Thirty First Distinction

Single Question. Whether Identity, Likeness, and Equality are Real Relations in God

1. About the thirty first distinction I ask whether identity, likeness, and equality are real relations in God.

That they are not:

Augustine On the Trinity V ch.6 n.7: “We ask, according to what is the Father equal to the Son? Not because he is said to be to the Father is the Son equal to the Father; it remains then that he is equal according to what he is said to be to himself;” and he concludes: “it remains then that he is equal according to substance.” Therefore equality is not said there according to relation.

2. Further, a form of the same species is not multiplied in number save through matter; proof: every form separate from matter has the whole species, according to some. Therefore equality in divine reality, since it is a form of the same idea without matter, is not multiplied or distinguished; therefore there is not a different equality in the Father and in the Son, and consequently it is not real in the Father, because then it would require a corresponding distinct relation in the Son.

3. Further, if equality in the Father is different from the equality that is in the Son, by parity of reasoning it is also different from the equality that is in the Holy Spirit - and then to the equality in the Son and to the equality in the Holy Spirit there will correspond different equalities in the Father, because correlatives are co-multiplied; therefore in the Father there will be two equalities, which seems unacceptable.

4. Further, if these relations are real, then they are as equally distinct as are the relations of origin - and consequently they could thus constitute distinct persons just as do the relations of origin; and if they can so constitute, they do so constitute, because there is no potency there without act.

5. The opposite:

Hilary On the Trinity III n.23: “There is no likeness to oneself.”

I. To the Question

6. To the question:

It seems one must say that the three are sufficient for a real relation; first, because the foundation is real and the term is real; and second, because there is a real distinction between the extremes; and third, because, from the nature of the extremes, such a relation follows without the work of any other power comparing one extreme to the other.

A. As to the First Condition for Relation

1. Opinion of Others

7. As to the first condition for real relation [n.6], it is denied [by Henry of Ghent     etc .] that there is here a foundation, because it is said that magnitude passes over into the essence (according to Augustine, in many places), and so it does not remain under the idea of magnitude save in reason.

8. But against this:

The divine essence as it is the first object of the divine intellect, seen in the first intuitive cognition, is, before any busying of the intellect, the beatific object of that intellect, because the intellect is not beatified by a busying act; therefore      it is of itself, without any busying of the intellect, formally infinite, because nothing beatifies save what is formally infinite. So there is magnitude of virtue there - nay an infinity of magnitude - from the nature of the thing.

9. Again, the intellect, before it understands that it is understanding something or is busy about something, has a comprehensive grasp of the essence as first object, and from this - that it busies itself about it - it is possible to reduce to act all the ideas that can be considered in the essence; therefore from the nature of the thing the intellect is infinite, - therefore the essence too, on which it is founded.

10. Further, their reasoning [n.7] is not valid, because although a quantity of bulk states something added to the nature of the subject, and therefore it cannot remain under its formal idea and also pass over into the essence by identity, - yet magnitude of virtue in every being passes over into that which it by identity belongs to, even in the case of creatures. - Proof: for if an angel has some magnitude of virtue (about which Augustine speaks in ibid. VI ch.8 n.9: “In things that are not great by bulk, what it is to be greater is to be better”), and if its perfectible magnitude is not the same as its essence, let it be removed from the essence. With the essence then remaining, I ask what grade of perfection it has among beings? For it will be nothing unless it has some determinate grade of perfection among beings; therefore there still remains in the essence a magnitude of virtue, whereby it is said to be thus or thus perfect. Therefore the quantity in everything passes over by identity, and remains in everything in its proper idea, because the nature of such quantity is to state the intrinsic mode of the perfection it belongs to; and from the fact that it states ‘mode’, it remains - but from the fact that it states ‘intrinsic’, it passes by identity into the essence it belongs to.

2. Scotus’ own Opinion

11. I say, therefore, that there is here a foundation or equality that is real and from the nature of the thing, not only a remote one, which is the essence, - but a proximate one, which is magnitude or specifically ‘infinity’. And this is proved by all the reasons that are given to show that the essence of the first thing is infinite; they do all indeed conclude that from the nature of the thing it is infinite; for all things that depend on it - whether on it as it is first in idea of effective principle, or in idea of final principle, or in idea of being eminent and measuring and participated (which ways were touched on in distinction 2 nn.111-144) - all these things, I say, depend on it according to what it is from the nature of the thing, after removing every act of intellect, because no dependence of a finite effect rests on something under the formal idea of a being of reason, as can be proved by the reasons given in distinction 13 against the sixth opinion [nn.31-42]). There is also here from the nature of the thing what is posited as the proximate foundation of equality, or the idea of founding it, namely unity, because according to Damascene ch.8: “In him” (namely in God) “common and one are considered to be in the thing;” it is not so in the case of creatures, but the common there is ‘one’ by intellect only.

B. As to the Second Condition for Relation

12. In this way, namely that the relation requires extremes really distinct [n.6]: The thing is clear from Hilary, as said in his opposing point [n.5].

13. And from Augustine, ibid. VI ch.10 n.11: “In the Son,” he says, “is the first equality.” Which would not be true if some person could be said to be equal to himself; for then the Father would be the first equal. But because equality cannot be understood without distinction, and the first distinction is in the produced Son, so the ‘first equality’ is there in him, - taking as term or as quasi subject the equality by which the Son is equal to the Father.

14. This is also proved by the fact that the relations of origin are posited as real, and they do not pre-require a distinction of the extremes, but as it were formally cause it; for the relations in question here presuppose the distinction ‘as caused by relations of origin’, just as the common position is that they cannot burgeon in the essence unless the relations or origin are pre-existing in it [d.26 n.96]; therefore they seem more to require distinct extremes than the relations of origin, or at any rate not less.

15. And if you object that they are not of different ideas as the relations of origin are, - this is not conclusive unless because they are not distinct in species; but in the case of creatures not only are the relations of supposition and superposition real, where the extremes differ in species, - but also the common relations are real, where the extremes differ only in number;     therefore a real numerical distinction in the extremes is here sufficient for the reality of the common relations, just as for the distinction of the relations of origin, which differ as it were in species.

C. As to the Third Condition for Relation

16. As to the third article [n.6] - it seems that this relation [sc. equality etc     .] is consequent to the persons from the nature of the thing, without any comparison by some extrinsic power comparing them.

For because the Father by generating communicates his essence perfectly to the Son, therefore he communicates the same infinite magnitude - as Augustine says Against Maximinus II ch.18 n.3: “If,” he says, “you say ‘the Father is by his very self greater than the Son, because he generates’, I quickly reply: no, therefore the Father is not greater than the Son, because he generates an equal.” Therefore there does not seem to be any reason why the equality of the Father with the Son should not be posited as a real relation.

17. One can speak similarly about likeness. And - just as in creatures - there is a double likeness, namely essential, according to specific difference, and accidental, according to some accidental quality. And even if the first be denied in the issue at hand (because God does not have any specific difference), yet because - if the fact ‘there is a specific difference in creatures’ were the whole essence of the individual - there would no less be a form in respect of the individual (therefore no less a relation of likeness than there is now), therefore it seems that likeness can properly be conceded there (not insofar as it is ‘what’, but insofar as it is act and quasi form, by which the persons are God), and also a likeness as to all the attributes, which are as it were properties of this nature (as Damascene says ch.4: “Things that concern the nature state the nature”): and then, just as there is from the nature of the thing a foundation of equality and a real distinction between the extremes (and this relation is without any operation of the intellect [nn.11-13, 16]), so also in the case of likeness.

18. About identity too one can say that it is taken in two ways in divine reality; in one way of the same person to himself, as the Father is the same as himself, - in another way of one person with another, as the Father is the same as the Son and conversely. About the first identity, see elsewhere [II d.1 qq.4-5 n.24].a About the second one can say - as also about the others [equality, likeness] - that it is real, because there is there a true unity from the nature of the thing and a sufficient distinction between the extremes, nor does a comparison by the intellect seem necessary for the being of this identity. And if the identity of the same supposit with itself in the case of creatures is a relation of reason only, then there is never a true and perfect identity save in God alone; for Socrates is not a perfect identity with himself, because it is a relation of reason only, - and so every such relation is in a certain respect; nor is there a perfect identity of Socrates with Plato, because it is not founded on perfect unity. But here there is a perfect identity of the Father with the Son as to foundation, because there is a perfect unity of the Father with the Son, - and a real identity, because there is a real distinction and a sufficient one between the extremes.

a [Interpolation, from Appendix A] Response.

     In distinction 19 to the ultimate: it is a mark of imperfection in creatures that the foundation is distinguished; there is only required a distinction of supposits.

     There, at the bottom: the passion of the quantity of virtue as also of bulk.

     Again, here in this distinction question 1: it does not only state negation, as neither does unity of essence and the distinction of persons which it follows.

     Here in question 2: the respect formally in its reason, causally and of the person and unity of essence, - just as in creatures there is a respect of the supposit to supposit according to one form.

     But what he [Bonaventure] does not understand, that they are distinct in reason, is not only proved in 19 (‘passion’) and in the first question here (‘it follows’), but because he never adds the distracting thing (in distinction 30, ‘About the relation of God to the creature’).

II. Doubts about Equality

19. But about equality there are two doubts:

For first it seems it is not a distinct relation from identity and likeness because (as was said elsewhere [I d.8 nn.192, 220-221, d.10 n.30, d.13 nn.72, 80]) ‘infinite’ is not a special attribute but states a mode intrinsic to any attribute, - and by parity of reasoning ‘great’ does too, which as it were states indistinctly what ‘infinite’ states distinctly; therefore the magnitude of the essence is not distinct from the essence (and not by the distinction either that is between the attributes), and then equality according to this magnitude is not distinct from identity, which is according to the essence; likewise, magnitude is not distinct from wisdom, by the distinction that is between the attributes, -therefore equality in magnitude of wisdom is not distinct from likeness in wisdom. But every magnitude is either of the essence, according to which there is identity, - or of an attribute, according to which there is likeness; therefore no equality in divine reality seems to be distinct from identity and likeness.

20. Further, if also any attribute has its own proper magnitude, then equality seems to be founded in accord with any one of them; therefore there will be as many equalities of the persons as there are attributes.

21. As to the first [n.19], one can concede that - as in the case of creatures - there can be likeness without equality (as a weak white is like an intense white, although not perfectly), but not conversely, as to the form by which certain things are of a nature to be likened; and in this respect, by comparing certain things in the form according to which likeness is of a nature to exist, equality seems to quasi determine likeness and a foundation of likeness. So one can concede here that equality is not so distinct from identity and likeness as they are from each other, but it states a proper mode of the foundation of each of those two relations, and as it were also a mode proper to each relation, - because namely both identity and likeness are perfect; because if per impossibile the Father had a greater deity and the Son a lesser deity, there would be some identity, but because the foundation of the identity would not have the same magnitude, it would not be perfect identity, nor go along with equality; likewise, if per impossibile the Father had a greater knowledge and the Son a lesser one, they would be in some way alike, but because the mode of the foundation would be deficient - namely perfect magnitude - there would therefore not be a perfect likeness. But now the magnitude, which is as it were the mode of the foundation of identity and likeness, founds equality, which is as it were the mode of likeness and identity, - because it asserts each of them as perfect.

22. To the second [n.20] one can concede that there are as many perfections in God simply as there are also magnitudes and equalities; however just as all of them are simply one thing, so too ‘the equalities in accord with them’ are simply one thing. And from this is plain how the Master - distinction 19 ch.1 n.168 - well assigned ‘a perfect equality’ in the three (according to Augustine [Fulgentius] On the Faith to Peter ch.1 n.4), namely ‘in magnitude, in power, and in eternity’; by magnitude indeed is understood equality in all attributes (taking magnitude not for any distinct attribute, but as it is common to the magnitude of any attribute at all), and by power they are indicated to be equal as to objects outside, and by eternity equality is indicated to be in them as it were in duration. But equality according to discrete quantity is not looked for there, but to continuous quantities in creatures - which are permanent and successive quantity - there correspond there magnitude and eternity.

III. To the Principal Argument

23. [To the first principal argument] - To the first argument [n.1] I say that a white things and a white thing are said to be alike according to whiteness, and this insofar as the ‘according to’ indicates that its determinable is the proximate foundation for the relation; but they are said to be alike by likeness formally. So I say that the Father and Son are equal according to essence as according to proximate foundation [nn.11, 35], because the common relations are founded on something as it is common; but nothing is one in the persons save the essence as essential.

24. Against this solution there are multiple arguments:

First, because by parity of reasoning there seems to be a single equality in God, just as also a single paternity; both (1) because each relation is equally adequate to its foundation; and (2) because anything in God of one idea is single, - otherwise he would not be of himself supremely one, but by one thing he would be ‘being according to quiddity’ and by another ‘this being’ and so there would be potentiality and composition; and (3) because infinity in all of them seems to follow in the same way, because it will not be possible to give what a plural thing is determined by to a definite plurality; and (4) because what has a cause of one idea and a single receptive idea is single, because it is not distinguished by agent or by matter, Metaphysics 8.4.1044a25-32 (likeness is of this sort).

25. Again, not only will it follow that there are six equalities in three persons, nay any person is equal to two persons and conversely, - and not by the same equality by which they are one, because the extreme is not the same; indeed any person is equal to the three, because On the Trinity VIII ch.1 n.2: “The three are not a greater thing than one is” (nor a lesser, as is plain; therefore they are equal). And this last point seems to show sufficiently that equality is not real, because it is of the same thing to itself, provided not to itself precisely but along with others; it is never real to itself, however much it may be communicated to others. But as to why it is not to itself precisely, - one can say, not because it states a relation, but it only states the unity of quantity; yet it connotes a distinction of supposits, and therefore it is to another. - Further, this equality is equal to that equality, and so ad infinitum; this person is also like that one, and the same as it in species, and so again ad infinitum.

26. To these objections:

To the first [n.24 (1)] it is said that no relation there is adequate to the foundation, because the essence is the immediate foundation of them all; for since a relation does not found a relation, and there is only essence and relation there, the conclusion follows. - To this it is said that the distinct attributes are the proximate foundations of the relations of origin, as memory is of ‘active saying’ and actual knowing is of ‘passive saying’; with this proximate foundation one relation of origin is equated.

27. In another way it is said to the first [n.24 (1)] that in creatures disquiparant [sc. correlates that are denoted by different names, as father and son] relations require distinct foundations (because they differ in species), but common relations do not; therefore the first is thus adequate to what is disquiparant because it is not the same foundation for the opposite relation; things are not so in the case of the common relations. How this relates to the issue at hand is plain [sc. paternity is adequate and unique, equality is not adequate nor unique].

28. But given this response, why is there only a single paternity? Because although its proximate foundation is not the foundation of the opposite relation (which as it were differs in species), yet why is ‘this paternity’ adequate to its foundation and ‘this equality’ not adequate to its? - Response: no unique common relation can be adequate, because the opposite has to have the same foundation; some relation can be adequate to what is disquiparant.

29. On the contrary: why is ‘this paternity’ necessarily adequate? - Response: nothing of one idea is multiplied unless some things of another idea are pre-understood that are causally necessarily required for the multiplication of it; therefore paternity cannot be multiplied because it does not pre-require such things of a different idea (which would be as it were the cause of its multiplication), - equality can be, because it prerequires relations that constitute persons, by which distinction of persons the equalities are distinguished. Proof [sc. that in something of one idea multiplication is made by something of another idea]: by what is a other than b? If by something of a different idea in them, or causally, the intended conclusion is gained; if not, but only by something of the same idea, I ask again by what it is distinguished, and so ad infinitum. - However it may be with this general proof, there is a special proof in God; because otherwise [sc. if multiplication were not made by something of a different idea] there would be an infinity, because nothing there is determined to a definite multitude by any prior cause; therefore only by something of a different idea, because ‘anything of one idea that is related to several things does not determine to how many such things it extends itself’ (it is got from distinction 2 above, question 7, in the solution, addition, sub n.303).

30. Through this is plain the response to the third point [n.24 (3)]; why there is a certain plurality of equalities but there would not be of paternities.

31. To the second [n.24 (2)]: that whatever is of one idea in the thing - not only in concept - is unique, I concede. To the proof I say that, in concept, ‘equality’ and ‘this’ are not by the same thing, but anything in the thing is ‘equality’ and ‘this’ by the same thing - as is replied in distinction 8 nn.137-150 about a concept common to God and creatures, or a common thing (so too in distinction 29 nn.3-4 about principle and in distinction 23 n.9a about several relations having a common concept).

a A blank space was left here by Scotus.

32. To the fourth [n.24 (4)]: the proposition can be conceded, and it is true when ‘receptive’ is only in one recipient and is an absolute form; in relations several things are in one thing, and necessarily several things are in opposite extremes.

33. To the other [n.25]: it is conceded that there are six other equalities, between any person and two others; but between one and three, or two and two, it is conceded as a quasi numeral part to a quasi numeral whole - then the proposition ‘it is never real to itself     etc .’ is denied. It is denied to be real in another way, when the same person is in each extreme: the inference does not follow ‘not greater nor lesser therefore      equal’, because the premise is true of the Father with respect to the Father, the conclusion false.

34. To the last one, about an infinity of equalities [n.25], a response is given in book II distinction 1 question 4 nn.23-24,a about which relations are referred to others, which to themselves.

a A blank space was left here by Scotus.

35. And if you object that then the Father could be said according to essence, because the essence is foundation of paternity (which however is not conceded), although I have made this argument elsewhere to prove that a relation of origin is not an act of the essence [I d.5 n.137], yet by holding to the common way [sc. opposite to the objection here, that the Father is not said according to essence] a reason can be assigned as to why according to essence the Father is said to be equal to the Son but not Father of the Son; because although the essence is foundation of both, and is not distinguished (neither by the former nor by the latter), yet it is the foundation of the common relation insofar as it is one - but not insofar as it is ‘one’ is it foundation of a relation of origin, although it is one; and because essence ‘as essence’ is not taken there save as it is one formally in the three, therefore the Father is said to be equal according to essence, because of the fact that the essence as ‘one’ is the proximate foundation of this relation [sc. equality]. But

Father is not said according to deity, because deity as ‘one’ is not ‘the idea of the foundation’ of this relation [sc. paternity], such that unity be the idea of the foundation, as would be indicated if Father were said according to deity; because wherever a relation is the act of a foundation, there a supposit can be said relatively to another according to that foundation (as Socrates according to whiteness is like, fire by heat heats, a stone according to the quiddity of stone is the measure of knowledge about a stone); but this is not conceded ‘the Father is Father by deity, or according to deity’;     therefore etc     .

36. But in this way it seems one can argue that neither is he equal according to deity, because this relation is not the act of the foundation. - Response: where a relation is an act of the foundation, there something can according to the foundation be said relatively to another (this I have accepted), but I do not concede conversely that wherever something is said relatively to another according to the foundation that there the relation is an act of the foundation - because universally such ‘according to’ is a mark of the cause of inherence per se in the second mode, not the first. And well does ‘actuation of the foundation through relation’ entail that the foundation is the cause of the inherence of the relation in the supposit (cause per se in the second mode, I say), but not conversely, because ‘to be per se the foundation’ sometimes suffices for being a per se cause of the inherence of the relation in the supposit without the fact that the relation actuates, although sometimes it may not be sufficient, because then the Father according to essence would be Father.

37. But at any rate, what is the reason for the dissimilarity here, that a common relation is said to be present [sc. in a supposit] according to essence, a proper relation or a relation of origin not, - since neither is more act than the other? In creatures each is an act, and each is said to be present according to the foundation; for ‘hot’ is both capable of heating according to heat and is like according to heat!

38. [To the second principal argument] - To the second [n.8] I say that the major proposition is false; nay when a form is distinguished in matter and with matter, the mater is not the principal reason for this distinction, because in any distinction the principal reason of the distinction is that which is the principal reason of being in that existence (about this elsewhere, in the question ‘On individuation’ [II d.3 p.1 qq.5-6 nn.9, 15, 20]).

39. [To the third principal argument] To the third [n.3]; it seems one must concede that in the Father there is one equality to the Son and another to the Holy Spirit, just as if the Father had generated the Holy Spirit there would be in him one paternity to the Son and another to the Holy Spirit - and about this statement there will be general discussion in book III d.8 q. un. n.6-11, 21-22, ‘whether in one thing, related to several, there are several relations’.

40. [To the fourth principal argument] - To the fourth [n.4]; the argument seems difficult to those who posit that the persons are relative (as was argued against them in distinction 26 n.96, for the third opinion), yet by holding to the common way [sc. that the persons are relative] one must say that relations of origin burgeon in the essence before the common ones do, and those ‘first burgeoning’ ones distinguish and constitute the persons, - but not the common ones, because they are as it were adventitious to the persons [n.14] (as it was posited that active-inspiriting does not constitute a person because it is understood to happen as it were to the Father and the Son once they have been constituted in personal being); for the first things burgeoning there that can distinguish personally do distinguish personally and constitute persons.