|
[321] Summa, Ia, q. 42, a. 4 ad 3
[322] Objection In a most simple being no real
distinction can be found. But God is most simple being.
Therefore in God there is no real distinction.
Reply. I distinguish the major: in a most simple being
there is no real distinction between parts, this I
concede; between real relations, this I deny; and in
the same sense I distinguish the conclusion. As St.
Thomas says in his reply to the fourth difficulty: "In
created things one is a part of two, two is a part of
three, as one man of two men and two men of three, and
here the human nature is multiplied. But it is not so
with God because the Father is as much as the whole
Trinity.," The Deity is not multiplied in the three
persons just as the surface is not multiplied in the three
angles of the triangle; thus the three angles are not more
than one angle alone.
[323] A difficult objection arises. Because of the
infinite goodness of the Father He communicates Himself
infinitely in producing a divine person. But the infinite
goodness is also in the Holy Ghost. Therefore the Holy
Ghost also produces a divine person, namely, a fourth
person, and this fourth person produces another, and so
on to infinity.
Reply. I concede the major. I distinguish the minor:
the infinite goodness in the Holy Ghost is numerically
the same as the infinite goodness in the Father, which
was adequately communicated after the manner of enunciation
and of love, this I concede; that there is in the Holy
Ghost another infinite goodness to be communicated as it
was in the Father, this I deny. In the same way I
distinguish the conclusion. The reader is referred to
St. Thomas' reply to the fourth difficulty. This
objection is shown to be neither necessary or cogent.
[324] Summa, Ia, a. 11, a. 1, ad 1
[325] Ibid., and a. 2 ad 4
|
|