QUESTION 1 ‘Tuzne are six points of inquiry : (1) Is there a generating power in God? (2) Whether the power to generate is Epplisd to God essentially or notiomally (3) Whether the power to generate is brought into act By a command of the ‘will? (4) Whether there en be mote than one Som in God? {s) Whether the genersting power ie incladed in omripo tence ? (6) Whether the generating power is the same asthe ‘eative power? ARTICLE 1 Si TH. ‘We re inquiring about God's generative power, and the first point of inquiry is whether in God there isthe power to beget. The reply seemingly should bein the negative All power is elther active or passive. Now there can ‘be no passive power in God nor in him can a generative poster be active, becuse then the Son would be the result of En action and would be mate, hich ie against the faith. ‘Therefore thee is no generative power in God. 2. According to the Philosopher (De Somn, et Vig. i) action belongs to that which has peer, Now in God there is no begetting: and consequently there fs no generative poirer. ‘The mile proposition is proved thus. Wherever there is a begeiting there is communication and reception ‘of natire. But since reception involves matter and a pstve power, whieh arent in God, reception ienarmible fn God! and therefore there can be no begetting in Go. 1. The begetter must news be distinct from the begotten, Qsaeesl OF GOD'S GENERATING POWER 43 Not, however, in that shih the bagetter commamicntes to ‘the begotten, sino rather are they the same in that raged. Consequently in the bogetten there mast needs be sore ‘hing besides that which he oceives by generation from the bogetter : so that seamingly whatsoever s begotten must be ‘composite, Bt in Ged there fs no composition, Therefore there cannot be a begotten God, and conseyuently there ‘an beno begetting in God, andthe sme concn falls “4. No impefection should be escribed to God Now every power, active or passive, in comparison with its acti Impertct,Therslore we should not attribute a generative power to Ged. ‘5 But, you will sav, this applies to a power that isnot suited tots aet—On the contrary, whatsoever is perfected by another is less pect than that by shih iis pete [Now the power that is united t its acti perfected by that fact, Therefore that act is more perft than the pontee 0 that even a power that is united to is acti mpetfet in comparison with ie act 6. The divine nature is more eflective in acting than created nature, Now tere i among creatures anature that works not through the medium of © power, but by islf thas the um enlightens the air, avd the svt quickens the body. Consequently there is much stronger reason why the divine nature should be by itself the generative prinsiple tnd not throngh « power. Therefore thete fs no geveraive power in God. 7. Generative power is a sign ether of perfection or of imperfection, It is not, however, 4 sigh of perfection Decause if i were it would be found in the higher ranks of creatures rather than in the lower inthe angsloand heavenly bodies more or rather than in animals and plants, Therlore itis sign of imperfection, and consequent sould tbe scribed to God, '8, A twolald generative power isto be found in things here elow. Tis exmmplete in those things where generation is elected by sexual intercourse: it is incomplete when igeteration takes place without mingling of sexes in plants, for instance, Since then wve cannot secibe the complete“ ON THE POWER OF GOD (name power to God in whom there cannot be an interonarse of exes, it would geem that generative power cannot in any ance be ascrbol to God ‘9 The object of power can only be something posible since power (ott) is s0 called from its relationship to the possible (possi). Now the existence of generation jn Go is not @ possible oa contingent thing. sice itis terol, Therefore we tannot asribe to God’ power in respect_of generation, and. consequently the power to [Eenerate snot in him, 10. The power of God, being infuite, is aot terminated citer by ts actor by its objet, Now ifn God there be a generative power, its act will be generation, and its effect Will be Son. Therefore the Fathers power will not be confined to the begeting of one Son but wil extend to many; which is absurd 11 According to Avicenna, when a thing hss a certain ‘quality entirely feam withoot, to that thing considered in itself we attrbate the opposite quality; thus the air whieh has no Tight except trom suthout, de dark consiered in itself. In this way sinee ll creatures derive being, trata necessity from without, considered in themselves they are nonexistent, untrue, and impossible Dut nothing of the kind is posible in Ged. Consequently in God there cennot ‘De one whohhas being entirely from another, nor ean there be ‘one that is begotten, nor generation and generative power 12. In the Godhead the Son hs nothing bit what he receives from the Father, else it would follow that there fs composition in him. Now he receives his essence from the Father: and consequently there is nothing in him but the essence, Hence if there he generation in Gor, oi the Son De begotten, it wil follow that the esence is begotten» and this is false, since then there would be a distinction inthe divine essence 13. If, in God, the Father begets, this must belong to him In respect of his nature. vt the nature isthe same Fathiet, Son, and Holy Ghost, For the same reason, theo, both Son and Holy Ghost will eget: which contrary to the teaching of nih Otens) OF GOD'S GENERATING POWER 4 ra. Anature that exist rerpetally an poet in suppos,i no como to nner Spent em tae ive nature ent yrlcty In the Father, ade rrpetialy ince tip incorruptible, Therelore Hie ml Communicated to atother suppost: and consequently there io generation there Ty Geneon is itd of change. But there fm» change ia God. Neiler therfore fe peeation serie pone : tn cary, acconling to the Pilbsopber a thing pestect when it able to produce its ike, Now Gal the Father i perfec. Theslore he can pruce We ibe, ad Mereover Angustiw: says (Con. Masini, 7) that tne Mer could ot beget, i ows that he lacked the rer, Dut tere fo lak of power ie Gor. Thmrelre he sable to beget, and in hn the generative power T answer het itis the patueof every fet avin tel aa far pole,” Wherefore every than to communicate ag fr as possi tel agent iin ack, Now tne avine nator Se snpree an mot pure ect: wherlorit communicates sco rss pst Fecormuncates sll torentres hy likeness only this ing to W3 tenes; The Calle Tal tnvets another mode of commnniation ofthe rine ate, tion: 30 that as one to whom the hutuan nai Iamiated i man, 20 on to whom the Godhead is com tiunicated is ot merely bike Gods butts tray Cosa fee we must chnerve that ther ia tvwlold ference tetween the divine netore eed materia forme In the fs face material fra hol sistent, sth the hums basis? wherens the Godhond i the ume Ung 23 Co bo thal the divine nator sels cubistent. Secondly, no exeated form ornate iitsown bing: whereas Gl ery thing isis natre and quidity; 20 that tb name pope6 ON THE POWER OF GOD (astm to im is He who és (Exod. i, x4), Docause thereby he is faunal as if fom his proper form. Consequently since forms bere below are not sel-subsistent, there mst needs bein the ubjeet to which 2 form i communicated, besides the form, ‘Something whereby the form or nature receives subsistence. {his is matte, which wndesles material forms and natures, [And sing that material form or nature is not its own ‘eing, ie receives being through its reception int something tee wherefore acconing as is received into a diversity of fnbjects it hase diversity of eng: thos Inman nature in espe of being isnot ane in Socrates and Plato, although the ecential potion of hurmanity is the sume in bots. On the other hand since the divine natute is slfsubsistent, ia the commanication thereof there is no need of saything material for subsistence and eoneequently it i not Tectved into a subject by way of matter, so that he who E begotten be compoord of metter and form. And beeause fyain the divine essence isis own being it does ot rosive ‘ing fom the supposit in whieh iis: co that by virtue of fone and the sae being je i in both the commanteator and the ‘eto -whom it is communicated, thus remaining ‘entically the same in both. ‘We have an example of this communication, and that snoat becsmingly inthe intellet = forthe divine nature is Tpiriual, whertore itis manifested better by means of Spiritual/examples,‘Thns when our intellect conceives the ‘uidity of a thing that is seleubsistent and outside the Thind, thee is akin of communication of hi self-subsistent {hing inemnuch ag our intellect receives in a way from the texleror thing the form of the latter: and this ineligible form having its existence in our intellect proceeds in a way foom that exterior thing. Since, however, the exterior thing tifers in nator from the understanding intellect, the frm fanderstgod by the intellect and the form of the sel fubsistent object ifr in their repective beings. But when ‘ur intellect understands its own quiddity, both conditions ‘Stand, since ints process of formatian the form understond proceeds alter a fasion fom the intellect understanding it Tt the intellect receiving it, and besides a certain unity sama OF GOD'S GENERATING POWER 47 maintained between the conceived frm which proceeds an {he thing whence ft proceed, since both have intligibie Flog eng tht one fhe intellect, while the other fs the Tetalgtle form which is called the word of the intellect Stton however, or intl s ot by ie essence established inthe perfect act of intllctaity, nor the human inteict lene with human natare, i follows that although the Gosaid wort isin the intellect and somewhat conformed foi, yet ii nt identified ith the esas of the intliec but express its ikenest. Again, inthe conception of thi Fntelgibe form the bnman tature is not communicated ‘uherafore it cannot properly be ealled a begeting which Tmplies a commontcation of nate "Now even na when oor fnellct understands ite there fninita word proceeing md beating ieness o that frm ‘Shieh i procends, 0, ton, in God there it 2 word bearing The ikenes of him fom whom it proceeds. The process tf this word transcends in two. ways the procession of four word. Fits, berange oot wor dlls fom the esence Gt the intellect, as aleeady ‘stated, whereas the divine fntellect being by is very essence in the. perfot act of Fntelectuslity easnot be the repent ofa iateligibe for that isnot is esence: consequently its Word is esontaly foe with it Secondly, the divine tate iteclf i ts intl Tctuality, whetefor a connnunieation that takes place in a tellecival_ manner, fs alsn a. communication by way ature so that ca be celled begetting, nd thos agin the divine word surpasses the. procesion of our word land Ariustin (De Trini assigns this mode of generation, Since, however, we ace treating of divine things arording fo our mace whereby one intellect proces rom its know ledge of things hers ow, therefore as in Ube Tater wrherewer we find action we find am active principle whieh ‘we call power, so do we alo fn mn ters ermeesning God, thong im hin power and action are not distinct as in freatures, For this renern, given that In God thece is feneraton, a term that is significative of action, it follows {fat re mst grant him the power to beget, ot generative power° ON THE POWER OF GOD tose ‘Reply to the Fist Objection, ‘The power which we stiti- ‘ale to God is neither active propery speaking nor passive seeing that the predieaments of action and passion ate aol in him, an his action ie his wary subetanee : but the poet ‘which isin him is designated by ue after the manner of sn active power. Nor does i follow thatthe Son fs the result ff action of making, even a8 neither does it follow that in God there ie property speaking action or passion Reply (othe Seeand Objection, While the tem and end ‘of rozniving is having, there are to ways of receiving aml {wo ways of heving. In one way matter has ils form, and a subject am accident, or in fact anything that is poses ‘sides the essence in another way the supporit has nature for fastance, a men fas human nattre for he nature's not beside th essence of the haver, need it his essence thus Socrates i try that which is man. Accord ingly the begotten one even ia mankind resives the frm of his begtter, not as matter reoives form, or subject ecedent ‘but asa supposit or hypestasis has the speifie nature: and itis this in God. Hence in God bagoten there fs no nee of matter or of a subject of tha divine nature but it follows tate the stbsstent Son having the nature vf God Reply to the Third Objection. God begotten is not istnct from the begetting Gad by an aided eseenor since, a5 stated above, there is no need for matter aa recipient of the Godhead: they are distint, however, by the telation implied in eeceving one's nate from enother 0 that in the Son the relation of sonship takes the place of all the indvidualisiog principles in things ereated (or Which reason it is called © pertonal propery), while the divine nature takes the place of the specie natu. Yet Since this sume relation is not really distinc rom the divine nature it does aot involve eny compesiton therein, whereas with us a certain composition reulta ftom the specie and Individvalisng principe, Reply to the Fourth Objection. This angument avaits when power and act, whether united or not, ate distinct from each other = but this snot the ease in Ge ‘Wherefore the Reply o the Fith Objection is cles. Ostms) OF GOD'S GENERATING POWER 49 Reply totheSixth Objects. Anything thetisa pip Royer lm pve fo yn st sate fetion without. an tervenng accident tins the om Hines by means of the ght i Ti thet he 9 tickens the by, by meme of the ss sence yt {Toogh the werd quickening expresses eto, ita nt the ea of actin, ence ts ot al ater than secon Teply to the’Seventh Objection, In creatures onertion is inporcle witlout a tinction of tenon ot nator nt of existence, sine Uhr natare ft tir enitence Eensoquenly generation nwong creatives suggest per fetin' wheclore its wong to the igh reat But in God guncrtion spree thot hs sng ster impertestion® ar 30 noting, tombs sto mci Ie 10 “Reply tothe Eighth Objection, This argument consiers genet in theaatesial wordt on thertone tf not > the pint Teply to the Ninth Objection. 1s te tha the objet of an active or passive power most be psble ad om Lingent, when the alin or pasion in question ie aerom panied by movernent (inc all movable thins ae reste [owen Gee, au state abve, wheels the agent he pet prove Reply to the Tenth Qbjetin. The Son of God isnot the elt ofthe generstive power for we canes vr Pet {hat he is begotten, mt meds Il however, he were the fect, te poe ofthe egeter wot no tina’ him, Shogh he cannot begat other Son, hess the Reger isiatte, ‘The reson why tere cant be ante Son in Goa is becouse Senchip fs personal popety ad rey the Sons to any, ndottaed, nd the principles of individuality ofeach indiidal thing belong Uo tat hing Alone’ ethers vo foliow thats person or a in ‘ual thing would be aay commiexe ON THE POWBR OF GOD (aaamns Reply to the Eleventh Objostion. ‘Thesaying of Avicenna is true when that which is received is not identically the sume in recipiant end givet, a6 is the cave in creatures in Telaton to God. Hence whintsoever ie received by a creature fs ns vanity in comparion with the being of God, sinco a creature cannot receive being in that perfection with which itis in God. On the other band in God the Son receives the some identical nature ag that which the Father hns hence the argument fail. Reply to the Twelth Objection. The Son bas nothing ‘hat i rally distinct from the essence which he reeives from the Father: but from the very fact that he receives from the Father i follows that in him is @ relation by which he is referred to and distinct from the Father. And Yet this relation Is not distinet fom his essence Reply to the Thirteenth Objection. Though the ame nature is in Father and Son, itis in each by a diferent toe of existence, Ut isto say with 4 dierent relation (Consequently that which belongs to the Father in espect af bis nature doesnot of necessity belong to the Son. Reply #0 the Fourteenth Objection, Creatures booome like God by participating in thei speci nature ; hence the fact that a particular created supposit subsist in a ereated nature, ie dtected to something ele aaits end. Consequently ifthe end be sufficiently attsined by one individual by & perfect and proper participation inthe specifi nate, thee Fenomeed for asother individual participating in that nalare (Gq the other hand God's nature is the end and is not for the ake of am end: and it meet that the end show be ‘communicated in every possible way. Hence thong in God itis found perfectly and propery im one suppost, nothing foxbids its Being in another. Reply to the Fifteenth Objection. Generation ie kind of change in 0 far as by means of generation the common ‘nature is received in some matter whichis the subject of change. ‘This i not the cace in the divine generation, and 0 the conclusion does not follow 2.40) OF GOD'S GENERATING POWER ARTICLE 1 15 GENERATION ArrHIMUTED 10 Gow essRETALLY on “ux second point of ingiy i whether generation i ate buted to Go exentialy or otinaly. Apt wl sea that itis only athe tonal 1. Power fae Ko of principe, ae appears trom the dciniton i Bteteph, v2 Now when we te. the {erm principle in rfeenceto'a dvive person the term ‘sed totionally. "Shr then the generative ove nes 2 Principle in tls sence t ould Seem tt Wf tna {o'God notional 2° Stoul It Be std iat it denen both the enon and soton—on the contrary, aeerdg to Boethins {Be Trin) thee are two predieaenis i Cod-sabetane, to which the eoeter belong, and relation, to which te botional acts belong” ating cannot bein two pein ‘ments sea a white man tot se thing save serdentlly (Gta, v, 7) Thereore the gonerative pow! cn Include both, substance namely aod tional se {0 God the prncpn © stct fom tt. which ceeds therefrom! But there shold be wo stein ih Kisvesence. Consoqventiy the im of yrinpte fe mone Fatible wth the esses: so that per whch inves the Hea af print dos mnt tente the esenen in ok 4 In God property i eative and noional while that wien is ‘common i cntal ant beste, ‘Now the feneratve power isnot ennmon to Father nd Som, hat rope to the Father. ‘Therefore itis titel ae voton reo, tnt ni wr abttl 5. The prinple of «thins proper ation isis proper form and not the comin fem? tis nan mania his intllet, becuse ths aeons prope to hin alatiog to other animals, even asthe form of rationality or intel lectuality. Now generation i the proper operation of woth Se Sm. Thats ON THE POWER OF GOD tasters Father as Father. Therefore its principle is Paternity which is the Father's proper form, and tot the Godkeat wich is the common form. But Paternity ia relative term. ‘Therefore the generative power not nly viewed as 4 principle, Dnt also as to the thing which is principle, Senotes relation, 6, As the generative power does not relly difer from the essence, so neither dows paternity. But this does nt prevent paternity from beings phely relative erm. ‘Theres fore neither does it oblige us to sty that the generative power denotes the exsence together with relation 7. Tn God three things have the ature of @piveple, power, knowledge and will, and theor are atte to God zoentilly. Now knowledge and will in God dont each ‘signify atthe sane time some ration or nation, For equal reason, therefore, nether does power: and soit cane he ‘uid thatthe generative power signifies at the same ime Ue essence on the part ofthe power, and a notion onthe part of generation: ‘but seemingly it signifies nothing but the notion for reasons already given On the contrary the Master say (7.D.vi that the genera~ ‘ive power in the Father is the very esence of Ged Further, Hilary says (De Syd.) that the Father begets by vittue of the Godhead, Therefore the Godhead ie the prineple of generation, and isin the nature ofa power Fusthes, Damasoone says (De Fide Orth i 29) that generation is the work of natare and” thus the same {cmelusion follows Farther, there is but ane power in God, Now the creative power is atriuted to the essence, Therefore the generative ‘ower should be also T answer that there ate several opinions on this point. Sone maintained that the generative power isnot astibes to God otherwise than relatively : and they wete moved by the follovring argument. Power is sxentally « principle ‘of kind and a principle signifies areleion and property ‘attributed tothe divine power snd not to creatures But fin arguing tins they were at fault in two way, First, although power is rightly described es a kind of prneiple sama) OF GOD'S GENERATING POWER 92 ‘hich comes das thn genic head of elation, noverthelem the thing which is primp ofertion or poston is not a relation but an aboolvte fn, namely the rssene of the power. Wherefire the Philosopher” places rower fe Seience inthe genus, no of eatin Int of quality, thous ‘relation incidental t both. Seconlly, yen sheng of God, terms that signify @ principle in respert of operation are not employed relatively 23 dnoting propesti Fat oly those that signify a. prince in respurt of the toro ‘operations. “Beeause hen ‘we spa pine est roperty in God we rer a the subsistentpereon* hreng fhe term operation sons not involve sibelstoacs wat consequently it doesnot fellow thet tems aio enone Principle of operation tn emplayed to silly» proper otherwise wil: aowuig.ielaet and alle tre oh be employed ‘a6 indicating propetics Pam, oor Although i€ is principle sometines told af aesion sea of {he product of action, got the later i uckdenal te ie ei the former is estentia to it” acue active pone Te action doesnot always press umething thet the tegen ct that action, since, aoancing In the Phitoopher (Loe Metaph, ix, 6), there are many oparstine thet Tave product: wheress pover fr nutyers peice nt ea operation, ‘Consequently iors not fallow thet heosoee power implies the relation nl m ypncig He theca Predicate of God relatively Moveaver this opin mppatrs fo be iv eonict with the truth, TF the thing that lem purer ia the antoe as the ‘rinciple of action, it follows thatthe slvine notore thing that is @ principle Iw Cts for since every a such proces ts ik, that thing in the begeiiee is tie principle of his beget, in respect of which the egotten ikened to the begetter "thon mata hy vttne ot he heres ature begels a son who i lke him in that valine, ow God begotten is like Col the Father inthe divine hate hence the divine natu isthe generating prince where the Father begets, a Ulery says fhe For this reason others sit that the generative power signifies the esence alone, Pt thisnpinion ageinappeons ty4 ON THE POWER OF GOD «. beat fault, An action done by vito of the common nature by an individval Included in that nature, takes on aoertaln rode from its proper principles: thus an action due to 2 ‘man's animal nature is prodoid in him in eccordance with the principles of the himan species, wherefore a man on Account of hisrational nature enjoys a more perfect acto the imagination than other animals. Again actions peculiar to san are performed by ths or that individual in aceordance wvith the indvidoaisng principles ofthis or tbat man ; the Fesole being that one man understands better than another Consequently ifthe common nature be the principe of an ‘operation that belong to the Father alone it follows that it {f the principle in accordance with the personal property fof the Father, And for thio reason the idea of power inches, aftr 9 fashion, paternity even in respect of that whichis the principle of generation "For these reasons we mist say” with others that the generative poner denotes atthe same time the essence and fhe property. "Reply to the First Objection. Power conveys the ide cf m priciple in relation to operation which, a3 aloady ated, isnot aseribed to God sea notional act. ‘Reply to the Second Objection. Among creatures one predicement is accidental to another, wherefore one thing Eannot result from fo, except what is one accidentally ‘ohereas in Gor relation is in reality the very esence; and th there fs no comparison, "Reply. to the Thied. Objection, Among creatures the princple of generation i twofold, namely the generator and. That whereby he generates, The geneator, howeves, bs {lstinet from the thing generated by virtue ofthe generation, Since nothing generates Hts; whereas that whereby the eneration takes place isnot ditinet but s common ( bot, Er stated above, Consequently it does ‘ot flow that thee is a distinction in the divine nature as the generative poser, since power is the principle whereby tho elect is prodocad Reply fo the Fourth Objection. By reason ofthe implica relation the generative power is not common but proper osama) OF GON'S GENERATING POWER ARTICLE 1 ‘THE third point of inquiry i whether inthe ect of genera tion the generative power comes into action a the command ofthe will It would seem that the reply shonl he in the sditnative,6 OW THE POWER OF GOD asm x, Hilary (De Syn.) says that nol by natural measly seat the Tatar ed to bgt the San. Now if he tid mt Deget of his wil he beget of natural necessity, since an ‘agent is either voluntary or natural. Therefore the Father begot the Son by his will: and thos the generative [power proceeded to generate through the command of the wl 2 But, you wil say, the Father begot the Son by an act ot his will neither preceding nor flowing bat accompanying the act of generationOn the contrary this argument is seemingly Hnadequate, For since everything In Gol. is ‘ternal, nothing in him can preede in point of tine anything {het isin him = and yet we nd fn him one thing having to another the relation of @ prineple, for instance, hi wil i "elation to his lection ofthe just, fous the mere fac tat it proceeds from his intellect. Therelore though the will to beget aia not precede the Legeting ofthe Son, nevertheless it would seem that we may consider it 1o be the principle of fhe Son's generation, for the reason that i proceeds rom the intellect, 3. The Son proceeds ough en act of the intellect sce he proceeds as the Word : because there ie no intel: Tectual word except when thinking of s thing we under stand it, according to Acgustine (De Trin. x, 4). Now the ‘willis the principle of the intellectual operation >for it commands the act of the intellect, even a those of the other power, as Anselm says (De Simi) thus Tndet- stand because I wish to do so, just ax T wall because Twish to walk, Therefore the wil is the principle of the Son's generation, 44 But, ay you, it a true of man thatthe will commands the act of the inteligence, but Hot of Goe—On the eontary predestination is ina way, an act of the inteligence: for wwe say that God predestined Peter because he willed according 9 Romans is, x8: He hath mercy om whore wl, tnd whom he will he hardeneth. Therefore not enly in man but also in God does the wil command the set of the intelligence 5. According to the Philosopher (Phys. wii, 5) that Qasena) OF GOD'S GENERATING POWER 57 which causes its own mvainent can be wither jn maton riot and for the same reason that which fs ease of is en ac, ean aet or not act. Tint anture exnnot actor not fact since its determine tn one acten,‘Thereove it st the eatse of ite cw action, ut gets aa moved by another, [Now this eannot br the eave in Gor. Therefore fn Gln action is from natuse, and ransequentiy neither is generation, ‘Thetefore generation is om his will, sinen all agents are reduced fo nature or il as stated in By 5. Ti the action of natuze precede the of the wil this leads to an absurdity, forthe wll yall bo rendeved void ‘Because since nature is etermined to nue course of aeHon, iXstmoved the will it would move it to one thing alone, and this contrary tothe esaence of the will whichs as such, Jt tres. On the other hn’ if the will move nate, neither ature nor wllisabrogate’, since thet which sindiferent many things ie not debarred Tron moving towards one Therefore the action vf the wil wasonably presses the action of nature, rather than vice versa. Now the genern tion of the Son is pare ation or eperation, Theelore Ht tomes frou the wil 7. Tt ie written (Pa ex, 5): tHe shake and they woe sas, which ors Augustine expounds as follows (Coo Tis, 6, 7): We beget the Wont wane th wen Tha thy might Be'made,” evordngly the prormsion of the Word from the Father isthe reason ofthe rente’s preston Wherefore ifthe Son provers not fran tho Father by th ceommand ofthe Fathers wil, it would soe that ll reatures ‘proceed from the Father naturally and not only by his wil ‘hich is erroneous. 5, Filey anys (De Sant): 1 enyone say thet the So ‘20s bor ofthe Father wilhou he eamewrrenes of the Pater wil, ft ime be anathane, Therefore the Father dito beget the Son Involnnterty; aad sv the seme conclusion follows 19. Te is writen (Jo. i, 45): The Rather loath the Som, ‘and he ha ven al things ia his hand, which words «gloss fxponmds of the giving of the eternal generation, "Theteone the love ofthe Father forthe Son othe nso rather tba8 ON THE POWER OF GOD @nams the sign of the eternal generation. Now love is (rom the vrll: Therefore the wile the principle ofthe Son's gener tion, 70, Dionysine (De Di, Nom. is) soys that God's love oes not alo him be without oping. Henca again if would seem to follow that love is the reason of aeneraton. Tr. Any opinion about God that does mot involve absurdity or error can be maintained. Now if we suppose that the Father begat the Son voluntely, no absurdity follows, since neither des it fllow apparently that the Son isnot eternal, not that he snot consubstantial with or equal to the Fathes, since the Toy Ghost who proceeds as ao act ‘of the il, is co-eternal,co-oqual aad eunsubetantil with the Father and Son, Therefore semingl iti not erroneous taaseert thatthe Father begat the Son by his wil a No wil can fail to wil its last end. Now the end of God's will i to communicate his goodnex, and this Is ‘specially elected by generation, Therefore the Father’s ‘ell cannot but wil the generation ofthe Som. Therefore by his wil he begat the Son "1, Human generation ie drawn from the divin according to Ephesians ii, 15: Of whom all atersity 8 named in Ieacen and on cath, Now human generation subject tothe command of the wil ele there cold be no sin in the act of fgneration, Therefore the divine generation i also, end 50 the same concusin follows. ‘4. Every action proceeding from an unchangeable nature isnccessary, Now the divine natoe is utterly unchangeable Wherefore ifthe (divine) generation be the operation of the nature and not ofthe vil it follows that itis necessary, s0 that the Father begat the Son of nocasity and this is contrary tothe Ceaching of Augustine (Ad Oros. il 1, Augustin (De Trin. xv, xx) says thatthe Son is Conse of councel, and sill of wil. Now the preposition of (de) ‘ndicatesa principle. ‘Therefore the will isthe principle of the Son's generation, and so the same conclusion follows ‘On the contrary Augustine (Ad Oros il) says: The Father ego! the Som either by hs wil nor of macs sams) OF GOD'S GENERATING POWER = Again, the suprome eflsion of the will throyeh the liannel of love. Hate Son proceeds nat by way fla rather is it the Holy Ghost who proceeds this, Therefore the wills ol the principle of the Son's generation "Further, the Son prone from the Father as brightness from light aocording to Hebrews i 9: Who being the rght- aes of i ly, andthe few of his tance. Nove bight ress does not procead tram tight ‘by the will. Neither therefore does the Son proceed thus fom the Father T answer that the generation of the Father may be refered tothe wills the objet ofthe wil since the Father both willed the Si and the generation of the Son fram eternity: but hy no mieans ran the il be the prioriple of Uhe divine geneatin. "This inmade event as flows. The wil as such being le is fdifierent to either of the alte Tatives = for tea acto not act, Has or do others, will and not wil. An if this dees ot apply tothe wil with regard to certain thing, this willbe tre of the wll not as sw, bat on account of the natural inclination fe has for & tain thing, as fr the last end which is maable not to wil: thus the una swf unable not: tall happiness, And cannot wil unhappiness. Wherefore it is clear that ‘whenever a thing bis the wil for its princi tf posible for it tobe or nt tbe, toe gic or uthera, tobe now oe ‘then. Now everything of this description fea erentme snes nan uncreated being there is no prssibility of bing or mot being but the essentit necessity of hing, n° Avicenna proves (Metaph. vi, 4). Wherefore if we suppose the Sow to he Degotten by the wil, it must noeds follow that he is = creature, For thie reason the Arians who held the Soa to be ‘creature, said that he was begotten by the wills herens Catholics say that he was begotten not by will bot hy the nature. For nabite i determined to vine eflert © and accordingly since the Son is lngotter of the Father hy ‘ature, It follows that itis impossible for him not to be begotten or tobe otherwise tas his or not coasubstantial vith the Father: since that which proceeds naturally, pro ‘rods in likeness to tha fmm hick fe proceeds, This i the teaching of Hilary (De Sin): ad's wll gave ey creature60 ON THE POWER OF GOD (msams Ais natne, whovaas a perfect nativity gave the Som his ars Hence everything is such as God willed it to be, while the Son is’ such as God Js. Now, a8 already. stated, although the will i indiferent to some things, has = natural ineination in regard to the last end and in like Tanner the intellect fine a certain natural maventet in respect of ils knowledge of first principles. Moreover, the Principle ofthe divine knowledge is Gol hinel, whe fe the fad of his will; oyherelore that which proceeds in Ge by his act of self-knowledge, proceeds naturally, and likewise that ‘hich proceeds by hig act of selflove, And for this reason, nce the Son proceeds asthe Word by an ac ofthe divine Inelect inasmuch as the Father knows himealf,and the Holy Ghost by an act of the will inasmuch a8 the Father lowes the Son it follows that both Son and Holy Ghost proceed naturally, and further, hat they are consubstanta, oaqual ant eoeternat withthe Father and with each other, Reply to the First Objection, Hilary f speaking of the necesity that denotes violence: this i evident fom the words thet follow: Not fed by natural neces, since he lle 0 bgt the Son ‘Reply to the Second Objection. “There is not an ante ‘edent ‘will in God in respect of anything whatsoever ; hocause everything that God ever wills he haa willed from eternity. But his willis concomitant with every good that in him and creatures: for he will himself to be and the ‘creature to ba Ttis, however, precedent or anterdent in point of time with reference to creatures sone whe have ho existed from eternity. His intellect 18 precedent at ‘regards those eternal acts Which are denominated as terin- ating in creatures, such as government, predestination fnd the like. But the generation of the Son is neither & ‘reature nor doos it signify an act terminating ina creature Therefore with regard to it God's will is not antecedent either in time or in our way of thinking, but only cm comitant, Reply to the Thied Objection, Just as the at of the Odors) OF GOD'S GENERATING POWER 4 Intec seems to follow the ac ofthe wn fa Cormac by the sv the other hal the tet thn Ar gems to fll the ac ofthe intel, a a th Trifeobect namely the pod arto ofered toy the intalet."Ttance we should go em ndetely aes we tome to sop eit in the acto Ue itll inte ak the wll Tat we canna come to sop saan ae the frit whee objet prsipored to i at. “Users Ins come ton stopin an act of te tlc, ala ek ich proent frm the nat naturally nay oto be Commanded hy the wil It ein his way thi be Som of Go procera the Word, by an art uf tevin intl ne Tove areauy sate Reply to the Fonnth Objection, ‘The act of tha vi ‘who the princi of hs intlct" ut fat 431s Je procnds rot naturally ut voluntarily. Csquetty some ofthe acta te divine Inlet in Ait tring commanded bythe vine wi ‘Reply tothe fifth Objrton. With regu to thse things to which it can extend by virtue fe set principlen ature des not es! toe termine by aetna din regad to tho thing for eh soe piven te Tot slfce. Convent ly loaner saying at Tork of nares te wnt of ap itligews me Te tenting the efits nf het and cri emsieret into Seives, nen even toe wh sid tat arma eels wre recs hy mae lero al th werkt ome agency of het and eal. tt they ese fly heen tose ect hich wee iyond the power ots rs a heat and cold? sich tthe aangemet of meses {he body of an asia in suche Tt nat Bara Sice this gestation the wero ted Mature conser in Hel, thre is peed or 10 bo determine to mich ation by the wil Tt py le be replied that nature elermited by snelibgfrsome pattoue end. But nn yhich fel hee and aloe ON THE POWER OF GOD (Wasms directed to an end does not require determination fom ‘thou [Reply to the Sixth Objection, The action of the wil prectles the action of nate # we fake them in separate "bjects. Wherefore the action of the entire aferiar nature fs dependent on the vil ofits Governor. Bul in the same subject the action of mature mast needs precede the act of ‘he will For nate i logiealy per tol, since matte in the logical onder comes the frst in n thing’ subsistence, sie the will comes last a8 directing ht thing to its en Yet it doesnot fell that the wil rendered void. Far slthowglt the il fellows the maeural inclination in being termined to that one thing which isthe lst end to which nature inclines, it nevertheless remains tndetermined ith regard to other things, ‘Tale man, for instanes, who desies Inappiness naturally and of necessity, but not other thing ‘Accordingly in God the action of natore precedes the act ‘of the will both natally and logiealy: forthe genetation fof the Son is the prototype of all the productions thet proceed from the divine wil, tht eto say of ll ceatures. Reply to the Seventh Objection, Thovgh all creatures vere made by the Word of God begotten of the Father it nes not follow that if the Word proceeded satwrally, fereatuces also” proceed naturally: "thus although oft intellect knows first principles naturally, it doesnot follow that ows naturally the conelasions deduced eam them. For the will makes use of our nate gle for his or that purpose Keply_ to. the Lighth Objection. . The Father. bag voluntarily, Dut this indicates nothing lee than his enn Comitant wil ‘Reply to the Ninth Objection. 1{ these words are made to refer tothe eternal generation, the Father's love for ths Som ft tobe taken asthe reason but asthe sign of that giving whereby the Father from all eternity gave all things to the Son. For likeness isthe reason of love Reply to the Tenth Objection. Dionysus is speaking of ‘the fonation of ceatutes, ot ofthe generation ofthe Som. ‘Reply to the Eleventh Objection. "The Holy Ghost sad Qa) OF GOD'S GENERATING ROWED to proceed by way of thr wl, horse he procrre by 9 act ‘whieh fs natal an act of thee, nana the toa le ‘of the Father al the Son, For the Holy Gls fs love feven a8 the Son is the Fathar’s Word aapressive of Nim sal Reply to the Twelth Objection. Again this engrment moves only that the Father wile fhe genvrnton of He Se fand this denotes ® concomitant will that regards the seneraton an its abject, nt a8 soietsng weno isthe ‘rine Reply to the Thirteenth Objection, Tuma generation in effected by a nataral force, namely ie generaive per through the medion othe motive power which is subject. {0 the command nf th wil, whereas the generation per fs nat, This doesnot apply te Gor, ands fhe eemperison Reply to the Fonrtrenth Objection. Angustine does wot snoan deny the necaity attaching to frailty a0 the argument suggest, bt the nocesity indncest hy fren Reply tothe Fifteenth Objestion,. When ft ssnid Hat the Soni wil of wll" the nanan 5“ wil of the Father ho fx vill Hence this prepwstion “of denotes the generation Drneiple that isthe tmgettor, an nok. the principe where funeration is elected, which the pint of wr nrg ARIICLE FY Te fourth pint of inginy ie whether ther cnn he sever Sons in God. Tt woul sem that the reply sone i the afmative. "A titan operation th becoming tone ivi is becoming to very inlivicat of the star netane., Move sccording to Damaste (De Fide Oth 29) fm operation of tire, and i i becoming to the Fal Therefore iis orig sto tothe Son and Holy ahost hn ae supposite of the me nature, ul the Son des nko ON THE POWER OF GOD tase hoget himaelf since, according to Augustine, nothing can generate itself. Thetefore he begets another Son, 20 that {in God there can be severa! Son. ‘2 The Pather communicated all his might to the Son [Now the genrative power belongs to tho Father's might. ‘Therefore the Son has this power from the Father; and the same coneluson follows 3. The Son isthe perfect image ofthe Father, and this demande perfect likeness. But this would not be the ease iC Ue Son cid wot imitate the Father in all respects. There foe asthe Father begets a Son, 20 aan oes the Son ; and the same conclusion follows “According to Dionysis (Cal. Her. ii likeness 0 ¢ fs more perdee in respect of eonformicy in action than in respect af eonformity in some form thus that whicn both ‘hites and illuminates is more ike the su than that whi Shines only. Now the Son fs most perfectly ike the Father Therefore he is conformed ta him not only inthe powar but also inthe act of generation. Thus wo have the sume co ‘son as before 5. The reason why God after making one creature is able to make another i because his power is neither exhausted nor diminished ia resting, Now in like manner the Father's power ie neither exlausted nor diminished through begetting the Son. Therefore by begetting te Son hie isnot disabled from begetting another: and eo thete can be several Son in Gd 6. But, say yo, the reason why he dows wot beget another Son is thatthe result would be tnecoming, az Augestine points out, namely that here would be an snfite number ‘of divine generation, ifthe Father ware to beget many Sons, oF the Son to boget grandsons to the Father, and s0 tn.--On the eantray nothing in God is potential but what fs aloo actual, loa he were imperfect. Therefore i€ itis potential that the Father beget several sons, aa nothing rise to prevent it, there wll be several Sons in God. 7. It belongs to the nature of that which is generated to rocond in Hones to the generator. Now ae the Son is Hike the Father, eo also is the Holy Ghost so that the Holy asa OF GOD'S GENERATING POWER, Ghost is tei Sow: an tus there are sever in Goa 8. Avoordng to Ansel (Monat, xxi forthe Rather Deget the Son is weting le but forthe Father tv spe Tish. Now, the Father can ape Wiel. 29 a0 tan the Son and the Uoly Ghost. Phreeone Vather, Sam fad Holy Ghost cet Sms ae he sine anrhion follows. 19 The Fether > sil to beget the Son, Neca he em ceives intellect his se Hkenes. Ghost can do the sane al th we comelsion 0. Power en0yes ety ssenen and the essence of thn Pathe and the San 1 fone powers Thelen it at emcee a ben there in the Holy host. Therefoe even as the Pather by egg the Son sae an el producing « divine pera ine jootinas i ont Festowed in an infinite degree on creature, Whexelore i ‘ould seem that there can be several Sone in 72, No good ca be praseaed hapa wees with another, Now Sonship ia gel pesenre Therefore seemingly his yvtert prioes Se shoal beget 5 13. The Son pe the F Frinhtvesy fom Hight acceding ts Sebrow he Dohme of is ley and te fee of is subatanc,” Nov ee splenlot fan pce a his one thie, ad hn one rt father, And thn seem to bein the yore to theclivine persona, 20 int Une Sem a Fret mate So find hence the same ronson follows td. Paternity belongs to the Father's dignity. at the sae dignity aboth Father's snd Son, Therelorepaterity istecoming tothe Son and eonsequenty the Sot beget6 ON THE POWER OF GOD (asaws 15, Where the power s there the act, But the Son has the power to beget. Therefore be begets ‘hn the contrary thove ereatures are most perfect which ‘contain their entire mater, each ane by itself stone forming & single species. Now a5 material eratures are individ ualged by their matter, so. the person of the Son. is constituted by Sonship. " Thereore, as the Son of God ia ofect Son in God seeing "Sonehip i Inf Further, Augustine says (Contra Masini 7.18, 23) that if tho Father being able to baget di mot beget he wot be ‘envious, But the Son fs not envious. ‘Therefore sing that The docs unt beget, he cannot do so, Consequently the cannot be several Sons in Gad, Again, what xs been said petfectty shout not he set over again. Now the Son is the perfect Word lacking nothing (Augustin, De Trin Yi, 10; vii, 2). Tharefore there ought not to be several ‘Words in God, nor severe! Sons TTanswer that there cannot be several Sons in God : this js proved as follows, ‘The divine persone in sll thi ahsolute. are identical, and. exentilly coincident with ‘ne another: and between them there can be no other distinetion but that founded om the relations, and on no ‘other relationship but that of origin. ‘The reason of this tnt of other relations, some presuppose distinction, sch as equality and likeness, while seme imply inequality such 88 master and servant, and so on. On the other’ hand relations of origin by their very natare denote conformity Theease that which takes is origin from another, as meh bears the likeness thereof, In God, therefore, ther onothing whereby the Son can be distinguished rom the other persons, except the relation of Sonship, which shi personal property, and by vitue of which he is not only the Son ‘but also this supposit or this person, Nov i is impossible for that whereby this particular supposit i individualised to be found in anything ele : otherwise the suppeititsll ‘would be communicable, whichis incompatible with the very nature of an individual, supposit or person, Consequentiy itis utterly imposible that in God there be more Sona er Os4ma OF GODS GENERATING POWER fone, For it casnot be sai that one Sonshipinakes ce ono fer lgially, it would follow that they diet imate or suppose mould be matt i ngple of distinction other than aaton Besides the above, another special recron way be given hy the Father can beget but one Son. Natone iy sete Imined to one elles: and Unrelore, since the Pathe begets the Son by netare, there canbe but one Son begotten ofthe Father. Nor ean it be sid thatthe are several the on Iatter which ie the principle of hupesical dint writin the one spies, Reply to the Fit Objection. Although in the Father St belongs thereto sth elerence atthe same time to the eronal property of tho Father, as statal ainve (A. 9), Serefore it does vot follow tha tls t the Som, who thas the divine nature withoot that propery Reply totheSexyn Ohjation. "he Pater comyncatan to the Sonal that Aivine ight which goo with the livine tate asoltely. But tie generative power gen i the divine nature in conjuncion withthe porsenal property of the Father, as stte Reply to the Third Objection. Au image is ike the cxignal in point of speriet not of elation’ Tc thong the image is produced by someone 1 ges not follow that the orginal i also peerkiond by ccneone Donan nether i likeness properly consider with repad to relation bt vith regard to form ‘Reply to the Fourth Objection, Even as th Son ke the Father inthe vine natnre and nl ie personal [property 0 too i ik him fm an ati tat goes with {he nature provided it doesnot go with a personal propery Such, however isnot jensrtionwhvrloe the game fail Reply to the Fith Objection, Although the Father's egtting the Son yet the Son equal the laity nf6 ON THE POWER OF GOD @atmna that power, for he is infinite intelligence, and nat a Sno creature Hence the covaparison fs, Reply to the Sixth Objection. In avaducto ad absurd, reason for denying the statement ffom which the abst fellows, bat there are alto the reasons for which the abort? fs made manifest, "Hence itis not oly because an inte ‘of generations in God would be the resi, that there ae not more than ane Son in God. Reply. tothe Seventh Objection, The Holy Ghost proceeds after the manner aflove. ow lve does not denote Something that fe stamped and speed with the Ikeness {of the lover or of the beloved, whereas the word expresses the idea ofthe speaker and the ding to whieh that idea corresponds. Consequently, as the Son proceals xs Worl, by the very nature of his‘procession it belongs to itm 19 proceed in likeness to his Hagetter, and thereto he f i Son, and his procession is called a generation, On Ue other hand this belongs to the Holy Chost not by reason sf his procesion, but rather fron a property of the divine nature ; because in Goel there can be noting that is net Gor: so thatthe divine love itself ¢ God, presiely erase it's divine, not because it love, Reply to the Bighth Objection, Ta speak may be taken in to Sones, strictly and broadly. To speat, in strict sense isto uller a word, and then it denotes «notional set and proper to the Father, Augustine employs the (em inthis senso when le says (Trin, vr) thatthe Father alone speaks himcalf. Secondly, f speak may be taken broadly insofar ata person may be ead to speak when he unde stands, and then iti an essential ac. In ths sense Anselin ‘weles(Bonaog. 3) when he says that the Father, Son and oly Ghost spe themseloes® Reply to the Ninth Objection. ven as (Bape in God belongs tothe Father alone, so also dovs lo concave: wher fore the Father alone conceives sown likeness intelloctally although the Son and the Holy Ghiost understand it: becanse ‘ho relation is indicated in the word wmdorstend, except * Bima. Thema. Qaim) OF GOD'S GENERATING POWRR pethape only in our way of thinking: herons bagel Reply to the Tenth Objection, This argument holds in teithout nny relation to 4 property. Such, hummven, i mat generation, wherefore He argument fale Reply tothe Hleventh jection Ty tal thece cam he 9 other than sprite! precession, nel Ui ent bp way intellect and vill Consmqentiy anther divine. person featnot proceed fiom the Holy Ghost, heonnme he precrsls by way of the wal as love, an the Son hy wey. of the intallct a Wort Reply to the Twelfty Objection. A personal ytopesty rust nei be ivsunnica, ae aatet her Ihappiness does tot lemnnd that it sot bo shea with another Reply to the Thitornth jection, THis hoes not necesaly spp i evay respect Reply to the Pottoenth jection. Even a galery in the Father nd fiation in the Son are ee exmuce, 9 too thei dignity and gotness ae on Reply to the Fifteenth Objection. When we spat of the pletion gnsran te pers pees oy tare tee veays. Flat an the gerd of he at ft Hs he foteine gone (reer genctating) is in btn whe Tras the power yenarate, Sally, ne thy gernuton af the passive woice, nd Hvy the pteias genase eee toe generated) lings to rive who. the paste h generated, Thirly, asthe Roran! af an ispepral verb, And then the poicies generis belongs toe eh le power wert he Is actually generated hy another Tn the frat sens the ft geserads init The Lo Init ite im the sound and thin sete” wheteine argument does yrON THE POWER OF GOD (24m. ARTICLE V Ta fith point of inquiey is whether the generative power is included in ‘omnipotence. And seamingly the reply shouldbe in the negetive 1 Omnipatence & becoming to the Son according to the words of the Crd The Father is almighy, the Son ss almighty, the Holy Ghost is almighty. ut the generative power inet hocaming to him. Therefore tf not inloded Jn omnipotence, 2. hugustine (Ewhir. xel) says that God is almighty Deciuse he isa to do whatsoever he wills: so that it would soem to follow that ommipntenceineludes any power that At the command of che wil, Now such i nat the genecalive power: since the Father did not bnget the Son by his wil 45 ve lave shown above (A. 3). Therlore the guterative power does nat belong to omnipotence 4 Omnipotence is attributed to God in the sense tha it extends to all those things that ae im themeelves posable Bot the generation of the Son or the Son himclf comes ‘within the range not of chings posible, but of things neces. sary. Therefore the generative power is not inladed in ‘omnipotence 4. That which belongs to several things in. common ‘elongs to them in sespect of something that is common to all of them. Thus in every triangle the three anges ore together equal to two right engles, and this applies to all triangles jnasmach as they are tianguloe figures, Con- sequently thet which belongs to ona thing alone, belongs to itn respect ofthat which is proper tit. Now omnipotence Js not proper to the Father. Since then the generative power in God belongs to the Father alone, it does ot belong fo him as omnipaten, and consequently isnot included it ‘omipatence 5. Even as there is ane essence of Father and Son, 0 is there one omnipotence. Now it does not pertain ta the GaAs) OF GOD'S GENERATING POWER Son's omaipotence that he be ae to beget. eit does it Belong to the omnipotence of the Wether sod ‘consequently by no means doe the generative pees bel {o omnipotence. 6. Things differing in kind donot come nder the sane heading: thas when Tsay "all dogs * Ten not nine both the dog that barks ail the eantellation, Now the eve tion af the Som and the formation of the other things cha ate the subject-matter of omnipotence are nol ofthe sane Kind. ‘Therefar whon T say: "Gor almighty" Teo not include his poor of generating ‘7. The eubjec-natter of ‘omnipotence i anything. to ‘which omaipotence extenta, Wow in God there 3 ne subjectmatter sccurding to Jerome." Therefore. neither ‘he Son's generation nor the Sow inset is the subject ‘matter of eripotence' and the sem cones fll before 1. According to the Philosopher (Piys. vy, 2) seation cannot ba the dict torn of « recent, nok earaegten ty ‘of an action : unl therefore it cannot hw the wot of & power, sines power connotes direction to an action. Now {generation an Son inply relation in God. ‘Therefore Got power doss not extend to them: sd consequent oo fence does not include the pore to beget. ‘On the contrary Avgustie tays (Conta Masini, 7, 1, 23): If the Feather is able to get @ Sins ogo to hs, where i is omnipotence? Therefore oninipatenes ilies Dogetting. Further, omnipotence ig attributed to Goin respart. tot only of external act, suck at creation, government and the like, which are expressed as terminating extrinially in ther effets, bt also of interior set, such ne inlet and will, For if anyone were to say tat Gol carnal under stand, he would take away from is omnipntencs. Now the Son proceeds as Word hy an act of intelligence, Therefore God's omnipotence is wnigerstond to include the begeting ofthe Son Again, itis a greater Uhing to beget the Son thar ton ON THE POWER OF GOD (40 coats heaven and entth, at the power to create heaven td earth Belongs to omsipotene, auch more, then, toes dhe power to beget the Som Moreover, n'Cvery gone there i «principle to which atl that belong to that ganus are redveal "Now inthe emus of powers the principle ie omnipotence. Therefore ai" power i read Yo otnipotenes and conequetly the generative power iether inlued in ompotene, oF there wil be tno princes in the gents of power, which Is impose Tair that the power fo beget. ngs to the omg tence of the Father, but not to omnipotece simply. This nay be proved 2 Flow Since power is eansderel a beng sooted in the essence au nth principe of action, we mat Jug of tho power nnd action as of the essence.” ‘Now in he divine essen ne Tous note tint, by eeason of ite supreme simplicity, what or si God isi exsece:wherfoe the very relations By whieh the perons are dine one from enor, ten reality the divine exence And though one andthe st {Seence is common tothe three psns, nevertheless felon of one person Hs not common to the three, ov Account of the ppostnin which hese eatin stand to ame another “Tin patemiy ts the divine esence yok galery isnot in the Son, bocase paternity is oppeced fo Sons.” Hence we may say that patemity isthe divin tstene Foran a thi inthe Fate, no ain the Son Because the divine exsance Se notin the same way inthe Feather ab inthe Son Tei in the Som av recived tom futher Init not inthe Father. An although the Fether has peterity which the Son hasnt does wot allow that the Pather haa eomething thatthe Son as not ease the relation, by reson ofa generic wate as soc, isnot 4 thing (aiid), buts poely relative fad alga). That itis something reali dn to the fac tha tf ma cbject whi i iter Heat! with Has in God, ots cause as in creature Whore sine that which ir abscute fo coniion to Father and Son they ate distinc not by some {hing absolute bu by something relative: sad there we Gates) OF GOD'S GENERATING POWER tnust not say that the Rather has something thatthe Son Hrs nol but thal chnching longs to the athe in one eject to the Son i another Te sane then appli to respect, and the grave power danates power with a Cenain eect otha gonesaton Godan, bt ony fs inthe Falher: lke the goesave power nthe fivine omnipotence, bt only an this fin thn Father. Vou {tog ot Talo that the Par isa to do what the Son cand kewl, sung he cannot beget, berate 1 beget fle a relation Keepy tthe Hist Objection. Omnintenen the power to age, but not 20 i i the Sn seve, Reply to the Send Objection, In thse winds Angestine docs intend tooapht ove we meaning ogee, Tmt to inate 9 sgh of owapten eo she Sain Repl to the Tika Chitin. The. psi Wings to these that are woningnt, she even vossey. things mere browgh to belie hy the divine power Hee tit be ifudad vere Me ise psi to thee Tei, oth oh jen, gh et ateclteyconidre i ot proper to the albert fem an conldaretogetien wi spews toe Fathers "Tn the ‘swe way the exes Cot the thr is proper to the Faller, although Got To cnn to he thre pets Teply tothe Filth Objertion. Justa te Une persone lave cme andthe same osenre, ent fn exch ner the fame rlaton, of withthe ume mode of existence and the tame apples 0 omalpotne Reply to the Sich Objection. ‘The generation of the Son and the formation of ereteres are of The sae kind” ON THE POWER OF GOD to.aame not wnivoclly indeed, but only by analogy, ‘Thus Pest (Uom. de Fide xv) says that the Son receives in common With all creatures. In thi sense he i called the Fret vem of every creature (Cols. j, 15), and forthe exme ream his generation may be placed ander one commen head with the production of creature Reply to the Seventh Objection, The generation of he Son is the subjectsmatter of omnipotence; net, however, 50 aa fo. imply that being subject denotes Tiferiosty, but so as subject-matter indicates the abject of power. Reply to the Kighth Objection. The generation of the Son sigaifias the relation by way of ection, and the Son signifies the relation asa aubustent Hypestasis and thus there is no reason why we should not refer emmipotence to these things “The arguments on the other side mersly prove that the ‘omnipotence ofthe Wather includes the power to beget, ARTICLE VE Tue sixth point of inquiry is whether the power to beget is the same nt the power fo create: ail the answer, sea ingly, should be in the negative 1 According. to Damnascene (De Fide Ortho. ji, 27) ‘generation is the operation of work of mature: whereas ‘according to Hilary (De Syne.) eeation is wore of the will. Now will and natire are not one end the. sume Principle, but are opposite members afm division, as stated In Physi, 4,5. Therefore the generative and creative powers are not the ssa 2. Powers are distinguished by heir ats (De Ania i) Now generation and. creation are very diferent act, Therefore the generative and creative powers ate also dlstinet. sams OF GOD'S GENERATING POWER There is es fame bing, Now in nn respect sla the generstive ain! treative powers anit of « same conn redeation, a either do the aetsof generating an renting, nw fand a creatnre. ‘Thetelowe. the generatise and eatien povrers are not the same i ing "e There is no over ono thi What arm ic Now the ereative power logically precedes thy ye power, even e2 the tential prove th ations. tie ‘On the contrary. in Gor! power and eseuice ae Aistint, ‘But there ie only one divine exouce. Theetare there is only one divine power, Theta the powers ft ‘weston are not distinc “Again, God) doos not stn by several means what he is able to do by one. Now Garin ae both to generate an 10 create by one power, aint all the snore sexing tht the generation ofthe Son fs the prototype of Ue prndction of reatures, a Augustine exjsinis the wend, He sre, ad ‘hey wore made (Gen. dit i, 6, 7)" Thad uo any Ha tugat the Word in whore they vised as Dhings tbe mete Therefore the geneative al creative noweis ate bute power T antswer that, 00 sta divine power we mst take es ove apply to the ‘vine ersence. Now relation is relly distint from another on account of the rutual opposition belivean the telatious sich soe veal he Go, nevertheless the relation and the vine essence ate Aistinet not really, st only fpically, sinew there fs ‘opposition between them. Cansequentiy wo rant that there are several bvolute things in Ged, as Some Dave asserted who maintained thal there is a twofold being in God, an eswentinl being and a personal being Theeason is that all bei in God is essential, a the wey persons are constituted ty virtue of that esoential bring Now when we eosider Uhr divine power we find besiee the Power a certain relation fu what fs sabject to that poser6 ON THE POWER OF GOD same ‘Accordingly if we take power in its relation to au esentiat fc, such as intelligence or eration, and power ints telation to a notional act such ms generation, and compare them Aogsther as power, we fine tht they nee one and the same power, oven at nature avd person have bat ove being. And Jet we undestand atthe same time that each power has ite Doculiar telationship to ite respective ect to which i is Sivected. Therefore the ginerative and creative powers axe ‘ove andthe sane power, if we consider them as powers, but they diller in their respective relationships to eileen acts Reply to the First Objection. Although in ereutores nate and ella distinct in God they sxe ove and the ame. —Or we may reply that the creative poner does nol ‘dee the prxpose oil, Hat the power as icere hy the will: whereas the generative pawer acts as inclined by batare. Tut this does “not necestate > intinction’ of Innis, since there if nothing to prevent He same power Trea being ditete to\one att hy the will end inclined 0 another by mature. "Thus our intellect is urged by the vill to belive, and i led by native to undessand Sst Princip TKeply to the Second Objection, The higher the power ‘he wider its scope 99 that diversity of objets does not restire that it shonld be divided : thas the imagination & ‘one power covering all objets of seas, for the pereption ‘of which distinct senses re appropriated. ‘Now the alvin? power is taied shove all others: wherefore a ellference fo acts reqhies no distinction therein, if we consider it as power but God by his one power is able to do all thine Repiy to the Thitd Objection, The generative and creative powers, considered ss to their sbhstance, 90 10 Spek, do not merely admit of a same common predica tion, bnt they sre one and the same thing the analogy ames in through this telatioship to their respective te Reply to the Fourth Objection, ‘There i no order of Sst. tnd second between these powers, except in respect of their sama OF GOD'S CENERATING POWER, ‘neing distnet: go that sock an onde ely in evr thee acts, Hence itis clear thet the gram pver revere the centr pte as generation pede cat But ia relation to the evewes they are rotons {is no onder betwen them