Dist. 23, Art. 2, Q. 2
Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity · Distinction 23
QUAESTIO II.
Utrum plures essentiae in divinis numerari possint.
Secundo quaeritur de numeratione illius nominis essentia. Et quod non numeretur, ostenditur sic1:
1. Quia in divinis est unitas absolutissima, quae non multiplicatur: ergo cum nullum nomen sit adeo absolutum, sicut nomen essentiae, ergo per illud significatur unitas non multiplicata: ergo nomen essentiae non numeratur; et hoc est quod dicit Augustinus2, quod ratio repugnat.
2. Item, hoc ipsum videtur a minori. Hoc enim nomen Deus est nomen essentiae in comparatione ad personam; sed secundum Scripturam in Lege, scilicet Deuteronomii sexto3, Deus dicitur unus et non plures; et secundum Symbolum4: «Non tres dii, sed unus est Deus»: ergo et hoc nomen essentia multo minus plurificatur, cum dicatur absolutius.
3. Item, natura divina non multiplicatur in tribus; sed hoc nomen essentia est nomen divinae naturae, ut hoc nomen substantia: ergo nec essentia nec substantia multiplicantur5 sub propriis nominibus, ut videtur.
Contra: 1. Augustinus septimo de Trinitate6: «Cur haec tria non dicantur una persona», et loquitur de tribus personis: sed neutrum genus respicit essentiam: ergo cum dicantur tria, ergo tres essentiae.
2. Item, ratione videtur: Augustinus in eodem libro7 dicit, quod «Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus dicuntur tres personae, quia commune est eis hoc quod est persona»; sed hoc nomen essentia est commune: ergo potest dici tres essentiae.
3. Item, ibidem dicit, et habetur in littera8, quod «ideo dicuntur tres personae, quia Pater est persona, et Filius persona et Spiritus sanctus persona». Ergo similiter sunt tres essentiae, quia Pater est essentia etc.
4. Item, Pater et Filius sunt entes plures, ergo plures habentes entitatem9 — sequitur enim: sunt plures dii, ergo plures deitates — similiter: Pater et Filius sunt: ergo plura esse, ergo plures essentiae.
Conclusio. Essentia non numeratur in divinis, quia una eademque natura non numerata est in tribus personis.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod in omni substantia, cuius est esse et operari, necessario intelligimus naturam et habentem naturam. Cum ergo hoc10 sit in Deo, intelligimus in Deo naturam et habentem naturam. Et naturam dicimus substantiam vel essentiam; habentem naturam dicimus personam. Quoniam11 ergo in creatura rationali contingit, unam personam habere plures naturas, scilicet corporalem et spiritualem: sic a contrario sensu in Deo propter summam simplicitatem contingit, unam naturam haberi a pluribus, quoniam contingit eam haberi alio et alio modo; et hoc non potest esse ab eodem.
Quia ergo una tantum est natura habita et non numerata, ideo tantum dicitur una substantia et essentia; quia vero plures habentes, ideo plures personae, nulla omnino repugnantia existente.
Ad argumenta in oppositum:
1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur de essentia per hoc quod Augustinus dicit: Haec tria; dicendum, quod minus expresse loquitur et improprie; et ideo verbum eius est exponendum.
2. 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod ideo tres personae, quia persona est commune, et quilibet est persona etc.; dicendum, quod non dicit totam rationem, sed partem quantum ad verbum exterius; ideo oportet intelligere, quod ibi additur: quia est commune quod distinguitur. Unde Pater est persona et Filius est persona, non eadem, sed alia.
4. Ad ultimum quod obiicitur, dicendum, quod ens aliquando dicitur substantive, et sic non trahit numerum aliunde; aliquando tenetur adiective, et sic trahit numerum a supposito, et sic non numeratur forma; et hoc modo non sequitur, quod sint plures entitates, nec de hoc verbo sunt, quod plura esse.
I. Pro intelligentia solut. ad 3. notandum, quod communitas essentiae alio sensu accipitur quam communitas personae sive personarum. Illa est communitas unius eiusdemque rei, haec vero communitas tantum rationis (cfr. S. Thom., S. I. q. 30. a. 4; B. Albert., hic a. 5.). Unde haec dicit aliquid commune, quod est distinctum in tribus personis. Sic intelligitur, quod habetur in solut. ad 3, scil. quod ratio, quae hic ex S. Augustino affertur, tangit tantum partem causae, quare dicantur tres personae. Nam in ratione personae includitur proprietas, et ratione huius plurificantur personae.
II. In solut. ad 4. verba: «Non trahit numerum aliunde» sic intelligenda sunt: cum ens in genere masculino iam significat suppositum, a se, non ab alio supposito, trahit numerum. Sed ens in genere neutro non significat suppositum, sed essentiam seu formam; unde si ipsi adiunguntur termini numerales sive partitivi, ut aliud, alterum, multiplicatio significatur essentiae sive formae, quod in divinis est omnino falsum.
III. Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 49. m. 3. — S. Thom., I. Sent. d. 25. q. 1. a. 4; S. I. q. 39. a. 1. 2. — B. Albert., de hac et seq. hic a. 6. 7. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 3. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 2.
---
QUESTION II.
Whether several essences can be numbered in the divine.
Secondly it is asked concerning the numeration of that name essence. And that it is not numbered, is shown thus1:
1. Because in divine matters there is a most absolute unity, which is not multiplied: therefore since no name is so absolute as the name essence, therefore by it is signified an unmultiplied unity: therefore the name essence is not numbered; and this is what Augustine2 says, that reason is repugnant [to it].
2. Likewise, this same [point] is seen from the lesser case. For this name God is a name of essence in comparison to person; but according to Scripture in the Law, namely Deuteronomy 63, God is called one and not several; and according to the [Athanasian] Creed4: «Not three gods, but one is God»: therefore this name essence also is much less pluralised, since it is said more absolutely.
3. Likewise, the divine nature is not multiplied in the three; but this name essence is a name of the divine nature, just as this name substance: therefore neither essence nor substance are multiplied5 under their proper names, as it seems.
On the contrary: 1. Augustine, On the Trinity VII6: «Why are these three not called one person», and he is speaking of three persons: but the neuter gender refers to the essence: therefore since they are called three [in the neuter], therefore [there are] three essences.
2. Likewise, by reason it is seen: Augustine in the same book7 says that «the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are called three persons, because what is person is common to them»; but this name essence is common: therefore it can be said [that there are] three essences.
3. Likewise, in the same place he says, and it is held in the text [of the Master]8, that «they are therefore called three persons, because the Father is person, and the Son [is] person and the Holy Spirit [is] person». Therefore in like manner there are three essences, since the Father is essence etc.
4. Likewise, the Father and the Son are several beings (entes), therefore several having entity9 — for it follows: they are several gods, therefore several deities — likewise: the Father and the Son are: therefore [there are] several to-be's, therefore several essences.
Conclusion. Essence is not numbered in the divine, since one and the same nature, [being] not numbered, is in the three persons.
I respond: It must be said that in every substance, whose [property] it is to be and to operate, we necessarily understand the nature and the having-of-nature. Since therefore this10 is the case in God, we understand in God a nature and one having a nature. And we call the nature substance or essence; the one having the nature we call person. Since11 therefore in the rational creature it happens that one person has several natures, namely a corporeal and a spiritual: so by contrary sense in God, on account of [his] supreme simplicity, it happens that one nature is had by several, since it happens to be had in one and another mode; and this cannot be from the same [supposit].
Since therefore there is only one nature [that is] had and not numbered, therefore only one substance and essence is spoken of; but since [there are] several having [the nature], therefore [there are] several persons, with no incompatibility at all existing.
To the arguments on the opposite side:
1. To that, then, which is objected concerning essence through what Augustine says: These three; it must be said that he is speaking less expressly and improperly; and therefore his word is to be interpreted.
2. 3. To that which is objected, that [there are] therefore three persons, because person is common, and each one is a person etc.; it must be said that he is not stating the whole reason, but [only] a part as regards the outward word; therefore one must understand that it is added there: because what is common is what is distinguished. Whence the Father is person and the Son is person, not the same [person], but another.
4. To the last [argument] which is objected, it must be said that being (ens) is sometimes said substantively, and so it does not draw number from elsewhere; sometimes it is taken adjectivally, and so it draws number from the supposit, and so the form is not numbered; and in this mode it does not follow that there are several entities, nor [from] this verb they are, that [there are] several to-be's.
I. For the understanding of the solution to [argument] 3 it is to be noted that the commonness of essence is taken in another sense than the commonness of person or of persons. The former is the commonness of one and the same thing, the latter however the commonness only of account (ratio) (cf. St. Thomas, S. I, q. 30, a. 4; Bl. Albert, here a. 5). Whence this [the latter] denotes something common which is distinct in the three persons. Thus is to be understood what is held in the solution to [argument] 3, namely that the reason which is here brought forward from St. Augustine touches only a part of the cause why they are called three persons. For in the account of person there is included propriety, and by reason of this the persons are pluralised.
II. In the solution to [argument] 4, the words «It does not draw number from elsewhere» are to be understood thus: since ens in the masculine gender already signifies a supposit, it draws number from itself, not from another supposit. But ens in the neuter gender does not signify a supposit, but the essence or form; whence if numerical or partitive terms — such as aliud, alterum — are joined to it, multiplication of essence or form is signified, which in divine matters is altogether false.
III. Alex. of Hales, S. p. I, q. 49, m. 3. — St. Thomas, I Sent. d. 25, q. 1, a. 4; S. I, q. 39, a. 1–2. — Bl. Albert, on this and the following, here a. 6, 7. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 3. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2, q. 3. — Dionys. the Carthusian, here q. 2.
---
- Nonnulli codd. ut a T X Y hoc ostenditur et ed. 1 hic ostenditur pro ostenditur sic.Several codices such as a, T, X, Y [read] hoc ostenditur ("this is shown"), and edition 1 hic ostenditur ("here it is shown"), in place of ostenditur sic ("it is shown thus").
- Vide hic in lit. Magistri, c. 4. et 5. Cfr. etiam infra dub. 3. circa lit.See here in the text of the Master, c. 4 and 5. Compare also below, dub. 3, on the text [of the Master].
- Vers. 4: Audi Israel Dominus Deus noster, Dominus unus est.Verse 4: Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.
- Scil. Athanasianum; in verbis ex ipso allegatis plures codd. cum ed. 1 omittunt est. Mox post ergo fide plurimorum mss. et ed. 1 adiecimus et ac dein ex multis codd. ut A F H M N T Z etc., et ed. 1 multo, plures autem codd. ut K V X aa bb ponunt, eodem sensu servato, multo fortius non pro multo minus. Tandem in fine argumenti codd. sunt inter se divisi; alii enim, et quidem boni, ut A F G S T Z cum ed. 1 ponunt dicat, alii vero dicatur.Namely the Athanasian [Creed]; in the words alleged from it several codices with edition 1 omit est ("is"). Soon after ergo ("therefore"), on the witness of very many manuscripts and of edition 1, we have added et ("and"), and then from many codices such as A, F, H, M, N, T, Z etc., and from edition 1, multo ("much"); but several codices such as K, V, X, aa, bb place — the same sense being preserved — multo fortius ("much more strongly") rather than multo minus ("much less"). Finally at the end of the argument the codices are divided among themselves; for some, and indeed good ones, such as A, F, G, S, T, Z with edition 1 set dicat ("he says"), but others dicatur ("it be said").
- Ex pluribus codd. ut A S T V W etc. cum edd. 1, 2, 3, 6 substituimus multiplicantur pro multiplicatur. Paulo ante plurimi codd. cum ed. 1 et loco ut.From several codices such as A, S, T, V, W etc. with editions 1, 2, 3, 6 we have substituted multiplicantur ("are multiplied", plural) in place of multiplicatur ("is multiplied", singular). A little before, very many codices with edition 1 [read] et ("and") in place of ut ("as").
- Cap. 4 n. 8: Aut quoniam propter ineffabilem coniunctionem haec tria (scil. Pater, Filius et Spiritus sanctus) simul unus Deus, cur non etiam una persona etc. — Vide etiam hic in littera Magistri, c. 4, ubi alius textus Augustini ex eodem capite citatur, in quo recurrit verbum dicantur, pro quo et Originale et plures codd. cum ed. 1 ponunt dicuntur. Respectu horum verborum Augustini magna invenitur in mss. varietas; sic plures ut B D F G H I Q T V cum ed. 1 legunt Cum pro Cur, quod in paucis ut P Z omittitur; dein aliqui codd. ut A P S T omittunt particulam non, et nonnulli ut V X bb post dicantur addunt de. Mox post personis exhibemus lectionem codd. V aa bb; ceteri codd. fere omnes pro sed neutrum genus habent ergo proprie, quae lectio corruptionem textus, vel omissionem plurium verborum sapit. Vat. cum cod. cc sed Tria in neutro genere respicit.Chapter 4, n. 8: Or since on account of the ineffable conjunction these three (namely the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit) [are] together one God, why [are they] not also one person etc. — See also here in the text of the Master, c. 4, where another text of Augustine from the same chapter is cited, in which the word dicantur ("be called", subjunctive) recurs, for which both the original and several codices with edition 1 set dicuntur ("are called", indicative). With respect to these words of Augustine a great variety is found in the manuscripts; thus several such as B, D, F, G, H, I, Q, T, V with edition 1 read Cum ("Since") for Cur ("Why"), which in a few such as P, Z is omitted; then some codices such as A, P, S, T omit the particle non, and several such as V, X, bb after dicantur add de. Soon after, after personis ("of the persons") we exhibit the reading of codices V, aa, bb; nearly all the other codices, in place of sed neutrum genus ("but the neuter gender"), have ergo proprie ("therefore properly"), a reading which smacks of a corruption of the text, or of the omission of several words. The Vatican edition with codex cc [reads] sed Tria in neutro genere respicit ("but [he] regards [them as] Three in the neuter gender").
- Cap. 4. n. 7. 8. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 3.Chapter 4, nn. 7–8. See here the text of the Master, c. 3.
- Hic, c. 3; quo in textu solummodo Vat. cum cod. cc ter recurrenti nomini persona praefigit una., multi codd. cum ed. 1 tantum semel scil. prima vice, plures tandem codd. ut G H M Y omnino omittunt, quos sequimur, utpote qui et cum originali et cum littera Magistri conveniunt. Mox fide plurium mss. ut H M P Q X Z et exigente forma argumenti adiecimus Ergo.Here, c. 3; in which text only the Vatican edition with codex cc prefixes una to the thrice-recurring noun persona; many codices with edition 1 [do so] only once, namely the first time; several codices, finally, such as G, H, M, Y omit it altogether, [and] we follow these, inasmuch as they agree both with the original and with the text of the Master. Soon after, on the witness of several manuscripts such as H, M, P, Q, X, Z, and as the form of the argument requires, we have added Ergo ("Therefore").
- Ita mss. et sex primae edd. contra Vat., quae post entes omittit plures ac dein pro habentes entitatem ponit habent entitates. Paulo infra post similiter cod. O repetit sequitur.So the manuscripts and the first six editions, against the Vatican edition, which after entes omits plures and then in place of habentes entitatem sets habent entitates ("they have entities"). A little below, after similiter, codex O repeats sequitur ("it follows").
- Nempe: esse et operari fundatum, in substantia. — Mox post intelligimus in codd. aa bb additur necessario.Namely: to be and to operate [as] founded in a substance. — Soon after, after intelligimus, in codices aa, bb is added necessario ("necessarily").
- Sequimur plurimos codd. et ed. 1 substituendo Quoniam pro Quomodo, et paulo infra post sic expungendo et.We follow very many codices and edition 1 in substituting Quoniam ("Since") in place of Quomodo ("How"), and a little below, after sic, in expunging et ("and").