Dist. 23, Art. 2, Q. 3
Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity · Distinction 23
QUAESTIO III.
Utrum catholice dicere plures deos possimus.
Tertio quaeritur, utrum catholice possimus dicere plures deos. Et quod sic, ostenditur hoc modo.
1. Hoc nomen Deus recipit distinctivum terminum ratione suppositionis, ut cum dicitur, Deus generat Deum: ergo cum eadem distinctio importetur per hoc quod est generat et per hoc quod est tres, quia personalis, ergo haec1 pari ratione est catholica: tres dii sunt.
2. Item, idem est Deus quod habens deitatem; sed plures sunt habentes deitatem — hoc dicitur catholice — ergo similiter plures dii sunt.
3. Item, hoc nomen Deus, quamvis sit substantiale, tamen impositum est ab operatione. Sed contingit, operationem pluraliter dici de personis, ut patet Genesis primo2: Faciamus hominem etc.: ergo et hoc nomen dii.
4. Item, ad numerationem alicuius veram non plura requiruntur quam vera multiplicatio suppositorum et formae; sed haec est in Deo, quia tres sunt personae divinae; persona dicit suppositum, divinae3 formam: ergo etc.
5. Item, cum omne generale contingat specificari, et persona sit nomen generale, videtur quod possit specificari, cum dicitur: tres personae, ut dicatur adhuc specialius qui tres; sed hoc non potest esse, nisi addatur nomen commune tribus, nec est aliud dare quam hoc nomen Deus: ergo etc.4
Contra: 1. Quod non dicatur catholice, patet ex mandatis, Deuteronomii sexto5: Audi Israel, Deus tuus Deus unus est. Item in Symbolo6: «Non tres dii, sed unus est Deus».
2. Item, hoc ipsum videtur ratione, quia hoc nomen Deus dicit divinam naturam; sed divina natura non numeratur sive plurificatur7: ergo nec hoc nomen Deus.
Conclusio. Licet sint tres personae divinae, tamen secundum fidem catholicam non possumus dicere, tres esse deos.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod non est dicere plures deos catholice, quia numerus pluralis significat plurificationem termini secundum suppositum et formam in nomine substantivo, cum plurale geminet suum singulare. Et ideo, cum forma importata per hoc nomen Deus non sit multiplicata, non debet dici plures dii.
Ad argumenta in oppositum:
1. Ad illud ergo8 quod obiicitur, quod catholice dicitur: Deus generat; dicendum, quod non est simile, quia generat importat simul distinctionem cum convenientia; sed plures deos simpliciter importat distinctionem quantum ad suppositum et formam.
2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod idem est Deus quod9 habens deitatem; respondeo dupliciter: quod habens deitatem uno modo potest dici neutraliter, et sic est unum solum, et aequipollet ei, quod est Deus, quod quidem dicit quod est; alio modo masculine, et sic non habet aequipollens, et sic multiplicatur.
Potest tamen aliter dici, quod Deus non significat habentem, sed significat deitatem in comparatione ad habentem; et ideo non multiplicatur.
3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de operatione10, dicendum, quod nomen potest significare operationem per modum adiacentis, et sic trahit numerum aliunde; vel per modum substantivi, et sic non multiplicatur, et taliter significat hoc nomen Deus.
4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod ibi est multiplicatio suppositorum et formae; dicendum, quod hoc nomen divinum est quasi possessivum; unde imponitur a duplici forma, scilicet possessionis et possessoris. Et forma deitatis est in ratione possessoris; et forma possessoris existente indivisa, numeratur forma possessionis, ut oves Socraticae; sic et in proposito11; unde non numeratur forma habita.
5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod generale contingit specificari; dicendum, quod persona, cum nominet12 individuum intellectualis naturae, dupliciter potest specificari, videlicet per propria personarum, ut cum dicitur: tres personae, id est Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus; potest etiam specificari per naturae determinationem, ut si dicatur: personae divinae vel angelicae vel humanae.
Et si tu quaeras13, quare non specificatur per unum nomen, sicut est in creaturis, quod tres personae angelicae dicuntur tres Angeli; responderi potest, quod hoc est propter inopiam humani eloquii, qua laborat tam lingua Graeca quam Latina, sed magis Latina.
— Vel potest dici, quod hoc non permittit natura ipsorum nominum, quoniam nomen speciale a speciali forma imponitur. Aut ergo est impositum a natura communi, aut a proprietate personae. Si est impositum a natura communi, cum illa non multiplicetur, non potest per unum nomen specificari. Si autem est impositum a proprietate personae, tunc, cum illa non conveniat tribus, non potest per illud specificari. Et ideo Ecclesia, compulsa necessitate, respondet nomen generale, sive quod importat communitatem nominis, quod est commune et multiplicabile; et ideo non est quaerenda specificatio per aliud nomen nisi vel per nomen adiectivum, vel per nomina personarum.
I. De unitate Dei iam actum est supra d. 2. q. 1, et de forma plurali huius nominis Deus d. 4. q. 3. Schol.
In 3. opposit. dicitur, nomen Deus (Θεός) impositum esse ab operatione. Hoc sumtum est ex Damasceno de Fide orthod. I. c. 9. (vide supra pag. 60 nota 2.). Distinctio illa in solutione a S. Bonav. adhibita aliis verbis ab Alex. Hal. (S. p. I. q. 50. m. 1. a. 2) sic explanatur: «Nomen operationis dicitur duobus modis: uno modo nomen impositum ab operatione, alio modo significans operationem. Primo modo dicit Damascenus, quod hoc nomen Deus est nomen operationis, quia impositum est et sumtum ab operatione fovendi, videndi vel consumendi, per quas operationes a creatura mundi cognoscitur sempiterna virtus eius et divinitas (Rom. I, 20). Secundo modo non est nomen operationis, immo significat ipsam divinam naturam in quantum huiusmodi, et ad illam significandam impositum est. Quantum ergo ad illud a quo imponitur, dicitur a Damasceno nomen operationis; quantum ad illud cui imponitur, dicit Ambrosius, quod est nomen naturae».
II. Ipsam quaestionem pauci antiqui explicite tractant, ut Alex. Hal., S. I. q. 44. m. 2; q. 80. m. 2. — B. Albert., S. p. I. tr. 13. q. 51. q. incidens 4. — Aegid. R., I. Sent. d. 2. 1. princ. q. 1.
---
QUESTION III.
Whether we can catholicly say several gods.
Thirdly it is asked whether catholicly we can say several gods. And that we can, is shown in this way.
1. This name God receives a distinguishing term by reason of supposition, as when it is said, God begets God: therefore since the same distinction is imported by the [verb] begets and by the [word] three, since [it is] personal, therefore in like manner this1 [statement] is catholic: there are three gods.
2. Likewise, God is the same as one having deity; but there are several having deity — this is said catholicly — therefore in like manner there are several gods.
3. Likewise, this name God, although it is substantival, is nevertheless imposed from operation. But it happens that operation is said in the plural of the [divine] persons, as is clear in Genesis 12: Let us make man etc.: therefore also this name gods.
4. Likewise, for the true numeration of anything no more is required than a true multiplication of supposits and of form; but this is in God, since there are three divine persons; person signifies a supposit, divine3 the form: therefore etc.
5. Likewise, since every general thing can be specified, and person is a general name, it seems that it can be specified, when it is said: three persons, so as to say still more particularly which three; but this cannot be done unless a name common to the three be added, and there is no other to give than this name God: therefore etc.4
On the contrary: 1. That it is not said catholicly is clear from the commandments, Deuteronomy 65: Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God is one God. Likewise in the [Athanasian] Creed6: «Not three gods, but one is God».
2. Likewise, this same [point] is seen by reason, since this name God signifies the divine nature; but the divine nature is not numbered or pluralised7: therefore neither is this name God.
Conclusion. Although there are three divine persons, nevertheless according to the catholic faith we cannot say that there are three gods.
I respond: It must be said that one cannot say catholicly several gods, because the plural number signifies a pluralisation of the term according to supposit and form in a substantive name, since the plural doubles its singular. And therefore, since the form imported by this name God is not multiplied, several gods ought not to be said.
To the arguments on the opposite side:
1. To that, then8, which is objected, that catholicly it is said God begets; it must be said that it is not similar, because begets imports at the same time a distinction together with agreement; but several gods simply imports distinction as regards both supposit and form.
2. To that which is objected, that God is the same as9 one having deity; I respond in two ways: that one having deity in one mode can be said neuter-wise, and so it is one only, and is equivalent to that which is God, which indeed signifies that which is; in another mode masculinely, and so it does not have an equivalent, and so is multiplied.
Yet it can be said in another way, that God does not signify the haver, but signifies the deity in comparison to the haver; and therefore is not multiplied.
3. To that which is objected concerning operation10, it must be said that a name can signify operation in the manner of an adjacent [term], and so draws number from elsewhere; or in the manner of a substantive, and so is not multiplied, and in this way this name God signifies.
4. To that which is objected, that there is a multiplication of supposits and of form there; it must be said that this name divine is, as it were, possessive; whence it is imposed from a twofold form, namely of the possession and of the possessor. And the form of deity is in the account of possessor; and, the form of the possessor remaining undivided, the form of the possession is numbered, as Socratic sheep; so also in the present case11; whence the form had is not numbered.
5. To that which is objected, that a general [term] can be specified; it must be said that person, since it names12 an individual of intellectual nature, can be specified in two ways, namely through the proper [characters] of the persons, as when it is said: three persons, that is the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; it can also be specified by determination of nature, as if it be said: divine or angelic or human persons.
And if you ask13 why it is not specified through a single name, as is the case in creatures, where three angelic persons are called three Angels; it can be answered that this is on account of the poverty of human speech, with which both the Greek and Latin tongues labour, but Latin more.
— Or it can be said that this is not permitted by the nature of these names themselves, since a special name is imposed from a special form. Either, then, it is imposed from a common nature, or from a property of person. If it is imposed from a common nature, since that is not multiplied, it cannot be specified by a single name. If however it is imposed from a property of person, then, since that does not belong to the three, it cannot be specified through it. And therefore the Church, compelled by necessity, sets forth a general name, or [one] which imports the commonness of the name, which is common and multipliable; and therefore no specification is to be sought through another name except either through an adjectival name, or through the names of the persons.
I. Of the unity of God treatment has already been made above at d. 2, q. 1, and of the plural form of this name God at d. 4, q. 3, Schol.
In the 3rd argument on the opposite [side] it is said that the name God (Θεός) is imposed from operation. This is taken from the Damascene, On the Orthodox Faith I, c. 9 (see above p. 60 note 2). That distinction employed in the solution by St. Bonaventure is explained in other words by Alex. of Hales (S. p. I, q. 50, m. 1, a. 2) thus: «A name of operation is said in two modes: in one mode a name imposed from operation, in another mode signifying operation. In the first mode the Damascene says that this name God is a name of operation, since it is imposed and taken from the operation of cherishing, of seeing, or of consuming, by which operations from the creation of the world is known his sempiternal power and divinity (Rom. 1:20). In the second mode it is not a name of operation, but rather signifies the divine nature itself as such, and is imposed for the signifying of it. As regards therefore that from which it is imposed, it is called by the Damascene a name of operation; as regards that to which it is imposed, Ambrose says that it is a name of nature».
II. Few of the ancients explicitly treat this question itself, as Alex. of Hales, S. I, q. 44, m. 2; q. 80, m. 2. — Bl. Albert, S. p. I, tr. 13, q. 51, q. incidens 4. — Aegidius Romanus, I Sent. d. 2, 1. princ., q. 1.
---
- In pluribus mss. ut I T deest haec.In several manuscripts such as I, T, haec ("this") is missing.
- Vers. 26. — Mox post ergo ex multis mss. ut A F G I M S T etc. et ed. 1 supplevimus particulam et. Dein cod. Z Deus pro dii.Verse 26. — Soon after ergo ("therefore"), from many manuscripts such as A, F, G, I, M, S, T etc. and from edition 1, we have supplied the particle et ("and"). Then codex Z [reads] Deus in place of dii ("gods").
- In antiquioribus mss. et ed. 1 hic non repetitur dicit, sicuti in Vat. et cod. cc fit. In plurali conveniunt codd. et edd.In the older manuscripts and in edition 1, dicit ("signifies") is not repeated here, as is done in the Vatican edition and in codex cc. In [using] the plural [divinae] the codices and editions agree.
- Sensus est: in hac dictione tres personae nomen personae, cum sit nomen genericum, specificari debet, ut cognoscatur, quales seu qui sint isti tres; sed hoc fieri nequit nisi additione huius nominis Deus, quod est tribus commune, dicendo tres dii.The sense is: in this expression three persons the name person, since it is a generic name, ought to be specified, in order that it may be known of what kind or who these three are; but this cannot be done except by the addition of this name God, which is common to the three, saying three gods.
- Vers. 4, ubi Vulgata: Audi Israel, Dominus Deus noster, Dominus unus est. — Lectionem in textum receptam exhibent codd. et lit. Magistri, hic c. 3. Cfr. etiam lit. Magistri, d. 2. c. 4.Verse 4, where the Vulgate [reads]: Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. — The reading received into the text is exhibited by the codices and the text of the Master, here c. 3. Compare also the text of the Master, d. 2, c. 4.
- Athanasiano. — In quo versiculo plures codd. cum ed. 1 omittunt est. Paulo ante Vat. cum cod. cc Unde pro Item.[The] Athanasian [Creed]. — In which versicle several codices with edition 1 omit est ("is"). A little before, the Vatican edition with codex cc [reads] Unde ("Whence") for Item ("Likewise").
- Vat. specificatur, sed praeter fidem mss. et ed. 1; cod. V non multiplicatur, cum quo concordat cod. X, qui tamen particulam non omittit.The Vatican edition [reads] specificatur ("is specified"), but contrary to the witness of the manuscripts and of edition 1; codex V [reads] non multiplicatur ("is not multiplied"), with which codex X agrees, which however omits the particle non ("not").
- Fide multorum mss. et ed. 1 adiecimus ergo. Mox post generat in cod. X additur Deum. Dein in cod. O post quia generat adiungitur importat distinctionem in suppositis, non in forma, quia. Tandem cod. bb ponit vel tres, codd. A S T tres pro deos.On the witness of many manuscripts and of edition 1 we have added ergo ("therefore"). Soon after generat, in codex X Deum is added. Then in codex O after quia generat is added importat distinctionem in suppositis, non in forma, quia ("imports a distinction in the supposits, not in the form, because"). Finally codex bb sets vel tres ("or three"), codices A, S, T [set] tres ("three") in place of deos ("gods").
- Vat. cum nonnullis tantum codd. et loco quod; lectio in textum recepta comprobatur insuper verbis ipsius obiectionis supra positis. Mox Vat. respondeo, quod ista locutio est duplex, quia pro respondeo dupliciter: quod, sed contra ed. 1 et codd., qui tamen verba sequentia uno modo incongrue propter confusionem subnexorum transponunt post dupliciter.The Vatican edition with only a few codices [reads] et ("and") in place of quod ("that"); the reading received into the text is moreover confirmed by the very words of the objection set above. Soon after, the Vatican edition [reads] respondeo, quod ista locutio est duplex, quia ("I respond that this expression is twofold, because") in place of respondeo dupliciter: quod ("I respond in two ways: that"), but against edition 1 and the codices, which however incongruously transpose the following words uno modo ("in one mode") after dupliciter ("in two ways") on account of the confusion of what follows.
- Vat. cum cod. cc dicitur. Mox post nomen in mss. et ed. 1 deest particula vel a Vat. addita. In fine responsionis codd. aa bb legunt plurificatur pro multiplicatur. — Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 30. m. 2. eandem obiectionem resolvens ait: Dicendum, quod quamvis hoc nomen Deus sit nomen operationis, praeter hoc habet intellectum substantiae perfectae et per se stantis. Operatio autem divina significatur dupliciter: adiective sive verbaliter, quia verba significant in adiacentia, et ideo propter pluralitatem personarum pluraliter significatur, cum dicitur: Faciamus hominem ad imaginem. Aliquando vero substantive et nominaliter, non per modum adiacentis, quae quidem operatio est eadem quod divina substantia, et ideo non recipiet pluralitatem.The Vatican edition with codex cc [reads] dicitur ("is said"). Soon after nomen, in the manuscripts and in edition 1 the particle vel ("or") added by the Vatican edition is missing. At the end of the response, codices aa, bb read plurificatur in place of multiplicatur. — Alex. of Hales, S. p. I, q. 30, m. 2, in resolving the same objection says: It must be said that, although this name "God" is a name of operation, beyond this it has the meaning of a perfect and per-se-subsisting substance. The divine operation, however, is signified in two ways: adjectivally or verbally, since verbs signify in adjacency, and therefore on account of the plurality of the persons it is signified in the plural, as when it is said: "Let us make man to [our] image." But sometimes [it is signified] substantively and nominally, not in the manner of an adjacent [term], which operation indeed is the same as the divine substance, and therefore will not receive plurality.
- Intellige: suo modo. Nam in allato exemplo forma possessoris (Socrates) est unica, forma possessionis (oves) est multiplex. Unde pluralis (Socraticae) non ad possessorem, sed ad possessionem refertur. Aliter est in locutione personae divinae, ubi una forma divina est in tribus personis. Unde pluralis (divinae) refertur ad tres possessores, qui numerantur, non ad formam sive divinam naturam. — Ed. 1 post ratione possessoris loco et ponit contingit autem quod.Understand: in its [own] mode. For in the example brought forward, the form of the possessor (Socrates) is unique, [while] the form of the possession (sheep) is multiple. Whence the plural (Socraticae, "Socratic" [feminine plural]) refers not to the possessor but to the possession. It is otherwise in the expression personae divinae ("divine persons"), where one divine form is in three persons. Whence the plural (divinae, "divine" [plural]) refers to the three possessors, who are numbered, not to the form or divine nature. — Edition 1, after ratione possessoris, sets contingit autem quod ("but it happens that") in place of et ("and").
- Vat. cum cod. cc nominat et paulo infra scilicet pro videlicet. Plures codd. in sequentibus exhibent bis significari loco specificari, sed perperam.The Vatican edition with codex cc [reads] nominat ("names", indicative), and a little below scilicet in place of videlicet. Several codices in what follows exhibit significari ("to be signified") twice in place of specificari ("to be specified"), but wrongly.
- Vat. cum cod. cc quaeris, quae et paulo infra post creaturis contra mss. et ed. 1 ubi pro quod.The Vatican edition with codex cc [reads] quaeris ("you ask", indicative), which [edition] also a little below, after creaturis, against the manuscripts and edition 1, [reads] ubi ("where") in place of quod ("that").