Dist. 4, Art. 1, Q. 2
Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity · Distinction 4
Quaestio II. Utrum admitti possit haec locutio: Deus generat alium Deum.
Secundo quaeritur, utrum unitas essentiae admittat hanc: Deus generat alium Deum. Et quod non, videtur.
1. Anselmus de Processione Spiritus sancti1: « Cum dicimus Deum de Deo, non intelligimus alium Deum, sed eundem de se ipso ».
2. Item, si genuit alium Deum; sed ubi est unus et alius, ibi sunt duo: ergo si genuit alium, sunt duo dii.
3. Item, alius dicit alietatem in generali: ergo cum generale specificetur per adiunctum, hoc nomen Deus specificat ipsum; sed si specificat, specificat ratione formae: ergo notatur alietas in forma: ergo non est admittenda talis locutio, cum non sit ibi alietas in forma.
Sed contra:
1. Generatio importat distinctionem2; sed distinctio alietatem aliquam: ergo et generatio; ergo si haec est vera: Deus genuit Deum, et haec per consequens: Deus distinguitur a Deo, vel genuit alium Deum. Si dicas, quod non sequatur, quia generare importat distinctionem ut modum, sed distingui vel esse alium ut rem; contra: ad
consequentiam ut modum sequitur consecutio ut res; unde si haec est vera: si homo est, animal est3, ad hominem sequitur animal. Et praeterea, constat quod distinctio generationis non tantum est a parte intelligentis, verum etiam a parte rei: ergo illi distinctioni ut exercitae respondet distinctio realis.
2. Item, affirmativa est falsa: Deus genitus est Deus generans; ergo negativa est vera: Deus genitus non est Deus generans. Sed sicut affirmativa significat identitatem, ita negativa diversitatem: ergo sicut Deum generantem et genitum contingit ad invicem comparari mediante negatione, ita mediante alietate: ergo haec est vera: Deus genuit alium Deum.
3. Item, Pater sive Deus genuit alium; haec est vera, constat: ergo aut alium Deum, aut alium non Deum; sed non alium non Deum: ergo etc.
4. Item, alius est terminus masculini generis; sed terminus masculini generis4 stat pro persona in partitivis terminis: ergo alius dicit alietatem personalem; sed haec est vera: Deus genuit Deum alium in persona; ergo simpliciter4 est vera haec: Deus genuit alium Deum.
Conclusio.
In stricto verborum sensu falsa est locutio: Deus genuit alium Deum.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod haec consuevit distingui: Deus genuit alium Deum, quia alius potest teneri adiective; et sic ponit alietatem circa formam istius termini Deus, et sic locutio est falsa; potest etiam teneri substantive, ut5 substantivetur; et tunc est appositiva constructio, sicut animal homo, et est sensus hoc modo: Deus genuit alium Deum, id est, genuit alium qui est Deus; et in hoc sensu est locutio vera.
Sed licet ista distinctio in locutionibus theologicis propter quendam proprium modum loquendi locum habeat, tamen quantum esset de virtute6 sermonis, non esset distinguenda; quia adiectivum adiunctum6 substantivo, ut homo albus, non dicitur substantivari, nec appositiva constructio dicitur ibi esse, maxime cum illa sit minus communis respectu magis communis7. Unde cum hoc nomen alius sit adiectivum habens substantivum coniunctum, in praedicta locutione ponit alietatem circa ipsum ratione suppositi et formae.
Et propterea, si velimus artificialiter8 procedere, iudicanda est talis locutio falsa. Propter hoc ad intelligentiam dictae locutionis notanda est regula communis: non habet locum distinctio, ubi non est ex diversis causis unio, verbi gratia, Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus uniuntur in hoc nomine Deus, non ex diversis causis sive ratione diversorum, sed ratione unius deitatis sive essentiae. Unio ex diversis causis est, ut in homine uniuntur Petrus et Ioannes ratione diversarum humanitatum, quia alia est humanitas Petri, et alia Ioannis.
Et iuxta hanc regulam ab oppositis9 est alia regula accipienda: non habet locum omnimoda10 unio, ubi est simul cum unione distinctio, ut Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus uniuntur in una deitate sive essentia, sed distinctionem habent ratione pluralitatis personarum.
Secundum hoc est attendendum, quod in divinis quaedam vocabula important distinctionem solum, quaedam omnimodam unionem, quaedam medio modo. Quoniam igitur Deus generans et Deus genitus, etsi sint personaliter distincti, tamen in deitate uniuntur ex eadem causa, quia una deitate: ideo non recipiuntur11 nomina importantia simpliciter distinctionem. Ideo haec non admittitur: Deus distinguitur a Deo, similiter: Deus genuit alium Deum. Item, ratione distinctionis non recipiuntur vocabula omnimodam importantia unionem in supposito et forma: unde haec non recipitur: Deus genuit se. Sed illa quae medio modo se habent, recipiuntur, quale est hoc verbum generat, quia dicit distinctionem in persona cum12 unitate essentiae. Similiter haec conceditur: Pater generat alterum se. Unde Augustinus ad Maximinum13: « Pater genuit alterum se »; et similiter super Ioannem: « Pater mittens Filium misit alterum se ». Et ex hoc est, quod non sequitur ad verbum simpliciter distinctionem; et sic patet primum.
2. Ad illud quod secundo obiicitur de negatione, bene concedo, quod est alietas; sed tamen non sequitur, quod possit dici alietas in essentia sive forma deitatis. Unde non sequitur: genitus est alius a generante, ergo14 alius Deus, quia mutatur suppositio huius termini Deus.
3. Ad illud quod obiicitur tertio: aut alium Deum, aut alium non Deum; dico, quod non sufficienter dividit; quia non est contradictio, nisi accipiatur negatio respectu totius. In hac enim: genuit alium Deum, duo dicuntur, scilicet quod Deus genuit Deum, et quod alium in deitate: et ideo ad hoc, quod sumatur contradictio, necesse est, quod feratur supra totum. Unde sicut non valet, demonstrato monacho nigro, qui est albus per naturam: iste aut est albus monachus, aut albus non monachus, quia utraque falsa; similiter intelligendum est in proposito. Nec valet: est Deus et est alius: ergo est Deus alius, immo est ibi accidens, sicut hic: est bonus et est citharoedus: ergo est bonus citharoedus.
4. Ad illud quod ultimo obiicitur, dicendum, quod alius, quamvis sit masculini generis, tamen quia ponit rem circa substantivum, ab illo trahit suppositionem; et ideo non tenetur personaliter, nisi secundum quod substantivatur, sicut et hoc nomen unus; unde sicut si dicatur unus Deus, unus dicit unitatem substantialem, ita si dicatur alius Deus, alius dicit alietatem substantialem. Et ratio huius venit non tantum, quia adiectivum, sed quia generale, quod specificatur per adiunctum.
I. Distinctionem in principio responsionis positam, quod alius hic possit teneri vel adiective vel substantive (nempe ut appositio), S. Doctor improbat, cum sit regula grammaticorum, quod adiectivum, si immediate sibi coniunctum habet substantivum, non potest accipi ut substantivum sive ut appositio. Si autem alius est adiectivum, tunc valet regula logicae, quod alius, quando immediate ad suum subiectivum ponitur, importat alietatem circa suum substantivum tum ratione suppositi, tum ratione formae. Consequenter in casu nostro hic terminus importaret diversitatem in Deitate.
II. In conclusione et solutione obiectorum principales doctores conveniunt. Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 50. m. 3. a. 2. § 2. — Scot., hic q. 1. — S. Thom., hic a. 3, S. I. q. 31. a. 2. — B. Albert., hic a. 8. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic q. 2.
---
Question II. Whether this expression can be admitted: God generates another God.
Secondly it is asked whether the unity of the essence admits this: God generates another God. And that it does not, seems [to be the case].
1. Anselm, On the Procession of the Holy Spirit1: "When we say God from God, we do not understand another God, but the same one from himself."
2. Likewise, if he generated another God; but where there is one and another, there are two: therefore if he generated another, there are two gods.
3. Likewise, alius (another) signifies otherness in general: therefore since the general is specified through what is adjoined, this name Deus (God) specifies it; but if it specifies, it specifies by reason of the form: therefore otherness is marked in the form: therefore such an expression is not to be admitted, since there is no otherness there in the form.
On the contrary:
1. Generation imports distinction2; but distinction [imports] some otherness: therefore so does generation; therefore if this is true: God generated God, then this consequently: God is distinguished from God, or he generated another God. If you say that it does not follow, because to generate imports distinction as a mode, but to be distinguished or to be another as a thing; on the contrary: upon
a consequence as a mode follows a consecution as a thing; whence if this is true: if a man exists, an animal exists3, upon "man" follows "animal." And besides, it is established that the distinction of generation is not only on the side of the one understanding, but truly also on the side of the thing: therefore to that distinction as exercised there corresponds a real distinction.
2. Likewise, the affirmative is false: God generated is God generating; therefore the negative is true: God generated is not God generating. But just as the affirmative signifies identity, so the negative [signifies] diversity: therefore just as God generating and [God] generated happen to be compared with one another by means of negation, so by means of otherness: therefore this is true: God generated another God.
3. Likewise, the Father or God generated another; this is true, it is established: therefore either another God, or another non-God; but not another non-God: therefore etc.
4. Likewise, alius is a term of masculine gender; but a term of masculine gender4 stands for a person in partitive terms: therefore alius signifies personal otherness; but this is true: God generated another God in person; therefore this is simply4 true: God generated another God.
Conclusion.
In the strict sense of the words the expression is false: God generated another God.
I respond: It must be said that this is customarily distinguished: God generated another God, because alius can be taken adjectivally; and thus it places otherness around the form of this term Deus, and so the expression is false; it can also be taken substantivally, so that5 it be substantivized; and then it is an appositive construction, as in animal homo (animal-man), and the sense is in this way: God generated another God, that is, he generated another who is God; and in this sense the expression is true.
But although this distinction has place in theological expressions on account of a certain proper mode of speaking, nevertheless as far as concerns the strict force6 of the discourse, it should not be distinguished; because an adjective adjoined6 to a substantive, as homo albus (white man), is not said to be substantivized, nor is an appositive construction said to be there, especially since that [appositive construction] is less common with respect to the more common7. Whence since this name alius is an adjective having a substantive joined [to it], in the aforesaid expression it places otherness around it by reason of the supposit and of the form.
And therefore, if we wish to proceed artificially8 [i.e., strictly by the rules of the arts], such an expression must be judged false. On account of this, for the understanding of the said expression, a common rule must be noted: distinction has no place where there is not union from diverse causes — for example, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are united in this name Deus, not from diverse causes or by reason of diverse [things], but by reason of one deity or essence. Union from diverse causes is, as in [the case of] man, Peter and John are united by reason of diverse humanities, because Peter's humanity is one, and John's another.
And alongside this rule, from opposites9, another rule must be received: complete10 union has no place where there is, together with union, distinction, as the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are united in one deity or essence, but they have distinction by reason of the plurality of persons.
According to this it must be attended to, that in divine matters certain words import distinction only, certain ones complete union, certain ones a middle mode. Therefore, since God generating and God generated, although they are personally distinct, nevertheless in the deity are united from the same cause, because by one deity: therefore names importing distinction simply are not received11. Therefore this is not admitted: God is distinguished from God, similarly: God generated another God. Likewise, by reason of distinction words importing complete union in supposit and form are not received: whence this is not received: God generated himself. But those which hold themselves in a middle mode are received, of which sort is this verb generates, because it states distinction in person with12 unity of essence. Similarly this is conceded: the Father generates another self. Whence Augustine, to Maximinus13: "The Father generated another self"; and similarly on John: "The Father, sending the Son, sent another self." And from this it is, that there does not follow upon the word [taken] simply [a] distinction; and so the first [argument] is plain.
2. To that which is objected secondly concerning negation, I well concede that there is otherness; but nevertheless it does not follow that otherness can be said in essence or in the form of deity. Whence it does not follow: the generated is other than the one generating, therefore14 another God, because the supposition of this term Deus is changed.
3. To that which is objected thirdly: either another God, or another non-God; I say that it does not divide sufficiently; because there is no contradiction unless the negation is taken with respect to the whole. For in this [proposition]: he generated another God, two things are said, namely that God generated God, and that another in deity: and therefore for this, that a contradiction be taken, it is necessary that it be borne over the whole. Whence just as it does not hold, when a black-clad monk who is white by nature has been pointed out: he is either a white monk, or a white non-monk, since both are false; similarly it must be understood in the proposed [case]. Nor does it hold: he is God and he is another: therefore he is another God, rather there is an accident there, just as here: he is good and he is a citharist: therefore he is a good citharist.
4. To that which is objected last, it must be said, that alius, although it is of masculine gender, nevertheless because it places the thing around a substantive, draws its supposition from it; and therefore is not taken personally, except insofar as it is substantivized, just as also this name unus (one); whence just as if one were to say unus Deus (one God), unus signifies substantial unity, so if one were to say alius Deus, alius signifies substantial otherness. And the reason for this comes not only because [alius] is an adjective, but because [it is] general, which is specified through what is adjoined.
I. The distinction placed at the beginning of the response, that alius here can be taken either adjectivally or substantivally (namely as apposition), the holy Doctor disapproves, since it is a rule of grammarians that an adjective, if it has a substantive immediately joined to it, cannot be taken as a substantive or as apposition. If, however, alius is an adjective, then the rule of logic holds, that alius, when it is placed immediately to its subject [substantive], imports otherness around its substantive both by reason of the supposit and by reason of the form. Consequently, in our case this term would import diversity in the Deity.
II. In the conclusion and solution of the objections the principal doctors agree. Alexander of Hales, Summa p. I, q. 50, m. 3, a. 2, § 2. — Scotus, here q. 1. — St. Thomas, here a. 3, Summa I, q. 31, a. 2. — Bl. Albert, here a. 8. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here q. 2.
---
- Anselmus, de Processione Spiritus sancti c. 24: « Nam cum dicimus Deum de Deo, Filium de Patre, non alium intelligimus Deum de Deo alio, sed eundem ipsum Deum de eodem ipso Deo ». — Codd. cum Vat. falso ponunt in Proslogio.Anselm, On the Procession of the Holy Spirit c. 24: "For when we say God from God, Son from Father, we do not understand another God from another God, but the same God himself from the same God himself." — The codices, with the Vatican edition, falsely place [it] in the Proslogion.
- Nam ut ait Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 47 (c. 4.): Generat autem nihil ipsum se ipsum. — De propositione minore Aristot., XIV. Metaph. c. 3 (XIII. c. 1.): Alterum (contrarium est) eidem, et aliud ipsi (αὐτῷ). — In hac propositione minore Vat. et loco sed, obstantibus mss. et ed. I.For as Aristotle says, II On the Soul, text 47 (c. 4): Nothing generates its very self. — Concerning the minor proposition, Aristotle, XIV Metaphysics c. 3 (XIII c. 1): The other (is contrary) to the same, and "another" to it itself (αὐτῷ). — In this minor proposition the Vatican edition [reads] et in place of sed, against the mss. and ed. I.
- Auctoritate mss. et ed. 1 expunximus hic additum etiam; cod. 1 autem addit similiter haec est vera. Cod. O post homo est addit ergo. — Plura de hac consequentia vide apud Boeth., de Syllogismo hypothetico.On the authority of the mss. and ed. 1 we have here struck out the added etiam; cod. 1, however, adds similiter haec est vera. Cod. O after homo est adds ergo. — For more on this consequence see Boethius, On the Hypothetical Syllogism.
- Vat., obnitentibus antiquioribus mss. et ed. 1, minus bene qui loco sed terminus masculini generis; et circa finem argumenti similiter loco simpliciter.The Vatican edition, against the older mss. and ed. 1, less well [reads] qui in place of sed terminus masculini generis; and near the end of the argument similarly [reads] loco in place of simpliciter.
- Ed. 1 sic ut. Cod. R et si substantivetur tunc.Ed. 1 [reads] sic ut. Cod. R [reads] et si substantivetur tunc.
- Aliqui codd. ut R cc veritate, et paulo infra plurimi codd. cum ed. 1 contra Vat. iunctum pro adiunctum.Some codices, as R cc, [read] veritate, and a little below most codices with ed. 1, against the Vatican edition, [read] iunctum in place of adiunctum.
- Sensus est: maxime cum appositiva constructio fiat coniunctione termini minus communis cum magis communi.The sense is: especially since an appositive construction comes about by the conjunction of a less common term with a more common [one].
- Hoc est, stricte secundum regulas artium, scilicet grammaticae et logicae.That is, strictly according to the rules of the arts, namely of grammar and of logic.
- Vat. praeter fidem codd. et ed. 1 opposito.The Vatican edition, against the witness of the codices and of ed. 1, [reads] opposito.
- Codd. cum primis sex edd. omittunt omnimoda, quod a Vat. termino distinctio praefigitur.The codices, with the first six editions, omit omnimoda, which by the Vatican edition is prefixed to the term distinctio.
- Fide mss. et ed. 1 substituimus recipiuntur loco recipiunt. Paulo infra multi codd. omittunt similiter.On the faith of the mss. and ed. 1 we have substituted recipiuntur in place of recipiunt. A little below, many codices omit similiter.
- Cod. X distinctionem personarum in.Cod. X [reads] distinctionem personarum in.
- Vide in lit. Magistri, c. 2. in fine; et super Ioannem, c. 3. Tract. 14. n. 11: Pater mittens Filium se alterum misit.See in the text of the Master [Lombard], c. 2 at the end; and on John, c. 3, Tract. 14, n. 11: The Father sending the Son sent himself another.
- Codd. MX addunt est.Codices MX add est.