Reply Obj. 1: This argument proves that beat.i.tude belongs to G.o.d; not that beat.i.tude pertains essentially to Him under the aspect of His essence; but rather under the aspect of His intellect.
Reply Obj. 2: Since beat.i.tude is a good, it is the object of the will; now the object is understood as prior to the act of a power.
Whence in our manner of understanding, divine beat.i.tude precedes the act of the will at rest in it. This cannot be other than the act of the intellect; and thus beat.i.tude is to be found in an act of the intellect.
_______________________
THIRD ARTICLE [I, Q. 26, Art. 3]
Whether G.o.d Is the Beat.i.tude of Each of the Blessed?
Objection 1: It seems that G.o.d is the beat.i.tude of each of the blessed. For G.o.d is the supreme good, as was said above (Q. 6, AA. 2, 4). But it is quite impossible that there should be many supreme goods, as also is clear from what has been said above (Q. 11, A. 3).
Therefore, since it is of the essence of beat.i.tude that it should be the supreme good, it seems that beat.i.tude is nothing else but G.o.d Himself.
Obj. 2: Further, beat.i.tude is the last end of the rational nature. But to be the last end of the rational nature belongs only to G.o.d. Therefore the beat.i.tude of every blessed is G.o.d alone.
_On the contrary,_ The beat.i.tude of one is greater than that of another, according to 1 Cor. 15:41: "Star differeth from star in glory." But nothing is greater than G.o.d. Therefore beat.i.tude is something different from G.o.d.
_I answer that,_ The beat.i.tude of an intellectual nature consists in an act of the intellect. In this we may consider two things, namely, the object of the act, which is the thing understood; and the act itself which is to understand. If, then, beat.i.tude be considered on the side of the object, G.o.d is the only beat.i.tude; for everyone is blessed from this sole fact, that he understands G.o.d, in accordance with the saying of Augustine (Confess. v, 4): "Blessed is he who knoweth Thee, though he know nought else." But as regards the act of understanding, beat.i.tude is a created thing in beatified creatures; but in G.o.d, even in this way, it is an uncreated thing.
Reply Obj. 1: Beat.i.tude, as regards its object, is the supreme good absolutely, but as regards its act, in beatified creatures it is their supreme good, not absolutely, but in that kind of goods which a creature can partic.i.p.ate.
Reply Obj. 2: End is twofold, namely, _objective_ and _subjective,_ as the Philosopher says (Greater Ethics i, 3), namely, the "thing itself" and "its use." Thus to a miser the end is money, and its acquisition. Accordingly G.o.d is indeed the last end of a rational creature, as the thing itself; but created beat.i.tude is the end, as the use, or rather fruition, of the thing.
_______________________
FOURTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 26, Art. 4]
Whether All Other Beat.i.tude Is Included in the Beat.i.tude of G.o.d?
Objection 1: It seems that the divine beat.i.tude does not embrace all other beat.i.tudes. For there are some false beat.i.tudes. But nothing false can be in G.o.d. Therefore the divine beat.i.tude does not embrace all other beat.i.tudes.
Obj. 2: Further, a certain beat.i.tude, according to some, consists in things corporeal; as in pleasure, riches, and such like. Now none of these have to do with G.o.d, since He is incorporeal. Therefore His beat.i.tude does not embrace all other beat.i.tudes.
_On the contrary,_ Beat.i.tude is a certain perfection. But the divine perfection embraces all other perfection, as was shown above (Q. 4, A. 2). Therefore the divine beat.i.tude embraces all other beat.i.tudes.
_I answer that,_ Whatever is desirable in whatsoever beat.i.tude, whether true or false, pre-exists wholly and in a more eminent degree in the divine beat.i.tude. As to contemplative happiness, G.o.d possesses a continual and most certain contemplation of Himself and of all things else; and as to that which is active, He has the governance of the whole universe. As to earthly happiness, which consists in delight, riches, power, dignity, and fame, according to Boethius (De Consol.
iii, 10), He possesses joy in Himself and all things else for His delight; instead of riches He has that complete self-sufficiency, which is promised by riches; in place of power, He has omnipotence; for dignities, the government of all things; and in place of fame, He possesses the admiration of all creatures.
Reply Obj. 1: A particular kind of beat.i.tude is false according as it falls short of the idea of true beat.i.tude; and thus it is not in G.o.d.
But whatever semblance it has, howsoever slight, of beat.i.tude, the whole of it pre-exists in the divine beat.i.tude.
Reply Obj. 2: The good that exists in things corporeal in a corporeal manner, is also in G.o.d, but in a spiritual manner.
We have now spoken enough concerning what pertains to the unity of the divine essence.
_______________________
TREATISE ON THE MOST HOLY TRINITY (QQ. 27-43) _______________________
QUESTION 27
THE PROCESSION OF THE DIVINE PERSONS (In Five Articles)
Having considered what belongs to the unity of the divine essence, it remains to treat of what belongs to the Trinity of the persons in G.o.d.
And because the divine Persons are distinguished from each other according to the relations of origin, the order of the doctrine leads us to consider firstly, the question of origin or procession; secondly, the relations of origin; thirdly, the persons.
Concerning procession there are five points of inquiry:
(1) Whether there is procession in G.o.d?
(2) Whether any procession in G.o.d can be called generation?
(3) Whether there can be any other procession in G.o.d besides generation?
(4) Whether that other procession can be called generation?
(5) Whether there are more than two processions in G.o.d?
_______________________
FIRST ARTICLE [I, Q. 27, Art. 1]
Whether There Is Procession in G.o.d?
Objection 1: It would seem that there cannot be any procession in G.o.d.
For procession signifies outward movement. But in G.o.d there is nothing mobile, nor anything extraneous. Therefore neither is there procession in G.o.d.
Obj. 2: Further, everything which proceeds differs from that whence it proceeds. But in G.o.d there is no diversity; but supreme simplicity. Therefore in G.o.d there is no procession.
Obj. 3: Further, to proceed from another seems to be against the nature of the first principle. But G.o.d is the first principle, as shown above (Q. 2, A. 3). Therefore in G.o.d there is no procession.
_On the contrary,_ Our Lord says, "From G.o.d I proceeded" (John 8:42).
_I answer that,_ Divine Scripture uses, in relation to G.o.d, names which signify procession. This procession has been differently understood.
Some have understood it in the sense of an effect, proceeding from its cause; so Arius took it, saying that the Son proceeds from the Father as His primary creature, and that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son as the creature of both. In this sense neither the Son nor the Holy Ghost would be true G.o.d: and this is contrary to what is said of the Son, "That ... we may be in His true Son. This is true G.o.d" (1 John 5:20). Of the Holy Ghost it is also said, "Know you not that your members are the temple of the Holy Ghost?" (1 Cor.
6:19). Now, to have a temple is G.o.d"s prerogative. Others take this procession to mean the cause proceeding to the effect, as moving it, or impressing its own likeness on it; in which sense it was understood by Sabellius, who said that G.o.d the Father is called Son in a.s.suming flesh from the Virgin, and that the Father also is called Holy Ghost in sanctifying the rational creature, and moving it to life. The words of the Lord contradict such a meaning, when He speaks of Himself, "The Son cannot of Himself do anything" (John 5:19); while many other pa.s.sages show the same, whereby we know that the Father is not the Son. Careful examination shows that both of these opinions take procession as meaning an outward act; hence neither of them affirms procession as existing in G.o.d Himself; whereas, since procession always supposes action, and as there is an outward procession corresponding to the act tending to external matter, so there must be an inward procession corresponding to the act remaining within the agent. This applies most conspicuously to the intellect, the action of which remains in the intelligent agent. For whenever we understand, by the very fact of understanding there proceeds something within us, which is a conception of the object understood, a conception issuing from our intellectual power and proceeding from our knowledge of that object. This conception is signified by the spoken word; and it is called the word of the heart signified by the word of the voice.
As G.o.d is above all things, we should understand what is said of G.o.d, not according to the mode of the lowest creatures, namely bodies, but from the similitude of the highest creatures, the intellectual substances; while even the similitudes derived from these fall short in the representation of divine objects. Procession, therefore, is not to be understood from what it is in bodies, either according to local movement or by way of a cause proceeding forth to its exterior effect, as, for instance, like heat from the agent to the thing made hot.
Rather it is to be understood by way of an intelligible emanation, for example, of the intelligible word which proceeds from the speaker, yet remains in him. In that sense the Catholic Faith understands procession as existing in G.o.d.
Reply Obj. 1: This objection comes from the idea of procession in the sense of local motion, or of an action tending to external matter, or to an exterior effect; which kind of procession does not exist in G.o.d, as we have explained.
Reply Obj. 2: Whatever proceeds by way of outward procession is necessarily distinct from the source whence it proceeds, whereas, whatever proceeds within by an intelligible procession is not necessarily distinct; indeed, the more perfectly it proceeds, the more closely it is one with the source whence it proceeds. For it is clear that the more a thing is understood, the more closely is the intellectual conception joined and united to the intelligent agent; since the intellect by the very act of understanding is made one with the object understood. Thus, as the divine intelligence is the very supreme perfection of G.o.d (Q. 14, A. 2), the divine Word is of necessity perfectly one with the source whence He proceeds, without any kind of diversity.
Reply Obj. 3: To proceed from a principle, so as to be something outside and distinct from that principle, is irreconcilable with the idea of a first principle; whereas an intimate and uniform procession by way of an intelligible act is included in the idea of a first principle. For when we call the builder the principle of the house, in the idea of such a principle is included that of his art; and it would be included in the idea of the first principle were the builder the first principle of the house. G.o.d, Who is the first principle of all things, may be compared to things created as the architect is to things designed.
_______________________
SECOND ARTICLE [I, Q. 27, Art. 2]
Whether Any Procession in G.o.d Can Be Called Generation?
Objection 1: It would seem that no procession in G.o.d can be called generation. For generation is change from non-existence to existence, and is opposed to corruption; while matter is the subject of both.