ARTICLE V

In the Fifth Article We Ask: DOES THE WORD IMPLY A RELATION TO CREATURES?

Difficulties:

It seems not, for

1. Every name that implies a relation to creatures is predicated of God only from the beginning of time, for example, Creator and Lord. But Word is predicated of God from all eternity. Therefore, it does not imply a relation to creatures.

2. All relatives are relative in being or in predication. Now, the Word is not related to creatures in being, because then it would depend on creatures. Nor is it related to them merely in predication, because then it would have to be related to creatures in one of the grammatical cases. And since in this type of relation one thing is usually referred to another by means of the genitive case, we would have to say: "The Word is of creatures." This statement, however, Anselm denies. Therefore, the Word does not imply any relation to creatures.

3. Any name implying a relation to creatures cannot be understood unless the actual or potential existence of creatures is also understood, because, if one understands one of two relatives, he also understands the other. But, even if some creature is not understood as existing now or in the future, the divine Word, by which the Father utters Himself, is understood. Therefore, the Word does not imply any relation to creatures.

4. The relation of God to creatures can be only that of a cause to an effect. But, as Dionysius says, any name that implies an effect in creatures is common to the entire Trinity. However, Word is not this kind of a name. Hence, it does not imply any relation to creatures.

5. God is not understood as having a relation to creatures unless it be by His wisdom, goodness, and power. But these attributes are predicated of the Word merely by appropriation; and since Word is not merely an appropriated but a proper name, it seems that Word does not imply a relation to creatures.

6. Even though man arranges things, the word man does not imply a relation to the things he has arranged. Therefore, even though all things are arranged by the Word, Word does not imply a relation to them.

7. Like son, word is a relative predication. Now, the entire relation of the son terminates in the father, for he is not the son of any one but the father. Therefore, the entire relation of the Word terminates similarly. Hence, Word does not imply a relation to creatures.

8. According to the Philosopher, every relative is said to be such only with relation to one other thing. Otherwise, the relative would have two essences, since the essence of a relative lies simply in its being related to another. Now, the Word is predicated as relative to the Father; therefore, it is not predicated as relative to creatures.

9. If the same word is applied to specifically different things, it is used of them equivocally, as dog is used of hounds and fish. Now, superiority and inferiority are specifically different types of relations. If, therefore, one word implies both relations, then that word is used equivocally. But the relation of the Word to creatures is simply one of superiority, and the relation of the Word to the Father is, in a way, one of inferiority--not because of any unequal dignity, but because of the authority which a principle has. Hence, the Word which implies a relation to the Father does not imply a relation to creatures, unless it is taken equivocally.

To the Contrary:

1'. Augustine says: "'In the beginning was the Word.' (John 1:1) The Word is called Logos in Greek, and in Latin it means an intelligible character and word. In this passage, however, word is better interpreted as meaning a relation, not only to the Father, but also to those things which are made by His power, acting through the Word." This statement clearly supports our position.

2'. Explaining the words of the Psalmist, "God hath spoken once" (Psalms 61:12), the Gloss says: "'Once,' that is, God has eternally begotten the Word in which He disposes all things." Now, disposition implies a relation to the things disposed. Therefore, Word is predicated relatively.

3'. Every word implies a relation to what is signified by it. But, as Anselm says, by uttering Himself God utters all creatures. Therefore, the Word implies a relation, not only to the Father, but also to creatures.

4'. From the very fact of His being the Son, the Son perfectly represents the Father in that which is intrinsic to the Father. Now, the Word, by its very name, adds the notion of making manifest. But there can be no manifestation other than that in which the Father is manifested through creatures--a manifestation, as it were, to the exterior. Therefore, the Word implies a relation to creatures.

5'. Dionysius says that God is praised as being a word or principle of intelligibility because "He is the giver of wisdom and reason." From this it is clear that the Word as predicated of God implies the notion of cause. Now, a cause is predicated relatively to its effect. Therefore, the Word implies a relation to creatures.

6'. The practical intellect is related to the things carried out through its instrumentality. Now, the divine Word is the word of an intellect that is practical, because, as Damascene says, the Word is an operative word. Therefore, it implies a relation to creatures.

REPLY:

Whenever two things are related to each other in such a way that one depends upon the other but the other does not depend upon it, there is a real relation in the dependent member, but in the independent member the relation is merely one of reason--simply because one thing cannot be understood as being related to another without that other being understood as being related to it. The notion of such a relation becomes clear if we consider knowledge, which depends on what is known, although the latter does not depend on it.

Consequently, since all creatures depend on God but He does not depend on them, there are real relations in creatures, referring them to God. The opposite relations in God to creatures, however, are merely conceptual relations; but, because names are signs of concepts, certain names we use for God imply a relation to creatures, even though, as we have said, this relation is merely conceptual. The only real relations in God are those by which the divine persons are distinguished from each other.

Among relative terms, we find that some are used to signify the relations themselves, for example, the word likeness. Others are used to signify something upon which a relation follows. For example, knowledge is used to signify a certain quality upon which a particular relation follows. We find this difference also in the relative names used of God, both in the names used of Him as from all eternity, as well as in those used of Him as from the beginning of time. For Father is used of Him as from all eternity, and Lord as from the beginning of time; and each of these words is used to signify the relations themselves. But Creator, used of God as from the beginning of time, is employed to signify a divine action upon which a certain relation follows. The same is true of Word; it is used to signify something absolute to which something relative is joined; for, as Augustine says, the Word is simply "begotten Wisdom."

This, however, does not prevent Word from being a personal predication, because God begetting or God begotten is, like Father, predicated personally. It may happen, however, that an absolute thing is able to have a relation to many other things. This is why a name that is used to signify something absolute upon which a relation follows can be spoken of as being relative to many things, and it is in this manner that knowledge is used. Inasmuch as it is knowledge, it is relative to what is known, but inasmuch as it is a particular accident or form, it is related to the knower. In the same way, word is related to the one who utters it and to that which is uttered by the word. In the latter relation, it can be taken in two ways: first, according as the two are interchangeable, and in this sense we speak of a word as being related to what is spoken; second, according as the word is related to a thing to which the character of being uttered belongs. And since the Father principally utters Himself by begetting His Word, and, as a consequence of this, utters creatures, the Word is principally, and, as it were, essentially referred to the Father, but consequently, and, as it were, accidentally, to creatures; for it is only accidental to the Word that creatures are uttered through it.

Answers to Difficulties:

1. That argument is true of those names which imply an actual relation to creatures, but not of those which imply a habitual relation. A habitual relation is one that does not require the actual existence of a creature. All the relations that follow upon an act of the soul are of this kind, because the will and the intellect can be related to a thing that does not actually exist. Now, the Word implies an intellectual procession. Hence, the argument proves nothing.

2. The Word is spoken of as being related to creatures, but this is not a real relation in the sense that this relation to creatures really exists in God. It is rather a relation merely according to predication. Moreover, there is no reason why this relation should not be expressed by some grammatical case; for I can say that He is the Word of creatures in the sense that the Word is about creatures, although not from them. It is this last sense that Anselm denies. Besides, even if the Word were not referred to creatures by means of some grammatical case, it would be enough if it is referred to them in any manner whatsoever; for example, if it were referred to them by a preposition joined with some case. Then one would say that the Word "is for creatures," that is, for constituting them.

3. That argument holds for those names whose notions imply a relation to creatures. But this name is not that type, as is evident from our discussion in the body of the article. Hence, the conclusion does not follow.

4. Inasmuch as Word implies something absolute, it expresses a relation of causality over creatures; but inasmuch as it implies a relation of real origin, it is a personal name; and under this aspect it expresses no relation to creatures.

5. From our last answer, the answer to the fifth difficulty is evident.

6. The Word is not merely that by which the arrangement of all creatures takes place; it is the arrangement itself which the Father makes of things to be created. Hence, in some way, the Word is related to creatures.

7. The name son implies a relation only to that principle from which He comes, but word implies a relation both to the principle by which the Word was uttered and to that which is, as it were, its term, namely, that which is manifested through the word. What is manifested, of course, is principally the Father; but also, and, as a consequence, creatures are manifested, which, however, can in no way be a principle of a divine Person. Hence, Son implies no relation at all to creatures, such as Word does.

8. That argument is based on those names used to signify relations themselves, for it is impossible for one relation to terminate in many things, unless these are in some way one.

9. The same reply may be given to the ninth difficulty.

Answers to Contrary Difficulties:

The arguments supporting the opposite opinion conclude that the Word is in some way related to creatures, but not that it implies this relation essentially or, as it were, principally. In this limited sense, they must be granted.