Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It would seem that "Word" is not the proper name of the Son. For the Son is a subsisting person in God. But word does not signify a subsisting thing, as appears in ourselves. Therefore word cannot be the proper name of the person of the Son.

Objection 2: Further, the word proceeds from the speaker by being uttered. Therefore if the Son is properly the word, He proceeds from the Father, by way only of utterance; which is the heresy of Valentine; as appears from Augustine (De Haeres. xi).

Objection 3: Further, every proper name of a person signifies some property of that person. Therefore, if the Word is the Son's proper name, it signifies some property of His; and thus there will be several more properties in God than those above mentioned.

Objection 4: Further, whoever understands conceives a word in the act of understanding. But the Son understands. Therefore some word belongs to the Son; and consequently to be Word is not proper to the Son.

Objection 5: Further, it is said of the Son (Heb. 1:3): "Bearing all things by the word of His power;" whence Basil infers (Cont. Eunom. v, 11) that the Holy Ghost is the Son's Word. Therefore to be Word is not proper to the Son.

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. vi, 11): "By Word we understand the Son alone."

I answer that, "Word," said of God in its proper sense, is used personally, and is the proper name of the person of the Son. For it signifies an emanation of the intellect: and the person Who proceeds in God, by way of emanation of the intellect, is called the Son; and this procession is called generation, as we have shown above (Question 27, Article 2). Hence it follows that the Son alone is properly called Word in God.

Reply to Objection 1: "To be" and "to understand" are not the same in us. Hence that which in us has intellectual being, does not belong to our nature. But in God "to be" and "to understand" are one and the same: hence the Word of God is not an accident in Him, or an effect of His; but belongs to His very nature. And therefore it must needs be something subsistent; for whatever is in the nature of God subsists; and so Damascene says (De Fide Orth. i, 18) that "the Word of God is substantial and has a hypostatic being; but other words are activities if the soul."

Reply to Objection 2: The error of Valentine was condemned, not as the Arians pretended, because he asserted that the Son was born by being uttered, as Hilary relates (De Trin. vi); but on account of the different mode of utterance proposed by its author, as appears from Augustine (De Haeres. xi).

Reply to Objection 3: In the term "Word" the same property is comprised as in the name Son. Hence Augustine says (De Trin. vii, 11): "Word and Son express the same." For the Son's nativity, which is His personal property, is signified by different names, which are attributed to the Son to express His perfection in various ways. To show that He is of the same nature as the Father, He is called the Son; to show that He is co-eternal, He is called the Splendor; to show that He is altogether like, He is called the Image; to show that He is begotten immaterially, He is called the Word. All these truths cannot be expressed by only one name.

Reply to Objection 4: To be intelligent belongs to the Son, in the same way as it belongs to Him to be God, since to understand is said of God essentially, as stated above (Question 14, Articles 2,4). Now the Son is God begotten, and not God begetting; and hence He is intelligent, not as producing a Word, but as the Word proceeding; forasmuch as in God the Word proceeding does not differ really from the divine intellect, but is distinguished from the principle of the Word only by relation.

Reply to Objection 5: When it is said of the Son, "Bearing all things by the word of His power"; "word" is taken figuratively for the effect of the Word. Hence a gloss says that "word" is here taken to mean command; inasmuch as by the effect of the power of the Word, things are kept in being, as also by the effect of the power of the Word things are brought into being. Basil speaks widely and figuratively in applying Word to the Holy Ghost; in the sense perhaps that everything that makes a person known may be called his word, and so in that way the Holy Ghost may be called the Son's Word, because He manifests the Son.

Articulus 2

Argumentum 1

Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod verbum non sit proprium nomen filii. Filius enim est persona subsistens in divinis. Sed verbum non significat rem subsistentem, ut in nobis patet.

Ergo verbum non potest esse proprium nomen personae filii.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, verbum prolatione quadam procedit a dicente. Si ergo filius est proprie verbum, non procedit a patre nisi per modum prolationis. Quod est haeresis valentini, ut patet per Augustinum, in libro de haeresibus.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, omne nomen proprium alicuius personae significat proprietatem aliquam eius. Si igitur verbum sit proprium nomen filii, significabit aliquam proprietatem eius. Et sic erunt plures proprietates in divinis quam supra enumeratae sunt.

Argumentum 4

Praeterea, quicumque intelligit, intelligendo concipit verbum.

Sed filius intelligit. Ergo filii est aliquod verbum.

Et sic non est proprium filii esse verbum.

Argumentum 5

Praeterea, Hebr. I dicitur de filio, portans omnia verbo virtutis suae, ex quo basilius accipit quod spiritus sanctus sit verbum filii. Non est ergo proprium filii esse verbum.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, VI de Trin., verbum solus filius accipitur.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod verbum proprie dictum in divinis personaliter accipitur, et est proprium nomen personae filii.

Significat enim quandam emanationem intellectus, persona autem quae procedit in divinis secundum emanationem intellectus, dicitur filius, et huiusmodi processio dicitur generatio, ut supra ostensum est.

Unde relinquitur quod solus filius proprie dicatur verbum in divinis.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod in nobis non est idem esse et intelligere, unde illud quod habet in nobis esse intelligibile, non pertinet ad naturam nostram.

Sed esse dei est ipsum eius intelligere, unde verbum dei non est aliquod accidens in ipso, vel aliquis effectus eius; sed pertinet ad ipsam naturam eius. Et ideo oportet quod sit aliquid subsistens, quia quidquid est in natura dei, subsistit.

Et ideo Damascenus dicit quod verbum dei est substantiale, et in hypostasi ens, reliqua vero verba, scilicet nostra, virtutes sunt animae.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod non propter hoc error valentini est damnatus, quia filium dixit prolatione natum, ut Ariani calumniabantur, sicut Hilarius refert, VI de Trin., sed propter varium modum prolationis quem posuit, sicut patet per Augustinum in libro de haeresibus.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod in nomine verbi eadem proprietas importatur quae in nomine filii, unde dicit Augustinus, eo dicitur verbum, quo filius.

Ipsa enim nativitas filii, quae est proprietas personalis eius, diversis nominibus significatur, quae filio attribuuntur ad exprimendum diversimode perfectionem eius. Nam ut ostendatur connaturalis patri, dicitur filius; ut ostendatur coaeternus, dicitur splendor; ut ostendatur omnino similis, dicitur imago; ut ostendatur immaterialiter genitus, dicitur verbum. Non autem potuit unum nomen inveniri, per quod omnia ista designarentur.

Ad 4

Ad quartum dicendum quod eo modo convenit filio esse intelligentem, quo convenit ei esse deum, cum intelligere essentialiter dicatur in divinis, ut dictum est.

Est autem filius deus genitus, non autem generans deus. Unde est quidem intelligens, non ut producens verbum, sed ut verbum procedens; prout scilicet in deo verbum procedens secundum rem non differt ab intellectu divino, sed relatione sola distinguitur a principio verbi.

Ad 5

Ad quintum dicendum quod, cum de filio dicitur, portans omnia verbo virtutis suae, verbum figurate accipitur pro effectu verbi.

Unde Glossa ibi dicit quod verbum sumitur pro imperio; inquantum scilicet ex effectu virtutis verbi est quod res conserventur in esse, sicut ex effectu virtutis verbi est quod res producantur in esse.

Quod vero basilius interpretatur verbum pro spiritu sancto, improprie et figurate locutus est, prout verbum alicuius dici potest omne illud quod est manifestativum eius, ut sic ea ratione dicatur spiritus sanctus verbum filii, quia manifestat filium.