title: Dist. 23, Art. 2, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 411 -->

### ARTICULUS II. *De numeratione quatuor nominum.*

Consequenter secundo loco[^1] est quaestio de numeratione nominum praedictorum; et supposito quod numeretur hoc nomen *persona*, quaeritur circa hoc:

Primo utrum in divinis numeretur hoc nomen *substantia*.

Secundo quaeritur, si numeretur *essentia*.

Tertio, si hoc nomen *Deus*, utrum scilicet catholice possimus dicere plures deos.

### QUAESTIO I. *Utrum plures substantiae in divinis dici possint.*

Quod autem numeretur hoc nomen *substantia*, ostenditur sic.

1. Hilarius *de Synodis*[^2]: «Sunt quidem tria per substantiam, sed unum per consonantiam».

2. Item, Anselmus in fine *Monologii*[^3]: «Aptius tres dicuntur substantiae».

3. Item, Boethius in libro *de Duabus naturis et una persona Christi*[^4]: «Dicimus unam essentiam et tres substantias».

4. Item, hoc ipsum videtur ratione, quia substantia est medium inter essentiam et personam; sed medium sapit naturam extremorum[^5]: ergo pari ratione, qua dicitur una substantia ab unitate essentiae, poterit dici plures a pluralitate personarum.

5. Item, omnis numerus ad substantiam reducitur originaliter — nunquam enim accidentia vel proprietates numerantur nisi per substantiam[^6] — sed actus numerantur et pluraliter dicuntur in divinis: ergo necesse est ponere numerum secundum substantiam. Quod autem pluraliter dicantur, patet; dicitur enim: *Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus creant.*

6. Item, idem est relativum substantiae, sicut *talis* et *qualis* qualitatis; sed haec est falsa: *Pater est idem cum Filio*, quia dicit Hilarius[^7], quod non possumus dicere *Deum eundem*: ergo necesse est, quod cadat distinctio in substantia; ergo si propter distinctionem personarum dicimus plures personas, ergo et plures substantias.

**Contra:**

1. Nihil magis dicitur secundum substantiam quam hoc nomen *substantia*: ergo si nomina substantialia dicuntur singulariter de omnibus, sicut patet ex regula Augustini supra posita[^8], patet etc.

<!-- page 412 -->

2. Item, inter quaecumque cadit distinctio secundum substantiam[^9], cadit vera diversitas; sed inter Patrem et Filium non est confitenda diversitas, ergo nec numerus secundum substantiam: ergo non est dicere plures substantias.

3. Item, Augustinus[^10] dicit: «quod idem est Deo subsistere et esse»; ergo cum unum sit esse, unum est subsistere: ergo sicut ab uno esse dicitur una essentia vel e converso, ita et ab uno subsistere debet dici una substantia sive subsistentia.

4. Item, Hieronymus ad Damasum Papam[^11]: «Quis unquam nisi ore sacrilego tres substantias praedicaverit»?

> **Conclusio.** *Substantia et subsistentia, ut dicunt essentiam, non plurificantur: si accipiuntur in sensu hypostaseos, in plurali dicuntur.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod tam *substantiae* quam *subsistentiae* nomen dupliciter accipitur in divinis, quia quodlibet istorum habet in se intellectum actus et praepositionis. Potest ergo dici *substantia*, quasi *per se stans*, vel[^12] *sub alio sive sub proprietate*. Primo modo una tantum est sive non numeratur, quia unum est ibi *quod est*. Alio modo, prout dicit respectum ad proprietatem, numeratur sive plurificatur. Primo modo tantum valet quantum *usiosis*, secundo modo tantum valet quantum *hypostasis*. Omnino eodem modo distinguitur hoc nomen *Subsistentia*[^13], et secundum alterum intellectum aequipollet *usiosi*, secundum alterum *hypostasi*; et secundum alterum plurificatur, secundum alterum vero[^14].

Et quia *substantia* dicitur dupliciter et *subsistentia*, ideo venit diversitas modi loquendi inter doctores. Nam Tullius et ipse Boethius[^15] dicunt, quod li *subsistentia* aequipollet *usiosi*, et ideo dicit Boethius, eam non plurificari; sed *substantiam* dicunt aequipollere *hypostasi*, et ideo dicit Boethius, eam plurificari, et secundum hunc modum loquitur Hilarius, Anselmus et Boethius. Sed Hieronymus et Augustinus volunt, quod *substantia* aequipolleat *usiosi*, et ideo dicunt eam non plurificari; sed[^16] *subsistentia* *hypostasi*, et ideo dicunt eam plurificari. Ex his patet responsio ad utramque partem.

Patet etiam, quare Graeci non transtulerunt nomen *prosopon*, sicut Latini, quia oportuit nos[^17] transferre nomen personae propter ambiguitatem; et ideo maluit Ecclesia[^18] respondere *tres personas* quam *tres substantias* sive *subsistentias*.

Tamen ad argumentum quod facit, quod *substantia* tenet medium; dicendum, quod *substantia*, prout aequipollet *hypostasi*, plus se tenet cum persona, et ideo numeratur, sicut persona, sive plurificatur; prout autem aequipollet *usiosi*, plus se tenet cum essentia, et ideo nec numeratur nec plurificatur, sicut nec essentia. Omnes autem illae rationes et[^19] praecedentes et sequentes loquuntur de *substantia*, prout aequipollet *hypostasi* sive *supposito*, et hoc modo plurificatur.

Rationes autem ad oppositam partem currunt secundum aliam acceptionem huius nominis *substantia*. Similiter iudicandum[^20] de hoc nomine *subsistentia*. Sed quoniam auctoritas Augustini et mos utentium nomen illud, *substantia* scilicet, accipit magis in illa acceptione, in qua dicit *ipsum quod est* sive *usiosim* sive *ipsum commune*: ideo communiter non recipitur, ut dicantur tres substantiae in divinis.

english:
### ARTICLE II. *On the numbering of the four names.*

Consequently, in the second place[^1] there is a question concerning the numbering of the aforesaid names; and, supposing that the name *person* is numbered, it is asked concerning this:

First, whether in divine matters the name *substance* is numbered.

Secondly, it is asked whether *essence* is numbered.

Thirdly, [whether] the name *God* [is numbered], namely whether we can catholicly say several gods.

### Question I. *Whether several substances can be said in the divine.*

That, however, the name *substance* is numbered is shown thus.

1. Hilary, *On the Synods*[^2]: «There are indeed three through substance, but one through consonance».

2. Likewise, Anselm at the end of the *Monologion*[^3]: «More aptly are three said to be substances».

3. Likewise, Boethius in the book *On the Two Natures and One Person of Christ*[^4]: «We say one essence and three substances».

4. Likewise, this same thing seems [to follow] by reason, since substance is the middle between essence and person; but the middle savors of the nature of the extremes[^5]: therefore by parity of reasoning, by which one substance is said from the unity of essence, several can be said from the plurality of persons.

5. Likewise, every number is reduced originally to substance — for accidents or properties are never numbered except through substance[^6] — but acts are numbered and said in the plural in divine matters: therefore it is necessary to posit a number according to substance. That, however, [acts] are said in the plural is plain; for it is said: *The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit create.*

6. Likewise, the relative of *substance* is the same, just as *such* and *of what kind* [are relatives] of *quality*; but this is false: *The Father is the same with the Son*, since Hilary says[^7] that we cannot say *the same God*: therefore it is necessary that distinction fall in substance; therefore if on account of the distinction of persons we say several persons, therefore also several substances.

**On the contrary:**

1. Nothing is more said according to substance than this name *substance*: therefore if substantial names are said singularly of all [the persons], as is plain from the rule of Augustine placed above[^8], it is plain etc.

2. Likewise, between whatever things distinction falls according to substance[^9], a true diversity falls; but between the Father and the Son no diversity is to be confessed, therefore neither number according to substance: therefore one is not to say several substances.

3. Likewise, Augustine[^10] says: «that for God to subsist and to be is the same»; therefore since to-be is one, to subsist is one: therefore just as from one to-be one essence is said or conversely, so also from one to-subsist there must be said one substance or subsistence.

4. Likewise, Jerome to Pope Damasus[^11]: «Who has ever, except with sacrilegious mouth, predicated three substances»?

> **Conclusion.** *Substance and subsistence, as they express essence, are not pluralized: if they be taken in the sense of hypostasis, they are said in the plural.*

**I respond:** It must be said that the name both of *substance* and of *subsistence* is taken in two ways in divine matters, since each of these has in itself the understanding of the verb (*actus*) and of the preposition. *Substance* therefore can be said as if *standing through itself*, or[^12] *under another or under a property*. In the first way it is one only, or is not numbered, since there is one *that which is*. In the other way, insofar as it expresses a respect to a property, it is numbered or pluralized. In the first way it is worth as much as *usiosis*, in the second way it is worth as much as *hypostasis*. In altogether the same way the name *Subsistence*[^13] is distinguished, and according to one understanding it is equivalent to *usiosis*, according to the other to *hypostasis*; and according to one it is pluralized, according to the other indeed [not][^14].

And because *substance* is said in two ways, and [so also] *subsistence*, hence comes a diversity of mode of speaking among the doctors. For Tullius [Cicero] and Boethius himself[^15] say that *subsistentia* is equivalent to *usiosis*, and therefore Boethius says that it is not pluralized; but they say *substantia* is equivalent to *hypostasis*, and therefore Boethius says that it is pluralized, and according to this mode of speaking Hilary, Anselm, and Boethius speak. But Jerome and Augustine hold that *substance* is equivalent to *usiosis*, and therefore say that it is not pluralized; but[^16] *subsistence* [is equivalent] to *hypostasis*, and therefore they say that it is pluralized. From these things the response to either side is plain.

It is also plain why the Greeks did not transfer the name *prosopon*, as the Latins [did], because it was necessary for us[^17] to transfer the name *person* on account of ambiguity; and therefore the Church preferred[^18] to answer *three persons* rather than *three substances* or *subsistences*.

Nevertheless, to the argument which urges that *substance* holds the middle; it must be said that *substance*, insofar as it is equivalent to *hypostasis*, holds itself more with *person*, and therefore is numbered, like *person*, or pluralized; but insofar as it is equivalent to *usiosis*, it holds itself more with *essence*, and therefore is neither numbered nor pluralized, just as neither is *essence*. Now all those reasons, both[^19] the preceding and the following, speak of *substance* insofar as it is equivalent to *hypostasis* or *supposit*, and in this way it is pluralized.

The reasons, however, for the opposed side run according to another acceptation of this name *substance*. Likewise it is to be judged[^20] concerning this name *subsistence*. But since the authority of Augustine and the custom of those using that name, namely *substance*, takes [it] more in that acceptation in which it expresses *that which is* (*ipsum quod est*) or *usiosis* or *the very common [thing]*: therefore it is not commonly received that three substances be said in divine matters.

la: Ex mss. et ed. I supplevimus *secundo loco*, et paulo infra ex antiquioribus codd. et ed. I *circa hoc*: *Primo*.

en: From the manuscripts and ed. I we have supplied *secundo loco* ("in the second place"), and a little below from the older codices and ed. I [we have supplied] *circa hoc*: *Primo* ("concerning this: first").

la: Num. 31: *Sint quidem per substantiam tria, per consonantiam vero unum.*

en: Number 31: *Let there be indeed three through substance, but one through consonance.*

la: Cap. 78: «*Nam haec duo nomina (persona scil. et substantia) aptius eliguntur ad significandam pluralitatem in summa essentia*». Et paulo post: «*Potest ergo hac necessitatis ratione irreprehensibiliter illa summa et una trinitas sive trina unitas dici una essentia et tres personae sive tres substantiae*».

en: Chapter 78: «*For these two names (namely "person" and "substance") are more aptly chosen for signifying plurality in the supreme essence*». And a little after: «*Therefore by this reason of necessity that supreme and one trinity, or trine unity, can without reprehension be called one essence and three persons or three substances*».

la: Cap. 3: *Unde etiam dicimus, unam esse* οὐσίαν *vel* οὐσίωσιν, *id est essentiam vel subsistentiam Deitatis, sed tres* ὑποστάσεις, *id est tres substantias.*

en: Chapter 3: *Whence also we say that there is one* ousia *or* ousiōsis, *that is, essence or subsistence of the Deity, but three* hypostaseis, *that is, three substances.*

la: Aristot., IV. *Polit.* c. 9. (c. 7.): *In eo (medio) enim utrumque extremorum apparet.*

en: Aristotle, IV *Politics* c. 9 (c. 7): *For in it (the middle) each of the extremes appears.*

la: Cfr. Aristot., I. *Topic.* c. 6. (c. 3.), ubi agitur de diversis modis, quibus *idem* dicitur, inter quos est ille, secundum quem accidens facit unum numero cum suo subiecto, respectu cuius in libro *Auctoritatum Aristotelis* etc. additur: *unde accidentia numerantur numeratione subiectorum.* — Ed. I post *proprietates numerantur* addit *in se*.

en: Cf. Aristotle, I *Topics* c. 6 (c. 3), where it is treated of the various ways in which *same* is said, among which is that according to which an accident makes one in number with its subject, with respect to which in the book *Auctoritates Aristotelis* etc. is added: *whence accidents are numbered by the numbering of [their] subjects.* — Ed. I after *proprietates numerantur* ("properties are numbered") adds *in se* ("in themselves").

la: Libr. I. *de Trin.* n. 17: *Sed nos edocti divinitus neque duos deos praedicare neque solum, hanc evangelici ac prophetici praeconii rationem in confessione Dei Patris et Dei Filii afferemus, ut unum in fide nostra sint uterque, non unus; neque eundem utrumque, neque inter verum ac falsum aliud confitentes.* Cfr. supra pag. 364 nota II.

en: Book I *On the Trinity*, n. 17: *But we, divinely instructed neither to predicate two gods nor [a] solitary [God], will bring forward this account of the evangelical and prophetic proclamation in the confession of God the Father and God the Son, so that both may be one in our faith, [yet] not one [person]; nor [confessing] each [as] the same, nor confessing anything between true and false.* Cf. above page 364 note II.

la: Dist. 22. dub. 2. circa finem.

en: Distinction 22, dub. 2, near the end.

la: In aliquibus mss. ut A P Q Y desideratur *secundum substantiam*. In fine argumenti cod. T *substantia* pro *substantias*.

en: In some manuscripts such as A P Q Y *secundum substantiam* ("according to substance") is missing. At the end of the argument, cod. T [reads] *substantia* in place of *substantias*.

la: Libr. VII. *de Trin.* c. 4. n. 9: *Hoc est Deo esse quod subsistere.* — Paulo infra post *ita* in nonnullis codd. ut A I T et ed. I deest *et*, ac in cod. V dein *debet dici*.

en: Book VII *On the Trinity*, c. 4, n. 9: *For God, to be is this [same as] to subsist.* — A little below, after *ita*, in several codices such as A I T and ed. I *et* is missing, and in cod. V then [is read] *debet dici*.

la: Epist. 15. n. 4: «*Quisquam, rogo, ore sacrilego tres substantias praedicabit*»? In quo textu plures codd. cum ed. 1 *praedicavit*.

en: Letter 15, n. 4: «*Will anyone, I ask, with sacrilegious mouth predicate three substances*»? In which text several codices with ed. 1 [read] *praedicavit* ("has predicated").

la: Vat., posito *et* pro *vel*, repetit dein *quasi stans*, sed contra sex primas edd. et mss., ex quibus tamen codd. C O R repetunt tantum *quasi*; cod. cc et edd. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 minus bene *sive* loco *vel*.

en: The Vatican [edition], having placed *et* in place of *vel*, then repeats *quasi stans*, but against the first six editions and the manuscripts, of which however codices C O R repeat only *quasi*; cod. cc and editions 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 [read], less well, *sive* in place of *vel*.

la: Fide antiquiorum mss. et ed. I expunximus hic additum *tunc*.

en: On the authority of the older manuscripts and ed. I we have expunged *tunc* ("then"), added here.

la: In Vat. et cod. cc desiderantur verba *hoc nomen*, quae tamen in aliis mss. et ed. I exhibentur; e contra paulo infra post *usiosi* Vat. contra plurimos codd. et ed. I adiungit *et*.

en: In the Vatican [edition] and cod. cc the words *hoc nomen* ("this name") are missing, which however are exhibited in other manuscripts and ed. I; on the contrary, a little below, after *usiosi*, the Vatican [edition], against very many codices and ed. I, adds *et* ("and").

la: Libr. *de Una persona et duabus naturis Christi*, c. 3, ubi et Tullius allegatur. — Mox lectio mutila Vat., qua pro verbis *aequipollet* usque *hypostasi* substituitur *et substantia aequipollent*, resarcitur fide mss. et ed. I.

en: Book *On the One Person and Two Natures of Christ*, c. 3, where Tullius [Cicero] also is alleged. — Soon after, the mutilated reading of the Vatican [edition], by which in place of the words *aequipollet* through *hypostasi* is substituted *et substantia aequipollent*, is repaired on the authority of the manuscripts and ed. I.

la: Vat. praeter fidem mss. et ed. I *et* pro *sed*.

en: The Vatican [edition], against the authority of the manuscripts and ed. I, [reads] *et* in place of *sed*.

la: Vat. cum codice cc tantum addit *etiam*.

en: The Vatican [edition] with cod. cc only adds *etiam* ("also").

la: Cod. SW *aequivalet*. Paulo infra post *secundum* ideo ex plurimis mss. et ed. I substituimus *nec* pro *nunc*.

en: Cod. SW [reads] *aequivalet*. A little below, after *secundum* therefore, from very many manuscripts and ed. I we have substituted *nec* ("neither") in place of *nunc* ("now").

la: In Vat. et cod. cc deest *et*; in codd. aa bb vero post *illae* additur *auctoritates* rel. Mox plures mss. ut A F G H I T Y etc. cum ed. I *aequivalet* pro *aequipollet*.

en: In the Vatican [edition] and cod. cc *et* is missing; but in codices aa bb after *illae* is added *auctoritates* etc. Soon after, several manuscripts such as A F G H I T Y etc. with ed. I [read] *aequivalet* in place of *aequipollet*.

la: Vat. cum cod. cc adiungit *est*, et paulo infra substituit *nomine illo* pro *nomen illud* ac dein *accipitur* loco *accipit*; sed obest auctoritas ed. I et aliorum mss., e quibus plures ponunt *accepit*.

en: The Vatican [edition] with cod. cc adds *est*, and a little below substitutes *nomine illo* in place of *nomen illud*, and then *accipitur* in place of *accipit*; but the authority of ed. I and of other manuscripts is opposed, of which several place *accepit*.

latin_scholion:
**I.** Cum termini *substantia* et *subsistentia* compositi sint ex praepositione *sub* et verbo *stare* sive *sistere*, duplicem sensum ex etymologia habere possunt, sive ut dicit S. Bonav. (hic in corp.) habent «in se intellectum actus et praepositionis». Unde factum est, ut SS. Patres his vocabulis, priusquam consuetudine ecclesiastica determinatum sensum acceperant, in duplici sensu usi sint, et per consequens ad hanc quaestionem vel affirmative vel negative respondere potuerint.

<!-- page 413 -->

**II.** Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 57. m. 3. — S. Thom., hic q. I. a. I. ad 4. 5; S. I. q. 29. a. 2. ad 2. — B. Albert., hic. a. 3; de hac et seq. q. S. p. I. tr. 10. q. 43. m. 1. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 2. — Aegid. R., hic q. 1. — Henr. Gand., de hac et seq. S. a. 53. q. 5. M. 37, et a. 75. q. 3. n. 8. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 2.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** Since the terms *substantia* and *subsistentia* are composed of the preposition *sub* and the verb *stare* or *sistere*, they can have a twofold sense from etymology, or as St. Bonaventure says (here in the body) they have «in themselves the understanding of the verb (*actus*) and of the preposition». Whence it has come about that the holy Fathers, before they had received a determinate sense by ecclesiastical custom, used these words in a twofold sense, and consequently could answer this question either affirmatively or negatively.

**II.** Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. I, q. 57, m. 3. — St. Thomas, here q. I, a. I, ad 4, 5; *Summa* I, q. 29, a. 2, ad 2. — Bl. Albert, here a. 3; on this and the following question, *Summa* p. I, tr. 10, q. 43, m. 1. — Petrus a Tarantasia, here q. 2, a. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2, q. 2. — Aegidius Romanus, here q. 1. — Henry of Ghent, on this and the following, *Summa* a. 53, q. 5, M. 37, and a. 75, q. 3, n. 8. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 2.

---


site: bonaventure

collection: Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity

title: Dist. 23, Art. 2, Q. 2

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 413 -->

### QUAESTIO II.

#### *Utrum plures essentiae in divinis numerari possint.*

Secundo quaeritur de numeratione illius nominis *essentia*. Et quod non numeretur, ostenditur sic[^1]:

1. Quia in divinis est unitas absolutissima, quae non multiplicatur: ergo cum nullum nomen sit adeo absolutum, sicut nomen *essentiae*, ergo per illud significatur unitas non multiplicata: ergo nomen *essentiae* non numeratur; et hoc est quod dicit Augustinus[^2], quod ratio repugnat.

2. Item, hoc ipsum videtur a minori. Hoc enim nomen *Deus* est nomen essentiae in comparatione ad personam; sed secundum Scripturam in Lege, scilicet Deuteronomii sexto[^3], Deus dicitur unus et non plures; et secundum Symbolum[^4]: «Non tres dii, sed unus est Deus»: ergo et hoc nomen *essentia* multo minus plurificatur, cum dicatur absolutius.

3. Item, natura divina non multiplicatur in tribus; sed hoc nomen *essentia* est nomen divinae naturae, ut hoc nomen *substantia*: ergo nec essentia nec substantia multiplicantur[^5] sub propriis nominibus, ut videtur.

**Contra:** 1. Augustinus septimo *de Trinitate*[^6]: «Cur haec tria non dicantur una persona», et loquitur de tribus personis: sed neutrum genus respicit essentiam: ergo cum dicantur tria, ergo tres essentiae.

2. Item, ratione videtur: Augustinus in eodem libro[^7] dicit, quod «Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus dicuntur tres personae, quia commune est eis hoc quod est persona»; sed hoc nomen *essentia* est commune: ergo potest dici tres essentiae.

3. Item, ibidem dicit, et habetur in littera[^8], quod «ideo dicuntur tres personae, quia Pater est persona, et Filius persona et Spiritus sanctus persona». Ergo similiter sunt tres essentiae, quia Pater est essentia etc.

4. Item, Pater et Filius sunt entes plures, ergo plures habentes entitatem[^9] — sequitur enim: sunt plures dii, ergo plures deitates — similiter: Pater et Filius sunt: ergo plura esse, ergo plures essentiae.

> **Conclusio.** *Essentia non numeratur in divinis, quia una eademque natura non numerata est in tribus personis.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod in omni substantia, cuius est esse et operari, necessario intelligimus naturam et habentem naturam. Cum ergo hoc[^10] sit in Deo, intelligimus in Deo naturam et habentem naturam. Et naturam dicimus substantiam vel essentiam; habentem naturam dicimus personam. Quoniam[^11] ergo in creatura rationali contingit, unam personam habere plures naturas, scilicet corporalem et spiritualem: sic a contrario sensu in Deo propter summam simplicitatem contingit, unam naturam haberi a pluribus, quoniam contingit eam haberi alio et alio modo; et hoc non potest esse ab eodem.

<!-- page 414 -->

Quia ergo una tantum est natura habita et non numerata, ideo tantum dicitur una substantia et essentia; quia vero plures habentes, ideo plures personae, nulla omnino repugnantia existente.

**Ad argumenta in oppositum:**

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur de essentia per hoc quod Augustinus dicit: *Haec tria*; dicendum, quod minus expresse loquitur et improprie; et ideo verbum eius est exponendum.

2. 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod ideo tres personae, quia *persona* est commune, et quilibet est persona etc.; dicendum, quod non dicit totam rationem, sed partem quantum ad verbum exterius; ideo oportet intelligere, quod ibi additur: quia est commune quod distinguitur. Unde Pater est persona et Filius est persona, non eadem, sed alia.

4. Ad ultimum quod obiicitur, dicendum, quod *ens* aliquando dicitur substantive, et sic non trahit numerum aliunde; aliquando tenetur adiective, et sic trahit numerum a supposito, et sic non numeratur forma; et hoc modo non sequitur, quod sint plures entitates, nec de hoc verbo *sunt*, quod plura esse.

english:
### QUESTION II.

#### *Whether several essences can be numbered in the divine.*

Secondly it is asked concerning the numeration of that name *essence*. And that it is not numbered, is shown thus[^1]:

1. Because in divine matters there is a most absolute unity, which is not multiplied: therefore since no name is so absolute as the name *essence*, therefore by it is signified an unmultiplied unity: therefore the name *essence* is not numbered; and this is what Augustine[^2] says, that reason is repugnant [to it].

2. Likewise, this same [point] is seen from the lesser case. For this name *God* is a name of essence in comparison to person; but according to Scripture in the Law, namely Deuteronomy 6[^3], God is called one and not several; and according to the [Athanasian] Creed[^4]: «Not three gods, but one is God»: therefore this name *essence* also is much less pluralised, since it is said more absolutely.

3. Likewise, the divine nature is not multiplied in the three; but this name *essence* is a name of the divine nature, just as this name *substance*: therefore neither *essence* nor *substance* are multiplied[^5] under their proper names, as it seems.

**On the contrary:** 1. Augustine, *On the Trinity* VII[^6]: «Why are these three not called one person», and he is speaking of three persons: but the neuter gender refers to the essence: therefore since they are called *three* [in the neuter], therefore [there are] three essences.

2. Likewise, by reason it is seen: Augustine in the same book[^7] says that «the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are called three persons, because what is *person* is common to them»; but this name *essence* is common: therefore it can be said [that there are] three essences.

3. Likewise, in the same place he says, and it is held in the text [of the Master][^8], that «they are therefore called three persons, because the Father is person, and the Son [is] person and the Holy Spirit [is] person». Therefore in like manner there are three essences, since the Father is essence etc.

4. Likewise, the Father and the Son are several beings (*entes*), therefore several having entity[^9] — for it follows: they are several gods, therefore several deities — likewise: the Father and the Son *are*: therefore [there are] several to-be's, therefore several essences.

> **Conclusion.** *Essence is not numbered in the divine, since one and the same nature, [being] not numbered, is in the three persons.*

**I respond:** It must be said that in every substance, whose [property] it is to be and to operate, we necessarily understand the nature and the having-of-nature. Since therefore this[^10] is the case in God, we understand in God a nature and one having a nature. And we call the nature *substance* or *essence*; the one having the nature we call *person*. Since[^11] therefore in the rational creature it happens that one person has several natures, namely a corporeal and a spiritual: so by contrary sense in God, on account of [his] supreme simplicity, it happens that one nature is had by several, since it happens to be had in one and another mode; and this cannot be from the same [supposit].

Since therefore there is only one nature [that is] had and not numbered, therefore only one substance and essence is spoken of; but since [there are] several having [the nature], therefore [there are] several persons, with no incompatibility at all existing.

**To the arguments on the opposite side:**

1. To that, then, which is objected concerning *essence* through what Augustine says: *These three*; it must be said that he is speaking less expressly and improperly; and therefore his word is to be interpreted.

2. 3. To that which is objected, that [there are] therefore three persons, because *person* is common, and each one is a person etc.; it must be said that he is not stating the whole reason, but [only] a part as regards the outward word; therefore one must understand that it is added there: because what is common is what is distinguished. Whence the Father is person and the Son is person, not the same [person], but another.

4. To the last [argument] which is objected, it must be said that *being* (*ens*) is sometimes said substantively, and so it does not draw number from elsewhere; sometimes it is taken adjectivally, and so it draws number from the supposit, and so the form is not numbered; and in this mode it does not follow that there are several entities, nor [from] this verb *they are*, that [there are] several to-be's.

la: Nonnulli codd. ut a T X Y *hoc ostenditur* et ed. 1 *hic ostenditur* pro *ostenditur sic*.

en: Several codices such as a, T, X, Y [read] *hoc ostenditur* ("this is shown"), and edition 1 *hic ostenditur* ("here it is shown"), in place of *ostenditur sic* ("it is shown thus").

la: Vide hic in lit. Magistri, c. 4. et 5. Cfr. etiam infra dub. 3. circa lit.

en: See here in the text of the Master, c. 4 and 5. Compare also below, dub. 3, on the text [of the Master].

la: Vers. 4: *Audi Israel Dominus Deus noster, Dominus unus est*.

en: Verse 4: *Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one*.

la: Scil. Athanasianum; in verbis ex ipso allegatis plures codd. cum ed. 1 omittunt *est*. Mox post *ergo* fide plurimorum mss. et ed. 1 adiecimus *et* ac dein ex multis codd. ut A F H M N T Z etc., et ed. 1 *multo*, plures autem codd. ut K V X *aa bb* ponunt, eodem sensu servato, *multo fortius* non pro *multo minus*. Tandem in fine argumenti codd. sunt inter se divisi; alii enim, et quidem boni, ut A F G S T Z cum ed. 1 ponunt *dicat*, alii vero *dicatur*.

en: Namely the Athanasian [Creed]; in the words alleged from it several codices with edition 1 omit *est* ("is"). Soon after *ergo* ("therefore"), on the witness of very many manuscripts and of edition 1, we have added *et* ("and"), and then from many codices such as A, F, H, M, N, T, Z etc., and from edition 1, *multo* ("much"); but several codices such as K, V, X, *aa, bb* place — the same sense being preserved — *multo fortius* ("much more strongly") rather than *multo minus* ("much less"). Finally at the end of the argument the codices are divided among themselves; for some, and indeed good ones, such as A, F, G, S, T, Z with edition 1 set *dicat* ("he says"), but others *dicatur* ("it be said").

la: Ex pluribus codd. ut A S T V W etc. cum edd. 1, 2, 3, 6 substituimus *multiplicantur* pro *multiplicatur*. Paulo ante plurimi codd. cum ed. 1 *et* loco *ut*.

en: From several codices such as A, S, T, V, W etc. with editions 1, 2, 3, 6 we have substituted *multiplicantur* ("are multiplied", plural) in place of *multiplicatur* ("is multiplied", singular). A little before, very many codices with edition 1 [read] *et* ("and") in place of *ut* ("as").

la: Cap. 4 n. 8: *Aut quoniam propter ineffabilem coniunctionem haec tria* (scil. Pater, Filius et Spiritus sanctus) *simul unus Deus, cur non etiam una persona* etc. — Vide etiam hic in littera Magistri, c. 4, ubi alius textus Augustini ex eodem capite citatur, in quo recurrit verbum *dicantur*, pro quo et Originale et plures codd. cum ed. 1 ponunt *dicuntur*. Respectu horum verborum Augustini magna invenitur in mss. varietas; sic plures ut B D F G H I Q T V cum ed. 1 legunt *Cum* pro *Cur*, quod in paucis ut P Z omittitur; dein aliqui codd. ut A P S T omittunt particulam *non*, et nonnulli ut V X *bb* post *dicantur* addunt *de*. Mox post *personis* exhibemus lectionem codd. V *aa bb*; ceteri codd. fere omnes pro *sed neutrum genus* habent *ergo proprie*, quae lectio corruptionem textus, vel omissionem plurium verborum sapit. Vat. cum cod. *cc* *sed Tria in neutro genere respicit*.

en: Chapter 4, n. 8: *Or since on account of the ineffable conjunction these three* (namely the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit) *[are] together one God, why [are they] not also one person* etc. — See also here in the text of the Master, c. 4, where another text of Augustine from the same chapter is cited, in which the word *dicantur* ("be called", subjunctive) recurs, for which both the original and several codices with edition 1 set *dicuntur* ("are called", indicative). With respect to these words of Augustine a great variety is found in the manuscripts; thus several such as B, D, F, G, H, I, Q, T, V with edition 1 read *Cum* ("Since") for *Cur* ("Why"), which in a few such as P, Z is omitted; then some codices such as A, P, S, T omit the particle *non*, and several such as V, X, *bb* after *dicantur* add *de*. Soon after, after *personis* ("of the persons") we exhibit the reading of codices V, *aa, bb*; nearly all the other codices, in place of *sed neutrum genus* ("but the neuter gender"), have *ergo proprie* ("therefore properly"), a reading which smacks of a corruption of the text, or of the omission of several words. The Vatican edition with codex *cc* [reads] *sed Tria in neutro genere respicit* ("but [he] regards [them as] *Three* in the neuter gender").

la: Cap. 4. n. 7. 8. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 3.

en: Chapter 4, nn. 7–8. See here the text of the Master, c. 3.

la: Hic, c. 3; quo in textu solummodo Vat. cum cod. *cc* ter recurrenti nomini *persona* praefigit *una*., multi codd. cum ed. 1 tantum semel scil. prima vice, plures tandem codd. ut G H M Y omnino omittunt, quos sequimur, utpote qui et cum originali et cum littera Magistri conveniunt. Mox fide plurium mss. ut H M P Q X Z et exigente forma argumenti adiecimus *Ergo*.

en: Here, c. 3; in which text only the Vatican edition with codex *cc* prefixes *una* to the thrice-recurring noun *persona*; many codices with edition 1 [do so] only once, namely the first time; several codices, finally, such as G, H, M, Y omit it altogether, [and] we follow these, inasmuch as they agree both with the original and with the text of the Master. Soon after, on the witness of several manuscripts such as H, M, P, Q, X, Z, and as the form of the argument requires, we have added *Ergo* ("Therefore").

la: Ita mss. et sex primae edd. contra Vat., quae post *entes* omittit *plures* ac dein pro *habentes entitatem* ponit *habent entitates*. Paulo infra post *similiter* cod. O repetit *sequitur*.

en: So the manuscripts and the first six editions, against the Vatican edition, which after *entes* omits *plures* and then in place of *habentes entitatem* sets *habent entitates* ("they have entities"). A little below, after *similiter*, codex O repeats *sequitur* ("it follows").

la: Nempe: *esse et operari* fundatum, in substantia. — Mox post *intelligimus* in codd. *aa bb* additur *necessario*.

en: Namely: *to be and to operate* [as] founded in a substance. — Soon after, after *intelligimus*, in codices *aa, bb* is added *necessario* ("necessarily").

la: Sequimur plurimos codd. et ed. 1 substituendo *Quoniam* pro *Quomodo*, et paulo infra post *sic* expungendo *et*.

en: We follow very many codices and edition 1 in substituting *Quoniam* ("Since") in place of *Quomodo* ("How"), and a little below, after *sic*, in expunging *et* ("and").

latin_scholion:
**I.** Pro intelligentia solut. ad 3. notandum, quod communitas essentiae alio sensu accipitur quam communitas personae sive personarum. Illa est communitas unius eiusdemque rei, haec vero communitas tantum rationis (cfr. S. Thom., S. I. q. 30. a. 4; B. Albert., hic a. 5.). Unde haec dicit aliquid commune, quod est distinctum in tribus personis. Sic intelligitur, quod habetur in solut. ad 3, scil. quod ratio, quae hic ex S. Augustino affertur, tangit tantum partem causae, quare dicantur tres personae. Nam in ratione personae includitur proprietas, et ratione huius plurificantur personae.

**II.** In solut. ad 4. verba: «Non trahit numerum aliunde» sic intelligenda sunt: cum *ens* in genere masculino iam significat suppositum, a se, non ab alio supposito, trahit numerum. Sed *ens* in genere neutro non significat suppositum, sed essentiam seu formam; unde si ipsi adiunguntur termini numerales sive partitivi, ut *aliud*, *alterum*, multiplicatio significatur essentiae sive formae, quod in divinis est omnino falsum.

**III.** Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 49. m. 3. — S. Thom., I. Sent. d. 25. q. 1. a. 4; S. I. q. 39. a. 1. 2. — B. Albert., de hac et seq. hic a. 6. 7. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 3. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 2.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** For the understanding of the solution to [argument] 3 it is to be noted that the commonness of *essence* is taken in another sense than the commonness of *person* or of persons. The former is the commonness of one and the same thing, the latter however the commonness only of account (*ratio*) (cf. St. Thomas, *S.* I, q. 30, a. 4; Bl. Albert, here a. 5). Whence this [the latter] denotes something common which is distinct in the three persons. Thus is to be understood what is held in the solution to [argument] 3, namely that the reason which is here brought forward from St. Augustine touches only a part of the cause why they are called three persons. For in the account of *person* there is included propriety, and by reason of this the persons are pluralised.

**II.** In the solution to [argument] 4, the words «It does not draw number from elsewhere» are to be understood thus: since *ens* in the masculine gender already signifies a supposit, it draws number from itself, not from another supposit. But *ens* in the neuter gender does not signify a supposit, but the essence or form; whence if numerical or partitive terms — such as *aliud*, *alterum* — are joined to it, multiplication of essence or form is signified, which in divine matters is altogether false.

**III.** Alex. of Hales, *S.* p. I, q. 49, m. 3. — St. Thomas, I *Sent.* d. 25, q. 1, a. 4; *S.* I, q. 39, a. 1–2. — Bl. Albert, on this and the following, here a. 6, 7. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 3. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2, q. 3. — Dionys. the Carthusian, here q. 2.

---

method: LLM-assisted translation from the Quaracchi Latin, verified chunk-by-chunk against the printed plates (apparatus roster, cross-references, page/gutter boundaries).

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0


title: Dist. 23, Art. 2, Q. 3

source_text:
<!-- page 414 -->

### QUAESTIO III.

#### *Utrum catholice dicere plures deos possimus.*

Tertio quaeritur, utrum catholice possimus dicere plures deos. Et quod sic, ostenditur hoc modo.

1. Hoc nomen *Deus* recipit distinctivum terminum ratione suppositionis, ut cum dicitur, *Deus generat Deum*: ergo cum eadem distinctio importetur per hoc quod est *generat* et per hoc quod est *tres*, quia personalis, ergo haec[^1] pari ratione est catholica: *tres dii sunt*.

2. Item, idem est *Deus* quod *habens deitatem*; sed plures sunt habentes deitatem — hoc dicitur catholice — ergo similiter plures dii sunt.

3. Item, hoc nomen *Deus*, quamvis sit substantiale, tamen impositum est ab operatione. Sed contingit, operationem pluraliter dici de personis, ut patet Genesis primo[^2]: *Faciamus hominem* etc.: ergo et hoc nomen *dii*.

4. Item, ad numerationem alicuius veram non plura requiruntur quam vera multiplicatio suppositorum et formae; sed haec est in Deo, quia tres sunt personae divinae; *persona* dicit suppositum, *divinae*[^3] formam: ergo etc.

5. Item, cum omne generale contingat specificari, et *persona* sit nomen generale, videtur quod possit specificari, cum dicitur: *tres personae*, ut dicatur adhuc specialius qui tres; sed hoc non potest esse, nisi addatur nomen commune tribus, nec est aliud dare quam hoc nomen *Deus*: ergo etc.[^4]

<!-- page 415 -->

**Contra:** 1. Quod non dicatur catholice, patet ex mandatis, Deuteronomii sexto[^5]: *Audi Israel, Deus tuus Deus unus est*. Item in Symbolo[^6]: «Non tres dii, sed unus est Deus».

2. Item, hoc ipsum videtur ratione, quia hoc nomen *Deus* dicit divinam naturam; sed divina natura non numeratur sive plurificatur[^7]: ergo nec hoc nomen *Deus*.

> **Conclusio.** *Licet sint tres personae divinae, tamen secundum fidem catholicam non possumus dicere, tres esse deos.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod non est dicere plures deos catholice, quia numerus pluralis significat plurificationem termini secundum suppositum et formam in nomine substantivo, cum plurale geminet suum singulare. Et ideo, cum forma importata per hoc nomen *Deus* non sit multiplicata, non debet dici plures dii.

**Ad argumenta in oppositum:**

1. Ad illud ergo[^8] quod obiicitur, quod catholice dicitur: *Deus generat*; dicendum, quod non est simile, quia *generat* importat simul distinctionem cum convenientia; sed *plures deos* simpliciter importat distinctionem quantum ad suppositum et formam.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod idem est *Deus* quod[^9] *habens deitatem*; respondeo dupliciter: quod *habens deitatem* uno modo potest dici neutraliter, et sic est unum solum, et aequipollet ei, quod est *Deus*, quod quidem dicit *quod est*; alio modo masculine, et sic non habet aequipollens, et sic multiplicatur.

Potest tamen aliter dici, quod *Deus* non significat habentem, sed significat deitatem in comparatione ad habentem; et ideo non multiplicatur.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de operatione[^10], dicendum, quod nomen potest significare operationem per modum adiacentis, et sic trahit numerum aliunde; vel per modum substantivi, et sic non multiplicatur, et taliter significat hoc nomen *Deus*.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod ibi est multiplicatio suppositorum et formae; dicendum, quod hoc nomen *divinum* est quasi possessivum; unde imponitur a duplici forma, scilicet possessionis et possessoris. Et forma deitatis est in ratione possessoris; et forma possessoris existente indivisa, numeratur forma possessionis, ut *oves Socraticae*; sic et in proposito[^11]; unde non numeratur forma habita.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod generale contingit specificari; dicendum, quod *persona*, cum nominet[^12] individuum intellectualis naturae, dupliciter potest specificari, videlicet per propria personarum, ut cum dicitur: *tres personae*, id est Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus; potest etiam specificari per naturae determinationem, ut si dicatur: *personae divinae* vel *angelicae* vel *humanae*.

Et si tu quaeras[^13], quare non specificatur per unum nomen, sicut est in creaturis, quod tres personae angelicae dicuntur tres Angeli; responderi potest, quod hoc est propter inopiam humani eloquii, qua laborat tam lingua Graeca quam Latina, sed magis Latina.

<!-- page 416 -->

— Vel potest dici, quod hoc non permittit natura ipsorum nominum, quoniam nomen speciale a speciali forma imponitur. Aut ergo est impositum a natura communi, aut a proprietate personae. Si est impositum a natura communi, cum illa non multiplicetur, non potest per unum nomen specificari. Si autem est impositum a proprietate personae, tunc, cum illa non conveniat tribus, non potest per illud specificari. Et ideo Ecclesia, compulsa necessitate, respondet nomen generale, sive quod importat communitatem nominis, quod est commune et multiplicabile; et ideo non est quaerenda specificatio per aliud nomen nisi vel per nomen adiectivum, vel per nomina personarum.

english:
### QUESTION III.

#### *Whether we can catholicly say several gods.*

Thirdly it is asked whether catholicly we can say several gods. And that we can, is shown in this way.

1. This name *God* receives a distinguishing term by reason of supposition, as when it is said, *God begets God*: therefore since the same distinction is imported by the [verb] *begets* and by the [word] *three*, since [it is] personal, therefore in like manner this[^1] [statement] is catholic: *there are three gods*.

2. Likewise, *God* is the same as *one having deity*; but there are several having deity — this is said catholicly — therefore in like manner there are several gods.

3. Likewise, this name *God*, although it is substantival, is nevertheless imposed from operation. But it happens that operation is said in the plural of the [divine] persons, as is clear in Genesis 1[^2]: *Let us make man* etc.: therefore also this name *gods*.

4. Likewise, for the true numeration of anything no more is required than a true multiplication of supposits and of form; but this is in God, since there are three divine persons; *person* signifies a supposit, *divine*[^3] the form: therefore etc.

5. Likewise, since every general thing can be specified, and *person* is a general name, it seems that it can be specified, when it is said: *three persons*, so as to say still more particularly which three; but this cannot be done unless a name common to the three be added, and there is no other to give than this name *God*: therefore etc.[^4]

**On the contrary:** 1. That it is not said catholicly is clear from the commandments, Deuteronomy 6[^5]: *Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God is one God*. Likewise in the [Athanasian] Creed[^6]: «Not three gods, but one is God».

2. Likewise, this same [point] is seen by reason, since this name *God* signifies the divine nature; but the divine nature is not numbered or pluralised[^7]: therefore neither is this name *God*.

> **Conclusion.** *Although there are three divine persons, nevertheless according to the catholic faith we cannot say that there are three gods.*

**I respond:** It must be said that one cannot say catholicly several gods, because the plural number signifies a pluralisation of the term according to supposit and form in a substantive name, since the plural doubles its singular. And therefore, since the form imported by this name *God* is not multiplied, several gods ought not to be said.

**To the arguments on the opposite side:**

1. To that, then[^8], which is objected, that catholicly it is said *God begets*; it must be said that it is not similar, because *begets* imports at the same time a distinction together with agreement; but *several gods* simply imports distinction as regards both supposit and form.

2. To that which is objected, that *God* is the same as[^9] *one having deity*; I respond in two ways: that *one having deity* in one mode can be said neuter-wise, and so it is one only, and is equivalent to that which is *God*, which indeed signifies *that which is*; in another mode masculinely, and so it does not have an equivalent, and so is multiplied.

Yet it can be said in another way, that *God* does not signify the haver, but signifies the deity in comparison to the haver; and therefore is not multiplied.

3. To that which is objected concerning operation[^10], it must be said that a name can signify operation in the manner of an adjacent [term], and so draws number from elsewhere; or in the manner of a substantive, and so is not multiplied, and in this way this name *God* signifies.

4. To that which is objected, that there is a multiplication of supposits and of form there; it must be said that this name *divine* is, as it were, possessive; whence it is imposed from a twofold form, namely of the possession and of the possessor. And the form of deity is in the account of possessor; and, the form of the possessor remaining undivided, the form of the possession is numbered, as *Socratic sheep*; so also in the present case[^11]; whence the form had is not numbered.

5. To that which is objected, that a general [term] can be specified; it must be said that *person*, since it names[^12] an individual of intellectual nature, can be specified in two ways, namely through the proper [characters] of the persons, as when it is said: *three persons*, that is the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; it can also be specified by determination of nature, as if it be said: *divine* or *angelic* or *human persons*.

And if you ask[^13] why it is not specified through a single name, as is the case in creatures, where three angelic persons are called three Angels; it can be answered that this is on account of the poverty of human speech, with which both the Greek and Latin tongues labour, but Latin more.

— Or it can be said that this is not permitted by the nature of these names themselves, since a special name is imposed from a special form. Either, then, it is imposed from a common nature, or from a property of person. If it is imposed from a common nature, since that is not multiplied, it cannot be specified by a single name. If however it is imposed from a property of person, then, since that does not belong to the three, it cannot be specified through it. And therefore the Church, compelled by necessity, sets forth a general name, or [one] which imports the commonness of the name, which is common and multipliable; and therefore no specification is to be sought through another name except either through an adjectival name, or through the names of the persons.

la: In pluribus mss. ut I T deest *haec*.

en: In several manuscripts such as I, T, *haec* ("this") is missing.

la: Vers. 26. — Mox post *ergo* ex multis mss. ut A F G I M S T etc. et ed. 1 supplevimus particulam *et*. Dein cod. Z *Deus* pro *dii*.

en: Verse 26. — Soon after *ergo* ("therefore"), from many manuscripts such as A, F, G, I, M, S, T etc. and from edition 1, we have supplied the particle *et* ("and"). Then codex Z [reads] *Deus* in place of *dii* ("gods").

la: In antiquioribus mss. et ed. 1 hic non repetitur *dicit*, sicuti in Vat. et cod. *cc* fit. In plurali conveniunt codd. et edd.

en: In the older manuscripts and in edition 1, *dicit* ("signifies") is not repeated here, as is done in the Vatican edition and in codex *cc*. In [using] the plural [*divinae*] the codices and editions agree.

la: Sensus est: in hac dictione *tres personae* nomen *personae*, cum sit nomen genericum, specificari debet, ut cognoscatur, quales seu qui sint isti tres; sed hoc fieri nequit nisi additione huius nominis *Deus*, quod est tribus commune, dicendo *tres dii*.

en: The sense is: in this expression *three persons* the name *person*, since it is a generic name, ought to be specified, in order that it may be known of what kind or who these three are; but this cannot be done except by the addition of this name *God*, which is common to the three, saying *three gods*.

la: Vers. 4, ubi Vulgata: *Audi Israel, Dominus Deus noster, Dominus unus est*. — Lectionem in textum receptam exhibent codd. et lit. Magistri, hic c. 3. Cfr. etiam lit. Magistri, d. 2. c. 4.

en: Verse 4, where the Vulgate [reads]: *Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one*. — The reading received into the text is exhibited by the codices and the text of the Master, here c. 3. Compare also the text of the Master, d. 2, c. 4.

la: Athanasiano. — In quo versiculo plures codd. cum ed. 1 omittunt *est*. Paulo ante Vat. cum cod. *cc* *Unde* pro *Item*.

en: [The] Athanasian [Creed]. — In which versicle several codices with edition 1 omit *est* ("is"). A little before, the Vatican edition with codex *cc* [reads] *Unde* ("Whence") for *Item* ("Likewise").

la: Vat. *specificatur*, sed praeter fidem mss. et ed. 1; cod. V *non multiplicatur*, cum quo concordat cod. X, qui tamen particulam *non* omittit.

en: The Vatican edition [reads] *specificatur* ("is specified"), but contrary to the witness of the manuscripts and of edition 1; codex V [reads] *non multiplicatur* ("is not multiplied"), with which codex X agrees, which however omits the particle *non* ("not").

la: Fide multorum mss. et ed. 1 adiecimus *ergo*. Mox post *generat* in cod. X additur *Deum*. Dein in cod. O post *quia generat* adiungitur *importat distinctionem in suppositis, non in forma, quia*. Tandem cod. *bb* ponit *vel tres*, codd. A S T *tres* pro *deos*.

en: On the witness of many manuscripts and of edition 1 we have added *ergo* ("therefore"). Soon after *generat*, in codex X *Deum* is added. Then in codex O after *quia generat* is added *importat distinctionem in suppositis, non in forma, quia* ("imports a distinction in the supposits, not in the form, because"). Finally codex *bb* sets *vel tres* ("or three"), codices A, S, T [set] *tres* ("three") in place of *deos* ("gods").

la: Vat. cum nonnullis tantum codd. *et* loco *quod*; lectio in textum recepta comprobatur insuper verbis ipsius obiectionis supra positis. Mox Vat. *respondeo, quod ista locutio est duplex, quia* pro *respondeo dupliciter: quod*, sed contra ed. 1 et codd., qui tamen verba sequentia *uno modo* incongrue propter confusionem subnexorum transponunt post *dupliciter*.

en: The Vatican edition with only a few codices [reads] *et* ("and") in place of *quod* ("that"); the reading received into the text is moreover confirmed by the very words of the objection set above. Soon after, the Vatican edition [reads] *respondeo, quod ista locutio est duplex, quia* ("I respond that this expression is twofold, because") in place of *respondeo dupliciter: quod* ("I respond in two ways: that"), but against edition 1 and the codices, which however incongruously transpose the following words *uno modo* ("in one mode") after *dupliciter* ("in two ways") on account of the confusion of what follows.

la: Vat. cum cod. *cc* *dicitur*. Mox post *nomen* in mss. et ed. 1 deest particula *vel* a Vat. addita. In fine responsionis codd. *aa bb* legunt *plurificatur* pro *multiplicatur*. — Alex. Hal., *S.* p. I. q. 30. m. 2. eandem obiectionem resolvens ait: *Dicendum, quod quamvis hoc nomen Deus sit nomen operationis, praeter hoc habet intellectum substantiae perfectae et per se stantis. Operatio autem divina significatur dupliciter: adiective sive verbaliter, quia verba significant in adiacentia, et ideo propter pluralitatem personarum pluraliter significatur, cum dicitur: Faciamus hominem ad imaginem. Aliquando vero substantive et nominaliter, non per modum adiacentis, quae quidem operatio est eadem quod divina substantia, et ideo non recipiet pluralitatem.*

en: The Vatican edition with codex *cc* [reads] *dicitur* ("is said"). Soon after *nomen*, in the manuscripts and in edition 1 the particle *vel* ("or") added by the Vatican edition is missing. At the end of the response, codices *aa, bb* read *plurificatur* in place of *multiplicatur*. — Alex. of Hales, *S.* p. I, q. 30, m. 2, in resolving the same objection says: *It must be said that, although this name "God" is a name of operation, beyond this it has the meaning of a perfect and per-se-subsisting substance. The divine operation, however, is signified in two ways: adjectivally or verbally, since verbs signify in adjacency, and therefore on account of the plurality of the persons it is signified in the plural, as when it is said: "Let us make man to [our] image." But sometimes [it is signified] substantively and nominally, not in the manner of an adjacent [term], which operation indeed is the same as the divine substance, and therefore will not receive plurality.*

la: Intellige: suo modo. Nam in allato exemplo forma possessoris (Socrates) est unica, forma possessionis (oves) est multiplex. Unde pluralis (*Socraticae*) non ad possessorem, sed ad possessionem refertur. Aliter est in locutione *personae divinae*, ubi una forma divina est in tribus personis. Unde pluralis (*divinae*) refertur ad tres possessores, qui numerantur, non ad formam sive divinam naturam. — Ed. 1 post *ratione possessoris* loco *et* ponit *contingit autem quod*.

en: Understand: in its [own] mode. For in the example brought forward, the form of the possessor (Socrates) is unique, [while] the form of the possession (sheep) is multiple. Whence the plural (*Socraticae*, "Socratic" [feminine plural]) refers not to the possessor but to the possession. It is otherwise in the expression *personae divinae* ("divine persons"), where one divine form is in three persons. Whence the plural (*divinae*, "divine" [plural]) refers to the three possessors, who are numbered, not to the form or divine nature. — Edition 1, after *ratione possessoris*, sets *contingit autem quod* ("but it happens that") in place of *et* ("and").

la: Vat. cum cod. *cc* *nominat* et paulo infra *scilicet* pro *videlicet*. Plures codd. in sequentibus exhibent bis *significari* loco *specificari*, sed perperam.

en: The Vatican edition with codex *cc* [reads] *nominat* ("names", indicative), and a little below *scilicet* in place of *videlicet*. Several codices in what follows exhibit *significari* ("to be signified") twice in place of *specificari* ("to be specified"), but wrongly.

la: Vat. cum cod. *cc* *quaeris*, quae et paulo infra post *creaturis* contra mss. et ed. 1 *ubi* pro *quod*.

en: The Vatican edition with codex *cc* [reads] *quaeris* ("you ask", indicative), which [edition] also a little below, after *creaturis*, against the manuscripts and edition 1, [reads] *ubi* ("where") in place of *quod* ("that").

latin_scholion:
**I.** De unitate Dei iam actum est supra d. 2. q. 1, et de forma plurali huius nominis *Deus* d. 4. q. 3. Schol.

In 3. opposit. dicitur, nomen *Deus* (Θεός) impositum esse ab operatione. Hoc sumtum est ex Damasceno *de Fide orthod.* I. c. 9. (vide supra pag. 60 nota 2.). Distinctio illa in solutione a S. Bonav. adhibita aliis verbis ab Alex. Hal. (*S.* p. I. q. 50. m. 1. a. 2) sic explanatur: «Nomen operationis dicitur duobus modis: uno modo nomen impositum ab operatione, alio modo significans operationem. Primo modo dicit Damascenus, quod hoc nomen *Deus* est nomen operationis, quia impositum est et sumtum ab operatione fovendi, videndi vel consumendi, per quas operationes a creatura mundi cognoscitur sempiterna virtus eius et divinitas (Rom. I, 20). Secundo modo non est nomen operationis, immo significat ipsam divinam naturam in quantum huiusmodi, et ad illam significandam impositum est. Quantum ergo ad illud a quo imponitur, dicitur a Damasceno nomen operationis; quantum ad illud cui imponitur, dicit Ambrosius, quod est nomen naturae».

**II.** Ipsam quaestionem pauci antiqui explicite tractant, ut Alex. Hal., *S.* I. q. 44. m. 2; q. 80. m. 2. — B. Albert., *S.* p. I. tr. 13. q. 51. q. incidens 4. — Aegid. R., I. *Sent.* d. 2. 1. princ. q. 1.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** Of the unity of God treatment has already been made above at d. 2, q. 1, and of the plural form of this name *God* at d. 4, q. 3, Schol.

In the 3rd argument on the opposite [side] it is said that the name *God* (Θεός) is imposed from operation. This is taken from the Damascene, *On the Orthodox Faith* I, c. 9 (see above p. 60 note 2). That distinction employed in the solution by St. Bonaventure is explained in other words by Alex. of Hales (*S.* p. I, q. 50, m. 1, a. 2) thus: «A name of operation is said in two modes: in one mode a name imposed from operation, in another mode signifying operation. In the first mode the Damascene says that this name *God* is a name of operation, since it is imposed and taken from the operation of cherishing, of seeing, or of consuming, by which operations from the creation of the world is known his sempiternal power and divinity (Rom. 1:20). In the second mode it is not a name of operation, but rather signifies the divine nature itself as such, and is imposed for the signifying of it. As regards therefore that *from which* it is imposed, it is called by the Damascene a name of operation; as regards that *to which* it is imposed, Ambrose says that it is a name of nature».

**II.** Few of the ancients explicitly treat this question itself, as Alex. of Hales, *S.* I, q. 44, m. 2; q. 80, m. 2. — Bl. Albert, *S.* p. I, tr. 13, q. 51, q. *incidens* 4. — Aegidius Romanus, I *Sent.* d. 2, 1. princ., q. 1.

---


title: Dist. 23, Dubia

title_alt:
Dubia circa litteram Magistri
Doubts on the Master's text

source_text:
<!-- page 416 -->

### DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

### DUB. I.

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo de hoc quod dicit: *Una usia, tres hypostases*. Videtur enim hoc esse contra illud quod dicit Hieronymus[^1]: «Taceamus tres hypostases; non bonae suspicionis nomen est»: ergo non debet dici. — Praeterea videtur, quod nomen *hypostasis* nullo modo debeat recipi vel nomen *usia*, quia Boethius dicit super librum *Praedicamentorum*[^2] quod *hypostasis* est materia, *usiosis* forma, *usia* compositum; sed in divinis non recipitur materia nec compositum: ergo etc.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod Hieronymus non dicit, non dicendum[^3] esse tres hypostases, quia falsum esset vel erroneum, sed quia nomen erat inconsuetum, et videbatur sonare idem quod *substantia*; et *substantia* secundum communem acceptionem non dicitur pluraliter de personis: et ideo volebat tunc taceri, ne haeretici occasionem acciperent malignandi. Nunc autem illud nomen specificatum est et expressum; ideo modo conceditur.

Ad illud quod obiicitur secundo, dicendum, quod huiusmodi nomina aliter accipiuntur in philosophia, aliter in theologia; et hoc patet per ipsum[^4] Boethium, qui aliter accipit loquens ut philosophus, et aliter loquens ut theologus in libro *de Duabus naturis et una persona Christi*[^5].

### DUB. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod *verius est Deus, quam cogitatur*. Videtur enim dicere falsum, quia omnis fidelis cogitat, Deum esse trinum et unum, et nihil est verius isto: ergo non est verius, quam cogitatur. Item videtur falsum quod dicit, quod verius cogitatur, quam dicatur; multa enim dicimus, quae non intelligimus: ergo plus se extendit veritas sermonis quam interioris cogitationis. Item, ego dico, Deum esse summe verum; sed nihil potest verius hoc cogitari nec esse maius[^6] summe vero: ergo etc.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod sermo Augustini est duplex. Potest enim esse comparatio entis ad ipsam[?] veritatem, quia unus et idem est Deus, qui est, cogitatur et dicitur[^7], et aequaliter verus.

<!-- page 417 -->

Potest iterum fieri comparatio ad actum essendi et cogitandi et loquendi; et sic habet sermo Augustini veritatem: quoniam Deus in suo esse habet summam veritatem; cogitatio vero nostra, cum sit creata et exemplata a summa veritate, non potest esse summe vera; similiter nec locutio, et ideo minus de veritate habet. — Et rursus, cum magis assimiletur summe[^8] vero actus cogitandi interior quam actus loquendi exterior, magis habet de veritate cogitatio quam locutio, quia Deo est similior. Rationes vero ad oppositum procedunt secundum primam viam[^9].

### DUB. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Augustinus, quod licuit loquendi et disputandi necessitate tres personas *dicere*, quia Scriptura non contradicit; sed similiter, si dicantur non esse tres personae, Scriptura non contradicit: ergo licet dicere, Patrem, Filium et Spiritum sanctum non esse tres personas; sed non licet dicere nisi verum: ergo huius oppositum est[^10] falsum.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod ista non fuit tota ratio dicti, sed Augustinus subticet partem causae. Ratio enim fuit, sicut ipse aperit in sequentibus, quia ratio consonabat, et Scriptura non contradicebat. Nam et si Scriptura contradiceret, quantumcumque ratio dictaret, non esset dicendum. Et propterea non licuit dicere tres essentias, quia ratio non consonabat. Quare autem ratio magis consonet in hoc nomine *persona* quam in hoc nomine *essentia*, patet, si attendatur significatum utriusque. Ex verbis igitur[^11] Augustini quae Magister ponit, quare dictum est ab Ecclesia tres personae, patet, quod triplex fuit ratio. Prima fuit, quia necessitas imminebat; secunda, quia ratio consonabat; tertia, quia Scriptura in nullo contradicebat, immo etiam consonabat. Unde minus dicit et plus intelligit, quando dicit, quod Scriptura non contradicit.

### DUB. IV.

Item obiicitur contra illud quod ibi nulla penitus est diversitas, sicut nec singularitas; quia si hoc est verum, ergo ibi est omnis identitas: ergo naturae et personae.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod facienda est vis in verbo[^13]. Diversitas enim attenditur quantum ad principia essentialia sive substantialia. Quia ergo in divinis quantum ad substantialia nulla cadit differentia; ideo dicit, quod nulla diversitas; ideo non sequitur, quod penitus omnimoda[^12] est[^14] identitas, nisi addatur determinatio, scilicet quoad essentialia; et sic patet illud.

---

english:
### DOUBTS ON THE MASTER'S TEXT.

### Doubt I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the *littera*, and first concerning what he says: *One usia, three hypostases*. For this seems to be against what Jerome says[^1]: «Let us be silent about three hypostases; it is not a name of good repute»: therefore it ought not to be said. — Moreover, it seems that the name *hypostasis* in no way ought to be received, nor the name *usia*, because Boethius says on the book *of the Categories*[^2] that *hypostasis* is matter, *usiosis* form, *usia* the composite; but in divine [things] neither matter nor composite is received: therefore etc.

**I respond:** It must be said that Jerome does not say that it ought not to be said[^3] that there are three hypostases, because [that] would be false or erroneous, but because the name was unaccustomed and seemed to sound the same as *substance*; and *substance* according to the common acceptation is not said in the plural of the persons: and therefore he then wished it to be silenced, lest the heretics receive an occasion of speaking maliciously. But now that name has been specified and made express; therefore it is now conceded.

To that which is objected in the second [place], it must be said that names of this kind are taken otherwise in philosophy, otherwise in theology; and this is clear from Boethius himself[^4], who takes [them] otherwise speaking as a philosopher, and otherwise speaking as a theologian in the book *On the Two Natures and One Person of Christ*[^5].

### Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked about what he says, that *God is more truly [so] than he is thought*. For he seems to say something false, because every faithful person thinks that God is three and one, and nothing is truer than this: therefore he is not more truly [so] than he is thought. Likewise it seems false what he says, that he is more truly thought than he is spoken; for we say many [things] which we do not understand: therefore the truth of speech extends itself further than that of inner thought. Likewise, I say that God is supremely true; but nothing can be thought truer than this nor be greater[^6] than the supremely true: therefore etc.

**I respond:** It must be said that the discourse of Augustine is twofold. For there can be a comparison of being to truth itself[?], because one and the same is God, who is, is thought, and is spoken[^7], and equally true.

Again, a comparison can be made to the act of being and of thinking and of speaking; and thus the discourse of Augustine has [its] truth: since God in his being has the highest truth; but our thought, since it is created and exemplated from the highest truth, cannot be supremely true; likewise neither speech, and therefore it has less of truth. — And again, since the interior act of thinking is more assimilated to the supremely[^8] true than the exterior act of speaking, thought has more of truth than speech, because it is more similar to God. But the arguments to the opposite proceed according to the first way[^9].

### Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked about what Augustine says, that it was permitted by the necessity of speaking and disputing to *say* three persons, because Scripture does not contradict [it]; but likewise, if they be said not to be three persons, Scripture does not contradict [that either]: therefore it is permitted to say that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not three persons; but it is not permitted to say [anything] except what is true: therefore the opposite of this is[^10] false.

**I respond:** It must be said that this was not the whole reason for what was said, but Augustine keeps silent a part of the cause. For the reason was, as he himself discloses in what follows, that reason was in agreement, and Scripture did not contradict. For even if Scripture were to contradict, however much reason might dictate, it would not be [right] to be said. And on this account it was not permitted to say three essences, because reason was not in agreement. Why, however, reason is more in agreement in this name *person* than in this name *essence* is clear, if the signified of each is attended to. From the words, therefore[^11], of Augustine which the Master sets down, [it is clear] why it was said by the Church [that there are] three persons, [and] it is clear that the reason was threefold. The first was that necessity pressed; the second, that reason was in agreement; the third, that Scripture in no way contradicted, nay rather was even in agreement. Whence he says less and understands more, when he says that Scripture does not contradict.

### Doubt IV.

Likewise it is objected against [the saying] that there is no diversity at all there, as neither singularity; because if this is true, then there is every identity there: therefore [identity] of natures and of persons.

**I respond:** It must be said that emphasis must be put on the word[^13]. For diversity is regarded as to essential or substantial principles. Since therefore in the divine [things] as to substantials no difference falls; therefore he says that there is no diversity; [but] therefore it does not follow that there is altogether all-encompassing[^12] [identity], nor is[^14] [it the case that] identity [is so simply], unless a determination be added, namely as to essentials; and so that [saying] is clear.

---

la: Epist. 15. ad Damasum, n. 4, ubi in originali *Taceantur* ponitur pro *Taceamus* et *nomen* omittitur.

en: *Letter* 15 to Damasus, n. 4, where in the original *Taceantur* (let them be silent) is set in place of *Taceamus* (let us be silent) and the word *nomen* is omitted.

la: Cap. *de Substantia*, ubi occurrit quidem substantiae divisio, scil. *materia*, *species* (forma) et quae ex utrisque conficitur (*compositum*), sed non appropriatio nominum Graecorum, *hypostasis* etc. — Paulo ante cod. bb et ed. 1 *nec* pro *vel*.

en: Chapter *On Substance*, where indeed there occurs the division of substance, namely *matter*, *species* (form), and that which is made up of both (*composite*), but not the appropriation of the Greek names, *hypostasis* etc. — A little earlier codex *bb* and edition 1 [read] *nec* in place of *vel*.

la: Vat. cum uno alterove codice omittit *dicendum*. Mox pauci mss. ut W bb *quod* loco *quia*, ac dein aliqui codd. ut A S Y aa cum ed. 1 *et* ac cod. T *aut* pro *vel*.

en: The Vatican [edition] with one or another codex omits *dicendum*. Soon a few manuscripts such as *W bb* [read] *quod* in place of *quia*, and then some codices such as *A S Y aa*, with edition 1, [read] *et*, and codex *T* [reads] *aut* in place of *vel*.

la: Fide antiquiorum mss. et ed. 1 supplevimus hic *ipsum*, et mox post *philosophus* particulam *et*, cui cod. O praemittit *in commentario*.

en: On the faith of the older manuscripts and of edition 1 we have supplied here *ipsum*, and soon after *philosophus* the particle *et*, to which codex *O* prefixes *in commentario* (in the commentary).

la: Cap. 3. — Plura de hoc vide supra a. 1. q. 3, et a. 2. q. 1.

en: Chapter 3. — On this see further above, a. 1, q. 3, and a. 2, q. 1.

la: Praebemus communiorem lectionem mss. et ed. 1, substituendo *maius* loco *magis verum*; cod. cc cum edd. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 *nec esse magis summe verum*. Paulo ante aliqui codd. post *verius* omittunt *hoc*.

en: We give the more common reading of the manuscripts and of edition 1, substituting *maius* in place of *magis verum*; codex *cc* with editions 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 [reads] *nec esse magis summe verum*. A little earlier some codices, after *verius*, omit *hoc*.

la: Vat. cum cod. cc *et qui cogitatur et qui dicitur*.

en: The Vatican [edition] with codex *cc* [reads] *et qui cogitatur et qui dicitur* (and who is thought and who is spoken).

la: Vat. absque auctoritate codd. et ed. 1 *summo*.

en: The Vatican [edition], without the authority of the codices and of edition 1, [reads] *summo*.

la: Scot., I. Sent. d. 22. q. 1. cum Ocham, Thoma ab Argentina et nonnullis modernis asserit, fieri posse, ut aliquid distinctius nominetur, quam cognoscatur, quod sub aliquo respectu concedi posse videtur, quatenus de facto aliquis confuse cognoscens interdum nomine praecise significante uti potest. Sed in hoc sensu sententiae et solutioni a S. Bonaventura datae non opponitur.

en: Scotus, *I Sentences* d. 22, q. 1, with Ockham, Thomas of Strasbourg, and several moderns, asserts that it can come about that something be named more distinctly than it is known, which under some respect seems able to be conceded, insofar as in fact someone confusedly knowing can at times use a name that signifies precisely. But in this sense [their view] is not opposed to the opinion and solution given by St. Bonaventure.

la: Verbum *est* desideratur in pluribus mss. Mox post *Respondeo* ex antiquioribus codd. et ed. 1 supplevimus *Dicendum*.

en: The word *est* is missing in several manuscripts. Soon after *Respondeo* we have supplied *Dicendum* from the older codices and edition 1.

la: Codd. inter se dissentiunt; plures inter quos sunt G H Y Z aa cum ed. 1, exhibent lectionem in textum receptam; plures ut L T bb ee ff habent *autem* pro *igitur*; alii demum cum Vat. nullam particulam ponunt. Fide mss. et ed. 1 mutavimus insuper hoc loco interpunctionem; Vat. siquidem hanc propositionem *Ex verbis* usque ad *ponit* coniungit cum praecedente et a verbo *quare* novam format propositionem. Sed tunc sensus non convenit cum verbis Augustini, a Magistro (hic c. 3.) relatis, quae non explicant diversum significatum vocabulorum *persona* et *essentia*, sed rationes, quare tres personas confitetur Ecclesia. — Paulo superius cod. T *consonabat* pro *consonet*.

en: The codices disagree among themselves; many — among which are *G H Y Z aa* with edition 1 — exhibit the reading received into the text; many such as *L T bb ee ff* have *autem* in place of *igitur*; others, finally, with the Vatican [edition], place no particle. On the faith of the manuscripts and of edition 1 we have moreover changed the punctuation in this place; the Vatican [edition] indeed joins this proposition *Ex verbis* up to *ponit* with the preceding and forms a new proposition from the word *quare*. But then the sense does not agree with the words of Augustine reported by the Master (here c. 3), which do not explain the diverse signification of the words *persona* and *essentia*, but the reasons why the Church confesses three persons. — A little above codex *T* [reads] *consonabat* in place of *consonet*.

la: Cod. X *omnino*; forte melius et conformius cum ipsa responsione legeretur *omnimoda*.

en: Codex *X* [reads] *omnino*; perhaps it would be better and more conformable with the response itself to read *omnimoda*.

la: Id est, verbum *diversitas* in sensu stricto est accipiendum. Hoc modo accipit Aristot., X. Metaph. text. 12. (IX. c. 3.) dicens: *Differentia vero et diversitas aliud est. Diversum namque et illud, a quo diversum, non est necesse aliquo esse diversum; omne etenim quodcumque sit ens aut idem aut diversum est. Differens vero ab aliquo aliquo differens est; quare necesse est aliquid idem esse quo differunt; hoc vero idem aut genus aut species est* etc.

en: That is, the word *diversitas* is to be taken in the strict sense. In this way Aristotle takes it, *X Metaph.* text 12 (IX. c. 3) saying: *But difference and diversity are different. For the diverse and that from which it is diverse need not be diverse by something; for everything that is is either the same or diverse. But that which differs from something differs by something; whence it is necessary that there be something the same by which they differ; and this same is either genus or species*, etc.

la: E vetustioribus mss. et ed. 1 substituimus *omnimoda* pro *omnino*. Dein plurimi codd. omittunt verbum *est*. — De hac solutione cfr. infra d. 24. dub. unic.

en: From the older manuscripts and edition 1 we have substituted *omnimoda* in place of *omnino*. Then several codices omit the word *est*. — On this solution cf. below d. 24, dub. unic.

translators_notes: This chunk contains DUB. I, DUB. II, DUB. III, and DUB. IV — the full set of four dubia for d.23. The pt1 OCR (lines 71288–71373) breaks off mid-sentence in the body of DUB. II's response at *Potest enim esse comparatio entis ad ipsum*; the continuation is taken verbatim from `raw/bonaventure_vol1_pt2_raw.txt` lines 60–141 (printed page 417). Page 417 is set in two columns in the IA OCR: column A carries the end of DUB. II's response, the DUB. III header, and the start of DUB. III's response; column B carries the rest of DUB. III's response, the DUB. IV header, and DUB. IV's body. The columns have been re-flowed into the linear order col-A-then-col-B above. The full footer apparatus from p. 417 (8 notes) is appended to the 6 surviving notes from p. 416, giving 14 total apparatus entries [^1]–[^14].


title: Dist. 24

title_alt:
Distinctio XXIV littera Magistri
Lombard's text on Distinction XXIV

source_text:
<!-- page 418 -->

### DISTINCTIO XXIV.

#### Cap. unicum. *Quid significetur his nominibus: unus vel una, duo vel duae, tres vel tria, trinus vel trinitas, plures vel pluralitas, distinctio vel distinctae, cum his utimur loquentes de Deo.*

Hic diligenter inquiri oportet, cum in Trinitate non sit diversitas vel singularitas, nec multiplicitas vel solitudo, quid significetur his nominibus, scilicet *unus vel una, duo vel duae, tres vel tria, trinus vel trinitas, plures vel pluralitas, distinctae vel distinctio*, cum dicitur: unus Deus, duae personae vel tres personae, plures personae, distinctae sunt personae; vel cum dicitur: distinctio personarum, pluralitas personarum, trinitas personarum et huiusmodi. Videmur enim hoc dicentes numerorum quantitates et rerum multitudinem vel multiplicitatem in Deo ponere. Quid ergo ista ibi significent, ipso de quo loquimur aperiente, insinuare curemus.

Si diligenter praemissis auctoritatum verbis[^1] intendimus, ut dictorum intelligentiam capiamus, magis horum verborum usus introductus ratione removendi atque excludendi a simplicitate deitatis quae ibi non sunt, quam ponendi aliqua.

Cum enim dicitur: *unus Deus*, multitudo deorum excluditur, nec numeri quantitas in divinitate ponitur, ac si diceretur: Deus est, nec multi sunt vel plures dii. Unde Ambrosius in primo libro *de Fide*[^2] ait: «Cum unum dicimus Deum, unitas exludit numerum deorum nec quantitatem in Deo ponit, quia nec numerus nec quantitas ibi est».

Similiter, cum dicitur: *unus est Pater*, vel *unus est Filius*, et huiusmodi, ratio dicti haec est, quod non sunt multi patres vel multi filii, ita et de similibus.

Item, cum dicimus: *plures esse personas*, singularitatem atque solitudinem excludimus, non diversitatem vel multiplicitatem[^3] ibi ponimus, quasi diceretur: sine solitudine ac singularitate personas confitemur. Unde Hilarius in libro quarto *de Trinitate*[^4] sic ait: «Dixit Deus: *Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram*. Quaero nunc, an solum Deum sibi locutum existimes, an hunc sermonem eius intelligas ad alterum extitisse? Si solum fuisse dicis, ipsius voce argueris dicentis: *Faciamus* et *nostram*. Sustulit enim singularitatis ac solitudinis intelligentiam professio consortii, quia aliquod consortium esse non potest ipsi solitario, neque solitudo solitarii recipit *faciamus*[^5], nec alieno a se diceret *nostram*». Attende, lector, his verbis et vide, quia nomine consortii pluralitatem significavit. Professio ergo consortii est professio pluralitatis, quam professus est dicens *faciamus et nostram*. Pluraliter enim utrumque dicitur; sed hac professione pluralitatis non diversitatem vel multitudinem posuit, sed solitudinem et singularitatem negavit. Sic ergo, cum dicimus: plures personas vel pluralitatem personarum, singularitatis et solitudinis intelligentiam excludimus.

Ita etiam, cum dicimus: *tres personas*, nomine ternam non quantitatem numeri in Deo ponimus vel aliquam diversitatem, sed intelligentiam non ad alium nisi ad Patrem et Filium et Spiritum sanctum dirigendam significamus, ut sit haec[^6] dicti intelligentia: tres personae sunt, vel tres sunt Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus, id est, nec tantum Pater nec tantum Filius nec tantum Pater et Filius in deitate sunt, sed etiam Spiritus sanctus, et non alius ab his. Similiter, non tantum est ibi haec persona vel illa, vel haec et illa, sed haec et illa et illa[^7], et non alia. Et hoc fore ita intelligendum Augustinus satis ostendit, ubi dicit[^8], quod illo nomine non diversitatem intelligi voluit, sed singularitatem noluit.

Similiter, cum dicimus[^9]: *duo sunt Pater et Filius*, non dualitatis quantitatem ibi ponimus, sed hoc significamus, quod non est tantum Pater nec tantum Filius, sed Pater et Filius, et hic non est ille; ita et de aliis huiusmodi. Ita etiam cum dicimus: Pater et Filius sunt duae personae, hoc significamus, quod non tantum Pater est persona, nec tantum Filius est persona, sed Pater est persona, et Filius est persona, et haec non est illa.

Cum autem dicimus: *distinctae sunt*[^10] *personae*, vel *distinctio est in personis*, confusionem atque permixtionem excludimus, et hanc non esse illam significamus. Cumque addimus: *distinctae sunt personae proprietatibus* sive *differentes proprietatibus*, aliam esse hanc personam et aliam illam suis proprietatibus significamus. Et cum dicimus: *aliam et aliam*, non diversitatem vel alienationem ibi ponimus, sed confusionem Sabellianam excludimus.

Ita etiam, cum dicuntur *discretae personae*, vel cum dicitur *discretio* esse in personis, eandem intelligentiam facimus. Eo[^11] enim modo ibi accipitur distin-

<!-- page 419 -->

ctio, quo discretio. Et congrue dicitur ibi esse discretio vel distinctio, non diversitas vel divisio sive separatio. Unde Ambrosius in primo libro *de Fide*[^12]: «Non est ipse Pater, qui Filius, sed inter Patrem et Filium expressa distinctio est».

Cum vero dicitur[^13] *trinitas*, id significari videtur, quod significatur, cum dicitur: *tres personae*, ut, sicut non potest dici: Pater est tres personae, vel Filius est tres personae, ita non debeat dici: Pater est trinitas, vel Filius est trinitas.

Hic non est praetermittendum, quod, cum supra dictum sit[^14], Deum nec singularem nec multiplicem esse confitendum, idque Sanctorum auctoritatibus sit confirmatum, in contrarium videtur sentire Isidorus dicens[^15]: «Distinguendum est inter trinitatem et unitatem. Est enim unitas simplex et singularis, trinitas vero multiplex et numerabilis; quia est trinitas trium unitas». Ecce unitatem dicit esse singularem, et trinitatem multiplicem et numerabilem. Sed ad hoc dicimus, quia *singularem* accepit, sicut et alii accipiunt *unum*; *multiplicem* vero et *numerabilem*[^16], sicut alii dicunt *trinum*.

---

english:
### DISTINCTION XXIV.

#### Cap. unicum. *On what is signified by these names: "one" (masc.) or "one" (fem.), "two" (masc.) or "two" (fem.), "three" (neut.) or "three" (neut. pl.), "threefold" or "trinity", "several" or "plurality", "distinction" or "distinct", when we use them in speaking of God.*

Here it must be carefully inquired, since in the Trinity there is no diversity or singularity, nor multiplicity or solitude, what is signified by these names — namely *one* or *one* (fem.), *two* or *two* (fem.), *three* or *three* (neut. pl.), *threefold* or *trinity*, *several* or *plurality*, *distinct* or *distinction* — when it is said: one God, two persons or three persons, several persons, the persons are distinct; or when it is said: a distinction of persons, a plurality of persons, a trinity of persons, and the like. For we seem in saying these things to posit in God quantities of numbers and a multitude or multiplicity of things. Let us therefore take care to make clear what these signify there, with Him of whom we speak Himself disclosing it.

If we attend diligently to the words of the authorities set forth above[^1], so that we may grasp the understanding of what has been said, the use of these words has rather been introduced for the sake of removing and excluding from the simplicity of the deity those things that are not there, than for the sake of positing anything.

For when it is said: *one God*, the multitude of gods is excluded, and a quantity of number is not posited in the divinity, as if it were said: He is God, and there are not many or several gods. Whence Ambrose in the first book *On the Faith*[^2] says: «When we say one God, the unity excludes a number of gods, and does not posit quantity in God, since neither number nor quantity is there».

Similarly, when it is said: *one is the Father*, or *one is the Son*, and the like, the reason of what is said is this, that there are not many fathers or many sons; and so likewise of similar things.

Likewise, when we say *that there are several persons*, we exclude singularity and solitude, we do not posit there diversity or multiplicity[^3], as if it were said: we confess persons without solitude and singularity. Whence Hilary in the fourth book *On the Trinity*[^4] thus says: «God said: *Let us make man to our image and likeness*. I now ask: do you reckon God to have spoken to Himself alone, or do you understand this speech of His to have gone forth to another? If you say He was alone, you are convicted by His own voice saying: *Let us make* and *our*. For the profession of fellowship has taken away the understanding of singularity and solitude, since there can be no fellowship for one solitary, nor does the solitude of a solitary admit *let us make*[^5], nor would He say *our* to one alien from Himself». Attend, reader, to these words and see that by the name of fellowship he signified plurality. The profession of fellowship, therefore, is a profession of plurality, which He professed when saying *Let us make* and *our*. For each is said in the plural; but by this profession of plurality He did not posit diversity or multitude, but denied solitude and singularity. So therefore, when we say: several persons or a plurality of persons, we exclude the understanding of singularity and solitude.

So also, when we say *three persons*, by the name of the ternary we do not posit a quantity of number in God or any diversity, but we signify that the understanding is to be directed to no other than to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, so that this[^6] be the understanding of what is said: there are three persons, or three are the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit — that is, neither the Father alone nor the Son alone nor the Father and the Son alone are in the deity, but also the Holy Spirit, and no other than these. Similarly, there is not there only this person or that, or this and that, but this and that and that[^7], and no other. And that this is so to be understood Augustine sufficiently shows, where he says[^8] that by that name he did not wish diversity to be understood, but did not wish singularity.

Similarly, when we say[^9]: *the Father and the Son are two*, we do not posit there a quantity of duality, but we signify this: that there is not only the Father nor only the Son, but the Father and the Son, and this one is not that one; and so of other things of this sort. So also when we say: the Father and the Son are two persons, we signify this: that not only the Father is a person, nor only the Son is a person, but the Father is a person, and the Son is a person, and this one is not that one.

But when we say: *the persons are distinct*[^10], or *there is distinction in the persons*, we exclude confusion and intermingling, and we signify that this one is not that one. And when we add: *the persons are distinct by properties* or *differing by properties*, we signify by their properties that this person is one and that person is another. And when we say: *one and another*, we do not posit there diversity or alienation, but we exclude Sabellian confusion.

So also, when *the persons are called discrete*, or when it is said that there is *discretion* in the persons, we make the same understanding. For in the same way *distinction*[^11] is taken there as *discretion*. And it is fittingly said that there is there *discretion* or *distinction*, not *diversity* or *division* or *separation*. Whence Ambrose in the first book *On the Faith*[^12]: «It is not the same Father who is the Son, but between the Father and the Son there is an express distinction».

But when it is said[^13] *trinity*, that seems to be signified which is signified when it is said *three persons*, so that, just as it cannot be said: the Father is three persons, or the Son is three persons, so it ought not to be said: the Father is the trinity, or the Son is the trinity.

Here it must not be passed over that, since it has been said above[^14] that God is to be confessed neither as singular nor as manifold, and this has been confirmed by the authorities of the Saints, Isidore seems to think the contrary, saying[^15]: «A distinction is to be made between trinity and unity. For unity is simple and singular, but trinity is manifold and numerable; for trinity is the unity of three». Behold, he says that unity is singular, and trinity manifold and numerable. But to this we say that he took *singular* as others take *one*, and *manifold* and *numerable*[^16] as others say *threefold*.

---

la: Solummodo Vat. et ed. 6 cum cod. D non bene *sibi*.

en: Only the Vatican edition and edition 6, with codex D, wrongly read *sibi* ("to itself").

la: Scilicet d. XXIII. Sententia Magistri opinantis, unitatem et numeros in divinis tantum privative, non positive accipi, ab aliis Scholasticis communius non tenetur; cfr. Comment. Bonaventurae, hic a. 1. q. 1. a. 2. q. 2.

en: Namely, distinction XXIII. The Master's opinion, that unity and numbers in divine matters are taken only privatively and not positively, is not more commonly held by other Scholastics; cf. Bonaventure's Commentary, here, article 1, question 1, article 2, question 2.

la: Cap. 2. n. 19; secundum sensum. Sic enim legitur in Ambrosio: «Diversitas plures facit, unitas potestatis excludit numeri quantitatem, quia unitas numerus non est». Eadem repetit Ambros., III. *de Spiritu sancto*, c. 13. n. 93. — Codd. omnes et edd. 1, 2, 3, 7, 9 citant librum Ambrosii sub titulo *de Trinitate*. Paulo ante solummodo Vat. et ed. 1 adiidunt *si* post *tanquam*.

en: Chapter 2, n. 19; according to the sense. For thus it is read in Ambrose: «Diversity makes many, the unity of power excludes a quantity of number, since unity is not a number». Ambrose repeats the same in book III *On the Holy Spirit*, c. 13, n. 93. — All the manuscripts and editions 1, 2, 3, 7, 9 cite the book of Ambrose under the title *On the Trinity*. A little before, only the Vatican edition and edition 1 add *si* ("if") after *tanquam* ("as").

la: Vat. et edd., exceptis 1, 6, contra codd. legunt *nec diversitatem nec multiplicitatem*.

en: The Vatican edition and the editions, except 1 and 6, against the manuscripts read *nec diversitatem nec multiplicitatem* ("neither diversity nor multiplicity").

la: Num. 17. Ultima tamen verba ab originali non parum differunt, sic dicente Hilario: *Sustulit singularis intelligentiam professione consortii. Consortium autem esse aliquod solitario ipse* (al. *ipsi*) *sibi non potest. Neque rursum recipit solitarii solitudo faciamus; neque quisquam alieno a se nostram loquitur*. — Locus s. Scripturae est Gen. 1, 26.

en: Number 17. Yet the last words differ not a little from the original, Hilary saying thus: *He took away the understanding of the singular by the profession of fellowship. But there cannot be any fellowship for a solitary one to himself* (var. *for himself*). *Nor again does the solitude of a solitary admit "let us make"; nor would anyone say "our" to one alien from himself*. — The place of Sacred Scripture is Genesis 1:26.

la: Vat. et plures edd. *huius* contra omnes codd. et ed. 1.

en: The Vatican edition and several editions read *huius* ("of this"), against all the manuscripts and edition 1.

la: Vat. et ed. 2 omittunt *et illa*, quod hic significat tertiam personam Trinitatis.

en: The Vatican edition and edition 2 omit *et illa* ("and that"), which here signifies the third person of the Trinity.

la: Libr. VII. *de Trin.* c. 4. n. 9.

en: Book VII *On the Trinity*, c. 4, n. 9.

la: Vat. cum pluribus edd. *dicitur*.

en: The Vatican edition, with several editions, reads *dicitur* ("it is said").

la: Solummodo Vat. et ed. 4 omittunt *sunt*.

en: Only the Vatican edition and edition 4 omit *sunt* ("are").

la: Vat. et plures edd. *eodem*, et paulo ante *Ita et* loco *Ita etiam*.

en: The Vatican edition and several editions read *eodem* ("by the same"), and a little before, *Ita et* in place of *Ita etiam* ("So also").

la: Id est, *de Fide ad Gratianum*, c. 2. n. 16.

en: That is, *On the Faith, to Gratian*, c. 2, n. 16.

la: Edd. 2, 5 addunt *Deus trinus vel* cum *dicitur*.

en: Editions 2 and 5 add *Deus trinus vel* ("threefold God, or") with *dicitur* ("when it is said").

la: Dist. XXIII. c. 6.

en: Distinction XXIII, chapter 6.

la: Non invenimus in editionibus Isidori locum istum (etiam ab aliis Scholasticis citatum), scilicet verba: *Est unitas simplex et singularis, trinitas vero multiplex et numerabilis*.

en: We have not found in the editions of Isidore that passage (which is also cited by other Scholastics), namely the words: *Unity is simple and singular, but trinity manifold and numerable*.

la: Sola Vat. *numeralem*, et postea omittit *alii*. Ed. 8 *sicut* post *accipiunt unum* glossando addit *in essentia*, ita in fine post *trinum*, addit *in personis*.

en: The Vatican edition alone reads *numeralem* ("numeral"), and afterwards omits *alii* ("others"). Edition 8 by way of gloss adds *sicut* after *accipiunt unum* and *in essentia* ("in essence"), and likewise at the end after *trinum*, adds *in personis* ("in the persons").