Part 2. Commentary
PART II QUESTION III: Concerning Those Things That Pertain to the Knowledge Possessed by Faith
Article 1: Whether Faith Is Necessary for Mankind
Article 2: Whether Faith Should Be Distinguished from Religion
Article 3: Whether the Christian Religion Is Aptly Called Catholic or Universal
Article 4: Whether it Is a True Article of Faith, That the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit Are One God
| Latin | English |
|---|---|
| Sancti Thomae de Aquino | Thomas Aquinas |
| Super Boetium De Trinitate | On Boethius on the Trinity |
| Textum a Bruno Decker Lugduni Batauorum 1959 editum ac automato translatum a Roberto Busa SJ in taenias magneticas denuo recognovit Enrique Alarcón atque instruxit | Questions 1-4, translated by Rose E. Brennan, S.H.N. (Herder, 1946) |
| Pars 2 | |
| Prooemium | |
| Pars 2 pr. 1 | |
| Post prooemium hic Boethius tractatum suum incipit de Trinitate personarum et unitate divinae essentiae. Et dividitur liber iste in duas partes. In prima prosequitur ea quae pertinent ad unitatem essentiae contra Arianos. In secunda prosequitur ea quae pertinent ad Trinitatem personarum contra Sabellium, ibi: sed hoc interim ad eam. | Hereupon, after the Prooemium, Boethius begins his treatise De Trinitate Personarum, et Unitate divinae essentiae: and this book is divided into two parts. First, he discusses those things which pertain to the unity of the divine essence, making opposition the Arians. Secondly, he treats of those things which pertain to the Trinity of persons, in opposition to Sabellius, beginning: "In as many ways as things are the same, in the same number of ways they are said to be diverse." |
| Prima pars dividitur in duas. In prima proponit Catholicae fidei sententiam de unitate divinae essentiae. In secunda investigat propositae sententiae veritatem, ibi: age igitur, ingrediamur. Prima dividitur in duas. In prima describit fidei condicionem, cuius sententiam prosequi intendit. In secunda proponit descriptae fidei sententiam de proposito, ibi: cuius haec de Trinitatis. | The first part is also divided into two sections. In the first, he proposes the doctrine of the Catholic faith in regard to the unity of the divine essence. Secondly, he investigates the truth of the doctrine proposed when he says: "Therefore..." In the first section he treats of two things. First, he represents the condition of that faith whose doctrine he intends to explain. Secondly, he sets forth the doctrine of the faith he has described concerning this proposition, saying: "The belief of this religion concerning the Trinity." |
| Describit autem eam dupliciter, scilicet ex comparatione haeresum, quibus praepollet, et ex proprio nomine, quia Catholica vel universalis vocatur. | 1.1.1.1 He describes this religion in a twofold manner, namely, by comparison with heretical cults, which it excels, and also in its own name since it is called catholic or universal. |
| Dicit ergo: plures, id est diversarum haeresum sectae, usurpant, id est indebite sibi attribuunt, reverentiam Christianae religionis, id est quae Christianae religioni debetur, ut scilicet ei omnes subdantur, secundum illud 1 Ioh. 3: haec est victoria quae vincit mundum, fides nostra. Vel reverentiam quam Christiana religio Deo exhibet credendo his quae divinitus sunt praedicata. | He says, therefore, that there are many, that is, many sects of diverse heresies, who make unlawful claims, since they unduly attribute to themselves the honor of the Christian religion, that is, the honor which ought to be paid to it: namely, that all others should be subject to it. 1 John 5:4: "This is the victory that overcomes the world, our faith." Or, again, they claim the dignity which belongs to the Christian religion in that it manifests the glory of God by believing those truths which have been divinely revealed. |
| Sed ea fides pollet maxime ac solitarie. Haec duo adiungit, ut discretionem faciat eius quod est secundum veritatem et eius quod est secundum opinionem. Secundum enim rei veritatem haeretici Christiani non sunt, cum a doctrina Christi recedant, et quantum ad hoc Catholica fides solitarie pollet; sed secundum apparentiam et hominum opinionem haeretici Christiani dicuntur, quia saltem vel voce nomen Christi confitentur, et quantum ad hoc fides Catholica non sola, sed maxime pollet. | 1.1.1.2 "But that form of faith has supreme authority, and has it exclusively." Here he adds the two things that make it distinct both according to truth and according to reputation. Now according to the truth of the matter, heretics are not Christians, since they cut themselves off from the teachings of Christ, and in this respect the Catholic faith alone is valid. But according to appearances and in the opinion of men, heretics are called Christians because they do indeed still, at least in word, confess the name of Christ; and according to this aspect, the Catholic faith is not the only one, but holds the place of greater authority. |
| Ipsa enim communius et diffusius est recepta, unde subdit: quae vocatur Catholica in Graeco vel universalis in Latino, quod idem est; Catholicum enim Graece Latine universale dicitur. | That this religion is the more common and the more widely diffused is understood when he says, "is called catholic or universal." Now this is the same thing; for catholic in the Greek, means the same as the Latin universal. |
| Pars 2 pr. 2 | |
| Cuius nominis assignat duas rationes, dicens: tum propter praecepta universalium regularum. Praecepta enim, quae fides Catholica proponit, non uni tantum genti observanda, sed omnibus proponit, in quo praecipue differt a lege Moysi, quae uni tantum populo praecepta proponebat. Similiter etiam singulae haereses suis tantum sectatoribus praecepta accomoda tradunt, sed fides Catholica de omnibus curam gerens omnibus praecepta accomoda tribuit, non solum continentibus, ut Manichaei, sed etiam coniugatis; non solum innocentibus, ut Novatiani, sed etiam paenitentibus quibus illi salutem denegant. Unde subdit: quibus, scilicet universalibus regulis, intelligitur auctoritas eiusdem religionis, qua omnes ei subditi esse debent. | For the use of this name, he assigns two reasons, saying: "On account of the precepts of its universal rules," for the precepts which the Catholic religion sets forth are not to be observed by one race alone, but by all: and in this respect it differs especially from the Law of Moses which gave precepts to one people alone. Likewise even individual heresies propose rules that are accommodated to their own members only; while the Catholic faith, having the care of all, gives its precepts to all: not to the unmarried alone, as do the Manichaeans, but also to the married; not to the innocent alone, as do the Novatians, but to sinners as well, for whom that sect would make salvation impossible. Wherefore he adds: "the authority of this religion is evident because of its universal rules," on account of which all ought to be subject to it. |
| Vel dicuntur universales regulae, quia eis nihil falsitatis, nihil iniquitatis admiscetur in quocumque articulo sive in quocumque casu. Deinde subiungit aliam causam dicens: tum propterea quod eius cultus et cetera. Planum est secundum illud Psalmi: in omnem terram exivit et cetera. | Or they may be called universal rules since there is in them no falsity or any admixture of evil, neither in any essential article or accidentally. Then he adds another reason, saying: "Because the worship in which they are expressed has spread throughout the world," a thing which is evidently in accord with that saying of Ps. 18:5: "Their sound has gone forth into all the earth: and their words unto the ends of the world." |
| Pars 2 pr. 3 | |
| Cuius haec de Trinitatis et cetera. Hic ponitur praenotatae fidei sententia de proposita quaestione. Et circa hoc tria facit. Primo ponit Catholicae fidei sententiam de unitate Trinitatis. Secundo eiusdem sententiae rationem, ibi: cuius coniunctionis et cetera. Tertio ostendit praedictae rationis convenientiam, ibi: principium enim pluralitatis. | 1.1.2 Hereupon he next sets forth the doctrine of the Catholic faith concerning the question proposed: "The belief of this religion concerning the Trinity." Concerning this, he does three things: First, he presents the teaching of the Catholic faith on the unity of the Trinity. Secondly, the reason for this opinion: "The principle of this unity." Thirdly, he shows the fitness of the reason, saying: "Now the essence of plurality." |
| Proponit autem fidei Catholicae sententiam per modum argumenti, eo quod fides argumentum non apparentium dicitur Hebr. 11. In quo quidem argumento ex hoc, quod deitas singulis personis uniformiter attribuitur, concluditur quod de omnibus non pluraliter, sed singulariter hoc nomen Deus praedicatur. | 1.1.2.1 Moreover, he proposes the opinion of Catholic faith in a certain argumentative form, because faith is called "the evidence of things that appear not" (Heb. 11:1). In the same argument, indeed, from the fact that divinity is attributed equally to each of the Persons, he concludes that of all three the name "God" is ‘Predicated not plurally, as taken together, but individually. |
| Pars 2 pr. 4 | |
| Deinde huius sententiae rationem assignat. Et primo ponit rationem, secundo per contrarium exponit, ibi: eos enim et cetera. | 1.1.2.2 Next he assigns the reason for this belief. First, he states the reason, and secondly, he explains it by its contrary where he says: "Difference cannot be avoided by those who add to or take from the Unity." |
| Dicit ergo: cuius quidem coniunctionis, id est coniunctae argumentationis, ratio est indifferentia, scilicet deitatis in tribus personis, quam fides Catholica confitetur. Ex hoc enim est quod ex praemissis praedicta conclusio sequitur, quia indifferens deitas tribus personis non differenter attribuitur. Quam quidem rationem per contrarium exponit, dicens: eos enim comitatur differentia, deitatis scilicet, qui vel augent vel minuunt, id est qui ponunt unam personam maiorem vel minorem alia, ut Ariani dicentes patrem esse maiorem filio. Unde subdit: qui, scilicet Ariani, variantes Trinitatem gradibus meritorum, id est dignitatum, dum filium patri subiciunt et spiritum sanctum utrique, distrahunt, id est in diversa trahunt deitatem in eis dividendo, atque in pluralitatem deducunt. Ex divisione enim sequitur pluralitas. E contrario vero Catholici aequalitatem personarum confitentes indifferentiam profitentur et per consequens unitatem. | 1.1.2.2.1 Therefore he says: "The nature of Their Unity is such that there is no difference," namely, the Unity of Deity in the three Persons, as confessed by the Catholic faith. From this the conclusion following upon the foregoing words is that Deity without difference is attributed to each of the three Persons; (1.1.2.2.2) and this reasoning he explains by its contrary saying: "Difference cannot be avoided by those who add to or take from the Unity (of the Deity)": that is, who hold that one Person is greater or less than the others, as the Arians, who make the Father greater than the Son. Wherefore he continues: "As for instance the Arians, who by graduating the Trinity, break it up"; that is, by graduating the Trinity according to dignity, since they make the Son subject to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to both Father and Son, and so "convert it to Plurality"; that is, produce diversity by dividing the Deity among the Persons. For from division there follows plurality. Conversely, Catholics who confess an equality of the Persons, an equality without difference, make profession of consequent Unity. |
| Pars 2 pr. 5 | |
| Deinde cum dicit: principium enim etc., ostendit rationem praemissam esse convenientem. Et dividitur in duas partes. In prima demonstrat praeassignatae rationis necessitatem. In secunda quiddam, quod in sua demonstratione supposuit, probat, ibi: omnium namque et cetera. Circa primum proponit duo. Primo quod alteritas est principium pluralitatis, alteritatem intelligens differentiam qua aliqua inter se altera constituuntur. Et maluit dicere alteritatem quam alietatem, quia non solum substantiales differentiae pluralitatem constituunt, quarum est facere aliud, sed etiam accidentales, quarum est facere alterum; ad alietatem vero sequitur alteritas, sed non e converso. Ex hoc autem habetur ratio Arianicae deductionis. Si enim alteritas est principium pluralitatis et posita causa ponitur effectus, ergo ponentibus alteritatem per augmentum et diminutionem sequitur pluralitas deitatis. | 1.2.3.1.1 Next, he shows that the foregoing reasoning is valid, saying: "For the essence of plurality is otherness," and first he points out the necessity possessed by this reasoning. Secondly, what in the demonstration itself had been supposed is made clear: "In fact, the difference between three or more things lies in genus or species or number." Regarding the first point he does two things. First he shows that otherness is the principle of plurality, understanding by "otherness" any difference by which things can be constituted among themselves as other. And he prefers to say "otherness" rather than "separateness" because not only substantial differences constitute plurality, since they make another thing, but accidental differences also constitute plurality, since they make for otherness: they make a thing other. Now otherness follows upon separateness; but the converse is not true. And the reason for the deduction of the Arians follows from this supposition. For if otherness is the principle of plurality, and positing a cause posits its effect, then supposing in them that otherness is by augmentation and diminution, plurality of divinity would follow. |
| Secundo proponit alteritatem esse proprium principium pluralitatis, quia praeter eam pluralitas intelligi non potest. Ex quo habetur ratio Catholicae coniunctionis. Remota enim propria causa tollitur effectus. Si ergo in tribus personis non est alteritas aliqua deitatis, non erit pluralitas, sed unitas. | 1.2.3.1.2 Secondly, he proposes that otherness is properly the principle of plurality, because, except for it, understanding of plurality is impossible; and according to this principle is the Catholic explanation of divine unity: for if a proper cause is taken away, so also is the effect. If, therefore, in the three Persons there is no otherness of Deity, there will be no plurality, but unity. |
| Pars 2 pr. 6 | |
| Deinde cum dicit: omnium namque rerum etc., probat quod supposuerat, scilicet alteritatem esse proprium principium pluralitatis. Et est ratio sua talis. Omnium rerum genere vel specie vel numero differentium est aliqua alteritas sive differentia causa diversitatis. Sed omnes res plures, sive sint tres sive quotlibet, sunt diversae vel genere vel specie vel numero. Ergo omnium plurium principium est aliqua alteritas. | 1.2.3.2 Next, he proves what was supposed, namely, that otherness is the proper principle of plurality, when he says, "In fact, the difference between three or more things." And the reason is that in all things that differ in genus or species or number, there is some otherness or difference which is the cause of plurality or, diversity. But all plural things, whether three or more, are diverse either generically, specifically, or numerically; therefore some kind of otherness is the principle of all plurality. |
| Circa hanc rationem tria facit. Primo ponit minorem, secundo ibi: quotiens enim etc. probationem minoris, quae talis est. Quotiens dicitur idem, totiens dicitur diversum. Sed idem dicitur tribus modis: genere, specie et numero. Ergo et diversum. Primam supponit ex hoc quod dicitur in I topicorum quod quotiens dicitur unum oppositorum, totiens dicitur et reliquum, et ex hoc quod dicitur X metaphysicae quod idem et diversum sunt opposita. | 2.1 In explaining this, he does three things. First, he states the minor; secondly its proof, beginning, "In as many ways as things are the same, in the same number of ways they are said to be diverse." This is [the demonstration of] the proof: In as many ways as things are said to be the same, in the same number of ways they are said to be diverse. But things are said to be the same in three ways, namely, in genus, species, and number. Therefore things are said to be diverse in the same number of ways. The first is supposed from what is stated in I Topic., that as much is said of one of two opposites as is said of the other: and from the saying of X Metaph., that the same and different are opposites. |
| Secundam manifestat per exempla et supponit eam ex I topicorum. | 2.2 The second is made clear by examples and supposes what is said in I Topic. |
| Pars 2 pr. 7 | |
| Tertio vero probat maiorem quantum ad id quod poterat esse dubium, ibi: sed numero differentiam et cetera. Quod enim diversitatis illorum, quae sunt diversa genere vel specie, principium sit aliqua alteritas, manifestum est ex ipso nomine. Ex hoc enim aliqua sunt diversa genere, quod est eis genus alterum, et diversa specie, quod sub altera specie continentur. Sed in his, quae dicuntur diversa esse numero, non est manifestum ex ipso nomine quod aliqua alteritas sit principium diversitatis et pluralitatis, immo magis videtur e converso secundum nomen quod pluralitas quae in numero designatur sit principium diversitatis, cum ita dicantur aliqua esse diversa numero secundum nomen, sicut genere vel specie. Et ideo ad verificandum maiorem sui syllogismi ostendit quod hanc etiam differentiam, qua aliqua dicuntur differre numero, facit aliqua alteritas sive varietas. Quod probat per hoc quod in tribus hominibus, qui conveniunt genere et specie, inveniuntur altera accidentia, sicut in homine et bove altera species et in homine et lapide genus alterum. Unde sicut homo et bos distant specie, ita duo homines distant accidentibus. | 2.3 Thirdly, he proves the major in regard to that point which might be held in doubt, saying: "But a variety of accidents brings about numerical difference." That the diversity of those things which are diverse according to genus or species must have as principle some otherness, is evident from the name itself. For from the fact that things are of different genera it is evident that a different, or other, genus belongs to each; and if they differ in species, it is because they are contained under other species. But in the case of things which are said to be diverse numerically, it is not evident from the name itself that otherness is the principle of plurality. Furthermore, it might rather appear to be the converse according to the name and that plurality, which is designated by number, might be the principle of diversity, since things numerically different are different according to the same name employed when difference is by genus or species: Therefore, to prove the major of his syllogism, he shows that this difference by which things are said to differ numerically is produced by a certain kind of otherness or variety. He proves this by the fact that in three men who agree in genus and species, but who differ numerically, there is found accidental otherness, just as between man and ox there is specific otherness and between man and stone generic otherness. Wherefore, as man and ox differ specifically, so two men differ accidentally. |
| Pars 2 pr. 8 | |
| Et quia posset aliquis dicere quod varietas accidentium non est causa pluralitatis secundum numerum, quia remotis accidentibus vel secundum rem, scilicet separabilibus, vel animo sive cogitatione, sicut inseparabilibus, adhuc remanent subiecta, cum accidens sit quod adest et abest praeter subiecti corruptionem, ideo huic responsioni obviat dicens quod quamvis omnia accidentia possint saltem animo separari, tamen alicuius accidentis diversitas nullo modo potest nec etiam animo a diversis individuis separari, scilicet diversitas loci. Duo enim corpora non patiuntur eundem locum nec secundum rem nec secundum animi fictionem, quia hoc non intelligi nec imaginari potest. Unde concludit quod ex hoc sunt aliqui homines plures numero, quod sunt accidentibus plures, id est diversi, et in hoc terminatur sententia huius partis. | And because some one might be able to say that accidental variety is not the cause of numerical plurality since, if accidents are done away with-either removed actually, as when separable, or by the mind and in thought, as when inseparable—substance still remains, since accident is that which can be present or absent without corruption of the substance: therefore he forestalls this objection, saying that, although all accidents might indeed be separated from a substance by the mind, nevertheless the diversity of one accident could in no way, even by the mind, be separated from diverse individuals, namely, diversity of place. For two individuals cannot be in the same place either according to fact or according to any fiction of the mind, since this cannot be understood or imagined. Wherefore he concludes that from the fact that men are plural in number they are plural by reason of accidents; that is, they are for this reason diversified; and with this is terminated the teaching of this part of the treatise. |
| Quaestio 3 | QUESTION III |
| Pars 2 q. 3 pr. | Concerning Those Things That Pertain to the Knowledge Possessed by Faith |
| Hic duplex est quaestio. Prima de his quae pertinent ad fidei commendationem. Secunda de his quae pertinent ad causam pluralitatis. Circa primum quaeruntur quattuor. | This question is twofold. First, there is consideration of those things that pertain to the communion of faith: secondly, of those that pertain to the cause of plurality. In regard to the first, four questions are asked: |
| Pars 2 q. 3 pr. 1 | |
| Primo. Utrum humano generi sit fides necessaria. | 1. Whether faith is necessary for mankind. |
| Pars 2 q. 3 pr. 2 | |
| Secundo. Quomodo se habet fides ad religionem. | 2. How faith is related to religion. |
| Pars 2 q. 3 pr. 3 | |
| Tertio. Utrum convenienter vera fides Catholica vel universalis nominetur. | 3. Whether the true faith is aptly called Catholic or universal. |
| Pars 2 q. 3 pr. 4 | |
| Quarto. Utrum haec sit verae fidei confessio quod pater et filius et spiritus sanctus singulus est Deus, et tres sunt unus Deus absque omni inaequalitatis distantia. | 4. Whether this is the, confession of the true faith: that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit each is God, and that the Three are one God without any difference owing to inequality. |
| Articulus 1 | Whether Faith Is Necessary for Mankind. |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 1 arg. 1 | |
| Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non fuerit necessarium humano generi fidem habere. Ut enim dicitur Eccl. 7, quid necesse est homini maiora se quaerere? Quasi dicat: nihil. Sed ea quae per fidem traduntur sunt homine maiora, utpote rationem eius excedentia; alias ad ea cognoscenda sufficeret ratio causans scientiam nec requireretur fides. Ergo non fuit necessarium homini, ut ea quae sunt fidei extra doceretur. | 1. It seems that faith should not be considered necessary for mankind. As is said in Eccles. 7:1, "What needeth a man to seek things that are above him?" This is to say, there is no need. But those things that are believed by faith are above man, as exceeding his reason; otherwise ~his reason, which is the cause of science, would suffice. Therefore it was not necessary for man that, over and above the truths of reason, he should be taught those of faith. |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 1 arg. 2 | |
| Praeterea, Deus naturam humanam in sua conditione perfecte instituit, unde dicitur Deut. 32: Dei perfecta sunt opera. Sed ex his, quae menti humanae in sua conditione sunt indita, non potest homo pertingere ad cognoscendum ea quae sunt fidei; alias possent per scientiam haberi, quae causatur ex hoc quod conclusiones resolvuntur in principia naturaliter nota. Cum igitur perfectum dicatur aliquid, cui nihil deest eorum quae debet habere, ut dicitur in V metaphysicae, videtur quod homo fide non indigeat. | 2. God established human nature as something perfect when He created it. Deut. 32:4, "The works of God are perfect." But from the ability bestowed upon the human mind according to its original condition, man cannot attain to those things which must be known by faith; otherwise he would be able to possess scientific knowledge of them, a knowledge which is caused by the fact that conclusions are resolved into naturally known principles. Since, therefore, a thing is called perfect if it lacks nothing that it ought to possess, as is said in V Metaph., it seems that man does not require faith. |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 1 arg. 3 | |
| Praeterea, unusquisque sapiens ad perveniendum ad finem viam eligit levissimam et ab impedimentis remotissimam. Sed difficillimum videtur credere ea quae supra rationem sunt et valde hominibus periculosum, cum multi a salutis statu decidant propter hoc quod non credunt. Ergo videtur quod Deus qui est sapientissimus non debuerit viam fidei praeparare hominibus ad salutem. | 3. Every wise man makes choice of the shorter way to reach a goal: but it would appear exceedingly difficult for a creature to believe truths which are above reason and, in the case of men, extremely dangerous, since many fall away from the state of salvation because they do not believe; therefore, it seems that God, who is all-wise, ought not to have established faith as the way of salvation for men. |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 1 arg. 4 | |
| Praeterea, ubicumque est acceptio aliquorum cognitorum sine iudicio, est via facilis ad errorem. Sed non habemus aliquid in nobis, per quod possimus iudicare de his quae per fidem accipimus, cum iudicatorium naturale se ad huiusmodi non extendat, utpote supra rationem exsistentia. Ergo patet via facilis ad errorem. Et ita videtur esse homini potius noxium quam utile, ut dirigatur in Deum per fidem. | 4. Whenever there is acceptance of knowledge without judgment, the road to error is easy; but we have in ourselves no ability by which we are able to judge of the things which we accept by faith, since our natural judgment does not extend to truths of this kind, as they exceed reason; therefore evidently the road to error is an easy one for us, and so it would appear rather harmful than useful for man that he should be directed to God by the way of faith. |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 1 arg. 5 | |
| Praeterea, ut dicit Dionysius, malum hominis est praeter rationem esse. Sed homo fidei inhaerens a ratione discedit, et in hoc etiam assuescit rationem contemnere. Ergo videtur quod via ista sit hominibus noxia. | 5. As Dionysius says, it is an evil for man to exist apart from reason; but man in adhering to faith departs from reason, and in this he is even accustomed to despise reason; therefore it seems that such a way is evil for men. |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 1 s. c. 1 | |
| Sed contra est quod dicitur Hebr. 11: sine fide impossibile est placere Deo. Sed hoc est homini maxime opportunum, ut Deo placeat, sine quo nihil boni facere aut habere potest. Ergo fides est homini maxime necessaria. | But on the contrary, it is said in Heb. 11:6, "Without faith it is impossible to please God"; but it is supremely necessary for man that he be pleasing to God, since otherwise he can neither do nor possess any good; therefore faith is most necessary for man. |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 1 s. c. 2 | |
| Praeterea, homini maxime necessarium est veritatem cognoscere, cum gaudium de veritate cognita sit beatitudo, ut Augustinus dicit. Sed, sicut dicit Dionysius 7 c. de divinis nominibus, fides collocat credentes in veritate et in eis veritatem. Ergo fides est homini maxime necessaria. | Again, it is most necessary for man to know the truth, since beatitude is joy in knowing the truth, as Augustine says; but faith establishes believers in truth and establishes truth in them, as Dionysius says (De div. nom., chap. 7); therefore faith is most necessary for man. |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 1 s. c. 3 | |
| Praeterea, illud, sine quo non potest conservari humana societas, est humano generi maxime necessarium, cum homo sit naturaliter animal politicum, ut dicitur in VIII Ethicorum. Sed sine fide humana societas non potest conservari, quia oportet quod unus homo alii credat in promissis et in testimoniis et in aliis huiusmodi quae sunt necessaria hominibus ad commanendum. Ergo fides humano generi est maxime necessaria. | Again, that without which human society cannot be conserved is especially necessary for man, since man is a political animal, as is said in VIII Ethic.; but without faith human society cannot be preserved, since it is requisite that one man believe in the promises of another and in his testimony and the like, for this is necessary if they are to live together; therefore faith is most necessary for mankind. |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 1 co. 1 | |
| Responsio. Dicendum quod fides habet aliquid commune cum opinione et aliquid cum scientia et intellectu, ratione cuius ponitur media inter scientiam et opinionem ab Hugone de sancto Victore. Cum scientia siquidem et intellectu commune habet certum et fixum assensum, in quo ab opinione differt, quae accipit alterum contrariorum cum formidine alterius, et a dubitatione quae fluctuat inter duo contraria. Sed cum opinione commune habet quod est de rebus quae non sunt intellectui pervia, in quo differt a scientia et intellectu. | Response. I answer that it must be said that faith has something in common with opinion, and something in common with knowledge and understanding, by reason of which it holds a position midway between opinion and understanding or science, according to Hugh of St. Victor. In common with understanding and knowledge, it possesses certain and fixed assent; and in this it differs from opinion, which accepts one of two opposites, though with fear that the other may be true, and on account of this doubt it fluctuates between two contraries. But, in common with opinion, faith is concerned with things that are not naturally possible to our understanding, and in this respect it differs from science and intellection. |
| Quod autem aliquid non sit patens humanae cognitioni, potest ex duobus contingere, ut dicitur in II metaphysicae, scilicet ex defectu ipsarum rerum cognoscibilium et ex defectu intellectus nostri. | That a thing should not be apparent to human understanding can arise for two reasons, as is said in II Metaph.: namely, because of lack of knowability in things themselves, and because of lack of intellectual ability on our part. |
| Ex defectu quidem rerum, sicut in rebus singularibus et contingentibus quae a nostris sensibus sunt remotae, sicut sunt facta hominum et dicta et cogitata, quae quidem talia sunt, ut uni homini possint esse nota et alii incognita. Et quia in convictu hominum oportet quod unus utatur altero sicut se ipso in his, in quibus sibi non sufficit, ideo oportet ut stet illis quae alius scit et sunt sibi ignota, sicut his quae ipse cognoscit. Et exinde est quod in conversatione hominum est fides necessaria, qua unus homo dictis alterius credat, et hoc est iustitiae fundamentum, ut Tullius dicit in libro de officiis. Et inde est quod mendacium nullum sine peccato est, cum per omne mendacium huic fidei tam necessariae derogetur. | 1. It may be due to lack on the part of things, as in the case of singular and contingent things which are remote from our senses, like the deeds and words and thoughts of men; for these are of such a nature that they may be known to one man, but unknown to others. And since among men dwelling together one man should deal with another as with himself in what he is not self-sufficient, therefore it is needful that he be able to stand with as much certainty on what another knows, but of which he himself is ignorant, as upon the truths which he himself knows. Hence it is that in human society faith is necessary in order that one man give credence to the words of another, and this is the foundation of justice, as Tullius says in his book, De officiis. Hence also it is that no lie is without sin, since every lie derogates from that faith which is so necessary. |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 1 co. 2 | |
| Ex defectu vero nostro sunt non apparentia res divinae et necessariae, quae sunt secundum naturam maxime notae. Unde ad harum inspectionem non sumus statim a principio idonei, cum oporteat nos ex minus notis et posterioribus secundum naturam in magis nota et priora naturaliter pervenire. Sed quia ex vi illorum, quae ultimo cognoscimus, sunt nota illa quae primo cognoscimus, oportet etiam a principio aliquam nos habere notitiam de illis quae sunt per se magis nota; quod fieri non potest nisi credendo. Et etiam hoc patet in ordine scientiarum, quia scientia quae est de causis altissimis, scilicet metaphysica, ultimo occurrit homini ad cognoscendum, et tamen in scientiis praeambulis oportet quod supponantur quaedam quae in illa plenius innotescunt; unde quaelibet scientia habet suppositiones, quibus oportet addiscentem credere. | 2. The truth of things may also not be evident because of defect on our part, as in the case of divine and necessary things which, according to their own nature, are most knowable. Wherefore, to understand them, we are not capable of immediate intellection, from the very beginning, since it is in accordance with our nature to attain from things less knowable and posterior in themselves, to knowledge of those that are themselves more knowable and prior. But since from none of those things that we know last do we have any knowledge of those that we know first, it is needful for us even at first to have some notion of those things that are most knowable in themselves; but this cannot be except by believing. And this is evident even in the order of the sciences; since that science which is concerned with highest causes, namely, metaphysics, comes last in human knowledge; yet in sciences that are preambles to it there must be supposed certain truths which only in it are more fully revealed; therefore every science has some suppositions that must be believed in order to cafty on the process of learning. |
| Cum ergo finis humanae vitae sit beatitudo, quae consistit in plena cognitione divinorum, necessarium est ad humanam vitam in beatitudinem dirigendam statim a principio habere fidem divinorum, quae plene cognoscenda exspectantur in ultima perfectione humana. | Since, therefore, the end of human life is beatitude, which consists in the full cognition of divine truths, it is necessary that human life be directed to this beatitude by an initial possession of divine truths by faith, truths which man can hope to know fully in the ultimate state of human perfection. |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 1 co. 3 | |
| Ad quorum quaedam plene cognoscenda possibile est homini pervenire per viam rationis etiam in statu huius vitae. Et horum quamvis possit haberi scientia et a quibusdam habeatur, tamen necessarium est habere fidem propter quinque rationes, quas Rabbi Moyses ponit. | Certain of these truths that must be known can be attained by reason even in this life: however, although knowledge of them is possible and even possessed by certain men, nevertheless faith is necessary for five reasons, which Rabbi Moses enumerates: |
| Prima scilicet propter profunditatem et subtilitatem materiae, per quam occultantur divina ab hominum intellectu. Unde ne sit homo sine eorum qualicumque cognitione, provisum est ei ut saltem per fidem divina cognoscat, Eccl. 7: alta profunditas, quis cognoscet illam? | 1. First, on account of the depth and subtlety of the matter, by which divine truths are hidden from human understanding. Therefore, lest any man be without some knowledge of them, provision is made that through faith, at least, he know divine truths. Therefore, in Eccles. 7:25 it is said: "It is a great depth, who shall find it out?" |
| Secunda propter imbecillitatem intellectus humani a principio. Non enim provenit ei sua perfectio nisi in fine; et ideo ut nullum tempus sit ei vacuum a divina cognitione, indiget fide, per quam ab ipso principio divina accipiat. | 2. Secondly, on account of the weakness of the human intellect from the beginning. For perfection of knowledge does not belong to the human intellect except at the end; therefore, that it should at no time lack a knowledge of God, it requires faith by which it may accept divine truths from the very beginning. |
| Tertio propter multa praeambula, quae exiguntur ad habendam cognitionem de Deo secundum viam rationis. Requiritur enim ad hoc fere omnium scientiarum cognitio, cum omnium finis sit cognitio divinorum; quae quidem praeambula paucissimi consequuntur. Unde ne multitudo hominum a divina cognitione vacua remaneret, provisa est ei divinitus via fidei. | 3. Thirdly, because of the many preambles that are required for a knowledge of God according to reason. For this there is needed knowledge of almost all the sciences, since cognition of divine things is the end of them all. But few indeed would comprehend these preambulatory truths or investigate them completely. Therefore, lest large numbers of men should be left without knowledge of divine things, the way of faith has been provided by God Himself. |
| Quarto, quia multi hominum ex naturali complexione sunt indispositi ad perfectionem intellectus consequendam per viam rationis; unde ut hi etiam divina cognitione non careant, provisa est fidei via. | 4. In the fourth place, many men on account of their natural constitution are unfitted for perfect intellectual investigation according to reason; therefore, that these might not lack knowledge of divine truths, the way of faith has been provided. |
| Quinto propter occupationes plurimas, quibus oportet homines occupari; unde impossibile est quod omnes consequantur per viam rationis illud quod est de Deo necessarium ad cognoscendum, et propter hoc est via fidei procurata, et hoc quantum ad illa quae sunt ab aliquibus scita et aliis proponuntur ut credenda. | 5. In the fifth place, because of numerous occupations with,which men are busied, it would be impossible for all of them to discover, by way of reason, necessary truth in regard to God, and on this account the way of faith has been established, both as regards things that might in some way be known and as regards those that required revelation in order that they be believed. |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 1 co. 4 | |
| Quaedam vero divinorum sunt, ad quae plene cognoscenda nullatenus ratio humana sufficit, sed eorum plena cognitio exspectatur in futura vita, ubi erit plena beatitudo, sicut unitas et Trinitas unius Dei. Et ad hanc cognitionem homo perducetur non ex debito suae naturae, sed ex sola divina gratia. Unde oportet quod huius etiam perfectae scientiae quaedam suppositiones primo ei credendae proponantur, ex quibus dirigatur in plenam cognitionem eorum quae a principio credit, sicut et in aliis scientiis accidit, ut dictum est; et ideo dicitur Is. 7 secundum aliam litteram: nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. Et huiusmodi suppositiones sunt illa quae sunt credita quantum ad omnes et a nullo in hac vita scita vel intellecta. | But in the case of certain divine truths, for a complete understanding of them the human mind in no way suffices, but full knowledge of them is to be awaited in that future life when there will be complete beatitude: such is the truth of the Trinity and the unity of one God; and man is led to knowledge of this, not in accordance with anything due his nature, but by divine grace alone. Therefore it is necessary that, for a perfection of knowledge of this kind, certain suppositions be proposed which must be believed at first, and from these one is directed into full cognition of those truths which at the outset he held on faith, even as in other sciences also, as has been said. Hence in Is. 7:9 it is said, according to one translation: "Unless thou hadst believed, thou wouldst not understand." And suppositions of this sort are those that must be believed by all, since in this life they are neither known nor understood by, any one. |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 1 ad 1 | |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod licet ea quae sunt fidei sint maiora homine naturae viribus consideratis, non sunt tamen maiora homine divino lumine elevato. Et ideo non est necesse homini, ut huiusmodi propria virtute quaerat, sed est ei necesse, ut divina revelatione ea cognoscat. | 1. It may be said: Although matters of faith considered according to man’s natural powers are above him, they are not above man when he is illuminated by divine light; hence it is not necessary for man that he seek out such truths by his own power, but it is necessary for him to know them by divine revelation. |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 1 ad 2 | |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod Deus in prima rerum conditione hominem perfectum instituit perfectione naturae, quae quidem in hoc consistit, ut homo habeat omnia quae sunt naturae debita. Sed supra debitum naturae adduntur postmodum humano generi aliquae perfectiones ex sola divina gratia, inter quas est fides quae est Dei donum, ut patet Eph. 2. | 2. It may be said: God, in the first creation of things, established man as perfect in accordance with the perfection of his nature, and this consisted in the fact that man had all things due to his nature. But over and above that due to nature there were added afterward to the human race certain other perfections owing their source to divine grace alone, and among these was faith, as is evident from Eph. 2:8, where it is said of faith that it is "the gift of God." |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 1 ad 3 | |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod cuilibet in beatitudinem tendenti necessarium est cognoscere in quibus beatitudinem quaerere debeat, et qualiter. Quod quidem facilius fieri non poterat quam per fidem, cum rationis inquisitio ad talia pervenire non possit nisi multis praecognitis quae non est facile scire. Nec etiam potuit cum minori periculo, cum humana inquisitio propter imbecillitatem intellectus nostri sit facilis ad errorem, et hoc aperte ostenditur ex ipsis philosophis, qui per viam rationis finem humanae vitae quaerentes et modum perveniendi in ipsum in errores multiplices et turpissimos inciderunt, adeo sibi invicem dissentientes, ut vix duorum aut trium esset de his per omnia una concors sententia, cum tamen per fidem videamus in unam sententiam etiam plurimos populos convenire. | 3. It may be said: For anyone striving to attain beatitude it is necessary to know in what he ought to seek this beatitude, and in what way. But this, indeed, can be done in no easier way than through faith, since investigation by reason cannot attain to such knowledge except after a previous knowledge of many other things, things not easy to know. Nor can one attain to such knowledge without danger, since human investigation, because of the weakness of our intellect, is prone to error; and this is clearly shown by reference to those philosophers who, in attempting to find out the purpose of human life by way of reason, did not find in themselves the true method, and so fell into many and shameful errors; and so greatly did they differ among themselves that scarcely two or three among them all were in agreement on any one question; yet, on the other hand, we see that by faith many peoples are brought to the acceptance of one common belief. |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 1 ad 4 | |
| Ad quartum dicendum quod quandocumque acceptis aliquo modo assentitur, oportet esse aliquid quod inclinet ad assensum, sicut lumen naturaliter inditum in hoc quod assentitur primis principiis per se notis et ipsorum principiorum veritas in hoc quod assentitur conclusionibus scitis et aliquae verisimilitudines in hoc quod assentimus his quae opinamur; quae si fuerint aliquantulum fortiores, inclinant ad credendum, prout fides dicitur opinio iuvata rationibus. Sed illud, quod inclinat ad assentiendum principiis intellectis aut conclusionibus scitis, est sufficiens inductivum et ideo etiam cogit ad assensum et est sufficiens ad iudicandum de illis quibus assentitur. Quod vero inclinat ad opinandum qualitercumque vel etiam fortiter, non est sufficiens inductivum, unde nec cogit, nec per hoc potest perfectum haberi iudicium de his quibus assentitur. Unde et in fide qua in Deum credimus non solum est acceptio rerum quibus assentimus, sed aliquid quod inclinat ad assensum; et hoc est lumen quoddam, quod est habitus fidei, divinitus menti humanae infusum. Quod quidem sufficientius est ad inducendum quam aliqua demonstratio, per quam etsi numquam falsum concludatur, frequenter tamen in hoc homo fallitur, quod putat esse demonstrationem quae non est. Est sufficientius etiam quam ipsum lumen naturale quo assentimus principiis, cum lumen illud frequenter impediatur ex corporis infirmitate, ut patet in mente captis. Lumen autem fidei, quod est quasi quaedam sigillatio primae veritatis in mente, non potest fallere, sicut nec Deus potest decipi vel mentiri, unde hoc lumen sufficit ad iudicandum. | 4. It may be said: Whenever there is acceptance of a truth, by whatever mode of assent, there must be something which moves the mind to assent: just as the naturally possessed light of the intellect causes assent to first principles, and the truth of those first principles causes assent to conclusions made from them; while in other ways we assent to things of which we have an opinion, though, if motives were a little stronger, they would incline us to belief, in so far as faith is said to be opinion. But that which inclines the mind to assent to the first principles of understanding or to conclusions known from these principles is a sufficient induction which forces assent, and is sufficient to judge of those things to which the mind gives its assent. On the other hand, whatever inclines one to form an opinion, even though with a good amount of conviction, is not that sufficient form of induction whereby assent is forced, nor by reason of it can there be perfect judgment of the things to which assent is given. Therefore also in faith by which we believe in God, not only is there acceptance of the truths to which we give assent, but also something which inclines us to that assent; and this is the special light which is the habit of faith, divinely infused into the human mind. This, moreover, is more sufficient for inducing belief than any demonstration, for, though from the latter no false conclusions are reached, still man frequently errs in this: that he thinks something is a demonstration which is not. The light of faith is also more sufficient than the natural light of reason by which we assent to first principles, since this natural light is often impeded by bodily infirmity, as is evident in the case of the. insane. But the light of faith, which is, as it were, a kind of impression of the First Truth in our minds, cannot fail, any more than God can deceive us or lie; therefore this light suffices for making judgment. |
| Hic tamen habitus non movet per viam intellectus, sed magis per viam voluntatis; unde non facit videre illa quae creduntur nec cogit assensum, sed facit voluntarie assentire. Et sic patet quod fides ex duabus partibus est a Deo, scilicet et ex parte interioris luminis quod inducit ad assensum et ex parte rerum quae exterius proponuntur, quae ex divina revelatione initium sumpserunt. Et haec se habent ad cognitionem fidei sicut accepta per sensum ad cognitionem principiorum, quia utrisque fit aliqua cognitionis determinatio. Unde sicut cognitio principiorum accipitur a sensu et tamen lumen quo principia cognoscuntur est innatum, ita fides est ex auditu, et tamen habitus fidei est infusus. | This habit of faith, nevertheless, does not move us by way of intellectual understanding, but more by way of the will; therefore it does not make us comprehend those truths which we believe, nor does it force assent, but it causes us to assent to them voluntarily. And thus it is evident that faith comes in two ways: namely, from God by reason of the interior light which induces assent, and also by reason of those truths which are proposed exteriorly and take their source from divine revelation. These latter are related to the knowledge which is oi faith as things known by the senses are to knowledge of first principles, because in both cases there is a certain determination given to cognition. Therefore, as cognition of first principles is received by way of sense experience, and yet the light by which those principles are known is innate, so faith comes by way of hearing, and yet the habit of faith is infused. |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 1 ad 5 | |
| Ad quintum dicendum quod vivere secundum rationem est bonum hominis in quantum est homo, vivere autem praeter rationem potest uno modo sonare in defectum, sicut est in illis qui vivunt secundum sensum, et hoc est hominis malum. Alio modo potest sonare in excessum, ut cum homo divina gratia adducitur in id quod est supra rationem; et sic praeter rationem vivere non est hominis malum, sed bonum supra hominem. Et talis est cognitio eorum quae sunt fidei, quamvis et ipsa fides non omnibus modis sit praeter rationem; hoc enim naturalis ratio habet, quod assentiendum est his quae a Deo dicuntur. | 5. It may be said: To live in accordance with reason is the good of man inasmuch as he is man. Now, to live apart from reason, according to one meaning, can be understood as a defect, as it is in those who live according to sense; and this is an evil in man. But in another way, it may mean to live above reason as when, by divine grace, a man is led to that which exceeds reason: and in this case, to live apart from reason is not an evil in man, but a good above that which is human. And such is the cognition of truths of faith, although faith itself is not in every way outside reason; for, it is the natural reason which holds that assent ought to be given to truths declared by God. |
| Articulus 2 | Whether Faith Should Be Distinguished from Religion. |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 2 arg. 1 | |
| Ad secundum sic proceditur, videtur quod fides a religione distinguenda non sit, quia, ut Augustinus dicit in Enchiridion, fide, spe et caritate colendus est Deus. Sed cultus Dei est actus religionis, ut patet per diffinitionem Tullii qui dicit quod religio est quae cuidam superiori naturae, quam divinam vocant, cultum caerimoniamque affert. Ergo fides ad religionem pertinet. | 1. It seems that faith ought not to be distinguished from religion, because, as Augustine says in Ench., "God is to be worshiped by faith, hope, and charity"; but worship of God is an act of religion, as is evident from the definition of Tullius, which says: "Religion is that which offers to a superior nature, which men call divine, worship and ceremony"; therefore faith pertains to religion. |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 2 arg. 2 | |
| Praeterea, Augustinus dicit in libro de vera religione quod vera religio est qua unus Deus colitur et purgatissima pietate cognoscitur. Sed cognoscere Deum est fidei. Ergo fides sub religione continetur. | 2. Augustine says in De vera religione: The true religion is that by which the one God is honored and known with a most unsullied piety or purity." But to know God is a thing which belongs to faith; therefore, faith is contained under religion. |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 2 arg. 3 | |
| Praeterea, offerre Deo sacrificium est actus religionis. Sed hoc pertinet ad fidem, quia, ut dicit Augustinus in V de civitate Dei, verum sacrificium est omne opus quod agitur, ut sancta societate inhaereamus Deo. Prima autem inhaesio hominis ad Deum est per fidem. Ergo fides ad religionem praecipue pertinet. | 3. To offer sacrifice to God is a function or act of religion, but this pertains to faith, as Augustine says in IV De civ. Dei: "True sacrifice is any work done in order that we may adhere to God in holy association"; but the first adherence of man to God is by faith; therefore faith pertains principally to religion. |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 2 arg. 4 | |
| Praeterea, ut dicitur Ioh. 4, spiritus est Deus, et eos, qui adorant eum, in spiritu et veritate adorare oportet. Magis ergo proprie adoratur Deus, cum ei prosternitur intellectus, quam cum ei prosternitur corpus. Sed per fidem ei prosternitur intellectus, dum se intellectus totaliter subicit ad assentiendum his quae a Deo dicuntur. Ergo fides ad religionem maxime pertinet. | 4. In John 4:24 it is said: "God is a Spirit, and they that adore Him, must adore Him in spirit and in truth." Now, God is adored more when one submits his intellect to Him than when a bodily prostration is made; but through faith the intellect is submitted to God, since it subjects itself entirely in assenting to the truths revealed by God; therefore faith pertains especially to religion. |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 2 arg. 5 | |
| Praeterea, omnis virtus, quae habet Deum pro obiecto, est virtus theologica. Sed religio habet Deum pro obiecto; non enim nisi Deo cultum debitum affert. Ergo est virtus theologica. Sed magis videtur pertinere ad fidem quam ad aliquam aliarum, cum non dicantur esse extra religionem Christianam nisi qui sunt extra fidem. Ergo religio videtur idem esse quod fides. | 5. Every virtue having God as its object is a theological virtue: but religion has God as its object, since it is nothing else than the offering of due reverence to God; therefore it is a theological virtue. But it appears to belong more to faith than to any of the others, since only those are said to be outside the Christian religion who are outside [i.e., without] faith; therefore religon seems to be the same as faith. |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 2 s. c. 1 | |
| Sed contra est quod Tullius in II veteris rhetoricae ponit religionem partem iustitiae, quae est virtus cardinalis. Ergo cum fides sit virtus theologica, religio erit alterius generis quam fides. | On the contrary is what Tullius says in II Veteris Rhetoricae, where he makes religion a part of justice, which is a moral virtue. Therefore, since faith is a theological virtue, religion is of a genus other than that of faith. |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 2 s. c. 2 | |
| Praeterea, religio consistit etiam in actu qui est ad proximum, ut patet Iac. 2: religio munda et immaculata et cetera. Sed fides non habet actum nisi qui est ad Deum. Ergo religio est omnino a fide distincta. | Again, religion consists also in activity regarding the neighbor, as is evident in Jas. 1:27: "Religion clean and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to visit the fatherless and widows in their tribulation"; faith has no act except that which is referred to God; therefore religion is altogether distinct from faith. |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 2 s. c. 3 | |
| Praeterea, religiosi dicuntur communiter, qui quibusdam specialibus votis astringuntur. Non solum autem ipsi dicuntur fideles. Ergo non est idem fidelis et religiosus. Ergo nec idem fides et religio. | Again, those are commonly called "religious" who are bound by special vows, but they are not the only ones called 1. the faithful." Since, therefore, one of the faith and a religious are not the same thing, faith and religion are not the same. |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 2 co. 1 | |
| Responsio. Dicendum quod, sicut patet per Augustinum X de civitate Dei, theosebia quae cultus Dei dicitur, religio, pietas et latria ad idem pertinere intelliguntur, scilicet ad Deum colendum. Cultus autem cuilibet rei impensus nihil aliud esse videtur quam debita operatio circa illud adhibita. Et ex hoc dicuntur aliqui diversimode colere agros, parentes, patriam et alia huiusmodi, quia diversis diversae operationes coaptantur. Deus autem non hoc modo colitur, quod ei nostra operatio aliquid prosit aut subveniat, sicut est in praedictis, sed solum in quantum nos ei subdimus et subditos demonstramus. Hic ergo cultus divinus absolute nomine theosebiae designatur. Sed religio importat quandam ligationem, secundum quod homo quodammodo se astringit ad cultum istum; unde, ut dicit Augustinus in libro de vera religione, religio a religando dicta creditur, vel etiam a reeligendo, ut dicit in X de civitate Dei. Ex propria enim electione aliquis ligatur ad aliquid faciendum. Oportet autem nos eum reeligere quem amiseramus neglegentes, ut ibidem dicit. Et inde est quod illi, qui vitam suam totam et se ipsos ad divinum obsequium votis quibusdam obligant, religiosi dicuntur. | Response. I answer that it must be said that, as is evident from Augustine (X De civ. Dei), theosebia, which the worship of God is called, includes as pertaining to it in the same way, religion, piety and latria, since all have as their purpose the worship of God. Reverence paid to anything, however, seems to be nothing else than a due operation performed with regard to it; and consequently men are said to cherish in various ways their fields, their parefits, their country, and other like things because different works are fitting to each. But God is not "cherished" in this same way: that any operation of ours would be of benefit or assistance to Him, as in the case of the above-mentioned instances; but it implies only that we submit ourselves to Him and show ourselves to be His subjects. Therefore this reverence which is absolutely divine is designated by the name of theosebia. But religion implies a certain "binding, back" according to which man obliges himself in some manner to this worship of God; wherefore Augustine says in his book, De vera religione: "The word ‘religion’ is thought to be derived from the religare (‘to bind back’), or from recte eligere (‘to choose rightly’)," as is said in IV De civ. Dei. For it is by proper choicethat a person binds himself to do something that must be done. We must also reelect those things which by negligence we have lost, as he also says. Therefore it is that those who consecrate their whole lives and themselves to the service of God by certain vows are called religious; |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 2 co. 2 | |
| Sed pietas animum colentis respicit, qui non ficte nec mercennario affectu obsequitur. | but piety regards the mind of the worshiper, that it be not insincere or moved by desire of gain. |
| Et quia his, quae supra nos sunt, quasi quaedam divina veneratio debetur, beneficia etiam quae miseris exhibentur sunt quasi quaedam Dei sacrificia, secundum illud Hebr. ultimo: communionis et beneficentiae nolite oblivisci, talibus enim hostiis promeretur Deus, hinc est quod nomen pietatis et religionis ad opera misericordiae transfertur et maxime ad beneficia quae in parentes et patriam exhibentur. Sed latria importat debitum colendi sive rationem cultus, ex hoc scilicet quod eius sumus servi quem colimus, non hoc modo, quo homo servus hominis dicitur propter quodcumque accidentale debitum, sed quia totum, quod sumus, ei debemus tamquam creatori. Unde et latria servitus dicitur non quaelibet, sed illa tantum, qua homo Dei servus est. | Since also a certain divine veneration, as it were, is due to those above us, even the acts of kindness which are done for the unfortunate are in a way sacrifices to God, according to the last part of the Epistle to the Hebrews (13: 16): "And do not forget to do good and to impart: for by such sacrifices God’s favor is obtained." Hence it is that the name of piety and of religion are transferred to works of mercy, and especially to benefits done to parents and country. But latria implies a reverence that is of obligation, or worship in its essence; and this is so because we are, indeed, the subjects of Him whom we honor, not after the manner in which one man is said to be the servant of another, because of some accidental debt to him, but because all that we are we owe to Him as our Creator. Therefore latria is not any kind of service, but that by which man acknowledges his subjection to God. |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 2 co. 3 | |
| Sic ergo religio consistit in operatione, qua homo Deum colit se ei subdendo. Quae quidem operatio debet esse conveniens et ei, qui colitur, et colenti. | Thus, therefore, religion consists in an operation by which man honors God by submitting to Him; and this operation ought to be in harmony with Him who is honored, and with the one offering homage. |
| Ipse autem qui colitur, cum sit spiritus, non potest corpore, sed sola mente contingi. Et sic cultus ipsius principaliter in mentis actibus consistit, quibus mens ordinatur in Deum. Et hi sunt praecipue actus theologicarum virtutum, et secundum hoc dicit Augustinus quod Deus colitur fide, spe et caritate; et his adiunguntur actus donorum tendentium in Deum, ut sapientiae et timoris. | Now since He who is reverenced is a spirit, He cannot be approached by the body, but only by the mind; and so worship of Him consists chiefly in acts of the mind by which the mind itself is ordained to God. These acts are principally those of the theological virtues; and in accordance with this, Augustine says that God is worshiped by faith, hope, and charity, to which are added also the acts of the gifts ordained toward God, such as those of wisdom and of fear. |
| Sed quia nos, qui Deum colimus, corporei sumus et per corporeos sensus cognitionem accipimus, inde est quod ex parte nostra requiruntur ad cultum praedictum etiam aliquae corporales actiones, tum ut ex toto quod sumus Deo serviamus, tum ut per huiusmodi corporalia nos ipsos et alios excitemus ad actus mentis ordinatos in Deum. Unde dicit Augustinus in libro de cura pro mortuis agenda: orantes de membris sui corporis faciunt quod supplicantibus congruit, cum genua figunt, cum extendunt manus vel prosternuntur solo et si quid aliud visibiliter faciunt, quamvis eorum invisibilis voluntas et cordis intentio Deo nota sit nec ille indigeat his indiciis, ut animus pandatur humanus; sed hinc magis se ipsum excitat homo ad orandum gemendumque humilius atque ferventius. | But because we who honor God are also possessed of bodies and receive our knowledge through bodily senses, there is the necessity that certain physical actions accompany the worship of God, not only that we may render service to God with our whole being, but also that by these bodily actions we may arouse in ourselves and in others acts of the mind ordained to God. Wherefore Augustine says in his book, De cura pro mortuis habenda: "Those who pray make the members of their bodies conform to their acts of supplication when they genuflect, extend their hands, or prostrate themselves upon the ground, or perform any other visible action; and although it is their invisible will and the intention of the heart that is known to God, it is not unseemly that the human soul should so express itself, but rather by so doing man stirs himself to pray and to lament his sins the more humbly and fervently." |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 2 co. 4 | |
| Sic ergo omnes actus, quibus homo se Deo subdit, sive sint mentis sive corporis, ad religionem pertinent. Sed quia ea, quae proximis propter Deum impenduntur, ipsi Deo impenduntur, constat quod pertinent ad eandem subiectionem, in qua cultus religionis consistit. Et sic diligenter consideranti apparet omnem actum huiusmodi ad religionem pertinere. Unde Augustinus dicit quod verum sacrificium est omne opus quod agitur, ut sancta societate inhaereamus Deo. Tamen quodam ordine. Primo namque et principaliter ad cultum praedictum pertinent actus mentis ordinati in Deum. Secundo actus corporis qui ad hos excitandos et designandos fiunt, ut prostrationes, sacrificia et huiusmodi. Tertio ad eundem cultum pertinent omnes alii actus in proximum ordinati propter Deum. | Hence, all acts by which man subjects himself to God, whether they are acts of mind or of body, pertain to religion. But because those things that are rendered to the neighbor on account of God are rendered to God Himself, it is evident that they also pertain to this same subjection in which religious worship consists; and so to one diligently considering the matter it is apparent that every good act pertains to religion. Hence Augustine says (loc. cit.): "True sacrifice is every work done that we may adhere to God in holy companionship; however, in a certain order." First and foremost, those acts of the mind ordained to God pertain to the worship which we are speaking of. Secondly, there are acts of the body intended to arouse reverence of mind or to give expression to it, such as prostrations, sacrifices, and the like. Thirdly, there also pertain to divine worship all other acts ordained to the neighbor for the sake of God. |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 2 co. 5 | |
| Et tamen sicut magnanimitas est specialis virtus, quamvis omnium virtutum actibus utatur secundum specialem rationem obiecti, utpote coniectans magnum in actibus omnium virtutum, ita et religio est specialis virtus, in actibus omnium virtutum specialem rationem obiecti considerans, scilicet Deo debitum; sic enim est iustitiae pars. Illi tamen actus specialiter religioni assignantur, qui nullius alterius virtutis sunt, sicut prostrationes et huiusmodi, in quibus secundario Dei cultus consistit. | Nevertheless, as magnanimity is a certain special virtue, although it uses the acts of all virtues, since it bestows a grandeur in the exercise of them all and so regards its object under a certain special aspect; so also religion is a special virtue in the acts of all the virtues, considering a special aspect of its object, namely, that which is due to God; and thus it forms a part of justice. There are, moreover, special acts assigned to religion, which pertain to no other virtue, such as prostrations and the like, in which the worship of God consists secondarily. |
| Ex quo patet quod actus fidei pertinet quidem materialiter ad religionem, sicut et actus aliarum virtutum, et magis, in quantum actus fidei est primus motus mentis in Deum. Sed formaliter a religione distinguitur, utpote aliam rationem obiecti considerans. Convenit etiam fides cum religione praeter hoc, in quantum fides est religionis causa et principium. Non enim aliquis eligeret cultum Deo exhibere, nisi fide teneret Deum esse creatorem, gubernatorem et remuneratorem humanorum actuum. | From this it is evident that acts of faith pertain, indeed, materially to religion, as do the acts of other virtues, and the more so inasmuch as acts of faith are the first motions of the mind toward God; but formally faith is distinguished from religion, as regarding another aspect of its object. Faith agrees with religion also because faith is the cause and principle, of religion. For no one would elect to manifest reverence to God unless by faith he held that God was the Creator, Ruler, and Rewarder of human actions. |
| Ipsa tamen religio non est virtus theologica. Habet enim pro materia quasi ipsos actus vel fidei vel alterius virtutis, quos Deo tamquam debitos offert. Sed Deum habet pro fine. Colere enim Deum est huiusmodi actus ut debitos Deo offerre. Et per hoc patet responsio ad omnia obiecta. | Nevertheless religion is not a theological virtue: for it has as its matter all acts, as those of faith or ‘of any other virtue inasmuch as these are offered as due to God; but it has God as its end. For to worship God is to offer acts of this kind as due to God. From what has been said, the response to all the objections is evident. |
| Articulus 3 | Whether the Christian Religion Is Aptly Called Catholic or Universal. |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 3 arg. 1 | |
| Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod fides Christiana Catholica nominari non debeat, quia cognitio debet esse cognoscibili proportionata. Non enim quidlibet modo cognoscitur. Sed fides est cognitio Dei, qui neque est universalis neque particularis, ut Augustinus dicit in libro de Trinitate. Ergo nec fides debet universalis dici. | 1. It seems that the Christian religion ought not be called Catholic, because knowledge must be proportionate to the knowability of a thing. Now an indefinite thing is not known in any way at all: but faith is a knowledge of God who is neither universal nor particular, as Augustine says in his book, De Trinitate; therefore this religion cannot be called universal. |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 3 arg. 2 | |
| Praeterea. De singularibus non potest esse nisi singularis cognitio. Sed fide quaedam singularia facta tenemus, ut passionem Christi, resurrectionem et huiusmodi. Ergo fides non debet dici universalis. | 2. One can have only singular knowledge about singular things; but by faith we hold the truth of certain singular facts, as the Passion and Resurrection of Christ, and the like; therefore the Christian faith cannot be called universal. |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 3 arg. 3 | |
| Praeterea, ab eo quod est commune multis non debet proprium nomen alicui eorum imponi, cum nomen causa innotescendae rei imponatur. Sed quaelibet traditio vel secta proponit ea quae tradit ut universaliter ab omnibus credenda vel observanda et ut universaliter vera. Ergo non debet fides Christiana specialiter Catholica dici. | 3. From what is common to many, it is not permissible to impose a name as proper to any one of them, since a name is given in order that a thing may be known as distinct: but every school or sect proposes certain things that must be universally held by all its followers, or certain doctrines that must be universally affirmed as true; therefore the Christian religion has no special right to be called Catholic. |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 3 arg. 4 | |
| Praeterea, idolatria ad omnes mundi angulos pervenit. Sed Christiana fides nondum invenitur ad omnes mundi fines pervenisse, cum aliqui barbari sint, qui fidem Christi non cognoscant. Ergo idolatriae secta magis debet dici Catholica quam Christiana fides. | 4. Idolatry extends to every corner of the earth; but the Christian religion has not yet been brought to all the regions of the world, since there are yet some barbarians who do not know the faith of Christ; therefore these idolatrous sects, rather than the Christian religion, deserve the name of Catholic. |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 3 arg. 5 | |
| Praeterea, quod non convenit omnibus, non potest dici universale. Sed fides Christiana a multis non recipitur. Ergo inconvenienter Catholica vel universalis dicitur. | 5. What does not include all should not be called universal; but the Christian religion is not accepted by many; therefore it is inaptly called universal or Catholic. |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 3 s. c. 1 | |
| Sed contra est quod dicit Augustinus in libro de vera religione: tenenda est nobis Christiana religio et eius Ecclesiae communicatio, quae Catholica est et Catholica nominatur non solum a suis, verum etiam ab omnibus inimicis. | On the contrary is that which Augustine says in De vera religione: "The Christian religion must be held by us, and the communication of that Church which is catholic and which is called Catholic, not only by its own members, but even by its enemies." |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 3 s. c. 2 | |
| Praeterea, universale et commune idem esse videtur. Sed fides Christiana ab apostolo communis fides dicitur, ut patet Tit. 1: Tito dilecto filio secundum communem fidem et cetera. Ergo convenienter potest dici universalis vel Catholica. | Again, universal and common appear to be the same; but the Christian faith is called the common faith by the Apostle (Titus 1:4): "To Titus, my beloved son according to the common faith"; therefore it is rightly called Catholic. |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 3 s. c. 3 | |
| Praeterea, illud, quod universaliter omnibus proponitur, maxime debet dici universale. Sed fides Christiana omnibus proponitur, ut patet Matth. ultimo: docete omnes gentes et cetera. Ergo ipsa merito debet dici Catholica vel universalis. | Again what is universally proposed to all should in a special way be called universal; but the Christian faith is universally proposed to all, as is evident in the last chapter of Matthew (28:19), "Teach all nations," etc.; therefore it is deservedly called Catholic or universal. |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 3 co. 1 | |
| Responsio. Dicendum quod fides sicut et quaelibet alia cognitio duplicem habet materiam, scilicet in qua, id est ipsos credentes, et de qua, id est res creditas, et ex parte utriusque materiae fides Christiana Catholica dici potest. | Response. I answer that it must be said that faith, just as any other cognition, has a twofold matter: namely, that in which it exists (the believers themselves) and that about which it is concerned (the truths believed); and as regards both types of matter, the Christian religion can be called Catholic. |
| Ex parte quidem credentium, quia illam fidem veram asserit apostolus Rom. 3, quae est testificata a lege et prophetis. Cum autem prophetarum tempore diversae gentes diversorum deorum cultibus insisterent, solus autem populus Israel Deo vero cultum debitum exhiberet, et sic non esset una universalis religio, praedixit per eos spiritus sanctus cultum veri Dei ab omnibus esse assumendum. Unde dicitur Is. 45: mihi curvabitur omne genu et confitebitur omnis lingua; quod quidem per Christianam fidem et religionem impletur. | As regards the believers it is Catholic because the Apostle (Rom. 3:2) asserts that that is the true religion which was given testimony to by the law and the prophets. Since, however, in the times of the prophets various tribes offered worship to different gods, only one nation, the people of Israel, gave due honor to the true God, and so there did not exist that one universal religion which was foretold to them by the Holy Spirit, that worship of the true God which would be paid by all. Therefore Isaias (45:24) says: "For every knee shall be bowed to Me, and every tongue shall swear." And this prophecy has, indeed, been fulfilled by faith and the Christian religion. |
| Unde merito Catholica nominatur, utpote a cuiuslibet condicionis hominibus recepta. Et sic illi, qui ab hac fide et religione communiter promissa et recepta in proprias quasdam sententias declinarunt, non Catholici, sed, quasi a communione divisi, haeretici nominantur. | Therefore deservedly is that faith called Catholic since it has been accepted by men of every condition. And thus, those who have fallen away from this faith and this religion which has been so universally foretold and received, and who have become divided into various sects, are not called Catholics, but as it were, having been cut off from the communion of the faithful, they are called heretics. |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 3 co. 2 | |
| Sed ex parte etiam rerum creditarum in fide Christiana universalitas invenitur. Fuerunt namque antiquitus diversae artes et viae, quibus hominibus quantum ad diversa providebatur vel provideri credebatur. Quidam namque bonum hominis in solis corporalibus ponebant, vel in divitiis vel honoribus aut voluptatibus. Quidam in solis animae bonis, ut in virtutibus moralibus vel intellectualibus. Quidam etiam, ut Augustinus dicit in libro de civitate Dei, aestimabant deos esse colendos propter temporalia bona istius vitae, quidam vero propter bona quae sunt post vitam. Porphyrius etiam ponebat quibusdam gentilibus teletis animae imaginariam partem purgari, non totam animam, dicebatque, ut Augustinus dicit X de civitate Dei, nondum esse receptam unam sectam, quae universalem contineat viam animae liberandae. | As regards the truths proposed for belief in the Christian religion, there is also found truth that is catholic. Now, there were various arts and ways in ancient times according as there was vision, or belief in the vision of the human mind among men. For certain men placed the good of man in corporeal things alone, either in riches or in honors or in pleasures. Some others placed this good in the soul alone, as in moral or intellectual virtues. Certain others, as Augustine says in his book, De civ. Dei, thought that gods ought to be honored because of the corporeal blessings of this life; but others, on account of blessings to be realized after death. Porphyry also relates that it was believed among certain peoples of the earth that the imaginative part of the soul would be cleansed, but not the whole soul; and he said, as Augustine tells in X De civ. Dei, that there had not yet been found a single sect that possessed a universal way for liberty of spirit. Now this way, as Augustine says in the same place, is the Christian religion. |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 3 co. 3 | |
| Haec autem est religio Christiana, ut Augustinus ibidem dicit. Ipsa enim docet Deum esse colendum non solum propter aeterna, sed etiam propter temporalia beneficia, nec solum in spiritualibus, sed etiam in usu corporalium hominem dirigit et beatitudinem animae et corporis repromittit. Et ideo regulae eius universales dicuntur, utpote totam vitam hominis et omne, quod ad ipsum quolibet modo pertinet, ordinantes. Et has duas rationes universalitatis assignat Boethius, ut in littera patet. | This religion teaches that God is to be honored not only on account of eternal, but also because of temporal benefits; that He rules man not only in spiritual ways but also in all that concerns him bodily, and that He promises beatitude for both soul and body. Hence His regulations are called universal, as pertaining to the whole life of man and as extending to all that in any way affects man. For these two reasons, therefore, thename "universal" is given to the Christian religion, as Boethius in the text makes clear. |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 3 ad 1 | |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod quamvis Deus in se non sit neque universalis neque particularis, est tamen universalis omnium rerum causa et finis, et sic cognitio, quae de ipso habetur, ad omnia quodammodo universalis est. | 1. It may, therefore, be answered: Although God is in Himself neither universal nor particular, yet He is the universal cause and end of all things, and thus knowledge which is held concerning Him is universal since it extends to all things. |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 3 ad 2 | |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod illa particularia facta tenet fides ut universalia remedia ad totum genus humanum liberandum. | 2. It may be said: Faith holds these particular facts as universal remedies for the healing and the liberation of the whole human race. |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 3 ad 3 | |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod aliae sectae hoc sibi vindicare nituntur, quod est proprium fidei Christianae, sed non possunt pertingere, unde eis non proprie universalitatis competit nomen. | 3. Answer may be made: Other sects claim for themselves what is proper to the Christian faith, but they cannot vindicate this claim; therefore, the name of universality does not properly belong to them. |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 3 ad 4 | |
| Ad quartum dicendum quod idolatria non erat una religio, sed apud diversos diversa, cum diversi diversos sibi deos colendos instituerent. Nec iterum ab omnibus nationibus est acceptata, cum a veri Dei cultoribus fuerit reprobata et etiam a sapientibus gentilium, qui dicebant huiusmodi caerimonias esse observandas tamquam legibus iussas, non tamquam diis placitas, ut de Seneca dicit Augustinus in VI de civitate Dei. | 4. It may be said: Idolatry was no one form of religion, but differed among various peoples, since they set up for themselves various gods to be worshiped. Nor again, were those forms of idolatry accepted by all nations, since they were rejected by those who honored the true God, and even by the philosophers of the Gentiles, who said that certain religious ceremonigeought to be observed since they were commanded by law, but not because they could be known to please the gods, as Seneca said, according to Augustine in De civ. Dei. |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 3 ad 5 | |
| Ad quintum dicendum quod fides Christiana non dicitur Catholica vel universalis propter singula generum, sed propter genera singulorum, quia ex omni condicione hominum ei aliqui adhaeserunt. | 5. It may be answered: The Christian religion is not called Catholic on account of individual nations who adhere to it, but on account of the body of individual men from all conditions of mankind who adhere to it. |
| Articulus 4 | Whether it Is a True Article of Faith, That the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit Are One God. |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 4 arg. 1 | |
| Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non sit Catholicae fidei confessio quod pater et filius et spiritus sanctus sint unus Deus, quia, ut ipse dicit, ad inaequalitatem horum trium sequitur pluralitas deorum. Sed sacra Scriptura, quae est caput Catholicae religionis, ut dicit Augustinus in libro de vera religione, ponit inaequalitatem patris et filii, ut videtur per hoc quod dicitur Ioh. 14: pater maior me est, ex persona filii. Ergo non est haec sententia Catholicae fidei quam dicit. | 1. It seems that it is not the confession of the Catholic,faith that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God: because, as Boethius himself says, upon inequality there follows plurality of gods. But the Catholic Scripture, which is the head of the Catholic religion, as Augustine says in De vera religione, states that there is inequality between Father and Son, as is evident from what is said in the person of the Son in John 14:28: "The Father is greater than I." Therefore what is said is not the confession of the Catholic religion. |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 4 arg. 2 | |
| Praeterea, 1 Cor. 15: cum subiecta illi fuerint omnia, scilicet filio, tunc et ipse subiectus erit ei, scilicet patri, qui sibi subiecit omnia; et sic idem quod prius. | 2. 1 Cor. 15:28 says: "And when all things shall be subdued unto Him, then the Son also Himself shall be subject unto Him that put all things under Him, that God may be all in all." And so the conclusion is like the former. |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 4 arg. 3 | |
| Praeterea, orare non est nisi inferioris ad superiorem. Sed filius orat pro nobis, Rom. 8: Christus Iesus qui etiam interpellat pro nobis. Similiter et spiritus sanctus, eodem: spiritus postulat pro nobis gemitibus inenarrabilibus. Ergo filius et spiritus sanctus sunt patre inferiores secundum confessionem Catholicae fidei; et sic idem quod prius. | 3. Prayer is not made except by an inferior to a superior: but the Son prays for us. Rom. 8:34, "Christ Jesus... who also makes intercession for us." Likewise of the Holy Spirit it is said in the same place (8:26), "The Spirit Himself asks for us with unspeakable groanings.," Therefore the Son and the Holy Spirit are inferior to the Father according to the confession of the Catholic faith, and so the conclusion is the same. |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 4 arg. 4 | |
| Praeterea, Ioh. 17 dicit filius loquens ad patrem: haec est vita aeterna, ut cognoscant te solum verum Deum et quem misisti Iesum Christum. Ergo solus pater est verus Deus, non ergo filius et spiritus. Et sic videntur esse creaturae, et sic idem quod prius. | 4. John 17:3 gives the words of the Son addressing Himself to the Father: "That they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent." Therefore the Father alone is the true God, and not the Son and the Holy Spirit. Therefore they seem to be creatures, and so the same conclusion is reached. |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 4 arg. 5 | |
| Praeterea, apostolus de filio loquens 1 Tim. ultimo dicit: quem scilicet Christum suis temporibus ostendit beatus et solus potens rex regum et dominus dominantium, qui solus habet immortalitatem et lucem habitat inaccessibilem. Ergo haec omnia soli patri conveniunt. | 5. In 1 Tim. 6:15, the Apostle says: "Which in His times He shall show, who is the Blessed and only Mighty, the King of kings, and Lord of lords. Who only has immortality and inhabits light inaccessible." Therefore all these titles belong only to the’Father, and so the conclusion is as before. |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 4 arg. 6 | |
| Praeterea, Marc. 13 dicitur: de die autem illa et hora nemo scit neque Angeli in caelo neque filius nisi pater. Ergo maior est scientia patris quam filii. Ergo et maior essentia. Et sic idem quod prius. | 6. In Mark 13:32 it is said: "But of that day or hour no man knoweth, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father." Therefore the Father’s knowledge is greater than that of the Son. Consequently His essence also is greater, and thus the conclusion is the same. |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 4 arg. 7 | |
| Praeterea, Matth. 20 dicitur: sedere ad dexteram meam vel sinistram non est meum dare vobis, sed quibus paratum est a patre meo. Ergo filius non est aequalis potestatis cum patre. | 7. Matt. 20:23 says: "To sit on My right or left hand, is not Mine to give to you, but to them for whom it is prepared by My Father." Therefore the power of the Son is not equal to that of the Father. |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 4 arg. 8 | |
| Praeterea, Col. 1 dicitur de filio quod est primogenitus omnis creaturae. Sed comparatio non est nisi eorum quae sunt unius generis. Ergo filius est creatura. | 8. In Col. 1:15, it is said of the Son that He is "the firstborn of every creature." But this comparison would not be made unless of beings of one genus; therefore the Son is a creature. |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 4 arg. 9 | |
| Praeterea, Eccli. 24 dicitur ex persona divinae sapientiae: ab initio et ante saecula creata sum, et sic idem quod prius. | 9. In Sirach 24:14 it is said in the person of divine Wisdom, "From the beginning, and before the world, was I created." Thus the conclusion is the same. |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 4 arg. 10 | |
| Praeterea, ille qui clarificatur minor est eo qui clarificat. Sed filius clarificatur a patre, ut patet Ioh. 12. Ergo filius est minor patre. | 10. He who is revealed is less than he who reveals; but the Son is revealed by the Father, as is evident in John, chap. 12; therefore, the Son is less than the Father. |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 4 arg. 11 | |
| Praeterea, mittens est maior eo qui mittitur. Sed pater mittit filium, ut patet Gal. 4: misit Deus filium suum factum ex muliere et cetera. Mittit etiam spiritum sanctum, Ioh. 14: Paraclitus spiritus sanctus, quem mittet pater et cetera. Ergo pater est maior filio et spiritu sancto. Et sic ista sententia quam dicit non videtur esse fidei Catholicae. | 11. The one sending is greater than the one sent. But the Father sends the Son, as is clear from Gal. 4:4, "God sent His Son," etc. And He also sends the Holy Spirit, according to John 14:26, "The Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name." Therefore the Father is greater than the Son and the Holy Spirit. And thus the aforesaid doctrine does not seem to be in accordance with the Catholic faith. |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 4 s. c. 1 | |
| Sed contra est quod dicitur Ioh. 1: in principio erat verbum, et Deus erat verbum, omnia per ipsum facta sunt. Ex quo habetur quod filius sit aeternus, alias non esset in principio; et quod sit patri aequalis, alias Deus non esset; et quod non sit creatura, alias non omnia per ipsum facta essent. | But on the contrary it is said in John 1:1, 3: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.... All things were made by Him," etc. From this it is to be held that the Son is eternal, for otherwise He could not have been in the beginning: and that He is equal to the Father, for otherwise He would not be God: and that He is not a creature, for otherwise all things would riot have been made by Him. |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 4 s. c. 2 | |
| Praeterea, filius, cum sit veritas, de se mentitus non est. Sed filius dicebat se patri aequalem. Unde dicitur Ioh. 5: patrem suum dicebat Deum, aequalem se Deo faciens. Ergo ipse est aequalis patri. | Again, since the Son is truth, He could not lie concerning Himself. But the Son said that He was equal to the Father (John 5: 18): "He also said God was His Father, making Himself equal to God." Therefore He is equal to the Father. |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 4 s. c. 3 | |
| Praeterea, Phil. 2: non rapinam arbitratus est esse se aequalem Deo. Esset autem rapina, si arbitraretur et non esset. Ergo est aequalis Deo. | Again, Phil. 2:6 says: "He thought it not robbery to be equal with God." But it would have been robbery if He thought that was so which was not. Therefore He is equal to God. |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 4 s. c. 4 | |
| Praeterea, Ioh. 10 dicitur: ego et pater unum sumus, praeterea Ioh. 14: ego in patre et pater in me est. Ergo unus alio minor non est. | Again, John 10:30, "I and the Father are one." And John 14:11, "I am in the Father, and the Father in Me." Therefore one is not greater than the other. |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 4 s. c. 5 | |
| Praeterea, Rom. 9: ex quibus Christus, qui est super omnia Deus benedictus in saecula. Ergo nullus est eo superior, et sic non est minor patre. | Again, Rom. 9:5: "And of whom is Christ, according to the flesh, who is over all things, God blessed forever." Therefore no one is superior to Him; and thus He is not less than the Father. |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 4 s. c. 6 | |
| Praeterea, 1 Ioh. ultimo: dedit nobis sensum ut cognoscamus verum Deum et simus in vero filio eius. Hic est verus Deus et vita aeterna. Ergo non est minor patre. | Again, 1 John 5:20, "And we know that the Son of God is come: and He hath given us understanding that we may know the true God, and may be in His true Son. This is the true God and life eternal." Therefore He is not less than the Father. |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 4 s. c. 7 | |
| Item ostenditur quod spiritus sanctus sit aequalis patri et verus Deus per hoc quod dicitur Phil. 3 secundum Graecam litteram: nos sumus circumcisio, qui spiritui Dei servimus, et intelligitur de latriae servitute, ut in Graeco patet. Sed talis servitus nulli creaturae debetur, Deut. 6 et Matth. 4: dominum Deum tuum adorabis, et illi soli servies. Ergo spiritus sanctus non est creatura. | Again, it is shown that the Holy Spirit is the true God and equal to the Father by what is said in Phil. 3:3, according to the Greek text. "We are the circumcision, who serve God the Spirit", and in regard to this service, that of latria is understood, as is evident in the Greek. And such honor is due to no creature. Deut. 6:13 and Matt. 4:10: "The Lord your God you shall adore, and Him only you shall serve." Therefore, the Holy Spirit is not a creature. |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 4 s. c. 8 | |
| Praeterea, membra Christi non possunt esse templum alicuius qui sit minor quam Christus. Sed corpora nostra, quae sunt membra Christi secundum apostolum, sunt templum spiritus sancti, ut dicitur 1 Cor. 6. Ergo spiritus sanctus non est minor Christo, et sic nec patre. Et ita verum est id quod auctor dicit esse Catholicae fidei sententiam. | Again, the members of Christ cannot be the temple of anyone who is less than Christ: but our bodies, which are members of Christ, according to the Apostle, are temples of the Holy Spirit, as is said in 1 Cor. 6: 19. Therefore the Holy Spirit is not less than Christ, or less than the Father; and thus it is true, as the author says, that this is a doctrine of the Catholic religion. |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 4 co. 1 | |
| Responsio. Dicendum quod Arianorum positio inaequalitatem in personis divinis constituens non est Catholicae fidei professio, sed magis gentilis impietas, quod sic patet. | Response. I answer that it must be said that the position of the Arians, which establishes inequality among the divine persons, is not a confession of the Catholic religion, but rather an impiety of the Gentiles, as is thus evident. |
| Apud gentiles enim omnes substantiae immortales dii dicebantur. Inter has autem ponebant Platonici tres primas et principales, ut patet per Augustinum in X de civitate Dei et per Macrobium super somnium Scipionis, scilicet Deum omnium creatorem, quem dicebant Deum patrem propter hoc, quod ab ipso omnia derivarentur, et quandam inferiorem substantiam, quam paternam mentem sive paternum intellectum dicebant, plenam omnium rerum ideis, et hanc factam a Deo patre dicebant, et post hoc ponebant animam mundi quasi spiritum vitae totius mundi. Et has tres substantias tres principales deos nominabant et tria principia, per quae animae purgantur. | Among the Gentiles all immortal substances are called gods. Among these, moreover, they hold, or rather the Platonists hold, that there are three principal persons, as is made clear by Augustine in De civitate Dei (Bk. X), and by Macrobius on the Somnium Scipionis, namely, the God, who is the Creator of all things, whom they call also the Father, since all things have their source in Him; and, secondly, a certain inferior substance, whom they call the Paternal Mind or the Paternal Intellect, who contains the ideas of all things, and who is made by God the Father, they say; and thirdly, after Him they suppose a Soul-of-the-World, a spirit who is, as it were, the life of the whole world. And these three substances they name as their chief gods, and as the three principles by which souls are purified. |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 4 co. 2 | |
| Origenes autem Platonicis documentis insistens arbitratus est hoc modo in fide nostra ponendum esse tres, qui testimonium dant in caelo, 1 Ioh. ultimo, sicut Platonici tres principales substantias posuerunt, unde posuit esse filium creaturam et minorem patre in libro, quem peri archon, id est de principiis, nominavit, ut patet per Hieronymum in quadam epistula de erroribus Origenis. Et cum ipse Alexandriae docuerit, ex eius scriptis suum errorem Arius hausit. | Origen, moreover, following the teachings of the Platonists, thought that after the same manner the doctrine of the true faith ought to be interpreted, because it is said, "There are three who give testimony in heaven" (1 John 5:7). And so, as the Platonists supposed that there were three principal substances, Origen held that the Son was a creature and less than the Father, in that book which is entitled Peri Archon ("Concerning the Principles"), as is made clear by Jerome in a certain epistle regarding the errors of Origen. And since Origen himself taught at Alexandria, Arius drank in his error from the things he wrote. |
| Et propter hoc dicit Epiphanius quod Origenes fuit fons et pater Arii. Tantum ergo Christianae et Catholicae fidei positio Arii de Trinitate est contraria, quantum error gentilium, qui creaturas deos dicentes eis latriae servitutem exhibebant. Quod arguit apostolus Rom. 1 dicens quod coluerunt et servierunt creaturae potius quam creatori et cetera. | On this account Epiphanius says that Origen was the father and font of Arius. Therefore the position of the Christian and Catholic faith regarding the Trinity differs as much from the position of Arius as does the error of the Gentiles, which, in calling creatures gods, rendered to them the service of divine praise. This the Apostle (Rom. 1:25) criticizes when he says, "They worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator." |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 4 ad 1 | |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut dicit Augustinus in II de Trinitate, de patre et filio tripliciter dicitur aliquid in Scripturis. | 1. It may be said: As Augustine states in II De Trinitate, passages found in the Scriptures in regard to the Father and the Son are threefold. |
| Quaedam namque unitatem substantiae et aequalitatem ipsorum ostendunt, ut: ego et pater unum sumus. | a) First, some show a certain unity of substance and equality of persons, as, "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30). |
| Quaedam vero filium minorem ostendunt propter formam servi, secundum quam factus est etiam se ipso minor, secundum illud Phil. 2: semet ipsum exinanivit formam servi accipiens. | b) Other passages show the Son to be less because of His having the form of a servant, according as He made Himself less, as is said in Phil. 2:7, "He emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant." |
| Quaedam ita dicuntur, ut neque minor neque aequalis ostendatur, sed tantum quod filius sit de patre, sicut dicitur Ioh. 5: sicut habet pater vitam in semet ipso, sic dedit et filio vitam habere. | c) Certain things are also said that show Him to be neither less nor the equal of the Father, but only that the Son is from the Father, as in John 5:26, "As the Father has life in Himself, so He hath given to the Son also to have life in Himself." |
| Primae ergo auctoritates sunt Catholicis in adminiculum ad veritatis defensionem. Sed ea, quae secundo et tertio modo dicuntur in Scriptura, assumpserunt haeretici ad sui erroris confirmationem, sed vane. Non enim ea quae de Christo dicuntur secundum humanam naturam sunt referenda ad eius divinitatem; alias sequeretur quod secundum divinitatem esset mortuus, cum hoc de ipso secundum humanitatem dicatur. Similiter nec ostenditur patre minor filius, quamvis filius sit ex patre, quia filius a patre omnia, quae pater habet, accepit, ut habetur Ioh. 16 et Matth. 11. Unde per hoc ordo originis, non inaequalitas deitatis astrui potest. | The first authoritative passages are used by Catholics in making a defense of the truth. But those of the second and third kind are employed by heretics in confirmation of their error, though in a vain attempt. For the things that are stated of Christ according to His human nature should not be referred to His divinity; otherwise it would follow that His death, which is recorded of Him according to His humanity, would be according to His divinity. Likewise, neither is it shown that the Son is less than the Father, although the Son is from the Father, because the Son has from the Father all that the Father possesses, as is held in John 16, and Matthew 11. Wherefore no inequality of divinity can be asserted because of the order of origin. |
| Quod ergo dicitur: pater maior me est, dictum est de filio secundum humanam naturam secundum Augustinum, vel secundum Hilarium secundum divinam ita quod maioritas non importet inaequalitatem, quia filius non est minor patre, cui datum est nomen super omne nomen, sed importat auctoritatem principii, secundum quod hoc nomen, quo filius est aequalis patri, habet filius a patre. | When, therefore, it is said, "The Father is greater than I," this is said of the Son according to His human nature and not according to His divine nature, as Augustine maintains; or, as Hilary says, according to His divine nature in such a way that "greater" does not imply inequality (because the Son is not less than the Father, inasmuch as to Him is given a name above all names); but it implies dignity of a principle inasmuch as it is from the Father that the Son possesses that by which He is the equal of the Father. |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 4 ad 2 | |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod filio subiecit omnia non solum pater, sed etiam ipse sibi, secundum illud Phil. 3: secundum virtutem, qua potens est sibi subicere omnia, et hoc secundum deitatem, qua aequalis est patri. Et ideo in hoc quod dicitur quod Christus subiectus erit ei, qui subiecit sibi omnia, non fit comparatio filii secundum divinitatem ad patrem, sed magis secundum humanitatem ad divinitatem patris, quae toti Trinitati est communis. | 2. It may be said: All things the Father not only subjected to the Son, but the Son Himself made them subject to Himself, according to the saying of Phil. 3:21: "According to the operation whereby also He is able to subdue all things unto Himself," i.e., according to the Divinity which is equal in Him to that of the Father. Wherefore, when it is said that Christ will be subject, this does not imply relation of the Son to the Father according to Divinity, but rather the relation of the human nature of the Son to the Divinity of the Father, which Divinity is common to the whole Trinity. |
| Regnum ergo Christi sunt fideles ipsi; quod regnum tradet Deo et patri, non tamen sibi adimens, cum fideles ad visionem patris adducet, qua visione etiam ipsius deitas videbitur. Et tunc apparebit maxime esse secundum humanam naturam divinae subiectus, quando divina natura perfecte cognoscetur, non tali subiectione, ut quidam haeretici dixerunt, quod ipsa humana natura a Christo assumpta transeat in divinam, sed secundum quod est minor patris divinitate. | And when the divine nature shall be perfectly known, then it will be apparent that especially according to His human nature He is subject to the divine nature; but not with such a subjection as that which certain heretics claim who say that the very human nature which was assumed by the divine nature is transmuted into it, but rather that He is less than the Father by reason of His humanity. This is made especially clear by the fact that He will deliver His kingdom, that is, the faithful, to the Father, not claiming them for Himself, but leading them to the vision of the Father, a vision in which His own Divinity also will be seen. |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 4 ad 3 | |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit in I de Trinitate, ex hoc filius rogat, quo minor est patre; quo vero aequalis est, exaudit cum patre; id est secundum humanam naturam orat, secundum divinam exaudit. | 3. It may be answered: According to Augustine (III De Trinitate), inasmuch as the Son prays He is less than the Father; but inasmuch as He obtains hearing with the Father, He is the equal of the Father. |
| Sed spiritus sanctus interpellare dicitur, in quantum nos interpellantes facit et nostris orationibus efficaciam praestat. | But the Holy Spirit is said to intercede for us inasmuch as He causes us to make intercession and renders our prayers efficacious. |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 4 ad 4 | |
| Ad quartum dicendum quod secundum Augustinum in VI de Trinitate solus unus verus Deus non est tantum de patre intelligendum, sed simul de patre et filio et spiritu sancto, qui dicuntur solus unus verus Deus, quia nihil praeter Trinitatem illam est verus Deus. Unde sic intelligendum: ut cognoscant te patrem et quem misisti Iesum Christum esse unum solum verum Deum. De spiritu autem sancto tacet, quia, cum sit nexus amborum, ex utroque intelligitur. | 4. It may be said: According to Augustine (VI De Trinitate), the statement that there is one only true God must not be interpreted to refer to the Father alone, but as including Father, Son, and Holy Ghost simultaneously; and they are said to be, the one true God because no being outside the Trinity is true God. Wherefore, it must be in this way that one understands: "That they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent" (John 17:3). For there is one only true God, and no mention is here made of the Holy Spirit, because, since He is the nexus of the other two Persons, He is understood by mention of the other two. |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 4 ad 5 | |
| Ad quintum dicendum quod, sicut patet per Augustinum in I de Trinitate, verbum illud non est intelligendum solum de persona patris, sed de tota Trinitate. Tota enim est beatus et solus potens etc.; tota etiam Trinitas filium ostendit. Si tamen dixisset: quem ostendit pater beatus et solus potens, non propter hoc filius separaretur, sicut nec pater separatur, cum dicitur Eccli. 24 ex persona filii qui est Dei sapientia: gyrum caeli circuivi sola. Et hoc ideo, quia in his, quae ad essentiam pertinent, pater et filius sunt omnino unum. Et ideo quod de uno dicitur, ab alio per dictionem exclusivam non removetur, sed solum a creaturis, quae habent diversam essentiam. | 5. It may be answered: According to Augustine (I De Trinitate), this saying is not to be understood of the Person of the Father alone, but of the entire Trinity. For the whole Trinity is blessed and powerful, and the whole Trinity shows forth the Son. Even if He did say: "He shall show, who is the Blessed and only Mighty," etc., this would not indicate that the Son is separate from the Father, or that the Father is considered as being separated from the Son, because it is said in Sirach 24:8, in the person of the Son, who is the Wisdom of God, "I alone have compassed the circuit of heaven." This is said, therefore, because in those things which pertain to the essence of God, Father and Son are altogether one, and hence what is said of one of them by diction which may be exclusive does not imply any mutual separation, but only their separation from creatures. |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 4 ad 6 | |
| Ad sextum dicendum quod filius non solum secundum divinam naturam scit diem illam et horam, sed etiam secundum humanam, quia eius anima scit omnia. Dicitur autem illam nescire, ut Augustinus dicit in I de Trinitate, quia non facit nos eam scire. Unde de hoc quaerentibus dixit: non est vestrum nosse tempora etc., Act. 1, per quem modum et apostolus dixit 1 Cor. 1: neque iudicavi me scire aliquid inter vos etc., quia scilicet alia eis dicere noluerat, quia capaces non erant. | 6. It may be said: The Son knows "that day and hour," not only according to His divine nature, but even according to His human nature, since His soul knows all things. Hence He is said not to know that day, as Augustine explains in I De Trinitate, because He does not make it known to us; wherefore He said to those questioning Him: "It is not for you to know the times," etc. (Acts 1:7). And in the same way the Apostle says in 1 Cor. 2:2, "I judged not myself to know anything among you," because he was unwilling to disclose lofty things to them since they lacked capacity to understand. |
| Vel hoc intelligendum est de filio non quantum ad personam ipsius capitis, sed quantum ad corpus eius, quod est Ecclesia, quae hoc nescit, ut Hieronymus dicit. In hoc vero, quod dicitur solus pater scire, ostenditur etiam filius scire secundum regulam praedictam. | Or this may be understood as regarding the Son, not in His character as head of the Church, but in the person of His members, since the Church, as Jerome says, is without knowledge of these truths. However, in saying that the Father alone knows them, it is evident that the Son also knows them, according to the aforesaid reason. |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 4 ad 7 | |
| Ad septimum dicendum quod, sicut dicit Augustinus in I de Trinitate, sic exponendum est verbum illud: non est meum dare vobis, id est non est humanae potestatis hoc dare, ut per illud intelligatur hoc dare, per quod est Deus et aequalis patri. | 7. Answer may be made: As Augustine says in I De Trinitate, the verse: "It is not Mine to give to you," etc., must be understood to mean that it is not in the power of human nature to give this, so that He may be known to grant it by reason of the fact that He is God and equal to the Father. |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 4 ad 8 | |
| Ad octavum dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit in I de Trinitate, hunc apostolicum locum haeretici non intelligentes in contumeliam filii Dei saepe proponunt astruentes quod creatura sit minus considerantes verborum vim. Primogenitus quippe dictus est, non primus creatus, ut et genitus pro natura divina, quam habet, et primus propter perpetuitatem credatur. Quamvis autem filius non sit de genere creaturarum, tamen secundum Basilium habet aliquid cum creaturis commune, scilicet accipere a patre, sed habet prae creaturis quod per naturam habet quae a patre accipit. Et propter hoc potest ordo inter genituram filii et creaturarum productionem notari. | 8. It may be said: According to Augustine, I De Trinitate, many heretics, not understanding this point of apostolic doctrine, broke out into insult of the Son of God, saying and declaring that He was a creature, having little regard for the import of words. For He is said, indeed, to be the first begotten, but not the first created, so that He might be believed to have been begotten, according to His divine nature, and to be first on account of His perpetuity. Moreover, although the Son belongs to no genus of creatures, yet, as Basil holds, He has something in common with creatures: namely, the fact that He received from the Father that which He has; but this possession is superior to that of creatures, since through His own nature He possesses what He receives from the Father. On this account there can be noted a certain order between the generation of the Son and the production of creatures. |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 4 ad 9 | |
| Ad nonum dicendum quod illud verbum et alia similia, quae de sapientia Dei leguntur, vel sunt referenda ad sapientiam creatam, sicut sunt Angeli, vel ad ipsum Christum secundum humanam naturam. Et sic dicitur ab initio vel initio creatus, quasi ab aeterno praedestinatus creaturam assumere. | 9. It may be said: This saying and all sayings similar to it, which are read in regard to the wisdom of God, ought to be referred to the wisdom of creatures, such as the angels, or to Christ Himself according to His human nature. Thus His wisdom is said to be "from the beginning," or "at the beginning of creation," as if from eternity it predestined that creation should belong to Him. |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 4 ad 10 | |
| Ad decimum dicendum quod, sicut dicit Augustinus in II de Trinitate, ex hoc, quod pater clarificat filium, non ostenditur filius minor patre, alias esset etiam spiritu sancto minor, quia dicit filius de spiritu sancto, Ioh. 16: ille me clarificabit. Illa enim clarificatio non ostendit aliquid in persona filii Dei fieri, sed vel in notitia hominum, secundum quod clarificare est ipsius notitiam claram facere, vel in corpore assumpto, prout refertur ad claritatem resurrectionis. | 10. Answer may be made: As Augustine says in II De Trinitate: From the fact that the Father will glorify the Son, it does not follow that the Son is inferior to the Father; otherwise, He would be less than the Holy Spirit, because the Son says of the Holy Spirit in John 16:14: "He shall glorify Me." Now, this glorification refers not to the Person of the Son, but to the fact that in the knowledge of men He will be glorified, since the Spirit will make Him known; or it may be referred to the body which He had assumed and to the glory of the Resurrection. |
| Pars 2 q. 3 a. 4 ad 11 | |
| Ad undecimum dicendum quod filius et spiritus sanctus dicuntur missi a patre, non quod essent ubi prius non fuerant, sed ut essent aliquo modo quo prius non fuerant, quod est secundum aliquem effectum in creatura. Unde per hoc, quod filius et spiritus sanctus dicuntur a patre missi, non ostenditur Trinitatis inaequalitas, sed ordo originis, quo una persona est ab alia - unde pater non mittitur, qui non est ab alio - et efficientia respectu illius effectus, secundum quem persona divina mittitur. | 11. It may be said: The Son and the Holy Spirit are said to be "sent" by the Father, not that they now are where they had previously not been; but that, they are now there in a certain manner in which they had not previously been: that is to say, as regards a certain effect in creatures. Wherefore, when the Son and the Holy Spirit are said to have been sent by the Father, no inequality in the Trinity is revealed, but an order of origin, by which one Person is from another. Therefore the Father is not "sent," because He is not from another in such a way that He has from another His efficacy in relation to any of His effects; and it is in this way that a divine Person is "sent." |
THE LOGIC MUSEUM
Copyright (html and introduction only) (C) E.D.Buckner 2010.