← Back to Distinction 4

Dist. 4, Art. 1, Q. 3

Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word · Distinction 4

Textus Latinus
p. 102

Quaestio III. Utrum Christus possit dici filius Trinitatis.

Tertio quaeritur, utrum Christus possit dici filius Trinitatis, ad maiorem evidentiam praedictorum. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. (Ad oppositum.) Cantico Deuteronomii1: Nunquid non ipse est pater tuus, qui possedit te et fecit et creavit te? Sed hoc totum potest dici de Christo ratione naturae assumtae; et secundum illa tria dicitur esse filius totius Trinitatis, cuius est possidere, facere et creare: ergo videtur, quod hoc Christo satis catholice possit attribui.

2. Item, ad Romanos octavo2: Ut sit ipse primogenitus in multis fratribus; Glossa: « Secundum illud, quod unigenitus est, non habet fratres; secundum illud, quod primogenitus est, fratres dignatus est vocare omnes »: si ergo fratres sunt eiusdem Patris et sunt filii totius Trinitatis, videtur, quod et hoc Christo convenienter possit attribui.

3. Item, quandocumque aliqua se habent per indifferentiam ad aliquam operationem, secundum illam operationem communem et uniformem recipiunt denominationem; sed tota Trinitas operata est incarnationis mysterium3: ergo si persona Patris dicitur esse pater Christi non solum quantum ad deitatem, sed etiam quantum ad humanitatem; videtur, quod similiter tota Trinitas possit dici pater.

4. Item, quamvis in Trinitate unus solus sit Pater propter aeternam generationem, tamen ex tempore propter effectus temporales tota Trinitas dicitur esse pater4, et persona Patris dicitur non solum pater Filii, sed etiam aliarum rerum, ita quod in nullo praeiudicatur proprietati Filii: ergo cum Filius ex tempore naturam sumserit, et aequalem et uniformem habet comparationem ad totam Trinitatem; videtur, quod sicut quantum ad divinam naturam dicitur esse filius Patris, ita secundum humanitatem sit filius totius Trinitatis.

5. Item, in Christo triplex est substantia5, scilicet suprema, media et infima: suprema, videlicet divina, media, scilicet anima, et infima, videlicet corpus; sed Christus ratione naturae supremae est filius alicuius, scilicet Patris Dei; ratione naturae infimae filius alicuius, scilicet Matris, ex qua traxit carnem: ergo et ratione mediae filius alicuius erit. Sed media, scilicet anima, est a tota Trinitate aequaliter: ergo videtur, quod filius totius Trinitatis dici possit.

6. Item, non est maior confusio in proprietatibus ex comparatione alicuius proprietatis ad plura, quam si de eodem dicantur duo opposita, immo multo minor; sed de Christo vere et catholice dicuntur duo opposita ratione duplicis naturae, mortalis et immortalis, passibilis et impassibilis6: ergo multo fortius ratione naturae assumentis potest dici filius Patris, et ratione naturae assumtae filius totius Trinitatis.

Sed contra: (Fundamenta.) 1. Augustinus in libro de Trinitate, secundo7: « Iesus neque suus neque Trinitatis filius dici potest: » ergo non potest dici filius Trinitatis.

2. Item, filiatio est proprietas personalis, unde respicit hypostasim8; sed in Christo est una sola persona et hypostasis, quae non potest distingui a tota Trinitate secundum illius relationis habitudinem: ergo non videtur, quod dici possit filius Trinitatis.

3. Item, Christus non tantum est filius, sed filius unigenitus, secundum quod dicitur Ioannis primo9: Vidimus gloriam eius quasi Unigeniti a Patre; sed Trinitas non habet aliquem filium unigenitum, cum aequaliter comparetur ad omnes: ergo non videtur, quod Christus possit dici Trinitatis filius.

4. Item, filiatio praesupponit generationem, generatio autem dicit convenientiam in natura et distinctionem in supposito10; sed hoc impossibile est reperire in Christo, nec secundum divinam naturam nec secundum humanam: ergo nullatenus est concedenda locutio praedicta.

Conclusio.

(Conclusio.) Non conceditur, quod Christus sit filius Trinitatis.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod apud theologos secundum communem usum non admittitur: Christus est Trinitatis filius. Sed huius rationem diversi assignant diversimode.

p. 103

(Ratio secundum opinionem 1.) Quidam enim dicere voluerunt, quod hoc est propter proprietatem filiationis, quae respicit personam et hypostasim: et quoniam hypostasis Filii Dei sive persona aeterna est nec habet originem a tota Trinitate, sed solum a persona Patris: hinc est, quod quamvis in Christo sit reperire humanam naturam a tota Trinitate creatam, non est11 concedendum, Christum esse filium totius Trinitatis propter repugnantiam, quae reperta est in hypostasi, hoc est persona, quae est aeterna. — (An placet.) Sed si ratio ista interius consideretur, non videtur magnae efficaciae, quia, quamvis hypostasis Christi sit aeterna, nihil tamen impedit, ipsum dici filium Virginis ratione naturae assumtae. Si ergo illi hypostasi innasci potest filiationis habitudo in comparatione ad Matrem, ex qua natura illa tracta est; quare non potest innasci respectu totius Trinitatis, a qua facta est? Et ideo ex parte proprietatis filiationis et aeternitatis hypostasis non videtur efficax ratio posse sumi ad repudiationem praedictae locutionis.

(Secundum opinionem 2.) Et ideo est alius modus dicendi, quod praedictus sermo non recipitur, quia appropinquat errori. Nam Christus, cum sit Filius unigenitus Dei Patris, non recipitur, quod sit filius Trinitatis simpliciter, propter hoc quod talis locutio appropinquat errori (Error Sabellii.) Sabellii, qui posuit, proprietatem patris cuilibet trium personarum convenienter posse attribui. Non recipitur etiam, quod sit filius totius Trinitatis per creationem, quia talis locutio appropinquat errori (Error Arii.) Arii, qui posuit, Christum esse puram creaturam. Non recipitur etiam, quod sit filius totius Trinitatis per gratiam; quia talis locutio appropinquat errori (Error Nestorii.) Nestorii, qui posuit in Christo duas naturas et duas personas, divinam scilicet et humanam; et quantum ad humanam personam dixit Christum Filium Dei per gratiam. Ergo sermo praedictus omni modo erroris impietati12 appropinquat: et ideo respuitur ab his qui periti sunt in sacra Scriptura. — (Notandum.) Unde rationes ad hanc partem concedendae sunt, quamvis non multum cogant.

(Solutio oppositorum.) 1. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod tota Trinitas possedit et fecit et creavit secundum humanam naturam; dicendum, quod Trinitas13 alios homines simpliciter fecit secundum omnem sui naturam; Christum autem non simpliciter secundum omnem naturam fecit, quia secundum divinam naturam eum solus Pater genuit; et ideo non est simile de Christo et aliis hominibus. Quamvis enim alii homines possint dici creaturae Dei, hoc tamen de Christo non recipitur, sicut infra14 melius videbitur.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod nos sumus fratres Christi; dicendum, quod ex hoc non sequitur, quod Christus sit filius totius Trinitatis, sed quod nos dicamur filii Dei Patris per eum, quamvis « nos per gratiam, ipse vero per naturam », sicut dicit Gregorius super illud: Ascendo ad Patrem meum et Patrem vestrum, Ioannis vigesimo15.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod tres personae se habent ad naturam16 assumtam per indifferentiam; dicendum, quod verum est; sed non sic se habent per indifferentiam respectu personae assumentis, quia aliam habitudinem habet ad personam Patris, aliam ad personam Spiritus sancti. Cum autem dicitur Christus Filius esse Dei Patris, hoc magis dicitur respectu naturae assumentis quam assumtae; quod patet, quia dicitur Filius Patris unigenitus et naturalis. Et ideo ratio illa non cogit, quia ab insufficienti procedit.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Pater non dicitur pater tantum respectu Filii, sed etiam aliorum, quorum est causa et principium ex tempore; dicendum, quod sicut Pater ex hoc, quod temporaliter aliquos adoptat, dicitur eorum pater ex tempore, sic etiam Christus per generationem temporalem potest dici filius Virginis; non tamen potest concludi quod sit filius totius Trinitatis. Non enim est simile. Nulla enim confusio proprietatum incurritur, nec aliquod veritati fit praeiudicium, aut errori in aliquo appropinquatur, si dicatur Pater esse pater Filii solum per generationem, et aliorum per creationem; non sic autem, cum17 dicitur Christus esse filius totius Trinitatis. Nam si intelligatur per generationem, incurrimus in errorem Sabellii; si per creationem, appropinquamus errori Arii; si solum per adoptionis gratificationem, errori Nestorii.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur de natura suprema, media et infima, iam patet responsio per praedicta, quia, cum illa18 sit creata, non recipitur circa Christum filiatio alicuius ratione illa. — (Aliter.) Potest tamen dici, quod non est simile de substantiis extremis ad mediam, quia tum ratione substantiae divinae tum ratione carnis genitus est et assimilatur suo principio producenti, scilicet Patri et Matri: Patri in deitate, et Matri in humanitate; non sic autem est ratione animae; et ideo non est simile.

6. Ad illud quod ultimo obiicitur de proprie-

p. 104

tatibus absolutis, quod non faciunt confusionem; dicendum, quod non est simile, quia illae proprietates principaliter respiciunt naturam, utpote esse passibilem et immortalem19; sed filiatio respicit ipsam hypostasim, circa quam multi fuerunt errores, quibus praedicta locutio videtur appropinquare; et ideo, quamvis illae recipiantur a viris catholicis tanquam catholicae, haec respuitur tanquam adversaria fidei christianae20.

---

English Translation

Question III. Whether Christ can be called the Son of the Trinity.

Thirdly it is asked whether Christ can be called the Son of the Trinity, for the greater clarity of the foregoing. And that he can, it seems.

1. (To the contrary.) In the Canticle of Deuteronomy1: Is he not thy father, who possessed thee and made and created thee? But all this can be said of Christ by reason of the assumed nature; and according to those three things he is said to be the Son of the whole Trinity, whose it is to possess, to make, and to create: therefore it seems that this can be quite catholically attributed to Christ.

2. Likewise, to the Romans, chapter eight2: That he might be the firstborn among many brethren; the Gloss: « According to that whereby he is only-begotten, he has no brothers; according to that whereby he is firstborn, he has deigned to call all men brothers »: if therefore the brothers are of the same Father and are sons of the whole Trinity, it seems that this too can fittingly be attributed to Christ.

3. Likewise, whenever certain things are related indifferently to some operation, according to that common and uniform operation they receive a denomination; but the whole Trinity wrought the mystery of the incarnation3: therefore if the person of the Father is said to be the father of Christ not only as regards the deity, but also as regards the humanity, it seems that likewise the whole Trinity can be called father.

4. Likewise, although in the Trinity there is one alone who is Father on account of the eternal generation, nevertheless in time, on account of temporal effects, the whole Trinity is said to be father4, and the person of the Father is said to be the father not only of the Son, but also of other things, in such a way that the proper character of the Son is in no way prejudiced: therefore since the Son in time took on a nature, and has an equal and uniform comparison to the whole Trinity, it seems that just as, as regards the divine nature, he is said to be the Son of the Father, so according to the humanity he is the Son of the whole Trinity.

5. Likewise, in Christ there is a threefold substance5, namely the supreme, the middle, and the lowest: the supreme, namely the divine; the middle, namely the soul; and the lowest, namely the body; but Christ by reason of the supreme nature is the son of someone, namely of God the Father; by reason of the lowest nature the son of someone, namely of the Mother, from whom he drew his flesh: therefore also by reason of the middle he will be the son of someone. But the middle, namely the soul, is from the whole Trinity equally: therefore it seems that he can be called the Son of the whole Trinity.

6. Likewise, there is not a greater confusion in properties from the comparison of some property to many things than if two opposites are said of the same thing, indeed much less; but of Christ truly and catholically two opposites are said by reason of the twofold nature, mortal and immortal, passible and impassible6: therefore much more strongly, by reason of the assuming nature, he can be called the Son of the Father, and by reason of the assumed nature the Son of the whole Trinity.

On the contrary: (Foundations.) 1. Augustine, in the book On the Trinity, book two7: « Jesus can be called neither his own son nor the son of the Trinity »: therefore he cannot be called the Son of the Trinity.

2. Likewise, filiation is a personal property, whence it regards the hypostasis8; but in Christ there is one sole person and hypostasis, which cannot be distinguished from the whole Trinity according to the relation of that respect: therefore it does not seem that he can be called the Son of the Trinity.

3. Likewise, Christ is not only a son, but the only-begotten Son, according to what is said in John, chapter one9: We saw his glory as of the Only-begotten of the Father; but the Trinity has no only-begotten son, since it is compared equally to all: therefore it does not seem that Christ can be called the Son of the Trinity.

4. Likewise, filiation presupposes generation, and generation implies an agreement in nature and a distinction in supposit10; but this is impossible to find in Christ, neither according to the divine nature nor according to the human: therefore the aforesaid expression is in no way to be conceded.

Conclusion.

(Conclusion.) It is not conceded that Christ is the Son of the Trinity.

I respond: It must be said that among theologians, according to common usage, it is not admitted that Christ is the Son of the Trinity. But of this different men assign the reason in different ways.

(Reason according to opinion 1.) For some have wished to say that this is on account of the property of filiation, which regards the person and the hypostasis: and since the hypostasis of the Son of God, or his eternal person, neither has nor draws its origin from the whole Trinity, but only from the person of the Father: hence it is that, although in Christ a human nature created by the whole Trinity is to be found, it is not11 to be conceded that Christ is the Son of the whole Trinity, on account of the repugnance which is found in the hypostasis, that is, the person, which is eternal. — (Does it satisfy?) But if this reason be considered inwardly, it does not seem of great efficacy, because, although the hypostasis of Christ is eternal, nothing nevertheless prevents him from being called the Son of the Virgin by reason of the assumed nature. If therefore the respect of filiation can arise in that hypostasis in comparison to the Mother, from whom that nature was drawn, why can it not arise with respect to the whole Trinity, by which it was made? And therefore from the side of the property of filiation and of the eternity of the hypostasis it does not seem that an efficacious reason can be taken for the repudiation of the aforesaid expression.

(According to opinion 2.) And therefore there is another manner of speaking, namely that the aforesaid expression is not received, because it approaches an error. For since Christ is the only-begotten Son of God the Father, it is not received that he is the Son of the Trinity simply, on account of the fact that such an expression approaches the error of (The error of Sabellius.) Sabellius, who held that the property of fatherhood can fittingly be attributed to any one of the three persons. Nor is it received that he is the Son of the whole Trinity by creation, because such an expression approaches the error of (The error of Arius.) Arius, who held that Christ is a pure creature. Nor is it received that he is the Son of the whole Trinity by grace; because such an expression approaches the error of (The error of Nestorius.) Nestorius, who held in Christ two natures and two persons, namely the divine and the human; and as regards the human person he called Christ the Son of God by grace. Therefore the aforesaid expression in every way approaches the impiety of error12: and therefore it is rejected by those who are skilled in sacred Scripture. — (To be noted.) Hence the reasons for this side are to be conceded, although they do not greatly compel.

(Solution of the opposing arguments.) 1. To that which is objected, that the whole Trinity possessed and made and created according to the human nature; it must be said that the Trinity13 made other men simply according to all their nature; but Christ it did not make simply according to all his nature, because according to the divine nature the Father alone begot him; and therefore it is not alike in the case of Christ and other men. For although other men can be called creatures of God, this nevertheless is not received concerning Christ, as will be seen better below14.

2. To that which is objected, that we are brothers of Christ; it must be said that from this it does not follow that Christ is the Son of the whole Trinity, but that we are called sons of God the Father through him, although « we by grace, but he by nature », as Gregory says upon that text: I ascend to my Father and your Father, John, chapter twenty15.

3. To that which is objected, that the three persons are related to the assumed nature16 indifferently; it must be said that this is true; but they are not so related indifferently with respect to the assuming person, because it has one respect to the person of the Father and another to the person of the Holy Spirit. But when Christ is said to be the Son of God the Father, this is said more with respect to the assuming nature than to the assumed; which is clear, because he is called the only-begotten and natural Son of the Father. And therefore that reasoning does not compel, because it proceeds from an insufficient ground.

4. To that which is objected, that the Father is not called father only with respect to the Son, but also of others, of which he is the cause and principle in time; it must be said that just as the Father, from the fact that he adopts certain ones in time, is called their father in time, so also Christ by temporal generation can be called the son of the Virgin; nevertheless it cannot be concluded that he is the Son of the whole Trinity. For it is not alike. For no confusion of properties is incurred, nor is any prejudice done to the truth, nor is any error approached, if the Father is said to be the father of the Son only by generation, and of others by creation; but it is not so when17 Christ is said to be the Son of the whole Trinity. For if it be understood by generation, we fall into the error of Sabellius; if by creation, we approach the error of Arius; if only by the gratification of adoption, the error of Nestorius.

5. To that which is objected concerning the supreme, the middle, and the lowest nature, the response is already clear through the foregoing, because, since that one18 is created, no filiation of anyone is received concerning Christ by reason of it. — (Otherwise.) It can nevertheless be said that it is not alike concerning the extreme substances and the middle, because both by reason of the divine substance and by reason of the flesh he is begotten and is assimilated to his producing principle, namely to the Father and to the Mother: to the Father in deity, and to the Mother in humanity; but it is not so by reason of the soul; and therefore it is not alike.

6. To that which is objected last concerning absolute properties,

that they do not make a confusion; it must be said that it is not alike, because those properties principally regard nature, such as to be passible and immortal19; but filiation regards the hypostasis itself, around which there have been many errors, which the aforesaid expression seems to approach; and therefore, although those are received by catholic men as catholic, this is rejected as contrary to the Christian faith20.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Cap. 32, 6. — Verba ad maiorem evidentiam praedictorum desunt in edd.
    Chapter 32, 6. — The words for the greater clarity of the foregoing are wanting in the editions.
  2. Vers. 29. — Glossa, quae est ordinaria et secundum August., Expos. quarundam propos. ex Epist. ad Rom. propos. 56, habetur apud Petr. Lombard. et apud Lyran. in hunc loc. — In Glossa pro unigenitus, quae est lectio originalis, plurimi codd. cum edd. 1, 2 divinitus, codd. P Q deitatis, Vat. Deus.
    Verse 29. — The Gloss, which is the Ordinary and is from Augustine, Exposition of Certain Propositions from the Epistle to the Romans, proposition 56, is found in Peter Lombard and in Lyra on this passage. — In the Gloss, for only-begotten, which is the original reading, very many codices with editions 1, 2 read divinely, codices P Q of the deity, the Vatican edition God.
  3. Cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. I. c. 3. — In fine arg. codd. omittunt pater.
    Cf. above, the letter of the Master, d. I, c. 3. — At the end of the argument the codices omit father.
  4. Cfr. Eph. 4, 6. August., Enarrat. in Ps. 26. enarrat. 2. n. 18: Pater est, quia condidit, quia vocat, quia iubet, quia regit. — Paulo inferius post naturam cod. U addit humanam.
    Cf. Eph. 4, 6. Augustine, Enarration on Psalm 26, enarration 2, n. 18: He is Father, because he founded, because he calls, because he commands, because he rules. — A little below, after nature, codex U adds human.
  5. Cfr. supra pag. 19, nota 4.
    Cf. above, p. 19, note 4.
  6. Vide supra pag. 14, nota 3.
    See above, p. 14, note 3.
  7. Cap. 10. n. 18. Verba integra habes supra pag. 100, nota 9, ubi pro Trinitatis filius legitur Spiritus sancti filius, quae lectio pro nostro arg. ceu clarior praeferenda esset.
    Chapter 10, n. 18. You have the words in full above, p. 100, note 9, where for son of the Trinity is read son of the Holy Spirit, which reading, as clearer, ought to be preferred for our argument.
  8. Cfr. I. Sent. d. 26. q. 1. seqq. — De minori vide infra d. 5. a. 2. q. 2. et d. 6. a. 1. q. 2.
    Cf. I Sent., d. 26, q. 1 ff. — On the minor [premise] see below, d. 5, a. 2, q. 2, and d. 6, a. 1, q. 2.
  9. Vers. 14.
    Verse 14.
  10. Vide tom. II. pag. 479, nota 1. — Paulo inferius post secundum humanam Vat. supplet respectu totius Trinitatis.
    See vol. II, p. 479, note 1. — A little below, after according to the human, the Vatican edition supplies with respect to the whole Trinity.
  11. Cod. K (a secunda manu) et edd. subdunt tamen.
    Codex K (by a second hand) and the editions add below however.
  12. Vat. praedictus omnino errori impietatis. Paulo inferius post ad hanc partem cod. A adiungit inductae.
    The Vatican edition reads the aforesaid [expression] wholly [approaches] the error of impiety. A little below, after for this side, codex A adds adduced.
  13. Codd. K U Z tota Trinitas.
    Codices K U Z read the whole Trinity.
  14. Dist. 11. a. 2. q. 1.
    Distinction 11, a. 2, q. 1.
  15. Libr. II. Homil. in Evang. homil. 25. n. 6. Locus e vigesimo cap. Evang. Ioan. allegatus est vers. 17. Cfr. infra d. 10. a. 2. q. 1. seqq. — Paulo superius pro sed quod cod. T secundum quod.
    Book II of the Homilies on the Gospels, homily 25, n. 6. The passage adduced from the twentieth chapter of the Gospel of John is verse 17. Cf. below, d. 10, a. 2, q. 1 ff. — A little above, for but that codex T reads according to that.
  16. Plurimi codd. cum edd. 1, 2 perperam personam. Paulo inferius pro Cum autem cod. N Cum ergo. Subinde post quia dicitur codd. E F N T U V X subiiciunt esse.
    Very many codices with editions 1, 2 wrongly read person. A little below, for But when codex N reads When therefore. Then after because it is said codices E F N T U V X add to be.
  17. In edd. et nonnullis codd. desideratur cum.
    In the editions and some codices when is wanting.
  18. Scil. natura media i. e. anima. — Mox pro alicuius, nempe totius Trinitatis, edd. aliqua, et in fine solut. de ratione animae pro ratione animae. Paulo superius sola Vat. extremis ei media pro extremis ad mediam.
    Namely the middle nature, i.e. the soul. — Soon, for of anyone, namely of the whole Trinity, some editions, and at the end of the solution of the account of the soul for by reason of the soul. A little above, the Vatican edition alone reads to the extremes and the middle for the extremes to the middle.
  19. Cod. K et edd. 1, 2 mortalem. Paulo inferius pro viris catholicis Vat. viris theologis.
    Codex K and editions 1, 2 read mortal. A little below, for catholic men the Vatican edition reads theological men.
  20. Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.
    See the scholion on the preceding question.
← Dist. 4, Art. 1, Q. 2Dist. 4, Art. 2, Q. 1→