Scholastica commentaria in Primam Partem Summae Theologicae

SUMMARY OF THE ARTICLE.

First Conclusion: God is supremely eternal.

Second: God is his own eternity.

Third: No creature is its own duration.

COMMENTARY.

NOTE, concerning the article, that the first Conclusion is of faith. For Ecclus. 18 it is said: He who lives forever etc. And Isaiah 40: The eternal God, the Lord. Ps. 101: His years shall not fail. And Dan. 7: His power, an eternal power. And this truth is defined in the chapter Firmiter, on the Supreme Trinity, and in the Athanasian Creed. And the argument of St. Thomas is a demonstration. For from immutability eternity arises, as a proper attribute. But if someone should say that immutability and eternity in God are altogether the same, therefore one is not the cause of the other, and consequently there will be no demonstration, for a demonstration must proceed through a cause; it is answered that for the account of a demonstration it suffices that it proceed through the formal ground: for in Logic there are true demonstrations, and yet one is not the cause of the other, but only the formal ground; and if it could have a cause, one being of reason would cause another; for predicability, if it could have a cause, would have universality as its cause: so too eternity, if it could have a cause, would have immutability. It is answered secondly that although immutability and eternity are the same in God, nevertheless immutability is the cause of eternity in a most eminent and most perfect way: but for it to be a cause in that way, no real distinction is required; an eminent distinction suffices. Note secondly, concerning the second Conclusion, that it too is of faith. For as was said in q. 3, art. 3, God is Godhead, and all the Attributes in the abstract. For the supposit in divine things adds nothing real over and above the divine nature, whereas in creatures it adds something real, distinct from the nature. Note thirdly that the third Conclusion is also most certain, since to-be is not of the essence of any creature, as was said in the place just cited, but is a certain quasi-accidental mode: therefore if to-be is not of the essence of a creature, neither is duration in to-be; for the duration of anything is identified with its to-be. Note lastly that eternity, speaking formally, is not duration. I mean that the account of eternity is not the account of duration (whatever Cajetan may say, here). The reason is, for eternity is the measure of duration, while the divine duration is the thing measured: therefore the account of eternity is not the account of duration. It is true that this proposition is true, eternity is duration, just as wisdom is justice, since in God all the Attributes are one. See the solution to the first, and note it. But the treatment of duration and of its distinction from to-be belongs to the matter concerning the Angels.