Dist. 6, Art. 1, Q. 3
Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity · Distinction 6
Quaestio III
Utrum generatio Filii sit secundum rationem exemplaritatis.
Ultimo quaeritur, utrum generatio Filii a Patre sit secundum rationem exemplaritatis. Et quod sic, videtur hoc modo:
1. Super illud Psalmi: Semel locutus est Deus, Glossa1: «id est, Filium genuit, in quo omnia disposuit»; sed dispositio aeterna dicit rationem exemplaris: ergo si Filius procedit ut Verbum, procedit per modum exemplaritatis.
2. Item, generatio Filii a Patre est similis productioni notitiae ex mente; sed notitia procedit ex mente secundum rationem exemplaris, quia exemplar est ratio cognoscendi: ergo etc.
3. Item, quod est imago in producto, hoc est exemplar in producente; quando enim productum expresse repraesentat, imago dicitur. Similiter quando producens expresse repraesentat, exemplar dicitur: ergo cum Filius procedat ut imago, eadem ratione per modum exemplaritatis.
4. Item, omne principium cognitivum rei producendae producit secundum rationem exemplandi; sed Pater est principium Filii cognitivum: ergo producit Filium secundum rationem exemplaris. Si dicas, quod illud non sufficit, immo necesse est, quod exemplar et exemplatum differant in forma et natura; hoc nihil est, quia si homo, dum generat hominem, posset talem generare, qualem cogitat, tunc generatio illa non tantum esset secundum naturam, sed etiam secundum exemplar. Sed Pater omnino produxit Filium, ut scivit et voluit: ergo etc.
Contra:
1. In inferioribus agens per naturam et per exemplar ex opposito dividuntur, sicut natura et intellectus: ergo qui producitur secundum naturam, non producitur secundum rationem exemplaris; sed Filius secundum naturam producitur a Patre: ergo etc.
2. Item, omne producens aliquid secundum rationem exemplaritatis producit secundum rationem voluntatis; sed Pater, ut ostensum est supra, non producit Filium per voluntatem: ergo etc.
3. Item, formae non est forma, ergo nec exemplaris exemplar; sed Filius est ars et exemplar omnium: ergo non habet exemplar in Patre: ergo non procedit secundum rationem exemplaritatis.
4. Item, quod est in alio secundum veritatem, non est in illo secundum exemplar; sed Filius est in Patre secundum veritatem: ergo non secundum exemplar; sed quod non est in alio secundum exemplar, non procedit secundum rationem exemplaris: ergo etc.
Conclusio
Filius procedit a Patre sicut ratio exemplandi, non sicut exemplatum ab exemplari.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod, sicut procedere per modum voluntatis et liberalitatis est dupliciter — uno enim modo procedit per modum liberalitatis ipsum quod non est liberalitas, sed quod fit vel datur ex liberalitate; et sic creaturae procedunt a Deo; alio modo sicut illud quod est ratio liberalitatis, ut amor; et sic procedit Spiritus sanctus ut amor, qui est donum, in quo omnia dona donantur — sic per modum exemplaritatis est procedere dupliciter.
Uno modo sicut exemplatum proprie; et sic creatura procedit a Deo tanquam exemplatum ab exemplari, et sic exemplar importat causalitatem formalem respectu exemplati. Alio modo dicitur procedere per modum exemplaritatis sicut ratio exemplandi. Et sic videtur procedere ipse Filius, qui dicitur Verbum Patris, in quo non tantum se loquitur Pater, sed etiam cetera disponit. Unde Filius secundum Augustinum sexto de Trinitate2 dicitur «ars plena omnium rationum viventium». Et hinc habet ortum illud quod consuevit dici3: qui negat ideas esse, negat Filium Dei esse. Et iste modus procedendi secundum exemplaritatem non repugnat processui naturali, immo non potest esse nisi naturalis. Alius vero modus repugnat processui naturali; est enim secundum voluntatis imperium, ita quod producens et productum differunt sicut causa et causatum, et unum secundum veritatem non est in alio.
Unde rationes inductae ad hanc partem procedunt secundum hanc viam et secundum hanc verum concludunt; secundum aliam vero nulla concludit, immo ad omnes solvendum est per interemptionem.
Illae autem, quae obiiciuntur in contrarium, pro omnes procedunt secundum aliam viam, quia dicunt, quod procedit per modum exemplaritatis, quod est ratio exemplandi; quod patet, quia sumuntur a ratione aeternae dispositionis, cognitionis et imaginis. Ultima vero ratio concludit, quod procedat per modum exemplaritatis, sicut exemplatum, et propterea solvenda est per interemptionem.
4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod omne principium rei producendae, si habet cognitionem, producit per exemplar; dicendum est, quod illud falsum est, nisi ratio cognitionis praecedat, ita quod habeat praecognitionem saltem secundum rationem causae ad effectum; quae ordinatio exigit essentialem diversitatem sive substantialem. Exemplatum enim, secundum quod exemplatum, non est in exemplante secundum veritatem, sed per similitudinem, quae, inquam, similitudo, cum sit ratio cognoscendi et exemplandi, dicitur exemplar.
Procedit igitur Filius secundum rationem exemplaritatis, non sicut exemplatum per exemplar, sed sicut ipsum exemplar vel ratio exemplandi cetera.
Si tu obiicias, quod exemplar commune est toti Trinitati, respondet ad hoc Altissiodorensis4 in quaestione de mundo archetypo, quod idea sive mundus archetypus non tantum appropriatum est ipsi Filio, verum etiam proprium.
Vel aliter potest dici, quod secundum quod exemplar dicit rationem cognoscendi, sic commune est toti Trinitati et appropriatur Filio, sicut sapientia. Secundum vero quod ultra hoc dicit rationem emanandi, sic est proprium Filii; et sic importatur per hoc nomen Verbum, ut melius patebit infra5.
Sensus huius quaestionis est, utrum Filius producatur secundum modum exemplaritatis, sicut creaturae. Paucos ex antiquis Scholasticis invenimus explicite tractantes hanc quaestionem, nempe Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic q. 4. — Aegid. R., hic 2. princ. q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 1.
---
Question III
Whether the generation of the Son is according to the account of exemplarity.
Last it is asked whether the generation of the Son by the Father is according to the account of exemplarity. And that it is, seems to follow thus:
1. On that text of the Psalm: «God has spoken once», the Gloss1: «that is, He begot the Son, in whom He arranged all things»; but eternal disposition expresses the account of exemplar: therefore if the Son proceeds as Word, He proceeds by way of exemplarity.
2. Likewise, the generation of the Son by the Father is similar to the production of knowledge from the mind; but knowledge proceeds from the mind according to the account of exemplar, because the exemplar is the principle of knowing: therefore, etc.
3. Likewise, what is image in the produced is exemplar in the producer; for when the produced expressly represents, it is called an image. Likewise when the producer expressly represents, it is called exemplar: therefore since the Son proceeds as image, by the same reasoning [He proceeds] by way of exemplarity.
4. Likewise, every principle that has cognition of the thing to be produced produces according to the account of exemplifying; but the Father is the cognitive principle of the Son: therefore He produces the Son according to the account of exemplar. If you say that this is not enough — indeed, it is necessary that exemplar and exemplified differ in form and nature — this is nothing, because if a man, while begetting a man, could beget such a one as he conceives, then that generation would not only be according to nature but also according to exemplar. But the Father wholly produced the Son as He knew and willed: therefore, etc.
On the contrary:
1. Among inferior beings, an agent acting through nature and through exemplar are divided in opposition — like nature and intellect: therefore one who is produced according to nature is not produced according to the account of exemplar; but the Son is produced from the Father according to nature: therefore, etc.
2. Likewise, every producer producing something according to the account of exemplarity produces according to the account of will; but the Father, as was shown above, does not produce the Son through will: therefore, etc.
3. Likewise, of a form there is no form; therefore neither of an exemplar an exemplar; but the Son is the art and exemplar of all things: therefore He has no exemplar in the Father: therefore He does not proceed according to the account of exemplarity.
4. Likewise, what is in another according to truth is not in it according to exemplar; but the Son is in the Father according to truth: therefore not according to exemplar; but what is not in another according to exemplar does not proceed according to the account of exemplar: therefore, etc.
Conclusion
The Son proceeds from the Father as the principle of exemplifying — not as the exemplified [proceeding] from the exemplar.
I respond: It must be said that, just as to proceed by way of will and liberality is twofold — for in one way that which is not liberality but which is made or given out of liberality proceeds by way of liberality; and so creatures proceed from God; in another way [there proceeds] that which is the principle of liberality, as love; and so the Holy Spirit proceeds as Love, who is the Gift in whom all gifts are given — so to proceed by way of exemplarity is twofold.
In one way, as the exemplified properly; and so the creature proceeds from God as exemplified from exemplar, and in this way the exemplar imports formal causality with respect to the exemplified. In another way, [something] is said to proceed by way of exemplarity as the principle of exemplifying. And in this way the Son Himself is seen to proceed — who is called the Word of the Father, in whom not only does the Father speak Himself, but also disposes the rest. Hence the Son, according to Augustine in the sixth book On the Trinity2, is called «the art full of all the living reasons». And from this arises that saying customary in the schools3: «He who denies that the Ideas exist, denies that the Son of God exists». And this mode of proceeding according to exemplarity is not opposed to natural procession — indeed it can only be natural. The other mode, however, is opposed to natural procession; for it is according to the command of the will, so that producer and produced differ as cause and effect, and one is not in the other according to truth.
Hence the arguments brought to this side proceed according to this latter way and according to it conclude truly; but according to the other none concludes — indeed, they must all be solved by removal.
But those which are objected on the contrary all proceed according to the other way — because they say that what proceeds by way of exemplarity is what is the principle of exemplifying; which is clear, because they are taken from the account of eternal disposition, of cognition, and of image. The last reason, however, concludes that He proceeds by way of exemplarity as the exemplified, and therefore must be solved by removal.
4. To the objection that every principle of a thing to be produced — if it has cognition — produces through an exemplar: it must be said that this is false unless the account of cognition precedes — so that there is pre-cognition at least according to the account of cause to effect; which ordering requires essential or substantial diversity. For the exemplified, as exemplified, is not in the exemplifier according to truth, but through likeness — which likeness, since it is the principle of knowing and exemplifying, is called exemplar.
The Son, then, proceeds according to the account of exemplarity — not as exemplified through an exemplar, but as the exemplar itself or the principle of exemplifying the rest.
If you object that the exemplar is common to the whole Trinity, [William] of Auxerre4 responds to this in the question On the Archetypal World: that idea or archetypal world is not only appropriated to the Son but also is proper to Him.
Or it can be said otherwise: that according as exemplar expresses the account of knowing, it is common to the whole Trinity and is appropriated to the Son, like wisdom. But according as it further expresses the account of emanating, it is proper to the Son; and thus is imported by this name Word, as will be more clear below5.
The sense of this question is whether the Son is produced according to the mode of exemplarity, as creatures are. We find few among the older Scholastics expressly treating this question — namely Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 1. — Richard of Middleton, here q. 4. — Giles of Rome, here 2 princ. q. 1. — Denys the Carthusian, here q. 1.
---
- Psalm. 61, 12: Semel locutus est Deus, duo haec audivi. — Glossa interlinearis (et marginalis): id est, Filium genuit, in quo omnia disposuit. Cfr. etiam August., Enarr. in Ps. 61.Psalm 61 (62):12: «God has spoken once, these two things I have heard». — Glossa interlinearis (and marginal): «that is, He begot the Son, in whom He arranged all things». Cf. also Augustine, Enarrationes in Psalmos 61.
- August., VI de Trin. c. 10, n. 11: Verbum Dei est ars omnipotentis atque sapientis, plena omnium rationum viventium.Augustine, On the Trinity VI, c. 10, n. 11: «The Word of God is the art of the omnipotent and wise [God], full of all the living reasons».
- Sententia haec saepe a Bonaventura repetitur, e. g. Hexaem. coll. 1, n. 13. Originem habet apud S. August., de Diversis Quaest. q. 46, de Ideis; et in scholasticis a Petro Lombardo (I Sent. d. 36) ad Thomam et Scotum tractatur.This sentence is often repeated by Bonaventure — e.g. Hexaemeron coll. 1, n. 13. It originates in Augustine, On Diverse Questions q. 46, On Ideas; and among the scholastics is treated by Peter Lombard (I Sent. d. 36), Thomas, and Scotus.
- Guilelmus Altissiodorensis (William of Auxerre, †1231), Summa aurea, lib. I, tract. de mundo archetypo (q. 4 huius tractatus). Doctrinam de exemplaribus aeternis communiter recipit Schola Franciscana, contra Aristotelicos opponentes.William of Auxerre (†1231), Summa aurea, book I, tract On the Archetypal World (q. 4 of this tract). The doctrine of eternal exemplars is commonly received by the Franciscan School, against the Aristotelian opponents.
- Quoad ipsum nomen Verbum et eius proprietatem in Filio cfr. infra d. 27, p. II, q. 2 (longe fusius), ubi de hoc Verbo Patris et de exemplaritate Filii agitur.On the name Word and its property in the Son, see below d. 27, p. II, q. 2 (treated at much greater length), where this Word of the Father and the exemplarity of the Son is treated.