Dist. 28, Art. 1, Q. 4
Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity · Distinction 28
QUAESTIO IV. Utrum etiam improcessibilitas sicut innascibilitas notionem dicat in Patre.
Quarto quaeritur, utrum improcessibilitas1 sit notio Patris, sicut innascibilitas. Et quod sic, videtur:
1. Quia, sicut Pater differt a Filio per innascibilitatem, ita a Spiritu sancto per improcessibilitatem: ergo sicut innascibilitas est notio Patris, similiter videtur, quod improcessibilitas.
2. Item, sicut nobilitatis est Patris non generari, ita etiam non spirari2: ergo si propter rationem nobilitatis ponitur innascibilitas eius notio, similiter debet poni improcessibilitas.
3. Item, sicut generare convenit Patri per hoc quod innascibilis, ita et spirare per hoc quod improcessibilis sive inspirabilis: ergo sicut innascibilitas notio est, quia non tantum dicit privationem, sed3 etiam positionem, ita videtur, quod improcessibilitas. Si tu dicas4, quod improcessibilitas clauditur sub innascibilitate; obiicitur: quia Filio convenit improcessibilitas, et tamen nunquam innascibilitas: ergo est alia notio saltem in Filio, ergo saltem in eo debet esse notio. Si tu dicas5, quod non dicit nobilitatem; contra: omne quod dicitur in divinis, ad nobilitatem pertinet, alioquin non dicitur ibi: ergo si dicitur improcessibilitas de Filio, videtur sonare in nobilitatem.
Iuxta hoc quaeritur: cum Pater communicet alicui6 improcessibilitatem sive inspirabilitatem, quare non similiter communicat innascibilitatem?
Contra:
1. Si improcessibilitas est notio: ergo notiones plures sunt quam quinque, quod est contra communem opinionem7.
2. Item, si improcessibilitas est notio, aut hoc est quia simpliciter privat esse ab aliquo, aut quia privat8 spirationem. Si primo modo, non differt ab innascibilitate; si secundo modo, tunc non differt a spiratione activa, quia enim non spiratur, spirat qui spirat.
3. Item, si non procedere esset notio, eadem ratione non producere; sed hoc falsum: ergo etc. Si dicas9, quod non est simile, quia non producere non dicit nobilitatem; contra: non producere personam dicit statum emanationis; et sicut ratio principii, ante quod non est aliquid, dicit nobilitatem, similiter ratio status, ultra quem10 non est procedere: ergo nobilitatem dicit: si ergo non est aliud, quare non dicatur notionaliter, videtur, quod non producere sit notio, sicut et non spirari.
CONCLUSIO. Improcessibilitas non est notio Patris.
Respondeo: Ad praedictorum intelligentiam est notandum, quod nihil potest esse notio in divinis, nisi dicat respectum positivum vel ex primo intellectu, vel ex consequenti. Si enim solum privat relationem, ita dicitur de essentia sicut de persona. Unde sicut dicitur, quod Pater non producitur, nec Spiritus sanctus personam producit; ita etiam essentia produci non dicitur, et etiam personam non producere. Et sicut non potest esse notio hoc quod est ingenitus, nisi ponat respectum positivum ex consequenti — et hunc ponit sicut visum est — similiter nec hoc quod est inspirabilis11 potest esse notio, nisi ponat respectum positivum. Hunc autem non ponit, nisi secundum quod ponit primitatem respectu spirationis, sicut innascibilitas respectu generationis, ut, sicut innascibilis dicitur qui nec generatur nec generationem consequitur, ita improcessibilis qui nec procedit nec processionem consequitur.
Et quoniam omnis emanatio vel est generatio, vel ad generationem consequitur, quia generatio dicit primam emanationem; ideo innascibilis privat omnem emanationem, et ideo dicit fontalem plenitudinem, non tantum respectu generationis, sed etiam spirationis; et ideo innascibilitas nec generatio est nec spiratio. Sed improcessibilis dicitur, quia nec spiratur nec spirationem consequitur, et sic non excluditur Filius sive generatus. Filius enim generatur, et tamen non spiratur nec spirationem consequitur. Improcessibilis igitur non privat nisi unam solam emanationem, et ideo dicit solum partem istius fontalis plenitudinis; et ideo improcessibilitas non potest esse notio distincta in Patre ab innascibilitate, nec in Filio a spiratione, nec importat fontalem plenitudinem, sed solum in spirando. Quamvis igitur improcessibilitas possit dicere nobilitatem, tamen quia non distinguitur12 ab aliis assignatis, ideo non ponit in numerum cum aliis.
Solutio oppositorum.
Ad 1. 2. 3. Et sic patent tria prima obiecta, quod improcessibilitas distinguit, et dicit nobilitatem, et dicit fecunditatem; quia rationes non valent, eo quod hoc totum in aliis rationibus assignatis clauditur, ideo contra alias non distinguitur.
Ad illud quod quaeritur, quare non communicatur innascibilitas, sicut improcessibilitas; dicendum, quod, sicut patet, quia improcessibilitas non claudit in suo intellectu non esse ab alio, sicut facit innascibilitas, sed solum dicit non spirari. Pater autem nulli potest communicare, quod non sit ab alio13; potest tamen communicare alii, quod non spiretur.
Ad illud quod quaeritur, quare non producere non est notio; dicendum, quod non est nobilitatis; et esto, quod esset — quia illud non videtur principaliter considerari in ratione notionis14 — dicendum, quod illud est ratio, quia non dicit respectum positivum, quantum est de ratione sui nominis; et ideo simpliciter potest convenire essentiae, et ideo non est notio. Non sic autem est de innascibilitate, ut in praecedentibus visum est15.
I. Ex principiis a S. Bonaventura stabilitis facile eruitur, improcessibilitatem non esse notionem Patris. Quando autem tenetur alia sententia, scil. eandem consistere in pura negatione de eo, dubitari poterit, et revera Scot. in Comment. Oxon. (hic q. 2. ad 3.) dubius fuit, utrum forte admittenda sit haec sexta notio. Sed in scripto posteriore sive in Report. (hic q. 1.) ipse adhaeret communi doctrinae (cfr. Macedo, coll. 8. diff. 3. sect. 8.). — Post solutionem ad opposita sequitur solutio quaestionis incidentis in fine argumentorum ad opposit., et deinde respondetur ad quaest. in ultimo fund. implicite positam.
II. Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 69. m. 3. ad ult. — Scot., hic q. 2. ad 3. — S. Thom., S. I. q. 33. a. 4. ad 5, et q. 32. a. 3. — Aegid. R., hic 1. princ. q. 1. collat. 1. — Henr. Gand., S. a. 60. q. 10. — Durand., hic q. 2. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 1. circa medium.
---
QUESTION IV. Whether improcessibility, like unbegottenness, also names a notion in the Father.
Fourthly it is asked whether improcessibility1 is a notion of the Father, just as unbegottenness is. And that it is, it seems:
1. Because, just as the Father differs from the Son through unbegottenness, so [does he differ] from the Holy Spirit through improcessibility: therefore, just as unbegottenness is a notion of the Father, similarly it seems that improcessibility [is].
2. Likewise, just as it pertains to the Father's nobility not to be begotten, so also not to be spirated2: therefore, if on account of the ground of nobility unbegottenness is posited as his notion, similarly improcessibility ought to be posited.
3. Likewise, just as begetting belongs to the Father by reason of his being unbegotten, so also spirating [belongs to him] by reason of his being improcessible or unspirable: therefore, just as unbegottenness is a notion because it does not only signify a privation, but3 also a position, so it seems that improcessibility [is]. If you should say4 that improcessibility is included under unbegottenness, it is objected: because improcessibility belongs to the Son, and yet [in him there is] never unbegottenness: therefore it is another notion at least in the Son, therefore at least in him there ought to be a notion. If you should say5 that it does not signify nobility, on the contrary: everything which is said in divine matters pertains to nobility, otherwise it is not said there: therefore if improcessibility is said of the Son, it seems to imply nobility.
In addition to this it is asked: since the Father communicates to someone6 improcessibility or inspirability, why does he not similarly communicate unbegottenness?
On the contrary:
1. If improcessibility is a notion, then the notions are more than five, which is contrary to common opinion7.
2. Likewise, if improcessibility is a notion, then this is either because it simply deprives [a person of] being-from-another, or because it deprives8 [a person of] spiration. If in the first way, it does not differ from unbegottenness; if in the second way, then it does not differ from active spiration, since [the one] who is not spirated is the one who spirates, [the one] who spirates.
3. Likewise, if not-to-proceed were a notion, by the same reasoning [also] not-to-produce; but this is false: therefore etc. If you should say9 that this is not similar, since not-to-produce does not signify nobility, on the contrary: not-to-produce a person signifies the status of emanation; and just as the formal character of a principle, before which there is nothing, signifies nobility, so likewise the formal character of a status, beyond which10 there is no proceeding [signifies nobility]: therefore it does signify nobility: if then there is nothing else, why it should not be predicated notionally, it seems that not-to-produce is a notion, just as also not-to-be-spirated.
CONCLUSION. Improcessibility is not a notion of the Father.
I respond: For an understanding of the foregoing it must be noted that nothing can be a notion in divine matters unless it signify a positive relation either by primary signification, or as a consequence. For if it only deprives [of] a relation, it is said of the essence in the same way as of a person. Whence just as it is said that the Father is not produced, nor does the Holy Spirit produce a person; so likewise the essence is not said to be produced, and likewise [is said] not to produce a person. And just as that which is "unbegotten" cannot be a notion unless it set down a positive relation as a consequence — and it does set this down as has been seen — similarly neither can that which is "unspirable"11 be a notion unless it set down a positive relation. But it does not set this down except according as it sets down primacy in respect of spiration, just as unbegottenness [does] in respect of generation, so that, just as he is called unbegotten who is neither generated nor follows upon generation, so [is one called] improcessible who neither proceeds nor follows upon procession.
And since every emanation either is a generation, or follows upon a generation — because generation names the first emanation — therefore unbegotten deprives [of] every emanation, and therefore signifies fontal plenitude, not only with respect to generation, but also of spiration; and therefore unbegottenness is neither generation nor spiration. But [one] is called improcessible because he is neither spirated nor follows upon spiration, and thus the Son or the begotten is not excluded. For the Son is begotten, and yet is not spirated nor follows upon spiration. Therefore improcessible deprives only one single emanation, and therefore signifies only a part of that fontal plenitude; and therefore improcessibility cannot be a notion distinct in the Father from unbegottenness, nor in the Son from spiration, nor does it bring fontal plenitude, but only [a partiality] in spirating. Therefore although improcessibility can signify nobility, nevertheless because it is not distinguished12 from the others assigned, therefore it is not placed in the count with the others.
Solution of the opposites.
To 1, 2, 3. And thus the first three objections are clear, [namely] that improcessibility distinguishes, and signifies nobility, and signifies fecundity; because the reasonings are not valid, since this whole [character] is included in the other reasonings already assigned, therefore it is not distinguished against the others.
To that which is asked, why unbegottenness is not communicated as improcessibility [is]; it must be said that, as is plain, [it is] because improcessibility does not include in its meaning not-to-be-from-another, as unbegottenness does, but only signifies not-to-be-spirated. The Father, however, can communicate to no one [the property] of not being from another13; he can however communicate to another [the property] of not being spirated.
To that which is asked, why not-to-produce is not a notion; it must be said that it is not [a property] of nobility; and granted that it were — since this does not seem to be principally considered in the formal character of a notion14 — it must be said that this is the reason: because it does not signify a positive relation, so far as belongs to the formal character of its name; and therefore it can simply belong to the essence, and therefore it is not a notion. It is not, however, so concerning unbegottenness, as has been seen in the preceding [questions]15.
I. From the principles established by St. Bonaventure it is easily drawn that improcessibility is not a notion of the Father. When, however, the other opinion is held, namely that it consists in a pure negation concerning him, it can be doubted, and indeed Scotus in the Oxford Commentary (here q. 2, ad 3) was doubtful whether perhaps this sixth notion ought to be admitted. But in his later writing, namely in the Reportata (here q. 1) he himself adheres to the common doctrine (cf. Macedo, coll. 8, diff. 3, sect. 8). — After the solution of the opposing arguments there follows the solution of the question incidentally raised at the end of the arguments ad oppositum, and then a reply is given to the question implicitly posed in the last fundament.
II. Alexander of Hales, Summa p. I, q. 69, m. 3, ad ult. — Scotus, here q. 2, ad 3. — St. Thomas, Summa I, q. 33, a. 4, ad 5, and q. 32, a. 3. — Aegidius Romanus, here 1, princ. q. 1, collat. 1. — Henricus of Ghent, Summa a. 60, q. 10. — Durandus, here q. 2. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 1, near the middle.
---
- Quaest. 1. — Paulo ante pro Nam proprietas innascibilitatis ed. 1 Nam innascibilitas.Question 1. — A little before, in place of Nam proprietas innascibilitatis, ed. 1 [reads] Nam innascibilitas.
- Codd. I S W Y bb (T a secunda manu) dicet; ed. 1 aut si... diceret. Proxime post pro erit aliqui codd. cum ed. 1 est.Codices I S W Y bb (T by a second hand) [read] dicet; ed. 1 aut si... diceret. Immediately afterwards, in place of erit aliqui, the codices with ed. 1 [read] est.
- In pluribus codd. ut A T Z cc deest sed.In several codices such as A T Z cc the word sed is missing.
- Supervacaneum et inutile est additamentum, quod Vat. hic exhibet, nullo cod. (exc. cc) suffragante: ergo si propter rationem nobilitatis est Patris non generari, ita est non spirari. Paulo ante eadem Vat. nobilitas pro nobilitatis.It is a superfluous and useless addition which the Vatican [edition] exhibits here, with no codex (except cc) supporting: ergo si propter rationem nobilitatis est Patris non generari, ita est non spirari. A little before, the same Vatican [edition] [reads] nobilitas in place of nobilitatis.
- Codd. S V W Z quod. Paulo inferius pro debet aliqui codd. ut I T Z deberet.Codices S V W Z [read] quod. A little below, in place of debet, several codices such as I T Z [read] deberet.
- Cod. Y alteri.Cod. Y [reads] alteri.
- Cfr. supra d. 26. q. 4.Cf. above d. 26, q. 4.
- Sic et Vat.; in codd. et edd. pro privat incongrue exstat quod, verbum contextui non respondet. Paulo inferius a Vat. textus genuinus, quem habent codd. et sex primae edd., sic est mutatus: quia non spiratur qui spirat.Thus also the Vatican [edition]; in the codices and editions, in place of privat, quod incongruously stands, a word which does not correspond to the context. A little below, by the Vatican [edition] the genuine text, which the codices and the first six editions have, has been altered thus: quia non spiratur qui spirat.
- Plures codd. ut I S V cum edd. 1, 2, 3 quod.Several codices such as I S V with edd. 1, 2, 3 [read] quod.
- Quaest. 1.Question 1.
- Codd. et edd. improcessibilis, sed [legendum inspirabilis].The codices and editions [read] improcessibilis, but [it should be read inspirabilis] (editor's emendation, signalled by square brackets in the Quaracchi text).
- Vat. cum cod. cc perperam distinguit.The Vatican [edition] with cod. cc wrongly [reads] distinguit.
- Vide supra d. 27. p. I. q. 2. ad 3. circa finem.See above d. 27, p. I, q. 2, ad 3, near the end.
- Pro notionis Vat. praeter fidem praestantiorum codd. sui nominis.In place of notionis the Vatican [edition], without the support of the more reliable codices, [reads] sui nominis.
- Quaest. 1.Question 1.