Dist. 18, Art. 1, Q. 6
Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity · Distinction 18
QUAESTIO VI.
Utrum Spiritus sanctus ratione donabilitatis dici possit Spiritus noster.
Sexto et ultimo quaeritur, utrum ratione donabilitatis dicatur Spiritus noster. Et quod sic videtur:
1. Quia noster dicit possessionem; sed nos non habemus1 aliquid divinum nisi per largitionem et donationem: ergo cum Spiritus sanctus dicat quid divinum, quod dicitur noster, hoc est ratione donabilitatis.
2. Item, hoc etiam videtur, quia2 dicitur Spiritus noster, non autem dicitur Filius vel Pater noster: ergo propter aliquam proprietatem, quae est in Spiritu sancto et non in Patre et Filio; sed haec non est nisi donabilitas: ergo etc.
3. Item, antequam Spiritus sanctus habitet in nobis, non dicitur noster; sed inhabitat per donationem: ergo dicitur noster ratione donabilitatis.
Contra:
1. Si ratione donabilitatis: ergo cum donabilitas sit proprietas personalis, non essentialis, videtur3 solum dici de persona Spiritus sancti: hoc autem falsum, quia dicitur Deus noster.
2. Item, si ratione donabilitatis: ergo constat, quod non per comparationem ad dantem, sed ad eum cui datur; sed Filius datus est nobis4 5 etiam magis quam Spiritus sanctus: ergo etc.
3. Item, si ratione donabilitatis: ergo debet convenienter6 dici donum nostrum.
4. Item, si ratione donabilitatis: ergo cum donabilis sit nobis magis in quantum sanctus quam in quantum spiritus, melius deberet7 dici Spiritus sanctus noster: quod tamen non dicitur.
Quaeritur ergo generaliter, de quibus possit dici noster.
CONCLUSIO.
Pronomen possessivum meus vel noster cum copula est propriissime de Spiritu sancto ratione donabilitatis et per appropriationem dicitur; idem pronomen sine copula iis tantum adiungitur nominibus divinis, quae exprimunt respectum ad nos secundum rationem causae vel correlationis.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod meum et nostrum dupliciter possunt8 attribui alicui: vel mediante compositione, vel immediate. Si mediante compositione, sic de se ponunt propriam habitudinem circa terminum, scilicet habitudinem possessionis9, ut cum dicitur: hoc est meum: et hoc modo, quia omnis qui habet spiritum Dei, habet Deum et omnia quae sunt Dei, hoc modo meum vel nostrum et tuum10 potest dici de omni, quod in Deo est communiter, sed magis proprie de Filio, qui11 datus est nobis per incarnationem, maxime autem de Spiritu sancto, qui est pignus aeternae hereditatis12. Unde concedendum, quod ratione donabilitatis potest inter alias personas ratio possidendi appropriari Spiritui sancto.
Potest etiam hoc quod est nostrum attribui alicui immediate, et sic non dicit habitudinem13, sed rationem habitudinis importatae per terminum, cui unitur. Sic enim nulli unitur, nisi quod importat respectum explicite, ut pater noster vel meus, vel implicite, ut liber meus14, ut est possessio mea.
Secundum hoc notandum, quod non dicitur
meus vel noster de aliquo nisi secundum illud nomen, secundum quod dicitur hoc esse huius; hoc autem esse huius potest dici secundum triplicem habitudinem: aut informationis, ut albedo Petri; et hanc habitudinem important nomina, quae significant in abstractione; et quia nihil divinum comparatur ad nos secundum habitudinem informationis, ideo non potest dici de nominibus abstractivis noster: ideo non dicitur deitas nostra nec aeternitas nostra.
Potest etiam secundo dici hoc esse huius secundum habitudinem causalitatis; et hanc habitudinem important nomina, quae dicunt actum, ut creator; et quia hanc habitudinem omnino habent divina ad nos, pene de omnibus talibus nominibus dicitur nostrum.
Potest etiam tertio modo dici hoc esse huius secundum habitudinem correlationis; et hanc habitudinem important nomina relativa. Sed haec sunt dupliciter: quia quaedam dicunt respectum personae ad personam, quaedam autem respectum ad creaturam. De his quae dicunt respectum ad personam, non dicitur meus vel noster. De his autem quae ad nos, ut dominus, magister, recte dicitur noster.
Dicendum ergo, quod donabilitas quantum ad istum modum dicendi nostrum nihil facit, sicut probant rationes secundo inductae; sed hoc facit respectus, quia spiritus dicit respectum ad illum cui inspiratur, et hoc sumus nos; ideo dicitur Spiritus noster. Similiter Deus, quia imponitur ab actu, quem habet circa nos, ut dicit Damascenus[?]; ideo dicitur Deus noster.
Est ergo regula, quod de his dicitur noster, quae dicunt respectum ad nos secundum habitudinem causalitatis vel correlationis: et sic patent omnia obiecta.
I. Secundum titulum in principio positum quaestio esset tantum specialis de hac locutione, utrum Spiritus sanctus ratione donabilitatis dici possit Spiritus noster; sed in fine argumentorum ad opposit. ponitur quaestio generalis, nempe haec, cum quibus divinis nominibus possit coniungi possessivum noster vel meus; et fere tota responsio ad hanc generalem quaestionem pertinet. Acute distinguitur duplex modus, quo pronomina possessiva alicui possunt attribui, scil. vel mediante compositione sive copula (ut per verbum est, quin determinetur per aliquod adiunctum, v. g. liber est meus), vel sine copula v. g. amicus noster. In primo casu ratione possessionis divina possunt dici nostra, et quidem tum communia tum etiam propria, quae nobis speciali modo sunt data; quod maxime verificatur de tertia persona. Sic ratione donabilitatis propriissime dici potest: Spiritus sanctus est noster. In secundo casu ratio donabilitatis non est ad propositum, sive ut textus dicit: «Nihil facit, sicut probant rationes secundo inductae»: sed potius attendi debet, qualem habitudinem habeat ad nos ipse terminus, cui coniungitur possessivum. Haec habitudo ad nos secundum S. Doctorem potest esse triplex. Si haec habitudo est causalitatis vel correlationis (sub ultima intellige etiam rationem finis), tum possessivum illud recte his nominibus divinis uniri potest. Cum autem spiritus dicat respectum ad effectum spiritualem, nempe inspirationem, ideo non inepte dici potest Spiritus noster. Sed non bene dicitur: Spiritus sanctus noster; de quo cfr. Alex. Hal. et Richard. locis citt.
II. Idem docent Alex. Hal., S. p. 1. q. 63. m. 3. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 3; S. 1. q. 36. a. 1. ad 3. — B. Albert., hic a. 10; S. p. 1. tr. 8. q. 36. m. 2. partic. 3. i. 5. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 4. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic q. 6. — Aegid. R., hic 3. princ. q. unica. — Henr. Gand., S. a. 59. q. 5. n. 16. 17. — Durand., hic q. 3. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 3.
---
QUESTION VI.
Whether the Holy Spirit by reason of donability can be called our Spirit.
Sixthly and lastly it is asked, whether by reason of donability He is called our Spirit. And that it is so, it seems:
1. Because ours expresses possession; but we do not have1 anything divine except through largesse and donation: therefore since the Holy Spirit expresses something divine, which is called ours, this is by reason of donability.
2. Likewise, this also seems [the case], because2 He is called our Spirit, but the Son or the Father is not called ours: therefore on account of some property which is in the Holy Spirit and not in the Father and the Son; but this is nothing other than donability: therefore etc.
3. Likewise, before the Holy Spirit dwells in us, He is not called ours; but He inhabits through donation: therefore He is called ours by reason of donability.
On the contrary:
1. If by reason of donability: therefore since donability is a personal, not essential property, it seems3 to be said only of the person of the Holy Spirit: but this is false, because we say our God.
2. Likewise, if by reason of donability: therefore it is established that not by comparison to the giver, but to him to whom He is given; but the Son was given to us4 5 even more than the Holy Spirit: therefore etc.
3. Likewise, if by reason of donability: therefore He ought fittingly6 to be called our gift.
4. Likewise, if by reason of donability: therefore since He is donatable to us more in that He is holy than in that He is spirit, it would be better to say7 our Holy Spirit — which however is not said.
It is asked therefore generally, of what things ours can be said.
CONCLUSION.
The possessive pronoun mine or ours with a copula is most properly said of the Holy Spirit by reason of donability and through appropriation; the same pronoun without a copula is joined only to those divine names which express a relation to us according to the account of cause or of correlation.
I respond: It must be said that mine and ours can in two ways8 be attributed to someone: either by means of composition, or immediately. If by means of composition, then of themselves they posit a proper relation toward the term — namely, the relation of possession9 — as when it is said: this is mine. And in this way, because everyone who has the Spirit of God has God and all things which are God's, in this way mine or ours and thine10 can be said of everything that is in God commonly, but more properly of the Son, who11 was given to us through the incarnation, and most of all of the Holy Spirit, who is the pledge of eternal inheritance12. Hence it must be conceded that by reason of donability, among the other persons, the account of possessing can be appropriated to the Holy Spirit.
That which is ours can also be attributed to someone immediately, and thus it does not express a relation13 [as such], but the account of the relation conveyed by the term to which it is joined. For thus it is joined to nothing except what conveys a relation explicitly, as our or my father, or implicitly, as my book14, as it is my possession.
According to this it must be noted that one is not said
[to be] mine or ours with respect to anything except according to that name according to which it is said this is of him; but this being of him can be said according to a threefold relation: either of information, as the whiteness of Peter; and this relation is conveyed by names which signify in abstraction; and because nothing divine is compared to us according to a relation of information, therefore ours cannot be said of abstract names: therefore it is not said our deity nor our eternity.
It can also secondly be said this is of him according to a relation of causality; and this relation is conveyed by names which express an act, as creator; and because divine [things] altogether have this relation to us, of nearly all such names ours is said.
It can also be said in a third way this is of him according to a relation of correlation; and this relation is conveyed by relative names. But these are of two kinds: because some express a relation of person to person, others a relation to a creature. Of those which express a relation to a person, mine or ours is not said. But of those which [express a relation] to us, as lord, master, ours is rightly said.
It must be said therefore that donability has nothing to do with this manner of saying ours, as the second-adduced reasons prove; but this is done by relation, because spirit expresses a relation to him to whom it is breathed in, and this is we ourselves; therefore He is called our Spirit. Similarly God, because [the name] is imposed from an act which He has toward us, as Damascene says[?]; therefore He is called our God.
The rule, therefore, is that ours is said of those [names] which express a relation to us according to the relation of causality or of correlation: and thus all the objections are clear.
I. According to the title set down at the beginning, the question would be only a special one about this expression — whether the Holy Spirit by reason of donability can be called our Spirit; but at the end of the arguments to the opposite [side] a general question is set down, namely this: with which divine names can the possessive ours or mine be joined; and almost the whole response pertains to this general question. Acutely is distinguished the twofold mode by which possessive pronouns can be attributed to someone, namely either by means of composition or copula (as through the verb est, without it being determined by some adjunct — e.g., the book is mine), or without a copula, e.g. our friend. In the first case, by reason of possession, divine [things] can be called ours — and indeed both the common ones and also the proper ones, which are given to us in a special manner; which is most of all verified of the third person. Thus by reason of donability it can most properly be said: the Holy Spirit is ours. In the second case, the account of donability is not to the point, or, as the text says: «It does nothing, as the second-adduced reasons prove»: but rather what must be attended to is what kind of relation the term itself, to which the possessive is joined, has toward us. This relation toward us, according to the Holy Doctor, can be threefold. If this relation is of causality or of correlation (under the latter understand also the account of end), then that possessive can rightly be united to those divine names. But since spirit expresses a relation to a spiritual effect, namely inspiration, therefore not ineptly can it be said our Spirit. But it is not well said: our Holy Spirit; concerning which cf. Alex. of Hales and Richard at the cited places.
II. The same is taught by Alexander of Hales, Summa p. 1, q. 63, m. 3. — St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 3; Summa I, q. 36, a. 1, ad 3. — Bl. Albert, here a. 10; Summa p. 1, tr. 8, q. 36, m. 2, partic. 3, i. 5. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 4, a. 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, here q. 6. — Giles of Rome, here 3. princ. q. unica. — Henry of Ghent, Summa a. 59, q. 5, n. 16, 17. — Durandus, here q. 3. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 3.
---
- Ita antiquiores codd. cum ed. 1, dum Vat. cum codd. [?] habuimus. Paulo infra Vat. dicatur loco dicitur.Thus the older codices with edition 1, while the Vatican with [some] codices [reads] habuimus. A little below the Vatican [reads] dicatur in place of dicitur.
- In plurimis mss. et Vat. hic additur etiam, quod tamen deest in cod. X et ed. 1 nec non superfluum esse videtur. Mox post Spiritus aliqui codd. ut SVX addunt sanctus, sed incongrue, ut ex corp. quaest. patet.In most manuscripts and the Vatican here is added etiam, which however is missing in codex X and edition 1 and seems to be superfluous. Soon after, after Spiritus, some codices such as S, V, X add sanctus, but inappropriately, as is plain from the body of the question.
- Videtur supplendum personaliter; cf. Alex. loc. cit. ad [?].It seems that personaliter should be supplied; cf. Alexander, at the cited place ad [?].
- Supple: noster, vel lege cum cod. Y noster solum dicitur. Paulo infra post falsum unus alterque codex ut bb addit est.Supply: noster, or read with codex Y noster solum dicitur. A little below, after falsum, one or another codex such as bb adds est.
- Isai. 9, 6.Isaiah 9:6.
- Plures codd. ut AHITVWXcc ff cum ed. 1 debet congruenter.Several codices such as A, H, I, T, V, W, X, cc, ff with edition 1 [read] debet congruenter.
- Vat. contra plurimos mss. et ed. 1 debet.The Vatican, against most manuscripts and edition 1, [reads] debet.
- Ed. 1 cum uno alteroque cod. ut X hic potest, et paulo infra cum pluribus codd. ut AISTYZ ponit loco ponunt.Edition 1 with one or another codex such as X here [reads] potest, and a little below with several codices such as A, I, S, T, Y, Z [reads] ponit in place of ponunt.
- Aliis verbis: relationem rei habitae ad habentem. Vide Aristot., de Praedicam. in fine, ubi de Habere agitur, et V. Metaph. text. 29. (IV. c. 23.).In other words: the relation of the thing possessed to the possessor. See Aristotle, On the Categories, at the end, where he treats of Having, and Metaphysics V, text 29 (IV, c. 23).
- Ita maior pars mss. cum ed. 1, dum aliqui cum Vat. particulas vel ac et transponunt, aliqui autem ut I et ff pro et ponunt vel; cod. A tandem vel suum loco et tuum. Mox cod. G post omni addit eo.Thus the greater part of the manuscripts with edition 1, while some with the Vatican transpose the particles vel ac et, but others such as I and ff in place of et put vel; codex A finally [reads] vel suum in place of et tuum. Soon after, codex G after omni adds eo.
- Vat. cum aliquibus mss. quia, et cod. I in eo quod.The Vatican with some manuscripts [reads] quia, and codex I [reads] in eo quod.
- Ephes. 1, 14, ubi Vulgata nostrae loco aeternae. — Paulo ante cod. M post autem addit proprie.Ephesians 1:14, where the Vulgate [reads] nostrae in place of aeternae. — A little before, codex M after autem adds proprie.
- Supple: propriam, vel cum Vat. possessionis, quae et post sed cum aliquibus mss. et sex primis edd. adiungit tantum.Supply: propriam, or with the Vatican possessionis, which also after sed with some manuscripts and the first six editions adds tantum.
- Unus alterve cod. ut G cum ed. 1 noster. Mox in multis mss. et ed. 1 omittitur mea.One or another codex such as G with edition 1 [reads] noster. Soon after, in many manuscripts and edition 1, mea is omitted.