← Back to Distinction 10

Dist. 10, Dubia

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

Textus Latinus
p. 205

## Dubia circa litteram Magistri

Dub. I

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primum de hoc quod dicit, quod Spiritus sanctus est amor Patris sive caritas sive dilectio. Quaeritur ergo, utrum caritas et dilectio differant; et quod sic, videtur per Isidorum1 dicentem: «Amor est rationalium et irrationalium, dilectio rationalium tantum». Sed contra: Dionysius de Divinis Nominibus, capite quarto2: «Mihi videntur Theologi commune quid dicere dilectionis et amoris nomine»: et ibidem3 reprehendit distinguentes, dicens, quod faciunt vim in levibus sonis, quasi nos non possimus quatuor per bis duo, et patriam per natale solum significare.

Respondeo: Aliqui voluerunt dicere, quod differunt, quia dilectio dicitur illa proprie, quae est ex voluntate ordinata, sed amor est affectio libidinosa. Sed haec distinctio est contra Dionysium4 et contra Augustinum super Ioannem5 et contra canonem sacrae Scripturae, quia Dominus primo quaesivit a Petro: «Simon Ioannis, diligis me?» et postea dixit: «amas me?»; et ita pro eodem accipiuntur: et hanc differentiam6 reprehendit Dionysius.

Potest tamen nihilominus aliqua differentia assignari. Quamvis enim de una et eadem possint dici affectione, tamen alia et alia ratione. Amor enim dicit affectus adhaesionem respectu amati; unde Dionysius7: «Amorem unitivum dicimus». Dilectio vero ultra hoc addit electionem: unde dilectio ex diversis electio; unde Canticorum quinto8: «Dilectus meus electus ex millibus». Caritas autem ultra illa addit magnam appretiationem. Carum enim dicitur illud quod magni pretii aestimatur, secundum quod Apostolus in epistolis suis vocat fideles carissimos, primae ad Corinthios quarto9.

Dub. II

Item dubitatur de hoc quod dicit: «Proprie verbum Dei etiam Dei sapientia dicitur»; quia aut accipitur proprie, quia soli convenit, aut proprie, quia appropriate: quia si soli, hoc falsum est, quia sapientia nullo modo dicit proprietatem personalem; si proprie, quia appropriate, hoc nihil facit ad propositum, quia Magister vult inquirere proprietatem Spiritus sancti, non appropriatum. Et iterum, caritas videtur magis appropriari Patri, secundum quod dicitur in illa prosa: «Caritas Pater est»10. Item, hoc videtur per Richardum11, quia «amor gratuitus est in Patre, in Spiritu sancto debitus, in Filio ex utroque permixtus»: ergo cum caritas dicat amorem gratuitum, debet ergo appropriari Patri.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod non est omnimoda similitudo12, sed in hoc est similitudo: nam commune potest appropriari, manente unitate vocis vel significationis. Potest similiter aliquod nomen simul dici per proprietatem et per essentiam, manente unitate vocis et significationis, et tamen est de se commune; et tale est hoc nomen caritas.

Aliter potest dici, quod caritas est commune et proprium et appropriatum; et Augustinus13 primo ostendit, quod est appropriatum per similitudinem ad sapientiam, et post ostendit, quod est vere14 proprium, infra: «Nunc, quod incepimus ostendere» etc. Unde ex hac auctoritate non habetur, quod caritas sit proprium, sed solum quod appropriatum. Sed tamen ex aliis verbis Augustini habetur, quod caritas non solum est appropriatum, sed etiam proprie proprium Spiritus sancti.

Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod caritas appropriatur Patri: dicendum, quod caritas habet duplicem

p. 206

comparationem ad virtutes alias. Comparatur enim ut mater, ut dicit Ambrosius15; comparatur ut vinculum, ut dicit Apostolus ad Colossenses tertio16: «Caritas est vinculum perfectionis». Ratione primi appropriatur Patri, ratione secundi Spiritui sancto.

Ad illud quod obiicitur de Richardo, dicendum, quod gratuitum non dicit proprietatem amoris sive amandi, sed proprietatem personae, quae dat et non recipit.

Dub. III

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod Spiritus sanctus est dilectio, qua Pater et Filius se invicem et nos diligunt. Quaeritur, utrum Pater et Filius diligant nos Spiritu sancto. Utrum enim diligant se Spiritu sancto, quaeretur17 distinctione trigesima secunda, ubi istam quaestionem specialiter movet. Sed prima videtur omnino falsa et impropria. Cum enim dicitur: «Pater et Filius diligunt nos» etc., constat quod verbum diligendi tenetur essentialiter; ergo si diligant18 Spiritu sancto, sunt Spiritus sanctus. Et iterum, dicit Augustinus19, quod haec nullo modo conceditur: «Pater diligit se Spiritu sancto», quia diligere tenetur essentialiter: ergo similiter in proposito.

Respondeo: Quidam dicunt, quod ablativus ille exponitur per hanc praepositionem per cum accusativo, id est per Spiritum sanctum; et regula20 est, quod haec praepositio per cum verbis transitivis dicit subauctoritatem, cum absolutis vero auctoritatem. Unde cum diligere sit transitivum, sensus est, quod Pater et Filius diligunt nos per Spiritum sanctum, quasi diceret: Pater operatur per Filium. — Sed haec expositio non videtur conveniens, quia similiter posset21 dici: Pater et Filius puniunt sive odiunt nos Spiritu sancto; quod non vult dicere Augustinus.

Propterea notandum, quod diligere aliquando tenetur pure essentialiter, ut cum dicitur: Pater diligit se22; aliquando pure notionaliter, ut cum dicitur: Pater et Filius diligunt se Spiritu sancto, sicut patebit23; aliquando partim essentialiter, partim notionaliter, sicut cum dicitur: diligunt nos Spiritu sancto; et hoc24 patet, quia idem est Patrem et Filium diligere nos Spiritu sancto, quod Spiritum sanctum nobis mittere sive inspirare. Mittere autem sive inspirare importat actum notionalem et essentialem, quia sensus est, quod Spiritum producunt et donum eius nobis conferunt; unde dicit simul Spiritus sancti productionem et gratiae collationem. Et quamvis respectu actus essentialis non recipiatur habitudo ablativi, recipitur tamen ratione notionis, sicut et hic: Pater dicit se suo Verbo, dicit etiam creaturas Verbo; simili modo intelligendum est in proposito.

Dub. IV

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: «Sive enim sit unitas amborum sive sanctitas»; quid dicatur per hoc nomen unitas; quia aut unitas dicit unitatem essentialem, aut notionalem, aut personalem. Non essentialem, quia tunc non esset amborum, sed trium; non notionalem, quia Spiritus sanctus non est communis spiratio; non personalem, quia Pater et Filius non sunt unum in persona. Item quaeritur, quo modo haec25 distinguantur, unitas, sanctitas, caritas.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod unitas personaliter tenetur. Sed attendendum, quod unitas aliquorum dicitur dupliciter: aut qua aliqui sunt unum, et sic Patris et Filii non est unitas personalis; aut qua aliqui sunt uniti, et sic Pater et Filius unica persona uniuntur, sicut persona Spiritus sancti, quae est amor et vinculum nectens26.

Ad illud quod quaeritur, quomodo differunt illa tria; dicendum, quod unum27 addit supra alterum. Nam unitas dicit conditionem omnis amoris, quoniam omnis amor est vis unitiva; sanctitas dicit conditionem amoris casti contra libidinosum, qui non est purus; caritas dicit conditionem amoris praecipui: ideo enim caritas dicitur, quia est amor inaestimabiliter habens carum amatum.

Dub. V

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: «Si uterque non participatione, sed essentia sua... servantes unitatem spiritus». Videtur enim non bene dicere, quia servare unitatem spiritus est producere Spiritum sanctum: ergo secundum hoc Pater et Filius sua essentia Spiritum sanctum producunt, et ita videtur

p. 207

essentia28 spirare. Item videtur etiam falsum quod dicitur, non participatione, quia Pater et Filius participatione spirationis29 servant unitatem.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod Augustinus30 vult ostendere, duplicem modum unitatis esse inter Patrem et Filium, qui est inter membra Christi, scilicet naturae et voluntatis; sed differenter, quia in nobis est unitas naturae per participationem unius communis essentiae, sed non sumus ipsa essentia31. Pater vero et Filius non participant essentiam quasi diversum, immo sunt ipsa essentia. Similiter in nobis est conformitas voluntatis per donum Dei, quod unit nos; sed Pater et Filius uniuntur non dono accepto ab alio, sed Spiritu proprio; et sic patet responsio.

Dub. VI

Item quaeritur de ratione Augustini: «Quia enim communis est ambobus, id vocatur ipse proprie, quod ambo communiter»; ergo secundum hoc pari ratione Spiritus sanctus dicitur Deus proprie, cum Deus sit commune ambobus.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod aequivocatio est in communitate. Nam Augustinus non vocat commune quod est in pluribus et de pluribus, sed quod a pluribus; et ita commune dicitur magis a communione, quam a communitate, ut fiat vis in verbo, sicut fit inter unionem et unitatem. Et quoniam caritas non tantum dicit communitatem, quia in pluribus, sed communionem per unitatem distinctorum: ideo quamvis dicatur essentialiter, potest tamen nihilominus dici personaliter.

---

English Translation
p. 205

## Doubts concerning the text of the Master

Dub. I

In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and the first concerns what he says, that the Holy Spirit is the love of the Father, or charity, or affection (dilectio). It is asked, then, whether charity and affection differ; and that they do seems clear from Isidore1, who says: "Amor is of rational and irrational beings, dilectio of rational beings only." But on the contrary: Dionysius, On the Divine Names, chapter four2: "It seems to me that the Theologians [holy authors] use the names love and affection to mean a common thing"; and in the same place3 he reproves those who distinguish them, saying that they make weight on light sounds — as if we could not signify four by twice two, and fatherland by native soil.

I respond: Some have wished to say that they differ, because dilectio is properly said of that which is from an ordered will, but amor is libidinous affection. But this distinction is against Dionysius4 and against Augustine On John5 and against the canon of sacred Scripture; for the Lord first asked Peter: "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" (diligis me?) and afterward said: "Do you love me?" (amas me?); and so they are taken for the same; and Dionysius reproves this difference6.

Nevertheless some difference can be assigned. For although they can be said of one and the same affection, they say it under different aspects. Amor states the affection's adhesion to the loved; whence Dionysius7: "We call love unitive". Dilectio adds beyond this election: whence dilectio [is] electio from diverse things; whence Canticles five8: "My beloved [dilectus], chosen out of thousands". Caritas, beyond these, adds great esteem. For carum is said of that which is held to be of great price, in the way the Apostle in his epistles calls the faithful most dear (carissimos), 1 Corinthians four9.

Dub. II

Likewise it is doubted concerning what he says: "Properly, the Word of God is also called the Wisdom of God"; for it is taken either properly because it befits Him alone, or properly because by appropriation. If alone, this is false, because wisdom in no way states a personal property; if properly because by appropriation, this contributes nothing to the point, because the Master means to inquire about the property of the Holy Spirit, not the appropriated. And again, charity seems rather to be appropriated to the Father, according to the prose-hymn that says: "Charity is the Father"10. Likewise this seems clear from Richard11: that "love is gratuitous in the Father, owed in the Holy Spirit, and in the Son a mixture of both"; therefore since charity states gratuitous love, it ought to be appropriated to the Father.

I respond: It must be said that the likeness is not entire12, but in this it is alike: a common name can be appropriated, while the unity of word or signification remains. Likewise some name can be said simultaneously by way of property and by way of essence, with the unity of word and signification remaining, and yet of itself be common; and such is this name charity.

In another way it can be said that charity is common, and proper, and appropriated; and Augustine13 first shows that it is appropriated through likeness to wisdom, and then shows that it is truly14 proper, in what follows: "Now what we have begun to show", etc. Hence from this authority it is not had that charity is proper, but only that it is appropriated. Yet from other words of Augustine it is had that charity is not only appropriated, but also properly proper to the Holy Spirit.

To what is objected, that charity is appropriated to the Father, it must be said that charity has a twofold

p. 206

comparison to the other virtues. For it is compared as mother, as Ambrose15 says; and it is compared as bond, as the Apostle says, to the Colossians three16: "Charity is the bond of perfection". By reason of the first, it is appropriated to the Father; by reason of the second, to the Holy Spirit.

To what is objected from Richard, it must be said that gratuitous does not state a property of love or of loving, but a property of the person who gives and does not receive.

Dub. III

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says, that the Holy Spirit is the affection by which the Father and the Son love one another and us. It is asked whether the Father and the Son love us by the Holy Spirit. For whether they love each other by the Holy Spirit will be asked17 in distinction thirty-two, where he raises that question specifically. But the first [proposition — that they love us by the Holy Spirit] seems entirely false and improper. For when it is said: "The Father and the Son love us", etc., it is clear that the verb to love is taken essentially; therefore if they love18 by the Holy Spirit, they are the Holy Spirit. And again, Augustine19 says that this is in no way granted: "The Father loves Himself by the Holy Spirit", because to love is taken essentially: therefore similarly in the present case.

I respond: Some say that the ablative is to be expounded by the preposition per with the accusative, that is, through the Holy Spirit; and the rule20 is that this preposition per with transitive verbs expresses subordinate authority, but with absolute verbs principal authority. Hence since to love is transitive, the sense is that the Father and the Son love us through the Holy Spirit, as if to say: The Father works through the Son. — But this exposition does not seem fitting, because similarly one could21 say: the Father and the Son punish or hate us by the Holy Spirit; which Augustine does not mean to say.

Therefore it must be noted that to love is sometimes taken purely essentially, as when it is said: "The Father loves Himself"22; sometimes purely notionally, as when it is said: "The Father and the Son love each other by the Holy Spirit", as will appear23; sometimes partly essentially, partly notionally, as when it is said: "they love us by the Holy Spirit"; and this24 is clear, because it is the same thing for the Father and the Son to love us by the Holy Spirit, as it is for them to send or inspire the Holy Spirit to us. But to send or to inspire imports both a notional and an essential act, because the sense is that they produce the Spirit and confer His gift on us; whence it states at once the production of the Holy Spirit and the conferral of grace. And although with respect to an essential act the construction of the ablative is not received, it is received by reason of the notion, just as here too: the Father speaks Himself by His Word, and speaks creatures by the Word; and in a similar way it is to be understood in the present case.

Dub. IV

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says: "For whether it be the unity of both, or sanctity"; what is meant by this name unity: for either unity states essential unity, or notional, or personal. Not essential, because then it would not be of both [Father and Son alone], but of three; not notional, because the Holy Spirit is not common spiration; not personal, because the Father and the Son are not one in person. It is also asked how these25 are distinguished — unity, sanctity, charity.

I respond: It must be said that unity is here taken personally. But it must be observed that the unity of some things is said in two ways: either as that by which some are one, and so the Father and the Son have no personal unity; or as that by which some are united, and so the Father and the Son are united in a single person, namely, the person of the Holy Spirit, who is love and a binding bond26.

To what is asked, how the three differ; it must be said that one27 adds upon the other. For unity states a condition of every love, since every love is a unitive force; sanctity states the condition of chaste love as opposed to libidinous love, which is not pure; charity states the condition of pre-eminent love — for charity is so called because it is love that holds the loved as inestimably dear.

Dub. V

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says: "If each by his very essence — not by participation — preserves the unity of the spirit". For he seems not to speak well, because to preserve the unity of the spirit is to produce the Holy Spirit: therefore on this account the Father and the Son produce the Holy Spirit by their essence, and so it seems

p. 207

that they spirate by their essence28. Likewise also the statement "not by participation" seems false, because the Father and the Son preserve unity by participation in spiration29.

I respond: It must be said that Augustine30 means to show that there is a twofold mode of unity between the Father and the Son which is also between the members of Christ — namely, of nature and of will; but in different ways: because in us there is unity of nature by participation in one common essence, but we are not the very essence31. The Father and the Son, however, do not participate in the essence as something distinct from themselves; rather they are the very essence. Likewise in us there is conformity of will through the gift of God, which unites us; but the Father and the Son are united not by a gift received from another, but by a Spirit proper to them; and so the response is clear.

Dub. VI

Likewise it is asked concerning the reasoning of Augustine: "For because [it] is common to both, by that very thing it is properly called what both [are] in common"; therefore on this account by parallel reasoning the Holy Spirit is properly called God, since God is common to both.

I respond: It must be said that there is an equivocation in the term common. For Augustine does not call common what is in many and of many, but what is from many; and so common is said rather from communion than from community, that the weight be on the word — as is done between union and unity. And because charity states not merely community (because in many) but communion through the unity of distinct [persons], therefore although it is said essentially, it can nevertheless also be said personally.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Colligi potest ex his verbis VIII. Etymolog. c. 2: Omnis autem dilectio carnalis non dilectio, sed magis amor dici solet. Dilectionis autem nomen tantum in melioribus rebus accipi solet. Idem dicit I. Differentiarum, sub verbo amare et diligere: Alii dixerunt amare nobis naturaliter insitum, diligere vero ex electione.
    It can be gathered from these words, Etymologies VIII, c. 2: "All carnal affection [dilectio] is wont to be called not dilectio but rather amor. The name dilectio is wont to be received only in better matters". The same is said in Differentiarum I, under the words amare and diligere: "Others have said that to love (amare) is naturally implanted in us, but to love-with-affection (diligere) is from election".
  2. § 12.
    § 12.
  3. § 11.
    § 11.
  4. Loc. paulo supra cit.
    The passage cited just above.
  5. Tract. 123. n. 5, ubi in expositione horum verborum Simon Ioannis, diligis me etc. (Ioan. 21, 15-17) ait: Ubi etiam demonstratur unum atque idem esse amorem et dilectionem.
    Tractate 123, n. 5, where in expounding the words "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" etc. (John 21:15–17) he says: "Where it is also shown that amor and dilectio are one and the same."
  6. Cod. dd distinctionem.
    Codex dd reads distinctionem.
  7. De Div. Nom. c. 4. § 15. Vide hic a. 2. q. 2. fundam. 2. — In quo textu multi codd. cum sex primis edd. falso mutuum pro unitivum.
    On the Divine Names, c. 4, § 15. See here a. 2, q. 2, fundamentum 2. — In which text many codices with the first six editions wrongly read mutuum for unitivum.
  8. Vers. 10.
    Verse 10 (Cant. 5:10).
  9. Vers. 14. et 17. — Plura de his vide infra d. 17. p. I. dub. 1. Consentiunt S. Thom. S. p. I. II. q. 26. a. 3; B. Albert., hic a. 2; Richard. et Petrus, hic circa lit.
    Verses 14 and 17 (1 Cor. 4:14, 17). — On these see further below d. 17, p. I, dub. 1. St. Thomas agrees, S. Theol. I-II, q. 26, a. 3; Bl. Albert here a. 2; Richard and Peter [a Tarantasia] here in commenting on the text.
  10. In officio Ss. Trinitatis, I. Ant. 3. Nocturn.
    In the Office of the Most Holy Trinity, the first antiphon of the third Nocturn.
  11. Libr. V. de Trin. c. 17. et seqq. Vide supra a. 1. q. 3. opp. 4. — Mox ex antiquioribus mss. et ed. 1 substituimus quia loco quod.
    On the Trinity, Bk. V, c. 17 ff. See above a. 1, q. 3, contra 4. — Shortly after, on the testimony of the older manuscripts and ed. 1, we have substituted quia for quod.
  12. Nempe inter sapientiam et caritatem quoad appropriationem et sensum proprii, prout patet paulo infra ex secunda solutione.
    Namely, between wisdom and charity as regards appropriation and the sense of proper, as appears slightly below from the second solution.
  13. Vide lit. Magistri, c. 2, et pro sequentibus c. 3.
    See Lombard's text (Littera Magistri), c. 2, and for what follows, c. 3.
  14. Fide mss. et ed. 1 adiecimus hic vere, et mox post infra expunximus eadem distinctione. Nonnulli codd. ut A G H I T etc. cum ed. 1 vere proprie, sed non ita congrue; cod. cc vere et proprie.
    On the testimony of the manuscripts and ed. 1 we have here added vere, and shortly after infra we have expunged eadem distinctione. Some codices (A G H I T etc.) with ed. 1 read vere proprie, but not so fittingly; codex cc vere et proprie.
  15. Comment. in I. Epist. ad Cor. c. 8, 2: Dum enim caritatem, quae mater omnium bonorum est, non sectantur, non sciunt, sicut oportet. Ceterum hic Comment. non est genuinus. De auctore (Ambrosiaster vulgo vocatur) vide infra d. XIX. c. 4, nota ad textum Magistri.
    Commentary on 1 Corinthians c. 8:2: "For while they do not pursue charity, which is the mother of all good things, they do not know as they ought". This commentary, however, is not genuine. On the author (commonly called Ambrosiaster) see below d. XIX, c. 4, note on Lombard's text.
  16. Vers. 14.
    Verse 14 (Col. 3:14).
  17. Vat. cum aliquibus codd. quaeritur. Paulo infra post movet unus alterve cod. ut IZ addit Magister.
    The Vatican edition with some codices reads quaeritur [present tense]. Slightly later, after movet, one or two codices (e.g. IZ) add Magister.
  18. Ed. 1 diligunt. Mox cod. T sunt Spiritu sancto pro sunt Spiritus sanctus.
    Ed. 1 reads diligunt. Shortly after, codex T reads sunt Spiritu sancto in place of sunt Spiritus sanctus.
  19. Libr. XV. de Trin. c. 7. n. 12, et c. 17. n. 28.
    De Trinitate XV, c. 7, n. 12, and c. 17, n. 28.
  20. Cod. O et ratio huius loco et regula. Mox post absolutis ex antiquis mss. et ed. 1 substituimus vero pro autem.
    Codex O reads and the reason of this in place of and the rule. Shortly after absolutis, on the testimony of the old manuscripts and ed. 1, we have substituted vero for autem.
  21. Vat. cum cod. cc, aliis autem codd. cum ed. 1 obnitentibus, potest.
    The Vatican edition with codex cc, against the other codices and ed. 1, reads potest.
  22. Codd. inter se non conveniunt; multi ut AFGHIK ST X Y etc. cum ed. 1 exhibent lectionem nostram; Vat. cum cod. cc minus distincte Pater et Filius diligunt se; cod. I Pater et Filius diligit se.
    The codices do not agree among themselves; many (AFGHIK ST X Y etc.) with ed. 1 give our reading; the Vatican edition with codex cc less distinctly reads Pater et Filius diligunt se; codex I Pater et Filius diligit se.
  23. Dist. 32. a. 1. q. 1. et 2.
    Distinction 32, a. 1, q. 1 and 2.
  24. Mendosa lectio Vat. ex hoc pro hoc, et paulo infra scilicet loco quod castigatur ex mss. et ed. 1.
    The corrupt reading of the Vatican edition, ex hoc for hoc, and slightly later scilicet in place of quod, is corrected from the manuscripts and ed. 1.
  25. Codd. dd hic.
    Codices dd read hic.
  26. Plura de hoc vide hic, a. 2. q. 2.
    On this see further here, a. 2, q. 2.
  27. Ed. 1 addit istorum.
    Ed. 1 adds istorum.
  28. Fide antiquiorum mss. et ed. 1 substituimus essentia loco essentialiter.
    On the testimony of the older manuscripts and ed. 1 we have substituted essentia for essentialiter.
  29. Pauci codd. ut K V X Spiritus sancti pro spirationis.
    A few codices (K V X) read Spiritus sancti in place of spirationis.
  30. Verba Augustini vide in lit. Magistri, c. 2. circa finem.
    For Augustine's words see Lombard's text, c. 2, near the end.
  31. Codd. L O addunt nisi cum aliquo addito, et mox bene ponunt vero pro nisi, quod edd. et plurimi codd. habent.
    Codices L and O add nisi cum aliquo addito, and shortly after rightly set vero in place of nisi, which the editions and most codices have. ---
← Dist. 10, Art. 2, Q. 3