Annotated Thomist (Patreon)

Whether the procession of love in God is generation?

C.f., ST.I.Q30.A2.Rep2;  Sent.I.D13.Q1.A3; Sent.III.D8.Q1.A1.Rep8; SCG4.C19; QDePot.Q2.A4.Rep7; QDePot.Q10.A2.Rep22;  CT.BookI.C46

If we are to more profoundly investigate the notion of the "volitional concept" (for lack of a better term), we understand that it is static, but dynamic. For, the interior enunciation produced by love draws the man to his beloved. This is unlike knowing which can be described as more or less static in relation to the object known. Whereas the intellect reproduces a version of the known within himself, the will produces an "inclination" within the lover.

Thus, if we are to describe this using certain analogical concepts, what could be better than to describe it as "Spirit?" For, the spirit of a man "internally impels" him towards action, so also does the "volitional concept" in its dynamic relation with the beloved. Thus, we may describe this terminus of the second procession as "Spirit."

Yet, could this not still be referred to as generation? No, it cannot. We appropriately call the procession of intellection "generation" since it re-produces within the intellect a version of itself, in us it is merely "conceived," yet, it is perfect in God and thus said be be "begotten." Yet, when we contemplate the procession of love, this is not the aspect that most clearly comes into consideration. Rather, what comes into consideration is the dynamic impulse as described above. Thus, we describe the terminus of this procession as "spirit" (breath) and the procession itself as "spiration" (breathing).

Yet, one may insist by saying "the Spirit is given the Divine nature, now, 'generation' merely signifies the communication of one's nature to another, thus, the Spirit too ought to be referred to as 'generated' or begotten."

In reply to this, we ought to recognize that words can be used in a number of ways. If, by generation, we merely meant to signify the communication of the Divine nature, the Spirit would, as the Son, be begotten. Yet, this is not the case. For, we do not use the term "generation" to signify procession of any sort, rather, we use it to signify the MANNER OF PROCESSION, i.e., procession that takes place after the MANNER of likeness, which is carried out by the intellect. While the procession of love communicates likeness, the MANNER in which it communicates is that of the impulse of love, not the MANNER of the likeness of intellection.

An a corollary of the doctrine that St. Thomas presents here, we may correctly judge on the later controversy amongst the Thomists (which was briefly mentioned earlier), i.e., whether God's nature is subsistent intellection. The fact that the intellectual procession is spoken of as the "natural procession" verifies the position so aptly defended by John of St. Thomas.

Respondeo: The procession of love in God ought not to be called generation. In evidence whereof we must consider that the intellect and the will differ in this respect, that the intellect is made actual by the object understood residing according to its own likeness in the intellect; whereas the will is made actual, not by any similitude of the object willed within it, but by its having a certain inclination to the thing willed. Thus the procession of the intellect is by way of similitude, and is called generation, because every generator begets its own like; whereas the procession of the will is not by way of similitude, but rather by way of impulse and movement towards an object.

So what proceeds in God by way of love, does not proceed as begotten, or as son, but proceeds rather as spirit; which name expresses a certain vital movement and impulse, accordingly as anyone is described as moved or impelled by love to perform an action.