Scotus Academicus, Tomus tertius: De adorando divinae Trinitatis mysterio

Note 1. Many heretics have been deceived concerning the Word of God. For first, Valentinus dreamed that the Word was not the Son of God, nor had it proceeded immediately from God, but that a mind had been brought forth by the ineffable union of the Father, as it were, and of silence, as it were, as Mother, which together with the only-begotten Son brought forth truth; and that afterwards, after many ages, the Word proceeded from mind together with truth, as Irenaeus relates, lib. 1. cap. 1. Secondly, Paul of Samosata asserted that the divine Word is not subsistent, but prolate and transitory, as Epiphanius narrates, heresy 65. He says: Some of the disciples of the Samosatan, says Athanasius, Orat. 5. Contra Arianos, dividing the Word from the Son, say that the Son indeed is Christ, but the Word is another. Their reasoning we shall set forth and solve below. Thirdly, the Alogians, that is, those without the Word, rejected the appellation of Word, because, they said, the Son of God is pronounced neither by mouth nor by mind; wherefore they rejected all the writings of St. John, because in them mention was made of the divine Word. So Augustine, heresy 30. Arius and Eunomius seem to have asserted this very thing, thinking that every word is a prolation of the voice, as St. Athanasius narrates in the book De Decretis Nicaenae Synodi. But certain Arian disciples, not agreeing further, said that the Word always was, but the Son had not always been: some wanted the man assumed by the Word to be the Son; the rest, along with Arius varying his opinion, distinguished two Words: one existing in God, which is His Wisdom, undistinguished from the very Person of the Father; another foreign to the substance of the Father, about which, said Arius, St. John spoke when he said: in the beginning was the Word. Finally Michael Servetus, in the year 1540, calling up from the underworld the errors that had long since been buried, asserted that the Word of God is nothing other than a disposition by which it pleased Him to reveal to us the secret of His will. All of which errors, that we may thrust back into the underworld whence they emerged

Note 2. From St. Augustine, book De Fide, et symbolo cap. 3.: the Son of God is said to be the Word of the Father for this reason, because through Him the Father becomes known.

Just as, therefore, we do this with our words when we speak the truth, so that our mind becomes known to the hearer, and whatever secret we carry in our heart is brought forth through signs of this kind to the knowledge of another: so Wisdom, which God the Father begot, since through it the most hidden mind of the Father becomes known, is most fittingly named His Word.

Hence Richard of St. Victor, book 6. De Trinit., cap. 12., gathers that only the Son is the Word, and not in like manner the Holy Spirit: Because, he says, the Word is born of the heart alone, and by it the intention of the one uttering is made known: rightly, therefore, is the sole offspring of the sole Father named the Word, through which He Himself, who is the principal Wisdom, is manifested. He adds nevertheless another, and indeed genuine, reason why the Son is called the Word, namely that He is produced by utterance; for, as he observes in the same place, the Word is the same thing that is conceived in the heart and that is brought forth by the voice: For what, he says, is the voice, except the vehicle of the word, or, if it pleases better, the garment of the word? Is there one man when clothed, and another when stripped? Whence he infers, that if someone had an ear for the intention of the heart, just as he has for the intention of the mouth, he would have no need at all for exterior speech to be made to him. It is therefore ratified, and established that the Son of God is rightly called the Word, either because He represents and manifests the Father, or because He is produced by utterance.

Note 3. That although St. Athanasius, Orat. 3. Contra Arianos, said that the Word of God is not to be sought as being of such a kind as ours is, because God is not such as we are, nevertheless the uncreated Word, and the created word agree most of all in three things. For first, both are spiritual, and a permanent, not transitory, offspring of the mind: for, as whoever is the Author of the book De cognitione verae vitae speaks, in Augustine, tom. 9.: The supreme Father begot His Word by thinking Himself, which subsists at once coessential in the essence of the Father, and of the Holy Spirit. Secondly, both are immanent within the very one who utters them: for the divine Word so goes forth from the Father that it never goes out beyond His bosom: It proceeded from the Father, says St. Peter Chrysologus, but from the Father it did not wholly depart; or, as Tertullian says in the book Contra Praxeam, God brought forth His speech just as the root brings forth the shoot, the fountain the stream, and the Sun the ray... Nor yet is the shoot discerned from the root, nor the stream from the fountain, nor the ray from the sun, for, as John says, the Word was with God. Whence Zeno of Verona, serm. 3. De aeterna Verbi generat., calls the Son of God the noble inhabitant of the Father's heart. Thirdly, both represent, and express the object at the intuition of which they are formed: For whatever thing, says Anselm in Monol. cap. 31., the mind, whether through the imagination of the body or through reason, desires veraciously to think, its likeness, as much as it is able, it strives to express in its very thought.

The created word, and the uncreated Word likewise differ most of all in three things: 1. because the former is an accident; the latter a substance: 2. the former is a form constituting the one understanding in second act, whence it is produced from the need of the one understanding, namely that he may become one who understands; the latter, however, is produced from fecundity, not from any need, because the Father is essentially understanding before He utters the Word: 3. the former is not of the same nature with the one uttering; the latter, however, is entirely of the same nature with the Father, by whom it is uttered and produced.

The single conclusion. — The notion, and appellation of Word properly belongs to the divine Son alone.

This is the opinion of nearly all theologians against Durandus, in 1. dist. 27. q. 2., where he teaches that the Word, properly taken, is an essential predicate, and common to the three Persons. It is proved first from all the texts of Sacred Scripture in which the Son is signally called the Word, most of all from the 1. cap. of John, where the name of Word is expressed many times: That this name, says Cyril, lib. 7. Thesauri cap. 1., seems to have been chosen as something proper to the Son, in the beginning, he says, was the Word, and the Word was, etc. You see how this name signifies the very being of the Son according to nature; and below: In vain do we marvel at the Evangelist, and, as if he had thundered something great and proper, call him the Son of thunder, unless he had proclaimed the Word as something proper, marvelous, and unheard of.

The other Fathers prove this same truth by their testimonies; above all St. Augustine, book 7. De Trinit., cap. 2.:

Therefore, he says, the Father and the Son are together one essence, and one magnitude, and one truth, and one wisdom; but the Father and the Son are not together both one Word, because they are not together both one Son: for just as the Son is referred to the Father, and is not said with reference to Himself, so too the Word is referred to Him whose Word it is, when it is called Word. For by that same thing He is the Son by which He is the Word, and the Word by which He is the Son.

Therefore the notion of Word is not a distinct property, but formally the same as Filiation; whence he concludes: Since therefore the Father, and the Son are not together one Son, it follows that the Father, and the Son are not together both one Word. But the notion of Word, insofar as it is proper to the Son, is distinguished from Wisdom, which is only appropriated; whence he adds:

And therefore He is not the Word by that by which He is Wisdom, because the Word is not said with reference to itself, but only relatively to him whose Word it is, just as the Son is referred to the Father; but He is Wisdom by that by which He is Essence, and therefore because there is one Essence, there is one Wisdom. Since moreover the Word is also Wisdom, but He is not the Word by that by which He is Wisdom: for the Word is understood relatively, Wisdom however essentially; let us take that which is said when He is called Word to be said as if born wisdom were spoken, so that He is the Son, and the image.

Proof 3. By theological reason: That appellation ought to be judged proper to the Son of God which Sacred Scripture ordinarily uses to designate the second Person in the Deity: but Scripture employs the name of Word for this purpose, as is evident both from what has been said, and from the first epistle of John, cap. 5.: There are three who give testimony in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: for by that word three, the number, and distinction of the Persons is signified; wherefore it was fitting to give to each a proper name by which each person is distinguished from another: therefore, just as the name of Father is not metaphorical, but proper, so too must the name of Word be such. — Then, the formal notion of Word consists in this, that it is a term produced by utterance representing the object: but the Son of God, as has been proved in disp. 2., is a term produced by utterance, and represents His object most perfectly: therefore only the Son is properly, and truly the Word.

You will say 1. Where the Vulgate at Ioan. 1. renders Word, many of the holy Fathers, especially Cyprian, Jerome, etc. read Speech, and Reason: but speech, and reason is not a property of the divine Son: therefore neither is Word.

St. Augustine answers in lib. 83. Quaestionum q. 63.:

That which in Greek is called λόγος signifies in Latin both reason, and word; but in this place of Ioannis 1. we interpret it better as Word, so that not only the respect to the Father is signified, but also those things which were made through the Word by operative power. Reason, however, even if nothing is made through it, is rightly called reason; for although the Son would be the Word from eternity, even if nothing were to be made in time, nevertheless that power, and quidditative property, that whatever things are to be made are made through the Word, is more aptly signified by the name of Word, than by the name of Reason, or of Speech.

You will say 2. The Word in divine things is common to the three Persons: therefore it is not a property of the Son alone. The antecedent is proved: first indeed from St. Irenaeus, lib. 2. cap. 48.: God, he says, existing wholly as mind, and wholly existing as λόγος, that is, Word; similarly St. Ambrose, in the single book De Filii divinitate cap. 5.: Whether, he says, you say light of light, or Word of Word, or Spirit of Spirit, or Lord of Lord, whatever you will have said of Him, you will nevertheless believe the Father, and the Son to be of one essence. Moreover St. Athanasius, Adversus eos, qui dicunt passus est Deus, sermo carne, says: he who calls God λόγον signifies the simple essence. St. Dionysius professes this very thing in the book De Divinis Nominibus cap. 1., where, recounting the names suitable to God, he commemorates among them these, namely that He be called Giver of life, Wisdom, Mind, Word, etc. Therefore in truth he judges the name of Word to be a predicate not notional, but essential.

I deny the antecedent. For that was not the mind of the holy Fathers; for first, Irenaeus in the same place affirms that the Word is emitted from thought, and sense; and so he judges that only that is to be called Word which is produced by utterance, whether internal, or external: but only the Son, as is evident, is produced in this way, and consequently He alone is to be called Word. But if he says that the whole God is λόγον, he means to signify nothing other than that the Word is not a part of God, but is moreover the whole God. To Ambrose I say that he does not there assert from his own mind that the Son is Word of Word; and if anyone said these things, he would not on that account detract from the faith of consubstantiality. To Athanasius I reply that he does not there deny that a Person is signified by Speech, or Word, but he denies that two natures are signified in one Person, just as they are signified by the name of Christ: whence he adds: But he who says Christ, he declares the conjunction of two natures. Finally, to St. Dionysius I say that he there embraces together all the names, whether personal, or essential, which are attributed to God by theologians, and so he lists the name of Word along with the other personal names.

You will say 3. The name of Word is attributed to God only metaphorically: therefore it does not designate a peculiar property of the Son. The antecedent is proved from Theophylact on that text of Ioannis 1.: This was in the beginning with God, where he says: Nor will anyone have found any other proper name worthy of God: the Word itself is not substantially and properly the name of the Only-begotten, but only manifests, without affection, the Son born of the Father, etc. Similarly Chrysostom, Homil. 1. on John, says: The principal reason why John called the Son Word, was that He was about to announce the Father to us; for all things, he says, whatsoever I have heard from the Father, I have made known to you.

I answer. That the aforementioned Fathers mean nothing other than that no proper name can be devised by us that is worthy of God, and truly significative, and expressive of Him: whence Chrysostom a little above had said: No one can either say, or understand God according to His greatness, and since it cannot be said how great the substance of God is, He manifests it to us from His works: whence the name of Word is attributed to God to signify that He proceeds from the divine intellect as the expressive term of His object, for which no more apt name is in use by us to express the same thing.

You will say 4. The name, and notion of Word also belongs to the Holy Spirit: therefore it is not a peculiar property of the divine Son. The antecedent is proved from St. Basil, lib. 5. Contra Eunomium cap. 11., saying: The Word of God indeed is the Son: but the Word of the Son is the Spirit, which he proves from that text of Hebrews 1.: Carrying all things by the word of His power; he adds, and since the Word of the Son is through God, the same Apostle says, Ephes. 6.: The sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God: therefore, etc.

I distinguish the antecedent. That it is attributed properly, and from the nature of the thing, I deny; figuratively, and metaphorically, I concede: the metaphor, however, consists in this, that just as it is proper to the Word to proceed from some Person, and to be emitted to express His sense, and will, for which reason Christ proves that He is the Word of the eternal Father, saying: My doctrine is not mine, but His who sent me, the Father: so the Holy Spirit can be called the Word of the Son, because He is emitted by the Son, to intimate His senses, and will to the faithful, according to that text of Ioan. 16.: He will glorify me, because He will receive of mine, and will announce it to you. Add that He can also be called the Word of the Son from the effect which He works in the hearts of those evangelizing the truths proclaimed by Christ: For you are not, says Christ addressing the Apostles, Matth. 10., the ones who speak, but the Spirit of your Father, who speaks in you. To St. Paul I say first that the divine Son carries all things by the word of His power: that is, He conserves all things by His most powerful command with the same ease with which He produces them, according to that text of Psalmi 148.: He Himself said, and they were made, etc. So St. Chrysostom explains it, Homil. 2. Or that He contains, and preserves all things by Himself, who is the omnipotent Word, just as in Ioan. 12. He says: The word which I have spoken, that one will judge him; that is, I myself, who am the word of the Father, as St. Augustine interprets it, lib. 1. De Trinit. cap. 12. To the second I reply, that by the Sword of the Spirit is to be understood not the Holy Spirit as being the Word of the Son, but the spiritual sword, which is the divine doctrine itself, with which we must fight everywhere against all the adversaries of salvation, both visible and invisible.

You will say 5. The divine Word is distinguished from the Son of God: therefore the notion of Word is not a property of the divine Son. The Samosatians used to prove the antecedent from that text of Act. 10.: God sent the Word to the children of Israel, announcing peace through Jesus Christ, etc.

I deny the antecedent. And to its proof I say, first, that there the Word is not taken for the divine Person, but for the message, which is spoken outside God, and announced to men. Second, I say that by these words the divine Son can also be understood, whom God the Father sent into the world, to preach the gospel of peace in the assumed humanity; nor indeed is it new in the Scriptures for the same Person to be repeated in the same sentence, without His name or a relative pronoun being employed, as is evident from that text of 1. ad Corinth. 1.: Waiting for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ, who will also confirm you even to the end without crime in the day of the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. So St. Athanasius answers, in oration 5. Contra Arianos, near the end.

You will say lastly. Of one, and the same Person there are not two hypostatic properties, but a single one: but the notion of Word is distinguished from Filiation: therefore it is not a property of the divine Son.

I answer 1. By denying the major: for in the Father, and the Son there is active Spiration formally distinct from Paternity, and Filiation, from which their real distinction from the Person of the Holy Spirit is also argued; and so to one, and the same Person two formalities, or relations, or hypostatic properties are not repugnant.

I answer 2. That the notion of Word is not formally distinct from the notion of Son, nor are there two relations, but a single one conceived in different ways; as is evident both from St. Augustine cited above, and from St. Athanasius, Oration 2. Contra Arianos, saying: By that very thing by which the Word of His Father is the Son, He is the Word of the Father, etc. The Nazianzen agrees with him, Orat. 35. near the end: The Son, he says, seems to me to be so called, who is the same in essence with the Father, and also because He is from Him. The Word moreover, because it is related to the Father as speech to the mind, etc. Whence the notion of Word, and of Son is one, and the same, but only considered in different ways; and so the minor is to be denied.