Articulus 4 Article 4 Utrum liceat contrarie opinari de notionibus Whether it is lawful to have various contrary opinions of notions? Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non liceat contrarie opinari de notionibus. Dicit enim Augustinus, in I de Trin., quod non erratur alicubi periculosius quam in materia Trinitatis, ad quam certum est notiones pertinere. Sed contrariae opiniones non possunt esse absque errore. Ergo contrarie opinari circa notiones non licet. Objection 1: It would seem that it is not lawful to have various contrary opinions of the notions. For Augustine says (De Trin. i, 3): No error is more dangerous than any as regards the Trinity: to which mystery the notions assuredly belong. But contrary opinions must be in some way erroneous. Therefore it is not right to have contrary opinions of the notions. Praeterea, per notiones cognoscuntur personae, ut dictum est. Sed circa personas non licet contrarie opinari. Ergo nec circa notiones. Obj. 2: Further, the persons are known by the notions. But no contrary opinion concerning the persons is to be tolerated. Therefore neither can there be about the notions. Sed contra, articuli fidei non sunt de notionibus. Ergo circa notiones licet sic vel aliter opinari. On the contrary, The notions are not articles of faith. Therefore different opinions of the notions are permissible. Respondeo dicendum quod ad fidem pertinet aliquid dupliciter. Uno modo, directe; sicut ea quae nobis sunt principaliter divinitus tradita, ut Deum esse trinum et unum, filium Dei esse incarnatum, et huiusmodi. Et circa haec opinari falsum, hoc ipso inducit haeresim, maxime si pertinacia adiungatur. Indirecte vero ad fidem pertinent ea ex quibus consequitur aliquid contrarium fidei; sicut si quis diceret Samuelem non fuisse filium Elcanae; ex hoc enim sequitur Scripturam divinam esse falsam. Circa huiusmodi ergo absque periculo haeresis aliquis falsum potest opinari, antequam consideretur, vel determinatum sit, quod ex hoc sequitur aliquid contrarium fidei, et maxime si non pertinaciter adhaereat. Sed postquam manifestum est, et praecipue si sit per Ecclesiam determinatum, quod ex hoc sequitur aliquid contrarium fidei, in hoc errare non esset absque haeresi. Et propter hoc, multa nunc reputantur haeretica, quae prius non reputabantur, propter hoc quod nunc est magis manifestum quid ex eis sequatur. I answer that, Anything is of faith in two ways; directly, where any truth comes to us principally as divinely taught, as the trinity and unity of God, the Incarnation of the Son, and the like; and concerning these truths a false opinion of itself involves heresy, especially if it be held obstinately. A thing is of faith, indirectly, if the denial of it involves as a consequence something against faith; as for instance if anyone said that Samuel was not the son of Elcana, for it follows that the divine Scripture would be false. Concerning such things anyone may have a false opinion without danger of heresy, before the matter has been considered or settled as involving consequences against faith, and particularly if no obstinacy be shown; whereas when it is manifest, and especially if the Church has decided that consequences follow against faith, then the error cannot be free from heresy. For this reason many things are now considered as heretical which were formerly not so considered, as their consequences are now more manifest. Sic igitur dicendum est quod circa notiones aliqui absque periculo haeresis contrarie sunt opinati, non intendentes sustinere aliquid contrarium fidei. Sed si quis falsum opinaretur circa notiones, considerans quod ex hoc sequatur aliquid contrarium fidei, in haeresim laberetur. So we must decide that anyone may entertain contrary opinions about the notions, if he does not mean to uphold anything at variance with faith. If, however, anyone should entertain a false opinion of the notions, knowing or thinking that consequences against the faith would follow, he would lapse into heresy. Et per hoc patet responsio ad obiecta. By what has been said all the objections may be solved. Quaestio 33 Question 33 De persona Patris The Person of the Father Consequenter considerandum est de personis in speciali. Et primo de persona patris. Circa quam quaeruntur quatuor. We now consider the persons singly; and first, the Person of the Father, concerning Whom there are four points of inquiry: Primo, utrum patri competat esse principium. (1) Whether the Father is the Principle? Secundo, utrum persona patris proprie significetur hoc nomine pater. (2) Whether the person of the Father is properly signified by this name Father? Tertio, utrum per prius dicatur in divinis pater secundum quod sumitur personaliter, quam secundum quod sumitur essentialiter. (3) Whether Father in God is said personally before it is said essentially? Quarto, utrum sit proprium patri esse ingenitum. (4) Whether it belongs to the Father alone to be unbegotten? Articulus 1 Article 1 Utrum pater possit dici principium filii vel spiritus sancti Whether it belongs to the Father to be the principle of the Son or of the Holy Spirit? Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod pater non possit dici principium filii vel spiritus sancti. Principium enim et causa idem sunt, secundum Philosophum. Sed non dicimus patrem esse causam filii. Ergo non debet dici quod sit eius principium. Objection 1: It would seem that the Father cannot be called the principle of the Son, or of the Holy Spirit. For principle and cause are the same, according to the Philosopher (Metaph. iv). But we do not say that the Father is the cause of the Son. Therefore we must not say that He is the principle of the Son. Praeterea, principium dicitur respectu principiati. Si igitur pater est principium filii, sequitur filium esse principiatum, et per consequens esse creatum. Quod videtur esse erroneum. Obj. 2: Further, a principle is so called in relation to the thing principled. So if the Father is the principle of the Son, it follows that the Son is a person principled, and is therefore created; which appears false. Praeterea, nomen principii a prioritate sumitur. Sed in divinis non est prius et posterius, ut Athanasius dicit. Ergo in divinis non debemus uti nomine principii. Obj. 3: Further, the word principle is taken from priority. But in God there is no before and after, as Athanasius says. Therefore in speaking of God we ought not to use the term ‘principle’. Sed contra est quod dicit Augustinus, in IV de Trin., pater est principium totius deitatis. On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. iv, 20), The Father is the Principle of the whole Deity. Respondeo dicendum quod hoc nomen principium nihil aliud significat quam id a quo aliquid procedit, omne enim a quo aliquid procedit quocumque modo, dicimus esse principium; et e converso. Cum ergo pater sit a quo procedit alius, sequitur quod pater est principium. I answer that, The word principle signifies only that whence another proceeds: since anything whence something proceeds in any way we call a principle; and conversely. As the Father then is the one whence another proceeds, it follows that the Father is a principle. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Graeci utuntur in divinis indifferenter nomine causae, sicut et nomine principii, sed Latini doctores non utuntur nomine causae, sed solum nomine principii. Cuius ratio est, quia principium communius est quam causa, sicut causa communius quam elementum, primus enim terminus, vel etiam prima pars rei dicitur principium, sed non causa. Reply Obj. 1: The Greeks use the words cause and principle indifferently, when speaking of God; whereas the Latin Doctors do not use the word cause, but only principle. The reason is because principle is a wider term than cause; as cause is more common than element. For the first term of a thing, as also the first part, is called the principle, but not the cause. Quanto autem aliquod nomen est communius, tanto convenientius assumitur in divinis, ut supra dictum est, quia nomina, quanto magis specialia sunt, tanto magis determinant modum convenientem creaturae. Unde hoc nomen causa videtur importare diversitatem substantiae, et dependentiam alicuius ab altero; quam non importat nomen principii. In omnibus enim causae generibus, semper invenitur distantia inter causam et id cuius est causa, secundum aliquam perfectionem aut virtutem. Sed nomine principii utimur etiam in his quae nullam huiusmodi differentiam habent, sed solum secundum quendam ordinem, sicut cum dicimus punctum esse principium lineae, vel etiam cum dicimus primam partem lineae esse principium lineae. Now the wider a term is, the more suitable it is to use as regards God (Q. 13, A. 11), because the more special terms are, the more they determine the mode adapted to the creature. Hence this term cause seems to mean diversity of substance, and dependence of one from another; which is not implied in the word principle. For in all kinds of causes there is always to be found between the cause and the effect a distance of perfection or of power: whereas we use the term principle even in things which have no such difference, but have only a certain order to each other; as when we say that a point is the principle of a line; or also when we say that the first part of a line is the principle of a line. Ad secundum dicendum quod apud Graecos invenitur de filio vel spiritu sancto dici quod principientur. Sed hoc non est in usu doctorum nostrorum. Quia licet attribuamus patri aliquid auctoritatis ratione principii, nihil tamen ad subiectionem vel minorationem quocumque modo pertinens, attribuimus filio vel spiritui sancto, ut vitetur omnis erroris occasio. Secundum quem modum Hilarius dicit, IX de Trin., donantis auctoritate pater maior est; sed minor non est filius, cui unum esse donatur. Reply Obj. 2: It is the custom with the Greeks to say that the Son and the Holy Spirit are principled. This is not, however, the custom with our Doctors; because, although we attribute to the Father something of authority by reason of His being the principle, still we do not attribute any kind of subjection or inferiority to the Son, or to the Holy Spirit, to avoid any occasion of error. In this way, Hilary says (De Trin. ix): By authority of the Giver, the Father is the greater; nevertheless the Son is not less to Whom oneness of nature is give. Ad tertium dicendum quod, licet hoc nomen principium, quantum ad id a quo imponitur ad significandum, videatur a prioritate sumptum; non tamen significat prioritatem, sed originem. Non enim idem est quod significat nomen, et a quo nomen imponitur, ut supra dictum est. Reply Obj. 3: Although this word ‘principle’, as regards its derivation, seems to be taken from priority, still it does not signify priority, but origin. For what a term signifies, and the reason why it was imposed, are not the same thing, as stated above (Q. 13, A. 8). Articulus 2 Article 2 Utrum hoc nomen pater sit proprie nomen divinae personae Whether this name ‘Father’ is properly the name of a divine person? Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod hoc nomen pater non sit proprie nomen divinae personae. Hoc enim nomen pater significat relationem. Persona autem est substantia individua. Non ergo hoc nomen pater est proprie nomen significativum personae. Objection 1: It would seem that this name Father is not properly the name of a divine person. For the name Father signifies relation. Moreover person is an individual substance. Therefore this name Father is not properly a name signifying a Person. Praeterea, generans communius est quam pater, nam omnis pater est generans, sed non e converso. Sed nomen communius magis proprie dicitur in divinis, ut dictum est. Ergo magis proprium nomen est personae divinae generans et genitor, quam pater. Obj. 2: Further, a begetter is more common than father; for every father begets; but it is not so conversely. But a more common term is more properly applied to God, as stated above (Q. 13, A. 11). Therefore the more proper name of the divine person is begetter and genitor than Father. Praeterea, nihil quod secundum metaphoram dicitur, potest esse nomen proprium alicuius. Sed verbum metaphorice apud nos dicitur genitum vel proles, et per consequens ille cuius est verbum, metaphorice dicitur pater. Non ergo principium verbi in divinis potest proprie dici pater. Obj. 3: Further, a metaphorical term cannot be the proper name of anyone. But the word is by us metaphorically called begotten, or offspring; and consequently, he of whom is the word, is metaphorically called father. Therefore the principle of the Word in God is not properly called Father. Praeterea, omne quod proprie dicitur in divinis, per prius dicitur de Deo quam de creaturis. Sed generatio per prius videtur dici de creaturis quam de Deo, verior enim ibi videtur esse generatio, ubi aliquid procedit ab alio distinctum non secundum relationem tantum, sed etiam secundum essentiam. Ergo nomen patris, quod a generatione sumitur, non videtur esse proprium alicuius divinae personae. Obj. 4: Further, everything which is said properly of God, is said of God first before creatures. But generation appears to apply to creatures before God; because generation seems to be truer when the one who proceeds is distinct from the one whence it proceeds, not only by relation but also by essence. Therefore the name Father taken from generation does not seem to be the proper name of any divine person. Sed contra est quod dicitur in Psalmo, ipse invocabit me, pater meus es tu. On the contrary, It is said (Ps 88:27): He shall cry out to me: Thou art my Father. Respondeo dicendum quod nomen proprium cuiuslibet personae significat id per quod illa persona distinguitur ab omnibus aliis. Sicut enim de ratione hominis est anima et corpus, ita de intellectu huius hominis est haec anima et hoc corpus, ut dicitur in VII Metaphys.; his autem hic homo ab omnibus aliis distinguitur. Id autem per quod distinguitur persona patris ab omnibus aliis, est paternitas. Unde proprium nomen personae patris est hoc nomen pater, quod significat paternitatem. I answer that, The proper name of any person signifies that whereby the person is distinguished from all other persons. For as body and soul belong to the nature of man, so to the concept of this particular man belong this particular soul and this particular body; and by these is this particular man distinguished from all other men. Now it is paternity which distinguishes the person of the Father from all other persons. Hence this name Father, whereby paternity is signified, is the proper name of the person of the Father. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod apud nos relatio non est subsistens persona, et ideo hoc nomen pater, apud nos, non significat personam, sed relationem personae. Non autem est ita in divinis, ut quidam falso opinati sunt, nam relatio quam significat hoc nomen pater, est subsistens persona. Unde supra dictum est quod hoc nomen persona in divinis significat relationem ut subsistentem in divina natura. Reply Obj. 1: Among us relation is not a subsisting person. So this name father among us does not signify a person, but the relation of a person. In God, however, it is not so, as some wrongly thought; for in God the relation signified by the name Father is a subsisting person. Hence, as above explained (Q. 29, A. 4), this name person in God signifies a relation subsisting in the divine nature. Ad secundum dicendum quod, secundum Philosophum, in II de anima, denominatio rei maxime debet fieri a perfectione et fine. Generatio autem significat ut in fieri, sed paternitas significat complementum generationis. Et ideo potius est nomen divinae personae pater, quam generans vel genitor. Reply Obj. 2: According to the Philosopher (De Anima ii, 49), a thing is denominated chiefly by its perfection, and by its end. Now generation signifies something in process of being made, whereas paternity signifies the complement of generation; and therefore the name Father is more expressive as regards the divine person than genitor or begettor.