| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | ----------------------
| + | [http://www.logicmuseum.com/authors/aquinas/summa/Summa-I-27-28.htm Now at the new Logic Museum] |
| − | SUMMA THEOLOGIAE - QUESTIONS XXVII - XXVIII
| |
| − | ----------------------
| |
| − | [[Directory:Logic Museum/Aquinas Summa Theologiae|Index]] | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | *[[#q27a1|Question 27.1 The procession of the divine persons]]
| |
| − | *[[#q27a2|Question 27.2]]
| |
| − | *[[#q27a3|Question 27.3]]
| |
| − | *[[#q27a4|Question 27.4]]
| |
| − | *[[#q27a5|Question 27.5]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | *[[#q28a1|Question 28.1 The divine relations]]
| |
| − | *[[#q28a2|Question 28.2]]
| |
| − | *[[#q28a3|Question 28.3]]
| |
| − | *[[#q28a4|Question 28.4]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | {| border=1 cellpadding=10
| |
| − | !valign = top width=46%|Latin
| |
| − | !valign = top width=54%|Latin
| |
| − | | |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 27 pr. </b>Consideratis autem his quae ad divinae essentiae unitatem pertinent, restat considerare de his quae pertinent ad Trinitatem personarum in divinis. Et quia personae divinae secundum relationes originis distinguuntur, secundum ordinem doctrinae prius considerandum est de origine, sive de processione, secundo, de relationibus originis; tertio, de personis. Circa processionem quaeruntur quinque. Primo, utrum processio sit in divinis. Secundo, utrum aliqua processio in divinis generatio dici possit. Tertio, utrum praeter generationem aliqua alia processio possit esse in divinis. Quarto, utrum illa alia processio possit dici generatio. Quinto, utrum in divinis sint plures processiones quam duae. || Whether there is procession in God?
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="q27a1"><b>IЄ q. 27 a. 1 arg. 1 </b>Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod in Deo non possit esse aliqua processio. Processio enim significat motum ad extra. Sed in divinis nihil est mobile, neque extraneum. Ergo neque processio. ||Objection 1. It would seem that there cannot be any procession in God. For procession signifies outward movement. But in God there is nothing mobile, nor anything extraneous. Therefore neither is there procession in God.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 27 a. 1 arg. 2 </b>Praeterea, omne procedens est diversum ab eo a quo procedit. Sed in Deo non est aliqua diversitas, sed summa simplicitas. Ergo in Deo non est processio aliqua. ||Objection 2. Further, everything which proceeds differs from that whence it proceeds. But in God there is no diversity; but supreme simplicity. Therefore in God there is no procession.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 27 a. 1 arg. 3 </b>Praeterea, procedere ab alio videtur rationi primi principii repugnare. Sed Deus est primum principium, ut supra ostensum est. Ergo in Deo processio locum non habet. ||Objection 3. Further, to proceed from another seems to be against the nature of the first principle. But God is the first principle, as shown above (2, 3). Therefore in God there is no procession.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 27 a. 1 s. c. </b>Sed contra est quod dicit dominus, Ioan. VIII, ego ex Deo processi. ||On the contrary, Our Lord says, "From God I proceeded" (John 8:42).
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 27 a. 1 co. </b>Respondeo dicendum quod divina Scriptura, in rebus divinis, nominibus ad processionem pertinentibus utitur. Hanc autem processionem diversi diversimode acceperunt. Quidam enim acceperunt hanc processionem secundum quod effectus procedit a causa. Et sic accepit Arius, dicens filium procedere a patre sicut primam eius creaturam, et spiritum sanctum procedere a patre et filio sicut creaturam utriusque. Et secundum hoc, neque filius neque spiritus sanctus esset verus Deus. Quod est contra id quod dicitur de filio, I Ioan. ult., ut simus in vero filio eius, hic est verus Deus. Et de spiritu sancto dicitur, I Cor. VI, nescitis quia membra vestra templum sunt spiritus sancti? Templum autem habere solius Dei est. Alii vero hanc processionem acceperunt secundum quod causa dicitur procedere in effectum, inquantum vel movet ipsum, vel similitudinem suam ipsi imprimit. Et sic accepit Sabellius, dicens ipsum Deum patrem filium dici, secundum quod carnem assumpsit ex virgine. Et eundem dicit spiritum sanctum, secundum quod creaturam rationalem sanctificat, et ad vitam movet. Huic autem acceptioni repugnant verba domini de se dicentis, Ioan. V, non potest facere a se filius quidquam; et multa alia, per quae ostenditur quod non est ipse pater qui filius. Si quis autem diligenter consideret, uterque accepit processionem secundum quod est ad aliquid extra, unde neuter posuit processionem in ipso Deo. Sed, cum omnis processio sit secundum aliquam actionem, sicut secundum actionem quae tendit in exteriorem materiam, est aliqua processio ad extra; ita secundum actionem quae manet in ipso agente, attenditur processio quaedam ad intra. Et hoc maxime patet in intellectu, cuius actio, scilicet intelligere, manet in intelligente. Quicumque enim intelligit, ex hoc ipso quod intelligit, procedit aliquid intra ipsum, quod est conceptio rei intellectae, ex vi intellectiva proveniens, et ex eius notitia procedens. Quam quidem conceptionem vox significat, et dicitur verbum cordis, significatum verbo vocis. Cum autem Deus sit super omnia, ea quae in Deo dicuntur, non sunt intelligenda secundum modum infimarum creaturarum, quae sunt corpora; sed secundum similitudinem supremarum creaturarum, quae sunt intellectuales substantiae; a quibus etiam similitudo accepta deficit a repraesentatione divinorum. Non ergo accipienda est processio secundum quod est in corporalibus, vel per motum localem, vel per actionem alicuius causae in exteriorem effectum, ut calor a calefaciente in calefactum; sed secundum emanationem intelligibilem, utpote verbi intelligibilis a dicente, quod manet in ipso. Et sic fides Catholica processionem ponit in divinis. ||I answer that, Divine Scripture uses, in relation to God, names which signify procession. This procession has been differently understood. Some have understood it in the sense of an effect, proceeding from its cause; so Arius took it, saying that the Son proceeds from the Father as His primary creature, and that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son as the creature of both. In this sense neither the Son nor the Holy Ghost would be true God: and this is contrary to what is said of the Son, "That . . . we may be in His true Son. This is true God" (1 John 5:20). Of the Holy Ghost it is also said, "Know you not that your members are the temple of the Holy Ghost?" (1 Corinthians 6:19). Now, to have a temple is God's prerogative. Others take this procession to mean the cause proceeding to the effect, as moving it, or impressing its own likeness on it; in which sense it was understood by Sabellius, who said that God the Father is called Son in assuming flesh from the Virgin, and that the Father also is called Holy Ghost in sanctifying the rational creature, and moving it to life. The words of the Lord contradict such a meaning, when He speaks of Himself, "The Son cannot of Himself do anything" (John 5:19); while many other passages show the same, whereby we know that the Father is not the Son. Careful examination shows that both of these opinions take procession as meaning an outward act; hence neither of them affirms procession as existing in God Himself; whereas, since procession always supposes action, and as there is an outward procession corresponding to the act tending to external matter, so there must be an inward procession corresponding to the act remaining within the agent. This applies most conspicuously to the intellect, the action of which remains in the intelligent agent. For whenever we understand, by the very fact of understanding there proceeds something within us, which is a conception of the object understood, a conception issuing from our intellectual power and proceeding from our knowledge of that object. This conception is signified by the spoken word; and it is called the word of the heart signified by the word of the voice. As God is above all things, we should understand what is said of God, not according to the mode of the lowest creatures, namely bodies, but from the similitude of the highest creatures, the intellectual substances; while even the similitudes derived from these fall short in the representation of divine objects. Procession, therefore, is not to be understood from what it is in bodies, either according to local movement or by way of a cause proceeding forth to its exterior effect, as, for instance, like heat from the agent to the thing made hot. Rather it is to be understood by way of an intelligible emanation, for example, of the intelligible word which proceeds from the speaker, yet remains in him. In that sense the Catholic Faith understands procession as existing in God.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 27 a. 1 ad 1 </b>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod obiectio illa procedit de processione quae est motus localis, vel quae est secundum actionem tendentem in exteriorem materiam, vel in exteriorem effectum, talis autem processio non est in divinis, ut dictum est. ||Reply to Objection 1. This objection comes from the idea of procession in the sense of local motion, or of an action tending to external matter, or to an exterior effect; which kind of procession does not exist in God, as we have explained.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 27 a. 1 ad 2 </b>Ad secundum dicendum quod id quod procedit secundum processionem quae est ad extra, oportet esse diversum ab eo a quo procedit. Sed id quod procedit ad intra processu intelligibili, non oportet esse diversum, imo, quanto perfectius procedit, tanto magis est unum cum eo a quo procedit. Manifestum est enim quod quanto aliquid magis intelligitur, tanto conceptio intellectualis est magis intima intelligenti, et magis unum, nam intellectus secundum hoc quod actu intelligit, secundum hoc fit unum cum intellecto. Unde, cum divinum intelligere sit in fine perfectionis, ut supra dictum est, necesse est quod verbum divinum sit perfecte unum cum eo a quo procedit, absque omni diversitate. ||Reply to Objection 2. Whatever proceeds by way of outward procession is necessarily distinct from the source whence it proceeds, whereas, whatever proceeds within by an intelligible procession is not necessarily distinct; indeed, the more perfectly it proceeds, the more closely it is one with the source whence it proceeds. For it is clear that the more a thing is understood, the more closely is the intellectual conception joined and united to the intelligent agent; since the intellect by the very act of understanding is made one with the object understood. Thus, as the divine intelligence is the very supreme perfection of God (14, 2), the divine Word is of necessity perfectly one with the source whence He proceeds, without any kind of diversity.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 27 a. 1 ad 3 </b>Ad tertium dicendum quod procedere a principio ut extraneum et diversum, repugnat rationi primi principii, sed procedere ut intimum et absque diversitate, per modum intelligibilem, includitur in ratione primi principii. Cum enim dicimus aedificatorem principium domus, in ratione huius principii includitur conceptio suae artis, et includeretur in ratione primi principii, si aedificator esset primum principium. Deus autem, qui est primum principium rerum, comparatur ad res creatas ut artifex ad artificiata. ||Reply to Objection 3. To proceed from a principle, so as to be something outside and distinct from that principle, is irreconcilable with the idea of a first principle; whereas an intimate and uniform procession by way of an intelligible act is included in the idea of a first principle. For when we call the builder the principle of the house, in the idea of such a principle is included that of his art; and it would be included in the idea of the first principle were the builder the first principle of the house. God, Who is the first principle of all things, may be compared to things created as the architect is to things designed.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="q27a2"><b>IЄ q. 27 a. 2 arg. 1 </b>Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod processio quae est in divinis, non possit dici generatio. Generatio enim est mutatio de non esse in esse, corruptioni opposita; et utriusque subiectum est materia. Sed nihil horum competit divinis. Ergo non potest generatio esse in divinis. || Whether any procession in God can be called generation?Objection 1. It would seem that no procession in God can be called generation. For generation is change from non-existence to existence, and is opposed to corruption; while matter is the subject of both. Nothing of all this belongs to God. Therefore generation cannot exist in God.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 27 a. 2 arg. 2 </b>Praeterea, in Deo est processio secundum modum intelligibilem, ut dictum est. Sed in nobis talis processio non dicitur generatio. Ergo neque in Deo. ||Objection 2. Further, procession exists in God, according to an intelligible mode, as above explained (1). But such a process is not called generation in us; therefore neither is it to be so called in God.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 27 a. 2 arg. 3 </b>Praeterea, omne genitum accipit esse a generante. Esse ergo cuiuslibet geniti est esse receptum. Sed nullum esse receptum est per se subsistens. Cum igitur esse divinum sit esse per se subsistens, ut supra probatum est, sequitur quod nullius geniti esse sit esse divinum. Non est ergo generatio in divinis. ||Objection 3. Further, anything that is generated derives existence from its generator. Therefore such existence is a derived existence. But no derived existence can be a self-subsistence. Therefore, since the divine existence is self-subsisting (3, 4), it follows that no generated existence can be the divine existence. Therefore there is no generation in God.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 27 a. 2 s. c. </b>Sed contra est quod dicitur in Psalmo II, ego hodie genui te. ||On the contrary, It is said (Psalm 2:7): "This day have I begotten Thee."
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 27 a. 2 co. </b>Respondeo dicendum quod processio verbi in divinis dicitur generatio. Ad cuius evidentiam, sciendum est quod nomine generationis dupliciter utimur. Uno modo, communiter ad omnia generabilia et corruptibilia, et sic generatio nihil aliud est quam mutatio de non esse ad esse. Alio modo, proprie in viventibus, et sic generatio significat originem alicuius viventis a principio vivente coniuncto. Et haec proprie dicitur nativitas. Non tamen omne huiusmodi dicitur genitum, sed proprie quod procedit secundum rationem similitudinis. Unde pilus vel capillus non habet rationem geniti et filii, sed solum quod procedit secundum rationem similitudinis, non cuiuscumque, nam vermes qui generantur in animalibus, non habent rationem generationis et filiationis, licet sit similitudo secundum genus, sed requiritur ad rationem talis generationis, quod procedat secundum rationem similitudinis in natura eiusdem speciei, sicut homo procedit ab homine, et equus ab equo. In viventibus autem quae de potentia in actum vitae procedunt, sicut sunt homines et animalia, generatio utramque generationem includit. Si autem sit aliquod vivens cuius vita non exeat de potentia in actum, processio, si qua in tali vivente invenitur, excludit omnino primam rationem generationis; sed potest habere rationem generationis quae est propria viventium. Sic igitur processio verbi in divinis habet rationem generationis. Procedit enim per modum intelligibilis actionis, quae est operatio vitae, et a principio coniuncto, ut supra iam dictum est, et secundum rationem similitudinis, quia conceptio intellectus est similitudo rei intellectae, et in eadem natura existens, quia in Deo idem est intelligere et esse, ut supra ostensum est. Unde processio verbi in divinis dicitur generatio, et ipsum verbum procedens dicitur filius. ||I answer that, The procession of the Word in God is called generation. In proof whereof we must observe that generation has a twofold meaning: one common to everything subject to generation and corruption; in which sense generation is nothing but change from non-existence to existence. In another sense it is proper and belongs to living things; in which sense it signifies the origin of a living being from a conjoined living principle; and this is properly called birth. Not everything of that kind, however, is called begotten; but, strictly speaking, only what proceeds by way of similitude. Hence a hair has not the aspect of generation and sonship, but only that has which proceeds by way of a similitude. Nor will any likeness suffice; for a worm which is generated from animals has not the aspect of generation and sonship, although it has a generic similitude; for this kind of generation requires that there should be a procession by way of similitude in the same specific nature; as a man proceeds from a man, and a horse from a horse. So in living things, which proceed from potential to actual life, such as men and animals, generation includes both these kinds of generation. But if there is a being whose life does not proceed from potentiality to act, procession (if found in such a being) excludes entirely the first kind of generation; whereas it may have that kind of generation which belongs to living things. So in this manner the procession of the Word in God is generation; for He proceeds by way of intelligible action, which is a vital operation:--from a conjoined principle (as above described):--by way of similitude, inasmuch as the concept of the intellect is a likeness of the object conceived:--and exists in the same nature, because in God the act of understanding and His existence are the same, as shown above (14, 4). Hence the procession of the Word in God is called generation; and the Word Himself proceeding is called the Son.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 27 a. 2 ad 1 </b>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod obiectio illa procedit de generatione secundum rationem primam, prout importat exitum de potentia in actum. Et sic non invenitur in divinis, ut supra dictum est. ||Reply to Objection 1. This objection is based on the idea of generation in the first sense, importing the issuing forth from potentiality to act; in which sense it is not found in God.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 27 a. 2 ad 2 </b>Ad secundum dicendum quod intelligere in nobis non est ipsa substantia intellectus, unde verbum quod secundum intelligibilem operationem procedit in nobis, non est eiusdem naturae cum eo a quo procedit. Unde non proprie et complete competit sibi ratio generationis. Sed intelligere divinum est ipsa substantia intelligentis, ut supra ostensum est, unde verbum procedens procedit ut eiusdem naturae subsistens. Et propter hoc proprie dicitur genitum et filius. Unde et his quae pertinent ad generationem viventium, utitur Scriptura ad significandam processionem divinae sapientiae, scilicet conceptione et partu, dicitur enim ex persona divinae sapientiae, Proverb. VIII, nondum erant abyssi, et ego iam concepta eram; ante colles ego parturiebar. Sed in intellectu nostro utimur nomine conceptionis, secundum quod in verbo nostri intellectus invenitur similitudo rei intellectae, licet non inveniatur naturae identitas. ||Reply to Objection 2. The act of human understanding in ourselves is not the substance itself of the intellect; hence the word which proceeds within us by intelligible operation is not of the same nature as the source whence it proceeds; so the idea of generation cannot be properly and fully applied to it. But the divine act of intelligence is the very substance itself of the one who understands (14, 4). The Word proceeding therefore proceeds as subsisting in the same nature; and so is properly called begotten, and Son. Hence Scripture employs terms which denote generation of living things in order to signify the procession of the divine Wisdom, namely, conception and birth; as is declared in the person of the divine Wisdom, "The depths were not as yet, and I was already conceived; before the hills, I was brought forth." (Proverbs 8:24). In our way of understanding we use the word "conception" in order to signify that in the word of our intellect is found the likeness of the thing understood, although there be no identity of nature.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 27 a. 2 ad 3 </b>Ad tertium dicendum quod non omne acceptum est receptum in aliquo subiecto, alioquin non posset dici quod tota substantia rei creatae sit accepta a Deo, cum totius substantiae non sit aliquod subiectum receptivum. Sic igitur id quod est genitum in divinis, accipit esse a generante, non tanquam illud esse sit receptum in aliqua materia vel subiecto (quod repugnat subsistentiae divini esse); sed secundum hoc dicitur esse acceptum, inquantum procedens ab alio habet esse divinum, non quasi aliud ab esse divino existens. In ipsa enim perfectione divini esse continetur et verbum intelligibiliter procedens, et principium verbi; sicut et quaecumque ad eius perfectionem pertinent, ut supra dictum est. ||Reply to Objection 3. Not everything derived from another has existence in another subject; otherwise we could not say that the whole substance of created being comes from God, since there is no subject that could receive the whole substance. So, then, what is generated in God receives its existence from the generator, not as though that existence were received into matter or into a subject (which would conflict with the divine self-subsistence); but when we speak of His existence as received, we mean that He Who proceeds receives divine existence from another; not, however, as if He were other from the divine nature. For in the perfection itself of the divine existence are contained both the Word intelligibly proceeding and the principle of the Word, with whatever belongs to His perfection (4, 2).
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="q27a3"><b>IЄ q. 27 a. 3 arg. 1 </b>Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod non sit in divinis alia processio a generatione verbi. Eadem enim ratione erit aliqua alia processio ab illa alia processione, et sic procederetur in infinitum, quod est inconveniens. Standum est igitur in primo, ut sit una tantum processio in divinis. || Whether any other procession exists in God besides that of the Word?Objection 1. It would seem that no other procession exists in God besides the generation of the Word. Because, for whatever reason we admit another procession, we should be led to admit yet another, and so on to infinitude; which cannot be. Therefore we must stop at the first, and hold that there exists only one procession in God.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 27 a. 3 arg. 2 </b>Praeterea, in omni natura invenitur tantum unus modus communicationis illius naturae, et hoc ideo est, quia operationes secundum terminos habent unitatem et diversitatem. Sed processio in divinis non est nisi secundum communicationem divinae naturae. Cum igitur sit una tantum natura divina, ut supra ostensum est, relinquitur quod una sit tantum processio in divinis. ||Objection 2. Further, every nature possesses but one mode of self-communication; because operations derive unity and diversity from their terms. But procession in God is only by way of communication of the divine nature. Therefore, as there is only one divine nature (11, 4 ), it follows that only one procession exists in God.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 27 a. 3 arg. 3 </b>Praeterea, si sit in divinis alia processio ab intelligibili processione verbi, non erit nisi processio amoris, quae est secundum voluntatis operationem. Sed talis processio non potest esse alia a processione intellectus intelligibili, quia voluntas in Deo non est aliud ab intellectu, ut supra ostensum est. Ergo in Deo non est alia processio praeter processionem verbi. ||Objection 3. Further, if any other procession but the intelligible procession of the Word existed in God, it could only be the procession of love, which is by the operation of the will. But such a procession is identified with the intelligible procession of the intellect, inasmuch as the will in God is the same as His intellect (19, 1). Therefore in God there is no other procession but the procession of the Word.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 27 a. 3 s. c. </b>Sed contra est quod spiritus sanctus procedit a patre, ut dicitur Ioan. XV. Ipse autem est alius a filio, secundum illud Ioan. XIV, rogabo patrem meum, et alium Paracletum dabit vobis. Ergo in divinis est alia processio praeter processionem verbi. ||On the contrary, The Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father (John 15:26); and He is distinct from the Son, according to the words, "I will ask My Father, and He will give you another Paraclete" (John 14:16). Therefore in God another procession exists besides the procession of the Word.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 27 a. 3 co. </b>Respondeo dicendum quod in divinis sunt duae processiones, scilicet processio verbi, et quaedam alia. Ad cuius evidentiam, considerandum est quod in divinis non est processio nisi secundum actionem quae non tendit in aliquid extrinsecum, sed manet in ipso agente. Huiusmodi autem actio in intellectuali natura est actio intellectus et actio voluntatis. Processio autem verbi attenditur secundum actionem intelligibilem. Secundum autem operationem voluntatis invenitur in nobis quaedam alia processio, scilicet processio amoris, secundum quam amatum est in amante, sicut per conceptionem verbi res dicta vel intellecta, est in intelligente. Unde et praeter processionem verbi, ponitur alia processio in divinis, quae est processio amoris. ||I answer that, There are two processions in God; the procession of the Word, and another. In evidence whereof we must observe that procession exists in God, only according to an action which does not tend to anything external, but remains in the agent itself. Such an action in an intellectual nature is that of the intellect, and of the will. The procession of the Word is by way of an intelligible operation. The operation of the will within ourselves involves also another procession, that of love, whereby the object loved is in the lover; as, by the conception of the word, the object spoken of or understood is in the intelligent agent. Hence, besides the procession of the Word in God, there exists in Him another procession called the procession of love.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 27 a. 3 ad 1 </b>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod non est necessarium procedere in divinis processionibus in infinitum. Processio enim quae est ad intra in intellectuali natura, terminatur in processione voluntatis. ||Reply to Objection 1. There is no need to go on to infinitude in the divine processions; for the procession which is accomplished within the agent in an intellectual nature terminates in the procession of the will.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 27 a. 3 ad 2 </b>Ad secundum dicendum quod quidquid est in Deo, est Deus, ut supra ostensum est, quod non contingit in aliis rebus. Et ideo per quamlibet processionem quae non est ad extra, communicatur divina natura, non autem aliae naturae. ||Reply to Objection 2. All that exists in God, is God (3, 3, 4); whereas the same does not apply to others. Therefore the divine nature is communicated by every procession which is not outward, and this does not apply to other natures.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 27 a. 3 ad 3 </b>Ad tertium dicendum quod, licet in Deo non sit aliud voluntas et intellectus, tamen de ratione voluntatis et intellectus est, quod processiones quae sunt secundum actionem utriusque, se habeant secundum quendam ordinem. Non enim est processio amoris nisi in ordine ad processionem verbi, nihil enim potest voluntate amari, nisi sit in intellectu conceptum. Sicut igitur attenditur quidam ordo verbi ad principium a quo procedit, licet in divinis sit eadem substantia intellectus et conceptio intellectus; ita, licet in Deo sit idem voluntas et intellectus, tamen, quia de ratione amoris est quod non procedat nisi a conceptione intellectus, habet ordinis distinctionem processio amoris a processione verbi in divinis. ||Reply to Objection 3. Though will and intellect are not diverse in God, nevertheless the nature of will and intellect requires the processions belonging to each of them to exist in a certain order. For the procession of love occurs in due order as regards the procession of the Word; since nothing can be loved by the will unless it is conceived in the intellect. So as there exists a certain order of the Word to the principle whence He proceeds, although in God the substance of the intellect and its concept are the same; so, although in God the will and the intellect are the same, still, inasmuch as love requires by its very nature that it proceed only from the concept of the intellect, there is a distinction of order between the procession of love and the procession of the Word in God.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="q27a4"><b>IЄ q. 27 a. 4 arg. 1 </b>Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod processio amoris in divinis sit generatio. Quod enim procedit in similitudine naturae in viventibus, dicitur generatum et nascens. Sed id quod procedit in divinis per modum amoris, procedit in similitudine naturae, alias esset extraneum a natura divina, et sic esset processio ad extra. Ergo quod procedit in divinis per modum amoris, procedit ut genitum et nascens. || Whether the procession of love in God is generation?Objection 1. It would seem that the procession of love in God is generation. For what proceeds by way of likeness of nature among living things is said to be generated and born. But what proceeds in God by way of love proceeds in the likeness of nature; otherwise it would be extraneous to the divine nature, and would be an external procession. Therefore what proceeds in God by way of love, proceeds as generated and born.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 27 a. 4 arg. 2 </b>Praeterea, sicut similitudo est de ratione verbi, ita est etiam de ratione amoris, unde dicitur Eccli. XIII, quod omne animal diligit simile sibi. Si igitur ratione similitudinis verbo procedenti convenit generari et nasci, videtur etiam quod amori procedenti convenit generari. ||Objection 2. Further, as similitude is of the nature of the word, so does it belong to love. Hence it is said, that "every beast loves its like" (Sirach 13:19). Therefore if the Word is begotten and born by way of likeness, it seems becoming that love should proceed by way of generation.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 27 a. 4 arg. 3 </b>Praeterea, non est in genere quod non est in aliqua eius specie. Si igitur in divinis sit quaedam processio amoris, oportet quod, praeter hoc nomen commune, habeat aliquod nomen speciale. Sed non est aliud nomen dare nisi generatio. Ergo videtur quod processio amoris in divinis sit generatio. ||Objection 3. Further, what is not in any species is not in the genus. So if there is a procession of love in God, there ought to be some special name besides this common name of procession. But no other name is applicable but generation. Therefore the procession of love in God is generation.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 27 a. 4 s. c. </b>Sed contra est quia secundum hoc sequeretur quod spiritus sanctus, qui procedit ut amor, procederet ut genitus. Quod est contra illud Athanasii, spiritus sanctus a patre et filio non factus nec creatus nec genitus, sed procedens. ||On the contrary, Were this true, it would follow that the Holy Ghost Who proceeds as love, would proceed as begotten; which is against the statement of Athanasius: "The Holy Ghost is from the Father and the Son, not made, nor begotten, but proceeding."
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 27 a. 4 co. </b>Respondeo dicendum quod processio amoris in divinis non debet dici generatio. Ad cuius evidentiam, sciendum est quod haec est differentia inter intellectum et voluntatem, quod intellectus fit in actu per hoc quod res intellecta est in intellectu secundum suam similitudinem, voluntas autem fit in actu, non per hoc quod aliqua similitudo voliti sit in voluntate, sed ex hoc quod voluntas habet quandam inclinationem in rem volitam. Processio igitur quae attenditur secundum rationem intellectus, est secundum rationem similitudinis, et intantum potest habere rationem generationis, quia omne generans generat sibi simile. Processio autem quae attenditur secundum rationem voluntatis, non consideratur secundum rationem similitudinis, sed magis secundum rationem impellentis et moventis in aliquid. Et ideo quod procedit in divinis per modum amoris, non procedit ut genitum vel ut filius, sed magis procedit ut spiritus, quo nomine quaedam vitalis motio et impulsio designatur, prout aliquis ex amore dicitur moveri vel impelli ad aliquid faciendum. ||I answer that, The procession of love in God ought not to be called generation. In evidence whereof we must consider that the intellect and the will differ in this respect, that the intellect is made actual by the object understood residing according to its own likeness in the intellect; whereas the will is made actual, not by any similitude of the object willed within it, but by its having a certain inclination to the thing willed. Thus the procession of the intellect is by way of similitude, and is called generation, because every generator begets its own like; whereas the procession of the will is not by way of similitude, but rather by way of impulse and movement towards an object. So what proceeds in God by way of love, does not proceed as begotten, or as son, but proceeds rather as spirit; which name expresses a certain vital movement and impulse, accordingly as anyone is described as moved or impelled by love to perform an action.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 27 a. 4 ad 1 </b>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod quidquid est in divinis, est unum cum divina natura. Unde ex parte huius unitatis non potest accipi propria ratio huius processionis vel illius, secundum quam una distinguatur ab alia, sed oportet quod propria ratio huius vel illius processionis accipiatur secundum ordinem unius processionis ad aliam. Huiusmodi autem ordo attenditur secundum rationem voluntatis et intellectus. Unde secundum horum propriam rationem sortitur in divinis nomen utraque processio, quod imponitur ad propriam rationem rei significandam. Et inde est quod procedens per modum amoris et divinam naturam accipit, et tamen non dicitur natum. ||Reply to Objection 1. All that exists in God is one with the divine nature. Hence the proper notion of this or that procession, by which one procession is distinguished from another, cannot be on the part of this unity: but the proper notion of this or that procession must be taken from the order of one procession to another; which order is derived from the nature of the will and intellect. Hence, each procession in God takes its name from the proper notion of will and intellect; the name being imposed to signify what its nature really is; and so it is that the Person proceeding as love receives the divine nature, but is not said to be born.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 27 a. 4 ad 2 </b>Ad secundum dicendum quod similitudo aliter pertinet ad verbum, et aliter ad amorem. Nam ad verbum pertinet inquantum ipsum est quaedam similitudo rei intellectae, sicut genitum est similitudo generantis, sed ad amorem pertinet, non quod ipse amor sit similitudo, sed inquantum similitudo est principium amandi. Unde non sequitur quod amor sit genitus, sed quod genitum sit principium amoris. ||Reply to Objection 2. Likeness belongs in a different way to the word and to love. It belongs to the word as being the likeness of the object understood, as the thing generated is the likeness of the generator; but it belongs to love, not as though love itself were a likeness, but because likeness is the principle of loving. Thus it does not follow that love is begotten, but that the one begotten is the principle of love.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 27 a. 4 ad 3 </b>Ad tertium dicendum quod Deum nominare non possumus nisi ex creaturis, ut dictum est supra. Et quia in creaturis communicatio naturae non est nisi per generationem, processio in divinis non habet proprium vel speciale nomen nisi generationis. Unde processio quae non est generatio, remansit sine speciali nomine. Sed potest nominari spiratio, quia est processio spiritus. ||Reply to Objection 3. We can name God only from creatures (13, 1). As in creatures generation is the only principle of communication of nature, procession in God has no proper or special name, except that of generation. Hence the procession which is not generation has remained without a special name; but it can be called spiration, as it is the procession of the Spirit.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="q27a5"><b>IЄ q. 27 a. 5 arg. 1 </b>Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod sint plures processiones in divinis quam duae. Sicut enim scientia et voluntas attribuitur Deo, ita et potentia. Si igitur secundum intellectum et voluntatem accipiuntur in Deo duae processiones, videtur quod tertia sit accipienda secundum potentiam. || Whether there are more than two processions in God?Objection 1. It would seem that there are more than two processions in God. As knowledge and will are attributed to God, so is power. Therefore, if two processions exist in God, of intellect and will, it seems that there must also be a third procession of power.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 27 a. 5 arg. 2 </b>Praeterea, bonitas maxime videtur esse principium processionis, cum bonum dicatur diffusivum sui esse. Videtur igitur quod secundum bonitatem aliqua processio in divinis accipi debeat. ||Objection 2. Further, goodness seems to be the greatest principle of procession, since goodness is diffusive of itself. Therefore there must be a procession of goodness in God.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 27 a. 5 arg. 3 </b>Praeterea, maior est fecunditatis virtus in Deo quam in nobis. Sed in nobis non est tantum una processio verbi, sed multae, quia ex uno verbo in nobis procedit aliud verbum; et similiter ex uno amore alius amor. Ergo et in Deo sunt plures processiones quam duae. ||Objection 3. Further, in God there is greater power of fecundity than in us. But in us there is not only one procession of the word, but there are many: for in us from one word proceeds another; and also from one love proceeds another. Therefore in God there are more than two processions.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 27 a. 5 s. c. </b>Sed contra est quod in Deo non sunt nisi duo procedentes, scilicet filius et spiritus sanctus. Ergo sunt ibi tantum duae processiones. ||On the contrary, In God there are not more than two who proceed--the Son and the Holy Ghost. Therefore there are in Him but two processions.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 27 a. 5 co. </b>Respondeo dicendum quod processiones in divinis accipi non possunt nisi secundum actiones quae in agente manent. Huiusmodi autem actiones in natura intellectuali et divina non sunt nisi duae, scilicet intelligere et velle. Nam sentire, quod etiam videtur esse operatio in sentiente, est extra naturam intellectualem, neque totaliter est remotum a genere actionum quae sunt ad extra; nam sentire perficitur per actionem sensibilis in sensum. Relinquitur igitur quod nulla alia processio possit esse in Deo, nisi verbi et amoris. ||I answer that, The divine processions can be derived only from the actions which remain within the agent. In a nature which is intellectual, and in the divine nature these actions are two, the acts of intelligence and of will. The act of sensation, which also appears to be an operation within the agent, takes place outside the intellectual nature, nor can it be reckoned as wholly removed from the sphere of external actions; for the act of sensation is perfected by the action of the sensible object upon sense. It follows that no other procession is possible in God but the procession of the Word, and of Love.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 27 a. 5 ad 1 </b>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod potentia est principium agendi in aliud, unde secundum potentiam accipitur actio ad extra. Et sic secundum attributum potentiae non accipitur processio divinae personae, sed solum processio creaturarum. ||Reply to Objection 1. Power is the principle whereby one thing acts on another. Hence it is that external action points to power. Thus the divine power does not imply the procession of a divine person; but is indicated by the procession therefrom of creatures.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 27 a. 5 ad 2 </b>Ad secundum dicendum quod bonum, sicut dicit Boetius in libro de Hebd., pertinet ad essentiam et non ad operationem, nisi forte sicut obiectum voluntatis. Unde, cum processiones divinas secundum aliquas actiones necesse sit accipere, secundum bonitatem et huiusmodi alia attributa non accipiuntur aliae processiones nisi verbi et amoris, secundum quod Deus suam essentiam, veritatem et bonitatem intelligit et amat. ||Reply to Objection 2. As Boethius says (De Hebdom.), goodness belongs to the essence and not to the operation, unless considered as the object of the will. Thus, as the divine processions must be denominated from certain actions; no other processions can be understood in God according to goodness and the like attributes except those of the Word and of love, according as God understands and loves His own essence, truth and goodness.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 27 a. 5 ad 3 </b>Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut supra habitum est, Deus uno simplici actu omnia intelligit, et similiter omnia vult. Unde in eo non potest esse processio verbi ex verbo, neque amoris ex amore, sed est in eo solum unum verbum perfectum, et unus amor perfectus. Et in hoc eius perfecta fecunditas manifestatur. ||Reply to Objection 3. As above explained (14, 5; 19, 5), God understands all things by one simple act; and by one act also He wills all things. Hence there cannot exist in Him a procession of Word from Word, nor of Love from Love: for there is in Him only one perfect Word, and one perfect Love; thereby being manifested His perfect fecundity.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 28 pr. </b>Deinde considerandum est de relationibus divinis. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, utrum in Deo sint aliquae relationes reales. Secundo, utrum illae relationes sint ipsa essentia divina, vel sint extrinsecus affixae. Tertio, utrum possint esse in Deo plures relationes realiter distinctae ab invicem. Quarto, de numero harum relationum. || Whether there are real relations in God?
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="q28a1"><b>IЄ q. 28 a. 1 arg. 1 </b>Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod in Deo non sint aliquae relationes reales. Dicit enim Boetius, in libro de Trin., quod cum quis praedicamenta in divinam vertit praedicationem, cuncta mutantur in substantiam quae praedicari possunt; ad aliquid vero omnino non potest praedicari. Sed quidquid est realiter in Deo, de ipso praedicari potest. Ergo relatio non est realiter in Deo. ||Objection 1. It would seem that there are no real relations in God. For Boethius says (De Trin. iv), "All possible predicaments used as regards the Godhead refer to the substance; for nothing can be predicated relatively." But whatever really exists in God can be predicated of Him. Therefore no real relation exists in God.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 28 a. 1 arg. 2 </b>Praeterea, dicit Boetius in eodem libro, quod similis est relatio in Trinitate patris ad filium, et utriusque ad spiritum sanctum, ut eius quod est idem, ad id quod est idem. Sed huiusmodi relatio est rationis tantum, quia omnis relatio realis exigit duo extrema realiter. Ergo relationes quae ponuntur in divinis, non sunt reales relationes, sed rationis tantum. ||Objection 2. Further, Boethius says (De Trin. iv) that, "Relation in the Trinity of the Father to the Son, and of both to the Holy Ghost, is the relation of the same to the same." But a relation of this kind is only a logical one; for every real relation requires and implies in reality two terms. Therefore the divine relations are not real relations, but are formed only by the mind.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 28 a. 1 arg. 3 </b>Praeterea, relatio paternitatis est relatio principii. Sed cum dicitur, Deus est principium creaturarum, non importatur aliqua relatio realis, sed rationis tantum. Ergo nec paternitas in divinis est relatio realis. Et eadem ratione nec aliae relationes quae ponuntur ibi. ||Objection 3. Further, the relation of paternity is the relation of a principle. But to say that God is the principle of creatures does not import any real relation, but only a logical one. Therefore paternity in God is not a real relation; while the same applies for the same reason to the other relations in God.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 28 a. 1 arg. 4 </b>Praeterea, generatio in divinis est secundum intelligibilis verbi processionem. Sed relationes quae consequuntur operationem intellectus, sunt relationes rationis. Ergo paternitas et filiatio, quae dicuntur in divinis secundum generationem, sunt relationes rationis tantum. ||Objection 4. Further, the divine generation proceeds by way of an intelligible word. But the relations following upon the operation of the intellect are logical relations. Therefore paternity and filiation in God, consequent upon generation, are only logical relations.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 28 a. 1 s. c. </b>Sed contra est quod pater non dicitur nisi a paternitate, et filius a filiatione. Si igitur paternitas et filiatio non sunt in Deo realiter, sequitur quod Deus non sit realiter pater aut filius, sed secundum rationem intelligentiae tantum, quod est haeresis Sabelliana. ||On the contrary, The Father is denominated only from paternity; and the Son only from filiation. Therefore, if no real paternity or filiation existed in God, it would follow that God is not really Father or Son, but only in our manner of understanding; and this is the Sabellian heresy.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 28 a. 1 co. </b>Respondeo dicendum quod relationes quaedam sunt in divinis realiter. Ad cuius evidentiam, considerandum est quod solum in his quae dicuntur ad aliquid, inveniuntur aliqua secundum rationem tantum, et non secundum rem. Quod non est in aliis generibus, quia alia genera, ut quantitas et qualitas, secundum propriam rationem significant aliquid alicui inhaerens. Ea vero quae dicuntur ad aliquid, significant secundum propriam rationem solum respectum ad aliud. Qui quidem respectus aliquando est in ipsa natura rerum; utpote quando aliquae res secundum suam naturam ad invicem ordinatae sunt, et invicem inclinationem habent. Et huiusmodi relationes oportet esse reales. Sicut in corpore gravi est inclinatio et ordo ad locum medium, unde respectus quidam est in ipso gravi respectu loci medii. Et similiter est de aliis huiusmodi. Aliquando vero respectus significatus per ea quae dicuntur ad aliquid, est tantum in ipsa apprehensione rationis conferentis unum alteri, et tunc est relatio rationis tantum; sicut cum comparat ratio hominem animali, ut speciem ad genus. Cum autem aliquid procedit a principio eiusdem naturae, necesse est quod ambo, scilicet procedens et id a quo procedit, in eodem ordine conveniant, et sic oportet quod habeant reales respectus ad invicem. Cum igitur processiones in divinis sint in identitate naturae, ut ostensum est, necesse est quod relationes quae secundum processiones divinas accipiuntur, sint relationes reales. ||I answer that, relations exist in God really; in proof whereof we may consider that in relations alone is found something which is only in the apprehension and not in reality. This is not found in any other genus; forasmuch as other genera, as quantity and quality, in their strict and proper meaning, signify something inherent in a subject. But relation in its own proper meaning signifies only what refers to another. Such regard to another exists sometimes in the nature of things, as in those things which by their own very nature are ordered to each other, and have a mutual inclination; and such relations are necessarily real relations; as in a heavy body is found an inclination and order to the centre; and hence there exists in the heavy body a certain respect in regard to the centre and the same applies to other things. Sometimes, however, this regard to another, signified by relation, is to be found only in the apprehension of reason comparing one thing to another, and this is a logical relation only; as, for instance, when reason compares man to animal as the species to the genus. But when something proceeds from a principle of the same nature, then both the one proceeding and the source of procession, agree in the same order; and then they have real relations to each other. Therefore as the divine processions are in the identity of the same nature, as above explained (27, 2, 4), these relations, according to the divine processions, are necessarily real relations.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 28 a. 1 ad 1 </b>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ad aliquid dicitur omnino non praedicari in Deo, secundum propriam rationem eius quod dicitur ad aliquid; inquantum scilicet propria ratio eius quod ad aliquid dicitur, non accipitur per comparationem ad illud cui inest relatio, sed per respectum ad alterum. Non ergo per hoc excludere voluit quod relatio non esset in Deo, sed quod non praedicaretur per modum inhaerentis secundum propriam relationis rationem, sed magis per modum ad aliud se habentis. ||Reply to Objection 1. Relationship is not predicated of God according to its proper and formal meaning, that is to say, in so far as its proper meaning denotes comparison to that in which relation is inherent, but only as denoting regard to another. Nevertheless Boethius did not wish to exclude relation in God; but he wished to show that it was not to be predicated of Him as regards the mode of inherence in Himself in the strict meaning of relation; but rather by way of relation to another.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 28 a. 1 ad 2 </b>Ad secundum dicendum quod relatio quae importatur per hoc nomen idem, est relatio rationis tantum, si accipiatur simpliciter idem, quia huiusmodi relatio non potest consistere nisi in quodam ordine quem ratio adinvenit alicuius ad seipsum, secundum aliquas eius duas considerationes. Secus autem est, cum dicuntur aliqua eadem esse, non in numero, sed in natura generis sive speciei. Boetius igitur relationes quae sunt in divinis, assimilat relationi identitatis, non quantum ad omnia, sed quantum ad hoc solum, quod per huiusmodi relationes non diversificatur substantia, sicut nec per relationem identitatis. ||Reply to Objection 2. The relation signified by the term "the same" is a logical relation only, if in regard to absolutely the same thing; because such a relation can exist only in a certain order observed by reason as regards the order of anything to itself, according to some two aspects thereof. The case is otherwise, however, when things are called the same, not numerically, but generically or specifically. Thus Boethius likens the divine relations to a relation of identity, not in every respect, but only as regards the fact that the substance is not diversified by these relations, as neither is it by relation of identity.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 28 a. 1 ad 3 </b>Ad tertium dicendum quod, cum creatura procedat a Deo in diversitate naturae, Deus est extra ordinem totius creaturae, nec ex eius natura est eius habitudo ad creaturas. Non enim producit creaturas ex necessitate suae naturae, sed per intellectum et per voluntatem, ut supra dictum est. Et ideo in Deo non est realis relatio ad creaturas. Sed in creaturis est realis relatio ad Deum, quia creaturae continentur sub ordine divino, et in earum natura est quod dependeant a Deo. Sed processiones divinae sunt in eadem natura. Unde non est similis ratio. ||Reply to Objection 3. As the creature proceeds from God in diversity of nature, God is outside the order of the whole creation, nor does any relation to the creature arise from His nature; for He does not produce the creature by necessity of His nature, but by His intellect and will, as is above explained (14, 3 and 4; 19, 8). Therefore there is no real relation in God to the creature; whereas in creatures there is a real relation to God; because creatures are contained under the divine order, and their very nature entails dependence on God. On the other hand, the divine processions are in one and the same nature. Hence no parallel exists.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 28 a. 1 ad 4 </b>Ad quartum dicendum quod relationes quae consequuntur solam operationem intellectus in ipsis rebus intellectis, sunt relationes rationis tantum, quia scilicet eas ratio adinvenit inter duas res intellectas. Sed relationes quae consequuntur operationem intellectus, quae sunt inter verbum intellectualiter procedens et illud a quo procedit, non sunt relationes rationis tantum, sed rei, quia et ipse intellectus et ratio est quaedam res, et comparatur realiter ad id quod procedit intelligibiliter, sicut res corporalis ad id quod procedit corporaliter. Et sic paternitas et filiatio sunt relationes reales in divinis. ||Reply to Objection 4. Relations which result from the mental operation alone in the objects understood are logical relations only, inasmuch as reason observes them as existing between two objects perceived by the mind. Those relations, however, which follow the operation of the intellect, and which exist between the word intellectually proceeding and the source whence it proceeds, are not logical relations only, but are real relations; inasmuch as the intellect and the reason are real things, and are really related to that which proceeds from them intelligibly; as a corporeal thing is related to that which proceeds from it corporeally. Thus paternity and filiation are real relations in God.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 28 a2</b> ||Whether relation in God is the same as His essence?
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="q28a2"><b>IЄ q. 28 a. 2 arg. 1 </b>Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod relatio in Deo non sit idem quod sua essentia. Dicit enim Augustinus, in V de Trin., quod non omne quod dicitur in Deo, dicitur secundum substantiam. Dicitur enim ad aliquid, sicut pater ad filium, sed haec non secundum substantiam dicuntur. Ergo relatio non est divina essentia. ||Objection 1. It would seem that the divine relation is not the same as the divine essence. For Augustine says (De Trin. v) that "not all that is said of God is said of His substance, for we say some things relatively, as Father in respect of the Son: but such things do not refer to the substance." Therefore the relation is not the divine essence.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 28 a. 2 arg. 2 </b>Praeterea, Augustinus dicit, VII de Trin., omnis res quae relative dicitur, est etiam aliquid excepto relativo; sicut homo dominus, et homo servus. Si igitur relationes aliquae sunt in Deo, oportet esse in Deo aliquid aliud praeter relationes. Sed hoc aliud non potest esse nisi essentia. Ergo essentia est aliud a relationibus. ||Objection 2. Further, Augustine says (De Trin. vii) that, "every relative expression is something besides the relation expressed, as master is a man, and slave is a man." Therefore, if relations exist in God, there must be something else besides relation in God. This can only be His essence. Therefore essence differs from relation.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 28 a. 2 arg. 3 </b>Praeterea, esse relativi est ad aliud se habere, ut dicitur in praedicamentis. Si igitur relatio sit ipsa divina essentia, sequitur quod esse divinae essentiae sit ad aliud se habere, quod repugnat perfectioni divini esse, quod est maxime absolutum et per se subsistens, ut supra ostensum est. Non igitur relatio est ipsa essentia divina. ||Objection 3. Further, the essence of relation is the being referred to another, as the Philosopher says (Praedic. v). So if relation is the divine essence, it follows that the divine essence is essentially itself a relation to something else; whereas this is repugnant to the perfection of the divine essence, which is supremely absolute and self-subsisting (3, 4). Therefore relation is not the divine essence.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 28 a. 2 s. c. </b>Sed contra, omnis res quae non est divina essentia, est creatura. Sed relatio realiter competit Deo. Si ergo non est divina essentia, erit creatura, et ita ei non erit adoratio latriae exhibenda, contra quod in praefatione cantatur, ut in personis proprietas, et in maiestate adoretur aequalitas. ||On the contrary, Everything which is not the divine essence is a creature. But relation really belongs to God; and if it is not the divine essence, it is a creature; and it cannot claim the adoration of latria; contrary to what is sung in the Preface: "Let us adore the distinction of the Persons, and the equality of their Majesty."
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 28 a. 2 co. </b>Respondeo dicendum quod circa hoc dicitur Gilbertus Porretanus errasse, sed errorem suum postmodum in Remensi Concilio revocasse. Dixit enim quod relationes in divinis sunt assistentes, sive extrinsecus affixae. Ad cuius evidentiam, considerandum est quod in quolibet novem generum accidentis est duo considerare. Quorum unum est esse quod competit unicuique ipsorum secundum quod est accidens. Et hoc communiter in omnibus est inesse subiecto, accidentis enim esse est inesse. Aliud quod potest considerari in unoquoque, est propria ratio uniuscuiusque illorum generum. Et in aliis quidem generibus a relatione, utpote quantitate et qualitate, etiam propria ratio generis accipitur secundum comparationem ad subiectum, nam quantitas dicitur mensura substantiae, qualitas vero dispositio substantiae. Sed ratio propria relationis non accipitur secundum comparationem ad illud in quo est, sed secundum comparationem ad aliquid extra. Si igitur consideremus, etiam in rebus creatis, relationes secundum id quod relationes sunt, sic inveniuntur esse assistentes, non intrinsecus affixae; quasi significantes respectum quodammodo contingentem ipsam rem relatam, prout ab ea tendit in alterum. Si vero consideretur relatio secundum quod est accidens, sic est inhaerens subiecto, et habens esse accidentale in ipso. Sed Gilbertus Porretanus consideravit relationem primo modo tantum. Quidquid autem in rebus creatis habet esse accidentale, secundum quod transfertur in Deum, habet esse substantiale, nihil enim est in Deo ut accidens in subiecto, sed quidquid est in Deo, est eius essentia. Sic igitur ex ea parte qua relatio in rebus creatis habet esse accidentale in subiecto, relatio realiter existens in Deo habet esse essentiae divinae, idem omnino ei existens. In hoc vero quod ad aliquid dicitur, non significatur aliqua habitudo ad essentiam, sed magis ad suum oppositum. Et sic manifestum est quod relatio realiter existens in Deo, est idem essentiae secundum rem; et non differt nisi secundum intelligentiae rationem, prout in relatione importatur respectus ad suum oppositum, qui non importatur in nomine essentiae. Patet ergo quod in Deo non est aliud esse relationis et esse essentiae, sed unum et idem. ||I answer that, It is reported that Gilbert de la Porree erred on this point, but revoked his error later at the council of Rheims. For he said that the divine relations are assistant, or externally affixed. To perceive the error here expressed, we must consider that in each of the nine genera of accidents there are two points for remark. One is the nature belonging to each one of them considered as an accident; which commonly applies to each of them as inherent in a subject, for the essence of an accident is to inhere. The other point of remark is the proper nature of each one of these genera. In the genera, apart from that of "relation," as in quantity and quality, even the true idea of the genus itself is derived from a respect to the subject; for quantity is called the measure of substance, and quality is the disposition of substance. But the true idea of relation is not taken from its respect to that in which it is, but from its respect to something outside. So if we consider even in creatures, relations formally as such, in that aspect they are said to be "assistant," and not intrinsically affixed, for, in this way, they signify a respect which affects a thing related and tends from that thing to something else; whereas, if relation is considered as an accident, it inheres in a subject, and has an accidental existence in it. Gilbert de la Porree considered relation in the former mode only. Now whatever has an accidental existence in creatures, when considered as transferred to God, has a substantial existence; for there is no accident in God; since all in Him is His essence. So, in so far as relation has an accidental existence in creatures, relation really existing in God has the existence of the divine essence in no way distinct therefrom. But in so far as relation implies respect to something else, no respect to the essence is signified, but rather to its opposite term. Thus it is manifest that relation really existing in God is really the same as His essence and only differs in its mode of intelligibility; as in relation is meant that regard to its opposite which is not expressed in the name of essence. Thus it is clear that in God relation and essence do not differ from each other, but are one and the same.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 28 a. 2 ad 1 </b>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod verba illa Augustini non pertinent ad hoc, quod paternitas, vel alia relatio quae est in Deo, secundum esse suum non sit idem quod divina essentia; sed quod non praedicatur secundum modum substantiae, ut existens in eo de quo dicitur, sed ut ad alterum se habens. Et propter hoc dicuntur duo tantum esse praedicamenta in divinis. Quia alia praedicamenta important habitudinem ad id de quo dicuntur, tam secundum suum esse, quam secundum proprii generis rationem, nihil autem quod est in Deo, potest habere habitudinem ad id in quo est, vel de quo dicitur, nisi habitudinem identitatis, propter summam Dei simplicitatem. ||Reply to Objection 1. These words of Augustine do not imply that paternity or any other relation which is in God is not in its very being the same as the divine essence; but that it is not predicated under the mode of substance, as existing in Him to Whom it is applied; but as a relation. So there are said to be two predicaments only in God, since other predicaments import habitude to that of which they are spoken, both in their generic and in their specific nature; but nothing that exists in God can have any relation to that wherein it exists or of whom it is spoken, except the relation of identity; and this by reason of God's supreme simplicity.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 28 a. 2 ad 2 </b>Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut in rebus creatis, in illo quod dicitur relative, non solum est invenire respectum ad alterum, sed etiam aliquid absolutum, ita et in Deo, sed tamen aliter et aliter. Nam id quod invenitur in creatura praeter id quod continetur sub significatione nominis relativi, est alia res, in Deo autem non est alia res, sed una et eadem, quae non perfecte exprimitur relationis nomine, quasi sub significatione talis nominis comprehensa. Dictum est enim supra, cum de divinis nominibus agebatur, quod plus continetur in perfectione divinae essentiae, quam aliquo nomine significari possit. Unde non sequitur quod in Deo, praeter relationem, sit aliquid aliud secundum rem; sed solum considerata nominum ratione. ||Reply to Objection 2. As the relation which exists in creatures involves not only a regard to another, but also something absolute, so the same applies to God, yet not in the same way. What is contained in the creature above and beyond what is contained in the meaning of relation, is something else besides that relation; whereas in God there is no distinction, but both are one and the same; and this is not perfectly expressed by the word "relation," as if it were comprehended in the ordinary meaning of that term. For it was above explained (13, 2), in treating of the divine names, that more is contained in the perfection of the divine essence than can be signified by any name. Hence it does not follow that there exists in God anything besides relation in reality; but only in the various names imposed by us.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 28 a. 2 ad 3 </b>Ad tertium dicendum quod, si in perfectione divina nihil plus contineretur quam quod significat nomen relativum, sequeretur quod esse eius esset imperfectum, utpote ad aliquid aliud se habens, sicut si non contineretur ibi plus quam quod nomine sapientiae significatur, non esset aliquid subsistens. Sed quia divinae essentiae perfectio est maior quam quod significatione alicuius nominis comprehendi possit, non sequitur, si nomen relativum, vel quodcumque aliud nomen dictum de Deo, non significat aliquid perfectum, quod divina essentia habeat esse imperfectum, quia divina essentia comprehendit in se omnium generum perfectionem, ut supra dictum est. ||Reply to Objection 3. If the divine perfection contained only what is signified by relative names, it would follow that it is imperfect, being thus related to something else; as in the same way, if nothing more were contained in it than what is signified by the word "wisdom," it would not in that case be a subsistence. But as the perfection of the divine essence is greater than can be included in any name, it does not follow, if a relative term or any other name applied to God signify something imperfect, that the divine essence is in any way imperfect; for the divine essence comprehends within itself the perfection of every genus (4, 2).
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 28 a3</b> || Whether the relations in God are really distinguished from each other?
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="q28a3"><b>IЄ q. 28 a. 3 arg. 1 </b>Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod relationes quae sunt in Deo, realiter ab invicem non distinguantur. Quaecumque enim uni et eidem sunt eadem, sibi invicem sunt eadem. Sed omnis relatio in Deo existens est idem secundum rem cum divina essentia. Ergo relationes secundum rem ab invicem non distinguuntur. ||Objection 1. It would seem that the divine relations are not really distinguished from each other. For things which are identified with the same, are identified with each other. But every relation in God is really the same as the divine essence. Therefore the relations are not really distinguished from each other.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 28 a. 3 arg. 2 </b>Praeterea, sicut paternitas et filiatio secundum nominis rationem distinguuntur ab essentia divina, ita et bonitas et potentia. Sed propter huiusmodi rationis distinctionem non est aliqua realis distinctio bonitatis et potentiae divinae. Ergo neque paternitatis et filiationis. ||Objection 2. Further, as paternity and filiation are by name distinguished from the divine essence, so likewise are goodness and power. But this kind of distinction does not make any real distinction of the divine goodness and power. Therefore neither does it make any real distinction of paternity and filiation.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 28 a. 3 arg. 3 </b>Praeterea, in divinis non est distinctio realis nisi secundum originem. Sed una relatio non videtur oriri ex alia. Ergo relationes non distinguuntur realiter ab invicem. ||Objection 3. Further, in God there is no real distinction but that of origin. But one relation does not seem to arise from another. Therefore the relations are not really distinguished from each other.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 28 a. 3 s. c. </b>Sed contra est quod dicit Boetius, in libro de Trin., quod substantia in divinis continet unitatem, relatio multiplicat Trinitatem. Si ergo relationes non distinguuntur ab invicem realiter, non erit in divinis Trinitas realis, sed rationis tantum, quod est Sabelliani erroris. ||On the contrary, Boethius says (De Trin.) that in God "the substance contains the unity; and relation multiplies the trinity." Therefore, if the relations were not really distinguished from each other, there would be no real trinity in God, but only an ideal trinity, which is the error of Sabellius.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 28 a. 3 co. </b>Respondeo dicendum quod ex eo quod aliquid alicui attribuitur, oportet quod attribuantur ei omnia quae sunt de ratione illius, sicut cuicumque attribuitur homo, oportet quod attribuatur ei esse rationale. De ratione autem relationis est respectus unius ad alterum, secundum quem aliquid alteri opponitur relative. Cum igitur in Deo realiter sit relatio, ut dictum est, oportet quod realiter sit ibi oppositio. Relativa autem oppositio in sui ratione includit distinctionem. Unde oportet quod in Deo sit realis distinctio, non quidem secundum rem absolutam, quae est essentia, in qua est summa unitas et simplicitas; sed secundum rem relativam. ||I answer that, The attributing of anything to another involves the attribution likewise of whatever is contained in it. So when "man" is attributed to anyone, a rational nature is likewise attributed to him. The idea of relation, however, necessarily means regard of one to another, according as one is relatively opposed to another. So as in God there is a real relation (1), there must also be a real opposition. The very nature of relative opposition includes distinction. Hence, there must be real distinction in God, not, indeed, according to that which is absolute--namely, essence, wherein there is supreme unity and simplicity--but according to that which is relative.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 28 a. 3 ad 1 </b>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, secundum philosophum in III Physic., argumentum illud tenet, quod quaecumque uni et eidem sunt eadem, sibi invicem sunt eadem, in his quae sunt idem re et ratione, sicut tunica et indumentum, non autem in his quae differunt ratione. Unde ibidem dicit quod, licet actio sit idem motui, similiter et passio, non tamen sequitur quod actio et passio sint idem, quia in actione importatur respectus ut a quo est motus in mobili, in passione vero ut qui est ab alio. Et similiter, licet paternitas sit idem secundum rem cum essentia divina, et similiter filiatio, tamen haec duo in suis propriis rationibus important oppositos respectus. Unde distinguuntur ab invicem. ||Reply to Objection 1. According to the Philosopher (Phys. iii), this argument holds, that whatever things are identified with the same thing are identified with each other, if the identity be real and logical; as, for instance, a tunic and a garment; but not if they differ logically. Hence in the same place he says that although action is the same as motion, and likewise passion; still it does not follow that action and passion are the same; because action implies reference as of something "from which" there is motion in the thing moved; whereas passion implies reference as of something "which is from" another. Likewise, although paternity, just as filiation, is really the same as the divine essence; nevertheless these two in their own proper idea and definitions import opposite respects. Hence they are distinguished from each other.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 28 a. 3 ad 2 </b>Ad secundum dicendum quod potentia et bonitas non important in suis rationibus aliquam oppositionem, unde non est similis ratio. ||Reply to Objection 2. Power and goodness do not import any opposition in their respective natures; and hence there is no parallel argument.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 28 a. 3 ad 3 </b>Ad tertium dicendum quod, quamvis relationes, proprie loquendo, non oriantur vel procedant ab invicem, tamen accipiuntur per oppositum secundum processionem alicuius ab alio. ||Reply to Objection 3. Although relations, properly speaking, do not arise or proceed from each other, nevertheless they are considered as opposed according to the procession of one from another.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 28 a4</b> ||Whether in God there are only four real relations--paternity, filiation, spiration, and procession?
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<div id="q28a4"><b>IЄ q. 28 a. 4 arg. 1 </b>Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod in Deo non sint tantum quatuor relationes reales, scilicet paternitas, filiatio, spiratio et processio. Est enim considerare in Deo relationes intelligentis ad intellectum, et volentis ad volitum, quae videntur esse relationes reales, neque sub praedictis continentur. Non ergo sunt solum quatuor relationes reales in Deo. ||Objection 1. It would seem that in God there are not only four real relations--paternity, filiation, spiration and procession. For it must be observed that in God there exist the relations of the intelligent agent to the object understood; and of the one willing to the object willed; which are real relations not comprised under those above specified. Therefore there are not only four real relations in God.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 28 a. 4 arg. 2 </b>Praeterea, relationes reales accipiuntur in Deo secundum processionem intelligibilem verbi. Sed relationes intelligibiles multiplicantur in infinitum, ut Avicenna dicit. Ergo in Deo sunt infinitae relationes reales. ||Objection 2. Further, real relations in God are understood as coming from the intelligible procession of the Word. But intelligible relations are infinitely multiplied, as Avicenna says. Therefore in God there exists an infinite series of real relations.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 28 a. 4 arg. 3 </b>Praeterea, ideae sunt in Deo ab aeterno, ut supra dictum est. Non autem distinguuntur ab invicem nisi secundum respectum ad res, ut supra dictum est. Ergo in Deo sunt multo plures relationes aeternae. ||Objection 3. Further, ideas in God are eternal (15, 1); and are only distinguished from each other by reason of their regard to things, as above stated. Therefore in God there are many more eternal relations.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 28 a. 4 arg. 4 </b>Praeterea, aequalitas et similitudo et identitas sunt relationes quaedam; et sunt in Deo ab aeterno. Ergo plures relationes sunt ab aeterno in Deo, quam quae dictae sunt. ||Objection 4. Further, equality, and likeness, and identity are relations: and they are in God from eternity. Therefore several more relations are eternal in God than the above named.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 28 a. 4 s. c. </b>Sed contra, videtur quod sint pauciores. Quia secundum philosophum, in III Physic., eadem via est de Athenis ad Thebas, et de Thebis ad Athenas. Ergo videtur quod pari ratione eadem sit relatio de patre ad filium, quae dicitur paternitas, et de filio ad patrem, quae dicitur filiatio. Et sic non sunt quatuor relationes in Deo. ||Objection 5. Further, it may also contrariwise be said that there are fewer relations in God than those above named. For, according to the Philosopher (Phys. iii text 24), "It is the same way from Athens to Thebes, as from Thebes to Athens." By the same way of reasoning there is the same relation from the Father to the Son, that of paternity, and from the Son to the Father, that of filiation; and thus there are not four relations in God.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 28 a. 4 co. </b>Respondeo dicendum quod, secundum philosophum, in V Metaphys., relatio omnis fundatur vel supra quantitatem, ut duplum et dimidium; vel supra actionem et passionem, ut faciens et factum, pater et filius, dominus et servus, et huiusmodi. Cum autem quantitas non sit in Deo (est enim sine quantitate magnus, ut dicit Augustinus). Relinquitur ergo quod realis relatio in Deo esse non possit, nisi super actionem fundata. Non autem super actiones secundum quas procedit aliquid extrinsecum a Deo, quia relationes Dei ad creaturas non sunt realiter in ipso, ut supra dictum est. Unde relinquitur quod relationes reales in Deo non possunt accipi, nisi secundum actiones secundum quas est processio in Deo, non extra, sed intra. Huiusmodi autem processiones sunt duae tantum, ut supra dictum est, quarum una accipitur secundum actionem intellectus, quae est processio verbi; alia secundum actionem voluntatis, quae est processio amoris. Secundum quamlibet autem processionem oportet duas accipere relationes oppositas, quarum una sit procedentis a principio, et alia ipsius principii. Processio autem verbi dicitur generatio, secundum propriam rationem qua competit rebus viventibus. Relatio autem principii generationis in viventibus perfectis dicitur paternitas, relatio vero procedentis a principio dicitur filiatio. Processio vero amoris non habet nomen proprium, ut supra dictum est, unde neque relationes quae secundum ipsam accipiuntur. Sed vocatur relatio principii huius processionis spiratio; relatio autem procedentis, processio; quamvis haec duo nomina ad ipsas processiones vel origines pertineant, et non ad relationes. ||I answer that, According to the Philosopher (Metaph. v), every relation is based either on quantity, as double and half; or on action and passion, as the doer and the deed, the father and the son, the master and the servant, and the like. Now as there is no quantity in God, for He is great without quantity, as Augustine says (De Trin. i, 1) it follows that a real relation in God can be based only on action. Such relations are not based on the actions of God according to any extrinsic procession, forasmuch as the relations of God to creatures are not real in Him (13, 7). Hence, it follows that real relations in God can be understood only in regard to those actions according to which there are internal, and not external, processions in God. These processions are two only, as above explained (27, 5), one derived from the action of the intellect, the procession of the Word; and the other from the action of the will, the procession of love. In respect of each of these processions two opposite relations arise; one of which is the relation of the person proceeding from the principle; the other is the relation of the principle Himself. The procession of the Word is called generation in the proper sense of the term, whereby it is applied to living things. Now the relation of the principle of generation in perfect living beings is called paternity; and the relation of the one proceeding from the principle is called filiation. But the procession of Love has no proper name of its own (27, 4); and so neither have the ensuing relations a proper name of their own. The relation of the principle of this procession is called spiration; and the relation of the person proceeding is called procession: although these two names belong to the processions or origins themselves, and not to the relations.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 28 a. 4 ad 1 </b>Ad primum ergo dicendum quod in his in quibus differt intellectus et intellectum, volens et volitum, potest esse realis relatio et scientiae ad rem scitam, et volentis ad rem volitam. Sed in Deo est idem omnino intellectus et intellectum, quia intelligendo se intelligit omnia alia, et eadem ratione voluntas et volitum. Unde in Deo huiusmodi relationes non sunt reales, sicut neque relatio eiusdem ad idem. Sed tamen relatio ad verbum est realis, quia verbum intelligitur ut procedens per actionem intelligibilem, non autem ut res intellecta. Cum enim intelligimus lapidem, id quod ex re intellecta concipit intellectus, vocatur verbum. ||Reply to Objection 1. In those things in which there is a difference between the intellect and its object, and the will and its object, there can be a real relation, both of science to its object, and of the willer to the object willed. In God, however, the intellect and its object are one and the same; because by understanding Himself, God understands all other things; and the same applies to His will and the object that He wills. Hence it follows that in God these kinds of relations are not real; as neither is the relation of a thing to itself. Nevertheless, the relation to the word is a real relation; because the word is understood as proceeding by an intelligible action; and not as a thing understood. For when we understand a stone; that which the intellect conceives from the thing understood, is called the word.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 28 a. 4 ad 2 </b>Ad secundum dicendum quod in nobis relationes intelligibiles in infinitum multiplicantur, quia alio actu intelligit homo lapidem, et alio actu intelligit se intelligere lapidem, et alio etiam intelligit hoc intelligere, et sic in infinitum multiplicantur actus intelligendi, et per consequens relationes intellectae. Sed hoc in Deo non habet locum, quia uno actu tantum omnia intelligit. ||Reply to Objection 2. Intelligible relations in ourselves are infinitely multiplied, because a man understands a stone by one act, and by another act understands that he understands the stone, and again by another, understands that he understands this; thus the acts of understanding are infinitely multiplied, and consequently also the relations understood. This does not apply to God, inasmuch as He understands all things by one act alone.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 28 a. 4 ad 3 </b>Ad tertium dicendum quod respectus ideales sunt ut intellecti a Deo. Unde ex eorum pluralitate non sequitur quod sint plures relationes in Deo, sed quod Deus cognoscat plures relationes. ||Reply to Objection 3. Ideal relations exist as understood by God. Hence it does not follow from their plurality that there are many relations in God; but that God knows these many relations.
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 28 a. 4 ad 4 </b>Ad quartum dicendum quod aequalitas et similitudo in Deo non sunt relationes reales, sed rationis tantum, ut infra patebit. ||Reply to Objection 4. Equality and similitude in God are not real relations; but are only logical relations (42, 3, ad 4).
| |
| − | |- valign = top
| |
| − | ||<b>IЄ q. 28 a. 4 ad 5 </b>Ad quintum dicendum quod via est eadem ab uno termino ad alterum, et e converso; sed tamen respectus sunt diversi. Unde ex hoc non potest concludi quod eadem sit relatio patris ad filium, et e converso, sed posset hoc concludi de aliquo absoluto, si esset medium inter ea. ||Reply to Objection 5. The way from one term to another and conversely is the same; nevertheless the mutual relations are not the same. Hence, we cannot conclude that the relation of the father to the son is the same as that of the son to the father; but we could conclude this of something absolute, if there were such between them.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | |}
| |
| − | [[Category:Logic Museum Parallel Texts]]
| |
