← Back to Distinction 10

Dist. 10, Art. 2, Q. 1

Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity · Distinction 10

Textus Latinus
p. 200

Articulus II

De propriis Spiritus sancti.

Quaestio I

Utrum amor sive caritas sit proprium Spiritus sancti.

Circa primum, quod caritas sit proprium Spiritus sancti, sic ostenditur:

1. Augustinus decimo quinto de Trinitate1: «Sicut in illa Trinitate non solus Spiritus sanctus est spiritus, tamen proprie dicitur Spiritus sanctus; ita, quamvis Pater sit caritas et Filius caritas, tamen proprie caritas dicitur illa persona, sicut proprie dicitur Spiritus sanctus».

2. Item, hoc idem ostenditur per eundem super primam Canonicam Ioannis2, ubi intendit proprietatem Spiritus sancti invenire, et ad hoc perducit sermonem, quod Spiritus sanctus est caritas.

3. Item, ratione ostenditur illud idem: quia3 illud est proprie proprium personae, quod dicit modum emanandi ipsius; sed amor est huiusmodi, ut probatum est4: ergo etc.

4. Item, sicut verbum se habet ad Filium, ita amor ad Spiritum sanctum; sed verbum est proprium Filii: ergo et amor proprium Spiritus sancti.

Contra:

1. Augustinus in decimo quinto de Trinitate5: «Pater est caritas, et Filius est caritas, et Spiritus sanctus est caritas, et simul omnes una caritas»: ergo caritas non dicitur proprie de Spiritu sancto.

2. Item, amor non procedit aliter quam amando: ergo cum amor de necessitate insit amanti, et Pater et Filius amando producant Spiritum sanctum, impossibile videtur, quod ei conveniat proprie. Aut ergo Spiritus sanctus non est persona, aut non est amor proprie, sive6 non procedit per modum amoris.

3. Item, sicut se habet sapientia ad Filium, ita amor ad Spiritum sanctum; sed sapientia non est Filii proprium, immo appropriatum solum: ergo et amor similiter Spiritus sancti: ergo etc.

4. Item, omne7 quod dicitur proprie, importat aliquam relationem: ergo si amor proprie dicitur, importat relationem. Quaero: ad quid? aut ad amantem, aut ad amatum8. Si ad amantem, ergo amans non est amor; similiter si ad amatum, tunc ergo Spiritus sanctus aut non amaret aut non amaretur; hoc autem est inconveniens9.

p. 201
Conclusio. Caritas, personaliter accepta, est proprium Spiritus sancti; essentialiter accepta dicit complacentiam; notionaliter vero concordiam in spirando.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod dilectio in divinis potest accipi et accipitur necessario essentialiter, notionaliter et personaliter: essentialiter, quia quilibet diligit se10; notionaliter vero, quia Pater et Filius concordant in spirando Spiritum sanctum, quae concordia amor sive dilectio est; personaliter vero, quia ille qui producitur per modum perfectae liberalitatis, non potest esse nisi amor sive dilectio. Unde essentialiter dictum dicit complacentiam, notionaliter vero concordiam in spirando, personaliter vero processum in11 illa concordia.

Huius autem12 exemplum potest poni in amore creato, quo sponsus et sponsa se diligunt. Nam diligunt se amore sociali ad convivendum; diligunt se ulterius amore coniugali ad prolem procreandam, et illa13, si produceretur ex sola concordiae voluntate, amor esset; nunc vero est amatus, nisi dicatur amor per emphaticum loquendi modum. In divinis vero vere et proprie amor est, habens rationem amoris et hypostasis: amoris propter hoc, quia ex voluntate liberalissima primo procedit per modum perfectae liberalitatis; hypostasis, quia cum distinguatur a producente et non possit distingui essentialiter, distinguitur personaliter; non sic autem est in amore creato.

Ad argumenta pro parte contra:

Ad 1 et 2. Ex hoc patet illud quod obiicitur primo et secundo, cum dicitur, quod14 est proprietas amantium sive producentium; quia accipitur notionaliter; nam prout ab eis procedit, non potest esse proprietas, sed persona distincta. Unde non omnino est similis processus amoris creati et amoris increati15, quia hic est proprietas, ibi hypostasis et substantia.

Ad 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de sapientia, dicendum, quod non est simile; quia sapientia non dicit respectum ad alium, et ideo semper de se dicitur ad se et est essentiale, nisi approprietur; sed amor respectum dicit ad eos, qui amore nectuntur. Unde sicut verbum est proprium Filii, non appropriatum16, quia connotat respectum ad dicentem; sic etiam amor sive caritas non tantum est appropriatum, verum etiam proprium Spiritus sancti. Et sicut procedit Filius a Patre per modum verbi, ita Spiritus sanctus per modum amoris. Et ex hoc est, sicut melius patebit infra17, quod haec admittitur: Pater et Filius diligunt se Spiritu sancto; non autem, quod Pater sit sapiens sapientia genita.

Ad 4. Ad illud quod ultimo obiicitur: ad quid dicit respectum? dicendum, quod ad amantes, secundum quod hoc quod est amantes tenetur notionaliter, sicut praetactum est18. Uno enim modo diligere se idem est quod concorditer spirare; hoc modo Spiritus sanctus non est amans, quia non spirat. Ipse autem obiicit de essentiali19, qui non dicit egressum ab amante, sed solum dicit complacentiam voluntatis, qua quilibet amat et amatur.

Scholion

Doctrina huius quaestionis est sententia communis: Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 43. m. 3. a. 1, et q. 67. m. 3. a. 3. — Scot., q. unic., et d. 32. q. 1. — S. Thom., I. Sent. d. 27. q. 2; S. I. q. 37. a. 1. — B. Albert., hic a. 4. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 1. — Aegid. R., hic 1. princ. q. 2. — Henr. Gand., S. a. 38. q. 2. n. 8. — Dionys. Carth., de hac et seq. hic q. 1.

---

English Translation
p. 200

Article II

On the proper [characters] of the Holy Spirit.

Question I

Whether love or charity is proper to the Holy Spirit.

Concerning the first point: that charity is proper to the Holy Spirit is shown thus:

1. Augustine, On the Trinity book fifteen1: "Just as in that Trinity not the Holy Spirit alone is spirit — yet He is properly called Holy Spirit; so, although the Father is charity and the Son is charity, nevertheless that person is properly called charity, just as He is properly called Holy Spirit."

2. Likewise, the same is shown by the same author on the First Canonical Epistle of John2, where he means to find the property of the Holy Spirit, and he leads the discourse to this conclusion: that the Holy Spirit is charity.

3. Likewise, this same point is shown by reason: because3 that is properly proper to a person which states the manner of its emanating; but love is of this sort, as has been proved4: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, as word stands to the Son, so love stands to the Holy Spirit; but word is proper to the Son: therefore love also is proper to the Holy Spirit.

On the contrary:

1. Augustine, in On the Trinity fifteen5: "The Father is charity, and the Son is charity, and the Holy Spirit is charity, and all together they are one charity": therefore charity is not properly said of the Holy Spirit.

2. Likewise, love does not proceed otherwise than by loving: therefore since love must of necessity be in the lover, and the Father and the Son by loving produce the Holy Spirit, it seems impossible that love should befit Him properly. Therefore either the Holy Spirit is not a person, or He is not properly love, or6 He does not proceed by way of love.

3. Likewise, as wisdom stands to the Son, so love stands to the Holy Spirit; but wisdom is not proper to the Son, but only appropriated: therefore love likewise is only appropriated to the Holy Spirit: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, every7 term predicated properly imports some relation: therefore if love is said properly, it imports a relation. I ask: to what? — either to the lover, or to the loved8. If to the lover, then the lover is not love; similarly if to the loved, then the Holy Spirit either would not love or would not be loved; but this is incongruous9.

p. 201
Conclusion. Charity, taken personally, is proper to the Holy Spirit; taken essentially, it expresses complacency; taken notionally, it expresses concord in spirating.

I respond: It must be said that love in God can be taken, and is necessarily taken, essentially, notionally, and personally: essentially, because each [person] loves Himself10; notionally, because the Father and the Son agree in spirating the Holy Spirit, which concord is love or charity; personally, because the one who is produced by way of perfect liberality cannot be other than love or charity. Hence what is said essentially expresses complacency, what is said notionally expresses concord in spirating, and what is said personally expresses the proceeding-forth in11 that concord.

An example of this12 can be set in created love, by which a husband and wife love one another. For they love one another with social love, in order to live together; they love one another further with conjugal love, in order to procreate offspring, and that offspring13, if it were produced from the will of concord alone, would be love; as it is, however, it is the loved, unless it be called love by an emphatic mode of speaking. In God, however, it is truly and properly love, having the character both of love and of hypostasis: of love because, by reason of a most liberal will, it first proceeds by way of perfect liberality; of hypostasis because, since it is distinguished from the producer and cannot be distinguished essentially, it is distinguished personally; but it is not so in created love.

To the arguments on the contrary side:

To 1 and 2. From this is clear what is objected first and second, when it is said that14 [love] is the property of those loving or producing; for it is taken notionally; for as it proceeds from them, it cannot be a property, but a distinct person. Hence the procession of created love and of uncreated love15 is not entirely similar, because the former is a property, while the latter is a hypostasis and substance.

To 3. To what is objected about wisdom, it must be said that it is not similar; because wisdom does not state a relation to another, and therefore is always said of itself in respect of itself, and is essential, unless it be appropriated; but love states a relation to those who are bound together by love. Hence just as word is proper to the Son, not appropriated16, because it connotes a relation to the speaker; so also love or charity is not only appropriated, but truly proper to the Holy Spirit. And just as the Son proceeds from the Father by way of word, so the Holy Spirit by way of love. And from this it is, as will appear better below17, that this is admitted: the Father and the Son love one another by the Holy Spirit; but not that the Father is wise by begotten wisdom.

To 4. To what is finally objected, "to what does it state a relation?" — it must be said: to those loving, according as the term loving is taken notionally, as has just been touched on18. For in one manner, to love each other is the same as to spirate concordantly; in this manner the Holy Spirit is not loving, because He does not spirate. He, however, who objects, raises the objection from the essential19, which does not state a going-forth from a lover, but only states the complacency of will, by which any [person] loves and is loved.

Scholion

The doctrine of this question is the common opinion: Alex. Hal., Summa p. I, q. 43, m. 3, a. 1, and q. 67, m. 3, a. 3. — Scotus, q. unica, and d. 32, q. 1. — St. Thomas, I Sent. d. 27, q. 2; S. I, q. 37, a. 1. — Bl. Albert, here a. 4. — Petr. a Tar., here q. 2, a. 1. — Richard. a Med., here a. 2, q. 1. — Aegid. R., here principium 1, q. 2. — Henr. Gand., Summa a. 38, q. 2, n. 8. — Dionys. Carth., on this and the following [question], here q. 1.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Cap. 19. n. 37: Sicut non solus est in illa Trinitate vel spiritus vel sanctus... et tamen iste non frustra proprie dicitur Spiritus sanctus. Et ibid. c. 17. n. 31: Ita Spiritus sanctus proprie nuncupatur vocabulo caritatis, cum sit universaliter caritas et Pater et Filius. — Paulo ante, fide mss. et ed. 1, substituimus ostenditur loco ostendit.
    Chapter 19, n. 37: "Just as in that Trinity not He alone is either spirit or holy... and yet He is not without reason properly called Holy Spirit". And in the same work, c. 17, n. 31: "Thus the Holy Spirit is properly designated by the term charity, since both the Father and the Son are universally charity". — Slightly earlier, on the testimony of the manuscripts and ed. 1, we have substituted ostenditur for ostendit.
  2. Tractat. VII. n. 6. Vide et XV. de Trin. c. 17-20. — Paulo ante Vat. contra mss. et ed. 1 omittit primam, et ed. 1 loco idem habet ipsum. Mox aliqui codd. ut GKTWY cum ed. 3 producit loco perducit.
    Tractate VII, n. 6 [Augustine, Tractates on the First Epistle of John]. See also De Trinitate XV, c. 17–20. — Slightly earlier the Vatican edition, against the manuscripts and ed. 1, omits primam, and ed. 1 in place of idem has ipsum. Shortly after, some codices (GKTWY) with ed. 3 read producit in place of perducit.
  3. Ope plurium mss. ut K T Z H et ed. 1 posuimus quia pro quod.
    With the help of many manuscripts (K T Z H) and ed. 1 we have set quia for quod.
  4. Hic, a. 1. q. 2.
    Here [in this distinction], a. 1, q. 2.
  5. Cap. 17. n. 28: Et caritas et Pater dicitur et Filius et Spiritus sanctus, et simul omnes una caritas. In quo textu ed. 1 post omnes addit tres.
    Chapter 17, n. 28: "Both the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are each called charity, and all together they are one charity". In which text, after omnes, ed. 1 adds tres.
  6. Aliqui codd. ut V X Z bb falso aut loco sive.
    Some codices (V X Z bb) wrongly read aut in place of sive.
  7. Supplevimus hic et; mox substituimus quod pro quia (vel sim.).
    Here we have supplied et; shortly after we have substituted quod for quia (or similar).
  8. Posuimus iuxta antiquiores mss. et ed. 1, contra additum a Vat. illud.
    We have set the text according to the older manuscripts and ed. 1, against illud added by the Vatican edition.
  9. In Vat. et cod. cc desunt verba Quaero... etc., quae in aliis mss. et ed. 1 habentur.
    In the Vatican edition and codex cc the words "I ask..." etc. are missing, which are present in the other manuscripts and ed. 1.
  10. Cod. O addit XV. c. 47. de Trin.
    Codex O adds De Trinitate XV, c. 47.
  11. Aliqui codd. ut HI aa bb ex. Mox post concordia cod. H adiungit: primo modo est commune tribus, secundo modo est in Patre et Filio, tertio autem modo est proprium Spiritus sancti.
    Some codices (HI aa bb) read ex. Shortly after concordia, codex H adds: "in the first manner it is common to the three; in the second manner it is in the Father and the Son; and in the third manner it is proper to the Holy Spirit".
  12. Cod. I addit processus.
    Codex I adds processus.
  13. Plurimi codd. incongrue ille. Mox post esset cod. W adiungit et ratio amandi; dein cod. Y non est amor pro amatus, quod per modum substantivi intelligas. Paulo post per emphaticum loquendi modum intellige: emphasim, illam scil. grammaticalem figuram, quae ad maiorem expressionem intimandam adhibetur, v. g. quando abstractum adhibetur pro concreto, cum dicitur: rogo excellentiam tuam.
    Most codices read, incongruously, ille. Shortly after esset, codex W adds and the ground of loving; then codex Y reads non est amor in place of amatus, which one is to understand as a substantive. Slightly later, by per emphaticum loquendi modum understand: emphasis, that grammatical figure, namely, employed to convey a greater expressiveness — for example, when an abstract is used for a concrete, as when one says: "I ask your Excellency".
  14. Subaudi: amor. — Paulo infra post quia in codd. additur amor ibi.
    Supply: love. — Slightly later, after quia, the codices add amor ibi.
  15. Nonnulli codd. ut AFRTX cum ed. 1, omissa post creati particula et, ponunt amori increato loco amoris increati. Mox particula hic refertur ad amorem creatum, et ibi ad amorem increatum.
    Some codices (AFRTX) with ed. 1, omitting the particle et after creati, set amori increato in place of amoris increati. Shortly after, the particle hic refers to created love, and ibi to uncreated love.
  16. Vat. contra fere omnes codd. et ed. 1 et non appropriatur.
    The Vatican edition, against nearly all the codices and ed. 1, reads et non appropriatur.
  17. Dist. 32. a. 1. q. 1. et a. 2. q. 1. — Paulo ante ed. 1 sequitur loco est, quae et mox post haec addit bene.
    Distinction 32, a. 1, q. 1, and a. 2, q. 1. — Slightly earlier ed. 1 reads sequitur in place of est, and likewise shortly after haec adds bene.
  18. Hic, in corp. et ad 1. — Paulo supra Vat. sed loco secundum quod, at perperam et contra mss. cum sex primis edd., quorum tamen aliqui ut OZ secundum hoc quod amantes. Mox plures codd. ut AISTVWXY diligunt pro diligere.
    Here [in the body of the article and in the reply Ad 1]. — Slightly earlier the Vatican edition reads sed for secundum quod, but wrongly and against the manuscripts together with the first six editions, of which, however, some (OZ) read secundum hoc quod amantes. Shortly after, several codices (AISTVWXY) read diligunt for diligere.
  19. Supple cum cod. I amore. Vat. quod pro qui, sed minus clare et contra plurimos codd. cum ed. 1; aliqui codd. ut H X Y cum edd. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 quia.
    Supply, with codex I, amore. The Vatican edition reads quod for qui, but less clearly and against most codices with ed. 1; some codices (H X Y) with editions 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 read quia. ---
← Dist. 10, Art. 1, Q. 3Dist. 10, Art. 2, Q. 2→