Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, secundum Philosophum in III Physic., argumentum illud tenet, quod quaecumque uni et eidem sunt eadem, sibi invicem sunt eadem, in his quae sunt idem re et ratione, sicut tunica et indumentum, non autem in his quae differunt ratione. Unde ibidem dicit quod, licet actio sit idem motui, similiter et passio, non tamen sequitur quod actio et passio sint idem, quia in actione importatur respectus ut a quo est motus in mobili, in passione vero ut qui est ab alio. Et similiter, licet paternitas sit idem secundum rem cum essentia divina, et similiter filiatio, tamen haec duo in suis propriis rationibus important oppositos respectus. Unde distinguuntur ab invicem. Reply Obj. 1: According to the Philosopher (Phys. iii), this argument holds, that whatever things are identified with the same thing are identified with each other, if the identity be real and logical; as, for instance, a tunic and a garment; but not if they differ logically. Hence in the same place he says that although action is the same as motion, and likewise passion; still it does not follow that action and passion are the same; because action implies reference as of something from which there is motion in the thing moved; whereas passion implies reference as of something which is from another. Likewise, although paternity, just as filiation, is really the same as the divine essence; nevertheless these two in their own proper idea and definitions import opposite respects. Hence they are distinguished from each other. Ad secundum dicendum quod potentia et bonitas non important in suis rationibus aliquam oppositionem, unde non est similis ratio. Reply Obj. 2: Power and goodness do not import any opposition in their respective natures; and hence there is no parallel argument. Ad tertium dicendum quod, quamvis relationes, proprie loquendo, non oriantur vel procedant ab invicem, tamen accipiuntur per oppositum secundum processionem alicuius ab alio. Reply Obj. 3: Although relations, properly speaking, do not arise or proceed from each other, nevertheless they are considered as opposed according to the procession of one from another. Articulus 4 Article 4 Utrum in Deo sint tantum quatuor relationes reales, scilicet paternitas, filiatio, spiratio et processio Whether in God there are only four real relations—paternity, filiation, spiration, and procession? Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod in Deo non sint tantum quatuor relationes reales, scilicet paternitas, filiatio, spiratio et processio. Est enim considerare in Deo relationes intelligentis ad intellectum, et volentis ad volitum, quae videntur esse relationes reales, neque sub praedictis continentur. Non ergo sunt solum quatuor relationes reales in Deo. Objection 1: It would seem that in God there are not only four real relations—paternity, filiation, spiration and procession. For it must be observed that in God there exist the relations of the intelligent agent to the object understood; and of the one willing to the object willed; which are real relations not comprised under those above specified. Therefore there are not only four real relations in God. Praeterea, relationes reales accipiuntur in Deo secundum processionem intelligibilem verbi. Sed relationes intelligibiles multiplicantur in infinitum, ut Avicenna dicit. Ergo in Deo sunt infinitae relationes reales. Obj. 2: Further, real relations in God are understood as coming from the intelligible procession of the Word. But intelligible relations are infinitely multiplied, as Avicenna says. Therefore in God there exists an infinite series of real relations. Praeterea, ideae sunt in Deo ab aeterno, ut supra dictum est. Non autem distinguuntur ab invicem nisi secundum respectum ad res, ut supra dictum est. Ergo in Deo sunt multo plures relationes aeternae. Obj. 3: Further, ideas in God are eternal (Q. 15, A. 1); and are only distinguished from each other by reason of their regard to things, as above stated. Therefore in God there are many more eternal relations. Praeterea, aequalitas et similitudo et identitas sunt relationes quaedam; et sunt in Deo ab aeterno. Ergo plures relationes sunt ab aeterno in Deo, quam quae dictae sunt. Obj. 4: Further, equality, and likeness, and identity are relations: and they are in God from eternity. Therefore several more relations are eternal in God than the above named. Sed contra, videtur quod sint pauciores. Quia secundum Philosophum, in III Physic., eadem via est de Athenis ad Thebas, et de Thebis ad Athenas. Ergo videtur quod pari ratione eadem sit relatio de patre ad filium, quae dicitur paternitas, et de filio ad patrem, quae dicitur filiatio. Et sic non sunt quatuor relationes in Deo. On the contrary, it may also be said that there are fewer relations in God than those above named. For, according to the Philosopher (Phys. iii 24), It is the same way from Athens to Thebes, as from Thebes to Athens. By the same way of reasoning there is the same relation from the Father to the Son, that of paternity, and from the Son to the Father, that of filiation; and thus there are not four relations in God. Respondeo dicendum quod, secundum Philosophum, in V Metaphys., relatio omnis fundatur vel supra quantitatem, ut duplum et dimidium; vel supra actionem et passionem, ut faciens et factum, pater et filius, dominus et servus, et huiusmodi. Cum autem quantitas non sit in Deo (est enim sine quantitate magnus, ut dicit Augustinus), relinquitur ergo quod realis relatio in Deo esse non possit, nisi super actionem fundata. Non autem super actiones secundum quas procedit aliquid extrinsecum a Deo, quia relationes Dei ad creaturas non sunt realiter in ipso, ut supra dictum est. Unde relinquitur quod relationes reales in Deo non possunt accipi, nisi secundum actiones secundum quas est processio in Deo, non extra, sed intra. I answer that, According to the Philosopher (Metaph. v), every relation is based either on quantity, as double and half; or on action and passion, as the doer and the deed, the father and the son, the master and the servant, and the like. Now as there is no quantity in God, for He is great without quantity, as Augustine says (De Trin. i, 1), it follows that a real relation in God can be based only on action. Such relations are not based on the actions of God according to any extrinsic procession, forasmuch as the relations of God to creatures are not real in Him (Q. 13, A. 7). Hence, it follows that real relations in God can be understood only in regard to those actions according to which there are internal, and not external, processions in God. Huiusmodi autem processiones sunt duae tantum, ut supra dictum est, quarum una accipitur secundum actionem intellectus, quae est processio verbi; alia secundum actionem voluntatis, quae est processio amoris. Secundum quamlibet autem processionem oportet duas accipere relationes oppositas, quarum una sit procedentis a principio, et alia ipsius principii. Processio autem verbi dicitur generatio, secundum propriam rationem qua competit rebus viventibus. Relatio autem principii generationis in viventibus perfectis dicitur paternitas, relatio vero procedentis a principio dicitur filiatio. Processio vero amoris non habet nomen proprium, ut supra dictum est, unde neque relationes quae secundum ipsam accipiuntur. Sed vocatur relatio principii huius processionis spiratio; relatio autem procedentis, processio; quamvis haec duo nomina ad ipsas processiones vel origines pertineant, et non ad relationes. These processions are two only, as above explained (Q. 27, A. 5), one derived from the action of the intellect, the procession of the Word; and the other from the action of the will, the procession of love. In respect of each of these processions two opposite relations arise; one of which is the relation of the person proceeding from the principle; the other is the relation of the principle Himself. The procession of the Word is called generation in the proper sense of the term, whereby it is applied to living things. Now the relation of the principle of generation in perfect living beings is called paternity; and the relation of the one proceeding from the principle is called filiation. But the procession of Love has no proper name of its own (Q. 27, A. 4); and so neither have the ensuing relations a proper name of their own. The relation of the principle of this procession is called spiration; and the relation of the person proceeding is called procession: although these two names belong to the processions or origins themselves, and not to the relations. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod in his in quibus differt intellectus et intellectum, volens et volitum, potest esse realis relatio et scientiae ad rem scitam, et volentis ad rem volitam. Sed in Deo est idem omnino intellectus et intellectum, quia intelligendo se intelligit omnia alia, et eadem ratione voluntas et volitum. Unde in Deo huiusmodi relationes non sunt reales, sicut neque relatio eiusdem ad idem. Sed tamen relatio ad verbum est realis, quia verbum intelligitur ut procedens per actionem intelligibilem, non autem ut res intellecta. Cum enim intelligimus lapidem, id quod ex re intellecta concipit intellectus, vocatur verbum. Reply Obj. 1: In those things in which there is a difference between the intellect and its object, and the will and its object, there can be a real relation, both of science to its object, and of the willer to the object willed. In God, however, the intellect and its object are one and the same; because by understanding Himself, God understands all other things; and the same applies to His will and the object that He wills. Hence it follows that in God these kinds of relations are not real; as neither is the relation of a thing to itself. Nevertheless, the relation to the word is a real relation; because the word is understood as proceeding by an intelligible action; and not as a thing understood. For when we understand a stone, that which the intellect conceives from the thing understood, is called the word. Ad secundum dicendum quod in nobis relationes intelligibiles in infinitum multiplicantur, quia alio actu intelligit homo lapidem, et alio actu intelligit se intelligere lapidem, et alio etiam intelligit hoc intelligere, et sic in infinitum multiplicantur actus intelligendi, et per consequens relationes intellectae. Sed hoc in Deo non habet locum, quia uno actu tantum omnia intelligit. Reply Obj. 2: Intelligible relations in ourselves are infinitely multiplied, because a man understands a stone by one act, and by another act understands that he understands the stone, and again by another, understands that he understands this; thus the acts of understanding are infinitely multiplied, and consequently also the relations understood. This does not apply to God, inasmuch as He understands all things by one act alone. Ad tertium dicendum quod respectus ideales sunt ut intellecti a Deo. Unde ex eorum pluralitate non sequitur quod sint plures relationes in Deo, sed quod Deus cognoscat plures relationes. Reply Obj. 3: Ideal relations exist as understood by God. Hence it does not follow from their plurality that there are many relations in God; but that God knows these many relations. Ad quartum dicendum quod aequalitas et similitudo in Deo non sunt relationes reales, sed rationis tantum, ut infra patebit. Reply Obj. 4: Equality and similitude in God are not real relations; but are only logical relations (Q. 42, A. 3, ad 4). Ad quintum dicendum quod via est eadem ab uno termino ad alterum, et e converso; sed tamen respectus sunt diversi. Unde ex hoc non potest concludi quod eadem sit relatio patris ad filium, et e converso, sed posset hoc concludi de aliquo absoluto, si esset medium inter ea. Reply Obj. 5: The way from one term to another and conversely is the same; nevertheless the mutual relations are not the same. Hence, we cannot conclude that the relation of the father to the son is the same as that of the son to the father; but we could conclude this of something absolute, if there were such between them. Quaestio 29 Question 29 De personis divinis The Divine Persons Praemissis autem his quae de processionibus et relationibus praecognoscenda videbantur, necessarium est aggredi de personis. Having premised what have appeared necessary notions concerning the processions and the relations, we must now approach the subject of the persons. Et primo, secundum considerationem absolutam; et deinde secundum comparativam considerationem. First, we shall consider the persons absolutely, and then comparatively as regards each other. Oportet autem absolute de personis, primo quidem in communi considerare; deinde de singulis personis. We must consider the persons absolutely first in common; and then singly. Ad communem autem considerationem personarum quatuor pertinere videntur, primo quidem, significatio huius nominis persona; secundo vero, numerus personarum; tertio, ea quae consequuntur numerum personarum, vel ei opponuntur, ut diversitas et solitudo, et huiusmodi; quarto vero, ea quae pertinent ad notitiam personarum. The general consideration of the persons seemingly involves four points: (1) The signification of this word person; (2) the number of the persons; (3) what is involved in the number of persons, or is opposed thereto; as diversity, and similitude, and the like; and (4) what belongs to our knowledge of the persons. Circa primum quaeruntur quatuor. Four subjects of inquiry are comprised in the first point: Primo, de definitione personae. (1) The definition of person. Secundo, de comparatione personae ad essentiam, subsistentiam et hypostasim. (2) The comparison of person to essence, subsistence, and hypostasis. Tertio, utrum nomen personae competat in divinis. (3) Whether the name of person is becoming to God? Quarto, quid ibi significet. (4) What does it signify in Him? Articulus 1 Article 1 Utrum incompetens sit definitio personae quam Boetius assignat, quae talis est, persona est rationalis naturae individua substantia Whether Boethius' definition of a person is unfitting: "a person is an individual substance of a rational nature"? Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod incompetens sit definitio personae quam Boetius assignat in libro de duabus naturis, quae talis est, persona est rationalis naturae individua substantia. Nullum enim singulare definitur. Sed persona significat quoddam singulare. Ergo persona inconvenienter definitur. Objection 1: It would seem that the definition of person given by Boethius (De Duab. Nat.) is insufficient—that is, a person is an individual substance of a rational nature. For nothing singular can be subject to definition. But person signifies something singular. Therefore person is improperly defined. Praeterea, substantia, prout ponitur in definitione personae, aut sumitur pro substantia prima, aut pro substantia secunda. Si pro substantia prima, superflue additur individua, quia substantia prima est substantia individua. Si vero stat pro substantia secunda, falso additur, et est oppositio in adiecto, nam secundae substantiae dicuntur genera vel species. Ergo definitio est male assignata. Obj. 2: Further, substance as placed above in the definition of person, is either first substance, or second substance. If it is the former, the word individual is superfluous, because first substance is individual substance; if it stands for second substance, the word individual is false, for there is contradiction of terms; since second substances are the genera or species. Therefore this definition is incorrect. Praeterea, nomen intentionis non debet poni in definitione rei. Non enim esset bona assignatio, si quis diceret, homo est species animalis, homo enim est nomen rei, et species est nomen intentionis. Cum igitur persona sit nomen rei (significat enim substantiam quandam rationalis naturae), inconvenienter individuum, quod est nomen intentionis, in eius definitione ponitur. Obj. 3: Further, an intentional term must not be included in the definition of a thing. For to define a man as a species of animal would not be a correct definition; since man is the name of a thing, and species is a name of an intention. Therefore, since person is the name of a thing (for it signifies a substance of a rational nature), the word individual which is an intentional name comes improperly into the definition. Praeterea, natura est principium motus et quietis in eo in quo est per se et non per accidens, ut dicitur in II Physic. Sed persona est in rebus immobilibus, sicut in Deo et in angelis. Non ergo in definitione personae debuit poni natura, sed magis essentia. Obj. 4: Further, Nature is the principle of motion and rest, in those things in which it is essentially, and not accidentally, as Aristotle says (Phys. ii). But person exists in things immovable, as in God, and in the angels. Therefore the word nature ought not to enter into the definition of person, but the word should rather be essence. Praeterea, anima separata est rationalis naturae individua substantia. Non autem est persona. Inconvenienter ergo persona sic definitur. Obj. 5: Further, the separated soul is an individual substance of the rational nature; but it is not a person. Therefore person is not properly defined as above. Respondeo dicendum quod, licet universale et particulare inveniantur in omnibus generibus, tamen speciali quodam modo individuum invenitur in genere substantiae. Substantia enim individuatur per seipsam, sed accidentia individuantur per subiectum, quod est substantia, dicitur enim haec albedo, inquantum est in hoc subiecto. Unde etiam convenienter individua substantiae habent aliquod speciale nomen prae aliis, dicuntur enim hypostases, vel primae substantiae. I answer that, Although the universal and particular exist in every genus, nevertheless, in a certain special way, the individual belongs to the genus of substance. For substance is individualized by itself; whereas the accidents are individualized by the subject, which is the substance; since this particular whiteness is called this, because it exists in this particular subject. And so it is reasonable that the individuals of the genus substance should have a special name of their own; for they are called hypostases, or first substances.