← Back to Distinction 6

Dist. 6, Art. 1, Q. 3

Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity · Distinction 6

Textus Latinus
p. 129

Articulus unicus.

Quaestio III. Utrum generatio Filii sit secundum rationem exemplaritatis.

The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation that follows. Footer apparatus is preserved verbatim from the Quaracchi edition.

Ultimo quaeritur, utrum generatio Filii a Patre sit secundum rationem exemplaritatis. Et quod sic, videtur hoc modo.

1. Super illud Psalmi1: Semel locutus est Deus, Glossa: « id est, Filium genuit, in quo omnia disposuit » ; sed dispositio aeterna dicit rationem exemplaris: ergo si Filius procedit ut verbum, procedit per modum exemplaritatis.

2. Item, generatio Filii a Patre est similis productioni notitiae ex mente2; sed notitia procedit ex mente secundum rationem exemplaris, quia exemplar est ratio cognoscendi: ergo etc.

3. Item, quod est imago in producto, hoc est exemplar in producente; quando enim productum expresse repraesentat, imago dicitur. Similiter quando3 producens expresse repraesentat, exemplar dicitur: ergo cum Filius procedat ut imago, eadem ratione per modum exemplaritatis.

4. Item, omne principium cognitivum rei producendae4 producit secundum rationem exemplandi; sed Pater est principium Filii cognitivum: ergo producit Filium secundum rationem exemplaris. Si dicas, quod illud non sufficit, immo necesse est, quod exemplar et exemplatum differant in forma et natura; hoc nihil est, quia si homo, dum generat hominem, posset talem generare, qualem cogitat, tunc generatio illa non tantum esset secundum naturam, sed etiam secundum exemplar. Sed Pater omnino produxit Filium, ut scivit et voluit: ergo etc. Si dicas, quod nec illud sufficit, sed necesse est, exemplar praecedere; obiicitur: si Deus ab aeterno creasset mundum per impossibile, nihilominus mundus esset productus secundum rationem exemplaritatis.

Contra: 1. In inferioribus agens per naturam et per exemplar ex opposito dividuntur, sicut natura et intellectus5: ergo qui producitur secundum naturam, non producitur secundum rationem exemplaris, sed Filius secundum naturam producitur a Patre: ergo etc.

2. Item, omne producens aliquid6 secundum rationem exemplaritatis producit secundum rationem voluntatis; sed Pater, ut ostensum est supra7, non producit Filium per voluntatem: ergo etc.

3. Item, formae non est forma8, ergo nec exemplaris exemplar; sed Filius est ars et exemplar omnium: ergo non habet exemplar in Patre: ergo non procedit secundum rationem exemplaritatis.

4. Item, quod est in alio secundum veritatem, non est in illo secundum exemplar9; sed Filius est in Patre secundum veritatem: ergo non secundum exemplar; sed quod non est in alio secundum exemplar, non procedit secundum rationem exemplaris: ergo etc.

Conclusio. Filius procedit a Patre sicut ratio exemplandi, non sicut exemplatum ab exemplari.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod, sicut procedere per modum voluntatis et liberalitatis est dupliciter — uno enim modo procedit per modum liberalitatis ipsum quod non est liberalitas, sed quod fit vel datur ex liberalitate; et sic creaturae procedunt a Deo; alio modo sicut illud10 quod est ratio liberalitatis, ut amor; et sic procedit Spiritus sanctus ut amor, qui est donum, in quo omnia dona donantur — sic per modum exemplaritatis est procedere dupliciter. Uno modo sicut exemplatum proprie; et11 sic creatura procedit a Deo tanquam exemplatum ab exemplari, et sic exemplar importat causalitatem formalem respectu exemplati. Alio modo dicitur procedere per modum exemplaritatis12 sicut ratio exemplandi. Et sic videtur procedere ipse Filius, qui dicitur Verbum Patris,

p. 130

quo non tantum se loquitur Pater, sed etiam cetera disponit. Unde Filius secundum Augustinum sexto de Trinitate13 dicitur « ars plena omnium rationum viventium ». Et hinc habet ortum illud quod consuevit dici, quod qui negat ideas esse, negat Filium Dei esse. Et iste modus procedendi14 secundum exemplaritatem non repugnat processui naturali, immo non potest esse nisi naturalis. Alius vero modus repugnat processui naturali; est enim secundum voluntatis imperium, ita quod producens et productum differunt sicut causa et causatum, et unum secundum veritatem non est in alio.

Unde rationes inductae ad hanc partem procedunt secundum hanc viam et secundum hanc verum concludunt; secundum aliam vero nulla concludit, immo ad omnes solvendum15 est per interemptionem.

Illae autem, quae obiiciuntur in contrarium, omnes procedunt secundum aliam viam, quia dicunt, quod16 procedit per modum exemplaritatis, quod est ratio exemplandi; quod patet, quia sumuntur a ratione aeternae dispositionis, cognitionis et imaginis. Ultima vero ratio concludit, quod procedat per modum exemplaritatis, sicut exemplatum, et propterea solvenda est per interemptionem.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod omne principium rei producendae, si habet cognitionem, producit per exemplar; dicendum est, quod illud falsum est, nisi ratio cognitionis praecedat, ita quod habeat praecognitionem saltem secundum rationem causae ad effectum; quae ordinatio exigit essentialem diversitatem sive substantialem. Exemplatum enim, secundum quod exemplatum, non est in exemplante secundum veritatem, sed per similitudinem, quae, inquam, similitudo, cum sit ratio cognoscendi et exemplandi, dicitur exemplar. Procedit igitur Filius secundum rationem exemplaritatis, non sicut exemplatum per exemplar, sed sicut ipsum exemplar vel ratio exemplandi cetera. Et si tu obiicias, quod exemplar commune est toti Trinitati, respondet ad hoc Altissiodorensis in quaestione17 de mundo archetypo sive de ideis, quod idea sive mundus archetypus non tantum appropriatum est ipsi Filio, verum etiam proprium.

Vel aliter potest dici, quod18 secundum quod exemplar dicit rationem cognoscendi, sic commune est toti Trinitati et appropriatur Filio, sicut sapientia. Secundum vero quod ultra hoc dicit rationem emanandi, sic est proprium Filii; et sic importatur per hoc nomen Verbum, ut melius patebit infra19.

Scholion

Sensus huius quaestionis est, utrum Filius producatur secundum modum exemplaritatis, sicut creaturae. — Paucos ex antiquis Scholasticis invenimus explicite tractantes hanc quaestionem, nempe Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 1. — Richar. a Med., hic q. 4. — Aegid. R., hic 2. princ. q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 1.

---

English Translation

Single Article.

Question III. Whether the generation of the Son is according to the account of exemplarity.

Lastly it is asked whether the generation of the Son from the Father is according to the account of exemplarity. And that it is so seems thus.

1. On that text of the Psalm1: Once has God spoken, the Gloss: "that is, he begot the Son, in whom he disposed all things"; but eternal disposition expresses the account of an exemplar: therefore if the Son proceeds as a word, he proceeds by way of exemplarity.

2. Likewise, the generation of the Son from the Father is similar to the production of knowledge from the mind2; but knowledge proceeds from the mind according to the account of an exemplar, because the exemplar is the ground of knowing: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, that which is "image" in the produced is "exemplar" in the producer; for when the produced expressly represents, it is called an image. Similarly, when3 the producer expressly represents, it is called an exemplar: therefore since the Son proceeds as image, by the same account he proceeds by way of exemplarity.

4. Likewise, every cognitive principle of a thing to be produced4 produces according to the account of exemplifying; but the Father is the cognitive principle of the Son: therefore he produces the Son according to the account of an exemplar. If you say that this does not suffice, but rather it is necessary that exemplar and exemplate differ in form and nature, this is nothing, because if a man, while begetting a man, were able to beget such a one as he conceives, then that generation would not only be according to nature, but also according to an exemplar. But the Father wholly produced the Son as he knew and willed: therefore etc. If you say that not even this suffices, but it is necessary that the exemplar precede; it is objected: if God from eternity had created the world per impossibile, nonetheless the world would have been produced according to the account of exemplarity.

On the contrary: 1. In lower things an agent acting through nature and one acting through an exemplar are divided as opposites, as nature and intellect5: therefore what is produced according to nature is not produced according to the account of an exemplar, but the Son is produced from the Father according to nature: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, everything producing something6 according to the account of exemplarity produces according to the account of will; but the Father, as has been shown above7, does not produce the Son through will: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, of a form there is no form8, therefore neither of an exemplar an exemplar; but the Son is the art and exemplar of all things: therefore he does not have an exemplar in the Father: therefore he does not proceed according to the account of exemplarity.

4. Likewise, what is in another according to truth is not in him according to an exemplar9; but the Son is in the Father according to truth: therefore not according to an exemplar; but what is not in another according to an exemplar does not proceed according to the account of an exemplar: therefore etc.

Conclusion. The Son proceeds from the Father as the ground of exemplifying, not as an exemplate from an exemplar.

I respond: It must be said that, just as to proceed by way of will and liberality is twofold — for in one way that which is not liberality, but is brought about or given out of liberality, proceeds by way of liberality; and thus creatures proceed from God; in another way [proceeds] as that10 which is the ground of liberality, as love; and thus the Holy Spirit proceeds as love, who is the gift in whom all gifts are given — so to proceed by way of exemplarity is twofold. In one way as an exemplate properly; and11 thus a creature proceeds from God as an exemplate from an exemplar, and thus the exemplar imports formal causality with respect to the exemplate. In another way it is said to proceed by way of exemplarity12 as the ground of exemplifying. And thus the Son himself seems to proceed, who is called the Word of the Father,

p. 130

by which the Father not only utters himself, but also disposes the rest. Hence the Son, according to Augustine in the sixth book On the Trinity13, is called "an art full of all the living rationales." And from this arises that which is wont to be said, namely that he who denies that the ideas exist denies that the Son of God exists. And this manner of proceeding14 according to exemplarity is not repugnant to natural procession; rather, it cannot but be natural. The other manner, however, is repugnant to natural procession; for it is according to the command of will, so that producer and produced differ as cause and caused, and the one is not in the other according to truth.

Hence the reasons brought forward to this side proceed along this way and according to this way conclude truly; according to the other, none concludes; rather, all are to be solved15 by interception.

But those which are objected on the contrary all proceed along the other way, because they say that16 what proceeds by way of exemplarity is the ground of exemplifying; which is plain, because they are taken from the account of eternal disposition, of knowing, and of image. The last reason, however, concludes that he proceeds by way of exemplarity as an exemplate, and therefore is to be solved by interception.

4. To that which is objected, that every principle of a thing to be produced, if it has cognition, produces through an exemplar; it must be said that this is false, unless the account of cognition precedes, in such a way that it has fore-cognition at least according to the account of cause to effect; which ordering requires essential or substantial diversity. For the exemplate, insofar as it is an exemplate, is not in the exemplifier according to truth, but through a likeness; which likeness, I say, since it is the ground of knowing and of exemplifying, is called an exemplar. The Son therefore proceeds according to the account of exemplarity, not as an exemplate through an exemplar, but as the exemplar itself, or the ground of exemplifying the rest. And if you object that the exemplar is common to the whole Trinity, the Auxerrian responds to this in his question17 On the archetypal world or on the ideas, that the idea or archetypal world is not only appropriated to the Son himself, but also proper [to him].

Or otherwise it can be said, that18 insofar as the exemplar expresses the ground of knowing, it is thus common to the whole Trinity and is appropriated to the Son, as wisdom. But insofar as beyond this it expresses the ground of emanating, it is thus proper to the Son; and thus it is imported by this name Word, as will better appear below19.

Scholion

The sense of this question is, whether the Son is produced according to the manner of exemplarity, as creatures are. — We find few among the ancient Scholastics explicitly treating this question, namely Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, here q. 4. — Aegidius Romanus, here, 2nd princ., q. 1. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 1.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. 61, 12. — Glossa apud Lyranum: Apud se semel (locutus est), quia unum Verbum genuit, per quod omnia facta et in quo simul omnia facta sunt. — Vat. cum cod. cc disponit loco disposuit, sed obstant ceteri codd. cum ed. I.
    Ps. 61:12. — Gloss according to Lyra: "With himself once (he has spoken), because he begot one Word, through whom all things were made and in whom all things were simultaneously made." — The Vatican edition with codex cc reads disponit in place of disposuit, but the other codices together with the first edition stand against it.
  2. Cfr. Basil., II. contra Eunomium, circa medium, et Serm. super verba In principio erat Verbum, circa medium.
    Cf. Basil, Against Eunomius II, near the middle, and Sermon on the words "In the beginning was the Word", near the middle.
  3. Vat. contra multos codd. et ed. I cum. — De varia acceptione exemplaris et imaginis vide infra d. 31. p. II. a. I. q. I.; si proprie accipiuntur, tunc sunt termini correlativi, imago siquidem est in producto sive est similitudo producta, exemplar vero est id, ad cuius imitationem aliquid producitur; si vero improprie accipiuntur, tunc non raro unus terminus pro altero adhibetur.
    The Vatican edition, against many codices and the first edition, reads cum. — On the various senses of exemplar and image see below at d. 31, p. II, a. I, q. I; if they are taken properly, then they are correlative terms — for the image is in the produced, that is, it is the produced likeness, while the exemplar is that to whose imitation something is produced; but if they are taken improperly, then not seldom the one term is used in place of the other.
  4. Mss. et ed. I hic productae, sed infra in responsione producendae.
    The manuscripts and the first edition read here productae, but below in the response producendae.
  5. Vide supra d. 2. q. I. fundam. 2. — Mox Vat. cum cod. cc, sed contra antiquiores codd. et ed. I quod loco qui et paulo infra exemplaritatis pro exemplaris.
    See above d. 2, q. I, fundam. 2. — Soon thereafter the Vatican edition with codex cc — but against the older codices and the first edition — reads quod in place of qui, and a little below exemplaritatis in place of exemplaris.
  6. Ex antiquioribus mss. et ed. I substituimus aliquid loco aliud.
    From older manuscripts and the first edition we have substituted aliquid in place of aliud.
  7. Quaest. praeced.
    The preceding question.
  8. Cfr. Alan. ab Insulis, Theol. Regul., reg. 16.
    Cf. Alan of Lille, Theological Rules, rule 16.
  9. Cfr. supra d. 2. q. I. fundam. 5. — Mox mutila lectio Vat. et cod. cc, in qua omittuntur verba ergo non usque ad non procedit, resarcitur ex aliis mss. et ed. I.
    Cf. above d. 2, q. I, fundam. 5. — Soon thereafter a mutilated reading of the Vatican edition and codex cc, in which the words from ergo non through non procedit are omitted, is repaired from the other manuscripts and the first edition.
  10. Vat. contra plurimos codd. et ed. I id.
    The Vatican edition, against very many codices and the first edition, reads id.
  11. Supplevimus ex mss. FGHKSTY et ed. I et.
    We have supplied et from manuscripts FGHKSTY and the first edition.
  12. Sequimur multos codd. ut FGHIKSTY etc. cum ed. I ponendo exemplaritatis pro exemplantis; lectio in textum recepta magis contextui correspondet. Paulo infra aliqui mss. cum ed. I dicitur loco videtur. Mox ope vetustiorum mss. et ed. I post loquitur adiecimus Pater.
    We follow many codices such as FGHIKSTY etc. with the first edition by putting exemplaritatis in place of exemplantis; the reading received into the text corresponds better to the context. A little below, some manuscripts with the first edition read dicitur in place of videtur. Soon, with the help of older manuscripts and the first edition, we have added Pater after loquitur.
  13. Cap. 10. n. 11: Ars quaedam omnipotentis atque sapientis Dei, plena omnium rationum viventium incommutabilium. S. Thomas, QQ. disp. de Ver. q. 3. a. 1 proxime sequentem propositionem ita exhibet: Augustinus dicit in libro de Civ. Dei: Qui negat ideas esse infidelis est, quia negat Filium esse.
    [Augustine, On the Trinity VI,] c. 10, n. 11: "A certain art of the omnipotent and wise God, full of all the living unchangeable rationes." Thomas, Disputed Questions on Truth q. 3, a. 1, presents the immediately following proposition thus: Augustine says in the book On the City of God: He who denies that the ideas exist is unbelieving, because he denies that the Son exists.
  14. Vat. praeter fidem mss. et sex primarum edd. ille modus producendi, sed minus iuste.
    The Vatican edition, against the witness of the manuscripts and of the six first editions, reads ille modus producendi ("that manner of producing"), but less rightly.
  15. Vat. respondendum, sed obstant mss. cum edd. 1, 2, 3, 6.
    The Vatican edition reads respondendum, but the manuscripts together with editions 1, 2, 3, and 6 stand against it.
  16. Supple cum codd. IZ Filius. Mox ex antiquis mss. et ed. 1 substituimus per loco secundum. Paulo infra ed. 1 satis bene prout est pro quod est. Dein multi codd. cum ed. 1 sunt loco sumuntur. Mox codd. LO post imaginis addunt et hoc sunt primae rationes.
    Supply Filius with codices IZ. Soon thereafter, on the authority of older manuscripts and of the first edition, we have substituted per in place of secundum. A little below, the first edition reads, well enough, prout est in place of quod est. Then many codices together with the first edition read sunt in place of sumuntur. Soon thereafter, codices LO add after imaginis the words et hoc sunt primae rationes ("and these are the first rationes").
  17. Adiecimus auctoritate antiquiorum mss. et ed. 1 in quaestione. — Iste locus invenitur in Summa dicti auctoris in fine libr. 1, quae Summa fertur impressa Parisiis 1500. Haec plures exstat manuscripta in biblioth. Laurentiana Florentiae. Ibi in cod. (11. plut. sin. VII.) sub rubrica: de Creatione mundi, legitur: « Dicimus, quod exemplar sive idea dicitur de Filio Dei et proprie et appropriate... Sed quia dispositio ad sapientiam pertinet, per appropriationem potest dici de Filio, quod sit exemplar vel idea rerum. Sed secundum quod ipse dicitur proprie Imago Patris eadem ratione, qua ipse est Verbum, et in illa Imagine per dictam rationem relucent omnia: et secundum hoc proprie dicitur ipse idea vel exemplar rerum » etc. Paulo post sequitur: « Secundo quaeritur, utrum Filius Dei sit mundus archetypus »; ad quod respondet: « Unde Filius Dei quodam modo est mundus archetypus appropriate, quodam modo proprie, ut dictum est de exemplari ».
    We have added in quaestione on the authority of older manuscripts and of the first edition. — This passage is found in the Summa of the said author at the end of book 1, which Summa is reported to have been printed at Paris in 1500. Several manuscripts of it are extant in the Laurentian Library in Florence. There, in codex (11. plut. sin. VII.) under the rubric On the Creation of the world, it reads: "We say that the exemplar, or idea, is said of the Son of God both properly and by appropriation... But since disposition pertains to wisdom, by appropriation it can be said of the Son that he is the exemplar or idea of things. But insofar as he himself is properly called the Image of the Father by the same account by which he is the Word, and in that Image by the said account all things shine forth, and according to this he is properly called the very idea or exemplar of things," etc. A little later it follows: "Secondly it is asked whether the Son of God is the archetypal world"; to which he responds: "Hence the Son of God in a certain manner is the archetypal world by appropriation, in a certain manner properly, as has been said of the exemplar."
  18. Vat. cum cod. cc quia, sed minus bene et contra alios codd. cum ed. 1.
    The Vatican edition with codex cc reads quia, but less well and against the other codices together with the first edition.
  19. Dist. 27. p. II. praecipue q. 3.
    [See below] Distinction 27, part II, especially question 3.
← Dist. 6, Art. 1, Q. 2Dist. 6, Dubia→