Dist. 10, Art. 1, Q. 3
Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity · Distinction 10
Quaestio III
Utrum in divinis ponenda sit tertia persona procedens per modum mutuae caritatis.
The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation below.
Tertio quaeritur, utrum sit necesse ponere tertiam personam procedentem per modum mutuae caritatis. Et quod sic, videtur.
1. Ioannis decimo septimo1: «Ut sint unum, sicut et nos»: Dominus orat et petit discipulis unitatem, non naturae, sed dilectionis per conformitatem ad illam summam unitatem; sed membra Christi uniuntur per amorem mutuum: ergo in divinis est exemplar huius: sic etc.2
2. Item, Hieronymus super Psalmum decimum septimum3: «Spiritus sanctus est amor, quem habet Pater in Filium, et Filius in Patrem»: ergo est amor mutuus.
3. Item, ratione ostenditur hoc ipsum, quia perfectior est dilectio, quando est mutua, quia si non est mutua, ex altera parte claudicat; sed in illa dilectione est summa perfectio et nulla claudicatio: ergo etc.
4. Item, qui non amat vicissim amantem se recte et liberaliter aut est iniquus, aut ingratus: cum ergo in divinis nulla sit iniquitas, nulla ingratitudo, necesse est ibi esse amorem mutuum.
Contra:
1. Si est amor mutuus, ergo Filii in Patrem et Patris in Filium: ergo Pater aliquid recipit a Filio; quod absurdum est.
2. Item, qui amat amantem facit quod debet, quia hoc est debitum, quod rependendum est; ergo si est in divinis amor mutuus, ergo est debitus: ergo non est liberalissimus, quod absurdum est.
3. Item, nullus amor mutuus est amor unicus; haec per se nota est; ergo si Spiritus sanctus est amor mutuus, unicus non est amor.
4. Item, si amor est mutuus, ergo est amor Patris ad Filium; sed iste, ut dicit Richardus4, est amor gratuitus, similiter erit Filii ad Patrem; et iste, ut ipse dicit, est amor debitus: ergo si tertia persona procedit per modum amoris gratuiti et debiti, ergo est amor ex utroque permixtus: ergo non amor purus. Et iterum, cum iste amor sit Filius, videtur quod Filius sit Spiritus sanctus, quia, ut dicit Richardus5, in Filio est amor ex utroque permixtus.
Conclusio
Conclusio. Tertia persona procedit per modum mutuae caritatis.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod cum amor perfectionem delectationis6 et unionis et rectitudinis habeat ex mutualitate, aut non est personam ponere in divinis procedere per modum amoris, aut, si procedit, procedit per modum mutuae caritatis.
Ad argumenta in contrarium:
Ad 1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur in contrarium, quod tunc Filius aliquid dat Patri; dicendum, quod ex hoc, quod amans per amorem tendit in amatum, nihil dat ei; alioquin nos daremus aliquid Deo, cum ipsum amamus.
Ad 2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod amor mutuus est debitus; dicendum, quod debitus est, quia rectus; sed tamen amor non considerat debitum. Unde quantumcumque debeatur, dum tamen debitum non attendatur, non minuitur ratio liberalitatis, immo ostenditur ratio rectitudinis.
Ad 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur: si mutuus, non unicus7; dicendum, quod verum est in amantibus, quorum affectus sunt diversi; non sic est in Deo.
Ad 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non est amor purus; dicendum, quod ex utraque parte liberalis est, et ideo omnino purus. Et quod8 dicit Richardus, quod est amor debitus et gratuitus; dicendum, quod istae conditiones non dicunt modum amandi circa amorem, sed dicunt modum emanandi sive originis circa personas.
I. In solut. ad 4. verba locum Richardi a S. Victore exponentia: «Non dicunt modum amandi circa amorem etc.» hunc sensum habent: Pater habet amorem gratuitum, quia non est ab alio, Filius amorem permixtum, quia a Patre procedit et cum ipso producit Spiritum sanctum, cui attribuitur amor debitus, quia non producit personam, sed ipse producitur. Cum vero amor in tribus personis sit idem et purissimus, locutio Richardi sumenda est non in sensu proprio, sed metaphorico; unde Scholastici posteriores eam non probabant. Cfr. Brulifer ad hunc locum S. Bonaventurae.
II. Quoad conclusionem cfr. Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 43. m. 5. — Scot., I. Sent. d. 12. q. 1, et d. 32. q. 1. ad 3. 4. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 2. — B. Albert., hic a. 7. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. n. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 3. — Henr. Gand., S. a. 61. q. 4, et a. 54. q. 6. n. 47. — Biel, I. Sent. d. 12. q. 2. nota 3.
---
Question III
Whether in God a third person is to be posited proceeding by way of mutual charity.
Thirdly it is asked whether it is necessary to posit a third person proceeding by way of mutual charity. And that it is so, it seems.
1. John 171: «That they may be one, even as we are»: the Lord prays and asks for the disciples a unity, not of nature, but of love through conformity to that highest unity; but the members of Christ are united by mutual love: therefore in God there is an exemplar of this: and so on.2
2. Likewise, Jerome on Psalm 173: «The Holy Spirit is the love which the Father has toward the Son, and the Son toward the Father»: therefore it is a mutual love.
3. Likewise, this same point is shown by reason, because love is more perfect when it is mutual, since if it is not mutual, it limps on the other side; but in that love is the highest perfection and no limping: therefore, and so on.
4. Likewise, he who does not love in return one who loves him rightly and liberally is either unjust or ungrateful: since therefore in God there is no injustice and no ingratitude, it is necessary that there be mutual love.
On the contrary:
1. If there is mutual love, therefore [it is] of the Son toward the Father and of the Father toward the Son: therefore the Father receives something from the Son; which is absurd.
2. Likewise, he who loves one who loves him does what is owed, because this is a debt which is to be repaid; therefore if in God there is mutual love, therefore it is owed: therefore it is not most liberal, which is absurd.
3. Likewise, no mutual love is a unique love; this is self-evident; therefore if the Holy Spirit is mutual love, He is not a unique love.
4. Likewise, if the love is mutual, therefore it is the love of the Father toward the Son; but this love, as Richard says4, is gratuitous love; likewise will there be [love] of the Son toward the Father; and this, as he himself says, is owed love: therefore if the third person proceeds by way of gratuitous and owed love, therefore it is a love mixed from both: therefore not pure love. And again, since this love is the Son, it seems that the Son is the Holy Spirit, because, as Richard says5, in the Son there is a love mixed from both.
Conclusion
Conclusion. The third person proceeds by way of mutual charity.
I respond: It must be said that, since love has the perfection of delight6 and of union and of rectitude from mutuality, either one is not to posit a person in God to proceed by way of love, or, if one does proceed, it proceeds by way of mutual charity.
To the arguments to the contrary:
To 1. To what is objected to the contrary, that then the Son gives something to the Father; it must be said that from the fact that the lover by love tends toward the beloved, he gives nothing to him; otherwise we would be giving something to God when we love Him.
To 2. To what is objected, that mutual love is owed; it must be said that it is owed because it is right; yet love does not consider what is owed. Hence however much may be owed, so long as the debt is not attended to, the character of liberality is not diminished; rather, the character of rectitude is shown.
To 3. To what is objected: if mutual, not unique7; it must be said that this is true among lovers whose affections are diverse; it is not so in God.
To 4. To what is objected, that it is not pure love; it must be said that from each side it is liberal, and therefore wholly pure. And as to what8 Richard says, that it is owed and gratuitous love; it must be said that these conditions do not state the mode of loving with respect to the love itself, but state the mode of emanation or of origin with respect to the persons.
I. In the solution to [argument] 4, the words expounding the passage of Richard of St. Victor — «They do not state the mode of loving with respect to the love, etc.» — have this sense: the Father has gratuitous love, because He is not from another; the Son has mixed love, because He proceeds from the Father and together with Him produces the Holy Spirit, to whom is attributed owed love, because He does not produce a person, but is Himself produced. But since love in the three persons is the same and most pure, Richard's expression must be taken not in a proper sense, but in a metaphorical one; whence the later Scholastics did not approve it. Cf. Brulefer (Stephanus Brulefer, †1499) on this passage of St. Bonaventure.
II. As to the conclusion, cf. Alex. of Hales, Summa, p. I, q. 43, m. 5. — Scotus, I Sent. d. 12, q. 1, and d. 32, q. 1, ad 3, 4. — St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 2. — Bl. Albert, here a. 7. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, n. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1, q. 3. — Henry of Ghent, Summa a. 61, q. 4, and a. 54, q. 6, n. 47. — Biel, I Sent. d. 12, q. 2, nota 3.
---
- Vers. 22.Verse 22.
- Pauci codd. ut HIPQ; et sic patet etc.A few codices, such as HIPQ: and so it is clear, etc.
- Vide lit. Magistri, c. 2. post medium.See the text of the Master [Lombard], c. 2, after the middle.
- Libr. V. de Trin. c. 17. et seqq. — Mox post iste Vat. praeter fidem mss. et ed. 1 additur ergo, et paulo infra contra multos codd. ut A G K T Z etc. et ed. 1 habetur ille loco iste.[Richard of St. Victor], Book V, On the Trinity, c. 17 and following. — Shortly after iste, the Vatican edition, against the testimony of the manuscripts and ed. 1, adds ergo; and a little further on, against many codices such as A, G, K, T, Z, etc., and ed. 1, it has ille in place of iste.
- Ex antiquioribus mss. et ed. 1 supplevimus Richardus.From the older manuscripts and ed. 1 we have supplied Richardus.
- Nonnulli codd. ut A F K U Z cum ed. 1 dilectionis.Several codices, such as A, F, K, U, Z, together with ed. 1, [read] dilectionis [love].
- Cod. X obiicitur: nullus amor mutuus est unicus.Codex X [reads]: it is objected: no mutual love is unique.
- Vat. loco quod habet cum, deinde omittit Richardus, refragantibus vetustioribus mss. et ed. 1, sicuti et paulo infra ponit perperam emanandi pro amandi.The Vatican edition, in place of quod, has cum, then omits Richardus, against the older manuscripts and ed. 1; likewise a little further on it wrongly puts emanandi for amandi.