Mercurial > hg > Aquinas
view summa/english/FP_iii.html @ 81:43c19dd71b45
added Q76A3O3, missing in original
| author | ht |
|---|---|
| date | Sun, 20 Mar 2011 14:00:20 +0000 |
| parents | 11682db9b870 |
| children |
line wrap: on
line source
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" id="FP.iii" class="div2"> <a href="summa.FP_Q26_A4.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q27.html"></a> <h2 id="FP.iii-p0.1">TREATISE ON THE MOST HOLY TRINITY (QQ[27]-43)</h2> <div id="FP_Q27" class="div3"> <a href="summa.FP.iii.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q27_A1.html"></a> <h3 id="FP_Q27-p0.1">THE PROCESSION OF THE DIVINE PERSONS (FIVE ARTICLES)</h3> <p id="FP_Q27-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q27-p2"> Having considered what belongs to the unity of the divine essence, it remains to treat of what belongs to the Trinity of the persons in God. And because the divine Persons are distinguished from each other according to the relations of origin, the order of the doctrine leads us to consider firstly, the question of origin or procession; secondly, the relations of origin; thirdly, the persons. </p> <p id="FP_Q27-p3"> Concerning procession there are five points of inquiry:</p> <p id="FP_Q27-p4"> (1) Whether there is procession in God?</p> <p id="FP_Q27-p5"> (2) Whether any procession in God can be called generation?</p> <p id="FP_Q27-p6"> (3) Whether there can be any other procession in God besides generation.</p> <p id="FP_Q27-p7"> (4) Whether that other procession can be called generation?</p> <p id="FP_Q27-p8"> (5) Whether there are more than two processions in God?</p> <div id="FP_Q27_A1" class="div4"> <a href="summa.FP_Q27.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q27_A2.html"></a> <h4 id="FP_Q27_A1-p0.1">Whether there is procession in God?</h4> <p id="FP_Q27_A1-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q27_A1-p2"> <b>Objection 1:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q27_A1-p3"> <b>Objection 2:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q27_A1-p4"> <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, to proceed from another seems to be against the nature of the first principle. But God is the first principle, as shown above ( <a id="FP_Q27_A1-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q2_A3.html">Q[2], A[3]</a>). Therefore in God there is no procession. </p> <p id="FP_Q27_A1-p5"> <b>On the contrary,</b> Our Lord says, "From God I proceeded" ( <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q27_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#John.8.42" target="asv">Jn. 8:42</a>). </p> <p id="FP_Q27_A1-p6"> <b>I answer that,</b> 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" ( <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q27_A1-p6.1" href="./asv.html#iJohn.5.20" target="asv">1 Jn. 5:20</a>). Of the Holy Ghost it is also said, "Know you not that your members are the temple of the Holy Ghost?" ( <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q27_A1-p6.2" href="./asv.html#iCor.6.19" target="asv">1 Cor. 6:19</a>). 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" ( <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q27_A1-p6.3" href="./asv.html#John.5.19" target="asv">Jn. 5:19</a>); 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q27_A1-p7"> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q27_A1-p8"> <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q27_A1-p9"> <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> 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 ( <a id="FP_Q27_A1-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q14_A2.html">Q[14], A[2]</a>), the divine Word is of necessity perfectly one with the source whence He proceeds, without any kind of diversity. </p> <p id="FP_Q27_A1-p10"> <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q27_A1-p11"></p> <p id="FP_Q27_A1-p12"></p> <a href="summa.FP_Q27.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q27_A2.html"></a> </div> <div id="FP_Q27_A2" class="div4"> <a href="summa.FP_Q27_A1.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q27_A3.html"></a> <h4 id="FP_Q27_A2-p0.1">Whether any procession in God can be called generation?</h4> <p id="FP_Q27_A2-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q27_A2-p2"> <b>Objection 1:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q27_A2-p3"> <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, procession exists in God, according to an intelligible mode, as above explained <a id="FP_Q27_A2-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q27_A1.html">(A[1])</a>. But such a process is not called generation in us; therefore neither is it to be so called in God. </p> <p id="FP_Q27_A2-p4"> <b>Objection 3:</b> 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 ( <a id="FP_Q27_A2-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q3_A4.html">Q[3], A[4]</a>), it follows that no generated existence can be the divine existence. Therefore there is no generation in God. </p> <p id="FP_Q27_A2-p5"> <b>On the contrary,</b> It is said ( <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q27_A2-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.2.7" target="asv">Ps. 2:7</a>): "This day have I begotten Thee." </p> <p id="FP_Q27_A2-p6"> <b>I answer that,</b> 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 ( <a id="FP_Q27_A2-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q14_A4.html">Q[14], A[4]</a>). Hence the procession of the Word in God is called generation; and the Word Himself proceeding is called the Son. </p> <p id="FP_Q27_A2-p7"> <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q27_A2-p8"> <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> 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 ( <a id="FP_Q27_A2-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q14_A4.html">Q[14], A[4]</a>). 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." ( <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q27_A2-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Prov.8.24" target="asv">Prov. 8:24</a>). 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q27_A2-p9"> <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> 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 ( <a id="FP_Q27_A2-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q4_A2.html">Q[4], A[2]</a>). </p> <p id="FP_Q27_A2-p10"></p> <p id="FP_Q27_A2-p11"></p> <a href="summa.FP_Q27_A1.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q27_A3.html"></a> </div> <div id="FP_Q27_A3" class="div4"> <a href="summa.FP_Q27_A2.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q27_A4.html"></a> <h4 id="FP_Q27_A3-p0.1">Whether any other procession exists in God besides that of the Word?</h4> <p id="FP_Q27_A3-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q27_A3-p2"> <b>Objection 1:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q27_A3-p3"> <b>Objection 2:</b> 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 ( <a id="FP_Q27_A3-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q11_A4.html">Q[11], A[4]</a> ), it follows that only one procession exists in God. </p> <p id="FP_Q27_A3-p4"> <b>Objection 3:</b> 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 ( <a id="FP_Q27_A3-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q19_A1.html">Q[19], A[1]</a>). Therefore in God there is no other procession but the procession of the Word. </p> <p id="FP_Q27_A3-p5"> <b>On the contrary,</b> The Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father ( <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q27_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#John.15.26" target="asv">Jn. 15:26</a>); and He is distinct from the Son, according to the words, "I will ask My Father, and He will give you another Paraclete" ( <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q27_A3-p5.2" href="./asv.html#John.14.16" target="asv">Jn. 14:16</a>). Therefore in God another procession exists besides the procession of the Word. </p> <p id="FP_Q27_A3-p6"> <b>I answer that,</b> There are two processions in God; the procession of the Word, and another. </p> <p id="FP_Q27_A3-p7"> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q27_A3-p8"> <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q27_A3-p9"> <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> All that exists in God, is God ( <a id="FP_Q27_A3-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q3_A3.html">Q[3], AA[3]</a>,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. </p> <p id="FP_Q27_A3-p10"> <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q27_A3-p11"></p> <p id="FP_Q27_A3-p12"></p> <a href="summa.FP_Q27_A2.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q27_A4.html"></a> </div> <div id="FP_Q27_A4" class="div4"> <a href="summa.FP_Q27_A3.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q27_A5.html"></a> <h4 id="FP_Q27_A4-p0.1">Whether the procession of love in God is generation?</h4> <p id="FP_Q27_A4-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q27_A4-p2"> <b>Objection 1:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q27_A4-p3"> <b>Objection 2:</b> 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" ( <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q27_A4-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Sir.13.19" target="asv">Ecclus. 13:19</a>). Therefore if the Word is begotten and born by way of likeness, it seems becoming that love should proceed by way of generation. </p> <p id="FP_Q27_A4-p4"> <b>Objection 3:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q27_A4-p5"> <b>On the contrary,</b> 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." </p> <p id="FP_Q27_A4-p6"> <b>I answer that,</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q27_A4-p7"> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q27_A4-p8"> <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q27_A4-p9"> <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q27_A4-p10"> <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> We can name God only from creatures ( <a id="FP_Q27_A4-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q13_A1.html">Q[13], A[1]</a>). 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q27_A4-p11"></p> <p id="FP_Q27_A4-p12"></p> <a href="summa.FP_Q27_A3.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q27_A5.html"></a> </div> <div id="FP_Q27_A5" class="div4"> <a href="summa.FP_Q27_A4.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q28.html"></a> <h4 id="FP_Q27_A5-p0.1">Whether there are more than two processions in God? </h4> <p id="FP_Q27_A5-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q27_A5-p2"> <b>Objection 1:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q27_A5-p3"> <b>Objection 2:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q27_A5-p4"> <b>Objection 3:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q27_A5-p5"> <b>On the contrary,</b> In God there are not more than two who proceed---the Son and the Holy Ghost. Therefore there are in Him but two processions. </p> <p id="FP_Q27_A5-p6"> <b>I answer that,</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q27_A5-p7"> <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q27_A5-p8"> <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As Boethius says (De Hebdom.), goodness belongs to the essence and not to the operation, unless considered as the object of the will. </p> <p id="FP_Q27_A5-p9"> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q27_A5-p10"> <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As above explained ( <a id="FP_Q27_A5-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q14_A5.html">Q[14], A[5]</a>; <a id="FP_Q27_A5-p10.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q19_A5.html">Q[19], A[5]</a>), 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q27_A5-p11"></p> <p id="FP_Q27_A5-p12"></p> <a href="summa.FP_Q27_A4.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q28.html"></a> </div> <a href="summa.FP.iii.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q27_A1.html"></a> </div> <div id="FP_Q28" class="div3"> <a href="summa.FP_Q27_A5.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q28_A1.html"></a> <h3 id="FP_Q28-p0.1">THE DIVINE RELATIONS (FOUR ARTICLES)</h3> <p id="FP_Q28-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q28-p2"> The divine relations are next to be considered, in four points of inquiry:</p> <p id="FP_Q28-p3"> (1) Whether there are real relations in God?</p> <p id="FP_Q28-p4"> (2) Whether those relations are the divine essence itself, or are extrinsic to it?</p> <p id="FP_Q28-p5"> (3) Whether in God there can be several relations distinct from each other?</p> <p id="FP_Q28-p6"> (4) The number of these relations.</p> <div id="FP_Q28_A1" class="div4"> <a href="summa.FP_Q28.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q28_A2.html"></a> <h4 id="FP_Q28_A1-p0.1">Whether there are real relations in God?</h4> <p id="FP_Q28_A1-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q28_A1-p2"> <b>Objection 1:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q28_A1-p3"> <b>Objection 2:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q28_A1-p4"> <b>Objection 3:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q28_A1-p5"> <b>Objection 4:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q28_A1-p6"> <b>On the contrary,</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q28_A1-p7"> <b>I answer that,</b> 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 ( <a id="FP_Q28_A1-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q27_A2.html">Q[27], AA[2]</a>,4), these relations, according to the divine processions, are necessarily real relations. </p> <p id="FP_Q28_A1-p8"> <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q28_A1-p9"> <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q28_A1-p10"> <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> 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 ( <a id="FP_Q28_A1-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q14_A3.html">Q[14], AA[3]</a>,4; <a id="FP_Q28_A1-p10.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q19_A8.html">Q[19], A[8]</a>). 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q28_A1-p11"> <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q28_A1-p12"></p> <p id="FP_Q28_A1-p13"></p> <a href="summa.FP_Q28.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q28_A2.html"></a> </div> <div id="FP_Q28_A2" class="div4"> <a href="summa.FP_Q28_A1.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q28_A3.html"></a> <h4 id="FP_Q28_A2-p0.1">Whether relation in God is the same as His essence?</h4> <p id="FP_Q28_A2-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q28_A2-p2"> <b>Objection 1:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q28_A2-p3"> <b>Objection 2:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q28_A2-p4"> <b>Objection 3:</b> 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 ( <a id="FP_Q28_A2-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q3_A4.html">Q[3], A[4]</a>). Therefore relation is not the divine essence. </p> <p id="FP_Q28_A2-p5"> <b>On the contrary,</b> 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." </p> <p id="FP_Q28_A2-p6"> <b>I answer that,</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q28_A2-p7"> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q28_A2-p8"> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q28_A2-p9"> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q28_A2-p10"> <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q28_A2-p11"> <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> 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 ( <a id="FP_Q28_A2-p11.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q13_A2.html">Q[13], A[2]</a>), 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q28_A2-p12"> <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> 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 ( <a id="FP_Q28_A2-p12.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q4_A2.html">Q[4], A[2]</a>). </p> <p id="FP_Q28_A2-p13"></p> <p id="FP_Q28_A2-p14"></p> <a href="summa.FP_Q28_A1.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q28_A3.html"></a> </div> <div id="FP_Q28_A3" class="div4"> <a href="summa.FP_Q28_A2.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q28_A4.html"></a> <h4 id="FP_Q28_A3-p0.1">Whether the relations in God are really distinguished from each other?</h4> <p id="FP_Q28_A3-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q28_A3-p2"> <b>Objection 1:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q28_A3-p3"> <b>Objection 2:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q28_A3-p4"> <b>Objection 3:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q28_A3-p5"> <b>On the contrary,</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q28_A3-p6"> <b>I answer that,</b> 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 <a id="FP_Q28_A3-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q28_A1.html">(A[1])</a>, 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q28_A3-p7"> <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q28_A3-p8"> <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Power and goodness do not import any opposition in their respective natures; and hence there is no parallel argument. </p> <p id="FP_Q28_A3-p9"> <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q28_A3-p10"></p> <p id="FP_Q28_A3-p11"></p> <a href="summa.FP_Q28_A2.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q28_A4.html"></a> </div> <div id="FP_Q28_A4" class="div4"> <a href="summa.FP_Q28_A3.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q29.html"></a> <h4 id="FP_Q28_A4-p0.1">Whether in God there are only four real relations---paternity, filiation, spiration, and procession?</h4> <p id="FP_Q28_A4-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q28_A4-p2"> <b>Objection 1:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q28_A4-p3"> <b>Objection 2:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q28_A4-p4"> <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, ideas in God are eternal ( <a id="FP_Q28_A4-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q15_A1.html">Q[15], A[1]</a>); 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q28_A4-p5"> <b>Objection 4:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q28_A4-p6"> <b>Objection 5:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q28_A4-p7"> <b>I answer that,</b> 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 ( <a id="FP_Q28_A4-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q13_A7.html">Q[13], A[7]</a>). 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 ( <a id="FP_Q28_A4-p7.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q27_A5.html">Q[27], A[5]</a>), 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 ( <a id="FP_Q28_A4-p7.3" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q27_A4.html">Q[27], A[4]</a>); 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q28_A4-p8"> <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q28_A4-p9"> <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q28_A4-p10"> <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q28_A4-p11"> <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Equality and similitude in God are not real relations; but are only logical relations ( <a id="FP_Q28_A4-p11.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q42_A3.html">Q[42], A[3]</a>, ad 4). </p> <p id="FP_Q28_A4-p12"> <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q28_A4-p13"></p> <p id="FP_Q28_A4-p14"></p> <a href="summa.FP_Q28_A3.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q29.html"></a> </div> <a href="summa.FP_Q27_A5.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q28_A1.html"></a> </div> <div id="FP_Q29" class="div3"> <a href="summa.FP_Q28_A4.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q29_A1.html"></a> <h3 id="FP_Q29-p0.1">THE DIVINE PERSONS (FOUR ARTICLES)</h3> <p id="FP_Q29-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q29-p2"> Having premised what have appeared necessary notions concerning the processions and the relations, we must now approach the subject of the persons. </p> <p id="FP_Q29-p3"> First, we shall consider the persons absolutely, and then comparatively as regards each other. We must consider the persons absolutely first in common; and then singly. </p> <p id="FP_Q29-p4"> The general consideration of the persons seemingly involves four points: (1) The signification of this word "person"; (2) the number of the persons; (3) what is involved in the number of persons, or is opposed thereto; as diversity, and similitude, and the like; and (4) what belongs to our knowledge of the persons. </p> <p id="FP_Q29-p5"> Four subjects of inquiry are comprised in the first point:(1) The definition of "person."</p> <p id="FP_Q29-p6"> (2) The comparison of person to essence, subsistence, and hypostasis.</p> <p id="FP_Q29-p7"> (3) Whether the name of person is becoming to God?</p> <p id="FP_Q29-p8"> (4) What does it signify in Him?</p> <div id="FP_Q29_A1" class="div4"> <a href="summa.FP_Q29.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q29_A2.html"></a> <h4 id="FP_Q29_A1-p0.1">The definition of "person"</h4> <p id="FP_Q29_A1-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q29_A1-p2"> <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the definition of person given by Boethius (De Duab. Nat.) is insufficient---that is, "a person is an individual substance of a rational nature." For nothing singular can be subject to definition. But "person" signifies something singular. Therefore person is improperly defined. </p> <p id="FP_Q29_A1-p3"> <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, substance as placed above in the definition of person, is either first substance, or second substance. If it is the former, the word "individual" is superfluous, because first substance is individual substance; if it stands for second substance, the word "individual" is false, for there is contradiction of terms; since second substances are the "genera" or "species." Therefore this definition is incorrect. </p> <p id="FP_Q29_A1-p4"> <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, an intentional term must not be included in the definition of a thing. For to define a man as "a species of animal" would not be a correct definition; since man is the name of a thing, and "species" is a name of an intention. Therefore, since person is the name of a thing (for it signifies a substance of a rational nature), the word "individual" which is an intentional name comes improperly into the definition. </p> <p id="FP_Q29_A1-p5"> <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, "Nature is the principle of motion and rest, in those things in which it is essentially, and not accidentally," as Aristotle says (Phys. ii). But person exists in things immovable, as in God, and in the angels. Therefore the word "nature" ought not to enter into the definition of person, but the word should rather be "essence." </p> <p id="FP_Q29_A1-p6"> <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, the separated soul is an individual substance of the rational nature; but it is not a person. Therefore person is not properly defined as above. </p> <p id="FP_Q29_A1-p7"> <b>I answer that,</b> Although the universal and particular exist in every genus, nevertheless, in a certain special way, the individual belongs to the genus of substance. For substance is individualized by itself; whereas the accidents are individualized by the subject, which is the substance; since this particular whiteness is called "this," because it exists in this particular subject. And so it is reasonable that the individuals of the genus substance should have a special name of their own; for they are called "hypostases," or first substances. </p> <p id="FP_Q29_A1-p8"> Further still, in a more special and perfect way, the particular and the individual are found in the rational substances which have dominion over their own actions; and which are not only made to act, like others; but which can act of themselves; for actions belong to singulars. Therefore also the individuals of the rational nature have a special name even among other substances; and this name is "person." </p> <p id="FP_Q29_A1-p9"> Thus the term "individual substance" is placed in the definition of person, as signifying the singular in the genus of substance; and the term "rational nature" is added, as signifying the singular in rational substances. </p> <p id="FP_Q29_A1-p10"> <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Although this or that singular may not be definable, yet what belongs to the general idea of singularity can be defined; and so the Philosopher (De Praedic., cap. De substantia) gives a definition of first substance; and in this way Boethius defines person. </p> <p id="FP_Q29_A1-p11"> <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> In the opinion of some, the term "substance" in the definition of person stands for first substance, which is the hypostasis; nor is the term "individual" superfluously added, forasmuch as by the name of hypostasis or first substance the idea of universality and of part is excluded. For we do not say that man in general is an hypostasis, nor that the hand is since it is only a part. But where "individual" is added, the idea of assumptibility is excluded from person; for the human nature in Christ is not a person, since it is assumed by a greater---that is, by the Word of God. It is, however, better to say that substance is here taken in a general sense, as divided into first and second, and when "individual" is added, it is restricted to first substance. </p> <p id="FP_Q29_A1-p12"> <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Substantial differences being unknown to us, or at least unnamed by us, it is sometimes necessary to use accidental differences in the place of substantial; as, for example, we may say that fire is a simple, hot, and dry body: for proper accidents are the effects of substantial forms, and make them known. Likewise, terms expressive of intention can be used in defining realities if used to signify things which are unnamed. And so the term "individual" is placed in the definition of person to signify the mode of subsistence which belongs to particular substances. </p> <p id="FP_Q29_A1-p13"> <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> According to the Philosopher (Metaph. v, 5), the word "nature" was first used to signify the generation of living things, which is called nativity. And because this kind of generation comes from an intrinsic principle, this term is extended to signify the intrinsic principle of any kind of movement. In this sense he defines "nature" (Phys. ii, 3). And since this kind of principle is either formal or material, both matter and form are commonly called nature. And as the essence of anything is completed by the form; so the essence of anything, signified by the definition, is commonly called nature. And here nature is taken in that sense. Hence Boethius says (De Duab. Nat.) that, "nature is the specific difference giving its form to each thing," for the specific difference completes the definition, and is derived from the special form of a thing. So in the definition of "person," which means the singular in a determined "genus," it is more correct to use the term "nature" than "essence," because the latter is taken from being, which is most common. </p> <p id="FP_Q29_A1-p14"> <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> The soul is a part of the human species; and so, although it may exist in a separate state, yet since it ever retains its nature of unibility, it cannot be called an individual substance, which is the hypostasis or first substance, as neither can the hand nor any other part of man; thus neither the definition nor the name of person belongs to it. </p> <p id="FP_Q29_A1-p15"></p> <p id="FP_Q29_A1-p16"></p> <a href="summa.FP_Q29.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q29_A2.html"></a> </div> <div id="FP_Q29_A2" class="div4"> <a href="summa.FP_Q29_A1.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q29_A3.html"></a> <h4 id="FP_Q29_A2-p0.1">Whether "person" is the same as hypostasis, subsistence, and essence?</h4> <p id="FP_Q29_A2-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q29_A2-p2"> <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that "person" is the same as "hypostasis," "subsistence," and "essence." For Boethius says (De Duab. Nat.) that "the Greeks called the individual substance of the rational nature by the name hypostasis." But this with us signifies "person." Therefore "person" is altogether the same as "hypostasis." </p> <p id="FP_Q29_A2-p3"> <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, as we say there are three persons in God, so we say there are three subsistences in God; which implies that "person" and "subsistence" have the same meaning. Therefore "person" and "subsistence" mean the same. </p> <p id="FP_Q29_A2-p4"> <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Boethius says (Com. Praed.) that the Greek {ousia}, which means essence, signifies a being composed of matter and form. Now that which is composed of matter and form is the individual substance called "hypostasis" and "person." Therefore all the aforesaid names seem to have the same meaning. </p> <p id="FP_Q29_A2-p5"> <b>Objection 4:</b> On the contrary, Boethius says (De Duab. Nat.) that genera and species only subsist; whereas individuals are not only subsistent, but also substand. But subsistences are so called from subsisting, as substance or hypostasis is so called from substanding. Therefore, since genera and species are not hypostases or persons, these are not the same as subsistences. </p> <p id="FP_Q29_A2-p6"> <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, Boethius says (Com. Praed.) that matter is called hypostasis, and form is called {ousiosis}---that is, subsistence. But neither form nor matter can be called person. Therefore person differs from the others. </p> <p id="FP_Q29_A2-p7"> <b>I answer that,</b> According to the Philosopher (Metaph. v), substance is twofold. In one sense it means the quiddity of a thing, signified by its definition, and thus we say that the definition means the substance of a thing; in which sense substance is called by the Greeks {ousia}, what we may call "essence." In another sense substance means a subject or "suppositum," which subsists in the genus of substance. To this, taken in a general sense, can be applied a name expressive of an intention; and thus it is called "suppositum." It is also called by three names signifying a reality---that is, "a thing of nature," "subsistence," and "hypostasis," according to a threefold consideration of the substance thus named. For, as it exists in itself and not in another, it is called "subsistence"; as we say that those things subsist which exist in themselves, and not in another. As it underlies some common nature, it is called "a thing of nature"; as, for instance, this particular man is a human natural thing. As it underlies the accidents, it is called "hypostasis," or "substance." What these three names signify in common to the whole genus of substances, this name "person" signifies in the genus of rational substances. </p> <p id="FP_Q29_A2-p8"> <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Among the Greeks the term "hypostasis," taken in the strict interpretation of the word, signifies any individual of the genus substance; but in the usual way of speaking, it means the individual of the rational nature, by reason of the excellence of that nature. </p> <p id="FP_Q29_A2-p9"> <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As we say "three persons" plurally in God, and "three subsistences," so the Greeks say "three hypostases." But because the word "substance," which, properly speaking, corresponds in meaning to "hypostasis," is used among us in an equivocal sense, since it sometimes means essence, and sometimes means hypostasis, in order to avoid any occasion of error, it was thought preferable to use "subsistence" for hypostasis, rather than "substance." </p> <p id="FP_Q29_A2-p10"> <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Strictly speaking, the essence is what is expressed by the definition. Now, the definition comprises the principles of the species, but not the individual principles. Hence in things composed of matter and form, the essence signifies not only the form, nor only the matter, but what is composed of matter and the common form, as the principles of the species. But what is composed of this matter and this form has the nature of hypostasis and person. For soul, flesh, and bone belong to the nature of man; whereas this soul, this flesh and this bone belong to the nature of this man. Therefore hypostasis and person add the individual principles to the idea of essence; nor are these identified with the essence in things composed of matter and form, as we said above when treating of divine simplicity ( <a id="FP_Q29_A2-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q3_A3.html">Q[3], A[3]</a>). </p> <p id="FP_Q29_A2-p11"> <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Boethius says that genera and species subsist, inasmuch as it belongs to some individual things to subsist, from the fact that they belong to genera and species comprised in the predicament of substance, but not because the species and genera themselves subsist; except in the opinion of Plato, who asserted that the species of things subsisted separately from singular things. To substand, however, belongs to the same individual things in relation to the accidents, which are outside the essence of genera and species. </p> <p id="FP_Q29_A2-p12"> <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> The individual composed of matter and form substands in relation to accident from the very nature of matter. Hence Boethius says (De Trin.): "A simple form cannot be a subject." Its self-subsistence is derived from the nature of its form, which does not supervene to the things subsisting, but gives actual existence to the matter and makes it subsist as an individual. On this account, therefore, he ascribes hypostasis to matter, and {ousiosis}, or subsistence, to the form, because the matter is the principle of substanding, and form is the principle of subsisting. </p> <p id="FP_Q29_A2-p13"></p> <p id="FP_Q29_A2-p14"></p> <a href="summa.FP_Q29_A1.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q29_A3.html"></a> </div> <div id="FP_Q29_A3" class="div4"> <a href="summa.FP_Q29_A2.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q29_A4.html"></a> <h4 id="FP_Q29_A3-p0.1">Whether the word "person" should be said of God?</h4> <p id="FP_Q29_A3-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q29_A3-p2"> <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the name "person" should not be said of God. For Dionysius says (Div. Nom.): "No one should ever dare to say or think anything of the supersubstantial and hidden Divinity, beyond what has been divinely expressed to us by the oracles." But the name "person" is not expressed to us in the Old or New Testament. Therefore "person" is not to be applied to God. </p> <p id="FP_Q29_A3-p3"> <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Boethius says (De Duab. Nat.): "The word person seems to be taken from those persons who represented men in comedies and tragedies. For person comes from sounding through [personando], since a greater volume of sound is produced through the cavity in the mask. These "persons" or masks the Greeks called {prosopa}, as they were placed on the face and covered the features before the eyes." This, however, can apply to God only in a metaphorical sense. Therefore the word "person" is only applied to God metaphorically. </p> <p id="FP_Q29_A3-p4"> <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, every person is a hypostasis. But the word "hypostasis" does not apply to God, since, as Boethius says (De Duab. Nat.), it signifies what is the subject of accidents, which do not exist in God. Jerome also says (Ep. ad Damas.) that, "in this word hypostasis, poison lurks in honey." Therefore the word "person" should not be said of God. </p> <p id="FP_Q29_A3-p5"> <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, if a definition is denied of anything, the thing defined is also denied of it. But the definition of "person," as given above, does not apply to God. Both because reason implies a discursive knowledge, which does not apply to God, as we proved above ( <a id="FP_Q29_A3-p5.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q14_A12.html">Q[14], A[12]</a> ); and thus God cannot be said to have "a rational nature." And also because God cannot be called an individual substance, since the principle of individuation is matter; while God is immaterial: nor is He the subject of accidents, so as to be called a substance. Therefore the word "person" ought not to be attributed to God. </p> <p id="FP_Q29_A3-p6"> <b>On the contrary,</b> In the Creed of Athanasius we say: "One is the person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Ghost." </p> <p id="FP_Q29_A3-p7"> <b>I answer that,</b> "Person" signifies what is most perfect in all nature---that is, a subsistent individual of a rational nature. Hence, since everything that is perfect must be attributed to God, forasmuch as His essence contains every perfection, this name "person" is fittingly applied to God; not, however, as it is applied to creatures, but in a more excellent way; as other names also, which, while giving them to creatures, we attribute to God; as we showed above when treating of the names of God ( <a id="FP_Q29_A3-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q13_A2.html">Q[13], A[2]</a>). </p> <p id="FP_Q29_A3-p8"> <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Although the word "person" is not found applied to God in Scripture, either in the Old or New Testament, nevertheless what the word signifies is found to be affirmed of God in many places of Scripture; as that He is the supreme self-subsisting being, and the most perfectly intelligent being. If we could speak of God only in the very terms themselves of Scripture, it would follow that no one could speak about God in any but the original language of the Old or New Testament. The urgency of confuting heretics made it necessary to find new words to express the ancient faith about God. Nor is such a kind of novelty to be shunned; since it is by no means profane, for it does not lead us astray from the sense of Scripture. The Apostle warns us to avoid "profane novelties of words" ( <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q29_A3-p8.1" href="./asv.html#iTim.6.20" target="asv">1 Tim. 6:20</a>). </p> <p id="FP_Q29_A3-p9"> <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Although this name "person" may not belong to God as regards the origin of the term, nevertheless it excellently belongs to God in its objective meaning. For as famous men were represented in comedies and tragedies, the name "person" was given to signify those who held high dignity. Hence, those who held high rank in the Church came to be called "persons." Thence by some the definition of person is given as "hypostasis distinct by reason of dignity." And because subsistence in a rational nature is of high dignity, therefore every individual of the rational nature is called a "person." Now the dignity of the divine nature excels every other dignity; and thus the name "person" pre-eminently belongs to God. </p> <p id="FP_Q29_A3-p10"> <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The word "hypostasis" does not apply to God as regards its source of origin, since He does not underlie accidents; but it applies to Him in its objective sense, for it is imposed to signify the subsistence. Jerome said that "poison lurks in this word," forasmuch as before it was fully understood by the Latins, the heretics used this term to deceive the simple, to make people profess many essences as they profess several hypostases, inasmuch as the word "substance," which corresponds to hypostasis in Greek, is commonly taken amongst us to mean essence. </p> <p id="FP_Q29_A3-p11"> <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> It may be said that God has a rational "nature," if reason be taken to mean, not discursive thought, but in a general sense, an intelligent nature. But God cannot be called an "individual" in the sense that His individuality comes from matter; but only in the sense which implies incommunicability. "Substance" can be applied to God in the sense of signifying self-subsistence. There are some, however, who say that the definition of Boethius, quoted above <a id="FP_Q29_A3-p11.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q29_A1.html">(A[1])</a>, is not a definition of person in the sense we use when speaking of persons in God. Therefore Richard of St. Victor amends this definition by adding that "Person" in God is "the incommunicable existence of the divine nature." </p> <p id="FP_Q29_A3-p12"></p> <p id="FP_Q29_A3-p13"></p> <a href="summa.FP_Q29_A2.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q29_A4.html"></a> </div> <div id="FP_Q29_A4" class="div4"> <a href="summa.FP_Q29_A3.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q30.html"></a> <h4 id="FP_Q29_A4-p0.1">Whether this word "person" signifies relation?</h4> <p id="FP_Q29_A4-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q29_A4-p2"> <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that this word "person," as applied to God, does not signify relation, but substance. For Augustine says (De Trin. vii, 6): "When we speak of the person of the Father, we mean nothing else but the substance of the Father, for person is said in regard to Himself, and not in regard to the Son." </p> <p id="FP_Q29_A4-p3"> <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the interrogation "What?" refers to essence. But, as Augustine says: "When we say there are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and it is asked, Three what? the answer is, Three persons." Therefore person signifies essence. </p> <p id="FP_Q29_A4-p4"> <b>Objection 3:</b> According to the Philosopher (Metaph. iv), the meaning of a word is its definition. But the definition of "person" is this: "The individual substance of the rational nature," as above stated. Therefore "person" signifies substance. </p> <p id="FP_Q29_A4-p5"> <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, person in men and angels does not signify relation, but something absolute. Therefore, if in God it signified relation, it would bear an equivocal meaning in God, in man, and in angels. </p> <p id="FP_Q29_A4-p6"> <b>On the contrary,</b> Boethius says (De Trin.) that "every word that refers to the persons signifies relation." But no word belongs to person more strictly than the very word "person" itself. Therefore this word "person" signifies relation. </p> <p id="FP_Q29_A4-p7"> <b>I answer that,</b> A difficulty arises concerning the meaning of this word "person" in God, from the fact that it is predicated plurally of the Three in contrast to the nature of the names belonging to the essence; nor does it in itself refer to another, as do the words which express relation. </p> <p id="FP_Q29_A4-p8"> Hence some have thought that this word "person" of itself expresses absolutely the divine essence; as this name "God" and this word "Wise"; but that to meet heretical attack, it was ordained by conciliar decree that it was to be taken in a relative sense, and especially in the plural, or with the addition of a distinguishing adjective; as when we say, "Three persons," or, "one is the person of the Father, another of the Son," etc. Used, however, in the singular, it may be either absolute or relative. But this does not seem to be a satisfactory explanation; for, if this word "person," by force of its own signification, expresses the divine essence only, it follows that forasmuch as we speak of "three persons," so far from the heretics being silenced, they had still more reason to argue. Seeing this, others maintained that this word "person" in God signifies both the essence and the relation. Some of these said that it signifies directly the essence, and relation indirectly, forasmuch as "person" means as it were "by itself one" [per se una]; and unity belongs to the essence. And what is "by itself" implies relation indirectly; for the Father is understood to exist "by Himself," as relatively distinct from the Son. Others, however, said, on the contrary, that it signifies relation directly; and essence indirectly; forasmuch as in the definition of "person" the term nature is mentioned indirectly; and these come nearer to the truth. </p> <p id="FP_Q29_A4-p9"> To determine the question, we must consider that something may be included in the meaning of a less common term, which is not included in the more common term; as "rational" is included in the meaning of "man," and not in the meaning of "animal." So that it is one thing to ask the meaning of the word animal, and another to ask its meaning when the animal in question is man. Also, it is one thing to ask the meaning of this word "person" in general; and another to ask the meaning of "person" as applied to God. For "person" in general signifies the individual substance of a rational figure. The individual in itself is undivided, but is distinct from others. Therefore "person" in any nature signifies what is distinct in that nature: thus in human nature it signifies this flesh, these bones, and this soul, which are the individuating principles of a man, and which, though not belonging to "person" in general, nevertheless do belong to the meaning of a particular human person. </p> <p id="FP_Q29_A4-p10"> Now distinction in God is only by relation of origin, as stated above ( <a id="FP_Q29_A4-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q28_A2.html">Q[28], AA[2]</a>,3), while relation in God is not as an accident in a subject, but is the divine essence itself; and so it is subsistent, for the divine essence subsists. Therefore, as the Godhead is God so the divine paternity is God the Father, Who is a divine person. Therefore a divine person signifies a relation as subsisting. And this is to signify relation by way of substance, and such a relation is a hypostasis subsisting in the divine nature, although in truth that which subsists in the divine nature is the divine nature itself. Thus it is true to say that the name "person" signifies relation directly, and the essence indirectly; not, however, the relation as such, but as expressed by way of a hypostasis. So likewise it signifies directly the essence, and indirectly the relation, inasmuch as the essence is the same as the hypostasis: while in God the hypostasis is expressed as distinct by the relation: and thus relation, as such, enters into the notion of the person indirectly. Thus we can say that this signification of the word "person" was not clearly perceived before it was attacked by heretics. Hence, this word "person" was used just as any other absolute term. But afterwards it was applied to express relation, as it lent itself to that signification, so that this word "person" means relation not only by use and custom, according to the first opinion, but also by force of its own proper signification. </p> <p id="FP_Q29_A4-p11"> <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This word "person" is said in respect to itself, not to another; forasmuch as it signifies relation not as such, but by way of a substance---which is a hypostasis. In that sense Augustine says that it signifies the essence, inasmuch as in God essence is the same as the hypostasis, because in God what He is, and whereby He is are the same. </p> <p id="FP_Q29_A4-p12"> <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The term "what" refers sometimes to the nature expressed by the definition, as when we ask; What is man? and we answer: A mortal rational animal. Sometimes it refers to the "suppositum," as when we ask, What swims in the sea? and answer, A fish. So to those who ask, Three what? we answer, Three persons. </p> <p id="FP_Q29_A4-p13"> <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> In God the individual---i.e. distinct and incommunicable substance---includes the idea of relation, as above explained. </p> <p id="FP_Q29_A4-p14"> <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> The different sense of the less common term does not produce equivocation in the more common. Although a horse and an ass have their own proper definitions, nevertheless they agree univocally in animal, because the common definition of animal applies to both. So it does not follow that, although relation is contained in the signification of divine person, but not in that of an angelic or of a human person, the word "person" is used in an equivocal sense. Though neither is it applied univocally, since nothing can be said univocally of God and creatures ( <a id="FP_Q29_A4-p14.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q13_A5.html">Q[13], A[5]</a>). </p> <p id="FP_Q29_A4-p15"></p> <p id="FP_Q29_A4-p16"></p> <a href="summa.FP_Q29_A3.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q30.html"></a> </div> <a href="summa.FP_Q28_A4.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q29_A1.html"></a> </div> <div id="FP_Q30" class="div3"> <a href="summa.FP_Q29_A4.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q30_A1.html"></a> <h3 id="FP_Q30-p0.1">THE PLURALITY OF PERSONS IN GOD (FOUR ARTICLES)</h3> <p id="FP_Q30-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q30-p2"> We are now led to consider the plurality of the persons: about which there are four points of inquiry:</p> <p id="FP_Q30-p3"> (1) Whether there are several persons in God?</p> <p id="FP_Q30-p4"> (2) How many are they?</p> <p id="FP_Q30-p5"> (3) What the numeral terms signify in God?</p> <p id="FP_Q30-p6"> (4) The community of the term "person."</p> <div id="FP_Q30_A1" class="div4"> <a href="summa.FP_Q30.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q30_A2.html"></a> <h4 id="FP_Q30_A1-p0.1">Whether there are several persons in God?</h4> <p id="FP_Q30_A1-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q30_A1-p2"> <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that there are not several persons in God. For person is "the individual substance of a rational nature." If then there are several persons in God, there must be several substances; which appears to be heretical. </p> <p id="FP_Q30_A1-p3"> <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Plurality of absolute properties does not make a distinction of persons, either in God, or in ourselves. Much less therefore is this effected by a plurality of relations. But in God there is no plurality but of relations ( <a id="FP_Q30_A1-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q28_A3.html">Q[28], A[3]</a>). Therefore there cannot be several persons in God. </p> <p id="FP_Q30_A1-p4"> <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Boethius says of God (De Trin. i), that "this is truly one which has no number." But plurality implies number. Therefore there are not several persons in God. </p> <p id="FP_Q30_A1-p5"> <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, where number is, there is whole and part. Thus, if in God there exist a number of persons, there must be whole and part in God; which is inconsistent with the divine simplicity. </p> <p id="FP_Q30_A1-p6"> <b>On the contrary,</b> Athanasius says: "One is the person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Ghost." Therefore the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost are several persons. </p> <p id="FP_Q30_A1-p7"> <b>I answer that,</b> It follows from what precedes that there are several persons in God. For it was shown above ( <a id="FP_Q30_A1-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q29_A4.html">Q[29], A[4]</a>) that this word "person" signifies in God a relation as subsisting in the divine nature. It was also established ( <a id="FP_Q30_A1-p7.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q28_A1.html">Q[28], A[1]</a>) that there are several real relations in God; and hence it follows that there are also several realities subsistent in the divine nature; which means that there are several persons in God. </p> <p id="FP_Q30_A1-p8"> <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The definition of "person" includes "substance," not as meaning the essence, but the "suppositum" which is made clear by the addition of the term "individual." To signify the substance thus understood, the Greeks use the name "hypostasis." So, as we say, "Three persons," they say "Three hypostases." We are not, however, accustomed to say Three substances, lest we be understood to mean three essences or natures, by reason of the equivocal signification of the term. </p> <p id="FP_Q30_A1-p9"> <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The absolute properties in God, such as goodness and wisdom, are not mutually opposed; and hence, neither are they really distinguished from each other. Therefore, although they subsist, nevertheless they are not several subsistent realities---that is, several persons. But the absolute properties in creatures do not subsist, although they are really distinguished from each other, as whiteness and sweetness; on the other hand, the relative properties in God subsist, and are really distinguished from each other ( <a id="FP_Q30_A1-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q28_A3.html">Q[28], A[3]</a>). Hence the plurality of persons in God. </p> <p id="FP_Q30_A1-p10"> <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The supreme unity and simplicity of God exclude every kind of plurality of absolute things, but not plurality of relations. Because relations are predicated relatively, and thus the relations do not import composition in that of which they are predicated, as Boethius teaches in the same book. </p> <p id="FP_Q30_A1-p11"> <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Number is twofold, simple or absolute, as two and three and four; and number as existing in things numbered, as two men and two horses. So, if number in God is taken absolutely or abstractedly, there is nothing to prevent whole and part from being in Him, and thus number in Him is only in our way of understanding; forasmuch as number regarded apart from things numbered exists only in the intellect. But if number be taken as it is in the things numbered, in that sense as existing in creatures, one is part of two, and two of three, as one man is part of two men, and two of three; but this does not apply to God, because the Father is of the same magnitude as the whole Trinity, as we shall show further on ( <a id="FP_Q30_A1-p11.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q42_A1.html">Q[42], AA[1]</a>, 4). </p> <p id="FP_Q30_A1-p12"></p> <p id="FP_Q30_A1-p13"></p> <a href="summa.FP_Q30.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q30_A2.html"></a> </div> <div id="FP_Q30_A2" class="div4"> <a href="summa.FP_Q30_A1.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q30_A3.html"></a> <h4 id="FP_Q30_A2-p0.1">Whether there are more than three persons in God?</h4> <p id="FP_Q30_A2-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q30_A2-p2"> <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that there are more than three persons in God. For the plurality of persons in God arises from the plurality of the relative properties as stated above <a id="FP_Q30_A2-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q30_A1.html">(A[1])</a>. But there are four relations in God as stated above ( <a id="FP_Q30_A2-p2.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q28_A4.html">Q[28], A[4]</a>), paternity, filiation, common spiration, and procession. Therefore there are four persons in God. </p> <p id="FP_Q30_A2-p3"> <b>Objection 2:</b> The nature of God does not differ from His will more than from His intellect. But in God, one person proceeds from the will, as love; and another proceeds from His nature, as Son. Therefore another proceeds from His intellect, as Word, besides the one Who proceeds from His nature, as Son; thus again it follows that there are not only three persons in God. </p> <p id="FP_Q30_A2-p4"> <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the more perfect a creature is, the more interior operations it has; as a man has understanding and will beyond other animals. But God infinitely excels every creature. Therefore in God not only is there a person proceeding from the will, and another from the intellect, but also in an infinite number of ways. Therefore there are an infinite number of persons in God. </p> <p id="FP_Q30_A2-p5"> <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, it is from the infinite goodness of the Father that He communicates Himself infinitely in the production of a divine person. But also in the Holy Ghost is infinite goodness. Therefore the Holy Ghost produces a divine person; and that person another; and so to infinity. </p> <p id="FP_Q30_A2-p6"> <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, everything within a determinate number is measured, for number is a measure. But the divine persons are immense, as we say in the Creed of Athanasius: "The Father is immense, the Son is immense, the Holy Ghost is immense." Therefore the persons are not contained within the number three. </p> <p id="FP_Q30_A2-p7"> <b>On the contrary,</b> It is said: "There are three who bear witness in heaven, the father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost" ( <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q30_A2-p7.1" href="./asv.html#iJohn.5.7" target="asv">1 Jn. 5:7</a>). To those who ask, "Three what?" we answer, with Augustine (De Trin. vii, 4), "Three persons." Therefore there are but three persons in God. </p> <p id="FP_Q30_A2-p8"> <b>I answer that,</b> As was explained above, there can be only three persons in God. For it was shown above that the several persons are the several subsisting relations really distinct from each other. But a real distinction between the divine relations can come only from relative opposition. Therefore two opposite relations must needs refer to two persons: and if any relations are not opposite they must needs belong to the same person. Since then paternity and filiation are opposite relations, they belong necessarily to two persons. Therefore the subsisting paternity is the person of the Father; and the subsisting filiation is the person of the Son. The other two relations are not opposed to each other; therefore these two cannot belong to one person: hence either one of them must belong to both of the aforesaid persons; or one must belong to one person, and the other to the other. Now, procession cannot belong to the Father and the Son, or to either of them; for thus it would follows that the procession of the intellect, which in God is generation, wherefrom paternity and filiation are derived, would issue from the procession of love, whence spiration and procession are derived, if the person generating and the person generated proceeded from the person spirating; and this is against what was laid down above ( <a id="FP_Q30_A2-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q27_A3.html">Q[27] , AA[3]</a>,4). We must frequently admit that spiration belongs to the person of the Father, and to the person of the Son, forasmuch as it has no relative opposition either to paternity or to filiation; and consequently that procession belongs to the other person who is called the person of the Holy Ghost, who proceeds by way of love, as above explained. Therefore only three persons exist in God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. </p> <p id="FP_Q30_A2-p9"> <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Although there are four relations in God, one of them, spiration, is not separated from the person of the Father and of the Son, but belongs to both; thus, although it is a relation, it is not called a property, because it does not belong to only one person; nor is it a personal relation---i.e. constituting a person. The three relations---paternity, filiation, and procession---are called personal properties, constituting as it were the persons; for paternity is the person of the Father, filiation is the person of the Son, procession is the person of the Holy Ghost proceeding. </p> <p id="FP_Q30_A2-p10"> <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> That which proceeds by way of intelligence, as word, proceeds according to similitude, as also that which proceeds by way of nature; thus, as above explained ( <a id="FP_Q30_A2-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q27_A3.html">Q[27], A[3]</a>), the procession of the divine Word is the very same as generation by way of nature. But love, as such, does not proceed as the similitude of that whence it proceeds; although in God love is co-essential as being divine; and therefore the procession of love is not called generation in God. </p> <p id="FP_Q30_A2-p11"> <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As man is more perfect than other animals, he has more intrinsic operations than other animals, because his perfection is something composite. Hence the angels, who are more perfect and more simple, have fewer intrinsic operations than man, for they have no imagination, or feeling, or the like. In God there exists only one real operation---that is, His essence. How there are in Him two processions was above explained ( <a id="FP_Q30_A2-p11.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q27_A1.html">Q[27], AA[1] </a>,4). </p> <p id="FP_Q30_A2-p12"> <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> This argument would prove if the Holy Ghost possessed another goodness apart from the goodness of the Father; for then if the Father produced a divine person by His goodness, the Holy Ghost also would do so. But the Father and the Holy Ghost have one and the same goodness. Nor is there any distinction between them except by the personal relations. So goodness belongs to the Holy Ghost, as derived from another; and it belongs to the Father, as the principle of its communication to another. The opposition of relation does not allow the relation of the Holy Ghost to be joined with the relation of principle of another divine person; because He Himself proceeds from the other persons who are in God. </p> <p id="FP_Q30_A2-p13"> <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> A determinate number, if taken as a simple number, existing in the mind only, is measured by one. But when we speak of a number of things as applied to the persons in God, the notion of measure has no place, because the magnitude of the three persons is the same ( <a id="FP_Q30_A2-p13.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q42_A1.html">Q[42], AA[1]</a>,4), and the same is not measured by the same. </p> <p id="FP_Q30_A2-p14"></p> <p id="FP_Q30_A2-p15"></p> <a href="summa.FP_Q30_A1.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q30_A3.html"></a> </div> <div id="FP_Q30_A3" class="div4"> <a href="summa.FP_Q30_A2.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q30_A4.html"></a> <h4 id="FP_Q30_A3-p0.1">Whether the numeral terms denote anything real in God?</h4> <p id="FP_Q30_A3-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q30_A3-p2"> <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the numeral terms denote something real in God. For the divine unity is the divine essence. But every number is unity repeated. Therefore every numeral term in God signifies the essence; and therefore it denotes something real in God. </p> <p id="FP_Q30_A3-p3"> <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, whatever is said of God and of creatures, belongs to God in a more eminent manner than to creatures. But the numeral terms denote something real in creatures; therefore much more so in God. </p> <p id="FP_Q30_A3-p4"> <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, if the numeral terms do not denote anything real in God, and are introduced simply in a negative and removing sense, as plurality is employed to remove unity, and unity to remove plurality; it follows that a vicious circle results, confusing the mind and obscuring the truth; and this ought not to be. Therefore it must be said that the numeral terms denote something real in God. </p> <p id="FP_Q30_A3-p5"> <b>On the contrary,</b> Hilary says (De Trin. iv): "If we admit companionship"---that is, plurality---"we exclude the idea of oneness and of solitude;" and Ambrose says (De Fide i): "When we say one God, unity excludes plurality of gods, and does not imply quantity in God." Hence we see that these terms are applied to God in order to remove something; and not to denote anything positive. </p> <p id="FP_Q30_A3-p6"> <b>I answer that,</b> The Master (Sent. i, D, 24) considers that the numeral terms do not denote anything positive in God, but have only a negative meaning. Others, however, assert the contrary. </p> <p id="FP_Q30_A3-p7"> In order to resolve this point, we may observe that all plurality is a consequence of division. Now division is twofold; one is material, and is division of the continuous; from this results number, which is a species of quantity. Number in this sense is found only in material things which have quantity. The other kind of division is called formal, and is effected by opposite or diverse forms; and this kind of division results in a multitude, which does not belong to a genus, but is transcendental in the sense in which being is divided by one and by many. This kind of multitude is found only in immaterial things. </p> <p id="FP_Q30_A3-p8"> Some, considering only that multitude which is a species of discrete quantity, and seeing that such kind of quantity has no place in God, asserted that the numeral terms do not denote anything real in God, but remove something from Him. Others, considering the same kind of multitude, said that as knowledge exists in God according to the strict sense of the word, but not in the sense of its genus (as in God there is no such thing as a quality), so number exists in God in the proper sense of number, but not in the sense of its genus, which is quantity. </p> <p id="FP_Q30_A3-p9"> But we say that numeral terms predicated of God are not derived from number, a species of quantity, for in that sense they could bear only a metaphorical sense in God, like other corporeal properties, such as length, breadth, and the like; but that they are taken from multitude in a transcendent sense. Now multitude so understood has relation to the many of which it is predicated, as "one" convertible with "being" is related to being; which kind of oneness does not add anything to being, except a negation of division, as we saw when treating of the divine unity ( <a id="FP_Q30_A3-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q11_A1.html">Q[11], A[1]</a>); for "one" signifies undivided being. So, of whatever we say "one," we imply its undivided reality: thus, for instance, "one" applied to man signifies the undivided nature or substance of a man. In the same way, when we speak of many things, multitude in this latter sense points to those things as being each undivided in itself. </p> <p id="FP_Q30_A3-p10"> But number, if taken as a species of quantity, denotes an accident added to being; as also does "one" which is the principle of that number. Therefore the numeral terms in God signify the things of which they are said, and beyond this they add negation only, as stated (Sent. i, D, 24); in which respect the Master was right (Sent. i, D, 24). So when we say, the essence is one, the term "one" signifies the essence undivided; and when we say the person is one, it signifies the person undivided; and when we say the persons are many, we signify those persons, and their individual undividedness; for it is of the very nature of multitude that it should be composed of units. </p> <p id="FP_Q30_A3-p11"> <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> One, as it is a transcendental, is wider and more general than substance and relation. And so likewise is multitude; hence in God it may mean both substance and relation, according to the context. Still, the very signification of such names adds a negation of division, beyond substance and relation; as was explained above. </p> <p id="FP_Q30_A3-p12"> <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Multitude, which denotes something real in creatures, is a species of quantity, and cannot be used when speaking of God: unlike transcendental multitude, which adds only indivision to those of which it is predicated. Such a kind of multitude is applicable to God. </p> <p id="FP_Q30_A3-p13"> <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> "One" does not exclude multitude, but division, which logically precedes one or multitude. Multitude does not remove unity, but division from each of the individuals which compose the multitude. This was explained when we treated of the divine unity ( <a id="FP_Q30_A3-p13.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q11_A2.html">Q[11], A[2]</a>). </p> <p id="FP_Q30_A3-p14"> It must be observed, nevertheless, that the opposite arguments do not sufficiently prove the point advanced. Although the idea of solitude is excluded by plurality, and the plurality of gods by unity, it does not follow that these terms express this signification alone. For blackness is excluded by whiteness; nevertheless, the term whiteness does not signify the mere exclusion of blackness. </p> <p id="FP_Q30_A3-p15"></p> <p id="FP_Q30_A3-p16"></p> <a href="summa.FP_Q30_A2.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q30_A4.html"></a> </div> <div id="FP_Q30_A4" class="div4"> <a href="summa.FP_Q30_A3.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q31.html"></a> <h4 id="FP_Q30_A4-p0.1">Whether this term "person" can be common to the three persons?</h4> <p id="FP_Q30_A4-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q30_A4-p2"> <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that this term "person" cannot be common to the three persons. For nothing is common to the three persons but the essence. But this term "person" does not signify the essence directly. Therefore it is not common to all three. </p> <p id="FP_Q30_A4-p3"> <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the common is the opposite to the incommunicable. But the very meaning of person is that it is incommunicable; as appears from the definition given by Richard of St. Victor ( <a id="FP_Q30_A4-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q29_A3.html">Q[29], A[3]</a>, ad 4). Therefore this term "person" is not common to all the three persons. </p> <p id="FP_Q30_A4-p4"> <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, if the name "person" is common to the three, it is common either really, or logically. But it is not so really; otherwise the three persons would be one person; nor again is it so logically; otherwise person would be a universal. But in God there is neither universal nor particular; neither genus nor species, as we proved above ( <a id="FP_Q30_A4-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q3_A5.html">Q[3], A[5]</a>). Therefore this term 'person' is not common to the three. </p> <p id="FP_Q30_A4-p5"> <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (De Trin. vii, 4) that when we ask, "Three what?" we say, "Three persons," because what a person is, is common to them. </p> <p id="FP_Q30_A4-p6"> <b>I answer that,</b> The very mode of expression itself shows that this term "person" is common to the three when we say "three persons"; for when we say "three men" we show that "man" is common to the three. Now it is clear that this is not community of a real thing, as if one essence were common to the three; otherwise there would be only one person of the three, as also one essence. </p> <p id="FP_Q30_A4-p7"> What is meant by such a community has been variously determined by those who have examined the subject. Some have called it a community of exclusion, forasmuch as the definition of "person" contains the word "incommunicable." Others thought it to be a community of intention, as the definition of person contains the word "individual"; as we say that to be a "species" is common to horse and ox. Both of these explanations, however, are excluded by the fact that "person" is not a name of exclusion nor of intention, but the name of a reality. We must therefore resolve that even in human affairs this name "person" is common by a community of idea, not as genus or species, but as a vague individual thing. The names of genera and species, as man or animal, are given to signify the common natures themselves, but not the intentions of those common natures, signified by the terms "genus" or "species." The vague individual thing, as "some man," signifies the common nature with the determinate mode of existence of singular things---that is, something self-subsisting, as distinct from others. But the name of a designated singular thing signifies that which distinguishes the determinate thing; as the name Socrates signifies this flesh and this bone. But there is this difference---that the term "some man" signifies the nature, or the individual on the part of its nature, with the mode of existence of singular things; while this name "person" is not given to signify the individual on the part of the nature, but the subsistent reality in that nature. Now this is common in idea to the divine persons, that each of them subsists distinctly from the others in the divine nature. Thus this name "person" is common in idea to the three divine persons. </p> <p id="FP_Q30_A4-p8"> <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This argument is founded on a real community. </p> <p id="FP_Q30_A4-p9"> <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Although person is incommunicable, yet the mode itself of incommunicable existence can be common to many. </p> <p id="FP_Q30_A4-p10"> <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Although this community is logical and not real, yet it does not follow that in God there is universal or particular, or genus, or species; both because neither in human affairs is the community of person the same as community of genus or species; and because the divine persons have one being; whereas genus and species and every other universal are predicated of many which differ in being. </p> <p id="FP_Q30_A4-p11"></p> <p id="FP_Q30_A4-p12"></p> <a href="summa.FP_Q30_A3.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q31.html"></a> </div> <a href="summa.FP_Q29_A4.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q30_A1.html"></a> </div> <div id="FP_Q31" class="div3"> <a href="summa.FP_Q30_A4.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q31_A1.html"></a> <h3 id="FP_Q31-p0.1">OF WHAT BELONGS TO THE UNITY OR PLURALITY IN GOD (FOUR ARTICLES)</h3> <p id="FP_Q31-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q31-p2"> We now consider what belongs to the unity or plurality in God; which gives rise to four points of inquiry:</p> <p id="FP_Q31-p3"> (1) Concerning the word "Trinity";</p> <p id="FP_Q31-p4"> (2) Whether we can say that the Son is other than the Father?</p> <p id="FP_Q31-p5"> (3) Whether an exclusive term, which seems to exclude otherness, can be joined to an essential name in God?</p> <p id="FP_Q31-p6"> (4) Whether it can be joined to a personal term?</p> <p id="FP_Q31-p7"></p> <div id="FP_Q31_A1" class="div4"> <a href="summa.FP_Q31.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q31_A2.html"></a> <h4 id="FP_Q31_A1-p0.1">Whether there is trinity in God?</h4> <p id="FP_Q31_A1-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q31_A1-p2"> <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem there is not trinity in God. For every name in God signifies substance or relation. But this name "Trinity" does not signify the substance; otherwise it would be predicated of each one of the persons: nor does it signify relation; for it does not express a name that refers to another. Therefore the word "Trinity" is not to be applied to God. </p> <p id="FP_Q31_A1-p3"> <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, this word "trinity" is a collective term, since it signifies multitude. But such a word does not apply to God; as the unity of a collective name is the least of unities, whereas in God there exists the greatest possible unity. Therefore this word "trinity" does not apply to God. </p> <p id="FP_Q31_A1-p4"> <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, every trine is threefold. But in God there is not triplicity; since triplicity is a kind of inequality. Therefore neither is there trinity in God. </p> <p id="FP_Q31_A1-p5"> <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, all that exists in God exists in the unity of the divine essence; because God is His own essence. Therefore, if Trinity exists in God, it exists in the unity of the divine essence; and thus in God there would be three essential unities; which is heresy. </p> <p id="FP_Q31_A1-p6"> <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, in all that is said of God, the concrete is predicated of the abstract; for Deity is God and paternity is the Father. But the Trinity cannot be called trine; otherwise there would be nine realities in God; which, of course, is erroneous. Therefore the word trinity is not to be applied to God. </p> <p id="FP_Q31_A1-p7"> <b>On the contrary,</b> Athanasius says: "Unity in Trinity; and Trinity in Unity is to be revered." </p> <p id="FP_Q31_A1-p8"> <b>I answer that,</b> The name "Trinity" in God signifies the determinate number of persons. And so the plurality of persons in God requires that we should use the word trinity; because what is indeterminately signified by plurality, is signified by trinity in a determinate manner. </p> <p id="FP_Q31_A1-p9"> <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> In its etymological sense, this word "Trinity" seems to signify the one essence of the three persons, according as trinity may mean trine-unity. But in the strict meaning of the term it rather signifies the number of persons of one essence; and on this account we cannot say that the Father is the Trinity, as He is not three persons. Yet it does not mean the relations themselves of the Persons, but rather the number of persons related to each other; and hence it is that the word in itself does not express regard to another. </p> <p id="FP_Q31_A1-p10"> <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Two things are implied in a collective term, plurality of the "supposita," and a unity of some kind of order. For "people" is a multitude of men comprehended under a certain order. In the first sense, this word "trinity" is like other collective words; but in the second sense it differs from them, because in the divine Trinity not only is there unity of order, but also with this there is unity of essence. </p> <p id="FP_Q31_A1-p11"> <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> "Trinity" is taken in an absolute sense; for it signifies the threefold number of persons. "Triplicity" signifies a proportion of inequality; for it is a species of unequal proportion, according to Boethius (Arithm. i, 23). Therefore in God there is not triplicity, but Trinity. </p> <p id="FP_Q31_A1-p12"> <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> In the divine Trinity is to be understood both number and the persons numbered. So when we say, "Trinity in Unity," we do not place number in the unity of the essence, as if we meant three times one; but we place the Persons numbered in the unity of nature; as the "supposita" of a nature are said to exist in that nature. On the other hand, we say "Unity in Trinity"; meaning that the nature is in its "supposita." </p> <p id="FP_Q31_A1-p13"> <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> When we say, "Trinity is trine," by reason of the number implied, we signify the multiplication of that number by itself; since the word trine imports a distinction in the "supposita" of which it is spoken. Therefore it cannot be said that the Trinity is trine; otherwise it follows that, if the Trinity be trine, there would be three "supposita" of the Trinity; as when we say, "God is trine," it follows that there are three "supposita" of the Godhead. </p> <p id="FP_Q31_A1-p14"></p> <p id="FP_Q31_A1-p15"></p> <a href="summa.FP_Q31.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q31_A2.html"></a> </div> <div id="FP_Q31_A2" class="div4"> <a href="summa.FP_Q31_A1.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q31_A3.html"></a> <h4 id="FP_Q31_A2-p0.1">Whether the Son is other than the Father?</h4> <p id="FP_Q31_A2-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q31_A2-p2"> <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the Son is not other than the Father. For "other" is a relative term implying diversity of substance. If, then, the Son is other than the Father, He must be different from the Father; which is contrary to what Augustine says (De Trin. vii), that when we speak of three persons, "we do not mean to imply diversity." </p> <p id="FP_Q31_A2-p3"> <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, whosoever are other from one another, differ in some way from one another. Therefore, if the Son is other than the Father, it follows that He differs from the Father; which is against what Ambrose says (De Fide i), that "the Father and the Son are one in Godhead; nor is there any difference in substance between them, nor any diversity." </p> <p id="FP_Q31_A2-p4"> <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the term alien is taken from "alius" [other]. But the Son is not alien from the Father, for Hilary says (De Trin. vii) that "in the divine persons there is nothing diverse, nothing alien, nothing separable." Therefore the Son is not other that the Father. </p> <p id="FP_Q31_A2-p5"> <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, the terms "other person" and "other thing" [alius et aliud] have the same meaning, differing only in gender. So if the Son is another person from the Father, it follows that the Son is a thing apart from the Father. </p> <p id="FP_Q31_A2-p6"> <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine [*Fulgentius, De Fide ad Petrum i.] says: "There is one essence of the Father and Son and Holy Ghost, in which the Father is not one thing, the Son another, and the Holy Ghost another; although the Father is one person, the Son another, and the Holy Ghost another." </p> <p id="FP_Q31_A2-p7"> <b>I answer that,</b> Since as Jerome remarks [*In substance, <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q31_A2-p7.1" href="./asv.html#." target="asv">Ep. lvii.</a>], a heresy arises from words wrongly used, when we speak of the Trinity we must proceed with care and with befitting modesty; because, as Augustine says (De Trin. i, 3), "nowhere is error more harmful, the quest more toilsome, the finding more fruitful." Now, in treating of the Trinity, we must beware of two opposite errors, and proceed cautiously between them---namely, the error of Arius, who placed a Trinity of substance with the Trinity of persons; and the error of Sabellius, who placed unity of person with the unity of essence. </p> <p id="FP_Q31_A2-p8"> Thus, to avoid the error of Arius we must shun the use of the terms diversity and difference in God, lest we take away the unity of essence: we may, however, use the term "distinction" on account of the relative opposition. Hence whenever we find terms of "diversity" or "difference" of Persons used in an authentic work, these terms of "diversity" or "difference" are taken to mean "distinction." But lest the simplicity and singleness of the divine essence be taken away, the terms "separation" and "division," which belong to the parts of a whole, are to be avoided: and lest quality be taken away, we avoid the use of the term "disparity": and lest we remove similitude, we avoid the terms "alien" and "discrepant." For Ambrose says (De Fide i) that "in the Father and the Son there is no discrepancy, but one Godhead": and according to Hilary, as quoted above, "in God there is nothing alien, nothing separable." </p> <p id="FP_Q31_A2-p9"> To avoid the heresy of Sabellius, we must shun the term "singularity," lest we take away the communicability of the divine essence. Hence Hilary says (De Trin. vii): "It is sacrilege to assert that the Father and the Son are separate in Godhead." We must avoid the adjective "only" [unici] lest we take away the number of persons. Hence Hilary says in the same book: "We exclude from God the idea of singularity or uniqueness." Nevertheless, we say "the only Son," for in God there is no plurality of Sons. Yet, we do not say "the only God," for the Deity is common to several. We avoid the word "confused," lest we take away from the Persons the order of their nature. Hence Ambrose says (De Fide i): "What is one is not confused; and there is no multiplicity where there is no difference." The word "solitary" is also to be avoided, lest we take away the society of the three persons; for, as Hilary says (De Trin. iv), "We confess neither a solitary nor a diverse God." </p> <p id="FP_Q31_A2-p10"> This word "other" [alius], however, in the masculine sense, means only a distinction of "suppositum"; and hence we can properly say that "the Son is other than the Father," because He is another "suppositum" of the divine nature, as He is another person and another hypostasis. </p> <p id="FP_Q31_A2-p11"> <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> "Other," being like the name of a particular thing, refers to the "suppositum"; and so, there is sufficient reason for using it, where there is a distinct substance in the sense of hypostasis or person. But diversity requires a distinct substance in the sense of essence. Thus we cannot say that the Son is diverse from the Father, although He is another. </p> <p id="FP_Q31_A2-p12"> <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> "Difference" implies distinction of form. There is one form in God, as appears from the text, "Who, when He was in the form of God" ( <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q31_A2-p12.1" href="./asv.html#Phil.2.6" target="asv">Phil. 2:6</a>). Therefore the term "difference" does not properly apply to God, as appears from the authority quoted. Yet, Damascene (De Fide Orth. i, 5) employs the term "difference" in the divine persons, as meaning that the relative property is signified by way of form. Hence he says that the hypostases do not differ from each other in substance, but according to determinate properties. But "difference" is taken for "distinction," as above stated. </p> <p id="FP_Q31_A2-p13"> <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The term "alien" means what is extraneous and dissimilar; which is not expressed by the term "other" [alius]; and therefore we say that the Son is "other" than the Father, but not that He is anything "alien." </p> <p id="FP_Q31_A2-p14"> <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> The neuter gender is formless; whereas the masculine is formed and distinct; and so is the feminine. So the common essence is properly and aptly expressed by the neuter gender, but by the masculine and feminine is expressed the determined subject in the common nature. Hence also in human affairs, if we ask, Who is this man? we answer, Socrates, which is the name of the "suppositum"; whereas, if we ask, What is he? we reply, A rational and mortal animal. So, because in God distinction is by the persons, and not by the essence, we say that the Father is other than the Son, but not something else; while conversely we say that they are one thing, but not one person. </p> <p id="FP_Q31_A2-p15"></p> <p id="FP_Q31_A2-p16"></p> <a href="summa.FP_Q31_A1.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q31_A3.html"></a> </div> <div id="FP_Q31_A3" class="div4"> <a href="summa.FP_Q31_A2.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q31_A4.html"></a> <h4 id="FP_Q31_A3-p0.1">Whether the exclusive word "alone" should be added to the essential term in God?</h4> <p id="FP_Q31_A3-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q31_A3-p2"> <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the exclusive word "alone" [solus] is not to be added to an essential term in God. For, according to the Philosopher (Elench. ii, 3), "He is alone who is not with another." But God is with the angels and the souls of the saints. Therefore we cannot say that God is alone. </p> <p id="FP_Q31_A3-p3"> <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, whatever is joined to the essential term in God can be predicated of every person "per se," and of all the persons together; for, as we can properly say that God is wise, we can say the Father is a wise God; and the Trinity is a wise God. But Augustine says (De Trin. vi, 9): "We must consider the opinion that the Father is not true God alone." Therefore God cannot be said to be alone. </p> <p id="FP_Q31_A3-p4"> <b>Objection 3:</b> Further if this expression "alone" is joined to an essential term, it would be so joined as regards either the personal predicate or the essential predicate. But it cannot be the former, as it is false to say, "God alone is Father," since man also is a father; nor, again, can it be applied as regards the latter, for, if this saying were true, "God alone creates," it would follow that the "Father alone creates," as whatever is said of God can be said of the Father; and it would be false, as the Son also creates. Therefore this expression "alone" cannot be joined to an essential term in God. </p> <p id="FP_Q31_A3-p5"> <b>On the contrary,</b> It is said, "To the King of ages, immortal, invisible, the only God" ( <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q31_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#iTim.1.17" target="asv">1 Tim. 1:17</a>). </p> <p id="FP_Q31_A3-p6"> <b>I answer that,</b> This term "alone" can be taken as a categorematical term, or as a syncategorematical term. A categorematical term is one which ascribes absolutely its meaning to a given "suppositum"; as, for instance, "white" to man, as when we say a "white man." If the term "alone" is taken in this sense, it cannot in any way be joined to any term in God; for it would mean solitude in the term to which it is joined; and it would follow that God was solitary, against what is above stated <a id="FP_Q31_A3-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q31_A2.html">(A[2])</a>. A syncategorematical term imports the order of the predicate to the subject; as this expression "every one" or "no one"; and likewise the term "alone," as excluding every other "suppositum" from the predicate. Thus, when we say, "Socrates alone writes," we do not mean that Socrates is solitary, but that he has no companion in writing, though many others may be with him. In this way nothing prevents the term "alone" being joined to any essential term in God, as excluding the predicate from all things but God; as if we said "God alone is eternal," because nothing but God is eternal. </p> <p id="FP_Q31_A3-p7"> <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Although the angels and the souls of the saints are always with God, nevertheless, if plurality of persons did not exist in God, He would be alone or solitary. For solitude is not removed by association with anything that is extraneous in nature; thus anyone is said to be alone in a garden, though many plants and animals are with him in the garden. Likewise, God would be alone or solitary, though angels and men were with Him, supposing that several persons were not within Him. Therefore the society of angels and of souls does not take away absolute solitude from God; much less does it remove respective solitude, in reference to a predicate. </p> <p id="FP_Q31_A3-p8"> <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> This expression "alone," properly speaking, does not affect the predicate, which is taken formally, for it refers to the "suppositum," as excluding any other suppositum from the one which it qualifies. But the adverb "only," being exclusive, can be applied either to subject or predicate. For we can say, "Only Socrates"---that is, no one else---"runs: and Socrates runs only"---that is, he does nothing else. Hence it is not properly said that the Father is God alone, or the Trinity is God alone, unless some implied meaning be assumed in the predicate, as, for instance, "The Trinity is God Who alone is God." In that sense it can be true to say that the Father is that God Who alone is God, if the relative be referred to the predicate, and not to the "suppositum." So, when Augustine says that the Father is not God alone, but that the Trinity is God alone, he speaks expositively, as he might explain the words, "To the King of ages, invisible, the only God," as applying not to the Father, but to the Trinity alone. </p> <p id="FP_Q31_A3-p9"> <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> In both ways can the term "alone" be joined to an essential term. For this proposition, "God alone is Father," can mean two things, because the word "Father" can signify the person of the Father; and then it is true; for no man is that person: or it can signify that relation only; and thus it is false, because the relation of paternity is found also in others, though not in a univocal sense. Likewise it is true to say God alone creates; nor, does it follow, "therefore the Father alone creates," because, as logicians say, an exclusive diction so fixes the term to which it is joined that what is said exclusively of that term cannot be said exclusively of an individual contained in that term: for instance, from the premiss, "Man alone is a mortal rational animal," we cannot conclude, "therefore Socrates alone is such." </p> <p id="FP_Q31_A3-p10"></p> <p id="FP_Q31_A3-p11"></p> <a href="summa.FP_Q31_A2.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q31_A4.html"></a> </div> <div id="FP_Q31_A4" class="div4"> <a href="summa.FP_Q31_A3.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q32.html"></a> <h4 id="FP_Q31_A4-p0.1">Whether an exclusive diction can be joined to the personal term?</h4> <p id="FP_Q31_A4-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q31_A4-p2"> <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that an exclusive diction can be joined to the personal term, even though the predicate is common. For our Lord speaking to the Father, said: "That they may know Thee, the only true God" ( <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q31_A4-p2.1" href="./asv.html#John.17.3" target="asv">Jn. 17:3</a>). Therefore the Father alone is true God. </p> <p id="FP_Q31_A4-p3"> <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, He said: "No one knows the Son but the Father" ( <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q31_A4-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.11.27" target="asv">Mat. 11:27</a>); which means that the Father alone knows the Son. But to know the Son is common (to the persons). Therefore the same conclusion follows. </p> <p id="FP_Q31_A4-p4"> <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, an exclusive diction does not exclude what enters into the concept of the term to which it is joined. Hence it does not exclude the part, nor the universal; for it does not follow that if we say "Socrates alone is white," that therefore "his hand is not white," or that "man is not white." But one person is in the concept of another; as the Father is in the concept of the Son; and conversely. Therefore, when we say, The Father alone is God, we do not exclude the Son, nor the Holy Ghost; so that such a mode of speaking is true. </p> <p id="FP_Q31_A4-p5"> <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, the Church sings: "Thou alone art Most High, O Jesus Christ." </p> <p id="FP_Q31_A4-p6"> <b>On the contrary,</b> This proposition "The Father alone is God" includes two assertions---namely, that the Father is God, and that no other besides the Father is God. But this second proposition is false, for the Son is another from the Father, and He is God. Therefore this is false, The Father alone is God; and the same of the like sayings. </p> <p id="FP_Q31_A4-p7"> <b>I answer that,</b> When we say, "The Father alone is God," such a proposition can be taken in several senses. If "alone" means solitude in the Father, it is false in a categorematical sense; but if taken in a syncategorematical sense it can again be understood in several ways. For if it exclude (all others) from the form of the subject, it is true, the sense being "the Father alone is God"---that is, "He who with no other is the Father, is God." In this way Augustine expounds when he says (De Trin. vi, 6): "We say the Father alone, not because He is separate from the Son, or from the Holy Ghost, but because they are not the Father together with Him." This, however, is not the usual way of speaking, unless we understand another implication, as though we said "He who alone is called the Father is God." But in the strict sense the exclusion affects the predicate. And thus the proposition is false if it excludes another in the masculine sense; but true if it excludes it in the neuter sense; because the Son is another person than the Father, but not another thing; and the same applies to the Holy Ghost. But because this diction "alone," properly speaking, refers to the subject, it tends to exclude another Person rather than other things. Hence such a way of speaking is not to be taken too literally, but it should be piously expounded, whenever we find it in an authentic work. </p> <p id="FP_Q31_A4-p8"> <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> When we say, "Thee the only true God," we do not understand it as referring to the person of the Father, but to the whole Trinity, as Augustine expounds (De Trin. vi, 9). Or, if understood of the person of the Father, the other persons are not excluded by reason of the unity of essence; in so far as the word "only" excludes another thing, as above explained. </p> <p id="FP_Q31_A4-p9"> The same Reply can be given to OBJ 2. For an essential term applied to the Father does not exclude the Son or the Holy Ghost, by reason of the unity of essence. Hence we must understand that in the text quoted the term "no one" [*Nemo = non-homo, i.e. no man] is not the same as "no man," which the word itself would seem to signify (for the person of the Father could not be excepted), but is taken according to the usual way of speaking in a distributive sense, to mean any rational nature. </p> <p id="FP_Q31_A4-p10"> <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The exclusive diction does not exclude what enters into the concept of the term to which it is adjoined, if they do not differ in "suppositum," as part and universal. But the Son differs in "suppositum" from the Father; and so there is no parity. </p> <p id="FP_Q31_A4-p11"> <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> We do not say absolutely that the Son alone is Most High; but that He alone is Most High "with the Holy Ghost, in the glory of God the Father." </p> <p id="FP_Q31_A4-p12"></p> <p id="FP_Q31_A4-p13"></p> <a href="summa.FP_Q31_A3.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q32.html"></a> </div> <a href="summa.FP_Q30_A4.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q31_A1.html"></a> </div> <div id="FP_Q32" class="div3"> <a href="summa.FP_Q31_A4.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q32_A1.html"></a> <h3 id="FP_Q32-p0.1">THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE DIVINE PERSONS (FOUR ARTICLES)</h3> <p id="FP_Q32-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q32-p2"> We proceed to inquire concerning the knowledge of the divine persons; and this involves four points of inquiry:</p> <p id="FP_Q32-p3"> (1) Whether the divine persons can be known by natural reason?</p> <p id="FP_Q32-p4"> (2) Whether notions are to be attributed to the divine persons?</p> <p id="FP_Q32-p5"> (3) The number of the notions?</p> <p id="FP_Q32-p6"> (4) Whether we may lawfully have various contrary opinions of these notions?</p> <div id="FP_Q32_A1" class="div4"> <a href="summa.FP_Q32.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q32_A2.html"></a> <h4 id="FP_Q32_A1-p0.1">Whether the trinity of the divine persons can be known by natural reason?</h4> <p id="FP_Q32_A1-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q32_A1-p2"> <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the trinity of the divine persons can be known by natural reason. For philosophers came to the knowledge of God not otherwise than by natural reason. Now we find that they said many things about the trinity of persons, for Aristotle says (De Coelo et Mundo i, 2): "Through this number"---namely, three---"we bring ourselves to acknowledge the greatness of one God, surpassing all things created." And Augustine says (Confess. vii, 9): "I have read in their works, not in so many words, but enforced by many and various reasons, that in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God," and so on; in which passage the distinction of persons is laid down. We read, moreover, in a gloss on <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q32_A1-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.1" target="asv">Rom. 1</a> and <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q32_A1-p2.2" href="./asv.html#Exod.8" target="asv">Ex. 8</a> that the magicians of Pharaoh failed in the third sign---that is, as regards knowledge of a third person---i.e. of the Holy Ghost ---and thus it is clear that they knew at least two persons. Likewise Trismegistus says: "The monad begot a monad, and reflected upon itself its own heat." By which words the generation of the Son and procession of the Holy Ghost seem to be indicated. Therefore knowledge of the divine persons can be obtained by natural reason. </p> <p id="FP_Q32_A1-p3"> <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Richard St. Victor says (De Trin. i, 4): "I believe without doubt that probable and even necessary arguments can be found for any explanation of the truth." So even to prove the Trinity some have brought forward a reason from the infinite goodness of God, who communicates Himself infinitely in the procession of the divine persons; while some are moved by the consideration that "no good thing can be joyfully possessed without partnership." Augustine proceeds (De Trin. x, 4; x, 11,12) to prove the trinity of persons by the procession of the word and of love in our own mind; and we have followed him in this ( <a id="FP_Q32_A1-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q27_A1.html">Q[27] , AA[1]</a>,3). Therefore the trinity of persons can be known by natural reason. </p> <p id="FP_Q32_A1-p4"> <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it seems to be superfluous to teach what cannot be known by natural reason. But it ought not to be said that the divine tradition of the Trinity is superfluous. Therefore the trinity of persons can be known by natural reason. </p> <p id="FP_Q32_A1-p5"> <b>On the contrary,</b> Hilary says (De Trin. i), "Let no man think to reach the sacred mystery of generation by his own mind." And Ambrose says (De Fide ii, 5), "It is impossible to know the secret of generation. The mind fails, the voice is silent." But the trinity of the divine persons is distinguished by origin of generation and procession ( <a id="FP_Q32_A1-p5.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q30_A2.html">Q[30], A[2]</a>). Since, therefore, man cannot know, and with his understanding grasp that for which no necessary reason can be given, it follows that the trinity of persons cannot be known by reason. </p> <p id="FP_Q32_A1-p6"> <b>I answer that,</b> It is impossible to attain to the knowledge of the Trinity by natural reason. For, as above explained ( <a id="FP_Q32_A1-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q12_A4.html">Q[12], AA[4]</a>,12), man cannot obtain the knowledge of God by natural reason except from creatures. Now creatures lead us to the knowledge of God, as effects do to their cause. Accordingly, by natural reason we can know of God that only which of necessity belongs to Him as the principle of things, and we have cited this fundamental principle in treating of God as above ( <a id="FP_Q32_A1-p6.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q12_A12.html">Q[12], A[12]</a>). Now, the creative power of God is common to the whole Trinity; and hence it belongs to the unity of the essence, and not to the distinction of the persons. Therefore, by natural reason we can know what belongs to the unity of the essence, but not what belongs to the distinction of the persons. Whoever, then, tries to prove the trinity of persons by natural reason, derogates from faith in two ways. Firstly, as regards the dignity of faith itself, which consists in its being concerned with invisible things, that exceed human reason; wherefore the Apostle says that "faith is of things that appear not" ( <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q32_A1-p6.3" href="./asv.html#Heb.11.1" target="asv">Heb. 11:1</a>), and the same Apostle says also, "We speak wisdom among the perfect, but not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world; but we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery which is hidden" ( <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q32_A1-p6.4" href="./asv.html#iCor.2.6" target="asv">1 Cor. 2:6,7</a>). Secondly, as regards the utility of drawing others to the faith. For when anyone in the endeavor to prove the faith brings forward reasons which are not cogent, he falls under the ridicule of the unbelievers: since they suppose that we stand upon such reasons, and that we believe on such grounds. </p> <p id="FP_Q32_A1-p7"> Therefore, we must not attempt to prove what is of faith, except by authority alone, to those who receive the authority; while as regards others it suffices to prove that what faith teaches is not impossible. Hence it is said by Dionysius (Div. Nom. ii): "Whoever wholly resists the word, is far off from our philosophy; whereas if he regards the truth of the word"---i.e. "the sacred word, we too follow this rule." </p> <p id="FP_Q32_A1-p8"> <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The philosophers did not know the mystery of the trinity of the divine persons by its proper attributes, such as paternity, filiation, and procession, according to the Apostle's words, "We speak the wisdom of God which none of the princes of the world"---i.e. the philosophers---"knew" ( <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q32_A1-p8.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.2.6" target="asv">1 Cor. 2:6</a>). Nevertheless, they knew some of the essential attributes appropriated to the persons, as power to the Father, wisdom to the Son, goodness to the Holy Ghost; as will later on appear. So, when Aristotle said, "By this number," etc., we must not take it as if he affirmed a threefold number in God, but that he wished to say that the ancients used the threefold number in their sacrifices and prayers on account of some perfection residing in the number three. In the Platonic books also we find, "In the beginning was the word," not as meaning the Person begotten in God, but as meaning the ideal type whereby God made all things, and which is appropriated to the Son. And although they knew these were appropriated to the three persons, yet they are said to have failed in the third sign---that is, in the knowledge of the third person, because they deviated from the goodness appropriated to the Holy Ghost, in that knowing God "they did not glorify Him as God" ( <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q32_A1-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.1" target="asv">Rom. 1</a>); or, because the Platonists asserted the existence of one Primal Being whom they also declared to be the father of the universe, they consequently maintained the existence of another substance beneath him, which they called "mind" or the "paternal intellect," containing the idea of all things, as Macrobius relates (Som. Scip. iv). They did not, however, assert the existence of a third separate substance which might correspond to the Holy Ghost. So also we do not assert that the Father and the Son differ in substance, which was the error of Origen and Arius, who in this followed the Platonists. When Trismegistus says, "Monad begot monad," etc., this does not refer to the generation of the Son, or to the procession of the Holy Ghost, but to the production of the world. For one God produced one world by reason of His love for Himself. </p> <p id="FP_Q32_A1-p9"> <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Reason may be employed in two ways to establish a point: firstly, for the purpose of furnishing sufficient proof of some principle, as in natural science, where sufficient proof can be brought to show that the movement of the heavens is always of uniform velocity. Reason is employed in another way, not as furnishing a sufficient proof of a principle, but as confirming an already established principle, by showing the congruity of its results, as in astrology the theory of eccentrics and epicycles is considered as established, because thereby the sensible appearances of the heavenly movements can be explained; not, however, as if this proof were sufficient, forasmuch as some other theory might explain them. In the first way, we can prove that God is one; and the like. In the second way, reasons avail to prove the Trinity; as, when assumed to be true, such reasons confirm it. We must not, however, think that the trinity of persons is adequately proved by such reasons. This becomes evident when we consider each point; for the infinite goodness of God is manifested also in creation, because to produce from nothing is an act of infinite power. For if God communicates Himself by His infinite goodness, it is not necessary that an infinite effect should proceed from God: but that according to its own mode and capacity it should receive the divine goodness. Likewise, when it is said that joyous possession of good requires partnership, this holds in the case of one not having perfect goodness: hence it needs to share some other's good, in order to have the goodness of complete happiness. Nor is the image in our mind an adequate proof in the case of God, forasmuch as the intellect is not in God and ourselves univocally. Hence, Augustine says (Tract. xxvii. in Joan.) that by faith we arrive at knowledge, and not conversely. </p> <p id="FP_Q32_A1-p10"> <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> There are two reason why the knowledge of the divine persons was necessary for us. It was necessary for the right idea of creation. The fact of saying that God made all things by His Word excludes the error of those who say that God produced things by necessity. When we say that in Him there is a procession of love, we show that God produced creatures not because He needed them, nor because of any other extrinsic reason, but on account of the love of His own goodness. So Moses, when he had said, "In the beginning God created heaven and earth," subjoined, "God said, Let there be light," to manifest the divine Word; and then said, "God saw the light that it was good," to show proof of the divine love. The same is also found in the other works of creation. In another way, and chiefly, that we may think rightly concerning the salvation of the human race, accomplished by the Incarnate Son, and by the gift of the Holy Ghost. </p> <p id="FP_Q32_A1-p11"></p> <p id="FP_Q32_A1-p12"></p> <a href="summa.FP_Q32.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q32_A2.html"></a> </div> <div id="FP_Q32_A2" class="div4"> <a href="summa.FP_Q32_A1.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q32_A3.html"></a> <h4 id="FP_Q32_A2-p0.1">Whether there are notions in God?</h4> <p id="FP_Q32_A2-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q32_A2-p2"> <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that in God there are no notions. For Dionysius says (Div. Nom. i): "We must not dare to say anything of God but what is taught to us by the Holy Scripture." But Holy Scripture does not say anything concerning notions. Therefore there are none in God. </p> <p id="FP_Q32_A2-p3"> <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, all that exists in God concerns the unity of the essence or the trinity of the persons. But the notions do not concern the unity of the essence, nor the trinity of the persons; for neither can what belongs to the essence be predicated of the notions: for instance, we do not say that paternity is wise or creates; nor can what belongs to the persons be so predicated; for example, we do not say that paternity begets, nor that filiation is begotten. Therefore there do not exist notions in God. </p> <p id="FP_Q32_A2-p4"> <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, we do not require to presuppose any abstract notions as principles of knowing things which are devoid of composition: for they are known of themselves. But the divine persons are supremely simple. Therefore we are not to suppose any notions in God. </p> <p id="FP_Q32_A2-p5"> <b>On the contrary,</b> Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 5): "We recognize difference of hypostases [i.e. of persons], in the three properties; i.e. in the paternal, the filial, and the processional." Therefore we must admit properties and notions in God. </p> <p id="FP_Q32_A2-p6"> <b>I answer that,</b> Prepositivus, considering the simplicity of the persons, said that in God there were no properties or notions, and wherever there were mentioned, he propounded the abstract for the concrete. For as we are accustomed to say, "I beseech your kindness"---i.e. you who are kind---so when we speak of paternity in God, we mean God the Father. </p> <p id="FP_Q32_A2-p7"> But, as shown above ( <a id="FP_Q32_A2-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q3_A3.html">Q[3], A[3]</a>, ad 1), the use of concrete and abstract names in God is not in any way repugnant to the divine simplicity; forasmuch as we always name a thing as we understand it. Now, our intellect cannot attain to the absolute simplicity of the divine essence, considered in itself, and therefore, our human intellect apprehends and names divine things, according to its own mode, that is in so far as they are found in sensible objects, whence its knowledge is derived. In these things we use abstract terms to signify simple forms; and to signify subsistent things we use concrete terms. Hence also we signify divine things, as above stated, by abstract names, to express their simplicity; whereas, to express their subsistence and completeness, we use concrete names. </p> <p id="FP_Q32_A2-p8"> But not only must essential names be signified in the abstract and in the concrete, as when we say Deity and God; or wisdom and wise; but the same applies to the personal names, so that we may say paternity and Father. </p> <p id="FP_Q32_A2-p9"> Two chief motives for this can be cited. The first arises from the obstinacy of heretics. For since we confess the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost to be one God and three persons, to those who ask: "Whereby are They one God? and whereby are They three persons?" as we answer that They are one in essence or deity; so there must also be some abstract terms whereby we may answer that the persons are distinguished; and these are the properties or notions signified by an abstract term, as paternity and filiation. Therefore the divine essence is signified as "What"; and the person as "Who"; and the property as "Whereby." </p> <p id="FP_Q32_A2-p10"> The second motive is because one person in God is related to two persons---namely, the person of the Father to the person of the Son and the person of the Holy Ghost. This is not, however, by one relation; otherwise it would follow that the Son also and the Holy Ghost would be related to the Father by one and the same relation. Thus, since relation alone multiplies the Trinity, it would follow that the Son and the Holy Ghost would not be two persons. Nor can it be said with Prepositivus that as God is related in one way to creatures, while creatures are related to Him in divers ways, so the Father is related by one relation to the Son and to the Holy Ghost; whereas these two persons are related to the Father by two relations. For, since the very specific idea of a relation is that it refers to another, it must be said that two relations are not specifically different if but one opposite relation corresponds to them. For the relation of lord and father must differ according to the difference of filiation and servitude. Now, all creatures are related to God as His creatures by one specific relation. But the Son and the Holy Ghost are not related to the Father by one and the same kind of relation. Hence there is no parity. </p> <p id="FP_Q32_A2-p11"> Further, in God there is no need to admit any real relation to the creature ( <a id="FP_Q32_A2-p11.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q28_A1.html">Q[28], A[1]</a>,3); while there is no reason against our admitting in God, many logical relations. But in the Father there must be a real relation to the Son and to the Holy Ghost. Hence, corresponding to the two relations of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, whereby they are related to the Father, we must understand two relations in the Father, whereby He is related to the Son and to the Holy Ghost. Hence, since there is only one Person of the Father, it is necessary that the relations should be separately signified in the abstract; and these are what we mean by properties and notions. </p> <p id="FP_Q32_A2-p12"> <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Although the notions are not mentioned in Holy Scripture, yet the persons are mentioned, comprising the idea of notions, as the abstract is contained in the concrete. </p> <p id="FP_Q32_A2-p13"> <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> In God the notions have their significance not after the manner of realities, but by way of certain ideas whereby the persons are known; although in God these notions or relations are real, as stated above ( <a id="FP_Q32_A2-p13.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q28_A1.html">Q[28], A[1]</a>). Therefore whatever has order to any essential or personal act, cannot be applied to the notions; forasmuch as this is against their mode of signification. Hence we cannot say that paternity begets, or creates, or is wise, or is intelligent. The essentials, however, which are not ordered to any act, but simply remove created conditions from God, can be predicated of the notions; for we can say that paternity is eternal, or immense, or such like. So also on account of the real identity, substantive terms, whether personal or essential, can be predicated of the notions; for we can say that paternity is God, and that paternity is the Father. </p> <p id="FP_Q32_A2-p14"> <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Although the persons are simple, still without prejudice to their simplicity, the proper ideas of the persons can be abstractedly signified, as above explained. </p> <p id="FP_Q32_A2-p15"></p> <p id="FP_Q32_A2-p16"></p> <a href="summa.FP_Q32_A1.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q32_A3.html"></a> </div> <div id="FP_Q32_A3" class="div4"> <a href="summa.FP_Q32_A2.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q32_A4.html"></a> <h4 id="FP_Q32_A3-p0.1">Whether there are five notions?</h4> <p id="FP_Q32_A3-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q32_A3-p2"> <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that there are not five notions. For the notions proper to the persons are the relations whereby they are distinguished from each other. But the relations in God are only four ( <a id="FP_Q32_A3-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q28_A4.html">Q[28], A[4]</a>). Therefore the notions are only four in number. </p> <p id="FP_Q32_A3-p3"> <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, as there is only one essence in God, He is called one God, and because in Him there are three persons, He is called the Trine God. Therefore, if in God there are five notions, He may be called quinary; which cannot be allowed. </p> <p id="FP_Q32_A3-p4"> <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, if there are five notions for the three persons in God, there must be in some one person two or more notions, as in the person of the Father there is innascibility and paternity, and common spiration. Either these three notions really differ, or not. If they really differ, it follows that the person of the Father is composed of several things. But if they differ only logically, it follows that one of them can be predicated of another, so that we can say that as the divine goodness is the same as the divine wisdom by reason of the common reality, so common spiration is paternity; which is not to be admitted. Therefore there are not five notions. </p> <p id="FP_Q32_A3-p5"> <b>Objection 4:</b> On the contrary, It seems that there are more; because as the Father is from no one, and therefrom is derived the notion of innascibility; so from the Holy Ghost no other person proceeds. And in this respect there ought to be a sixth notion. </p> <p id="FP_Q32_A3-p6"> <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, as the Father and the Son are the common origin of the Holy Ghost, so it is common to the Son and the Holy Ghost to proceed from the Father. Therefore, as one notion is common to the Father and the Son, so there ought to be one notion common to the Son and to the Holy Ghost. </p> <p id="FP_Q32_A3-p7"> <b>I answer that,</b> A notion is the proper idea whereby we know a divine Person. Now the divine persons are multiplied by reason of their origin: and origin includes the idea of someone from whom another comes, and of someone that comes from another, and by these two modes a person can be known. Therefore the Person of the Father cannot be known by the fact that He is from another; but by the fact that He is from no one; and thus the notion that belongs to Him is called "innascibility." As the source of another, He can be known in two ways, because as the Son is from Him, the Father is known by the notion of "paternity"; and as the Holy Ghost is from Him, He is known by the notion of "common spiration." The Son can be known as begotten by another, and thus He is known by "filiation"; and also by another person proceeding from Him, the Holy Ghost, and thus He is known in the same way as the Father is known, by "common spiration." The Holy Ghost can be known by the fact that He is from another, or from others; thus He is known by "procession"; but not by the fact that another is from Him, as no divine person proceeds from Him. </p> <p id="FP_Q32_A3-p8"> Therefore, there are Five notions in God: "innascibility," "paternity," "filiation," "common spiration," and "procession." Of these only four are relations, for "innascibility" is not a relation, except by reduction, as will appear later ( <a id="FP_Q32_A3-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q33_A4.html">Q[33], A[4]</a>, ad 3). Four only are properties. For "common spiration" is not a property; because it belongs to two persons. Three are personal notions---i.e. constituting persons, "paternity," "filiation," and "procession." "Common spiration" and "innascibility" are called notions of Persons, but not personal notions, as we shall explain further on ( <a id="FP_Q32_A3-p8.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q40_A1.html">Q[40], A[1]</a>, ad 1). </p> <p id="FP_Q32_A3-p9"> <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Besides the four relations, another notion must be admitted, as above explained. </p> <p id="FP_Q32_A3-p10"> <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The divine essence is signified as a reality; and likewise the persons are signified as realities; whereas the notions are signified as ideas notifying the persons. Therefore, although God is one by unity of essence, and trine by trinity of persons, nevertheless He is not quinary by the five notions. </p> <p id="FP_Q32_A3-p11"> <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Since the real plurality in God is founded only on relative opposition, the several properties of one Person, as they are not relatively opposed to each other, do not really differ. Nor again are they predicated of each other, because they are different ideas of the persons; as we do not say that the attribute of power is the attribute of knowledge, although we do say that knowledge is power. </p> <p id="FP_Q32_A3-p12"> <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Since Person implies dignity, as stated above ( <a id="FP_Q32_A3-p12.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q19_A3.html">Q[19], A[3]</a> ) we cannot derive a notion of the Holy Spirit from the fact that no person is from Him. For this does not belong to His dignity, as it belongs to the authority of the Father that He is from no one. </p> <p id="FP_Q32_A3-p13"> <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> The Son and the Holy Ghost do not agree in one special mode of existence derived from the Father; as the Father and the Son agree in one special mode of producing the Holy Ghost. But the principle on which a notion is based must be something special; thus no parity of reasoning exists. </p> <p id="FP_Q32_A3-p14"></p> <p id="FP_Q32_A3-p15"></p> <a href="summa.FP_Q32_A2.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q32_A4.html"></a> </div> <div id="FP_Q32_A4" class="div4"> <a href="summa.FP_Q32_A3.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q33.html"></a> <h4 id="FP_Q32_A4-p0.1">Whether it is lawful to have various contrary opinions of notions?</h4> <p id="FP_Q32_A4-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q32_A4-p2"> <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that it is not lawful to have various contrary opinions of the notions. For Augustine says (De Trin. i, 3): "No error is more dangerous than any as regards the Trinity": to which mystery the notions assuredly belong. But contrary opinions must be in some way erroneous. Therefore it is not right to have contrary opinions of the notions. </p> <p id="FP_Q32_A4-p3"> <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the persons are known by the notions. But no contrary opinion concerning the persons is to be tolerated. Therefore neither can there be about the notions. </p> <p id="FP_Q32_A4-p4"> <b>On the contrary,</b> The notions are not articles of faith. Therefore different opinions of the notions are permissible. </p> <p id="FP_Q32_A4-p5"> <b>I answer that,</b> Anything is of faith in two ways; directly, where any truth comes to us principally as divinely taught, as the trinity and unity of God, the Incarnation of the Son, and the like; and concerning these truths a false opinion of itself involves heresy, especially if it be held obstinately. A thing is of faith, indirectly, if the denial of it involves as a consequence something against faith; as for instance if anyone said that Samuel was not the son of Elcana, for it follows that the divine Scripture would be false. Concerning such things anyone may have a false opinion without danger of heresy, before the matter has been considered or settled as involving consequences against faith, and particularly if no obstinacy be shown; whereas when it is manifest, and especially if the Church has decided that consequences follow against faith, then the error cannot be free from heresy. For this reason many things are now considered as heretical which were formerly not so considered, as their consequences are now more manifest. </p> <p id="FP_Q32_A4-p6"> So we must decide that anyone may entertain contrary opinions about the notions, if he does not mean to uphold anything at variance with faith. If, however, anyone should entertain a false opinion of the notions, knowing or thinking that consequences against the faith would follow, he would lapse into heresy. </p> <p id="FP_Q32_A4-p7"> By what has been said all the objections may be solved.</p> <p id="FP_Q32_A4-p8"></p> <p id="FP_Q32_A4-p9"></p> <p id="FP_Q32_A4-p10"></p> <a href="summa.FP_Q32_A3.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q33.html"></a> </div> <a href="summa.FP_Q31_A4.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q32_A1.html"></a> </div> <div id="FP_Q33" class="div3"> <a href="summa.FP_Q32_A4.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q33_A1.html"></a> <h3 id="FP_Q33-p0.1">OF THE PERSON OF THE FATHER (FOUR ARTICLES)</h3> <p id="FP_Q33-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q33-p2"> We now consider the persons singly; and first, the Person of the Father, concerning Whom there are four points of inquiry:</p> <p id="FP_Q33-p3"> (1) Whether the Father is the Principle?</p> <p id="FP_Q33-p4"> (2) Whether the person of the Father is properly signified by this name "Father"?</p> <p id="FP_Q33-p5"> (3) Whether "Father" in God is said personally before it is said essentially?</p> <p id="FP_Q33-p6"> (4) Whether it belongs to the Father alone to be unbegotten?</p> <div id="FP_Q33_A1" class="div4"> <a href="summa.FP_Q33.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q33_A2.html"></a> <h4 id="FP_Q33_A1-p0.1">Whether it belongs to the Father to be the principle?</h4> <p id="FP_Q33_A1-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q33_A1-p2"> <b>Objection 1:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q33_A1-p3"> <b>Objection 2:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q33_A1-p4"> <b>Objection 3:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q33_A1-p5"> <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (De Trin. iv, 20), "The Father is the Principle of the whole Deity." </p> <p id="FP_Q33_A1-p6"> <b>I answer that,</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q33_A1-p7"> <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> 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 ( <a id="FP_Q33_A1-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q13_A11.html">Q[13], A[11]</a>), 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q33_A1-p8"> <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> 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." </p> <p id="FP_Q33_A1-p9"> <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> 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 ( <a id="FP_Q33_A1-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q13_A8.html">Q[13], A[8]</a>). </p> <p id="FP_Q33_A1-p10"></p> <p id="FP_Q33_A1-p11"></p> <a href="summa.FP_Q33.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q33_A2.html"></a> </div> <div id="FP_Q33_A2" class="div4"> <a href="summa.FP_Q33_A1.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q33_A3.html"></a> <h4 id="FP_Q33_A2-p0.1">Whether this name "Father" is properly the name of a divine person?</h4> <p id="FP_Q33_A2-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q33_A2-p2"> <b>Objection 1:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q33_A2-p3"> <b>Objection 2:</b> 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 ( <a id="FP_Q33_A2-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q13_A11.html">Q[13], A[11]</a>). Therefore the more proper name of the divine person is begetter and genitor than Father. </p> <p id="FP_Q33_A2-p4"> <b>Objection 3:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q33_A2-p5"> <b>Objection 4:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q33_A2-p6"> <b>On the contrary,</b> It is said ( <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q33_A2-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.88.27" target="asv">Ps. 88:27</a>): "He shall cry out to me: Thou art my Father." </p> <p id="FP_Q33_A2-p7"> <b>I answer that,</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q33_A2-p8"> <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> 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 ( <a id="FP_Q33_A2-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q29_A4.html">Q[29], A[4]</a>), this name "person" in God signifies a relation subsisting in the divine nature. </p> <p id="FP_Q33_A2-p9"> <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q33_A2-p10"> <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q33_A2-p11"> <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> 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" ( <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q33_A2-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Eph.3.14" target="asv">Eph. 3:14</a>). 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q33_A2-p12"></p> <p id="FP_Q33_A2-p13"></p> <a href="summa.FP_Q33_A1.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q33_A3.html"></a> </div> <div id="FP_Q33_A3" class="div4"> <a href="summa.FP_Q33_A2.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q33_A4.html"></a> <h4 id="FP_Q33_A3-p0.1">Whether this name "Father" is applied to God, firstly as a personal name?</h4> <p id="FP_Q33_A3-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q33_A3-p2"> <b>Objection 1:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q33_A3-p3"> <b>Objection 2:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q33_A3-p4"> <b>Objection 3:</b> 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 <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q33_A3-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Col.1.15" target="asv"> Col. 1:15</a>: "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. </p> <p id="FP_Q33_A3-p5"> <b>On the contrary,</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q33_A3-p6"> <b>I answer that,</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q33_A3-p7"> Now it is manifest from the foregoing ( <a id="FP_Q33_A3-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q27_A2.html">Q[27], A[2]</a>; <a id="FP_Q33_A3-p7.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q28_A4.html">Q[28], A[4]</a>), 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 <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q33_A3-p7.3" href="./asv.html#Job.38.28" target="asv"> Job 38:28</a>: "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 <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q33_A3-p7.4" href="./asv.html#Deut.32.6" target="asv"> Dt. 32:6</a>: "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 <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q33_A3-p7.5" href="./asv.html#Rom.8.16" target="asv"> Rom. 8:16,17</a>: "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 <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q33_A3-p7.6" href="./asv.html#Rom.5.2" target="asv"> Rom. 5:2 </a>: "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. </p> <p id="FP_Q33_A3-p8"> <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> 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 <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q33_A3-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.8.29" target="asv"> Rom. 8:29</a>: "Whom He foreknew and predestined to be made conformable to the image of His Son." </p> <p id="FP_Q33_A3-p9"> <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> 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 ( <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q33_A3-p9.1" href="./asv.html#John.1.18" target="asv">Jn. 1:18</a>): "The only begotten Who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared unto us." </p> <p id="FP_Q33_A3-p10"> From this appears the Reply to the Third Objection.</p> <p id="FP_Q33_A3-p11"></p> <p id="FP_Q33_A3-p12"></p> <a href="summa.FP_Q33_A2.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q33_A4.html"></a> </div> <div id="FP_Q33_A4" class="div4"> <a href="summa.FP_Q33_A3.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q34.html"></a> <h4 id="FP_Q33_A4-p0.1">Whether it is proper to the Father to be unbegotten?</h4> <p id="FP_Q33_A4-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q33_A4-p2"> <b>Objection 1:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q33_A4-p3"> <b>Objection 2:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q33_A4-p4"> <b>Objection 3:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q33_A4-p5"> <b>Objection 4:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q33_A4-p6"> <b>Objection 5:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q33_A4-p7"> <b>On the contrary,</b> 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." </p> <p id="FP_Q33_A4-p8"> <b>I answer that,</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q33_A4-p9"> 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." </p> <p id="FP_Q33_A4-p10"> <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q33_A4-p11"> <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> "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. </p> <p id="FP_Q33_A4-p12"> <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q33_A4-p13"> <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q33_A4-p14"> <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> 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 ( <a id="FP_Q33_A4-p14.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q27_A4.html">Q[27], A[4]</a>, 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q33_A4-p15"></p> <p id="FP_Q33_A4-p16"></p> <a href="summa.FP_Q33_A3.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q34.html"></a> </div> <a href="summa.FP_Q32_A4.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q33_A1.html"></a> </div> <div id="FP_Q34" class="div3"> <a href="summa.FP_Q33_A4.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q34_A1.html"></a> <h3 id="FP_Q34-p0.1">OF THE PERSON OF THE SON (THREE ARTICLES)</h3> <p id="FP_Q34-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q34-p2"> We next consider the person of the Son. Three names are attributed to the Son---namely, "Son," "Word," and "Image." The idea of Son is gathered from the idea of Father. Hence it remains for us to consider Word and Image. </p> <p id="FP_Q34-p3"> Concerning Word there are three points of inquiry:</p> <p id="FP_Q34-p4"> (1) Whether Word is an essential term in God, or a personal term?</p> <p id="FP_Q34-p5"> (2) Whether it is the proper name of the Son?</p> <p id="FP_Q34-p6"> (3) Whether in the name of Word is expressed relation to creatures?</p> <div id="FP_Q34_A1" class="div4"> <a href="summa.FP_Q34.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q34_A2.html"></a> <h4 id="FP_Q34_A1-p0.1">Whether Word in God is a personal name?</h4> <p id="FP_Q34_A1-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q34_A1-p2"> <b>Objection 1:</b> 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 ( <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q34_A1-p2.1" href="./asv.html#John.1.1" target="asv">Jn. 1:1</a>), "In the beginning was the Word." Therefore Word is not a personal name in God. </p> <p id="FP_Q34_A1-p3"> <b>Objection 2:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q34_A1-p4"> <b>Objection 3:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q34_A1-p5"> <b>Objection 4:</b> 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" ( <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q34_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.148.8" target="asv">Ps. 148:8</a>). Therefore the Word is not a personal name in God. </p> <p id="FP_Q34_A1-p6"> <b>On the contrary,</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q34_A1-p7"> <b>I answer that,</b> The name of Word in God, if taken in its proper sense, is a personal name, and in no way an essential name. </p> <p id="FP_Q34_A1-p8"> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q34_A1-p9"> 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 ( <a id="FP_Q34_A1-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q27_A3.html">Q[27], AA[3]</a>,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. </p> <p id="FP_Q34_A1-p10"> <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q34_A1-p11"> <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> 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." </p> <p id="FP_Q34_A1-p12"> <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> 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 ( <a id="FP_Q34_A1-p12.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q14_A4.html">Q[14], AA[4]</a>,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. </p> <p id="FP_Q34_A1-p13"> <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q34_A1-p14"></p> <p id="FP_Q34_A1-p15"></p> <a href="summa.FP_Q34.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q34_A2.html"></a> </div> <div id="FP_Q34_A2" class="div4"> <a href="summa.FP_Q34_A1.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q34_A3.html"></a> <h4 id="FP_Q34_A2-p0.1">Whether "Word" is the Son's proper name?</h4> <p id="FP_Q34_A2-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q34_A2-p2"> <b>Objection 1:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q34_A2-p3"> <b>Objection 2:</b> 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). </p> <p id="FP_Q34_A2-p4"> <b>Objection 3:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q34_A2-p5"> <b>Objection 4:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q34_A2-p6"> <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, it is said of the Son ( <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q34_A2-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.1.3" target="asv">Heb. 1:3</a>): "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. </p> <p id="FP_Q34_A2-p7"> <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (De Trin. vi, 11): "By Word we understand the Son alone." </p> <p id="FP_Q34_A2-p8"> <b>I answer that,</b> "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 ( <a id="FP_Q34_A2-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q27_A2.html">Q[27], A[2]</a>). Hence it follows that the Son alone is properly called Word in God. </p> <p id="FP_Q34_A2-p9"> <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> "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." </p> <p id="FP_Q34_A2-p10"> <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> 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). </p> <p id="FP_Q34_A2-p11"> <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q34_A2-p12"> <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> 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 ( <a id="FP_Q34_A2-p12.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q14_A2.html">Q[14], AA[2]</a>,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. </p> <p id="FP_Q34_A2-p13"> <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q34_A2-p14"></p> <p id="FP_Q34_A2-p15"></p> <a href="summa.FP_Q34_A1.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q34_A3.html"></a> </div> <div id="FP_Q34_A3" class="div4"> <a href="summa.FP_Q34_A2.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q35.html"></a> <h4 id="FP_Q34_A3-p0.1">Whether the name "Word" imports relation to creatures?</h4> <p id="FP_Q34_A3-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q34_A3-p2"> <b>Objection 1:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q34_A3-p3"> <b>Objection 2:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q34_A3-p4"> <b>Objection 3:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q34_A3-p5"> <b>Objection 4:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q34_A3-p6"> <b>Objection 5:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q34_A3-p7"> <b>On the contrary,</b> 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." </p> <p id="FP_Q34_A3-p8"> <b>I answer that,</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q34_A3-p9"> 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 ( <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q34_A3-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.32.9" target="asv">Ps. 32:9</a>): "He spake, and they were made;" because in the Word is implied the operative idea of what God makes. </p> <p id="FP_Q34_A3-p10"> <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q34_A3-p11"> <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q34_A3-p12"> <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q34_A3-p13"> <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q34_A3-p14"> <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q34_A3-p15"></p> <p id="FP_Q34_A3-p16"></p> <a href="summa.FP_Q34_A2.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q35.html"></a> </div> <a href="summa.FP_Q33_A4.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q34_A1.html"></a> </div> <div id="FP_Q35" class="div3"> <a href="summa.FP_Q34_A3.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q35_A1.html"></a> <h3 id="FP_Q35-p0.1">OF THE IMAGE (TWO ARTICLES)</h3> <p id="FP_Q35-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q35-p2"> We next inquire concerning the image: about which there are two points of inquiry:</p> <p id="FP_Q35-p3"> (1) Whether Image in God is said personally?</p> <p id="FP_Q35-p4"> (2) Whether this name belongs to the Son alone?</p> <div id="FP_Q35_A1" class="div4"> <a href="summa.FP_Q35.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q35_A2.html"></a> <h4 id="FP_Q35_A1-p0.1">Whether image in God is said personally?</h4> <p id="FP_Q35_A1-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q35_A1-p2"> <b>Objection 1:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q35_A1-p3"> <b>Objection 2:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q35_A1-p4"> <b>Objection 3:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q35_A1-p5"> <b>On the contrary,</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q35_A1-p6"> <b>I answer that,</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q35_A1-p7"> <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q35_A1-p8"> <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> "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. </p> <p id="FP_Q35_A1-p9"> <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Imitation in God does not signify posteriority, but only assimilation. </p> <p id="FP_Q35_A1-p10"></p> <p id="FP_Q35_A1-p11"></p> <a href="summa.FP_Q35.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q35_A2.html"></a> </div> <div id="FP_Q35_A2" class="div4"> <a href="summa.FP_Q35_A1.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q36.html"></a> <h4 id="FP_Q35_A2-p0.1">Whether the name of Image is proper to the Son?</h4> <p id="FP_Q35_A2-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q35_A2-p2"> <b>Objection 1:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q35_A2-p3"> <b>Objection 2:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q35_A2-p4"> <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, man is also called the image of God, according to <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q35_A2-p4.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.11.7" target="asv">1 Cor. 11:7</a>, "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. </p> <p id="FP_Q35_A2-p5"> <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (De Trin. vi, 2): "The Son alone is the Image of the Father." </p> <p id="FP_Q35_A2-p6"> <b>I answer that,</b> 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" ( <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q35_A2-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Col.1.15" target="asv">Col. 1:15</a>) and again: "Who being the brightness of His glory, and the figure of His substance." ( <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q35_A2-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Heb.1.3" target="asv">Heb. 1:3 </a>). </p> <p id="FP_Q35_A2-p7"> 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 ( <a id="FP_Q35_A2-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q36_A4.html">Q[36], A[4]</a> ). 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q35_A2-p8"> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q35_A2-p9"> <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Damascene and the other Greek Doctors commonly employ the term image as meaning a perfect similitude. </p> <p id="FP_Q35_A2-p10"> <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q35_A2-p11"> <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> 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. </p> <p id="FP_Q35_A2-p12"></p> <p id="FP_Q35_A2-p13"></p> <a href="summa.FP_Q35_A1.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q36.html"></a> </div> <a href="summa.FP_Q34_A3.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q35_A1.html"></a> </div> <div id="FP_Q36" class="div3"> <a href="summa.FP_Q35_A2.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q36_A1.html"></a> <h3 id="FP_Q36-p0.1">OF THE PERSON OF THE HOLY GHOST (FOUR ARTICLES)</h3> <p id="FP_Q36-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q36-p2"> We proceed to treat of what belongs to the person of the Holy Ghost, Who is called not only the Holy Ghost, but also the Love and Gift of God. Concerning the name "Holy Ghost" there are four points of inquiry: </p> <p id="FP_Q36-p3"> (1) Whether this name, "Holy Ghost," is the proper name of one divine Person?</p> <p id="FP_Q36-p4"> (2) Whether that divine person Who is called the Holy Ghost, proceeds from the Father and the Son?</p> <p id="FP_Q36-p5"> (3) Whether He proceeds from the Father through the Son?</p> <p id="FP_Q36-p6"> (4) Whether the Father and the Son are one principle of the Holy Ghost?</p> <div id="FP_Q36_A1" class="div4"> <a href="summa.FP_Q36.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q36_A2.html"></a> <h4 id="FP_Q36_A1-p0.1">Whether this name "Holy Ghost" is the proper name of one divine person?</h4> <p id="FP_Q36_A1-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q36_A1-p2"> <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that this name, "Holy Ghost," is not the proper name of one divine person. For no name which is common to the three persons is the proper name of any one person. But this name of 'Holy Ghost' [*It should be borne in mind that the word "ghost" is the old English equivalent for the Latin "spiritus," whether in the sense of "breath" or "blast," or in the sense of "spirit," as an immaterial substance. Thus, we read in the former sense (Hampole, Psalter x, 7), "The Gost of Storms" [spiritus procellarum], and in the latter "Trubled gost is sacrifice of God" (Prose Psalter, A.D. 1325), and "Oure wrestlynge is . . . against the spiritual wicked gostes of the ayre" (More, "Comfort against Tribulation"); and in our modern expression of "giving up the ghost." As applied to God, and not specially to the third Holy Person, we have an example from Maunder, "Jhesu Criste was the worde and the goste of Good." (See Oxford Dictionary).] is common to the three persons; for Hilary (De Trin. viii) shows that the "Spirit of God" sometimes means the Father, as in the words of <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q36_A1-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.61.1" target="asv"> Is. 61:1</a>: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me;" and sometimes the Son, as when the Son says: "In the Spirit of God I cast out devils" ( <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q36_A1-p2.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.12.28" target="asv">Mat. 12:28</a>), showing that He cast out devils by His own natural power; and that sometimes it means the Holy Ghost, as in the words of <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q36_A1-p2.3" href="./asv.html#Joel.2.28" target="asv"> Joel 2:28</a>: "I will pour out of My Spirit over all flesh." Therefore this name 'Holy Ghost' is not the proper name of a divine person. </p> <p id="FP_Q36_A1-p3"> <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the names of the divine persons are relative terms, as Boethius says (De Trin.). But this name "Holy Ghost" is not a relative term. Therefore this name is not the proper name of a divine Person. </p> <p id="FP_Q36_A1-p4"> <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, because the Son is the name of a divine Person He cannot be called the Son of this or of that. But the spirit is spoken of as of this or that man, as appears in the words, "The Lord said to Moses, I will take of thy spirit and will give to them" ( <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q36_A1-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Num.11.17" target="asv">Num. 11:17</a>) and also "The Spirit of Elias rested upon Eliseus" ( <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q36_A1-p4.2" href="./asv.html#." target="asv">4 Kings 2:15</a>). Therefore "Holy Ghost" does not seem to be the proper name of a divine Person. </p> <p id="FP_Q36_A1-p5"> <b>On the contrary,</b> It is said ( <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q36_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#iJohn.5.7" target="asv">1 Jn. 5:7</a>): "There are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost." As Augustine says (De Trin. vii, 4): "When we ask, Three what? we say, Three persons." Therefore the Holy Ghost is the name of a divine person. </p> <p id="FP_Q36_A1-p6"> <b>I answer that,</b> While there are two processions in God, one of these, the procession of love, has no proper name of its own, as stated above ( <a id="FP_Q36_A1-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q27_A4.html">Q[27] , A[4]</a>, ad 3). Hence the relations also which follow from this procession are without a name ( <a id="FP_Q36_A1-p6.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q28_A4.html">Q[28], A[4]</a>): for which reason the Person proceeding in that manner has not a proper name. But as some names are accommodated by the usual mode of speaking to signify the aforesaid relations, as when we use the names of procession and spiration, which in the strict sense more fittingly signify the notional acts than the relations; so to signify the divine Person, Who proceeds by way of love, this name "Holy Ghost" is by the use of scriptural speech accommodated to Him. The appropriateness of this name may be shown in two ways. Firstly, from the fact that the person who is called "Holy Ghost" has something in common with the other Persons. For, as Augustine says (De Trin. xv, 17; v, 11), "Because the Holy Ghost is common to both, He Himself is called that properly which both are called in common. For the Father also is a spirit, and the Son is a spirit; and the Father is holy, and the Son is holy." Secondly, from the proper signification of the name. For the name spirit in things corporeal seems to signify impulse and motion; for we call the breath and the wind by the term spirit. Now it is a property of love to move and impel the will of the lover towards the object loved. Further, holiness is attributed to whatever is ordered to God. Therefore because the divine person proceeds by way of the love whereby God is loved, that person is most properly named "The Holy Ghost." </p> <p id="FP_Q36_A1-p7"> <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The expression Holy Spirit, if taken as two words, is applicable to the whole Trinity: because by 'spirit' the immateriality of the divine substance is signified; for corporeal spirit is invisible, and has but little matter; hence we apply this term to all immaterial and invisible substances. And by adding the word "holy" we signify the purity of divine goodness. But if Holy Spirit be taken as one word, it is thus that the expression, in the usage of the Church, is accommodated to signify one of the three persons, the one who proceeds by way of love, for the reason above explained. </p> <p id="FP_Q36_A1-p8"> <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Although this name "Holy Ghost" does not indicate a relation, still it takes the place of a relative term, inasmuch as it is accommodated to signify a Person distinct from the others by relation only. Yet this name may be understood as including a relation, if we understand the Holy Spirit as being breathed [spiratus]. </p> <p id="FP_Q36_A1-p9"> <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> In the name Son we understand that relation only which is of something from a principle, in regard to that principle: but in the name "Father" we understand the relation of principle; and likewise in the name of Spirit inasmuch as it implies a moving power. But to no creature does it belong to be a principle as regards a divine person; but rather the reverse. Therefore we can say "our Father," and "our Spirit"; but we cannot say "our Son." </p> <p id="FP_Q36_A1-p10"></p> <p id="FP_Q36_A1-p11"></p> <a href="summa.FP_Q36.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q36_A2.html"></a> </div> <div id="FP_Q36_A2" class="div4"> <a href="summa.FP_Q36_A1.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q36_A3.html"></a> <h4 id="FP_Q36_A2-p0.1">Whether the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son?</h4> <p id="FP_Q36_A2-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q36_A2-p2"> <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son. For as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. i): "We must not dare to say anything concerning the substantial Divinity except what has been divinely expressed to us by the sacred oracles." But in the Sacred Scripture we are not told that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son; but only that He proceeds from the Father, as appears from <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q36_A2-p2.1" href="./asv.html#John.15.26" target="asv"> Jn. 15:26</a>: "The Spirit of truth, Who proceeds from the Father." Therefore the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son. </p> <p id="FP_Q36_A2-p3"> <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, In the creed of the council of Constantinople (Can. vii) we read: "We believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Life-giver, who proceeds from the Father; with the Father and the Son to be adored and glorified." Therefore it should not be added in our Creed that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son; and those who added such a thing appear to be worthy of anathema. </p> <p id="FP_Q36_A2-p4"> <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. i): "We say that the Holy Ghost is from the Father, and we name Him the spirit of the Father; but we do not say that the Holy Ghost is from the Son, yet we name Him the Spirit of the Son." Therefore the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son. </p> <p id="FP_Q36_A2-p5"> <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, Nothing proceeds from that wherein it rests. But the Holy Ghost rests in the Son; for it is said in the legend of St. Andrew: "Peace be to you and to all who believe in the one God the Father, and in His only Son our Lord Jesus Christ, and in the one Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father, and abiding in the Son." Therefore the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son. </p> <p id="FP_Q36_A2-p6"> <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, the Son proceeds as the Word. But our breath [spiritus] does not seem to proceed in ourselves from our word. Therefore the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son. </p> <p id="FP_Q36_A2-p7"> <b>Objection 6:</b> Further, the Holy Ghost proceeds perfectly from the Father. Therefore it is superfluous to say that He proceeds from the Son. </p> <p id="FP_Q36_A2-p8"> <b>Objection 7:</b> Further "the actual and the possible do not differ in things perpetual" (Phys. iii, text 32), and much less so in God. But it is possible for the Holy Ghost to be distinguished from the Son, even if He did not proceed from Him. For Anselm says (De Process. Spir. Sancti, ii): "The Son and the Holy Ghost have their Being from the Father; but each in a different way; one by Birth, the other by Procession, so that they are thus distinct from one another." And further on he says: "For even if for no other reason were the Son and the Holy Ghost distinct, this alone would suffice." Therefore the Holy Spirit is distinct from the Son, without proceeding from Him. </p> <p id="FP_Q36_A2-p9"> <b>On the contrary,</b> Athanasius says: "The Holy Ghost is from the Father and the Son; not made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding." </p> <p id="FP_Q36_A2-p10"> <b>I answer that,</b> It must be said that the Holy Ghost is from the Son. For if He were not from Him, He could in no wise be personally distinguished from Him; as appears from what has been said above ( <a id="FP_Q36_A2-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q28_A3.html">Q[28], A[3]</a>; <a id="FP_Q36_A2-p10.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q30_A2.html">Q[30], A[2]</a>). For it cannot be said that the divine Persons are distinguished from each other in any absolute sense; for it would follow that there would not be one essence of the three persons: since everything that is spoken of God in an absolute sense, belongs to the unity of essence. Therefore it must be said that the divine persons are distinguished from each other only by the relations. Now the relations cannot distinguish the persons except forasmuch as they are opposite relations; which appears from the fact that the Father has two relations, by one of which He is related to the Son, and by the other to the Holy Ghost; but these are not opposite relations, and therefore they do not make two persons, but belong only to the one person of the Father. If therefore in the Son and the Holy Ghost there were two relations only, whereby each of them were related to the Father, these relations would not be opposite to each other, as neither would be the two relations whereby the Father is related to them. Hence, as the person of the Father is one, it would follow that the person of the Son and of the Holy Ghost would be one, having two relations opposed to the two relations of the Father. But this is heretical since it destroys the Faith in the Trinity. Therefore the Son and the Holy Ghost must be related to each other by opposite relations. Now there cannot be in God any relations opposed to each other, except relations of origin, as proved above ( <a id="FP_Q36_A2-p10.3" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q28_A44.html">Q[28], A[44]</a>). And opposite relations of origin are to be understood as of a "principle," and of what is "from the principle." Therefore we must conclude that it is necessary to say that either the Son is from the Holy Ghost; which no one says; or that the Holy Ghost is from the Son, as we confess. </p> <p id="FP_Q36_A2-p11"> Furthermore, the order of the procession of each one agrees with this conclusion. For it was said above ( <a id="FP_Q36_A2-p11.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q27_A2.html">Q[27], AA[2]</a>,4; <a id="FP_Q36_A2-p11.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q28_A4.html">Q[28], A[4]</a>), that the Son proceeds by the way of the intellect as Word, and the Holy Ghost by way of the will as Love. Now love must proceed from a word. For we do not love anything unless we apprehend it by a mental conception. Hence also in this way it is manifest that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son. </p> <p id="FP_Q36_A2-p12"> We derive a knowledge of the same truth from the very order of nature itself. For we nowhere find that several things proceed from one without order except in those which differ only by their matter; as for instance one smith produces many knives distinct from each other materially, with no order to each other; whereas in things in which there is not only a material distinction we always find that some order exists in the multitude produced. Hence also in the order of creatures produced, the beauty of the divine wisdom is displayed. So if from the one Person of the Father, two persons proceed, the Son and the Holy Ghost, there must be some order between them. Nor can any other be assigned except the order of their nature, whereby one is from the other. Therefore it cannot be said that the Son and the Holy Ghost proceed from the Father in such a way as that neither of them proceeds from the other, unless we admit in them a material distinction; which is impossible. </p> <p id="FP_Q36_A2-p13"> Hence also the Greeks themselves recognize that the procession of the Holy Ghost has some order to the Son. For they grant that the Holy Ghost is the Spirit "of the Son"; and that He is from the Father "through the Son." Some of them are said also to concede that "He is from the Son"; or that "He flows from the Son," but not that He proceeds; which seems to come from ignorance or obstinacy. For a just consideration of the truth will convince anyone that the word procession is the one most commonly applied to all that denotes origin of any kind. For we use the term to describe any kind of origin; as when we say that a line proceeds from a point, a ray from the sun, a stream from a source, and likewise in everything else. Hence, granted that the Holy Ghost originates in any way from the Son, we can conclude that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son. </p> <p id="FP_Q36_A2-p14"> <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> We ought not to say about God anything which is not found in Holy Scripture either explicitly or implicitly. But although we do not find it verbally expressed in Holy Scripture that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son, still we do find it in the sense of Scripture, especially where the Son says, speaking of the Holy Ghost, "He will glorify Me, because He shall receive of Mine" ( <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q36_A2-p14.1" href="./asv.html#John.16.14" target="asv">Jn. 16:14</a>). It is also a rule of Holy Scripture that whatever is said of the Father, applies to the Son, although there be added an exclusive term; except only as regards what belongs to the opposite relations, whereby the Father and the Son are distinguished from each other. For when the Lord says, "No one knoweth the Son, but the Father," the idea of the Son knowing Himself is not excluded. So therefore when we say that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, even though it be added that He proceeds from the Father alone, the Son would not thereby be at all excluded; because as regards being the principle of the Holy Ghost, the Father and the Son are not opposed to each other, but only as regards the fact that one is the Father, and the other is the Son. </p> <p id="FP_Q36_A2-p15"> <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> In every council of the Church a symbol of faith has been drawn up to meet some prevalent error condemned in the council at that time. Hence subsequent councils are not to be described as making a new symbol of faith; but what was implicitly contained in the first symbol was explained by some addition directed against rising heresies. Hence in the decision of the council of Chalcedon it is declared that those who were congregated together in the council of Constantinople, handed down the doctrine about the Holy Ghost, not implying that there was anything wanting in the doctrine of their predecessors who had gathered together at Nicaea, but explaining what those fathers had understood of the matter. Therefore, because at the time of the ancient councils the error of those who said that the Holy Ghost did not proceed from the Son had not arisen, it was not necessary to make any explicit declaration on that point; whereas, later on, when certain errors rose up, another council [*Council of Rome, under Pope Damasus] assembled in the west, the matter was explicitly defined by the authority of the Roman Pontiff, by whose authority also the ancient councils were summoned and confirmed. Nevertheless the truth was contained implicitly in the belief that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father. </p> <p id="FP_Q36_A2-p16"> <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The Nestorians were the first to introduce the error that the Holy Ghost did not proceed from the Son, as appears in a Nestorian creed condemned in the council of Ephesus. This error was embraced by Theodoric the Nestorian, and several others after him, among whom was also Damascene. Hence, in that point his opinion is not to be held. Although, too, it has been asserted by some that while Damascene did not confess that the Holy Ghost was from the Son, neither do those words of his express a denial thereof. </p> <p id="FP_Q36_A2-p17"> <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> When the Holy Ghost is said to rest or abide in the Son, it does not mean that He does not proceed from Him; for the Son also is said to abide in the Father, although He proceeds from the Father. Also the Holy Ghost is said to rest in the Son as the love of the lover abides in the beloved; or in reference to the human nature of Christ, by reason of what is written: "On whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, He it is who baptizes" ( <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q36_A2-p17.1" href="./asv.html#John.1.33" target="asv">Jn. 1:33</a>). </p> <p id="FP_Q36_A2-p18"> <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> The Word in God is not taken after the similitude of the vocal word, whence the breath [spiritus] does not proceed; for it would then be only metaphorical; but after the similitude of the mental word, whence proceeds love. </p> <p id="FP_Q36_A2-p19"> <b>Reply to Objection 6:</b> For the reason that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father perfectly, not only is it not superfluous to say He proceeds from the Son, but rather it is absolutely necessary. Forasmuch as one power belongs to the Father and the Son; and because whatever is from the Father, must be from the Son unless it be opposed to the property of filiation; for the Son is not from Himself, although He is from the Father. </p> <p id="FP_Q36_A2-p20"> <b>Reply to Objection 7:</b> The Holy Ghost is distinguished from the Son, inasmuch as the origin of one is distinguished from the origin of the other; but the difference itself of origin comes from the fact that the Son is only from the Father, whereas the Holy Ghost is from the Father and the Son; for otherwise the processions would not be distinguished from each other, as explained above, and in <a id="FP_Q36_A2-p20.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q27.html">Q[27].</a> </p> <p id="FP_Q36_A2-p21"></p> <p id="FP_Q36_A2-p22"></p> <a href="summa.FP_Q36_A1.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q36_A3.html"></a> </div> <div id="FP_Q36_A3" class="div4"> <a href="summa.FP_Q36_A2.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q36_A4.html"></a> <h4 id="FP_Q36_A3-p0.1">Whether the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father through the Son?</h4> <p id="FP_Q36_A3-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q36_A3-p2"> <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Father through the Son. For whatever proceeds from one through another, does not proceed immediately. Therefore, if the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father through the Son, He does not proceed immediately; which seems to be unfitting. </p> <p id="FP_Q36_A3-p3"> <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, if the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father through the Son, He does not proceed from the Son, except on account of the Father. But "whatever causes a thing to be such is yet more so." Therefore He proceeds more from the Father than from the Son. </p> <p id="FP_Q36_A3-p4"> <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the Son has His being by generation. Therefore if the Holy Ghost is from the Father through the Son, it follows that the Son is first generated and afterwards the Holy Ghost proceeds; and thus the procession of the Holy Ghost is not eternal, which is heretical. </p> <p id="FP_Q36_A3-p5"> <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, when anyone acts through another, the same may be said conversely. For as we say that the king acts through the bailiff, so it can be said conversely that the bailiff acts through the king. But we can never say that the Son spirates the Holy Ghost through the Father. Therefore it can never be said that the Father spirates the Holy Ghost through the Son. </p> <p id="FP_Q36_A3-p6"> <b>On the contrary,</b> Hilary says (De Trin. xii): "Keep me, I pray, in this expression of my faith, that I may ever possess the Father---namely Thyself: that I may adore Thy Son together with Thee: and that I may deserve Thy Holy Spirit, who is through Thy Only Begotten." </p> <p id="FP_Q36_A3-p7"> <b>I answer that,</b> Whenever one is said to act through another, this preposition "through" points out, in what is covered by it, some cause or principle of that act. But since action is a mean between the agent and the thing done, sometimes that which is covered by the preposition "through" is the cause of the action, as proceeding from the agent; and in that case it is the cause of why the agent acts, whether it be a final cause or a formal cause, whether it be effective or motive. It is a final cause when we say, for instance, that the artisan works through love of gain. It is a formal cause when we say that he works through his art. It is a motive cause when we say that he works through the command of another. Sometimes, however, that which is covered by this preposition "through" is the cause of the action regarded as terminated in the thing done; as, for instance, when we say, the artisan acts through the mallet, for this does not mean that the mallet is the cause why the artisan acts, but that it is the cause why the thing made proceeds from the artisan, and that it has even this effect from the artisan. This is why it is sometimes said that this preposition "through" sometimes denotes direct authority, as when we say, the king works through the bailiff; and sometimes indirect authority, as when we say, the bailiff works through the king. </p> <p id="FP_Q36_A3-p8"> Therefore, because the Son receives from the Father that the Holy Ghost proceeds from Him, it can be said that the Father spirates the Holy Ghost through the Son, or that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father through the Son, which has the same meaning. </p> <p id="FP_Q36_A3-p9"> <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> In every action two things are to be considered, the "suppositum" acting, and the power whereby it acts; as, for instance, fire heats through heat. So if we consider in the Father and the Son the power whereby they spirate the Holy Ghost, there is no mean, for this is one and the same power. But if we consider the persons themselves spirating, then, as the Holy Ghost proceeds both from the Father and from the Son, the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father immediately, as from Him, and mediately, as from the Son; and thus He is said to proceed from the Father through the Son. So also did Abel proceed immediately from Adam, inasmuch as Adam was his father; and mediately, as Eve was his mother, who proceeded from Adam; although, indeed, this example of a material procession is inept to signify the immaterial procession of the divine persons. </p> <p id="FP_Q36_A3-p10"> <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> If the Son received from the Father a numerically distinct power for the spiration of the Holy Ghost, it would follow that He would be a secondary and instrumental cause; and thus the Holy Ghost would proceed more from the Father than from the Son; whereas, on the contrary, the same spirative power belongs to the Father and to the Son; and therefore the Holy Ghost proceeds equally from both, although sometimes He is said to proceed principally or properly from the Father, because the Son has this power from the Father. </p> <p id="FP_Q36_A3-p11"> <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As the begetting of the Son is co-eternal with the begetter (and hence the Father does not exist before begetting the Son), so the procession of the Holy Ghost is co-eternal with His principle. Hence, the Son was not begotten before the Holy Ghost proceeded; but each of the operations is eternal. </p> <p id="FP_Q36_A3-p12"> <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> When anyone is said to work through anything, the converse proposition is not always true. For we do not say that the mallet works through the carpenter; whereas we can say that the bailiff acts through the king, because it is the bailiff's place to act, since he is master of his own act, but it is not the mallet's place to act, but only to be made to act, and hence it is used only as an instrument. The bailiff is, however, said to act through the king, although this preposition "through" denotes a medium, for the more a "suppositum" is prior in action, so much the more is its power immediate as regards the effect, inasmuch as the power of the first cause joins the second cause to its effect. Hence also first principles are said to be immediate in the demonstrative sciences. Therefore, so far as the bailiff is a medium according to the order of the subject's acting, the king is said to work through the bailiff; but according to the order of powers, the bailiff is said to act through the king, forasmuch as the power of the king gives the bailiff's action its effect. Now there is no order of power between Father and Son, but only order of 'supposita'; and hence we say that the Father spirates through the Son; and not conversely. </p> <p id="FP_Q36_A3-p13"></p> <p id="FP_Q36_A3-p14"></p> <a href="summa.FP_Q36_A2.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q36_A4.html"></a> </div> <div id="FP_Q36_A4" class="div4"> <a href="summa.FP_Q36_A3.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q37.html"></a> <h4 id="FP_Q36_A4-p0.1">Whether the Father and the Son are one principle of the Holy Ghost?</h4> <p id="FP_Q36_A4-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q36_A4-p2"> <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the Father and the Son are not one principle of the Holy Ghost. For the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Father and the Son as they are one; not as they are one in nature, for the Holy Ghost would in that way proceed from Himself, as He is one in nature with Them; nor again inasmuch as they are united in any one property, for it is clear that one property cannot belong to two subjects. Therefore the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son as distinct from one another. Therefore the Father and the Son are not one principle of the Holy Ghost. </p> <p id="FP_Q36_A4-p3"> <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, in this proposition "the Father and the Son are one principle of the Holy Ghost," we do not designate personal unity, because in that case the Father and the Son would be one person; nor again do we designate the unity of property, because if one property were the reason of the Father and the Son being one principle of the Holy Ghost, similarly, on account of His two properties, the Father would be two principles of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, which cannot be admitted. Therefore the Father and the Son are not one principle of the Holy Ghost. </p> <p id="FP_Q36_A4-p4"> <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the Son is not one with the Father more than is the Holy Ghost. But the Holy Ghost and the Father are not one principle as regards any other divine person. Therefore neither are the Father and the Son. </p> <p id="FP_Q36_A4-p5"> <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, if the Father and the Son are one principle of the Holy Ghost, this one is either the Father or it is not the Father. But we cannot assert either of these positions because if the one is the Father, it follows that the Son is the Father; and if the one is not the Father, it follows that the Father is not the Father. Therefore we cannot say that the Father and the Son are one principle of the Holy Ghost. </p> <p id="FP_Q36_A4-p6"> <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, if the Father and the Son are one principle of the Holy Ghost, it seems necessary to say, conversely, that the one principle of the Holy Ghost is the Father and the Son. But this seems to be false; for this word "principle" stands either for the person of the Father, or for the person of the Son; and in either sense it is false. Therefore this proposition also is false, that the Father and the Son are one principle of the Holy Ghost. </p> <p id="FP_Q36_A4-p7"> <b>Objection 6:</b> Further, unity in substance makes identity. So if the Father and the Son are the one principle of the Holy Ghost, it follows that they are the same principle; which is denied by many. Therefore we cannot grant that the Father and the Son are one principle of the Holy Ghost. </p> <p id="FP_Q36_A4-p8"> <b>Objection 7:</b> Further, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are called one Creator, because they are the one principle of the creature. But the Father and the Son are not one, but two Spirators, as many assert; and this agrees also with what Hilary says (De Trin. ii) that "the Holy Ghost is to be confessed as proceeding from Father and Son as authors." Therefore the Father and the Son are not one principle of the Holy Ghost. </p> <p id="FP_Q36_A4-p9"> <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (De Trin. v, 14) that the Father and the Son are not two principles, but one principle of the Holy Ghost. </p> <p id="FP_Q36_A4-p10"> <b>I answer that,</b> The Father and the Son are in everything one, wherever there is no distinction between them of opposite relation. Hence since there is no relative opposition between them as the principle of the Holy Ghost it follows that the Father and the Son are one principle of the Holy Ghost. </p> <p id="FP_Q36_A4-p11"> Some, however, assert that this proposition is incorrect: "The Father and the Son are one principle of the Holy Ghost," because, they declare, since the word "principle" in the singular number does not signify "person," but "property," it must be taken as an adjective; and forasmuch as an adjective cannot be modified by another adjective, it cannot properly be said that the Father and the Son are one principle of the Holy Ghost unless one be taken as an adverb, so that the meaning should be: They are one principle---that is, in one and the same way. But then it might be equally right to say that the Father is two principles of the Son and of the Holy Ghost---namely, in two ways. Therefore, we must say that, although this word "principle" signifies a property, it does so after the manner of a substantive, as do the words "father" and "son" even in things created. Hence it takes its number from the form it signifies, like other substantives. Therefore, as the Father and the Son are one God, by reason of the unity of the form that is signified by this word "God"; so they are one principle of the Holy Ghost by reason of the unity of the property that is signified in this word "principle." </p> <p id="FP_Q36_A4-p12"> <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> If we consider the spirative power, the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son as they are one in the spirative power, which in a certain way signifies the nature with the property, as we shall see later (ad 7). Nor is there any reason against one property being in two "supposita" that possess one common nature. But if we consider the "supposita" of the spiration, then we may say that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son, as distinct; for He proceeds from them as the unitive love of both. </p> <p id="FP_Q36_A4-p13"> <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> In the proposition "the Father and the Son are one principle of the Holy Ghost," one property is designated which is the form signified by the term. It does not thence follow that by reason of the several properties the Father can be called several principles, for this would imply in Him a plurality of subjects. </p> <p id="FP_Q36_A4-p14"> <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> It is not by reason of relative properties that we speak of similitude or dissimilitude in God, but by reason of the essence. Hence, as the Father is not more like to Himself than He is to the Son; so likewise neither is the Son more like to the Father than is the Holy Ghost. </p> <p id="FP_Q36_A4-p15"> <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> These two propositions, "The Father and the Son are one principle which is the Father," or, "one principle which is not the Father," are not mutually contradictory; and hence it is not necessary to assert one or other of them. For when we say the Father and the Son are one principle, this word "principle" has not determinate supposition but rather it stands indeterminately for two persons together. Hence there is a fallacy of "figure of speech" as the argument concludes from the indeterminate to the determinate. </p> <p id="FP_Q36_A4-p16"> <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> This proposition is also true:---The one principle of the Holy Ghost is the Father and the Son; because the word "principle" does not stand for one person only, but indistinctly for the two persons as above explained. </p> <p id="FP_Q36_A4-p17"> <b>Reply to Objection 6:</b> There is no reason against saying that the Father and the Son are the same principle, because the word "principle" stands confusedly and indistinctly for the two Persons together. </p> <p id="FP_Q36_A4-p18"> <b>Reply to Objection 7:</b> Some say that although the Father and the Son are one principle of the Holy Ghost, there are two spirators, by reason of the distinction of "supposita," as also there are two spirating, because acts refer to subjects. Yet this does not hold good as to the name "Creator"; because the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two distinct persons, as above explained; whereas the creature proceeds from the three persons not as distinct persons, but as united in essence. It seems, however, better to say that because spirating is an adjective, and spirator a substantive, we can say that the Father and the Son are two spirating, by reason of the plurality of the "supposita" but not two spirators by reason of the one spiration. For adjectival words derive their number from the "supposita" but substantives from themselves, according to the form signified. As to what Hilary says, that "the Holy ghost is from the Father and the Son as His authors," this is to be explained in the sense that the substantive here stands for the adjective. </p> <p id="FP_Q36_A4-p19"></p> <p id="FP_Q36_A4-p20"></p> <a href="summa.FP_Q36_A3.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q37.html"></a> </div> <a href="summa.FP_Q35_A2.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q36_A1.html"></a> </div> <div id="FP_Q37" class="div3"> <a href="summa.FP_Q36_A4.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q37_A1.html"></a> <h3 id="FP_Q37-p0.1">OF THE NAME OF THE HOLY GHOST---LOVE (TWO ARTICLES)</h3> <p id="FP_Q37-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q37-p2"> We now inquire concerning the name "Love," on which arise two points of inquiry:</p> <p id="FP_Q37-p3"> (1) Whether it is the proper name of the Holy Ghost?</p> <p id="FP_Q37-p4"> (2) Whether the Father and the Son love each other by the Holy Ghost?</p> <div id="FP_Q37_A1" class="div4"> <a href="summa.FP_Q37.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q37_A2.html"></a> <h4 id="FP_Q37_A1-p0.1">Whether "Love" is the proper name of the Holy Ghost?</h4> <p id="FP_Q37_A1-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q37_A1-p2"> <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that "Love" is not the proper name of the Holy Ghost. For Augustine says (De Trin. xv, 17): "As the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are called Wisdom, and are not three Wisdoms, but one; I know not why the Father, Son and Holy Ghost should not be called Charity, and all together one Charity." But no name which is predicated in the singular of each person and of all together, is a proper name of a person. Therefore this name, "Love," is not the proper name of the Holy Ghost. </p> <p id="FP_Q37_A1-p3"> <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the Holy Ghost is a subsisting person, but love is not used to signify a subsisting person, but rather an action passing from the lover to the beloved. Therefore Love is not the proper name of the Holy Ghost. </p> <p id="FP_Q37_A1-p4"> <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Love is the bond between lovers, for as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv): "Love is a unitive force." But a bond is a medium between what it joins together, not something proceeding from them. Therefore, since the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son, as was shown above ( <a id="FP_Q37_A1-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q36_A2.html">Q[36], A[2]</a>), it seems that He is not the Love or bond of the Father and the Son. </p> <p id="FP_Q37_A1-p5"> <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, Love belongs to every lover. But the Holy Ghost is a lover: therefore He has love. So if the Holy Ghost is Love, He must be love of love, and spirit from spirit; which is not admissible. </p> <p id="FP_Q37_A1-p6"> <b>On the contrary,</b> Gregory says (Hom. xxx, in Pentecost.): "The Holy Ghost Himself is Love." </p> <p id="FP_Q37_A1-p7"> <b>I answer that,</b> The name Love in God can be taken essentially and personally. If taken personally it is the proper name of the Holy Ghost; as Word is the proper name of the Son. </p> <p id="FP_Q37_A1-p8"> To see this we must know that since as shown above ( <a id="FP_Q37_A1-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q27_A2.html">Q[27], AA[2]</a>,3,4,5), there are two processions in God, one by way of the intellect, which is the procession of the Word, and another by way of the will, which is the procession of Love; forasmuch as the former is the more known to us, we have been able to apply more suitable names to express our various considerations as regards that procession, but not as regards the procession of the will. Hence, we are obliged to employ circumlocution as regards the person Who proceeds, and the relations following from this procession which are called "procession" and "spiration," as stated above ( <a id="FP_Q37_A1-p8.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q27_A4.html">Q[27], A[4]</a>, ad 3), and yet express the origin rather than the relation in the strict sense of the term. Nevertheless we must consider them in respect of each procession simply. For as when a thing is understood by anyone, there results in the one who understands a conception of the object understood, which conception we call word; so when anyone loves an object, a certain impression results, so to speak, of the thing loved in the affection of the lover; by reason of which the object loved is said to be in the lover; as also the thing understood is in the one who understands; so that when anyone understands and loves himself he is in himself, not only by real identity, but also as the object understood is in the one who understands, and the thing loved is in the lover. As regards the intellect, however, words have been found to describe the mutual relation of the one who understands the object understood, as appears in the word "to understand"; and other words are used to express the procession of the intellectual conception---namely, "to speak," and "word." Hence in God, "to understand" is applied only to the essence; because it does not import relation to the Word that proceeds; whereas "Word" is said personally, because it signifies what proceeds; and the term "to speak" is a notional term as importing the relation of the principle of the Word to the Word Himself. On the other hand, on the part of the will, with the exception of the words "dilection" and "love," which express the relation of the lover to the object loved, there are no other terms in use, which express the relation of the impression or affection of the object loved, produced in the lover by fact that he loves---to the principle of that impression, or "vice versa." And therefore, on account of the poverty of our vocabulary, we express these relations by the words "love" and "dilection": just as if we were to call the Word "intelligence conceived," or "wisdom begotten." </p> <p id="FP_Q37_A1-p9"> It follows that so far as love means only the relation of the lover to the object loved, "love" and "to love" are said of the essence, as "understanding" and "to understand"; but, on the other hand, so far as these words are used to express the relation to its principle, of what proceeds by way of love, and "vice versa," so that by "love" is understood the "love proceeding," and by "to love" is understood "the spiration of the love proceeding," in that sense "love" is the name of the person and "to love" is a notional term, as "to speak" and "to beget." </p> <p id="FP_Q37_A1-p10"> <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Augustine is there speaking of charity as it means the divine essence, as was said above (here and <a id="FP_Q37_A1-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q24_A2.html">Q[24], A[2]</a>, ad 4). </p> <p id="FP_Q37_A1-p11"> <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Although to understand, and to will, and to love signify actions passing on to their objects, nevertheless they are actions that remain in the agents, as stated above ( <a id="FP_Q37_A1-p11.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q14_A4.html">Q[14], A[4]</a>), yet in such a way that in the agent itself they import a certain relation to their object. Hence, love also in ourselves is something that abides in the lover, and the word of the heart is something abiding in the speaker; yet with a relation to the thing expressed by word, or loved. But in God, in whom there is nothing accidental, there is more than this; because both Word and Love are subsistent. Therefore, when we say that the Holy Ghost is the Love of the Father for the Son, or for something else; we do not mean anything that passes into another, but only the relation of love to the beloved; as also in the Word is imported the relation of the Word to the thing expressed by the Word. </p> <p id="FP_Q37_A1-p12"> <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The Holy Ghost is said to be the bond of the Father and Son, inasmuch as He is Love; because, since the Father loves Himself and the Son with one Love, and conversely, there is expressed in the Holy Ghost, as Love, the relation of the Father to the Son, and conversely, as that of the lover to the beloved. But from the fact that the Father and the Son mutually love one another, it necessarily follows that this mutual Love, the Holy Ghost, proceeds from both. As regards origin, therefore, the Holy Ghost is not the medium, but the third person in the Trinity; whereas as regards the aforesaid relation He is the bond between the two persons, as proceeding from both. </p> <p id="FP_Q37_A1-p13"> <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> As it does not belong to the Son, though He understands, to produce a word, for it belongs to Him to understand as the word proceeding; so in like manner, although the Holy Ghost loves, taking Love as an essential term, still it does not belong to Him to spirate love, which is to take love as a notional term; because He loves essentially as love proceeding; but not as the one whence love proceeds. </p> <p id="FP_Q37_A1-p14"></p> <p id="FP_Q37_A1-p15"></p> <a href="summa.FP_Q37.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q37_A2.html"></a> </div> <div id="FP_Q37_A2" class="div4"> <a href="summa.FP_Q37_A1.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q38.html"></a> <h4 id="FP_Q37_A2-p0.1">Whether the Father and the Son love each other by the Holy Ghost?</h4> <p id="FP_Q37_A2-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q37_A2-p2"> <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the Father and the Son do not love each other by the Holy Ghost. For Augustine (De Trin. vii, 1) proves that the Father is not wise by the Wisdom begotten. But as the Son is Wisdom begotten, so the Holy Ghost is the Love proceeding, as explained above ( <a id="FP_Q37_A2-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q27_A3.html">Q[27], A[3]</a>). Therefore the Father and the Son do not love Themselves by the Love proceeding, which is the Holy Ghost. </p> <p id="FP_Q37_A2-p3"> <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the proposition, "The Father and the Son love each other by the Holy Ghost," this word "love" is to be taken either essentially or notionally. But it cannot be true if taken essentially, because in the same way we might say that "the Father understands by the Son"; nor, again, if it is taken notionally, for then, in like manner, it might be said that "the Father and the Son spirate by the Holy Ghost," or that "the Father generates by the Son." Therefore in no way is this proposition true: "'The Father and the Son love each other by the Holy Ghost." </p> <p id="FP_Q37_A2-p4"> <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, by the same love the Father loves the Son, and Himself, and us. But the Father does not love Himself by the Holy Ghost; for no notional act is reflected back on the principle of the act; since it cannot be said that the "Father begets Himself," or that "He spirates Himself." Therefore, neither can it be said that "He loves Himself by the Holy Ghost," if "to love" is taken in a notional sense. Again, the love wherewith He loves us is not the Holy Ghost; because it imports a relation to creatures, and this belongs to the essence. Therefore this also is false: "The Father loves the Son by the Holy Ghost." </p> <p id="FP_Q37_A2-p5"> <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (De Trin. vi, 5): "The Holy Ghost is He whereby the Begotten is loved by the one begetting and loves His Begetter." </p> <p id="FP_Q37_A2-p6"> <b>I answer that,</b> A difficulty about this question is objected to the effect that when we say, "the Father loves the Son by the Holy Ghost," since the ablative is construed as denoting a cause, it seems to mean that the Holy Ghost is the principle of love to the Father and the Son; which cannot be admitted. </p> <p id="FP_Q37_A2-p7"> In view of this difficulty some have held that it is false, that "the Father and the Son love each other by the Holy Ghost"; and they add that it was retracted by Augustine when he retracted its equivalent to the effect that "the Father is wise by the Wisdom begotten." Others say that the proposition is inaccurate and ought to be expounded, as that "the Father loves the Son by the Holy Ghost"---that is, "by His essential Love," which is appropriated to the Holy Ghost. Others further say that this ablative should be construed as importing a sign, so that it means, "the Holy Ghost is the sign that the Father loves the Son"; inasmuch as the Holy Ghost proceeds from them both, as Love. Others, again, say that this ablative must be construed as importing the relation of formal cause, because the Holy Ghost is the love whereby the Father and the Son formally love each other. Others, again, say that it should be construed as importing the relation of a formal effect; and these approach nearer to the truth. </p> <p id="FP_Q37_A2-p8"> To make the matter clear, we must consider that since a thing is commonly denominated from its forms, as "white" from whiteness, and "man" from humanity; everything whence anything is denominated, in this particular respect stands to that thing in the relation of form. So when I say, "this man is clothed with a garment," the ablative is to be construed as having relation to the formal cause, although the garment is not the form. Now it may happen that a thing may be denominated from that which proceeds from it, not only as an agent is from its action, but also as from the term itself of the action---that is, the effect, when the effect itself is included in the idea of the action. For we say that fire warms by heating, although heating is not the heat which is the form of the fire, but is an action proceeding from the fire; and we say that a tree flowers with the flower, although the flower is not the tree's form, but is the effect proceeding from the form. In this way, therefore, we must say that since in God "to love" is taken in two ways, essentially and notionally, when it is taken essentially, it means that the Father and the Son love each other not by the Holy Ghost, but by their essence. Hence Augustine says (De Trin. xv, 7): "Who dares to say that the Father loves neither Himself, nor the Son, nor the Holy Ghost, except by the Holy Ghost?" The opinions first quoted are to be taken in this sense. But when the term Love is taken in a notional sense it means nothing else than "to spirate love"; just as to speak is to produce a word, and to flower is to produce flowers. As therefore we say that a tree flowers by its flower, so do we say that the Father, by the Word or the Son, speaks Himself, and His creatures; and that the Father and the Son love each other and us, by the Holy Ghost, or by Love proceeding. </p> <p id="FP_Q37_A2-p9"> <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> To be wise or intelligent is taken only essentially in God; therefore we cannot say that "the Father is wise or intelligent by the Son." But to love is taken not only essentially, but also in a notional sense; and in this way, we can say that the Father and the Son love each other by the Holy Ghost, as was above explained. </p> <p id="FP_Q37_A2-p10"> <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> When the idea of an action includes a determined effect, the principle of the action may be denominated both from the action, and from the effect; so we can say, for instance, that a tree flowers by its flowering and by its flower. When, however, the idea of an action does not include a determined effect, then in that case, the principle of the action cannot be denominated from the effect, but only from the action. For we do not say that the tree produces the flower by the flower, but by the production of the flower. So when we say, "spirates" or "begets," this imports only a notional act. Hence we cannot say that the Father spirates by the Holy Ghost, or begets by the Son. But we can say that the Father speaks by the Word, as by the Person proceeding, "and speaks by the speaking," as by a notional act; forasmuch as "to speak" imports a determinate person proceeding; since "to speak" means to produce a word. Likewise to love, taken in a notional sense, means to produce love; and so it can be said that the Father loves the Son by the Holy Ghost, as by the person proceeding, and by Love itself as a notional act. </p> <p id="FP_Q37_A2-p11"> <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The Father loves not only the Son, but also Himself and us, by the Holy Ghost; because, as above explained, to love, taken in a notional sense, not only imports the production of a divine person, but also the person produced, by way of love, which has relation to the object loved. Hence, as the Father speaks Himself and every creature by His begotten Word, inasmuch as the Word "begotten" adequately represents the Father and every creature; so He loves Himself and every creature by the Holy Ghost, inasmuch as the Holy Ghost proceeds as the love of the primal goodness whereby the Father loves Himself and every creature. Thus it is evident that relation to the creature is implied both in the Word and in the proceeding Love, as it were in a secondary way, inasmuch as the divine truth and goodness are a principle of understanding and loving all creatures. </p> <p id="FP_Q37_A2-p12"></p> <p id="FP_Q37_A2-p13"></p> <a href="summa.FP_Q37_A1.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q38.html"></a> </div> <a href="summa.FP_Q36_A4.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q37_A1.html"></a> </div> <div id="FP_Q38" class="div3"> <a href="summa.FP_Q37_A2.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q38_A1.html"></a> <h3 id="FP_Q38-p0.1">OF THE NAME OF THE HOLY GHOST, AS GIFT (TWO ARTICLES)</h3> <p id="FP_Q38-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q38-p2"> There now follows the consideration of the Gift; concerning which there are two points of inquiry:</p> <p id="FP_Q38-p3"> (1) Whether "Gift" can be a personal name?</p> <p id="FP_Q38-p4"> (2) Whether it is the proper name of the Holy Ghost?</p> <div id="FP_Q38_A1" class="div4"> <a href="summa.FP_Q38.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q38_A2.html"></a> <h4 id="FP_Q38_A1-p0.1">Whether "Gift" is a personal name?</h4> <p id="FP_Q38_A1-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q38_A1-p2"> <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that "Gift" is not a personal name. For every personal name imports a distinction in God. But the name of "Gift" does not import a distinction in God; for Augustine says (De Trin. xv, 19): that "the Holy Ghost is so given as God's Gift, that He also gives Himself as God." Therefore "Gift" is not a personal name. </p> <p id="FP_Q38_A1-p3"> <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, no personal name belongs to the divine essence. But the divine essence is the Gift which the Father gives to the Son, as Hilary says (De Trin. ix). Therefore "Gift" is not a personal name. </p> <p id="FP_Q38_A1-p4"> <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, according to Damascene (De Fide Orth. iv, 19) there is no subjection nor service in the divine persons. But gift implies a subjection both as regards him to whom it is given, and as regards him by whom it is given. Therefore "Gift" is not a personal name. </p> <p id="FP_Q38_A1-p5"> <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, "Gift" imports relation to the creature, and it thus seems to be said of God in time. But personal names are said of God from eternity; as "Father," and "Son." Therefore "Gift" is not a personal name. </p> <p id="FP_Q38_A1-p6"> <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (De Trin. xv, 19): "As the body of flesh is nothing but flesh; so the gift of the Holy Ghost is nothing but the Holy Ghost." But the Holy Ghost is a personal name; so also therefore is "Gift." </p> <p id="FP_Q38_A1-p7"> <b>I answer that,</b> The word "gift" imports an aptitude for being given. And what is given has an aptitude or relation both to the giver and to that to which it is given. For it would not be given by anyone, unless it was his to give; and it is given to someone to be his. Now a divine person is said to belong to another, either by origin, as the Son belongs to the Father; or as possessed by another. But we are said to possess what we can freely use or enjoy as we please: and in this way a divine person cannot be possessed, except by a rational creature united to God. Other creatures can be moved by a divine person, not, however, in such a way as to be able to enjoy the divine person, and to use the effect thereof. The rational creature does sometimes attain thereto; as when it is made partaker of the divine Word and of the Love proceeding, so as freely to know God truly and to love God rightly. Hence the rational creature alone can possess the divine person. Nevertheless in order that it may possess Him in this manner, its own power avails nothing: hence this must be given it from above; for that is said to be given to us which we have from another source. Thus a divine person can "be given," and can be a "gift." </p> <p id="FP_Q38_A1-p8"> <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The name "Gift" imports a personal distinction , in so far as gift imports something belonging to another through its origin. Nevertheless, the Holy Ghost gives Himself, inasmuch as He is His own, and can use or rather enjoy Himself; as also a free man belongs to himself. And as Augustine says (In Joan. Tract. xxix): "What is more yours than yourself?" Or we might say, and more fittingly, that a gift must belong in a way to the giver. But the phrase, "this is this one's," can be understood in several senses. In one way it means identity, as Augustine says (In Joan. Tract. xxix); and in that sense "gift" is the same as "the giver," but not the same as the one to whom it is given. The Holy Ghost gives Himself in that sense. In another sense, a thing is another's as a possession, or as a slave; and in that sense gift is essentially distinct from the giver; and the gift of God so taken is a created thing. In a third sense "this is this one's" through its origin only; and in this sense the Son is the Father's; and the Holy Ghost belongs to both. Therefore, so far as gift in this way signifies the possession of the giver, it is personally distinguished from the giver, and is a personal name. </p> <p id="FP_Q38_A1-p9"> <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The divine essence is the Father's gift in the first sense, as being the Father's by way of identity. </p> <p id="FP_Q38_A1-p10"> <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Gift as a personal name in God does not imply subjection, but only origin, as regards the giver; but as regards the one to whom it is given, it implies a free use, or enjoyment, as above explained. </p> <p id="FP_Q38_A1-p11"> <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Gift is not so called from being actually given, but from its aptitude to be given. Hence the divine person is called Gift from eternity, although He is given in time. Nor does it follow that it is an essential name because it imports relation to the creature; but that it includes something essential in its meaning; as the essence is included in the idea of person, as stated above ( <a id="FP_Q38_A1-p11.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q34_A3.html">Q[34], A[3]</a>). </p> <p id="FP_Q38_A1-p12"></p> <p id="FP_Q38_A1-p13"></p> <a href="summa.FP_Q38.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q38_A2.html"></a> </div> <div id="FP_Q38_A2" class="div4"> <a href="summa.FP_Q38_A1.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q39.html"></a> <h4 id="FP_Q38_A2-p0.1">Whether "Gift" is the proper name of the Holy Ghost?</h4> <p id="FP_Q38_A2-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q38_A2-p2"> <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Gift is not the proper name of the Holy Ghost. For the name Gift comes from being given. But, as <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q38_A2-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.9.16" target="asv"> Is. 9:16 </a>says: "A Son is give to us." Therefore to be Gift belongs to the Son, as well as to the Holy Ghost. </p> <p id="FP_Q38_A2-p3"> <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, every proper name of a person signifies a property. But this word Gift does not signify a property of the Holy Ghost. Therefore Gift is not a proper name of the Holy Ghost. </p> <p id="FP_Q38_A2-p4"> <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the Holy Ghost can be called the spirit of a man, whereas He cannot be called the gift of any man, but "God's Gift" only. Therefore Gift is not the proper name of the Holy Ghost. </p> <p id="FP_Q38_A2-p5"> <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (De Trin. iv, 20): "As 'to be born' is, for the Son, to be from the Father, so, for the Holy Ghost, 'to be the Gift of God' is to proceed from Father and Son." But the Holy Ghost receives His proper name from the fact that He proceeds from Father and Son. Therefore Gift is the proper name of the Holy Ghost. </p> <p id="FP_Q38_A2-p6"> <b>I answer that,</b> Gift, taken personally in God, is the proper name of the Holy Ghost. </p> <p id="FP_Q38_A2-p7"> In proof of this we must know that a gift is properly an unreturnable giving, as Aristotle says (Topic. iv, 4)---i.e. a thing which is not given with the intention of a return---and it thus contains the idea of a gratuitous donation. Now, the reason of donation being gratuitous is love; since therefore do we give something to anyone gratuitously forasmuch as we wish him well. So what we first give him is the love whereby we wish him well. Hence it is manifest that love has the nature of a first gift, through which all free gifts are given. So since the Holy Ghost proceeds as love, as stated above ( <a id="FP_Q38_A2-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q27_A4.html">Q[27], A[4]</a>; <a id="FP_Q38_A2-p7.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q37_A1.html">Q[37], A[1]</a>), He proceeds as the first gift. Hence Augustine says (De Trin. xv, 24): "By the gift, which is the Holy Ghost, many particular gifts are portioned out to the members of Christ." </p> <p id="FP_Q38_A2-p8"> <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As the Son is properly called the Image because He proceeds by way of a word, whose nature it is to be the similitude of its principle, although the Holy Ghost also is like to the Father; so also, because the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father as love, He is properly called Gift, although the Son, too, is given. For that the Son is given is from the Father's love, according to the words, "God so loved the world, as to give His only begotten Son" ( <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q38_A2-p8.1" href="./asv.html#John.3.16" target="asv">Jn. 3:16</a>). </p> <p id="FP_Q38_A2-p9"> <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The name Gift involves the idea of belonging to the Giver through its origin; and thus it imports the property of the origin of the Holy Ghost---that is, His procession. </p> <p id="FP_Q38_A2-p10"> <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Before a gift is given, it belongs only to the giver; but when it is given, it is his to whom it is given. Therefore, because "Gift" does not import the actual giving, it cannot be called a gift of man, but the Gift of God giving. When, however, it has been given, then it is the spirit of man, or a gift bestowed on man. </p> <p id="FP_Q38_A2-p11"></p> <p id="FP_Q38_A2-p12"></p> <a href="summa.FP_Q38_A1.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q39.html"></a> </div> <a href="summa.FP_Q37_A2.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q38_A1.html"></a> </div> <div id="FP_Q39" class="div3"> <a href="summa.FP_Q38_A2.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q39_A1.html"></a> <h3 id="FP_Q39-p0.1">OF THE PERSONS IN RELATION TO THE ESSENCE (EIGHT ARTICLES)</h3> <p id="FP_Q39-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q39-p2"> Those things considered which belong to the divine persons absolutely, we next treat of what concerns the person in reference to the essence, to the properties, and to the notional acts; and of the comparison of these with each other. </p> <p id="FP_Q39-p3"> As regards the first of these, there are eight points of inquiry:</p> <p id="FP_Q39-p4"> (1) Whether the essence in God is the same as the person?</p> <p id="FP_Q39-p5"> (2) Whether we should say that the three persons are of one essence?</p> <p id="FP_Q39-p6"> (3) Whether essential names should be predicated of the persons in the plural, or in the singular?</p> <p id="FP_Q39-p7"> (4) Whether notional adjectives, or verbs, or participles, can be predicated of the essential names taken in a concrete sense?</p> <p id="FP_Q39-p8"> (5) Whether the same can be predicated of essential names taken in the abstract?</p> <p id="FP_Q39-p9"> (6) Whether the names of the persons can be predicated of concrete essential names?</p> <p id="FP_Q39-p10"> (7) Whether essential attributes can be appropriated to the persons?</p> <p id="FP_Q39-p11"> (8) Which attributes should be appropriated to each person?</p> <div id="FP_Q39_A1" class="div4"> <a href="summa.FP_Q39.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q39_A2.html"></a> <h4 id="FP_Q39_A1-p0.1">Whether in God the essence is the same as the person?</h4> <p id="FP_Q39_A1-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q39_A1-p2"> <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that in God the essence is not the same as person. For whenever essence is the same as person or "suppositum," there can be only one "suppositum" of one nature, as is clear in the case of all separate substances. For in those things which are really one and the same, one cannot be multiplied apart from the other. But in God there is one essence and three persons, as is clear from what is above expounded ( <a id="FP_Q39_A1-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q28_A3.html">Q[28], A[3]</a>; <a id="FP_Q39_A1-p2.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q30_A2.html">Q[30], A[2]</a>). Therefore essence is not the same as person. </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A1-p3"> <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, simultaneous affirmation and negation of the same things in the same respect cannot be true. But affirmation and negation are true of essence and of person. For person is distinct, whereas essence is not. Therefore person and essence are not the same. </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A1-p4"> <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, nothing can be subject to itself. But person is subject to essence; whence it is called "suppositum" or "hypostasis." Therefore person is not the same as essence. </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A1-p5"> <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (De Trin. vi, 7): "When we say the person of the Father we mean nothing else but the substance of the Father." </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A1-p6"> <b>I answer that,</b> The truth of this question is quite clear if we consider the divine simplicity. For it was shown above ( <a id="FP_Q39_A1-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q3_A3.html">Q[3], A[3]</a>) that the divine simplicity requires that in God essence is the same as "suppositum," which in intellectual substances is nothing else than person. But a difficulty seems to arise from the fact that while the divine persons are multiplied, the essence nevertheless retains its unity. And because, as Boethius says (De Trin. i), "relation multiplies the Trinity of persons," some have thought that in God essence and person differ, forasmuch as they held the relations to be "adjacent"; considering only in the relations the idea of "reference to another," and not the relations as realities. But as it was shown above ( <a id="FP_Q39_A1-p6.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q28_A2.html">Q[28], A[2]</a>) in creatures relations are accidental, whereas in God they are the divine essence itself. Thence it follows that in God essence is not really distinct from person; and yet that the persons are really distinguished from each other. For person, as above stated ( <a id="FP_Q39_A1-p6.3" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q29_A4.html">Q[29], A[4]</a>), signifies relation as subsisting in the divine nature. But relation as referred to the essence does not differ therefrom really, but only in our way of thinking; while as referred to an opposite relation, it has a real distinction by virtue of that opposition. Thus there are one essence and three persons. </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A1-p7"> <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> There cannot be a distinction of "suppositum" in creatures by means of relations, but only by essential principles; because in creatures relations are not subsistent. But in God relations are subsistent, and so by reason of the opposition between them they distinguish the "supposita"; and yet the essence is not distinguished, because the relations themselves are not distinguished from each other so far as they are identified with the essence. </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A1-p8"> <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As essence and person in God differ in our way of thinking, it follows that something can be denied of the one and affirmed of the other; and therefore, when we suppose the one, we need not suppose the other. </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A1-p9"> <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Divine things are named by us after the way of created things, as above explained ( <a id="FP_Q39_A1-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q13_A1.html">Q[13], AA[1]</a>,3). And since created natures are individualized by matter which is the subject of the specific nature, it follows that individuals are called "subjects," "supposita," or "hypostases." So the divine persons are named "supposita" or "hypostases," but not as if there really existed any real "supposition" or "subjection." </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A1-p10"></p> <p id="FP_Q39_A1-p11"></p> <a href="summa.FP_Q39.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q39_A2.html"></a> </div> <div id="FP_Q39_A2" class="div4"> <a href="summa.FP_Q39_A1.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q39_A3.html"></a> <h4 id="FP_Q39_A2-p0.1">Whether it must be said that the three persons are of one essence?</h4> <p id="FP_Q39_A2-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q39_A2-p2"> <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem not right to say that the three persons are of one essence. For Hilary says (De Synod.) that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost "are indeed three by substance, but one in harmony." But the substance of God is His essence. Therefore the three persons are not of one essence. </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A2-p3"> <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, nothing is to be affirmed of God except what can be confirmed by the authority of Holy Writ, as appears from Dionysius (Div. Nom. i). Now Holy Writ never says that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are of one essence. Therefore this should not be asserted. </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A2-p4"> <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the divine nature is the same as the divine essence. It suffices therefore to say that the three persons are of one nature. </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A2-p5"> <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, it is not usual to say that the person is of the essence; but rather that the essence is of the person. Therefore it does not seem fitting to say that the three persons are of one essence. </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A2-p6"> <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, Augustine says (De Trin. vii, 6) that we do not say that the three persons are "from one essence [ex una essentia]," lest we should seem to indicate a distinction between the essence and the persons in God. But prepositions which imply transition, denote the oblique case. Therefore it is equally wrong to say that the three persons are "of one essence [unius essentiae]." </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A2-p7"> <b>Objection 6:</b> Further, nothing should be said of God which can be occasion of error. Now, to say that the three persons are of one essence or substance, furnishes occasion of error. For, as Hilary says (De Synod.): "One substance predicated of the Father and the Son signifies either one subsistent, with two denominations; or one substance divided into two imperfect substances; or a third prior substance taken and assumed by the other two." Therefore it must not be said that the three persons are of one substance. </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A2-p8"> <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (Contra Maxim. iii) that the word {homoousion}, which the Council of Nicaea adopted against the Arians, means that the three persons are of one essence. </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A2-p9"> <b>I answer that,</b> As above explained ( <a id="FP_Q39_A2-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q13_A1.html">Q[13], AA[1]</a>,2), divine things are named by our intellect, not as they really are in themselves, for in that way it knows them not; but in a way that belongs to things created. And as in the objects of the senses, whence the intellect derives its knowledge, the nature of the species is made individual by the matter, and thus the nature is as the form, and the individual is the "suppositum" of the form; so also in God the essence is taken as the form of the three persons, according to our mode of signification. Now in creatures we say that every form belongs to that whereof it is the form; as the health and beauty of a man belongs to the man. But we do not say of that which has a form, that it belongs to the form, unless some adjective qualifies the form; as when we say: "That woman is of a handsome figure," or: "This man is of perfect virtue." In like manner, as in God the persons are multiplied, and the essence is not multiplied, we speak of one essence of the three persons, and three persons of the one essence, provided that these genitives be understood as designating the form. </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A2-p10"> <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Substance is here taken for the "hypostasis," and not for the essence. </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A2-p11"> <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Although we may not find it declared in Holy Writ in so many words that the three persons are of one essence, nevertheless we find it so stated as regards the meaning; for instance, "I and the Father are one ( <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q39_A2-p11.1" href="./asv.html#John.10.30" target="asv">Jn. 10:30</a>)," and "I am in the Father, and the Father in Me ( <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q39_A2-p11.2" href="./asv.html#John.10.38" target="asv">Jn. 10:38</a>)"; and there are many other texts of the same import. </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A2-p12"> <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Because "nature" designates the principle of action while "essence" comes from being [essendo], things may be said to be of one nature which agree in some action, as all things which give heat; but only those things can be said to be of "one essence" which have one being. So the divine unity is better described by saying that the three persons are "of one essence," than by saying they are "of one nature." </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A2-p13"> <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Form, in the absolute sense, is wont to be designated as belonging to that of which it is the form, as we say "the virtue of Peter." On the other hand, the thing having form is not wont to be designated as belonging to the form except when we wish to qualify or designate the form. In which case two genitives are required, one signifying the form, and the other signifying the determination of the form, as, for instance, when we say, "Peter is of great virtue [magnae virtutis]," or else one genitive must have the force of two, as, for instance, "he is a man of blood"---that is, he is a man who sheds much blood [multi sanguinis]. So, because the divine essence signifies a form as regards the person, it may properly be said that the essence is of the person; but we cannot say the converse, unless we add some term to designate the essence; as, for instance, the Father is a person of the "divine essence"; or, the three persons are "of one essence." </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A2-p14"> <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> The preposition "from" or "out of" does not designate the habitude of a formal cause, but rather the habitude of an efficient or material cause; which causes are in all cases distinguished from those things of which they are the causes. For nothing can be its own matter, nor its own active principle. Yet a thing may be its own form, as appears in all immaterial things. So, when we say, "three persons of one essence," taking essence as having the habitude of form, we do not mean that essence is different from person, which we should mean if we said, "three persons from the same essence." </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A2-p15"> <b>Reply to Objection 6:</b> As Hilary says (De Synod.): "It would be prejudicial to holy things, if we had to do away with them, just because some do not think them holy. So if some misunderstand {homoousion}, what is that to me, if I understand it rightly? . . . The oneness of nature does not result from division, or from union or from community of possession, but from one nature being proper to both Father and Son." </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A2-p16"></p> <p id="FP_Q39_A2-p17"></p> <a href="summa.FP_Q39_A1.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q39_A3.html"></a> </div> <div id="FP_Q39_A3" class="div4"> <a href="summa.FP_Q39_A2.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q39_A4.html"></a> <h4 id="FP_Q39_A3-p0.1">Whether essential names should be predicated in the singular of the three persons?</h4> <p id="FP_Q39_A3-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q39_A3-p2"> <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that essential names, as the name "God," should not be predicated in the singular of the three persons, but in the plural. For as "man" signifies "one that has humanity," so God signifies "one that has Godhead." But the three persons are three who have Godhead. Therefore the three persons are "three Gods." </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A3-p3"> <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q39_A3-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Gen.1.1" target="asv"> Gn. 1:1, </a> where it is said, "In the beginning God created heaven and earth," the Hebrew original has "Elohim," which may be rendered "Gods" or "Judges": and this word is used on account of the plurality of persons. Therefore the three persons are "several Gods," and not "one" God. </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A3-p4"> <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, this word "thing" when it is said absolutely, seems to belong to substance. But it is predicated of the three persons in the plural. For Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. i, 5): "The things that are the objects of our future glory are the Father, Son and Holy Ghost." Therefore other essential names can be predicated in the plural of the three persons. </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A3-p5"> <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, as this word "God" signifies "a being who has Deity," so also this word "person" signifies a being subsisting in an intellectual nature. But we say there are three persons. So for the same reason we can say there are "three Gods." </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A3-p6"> <b>On the contrary,</b> It is said ( <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q39_A3-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.6.4" target="asv">Dt. 6:4</a>): "Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God is one God." </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A3-p7"> <b>I answer that,</b> Some essential names signify the essence after the manner of substantives; while others signify it after the manner of adjectives. Those which signify it as substantives are predicated of the three persons in the singular only, and not in the plural. Those which signify the essence as adjectives are predicated of the three persons in the plural. The reason of this is that substantives signify something by way of substance, while adjectives signify something by way of accident, which adheres to a subject. Now just as substance has existence of itself, so also it has of itself unity or multitude; wherefore the singularity or plurality of a substantive name depends upon the form signified by the name. But as accidents have their existence in a subject, so they have unity or plurality from their subject; and therefore the singularity and plurality of adjectives depends upon their "supposita." In creatures, one form does not exist in several "supposita" except by unity of order, as the form of an ordered multitude. So if the names signifying such a form are substantives, they are predicated of many in the singular, but otherwise if they adjectives. For we say that many men are a college, or an army, or a people; but we say that many men are collegians. Now in God the divine essence is signified by way of a form, as above explained <a id="FP_Q39_A3-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q39_A2.html">(A[2])</a>, which, indeed, is simple and supremely one, as shown above ( <a id="FP_Q39_A3-p7.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q3_A7.html">Q[3], A[7]</a>; <a id="FP_Q39_A3-p7.3" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q11_A4.html">Q[11], A[4]</a>). So, names which signify the divine essence in a substantive manner are predicated of the three persons in the singular, and not in the plural. This, then, is the reason why we say that Socrates, Plato and Cicero are "three men"; whereas we do not say the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are "three Gods," but "one God"; forasmuch as in the three "supposita" of human nature there are three humanities, whereas in the three divine Persons there is but one divine essence. On the other hand, the names which signify essence in an adjectival manner are predicated of the three persons plurally, by reason of the plurality of "supposita." For we say there are three "existent" or three "wise" beings, or three "eternal," "uncreated," and "immense" beings, if these terms are understood in an adjectival sense. But if taken in a substantive sense, we say "one uncreated, immense, eternal being," as Athanasius declares. </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A3-p8"> <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Though the name "God" signifies a being having Godhead, nevertheless the mode of signification is different. For the name "God" is used substantively; whereas "having Godhead" is used adjectively. Consequently, although there are "three having Godhead," it does not follow that there are three Gods. </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A3-p9"> <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Various languages have diverse modes of expression. So as by reason of the plurality of "supposita" the Greeks said "three hypostases," so also in Hebrew "Elohim" is in the plural. We, however, do not apply the plural either to "God" or to "substance," lest plurality be referred to the substance. </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A3-p10"> <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> This word "thing" is one of the transcendentals. Whence, so far as it is referred to relation, it is predicated of God in the plural; whereas, so far as it is referred to the substance, it is predicated in the singular. So Augustine says, in the passage quoted, that "the same Trinity is a thing supreme." </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A3-p11"> <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> The form signified by the word "person" is not essence or nature, but personality. So, as there are three personalities---that is, three personal properties in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost---it is predicated of the three, not in the singular, but in the plural. </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A3-p12"></p> <p id="FP_Q39_A3-p13"></p> <a href="summa.FP_Q39_A2.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q39_A4.html"></a> </div> <div id="FP_Q39_A4" class="div4"> <a href="summa.FP_Q39_A3.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q39_A5.html"></a> <h4 id="FP_Q39_A4-p0.1">Whether the concrete essential names can stand for the person?</h4> <p id="FP_Q39_A4-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q39_A4-p2"> <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the concrete, essential names cannot stand for the person, so that we can truly say "God begot God." For, as the logicians say, "a singular term signifies what it stands for." But this name "God" seems to be a singular term, for it cannot be predicated in the plural, as above explained <a id="FP_Q39_A4-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q39_A3.html">(A[3])</a>. Therefore, since it signifies the essence, it stands for essence, and not for person. </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A4-p3"> <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, a term in the subject is not modified by a term in the predicate, as to its signification; but only as to the sense signified in the predicate. But when I say, "God creates," this name "God" stands for the essence. So when we say "God begot," this term "God" cannot by reason of the notional predicate, stand for person. </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A4-p4"> <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, if this be true, "God begot," because the Father generates; for the same reason this is true, "God does not beget," because the Son does not beget. Therefore there is God who begets, and there is God who does not beget; and thus it follows that there are two Gods. </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A4-p5"> <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, if "God begot God," He begot either God, that is Himself, or another God. But He did not beget God, that is Himself; for, as Augustine says (De Trin. i, 1), "nothing begets itself." Neither did He beget another God; as there is only one God. Therefore it is false to say, "God begot God." </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A4-p6"> <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, if "God begot God," He begot either God who is the Father, or God who is not the Father. If God who is the Father, then God the Father was begotten. If God who is not the Father, then there is a God who is not God the Father: which is false. Therefore it cannot be said that "God begot God." </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A4-p7"> <b>On the contrary,</b> In the Creed it is said, "God of God." </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A4-p8"> <b>I answer that,</b> Some have said that this name "God" and the like, properly according to their nature, stand for the essence, but by reason of some notional adjunct are made to stand for the Person. This opinion apparently arose from considering the divine simplicity, which requires that in God, He "who possesses" and "what is possessed" be the same. So He who possesses Godhead, which is signified by the name God, is the same as Godhead. But when we consider the proper way of expressing ourselves, the mode of signification must be considered no less than the thing signified. Hence as this word "God" signifies the divine essence as in Him Who possesses it, just as the name "man" signifies humanity in a subject, others more truly have said that this word "God," from its mode of signification, can, in its proper sense, stand for person, as does the word "man." So this word "God" sometimes stands for the essence, as when we say "God creates"; because this predicate is attributed to the subject by reason of the form signified---that is, Godhead. But sometimes it stands for the person, either for only one, as when we say, "God begets," or for two, as when we say, "God spirates"; or for three, as when it is said: "To the King of ages, immortal, invisible, the only God," etc. ( <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q39_A4-p8.1" href="./asv.html#iTim.1.17" target="asv">1 Tim. 1:17</a>). </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A4-p9"> <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Although this name "God" agrees with singular terms as regards the form signified not being multiplied; nevertheless it agrees also with general terms so far as the form signified is to be found in several "supposita." So it need not always stand for the essence it signifies. </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A4-p10"> <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> This holds good against those who say that the word "God" does not naturally stand for person. </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A4-p11"> <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The word "God" stands for the person in a different way from that in which this word "man" does; for since the form signified by this word "man"---that is, humanity---is really divided among its different subjects, it stands of itself for the person, even if there is no adjunct determining it to the person---that is, to a distinct subject. The unity or community of the human nature, however, is not a reality, but is only in the consideration of the mind. Hence this term "man" does not stand for the common nature, unless this is required by some adjunct, as when we say, "man is a species"; whereas the form signified by the name "God"---that is, the divine essence---is really one and common. So of itself it stands for the common nature, but by some adjunct it may be restricted so as to stand for the person. So, when we say, "God generates," by reason of the notional act this name "God" stands for the person of the Father. But when we say, "God does not generate," there is no adjunct to determine this name to the person of the Son, and hence the phrase means that generation is repugnant to the divine nature. If, however, something be added belonging to the person of the Son, this proposition, for instance, "God begotten does not beget," is true. Consequently, it does not follow that there exists a "God generator," and a "God not generator"; unless there be an adjunct pertaining to the persons; as, for instance, if we were to say, "the Father is God the generator" and the "Son is God the non-generator" and so it does not follow that there are many Gods; for the Father and the Son are one God, as was said above <a id="FP_Q39_A4-p11.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q39_A3.html">(A[3])</a>. </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A4-p12"> <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> This is false, "the Father begot God, that is Himself," because the word "Himself," as a reciprocal term, refers to the same "suppositum." Nor is this contrary to what Augustine says (Ep. lxvi ad Maxim.) that "God the Father begot another self [alterum se]," forasmuch as the word "se" is either in the ablative case, and then it means "He begot another from Himself," or it indicates a single relation, and thus points to identity of nature. This is, however, either a figurative or an emphatic way of speaking, so that it would really mean, "He begot another most like to Himself." Likewise also it is false to say, "He begot another God," because although the Son is another than the Father, as above explained ( <a id="FP_Q39_A4-p12.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q31_A2.html">Q[31], A[2]</a>), nevertheless it cannot be said that He is "another God"; forasmuch as this adjective "another" would be understood to apply to the substantive God; and thus the meaning would be that there is a distinction of Godhead. Yet this proposition "He begot another God" is tolerated by some, provided that "another" be taken as a substantive, and the word "God" be construed in apposition with it. This, however, is an inexact way of speaking, and to be avoided, for fear of giving occasion to error. </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A4-p13"> <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> To say, "God begot God Who is God the Father," is wrong, because since the word "Father" is construed in apposition to "God," the word "God" is restricted to the person of the Father; so that it would mean, "He begot God, Who is Himself the Father"; and then the Father would be spoken of as begotten, which is false. Wherefore the negative of the proposition is true, "He begot God Who is not God the Father." If however, we understand these words not to be in apposition, and require something to be added, then, on the contrary, the affirmative proposition is true, and the negative is false; so that the meaning would be, "He begot God Who is God Who is the Father." Such a rendering however appears to be forced, so that it is better to say simply that the affirmative proposition is false, and the negative is true. Yet Prepositivus said that both the negative and affirmative are false, because this relative "Who" in the affirmative proposition can be referred to the "suppositum"; whereas in the negative it denotes both the thing signified and the "suppositum." Whence, in the affirmative the sense is that "to be God the Father" is befitting to the person of the Son; and in the negative sense is that "to be God the Father," is to be removed from the Son's divinity as well as from His personality. This, however, appears to be irrational; since, according to the Philosopher (Peri Herm. ii), what is open to affirmation, is open also to negation. </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A4-p14"></p> <p id="FP_Q39_A4-p15"></p> <a href="summa.FP_Q39_A3.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q39_A5.html"></a> </div> <div id="FP_Q39_A5" class="div4"> <a href="summa.FP_Q39_A4.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q39_A6.html"></a> <h4 id="FP_Q39_A5-p0.1">Whether abstract essential names can stand for the person?</h4> <p id="FP_Q39_A5-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q39_A5-p2"> <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that abstract essential names can stand for the person, so that this proposition is true, "Essence begets essence." For Augustine says (De Trin. vii, i, 2): "The Father and the Son are one Wisdom, because they are one essence; and taken singly Wisdom is from Wisdom, as essence from essence." </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A5-p3"> <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, generation or corruption in ourselves implies generation or corruption of what is within us. But the Son is generated. Therefore since the divine essence is in the Son, it seems that the divine essence is generated. </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A5-p4"> <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, God and the divine essence are the same, as is clear from what is above explained ( <a id="FP_Q39_A5-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q3_A3.html">Q[3], A[3]</a>). But, as was shown, it is true to say that "God begets God." Therefore this is also true: "Essence begets essence." </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A5-p5"> <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, a predicate can stand for that of which it is predicated. But the Father is the divine essence; therefore essence can stand for the person of the Father. Thus the essence begets. </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A5-p6"> <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, the essence is "a thing begetting," because the essence is the Father who is begetting. Therefore if the essence is not begetting, the essence will be "a thing begetting," and "not begetting": which cannot be. </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A5-p7"> <b>Objection 6:</b> Further, Augustine says (De Trin. iv, 20): "The Father is the principle of the whole Godhead." But He is principle only by begetting or spirating. Therefore the Father begets or spirates the Godhead. </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A5-p8"> <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (De Trin. i, 1): "Nothing begets itself." But if the essence begets the essence, it begets itself only, since nothing exists in God as distinguished from the divine essence. Therefore the essence does not beget essence. </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A5-p9"> <b>I answer that,</b> Concerning this, the abbot Joachim erred in asserting that as we can say "God begot God," so we can say "Essence begot essence": considering that, by reason of the divine simplicity God is nothing else but the divine essence. In this he was wrong, because if we wish to express ourselves correctly, we must take into account not only the thing which is signified, but also the mode of its signification as above stated <a id="FP_Q39_A5-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q39_A4.html">(A[4])</a>. Now although "God" is really the same as "Godhead," nevertheless the mode of signification is not in each case the same. For since this word "God" signifies the divine essence in Him that possesses it, from its mode of signification it can of its own nature stand for person. Thus the things which properly belong to the persons, can be predicated of this word, "God," as, for instance, we can say "God is begotten" or is "Begetter," as above explained <a id="FP_Q39_A5-p9.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q39_A4.html">(A[4])</a>. The word "essence," however, in its mode of signification, cannot stand for Person, because it signifies the essence as an abstract form. Consequently, what properly belongs to the persons whereby they are distinguished from each other, cannot be attributed to the essence. For that would imply distinction in the divine essence, in the same way as there exists distinction in the "supposita." </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A5-p10"> <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> To express unity of essence and of person, the holy Doctors have sometimes expressed themselves with greater emphasis than the strict propriety of terms allows. Whence instead of enlarging upon such expressions we should rather explain them: thus, for instance, abstract names should be explained by concrete names, or even by personal names; as when we find "essence from essence"; or "wisdom from wisdom"; we should take the sense to be, "the Son" who is essence and wisdom, is from the Father who is essence and wisdom. Nevertheless, as regards these abstract names a certain order should be observed, forasmuch as what belongs to action is more nearly allied to the persons because actions belong to "supposita." So "nature from nature," and "wisdom from wisdom" are less inexact than "essence from essence." </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A5-p11"> <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> In creatures the one generated has not the same nature numerically as the generator, but another nature, numerically distinct, which commences to exist in it anew by generation, and ceases to exist by corruption, and so it is generated and corrupted accidentally; whereas God begotten has the same nature numerically as the begetter. So the divine nature in the Son is not begotten either directly or accidentally. </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A5-p12"> <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Although God and the divine essence are really the same, nevertheless, on account of their different mode of signification, we must speak in a different way about each of them. </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A5-p13"> <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> The divine essence is predicated of the Father by mode of identity by reason of the divine simplicity; yet it does not follow that it can stand for the Father, its mode of signification being different. This objection would hold good as regards things which are predicated of another as the universal of a particular. </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A5-p14"> <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> The difference between substantive and adjectival names consist in this, that the former carry their subject with them, whereas the latter do not, but add the thing signified to the substantive. Whence logicians are wont to say that the substantive is considered in the light of "suppositum," whereas the adjective indicates something added to the "suppositum." Therefore substantive personal terms can be predicated of the essence, because they are really the same; nor does it follow that a personal property makes a distinct essence; but it belongs to the "suppositum" implied in the substantive. But notional and personal adjectives cannot be predicated of the essence unless we add some substantive. We cannot say that the "essence is begetting"; yet we can say that the "essence is a thing begetting," or that it is "God begetting," if "thing" and God stand for person, but not if they stand for essence. Consequently there exists no contradiction in saying that "essence is a thing begetting," and "a thing not begetting"; because in the first case "thing" stands for person, and in the second it stands for the essence. </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A5-p15"> <b>Reply to Objection 6:</b> So far as Godhead is one in several "supposita," it agrees in a certain degree with the form of a collective term. So when we say, "the Father is the principle of the whole Godhead," the term Godhead can be taken for all the persons together, inasmuch as it is the principle in all the divine persons. Nor does it follow that He is His own principle; as one of the people may be called the ruler of the people without being ruler of himself. We may also say that He is the principle of the whole Godhead; not as generating or spirating it, but as communicating it by generation and spiration. </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A5-p16"></p> <p id="FP_Q39_A5-p17"></p> <a href="summa.FP_Q39_A4.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q39_A6.html"></a> </div> <div id="FP_Q39_A6" class="div4"> <a href="summa.FP_Q39_A5.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q39_A7.html"></a> <h4 id="FP_Q39_A6-p0.1">Whether the persons can be predicated of the essential terms?</h4> <p id="FP_Q39_A6-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q39_A6-p2"> <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the persons cannot be predicated of the concrete essential names; so that we can say for instance, "God is three persons"; or "God is the Trinity." For it is false to say, "man is every man," because it cannot be verified as regards any particular subject. For neither Socrates, nor Plato, nor anyone else is every man. In the same way this proposition, "God is the Trinity," cannot be verified of any one of the "supposita" of the divine nature. For the Father is not the Trinity; nor is the Son; nor is the Holy Ghost. So to say, "God is the Trinity," is false. </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A6-p3"> <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the lower is not predicated of the higher except by accidental predication; as when I say, "animal is man"; for it is accidental to animal to be man. But this name "God" as regards the three persons is as a general term to inferior terms, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 4). Therefore it seems that the names of the persons cannot be predicated of this name "God," except in an accidental sense. </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A6-p4"> <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says, in his sermon on Faith [*Serm. ii, in coena Domini], "We believe that one God is one divinely named Trinity." </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A6-p5"> <b>I answer that,</b> As above explained <a id="FP_Q39_A6-p5.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q39_A5.html">(A[5])</a>, although adjectival terms, whether personal or notional, cannot be predicated of the essence, nevertheless substantive terms can be so predicated, owing to the real identity of essence and person. The divine essence is not only really the same as one person, but it is really the same as the three persons. Whence, one person, and two, and three, can be predicated of the essence as if we were to say, "The essence is the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost." And because this word "God" can of itself stand for the essence, as above explained (A[4], ad 3), hence, as it is true to say, "The essence is the three persons"; so likewise it is true to say, "God is the three persons." </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A6-p6"> <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As above explained this term "man" can of itself stand for person, whereas an adjunct is required for it to stand for the universal human nature. So it is false to say, "Man is every man"; because it cannot be verified of any particular human subject. On the contrary, this word "God" can of itself be taken for the divine essence. So, although to say of any of the "supposita" of the divine nature, "God is the Trinity," is untrue, nevertheless it is true of the divine essence. This was denied by Porretanus because he did not take note of this distinction. </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A6-p7"> <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> When we say, "God," or "the divine essence is the Father," the predication is one of identity, and not of the lower in regard to a higher species: because in God there is no universal and singular. Hence, as this proposition, "The Father is God" is of itself true, so this proposition "God is the Father" is true of itself, and by no means accidentally. </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A6-p8"></p> <p id="FP_Q39_A6-p9"></p> <p id="FP_Q39_A6-p10"></p> <a href="summa.FP_Q39_A5.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q39_A7.html"></a> </div> <div id="FP_Q39_A7" class="div4"> <a href="summa.FP_Q39_A6.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q39_A8.html"></a> <h4 id="FP_Q39_A7-p0.1">Whether the essential names should be appropriated to the persons?</h4> <p id="FP_Q39_A7-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q39_A7-p2"> <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the essential names should not be appropriated to the persons. For whatever might verge on error in faith should be avoided in the treatment of divine things; for, as Jerome says, "careless words involve risk of heresy" [*In substance <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q39_A7-p2.1" href="./asv.html#." target="asv">Ep. lvii.</a>]. But to appropriate to any one person the names which are common to the three persons, may verge on error in faith; for it may be supposed either that such belong only to the person to whom they are appropriated or that they belong to Him in a fuller degree than to the others. Therefore the essential attributes should not be appropriated to the persons. </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A7-p3"> <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the essential attributes expressed in the abstract signify by mode of form. But one person is not as a form to another; since a form is not distinguished in subject from that of which it is the form. Therefore the essential attributes, especially when expressed in the abstract, are not to be appropriated to the persons. </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A7-p4"> <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, property is prior to the appropriated, for property is included in the idea of the appropriated. But the essential attributes, in our way of understanding, are prior to the persons; as what is common is prior to what is proper. Therefore the essential attributes are not to be appropriated to the persons. </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A7-p5"> <b>On the contrary,</b> the Apostle says: "Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God" ( <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q39_A7-p5.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.1.24" target="asv">1 Cor. 1:24</a>). </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A7-p6"> <b>I answer that,</b> For the manifestation of our faith it is fitting that the essential attributes should be appropriated to the persons. For although the trinity of persons cannot be proved by demonstration, as was above expounded ( <a id="FP_Q39_A7-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q32_A1.html">Q[32], A[1]</a>), nevertheless it is fitting that it be declared by things which are more known to us. Now the essential attributes of God are more clear to us from the standpoint of reason than the personal properties; because we can derive certain knowledge of the essential attributes from creatures which are sources of knowledge to us, such as we cannot obtain regarding the personal properties, as was above explained ( <a id="FP_Q39_A7-p6.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q32_A1.html">Q[32], A[1]</a>). As, therefore, we make use of the likeness of the trace or image found in creatures for the manifestation of the divine persons, so also in the same manner do we make use of the essential attributes. And such a manifestation of the divine persons by the use of the essential attributes is called "appropriation." </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A7-p7"> The divine person can be manifested in a twofold manner by the essential attributes; in one way by similitude, and thus the things which belong to the intellect are appropriated to the Son, Who proceeds by way of intellect, as Word. In another way by dissimilitude; as power is appropriated to the Father, as Augustine says, because fathers by reason of old age are sometimes feeble; lest anything of the kind be imagined of God. </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A7-p8"> <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The essential attributes are not appropriated to the persons as if they exclusively belonged to them; but in order to make the persons manifest by way of similitude, or dissimilitude, as above explained. So, no error in faith can arise, but rather manifestation of the truth. </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A7-p9"> <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> If the essential attributes were appropriated to the persons as exclusively belonging to each of them, then it would follow that one person would be as a form as regards another; which Augustine altogether repudiates (De Trin. vi, 2), showing that the Father is wise, not by Wisdom begotten by Him, as though only the Son were Wisdom; so that the Father and the Son together only can be called wise, but not the Father without the Son. But the Son is called the Wisdom of the Father, because He is Wisdom from the Father Who is Wisdom. For each of them is of Himself Wisdom; and both together are one Wisdom. Whence the Father is not wise by the wisdom begotten by Him, but by the wisdom which is His own essence. </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A7-p10"> <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Although the essential attribute is in its proper concept prior to person, according to our way of understanding; nevertheless, so far as it is appropriated, there is nothing to prevent the personal property from being prior to that which is appropriated. Thus color is posterior to body considered as body, but is naturally prior to "white body," considered as white. </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A7-p11"></p> <p id="FP_Q39_A7-p12"></p> <a href="summa.FP_Q39_A6.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q39_A8.html"></a> </div> <div id="FP_Q39_A8" class="div4"> <a href="summa.FP_Q39_A7.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q40.html"></a> <h4 id="FP_Q39_A8-p0.1">Whether the essential attributes are appropriated to the persons in a fitting manner by the holy doctors?</h4> <p id="FP_Q39_A8-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q39_A8-p2"> <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the essential attributes are appropriated to the persons unfittingly by the holy doctors. For Hilary says (De Trin. ii): "Eternity is in the Father, the species in the Image; and use is in the Gift." In which words he designates three names proper to the persons: the name of the "Father," the name "Image" proper to the Son ( <a id="FP_Q39_A8-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q35_A2.html">Q[35], A[2]</a>), and the name "Bounty" or "Gift," which is proper to the Holy Ghost ( <a id="FP_Q39_A8-p2.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q38_A2.html">Q[38], A[2]</a>). He also designates three appropriated terms. For he appropriates "eternity" to the Father, "species" to the Son, and "use" to the Holy Ghost. This he does apparently without reason. For "eternity" imports duration of existence; "species," the principle of existence; and 'use' belongs to the operation. But essence and operation are not found to be appropriated to any person. Therefore the above terms are not fittingly appropriated to the persons. </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A8-p3"> <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. i, 5): "Unity is in the Father, equality in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost is the concord of equality and unity." This does not, however, seem fitting; because one person does not receive formal denomination from what is appropriated to another. For the Father is not wise by the wisdom begotten, as above explained ( <a id="FP_Q39_A8-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q37_A2.html">Q[37], A[2]</a>, ad 1). But, as he subjoins, "All these three are one by the Father; all are equal by the Son, and all united by the Holy Ghost." The above, therefore, are not fittingly appropriated to the Persons. </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A8-p4"> <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, according to Augustine, to the Father is attributed "power," to the Son "wisdom," to the Holy Ghost "goodness." Nor does this seem fitting; for "strength" is part of power, whereas strength is found to be appropriated to the Son, according to the text, "Christ the strength [*Douay: power] of God" ( <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q39_A8-p4.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.1.24" target="asv">1 Cor. 1:24</a>). So it is likewise appropriated to the Holy Ghost, according to the words, "strength [*Douay: virtue] came out from Him and healed all" ( <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q39_A8-p4.2" href="./asv.html#Luke.6.19" target="asv">Lk. 6:19</a>). Therefore power should not be appropriated to the Father. </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A8-p5"> <b>Objection 4:</b> Likewise Augustine says (De Trin. vi, 10): "What the Apostle says, "From Him, and by Him, and in Him," is not to be taken in a confused sense." And (Contra Maxim. ii) "'from Him' refers to the Father, 'by Him' to the Son, 'in Him' to the Holy Ghost.'" This, however, seems to be incorrectly said; for the words "in Him" seem to imply the relation of final cause, which is first among the causes. Therefore this relation of cause should be appropriated to the Father, Who is "the principle from no principle." </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A8-p6"> <b>Objection 5:</b> Likewise, Truth is appropriated to the Son, according to <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q39_A8-p6.1" href="./asv.html#John.14.6" target="asv">Jn. 14:6</a>, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life"; and likewise "the book of life," according to <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q39_A8-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Ps.39.9" target="asv"> Ps. 39:9, </a> "In the beginning of the book it is written of Me," where a gloss observes, "that is, with the Father Who is My head," also this word "Who is"; because on the text of <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q39_A8-p6.3" href="./asv.html#Isa.65.1" target="asv"> Is. 65:1, </a> "Behold I go to the Gentiles," a gloss adds, "The Son speaks Who said to Moses, I am Who am." These appear to belong to the Son, and are not appropriated. For "truth," according to Augustine (De Vera Relig. 36), "is the supreme similitude of the principle without any dissimilitude." So it seems that it properly belongs to the Son, Who has a principle. Also the "book of life" seems proper to the Son, as signifying "a thing from another"; for every book is written by someone. This also, "Who is," appears to be proper to the Son; because if when it was said to Moses, "I am Who am," the Trinity spoke, then Moses could have said, "He Who is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and the Holy Ghost sent me to you," so also he could have said further, "He Who is the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost sent me to you," pointing out a certain person. This, however, is false; because no person is Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Therefore it cannot be common to the Trinity, but is proper to the Son. </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A8-p7"> <b>I answer that,</b> Our intellect, which is led to the knowledge of God from creatures, must consider God according to the mode derived from creatures. In considering any creature four points present themselves to us in due order. Firstly, the thing itself taken absolutely is considered as a being. Secondly, it is considered as one. Thirdly, its intrinsic power of operation and causality is considered. The fourth point of consideration embraces its relation to its effects. Hence this fourfold consideration comes to our mind in reference to God. </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A8-p8"> According to the first point of consideration, whereby we consider God absolutely in His being, the appropriation mentioned by Hilary applies, according to which "eternity" is appropriated to the Father, "species" to the Son, "use" to the Holy Ghost. For "eternity" as meaning a "being" without a principle, has a likeness to the property of the Father, Who is "a principle without a principle." Species or beauty has a likeness to the property of the Son. For beauty includes three conditions, "integrity" or "perfection," since those things which are impaired are by the very fact ugly; due "proportion" or "harmony"; and lastly, "brightness" or "clarity," whence things are called beautiful which have a bright color. </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A8-p9"> The first of these has a likeness to the property of the Son, inasmuch as He as Son has in Himself truly and perfectly the nature of the Father. To insinuate this, Augustine says in his explanation (De Trin. vi, 10): "Where---that is, in the Son---there is supreme and primal life," etc. </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A8-p10"> The second agrees with the Son's property, inasmuch as He is the express Image of the Father. Hence we see that an image is said to be beautiful, if it perfectly represents even an ugly thing. This is indicated by Augustine when he says (De Trin. vi, 10), "Where there exists wondrous proportion and primal equality," etc. </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A8-p11"> The third agrees with the property of the Son, as the Word, which is the light and splendor of the intellect, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 3). Augustine alludes to the same when he says (De Trin. vi, 10): "As the perfect Word, not wanting in anything, and, so to speak, the art of the omnipotent God," etc. </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A8-p12"> "Use" has a likeness to the property of the Holy Ghost; provided the "use" be taken in a wide sense, as including also the sense of "to enjoy"; according as "to use" is to employ something at the beck of the will, and "to enjoy" means to use joyfully, as Augustine says (De Trin. x, 11). So "use," whereby the Father and the Son enjoy each other, agrees with the property of the Holy Ghost, as Love. This is what Augustine says (De Trin. vi, 10): "That love, that delectation, that felicity or beatitude, is called use by him" (Hilary). But the "use" by which we enjoy God, is likened to the property of the Holy Ghost as the Gift; and Augustine points to this when he says (De Trin. vi, 10): "In the Trinity, the Holy Ghost, the sweetness of the Begettor and the Begotten, pours out upon us mere creatures His immense bounty and wealth." Thus it is clear how "eternity," "species," and "use" are attributed or appropriated to the persons, but not essence or operation; because, being common, there is nothing in their concept to liken them to the properties of the Persons. </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A8-p13"> The second consideration of God regards Him as "one." In that view Augustine (De Doctr. Christ. i, 5) appropriates "unity" to the Father, "equality" to the Son, "concord" or "union" to the Holy Ghost. It is manifest that these three imply unity, but in different ways. For "unity" is said absolutely, as it does not presuppose anything else; and for this reason it is appropriated to the Father, to Whom any other person is not presupposed since He is the "principle without principle." "Equality" implies unity as regards another; for that is equal which has the same quantity as another. So equality is appropriated to the Son, Who is the "principle from a principle." "Union" implies the unity of two; and is therefore appropriated to the Holy Ghost, inasmuch as He proceeds from two. And from this we can understand what Augustine means when he says (De Doctr. Christ. i, 5) that "The Three are one, by reason of the Father; They are equal by reason of the Son; and are united by reason of the Holy Ghost." For it is clear that we trace a thing back to that in which we find it first: just as in this lower world we attribute life to the vegetative soul, because therein we find the first trace of life. Now "unity" is perceived at once in the person of the Father, even if by an impossible hypothesis, the other persons were removed. So the other persons derive their unity from the Father. But if the other persons be removed, we do not find equality in the Father, but we find it as soon as we suppose the Son. So, all are equal by reason of the Son, not as if the Son were the principle of equality in the Father, but that, without the Son equal to the Father, the Father could not be called equal; because His equality is considered firstly in regard to the Son: for that the Holy Ghost is equal to the Father, is also from the Son. Likewise, if the Holy Ghost, Who is the union of the two, be excluded, we cannot understand the oneness of the union between the Father and the Son. So all are connected by reason of the Holy Ghost; because given the Holy Ghost, we find whence the Father and the Son are said to be united. </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A8-p14"> According to the third consideration, which brings before us the adequate power of God in the sphere of causality, there is said to be a third kind of appropriation, of "power," "wisdom," and "goodness." This kind of appropriation is made both by reason of similitude as regards what exists in the divine persons, and by reason of dissimilitude if we consider what is in creatures. For "power" has the nature of a principle, and so it has a likeness to the heavenly Father, Who is the principle of the whole Godhead. But in an earthly father it is wanting sometimes by reason of old age. "Wisdom" has likeness to the heavenly Son, as the Word, for a word is nothing but the concept of wisdom. In an earthly son this is sometimes absent by reason of lack of years. "Goodness," as the nature and object of love, has likeness to the Holy Ghost; but seems repugnant to the earthly spirit, which often implies a certain violent impulse, according to <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q39_A8-p14.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.25.4" target="asv"> Is. 25:4</a>: "The spirit of the strong is as a blast beating on the wall." "Strength" is appropriated to the Son and to the Holy Ghost, not as denoting the power itself of a thing, but as sometimes used to express that which proceeds from power; for instance, we say that the strong work done by an agent is its strength. </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A8-p15"> According to the fourth consideration, i.e. God's relation to His effects, there arise appropriation of the expression "from Whom, by Whom, and in Whom." For this preposition "from" [ex] sometimes implies a certain relation of the material cause; which has no place in God; and sometimes it expresses the relation of the efficient cause, which can be applied to God by reason of His active power; hence it is appropriated to the Father in the same way as power. The preposition "by" [per] sometimes designates an intermediate cause; thus we may say that a smith works "by" a hammer. Hence the word "by" is not always appropriated to the Son, but belongs to the Son properly and strictly, according to the text, "All things were made by Him" ( <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q39_A8-p15.1" href="./asv.html#John.1.3" target="asv">Jn. 1:3</a>); not that the Son is an instrument, but as "the principle from a principle." Sometimes it designates the habitude of a form "by" which an agent works; thus we say that an artificer works by his art. Hence, as wisdom and art are appropriated to the Son, so also is the expression "by Whom." The preposition "in" strictly denotes the habitude of one containing. Now, God contains things in two ways: in one way by their similitudes; thus things are said to be in God, as existing in His knowledge. In this sense the expression "in Him" should be appropriated to the Son. In another sense things are contained in God forasmuch as He in His goodness preserves and governs them, by guiding them to a fitting end; and in this sense the expression "in Him" is appropriated to the Holy Ghost, as likewise is "goodness." Nor need the habitude of the final cause (though the first of causes) be appropriated to the Father, Who is "the principle without a principle": because the divine persons, of Whom the Father is the principle, do not proceed from Him as towards an end, since each of Them is the last end; but They proceed by a natural procession, which seems more to belong to the nature of a natural power. </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A8-p16"> Regarding the other points of inquiry, we can say that since "truth" belongs to the intellect, as stated above ( <a id="FP_Q39_A8-p16.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q16_A1.html">Q[16], A[1]</a>), it is appropriated to the Son, without, however, being a property of His. For truth can be considered as existing in the thought or in the thing itself. Hence, as intellect and thing in their essential meaning, are referred to the essence, and not to the persons, so the same is to be said of truth. The definition quoted from Augustine belongs to truth as appropriated to the Son. The "book of life" directly means knowledge but indirectly it means life. For, as above explained ( <a id="FP_Q39_A8-p16.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q24_A1.html">Q[24], A[1]</a>), it is God's knowledge regarding those who are to possess eternal life. Consequently, it is appropriated to the Son; although life is appropriated to the Holy Ghost, as implying a certain kind of interior movement, agreeing in that sense with the property of the Holy Ghost as Love. To be written by another is not of the essence of a book considered as such; but this belongs to it only as a work produced. So this does not imply origin; nor is it personal, but an appropriation to a person. The expression "Who is" is appropriated to the person of the Son, not by reason of itself, but by reason of an adjunct, inasmuch as, in God's word to Moses, was prefigured the delivery of the human race accomplished by the Son. Yet, forasmuch as the word "Who" is taken in a relative sense, it may sometimes relate to the person of the Son; and in that sense it would be taken personally; as, for instance, were we to say, "The Son is the begotten 'Who is,'" inasmuch as "God begotten is personal." But taken indefinitely, it is an essential term. And although the pronoun "this" [iste] seems grammatically to point to a particular person, nevertheless everything that we can point to can be grammatically treated as a person, although in its own nature it is not a person; as we may say, "this stone," and "this ass." So, speaking in a grammatical sense, so far as the word "God" signifies and stands for the divine essence, the latter may be designated by the pronoun "this," according to <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q39_A8-p16.3" href="./asv.html#Exod.15.2" target="asv"> Ex. 15:2</a>: "This is my God, and I will glorify Him." </p> <p id="FP_Q39_A8-p17"></p> <p id="FP_Q39_A8-p18"></p> <a href="summa.FP_Q39_A7.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q40.html"></a> </div> <a href="summa.FP_Q38_A2.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q39_A1.html"></a> </div> <div id="FP_Q40" class="div3"> <a href="summa.FP_Q39_A8.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q40_A1.html"></a> <h3 id="FP_Q40-p0.1">OF THE PERSONS AS COMPARED TO THE RELATIONS OR PROPERTIES (FOUR ARTICLES)</h3> <p id="FP_Q40-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q40-p2"> We now consider the persons in connection with the relations, or properties; and there are four points of inquiry:</p> <p id="FP_Q40-p3"> (1) Whether relation is the same as person?</p> <p id="FP_Q40-p4"> (2) Whether the relations distinguish and constitute the persons?</p> <p id="FP_Q40-p5"> (3) Whether mental abstraction of the relations from the persons leaves the hypostases distinct?</p> <p id="FP_Q40-p6"> (4) Whether the relations, according to our mode of understanding, presuppose the acts of the persons, or contrariwise?</p> <div id="FP_Q40_A1" class="div4"> <a href="summa.FP_Q40.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q40_A2.html"></a> <h4 id="FP_Q40_A1-p0.1">Whether relation is the same as person?</h4> <p id="FP_Q40_A1-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q40_A1-p2"> <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that in God relation is not the same as person. For when things are identical, if one is multiplied the others are multiplied. But in one person there are several relations; as in the person of the Father there is paternity and common spiration. Again, one relation exists in two person, as common spiration in the Father and in the Son. Therefore relation is not the same as person. </p> <p id="FP_Q40_A1-p3"> <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, according to the Philosopher (Phys. iv, text. 24), nothing is contained by itself. But relation is in the person; nor can it be said that this occurs because they are identical, for otherwise relation would be also in the essence. Therefore relation, or property, is not the same as person in God. </p> <p id="FP_Q40_A1-p4"> <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, when several things are identical, what is predicated of one is predicated of the others. But all that is predicated of a Person is not predicated of His property. For we say that the Father begets; but not that the paternity is begetting. Therefore property is not the same as person in God. </p> <p id="FP_Q40_A1-p5"> <b>On the contrary,</b> in God "what is" and "whereby it is" are the same, according to Boethius (De Hebdom.). But the Father is Father by paternity. In the same way, the other properties are the same as the persons. </p> <p id="FP_Q40_A1-p6"> <b>I answer that,</b> Different opinions have been held on this point. Some have said that the properties are not the persons, nor in the persons; and these have thought thus owing to the mode of signification of the relations, which do not indeed signify existence "in" something, but rather existence "towards" something. Whence, they styled the relations "assistant," as above explained ( <a id="FP_Q40_A1-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q28_A2.html">Q[28], A[2]</a>). But since relation, considered as really existing in God, is the divine essence Itself, and the essence is the same as person, as appears from what was said above ( <a id="FP_Q40_A1-p6.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q39_A1.html">Q[39], A[1]</a>), relation must necessarily be the same as person. </p> <p id="FP_Q40_A1-p7"> Others, therefore, considering this identity, said that the properties were indeed the persons; but not "in" the persons; for, they said, there are no properties in God except in our way of speaking, as stated above ( <a id="FP_Q40_A1-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q32_A2.html">Q[32], A[2]</a>). We must, however, say that there are properties in God; as we have shown ( <a id="FP_Q40_A1-p7.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q32_A2.html">Q[32], A[2]</a>). These are designated by abstract terms, being forms, as it were, of the persons. So, since the nature of a form requires it to be "in" that of which it is the form, we must say that the properties are in the persons, and yet that they are the persons; as we say that the essence is in God, and yet is God. </p> <p id="FP_Q40_A1-p8"> <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Person and property are really the same, but differ in concept. Consequently, it does not follow that if one is multiplied, the other must also be multiplied. We must, however, consider that in God, by reason of the divine simplicity, a twofold real identity exists as regards what in creatures are distinct. For, since the divine simplicity excludes the composition of matter and form, it follows that in God the abstract is the same as the concrete, as "Godhead" and "God." And as the divine simplicity excludes the composition of subject and accident, it follows that whatever is attributed to God, is His essence Itself; and so, wisdom and power are the same in God, because they are both in the divine essence. According to this twofold identity, property in God is the same person. For personal properties are the same as the persons because the abstract and the concrete are the same in God; since they are the subsisting persons themselves, as paternity is the Father Himself, and filiation is the Son, and procession is the Holy Ghost. But the non-personal properties are the same as the persons according to the other reason of identity, whereby whatever is attributed to God is His own essence. Thus, common spiration is the same as the person of the Father, and the person of the Son; not that it is one self-subsisting person; but that as there is one essence in the two persons, so also there is one property in the two persons, as above explained ( <a id="FP_Q40_A1-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q30_A2.html">Q[30], A[2]</a> ). </p> <p id="FP_Q40_A1-p9"> <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The properties are said to be in the essence, only by mode of identity; but in the persons they exist by mode of identity, not merely in reality, but also in the mode of signification; as the form exists in its subject. Thus the properties determine and distinguish the persons, but not the essence. </p> <p id="FP_Q40_A1-p10"> <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Notional participles and verbs signify the notional acts: and acts belong to a "suppositum." Now, properties are not designated as "supposita," but as forms of "supposita." And so their mode of signification is against notional participles and verbs being predicated of the properties. </p> <p id="FP_Q40_A1-p11"></p> <p id="FP_Q40_A1-p12"></p> <a href="summa.FP_Q40.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q40_A2.html"></a> </div> <div id="FP_Q40_A2" class="div4"> <a href="summa.FP_Q40_A1.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q40_A3.html"></a> <h4 id="FP_Q40_A2-p0.1">Whether the persons are distinguished by the relations?</h4> <p id="FP_Q40_A2-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q40_A2-p2"> <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the persons are not distinguished by the relations. For simple things are distinct by themselves. But the persons are supremely simple. Therefore they are distinguished by themselves, and not by the relation. </p> <p id="FP_Q40_A2-p3"> <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, a form is distinguished only in relation to its genus. For white is distinguished from black only by quality. But "hypostasis" signifies an individual in the genus of substance. Therefore the hypostases cannot be distinguished by relations. </p> <p id="FP_Q40_A2-p4"> <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, what is absolute comes before what is relative. But the distinction of the divine persons is the primary distinction. Therefore the divine persons are not distinguished by the relations. </p> <p id="FP_Q40_A2-p5"> <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, whatever presupposes distinction cannot be the first principle of distinction. But relation presupposes distinction, which comes into its definition; for a relation is essentially what is towards another. Therefore the first distinctive principle in God cannot be relation. </p> <p id="FP_Q40_A2-p6"> <b>On the contrary,</b> Boethius says (De Trin.): "Relation alone multiplies the Trinity of the divine persons." </p> <p id="FP_Q40_A2-p7"> <b>I answer that,</b> In whatever multitude of things is to be found something common to all, it is necessary to seek out the principle of distinction. So, as the three persons agree in the unity of essence, we must seek to know the principle of distinction whereby they are several. Now, there are two principles of difference between the divine persons, and these are "origin" and "relation." Although these do not really differ, yet they differ in the mode of signification; for "origin" is signified by way of act, as "generation"; and "relation" by way of the form, as "paternity." </p> <p id="FP_Q40_A2-p8"> Some, then, considering that relation follows upon act, have said that the divine hypostases are distinguished by origin, so that we may say that the Father is distinguished from the Son, inasmuch as the former begets and the latter is begotten. Further, that the relations, or the properties, make known the distinctions of the hypostases or persons as resulting therefrom; as also in creatures the properties manifest the distinctions of individuals, which distinctions are caused by the material principles. </p> <p id="FP_Q40_A2-p9"> This opinion, however, cannot stand---for two reasons. Firstly, because, in order that two things be understood as distinct, their distinction must be understood as resulting from something intrinsic to both; thus in things created it results from their matter or their form. Now origin of a thing does not designate anything intrinsic, but means the way from something, or to something; as generation signifies the way to a thing generated, and as proceeding from the generator. Hence it is not possible that what is generated and the generator should be distinguished by generation alone; but in the generator and in the thing generated we must presuppose whatever makes them to be distinguished from each other. In a divine person there is nothing to presuppose but essence, and relation or property. Whence, since the persons agree in essence, it only remains to be said that the persons are distinguished from each other by the relations. Secondly: because the distinction of the divine persons is not to be so understood as if what is common to them all is divided, because the common essence remains undivided; but the distinguishing principles themselves must constitute the things which are distinct. Now the relations or the properties distinguish or constitute the hypostases or persons, inasmuch as they are themselves the subsisting persons; as paternity is the Father, and filiation is the Son, because in God the abstract and the concrete do not differ. But it is against the nature of origin that it should constitute hypostasis or person. For origin taken in an active sense signifies proceeding from a subsisting person, so that it presupposes the latter; while in a passive sense origin, as "nativity," signifies the way to a subsisting person, and as not yet constituting the person. </p> <p id="FP_Q40_A2-p10"> It is therefore better to say that the persons or hypostases are distinguished rather by relations than by origin. For, although in both ways they are distinguished, nevertheless in our mode of understanding they are distinguished chiefly and firstly by relations; whence this name "Father" signifies not only a property, but also the hypostasis; whereas this term "Begetter" or "Begetting" signifies property only; forasmuch as this name "Father" signifies the relation which is distinctive and constitutive of the hypostasis; and this term "Begetter" or "Begotten" signifies the origin which is not distinctive and constitutive of the hypostasis. </p> <p id="FP_Q40_A2-p11"> <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The persons are the subsisting relations themselves. Hence it is not against the simplicity of the divine persons for them to be distinguished by the relations. </p> <p id="FP_Q40_A2-p12"> <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The divine persons are not distinguished as regards being, in which they subsist, nor in anything absolute, but only as regards something relative. Hence relation suffices for their distinction. </p> <p id="FP_Q40_A2-p13"> <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The more prior a distinction is, the nearer it approaches to unity; and so it must be the least possible distinction. So the distinction of the persons must be by that which distinguishes the least possible; and this is by relation. </p> <p id="FP_Q40_A2-p14"> <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Relation presupposes the distinction of the subjects, when it is an accident; but when the relation is subsistent, it does not presuppose, but brings about distinction. For when it is said that relation is by nature to be towards another, the word "another" signifies the correlative which is not prior, but simultaneous in the order of nature. </p> <p id="FP_Q40_A2-p15"></p> <p id="FP_Q40_A2-p16"></p> <a href="summa.FP_Q40_A1.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q40_A3.html"></a> </div> <div id="FP_Q40_A3" class="div4"> <a href="summa.FP_Q40_A2.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q40_A4.html"></a> <h4 id="FP_Q40_A3-p0.1">Whether the hypostases remain if the relations are mentally abstracted from the persons?</h4> <p id="FP_Q40_A3-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q40_A3-p2"> <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the hypostases remain if the properties or relations are mentally abstracted from the persons. For that to which something is added, may be understood when the addition is taken away; as man is something added to animal which can be understood if rational be taken away. But person is something added to hypostasis; for person is "a hypostasis distinguished by a property of dignity." Therefore, if a personal property be taken away from a person, the hypostasis remains. </p> <p id="FP_Q40_A3-p3"> <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, that the Father is Father, and that He is someone, are not due to the same reason. For as He is the Father by paternity, supposing He is some one by paternity, it would follow that the Son, in Whom there is not paternity, would not be "someone." So when paternity is mentally abstracted from the Father, He still remains "someone"---that is, a hypostasis. Therefore, if property be removed from person, the hypostasis remains. </p> <p id="FP_Q40_A3-p4"> <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Augustine says (De Trin. v, 6): "Unbegotten is not the same as Father; for if the Father had not begotten the Son, nothing would prevent Him being called unbegotten." But if He had not begotten the Son, there would be no paternity in Him. Therefore, if paternity be removed, there still remains the hypostasis of the Father as unbegotten. </p> <p id="FP_Q40_A3-p5"> <b>On the contrary,</b> Hilary says (De Trin. iv): "The Son has nothing else than birth." But He is Son by "birth." Therefore, if filiation be removed, the Son's hypostasis no more remains; and the same holds as regards the other persons. </p> <p id="FP_Q40_A3-p6"> <b>I answer that,</b> Abstraction by the intellect is twofold---when the universal is abstracted from the particular, as animal abstracted from man; and when the form is abstracted from the matter, as the form of a circle is abstracted by the intellect from any sensible matter. The difference between these two abstractions consists in the fact that in the abstraction of the universal from the particular, that from which the abstraction is made does not remain; for when the difference of rationality is removed from man, the man no longer remains in the intellect, but animal alone remains. But in the abstraction of the form from the matter, both the form and the matter remain in the intellect; as, for instance, if we abstract the form of a circle from brass, there remains in our intellect separately the understanding both of a circle, and of brass. Now, although there is no universal nor particular in God, nor form and matter, in reality; nevertheless, as regards the mode of signification there is a certain likeness of these things in God; and thus Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 6) that "substance is common and hypostasis is particular." So, if we speak of the abstraction of the universal from the particular, the common universal essence remains in the intellect if the properties are removed; but not the hypostasis of the Father, which is, as it were, a particular. </p> <p id="FP_Q40_A3-p7"> But as regards the abstraction of the form from the matter, if the non-personal properties are removed, then the idea of the hypostases and persons remains; as, for instance, if the fact of the Father's being unbegotten or spirating be mentally abstracted from the Father, the Father's hypostasis or person remains. </p> <p id="FP_Q40_A3-p8"> If, however, the personal property be mentally abstracted, the idea of the hypostasis no longer remains. For the personal properties are not to be understood as added to the divine hypostases, as a form is added to a pre-existing subject: but they carry with them their own "supposita," inasmuch as they are themselves subsisting persons; thus paternity is the Father Himself. For hypostasis signifies something distinct in God, since hypostasis means an individual substance. So, as relation distinguishes and constitutes the hypostases, as above explained <a id="FP_Q40_A3-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q40_A2.html">(A[2])</a>, it follows that if the personal relations are mentally abstracted, the hypostases no longer remain. Some, however, think, as above noted, that the divine hypostases are not distinguished by the relations, but only by origin; so that the Father is a hypostasis as not from another, and the Son is a hypostasis as from another by generation. And that the consequent relations which are to be regarded as properties of dignity, constitute the notion of a person, and are thus called "personal properties." Hence, if these relations are mentally abstracted, the hypostasis, but not the persons, remain. </p> <p id="FP_Q40_A3-p9"> But this is impossible, for two reasons: first, because the relations distinguish and constitute the hypostases, as shown above <a id="FP_Q40_A3-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q40_A2.html">(A[2])</a>; secondly, because every hypostasis of a rational nature is a person, as appears from the definition of Boethius (De Duab. Nat.) that, "person is the individual substance of a rational nature." Hence, to have hypostasis and not person, it would be necessary to abstract the rationality from the nature, but not the property from the person. </p> <p id="FP_Q40_A3-p10"> <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Person does not add to hypostasis a distinguishing property absolutely, but a distinguishing property of dignity, all of which must be taken as the difference. Now, this distinguishing property is one of dignity precisely because it is understood as subsisting in a rational nature. Hence, if the distinguishing property be removed from the person, the hypostasis no longer remains; whereas it would remain were the rationality of the nature removed; for both person and hypostasis are individual substances. Consequently, in God the distinguishing relation belongs essentially to both. </p> <p id="FP_Q40_A3-p11"> <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> By paternity the Father is not only Father, but is a person, and is "someone," or a hypostasis. It does not follow, however, that the Son is not "someone" or a hypostasis; just as it does not follow that He is not a person. </p> <p id="FP_Q40_A3-p12"> <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Augustine does not mean to say that the hypostasis of the Father would remain as unbegotten, if His paternity were removed, as if innascibility constituted and distinguished the hypostasis of the Father; for this would be impossible, since "being unbegotten" says nothing positive and is only a negation, as he himself says. But he speaks in a general sense, forasmuch as not every unbegotten being is the Father. So, if paternity be removed, the hypostasis of the Father does not remain in God, as distinguished from the other persons, but only as distinguished from creatures; as the Jews understand it. </p> <p id="FP_Q40_A3-p13"></p> <p id="FP_Q40_A3-p14"></p> <a href="summa.FP_Q40_A2.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q40_A4.html"></a> </div> <div id="FP_Q40_A4" class="div4"> <a href="summa.FP_Q40_A3.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q41.html"></a> <h4 id="FP_Q40_A4-p0.1">Whether the properties presuppose the notional acts?</h4> <p id="FP_Q40_A4-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q40_A4-p2"> <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the notional acts are understood before the properties. For the Master of the Sentences says (Sent. i, D, xxvii) that "the Father always is, because He is ever begetting the Son." So it seems that generation precedes paternity in the order of intelligence. </p> <p id="FP_Q40_A4-p3"> <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, in the order of intelligence every relation presupposes that on which it is founded; as equality presupposes quantity. But paternity is a relation founded on the action of generation. Therefore paternity presupposes generation. </p> <p id="FP_Q40_A4-p4"> <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, active generation is to paternity as nativity is to filiation. But filiation presupposes nativity; for the Son is so called because He is born. Therefore paternity also presupposes generation. </p> <p id="FP_Q40_A4-p5"> <b>On the contrary,</b> Generation is the operation of the person of the Father. But paternity constitutes the person of the Father. Therefore in the order of intelligence, paternity is prior to generation. </p> <p id="FP_Q40_A4-p6"> <b>I answer that,</b> According to the opinion that the properties do not distinguish and constitute the hypostases in God, but only manifest them as already distinct and constituted, we must absolutely say that the relations in our mode of understanding follow upon the notional acts, so that we can say, without qualifying the phrase, that "because He begets, He is the Father." A distinction, however, is needed if we suppose that the relations distinguish and constitute the divine hypostases. For origin has in God an active and passive signification---active, as generation is attributed to the Father, and spiration, taken for the notional act, is attributed to the Father and the Son; passive, as nativity is attributed to the Son, and procession to the Holy Ghost. For, in the order of intelligence, origin, in the passive sense, simply precedes the personal properties of the person proceeding; because origin, as passively understood, signifies the way to a person constituted by the property. Likewise, origin signified actively is prior in the order of intelligence to the non-personal relation of the person originating; as the notional act of spiration precedes, in the order of intelligence, the unnamed relative property common to the Father and the Son. The personal property of the Father can be considered in a twofold sense: firstly, as a relation; and thus again in the order of intelligence it presupposes the notional act, for relation, as such, is founded upon an act: secondly, according as it constitutes the person; and thus the notional act presupposes the relation, as an action presupposes a person acting. </p> <p id="FP_Q40_A4-p7"> <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> When the Master says that "because He begets, He is Father," the term "Father" is taken as meaning relation only, but not as signifying the subsisting person; for then it would be necessary to say conversely that because He is Father He begets. </p> <p id="FP_Q40_A4-p8"> <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> This objection avails of paternity as a relation, but not as constituting a person. </p> <p id="FP_Q40_A4-p9"> <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Nativity is the way to the person of the Son; and so, in the order of intelligence, it precedes filiation, even as constituting the person of the Son. But active generation signifies a proceeding from the person of the Father; wherefore it presupposes the personal property of the Father. </p> <p id="FP_Q40_A4-p10"></p> <p id="FP_Q40_A4-p11"></p> <a href="summa.FP_Q40_A3.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q41.html"></a> </div> <a href="summa.FP_Q39_A8.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q40_A1.html"></a> </div> <div id="FP_Q41" class="div3"> <a href="summa.FP_Q40_A4.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q41_A1.html"></a> <h3 id="FP_Q41-p0.1">OF THE PERSONS IN REFERENCE TO THE NOTIONAL ACTS (SIX ARTICLES)</h3> <p id="FP_Q41-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q41-p2"> We now consider the persons in reference to the notional acts, concerning which six points of inquiry arise:</p> <p id="FP_Q41-p3"> (1) Whether the notional acts are to be attributed to the persons?</p> <p id="FP_Q41-p4"> (2) Whether these acts are necessary, or voluntary?</p> <p id="FP_Q41-p5"> (3) Whether as regards these acts, a person proceeds from nothing or from something?</p> <p id="FP_Q41-p6"> (4) Whether in God there exists a power as regards the notional acts?</p> <p id="FP_Q41-p7"> (5) What this power means?</p> <p id="FP_Q41-p8"> (6) Whether several persons can be the term of one notional act?</p> <div id="FP_Q41_A1" class="div4"> <a href="summa.FP_Q41.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q41_A2.html"></a> <h4 id="FP_Q41_A1-p0.1">Whether the notional acts are to be attributed to the persons?</h4> <p id="FP_Q41_A1-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q41_A1-p2"> <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the notional acts are not to be attributed to the persons. For Boethius says (De Trin.): "Whatever is predicated of God, of whatever genus it be, becomes the divine substance, except what pertains to the relation." But action is one of the ten "genera." Therefore any action attributed to God belongs to His essence, and not to a notion. </p> <p id="FP_Q41_A1-p3"> <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Augustine says (De Trin. v, 4,5) that, "everything which is said of God, is said of Him as regards either His substance, or relation." But whatever belongs to the substance is signified by the essential attributes; and whatever belongs to the relations, by the names of the persons, or by the names of the properties. Therefore, in addition to these, notional acts are not to be attributed to the persons. </p> <p id="FP_Q41_A1-p4"> <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the nature of action is of itself to cause passion. But we do not place passions in God. Therefore neither are notional acts to be placed in God. </p> <p id="FP_Q41_A1-p5"> <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine (Fulgentius, De Fide ad Petrum ii) says: "It is a property of the Father to beget the Son." Therefore notional acts are to be placed in God. </p> <p id="FP_Q41_A1-p6"> <b>I answer that,</b> In the divine persons distinction is founded on origin. But origin can be properly designated only by certain acts. Wherefore, to signify the order of origin in the divine persons, we must attribute notional acts to the persons. </p> <p id="FP_Q41_A1-p7"> <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Every origin is designated by an act. In God there is a twofold order of origin: one, inasmuch as the creature proceeds from Him, and this is common to the three persons; and so those actions which are attributed to God to designate the proceeding of creatures from Him, belong to His essence. Another order of origin in God regards the procession of person from person; wherefore the acts which designate the order of this origin are called notional; because the notions of the persons are the mutual relations of the persons, as is clear from what was above explained ( <a id="FP_Q41_A1-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q32_A2.html">Q[32], A[2]</a>). </p> <p id="FP_Q41_A1-p8"> <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The notional acts differ from the relations of the persons only in their mode of signification; and in reality are altogether the same. Whence the Master says that "generation and nativity in other words are paternity and filiation" (Sent. i, D, xxvi). To see this, we must consider that the origin of one thing from another is firstly inferred from movement: for that anything be changed from its disposition by movement evidently arises from some cause. Hence action, in its primary sense, means origin of movement; for, as movement derived from another into a mobile object, is called "passion," so the origin of movement itself as beginning from another and terminating in what is moved, is called "action." Hence, if we take away movement, action implies nothing more than order of origin, in so far as action proceeds from some cause or principle to what is from that principle. Consequently, since in God no movement exists, the personal action of the one producing a person is only the habitude of the principle to the person who is from the principle; which habitudes are the relations, or the notions. Nevertheless we cannot speak of divine and intelligible things except after the manner of sensible things, whence we derive our knowledge, and wherein actions and passions, so far as these imply movement, differ from the relations which result from action and passion, and therefore it was necessary to signify the habitudes of the persons separately after the manner of act, and separately after the manner of relations. Thus it is evident that they are really the same, differing only in their mode of signification. </p> <p id="FP_Q41_A1-p9"> <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Action, so far as it means origin of movement, naturally involves passion; but action in that sense is not attributed to God. Whence, passions are attributed to Him only from a grammatical standpoint, and in accordance with our manner of speaking, as we attribute "to beget" with the Father, and to the Son "to be begotten." </p> <p id="FP_Q41_A1-p10"></p> <p id="FP_Q41_A1-p11"></p> <a href="summa.FP_Q41.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q41_A2.html"></a> </div> <div id="FP_Q41_A2" class="div4"> <a href="summa.FP_Q41_A1.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q41_A3.html"></a> <h4 id="FP_Q41_A2-p0.1">Whether the notional acts are voluntary?</h4> <p id="FP_Q41_A2-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q41_A2-p2"> <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the notional acts are voluntary. For Hilary says (De Synod.): "Not by natural necessity was the Father led to beget the Son." </p> <p id="FP_Q41_A2-p3"> <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the Apostle says, "He transferred us to the kingdom of the Son of His love" ( <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q41_A2-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Col.1.13" target="asv">Col. 1:13</a>). But love belongs to the will. Therefore the Son was begotten of the Father by will. </p> <p id="FP_Q41_A2-p4"> <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, nothing is more voluntary than love. But the Holy Ghost proceeds as Love from the Father and the Son. Therefore He proceeds voluntarily. </p> <p id="FP_Q41_A2-p5"> <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, the Son proceeds by mode of the intellect, as the Word. But every word proceeds by the will from a speaker. Therefore the Son proceeds from the Father by will, and not by nature. </p> <p id="FP_Q41_A2-p6"> <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, what is not voluntary is necessary. Therefore if the Father begot the Son, not by the will, it seems to follow that He begot Him by necessity; and this is against what Augustine says (Ad Orosium qu. vii). </p> <p id="FP_Q41_A2-p7"> <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says, in the same book, that, "the Father begot the Son neither by will, nor by necessity." </p> <p id="FP_Q41_A2-p8"> <b>I answer that,</b> When anything is said to be, or to be made by the will, this can be understood in two senses. In one sense, the ablative designates only concomitance, as I can say that I am a man by my will---that is, I will to be a man; and in this way it can be said that the Father begot the Son by will; as also He is God by will, because He wills to be God, and wills to beget the Son. In the other sense, the ablative imports the habitude of a principle as it is said that the workman works by his will, as the will is the principle of his work; and thus in that sense it must be said the God the Father begot the Son, not by His will; but that He produced the creature by His will. Whence in the book De Synod, it is said: "If anyone say that the Son was made by the Will of God, as a creature is said to be made, let him be anathema." The reason of this is that will and nature differ in their manner of causation, in such a way that nature is determined to one, while the will is not determined to one; and this because the effect is assimilated to the form of the agent, whereby the latter acts. Now it is manifest that of one thing there is only one natural form whereby it exists; and hence such as it is itself, such also is its work. But the form whereby the will acts is not only one, but many, according to the number of ideas understood. Hence the quality of the will's action does not depend on the quality of the agent, but on the agent's will and understanding. So the will is the principle of those things which may be this way or that way; whereas of those things which can be only in one way, the principle is nature. What, however, can exist in different ways is far from the divine nature, whereas it belongs to the nature of a created being; because God is of Himself necessary being, whereas a creature is made from nothing. Thus, the Arians, wishing to prove the Son to be a creature, said that the Father begot the Son by will, taking will in the sense of principle. But we, on the contrary, must assert that the Father begot the Son, not by will, but by nature. Wherefore Hilary says (De Synod.): "The will of God gave to all creatures their substance: but perfect birth gave the Son a nature derived from a substance impassible and unborn. All things created are such as God willed them to be; but the Son, born of God, subsists in the perfect likeness of God." </p> <p id="FP_Q41_A2-p9"> <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This saying is directed against those who did not admit even the concomitance of the Father's will in the generation of the Son, for they said that the Father begot the Son in such a manner by nature that the will to beget was wanting; just as we ourselves suffer many things against our will from natural necessity---as, for instance, death, old age, and like ills. This appears from what precedes and from what follows as regards the words quoted, for thus we read: "Not against His will, nor as it were, forced, nor as if He were led by natural necessity did the Father beget the Son." </p> <p id="FP_Q41_A2-p10"> <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The Apostle calls Christ the Son of the love of God, inasmuch as He is superabundantly loved by God; not, however, as if love were the principle of the Son's generation. </p> <p id="FP_Q41_A2-p11"> <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The will, as a natural faculty, wills something naturally, as man's will naturally tends to happiness; and likewise God naturally wills and loves Himself; whereas in regard to things other than Himself, the will of God is in a way, undetermined in itself, as above explained ( <a id="FP_Q41_A2-p11.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q19_A3.html">Q[19], A[3]</a>). Now, the Holy Ghost proceeds as Love, inasmuch as God loves Himself, and hence He proceeds naturally, although He proceeds by mode of will. </p> <p id="FP_Q41_A2-p12"> <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Even as regards the intellectual conceptions of the mind, a return is made to those first principles which are naturally understood. But God naturally understands Himself, and thus the conception of the divine Word is natural. </p> <p id="FP_Q41_A2-p13"> <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> A thing is said to be necessary "of itself," and "by reason of another." Taken in the latter sense, it has a twofold meaning: firstly, as an efficient and compelling cause, and thus necessary means what is violent; secondly, it means a final cause, when a thing is said to be necessary as the means to an end, so far as without it the end could not be attained, or, at least, so well attained. In neither of these ways is the divine generation necessary; because God is not the means to an end, nor is He subject to compulsion. But a thing is said to be necessary "of itself" which cannot but be: in this sense it is necessary for God to be; and in the same sense it is necessary that the Father beget the Son. </p> <p id="FP_Q41_A2-p14"></p> <p id="FP_Q41_A2-p15"></p> <a href="summa.FP_Q41_A1.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q41_A3.html"></a> </div> <div id="FP_Q41_A3" class="div4"> <a href="summa.FP_Q41_A2.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q41_A4.html"></a> <h4 id="FP_Q41_A3-p0.1">Whether the notional acts proceed from something?</h4> <p id="FP_Q41_A3-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q41_A3-p2"> <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the notional acts do not proceed from anything. For if the Father begets the Son from something, this will be either from Himself or from something else. If from something else, since that whence a thing is generated exists in what is generated, it follows that something different from the Father exists in the Son, and this contradicts what is laid down by Hilary (De Trin. vii) that, "In them nothing diverse or different exists." If the Father begets the Son from Himself, since again that whence a thing is generated, if it be something permanent, receives as predicate the thing generated therefrom just as we say, "The man is white," since the man remains, when not from white he is made white---it follows that either the Father does not remain after the Son is begotten, or that the Father is the Son, which is false. Therefore the Father does not beget the Son from something, but from nothing. </p> <p id="FP_Q41_A3-p3"> <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, that whence anything is generated is the principle regarding what is generated. So if the Father generate the Son from His own essence or nature, it follows that the essence or nature of the Father is the principle of the Son. But it is not a material principle, because in God nothing material exists; and therefore it is, as it were, an active principle, as the begetter is the principle of the one begotten. Thus it follows that the essence generates, which was disproved above ( <a id="FP_Q41_A3-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q39_A5.html">Q[39], A[5]</a>). </p> <p id="FP_Q41_A3-p4"> <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Augustine says (De Trin. vii, 6) that the three persons are not from the same essence; because the essence is not another thing from person. But the person of the Son is not another thing from the Father's essence. Therefore the Son is not from the Father's essence. </p> <p id="FP_Q41_A3-p5"> <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, every creature is from nothing. But in Scripture the Son is called a creature; for it is said ( <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q41_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Sir.24.5" target="asv">Ecclus. 24:5</a>), in the person of the Wisdom begotten,"I came out of the mouth of the Most High, the first-born before all creatures": and further on ( <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q41_A3-p5.2" href="./asv.html#Sir.24.14" target="asv">Ecclus. 24:14</a>) it is said as uttered by the same Wisdom, "From the beginning, and before the world was I created." Therefore the Son was not begotten from something, but from nothing. Likewise we can object concerning the Holy Ghost, by reason of what is said ( <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q41_A3-p5.3" href="./asv.html#Zech.12.1" target="asv">Zech. 12:1</a>): "Thus saith the Lord Who stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundations of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him"; and ( <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q41_A3-p5.4" href="./asv.html#Amos.4.13" target="asv">Amos 4:13</a>) according to another version [*The Septuagint]: "I Who form the earth, and create the spirit." </p> <p id="FP_Q41_A3-p6"> <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine (Fulgentius, De Fide ad Petrum i, 1) says: "God the Father, of His nature, without beginning, begot the Son equal to Himself." </p> <p id="FP_Q41_A3-p7"> <b>I answer that,</b> The Son was not begotten from nothing, but from the Father's substance. For it was explained above ( <a id="FP_Q41_A3-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q27_A2.html">Q[27], A[2]</a>; <a id="FP_Q41_A3-p7.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q33_A2.html">Q[33], AA[2]</a> ,3) that paternity, filiation and nativity really and truly exist in God. Now, this is the difference between true "generation," whereby one proceeds from another as a son, and "making," that the maker makes something out of external matter, as a carpenter makes a bench out of wood, whereas a man begets a son from himself. Now, as a created workman makes a thing out of matter, so God makes things out of nothing, as will be shown later on ( <a id="FP_Q41_A3-p7.3" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q45_A1.html">Q[45], A[1]</a>), not as if this nothing were a part of the substance of the thing made, but because the whole substance of a thing is produced by Him without anything else whatever presupposed. So, were the Son to proceed from the Father as out of nothing, then the Son would be to the Father what the thing made is to the maker, whereto, as is evident, the name of filiation would not apply except by a kind of similitude. Thus, if the Son of God proceeds from the Father out of nothing, He could not be properly and truly called the Son, whereas the contrary is stated ( <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q41_A3-p7.4" href="./asv.html#iJohn.5.20" target="asv">1 Jn. 5:20</a>): "That we may be in His true Son Jesus Christ." Therefore the true Son of God is not from nothing; nor is He made, but begotten. </p> <p id="FP_Q41_A3-p8"> That certain creatures made by God out of nothing are called sons of God is to be taken in a metaphorical sense, according to a certain likeness of assimilation to Him Who is the true Son. Whence, as He is the only true and natural Son of God, He is called the "only begotten," according to <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q41_A3-p8.1" href="./asv.html#John.1.18" target="asv"> Jn. 1:18, </a> "The only begotten Son, Who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him"; and so as others are entitled sons of adoption by their similitude to Him, He is called the "first begotten," according to <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q41_A3-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.8.29" target="asv"> Rom. 8:29</a>: "Whom He foreknew He also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of His Son, that He might be the first born of many brethren." Therefore the Son of God is begotten of the substance of the Father, but not in the same way as man is born of man; for a part of the human substance in generation passes into the substance of the one begotten, whereas the divine nature cannot be parted; whence it necessarily follows that the Father in begetting the Son does not transmit any part of His nature, but communicates His whole nature to Him, the distinction only of origin remaining as explained above ( <a id="FP_Q41_A3-p8.3" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q40_A2.html">Q[40], A[2]</a>). </p> <p id="FP_Q41_A3-p9"> <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> When we say that the Son was born of the Father, the preposition "of" designates a consubstantial generating principle, but not a material principle. For that which is produced from matter, is made by a change of form in that whence it is produced. But the divine essence is unchangeable, and is not susceptive of another form. </p> <p id="FP_Q41_A3-p10"> <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> When we say the Son is begotten of the essence of the Father, as the Master of the Sentences explains (Sent. i, D, v), this denotes the habitude of a kind of active principle, and as he expounds, "the Son is begotten of the essence of the Father"---that is, of the Father Who is essence; and so Augustine says (De Trin. xv, 13): "When I say of the Father Who is essence, it is the same as if I said more explicitly, of the essence of the Father." </p> <p id="FP_Q41_A3-p11"> This, however, is not enough to explain the real meaning of the words. For we can say that the creature is from God Who is essence; but not that it is from the essence of God. So we may explain them otherwise, by observing that the preposition "of" [de] always denotes consubstantiality. We do not say that a house is "of" [de] the builder, since he is not the consubstantial cause. We can say, however, that something is "of" another, if this is its consubstantial principle, no matter in what way it is so, whether it be an active principle, as the son is said to be "of" the father, or a material principle, as a knife is "of" iron; or a formal principle, but in those things only in which the forms are subsisting, and not accidental to another, for we can say that an angel is "of" an intellectual nature. In this way, then, we say that the Son is begotten 'of' the essence of the Father, inasmuch as the essence of the Father, communicated by generation, subsists in the Son. </p> <p id="FP_Q41_A3-p12"> <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> When we say that the Son is begotten of the essence of the Father, a term is added which saves the distinction. But when we say that the three persons are 'of' the divine essence, there is nothing expressed to warrant the distinction signified by the preposition, so there is no parity of argument. </p> <p id="FP_Q41_A3-p13"> <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> When we say "Wisdom was created," this may be understood not of Wisdom which is the Son of God, but of created wisdom given by God to creatures: for it is said, "He created her [namely, Wisdom] in the Holy Ghost, and He poured her out over all His works" ( <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q41_A3-p13.1" href="./asv.html#Sir.1.9" target="asv">Ecclus. 1:9,10</a>). Nor is it inconsistent for Scripture in one text to speak of the Wisdom begotten and wisdom created, for wisdom created is a kind of participation of the uncreated Wisdom. The saying may also be referred to the created nature assumed by the Son, so that the sense be, "From the beginning and before the world was I made"---that is, I was foreseen as united to the creature. Or the mention of wisdom as both created and begotten insinuates into our minds the mode of the divine generation; for in generation what is generated receives the nature of the generator and this pertains to perfection; whereas in creation the Creator is not changed, but the creature does not receive the Creator's nature. Thus the Son is called both created and begotten, in order that from the idea of creation the immutability of the Father may be understood, and from generation the unity of nature in the Father and the Son. In this way Hilary expounds the sense of this text of Scripture (De Synod.). The other passages quoted do not refer to the Holy Ghost, but to the created spirit, sometimes called wind, sometimes air, sometimes the breath of man, sometimes also the soul, or any other invisible substance. </p> <p id="FP_Q41_A3-p14"></p> <p id="FP_Q41_A3-p15"></p> <a href="summa.FP_Q41_A2.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q41_A4.html"></a> </div> <div id="FP_Q41_A4" class="div4"> <a href="summa.FP_Q41_A3.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q41_A5.html"></a> <h4 id="FP_Q41_A4-p0.1">Whether in God there is a power in respect of the notional acts?</h4> <p id="FP_Q41_A4-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q41_A4-p2"> <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that in God there is no power in respect of the notional acts. For every kind of power is either active or passive; neither of which can be here applied, there being in God nothing which we call passive power, as above explained ( <a id="FP_Q41_A4-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q25_A1.html">Q[25], A[1]</a>); nor can active power belong to one person as regards another, since the divine persons were not made, as stated above <a id="FP_Q41_A4-p2.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q41_A3.html">(A[3])</a>. Therefore in God there is no power in respect of the notional acts. </p> <p id="FP_Q41_A4-p3"> <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the object of power is what is possible. But the divine persons are not regarded as possible, but necessary. Therefore, as regards the notional acts, whereby the divine persons proceed, there cannot be power in God. </p> <p id="FP_Q41_A4-p4"> <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the Son proceeds as the word, which is the concept of the intellect; and the Holy Ghost proceeds as love, which belongs to the will. But in God power exists as regards effects, and not as regards intellect and will, as stated above ( <a id="FP_Q41_A4-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q25_A1.html">Q[25], A[1]</a>). Therefore, in God power does not exist in reference to the notional acts. </p> <p id="FP_Q41_A4-p5"> <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (Contra Maxim. iii, 1): "If God the Father could not beget a co-equal Son, where is the omnipotence of God the Father?" Power therefore exists in God regarding the notional acts. </p> <p id="FP_Q41_A4-p6"> <b>I answer that,</b> As the notional acts exist in God, so must there be also a power in God regarding these acts; since power only means the principle of act. So, as we understand the Father to be principle of generation; and the Father and the Son to be the principle of spiration, we must attribute the power of generating to the Father, and the power of spiration to the Father and the Son; for the power of generation means that whereby the generator generates. Now every generator generates by something. Therefore in every generator we must suppose the power of generating, and in the spirator the power of spirating. </p> <p id="FP_Q41_A4-p7"> <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As a person, according to notional acts, does not proceed as if made; so the power in God as regards the notional acts has no reference to a person as if made, but only as regards the person as proceeding. </p> <p id="FP_Q41_A4-p8"> <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Possible, as opposed to what is necessary, is a consequence of a passive power, which does not exist in God. Hence, in God there is no such thing as possibility in this sense, but only in the sense of possible as contained in what is necessary; and in this latter sense it can be said that as it is possible for God to be, so also is it possible that the Son should be generated. </p> <p id="FP_Q41_A4-p9"> <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Power signifies a principle: and a principle implies distinction from that of which it is the principle. Now we must observe a double distinction in things said of God: one is a real distinction, the other is a distinction of reason only. By a real distinction, God by His essence is distinct from those things of which He is the principle by creation: just as one person is distinct from the other of which He is principle by a notional act. But in God the distinction of action and agent is one of reason only, otherwise action would be an accident in God. And therefore with regard to those actions in respect of which certain things proceed which are distinct from God, either personally or essentially, we may ascribe power to God in its proper sense of principle. And as we ascribe to God the power of creating, so we may ascribe the power of begetting and of spirating. But "to understand" and "to will" are not such actions as to designate the procession of something distinct from God, either essentially or personally. Wherefore, with regard to these actions we cannot ascribe power to God in its proper sense, but only after our way of understanding and speaking: inasmuch as we designate by different terms the intellect and the act of understanding in God, whereas in God the act of understanding is His very essence which has no principle. </p> <p id="FP_Q41_A4-p10"></p> <p id="FP_Q41_A4-p11"></p> <a href="summa.FP_Q41_A3.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q41_A5.html"></a> </div> <div id="FP_Q41_A5" class="div4"> <a href="summa.FP_Q41_A4.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q41_A6.html"></a> <h4 id="FP_Q41_A5-p0.1">Whether the power of begetting signifies a relation, and not the essence?</h4> <p id="FP_Q41_A5-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q41_A5-p2"> <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the power of begetting, or of spirating, signifies the relation and not the essence. For power signifies a principle, as appears from its definition: for active power is the principle of action, as we find in Metaph. v, text 17. But in God principle in regard to Person is said notionally. Therefore, in God, power does not signify essence but relation. </p> <p id="FP_Q41_A5-p3"> <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, in God, the power to act [posse] and 'to act' are not distinct. But in God, begetting signifies relation. Therefore, the same applies to the power of begetting. </p> <p id="FP_Q41_A5-p4"> <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, terms signifying the essence in God, are common to the three persons. But the power of begetting is not common to the three persons, but proper to the Father. Therefore it does not signify the essence. </p> <p id="FP_Q41_A5-p5"> <b>On the contrary,</b> As God has the power to beget the Son, so also He wills to beget Him. But the will to beget signifies the essence. Therefore, also, the power to beget. </p> <p id="FP_Q41_A5-p6"> <b>I answer that,</b> Some have said that the power to beget signifies relation in God. But this is not possible. For in every agent, that is properly called power, by which the agent acts. Now, everything that produces something by its action, produces something like itself, as to the form by which it acts; just as man begotten is like his begetter in his human nature, in virtue of which the father has the power to beget a man. In every begetter, therefore, that is the power of begetting in which the begotten is like the begetter. </p> <p id="FP_Q41_A5-p7"> Now the Son of God is like the Father, who begets Him, in the divine nature. Wherefore the divine nature in the Father is in Him the power of begetting. And so Hilary says (De Trin. v): "The birth of God cannot but contain that nature from which it proceeded; for He cannot subsist other than God, Who subsists from no other source than God." </p> <p id="FP_Q41_A5-p8"> We must therefore conclude that the power of begetting signifies principally the divine essence as the Master says (Sent. i, D, vii), and not the relation only. Nor does it signify the essence as identified with the relation, so as to signify both equally. For although paternity is signified as the form of the Father, nevertheless it is a personal property, being in respect to the person of the Father, what the individual form is to the individual creature. Now the individual form in things created constitutes the person begetting, but is not that by which the begetter begets, otherwise Socrates would beget Socrates. So neither can paternity be understood as that by which the Father begets, but as constituting the person of the Father, otherwise the Father would beget the Father. But that by which the Father begets is the divine nature, in which the Son is like to Him. And in this sense Damascene says (De Fide Orth. i, 18) that generation is the "work of nature," not of nature generating, but of nature, as being that by which the generator generates. And therefore the power of begetting signifies the divine nature directly, but the relation indirectly. </p> <p id="FP_Q41_A5-p9"> <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Power does not signify the relation itself of a principle, for thus it would be in the genus of relation; but it signifies that which is a principle; not, indeed, in the sense in which we call the agent a principle, but in the sense of being that by which the agent acts. Now the agent is distinct from that which it makes, and the generator from that which it generates: but that by which the generator generates is common to generated and generator, and so much more perfectly, as the generation is more perfect. Since, therefore, the divine generation is most perfect, that by which the Begetter begets, is common to Begotten and Begetter by a community of identity, and not only of species, as in things created. Therefore, from the fact that we say that the divine essence "is the principle by which the Begetter begets," it does not follow that the divine essence is distinct (from the Begotten): which would follow if we were to say that the divine essence begets. </p> <p id="FP_Q41_A5-p10"> <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As in God, the power of begetting is the same as the act of begetting, so the divine essence is the same in reality as the act of begetting or paternity; although there is a distinction of reason. </p> <p id="FP_Q41_A5-p11"> <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> When I speak of the "power of begetting," power is signified directly, generation indirectly: just as if I were to say, the "essence of the Father." Wherefore in respect of the essence, which is signified, the power of begetting is common to the three persons: but in respect of the notion that is connoted, it is proper to the person of the Father. </p> <p id="FP_Q41_A5-p12"></p> <p id="FP_Q41_A5-p13"></p> <a href="summa.FP_Q41_A4.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q41_A6.html"></a> </div> <div id="FP_Q41_A6" class="div4"> <a href="summa.FP_Q41_A5.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q42.html"></a> <h4 id="FP_Q41_A6-p0.1">Whether several persons can be the term of one notional act?</h4> <p id="FP_Q41_A6-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q41_A6-p2"> <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that a notional act can be directed to several Persons, so that there may be several Persons begotten or spirated in God. For whoever has the power of begetting can beget. But the Son has the power of begetting. Therefore He can beget. But He cannot beget Himself: therefore He can beget another son. Therefore there can be several Sons in God. </p> <p id="FP_Q41_A6-p3"> <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Augustine says (Contra Maxim. iii, 12): "The Son did not beget a Creator: not that He could not, but that it behoved Him not." </p> <p id="FP_Q41_A6-p4"> <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, God the Father has greater power to beget than has a created father. But a man can beget several sons. Therefore God can also: the more so that the power of the Father is not diminished after begetting the Son. </p> <p id="FP_Q41_A6-p5"> <b>On the contrary,</b> In God "that which is possible," and "that which is" do not differ. If, therefore, in God it were possible for there to be several Sons, there would be several Sons. And thus there would be more than three Persons in God; which is heretical. </p> <p id="FP_Q41_A6-p6"> <b>I answer that,</b> As Athanasius says, in God there is only "one Father, one Son, one Holy Ghost." For this four reasons may be given. </p> <p id="FP_Q41_A6-p7"> The first reason is in regard to the relations by which alone are the Persons distinct. For since the divine Persons are the relations themselves as subsistent, there would not be several Fathers, or several Sons in God, unless there were more than one paternity, or more than one filiation. And this, indeed, would not be possible except owing to a material distinction: since forms of one species are not multiplied except in respect of matter, which is not in God. Wherefore there can be but one subsistent filiation in God: just as there could be but one subsistent whiteness. </p> <p id="FP_Q41_A6-p8"> The second reason is taken from the manner of the processions. For God understands and wills all things by one simple act. Wherefore there can be but one person proceeding after the manner of word, which person is the Son; and but one person proceeding after the manner of love, which person is the Holy Ghost. </p> <p id="FP_Q41_A6-p9"> The third reason is taken from the manner in which the persons proceed. For the persons proceed naturally, as we have said <a id="FP_Q41_A6-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q41_A2.html">(A[2])</a>, and nature is determined to one. </p> <p id="FP_Q41_A6-p10"> The fourth reason is taken from the perfection of the divine persons. For this reason is the Son perfect, that the entire divine filiation is contained in Him, and that there is but one Son. The argument is similar in regard to the other persons. </p> <p id="FP_Q41_A6-p11"> <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> We can grant, without distinction, that the Son has the same power as the Father; but we cannot grant that the Son has the power "generandi" [of begetting] thus taking "generandi" as the gerund of the active verb, so that the sense would be that the Son has the "power to beget." Just as, although Father and Son have the same being, it does not follow that the Son is the Father, by reason of the notional term added. But if the word "generandi" [of being begotten] is taken as the gerundive of the passive verb, the power "generandi" is in the Son---that is, the power of being begotten. The same is to be said if it be taken as the gerundive of an impersonal verb, so that the sense be "the power of generation"---that is, a power by which it is generated by some person. </p> <p id="FP_Q41_A6-p12"> <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Augustine does not mean to say by those words that the Son could beget a Son: but that if He did not, it was not because He could not, as we shall see later on ( <a id="FP_Q41_A6-p12.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q42_A6.html">Q[42], A[6]</a>, ad 3). </p> <p id="FP_Q41_A6-p13"> <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Divine perfection and the total absence of matter in God require that there cannot be several Sons in God, as we have explained. Wherefore that there are not several Sons is not due to any lack of begetting power in the Father. </p> <p id="FP_Q41_A6-p14"></p> <p id="FP_Q41_A6-p15"></p> <a href="summa.FP_Q41_A5.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q42.html"></a> </div> <a href="summa.FP_Q40_A4.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q41_A1.html"></a> </div> <div id="FP_Q42" class="div3"> <a href="summa.FP_Q41_A6.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q42_A1.html"></a> <h3 id="FP_Q42-p0.1">OF EQUALITY AND LIKENESS AMONG THE DIVINE PERSONS (SIX ARTICLES)</h3> <p id="FP_Q42-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q42-p2"> We now have to consider the persons as compared to one another: firstly, with regard to equality and likeness; secondly, with regard to mission. Concerning the first there are six points of inquiry. </p> <p id="FP_Q42-p3"> (1) Whether there is equality among the divine persons?</p> <p id="FP_Q42-p4"> (2) Whether the person who proceeds is equal to the one from Whom He proceeds in eternity?</p> <p id="FP_Q42-p5"> (3) Whether there is any order among the divine persons?</p> <p id="FP_Q42-p6"> (4) Whether the divine persons are equal in greatness?</p> <p id="FP_Q42-p7"> (5) Whether the one divine person is in another?</p> <p id="FP_Q42-p8"> (6) Whether they are equal in power?</p> <div id="FP_Q42_A1" class="div4"> <a href="summa.FP_Q42.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q42_A2.html"></a> <h4 id="FP_Q42_A1-p0.1">Whether there is equality in God?</h4> <p id="FP_Q42_A1-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q42_A1-p2"> <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that equality is not becoming to the divine persons. For equality is in relation to things which are one in quantity as the Philosopher says (Metaph. v, text 20). But in the divine persons there is no quantity, neither continuous intrinsic quantity, which we call size, nor continuous extrinsic quantity, which we call place and time. Nor can there be equality by reason of discrete quantity, because two persons are more than one. Therefore equality is not becoming to the divine persons. </p> <p id="FP_Q42_A1-p3"> <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the divine persons are of one essence, as we have said ( <a id="FP_Q42_A1-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q39_A2.html">Q[39], A[2]</a>). Now essence is signified by way of form. But agreement in form makes things to be alike, not to be equal. Therefore, we may speak of likeness in the divine persons, but not of equality. </p> <p id="FP_Q42_A1-p4"> <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, things wherein there is to be found equality, are equal to one another, for equality is reciprocal. But the divine persons cannot be said to be equal to one another. For as Augustine says (De Trin. vi, 10): "If an image answers perfectly to that whereof it is the image, it may be said to be equal to it; but that which it represents cannot be said to be equal to the image." But the Son is the image of the Father; and so the Father is not equal to the Son. Therefore equality is not to be found among the divine persons. </p> <p id="FP_Q42_A1-p5"> <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, equality is a relation. But no relation is common to the three persons; for the persons are distinct by reason of the relations. Therefore equality is not becoming to the divine persons. </p> <p id="FP_Q42_A1-p6"> <b>On the contrary,</b> Athanasius says that "the three persons are co-eternal and co-equal to one another." </p> <p id="FP_Q42_A1-p7"> <b>I answer that,</b> We must needs admit equality among the divine persons. For, according to the Philosopher (Metaph. x, text 15,16, 17), equality signifies the negation of greater or less. Now we cannot admit anything greater or less in the divine persons; for as Boethius says (De Trin. i): "They must needs admit a difference [namely, of Godhead] who speak of either increase or decrease, as the Arians do, who sunder the Trinity by distinguishing degrees as of numbers, thus involving a plurality." Now the reason of this is that unequal things cannot have the same quantity. But quantity, in God, is nothing else than His essence. Wherefore it follows, that if there were any inequality in the divine persons, they would not have the same essence; and thus the three persons would not be one God; which is impossible. We must therefore admit equality among the divine persons. </p> <p id="FP_Q42_A1-p8"> <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Quantity is twofold. There is quantity of "bulk" or dimensive quantity, which is to be found only in corporeal things, and has, therefore, no place in God. There is also quantity of "virtue," which is measured according to the perfection of some nature or form: to this sort of quantity we allude when we speak of something as being more, or less, hot; forasmuch as it is more or less, perfect in heat. Now this virtual quantity is measured firstly by its source---that is, by the perfection of that form or nature: such is the greatness of spiritual things, just as we speak of great heat on account of its intensity and perfection. And so Augustine says (De Trin. vi, 18) that "in things which are great, but not in bulk, to be greater is to be better," for the more perfect a thing is the better it is. Secondly, virtual quantity is measured by the effects of the form. Now the first effect of form is being, for everything has being by reason of its form. The second effect is operation, for every agent acts through its form. Consequently virtual quantity is measured both in regard to being and in regard to action: in regard to being, forasmuch as things of a more perfect nature are of longer duration; and in regard to action, forasmuch as things of a more perfect nature are more powerful to act. And so as Augustine (Fulgentius, De Fide ad Petrum i) says: "We understand equality to be in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, inasmuch as no one of them either precedes in eternity, or excels in greatness, or surpasses in power." </p> <p id="FP_Q42_A1-p9"> <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Where we have equality in respect of virtual quantity, equality includes likeness and something besides, because it excludes excess. For whatever things have a common form may be said to be alike, even if they do not participate in that form equally, just as the air may be said to be like fire in heat; but they cannot be said to be equal if one participates in the form more perfectly than another. And because not only is the same nature in both Father and Son, but also is it in both in perfect equality, therefore we say not only that the Son is like to the Father, in order to exclude the error of Eunomius, but also that He is equal to the Father to exclude the error of Arius. </p> <p id="FP_Q42_A1-p10"> <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Equality and likeness in God may be designated in two ways---namely, by nouns and by verbs. When designated by nouns, equality in the divine persons is mutual, and so is likeness; for the Son is equal and like to the Father, and conversely. This is because the divine essence is not more the Father's than the Son's. Wherefore, just as the Son has the greatness of the Father, and is therefore equal to the Father, so the Father has the greatness of the Son, and is therefore equal to the Son. But in reference to creatures, Dionysius says (Div. Nom. ix): "Equality and likeness are not mutual." For effects are said to be like their causes, inasmuch as they have the form of their causes; but not conversely, for the form is principally in the cause, and secondarily in the effect. </p> <p id="FP_Q42_A1-p11"> But verbs signify equality with movement. And although movement is not in God, there is something that receives. Since, therefore, the Son receives from the Father, this, namely, that He is equal to the Father, and not conversely, for this reason we say that the Son is equalled to the Father, but not conversely. </p> <p id="FP_Q42_A1-p12"> <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> In the divine persons there is nothing for us to consider but the essence which they have in common and the relations in which they are distinct. Now equality implies both ---namely, distinction of persons, for nothing can be said to be equal to itself; and unity of essence, since for this reason are the persons equal to one another, that they are of the same greatness and essence. Now it is clear that the relation of a thing to itself is not a real relation. Nor, again, is one relation referred to another by a further relation: for when we say that paternity is opposed to filiation, opposition is not a relation mediating between paternity and filiation. For in both these cases relation would be multiplied indefinitely. Therefore equality and likeness in the divine persons is not a real relation distinct from the personal relations: but in its concept it includes both the relations which distinguish the persons, and the unity of essence. For this reason the Master says (Sent. i, D, xxxi) that in these "it is only the terms that are relative." </p> <p id="FP_Q42_A1-p13"></p> <p id="FP_Q42_A1-p14"></p> <a href="summa.FP_Q42.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q42_A2.html"></a> </div> <div id="FP_Q42_A2" class="div4"> <a href="summa.FP_Q42_A1.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q42_A3.html"></a> <h4 id="FP_Q42_A2-p0.1">Whether the person proceeding is co-eternal with His principle, as the Son with the Father?</h4> <p id="FP_Q42_A2-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q42_A2-p2"> <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the person proceeding is not co-eternal with His principle, as the Son with the Father. For Arius gives twelve modes of generation. The first mode is like the issue of a line from a point; wherein is wanting equality of simplicity. The second is like the emission of rays from the sun; wherein is absent equality of nature. The third is like the mark or impression made by a seal; wherein is wanting consubstantiality and executive power. The fourth is the infusion of a good will from God; wherein also consubstantiality is wanting. The fifth is the emanation of an accident from its subject; but the accident has no subsistence. The sixth is the abstraction of a species from matter, as sense receives the species from the sensible object; wherein is wanting equality of spiritual simplicity. The seventh is the exciting of the will by knowledge, which excitation is merely temporal. The eighth is transformation, as an image is made of brass; which transformation is material. The ninth is motion from a mover; and here again we have effect and cause. The tenth is the taking of species from genera; but this mode has no place in God, for the Father is not predicated of the Son as the genus of a species. The eleventh is the realization of an idea [ideatio], as an external coffer arises from the one in the mind. The twelfth is birth, as a man is begotten of his father; which implies priority and posteriority of time. Thus it is clear that equality of nature or of time is absent in every mode whereby one thing is from another. So if the Son is from the Father, we must say that He is less than the Father, or later than the Father, or both. </p> <p id="FP_Q42_A2-p3"> <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, everything that comes from another has a principle. But nothing eternal has a principle. Therefore the Son is not eternal; nor is the Holy Ghost. </p> <p id="FP_Q42_A2-p4"> <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, everything which is corrupted ceases to be. Hence everything generated begins to be; for the end of generation is existence. But the Son is generated by the Father. Therefore He begins to exist, and is not co-eternal with the Father. </p> <p id="FP_Q42_A2-p5"> <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, if the Son be begotten by the Father, either He is always being begotten, or there is some moment in which He is begotten. If He is always being begotten, since, during the process of generation, a thing must be imperfect, as appears in successive things, which are always in process of becoming, as time and motion, it follows that the Son must be always imperfect, which cannot be admitted. Thus there is a moment to be assigned for the begetting of the Son, and before that moment the Son did not exist. </p> <p id="FP_Q42_A2-p6"> <b>On the contrary,</b> Athanasius declares that "all the three persons are co-eternal with each other." </p> <p id="FP_Q42_A2-p7"> <b>I answer that,</b> We must say that the Son is co-eternal with the Father. In proof of which we must consider that for a thing which proceeds from a principle to be posterior to its principle may be due to two reasons: one on the part of the agent, and the other on the part of the action. On the part of the agent this happens differently as regards free agents and natural agents. In free agents, on account of the choice of time; for as a free agent can choose the form it gives to the effect, as stated above ( <a id="FP_Q42_A2-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q41_A2.html">Q[41], A[2]</a>), so it can choose the time in which to produce its effect. In natural agents, however, the same happens from the agent not having its perfection of natural power from the very first, but obtaining it after a certain time; as, for instance, a man is not able to generate from the very first. Considered on the part of action, anything derived from a principle cannot exist simultaneously with its principle when the action is successive. So, given that an agent, as soon as it exists, begins to act thus, the effect would not exist in the same instant, but in the instant of the action's termination. Now it is manifest, according to what has been said ( <a id="FP_Q42_A2-p7.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q41_A2.html">Q[41], A[2]</a>), that the Father does not beget the Son by will, but by nature; and also that the Father's nature was perfect from eternity; and again that the action whereby the Father produces the Son is not successive, because thus the Son would be successively generated, and this generation would be material, and accompanied with movement; which is quite impossible. Therefore we conclude that the Son existed whensoever the Father existed and thus the Son is co-eternal with the Father, and likewise the Holy Ghost is co-eternal with both. </p> <p id="FP_Q42_A2-p8"> <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As Augustine says (De Verbis Domini, Serm. 38), no mode of the procession of any creature perfectly represents the divine generation. Hence we need to gather a likeness of it from many of these modes, so that what is wanting in one may be somewhat supplied from another; and thus it is declared in the council of Ephesus: "Let Splendor tell thee that the co-eternal Son existed always with the Father; let the Word announce the impassibility of His birth; let the name Son insinuate His consubstantiality." Yet, above them all the procession of the word from the intellect represents it more exactly; the intellectual word not being posterior to its source except in an intellect passing from potentiality to act; and this cannot be said of God. </p> <p id="FP_Q42_A2-p9"> <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Eternity excludes the principle of duration, but not the principle of origin. </p> <p id="FP_Q42_A2-p10"> <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Every corruption is a change; and so all that corrupts begins not to exist and ceases to be. The divine generation, however, is not changed, as stated above ( <a id="FP_Q42_A2-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q27_A2.html">Q[27], A[2]</a>). Hence the Son is ever being begotten, and the Father is always begetting. </p> <p id="FP_Q42_A2-p11"> <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> In time there is something indivisible---namely, the instant; and there is something else which endures---namely, time. But in eternity the indivisible "now" stands ever still, as we have said above ( <a id="FP_Q42_A2-p11.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q10_A2.html">Q[10], A[2]</a> ad 1, A[4] ad 2). But the generation of the Son is not in the "now" of time, or in time, but in eternity. And so to express the presentiality and permanence of eternity, we can say that "He is ever being born," as Origen said (Hom. in Joan. i). But as Gregory [*Moral. xxix, 21] and Augustine [*Super <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q42_A2-p11.2" href="./asv.html#Ps.2.7" target="asv"> Ps. 2:7</a>] said, it is better to say "ever born," so that "ever" may denote the permanence of eternity, and "born" the perfection of the only Begotten. Thus, therefore, neither is the Son imperfect, nor "was there a time when He was not," as Arius said. </p> <p id="FP_Q42_A2-p12"></p> <p id="FP_Q42_A2-p13"></p> <a href="summa.FP_Q42_A1.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q42_A3.html"></a> </div> <div id="FP_Q42_A3" class="div4"> <a href="summa.FP_Q42_A2.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q42_A4.html"></a> <h4 id="FP_Q42_A3-p0.1">Whether in the divine persons there exists an order of nature?</h4> <p id="FP_Q42_A3-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q42_A3-p2"> <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that among the divine persons there does not exist an order of nature. For whatever exists in God is the essence, or a person, or a notion. But the order of nature does not signify the essence, nor any of the persons, or notions. Therefore there is no order of nature in God. </p> <p id="FP_Q42_A3-p3"> <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, wherever order of nature exists, there one comes before another, at least, according to nature and intellect. But in the divine persons there exists neither priority nor posteriority, as declared by Athanasius. Therefore, in the divine persons there is no order of nature. </p> <p id="FP_Q42_A3-p4"> <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, wherever order exists, distinction also exists. But there is no distinction in the divine nature. Therefore it is not subject to order; and order of nature does not exist in it. </p> <p id="FP_Q42_A3-p5"> <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, the divine nature is the divine essence. But there is no order of essence in God. Therefore neither is there of nature. </p> <p id="FP_Q42_A3-p6"> <b>On the contrary,</b> Where plurality exists without order, confusion exists. But in the divine persons there is no confusion, as Athanasius says. Therefore in God order exists. </p> <p id="FP_Q42_A3-p7"> <b>I answer that,</b> Order always has reference to some principle. Wherefore since there are many kinds of principle---namely, according to site, as a point; according to intellect, as the principle of demonstration; and according to each individual cause---so are there many kinds of order. Now principle, according to origin, without priority, exists in God as we have stated ( <a id="FP_Q42_A3-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q33_A1.html">Q[33], A[1]</a>): so there must likewise be order according to origin, without priority; and this is called 'the order of nature': in the words of Augustine (Contra Maxim. iv): "Not whereby one is prior to another, but whereby one is from another." </p> <p id="FP_Q42_A3-p8"> <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The order of nature signifies the notion of origin in general, not a special kind of origin. </p> <p id="FP_Q42_A3-p9"> <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> In things created, even when what is derived from a principle is co-equal in duration with its principle, the principle still comes first in the order of nature and reason, if formally considered as principle. If, however, we consider the relations of cause and effect, or of the principle and the thing proceeding therefrom, it is clear that the things so related are simultaneous in the order of nature and reason, inasmuch as the one enters the definition of the other. But in God the relations themselves are the persons subsisting in one nature. So, neither on the part of the nature, nor on the part the relations, can one person be prior to another, not even in the order of nature and reason. </p> <p id="FP_Q42_A3-p10"> <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The order of nature means not the ordering of nature itself, but the existence of order in the divine Persons according to natural origin. </p> <p id="FP_Q42_A3-p11"> <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Nature in a certain way implies the idea of a principle, but essence does not; and so the order of origin is more correctly called the order of nature than the order of essence. </p> <p id="FP_Q42_A3-p12"></p> <p id="FP_Q42_A3-p13"></p> <a href="summa.FP_Q42_A2.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q42_A4.html"></a> </div> <div id="FP_Q42_A4" class="div4"> <a href="summa.FP_Q42_A3.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q42_A5.html"></a> <h4 id="FP_Q42_A4-p0.1">Whether the Son is equal to the Father in greatness?</h4> <p id="FP_Q42_A4-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q42_A4-p2"> <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the Son is not equal to the Father in greatness. For He Himself said ( <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q42_A4-p2.1" href="./asv.html#John.14.28" target="asv">Jn. 14:28</a>): "The Father is greater than I"; and the Apostle says ( <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q42_A4-p2.2" href="./asv.html#iCor.15.28" target="asv">1 Cor. 15:28</a>): "The Son Himself shall be subject to Him that put all things under Him." </p> <p id="FP_Q42_A4-p3"> <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, paternity is part of the Father's dignity. But paternity does not belong to the Son. Therefore the Son does not possess all the Father's dignity; and so He is not equal in greatness to the Father. </p> <p id="FP_Q42_A4-p4"> <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, wherever there exist a whole and a part, many parts are more than one only, or than fewer parts; as three men are more than two, or than one. But in God a universal whole exists, and a part; for under relation or notion, several notions are included. Therefore, since in the Father there are three notions, while in the Son there are only two, the Son is evidently not equal to the Father. </p> <p id="FP_Q42_A4-p5"> <b>On the contrary,</b> It is said ( <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q42_A4-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Phil.2.6" target="asv">Phil. 2:6</a>): "He thought it not robbery to be equal with God." </p> <p id="FP_Q42_A4-p6"> <b>I answer that,</b> The Son is necessarily equal to the Father in greatness. For the greatness of God is nothing but the perfection of His nature. Now it belongs to the very nature of paternity and filiation that the Son by generation should attain to the possession of the perfection of the nature which is in the Father, in the same way as it is in the Father Himself. But since in men generation is a certain kind of transmutation of one proceeding from potentiality to act, it follows that a man is not equal at first to the father who begets him, but attains to equality by due growth, unless owing to a defect in the principle of generation it should happen otherwise. From what precedes ( <a id="FP_Q42_A4-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q27_A2.html">Q[27], A[2]</a>; <a id="FP_Q42_A4-p6.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q33_A2.html">Q[33], AA[2]</a> ,3), it is evident that in God there exist real true paternity and filiation. Nor can we say that the power of generation in the Father was defective, nor that the Son of God arrived at perfection in a successive manner and by change. Therefore we must say that the Son was eternally equal to the Father in greatness. Hence, Hilary says (De Synod. Can. 27): "Remove bodily weakness, remove the beginning of conception, remove pain and all human shortcomings, then every son, by reason of his natural nativity, is the father's equal, because he has a like nature." </p> <p id="FP_Q42_A4-p7"> <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> These words are to be understood of Christ's human nature, wherein He is less than the Father, and subject to Him; but in His divine nature He is equal to the Father. This is expressed by Athanasius, "Equal to the Father in His Godhead; less than the Father in humanity": and by Hilary (De Trin. ix): "By the fact of giving, the Father is greater; but He is not less to Whom the same being is given"; and (De Synod.): "The Son subjects Himself by His inborn piety"---that is, by His recognition of paternal authority; whereas "creatures are subject by their created weakness." </p> <p id="FP_Q42_A4-p8"> <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Equality is measured by greatness. In God greatness signifies the perfection of nature, as above explained (A[1], ad 1), and belongs to the essence. Thus equality and likeness in God have reference to the essence; nor can there be inequality or dissimilitude arising from the distinction of the relations. Wherefore Augustine says (Contra Maxim. iii, 13), "The question of origin is, Who is from whom? but the question of equality is, Of what kind, or how great, is he?" Therefore, paternity is the Father's dignity, as also the Father's essence: since dignity is something absolute, and pertains to the essence. As, therefore, the same essence, which in the Father is paternity, in the Son is filiation, so the same dignity which, in the Father is paternity, in the Son is filiation. It is thus true to say that the Son possesses whatever dignity the Father has; but we cannot argue---"the Father has paternity, therefore the Son has paternity," for there is a transition from substance to relation. For the Father and the Son have the same essence and dignity, which exist in the Father by the relation of giver, and in the Son by relation of receiver. </p> <p id="FP_Q42_A4-p9"> <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> In God relation is not a universal whole, although it is predicated of each of the relations; because all the relations are one in essence and being, which is irreconcilable with the idea of universal, the parts of which are distinguished in being. Persons likewise is not a universal term in God as we have seen above ( <a id="FP_Q42_A4-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q30_A4.html">Q[30], A[4]</a>). Wherefore all the relations together are not greater than only one; nor are all the persons something greater than only one; because the whole perfection of the divine nature exists in each person. </p> <p id="FP_Q42_A4-p10"></p> <p id="FP_Q42_A4-p11"></p> <a href="summa.FP_Q42_A3.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q42_A5.html"></a> </div> <div id="FP_Q42_A5" class="div4"> <a href="summa.FP_Q42_A4.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q42_A6.html"></a> <h4 id="FP_Q42_A5-p0.1">Whether the Son is in the Father, and conversely?</h4> <p id="FP_Q42_A5-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q42_A5-p2"> <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the Son and the Father are not in each other. For the Philosopher (Phys. iv, text. 23) gives eight modes of one thing existing in another, according to none of which is the Son in the Father, or conversely; as is patent to anyone who examines each mode. Therefore the Son and the Father are not in each other. </p> <p id="FP_Q42_A5-p3"> <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, nothing that has come out from another is within. But the Son from eternity came out from the Father, according to <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q42_A5-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Mic.5.2" target="asv"> Mic. 5:2</a>: "His going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity." Therefore the Son is not in the Father. </p> <p id="FP_Q42_A5-p4"> <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, one of two opposites cannot be in the other. But the Son and the Father are relatively opposed. Therefore one cannot be in the other. </p> <p id="FP_Q42_A5-p5"> <b>On the contrary,</b> It is said ( <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q42_A5-p5.1" href="./asv.html#John.14.10" target="asv">Jn. 14:10</a>): "I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me." </p> <p id="FP_Q42_A5-p6"> <b>I answer that,</b> There are three points of consideration as regards the Father and the Son; the essence, the relation and the origin; and according to each the Son and the Father are in each other. The Father is in the Son by His essence, forasmuch as the Father is His own essence and communicates His essence to the Son not by any change on His part. Hence it follows that as the Father's essence is in the Son, the Father Himself is in the Son; likewise, since the Son is His own essence, it follows that He Himself is in the Father in Whom is His essence. This is expressed by Hilary (De Trin. v), "The unchangeable God, so to speak, follows His own nature in begetting an unchangeable subsisting God. So we understand the nature of God to subsist in Him, for He is God in God." It is also manifest that as regards the relations, each of two relative opposites is in the concept of the other. Regarding origin also, it is clear that the procession of the intelligible word is not outside the intellect, inasmuch as it remains in the utterer of the word. What also is uttered by the word is therein contained. And the same applies to the Holy Ghost. </p> <p id="FP_Q42_A5-p7"> <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> What is contained in creatures does not sufficiently represent what exists in God; so according to none of the modes enumerated by the Philosopher, are the Son and the Father in each other. The mode the most nearly approaching to the reality is to be found in that whereby something exists in its originating principle, except that the unity of essence between the principle and that which proceeds therefrom is wanting in things created. </p> <p id="FP_Q42_A5-p8"> <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The Son's going forth from the Father is by mode of the interior procession whereby the word emerges from the heart and remains therein. Hence this going forth in God is only by the distinction of the relations, not by any kind of essential separation. </p> <p id="FP_Q42_A5-p9"> <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The Father and the Son are relatively opposed, but not essentially; while, as above explained, one relative opposite is in the other. </p> <p id="FP_Q42_A5-p10"></p> <p id="FP_Q42_A5-p11"></p> <a href="summa.FP_Q42_A4.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q42_A6.html"></a> </div> <div id="FP_Q42_A6" class="div4"> <a href="summa.FP_Q42_A5.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q43.html"></a> <h4 id="FP_Q42_A6-p0.1">Whether the Son is equal to the Father in power?</h4> <p id="FP_Q42_A6-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q42_A6-p2"> <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the Son is not equal to the Father in power. For it is said ( <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q42_A6-p2.1" href="./asv.html#John.5.19" target="asv">Jn. 5:19</a>): "The Son cannot do anything of Himself but what He seeth the Father doing." But the Father can act of Himself. Therefore the Father's power is greater than the Son's. </p> <p id="FP_Q42_A6-p3"> <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, greater is the power of him who commands and teaches than of him who obeys and hears. But the Father commands the Son according to <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q42_A6-p3.1" href="./asv.html#John.14.31" target="asv"> Jn. 14:31</a>: "As the Father gave Me commandment so do I." The Father also teaches the Son: "The Father loveth the Son, and showeth Him all things that Himself doth" ( <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q42_A6-p3.2" href="./asv.html#John.5.20" target="asv">Jn. 5:20</a>). Also, the Son hears: "As I hear, so I judge" ( <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q42_A6-p3.3" href="./asv.html#John.5.30" target="asv">Jn. 5:30</a>). Therefore the Father has greater power than the Son. </p> <p id="FP_Q42_A6-p4"> <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it belongs to the Father's omnipotence to be able to beget a Son equal to Himself. For Augustine says (Contra Maxim. iii, 7), "Were He unable to beget one equal to Himself, where would be the omnipotence of God the Father?" But the Son cannot beget a Son, as proved above ( <a id="FP_Q42_A6-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q41_A6.html">Q[41], A[6]</a>). Therefore the Son cannot do all that belongs to the Father's omnipotence; and hence He is not equal to Him power. </p> <p id="FP_Q42_A6-p5"> <b>On the contrary,</b> It is said ( <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q42_A6-p5.1" href="./asv.html#John.5.19" target="asv">Jn. 5:19</a>): "Whatsoever things the Father doth, these the Son also doth in like manner." </p> <p id="FP_Q42_A6-p6"> <b>I answer that,</b> The Son is necessarily equal to the Father in power. Power of action is a consequence of perfection in nature. In creatures, for instance, we see that the more perfect the nature, the greater power is there for action. Now it was shown above <a id="FP_Q42_A6-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q42_A4.html">(A[4])</a> that the very notion of the divine paternity and filiation requires that the Son should be the Father's equal in greatness---that is, in perfection of nature. Hence it follows that the Son is equal to the Father in power; and the same applies to the Holy Ghost in relation to both. </p> <p id="FP_Q42_A6-p7"> <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The words, "the Son cannot of Himself do anything," do not withdraw from the Son any power possessed by the Father, since it is immediately added, "Whatsoever things the Father doth, the Son doth in like manner"; but their meaning is to show that the Son derives His power from the Father, of Whom He receives His nature. Hence, Hilary says (De Trin. ix), "The unity of the divine nature implies that the Son so acts of Himself [per se], that He does not act by Himself [a se]." </p> <p id="FP_Q42_A6-p8"> <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The Father's "showing" and the Son's "hearing" are to be taken in the sense that the Father communicates knowledge to the Son, as He communicates His essence. The command of the Father can be explained in the same sense, as giving Him from eternity knowledge and will to act, by begetting Him. Or, better still, this may be referred to Christ in His human nature. </p> <p id="FP_Q42_A6-p9"> <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As the same essence is paternity in the Father, and filiation in the Son: so by the same power the Father begets, and the Son is begotten. Hence it is clear that the Son can do whatever the Father can do; yet it does not follow that the Son can beget; for to argue thus would imply transition from substance to relation, for generation signifies a divine relation. So the Son has the same omnipotence as the Father, but with another relation; the Father possessing power as "giving" signified when we say that He is able to beget; while the Son possesses the power of "receiving," signified by saying that He can be begotten. </p> <p id="FP_Q42_A6-p10"></p> <p id="FP_Q42_A6-p11"></p> <a href="summa.FP_Q42_A5.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q43.html"></a> </div> <a href="summa.FP_Q41_A6.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q42_A1.html"></a> </div> <div id="FP_Q43" class="div3"> <a href="summa.FP_Q42_A6.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q43_A1.html"></a> <h3 id="FP_Q43-p0.1">THE MISSION OF THE DIVINE PERSONS (EIGHT ARTICLES)</h3> <p id="FP_Q43-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q43-p2"> We next consider the mission of the divine persons, concerning which there are eight points of inquiry:</p> <p id="FP_Q43-p3"> (1) Whether it is suitable for a divine person to be sent?</p> <p id="FP_Q43-p4"> (2) Whether mission is eternal, or only temporal?</p> <p id="FP_Q43-p5"> (3) In what sense a divine person is invisibly sent?</p> <p id="FP_Q43-p6"> (4) Whether it is fitting that each person be sent?</p> <p id="FP_Q43-p7"> (5) Whether both the Son and the Holy Ghost are invisibly sent?</p> <p id="FP_Q43-p8"> (6) To whom the invisible mission is directed?</p> <p id="FP_Q43-p9"> (7) Of the visible mission</p> <p id="FP_Q43-p10"> (8) Whether any person sends Himself visibly or invisibly?</p> <div id="FP_Q43_A1" class="div4"> <a href="summa.FP_Q43.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q43_A2.html"></a> <h4 id="FP_Q43_A1-p0.1">Whether a divine person can be properly sent?</h4> <p id="FP_Q43_A1-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q43_A1-p2"> <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that a divine person cannot be properly sent. For one who is sent is less than the sender. But one divine person is not less than another. Therefore one person is not sent by another. </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A1-p3"> <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, what is sent is separated from the sender; hence Jerome says, commenting on <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q43_A1-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Ezek.16.53" target="asv"> Ezech. 16:53</a>: "What is joined and tied in one body cannot be sent." But in the divine persons there is nothing that is separable, as Hilary says (De Trin. vii). Therefore one person is not sent by another. </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A1-p4"> <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, whoever is sent, departs from one place and comes anew into another. But this does not apply to a divine person, Who is everywhere. Therefore it is not suitable for a divine person to be sent. </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A1-p5"> <b>On the contrary,</b> It is said ( <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q43_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#John.8.16" target="asv">Jn. 8:16</a>): "I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent Me." </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A1-p6"> <b>I answer that,</b> the notion of mission includes two things: the habitude of the one sent to the sender; and that of the one sent to the end whereto he is sent. Anyone being sent implies a certain kind of procession of the one sent from the sender: either according to command, as the master sends the servant; or according to counsel, as an adviser may be said to send the king to battle; or according to origin, as a tree sends forth its flowers. The habitude to the term to which he is sent is also shown, so that in some way he begins to be present there: either because in no way was he present before in the place whereto he is sent, or because he begins to be there in some way in which he was not there hitherto. Thus the mission of a divine person is a fitting thing, as meaning in one way the procession of origin from the sender, and as meaning a new way of existing in another; thus the Son is said to be sent by the Father into the world, inasmuch as He began to exist visibly in the world by taking our nature; whereas "He was" previously "in the world" ( <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q43_A1-p6.1" href="./asv.html#John.1.1" target="asv">Jn. 1:1</a>). </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A1-p7"> <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Mission implies inferiority in the one sent, when it means procession from the sender as principle, by command or counsel; forasmuch as the one commanding is the greater, and the counsellor is the wiser. In God, however, it means only procession of origin, which is according to equality, as explained above ( <a id="FP_Q43_A1-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q42_A4.html">Q[42], AA[4]</a>,6). </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A1-p8"> <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> What is so sent as to begin to exist where previously it did not exist, is locally moved by being sent; hence it is necessarily separated locally from the sender. This, however, has no place in the mission of a divine person; for the divine person sent neither begins to exist where he did not previously exist, nor ceases to exist where He was. Hence such a mission takes place without a separation, having only distinction of origin. </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A1-p9"> <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> This objection rests on the idea of mission according to local motion, which is not in God. </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A1-p10"></p> <p id="FP_Q43_A1-p11"></p> <a href="summa.FP_Q43.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q43_A2.html"></a> </div> <div id="FP_Q43_A2" class="div4"> <a href="summa.FP_Q43_A1.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q43_A3.html"></a> <h4 id="FP_Q43_A2-p0.1">Whether mission is eternal, or only temporal?</h4> <p id="FP_Q43_A2-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q43_A2-p2"> <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that mission can be eternal. For Gregory says (Hom. xxvi, in Ev.), "The Son is sent as He is begotten." But the Son's generation is eternal. Therefore mission is eternal. </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A2-p3"> <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, a thing is changed if it becomes something temporally. But a divine person is not changed. Therefore the mission of a divine person is not temporal, but eternal. </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A2-p4"> <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, mission implies procession. But the procession of the divine persons is eternal. Therefore mission is also eternal. </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A2-p5"> <b>On the contrary,</b> It is said ( <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q43_A2-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Gal.4.4" target="asv">Gal. 4:4</a>): "When the fullness of the time was come, God sent His Son." </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A2-p6"> <b>I answer that,</b> A certain difference is to be observed in all the words that express the origin of the divine persons. For some express only relation to the principle, as "procession" and "going forth." Others express the term of procession together with the relation to the principle. Of these some express the eternal term, as "generation" and "spiration"; for generation is the procession of the divine person into the divine nature, and passive spiration is the procession of the subsisting love. Others express the temporal term with the relation to the principle, as "mission" and "giving." For a thing is sent that it may be in something else, and is given that it may be possessed; but that a divine person be possessed by any creature, or exist in it in a new mode, is temporal. </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A2-p7"> Hence "mission" and "giving" have only a temporal significance in God; but "generation" and "spiration" are exclusively eternal; whereas "procession" and "giving," in God, have both an eternal and a temporal signification: for the Son may proceed eternally as God; but temporally, by becoming man, according to His visible mission, or likewise by dwelling in man according to His invisible mission. </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A2-p8"> <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Gregory speaks of the temporal generation of the Son, not from the Father, but from His mother; or it may be taken to mean that He could be sent because eternally begotten. </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A2-p9"> <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> That a divine person may newly exist in anyone, or be possessed by anyone in time, does not come from change of the divine person, but from change in the creature; as God Himself is called Lord temporally by change of the creature. </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A2-p10"> <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Mission signifies not only procession from the principle, but also determines the temporal term of the procession. Hence mission is only temporal. Or we may say that it includes the eternal procession, with the addition of a temporal effect. For the relation of a divine person to His principle must be eternal. Hence the procession may be called a twin procession, eternal and temporal, not that there is a double relation to the principle, but a double term, temporal and eternal. </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A2-p11"></p> <p id="FP_Q43_A2-p12"></p> <a href="summa.FP_Q43_A1.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q43_A3.html"></a> </div> <div id="FP_Q43_A3" class="div4"> <a href="summa.FP_Q43_A2.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q43_A4.html"></a> <h4 id="FP_Q43_A3-p0.1">Whether the invisible mission of the divine person is only according to the gift of sanctifying grace?</h4> <p id="FP_Q43_A3-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q43_A3-p2"> <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the invisible mission of the divine person is not only according to the gift of sanctifying grace. For the sending of a divine person means that He is given. Hence if the divine person is sent only according to the gift of sanctifying grace, the divine person Himself will not be given, but only His gifts; and this is the error of those who say that the Holy Ghost is not given, but that His gifts are given. </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A3-p3"> <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, this preposition, "according to," denotes the habitude of some cause. But the divine person is the cause why the gift of sanctifying grace is possessed, and not conversely, according to <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q43_A3-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.5.5" target="asv"> Rom. 5:5, </a> "the charity of God is poured forth in our hearts by the Holy Ghost, Who is given to us." Therefore it is improperly said that the divine person is sent according to the gift of sanctifying grace. </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A3-p4"> <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Augustine says (De Trin. iv, 20) that "the Son, when temporally perceived by the mind, is sent." But the Son is known not only by sanctifying grace, but also by gratuitous grace, as by faith and knowledge. Therefore the divine person is not sent only according to the gift of sanctifying grace. </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A3-p5"> <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, Rabanus says that the Holy Ghost was given to the apostles for the working of miracles. This, however, is not a gift of sanctifying grace, but a gratuitous grace. Therefore the divine person is not given only according to the gift of sanctifying grace. </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A3-p6"> <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (De Trin. iii, 4) that "the Holy Ghost proceeds temporally for the creature's sanctification." But mission is a temporal procession. Since then the creature's sanctification is by sanctifying grace, it follows that the mission of the divine person is only by sanctifying grace. </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A3-p7"> <b>I answer that,</b> The divine person is fittingly sent in the sense that He exists newly in any one; and He is given as possessed by anyone; and neither of these is otherwise than by sanctifying grace. </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A3-p8"> For God is in all things by His essence, power and presence, according to His one common mode, as the cause existing in the effects which participate in His goodness. Above and beyond this common mode, however, there is one special mode belonging to the rational nature wherein God is said to be present as the object known is in the knower, and the beloved in the lover. And since the rational creature by its operation of knowledge and love attains to God Himself, according to this special mode God is said not only to exist in the rational creature but also to dwell therein as in His own temple. So no other effect can be put down as the reason why the divine person is in the rational creature in a new mode, except sanctifying grace. Hence, the divine person is sent, and proceeds temporally only according to sanctifying grace. </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A3-p9"> Again, we are said to possess only what we can freely use or enjoy: and to have the power of enjoying the divine person can only be according to sanctifying grace. And yet the Holy Ghost is possessed by man, and dwells within him, in the very gift itself of sanctifying grace. Hence the Holy Ghost Himself is given and sent. </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A3-p10"> <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> By the gift of sanctifying grace the rational creature is perfected so that it can freely use not only the created gift itself, but enjoy also the divine person Himself; and so the invisible mission takes place according to the gift of sanctifying grace; and yet the divine person Himself is given. </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A3-p11"> <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Sanctifying grace disposes the soul to possess the divine person; and this is signified when it is said that the Holy Ghost is given according to the gift of grace. Nevertheless the gift itself of grace is from the Holy Ghost; which is meant by the words, "the charity of God is poured forth in our hearts by the Holy Ghost." </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A3-p12"> <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Although the Son can be known by us according to other effects, yet neither does He dwell in us, nor is He possessed by us according to those effects. </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A3-p13"> <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> The working of miracles manifests sanctifying grace as also does the gift of prophecy and any other gratuitous graces. Hence gratuitous grace is called the "manifestation of the Spirit" ( <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q43_A3-p13.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.12.7" target="asv">1 Cor. 12:7</a>). So the Holy Ghost is said to be given to the apostles for the working of miracles, because sanctifying grace was given to them with the outward sign. Were the sign only of sanctifying grace given to them without the grace itself, it would not be simply said that the Holy Ghost was given, except with some qualifying term; just as we read of certain ones receiving the gift of the spirit of prophecy, or of miracles, as having from the Holy Ghost the power of prophesying or of working miracles. </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A3-p14"></p> <p id="FP_Q43_A3-p15"></p> <a href="summa.FP_Q43_A2.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q43_A4.html"></a> </div> <div id="FP_Q43_A4" class="div4"> <a href="summa.FP_Q43_A3.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q43_A5.html"></a> <h4 id="FP_Q43_A4-p0.1">Whether the Father can be fittingly sent?</h4> <p id="FP_Q43_A4-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q43_A4-p2"> <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that it is fitting also that the Father should be sent. For being sent means that the divine person is given. But the Father gives Himself since He can only be possessed by His giving Himself. Therefore it can be said that the Father sends Himself. </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A4-p3"> <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the divine person is sent according to the indwelling of grace. But by grace the whole Trinity dwells in us according to <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q43_A4-p3.1" href="./asv.html#John.14.23" target="asv">Jn. 14:23</a>: "We will come to him and make Our abode with him." Therefore each one of the divine persons is sent. </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A4-p4"> <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, whatever belongs to one person, belongs to them all, except the notions and persons. But mission does not signify any person; nor even a notion, since there are only five notions, as stated above ( <a id="FP_Q43_A4-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q32_A3.html">Q[32], A[3]</a>). Therefore every divine person can be sent. </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A4-p5"> <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (De Trin. ii, 3), "The Father alone is never described as being sent." </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A4-p6"> <b>I answer that,</b> The very idea of mission means procession from another, and in God it means procession according to origin, as above expounded. Hence, as the Father is not from another, in no way is it fitting for Him to be sent; but this can only belong to the Son and to the Holy Ghost, to Whom it belongs to be from another. </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A4-p7"> <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> In the sense of "giving" as a free bestowal of something, the Father gives Himself, as freely bestowing Himself to be enjoyed by the creature. But as implying the authority of the giver as regards what is given, "to be given" only applies in God to the Person Who is from another; and the same as regards "being sent." </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A4-p8"> <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Although the effect of grace is also from the Father, Who dwells in us by grace, just as the Son and the Holy Ghost, still He is not described as being sent, for He is not from another. Thus Augustine says (De Trin. iv, 20) that "The Father, when known by anyone in time, is not said to be sent; for there is no one whence He is, or from whom He proceeds." </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A4-p9"> <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Mission, meaning procession from the sender, includes the signification of a notion, not of a special notion, but in general; thus "to be from another" is common to two of the notions. </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A4-p10"></p> <p id="FP_Q43_A4-p11"></p> <a href="summa.FP_Q43_A3.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q43_A5.html"></a> </div> <div id="FP_Q43_A5" class="div4"> <a href="summa.FP_Q43_A4.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q43_A6.html"></a> <h4 id="FP_Q43_A5-p0.1">Whether it is fitting for the Son to be sent invisibly?</h4> <p id="FP_Q43_A5-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q43_A5-p2"> <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that it is not fitting for the Son to be sent invisibly. For invisible mission of the divine person is according to the gift of grace. But all gifts of grace belong to the Holy Ghost, according to <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q43_A5-p2.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.12.11" target="asv">1 Cor. 12:11</a>: "One and the same Spirit worketh all things." Therefore only the Holy Ghost is sent invisibly. </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A5-p3"> <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the mission of the divine person is according to sanctifying grace. But the gifts belonging to the perfection of the intellect are not gifts of sanctifying grace, since they can be held without the gift of charity, according to <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q43_A5-p3.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.13.2" target="asv">1 Cor. 13:2</a>: "If I should have prophecy, and should know all mysteries, and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith so that I could move mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing." Therefore, since the Son proceeds as the word of the intellect, it seems unfitting for Him to be sent invisibly. </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A5-p4"> <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the mission of the divine person is a procession, as expounded above ( <a id="FP_Q43_A5-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q43_A1.html">AA[1]</a>,4). But the procession of the Son and of the Holy Ghost differ from each other. Therefore they are distinct missions if both are sent; and then one of them would be superfluous, since one would suffice for the creature's sanctification. </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A5-p5"> <b>On the contrary,</b> It is said of divine Wisdom ( <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q43_A5-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Wis.9.10" target="asv">Wis. 9:10</a>): "Send her from heaven to Thy Saints, and from the seat of Thy greatness." </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A5-p6"> <b>I answer that,</b> The whole Trinity dwells in the mind by sanctifying grace, according to <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q43_A5-p6.1" href="./asv.html#John.14.23" target="asv"> Jn. 14:23</a>: "We will come to him, and will make Our abode with him." But that a divine person be sent to anyone by invisible grace signifies both that this person dwells in a new way within him and that He has His origin from another. Hence, since both to the Son and to the Holy Ghost it belongs to dwell in the soul by grace, and to be from another, it therefore belongs to both of them to be invisibly sent. As to the Father, though He dwells in us by grace, still it does not belong to Him to be from another, and consequently He is not sent. </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A5-p7"> <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Although all the gifts, considered as such, are attributed to the Holy Ghost, forasmuch as He is by His nature the first Gift, since He is Love, as stated above ( <a id="FP_Q43_A5-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q38_A1.html">Q[38], A[1]</a>), some gifts nevertheless, by reason of their own particular nature, are appropriated in a certain way to the Son, those, namely, which belong to the intellect, and in respect of which we speak of the mission of the Son. Hence Augustine says (De Trin. iv, 20) that "The Son is sent to anyone invisibly, whenever He is known and perceived by anyone." </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A5-p8"> <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The soul is made like to God by grace. Hence for a divine person to be sent to anyone by grace, there must needs be a likening of the soul to the divine person Who is sent, by some gift of grace. Because the Holy Ghost is Love, the soul is assimilated to the Holy Ghost by the gift of charity: hence the mission of the Holy Ghost is according to the mode of charity. Whereas the Son is the Word, not any sort of word, but one Who breathes forth Love. Hence Augustine says (De Trin. ix 10): "The Word we speak of is knowledge with love." Thus the Son is sent not in accordance with every and any kind of intellectual perfection, but according to the intellectual illumination, which breaks forth into the affection of love, as is said ( <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q43_A5-p8.1" href="./asv.html#John.6.45" target="asv">Jn. 6:45</a>): "Everyone that hath heard from the Father and hath learned, cometh to Me," and ( <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q43_A5-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Ps.38.4" target="asv">Ps. 38:4</a>): "In my meditation a fire shall flame forth." Thus Augustine plainly says (De Trin. iv, 20): "The Son is sent, whenever He is known and perceived by anyone." Now perception implies a certain experimental knowledge; and this is properly called wisdom [sapientia], as it were a sweet knowledge [sapida scientia], according to <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q43_A5-p8.3" href="./asv.html#Sir.6.23" target="asv"> Ecclus. 6:23</a>: "The wisdom of doctrine is according to her name." </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A5-p9"> <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Since mission implies the origin of the person Who is sent, and His indwelling by grace, as above explained <a id="FP_Q43_A5-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q43_A1.html">(A[1])</a>, if we speak of mission according to origin, in this sense the Son's mission is distinguished from the mission of the Holy Ghost, as generation is distinguished from procession. If we consider mission as regards the effect of grace, in this sense the two missions are united in the root which is grace, but are distinguished in the effects of grace, which consist in the illumination of the intellect and the kindling of the affection. Thus it is manifest that one mission cannot be without the other, because neither takes place without sanctifying grace, nor is one person separated from the other. </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A5-p10"></p> <p id="FP_Q43_A5-p11"></p> <a href="summa.FP_Q43_A4.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q43_A6.html"></a> </div> <div id="FP_Q43_A6" class="div4"> <a href="summa.FP_Q43_A5.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q43_A7.html"></a> <h4 id="FP_Q43_A6-p0.1">Whether the invisible mission is to all who participate grace?</h4> <p id="FP_Q43_A6-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q43_A6-p2"> <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the invisible mission is not to all who participate grace. For the Fathers of the Old Testament had their share of grace. Yet to them was made no invisible mission; for it is said ( <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q43_A6-p2.1" href="./asv.html#John.7.39" target="asv">Jn. 7:39</a>): "The Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified." Therefore the invisible mission is not to all partakers in grace. </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A6-p3"> <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, progress in virtue is only by grace. But the invisible mission is not according to progress in virtue; because progress in virtue is continuous, since charity ever increases or decreases; and thus the mission would be continuous. Therefore the invisible mission is not to all who share in grace. </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A6-p4"> <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Christ and the blessed have fullness of grace. But mission is not to them, for mission implies distance, whereas Christ, as man, and all the blessed are perfectly united to God. Therefore the invisible mission is not to all sharers in grace. </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A6-p5"> <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, the Sacraments of the New Law contain grace, and it is not said that the invisible mission is sent to them. Therefore the invisible mission is not to all that have grace. </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A6-p6"> <b>On the contrary,</b> According to Augustine (De Trin. iii, 4; xv, 27), the invisible mission is for the creature's sanctification. Now every creature that has grace is sanctified. Therefore the invisible mission is to every such creature. </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A6-p7"> <b>I answer that,</b> As above stated ( <a id="FP_Q43_A6-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q43_A3.html">AA[3]</a>,4,5), mission in its very meaning implies that he who is sent either begins to exist where he was not before, as occurs to creatures; or begins to exist where he was before, but in a new way, in which sense mission is ascribed to the divine persons. Thus, mission as regards the one to whom it is sent implies two things, the indwelling of grace, and a certain renewal by grace. Thus the invisible mission is sent to all in whom are to be found these two conditions. </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A6-p8"> <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The invisible mission was directed to the Old Testament Fathers, as appears from what Augustine says (De Trin. iv, 20), that the invisible mission of the Son "is in man and with men. This was done in former times with the Fathers and the Prophets." Thus the words, "the Spirit was not yet given," are to be applied to that giving accompanied with a visible sign which took place on the day of Pentecost. </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A6-p9"> <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The invisible mission takes place also as regards progress in virtue or increase of grace. Hence Augustine says (De Trin. iv, 20), that "the Son is sent to each one when He is known and perceived by anyone, so far as He can be known and perceived according to the capacity of the soul, whether journeying towards God, or united perfectly to Him." Such invisible mission, however, chiefly occurs as regards anyone's proficiency in the performance of a new act, or in the acquisition of a new state of grace; as, for example, the proficiency in reference to the gift of miracles or of prophecy, or in the fervor of charity leading a man to expose himself to the danger of martyrdom, or to renounce his possessions, or to undertake any arduous work. </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A6-p10"> <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The invisible mission is directed to the blessed at the very beginning of their beatitude. The invisible mission is made to them subsequently, not by "intensity" of grace, but by the further revelation of mysteries; which goes on till the day of judgment. Such an increase is by the "extension" of grace, because it extends to a greater number of objects. To Christ the invisible mission was sent at the first moment of His conception; but not afterwards, since from the beginning of His conception He was filled with all wisdom and grace. </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A6-p11"> <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Grace resides instrumentally in the sacraments of the New Law, as the form of a thing designed resides in the instruments of the art designing, according to a process flowing from the agent to the passive object. But mission is only spoken of as directed to its term. Hence the mission of the divine person is not sent to the sacraments, but to those who receive grace through the sacraments. </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A6-p12"></p> <p id="FP_Q43_A6-p13"></p> <a href="summa.FP_Q43_A5.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q43_A7.html"></a> </div> <div id="FP_Q43_A7" class="div4"> <a href="summa.FP_Q43_A6.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q43_A8.html"></a> <h4 id="FP_Q43_A7-p0.1">Whether it is fitting for the Holy Ghost to be sent visibly?</h4> <p id="FP_Q43_A7-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q43_A7-p2"> <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the Holy Ghost is not fittingly sent in a visible manner. For the Son as visibly sent to the world is said to be less than the Father. But the Holy Ghost is never said to be less than the Father. Therefore the Holy Ghost is not fittingly sent in a visible manner. </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A7-p3"> <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the visible mission takes place by way of union to a visible creature, as the Son's mission according to the flesh. But the Holy Ghost did not assume any visible creature; and hence it cannot be said that He exists otherwise in some creatures than in others, unless perhaps as in a sign, as He is also present in the sacraments, and in all the figures of the law. Thus the Holy Ghost is either not sent visibly at all, or His visible mission takes place in all these things. </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A7-p4"> <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, every visible creature is an effect showing forth the whole Trinity. Therefore the Holy Ghost is not sent by reason of those visible creatures more than any other person. </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A7-p5"> <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, the Son was visibly sent by reason of the noblest kind of creature---namely, the human nature. Therefore if the Holy Ghost is sent visibly, He ought to be sent by reason of rational creatures. </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A7-p6"> <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, whatever is done visibly by God is dispensed by the ministry of the angels; as Augustine says (De Trin. iii, 4,5,9). So visible appearances, if there have been any, came by means of the angels. Thus the angels are sent, and not the Holy Ghost. </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A7-p7"> <b>Objection 6:</b> Further, the Holy Ghost being sent in a visible manner is only for the purpose of manifesting the invisible mission; as invisible things are made known by the visible. So those to whom the invisible mission was not sent, ought not to receive the visible mission; and to all who received the invisible mission, whether in the New or in the Old Testament, the visible mission ought likewise to be sent; and this is clearly false. Therefore the Holy Ghost is not sent visibly. </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A7-p8"> <b>On the contrary,</b> It is said ( <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q43_A7-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.3.16" target="asv">Mat. 3:16</a>) that, when our Lord was baptized, the Holy Ghost descended upon Him in the shape of a dove. </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A7-p9"> <b>I answer that,</b> God provides for all things according to the nature of each thing. Now the nature of man requires that he be led to the invisible by visible things, as explained above ( <a id="FP_Q43_A7-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q12_A12.html">Q[12], A[12]</a>). Wherefore the invisible things of God must be made manifest to man by the things that are visible. As God, therefore, in a certain way has demonstrated Himself and His eternal processions to men by visible creatures, according to certain signs; so was it fitting that the invisible missions also of the divine persons should be made manifest by some visible creatures. </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A7-p10"> This mode of manifestation applies in different ways to the Son and to the Holy Ghost. For it belongs to the Holy Ghost, Who proceeds as Love, to be the gift of sanctification; to the Son as the principle of the Holy Ghost, it belongs to the author of this sanctification. Thus the Son has been sent visibly as the author of sanctification; the Holy Ghost as the sign of sanctification. </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A7-p11"> <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The Son assumed the visible creature, wherein He appeared, into the unity of His person, so that whatever can be said of that creature can be said of the Son of God; and so, by reason of the nature assumed, the Son is called less than the Father. But the Holy Ghost did not assume the visible creature, in which He appeared, into the unity of His person; so that what is said of it cannot be predicated of Him. Hence He cannot be called less than the Father by reason of any visible creature. </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A7-p12"> <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The visible mission of the Holy Ghost does not apply to the imaginary vision which is that of prophecy; because as Augustine says (De Trin. ii, 6): "The prophetic vision is not displayed to corporeal eyes by corporeal shapes, but is shown in the spirit by the spiritual images of bodies. But whoever saw the dove and the fire, saw them by their eyes. Nor, again, has the Holy Ghost the same relation to these images that the Son has to the rock, because it is said, "The rock was Christ" ( <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q43_A7-p12.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.10.4" target="asv">1 Cor. 10:4</a>). For that rock was already created, and after the manner of an action was named Christ, Whom it typified; whereas the dove and the fire suddenly appeared to signify only what was happening. They seem, however, to be like to the flame of the burning bush seen by Moses and to the column which the people followed in the desert, and to the lightning and thunder issuing forth when the law was given on the mountain. For the purpose of the bodily appearances of those things was that they might signify, and then pass away." Thus the visible mission is neither displayed by prophetic vision, which belongs to the imagination, and not to the body, nor by the sacramental signs of the Old and New Testament, wherein certain pre-existing things are employed to signify something. But the Holy Ghost is said to be sent visibly, inasmuch as He showed Himself in certain creatures as in signs especially made for that purpose. </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A7-p13"> <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Although the whole Trinity makes those creatures, still they are made in order to show forth in some special way this or that person. For as the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are signified by diverse names, so also can They each one be signified by different things; although neither separation nor diversity exists amongst Them. </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A7-p14"> <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> It was necessary for the Son to be declared as the author of sanctification, as explained above. Thus the visible mission of the Son was necessarily made according to the rational nature to which it belongs to act, and which is capable of sanctification; whereas any other creature could be the sign of sanctification. Nor was such a visible creature, formed for such a purpose, necessarily assumed by the Holy Ghost into the unity of His person, since it was not assumed or used for the purpose of action, but only for the purpose of a sign; and so likewise it was not required to last beyond what its use required. </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A7-p15"> <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> Those visible creatures were formed by the ministry of the angels, not to signify the person of an angel, but to signify the Person of the Holy Ghost. Thus, as the Holy Ghost resided in those visible creatures as the one signified in the sign, on that account the Holy Ghost is said to be sent visibly, and not as an angel. </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A7-p16"> <b>Reply to Objection 6:</b> It is not necessary that the invisible mission should always be made manifest by some visible external sign; but, as is said ( <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q43_A7-p16.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.12.7" target="asv">1 Cor. 12:7</a>)---"the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man unto profit"---that is, of the Church. This utility consists in the confirmation and propagation of the faith by such visible signs. This has been done chiefly by Christ and by the apostles, according to <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q43_A7-p16.2" href="./asv.html#Heb.2.3" target="asv"> Heb. 2:3, </a>"which having begun to be declared by the Lord, was confirmed unto us by them that heard." </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A7-p17"> Thus in a special sense, a mission of the Holy Ghost was directed to Christ, to the apostles, and to some of the early saints on whom the Church was in a way founded; in such a manner, however, that the visible mission made to Christ should show forth the invisible mission made to Him, not at that particular time, but at the first moment of His conception. The visible mission was directed to Christ at the time of His baptism by the figure of a dove, a fruitful animal, to show forth in Christ the authority of the giver of grace by spiritual regeneration; hence the Father's voice spoke, "This is My beloved Son" ( <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q43_A7-p17.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.3.17" target="asv">Mat. 3:17</a>), that others might be regenerated to the likeness of the only Begotten. The Transfiguration showed it forth in the appearance of a bright cloud, to show the exuberance of doctrine; and hence it was said, "Hear ye Him" ( <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q43_A7-p17.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.17.5" target="asv">Mat. 17:5</a>). To the apostles the mission was directed in the form of breathing to show forth the power of their ministry in the dispensation of the sacraments; and hence it was said, "Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven" ( <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q43_A7-p17.3" href="./asv.html#John.20.23" target="asv">Jn. 20:23</a>): and again under the sign of fiery tongues to show forth the office of teaching; whence it is said that, "they began to speak with divers tongues" ( <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q43_A7-p17.4" href="./asv.html#Acts.2.4" target="asv">Acts 2:4</a>). The visible mission of the Holy Ghost was fittingly not sent to the fathers of the Old Testament, because the visible mission of the Son was to be accomplished before that of the Holy Ghost; since the Holy Ghost manifests the Son, as the Son manifests the Father. Visible apparitions of the divine persons were, however, given to the Fathers of the Old Testament which, indeed, cannot be called visible missions; because, according to Augustine (De Trin. ii, 17), they were not sent to designate the indwelling of the divine person by grace, but for the manifestation of something else. </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A7-p18"></p> <p id="FP_Q43_A7-p19"></p> <a href="summa.FP_Q43_A6.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q43_A8.html"></a> </div> <div id="FP_Q43_A8" class="div4"> <a href="summa.FP_Q43_A7.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP.iv.html"></a> <h4 id="FP_Q43_A8-p0.1">Whether a divine person is sent only by the person whence He proceeds eternally?</h4> <p id="FP_Q43_A8-p1"></p> <p id="FP_Q43_A8-p2"> <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that a divine person is sent only by the one whence He proceeds eternally. For as Augustine says (De Trin. iv), "The Father is sent by no one because He is from no one." Therefore if a divine person is sent by another, He must be from that other. </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A8-p3"> <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the sender has authority over the one sent. But there can be no authority as regards a divine person except from origin. Therefore the divine person sent must proceed from the one sending. </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A8-p4"> <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, if a divine person can be sent by one whence He does not proceed, then the Holy Ghost may be given by a man, although He proceeds not from him; which is contrary to what Augustine says (De Trin. xv). Therefore the divine person is sent only by the one whence He proceeds. </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A8-p5"> <b>On the contrary,</b> The Son is sent by the Holy Ghost, according to <a class="scripRef" id="FP_Q43_A8-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.48.16" target="asv">Is. 48:16</a>, "Now the Lord God hath sent Me and His Spirit." But the Son is not from the Holy Ghost. Therefore a divine person is sent by one from Whom He does not proceed. </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A8-p6"> <b>I answer that,</b> There are different opinions on this point. Some say that the divine person is sent only by the one whence He proceeds eternally; and so, when it is said that the Son of God is sent by the Holy Ghost, this is to be explained as regards His human nature, by reason of which He was sent to preach by the Holy Ghost. Augustine, however, says (De Trin. ii, 5) that the Son is sent by Himself, and by the Holy Ghost; and the Holy Ghost is sent by Himself, and by the Son; so that to be sent in God does not apply to each person, but only to the person proceeding from </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A8-p7"> another, whereas to send belongs to each person.</p> <p id="FP_Q43_A8-p8"> There is some truth in both of these opinions; because when a person is described as being sent, the person Himself existing from another is designated, with the visible or invisible effect, applicable to the mission of the divine person. Thus if the sender be designated as the principle of the person sent, in this sense not each person sends, but that person only Who is the principle of that person who is sent; and thus the Son is sent only by the Father; and the Holy Ghost by the Father and the Son. If, however, the person sending is understood as the principle of the effect implied in the mission, in that sense the whole Trinity sends the person sent. This reason does not prove that a man can send the Holy Ghost, forasmuch as man cannot cause the effect of grace. </p> <p id="FP_Q43_A8-p9"> The answers to the objections appear from the above.</p> <p id="FP_Q43_A8-p10"></p> <p id="FP_Q43_A8-p11"></p> <a href="summa.FP_Q43_A7.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP.iv.html"></a> </div> <a href="summa.FP_Q42_A6.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q43_A1.html"></a> </div> <a href="summa.FP_Q26_A4.html"></a> <a href="summa.FP_Q27.html"></a> ` </div>