← Back to Distinction 5

Dist. 5, Art. 2, Q. 2

Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity · Distinction 5

Textus Latinus
p. 118

Quaestio II

Utrum substantia sive essentia divina per generationem communicetur.

Ultimo quaeritur, utrum substantia per generationem communicetur; et quod sic, ostenditur1 hoc modo.

1. Per illud res communicatur, per quod fit, ut sit in pluribus; sed substantia est in pluribus personis et non est nisi per generationem et per processionem: ergo per generationem communicatur.

2. Item, causa est, qua posita ponitur res et qua remota removetur2; sed posita emanatione in divinis, ponitur communitas et distinctio; remota generatione vel emanatione, essentia est in uno solo, sicut hypostasis: ergo generatio est ratio communicandi essentiam.

3. Item, quod datur alicui et non desinit haberi a dante, per illud3 per quod datur, per illud communicatur; sed substantia a Patre datur Filio per generationem et non desinit haberi a Patre, dum datur Filio: ergo per generationem communicatur.

4. Item, generatio in his inferioribus est ratio communicandi substantiam sive naturam; sed in divinis natura est illis multo communicabilior4, quia simplicior: ergo in divinis per generationem substantia vel essentia communicatur.

Contra:

1. Generatio est principium distinguendi5; sed non est idem principium distinguendi et communicandi: ergo per generationem non est ratio communicandi in divinis: ergo per generationem nihil communicatur.

2. Item, quod facit aliquid esse in hoc, non est ratio communicandi, sed appropriandi et individuandi; sed generatio facit esse substantiam in tali persona, utpote in persona Filii: ergo non est ratio communicandi, sed appropriandi.

3. Item, omne illud quod per generationem communicatur, per generationem est commune6. Si ergo substantia per generationem communicatur, generatione circumscripta, non erit communis: ergo propria; sed proprium per generationem non potest communicari: ergo nec substantia.

4. Item, quod per generationem communicatur, per generationem datur et recipitur, et omne tale, si non est generationi accidentale, generatur; sed substantia non accidit generationi: ergo etc.

Conclusio

Essentia divina per generationem communicatur, quia per generationem fit, ut sit in pluribus una.

Respondeo: Ad hoc intelligendum notandum, quod commune, quantum est de se, indifferenter se habet ad actum et potentiam. Commune enim potest dici illud quod est communicabile, quamvis non sit in pluribus; sicut patet in multis universalibus, ut in sole et luna et huiusmodi. Commune etiam dicitur communicatum, quod est actu in pluribus.

Dico ergo, quod quemadmodum forma universalis, quantum est de se, est communicabilis; sed tamen actu communicatur per propagationem7 plurium,

p. 119

sic natura divina vel essentia de se quidem communicabilis est, sed quod actu communicetur, non est nisi per illud quod multiplicat vel plurificat supposita; haec autem est generatio8.

Quoniam igitur per generationem personae plurificantur, et substantia in illis non numeratur, hinc est, quod verissime substantia vel essentia per generationem communicatur, quia per generationem fit, ut sit una in pluribus.

1. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod generatio est principium distinguendi; dicendum, quod generatio per se est principium distinguendi suppositum a supposito, quia ad illud terminatur per se; etiam est principium communicandi naturam9 communem, quia similem ex simili. Sed quoniam natura in inferioribus numeratur in suppositis, ideo est principium distinguendi etiam commune, sed per accidens; in Deo autem nec est per se nec per accidens.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod facere commune esse in hoc est ratio appropriandi; dicendum, quod illud habet veritatem, quando commune est appropriabile vel appropriatum per esse in hoc. Divina autem essentia non est sic appropriabilis, vel appropriata per esse in hoc, quia non est appropriabilis quoad significatum nec quoad suppositum, quia idem significat et supponit, sicut supra ostensum est10; significatum autem eius nulla additione distinguitur. Haec enim est vera: essentia Patris et essentia, quae est in Patre, est Filius.

Vel aliter potest dici, quod facere esse in hoc est dupliciter: aut absolute; et sic est ratio appropriandi; aut in comparatione, ut illud quod erat prius in uno, fiat postea in alio; et sic est ratio communicandi naturam. Sed quaedam natura est, quae distinguitur11 in suppositis, ut puta illa cui fit additio, quaedam non, ut divina; et in prima est ratio communicandi et distinguendi, in divina solum communicandi.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod, si per generationem communicatur, generatio substantiam facit communem12; dicendum, quod verum est, secundum quod commune dicitur secundum actum, quia in pluribus, sed non secundum potentiam. Unde circumscripta generatione, substantia est communis, quia communicabilis; sed non est communis, quia communicata.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod illud quod per generationem datur, generatur; dicendum, quod falsum est: quia generari dicit productionem et distinctionem, sed datio13 dicit auctoritatem et communicationem; et quoniam per generationem substantia non distinguitur, quamvis communicetur: ergo etc.

Scholion

I. Scot. (hic q. 2.) observat, quod aliud est aliquid per generationem communicare, aliud per eandem aliquid producere: productio enim infert realem distinctionem inter producentem et productum, non vero communicatio. Essentia igitur divina nec generatur nec producitur nec multiplicatur, tamen secundum omnes theologos communicatur. Terminus totalis generationis in Deo est Filius, et relatio inter generantem et generatum est realis cum reali distinctione. Sed inter communicantem et communicatum, quod est essentia divina, non est realis relatio, nec alia distinctio nisi secundum rationem. Cfr. infra d. 19. p. II. q. 2. in corp. et ad 2; et d. 34. q. 2. ad 7, et ibid. q. 1.

II. Inter antiquos Scholasticos non invenimus, qui explicite hanc quaestionem tractent, praeter B. Albert., hic a. 1. — Henr. Gand., S. a. 60. q. 1. n. 57. et seqq. — Petr. Aureolum, hic q. 5. — Eam tangit Scot., hic q. 2.

---

English Translation

Question II

Whether the divine substance or essence is communicated through generation.

Last, it is asked whether substance is communicated through generation; and that it is, is shown1 thus.

1. A thing is communicated through that by which it comes about that it is in many; but substance is in many persons, and is so only through generation and procession: therefore it is communicated through generation.

2. Likewise, the cause is that with which posited the thing is posited, and with which removed it is removed2; but with emanation posited in God, commonality and distinction are posited; with generation or emanation removed, the essence is in only one, just as the hypostasis: therefore generation is the principle of communicating the essence.

3. Likewise, what is given to one and does not cease to be possessed by the giver is communicated through that3 through which it is given; but substance is given by the Father to the Son through generation, and does not cease to be possessed by the Father while it is given to the Son: therefore it is communicated through generation.

4. Likewise, generation in inferior beings is the principle of communicating substance or nature; but in God the nature is to them much more communicable4, because more simple: therefore in God substance or essence is communicated through generation.

On the contrary:

1. Generation is the principle of distinguishing5; but the principle of distinguishing and of communicating is not the same: therefore generation is not the principle of communicating in God: therefore through generation nothing is communicated.

2. Likewise, what makes something to be in this [supposit] is not the principle of communicating, but of appropriating and individuating; but generation makes substance to be in such a person — namely in the person of the Son: therefore it is not the principle of communicating, but of appropriating.

3. Likewise, all that is communicated through generation is, through generation, common6. If therefore substance is communicated through generation, then with generation removed, it will not be common: therefore [it would be] proper; but the proper cannot be communicated through generation: therefore neither can substance.

4. Likewise, what is communicated through generation is given and received through generation, and every such thing — if it is not accidental to generation — is begotten; but substance is not accidental to generation: therefore, etc.

Conclusion

The divine essence is communicated through generation, because through generation it comes to be that one [essence] is in many.

I respond: For understanding this it should be noted that common, considered in itself, is indifferently disposed to act and to potency. For common can be said of that which is communicable, although it not be in many — as is clear in many universals, such as the sun and the moon and the like. Common is also said of what is communicated, which is actually in many.

I say therefore that, just as the universal form, considered in itself, is communicable, but yet is actually communicated through the propagation7 of many,

p. 119

so the divine nature or essence is in itself indeed communicable, but its being actually communicated is only through that which multiplies or pluralizes the supposits — and this is generation8.

Since, therefore, through generation the persons are pluralized, and the substance in them is not numbered, hence it is that most truly substance or essence is communicated through generation, because through generation it comes to be that one [substance] is in many.

1. To the objection that generation is the principle of distinguishing: it must be said that generation is per se the principle of distinguishing one supposit from another, because it is per se terminated at it; it is also the principle of communicating the common nature9, because [it produces] the like from the like. But because the nature in inferior beings is numbered in supposits, therefore it is also the principle of distinguishing the common, but per accidens; in God, however, it is neither per se nor per accidens.

2. To the objection that to make the common to be in this is the principle of appropriating: it must be said that this is true when the common is appropriable or appropriated through being in this. But the divine essence is not thus appropriable, nor appropriated through being in this, because it is not appropriable as to its signified or as to its supposit, since it signifies and supposits the same, as was shown above10; and its signified is not distinguished by any addition. For this is true: the essence of the Father, and the essence which is in the Father, is the Son.

Or it can be said otherwise: to make to be in this is in two ways — either absolutely, and in this way it is the principle of appropriating; or by comparison, that what was previously in one comes to be afterward in another, and in this way it is the principle of communicating the nature. But there is a certain nature which is distinguished11 in supposits — namely that to which addition is made — and a certain nature [which is] not, such as the divine; and in the first there is the principle of communicating and of distinguishing, in the divine [nature] only [the principle] of communicating.

3. To the objection that, if [substance] is communicated through generation, generation makes the substance common12: it must be said that this is true according as common is said in act, because [it is] in many; but not according to potency. Hence with generation set aside, substance is common because communicable; but it is not common as communicated.

4. To the objection that what is given through generation is begotten: it must be said that this is false: because to be begotten expresses production and distinction, but giving13 expresses authority and communication; and since through generation substance is not distinguished, although it be communicated: therefore, etc.

Scholion

I. Scotus (here q. 2) observes that one thing is to communicate something through generation, another to produce something through the same: for production infers a real distinction between producer and produced, but not communication. Therefore the divine essence is neither generated nor produced nor multiplied, yet according to all theologians it is communicated. The total term of generation in God is the Son, and the relation between begetter and begotten is real, with a real distinction. But between the communicator and the communicated — which is the divine essence — there is no real relation, nor any distinction except by account. Cf. below d. 19, p. II, q. 2 in corp. and ad 2; and d. 34, q. 2, ad 7, and ibid. q. 1.

II. Among the older Scholastics we do not find any who explicitly treat this question, except Blessed Albert, here a. 1. — Henry of Ghent, Summa a. 60, q. 1, n. 57 ff. — Peter Aureolus, here q. 5. — Scotus touches on it here q. 2.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Vat., obnitentibus mss. et ed. 1, videtur.
    The Vatican edition, against the manuscripts and ed. 1, reads videtur ["seems"].
  2. Aristot., II. Phys. text. 37. (c. 3.): Operantes quidem (causae) et singulares simul sunt et non sunt cum iis, quorum sunt causae. Cfr. S. Thom., Comment. in hunc locum.
    Aristotle, Physics II, text 37 (c. 3): «Operative (causes) and singular [causes] simultaneously are and are not [present] together with those of which they are causes». Cf. St. Thomas, Commentary on this passage.
  3. Substituimus ex plurimis mss. et ed. 1 illud pro idem.
    We have substituted, on the authority of very many manuscripts and ed. 1, illud ["that"] for idem ["the same"].
  4. Sensus est: natura est multo communicabilior quam in illis inferioribus. — Forte melius cum cod. T omitteretur illis.
    The sense is: the nature is much more communicable than in those inferior [beings]. — Perhaps better, with codex T, illis ["to them"] would be omitted.
  5. Cfr. supra d. 4. q. 2. obiect. 1. — Mox post primum ergo Vat. planius quidem generatio loco per generationem, sed contra mss. et ed. 1.
    Cf. above d. 4, q. 2, obj. 1. — Soon after the first ergo, the Vatican edition has generatio in place of per generationem — more straightforward, indeed, but against the manuscripts and ed. 1.
  6. Vat. absque auctoritate mss. et ed. I: Item per generationem communicatur omne illud quod per generationem est commune, et paulo infra post communicatur addit: per generationem est communis. Si ergo substantia per generationem communicatur, qua transpositione et additione vis argumenti debilitatur.
    The Vatican edition, without the authority of the manuscripts and ed. 1, reads: Likewise, through generation is communicated all that which through generation is common; and a little below, after communicatur, it adds: through generation is common. If therefore substance is communicated through generation. By this transposition and addition the force of the argument is weakened.
  7. Ita antiquiores codd. cum ed. 1, dum Vat. et cod. cc actu non communicatur nisi per propagationem. Vat. deinde contra mss. et ed. 1 addit vel aggregationem; sed aperte falsum. Paulo infra plerique codd. ut A F G K T etc. cum ed. 1 communicatur pro communicetur.
    Thus the older codices with ed. 1, while the Vatican edition and codex cc read actu non communicatur nisi per propagationem ["actually is not communicated except through propagation"]. The Vatican then, against the manuscripts and ed. 1, adds vel aggregationem ["or aggregation"] — but plainly falsely. A little below, most codices, such as A F G K T etc., with ed. 1 read communicatur in place of communicetur.
  8. Cod. O addit et processio.
    Codex O adds et processio ["and procession"].
  9. Ex antiquioribus mss. adiecimus etiam, sicut et paulo infra fide mss. et ed. 1 similem substituimus loco consimilem.
    From the older manuscripts we have added etiam ["also"], just as a little below, on the authority of the manuscripts and ed. 1, we have substituted similem ["like"] in place of consimilem ["very like"].
  10. Hic a. 4. q. 4. ad 2.
    Here [cf.] a. 4, q. 4, ad 2.
  11. Vat. dividitur, sed absque auctoritate mss. et ed. 1. — Paulo post cod. I quaedam quae non distinguitur loco quaedam non, et mox cod. W post solum repetit ratio.
    The Vatican edition reads dividitur ["is divided"], but without the authority of the manuscripts and ed. 1. — A little later, codex I has quaedam quae non distinguitur ["a certain one which is not distinguished"] in place of quaedam non ["a certain one not"], and soon after, codex W after solum repeats ratio.
  12. Ita multi codd. ut C L O S V W X Y etc. cum ed. 1; alii vero ut A F G H I T Z etc. quod si generatio communicat substantiam, et communem. Vat. communicatur substantia, fit per generationem communis substantia.
    So many codices, such as C L O S V W X Y etc., with ed. 1; but others, such as A F G H I T Z etc., read quod si generatio communicat substantiam, et communem ["that if generation communicates the substance, also the common"]. The Vatican edition reads communicatur substantia, fit per generationem communis substantia ["the substance is communicated, the common substance comes about through generation"].
  13. Mendum Vat. ratio pro datio ex mss. correximus et paulo infra fide codd. B D F H I P Q T Y loco quia substituimus quoniam, licet alii antiqui codd. ut A E G K S W X Z et ff ed. 1 solum habeant quoniam, sed minus bene.
    We have corrected the Vatican edition's error of ratio for datio on the authority of the manuscripts; and a little below, on the authority of codices B D F H I P Q T Y, we have substituted quoniam ["since"] in place of quia ["because"], although other older codices, such as A E G K S W X Z and ff ed. 1, only have quoniam — but less well.
← Dist. 5, Art. 2, Q. 1Dist. 5, Dubia→