Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It would seem that abstract essential names can stand for the person, so that this proposition is true, "Essence begets essence." For Augustine says (De Trin. vii, i, 2): "The Father and the Son are one Wisdom, because they are one essence; and taken singly Wisdom is from Wisdom, as essence from essence."

Objection 2: Further, generation or corruption in ourselves implies generation or corruption of what is within us. But the Son is generated. Therefore since the divine essence is in the Son, it seems that the divine essence is generated.

Objection 3: Further, God and the divine essence are the same, as is clear from what is above explained (Question 3, Article 3). But, as was shown, it is true to say that "God begets God." Therefore this is also true: "Essence begets essence."

Objection 4: Further, a predicate can stand for that of which it is predicated. But the Father is the divine essence; therefore essence can stand for the person of the Father. Thus the essence begets.

Objection 5: Further, the essence is "a thing begetting," because the essence is the Father who is begetting. Therefore if the essence is not begetting, the essence will be "a thing begetting," and "not begetting": which cannot be.

Objection 6: Further, Augustine says (De Trin. iv, 20): "The Father is the principle of the whole Godhead." But He is principle only by begetting or spirating. Therefore the Father begets or spirates the Godhead.

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. i, 1): "Nothing begets itself." But if the essence begets the essence, it begets itself only, since nothing exists in God as distinguished from the divine essence. Therefore the essence does not beget essence.

I answer that, Concerning this, the abbot Joachim erred in asserting that as we can say "God begot God," so we can say "Essence begot essence": considering that, by reason of the divine simplicity God is nothing else but the divine essence. In this he was wrong, because if we wish to express ourselves correctly, we must take into account not only the thing which is signified, but also the mode of its signification as above stated (Article 4). Now although "God" is really the same as "Godhead," nevertheless the mode of signification is not in each case the same. For since this word "God" signifies the divine essence in Him that possesses it, from its mode of signification it can of its own nature stand for person. Thus the things which properly belong to the persons, can be predicated of this word, "God," as, for instance, we can say "God is begotten" or is "Begetter," as above explained (Article 4). The word "essence," however, in its mode of signification, cannot stand for Person, because it signifies the essence as an abstract form. Consequently, what properly belongs to the persons whereby they are distinguished from each other, cannot be attributed to the essence. For that would imply distinction in the divine essence, in the same way as there exists distinction in the "supposita."

Reply to Objection 1: To express unity of essence and of person, the holy Doctors have sometimes expressed themselves with greater emphasis than the strict propriety of terms allows. Whence instead of enlarging upon such expressions we should rather explain them: thus, for instance, abstract names should be explained by concrete names, or even by personal names; as when we find "essence from essence"; or "wisdom from wisdom"; we should take the sense to be, "the Son" who is essence and wisdom, is from the Father who is essence and wisdom. Nevertheless, as regards these abstract names a certain order should be observed, forasmuch as what belongs to action is more nearly allied to the persons because actions belong to "supposita." So "nature from nature," and "wisdom from wisdom" are less inexact than "essence from essence."

Reply to Objection 2: In creatures the one generated has not the same nature numerically as the generator, but another nature, numerically distinct, which commences to exist in it anew by generation, and ceases to exist by corruption, and so it is generated and corrupted accidentally; whereas God begotten has the same nature numerically as the begetter. So the divine nature in the Son is not begotten either directly or accidentally.

Reply to Objection 3: Although God and the divine essence are really the same, nevertheless, on account of their different mode of signification, we must speak in a different way about each of them.

Reply to Objection 4: The divine essence is predicated of the Father by mode of identity by reason of the divine simplicity; yet it does not follow that it can stand for the Father, its mode of signification being different. This objection would hold good as regards things which are predicated of another as the universal of a particular.

Reply to Objection 5: The difference between substantive and adjectival names consist in this, that the former carry their subject with them, whereas the latter do not, but add the thing signified to the substantive. Whence logicians are wont to say that the substantive is considered in the light of "suppositum," whereas the adjective indicates something added to the "suppositum." Therefore substantive personal terms can be predicated of the essence, because they are really the same; nor does it follow that a personal property makes a distinct essence; but it belongs to the "suppositum" implied in the substantive. But notional and personal adjectives cannot be predicated of the essence unless we add some substantive. We cannot say that the "essence is begetting"; yet we can say that the "essence is a thing begetting," or that it is "God begetting," if "thing" and God stand for person, but not if they stand for essence. Consequently there exists no contradiction in saying that "essence is a thing begetting," and "a thing not begetting"; because in the first case "thing" stands for person, and in the second it stands for the essence.

Reply to Objection 6: So far as Godhead is one in several "supposita," it agrees in a certain degree with the form of a collective term. So when we say, "the Father is the principle of the whole Godhead," the term Godhead can be taken for all the persons together, inasmuch as it is the principle in all the divine persons. Nor does it follow that He is His own principle; as one of the people may be called the ruler of the people without being ruler of himself. We may also say that He is the principle of the whole Godhead; not as generating or spirating it, but as communicating it by generation and spiration.

Articulus 5

Argumentum 1

Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod nomina essentialia in abstracto significata possint supponere pro persona, ita quod haec sit vera, essentia generat essentiam.

Dicit enim Augustinus, VII de Trin., pater et filius sunt una sapientia, quia una essentia; et singillatim sapientia de sapientia, sicut essentia de essentia.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, generatis nobis vel corruptis, generantur vel corrumpuntur ea quae in nobis sunt. Sed filius generatur.

Ergo, cum essentia divina sit in filio, videtur quod essentia divina generetur.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, idem est deus et essentia divina, ut ex supra dictis patet.

Sed haec est vera, deus generat deum, sicut dictum est.

Ergo haec est vera, essentia generat essentiam.

Argumentum 4

Praeterea, de quocumque praedicatur aliquid, potest supponere pro illo. Sed essentia divina est pater. Ergo essentia potest supponere pro persona patris. Et sic essentia generat.

Argumentum 5

Praeterea, essentia est res generans, quia est pater, qui est generans. Si igitur essentia non sit generans, erit essentia res generans et non generans, quod est impossibile.

Argumentum 6

Praeterea, Augustinus dicit, in IV de Trin., pater est principium totius deitatis.

Sed non est principium nisi generando vel spirando.

Ergo pater generat vel spirat deitatem.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in I de Trin., quod nulla res generat seipsam.

Sed si essentia generat essentiam, non generat nisi seipsam, cum nihil sit in deo, quod distinguatur a divina essentia.

Ergo essentia non generat essentiam.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod circa hoc erravit abbas ioachim, asserens quod, sicut dicitur, deus genuit deum, ita potest dici quod essentia genuit essentiam; considerans quod, propter divinam simplicitatem, non est aliud deus quam divina essentia.

Sed in hoc deceptus fuit, quia ad veritatem locutionum, non solum oportet considerare res significatas, sed etiam modum significandi ut dictum est.

Licet autem, secundum re, sit idem deus quod deitas, non tamen est idem modus significandi utrobique. Nam hoc nomen deus, quia significat divinam essentiam ut in habente, ex modo suae significationis naturaliter habet quod possit supponere pro persona, et sic ea quae sunt propria personarum, possunt praedicari de hoc nomine deus, ut dicatur quod deus est genitus vel generans, sicut dictum est.

Sed hoc nomen essentia non habet ex modo suae significationis quod supponat pro persona, quia significat essentiam ut formam abstractam.

Et ideo ea quae sunt propria personarum, quibus ab invicem distinguuntur, non possunt essentiae attribui, significaretur enim quod esset distinctio in essentia divina, sicut est distinctio in suppositis.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, ad exprimendam unitatem essentiae et personae, sancti doctores aliquando expressius locuti sunt quam proprietas locutionis patiatur. Unde huiusmodi locutiones non sunt extendendae, sed exponendae, ut scilicet nomina abstracta exponantur per concreta, vel etiam per nomina personalia, ut, cum dicitur, essentia de essentia, vel sapientia de sapientia, sit sensus, filius, qui est essentia et sapientia, est de patre, qui est essentia et sapientia. In his tamen nominibus abstractis est quidam ordo attendendus, quia ea quae pertinent ad actum, magis propinque se habent ad personas, quia actus sunt suppositorum.

Unde minus impropria est ista, natura de natura, vel sapientia de sapientia, quam essentia de essentia.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod in creaturis generatum non accipit naturam eandem numero quam generans habet, sed aliam numero, quae incipit in eo esse per generationem de novo, et desinit esse per corruptionem, et ideo generatur et corrumpitur per accidens.

Sed deus genitus eandem naturam numero accipit quam generans habet. Et ideo natura divina in filio non generatur, neque per se neque per accidens.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod, licet deus et divina essentia sint idem secundum rem, tamen, ratione alterius modi significandi, oportet loqui diversimode de utroque.

Ad 4

Ad quartum dicendum quod essentia divina praedicatur de patre per modum identitatis, propter divinam simplicitatem, nec tamen sequitur quod possit supponere pro patre, propter diversum modum significandi. Ratio autem procederet in illis, quorum unum praedicatur de altero sicut universale de particulari.

Ad 5

Ad quintum dicendum quod haec est differentia inter nomina substantiva et adiectiva, quia nomina substantiva ferunt suum suppositum, adiectiva vero non, sed rem significatam ponunt circa substantivum.

Unde sophistae dicunt quod nomina substantiva supponunt; adiectiva vero non supponunt, sed copulant.

Nomina igitur personalia substantiva possunt de essentia praedicari, propter identitatem rei, neque sequitur quod proprietas personalis distinctam determinet essentiam; sed ponitur circa suppositum importatum per nomen substantivum.

Sed notionalia et personalia adiectiva non possunt praedicari de essentia, nisi aliquo substantivo adiuncto. Unde non possumus dicere quod essentia est generans. Possumus tamen dicere quod essentia est res generans, vel deus generans, si res et deus supponant pro persona, non autem si supponant pro essentia. Unde non est contradictio, si dicatur quod essentia est res generans, et res non generans, quia primo res tenetur pro persona, secundo pro essentia.

Ad 6

Ad sextum dicendum quod deitas, inquantum est una in pluribus suppositis, habet quandam convenientiam cum forma nominis collectivi. Unde cum dicitur, pater est principium totius deitatis, potest sumi pro universitate personarum; inquantum scilicet, in omnibus personis divinis, ipse est principium. Nec oportet quod sit principium sui ipsius, sicut aliquis de populo dicitur rector totius populi, non tamen sui ipsius. Vel potest dici quod est principium totius deitatis, non quia eam generet et spiret, sed quia eam, generando et spirando, communicat.