Dist. 3, Part 2, Dubia
Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity · Distinction 3
Dub. I.
In parte ista circa litteram quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Imago Dei permanet. Contra: Psalmus1: Domine, in civitate imaginem ipsorum ad nihilum rediges.
Respondeo: Imago dicitur dupliciter: quantum ad substantiale esse; et haec2 respicit trinitatem3 potentiarum et ordinem et aequalitatem, et sic semper permanet; alio modo prout supra esse addit bene esse4, ut decorem et honorem; et haec5 potest perdi, quia homo, cum in honore esset, non intellexit6.
Dub. II.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Memoria vero dicitur ad aliquid etc.; ergo memoria7, intelligentia et voluntas sunt in praedicamento relationis.
Item quaeritur, quare mens dicitur magis ad se quam memoria vel intelligentia?
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod dici ad aliquid est8 dupliciter: vel proprie et per se, sicut pater et filius, vel ratione alicuius annexi, quia habet respectum annexum et inclinationem; et sic memoria dicitur ad aliquid, quia innatum habet respectum ad memoriale, similiter intelligentia ad intel-
ligibile et voluntas ad volibile; et haec obiecta ad invicem habent respectum9. Et sic patet obiectio.
Ad illud quod quaeritur de mente, dicendum, quod mens dicitur ab actu essentiali. Propterea est intelligendum, quod quo est10 dat animae esse generalissimum, et sic dicitur essentia; vel inquantum dat esse generale, et sic dicitur vita, quia anima est in genere viventium; aut11 inquantum dat esse spirituale, et sic mens. Mens enim non dicitur nisi quod vivit vita intellectiva. — Vel anima in se dicitur essentia, ut actus corporis vita, ut perfectibilis a Deo mens.
Dub. III.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod tres personae non sunt unius Dei; quia videtur dicere falsum, quia, si sunt unius essentiae; sed essentia est12 Deus; ergo sunt unius Dei. Si dicas, quod non sequitur; ego quaero, quare non conceditur, quod tres personae sunt unius Dei? Si13 propter hoc, quod obliquus notat diversitatem; ergo cum essentia non sit diversa a persona, non potest dici: tres personae sunt unius essentiae.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod genitivus14 aliquando construitur in ratione possessionis, ut si dicatur: bos Petri vel Ioannis; aliquando ex vi declarationis essentiae, ut mulier egregiae formae; aliquando intransitive, ut creatura salis. Intransitive construitur generale cum speciali; et sic potest dici: substantia vel persona Dei; ex vi declarationis essentiae, nomen15 importans formam per modum formae; et sic dicuntur tres personae unius essentiae. Quia ergo, quando dicitur: tres personae sunt unius Dei, Deus non significat16 nec per modum formae nec per modum specificantis, ideo intelligitur per modum possidentis vel principiantis: et ideo simpliciter est falsa.
Dub. IV.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod ex maxima parte est dissimilis. Videtur quod imago est similitudo expressa: ergo si maxime est dissimilis, non est imago.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod est expressio17 simpliciter, vel in genere. Si ergo loquamur de expressione simpliciter, sic dico, quod anima rationalis non est valde similis Deo; si autem loquamur in genere creaturae, quia tantum accedit18, quantum potest natura creata, sic dicitur valde similis et expressa similitudo Dei.
Dub. V.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Si duo essent, vel uterque insufficiens esset, vel alter superflueret; quia secundum viam istam monstrari posset, quod non sit nisi una persona.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod in personis non potest esse superfluitas, quia in eis est una sufficientia; unde si una esset superflua, et omnes. Sed19 non potest ibi esse aliqua insufficientia, quia nihil plus habent tres quam una. Sed si essent duae essentiae, duae essent sufficientiae, si20 quaelibet per se esset sufficiens; si autem altera cum altera, quaelibet esset insufficiens: et ita patet, quod non est simile de duabus essentiis, sicut de duabus personis21.
Dub. VI.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod intellexit, Deum habere sapientiam, quae ab ipso genita est, quia intellexit, eum non esse rem fatuam; ergo videtur secundum hoc, quod Pater sit sapiens sapientia genita.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod ista consequentia non est intelligenda immediate, scilicet: quia non est res fatua, ergo habet sapientiam genitam. Sed hoc intelligendum est sic: Deus est substantia spiritualis: ergo est nata cognoscere: ergo si non habet sapientiam, est res fatua; sed non est res fatua: ergo habet sapientiam; sed non est sapientia sine verbo, et non est verbum, nisi procedat a mente et ita generetur: ergo a primo22, si habet sapientiam, necesse est, sapientiam esse genitam. Et omnes istas consequentias oportet intelligere immediate23.
---
Dub. I.
In this part concerning the text, a question is raised about what he says: The image of God remains. On the contrary, the Psalm1: Lord, in the city you will reduce their image to nothing.
Respondeo: "Image" is said in two ways: with respect to substantial being; and this2 regards the trinity3 of powers, their order, and their equality, and in this way it always remains; in another way, insofar as it adds to being a well-being4, such as beauty and honor; and this5 can be lost, since man, when he was in honor, did not understand6.
Dub. II.
Likewise it is asked about what he says: Memory, however, is said relatively (ad aliquid) etc.; therefore memory7, intelligence, and will are in the category of relation.
Likewise it is asked, why is mind said to be referred to itself more than memory or intelligence?
Respondeo: It must be said that to be said relatively (dici ad aliquid) is8 [understood] in two ways: either properly and per se, as father and son, or by reason of something annexed, because [the term] has an annexed regard and inclination; and in this way memory is said relatively, because it has an innate regard to the memorable, similarly intelligence to the intel-
ligible, and will to the willable; and these objects have a regard to one another9. And so the objection is clear.
To what is asked about mind, it must be said that "mind" is so called from an essential act. Hence it must be understood that that by which it is (quo est)10 gives to the soul most general being, and so it is called essence; or insofar as it gives general being, and so it is called life, because the soul is in the genus of living things; or11 insofar as it gives spiritual being, and so [it is called] mind. For nothing is called "mind" except what lives by an intellective life. — Or, the soul in itself is called essence, as the act of the body life, as perfectible by God mind.
Dub. III.
Likewise it is asked about what he says, that the three persons are not of one God; for he seems to say something false, because, if they are of one essence; but essence is12 God; therefore they are of one God. If you say that it does not follow, I ask, why is it not granted that the three persons are of one God? If13 [you say it is] on account of this, that the oblique case marks diversity; then, since essence is not diverse from the person, it cannot be said: the three persons are of one essence.
Respondeo: It must be said that the genitive14 is sometimes construed in the sense of possession, as when one says: the ox of Peter or of John; sometimes by force of declaration of essence, as a woman of outstanding form; sometimes intransitively, as a creature of salt. The general is construed intransitively with the special; and thus it can be said: the substance or person of God; by force of declaration of essence, a noun15 importing form by way of form [is so construed]; and thus the three persons are said to be of one essence. Since therefore, when it is said: the three persons are of one God, God does not signify16 either by way of form or by way of specifying, it is therefore understood by way of possessing or originating: and therefore [the proposition] is simply false.
Dub. IV.
Likewise it is asked about what he says, that for the greatest part it is unlike. It seems that the image is an expressed likeness: therefore if it is most unlike, it is not an image.
Respondeo: It must be said that there is expression17 simply, or in [its proper] genus. If therefore we speak of expression simply, then I say that the rational soul is not greatly like God; but if we speak in the genus of creature, since it approaches18 as much as a created nature can, in this way it is called greatly like and an expressed likeness of God.
Dub. V.
Likewise it is asked about what he says: If there were two, either each would be insufficient, or one would be superfluous; because by this way it could be shown that there is only one person.
Respondeo: It must be said that in the persons there cannot be superfluity, because in them there is one sufficiency; whence if one were superfluous, [so would] all. But19 there cannot be any insufficiency there, because the three have nothing more than the one. But if there were two essences, there would be two sufficiencies, if20 each by itself were sufficient; but if [each] one with the other, each would be insufficient: and so it is clear that the case of two essences is not similar to that of two persons21.
Dub. VI.
Likewise it is asked about what he says, that he understood that God has wisdom, which is begotten of him, because he understood that he is not a foolish thing; therefore it seems according to this that the Father is wise with begotten wisdom.
Respondeo: It must be said that this consequence is not to be understood immediately, namely: because he is not a foolish thing, therefore he has begotten wisdom. But this must be understood thus: God is a spiritual substance: therefore he is born to know: therefore if he does not have wisdom, he is a foolish thing; but he is not a foolish thing: therefore he has wisdom; but there is no wisdom without a word, and there is no word unless it proceeds from a mind and so is generated: therefore from the first [premise]22, if he has wisdom, it is necessary that wisdom be begotten. And all these consequences must be understood immediately23.
---
- Ps. 72, 20, ubi Vulgata post civitate addit tua et loco ipsorum cum Vat. habet eorum.Ps. 72:20, where the Vulgate adds tua ("your") after civitate and, in place of ipsorum, has with the Vatican edition eorum ("of them").
- Vat. et, sed obstant plurimi codd. cum ed. 1.The Vatican edition reads et ("and"), but very many codices, with ed. 1, stand against [that reading].
- Codd. M aa bb non inepte adiiciunt tria.Codd. M, aa, bb not unfittingly add tria ("three").
- Cod. IY hic addunt bene et cum subnexis cohaerenter.Codices I, Y here add bene et cum subnexis cohaerenter ("well, and coherently with what follows").
- Vat. hic et paulo infra hoc, sed minus bene et contra plures mss. et ed. 1.The Vatican edition here and a little below reads hoc ("this" neut.), but less well, and against many manuscripts and ed. 1.
- Psalm. 48, 21.Ps. 48:21.
- Codd. omittunt memoria, sed non bene, uti ex subnexis patet.The codices omit memoria, but not well, as is clear from what follows.
- Corruptam lectionem Vat., in qua loco dici ponitur dicitur et omittitur est, correximus ope mss. et sex primarum edd.We have corrected a corrupt reading of the Vatican edition, in which dicitur is put for dici and est is omitted, by the help of the manuscripts and the first six editions.
- De hac duplici specie relationum vide infra d. 30. q. 3.On this twofold kind of relations see below, d. 30, q. 3.
- Videtur supplendum: actus essentialis ut (quo est). Vel intellige ut Vat., quae post quo est addit potest intelligi in quantum. Item codd. F H addunt dicitur tripliciter vel in quantum. Alii autem codd. cum edd. 1, 2, 3 exhibent textum nostrum.It seems one should supply: the essential act as (that by which it is). Or understand with the Vatican edition, which after quo est adds can be understood insofar as. Likewise codices F, H add is said in three ways or insofar as. But other codices, with edd. 1, 2, 3, exhibit our text.
- Cod. Y vel. Mox ed. 1 satis bene speciale loco spirituale; codd. V W post sic addunt est. Cod. Z post mens addit: Unde isti tres actus sunt essentiales, a quibus dicuntur essentia, vita, mens, scilicet esse, vivere et intelligere; et paulo infra loco quod ponit quia ac pro intellectiva habet intellectuali.Cod. Y [reads] vel ("or"). Shortly after, ed. 1 has, suitably enough, speciale in place of spirituale; codd. V, W after sic add est. Cod. Z after mens adds: Hence these three acts are essential, from which they are called essence, life, mind, namely to be, to live, and to understand; and a little below it puts quia in place of quod, and has intellectuali for intellectiva.
- Vat. cum sint unius essentiae et essentia sit; sed contra ed. 1 et codd., qui in eo tantum discordant, quod nonnulli omittunt particulam si, cod. A loco sed ponit si ac cod. I pro sed habet et. Lectio in textum recepta S. Doctori familiarior esse videtur.The Vatican edition reads since they are of one essence and the essence is; but against ed. 1 and the codices, which differ only in that some omit the particle si ("if"), cod. A puts si for sed, and cod. I has et for sed. The reading received in the text seems more familiar to the Holy Doctor.
- Vat. absque auctoritate mss. et ed. 1 addit dicis quod.The Vatican edition, without the authority of the manuscripts and ed. 1, adds dicis quod ("you say that").
- Mendum Vat. generatus loco genitivus emendavimus ope mss. et edd. 1, 2, 3, 6. Paulo infra ex mss. et ed. 1 adiecimus indebite omissum essentiae. — De varia significatione genitivi vide infra, d. 34. dub. 5. et Priscian., XVIII. Grammat. c. 2. ed. Krehl, Lipsiae, 1820. tom. 2. pag. 112. Cfr. etiam Scot., de Grammatica speculativa c. 46-53.We have corrected the Vatican edition's error generatus in place of genitivus with the help of the manuscripts and edd. 1, 2, 3, 6. A little below, from the manuscripts and ed. 1, we have supplied essentiae, which had been improperly omitted. — On the various meanings of the genitive see below, d. 34, dub. 5, and Priscian, Grammaticae XVIII, c. 2, ed. Krehl, Leipzig, 1820, tom. 2, p. 112. Cf. also Scotus, de Grammatica speculativa cc. 46–53.
- Vat. praeter fidem mss. et ed. 1 ut loco nomen. — Post formam supple: construitur.The Vatican edition, against the witness of the manuscripts and ed. 1, has ut in place of nomen. — After formam supply: construitur ("is construed").
- Aliqui codd. ut D T significatur; aliqui ut X Y omittunt prima vice nec.Some codices, as D, T, read significatur; some, as X, Y, omit the first nec.
- Plurimi codd. cum sex primis edd. hic excessus et paulo infra excessu pro expressione; codd. Y et cc hic accessus et paulo infra accessu.Very many codices, with the first six editions, here read excessus and a little below excessu in place of expressione; codd. Y and cc here read accessus and a little below accessu.
- Vat. contra codd. et ed. 1 exprimit.The Vatican edition, against the codices and ed. 1, reads exprimit ("expresses").
- Cod. R. Similiter pro Sed.Cod. R has Similiter ("Likewise") for Sed ("But").
- Ita fere omnes codd. cum ed. 1 contra Vat., quae habet et, quo posito vis argumentationis aufertur; cod. I falso sed.So nearly all the codices with ed. 1, against the Vatican edition, which has et ("and"), with which reading the force of the argument is taken away; cod. I wrongly sed.
- Plura de hoc dubio vide supra d. 2. q. 4.For more on this doubt see above, d. 2, q. 4.
- Cod. Y addit ad ultimum.Cod. Y adds ad ultimum ("at the last").
- Ed. 1 non immediate. — Cfr. de hoc dubio d. 32. a. 2. q. 1.Ed. 1 reads non immediate ("not immediately"). — Cf. on this doubt, d. 32, a. 2, q. 1.