|
Objection 1: It would seem that the Son and the Father are not in
each other. For the Philosopher (Phys. iv, text. 23) gives
eight modes of one thing existing in another, according to none of
which is the Son in the Father, or conversely; as is patent to
anyone who examines each mode. Therefore the Son and the Father are
not in each other.
Objection 2: Further, nothing that has come out from another is
within. But the Son from eternity came out from the Father,
according to Micheas 5:2: "His going forth is from the
beginning, from the days of eternity." Therefore the Son is not in
the Father.
Objection 3: Further, one of two opposites cannot be in the other.
But the Son and the Father are relatively opposed. Therefore one
cannot be in the other.
On the contrary, It is said (Jn. 14:10): "I am in the
Father, and the Father is in Me."
I answer that, There are three points of consideration as regards the
Father and the Son; the essence, the relation and the origin; and
according to each the Son and the Father are in each other. The
Father is in the Son by His essence, forasmuch as the Father is
His own essence and communicates His essence to the Son not by any
change on His part. Hence it follows that as the Father's essence
is in the Son, the Father Himself is in the Son; likewise, since
the Son is His own essence, it follows that He Himself is in the
Father in Whom is His essence. This is expressed by Hilary (De
Trin. v), "The unchangeable God, so to speak, follows His own
nature in begetting an unchangeable subsisting God. So we understand
the nature of God to subsist in Him, for He is God in God." It
is also manifest that as regards the relations, each of two relative
opposites is in the concept of the other. Regarding origin also, it
is clear that the procession of the intelligible word is not outside the
intellect, inasmuch as it remains in the utterer of the word. What
also is uttered by the word is therein contained. And the same applies
to the Holy Ghost.
Reply to Objection 1: What is contained in creatures does not
sufficiently represent what exists in God; so according to none of the
modes enumerated by the Philosopher, are the Son and the Father in
each other. The mode the most nearly approaching to the reality is to
be found in that whereby something exists in its originating principle,
except that the unity of essence between the principle and that which
proceeds therefrom is wanting in things created.
Reply to Objection 2: The Son's going forth from the Father is
by mode of the interior procession whereby the word emerges from the
heart and remains therein. Hence this going forth in God is only by
the distinction of the relations, not by any kind of essential
separation.
Reply to Objection 3: The Father and the Son are relatively
opposed, but not essentially; while, as above explained, one
relative opposite is in the other.
|
|