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.
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. 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 pro parte contra:
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 a third person proceeding by way of mutual charity is to be posited in God.
Thirdly it is asked, whether it is necessary to posit a third person proceeding by way of mutual charity. And that this is so seems clear:
1. John, chapter seventeen1: "That they may be one, just as we are one": the Lord prays and asks unity for the disciples — not unity of nature, but of love through conformity to that supreme unity; but the members of Christ are united by mutual love: therefore in God there is the exemplar of this: thus etc.2
2. Likewise, Jerome, on Psalm seventeen3: "The Holy Spirit is the love which the Father has toward the Son, and the Son toward the Father": therefore it is mutual love.
3. Likewise, this same point is shown by reason: love is more perfect when it is mutual, because if it is not mutual, it limps on one side; but in that love there is supreme perfection and no limping: therefore etc.
4. Likewise, one who does not in turn love a person who loves him rightly and liberally is either unjust or ungrateful: since therefore in God there is no injustice, no ingratitude, it is necessary that mutual love be there.
On the contrary:
1. If there is mutual love, then the Son's love is toward the Father and the Father's toward the Son: therefore the Father receives something from the Son; which is absurd.
2. Likewise, one who loves a person who loves him does what he owes, because this is a debt that must be repaid; therefore if there is mutual love in God, 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, then it is the love of the Father toward the Son; but this love, as Richard4 says, is gratuitous love; similarly there will be the 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, then He is a love mixed of both: therefore not a pure love. And again, since this mixed love is the Son, it seems that the Son is the Holy Spirit, because, as Richard5 says, in the Son there is a love mixed of both.
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 union and rectitude from mutuality, either one cannot posit a person in God to proceed by way of love, or, if such a one proceeds, he proceeds by way of mutual charity.
To the arguments on the contrary side:
To 1. To that which is objected on the contrary side, that then the Son gives something to the Father; it must be said that, from the fact that one loving tends through love into the loved, he gives nothing to him; otherwise we would give something to God when we love Him.
To 2. To that which is objected, that mutual love is owed; it must be said that it is owed, because it is right; but nevertheless 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, but rather the character of rectitude is shown.
To 3. To that which is objected: if mutual, then not unique7; it must be said that this is true in lovers whose affections are diverse; it is not so in God.
To 4. To that which is objected, that it is not pure love; it must be said that it is liberal on each side, and therefore wholly pure. And as for what8 Richard says, that it is owed love and gratuitous love; it must be said that these conditions do not state the manner of loving as regards the love itself, but rather the manner of emanating or of origin as regards the persons.
I. In the solution to objection 4[?], the words expounding the passage of Richard of St. Victor, "they do not state the manner of loving as regards 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 one and the same and most pure, Richard's manner of speaking is to be taken not in a proper but in a metaphorical sense; whence the later Scholastics did not approve it. Cf. Brulifer on this passage of St. Bonaventure.
II. As regards the conclusion, cf. Alex. Hal., 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. — Petrus a Tarantasia, here q. 2, n. 2. — Richard. a Med., here a. 1, q. 3. — Henr. Gand., 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 (John 17:22).
- Pauci codd. ut HIPQ; et sic patet etc.A few codices, e.g. HIPQ, read: and so it is clear, etc.
- Vide lit. Magistri, c. 2. post medium.See the Littera Magistri (Lombard's text), c. 2, after the middle. (The citation, though attributed to Jerome by Bonaventure, is in fact found in the body of Lombard's distinction, c. 2, just past 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.On the Trinity, Bk. V, c. 17 ff. — Shortly after, following iste, the Vatican edition adds ergo, against the testimony of the manuscripts and ed. 1; and slightly later, against many codices (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.Some codices (A F K U Z) with ed. 1 read dilectionis.
- Cod. X obiicitur: nullus amor mutuus est unicus.Codex X reads: the objection is that 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, and then omits Richardus, against the older manuscripts and ed. 1, just as also slightly later it wrongly puts emanandi for amandi. ---