FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   423   424   425   426   427   428   429   430   431   432   433   434   435   436   437   438   439   440   441   442   443   444   445   446   447  
448   449   450   451   452   453   454   455   456   457   458   459   460   461   462   463   464   465   466   467   468   469   470   471   472   >>   >|  
e whatever presupposed. So, were the Son to proceed from the Father as out of nothing, then the Son would be to the Father what the thing made is to the maker, whereto, as is evident, the name of filiation would not apply except by a kind of similitude. Thus, if the Son of God proceeds from the Father out of nothing, He could not be properly and truly called the Son, whereas the contrary is stated (1 John 5:20): "That we may be in His true Son Jesus Christ." Therefore the true Son of God is not from nothing; nor is He made, but begotten. That certain creatures made by God out of nothing are called sons of God is to be taken in a metaphorical sense, according to a certain likeness of assimilation to Him Who is the true Son. Whence, as He is the only true and natural Son of God, He is called the "only begotten," according to John 1:18, "The only begotten Son, Who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him"; and so as others are entitled sons of adoption by their similitude to Him, He is called the "first begotten," according to Rom. 8:29: "Whom He foreknew He also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of His Son, that He might be the first born of many brethren." Therefore the Son of God is begotten of the substance of the Father, but not in the same way as man is born of man; for a part of the human substance in generation passes into the substance of the one begotten, whereas the divine nature cannot be parted; whence it necessarily follows that the Father in begetting the Son does not transmit any part of His nature, but communicates His whole nature to Him, the distinction only of origin remaining as explained above (Q. 40, A. 2). Reply Obj. 1: When we say that the Son was born of the Father, the preposition "of" designates a consubstantial generating principle, but not a material principle. For that which is produced from matter, is made by a change of form in that whence it is produced. But the divine essence is unchangeable, and is not susceptive of another form. Reply Obj. 2: When we say the Son is begotten of the essence of the Father, as the Master of the Sentences explains (Sent. i, D, v), this denotes the habitude of a kind of active principle, and as he expounds, "the Son is begotten of the essence of the Father"--that is, of the Father Who is essence; and so Augustine says (De Trin. xv, 13): "When I say of the Father Who is essence, it is the same as if I said more explicitly, of t
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   423   424   425   426   427   428   429   430   431   432   433   434   435   436   437   438   439   440   441   442   443   444   445   446   447  
448   449   450   451   452   453   454   455   456   457   458   459   460   461   462   463   464   465   466   467   468   469   470   471   472   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

Father

 

begotten

 

essence

 
called
 

principle

 
nature
 

substance

 
similitude
 

Therefore

 
produced

divine

 
remaining
 
origin
 
distinction
 

explained

 
communicates
 

begetting

 

necessarily

 

expounds

 
active

transmit

 

denotes

 
Augustine
 

habitude

 

explicitly

 

susceptive

 

unchangeable

 

parted

 

Master

 

Sentences


explains

 

generating

 

consubstantial

 
designates
 

preposition

 

material

 
matter
 

change

 
contrary
 

stated


properly

 
proceeds
 

metaphorical

 
creatures
 

Christ

 

proceed

 
presupposed
 

filiation

 

evident

 

whereto