← Back to Distinction 18

Dist. 18, Art. 1, Q. 1

Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity · Distinction 18

Textus Latinus
p. 323

Articulus Unicus. De proprietate Spiritus sancti, qua est donum.

### Quaestio I. Utrum Spiritus sanctus sit donum, in quo omnia alia dona donantur.

Circa primum, quod Spiritus sanctus sit donum, quo omnia alia dona1 donantur, ostenditur auctoritate et ratione.

1. Auctoritate sic: Apostolus primae ad Corinthios duodecimo2: Divisiones gratiarum sunt, idem autem Spiritus, qui dividit singulis, prout vult: et loquitur de donis non tantum gratiae gratum facientis, sed etiam quae sunt gratis datae: ergo si per Spiritum sanctum dantur utraque, cum non sit alia differentia donorum, ipse est donum, in quo omnia alia dona donantur.

2. Item, Augustinus decimo quinto de Trinitate3: «Per donum, quod est Spiritus sanctus, commune omnibus membris Christi, propria quibusque dona dividuntur».

3. Item, ratione ostenditur sic: Spiritus sanctus est primum donum; sed omne posterius ad prius reducitur: ergo omne donum reducitur ad donum, quod est Spiritus sanctus: ergo in omnibus donis ratio donationis est per Spiritum sanctum: ergo etc.

4. Item, omne donum, in quantum donum, ex amore datur, alioquin non habet rationem doni; sed «Spiritus sanctus est amor Patris et Filii», ut dicit Augustinus, et habitum est supra4: ergo etc.

Contra: 1. Isidorus5: «Multis indignis Spiritu sancto dantur dona Spiritus sancti»: ergo contingit alia dona donari sine hoc: ergo non est donum, in quo omnia alia dona donantur.

2. Item, aliqua sunt dona, quae appropriantur Filio, ut puta sunt illa quae dantur ad illustrationem intellectus: ergo si loquamur appropriate, talia dona donantur6 in Filio sive per Filium, non dono, quod est Spiritus sanctus.

3. Item, Filius datus est nobis, Isaiae nono7: Parvulus natus est nobis, Filius datus est nobis: ergo si datur per Spiritum sanctum, videtur quod Spiritus sanctus aliquam auctoritatem vel influentiam habeat in Filium; hoc autem est falsum: ergo non omnia alia dona donantur per Spiritum sanctum.

4. Item, hoc ipsum8 ostenditur per impossibile: esto quod intelligatur per impossibile, Spiritum sanctum non esse, adhuc Pater et Filius intelliguntur, ut liberales, alioquin inest eis liberalitas a Spiritu sancto, quod falsum est: ergo si intelliguntur liberales, ergo et donatores.

5. Item, si Spiritus sanctus est donum, in quo alia dona donantur, ergo donum est doni et donationis9 donatio: et si hoc, motus est motus et relationis relatio, et hoc habet Philosophus10 pro inconvenienti. Cum enim dependens non possit alterum terminare, erit ibi processus in infinitum.

Conclusio. Ista locutio, si ablativus in quo sumitur in sensu concomitantiae, solummodo quoad dona gratuita vera est; si vero in sensu causalitatis, et quidem causae exemplaris, vera est quoad omnia dona.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod cum dicitur, quod Spiritus sanctus est donum, in quo omnia alia dona donantur, ablativus iste potest accipi dupliciter: vel ita, quod dicat concomitantiam, vel ita11, quod dicat causalitatem. Si dicat concomitantiam, sic intelligendo universaliter, falsum est; quia est sensus, quod detur cum omnibus donis. Quaedam enim sunt dona, quae semper sunt cum Spiritu sancto, ut caritas et sapientia: quaedam, quae12 nunquam sunt cum Spiritu sancto, ut timor servilis; quaedam,

p. 324

quae aliquando sunt cum Spiritu sancto, aliquando sine, ut fides, prophetia et huiusmodi.

Si autem particulariter intelligatur de donis gratiae gratum facientis13, sic vera est et non habet instantiam.

Potest iterum ablativus iste14 importare causalitatem, et hoc tripliciter: vel ita, quod dicat simpliciter causalitatem, et in hoc non distinguitur nec a Patre nec a Filio, quia omnia dona sunt a Patre et a Filio, ut15 a Spiritu sancto; vel ita, ut dicat causalitatem et subauctoritatem, et in hoc distinguitur a Patre, sed non a Filio, quia Pater et per Filium et per Spiritum sanctum donat; vel ita, ut16 dicat causalitatem et subauctoritatem et exemplaritatem, et sic proprie Spiritui sancto convenit. Ipse enim procedit per modum primi doni, ita quod omnis donatio recta et gratuita post illam est et ab illa accipit rationem donationis. Concedendum est ergo, quod Spiritus sanctus est donum, quo omnia dona, scilicet gratuita, donantur per concomitantiam, et quo omnia Dei dona donantur per exemplaritatis causam.

1. Ad illud ergo17 quod obiicitur primo de Isidoro, iam patet responsio, quod ipse loquitur de donis gratiae gratis datae, non gratum facientis.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur secundo, quod quaedam dona appropriantur Filio; dicendum, quod de donis est loqui dupliciter: aut ratione eius quod subest, aut sub18 ratione donationis. Ratione eius quod subest aliqua dona appropriantur Filio, ut sapientia et intelligentia, aliqua Spiritui sancto, ut caritas. Ratione vero donationis, omnia appropriantur Spiritui sancto ratione iam dicta, quia per ipsum tanquam per primum donum donantur alia19.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Filius est datus, et non a Spiritu sancto; responderi potest, quod Filius est datus secundum humanam naturam, et hoc fuit per amorem, Ioannis tertio20: Sic Deus dilexit mundum, ut Filium suum unigenitum daret.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod, Spiritu sancto circumscripto, adhuc manet ratio doni; dicendum, quod, circumscripto Spiritu sancto, est intelligere in Deo donorum causalitatem et subauctoritatem, sed non exemplaritatem donationis sub ratione donationis, quia non intelligitur processus amoris; et hoc ultimo modo dicitur proprie convenire Spiritui sancto.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod tunc est donum doni; dicendum, quod motus non est motus, ut termini, similiter nec relationis relatio; tamen ut principii et21 motus est motus, quia motus est principium motus, et relatio relationis; et sic dicitur donum doni. Et quia in causando statur in primo, cum sit primum donum, non est abire in infinitum. Praeterea, donum in divinis veram hypostasim dicit.

Scholion

I. De hoc nomine doni, quod est proprium Spiritui sancto, Seraphicus uberius prae omnibus antiquis magistris in tota hac distinctione loquitur. — Propositio, quod Spiritus sanctus sit donum, in quo omnia alia dona donantur, si verba: omnia dona universaliter sumuntur, in sensu falso potest intelligi, cum quaedam sint dona, quae quidem donantur per Spiritum sanctum, sed non cum Spiritu sancto. Nam Concilium Tridentinum dicit (Sess. 14. c. 4. de contritione): «Timorem esse quidem donum Dei, non tamen inhabitantis Spiritus sancti, sed impellentis». — Si S. Doctor affirmat, timorem servilem nunquam esse cum Spiritu sancto, intelligit timorem serviliter servilem, qui non potest stare cum gratia sanctificante, bene vero timor simpliciter servilis, sicut et spes, quod constat ex Tridentino (Sess. 6. cap. 9.). De timore eiusque speciebus videsis III. Sent. d. 18. dub. 1. et d. 34. p. II. a. 1. et 2.[?]

II. Pro explicatione solutionis ad 5. servire possunt verba Richardi (hic q. 5. ad 2.): «Quamvis motus non principiet alium motum ut proprium eius terminum et immediatum, tamen certum est, quod per unum motum causatur alius. Et longe in infinitum fortius per donum aeternum, quod est res subsistens, potest immediate causari donum creatum». Eodem fere modo hanc obiectionem solvunt S. Thom. (hic q. 1. a. 3.); B. Albert. (hic a. 1. ad 1.); Petr. a Tar. (hic q. 3. a. 1. ad 6.).

III. Praeter iam nominatos auctores cfr. Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 64. m. 1. — S. Thom., loc. cit., et S. c. Gent. IV. c. 21. — Aegid. R., hic 1. princ. q. 3. — Henr. Gand., S. a. 61. q. 9. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 1.

---

English Translation

Article Unique. On the property of the Holy Spirit by which He is Gift.

### Question I. Whether the Holy Spirit is the Gift in which all other gifts are given.

As to the first [question], that the Holy Spirit is the Gift by which all other gifts1 are given is shown by authority and by reason.

1. By authority thus: the Apostle, in 1 Corinthians 122: There are diversities of graces, but the same Spirit, who divides to each one as He wills: and he speaks of gifts not only of the grace which makes pleasing [gratum faciens], but also of those which are given gratuitously [gratis datae]: therefore if both are given through the Holy Spirit, since there is no other distinction of gifts, He Himself is the Gift in which all other gifts are given.

2. Likewise, Augustine, On the Trinity XV3: «Through the Gift, which is the Holy Spirit, common to all the members of Christ, [their] proper gifts are distributed to each».

3. Likewise, by reason it is shown thus: the Holy Spirit is the first Gift; but everything posterior is reduced to the prior: therefore every gift is reduced to the Gift, which is the Holy Spirit: therefore in all gifts the account of the giving is through the Holy Spirit: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, every gift, insofar as it is a gift, is given out of love, otherwise it does not have the account of a gift; but «the Holy Spirit is the love of the Father and of the Son», as Augustine says, and as has been held above4: therefore etc.

On the contrary: 1. Isidore5: «To many unworthy of the Holy Spirit are given the gifts of the Holy Spirit»: therefore it happens that other gifts are given without this [one]: therefore He is not the Gift in which all other gifts are given.

2. Likewise, there are certain gifts which are appropriated to the Son — such as those which are given for the illumination of the intellect: therefore if we speak by appropriation, such gifts are given6 in the Son or through the Son, not by the Gift which is the Holy Spirit.

3. Likewise, the Son was given to us, in Isaiah 97: A Child is born to us, a Son is given to us: therefore if He is given through the Holy Spirit, it seems that the Holy Spirit has some authority or influence over the Son; but this is false: therefore not all other gifts are given through the Holy Spirit.

4. Likewise, this very thing8 is shown by impossibility [per impossibile]: granted that one suppose by impossibility that the Holy Spirit is not, still the Father and the Son are understood as liberal — otherwise liberality is in them from the Holy Spirit, which is false: therefore if they are understood as liberal, then also as donators.

5. Likewise, if the Holy Spirit is the Gift in which other gifts are given, therefore the Gift is the Gift of the Gift and the giving of the giving9: and if so, motion is the motion and the relation of relation, and the Philosopher10 holds this for incongruous. For since the dependent cannot terminate another, there will be a process to infinity.

Conclusion. This locution — if the ablative in which is taken in the sense of concomitance — is true only of gratuitous gifts; but if [it is taken] in the sense of causality, and indeed of exemplar causality, it is true of all gifts.

I respond: It must be said that when it is said that the Holy Spirit is the Gift in which all other gifts are given, this ablative can be taken in two ways: either thus, that it expresses concomitance, or thus11, that it expresses causality. If it expresses concomitance, then so understanding it universally, it is false; because the sense is that He is given with all gifts. For there are certain gifts which are always with the Holy Spirit, as charity and wisdom; certain ones which12 are never with the Holy Spirit, as servile fear; certain ones

p. 324

which are sometimes with the Holy Spirit, sometimes without — as faith, prophecy, and the like.

If, however, it be understood particularly of the gifts of the grace which makes pleasing [gratiae gratum facientis]13, so it is true and admits no instance.

Again, this ablative14 can import causality, and this in three ways: either thus, that it expresses causality simply, and in this it is not distinguished either from the Father or from the Son, since all gifts are from the Father and from the Son, as15 from the Holy Spirit; or thus, that it expresses causality and sub-authority, and in this it is distinguished from the Father, but not from the Son, since the Father gives both through the Son and through the Holy Spirit; or thus, that16 it expresses causality and sub-authority and exemplarity, and so it properly belongs to the Holy Spirit. For He proceeds by way of the first Gift, in such wise that every right and gratuitous donation is after that one and from that one receives the account of donation. It is to be conceded therefore that the Holy Spirit is the Gift by which all gifts — namely, gratuitous ones — are given by concomitance, and by which all the gifts of God are given through the cause of exemplarity.

1. To that therefore17 which is objected first concerning Isidore, the response is now plain: that he is speaking of gifts of grace gratuitously given [gratis datae], not of [grace] making pleasing.

2. To that which is objected secondly, that certain gifts are appropriated to the Son; it must be said that one can speak of gifts in two ways: either by reason of that which underlies, or under18 the account of donation. By reason of that which underlies, certain gifts are appropriated to the Son, as wisdom and understanding, and others to the Holy Spirit, as charity. But by reason of the donation, all are appropriated to the Holy Spirit by the reason already stated, because through Him as through the first Gift the others19 are given.

3. To that which is objected, that the Son was given, and not by the Holy Spirit; it can be answered that the Son was given according to His human nature, and this was through love, in John 320: So God loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son.

4. To that which is objected, that, with the Holy Spirit set aside, the account of gift still remains; it must be said that, with the Holy Spirit set aside, one can understand in God the causality and sub-authority of gifts, but not the exemplarity of donation under the account of donation, since the procession of love is not understood; and in this last mode it is said properly to belong to the Holy Spirit.

5. To that which is objected, that then there would be a Gift of a Gift; it must be said that motion is not motion as a term, and likewise neither is there a relation of relation; nevertheless as a principle and21 motion there is motion, since motion is the principle of motion, and the relation of relation; and so it is called the Gift of a gift. And since in causing one stops at the first, since He is the first Gift, there is no going on to infinity. Furthermore, Gift in divine things expresses a true hypostasis.

Scholion

I. Concerning this name Gift, which is proper to the Holy Spirit, the Seraphic [Doctor] speaks more fully than all the ancient masters in the whole of this distinction. — The proposition that the Holy Spirit is the Gift in which all other gifts are given, if the words all gifts are taken universally, can be understood in a false sense, since there are certain gifts which indeed are given through the Holy Spirit, but not with the Holy Spirit. For the Council of Trent says (Sess. 14, c. 4, On contrition): «Fear is indeed a gift of God — not, however, of the indwelling Holy Spirit, but of the impelling [Spirit]». — If the holy Doctor affirms that servile fear is never with the Holy Spirit, he understands the slavishly servile fear, which cannot stand together with sanctifying grace; but [there is] indeed a fear simply servile, just as also hope, which is plain from Trent (Sess. 6, ch. 9). On fear and its species see III Sent., d. 18, dub. 1, and d. 34, p. II, a. 1 and 2.[?]

II. For the explanation of the solution to the 5th [objection], the words of Richard (here q. 5, ad 2) can serve: «Although motion does not initiate another motion as its proper and immediate term, nevertheless it is certain that through one motion another is caused. And far more strongly, by an eternal Gift — which is a subsisting thing — a created gift can be caused immediately». In nearly the same way, this objection is solved by St. Thomas (here q. 1, a. 3); Bl. Albert (here a. 1, ad 1); Petrus a Tar[antasia] (here q. 3, a. 1, ad 6).

III. Besides the authors already named, cf. Alex. of Hales, Summa p. I, q. 64, m. 1. — St. Thomas, loc. cit., and Summa contra Gentiles IV, c. 21. — Aegidius R[omanus], here, 1st principium, q. 3. — Henry of Ghent, Summa a. 61, q. 9. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 1.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. In aliquibus codd. et Vat. deest hic et deinceps pluries in hac propositione dona.
    In some codices and in the Vatican edition, dona ("gifts") is missing here and afterward several times in this proposition.
  2. Vers. 4. et 11, ubi Vulgata dividens loco qui dividit. — Paulo ante Vat. contra mss. et ed. 1 et primo per Apostolum dicentem pro Auctoritate sic: Apostolus.
    Verses 4 and 11, where the Vulgate has dividens in place of qui dividit. — A little before, the Vatican edition, against the manuscripts and ed. 1 and the first [edition], reads per Apostolum dicentem in place of Auctoritate sic: Apostolus.
  3. Cap. 19. n. 34: Per donum, quod est Spiritus sanctus, in commune omnibus membris Christi multa dona, quae sunt quibusque propria, dividuntur. — In quo textu Vat. cum cod. cc, refragantibus tamen antiquioribus mss. et ed. 1, loco dividuntur ponit Dei donantur.
    Ch. 19, n. 34: Through the Gift, which is the Holy Spirit, in common to all the members of Christ many gifts, which are proper to each, are distributed. — In this text the Vatican edition with cod. cc — though the older manuscripts and ed. 1 resist — places Dei donantur in place of dividuntur.
  4. Dist. X. in lit. Magistri, c. 1. et 2.
    Distinction X, in the text of the Master, chapters 1 and 2.
  5. Lib. I. Sent. sive de Summo bono, c. 15. n. 8: Aliquando non dignis et reprobis dona Spiritus sancti conferuntur. — Cod. Z cum ed. operum S. Isidori post indignis ponit et reprobis.
    Book I of the Sentences or On the Highest Good, c. 15, n. 8: Sometimes the gifts of the Holy Spirit are bestowed on the unworthy and the reprobate. — Cod. Z, with the edition of the works of St. Isidore, places et reprobis after indignis.
  6. Ed. 1 cum uno alterove codice dantur.
    Edition 1, with one or another codex, reads dantur.
  7. Vers. 6.
    Verse 6.
  8. Ex antiquioribus mss. et ed. 1 adiecimus ipsum.
    From the older manuscripts and ed. 1 we have added ipsum.
  9. Fide mss. et ed. 1 expunximus additum est.
    On the authority of the manuscripts and ed. 1 we have expunged the added est.
  10. Libr. V. Phys. text. 10–18. (c. 2.), et XI. Metaph. c. 11. (X. c. 12.), ubi inter cetera argumenta etiam istud habet, quod, si motus esset motus, statuendus esset progressus in infinitum, qui repugnat. Cfr. etiam I. Prior. c. 37. (c. 33.). — Mox Vat. contra fere omnes codd. et ed. 1 incongrue determinare pro terminare.
    Physics V, text 10–18 (c. 2), and Metaphysics XI, c. 11 (X, c. 12), where among other arguments he also has this — that, if motion were [a] motion, a progress to infinity would have to be posited, which is repugnant. Cf. also I Prior [Analytics], c. 37 (c. 33). — Next, the Vatican edition, against nearly all the codices and ed. 1, incongruously [reads] determinare in place of terminare.
  11. Ex vetustioribus mss. et edd. 1, 2, 3, 6 substituimus ita loco sic.
    From the older manuscripts and editions 1, 2, 3, 6 we substituted ita in place of sic.
  12. Ed. 1 hic et paulo infra omittit quae. Mox cod. Z non et cod. V autem non sint loco sine.
    Edition 1 here and a little below omits quae. Next, cod. Z reads non and cod. V autem non sint in place of sine.
  13. Vat. cum cod. cc praeter fidem antiquiorum mss. et ed. 1 donis gratum facientibus. Mox cod. X unum pro istud, scil. propositio illa: Spiritus sanctus est donum, in quo etc.
    The Vatican edition with cod. cc, against the authority of the older manuscripts and ed. 1, [reads] donis gratum facientibus. Next, cod. X reads unum for istud, namely the proposition: The Holy Spirit is the Gift, in which etc.
  14. In Vat. deest iste, quod tamen in mss. (in pluribus ille) et ed. 1 habetur.
    In the Vatican iste is missing, which, however, is found in the manuscripts (in several, ille) and ed. 1.
  15. Auctoritate plurimorum mss. posuimus ut pro minus distincto et, loco cuius ed. 1 sicut habet.
    On the authority of very many manuscripts we placed ut in place of the less distinct et, in place of which ed. 1 has sicut.
  16. Aliqui codd. ut V X cum ed. 1 quod.
    Some codices (V, X), with ed. 1, [read] quod.
  17. Ex multis mss. et ed. 1 supplevimus ergo. Paulo infra nonnulli codd. ut H K Z cum ed. 1 quia ipse pro qui et ipse.
    From many manuscripts and ed. 1 we supplied ergo. A little below, several codices (H, K, Z) with ed. 1 [read] quia ipse in place of qui et ipse.
  18. In cod. V deest sub. Mox post Ratione cum cod. Z et ed. omisimus vero, quod multi cod. cum Vat. habent. Paulo infra in cod. X post aliqua repetitur appropriantur.
    In cod. V sub is missing. Next, after Ratione, with cod. Z and the edition, we omitted vero, which many codices with the Vatican have. A little below, in cod. X after aliqua is repeated appropriantur.
  19. In corp. quaest. circa finem. Mox cod. O omittit alia.
    In the body of the question, near the end. Next, cod. O omits alia.
  20. Vers. 16.
    Verse 16.
  21. In cod. O deficit et.
    In cod. O et is missing.
← Dist. 18, Divisio TextusDist. 18, Art. 1, Q. 2→