§2 — Generation by Mode of Understanding and Spiration by Mode of Will

§2: Generation by Mode of Understanding and Spiration by Mode of Will

GENERATION BY MODE OF UNDERSTANDING AND SPIRATION BY MODE OF WILL i. The Generation of the Son by Mode of Understanding. — According to the unanimous teaching of Fathers and theologians the proposition that the Father generates His Divine Son by mode of understanding, while not an article of faith, is a sure theological conclusion which is firmly rooted in Sacred Scripture, and cannot be denied without temerity.1 a) The Bible reveals the Second Person of the Divine Trinity not only as ” Filius unigenitus” (i. e., the Onlybegotten Son), but likewise as ” Verbum” or “Logos” (t. e., the Word of God). The only meaning we can attach to the term ” Verbum Dei ” is: Immanent terminus of the knowledge of the Father. Consequently divine Generation must signify the knowledge of the Father bringing forth His Son by an act of the understanding. The purely intellectual character of the act of divine Generation may also be inferred from those Scriptural texts which represent the Son of God as the ” image 2 of the Father,” or as ” begotten Wisdom.” Like ” Logos,” these terms define the mode of generation 1 Prominent among those who denied it were Durandus and Hirscher. 2 Imago, eUwr, 202 THE GENERATION OF THE SON 203 as purely spiritual, or, more specifically, as intellectual. It is in this sense that the Fathers, so far as they touch upon the subject at all, interpret the Scriptural teaching concerning the ” Logos.” Thus St. Gregory of Nazianzus tersely declares: ” The Son is called Logos, because His relation to the Father is the same as that of the [immanent] word to the intellect.” 8 And St. Basil: “Why Word? In order that it may become manifest that it proceedeth from the intellect. Why Word? Because it is the likeness of the Begetter, which in itself reflects the whole Begetter, even as our word [concept] reflects the likeness of our whole thought.” 4 St. Augustine goes into the matter even more deeply. He says: ” Tamquam seipsum dicens Pater genuit Verbum sibi aequale per omnia; non enim seipsum integre perjecteque dixisset, si aliquid minus aut amplius esset in eius Verbo, quam in ipso — Accordingly, as though uttering Himself, the Father begat the Word equal to Himself in all things; for He would not have uttered Himself wholly and perfectly, if there were in His Word anything more or less than in Himself.” 5 b) A theological reason may be found in the circumstance that the Processions in the Godhead are only conceivable as purely spiritual and immanent vital processes.6 God is a pure Spirit, and there are but two known modes of purely spiritual operation, i. e., understanding and willing. Our own mind, which is in itself infecund and derives its knowledge of generation altogether from the realm of organic life, can scarcely form an idea of the eminent fecundity of 3 Or. 30, apud Migne, P. G., 407. Many additional Patristic XXXVI, 129. texts in Petavius, De Trinitate, II, 4 Horn,, 16, 3. 11; VI, 5 sqq. 5 St August., De Trinitate, XV, 9 Cf r. S. Thorn., S. TheoL, xa, 14, 23. Haddan’s translation, p. qu. 27, art. x. 14

the Infinite Intellect, and is consequently inclined to conceive the operation of the divine understanding and will as something exclusively essential and absolute. But once assured by Revelation of the existence of two Processions within the Godhead (genera&io and spiratio), we cannot but connect the one with the intellect and the other with the will. Now we know that divine Generation depends on the intellect rather than the will, because the Son of God has been revealed to us as ” Logos.” This immanent process in the Godhead naturally points to the most perfect analogue which the Blessed Trinity has in the intellectual life of man. According to the teaching of St. Augustine,7 man’s self-knowledge corresponds to the process of divine Generation, his selflove to the process of divine Spiration. The human Ego unfolds itself, as it were, in three directions. First it duplicates itself in its self-consciousness and, without destroying the identity of the Ego-substance, opposes the thinking Ego to the Ego thought. The thinking Ego, as the terminus a quo, represents the begetting Father, while the thought Ego, as the terminus ad quern, illustrates the Son. Out of the reciprocal comprehension and interpenetration of both — despite the opposition existing between them, they are not really distinct — there spontaneously burgeons forth self-love, which, as the fundamental law of the human will, completes the immanent spiritual process and furnishes a faint image of the Holy Ghost. In thus trying to bring the mystery nearer to our understanding, we must not, however, lose sight of the fact that no real trinity is possible in the spiritual life of the creature, for the obvious reason that 7 Supra, p. 197,

the two intrinsic termini of self-knowledge and self-love are no hypostases but mere accidents.8

2. The Spiration of by Mode of Will. — In arguing that the Spiration of takes place by way of volition, some theologians content themselves with the argumentum exclusionis. The Generation of the Son having been assigned to the intellect, they say, there remains only the will to account for the origination of the Holy Ghost. These writers seem to overlook the fact that Revelation furnishes positive as well as negative proofs in support of this doctrine. a) Under the so-called Law of Appropriations, no external operations can be predicated of any Divine Person except such as are intrinsically related to that particular Person’s hypostatic character. This constitutes the Appropriations a sure criterion for determining the personal character of each of the Divine Persons. The attributes of omnipotence and creation are appropriated to the Father, for the reason that, in regard to productions ad intra, He is at the same time apxn avapxos and apxn rijs apxrys. In the same way the works of wisdom are appropriated to the Son, because He is Hypostatic Wisdom. If, then, the works of love are attributed to the Holy Ghost, it must be because He is love, because He proceeds from love as His principle or source; — not, it is true, from that essential Love which is common to all three Divine Persons,0 but from the • Cfr. S. Thorn., Contr. Gent., IV, • Cfr. i John IV, 8: “He that ti. loveth not, knoweth not God: for God it charity.’

2o6 DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA reciprocal notional love of Father and Son, of which the immanent product is Hypostatic Charity, i. e., the Person of the Holy Ghost. Love being the fundamental affection of the will,10 must proceed from the Father and the Son by mode of will (per modum voluntatis). b) The fact that Holy Scripture attributes the proper name ” Spiritus” and the epithet “Sanctus” to the Holy Ghost, will serve to confirm this conclusion. As a personal appellation the term ” Holy Spirit/’ like ” Father ” and ” Son,* must be taken in a relative sense, as * spiratus” or ” spiratione productus” In its absolute sense * Spirit 99 is predicable of the Godhead as such. Cfr. John IV, 24: God is a spirit.” But in a nature which, like God’s, is purely spiritual, Spiration, as opposed to intellectual Generation, can signify nothing else than an act of the will. This becomes still clearer when we consider that Spiration is an analogous term derived from the realm of nature, in which breath or wind is indued with motive power, which in the spiritual realm has its counterpart in the operation of the will. If, therefore, is called “breath of God” (halitus Dei), the reason is that Father and Son breathe per modum voluntatis. Since “the emission of the breath from the heart, notably in the act of kissing, gives a most real expression to the tendency of love towards intimate and real communion of life and an outpouring of soul into soul,“11 we can well understand why St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, and St. Bernard of Clairvaux ventured to refer to as ” osculum Patris et FUU.” 12 10 Cfr. S. Thorn., Contr. Cent., IV, 19. 11 Schecben. Cfr. Wilhclm-Scannell’s Manual, I, 331-332. 12 Cfr. also St Bonaventure: ” Spirare in spiritualibus solius est omoris; et quoniam amor potest spirari recte et ordinate, et sic est THE SPIRATION OF Analyzing the epithet “Sanctus,” we find that it does not designate the absolute sanctity of the Blessed Trinity as such, but, relatively, the personal character of the Third Person; in other words it is synonymous with * procedens ex principio sancto. Now, sanctity is an attribute of the will, as wisdom is an attribute of the intellect. Divine sanctity formally consists in ” God’s love for Himself.” 18 Hence ” Holy Ghost ” is synonymous with ” Hypostatic Love.” The Eleventh Synod of Toledo (A. D. 675) formally identifies sanctity with love when it says: ” Spiritus Sanctus … simul ab utrisque processisse ntonstratur, quia caritas sive sanctitas amborum esse agnoscitur — is shown to proceed from both, as He is acknowledged to be the love or sanctity of both.* 14 The Fathers express themselves in a similar manner. Thus St. Augustine says: * Cum Pater sit spiritus et Filius spiritus, et Pater sanctus et Filius sanctus, proprie tamen ipse vocatur Spiritus Sanctus, tamquam sanctitas substantialis et consubstantialts amborum — Though the Father is a spirit and the Son is a spirit, and though the Father is holy and the Son is holy, yet He [the Third Person] is properly called Holy Spirit, because He is the substantial and consubstantial holiness of both [the Father and the Son].“15 The Greek Fathers compare the act of divine Spiration to ” a special form of substantial emanation, analogous to purus, ideo persona ilia, quae est amor, non tantum dicitur Spiritus, sed Spiritus Sanctus — To breathe in matters spiritual belongs solely to love; and because love can be rightly and properly breathed, and thus is pure; therefore the Person who is Love, is not only called Spirit, but Holy Spirit.” Comment, in Quatuor Libros Sent., I, dist. 10, qu. 3. lsCfr. Pohle-Preuss, God: His Knowability, Essence, and Attributes, pp. 256 sqq. 14 Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiridion, n. 277. is De Civitate Dei, XI, 24. 208 DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA the emanation which takes place in plants side by side with generation, and is effected by the plants themselves and their products, viz., the emission of the vital sap or spirit of life in the form of fluid oily substances in a liquid or ethereal state, such as balsam and incense, wine and oil, and especially the odor or perfume of the plant, which is at the same time an ethereal oil and the breath of the plant.” 16 c) The epithet “gift of God” (donum Dei, 8«>pc& ®cov), which, following the lead of Sacred Scripture, many Fathers ascribe as a personal attribute to the Holy Ghost, also plainly indicates the mode of His procession. A gift supposes as its principle love of pure benevolence on the part of the giver, and consequently the Holy Ghost, considered in His personal attribute of “donum Dei/’ cannot originate in the Intellect, but must spring from Love, that is, from the Divine Will. St. Thomas explains this luminously as follows: “Donum proprie est datio irreddibilis, id est, quod non datur intentione retributionis et sic importat gratuitam donationem. Ratio autem gratuitae donationis est amor; ideo enim damus gratis alicui aliquid, quia volumus ei bonum… . Unde cum Spiritus Sanctus procedat ut amor, … procedit in ratione doni primi — A gift, properly speaking, is something given without expectation of a quid pro quo; but the reason why one gives freely is love; for if we give something to some one without expecting an equivalent, it is because we wish him well… . Therefore, since proceeds by mode of love. … He proceeds after the mania Scheeben, Dogmatik, Vol. I, p. Serap., 3, n. 3: ” This salve is the 870 (Wilhelm-Scannell’s Manual, breath of the Son, the perfume and Vol. I, p. 329). Cfr. Athanas., Ad the figure of the Son.”

ner of the first gift.” 17 St. Augustine says: ” Non dicitur Verbutn Dei nisi Filius, nec donum Dei nisi Spiritus Sanctus — The Son and none other is called the Word of God, and the Holy Spirit and none other the gift of God.” 18 He founds upon this distinction the thesis that cannot be identical with the Son: ” Exiit non quomodo natus, sed quomodo datus, et ideo non dicitur Filius — For the Spirit came forth not as born, but as given; and so He is not called Son.” »

3. The Essential Difference Between Generation and Spiration. — There is between Generation and Spiration a marked distinction, similar to the one between intellect and will. a) To enable the human mind to penetrate as deeply as possible into the sublime mystery of the Blessed Trinity, the Schoolmen raised the question: In how far can the notional cognition of the Father be conceived as generation in the strict sense of the term ? Can it be said that ” knowing ” is synonymous with ” begetting ” ? Modern authorities on the philosophy of language have made the interesting discovery that, in the parent language from which the Indo-Germanic family derives its descent {viz.: Sanskrit), GEN is the root of two distinct word-groups, which denote “knowing” and “begetting.” Compare, e. g., in Greek, yiyvofmi and ycwac* with ytyvwTKw; in Latin, gigno with cognosco. ” Conceptus” may signify either “concept” (idea) or “conception ” in the physiological sense. Our English word 17 S. Thiol, 1a, qu. 38, art. a. 19 Dc Trinit., V, 14, 15. i%De Trinit., XV, 17, ap.

2io DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA “conception/’ too, is used to describe both the act or process of forming an idea or notion of a thing, and the impregnation of an ovum. In the Semitic family of languages these two notions are also closely related and expressed by the same verb; cfr., e. g,, Adam vero cognovit VT uxorem suam Hevam — And Adam knew Eve his wife. 20 A still surer way of arriving at the point we are trying to make, is to analyze the concepts underlying these various terms. Generation is defined as * origo viventis a principio vivente coniuncto in similitudinem naturae ex vi ipsius productionis,* 21 which may be rendered into English as follows: Generation is the production of one living being by another living being, by communication of substance, resulting in a similarity of nature in progenitor and progeny vi productionis, i. e., from the very mode of production.22 The concept of generation, therefore, contains four essential marks: ( i ) The origin of one living being from another living being. Consequently the inanimate exudation of plants and animals, the growth of hair and nails in corpses, etc., cannot be called “generation.” (2) The vital process of nature by which that which is generated proceeds from the substance of the generative principle. Hence such processes as the creation of the universe and the origin of Eve cannot be called ” generation.” (3) Similarity of nature in the being which is begotten and the being which begets. This eliminates spontaneous generation, so-called, or heterogeny. (4) An immanent tendency in the progeny to resemble its progenitor. Hence, e. g., the likeness which a child bears to his 20 Gen. IV, x. 22 Cfr. Wilhelm-Scannell, Manual 21 Cfr. S. Thorn., S. Theol., la, •/ Catholic Theology, Vol. II, pp. qu. 37, art. 2. 102 sq.

GENERATION AND SPIRATION father is not accidental, but results from the act of generation itself. b) The notional understanding of God the Father possesses all of these distinctive momenta. In the first place, the begetting Father and the begotten Son are both living persons, identical in nature with the absolute divine life. The communication of life takes place in the vital mode of nature, as the Divine Nature itself constitutes the ” principiutn quo ” and the Father the * principium quod* of generation. Thirdly, as both Sacred Scripture and Tradition attest, the Son is the most perfect likeness of the Father and His most adequate utterance. And since this absolute essential likeness is rooted in the very mode of origination itself, viz.: an assimilative tendency in the notional understanding of the Father, the fourth condition, too, is verified. This last-mentioned note is by far the most important, for it alone ultimately differentiates divine Generation from Spiration. It is peculiar to the act of understanding, and to that act alone, that it tends to assimilate the object of knowledge with the knower, and thereby elevates even the lowest and basest object of cognition, (e. g. matter), to the spiritual plane of the cognizing principle. Thus the concept “tree,” for example, is as spiritual as the conceiving intellect itself. Hence the well-known Scholastic axiom: ” Cognitum est in cognoscente non per modum cogniti, sed per modum cognoscente — Whatever is received by the intellect, is received in the manner, not of the thing known, but of the knowing intellect.” Volition or love, on the other hand, is ecstatic in its effect, that is, it transports the lover as it were beyond himself and transforms him into the object of his affection. It is for this reason that the intrinsic value of love increases or di 

minishes in proportion to the value or dignity of its object; which explains the ennobling influence of the love of God as the supreme good, and the degrading effects of sinful love. St. Thomas describes the difference between understanding and willing with his usual clearness as follows: ” There is this difference between the intellect and the will, that the intellect is actuated because the object known is in the intellect according to its likeness. The will, on the other hand, becomes actuated, not because it contains within itself any likeness of the object willed, but because it has a certain inclination towards that object/’ 28 c) In respect of the second mode of procession, i. e., Spiration, it must first of all be observed that the Holy Ghost, too, is a living Person, who derives His origin from a living Spirator; that He has His essence by a vital process from the Divine Substance itself; and, lastly, that by virtue of His (onoovala) He is a perfectly adequate likeness of the two Divine Persons by whom He is breathed. The fourth and discriminative mark of generation — namely an immanent essential tendency or inclination to produce a being of like nature — does not, however, apply to Spiration. For since Spiration is not understanding but love, it lacks that assimilative tendency which is the essential note of generation. Consequently Spiration is not Generation.24 28 ” Haec est differentia inter in* tellectutn et voluntatem, quod inteU lectus sit in actu per hoc, quod res intellecta est in intellectu secundum suam sitnilitudinem. Voluntas autem fit in actu, non per hoc quod aliqua similitudo voliti sit in voluntate, sed ex hoc quod voluntas habet quondam inclinationem in rem volitarn* S. Theol., ia, qu. 27, art. 4. 24Cfr. S. Thorn., De Pot., qu. a, art. 4, ad 7: * Cum Filius procedat per modum verbi, ex ipsa ratione suae processionis habet, ut procedat in similem speciem generantis, et sic quod sit Filius et eius processio generatio dicatur. Non autem Spiritus Sanctus hoc habet ratione suae processionis, sed magis ex proprietate divinae naturae: quia in Deo non potest esse aliquid, quod non sit Deus; et sic ipse amor divinus Deus SPECULATIVE PROBLEMS 213 d) From all of which it is plain that there can be in the Godhead but one Son and one Holy Ghost. The Logos-Son, as the adequately exhaustive Word of the Father, utters the Father’s infinite substance so perfectly that the generative power of the Paternal Intellect completely exhausts itself, and there is no room left for a second, third, etc., Son or Logos. Similarly, Father and Son mutually love each other in a manner so absolutely perfect that represents the infinite, and therefore exhaustive, utterance of their mutual love. This cuts the ground from under the feet of the Macedonians, who sophistically charged the Catholic dogma of the Trinity with absurdity by alleging that it implies the existence of a divine grandfather, a divine grandchild, and so forth.25

4. Two Speculative Problems. — There is a subtle and purely speculative question as to what are the objects of notional, in contradistinction to essential, understanding and love. Is the Logos merely the utterance of the divine self-knowledge? or is He also the expression of God’s knowledge of His creatures? And further: Is the personal expression of God’s love for Himself only? or is He also the expression of God’s love for the created universe? a) The problem involved in the first question must be solved along these lines: If it is true that all essential knowledge, and hence the very nature of God, would cease to be if God had no divine self-comprehension est, inquantum quidem divinus, non 25 Cfr. S. Thorn., S. TheoL, IS, inquantum amor.” qu. 30, art. a.

(cognitio comprehensive^ sui) embracing His Essence and attributes, or no knowledge of all the possibles (scientia simplicis intelligentiae),2tf among which must be reckoned all created things before their realization; then the notional cognition of the Father must have its essential and necessary object chiefly in these two kinds of divine knowledge. For whatever is essential and absolutely necessary to the very being of the Godhead, cannot play a purely subordinate and unessential part in the generation of the Logos. Theologians all admit this principle in the abstract; but in explaining and interpreting it there is no real agreement among the different schools beyond the proposition that the Logos proceeds from the notional cognition of the primary and formal object of the Divine Intellect, vis.: the Essence and attributes of God.27 Extreme views on the subject were held by Scotus and Gregory of Valentia. Scotus limits the notional understanding by which the Father begets the Logos, strictly to the absolute essence of God. According to Gregory of Valentia it includes as a necessarily co-operating factor the contingent universe with all its creatures. Both are wrong. Scotus forgets that one of the essential factors in the production of the Logos is a knowledge of all possibles as well as of the three Persons of the Blessed Trinity. Gregory of Valentia does not distinguish with sufficient clearness between God’s necessary and His free knowledge. The contingent and accidental world of creatures, which undoubtedly forms one of the objects of divine omniscience, must assuredly be reflected in the Hypostatic Concepts Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God: His 27 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, op. ext., pp. Knowability, Essence, and Attri- 338 sq. butes, pp. 329 sqq.

tion or Logos, as object of the ” scientia libera’*; but in such manner that the adequacy and perfection of the Logos would suffer no impairment even if the created universe did not exist. Indeed it is through the eternally pre-existing Logos that all existing things were made.28 Scotus, on principle, excludes from the paternal act of Generation all creatural being, including the purely possible. Puteanus holds that Paternity, Vasquez that Paternity and Filiation, and Turrianus that, besides these, passive Spiration is comprised as a supplementary object in that notional act by which the Father utters Himself adequately in His “Word.” The Thomists extend the scope of God’s notional understanding to the whole realm of His essential knowledge. St. Augustine taught that the essence of the Logos comprises precisely the same wisdom that is comprehended within the essential knowledge of the Triune God,20 and St. Thomas expressly declares: “The Father, by understanding Himself, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and all other things contained within His knowledge, conceives the Word, and thus the entire Trinity and every created being are uttered in the Word.” 80 The Angelic Doctor, as Billuart 81 points out, in this passage does not refer to the actually existing creatures, but only to the purely possibles (as objects of the scientia simplicis intelligentiae), in as much as they are reflected in the world of divine ideas as necessary, not as free objects of divine knowledge. As free objects of divine knowledge they are, de facto, also contained 28 Cfr. John I, 3, 10. Trinitas Verbo ’ dicatur/ et etiam 29 Supra, p. 203. omnis creatura.” S, TheoL, ia, qu. 80 ” Pater enim intelligendo se et 34, art 1, ad 3. Filium et Spiritum Sanctum et om- 81 De SS. Trinitatis Mysterio, nia alia, quae eius scientia continen- diss. 5, art. 3. tur, concipit Verbum, ut sic iota

in the “Word of God,” but only concomitanter et per accidens. * Quia Pater principaliter dicit se,* observes St. Thomas, ” generando Verbum suum, et ex consequent dicit creaturas [existentes], ideo principaliter et quasi per se Verbum refertur ad Patrem, sed ex consequent et quasi per accidens refertur ad creaturam; accidit enim Verbo, ut per ipsum creatura dicatur — Since the Father, in begetting His Word, utters Himself principally, and the [existing] creatures incidentally, the Word is principally, and as it were per se, referred to the Father, and only consequently, and as it were by accident, to the creature; for it is only by accident that the creature is uttered through the Word.” 82 St. Augustine says: ” The Father spake nothing that He spake not in the Son. For by speaking in the Son what He was about to do through the Son, He begat the Son Himself by whom He should make all things.” 8S This passage does not contradict what we have asserted, because the archetype and exemplar of the universe about to be created was eternally present in the Logos as the living concept of creation.84 Another difficulty has been formulated thus: The Logos owes His existence to the generative knowledge of the Father; consequently He cannot be conceived as existing prior to the act of paternal Generation. Similarly, the Person of does not exist logically without the Father and the Son, and consequently 82 S. Thorn., De Veritate, qu. 4, srt. 4. 88 ” Nihil dixit Deus, quod non dixit in Filio. Dicendo enim in Filio, quod facturus erat per Filium, ipsum Filium genuit, per quern facer et omnia” Tract, in loa., 21, n. 4. Browne’s translation, Homilies on the Gospel according to St. John, Vol. I, p. 327. 84 For a more detailed development of this thought we must refer the reader to the dogmatic treatise on Cod the Author of Nature and the Supernatural, which will form the third volume of the present series of dogmatic text-books. SPECULATIVE PROBLEMS 217 cannot contribute to the production of the Logos. This difficulty, which is considered unsolvable by some divines, arises from confusing temporal succession with succession as to origin. The Three Divine Persons are absolutely coeternal. Hence the Logos and the Holy Ghost, despite their ” posterioritas originis” can form essential ingredients of the Father’s intellectual act of Generation from everlasting. For the rest, as Suarez justly remarks, “Potest esse prior existentia visionis, quam ret visae; nam si Deus potest intueri futuras creaturas prius duratione, immo aeternitate, quam ipsae existant, cur non poterit Deus ut sic videre personas prius ratione vel origine, quam producanturf — A vision may exist prior to the object seen; for if God is able to envisage future creatures temporally and even eternally before they exist, why should He not also be able to see the Persons in [their] relation or origin before they are produced ? ” 35 b) Following out the analogy, it may be asked: Which are the objects embraced by the love of Father and Son that produces the Holy Ghost? According to Billuart,86 proceeds from the notional love of all that is necessario et formaliter lovable in the Godhead; that is, first of all, from the love which the Spirator bears for His own essence, i. e.9 the Supreme Good; secondly, from the love He has for His attributes, which are really identical with the Divine Essence, and, lastly, from His love for the individual Divine Persons themselves. Although the real principle of the production of is the mutual love of the Father and the Son, we are not free to reject the love of the 85 De Trinitate, IX, 5. 3« 86 De SS. Trinitatis Mysterio, diss. 5, art. 8, qu. 3.

2i8 DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA Spirator for the Person Spirated (the Holy Ghost), as an essentially co-operative factor on the ground that cannot possibly furnish the subject-matter of an act of which He is the result or product. Some theologians exaggerate this difficulty, but it is as easily solved as the one we have considered a little farther up. The Spirator ‘s love for creatures (irrespective of whether they are already created, or, as mere possibles, remain to be created in the future), can add its quota in the production of only concomitanter et per accident, because the notional love which produces is an essential and necessary love, whereas God’s love for His creatures is entirely free, quite as free as His determination to give them being.87 As regards God’s love for merely possible creatures (i. e., such as will never come into being), many divines hold that their essential goodness co-incides with the Divine Essence, which is their exemplary cause; and that, consequently, since they seem to lack a proper, independent goodness and amiability of their own, these possible creatures do not contribute towards the production of the Holy Ghost.88 We can not share this view. Having previously espoused the opinion that the goodness proper to creatures is not identical with God’s own goodness,88 consistency compels us to adhere to the view that love for the purely possible also enters into that notional act by which the Father and the Son breathe the Holy Ghost. Readings: — St. Thomas, S. TheoL, ia, qu. 27 sqq., and the commentators; Idem, Contr. Gent, IV, 11 (Rickaby in his Eng87C£r. S. Thorn., S. Thiol., xa, 80 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God: His qu. 37, art. 2, ad 3. Knoutobility, Essence, and Attri* 88 Cfr. Oswald, Gottes Dasein, butes, pp. 440 tq. We sen und Eigenschaften, p. 213. Paderborn 1887.

lish version of the Summa contr. Gent, omits this chapter); ♦Franzelin, De Deo Trino, thes. 26-31; Kleutgen, De Ipso Deo, L II, qu. 4, art. 2-3, Ratisbonae 1881; Oswald, Trinitdtslehre, § 12, Paderborn 1888; *Scheeben, Handbuch der kath. Dogmatik, Vol. I, §§ 1 16-127, Freiburg 1873 (contains a wealth of speculative thoughts). 15