← Back to Distinction 5

Dist. 5

Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity · Distinction 5

Textus Latinus
p. 108

Distinctio V

Utrum divina essentia genuerit Filium, vel genita sit a Patre, vel de ipsa natus sit Filius, vel Spiritus sanctus processerit.

Post haec quaeritur, utrum concedendum sit, quod Pater genuit divinam essentiam, vel quod divina essentia genuit Filium, vel essentia genuit essentiam, an omnino non genuit nec genita est divina essentia.

Ad quod catholicis tractatoribus consentientes dicimus, quod nec Pater genuit divinam essentiam, nec divina essentia genuit Filium, nec divina essentia genuit essentiam. Hic autem nomine essentiae intelligimus divinam naturam, quae communis est tribus personis et tota in singulis. Ideo non est dicendum, quod:

1. Pater genuit divinam essentiam; quia si Pater diceretur genuisse divinam essentiam, essentia divina relative diceretur ad Patrem vel pro relativo poneretur. Si autem relative diceretur vel pro relativo poneretur, non indicaret essentiam. Ut enim ait Augustinus in quinto libro de Trinitate1: «Quod relative dicitur, non indicat substantiam».

2. Item, cum Deus Pater sit divina essentia, si eius esset genitor, esset utique genitor eius rei, quae ipse est; et ita eadem res se ipsam genuisset, quod Augustinus negat2.

3. Item, si Pater est genitor essentiae divinae, cum ipse essentia divina sit et Deus sit, eo ergo quod generat, et est et Deus est. Ita ergo non illud quod generatur, est a Patre Deus, sed Pater eo quod generat, et est et Deus est. Et si ita est, non genito gignens, sed gignenti genitus causa est, ut et sit et Deus sit. Simili ratione probat Augustinus in libro septimo de Trinitate3, «quod Pater non est sapiens sapientia, quam genuit» etc.

Non ergo ipsam, qua est, essentiam genuit. «Nam in illa simplicitate», inquit Augustinus4, «quia non est aliud sapere quam esse, eadem est ibi sapientia quae essentia»; ideoque quod de sapientia, hoc de essentia dicimus. Sicut ergo non genuit sapientiam, qua sapiens est, ita nec essentiam, qua est.

p. 109

Obiectio ex Augustino. Huic autem videtur contrarium quod Augustinus ait in libro unico de Fide et symbolo, capitulo tertio5: «Deus, cum Verbum genuit, id quod ipse est genuit, nec de nihilo nec de aliqua iam facta conditaque materia, sed de se ipso id quod est ipse». Item: «Deus Pater, qui verissime se indicare animis cognituris et voluit et potuit, hoc ad se ipsum indicandum genuit, quod est ipse qui genuit». Ecce aperte dicit his verbis, Deum Patrem genuisse illud quod ipse est. Illud autem quod ipse est, non est nisi essentia divina: videtur ergo divinam essentiam genuisse.

Respondeo: Illa verba sic intelligenda esse dicentes: Pater de se ipso genuit illud quod ipse est, id est Filium, qui est illud quod Pater est. Nam quod Pater est, et Filius hoc est, sed non qui Pater est, et Filius hic est.

Altera pars solutionis. Ita etiam non est dicendum, quod divina essentia genuit Filium, quia cum Filius sit divina essentia, iam esset Filius res, a qua generatur; et ita eadem res se ipsam generaret. Nec etiam dicendum, quod essentia genuit essentiam, quia essentia una sola est, et res una non generat se ipsam.

p. 110

De processione Spiritus sancti. Neque dicendum, quod de divina essentia natus est Filius vel Spiritus sanctus processit, quasi essentia esset principium generationis vel processionis; sed Filius natus est de Patre, et Spiritus sanctus processit a Patre et Filio6. Personae enim sunt principia generationis et processionis, non essentia.

Nam si essentia esset principium generationis, cum essentia sit communis tribus, tres essent principium unius Filii, quod falsum est. Similiter si essentia esset principium processionis, tres essent principium unius Spiritus sancti. Sed Filius natus est a Patre solo, et Spiritus sanctus procedit a Patre et Filio — non ab essentia.

Unde patet, quod nec Pater genuit essentiam, nec essentia genuit Filium, nec essentia genuit essentiam. Essentia enim neque generat neque generatur neque procedit; sed personae generant vel generantur vel procedunt.

---

English Translation

Distinction V

Whether the divine essence has begotten the Son, or has been begotten by the Father, or the Son was born of the essence itself, or the Holy Spirit proceeded from it.

After these things, it is asked whether it must be conceded that the Father begot the divine essence, or that the divine essence begot the Son, or that essence begot essence, or whether the divine essence neither begot nor was begotten at all.

To this question, in agreement with the Catholic teachers, we say: neither did the Father beget the divine essence, nor did the divine essence beget the Son, nor did the divine essence beget essence. Here by the name essence we understand the divine nature, which is common to the three persons and whole in each. Therefore it must not be said that:

1. The Father begot the divine essence. For if the Father were said to have begotten the divine essence, the divine essence would be spoken of relatively to the Father, or would be set down as a relative term. But if it were spoken relatively or set down for a relative, it would not indicate the essence. As Augustine says in the fifth book On the Trinity1: "What is said relatively does not indicate the substance."

2. Likewise: since God the Father is the divine essence, if He were its begetter, He would surely be the begetter of that which He Himself is; and so the same thing would have begotten itself — which Augustine denies2.

3. Likewise: if the Father is the begetter of the divine essence, then since He Himself is the divine essence and is God, by the very fact that He begets, He both is and is God. Thus not that which is begotten is from the Father God, but the Father, by the very fact of begetting, both is and is God. And if this is so, then not the begetter is the cause to the begotten, but the begotten is the cause to the begetter — that He is and is God.

By a similar argument Augustine proves in the seventh book On the Trinity3 "that the Father is not wise by the wisdom He begot" — for in that simplicity to be wise is nothing other than to be4. And since in that simplicity the wisdom is the same as the essence, what we say of wisdom we say of essence. Therefore, just as He did not beget the wisdom by which He is wise, so neither did He beget the essence by which He is.

Objection from Augustine. But this seems contrary to what Augustine says in the sole book On Faith and the Creed, chapter three5: "When God begot the Word, He begot that which He Himself is — neither from nothing nor from any matter already made and established, but from Himself that which He Himself is." Likewise: "God the Father, who most truly both willed and was able to make Himself known to minds that would know, begot — for making Himself known to Himself — that which is what He Himself who begot is." Behold, he openly says in these words that God the Father begot that which He Himself is. But that which He Himself is, is none other than the divine essence: therefore it seems He begot the divine essence.

Response: Those words are to be understood thus: The Father begot from Himself that which He Himself is — namely, the Son, who is what the Father is. For what the Father is, the Son also is; but not who the Father is, that is also the Son.

Second part of the solution. Similarly, it is not to be said that the divine essence begot the Son, because since the Son is the divine essence, the Son would then be the very thing from which He is begotten; and so the same thing would beget itself. Nor is it to be said that essence begot essence, because there is only one essence, and one thing does not beget itself.

On the procession of the Holy Spirit. Neither is it to be said that the Son was born from the divine essence or the Holy Spirit proceeded from it, as though the essence were the principle of generation or procession. Rather, the Son was born from the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son6. For the persons are the principles of generation and procession, not the essence.

For if the essence were the principle of generation, since the essence is common to the three, the three would be the principle of the one Son — which is false. Similarly, if the essence were the principle of procession, the three would be the principle of the one Holy Spirit. But the Son was born from the Father alone, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son — not from the essence.

Hence it is clear that neither the Father begot the essence, nor the essence the Son, nor essence essence. For the essence neither generates nor is generated nor proceeds; rather, the persons generate or are generated or proceed.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. August., V de Trin. c. 5, n. 6: Quod vero ad aliquid dicitur, non ostendit substantiam.
    Augustine, On the Trinity V, c. 5, n. 6: «What is said relatively does not manifest substance».
  2. Cfr. August., I de Trin. c. 1, n. 1, ubi contra Arianos probat, nullam rem se ipsam generare, sive in divinis sive in creaturis.
    Cf. Augustine, On the Trinity I, c. 1, n. 1, where against the Arians he proves that no thing generates itself — whether in God or in creatures.
  3. August., VII de Trin. c. 1, n. 2: Si Pater sua sapientia sapiens est, et ipsa sapientia est ipse Pater, non tamen ea sapientia, quam Filium esse dicunt. Ipse Augustinus infert: Non ergo Pater est sapiens illa sapientia, quam genuit; alioquin, cum sit alia et alius, non est Filius illa sapientia, qua sapiens est Pater.
    Augustine, On the Trinity VII, c. 1, n. 2: «If the Father is wise by His own wisdom, and that very wisdom is the Father Himself — yet not by that wisdom which they say is the Son». Augustine himself infers: «Therefore the Father is not wise by that wisdom which He begot; for otherwise, since it is one thing and He another, the Son is not that wisdom by which the Father is wise».
  4. Ibid. c. 1, n. 2: Nam in illa simplicitate non est aliud esse quam sapere; quod enim ibi est esse, hoc est et sapere. Cfr. etiam VI de Trin. c. 4, n. 6.
    Ibid. c. 1, n. 2: «For in that simplicity to be is not other than to be wise; for what is there to be, this also is to be wise». Cf. also de Trin. VI, c. 4, n. 6.
  5. De Fide et Symbolo, c. 3, n. 4. — In textu Augustini post ipse multa sequuntur, quae a Magistro omittuntur.
    [Augustine,] On Faith and the Creed, c. 3, n. 4. — In Augustine's text, after ipse many things follow which are omitted by the Master.
  6. Cfr. supra d. 4, q. 1 et d. 4 dub. 3 in fine, ubi simili modo verba Augustini a Magistro allata exponuntur. — De processionibus a personis, non ab essentia, cfr. infra d. 11 per totam et d. 13, q. 1.
    Cf. above, d. 4, q. 1, and d. 4 dub. 3 in fine, where the words of Augustine cited by the Master are expounded in a similar way. — On the processions from persons, not from the essence, see below, d. 11 throughout, and d. 13, q. 1.
Dist. 5, Divisio Textus→