← Back to Distinction 9

Dist. 9, Art. 1, Q. 4

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

Textus Latinus
p. 185

Quaestio IV

Utrum generatio Filii terminata sit.

Quarto et ultimo quaeritur, utrum generatio Filii sit terminata. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Augustinus in libro octoginta trium Quaestionum1: «Qui semper nascitur nunquam est natus, ac per hoc nunquam est filius». Nullus ergo per generationem dicendus est filius, quousque generatio sit terminata; sed Verbum Patris recte dicitur perfectus Filius: ergo eius generatio est terminata.

p. 186

2. Item, ratione ostenditur sic: produci terminatur ad productum esse, ergo generari ad generatum esse; sed Filius Dei est generatus et natus: ergo eius productio sive generatio est terminata.

3. Item, nobilius est esse generatum quam generari, quia generari est via ad generatum esse, et non e converso; sed quod nobilius est Deo est attribuendum: ergo magis debet ei attribui generatum esse quam generari: ergo generatio Filii dicitur in terminatione.

4. Item, in2 generatione, quae semper est in generando, semper aliquid vel aliquis producitur; sed non producitur id quod productum est, secundum id quod est productum: ergo oportet, vel quod iteretur, vel quod succedat generatum in tali generatione; sed in Filio Dei nec est successio nec3 iteratio: ergo nec continua generatio: ergo Filii Dei generatio est terminata.

Contra:

1. Damascenus4: «Deus, infinite et sine tempore ens, infinite et inquiescibiliter generat»: ergo generatio nunquam terminatur.

2. Item, ratione videtur hoc idem posse monstrari. Aeternum non habet se aliter nunc quam prius, sed semper omnino uniformiter: ergo si semper Pater a principio generat, adhuc generat; alioquin aliter se haberet nunc quam prius, et ita generatio aeterna mutaretur.

3. Item, simplex5 et infinitum caret omni termino; sed generatio Filii est simplex et infinita: ergo generatio Filii caret omni termino. Quod sit infinita, patet, quia Filius est infinitus, et iterum ipsa generatio est aeterna, et aeternum est duratione infinitum.

4. Item, perfectior est potentia semper actui coniuncta, quam quae non semper: ergo perfectior est fecunditas semper actui generationis coniuncta, maxime cum fecunditas generandi non perdatur, sed perficiatur6: si ergo in Deo est fecunditas perfecta, semper ergo generat; sed non generat alium nisi Filium: ergo Filius semper generatur.

Conclusio. Generatio divina dicenda est terminata, quatenus hoc vocabulum excludit imperfectionem, interminata vero, quatenus excludit durationem.

Respondeo: Ad praedictorum intelligentiam notandum, quod quaedam sunt, in quibus idem est esse et factum esse, differt tamen fieri et esse, ut sunt illa, quorum esse est permanens nec dependet omnino a principio producente7, immo habent rationem subsistendi aliquam intra se, sive per principia propria sive subiecti, ut substantiae et accidentia innata. Quaedam sunt, in quibus differt esse et factum esse, idem tamen est fieri et esse, ut sunt successiva, quorum esse dependet omnino a principio producente existente in sua actualitate, ut sunt motus et mutationes. Quaedam sunt, in quibus est idem fieri et esse et factum esse, ut sunt illa, quae habent esse permanens et totaliter dependent a principio producente, existente in sua actualitate per eundem modum, per quem in principio8, non tantum in se, sed etiam respectu producti, ita quod consimilis modus actualitatis attendatur quantum ad utrumque; et talia sunt influentiae sive corporales sive spirituales. Unde Augustinus octavo super Genesim ad litteram9 dicit, quod lumen semper nascitur et, dum nascitur, est, unde aer semper est illuminatus et semper illuminatur. Similiter omnino dicit10 de lumine spirituali, quod est gratia.

Si igitur Filius Dei habet esse permanentissimum et habet esse ab alio, et secundum Patris more dictum per generationem, cum producens non possit magis vel minus producere, et quod validius est, non possit non producere, et quod productum est non possit non esse productum; sed productum non possit separari a producente, maxime cum fecunditas generandi non perdatur, sed perficiatur: si ergo in Deo est fecunditas perfecta — patet, quod generatio Filii est huius generis, scilicet in quo idem est fieri et factum esse et esse. Et ideo sic debet dici generatus, quod nihilominus generetur; et sic dicendus est generari, quod nihilominus sit generatus. Et ideo generatio eius dicenda est terminata, quatenus hoc vocabulum excludit imperfectionem; interminata vero, quatenus excludit durationem.

Et sic patet responsio ad utramque partem, quia rationes, quae probant generationem esse terminatam, procedunt de generatione, in qua differt fieri et factum esse. Et illae, quae probant eam non esse terminatam, procedunt de generatione, in qua differt esse et factum esse. Generatio autem Filii est huius conditionis, in qua idem est fieri et esse et factum esse, sicut ostensum est; et ideo utraque pars deficit, quia procedit ex insufficienti.

p. 187

Unde ergo quod generatio Filii non terminetur, hoc est, quia semper manet in suo esse, et quod non sit interminata, hoc est, quia Filius est perfectissime genitus. Et ita non potest dici proprie, quod generatio eius sit terminata vel interminata; sed si dicatur terminata, hoc est, quia non imperfecta, quia quoad hoc habetur ex terminatione; si dicatur interminata, hoc est, quia non habet praescriptionem, quia quoad hoc habetur ex interminatione.

Cassiodoro ergo quod generatio Filii non terminetur, et concedendum et non concedendum; quia idem est ibi fieri et factum esse, ideo utrumque concedendum est simul; et sic patet, quod generatio Filii est interminata positive, non privative.

Scholion

Haec quaestio arctissime cohaeret cum praecedenti, ut facile intelligitur comparando conclusiones utriusque. — Quoad tertium membrum distinctionis in resp. cfr. etiam VIII. super Gen. ad lit. c. 12. n. 26; I. Sent. d. 37. p. I. a. 1. q. 1. ad 3; II. Sent. d. 15. a. 1. q. 1; d. 37. a. 1. q. 1. — S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 1; S. I. q. 42. a. 2. ad 4. — B. Albert., hic a. 8. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 2. — Aegid. R., hic 2. princ. q. 2. — Durand., hic q. 3. — Dionys. Carth., de hac et praec. hic q. unic.

---

English Translation

Question IV

Whether the generation of the Son is terminated.

Fourthly and lastly it is asked whether the generation of the Son is terminated. And that it is so, it seems.

1. Augustine in the book of Eighty-three Questions1: «He who is always being born is never born, and through this is never a son». Therefore no one ought to be called a son through generation, until the generation has been terminated; but the Word of the Father is rightly called perfect Son: therefore his generation is terminated.

2. Likewise, by reason it is shown thus: to be produced is terminated at the produced being, therefore to be generated [is terminated] at the generated being; but the Son of God is generated and born: therefore his production or generation is terminated.

3. Likewise, it is more noble to be generated than to be generating, since being generated is the way to the generated being, and not the converse; but what is more noble is to be attributed to God: therefore "to have been generated" must rather be attributed to him than "to be generated": therefore the generation of the Son is said in [its state of] termination.

4. Likewise, in2 a generation which is always in generating, something or someone is always being produced; but that which has been produced is not produced, according to that which has been produced: therefore it is necessary either that it be repeated, or that the generated [thing] succeed in such generation; but in the Son of God there is neither succession nor3 iteration: therefore neither continuous generation: therefore the generation of the Son of God is terminated.

On the contrary:

1. Damascene4: «God, being infinitely and without time, generates infinitely and unceasingly»: therefore the generation is never terminated.

2. Likewise, by reason this same [point] seems able to be shown. The eternal does not have itself otherwise now than before, but always wholly uniformly: therefore if the Father generates always from the beginning, he still generates; otherwise he would have himself otherwise now than before, and thus the eternal generation would be changed.

3. Likewise, the simple5 and infinite lacks every term; but the generation of the Son is simple and infinite: therefore the generation of the Son lacks every term. That it is infinite is clear, since the Son is infinite, and again the generation itself is eternal, and the eternal is infinite in duration.

4. Likewise, more perfect is a power always conjoined to act, than one which is not always [so conjoined]: therefore more perfect is a fecundity always conjoined to the act of generation, especially since the fecundity of generating is not lost but perfected6: if therefore in God there is perfect fecundity, therefore he always generates; but he does not generate another except the Son: therefore the Son is always being generated.

Conclusion. The divine generation must be called terminated, insofar as this term excludes imperfection, but unterminated insofar as it excludes [limited] duration.

I respond: For the understanding of the foregoing it is to be noted that there are certain [things] in which to-be and to-have-been-made are the same, yet to-become and to-be differ, as are those things whose being is permanent and does not depend wholly on the producing principle7, but rather have some ground of subsisting within themselves, either through their own principles or through [those of] a subject, as substances and innate accidents. There are certain [things] in which to-be and to-have-been-made differ, yet to-become and to-be are the same, as are successive [things], whose being depends wholly on the producing principle existing in its actuality, as are motions and changes. There are certain [things] in which to-become and to-be and to-have-been-made are the same, as are those things which have permanent being and totally depend on the producing principle, existing in its actuality in the same mode by which [it existed] at the beginning8, not only in itself but also with respect to the produced [thing], so that a like mode of actuality is observed as to both; and such are influences, whether corporeal or spiritual. Hence Augustine in the eighth [book] On Genesis according to the Letter9 says that light is always being born and, while it is being born, it is, whence the air is always illuminated and is always being illuminated. He says quite similarly10 of the spiritual light which is grace.

If therefore the Son of God has the most permanent being and has being from another, and according to the Father's manner [it is] said through generation, since the producer cannot produce more or less, and what is stronger, cannot not produce, and what has been produced cannot not be produced; but the produced cannot be separated from the producer, especially since the fecundity of generating is not lost but perfected: if therefore in God there is perfect fecundity — it is clear that the generation of the Son is of this kind, namely that in which to-become and to-have-been-made and to-be are the same. And therefore he must be called generated in such a way that nonetheless he is being generated; and he must be called as being generated in such a way that nonetheless he has been generated. And therefore his generation must be called terminated, insofar as this term excludes imperfection; but unterminated, insofar as it excludes [limited] duration.

And so the response to both sides is clear, since the reasons which prove the generation to be terminated proceed from a generation in which to-become and to-have-been-made differ. And those which prove it not to be terminated proceed from a generation in which to-be and to-have-been-made differ. But the generation of the Son is of this condition, in which to-become and to-be and to-have-been-made are the same, as has been shown; and therefore both sides fail, since each proceeds from an insufficient [premise].

Hence therefore that the generation of the Son is not terminated, this is because it always remains in its being; and that it is not unterminated, this is because the Son is most perfectly begotten. And so it cannot properly be said that his generation is terminated or unterminated; but if it be called terminated, this is because it is not imperfect, since as to this it is had from termination; if it be called unterminated, this is because it has no limit (praescriptionem), since as to this it is had from unterminatedness.

To Cassiodorus, therefore, that the generation of the Son is not terminated, [this is] both to be conceded and not to be conceded; since to-become and to-have-been-made are the same there, therefore both must be conceded together; and so it is clear that the generation of the Son is unterminated positively, not privatively.

Scholion

This question coheres most tightly with the preceding one, as is easily understood by comparing the conclusions of both. — As to the third member of the distinction in the response, see also VIII On Genesis according to the Letter, c. 12, n. 26; I Sent. d. 37, p. I, a. 1, q. 1, ad 3; II Sent. d. 15, a. 1, q. 1; d. 37, a. 1, q. 1. — St. Thomas, here q. 2, a. 1; S. I, q. 42, a. 2, ad 4. — Bl. Albert, here a. 8. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 3, a. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2, q. 2. — Aegidius Romanus (Giles of Rome), here 2 princ., q. 2. — Durandus, here q. 3. — Dionysius the Carthusian, on this and the preceding, here q. unic.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Quaest. 37: Qui semper nascitur nondum est natus; et nunquam natus est aut natus erit, si semper nascitur. Aliud est enim nasci, aliud natum esse. Ac per hoc nunquam Filius, si nunquam natus. — Mox cod. I Nunquam pro Nullus, et cod. S enim pro ergo.
    Question 37: He who is always being born is not yet born; and he has never been born nor will be born, if he is always being born. For to be born and to have been born are different things. And hence he is never a Son, if he has never been born. — Shortly after, codex I reads Nunquam for Nullus, and codex S reads enim for ergo.
  2. Fide plurium codd. ut B F H P Q Y et ed. 1 supplevimus in; quae lectio comprobatur etiam inde, quod infra in solutione huius obiectionis omnes codd. cum Vat. exhibeant praepositionem in. Plures codd. ut AGKSTVYZ falso generatio naturae loco generatione; pauci ut FX cum ed. 1 generatione naturae.
    On the authority of several codices, like B F H P Q Y, and ed. 1, we have supplied in; this reading is confirmed also by the fact that below, in the solution to this objection, all codices with the Vatican edition exhibit the preposition in. Several codices, like AGKSTVYZ, falsely read generatio naturae for generatione; a few, like FX, with ed. 1, read generatione naturae.
  3. Vat. cum cod. cc adiungit ibi, quod bene deest in aliis mss. et ed. 1.
    The Vatican edition with codex cc adds ibi, which is rightly absent in the other manuscripts and ed. 1.
  4. Libr. I. de Fide orthod. c. 8: Deus enim, ut qui tempori non subsit et principio, passione ac fluxione omni vacet sitque incorporeus ac solus ab interitu liber, ita citra tempus quoque et principium et passionem et fluxum et sine ullo congressu gignit, ac nec initium nec finem habet incomprehensibilis ipsius generatio. — Vat. per Damascenum pro Damascenus, sed contra mss. et ed. 1.
    Book I, De Fide Orthodoxa, c. 8: For God, since he is not subject to time or beginning, is free from all passion and flux and is incorporeal and alone free from destruction, and thus he begets without time or beginning or passion or flux and without any union, and the generation of him who is incomprehensible has neither beginning nor end. — The Vatican edition reads per Damascenum for Damascenus, but against the manuscripts and ed. 1.
  5. Cod. M addit Filium. Mox unus alterve cod. cum ed. 1 generavit loco generat. Lectio plurium codd. ut H I P Q ee ff et ed. 1, in qua hic et paulo infra ponitur simpliciter pro simplex et, satis bona est.
    Codex M adds Filium. Shortly after, one or another codex with ed. 1 reads generavit for generat. The reading of several codices, like H I P Q ee ff, and ed. 1, in which here and a little below simpliciter is put for simplex et, is quite acceptable.
  6. Vat., refragantibus mss. et ed. 1, legit perditur, sed perficitur.
    The Vatican edition, with the manuscripts and ed. 1 opposing, reads perditur, sed perficitur.
  7. In Vat. et cod. cc hic additur et hoc proximo producente in facto esse, quod tamen abest ab aliis mss. et ed. 1 et superfluere videtur, quia hoc distinctionis membrum per duo alia satis superque explicatur. Paulo infra Vat. cum cod. cc, aliis tamen codd. cum ed. 1 renitentibus, post propria habet sui loco sive, sed non bene. Mox ex mss. et ed. 1 substituimus substantiae loco substantia.
    In the Vatican edition and codex cc, here is added et hoc proximo producente in facto esse, which however is absent from the other manuscripts and ed. 1 and seems superfluous, since this member of the distinction is sufficiently explained by the other two. A little below, the Vatican edition with codex cc, but with the other codices and ed. 1 resisting, after propria has sui for sive, but not well. Shortly after, from the manuscripts and ed. 1, we have substituted substantiae for substantia.
  8. Intellige: in initio productionis. Sensus est: modus actualitatis principii taliter producentis idem est in principio seu initio et in continuatione productionis, tum in se tum quoad productum; sicut est v. g. actualitas solis illuminantis et luminis vel aeris illuminati. Vat. falso et contra antiquiores codd. ac ed. 1 post per quem addit sunt.
    Understand: at the beginning of the production. The sense is: the mode of actuality of the principle so producing is the same at the beginning or start and in the continuation of the production, both in itself and with regard to the product; as is, for example, the actuality of the sun illuminating and of the light or illuminated air. The Vatican edition falsely, and against the older codices and ed. 1, after per quem adds sunt.
  9. Cap. 12. n. 26: Neque enim, ut dicebamus, sicut operatur homo terram... ita Deus operatur hominem iustum, id est iustificando eum, ut si abscesserit, maneat in abscedente quod fecit; sed potius sicut aer praesente lumine non factus est lucidus, sed fit, quia si factus esset, non autem fieret, etiam absente lumine lucidus maneret; sic homo Deo sibi praesente illuminatur, absente autem continuo tenebratur.
    Ch. 12, n. 26: For not, as we were saying, as a man works the earth... does God work the just man, that is, by justifying him, so that if he departs, what he made remains in the one departing; but rather, as the air in the presence of light has not been made bright but is being made bright — because if it had been made bright and were not still being made bright, it would remain bright even when the light was absent — so a man, with God present to him, is illuminated, but when God is absent, is immediately darkened.
  10. Vide textum modo citatum. — Vat. cum cod. cc, aliis vero cum ed. 1 reluctantibus, dicendum pro dicit.
    See the text just cited. — The Vatican edition with codex cc, but with the others and ed. 1 opposing, reads dicendum for dicit. ---
← Dist. 9, Art. 1, Q. 3Dist. 9, Dubia→