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 |