|
In the first article it was shown that consequent on the
two processions there are real relations in God;
consequent on the eternal generation are the relations of
paternity and filiation, and consequent on the other
procession are the relations of active and passive
spiration.
In the second article we saw that the relations in God
are not really distinct from the essence since the
"esse in" of the relations, though it is
accidental in creatures, is substantial in God because no
accident is found in God.
In the third article we saw that the relations in God are
really distinguished from each other because they are
mutually opposed. The principle was formulated that in
God all things are one and the same unless there is
opposition of relation. In the first place the
objection, that those things equal to a third are equal to
each other, was solved. In the reply the major was
distinguished by conceding the proposition when the two
things are not more opposed to each other than to the third
and denying it if there is such opposition. Thus several
relations were found mutually opposed but not opposed to
the essence.
In the fourth article the four relations were determined;
one of them, active spiration, was not opposed to
paternity or filiation. Thus there are three relations in
mutual opposition.
As Del Prado points out: "The difference between
Suarez and St. Thomas in their explanation of the
mystery of the Trinity arises from a difference in their
view of primary philosophy. The root is to be found in
the fact that Suarez, in the Disputationes metaphysicae
1. does not admit, but rejects as absurd, the real
composition of being and essence in creatures; 2.
consequently in real created relations he does not
distinguish between the "esse ad", which is the
essence or the nature of the relation, and the esse or
being which is the actuality of the essence; 3.
consequently the three real relations in God, according
to Suarez, cannot be defended except as three beings,
which he and his followers call relative beings but which
are in fact absolute because in God being is the very
nature or essence of God and belongs to the absolute
predicaments; 4. and consequently these three beings
imply three perfections which, like the three beings of
the three relations, are in one person in such a way as
not to be in another. We have, therefore, three beings
and three perfections opposed to each other, and from this
follow the difficulties already mentioned and many
others."[276]
On the other hand, all these difficulties are removed if
with St. Thomas we admit that the being of an accident
(distinct from the essence) is its inesse, and that the
"esse in" of the divine relations is not
accidental but substantial and therefore one in the
different relations and persons.
|
|