

English Translation

DOUBTS ON THE MASTER'S TEXT.

Doubt I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the littera, and first there is doubt concerning what the Master says, namely that properly the whole Trinity is the only God (solus Deus), since he seems to wish to deny this: «The Father is the only God»; but this seems to be true by exposition, because the Father is God and is not another from God nor another thing: therefore etc. Likewise, a predicate which is said of the whole Trinity cannot be other than an essential predicate; therefore since the only God (solus Deus) is an essential predicate1 — because otherwise it would not be said of the whole Trinity — and an essential predicate is said of each person singly: therefore the Father is the only God.

I respond: It must be said that when solus is added per se to the predicate, in such a way that it is not understood on the side of the subject, the speech is improper, whether it be said of the whole Trinity or of the Father. Nor does Augustine wish to say that solus Deus is predicated of the whole Trinity in such a way as not [to be predicated] of the Father. But in those locutions: to God alone honor and glory2, and the like, solus Deus is not taken for a single person, excluding the other persons, but for the whole Trinity, excluding other natures; and the Master takes [it] thus, as if Augustine wished to say3 that this, namely solus Deus, is predicated of the Trinity, and not of the Father. But he himself means that it should supposit for the Trinity itself; but if it supposits for the Father, nevertheless it does not precisely supposit for the Father alone; and therefore Augustine concedes that the Trinity alone is the only true4 God, yet not the Father alone. Hence the Master also does not say that the Father is not solus Deus, but that it is not properly said. And this is manifest, if one considers how solus ought to be added to the predicate5.

Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked about what he says: We say that the Trinity is the only God, although [God] is always with the saints, since [he] is inseparable from other things and most intimate to all: on what account does he say6 [that he is] more with the saints than with others?

I respond: It must be said that although God is in all things and with all things, nevertheless he is said to be specially with the saints because of the effect of indwelling grace, through which they themselves are conformed and become beloved and like to him. Hence Proverbs eight7: My delights [are] to be with the sons of men, says the Wisdom of God. Hence the Lord be with you is said to men, not to beasts.

Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked concerning this locution: No one knows the Son except the Father, because, since nemo is composed of non and homo, therefore nemo is the same as no man; but «an exceptive word does not except [anything] except what is contained under the term8». Hence nothing is said [in]: no man runs except a donkey. Therefore since the Father is not contained in the supposition of this noun homo, it is plain etc. If you say that the distribution imported by this term nemo is by usage extended beyond men; then I ask: for what does it stand? either for what is created, or for what is uncreated? If for what is created, there is no exception, because [the proposition is] simply true; and besides, the Father is not contained therein. If for what is uncreated, [it is] simply and totally9 false: therefore it cannot be verified by exception. If you say [that it stands] for both; how can this be, since they have nothing in common? And if they do have [something] in common, either this10 which is nemo is distributed for essences, or for persons; if for essences: therefore the Father ought not to be excepted; if for persons: therefore the Holy Spirit ought to be excepted, just as also the Father; otherwise the locution is11 false.

I respond: It must be said that nemo is distributed commonly for every12 knower or for [everyone] having a cognitive power, and nemo is distributed not for the supposit alone or person, but for the nature. Hence the Father is not excepted because [he is] a person, but because [he is] of the same nature with the Son; and therefore in that exception the Son and the Holy Spirit are implied, and therefore the locution has truth.

Or say that nemo is distributed for men13, and nisi is taken not exceptively, but adversatively, as it is said in 2 Timothy chapter 214: It is of no avail except to the subversion of the hearers.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. In Vat. et cod. cc male omittitur ergo cum usque essentiale, quae tamen verba in aliis mss. et ed. 1 habentur.
    In the Vatican [edition] and codex cc the words from ergo cum up to essentiale are wrongly omitted, which words however are present in the other manuscripts and edition 1.
  2. I. Tim. 1, 17. — Paulo ante in cod. G post non de Patre additur tantum, ac dein cod. V pro illis ponit his.
    1 Timothy 1:17. — A little before, in codex G, after non de Patre tantum is added, and then codex V in place of illis puts his.
  3. Fide mss. et ed. 1 expunximus non, quod Vat. contra mentem Magistri (hic, c. 2.) addit. Mox pauci codd. ut K dd post praedicaretur de adiiciunt tota, quod cod. X dein substituit pro ipsa.
    On the faith of the manuscripts and edition 1 we have struck out non, which the Vatican [edition], against the mind of the Master (here, c. 2), adds. Soon, a few codices such as K dd after praedicaretur de add tota, which codex X then substitutes in place of ipsa.
  4. Vat. cum uno alterove tantum codice unus loco verus. Paulo ante cod. X tota pro sola.
    The Vatican [edition] with only one or another codex [reads] unus in place of verus. A little before, codex X [reads] tota in place of sola.
  5. Plura de hoc vide supra a. I. q. 2. et apud Petr. a Tar., hic q. I. a. 6.
    See more on this above, a. I, q. 2, and in Peter of Tarentaise, here q. I, a. 6.
  6. Vat. contra mss. et ed. 1 dicitur.
    The Vatican [edition], against the manuscripts and edition 1, [reads] dicitur.
  7. Vers. 31.
    Verse 31.
  8. Cfr. Summula Petri Hispani, Tract. de Exponibilibus.
    Cf. the Summula of Peter of Spain, Tract. On Exponibles.
  9. In pluribus mss. et ed. 1 omittitur est.
    In several manuscripts and edition 1 est is omitted.
  10. Vat., refragantibus mss. et sex primis edd., hic superflue addit hoc.
    The Vatican [edition], with the manuscripts and the first six editions resisting, here superfluously adds hoc.
  11. Cod. V esset.
    Codex V [reads] esset.
  12. Vat. contra antiquiores mss. et ed. 1 perperam communi pro omni, quae et mox praeter fidem codd. et sex primarum edd. omittit nemo.
    The Vatican [edition], against the older manuscripts and edition 1, wrongly [reads] communi in place of omni, which [edition] also a little later, against the testimony of the codices and the first six editions, omits nemo.
  13. Vat. absque auctoritate mss. et sex primarum edd. prave omnibus pro hominibus. S. Thomas hic circa lit. adducens hunc solutionis modum ait: ut sit sensus: Nullus purus homo novit Patrem notitia comprehensionis, sed tantum Filius.
    The Vatican [edition], without the authority of the manuscripts and of the first six editions, perversely [reads] omnibus in place of hominibus. St. Thomas, here on the littera, adducing this manner of solution, says: that the sense is: No mere man knows the Father with the knowledge of comprehension, but only the Son.
  14. Vers. 14, ubi Vat. cum Vulgata utile est loco valet, quod exhibent codd. et ed. 1. — De hoc dubio cfr. supra a. 2. q. 2. ad 2. — Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 65. m. 3. a. 3. — B. Albert., hic a. 6.
    Verse 14, where the Vatican [edition] with the Vulgate [reads] utile est in place of valet, which [reading] the codices and edition 1 exhibit. — On this doubt cf. above a. 2, q. 2, ad 2. — Alexander of Hales, Summa p. I, q. 65, m. 3, a. 3. — B. Albert, here a. 6.
← Dist. 21, Art. 2, Q. 2