Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Persons and Personal Distinction

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Trinitarian Theology in Medieval and Reformation Thought

  • 124 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter examines the theology of divine persons. The first part treats the definition of a divine person in Augustine and Boethius before considering the reception of the Boethian definition in Thomas and Scotus. The second section looks at the distinction between divine attributes, personal properties, and trinitarian appropriations, with a focus on how these distinctions were worked out in the twelfth century. The third section turns to the notion of personal constitution and whether or not divine persons are “constituted.” Finally, the chapter concludes with a discussion of the four dominant models of personal distinction.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See the Chalcedonian definition, Pelikan-Hotchkiss, Creeds and Confessions, I.180–181.

  2. 2.

    Augustine, De Trinitate 5.9.10 (CCSL 50, 217).

  3. 3.

    Ibid. 5.8–9.10 (CCSL 50, 217).

  4. 4.

    Ibid. 7.6.11 (CCSL 50, 262).

  5. 5.

    Anselm, Monologion 79 (I, 85–86).

  6. 6.

    Ibid.

  7. 7.

    Boethius, Contra Eutychen 3 (214).

  8. 8.

    Constant J. Mews, “St. Anselm and Roscelin,” 63 and 84.

  9. 9.

    The first was employed because Augustine’s approach left Anselm with an essentialist understanding of person that did not answer the question of why the term ‘person’ is used in the plural if it is an essential term.

  10. 10.

    Rusticus, Contra Acephalos (CCSL 100, 39–40).

  11. 11.

    Clarembald, Tractatus I.8 (89).

  12. 12.

    Ibid.

  13. 13.

    Ibid.

  14. 14.

    Summa Sententiarum 1.9 (PL 176, 56).

  15. 15.

    Albert, Sent. I.23.B.2 (XXV, 582–587).

  16. 16.

    Thomas, Scriptum I.23.1.3 (I, 560–565).

  17. 17.

    Ibid. I.29.4 (IV, 333).

  18. 18.

    See Simon, disputatio 83, q.1, in Les “Disputationes” de Simon de Tournai, 241 (cf. qq. 2–4, 241–242).

  19. 19.

    Albert, Sent. I.23.B.2 (XXV, 585–586).

  20. 20.

    Thomas, ST I.29.3 (IV, 331).

  21. 21.

    Ibid. I.29.4 (IV, 333).

  22. 22.

    Medieval thinkers held that things can be really distinct (in re), rationally distinct (rationis), or formally distinct (formalis). Really distinct things are separable and can exists independently; rationally distinct things are distinct mentally or conceptually; and formally distinct things are not separable nor distinct only conceptually, such that formally distinct things are not really distinct, nor are they simply rationally distinct.

  23. 23.

    Rusticus, Contra Acephalos (CCSL 100, 40).

  24. 24.

    Richard, De Trinitate IV.22 (187).

  25. 25.

    For the entirety of the subsequent discussion, see Scotus, Reportatio I-A.23 (19–20).

  26. 26.

    As such, the divine person signifies both the nature per se and the one subsisting in the nature: further, as the nature the divine person can be adored (adorari), and as the one subsisting in the nature the divine person can be produced (produci). See Ibid.

  27. 27.

    Ibid. I-A.26.1 (73). See Scott Williams, “Persons,” 81–82.

  28. 28.

    Scotus, Reportatio I-A.23 (22). For Scotus, the divine nature is communicable by identity (ut quod) and not by division or information (ut quo), such that the Father communicates the divine essence ut quod—whereas, in the natural world, communication of a creaturely nature is by either division or information. See Williams, “Persons,” 81–82.

  29. 29.

    Melanchthon, Loci (1559) I, (CR 21, 613–614).

  30. 30.

    Augustine, De Trinitate 4.10.11 (CCSL 50, 241).

  31. 31.

    Jean Châtillon, “Unitas, Aequalitas, Concordia vel Connexio.”

  32. 32.

    Here see Dominique Poirel, Livre de la nature.

  33. 33.

    Abelard, Summi boni 1.2 (CCCM 13, 86–87).

  34. 34.

    Abelard, Theologia Christiana 1.25–26 (CCCM 12, 81–82).

  35. 35.

    Constant J. Mews, Abelard and Heloise, 104.

  36. 36.

    Walter of Mortagne, De Trinitate 7–11 (PL 209, 583–586).

  37. 37.

    Clarembald, Tractatus I.36–37 (99–100).

  38. 38.

    Ibid. I.39 (100).

  39. 39.

    Richard, De Trinitate VI.11 (240).

  40. 40.

    Ibid. VI.10 and VI.15 (238–39 and 247–48). See also id., De tribus appropriatis (PL 196, 991–994).

  41. 41.

    Richard, De Trinitate VI.15 (247–48). On Richard’s role in the development of the notion of trinitarian appropriations, see Poirel, Livre, 391–420. Cf. Lombard, Sent. I.34.4 (I, 252–253).

  42. 42.

    Lombard, Sent. I.33.1 (I, 240).

  43. 43.

    Ibid. (I, 241).

  44. 44.

    Ibid. I.25.3 and 33.1 (I, 196 and 241).

  45. 45.

    Ibid. I.33.1 (I, 242).

  46. 46.

    Ibid. I.33.1 (I, 242–43). Cf. Hilary, De Trin. II.5, as translated by Giulio Silano, Peter Lombard, The Sentences, 183.

  47. 47.

    Thomas, ST I.40.2 (IV, 413).

  48. 48.

    Henry of Ghent, Summa quaestionum ordinariarum 53.3 (II, fol. 63vZ).

  49. 49.

    See Scotus, Ordinatio I.26 (Vatican VI, 1–61), id., Reportatio I-A.26 (Wolter-Bychkov II, 65–131).

  50. 50.

    See his terse discussion of Praepositinus, Reportatio I-A.26 (Wolter-Bychkov II, 68).

  51. 51.

    Ockham, Ordinatio I.26 (OT IV, 157).

  52. 52.

    See Ockham, Ordinatio I.26 (OT IV, 147, 156, and 157).

  53. 53.

    See John T. Slotemaker, “William of Ockham.”

  54. 54.

    Ockham, Summa III-4.6 (OP I, 777).

  55. 55.

    Ibid. (OP I, 778).

  56. 56.

    For a discussion of the origins of this view, see Russell L. Friedman, Intellectual Traditions, 678–683.

  57. 57.

    Calvin, Institutes (1536) (CO 1, 62). See John T. Slotemaker, “Calvin’s Trinitarian Theology,” 800–808; and Cf. Arie Baars, “The Trinity,” 253–254, and id., Om Gods verhevenheid en Zijn nabijheid.

  58. 58.

    Melanchthon, Loci (1559) I, (CR 21, 615–616).

  59. 59.

    Ibid. (CR 21, 614).

  60. 60.

    Harclay, Ordinary Questions V (I, 206–207).

  61. 61.

    Calvin, In evangelium Ioannis (CO 47, 3).

  62. 62.

    Ockham, Ordinatio I.26 (OTh IV, 146).

  63. 63.

    D’Ailly, Sent. I.8.1 (M934, fol. 59vb; M935, fol. 75va).

  64. 64.

    There were, of course, other theories, particularly in the twelfth century. See, for example, Peter Abelard’s account of personal distinction.

  65. 65.

    Praepositinus, Summa 117 (V, fol. 20vb).

  66. 66.

    For an excellent summary of the critiques of trinitarian minimalism, see Russell L. Friedman, Intellectual Traditions, 679–683.

  67. 67.

    William, Summa Aurea I.7.6 (125–127).

  68. 68.

    See Russell L. Friedman, Intellectual Traditions, 664–752 and 831–871.

  69. 69.

    This claim builds on the ongoing work of Monica Brinzei, Chris Schabel, Jeff Witt, and others. I am grateful, particularly to Chris, for sharing some of his yet to be published research.

  70. 70.

    John T. Slotemaker, “John Mair’s Trinitarian Theology.”

  71. 71.

    On this, see John T. Slotemaker, “John Duns Scotus and Henry Harclay.”

  72. 72.

    See Richard Cross, Duns Scotus on God, 131–144.

  73. 73.

    Gabriel Biel, Collectorium I.26 (526–529).

  74. 74.

    Scotus seems to discuss a view like this, wanting to trace it back to Bonaventure and Richard of St. Victor. That said, in such passages Scotus is engaged in an attempt to give this view authority by means of referencing the previous tradition. As a result, such attributions by Scotus need to be examined with care. See Russell L. Friedman, Intellectual Traditions, 341–348.

  75. 75.

    Russell L. Friedman, Intellectual Traditions, 348–356, places these thinkers in a trajectory of those who held the absolute persons view, anticipating Scotus. That is certainly correct, from a certain perspective that traces the trajectory of the absolute persons account. That said, it also seems that the theology of William of Auvergne is the closest to what Ockham is positing here as the third opinion.

  76. 76.

    William of Auvergne, De Trinitate 28 (160).

  77. 77.

    See Scotus, Ordinatio I.26 (VI, 23–24). Gabriel Biel, Collectorium I.26 (528), follows Scotus in linking Bonaventure and Richard with this view.

  78. 78.

    Bonaventure, Sent. I.26.2 (I.455–456).

  79. 79.

    If one rejects this reading of [3] and [4], I think the other option would be to argue that Ockham’s [3] is intended to indicate those views—like Thomas’s and Bonaventure’s—that argue that the divine relations have a twofold nature: when compared to the essence they dissolve into the divine, whereas when compared to each other they indicate distinction. This seems hard to maintain, however, given that Ockham has a separate category for the relation view as put forth by Thomas [2], and if Thomas and Bonaventure do not hold [2], it is hard to see who does.

  80. 80.

    One could, I think, make the case that Ockham’s [3] is Scotus’s [3], though that seems less plausible (that said, I do not have space to make those arguments here). Here I follow the editors of the OT IV, 143–44, fn. 2.

  81. 81.

    Russell L. Friedman, Intellectual Traditions, 348–356.

  82. 82.

    Scotus, Reportatio I-A.26.5 (II, 124–129).

  83. 83.

    Scotus, Ordinatio I.26 (VI, 22–29).

  84. 84.

    Richard Cross, Duns Scotus, 65.

  85. 85.

    See the Vatican edition of Scotus, VI, 22*–24*.

  86. 86.

    Bonaventure, Sent. I.26.1.1 (I, 436–37). Cf. Scotus, Ordinatio I.26 (VI, 23).

  87. 87.

    See Vorilong, Sent. I.26 (fols. 43r–44v). On Ripa, see Ernst Borchert, Die Trinitätslehre des Johannes de Ripa, 475–494. On Massa, see Russell L. Friedman, Intellectual Traditions, 822–831.

  88. 88.

    Cf. Théodore de Régnon, Études, vol. II, and Michael Schmaus, Der “Liber propugnatorius.” Russell L. Friedman, Intellectual Traditions, begins the important work of challenging these narratives, though his earliest work remains grounded in a two-model approach.

  89. 89.

    Théodore de Régnon, Études II, 447–458.

  90. 90.

    I am currently working on a monograph that elaborates on the four models of trinitarian theology explored in the previous section.

Bibliography

  • (CCSL = Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina; CCCM = Corpus Christianorum, Continuatio Mediaevalis; CO = Calvini Opera; CR = Corpus Reformatorum; OP = Opera Philosophica; OT = Opera Theologica; PL = Patrologia Latina; WA = D. Martin Luthers Werke, Weimarer Ausgabe)

    Google Scholar 

Manuscript Sources

Pre-Modern Sources

  • Anon. Summa Sententiarum, in PL 176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Albert the Great, Primum librum Sententiarum, in Opera Omnia, ed. E. Borgnet, 38 volumes. Paris 1890–1899.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anselm. S. Anselmi Cantuariensis Archiepiscopi, Opera Omnia, ed. F.S. Schmitt. Edinburgh 1946–1961.

    Google Scholar 

  • Augustine. De Trinitate, in CCSL 50 and 50A.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boethius, Contra Eutychen et Nestorium and De Trinitate, ed. Claudio Moreschini, in Boethius De Consolatione Philosophiae, opuscula theological. Munich 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonaventure. Opera Omnia. Quaracchi 1882–1902.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calvin, John. Ioannis Calvini Opera quae supersunt omnia, 59 vols., ed. Guilielmus Baum, et al. (Brunswick 1863–1900).

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarembald of Arras. Tractatus super librum Boetii “De Trinitate,” in Life and Works of Clarembald of Arras: A Twelfth-Century Master of the School of Chartres, ed. Nikolaus M. Häring. Toronto 1965.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gabriel Biel. Collectorium circa quattuor libros Sententiarum, ed. W. Werbeck, et al., 5 vols. Tübingen 1973–1977.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henry of Ghent. Summa quaestionum ordinariarum. Paris 1520.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henry Harclay. Ordinary Questions, 2 vols, ed. Mark G. Henninger. Oxford 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • John Duns Scotus. Opera Omnia, ed. Luke Wadding. Lyons 1639.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. Opera Omnia. Civitas Vaticana 1950–.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. Reportatio I-A, ed. and trans. Alan B. Wolter and Oleg V. Bychkov, 2 vols. St. Bonaventure, NY, 2004 and 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melanchthon, Philipp. Loci Praecipui Theologici, in CR 21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peter Abelard. Theologia Christiana, in CCCM 12.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. Theologia “Summi boni,” in CCCM 13.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. Theologia “Scholarium,” in CCCM 13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peter Lombard. Sententiae in IV libris distinctae, 2 vols. Grottaferrata 1971 and 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. Peter Lombard, The Sentences, book I, trans. Giulio Silano. Toronto 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richard of St. Victor. De tribus appropriatis personis in deitate, in PL 196, 991–994.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. De Trinitate, ed. J. Ribaillier. Paris 1958.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rusticus the Deacon. Contra Acephalos, in CCSL 100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon of Tournai. Disputationes, in Les “Disputationes” de Simon de Tournai, ed. Joseph Warichez. Louvain 1932.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas Aquinas. Scriptum super librum Sententiarum magistri Petri Lombardi, ed. P Mandonnet. Paris 1929.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. Summa Theologiae, in Opera Omnia (Leonine Edition), vols. 4–12. Rome 1888–1906.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vorilong, William. Super quattuor libris Sententiarum. Lyon 1502.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walter of Mortagne. De Trinitate, in PL 209, 575–590.

    Google Scholar 

  • William of Auvergne. De Trinitate, ed. Bruno Switalski. Toronto 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  • William of Auxerre. Summa Aurea, ed. Jean Ribaillier, 6 vols. Paris 1980–1986.

    Google Scholar 

  • William of Ockham. Scriptum in librum primum Sententiarum/Ordinatio, ed. Gedeon Gál and Stephen F. Brown, et al., OT I–IV. St. Bonaventure, NY 1967–2000.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. Summa Logicae, ed. Gedeon Gál and Stephen Brown, OP I. St. Bonaventure, NY 1974.

    Google Scholar 

Modern Sources

  • Baars, Arie. Om Gods verhevenheid en Zijn nabijheid. De Drie-eenheid bij Calvijn. Kampen 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. “The Trinity,” in The Calvin Handbook, ed. Herman J. Selderhuis. Grand Rapids 2008, 245–257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borchert, Ernst. Die Trinitätslehre des Johannes de Ripa. Munich 1974.

    Google Scholar 

  • Châtillon, Jean. “Unitas, Aequalitas, Concordia vel Connexio: Recherches sur les origins de la théorie thomiste des appropriations (Sum. Theol., I, q. 39, art. 7–8),” in St. Thomas Aquinas 1274–1974: Commemorative Studies, vol. I. Toronto 1974, 337–379.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross, Richard. Duns Scotus. Oxford 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. Duns Scotus on God. New York 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Régnon, Théodore. Études de théologie positive sur la sainté Trinité, 4 vols. Paris 1892–1898.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, Russell L. Intellectual Traditions at the Medieval University: The Use of Philosophical Psychology in Trinitarian Theology among the Franciscans and Dominicans, 1250–1350. Leiden 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mews, Constant J. Abelard and Heloise. Oxford 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mews, Constant J. “St. Anselm and Roscelin: Some New Texts and Their Implications, I: The De incarnatione verbi and the Disputatio inter Christianum et Gentilem,” Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du moyen âge 58 (1991), 55–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pelikan, Jaroslav and Valerie R. Hotchkiss, eds. Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the Christian Tradition, 4 vols. New Haven 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poirel, Dominique. Livre de la nature et débat trinitaire au xiie siècle: Le De tribus diebus de Hughes de Saint-Victor. Turnhout 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmaus, Michael. Der “Liber propugnatorius” des Thomas Anglicus und die Lehrunterschiede zwischen Thomas von Aquin und Duns Scotus, II Teil: Die trinitarischen Lehrdifferenzen. Münster 1930.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slotemaker, John T. “John Calvin’s Trinitarian Theology in the 1536 Institutes: The Individuation of Persons as a Key to Calvin’s Sources,” in Philosophy and Theology in the Long Middle Ages: A Tribute to Stephen F. Brown, ed., Kent Emery Jr., Russell L. Friedman and Andreas Speer. Leiden 2011, 781–810.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. “John Duns Scotus and Henry Harclay on the Non-necessity of Opposed Relations,” The Thomist 77 (2013), 419–451.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. “John Mair’s Trinitarian Theology: The Inheritance of the Scholastic Tradition,” in A Companion to the Theology of John Mair, eds., John T. Slotemaker and Jeffrey C. Witt. Leiden 2015, 77–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. “William of Ockham and Theological Method,” in Language and Method: Historical and Historiographical Reflections on Medieval Thought, ed. Ueli Zahnd. Freiburg 2017, 121–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, Scott. “Persons in Patristic and Medieval Christian Theology,” in Persons: A History, ed. Antonia Lolordo. Oxford 2019, 52–84.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Fairfield University, Fairfield, CT, USA

    John T. Slotemaker

Authors
  1. John T. Slotemaker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Slotemaker, J.T. (2020). Persons and Personal Distinction. In: Trinitarian Theology in Medieval and Reformation Thought. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47790-5_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation