← Back to Distinction 9

Dist. 9, Art. 1, Q. 1

Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity · Distinction 9

Textus Latinus
p. 180

Articulus Unicus

De generatione in divinis.

Quaestio I

Utrum in divinis generatio ponenda sit.

Circa primum, quod generatio sit in divinis, ostenditur1:

1. Primo a minori. Multo fortius debet esse generatio in eo qui generationem aliis tribuit, quam in his quae recipiunt; sed generatio est in creaturis: ergo et in Deo qui tribuit. Et hoc est quod dicitur Isaiae ultimo2: Si ego generationem aliis tribuo, sterilis ero? dicit Dominus, quasi dicat, non.

2. Item, ostenditur illud idem a posteriori. Per prius enim est paternitas in Deo quam in creatura; sed paternitas et generatio vere est in creatura: ergo et in Deo. Quod prius sit ibi, dicit Apostolus ad Ephesios tertio3: Ex quo omnis paternitas in caelo et in terra nominatur.

3. Item, ostenditur hoc ipsum a simili, quia omne quod perfectionis est, attribuendum est Deo, in quo est summa omnis perfectionis; sed generatio est perfectionis in creatura, ut vult Philosophus4, quia «perfectum est quod potest generare quale ipsum est»: ergo etc.

4. Item, illud idem ostenditur alia ratione sic5: divina natura est summe bona et actualissima: ergo summe potest et vult se communicare; sed prima et summa ratio communicandi est in generatione: ergo necesse est in divinis ponere generationem.

Contra:

1. Generatio in creaturis aut est perfectionis, aut imperfectionis. Si perfectionis, tunc ergo, cum substantiae spirituales et incorporales sint nobilissimae, debet in eis generatio esse: ergo cum non sit in eis, non est nobilitatis; sed quod non est nobilitatis non est in Deo: ergo etc.

2. Item, ubi est generatio, ibi est variatio; generatio enim est species motus, et inter omnes species motus maior est variatio in motu secundum substantiam, quia est entis in potentia, minor in motu secundum locum6: ergo cum in Deo non sit variatio nec aliqua species motus, etiam illa quae minima est, ut loci mutatio: ergo nec generatio.

3. Item, ubi est generatio, ibi est corruptio, unde Philosophus7 dicit, quod «propter longe stare a principio reliquo modo complevit esse Deus, continuam in his faciens generationem»; et huiusmodi signum est, quod sola corruptibilia generant et generantur in creaturis; sed in Deo nulla cadit corruptio: ergo nec generatio.

4. Item, ubi est generatio, ibi est8 nutritio; unde ad tot et plures se extendit vis nutritiva quam generativa; sed in Deo non est vis nutritiva: ergo nec generativa, ergo nec nutritio, nec generatio: ergo generatio non est in divinis.

p. 181
Conclusio. Generatio ponenda est in divinis, cuius congruitas et modus explicatur.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod generatio ponenda est in divino esse9. Et huius ratio potissima est, ut credo, quia omnis natura est communicabilis; et quia in Deo propter sui nobilitatem est aptitudo actui coniuncta, immo ipse actus, oportet quod natura sit pluribus communicata; sed non possunt esse plures ab una natura, quin unus sit ab alio, vel ambo a tertio: ergo cum ante divinas personas nihil sit, oportet quod una sit ab alia. Et quoniam sunt conformes in natura, et generatio est emanatio secundum conformitatem naturae: ideo credo, quod necesse est in divinis ponere generationem.

Ut autem intelligatur, per quem modum, notandum, quod generare de sui propria ratione est similem sibi in substantia et natura producere10. Sibi vero similem contingit produci tripliciter11: aut per impressionem suae similitudinis in alio; et sic generatur character a sigillo, lumen a luminoso, species ab obiecto; alio modo per eductionem speciei consimilis ab alio; et sic generatur elementum ab elemento; tertio modo per productionem similis de simili sive de se ipso; et sic generatur animatum ab animato; et iste tertius modus est perfectior, unde non reperitur nisi in substantiis habentibus formam nobilem, quae est vita12. Et iste modus generationis est secundum nascentiam et est in Deo et in creaturis, sed differenter; quia producere alium ex se ipso potest esse dupliciter, vel ex se toto, vel ex parte sui.

Ex se toto non potest producere nisi ille, cuius essentia potest esse in pluribus una et tota. Nam si non potest esse in pluribus una et tota, si generans dat totam suam substantiam generato, tunc substantia tota transit in generatum13, et generans perdit substantiam totam generando, quod esse non potest. Ideo ad hoc necesse est, quod talem habeat substantiam, quae una et tota sit in pluribus. Talis autem substantia non est nisi substantia habens summam simplicitatem; haec autem est sola divina essentia14, in qua propter summam simplicitatem suppositum non addit ad essentiam, unde nec ipsam coarctat nec limitat nec formam multiplicat. Et ideo in ea15 potest esse generatio communicans eandem substantiam totam; et talis generatio est omnimodae perfectionis et in solo Deo reperitur, ratione iam dicta.

Alio modo contingit aliquem ex se producere quantum ad partem sui. Sic pater naturalis generat filium, partem substantiae transmittendo et decidendo. Et haec generatio necessario est cum transmutatione; quia enim pars decisa non habet actum totius, necesse est, quod per mutationem acquirat; sed quod acquirit quod non habet, variatur; ideo haec generatio est mutatio et habet variationem coniunctam. Est etiam cum corruptione annexa; quia enim aliqua pars generantis deperditur, generans est, a quo potest fieri ablatio et ita corruptio. Est etiam cum conservatione16 adiuncta; quia enim fit deperditio, necesse est quod per nutrimentum fiat restauratio. Et ideo generatio in creatura et perfectionis et imperfectionis est: perfectionis a parte virtutis producentis, imperfectionis a parte subiecti divisibilis. Et ideo est in solis animatis, quae habent formam perfectionis, ipsam scilicet17 animam, et corpus defectibile et restaurabile.

Generatio vero in divinis est omnimodae perfectionis. Quia18 enim non est ex parte, ideo est, quod habet actu speciem. Et ideo nec ibi est in natura imperfectio nec variatio, quia nihil novum acquiritur; nec corruptio, quia nihil adimitur; nec nutritio, quia nihil19 restituitur.

Et ex hoc patet solutio obiectorum; quia generatio20 de toto est tantae perfectionis, quod non potest esse in creatura aliqua; generatio vero ex parte tantam habet imperfectionem coniunctam21, ut non possit esse circa substantiam invariabilem et incorruptibilem et simplicem, non solum in natura increata, verum etiam in creata. Aliae rationes probant de generatione quae est ex parte.

p. 182
Scholion

I. Obiectiones iam in corp. solutae sunt. Quoad Angelos patet, quod nullam habere possunt generationem: non generationem imperfectam, quae est ex parte, propter simplicitatem substantiae angelicae; non perfectam, quae est ex toto, quia eorum natura est finita. — Quoad argumenta congruentiae, quae supposito fidei dogmate hic afferuntur, cfr. supra d. 2. q. 2; d. 5. q. 2; dub. 3. 10. huius d.; Breviloq. p. 1. c. 3; Hexaem. Serm. II. — Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 42. m. 1. 2. — Scot., I. Sent. d. 2. q. 6. 7. — S. Thom., I. Sent. d. 4. q. 1. a. 1; S. I. q. 27. a. 1. 2; S. c. Gent. IV. c. 10. 11. — B. Albert., I. Sent. d. 4. a. 3; S. I. tr. 7. q. 30. m. 1. — Petr. a Tar., I. Sent. d. 4. q. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 1. — Aegid. R., I. Sent. d. 4. 1. princ. q. 1. — Henr. Gand., S. a. 58. q. 1. n. 8–24. — Durand., I. Sent. d. 4. q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., I. Sent. d. 4. q. 1. — Biel, hic q. 1; d. 10. q. 1. prop. 1.

---

English Translation

Article Unique

On generation in God.

Question I

Whether generation is to be posited in God.

Concerning the first [point], that there is generation in God, is shown1:

1. First, from the lesser. Much more strongly ought generation to be in him who bestows generation on others, than in those which receive it; but generation is in creatures: therefore also in God who bestows it. And this is what is said in the last [chapter] of Isaiah2: If I bestow generation on others, shall I be sterile? says the Lord, as if to say, no.

2. Likewise, this same is shown from the posterior. For paternity is prior in God than in the creature; but paternity and generation are truly in the creature: therefore also in God. That it is prior there, the Apostle says to the Ephesians, third [chapter]3: From whom all paternity in heaven and on earth is named.

3. Likewise, this very thing is shown from the like, since everything which belongs to perfection is to be attributed to God, in whom is the summit of all perfection; but generation belongs to perfection in the creature, as the Philosopher holds4, because «that is perfect which can generate such as itself is»: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, the same is shown by another reason thus5: the divine nature is supremely good and most actual: therefore it supremely can and wills to communicate itself; but the first and supreme ground of communicating is in generation: therefore it is necessary to posit generation in God.

On the contrary:

1. Generation in creatures either belongs to perfection, or to imperfection. If to perfection, then therefore, since spiritual and incorporeal substances are most noble, generation ought to be in them: therefore since it is not in them, it does not belong to nobility; but what does not belong to nobility is not in God: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, where there is generation, there is variation; for generation is a species of motion, and among all the species of motion the variation is greater in motion according to substance, since it is of being in potency, [and] less in motion according to place6: therefore since in God there is no variation nor any species of motion, even that which is least, like change of place: therefore neither generation.

3. Likewise, where there is generation, there is corruption, whence the Philosopher7 says that «on account of standing far from the principle, in the remaining mode God has completed being, making generation continuous in these things»; and a sign of this kind is that only corruptible things generate and are generated in creatures; but in God no corruption falls: therefore neither generation.

4. Likewise, where there is generation, there is8 nutrition; whence the nutritive power extends to as many and more [things] than the generative; but in God there is no nutritive power: therefore neither generative, therefore neither nutrition, nor generation: therefore generation is not in God.

Conclusion. Generation is to be posited in God, whose fittingness and mode is explained.

I respond: It must be said that generation is to be posited in the divine being9. And the most powerful reason for this is, as I believe, that every nature is communicable; and since in God, on account of his nobility, aptitude is conjoined to act — nay, is the very act itself — it is necessary that the nature be communicated to several; but several cannot be from one nature, unless one is from another, or both from a third: therefore since before the divine persons there is nothing, it is necessary that one be from another. And since they are conformable in nature, and generation is an emanation according to conformity of nature: therefore I believe that it is necessary to posit generation in God.

But that it may be understood by what mode, it must be noted that to generate, of its proper account, is to produce one similar to oneself in substance and nature10. But to be produced similar to oneself happens in three ways11: either by impression of one's own likeness in another; and thus a character is generated by a seal, light by the luminous, a species by an object; in another way by the eduction of a similar species from another; and thus an element is generated from an element; in a third way by the production of the like from the like or from one's very self; and thus the animate is generated from the animate; and this third mode is more perfect, whence it is not found except in substances having a noble form, which is life12. And this mode of generation is according to nascency and is in God and in creatures, but differently; since to produce another from oneself can be in two ways, either from one's whole self, or from a part of oneself.

From his whole self he cannot produce, except he whose essence can be in several [as] one and whole. For if it cannot be in several [as] one and whole, if the generator gives his whole substance to the generated, then the whole substance passes into the generated13, and the generator loses his whole substance by generating, which cannot be. Therefore for this it is necessary that he have such a substance which is one and whole in several. But such a substance is none other than the substance having supreme simplicity; and this is the divine essence alone14, in which, on account of supreme simplicity, the supposit adds nothing to the essence, whence it neither constricts nor limits it nor multiplies the form. And therefore in it15 there can be a generation communicating the same whole substance; and such a generation is of every kind of perfection and is found in God alone, by the reason already stated.

In another way it happens that someone produces from himself with respect to a part of himself. Thus the natural father generates a son, transmitting and parting with a part of his substance. And this generation is necessarily with transmutation; for since the parted-off part does not have the act of the whole, it is necessary that it acquire [it] through change; but what acquires what it does not have, is varied; therefore this generation is change and has variation conjoined. It is also with corruption annexed; for since some part of the generator is lost, the generator is [one] from whom there can be a removal and so corruption. It is also with conservation16 adjoined; for since loss occurs, it is necessary that through nourishment there be restoration. And therefore generation in the creature belongs both to perfection and to imperfection: to perfection on the part of the producing power, to imperfection on the part of the divisible subject. And therefore it is in animate beings only, which have the form of perfection, namely17 the soul itself, and a body that is defectible and restorable.

But generation in God is of every kind of perfection. For since18 it is not from a part, therefore it is [the case] that it has the species in act. And therefore neither is there imperfection in nature there nor variation, since nothing new is acquired; nor corruption, since nothing is taken away; nor nutrition, since nothing19 is restored.

And from this the solution of the objections is plain; since generation20 from the whole is of such great perfection that it cannot be in any creature; but generation from a part has so great an imperfection conjoined21 that it cannot be regarding a substance unvariable and incorruptible and simple, not only in the uncreated nature, but also in the created. The other arguments prove [things] concerning the generation which is from a part.

Scholion

I. The objections have already been resolved in the body. As to the angels it is plain that they can have no generation: not imperfect generation, which is from a part, on account of the simplicity of the angelic substance; not perfect [generation], which is from the whole, since their nature is finite. — As to the arguments of fittingness, which, the dogma of faith being supposed, are here brought forward, cf. above d. 2, q. 2; d. 5, q. 2; dub. 3, 10 of this distinction; Breviloquium p. 1, c. 3; Hexaemeron Sermon II. — Alexander of Hales, Summa p. I, q. 42, m. 1, 2. — Scotus, I Sent. d. 2, q. 6, 7. — St. Thomas, I Sent. d. 4, q. 1, a. 1; Summa I, q. 27, a. 1, 2; Summa contra Gentiles IV, c. 10, 11. — Bl. Albert, I Sent. d. 4, a. 3; Summa I, tr. 7, q. 30, m. 1. — Petrus a Tarantasia, I Sent. d. 4, q. 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1, q. 1. — Aegidius Romanus, I Sent. d. 4, 1st principium, q. 1. — Henry of Ghent, Summa a. 58, q. 1, n. 8–24. — Durandus, I Sent. d. 4, q. 1. — Dionysius the Carthusian, I Sent. d. 4, q. 1. — Biel, here q. 1; d. 10, q. 1, prop. 1.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Auctoritate plurimorum mss. et ed. 1 expunximus hic additum ponenda.
    On the authority of most manuscripts and ed. 1, we have deleted the addition ponenda here.
  2. Cod. W addit sic. Vers. 9, ubi Vulgata loco aliis ponit ceteris et pro dicit habet ait.
    Codex W adds sic. Verse 9, where the Vulgate has ceteris in place of aliis and ait for dicit.
  3. Vers. 15, in quo textu Vulgata caelis loco caelo. — Paulo ante ed. 1 per prius pro prius.
    Verse 15, in which text the Vulgate reads caelis in place of caelo. — Shortly before, ed. 1 reads per prius for prius.
  4. Libr. II. de Anima, text. 34. (c. 4.) et IV. Meteor. text. 19. (c. 3.).
    Aristotle, De Anima II, text 34 (c. 4) and Meteorologica IV, text 19 (c. 3).
  5. Vat. cum cod. cc omittit sic, et pro alia ratione ponit illa ratione, sed obest auctoritas aliorum mss. et ed. 1.
    The Vatican edition with codex cc omits sic, and has illa ratione for alia ratione, but the authority of the other manuscripts and ed. 1 stands against it.
  6. Vide Aristot., V. Phys. text. 7. seqq. et VIII. text. 53. seqq. (c. 7.).
    See Aristotle, Physics V, text 7 ff. and VIII, text 53 ff. (c. 7).
  7. Libr. II. de Gener. et corrupt. text. 59. secundum transl. arabico-latinam. In ed. vero Paris. c. 10. ita exhibetur: Hoc vero (esse sive existere) in omnibus inesse impossibile sit, propterea quod longe ab ipso principio distent; reliquo modo Deus ipse universum complevit, continua facta generatione. Vide etiam II. de Anima, text. 33. (c. 4.). — Vat. loco Philosophus ponit Auctor de causis, sed falso et contra omnes mss., quorum pauci ut H 10 indicant etiam locum addendo in libro de Generat. et corruptione, et plures primo ponunt pro principio. Mox nonnulli codd. ut HT ee ff cum ed. 1 quia loco quod.
    De Generatione et Corruptione II, text 59, according to the Arabo-Latin translation. In the Paris edition, c. 10, it is presented thus: That this (being or existing) should be present in all things is impossible, since they stand far from the principle itself; by the remaining mode God himself completed the universe, making generation continuous. See also De Anima II, text 33 (c. 4). — The Vatican edition has Auctor de causis in place of Philosophus, but falsely and against all manuscripts, of which a few, like H 10, also indicate the source by adding in the book De Generatione et Corruptione, and most read primo for principio. Shortly after, some codices like HT ee ff with ed. 1 read quia for quod.
  8. Fide antiquiorum mss. et ed. 1 adiecimus est. — Vide Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 42. seqq. (c. 4.).
    On the authority of the older manuscripts and ed. 1, we have added est. — See Aristotle, De Anima II, text 42 ff. (c. 4).
  9. Ex codd. et ed. 1 substituimus divino esse pro divinis, deinde supplevimus particulam Et. Mox post credo codd. HI quia in divinis et ed. 1 quia Dei loco quia omnis.
    From the codices and ed. 1, we have substituted divino esse for divinis, then supplied the particle Et. Shortly after credo, codices HI read quia in divinis and ed. 1 quia Dei for quia omnis.
  10. Vide Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 34. (c. 4.); VII. Metaph. text. 22. et 28. (VI. c. 7. et 8.).
    See Aristotle, De Anima II, text 34 (c. 4); Metaphysics VII, text 22 and 28 (VI, c. 7 and 8).
  11. Vat. cum cod. cc, antiquioribus autem mss. et ed. 1 refragantibus, in natura producere tripliciter est loco contingit produci tripliciter.
    The Vatican edition with codex cc, but with the older manuscripts and ed. 1 opposing, reads in natura producere tripliciter est in place of contingit produci tripliciter.
  12. Hinc et generatio sub hoc respectu communiter definitur: origo viventis a vivente ut principio coniuncto in similitudinem naturae.
    Hence generation, considered under this aspect, is commonly defined as: the origin of a living being from a living being as a conjoined principle in the likeness of nature.
  13. Aliqui codd. ut X Z repetunt hic in. Cod. R et est in generato pro in generatum. Paulo post mendum Vat. adhuc loco ad hoc correximus ex mss.
    Some codices like X Z repeat in here. Codex R reads et est in generato for in generatum. Shortly after, we corrected the Vatican edition's error adhuc to ad hoc from the manuscripts.
  14. Ed. 1 substantia. Mox post suppositum cod. R nihil loco non, et paulo infra cod. V ipsam praemittit verbo limitat.
    Ed. 1 reads substantia. Shortly after suppositum, codex R has nihil for non, and a little below codex V places ipsam before limitat.
  15. Fide plurimorum mss. et ed. 1 substituimus ea pro eo, quod ponitur in Vat.
    On the authority of most manuscripts and ed. 1, we have substituted ea for eo, which is found in the Vatican edition.
  16. Nempe: conservatione passive sumta. — Antiquam lectionem plurimorum mss. et sex primarum edd. restituimus pro conversione ponendo conservatione; utriusque lectionis idem sensus. Pro lectione mss. stat Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 47. (c. 4.).
    Namely: conservatione taken in the passive sense. — We have restored the ancient reading of most manuscripts and the first six editions, putting conservatione for conversione; the sense of both readings is the same. In favor of the manuscript reading stands Aristotle, De Anima II, text 47 (c. 4).
  17. Ita mss. cum ed. 1, dum Vat. hic id est pro ipsam scilicet habet et mox ipsum scilicet praemittit nomini corpus.
    So the manuscripts with ed. 1, while the Vatican edition here has id est for ipsam scilicet and shortly after places ipsum scilicet before corpus.
  18. Consentientibus mss. et ed. 1, commutavimus in hac propositione Quod in Quia et deinde quia in quod.
    With the agreement of the manuscripts and ed. 1, we have changed in this proposition Quod to Quia and then quia to quod.
  19. Ed. 1 addit restauratur vel.
    Ed. 1 adds restauratur vel.
  20. Cod. bb adiicit quae est.
    Codex bb adds quae est.
  21. Vat., obnitentibus mss. et ed. 1, adiunctam.
    The Vatican edition, with the manuscripts and ed. 1 opposing, reads adiunctam. ---
← Dist. 9, Divisio TextusDist. 9, Art. 1, Q. 2→