Table of Contents | Words: Alphabetical - Frequency - Inverse - Length - Statistics | Help | IntraText Library
Alphabetical    [«  »]
personating 1
personification 3
personifies 1
persons 1401
perspective 4
perspicuity 1
persuade 13
Frequency    [«  »]
1450 moral
1441 mortal
1423 manner
1401 persons
1399 regard
1390 ways
1375 known
St. Thomas Aquinas
Summa Theologica

IntraText - Concordances

persons

1-500 | 501-1000 | 1001-1401

     Part, Question
1 1, 1 | all without distinction of persons - "To the wise and to the ~ 2 1, 2 | concerns ~the distinctions of Persons; (3) Whatever concerns the 3 1, 6 | the Trinity of the ~divine persons is "the supreme good, discerned 4 1, 8 | is ~said to be in certain persons in a special way by grace, 5 1, 15 | other than the plurality of ~Persons: and this is against the 6 1, 15 | such as those whereby the ~Persons are distinguished, but relations 7 1, 16 | true as seen by different persons at the same ~time.~Aquin.: 8 1, 17 | way many wise and learned persons might be called ~false, 9 1, 21 | OBJ 3: Further, many just persons are afflicted in this world; 10 1, 22 | 2~I answer that, Certain persons totally denied the existence 11 1, 23 | of the ordering of some persons towards eternal salvation, ~ 12 1, 25 | In this matter certain persons erred in two ways. Some ~ 13 1, 27 | PROCESSION OF THE DIVINE PERSONS (FIVE ARTICLES)~Having considered 14 1, 27 | belongs to the Trinity of the persons in God. ~And because the 15 1, 27 | And because the divine Persons are distinguished from each 16 1, 27 | of origin; thirdly, the persons.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[27] Out. 17 1, 28 | the distinction of ~the Persons, and the equality of their 18 1, 29 | Para. 1/4 - THE DIVINE PERSONS (FOUR ARTICLES)~Having premised 19 1, 29 | approach the subject of the ~persons.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[29] Out. 20 1, 29 | First, we shall consider the persons absolutely, and then comparatively ~ 21 1, 29 | other. We must consider the persons absolutely first in ~common; 22 1, 29 | general consideration of the persons seemingly involves four 23 1, 29 | 2) the number of the ~persons; (3) what is involved in 24 1, 29 | involved in the number of persons, or is opposed ~thereto; 25 1, 29 | to our knowledge of the persons.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[29] Out. 26 1, 29 | as we say there are three persons in God, so we say ~there 27 1, 29 | species are not hypostases or persons, these are not the same ~ 28 1, 29 | OBJ 2: As we say "three persons" plurally in God, and "three ~ 29 1, 29 | to ~be taken from those persons who represented men in comedies 30 1, 29 | cavity in the mask. These ~"persons" or masks the Greeks called { 31 1, 29 | Church came to ~be called "persons." Thence by some the definition 32 1, 29 | we use when speaking of persons in God. Therefore ~Richard 33 1, 29 | what? ~the answer is, Three persons." Therefore person signifies 34 1, 29 | word that refers ~to the persons signifies relation." But 35 1, 29 | as when we ~say, "Three persons," or, "one is the person 36 1, 29 | forasmuch as we speak of "three ~persons," so far from the heretics 37 1, 29 | what? we answer, Three persons.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[29] A[ 38 1, 30 | 1/1 - THE PLURALITY OF PERSONS IN GOD (FOUR ARTICLES)~We 39 1, 30 | consider the plurality of the persons: about which ~there are 40 1, 30 | Whether there are several persons in God?~(2) How many are 41 1, 30 | Whether there are several persons in God?~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[ 42 1, 30 | that there are not several persons in God. For ~person is " 43 1, 30 | then there ~are several persons in God, there must be several 44 1, 30 | not make a ~distinction of persons, either in God, or in ourselves. 45 1, 30 | there cannot be ~several persons in God.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[ 46 1, 30 | Therefore there ~are not several persons in God.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[ 47 1, 30 | there exist a number of persons, there must be whole and 48 1, 30 | the Holy Ghost are several persons.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[30] A[ 49 1, 30 | that there are several ~persons in God. For it was shown 50 1, 30 | that there are ~several persons in God.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[ 51 1, 30 | So, as we say, "Three ~persons," they say "Three hypostases." 52 1, 30 | realities - that is, several ~persons. But the absolute properties 53 1, 30 | Hence the ~plurality of persons in God.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[ 54 1, 30 | there are more than three persons in God?~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[ 55 1, 30 | there are more than three persons in God. For ~the plurality 56 1, 30 | God. For ~the plurality of persons in God arises from the plurality 57 1, 30 | Therefore there are four persons in God.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[ 58 1, 30 | there are not only three ~persons in God.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[ 59 1, 30 | are an ~infinite number of persons in God.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[ 60 1, 30 | measure. But the divine persons are immense, as we say in 61 1, 30 | immense." Therefore the persons are not contained within 62 1, 30 | De Trin. vii, 4), ~"Three persons." Therefore there are but 63 1, 30 | Therefore there are but three persons in God.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[ 64 1, 30 | there can be only three persons ~in God. For it was shown 65 1, 30 | shown above that the several persons are the several ~subsisting 66 1, 30 | must needs refer to two ~persons: and if any relations are 67 1, 30 | belong necessarily to two persons. Therefore the ~subsisting 68 1, 30 | to both of the aforesaid persons; or ~one must belong to 69 1, 30 | explained. ~Therefore only three persons exist in God, the Father, 70 1, 30 | constituting as it were the persons; for paternity is the ~person 71 1, 30 | proceeds from the other persons ~who are in God.~Aquin.: 72 1, 30 | things as applied to the persons in God, the notion of measure 73 1, 30 | the magnitude of the three persons is the same (Q[42], ~AA[ 74 1, 30 | undivided; and ~when we say the persons are many, we signify those 75 1, 30 | are many, we signify those persons, and their ~individual undividedness; 76 1, 30 | can be common to the three persons?~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[30] A[ 77 1, 30 | be common to the ~three persons. For nothing is common to 78 1, 30 | nothing is common to the three persons but the ~essence. But this 79 1, 30 | common to all the three persons.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[30] A[ 80 1, 30 | really; otherwise ~the three persons would be one person; nor 81 1, 30 | Three what?" we say, "Three persons," because what a person 82 1, 30 | three when we say "three persons"; for when we ~say "three 83 1, 30 | common in idea to the divine persons, that each of ~them subsists 84 1, 30 | idea to the three divine persons.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[30] A[ 85 1, 30 | and because the divine ~persons have one being; whereas 86 1, 31 | predicated of each one of the ~persons: nor does it signify relation; 87 1, 31 | the determinate ~number of persons. And so the plurality of 88 1, 31 | And so the plurality of persons in God requires that ~we 89 1, 31 | one essence of the three persons, according as trinity may ~ 90 1, 31 | signifies the number of persons of one essence; and on this 91 1, 31 | Trinity, as He is not three persons. ~Yet it does not mean the 92 1, 31 | relations themselves of the Persons, but rather ~the number 93 1, 31 | but rather ~the number of persons related to each other; and 94 1, 31 | the threefold number of persons. "Triplicity" signifies 95 1, 31 | understood both number and ~the persons numbered. So when we say, " 96 1, 31 | times one; but ~we place the Persons numbered in the unity of 97 1, 31 | when we speak of ~three persons, "we do not mean to imply 98 1, 31 | vii) that "in ~the divine persons there is nothing diverse, 99 1, 31 | substance with ~the Trinity of persons; and the error of Sabellius, 100 1, 31 | diversity" or "difference" ~of Persons used in an authentic work, 101 1, 31 | take away the number of persons. Hence Hilary says in the 102 1, 31 | lest we take away from the Persons ~the order of their nature. 103 1, 31 | the society of the three persons; for, as Hilary says (De 104 1, 31 | difference" in the divine persons, as meaning ~that the relative 105 1, 31 | God ~distinction is by the persons, and not by the essence, 106 1, 31 | per se," and of all the persons together; ~for, as we can 107 1, 31 | nevertheless, if plurality of persons did not exist in God, He ~ 108 1, 31 | supposing that several persons were not within Him. ~Therefore 109 1, 31 | the ~Son is common (to the persons). Therefore the same conclusion 110 1, 31 | of ~the Father, the other persons are not excluded by reason 111 1, 32 | KNOWLEDGE OF THE DIVINE PERSONS (FOUR ARTICLES)~We proceed 112 1, 32 | knowledge of the divine persons; ~and this involves four 113 1, 32 | 1) Whether the divine persons can be known by natural 114 1, 32 | attributed to the divine persons?~(3) The number of the notions?~( 115 1, 32 | the trinity of the divine persons can be known by natural 116 1, 32 | the trinity of the divine persons can be known ~by natural 117 1, 32 | things ~about the trinity of persons, for Aristotle says (De 118 1, 32 | passage the distinction of persons is laid down. We ~read, 119 1, 32 | they ~knew at least two persons. Likewise Trismegistus says: " 120 1, 32 | knowledge of the divine persons can be obtained by ~natural 121 1, 32 | procession of the divine persons; ~while some are moved by 122 1, 32 | to prove the trinity of persons by the procession of the ~ 123 1, 32 | Therefore the trinity of persons can be known by natural ~ 124 1, 32 | Therefore the trinity of persons can be ~known by natural 125 1, 32 | the trinity of the divine persons is ~distinguished by origin 126 1, 32 | follows that the trinity ~of persons cannot be known by reason.~ 127 1, 32 | the ~distinction of the persons. Therefore, by natural reason 128 1, 32 | the ~distinction of the persons. Whoever, then, tries to 129 1, 32 | to prove the trinity of ~persons by natural reason, derogates 130 1, 32 | the trinity of ~the divine persons by its proper attributes, 131 1, 32 | attributes appropriated to the persons, as power to the Father, ~ 132 1, 32 | appropriated to the three persons, yet they are said to have ~ 133 1, 32 | think ~that the trinity of persons is adequately proved by 134 1, 32 | knowledge of the divine ~persons was necessary for us. It 135 1, 32 | essence ~or the trinity of the persons. But the notions do not 136 1, 32 | nor the trinity of the persons; for neither can what ~belongs 137 1, 32 | can what belongs to the ~persons be so predicated; for example, 138 1, 32 | themselves. But the divine persons are supremely simple. ~Therefore 139 1, 32 | difference of hypostases [i.e. of persons], in the three properties; 140 1, 32 | considering the simplicity of the persons, ~said that in God there 141 1, 32 | to be one God and three persons, to those who ask: "Whereby ~ 142 1, 32 | and whereby are They three persons?" as we answer that ~They 143 1, 32 | whereby we may answer that the persons are distinguished; and these ~ 144 1, 32 | in God is related to two ~persons - namely, the person of 145 1, 32 | Ghost would not be two persons. Nor can it be said with 146 1, 32 | Ghost; whereas these two persons are related to the ~Father 147 1, 32 | Holy Scripture, ~yet the persons are mentioned, comprising 148 1, 32 | certain ideas whereby the persons are ~known; although in 149 1, 32 | Reply OBJ 3: Although the persons are simple, still without 150 1, 32 | the proper ideas of the persons can be abstractedly ~signified, 151 1, 32 | the notions ~proper to the persons are the relations whereby 152 1, 32 | because in Him there are three persons, He is called the Trine ~ 153 1, 32 | five notions for the three persons in God, ~there must be in 154 1, 32 | Person. Now the divine persons are multiplied by reason 155 1, 32 | because it belongs to two persons. Three ~are personal notions - 156 1, 32 | notions - i.e. constituting persons, "paternity," ~"filiation," 157 1, 32 | are ~called notions of Persons, but not personal notions, 158 1, 32 | reality; and likewise ~the persons are signified as realities; 159 1, 32 | as ideas notifying the persons. Therefore, although God 160 1, 32 | and trine by trinity of persons, nevertheless He is not ~ 161 1, 32 | different ideas of the ~persons; as we do not say that the 162 1, 32 | 1/1~OBJ 2: Further, the persons are known by the notions. 163 1, 32 | opinion concerning the persons is to be tolerated. Therefore 164 1, 33 | ARTICLES)~We now consider the persons singly; and first, the Person 165 1, 33 | distinguished from all other persons. For as body and soul ~belong 166 1, 33 | the Father from all other persons. ~Hence this name "Father," 167 1, 33 | principle, so also in the divine Persons, in Whom there is no before 168 1, 33 | spiration, as regards the ~persons proceeding from Himself. 169 1, 34 | inasmuch as the divine persons are ~distinguished by origin ( 170 1, 35 | after." But in the divine persons there is no "before" and " 171 1, 35 | in God, belongs to the ~persons. Hence the name "Image" 172 1, 36 | is common to the three ~persons is the proper name of any 173 1, 36 | is common to the three ~persons; for Hilary (De Trin. viii) 174 1, 36 | the names of the divine persons are relative terms, as ~ 175 1, 36 | Three what? we say, Three ~persons." Therefore the Holy Ghost 176 1, 36 | in common ~with the other Persons. For, as Augustine says ( 177 1, 36 | signify one of the three persons, the one who proceeds by 178 1, 36 | be said that the divine Persons are distinguished ~from 179 1, 36 | one essence of the three persons: since everything that is ~ 180 1, 36 | be said that the divine persons are distinguished from ~ 181 1, 36 | cannot distinguish ~the persons except forasmuch as they 182 1, 36 | therefore they do not make two persons, ~but belong only to the 183 1, 36 | Person of ~the Father, two persons proceed, the Son and the 184 1, 36 | But if we consider the persons themselves ~spirating, then, 185 1, 36 | procession of the ~divine persons.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[36] A[ 186 1, 36 | indeterminately for two persons together. Hence there is ~ 187 1, 36 | indistinctly for the two persons as ~above explained.~Aquin.: 188 1, 36 | indistinctly for the two Persons together.~Aquin.: SMT FP 189 1, 36 | Son as from two ~distinct persons, as above explained; whereas 190 1, 36 | proceeds from ~the three persons not as distinct persons, 191 1, 36 | persons not as distinct persons, but as united in essence. 192 1, 37 | the bond between ~the two persons, as proceeding from both.~ 193 1, 38 | nor service in the divine persons. But gift implies a ~subjection 194 1, 39 | Out. Para. 1/2 - OF THE PERSONS IN RELATION TO THE ESSENCE ( 195 1, 39 | which belong to the divine persons absolutely, ~we next treat 196 1, 39 | should say that the three persons are of one essence?~(3) 197 1, 39 | should be predicated of the persons in the ~plural, or in the 198 1, 39 | Whether the names of the persons can be predicated of concrete ~ 199 1, 39 | can be appropriated to the persons?~(8) Which attributes should 200 1, 39 | is ~one essence and three persons, as is clear from what is 201 1, 39 | fact that while the ~divine persons are multiplied, the essence 202 1, 39 | multiplies ~the Trinity of persons," some have thought that 203 1, 39 | person; and yet that the persons are really distinguished ~ 204 1, 39 | are one essence and ~three persons.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[39] A[ 205 1, 39 | hypostases." So the divine persons are named "supposita" or ~" 206 1, 39 | must be said that the three persons are of one essence?~Aquin.: 207 1, 39 | right to say that the three persons are of one ~essence. For 208 1, 39 | essence. Therefore the three persons are not of one essence.~ 209 1, 39 | therefore to say that the three persons are of one nature.~Aquin.: 210 1, 39 | fitting to say that the three persons are of one essence.~Aquin.: 211 1, 39 | not say that ~the three persons are "from one essence [ex 212 1, 39 | between the essence and the persons ~in God. But prepositions 213 1, 39 | wrong to say that the three persons are "of ~one essence [unius 214 1, 39 | Now, to say that the three persons are of one essence or ~substance, 215 1, 39 | not be said that the three persons are of ~one substance.~Aquin.: 216 1, 39 | Arians, ~means that the three persons are of one essence.~Aquin.: 217 1, 39 | as the form ~of the three persons, according to our mode of 218 1, 39 | like manner, as ~in God the persons are multiplied, and the 219 1, 39 | one essence of the three persons, and three persons of the 220 1, 39 | three persons, and three persons of the one ~essence, provided 221 1, 39 | many words that the three persons are of one essence, nevertheless 222 1, 39 | by saying that the three ~persons are "of one essence," than 223 1, 39 | essence"; or, the three persons are "of one essence."~Aquin.: 224 1, 39 | So, when we say, "three persons of one ~essence," taking 225 1, 39 | mean if we said, ~"three persons from the same essence."~ 226 1, 39 | the singular of the three ~persons?~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[39] A[ 227 1, 39 | the singular of the three persons, but in the plural. ~For 228 1, 39 | Godhead." But the three persons are three who have Godhead. ~ 229 1, 39 | Godhead. ~Therefore the three persons are "three Gods."~Aquin.: 230 1, 39 | account of the ~plurality of persons. Therefore the three persons 231 1, 39 | persons. Therefore the three persons are "several Gods," and ~ 232 1, 39 | predicated of the three persons in the ~plural. For Augustine 233 1, 39 | the plural of the ~three persons.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[39] A[ 234 1, 39 | But we say there are three persons. So for the same reason 235 1, 39 | predicated of the three ~persons in the singular only, and 236 1, 39 | predicated of the three persons in the ~plural. The reason 237 1, 39 | predicated of the three ~persons in the singular, and not 238 1, 39 | whereas in the three divine Persons there is but one divine ~ 239 1, 39 | predicated of the three persons plurally, by reason ~of 240 1, 39 | adjunct pertaining to the ~persons; as, for instance, if we 241 1, 39 | which properly belong to the persons, can be ~predicated of this 242 1, 39 | properly belongs to the persons whereby they are ~distinguished 243 1, 39 | more nearly allied to the persons because actions ~belong 244 1, 39 | can ~be taken for all the persons together, inasmuch as it 245 1, 39 | principle in ~all the divine persons. Nor does it follow that 246 1, 39 | Thes. Para. 1/1~Whether the persons can be predicated of the 247 1, 39 | It would seem that the persons cannot be predicated of 248 1, 39 | instance, "God is three ~persons"; or "God is the Trinity." 249 1, 39 | God" as regards the three ~persons is as a general term to 250 1, 39 | seems that the names of the persons ~cannot be predicated of 251 1, 39 | really the same as the three persons. ~Whence, one person, and 252 1, 39 | The essence is the three persons"; so likewise it is true 253 1, 39 | say, "God ~is the three persons."~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[39] A[ 254 1, 39 | should be appropriated to the persons?~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[39] A[ 255 1, 39 | be appropriated ~to the persons. For whatever might verge 256 1, 39 | are common to the three ~persons, may verge on error in faith; 257 1, 39 | not be appropriated to the persons.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[39] A[ 258 1, 39 | to be appropriated to the persons.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[39] A[ 259 1, 39 | understanding, are prior to the persons; as what is common ~is prior 260 1, 39 | be appropriated to the persons.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[39] A[ 261 1, 39 | should be appropriated to the persons. For although ~the trinity 262 1, 39 | although ~the trinity of persons cannot be proved by demonstration, 263 1, 39 | manifestation of the divine ~persons, so also in the same manner 264 1, 39 | manifestation of the divine persons by the use of ~the essential 265 1, 39 | not appropriated to the ~persons as if they exclusively belonged 266 1, 39 | but in order to make the ~persons manifest by way of similitude, 267 1, 39 | were appropriated to the ~persons as exclusively belonging 268 1, 39 | are appropriated to the persons in a ~fitting manner by 269 1, 39 | are appropriated to ~the persons unfittingly by the holy 270 1, 39 | three names proper to the ~persons: the name of the "Father," 271 1, 39 | fittingly appropriated to the persons.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[39] A[ 272 1, 39 | fittingly appropriated to the ~Persons.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[39] A[ 273 1, 39 | or appropriated to ~the persons, but not essence or operation; 274 1, 39 | to the properties of the ~Persons.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[39] A[ 275 1, 39 | impossible hypothesis, the other persons were removed. So the other ~ 276 1, 39 | were removed. So the other ~persons derive their unity from 277 1, 39 | Father. But if the other persons be ~removed, we do not find 278 1, 39 | what exists in the divine persons, and by reason of dissimilitude 279 1, 39 | principle": ~because the divine persons, of Whom the Father is the 280 1, 39 | essence, and not to the persons, so the same is to be ~said 281 1, 40 | Out. Para. 1/1 - OF THE PERSONS AS COMPARED TO THE RELATIONS 282 1, 40 | ARTICLES)~We now consider the persons in connection with the relations, 283 1, 40 | distinguish and constitute the persons?~(3) Whether mental abstraction 284 1, 40 | of the relations from the persons leaves ~the hypostases distinct?~( 285 1, 40 | presuppose the acts of the persons, or contrariwise?~Aquin.: 286 1, 40 | properties are the same as the ~persons.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[40] A[ 287 1, 40 | the properties are not the persons, nor in the persons; ~and 288 1, 40 | the persons, nor in the persons; ~and these have thought 289 1, 40 | properties ~were indeed the persons; but not "in" the persons; 290 1, 40 | persons; but not "in" the persons; for, they said, there ~ 291 1, 40 | forms, as it were, of the persons. So, since the nature of 292 1, 40 | the ~properties are in the persons, and yet that they are the 293 1, 40 | and yet that they are the persons; as we ~say that the essence 294 1, 40 | properties are the same as the persons ~because the abstract and 295 1, 40 | they are ~the subsisting persons themselves, as paternity 296 1, 40 | properties are the same as the persons according to the ~other 297 1, 40 | is one essence in the two persons, so also ~there is one property 298 1, 40 | one property in the two persons, as above explained (Q[30], 299 1, 40 | of identity; but in the persons they exist by mode of identity, 300 1, 40 | determine and distinguish the ~persons, but not the essence.~Aquin.: 301 1, 40 | Thes. Para. 1/1~Whether the persons are distinguished by the 302 1, 40 | It would seem that the persons are not distinguished by 303 1, 40 | distinct by themselves. But the persons ~are supremely simple. Therefore 304 1, 40 | distinction of the divine persons is the primary distinction. 305 1, 40 | distinction. Therefore ~the divine persons are not distinguished by 306 1, 40 | the Trinity of the divine persons."~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[40] A[ 307 1, 40 | distinction. ~So, as the three persons agree in the unity of essence, 308 1, 40 | difference between the divine persons, and these ~are "origin" 309 1, 40 | distinctions of the hypostases or persons as ~resulting therefrom; 310 1, 40 | property. Whence, since the persons agree in essence, it only 311 1, 40 | remains to ~be said that the persons are distinguished from each 312 1, 40 | distinction of the divine persons is not ~to be so understood 313 1, 40 | constitute the hypostases or ~persons, inasmuch as they are themselves 314 1, 40 | themselves the subsisting persons; as ~paternity is the Father, 315 1, 40 | therefore better to say that the persons or hypostases are ~distinguished 316 1, 40 | Para. 1/1~Reply OBJ 1: The persons are the subsisting relations 317 1, 40 | simplicity of the divine persons for them to be ~distinguished 318 1, 40 | Reply OBJ 2: The divine persons are not distinguished as 319 1, 40 | the ~distinction of the persons must be by that which distinguishes 320 1, 40 | mentally abstracted ~from the persons?~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[40] A[ 321 1, 40 | mentally abstracted from the persons. For that to which ~something 322 1, 40 | holds as ~regards the other persons.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[40] A[ 323 1, 40 | idea of the hypostases and ~persons remains; as, for instance, 324 1, 40 | are themselves subsisting persons; thus paternity is the ~ 325 1, 40 | hypostasis, but not the ~persons, remain.~Aquin.: SMT FP 326 1, 40 | distinguished from the other persons, but only as distinguished ~ 327 1, 41 | Out. Para. 1/1 - OF THE PERSONS IN REFERENCE TO THE NOTIONAL 328 1, 41 | ARTICLES)~We now consider the persons in reference to the notional 329 1, 41 | to be attributed to the persons?~(2) Whether these acts 330 1, 41 | means?~(6) Whether several persons can be the term of one notional 331 1, 41 | to be attributed to the persons?~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[41] A[ 332 1, 41 | to be attributed to ~the persons. For Boethius says (De Trin.): " 333 1, 41 | relations, by the names ~of the persons, or by the names of the 334 1, 41 | to be attributed to the persons.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[41] A[ 335 1, 41 | answer that, In the divine persons distinction is founded on 336 1, 41 | of origin in the divine persons, we must attribute ~notional 337 1, 41 | attribute ~notional acts to the persons.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[41] A[ 338 1, 41 | this is common to the three persons; and so those actions which 339 1, 41 | because the notions of the ~persons are the mutual relations 340 1, 41 | mutual relations of the persons, as is clear from what ~ 341 1, 41 | from the relations of the persons ~only in their mode of signification; 342 1, 41 | signify the habitudes of the persons separately after the ~manner 343 1, 41 | vii, 6) that the three persons ~are not from the same essence; 344 1, 41 | when we say that ~the three persons are 'of' the divine essence, 345 1, 41 | another, since the divine persons ~were not made, as stated 346 1, 41 | possible. But the divine ~persons are not regarded as possible, 347 1, 41 | acts, whereby the divine persons proceed, there ~cannot be 348 1, 41 | are common to the ~three persons. But the power of begetting 349 1, 41 | not common to the three ~persons, but proper to the Father. 350 1, 41 | begetting is common to the three persons: but in ~respect of the 351 1, 41 | Para. 1/1~Whether several persons can be the term of one notional 352 1, 41 | be directed to several ~Persons, so that there may be several 353 1, 41 | that there may be several Persons begotten or spirated in ~ 354 1, 41 | would be more ~than three Persons in God; which is heretical.~ 355 1, 41 | by which alone are the ~Persons distinct. For since the 356 1, 41 | distinct. For since the divine Persons are the relations ~themselves 357 1, 41 | the manner in which the persons proceed. ~For the persons 358 1, 41 | persons proceed. ~For the persons proceed naturally, as we 359 1, 41 | perfection of the divine persons. ~For this reason is the 360 1, 41 | in regard to the other persons.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[41] A[ 361 1, 42 | LIKENESS AMONG THE DIVINE PERSONS (SIX ARTICLES)~We now have 362 1, 42 | now have to consider the persons as compared to one another: 363 1, 42 | equality among the divine persons?~(2) Whether the person 364 1, 42 | any order among the divine persons?~(4) Whether the divine 365 1, 42 | 4) Whether the divine persons are equal in greatness?~( 366 1, 42 | becoming to the divine ~persons. For equality is in relation 367 1, 42 | text 20). But in the divine persons ~there is no quantity, neither 368 1, 42 | discrete quantity, because ~two persons are more than one. Therefore 369 1, 42 | becoming to the ~divine persons.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[42] A[ 370 1, 42 | OBJ 2: Further, the divine persons are of one essence, as we 371 1, 42 | of likeness in the divine persons, but not of equality.~Aquin.: 372 1, 42 | reciprocal. But the divine persons cannot ~be said to be equal 373 1, 42 | be found among the divine persons.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[42] A[ 374 1, 42 | is common to the ~three persons; for the persons are distinct 375 1, 42 | three persons; for the persons are distinct by reason of 376 1, 42 | not becoming to the divine persons.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[42] A[ 377 1, 42 | Athanasius says that "the three persons are co-eternal ~and co-equal 378 1, 42 | equality among the divine persons. ~For, according to the 379 1, 42 | greater or less in the divine persons; for as Boethius says (De 380 1, 42 | inequality in the divine persons, they ~would not have the 381 1, 42 | essence; and thus the three persons would not be ~one God; which 382 1, 42 | equality among the ~divine persons.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[42] A[ 383 1, 42 | equality ~in the divine persons is mutual, and so is likeness; 384 1, 42 | Reply OBJ 4: In the divine persons there is nothing for us 385 1, 42 | namely, distinction of ~persons, for nothing can be said 386 1, 42 | for this reason are the persons equal to one another, that ~ 387 1, 42 | likeness in the divine ~persons is not a real relation distinct 388 1, 42 | relations which distinguish the ~persons, and the unity of essence. 389 1, 42 | declares that "all the three persons are ~co-eternal with each 390 1, 42 | 1~Whether in the divine persons there exists an order of 391 1, 42 | seem that among the divine persons there does not exist ~an 392 1, 42 | essence, nor any of the persons, or notions. Therefore there 393 1, 42 | intellect. But in the divine ~persons there exists neither priority 394 1, 42 | Therefore, in the divine persons there is no order of nature.~ 395 1, 42 | exists. ~But in the divine persons there is no confusion, as 396 1, 42 | relations themselves are the persons subsisting in one nature. 397 1, 42 | existence of order in the divine Persons according to ~natural origin.~ 398 1, 42 | distinguished in being. Persons likewise is not a ~universal 399 1, 42 | only one; nor are all the ~persons something greater than only 400 1, 43 | THE MISSION OF THE DIVINE PERSONS (EIGHT ARTICLES)~We next 401 1, 43 | the mission of the divine persons, concerning which ~there 402 1, 43 | sent." But in the divine persons there is nothing that is ~ 403 1, 43 | procession of the ~divine persons is eternal. Therefore mission 404 1, 43 | the origin of the divine persons. For some express only ~ 405 1, 43 | each ~one of the divine persons is sent.~Aquin.: SMT FP 406 1, 43 | except the notions and persons. But mission does not signify 407 1, 43 | ascribed to the divine ~persons. Thus, mission as regards 408 1, 43 | missions ~also of the divine persons should be made manifest 409 1, 43 | apparitions of the divine persons were, however, ~given to 410 1, 44 | procession of the divine persons, we must consider ~the procession 411 1, 45 | of the equality ~of the Persons.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[45] A[ 412 1, 45 | processions ~of the divine Persons are the cause of the processions 413 1, 45 | OBJ 2: Further, the divine Persons are distinguished from each 414 1, 45 | attributed to the divine Persons belongs to them according 415 1, 45 | processions and relations of the Persons. But the causation of creatures ~ 416 1, 45 | attributed to the divine Persons; for in the Creed, to the ~ 417 1, 45 | creatures belongs to the Persons according to ~processions 418 1, 45 | is common to the ~three Persons. Hence to create is not 419 1, 45 | Nevertheless the divine Persons, according to the nature 420 1, 45 | so the processions of the Persons are the ~type of the productions 421 1, 45 | processions of the divine Persons are the cause of ~creation, 422 1, 45 | although common to the three Persons, ~still belongs to them 423 1, 45 | whilst common to the three Persons, ~belongs to them in a kind 424 1, 45 | traces. But ~the trinity of persons cannot be traced from the 425 1, 45 | the ~relations whereby the Persons are distinguished and numbered. 426 1, 45 | processions of the divine Persons are referred to the ~acts 427 1, 45 | necessarily reduced ~to the divine Persons as to their cause. For every 428 1, 45 | the trinity of the divine persons from creatures, as we have 429 1, 45 | The processions of the persons are also in some way the ~ 430 1, 51 | De Civ. Dei xv): "Many persons affirm ~that they have had 431 1, 63 | distinguished according to persons and ~orders. Therefore if 432 1, 63 | Therefore if more angelic persons stood firm, it would appear ~ 433 1, 68 | setting before ignorant persons ~something beyond their 434 1, 74 | formation, the Trinity of Persons is ~implied. In creation 435 1, 37 | the bond between ~the two persons, as proceeding from both.~ 436 1, 38 | nor service in the divine persons. But gift implies a ~subjection 437 1, 39 | Out. Para. 1/2 - OF THE PERSONS IN RELATION TO THE ESSENCE ( 438 1, 39 | which belong to the divine persons absolutely, ~we next treat 439 1, 39 | should say that the three persons are of one essence?~(3) 440 1, 39 | should be predicated of the persons in the ~plural, or in the 441 1, 39 | Whether the names of the persons can be predicated of concrete ~ 442 1, 39 | can be appropriated to the persons?~(8) Which attributes should 443 1, 39 | is ~one essence and three persons, as is clear from what is 444 1, 39 | fact that while the ~divine persons are multiplied, the essence 445 1, 39 | multiplies ~the Trinity of persons," some have thought that 446 1, 39 | person; and yet that the persons are really distinguished ~ 447 1, 39 | are one essence and ~three persons.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[39] A[ 448 1, 39 | hypostases." So the divine persons are named "supposita" or ~" 449 1, 39 | must be said that the three persons are of one essence?~Aquin.: 450 1, 39 | right to say that the three persons are of one ~essence. For 451 1, 39 | essence. Therefore the three persons are not of one essence.~ 452 1, 39 | therefore to say that the three persons are of one nature.~Aquin.: 453 1, 39 | fitting to say that the three persons are of one essence.~Aquin.: 454 1, 39 | not say that ~the three persons are "from one essence [ex 455 1, 39 | between the essence and the persons ~in God. But prepositions 456 1, 39 | wrong to say that the three persons are "of ~one essence [unius 457 1, 39 | Now, to say that the three persons are of one essence or ~substance, 458 1, 39 | not be said that the three persons are of ~one substance.~Aquin.: 459 1, 39 | Arians, ~means that the three persons are of one essence.~Aquin.: 460 1, 39 | as the form ~of the three persons, according to our mode of 461 1, 39 | like manner, as ~in God the persons are multiplied, and the 462 1, 39 | one essence of the three persons, and three persons of the 463 1, 39 | three persons, and three persons of the one ~essence, provided 464 1, 39 | many words that the three persons are of one essence, nevertheless 465 1, 39 | by saying that the three ~persons are "of one essence," than 466 1, 39 | essence"; or, the three persons are "of one essence."~Aquin.: 467 1, 39 | So, when we say, "three persons of one ~essence," taking 468 1, 39 | mean if we said, ~"three persons from the same essence."~ 469 1, 39 | the singular of the three ~persons?~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[39] A[ 470 1, 39 | the singular of the three persons, but in the plural. ~For 471 1, 39 | Godhead." But the three persons are three who have Godhead. ~ 472 1, 39 | Godhead. ~Therefore the three persons are "three Gods."~Aquin.: 473 1, 39 | account of the ~plurality of persons. Therefore the three persons 474 1, 39 | persons. Therefore the three persons are "several Gods," and ~ 475 1, 39 | predicated of the three persons in the ~plural. For Augustine 476 1, 39 | the plural of the ~three persons.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[39] A[ 477 1, 39 | But we say there are three persons. So for the same reason 478 1, 39 | predicated of the three ~persons in the singular only, and 479 1, 39 | predicated of the three persons in the ~plural. The reason 480 1, 39 | predicated of the three ~persons in the singular, and not 481 1, 39 | whereas in the three divine Persons there is but one divine ~ 482 1, 39 | predicated of the three persons plurally, by reason ~of 483 1, 39 | adjunct pertaining to the ~persons; as, for instance, if we 484 1, 39 | which properly belong to the persons, can be ~predicated of this 485 1, 39 | properly belongs to the persons whereby they are ~distinguished 486 1, 39 | more nearly allied to the persons because actions ~belong 487 1, 39 | can ~be taken for all the persons together, inasmuch as it 488 1, 39 | principle in ~all the divine persons. Nor does it follow that 489 1, 39 | Thes. Para. 1/1~Whether the persons can be predicated of the 490 1, 39 | It would seem that the persons cannot be predicated of 491 1, 39 | instance, "God is three ~persons"; or "God is the Trinity." 492 1, 39 | God" as regards the three ~persons is as a general term to 493 1, 39 | seems that the names of the persons ~cannot be predicated of 494 1, 39 | really the same as the three persons. ~Whence, one person, and 495 1, 39 | The essence is the three persons"; so likewise it is true 496 1, 39 | say, "God ~is the three persons."~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[39] A[ 497 1, 39 | should be appropriated to the persons?~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[39] A[ 498 1, 39 | be appropriated ~to the persons. For whatever might verge 499 1, 39 | are common to the three ~persons, may verge on error in faith; 500 1, 39 | not be appropriated to the persons.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[39] A[


1-500 | 501-1000 | 1001-1401

Best viewed with any browser at 800x600 or 768x1024 on Tablet PC
IntraText® (V89) - Some rights reserved by Èulogos SpA - 1996-2007. Content in this page is licensed under a Creative Commons License