← Back to Distinction 9

Dist. 9, Art. 1, Q. 2

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

Textus Latinus
p. 182

Quaestio II

Utrum in divinis generatio distinguat inter gignentem et genitum.

Secundo quaeritur, utrum generatio in divinis sit personarum distinctiva. Et quod sic, ostenditur hoc modo.

1. Augustinus circa principium de Trinitate1: «Nulla res est, quae se ipsam gignat, ut sit»: si ergo gignit, aliam gignit; sed inter aliam et aliam est distinctio: ergo etc.

2. Item, generatio est emanatio; sed ubi est emanatio, ibi est multiplicatio sive plurificatio; ubi autem multiplicatio, ibi2 distinctio: ergo ubi generatio, ibi necessario est distinctio.

3. Item, generatio in divinis est relatio3; sed relatio importat respectum et ordinem; sed ubi respectus et ordo, ibi suppositorum et relatorum sive ordinatorum distinctio: et sic etc.

4. Item, maior4 diversitas sustinetur a supposito vel in supposito composito et multiplici quam in subiecto simplici et uniformi; sed relative opposita non stant insimul in eodem individuo creato: ergo nec in simplici hypostasi. Probatio mediae. Bene sequitur: Socrates est pater Platonis: ergo non est filius eius, vel est distinctus ab eo: ergo multo fortius in divinis.

Contra:

1. Pater generando Filium dat ei totum quod habet; sed habet essentiam et personam: ergo dat ei essentiam et personam: ergo sicut Filius non distinguitur a Patre essentialiter, ita nec personaliter, ut videtur.

2. Item, Pater communicat Filio essentiam suam propter summam5 simplicitatem; sed aeque simplex est persona ut essentia: ergo qua ratione communicat essentiam, communicat et personam.

3. Item, in Patre idem est natura et persona: ergo impossibile est, quod communicet unum, quod non6 communicet aliud, ergo si dat naturam, et personam.

4. Item, videtur quod relatio non distinguat aliqua7 ratione, quia unus et idem punctus est principium et finis respectu diversarum linearum: ergo si istae relationes non sunt distinctivae, videtur similiter, quod nec paternitas et filiatio. Si dicas, quod non omnes relationes distinguunt, sed solum mutuae, ut principium et principiatum, finis et finitum; contra8: Pater et Filius se habent, sicut intelligens et intellectum, ut dicit Anselmus9; sed idem potest esse intelligens et intellectum: ergo etc.

5. Item, maior est repugnantia in contrariis quam in relativis10; sed albedo et nigredo, quae sunt contraria, non faciunt distinctionem circa Petrum, quia idem potest modo esse albus, modo niger: ergo multo fortius unus in divinis modo erit Pater modo Filius.

6. Item, quaeritur, quare potius relationes faciunt distinctionem personae quam essentiae, cum aeque bene possint esse plures essentiae vel naturae in una persona, sicut e converso.

p. 183
Conclusio. Contra Sabellium probatur, quod generatio in divinis facit realem distinctionem inter generantem et genitum; contra Arium vero, quod haec distinctio sit quantum ad personam, non quantum ad essentiam.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod generatio in divinis, sicut ostensum est11, facit realem distinctionem inter generantem et generatum, non rationalem vel intellectualem solum, sicut dixit Sabellius; et12 realem quantum ad personam, non quantum ad essentiam, sicut dixit Arius.

Quod sic patet. Generatio in creaturis dicit emanationem per modum actionis sive mutationis, in Deo13 emanationem per modum relationis.

In quantum emanatio, dicit aliquam distinctionem; in quantum talis emanatio, dicit distinctionem in persona14. Ratione emanationis est distinctio; quia, sicut dicit Anselmus15, «nec intellectus capit, nec natura permittit, illum, qui est ab alio, esse illum, a quo est», secundum quod positive dicitur aliquis esse ab alio — nam Pater privative dicitur esse a se, id est non ab alio. In quantum talis emanatio, ponit distinctionem in persona. Generatio enim est productio convenientis in natura; ratione16 naturae non potest esse distinctio: ergo vel erit ratione suppositi, vel proprietatis. Si proprietatis, aut absolute, aut respective; non absolute, quia tunc esset distinctio in natura; nec17 respective, ut puta relationis, quia in relatione secundum se non est motus in creaturis18 nec origo in divinis; unde filiatio non generatur nisi in alio. Ergo necesse est, quod sit distinctio in supposito.

Similiter ratione relationis est distinctio, quia nihil ad se refertur nec ordinatur. Ratione vero talis relationis est distinctio personalis; quia generare et generari, cum dicant relationem per modum actionis et passionis19, dicunt eam in supposito et respectu suppositi. Et ideo, quia relatio inter extrema notat distinctionem, patet quod distinctio est ibi suppositorum. His visis20, facile est solvere ad obiecta.

Ad argumenta pro parte contra:

Ad 1. Quod ergo obiicitur: Pater communicat Filio totum quod habet; verum est, praeter generationem et generationis distinctionem; ipsa enim ratio communicandi dat intelligere distinctionem, quia nullus communicat sibi, sed alii: et ideo21 id in quo distinguit, non communicat.

Ad 2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod aeque simplex est persona, ut essentia; dicendum, quod simplicitas essentiae est, quod sit in pluribus; sed simplicitas suppositi est, quod non sit in22 pluribus. Nam suppositum sive individuum, quantum est de se, dicitur quod est in uno solo; ideo non est simile.

Ad 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod idem est essentia et persona; dicendum, quod quamvis sint idem, non tamen sunt ad idem: quia persona est ad alium, ideo generatur23 et refertur; essentia vero non, ideo essentia communicatur et persona distinguitur. Sicut ergo, quamvis idem sit in Patre essentia et persona, tamen persona generat, essentia non; sic e converso essentia communicatur et persona non.

Ad 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de principio et fine in puncto, patet responsio, quia illae non sunt mutuae relationes, quod proprie requiritur ad distinctionem; unde non valet. Quod obiicit24 de intelligente et intellecto, dico quod non est ibi relatio secundum esse, sed secundum dici. Ad hoc autem quod relatio distinguat, oportet quod sint relationes mutuae, quia aliter non distinguunt; oportet etiam, quod dicant relationem secundum esse.

Ad 5. Ad illud quod obiicitur de albedine et nigredine, dicendum, quod nulla est oppositio formarum, nisi considerentur25 respectu eiusdem temporis; et impossibile est, quod idem subiectum eodem tempore sit album et nigrum; relationes autem in divinis simul sunt.

Ad 6. Ad illud quod ultimo quaeritur, quare magis relationes faciunt26 distinctionem in personis quam in essentia; patet ex iam dictis responsio. Potest etiam alia ratio reddi, quia pluralitas naturarum impedit simplicitatem personae, sed non sic e converso. Quod patet sic: si plures naturae sunt in una persona, aut ergo per gratiam, aut per naturam. Si per gratiam — quia natura unita consequitur unitatem personae — non impedit; sed si naturaliter, ut in Petro, est pluralitas essentiarum sive naturarum, tunc — cum intellectus naturae praecedat personam, et non natura ex personis, sed persona ex naturis sit — necesse est, personam esse compositam; et inde est, quod in divinis magis est unitas naturae cum pluralitate personarum, quam e converso.

Scholion

I. Duae haereses Sabellii et Arii, Symbolo Nicaeno aliisque Ecclesiae decretis reprobatae, duplici conclusionis propositione refelluntur.

Quoad distinctiones relationis in solut. ad 4. notandum, quod relativa secundum dici ea sunt, quae in principali significato non important relationem, sed aliquid absolutum, quod tamen secundario involvit relationem ad aliud, ut scientia ad obiectum, i. e. scibile; ita Brulifer ad hunc locum. Vel clarius cum Goudin (Philos. Logica Maior. p. I. disp. 2. q. 4.): «Relatio secundum dici non est aliquid pure relativum, sed res quaedam absoluta, quam consequitur habitudo ad aliam, adeo ut exprimi non possit, quin et illa habitudo exprimatur... sic pars, etsi sit aliquid absolutum, includit tamen habitudinem ad totum, scientia ad obiectum». Quid sit relatio mutua, non eget explicatione. Plura vide infra d. 30. q. 3. Scholion.

II. Cfr. supra d. 5. per totam. — Scot., d. 11. q. 2; d. 26. q. unic. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 1; S. I. q. 28. a. 1. 3; S. c. Gent. IV. c. 14. — B. Albert., I. Sent. d. 26. a. 7; d. 9. a. 4. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 2. — Aegid. R., hic 1. princ. q. 1. et 2. — Durand., hic q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. unic.

---

English Translation

Question II

Whether generation in God distinguishes between the one begetting and the one begotten.

Secondly it is asked, whether generation in God is distinctive of persons. And that it is so, is shown in this way.

1. Augustine near the beginning of On the Trinity1: «There is no thing which begets itself, that it might be»: if therefore [something] begets, it begets another; but between one and another there is distinction: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, generation is emanation; but where there is emanation, there is multiplication or pluralization; and where there is multiplication, there2 [is] distinction: therefore where there is generation, there of necessity is distinction.

3. Likewise, generation in God is a relation3; but a relation imports respect and order; but where there is respect and order, there is a distinction of supposits and of relata or of things ordered: and so etc.

4. Likewise, greater4 diversity is sustained by a composite and manifold supposit, or in [such] a supposit, than in a simple and uniform subject; but relative opposites do not stand together in the same created individual: therefore neither in a simple hypostasis. Proof of the middle [premise]. It well follows: Socrates is the father of Plato: therefore he is not the son of him, or is distinct from him: therefore much more strongly so in God.

On the contrary:

1. The Father in begetting the Son gives him everything that he has; but he has essence and person: therefore he gives him essence and person: therefore just as the Son is not distinguished from the Father essentially, so neither personally, as it seems.

2. Likewise, the Father communicates his essence to the Son on account of [his] supreme5 simplicity; but the person is just as simple as the essence: therefore by the [same] reason by which he communicates the essence, he also communicates the person.

3. Likewise, in the Father nature and person are the same: therefore it is impossible that he communicate one [and] not6 communicate the other; therefore if he gives the nature, [he gives] also the person.

4. Likewise, it seems that relation does not distinguish on any7 account, since one and the same point is the beginning and the end with respect to diverse lines: therefore if these relations are not distinctive, it seems likewise that neither are paternity and filiation. If you say that not all relations distinguish, but only mutual ones, as principle and that-which-is-from-the-principle, end and that-which-is-ended; on the contrary8: the Father and the Son are related as understanding and understood, as Anselm says9; but the same [thing] can be understanding and understood: therefore etc.

5. Likewise, there is greater repugnance in contraries than in relatives10; but whiteness and blackness, which are contraries, do not make a distinction with respect to Peter, since the same [person] can be at one moment white, at another black: therefore much more strongly will one [being] in God be at one moment Father, at another moment Son.

6. Likewise, it is asked why relations rather make a distinction of person than of essence, since just as well there can be several essences or natures in one person, as conversely.

p. 183
Conclusion. Against Sabellius it is proven that generation in God makes a real distinction between the one generating and the one begotten; against Arius, however, [it is proven] that this distinction is as regards person, not as regards essence.

I respond: It must be said that generation in God, as has been shown11, makes a real distinction between the one generating and the one generated, not merely a rational or intellectual one, as Sabellius said; and12 [a distinction] real as regards person, not as regards essence, as Arius said.

This is clear thus. Generation in creatures expresses emanation by way of action or change, in God13 [it expresses] emanation by way of relation.

Insofar as it is emanation, it expresses some distinction; insofar as it is such an emanation, it expresses a distinction in person14. By reason of [its being an] emanation there is distinction; for, as Anselm says15, «neither does the intellect grasp, nor does nature permit, that he who is from another be that from which he is», according to which one is positively said to be from another — for the Father is privatively said to be from himself, that is, not from another. Insofar as it is such an emanation, it posits a distinction in person. For generation is the production of one agreeing in nature; by reason16 of nature there cannot be distinction: therefore [the distinction] will be either by reason of supposit, or of property. If of property, [it will be] either absolutely, or respectively; not absolutely, since then there would be a distinction in nature; nor17 respectively, as for instance of relation, since in relation taken in itself there is no motion in creatures18 nor origin in God; whence filiation is not generated except in another. Therefore it is necessary that there be a distinction in supposit.

Likewise, by reason of relation there is distinction, since nothing is referred to itself nor ordered [to itself]. But by reason of such a relation there is personal distinction; since to generate and to be generated, since they express a relation by way of action and passion19, express it in a supposit and with respect to a supposit. And therefore, since a relation between extremes notes a distinction, it is clear that there is there a distinction of supposits. With these things seen20, it is easy to resolve the objections.

To the arguments on the contrary side:

To 1. As to what is objected: the Father communicates to the Son everything that he has; it is true, except generation and the distinction of generation; for the very ground of communicating gives [us] to understand the distinction, since no one communicates to himself, but to another: and therefore21 that in which he is distinguished, he does not communicate.

To 2. To that which is objected, that the person is just as simple as the essence; it must be said that the simplicity of the essence is that it be in many [supposits]; but the simplicity of the supposit is that it not be in22 many. For a supposit or individual, as far as it is of itself, is said [to be that] which is in one only; therefore [the cases] are not similar.

To 3. To that which is objected, that essence and person are the same; it must be said that although they are the same, yet they are not [oriented] to the same [thing]: since the person is toward another, therefore it is generated23 and referred; but the essence is not, therefore the essence is communicated and the person is distinguished. Just as therefore, although in the Father essence and person are the same, yet the person generates, the essence does not; so conversely the essence is communicated and the person is not.

To 4. To that which is objected concerning principle and end in a point, the response is clear, since those are not mutual relations, which is what is properly required for distinction; whence [the objection] does not hold. As to what is objected24 concerning understanding and understood, I say that there is not there a relation according to being, but according to being-said. For relation to distinguish, however, it is necessary that they be mutual relations, since otherwise they do not distinguish; it is also necessary that they express relation according to being.

To 5. To that which is objected concerning whiteness and blackness, it must be said that there is no opposition of forms, unless they be considered25 with respect to the same time; and it is impossible that the same subject at the same time be white and black; but the relations in God are simultaneous.

To 6. To that which is asked last, why relations rather make26 a distinction in persons than in essence; the response is clear from what has already been said. Another reason can also be given, [namely] that the plurality of natures impedes the simplicity of person, but not so conversely. Which is clear thus: if several natures are in one person, [it is] either through grace, or through nature. If through grace — since a united nature follows the unity of person — it does not impede; but if naturally, as in Peter, there is a plurality of essences or natures, then — since the understanding of nature precedes [that of] person, and nature is not from persons, but person from natures — it is necessary that the person be composite; and from this it is, that in God there is rather a unity of nature with a plurality of persons, than conversely.

Scholion

I. The two heresies of Sabellius and of Arius, condemned by the Nicene Symbol and other decrees of the Church, are refuted by the twofold proposition of the conclusion.

As to the distinctions of relation in the solution to [argument] 4, it is to be noted that relatives according to being-said (relativa secundum dici) are those which in their principal signification do not import a relation, but something absolute, which however secondarily involves a relation to another, as knowledge to its object, i.e. the knowable; thus Brulifer at this place. Or more clearly with Goudin (Philos. Logica Maior. p. I, disp. 2, q. 4): «A relation according to being-said (secundum dici) is not something purely relative, but a certain absolute thing, which a relationship to another follows, in such a way that it cannot be expressed unless that relationship also be expressed... thus a part, although it be something absolute, nevertheless includes a relationship to the whole, [and] knowledge [a relationship] to its object». What a mutual relation is, needs no explanation. See more below at d. 30, q. 3, Scholion.

II. Cf. above, d. 5 throughout. — Scotus, d. 11, q. 2; d. 26, q. unic. — St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 1; S. I, q. 28, a. 1, 3; S. c. Gent. IV, c. 14. — Bl. Albert, I Sent. d. 26, a. 7; d. 9, a. 4. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1, q. 2. — Aegid. R. (Giles of Rome), here 1 princ., q. 1 and 2. — Durandus, here q. 1. — Dionys. the Carthusian, here q. unic.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Libr. I. c. 1. n. 1. — Circa finem argumenti fide multorum mss. et ed. 1 post inter aliam expunximus rem.
    Book I, c. 1, n. 1. — Near the end of the argument, on the authority of many manuscripts and ed. 1, after inter aliam we have deleted rem.
  2. Vat. adiungit et.
    The Vatican edition adds et.
  3. Cod. Y addit in creaturis vero actio vel mutatio.
    Codex Y adds in creaturis vero actio vel mutatio.
  4. Multi codd. ut ACGKORSUV Y etc. cum sex primis edd. minor, sed mendose. Paulo infra ex antiquioribus mss. et ed. 1 substituimus subiecto pro substantia et relative pro relativa. — Sensus argumenti est: Suppositum creatum et compositum est capax ad maiorem diversitatem sustinendam, quam increatum et simplex; sed in creato supposito non est capacitas ad simul sustinenda relative opposita; ergo multo minus in simplici supposito etc.
    Many codices, like ACGKORSUV Y etc., with the first six editions, read minor, but erroneously. A little below, from the older manuscripts and ed. 1, we have substituted subiecto for substantia and relative for relativa. — The sense of the argument is: A created and composite supposit is capable of sustaining greater diversity than an uncreated and simple one; but in a created supposit there is no capacity to sustain relatively opposed properties simultaneously; therefore much less in a simple supposit, etc.
  5. In mss. et ed. 1 deest suam, quod Vat. hic addit. Mox Vat. cum cod. cc contra alios codd. et ed. 1 et pro ut.
    In the manuscripts and ed. 1, suam is absent, which the Vatican edition adds here. Shortly after, the Vatican edition with codex cc, against the other codices and ed. 1, reads et for ut.
  6. Sequimur vetustiores codd. cum ed. 1 ponendo quod non loco quin. Cod. Z brevius unum sine altero.
    We follow the older codices with ed. 1 in reading quod non in place of quin. Codex Z more briefly reads unum sine altero.
  7. Multi codd. ut ACLOPQRSTUVY etc. cum ed. 1 alia loco aliqua, sed, ut videtur, minus bene, etiamsi sub alia ratione intelligas modum distinguendi relativis proprium, quia, uti ex subnexis patet, agitur de eo, quod relatio simpliciter non distinguat. Cod. Z nisi pro aliqua.
    Many codices, like ACLOPQRSTUVY etc., with ed. 1, read alia for aliqua, but, as it seems, less well, even if under alia ratione you understand the mode of distinguishing proper to relatives, since, as is clear from what follows, the argument concerns whether relation simply does not distinguish at all. Codex Z reads nisi for aliqua.
  8. Cod. Y addit videtur quod nec mutuae quia. Mox Vat. cum cod. cc, aliis tamen codd. renitentibus, ut pro sicut.
    Codex Y adds videtur quod nec mutuae quia. Shortly after, the Vatican edition with codex cc, but with the other codices resisting, reads ut for sicut.
  9. Monolog. c. 32, ubi hoc quoad sensum invenitur.
    Monologion, c. 32, where this is found as to its sense.
  10. Cfr. Aristot., de Praedicam. c. de Oppositis.
    Cf. Aristotle, Categories, chapter on Opposites.
  11. Hic in fundam.
    Here in the fundamentum [i.e., in q. 1].
  12. Vat. contra mss. et sex primas edd. sed loco et, ac paulo post dicit pro dixit. Cod. M accidentalem loco intellectualem.
    The Vatican edition, against the manuscripts and the first six editions, reads sed for et, and shortly after dicit for dixit. Codex M reads accidentalem for intellectualem.
  13. Cod. bb addit autem.
    Codex bb adds autem.
  14. Praeclaram hanc emendationem debemus antiquioribus mss. et ed. 1, dum Vat. verba in quantum usque Ratione omittit, mutata insuper interpunctione. Nonnulli codd. autem praemittunt voci talis.
    We owe this excellent emendation to the older manuscripts and ed. 1, while the Vatican edition omits the words from in quantum to Ratione, with the punctuation also changed. Some codices place autem before talis.
  15. De Process. Spir. S. c. 3: Quippe nec natura permittit nec intellectus capit, existentem de aliquo esse de quo existit, aut de quo existit esse existentem de se. — Cfr. etiam Monolog. c. 38.
    De Processione Spiritus Sancti, c. 3: For neither does nature permit nor does the intellect grasp that one existing from another is that from which he exists, or that the one from whom he exists is the one existing from himself. — Cf. also Monologion, c. 38.
  16. Vat. contra mss. et sex primas edd. addit igitur, pro quo codd. aa bb incongrue ponunt enim.
    The Vatican edition, against the manuscripts and the first six editions, adds igitur, for which codices aa bb incongruously read enim.
  17. Ed. 1 non.
    Ed. 1 reads non.
  18. Vide Aristot., V. Phys. text. 10. (c. 2.).
    See Aristotle, Physics V, text 10 (c. 2).
  19. Plurimi codd. cum ed. 1 omittunt et passionis, qui et bis pro plurali ponunt singularem numerum dicat et dicit. — Cfr. Aristot., V. Metaph. text. 20. (IV. c. 15.), ubi tres species relationis, inter quas est actio et passio, afferuntur.
    Most codices with ed. 1 omit et passionis, and twice use the singular dicat and dicit for the plural. — Cf. Aristotle, Metaphysics V, text 20 (IV, c. 15), where three species of relation, among which are action and passion, are presented.
  20. Vat. cum paucis codd. incongrue et contra alios codd. et ed. 1 hic addit patet, moxque omittit est. Nonnulli codd. respondere pro solvere.
    The Vatican edition with a few codices, incongruously and against the other codices and ed. 1, adds patet here, and shortly after omits est. Some codices read respondere for solvere.
  21. Supple: Pater. — Cod. R et ed. 1 clarius distinguitur loco distinguit. Paulo ante cod. N post sibi addit ipsi.
    Supply: Pater. — Codex R and ed. 1 more clearly read distinguitur for distinguit. Shortly before, codex N after sibi adds ipsi.
  22. Multi codd. ut BD E S V X Y Z aa bb cum ed. 1 ex loco in, sed falso, ut patet ex contextu. Mox post dicitur fide antiquiorum mss. et ed. 1 expunximus esse.
    Many codices, like BD E S V X Y Z aa bb, with ed. 1, read ex for in, but falsely, as is clear from the context. Shortly after dicitur, on the authority of the older manuscripts and ed. 1, we have deleted esse.
  23. Vat. absque auctoritate mss. et sex primarum edd. generat.
    The Vatican edition, without the authority of the manuscripts and the first six editions, reads generat.
  24. Vat. praeter fidem mss. et edd. 1, 2, 3, 6 obiicitur. Cod. V particulam Et praemittit relativo quod.
    The Vatican edition, against the testimony of the manuscripts and eds. 1, 2, 3, 6, reads obiicitur. Codex V places the particle Et before the relative quod.
  25. Cod. R adiungit secundum idem.
    Codex R adds secundum idem.
  26. Cod. Y faciant.
    Codex Y reads faciant. ---
← Dist. 9, Art. 1, Q. 1Dist. 9, Art. 1, Q. 3→