|
State of the question. As the first article was a
conceptual analysis of the idea of procession, without any
illative process, so this second article is a conceptual
analysis of the idea of divine generation as found in the
Scriptures. We have here a beautiful example of the
transition from a confused concept to a distinct concept.
This transition takes place by eliminating the false
interpretations, from which arise the three difficulties,
formulated in the beginning of this article: 1.
generation is a change from non-being to being and
therefore a divine person cannot be generated; 2. in
God procession is after the manner of intellection, but
in us such intellectual procession is not called
generation; 3. the being of anything begotten is
accepted and received and therefore is not divine.
Reply. This is of faith: the procession of the Word in
God is called generation, and the Word that proceeds is
called the Son.
We prove that it is of faith from Ps. 2:7: "The
Lord hath said to Me: Thou art My Son, this day have
I begotten Thee." Today, as St. Augustine says,
is the ever-present now of eternity, which is above
time, above past and future. This text of the Old
Testament is illustrated by the New Testament,
especially by the prologue of St. John's Gospel.
Further proof comes from Ps. 109:1-3: "The
Lord said to my Lord:... from the womb before the day
star I begot thee, " although this text is less clear in
the Hebrew than the preceding text; from Isa.
53:8, in the prophecy of Christ's passion: "who
shall declare His generation?"; from Acts 8:33 and
John 1:18: "No man hath seen God at any time, the
only-begotten Son..., He hath declared Him"; from
John 1:14: "and we saw His glory, the glory as it
were of the only-begotten of the Father"; from John
3:18: "But he that doth not believe, is already
judged: because he believeth not in the name of the
only-begotten Son of God"; and from John 3:16:
"For God so loved the world, as to give His
only-begotten Son."
Similarly the creeds and councils defined that the Son of
God was not created (against Arius), not made, but
begotten from the nature or substance of the Father, and
is therefore called the natural Son and not the adopted
son of the Father.[168]
In the body of the article St. Thomas makes a
conceptual analysis of the notion of generation, purifying
it of every imperfection so that it can be applied to God
not only by a metaphorical analogy but also by an analogy
of proper proportionality. Thus the idea of generation,
found in revelation, passes from a confused state to one
more distinct. We do not arrive at a new truth, but the
same truth is explained in this manner.
Generation is the origin of one living being from a
conjoined living principle in the likeness of nature, as
when a man begets a man. But the procession of the Word
is the origin of a living being from a conjoined living
being, yet without transition from potency to act or to
new being. Therefore the procession of the Word is
properly generation and not only metaphorically so.
Explanation of the major. The generation of everything
that can be generated in the natural order is a change from
non-being to being, as when non-living fire is generated
from fire. But that generation which is proper to living
beings is the origin of a living being from a conjoined
living being, that is, from the father and not from the
grandfather, through the active communication of the
nature of the generator in the likeness of at least the
specific nature. The angels therefore cannot properly be
called the sons of God because they did not receive the
divine nature from God.
Explanation of the minor. The procession of the Word
after the manner of intellection is the origin of a living
being from a conjoined living being and in the likeness of
nature because the concept in the intellect is the likeness
of the thing understood. Indeed, in God, since God
the Father understands and enunciates Himself, a nature
numerically the same is communicated, because in God
being and intellection are the same. Thus the Word is
not only God as understood according to intentional being
but true God according to physical and entitative being,
as will be explained more fully in the solution of the
second objection.
The theory of the Latins, then, based on the fact that
the Son of God is called the Word in St. John's
Gospel, explains how the eternal generation of the
only-begotten Son is without any imperfection and without
transition from potency to act or from non-being to
being. This is the correct interpretation of our Lord's
words: "For as the Father has life in Himself, so He
hath given to the Son also to have life in Himself"
(John 5:26), and "I and the Father are one"
(10:30). We refer the reader to the article.
This article, therefore, does not deduce a theological
conclusion, but explains this truth of faith, that the
Son is generated by the Father because He proceeds from
the Father intellectually as the Word. And in this
generation we see the infinite fecundity of the divine
nature, so often mentioned by Alexander of Hales and
St. Bonaventure.
The reply is confirmed by the solution of the objections.
1. The first difficulty was: Generation implies the
transition from potency to act. But such transition
cannot be in God who is pure act. Therefore there is no
generation in God.
Reply. I distinguish the major: generation implies the
transition from potency to act in the created mode of
generation, I concede; in the formal mode of
generation, I deny, because formally it is required only
that generation be the origin of a living being from a
conjoined living being in the likeness of nature. I
concede the minor. I distinguish the conclusion:
therefore there is no generation in God according to the
created mode, I concede; according to its formal mode,
I deny. The analogy is one of proportionality, not only
metaphorical, but it is an analogy that reason by itself
could not have discovered. God has revealed it to us.
2. The second difficulty was: Procession in God is
after the manner of intellection. But in us such
intellectual procession is not generation; we speak only
metaphorically of the parturition of a word in ourselves.
Reply. I concede the major and the minor, but I deny
the parity. The disparity arises from the fact that in
God alone and not in us to understand is substantial
intellection itself. In God alone understanding and the
mental concept are something substantial and not
accidental, as in us. In us the word proceeds as an
accident in which is represented the substance of that
which is understood. In God, on the other hand, the
Word proceeds as the subsistence of the same nature and
therefore He is properly said to be begotten and the
Son. The divine Word, therefore, is not only God as
understood, or God in a representative or intentional
manner, but true God from true God. This matter is
explained at greater length in the "Contra
Gentes."[169]
John of St. Thomas explains that our intellect forming
within itself a concept of itself or a representation of
itself assimilates this term to itself, at least
imperfectly. An imperfect intellect, human or angelic,
assimilates its word imperfectly, only intentionally, and
in a representative or intelligible manner. The perfect
intellect, however assimilates its Word most perfectly,
not only intentionally, but really in nature and in a
nature that is numerically one, so that the divine Word
is not accidental but substantial, at the same time living
and understanding, because in God being and understanding
and being understood are the same. Revelation affirms
that this substantial Word is the person of the Son of
God. This is true generation, which primarily deserves
the name generation; other kinds of generation are
generation by participation and secondarily, although they
are prior in our knowledge. Therefore St. Paul
said," or this cause I bow my knees to the Father of
our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom all paternity in heaven
and earth is named" (Eph. 3:14 f.).[170]
Our word is called a concept, not something generated.
Conception is the initial formation of a living being;
generation is its perfect production, including the
evolution of the embryo. Our intellection goes as far as
the intellectual conception of the word but not as far as
the intellectual generation. Thus we speak of our faculty
of conceiving, but not of generating intellectually. So
also it is with the angels. In God alone, in His
intimate life, known only by revelation, conception is at
the same time intellectual generation, properly so
called.
|
|