← Back to Distinction 9

Dist. 9, Art. 1, Q. 3

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

Textus Latinus
p. 184

Quaestio III. Utrum in divinis generatio sit aeterna.

Tertio quaeritur, utrum divina generatio sit aeterna. Et quod sic, ostenditur hoc modo.

1. In creaturis operans naturaliter operatur quam citius potest, et de perfectione agentis est, quod citissime possit operari1: ergo cum productio Filii a Patre sit per naturam et summam potentiam, quam cito fuit, Pater genuit; sed fuit ab aeterno: ergo etc.

2. Item, de perfectione generationis est, ut quod generatur aequetur generanti2: ergo cum divina generatio sit perfectissima, Filius erit Patri per omnia aequalis; sed Pater est infinitus duratione: ergo et Filius.

3. Item, intelligere se coaeternum est menti divinae; nunquam enim est ponere, quod de non intelligente sit Deus factus intelligens; sed verbum est coaeternum menti intelligenti; ex hoc enim, quod mens se intelligit, verbum gignit. Si ergo propriissime Filius est verbum, est coaeternum Patri; et hoc est quod dicit beatus Ioannes3: In principio erat Verbum.

4. Item, hoc4 idem ostenditur per impossibile. Omne quod coepit esse, est mutatum secundum substantiam; sed omne quod incipit generari, incipit esse: ergo omne quod incipit generari, est mutatum secundum substantiam; sed generatio5 est de substantia generantis: ergo ubi incipit esse generatio, substantia generantis mutatur; sed substantia Dei Patris secundum esse est immutabilis: ergo generatio non incipit in divinis.

Contra:

1. Sicut se habet corruptio ad non6 esse ex parte finis, sic generatio ex parte principii; sed omne quod corrumpitur, desinit esse: ergo omne quod generatur, incipit esse; sed nullum tale est aeternum: ergo etc.

2. Item, quidquid producit divina essentia est ipsa7 posterius tempore, sive duratione: ergo pari ratione quidquid producit divina persona, cum essentia et persona sint idem.

3. Item, in Deo idem est suum esse et sua duratio; sed Filius habet principium essendi: ergo habet principium durationis: sed quod habet principium durandi8 incipit esse: ergo etc.

p. 185

4. Item, Pater caret principio et caret initio: ergo qua ratione communicat Filio non habere initium, eadem ratione communicat ei non habere principium; aut si non hoc, nec illud.

Conclusio. Generatio in divinis est aeterna propter summam generantis fecunditatem et summam geniti aequalitatem et utriusque summam actualitatem.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod generatio Filii est aeterna tum ratione generantis, tum ratione geniti: ratione generantis propter summam et perfectam fecunditatem, ratione geniti propter summam et perfectam aequalitatem; quarum utraque conditio tollit, ne Filius sit posterius9 Patre, sicut visum est in opponendo. Alia ratio est propter summam in utroque actualitatem, in qua non distat actus a potentia, nec posse antecedit esse.

Ad argumenta in oppositum:

1. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod corruptio ponit terminum finalem; dicendum, quod corruptio semper dicit privationem, et mutationem10, et ita conversionem entis in non esse; et ideo ponit terminum finalem. Sed generatio aliquando dicit mutationem, ut in creaturis, et sic ponit terminum initialem; sed in divinis non dicit mutationem ex non ente, sed emanationem ab ente.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod essentia nihil producit nisi ex tempore; dicendum, quod sicut persona producit aliam personam, sic essentia aliam essentiam. Aliam autem essentiam11 ex se ipsa non producit, cum ipsa sit immultiplicabilis, nec ex alia, quia similiter esset quaerere, unde producit illam aliam; et sic necesse est in productione prima creaturae, quod producat ex nihilo; et omne sic productum habet esse post non esse, et ita initium. Persona autem non de nihilo producit personam; et ideo non facit de non ente ens, et ideo nullum ponit initium talis productio.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Filius habet principium essendi; dicendum, quod principium dicitur dupliciter12, scilicet originale et initiale. Secundum quod principium dicitur originaliter, sic Filius tam quantum ad esse, quam quantum ad durationem habet principium, quia utrumque habet ab alio. Si autem principium dicatur initium13, sic dico, quod nec habet principium essendi nec durandi. Primum principium non aufert rationem aeterni, secundum vero sic.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur14 ultimo, quare Pater communicat Filio carentiam initii, non principii; patet iam responsio: quia temporale et aeternum de necessitate differunt per essentiam, principium et principiatum non sic; ideo non est simile de hoc et illo. Quia ergo quod15 habet initium est temporale, quod caret est aeternum; ideo cum Pater et Filius sint unius essentiae, patet etc. Rursum, cum habere principium et non habere dicant16 differentiam personae, et haec est inter Patrem et Filium; ideo sicut Pater non communicat Filio personam, sed tantum naturam sive essentiam, sic communicavit ei non habere initium, sed non communicavit non habere principium.

Scholion

I. Conclusio est de fide, definita in Nicaeno contra Arianos. — Rationes pro conclusione in responsione breviter allatae explicantur argumento 1. et 2. in fundam. — Quoad aeternitatem cfr. infra d. 31. a. 1. q. 3. et IV. Sent. d. 3. p. II. a. 3. q. 1. ad 1; I. Sent. d. 40. a. 2. q. 1. ad 4; d. 41. a. 2. q. 1. ad 4.

II. Quoad conclusionem: Scot., hic et Report. q. unic. — S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 1; S. I. q. 42. a. 2; S. c. Gent. IV. c. 11. — B. Albert., hic a. 5. 6. 7. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 1. — Aegid. R., hic 2. princ. q. 1. — Henr. Gand., S. a. 38. q. 1. n. 22. 23. — Durand., hic q. 2. — Dionys. Carth., de hac et seq. hic q. unic. — Biel, hic q. 3.

---

English Translation
p. 184

Question III. Whether generation in God is eternal.

Thirdly it is asked, whether the divine generation is eternal. And that it is so, is shown in this way.

1. In creatures, that which operates naturally operates as quickly as it can, and it pertains to the perfection of an agent that it be able to operate most swiftly1: therefore since the production of the Son from the Father is through nature and supreme power, as soon as he was, the Father generated; but he was from eternity: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, it pertains to the perfection of generation that what is generated be equal to what generates2: therefore since the divine generation is most perfect, the Son will be in all things equal to the Father; but the Father is infinite in duration: therefore so also the Son.

3. Likewise, to understand itself is coeternal with the divine mind; for it is never to be supposed that God became understanding from a non-understanding being; but the word is coeternal with the understanding mind; for from this, that the mind understands itself, it begets a word. If therefore the Son is most properly the word, he is coeternal with the Father; and this is what blessed John3 says: In the beginning was the Word.

4. Likewise, this4 same point is shown by [the argument from] impossibility. Everything which began to be has been changed according to substance; but everything which begins to be generated, begins to be: therefore everything which begins to be generated has been changed according to substance; but generation5 is of the substance of the generator: therefore where generation begins to be, the substance of the generator is changed; but the substance of God the Father, according to its being, is immutable: therefore generation does not begin in God.

On the contrary:

1. As corruption stands to non6-being on the side of the end, so generation [stands] on the side of the beginning; but everything which is corrupted ceases to be: therefore everything which is generated begins to be; but no such thing is eternal: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, whatever the divine essence produces is posterior to it7 in time or in duration: therefore by parity of reasoning whatever the divine person produces [is posterior to it], since essence and person are the same.

3. Likewise, in God his being and his duration are the same; but the Son has a principle of being: therefore he has a principle of duration: but what has a principle of duration8 begins to be: therefore etc.

p. 185

4. Likewise, the Father lacks principle and lacks beginning: therefore by the same reasoning by which he communicates to the Son not to have a beginning, by the same reasoning he communicates to him not to have a principle; or if not the one, then not the other either.

Conclusion. Generation in God is eternal because of the supreme fecundity of the one generating, and the supreme equality of the one generated, and the supreme actuality of both.

I respond: It must be said that the generation of the Son is eternal both by reason of the one generating and by reason of the one generated: by reason of the one generating because of [his] supreme and perfect fecundity, by reason of the one generated because of [his] supreme and perfect equality; each of these conditions removes [the possibility] that the Son be posterior9 to the Father, as has been seen in the opposing arguments. Another reason is on account of the supreme actuality in each, in which act is not distant from potency, nor does the capacity-to-be precede being.

To the arguments to the contrary:

1. To that which is objected, that corruption posits a final term; it must be said that corruption always denotes privation, and change10, and thus a conversion of being into non-being; and therefore it posits a final term. But generation sometimes denotes change, as in creatures, and thus posits an initial term; but in God it does not denote change from non-being, but emanation from being.

2. To that which is objected, that the essence produces nothing except in time; it must be said that just as a person produces another person, so the essence [produces] another essence. But it does not produce another essence11 from itself, since it is unmultipliable, nor from another, because it would similarly be a matter of asking whence it produces that other; and thus it is necessary in the first production of a creature, that it produce from nothing; and everything thus produced has being after non-being, and thus a beginning. But the person does not produce a person from nothing; and therefore it does not make a being out of non-being, and therefore such a production posits no beginning.

3. To that which is objected, that the Son has a principle of being; it must be said that "principle" is said in two ways12, namely as originative and as initial. According to the way "principle" is said originatively, thus the Son has a principle both as to being and as to duration, because he has each from another. But if "principle" be called a beginning13, thus I say, that he has neither a principle of being nor of duration. The first sense of "principle" does not take away the character of the eternal; the second indeed does.

4. To that which is objected14 last, why the Father communicates to the Son lack of beginning but not of principle; the response is now clear: because the temporal and the eternal differ of necessity by essence, principle and principled do not so [differ]; therefore the case of the one is not like the case of the other. Because therefore that which15 has a beginning is temporal, [and] that which lacks one is eternal; therefore since the Father and the Son are of one essence, this is clear etc. Again, since to have a principle and not to have one express16 a difference of person, and this is between the Father and the Son; therefore just as the Father does not communicate to the Son [his] person, but only [his] nature or essence, so he has communicated to him not having a beginning, but he has not communicated [to him] not having a principle.

Scholion

I. The conclusion is of faith, defined at Nicaea against the Arians. — The reasons for the conclusion briefly adduced in the response are explained in arguments 1 and 2 of the fundamenta. — Concerning eternity see below d. 31. a. 1. q. 3. and IV Sent. d. 3. p. II. a. 3. q. 1. ad 1; I Sent. d. 40. a. 2. q. 1. ad 4; d. 41. a. 2. q. 1. ad 4.

II. Concerning the conclusion: Scotus, here and Reportata q. unic. — St. Thomas, here q. 2. a. 1; S. I q. 42 a. 2; S. c. Gent. IV c. 11. — Bl. Albert, here a. 5. 6. 7. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 3. a. 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2. q. 1. — Giles of Rome, here 2. princ. q. 1. — Henry of Ghent, Summa a. 38. q. 1. n. 22. 23. — Durandus, here q. 2. — Dionysius Carthusianus, on this and the following [question] here q. unic. — Biel, here q. 3.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Vide Aristot., IX. Metaph. text. 10. (VIII. c. 3.). — Paulo infra ed. 1 post et repetit per et cod. T post genuit addit Filium.
    See Aristotle, Metaphysics IX, text 10 (VIII c. 3). — A little below, ed. 1 after et repeats per, and codex T after genuit adds Filium.
  2. Aristot., IV. Meteor. text. 19. (c. 3.) ait: Perfectum esse id quod tale producere potest, quale ipsum est. Vide et II. de Anima, text. 34. (c. 4.).
    Aristotle, Meteorology IV, text 19 (c. 3) says: That is perfect which can produce such as itself is. See also On the Soul II, text 34 (c. 4).
  3. Cap. 1, 1.
    [John,] chapter 1, [verse] 1.
  4. Ex antiquioribus mss. et ed. 1 supplevimus hoc. — Vide pro hoc et sequenti argumento Aristot., V. Phys. text. 7; I. de Gener. et corrupt. text. 11-23. (c. 3.), et II. de Anima, text. 34. seqq. (c. 4.).
    From the older manuscripts and ed. 1 we have supplied hoc. — See on this and the following argument Aristotle, Physics V, text 7; On Generation and Corruption I, text 11-23 (c. 3), and On the Soul II, text 34 ff. (c. 4).
  5. Cod. T generatus pro generatio et mox si loco ubi.
    Codex T [reads] generatus for generatio, and shortly after si in place of ubi.
  6. Cod. O omittit non, salvo eodem sensu, qui est in generationis et corruptionis contrarietate, de qua V. Phys. text. 14, et quae sub alio respectu exprimitur hac formula: Corruptio unius est generatio alterius.
    Codex O omits non, with the same sense preserved, [a sense] which lies in the contrariety of generation and corruption, on which see Physics V, text 14, and which under another aspect is expressed by this formula: The corruption of one [thing] is the generation of another.
  7. Fide plurium mss. ut HKY bb et ed. 1 posuimus ablativum ipsa pro ipsi.
    On the authority of several manuscripts such as HKY bb and ed. 1 we have placed the ablative ipsa in place of ipsi.
  8. Praeferimus lectionem nonnullorum mss. ut M P Q pro essendi ponentium durandi, quia in ipsa et processus et vis argumenti distinctior redditur. Cod. H et ed. 1 ponunt durationis; cod. O vero essendi et durationis.
    We prefer the reading of certain manuscripts such as M, P, Q which place durandi in place of essendi, because in it both the progression and the force of the argument are rendered more distinct. Codex H and ed. 1 read durationis; codex O however [reads] essendi and durationis.
  9. Ed. 1 posterior.
    Ed. 1 [reads] posterior.
  10. Cod. bb addit ex non ente, quod subnexis correspondet.
    Codex bb adds ex non ente, which corresponds to what follows.
  11. Praestamus lectionem antiquiorum mss. et ed. 1, quae concinnior est lectione Vat. Aliam autem naturam essentia. Vat. et paulo infra minus distincte exhibet immutabilis loco immultiplicabilis; cum Vat. consentit cod. cc, eo excepto, quod pro naturam ponat creaturam. Mox cod. R producere loco producit.
    We prefer the reading of the older manuscripts and ed. 1, which is neater than the Vatican reading Aliam autem naturam essentia. Vat. and a little below less distinctly exhibits immutabilis in place of immultiplicabilis; codex cc agrees with Vat., with this exception, that for naturam it puts creaturam. Shortly after, codex R [reads] producere in place of producit.
  12. Vat. minus bene et contra mss. et ed. 1 duplex. — Plura de notione principii vide infra d. 29. a. 1. q. 1. et 2.
    Vat. less well and against the manuscripts and ed. 1 [reads] duplex. — More on the notion of "principle" see below d. 29. a. 1. q. 1 and 2.
  13. Cod. bb initialiter.
    Codex bb [reads] initialiter.
  14. Nonnulli codd. ut FHK cum ed. 1 quaeritur.
    Several manuscripts such as FHK with ed. 1 [read] quaeritur.
  15. Cod. Y addit eo.
    Codex Y adds eo.
  16. Vat. praeter fidem mss. et trium primarum edd. dicat.
    Vat., against the testimony of the manuscripts and the first three editions, [reads] dicat.
← Dist. 9, Art. 1, Q. 2Dist. 9, Art. 1, Q. 4→