Dist. 4, Art. 1, Q. 4
Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity · Distinction 4
Quaestio IV
Utrum hoc nomen Deus pro persona supponat, vel pro natura.
Quarto et ultimo quaeritur de suppositione huius nominis Deus. Et quaeritur, utrum hoc nomen Deus de se supponat personam, vel naturam. Et quod personam, videtur:
1. Per illud Ambrosii super: Benedicat nos Deus[^2] Deus noster, benedicat nos Deus1. Ambrosius3: «Trina Dei confessio Trinitatem indicat personarum», ergo cum Deus sit ibi sine adiuncto, de se supponit personam.
2. Item, ratione obiicitur sic: Hoc nomen homo proprie4 supponit pro omni eo, cui inest humanitas: ergo a simili et hoc nomen Deus pro omni
eo, cui inest deitas; sed hoc est persona: ergo etc.
3. Item, hoc nomen Deus significat deitatem in concretione; sed non nisi in concretione ad suppositum, quod est persona; sed terminus concretus proprie supponit pro eo, respectu cuius importat formam, ut album magis proprie supponit pro re alba quam pro forma: ergo etc.
Sed contra:
1. Pronomen refert rem pro proprio supposito5; sed cum dicitur: Benedicat nos Deus etc., Deus noster, hoc pronomen cum refert naturam, non personam: ergo etc.
2. Item, quia iste terminus homo proprie6 supponit pro individuo, ista est falsa: homo est Socrates et Plato, quia idem individuum non recipit illam praedicationem; sed haec est vera: Deus est Trinitas, vel: Deus est Pater et Filius: ergo cum illud praedicatum non conveniat uni personae, patet etc.
3. Item, terminus, qui proprie supponit personam, addito sibi termino partitivo, stat solum pro uno, ut cum dicitur: unus homo currit: ergo similiter, cum dicitur unus Deus: ergo haec est simpliciter falsa: unus Deus est Pater et Filius.
Conclusio
Nomen Deus, cum habeat naturam et termini communis et termini singularis, potest proprie supponere tam pro natura quam pro persona.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod hic consuevit esse duplex opinio.
Una quidem est, quod hoc nomen Deus significat proprie naturam et supponit personam, aliquando7 unam, ut cum dicitur: Deus generat, aliquando duas, ut cum dicitur: Deus spirat, aliquando tres, ut cum dicitur: Deus est Trinitas. Et ratio huius est, ut dicunt, quia cum habeat multa supposita, habet naturam termini communis; terminus autem communis proprie supponit pro individuo, pro natura vero vel pro forma non supponit proprie, nisi trahatur, ut si dicatur: homo est species. Sic dicunt in proposito. Ulterius dicunt, quod quia supposita omnia sunt in illo unica suppositione, ideo simul potest supponere pro multis personis, licet illud non possit iste terminus homo, vel alius terminus communis; et sic solvunt obiecta.
Alia opinio est, quod proprie supponit naturam, sicut significat, et non supponit personam, nisi trahatur ab alio, ut cum dicitur: Deus generat; et hi dicunt, quod cum dicitur: Deus est Trinitas, ibi stat pro natura, non pro persona; et una natura est tres personae: ideo vera est locutio. Et ratio huius positionis est, quia hoc nomen Deus habet naturam termini discreti, cum non habeat plurale; ideo idem significat et supponit proprie; cum ergo significet naturam, illam proprie supponit.
Sed melius est dicere utrumque8 — quia habet naturam termini communis et termini discreti: termini communis propter pluralitatem suppositorum, termini discreti ratione formae immultiplicabilis — quod9 proprie supponit tam naturam quam personam. Tamen rationes ad utramque partem concludunt verum suo modo. Hoc autem non potest in alio termino inveniri, et ideo nec consimilis modus supponendi.
I. De differentia inter significationem et suppositionem cfr. Scholion hic ad q. 1. Terminus discretus, de quo loquitur S. Bonav., idem est ac terminus singularis et significat aliquod incommunicabile. Unde «terminus singularis idem significat et supponit» (S. Thom. S. I. q. 39. a. 4.). Terminus vero communis non oportet semper supponere pro eo quod per se significat, v. g. in propositione: homo currit, non supponit homo pro natura communi humana, sed pro aliquo indeterminato individuo.
II. Licet antiqui doctores de hac quaestione diversis modis loquantur, in re tamen parum dissentire videntur. S. Bonav. praefert tertiam sententiam, quae mediam viam tenet, scil. quod Deus proprie supponat tum pro natura tum pro persona. S. Thom. in Comment. (hic q. 1. a. 2.) sententiam primo loco positam docere videtur, secundam vero ibi et in Summa penitus reiicit. Illam vero primam opinionem in Summa (1. q. 39. a. 4.) ita explicat, ut cum tertia et media sententia S. Bonaventurae conveniat. Hoc patet, si sententia S. Bonaventurae distinctis propositionibus proponitur. Propositio 1: Nomini Deus convenit haec proprietas, ut partim sit terminus communis, partim singularis. Ratio est, quia significat simul tum formam non multiplicabilem, tum naturam communicabilem. Idem docet S. Thom. (S. loc. cit. ad 2.). Propositio 2: Hinc est, quod Deus aliquando supponit pro natura, aliquando pro persona. Hoc idem asserunt S. Thom. et Alex. Hal.; tamen Angelicus addit, quod «per se supponit pro natura communi» (ad 3.), sed «ex modo significandi» habet, ut proprie possit supponere pro persona (in corp.).
III. Circa ipsam quaestionem cfr. S. Bonav., infra d. 29. a. 1. q. 2; III. Sent. d. 7. a. 1. q. 1. — Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 50. m. 3. a. 1. 2. — S. Thom., locis citt. — Scot., hic q. 2. in fine. — B. Albert., hic a. 5. 6. et d. 32. a. 8. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 4. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic q. 3. — Henr. Gand., S. a. 54. q. 3. n. 40. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 2. in princ. — Biel, hic q. 2.
---
Question IV
Whether the name God supposits for a person, or for the nature.
Fourth and last, the question is asked concerning the supposition of this name God. And it is asked whether this name God of itself supposits for a person, or for the nature. And that [it supposits] for a person, seems thus:
1. Through that [verse] of Ambrose upon: May God[^2] our God bless us; may God bless us1. Ambrose3: «The threefold confession of God indicates the Trinity of persons»; therefore, since God stands there without any adjunct, of itself it supposits for a person.
2. Likewise, it is objected by reason thus: this name man properly4 supposits for everything in which humanity inheres: therefore, by a similar [reasoning], also this name God [supposits] for everything
in which deity inheres; but this is a person: therefore etc.
3. Likewise, this name God signifies deity in concretion; but not except in concretion to a supposit, which is a person; but a concrete term properly supposits for that with respect to which it imports the form, just as white more properly supposits for the white thing than for the form: therefore etc.
On the contrary:
1. A pronoun refers a thing for its proper supposit5; but when it is said: May God bless us etc., our God, this pronoun us refers the nature, not the person: therefore etc.
2. Likewise, since this term man properly6 supposits for the individual, this is false: man is Socrates and Plato, because the same individual does not receive that predication; but this is true: God is Trinity, or: God is the Father and the Son: therefore, since that predicate does not belong to one person [alone], it is plain etc.
3. Likewise, a term that properly supposits for a person, when a partitive term is added to it, stands for one only, as when it is said: one man is running: therefore similarly, when it is said one God: therefore this is simply false: one God is the Father and the Son.
Conclusion
The name God, since it has the nature both of a common term and of a singular term, can properly supposit both for the nature and for the person.
I respond: It must be said that here there has customarily been a twofold opinion.
The one indeed is, that this name God properly signifies the nature and supposits for a person — sometimes7 for one, as when it is said: God generates; sometimes for two, as when it is said: God spirates; sometimes for three, as when it is said: God is Trinity. And the reason of this, as they say, is that since it has many supposits, it has the nature of a common term; but a common term properly supposits for the individual, but for the nature or for the form does not properly supposit, unless it be drawn [to do so], as if it be said: man is a species. So they speak in the proposed case. Further they say, that because all the supposits are in it by a single supposition, therefore it can at one and the same time supposit for many persons, although this the term man, or any other common term, cannot [do]; and thus they solve the objections.
Another opinion is, that it properly supposits for the nature, as it signifies, and does not supposit for a person, unless it be drawn [to do so] by another, as when it is said: God generates; and these say that when it is said: God is Trinity, there it stands for the nature, not for the person; and one nature is the three persons: therefore the locution is true. And the reason of this position is that this name God has the nature of a discrete term, since it has no plural; therefore it signifies and supposits properly for the same thing; therefore, since it signifies the nature, it properly supposits for that.
But it is better to say both8 — because it has the nature both of a common term and of a discrete term: of a common term on account of the plurality of supposits, of a discrete term by reason of the unmultipliable form — that9 it properly supposits for both the nature and the person. Nevertheless the reasons on both sides conclude what is true, each in its own way. But this cannot be found in any other term, and therefore neither [can] any similar mode of suppositing.
I. Concerning the difference between signification and supposition, cf. the Scholion here at q. 1. A discrete term, of which St. Bonaventure speaks, is the same as a singular term and signifies something incommunicable. Hence «the singular term signifies and supposits for the same thing» (St. Thomas, Summa I, q. 39, a. 4). But a common term need not always supposit for that which it signifies per se — e.g. in the proposition man runs, man does not supposit for the common human nature, but for some indeterminate individual.
II. Although the ancient doctors speak of this question in diverse ways, in substance they seem to disagree little. St. Bonaventure prefers the third opinion, which holds the middle way, namely that God properly supposits both for the nature and for the person. St. Thomas in his Commentary (here q. 1, a. 2) seems to teach the opinion placed in the first position; but the second [opinion] he there and in the Summa roundly rejects. That first opinion, however, he so explains in the Summa (I, q. 39, a. 4) that it agrees with the third and middle opinion of St. Bonaventure. This is clear, if the opinion of St. Bonaventure is set out in distinct propositions. Proposition 1: To the name God belongs this property, that it is partly a common term, partly a singular [term]. The reason is, that it signifies at once both an unmultipliable form and a communicable nature. The same St. Thomas teaches (loc. cit. ad 2). Proposition 2: Hence it is, that God sometimes supposits for the nature, sometimes for the person. This same St. Thomas and Alexander of Hales assert; yet the Angelic [Doctor] adds, that «per se it supposits for the common nature» (ad 3), but «from the mode of signifying» it has [it], that it can properly supposit for a person (in corp.).
III. Concerning the question itself, cf. St. Bonaventure, below d. 29, a. 1, q. 2; III Sent. d. 7, a. 1, q. 1. — Alexander of Hales, Summa p. I, q. 50, m. 3, a. 1, 2. — St. Thomas, at the places cited. — Scotus, here q. 2 at the end. — Blessed Albert, here a. 5, 6, and d. 32, a. 8. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 4, a. 1. — Richard of Middleton, here q. 3. — Henry of Ghent, Summa a. 54, q. 3, n. 40. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 2 at the beginning. — Biel, here q. 2.
---
- Vers. 8.Verse 8 [of Psalm 66].
- Vat. praeter fidem mss. et ed. 1 minus apte sic nec nomen Dei.The Vatican ed., against the faith of the mss. and ed. 1, [reads] less aptly thus: nec nomen Dei.
- Psalm. 66, 7. 8. — Verba, quae hic a S. Doctore attribuuntur S. Ambrosio, eidem etiam a Magistro supra d. II, c. 4 adscribuntur. Vide p. 48 nota 8. — In ipsis verbis Vat. praeter fidem mss. et ed. 1 professio loco confessio.Psalm 66 (67), vv. 7–8. — The words here attributed by the Holy Doctor to St. Ambrose are also ascribed to him by the Master above at d. II, c. 4. See p. 48, note 8. — In the words themselves the Vatican ed., against the faith of the mss. and ed. 1, [reads] professio in place of confessio.
- Ex mss. et ed. 1 supplevimus proprie. Paulo ante plures codd. cum ed. 1 ostenditur pro obiicitur. Mox post Deus Vat. contra codd. repetit supponit.From the mss. and ed. 1 we have supplied proprie. A little earlier, several codd. with ed. 1 [read] ostenditur for obiicitur. Just after Deus, the Vatican ed., against the codd., repeats supponit.
- Priscian., XVII Grammat. c. 2: Substantiam enim significat loco nominis positum pronomen et personam verbo sibi adiuncto congruam indicat.Priscian, Institutes of Grammar XVII, c. 2: «For a pronoun placed in the place of a noun signifies substance, and indicates the person congruent with the verb joined to it».
- Vat. hic omittit proprie et paulo post habet dicamus loco dicatur, sed obest auctoritas mss. et ed. 1.The Vatican ed. here omits proprie, and a little later has dicamus in place of dicatur, but the authority of the mss. and ed. 1 stands against [it].
- Plerique codd. ut A C F G I K L O R X Z una. Paulo infra Vat. contra mss. et ed. 1 solverunt, aliqui tamen codd. ut K P Q X legunt solvuntur.Most codd. (such as A C F G I K L O R X Z) [read] una. A little later the Vatican ed., against the mss. and ed. 1, [reads] solverunt; yet some codd. (such as K P Q X) read solvuntur.
- Cod. H addit quia.Codex H adds quia.
- Ita fere omnes codd. cum ed. 1, in quorum lectione quod refertur ad paulo supra positum dicere utrumque. Vat. loco quod ponit ideo, cuius lectionis sensus explicatur codice Z et ideo dico quod proprie. Paulo infra codd. O bb Unde pro Tamen.So nearly all the codd. with ed. 1, in whose reading quod refers back to dicere utrumque placed a little above. The Vatican ed. puts ideo in place of quod; the sense of this reading is explained in cod. Z by and therefore I say that properly. A little later codd. O bb [read] Unde for Tamen.