Index [<< | >>]
First Part [<< | >>]
Question: 33 [<< | >>]
| Consequenter considerandum est de personis in speciali. Et primo de persona patris. Circa quam quaeruntur quatuor. | We now consider the persons singly; and first, the Person of the Father, concerning Whom there are four points of inquiry: |
| Primo, utrum patri competat esse principium. | (1) Whether the Father is the Principle? |
| Secundo, utrum persona patris proprie significetur hoc nomine pater. | (2) Whether the person of the Father is properly signified by this name "Father"? |
| Tertio, utrum per prius dicatur in divinis pater secundum quod sumitur personaliter, quam secundum quod sumitur essentialiter. | (3) Whether "Father" in God is said personally before it is said essentially? |
| Quarto, utrum sit proprium patri esse ingenitum. | (4) Whether it belongs to the Father alone to be unbegotten? |
Index [<< | >>]
First Part [<< | >>]
Question: 33 [<< | >>]
Article: 1 [<< | >>]
| Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod pater non possit dici principium filii vel spiritus sancti. Principium enim et causa idem sunt, secundum philosophum. Sed non dicimus patrem esse causam filii. Ergo non debet dici quod sit eius principium. | Objection 1: It would seem that the Father cannot be called the principle of the Son, or of the Holy Ghost. For principle and cause are the same, according to the Philosopher (Metaph. iv). But we do not say that the Father is the cause of the Son. Therefore we must not say that He is the principle of the Son. |
| Praeterea, principium dicitur respectu principiati. Si igitur pater est principium filii, sequitur filium esse principiatum, et per consequens esse creatum. Quod videtur esse erroneum. | Objection 2: Further, a principle is so called in relation to the thing principled. So if the Father is the principle of the Son, it follows that the Son is a person principled, and is therefore created; which appears false. |
| Praeterea, nomen principii a prioritate sumitur. Sed in divinis non est prius et posterius, ut Athanasius dicit. Ergo in divinis non debemus uti nomine principii. | Objection 3: Further, the word principle is taken from priority. But in God there is no "before" and "after," as Athanasius says. Therefore in speaking of God we ought not to used the term principle. |
| Sed contra est quod dicit Augustinus, in IV de Trin., pater est principium totius deitatis. | On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. iv, 20), "The Father is the Principle of the whole Deity." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod hoc nomen principium nihil aliud significat quam id a quo aliquid procedit, omne enim a quo aliquid procedit quocumque modo, dicimus esse principium; et e converso. Cum ergo pater sit a quo procedit alius, sequitur quod pater est principium. | I answer that, The word "principle" signifies only that whence another proceeds: since anything whence something proceeds in any way we call a principle; and conversely. As the Father then is the one whence another proceeds, it follows that the Father is a principle. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Graeci utuntur in divinis indifferenter nomine causae, sicut et nomine principii, sed Latini doctores non utuntur nomine causae, sed solum nomine principii. Cuius ratio est, quia principium communius est quam causa, sicut causa communius quam elementum, primus enim terminus, vel etiam prima pars rei dicitur principium, sed non causa. Quanto autem aliquod nomen est communius, tanto convenientius assumitur in divinis, ut supra dictum est, quia nomina, quanto magis specialia sunt, tanto magis determinant modum convenientem creaturae. Unde hoc nomen causa videtur importare diversitatem substantiae, et dependentiam alicuius ab altero; quam non importat nomen principii. In omnibus enim causae generibus, semper invenitur distantia inter causam et id cuius est causa, secundum aliquam perfectionem aut virtutem. Sed nomine principii utimur etiam in his quae nullam huiusmodi differentiam habent, sed solum secundum quendam ordinem, sicut cum dicimus punctum esse principium lineae, vel etiam cum dicimus primam partem lineae esse principium lineae. | Reply to Objection 1: The Greeks use the words "cause" and "principle" indifferently, when speaking of God; whereas the Latin Doctors do not use the word "cause," but only "principle." The reason is because "principle" is a wider term than "cause"; as "cause" is more common than "element." For the first term of a thing, as also the first part, is called the principle, but not the cause. Now the wider a term is, the more suitable it is to use as regards God (Question [13], Article [11]), because the more special terms are, the more they determine the mode adapted to the creature. Hence this term "cause" seems to mean diversity of substance, and dependence of one from another; which is not implied in the word "principle." For in all kinds of causes there is always to be found between the cause and the effect a distance of perfection or of power: whereas we use the term "principle" even in things which have no such difference, but have only a certain order to each other; as when we say that a point is the principle of a line; or also when we say that the first part of a line is the principle of a line. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod apud Graecos invenitur de filio vel spiritu sancto dici quod principientur. Sed hoc non est in usu doctorum nostrorum. Quia licet attribuamus patri aliquid auctoritatis ratione principii, nihil tamen ad subiectionem vel minorationem quocumque modo pertinens, attribuimus filio vel spiritui sancto, ut vitetur omnis erroris occasio. Secundum quem modum Hilarius dicit, IX de Trin., donantis auctoritate pater maior est; sed minor non est filius, cui unum esse donatur. | Reply to Objection 2: It is the custom with the Greeks to say that the Son and the Holy Ghost are principled. This is not, however, the custom with our Doctors; because, although we attribute to the Father something of authority by reason of His being the principle, still we do not attribute any kind of subjection or inferiority to the Son, or to the Holy Ghost, to avoid any occasion of error. In this way, Hilary says (De Trin. ix): "By authority of the Giver, the Father is the greater; nevertheless the Son is not less to Whom oneness of nature is give." |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod, licet hoc nomen principium, quantum ad id a quo imponitur ad significandum, videatur a prioritate sumptum; non tamen significat prioritatem, sed originem. Non enim idem est quod significat nomen, et a quo nomen imponitur, ut supra dictum est. | Reply to Objection 3: Although this word principle, as regards its derivation, seems to be taken from priority, still it does not signify priority, but origin. For what a term signifies, and the reason why it was imposed, are not the same thing, as stated above (Question [13], Article [8]). |
Index [<< | >>]
First Part [<< | >>]
Question: 33 [<< | >>]
Article: 2 [<< | >>]
| Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod hoc nomen pater non sit proprie nomen divinae personae. Hoc enim nomen pater significat relationem. Persona autem est substantia individua. Non ergo hoc nomen pater est proprie nomen significativum personae. | Objection 1: It would seem that this name "Father" is not properly the name of a divine person. For the name "Father" signifies relation. Moreover "person" is an individual substance. Therefore this name "Father" is not properly a name signifying a Person. |
| Praeterea, generans communius est quam pater, nam omnis pater est generans, sed non e converso. Sed nomen communius magis proprie dicitur in divinis, ut dictum est. Ergo magis proprium nomen est personae divinae generans et genitor, quam pater. | Objection 2: Further, a begetter is more common than father; for every father begets; but it is not so conversely. But a more common term is more properly applied to God, as stated above (Question [13], Article [11]). Therefore the more proper name of the divine person is begetter and genitor than Father. |
| Praeterea, nihil quod secundum metaphoram dicitur, potest esse nomen proprium alicuius. Sed verbum metaphorice apud nos dicitur genitum vel proles, et per consequens ille cuius est verbum, metaphorice dicitur pater. Non ergo principium verbi in divinis potest proprie dici pater. | Objection 3: Further, a metaphorical term cannot be the proper name of anyone. But the word is by us metaphorically called begotten, or offspring; and consequently, he of whom is the word, is metaphorically called father. Therefore the principle of the Word in God is not properly called Father. |
| Praeterea, omne quod proprie dicitur in divinis, per prius dicitur de Deo quam de creaturis. Sed generatio per prius videtur dici de creaturis quam de Deo, verior enim ibi videtur esse generatio, ubi aliquid procedit ab alio distinctum non secundum relationem tantum, sed etiam secundum essentiam. Ergo nomen patris, quod a generatione sumitur, non videtur esse proprium alicuius divinae personae. | Objection 4: Further, everything which is said properly of God, is said of God first before creatures. But generation appears to apply to creatures before God; because generation seems to be truer when the one who proceeds is distinct from the one whence it proceeds, not only by relation but also by essence. Therefore the name "Father" taken from generation does not seem to be the proper name of any divine person. |
| Sed contra est quod dicitur in Psalmo, ipse invocabit me, pater meus es tu. | On the contrary, It is said (Ps. 88:27): "He shall cry out to me: Thou art my Father." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod nomen proprium cuiuslibet personae significat id per quod illa persona distinguitur ab omnibus aliis. Sicut enim de ratione hominis est anima et corpus, ita de intellectu huius hominis est haec anima et hoc corpus, ut dicitur in VII Metaphys.; his autem hic homo ab omnibus aliis distinguitur. Id autem per quod distinguitur persona patris ab omnibus aliis, est paternitas. Unde proprium nomen personae patris est hoc nomen pater, quod significat paternitatem. | I answer that, The proper name of any person signifies that whereby the person is distinguished from all other persons. For as body and soul belong to the nature of man, so to the concept of this particular man belong this particular soul and this particular body; and by these is this particular man distinguished from all other men. Now it is paternity which distinguishes the person of the Father from all other persons. Hence this name "Father," whereby paternity is signified, is the proper name of the person of the Father. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod apud nos relatio non est subsistens persona, et ideo hoc nomen pater, apud nos, non significat personam, sed relationem personae. Non autem est ita in divinis, ut quidam falso opinati sunt, nam relatio quam significat hoc nomen pater, est subsistens persona. Unde supra dictum est quod hoc nomen persona in divinis significat relationem ut subsistentem in divina natura. | Reply to Objection 1: Among us relation is not a subsisting person. So this name "father" among us does not signify a person, but the relation of a person. In God, however, it is not so, as some wrongly thought; for in God the relation signified by the name "Father" is a subsisting person. Hence, as above explained (Question [29], Article [4]), this name "person" in God signifies a relation subsisting in the divine nature. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod, secundum philosophum, in II de anima, denominatio rei maxime debet fieri a perfectione et fine. Generatio autem significat ut in fieri, sed paternitas significat complementum generationis. Et ideo potius est nomen divinae personae pater, quam generans vel genitor. | Reply to Objection 2: According to the Philosopher (De Anima ii, text 49), a thing is denominated chiefly by its perfection, and by its end. Now generation signifies something in process of being made, whereas paternity signifies the complement of generation; and therefore the name "Father" is more expressive as regards the divine person than genitor or begettor. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod verbum non est aliquid subsistens in natura humana, unde non proprie potest dici genitum vel filius. Sed verbum divinum est aliquid subsistens in natura divina, unde proprie, et non metaphorice, dicitur filius, et eius principium, pater. | Reply to Objection 3: In human nature the word is not a subsistence, and hence is not properly called begotten or son. But the divine Word is something subsistent in the divine nature; and hence He is properly and not metaphorically called Son, and His principle is called Father. |
| Ad quartum dicendum quod nomen generationis et paternitatis, sicut et alia nomina quae proprie dicuntur in divinis, per prius dicuntur de Deo quam de creaturis, quantum ad rem significatam, licet non quantum ad modum significandi. Unde et apostolus dicit, ad Ephes. III, flecto genua mea ad patrem domini nostri Iesu Christi, ex quo omnis paternitas in caelo et in terra nominatur. Quod sic apparet. Manifestum est enim quod generatio accipit speciem a termino, qui est forma generati. Et quanto haec fuerit propinquior formae generantis, tanto verior et perfectior est generatio; sicut generatio univoca est perfectior quam non univoca, nam de ratione generantis est, quod generet sibi simile secundum formam. Unde hoc ipsum quod in generatione divina est eadem numero forma generantis et geniti, in rebus autem creatis non est eadem numero, sed specie tantum, ostendit quod generatio, et per consequens paternitas, per prius sit in Deo quam in creaturis. Unde hoc ipsum quod in divinis est distinctio geniti a generante secundum relationem tantum, ad veritatem divinae generationis et paternitatis pertinet. | Reply to Objection 4: The terms "generation" and "paternity" like the other terms properly applied to God, are said of God before creatures as regards the thing signified, but not as regards the mode of signification. Hence also the Apostle says, "I bend my knee to the Father of my Lord Jesus Christ, from whom all paternity in heaven and on earth is named" (Eph. 3:14). This is explained thus. It is manifest that generation receives its species from the term which is the form of the thing generated; and the nearer it is to the form of the generator, the truer and more perfect is the generation; as univocal generation is more perfect than non-univocal, for it belongs to the essence of a generator to generate what is like itself in form. Hence the very fact that in the divine generation the form of the Begetter and Begotten is numerically the same, whereas in creatures it is not numerically, but only specifically, the same, shows that generation, and consequently paternity, is applied to God before creatures. Hence the very fact that in God a distinction exists of the Begotten from the Begetter as regards relation only, belongs to the truth of the divine generation and paternity. |
Index [<< | >>]
First Part [<< | >>]
Question: 33 [<< | >>]
Article: 3 [<< | >>]
| Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod hoc nomen pater non dicatur in divinis per prius secundum quod personaliter sumitur. Commune enim, secundum intellectum, est prius proprio. Sed hoc nomen pater, secundum quod personaliter sumitur, est proprium personae patris, secundum vero quod sumitur essentialiter est commune toti Trinitati, nam toti Trinitati dicimus pater noster. Ergo per prius dicitur pater essentialiter sumptum, quam personaliter. | Objection 1: It would seem that this name "Father" is not applied to God, firstly as a personal name. For in the intellect the common precedes the particular. But this name "Father" as a personal name, belongs to the person of the Father; and taken in an essential sense it is common to the whole Trinity; for we say "Our Father" to the whole Trinity. Therefore "Father" comes first as an essential name before its personal sense. |
| Praeterea, in his quae sunt eiusdem rationis, non est praedicatio per prius et posterius. Sed paternitas et filiatio secundum unam rationem videntur dici secundum quod persona divina est pater filii, et secundum quod tota Trinitas est pater noster vel creaturae, cum, secundum Basilium, accipere sit commune creaturae et filio. Ergo non per prius dicitur pater in divinis secundum quod sumitur essentialiter, quam secundum quod sumitur personaliter. | Objection 2: Further, in things of which the concept is the same there is no priority of predication. But paternity and filiation seem to be of the same nature, according as a divine person is Father of the Son, and the whole Trinity is our Father, or the creature's; since, according to Basil (Hom. xv, De Fide), to receive is common to the creature and to the Son. Therefore "Father" in God is not taken as an essential name before it is taken personally. |
| Praeterea, inter ea quae non dicuntur secundum rationem unam, non potest esse comparatio. Sed filius comparatur creaturae in ratione filiationis vel generationis, secundum illud Coloss. I, qui est imago Dei invisibilis, primogenitus omnis creaturae. Ergo non per prius dicitur in divinis paternitas personaliter sumpta, quam essentialiter; sed secundum rationem eandem | Objection 3: Further, it is not possible to compare things which have not a common concept. But the Son is compared to the creature by reason of filiation or generation, according to Col. 1:15: "Who is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of every creature." Therefore paternity taken in a personal sense is not prior to, but has the same concept as, paternity taken essentially. |
| Sed contra est quod aeternum prius est temporali. Ab aeterno autem Deus est pater filii, ex tempore autem pater est creaturae. Ergo per prius dicitur paternitas in Deo respectu filii, quam respectu creaturae. | On the contrary, The eternal comes before the temporal. But God is the Father of the Son from eternity; while He is the Father of the creature in time. Therefore paternity in God is taken in a personal sense as regards the Son, before it is so taken as regards the creature. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod per prius dicitur nomen de illo in quo salvatur tota ratio nominis perfecte, quam de illo in quo salvatur secundum aliquid, de hoc enim dicitur quasi per similitudinem ad id in quo perfecte salvatur, quia omnia imperfecta sumuntur a perfectis. Et inde est quod hoc nomen leo per prius dicitur de animali in quo tota ratio leonis salvatur, quod proprie dicitur leo, quam de aliquo homine in quo invenitur aliquid de ratione leonis, ut puta audacia vel fortitudo, vel aliquid huiusmodi, de hoc enim per similitudinem dicitur. | I answer that, A name is applied to that wherein is perfectly contained its whole signification, before it is applied to that which only partially contains it; for the latter bears the name by reason of a kind of similitude to that which answers perfectly to the signification of the name; since all imperfect things are taken from perfect things. Hence this name "lion" is applied first to the animal containing the whole nature of a lion, and which is properly so called, before it is applied to a man who shows something of a lion's nature, as courage, or strength, or the like; and of whom it is said by way of similitude. |
| Manifestum est autem ex praemissis quod perfecta ratio paternitatis et filiationis invenitur in Deo patre et Deo filio, quia patris et filii una est natura et gloria. Sed in creatura filiatio invenitur respectu Dei, non secundum perfectam rationem, cum non sit una natura creatoris et creaturae; sed secundum aliqualem similitudinem. Quae quanto perfectior fuerit, tanto propinquius acceditur ad veram filiationis rationem. Dicitur enim Deus alicuius creaturae pater, propter similitudinem vestigii tantum, utpote irrationalium creaturarum; secundum illud Iob XXXVIII, quis est pluviae pater? Aut quis genuit stillas roris? Alicuius vero creaturae, scilicet rationalis, secundum similitudinem imaginis; secundum illud Deut. XXXII, nonne ipse est pater tuus, qui possedit et fecit et creavit te? Aliquorum vero est pater secundum similitudinem gratiae, qui etiam dicuntur filii adoptivi, secundum quod ordinantur ad haereditatem aeternae gloriae per munus gratiae acceptum; secundum illud Rom. VIII, ipse spiritus reddit testimonium spiritui nostro, quod sumus filii Dei; si autem filii, et haeredes. Aliquorum vero secundum similitudinem gloriae, prout iam gloriae haereditatem possident; secundum illud Rom. V, gloriamur in spe gloriae filiorum Dei. Sic igitur patet quod per prius paternitas dicitur in divinis secundum quod importatur respectus personae ad personam, quam secundum quod importatur respectus Dei ad creaturam. | Now it is manifest from the foregoing (Question [27], Article [2]; Question [28], Article [4]), that the perfect idea of paternity and filiation is to be found in God the Father, and in God the Son, because one is the nature and glory of the Father and the Son. But in the creature, filiation is found in relation to God, not in a perfect manner, since the Creator and the creature have not the same nature; but by way of a certain likeness, which is the more perfect the nearer we approach to the true idea of filiation. For God is called the Father of some creatures, by reason only of a trace, for instance of irrational creatures, according to Job 38:28: "Who is the father of the rain? or who begot the drops of dew?" Of some, namely, the rational creature (He is the Father), by reason of the likeness of His image, according to Dt. 32:6: "Is He not thy Father, who possessed, and made, and created thee?" And of others He is the Father by similitude of grace, and these are also called adoptive sons, as ordained to the heritage of eternal glory by the gift of grace which they have received, according to Rm. 8:16,17: "The Spirit Himself gives testimony to our spirit that we are the sons of God; and if sons, heirs also." Lastly, He is the Father of others by similitude of glory, forasmuch as they have obtained possession of the heritage of glory, according to Rm. 5:2: "We glory in the hope of the glory of the sons of God." Therefore it is plain that "paternity" is applied to God first, as importing regard of one Person to another Person, before it imports the regard of God to creatures. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod communia absolute dicta, secundum ordinem intellectus nostri, sunt priora quam propria, quia includuntur in intellectu propriorum, sed non e converso; in intellectu enim personae patris intelligitur Deus, sed non convertitur. Sed communia quae important respectum ad creaturam, per posterius dicuntur quam propria quae important respectus personales, quia persona procedens in divinis, procedit ut principium productionis creaturarum. Sicut enim verbum conceptum in mente artificis, per prius intelligitur procedere ab artifice quam artificiatum, quod producitur ad similitudinem verbi concepti in mente; ita per prius procedit filius a patre quam creatura, de qua nomen filiationis dicitur secundum quod aliquid participat de similitudine filii; ut patet per illud quod dicitur Rom. VIII, quos praescivit, et praedestinavit fieri conformes imaginis filii eius. | Reply to Objection 1: Common terms taken absolutely, in the order of our intelligence, come before proper terms; because they are included in the understanding of proper terms; but not conversely. For in the concept of the person of the Father, God is understood; but not conversely. But common terms which import relation to the creature come after proper terms which import personal relations; because the person proceeding in God proceeds as the principle of the production of creatures. For as the word conceived in the mind of the artist is first understood to proceed from the artist before the thing designed, which is produced in likeness to the word conceived in the artist's mind; so the Son proceeds from the Father before the creature, to which the name of filiation is applied as it participates in the likeness of the Son, as is clear from the words of Rm. 8:29: "Whom He foreknew and predestined to be made conformable to the image of His Son." |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod accipere dicitur esse commune creaturae et filio, non secundum univocationem, sed secundum similitudinem quandam remotam, ratione cuius dicitur primogenitus creaturae. Unde in auctoritate inducta subditur, ut sit ipse primogenitus in multis fratribus, postquam dixerat conformes fieri aliquos imaginis filii Dei. Sed filius Dei naturaliter habet quoddam singulare prae aliis, scilicet habere per naturam id quod accipit; ut idem Basilius dicit. Et secundum hoc dicitur unigenitus, ut patet Ioan. I, unigenitus, qui est in sinu patris, ipse nobis enarravit. | Reply to Objection 2: To "receive" is said to be common to the creature and to the Son not in a univocal sense, but according to a certain remote similitude whereby He is called the First Born of creatures. Hence the authority quoted subjoins: "That He may be the First Born among many brethren," after saying that some were conformed to the image of the Son of God. But the Son of God possesses a position of singularity above others, in having by nature what He receives, as Basil also declares (Hom. xv De Fide); hence He is called the only begotten (Jn. 1:18): "The only begotten Who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared unto us." |
| Et per hoc patet solutio ad tertium. | From this appears the Reply to the Third Objection. |
Index [<< | >>]
First Part [<< | >>]
Question: 33 [<< | >>]
Article: 4 [<< | >>]
| Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod esse ingenitum non sit patri proprium. Omnis enim proprietas ponit aliquid in eo cuius est proprietas. Sed ingenitus nihil ponit in patre, sed removet tantum. Ergo non significat proprietatem patris. | Objection 1: It would seem that it is not proper to the Father to be unbegotten. For every property supposes something in that of which it is the property. But "unbegotten" supposes nothing in the Father; it only removes something. Therefore it does not signify a property of the Father. |
| Praeterea, ingenitum aut dicitur privative, aut negative. Si negative, tunc quidquid non est genitum, potest dici ingenitum. Sed spiritus sanctus non est genitus, neque etiam essentia divina. Ergo ingenitum etiam eis convenit, et sic non est proprium patri. Si autem privative sumatur, cum omnis privatio significet imperfectionem in privato, sequitur quod persona patris sit imperfecta. Quod est impossibile. | Objection 2: Further, Unbegotten is taken either in a privative, or in a negative sense. If in a negative sense, then whatever is not begotten can be called unbegotten. But the Holy Ghost is not begotten; neither is the divine essence. Therefore to be unbegotten belongs also to the essence; thus it is not proper to the Father. But if it be taken in a privative sense, as every privation signifies imperfection in the thing which is the subject of privation, it follows that the Person of the Father is imperfect; which cannot be. |
| Praeterea, ingenitus in divinis non significat relationem, quia non dicitur relative, significat ergo substantiam. Ingenitus igitur et genitus secundum substantiam differunt. Filius autem, qui est genitus, non differt a patre secundum substantiam. Pater ergo non debet dici ingenitus. | Objection 3: Further, in God, "unbegotten" does not signify relation, for it is not used relatively. Therefore it signifies substance; therefore unbegotten and begotten differ in substance. But the Son, Who is begotten, does not differ from the Father in substance. Therefore the Father ought not to be called unbegotten. |
| Praeterea, proprium est quod uni soli convenit. Sed cum sint plures ab alio procedentes in divinis, nihil videtur prohibere quin etiam sint plures ab alio non existentes. Non igitur est proprium patri esse ingenitum. | Objection 4: Further, property means what belongs to one alone. Since, then, there are more than one in God proceeding from another, there is nothing to prevent several not receiving their being from another. Therefore the Father is not alone unbegotten. |
| Praeterea, sicut pater est principium personae genitae, ita et personae procedentis. Si ergo propter oppositionem quam habet ad personam genitam, proprium patris ponitur esse quod sit ingenitus; etiam proprium eius debet poni quod sit improcessibilis. | Objection 5: Further, as the Father is the principle of the person begotten, so is He of the person proceeding. So if by reason of his opposition to the person begotten, it is proper to the Father to be unbegotten it follows that it is proper to Him also to be unproceeding. |
| Sed contra est quod dicit Hilarius, IV de Trin., est unus ab uno, scilicet ab ingenito genitus, proprietate videlicet in unoquoque et innascibilitatis et originis. | On the contrary, Hilary says (De Trin. iv): "One is from one —that is, the Begotten is from the Unbegotten—namely, by the property in each one respectively of innascibility and origin." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut in creaturis invenitur principium primum et principium secundum, ita in personis divinis, in quibus non est prius et posterius, invenitur principium non de principio, quod est pater, et principium a principio, quod est filius. | I answer that, As in creatures there exist a first and a secondary principle, so also in the divine Persons, in Whom there is no before or after, is formed the principle not from a principle, Who is the Father; and the principle from a principle, Who is the Son. |
| In rebus autem creatis aliquod principium primum innotescit dupliciter, uno quidem modo, inquantum est principium primum per hoc quod habet relationem ad ea quae ab ipso sunt; alio modo, inquantum est primum principium per hoc quod non est ab alio. Sic igitur et pater innotescit quidem paternitate et communi spiratione, per respectum ad personas ab eo procedentes, inquantum autem est principium non de principio, innotescit per hoc, quod non est ab alio, quod pertinet ad proprietatem innascibilitatis, quam significat hoc nomen ingenitus. | 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 "unbegotten." |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod quidam dicunt quod innascibilitas, quam significat hoc nomen ingenitus, secundum quod est proprietas patris, non dicitur tantum negative; sed importat vel utrumque simul, scilicet quod pater a nullo est, et quod est principium aliorum; vel importat universalem auctoritatem; vel etiam fontalem plenitudinem. Sed hoc non videtur verum. Quia sic innascibilitas non esset alia proprietas a paternitate et spiratione, sed includeret eas, sicut includitur proprium in communi, nam fontalitas et auctoritas nihil aliud significant in divinis quam principium originis. Et ideo dicendum est, secundum Augustinum, V de Trin., quod ingenitus negationem generationis passivae importat, dicit enim quod tantum valet quod dicitur ingenitus, quantum valet quod dicitur non filius. Nec propter hoc sequitur quod ingenitus non debeat poni propria notio patris, quia prima et simplicia per negationes notificantur; sicut dicimus punctum esse cuius pars non est. | Reply to Objection 1: Some there are who say that innascibility, signified by the word "unbegotten," as a property of the Father, is not a negative term only, but either that it means both these things together—namely, that the Father is from no one, and that He is the principle of others; or that it imports universal authority, or also His plenitude as the source of all. This, however, does not seem true, because thus innascibility would not be a property distinct from paternity and spiration; but would include them as the proper is included in the common. For source and authority signify in God nothing but the principle of origin. We must therefore say with Augustine (De Trin. v, 7) that "unbegotten" imports the negation of passive generation. For he says that "unbegotten" has the same meaning as "not a son." Nor does it follow that "unbegotten" is not the proper notion of the Father; for primary and simple things are notified by negations; as, for instance, a point is defined as what has no part. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod ingenitum quandoque sumitur negative tantum. Et secundum hoc Hieronymus dicit spiritum sanctum esse ingenitum, idest non genitum. Alio modo potest dici ingenitum aliquo modo privative, non tamen aliquam imperfectionem importat. Multipliciter enim dicitur privatio. Uno modo, quando aliquid non habet quod natum est haberi ab alio, etiamsi ipsum non sit natum habere illud, sicut si lapis dicatur res mortua, quia caret vita, quam quaedam res natae sunt habere. Alio modo dicitur privatio, quando aliquid non habet quod natum est haberi ab aliquo sui generis; sicut si talpa dicatur caeca. Tertio modo, quando ipsum non habet quod natum est habere, et hoc modo privatio imperfectionem importat. Sic autem ingenitum non dicitur privative de patre, sed secundo modo, prout scilicet aliquod suppositum divinae naturae non est genitum, cuius tamen naturae aliquod suppositum est genitum. Sed secundum hanc rationem, etiam de spiritu sancto potest dici ingenitum. Unde ad hoc quod sit proprium soli patri, oportet ulterius in nomine ingeniti intelligere, quod conveniat alicui personae divinae quae sit principium alterius personae; ut sic intelligatur importare negationem in genere principii personaliter dicti in divinis. Vel, ut intelligatur in nomine ingeniti, quod omnino non sit ab alio, et non solum quod non sit ab alio per generationem. Sic enim nec spiritui sancto convenit esse ingenitum, qui est ab alio per processionem ut persona subsistens, nec etiam divinae essentiae, de qua potest dici quod est in filio vel in spiritu sancto ab alio, scilicet a patre. | Reply to Objection 2: "Unbegotten" is taken sometimes in a negative sense only, and in that sense Jerome says that "the Holy Ghost is unbegotten," that is, He is not begotten. Otherwise "unbegotten" may be taken in a kind of privation sense, but not as implying any imperfection. For privation can be taken in many ways; in one way when a thing has not what is naturally belongs to another, even though it is not of its own nature to have it; as, for instance, if a stone be called a dead thing, as wanting life, which naturally belongs to some other things. In another sense, privation is so called when something has not what naturally belongs to some members of its genus; as for instance when a mole is called blind. In a third sense privation means the absence of what something ought to have; in which sense, privation imports an imperfection. In this sense, "unbegotten" is not attributed to the Father as a privation, but it may be so attributed in the second sense, meaning that a certain person of the divine nature is not begotten, while some person of the same nature is begotten. In this sense the term "unbegotten" can be applied also to the Holy Ghost. Hence to consider it as a term proper to the Father alone, it must be further understood that the name "unbegotten" belongs to a divine person as the principle of another person; so that it be understood to imply negation in the genus of principle taken personally in God. Or that there be understood in the term "unbegotten" that He is not in any way derived from another; and not only that He is not from another by way only of generation. In this sense the term "unbegotten" does not belong at all to the Holy Ghost, Who is from another by procession, as a subsisting person; nor does it belong to the divine essence, of which it may be said that it is in the Son or in the Holy Ghost from another—namely, from the Father. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod, secundum Damascenum, ingenitum uno modo significat idem quod increatum, et sic secundum substantiam dicitur; per hoc enim differt substantia creata ab increata. Alio modo significat id quod non est genitum. Et sic relative dicitur, eo modo quo negatio reducitur ad genus affirmationis, sicut non homo ad genus substantiae, et non album ad genus qualitatis. Unde, cum genitum in divinis relationem importet, ingenitum etiam ad relationem pertinet. Et sic non sequitur quod pater ingenitus distinguatur a filio genito secundum substantiam; sed solum secundum relationem, inquantum scilicet relatio filii negatur de patre. | Reply to Objection 3: According to Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 9), "unbegotten" in one sense signifies the same as "uncreated"; and thus it applies to the substance, for thereby does the created substance differ from the uncreated. In another sense it signifies what is not begotten, and in this sense it is a relative term; just as negation is reduced to the genus of affirmation, as "not man" is reduced to the genus of substance, and "not white" to the genus of quality. Hence, since "begotten" implies relation in God, "unbegotten" belongs also to relation. Thus it does not follow that the Father unbegotten is substantially distinguished from the Son begotten; but only by relation; that is, as the relation of Son is denied of the Father. |
| Ad quartum dicendum quod, sicut in quolibet genere oportet ponere unum primum, ita in divina natura oportet ponere unum principium quod non sit ab alio, quod ingenitum dicitur. Ponere igitur duos innascibiles, est ponere duos deos, et duas naturas divinas. Unde Hilarius dicit, in libro de synodis, cum unus Deus sit, duo innascibiles esse non possunt. Et hoc praecipue quia, si essent duo innascibiles, unus eorum non esset ab alio, et sic non distinguerentur oppositione relativa oporteret igitur quod distinguerentur diversitate naturae. | Reply to Objection 4: In every genus there must be something first; so in the divine nature there must be some one principle which is not from another, and which we call "unbegotten." To admit two innascibles is to suppose the existence of two Gods, and two divine natures. Hence Hilary says (De Synod.): "As there is one God, so there cannot be two innascibles." And this especially because, did two innascibles exist, one would not be from the other, and they would not be distinguished by relative opposition: therefore they would be distinguished from each other by diversity of nature. |
| Ad quintum dicendum quod proprietas patris prout non est ab alio, potius significatur per remotionem nativitatis filii, quam per remotionem processionis spiritus sancti. Tum quia processio spiritus sancti non habet nomen speciale, ut supra dictum est. Tum quia etiam ordine naturae praesupponit generationem filii. Unde, remoto a patre quod non sit genitus, cum tamen sit principium generationis, sequitur consequenter quod non sit procedens processione spiritus sancti, quia spiritus sanctus non est generationis principium, sed a genito procedens. | Reply to Objection 5: The property of the Father, whereby He is not from another, is more clearly signified by the removal of the nativity of the Son, than by the removal of the procession of the Holy Ghost; both because the procession of the Holy Ghost has no special name, as stated above (Question [27], Article [4], ad 3), and because also in the order of nature it presupposes the generation of the Son. Hence, it being denied of the Father that He is begotten, although He is the principle of generation, it follows, as a consequence, that He does not proceed by the procession of the Holy Ghost, because the Holy Ghost is not the principle of generation, but proceeds from the person begotten. |