Theologicae regulae

Whenever discourse concerning God is made through a demonstrative pronoun, it falls short of demonstration.

For every demonstration is either to the sense, or to the intellect; but God can be comprehended neither by sense, since he is incorporeal, nor by intellect, since he lacks form; for we understand rather what he is not, than what he is: since the understanding of a true name arises from the perception of form, by which a thing is understood to be something, or of such a quality, or such a quantity, since in God there is no form, he cannot properly be grasped by the intellect; but he is set apart from other things, as if understood, only through the removal of another form, and by being set apart, is understood. Whence Boethius, in the book On the Two Natures and One Person of Jesus Christ, says: God, and nature, cannot be grasped by a whole and perfect understanding, but are nonetheless grasped in some manner by the privation of the other rules. Thus, then, when God is introduced speaking of himself, proper demonstration has no place there, since it occurs not before the eye, nor toward the understanding of a true name; but, if it may be permitted to speak thus, demonstration is made toward faith: for with Donatus demonstration is made toward the intellect, but with God demonstration is made toward faith: therefore, when God is introduced speaking of himself, a double prosopopoeia is understood: one, which is called anthropopathos, that is, human quasi-passion; the other, which is called idiotheos, that is, divine property. For when God is read to have said: I am who am,¹ an angel was speaking in the person of God, as it were reciting what is read in the divine mind. In this, then, is impropriety, that it is as though another speaks, that is, an angel, and the discourse is understood to be about another, namely about God; and in this is the anthropopathos, that the words of a creature, that is, of an angel, are attributed to the Creator. In this, however, is observed the idiotheos, that what is the Creator's is attributed to the creature, since those words which are uttered by the angel are understood to be true of God alone. Sometimes the Father is understood speaking in the property of the first person, as there: "My spirit shall not remain in man forever," etc.² Sometimes the Son, as in Genesis, where the Lord speaks to Abraham, saying: "At this time I will return to you, and Sarah shall have a son."³ Sometimes the Holy Spirit, as in Malachi, where it is said: "Behold, I send my angel before your face";⁴ there the Holy Spirit speaks to the Father about the Son. Sometimes the whole Trinity, as there: "I am who am,"⁵ or perhaps the essence itself is there introduced speaking. The three persons, however, where it is said: "Let us make man to our image and likeness," etc.⁶ Demonstrative names, however, more improperly belong to God than relative pronouns. Possessive pronouns, however, are sometimes said of God with the greatest impropriety, as when they denote an identity of essence; possessive pronouns, however, ought to denote a difference between the possessor and the things possessed. This pronoun, "my," is held with the greatest impropriety, where it is said: Vengeance, after I departed from the praetor. Similarly when it is said: "Your sacrifices my soul has hated,"⁷ "my" is put with the greatest impropriety; for there is no difference between the soul of God, and God; for the soul is itself the will, which is God himself. Sometimes it denotes lesser impropriety, when it hints at the day of generation; propriety, however, when it is said: "This is my beloved Son," etc.⁸ It is also taken less improperly, when it denotes the author of creation, as there: All things are mine, by the authority of creation and governance. Sometimes they denote the grace of re-creation, as in the Gospel: My children are with me in bed, for there the saints are called children of God on account of the grace of adoption.