Part I (Prima Pars) Part 47 (2/2)
Now whatever has an accidental existence in creatures, when considered as transferred to G.o.d, has a substantial existence; for there is no accident in G.o.d; since all in Him is His essence. So, in so far as relation has an accidental existence in creatures, relation really existing in G.o.d has the existence of the divine essence in no way distinct therefrom. But in so far as relation implies respect to something else, no respect to the essence is signified, but rather to its opposite term.
Thus it is manifest that relation really existing in G.o.d is really the same as His essence and only differs in its mode of intelligibility; as in relation is meant that regard to its opposite which is not expressed in the name of essence. Thus it is clear that in G.o.d relation and essence do not differ from each other, but are one and the same.
Reply Obj. 1: These words of Augustine do not imply that paternity or any other relation which is in G.o.d is not in its very being the same as the divine essence; but that it is not predicated under the mode of substance, as existing in Him to Whom it is applied; but as a relation. So there are said to be two predicaments only in G.o.d, since other predicaments import habitude to that of which they are spoken, both in their generic and in their specific nature; but nothing that exists in G.o.d can have any relation to that wherein it exists or of whom it is spoken, except the relation of ident.i.ty; and this by reason of G.o.d's supreme simplicity.
Reply Obj. 2: As the relation which exists in creatures involves not only a regard to another, but also something absolute, so the same applies to G.o.d, yet not in the same way. What is contained in the creature above and beyond what is contained in the meaning of relation, is something else besides that relation; whereas in G.o.d there is no distinction, but both are one and the same; and this is not perfectly expressed by the word ”relation,” as if it were comprehended in the ordinary meaning of that term. For it was above explained (Q. 13, A. 2), in treating of the divine names, that more is contained in the perfection of the divine essence than can be signified by any name. Hence it does not follow that there exists in G.o.d anything besides relation in reality; but only in the various names imposed by us.
Reply Obj. 3: If the divine perfection contained only what is signified by relative names, it would follow that it is imperfect, being thus related to something else; as in the same way, if nothing more were contained in it than what is signified by the word ”wisdom,” it would not in that case be a subsistence. But as the perfection of the divine essence is greater than can be included in any name, it does not follow, if a relative term or any other name applied to G.o.d signify something imperfect, that the divine essence is in any way imperfect; for the divine essence comprehends within itself the perfection of every genus (Q. 4, A. 2).
_______________________
THIRD ARTICLE [I, Q. 28, Art. 3]
Whether the Relations in G.o.d Are Really Distinguished from Each Other?
Objection 1: It would seem that the divine relations are not really distinguished from each other. For things which are identified with the same, are identified with each other. But every relation in G.o.d is really the same as the divine essence. Therefore the relations are not really distinguished from each other.
Obj. 2: Further, as paternity and filiation are by name distinguished from the divine essence, so likewise are goodness and power. But this kind of distinction does not make any real distinction of the divine goodness and power. Therefore neither does it make any real distinction of paternity and filiation.
Obj. 3: Further, in G.o.d there is no real distinction but that of origin. But one relation does not seem to arise from another.
Therefore the relations are not really distinguished from each other.
_On the contrary,_ Boethius says (De Trin.) that in G.o.d ”the substance contains the unity; and relation multiplies the trinity.” Therefore, if the relations were not really distinguished from each other, there would be no real trinity in G.o.d, but only an ideal trinity, which is the error of Sabellius.
_I answer that,_ The attributing of anything to another involves the attribution likewise of whatever is contained in it. So when ”man” is attributed to anyone, a rational nature is likewise attributed to him.
The idea of relation, however, necessarily means regard of one to another, according as one is relatively opposed to another. So as in G.o.d there is a real relation (A. 1), there must also be a real opposition. The very nature of relative opposition includes distinction. Hence, there must be real distinction in G.o.d, not, indeed, according to that which is absolute--namely, essence, wherein there is supreme unity and simplicity--but according to that which is relative.
Reply Obj. 1: According to the Philosopher (Phys. iii), this argument holds, that whatever things are identified with the same thing are identified with each other, if the ident.i.ty be real and logical; as, for instance, a tunic and a garment; but not if they differ logically. Hence in the same place he says that although action is the same as motion, and likewise pa.s.sion; still it does not follow that action and pa.s.sion are the same; because action implies reference as of something ”from which” there is motion in the thing moved; whereas pa.s.sion implies reference as of something ”which is from” another. Likewise, although paternity, just as filiation, is really the same as the divine essence; nevertheless these two in their own proper idea and definitions import opposite respects. Hence they are distinguished from each other.
Reply Obj. 2: Power and goodness do not import any opposition in their respective natures; and hence there is no parallel argument.
Reply Obj. 3: Although relations, properly speaking, do not arise or proceed from each other, nevertheless they are considered as opposed according to the procession of one from another.
_______________________
FOURTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 28, Art. 3]
Whether in G.o.d There Are Only Four Real Relations--Paternity, Filiation, Spiration, and Procession?
Objection 1: It would seem that in G.o.d there are not only four real relations--paternity, filiation, spiration and procession. For it must be observed that in G.o.d there exist the relations of the intelligent agent to the object understood; and of the one willing to the object willed; which are real relations not comprised under those above specified. Therefore there are not only four real relations in G.o.d.
Obj. 2: Further, real relations in G.o.d are understood as coming from the intelligible procession of the Word. But intelligible relations are infinitely multiplied, as Avicenna says. Therefore in G.o.d there exists an infinite series of real relations.
Obj. 3: Further, ideas in G.o.d are eternal (Q. 15, A. 1); and are only distinguished from each other by reason of their regard to things, as above stated. Therefore in G.o.d there are many more eternal relations.
Obj. 4: Further, equality, and likeness, and ident.i.ty are relations: and they are in G.o.d from eternity. Therefore several more relations are eternal in G.o.d than the above named.
Obj. 5: Further, it may also contrariwise be said that there are fewer relations in G.o.d than those above named. For, according to the Philosopher (Phys. iii text 24), ”It is the same way from Athens to Thebes, as from Thebes to Athens.” By the same way of reasoning there is the same relation from the Father to the Son, that of paternity, and from the Son to the Father, that of filiation; and thus there are not four relations in G.o.d.
_I answer that,_ According to the Philosopher (Metaph. v), every relation is based either on quant.i.ty, as double and half; or on action and pa.s.sion, as the doer and the deed, the father and the son, the master and the servant, and the like. Now as there is no quant.i.ty in G.o.d, for He is great without quant.i.ty, as Augustine says (De Trin.
<script>