Dist. 24, Art. 3, Q. 1
Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity · Distinction 24
ARTICULUS III. De nomine trinus et trinitas.
Tertio loco est quaestio principalis de tertia differentia1 nominum numeralium, sicut est hoc nomen trinus et trinitas. Et circa hoc quaeruntur duo.
Primo quaeritur, utrum huiusmodi nomina important unitatem.
Secundo, dato quod sic, quaeritur, cuiusmodi sit illa unitas, quam important.
QUAESTIO I. Utrum nomina, quae significant simul unum et numerum, importent unitatem.
Quod autem importent unitatem, videtur:
1. Primo per etymologiam: trinitas enim dicitur quasi trium unitas2, similiter et trinus.
2. Item, hoc videtur, quia in divinis recipitur hoc nomen trinitas, sed non hoc nomen ternarius; sed haec duo eandem pluralitatem important: ergo hoc3 non est ratione pluralitatis: ergo hoc nomen trinitas ultra pluralitatem aliquid importat, et non nisi unitatem: ergo etc.
3. Item, in divinis recipitur hoc nomen trinus, sed non recipitur hoc nomen triplex — non enim dicitur Deus triplex, sicut dicit Magister in littera4, sed fides communiter dicit Deum trinum — ergo aliquid dicit ultra hoc, quod est triplex; sed non pluralitatem: ergo unitatem.
4. Item, Magister dixit supra, distinctione vigesima secunda5, quod hoc nomen trinitas est nomen collectivum; sed nomen collectivum non tantum importat pluralitatem, sed etiam unitatem: ergo etc.
Contra:
1. Ex tribus personis nihil unum fit; sed ex pluribus unitatibus creatis aliquid unum6 resultat: ergo numerus, in creaturis dictus, potius debet importare unitatem quam in divinis. Sed cum dicitur in creaturis binarius vel ternarius, ita importat numerum, quod non unitatem: ergo nec hoc nomen trinitas debet in divinis importare.
2. Item, si trinus et trinitas important pluralitatem et unitatem; cum nullum nomen sic distinctum et indistinctum7 habeat pluralitatem distinctionis et unitatem indistinctionis, de nullo nomine in divinis poterit dici.
3. Item, si unitatem importat8: ergo cum idem non debeat sibi copulari, male et nugatorie dicitur in hymno Confessorum in fine:
Qui supra caeli residens cacumen Totius mundi machinam gubernat, Trinus et unus9.
Conclusio. Nomen trinus vel trinitas importat cum pluralitate personarum etiam unitatem essentiae, non autem collectivam.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod quia in divinis singulari modo est numerus, scilicet ex distinctione suppositorum cum unitate formae, speciali modo10 debuit exprimi nomine, quod simul dicit pluralitatem et unitatem. — Quia ergo huiusmodi nomina important pluralitatem et unitatem, ideo sunt similia nominibus collectivis. Sed quia unitas collectivorum est unitas aggregationis, quae consequitur pluralitatem; hic autem est unitas formae, quae non est pluralitatem consequens: ideo non est collectivum tale nomen. Et ideo dicit Magister, quod est quasi collectivum.
Ad 1. Et per hoc patet primum in contrarium. Concedendum ergo, quod importat pluralitatem et unitatem.
Ad 2. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod nullum nomen simul importat11 pluralitatem et unitatem; dicendum, quod hoc verum est ratione formae; sed cum sit unum in forma, potest habere pluralitatem suppositorum: et hoc non est inconveniens vel impossibile.
Ad 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de nugatione, dicendum, quod, sicut hoc verbum cede habet intellectum huius verbi dandi et loci, sed cum dicitur, cede locum, cadit ab intellectu alterius: similiter in proposito, et similiter intelligendum in relativis, cum dicitur: filii pater.
Ceteri antiqui magistri hanc et sequentem quaestionem simul tractant et in eadem solutione conveniunt. Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 66. m. 1. 2. — Scot., Report., hic q. unic. circa fin. — S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 2; S. I. q. 31. a. 1. — B. Albert., hic a. 8; S. p. I. tr. 10. q. 48. m. 1. 2. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. 1. — Aegid. R., hic 2. princ. q. 2. — Henr. Gand., S. a. 75. q. 4. n. 16. et seq. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 5.
---
ARTICLE III. On the name "threefold" and "trinity."
In the third place is the principal question concerning the third difference1 of numeral names, as is this name threefold (trinus) and trinity (trinitas). And on this two [questions] are asked.
First it is asked whether names of this sort import unity.
Second, granted that they do, it is asked of what sort is that unity which they import.
Question I. Whether the names which signify one and number together import unity.
That they do import unity, however, is shown:
1. First, through etymology: for trinitas is so called as it were a unity of three2, and likewise trinus.
2. Likewise, this is plain, since in divine matters this name trinitas is received, but not this name ternarius; but these two import the same plurality: therefore this3 is not by reason of plurality: therefore this name trinitas imports something beyond plurality, and nothing other than unity: therefore etc.
3. Likewise, in divine matters this name trinus is received, but this name triplex is not received — for God is not called triplex, as the Master says in the littera4, but the faith commonly calls God trinus — therefore it says something beyond what triplex says; but not plurality: therefore unity.
4. Likewise, the Master said above, in the twenty-second distinction5, that this name trinitas is a collective name; but a collective name does not only import plurality, but also unity: therefore etc.
On the contrary:
1. From three persons nothing one comes to be; but from many created unities something one6 results: therefore number, said in creatures, ought rather to import unity than [it does] in divine matters. But when in creatures it is said binary or ternary, it so imports number that [it does] not [import] unity: therefore neither ought this name trinitas to import [unity] in divine matters.
2. Likewise, if trinus and trinitas import plurality and unity; since no name so distinct and indistinct7 has plurality of distinction and unity of indistinction, it can be said of no name in divine matters.
3. Likewise, if it imports unity8: therefore since the same thing ought not to be coupled with itself, it is badly and pointlessly said in the hymn of Confessors at the end:
He who, residing above the summit of heaven, Governs the machine of the whole world, Threefold and one9.
Conclusion. The name trinus or trinitas imports, together with plurality of persons, also unity of essence, but not collective [unity].
I respond: It must be said that, because in divine matters number is in a singular way, namely from distinction of supposits with unity of form, in a special way10 it had to be expressed by a name which says plurality and unity together. — Since therefore names of this sort import plurality and unity, they are accordingly similar to collective names. But since the unity of collective [things] is a unity of aggregation, which follows upon plurality; here, however, it is a unity of form, which is not a consequence of plurality: therefore such a name is not collective. And therefore the Master says that it is quasi collective ("as it were collective").
To 1. And from this what was said first on the contrary side is plain. Therefore it must be conceded that it imports plurality and unity.
To 2. To that, then, which is objected, that no name imports11 plurality and unity together; it must be said that this is true by reason of form; but since it is one in form, it can have plurality of supposits: and this is not unfitting or impossible.
To 3. To that which is objected concerning pointlessness, it must be said that, just as this word cede ("yield") has the meaning of the verb to give and of place, but when it is said cede locum ("yield place"), it falls away from the meaning of the other [word]: similarly in the [present] proposition, and similarly is it to be understood in relatives, when it is said: filii pater ("the sons' father").
The other ancient masters treat this and the following question together, and agree in the same solution. Alexander of Hales, Summa p. I, q. 66, m. 1, 2. — Scotus, Reportata, here q. unic. near the end. — St. Thomas, here q. 2, a. 2; Summa I, q. 31, a. 1. — Bl. Albert, here a. 8; Summa p. I, tr. 10, q. 48, m. 1, 2. — Petrus a Tarantasia, here q. 3, a. 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 3, q. 1. — Aegidius Romanus, here 2. princ. q. 2. — Henry of Ghent, Summa a. 75, q. 4, n. 16 et seq. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 5.
---
- Vat. praeter fidem mss. et ed. 1 Tertio principaliter quaeritur de differentia, et mox cum cod. cc post trinus habet vel pro et.The Vatican [edition], against the testimony of the mss. and ed. 1, [reads] Tertio principaliter quaeritur de differentia ("Thirdly is principally asked concerning the difference"), and soon after, with cod. cc, after trinus it has vel ("or") in place of et ("and").
- Isidor., VII. Etymolog. c. 4: Trinitas appellatur, quod fiat totum unum ex quibusdam tribus, quasi triunitas.Isidore, VII Etymologies c. 4: "Trinity" is so called because the whole one is made out of certain three [things], as it were a "tri-unity."
- Ex antiquioribus mss. et ed. 1 hic supplevimus hoc, et mox post dupliciter substituimus vel pro uno modo, ac circa finem responsionis post relationem posuimus ad aliud loco ad aliquid.From the older mss. and ed. 1 we have here supplied hoc ("this"), and soon after dupliciter we have substituted vel ("or") in place of uno modo ("in one way"), and toward the end of the response, after relationem we have placed ad aliud ("to another") in place of ad aliquid ("to something").
- Dist. XIX. c. 12. — Vat. contra plurimos codd. et ed. 1 dicitur multipliciter pro dicit Magister.Distinction XIX, c. 12. — The Vatican [edition], against many codices and ed. 1, [reads] dicitur multipliciter ("is said in many ways") in place of dicit Magister ("the Master says").
- Cap. 3. — Vat. praeter fidem mss. et ed. 1 omittit distinctione 22, quod hoc nomen; et mox post nomen inserit quasi, quod quidem ab ipso Magistro exhibetur; sed attendendum, quod hic omittitur, quia in corp. sensus explicatur.Chapter 3. — The Vatican [edition], against the testimony of the mss. and ed. 1, omits distinctione 22, quod hoc nomen ("in distinction 22, that this name"); and soon after nomen it inserts quasi ("as it were"), which indeed is given by the Master himself; but it must be noted that here it is omitted, since in the body the sense is explained.
- Lectio Vat. et cod. cc fit sive pro unum nimis vaga est et contradicit ceteris codd. et ed. 1. Paulo infra Vat. trinarius pro ternarius.The reading of the Vatican [edition] and cod. cc, fit or in place of unum, is too vague and contradicts the other codices and ed. 1. A little below, the Vatican [edition reads] trinarius in place of ternarius.
- Vat. cum cod. cc, aliis mss. et ed. 1 obnitentibus, hic nimis arcte ergo hoc nomen Trinitatis si recipiatur in divinis, hoc etc., et paulo ante reputatur pro recipitur, ac trinarius loco ternarius. [?]The Vatican [edition] with cod. cc, with other mss. and ed. 1 resisting, here too tightly [reads] ergo hoc nomen Trinitatis si recipiatur in divinis, hoc etc., and a little before reputatur in place of recipitur, and trinarius in place of ternarius. [?]
- Vat. contra antiquiores codd. addit nec, pro quo in ed. 1 legitur nullam. Paulo ante pro sic Vat. sit.The Vatican [edition], against the older codices, adds nec ("nor"), in place of which ed. 1 reads nullam ("none"). A little before, in place of sic ("thus") the Vatican [edition reads] sit ("let it be").
- Invenitur sic in Breviario gothico secundum S. Isidorum in officio unius Confessoris praecipui, non Pontificis.It is found thus in the Gothic Breviary according to St. Isidore, in the office of one principal Confessor, not a Pontiff.
- In Vat. minus bene et contra mss. et ed. 1 deest modo. Paulo ante cod. R in pro ex.In the Vatican [edition], less well and against the mss. and ed. 1, modo ("in the manner") is missing. A little before, cod. R [reads] in in place of ex.
- Cod. T cum ed. 1 habet qui, et dein post quod cum pluribus aliis codd. ut A I Y omittit hoc. Dein cod. R potest habere ratione suppositorum pluralitatem loco potest habere pluralitatem suppositorum.Cod. T with ed. 1 has qui, and then after quod, with several other codices such as A I Y, omits hoc. Then cod. R [reads] potest habere ratione suppositorum pluralitatem in place of potest habere pluralitatem suppositorum.