Dist. 23, Art. 2, Q. 1
Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity · Distinction 23
ARTICULUS II. De numeratione quatuor nominum.
Consequenter secundo loco1 est quaestio de numeratione nominum praedictorum; et supposito quod numeretur hoc nomen persona, quaeritur circa hoc:
Primo utrum in divinis numeretur hoc nomen substantia.
Secundo quaeritur, si numeretur essentia.
Tertio, si hoc nomen Deus, utrum scilicet catholice possimus dicere plures deos.
QUAESTIO I. Utrum plures substantiae in divinis dici possint.
Quod autem numeretur hoc nomen substantia, ostenditur sic.
1. Hilarius de Synodis2: «Sunt quidem tria per substantiam, sed unum per consonantiam».
2. Item, Anselmus in fine Monologii3: «Aptius tres dicuntur substantiae».
3. Item, Boethius in libro de Duabus naturis et una persona Christi4: «Dicimus unam essentiam et tres substantias».
4. Item, hoc ipsum videtur ratione, quia substantia est medium inter essentiam et personam; sed medium sapit naturam extremorum5: ergo pari ratione, qua dicitur una substantia ab unitate essentiae, poterit dici plures a pluralitate personarum.
5. Item, omnis numerus ad substantiam reducitur originaliter — nunquam enim accidentia vel proprietates numerantur nisi per substantiam6 — sed actus numerantur et pluraliter dicuntur in divinis: ergo necesse est ponere numerum secundum substantiam. Quod autem pluraliter dicantur, patet; dicitur enim: Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus creant.
6. Item, idem est relativum substantiae, sicut talis et qualis qualitatis; sed haec est falsa: Pater est idem cum Filio, quia dicit Hilarius7, quod non possumus dicere Deum eundem: ergo necesse est, quod cadat distinctio in substantia; ergo si propter distinctionem personarum dicimus plures personas, ergo et plures substantias.
Contra:
1. Nihil magis dicitur secundum substantiam quam hoc nomen substantia: ergo si nomina substantialia dicuntur singulariter de omnibus, sicut patet ex regula Augustini supra posita8, patet etc.
2. Item, inter quaecumque cadit distinctio secundum substantiam9, cadit vera diversitas; sed inter Patrem et Filium non est confitenda diversitas, ergo nec numerus secundum substantiam: ergo non est dicere plures substantias.
3. Item, Augustinus10 dicit: «quod idem est Deo subsistere et esse»; ergo cum unum sit esse, unum est subsistere: ergo sicut ab uno esse dicitur una essentia vel e converso, ita et ab uno subsistere debet dici una substantia sive subsistentia.
4. Item, Hieronymus ad Damasum Papam11: «Quis unquam nisi ore sacrilego tres substantias praedicaverit»?
Conclusio. Substantia et subsistentia, ut dicunt essentiam, non plurificantur: si accipiuntur in sensu hypostaseos, in plurali dicuntur.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod tam substantiae quam subsistentiae nomen dupliciter accipitur in divinis, quia quodlibet istorum habet in se intellectum actus et praepositionis. Potest ergo dici substantia, quasi per se stans, vel12 sub alio sive sub proprietate. Primo modo una tantum est sive non numeratur, quia unum est ibi quod est. Alio modo, prout dicit respectum ad proprietatem, numeratur sive plurificatur. Primo modo tantum valet quantum usiosis, secundo modo tantum valet quantum hypostasis. Omnino eodem modo distinguitur hoc nomen Subsistentia13, et secundum alterum intellectum aequipollet usiosi, secundum alterum hypostasi; et secundum alterum plurificatur, secundum alterum vero14.
Et quia substantia dicitur dupliciter et subsistentia, ideo venit diversitas modi loquendi inter doctores. Nam Tullius et ipse Boethius15 dicunt, quod li subsistentia aequipollet usiosi, et ideo dicit Boethius, eam non plurificari; sed substantiam dicunt aequipollere hypostasi, et ideo dicit Boethius, eam plurificari, et secundum hunc modum loquitur Hilarius, Anselmus et Boethius. Sed Hieronymus et Augustinus volunt, quod substantia aequipolleat usiosi, et ideo dicunt eam non plurificari; sed16 subsistentia hypostasi, et ideo dicunt eam plurificari. Ex his patet responsio ad utramque partem.
Patet etiam, quare Graeci non transtulerunt nomen prosopon, sicut Latini, quia oportuit nos17 transferre nomen personae propter ambiguitatem; et ideo maluit Ecclesia18 respondere tres personas quam tres substantias sive subsistentias.
Tamen ad argumentum quod facit, quod substantia tenet medium; dicendum, quod substantia, prout aequipollet hypostasi, plus se tenet cum persona, et ideo numeratur, sicut persona, sive plurificatur; prout autem aequipollet usiosi, plus se tenet cum essentia, et ideo nec numeratur nec plurificatur, sicut nec essentia. Omnes autem illae rationes et19 praecedentes et sequentes loquuntur de substantia, prout aequipollet hypostasi sive supposito, et hoc modo plurificatur.
Rationes autem ad oppositam partem currunt secundum aliam acceptionem huius nominis substantia. Similiter iudicandum20 de hoc nomine subsistentia. Sed quoniam auctoritas Augustini et mos utentium nomen illud, substantia scilicet, accipit magis in illa acceptione, in qua dicit ipsum quod est sive usiosim sive ipsum commune: ideo communiter non recipitur, ut dicantur tres substantiae in divinis.
I. Cum termini substantia et subsistentia compositi sint ex praepositione sub et verbo stare sive sistere, duplicem sensum ex etymologia habere possunt, sive ut dicit S. Bonav. (hic in corp.) habent «in se intellectum actus et praepositionis». Unde factum est, ut SS. Patres his vocabulis, priusquam consuetudine ecclesiastica determinatum sensum acceperant, in duplici sensu usi sint, et per consequens ad hanc quaestionem vel affirmative vel negative respondere potuerint.
II. Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 57. m. 3. — S. Thom., hic q. I. a. I. ad 4. 5; S. I. q. 29. a. 2. ad 2. — B. Albert., hic. a. 3; de hac et seq. q. S. p. I. tr. 10. q. 43. m. 1. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 2. — Aegid. R., hic q. 1. — Henr. Gand., de hac et seq. S. a. 53. q. 5. M. 37, et a. 75. q. 3. n. 8. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 2.
---
ARTICLE II. On the numbering of the four names.
Consequently, in the second place1 there is a question concerning the numbering of the aforesaid names; and, supposing that the name person is numbered, it is asked concerning this:
First, whether in divine matters the name substance is numbered.
Secondly, it is asked whether essence is numbered.
Thirdly, [whether] the name God [is numbered], namely whether we can catholicly say several gods.
Question I. Whether several substances can be said in the divine.
That, however, the name substance is numbered is shown thus.
1. Hilary, On the Synods2: «There are indeed three through substance, but one through consonance».
2. Likewise, Anselm at the end of the Monologion3: «More aptly are three said to be substances».
3. Likewise, Boethius in the book On the Two Natures and One Person of Christ4: «We say one essence and three substances».
4. Likewise, this same thing seems [to follow] by reason, since substance is the middle between essence and person; but the middle savors of the nature of the extremes5: therefore by parity of reasoning, by which one substance is said from the unity of essence, several can be said from the plurality of persons.
5. Likewise, every number is reduced originally to substance — for accidents or properties are never numbered except through substance6 — but acts are numbered and said in the plural in divine matters: therefore it is necessary to posit a number according to substance. That, however, [acts] are said in the plural is plain; for it is said: The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit create.
6. Likewise, the relative of substance is the same, just as such and of what kind [are relatives] of quality; but this is false: The Father is the same with the Son, since Hilary says7 that we cannot say the same God: therefore it is necessary that distinction fall in substance; therefore if on account of the distinction of persons we say several persons, therefore also several substances.
On the contrary:
1. Nothing is more said according to substance than this name substance: therefore if substantial names are said singularly of all [the persons], as is plain from the rule of Augustine placed above8, it is plain etc.
2. Likewise, between whatever things distinction falls according to substance9, a true diversity falls; but between the Father and the Son no diversity is to be confessed, therefore neither number according to substance: therefore one is not to say several substances.
3. Likewise, Augustine10 says: «that for God to subsist and to be is the same»; therefore since to-be is one, to subsist is one: therefore just as from one to-be one essence is said or conversely, so also from one to-subsist there must be said one substance or subsistence.
4. Likewise, Jerome to Pope Damasus11: «Who has ever, except with sacrilegious mouth, predicated three substances»?
Conclusion. Substance and subsistence, as they express essence, are not pluralized: if they be taken in the sense of hypostasis, they are said in the plural.
I respond: It must be said that the name both of substance and of subsistence is taken in two ways in divine matters, since each of these has in itself the understanding of the verb (actus) and of the preposition. Substance therefore can be said as if standing through itself, or12 under another or under a property. In the first way it is one only, or is not numbered, since there is one that which is. In the other way, insofar as it expresses a respect to a property, it is numbered or pluralized. In the first way it is worth as much as usiosis, in the second way it is worth as much as hypostasis. In altogether the same way the name Subsistence13 is distinguished, and according to one understanding it is equivalent to usiosis, according to the other to hypostasis; and according to one it is pluralized, according to the other indeed [not]14.
And because substance is said in two ways, and [so also] subsistence, hence comes a diversity of mode of speaking among the doctors. For Tullius [Cicero] and Boethius himself15 say that subsistentia is equivalent to usiosis, and therefore Boethius says that it is not pluralized; but they say substantia is equivalent to hypostasis, and therefore Boethius says that it is pluralized, and according to this mode of speaking Hilary, Anselm, and Boethius speak. But Jerome and Augustine hold that substance is equivalent to usiosis, and therefore say that it is not pluralized; but16 subsistence [is equivalent] to hypostasis, and therefore they say that it is pluralized. From these things the response to either side is plain.
It is also plain why the Greeks did not transfer the name prosopon, as the Latins [did], because it was necessary for us17 to transfer the name person on account of ambiguity; and therefore the Church preferred18 to answer three persons rather than three substances or subsistences.
Nevertheless, to the argument which urges that substance holds the middle; it must be said that substance, insofar as it is equivalent to hypostasis, holds itself more with person, and therefore is numbered, like person, or pluralized; but insofar as it is equivalent to usiosis, it holds itself more with essence, and therefore is neither numbered nor pluralized, just as neither is essence. Now all those reasons, both19 the preceding and the following, speak of substance insofar as it is equivalent to hypostasis or supposit, and in this way it is pluralized.
The reasons, however, for the opposed side run according to another acceptation of this name substance. Likewise it is to be judged20 concerning this name subsistence. But since the authority of Augustine and the custom of those using that name, namely substance, takes [it] more in that acceptation in which it expresses that which is (ipsum quod est) or usiosis or the very common [thing]: therefore it is not commonly received that three substances be said in divine matters.
I. Since the terms substantia and subsistentia are composed of the preposition sub and the verb stare or sistere, they can have a twofold sense from etymology, or as St. Bonaventure says (here in the body) they have «in themselves the understanding of the verb (actus) and of the preposition». Whence it has come about that the holy Fathers, before they had received a determinate sense by ecclesiastical custom, used these words in a twofold sense, and consequently could answer this question either affirmatively or negatively.
II. Alexander of Hales, Summa p. I, q. 57, m. 3. — St. Thomas, here q. I, a. I, ad 4, 5; Summa I, q. 29, a. 2, ad 2. — Bl. Albert, here a. 3; on this and the following question, Summa p. I, tr. 10, q. 43, m. 1. — Petrus a Tarantasia, here q. 2, a. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2, q. 2. — Aegidius Romanus, here q. 1. — Henry of Ghent, on this and the following, Summa a. 53, q. 5, M. 37, and a. 75, q. 3, n. 8. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 2.
---
- Ex mss. et ed. I supplevimus secundo loco, et paulo infra ex antiquioribus codd. et ed. I circa hoc: Primo.From the manuscripts and ed. I we have supplied secundo loco ("in the second place"), and a little below from the older codices and ed. I [we have supplied] circa hoc: Primo ("concerning this: first").
- Num. 31: Sint quidem per substantiam tria, per consonantiam vero unum.Number 31: Let there be indeed three through substance, but one through consonance.
- Cap. 78: «Nam haec duo nomina (persona scil. et substantia) aptius eliguntur ad significandam pluralitatem in summa essentia». Et paulo post: «Potest ergo hac necessitatis ratione irreprehensibiliter illa summa et una trinitas sive trina unitas dici una essentia et tres personae sive tres substantiae».Chapter 78: «For these two names (namely "person" and "substance") are more aptly chosen for signifying plurality in the supreme essence». And a little after: «Therefore by this reason of necessity that supreme and one trinity, or trine unity, can without reprehension be called one essence and three persons or three substances».
- Cap. 3: Unde etiam dicimus, unam esse οὐσίαν vel οὐσίωσιν, id est essentiam vel subsistentiam Deitatis, sed tres ὑποστάσεις, id est tres substantias.Chapter 3: Whence also we say that there is one ousia or ousiōsis, that is, essence or subsistence of the Deity, but three hypostaseis, that is, three substances.
- Aristot., IV. Polit. c. 9. (c. 7.): In eo (medio) enim utrumque extremorum apparet.Aristotle, IV Politics c. 9 (c. 7): For in it (the middle) each of the extremes appears.
- Cfr. Aristot., I. Topic. c. 6. (c. 3.), ubi agitur de diversis modis, quibus idem dicitur, inter quos est ille, secundum quem accidens facit unum numero cum suo subiecto, respectu cuius in libro Auctoritatum Aristotelis etc. additur: unde accidentia numerantur numeratione subiectorum. — Ed. I post proprietates numerantur addit in se.Cf. Aristotle, I Topics c. 6 (c. 3), where it is treated of the various ways in which same is said, among which is that according to which an accident makes one in number with its subject, with respect to which in the book Auctoritates Aristotelis etc. is added: whence accidents are numbered by the numbering of [their] subjects. — Ed. I after proprietates numerantur ("properties are numbered") adds in se ("in themselves").
- Libr. I. de Trin. n. 17: Sed nos edocti divinitus neque duos deos praedicare neque solum, hanc evangelici ac prophetici praeconii rationem in confessione Dei Patris et Dei Filii afferemus, ut unum in fide nostra sint uterque, non unus; neque eundem utrumque, neque inter verum ac falsum aliud confitentes. Cfr. supra pag. 364 nota II.Book I On the Trinity, n. 17: But we, divinely instructed neither to predicate two gods nor [a] solitary [God], will bring forward this account of the evangelical and prophetic proclamation in the confession of God the Father and God the Son, so that both may be one in our faith, [yet] not one [person]; nor [confessing] each [as] the same, nor confessing anything between true and false. Cf. above page 364 note II.
- Dist. 22. dub. 2. circa finem.Distinction 22, dub. 2, near the end.
- In aliquibus mss. ut A P Q Y desideratur secundum substantiam. In fine argumenti cod. T substantia pro substantias.In some manuscripts such as A P Q Y secundum substantiam ("according to substance") is missing. At the end of the argument, cod. T [reads] substantia in place of substantias.
- Libr. VII. de Trin. c. 4. n. 9: Hoc est Deo esse quod subsistere. — Paulo infra post ita in nonnullis codd. ut A I T et ed. I deest et, ac in cod. V dein debet dici.Book VII On the Trinity, c. 4, n. 9: For God, to be is this [same as] to subsist. — A little below, after ita, in several codices such as A I T and ed. I et is missing, and in cod. V then [is read] debet dici.
- Epist. 15. n. 4: «Quisquam, rogo, ore sacrilego tres substantias praedicabit»? In quo textu plures codd. cum ed. 1 praedicavit.Letter 15, n. 4: «Will anyone, I ask, with sacrilegious mouth predicate three substances»? In which text several codices with ed. 1 [read] praedicavit ("has predicated").
- Vat., posito et pro vel, repetit dein quasi stans, sed contra sex primas edd. et mss., ex quibus tamen codd. C O R repetunt tantum quasi; cod. cc et edd. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 minus bene sive loco vel.The Vatican [edition], having placed et in place of vel, then repeats quasi stans, but against the first six editions and the manuscripts, of which however codices C O R repeat only quasi; cod. cc and editions 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 [read], less well, sive in place of vel.
- Fide antiquiorum mss. et ed. I expunximus hic additum tunc.On the authority of the older manuscripts and ed. I we have expunged tunc ("then"), added here.
- In Vat. et cod. cc desiderantur verba hoc nomen, quae tamen in aliis mss. et ed. I exhibentur; e contra paulo infra post usiosi Vat. contra plurimos codd. et ed. I adiungit et.In the Vatican [edition] and cod. cc the words hoc nomen ("this name") are missing, which however are exhibited in other manuscripts and ed. I; on the contrary, a little below, after usiosi, the Vatican [edition], against very many codices and ed. I, adds et ("and").
- Libr. de Una persona et duabus naturis Christi, c. 3, ubi et Tullius allegatur. — Mox lectio mutila Vat., qua pro verbis aequipollet usque hypostasi substituitur et substantia aequipollent, resarcitur fide mss. et ed. I.Book On the One Person and Two Natures of Christ, c. 3, where Tullius [Cicero] also is alleged. — Soon after, the mutilated reading of the Vatican [edition], by which in place of the words aequipollet through hypostasi is substituted et substantia aequipollent, is repaired on the authority of the manuscripts and ed. I.
- Vat. praeter fidem mss. et ed. I et pro sed.The Vatican [edition], against the authority of the manuscripts and ed. I, [reads] et in place of sed.
- Vat. cum codice cc tantum addit etiam.The Vatican [edition] with cod. cc only adds etiam ("also").
- Cod. SW aequivalet. Paulo infra post secundum ideo ex plurimis mss. et ed. I substituimus nec pro nunc.Cod. SW [reads] aequivalet. A little below, after secundum therefore, from very many manuscripts and ed. I we have substituted nec ("neither") in place of nunc ("now").
- In Vat. et cod. cc deest et; in codd. aa bb vero post illae additur auctoritates rel. Mox plures mss. ut A F G H I T Y etc. cum ed. I aequivalet pro aequipollet.In the Vatican [edition] and cod. cc et is missing; but in codices aa bb after illae is added auctoritates etc. Soon after, several manuscripts such as A F G H I T Y etc. with ed. I [read] aequivalet in place of aequipollet.
- Vat. cum cod. cc adiungit est, et paulo infra substituit nomine illo pro nomen illud ac dein accipitur loco accipit; sed obest auctoritas ed. I et aliorum mss., e quibus plures ponunt accepit.The Vatican [edition] with cod. cc adds est, and a little below substitutes nomine illo in place of nomen illud, and then accipitur in place of accipit; but the authority of ed. I and of other manuscripts is opposed, of which several place accepit.