Dist. 4, Art. 1, Q. 3
Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity · Distinction 4
Quaestio III
Utrum congrue iuxta regulas grammaticae dici possit: plures dii.
Tertio quaeritur, utrum hoc nomen Deus grammatice significet pluralem numerum, sive utrum congrue possit dici: plures dii. Et quod sic, videtur:
1. Quia secundum Philosophum1 intellectus sunt idem apud omnes, quamvis voces sint diversae; sed modi significandi consequuntur modos intelligendi: ergo cum apud Hebraeos congrue dicatur Eloim, quod aequipollet ei quod est dii, ergo et apud nos.
2. Item, sicut vult Philosophus, verum supponit congruum; unde «Catonis est, vel non est, nec verum nec falsum significat»2; sed haec vera est: non sunt plures dii: ergo congrua: ergo et haec congrua: plures sunt dii, quia negatio non removet incongruitatem.
3. Item, sicut Deus convenit uni soli, ita principium creaturarum uni soli3; sed quamvis falso dicantur plura principia, tamen dicuntur congrue: ergo pari ratione possumus dicere: plures dii.
4. Item, hoc nomen phoenix4 non habet nisi unicum suppositum; tamen congrue dicitur: plures phoenices. Si tu dicas, quod suppositum pluriflcatur per successionem temporis; obiicio tibi de hoc nomine sol, quod nullo tempore pluriflcatur; et tamen congrue dicitur: plures soles: ergo et plures dii.
Contra:
1. Omne nomen, quod habet plurale, est nomen appellativum5; propria enim nomina non pluriflcantur, non enim dicitur: plures Petri vel Ioannes; sed hoc nomen Deus non est nomen appellativum, quia non significat formam multiplicabilem: ergo etc.
2. Item, hoc nomen Deus est proprie6 proprium divinae naturae; sed nullum tale multiplicatur: ergo etc.
Conclusio
Grammatice et secundum artem impositionis, hoc nomen «Deus» non pluriflcatur; secundum usum tamen ex accommodatione admittitur «plures dii» ut falsa propositio.
Respondeo: Ad praedictorum intelligentiam est notandum, quod hoc nomen Deus dicitur tripliciter, scilicet nuncupative, adoptive et naturaliter. Primis duobus modis pluriflcatur; unde Apostolus primae ad Corinthios octavo7: Si quidem sunt dii multi, et domini multi; sed tertio modo non, quia sic hoc nomen Deus significat divinam naturam cum conditionibus, quarum collectiones impossibile est in alio reperire; et ideo sicut nomen proprium non habet plurale, secundum artem loquendo, sic nec hoc8 nomen Deus proprie naturalem divinitatem significans.
1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod apud Hebraeos habet plurale quod est Eloim; dicendum, quod modi significandi non tantum sequuntur9 diversos modos intelligendi generales, sed etiam modos exprimendi. Et quoniam ipsi habent articulos et modos exprimendi diversos, quos nos non habemus, ideo illi possunt habere, sed nos non.
2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod verum supponit congruum; dicendum, quod duplex est incongruitas: una est ex discohaerentia accidentium10, ut Catonis est; alia ex discohaerentia intellectuum, ut cum dicitur plures Petri. Prima incongruitas tollit veritatem et falsitatem; secunda vero incongruitas habet falsitatem coniunctam: et ideo, quia per negationem removetur falsitas, et Sancti malunt loqui vere, quam proprietatem sermonis servare et loqui minus vere, ideo negant plures deos. Posset tamen dici, quod quamvis haec vox dii non sit vox significativa secundum artem et impositionem, tamen est vox significativa ex accommodatione usus, ut olli pro illi: et ideo generat falsum intellectum affirmativa, et negativa verum, quamvis non grammatice.
3. 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod principium uni soli convenit, similiter et phoenix; dicendum, quod convenire uni soli est tripliciter. Aut enim est, quia imponitur nomen a forma immultiplicabili, ut in propriis nominibus; et sic tollit pluralitatem re et consignificatione. Aut imponitur a forma, quae nata est communicari, quamvis non communicetur propter determinationem, ut cum11 dicitur: principium creaturarum. Aut propter defectum materiae, ut phoenix; et tale tollit pluralitatem secundum rem, non secundum consignificationem, quia potest consignificari talis forma, ut potest multiplicari per supposita.
---
Question III
Whether it can be said congruously according to the rules of grammar: «several gods».
Third, it is asked whether this name God grammatically signifies the plural number — that is, whether it can be said congruously: «several gods». And it seems that it can:
1. Because, according to the Philosopher1, the understandings are the same in all, although the words are diverse; but the modes of signifying follow the modes of understanding: therefore, since among the Hebrews it is said congruously Eloim, which is equivalent to gods, then [it should be possible] also among us.
2. Likewise, as the Philosopher holds, the true presupposes the congruous; whence «Cato is, or is not, signifies neither true nor false»2; but this is true: «there are not several gods»: therefore [it is] congruous: therefore also this is congruous: «there are several gods», because negation does not remove incongruity.
3. Likewise, just as God belongs to one only, so does principle of creatures3; but although it is said falsely that there are several principles, yet it is said congruously: therefore by the same reasoning we can say several gods.
4. Likewise, this name phoenix4 has only a single supposit; yet it is said congruously: «several phoenixes». If you say that the supposit is multiplied through succession of time, I object to you concerning the name sun, which is at no time multiplied — and yet it is said congruously: «several suns»: therefore also several gods.
On the contrary:
1. Every name that has a plural is an appellative name5; for proper names are not pluralized — for it is not said «several Peters» or «Johns»; but this name God is not an appellative name, because it does not signify a multipliable form: therefore, etc.
2. Likewise, this name God is properly6 proper to the divine nature; but no such name is multiplied: therefore, etc.
Conclusion
Grammatically and according to the art of imposition, this name «God» is not pluralized; according to usage, however, by accommodation, «several gods» is admitted as a false proposition.
I respond: For the understanding of the foregoing it should be noted that this name God is said in three ways — namely by appellation (nuncupative), by adoption, and naturally. In the first two ways it is pluralized — whence the Apostle in the first letter to the Corinthians, chapter eight7: If indeed there are many gods and many lords; but in the third way it is not, because in this third sense the name God signifies the divine nature with conditions whose collection is impossible to find in any other; and therefore, as a proper name does not have a plural — speaking according to the art [of grammar] — so neither does this8 name God, which signifies the natural divinity properly.
1. To the objection, then, that among the Hebrews it has the plural Eloim: it must be said that the modes of signifying follow9 not only the diverse general modes of understanding, but also the modes of expressing. And since they have articles and diverse modes of expression which we do not have, they can have it but we cannot.
2. To the objection that the true presupposes the congruous: it must be said that incongruity is twofold — one is from a discoherence of accidents10, as in Cato is; the other from a discoherence of understandings, as when it is said several Peters. The first incongruity removes both truth and falsity; the second incongruity has falsity joined to it. And therefore, because falsity is removed by the negation, and the Saints prefer to speak truly rather than to preserve propriety of speech and speak less truly, they therefore deny several gods. It could be said, however, that although this word gods is not a significative word according to art and imposition, yet it is significative by an accommodation of usage — like olli for illi — and therefore the affirmative generates a false understanding, and the negative a true one, although not grammatically.
3., 4. To the objection that principle belongs to one only, and likewise phoenix: it must be said that to belong to one only is threefold. Either because the name is imposed from a non-multipliable form, as in proper names — and this removes plurality both in reality and in consignification. Or it is imposed from a form which is naturally suited to be communicated, although it is not communicated owing to determination, as when11 it is said principle of creatures. Or by reason of a defect of matter, as phoenix; and such a name removes plurality in reality but not in consignification, because such a form can be consignified as it can be multiplied by supposits.
---
- Libr. I Periherm. c. 1: Et quemadmodum nec litterae omnibus eaedem sunt, ita nec voces omnibus eaedem: quorum tamen haec signa primo sunt, ea omnibus sunt eaedem passiones animae.Aristotle, On Interpretation I, c. 1: «And just as letters are not the same for all, so neither are words the same for all: yet those [things] of which these are the primary signs are the same for all — [namely] the affections of the soul».
- Libr. I Periherm. c. 2, iuxta translationem Boethii: Nomen vero semper, ut Catonis est, vel non est; nondum enim verum nec falsum significat; in quo textu ceterae translationes Philonis pro Catonis ponunt. Ad quem locum auctor libri Auctoritatum Aristot. etc. (a. 1500) addit: Ex quo communiter trahitur, quod verum et falsum praesupponunt congruum. Incongruitas huius dictionis consistit in discohaerentia accidentium, ut infra in solutione dicitur; deest enim subiectum genitivi.Aristotle, On Interpretation I, c. 2, according to Boethius' translation: «A name always, as Cato's is, or is not; for it does not yet signify the true or the false»; in which text the other translations put Philonis for Catonis. To this passage the author of the book Auctoritates Aristotelis etc. (a. 1500) adds: «From which it is commonly drawn that true and false presuppose the congruous». The incongruity of this phrase consists in a discoherence of accidents, as is said below in the solution; for the subject of the genitive is lacking.
- Cod. S addit omnium. Codd. cum ed. 1 in fine argumenti deos loco dii.Cod. S adds omnium («of all»). The codd. with ed. 1 at the end of the argument read deos in place of dii.
- S. Doctor loquitur secundum antiquam opinionem fabulosam, quod haec avis in uno solo individuo existat, ex cuius cineribus resurgat alius. Idem exemplum adducit Boeth., I de Categoriis Aristot. c. de Denominativis.The Holy Doctor speaks according to the ancient fabulous opinion that this bird [the phoenix] exists in only one individual, from whose ashes another arises. Boethius adduces the same example in his Commentary on Aristotle's Categories, c. de Denominativis.
- Cfr. Priscian., II Grammat. c. 5.Cf. Priscian, Institutes of Grammar II, c. 5.
- Postulantibus mss. et ed. 1 addidimus proprie. Paulo infra aliqui codd. ut H ff post multiplicatur adiciunt vel plurificatur; ed. 1 nec plurificatur.At the request of the mss. and ed. 1 we have added proprie («properly»). A little later some codd. (H ff) after multiplicatur add vel plurificatur; ed. 1 nec plurificatur.
- 1 Cor. 8, 5.1 Corinthians 8:5.
- Vat. praeter fidem mss. minus apte sic nec nomen Dei.The Vatican ed., against the witness of the mss., less aptly reads sic nec nomen Dei.
- Ex plurimis mss. ut A C F G H M N R S T V X Y Z etc. substituimus sequuntur loco requirunt; alii codd. ut I U ff cum ed. 1 consequuntur. Lectio mss. certe praeferenda lectioni Vat.From most mss. (A C F G H M N R S T V X Y Z etc.) we have substituted sequuntur («follow») for requirunt («require»); other codd. (I U ff) with ed. 1 read consequuntur. The mss. reading is certainly to be preferred to the Vatican ed.'s.
- Priscian., XVII Grammat. c. 1 (de Constructione): Nam si incongrua (ratio contextus) sit, soloecismum faciet, quasi elementis orationis inconcinne coeuntibus etc.Priscian, Institutes of Grammar XVII, c. 1 (On Construction): «For if [the pattern of the context] is incongruous, it will produce a solecism, as when the elements of speech come together inelegantly».
- Supplevimus ex mss. et primis sex edd. cum. In fine responsionis antiquiores codd. cum ed. 1 significari pro consignificari.From the mss. and first six editions we have supplied cum. At the end of the response, the older codd. with ed. 1 read significari for consignificari.