Scotus Academicus, Tomus tertius: De adorando divinae Trinitatis mysterio

By divine faith it is certain that generation is to be admitted in the divine realities. For the Scriptures of both Testaments proclaim this, by which the divine generation itself is expressly asserted. Thus Psalm. 2.: This day have I begotten thee. Psal. 109.: From the womb before the day star I begot thee. At the end of Isaiah: Shall I, who make others bring forth, myself not bring forth? All those texts also confirm it, especially those of the New Testament, by which the Son is attributed to God; for filiation most certainly entails generation. All those divine oracles also urge it, by which Christ the Lord is pronounced to be the Son of God, and He Himself constantly calls God His Father. And so no place for doubting the truth of the divine generation has been left. But a great and grave difficulty remains to be resolved: whether each divine procession, both of the Word and of the Holy Spirit, is to be called a true generation; or whether only the emanation of the Word claims for itself the name of a true and perfect generation. Wherefore

Note 1. It was the opinion of the ancient Fathers that some generation is indeed to be admitted in God, by which he who begot is truly and properly the Father and is so called, and he who was begotten truly is and is named the Son. But how that generation takes place, and for what reason the only one of the produced divine Persons is called the Son, they judged should not be more carefully investigated. For it is unseemly, says St. Athanasius, Orat. 3.:

to inquire how the Word exists from God, or how He is the splendor of God, or how God begets, and what is the manner of God's generation. For insane would he be who should dare such things, when he strives by his own discourse to set forth a matter that is inexplicable and proper to the divine nature, and known to God Himself alone and to His Son.

With him agrees Nazianzen, Orat. 1. De Filio:

How was He begotten? he says (for I repeat the same thing indignantly), let God's generation be honored with silence. It is abundantly great for you to know that He was begotten. But in what manner He was begotten, I should not grant even to the Angels themselves to understand, much less to you. And if I should declare how? That the Father is He who begot, and the Son He who was begotten. What is above these things is covered with a cloud and escapes your dullness.

Irenaeus had gone before him, c. 48., who says that this is so far unknown that neither the Angels, nor the archangels, nor the Principalities, nor the Powers know it, except the Father alone who begot, and the Son who was born. Therefore, since His generation is ineffable, whoever strive to recount generations and processions are not in their right mind, promising to recount things that are ineffable. — The same was the opinion of the Latin Fathers; for St. Ambrose, lib. 1. De fide cap. 5., says that it is impossible to know the secret of that generation. And again, it is permitted to know that He was born; it is not permitted to discuss how He was born; to deny the former is not permitted to me, to inquire into the latter is a fear. And in the same place he calls this inquiry the torments of questions. St. Augustine subscribes to him in many places, but especially lib. 3. Contra Maximinum cap. 14. and 15., De Trinitate cap. 27., and Tract. 99. in Ioannem, where he says: that there is a difference between proceeding and being born, it is long to discuss by inquiry, and rash, when you have discussed, to define, etc. — Nevertheless it is pious and useful, by disputing humbly and soberly, to seek the reason of the difference by which the generation of the Word is distinguished from the procession of the Holy Spirit, provided that that very disputation rest primarily on Faith, and secondarily appear clearer by natural reason, which serves faith as a handmaid, and that the disputation be undertaken with this design, that it be made manifest that the objections of the heretics against this mystery are vain and sophistical. Whence St. Justin the Martyr rightly, in the exposition of the faith on the Trinity, after he had shown that in no way can we penetrate to the divine Essence, nor its mysteries, adds: we ought not, however, to desist entirely from seeking it; but let each one, according to his portion of the knowledge received from the Lord, strenuously examine the matter, certain that he will not indeed perceive it exactly, but that he will profit through a contemplation of this kind by approaching more closely to Him.

Note 2. The generation of living things can be distinguished as threefold; for it is taken, first, for the production of any living thing whatsoever, whether meanwhile such production is made by a living thing or not, whether by a cause of the same nature as the effect or by a different one; and thus the production of animals from putrid matter, by the benefit of the Sun or of fire, can be called generation. Thus the formation of Adam from the clay of the earth and of Eve from the rib of Adam himself can obtain the name of generation, for the term of such productions is a living substance. Second, the name of generation is taken more strictly, namely for the production of a living thing from a living thing, in which sense, taken thus, it is customarily described: The origin of a living thing from a living thing, through a conjoined principle of life, into a likeness of nature. This description involves four elements required for generation. 1. That it be an origin of a living thing, because birth pertains only to living things. 2. From a living principle, so that the productions of living things by fire, the Sun, and other causes devoid of life may be excluded from the perfect acceptation of generation. 3. From a conjoined principle of life, that is, that that by which the begotten is produced was at some time conjoined to the living begetter; for the begotten is made through seed cut off from the living begetter. For this reason the production of Adam cannot be called generation, because although it is made by the living God, it is not made through a cutting off and communication of the divine substance. 4. Into a likeness of nature, not indeed of the individual; for the begotten is sometimes seen wholly unlike its begetter in perfections, both substantial and accidental; but into a likeness of nature either generic, namely an animal from an animal, as is the generation of a mule from a horse and a she-ass, or specific, as is the generation of a man from a man. Third, finally, the generation of spiritual living things, taken most strictly, can be described: The origin of an intelligent living thing from a living thing with an intelligent life, through a conjoined principle of intelligent life. By which the generation of all men is comprised, and the production of animals and plants is excluded. That this description of generation agrees with the production of the divine Word the Doctor proves in 1. dist. 5. qu. 2. num. 3.

Note 3. A twofold difference can chiefly be assigned between the act of the intellect and that of the will. The first is that every act of the will is free, at least with an essential freedom, which consists in the order which the act bears to a principle determining itself to the act in an electing and delighting manner. But the act of the intellect is not free, but natural; which naturalness consists in this, that the act proceeds from a principle determined by its nature to the act — a distinction which the Doctor establishes in 1. dist. 10., as will appear more fully below, when we shall expressly treat of the free procession of the Holy Spirit. The second difference is that the act of the intellect has the character of an image and likeness representing its object, which is the principle of the same act together with the intellect itself. For through the object, or through the species received from the object as its seed, so to speak, the intellect is rendered fruitful for conceiving the mental word, which is the image of the object. But the act of the will does not have that character of an image and likeness representing its object, but has the character of an inclination and propensity toward the object, as St. Thomas observes, 1. p. q. 27. art. 4. This propensity of love is explained by the likeness of union, or of a bond, by which the lover is said to be conjoined to the beloved, or to be in him and to be borne toward him as by a certain weight; whence St. Dionysius, cap. 4. De Divinis Nominibus, calls love a unitive power; with whom St. Augustine agrees, lib. 8. De Trinitate, cap. 10: What is love, he says, but a certain life coupling two things, or seeking to couple, namely the lover and what is loved? And lib. 13. Confessionum, c. 9: My weight is my love; by it I am borne wherever I am borne. St. Bernard also subscribes, serm. 83. in Cantica, where he says of Charity: Truly this is the contract of a spiritual and holy marriage; I have said too little: it is an embrace, plainly an embrace, where to will and to nill the same makes one spirit out of two, etc.

These things having been thus premised, chiefly these three are to be resolved in the Question. 1. That the production of the divine Word is a true generation. 2. That the procession of the Holy Spirit is not to be called generation. 3. The cause of this difference is to be investigated, and the genuine reason brought forward why the procession of the Son, not so that of the Holy Spirit, is called generation.

First conclusion. — The procession of the divine Word is truly and properly called generation.

This is of faith, as regards both parts; for this is openly defined in the Councils of Nicaea, Ephesus, and Toledo, etc., in those confessions of faith by which the second Person of the divine Trinity, the Son, is asserted to be begotten and born of the Father from eternity, not, however, made or created.

It is likewise gathered from the various places of Sacred Scripture by which, as we said above, not only is it proved that there is a true generation in the divine realities, but also that very generation is attributed to the procession of the divine Word; thus Psalm. 2.: Thou art my Son: this day have I begotten thee, which text St. Paul, Epist. ad Hebraeos, explains of the eternal generation of Christ the Lord. Moreover, from that Psal. 109.: In the splendors of the Saints, before the day star I begot thee. This divine Oracle is not to be interpreted of the temporal nativity of Christ the Lord, as some maintain; for how would He be said to have been begotten before the day star, who was born only in the midst of times? but of that very divine generation, whose eternity, character, and principle are inscribed by that very Oracle. The character indeed, when He is said to be begotten in the splendors of the Saints, by which it is signified that He was begotten through the fecundity of light, that is, of the divine intellect made fruitful by the knowledge of the Deity; whence also in the Nicene Creed He is rightly called light from light. But the following words, before the day star, explain the eternity: that is, not only before the production of every creature, but also before their eternal ordering and the decree concerning their creation. Hence that divine Wisdom, Prov. 8., says of herself: I was ordained from eternity, before He made anything from the beginning; the depths were not yet, and I was already conceived. Finally, the principle of that origin and nativity is designated by the following words, from the womb I begot thee, namely from the fecund memory, by whose act the Father communicates His substance to the Son. Whence some not without reason think that a mystery lies hidden in these words, namely that the divine Father, on account of the supreme perfection of generation, discharges the office of both Father and Mother. Of the Mother indeed, as this particle indicates, from the womb: but of the Father, as that phrase I begot thee signifies. Whence Synesius learnedly and wisely calls Him Father-Mother, that is, one discharging the parts of Father and Mother in the production of His Son.

It is also proved by reason: that procession is truly and properly to be called generation to which the three conditions required for perfect generation apply; but all of them belong to the true production of the Word. For first, the procession of the divine Word is the procession of a living thing from a living thing: namely of the Son having life in Himself communicated to Him by the living Father, according to that saying of Ioannis 5.: As the Father has life in Himself, so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself. Here indeed St. Augustine, Tract. 22. in Ioannem, distinguishes two ways of having life: the first is from oneself, which belongs to the Father alone; for just as He is, so He has life, not only in Himself, that is, subsisting, but also from Himself and not from another. The second is to have life subsisting in oneself, and not from oneself; and this belongs to the Son having life from the Father. — Second, it proceeds from a principle living with the life of intelligence. For God is a Spirit, whose to live is to understand. But the Word proceeds through the intellective power, or through the fecund intellect, and so is truly and properly said to proceed from a principle living with the life of intelligence. — Moreover, the same procession is from a conjoined principle. For the productive principle of the Word remains conjoined to Him, since the Father pours into Him His whole nature and substance, which is signified by these words, from the womb. For, as St. Augustine says, lib. 2. Contra Maximinum:

Therefore He is said to be born from His womb, because God begot God from Himself, that is, from His own substance, just as, when He was born from the womb of the Mother, a man begot a man, that we might understand that in both generations the substances of him who was born and of those from whom he was born are not diverse.

This truth Victor, Bishop, also luculently weighs in this way in the profession of faith to Huneric, which stands in Tomo 1. of the Bibliotheca Patrum.

We profess therefore, he says, that the Father begot the Son from Himself, that is, from that which He Himself is, sempiternally and ineffably — not from without, not from nothing, not from another matter — but that He was born of God; and he who was born of God is nothing other than that which the Father is.

The Council of Toledo 11. also agrees, saying: For neither from nothing, nor from some substance; but from the womb of the Father, that is, from His substance, is the same Son to be believed to have been begotten, or born. — Finally, the same procession is into a likeness of nature, and the most perfect one; for to the Colossians, in the first chapter, the Son is called the Image of God; and to the Hebrews, in the first chapter, He is called the Splendor of the Father and the figure of His substance. Indeed, not only is it into a specific likeness, as is the perfect generation of living things, but also into a numerical and identical one. For the divine Father communicates His nature, numerically the same, to His Son by eternal generation; whence the Son Himself rightly pronounces, Ioan. 2.: I and the Father are one — not indeed by unity of Person, as has been said, but by unity of substance and Divinity.

You will say 1. The procession of the divine Word takes place through the intellect: but the intellect from its own notion is not generative; indeed it is non-generative; for neither Angels nor men procreate beings like themselves through the intellect: therefore the production of the divine Word is not a generation.

I distinguish the minor. the intellect is not generative in creatures, I concede; in divine realities, I deny. For since the created word is only accidental, and is by no means consubstantial with the fecund intellect producing it, and so its conception is not univocal, it follows that it is a generation neither properly nor really, but only by similitude and intentionally, insofar as it produces a term which is indeed an image of the object, but an imperfect one, on account of the limitation and finiteness of the producing intellect, by reason of which it does not have the power of eliciting a wholly adequate and perfect likeness of the object. But it is otherwise with God; for since the divine intellect is infinite and unlimited, it cannot but produce a Word adequate in all things to its own fecund intellect, that is, to the intellect conjoined with the divine essence, its primary object, and consubstantial with it; and so the production of the Word is a generation not only by similitude, but also truly and really.

You will say 2. In order that some production obtain the name of true generation, it must produce a term similar to the producer by force of the action by which it produces it: but the eternal Father does not achieve this in producing the Son, for the Word produced by Him does not become similar to Him in nature by reason of the productive action, namely of diction; but by reason of the object concurring with the intellect to that production, of which object the produced Word is the expression and likeness.

I deny the minor. and to its proof I say that although two things concur to constitute the fecund memory, namely the intellect and the object, nevertheless the intellect itself, since it is the agent, or producer, is said to form the likeness of the object while it produces the Word; and so that production is to be attributed more to its own action than to the concurrence of the object.

You will insist. In order that the divine Son be truly assimilated to the producing Father, He would have to participate in all His proper characteristics, and so He would have to have Paternity; for this is the proper characteristic of the Father, which constitutes Him in the being of Father: but this is not obtained; rather He has a constituent not only disparate, but opposite, namely Filiation: therefore so far is He from being similar to the producing principle, that He is altogether dissimilar, and so He is not truly begotten.

I distinguish the major. He would have to have the proper characteristics of the Father that are essential and compossible with Filiation, I concede: those that are notional and incompossible with Filiation, I deny. For it is not necessary for perfect generation that the begotten be assimilated to the begetter in all things and in everything. For it is certain that a son among human beings has not only a filiation opposed to paternity, but also a supposit and an individual difference by which he is really and personally distinguished from the producing principle. Therefore, in order that the divine Word be truly said to be similar to its productive principle, it is not necessary that it obtain all its characteristics, but it suffices that it have with it the same essence and the same essential perfections.

You will say 3. The production of the divine Word would for this reason be said to be truly a generation, because Scripture affirms that He was begotten by God: but from this it is not lawful to gather that He is truly begotten and produced from the substance of the Father and through the communication of that same essence: therefore neither is it lawful to affirm His production to be a true generation. The major is evident from what has been said. The minor is proved, since the same Scripture pronounces not only the Word, but also men, to be begotten by God: Deuteron. 32.: Thou hast forsaken the God who begot thee. Which certainly does not signify that men were produced from that substance of God, nor that their production is a true generation.

I deny the minor. and to its proof I say that the word of generating in Sacred Scripture, as also among the Philosophers, is used in a threefold way, namely more broadly, more strictly, and most strictly, as was observed in Note 2. Whence the production of men can be called generation taken in the broader sense, insofar as it is the origin of a living thing from a living thing into at least an accidental likeness of nature. But the production of the Word is called generation taken in the most strict sense, since it takes place through the divine nature communicated to Him, which is derived to Him through a naturally productive principle, namely through the divine intellect; wherefore He is one and true God with the Father. For the truth of nature keeps its property, says St. Hilary, so that

what is from God is God, and the nativity is neither a change nor a diversity, while the Son subsists neither in an external nature, nor as a God dissimilar to the Father, nor does the Father acquire anything foreign to Himself through the nativity of the Only-begotten, but rather has granted it, imparting all things that are His own without loss.

Or as he adds, lib. 11.:

The nativity of God is neither from elsewhere, nor something else; for if it is from elsewhere, it is not a nativity; but if it is something else, it is not God. But since God is from God, through this, God the Father is to God the Son both the God of His nativity and the Father of His nature, because the nativity of God is both from God, and in it He is begotten in the nature by which He is God.

Second conclusion. — Only the production of the Son, not likewise that of the Holy Spirit, is a true generation.

This also is of faith, determined in the Councils of Toledo 1. and 11., as well as in the Nicene a little after the middle, where it says: One unbegotten God and Father, one Son begotten from Him, God, the Word. Just as He is not another God, unbegotten, with the God and Father, so neither is the Son co-begotten, nor prior, nor posterior, different from God His only-begotten Son. Secondly, this same thing is confirmed from all the

Creeds, first indeed the Apostles', where Christ is called the only-begotten Son of God; and also the Nicene, by which we believe in Jesus Christ the only-begotten Son of God. Likewise in the Creed of St. Athanasius received by the Church, where only the Son is said to be begotten; but the Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son, not made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

It is also confirmed by the Sacred Scriptures; for if the procession of the Holy Spirit were a generation, it would follow that the Holy Spirit is a begotten Son. But this openly runs counter to the Sacred Scripture, in which the divine Word is for the most part proclaimed the one and only-begotten Son of God; thus Ioan. Ep. 1. c. 1.: The Only-begotten, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him to us. And 3. cap.: So God loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son; and again: Because he does not believe in the name of the only-begotten Son of God. Nor does it matter that John, in the first chapter, declares that he saw the glory of the divine Word as of the Only-begotten from the Father; for that 'as' does not diminish the glory, but rather denotes truth and equality according to the Hebrew manner of speaking, lest, if he said: 'so great was His glory, as befitted the only-begotten Son of God'.

All the holy Fathers entirely confirm it by the same argument, who expressly pronounce that the Holy Spirit is not begotten. Thus St. Basil, lib. 3. Contra Eunomium, toward the end: The Holy Spirit, he says, is neither unbegotten nor begotten, because the Only-begotten is one. Nazianzenus has the same, oratione quinta de Theologia: Nor is the Spirit the Son, he says, because He is from God; for the Only-begotten is one. Athanasius also subscribes, Dialogo 3. De Trinitate: He is called, he says, only-begotten, because He alone was begotten from the essence... For neither is it written: 'The Spirit was begotten from me', but 'He proceeds from me'. This very truth is confirmed from what was said in the preceding Conclusion, and will appear more fully from what is to be said in the following Conclusion, in which we shall set down the genuine reason why the procession of the Holy Spirit is not to be called generation.

You will say 1. The Son of God is for the most part called the First-born in the Sacred Scriptures: therefore He has another begotten after Him, namely the Holy Spirit, and so the procession of the Holy Spirit will also have to be called a generation.

I answer. to the antecedent, that someone can be called First-born in two ways, namely negatively and positively. Negatively indeed, when some other first-born is denied, no comparison being made to those who come after, or no attention being paid to whether there are any born later. Thus Christ, not only as God, but also as man, is called first-born, both from the Father and from the Mother, because He has none born before Him, although He also has none born after Him. Thus Matth. 1. the sacred Virgin is said to have brought forth her first-born Son. But positively he is called first-born who indeed has none before him, yet has other brothers younger in birth; in which sense Christ cannot be called first-born.

You will insist. Not only does Sacred Scripture affirm that the Son of God is first-born negatively, but also positively: therefore there is no solution. The antecedent is proved from St. Paul, ad Rom. 8., where the Son of God is called the First-born among many brethren: therefore, etc.

I answer. Someone can be said to be firstborn positively in two ways, namely properly, or metaphorically. Properly, when those born later are brothers who have the same nature as the elder brother, communicated by the same parents. For this reason Christ the Lord cannot be called firstborn, neither according to temporal nor according to eternal generation, because neither God the Father nor the Virgin Mother begot other later sons in this way. Metaphorically, however, one is called firstborn when later brothers are improperly generated and called, and they are brothers not indeed by nature, but by adoption. In which sense Christ is called firstborn among many brothers, for he has many begotten later through the grace of adoption, whom for that reason he is not ashamed to call brothers, says the same Apostle, ad Hebraeos 2.

The Council of Ephesus explains this very truth lucidly in cap. 4, saying: The Son of God is so named in comparison with adoptive sons, and Only-begotten by the exclusion of another natural son. Whence Augustine, in lib. De Fide et Symbolo, cap. 1, has this: According to that by which he is Only-begotten he has no brothers; according to that, however, by which he is firstborn, he deigned to call brothers all of us who, after his firstfruits, are born in the grace of God through the adoption of sons.

You will object 2. If anything persuades us that the divine Word alone is the Son of God, it is especially because, as we have said, he is affirmed as Only-begotten both by Sacred Scripture and by the Councils: but from this one may not infer that he does not have other brothers begotten also truly and properly: therefore, etc. The minor is proved from that passage of Proverbiorum 4, where Solomon says he is the only-begotten of his mother, although he nevertheless had four brothers. For 1. Paralipomenon cap. 3 says that four sons were born to David in Jerusalem from Bathsheba, who, in 2. Regum cap. 5, are called sons of David: therefore, from the fact that the divine Son is called Only-begotten, it does not for that reason follow that he properly does not have brothers.

I answer. Solomon is not said to be the only-begotten of his mother absolutely; but before his mother, or the beloved in the face of his mother, as the seventy Interpreters render it, because he was loved by her with such affection as if he had been an only and only-begotten Son; but in this sense the Son of God cannot be called Only-begotten, because the Holy Spirit is loved by the Father just as much as the Son. It is necessary, therefore, that he be called Only-begotten for this reason, that he is begotten by the Father by one true generation.

You will say 3. Whatever exists is either begotten or unbegotten: but the Holy Spirit is not unbegotten, for only the divine Father is such: therefore he is begotten. Hence the Eunomians and Macedonians attacked the Divinity of the Holy Spirit with this dilemma: either the Holy Spirit is God begotten, or unbegotten. If he is unbegotten, there will be two Gods without origin and unbegotten. If, however, he is God begotten; either begotten by the Father alone, like the Word, and then there will be two twin brothers: or the Holy Spirit will be a Son later by birth than the Word: or the Holy Spirit is begotten by the Son alone, and thus he will be the grandson of the Father and the Father will be the grandfather: or finally he is begotten by the Father and the Son, and thus it will come about that one parent is male and father, the other indeed female and mother. Nazianzen in his Orat. De Theologia and Athanasius in his Epist. ad Serapionem report and refute this argumentation.

I answer. "Unbegotten" is used by the Fathers in two ways. First, insofar as it means the same as that which is produced by no principle; in which sense only the Father, not indeed the Holy Spirit, is called unbegotten. Second, more strictly, for any thing which does not proceed through generation properly so called; in which sense the Holy Spirit is called unbegotten by some holy Fathers, improperly, however, for as St. Augustine says in Serm. 3, within the Octave of the Epiphany: The Holy Spirit is nowhere said to be either unbegotten or begotten, lest if he were called unbegotten, like the Father, two Fathers would be understood in the holy Trinity, or if he were called begotten, like the Son, likewise two Sons would by equal reasoning be judged to be the holy Trinity. With this the eleventh Council of Toledo agrees in its confession of faith, saying: Here also the Holy Spirit is neither called unbegotten nor believed begotten, lest if we should say unbegotten we should speak of two Fathers, or if begotten, we should show that we proclaim two Sons.

Third conclusion. — The proximate and immediate reason why the procession of the divine Word is generation, but not the procession of the Holy Spirit, is that the Word proceeds and is produced naturally and not voluntarily, while the Holy Spirit is produced voluntarily and not naturally.

This is the genuine opinion of the Subtle Doctor, which he teaches in many places, but most of all in 1. dist. 10 n. 13 and dist. 13 n. 20, saying:

That generation is taken in one way for substantial generation, or in another way specially for the production of a living thing from a living thing, and in this way an animal is said to be generated and not fire; and there the natural inclination, or natural form, which is the principle of generating, commonly concurs on the part of the agent, and in this last way generation seems to be in the divine persons.

Alexander of Hales teaches the same in 1. part. q. 33. membr. 1, as does also the Seraphic Bonaventure, who in many places, especially in 1. d. 6. q. 2, says: If the will is the principle with the nature communicating, thus is the procession of the Holy Spirit, who proceeds after the manner of love, yet similar in nature: if, however, nature is the principle with the will communicating, thus is the generation of the Son, who is produced as altogether similar and after the manner of nature: and in the Compendio Theologico lib. 1. cap. 7 he affirms that the Son's proper mode of proceeding is after the likeness of nature. Nor does it matter that in dist. 13. art. 1. q. 2. ad 3 he assigns this difference, namely, that the Holy Spirit proceeds as love, the Son indeed as image: for this reason is only mediate; the immediate reason, however, why the Son is the image, or the expression of likeness, is, he says in dist. 38. art. 1. q. 2, in the body of the article, because he goes forth after the manner of nature, and thus after the manner of the Word and of the species and after the manner of an expressed likeness.

Proof of conclusion 1. By the authority of St. Augustine, who in lib. 5. De Trinit. cap. 9 and 11 asks why the Holy Spirit is not the Son, since he nevertheless goes forth from the Father. And he resolves it saying: For he goes forth not as born, but as given. Which is the same as if he said that the Holy Spirit is therefore not the Son, because he does not go forth naturally, as the second person, who goes forth as born, that is, after the manner of nature; he proceeds as given, namely, voluntarily and after the manner of the inclination of the good will, or after the likeness of love, which is the first among the gifts that proceed from the will of the giver. But if you ask the same Augustine why the Son goes forth as born, and the Holy Spirit as given; he does not keep the reason silent, as Vazquez less truly says that he judged this opinion as it were improbable; rather he replies in lib. 9. De Trinit. cap. 12 that the reason of this difference is that the Son proceeds through the intellect, whose office it is to search out, and by finding, as it were, to bring forth. For inquiry, he says, is the appetite of finding, which amounts to the same if you say of discovering: but the things that are found are, as it were, brought forth; whence they are similar to offspring, where, if not in the knowledge itself? for there it is, as it were, expressed formally. He adds, however:

For a certain appetite precedes the mind's bringing forth, by which we will to know that thing; by seeking and finding, the knowledge itself is born as offspring: and on this account that appetite by which knowledge is conceived and brought forth cannot rightly be called the bringing forth and the offspring, and the same appetite by which one longs for the thing to be known becomes the love of the thing known, while it holds and embraces the pleasing offspring, that is, the knowledge, and joins it to the begetter.

As if he would say that no other reason is to be assigned for why the Word is the begotten Son than because he proceeds through the intellect, whose office it is to search out the truth and to act naturally, as all agree, and not voluntarily: while the Holy Spirit proceeds through the will, whose office it is to act voluntarily and not naturally.

To this can also be reduced another reason for this difference, which St. Augustine himself brings forward in lib. 15, cap. 27, where he asserts that the second Person is the Son because he proceeds from one person alone; the Holy Spirit, however, is not the Son because he proceeds from two: For, he says, if he himself were also called Son, he would surely be called the Son of both, which is most absurd; for no one is the Son of two except of Father and Mother: but far be it that we should suspect anything of that sort between God the Father and God the Son. He submits this reason, however, as a posteriori. For from the fact that the Son proceeds from one person it is gathered that he proceeds naturally and through the intellect; and consequently that he is the Son; from the fact, however, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from two Persons it is inferred that he is produced voluntarily, not naturally.

This also seems to be the open opinion of St. Athanasius in his Epist. De Decretis Synodi Nicaenae, saying: For what is naturally born from something and is similar in nature, and is not adopted from elsewhere, nature acknowledges it as a Son, and the word bears that force of signification. From these things this argument is formed: all other Sons are produced naturally: therefore the second person of the divine Trinity is also for this reason called Son, that he is really produced naturally, that is, through the intellect naturally determined to act.

Again, true generation is the origin of a living thing from a living thing after the manner of nature and of likeness: whence the word nature seems to have been first derived from being born, and imposed to signify the actual origin of a living thing from a living thing, which is now called nativity: therefore that procession is to be called generation which is judged to be the work of nature: but the production of the Word is judged to be the work of nature, because it is through the intellect, which is called a natural agent and is opposed to the agent through the will, through which the procession of the Holy Spirit occurs, which is therefore called voluntary, not natural: therefore, etc.

Finally, it is plainly established that voluntary and non-voluntary production are supremely opposed; it is likewise established that voluntary productions are nowhere called generations, otherwise creation and the fashioning of artifacts would have to be called generation, which no philosopher would have admitted. Therefore, since the production of the Holy Spirit is voluntary and occurs through the will, while the production of the Son is not voluntary but natural, because it occurs through the intellect, for this reason it can truly be called generation.

It is confirmed. All the other reasons for this difference which are customarily brought forward by the Authors either fall short, or are to be reduced to ours as to the immediate and primary one: therefore the proper and genuine reason why the second person is called begotten, but not the third, is that the former proceeds naturally, the latter voluntarily. The antecedent is proved. There are especially four distinct reasons and opinions of the Authors by which they strive to prove that the procession of the divine Word is a true generation, but not that of the Holy Spirit. Of these the first indeed is brought forward by Richard of St. Victor in lib. 6. De Trinit. cap. 18, whom not a few of the moderns follow, namely, that the Word is therefore called begotten because he receives a fruitful nature for the production of another divine Person, and so is similar to his principle in the divine nature, insofar as it is nature, which consists in the fruitfulness productive of another supposit; since indeed the Holy Spirit does not receive this fruitfulness by the force of his procession, he is therefore indeed said to be similar to his productive principle in the divine essence, insofar as it is essence, not however insofar as it is nature.

But on the contrary. From this it would follow that the divine Word is not properly a Son, because he would not be perfectly similar to the Father in nature; for the Holy Spirit, they say, is therefore not similar in nature with the Father, because he does not have the power of spirating, which the Father has: but the Word does not have the power of generating, which the Father has: therefore the Word is not perfectly similar to the Father in nature, and so neither is he a Son.

It is confirmed. For perfect similarity in nature, insofar as it signifies fruitfulness, requires that not only the essence be shared, but also the same mode of fruitfulness: but the Son does not share the same mode of fruitfulness: therefore he does not have similarity in nature.

Secondly, if the Son must be similar to the Father in fruitful nature, it follows that the created Son is a Son in a more perfect way than the uncreated Son, because the created Son is more similar to the created Father in fruitful nature than the divine Son; for the former has the same mode of fruitfulness productive of another son, while the latter does not.

Finally, if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from the Son, nor did the Son have the spirative and productive power of him, the Son would not for that reason cease to be a Son: therefore he is not precisely a Son because he has the spirative power. Whence also none of the Latin Fathers disputing with the Greeks, in order to prove that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, ever used this argument, namely, that if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from the Son, the divine Word would cease to be a Son. If, however, the notion of Son were constituted by this, that he is assimilated to the Father in the spirative power, they would without doubt have used this argument. Since they did not do so, it is an argument that they judged the aforesaid reason of the difference between the two processions to be worthless.

The second opinion affirms that the Word's procession is therefore generation because he receives the divine nature primarily, as it is divine; the Holy Spirit only secondarily. So Suarez in lib. 11. cap. 3; and it rests on a double foundation. First, that the divine nature according to its primary and most proper difference is intellection; whence since the divine Word proceeds through the intellect, he receives intellection primarily. Second, because every agent assimilating a patient to itself assimilates it according to the form through which it acts; since, however, the Son, he says, proceeds through the intellect, he is also assimilated to the Father in intellection, which, since it is nature in God, also produces something similar in nature.

Against the first. It is false that the divine essence is formally constituted by intellection, as we proved when treating of the constitutive difference of the Godhead. It is equally false that the divine Word is produced through the intellect. Finally it is false that every agent produces something similar to itself according to the form through which it acts; otherwise it would follow that a man generating a man would primarily produce the generative power. Add that the Holy Spirit is primarily and per se God: therefore he primarily and per se receives the divine nature, just as the Word does. It is confirmed, because the divine nature no less essentially requires the person of the Holy Spirit than the person of the Son: therefore it is communicated as primarily to the Son as to the Holy Spirit.

The third opinion is that of almost all the Thomists, who assert that the Word's procession is therefore generation, but not the Holy Spirit's procession, because the Word proceeds into the likeness of nature by the force of his procession, but not the Holy Spirit.

Against it. For this reason the Word would be said to proceed into the likeness of nature, because he proceeds through the intellect, whose office it is to produce the image and likeness of the object. But this likeness, since it is only intentional, does not suffice for perfect generation, which requires likeness in nature; otherwise, as often as a painter expresses someone's image, so often would he be said to generate him: therefore that likeness which is made through intellection does not suffice to constitute true generation.

Again, when it is said in the definition of generation that it is a vital procession tending from its nature toward a term which by the force of the procession must be similar to the producer, this is understood with respect to that which is said to generate vitally: therefore that likeness ought to be understood with respect to the intellect, for the object does not concur vitally. But it is false that the intellection, or the word, is similar to the intellect, for in created things the intellect is a substantial faculty, while intellection and the word are accidents: therefore that likeness which is produced through the intellect does not of itself suffice to constitute the formal notion of generation.

Finally, although the intellect, as such, should of itself produce something similar to the producer, it would not however follow that it produces something similar to the producer in nature; otherwise every intellect could produce in this way. But no intellect produces in this way except the divine intellect: therefore if some intellect produces a term similar to itself in nature, this does not belong to it insofar as it is an intellect, but insofar as it is divine and most perfect. But the intellect, insofar as it is divine and most perfect, has no greater power of producing something similar in nature to the producer than the divine will: therefore for this reason the procession of the Word through the intellect is not more to be called generation than the procession of the Holy Spirit through the will. The minor is evident, for the will insofar as it is divine produces a divine Person not only similar, but also in every way equal to the producer, no less than the divine intellect itself.

They reply. That the divine will is not as assimilative as the intellect, for the reason that the divine intellect is assimilative, both insofar as it is an intellect, that is, according to its generic notion, because every intellect produces and expresses the likeness of the object, and insofar as it is a divine intellect, because as such it produces a person altogether similar and equal to the producing principle. The divine will, however, is not assimilative according to its generic notion, or insofar as it is a divine will.

But this reply is worthless, because the likeness which is required in perfect generation is considered only with respect to nature, especially the specific nature: therefore, that the intellect is in its genus more assimilative than the will does not contribute more to generation, if the will is assimilative in nature, as the divine will is.

The fourth and final opinion is that the Word is therefore the Son, but not the Holy Spirit, because although the divine nature is communicated to both by the force of the procession, and consequently each proceeds as similar to his producing principle, nevertheless the Holy Spirit does not proceed after the manner of an image, which is required for the notion of Son and of generation.

Against it. This opinion explains the obscure by the more obscure; for it does not appear more evidently why the second person is the image of the first person than why he is the Son, unless perhaps because he proceeds as similar to the producing principle by the force of his procession: but so it is also with the Holy Spirit, as was just said: therefore, etc.

Again, when the Son is called the image of the Father, it is understood either that he is similar to him in nature, or that he ought to bear back and express his special characteristics. If the first, the Holy Spirit will be a Son as much as the Word, for he is equally similar in nature to the producing principle as the Son himself. If the second, however, it cannot be maintained, for although a begotten man does not bear back the proper characteristics of the begetter, he is nonetheless counted as his Son: therefore for the true notion of generation nothing else is required than that the begotten be assimilated to the producer in nature; and so, since the Holy Spirit has this likeness no less than the Son, it follows that this reason does not suffice to distinguish those divine processions.

I confess, however, that these two last reasons serve to make known that distinction, as it were a posteriori, since by reason of his procession the divine Word has this special feature, that he is the perfect likeness and image of the Father; For the Son is a brief, compendious, and easy declaration of the Father's nature, says St. Gregory of Nazianzus in Orat. 4. De Theologia. For everything that is begotten defines its begetter with a certain tacit voice, or, as St. Basil speaks in homil. 16, the Word is the image of the begetter, showing the begetter wholly in itself. Whence St. Athanasius, in his Epistola De Decretis Nicaenae Synodi: if, when you name the image, you would by this very fact be judged that it is the Son.

Nor does the Doctor dissent, since in 1. dist. 10. quaest. unica n. 13 he says: That the Holy Spirit is not produced as similar by the force of his production, and it is true, because he is not the image of the Father, as the Son is, who by the force of his production proceeds as similar to the Father.

But this reason is only a posteriori; for the Son therefore proceeds as similar and insofar as image, because the principle from which he arises, namely the intellect, is a natural potency, and so since nature is borne toward the production of its like, when it can, and since the divine intellect is infinite, and so capable of producing a term perfectly similar to itself, hence it is that it is naturally determined to its production.