Authors/Thomas Aquinas/Summa Theologiae/Part I/Q40

From The Logic Museum
Jump to navigationJump to search
←Q39 Q41→



Latin English
Iª q. 40 pr. Deinde quaeritur de personis in comparatione ad relationes sive proprietates. Et quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, utrum relatio sit idem quod persona. Secundo, utrum relationes distinguant et constituant personas. Tertio, utrum, abstractis per intellectum relationibus a personis, remaneant hypostases distinctae. Quarto, utrum relationes, secundum intellectum, praesupponant actus personarum, vel e converso.
Iª q. 40 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod in divinis non sit idem relatio quod persona. Quaecumque enim sunt idem, multiplicato uno eorum, multiplicatur et aliud. Sed contingit in una persona esse plures relationes, sicut in persona patris est paternitas et communis spiratio, et iterum unam relationem in duabus personis esse, sicut communis spiratio est in patre et filio. Ergo relatio non est idem quod persona. Objection 1. It would seem that in God relation is not the same as person. For when things are identical, if one is multiplied the others are multiplied. But in one person there are several relations; as in the person of the Father there is paternity and common spiration. Again, one relation exists in two person, as common spiration in the Father and in the Son. Therefore relation is not the same as person.
Iª q. 40 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, nihil est in seipso, secundum philosophum, in IV Physic. Sed relatio est in persona. Nec potest dici quod ratione identitatis, quia sic esset etiam in essentia. Ergo relatio sive proprietas et persona non sunt idem in divinis. Objection 2. Further, according to the Philosopher (Phys. iv, text. 24), nothing is contained by itself. But relation is in the person; nor can it be said that this occurs because they are identical, for otherwise relation would be also in the essence. Therefore relation, or property, is not the same as person in God.
Iª q. 40 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, quaecumque sunt idem, ita se habent, quod quidquid praedicatur de uno, praedicatur et de alio. Non autem quidquid praedicatur de persona, praedicatur de proprietate. Dicimus enim quod pater generat, sed non dicimus quod paternitas sit generans. Ergo proprietas non est idem quod persona in divinis. Objection 3. Further, when several things are identical, what is predicated of one is predicated of the others. But all that is predicated of a Person is not predicated of His property. For we say that the Father begets; but not that the paternity is begetting. Therefore property is not the same as person in God.
Iª q. 40 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra, in divinis non differt quod est et quo est, ut habetur a Boetio in libro de Hebd. Sed pater paternitate est pater. Ergo pater idem est quod paternitas. Et eadem ratione aliae proprietates idem sunt cum personis. On the contrary, in God "what is" and "whereby it is" are the same, according to Boethius (De Hebdom.). But the Father is Father by paternity. In the same way, the other properties are the same as the persons.
Iª q. 40 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod circa hoc aliqui diversimode opinati sunt. Quidam enim dixerunt proprietates neque esse personas, neque in personis. Qui fuerunt moti ex modo significandi relationum, quae quidem non significant ut in aliquo, sed magis ut ad aliquid. Unde dixerunt relationes esse assistentes, sicut supra expositum est. Sed quia relatio, secundum quod est quaedam res in divinis, est ipsa essentia; essentia autem idem est quod persona, ut ex dictis patet; oportet quod relatio sit idem quod persona. Hanc igitur identitatem alii considerantes, dixerunt proprietates quidem esse personas, non autem in personis, quia non ponebant proprietates in divinis nisi secundum modum loquendi, ut supra dictum est. Necesse est autem ponere proprietates in divinis, ut supra ostendimus. Quae quidem significantur in abstracto, ut quaedam formae personarum. Unde, cum de ratione formae sit, quod sit in eo cuius est forma, oportet dicere proprietates esse in personis, et eas tamen esse personas; sicut essentiam esse in Deo dicimus, quae tamen est Deus. I answer that, Different opinions have been held on this point. Some have said that the properties are not the persons, nor in the persons; and these have thought thus owing to the mode of signification of the relations, which do not indeed signify existence "in" something, but rather existence "towards" something. Whence, they styled the relations "assistant," as above explained (28, 2). But since relation, considered as really existing in God, is the divine essence Itself, and the essence is the same as person, as appears from what was said above (39, 1), relation must necessarily be the same as person. Others, therefore, considering this identity, said that the properties were indeed the persons; but not "in" the persons; for, they said, there are no properties in God except in our way of speaking, as stated above (32, 2). We must, however, say that there are properties in God; as we have shown (32, 2). These are designated by abstract terms, being forms, as it were, of the persons. So, since the nature of a form requires it to be "in" that of which it is the form, we must say that the properties are in the persons, and yet that they are the persons; as we say that the essence is in God, and yet is God.
Iª q. 40 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod persona et proprietas sunt idem re, differunt tamen secundum rationem. Unde non oportet quod, multiplicato uno, multiplicetur reliquum. Considerandum tamen est quod, propter divinam simplicitatem, consideratur duplex realis identitas in divinis eorum quae differunt in rebus creatis. Quia enim divina simplicitas excludit compositionem formae et materiae, sequitur quod in divinis idem est abstractum et concretum, ut deitas et Deus. Quia vero divina simplicitas excludit compositionem subiecti et accidentis, sequitur quod quidquid attribuitur Deo, est eius essentia, et propter hoc sapientia et virtus idem sunt in Deo, quia ambo sunt in divina essentia. Et secundum hanc duplicem rationem identitatis, proprietas in divinis est idem cum persona. Nam proprietates personales sunt idem cum personis, ea ratione qua abstractum est idem cum concreto. Sunt enim ipsae personae subsistentes; ut paternitas est ipse pater, et filiatio filius, et processio spiritus sanctus. Proprietates autem non personales sunt idem cum personis secundum aliam rationem identitatis, qua omne illud quod attribuitur Deo, est eius essentia. Sic igitur communis spiratio est idem cum persona patris et cum persona filii, non quod sit una persona per se subsistens; sed, sicut una essentia est in duabus personis, ita et una proprietas, ut supra dictum est. Reply to Objection 1. Person and property are really the same, but differ in concept. Consequently, it does not follow that if one is multiplied, the other must also be multiplied. We must, however, consider that in God, by reason of the divine simplicity, a twofold real identity exists as regards what in creatures are distinct. For, since the divine simplicity excludes the composition of matter and form, it follows that in God the abstract is the same as the concrete, as "Godhead" and "God." And as the divine simplicity excludes the composition of subject and accident, it follows that whatever is attributed to God, is His essence Itself; and so, wisdom and power are the same in God, because they are both in the divine essence. According to this twofold identity, property in God is the same person. For personal properties are the same as the persons because the abstract and the concrete are the same in God; since they are the subsisting persons themselves, as paternity is the Father Himself, and filiation is the Son, and procession is the Holy Ghost. But the non-personal properties are the same as the persons according to the other reason of identity, whereby whatever is attributed to God is His own essence. Thus, common spiration is the same as the person of the Father, and the person of the Son; not that it is one self-subsisting person; but that as there is one essence in the two persons, so also there is one property in the two persons, as above explained (30, 2).
Iª q. 40 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod proprietates dicuntur esse in essentia, per modum identitatis tantum. In personis autem dicuntur esse per modum identitatis, non quidem secundum rem tantum, sed quantum ad modum significandi, sicut forma in supposito. Et ideo proprietates determinant et distinguunt personas, non autem essentiam. Reply to Objection 2. The properties are said to be in the essence, only by mode of identity; but in the persons they exist by mode of identity, not merely in reality, but also in the mode of signification; as the form exists in its subject. Thus the properties determine and distinguish the persons, but not the essence.
Iª q. 40 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod participia et verba notionalia significant actus notionales. Actus autem suppositorum sunt. Proprietates autem non significantur ut supposita, sed ut formae suppositorum. Et ideo modus significandi repugnat, ut participia et verba notionalia de proprietatibus praedicentur. Reply to Objection 3. Notional participles and verbs signify the notional acts: and acts belong to a "suppositum." Now, properties are not designated as "supposita," but as forms of "supposita." And so their mode of signification is against notional participles and verbs being predicated of the properties.
Iª q. 40 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod personae non distinguantur per relationes. Simplicia enim seipsis distinguuntur. Sed personae divinae sunt maxime simplices. Ergo distinguuntur seipsis, et non relationibus. Objection 1. It would seem that the persons are not distinguished by the relations. For simple things are distinct by themselves. But the persons are supremely simple. Therefore they are distinguished by themselves, and not by the relation.
Iª q. 40 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, nulla forma distinguitur nisi secundum suum genus, non enim album a nigro distinguitur nisi secundum qualitatem. Sed hypostasis significat individuum in genere substantiae. Non ergo relationibus hypostases distingui possint. Objection 2. Further, a form is distinguished only in relation to its genus. For white is distinguished from black only by quality. But "hypostasis" signifies an individual in the genus of substance. Therefore the hypostases cannot be distinguished by relations.
Iª q. 40 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, absolutum est prius quam relativum. Sed prima distinctio est distinctio divinarum personarum. Ergo divinae personae non distinguuntur relationibus. Objection 3. Further, what is absolute comes before what is relative. But the distinction of the divine persons is the primary distinction. Therefore the divine persons are not distinguished by the relations.
Iª q. 40 a. 2 arg. 4 Praeterea, id quod praesupponit distinctionem, non potest esse primum distinctionis principium. Sed relatio praesupponit distinctionem, cum in eius definitione ponatur, esse enim relativi est ad aliud se habere. Ergo primum principium distinctivum in divinis non potest esse relatio. Objection 4. Further, whatever presupposes distinction cannot be the first principle of distinction. But relation presupposes distinction, which comes into its definition; for a relation is essentially what is towards another. Therefore the first distinctive principle in God cannot be relation.
Iª q. 40 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod Boetius dicit, in libro de Trin., quod sola relatio multiplicat Trinitatem divinarum personarum. On the contrary, Boethius says (De Trin.): "Relation alone multiplies the Trinity of the divine persons."
Iª q. 40 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod in quibuscumque pluribus invenitur aliquid commune, oportet quaerere aliquid distinctivum. Unde, cum tres personae conveniant secundum essentiae unitatem, necesse est quaerere aliquid quo distinguantur, ad hoc quod plures sint. Inveniuntur autem in divinis personis duo secundum quae differunt, scilicet origo, et relatio. Quae quidem quamvis re non differant, differunt tamen secundum modum significandi, nam origo significatur per modum actus, ut generatio; relatio vero per modum formae, ut paternitas. Quidam igitur, attendentes quod relatio consequitur actum, dixerunt quod hypostases in divinis distinguuntur per originem; ut dicamus quod pater distinguitur a filio, inquantum ille generat et hic est genitus. Relationes autem sive proprietates manifestant consequenter hypostasum sive personarum distinctiones, sicut et in creaturis proprietates manifestant distinctiones individuorum, quae fiunt per materialia principia. Sed hoc non potest stare, propter duo. Primo quidem, quia ad hoc quod aliqua duo distincta intelligantur, necesse est eorum distinctionem intelligi per aliquid intrinsecum utrique; sicut in rebus creatis vel per materiam, vel per formam. Origo autem alicuius rei non significatur ut aliquid intrinsecum, sed ut via quaedam a re vel ad rem, sicut generatio significatur ut via quaedam ad rem genitam, et ut progrediens a generante. Unde non potest esse quod res genita et generans distinguantur sola generatione, sed oportet intelligere tam in generante quam in genito ea quibus ab invicem distinguuntur. In persona autem divina non est aliud intelligere nisi essentiam et relationem sive proprietatem. Unde, cum in essentia conveniant, relinquitur quod per relationes personae ab invicem distinguantur. Secundo, quia distinctio in divinis personis non est sic intelligenda, quasi aliquid commune dividatur, quia essentia communis remanet indivisa, sed oportet quod ipsa distinguentia constituant res distinctas. Sic autem relationes vel proprietates distinguunt vel constituunt hypostases vel personas, inquantum sunt ipsae personae subsistentes, sicut paternitas est pater, et filiatio est filius, eo quod in divinis non differt abstractum et concretum. Sed contra rationem originis est, quod constituat hypostasim vel personam. Quia origo active significata, significatur ut progrediens a persona subsistente, unde praesupponit eam. Origo autem passive significata, ut nativitas, significatur ut via ad personam subsistentem; et nondum ut eam constituens. Unde melius dicitur quod personae seu hypostases distinguantur relationibus, quam per originem. Licet enim distinguantur utroque modo, tamen prius et principalius per relationes, secundum modum intelligendi. Unde hoc nomen pater non solum significat proprietatem, sed etiam hypostasim, sed hoc nomen genitor, vel generans, significat tantum proprietatem. Quia hoc nomen pater significat relationem, quae est distinctiva et constitutiva hypostasis, hoc autem nomen generans, vel genitus, significat originem, quae non est distinctiva et constitutiva hypostasis. I answer that, In whatever multitude of things is to be found something common to all, it is necessary to seek out the principle of distinction. So, as the three persons agree in the unity of essence, we must seek to know the principle of distinction whereby they are several. Now, there are two principles of difference between the divine persons, and these are "origin" and "relation." Although these do not really differ, yet they differ in the mode of signification; for "origin" is signified by way of act, as "generation"; and "relation" by way of the form, as "paternity." Some, then, considering that relation follows upon act, have said that the divine hypostases are distinguished by origin, so that we may say that the Father is distinguished from the Son, inasmuch as the former begets and the latter is begotten. Further, that the relations, or the properties, make known the distinctions of the hypostases or persons as resulting therefrom; as also in creatures the properties manifest the distinctions of individuals, which distinctions are caused by the material principles. This opinion, however, cannot stand--for two reasons. Firstly, because, in order that two things be understood as distinct, their distinction must be understood as resulting from something intrinsic to both; thus in things created it results from their matter or their form. Now origin of a thing does not designate anything intrinsic, but means the way from something, or to something; as generation signifies the way to a thing generated, and as proceeding from the generator. Hence it is not possible that what is generated and the generator should be distinguished by generation alone; but in the generator and in the thing generated we must presuppose whatever makes them to be distinguished from each other. In a divine person there is nothing to presuppose but essence, and relation or property. Whence, since the persons agree in essence, it only remains to be said that the persons are distinguished from each other by the relations. Secondly: because the distinction of the divine persons is not to be so understood as if what is common to them all is divided, because the common essence remains undivided; but the distinguishing principles themselves must constitute the things which are distinct. Now the relations or the properties distinguish or constitute the hypostases or persons, inasmuch as they are themselves the subsisting persons; as paternity is the Father, and filiation is the Son, because in God the abstract and the concrete do not differ. But it is against the nature of origin that it should constitute hypostasis or person. For origin taken in an active sense signifies proceeding from a subsisting person, so that it presupposes the latter; while in a passive sense origin, as "nativity," signifies the way to a subsisting person, and as not yet constituting the person. It is therefore better to say that the persons or hypostases are distinguished rather by relations than by origin. For, although in both ways they are distinguished, nevertheless in our mode of understanding they are distinguished chiefly and firstly by relations; whence this name "Father" signifies not only a property, but also the hypostasis; whereas this term "Begetter" or "Begetting" signifies property only; forasmuch as this name "Father" signifies the relation which is distinctive and constitutive of the hypostasis; and this term "Begetter" or "Begotten" signifies the origin which is not distinctive and constitutive of the hypostasis.
Iª q. 40 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod personae sunt ipsae relationes subsistentes. Unde non repugnat simplicitati divinarum personarum, quod relationibus distinguantur. Reply to Objection 1. The persons are the subsisting relations themselves. Hence it is not against the simplicity of the divine persons for them to be distinguished by the relations.
Iª q. 40 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod personae divinae non distinguuntur in esse in quo subsistunt, neque in aliquo absoluto, sed solum secundum id quod ad aliquid dicuntur. Unde ad earum distinctionem sufficit relatio. Reply to Objection 2. The divine persons are not distinguished as regards being, in which they subsist, nor in anything absolute, but only as regards something relative. Hence relation suffices for their distinction.
Iª q. 40 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod quanto distinctio prior est, tanto propinquior est unitati. Et ideo debet esse minima. Et ideo distinctio personarum non debet esse nisi per id quod minimum distinguit, scilicet per relationem. Reply to Objection 3. The more prior a distinction is, the nearer it approaches to unity; and so it must be the least possible distinction. So the distinction of the persons must be by that which distinguishes the least possible; and this is by relation.
Iª q. 40 a. 2 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod relatio praesupponit distinctionem suppositorum, quando est accidens, sed si relatio sit subsistens, non praesupponit, sed secum fert distinctionem. Cum enim dicitur quod relativi esse est ad aliud se habere, per ly aliud intelligitur correlativum, quod non est prius, sed simul natura. Reply to Objection 4. Relation presupposes the distinction of the subjects, when it is an accident; but when the relation is subsistent, it does not presuppose, but brings about distinction. For when it is said that relation is by nature to be towards another, the word "another" signifies the correlative which is not prior, but simultaneous in the order of nature.
Iª q. 40 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod, abstractis per intellectum proprietatibus seu relationibus a personis, adhuc remaneant hypostases. Id enim ad quod aliquid se habet ex additione, potest intelligi remoto eo quod sibi additur, sicut homo se habet ad animal ex additione, et potest intelligi animal remoto rationali. Sed persona se habet ex additione ad hypostasim, est enim persona hypostasis proprietate distincta ad dignitatem pertinente. Ergo, remota proprietate personali a persona, intelligitur hypostasis. Objection 1. It would seem that the hypostases remain if the properties or relations are mentally abstracted from the persons. For that to which something is added, may be understood when the addition is taken away; as man is something added to animal which can be understood if rational be taken away. But person is something added to hypostasis; for person is "a hypostasis distinguished by a property of dignity." Therefore, if a personal property be taken away from a person, the hypostasis remains.
Iª q. 40 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, pater non ab eodem habet quod sit pater, et quod sit aliquis. Cum enim paternitate sit pater, si paternitate esset aliquis, sequeretur quod filius, in quo non est paternitas, non esset aliquis. Remota ergo per intellectum paternitate a patre, adhuc remanet quod sit aliquis; quod est esse hypostasim. Ergo, remota proprietate a persona, remanet hypostasis. Objection 2. Further, that the Father is Father, and that He is someone, are not due to the same reason. For as He is the Father by paternity, supposing He is some one by paternity, it would follow that the Son, in Whom there is not paternity, would not be "someone." So when paternity is mentally abstracted from the Father, He still remains "someone"--that is, a hypostasis. Therefore, if property be removed from person, the hypostasis remains.
Iª q. 40 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, Augustinus dicit, V de Trin., non hoc est dicere ingenitum, quod est dicere patrem, quia etsi filium non genuisset, nihil prohiberet eum dicere ingenitum. Sed si filium non genuisset, non inesset ei paternitas. Ergo, remota paternitate, adhuc remanet hypostasis patris ut ingenita. Objection 3. Further, Augustine says (De Trin. v, 6): "Unbegotten is not the same as Father; for if the Father had not begotten the Son, nothing would prevent Him being called unbegotten." But if He had not begotten the Son, there would be no paternity in Him. Therefore, if paternity be removed, there still remains the hypostasis of the Father as unbegotten.
Iª q. 40 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod Hilarius dicit, IV de Trin., nihil habet filius nisi natum. Nativitate autem est filius. Ergo, remota filiatione, non remanet hypostasis filii. Et eadem ratio est de aliis personis. On the contrary, Hilary says (De Trin. iv): "The Son has nothing else than birth." But He is Son by "birth." Therefore, if filiation be removed, the Son's hypostasis no more remains; and the same holds as regards the other persons.
Iª q. 40 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod duplex fit abstractio per intellectum. Una quidem, secundum quod universale abstrahitur a particulari, ut animal ab homine. Alia vero, secundum quod forma abstrahitur a materia; sicut forma circuli abstrahitur per intellectum ab omni materia sensibili. Inter has autem abstractiones haec est differentia, quod in abstractione quae fit secundum universale et particulare, non remanet id a quo fit abstractio, remota enim ab homine differentia rationali, non remanet in intellectu homo, sed solum animal. In abstractione vero quae attenditur secundum formam et materiam, utrumque manet in intellectu, abstrahendo enim formam circuli ab aere, remanet seorsum in intellectu nostro et intellectus circuli et intellectus aeris. Quamvis autem in divinis non sit universale neque particulare, nec forma et materia, secundum rem; tamen, secundum modum significandi, invenitur aliqua similitudo horum in divinis; secundum quem modum Damascenus dicit quod commune est substantia, particulare vero hypostasis. Si igitur loquamur de abstractione quae fit secundum universale et particulare, remotis proprietatibus, remanet in intellectu essentia communis, non autem hypostasis patris, quae est quasi particulare. Si vero loquamur secundum modum abstractionis formae a materia, remotis proprietatibus non personalibus, remanet intellectus hypostasum et personarum, sicut, remoto per intellectum a patre quod sit ingenitus vel spirans, remanet hypostasis vel persona patris. Sed remota proprietate personali per intellectum, tollitur intellectus hypostasis. Non enim proprietates personales sic intelliguntur advenire hypostasibus divinis, sicut forma subiecto praeexistenti, sed ferunt secum sua supposita, inquantum sunt ipsae personae subsistentes, sicut paternitas est ipse pater, hypostasis enim significat aliquid distinctum in divinis, cum hypostasis sit substantia individua. Cum igitur relatio sit quae distinguit hypostases et constituit eas, ut dictum est, relinquitur quod, relationibus personalibus remotis per intellectum, non remaneant hypostases. Sed, sicut dictum est, aliqui dicunt quod hypostases in divinis non distinguuntur per relationes, sed per solam originem; ut intelligatur pater esse hypostasis quaedam per hoc, quod non est ab alio; filius autem per hoc, quod est ab alio per generationem. Sed relationes advenientes quasi proprietates ad dignitatem pertinentes, constituunt rationem personae, unde et personalitates dicuntur. Unde, remotis huiusmodi relationibus per intellectum, remanent quidem hypostases, sed non personae. Sed hoc non potest esse, propter duo. Primo, quia relationes distinguunt et constituunt hypostases, ut ostensum est. Secundo, quia omnis hypostasis naturae rationalis est persona, ut patet per definitionem Boetii, dicentis quod persona est rationalis naturae individua substantia. Unde, ad hoc quod esset hypostasis et non persona, oporteret abstrahi ex parte naturae rationalitatem; non autem ex parte personae proprietatem. I answer that, Abstraction by the intellect is twofold--when the universal is abstracted from the particular, as animal abstracted from man; and when the form is abstracted from the matter, as the form of a circle is abstracted by the intellect from any sensible matter. The difference between these two abstractions consists in the fact that in the abstraction of the universal from the particular, that from which the abstraction is made does not remain; for when the difference of rationality is removed from man, the man no longer remains in the intellect, but animal alone remains. But in the abstraction of the form from the matter, both the form and the matter remain in the intellect; as, for instance, if we abstract the form of a circle from brass, there remains in our intellect separately the understanding both of a circle, and of brass. Now, although there is no universal nor particular in God, nor form and matter, in reality; nevertheless, as regards the mode of signification there is a certain likeness of these things in God; and thus Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 6) that "substance is common and hypostasis is particular." So, if we speak of the abstraction of the universal from the particular, the common universal essence remains in the intellect if the properties are removed; but not the hypostasis of the Father, which is, as it were, a particular. But as regards the abstraction of the form from the matter, if the non-personal properties are removed, then the idea of the hypostases and persons remains; as, for instance, if the fact of the Father's being unbegotten or spirating be mentally abstracted from the Father, the Father's hypostasis or person remains. If, however, the personal property be mentally abstracted, the idea of the hypostasis no longer remains. For the personal properties are not to be understood as added to the divine hypostases, as a form is added to a pre-existing subject: but they carry with them their own "supposita," inasmuch as they are themselves subsisting persons; thus paternity is the Father Himself. For hypostasis signifies something distinct in God, since hypostasis means an individual substance. So, as relation distinguishes and constitutes the hypostases, as above explained (2), it follows that if the personal relations are mentally abstracted, the hypostases no longer remain. Some, however, think, as above noted, that the divine hypostases are not distinguished by the relations, but only by origin; so that the Father is a hypostasis as not from another, and the Son is a hypostasis as from another by generation. And that the consequent relations which are to be regarded as properties of dignity, constitute the notion of a person, and are thus called "personal properties." Hence, if these relations are mentally abstracted, the hypostasis, but not the persons, remain. But this is impossible, for two reasons: first, because the relations distinguish and constitute the hypostases, as shown above (2); secondly, because every hypostasis of a rational nature is a person, as appears from the definition of Boethius (De Duab. Nat.) that, "person is the individual substance of a rational nature." Hence, to have hypostasis and not person, it would be necessary to abstract the rationality from the nature, but not the property from the person.
Iª q. 40 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod persona non addit supra hypostasim proprietatem distinguentem absolute, sed proprietatem distinguentem ad dignitatem pertinentem, totum enim hoc est accipiendum loco unius differentiae. Ad dignitatem autem pertinet proprietas distinguens, secundum quod intelligitur subsistens in natura rationali. Unde, remota proprietate distinguente a persona, non remanet hypostasis, sed remaneret, si tolleretur rationalitas naturae. Tam enim persona quam hypostasis est substantia individua, unde in divinis de ratione utriusque est relatio distinguens. Reply to Objection 1. Person does not add to hypostasis a distinguishing property absolutely, but a distinguishing property of dignity, all of which must be taken as the difference. Now, this distinguishing property is one of dignity precisely because it is understood as subsisting in a rational nature. Hence, if the distinguishing property be removed from the person, the hypostasis no longer remains; whereas it would remain were the rationality of the nature removed; for both person and hypostasis are individual substances. Consequently, in God the distinguishing relation belongs essentially to both.
Iª q. 40 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod paternitate pater non solum est pater, sed est persona, et est quis sive hypostasis. Nec tamen sequitur quod filius non sit quis sive hypostasis; sicut non sequitur quod non sit persona. Reply to Objection 2. By paternity the Father is not only Father, but is a person, and is "someone," or a hypostasis. It does not follow, however, that the Son is not "someone" or a hypostasis; just as it does not follow that He is not a person.
Iª q. 40 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod intentio Augustini non fuit dicere quod hypostasis patris remaneat ingenita, remota paternitate, quasi innascibilitas constituat et distinguat hypostasim patris, hoc enim esse non potest, cum ingenitum nihil ponat, sed negative dicatur, ut ipsemet dicit. Sed loquitur in communi, quia non omne ingenitum est pater. Remota ergo paternitate, non remanet in divinis hypostasis patris, ut distinguitur ab aliis personis; sed ut distinguitur a creaturis, sicut Iudaei intelligunt. Reply to Objection 3. Augustine does not mean to say that the hypostasis of the Father would remain as unbegotten, if His paternity were removed, as if innascibility constituted and distinguished the hypostasis of the Father; for this would be impossible, since "being unbegotten" says nothing positive and is only a negation, as he himself says. But he speaks in a general sense, forasmuch as not every unbegotten being is the Father. So, if paternity be removed, the hypostasis of the Father does not remain in God, as distinguished from the other persons, but only as distinguished from creatures; as the Jews understand it.
Iª q. 40 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod actus notionales praeintelligantur proprietatibus. Dicit enim Magister, XXVII dist. I Sent., quod semper pater est, quia genuit semper filium. Et ita videtur quod generatio, secundum intellectum, praecedat paternitatem. Objection 1. It would seem that the notional acts are understood before the properties. For the Master of the Sentences says (Sent. i, D, xxvii) that "the Father always is, because He is ever begetting the Son." So it seems that generation precedes paternity in the order of intelligence.
Iª q. 40 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, omnis relatio praesupponit, in intellectu, id supra quod fundatur; sicut aequalitas quantitatem. Sed paternitas est relatio fundata super actione quae est generatio. Ergo paternitas praesupponit generationem. Objection 2. Further, in the order of intelligence every relation presupposes that on which it is founded; as equality presupposes quantity. But paternity is a relation founded on the action of generation. Therefore paternity presupposes generation.
Iª q. 40 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, sicut se habet generatio activa ad paternitatem, ita se habet nativitas ad filiationem. Sed filiatio praesupponit nativitatem, ideo enim filius est, quia natus est. Ergo et paternitas praesupponit generationem. Objection 3. Further, active generation is to paternity as nativity is to filiation. But filiation presupposes nativity; for the Son is so called because He is born. Therefore paternity also presupposes generation.
Iª q. 40 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra, generatio est operatio personae patris. Sed paternitas constituit personam patris. Ergo prius est, secundum intellectum, paternitas quam generatio. On the contrary, Generation is the operation of the person of the Father. But paternity constitutes the person of the Father. Therefore in the order of intelligence, paternity is prior to generation.
Iª q. 40 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, secundum illos qui dicunt quod proprietates non distinguunt et constituunt hypostases, sed manifestant hypostases distinctas et constitutas, absolute dicendum est quod relationes, secundum modum intelligendi, consequuntur actus notionales; ut dici possit simpliciter quod quia generat, est pater. Sed supponendo quod relationes distinguant et constituant hypostases in divinis, oportet distinctione uti. Quia origo significatur in divinis active et passive, active quidem, sicut generatio attribuitur patri, et spiratio, sumpta pro actu notionali, attribuitur patri et filio; passive autem, sicut nativitas attribuitur filio, et processio spiritui sancto. Origines enim passive significatae, simpliciter praecedunt, secundum intellectum, proprietates personarum procedentium, etiam personales, quia origo passive significata, significatur ut via ad personam proprietate constitutam. Similiter et origo active significata, prior est, secundum intellectum, quam relatio personae originantis quae non est personalis, sicut actus notionalis spirationis, secundum intellectum, praecedit proprietatem relativam innominatam communem patri et filio. Sed proprietas personalis patris potest considerari dupliciter. Uno modo, ut est relatio, et sic iterum, secundum intellectum, praesupponit actum notionalem; quia relatio, inquantum huiusmodi, fundatur super actum. Alio modo, secundum quod est constitutiva personae, et sic oportet quod praeintelligatur relatio actui notionali, sicut persona agens praeintelligitur actioni. I answer that, According to the opinion that the properties do not distinguish and constitute the hypostases in God, but only manifest them as already distinct and constituted, we must absolutely say that the relations in our mode of understanding follow upon the notional acts, so that we can say, without qualifying the phrase, that "because He begets, He is the Father." A distinction, however, is needed if we suppose that the relations distinguish and constitute the divine hypostases. For origin has in God an active and passive signification--active, as generation is attributed to the Father, and spiration, taken for the notional act, is attributed to the Father and the Son; passive, as nativity is attributed to the Son, and procession to the Holy Ghost. For, in the order of intelligence, origin, in the passive sense, simply precedes the personal properties of the person proceeding; because origin, as passively understood, signifies the way to a person constituted by the property. Likewise, origin signified actively is prior in the order of intelligence to the non-personal relation of the person originating; as the notional act of spiration precedes, in the order of intelligence, the unnamed relative property common to the Father and the Son. The personal property of the Father can be considered in a twofold sense: firstly, as a relation; and thus again in the order of intelligence it presupposes the notional act, for relation, as such, is founded upon an act: secondly, according as it constitutes the person; and thus the notional act presupposes the relation, as an action presupposes a person acting.
Iª q. 40 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, cum Magister dicit quod quia generat est pater, accipit nomen patris secundum quod designat relationem tantum, non autem secundum quod significat personam subsistentem. Sic enim oporteret e converso dicere quod quia pater est, generat. Reply to Objection 1. When the Master says that "because He begets, He is Father," the term "Father" is taken as meaning relation only, but not as signifying the subsisting person; for then it would be necessary to say conversely that because He is Father He begets.
Iª q. 40 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod obiectio illa procedit de paternitate, secundum quod est relatio, et non secundum quod est constitutiva personae. Reply to Objection 2. This objection avails of paternity as a relation, but not as constituting a person.
Iª q. 40 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod nativitas est via ad personam filii, et ideo, secundum intellectum, praecedit filiationem, etiam secundum quod est constitutiva personae filii. Sed generatio activa significatur ut progrediens a persona patris, et ideo praesupponit proprietatem personalem patris. Reply to Objection 3. Nativity is the way to the person of the Son; and so, in the order of intelligence, it precedes filiation, even as constituting the person of the Son. But active generation signifies a proceeding from the person of the Father; wherefore it presupposes the personal property of the Father.

Notes

Retrieved from ‘http://www.logicmuseum.com/w/index.php?title=Authors/Thomas_Aquinas/Summa_Theologiae/Part_I/Q40&oldid=10847’