|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | --------------------
| + | [http://www.logicmuseum.com/authors/aquinas/summa/Summa-I-29-32.htm Now at the new Logic Museum] |
| − | SUMMA THEOLOGIAE - QUESTIONS XXIX - XXXII
| |
| − | --------------------
| |
| − | [[Directory:Logic Museum/Aquinas Summa Theologiae|Index]] | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | *[[#q29a1|Question 29.1 The Divine Persons]]
| |
| − | *[[#q29a2|Question 29.2]]
| |
| − | *[[#q29a3|Question 29.3]]
| |
| − | *[[#q29a4|Question 29.4]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | *[[#q30a1|Question 30.1 The Plurality of Persons in God]]
| |
| − | *[[#q30a2|Question 30.2]]
| |
| − | *[[#q30a3|Question 30.3]]
| |
| − | *[[#q30a4|Question 30.4]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | *[[#q31a1|Question 31.1 The Unity or Plurality in God]]
| |
| − | *[[#q31a2|Question 31.2]]
| |
| − | *[[#q31a3|Question 31.3]]
| |
| − | *[[#q31a4|Question 31.4]]
| |
| − | *[[#q32a1|Question 32.1 The Knowledge of the Divine Persons
| |
| − | ]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | *[[#q32a2|Question 32.2]]
| |
| − | *[[#q32a3|Question 32.3]]
| |
| − | *[[#q32a4|Question 32.4]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | {| border=1 cellpadding=10
| |
| − | !valign = top width=46%|Latin
| |
| − | !valign = top width=54%|Latin
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="q29a1"><b>IЄ q. 29 a. 1 arg. 1 </b>Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod incompetens sit definitio personae quam Boetius assignat in libro de duabus naturis, quae talis est, persona est rationalis naturae individua substantia. Nullum enim singulare definitur. Sed persona significat quoddam singulare. Ergo persona inconvenienter definitur. ||Objection 1. It would seem that the definition of person given by Boethius (De Duab. Nat.) is insufficient--that is, "a person is an individual substance of a rational nature." For nothing singular can be subject to definition. But "person" signifies something singular. Therefore person is improperly defined.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 29 a. 1 arg. 2 </b>Praeterea, substantia, prout ponitur in definitione personae, aut sumitur pro substantia prima, aut pro substantia secunda. Si pro substantia prima, superflue additur individua, quia substantia prima est substantia individua. Si vero stat pro substantia secunda, falso additur, et est oppositio in adiecto, nam secundae substantiae dicuntur genera vel species. Ergo definitio est male assignata. ||Objection 2. Further, substance as placed above in the definition of person, is either first substance, or second substance. If it is the former, the word "individual" is superfluous, because first substance is individual substance; if it stands for second substance, the word "individual" is false, for there is contradiction of terms; since second substances are the "genera" or "species." Therefore this definition is incorrect.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 29 a. 1 arg. 3 </b>Praeterea, nomen intentionis non debet poni in definitione rei. Non enim esset bona assignatio, si quis diceret, homo est species animalis, homo enim est nomen rei, et species est nomen intentionis. Cum igitur persona sit nomen rei (significat enim substantiam quandam rationalis naturae), inconvenienter individuum, quod est nomen intentionis, in eius definitione ponitur. ||Objection 3. Further, an intentional term must not be included in the definition of a thing. For to define a man as "a species of animal" would not be a correct definition; since man is the name of a thing, and "species" is a name of an intention. Therefore, since person is the name of a thing (for it signifies a substance of a rational nature), the word "individual" which is an intentional name comes improperly into the definition.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 29 a. 1 arg. 4 </b>Praeterea, natura est principium motus et quietis in eo in quo est per se et non per accidens, ut dicitur in II Physic. Sed persona est in rebus immobilibus, sicut in Deo et in Angelis. Non ergo in definitione personae debuit poni natura, sed magis essentia. ||Objection 4. Further, "Nature is the principle of motion and rest, in those things in which it is essentially, and not accidentally," as Aristotle says (Phys. ii). But person exists in things immovable, as in God, and in the angels. Therefore the word "nature" ought not to enter into the definition of person, but the word should rather be "essence."
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 29 a. 1 arg. 5 </b>Praeterea, anima separata est rationalis naturae individua substantia. Non autem est persona. Inconvenienter ergo persona sic definitur. ||Objection 5. Further, the separated soul is an individual substance of the rational nature; but it is not a person. Therefore person is not properly defined as above.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 29 a. 1 co. </b>Respondeo dicendum quod, licet universale et particulare inveniantur in omnibus generibus, tamen speciali quodam modo individuum invenitur in genere substantiae. Substantia enim individuatur per seipsam, sed accidentia individuantur per subiectum, quod est substantia, dicitur enim haec albedo, inquantum est in hoc subiecto. Unde etiam convenienter individua substantiae habent aliquod speciale nomen prae aliis, dicuntur enim hypostases, vel primae substantiae. Sed adhuc quodam specialiori et perfectiori modo invenitur particulare et individuum in substantiis rationalibus, quae habent dominium sui actus, et non solum aguntur, sicut alia, sed per se agunt, actiones autem in singularibus sunt. Et ideo etiam inter ceteras substantias quoddam speciale nomen habent singularia rationalis naturae. Et hoc nomen est persona. Et ideo in praedicta definitione personae ponitur substantia individua, inquantum significat singulare in genere substantiae, additur autem rationalis naturae, inquantum significat singulare in rationalibus substantiis. ||I answer that, Although the universal and particular exist in every genus, nevertheless, in a certain special way, the individual belongs to the genus of substance. For substance is individualized by itself; whereas the accidents are individualized by the subject, which is the substance; since this particular whiteness is called "this," because it exists in this particular subject. And so it is reasonable that the individuals of the genus substance should have a special name of their own; for they are called "hypostases," or first substances. Further still, in a more special and perfect way, the particular and the individual are found in the rational substances which have dominion over their own actions; and which are not only made to act, like others; but which can act of themselves; for actions belong to singulars. Therefore also the individuals of the rational nature have a special name even among other substances; and this name is "person." Thus the term "individual substance" is placed in the definition of person, as signifying the singular in the genus of substance; and the term "rational nature" is added, as signifying the singular in rational substances.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 29 a. 1 ad 1 </b>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, licet hoc singulare vel illud definiri non possit, tamen id quod pertinet ad communem rationem singularitatis, definiri potest, et sic philosophus definit substantiam primam. Et hoc modo definit Boetius personam. ||Reply to Objection 1. Although this or that singular may not be definable, yet what belongs to the general idea of singularity can be defined; and so the Philosopher (De Praedic., cap. De substantia) gives a definition of first substance; and in this way Boethius defines person.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 29 a. 1 ad 2 </b>Ad secundum dicendum quod, secundum quosdam, substantia in definitione personae ponitur pro substantia prima, quae est hypostasis. Neque tamen superflue additur individua. Quia nomine hypostasis vel substantiae primae, excluditur ratio universalis et partis (non enim dicimus quod homo communis sit hypostasis, neque etiam manus, cum sit pars), sed per hoc quod additur individuum, excluditur a persona ratio assumptibilis; humana enim natura in Christo non est persona, quia est assumpta a digniori, scilicet a verbo Dei. Sed melius dicendum est quod substantia accipitur communiter, prout dividitur per primam et secundam, et per hoc quod additur individua, trahitur ad standum pro substantia prima. ||Reply to Objection 2. In the opinion of some, the term "substance" in the definition of person stands for first substance, which is the hypostasis; nor is the term "individual" superfluously added, forasmuch as by the name of hypostasis or first substance the idea of universality and of part is excluded. For we do not say that man in general is an hypostasis, nor that the hand is since it is only a part. But where "individual" is added, the idea of assumptibility is excluded from person; for the human nature in Christ is not a person, since it is assumed by a greater--that is, by the Word of God. It is, however, better to say that substance is here taken in a general sense, as divided into first and second, and when "individual" is added, it is restricted to first substance.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 29 a. 1 ad 3 </b>Ad tertium dicendum quod, quia substantiales differentiae non sunt nobis notae, vel etiam nominatae non sunt, oportet interdum uti differentiis accidentalibus loco substantialium, puta si quis diceret, ignis est corpus simplex, calidum et siccum, accidentia enim propria sunt effectus formarum substantialium, et manifestant eas. Et similiter nomina intentionum possunt accipi ad definiendum res, secundum quod accipiuntur pro aliquibus nominibus rerum quae non sunt posita. Et sic hoc nomen individuum ponitur in definitione personae, ad designandum modum subsistendi qui competit substantiis particularibus. ||Reply to Objection 3. Substantial differences being unknown to us, or at least unnamed by us, it is sometimes necessary to use accidental differences in the place of substantial; as, for example, we may say that fire is a simple, hot, and dry body: for proper accidents are the effects of substantial forms, and make them known. Likewise, terms expressive of intention can be used in defining realities if used to signify things which are unnamed. And so the term "individual" is placed in the definition of person to signify the mode of subsistence which belongs to particular substances.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 29 a. 1 ad 4 </b>Ad quartum dicendum quod, secundum philosophum, in V Metaphys., nomen naturae primo impositum est ad significandam generationem viventium, quae dicitur nativitas. Et quia huiusmodi generatio est a principio intrinseco, extensum est hoc nomen ad significandum principium intrinsecum cuiuscumque motus. Et sic definitur natura in II Physic. Et quia huiusmodi principium est formale vel materiale, communiter tam materia quam forma dicitur natura. Et quia per formam completur essentia uniuscuiusque rei, communiter essentia uniuscuiusque rei, quam significat eius definitio, vocatur natura. Et sic accipitur hic natura. Unde Boetius in eodem libro dicit quod natura est unumquodque informans specifica differentia, specifica enim differentia est quae complet definitionem, et sumitur a propria forma rei. Et ideo convenientius fuit quod in definitione personae, quae est singulare alicuius generis determinati, uteretur nomine naturae, quam essentiae, quae sumitur ab esse, quod est communissimum. ||Reply to Objection 4. According to the Philosopher (Metaph. v, 5), the word "nature" was first used to signify the generation of living things, which is called nativity. And because this kind of generation comes from an intrinsic principle, this term is extended to signify the intrinsic principle of any kind of movement. In this sense he defines "nature" (Phys. ii, 3). And since this kind of principle is either formal or material, both matter and form are commonly called nature. And as the essence of anything is completed by the form; so the essence of anything, signified by the definition, is commonly called nature. And here nature is taken in that sense. Hence Boethius says (De Duab. Nat.) that, "nature is the specific difference giving its form to each thing," for the specific difference completes the definition, and is derived from the special form of a thing. So in the definition of "person," which means the singular in a determined "genus," it is more correct to use the term "nature" than "essence," because the latter is taken from being, which is most common.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 29 a. 1 ad 5 </b>Ad quintum dicendum quod anima est pars humanae speciei, et ideo, licet sit separata, quia tamen retinet naturam unibilitatis, non potest dici substantia individua quae est hypostasis vel substantia prima; sicut nec manus, nec quaecumque alia partium hominis. Et sic non competit ei neque definitio personae, neque nomen. ||Reply to Objection 5. The soul is a part of the human species; and so, although it may exist in a separate state, yet since it ever retains its nature of unibility, it cannot be called an individual substance, which is the hypostasis or first substance, as neither can the hand nor any other part of man; thus neither the definition nor the name of person belongs to it.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 29 a2</b> ||Whether "person" is the same as hypostasis, subsistence, and essence?
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="q29a2"><b>IЄ q. 29 a. 2 arg. 1 </b>Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod persona sit idem quod hypostasis, subsistentia et essentia. Dicit enim Boetius, in libro de Duab. Natur., quod Graeci naturae rationalis individuam substantiam hypostaseos nomine vocaverunt. Sed hoc etiam, apud nos, significat nomen personae. Ergo persona omnino idem est quod hypostasis. ||Objection 1. It would seem that "person" is the same as "hypostasis," "subsistence," and "essence." For Boethius says (De Duab. Nat.) that "the Greeks called the individual substance of the rational nature by the name hypostasis." But this with us signifies "person." Therefore "person" is altogether the same as "hypostasis."
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 29 a. 2 arg. 2 </b>Praeterea, sicut in divinis dicimus tres personas, ita in divinis dicimus tres subsistentias, quod non esset, nisi persona et subsistentia idem significarent. Ergo idem significant persona et subsistentia. ||Objection 2. Further, as we say there are three persons in God, so we say there are three subsistences in God; which implies that "person" and "subsistence" have the same meaning. Therefore "person" and "subsistence" mean the same.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 29 a. 2 arg. 3 </b>Praeterea, Boetius dicit, in commento praedicamentorum, quod usia, quod est idem quod essentia, significat compositum ex materia et forma. Id autem quod est compositum ex materia et forma, est individuum substantiae, quod et hypostasis et persona dicitur. Ergo omnia praedicta nomina idem significare videntur. ||Objection 3. Further, Boethius says (Com. Praed.) that the Greek ousia, which means essence, signifies a being composed of matter and form. Now that which is composed of matter and form is the individual substance called "hypostasis" and "person." Therefore all the aforesaid names seem to have the same meaning.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 29 a. 2 s. c. 1 </b>Sed contra est quod Boetius dicit, in libro de Duab. Natur., quod genera et species subsistunt tantum; individua vero non modo subsistunt, verum etiam substant. Sed a subsistendo dicuntur subsistentiae, sicut a substando substantiae vel hypostases. Cum igitur esse hypostases vel personas non conveniat generibus vel speciebus, hypostases vel personae non sunt idem quod subsistentiae. ||Objection 4.On the contrary, Boethius says (De Duab. Nat.) that genera and species only subsist; whereas individuals are not only subsistent, but also substand. But subsistences are so called from subsisting, as substance or hypostasis is so called from substanding. Therefore, since genera and species are not hypostases or persons, these are not the same as subsistences.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 29 a. 2 s. c. 2 </b>Praeterea, Boetius dicit, in commento praedicamentorum, quod hypostasis dicitur materia, usiosis autem, idest subsistentia, dicitur forma. Sed neque forma neque materia potest dici persona. Ergo persona differt a praedictis. ||Objection 5. Further, Boethius says (Com. Praed.) that matter is called hypostasis, and form is called ousiosis--that is, subsistence. But neither form nor matter can be called person. Therefore person differs from the others.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 29 a. 2 co. </b>Respondeo dicendum quod, secundum philosophum, in V Metaphys., substantia dicitur dupliciter. Uno modo dicitur substantia quidditas rei, quam significat definitio, secundum quod dicimus quod definitio significat substantiam rei, quam quidem substantiam Graeci usiam vocant, quod nos essentiam dicere possumus. Alio modo dicitur substantia subiectum vel suppositum quod subsistit in genere substantiae. Et hoc quidem, communiter accipiendo, nominari potest et nomine significante intentionem, et sic dicitur suppositum. Nominatur etiam tribus nominibus significantibus rem, quae quidem sunt res naturae, subsistentia et hypostasis, secundum triplicem considerationem substantiae sic dictae. Secundum enim quod per se existit et non in alio, vocatur subsistentia, illa enim subsistere dicimus, quae non in alio, sed in se existunt. Secundum vero quod supponitur alicui naturae communi, sic dicitur res naturae; sicut hic homo est res naturae humanae. Secundum vero quod supponitur accidentibus, dicitur hypostasis vel substantia. Quod autem haec tria nomina significant communiter in toto genere substantiarum, hoc nomen persona significat in genere rationalium substantiarum. ||I answer that, According to the Philosopher (Metaph. v), substance is twofold. In one sense it means the quiddity of a thing, signified by its definition, and thus we say that the definition means the substance of a thing; in which sense substance is called by the Greeks ousia, what we may call "essence." In another sense substance means a subject or "suppositum," which subsists in the genus of substance. To this, taken in a general sense, can be applied a name expressive of an intention; and thus it is called "suppositum." It is also called by three names signifying a reality--that is, "a thing of nature," "subsistence," and "hypostasis," according to a threefold consideration of the substance thus named. For, as it exists in itself and not in another, it is called "subsistence"; as we say that those things subsist which exist in themselves, and not in another. As it underlies some common nature, it is called "a thing of nature"; as, for instance, this particular man is a human natural thing. As it underlies the accidents, it is called "hypostasis," or "substance." What these three names signify in common to the whole genus of substances, this name "person" signifies in the genus of rational substances.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 29 a. 2 ad 1 </b>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod hypostasis, apud Graecos, ex propria significatione nominis habet quod significet quodcumque individuum substantiae, sed ex usu loquendi habet quod sumatur pro individuo rationalis naturae, ratione suae excellentiae. ||Reply to Objection 1. Among the Greeks the term "hypostasis," taken in the strict interpretation of the word, signifies any individual of the genus substance; but in the usual way of speaking, it means the individual of the rational nature, by reason of the excellence of that nature.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 29 a. 2 ad 2 </b>Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut nos dicimus in divinis pluraliter tres personas et tres subsistentias, ita Graeci dicunt tres hypostases. Sed quia nomen substantiae, quod secundum proprietatem significationis respondet hypostasi, aequivocatur apud nos, cum quandoque significet essentiam, quandoque hypostasim; ne possit esse erroris occasio, maluerunt pro hypostasi transferre subsistentiam, quam substantiam. ||Reply to Objection 2. As we say "three persons" plurally in God, and "three subsistences," so the Greeks say "three hypostases." But because the word "substance," which, properly speaking, corresponds in meaning to "hypostasis," is used among us in an equivocal sense, since it sometimes means essence, and sometimes means hypostasis, in order to avoid any occasion of error, it was thought preferable to use "subsistence" for hypostasis, rather than "substance."
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 29 a. 2 ad 3 </b>Ad tertium dicendum quod essentia proprie est id quod significatur per definitionem. Definitio autem complectitur principia speciei, non autem principia individualia. Unde in rebus compositis ex materia et forma, essentia significat non solum formam, nec solum materiam, sed compositum ex materia et forma communi, prout sunt principia speciei. Sed compositum ex hac materia et ex hac forma, habet rationem hypostasis et personae, anima enim et caro et os sunt de ratione hominis, sed haec anima et haec caro et hoc os sunt de ratione huius hominis. Et ideo hypostasis et persona addunt supra rationem essentiae principia individualia; neque sunt idem cum essentia in compositis ex materia et forma, ut supra dictum est, cum de simplicitate divina ageretur. ||Reply to Objection 3. Strictly speaking, the essence is what is expressed by the definition. Now, the definition comprises the principles of the species, but not the individual principles. Hence in things composed of matter and form, the essence signifies not only the form, nor only the matter, but what is composed of matter and the common form, as the principles of the species. But what is composed of this matter and this form has the nature of hypostasis and person. For soul, flesh, and bone belong to the nature of man; whereas this soul, this flesh and this bone belong to the nature of this man. Therefore hypostasis and person add the individual principles to the idea of essence; nor are these identified with the essence in things composed of matter and form, as we said above when treating of divine simplicity (3, 3).
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 29 a. 2 ad 4 </b>Ad quartum dicendum quod Boetius dicit genera et species subsistere, inquantum individuis aliquibus competit subsistere, ex eo quod sunt sub generibus et speciebus in praedicamento substantiae comprehensis, non quod ipsae species vel genera subsistant, nisi secundum opinionem Platonis, qui posuit species rerum separatim subsistere a singularibus. Substare vero competit eisdem individuis in ordine ad accidentia, quae sunt praeter rationem generum et specierum. ||Reply to Objection 4. Boethius says that genera and species subsist, inasmuch as it belongs to some individual things to subsist, from the fact that they belong to genera and species comprised in the predicament of substance, but not because the species and genera themselves subsist; except in the opinion of Plato, who asserted that the species of things subsisted separately from singular things. To substand, however, belongs to the same individual things in relation to the accidents, which are outside the essence of genera and species.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 29 a. 2 ad 5 </b>Ad quintum dicendum quod individuum compositum ex materia et forma, habet quod substet accidenti, ex proprietate materiae. Unde et Boetius dicit, in libro de Trin., forma simplex subiectum esse non potest. Sed quod per se subsistat, habet ex proprietate suae formae, quae non advenit rei subsistenti, sed dat esse actuale materiae, ut sic individuum subsistere possit. Propter hoc ergo hypostasim attribuit materiae, et usiosim, sive subsistentiam, formae, quia materia est principium substandi, et forma est principium subsistendi. ||Reply to Objection 5. The individual composed of matter and form substands in relation to accident from the very nature of matter. Hence Boethius says (De Trin.): "A simple form cannot be a subject." Its self-subsistence is derived from the nature of its form, which does not supervene to the things subsisting, but gives actual existence to the matter and makes it subsist as an individual. On this account, therefore, he ascribes hypostasis to matter, and ousiosis, or subsistence, to the form, because the matter is the principle of substanding, and form is the principle of subsisting.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 29 a3</b> || Whether the word "person" should be said of God?
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="q29a3"><b>IЄ q. 29 a. 3 arg. 1 </b>Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod nomen personae non sit ponendum in divinis. Dicit enim Dionysius, in principio de Div. Nom. universaliter non est audendum aliquid dicere nec cogitare de supersubstantiali occulta divinitate, praeter ea quae divinitus nobis ex sanctis eloquiis sunt expressa. Sed nomen personae non exprimitur nobis in sacra Scriptura novi vel veteris testamenti. Ergo non est nomine personae utendum in divinis. ||Objection 1. It would seem that the name "person" should not be said of God. For Dionysius says (Div. Nom.): "No one should ever dare to say or think anything of the supersubstantial and hidden Divinity, beyond what has been divinely expressed to us by the oracles." But the name "person" is not expressed to us in the Old or New Testament. Therefore "person" is not to be applied to God.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 29 a. 3 arg. 2 </b>Praeterea, Boetius dicit, in libro de Duab. Natur., nomen personae videtur traductum ex his personis quae in comoediis tragoediisque homines repraesentabant; persona enim dicta est a personando, quia concavitate ipsa maior necesse est ut volvatur sonus. Graeci vero has personas prosopa vocant, ab eo quod ponantur in facie, atque ante oculos obtegant vultum. Sed hoc non potest competere in divinis, nisi forte secundum metaphoram. Ergo nomen personae non dicitur de Deo nisi metaphorice. ||Objection 2. Further, Boethius says (De Duab. Nat.): "The word person seems to be taken from those persons who represented men in comedies and tragedies. For person comes from sounding through [personando], since a greater volume of sound is produced through the cavity in the mask. These "persons" or masks the Greeks called prosopa, as they were placed on the face and covered the features before the eyes." This, however, can apply to God only in a metaphorical sense. Therefore the word "person" is only applied to God metaphorically.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 29 a. 3 arg. 3 </b>Praeterea, omnis persona est hypostasis. Sed nomen hypostasis non videtur Deo competere, cum, secundum Boetium, significet id quod subiicitur accidentibus, quae in Deo non sunt. Hieronymus etiam dicit quod in hoc nomine hypostasis, venenum latet sub melle. Ergo hoc nomen persona non est dicendum de Deo. ||Objection 3. Further, every person is a hypostasis. But the word "hypostasis" does not apply to God, since, as Boethius says (De Duab. Nat.), it signifies what is the subject of accidents, which do not exist in God. Jerome also says (Ep. ad Damas.) that, "in this word hypostasis, poison lurks in honey." Therefore the word "person" should not be said of God.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 29 a. 3 arg. 4 </b>Praeterea, a quocumque removetur definitio, et definitum. Sed definitio personae supra posita non videtur Deo competere. Tum quia ratio importat discursivam cognitionem, quae non competit Deo, ut supra ostensum est, et sic Deus non potest dici rationalis naturae. Tum etiam quia Deus dici non potest individua substantia, cum principium individuationis sit materia, Deus autem immaterialis est; neque etiam accidentibus substat, ut substantia dici possit. Nomen ergo personae Deo attribui non debet. ||Objection 4. Further, if a definition is denied of anything, the thing defined is also denied of it. But the definition of "person," as given above, does not apply to God. Both because reason implies a discursive knowledge, which does not apply to God, as we proved above (14, 1] ); and thus God cannot be said to have "a rational nature." And also because God cannot be called an individual substance, since the principle of individuation is matter; while God is immaterial: nor is He the subject of accidents, so as to be called a substance. Therefore the word "person" ought not to be attributed to God.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 29 a. 3 s. c. </b>Sed contra est quod dicitur in symbolo Athanasii, alia est persona patris, alia filii, alia spiritus sancti. ||On the contrary, In the Creed of Athanasius we say: "One is the person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Ghost."
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 29 a. 3 co. </b>Respondeo dicendum quod persona significat id quod est perfectissimum in tota natura, scilicet subsistens in rationali natura. Unde, cum omne illud quod est perfectionis, Deo sit attribuendum, eo quod eius essentia continet in se omnem perfectionem; conveniens est ut hoc nomen persona de Deo dicatur. Non tamen eodem modo quo dicitur de creaturis, sed excellentiori modo; sicut et alia nomina quae, creaturis a nobis imposita, Deo attribuuntur; sicut supra ostensum est, cum de divinis nominibus ageretur. ||I answer that, "Person" signifies what is most perfect in all nature--that is, a subsistent individual of a rational nature. Hence, since everything that is perfect must be attributed to God, forasmuch as His essence contains every perfection, this name "person" is fittingly applied to God; not, however, as it is applied to creatures, but in a more excellent way; as other names also, which, while giving them to creatures, we attribute to God; as we showed above when treating of the names of God (13, 2).
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 29 a. 3 ad 1 </b>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, licet nomen personae in Scriptura veteris vel novi testamenti non inveniatur dictum de Deo, tamen id quod nomen significat, multipliciter in sacra Scriptura invenitur assertum de Deo; scilicet quod est maxime per se ens, et perfectissime intelligens. Si autem oporteret de Deo dici solum illa, secundum vocem, quae sacra Scriptura de Deo tradit, sequeretur quod nunquam in alia lingua posset aliquis loqui de Deo, nisi in illa in qua primo tradita est Scriptura veteris vel novi testamenti. Ad inveniendum autem nova nomina, antiquam fidem de Deo significantia, coegit necessitas disputandi cum haereticis. Nec haec novitas vitanda est, cum non sit profana, utpote a Scripturarum sensu non discordans, docet autem apostolus profanas vocum novitates vitare, I ad Tim. ult. ||Reply to Objection 1. Although the word "person" is not found applied to God in Scripture, either in the Old or New Testament, nevertheless what the word signifies is found to be affirmed of God in many places of Scripture; as that He is the supreme self-subsisting being, and the most perfectly intelligent being. If we could speak of God only in the very terms themselves of Scripture, it would follow that no one could speak about God in any but the original language of the Old or New Testament. The urgency of confuting heretics made it necessary to find new words to express the ancient faith about God. Nor is such a kind of novelty to be shunned; since it is by no means profane, for it does not lead us astray from the sense of Scripture. The Apostle warns us to avoid "profane novelties of words" (1 Tim. 6:20).
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 29 a. 3 ad 2 </b>Ad secundum dicendum quod, quamvis hoc nomen persona non conveniat Deo quantum ad id a quo impositum est nomen, tamen quantum ad id ad quod significandum imponitur, maxime Deo convenit. Quia enim in comoediis et tragoediis repraesentabantur aliqui homines famosi, impositum est hoc nomen persona ad significandum aliquos dignitatem habentes. Unde consueverunt dici personae in Ecclesiis, quae habent aliquam dignitatem. Propter quod quidam definiunt personam, dicentes quod persona est hypostasis proprietate distincta ad dignitatem pertinente. Et quia magnae dignitatis est in rationali natura subsistere, ideo omne individuum rationalis naturae dicitur persona, ut dictum est. Sed dignitas divinae naturae excedit omnem dignitatem, et secundum hoc maxime competit Deo nomen personae. ||Reply to Objection 2. Although this name "person" may not belong to God as regards the origin of the term, nevertheless it excellently belongs to God in its objective meaning. For as famous men were represented in comedies and tragedies, the name "person" was given to signify those who held high dignity. Hence, those who held high rank in the Church came to be called "persons." Thence by some the definition of person is given as "hypostasis distinct by reason of dignity." And because subsistence in a rational nature is of high dignity, therefore every individual of the rational nature is called a "person." Now the dignity of the divine nature excels every other dignity; and thus the name "person" pre-eminently belongs to God.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 29 a. 3 ad 3 </b>Ad tertium dicendum quod nomen hypostasis non competit Deo quantum ad id a quo est impositum nomen, cum non substet accidentibus, competit autem ei quantum ad id, quod est impositum ad significandum rem subsistentem. Hieronymus autem dicit sub hoc nomine venenum latere, quia antequam significatio huius nominis esset plene nota apud Latinos, haeretici per hoc nomen simplices decipiebant, ut confiterentur plures essentias, sicut confitentur plures hypostases; propter hoc quod nomen substantiae, cui respondet in Graeco nomen hypostasis, communiter accipitur apud nos pro essentia. ||Reply to Objection 3. The word "hypostasis" does not apply to God as regards its source of origin, since He does not underlie accidents; but it applies to Him in its objective sense, for it is imposed to signify the subsistence. Jerome said that "poison lurks in this word," forasmuch as before it was fully understood by the Latins, the heretics used this term to deceive the simple, to make people profess many essences as they profess several hypostases, inasmuch as the word "substance," which corresponds to hypostasis in Greek, is commonly taken amongst us to mean essence.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 29 a. 3 ad 4 </b>Ad quartum dicendum quod Deus potest dici rationalis naturae, secundum quod ratio non importat discursum, sed communiter intellectualem naturam. Individuum autem Deo competere non potest quantum ad hoc quod individuationis principium est materia, sed solum secundum quod importat incommunicabilitatem. Substantia vero convenit Deo, secundum quod significat existere per se. Quidam tamen dicunt quod definitio superius a Boetio data, non est definitio personae secundum quod personas in Deo dicimus. Propter quod Ricardus de sancto Victore, corrigere volens hanc definitionem, dixit quod persona, secundum quod de Deo dicitur, est divinae naturae incommunicabilis existentia. ||Reply to Objection 4. It may be said that God has a rational "nature," if reason be taken to mean, not discursive thought, but in a general sense, an intelligent nature. But God cannot be called an "individual" in the sense that His individuality comes from matter; but only in the sense which implies incommunicability. "Substance" can be applied to God in the sense of signifying self-subsistence. There are some, however, who say that the definition of Boethius, quoted above (1), is not a definition of person in the sense we use when speaking of persons in God. Therefore Richard of St. Victor amends this definition by adding that "Person" in God is "the incommunicable existence of the divine nature."
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 29 a4</b> || Whether this word "person" signifies relation?
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="q29a4"><b>IЄ q. 29 a. 4 arg. 1 </b>Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod hoc nomen persona non significet relationem, sed substantiam, in divinis. Dicit enim Augustinus, in VII de Trin., cum dicimus personam patris, non aliud dicimus quam substantiam patris; ad se quippe dicitur persona, non ad filium. ||Objection 1. It would seem that this word "person," as applied to God, does not signify relation, but substance. For Augustine says (De Trin. vii, 6): "When we speak of the person of the Father, we mean nothing else but the substance of the Father, for person is said in regard to Himself, and not in regard to the Son."
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 29 a. 4 arg. 2 </b>Praeterea, quid quaerit de essentia. Sed, sicut dicit Augustinus in eodem loco, cum dicitur, tres sunt qui testimonium dant in caelo, pater, verbum et spiritus sanctus; et quaeritur, quid tres? Respondetur, tres personae. Ergo hoc nomen persona significat essentiam. ||Objection 2. Further, the interrogation "What?" refers to essence. But, as Augustine says: "When we say there are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and it is asked, Three what? the answer is, Three persons." Therefore person signifies essence.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 29 a. 4 arg. 3 </b>Praeterea, secundum philosophum, IV Metaphys., id quod significatur per nomen, est eius definitio. Sed definitio personae est rationalis naturae individua substantia, ut dictum est. Ergo hoc nomen persona significat substantiam. ||Objection 3. According to the Philosopher (Metaph. iv), the meaning of a word is its definition. But the definition of "person" is this: "The individual substance of the rational nature," as above stated. Therefore "person" signifies substance.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 29 a. 4 arg. 4 </b>Praeterea, persona in hominibus et Angelis non significat relationem, sed aliquid absolutum. Si igitur in Deo significaret relationem, diceretur aequivoce de Deo et hominibus et Angelis. ||Objection 4. Further, person in men and angels does not signify relation, but something absolute. Therefore, if in God it signified relation, it would bear an equivocal meaning in God, in man, and in angels.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 29 a. 4 s. c. </b>Sed contra est quod dicit Boetius, in libro de Trin., quod omne nomen ad personas pertinens, relationem significat. Sed nullum nomen magis pertinet ad personas, quam hoc nomen persona. Ergo hoc nomen persona relationem significat. ||On the contrary, Boethius says (De Trin.) that "every word that refers to the persons signifies relation." But no word belongs to person more strictly than the very word "person" itself. Therefore this word "person" signifies relation.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 29 a. 4 co. </b>Respondeo dicendum quod circa significationem huius nominis persona in divinis, difficultatem ingerit quod pluraliter de tribus praedicatur, praeter naturam essentialium nominum; neque etiam ad aliquid dicitur, sicut nomina quae relationem significant. Unde quibusdam visum est quod hoc nomen persona simpliciter, ex virtute vocabuli, essentiam significet in divinis, sicut hoc nomen Deus, et hoc nomen sapiens, sed propter instantiam haereticorum, est accommodatum, ex ordinatione Concilii, ut possit poni pro relativis; et praecipue in plurali, vel cum nomine partitivo, ut cum dicimus tres personas, vel alia est persona patris, alia filii. In singulari vero potest sumi pro absoluto, et pro relativo. Sed haec non videtur sufficiens ratio. Quia si hoc nomen persona, ex vi suae significationis, non habet quod significet nisi essentiam in divinis; ex hoc quod dictum est tres personas, non fuisset haereticorum quietata calumnia, sed maioris calumniae data esset eis occasio. Et ideo alii dixerunt quod hoc nomen persona in divinis significat simul essentiam et relationem. Quorum quidam dixerunt quod significat essentiam in recto, et relationem in obliquo. Quia persona dicitur quasi per se una, unitas autem pertinet ad essentiam. Quod autem dicitur per se, implicat relationem oblique, intelligitur enim pater per se esse, quasi relatione distinctus a filio. Quidam vero dixerunt e converso, quod significat relationem in recto, et essentiam in obliquo, quia in definitione personae, natura ponitur in obliquo. Et isti propinquius ad veritatem accesserunt. Ad evidentiam igitur huius quaestionis, considerandum est quod aliquid est de significatione minus communis, quod tamen non est de significatione magis communis, rationale enim includitur in significatione hominis, quod tamen non est de significatione animalis. Unde aliud est quaerere de significatione animalis, et aliud est quaerere de significatione animalis quod est homo. Similiter aliud est quaerere de significatione huius nominis persona in communi, et aliud de significatione personae divinae. Persona enim in communi significat substantiam individuam rationalis naturae, ut dictum est. Individuum autem est quod est in se indistinctum, ab aliis vero distinctum. Persona igitur, in quacumque natura, significat id quod est distinctum in natura illa sicut in humana natura significat has carnes et haec ossa et hanc animam, quae sunt principia individuantia hominem; quae quidem, licet non sint de significatione personae, sunt tamen de significatione personae humanae. Distinctio autem in divinis non fit nisi per relationes originis, ut dictum est supra. Relatio autem in divinis non est sicut accidens inhaerens subiecto, sed est ipsa divina essentia, unde est subsistens, sicut essentia divina subsistit. Sicut ergo deitas est Deus, ita paternitas divina est Deus pater, qui est persona divina. Persona igitur divina significat relationem ut subsistentem. Et hoc est significare relationem per modum substantiae quae est hypostasis subsistens in natura divina; licet subsistens in natura divina non sit aliud quam natura divina. Et secundum hoc, verum est quod hoc nomen persona significat relationem in recto, et essentiam in obliquo, non tamen relationem inquantum est relatio, sed inquantum significatur per modum hypostasis. Similiter etiam significat essentiam in recto, et relationem in obliquo, inquantum essentia idem est quod hypostasis; hypostasis autem significatur in divinis ut relatione distincta; et sic relatio, per modum relationis significata, cadit in ratione personae in obliquo. Et secundum hoc etiam dici potest, quod haec significatio huius nominis persona non erat percepta ante haereticorum calumniam, unde non erat in usu hoc nomen persona, nisi sicut unum aliorum absolutorum. Sed postmodum accommodatum est hoc nomen persona ad standum pro relativo, ex congruentia suae significationis, ut scilicet hoc quod stat pro relativo, non solum habeat ex usu, ut prima opinio dicebat, sed etiam ex significatione sua. ||I answer that, A difficulty arises concerning the meaning of this word "person" in God, from the fact that it is predicated plurally of the Three in contrast to the nature of the names belonging to the essence; nor does it in itself refer to another, as do the words which express relation. Hence some have thought that this word "person" of itself expresses absolutely the divine essence; as this name "God" and this word "Wise"; but that to meet heretical attack, it was ordained by conciliar decree that it was to be taken in a relative sense, and especially in the plural, or with the addition of a distinguishing adjective; as when we say, "Three persons," or, "one is the person of the Father, another of the Son," etc. Used, however, in the singular, it may be either absolute or relative. But this does not seem to be a satisfactory explanation; for, if this word "person," by force of its own signification, expresses the divine essence only, it follows that forasmuch as we speak of "three persons," so far from the heretics being silenced, they had still more reason to argue. Seeing this, others maintained that this word "person" in God signifies both the essence and the relation. Some of these said that it signifies directly the essence, and relation indirectly, forasmuch as "person" means as it were "by itself one" [per se una]; and unity belongs to the essence. And what is "by itself" implies relation indirectly; for the Father is understood to exist "by Himself," as relatively distinct from the Son. Others, however, said, on the contrary, that it signifies relation directly; and essence indirectly; forasmuch as in the definition of "person" the term nature is mentioned indirectly; and these come nearer to the truth. To determine the question, we must consider that something may be included in the meaning of a less common term, which is not included in the more common term; as "rational" is included in the meaning of "man," and not in the meaning of "animal." So that it is one thing to ask the meaning of the word animal, and another to ask its meaning when the animal in question is man. Also, it is one thing to ask the meaning of this word "person" in general; and another to ask the meaning of "person" as applied to God. For "person" in general signifies the individual substance of a rational figure. The individual in itself is undivided, but is distinct from others. Therefore "person" in any nature signifies what is distinct in that nature: thus in human nature it signifies this flesh, these bones, and this soul, which are the individuating principles of a man, and which, though not belonging to "person" in general, nevertheless do belong to the meaning of a particular human person. Now distinction in God is only by relation of origin, as stated above (28, 2, 3), while relation in God is not as an accident in a subject, but is the divine essence itself; and so it is subsistent, for the divine essence subsists. Therefore, as the Godhead is God so the divine paternity is God the Father, Who is a divine person. Therefore a divine person signifies a relation as subsisting. And this is to signify relation by way of substance, and such a relation is a hypostasis subsisting in the divine nature, although in truth that which subsists in the divine nature is the divine nature itself. Thus it is true to say that the name "person" signifies relation directly, and the essence indirectly; not, however, the relation as such, but as expressed by way of a hypostasis. So likewise it signifies directly the essence, and indirectly the relation, inasmuch as the essence is the same as the hypostasis: while in God the hypostasis is expressed as distinct by the relation: and thus relation, as such, enters into the notion of the person indirectly. Thus we can say that this signification of the word "person" was not clearly perceived before it was attacked by heretics. Hence, this word "person" was used just as any other absolute term. But afterwards it was applied to express relation, as it lent itself to that signification, so that this word "person" means relation not only by use and custom, according to the first opinion, but also by force of its own proper signification.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 29 a. 4 ad 1 </b>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod hoc nomen persona dicitur ad se, non ad alterum, quia significat relationem, non per modum relationis, sed per modum substantiae quae est hypostasis. Et secundum hoc Augustinus dicit quod significat essentiam, prout in Deo essentia est idem cum hypostasi, quia in Deo non differt quod est et quo est. ||Reply to Objection 1. This word "person" is said in respect to itself, not to another; forasmuch as it signifies relation not as such, but by way of a substance--which is a hypostasis. In that sense Augustine says that it signifies the essence, inasmuch as in God essence is the same as the hypostasis, because in God what He is, and whereby He is are the same.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 29 a. 4 ad 2 </b>Ad secundum dicendum quod quid quandoque quaerit de natura quam significat definitio; ut cum quaeritur, quid est homo? Et respondetur, animal rationale mortale. Quandoque vero quaerit suppositum; ut cum quaeritur, quid natat in mari? Et respondetur, piscis. Et sic quaerentibus quid tres? Responsum est, tres personae. ||Reply to Objection 2. The term "what" refers sometimes to the nature expressed by the definition, as when we ask; What is man? and we answer: A mortal rational animal. Sometimes it refers to the "suppositum," as when we ask, What swims in the sea? and answer, A fish. So to those who ask, Three what? we answer, Three persons.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 29 a. 4 ad 3 </b>Ad tertium dicendum quod in intellectu substantiae individuae, idest distinctae vel incommunicabilis, intelligitur in divinis relatio, ut dictum est. ||Reply to Objection 3. In God the individual--i.e. distinct and incommunicable substance--includes the idea of relation, as above explained.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 29 a. 4 ad 4 </b>Ad quartum dicendum quod diversa ratio minus communium non facit aequivocationem in magis communi. Licet enim sit alia propria definitio equi et asini, tamen univocantur in nomine animalis, quia communis definitio animalis convenit utrique. Unde non sequitur quod, licet in significatione personae divinae contineatur relatio, non autem in significatione angelicae personae vel humanae, quod nomen personae aequivoce dicatur. Licet nec etiam dicatur univoce, cum nihil univoce de Deo dici possit et de creaturis, ut supra ostensum est. ||Reply to Objection 4. The different sense of the less common term does not produce equivocation in the more common. Although a horse and an ass have their own proper definitions, nevertheless they agree univocally in animal, because the common definition of animal applies to both. So it does not follow that, although relation is contained in the signification of divine person, but not in that of an angelic or of a human person, the word "person" is used in an equivocal sense. Though neither is it applied univocally, since nothing can be said univocally of God and creatures (13, 5).
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 30 pr. </b>Deinde quaeritur de pluralitate personarum. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, utrum sint plures personae in divinis. Secundo, quot sunt. Tertio, quid significent termini numerales in divinis. Quarto, de communitate huius nominis persona. ||Whether there are several persons in God?
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="q30a1"><b>IЄ q. 30 a. 1 arg. 1 </b>Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non sit ponere plures personas in divinis. Persona enim est rationalis naturae individua substantia. Si ergo sunt plures personae in divinis, sequitur quod sint plures substantiae, quod videtur haereticum. ||Objection 1. It would seem that there are not several persons in God. For person is "the individual substance of a rational nature." If then there are several persons in God, there must be several substances; which appears to be heretical.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 30 a. 1 arg. 2 </b>Praeterea, pluralitas proprietatum absolutarum non facit distinctionem personarum, neque in Deo neque in nobis, multo igitur minus pluralitas relationum. Sed in Deo non est alia pluralitas nisi relationum, ut supra dictum est. Ergo non potest dici quod in Deo sint plures personae. ||Objection 2. Further, Plurality of absolute properties does not make a distinction of persons, either in God, or in ourselves. Much less therefore is this effected by a plurality of relations. But in God there is no plurality but of relations (28, 3). Therefore there cannot be several persons in God.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 30 a. 1 arg. 3 </b>Praeterea, Boetius dicit, de Deo loquens, quod hoc vere unum est, in quo nullus est numerus. Sed pluralitas importat numerum. Ergo non sunt plures personae in divinis. ||Objection 3. Further, Boethius says of God (De Trin. i), that "this is truly one which has no number." But plurality implies number. Therefore there are not several persons in God.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 30 a. 1 arg. 4 </b>Praeterea, ubicumque est numerus, ibi est totum et pars. Si igitur in Deo sit numerus personarum, erit in Deo ponere totum et partem, quod simplicitati divinae repugnat. ||Objection 4. Further, where number is, there is whole and part. Thus, if in God there exist a number of persons, there must be whole and part in God; which is inconsistent with the divine simplicity.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 30 a. 1 s. c. </b>Sed contra est quod dicit Athanasius, alia est persona patris, alia filii, alia spiritus sancti. Ergo pater et filius et spiritus sanctus sunt plures personae. ||On the contrary, Athanasius says: "One is the person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Ghost." Therefore the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost are several persons.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 30 a. 1 co. </b>Respondeo dicendum quod plures esse personas in divinis, sequitur ex praemissis. Ostensum est enim supra quod hoc nomen persona significat in divinis relationem, ut rem subsistentem in natura divina. Supra autem habitum est quod sunt plures relationes reales in divinis. Unde sequitur quod sint plures res subsistentes in divina natura. Et hoc est esse plures personas in divinis. ||I answer that, It follows from what precedes that there are several persons in God. For it was shown above (29, 4) that this word "person" signifies in God a relation as subsisting in the divine nature. It was also established (28, 1) that there are several real relations in God; and hence it follows that there are also several realities subsistent in the divine nature; which means that there are several persons in God.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 30 a. 1 ad 1 </b>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod substantia non ponitur in definitione personae secundum quod significat essentiam, sed secundum quod significat suppositum, quod patet ex hoc quod additur individua. Ad significandum autem substantiam sic dictam, habent Graeci nomen hypostasis, unde sicut nos dicimus tres personas, ita ipsi dicunt tres hypostases. Nos autem non consuevimus dicere tres substantias, ne intelligerentur tres essentiae, propter nominis aequivocationem. ||Reply to Objection 1. The definition of "person" includes "substance," not as meaning the essence, but the "suppositum" which is made clear by the addition of the term "individual." To signify the substance thus understood, the Greeks use the name "hypostasis." So, as we say, "Three persons," they say "Three hypostases." We are not, however, accustomed to say Three substances, lest we be understood to mean three essences or natures, by reason of the equivocal signification of the term.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 30 a. 1 ad 2 </b>Ad secundum dicendum quod proprietates absolutae in divinis, ut bonitas et sapientia, non opponuntur ad invicem, unde neque realiter distinguuntur. Quamvis ergo eis conveniat subsistere, non tamen sunt plures res subsistentes, quod est esse plures personas. Proprietates autem absolutae in rebus creatis non subsistunt, licet realiter ab invicem distinguantur, ut albedo et dulcedo. Sed proprietates relativae in Deo et subsistunt, et realiter ab invicem distinguuntur, ut supra dictum est. Unde pluralitas talium proprietatum sufficit ad pluralitatem personarum in divinis. ||Reply to Objection 2. The absolute properties in God, such as goodness and wisdom, are not mutually opposed; and hence, neither are they really distinguished from each other. Therefore, although they subsist, nevertheless they are not several subsistent realities--that is, several persons. But the absolute properties in creatures do not subsist, although they are really distinguished from each other, as whiteness and sweetness; on the other hand, the relative properties in God subsist, and are really distinguished from each other (28, 3). Hence the plurality of persons in God.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 30 a. 1 ad 3 </b>Ad tertium dicendum quod a Deo, propter summam unitatem et simplicitatem, excluditur omnis pluralitas absolute dictorum; non autem pluralitas relationum. Quia relationes praedicantur de aliquo ut ad alterum; et sic compositionem in ipso de quo dicuntur non important, ut Boetius in eodem libro docet. ||Reply to Objection 3. The supreme unity and simplicity of God exclude every kind of plurality of absolute things, but not plurality of relations. Because relations are predicated relatively, and thus the relations do not import composition in that of which they are predicated, as Boethius teaches in the same book.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 30 a. 1 ad 4 </b>Ad quartum dicendum quod numerus est duplex, scilicet numerus simplex vel absolutus, ut duo et tria et quatuor; et numerus qui est in rebus numeratis, ut duo homines et duo equi. Si igitur in divinis accipiatur numerus absolute sive abstracte, nihil prohibet in eo esse totum et partem, et sic non est nisi in acceptione intellectus nostri; non enim numerus absolutus a rebus numeratis est nisi in intellectu. Si autem accipiamus numerum prout est in rebus numeratis, sic in rebus quidem creatis, unum est pars duorum, et duo trium, ut unus homo duorum, et duo trium, sed non est sic in Deo, quia tantus est pater quanta tota Trinitas, ut infra patebit. ||Reply to Objection 4. Number is twofold, simple or absolute, as two and three and four; and number as existing in things numbered, as two men and two horses. So, if number in God is taken absolutely or abstractedly, there is nothing to prevent whole and part from being in Him, and thus number in Him is only in our way of understanding; forasmuch as number regarded apart from things numbered exists only in the intellect. But if number be taken as it is in the things numbered, in that sense as existing in creatures, one is part of two, and two of three, as one man is part of two men, and two of three; but this does not apply to God, because the Father is of the same magnitude as the whole Trinity, as we shall show further on (42, 1 and 4).
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="q30a2"><b>IЄ q. 30 a. 2 arg. 1 </b>Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod in Deo sint plures personae quam tres. Pluralitas enim personarum in divinis est secundum pluralitatem proprietatum relativarum, ut dictum est. Sed quatuor sunt relationes in divinis, ut supra dictum est, scilicet paternitas, filiatio, communis spiratio et processio. Ergo quatuor personae sunt in divinis. ||Objection 1. It would seem that there are more than three persons in God. For the plurality of persons in God arises from the plurality of the relative properties as stated above (1). But there are four relations in God as stated above (28, 4), paternity, filiation, common spiration, and procession. Therefore there are four persons in God.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 30 a. 2 arg. 2 </b>Praeterea, non plus differt natura a voluntate in Deo, quam natura ab intellectu. Sed in divinis est alia persona quae procedit per modum voluntatis, ut amor; et alia quae procedit per modum naturae, ut filius. Ergo est etiam alia quae procedit per modum intellectus, ut verbum; et alia quae procedit per modum naturae, ut filius. Et sic iterum sequitur quod non sunt tantum tres personae in divinis. ||Objection 2. The nature of God does not differ from His will more than from His intellect. But in God, one person proceeds from the will, as love; and another proceeds from His nature, as Son. Therefore another proceeds from His intellect, as Word, besides the one Who proceeds from His nature, as Son; thus again it follows that there are not only three persons in God.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 30 a. 2 arg. 3 </b>Praeterea, in rebus creatis quod excellentius est, plures habet operationes intrinsecas, sicut homo supra alia animalia habet intelligere et velle. Sed Deus in infinitum excedit omnem creaturam. Ergo non solum est ibi persona procedens per modum voluntatis et per modum intellectus, sed infinitis aliis modis. Ergo sunt infinitae personae in divinis. ||Objection 3. Further, the more perfect a creature is, the more interior operations it has; as a man has understanding and will beyond other animals. But God infinitely excels every creature. Therefore in God not only is there a person proceeding from the will, and another from the intellect, but also in an infinite number of ways. Therefore there are an infinite number of persons in God.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 30 a. 2 arg. 4 </b>Praeterea, ex infinita bonitate patris est, quod infinite seipsum communicet, producendo personam divinam. Sed etiam in spiritu sancto est infinita bonitas. Ergo spiritus sanctus producit divinam personam, et illa aliam, et sic in infinitum. ||Objection 4. Further, it is from the infinite goodness of the Father that He communicates Himself infinitely in the production of a divine person. But also in the Holy Ghost is infinite goodness. Therefore the Holy Ghost produces a divine person; and that person another; and so to infinity.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 30 a. 2 arg. 5 </b>Praeterea, omne quod continetur sub determinato numero, est mensuratum, numerus enim mensura quaedam est. Sed personae divinae sunt immensae, ut patet per Athanasium, immensus pater, immensus filius, immensus spiritus sanctus. Non ergo sub numero ternario continentur. ||Objection 5. Further, everything within a determinate number is measured, for number is a measure. But the divine persons are immense, as we say in the Creed of Athanasius: "The Father is immense, the Son is immense, the Holy Ghost is immense." Therefore the persons are not contained within the number three.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 30 a. 2 s. c. </b>Sed contra est quod dicitur I Ioan. ult., tres sunt qui testimonium dant in caelo, pater, verbum et spiritus sanctus. Quaerentibus autem, quid tres? Respondetur, tres personae, ut Augustinus dicit, in VII de Trin. Sunt igitur tres personae tantum in divinis. ||On the contrary, It is said: "There are three who bear witness in heaven, the father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost" (1 Jn. 5:7). To those who ask, "Three what?" we answer, with Augustine (De Trin. vii, 4), "Three persons." Therefore there are but three persons in God.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 30 a. 2 co. </b>Respondeo dicendum quod, secundum praemissa, necesse est ponere tantum tres personas in divinis. Ostensum est enim quod plures personae sunt plures relationes subsistentes, ab invicem realiter distinctae. Realis autem distinctio inter relationes divinas non est nisi in ratione oppositionis relativae. Ergo oportet duas relationes oppositas ad duas personas pertinere, si quae autem relationes oppositae non sunt, ad eandem personam necesse est eas pertinere. Paternitas ergo et filiatio, cum sint oppositae relationes, ad duas personas ex necessitate pertinent. Paternitas igitur subsistens est persona patris, et filiatio subsistens est persona filii. Aliae autem duae relationes ad neutram harum oppositionem habent, sed sibi invicem opponuntur. Impossibile est igitur quod ambae uni personae conveniant. Oportet ergo quod vel una earum conveniat utrique dictarum personarum, aut quod una uni, et alia alii. Non autem potest esse quod processio conveniat patri et filio, vel alteri eorum, quia sic sequeretur quod processio intellectus, quae est generatio in divinis, secundum quam accipitur paternitas et filiatio, prodiret ex processione amoris, secundum quam accipitur spiratio et processio, si persona generans et genita procederent a spirante, quod est contra praemissa. Relinquitur ergo quod spiratio conveniat et personae patris et personae filii, utpote nullam habens oppositionem relativam nec ad paternitatem nec ad filiationem. Et per consequens oportet quod conveniat processio alteri personae, quae dicitur persona spiritus sancti, quae per modum amoris procedit, ut supra habitum est. Relinquitur ergo tantum tres personas esse in divinis, scilicet patrem et filium et spiritum sanctum. ||I answer that, As was explained above, there can be only three persons in God. For it was shown above that the several persons are the several subsisting relations really distinct from each other. But a real distinction between the divine relations can come only from relative opposition. Therefore two opposite relations must needs refer to two persons: and if any relations are not opposite they must needs belong to the same person. Since then paternity and filiation are opposite relations, they belong necessarily to two persons. Therefore the subsisting paternity is the person of the Father; and the subsisting filiation is the person of the Son. The other two relations are not opposed to each other; therefore these two cannot belong to one person: hence either one of them must belong to both of the aforesaid persons; or one must belong to one person, and the other to the other. Now, procession cannot belong to the Father and the Son, or to either of them; for thus it would follows that the procession of the intellect, which in God is generation, wherefrom paternity and filiation are derived, would issue from the procession of love, whence spiration and procession are derived, if the person generating and the person generated proceeded from the person spirating; and this is against what was laid down above (27, 3 and 4). We must frequently admit that spiration belongs to the person of the Father, and to the person of the Son, forasmuch as it has no relative opposition either to paternity or to filiation; and consequently that procession belongs to the other person who is called the person of the Holy Ghost, who proceeds by way of love, as above explained. Therefore only three persons exist in God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 30 a. 2 ad 1 </b>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, licet sint quatuor relationes in divinis, tamen una earum, scilicet spiratio, non separatur a persona patris et filii, sed convenit utrique. Et sic, licet sit relatio, non tamen dicitur proprietas, quia non convenit uni tantum personae, neque est relatio personalis, idest constituens personam. Sed hae tres relationes, paternitas, filiatio et processio, dicuntur proprietates personales, quasi personas constituentes, nam paternitas est persona patris, filiatio persona filii, processio persona spiritus sancti procedentis. ||Reply to Objection 1. Although there are four relations in God, one of them, spiration, is not separated from the person of the Father and of the Son, but belongs to both; thus, although it is a relation, it is not called a property, because it does not belong to only one person; nor is it a personal relation--i.e. constituting a person. The three relations--paternity, filiation, and procession--are called personal properties, constituting as it were the persons; for paternity is the person of the Father, filiation is the person of the Son, procession is the person of the Holy Ghost proceeding.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 30 a. 2 ad 2 </b>Ad secundum dicendum quod id quod procedit per modum intellectus, ut verbum, procedit secundum rationem similitudinis, sicut etiam id quod procedit per modum naturae, et ideo supra dictum est quod processio verbi divini est ipsa generatio per modum naturae. Amor autem, inquantum huiusmodi, non procedit ut similitudo illius a quo procedit (licet in divinis amor sit coessentialis inquantum est divinus), et ideo processio amoris non dicitur generatio in divinis. ||Reply to Objection 2. That which proceeds by way of intelligence, as word, proceeds according to similitude, as also that which proceeds by way of nature; thus, as above explained (27, 3), the procession of the divine Word is the very same as generation by way of nature. But love, as such, does not proceed as the similitude of that whence it proceeds; although in God love is co-essential as being divine; and therefore the procession of love is not called generation in God.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 30 a. 2 ad 3 </b>Ad tertium dicendum quod homo, cum sit perfectior aliis animalibus, habet plures operationes intrinsecas quam alia animalia, quia eius perfectio est per modum compositionis. Unde in Angelis, qui sunt perfectiores et simpliciores, sunt pauciores operationes intrinsecae quam in homine, quia in eis non est imaginari, sentire, et huiusmodi. Sed in Deo, secundum rem, non est nisi una operatio, quae est sua essentia. Sed quomodo sunt duae processiones, supra ostensum est. ||Reply to Objection 3. As man is more perfect than other animals, he has more intrinsic operations than other animals, because his perfection is something composite. Hence the angels, who are more perfect and more simple, have fewer intrinsic operations than man, for they have no imagination, or feeling, or the like. In God there exists only one real operation--that is, His essence. How there are in Him two processions was above explained (27, 1, 4).
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 30 a. 2 ad 4 </b>Ad quartum dicendum quod ratio illa procederet, si spiritus sanctus haberet aliam numero bonitatem a bonitate patris, oporteret enim quod, sicut pater per suam bonitatem producit personam divinam, ita et spiritus sanctus. Sed una et eadem bonitas patris est et spiritus sancti. Neque etiam est distinctio nisi per relationes personarum. Unde bonitas convenit spiritui sancto quasi habita ab alio, patri autem, sicut a quo communicatur alteri. Oppositio autem relationis non permittit ut cum relatione spiritus sancti sit relatio principii respectu divinae personae, quia ipse procedit ab aliis personis quae in divinis esse possunt. ||Reply to Objection 4. This argument would prove if the Holy Ghost possessed another goodness apart from the goodness of the Father; for then if the Father produced a divine person by His goodness, the Holy Ghost also would do so. But the Father and the Holy Ghost have one and the same goodness. Nor is there any distinction between them except by the personal relations. So goodness belongs to the Holy Ghost, as derived from another; and it belongs to the Father, as the principle of its communication to another. The opposition of relation does not allow the relation of the Holy Ghost to be joined with the relation of principle of another divine person; because He Himself proceeds from the other persons who are in God.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 30 a. 2 ad 5 </b>Ad quintum dicendum quod numerus determinatus, si accipiatur numerus simplex, qui est tantum in acceptione intellectus, per unum mensuratur. Si vero accipiatur numerus rerum in divinis personis, sic non competit ibi ratio mensurati, quia eadem est magnitudo trium personarum, ut infra patebit; idem autem non mensuratur per idem. ||Reply to Objection 5. A determinate number, if taken as a simple number, existing in the mind only, is measured by one. But when we speak of a number of things as applied to the persons in God, the notion of measure has no place, because the magnitude of the three persons is the same (42, 1,4), and the same is not measured by the same.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="q30a3"><b>IЄ q. 30 a. 3 arg. 1 </b>Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod termini numerales ponant aliquid in divinis. Unitas enim divina est eius essentia. Sed omnis numerus est unitas repetita. Ergo omnis terminus numeralis in divinis significat essentiam. Ergo ponit aliquid in Deo. ||Objection 1. It would seem that the numeral terms denote something real in God. For the divine unity is the divine essence. But every number is unity repeated. Therefore every numeral term in God signifies the essence; and therefore it denotes something real in God.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 30 a. 3 arg. 2 </b>Praeterea, quidquid dicitur de Deo et creaturis, eminentius convenit Deo quam creaturis. Sed termini numerales in creaturis aliquid ponunt. Ergo multo magis in Deo. ||Objection 2. Further, whatever is said of God and of creatures, belongs to God in a more eminent manner than to creatures. But the numeral terms denote something real in creatures; therefore much more so in God.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 30 a. 3 arg. 3 </b>Praeterea, si termini numerales non ponunt aliquid in divinis, sed inducuntur ad removendum tantum, ut per pluralitatem removeatur unitas, et per unitatem pluralitas; sequitur quod sit circulatio in ratione, confundens intellectum et nihil certificans; quod est inconveniens. Relinquitur ergo quod termini numerales aliquid ponunt in divinis. ||Objection 3. Further, if the numeral terms do not denote anything real in God, and are introduced simply in a negative and removing sense, as plurality is employed to remove unity, and unity to remove plurality; it follows that a vicious circle results, confusing the mind and obscuring the truth; and this ought not to be. Therefore it must be said that the numeral terms denote something real in God.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 30 a. 3 s. c. </b>Sed contra est quod Hilarius dicit, in IV de Trin., sustulit singularitatis ac solitudinis intelligentiam professio consortii, quod est professio pluralitatis. Et Ambrosius dicit, in libro de fide cum unum Deum dicimus, unitas pluralitatem excludit deorum, non quantitatem in Deo ponimus. Ex quibus videtur quod huiusmodi nomina sunt inducta in divinis ad removendum, non ad ponendum aliquid. ||On the contrary, Hilary says (De Trin. iv): "If we admit companionship"--that is, plurality--"we exclude the idea of oneness and of solitude;" and Ambrose says (De Fide i): "When we say one God, unity excludes plurality of gods, and does not imply quantity in God." Hence we see that these terms are applied to God in order to remove something; and not to denote anything positive.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 30 a. 3 co. </b>Respondeo dicendum quod Magister, in sententiis, ponit quod termini numerales non ponunt aliquid in divinis, sed removent tantum. Alii vero dicunt contrarium. Ad evidentiam igitur huius, considerandum est quod omnis pluralitas consequitur aliquam divisionem. Est autem duplex divisio. Una materialis, quae fit secundum divisionem continui, et hanc consequitur numerus qui est species quantitatis. Unde talis numerus non est nisi in rebus materialibus habentibus quantitatem. Alia est divisio formalis, quae fit per oppositas vel diversas formas, et hanc divisionem sequitur multitudo quae non est in aliquo genere, sed est de transcendentibus, secundum quod ens dividitur per unum et multa. Et talem multitudinem solam contingit esse in rebus immaterialibus. Quidam igitur, non considerantes nisi multitudinem quae est species quantitatis discretae, quia videbant quod quantitas discreta non habet locum in divinis, posuerunt quod termini numerales non ponunt aliquid in Deo, sed removent tantum. Alii vero, eandem multitudinem considerantes, dixerunt quod, sicut scientia ponitur in Deo secundum rationem propriam scientiae, non autem secundum rationem sui generis, quia in Deo nulla est qualitas; ita numerus in Deo ponitur secundum propriam rationem numeri, non autem secundum rationem sui generis, quod est quantitas. Nos autem dicimus quod termini numerales, secundum quod veniunt in praedicationem divinam, non sumuntur a numero qui est species quantitatis; quia sic de Deo non dicerentur nisi metaphorice, sicut et aliae proprietates corporalium, sicut latitudo, longitudo, et similia, sed sumuntur a multitudine secundum quod est transcendens. Multitudo autem sic accepta hoc modo se habet ad multa de quibus praedicatur, sicut unum quod convertitur cum ente ad ens. Huiusmodi autem unum, sicut supra dictum est, cum de Dei unitate ageretur, non addit aliquid supra ens nisi negationem divisionis tantum, unum enim significat ens indivisum. Et ideo de quocumque dicatur unum, significatur illa res indivisa, sicut unum dictum de homine, significat naturam vel substantiam hominis non divisam. Et eadem ratione, cum dicuntur res multae, multitudo sic accepta significat res illas cum indivisione circa unamquamque earum. Numerus autem qui est species quantitatis, ponit quoddam accidens additum supra ens, et similiter unum quod est principium numeri. Termini ergo numerales significant in divinis illa de quibus dicuntur, et super hoc nihil addunt nisi negationem, ut dictum est, et quantum ad hoc, veritatem dixit Magister in sententiis. Ut, cum dicimus, essentia est una, unum significat essentiam indivisam, cum dicimus, persona est una, significat personam indivisam, cum dicimus, personae sunt plures, significantur illae personae, et indivisio circa unamquamque earum; quia de ratione multitudinis est, quod ex unitatibus constet. ||I answer that, The Master (Sent. i, D, 24) considers that the numeral terms do not denote anything positive in God, but have only a negative meaning. Others, however, assert the contrary. In order to resolve this point, we may observe that all plurality is a consequence of division. Now division is twofold; one is material, and is division of the continuous; from this results number, which is a species of quantity. Number in this sense is found only in material things which have quantity. The other kind of division is called formal, and is effected by opposite or diverse forms; and this kind of division results in a multitude, which does not belong to a genus, but is transcendental in the sense in which being is divided by one and by many. This kind of multitude is found only in immaterial things. Some, considering only that multitude which is a species of discrete quantity, and seeing that such kind of quantity has no place in God, asserted that the numeral terms do not denote anything real in God, but remove something from Him. Others, considering the same kind of multitude, said that as knowledge exists in God according to the strict sense of the word, but not in the sense of its genus (as in God there is no such thing as a quality), so number exists in God in the proper sense of number, but not in the sense of its genus, which is quantity. But we say that numeral terms predicated of God are not derived from number, a species of quantity, for in that sense they could bear only a metaphorical sense in God, like other corporeal properties, such as length, breadth, and the like; but that they are taken from multitude in a transcendent sense. Now multitude so understood has relation to the many of which it is predicated, as "one" convertible with "being" is related to being; which kind of oneness does not add anything to being, except a negation of division, as we saw when treating of the divine unity (11, 1); for "one" signifies undivided being. So, of whatever we say "one," we imply its undivided reality: thus, for instance, "one" applied to man signifies the undivided nature or substance of a man. In the same way, when we speak of many things, multitude in this latter sense points to those things as being each undivided in itself. But number, if taken as a species of quantity, denotes an accident added to being; as also does "one" which is the principle of that number. Therefore the numeral terms in God signify the things of which they are said, and beyond this they add negation only, as stated (Sent. i, D, 24); in which respect the Master was right (Sent. i, D, 24). So when we say, the essence is one, the term "one" signifies the essence undivided; and when we say the person is one, it signifies the person undivided; and when we say the persons are many, we signify those persons, and their individual undividedness; for it is of the very nature of multitude that it should be composed of units.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 30 a. 3 ad 1 </b>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod unum, cum sit de transcendentibus, est communius quam substantia et quam relatio, et similiter multitudo. Unde potest stare in divinis et pro substantia et pro relatione, secundum quod competit his quibus adiungitur. Et tamen per huiusmodi nomina, supra essentiam vel relationem, additur, ex eorum significatione propria, negatio quaedam divisionis, ut dictum est. ||Reply to Objection 1. One, as it is a transcendental, is wider and more general than substance and relation. And so likewise is multitude; hence in God it may mean both substance and relation, according to the context. Still, the very signification of such names adds a negation of division, beyond substance and relation; as was explained above.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 30 a. 3 ad 2 </b>Ad secundum dicendum quod multitudo quae ponit aliquid in rebus creatis, est species quantitatis; quae non transumitur in divinam praedicationem; sed tantum multitudo transcendens, quae non addit supra ea de quibus dicitur, nisi indivisionem circa singula. Et talis multitudo dicitur de Deo. ||Reply to Objection 2. Multitude, which denotes something real in creatures, is a species of quantity, and cannot be used when speaking of God: unlike transcendental multitude, which adds only indivision to those of which it is predicated. Such a kind of multitude is applicable to God.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 30 a. 3 ad 3 </b>Ad tertium dicendum quod unum non est remotivum multitudinis, sed divisionis, quae est prior, secundum rationem, quam unum vel multitudo. Multitudo autem non removet unitatem, sed removet divisionem circa unumquodque eorum ex quibus constat multitudo. Et haec supra exposita sunt, cum de divina unitate ageretur. Sciendum tamen est quod auctoritates in oppositum inductae, non probant sufficienter propositum. Licet enim pluralitate excludatur solitudo, et unitate deorum pluralitas, non tamen sequitur quod his nominibus hoc solum significetur. Albedine enim excluditur nigredo, non tamen nomine albedinis significatur sola nigredinis exclusio. ||Reply to Objection 3. "One" does not exclude multitude, but division, which logically precedes one or multitude. Multitude does not remove unity, but division from each of the individuals which compose the multitude. This was explained when we treated of the divine unity (11, 2). It must be observed, nevertheless, that the opposite arguments do not sufficiently prove the point advanced. Although the idea of solitude is excluded by plurality, and the plurality of gods by unity, it does not follow that these terms express this signification alone. For blackness is excluded by whiteness; nevertheless, the term whiteness does not signify the mere exclusion of blackness.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="q30a4"><b>IЄ q. 30 a. 4 arg. 1 </b>Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod hoc nomen persona non possit esse commune tribus personis. Nihil enim est commune tribus personis nisi essentia. Sed hoc nomen persona non significat essentiam in recto. Ergo non est commune tribus. ||Objection 1. It would seem that this term "person" cannot be common to the three persons. For nothing is common to the three persons but the essence. But this term "person" does not signify the essence directly. Therefore it is not common to all three.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 30 a. 4 arg. 2 </b>Praeterea, commune opponitur incommunicabili. Sed de ratione personae est quod sit incommunicabilis, ut patet ex definitione Ricardi de s. Victore supra posita. Ergo hoc nomen persona non est commune tribus. ||Objection 2. Further, the common is the opposite to the incommunicable. But the very meaning of person is that it is incommunicable; as appears from the definition given by Richard of St. Victor (29, 3, ad 4). Therefore this term "person" is not common to all the three persons.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 30 a. 4 arg. 3 </b>Praeterea, si est commune tribus, aut ista communitas attenditur secundum rem, aut secundum rationem. Sed non secundum rem, quia sic tres personae essent una persona. Nec iterum secundum rationem tantum, quia sic persona esset universale, in divinis autem non est universale et particulare, neque genus neque species, ut supra ostensum est. Non ergo hoc nomen persona est commune tribus. ||Objection 3. Further, if the name "person" is common to the three, it is common either really, or logically. But it is not so really; otherwise the three persons would be one person; nor again is it so logically; otherwise person would be a universal. But in God there is neither universal nor particular; neither genus nor species, as we proved above (3, 5). Therefore this term 'person' is not common to the three.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 30 a. 4 s. c. </b>Sed contra est quod dicit Augustinus, VII de Trin., quod cum quaereretur, quid tres? Responsum est, tres personae; quia commune est eis id quod est persona. ||On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. vii, 4) that when we ask, "Three what?" we say, "Three persons," because what a person is, is common to them.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 30 a. 4 co. </b>Respondeo dicendum quod ipse modus loquendi ostendit hoc nomen persona tribus esse commune, cum dicimus tres personas, sicut cum dicimus tres homines, ostendimus hominem esse commune tribus. Manifestum est autem quod non est communitas rei, sicut una essentia communis est tribus, quia sic sequeretur unam esse personam trium, sicut essentia est una. Qualis autem sit communitas, investigantes diversimode locuti sunt. Quidam enim dixerunt quod est communitas negationis; propter hoc, quod in definitione personae ponitur incommunicabile. Quidam autem dixerunt quod est communitas intentionis, eo quod in definitione personae ponitur individuum; sicut si dicatur quod esse speciem est commune equo et bovi. Sed utrumque horum excluditur per hoc, quod hoc nomen persona non est nomen negationis neque intentionis, sed est nomen rei. Et ideo dicendum est quod etiam in rebus humanis hoc nomen persona est commune communitate rationis, non sicut genus vel species, sed sicut individuum vagum. Nomina enim generum vel specierum, ut homo vel animal, sunt imposita ad significandum ipsas naturas communes; non autem intentiones naturarum communium, quae significantur his nominibus genus vel species. Sed individuum vagum, ut aliquis homo, significat naturam communem cum determinato modo existendi qui competit singularibus, ut scilicet sit per se subsistens distinctum ab aliis. Sed in nomine singularis designati, significatur determinatum distinguens, sicut in nomine Socratis haec caro et hoc os. Hoc tamen interest, quod aliquis homo significat naturam, vel individuum ex parte naturae, cum modo existendi qui competit singularibus, hoc autem nomen persona non est impositum ad significandum individuum ex parte naturae, sed ad significandum rem subsistentem in tali natura. Hoc autem est commune secundum rationem omnibus personis divinis, ut unaquaeque earum subsistat in natura divina distincta ab aliis. Et sic hoc nomen persona, secundum rationem, est commune tribus personis divinis. ||I answer that, The very mode of expression itself shows that this term "person" is common to the three when we say "three persons"; for when we say "three men" we show that "man" is common to the three. Now it is clear that this is not community of a real thing, as if one essence were common to the three; otherwise there would be only one person of the three, as also one essence. What is meant by such a community has been variously determined by those who have examined the subject. Some have called it a community of exclusion, forasmuch as the definition of "person" contains the word "incommunicable." Others thought it to be a community of intention, as the definition of person contains the word "individual"; as we say that to be a "species" is common to horse and ox. Both of these explanations, however, are excluded by the fact that "person" is not a name of exclusion nor of intention, but the name of a reality. We must therefore resolve that even in human affairs this name "person" is common by a community of idea, not as genus or species, but as a vague individual thing. The names of genera and species, as man or animal, are given to signify the common natures themselves, but not the intentions of those common natures, signified by the terms "genus" or "species." The vague individual thing, as "some man," signifies the common nature with the determinate mode of existence of singular things--that is, something self-subsisting, as distinct from others. But the name of a designated singular thing signifies that which distinguishes the determinate thing; as the name Socrates signifies this flesh and this bone. But there is this difference--that the term "some man" signifies the nature, or the individual on the part of its nature, with the mode of existence of singular things; while this name "person" is not given to signify the individual on the part of the nature, but the subsistent reality in that nature. Now this is common in idea to the divine persons, that each of them subsists distinctly from the others in the divine nature. Thus this name "person" is common in idea to the three divine persons.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 30 a. 4 ad 1 </b>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ratio illa procedit de communitate rei. ||Reply to Objection 1. This argument is founded on a real community.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 30 a. 4 ad 2 </b>Ad secundum dicendum quod, licet persona sit incommunicabilis, tamen ipse modus existendi incommunicabiliter, potest esse pluribus communis. ||Reply to Objection 2. Although person is incommunicable, yet the mode itself of incommunicable existence can be common to many.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 30 a. 4 ad 3 </b>Ad tertium dicendum quod, licet sit communitas rationis et non rei tamen non sequitur quod in divinis sit universale et particulare, vel genus vel species. Tum quia neque in rebus humanis communitas personae est communitas generis vel speciei. Tum quia personae divinae habent unum esse, genus autem et species, et quodlibet universale, praedicatur de pluribus secundum esse differentibus. ||Reply to Objection 3. Although this community is logical and not real, yet it does not follow that in God there is universal or particular, or genus, or species; both because neither in human affairs is the community of person the same as community of genus or species; and because the divine persons have one being; whereas genus and species and every other universal are predicated of many which differ in being.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 31 pr. </b>Post haec considerandum est de his quae ad unitatem vel pluralitatem pertinent in divinis. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, de ipso nomine Trinitatis. Secundo, utrum possit dici, filius est alius a patre. Tertio, utrum dictio exclusiva, quae videtur alietatem excludere, possit adiungi nomini essentiali in divinis. Quarto, utrum possit adiungi termino personali. ||
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="q31a1"><b>IЄ q. 31 a. 1 arg. 1 </b>Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non sit Trinitas in divinis. Omne enim nomen in divinis vel significat substantiam, vel relationem. Sed hoc nomen Trinitas non significat substantiam, praedicaretur enim de singulis personis. Neque significat relationem, quia non dicitur secundum nomen ad aliud. Ergo nomine Trinitatis non est utendum in divinis. ||Objection 1. It would seem there is not trinity in God. For every name in God signifies substance or relation. But this name "Trinity" does not signify the substance; otherwise it would be predicated of each one of the persons: nor does it signify relation; for it does not express a name that refers to another. Therefore the word "Trinity" is not to be applied to God.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 31 a. 1 arg. 2 </b>Praeterea, hoc nomen Trinitas videtur esse nomen collectivum, cum significet multitudinem. Tale autem nomen non convenit in divinis, cum unitas importata per nomen collectivum sit minima unitas, in divinis autem est maxima unitas. Ergo hoc nomen Trinitas non convenit in divinis. ||Objection 2. Further, this word "trinity" is a collective term, since it signifies multitude. But such a word does not apply to God; as the unity of a collective name is the least of unities, whereas in God there exists the greatest possible unity. Therefore this word "trinity" does not apply to God.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 31 a. 1 arg. 3 </b>Praeterea, omne trinum est triplex. Sed in Deo non est triplicitas, cum triplicitas sit species inaequalitatis. Ergo nec Trinitas. ||Objection 3. Further, every trine is threefold. But in God there is not triplicity; since triplicity is a kind of inequality. Therefore neither is there trinity in God.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 31 a. 1 arg. 4 </b>Praeterea, quidquid est in Deo, est in unitate essentiae divinae, quia Deus est sua essentia. Si igitur Trinitas est in Deo, erit in unitate essentiae divinae. Et sic in Deo erunt tres essentiales unitates, quod est haereticum. ||Objection 4. Further, all that exists in God exists in the unity of the divine essence; because God is His own essence. Therefore, if Trinity exists in God, it exists in the unity of the divine essence; and thus in God there would be three essential unities; which is heresy.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 31 a. 1 arg. 5 </b>Praeterea, in omnibus quae dicuntur de Deo, concretum praedicatur de abstracto, deitas enim est Deus, et paternitas est pater. Sed Trinitas non potest dici trina, quia sic essent novem res in divinis, quod est erroneum. Ergo nomine Trinitatis non est utendum in divinis. ||Objection 5. Further, in all that is said of God, the concrete is predicated of the abstract; for Deity is God and paternity is the Father. But the Trinity cannot be called trine; otherwise there would be nine realities in God; which, of course, is erroneous. Therefore the word trinity is not to be applied to God.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 31 a. 1 s. c. </b>Sed contra est quod Athanasius dicit, quod unitas in Trinitate, et Trinitas in unitate veneranda sit. ||On the contrary, Athanasius says: "Unity in Trinity; and Trinity in Unity is to be revered."
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 31 a. 1 co. </b>Respondeo dicendum quod nomen Trinitatis in divinis significat determinatum numerum personarum. Sicut igitur ponitur pluralitas personarum in divinis, ita utendum est nomine Trinitatis, quia hoc idem quod significat pluralitas indeterminate, significat hoc nomen Trinitas determinate. ||I answer that, The name "Trinity" in God signifies the determinate number of persons. And so the plurality of persons in God requires that we should use the word trinity; because what is indeterminately signified by plurality, is signified by trinity in a determinate manner.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 31 a. 1 ad 1 </b>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod hoc nomen Trinitas, secundum etymologiam vocabuli, videtur significare unam essentiam trium personarum, secundum quod dicitur Trinitas quasi trium unitas. Sed secundum proprietatem vocabuli, significat magis numerum personarum unius essentiae. Et propter hoc non possumus dicere quod pater sit Trinitas, quia non est tres personae. Non autem significat ipsas relationes personarum, sed magis numerum personarum ad invicem relatarum. Et inde est quod, secundum nomen, ad aliud non refertur. ||Reply to Objection 1. In its etymological sense, this word "Trinity" seems to signify the one essence of the three persons, according as trinity may mean trine-unity. But in the strict meaning of the term it rather signifies the number of persons of one essence; and on this account we cannot say that the Father is the Trinity, as He is not three persons. Yet it does not mean the relations themselves of the Persons, but rather the number of persons related to each other; and hence it is that the word in itself does not express regard to another.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 31 a. 1 ad 2 </b>Ad secundum dicendum quod nomen collectivum duo importat, scilicet pluralitatem suppositorum, et unitatem quandam, scilicet ordinis alicuius, populus enim est multitudo hominum sub aliquo ordine comprehensorum. Quantum ergo ad primum, hoc nomen Trinitas convenit cum nominibus collectivis, sed quantum ad secundum differt, quia in divina Trinitate non solum est unitas ordinis, sed cum hoc est etiam unitas essentiae. ||Reply to Objection 2. Two things are implied in a collective term, plurality of the "supposita," and a unity of some kind of order. For "people" is a multitude of men comprehended under a certain order. In the first sense, this word "trinity" is like other collective words; but in the second sense it differs from them, because in the divine Trinity not only is there unity of order, but also with this there is unity of essence.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 31 a. 1 ad 3 </b>Ad tertium dicendum quod Trinitas absolute dicitur, significat enim numerum ternarium personarum. Sed triplicitas significat proportionem inaequalitatis, est enim species proportionis inaequalis, sicut patet per Boetium in arithmetica. Et ideo non est in Deo triplicitas, sed Trinitas. ||Reply to Objection 3. "Trinity" is taken in an absolute sense; for it signifies the threefold number of persons. "Triplicity" signifies a proportion of inequality; for it is a species of unequal proportion, according to Boethius (Arithm. i, 23). Therefore in God there is not triplicity, but Trinity.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 31 a. 1 ad 4 </b>Ad quartum dicendum quod in Trinitate divina intelligitur et numerus, et personae numeratae. Cum ergo dicimus Trinitatem in unitate, non ponimus numerum in unitate essentiae, quasi sit ter una, sed personas numeratas ponimus in unitate naturae, sicut supposita alicuius naturae dicuntur esse in natura illa. E converso autem dicimus unitatem in Trinitate, sicut natura dicitur esse in suis suppositis. ||Reply to Objection 4. In the divine Trinity is to be understood both number and the persons numbered. So when we say, "Trinity in Unity," we do not place number in the unity of the essence, as if we meant three times one; but we place the Persons numbered in the unity of nature; as the "supposita" of a nature are said to exist in that nature. On the other hand, we say "Unity in Trinity"; meaning that the nature is in its "supposita."
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 31 a. 1 ad 5 </b>Ad quintum dicendum quod, cum dicitur, Trinitas est trina, ratione numeri importati significatur multiplicatio eiusdem numeri in seipsum, cum hoc quod dico trinum, importet distinctionem in suppositis illius de quo dicitur. Et ideo non potest dici quod Trinitas sit trina, quia sequeretur, si Trinitas esset trina, quod tria essent supposita Trinitatis; sicut cum dicitur, Deus est trinus, sequitur quod sunt tria supposita deitatis. ||Reply to Objection 5. When we say, "Trinity is trine," by reason of the number implied, we signify the multiplication of that number by itself; since the word trine imports a distinction in the "supposita" of which it is spoken. Therefore it cannot be said that the Trinity is trine; otherwise it follows that, if the Trinity be trine, there would be three "supposita" of the Trinity; as when we say, "God is trine," it follows that there are three "supposita" of the Godhead.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="q31a2"><b>IЄ q. 31 a. 2 arg. 1 </b>Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod filius non sit alius a patre. Alius enim est relativum diversitatis substantiae. Si igitur filius est alius a patre, videtur quod sit a patre diversus. Quod est contra Augustinum, VII de Trin., ubi dicit quod, cum dicimus tres personas, non diversitatem intelligere volumus. ||Objection 1. It would seem that the Son is not other than the Father. For "other" is a relative term implying diversity of substance. If, then, the Son is other than the Father, He must be different from the Father; which is contrary to what Augustine says (De Trin. vii), that when we speak of three persons, "we do not mean to imply diversity."
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 31 a. 2 arg. 2 </b>Praeterea, quicumque sunt alii ab invicem, aliquo modo ab invicem differunt. Si igitur filius est alius a patre, sequitur quod sit differens a patre. Quod est contra Ambrosium, in I de fide, ubi ait, pater et filius deitate unum sunt, nec est ibi substantiae differentia, neque ulla diversitas. ||Objection 2. Further, whosoever are other from one another, differ in some way from one another. Therefore, if the Son is other than the Father, it follows that He differs from the Father; which is against what Ambrose says (De Fide i), that "the Father and the Son are one in Godhead; nor is there any difference in substance between them, nor any diversity."
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 31 a. 2 arg. 3 </b>Praeterea, ab alio alienum dicitur. Sed filius non est alienus a patre, dicit enim Hilarius, in VII de Trin., quod in divinis personis nihil est diversum, nihil alienum, nihil separabile. Ergo filius non est alius a patre. ||Objection 3. Further, the term alien is taken from "alius" [other]. But the Son is not alien from the Father, for Hilary says (De Trin. vii) that "in the divine persons there is nothing diverse, nothing alien, nothing separable." Therefore the Son is not other that the Father.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 31 a. 2 arg. 4 </b>Praeterea, alius et aliud idem significant, sed sola generis consignificatione differunt. Si ergo filius est alius a patre, videtur sequi quod filius sit aliud a patre. ||Objection 4. Further, the terms "other person" and "other thing" [alius et aliud] have the same meaning, differing only in gender. So if the Son is another person from the Father, it follows that the Son is a thing apart from the Father.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 31 a. 2 s. c. </b>Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in libro de fide ad Petrum, una est enim essentia patris et filii et spiritus sancti, in qua non est aliud pater, aliud filius, aliud spiritus sanctus; quamvis personaliter sit alius pater, alius filius, alius spiritus sanctus. ||On the contrary, Augustine [Fulgentius, De Fide ad Petrum i.] says: "There is one essence of the Father and Son and Holy Ghost, in which the Father is not one thing, the Son another, and the Holy Ghost another; although the Father is one person, the Son another, and the Holy Ghost another."
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 31 a. 2 co. </b>Respondeo dicendum quod, quia ex verbis inordinate prolatis incurritur haeresis, ut Hieronymus dicit, ideo cum de Trinitate loquimur, cum cautela et modestia est agendum, quia, ut Augustinus dicit, in I de Trin., nec periculosius alicubi erratur, nec laboriosius aliquid quaeritur, nec fructuosius aliquid invenitur. Oportet autem in his quae de Trinitate loquimur, duos errores oppositos cavere, temperate inter utrumque procedentes, scilicet errorem Arii, qui posuit cum Trinitate personarum Trinitatem substantiarum; et errorem Sabellii, qui posuit cum unitate essentiae unitatem personae. Ad evitandum igitur errorem Arii, vitare debemus in divinis nomen diversitatis et differentiae, ne tollatur unitas essentiae, possumus autem uti nomine distinctionis, propter oppositionem relativam. Unde sicubi in aliqua Scriptura authentica diversitas vel differentia personarum invenitur, sumitur diversitas vel differentia pro distinctione. Ne autem tollatur simplicitas divinae essentiae, vitandum est nomen separationis et divisionis, quae est totius in partes. Ne autem tollatur aequalitas, vitandum est nomen disparitatis. Ne vero tollatur similitudo, vitandum est nomen alieni et discrepantis, dicit enim Ambrosius, in libro de fide, quod in patre et filio non est discrepans, sed una divinitas, et secundum Hilarium, ut dictum est, in divinis nihil est alienum, nihil separabile. Ad vitandum vero errorem Sabellii, vitare debemus singularitatem, ne tollatur communicabilitas essentiae divinae, unde Hilarius dicit, VII de Trin., patrem et filium singularem Deum praedicare, sacrilegum est. Debemus etiam vitare nomen unici, ne tollatur numerus personarum, unde Hilarius in eodem libro dicit quod a Deo excluditur singularis atque unici intelligentia. Dicimus tamen unicum filium, quia non sunt plures filii in divinis. Neque tamen dicimus unicum Deum, quia pluribus deitas est communis vitamus etiam nomen confusi, ne tollatur ordo naturae a personis, unde Ambrosius dicit, I de fide, neque confusum est quod unum est, neque multiplex esse potest quod indifferens est. Vitandum est etiam nomen solitarii, ne tollatur consortium trium personarum, dicit enim Hilarius, in IV de Trin., nobis neque solitarius, neque diversus Deus est confitendus. Hoc autem nomen alius, masculine sumptum, non importat nisi distinctionem suppositi. Unde convenienter dicere possumus quod filius est alius a patre, quia scilicet est aliud suppositum divinae naturae, sicut est alia persona, et alia hypostasis. ||I answer that, Since as Jerome remarks [In substance, Ep. lvii.], a heresy arises from words wrongly used, when we speak of the Trinity we must proceed with care and with befitting modesty; because, as Augustine says (De Trin. i, 3), "nowhere is error more harmful, the quest more toilsome, the finding more fruitful." Now, in treating of the Trinity, we must beware of two opposite errors, and proceed cautiously between them--namely, the error of Arius, who placed a Trinity of substance with the Trinity of persons; and the error of Sabellius, who placed unity of person with the unity of essence. Thus, to avoid the error of Arius we must shun the use of the terms diversity and difference in God, lest we take away the unity of essence: we may, however, use the term "distinction" on account of the relative opposition. Hence whenever we find terms of "diversity" or "difference" of Persons used in an authentic work, these terms of "diversity" or "difference" are taken to mean "distinction." But lest the simplicity and singleness of the divine essence be taken away, the terms "separation" and "division," which belong to the parts of a whole, are to be avoided: and lest quality be taken away, we avoid the use of the term "disparity": and lest we remove similitude, we avoid the terms "alien" and "discrepant." For Ambrose says (De Fide i) that "in the Father and the Son there is no discrepancy, but one Godhead": and according to Hilary, as quoted above, "in God there is nothing alien, nothing separable." To avoid the heresy of Sabellius, we must shun the term "singularity," lest we take away the communicability of the divine essence. Hence Hilary says (De Trin. vii): "It is sacrilege to assert that the Father and the Son are separate in Godhead." We must avoid the adjective "only" [unici] lest we take away the number of persons. Hence Hilary says in the same book: "We exclude from God the idea of singularity or uniqueness." Nevertheless, we say "the only Son," for in God there is no plurality of Sons. Yet, we do not say "the only God," for the Deity is common to several. We avoid the word "confused," lest we take away from the Persons the order of their nature. Hence Ambrose says (De Fide i): "What is one is not confused; and there is no multiplicity where there is no difference." The word "solitary" is also to be avoided, lest we take away the society of the three persons; for, as Hilary says (De Trin. iv), "We confess neither a solitary nor a diverse God." This word "other" [alius], however, in the masculine sense, means only a distinction of "suppositum"; and hence we can properly say that "the Son is other than the Father," because He is another "suppositum" of the divine nature, as He is another person and another hypostasis.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 31 a. 2 ad 1 </b>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod alius, quia est sicut quoddam particulare nomen, tenet se ex parte suppositi, unde ad eius rationem sufficit distinctio substantiae quae est hypostasis vel persona. Sed diversitas requirit distinctionem substantiae quae est essentia. Et ideo non possumus dicere quod filius sit diversus a patre, licet sit alius. ||Reply to Objection 1. "Other," being like the name of a particular thing, refers to the "suppositum"; and so, there is sufficient reason for using it, where there is a distinct substance in the sense of hypostasis or person. But diversity requires a distinct substance in the sense of essence. Thus we cannot say that the Son is diverse from the Father, although He is another.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 31 a. 2 ad 2 </b>Ad secundum dicendum quod differentia importat distinctionem formae. Est autem tantum una forma in divinis, ut patet per id quod dicitur Philip. II, qui cum in forma Dei esset. Et ideo nomen differentis non proprie competit in divinis, ut patet per auctoritatem inductam. Utitur tamen Damascenus nomine differentiae in divinis personis, secundum quod proprietas relativa significatur per modum formae, unde dicit quod non differunt ab invicem hypostases secundum substantiam, sed secundum determinatas proprietates. Sed differentia sumitur pro distinctione, ut dictum est. ||Reply to Objection 2. "Difference" implies distinction of form. There is one form in God, as appears from the text, "Who, when He was in the form of God" (Phil. 2:6). Therefore the term "difference" does not properly apply to God, as appears from the authority quoted. Yet, Damascene (De Fide Orth. i, 5) employs the term "difference" in the divine persons, as meaning that the relative property is signified by way of form. Hence he says that the hypostases do not differ from each other in substance, but according to determinate properties. But "difference" is taken for "distinction," as above stated.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 31 a. 2 ad 3 </b>Ad tertium dicendum quod alienum est quod est extraneum et dissimile. Sed hoc non importatur cum dicitur alius. Et ideo dicimus filium alium a patre, licet non dicamus alienum. ||Reply to Objection 3. The term "alien" means what is extraneous and dissimilar; which is not expressed by the term "other" [alius]; and therefore we say that the Son is "other" than the Father, but not that He is anything "alien."
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 31 a. 2 ad 4 </b>Ad quartum dicendum quod neutrum genus est informe, masculinum autem est formatum et distinctum, et similiter femininum. Et ideo convenienter per neutrum genus significatur essentia communis, per masculinum autem et femininum, aliquod suppositum determinatum in communi natura. Unde etiam in rebus humanis, si quaeratur, quis est iste? Respondetur, Socrates, quod nomen est suppositi, si autem quaeratur, quid est iste? Respondetur, animal rationale et mortale. Et ideo, quia in divinis distinctio est secundum personas, non autem secundum essentiam, dicimus quod pater est alius a filio, sed non aliud, et e converso dicimus quod sunt unum, sed non unus. ||Reply to Objection 4. The neuter gender is formless; whereas the masculine is formed and distinct; and so is the feminine. So the common essence is properly and aptly expressed by the neuter gender, but by the masculine and feminine is expressed the determined subject in the common nature. Hence also in human affairs, if we ask, Who is this man? we answer, Socrates, which is the name of the "suppositum"; whereas, if we ask, What is he? we reply, A rational and mortal animal. So, because in God distinction is by the persons, and not by the essence, we say that the Father is other than the Son, but not something else; while conversely we say that they are one thing, but not one person.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="q31a3"><b>IЄ q. 31 a. 3 arg. 1 </b>Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod dictio exclusiva solus non sit addenda termino essentiali in divinis. Quia secundum philosophum, in II Elench., solus est qui cum alio non est. Sed Deus est cum Angelis et sanctis animabus. Ergo non possumus dicere Deum solum. ||Objection 1. It would seem that the exclusive word "alone" [solus] is not to be added to an essential term in God. For, according to the Philosopher (Elench. ii, 3), "He is alone who is not with another." But God is with the angels and the souls of the saints. Therefore we cannot say that God is alone.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 31 a. 3 arg. 2 </b>Praeterea, quidquid adiungitur termino essentiali in divinis, potest praedicari de qualibet persona per se, et de omnibus simul, quia enim convenienter dicitur sapiens Deus, possumus dicere, pater est sapiens Deus, et Trinitas est sapiens Deus. Sed Augustinus, in VI de Trin., dicit, consideranda est illa sententia, qua dicitur non esse patrem verum Deum solum. Ergo non potest dici solus Deus. ||Objection 2. Further, whatever is joined to the essential term in God can be predicated of every person "per se," and of all the persons together; for, as we can properly say that God is wise, we can say the Father is a wise God; and the Trinity is a wise God. But Augustine says (De Trin. vi, 9): "We must consider the opinion that the Father is not true God alone." Therefore God cannot be said to be alone.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 31 a. 3 arg. 3 </b>Praeterea, si haec dictio solus adiungitur termino essentiali, aut hoc erit respectu praedicati personalis, aut respectu praedicati essentialis. Sed non respectu praedicati personalis, quia haec est falsa, solus Deus est pater, cum etiam homo sit pater. Neque etiam respectu praedicati essentialis. Quia si haec esset vera, solus Deus creat, videtur sequi quod haec esset vera, solus pater creat, quia quidquid dicitur de Deo, potest dici de patre. Haec autem est falsa, quia etiam filius est creator. Non ergo haec dictio solus potest in divinis adiungi termino essentiali. ||Objection 3. Further if this expression "alone" is joined to an essential term, it would be so joined as regards either the personal predicate or the essential predicate. But it cannot be the former, as it is false to say, "God alone is Father," since man also is a father; nor, again, can it be applied as regards the latter, for, if this saying were true, "God alone creates," it would follow that the "Father alone creates," as whatever is said of God can be said of the Father; and it would be false, as the Son also creates. Therefore this expression "alone" cannot be joined to an essential term in God.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 31 a. 3 s. c. </b>Sed contra est quod dicitur I ad Tim. I, regi saeculorum immortali, invisibili, soli Deo. ||On the contrary, It is said, "To the King of ages, immortal, invisible, the only God" (1 Tim. 1:17).
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 31 a. 3 co. </b>Respondeo dicendum quod haec dictio solus potest accipi ut categorematica vel syncategorematica. Dicitur autem dictio categorematica, quae absolute ponit rem significatam circa aliquod suppositum; ut albus circa hominem, cum dicitur homo albus. Si ergo sic accipiatur haec dictio solus, nullo modo potest adiungi alicui termino in divinis, quia poneret solitudinem circa terminum cui adiungeretur, et sic sequeretur Deum esse solitarium; quod est contra praedicta. Dictio vero syncategorematica dicitur, quae importat ordinem praedicati ad subiectum, sicut haec dictio omnis, vel nullus. Et similiter haec dictio solus, quia excludit omne aliud suppositum a consortio praedicati. Sicut, cum dicitur, solus Socrates scribit, non datur intelligi quod Socrates sit solitarius; sed quod nullus sit ei consors in scribendo, quamvis cum eo multis existentibus. Et per hunc modum nihil prohibet hanc dictionem solus adiungere alicui essentiali termino in divinis, inquantum excluduntur omnia alia a Deo a consortio praedicati, ut si dicamus, solus Deus est aeternus, quia nihil praeter Deum est aeternum. ||I answer that, This term "alone" can be taken as a categorematical term, or as a syncategorematical term. A categorematical term is one which ascribes absolutely its meaning to a given "suppositum"; as, for instance, "white" to man, as when we say a "white man." If the term "alone" is taken in this sense, it cannot in any way be joined to any term in God; for it would mean solitude in the term to which it is joined; and it would follow that God was solitary, against what is above stated (2). A syncategorematical term imports the order of the predicate to the subject; as this expression "every one" or "no one"; and likewise the term "alone," as excluding every other "suppositum" from the predicate. Thus, when we say, "Socrates alone writes," we do not mean that Socrates is solitary, but that he has no companion in writing, though many others may be with him. In this way nothing prevents the term "alone" being joined to any essential term in God, as excluding the predicate from all things but God; as if we said "God alone is eternal," because nothing but God is eternal.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 31 a. 3 ad 1 </b>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, licet Angeli et animae sanctae semper sint cum Deo, tamen, si non esset pluralitas personarum in divinis, sequeretur, quod Deus esset solus vel solitarius. Non enim tollitur solitudo per associationem alicuius quod est extraneae naturae, dicitur enim aliquis solus esse in horto, quamvis sint ibi multae plantae et animalia. Et similiter diceretur Deus esse solus vel solitarius, Angelis et hominibus cum eo existentibus, si non essent in divinis personae plures. Consociatio igitur Angelorum et animarum non excludit solitudinem absolutam a divinis, et multo minus solitudinem respectivam, per comparationem ad aliquod praedicatum. ||Reply to Objection 1. Although the angels and the souls of the saints are always with God, nevertheless, if plurality of persons did not exist in God, He would be alone or solitary. For solitude is not removed by association with anything that is extraneous in nature; thus anyone is said to be alone in a garden, though many plants and animals are with him in the garden. Likewise, God would be alone or solitary, though angels and men were with Him, supposing that several persons were not within Him. Therefore the society of angels and of souls does not take away absolute solitude from God; much less does it remove respective solitude, in reference to a predicate.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 31 a. 3 ad 2 </b>Ad secundum dicendum quod haec dictio solus, proprie loquendo, non ponitur ex parte praedicati, quod sumitur formaliter, respicit enim suppositum, inquantum excludit aliud suppositum ab eo cui adiungitur. Sed hoc adverbium tantum, cum sit exclusivum, potest poni ex parte subiecti, et ex parte praedicati, possumus enim dicere, tantum Socrates currit, idest nullus alius; et, Socrates currit tantum, idest nihil aliud facit. Unde non proprie dici potest, pater est solus Deus, vel, Trinitas est solus Deus, nisi forte ex parte praedicati intelligatur aliqua implicatio, ut dicatur, Trinitas est Deus qui est solus Deus. Et secundum hoc etiam posset esse vera ista, pater est Deus qui est solus Deus, si relativum referret praedicatum, et non suppositum. Augustinus autem, cum dicit patrem non esse solum Deum, sed Trinitatem esse solum Deum, loquitur expositive, ac si diceret, cum dicitur, regi saeculorum, invisibili, soli Deo, non est exponendum de persona patris, sed de sola Trinitate. ||Reply to Objection 2. This expression "alone," properly speaking, does not affect the predicate, which is taken formally, for it refers to the "suppositum," as excluding any other suppositum from the one which it qualifies. But the adverb "only," being exclusive, can be applied either to subject or predicate. For we can say, "Only Socrates"--that is, no one else--"runs: and Socrates runs only"--that is, he does nothing else. Hence it is not properly said that the Father is God alone, or the Trinity is God alone, unless some implied meaning be assumed in the predicate, as, for instance, "The Trinity is God Who alone is God." In that sense it can be true to say that the Father is that God Who alone is God, if the relative be referred to the predicate, and not to the "suppositum." So, when Augustine says that the Father is not God alone, but that the Trinity is God alone, he speaks expositively, as he might explain the words, "To the King of ages, invisible, the only God," as applying not to the Father, but to the Trinity alone.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 31 a. 3 ad 3 </b>Ad tertium dicendum quod utroque modo potest haec dictio solus adiungi termino essentiali. Haec enim propositio, solus Deus est pater, est duplex. Quia ly pater potest praedicare personam patris, et sic est vera, non enim homo est illa persona. Vel potest praedicare relationem tantum, et sic est falsa, quia relatio paternitatis etiam in aliis invenitur, licet non univoce. Similiter haec est vera, solus Deus creat. Nec tamen sequitur, ergo solus pater, quia, ut sophistae dicunt, dictio exclusiva immobilitat terminum cui adiungitur, ut non possit fieri sub eo descensus pro aliquo suppositorum; non enim sequitur, solus homo est animal rationale mortale, ergo solus Socrates. ||Reply to Objection 3. In both ways can the term "alone" be joined to an essential term. For this proposition, "God alone is Father," can mean two things, because the word "Father" can signify the person of the Father; and then it is true; for no man is that person: or it can signify that relation only; and thus it is false, because the relation of paternity is found also in others, though not in a univocal sense. Likewise it is true to say God alone creates; nor, does it follow, "therefore the Father alone creates," because, as logicians say, an exclusive diction so fixes the term to which it is joined that what is said exclusively of that term cannot be said exclusively of an individual contained in that term: for instance, from the premiss, "Man alone is a mortal rational animal," we cannot conclude, "therefore Socrates alone is such."
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="q31a4"><b>IЄ q. 31 a. 4 arg. 1 </b>Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod dictio exclusiva possit adiungi termino personali, etiam si praedicatum sit commune. Dicit enim dominus, ad patrem loquens, Ioan. XVII, ut cognoscant te, solum Deum verum. Ergo solus pater est Deus verus. ||Objection 1. It would seem that an exclusive diction can be joined to the personal term, even though the predicate is common. For our Lord speaking to the Father, said: "That they may know Thee, the only true God" (Jn. 17:3). Therefore the Father alone is true God.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 31 a. 4 arg. 2 </b>Praeterea, Matth. XI dicitur, nemo novit filium nisi pater; quod idem significat ac si diceretur, solus pater novit filium. Sed nosse filium est commune. Ergo idem quod prius. ||Objection 2. Further, He said: "No one knows the Son but the Father" (Mt. 11:27); which means that the Father alone knows the Son. But to know the Son is common (to the persons). Therefore the same conclusion follows.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 31 a. 4 arg. 3 </b>Praeterea, dictio exclusiva non excludit illud quod est de intellectu termini cui adiungitur, unde non excludit partem, neque universale, non enim sequitur, solus Socrates est albus, ergo manus eius non est alba; vel, ergo homo non est albus. Sed una persona est in intellectu alterius, sicut pater in intellectu filii, et e converso. Non ergo per hoc quod dicitur, solus pater est Deus, excluditur filius vel spiritus sanctus. Et sic videtur haec locutio esse vera. ||Objection 3. Further, an exclusive diction does not exclude what enters into the concept of the term to which it is joined. Hence it does not exclude the part, nor the universal; for it does not follow that if we say "Socrates alone is white," that therefore "his hand is not white," or that "man is not white." But one person is in the concept of another; as the Father is in the concept of the Son; and conversely. Therefore, when we say, The Father alone is God, we do not exclude the Son, nor the Holy Ghost; so that such a mode of speaking is true.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 31 a. 4 arg. 4 </b>Praeterea, ab Ecclesia cantatur, tu solus altissimus, Iesu Christe. ||Objection 4. Further, the Church sings: "Thou alone art Most High, O Jesus Christ."
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 31 a. 4 s. c. </b>Sed contra, haec locutio, solus pater est Deus, habet duas expositivas, scilicet, pater est Deus, et, nullus alius a patre est Deus. Sed haec secunda est falsa, quia filius alius est a patre, qui est Deus. Ergo et haec est falsa, solus pater est Deus. Et sic de similibus. ||On the contrary, This proposition "The Father alone is God" includes two assertions--namely, that the Father is God, and that no other besides the Father is God. But this second proposition is false, for the Son is another from the Father, and He is God. Therefore this is false, The Father alone is God; and the same of the like sayings.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 31 a. 4 co. </b>Respondeo dicendum quod, cum dicimus, solus pater est Deus, haec propositio potest habere multiplicem intellectum. Si enim solus ponat solitudinem circa patrem, sic est falsa, secundum quod sumitur categorematice. Secundum vero quod sumitur syncategorematice, sic iterum potest intelligi multipliciter. Quia si excludat a forma subiecti, sic est vera, ut sit sensus, solus pater est Deus, idest, ille cum quo nullus alius est pater, est Deus. Et hoc modo exponit Augustinus, in VI de Trin., cum dicit, solum patrem dicimus, non quia separatur a filio vel spiritu sancto; sed hoc dicentes, significamus quod illi simul cum eo non sunt pater. Sed hic sensus non habetur ex consueto modo loquendi, nisi intellecta aliqua implicatione, ut si dicatur, ille qui solus dicitur pater, est Deus. Secundum vero proprium sensum, excludit a consortio praedicati. Et sic haec propositio est falsa, si excludit alium masculine, est autem vera, si excludit aliud neutraliter tantum, quia filius est alius a patre, non tamen aliud; similiter et spiritus sanctus. Sed quia haec dictio solus respicit proprie subiectum, ut dictum est, magis se habet ad excludendum alium quam aliud. Unde non est extendenda talis locutio; sed pie exponenda, sicubi inveniatur in authentica Scriptura. ||I answer that, When we say, "The Father alone is God," such a proposition can be taken in several senses. If "alone" means solitude in the Father, it is false in a categorematical sense; but if taken in a syncategorematical sense it can again be understood in several ways. For if it exclude (all others) from the form of the subject, it is true, the sense being "the Father alone is God"--that is, "He who with no other is the Father, is God." In this way Augustine expounds when he says (De Trin. vi, 6): "We say the Father alone, not because He is separate from the Son, or from the Holy Ghost, but because they are not the Father together with Him." This, however, is not the usual way of speaking, unless we understand another implication, as though we said "He who alone is called the Father is God." But in the strict sense the exclusion affects the predicate. And thus the proposition is false if it excludes another in the masculine sense; but true if it excludes it in the neuter sense; because the Son is another person than the Father, but not another thing; and the same applies to the Holy Ghost. But because this diction "alone," properly speaking, refers to the subject, it tends to exclude another Person rather than other things. Hence such a way of speaking is not to be taken too literally, but it should be piously expounded, whenever we find it in an authentic work.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 31 a. 4 ad 1 </b>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, cum dicimus, te solum Deum verum, non intelligitur de persona patris, sed de tota Trinitate, ut Augustinus exponit. Vel, si intelligatur de persona patris, non excluduntur aliae personae, propter essentiae unitatem, prout ly solus excludit tantum aliud, ut dictum est. ||Reply to Objection 1. When we say, "Thee the only true God," we do not understand it as referring to the person of the Father, but to the whole Trinity, as Augustine expounds (De Trin. vi, 9). Or, if understood of the person of the Father, the other persons are not excluded by reason of the unity of essence; in so far as the word "only" excludes another thing, as above explained.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 31 a. 4 ad 2 </b>Et similiter dicendum est ad secundum. Cum enim aliquid essentiale dicitur de patre, non excluditur filius vel spiritus sanctus, propter essentiae unitatem. Tamen sciendum est quod in auctoritate praedicta, haec dictio nemo non idem est quod nullus homo, quod videtur significare vocabulum (non enim posset excipi persona patris), sed sumitur, secundum usum loquendi, distributive pro quacumque rationali natura. ||The same Reply can be given to Objection 2. For an essential term applied to the Father does not exclude the Son or the Holy Ghost, by reason of the unity of essence. Hence we must understand that in the text quoted the term "no one" [Nemo = non-homo, i.e. no man] is not the same as "no man," which the word itself would seem to signify (for the person of the Father could not be excepted), but is taken according to the usual way of speaking in a distributive sense, to mean any rational nature.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 31 a. 4 ad 3 </b>Ad tertium dicendum quod dictio exclusiva non excludit illa quae sunt de intellectu termini cui adiungitur, si non differunt secundum suppositum, ut pars et universale. Sed filius differt supposito a patre, et ideo non est similis ratio. ||Reply to Objection 3. The exclusive diction does not exclude what enters into the concept of the term to which it is adjoined, if they do not differ in "suppositum," as part and universal. But the Son differs in "suppositum" from the Father; and so there is no parity.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 31 a. 4 ad 4 </b>Ad quartum dicendum quod non dicimus absolute quod solus filius sit altissimus, sed quod solus sit altissimus cum spiritu sancto, in gloria Dei patris. ||Reply to Objection 4. We do not say absolutely that the Son alone is Most High; but that He alone is Most High "with the Holy Ghost, in the glory of God the Father."
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 32 pr. </b>Consequenter inquirendum est de cognitione divinarum personarum. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, utrum per rationem naturalem possint cognosci divinae personae. Secundo, utrum sint aliquae notiones divinis personis attribuendae. Tertio, de numero notionum. Quarto, utrum liceat diversimode circa notiones opinari. ||
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="q32a1"><b>IЄ q. 32 a. 1 arg. 1 </b>Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Trinitas divinarum personarum possit per naturalem rationem cognosci. Philosophi enim non devenerunt in Dei cognitionem nisi per rationem naturalem, inveniuntur autem a philosophis multa dicta de Trinitate personarum. Dicit enim Aristoteles, in I de caelo et mundo, per hunc numerum, scilicet ternarium, adhibuimus nos ipsos magnificare Deum unum, eminentem proprietatibus eorum quae sunt creata. Augustinus etiam dicit, VII Confes., ibi legi, scilicet in libris Platonicorum, non quidem his verbis, sed hoc idem omnino, multis et multiplicibus suaderi rationibus, quod in principio erat verbum, et verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat verbum, et huiusmodi quae ibi sequuntur, in quibus verbis distinctio divinarum personarum traditur. Dicitur etiam in Glossa Rom. I, et Exod. VIII, quod magi Pharaonis defecerunt in tertio signo, idest in notitia tertiae personae, scilicet spiritus sancti, et sic ad minus duas cognoverunt. Trismegistus etiam dixit, monas genuit monadem, et in se suum reflexit ardorem, per quod videtur generatio filii, et spiritus sancti processio intimari. Cognitio ergo divinarum personarum potest per rationem naturalem haberi. ||Objection 1. It would seem that the trinity of the divine persons can be known by natural reason. For philosophers came to the knowledge of God not otherwise than by natural reason. Now we find that they said many things about the trinity of persons, for Aristotle says (De Coelo et Mundo i, 2): "Through this number"--namely, three--"we bring ourselves to acknowledge the greatness of one God, surpassing all things created." And Augustine says (Confess. vii, 9): "I have read in their works, not in so many words, but enforced by many and various reasons, that in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God," and so on; in which passage the distinction of persons is laid down. We read, moreover, in a gloss on Rm. 1 and Ex. 8 that the magicians of Pharaoh failed in the third sign--that is, as regards knowledge of a third person--i.e. of the Holy Ghost --and thus it is clear that they knew at least two persons. Likewise Trismegistus says: "The monad begot a monad, and reflected upon itself its own heat." By which words the generation of the Son and procession of the Holy Ghost seem to be indicated. Therefore knowledge of the divine persons can be obtained by natural reason.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 32 a. 1 arg. 2 </b>Praeterea, Ricardus de sancto Victore dicit, in libro de Trin., credo sine dubio quod ad quamcumque explanationem veritatis, non modo probabilia, imo etiam necessaria argumenta non desint. Unde etiam ad probandum Trinitatem personarum, aliqui induxerunt rationem ex infinitate bonitatis divinae, quae seipsam infinite communicat in processione divinarum personarum. Quidam vero per hoc, quod nullius boni sine consortio potest esse iucunda possessio. Augustinus vero procedit ad manifestandum Trinitatem personarum, ex processione verbi et amoris in mente nostra, quam viam supra secuti sumus. Ergo per rationem naturalem potest cognosci Trinitas personarum. ||Objection 2. Further, Richard St. Victor says (De Trin. i, 4): "I believe without doubt that probable and even necessary arguments can be found for any explanation of the truth." So even to prove the Trinity some have brought forward a reason from the infinite goodness of God, who communicates Himself infinitely in the procession of the divine persons; while some are moved by the consideration that "no good thing can be joyfully possessed without partnership." Augustine proceeds (De Trin. x, 4; x, 11,12) to prove the trinity of persons by the procession of the word and of love in our own mind; and we have followed him in this (27, 1 and 3). Therefore the trinity of persons can be known by natural reason.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 32 a. 1 arg. 3 </b>Praeterea, superfluum videtur homini tradere quod humana ratione cognosci non potest. Sed non est dicendum quod traditio divina de cognitione Trinitatis sit superflua. Ergo Trinitas personarum ratione humana cognosci potest. ||Objection 3. Further, it seems to be superfluous to teach what cannot be known by natural reason. But it ought not to be said that the divine tradition of the Trinity is superfluous. Therefore the trinity of persons can be known by natural reason.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 32 a. 1 s. c. </b>Sed contra est quod Hilarius dicit, in libro II de Trin., non putet homo sua intelligentia generationis sacramentum posse consequi. Ambrosius etiam dicit, impossibile est generationis scire secretum, mens deficit, vox silet. Sed per originem generationis et processionis distinguitur Trinitas in personis divinis, ut ex supra dictis patet. Cum ergo illud homo non possit scire et intelligentia consequi, ad quod ratio necessaria haberi non potest, sequitur quod Trinitas personarum per rationem cognosci non possit. ||On the contrary, Hilary says (De Trin. i), "Let no man think to reach the sacred mystery of generation by his own mind." And Ambrose says (De Fide ii, 5), "It is impossible to know the secret of generation. The mind fails, the voice is silent." But the trinity of the divine persons is distinguished by origin of generation and procession (30, 2). Since, therefore, man cannot know, and with his understanding grasp that for which no necessary reason can be given, it follows that the trinity of persons cannot be known by reason.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 32 a. 1 co. </b>Respondeo dicendum quod impossibile est per rationem naturalem ad cognitionem Trinitatis divinarum personarum pervenire. Ostensum est enim supra quod homo per rationem naturalem in cognitionem Dei pervenire non potest nisi ex creaturis. Creaturae autem ducunt in Dei cognitionem, sicut effectus in causam. Hoc igitur solum ratione naturali de Deo cognosci potest, quod competere ei necesse est secundum quod est omnium entium principium, et hoc fundamento usi sumus supra in consideratione Dei. Virtus autem creativa Dei est communis toti Trinitati, unde pertinet ad unitatem essentiae, non ad distinctionem personarum. Per rationem igitur naturalem cognosci possunt de Deo ea quae pertinent ad unitatem essentiae, non autem ea quae pertinent ad distinctionem personarum. Qui autem probare nititur Trinitatem personarum naturali ratione, fidei dupliciter derogat. Primo quidem, quantum ad dignitatem ipsius fidei, quae est ut sit de rebus invisibilibus, quae rationem humanam excedunt. Unde apostolus dicit, ad Heb. XI, quod fides est de non apparentibus. Et apostolus dicit, I Cor. II, sapientiam loquimur inter perfectos, sapientiam vero non huius saeculi, neque principum huius saeculi; sed loquimur Dei sapientiam in mysterio, quae abscondita est. Secundo, quantum ad utilitatem trahendi alios ad fidem. Cum enim aliquis ad probandam fidem inducit rationes quae non sunt cogentes, cedit in irrisionem infidelium, credunt enim quod huiusmodi rationibus innitamur, et propter eas credamus. Quae igitur fidei sunt, non sunt tentanda probare nisi per auctoritates, his qui auctoritates suscipiunt. Apud alios vero, sufficit defendere non esse impossibile quod praedicat fides. Unde Dionysius dicit, II cap. de Div. Nom., si aliquis est qui totaliter eloquiis resistit, longe erit a nostra philosophia; si autem ad veritatem eloquiorum, scilicet sacrorum, respicit, hoc et nos canone utimur. ||I answer that, It is impossible to attain to the knowledge of the Trinity by natural reason. For, as above explained (12, 4, 12), man cannot obtain the knowledge of God by natural reason except from creatures. Now creatures lead us to the knowledge of God, as effects do to their cause. Accordingly, by natural reason we can know of God that only which of necessity belongs to Him as the principle of things, and we have cited this fundamental principle in treating of God as above (12, 12). Now, the creative power of God is common to the whole Trinity; and hence it belongs to the unity of the essence, and not to the distinction of the persons. Therefore, by natural reason we can know what belongs to the unity of the essence, but not what belongs to the distinction of the persons. Whoever, then, tries to prove the trinity of persons by natural reason, derogates from faith in two ways. Firstly, as regards the dignity of faith itself, which consists in its being concerned with invisible things, that exceed human reason; wherefore the Apostle says that "faith is of things that appear not" (Heb. 11:1), and the same Apostle says also, "We speak wisdom among the perfect, but not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world; but we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery which is hidden" (1 Cor. 2:6,7). Secondly, as regards the utility of drawing others to the faith. For when anyone in the endeavor to prove the faith brings forward reasons which are not cogent, he falls under the ridicule of the unbelievers: since they suppose that we stand upon such reasons, and that we believe on such grounds. Therefore, we must not attempt to prove what is of faith, except by authority alone, to those who receive the authority; while as regards others it suffices to prove that what faith teaches is not impossible. Hence it is said by Dionysius (Div. Nom. ii): "Whoever wholly resists the word, is far off from our philosophy; whereas if he regards the truth of the word"--i.e. "the sacred word, we too follow this rule."
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 32 a. 1 ad 1 </b>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod philosophi non cognoverunt mysterium Trinitatis divinarum personarum per propria, quae sunt paternitas, filiatio et processio; secundum illud apostoli, I ad Cor. II, loquimur Dei sapientiam, quam nemo principum huius saeculi cognovit, idest philosophorum, secundum Glossam. Cognoverunt tamen quaedam essentialia attributa quae appropriantur personis, sicut potentia patri, sapientia filio, bonitas spiritui sancto, ut infra patebit. Quod ergo Aristoteles dicit, per hunc numerum adhibuimus nos ipsos etc., non est sic intelligendum, quod ipse poneret ternarium numerum in divinis, sed vult dicere quod antiqui utebantur ternario numero in sacrificiis et orationibus, propter quandam ternarii numeri perfectionem. In libris etiam Platonicorum invenitur in principio erat verum, non secundum quod verbum significat personam genitam in divinis, sed secundum quod per verbum intelligitur ratio idealis, per quam Deus omnia condidit, quae filio appropriatur. Et licet appropriata tribus personis cognoscerent, dicuntur tamen in tertio signo defecisse, idest in cognitione tertiae personae, quia a bonitate, quae spiritui sancto appropriatur, deviaverunt, dum cognoscentes Deum, non sicut Deum glorificaverunt, ut dicitur Rom. I. Vel, quia ponebant Platonici unum primum ens, quod etiam dicebant esse patrem totius universitatis rerum, consequenter ponebant aliam substantiam sub eo, quam vocabant mentem vel paternum intellectum, in qua erant rationes omnium rerum, sicut Macrobius recitat super somnium Scipionis, non autem ponebant aliquam substantiam tertiam separatam, quae videretur spiritui sancto respondere. Sic autem nos non ponimus patrem et filium, secundum substantiam differentes, sed hoc fuit error Origenis et Arii. Sequentium in hoc Platonicos. Quod vero Trismegistus dixit, monas monadem genuit, et in se suum reflexit ardorem, non est referendum ad generationem filii vel processionem spiritus sancti, sed ad productionem mundi, nam unus Deus produxit unum mundum propter sui ipsius amorem. ||Reply to Objection 1. The philosophers did not know the mystery of the trinity of the divine persons by its proper attributes, such as paternity, filiation, and procession, according to the Apostle's words, "We speak the wisdom of God which none of the princes of the world"--i.e. the philosophers--"knew" (1 Cor. 2:6). Nevertheless, they knew some of the essential attributes appropriated to the persons, as power to the Father, wisdom to the Son, goodness to the Holy Ghost; as will later on appear. So, when Aristotle said, "By this number," etc., we must not take it as if he affirmed a threefold number in God, but that he wished to say that the ancients used the threefold number in their sacrifices and prayers on account of some perfection residing in the number three. In the Platonic books also we find, "In the beginning was the word," not as meaning the Person begotten in God, but as meaning the ideal type whereby God made all things, and which is appropriated to the Son. And although they knew these were appropriated to the three persons, yet they are said to have failed in the third sign--that is, in the knowledge of the third person, because they deviated from the goodness appropriated to the Holy Ghost, in that knowing God "they did not glorify Him as God" (Rm. 1); or, because the Platonists asserted the existence of one Primal Being whom they also declared to be the father of the universe, they consequently maintained the existence of another substance beneath him, which they called "mind" or the "paternal intellect," containing the idea of all things, as Macrobius relates (Som. Scip. iv). They did not, however, assert the existence of a third separate substance which might correspond to the Holy Ghost. So also we do not assert that the Father and the Son differ in substance, which was the error of Origen and Arius, who in this followed the Platonists. When Trismegistus says, "Monad begot monad," etc., this does not refer to the generation of the Son, or to the procession of the Holy Ghost, but to the production of the world. For one God produced one world by reason of His love for Himself.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 32 a. 1 ad 2 </b>Ad secundum dicendum quod ad aliquam rem dupliciter inducitur ratio. Uno modo, ad probandum sufficienter aliquam radicem, sicut in scientia naturali inducitur ratio sufficiens ad probandum quod motus caeli semper sit uniformis velocitatis. Alio modo inducitur ratio, non quae sufficienter probet radicem, sed quae radici iam positae ostendat congruere consequentes effectus, sicut in astrologia ponitur ratio excentricorum et epicyclorum ex hoc quod, hac positione facta, possunt salvari apparentia sensibilia circa motus caelestes, non tamen ratio haec est sufficienter probans, quia etiam forte alia positione facta salvari possent. Primo ergo modo potest induci ratio ad probandum Deum esse unum, et similia. Sed secundo modo se habet ratio quae inducitur ad manifestationem Trinitatis, quia scilicet, Trinitate posita, congruunt huiusmodi rationes; non tamen ita quod per has rationes sufficienter probetur Trinitas personarum. Et hoc patet per singula. Bonitas enim infinita Dei manifestatur etiam in productione creaturarum, quia infinitae virtutis est ex nihilo producere. Non enim oportet, si infinita bonitate se communicat, quod aliquid infinitum a Deo procedat, sed secundum modum suum recipiat divinam bonitatem. Similiter etiam quod dicitur, quod sine consortio non potest esse iucunda possessio alicuius boni, locum habet quando in una persona non invenitur perfecta bonitas; unde indiget, ad plenam iucunditatis bonitatem, bono alicuius alterius consociati sibi. Similitudo autem intellectus nostri non sufficienter probat aliquid de Deo, propter hoc quod intellectus non univoce invenitur in Deo et in nobis. Et inde est quod Augustinus, super Ioan., dicit quod per fidem venitur ad cognitionem, et non e converso. ||Reply to Objection 2. Reason may be employed in two ways to establish a point: firstly, for the purpose of furnishing sufficient proof of some principle, as in natural science, where sufficient proof can be brought to show that the movement of the heavens is always of uniform velocity. Reason is employed in another way, not as furnishing a sufficient proof of a principle, but as confirming an already established principle, by showing the congruity of its results, as in astrology the theory of eccentrics and epicycles is considered as established, because thereby the sensible appearances of the heavenly movements can be explained; not, however, as if this proof were sufficient, forasmuch as some other theory might explain them. In the first way, we can prove that God is one; and the like. In the second way, reasons avail to prove the Trinity; as, when assumed to be true, such reasons confirm it. We must not, however, think that the trinity of persons is adequately proved by such reasons. This becomes evident when we consider each point; for the infinite goodness of God is manifested also in creation, because to produce from nothing is an act of infinite power. For if God communicates Himself by His infinite goodness, it is not necessary that an infinite effect should proceed from God: but that according to its own mode and capacity it should receive the divine goodness. Likewise, when it is said that joyous possession of good requires partnership, this holds in the case of one not having perfect goodness: hence it needs to share some other's good, in order to have the goodness of complete happiness. Nor is the image in our mind an adequate proof in the case of God, forasmuch as the intellect is not in God and ourselves univocally. Hence, Augustine says (Tract. xxvii. in Joan.) that by faith we arrive at knowledge, and not conversely.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 32 a. 1 ad 3 </b>Ad tertium dicendum quod cognitio divinarum personarum fuit necessaria nobis dupliciter. Uno modo, ad recte sentiendum de creatione rerum. Per hoc enim quod dicimus Deum omnia fecisse verbo suo, excluditur error ponentium Deum produxisse res ex necessitate naturae. Per hoc autem quod ponimus in eo processionem amoris, ostenditur quod Deus non propter aliquam indigentiam creaturas produxit, neque propter aliquam aliam causam extrinsecam; sed propter amorem suae bonitatis. Unde et Moyses, postquam dixerat, in principio creavit Deus caelum et terram, subdit, dixit Deus, fiat lux, ad manifestationem divini verbi; et postea dixit, vidit Deus lucem, quod esset bona, ad ostendendum approbationem divini amoris; et similiter in aliis operibus. Alio modo, et principalius, ad recte sentiendum de salute generis humani, quae perficitur per filium incarnatum, et per donum spiritus sancti. ||Reply to Objection 3. There are two reason why the knowledge of the divine persons was necessary for us. It was necessary for the right idea of creation. The fact of saying that God made all things by His Word excludes the error of those who say that God produced things by necessity. When we say that in Him there is a procession of love, we show that God produced creatures not because He needed them, nor because of any other extrinsic reason, but on account of the love of His own goodness. So Moses, when he had said, "In the beginning God created heaven and earth," subjoined, "God said, Let there be light," to manifest the divine Word; and then said, "God saw the light that it was good," to show proof of the divine love. The same is also found in the other works of creation. In another way, and chiefly, that we may think rightly concerning the salvation of the human race, accomplished by the Incarnate Son, and by the gift of the Holy Ghost.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="q32a2"><b>IЄ q. 32 a. 2 arg. 1 </b>Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non sint ponendae notiones in divinis. Dicit enim Dionysius, in I cap. de Div. Nom., quod non est audendum dicere aliquid de Deo, praeter ea quae nobis ex sacris eloquiis sunt expressa. Sed de notionibus nulla fit mentio in eloquiis sacrae Scripturae. Ergo non sunt ponendae notiones in divinis. ||Objection 1. It would seem that in God there are no notions. For Dionysius says (Div. Nom. i): "We must not dare to say anything of God but what is taught to us by the Holy Scripture." But Holy Scripture does not say anything concerning notions. Therefore there are none in God.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 32 a. 2 arg. 2 </b>Praeterea, quidquid ponitur in divinis, aut pertinet ad unitatem essentiae, aut ad Trinitatem personarum. Sed notiones non pertinent ad unitatem essentiae, nec ad Trinitatem personarum. De notionibus enim neque praedicantur ea quae sunt essentiae, non enim dicimus quod paternitas sit sapiens vel creet, neque etiam ea quae sunt personae; non enim dicimus quod paternitas generet et filiatio generetur. Ergo non sunt ponendae notiones in divinis. ||Objection 2. Further, all that exists in God concerns the unity of the essence or the trinity of the persons. But the notions do not concern the unity of the essence, nor the trinity of the persons; for neither can what belongs to the essence be predicated of the notions: for instance, we do not say that paternity is wise or creates; nor can what belongs to the persons be so predicated; for example, we do not say that paternity begets, nor that filiation is begotten. Therefore there do not exist notions in God.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 32 a. 2 arg. 3 </b>Praeterea, in simplicibus non sunt ponenda aliqua abstracta, quae sint principia cognoscendi, quia cognoscuntur seipsis. Sed divinae personae sunt simplicissimae. Ergo non sunt ponendae in divinis personis notiones. ||Objection 3. Further, we do not require to presuppose any abstract notions as principles of knowing things which are devoid of composition: for they are known of themselves. But the divine persons are supremely simple. Therefore we are not to suppose any notions in God.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 32 a. 2 s. c. </b>Sed contra est quod dicit Ioannes Damascenus, differentiam hypostaseon, idest personarum, in tribus proprietatibus, idest paternali et filiali et processionali, recognoscimus. Sunt ergo ponendae proprietates et notiones in divinis. ||On the contrary, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 5): "We recognize difference of hypostases [i.e. of persons], in the three properties; i.e. in the paternal, the filial, and the processional." Therefore we must admit properties and notions in God.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 32 a. 2 co. </b>Respondeo dicendum quod Praepositivus, attendens simplicitatem personarum, dixit non esse ponendas proprietates et notiones in divinis, et sicubi inveniantur, exponit abstractum pro concreto, sicut enim consuevimus dicere, rogo benignitatem tuam, idest te benignum, ita cum dicitur in divinis paternitas, intelligitur Deus pater. Sed, sicut ostensum est supra, divinae simplicitati non praeiudicat quod in divinis utamur nominibus concretis et abstractis. Quia secundum quod intelligimus, sic nominamus. Intellectus autem noster non potest pertingere ad ipsam simplicitatem divinam, secundum quod in se est consideranda, et ideo secundum modum suum divina apprehendit et nominat, idest secundum quod invenitur in rebus sensibilibus, a quibus cognitionem accipit. In quibus, ad significandum simplices formas, nominibus abstractis utimur, ad significandum vero res subsistentes, utimur nominibus concretis. Unde et divina, sicut supra dictum est, ratione simplicitatis, per nomina abstracta significamus, ratione vero subsistentiae et complementi, per nomina concreta. Oportet autem non solum nomina essentialia in abstracto et in concreto significare, ut cum dicimus deitatem et Deum, vel sapientiam et sapientem; sed etiam personalia, ut dicamus paternitatem et patrem. Ad quod duo praecipue nos cogunt. Primo quidem, haereticorum instantia. Cum enim confiteamur patrem et filium et spiritum sanctum esse unum Deum et tres personas, quaerentibus quo sunt unus Deus, et quo sunt tres personae, sicut respondetur quod sunt essentia vel deitate unum, ita oportuit esse aliqua nomina abstracta, quibus responderi possit personas distingui. Et huiusmodi sunt proprietates vel notiones in abstracto significatae, ut paternitas et filiatio. Et ideo essentia significatur in divinis ut quid, persona vero ut quis, proprietas autem ut quo. Secundo, quia una persona invenitur in divinis referri ad duas personas, scilicet persona patris ad personam filii et personam spiritus sancti. Non autem una relatione, quia sic sequeretur quod etiam filius et spiritus sanctus una et eadem relatione referrentur ad patrem; et sic, cum sola relatio in divinis multiplicet Trinitatem, sequeretur quod filius et spiritus sanctus non essent duae personae. Neque potest dici, ut Praepositivus dicebat, quod sicut Deus uno modo se habet ad creaturas, cum tamen creaturae diversimode se habeant ad ipsum, sic pater una relatione refertur ad filium et ad spiritum sanctum, cum tamen illi duo duabus relationibus referantur ad patrem. Quia cum ratio specifica relativi consistat in hoc quod ad aliud se habet, necesse est dicere quod duae relationes non sunt diversae secundum speciem, si ex opposito una relatio eis correspondeat, oportet enim aliam speciem relationis esse domini et patris, secundum diversitatem filiationis et servitutis. Omnes autem creaturae sub una specie relationis referuntur ad Deum, ut sunt creaturae ipsius, filius autem et spiritus sanctus non secundum relationes unius rationis referuntur ad patrem, unde non est simile. Et iterum, in Deo non requiritur relatio realis ad creaturam, ut supra dictum est, relationes autem rationis in Deo multiplicare non est inconveniens. Sed in patre oportet esse relationem realem qua refertur ad filium et spiritum sanctum, unde secundum duas relationes filii et spiritus sancti quibus referuntur ad patrem, oportet intelligi duas relationes in patre, quibus referatur ad filium et spiritum sanctum. Unde, cum non sit nisi una patris persona, necesse fuit seorsum significari relationes in abstracto, quae dicuntur proprietates et notiones. ||I answer that, Prepositivus, considering the simplicity of the persons, said that in God there were no properties or notions, and wherever there were mentioned, he propounded the abstract for the concrete. For as we are accustomed to say, "I beseech your kindness"--i.e. you who are kind--so when we speak of paternity in God, we mean God the Father. But, as shown above (3, 3, ad 1), the use of concrete and abstract names in God is not in any way repugnant to the divine simplicity; forasmuch as we always name a thing as we understand it. Now, our intellect cannot attain to the absolute simplicity of the divine essence, considered in itself, and therefore, our human intellect apprehends and names divine things, according to its own mode, that is in so far as they are found in sensible objects, whence its knowledge is derived. In these things we use abstract terms to signify simple forms; and to signify subsistent things we use concrete terms. Hence also we signify divine things, as above stated, by abstract names, to express their simplicity; whereas, to express their subsistence and completeness, we use concrete names. But not only must essential names be signified in the abstract and in the concrete, as when we say Deity and God; or wisdom and wise; but the same applies to the personal names, so that we may say paternity and Father. Two chief motives for this can be cited. The first arises from the obstinacy of heretics. For since we confess the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost to be one God and three persons, to those who ask: "Whereby are They one God? and whereby are They three persons?" as we answer that They are one in essence or deity; so there must also be some abstract terms whereby we may answer that the persons are distinguished; and these are the properties or notions signified by an abstract term, as paternity and filiation. Therefore the divine essence is signified as "What"; and the person as "Who"; and the property as "Whereby." The second motive is because one person in God is related to two persons--namely, the person of the Father to the person of the Son and the person of the Holy Ghost. This is not, however, by one relation; otherwise it would follow that the Son also and the Holy Ghost would be related to the Father by one and the same relation. Thus, since relation alone multiplies the Trinity, it would follow that the Son and the Holy Ghost would not be two persons. Nor can it be said with Prepositivus that as God is related in one way to creatures, while creatures are related to Him in divers ways, so the Father is related by one relation to the Son and to the Holy Ghost; whereas these two persons are related to the Father by two relations. For, since the very specific idea of a relation is that it refers to another, it must be said that two relations are not specifically different if but one opposite relation corresponds to them. For the relation of lord and father must differ according to the difference of filiation and servitude. Now, all creatures are related to God as His creatures by one specific relation. But the Son and the Holy Ghost are not related to the Father by one and the same kind of relation. Hence there is no parity. Further, in God there is no need to admit any real relation to the creature (28, 1,3); while there is no reason against our admitting in God, many logical relations. But in the Father there must be a real relation to the Son and to the Holy Ghost. Hence, corresponding to the two relations of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, whereby they are related to the Father, we must understand two relations in the Father, whereby He is related to the Son and to the Holy Ghost. Hence, since there is only one Person of the Father, it is necessary that the relations should be separately signified in the abstract; and these are what we mean by properties and notions.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 32 a. 2 ad 1 </b>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, licet de notionibus non fiat mentio in sacra Scriptura, fit tamen mentio de personis, in quibus intelliguntur notiones, sicut abstractum in concreto. ||Reply to Objection 1. Although the notions are not mentioned in Holy Scripture, yet the persons are mentioned, comprising the idea of notions, as the abstract is contained in the concrete.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 32 a. 2 ad 2 </b>Ad secundum dicendum quod notiones significantur in divinis, non ut res, sed ut rationes quaedam quibus cognoscuntur personae; licet ipsae notiones vel relationes realiter sint in Deo, ut supra dictum est. Et ideo ea quae habent ordinem aliquem ad actum aliquem essentialem vel personalem, non possunt dici de notionibus, quia hoc repugnat modo significandi ipsarum. Unde non possumus dicere quod paternitas generet vel creet, sit sapiens vel intelligens. Essentialia vero quae non habent ordinem ad aliquem actum, sed removent conditiones creaturae a Deo possunt praedicari de notionibus, possumus enim dicere quod paternitas est aeterna vel immensa, vel quodcumque huiusmodi. Et similiter, propter identitatem rei, possunt substantiva personalia et essentialia praedicari de notionibus, possumus enim dicere quod paternitas est Deus, et paternitas est pater. ||Reply to Objection 2. In God the notions have their significance not after the manner of realities, but by way of certain ideas whereby the persons are known; although in God these notions or relations are real, as stated above (28, 1). Therefore whatever has order to any essential or personal act, cannot be applied to the notions; forasmuch as this is against their mode of signification. Hence we cannot say that paternity begets, or creates, or is wise, or is intelligent. The essentials, however, which are not ordered to any act, but simply remove created conditions from God, can be predicated of the notions; for we can say that paternity is eternal, or immense, or such like. So also on account of the real identity, substantive terms, whether personal or essential, can be predicated of the notions; for we can say that paternity is God, and that paternity is the Father.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 32 a. 2 ad 3 </b>Ad tertium dicendum quod, licet personae sint simplices, tamen absque praeiudicio simplicitatis possunt propriae rationes personarum in abstracto significari, ut dictum est. ||Reply to Objection 3. Although the persons are simple, still without prejudice to their simplicity, the proper ideas of the persons can be abstractedly signified, as above explained.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="q32a3"><b>IЄ q. 32 a. 3 arg. 1 </b>Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod non sint quinque notiones. Propriae enim notiones personarum sunt relationes quibus distinguuntur. Sed relationes in divinis non sunt nisi quatuor, ut supra dictum est. Ergo et notiones sunt tantum quatuor. ||Objection 1. It would seem that there are not five notions. For the notions proper to the persons are the relations whereby they are distinguished from each other. But the relations in God are only four (28, 4). Therefore the notions are only four in number.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 32 a. 3 arg. 2 </b>Praeterea, propter hoc quod in divinis est una essentia, dicitur Deus unus, propter hoc autem quod sunt tres personae, dicitur Deus trinus. Si ergo in divinis sunt quinque notiones, dicetur quinus, quod est inconveniens. ||Objection 2. Further, as there is only one essence in God, He is called one God, and because in Him there are three persons, He is called the Trine God. Therefore, if in God there are five notions, He may be called quinary; which cannot be allowed.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 32 a. 3 arg. 3 </b>Praeterea, si, tribus personis existentibus in divinis, sunt quinque notiones, oportet quod in aliqua personarum sint aliquae notiones duae vel plures; sicut in persona patris ponitur innascibilitas et paternitas et communis spiratio. Aut igitur istae tres notiones differunt re, aut non. Si differunt re, sequitur quod persona patris sit composita ex pluribus rebus. Si autem differunt ratione tantum, sequitur quod una earum possit de alia praedicari, ut dicamus quod, sicut bonitas divina est eius sapientia propter indifferentiam rei, ita communis spiratio sit paternitas, quod non conceditur. Igitur non sunt quinque notiones. ||Objection 3. Further, if there are five notions for the three persons in God, there must be in some one person two or more notions, as in the person of the Father there is innascibility and paternity, and common spiration. Either these three notions really differ, or not. If they really differ, it follows that the person of the Father is composed of several things. But if they differ only logically, it follows that one of them can be predicated of another, so that we can say that as the divine goodness is the same as the divine wisdom by reason of the common reality, so common spiration is paternity; which is not to be admitted. Therefore there are not five notions.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 32 a. 3 s. c. 1 </b>Sed contra, videtur quod sint plures. Quia sicut pater a nullo est, et secundum hoc accipitur notio quae dicitur innascibilitas, ita a spiritu sancto non est alia persona. Et secundum hoc oportebit accipere sextam notionem. ||Objection 4.On the contrary, It seems that there are more; because as the Father is from no one, and therefrom is derived the notion of innascibility; so from the Holy Ghost no other person proceeds. And in this respect there ought to be a sixth notion.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 32 a. 3 s. c. 2 </b>Praeterea, sicut patri et filio commune est quod ab eis procedat spiritus sanctus, ita commune est filio et spiritui sancto quod procedant a patre. Ergo, sicut una notio ponitur communis patri et filio, ita debet poni una notio communis filio et spiritui sancto. ||Objection 5. Further, as the Father and the Son are the common origin of the Holy Ghost, so it is common to the Son and the Holy Ghost to proceed from the Father. Therefore, as one notion is common to the Father and the Son, so there ought to be one notion common to the Son and to the Holy Ghost.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 32 a. 3 co. </b>Respondeo dicendum quod notio dicitur id quod est propria ratio cognoscendi divinam personam. Divinae autem personae multiplicantur secundum originem. Ad originem autem pertinet a quo alius, et qui ab alio, et secundum hos duos modos potest innotescere persona. Igitur persona patris non potest innotescere per hoc quod sit ab alio, sed per hoc quod a nullo est, et sic ex hac parte eius notio est innascibilitas. Sed inquantum aliquis est ab eo, innotescit dupliciter. Quia inquantum filius est ab eo, innotescit notione paternitatis, inquantum autem spiritus sanctus est ab eo, innotescit notione communis spirationis. Filius autem potest innotescere per hoc quod est ab alio nascendo, et sic innotescit per filiationem. Et per hoc quod est alius ab eo, scilicet spiritus sanctus, et per hoc innotescit eodem modo sicut et pater, scilicet communi spiratione. Spiritus sanctus autem innotescere potest per hoc quod est ab alio vel ab aliis, et sic innotescit processione. Non autem per hoc quod alius sit ab eo, quia nulla divina persona procedit ab eo. Sunt igitur quinque notiones in divinis, scilicet innascibilitas, paternitas, filiatio, communis spiratio et processio. Harum autem tantum quatuor sunt relationes, nam innascibilitas non est relatio nisi per reductionem, ut infra dicetur. Quatuor autem tantum proprietates sunt, nam communis spiratio non est proprietas, quia convenit duabus personis. Tres autem sunt notiones personales, idest constituentes personas, scilicet paternitas, filiatio et processio, nam communis spiratio et innascibilitas dicuntur notiones personarum, non autem personales, ut infra magis patebit. ||I answer that, A notion is the proper idea whereby we know a divine Person. Now the divine persons are multiplied by reason of their origin: and origin includes the idea of someone from whom another comes, and of someone that comes from another, and by these two modes a person can be known. Therefore the Person of the Father cannot be known by the fact that He is from another; but by the fact that He is from no one; and thus the notion that belongs to Him is called "innascibility." As the source of another, He can be known in two ways, because as the Son is from Him, the Father is known by the notion of "paternity"; and as the Holy Ghost is from Him, He is known by the notion of "common spiration." The Son can be known as begotten by another, and thus He is known by "filiation"; and also by another person proceeding from Him, the Holy Ghost, and thus He is known in the same way as the Father is known, by "common spiration." The Holy Ghost can be known by the fact that He is from another, or from others; thus He is known by "procession"; but not by the fact that another is from Him, as no divine person proceeds from Him. Therefore, there are Five notions in God: "innascibility," "paternity," "filiation," and "procession." Of these only four are relations, for "innascibility" is not a relation, except by reduction, as will appear later (33, 4, ad 3). Four only are properties. For "common spiration" is not a property; because it belongs to two persons. Three are personal notions--i.e. constituting persons, "paternity," "filiation," and "procession." "Common spiration" and "innascibility" are called notions of Persons, but not personal notions, as we shall explain further on (40, 1, ad 1).
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 32 a. 3 ad 1 </b>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod praeter quatuor relationes oportet ponere aliam notionem, ut dictum est. ||Reply to Objection 1. Besides the four relations, another notion must be admitted, as above explained.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 32 a. 3 ad 2 </b>Ad secundum dicendum quod essentia in divinis significatur ut res quaedam; et similiter personae significantur ut res quaedam sed notiones significantur ut rationes notificantes personas. Et ideo, licet dicatur Deus unus propter unitatem essentiae, et trinus propter Trinitatem personarum; non tamen dicitur quinus propter quinque notiones. ||Reply to Objection 2. The divine essence is signified as a reality; and likewise the persons are signified as realities; whereas the notions are signified as ideas notifying the persons. Therefore, although God is one by unity of essence, and trine by trinity of persons, nevertheless He is not quinary by the five notions.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 32 a. 3 ad 3 </b>Ad tertium dicendum quod, cum sola oppositio relativa faciat pluralitatem realem in divinis, plures proprietates unius personae, cum non opponantur ad invicem relative, non differunt realiter. Nec tamen de invicem praedicantur, quia significantur ut diversae rationes personarum. Sicut etiam non dicimus quod attributum potentiae sit attributum scientiae, licet dicamus quod scientia sit potentia. ||Reply to Objection 3. Since the real plurality in God is founded only on relative opposition, the several properties of one Person, as they are not relatively opposed to each other, do not really differ. Nor again are they predicated of each other, because they are different ideas of the persons; as we do not say that the attribute of power is the attribute of knowledge, although we do say that knowledge is power.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 32 a. 3 ad 4 </b>Ad quartum dicendum quod, cum persona importet dignitatem, ut supra dictum est, non potest accipi notio aliqua spiritus sancti ex hoc quod nulla persona est ab ipso. Hoc enim non pertinet ad dignitatem ipsius; sicut pertinet ad auctoritatem patris quod sit a nullo. ||Reply to Objection 4. Since Person implies dignity, as stated above (19, 3 ) we cannot derive a notion of the Holy Spirit from the fact that no person is from Him. For this does not belong to His dignity, as it belongs to the authority of the Father that He is from no one.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 32 a. 3 ad 5 </b>Ad quintum dicendum quod filius et spiritus sanctus non conveniunt in uno speciali modo existendi a patre; sicut pater et filius conveniunt in uno speciali modo producendi spiritum sanctum. Id autem quod est principium innotescendi, oportet esse aliquid speciale. Et ideo non est simile. ||Reply to Objection 5. The Son and the Holy Ghost do not agree in one special mode of existence derived from the Father; as the Father and the Son agree in one special mode of producing the Holy Ghost. But the principle on which a notion is based must be something special; thus no parity of reasoning exists.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="q32a4"><b>IЄ q. 32 a. 4 arg. 1 </b>Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non liceat contrarie opinari de notionibus. Dicit enim Augustinus, in I de Trin., quod non erratur alicubi periculosius quam in materia Trinitatis, ad quam certum est notiones pertinere. Sed contrariae opiniones non possunt esse absque errore. Ergo contrarie opinari circa notiones non licet. ||Objection 1. It would seem that it is not lawful to have various contrary opinions of the notions. For Augustine says (De Trin. i, 3): "No error is more dangerous than any as regards the Trinity": to which mystery the notions assuredly belong. But contrary opinions must be in some way erroneous. Therefore it is not right to have contrary opinions of the notions.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 32 a. 4 arg. 2 </b>Praeterea, per notiones cognoscuntur personae, ut dictum est. Sed circa personas non licet contrarie opinari. Ergo nec circa notiones. ||Objection 2. Further, the persons are known by the notions. But no contrary opinion concerning the persons is to be tolerated. Therefore neither can there be about the notions.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 32 a. 4 s. c. </b>Sed contra, articuli fidei non sunt de notionibus. Ergo circa notiones licet sic vel aliter opinari. ||On the contrary, The notions are not articles of faith. Therefore different opinions of the notions are permissible.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 32 a. 4 co. </b>Respondeo dicendum quod ad fidem pertinet aliquid dupliciter. Uno modo, directe; sicut ea quae nobis sunt principaliter divinitus tradita, ut Deum esse trinum et unum, filium Dei esse incarnatum, et huiusmodi. Et circa haec opinari falsum, hoc ipso inducit haeresim, maxime si pertinacia adiungatur. Indirecte vero ad fidem pertinent ea ex quibus consequitur aliquid contrarium fidei; sicut si quis diceret Samuelem non fuisse filium Elcanae; ex hoc enim sequitur Scripturam divinam esse falsam. Circa huiusmodi ergo absque periculo haeresis aliquis falsum potest opinari, antequam consideretur, vel determinatum sit, quod ex hoc sequitur aliquid contrarium fidei, et maxime si non pertinaciter adhaereat. Sed postquam manifestum est, et praecipue si sit per Ecclesiam determinatum, quod ex hoc sequitur aliquid contrarium fidei, in hoc errare non esset absque haeresi. Et propter hoc, multa nunc reputantur haeretica, quae prius non reputabantur, propter hoc quod nunc est magis manifestum quid ex eis sequatur. Sic igitur dicendum est quod circa notiones aliqui absque periculo haeresis contrarie sunt opinati, non intendentes sustinere aliquid contrarium fidei. Sed si quis falsum opinaretur circa notiones, considerans quod ex hoc sequatur aliquid contrarium fidei, in haeresim laberetur. ||I answer that, Anything is of faith in two ways; directly, where any truth comes to us principally as divinely taught, as the trinity and unity of God, the Incarnation of the Son, and the like; and concerning these truths a false opinion of itself involves heresy, especially if it be held obstinately. A thing is of faith, indirectly, if the denial of it involves as a consequence something against faith; as for instance if anyone said that Samuel was not the son of Elcana, for it follows that the divine Scripture would be false. Concerning such things anyone may have a false opinion without danger of heresy, before the matter has been considered or settled as involving consequences against faith, and particularly if no obstinacy be shown; whereas when it is manifest, and especially if the Church has decided that consequences follow against faith, then the error cannot be free from heresy. For this reason many things are now considered as heretical which were formerly not so considered, as their consequences are now more manifest. So we must decide that anyone may entertain contrary opinions about the notions, if he does not mean to uphold anything at variance with faith. If, however, anyone should entertain a false opinion of the notions, knowing or thinking that consequences against the faith would follow, he would lapse into heresy.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 32 a. 4 ad arg. </b>Et per hoc patet responsio ad obiecta. ||By what has been said all the objections may be solved.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | |}
| |
| − | [[Category:Logic Museum Parallel Texts]]
| |
