Article 3 — On the order between procession and relation in God

The third point of inquiry concerns the order between procession and relation in God. (Parallel texts: ST I.42.3; In I Sent. 12.1; 20.3; Contra errores Graecorum, part 2, ch. 31.)

Obj. 1: And it would seem that in God procession according to the understanding is prior to relation. For the Master says, in Sentences I, distinction 27, that the Father is always Father because he always has begotten the Son. (Peter Lombard, Sentences, bk. 1, d. 27 (PL 192:594).) Now, “generation” signifies a procession, and “father” signifies a relation. Therefore, according to understanding, procession is prior to the relations in God.

Obj. 2: The Philosopher says that relations result from actions or quantities. (Aristotle, Metaphysics 5.15, 1020b32–1021b4.) But it is plain that the divine relations do not result from quantity. Therefore, according to the mode of understanding, they follow from action. Now, processions in the divine persons are designated through the mode of personal actions. Therefore, the divine processions precede the relations according to understanding.

Obj. 3: The absolute is prior to the relative, just as one is prior to many. Now, actions approach more absolutes than relations. Therefore, they are prior according to understanding.

Obj. 4: Every relative is spoken of as toward-another. Now, there cannot be another where there is no distinction. Therefore, relation presupposes distinction. But in God distinction in the divine persons is according to origin, inasmuch as one person proceeds from another. Therefore, in God the processions precede the relations according to understanding.

Obj. 5: According to understanding, every procession precedes its terminus. Now, filiation, which is the relation of the Son, is the terminus of nativity, which is his procession. Therefore, the Son’s procession precedes filiation. But filiation and paternity not only in nature and time but also in understanding are simultaneous, because the one relative cannot be understood without the understanding of the other. Therefore, the Son’s nativity and a fortiori his generation, which is the act of the Father, precede paternity according to understanding. And consequently, the processions in God simply speaking precede the relations according to understanding.

On the contrary (1), according to the understanding, the person precedes the personal action. Now, the divine relations constitute the persons, while the processions are, as it were, personal actions. Therefore, the relations are prior the processions according to understanding.

Furthermore (2), a procession must be of something from something else, for just as nothing generates itself such that it might exist, according to Augustine, so nothing proceeds from its very self. (Augustine, On the Trinity 1.1 (PL 42:819–22).) Wherefore, in God procession requires distinction. But there is no distinction in God except by the relations. Therefore, in God procession presupposes relation.

I answer that there is no order without distinction: hence where there is no distinction according to a reality but only one according to the mode of understanding, there can be only order according to the mode of understanding. Now, in God there is no distinction according to a reality except that of the persons relative to each other, and of the opposite relations. Wherefore, in God there is no real order except as regards the persons, between whom, according to Augustine, there is an order of nature inasmuch as one is from another, not one prior to another. (Augustine, Against Maximinus 4 (PL 42:746).)

Now, in God processions and relations are not distinct according to reality but only according to the mode of understanding. Whence also Augustine says that it is proper to the Father that he has begotten the Son; whereby he gives us to understand that to beget the Son is the property of the Father; (Fulgentius, On the Faith, to Peter the Deacon 1.2 (PL 40:755–61).) nor is there any other property besides paternity that is said to be the personal property of the Father. Consequently, we are not to look for a real order between the procession and the relation, but only for an order according to the mode of understanding.

Now, just as in God relation and procession are the same thing according to reality, and they do not differ except only according to account, so too the relation itself, although but one according to reality, is nonetheless many according to the mode of understanding. For we understand the relation itself as constitutive of the person, and yet it does not do this insofar as it is a relation; this is clear from the fact that, in human realities, relations do not constitute persons, since relations are accidents, but a person is something subsistent in the genus of substance, and a substance cannot be constituted by an accident. But in God, a relation constitutes a person inasmuch as it is a divine relation; for it is the same thing as the divine essence because in God there cannot be any accidents. For a relation, because according to its reality it is the divine essence itself, can constitute a divine hypostasis. Consequently, the mode of understanding whereby a relation is understood as constituting a divine person differs from that whereby a relation is understood as a relation. Wherefore, there is nothing to prevent a relation from presupposing procession as regards one mode of understanding, while the opposite as regards another.

Accordingly, we conclude that if we consider a relation as such, it presupposes the understanding of a procession, whereas if we consider it as constituting a person, then the relation constituting the person from whom the procession occurs is prior, according to understanding, to that procession. Thus, paternity as constituting the person of the Father is prior to generation, according to understanding. On the other hand, the relation that constitutes the proceeding person, even as constituting that person, is posterior to the procession according to understanding, just as filiation is posterior to birth; and this because the proceeding person is understood as the terminus of the procession.

Reply Obj. 1: The Master there is speaking of paternity considered as a relation.

Reply Obj. 2–3: And the same answer applies to the second and third objections.

Reply Obj. 4: In things wherein relations are accidents, relation must presuppose distinction; but in God the relations constitute the three distinct persons.

Reply Obj. 5: Paternity is from the understanding of filiation, and vice versa, insofar as each is considered as a certain relation. And in this sense we say that relations follow the processions in the order of intellect.

Reply Sed Contra: The remaining two objections consider the relations as constituting the persons.