|
Objection 1: It would seem that the person proceeding is not
co-eternal with His principle, as the Son with the Father. For
Arius gives twelve modes of generation. The first mode is like the
issue of a line from a point; wherein is wanting equality of
simplicity. The second is like the emission of rays from the sun;
wherein is absent equality of nature. The third is like the mark or
impression made by a seal; wherein is wanting consubstantiality and
executive power. The fourth is the infusion of a good will from God;
wherein also consubstantiality is wanting. The fifth is the emanation
of an accident from its subject; but the accident has no subsistence.
The sixth is the abstraction of a species from matter, as sense
receives the species from the sensible object; wherein is wanting
equality of spiritual simplicity. The seventh is the exciting of the
will by knowledge, which excitation is merely temporal. The eighth is
transformation, as an image is made of brass; which transformation is
material. The ninth is motion from a mover; and here again we have
effect and cause. The tenth is the taking of species from genera; but
this mode has no place in God, for the Father is not predicated of
the Son as the genus of a species. The eleventh is the realization of
an idea [ideatio], as an external coffer arises from the one in the
mind. The twelfth is birth, as a man is begotten of his father;
which implies priority and posteriority of time. Thus it is clear that
equality of nature or of time is absent in every mode whereby one thing
is from another. So if the Son is from the Father, we must say that
He is less than the Father, or later than the Father, or both.
Objection 2: Further, everything that comes from another has a
principle. But nothing eternal has a principle. Therefore the Son
is not eternal; nor is the Holy Ghost.
Objection 3: Further, everything which is corrupted ceases to be.
Hence everything generated begins to be; for the end of generation is
existence. But the Son is generated by the Father. Therefore He
begins to exist, and is not co-eternal with the Father.
Objection 4: Further, if the Son be begotten by the Father,
either He is always being begotten, or there is some moment in which
He is begotten. If He is always being begotten, since, during the
process of generation, a thing must be imperfect, as appears in
successive things, which are always in process of becoming, as time
and motion, it follows that the Son must be always imperfect, which
cannot be admitted. Thus there is a moment to be assigned for the
begetting of the Son, and before that moment the Son did not exist.
On the contrary, Athanasius declares that "all the three persons are
co-eternal with each other."
I answer that, We must say that the Son is co-eternal with the
Father. In proof of which we must consider that for a thing which
proceeds from a principle to be posterior to its principle may be due to
two reasons: one on the part of the agent, and the other on the part
of the action. On the part of the agent this happens differently as
regards free agents and natural agents. In free agents, on account of
the choice of time; for as a free agent can choose the form it gives to
the effect, as stated above (Question 41, Article 2), so it
can choose the time in which to produce its effect. In natural
agents, however, the same happens from the agent not having its
perfection of natural power from the very first, but obtaining it after
a certain time; as, for instance, a man is not able to generate from
the very first. Considered on the part of action, anything derived
from a principle cannot exist simultaneously with its principle when the
action is successive. So, given that an agent, as soon as it
exists, begins to act thus, the effect would not exist in the same
instant, but in the instant of the action's termination. Now it is
manifest, according to what has been said (Question 41, Article
2), that the Father does not beget the Son by will, but by
nature; and also that the Father's nature was perfect from eternity;
and again that the action whereby the Father produces the Son is not
successive, because thus the Son would be successively generated, and
this generation would be material, and accompanied with movement;
which is quite impossible. Therefore we conclude that the Son existed
whensoever the Father existed and thus the Son is co-eternal with the
Father, and likewise the Holy Ghost is co-eternal with both.
Reply to Objection 1: As Augustine says (De Verbis Domini,
Serm. 38), no mode of the procession of any creature perfectly
represents the divine generation. Hence we need to gather a likeness
of it from many of these modes, so that what is wanting in one may be
somewhat supplied from another; and thus it is declared in the council
of Ephesus: "Let Splendor tell thee that the co-eternal Son
existed always with the Father; let the Word announce the
impassibility of His birth; let the name Son insinuate His
consubstantiality." Yet, above them all the procession of the word
from the intellect represents it more exactly; the intellectual word
not being posterior to its source except in an intellect passing from
potentiality to act; and this cannot be said of God.
Reply to Objection 2: Eternity excludes the principle of duration,
but not the principle of origin.
Reply to Objection 3: Every corruption is a change; and so all
that corrupts begins not to exist and ceases to be. The divine
generation, however, is not changed, as stated above (Question
27, Article 2). Hence the Son is ever being begotten, and the
Father is always begetting.
Reply to Objection 4: In time there is something
indivisible---namely, the instant; and there is something else
which endures---namely, time. But in eternity the indivisible
"now" stands ever still, as we have said above (Question 10,
Article 2 ad 1, Article 4 ad 2). But the generation of the
Son is not in the "now" of time, or in time, but in eternity. And
so to express the presentiality and permanence of eternity, we can say
that "He is ever being born," as Origen said (Hom. in Joan.
i). But as Gregory [Moral. xxix, 21] and Augustine [Super
Ps. 2:7] said, it is better to say "ever born," so that
"ever" may denote the permanence of eternity, and "born" the
perfection of the only Begotten. Thus, therefore, neither is the
Son imperfect, nor "was there a time when He was not," as Arius
said.
|
|