Dist. 31, Part 1, Dubia
Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity · Distinction 31
Dubia circa litteram Magistri.
DUB. I.
In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram et primo dubitatur de situ huius partis, quia cum supra distinctione decima nona actum est de aequalitate, videtur hic Magister superflue repetere.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod de aequalitate et similitudine est loqui dupliciter, scilicet a parte rei, vel a parte nominis. Et primo modo agitur de aequalitate et similitudine in praecedentibus, secundo modo hic.
DUB. II.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod nihil est sibi simile. Videtur enim falsum, quia aliquis differt a se, sicut Socrates senex a se puero: ergo pari ratione aliquid potest esse simile sibi. — Item Christus homo est sibi similis, quia nullus est beatus, nisi sit Deo assimilatus; sed Christus est maxime Deo assimilatus: ergo etc.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod, sicut differentia aliquando notat alietatem suppositi a supposito, ut cum dicitur: Petrus est alius a Paulo; aliquando alietatem in natura, ut cum dicitur: Christus secundum quod homo differt a se Deo; aliquando alietatem status a statu, ut Petrus senex differt a se puero: per hunc modum intelligendum est de similitudine. Quando igitur similis dicit similitudinem suppositi ad suppositum, non potest idem esse similis sibi; quando vero dicit similitudinem naturae ad naturam, vel status ad statum, potest idem esse sibi similis, quia haec concurrunt in eadem persona; et ita intelligit Magister.
DUB. III.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod aequalitas Patris et Filii non est relatio vel notio, quia statim praedixit, quod simile et aequale est relativum: ergo similitudo est relatio.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod Magister intelligit de notione, quae est personae proprietas, non de relatione communiter intellecta. — Vel aliter dicendum, quod verbum Magistri est causaliter intelligendum, sicut patet ex praecedentibus, quia aequalitas non consistit in proprietatibus personalibus, sed magis in essentialibus, quae supra ostensae sunt.
---
Doubts concerning the text of the Master.
DOUBT I.
In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first there is a doubt concerning the place of this part, because since above, in the nineteenth distinction, equality has already been treated, the Master here seems to repeat superfluously.
I respond: It must be said that equality and likeness can be spoken of in two ways, namely on the side of the thing, or on the side of the name. And in the first way they are treated in what precedes; in the second way, here.
DOUBT II.
Likewise it is asked concerning what he says, that nothing is like itself. For this seems false, because someone differs from himself, as Socrates as an old man from himself as a boy: therefore by parity of reasoning something can be like itself. — Likewise, Christ as man is like himself, because no one is blessed unless he be made like to God; but Christ is in the highest degree made like to God: therefore etc.
I respond: It must be said that, just as difference sometimes denotes an otherness of supposit from supposit, as when it is said: Peter is other than Paul; sometimes an otherness in nature, as when it is said: Christ, insofar as he is man, differs from himself, [insofar as he is] God; sometimes an otherness of state from state, as Peter as an old man differs from himself as a boy — in this way is likeness to be understood. When therefore "like" expresses a likeness of supposit to supposit, the same thing cannot be like itself; but when it expresses a likeness of nature to nature, or of state to state, the same thing can be like itself, because these come together in the same person; and so the Master understands it.
DOUBT III.
Likewise it is asked concerning what he says, that the equality of Father and Son is not a relation or a notion, because he had just said before that "like" and "equal" are relative: therefore likeness is a relation.
I respond: It must be said that the Master understands [it] of a notion which is a property of a person, not of relation commonly understood. — Or it must be said otherwise, that the word of the Master is to be understood causally, as is clear from what precedes, since equality does not consist in personal properties, but rather in essential ones, which have been shown above.
---