← 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 proprietate 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 et7 amor similiter Spiritus sancti: ergo etc.

4. Item, omne8 quod dicitur proprie, importat aliquam relationem: ergo si amor proprie dicitur, importat relationem. Quaero: ad quid? aut ad amantem, aut ad amatum9. 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 inconveniens.

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:

Ad 1, 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 concordiler 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., S. p. I. q. 13. 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. 1. 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 I. princ. q. 2. — Henr. Gand., S. a. 38. q. 2. n. 8. — Dionys. Carth., de hac et seq. hic q. 1.

---

English Translation

Article II. On the property of the Holy Spirit.

Question I. Whether love or charity is proper to the Holy Spirit.

Concerning the first, that charity is proper to the Holy Spirit, it is shown thus.

1. Augustine, in the fifteenth book On the Trinity1: "Just as in that Trinity not only the Holy Spirit is spirit, yet he is properly called the Holy Spirit; so, although the Father is charity and the Son is charity, yet that person is properly called charity, just as he is properly called the Holy Spirit."

2. Likewise, the same is shown by the same [Augustine] on the First Canonical [Epistle] of John2, where he intends to find the property of the Holy Spirit, and brings the discourse to this point, that the Holy Spirit is charity.

3. Likewise, the same is shown by reason: since3 that is properly proper to a person which states its mode of emanating; but love is of this sort, as has been proved4: therefore etc.

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

On the contrary:

1. Augustine, in the fifteenth book On the Trinity5: "The Father is charity, and the Son is charity, and the Holy Spirit is charity, and all together 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 by necessity is in the lover, and the Father and the Son by loving produce the Holy Spirit, it seems impossible that it should belong to him properly. Either, then, the Holy Spirit is not a person, or he is not love properly, or6 he does not proceed by the mode of love.

3. Likewise, as wisdom stands to the Son, so love to the Holy Spirit; but wisdom is not proper to the Son, but only appropriated: therefore also7 love similarly to the Holy Spirit: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, everything8 that is said 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 beloved9. If to the lover, then the lover is not love; likewise if to the beloved, then the Holy Spirit either would not love or would not be loved; but this is unfitting.

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

I respond: It must be said that love in the divine [reality] can be and necessarily is taken essentially, notionally, and personally: essentially, because each one loves himself10; notionally, however, because the Father and the Son agree in spirating the Holy Spirit, which concord is love or affection; but personally, because he who is produced by the mode of perfect liberality cannot be other than love or affection.

Hence, said essentially, it states complacency; notionally, concord in spirating; but personally, the procession in11 that concord.

An example of this12 can be set in created love, by which a husband and wife love each other. For they love each other with social love for living together; they love each other further with conjugal love for the procreation of offspring, and that [offspring]13, if it were produced from the will of concord alone, would be love; but now it is one beloved, unless it be called love by an emphatic mode of speaking. In the divine, however, it is truly and properly love, having the character of love and of hypostasis: of love on account of this, that from the most liberal will it first proceeds by the mode 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:

To 1 and 2. From this is clear what is objected in the first and second, when it is said, that14 it is the property of lovers or producers; for it is taken notionally; for as it proceeds from them, it cannot be a property, but a distinct person. Whence the procession of created love and of uncreated love15 is not altogether similar, because here it is a property, there a hypostasis and substance.

To 3. To that which is objected concerning wisdom, it must be said that it is not similar; for wisdom does not state a relation to another, and therefore is always said of itself in reference to itself and is essential, unless it be appropriated; but love states a relation to those who are joined by love. Whence, just as the 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 indeed proper to the Holy Spirit. And as the Son proceeds from the Father by the mode of word, so the Holy Spirit by the mode of love. And from this it is, as will better appear below17, that this is admitted: the Father and the Son love each other by the Holy Spirit; but not that the Father is wise by begotten wisdom.

To 4. To that which is objected last: to what does it state a relation? It must be said that to the lovers, according as "lovers" is taken notionally, as was already touched on18. For in one mode "to love themselves" is the same as "to spirate concordantly"; in this mode the Holy Spirit is not a lover, because he does not spirate. But he [the objector] objects from the essential19, which does not state an egress from the lover, but only states the complacency of will by which each one loves and is loved.

Scholion

The doctrine of this question is the common opinion: Alex., Summa p. I. q. 13. m. 3. a. 1, and q. 67. m. 3. a. 3. — Scotus, q. unic., and d. 32. q. 1. — St. Thomas, I Sent. d. 27. q. 2; Summa I. q. 37. a. 1. — Bl. Albert, here a. 4. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2. a. 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2. q. 1. — Giles of Rome, here I. princ. q. 2. — Henry of Ghent, Summa a. 38. q. 2. n. 8. — Denys the Carthusian, on this and the following, here q. 1.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. August., de Trin. l. XV, c. 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.
    Augustine, On the Trinity bk. XV, c. 19, n. 37: "As it is not only in that Trinity that one is spirit or holy... and yet this one is not in vain properly called the Holy Spirit." And ibid. c. 17, n. 31: "Thus the Holy Spirit is properly designated by the word of charity, since universally both the Father and the Son are charity." — A little before, on the trust of the manuscripts and ed. 1 we have substituted ostenditur (is shown) in place of ostendit (he shows).
  2. August., Tractat. [in I Ioan.] VII, n. 6. Vide et XV de Trin. c. 17-20. — Paulo ante Val. 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.
    Augustine, Tractate [on the First Epistle of John] VII, n. 6. See also XV On the Trinity, c. 17-20. — A little before, the Vatican edition, against the manuscripts and ed. 1, omits primam (first), and ed. 1 in place of idem (the same) has ipsum (it). Soon after, some codices such as GKTWY together with ed. 3 read producit (produces) in place of perducit (brings to).
  3. Ope plurium mss. ut KTZH et ed. 1 posuimus quia pro quod.
    By the aid of several manuscripts such as KTZH and ed. 1 we have put quia (since) for quod (that).
  4. Hic a. 1. q. 2.
    Here, article 1, question 2.
  5. August., de Trin. l. XV, 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.
    Augustine, On the Trinity bk. XV, c. 17, n. 28: "Both the Father is called charity and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and all together are one charity." In which text ed. 1 after omnes (all) adds tres (three).
  6. Aliqui codd. ut V X Z bb falso aut loco sive.
    Some codices such as V X Z bb falsely [read] aut (or) in place of sive (or).
  7. Supplevimus hic et; mox substituimus genitivum Spiritus sancti pro dativo, ope mss. et ed. 1.
    We have supplied here et (and); soon we substitute the genitive Spiritus sancti (of the Holy Spirit) for the dative, by aid of the manuscripts and ed. 1.
  8. Posuit omne iuxta antiquiores mss. et ed. 1, contra Vat. omne illud, illud additum a Vat.
    We have put omne (every) according to the older manuscripts and ed. 1, against the Vatican edition's omne illud (every thing), illud (that) being 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 Quaero (I ask) etc. are lacking, which are contained in the other manuscripts and ed. 1.
  10. Cod. 0 addit XV. c. 47. de Trin.
    Codex 0 adds: XV, c. 47, On the Trinity.
  11. Aliqui codd. ut Hl 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 such as Hl aa bb [read] ex (from). Soon after concordia (concord) codex H adds: "in the first mode it is common to the three, in the second mode it is in the Father and the Son, but in the third mode it is proper to the Holy Spirit."
  12. Cod. I addit processus.
    Codex I adds processus (procession).
  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.
    Very many codices incongruously [read] ille (he). Soon after esset (would be) codex W adds et ratio amandi (and the ground of loving); then codex Y [reads] non est amor (is not love) for amatus (beloved), which understand in the manner of a substantive. Shortly after, by per emphaticum loquendi modum (by an emphatic mode of speaking) understand: emphasis, namely that grammatical figure which is employed to convey greater expression, e.g., when an abstract is employed for a concrete, as when it is said: "I beg your excellency."
  14. Subaudi: amor. — Paulo infra post quia in codd. additur amor ibi.
    Supply: amor (love). — A little below, after quia (because) in the codices is added amor ibi (love there).
  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 such as AFRTX together with ed. 1, the particle et (and) being omitted after creati (created), put amori increato (to uncreated love) in place of amoris increati (of uncreated love). Soon the particle hic (here) refers to created love, and ibi (there) 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 (and is not appropriated).
  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, article 1, question 1, and article 2, question 1. — A little before, ed. 1 [reads] sequitur (follows) in place of est (is), and soon after haec (this) it adds bene (well).
  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 and in the reply to 1. — A little above, the Vatican edition [reads] sed in place of secundum quod (according as), but wrongly and against the manuscripts together with the first six editions, of which however some such as OZ [read] secundum hoc quod amantes (according to this that they are lovers). Soon several codices such as AISTVWXY [read] diligunt (they love) for diligere (to love).
  19. Supple cum cod. 1 amore. Vat. quod pro qui, sed minus clare et contra plurimos codd. cum ed. 1; aliqui codd. ut HXY cum edd. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 quia.
    Supply with codex 1 amore (by love). The Vatican edition [reads] quod (which/that) for qui (who), but less clearly and against very many codices together with ed. 1; some codices such as HXY together with editions 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 [read] quia (because).
← Dist. 10, Art. 1, Q. 3Dist. 10, Art. 2, Q. 2→