Dist. 3, Part 1, Divisio Textus
Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity · Distinction 3
## COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM III.
Pars I.
De cognitione Dei per similitudines longinquas.
Apostolus namque ait, quod invisibilia Dei etc.
DIVISIO TEXTUS.
Superius egit Magister de sancta Trinitate et Unitate12, in quantum creditur. In hac secunda parte agit de ipsa, in quantum intelligitur. Et haec pars dividitur in tres partes, in quarum prima ad intelligendum Trinitatem adducit congruas similitudines et rationes. In secunda solvit emergentes dubitationes, infra distinctione quarta in principio: Hic oritur quaestio satis necessaria. Constat etc. In tertia, illis dubitationibus solutis, determinat Trinitatis et Unitatis proprietates et conditiones, infra distinctione octava: Nunc de veritate sive proprietate34 etc.
Item prima pars habet duas. In prima adducit similitudines longinquas; in secunda similitudines propinquas sive expressas, quae attenduntur in imagine, ibi: Nunc vero iam ad eam perveniamus disputationem.
Item prima pars habet duas partes. In prima ostendit Unitatem, in secunda Trinitatem, ibi: Nunc restat ostendere, utrum per ea quae facta sunt etc.
Prima pars habet quatuor particulas. In prima probat auctoritate Apostoli ad Romanos primo56, quod Deus est cognoscibilis per creaturam. In secunda vero adducit varios modos cognoscendi et rationes, ibi: Nam sicut ait Ambrosius. In tertia dicit, illos modos in auctoritate Apostoli implicari, ibi: Ecce tot modis. In quarta tangit, quid per praedictas rationes possit probari, scilicet essentiae unitas, non trinitas, ibi: Haec autem omnia ad unitatem etc.
Nunc78 restat ostendere, utrum etc. Supra ostendit Magister per rationes divinae essentiae unitatem sive entitatem. In hac secunda parte ostendit Trinitatem similitudine longinqua, quae attenditur in vestigio, et habet hoc capitulum quatuor particulas. In prima ostendit Magister rationem vestigii in creatura. In secunda ostendit, quid respondeat vestigio in Creatore, quoniam trinitas appropriatorum, scilicet originis, pulcritudinis et delectationis, ut singula reddantur singulis, ibi: In illa namque Trinitate summa.
In tertia docet contemplari in Deo trinitatem per considerationem vestigii in creatura, ibi: Per considerationem itaque creaturarum etc., ubi ostendit trinitatem appropriatorum in Deo et quantum ad actum conditionis, et quantum ad actum reformationis. In quarta autem particula ostendit, quod consideratio Trinitatis per vestigium non est sufficiens, sed longinqua, ibi: Ecce ostensum est, qualiter in creaturis.
Nunc vero ad eam iam perveniamus disputationem. Haec9 est secunda pars istius distinctionis, in qua Magister probat Trinitatem et Unitatem per similitudinem propinquam et expressam, cuiusmodi est imago. Et dividitur haec pars in duas: in prima ostendit trinitatem et unitatem in Creatore per trinitatem et unitatem consideratam in potentiis animae; in secunda vero in habitibus, ibi: Potest etiam alio modo aliisque nominibus.
Prima iterum pars habet quatuor10 particulas. In quarum prima ostendit, ubi quaerenda sit imago in anima, quoniam in parte superiori et in11 tribus potentiis eius, scilicet memoria, intelligentia et voluntate. In secunda vero tangit imaginis conditiones, quae sunt trinitas, unitas et aequalitas, ibi: Haec ergo tria, ut ait Augustinus. In tertia vero movet et solvit dubitationem, quae oritur ex praedictis: utrum scilicet anima sit suae potentiae, ibi: Hic attendendum est diligenter. In quarta autem docet cavere errorem, qui posset causari vel12 oriri ex ostensione trinitatis creatae, quod omnimoda similitudo esset ad increatam; ubi ostendit, quod maxima est dissimilitudo imaginis ad Deum, ibi: Verumtamen caveat.
Potest etiam alio modo aliisque etc. Haec est secunda pars partis secundae huius distinctionis13, in qua intendit investigare Magister imaginem in habitibus animae secundum quod possibile est, et dividitur haec pars in quatuor particulas. Primo enim illa tangit, in quibus imago Trinitatis attenditur, quae sunt mens, notitia et amor. Secundo, illis praetactis, ostendit, quod in his attenditur imago propter consubstantialitatem, ordinem et aequalitatem, ibi: Haec autem tria cum sint etc. Tertio ostendit, quomodo mens rationalis in contemplatione trinitatis creatae proficit ad videndam et cognoscendam Trinitatem increatam in Unitate, ibi: Mens itaque rationalis considerans haec tria. Quarto vero breviter recolligit quae supra sunt demonstrata, ibi: Quapropter iuxta istam considerationem.
TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.
Ad intelligentiam eorum quae in hac parte prima distinctionis tanguntur, quatuor quaeruntur.
Primum est, utrum Deus sit cognoscibilis a creatura.
Secundum est, utrum sit cognoscibilis per creaturam.
Tertium est, utrum modus cognoscendi per creaturam conveniat homini quantum ad omnem statum, scilicet statum innocentiae, statum naturae lapsae et statum naturae glorificatae.
Quartum est, quid sit de Deo cognoscibile per creaturam.
The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation below. Each entry gives the Quaracchi editors' reference (Lombard chapter, scriptural locus, or patristic source) together with the textual notes from the NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM band.
---
## COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION III.
Part I.
On the cognition of God through remote likenesses.
For the Apostle says that the invisible things of God etc.
DIVISION OF THE TEXT.
Above the Master treated of the holy Trinity and Unity12 insofar as it is believed. In this second part he treats of it insofar as it is understood. And this part is divided into three parts, in the first of which, in order to understand the Trinity, he adduces fitting likenesses and arguments. In the second he resolves the emerging difficulties, below in distinction four at the beginning: Here arises a question sufficiently necessary. It is established etc. In the third, those difficulties having been resolved, he determines the properties and conditions of the Trinity and Unity, below in distinction eight: Now concerning the truth or property34 etc.
Likewise the first part has two [subdivisions]. In the first he adduces remote likenesses; in the second proximate or express likenesses, which are attended to in the image, there: Now indeed let us at last come to that disputation.
Likewise the first part has two parts. In the first he shows the Unity, in the second the Trinity, there: Now it remains to show whether through the things that have been made etc.
The first part has four subdivisions. In the first he proves by the authority of the Apostle to the Romans, chapter one56, that God is knowable through the creature. In the second indeed he adduces various modes of knowing and reasons, there: For as Ambrose says. In the third he says that those modes are implied in the authority of the Apostle, there: Behold, in so many modes. In the fourth he touches upon what can be proved by the aforesaid arguments, namely the unity of the essence, not the trinity, there: But all these things lead to unity etc.
Now78 it remains to show whether etc. Above the Master showed by arguments the unity or entity of the divine essence. In this second part he shows the Trinity by a remote likeness, which is attended to in the vestige, and this chapter has four subdivisions. In the first the Master shows the account of the vestige in the creature. In the second he shows what corresponds to the vestige in the Creator, namely a trinity of appropriated [attributes], that is, of origin, beauty, and delight, so that the individual [appropriations] are rendered to the individual [persons], there: For in that supreme Trinity.
In the third he teaches us to contemplate the Trinity in God through the consideration of the vestige in the creature, there: Through the consideration therefore of creatures etc., where he shows the trinity of appropriated [attributes] in God both as to the act of founding and as to the act of reforming. In the fourth subdivision, however, he shows that the consideration of the Trinity through the vestige is not sufficient, but remote, there: Behold, it has been shown in what way in creatures.
Now indeed let us at last come to that disputation. This9 is the second part of this distinction, in which the Master proves the Trinity and Unity through a proximate and express likeness, of which sort the image is. And this part is divided into two: in the first he shows the trinity and unity in the Creator through the trinity and unity considered in the powers of the soul; in the second indeed in the habits, there: It can also be done in another way and by other names.
The first part again has four10 subdivisions. In the first of which he shows where the image is to be sought in the soul, namely in the superior part and in11 its three powers, that is, memory, intelligence, and will. In the second indeed he touches upon the conditions of the image, which are trinity, unity, and equality, there: These three therefore, as Augustine says. In the third indeed he raises and resolves a difficulty which arises from the foregoing: namely whether the soul is its own powers, there: Here it is to be attended to diligently. In the fourth, however, he teaches us to avoid the error which could be caused by or12 arise from the demonstration of the created trinity, namely that there would be a total likeness to the uncreated; where he shows that there is the greatest dissimilitude of the image to God, there: Nevertheless let him beware.
It can also be done in another way and by other [names] etc. This is the second part of the second part of this distinction13, in which the Master intends to investigate the image in the habits of the soul insofar as is possible, and this part is divided into four subdivisions. For first he touches upon those [things] in which the image of the Trinity is attended to, which are mind, knowledge, and love. Secondly, these having been mentioned beforehand, he shows that the image is attended to in these on account of consubstantiality, order, and equality, there: But these three, since they are etc. Thirdly, he shows how the rational mind, in the contemplation of the created trinity, advances toward seeing and knowing the uncreated Trinity in the Unity, there: Therefore the rational mind, considering these three. Fourthly indeed he briefly recollects what has been demonstrated above, there: Wherefore according to this consideration.
TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.
For the understanding of the things which are touched upon in this first part of the distinction, four [questions] are asked.
The first is whether God is knowable by the creature.
The second is whether he is knowable through the creature.
The third is whether the mode of knowing through the creature befits man as to every state, namely the state of innocence, the state of fallen nature, and the state of glorified nature.
The fourth is what concerning God is knowable through the creature.
---
- Cap. I. n. 1.[Lombard,] cap. I, n. 1.
- Absque ulla auctoritate mss. et ed. 1 omittit Vat. et Unitate.Without any manuscript authority, and against ed. 1, the Vatican edition omits et Unitate ("and Unity").
- Cap. 1. n. 4. — Auctor huius libri, S. Fulgentius, multo fusius de his tractat, in quo textu codd. CDE addendo non et mutando sed in si sic legunt: Rursus quidem Trinitas non esset vera, si unus Deus Trinitas non esset: si quemadmodum... Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus personarum sunt ab invicem proprietate distincti, sic fuissent naturarum quoque diversitate discreti. Sed haec lectio duplicem suppositionem et argumentationem confundit. In fine textus Vat. fuissent quoque naturae pro fuissent naturarum quoque.[Lombard,] cap. 1, n. 4. — The author of this book, St. Fulgentius, treats of these matters much more fully [than Lombard]; in his text the codices CDE, by adding non instead of et and reading si in place of sed, have it thus: "Again, indeed, the Trinity would not be true, if the one God were not the Trinity: if just as... the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are distinct from one another by the property of the persons, so they would have been separated also by a diversity of natures. But this reading confuses the twofold supposition and argumentation." At the end of the text the Vatican edition [reads] fuissent quoque naturae in place of fuissent naturarum quoque.
- Cod. P hic addit: Item prima pars habet duas partes, in quarum prima ostendit Magister, quod Deus est trinus et unus; in secunda, quia rationes et similitudines, quas adducit non sunt sufficientes ad plene intelligendum Trinitatem et Unitatem in divinis, concludit, hoc esse in dubio, in fine istius distinctionis: Quapropter iuxta istam considerationem.Codex P here adds: "Likewise the first part has two parts, in the first of which the Master shows that God is triune and one; in the second, because the reasons and likenesses which he adduces are not sufficient for fully understanding the Trinity and Unity in things divine, he concludes that this remains in doubt, at the end of this distinction: Wherefore according to this consideration."
- Loc. cit.; auctoritas sequens ibid. n. 6.Loc. cit.; the authority that follows is from the same place, n. 6.
- Vers. 20.Verse 20 [of Romans 1].
- Cap. I. n. 1.[Lombard,] cap. I, n. 1.
- Vat. praeter fidem mss. et ed. 1, omissis verbis Nunc restat usque ad entitatem et mutata constructione, prosequitur: Similiter secunda pars, in qua ostendit Trinitatem per similitudinem longinquam, quae attenditur in vestigio, habet quatuor particulas.The Vatican edition, contrary to the testimony of the manuscripts and of ed. 1, omitting the words Nunc restat down to entitatem and with the construction altered, continues thus: "Likewise the second part, in which he shows the Trinity through a remote likeness, which is attended to in the vestige, has four subdivisions."
- Vat., seiungendo duas praesentis distinctionis partes, sequentem expositionem litterae infra in principio secundae partis huius distinctionis affert, sed contra mss. Immediate post Vat. praeter fidem codd. et ed. 1 huius loco istius.The Vatican edition, by separating the two parts of the present distinction, places the following exposition of the letter further on at the beginning of the second part of this distinction, but against the manuscripts. Immediately after, the Vatican edition, contrary to the testimony of the codices and ed. 1, reads huius in place of istius.
- Cod. O habet sex particulas et singulas enumerando, ubi de tertia agit, legit: In tertia ad evidentiam dictorum docet, quomodo in dicta assignatione imaginis accipiatur mens et memoria, ibi: Mens autem hic pro animo, deinde sub quarta et quinta exhibet tertiam et quartam in textu positam, ac demum addit: In sexta particula docet, respectu cuius obiecti attenditur imago in dictis potentiis, ibi: Sciendum vero, quod haec trinitas mentis.Codex O has six subdivisions and, in enumerating them one by one, where it treats of the third reads: "In the third [subdivision] he teaches for the clarification of the things said how mind and memory are to be taken in the said assignment of the image, there: But here 'mind' [is taken] for 'soul,'" then under the fourth and fifth it sets forth the third and fourth that stand in the [printed] text, and finally adds: "In the sixth subdivision he teaches in respect of which object the image is attended to in the said powers, there: But it is to be known, that this trinity of the mind."
- Vat. contra unanimem consensum mss. et ed. 1 omittit in et eius.The Vatican edition, against the unanimous consensus of the manuscripts and of ed. 1, omits in and eius ("its").
- Vat., refragantibus mss. et ed. 1, minus bene et pro vel.The Vatican edition, with the manuscripts and ed. 1 opposing, [reads] less well et ("and") in place of vel ("or").
- Vat., omissis verbis Magistri variataque constructione, sic: Similiter secunda pars, in qua... possibile est, dividitur in quatuor; sed contra mss. et ed. 1.The Vatican edition, with the Master's words omitted and the construction altered, [reads] thus: "Likewise the second part, in which... is possible, is divided into four [subdivisions];" but against the manuscripts and ed. 1.