Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It would seem that it is not proper to the Father to be unbegotten. For every property supposes something in that of which it is the property. But "unbegotten" supposes nothing in the Father; it only removes something. Therefore it does not signify a property of the Father.

Objection 2: Further, Unbegotten is taken either in a privative, or in a negative sense. If in a negative sense, then whatever is not begotten can be called unbegotten. But the Holy Ghost is not begotten; neither is the divine essence. Therefore to be unbegotten belongs also to the essence; thus it is not proper to the Father. But if it be taken in a privative sense, as every privation signifies imperfection in the thing which is the subject of privation, it follows that the Person of the Father is imperfect; which cannot be.

Objection 3: Further, in God, "unbegotten" does not signify relation, for it is not used relatively. Therefore it signifies substance; therefore unbegotten and begotten differ in substance. But the Son, Who is begotten, does not differ from the Father in substance. Therefore the Father ought not to be called unbegotten.

Objection 4: Further, property means what belongs to one alone. Since, then, there are more than one in God proceeding from another, there is nothing to prevent several not receiving their being from another. Therefore the Father is not alone unbegotten.

Objection 5: Further, as the Father is the principle of the person begotten, so is He of the person proceeding. So if by reason of his opposition to the person begotten, it is proper to the Father to be unbegotten it follows that it is proper to Him also to be unproceeding.

On the contrary, Hilary says (De Trin. iv): "One is from one ---that is, the Begotten is from the Unbegotten---namely, by the property in each one respectively of innascibility and origin."

I answer that, As in creatures there exist a first and a secondary principle, so also in the divine Persons, in Whom there is no before or after, is formed the principle not from a principle, Who is the Father; and the principle from a principle, Who is the Son.

Now in things created a first principle is known in two ways; in one way as the first "principle," by reason of its having a relation to what proceeds from itself; in another way, inasmuch as it is a "first" principle by reason of its not being from another. Thus therefore the Father is known both by paternity and by common spiration, as regards the persons proceeding from Himself. But as the principle, not from a principle He is known by the fact that He is not from another; and this belongs to the property of innascibility, signified by this word "begotten."

Reply to Objection 1: Some there are who say that innascibility, signified by the word "unbegotten," as a property of the Father, is not a negative term only, but either that it means both these things together---namely, that the Father is from no one, and that He is the principle of others; or that it imports universal authority, or also His plenitude as the source of all. This, however, does not seem true, because thus innascibility would not be a property distinct from paternity and spiration; but would include them as the proper is included in the common. For source and authority signify in God nothing but the principle of origin. We must therefore say with Augustine (De Trin. v, 7) that "unbegotten" imports the negation of passive generation. For he says that "unbegotten" has the same meaning as "not a son." Nor does it follow that "unbegotten" is not the proper notion of the Father; for primary and simple things are notified by negations; as, for instance, a point is defined as what has no part.

Reply to Objection 2: "Unbegotten" is taken sometimes in a negative sense only, and in that sense Jerome says that "the Holy Ghost is unbegotten," that is, He is not begotten. Otherwise "unbegotten" may be taken in a kind of privation sense, but not as implying any imperfection. For privation can be taken in many ways; in one way when a thing has not what is naturally belongs to another, even though it is not of its own nature to have it; as, for instance, if a stone be called a dead thing, as wanting life, which naturally belongs to some other things. In another sense, privation is so called when something has not what naturally belongs to some members of its genus; as for instance when a mole is called blind. In a third sense privation means the absence of what something ought to have; in which sense, privation imports an imperfection. In this sense, "unbegotten" is not attributed to the Father as a privation, but it may be so attributed in the second sense, meaning that a certain person of the divine nature is not begotten, while some person of the same nature is begotten. In this sense the term "unbegotten" can be applied also to the Holy Ghost. Hence to consider it as a term proper to the Father alone, it must be further understood that the name "unbegotten" belongs to a divine person as the principle of another person; so that it be understood to imply negation in the genus of principle taken personally in God. Or that there be understood in the term "unbegotten" that He is not in any way derived from another; and not only that He is not from another by way only of generation. In this sense the term "unbegotten" does not belong at all to the Holy Ghost, Who is from another by procession, as a subsisting person; nor does it belong to the divine essence, of which it may be said that it is in the Son or in the Holy Ghost from another---namely, from the Father.

Reply to Objection 3: According to Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 9), "unbegotten" in one sense signifies the same as "uncreated"; and thus it applies to the substance, for thereby does the created substance differ from the uncreated. In another sense it signifies what is not begotten, and in this sense it is a relative term; just as negation is reduced to the genus of affirmation, as "not man" is reduced to the genus of substance, and "not white" to the genus of quality. Hence, since "begotten" implies relation in God, "unbegotten" belongs also to relation. Thus it does not follow that the Father unbegotten is substantially distinguished from the Son begotten; but only by relation; that is, as the relation of Son is denied of the Father.

Reply to Objection 4: In every genus there must be something first; so in the divine nature there must be some one principle which is not from another, and which we call "unbegotten." To admit two innascibles is to suppose the existence of two Gods, and two divine natures. Hence Hilary says (De Synod.): "As there is one God, so there cannot be two innascibles." And this especially because, did two innascibles exist, one would not be from the other, and they would not be distinguished by relative opposition: therefore they would be distinguished from each other by diversity of nature.

Reply to Objection 5: The property of the Father, whereby He is not from another, is more clearly signified by the removal of the nativity of the Son, than by the removal of the procession of the Holy Ghost; both because the procession of the Holy Ghost has no special name, as stated above (Question 27, Article 4, ad 3), and because also in the order of nature it presupposes the generation of the Son. Hence, it being denied of the Father that He is begotten, although He is the principle of generation, it follows, as a consequence, that He does not proceed by the procession of the Holy Ghost, because the Holy Ghost is not the principle of generation, but proceeds from the person begotten.

Articulus 4

Argumentum 1

Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod esse ingenitum non sit patri proprium. Omnis enim proprietas ponit aliquid in eo cuius est proprietas. Sed ingenitus nihil ponit in patre, sed removet tantum. Ergo non significat proprietatem patris.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, ingenitum aut dicitur privative, aut negative. Si negative, tunc quidquid non est genitum, potest dici ingenitum.

Sed spiritus sanctus non est genitus, neque etiam essentia divina.

Ergo ingenitum etiam eis convenit, et sic non est proprium patri.

Si autem privative sumatur, cum omnis privatio significet imperfectionem in privato, sequitur quod persona patris sit imperfecta. Quod est impossibile.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, ingenitus in divinis non significat relationem, quia non dicitur relative, significat ergo substantiam. Ingenitus igitur et genitus secundum substantiam differunt.

Filius autem, qui est genitus, non differt a patre secundum substantiam. Pater ergo non debet dici ingenitus.

Argumentum 4

Praeterea, proprium est quod uni soli convenit. Sed cum sint plures ab alio procedentes in divinis, nihil videtur prohibere quin etiam sint plures ab alio non existentes.

Non igitur est proprium patri esse ingenitum.

Argumentum 5

Praeterea, sicut pater est principium personae genitae, ita et personae procedentis. Si ergo propter oppositionem quam habet ad personam genitam, proprium patris ponitur esse quod sit ingenitus; etiam proprium eius debet poni quod sit improcessibilis.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod dicit Hilarius, IV de Trin., est unus ab uno, scilicet ab ingenito genitus, proprietate videlicet in unoquoque et innascibilitatis et originis.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut in creaturis invenitur principium primum et principium secundum, ita in personis divinis, in quibus non est prius et posterius, invenitur principium non de principio, quod est pater, et principium a principio, quod est filius.

In rebus autem creatis aliquod principium primum innotescit dupliciter, uno quidem modo, inquantum est principium primum per hoc quod habet relationem ad ea quae ab ipso sunt; alio modo, inquantum est primum principium per hoc quod non est ab alio.

Sic igitur et pater innotescit quidem paternitate et communi spiratione, per respectum ad personas ab eo procedentes, inquantum autem est principium non de principio, innotescit per hoc, quod non est ab alio, quod pertinet ad proprietatem innascibilitatis, quam significat hoc nomen ingenitus.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod quidam dicunt quod innascibilitas, quam significat hoc nomen ingenitus, secundum quod est proprietas patris, non dicitur tantum negative; sed importat vel utrumque simul, scilicet quod pater a nullo est, et quod est principium aliorum; vel importat universalem auctoritatem; vel etiam fontalem plenitudinem.

Sed hoc non videtur verum. Quia sic innascibilitas non esset alia proprietas a paternitate et spiratione, sed includeret eas, sicut includitur proprium in communi, nam fontalitas et auctoritas nihil aliud significant in divinis quam principium originis. Et ideo dicendum est, secundum Augustinum, V de Trin., quod ingenitus negationem generationis passivae importat, dicit enim quod tantum valet quod dicitur ingenitus, quantum valet quod dicitur non filius.

Nec propter hoc sequitur quod ingenitus non debeat poni propria notio patris, quia prima et simplicia per negationes notificantur; sicut dicimus punctum esse cuius pars non est.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod ingenitum quandoque sumitur negative tantum.

Et secundum hoc Hieronymus dicit spiritum sanctum esse ingenitum, idest non genitum.

Alio modo potest dici ingenitum aliquo modo privative, non tamen aliquam imperfectionem importat.

Multipliciter enim dicitur privatio. Uno modo, quando aliquid non habet quod natum est haberi ab alio, etiamsi ipsum non sit natum habere illud, sicut si lapis dicatur res mortua, quia caret vita, quam quaedam res natae sunt habere. Alio modo dicitur privatio, quando aliquid non habet quod natum est haberi ab aliquo sui generis; sicut si talpa dicatur caeca. Tertio modo, quando ipsum non habet quod natum est habere, et hoc modo privatio imperfectionem importat.

Sic autem ingenitum non dicitur privative de patre, sed secundo modo, prout scilicet aliquod suppositum divinae naturae non est genitum, cuius tamen naturae aliquod suppositum est genitum. Sed secundum hanc rationem, etiam de spiritu sancto potest dici ingenitum. Unde ad hoc quod sit proprium soli patri, oportet ulterius in nomine ingeniti intelligere, quod conveniat alicui personae divinae quae sit principium alterius personae; ut sic intelligatur importare negationem in genere principii personaliter dicti in divinis. Vel, ut intelligatur in nomine ingeniti, quod omnino non sit ab alio, et non solum quod non sit ab alio per generationem. Sic enim nec spiritui sancto convenit esse ingenitum, qui est ab alio per processionem ut persona subsistens, nec etiam divinae essentiae, de qua potest dici quod est in filio vel in spiritu sancto ab alio, scilicet a patre.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod, secundum Damascenum, ingenitum uno modo significat idem quod increatum, et sic secundum substantiam dicitur; per hoc enim differt substantia creata ab increata.

Alio modo significat id quod non est genitum. Et sic relative dicitur, eo modo quo negatio reducitur ad genus affirmationis, sicut non homo ad genus substantiae, et non album ad genus qualitatis. Unde, cum genitum in divinis relationem importet, ingenitum etiam ad relationem pertinet.

Et sic non sequitur quod pater ingenitus distinguatur a filio genito secundum substantiam; sed solum secundum relationem, inquantum scilicet relatio filii negatur de patre.

Ad 4

Ad quartum dicendum quod, sicut in quolibet genere oportet ponere unum primum, ita in divina natura oportet ponere unum principium quod non sit ab alio, quod ingenitum dicitur. Ponere igitur duos innascibiles, est ponere duos deos, et duas naturas divinas.

Unde Hilarius dicit, in libro de synodis, cum unus deus sit, duo innascibiles esse non possunt.

Et hoc praecipue quia, si essent duo innascibiles, unus eorum non esset ab alio, et sic non distinguerentur oppositione relativa oporteret igitur quod distinguerentur diversitate naturae.

Ad 5

Ad quintum dicendum quod proprietas patris prout non est ab alio, potius significatur per remotionem nativitatis filii, quam per remotionem processionis spiritus sancti. Tum quia processio spiritus sancti non habet nomen speciale, ut supra dictum est.

Tum quia etiam ordine naturae praesupponit generationem filii. Unde, remoto a patre quod non sit genitus, cum tamen sit principium generationis, sequitur consequenter quod non sit procedens processione spiritus sancti, quia spiritus sanctus non est generationis principium, sed a genito procedens.