For whatever things have a common form may be said to
be alike, even if they do not participate in that form equally, just as
the air may be said to be like fire in heat; but they cannot be said to
be equal if one participates in the form more perfectly than another.
be alike, even if they do not participate in that form equally, just as
the air may be said to be like fire in heat; but they cannot be said to
be equal if one participates in the form more perfectly than another.
Summa Theologica
Therefore the Son is not from the
Father's essence.
Objection 4: Further, every creature is from nothing. But in Scripture
the Son is called a creature; for it is said (Ecclus. 24:5), in the
person of the Wisdom begotten,"I came out of the mouth of the Most
High, the first-born before all creatures": and further on (Ecclus.
24:14) it is said as uttered by the same Wisdom, "From the beginning,
and before the world was I created. " Therefore the Son was not begotten
from something, but from nothing. Likewise we can object concerning the
Holy Ghost, by reason of what is said (Zech. 12:1): "Thus saith the
Lord Who stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundations of
the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him"; and (Amos 4:13)
according to another version [*The Septuagint]: "I Who form the earth,
and create the spirit. "
On the contrary, Augustine (Fulgentius, De Fide ad Petrum i, 1) says:
"God the Father, of His nature, without beginning, begot the Son equal
to Himself. "
I answer that, The Son was not begotten from nothing, but from the
Father's substance. For it was explained above ([344]Q[27], A[2];
[345]Q[33], AA[2] ,3) that paternity, filiation and nativity really and
truly exist in God. Now, this is the difference between true
"generation," whereby one proceeds from another as a son, and "making,"
that the maker makes something out of external matter, as a carpenter
makes a bench out of wood, whereas a man begets a son from himself.
Now, as a created workman makes a thing out of matter, so God makes
things out of nothing, as will be shown later on ([346]Q[45], A[1]),
not as if this nothing were a part of the substance of the thing made,
but because the whole substance of a thing is produced by Him without
anything else whatever presupposed. So, were the Son to proceed from
the Father as out of nothing, then the Son would be to the Father what
the thing made is to the maker, whereto, as is evident, the name of
filiation would not apply except by a kind of similitude. Thus, if the
Son of God proceeds from the Father out of nothing, He could not be
properly and truly called the Son, whereas the contrary is stated (1
Jn. 5:20): "That we may be in His true Son Jesus Christ. " Therefore the
true Son of God is not from nothing; nor is He made, but begotten.
That certain creatures made by God out of nothing are called sons of
God is to be taken in a metaphorical sense, according to a certain
likeness of assimilation to Him Who is the true Son. Whence, as He is
the only true and natural Son of God, He is called the "only begotten,"
according to Jn. 1:18, "The only begotten Son, Who is in the bosom of
the Father, He hath declared Him"; and so as others are entitled sons
of adoption by their similitude to Him, He is called the "first
begotten," according to Rom. 8:29: "Whom He foreknew He also
predestinated to be made conformable to the image of His Son, that He
might be the first born of many brethren. " Therefore the Son of God is
begotten of the substance of the Father, but not in the same way as man
is born of man; for a part of the human substance in generation passes
into the substance of the one begotten, whereas the divine nature
cannot be parted; whence it necessarily follows that the Father in
begetting the Son does not transmit any part of His nature, but
communicates His whole nature to Him, the distinction only of origin
remaining as explained above ([347]Q[40], A[2]).
Reply to Objection 1: When we say that the Son was born of the Father,
the preposition "of" designates a consubstantial generating principle,
but not a material principle. For that which is produced from matter,
is made by a change of form in that whence it is produced. But the
divine essence is unchangeable, and is not susceptive of another form.
Reply to Objection 2: When we say the Son is begotten of the essence of
the Father, as the Master of the Sentences explains (Sent. i, D, v),
this denotes the habitude of a kind of active principle, and as he
expounds, "the Son is begotten of the essence of the Father"---that is,
of the Father Who is essence; and so Augustine says (De Trin. xv, 13):
"When I say of the Father Who is essence, it is the same as if I said
more explicitly, of the essence of the Father. "
This, however, is not enough to explain the real meaning of the words.
For we can say that the creature is from God Who is essence; but not
that it is from the essence of God. So we may explain them otherwise,
by observing that the preposition "of" [de] always denotes
consubstantiality. We do not say that a house is "of" [de] the builder,
since he is not the consubstantial cause. We can say, however, that
something is "of" another, if this is its consubstantial principle, no
matter in what way it is so, whether it be an active principle, as the
son is said to be "of" the father, or a material principle, as a knife
is "of" iron; or a formal principle, but in those things only in which
the forms are subsisting, and not accidental to another, for we can say
that an angel is "of" an intellectual nature. In this way, then, we say
that the Son is begotten 'of' the essence of the Father, inasmuch as
the essence of the Father, communicated by generation, subsists in the
Son.
Reply to Objection 3: When we say that the Son is begotten of the
essence of the Father, a term is added which saves the distinction. But
when we say that the three persons are 'of' the divine essence, there
is nothing expressed to warrant the distinction signified by the
preposition, so there is no parity of argument.
Reply to Objection 4: When we say "Wisdom was created," this may be
understood not of Wisdom which is the Son of God, but of created wisdom
given by God to creatures: for it is said, "He created her [namely,
Wisdom] in the Holy Ghost, and He poured her out over all His works"
(Ecclus. 1:9,10). Nor is it inconsistent for Scripture in one text to
speak of the Wisdom begotten and wisdom created, for wisdom created is
a kind of participation of the uncreated Wisdom. The saying may also be
referred to the created nature assumed by the Son, so that the sense
be, "From the beginning and before the world was I made"---that is, I
was foreseen as united to the creature. Or the mention of wisdom as
both created and begotten insinuates into our minds the mode of the
divine generation; for in generation what is generated receives the
nature of the generator and this pertains to perfection; whereas in
creation the Creator is not changed, but the creature does not receive
the Creator's nature. Thus the Son is called both created and begotten,
in order that from the idea of creation the immutability of the Father
may be understood, and from generation the unity of nature in the
Father and the Son. In this way Hilary expounds the sense of this text
of Scripture (De Synod. ). The other passages quoted do not refer to the
Holy Ghost, but to the created spirit, sometimes called wind, sometimes
air, sometimes the breath of man, sometimes also the soul, or any other
invisible substance.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether in God there is a power in respect of the notional acts?
Objection 1: It would seem that in God there is no power in respect of
the notional acts. For every kind of power is either active or passive;
neither of which can be here applied, there being in God nothing which
we call passive power, as above explained ([348]Q[25], A[1]); nor can
active power belong to one person as regards another, since the divine
persons were not made, as stated above [349](A[3]). Therefore in God
there is no power in respect of the notional acts.
Objection 2: Further, the object of power is what is possible. But the
divine persons are not regarded as possible, but necessary. Therefore,
as regards the notional acts, whereby the divine persons proceed, there
cannot be power in God.
Objection 3: Further, the Son proceeds as the word, which is the
concept of the intellect; and the Holy Ghost proceeds as love, which
belongs to the will. But in God power exists as regards effects, and
not as regards intellect and will, as stated above ([350]Q[25], A[1]).
Therefore, in God power does not exist in reference to the notional
acts.
On the contrary, Augustine says (Contra Maxim. iii, 1): "If God the
Father could not beget a co-equal Son, where is the omnipotence of God
the Father? " Power therefore exists in God regarding the notional acts.
I answer that, As the notional acts exist in God, so must there be also
a power in God regarding these acts; since power only means the
principle of act. So, as we understand the Father to be principle of
generation; and the Father and the Son to be the principle of
spiration, we must attribute the power of generating to the Father, and
the power of spiration to the Father and the Son; for the power of
generation means that whereby the generator generates. Now every
generator generates by something. Therefore in every generator we must
suppose the power of generating, and in the spirator the power of
spirating.
Reply to Objection 1: As a person, according to notional acts, does not
proceed as if made; so the power in God as regards the notional acts
has no reference to a person as if made, but only as regards the person
as proceeding.
Reply to Objection 2: Possible, as opposed to what is necessary, is a
consequence of a passive power, which does not exist in God. Hence, in
God there is no such thing as possibility in this sense, but only in
the sense of possible as contained in what is necessary; and in this
latter sense it can be said that as it is possible for God to be, so
also is it possible that the Son should be generated.
Reply to Objection 3: Power signifies a principle: and a principle
implies distinction from that of which it is the principle. Now we must
observe a double distinction in things said of God: one is a real
distinction, the other is a distinction of reason only. By a real
distinction, God by His essence is distinct from those things of which
He is the principle by creation: just as one person is distinct from
the other of which He is principle by a notional act. But in God the
distinction of action and agent is one of reason only, otherwise action
would be an accident in God. And therefore with regard to those actions
in respect of which certain things proceed which are distinct from God,
either personally or essentially, we may ascribe power to God in its
proper sense of principle. And as we ascribe to God the power of
creating, so we may ascribe the power of begetting and of spirating.
But "to understand" and "to will" are not such actions as to designate
the procession of something distinct from God, either essentially or
personally. Wherefore, with regard to these actions we cannot ascribe
power to God in its proper sense, but only after our way of
understanding and speaking: inasmuch as we designate by different terms
the intellect and the act of understanding in God, whereas in God the
act of understanding is His very essence which has no principle.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the power of begetting signifies a relation, and not the essence?
Objection 1: It would seem that the power of begetting, or of
spirating, signifies the relation and not the essence. For power
signifies a principle, as appears from its definition: for active power
is the principle of action, as we find in Metaph. v, text 17. But in
God principle in regard to Person is said notionally. Therefore, in
God, power does not signify essence but relation.
Objection 2: Further, in God, the power to act [posse] and 'to act' are
not distinct. But in God, begetting signifies relation. Therefore, the
same applies to the power of begetting.
Objection 3: Further, terms signifying the essence in God, are common
to the three persons. But the power of begetting is not common to the
three persons, but proper to the Father. Therefore it does not signify
the essence.
On the contrary, As God has the power to beget the Son, so also He
wills to beget Him. But the will to beget signifies the essence.
Therefore, also, the power to beget.
I answer that, Some have said that the power to beget signifies
relation in God. But this is not possible. For in every agent, that is
properly called power, by which the agent acts. Now, everything that
produces something by its action, produces something like itself, as to
the form by which it acts; just as man begotten is like his begetter in
his human nature, in virtue of which the father has the power to beget
a man. In every begetter, therefore, that is the power of begetting in
which the begotten is like the begetter.
Now the Son of God is like the Father, who begets Him, in the divine
nature. Wherefore the divine nature in the Father is in Him the power
of begetting. And so Hilary says (De Trin. v): "The birth of God cannot
but contain that nature from which it proceeded; for He cannot subsist
other than God, Who subsists from no other source than God. "
We must therefore conclude that the power of begetting signifies
principally the divine essence as the Master says (Sent. i, D, vii),
and not the relation only. Nor does it signify the essence as
identified with the relation, so as to signify both equally. For
although paternity is signified as the form of the Father, nevertheless
it is a personal property, being in respect to the person of the
Father, what the individual form is to the individual creature. Now the
individual form in things created constitutes the person begetting, but
is not that by which the begetter begets, otherwise Socrates would
beget Socrates. So neither can paternity be understood as that by which
the Father begets, but as constituting the person of the Father,
otherwise the Father would beget the Father. But that by which the
Father begets is the divine nature, in which the Son is like to Him.
And in this sense Damascene says (De Fide Orth. i, 18) that generation
is the "work of nature," not of nature generating, but of nature, as
being that by which the generator generates. And therefore the power of
begetting signifies the divine nature directly, but the relation
indirectly.
Reply to Objection 1: Power does not signify the relation itself of a
principle, for thus it would be in the genus of relation; but it
signifies that which is a principle; not, indeed, in the sense in which
we call the agent a principle, but in the sense of being that by which
the agent acts. Now the agent is distinct from that which it makes, and
the generator from that which it generates: but that by which the
generator generates is common to generated and generator, and so much
more perfectly, as the generation is more perfect. Since, therefore,
the divine generation is most perfect, that by which the Begetter
begets, is common to Begotten and Begetter by a community of identity,
and not only of species, as in things created. Therefore, from the fact
that we say that the divine essence "is the principle by which the
Begetter begets," it does not follow that the divine essence is
distinct (from the Begotten): which would follow if we were to say that
the divine essence begets.
Reply to Objection 2: As in God, the power of begetting is the same as
the act of begetting, so the divine essence is the same in reality as
the act of begetting or paternity; although there is a distinction of
reason.
Reply to Objection 3: When I speak of the "power of begetting," power
is signified directly, generation indirectly: just as if I were to say,
the "essence of the Father. " Wherefore in respect of the essence, which
is signified, the power of begetting is common to the three persons:
but in respect of the notion that is connoted, it is proper to the
person of the Father.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether several persons can be the term of one notional act?
Objection 1: It would seem that a notional act can be directed to
several Persons, so that there may be several Persons begotten or
spirated in God. For whoever has the power of begetting can beget. But
the Son has the power of begetting. Therefore He can beget. But He
cannot beget Himself: therefore He can beget another son. Therefore
there can be several Sons in God.
Objection 2: Further, Augustine says (Contra Maxim. iii, 12): "The Son
did not beget a Creator: not that He could not, but that it behoved Him
not. "
Objection 3: Further, God the Father has greater power to beget than
has a created father. But a man can beget several sons. Therefore God
can also: the more so that the power of the Father is not diminished
after begetting the Son.
On the contrary, In God "that which is possible," and "that which is"
do not differ. If, therefore, in God it were possible for there to be
several Sons, there would be several Sons. And thus there would be more
than three Persons in God; which is heretical.
I answer that, As Athanasius says, in God there is only "one Father,
one Son, one Holy Ghost. " For this four reasons may be given.
The first reason is in regard to the relations by which alone are the
Persons distinct. For since the divine Persons are the relations
themselves as subsistent, there would not be several Fathers, or
several Sons in God, unless there were more than one paternity, or more
than one filiation. And this, indeed, would not be possible except
owing to a material distinction: since forms of one species are not
multiplied except in respect of matter, which is not in God. Wherefore
there can be but one subsistent filiation in God: just as there could
be but one subsistent whiteness.
The second reason is taken from the manner of the processions. For God
understands and wills all things by one simple act. Wherefore there can
be but one person proceeding after the manner of word, which person is
the Son; and but one person proceeding after the manner of love, which
person is the Holy Ghost.
The third reason is taken from the manner in which the persons proceed.
For the persons proceed naturally, as we have said [351](A[2]), and
nature is determined to one.
The fourth reason is taken from the perfection of the divine persons.
For this reason is the Son perfect, that the entire divine filiation is
contained in Him, and that there is but one Son. The argument is
similar in regard to the other persons.
Reply to Objection 1: We can grant, without distinction, that the Son
has the same power as the Father; but we cannot grant that the Son has
the power "generandi" [of begetting] thus taking "generandi" as the
gerund of the active verb, so that the sense would be that the Son has
the "power to beget. " Just as, although Father and Son have the same
being, it does not follow that the Son is the Father, by reason of the
notional term added. But if the word "generandi" [of being begotten] is
taken as the gerundive of the passive verb, the power "generandi" is in
the Son---that is, the power of being begotten. The same is to be said
if it be taken as the gerundive of an impersonal verb, so that the
sense be "the power of generation"---that is, a power by which it is
generated by some person.
Reply to Objection 2: Augustine does not mean to say by those words
that the Son could beget a Son: but that if He did not, it was not
because He could not, as we shall see later on ([352]Q[42], A[6], ad
3).
Reply to Objection 3: Divine perfection and the total absence of matter
in God require that there cannot be several Sons in God, as we have
explained. Wherefore that there are not several Sons is not due to any
lack of begetting power in the Father.
__________________________________________________________________
OF EQUALITY AND LIKENESS AMONG THE DIVINE PERSONS (SIX ARTICLES)
We now have to consider the persons as compared to one another:
firstly, with regard to equality and likeness; secondly, with regard to
mission. Concerning the first there are six points of inquiry.
(1) Whether there is equality among the divine persons?
(2) Whether the person who proceeds is equal to the one from Whom He
proceeds in eternity?
(3) Whether there is any order among the divine persons?
(4) Whether the divine persons are equal in greatness?
(5) Whether the one divine person is in another?
(6) Whether they are equal in power?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether there is equality in God?
Objection 1: It would seem that equality is not becoming to the divine
persons. For equality is in relation to things which are one in
quantity as the Philosopher says (Metaph. v, text 20). But in the
divine persons there is no quantity, neither continuous intrinsic
quantity, which we call size, nor continuous extrinsic quantity, which
we call place and time. Nor can there be equality by reason of discrete
quantity, because two persons are more than one. Therefore equality is
not becoming to the divine persons.
Objection 2: Further, the divine persons are of one essence, as we have
said ([353]Q[39], A[2]). Now essence is signified by way of form. But
agreement in form makes things to be alike, not to be equal. Therefore,
we may speak of likeness in the divine persons, but not of equality.
Objection 3: Further, things wherein there is to be found equality, are
equal to one another, for equality is reciprocal. But the divine
persons cannot be said to be equal to one another. For as Augustine
says (De Trin. vi, 10): "If an image answers perfectly to that whereof
it is the image, it may be said to be equal to it; but that which it
represents cannot be said to be equal to the image. " But the Son is the
image of the Father; and so the Father is not equal to the Son.
Therefore equality is not to be found among the divine persons.
Objection 4: Further, equality is a relation. But no relation is common
to the three persons; for the persons are distinct by reason of the
relations. Therefore equality is not becoming to the divine persons.
On the contrary, Athanasius says that "the three persons are co-eternal
and co-equal to one another. "
I answer that, We must needs admit equality among the divine persons.
For, according to the Philosopher (Metaph. x, text 15,16, 17), equality
signifies the negation of greater or less. Now we cannot admit anything
greater or less in the divine persons; for as Boethius says (De Trin.
i): "They must needs admit a difference [namely, of Godhead] who speak
of either increase or decrease, as the Arians do, who sunder the
Trinity by distinguishing degrees as of numbers, thus involving a
plurality. " Now the reason of this is that unequal things cannot have
the same quantity. But quantity, in God, is nothing else than His
essence. Wherefore it follows, that if there were any inequality in the
divine persons, they would not have the same essence; and thus the
three persons would not be one God; which is impossible. We must
therefore admit equality among the divine persons.
Reply to Objection 1: Quantity is twofold. There is quantity of "bulk"
or dimensive quantity, which is to be found only in corporeal things,
and has, therefore, no place in God. There is also quantity of
"virtue," which is measured according to the perfection of some nature
or form: to this sort of quantity we allude when we speak of something
as being more, or less, hot; forasmuch as it is more or less, perfect
in heat. Now this virtual quantity is measured firstly by its
source---that is, by the perfection of that form or nature: such is the
greatness of spiritual things, just as we speak of great heat on
account of its intensity and perfection. And so Augustine says (De
Trin. vi, 18) that "in things which are great, but not in bulk, to be
greater is to be better," for the more perfect a thing is the better it
is. Secondly, virtual quantity is measured by the effects of the form.
Now the first effect of form is being, for everything has being by
reason of its form. The second effect is operation, for every agent
acts through its form. Consequently virtual quantity is measured both
in regard to being and in regard to action: in regard to being,
forasmuch as things of a more perfect nature are of longer duration;
and in regard to action, forasmuch as things of a more perfect nature
are more powerful to act. And so as Augustine (Fulgentius, De Fide ad
Petrum i) says: "We understand equality to be in the Father, Son and
Holy Ghost, inasmuch as no one of them either precedes in eternity, or
excels in greatness, or surpasses in power. "
Reply to Objection 2: Where we have equality in respect of virtual
quantity, equality includes likeness and something besides, because it
excludes excess.
For whatever things have a common form may be said to
be alike, even if they do not participate in that form equally, just as
the air may be said to be like fire in heat; but they cannot be said to
be equal if one participates in the form more perfectly than another.
And because not only is the same nature in both Father and Son, but
also is it in both in perfect equality, therefore we say not only that
the Son is like to the Father, in order to exclude the error of
Eunomius, but also that He is equal to the Father to exclude the error
of Arius.
Reply to Objection 3: Equality and likeness in God may be designated in
two ways---namely, by nouns and by verbs. When designated by nouns,
equality in the divine persons is mutual, and so is likeness; for the
Son is equal and like to the Father, and conversely. This is because
the divine essence is not more the Father's than the Son's. Wherefore,
just as the Son has the greatness of the Father, and is therefore equal
to the Father, so the Father has the greatness of the Son, and is
therefore equal to the Son. But in reference to creatures, Dionysius
says (Div. Nom. ix): "Equality and likeness are not mutual. " For
effects are said to be like their causes, inasmuch as they have the
form of their causes; but not conversely, for the form is principally
in the cause, and secondarily in the effect.
But verbs signify equality with movement. And although movement is not
in God, there is something that receives. Since, therefore, the Son
receives from the Father, this, namely, that He is equal to the Father,
and not conversely, for this reason we say that the Son is equalled to
the Father, but not conversely.
Reply to Objection 4: In the divine persons there is nothing for us to
consider but the essence which they have in common and the relations in
which they are distinct. Now equality implies both ---namely,
distinction of persons, for nothing can be said to be equal to itself;
and unity of essence, since for this reason are the persons equal to
one another, that they are of the same greatness and essence. Now it is
clear that the relation of a thing to itself is not a real relation.
Nor, again, is one relation referred to another by a further relation:
for when we say that paternity is opposed to filiation, opposition is
not a relation mediating between paternity and filiation. For in both
these cases relation would be multiplied indefinitely. Therefore
equality and likeness in the divine persons is not a real relation
distinct from the personal relations: but in its concept it includes
both the relations which distinguish the persons, and the unity of
essence. For this reason the Master says (Sent. i, D, xxxi) that in
these "it is only the terms that are relative. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the person proceeding is co-eternal with His principle, as the Son
with the Father?
Objection 1: It would seem that the person proceeding is not co-eternal
with His principle, as the Son with the Father. For Arius gives twelve
modes of generation. The first mode is like the issue of a line from a
point; wherein is wanting equality of simplicity. The second is like
the emission of rays from the sun; wherein is absent equality of
nature. The third is like the mark or impression made by a seal;
wherein is wanting consubstantiality and executive power. The fourth is
the infusion of a good will from God; wherein also consubstantiality is
wanting. The fifth is the emanation of an accident from its subject;
but the accident has no subsistence. The sixth is the abstraction of a
species from matter, as sense receives the species from the sensible
object; wherein is wanting equality of spiritual simplicity. The
seventh is the exciting of the will by knowledge, which excitation is
merely temporal. The eighth is transformation, as an image is made of
brass; which transformation is material. The ninth is motion from a
mover; and here again we have effect and cause. The tenth is the taking
of species from genera; but this mode has no place in God, for the
Father is not predicated of the Son as the genus of a species. The
eleventh is the realization of an idea [ideatio], as an external coffer
arises from the one in the mind. The twelfth is birth, as a man is
begotten of his father; which implies priority and posteriority of
time. Thus it is clear that equality of nature or of time is absent in
every mode whereby one thing is from another. So if the Son is from the
Father, we must say that He is less than the Father, or later than the
Father, or both.
Objection 2: Further, everything that comes from another has a
principle. But nothing eternal has a principle. Therefore the Son is
not eternal; nor is the Holy Ghost.
Objection 3: Further, everything which is corrupted ceases to be. Hence
everything generated begins to be; for the end of generation is
existence. But the Son is generated by the Father. Therefore He begins
to exist, and is not co-eternal with the Father.
Objection 4: Further, if the Son be begotten by the Father, either He
is always being begotten, or there is some moment in which He is
begotten. If He is always being begotten, since, during the process of
generation, a thing must be imperfect, as appears in successive things,
which are always in process of becoming, as time and motion, it follows
that the Son must be always imperfect, which cannot be admitted. Thus
there is a moment to be assigned for the begetting of the Son, and
before that moment the Son did not exist.
On the contrary, Athanasius declares that "all the three persons are
co-eternal with each other. "
I answer that, We must say that the Son is co-eternal with the Father.
In proof of which we must consider that for a thing which proceeds from
a principle to be posterior to its principle may be due to two reasons:
one on the part of the agent, and the other on the part of the action.
On the part of the agent this happens differently as regards free
agents and natural agents. In free agents, on account of the choice of
time; for as a free agent can choose the form it gives to the effect,
as stated above ([354]Q[41], A[2]), so it can choose the time in which
to produce its effect. In natural agents, however, the same happens
from the agent not having its perfection of natural power from the very
first, but obtaining it after a certain time; as, for instance, a man
is not able to generate from the very first. Considered on the part of
action, anything derived from a principle cannot exist simultaneously
with its principle when the action is successive. So, given that an
agent, as soon as it exists, begins to act thus, the effect would not
exist in the same instant, but in the instant of the action's
termination. Now it is manifest, according to what has been said
([355]Q[41], A[2]), that the Father does not beget the Son by will, but
by nature; and also that the Father's nature was perfect from eternity;
and again that the action whereby the Father produces the Son is not
successive, because thus the Son would be successively generated, and
this generation would be material, and accompanied with movement; which
is quite impossible. Therefore we conclude that the Son existed
whensoever the Father existed and thus the Son is co-eternal with the
Father, and likewise the Holy Ghost is co-eternal with both.
Reply to Objection 1: As Augustine says (De Verbis Domini, Serm. 38),
no mode of the procession of any creature perfectly represents the
divine generation. Hence we need to gather a likeness of it from many
of these modes, so that what is wanting in one may be somewhat supplied
from another; and thus it is declared in the council of Ephesus: "Let
Splendor tell thee that the co-eternal Son existed always with the
Father; let the Word announce the impassibility of His birth; let the
name Son insinuate His consubstantiality. " Yet, above them all the
procession of the word from the intellect represents it more exactly;
the intellectual word not being posterior to its source except in an
intellect passing from potentiality to act; and this cannot be said of
God.
Reply to Objection 2: Eternity excludes the principle of duration, but
not the principle of origin.
Reply to Objection 3: Every corruption is a change; and so all that
corrupts begins not to exist and ceases to be. The divine generation,
however, is not changed, as stated above ([356]Q[27], A[2]). Hence the
Son is ever being begotten, and the Father is always begetting.
Reply to Objection 4: In time there is something indivisible---namely,
the instant; and there is something else which endures---namely, time.
But in eternity the indivisible "now" stands ever still, as we have
said above ([357]Q[10], A[2] ad 1, A[4] ad 2). But the generation of
the Son is not in the "now" of time, or in time, but in eternity. And
so to express the presentiality and permanence of eternity, we can say
that "He is ever being born," as Origen said (Hom. in Joan. i). But as
Gregory [*Moral. xxix, 21] and Augustine [*Super Ps. 2:7] said, it is
better to say "ever born," so that "ever" may denote the permanence of
eternity, and "born" the perfection of the only Begotten. Thus,
therefore, neither is the Son imperfect, nor "was there a time when He
was not," as Arius said.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether in the divine persons there exists an order of nature?
Objection 1: It would seem that among the divine persons there does not
exist an order of nature. For whatever exists in God is the essence, or
a person, or a notion. But the order of nature does not signify the
essence, nor any of the persons, or notions. Therefore there is no
order of nature in God.
Objection 2: Further, wherever order of nature exists, there one comes
before another, at least, according to nature and intellect. But in the
divine persons there exists neither priority nor posteriority, as
declared by Athanasius. Therefore, in the divine persons there is no
order of nature.
Objection 3: Further, wherever order exists, distinction also exists.
But there is no distinction in the divine nature. Therefore it is not
subject to order; and order of nature does not exist in it.
Objection 4: Further, the divine nature is the divine essence. But
there is no order of essence in God. Therefore neither is there of
nature.
On the contrary, Where plurality exists without order, confusion
exists. But in the divine persons there is no confusion, as Athanasius
says. Therefore in God order exists.
I answer that, Order always has reference to some principle. Wherefore
since there are many kinds of principle---namely, according to site, as
a point; according to intellect, as the principle of demonstration; and
according to each individual cause---so are there many kinds of order.
Now principle, according to origin, without priority, exists in God as
we have stated ([358]Q[33], A[1]): so there must likewise be order
according to origin, without priority; and this is called 'the order of
nature': in the words of Augustine (Contra Maxim. iv): "Not whereby one
is prior to another, but whereby one is from another. "
Reply to Objection 1: The order of nature signifies the notion of
origin in general, not a special kind of origin.
Reply to Objection 2: In things created, even when what is derived from
a principle is co-equal in duration with its principle, the principle
still comes first in the order of nature and reason, if formally
considered as principle. If, however, we consider the relations of
cause and effect, or of the principle and the thing proceeding
therefrom, it is clear that the things so related are simultaneous in
the order of nature and reason, inasmuch as the one enters the
definition of the other. But in God the relations themselves are the
persons subsisting in one nature. So, neither on the part of the
nature, nor on the part the relations, can one person be prior to
another, not even in the order of nature and reason.
Reply to Objection 3: The order of nature means not the ordering of
nature itself, but the existence of order in the divine Persons
according to natural origin.
Reply to Objection 4: Nature in a certain way implies the idea of a
principle, but essence does not; and so the order of origin is more
correctly called the order of nature than the order of essence.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the Son is equal to the Father in greatness?
Objection 1: It would seem that the Son is not equal to the Father in
greatness. For He Himself said (Jn. 14:28): "The Father is greater than
I"; and the Apostle says (1 Cor. 15:28): "The Son Himself shall be
subject to Him that put all things under Him. "
Objection 2: Further, paternity is part of the Father's dignity. But
paternity does not belong to the Son. Therefore the Son does not
possess all the Father's dignity; and so He is not equal in greatness
to the Father.
Objection 3: Further, wherever there exist a whole and a part, many
parts are more than one only, or than fewer parts; as three men are
more than two, or than one. But in God a universal whole exists, and a
part; for under relation or notion, several notions are included.
Therefore, since in the Father there are three notions, while in the
Son there are only two, the Son is evidently not equal to the Father.
On the contrary, It is said (Phil. 2:6): "He thought it not robbery to
be equal with God. "
I answer that, The Son is necessarily equal to the Father in greatness.
For the greatness of God is nothing but the perfection of His nature.
Now it belongs to the very nature of paternity and filiation that the
Son by generation should attain to the possession of the perfection of
the nature which is in the Father, in the same way as it is in the
Father Himself. But since in men generation is a certain kind of
transmutation of one proceeding from potentiality to act, it follows
that a man is not equal at first to the father who begets him, but
attains to equality by due growth, unless owing to a defect in the
principle of generation it should happen otherwise. From what precedes
([359]Q[27], A[2]; [360]Q[33], AA[2] ,3), it is evident that in God
there exist real true paternity and filiation. Nor can we say that the
power of generation in the Father was defective, nor that the Son of
God arrived at perfection in a successive manner and by change.
Therefore we must say that the Son was eternally equal to the Father in
greatness. Hence, Hilary says (De Synod. Can. 27): "Remove bodily
weakness, remove the beginning of conception, remove pain and all human
shortcomings, then every son, by reason of his natural nativity, is the
father's equal, because he has a like nature. "
Reply to Objection 1: These words are to be understood of Christ's
human nature, wherein He is less than the Father, and subject to Him;
but in His divine nature He is equal to the Father. This is expressed
by Athanasius, "Equal to the Father in His Godhead; less than the
Father in humanity": and by Hilary (De Trin. ix): "By the fact of
giving, the Father is greater; but He is not less to Whom the same
being is given"; and (De Synod. ): "The Son subjects Himself by His
inborn piety"---that is, by His recognition of paternal authority;
whereas "creatures are subject by their created weakness. "
Reply to Objection 2: Equality is measured by greatness. In God
greatness signifies the perfection of nature, as above explained (A[1],
ad 1), and belongs to the essence. Thus equality and likeness in God
have reference to the essence; nor can there be inequality or
dissimilitude arising from the distinction of the relations. Wherefore
Augustine says (Contra Maxim. iii, 13), "The question of origin is, Who
is from whom? but the question of equality is, Of what kind, or how
great, is he? " Therefore, paternity is the Father's dignity, as also
the Father's essence: since dignity is something absolute, and pertains
to the essence. As, therefore, the same essence, which in the Father is
paternity, in the Son is filiation, so the same dignity which, in the
Father is paternity, in the Son is filiation. It is thus true to say
that the Son possesses whatever dignity the Father has; but we cannot
argue---"the Father has paternity, therefore the Son has paternity,"
for there is a transition from substance to relation. For the Father
and the Son have the same essence and dignity, which exist in the
Father by the relation of giver, and in the Son by relation of
receiver.
Reply to Objection 3: In God relation is not a universal whole,
although it is predicated of each of the relations; because all the
relations are one in essence and being, which is irreconcilable with
the idea of universal, the parts of which are distinguished in being.
Persons likewise is not a universal term in God as we have seen above
([361]Q[30], A[4]). Wherefore all the relations together are not
greater than only one; nor are all the persons something greater than
only one; because the whole perfection of the divine nature exists in
each person.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the Son is in the Father, and conversely?
Objection 1: It would seem that the Son and the Father are not in each
other. For the Philosopher (Phys. iv, text. 23) gives eight modes of
one thing existing in another, according to none of which is the Son in
the Father, or conversely; as is patent to anyone who examines each
mode. Therefore the Son and the Father are not in each other.
Objection 2: Further, nothing that has come out from another is within.
But the Son from eternity came out from the Father, according to Mic.
5:2: "His going forth is from the beginning, from the days of
eternity. " Therefore the Son is not in the Father.
Objection 3: Further, one of two opposites cannot be in the other. But
the Son and the Father are relatively opposed. Therefore one cannot be
in the other.
On the contrary, It is said (Jn. 14:10): "I am in the Father, and the
Father is in Me. "
I answer that, There are three points of consideration as regards the
Father and the Son; the essence, the relation and the origin; and
according to each the Son and the Father are in each other. The Father
is in the Son by His essence, forasmuch as the Father is His own
essence and communicates His essence to the Son not by any change on
His part. Hence it follows that as the Father's essence is in the Son,
the Father Himself is in the Son; likewise, since the Son is His own
essence, it follows that He Himself is in the Father in Whom is His
essence. This is expressed by Hilary (De Trin. v), "The unchangeable
God, so to speak, follows His own nature in begetting an unchangeable
subsisting God. So we understand the nature of God to subsist in Him,
for He is God in God. " It is also manifest that as regards the
relations, each of two relative opposites is in the concept of the
other. Regarding origin also, it is clear that the procession of the
intelligible word is not outside the intellect, inasmuch as it remains
in the utterer of the word. What also is uttered by the word is therein
contained. And the same applies to the Holy Ghost.
Reply to Objection 1: What is contained in creatures does not
sufficiently represent what exists in God; so according to none of the
modes enumerated by the Philosopher, are the Son and the Father in each
other. The mode the most nearly approaching to the reality is to be
found in that whereby something exists in its originating principle,
except that the unity of essence between the principle and that which
proceeds therefrom is wanting in things created.
Reply to Objection 2: The Son's going forth from the Father is by mode
of the interior procession whereby the word emerges from the heart and
remains therein. Hence this going forth in God is only by the
distinction of the relations, not by any kind of essential separation.
Reply to Objection 3: The Father and the Son are relatively opposed,
but not essentially; while, as above explained, one relative opposite
is in the other.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the Son is equal to the Father in power?
Objection 1: It would seem that the Son is not equal to the Father in
power. For it is said (Jn. 5:19): "The Son cannot do anything of
Himself but what He seeth the Father doing. " But the Father can act of
Himself. Therefore the Father's power is greater than the Son's.
Objection 2: Further, greater is the power of him who commands and
teaches than of him who obeys and hears. But the Father commands the
Son according to Jn. 14:31: "As the Father gave Me commandment so do
I. " The Father also teaches the Son: "The Father loveth the Son, and
showeth Him all things that Himself doth" (Jn. 5:20). Also, the Son
hears: "As I hear, so I judge" (Jn. 5:30). Therefore the Father has
greater power than the Son.
Objection 3: Further, it belongs to the Father's omnipotence to be able
to beget a Son equal to Himself. For Augustine says (Contra Maxim. iii,
7), "Were He unable to beget one equal to Himself, where would be the
omnipotence of God the Father? " But the Son cannot beget a Son, as
proved above ([362]Q[41], A[6]). Therefore the Son cannot do all that
belongs to the Father's omnipotence; and hence He is not equal to Him
power.
On the contrary, It is said (Jn. 5:19): "Whatsoever things the Father
doth, these the Son also doth in like manner. "
I answer that, The Son is necessarily equal to the Father in power.
Power of action is a consequence of perfection in nature. In creatures,
for instance, we see that the more perfect the nature, the greater
power is there for action. Now it was shown above [363](A[4]) that the
very notion of the divine paternity and filiation requires that the Son
should be the Father's equal in greatness---that is, in perfection of
nature. Hence it follows that the Son is equal to the Father in power;
and the same applies to the Holy Ghost in relation to both.
Reply to Objection 1: The words, "the Son cannot of Himself do
anything," do not withdraw from the Son any power possessed by the
Father, since it is immediately added, "Whatsoever things the Father
doth, the Son doth in like manner"; but their meaning is to show that
the Son derives His power from the Father, of Whom He receives His
nature.
Father's essence.
Objection 4: Further, every creature is from nothing. But in Scripture
the Son is called a creature; for it is said (Ecclus. 24:5), in the
person of the Wisdom begotten,"I came out of the mouth of the Most
High, the first-born before all creatures": and further on (Ecclus.
24:14) it is said as uttered by the same Wisdom, "From the beginning,
and before the world was I created. " Therefore the Son was not begotten
from something, but from nothing. Likewise we can object concerning the
Holy Ghost, by reason of what is said (Zech. 12:1): "Thus saith the
Lord Who stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundations of
the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him"; and (Amos 4:13)
according to another version [*The Septuagint]: "I Who form the earth,
and create the spirit. "
On the contrary, Augustine (Fulgentius, De Fide ad Petrum i, 1) says:
"God the Father, of His nature, without beginning, begot the Son equal
to Himself. "
I answer that, The Son was not begotten from nothing, but from the
Father's substance. For it was explained above ([344]Q[27], A[2];
[345]Q[33], AA[2] ,3) that paternity, filiation and nativity really and
truly exist in God. Now, this is the difference between true
"generation," whereby one proceeds from another as a son, and "making,"
that the maker makes something out of external matter, as a carpenter
makes a bench out of wood, whereas a man begets a son from himself.
Now, as a created workman makes a thing out of matter, so God makes
things out of nothing, as will be shown later on ([346]Q[45], A[1]),
not as if this nothing were a part of the substance of the thing made,
but because the whole substance of a thing is produced by Him without
anything else whatever presupposed. So, were the Son to proceed from
the Father as out of nothing, then the Son would be to the Father what
the thing made is to the maker, whereto, as is evident, the name of
filiation would not apply except by a kind of similitude. Thus, if the
Son of God proceeds from the Father out of nothing, He could not be
properly and truly called the Son, whereas the contrary is stated (1
Jn. 5:20): "That we may be in His true Son Jesus Christ. " Therefore the
true Son of God is not from nothing; nor is He made, but begotten.
That certain creatures made by God out of nothing are called sons of
God is to be taken in a metaphorical sense, according to a certain
likeness of assimilation to Him Who is the true Son. Whence, as He is
the only true and natural Son of God, He is called the "only begotten,"
according to Jn. 1:18, "The only begotten Son, Who is in the bosom of
the Father, He hath declared Him"; and so as others are entitled sons
of adoption by their similitude to Him, He is called the "first
begotten," according to Rom. 8:29: "Whom He foreknew He also
predestinated to be made conformable to the image of His Son, that He
might be the first born of many brethren. " Therefore the Son of God is
begotten of the substance of the Father, but not in the same way as man
is born of man; for a part of the human substance in generation passes
into the substance of the one begotten, whereas the divine nature
cannot be parted; whence it necessarily follows that the Father in
begetting the Son does not transmit any part of His nature, but
communicates His whole nature to Him, the distinction only of origin
remaining as explained above ([347]Q[40], A[2]).
Reply to Objection 1: When we say that the Son was born of the Father,
the preposition "of" designates a consubstantial generating principle,
but not a material principle. For that which is produced from matter,
is made by a change of form in that whence it is produced. But the
divine essence is unchangeable, and is not susceptive of another form.
Reply to Objection 2: When we say the Son is begotten of the essence of
the Father, as the Master of the Sentences explains (Sent. i, D, v),
this denotes the habitude of a kind of active principle, and as he
expounds, "the Son is begotten of the essence of the Father"---that is,
of the Father Who is essence; and so Augustine says (De Trin. xv, 13):
"When I say of the Father Who is essence, it is the same as if I said
more explicitly, of the essence of the Father. "
This, however, is not enough to explain the real meaning of the words.
For we can say that the creature is from God Who is essence; but not
that it is from the essence of God. So we may explain them otherwise,
by observing that the preposition "of" [de] always denotes
consubstantiality. We do not say that a house is "of" [de] the builder,
since he is not the consubstantial cause. We can say, however, that
something is "of" another, if this is its consubstantial principle, no
matter in what way it is so, whether it be an active principle, as the
son is said to be "of" the father, or a material principle, as a knife
is "of" iron; or a formal principle, but in those things only in which
the forms are subsisting, and not accidental to another, for we can say
that an angel is "of" an intellectual nature. In this way, then, we say
that the Son is begotten 'of' the essence of the Father, inasmuch as
the essence of the Father, communicated by generation, subsists in the
Son.
Reply to Objection 3: When we say that the Son is begotten of the
essence of the Father, a term is added which saves the distinction. But
when we say that the three persons are 'of' the divine essence, there
is nothing expressed to warrant the distinction signified by the
preposition, so there is no parity of argument.
Reply to Objection 4: When we say "Wisdom was created," this may be
understood not of Wisdom which is the Son of God, but of created wisdom
given by God to creatures: for it is said, "He created her [namely,
Wisdom] in the Holy Ghost, and He poured her out over all His works"
(Ecclus. 1:9,10). Nor is it inconsistent for Scripture in one text to
speak of the Wisdom begotten and wisdom created, for wisdom created is
a kind of participation of the uncreated Wisdom. The saying may also be
referred to the created nature assumed by the Son, so that the sense
be, "From the beginning and before the world was I made"---that is, I
was foreseen as united to the creature. Or the mention of wisdom as
both created and begotten insinuates into our minds the mode of the
divine generation; for in generation what is generated receives the
nature of the generator and this pertains to perfection; whereas in
creation the Creator is not changed, but the creature does not receive
the Creator's nature. Thus the Son is called both created and begotten,
in order that from the idea of creation the immutability of the Father
may be understood, and from generation the unity of nature in the
Father and the Son. In this way Hilary expounds the sense of this text
of Scripture (De Synod. ). The other passages quoted do not refer to the
Holy Ghost, but to the created spirit, sometimes called wind, sometimes
air, sometimes the breath of man, sometimes also the soul, or any other
invisible substance.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether in God there is a power in respect of the notional acts?
Objection 1: It would seem that in God there is no power in respect of
the notional acts. For every kind of power is either active or passive;
neither of which can be here applied, there being in God nothing which
we call passive power, as above explained ([348]Q[25], A[1]); nor can
active power belong to one person as regards another, since the divine
persons were not made, as stated above [349](A[3]). Therefore in God
there is no power in respect of the notional acts.
Objection 2: Further, the object of power is what is possible. But the
divine persons are not regarded as possible, but necessary. Therefore,
as regards the notional acts, whereby the divine persons proceed, there
cannot be power in God.
Objection 3: Further, the Son proceeds as the word, which is the
concept of the intellect; and the Holy Ghost proceeds as love, which
belongs to the will. But in God power exists as regards effects, and
not as regards intellect and will, as stated above ([350]Q[25], A[1]).
Therefore, in God power does not exist in reference to the notional
acts.
On the contrary, Augustine says (Contra Maxim. iii, 1): "If God the
Father could not beget a co-equal Son, where is the omnipotence of God
the Father? " Power therefore exists in God regarding the notional acts.
I answer that, As the notional acts exist in God, so must there be also
a power in God regarding these acts; since power only means the
principle of act. So, as we understand the Father to be principle of
generation; and the Father and the Son to be the principle of
spiration, we must attribute the power of generating to the Father, and
the power of spiration to the Father and the Son; for the power of
generation means that whereby the generator generates. Now every
generator generates by something. Therefore in every generator we must
suppose the power of generating, and in the spirator the power of
spirating.
Reply to Objection 1: As a person, according to notional acts, does not
proceed as if made; so the power in God as regards the notional acts
has no reference to a person as if made, but only as regards the person
as proceeding.
Reply to Objection 2: Possible, as opposed to what is necessary, is a
consequence of a passive power, which does not exist in God. Hence, in
God there is no such thing as possibility in this sense, but only in
the sense of possible as contained in what is necessary; and in this
latter sense it can be said that as it is possible for God to be, so
also is it possible that the Son should be generated.
Reply to Objection 3: Power signifies a principle: and a principle
implies distinction from that of which it is the principle. Now we must
observe a double distinction in things said of God: one is a real
distinction, the other is a distinction of reason only. By a real
distinction, God by His essence is distinct from those things of which
He is the principle by creation: just as one person is distinct from
the other of which He is principle by a notional act. But in God the
distinction of action and agent is one of reason only, otherwise action
would be an accident in God. And therefore with regard to those actions
in respect of which certain things proceed which are distinct from God,
either personally or essentially, we may ascribe power to God in its
proper sense of principle. And as we ascribe to God the power of
creating, so we may ascribe the power of begetting and of spirating.
But "to understand" and "to will" are not such actions as to designate
the procession of something distinct from God, either essentially or
personally. Wherefore, with regard to these actions we cannot ascribe
power to God in its proper sense, but only after our way of
understanding and speaking: inasmuch as we designate by different terms
the intellect and the act of understanding in God, whereas in God the
act of understanding is His very essence which has no principle.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the power of begetting signifies a relation, and not the essence?
Objection 1: It would seem that the power of begetting, or of
spirating, signifies the relation and not the essence. For power
signifies a principle, as appears from its definition: for active power
is the principle of action, as we find in Metaph. v, text 17. But in
God principle in regard to Person is said notionally. Therefore, in
God, power does not signify essence but relation.
Objection 2: Further, in God, the power to act [posse] and 'to act' are
not distinct. But in God, begetting signifies relation. Therefore, the
same applies to the power of begetting.
Objection 3: Further, terms signifying the essence in God, are common
to the three persons. But the power of begetting is not common to the
three persons, but proper to the Father. Therefore it does not signify
the essence.
On the contrary, As God has the power to beget the Son, so also He
wills to beget Him. But the will to beget signifies the essence.
Therefore, also, the power to beget.
I answer that, Some have said that the power to beget signifies
relation in God. But this is not possible. For in every agent, that is
properly called power, by which the agent acts. Now, everything that
produces something by its action, produces something like itself, as to
the form by which it acts; just as man begotten is like his begetter in
his human nature, in virtue of which the father has the power to beget
a man. In every begetter, therefore, that is the power of begetting in
which the begotten is like the begetter.
Now the Son of God is like the Father, who begets Him, in the divine
nature. Wherefore the divine nature in the Father is in Him the power
of begetting. And so Hilary says (De Trin. v): "The birth of God cannot
but contain that nature from which it proceeded; for He cannot subsist
other than God, Who subsists from no other source than God. "
We must therefore conclude that the power of begetting signifies
principally the divine essence as the Master says (Sent. i, D, vii),
and not the relation only. Nor does it signify the essence as
identified with the relation, so as to signify both equally. For
although paternity is signified as the form of the Father, nevertheless
it is a personal property, being in respect to the person of the
Father, what the individual form is to the individual creature. Now the
individual form in things created constitutes the person begetting, but
is not that by which the begetter begets, otherwise Socrates would
beget Socrates. So neither can paternity be understood as that by which
the Father begets, but as constituting the person of the Father,
otherwise the Father would beget the Father. But that by which the
Father begets is the divine nature, in which the Son is like to Him.
And in this sense Damascene says (De Fide Orth. i, 18) that generation
is the "work of nature," not of nature generating, but of nature, as
being that by which the generator generates. And therefore the power of
begetting signifies the divine nature directly, but the relation
indirectly.
Reply to Objection 1: Power does not signify the relation itself of a
principle, for thus it would be in the genus of relation; but it
signifies that which is a principle; not, indeed, in the sense in which
we call the agent a principle, but in the sense of being that by which
the agent acts. Now the agent is distinct from that which it makes, and
the generator from that which it generates: but that by which the
generator generates is common to generated and generator, and so much
more perfectly, as the generation is more perfect. Since, therefore,
the divine generation is most perfect, that by which the Begetter
begets, is common to Begotten and Begetter by a community of identity,
and not only of species, as in things created. Therefore, from the fact
that we say that the divine essence "is the principle by which the
Begetter begets," it does not follow that the divine essence is
distinct (from the Begotten): which would follow if we were to say that
the divine essence begets.
Reply to Objection 2: As in God, the power of begetting is the same as
the act of begetting, so the divine essence is the same in reality as
the act of begetting or paternity; although there is a distinction of
reason.
Reply to Objection 3: When I speak of the "power of begetting," power
is signified directly, generation indirectly: just as if I were to say,
the "essence of the Father. " Wherefore in respect of the essence, which
is signified, the power of begetting is common to the three persons:
but in respect of the notion that is connoted, it is proper to the
person of the Father.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether several persons can be the term of one notional act?
Objection 1: It would seem that a notional act can be directed to
several Persons, so that there may be several Persons begotten or
spirated in God. For whoever has the power of begetting can beget. But
the Son has the power of begetting. Therefore He can beget. But He
cannot beget Himself: therefore He can beget another son. Therefore
there can be several Sons in God.
Objection 2: Further, Augustine says (Contra Maxim. iii, 12): "The Son
did not beget a Creator: not that He could not, but that it behoved Him
not. "
Objection 3: Further, God the Father has greater power to beget than
has a created father. But a man can beget several sons. Therefore God
can also: the more so that the power of the Father is not diminished
after begetting the Son.
On the contrary, In God "that which is possible," and "that which is"
do not differ. If, therefore, in God it were possible for there to be
several Sons, there would be several Sons. And thus there would be more
than three Persons in God; which is heretical.
I answer that, As Athanasius says, in God there is only "one Father,
one Son, one Holy Ghost. " For this four reasons may be given.
The first reason is in regard to the relations by which alone are the
Persons distinct. For since the divine Persons are the relations
themselves as subsistent, there would not be several Fathers, or
several Sons in God, unless there were more than one paternity, or more
than one filiation. And this, indeed, would not be possible except
owing to a material distinction: since forms of one species are not
multiplied except in respect of matter, which is not in God. Wherefore
there can be but one subsistent filiation in God: just as there could
be but one subsistent whiteness.
The second reason is taken from the manner of the processions. For God
understands and wills all things by one simple act. Wherefore there can
be but one person proceeding after the manner of word, which person is
the Son; and but one person proceeding after the manner of love, which
person is the Holy Ghost.
The third reason is taken from the manner in which the persons proceed.
For the persons proceed naturally, as we have said [351](A[2]), and
nature is determined to one.
The fourth reason is taken from the perfection of the divine persons.
For this reason is the Son perfect, that the entire divine filiation is
contained in Him, and that there is but one Son. The argument is
similar in regard to the other persons.
Reply to Objection 1: We can grant, without distinction, that the Son
has the same power as the Father; but we cannot grant that the Son has
the power "generandi" [of begetting] thus taking "generandi" as the
gerund of the active verb, so that the sense would be that the Son has
the "power to beget. " Just as, although Father and Son have the same
being, it does not follow that the Son is the Father, by reason of the
notional term added. But if the word "generandi" [of being begotten] is
taken as the gerundive of the passive verb, the power "generandi" is in
the Son---that is, the power of being begotten. The same is to be said
if it be taken as the gerundive of an impersonal verb, so that the
sense be "the power of generation"---that is, a power by which it is
generated by some person.
Reply to Objection 2: Augustine does not mean to say by those words
that the Son could beget a Son: but that if He did not, it was not
because He could not, as we shall see later on ([352]Q[42], A[6], ad
3).
Reply to Objection 3: Divine perfection and the total absence of matter
in God require that there cannot be several Sons in God, as we have
explained. Wherefore that there are not several Sons is not due to any
lack of begetting power in the Father.
__________________________________________________________________
OF EQUALITY AND LIKENESS AMONG THE DIVINE PERSONS (SIX ARTICLES)
We now have to consider the persons as compared to one another:
firstly, with regard to equality and likeness; secondly, with regard to
mission. Concerning the first there are six points of inquiry.
(1) Whether there is equality among the divine persons?
(2) Whether the person who proceeds is equal to the one from Whom He
proceeds in eternity?
(3) Whether there is any order among the divine persons?
(4) Whether the divine persons are equal in greatness?
(5) Whether the one divine person is in another?
(6) Whether they are equal in power?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether there is equality in God?
Objection 1: It would seem that equality is not becoming to the divine
persons. For equality is in relation to things which are one in
quantity as the Philosopher says (Metaph. v, text 20). But in the
divine persons there is no quantity, neither continuous intrinsic
quantity, which we call size, nor continuous extrinsic quantity, which
we call place and time. Nor can there be equality by reason of discrete
quantity, because two persons are more than one. Therefore equality is
not becoming to the divine persons.
Objection 2: Further, the divine persons are of one essence, as we have
said ([353]Q[39], A[2]). Now essence is signified by way of form. But
agreement in form makes things to be alike, not to be equal. Therefore,
we may speak of likeness in the divine persons, but not of equality.
Objection 3: Further, things wherein there is to be found equality, are
equal to one another, for equality is reciprocal. But the divine
persons cannot be said to be equal to one another. For as Augustine
says (De Trin. vi, 10): "If an image answers perfectly to that whereof
it is the image, it may be said to be equal to it; but that which it
represents cannot be said to be equal to the image. " But the Son is the
image of the Father; and so the Father is not equal to the Son.
Therefore equality is not to be found among the divine persons.
Objection 4: Further, equality is a relation. But no relation is common
to the three persons; for the persons are distinct by reason of the
relations. Therefore equality is not becoming to the divine persons.
On the contrary, Athanasius says that "the three persons are co-eternal
and co-equal to one another. "
I answer that, We must needs admit equality among the divine persons.
For, according to the Philosopher (Metaph. x, text 15,16, 17), equality
signifies the negation of greater or less. Now we cannot admit anything
greater or less in the divine persons; for as Boethius says (De Trin.
i): "They must needs admit a difference [namely, of Godhead] who speak
of either increase or decrease, as the Arians do, who sunder the
Trinity by distinguishing degrees as of numbers, thus involving a
plurality. " Now the reason of this is that unequal things cannot have
the same quantity. But quantity, in God, is nothing else than His
essence. Wherefore it follows, that if there were any inequality in the
divine persons, they would not have the same essence; and thus the
three persons would not be one God; which is impossible. We must
therefore admit equality among the divine persons.
Reply to Objection 1: Quantity is twofold. There is quantity of "bulk"
or dimensive quantity, which is to be found only in corporeal things,
and has, therefore, no place in God. There is also quantity of
"virtue," which is measured according to the perfection of some nature
or form: to this sort of quantity we allude when we speak of something
as being more, or less, hot; forasmuch as it is more or less, perfect
in heat. Now this virtual quantity is measured firstly by its
source---that is, by the perfection of that form or nature: such is the
greatness of spiritual things, just as we speak of great heat on
account of its intensity and perfection. And so Augustine says (De
Trin. vi, 18) that "in things which are great, but not in bulk, to be
greater is to be better," for the more perfect a thing is the better it
is. Secondly, virtual quantity is measured by the effects of the form.
Now the first effect of form is being, for everything has being by
reason of its form. The second effect is operation, for every agent
acts through its form. Consequently virtual quantity is measured both
in regard to being and in regard to action: in regard to being,
forasmuch as things of a more perfect nature are of longer duration;
and in regard to action, forasmuch as things of a more perfect nature
are more powerful to act. And so as Augustine (Fulgentius, De Fide ad
Petrum i) says: "We understand equality to be in the Father, Son and
Holy Ghost, inasmuch as no one of them either precedes in eternity, or
excels in greatness, or surpasses in power. "
Reply to Objection 2: Where we have equality in respect of virtual
quantity, equality includes likeness and something besides, because it
excludes excess.
For whatever things have a common form may be said to
be alike, even if they do not participate in that form equally, just as
the air may be said to be like fire in heat; but they cannot be said to
be equal if one participates in the form more perfectly than another.
And because not only is the same nature in both Father and Son, but
also is it in both in perfect equality, therefore we say not only that
the Son is like to the Father, in order to exclude the error of
Eunomius, but also that He is equal to the Father to exclude the error
of Arius.
Reply to Objection 3: Equality and likeness in God may be designated in
two ways---namely, by nouns and by verbs. When designated by nouns,
equality in the divine persons is mutual, and so is likeness; for the
Son is equal and like to the Father, and conversely. This is because
the divine essence is not more the Father's than the Son's. Wherefore,
just as the Son has the greatness of the Father, and is therefore equal
to the Father, so the Father has the greatness of the Son, and is
therefore equal to the Son. But in reference to creatures, Dionysius
says (Div. Nom. ix): "Equality and likeness are not mutual. " For
effects are said to be like their causes, inasmuch as they have the
form of their causes; but not conversely, for the form is principally
in the cause, and secondarily in the effect.
But verbs signify equality with movement. And although movement is not
in God, there is something that receives. Since, therefore, the Son
receives from the Father, this, namely, that He is equal to the Father,
and not conversely, for this reason we say that the Son is equalled to
the Father, but not conversely.
Reply to Objection 4: In the divine persons there is nothing for us to
consider but the essence which they have in common and the relations in
which they are distinct. Now equality implies both ---namely,
distinction of persons, for nothing can be said to be equal to itself;
and unity of essence, since for this reason are the persons equal to
one another, that they are of the same greatness and essence. Now it is
clear that the relation of a thing to itself is not a real relation.
Nor, again, is one relation referred to another by a further relation:
for when we say that paternity is opposed to filiation, opposition is
not a relation mediating between paternity and filiation. For in both
these cases relation would be multiplied indefinitely. Therefore
equality and likeness in the divine persons is not a real relation
distinct from the personal relations: but in its concept it includes
both the relations which distinguish the persons, and the unity of
essence. For this reason the Master says (Sent. i, D, xxxi) that in
these "it is only the terms that are relative. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the person proceeding is co-eternal with His principle, as the Son
with the Father?
Objection 1: It would seem that the person proceeding is not co-eternal
with His principle, as the Son with the Father. For Arius gives twelve
modes of generation. The first mode is like the issue of a line from a
point; wherein is wanting equality of simplicity. The second is like
the emission of rays from the sun; wherein is absent equality of
nature. The third is like the mark or impression made by a seal;
wherein is wanting consubstantiality and executive power. The fourth is
the infusion of a good will from God; wherein also consubstantiality is
wanting. The fifth is the emanation of an accident from its subject;
but the accident has no subsistence. The sixth is the abstraction of a
species from matter, as sense receives the species from the sensible
object; wherein is wanting equality of spiritual simplicity. The
seventh is the exciting of the will by knowledge, which excitation is
merely temporal. The eighth is transformation, as an image is made of
brass; which transformation is material. The ninth is motion from a
mover; and here again we have effect and cause. The tenth is the taking
of species from genera; but this mode has no place in God, for the
Father is not predicated of the Son as the genus of a species. The
eleventh is the realization of an idea [ideatio], as an external coffer
arises from the one in the mind. The twelfth is birth, as a man is
begotten of his father; which implies priority and posteriority of
time. Thus it is clear that equality of nature or of time is absent in
every mode whereby one thing is from another. So if the Son is from the
Father, we must say that He is less than the Father, or later than the
Father, or both.
Objection 2: Further, everything that comes from another has a
principle. But nothing eternal has a principle. Therefore the Son is
not eternal; nor is the Holy Ghost.
Objection 3: Further, everything which is corrupted ceases to be. Hence
everything generated begins to be; for the end of generation is
existence. But the Son is generated by the Father. Therefore He begins
to exist, and is not co-eternal with the Father.
Objection 4: Further, if the Son be begotten by the Father, either He
is always being begotten, or there is some moment in which He is
begotten. If He is always being begotten, since, during the process of
generation, a thing must be imperfect, as appears in successive things,
which are always in process of becoming, as time and motion, it follows
that the Son must be always imperfect, which cannot be admitted. Thus
there is a moment to be assigned for the begetting of the Son, and
before that moment the Son did not exist.
On the contrary, Athanasius declares that "all the three persons are
co-eternal with each other. "
I answer that, We must say that the Son is co-eternal with the Father.
In proof of which we must consider that for a thing which proceeds from
a principle to be posterior to its principle may be due to two reasons:
one on the part of the agent, and the other on the part of the action.
On the part of the agent this happens differently as regards free
agents and natural agents. In free agents, on account of the choice of
time; for as a free agent can choose the form it gives to the effect,
as stated above ([354]Q[41], A[2]), so it can choose the time in which
to produce its effect. In natural agents, however, the same happens
from the agent not having its perfection of natural power from the very
first, but obtaining it after a certain time; as, for instance, a man
is not able to generate from the very first. Considered on the part of
action, anything derived from a principle cannot exist simultaneously
with its principle when the action is successive. So, given that an
agent, as soon as it exists, begins to act thus, the effect would not
exist in the same instant, but in the instant of the action's
termination. Now it is manifest, according to what has been said
([355]Q[41], A[2]), that the Father does not beget the Son by will, but
by nature; and also that the Father's nature was perfect from eternity;
and again that the action whereby the Father produces the Son is not
successive, because thus the Son would be successively generated, and
this generation would be material, and accompanied with movement; which
is quite impossible. Therefore we conclude that the Son existed
whensoever the Father existed and thus the Son is co-eternal with the
Father, and likewise the Holy Ghost is co-eternal with both.
Reply to Objection 1: As Augustine says (De Verbis Domini, Serm. 38),
no mode of the procession of any creature perfectly represents the
divine generation. Hence we need to gather a likeness of it from many
of these modes, so that what is wanting in one may be somewhat supplied
from another; and thus it is declared in the council of Ephesus: "Let
Splendor tell thee that the co-eternal Son existed always with the
Father; let the Word announce the impassibility of His birth; let the
name Son insinuate His consubstantiality. " Yet, above them all the
procession of the word from the intellect represents it more exactly;
the intellectual word not being posterior to its source except in an
intellect passing from potentiality to act; and this cannot be said of
God.
Reply to Objection 2: Eternity excludes the principle of duration, but
not the principle of origin.
Reply to Objection 3: Every corruption is a change; and so all that
corrupts begins not to exist and ceases to be. The divine generation,
however, is not changed, as stated above ([356]Q[27], A[2]). Hence the
Son is ever being begotten, and the Father is always begetting.
Reply to Objection 4: In time there is something indivisible---namely,
the instant; and there is something else which endures---namely, time.
But in eternity the indivisible "now" stands ever still, as we have
said above ([357]Q[10], A[2] ad 1, A[4] ad 2). But the generation of
the Son is not in the "now" of time, or in time, but in eternity. And
so to express the presentiality and permanence of eternity, we can say
that "He is ever being born," as Origen said (Hom. in Joan. i). But as
Gregory [*Moral. xxix, 21] and Augustine [*Super Ps. 2:7] said, it is
better to say "ever born," so that "ever" may denote the permanence of
eternity, and "born" the perfection of the only Begotten. Thus,
therefore, neither is the Son imperfect, nor "was there a time when He
was not," as Arius said.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether in the divine persons there exists an order of nature?
Objection 1: It would seem that among the divine persons there does not
exist an order of nature. For whatever exists in God is the essence, or
a person, or a notion. But the order of nature does not signify the
essence, nor any of the persons, or notions. Therefore there is no
order of nature in God.
Objection 2: Further, wherever order of nature exists, there one comes
before another, at least, according to nature and intellect. But in the
divine persons there exists neither priority nor posteriority, as
declared by Athanasius. Therefore, in the divine persons there is no
order of nature.
Objection 3: Further, wherever order exists, distinction also exists.
But there is no distinction in the divine nature. Therefore it is not
subject to order; and order of nature does not exist in it.
Objection 4: Further, the divine nature is the divine essence. But
there is no order of essence in God. Therefore neither is there of
nature.
On the contrary, Where plurality exists without order, confusion
exists. But in the divine persons there is no confusion, as Athanasius
says. Therefore in God order exists.
I answer that, Order always has reference to some principle. Wherefore
since there are many kinds of principle---namely, according to site, as
a point; according to intellect, as the principle of demonstration; and
according to each individual cause---so are there many kinds of order.
Now principle, according to origin, without priority, exists in God as
we have stated ([358]Q[33], A[1]): so there must likewise be order
according to origin, without priority; and this is called 'the order of
nature': in the words of Augustine (Contra Maxim. iv): "Not whereby one
is prior to another, but whereby one is from another. "
Reply to Objection 1: The order of nature signifies the notion of
origin in general, not a special kind of origin.
Reply to Objection 2: In things created, even when what is derived from
a principle is co-equal in duration with its principle, the principle
still comes first in the order of nature and reason, if formally
considered as principle. If, however, we consider the relations of
cause and effect, or of the principle and the thing proceeding
therefrom, it is clear that the things so related are simultaneous in
the order of nature and reason, inasmuch as the one enters the
definition of the other. But in God the relations themselves are the
persons subsisting in one nature. So, neither on the part of the
nature, nor on the part the relations, can one person be prior to
another, not even in the order of nature and reason.
Reply to Objection 3: The order of nature means not the ordering of
nature itself, but the existence of order in the divine Persons
according to natural origin.
Reply to Objection 4: Nature in a certain way implies the idea of a
principle, but essence does not; and so the order of origin is more
correctly called the order of nature than the order of essence.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the Son is equal to the Father in greatness?
Objection 1: It would seem that the Son is not equal to the Father in
greatness. For He Himself said (Jn. 14:28): "The Father is greater than
I"; and the Apostle says (1 Cor. 15:28): "The Son Himself shall be
subject to Him that put all things under Him. "
Objection 2: Further, paternity is part of the Father's dignity. But
paternity does not belong to the Son. Therefore the Son does not
possess all the Father's dignity; and so He is not equal in greatness
to the Father.
Objection 3: Further, wherever there exist a whole and a part, many
parts are more than one only, or than fewer parts; as three men are
more than two, or than one. But in God a universal whole exists, and a
part; for under relation or notion, several notions are included.
Therefore, since in the Father there are three notions, while in the
Son there are only two, the Son is evidently not equal to the Father.
On the contrary, It is said (Phil. 2:6): "He thought it not robbery to
be equal with God. "
I answer that, The Son is necessarily equal to the Father in greatness.
For the greatness of God is nothing but the perfection of His nature.
Now it belongs to the very nature of paternity and filiation that the
Son by generation should attain to the possession of the perfection of
the nature which is in the Father, in the same way as it is in the
Father Himself. But since in men generation is a certain kind of
transmutation of one proceeding from potentiality to act, it follows
that a man is not equal at first to the father who begets him, but
attains to equality by due growth, unless owing to a defect in the
principle of generation it should happen otherwise. From what precedes
([359]Q[27], A[2]; [360]Q[33], AA[2] ,3), it is evident that in God
there exist real true paternity and filiation. Nor can we say that the
power of generation in the Father was defective, nor that the Son of
God arrived at perfection in a successive manner and by change.
Therefore we must say that the Son was eternally equal to the Father in
greatness. Hence, Hilary says (De Synod. Can. 27): "Remove bodily
weakness, remove the beginning of conception, remove pain and all human
shortcomings, then every son, by reason of his natural nativity, is the
father's equal, because he has a like nature. "
Reply to Objection 1: These words are to be understood of Christ's
human nature, wherein He is less than the Father, and subject to Him;
but in His divine nature He is equal to the Father. This is expressed
by Athanasius, "Equal to the Father in His Godhead; less than the
Father in humanity": and by Hilary (De Trin. ix): "By the fact of
giving, the Father is greater; but He is not less to Whom the same
being is given"; and (De Synod. ): "The Son subjects Himself by His
inborn piety"---that is, by His recognition of paternal authority;
whereas "creatures are subject by their created weakness. "
Reply to Objection 2: Equality is measured by greatness. In God
greatness signifies the perfection of nature, as above explained (A[1],
ad 1), and belongs to the essence. Thus equality and likeness in God
have reference to the essence; nor can there be inequality or
dissimilitude arising from the distinction of the relations. Wherefore
Augustine says (Contra Maxim. iii, 13), "The question of origin is, Who
is from whom? but the question of equality is, Of what kind, or how
great, is he? " Therefore, paternity is the Father's dignity, as also
the Father's essence: since dignity is something absolute, and pertains
to the essence. As, therefore, the same essence, which in the Father is
paternity, in the Son is filiation, so the same dignity which, in the
Father is paternity, in the Son is filiation. It is thus true to say
that the Son possesses whatever dignity the Father has; but we cannot
argue---"the Father has paternity, therefore the Son has paternity,"
for there is a transition from substance to relation. For the Father
and the Son have the same essence and dignity, which exist in the
Father by the relation of giver, and in the Son by relation of
receiver.
Reply to Objection 3: In God relation is not a universal whole,
although it is predicated of each of the relations; because all the
relations are one in essence and being, which is irreconcilable with
the idea of universal, the parts of which are distinguished in being.
Persons likewise is not a universal term in God as we have seen above
([361]Q[30], A[4]). Wherefore all the relations together are not
greater than only one; nor are all the persons something greater than
only one; because the whole perfection of the divine nature exists in
each person.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the Son is in the Father, and conversely?
Objection 1: It would seem that the Son and the Father are not in each
other. For the Philosopher (Phys. iv, text. 23) gives eight modes of
one thing existing in another, according to none of which is the Son in
the Father, or conversely; as is patent to anyone who examines each
mode. Therefore the Son and the Father are not in each other.
Objection 2: Further, nothing that has come out from another is within.
But the Son from eternity came out from the Father, according to Mic.
5:2: "His going forth is from the beginning, from the days of
eternity. " Therefore the Son is not in the Father.
Objection 3: Further, one of two opposites cannot be in the other. But
the Son and the Father are relatively opposed. Therefore one cannot be
in the other.
On the contrary, It is said (Jn. 14:10): "I am in the Father, and the
Father is in Me. "
I answer that, There are three points of consideration as regards the
Father and the Son; the essence, the relation and the origin; and
according to each the Son and the Father are in each other. The Father
is in the Son by His essence, forasmuch as the Father is His own
essence and communicates His essence to the Son not by any change on
His part. Hence it follows that as the Father's essence is in the Son,
the Father Himself is in the Son; likewise, since the Son is His own
essence, it follows that He Himself is in the Father in Whom is His
essence. This is expressed by Hilary (De Trin. v), "The unchangeable
God, so to speak, follows His own nature in begetting an unchangeable
subsisting God. So we understand the nature of God to subsist in Him,
for He is God in God. " It is also manifest that as regards the
relations, each of two relative opposites is in the concept of the
other. Regarding origin also, it is clear that the procession of the
intelligible word is not outside the intellect, inasmuch as it remains
in the utterer of the word. What also is uttered by the word is therein
contained. And the same applies to the Holy Ghost.
Reply to Objection 1: What is contained in creatures does not
sufficiently represent what exists in God; so according to none of the
modes enumerated by the Philosopher, are the Son and the Father in each
other. The mode the most nearly approaching to the reality is to be
found in that whereby something exists in its originating principle,
except that the unity of essence between the principle and that which
proceeds therefrom is wanting in things created.
Reply to Objection 2: The Son's going forth from the Father is by mode
of the interior procession whereby the word emerges from the heart and
remains therein. Hence this going forth in God is only by the
distinction of the relations, not by any kind of essential separation.
Reply to Objection 3: The Father and the Son are relatively opposed,
but not essentially; while, as above explained, one relative opposite
is in the other.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the Son is equal to the Father in power?
Objection 1: It would seem that the Son is not equal to the Father in
power. For it is said (Jn. 5:19): "The Son cannot do anything of
Himself but what He seeth the Father doing. " But the Father can act of
Himself. Therefore the Father's power is greater than the Son's.
Objection 2: Further, greater is the power of him who commands and
teaches than of him who obeys and hears. But the Father commands the
Son according to Jn. 14:31: "As the Father gave Me commandment so do
I. " The Father also teaches the Son: "The Father loveth the Son, and
showeth Him all things that Himself doth" (Jn. 5:20). Also, the Son
hears: "As I hear, so I judge" (Jn. 5:30). Therefore the Father has
greater power than the Son.
Objection 3: Further, it belongs to the Father's omnipotence to be able
to beget a Son equal to Himself. For Augustine says (Contra Maxim. iii,
7), "Were He unable to beget one equal to Himself, where would be the
omnipotence of God the Father? " But the Son cannot beget a Son, as
proved above ([362]Q[41], A[6]). Therefore the Son cannot do all that
belongs to the Father's omnipotence; and hence He is not equal to Him
power.
On the contrary, It is said (Jn. 5:19): "Whatsoever things the Father
doth, these the Son also doth in like manner. "
I answer that, The Son is necessarily equal to the Father in power.
Power of action is a consequence of perfection in nature. In creatures,
for instance, we see that the more perfect the nature, the greater
power is there for action. Now it was shown above [363](A[4]) that the
very notion of the divine paternity and filiation requires that the Son
should be the Father's equal in greatness---that is, in perfection of
nature. Hence it follows that the Son is equal to the Father in power;
and the same applies to the Holy Ghost in relation to both.
Reply to Objection 1: The words, "the Son cannot of Himself do
anything," do not withdraw from the Son any power possessed by the
Father, since it is immediately added, "Whatsoever things the Father
doth, the Son doth in like manner"; but their meaning is to show that
the Son derives His power from the Father, of Whom He receives His
nature.
