← Back to Distinction 24

Dist. 24, Art. 3, Q. 2

Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity · Distinction 24

Textus Latinus
p. 430

QUAESTIO II. Utrum unitas, quam important nomina trinitas et trinus, sit unitas essentiae, an suppositi.

Secundo quaeritur, cuiusmodi sit illa unitas, quam importat hoc nomen trinitas vel trinus, utrum videlicet suppositi, an essentiae. Et quod essentiae, videtur:

1. Quia hoc quod est trinitas dicitur de omnibus simul et1 in singulari; sed hoc solum convenit termino importanti unitatem substantialem: ergo etc.

2. Item, nulla unitas est trium nisi essentia vel essentialis2; sed trinitas est trium unitas: ergo hoc nomen trinitas dicit unitatem essentialem; pari ratione et hoc nomen trinus.

3. Item, nec hoc nomen trinitas nec hoc nomen trinus dicitur de persona: ergo non importat unitatem personalem. Non enim3 conceditur: persona est trina, vel persona est trinitas.

Contra:

1. Huiusmodi nomina important simul pluralitatem et unitatem; sed sola unitas personae est plurificabilis, non essentiae: ergo important4 unitatem personae.

2. Item, unitas essentiae praedicatur de Patre; sed neque hoc nomen trinus, neque hoc nomen trinitas praedicatur de Patre: ergo etc.

3. Item, unitas essentiae praedicatur de essentia; sed haec nequaquam dicitur: essentia divina est trina, nec: trinitas est trina5: ergo non dicit unitatem essentialem.

Quaeritur ergo, quam unitatem important, et utrum nomina ista secundum substantiam dicantur, an secundum relationem. Et cum dicantur de omnibus simul in singulari, videntur dici secundum substantiam; cum iterum non dicantur de aliquo singillatim, non videntur dici secundum substantiam.

Conclusio. Unitas, quam important termini trinitas et trinus, non est unitas personalis, sed essentialis.

Respondeo: Dicendum6, quod ad hoc consuevit assignari duplex etymologia. Uno modo trinitas dicitur unitas ter; et sic nomen numerale cadit in eo ut complementum, et sic dicitur secundum relationem, sicut termini numerales; et unitas, quam importat, est unitas personalis, non essentialis, quia illa plurificatur. Alia etymologia est: trinitas est unitas trium7; et tunc unitas non numeratur, sed significatur ut communicabilis a tribus; et quoniam haec unitas est essentialis, ideo importat unitatem essentialem.

Et haec quidem etymologia ultima8 absque dubio habet veritatem; sed prima non videtur habere veritatem. Nam cum eandem significationem habeat trinus et trinitas, si illa est etymologia: unitas ter9, tunc trinus diceretur unus ter. Hoc autem non potest dici de Deo, scilicet ter unus, cum tamen dicatur trinus.

Propter hoc dicendum, quod huiusmodi nomina important unitatem formalem sive essentiae cum pluralitate suppositorum; et ideo habent quodam modo naturam termini substantialis in hoc, quod dicuntur de tribus singulariter, et termini numeralis in hoc, quod de nullo dicuntur per se.

Ad argumenta in oppositum:

Ad 1. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod sola unitas personae est plurificabilis; dicendum, quod trinitas non importat pluralitatem circa unitatem in recto, sed solum in obliquo, quod sit trium vel tribus; et hoc est essentiae.

Ad 2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod unitas essentiae praedicatur de Patre; dicendum, quod verum est, sed non ratione hac, quia plures in eo conveniunt — sicut animal praedicatur de homine, non tamen ea ratione, qua diversae species in eo conveniunt10 — et quia trinitas importat illam unitatem ut in pluribus, ideo etc.

Ad 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non dicitur essentia trina, neque trinitas trina11; dicendum, quod hoc nomen trinus importat unitatem ut in concretione, et ita ut inhaerentem pluribus. Et ideo de eo solo dicitur, quod importat unitatem ut in concretione,

p. 431

ut hoc nomen Deus, quod quidem supponit personas. Et quia tale est hoc nomen Deus, ideo conceditur: Deus est trinus, non: deitas est trina: quia deitas non supponit personam; similiter nec hoc trinitas; et sic patent omnia.

Scholion

In solut. ad 3. S. Doctor refugit[?] locutionem deitas est trina. Tamen in hymno: « Sacris solemniis iuncta sint gaudia » (Officium in festo Corp. Christi), cuius auctor fertur esse S. Thomas, legitur: « Te trinitas unaque poscimus ». Dici potest, quod hic abstracti [ponitur] pro concreto. Auctores vide in quaest. praeced.

---

English Translation

QUESTION II. Whether the unity which the names "trinity" and "three" import is the unity of the essence, or of the supposit.

Secondly it is asked, of what kind that unity is which this name trinity or three imports — namely, whether of supposit, or of essence. And that [it is] of essence is shown:

1. Because that which is trinity is said of all [the persons] together and1 in the singular; but this belongs only to a term importing substantial unity: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, no unity is "of three" except essence or essential2; but trinity is the unity of three: therefore this name trinity expresses essential unity; by parity of reason, also this name three.

3. Likewise, neither this name trinity nor this name three is said of a person: therefore it does not import personal unity. For it is not3 conceded: the person is three, or the person is trinity.

On the contrary:

1. Names of this sort import simultaneously plurality and unity; but the unity of the person alone is what can be pluralized, not [the unity] of the essence: therefore they import4 the unity of the person.

2. Likewise, the unity of the essence is predicated of the Father; but neither this name three, nor this name trinity, is predicated of the Father: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, the unity of the essence is predicated of the essence; but this is by no means said: the divine essence is three, nor: trinity is three5: therefore it does not express essential unity.

It is asked, therefore, what unity they import, and whether these names are said according to substance, or according to relation. And since they are said of all [the persons] together in the singular, they seem to be said according to substance; since again they are not said of any one singly, they do not seem to be said according to substance.

Conclusion. The unity which the terms "trinity" and "three" import is not personal unity, but essential.

I respond: It must be said6 that for this purpose a twofold etymology is wont to be assigned. In one way trinity is called unity thrice; and thus the numeral name falls in it as a complement, and it is so said according to relation, like numeral terms; and the unity which it imports is personal unity, not essential, since the latter is pluralized. The other etymology is: trinity is the unity of three7; and then the unity is not numbered, but is signified as communicable from the three; and since this unity is essential, therefore it imports essential unity.

And this last8 etymology indeed without doubt has truth; but the first does not seem to have truth. For since three and trinity have the same signification, if that is the etymology: unity thrice9, then three would be called one thrice. But this cannot be said of God, namely thrice one, although he is nevertheless called three.

On account of this it must be said that names of this sort import formal unity, or unity of essence, together with plurality of supposits; and therefore they have in some way the nature of a substantial term in this, that they are said of three in the singular, and the nature of a numeral term in this, that they are said of no one [supposit] per se.

To the arguments on the opposite side:

To 1. To that which is objected, that the unity of the person alone can be pluralized; it must be said that trinity does not import plurality with regard to unity in the direct [case], but only in the oblique, [namely] that it be of three or to three; and this is [the case] of the essence.

To 2. To that which is objected, that the unity of the essence is predicated of the Father; it must be said that this is true, but not on this ground — that several [persons] come together in him — just as animal is predicated of man, yet not on the ground on which diverse species come together in him10 — and since trinity imports that unity as in several [supposits], therefore etc.

To 3. To that which is objected, that it is not said the essence [is] three, nor trinity [is] three11; it must be said that this name three imports unity as in concretion, and so as inhering in several. And therefore of it alone is it said that it imports unity as in concretion,

as [does] this name God, which indeed stands for the persons. And because this name God is such, therefore it is conceded: God is three, [but] not: the deity is three: because deity does not stand for a person; likewise neither does this trinity; and so all things are plain.

Scholion

In the solution to [objection] 3, the holy Doctor shrinks from[?] the locution deitas est trina ("the deity is three"). Yet in the hymn « Sacris solemniis iuncta sint gaudia » (Office on the feast of Corpus Christi), whose author is reputed to be St. Thomas, one reads: « Te trinitas unaque poscimus » ("Thee, both Trinity and one, we beseech"). It can be said that here the abstract [stands] for the concrete. For the [other] authors see in the preceding question.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. In Vat. et solo cod. cc deest et.
    In the Vatican [edition] and only cod. cc, et ("and") is missing.
  2. Sola Vat. hic repetit unitas.
    The Vatican [edition] alone here repeats unitas ("unity").
  3. Vat. et unus vel alter codex addunt haec.
    The Vatican [edition] and one or another codex add haec ("these").
  4. Vat. mendose importat.
    The Vatican [edition] erroneously [reads] importat ("[it] imports") [in the singular].
  5. Verba nec trinitas est trina ex codd. P Q adiecimus, praesertim eo, quod infra in solutione huius obiectionis occurrunt. Mox codd. W Y essentiae pro essentialem.
    We have added the words nec trinitas est trina ("nor: trinity is three") from codd. P Q, especially because they recur below in the solution to this objection. Soon afterwards, codd. W Y [read] essentiae in place of essentialem.
  6. Vat. cum solo cod. cc praemittit Ad praedictorum intelligentiam. Mox Vat. absque auctoritate mss. et ed. 1 convenit pro consuevit.
    The Vatican [edition] with only cod. cc prefixes Ad praedictorum intelligentiam ("For the understanding of the things said before"). Soon afterwards, the Vatican [edition], without the authority of the mss. and ed. 1, [reads] convenit ("it agrees") in place of consuevit ("it is wont").
  7. Ita S. Isidor., VII. Etymolog. c. 4. Vide pag. 428, nota 8. — Paulo infra post communicabilis, postulantibus mss. et edd. 1, 2, 3, supplevimus praepositionem a, quae saepe a S. Doctore cum verbo communicabilis coniungitur.
    Thus St. Isidore, VII Etymologies c. 4. See above p. 428, note 8. — A little below, after communicabilis, with the mss. and editions 1, 2, 3 demanding it, we have supplied the preposition a ("from"), which is often joined by the holy Doctor with the word communicabilis ("communicable").
  8. A Vat. et solo cod. cc omittitur ultima.
    By the Vatican [edition] and only cod. cc, ultima ("last") is omitted.
  9. In Vat. et in aliquot codd. verbis unitas ter praemittitur trinitas.
    In the Vatican [edition] and in some codices, trinitas is prefixed to the words unitas ter.
  10. Paritas in hoc est: sicut de homine non praedicatur animal, quatenus sub se comprehendit alias diversas species animalium, scil. rationale et irrationale, quasi in homine diversae animalium species convenirent, sed quia homo est una species animalium: sic de Patre non praedicatur unitas essentiae, quatenus est in aliis personis, quasi in Patre plures personae convenirent, sed quia est una personarum, quibus unica divina essentia convenit. — Vat. paulo superius contra fere omnes codd. et sex primas edd. qua loco quia, ac dein post plures in cum aliquibus codd. et ed. 1 perperam ea pro eo. Proxime infra Vat., fere omnibus mss. et ed. 1 dissidentibus, omittit tamen, et mendose exhibet diversa specie pro diversae species.
    The parity in this is: just as animal is not predicated of man insofar as it comprehends under itself other diverse species of animals, namely rational and irrational, as if in man diverse species of animals came together, but because man is one species of animals — so the unity of the essence is not predicated of the Father insofar as it is in the other persons, as if in the Father several persons came together, but because he is one of the persons to whom the one divine essence belongs. — The Vatican [edition], a little above, against nearly all the codices and the first six editions, [reads] qua in place of quia, and then after plures in with some codices and ed. 1 erroneously [reads] ea in place of eo. Just below, the Vatican [edition], with nearly all the mss. and ed. 1 dissenting, omits tamen ("nevertheless"), and erroneously exhibits diversa specie in place of diversae species.
  11. Codd. VZ omittunt neque trinitas trina.
    Codd. VZ omit neque trinitas trina ("nor: trinity is three").
← Dist. 24, Art. 3, Q. 1