← Back to Distinction 9

Dist. 9, Art. 1, Q. 1

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

Textus Latinus
p. 180

Quaestio I. Utrum in divinis generatio ponenda[^1] sit.

Circa primum, quod generatio sit in divinis, ostenditur2:

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 ultimo3: 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 tertio4: 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 Philosophus5, quia «perfectum est quod potest generare quale ipsum est»: ergo etc.

4. Item, illud idem ostenditur alia ratione sic6: 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 locum7: 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 Philosophus8 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 est 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 et13 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 generatum14, 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 essentia15, in qua propter summam simplicitatem suppositum non addit ad essentiam, unde nec ipsam coarctat nec limitat nec formam multiplicat. Et ideo in ea16 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 decidendo17. 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 conservatione18 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 scilicet19 animam, et corpus defectibile et restaurabile.

Generatio vero in divinis est omnimodae perfectionis. Quia20 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 nihil21 restituitur.

Et ex hoc patet solutio obiectorum; quia generatio22 de toto est tantae perfectionis, quod non potest esse in creatura aliqua; generatio vero ex parte tantam habet imperfectionem coniunctam23, 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. 12. 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. — Ægid. R., I. Sent. d. 4. l. 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
p. 180

Question I. Whether generation is to be posited[^1] in God.

Concerning the first, that generation is in God, is shown2:

1. First from the lesser. Generation ought much more strongly to be in him who bestows generation upon 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 Isaiah, last chapter3: If I bestow generation upon others, shall I be sterile? saith the Lord, as if to say, no.

2. Likewise, that same thing is shown from the posterior. For paternity is in God before it is in creatures; but paternity and generation truly is in creatures: therefore also in God. That it is there first, the Apostle says to the Ephesians chapter three4: From whom all paternity in heaven and on earth is named.

3. Likewise, this very thing is shown from likeness, because everything that is of perfection is to be attributed to God, in whom is the height of all perfection; but generation is of perfection in creatures, as the Philosopher holds5, because "that is perfect which can generate such as it is itself": therefore etc.

4. Likewise, that same thing is shown by another reason thus6: the divine nature is supremely good and most actual: therefore it supremely can and wills to communicate itself; but the first and highest ground of communicating is in generation: therefore it is necessary to posit generation in God.

On the contrary: 1. Generation in creatures is either of perfection or of imperfection. If of perfection, then since spiritual and incorporeal substances are most noble, generation ought to be in them: therefore since it is not in them, it is not of nobility; but what is not of 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 species of motion the variation is greater in motion according to substance, because it is of a being in potency, less in motion according to place7: therefore since in God there is neither variation nor any species of motion, even that which is least, such as change of place: therefore neither generation.

3. Likewise, where there is generation, there is corruption; whence the Philosopher8 says, that "on account of standing far from the principle, in the remaining mode God completed being, making continual generation in these things"; and a sign of this kind is, that only corruptible things generate and are generated in creatures; but no corruption falls in God: therefore neither generation.

4. Likewise, where there is generation, there is nutrition; whence the nutritive power extends itself 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.

p. 181
Conclusion. Generation is to be posited in God; its fittingness and mode is explained.

I respond: It must be said that generation is to be posited in the divine being9. And the most potent ground of this is, as I believe, because every nature is communicable; and because in God, on account of his nobility, there is an aptitude joined to act, nay rather, act itself, it is necessary that the nature be communicated to many; but several cannot be from one nature, unless one is from the other, or both from a third: therefore since before the divine persons nothing is, it is necessary that one be from another. And since they are conformed 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 be understood by what mode, it must be noted that to generate, of its proper account, is to produce one like itself in substance and nature10. But to produce one like itself happens to occur in three ways11: either by the impression of its likeness in another; and thus a character is generated from a seal, light from a luminous body, a species from an object; in another mode by the eduction of a like species from another; and thus an element is generated from an element; in a third mode by the production of a like from a like or from itself; and thus a living thing is generated from a living thing; and this third mode is more perfect, whence it is found only in substances having a noble form, which is life12. And this mode of generation is according to nativity and is in God and13 in creatures, but differently; because to produce another from oneself can be in two ways, either from oneself wholly, or from a part of oneself.

From oneself wholly only he can produce, whose essence can be in many [things] one and whole. For if it cannot be in many [things] one and whole, if the generator gives its whole substance to the generated, then the whole substance passes into the generated14, and the generator loses the whole substance by generating, which cannot be. Therefore for this it is necessary that he have such a substance as is one and whole in many. But such a substance is none other than a substance having supreme simplicity; and this is only the divine essence15, in which on account of supreme simplicity the supposit adds nothing to the essence, whence it neither constrains it nor limits it nor multiplies the form. And therefore in it16 there can be a generation communicating the same whole substance; and such generation is of every-mode perfection and is found only in God, by the reason already stated.

In another mode it happens that someone produces from himself with respect to a part of himself. Thus a natural father generates a son by transmitting and shedding a part of his substance17. And this generation is necessarily with transmutation; for since the part shed does not have the act of the whole, it is necessary that through change it acquire [it]; but what acquires what it does not have, varies; therefore this generation is change and has variation joined to it. It is also with corruption annexed; for since some part of the generator is lost, the generator is one from whom removal can be made and so corruption. It is also with conservation18 adjoined; for since loss takes place, it is necessary that through nourishment restoration occur. And therefore generation in a creature is both of perfection and of imperfection: of perfection on the side of the power producing, of imperfection on the side of the divisible subject. And therefore it is in living things alone, which have a form of perfection, namely19 the soul, and a body capable of failing and being restored.

But generation in God is of every-mode perfection. For because20 it is not from a part, therefore it is the case that it has its species in act. And therefore there is in it neither imperfection of nature nor variation, because nothing new is acquired; nor corruption, because nothing is taken away; nor nutrition, because nothing21 is restored.

And from this is clear the solution of the objections; because generation22 of the whole is of such great perfection that it cannot be in any creature; but generation from a part has so great an imperfection joined23 to it that it cannot be about an invariable and incorruptible and simple substance, not only in uncreated nature, but even in created. The other reasons prove of the generation which is from a part.

p. 182
Scholion

I. The objections have already been resolved in the body. As regards the Angels, it is clear that they can have no generation: not the imperfect generation, which is from a part, on account of the simplicity of angelic substance; not the perfect, which is from the whole, because their nature is finite. — As regards the arguments of fittingness, which on the supposition of the dogma of faith are here brought forward, cf. above d. 2. q. 2; d. 5. q. 2; dub. 3. 10. of this d.; Breviloquium p. 1. c. 3; Hexaemeron Sermon II. — Alexander of Hales, Summa p. I. q. 12. m. 1. 2. — Scotus, I Sent. d. 2. q. 6. 7. — St. Thomas, I Sent. d. 4. q. 1. a. 1; S.[T.] I. q. 27. a. 1. 2; S. c. Gentiles IV. c. 10. 11. — Blessed Albert, I Sent. d. 4. a. 3; Summa I. tr. 7. q. 30. m. 1. — Peter of Tarentaise, I Sent. d. 4. q. 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1. q. 1. — Giles of Rome, I Sent. d. 4. l. princ. 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 many manuscripts and ed. 1 we have here expunged the added word ponenda.
  2. Cod. W addit sic.
    Codex W adds sic.
  3. Vers. 9, ubi Vulgata loco aliis ponit ceteris et pro dicit habet ait.
    Verse 9, where the Vulgate in place of aliis puts ceteris and instead of dicit has ait.
  4. Vers. 15, in quo textu Vulgata caelis loco caelo. — Paulo ante ed. 1 per prius pro prius.
    Verse 15, in which text the Vulgate has caelis in place of caelo. — A little before, ed. 1 has per prius for prius.
  5. Libr. II. de Anima, text. 34. (c. 4.) et IV. Meteor. text. 19. (c. 3.).
    Book II of On the Soul, text 34 (c. 4) and IV Meteorology text 19 (c. 3).
  6. 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 instead of alia ratione puts illa ratione, but the authority of the other manuscripts and of ed. 1 stands against this.
  7. Vide Aristot., V. Phys. text. 7. seqq. et VIII. text. 53. seqq. (c. 7.).
    See Aristotle, V Physics text 7 ff. and VIII text 53 ff. (c. 7).
  8. 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 H T ee ff cum ed. 1 quia loco quod.
    Book II of On Generation and Corruption text 59 according to the Arabic-Latin translation. In the Paris edition c. 10 it is rendered thus: That this (to be or to exist) be in all things is impossible, because they stand far from the principle itself; in the remaining mode God himself completed the universe, generation having been made continuous. See also II On the Soul text 33 (c. 4). — The Vatican edition in place of Philosophus puts Auctor de causis, but falsely and against all the manuscripts, of which a few such as H 10 indicate also the place, adding in the book On Generation and Corruption, and several put primo for principio. Soon some codices such as H T ee ff with ed. 1 [have] quia in place of quod.
  9. Ex codd. et ed. 1 substituimus divino esse pro divinis, deinde supplevimus particulam Et. Mox post credo codd. H I 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 we have supplied the particle Et. Soon after credo codices H I have quia in divinis and ed. 1 quia Dei in place of 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, II On the Soul text 34 (c. 4); VII Metaphysics 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 — the older manuscripts and ed. 1 contradicting — has 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 also generation under this respect is commonly defined: the origin of a living thing from a living thing as from a conjoined principle in a likeness of nature.
  13. Aliqui codd. ut X Z repetunt hic in.
    Some codices such as X Z repeat in here.
  14. Cod. R et est in generato pro in generatum. Paulo post mendum Vat. adhuc loco ad hoc correximus ex mss.
    Codex R has et est in generato for in generatum. A little after, we have corrected the error of the Vatican edition, adhuc in place of ad hoc, from the manuscripts.
  15. Ed. 1 substantia. Mox post suppositum cod. R nihil loco non, et paulo infra cod. V ipsam praemittit verbo limitat.
    Ed. 1 has substantia. Soon after suppositum codex R has nihil in place of non, and a little below codex V prefixes ipsam to the verb limitat.
  16. Fide plurimorum mss. et ed. 1 substituimus ea pro eo, quod ponitur in Vat.
    On the trust of many manuscripts and of ed. 1 we have substituted ea for eo, which is given in the Vatican edition.
  17. Ope plurimorum mss. et ed. 1 exhibemus decidendo loco descindendo, quod non ita bene subnexo verbo decisa corresponderet. Mox cod. T causa transmutabilitatis pro cum transmutatione.
    By the help of many manuscripts and of ed. 1 we present decidendo in place of descindendo, which would not correspond so well to the verb decisa annexed below. Soon codex T has causa transmutabilitatis for cum transmutatione.
  18. 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 passively. — We have restored the ancient reading of many manuscripts and of the first six editions, putting conservatione in place of conversione; the sense of both readings is the same. Aristotle, II On the Soul text 47 (c. 4), stands for the manuscript reading.
  19. 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 soon prefixes ipsum scilicet to the noun corpus.
  20. Consentientibus mss. et ed. 1, commutavimus in hac propositione Quod in Quia et deinde quia in quod.
    With the manuscripts and ed. 1 in agreement, we have changed in this proposition Quod into Quia and then quia into quod.
  21. Ed. 1 addit restauratur vel.
    Ed. 1 adds restauratur vel.
  22. Cod. bb adiicit quae est.
    Codex bb adds quae est.
  23. Vat., obnitentibus mss. et ed. 1, adiunctam.
    The Vatican edition, against the manuscripts and ed. 1, [has] adiunctam.
← Dist. 9, Divisio TextusDist. 9, Art. 1, Q. 2→