Directory:Logic Museum/Aquinas Summa-I-33-35
MyWikiBiz, Author Your Legacy — Saturday November 23, 2024
Jump to navigationJump to searchSUMMA THEOLOGIAE - QUESTIONS XXXIII - XXXV
| Latin | Latin
|
|---|---|
IЄ q. 33 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod pater non possit dici principium filii vel spiritus sancti. Principium enim et causa idem sunt, secundum philosophum. Sed non dicimus patrem esse causam filii. Ergo non debet dici quod sit eius principium. |
Objection 1. It would seem that the Father cannot be called the principle of the Son, or of the Holy Ghost. For principle and cause are the same, according to the Philosopher (Metaph. iv). But we do not say that the Father is the cause of the Son. Therefore we must not say that He is the principle of the Son. |
| IЄ q. 33 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, principium dicitur respectu principiati. Si igitur pater est principium filii, sequitur filium esse principiatum, et per consequens esse creatum. Quod videtur esse erroneum. | Objection 2. Further, a principle is so called in relation to the thing principled. So if the Father is the principle of the Son, it follows that the Son is a person principled, and is therefore created; which appears false. |
| IЄ q. 33 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, nomen principii a prioritate sumitur. Sed in divinis non est prius et posterius, ut Athanasius dicit. Ergo in divinis non debemus uti nomine principii. | Objection 3. Further, the word principle is taken from priority. But in God there is no "before" and "after," as Athanasius says. Therefore in speaking of God we ought not to used the term principle. |
| IЄ q. 33 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicit Augustinus, in IV de Trin., pater est principium totius deitatis. | On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. iv, 20), "The Father is the Principle of the whole Deity." |
| IЄ q. 33 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod hoc nomen principium nihil aliud significat quam id a quo aliquid procedit, omne enim a quo aliquid procedit quocumque modo, dicimus esse principium; et e converso. Cum ergo pater sit a quo procedit alius, sequitur quod pater est principium. | I answer that, The word "principle" signifies only that whence another proceeds: since anything whence something proceeds in any way we call a principle; and conversely. As the Father then is the one whence another proceeds, it follows that the Father is a principle. |
| IЄ q. 33 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Graeci utuntur in divinis indifferenter nomine causae, sicut et nomine principii, sed Latini doctores non utuntur nomine causae, sed solum nomine principii. Cuius ratio est, quia principium communius est quam causa, sicut causa communius quam elementum, primus enim terminus, vel etiam prima pars rei dicitur principium, sed non causa. Quanto autem aliquod nomen est communius, tanto convenientius assumitur in divinis, ut supra dictum est, quia nomina, quanto magis specialia sunt, tanto magis determinant modum convenientem creaturae. Unde hoc nomen causa videtur importare diversitatem substantiae, et dependentiam alicuius ab altero; quam non importat nomen principii. In omnibus enim causae generibus, semper invenitur distantia inter causam et id cuius est causa, secundum aliquam perfectionem aut virtutem. Sed nomine principii utimur etiam in his quae nullam huiusmodi differentiam habent, sed solum secundum quendam ordinem, sicut cum dicimus punctum esse principium lineae, vel etiam cum dicimus primam partem lineae esse principium lineae. | Reply to Objection 1. The Greeks use the words "cause" and "principle" indifferently, when speaking of God; whereas the Latin Doctors do not use the word "cause," but only "principle." The reason is because "principle" is a wider term than "cause"; as "cause" is more common than "element." For the first term of a thing, as also the first part, is called the principle, but not the cause. Now the wider a term is, the more suitable it is to use as regards God (13, 11), because the more special terms are, the more they determine the mode adapted to the creature. Hence this term "cause" seems to mean diversity of substance, and dependence of one from another; which is not implied in the word "principle." For in all kinds of causes there is always to be found between the cause and the effect a distance of perfection or of power: whereas we use the term "principle" even in things which have no such difference, but have only a certain order to each other; as when we say that a point is the principle of a line; or also when we say that the first part of a line is the principle of a line. |
| IЄ q. 33 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod apud Graecos invenitur de filio vel spiritu sancto dici quod principientur. Sed hoc non est in usu doctorum nostrorum. Quia licet attribuamus patri aliquid auctoritatis ratione principii, nihil tamen ad subiectionem vel minorationem quocumque modo pertinens, attribuimus filio vel spiritui sancto, ut vitetur omnis erroris occasio. Secundum quem modum Hilarius dicit, IX de Trin., donantis auctoritate pater maior est; sed minor non est filius, cui unum esse donatur. | Reply to Objection 2. It is the custom with the Greeks to say that the Son and the Holy Ghost are principled. This is not, however, the custom with our Doctors; because, although we attribute to the Father something of authority by reason of His being the principle, still we do not attribute any kind of subjection or inferiority to the Son, or to the Holy Ghost, to avoid any occasion of error. In this way, Hilary says (De Trin. ix): "By authority of the Giver, the Father is the greater; nevertheless the Son is not less to Whom oneness of nature is give." |
| IЄ q. 33 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, licet hoc nomen principium, quantum ad id a quo imponitur ad significandum, videatur a prioritate sumptum; non tamen significat prioritatem, sed originem. Non enim idem est quod significat nomen, et a quo nomen imponitur, ut supra dictum est. | Reply to Objection 3. Although this word principle, as regards its derivation, seems to be taken from priority, still it does not signify priority, but origin. For what a term signifies, and the reason why it was imposed, are not the same thing, as stated above (13, 8). |
IЄ q. 33 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod hoc nomen pater non sit proprie nomen divinae personae. Hoc enim nomen pater significat relationem. Persona autem est substantia individua. Non ergo hoc nomen pater est proprie nomen significativum personae. |
Objection 1. It would seem that this name "Father" is not properly the name of a divine person. For the name "Father" signifies relation. Moreover "person" is an individual substance. Therefore this name "Father" is not properly a name signifying a Person. |
| IЄ q. 33 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, generans communius est quam pater, nam omnis pater est generans, sed non e converso. Sed nomen communius magis proprie dicitur in divinis, ut dictum est. Ergo magis proprium nomen est personae divinae generans et genitor, quam pater. | Objection 2. Further, a begetter is more common than father; for every father begets; but it is not so conversely. But a more common term is more properly applied to God, as stated above (13, 11). Therefore the more proper name of the divine person is begetter and genitor than Father. |
| IЄ q. 33 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, nihil quod secundum metaphoram dicitur, potest esse nomen proprium alicuius. Sed verbum metaphorice apud nos dicitur genitum vel proles, et per consequens ille cuius est verbum, metaphorice dicitur pater. Non ergo principium verbi in divinis potest proprie dici pater. | Objection 3. Further, a metaphorical term cannot be the proper name of anyone. But the word is by us metaphorically called begotten, or offspring; and consequently, he of whom is the word, is metaphorically called father. Therefore the principle of the Word in God is not properly called Father. |
| IЄ q. 33 a. 2 arg. 4 Praeterea, omne quod proprie dicitur in divinis, per prius dicitur de Deo quam de creaturis. Sed generatio per prius videtur dici de creaturis quam de Deo, verior enim ibi videtur esse generatio, ubi aliquid procedit ab alio distinctum non secundum relationem tantum, sed etiam secundum essentiam. Ergo nomen patris, quod a generatione sumitur, non videtur esse proprium alicuius divinae personae. | Objection 4. Further, everything which is said properly of God, is said of God first before creatures. But generation appears to apply to creatures before God; because generation seems to be truer when the one who proceeds is distinct from the one whence it proceeds, not only by relation but also by essence. Therefore the name "Father" taken from generation does not seem to be the proper name of any divine person. |
| IЄ q. 33 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur in Psalmo, ipse invocabit me, pater meus es tu. | On the contrary, It is said (Ps. 88:27): "He shall cry out to me: Thou art my Father." |
| IЄ q. 33 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod nomen proprium cuiuslibet personae significat id per quod illa persona distinguitur ab omnibus aliis. Sicut enim de ratione hominis est anima et corpus, ita de intellectu huius hominis est haec anima et hoc corpus, ut dicitur in VII Metaphys.; his autem hic homo ab omnibus aliis distinguitur. Id autem per quod distinguitur persona patris ab omnibus aliis, est paternitas. Unde proprium nomen personae patris est hoc nomen pater, quod significat paternitatem. | I answer that, The proper name of any person signifies that whereby the person is distinguished from all other persons. For as body and soul belong to the nature of man, so to the concept of this particular man belong this particular soul and this particular body; and by these is this particular man distinguished from all other men. Now it is paternity which distinguishes the person of the Father from all other persons. Hence this name "Father," whereby paternity is signified, is the proper name of the person of the Father. |
| IЄ q. 33 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod apud nos relatio non est subsistens persona, et ideo hoc nomen pater, apud nos, non significat personam, sed relationem personae. Non autem est ita in divinis, ut quidam falso opinati sunt, nam relatio quam significat hoc nomen pater, est subsistens persona. Unde supra dictum est quod hoc nomen persona in divinis significat relationem ut subsistentem in divina natura. | Reply to Objection 1. Among us relation is not a subsisting person. So this name "father" among us does not signify a person, but the relation of a person. In God, however, it is not so, as some wrongly thought; for in God the relation signified by the name "Father" is a subsisting person. Hence, as above explained (29, 4), this name "person" in God signifies a relation subsisting in the divine nature. |
| IЄ q. 33 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod, secundum philosophum, in II de anima, denominatio rei maxime debet fieri a perfectione et fine. Generatio autem significat ut in fieri, sed paternitas significat complementum generationis. Et ideo potius est nomen divinae personae pater, quam generans vel genitor. | Reply to Objection 2. According to the Philosopher (De Anima ii, text 49), a thing is denominated chiefly by its perfection, and by its end. Now generation signifies something in process of being made, whereas paternity signifies the complement of generation; and therefore the name "Father" is more expressive as regards the divine person than genitor or begettor. |
| IЄ q. 33 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod verbum non est aliquid subsistens in natura humana, unde non proprie potest dici genitum vel filius. Sed verbum divinum est aliquid subsistens in natura divina, unde proprie, et non metaphorice, dicitur filius, et eius principium, pater. | Reply to Objection 3. In human nature the word is not a subsistence, and hence is not properly called begotten or son. But the divine Word is something subsistent in the divine nature; and hence He is properly and not metaphorically called Son, and His principle is called Father. |
| IЄ q. 33 a. 2 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod nomen generationis et paternitatis, sicut et alia nomina quae proprie dicuntur in divinis, per prius dicuntur de Deo quam de creaturis, quantum ad rem significatam, licet non quantum ad modum significandi. Unde et apostolus dicit, ad Ephes. III, flecto genua mea ad patrem domini nostri Iesu Christi, ex quo omnis paternitas in caelo et in terra nominatur. Quod sic apparet. Manifestum est enim quod generatio accipit speciem a termino, qui est forma generati. Et quanto haec fuerit propinquior formae generantis, tanto verior et perfectior est generatio; sicut generatio univoca est perfectior quam non univoca, nam de ratione generantis est, quod generet sibi simile secundum formam. Unde hoc ipsum quod in generatione divina est eadem numero forma generantis et geniti, in rebus autem creatis non est eadem numero, sed specie tantum, ostendit quod generatio, et per consequens paternitas, per prius sit in Deo quam in creaturis. Unde hoc ipsum quod in divinis est distinctio geniti a generante secundum relationem tantum, ad veritatem divinae generationis et paternitatis pertinet. | Reply to Objection 4. The terms "generation" and "paternity" like the other terms properly applied to God, are said of God before creatures as regards the thing signified, but not as regards the mode of signification. Hence also the Apostle says, "I bend my knee to the Father of my Lord Jesus Christ, from whom all paternity in heaven and on earth is named" (Eph. 3:14). This is explained thus. It is manifest that generation receives its species from the term which is the form of the thing generated; and the nearer it is to the form of the generator, the truer and more perfect is the generation; as univocal generation is more perfect than non-univocal, for it belongs to the essence of a generator to generate what is like itself in form. Hence the very fact that in the divine generation the form of the Begetter and Begotten is numerically the same, whereas in creatures it is not numerically, but only specifically, the same, shows that generation, and consequently paternity, is applied to God before creatures. Hence the very fact that in God a distinction exists of the Begotten from the Begetter as regards relation only, belongs to the truth of the divine generation and paternity. |
IЄ q. 33 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod hoc nomen pater non dicatur in divinis per prius secundum quod personaliter sumitur. Commune enim, secundum intellectum, est prius proprio. Sed hoc nomen pater, secundum quod personaliter sumitur, est proprium personae patris, secundum vero quod sumitur essentialiter est commune toti Trinitati, nam toti Trinitati dicimus pater noster. Ergo per prius dicitur pater essentialiter sumptum, quam personaliter. |
Objection 1. It would seem that this name "Father" is not applied to God, firstly as a personal name. For in the intellect the common precedes the particular. But this name "Father" as a personal name, belongs to the person of the Father; and taken in an essential sense it is common to the whole Trinity; for we say "Our Father" to the whole Trinity. Therefore "Father" comes first as an essential name before its personal sense. |
| IЄ q. 33 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, in his quae sunt eiusdem rationis, non est praedicatio per prius et posterius. Sed paternitas et filiatio secundum unam rationem videntur dici secundum quod persona divina est pater filii, et secundum quod tota Trinitas est pater noster vel creaturae, cum, secundum Basilium, accipere sit commune creaturae et filio. Ergo non per prius dicitur pater in divinis secundum quod sumitur essentialiter, quam secundum quod sumitur personaliter. | Objection 2. Further, in things of which the concept is the same there is no priority of predication. But paternity and filiation seem to be of the same nature, according as a divine person is Father of the Son, and the whole Trinity is our Father, or the creature's; since, according to Basil (Hom. xv, De Fide), to receive is common to the creature and to the Son. Therefore "Father" in God is not taken as an essential name before it is taken personally. |
| IЄ q. 33 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, inter ea quae non dicuntur secundum rationem unam, non potest esse comparatio. Sed filius comparatur creaturae in ratione filiationis vel generationis, secundum illud Coloss. I, qui est imago Dei invisibilis, primogenitus omnis creaturae. Ergo non per prius dicitur in divinis paternitas personaliter sumpta, quam essentialiter; sed secundum rationem eandem. | Objection 3. Further, it is not possible to compare things which have not a common concept. But the Son is compared to the creature by reason of filiation or generation, according to Col. 1:15: "Who is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of every creature." Therefore paternity taken in a personal sense is not prior to, but has the same concept as, paternity taken essentially. |
| IЄ q. 33 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod aeternum prius est temporali. Ab aeterno autem Deus est pater filii, ex tempore autem pater est creaturae. Ergo per prius dicitur paternitas in Deo respectu filii, quam respectu creaturae. | On the contrary, The eternal comes before the temporal. But God is the Father of the Son from eternity; while He is the Father of the creature in time. Therefore paternity in God is taken in a personal sense as regards the Son, before it is so taken as regards the creature. |
| IЄ q. 33 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod per prius dicitur nomen de illo in quo salvatur tota ratio nominis perfecte, quam de illo in quo salvatur secundum aliquid, de hoc enim dicitur quasi per similitudinem ad id in quo perfecte salvatur, quia omnia imperfecta sumuntur a perfectis. Et inde est quod hoc nomen leo per prius dicitur de animali in quo tota ratio leonis salvatur, quod proprie dicitur leo, quam de aliquo homine in quo invenitur aliquid de ratione leonis, ut puta audacia vel fortitudo, vel aliquid huiusmodi, de hoc enim per similitudinem dicitur. Manifestum est autem ex praemissis quod perfecta ratio paternitatis et filiationis invenitur in Deo patre et Deo filio, quia patris et filii una est natura et gloria. Sed in creatura filiatio invenitur respectu Dei, non secundum perfectam rationem, cum non sit una natura creatoris et creaturae; sed secundum aliqualem similitudinem. Quae quanto perfectior fuerit, tanto propinquius acceditur ad veram filiationis rationem. Dicitur enim Deus alicuius creaturae pater, propter similitudinem vestigii tantum, utpote irrationalium creaturarum; secundum illud Iob XXXVIII, quis est pluviae pater? Aut quis genuit stillas roris? Alicuius vero creaturae, scilicet rationalis, secundum similitudinem imaginis; secundum illud Deut. XXXII, nonne ipse est pater tuus, qui possedit et fecit et creavit te? Aliquorum vero est pater secundum similitudinem gratiae, qui etiam dicuntur filii adoptivi, secundum quod ordinantur ad haereditatem aeternae gloriae per munus gratiae acceptum; secundum illud Rom. VIII, ipse spiritus reddit testimonium spiritui nostro, quod sumus filii Dei; si autem filii, et haeredes. Aliquorum vero secundum similitudinem gloriae, prout iam gloriae haereditatem possident; secundum illud Rom. V, gloriamur in spe gloriae filiorum Dei. Sic igitur patet quod per prius paternitas dicitur in divinis secundum quod importatur respectus personae ad personam, quam secundum quod importatur respectus Dei ad creaturam. | I answer that, A name is applied to that wherein is perfectly contained its whole signification, before it is applied to that which only partially contains it; for the latter bears the name by reason of a kind of similitude to that which answers perfectly to the signification of the name; since all imperfect things are taken from perfect things. Hence this name "lion" is applied first to the animal containing the whole nature of a lion, and which is properly so called, before it is applied to a man who shows something of a lion's nature, as courage, or strength, or the like; and of whom it is said by way of similitude. Now it is manifest from the foregoing (27, 2; 28, 4), that the perfect idea of paternity and filiation is to be found in God the Father, and in God the Son, because one is the nature and glory of the Father and the Son. But in the creature, filiation is found in relation to God, not in a perfect manner, since the Creator and the creature have not the same nature; but by way of a certain likeness, which is the more perfect the nearer we approach to the true idea of filiation. For God is called the Father of some creatures, by reason only of a trace, for instance of irrational creatures, according to Job 38:28: "Who is the father of the rain? or who begot the drops of dew?" Of some, namely, the rational creature (He is the Father), by reason of the likeness of His image, according to Dt. 32:6: "Is He not thy Father, who possessed, and made, and created thee?" And of others He is the Father by similitude of grace, and these are also called adoptive sons, as ordained to the heritage of eternal glory by the gift of grace which they have received, according to Rm. 8:16,17: "The Spirit Himself gives testimony to our spirit that we are the sons of God; and if sons, heirs also." Lastly, He is the Father of others by similitude of glory, forasmuch as they have obtained possession of the heritage of glory, according to Rm. 5:2: "We glory in the hope of the glory of the sons of God." Therefore it is plain that "paternity" is applied to God first, as importing regard of one Person to another Person, before it imports the regard of God to creatures. |
| IЄ q. 33 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod communia absolute dicta, secundum ordinem intellectus nostri, sunt priora quam propria, quia includuntur in intellectu propriorum, sed non e converso; in intellectu enim personae patris intelligitur Deus, sed non convertitur. Sed communia quae important respectum ad creaturam, per posterius dicuntur quam propria quae important respectus personales, quia persona procedens in divinis, procedit ut principium productionis creaturarum. Sicut enim verbum conceptum in mente artificis, per prius intelligitur procedere ab artifice quam artificiatum, quod producitur ad similitudinem verbi concepti in mente; ita per prius procedit filius a patre quam creatura, de qua nomen filiationis dicitur secundum quod aliquid participat de similitudine filii; ut patet per illud quod dicitur Rom. VIII, quos praescivit, et praedestinavit fieri conformes imaginis filii eius. | Reply to Objection 1. Common terms taken absolutely, in the order of our intelligence, come before proper terms; because they are included in the understanding of proper terms; but not conversely. For in the concept of the person of the Father, God is understood; but not conversely. But common terms which import relation to the creature come after proper terms which import personal relations; because the person proceeding in God proceeds as the principle of the production of creatures. For as the word conceived in the mind of the artist is first understood to proceed from the artist before the thing designed, which is produced in likeness to the word conceived in the artist's mind; so the Son proceeds from the Father before the creature, to which the name of filiation is applied as it participates in the likeness of the Son, as is clear from the words of Rm. 8:29: "Whom He foreknew and predestined to be made conformable to the image of His Son." |
| IЄ q. 33 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod accipere dicitur esse commune creaturae et filio, non secundum univocationem, sed secundum similitudinem quandam remotam, ratione cuius dicitur primogenitus creaturae. Unde in auctoritate inducta subditur, ut sit ipse primogenitus in multis fratribus, postquam dixerat conformes fieri aliquos imaginis filii Dei. Sed filius Dei naturaliter habet quoddam singulare prae aliis, scilicet habere per naturam id quod accipit; ut idem Basilius dicit. Et secundum hoc dicitur unigenitus, ut patet Ioan. I, unigenitus, qui est in sinu patris, ipse nobis enarravit. | Reply to Objection 2. To "receive" is said to be common to the creature and to the Son not in a univocal sense, but according to a certain remote similitude whereby He is called the First Born of creatures. Hence the authority quoted subjoins: "That He may be the First Born among many brethren," after saying that some were conformed to the image of the Son of God. But the Son of God possesses a position of singularity above others, in having by nature what He receives, as Basil also declares (Hom. xv De Fide); hence He is called the only begotten (Jn. 1:18): "The only begotten Who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared unto us." |
| IЄ q. 33 a. 3 ad 3 Et per hoc patet solutio ad tertium. | From this appears the Reply to the Third Objection. |
IЄ q. 33 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod esse ingenitum non sit patri proprium. Omnis enim proprietas ponit aliquid in eo cuius est proprietas. Sed ingenitus nihil ponit in patre, sed removet tantum. Ergo non significat proprietatem patris. |
Objection 1. It would seem that it is not proper to the Father to be unbegotten. For every property supposes something in that of which it is the property. But "unbegotten" supposes nothing in the Father; it only removes something. Therefore it does not signify a property of the Father. |
| IЄ q. 33 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, ingenitum aut dicitur privative, aut negative. Si negative, tunc quidquid non est genitum, potest dici ingenitum. Sed spiritus sanctus non est genitus, neque etiam essentia divina. Ergo ingenitum etiam eis convenit, et sic non est proprium patri. Si autem privative sumatur, cum omnis privatio significet imperfectionem in privato, sequitur quod persona patris sit imperfecta. Quod est impossibile. | Objection 2. Further, Unbegotten is taken either in a privative, or in a negative sense. If in a negative sense, then whatever is not begotten can be called unbegotten. But the Holy Ghost is not begotten; neither is the divine essence. Therefore to be unbegotten belongs also to the essence; thus it is not proper to the Father. But if it be taken in a privative sense, as every privation signifies imperfection in the thing which is the subject of privation, it follows that the Person of the Father is imperfect; which cannot be. |
| IЄ q. 33 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, ingenitus in divinis non significat relationem, quia non dicitur relative, significat ergo substantiam. Ingenitus igitur et genitus secundum substantiam differunt. Filius autem, qui est genitus, non differt a patre secundum substantiam. Pater ergo non debet dici ingenitus. | Objection 3. Further, in God, "unbegotten" does not signify relation, for it is not used relatively. Therefore it signifies substance; therefore unbegotten and begotten differ in substance. But the Son, Who is begotten, does not differ from the Father in substance. Therefore the Father ought not to be called unbegotten. |
| IЄ q. 33 a. 4 arg. 4 Praeterea, proprium est quod uni soli convenit. Sed cum sint plures ab alio procedentes in divinis, nihil videtur prohibere quin etiam sint plures ab alio non existentes. Non igitur est proprium patri esse ingenitum. | Objection 4. Further, property means what belongs to one alone. Since, then, there are more than one in God proceeding from another, there is nothing to prevent several not receiving their being from another. Therefore the Father is not alone unbegotten. |
| IЄ q. 33 a. 4 arg. 5 Praeterea, sicut pater est principium personae genitae, ita et personae procedentis. Si ergo propter oppositionem quam habet ad personam genitam, proprium patris ponitur esse quod sit ingenitus; etiam proprium eius debet poni quod sit improcessibilis. | Objection 5. Further, as the Father is the principle of the person begotten, so is He of the person proceeding. So if by reason of his opposition to the person begotten, it is proper to the Father to be unbegotten it follows that it is proper to Him also to be unproceeding. |
| IЄ q. 33 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicit Hilarius, IV de Trin.: est unus ab uno, scilicet ab ingenito genitus, proprietate videlicet in unoquoque et innascibilitatis et originis. | On the contrary, Hilary says (De Trin. iv): "One is from one --that is, the Begotten is from the Unbegotten--namely, by the property in each one respectively of innascibility and origin." |
| IЄ q. 33 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut in creaturis invenitur principium primum et principium secundum, ita in personis divinis, in quibus non est prius et posterius, invenitur principium non de principio, quod est pater, et principium a principio, quod est filius. In rebus autem creatis aliquod principium primum innotescit dupliciter, uno quidem modo, inquantum est principium primum per hoc quod habet relationem ad ea quae ab ipso sunt; alio modo, inquantum est primum principium per hoc quod non est ab alio. Sic igitur et pater innotescit quidem paternitate et communi spiratione, per respectum ad personas ab eo procedentes, inquantum autem est principium non de principio, innotescit per hoc, quod non est ab alio, quod pertinet ad proprietatem innascibilitatis, quam significat hoc nomen ingenitus. | I answer that, As in creatures there exist a first and a secondary principle, so also in the divine Persons, in Whom there is no before or after, is formed the principle not from a principle, Who is the Father; and the principle from a principle, Who is the Son. Now in things created a first principle is known in two ways; in one way as the first "principle," by reason of its having a relation to what proceeds from itself; in another way, inasmuch as it is a "first" principle by reason of its not being from another. Thus therefore the Father is known both by paternity and by common spiration, as regards the persons proceeding from Himself. But as the principle, not from a principle He is known by the fact that He is not from another; and this belongs to the property of innascibility, signified by this word "begotten." |
| IЄ q. 33 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod quidam dicunt quod innascibilitas, quam significat hoc nomen ingenitus, secundum quod est proprietas patris, non dicitur tantum negative; sed importat vel utrumque simul, scilicet quod pater a nullo est, et quod est principium aliorum; vel importat universalem auctoritatem; vel etiam fontalem plenitudinem. Sed hoc non videtur verum. Quia sic innascibilitas non esset alia proprietas a paternitate et spiratione, sed includeret eas, sicut includitur proprium in communi, nam fontalitas et auctoritas nihil aliud significant in divinis quam principium originis. Et ideo dicendum est, secundum Augustinum, V de Trin., quod ingenitus negationem generationis passivae importat, dicit enim quod tantum valet quod dicitur ingenitus, quantum valet quod dicitur non filius. Nec propter hoc sequitur quod ingenitus non debeat poni propria notio patris, quia prima et simplicia per negationes notificantur; sicut dicimus punctum esse cuius pars non est. | Reply to Objection 1. Some there are who say that innascibility, signified by the word "unbegotten," as a property of the Father, is not a negative term only, but either that it means both these things together--namely, that the Father is from no one, and that He is the principle of others; or that it imports universal authority, or also His plenitude as the source of all. This, however, does not seem true, because thus innascibility would not be a property distinct from paternity and spiration; but would include them as the proper is included in the common. For source and authority signify in God nothing but the principle of origin. We must therefore say with Augustine (De Trin. v, 7) that "unbegotten" imports the negation of passive generation. For he says that "unbegotten" has the same meaning as "not a son." Nor does it follow that "unbegotten" is not the proper notion of the Father; for primary and simple things are notified by negations; as, for instance, a point is defined as what has no part. |
| IЄ q. 33 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod ingenitum quandoque sumitur negative tantum. Et secundum hoc Hieronymus dicit spiritum sanctum esse ingenitum, idest non genitum. Alio modo potest dici ingenitum aliquo modo privative, non tamen aliquam imperfectionem importat. Multipliciter enim dicitur privatio. Uno modo, quando aliquid non habet quod natum est haberi ab alio, etiamsi ipsum non sit natum habere illud, sicut si lapis dicatur res mortua, quia caret vita, quam quaedam res natae sunt habere. Alio modo dicitur privatio, quando aliquid non habet quod natum est haberi ab aliquo sui generis; sicut si talpa dicatur caeca. Tertio modo, quando ipsum non habet quod natum est habere, et hoc modo privatio imperfectionem importat. Sic autem ingenitum non dicitur privative de patre, sed secundo modo, prout scilicet aliquod suppositum divinae naturae non est genitum, cuius tamen naturae aliquod suppositum est genitum. Sed secundum hanc rationem, etiam de spiritu sancto potest dici ingenitum. Unde ad hoc quod sit proprium soli patri, oportet ulterius in nomine ingeniti intelligere, quod conveniat alicui personae divinae quae sit principium alterius personae; ut sic intelligatur importare negationem in genere principii personaliter dicti in divinis. Vel, ut intelligatur in nomine ingeniti, quod omnino non sit ab alio, et non solum quod non sit ab alio per generationem. Sic enim nec spiritui sancto convenit esse ingenitum, qui est ab alio per processionem ut persona subsistens, nec etiam divinae essentiae, de qua potest dici quod est in filio vel in spiritu sancto ab alio, scilicet a patre. | Reply to Objection 2. "Unbegotten" is taken sometimes in a negative sense only, and in that sense Jerome says that "the Holy Ghost is unbegotten," that is, He is not begotten. Otherwise "unbegotten" may be taken in a kind of privation sense, but not as implying any imperfection. For privation can be taken in many ways; in one way when a thing has not what is naturally belongs to another, even though it is not of its own nature to have it; as, for instance, if a stone be called a dead thing, as wanting life, which naturally belongs to some other things. In another sense, privation is so called when something has not what naturally belongs to some members of its genus; as for instance when a mole is called blind. In a third sense privation means the absence of what something ought to have; in which sense, privation imports an imperfection. In this sense, "unbegotten" is not attributed to the Father as a privation, but it may be so attributed in the second sense, meaning that a certain person of the divine nature is not begotten, while some person of the same nature is begotten. In this sense the term "unbegotten" can be applied also to the Holy Ghost. Hence to consider it as a term proper to the Father alone, it must be further understood that the name "unbegotten" belongs to a divine person as the principle of another person; so that it be understood to imply negation in the genus of principle taken personally in God. Or that there be understood in the term "unbegotten" that He is not in any way derived from another; and not only that He is not from another by way only of generation. In this sense the term "unbegotten" does not belong at all to the Holy Ghost, Who is from another by procession, as a subsisting person; nor does it belong to the divine essence, of which it may be said that it is in the Son or in the Holy Ghost from another--namely, from the Father. |
| IЄ q. 33 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, secundum Damascenum, ingenitum uno modo significat idem quod increatum, et sic secundum substantiam dicitur; per hoc enim differt substantia creata ab increata. Alio modo significat id quod non est genitum. Et sic relative dicitur, eo modo quo negatio reducitur ad genus affirmationis, sicut non homo ad genus substantiae, et non album ad genus qualitatis. Unde, cum genitum in divinis relationem importet, ingenitum etiam ad relationem pertinet. Et sic non sequitur quod pater ingenitus distinguatur a filio genito secundum substantiam; sed solum secundum relationem, inquantum scilicet relatio filii negatur de patre. | Reply to Objection 3. According to Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 9), "unbegotten" in one sense signifies the same as "uncreated"; and thus it applies to the substance, for thereby does the created substance differ from the uncreated. In another sense it signifies what is not begotten, and in this sense it is a relative term; just as negation is reduced to the genus of affirmation, as "not man" is reduced to the genus of substance, and "not white" to the genus of quality. Hence, since "begotten" implies relation in God, "unbegotten" belongs also to relation. Thus it does not follow that the Father unbegotten is substantially distinguished from the Son begotten; but only by relation; that is, as the relation of Son is denied of the Father. |
| IЄ q. 33 a. 4 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod, sicut in quolibet genere oportet ponere unum primum, ita in divina natura oportet ponere unum principium quod non sit ab alio, quod ingenitum dicitur. Ponere igitur duos innascibiles, est ponere duos deos, et duas naturas divinas. Unde Hilarius dicit, in libro de synodis, cum unus Deus sit, duo innascibiles esse non possunt. Et hoc praecipue quia, si essent duo innascibiles, unus eorum non esset ab alio, et sic non distinguerentur oppositione relativa oporteret igitur quod distinguerentur diversitate naturae. | Reply to Objection 4. In every genus there must be something first; so in the divine nature there must be some one principle which is not from another, and which we call "unbegotten." To admit two innascibles is to suppose the existence of two Gods, and two divine natures. Hence Hilary says (De Synod.): "As there is one God, so there cannot be two innascibles." And this especially because, did two innascibles exist, one would not be from the other, and they would not be distinguished by relative opposition: therefore they would be distinguished from each other by diversity of nature. |
| IЄ q. 33 a. 4 ad 5 Ad quintum dicendum quod proprietas patris prout non est ab alio, potius significatur per remotionem nativitatis filii, quam per remotionem processionis spiritus sancti. Tum quia processio spiritus sancti non habet nomen speciale, ut supra dictum est. Tum quia etiam ordine naturae praesupponit generationem filii. Unde, remoto a patre quod non sit genitus, cum tamen sit principium generationis, sequitur consequenter quod non sit procedens processione spiritus sancti, quia spiritus sanctus non est generationis principium, sed a genito procedens. | Reply to Objection 5. The property of the Father, whereby He is not from another, is more clearly signified by the removal of the nativity of the Son, than by the removal of the procession of the Holy Ghost; both because the procession of the Holy Ghost has no special name, as stated above (27, 4, ad 3), and because also in the order of nature it presupposes the generation of the Son. Hence, it being denied of the Father that He is begotten, although He is the principle of generation, it follows, as a consequence, that He does not proceed by the procession of the Holy Ghost, because the Holy Ghost is not the principle of generation, but proceeds from the person begotten. |
| IЄ q. 34 pr. Deinde considerandum est de persona filii. Attribuuntur autem tria nomina filio, scilicet filius, verbum et imago. Sed ratio filii ex ratione patris consideratur. Unde restat considerandum de verbo et imagine. Circa verbum quaeruntur tria. Primo, utrum verbum dicatur essentialiter in divinis, vel personaliter. Secundo, utrum sit proprium nomen filii. Tertio, utrum in nomine verbi importetur respectus ad creaturas. | |
IЄ q. 34 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod verbum in divinis non sit nomen personale. Nomina enim personalia proprie dicuntur in divinis, ut pater et filius. Sed verbum metaphorice dicitur in divinis, ut Origenes dicit, super Ioannem. Ergo verbum non est personale in divinis. |
Objection 1. It would seem that Word in God is not a personal name. For personal names are applied to God in a proper sense, as Father and Son. But Word is applied to God metaphorically, as Origen says on (Jn. 1:1), "In the beginning was the Word." Therefore Word is not a personal name in God. |
| IЄ q. 34 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, secundum Augustinum, in libro de Trin., verbum est notitia cum amore. Et secundum Anselmum, in Monol., dicere summo spiritui nihil aliud est quam cogitando intueri. Sed notitia et cogitatio et intuitus in divinis essentialiter dicuntur. Ergo verbum non dicitur personaliter in divinis. | Objection 2. Further, according to Augustine (De Trin. ix, 10), "The Word is knowledge with love;" and according to Anselm (Monol. lx), "To speak is to the Supreme Spirit nothing but to see by thought." But knowledge and thought, and sight, are essential terms in God. Therefore Word is not a personal term in God. |
| IЄ q. 34 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, de ratione verbi est quod dicatur. Sed, secundum Anselmum, sicut pater est intelligens, et filius est intelligens, et spiritus sanctus est intelligens; ita pater est dicens, filius est dicens, et spiritus sanctus est dicens. Et similiter quilibet eorum dicitur. Ergo nomen verbi essentialiter dicitur in divinis, et non personaliter. | Objection 3. Further, it is essential to word to be spoken. But, according to Anselm (Monol. lix), as the Father is intelligent, the Son is intelligent, and the Holy Ghost is intelligent, so the Father speaks, the Son speaks, and the Holy Ghost speaks; and likewise, each one of them is spoken. Therefore, the name Word is used as an essential term in God, and not in a personal sense. |
| IЄ q. 34 a. 1 arg. 4 Praeterea, nulla persona divina est facta. Sed verbum Dei est aliquid factum, dicitur enim in Psalmo CXLVIII, ignis, grando, nix, glacies, spiritus procellarum, quae faciunt verbum eius. Ergo verbum non est nomen personale in divinis. | Objection 4. Further, no divine person is made. But the Word of God is something made. For it is said, "Fire, hail, snow, ice, the storms which do His Word" (Ps. 148:8). Therefore the Word is not a personal name in God. |
| IЄ q. 34 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicit Augustinus, in VII de Trin., sicut filius refertur ad patrem, ita et verbum ad id cuius est verbum. Sed filius est nomen personale, quia relative dicitur. Ergo et verbum. | On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. vii, 11): "As the Son is related to the Father, so also is the Word to Him Whose Word He is." But the Son is a personal name, since it is said relatively. Therefore so also is Word. |
| IЄ q. 34 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod nomen verbi in divinis, si proprie sumatur, est nomen personale, et nullo modo essentiale. Ad cuius evidentiam, sciendum est quod verbum tripliciter quidem in nobis proprie dicitur, quarto autem modo, dicitur improprie sive figurative. Manifestius autem et communius in nobis dicitur verbum quod voce profertur. Quod quidem ab interiori procedit quantum ad duo quae in verbo exteriori inveniuntur, scilicet vox ipsa, et significatio vocis. Vox enim significat intellectus conceptum, secundum philosophum, in libro I Periherm., et iterum vox ex imaginatione procedit, ut in libro de anima dicitur. Vox autem quae non est significativa, verbum dici non potest. Ex hoc ergo dicitur verbum vox exterior, quia significat interiorem mentis conceptum. Sic igitur primo et principaliter interior mentis conceptus verbum dicitur, secundario vero, ipsa vox interioris conceptus significativa, tertio vero, ipsa imaginatio vocis verbum dicitur. Et hos tres modos verbi ponit Damascenus, in I libro, cap. XIII, dicens quod verbum dicitur naturalis intellectus motus, secundum quem movetur et intelligit et cogitat, velut lux et splendor, quantum ad primum, rursus verbum est quod non verbo profertur, sed in corde pronuntiatur, quantum ad tertium, rursus etiam verbum est Angelus, idest nuntius, intelligentiae, quantum ad secundum. Dicitur autem figurative quarto modo verbum, id quod verbo significatur vel efficitur, sicut consuevimus dicere, hoc est verbum quod dixi tibi, vel quod mandavit rex, demonstrato aliquo facto quod verbo significatum est vel simpliciter enuntiantis, vel etiam imperantis. Dicitur autem proprie verbum in Deo, secundum quod verbum significat conceptum intellectus. Unde Augustinus dicit, in XV de Trin., quisquis potest intelligere verbum, non solum antequam sonet, verum etiam antequam sonorum eius imagines cogitatione involvantur, iam potest videre aliquam verbi illius similitudinem, de quo dictum est, in principio erat verbum. Ipse autem conceptus cordis de ratione sua habet quod ab alio procedat, scilicet a notitia concipientis. Unde verbum, secundum quod proprie dicitur in divinis, significat aliquid ab alio procedens, quod pertinet ad rationem nominum personalium in divinis, eo quod personae divinae distinguuntur secundum originem, ut dictum est. Unde oportet quod nomen verbi, secundum quod proprie in divinis accipitur, non sumatur essentialiter, sed personaliter tantum. | I answer that, The name of Word in God, if taken in its proper sense, is a personal name, and in no way an essential name. To see how this is true, we must know that our own word taken in its proper sense has a threefold meaning; while in a fourth sense it is taken improperly or figuratively. The clearest and most common sense is when it is said of the word spoken by the voice; and this proceeds from an interior source as regards two things found in the exterior word--that is, the vocal sound itself, and the signification of the sound. For, according to the Philosopher (Peri Herm. i) vocal sound signifies the concept of the intellect. Again the vocal sound proceeds from the signification or the imagination, as stated in De Anima ii, text 90. The vocal sound, which has no signification cannot be called a word: wherefore the exterior vocal sound is called a word from the fact the it signifies the interior concept of the mind. Therefore it follows that, first and chiefly, the interior concept of the mind is called a word; secondarily, the vocal sound itself, signifying the interior concept, is so called; and thirdly, the imagination of the vocal sound is called a word. Damascene mentions these three kinds of words (De Fide Orth. i, 17), saying that "word" is called "the natural movement of the intellect, whereby it is moved, and understands, and thinks, as light and splendor;" which is the first kind. "Again," he says, "the word is what is not pronounced by a vocal word, but is uttered in the heart;" which is the third kind. "Again," also, "the word is the angel"--that is, the messenger "of intelligence;" which is the second kind. Word is also used in a fourth way figuratively for that which is signified or effected by a word; thus we are wont to say, "this is the word I have said," or "which the king has commanded," alluding to some deed signified by the word either by way of assertion or of command. Now word is taken strictly in God, as signifying the concept of the intellect. Hence Augustine says (De Trin. xv, 10): "Whoever can understand the word, not only before it is sounded, but also before thought has clothed it with imaginary sound, can already see some likeness of that Word of Whom it is said: In the beginning was the Word." The concept itself of the heart has of its own nature to proceed from something other than itself--namely, from the knowledge of the one conceiving. Hence "Word," according as we use the term strictly of God, signifies something proceeding from another; which belongs to the nature of personal terms in God, inasmuch as the divine persons are distinguished by origin (27, 3,4,5). Hence the term "Word," according as we use the term strictly of God, is to be taken as said not essentially, but personally. |
| IЄ q. 34 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Ariani, quorum fons Origenes invenitur, posuerunt filium alium a patre esse in diversitate substantiae. Unde conati sunt, cum filius Dei verbum dicitur, astruere non esse proprie dictum; ne, sub ratione verbi procedentis, cogerentur fateri filium Dei non esse extra substantiam patris; nam verbum interius sic a dicente procedit, quod in ipso manet. Sed necesse est, si ponitur verbum Dei metaphorice dictum, quod ponatur verbum Dei proprie dictum. Non enim potest aliquid metaphorice verbum dici, nisi ratione manifestationis, quia vel manifestat sicut verbum, vel est verbo manifestatum. Si autem est manifestatum verbo, oportet ponere verbum quo manifestetur. Si autem dicitur verbum quia exterius manifestat, ea quae exterius manifestant, non dicuntur verba nisi inquantum significant interiorem mentis conceptum, quem aliquis etiam per exteriora signa manifestat. Etsi ergo verbum aliquando dicatur metaphorice in divinis, tamen oportet ponere verbum proprie dictum, quod personaliter dicatur. | Reply to Objection 1. The Arians, who sprang from Origen, declared that the Son differed in substance from the Father. Hence, they endeavored to maintain that when the Son of God is called the Word, this is not to be understood in a strict sense; lest the idea of the Word proceeding should compel them to confess that the Son of God is of the same substance as the Father. For the interior word proceeds in such a manner from the one who pronounces it, as to remain within him. But supposing Word to be said metaphorically of God, we must still admit Word in its strict sense. For if a thing be called a word metaphorically, this can only be by reason of some manifestation; either it makes something manifest as a word, or it is manifested by a word. If manifested by a word, there must exist a word whereby it is manifested. If it is called a word because it exteriorly manifests, what it exteriorly manifests cannot be called word except in as far as it signifies the interior concept of the mind, which anyone may also manifest by exterior signs. Therefore, although Word may be sometimes said of God metaphorically, nevertheless we must also admit Word in the proper sense, and which is said personally. |
| IЄ q. 34 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod nihil eorum quae ad intellectum pertinent, personaliter dicitur in divinis, nisi solum verbum, solum enim verbum significat aliquid ab alio emanans. Id enim quod intellectus in concipiendo format, est verbum. Intellectus autem ipse, secundum quod est per speciem intelligibilem in actu, consideratur absolute. Et similiter intelligere, quod ita se habet ad intellectum in actu, sicut esse ad ens in actu, non enim intelligere significat actionem ab intelligente exeuntem, sed in intelligente manentem. Cum ergo dicitur quod verbum est notitia, non accipitur notitia pro actu intellectus cognoscentis, vel pro aliquo eius habitu, sed pro eo quod intellectus concipit cognoscendo. Unde et Augustinus dicit quod verbum est sapientia genita, quod nihil aliud est quam ipsa conceptio sapientis, quae etiam pari modo notitia genita dici potest. Et per eundem modum potest intelligi quod dicere Deo sit cogitando intueri, inquantum scilicet intuitu cogitationis divinae concipitur verbum Dei. Cogitationis tamen nomen Dei verbo proprie non convenit, dicit enim Augustinus, XV de Trin., ita dicitur illud verbum Dei, ut cogitatio non dicatur; ne aliquid esse quasi volubile credatur in Deo, quod nunc accipiat formam ut verbum sit, eamque dimittere possit, atque informiter quodammodo volutari. Cogitatio enim proprie in inquisitione veritatis consistit, quae in Deo locum non habet. Cum vero intellectus iam ad formam veritatis pertingit, non cogitat, sed perfecte veritatem contemplatur. Unde Anselmus improprie accipit cogitationem pro contemplatione. | Reply to Objection 2. Nothing belonging to the intellect can be applied to God personally, except word alone; for word alone signifies that which emanates from another. For what the intellect forms in its conception is the word. Now, the intellect itself, according as it is made actual by the intelligible species, is considered absolutely; likewise the act of understanding which is to the actual intellect what existence is to actual being; since the act of understanding does not signify an act going out from the intelligent agent, but an act remaining in the agent. Therefore when we say that word is knowledge, the term knowledge does not mean the act of a knowing intellect, or any one of its habits, but stands for what the intellect conceives by knowing. Hence also Augustine says (De Trin. vii, 1) that the Word is "begotten wisdom;" for it is nothing but the concept of the Wise One; and in the same way It can be called "begotten knowledge." Thus can also be explained how "to speak" is in God "to see by thought," forasmuch as the Word is conceived by the gaze of the divine thought. Still the term "thought" does not properly apply to the Word of God. For Augustine says (De Trin. xv, 16): "Therefore do we speak of the Word of God, and not of the Thought of God, lest we believe that in God there is something unstable, now assuming the form of Word, now putting off that form and remaining latent and as it were formless." For thought consists properly in the search after the truth, and this has no place in God. But when the intellect attains to the form of truth, it does not think, but perfectly contemplates the truth. Hence Anselm (Monol. lx) takes "thought" in an improper sense for "contemplation." |
| IЄ q. 34 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut, proprie loquendo, verbum dicitur personaliter in divinis et non essentialiter, ita et dicere. Unde, sicut verbum non est commune patri et filio et spiritui sancto, ita non est verum quod pater et filius et spiritus sanctus sint unus dicens. Unde Augustinus dicit, VII de Trin., dicens illo coaeterno verbo non singulus intelligitur in divinis. Sed dici convenit cuilibet personae, dicitur enim non solum verbum sed res quae verbo intelligitur vel significatur. Sic ergo uni soli personae in divinis convenit dici eo modo quo dicitur verbum, eo vero modo quo dicitur res in verbo intellecta, cuilibet personae convenit dici. Pater enim, intelligendo se et filium et spiritum sanctum, et omnia alia quae eius scientia continentur, concipit verbum, ut sic tota Trinitas verbo dicatur, et etiam omnis creatura; sicut intellectus hominis verbo quod concipit intelligendo lapidem, lapidem dicit. Anselmus vero improprie accepit dicere pro intelligere. Quae tamen differunt. Nam intelligere importat solam habitudinem intelligentis ad rem intellectam; in qua nulla ratio originis importatur, sed solum informatio quaedam in intellectu nostro, prout intellectus noster fit in actu per formam rei intellectae. In Deo autem importat omnimodam identitatem, quia in Deo est omnino idem intellectus et intellectum, ut supra ostensum est. Sed dicere importat principaliter habitudinem ad verbum conceptum nihil enim est aliud dicere quam proferre verbum. Sed mediante verbo importat habitudinem ad rem intellectam, quae in verbo prolato manifestatur intelligenti. Et sic sola persona quae profert verbum, est dicens in divinis, cum tamen singula personarum sit intelligens et intellecta, et per consequens verbo dicta. | Reply to Objection 3. As, properly speaking, Word in God is said personally, and not essentially, so likewise is to "speak." Hence, as the Word is not common to the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, so it is not true that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one speaker. So Augustine says (De Trin. vii, 1): "He who speaks in that co-eternal Word is understood as not alone in God, but as being with that very Word, without which, forsooth, He would not be speaking." On the other hand, "to be spoken" belongs to each Person, for not only is the word spoken, but also the thing understood or signified by the word. Therefore in this manner to one person alone in God does it belong to be spoken in the same way as a word is spoken; whereas in the way whereby a thing is spoken as being understood in the word, it belongs to each Person to be spoken. For the Father, by understanding Himself, the Son and the Holy Ghost, and all other things comprised in this knowledge, conceives the Word; so that thus the whole Trinity is "spoken" in the Word; and likewise also all creatures: as the intellect of a man by the word he conceives in the act of understanding a stone, speaks a stone. Anselm took the term "speak" improperly for the act of understanding; whereas they really differ from each other; for "to understand" means only the habitude of the intelligent agent to the thing understood, in which habitude no trace of origin is conveyed, but only a certain information of our intellect; forasmuch as our intellect is made actual by the form of the thing understood. In God, however, it means complete identity, because in God the intellect and the thing understood are altogether the same, as was proved above (14, 4,5). Whereas to "speak" means chiefly the habitude to the word conceived; for "to speak" is nothing but to utter a word. But by means of the word it imports a habitude to the thing understood which in the word uttered is manifested to the one who understands. Thus, only the Person who utters the Word is "speaker" in God, although each Person understands and is understood, and consequently is spoken by the Word. |
| IЄ q. 34 a. 1 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod verbum sumitur ibi figurative, prout significatum vel effectus verbi dicitur verbum. Sic enim creaturae dicuntur facere verbum Dei, inquantum exequuntur effectum aliquem, ad quem ordinantur ex verbo concepto divinae sapientiae, sicut aliquis dicitur facere verbum regis, dum facit opus ad quod ex verbo regis instigatur. | Reply to Objection 4. The term "word" is there taken figuratively, as the thing signified or effected by word is called word. For thus creatures are said to do the word of God, as executing any effect, whereto they are ordained from the word conceived of the divine wisdom; as anyone is said to do the word of the king when he does the work to which he is appointed by the king's word. |
IЄ q. 34 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod verbum non sit proprium nomen filii. Filius enim est persona subsistens in divinis. Sed verbum non significat rem subsistentem, ut in nobis patet. Ergo verbum non potest esse proprium nomen personae filii. |
Objection 1. It would seem that "Word" is not the proper name of the Son. For the Son is a subsisting person in God. But word does not signify a subsisting thing, as appears in ourselves. Therefore word cannot be the proper name of the person of the Son. |
| IЄ q. 34 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, verbum prolatione quadam procedit a dicente. Si ergo filius est proprie verbum, non procedit a patre nisi per modum prolationis. Quod est haeresis Valentini, ut patet per Augustinum, in libro de haeresibus. | Objection 2. Further, the word proceeds from the speaker by being uttered. Therefore if the Son is properly the word, He proceeds from the Father, by way only of utterance; which is the heresy of Valentine; as appears from Augustine (De Haeres. xi). |
| IЄ q. 34 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, omne nomen proprium alicuius personae significat proprietatem aliquam eius. Si igitur verbum sit proprium nomen filii, significabit aliquam proprietatem eius. Et sic erunt plures proprietates in divinis quam supra enumeratae sunt. | Objection 3. Further, every proper name of a person signifies some property of that person. Therefore, if the Word is the Son's proper name, it signifies some property of His; and thus there will be several more properties in God than those above mentioned. |
| IЄ q. 34 a. 2 arg. 4 Praeterea, quicumque intelligit, intelligendo concipit verbum. Sed filius intelligit. Ergo filii est aliquod verbum. Et sic non est proprium filii esse verbum. | Objection 4. Further, whoever understands conceives a word in the act of understanding. But the Son understands. Therefore some word belongs to the Son; and consequently to be Word is not proper to the Son. |
| IЄ q. 34 a. 2 arg. 5 Praeterea, Hebr. I dicitur de filio, portans omnia verbo virtutis suae, ex quo Basilius accipit quod spiritus sanctus sit verbum filii. Non est ergo proprium filii esse verbum. | Objection 5. Further, it is said of the Son (Heb. 1:3): "Bearing all things by the word of His power;" whence Basil infers (Cont. Eunom. v, 11) that the Holy Ghost is the Son's Word. Therefore to be Word is not proper to the Son. |
| IЄ q. 34 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, VI de Trin., verbum solus filius accipitur. | On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. vi, 11): "By Word we understand the Son alone." |
| IЄ q. 34 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod verbum proprie dictum in divinis personaliter accipitur, et est proprium nomen personae filii. Significat enim quandam emanationem intellectus, persona autem quae procedit in divinis secundum emanationem intellectus, dicitur filius, et huiusmodi processio dicitur generatio, ut supra ostensum est. Unde relinquitur quod solus filius proprie dicatur verbum in divinis. | I answer that, "Word," said of God in its proper sense, is used personally, and is the proper name of the person of the Son. For it signifies an emanation of the intellect: and the person Who proceeds in God, by way of emanation of the intellect, is called the Son; and this procession is called generation, as we have shown above (27, 2). Hence it follows that the Son alone is properly called Word in God. |
| IЄ q. 34 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod in nobis non est idem esse et intelligere, unde illud quod habet in nobis esse intelligibile, non pertinet ad naturam nostram. Sed esse Dei est ipsum eius intelligere, unde verbum Dei non est aliquod accidens in ipso, vel aliquis effectus eius; sed pertinet ad ipsam naturam eius. Et ideo oportet quod sit aliquid subsistens, quia quidquid est in natura Dei, subsistit. Et ideo Damascenus dicit quod verbum Dei est substantiale, et in hypostasi ens, reliqua vero verba, scilicet nostra, virtutes sunt animae. | Reply to Objection 1. "To be" and "to understand" are not the same in us. Hence that which in us has intellectual being, does not belong to our nature. But in God "to be" and "to understand" are one and the same: hence the Word of God is not an accident in Him, or an effect of His; but belongs to His very nature. And therefore it must needs be something subsistent; for whatever is in the nature of God subsists; and so Damascene says (De Fide Orth. i, 18) that "the Word of God is substantial and has a hypostatic being; but other words [as our own] are activities if the soul." |
| IЄ q. 34 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod non propter hoc error Valentini est damnatus, quia filium dixit prolatione natum, ut Ariani calumniabantur, sicut Hilarius refert, VI de Trin., sed propter varium modum prolationis quem posuit, sicut patet per Augustinum in libro de haeresibus. | Reply to Objection 2. The error of Valentine was condemned, not as the Arians pretended, because he asserted that the Son was born by being uttered, as Hilary relates (De Trin. vi); but on account of the different mode of utterance proposed by its author, as appears from Augustine (De Haeres. xi). |
| IЄ q. 34 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod in nomine verbi eadem proprietas importatur quae in nomine filii, unde dicit Augustinus, eo dicitur verbum, quo filius. Ipsa enim nativitas filii, quae est proprietas personalis eius, diversis nominibus significatur, quae filio attribuuntur ad exprimendum diversimode perfectionem eius. Nam ut ostendatur connaturalis patri, dicitur filius; ut ostendatur coaeternus, dicitur splendor; ut ostendatur omnino similis, dicitur imago; ut ostendatur immaterialiter genitus, dicitur verbum. Non autem potuit unum nomen inveniri, per quod omnia ista designarentur. | Reply to Objection 3. In the term "Word" the same property is comprised as in the name Son. Hence Augustine says (De Trin. vii, 11): "Word and Son express the same." For the Son's nativity, which is His personal property, is signified by different names, which are attributed to the Son to express His perfection in various ways. To show that He is of the same nature as the Father, He is called the Son; to show that He is co-eternal, He is called the Splendor; to show that He is altogether like, He is called the Image; to show that He is begotten immaterially, He is called the Word. All these truths cannot be expressed by only one name. |
| IЄ q. 34 a. 2 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod eo modo convenit filio esse intelligentem, quo convenit ei esse Deum, cum intelligere essentialiter dicatur in divinis, ut dictum est. Est autem filius Deus genitus, non autem generans Deus. Unde est quidem intelligens, non ut producens verbum, sed ut verbum procedens; prout scilicet in Deo verbum procedens secundum rem non differt ab intellectu divino, sed relatione sola distinguitur a principio verbi. | Reply to Objection 4. To be intelligent belongs to the Son, in the same way as it belongs to Him to be God, since to understand is said of God essentially, as stated above (14, 2,4). Now the Son is God begotten, and not God begetting; and hence He is intelligent, not as producing a Word, but as the Word proceeding; forasmuch as in God the Word proceeding does not differ really from the divine intellect, but is distinguished from the principle of the Word only by relation. |
| IЄ q. 34 a. 2 ad 5 Ad quintum dicendum quod, cum de filio dicitur, portans omnia verbo virtutis suae, verbum figurate accipitur pro effectu verbi. Unde Glossa ibi dicit quod verbum sumitur pro imperio; inquantum scilicet ex effectu virtutis verbi est quod res conserventur in esse, sicut ex effectu virtutis verbi est quod res producantur in esse. Quod vero Basilius interpretatur verbum pro spiritu sancto, improprie et figurate locutus est, prout verbum alicuius dici potest omne illud quod est manifestativum eius, ut sic ea ratione dicatur spiritus sanctus verbum filii, quia manifestat filium. | Reply to Objection 5. When it is said of the Son, "Bearing all things by the word of His power"; "word" is taken figuratively for the effect of the Word. Hence a gloss says that "word" is here taken to mean command; inasmuch as by the effect of the power of the Word, things are kept in being, as also by the effect of the power of the Word things are brought into being. Basil speaks widely and figuratively in applying Word to the Holy Ghost; in the sense perhaps that everything that makes a person known may be called his word, and so in that way the Holy Ghost may be called the Son's Word, because He manifests the Son. |
IЄ q. 34 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod in nomine verbi non importetur respectus ad creaturam. Omne enim nomen connotans effectum in creatura, essentialiter in divinis dicitur. Sed verbum non dicitur essentialiter, sed personaliter, ut dictum est. Ergo verbum non importat respectum ad creaturam. |
Objection 1. It would seem that the name 'Word' does not import relation to creatures. For every name that connotes some effect in creatures, is said of God essentially. But Word is not said essentially, but personally. Therefore Word does not import relation to creatures. |
| IЄ q. 34 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, quae important respectum ad creaturas, dicuntur de Deo ex tempore, ut dominus et creator. Sed verbum dicitur de Deo ab aeterno. Ergo non importat respectum ad creaturam. | Objection 2. Further, whatever imports relation to creatures is said of God in time; as "Lord" and "Creator." But Word is said of God from eternity. Therefore it does not import relation to the creature. |
| IЄ q. 34 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, verbum importat respectum ad id a quo procedit. Si ergo importat respectum ad creaturam, sequitur quod procedat a creatura. | Objection 3. Further, Word imports relation to the source whence it proceeds. Therefore, if it imports relation to the creature, it follows that the Word proceeds from the creature. |
| IЄ q. 34 a. 3 arg. 4 Praeterea, ideae sunt plures secundum diversos respectus ad creaturas. Si igitur verbum importat respectum ad creaturas, sequitur quod in Deo non sit unum verbum tantum, sed plura. | Objection 4. Further, ideas (in God) are many according to their various relations to creatures. Therefore if Word imports relation to creatures, it follows that in God there is not one Word only, but many. |
| IЄ q. 34 a. 3 arg. 5 Praeterea, si verbum importat respectum ad creaturam, hoc non est nisi inquantum creaturae cognoscuntur a Deo. Sed Deus non solum cognoscit entia, sed etiam non entia. Ergo in verbo importabitur respectus ad non entia, quod videtur falsum. | Objection 5. Further, if Word imports relation to the creature, this can only be because creatures are known by God. But God does not know beings only; He knows also non-beings. Therefore in the Word are implied relations to non-beings; which appears to be false. |
| IЄ q. 34 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicit Augustinus, in libro octoginta trium quaest., quod in nomine verbi significatur non solum respectus ad patrem, sed etiam ad illa quae per verbum facta sunt operativa potentia. | On the contrary, Augustine says (QQ. lxxxiii, qu. 63), that "the name Word signifies not only relation to the Father, but also relation to those beings which are made through the Word, by His operative power." |
| IЄ q. 34 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod in verbo importatur respectus ad creaturam. Deus enim, cognoscendo se, cognoscit omnem creaturam. Verbum autem in mente conceptum, est repraesentativum omnis eius quod actu intelligitur. Unde in nobis sunt diversa verba, secundum diversa quae intelligimus. Sed quia Deus uno actu et se et omnia intelligit, unicum verbum eius est expressivum non solum patris, sed etiam creaturarum. Et sicut Dei scientia Dei quidem est cognoscitiva tantum, creaturarum autem cognoscitiva et factiva; ita verbum Dei eius quod in Deo patre est, est expressivum tantum, creaturarum vero est expressivum et operativum. Et propter hoc dicitur in Psalmo XXXII, dixit, et facta sunt; quia in verbo importatur ratio factiva eorum quae Deus facit. | I answer that, Word implies relation to creatures. For God by knowing Himself, knows every creature. Now the word conceived in the mind is representative of everything that is actually understood. Hence there are in ourselves different words for the different things which we understand. But because God by one act understands Himself and all things, His one only Word is expressive not only of the Father, but of all creatures. And as the knowledge of God is only cognitive as regards God, whereas as regards creatures, it is both cognitive and operative, so the Word of God is only expressive of what is in God the Father, but is both expressive and operative of creatures; and therefore it is said (Ps. 32:9): "He spake, and they were made;" because in the Word is implied the operative idea of what God makes. |
| IЄ q. 34 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod in nomine personae includitur etiam natura oblique, nam persona est rationalis naturae individua substantia. In nomine igitur personae divinae, quantum ad relationem personalem, non importatur respectus ad creaturam, sed importatur in eo quod pertinet ad naturam. Nihil tamen prohibet, inquantum includitur in significatione eius essentia, quod importetur respectus ad creaturam, sicut enim proprium est filio quod sit filius, ita proprium est ei quod sit genitus Deus, vel genitus creator. Et per hunc modum importatur relatio ad creaturam in nomine verbi. | Reply to Objection 1. The nature is also included indirectly in the name of the person; for person is an individual substance of a rational nature. Therefore the name of a divine person, as regards the personal relation, does not imply relation to the creature, but it is implied in what belongs to the nature. Yet there is nothing to prevent its implying relation to creatures, so far as the essence is included in its meaning: for as it properly belongs to the Son to be the Son, so it properly belongs to Him to be God begotten, or the Creator begotten; and in this way the name Word imports relation to creatures. |
| IЄ q. 34 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod, cum relationes consequantur actiones, quaedam nomina important relationem Dei ad creaturam, quae consequitur actionem Dei in exteriorem effectum transeuntem, sicut creare et gubernare, et talia dicuntur de Deo ex tempore. Quaedam vero relationem quae consequitur actionem non transeuntem in exteriorem effectum, sed manentem in agente, ut scire et velle, et talia non dicuntur de Deo ex tempore. Et huiusmodi relatio ad creaturam importatur in nomine verbi. Nec est verum quod nomina importantia relationem Dei ad creaturas, omnia dicantur ex tempore, sed sola illa nomina quae important relationem consequentem actionem Dei in exteriorem effectum transeuntem, ex tempore dicuntur. | Reply to Objection 2. Since the relations result from actions, some names import the relation of God to creatures, which relation follows on the action of God which passes into some exterior effect, as to create and to govern; and the like are applied to God in time. But others import a relation which follows from an action which does not pass into an exterior effect, but abides in the agent--as to know and to will: such are not applied to God in time; and this kind of relation to creatures is implied in the name of the Word. Nor is it true that all names which import the relation of God to creatures are applied to Him in time; but only those names are applied in time which import relation following on the action of God passing into exterior effect. |
| IЄ q. 34 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod creaturae non cognoscuntur a Deo per scientiam a creaturis acceptam, sed per essentiam suam. Unde non oportet quod a creaturis procedat verbum, licet verbum sit expressivum creaturarum. | Reply to Objection 3. Creatures are known to God not by a knowledge derived from the creatures themselves, but by His own essence. Hence it is not necessary that the Word should proceed from creatures, although the Word is expressive of creatures. |
| IЄ q. 34 a. 3 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod nomen ideae principaliter est impositum ad significandum respectum ad creaturam, et ideo pluraliter dicitur in divinis, neque est personale. Sed nomen verbi principaliter impositum est ad significandam relationem ad dicentem, et ex consequenti ad creaturas, inquantum Deus, intelligendo se, intelligit omnem creaturam. Et propter hoc in divinis est unicum tantum verbum, et personaliter dictum. | Reply to Objection 4. The name of Idea is imposed chiefly to signify relation to creatures; and therefore it is applied in a plural sense to God; and it is not said personally. But the name of Word is imposed chiefly to signify the speaker, and consequently, relation to creatures, inasmuch as God, by understanding Himself, understands every creature; and so there is only one Word in God, and that is a personal one. |
| IЄ q. 34 a. 3 ad 5 Ad quintum dicendum quod eo modo quo scientia Dei est non entium, et verbum Dei est non entium, quia non est aliquid minus in verbo Dei quam in scientia Dei, ut Augustinus dicit. Sed tamen verbum est entium ut expressivum et factivum, non entium autem, ut expressivum et manifestativum. | Reply to Objection 5. God's knowledge of non-beings and God's Word about non-beings are the same; because the Word of God contains no less than does the knowledge of God, as Augustine says (De Trin. xv, 14). Nevertheless the Word is expressive and operative of beings, but is expressive and manifestive of non-beings. |
| IЄ q. 35 pr. Deinde quaeritur de imagine. Et circa hoc quaeruntur duo. Primo, utrum imago in divinis dicatur personaliter. Secundo, utrum sit proprium filii. | |
IЄ q. 35 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod imago non dicatur personaliter in divinis. Dicit enim Augustinus, in libro de fide ad Petrum, una est sanctae Trinitatis divinitas et imago, ad quam factus est homo. Igitur imago dicitur essentialiter, et non personaliter. |
Objection 1. It would seem that image is not said personally of God. For Augustine (Fulgentius, De Fide ad Petrum i) says, "The Godhead of the Holy Trinity and the Image whereunto man is made are one." Therefore Image is said of God essentially, and not personally. |
| IЄ q. 35 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, Hilarius dicit, in libro de Synod., quod imago est eius rei ad quam imaginatur, species indifferens. Sed species, sive forma, in divinis dicitur essentialiter. Ergo et imago. | Objection 2. Further, Hilary says (De Synod.): "An image is a like species of that which it represents." But species or form is said of God essentially. Therefore so also is Image. |
| IЄ q. 35 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, imago ab imitando dicitur, in quo importatur prius et posterius. Sed in divinis personis nihil est prius et posterius ergo imago non potest esse nomen personale in divinis. | Objection 3. Further, Image is derived from imitation, which implies "before" and "after." But in the divine persons there is no "before" and "after." Therefore Image cannot be a personal name in God. |
| IЄ q. 35 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicit Augustinus, quid est absurdius quam imaginem ad se dici? Ergo imago in divinis relative dicitur. Et sic est nomen personale. | On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. vii, 1): "What is more absurd than to say that an image is referred to itself?" Therefore the Image in God is a relation, and is thus a personal name. |
| IЄ q. 35 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod de ratione imaginis est similitudo. Non tamen quaecumque similitudo sufficit ad rationem imaginis; sed similitudo quae est in specie rei, vel saltem in aliquo signo speciei. Signum autem speciei in rebus corporeis maxime videtur esse figura, videmus enim quod diversorum animalium secundum speciem, sunt diversae figurae, non autem diversi colores. Unde, si depingatur color alicuius rei in pariete, non dicitur esse imago, nisi depingatur figura. Sed neque ipsa similitudo speciei sufficit vel figurae; sed requiritur ad rationem imaginis origo, quia, ut Augustinus dicit in libro octoginta trium quaest., unum ovum non est imago alterius, quia non est de illo expressum. Ad hoc ergo quod vere aliquid sit imago, requiritur quod ex alio procedat simile ei in specie, vel saltem in signo speciei. Ea vero quae processionem sive originem important in divinis, sunt personalia. Unde hoc nomen imago est nomen personale. | I answer that, Image includes the idea of similitude. Still, not any kind of similitude suffices for the notion of image, but only similitude of species, or at least of some specific sign. In corporeal things the specific sign consists chiefly in the figure. For we see that the species of different animals are of different figures; but not of different colors. Hence if the color of anything is depicted on a wall, this is not called an image unless the figure is likewise depicted. Further, neither the similitude of species or of figure is enough for an image, which requires also the idea of origin; because, as Augustine says (QQ. lxxxiii, qu. 74): "One egg is not the image of another, because it is not derived from it." Therefore for a true image it is required that one proceeds from another like to it in species, or at least in specific sign. Now whatever imports procession or origin in God, belongs to the persons. Hence the name "Image" is a personal name. |
| IЄ q. 35 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod imago proprie dicitur quod procedit ad similitudinem alterius. Illud autem ad cuius similitudinem aliquid procedit, proprie dicitur exemplar, improprie vero imago. Sic tamen Augustinus utitur nomine imaginis, cum dicit divinitatem sanctae Trinitatis esse imaginem ad quam factus est homo. | Reply to Objection 1. Image, properly speaking, means whatever proceeds forth in likeness to another. That to the likeness of which anything proceeds, is properly speaking called the exemplar, and is improperly called the image. Nevertheless Augustine (Fulgentius) uses the name of Image in this sense when he says that the divine nature of the Holy Trinity is the Image to whom man was made. |
| IЄ q. 35 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod species, prout ponitur ab Hilario in definitione imaginis, importat formam deductam in aliquo ab alio. Hoc enim modo imago dicitur esse species alicuius, sicuti id quod assimilatur alicui, dicitur forma eius, inquantum habet formam illi similem. | Reply to Objection 2. "Species," as mentioned by Hilary in the definition of image, means the form derived from one thing to another. In this sense image is said to be the species of anything, as that which is assimilated to anything is called its form, inasmuch as it has a like form. |
| IЄ q. 35 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod imitatio in divinis personis non significat posterioritatem, sed solam assimilationem. | Reply to Objection 3. Imitation in God does not signify posteriority, but only assimilation. |
IЄ q. 35 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod nomen imaginis non sit proprium filio. Quia, ut dicit Damascenus, spiritus sanctus est imago filii. Non est ergo proprium filii. |
Objection 1. It would seem that the name of Image is not proper to the Son; because, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. i, 18), "The Holy Ghost is the Image of the Son." Therefore Image does not belong to the Son alone. |
| IЄ q. 35 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, de ratione imaginis est similitudo cum expressione, ut Augustinus dicit, in libro octoginta trium quaest. Sed hoc convenit spiritui sancto, procedit enim ab alio secundum modum similitudinis. Ergo spiritus sanctus est imago. Et ita non est proprium filii quod sit imago. | Objection 2. Further, similitude in expression belongs to the nature of an image, as Augustine says (QQ. lxxxiii, qu. 74). But this belongs to the Holy Ghost, Who proceeds from another by way of similitude. Therefore the Holy Ghost is an Image; and so to be Image does not belong to the Son alone. |
| IЄ q. 35 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, homo etiam dicitur imago Dei, secundum illud I ad Cor. XI, vir non debet velare caput suum, quoniam imago et gloria Dei est. Ergo non est proprium filio. | Objection 3. Further, man is also called the image of God, according to 1 Cor. 11:7, "The man ought not to cover his head, for he is the image and the glory of God." Therefore Image is not proper to the Son. |
| IЄ q. 35 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, VI de Trin., quod solus filius est imago patris. | On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. vi, 2): "The Son alone is the Image of the Father." |
| IЄ q. 35 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod doctores Graecorum communiter dicunt spiritum sanctum esse imaginem patris et filii. Sed doctores Latini soli filio attribuunt nomen imaginis, non enim invenitur in canonica Scriptura nisi de filio. Dicitur enim Coloss. I, qui est imago Dei invisibilis, primogenitus creaturae; et ad Hebr. I, qui cum sit splendor gloriae, et figura substantiae eius. Huius autem rationem assignant quidam ex hoc, quod filius convenit cum patre non solum in natura, sed etiam in notione principii, spiritus autem sanctus non convenit cum filio nec cum patre in aliqua notione. Sed hoc non videtur sufficere. Quia sicut secundum relationes non attenditur in divinis neque aequalitas neque inaequalitas, ut Augustinus dicit; ita neque similitudo, quae requiritur ad rationem imaginis. Unde alii dicunt quod spiritus sanctus non potest dici imago filii, quia imaginis non est imago. Neque etiam imago patris, quia etiam imago refertur immediate ad id cuius est imago; spiritus sanctus autem refertur ad patrem per filium. Neque etiam est imago patris et filii, quia sic esset una imago duorum, quod videtur impossibile. Unde relinquitur quod spiritus sanctus nullo modo sit imago. Sed hoc nihil est. Quia pater et filius sunt unum principium spiritus sancti, ut infra dicetur, unde nihil prohibet sic patris et filii, inquantum sunt unum, esse unam imaginem; cum etiam homo totius Trinitatis sit una imago. Et ideo aliter dicendum est quod, sicut spiritus sanctus, quamvis sua processione accipiat naturam patris, sicut et filius, non tamen dicitur natus; ita, licet accipiat speciem similem patris, non dicitur imago. Quia filius procedit ut verbum, de cuius ratione est similitudo speciei ad id a quo procedit; non autem de ratione amoris; quamvis hoc conveniat amori qui est spiritus sanctus, inquantum est amor divinus. | I answer that, The Greek Doctors commonly say that the Holy Ghost is the Image of both the Father and of the Son; but the Latin Doctors attribute the name Image to the Son alone. For it is not found in the canonical Scripture except as applied to the Son; as in the words, "Who is the Image of the invisible God, the firstborn of creatures" (Col. 1:15) and again: "Who being the brightness of His glory, and the figure of His substance." (Heb. 1:3). Some explain this by the fact that the Son agrees with the Father, not in nature only, but also in the notion of principle: whereas the Holy Ghost agrees neither with the Son, nor with the Father in any notion. This, however, does not seem to suffice. Because as it is not by reason of the relations that we consider either equality or inequality in God, as Augustine says (De Trin. v, 6), so neither (by reason thereof do we consider) that similitude which is essential to image. Hence others say that the Holy Ghost cannot be called the Image of the Son, because there cannot be an image of an image; nor of the Father, because again the image must be immediately related to that which it is the image; and the Holy Ghost is related to the Father through the Son; nor again is He the Image of the Father and the Son, because then there would be one image of two; which is impossible. Hence it follows that the Holy Ghost is in no way an Image. But this is no proof: for the Father and the Son are one principle of the Holy Ghost, as we shall explain further on (36, 4 ). Hence there is nothing to prevent there being one Image of the Father and of the Son, inasmuch as they are one; since even man is one image of the whole Trinity. Therefore we must explain the matter otherwise by saying that, as the Holy Ghost, although by His procession He receives the nature of the Father, as the Son also receives it, nevertheless is not said to be "born"; so, although He receives the likeness of the Father, He is not called the Image; because the Son proceeds as word, and it is essential to word to be like species with that whence it proceeds; whereas this does not essentially belong to love, although it may belong to that love which is the Holy Ghost, inasmuch as He is the divine love. |
| IЄ q. 35 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Damascenus et alii doctores Graecorum communiter utuntur nomine imaginis pro perfecta similitudine. | Reply to Objection 1. Damascene and the other Greek Doctors commonly employ the term image as meaning a perfect similitude. |
| IЄ q. 35 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod, licet spiritus sanctus sit similis patri et filio, non tamen sequitur quod sit imago, ratione iam dicta. | Reply to Objection 2. Although the Holy Ghost is like to the Father and the Son, still it does not follow that He is the Image, as above explained. |
| IЄ q. 35 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod imago alicuius dupliciter in aliquo invenitur. Uno modo, in re eiusdem naturae secundum speciem, ut imago regis invenitur in filio suo. Alio modo, in re alterius naturae, sicut imago regis invenitur in denario. Primo autem modo, filius est imago patris, secundo autem modo dicitur homo imago Dei. Et ideo ad designandam in homine imperfectionem imaginis, homo non solum dicitur imago, sed ad imaginem, per quod motus quidam tendentis in perfectionem designatur. Sed de filio Dei non potest dici quod sit ad imaginem, quia est perfecta patris imago. | Reply to Objection 3. The image of a thing may be found in something in two ways. In one way it is found in something of the same specific nature; as the image of the king is found in his son. In another way it is found in something of a different nature, as the king's image on the coin. In the first sense the Son is the Image of the Father; in the second sense man is called the image of God; and therefore in order to express the imperfect character of the divine image in man, man is not simply called the image, but "to the image," whereby is expressed a certain movement of tendency to perfection. But it cannot be said that the Son of God is "to the image," because He is the perfect Image of the Father.
|
