|
State of the question. We are dealing here with the
equality of perfection for the purpose of explaining
Christ's words, "The Father is greater than
1."[585] The difficulty arises because paternity
pertains to dignity and does not belong to the Son. This
is a statement of the question on which we touched
earlier, namely, whether paternity is a simply perfect
perfection properly so called, although the Son does not
possess it. It is the same question as in the first
article with the special difficulty that arises from the
fact that paternity appears to be a special dignity.
Reply. The reply is in the affirmative: the Son is
equal to the Father in perfection. This doctrine is of
faith from the Scriptures: "Who being in the form of
God, thought it not robbery to be equal with
God."[586]
The theological reason is as follows: It is of the
nature of paternity and filiation that the Son by
generation attains to the possession of that perfect nature
which is in the Father as it is possessed by the Father.
And the Son attains to that perfect nature unless the
power of generation is defective. But in God the power
of generation is not defective; it is exercised most
perfectly from all eternity. Therefore the Son possesses
the entire perfection of the Father from all eternity.
Reply to the first objection. Only as man did Christ
say, "The Father is greater than 1."
Reply to the second objection. The difficulty is that
the Son lacks the dignity of paternity. St. Thomas
replied: "Paternity is the dignity of the Father just
as the essence is the dignity of the Father, since the
dignity is absolute and pertains to the essence. Just as
the same essence which is the paternity in the Father is
filiation in the Son, so the same dignity which is
paternity in the Father is filiation in the Son. But in
the Father this dignity is according to the relation of
the giver, and in the Son it is according to the relation
of the recipient." But the divine generation is without
the imperfection of the transition from potency to act
since divine generation is not a mutation but the
communication of uncreated being itself. Similarly, in
the equilateral triangle the superficies is the same in the
first angle and in the second, but in the first it is
according to the relation of the giver and in the second
according to the relation of the recipient. That is, as
we have said above, the relations as such, according to
their "esse ad", prescind from perfection and
imperfection. Hence they are not simply simple
perfections properly so called; for, although they do not
involve any imperfection, it is not better to have them
than not to have them. Otherwise the Son would lack some
perfection and so would not be God.
St. Thomas points out that "a relation, inasmuch as it
is a relation, does not have that which makes it something
but only that by which it has a reference to
something."[587] In this reply he says, "The
thing in the something to which the reference is, is
changed, " since the same dignity which in the Father is
paternity is filiation in the Son. Thus divine filiation
is not less perfect than divine paternity, just as in the
triangle either angle at the base is not less perfect than
the angle at the apex.
Reply to the third objection. The three persons together
do not constitute greater perfection than one person
alone, because the entire, infinite perfection of the
divine nature is in each person, just as the superficies
of the equilateral triangle is in each of the angles.
St. Thomas also points out in this article that in God
relation and person are not something universal because all
the relations are one according to essence and being.
Humanity, however, is something universal, that is, it
is apt to be in many through the multiplication of the form
received in different parts of matter.
|
|