Index [<< | >>]
First Part [<< | >>]
Question: 28 [<< | >>]
| Deinde considerandum est de relationibus divinis. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor. | The divine relations are next to be considered, in four points of inquiry: |
| Primo, utrum in Deo sint aliquae relationes reales. | (1) Whether there are real relations in God? |
| Secundo, utrum illae relationes sint ipsa essentia divina, vel sint extrinsecus affixae. | (2) Whether those relations are the divine essence itself, or are extrinsic to it? |
| Tertio, utrum possint esse in Deo plures relationes realiter distinctae ab invicem. | (3) Whether in God there can be several relations distinct from each other? |
| Quarto, de numero harum relationum | (4) The number of these relations. |
Index [<< | >>]
First Part [<< | >>]
Question: 28 [<< | >>]
Article: 1 [<< | >>]
| Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod in Deo non sint aliquae relationes reales. Dicit enim Boetius, in libro de Trin., quod cum quis praedicamenta in divinam vertit praedicationem, cuncta mutantur in substantiam quae praedicari possunt; ad aliquid vero omnino non potest praedicari. Sed quidquid est realiter in Deo, de ipso praedicari potest. Ergo relatio non est realiter in Deo. | Objection 1: It would seem that there are no real relations in God. For Boethius says (De Trin. iv), "All possible predicaments used as regards the Godhead refer to the substance; for nothing can be predicated relatively." But whatever really exists in God can be predicated of Him. Therefore no real relation exists in God. |
| Praeterea, dicit Boetius in eodem libro, quod similis est relatio in Trinitate patris ad filium, et utriusque ad spiritum sanctum, ut eius quod est idem, ad id quod est idem. Sed huiusmodi relatio est rationis tantum, quia omnis relatio realis exigit duo extrema realiter. Ergo relationes quae ponuntur in divinis, non sunt reales relationes, sed rationis tantum. | Objection 2: Further, Boethius says (De Trin. iv) that, "Relation in the Trinity of the Father to the Son, and of both to the Holy Ghost, is the relation of the same to the same." But a relation of this kind is only a logical one; for every real relation requires and implies in reality two terms. Therefore the divine relations are not real relations, but are formed only by the mind. |
| Praeterea, relatio paternitatis est relatio principii. Sed cum dicitur, Deus est principium creaturarum, non importatur aliqua relatio realis, sed rationis tantum. Ergo nec paternitas in divinis est relatio realis. Et eadem ratione nec aliae relationes quae ponuntur ibi. | Objection 3: Further, the relation of paternity is the relation of a principle. But to say that God is the principle of creatures does not import any real relation, but only a logical one. Therefore paternity in God is not a real relation; while the same applies for the same reason to the other relations in God. |
| Praeterea, generatio in divinis est secundum intelligibilis verbi processionem. Sed relationes quae consequuntur operationem intellectus, sunt relationes rationis. Ergo paternitas et filiatio, quae dicuntur in divinis secundum generationem, sunt relationes rationis tantum. | Objection 4: Further, the divine generation proceeds by way of an intelligible word. But the relations following upon the operation of the intellect are logical relations. Therefore paternity and filiation in God, consequent upon generation, are only logical relations. |
| Sed contra est quod pater non dicitur nisi a paternitate, et filius a filiatione. Si igitur paternitas et filiatio non sunt in Deo realiter, sequitur quod Deus non sit realiter pater aut filius, sed secundum rationem intelligentiae tantum, quod est haeresis Sabelliana. | On the contrary, The Father is denominated only from paternity; and the Son only from filiation. Therefore, if no real paternity or filiation existed in God, it would follow that God is not really Father or Son, but only in our manner of understanding; and this is the Sabellian heresy. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod relationes quaedam sunt in divinis realiter. Ad cuius evidentiam, considerandum est quod solum in his quae dicuntur ad aliquid, inveniuntur aliqua secundum rationem tantum, et non secundum rem. Quod non est in aliis generibus, quia alia genera, ut quantitas et qualitas, secundum propriam rationem significant aliquid alicui inhaerens. Ea vero quae dicuntur ad aliquid, significant secundum propriam rationem solum respectum ad aliud. Qui quidem respectus aliquando est in ipsa natura rerum; utpote quando aliquae res secundum suam naturam ad invicem ordinatae sunt, et invicem inclinationem habent. Et huiusmodi relationes oportet esse reales. Sicut in corpore gravi est inclinatio et ordo ad locum medium, unde respectus quidam est in ipso gravi respectu loci medii. Et similiter est de aliis huiusmodi. Aliquando vero respectus significatus per ea quae dicuntur ad aliquid, est tantum in ipsa apprehensione rationis conferentis unum alteri, et tunc est relatio rationis tantum; sicut cum comparat ratio hominem animali, ut speciem ad genus. Cum autem aliquid procedit a principio eiusdem naturae, necesse est quod ambo, scilicet procedens et id a quo procedit, in eodem ordine conveniant, et sic oportet quod habeant reales respectus ad invicem. Cum igitur processiones in divinis sint in identitate naturae, ut ostensum est, necesse est quod relationes quae secundum processiones divinas accipiuntur, sint relationes reales. | I answer that, relations exist in God really; in proof whereof we may consider that in relations alone is found something which is only in the apprehension and not in reality. This is not found in any other genus; forasmuch as other genera, as quantity and quality, in their strict and proper meaning, signify something inherent in a subject. But relation in its own proper meaning signifies only what refers to another. Such regard to another exists sometimes in the nature of things, as in those things which by their own very nature are ordered to each other, and have a mutual inclination; and such relations are necessarily real relations; as in a heavy body is found an inclination and order to the centre; and hence there exists in the heavy body a certain respect in regard to the centre and the same applies to other things. Sometimes, however, this regard to another, signified by relation, is to be found only in the apprehension of reason comparing one thing to another, and this is a logical relation only; as, for instance, when reason compares man to animal as the species to the genus. But when something proceeds from a principle of the same nature, then both the one proceeding and the source of procession, agree in the same order; and then they have real relations to each other. Therefore as the divine processions are in the identity of the same nature, as above explained (Question [27], Articles [2],4), these relations, according to the divine processions, are necessarily real relations. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ad aliquid dicitur omnino non praedicari in Deo, secundum propriam rationem eius quod dicitur ad aliquid; inquantum scilicet propria ratio eius quod ad aliquid dicitur, non accipitur per comparationem ad illud cui inest relatio, sed per respectum ad alterum. Non ergo per hoc excludere voluit quod relatio non esset in Deo, sed quod non praedicaretur per modum inhaerentis secundum propriam relationis rationem, sed magis per modum ad aliud se habentis. | Reply to Objection 1: Relationship is not predicated of God according to its proper and formal meaning, that is to say, in so far as its proper meaning denotes comparison to that in which relation is inherent, but only as denoting regard to another. Nevertheless Boethius did not wish to exclude relation in God; but he wished to show that it was not to be predicated of Him as regards the mode of inherence in Himself in the strict meaning of relation; but rather by way of relation to another. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod relatio quae importatur per hoc nomen idem, est relatio rationis tantum, si accipiatur simpliciter idem, quia huiusmodi relatio non potest consistere nisi in quodam ordine quem ratio adinvenit alicuius ad seipsum, secundum aliquas eius duas considerationes. Secus autem est, cum dicuntur aliqua eadem esse, non in numero, sed in natura generis sive speciei. Boetius igitur relationes quae sunt in divinis, assimilat relationi identitatis, non quantum ad omnia, sed quantum ad hoc solum, quod per huiusmodi relationes non diversificatur substantia, sicut nec per relationem identitatis. | Reply to Objection 2: The relation signified by the term "the same" is a logical relation only, if in regard to absolutely the same thing; because such a relation can exist only in a certain order observed by reason as regards the order of anything to itself, according to some two aspects thereof. The case is otherwise, however, when things are called the same, not numerically, but generically or specifically. Thus Boethius likens the divine relations to a relation of identity, not in every respect, but only as regards the fact that the substance is not diversified by these relations, as neither is it by relation of identity. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod, cum creatura procedat a Deo in diversitate naturae, Deus est extra ordinem totius creaturae, nec ex eius natura est eius habitudo ad creaturas. Non enim producit creaturas ex necessitate suae naturae, sed per intellectum et per voluntatem, ut supra dictum est. Et ideo in Deo non est realis relatio ad creaturas. Sed in creaturis est realis relatio ad Deum, quia creaturae continentur sub ordine divino, et in earum natura est quod dependeant a Deo. Sed processiones divinae sunt in eadem natura. Unde non est similis ratio. | Reply to Objection 3: As the creature proceeds from God in diversity of nature, God is outside the order of the whole creation, nor does any relation to the creature arise from His nature; for He does not produce the creature by necessity of His nature, but by His intellect and will, as is above explained (Question [14], Articles [3],4; Question [19], Article [8]). Therefore there is no real relation in God to the creature; whereas in creatures there is a real relation to God; because creatures are contained under the divine order, and their very nature entails dependence on God. On the other hand, the divine processions are in one and the same nature. Hence no parallel exists. |
| Ad quartum dicendum quod relationes quae consequuntur solam operationem intellectus in ipsis rebus intellectis, sunt relationes rationis tantum, quia scilicet eas ratio adinvenit inter duas res intellectas. Sed relationes quae consequuntur operationem intellectus, quae sunt inter verbum intellectualiter procedens et illud a quo procedit, non sunt relationes rationis tantum, sed rei, quia et ipse intellectus et ratio est quaedam res, et comparatur realiter ad id quod procedit intelligibiliter, sicut res corporalis ad id quod procedit corporaliter. Et sic paternitas et filiatio sunt relationes reales in divinis. | Reply to Objection 4: Relations which result from the mental operation alone in the objects understood are logical relations only, inasmuch as reason observes them as existing between two objects perceived by the mind. Those relations, however, which follow the operation of the intellect, and which exist between the word intellectually proceeding and the source whence it proceeds, are not logical relations only, but are real relations; inasmuch as the intellect and the reason are real things, and are really related to that which proceeds from them intelligibly; as a corporeal thing is related to that which proceeds from it corporeally. Thus paternity and filiation are real relations in God. |
Index [<< | >>]
First Part [<< | >>]
Question: 28 [<< | >>]
Article: 2 [<< | >>]
| Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod relatio in Deo non sit idem quod sua essentia. Dicit enim Augustinus, in V de Trin., quod non omne quod dicitur in Deo, dicitur secundum substantiam. Dicitur enim ad aliquid, sicut pater ad filium, sed haec non secundum substantiam dicuntur. Ergo relatio non est divina essentia. | Objection 1: It would seem that the divine relation is not the same as the divine essence. For Augustine says (De Trin. v) that "not all that is said of God is said of His substance, for we say some things relatively, as Father in respect of the Son: but such things do not refer to the substance." Therefore the relation is not the divine essence. |
| Praeterea, Augustinus dicit, VII de Trin., omnis res quae relative dicitur, est etiam aliquid excepto relativo; sicut homo dominus, et homo servus. Si igitur relationes aliquae sunt in Deo, oportet esse in Deo aliquid aliud praeter relationes. Sed hoc aliud non potest esse nisi essentia. Ergo essentia est aliud a relationibus | Objection 2: Further, Augustine says (De Trin. vii) that, "every relative expression is something besides the relation expressed, as master is a man, and slave is a man." Therefore, if relations exist in God, there must be something else besides relation in God. This can only be His essence. Therefore essence differs from relation. |
| Praeterea, esse relativi est ad aliud se habere, ut dicitur in praedicamentis. Si igitur relatio sit ipsa divina essentia, sequitur quod esse divinae essentiae sit ad aliud se habere, quod repugnat perfectioni divini esse, quod est maxime absolutum et per se subsistens, ut supra ostensum est. Non igitur relatio est ipsa essentia divina. | Objection 3: Further, the essence of relation is the being referred to another, as the Philosopher says (Praedic. v). So if relation is the divine essence, it follows that the divine essence is essentially itself a relation to something else; whereas this is repugnant to the perfection of the divine essence, which is supremely absolute and self-subsisting (Question [3], Article [4]). Therefore relation is not the divine essence. |
| Sed contra, omnis res quae non est divina essentia, est creatura. Sed relatio realiter competit Deo. Si ergo non est divina essentia, erit creatura, et ita ei non erit adoratio latriae exhibenda, contra quod in praefatione cantatur, ut in personis proprietas, et in maiestate adoretur aequalitas. | On the contrary, Everything which is not the divine essence is a creature. But relation really belongs to God; and if it is not the divine essence, it is a creature; and it cannot claim the adoration of latria; contrary to what is sung in the Preface: "Let us adore the distinction of the Persons, and the equality of their Majesty." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod circa hoc dicitur Gilbertus Porretanus errasse, sed errorem suum postmodum in Remensi Concilio revocasse. Dixit enim quod relationes in divinis sunt assistentes, sive extrinsecus affixae. | I answer that, It is reported that Gilbert de la Porree erred on this point, but revoked his error later at the council of Rheims. For he said that the divine relations are assistant, or externally affixed. |
| Ad cuius evidentiam, considerandum est quod in quolibet novem generum accidentis est duo considerare. Quorum unum est esse quod competit unicuique ipsorum secundum quod est accidens. Et hoc communiter in omnibus est inesse subiecto, accidentis enim esse est inesse. Aliud quod potest considerari in unoquoque, est propria ratio uniuscuiusque illorum generum. Et in aliis quidem generibus a relatione, utpote quantitate et qualitate, etiam propria ratio generis accipitur secundum comparationem ad subiectum, nam quantitas dicitur mensura substantiae, qualitas vero dispositio substantiae. Sed ratio propria relationis non accipitur secundum comparationem ad illud in quo est, sed secundum comparationem ad aliquid extra. Si igitur consideremus, etiam in rebus creatis, relationes secundum id quod relationes sunt, sic inveniuntur esse assistentes, non intrinsecus affixae; quasi significantes respectum quodammodo contingentem ipsam rem relatam, prout ab ea tendit in alterum. Si vero consideretur relatio secundum quod est accidens, sic est inhaerens subiecto, et habens esse accidentale in ipso. Sed Gilbertus Porretanus consideravit relationem primo modo tantum. | 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. |
| Quidquid autem in rebus creatis habet esse accidentale, secundum quod transfertur in Deum, habet esse substantiale, nihil enim est in Deo ut accidens in subiecto, sed quidquid est in Deo, est eius essentia. Sic igitur ex ea parte qua relatio in rebus creatis habet esse accidentale in subiecto, relatio realiter existens in Deo habet esse essentiae divinae, idem omnino ei existens. In hoc vero quod ad aliquid dicitur, non significatur aliqua habitudo ad essentiam, sed magis ad suum oppositum. | 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. |
| Et sic manifestum est quod relatio realiter existens in Deo, est idem essentiae secundum rem; et non differt nisi secundum intelligentiae rationem, prout in relatione importatur respectus ad suum oppositum, qui non importatur in nomine essentiae. Patet ergo quod in Deo non est aliud esse relationis et esse essentiae, sed unum et idem. | 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. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod verba illa Augustini non pertinent ad hoc, quod paternitas, vel alia relatio quae est in Deo, secundum esse suum non sit idem quod divina essentia; sed quod non praedicatur secundum modum substantiae, ut existens in eo de quo dicitur, sed ut ad alterum se habens. Et propter hoc dicuntur duo tantum esse praedicamenta in divinis. Quia alia praedicamenta important habitudinem ad id de quo dicuntur, tam secundum suum esse, quam secundum proprii generis rationem, nihil autem quod est in Deo, potest habere habitudinem ad id in quo est, vel de quo dicitur, nisi habitudinem identitatis, propter summam Dei simplicitatem. | Reply to Objection 1: These words of Augustine do not imply that paternity or any other relation which is in God is not in its very being the same as the divine essence; but that it is not predicated under the mode of substance, as existing in Him to Whom it is applied; but as a relation. So there are said to be two predicaments only in God, since other predicaments import habitude to that of which they are spoken, both in their generic and in their specific nature; but nothing that exists in God can have any relation to that wherein it exists or of whom it is spoken, except the relation of identity; and this by reason of God's supreme simplicity. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut in rebus creatis, in illo quod dicitur relative, non solum est invenire respectum ad alterum, sed etiam aliquid absolutum, ita et in Deo, sed tamen aliter et aliter. Nam id quod invenitur in creatura praeter id quod continetur sub significatione nominis relativi, est alia res, in Deo autem non est alia res, sed una et eadem, quae non perfecte exprimitur relationis nomine, quasi sub significatione talis nominis comprehensa. Dictum est enim supra, cum de divinis nominibus agebatur, quod plus continetur in perfectione divinae essentiae, quam aliquo nomine significari possit. Unde non sequitur quod in Deo, praeter relationem, sit aliquid aliud secundum rem; sed solum considerata nominum ratione. | Reply to Objection 2: As the relation which exists in creatures involves not only a regard to another, but also something absolute, so the same applies to God, yet not in the same way. What is contained in the creature above and beyond what is contained in the meaning of relation, is something else besides that relation; whereas in God there is no distinction, but both are one and the same; and this is not perfectly expressed by the word "relation," as if it were comprehended in the ordinary meaning of that term. For it was above explained (Question [13], Article [2]), in treating of the divine names, that more is contained in the perfection of the divine essence than can be signified by any name. Hence it does not follow that there exists in God anything besides relation in reality; but only in the various names imposed by us. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod, si in perfectione divina nihil plus contineretur quam quod significat nomen relativum, sequeretur quod esse eius esset imperfectum, utpote ad aliquid aliud se habens, sicut si non contineretur ibi plus quam quod nomine sapientiae significatur, non esset aliquid subsistens. Sed quia divinae essentiae perfectio est maior quam quod significatione alicuius nominis comprehendi possit, non sequitur, si nomen relativum, vel quodcumque aliud nomen dictum de Deo, non significat aliquid perfectum, quod divina essentia habeat esse imperfectum, quia divina essentia comprehendit in se omnium generum perfectionem, ut supra dictum est. | Reply to Objection 3: If the divine perfection contained only what is signified by relative names, it would follow that it is imperfect, being thus related to something else; as in the same way, if nothing more were contained in it than what is signified by the word "wisdom," it would not in that case be a subsistence. But as the perfection of the divine essence is greater than can be included in any name, it does not follow, if a relative term or any other name applied to God signify something imperfect, that the divine essence is in any way imperfect; for the divine essence comprehends within itself the perfection of every genus (Question [4], Article [2]). |
Index [<< | >>]
First Part [<< | >>]
Question: 28 [<< | >>]
Article: 3 [<< | >>]
| Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod relationes quae sunt in Deo, realiter ab invicem non distinguantur. Quaecumque enim uni et eidem sunt eadem, sibi invicem sunt eadem. Sed omnis relatio in Deo existens est idem secundum rem cum divina essentia. Ergo relationes secundum rem ab invicem non distinguuntur. | Objection 1: It would seem that the divine relations are not really distinguished from each other. For things which are identified with the same, are identified with each other. But every relation in God is really the same as the divine essence. Therefore the relations are not really distinguished from each other. |
| Praeterea, sicut paternitas et filiatio secundum nominis rationem distinguuntur ab essentia divina, ita et bonitas et potentia. Sed propter huiusmodi rationis distinctionem non est aliqua realis distinctio bonitatis et potentiae divinae. Ergo neque paternitatis et filiationis. | Objection 2: Further, as paternity and filiation are by name distinguished from the divine essence, so likewise are goodness and power. But this kind of distinction does not make any real distinction of the divine goodness and power. Therefore neither does it make any real distinction of paternity and filiation. |
| Praeterea, in divinis non est distinctio realis nisi secundum originem. Sed una relatio non videtur oriri ex alia. Ergo relationes non distinguuntur realiter ab invicem. | Objection 3: Further, in God there is no real distinction but that of origin. But one relation does not seem to arise from another. Therefore the relations are not really distinguished from each other. |
| Sed contra est quod dicit Boetius, in libro de Trin., quod substantia in divinis continet unitatem, relatio multiplicat Trinitatem. Si ergo relationes non distinguuntur ab invicem realiter, non erit in divinis Trinitas realis, sed rationis tantum, quod est Sabelliani erroris. | On the contrary, Boethius says (De Trin.) that in God "the substance contains the unity; and relation multiplies the trinity." Therefore, if the relations were not really distinguished from each other, there would be no real trinity in God, but only an ideal trinity, which is the error of Sabellius. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod ex eo quod aliquid alicui attribuitur, oportet quod attribuantur ei omnia quae sunt de ratione illius, sicut cuicumque attribuitur homo, oportet quod attribuatur ei esse rationale. De ratione autem relationis est respectus unius ad alterum, secundum quem aliquid alteri opponitur relative. Cum igitur in Deo realiter sit relatio, ut dictum est, oportet quod realiter sit ibi oppositio. Relativa autem oppositio in sui ratione includit distinctionem. Unde oportet quod in Deo sit realis distinctio, non quidem secundum rem absolutam, quae est essentia, in qua est summa unitas et simplicitas; sed secundum rem relativam. | I answer that, The attributing of anything to another involves the attribution likewise of whatever is contained in it. So when "man" is attributed to anyone, a rational nature is likewise attributed to him. The idea of relation, however, necessarily means regard of one to another, according as one is relatively opposed to another. So as in God there is a real relation (Article [1]), there must also be a real opposition. The very nature of relative opposition includes distinction. Hence, there must be real distinction in God, not, indeed, according to that which is absolute—namely, essence, wherein there is supreme unity and simplicity—but according to that which is relative. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, secundum philosophum in III Physic., argumentum illud tenet, quod quaecumque uni et eidem sunt eadem, sibi invicem sunt eadem, in his quae sunt idem re et ratione, sicut tunica et indumentum, non autem in his quae differunt ratione. Unde ibidem dicit quod, licet actio sit idem motui, similiter et passio, non tamen sequitur quod actio et passio sint idem, quia in actione importatur respectus ut a quo est motus in mobili, in passione vero ut qui est ab alio. Et similiter, licet paternitas sit idem secundum rem cum essentia divina, et similiter filiatio, tamen haec duo in suis propriis rationibus important oppositos respectus. Unde distinguuntur ab invicem. | Reply to Objection 1: According to the Philosopher (Phys. iii), this argument holds, that whatever things are identified with the same thing are identified with each other, if the identity be real and logical; as, for instance, a tunic and a garment; but not if they differ logically. Hence in the same place he says that although action is the same as motion, and likewise passion; still it does not follow that action and passion are the same; because action implies reference as of something "from which" there is motion in the thing moved; whereas passion implies reference as of something "which is from" another. Likewise, although paternity, just as filiation, is really the same as the divine essence; nevertheless these two in their own proper idea and definitions import opposite respects. Hence they are distinguished from each other. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod potentia et bonitas non important in suis rationibus aliquam oppositionem, unde non est similis ratio. | Reply to Objection 2: Power and goodness do not import any opposition in their respective natures; and hence there is no parallel argument. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod, quamvis relationes, proprie loquendo, non oriantur vel procedant ab invicem, tamen accipiuntur per oppositum secundum processionem alicuius ab alio. | Reply to Objection 3: Although relations, properly speaking, do not arise or proceed from each other, nevertheless they are considered as opposed according to the procession of one from another. |
Index [<< | >>]
First Part [<< | >>]
Question: 28 [<< | >>]
Article: 4 [<< | >>]
| Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod in Deo non sint tantum quatuor relationes reales, scilicet paternitas, filiatio, spiratio et processio. Est enim considerare in Deo relationes intelligentis ad intellectum, et volentis ad volitum, quae videntur esse relationes reales, neque sub praedictis continentur. Non ergo sunt solum quatuor relationes reales in Deo. | Objection 1: It would seem that in God there are not only four real relations—paternity, filiation, spiration and procession. For it must be observed that in God there exist the relations of the intelligent agent to the object understood; and of the one willing to the object willed; which are real relations not comprised under those above specified. Therefore there are not only four real relations in God. |
| Praeterea, relationes reales accipiuntur in Deo secundum processionem intelligibilem verbi. Sed relationes intelligibiles multiplicantur in infinitum, ut Avicenna dicit. Ergo in Deo sunt infinitae relationes reales. | Objection 2: Further, real relations in God are understood as coming from the intelligible procession of the Word. But intelligible relations are infinitely multiplied, as Avicenna says. Therefore in God there exists an infinite series of real relations. |
| Praeterea, ideae sunt in Deo ab aeterno, ut supra dictum est. Non autem distinguuntur ab invicem nisi secundum respectum ad res, ut supra dictum est. Ergo in Deo sunt multo plures relationes aeternae. | Objection 3: Further, ideas in God are eternal (Question [15], Article [1]); and are only distinguished from each other by reason of their regard to things, as above stated. Therefore in God there are many more eternal relations. |
| Praeterea, aequalitas et similitudo et identitas sunt relationes quaedam; et sunt in Deo ab aeterno. Ergo plures relationes sunt ab aeterno in Deo, quam quae dictae sunt. | Objection 4: Further, equality, and likeness, and identity are relations: and they are in God from eternity. Therefore several more relations are eternal in God than the above named. |
| Sed contra, videtur quod sint pauciores. Quia secundum philosophum, in III Physic., eadem via est de Athenis ad Thebas, et de Thebis ad Athenas. Ergo videtur quod pari ratione eadem sit relatio de patre ad filium, quae dicitur paternitas, et de filio ad patrem, quae dicitur filiatio. Et sic non sunt quatuor relationes in Deo | Objection 5: Further, it may also contrariwise be said that there are fewer relations in God than those above named. For, according to the Philosopher (Phys. iii text 24), "It is the same way from Athens to Thebes, as from Thebes to Athens." By the same way of reasoning there is the same relation from the Father to the Son, that of paternity, and from the Son to the Father, that of filiation; and thus there are not four relations in God. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, secundum philosophum, in V Metaphys., relatio omnis fundatur vel supra quantitatem, ut duplum et dimidium; vel supra actionem et passionem, ut faciens et factum, pater et filius, dominus et servus, et huiusmodi. Cum autem quantitas non sit in Deo (est enim sine quantitate magnus, ut dicit Augustinus). Relinquitur ergo quod realis relatio in Deo esse non possit, nisi super actionem fundata. Non autem super actiones secundum quas procedit aliquid extrinsecum a Deo, quia relationes Dei ad creaturas non sunt realiter in ipso, ut supra dictum est. Unde relinquitur quod relationes reales in Deo non possunt accipi, nisi secundum actiones secundum quas est processio in Deo, non extra, sed intra. Huiusmodi autem processiones sunt duae tantum, ut supra dictum est, quarum una accipitur secundum actionem intellectus, quae est processio verbi; alia secundum actionem voluntatis, quae est processio amoris. Secundum quamlibet autem processionem oportet duas accipere relationes oppositas, quarum una sit procedentis a principio, et alia ipsius principii. Processio autem verbi dicitur generatio, secundum propriam rationem qua competit rebus viventibus. Relatio autem principii generationis in viventibus perfectis dicitur paternitas, relatio vero procedentis a principio dicitur filiatio. Processio vero amoris non habet nomen proprium, ut supra dictum est, unde neque relationes quae secundum ipsam accipiuntur. Sed vocatur relatio principii huius processionis spiratio; relatio autem procedentis, processio; quamvis haec duo nomina ad ipsas processiones vel origines pertineant, et non ad relationes. | I answer that, According to the Philosopher (Metaph. v), every relation is based either on quantity, as double and half; or on action and passion, as the doer and the deed, the father and the son, the master and the servant, and the like. Now as there is no quantity in God, for He is great without quantity, as Augustine says (De Trin. i, 1) it follows that a real relation in God can be based only on action. Such relations are not based on the actions of God according to any extrinsic procession, forasmuch as the relations of God to creatures are not real in Him (Question [13], Article [7]). Hence, it follows that real relations in God can be understood only in regard to those actions according to which there are internal, and not external, processions in God. These processions are two only, as above explained (Question [27], Article [5]), one derived from the action of the intellect, the procession of the Word; and the other from the action of the will, the procession of love. In respect of each of these processions two opposite relations arise; one of which is the relation of the person proceeding from the principle; the other is the relation of the principle Himself. The procession of the Word is called generation in the proper sense of the term, whereby it is applied to living things. Now the relation of the principle of generation in perfect living beings is called paternity; and the relation of the one proceeding from the principle is called filiation. But the procession of Love has no proper name of its own (Question [27], Article [4]); and so neither have the ensuing relations a proper name of their own. The relation of the principle of this procession is called spiration; and the relation of the person proceeding is called procession: although these two names belong to the processions or origins themselves, and not to the relations. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod in his in quibus differt intellectus et intellectum, volens et volitum, potest esse realis relatio et scientiae ad rem scitam, et volentis ad rem volitam. Sed in Deo est idem omnino intellectus et intellectum, quia intelligendo se intelligit omnia alia, et eadem ratione voluntas et volitum. Unde in Deo huiusmodi relationes non sunt reales, sicut neque relatio eiusdem ad idem. Sed tamen relatio ad verbum est realis, quia verbum intelligitur ut procedens per actionem intelligibilem, non autem ut res intellecta. Cum enim intelligimus lapidem, id quod ex re intellecta concipit intellectus, vocatur verbum. | Reply to Objection 1: In those things in which there is a difference between the intellect and its object, and the will and its object, there can be a real relation, both of science to its object, and of the willer to the object willed. In God, however, the intellect and its object are one and the same; because by understanding Himself, God understands all other things; and the same applies to His will and the object that He wills. Hence it follows that in God these kinds of relations are not real; as neither is the relation of a thing to itself. Nevertheless, the relation to the word is a real relation; because the word is understood as proceeding by an intelligible action; and not as a thing understood. For when we understand a stone; that which the intellect conceives from the thing understood, is called the word. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod in nobis relationes intelligibiles in infinitum multiplicantur, quia alio actu intelligit homo lapidem, et alio actu intelligit se intelligere lapidem, et alio etiam intelligit hoc intelligere, et sic in infinitum multiplicantur actus intelligendi, et per consequens relationes intellectae. Sed hoc in Deo non habet locum, quia uno actu tantum omnia intelligit. | Reply to Objection 2: Intelligible relations in ourselves are infinitely multiplied, because a man understands a stone by one act, and by another act understands that he understands the stone, and again by another, understands that he understands this; thus the acts of understanding are infinitely multiplied, and consequently also the relations understood. This does not apply to God, inasmuch as He understands all things by one act alone. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod respectus ideales sunt ut intellecti a Deo. Unde ex eorum pluralitate non sequitur quod sint plures relationes in Deo, sed quod Deus cognoscat plures relationes. | Reply to Objection 3: Ideal relations exist as understood by God. Hence it does not follow from their plurality that there are many relations in God; but that God knows these many relations. |
| Ad quartum dicendum quod aequalitas et similitudo in Deo non sunt relationes reales, sed rationis tantum, ut infra patebit. | Reply to Objection 4: Equality and similitude in God are not real relations; but are only logical relations (Question [42], Article [3], ad 4). |
| Ad quintum dicendum quod via est eadem ab uno termino ad alterum, et e converso; sed tamen respectus sunt diversi. Unde ex hoc non potest concludi quod eadem sit relatio patris ad filium, et e converso, sed posset hoc concludi de aliquo absoluto, si esset medium inter ea. | Reply to Objection 5: The way from one term to another and conversely is the same; nevertheless the mutual relations are not the same. Hence, we cannot conclude that the relation of the father to the son is the same as that of the son to the father; but we could conclude this of something absolute, if there were such between them. |