← 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 separata sunt6, 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, quia7 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 nexus9 est, ideo Spiritus sanctus proprie nexus est, quia est10 amor mutuus, est amor unicus et substantificus.

Ad argumenta pro parte contra:

Ad 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 essentiam11, et sic dicitur separatio substantialis; et secundum differentiam proprietatis relativae, et sic non dicitur separatio proprie, sed distinctio. Et12 quolibet istorum modorum contingit esse nexum. Quia ergo Pater et Filius sunt distincti, ideo recte dicuntur connecti.

p. 203

Ad 2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod nexus est in quo aliqui duo conveniunt; dicendum, quod est convenientia essentialis, et est convenientia originis13; 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.

Ad 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Filius et Spiritus sanctus conveniunt in Patre; dicendum, quod convenientia originis dicitur dupliciter: aut quia oriuntur ab uno, aut quia ab eis oritur unus. Si quia ab uno14, sic non dicitur nexus, quia nexus est unio consequens distinctionem, sed unitas in origine antecedit distinctionem. Si vero quia unius origo15, 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.

Ad 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 similia16; 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 significatur17, 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. 4. — Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 43. m. 3. o. 3. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 3; S. I. 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
p. 202

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 both. And that this is so seems clear thus:

1. Augustine, On the Trinity book six1: "There is no [member] of two by which both are joined together"; but they are joined by a bond: therefore the bond is not a member of the two: therefore it is properly a 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 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 manners He proceeds, the Father and the Son are united in the Spirit; but that in which they are united is the bond of both: therefore the Holy Spirit is a 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 that are in a man except the spirit of that man, which is in him", as the Apostle says5, the Father does not know the will of the Son, nor the Son the Father's: therefore, if there is one and the same Spirit of both, they are united in the Spirit.

On the contrary:

1. There is no bond except of things separated, for things which are not separated6 do not need anything to connect 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 converge; but the Father and the Son do not converge in a person: therefore no person is the bond of the Father and the Son.

3. Likewise, those things are said to be bound together which converge in something in which they are united. If therefore the Son and the Holy Spirit converge originally 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, the bond is so called either because7 it is bound, or because it binds; if therefore the Holy Spirit is the bond, it is so either because He is bound or because He binds. Not because He is bound: because then likewise another person would be the bond, the Father likewise would be the bond; but if because He binds the Father and the Son: therefore He gives something to the Father and the Son; but this is incongruous: 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 both. The reason for this is that the Father and the Son communicate in one8 Spirit, and therefore He is the unity of both. And again, that Spirit is love, and therefore they communicate in Him as in one love; and because love is most properly a bond9, therefore the Holy Spirit is properly a bond, because He is10 mutual love, He is unique and substance-conferring love.

To the arguments on the contrary side:

To 1. To that which is objected on 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 so it is called local separation; and according to a difference by essence11, and so it is called substantial separation; and according to a difference of relative property, and so it is not properly called separation, but distinction. And12 in any of these manners there can be a bond. Since therefore the Father and the Son are distinct, they are rightly said to be bound together.

p. 203

To 2. To what is objected, that a bond is that in which two things converge; it must be said that there is essential convergence and convergence of origin13; and the bond can be in either manner; and although the Father and the Son do not converge formally in one person, they nevertheless converge originally, because one person arises from each of them in one and the same manner.

To 3. To what is objected, that the Son and the Holy Spirit converge in the Father; it must be said that convergence of origin is twofold: either because they arise from one, or because one arises from them. If because from one14, so it is not called a bond, because a bond is a union following distinction, but unity in origin precedes distinction. But if because there is the origin of one15, so, since there is distinction there and a consequent union, this is most properly a bond; and so it is in the Father and the Son with respect to the Holy Spirit.

In another way, however, it can be said that the case is not similar, because the Son and the Holy Spirit are not produced by the Father in the same manner, but the Father and the Son spirate the Holy Spirit in the same manner. And again, the convergence of the Father and the Son is in the Holy Spirit as in the love whose property it is to bind; the Son and the Holy Spirit do not so converge in the Father.

To 4. To what is objected, that the bond is so called either because it binds, etc.; it must be said that there are certain verbs which in the active voice signify passion — such as verbs pertaining to sense, like video, audio, and the like16; and there are others which in the active voice signify action, like facio and percutio, and similarly in the passive. It must be said therefore that as for to bind, since the Spirit is said to bind because He proceeds from each, in the active voice it rightly signifies passion, and in the passive voice action; and so it is not signified17 that He gives something to the Father and the Son, but rather that He receives.

Scholion

If the Holy Spirit is called bond, the sense is that He is love produced uniformly from two — namely the Father and the Son — as from one principle. Cf. the response Ad 2. As regards the conclusion itself, cf. below dubium 4. — Alex. Hal., Summa p. I, q. 43, m. 3, o. 3. — St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 3; S. I, q. 37, a. 1, ad 3. — Bl. Albert, here a. 8, 9. — Petr. a Tar., here q. 3, a. 1. — Richard. a Med., here a. 2, q. 2. — Aegid. R., here principium 1, q. 3.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Cap. 5. n. 7: Manifestum est, quod non aliquis duorum est, quo uterque coniungitur.
    Chapter 5, n. 7: "It is clear that there is no [member] of two by which both are joined together."
  2. Hic, a. 1. q. 2. et 3.
    Here [in this distinction], a. 1, q. 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 unitive and concretive 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 in agreement, in place of per we have substituted in, which also corresponds better to the holy Doctor's manner of speaking — on which cf. the following distinction, q. 1, and d. 14, a. 1, q. 1 in the body. Shortly after, a few manuscripts (aa bb) read procedat, and some codices (IY) 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, after sunt in adds aliquo, and slightly later, after Apostolus, adds et. Codex O presents the conclusion of the argument thus: "therefore if there is a Spirit, even the Spirit of both; and if this, the two are united in the Spirit."
  6. Cod. T qui enim non separati sunt.
    Codex T reads qui enim non separati sunt.
  7. In Vat. praemittitur aut.
    The Vatican edition prefixes aut.
  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 the Vatican edition, against the other manuscripts and ed. 1, less satisfactorily omits.
  9. Plures codd. ut ACGK LSU VW Y perperam hic addunt eius. Mox post ideo ed. 1 adiungit et.
    Several codices (ACGK LSU VW Y) wrongly add eius here. Shortly after ideo, ed. 1 adds et.
  10. 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, etiam. Perturbatior nobis ob contextum visa est lectio codd. HM in textum recepta.
    The Vatican edition omits Est, reading because mutual love is unique and substance-conferring love; thus also other editions and most codices, with this difference: that several codices in place of unicus have unitus, and a few others etiam. The reading of codices HM admitted into the text seemed to us, in view of the context, the more disturbed [but is preferred].
  11. 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 essentiali in place of per essentiam, which many codices (AC FGK LORS TU V etc.) with the first six editions omit.
  12. Fide multorum mss. ut AFHIK TVX etc. et ed. 1 substituimus Et pro In.
    On the testimony of many manuscripts (AFHIK TVX etc.) and ed. 1 we have substituted Et for In.
  13. 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 shortly after, against the older codices and ed. 1, adds dici after potest; then against many codices (IKMRTZ etc.) and ed. 1 sets communicent in place of conveniunt.
  14. Codd. LO hic addunt: sic Filius et Spiritus sanctus conveniunt originaliter in Patre, sed.
    Codices LO add here: "so the Son and the Holy Spirit converge originally in the Father, but".
  15. 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 most codices with editions 2 and 3, but the Vatican edition reads because from two there is the origin of one; codex R with ed. 1 because one arises; codex X because one arises from two.
  16. Ed. 1 consimilia, dein post quaedam adiungit quae.
    Ed. 1 reads consimilia, then adds quae after quaedam.
  17. Cod. X significat, cod. H sequitur.
    Codex X reads significat, codex H sequitur. ---
← Dist. 10, Art. 2, Q. 1Dist. 10, Art. 2, Q. 3→