← Back to Distinction 10

Dist. 10, Art. 2, Q. 2

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

Textus Latinus
p. 202

Quaestio II. Utrum Spiritus sanctus sit nexus sive unitas Patris et Filii.

Secundo quaeritur, utrum Spiritus sanctus proprie sit nexus vel unitas amborum. Et quod sic, videtur hoc modo.

1. Augustinus sexto de Trinitate1: «Non est aliquis duorum, quo uterque coniungitur»; sed coniungitur nexu: ergo nexus non est aliquis duorum: ergo est tertia persona proprie.

2. Item, amor in creaturis est nexus: sed sicut probatum est2, Spiritus sanctus est amor perfectissimus: ergo etc. Quod autem amor sit nexus, patet per Dionysium3: «Amorem, sive divinum sive intellectualem, unitivam dicimus virtutem».

3. Item, Spiritus sanctus secundum Graecos procedit a Patre in4 Filium, secundum Latinos a Patre et Filio. Sed quocumque istorum modorum procedit, uniuntur in Spiritu Pater et Filius; sed ille, in quo uniuntur, est nexus amborum: ergo Spiritus sanctus est nexus.

4. Item, aut Spiritus Patris est Spiritus Filii, aut non. Si non: ergo cum nemo sciat, quae sunt in homine nisi spiritus eius, qui est in illo, sicut dicit Apostolus5, Pater non novit voluntatem Filii, nec Filius Patris: ergo, si idem est spiritus amborum, in Spiritu uniuntur.

Contra:

1. Non est nexus nisi separatorum, quae enim non separata6 sunt, non indigent aliquo connectente; sed Pater non est separatus a Filio, nec e converso, quia Filius in Patre et Pater in Filio: ergo etc.

2. Item, nexus est in quo duo aliqui conveniunt; sed Pater et Filius non conveniunt in persona: ergo nulla persona est nexus Patris et Filii.

3. Item, necti dicuntur illa quae conveniunt in aliquo, in quo uniuntur. Si ergo Filius et Spiritus sanctus originaliter conveniunt in Patre, ergo Pater est nexus Filii et Spiritus sancti: non ergo Spiritus sanctus est nexus.

4. Item, nexus dicitur, 7 quia nectitur, aut quia nectit; si ergo Spiritus sanctus est nexus, aut ergo quia nectitur, aut quia nectit. Non quia nectitur: quia tunc similiter alia persona esset nexus, similiter Pater esset nexus; si quia nectit Patrem et Filium: ergo dat aliquid Patri et Filio; sed hoc est inconveniens: ergo etc.

Conclusio

Spiritus sanctus proprie dicitur nexus sive unitas Patris et Filii.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod nexus proprie dicitur de Spiritu sancto sive unitas amborum. Ratio autem huius est, quia Pater et Filius communicant in uno8 Spiritu, et ideo amborum est unitas. Et rursum, ille Spiritus est amor, et ideo communicant in eo ut in uno amore; et quia amor propriissime nexus est, ideo Spiritus sanctus proprie nexus est, quia est amor mutuus, est9 amor unicus et substantificus.

Ad argumenta in contrarium:

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur in contrarium, quod non est nexus nisi separatorum; dicendum, quod separatio dicitur tripliciter: secundum distantiam, et sic dicitur separatio localis; et secundum differentiam per essentiam10, et sic dicitur separatio substantialis; et secundum differentiam proprietatis relativae, et sic non dicitur separatio proprie, sed distinctio. Et11 quolibet istorum modorum contingit esse nexum. Quia ergo Pater et Filius sunt distincti, ideo recte dicuntur connecti.

p. 203

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod nexus est in quo aliqui duo conveniunt; dicendum, quod est convenientia essentialis, et est convenientia originis12; et nexus utroque modo potest esse; et quamvis Pater et Filius non conveniant formaliter in persona una, tamen originaliter conveniunt, quia una persona oritur ab utroque uno et eodem modo.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Filius et Spiritus sanctus conveniunt in Patre13; dicendum, quod convenientia originis dicitur dupliciter: aut quia oriuntur ab uno, aut quia ab eis oritur unus. Si quia ab uno, sic non dicitur nexus, quia nexus est unio consequens distinctionem, sed unitas in origine antecedit distinctionem. Si vero quia unius origo14, sic, cum ibi sit distinctio et consequens unio, propriissime est nexus; et sic est in Patre et Filio respectu Spiritus sancti.

Aliter tamen potest dici, quod non est simile, quia Filius et Spiritus sanctus non eodem modo producuntur a Patre, sed Pater et Filius eodem modo spirant Spiritum sanctum. Et iterum, Patris et Filii convenientia est in Spiritu sancto ut in amore, cuius est nectere; sic non conveniunt Filius et Spiritus sanctus in Patre.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod nexus dicitur, aut quia nectit etc.; dicendum, quod quaedam sunt verba, quae in voce activa significant passionem, ut verba ad sensum pertinentia, ut video, audio et similia15; quaedam in voce activa significant actionem, ut facio et percutio, similiter in passiva. Dicendum igitur, quod hoc quod est nectere, cum nectere dicatur Spiritus, quia ab utroque procedit, recte in voce activa passionem significat et in passiva actionem; et ideo non significatur16, quod aliquid det Patri et Filio, sed quod magis recipiat.

Scholion

Si Spiritus sanctus dicitur nexus, sensus est, quod est amor a duobus, scil. Patre et Filio, tanquam ab uno principio uniformiter productus. Cfr. solut. ad 2. Quoad ipsam conclusionem cfr. infra dub. I. — Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 53. m. 3. c. 3. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 3; S. 1. q. 37. a. 1. ad 3. — B. Albert., hic a. 8. 9. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 2. — Aegid. R., hic 1. princ. q. 3.

---

English Translation

Question II. Whether the Holy Spirit is the bond or unity of the Father and the Son.

Secondly it is asked whether the Holy Spirit is properly the bond or unity of them both. And that it is so, seems to be the case in this way.

1. Augustine, On the Trinity, Book VI1: «There is not anything of the two by which each is conjoined»; but [the Father and the Son] are conjoined by a bond: therefore the bond is not anything of the two: therefore it is properly the third person.

2. Likewise, love in creatures is a bond: but as has been proved2, the Holy Spirit is most perfect love: therefore etc. That love is a bond, however, is clear from Dionysius3: «Love, whether divine or intellectual, we call a unitive power».

3. Likewise, the Holy Spirit, according to the Greeks, proceeds from the Father into4 the Son, according to the Latins from the Father and the Son. But by whichever of these modes he proceeds, the Father and Son are united in the Spirit; but that in which they are united is the bond of them both: therefore the Holy Spirit is the bond.

4. Likewise, either the Spirit of the Father is the Spirit of the Son, or not. If not: then since no one knows the things which are in a man except the spirit of him which is in him, as the Apostle says5, the Father does not know the will of the Son, nor the Son the will of the Father: therefore, if the spirit of them both is the same, they are united in the Spirit.

On the contrary:

1. There is no bond except of things separated, for those which are not separated6 need not anything connecting them; but the Father is not separated from the Son, nor conversely, because the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, a bond is that in which two things come together; but the Father and the Son do not come together in person: therefore no person is the bond of the Father and the Son.

3. Likewise, those things are said to be bound which come together in something in which they are united. If therefore the Son and the Holy Spirit originally come together in the Father, then the Father is the bond of the Son and the Holy Spirit: therefore the Holy Spirit is not the bond.

4. Likewise, a bond is so called 7 either because it is bound, or because it binds; if therefore the Holy Spirit is a bond, then either because he is bound, or because he binds. Not because he is bound: because then likewise any other person would be a bond, and likewise the Father would be a bond; if because he binds the Father and the Son: then he gives something to the Father and the Son; but this is unsuitable: therefore etc.

Conclusion

The Holy Spirit is properly called the bond or unity of the Father and the Son.

I respond: It must be said that "bond" is properly said of the Holy Spirit, or the unity of them both. The reason for this is that the Father and the Son communicate in one8 Spirit, and so he is the unity of them both. And again, that Spirit is love, and so they communicate in him as in one love; and because love is most properly a bond, therefore the Holy Spirit is properly a bond, because he is mutual love, he is9 singular and substance-conferring love.

To the arguments to the contrary:

1. To that which is objected to the contrary, that there is no bond except of things separated; it must be said that separation is spoken of in three ways: according to distance, and thus it is called local separation; and according to difference by essence10, and thus it is called substantial separation; and according to difference of relative property, and thus it is not called separation properly, but distinction. And11 in any of these modes there can be a bond. Since therefore the Father and the Son are distinct, therefore they are rightly said to be connected.

2. To that which is objected, that a bond is that in which two things come together; it must be said that there is essential agreement, and there is agreement of origin12; and a bond can be in either mode; and although the Father and the Son do not come together formally in one person, nevertheless they come together originally, because one person arises from both of them in one and the same way.

3. To that which is objected, that the Son and the Holy Spirit come together in the Father13; it must be said that agreement of origin is spoken of in two ways: either because they arise from one, or because from them one arises. If because from one, so it is not called a bond, because a bond is a union following upon distinction, but unity in origin precedes distinction. But if [it is] because [it is the] origin of one14, so, since there is distinction and consequent union, it is most properly a bond; and thus it is in the Father and the Son with respect to the Holy Spirit.

Otherwise, however, it can be said that the case is not the same, because the Son and the Holy Spirit are not produced from the Father in the same way, but the Father and the Son spirate the Holy Spirit in the same way. And again, the agreement of the Father and the Son is in the Holy Spirit as in love, whose function is to bind; the Son and the Holy Spirit do not thus come together in the Father.

4. To that which is objected, that "bond" is so called either because it binds etc.; it must be said that there are some verbs which in the active voice signify passion, as the verbs pertaining to the senses, as I see, I hear, and the like15; and some which in the active voice signify action, as I make and I strike, similarly in the passive. It must therefore be said that this act of binding, since the Spirit is said to bind because he proceeds from both, in the active voice rightly signifies passion and in the passive action; and therefore it is not signified16 that he gives something to the Father and the Son, but rather that he receives.

Scholion

If the Holy Spirit is called a bond, the sense is that he is love from two, namely from the Father and the Son, uniformly produced as from one principle. Cf. the solution to 2. As to the conclusion itself, cf. below, dub. I. — Alex. of Hales, Summa p. I, q. 53, m. 3, c. 3. — St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 3; Summa I, q. 37, a. 1, ad 3. — Bl. Albert, here a. 8, 9. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 3, a. 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2, q. 2. — Giles of Rome, here Bk. I, princ. q. 3.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Cap. 5. n. 7: Manifestum est, quod non aliquis duorum est, quo uterque coniungitur.
    Ch. 5, n. 7: «It is manifest that there is not anything of the two by which each is conjoined.»
  2. Hic, a. 1. q. 2. et 3.
    Here, a. 1, qq. 2 and 3.
  3. De Div. Nom. c. 4. § 15: Amorem... unitivam quandam et concretivam intelligimus virtutem.
    On the Divine Names, c. 4, § 15: «Love... we understand to be a certain unitive and cohesive power.»
  4. Mss. et ed. 4 consentientibus, loco per substituimus in, quod et loquendi modo S. Doctoris magis correspondet, de quo cfr. d. seq. q. 1, et d. 14. a. 1. q. 1. in corp. Mox pauci mss. ut aa bb procedat, et aliqui codd. ut IY cum ed. 1 post Spiritu addunt sancto.
    With the manuscripts and ed. 4 consenting, in place of per we have substituted in, which also more closely corresponds to the holy Doctor's manner of speaking, on which cf. the following distinction, q. 1, and d. 14, a. 1, q. 1, in corpore. A little further on a few manuscripts have aa bb procedat, and some codices like IY together with ed. 1 add sancto after Spiritu.
  5. I. Cor. 2, 11. Vulgata: Quis enim hominum scit, quae sunt hominis, nisi spiritus hominis, qui in ipso est? — Vat., obnitentibus mss. et sex primis edd., post sunt in addit aliquo, et paulo infra post Apostolus adiungit et. Cod. O conclusionem argumenti exhibet: ergo si est spiritus, et spiritus amborum; et si hoc, ambo in Spiritu uniuntur.
    1 Cor. 2:11. Vulgate: «For who among men knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him?» — The Vatican edition, against the manuscripts and the first six editions, adds aliquo after sunt in, and a little further on after Apostolus it adds et. Codex O presents the conclusion of the argument as: therefore if [there] is a spirit, [it is] also the spirit of them both; and if this, both are united in the Spirit.
  6. Cod. T qui enim non separati sunt.
    Codex T reads qui enim non separati sunt («for those which are not separated»).
  7. In Vat. praemittitur aut.
    In the Vatican edition aut is prefixed.
  8. Cod. E eodem pro uno, quod, ceteris mss. et ed. 1 refragantibus, Vat. minus bene omittit.
    Codex E reads eodem in place of uno, which, with the remaining manuscripts and ed. 1 dissenting, the Vatican edition less well omits.
  9. Plures codd. ut ACGK LSU VW Y perperam hic addunt eius. Mox post ideo ed. 1 adiungit et. — Vat. omittit est legendo quia amor mutuus est amor unicus et substantificus; ita etiam aliae edd. et plurimi codd. cum hac differentia, quod plures codd. pro unicus habent unitus, alii vero pauci vivificus. Probabilior nobis ob contextum visa est lectio codd. HIM in textum recepta.
    Several codices like ACGK LSU VW Y wrongly here add eius. Soon after, ed. 1 adds et after ideo. — The Vatican edition omits est, reading quia amor mutuus est amor unicus et substantificus; thus also the other editions and very many codices, with this difference, that several codices have unitus in place of unicus, while others, a few, vivificus. The reading of codices HIM, received into the text, seemed to us more probable on account of the context.
  10. Codd. HV essentialem et cod. Z essentiali loco per essentiam, quod multi codd. ut AC FGK LORS TU V etc. cum sex primis edd. omittunt.
    Codices HV read essentialem and codex Z reads essentiali in place of per essentiam, which many codices like AC FGK LORS TU V etc. together with the first six editions omit.
  11. Fide multorum mss. ut AFGHI K TVX etc. et ed. 1 substituimus Et pro In.
    On the faith of many manuscripts like AFGHI K TVX etc. and ed. 1, we have substituted Et in place of In.
  12. Vat., adstipulante nullo cod., originalis, et mox contra antiquiores codd. et ed. 1 post potest addit dici, deinde contra multos codd. ut IKMRTZ etc. ac ed. 1 loco conveniunt ponit communicent.
    The Vatican edition, with no codex supporting it, reads originalis, and soon, against the older codices and ed. 1, after potest adds dici, then against many codices like IKMRTZ etc. and ed. 1 in place of conveniunt puts communicent.
  13. Codd. LO hic addunt sic Filius et Spiritus sanctus conveniunt originaliter in Patre, sed.
    Codices LO here add sic Filius et Spiritus sanctus conveniunt originaliter in Patre, sed.
  14. Ita plurimi codd. cum edd. 2, 3, sed Vat. quia a duobus unius origo; cod. R cum ed. 1 quia unus oritur; cod. X quia unus oritur a duobus.
    Thus very many codices together with eds. 2 and 3; but the Vatican edition reads quia a duobus unius origo; codex R with ed. 1 reads quia unus oritur; codex X reads quia unus oritur a duobus.
  15. Ed. 1 consimilia, dein post quaedam adiungit quae.
    Ed. 1 reads consimilia, then after quaedam adds quae.
  16. Cod. X significat, cod. H sequitur.
    Codex X reads significat, codex H reads sequitur.
← Dist. 10, Art. 2, Q. 1Dist. 10, Art. 2, Q. 3→