Dist. 32, Art. 1, Q. 1
Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity · Distinction 32
Articulus I.
De locutione: Pater et Filius diligunt se Spiritu sancto.
Quaestio I.
Utrum Pater et Filius diligant se Spiritu sancto.
The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation. Each entry gives first the Latin source text (La.), then the English rendering (En.).
Quod autem1 sit admittenda, ostenditur auctoritate et ratione.
1. Primo auctoritate sic: Augustinus sexto de Trinitate2: «Non est aliquis duorum, quo genitus a gignente diligitur genitoremque suum diligit»: ergo est aliquis, et non est Pater vel Filius, ergo est Spiritus sanctus.
2. Item, Hieronymus super Psalmum decimum septimum3: «Spiritus sanctus est amor Patris ad Filium et Filii ad Patrem»; sed amore qui est Patris ad Filium, Pater amat Filium, et e converso: ergo etc.
3. Item, Bernardus de Amore Dei4: «Amas te, inquit, amabilis Domine, cum a Patre et Filio procedit Spiritus sanctus, amor Patris ad Filium, et Filii ad Patrem, et tantus amor, ut sit unitas».
4. Item, ratione ostenditur sic: Magister Hugo de sancto Victore facit talem rationem in epistola quadam ad Bernardum5: «Si recte diceris amare amore, qui a te procedit, cur non Pater et Filius recte dicuntur amare amore, qui ab ipsis procedit»? — Et iterum ibidem: «Si Spiritus sanctus esset amor cordis tui, sicut Patris et Filii, quis, quaeso, posset negare, Spiritu sancto, hoc est amore tuo, te diligere»?
5. Item, alia ratione videtur sic: sicut se habet verbum ad dicere, sic amor ad diligere; sed Pater Verbo suo, quod ab ipso procedit, dicit se et omnia6, quia Pater Verbo suo, quod ab ipso procedit, se ipsum declarat: ergo Pater et Filius amore, qui ab ipsis procedit, se ipsos diligunt.
6. Item, sicut filius non potest produci nisi generando, sic nec amor nisi diligendo: ergo Pater et Filius diligendo se producunt Spiritum sanctum7, qui est amor personalis: aut igitur diligendo amore, qui est Spiritus sanctus, aut qui non est Spiritus sanctus. Si amore, qui non est Spiritus sanctus, aut amor ille est essentialis, aut personalis: non personalis, quia tunc essent duae personae in divinis, quibus conveniret amor proprie, quod est impossibile; similiter nec essentialis, quia ille est Spiritus sanctus. Et iterum, si essentialis, tunc ergo, cum conveniat Spiritui sancto, Spiritus sanctus similiter produceret. Restat igitur, quod producant Spiritum sanctum diligendo se amore, qui est Spiritus sanctus: aut igitur diligendo se, aut diligendo aliud a se. Non aliud, quia tunc aliud exigeretur ad productionem Spiritus sancti: ergo diligendo se Spiritu sancto, producunt Spiritum sanctum: ergo Pater et Filius diligunt se Spiritu sancto.
Contra:
1. Diligere idem est quod velle bonum8, et velle idem est quod esse: ergo cum haec sit falsa: Pater et Filius sunt Spiritu sancto, haec similiter: diligunt se Spiritu sancto.
2. Item, sicut se habet sapere ad Patrem respectu Filii, ita diligere ad Patrem et Filium respectu Spiritus sancti; sed haec est falsa: Pater est sapiens sapientia genita: ergo et illa similiter.
3. Item, omne plurale infert singulare; sed haec est falsa: Pater diligit se Spiritu sancto: ergo et prima. Si dicas, quod diligere tenetur notionaliter; contra: nulla notione contingit mutuo reflecti unam personam super aliam9; sed secundum dilectionem est mutua reflexio in praedicta locutione: ergo diligere non tenetur notionaliter: ergo idem quod prius.
4. Item, nulla notio convenit tribus; sed diligere Spiritu sancto convenit tribus. Nam Pater diligit Spiritu sancto, et Filius diligit Spiritu sancto, et Spiritus sanctus diligit Spiritu sancto, quia se ipso: ergo non tenetur notionaliter: ergo idem quod prius.
5. Item, Pater et Filius eodem amore diligunt se et nos; sed dilectio Dei ad nos est essentialis, cum connotet effectum in creatura: ergo similiter cum dicitur: diligunt se.
6. Item, si tenetur notionaliter, quaero, pro qua notione? Non est dare nisi spirationem: aut ergo active, aut passive. Si active: ergo idem est diligunt se quod spirant; sed haec est falsa: spirant Spiritu sancto10, ergo et prima. Si passive; contra: illa non praedicatur de Patre et Filio, sed de solo Spiritu sancto. Si dicas, quod denominative praedicatur; contra: omnis proprietas, quae de persona praedicatur in divinis in concretione, praedicatur et in abstractione11: ergo cum processio non conveniat Patri et Filio in abstractione: ergo nec denominative.
Conclusio.
Ista locutio falsa est, si tenetur essentialiter; vera autem, si tenetur notionaliter.
Respondeo: Ad praedictorum intelligentiam notandum, quod quidam praedictam locutionem simpliciter negaverunt et dixerunt, omnes consimiles retractatas esse a beato Augustino in sua simili, in hac scilicet: «Pater est sapiens sapientia genita12». — Sed haec solutio non potest stare, quia non solum Augustinus eam dicit, sed etiam alii Sancti, quorum dicta Augustinus non retractat.
Ideo fuerunt alii, qui eam simpliciter concesserunt dicentes, hanc locutionem debere intelligi per appropriationem, non per proprietatem, ut sit sensus: Pater et Filius diligunt se amore, qui appropriatur Spiritui sancto. — Sed ista solutio non potest stare, quia tunc similiter haec esset concedenda: Pater et Filius sunt boni Spiritu sancto; cum Spiritui sancto approprietur bonitas, quae tamen nullo modo conceditur. Igitur prima opinio non potest stare, quae simpliciter tales locutiones negat, cum multiplex auctoritas eas dicat; similiter sequens, quae eas simpliciter concedit, non potest stare, cum multiplex ratio contradicat.
Restat igitur eligere opinionem mediam, scilicet quod uno modo sit vera, alio modo falsa. Nam hoc quod est diligere potest teneri essentialiter, vel notionaliter. Secundum quod tenetur essentialiter, sic dicit complacentiam voluntatis, quae communis est tribus. Secundum quod tenetur notionaliter, sic dicit voluntatis fecunditatem ad producendam personam ex se, quae quidem fecunditas solum est in duobus, quamvis voluntas sit in tribus. Si ergo teneatur essentialiter, falsa est locutio, quia tunc sequitur, quod Pater et Filius sunt Spiritu sancto13. Et in hoc sensu pronomen cum verbo construitur reciproce. Si autem notionaliter, vera est, sicut probant rationes ad oppositum. Et in hoc sensu pronomen construitur cum verbo retransitive. Unde sensus est: Pater et Filius diligunt se, id est, Pater diligit Filium et Filius Patrem; et tunc vera est locutio, quia amor, qui est Spiritus sanctus, est amor nectens Patrem cum Filio et e converso; et tunc non licet inferre: ergo Pater diligit se Spiritu sancto.
Ad argumenta pro parte affirmativa:
Ex hoc patent tria prima. Nam primum, secundum, tertium procedit secundum quod diligere tenetur essentialiter; secundum similiter, nam sapere non dicitur notionaliter, sicut diligere, sed vel est commune, vel appropriatum; tertium similiter, quia procedit secundum quod obliquus construitur reciproce, et tunc diligere tenetur essentialiter.
Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non possit teneri notionaliter; intelligendum est, quod sicut generatio dupliciter potest significari, uno modo, ut dicit emanationem, alio modo, ut dicit modum emanandi superaddita expressione: et primo modo per hoc verbum generare, secundo modo per hoc verbum dicere significatur, sic et spiratio dupliciter potest significari. Primo modo per hoc verbum quod est spirare; secundo modo per hoc verbum quod est diligere. Quemadmodum enim dicere importat generationem et ulterius quandam expressionem circa personam, sic et diligere. Unde sicut dicere importat actum generandi et declarandi sive exprimendi, et ratione actus declarandi dicitur: Pater se dicit Verbo, hoc est, se declarando sive exprimendo generat Verbum, vel generando Verbum se exprimit Verbo; sic et in proposito diligere importat actum connectendi sive concordandi et spirandi, et ratione actus connectendi dicitur: Pater et Filius diligunt se Spiritu sancto, hoc est, invicem concordando spirant Spiritum sanctum, vel spirando Spiritum sanctum invicem connectuntur. Ex his patent obiecta.
Quod enim obiicitur de mutua reflexione, patet responsio, quia haec est ratione actus essentialis cointellecti.
Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod diligere Spiritu sancto convenit tribus et dicitur respectu creaturae; dicendum, quod non convenit tribus ratione spirationis, quam importat; et ideo, quamvis dicatur respectu creaturae, non tamen dicitur essentialiter omnino, sed connotat aliquid essentiale; dicit tamen notionem ratione respectus, quem importat ad personam, sicut supra dictum est de Verbo et Dono.
Ad illud quod ultimo obiicitur, pro qua notione stat: patet, quod stat pro communi spiratione; tamen non licet pro eo ponere verbum spirandi, quia alio modo importat illam notionem. Unde sicut conceditur haec: Pater dicit Verbo, non tamen haec: Pater generat Filio, et tamen dicere importat ipsam generationem; sic in proposito intelligendum est.
I. Haec quaestio supponit, Spiritum S. procedere per modum mutuae caritatis et ut nexus Patris et Filii, de quo supra d. 10. a. 1. q. 2-3, et a. 2. q. 2. — De sensu huius locutionis Petrus Lombardus (hic c. I.) nihil ausus est definire, multaeque exortae sunt opiniones, quarum quinque ab Alberto, novem a S. Thoma (in Comment. hic q. I. a. I.), tres hic a S. Bonaventura recensentur. Prima opinio hic posita, quod S. Augustinus hanc ipsam locutionem retractaverit, adscribitur cuidam Gotfredo; secundam sequitur Durandus, qui (hic q. 1.) dicit, quod «omnes praedictae propositiones sunt simpliciter falsae, si diligere sumatur notionaliter; si vero sumatur essentialiter, sic sunt verae, licet sint impropriae et ideo exponendae» (scil. ut accipiantur per appropriationem, quia amor appropriatur Spiritui S.). Haec sententia evertitur duobus argumentis positis in corp. (sed distinctis locis). Tertia opinio est Hugonis a S. Victore, cui S. Bonav., S. Thom., B. Albert., Alex. Hal. (falso ipsi attribuitur sententia Durandi), Petr. a Tar., Richard. a Med. aliique suffragantur. Haec optime explicatur in solut. ad 3. (cfr. supra d. 27. p. II. q. 1, et d. 10. dub. 3.). — Scotus utitur fundamentis a S. Bonav. ad 3. iactis, distinguendo inter amorem essentialem et notionalem (sicut inter intelligere et dicere), et resolvit, locutionem esse falsam, tum si diligere sumatur pure essentialiter, tum si sumatur pure notionaliter; nihilominus eandem esse veram, si sumatur medio modo, ita ut sensus sit: producunt Spiritum S., habentem habitudinem quandam ad producentes, quorum ipse est amor. Idem arguit etiam contra rationes S. Thomae satis subtiliter. Cui placent hae disquisitiones subtiliores quam utiliores, videre eas potest apud Caietan. (ad S. I. q. 37. a. 2.); apud Commentatorem Scoti Lychetum (hic q. 1.); et Bada, controv. 17; Macedo, coll. 9. diff. 1, aliosque multos utriusque scholae auctores.
II. In solut. ad 5. negatur minor, scilicet quod dilectio Dei ad nos sit omnino essentialis, licet connotet aliquid essentiale. Expressius idem docetur a S. Thoma (loc. cit. ad 3.), ubi ait: «Dicendum, quod Pater non solum Filium, sed etiam se et nos diligit Spiritu S.». Scotus vero (loc. cit. n. 14.) iuxta viam suam hoc non approbat, et etiam Suarez putat, locutionem hanc non esse propriam nec facile usurpandam. De fundamento sententiae Angelici et Seraphici cfr. supra d. 27. p. II. q. 2, et d. 18. q. 2. 5. — Propositionem vero hanc: Pater diligit se Spiritu S., Seraphicus (in fine corp.) non videtur concedere, quam tamen S. Thom. (S. I. q. 37. a. 2. ad 3.) et Scot. admittere non dubitant. S. Bonav. autem loquitur ibi de amore pure essentiali et de Spiritu S. personaliter, non autem de diligere quatenus «importat etiam personam productam per modum amoris, qui habet habitudinem rem dilectam» (ita S. Thom. ad loc. cit.). De diligere non omnino essentiali S. Bonav. tractat in solut. ad 4. 6, ubi disserit de diligere accepto notionaliter, et connotante aliquid essentiale, ac distincto a spirare, sicut dicere a generare. Nam termini spirare et diligere eandem quidem rem, sed diversa ratione significant. Differunt enim sicut quo persona producitur differt a modo huius productionis. Sed transitus a re ad modum est contra regulas logicae. Quoad solut. ad 6. cfr. S. Thom. loc. cit. ad 2.
III. Alii auctores hanc quaestionem simul tractant cum sequenti. Alex. Hal., de hac et seq. q. S. p. I. q. 67. m. 3. a. 3. — Scot., de hac et seq. q. hic et Report. q. 1. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 1; S. I. q. 37. a. 2. — B. Albert., de hac et seq. q. hic a. 1. 2; S. p. I. tr. 12. q. 50. m. 1. q. 3. incid. — Petr. a Tar., de hac et seq. q. hic q. 1. — Richard. a Med., de hac et seq. q. hic a. 1. 2. — Ægid. R., de hac et seq. q. hic 1. princ. q. 1. — Henr. Gand., de hac et seq. q. S. a. 61. q. 7. — Durand., de hac et seq. q. hic q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 1. — de Biel, hac et seq. q. hic q. 1. 2.
---
Article I. On the manner of speaking: "The Father and the Son love each other by the Holy Spirit."
Question I. Whether the Father and the Son love each other by the Holy Spirit.
That this manner of speaking1 is to be admitted is shown from authority and from reason.
1. First, by authority thus: Augustine, On the Trinity VI2: "There is not someone of the two by whom the begotten is loved by the begetter and loves his own begetter": therefore there is someone, and he is not the Father or the Son, therefore he is the Holy Spirit.
2. Likewise, Jerome on Psalm seventeen3: "The Holy Spirit is the love of the Father toward the Son and of the Son toward the Father"; but by the love which is of the Father toward the Son, the Father loves the Son, and conversely: therefore etc.
3. Likewise, Bernard On the Love of God4: "You love yourself, he says, lovable Lord, when from the Father and the Son there proceeds the Holy Spirit, the love of the Father toward the Son, and of the Son toward the Father, and so great a love that it is unity."
4. Likewise, by reason it is shown thus: Master Hugh of St. Victor makes such an argument in a certain letter to Bernard5: "If you are rightly said to love by the love which proceeds from you, why are not the Father and the Son rightly said to love by the love which proceeds from them?" — And again in the same place: "If the Holy Spirit were the love of your heart, as he is of the Father and of the Son, who, I ask, could deny that you love yourself by the Holy Spirit, that is, by your love?"
5. Likewise, by another argument it appears thus: as word is to to speak, so love is to to love; but the Father by his Word, which proceeds from him, speaks himself and all things6, because the Father by his Word, which proceeds from him, makes himself manifest: therefore the Father and the Son, by the love which proceeds from them, love themselves.
6. Likewise, just as a son cannot be produced except by generating, so neither can love except by loving: therefore the Father and the Son, by loving, produce the Holy Spirit7, who is personal love: either, then, by loving by the love which is the Holy Spirit, or by [a love] which is not the Holy Spirit. If by a love which is not the Holy Spirit, that love is either essential or personal: not personal, since then there would be two persons in the divine to whom love would belong properly, which is impossible; nor likewise essential, since that [essential love] is the Holy Spirit. And again, if essential, then since it would belong to the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit similarly would produce. It remains, therefore, that they produce the Holy Spirit by loving by the love which is the Holy Spirit: either, then, by loving themselves, or by loving something other than themselves. Not something other, since then something other would be required for the production of the Holy Spirit: therefore by loving themselves by the Holy Spirit, they produce the Holy Spirit: therefore the Father and the Son love each other by the Holy Spirit.
On the contrary:
1. To love is the same as to will the good8, and to will is the same as to be: therefore since this is false, "the Father and the Son are by the Holy Spirit," this is likewise false: "they love each other by the Holy Spirit."
2. Likewise, as to know is to the Father with respect to the Son, so to love is to the Father and the Son with respect to the Holy Spirit; but this is false: "the Father is wise by begotten wisdom": therefore that one likewise.
3. Likewise, every plural implies a singular; but this is false: "the Father loves himself by the Holy Spirit": therefore the first one as well. If you say that to love is taken notionally; on the contrary: by no notion does it happen that one person is reflected mutually upon another9; but according to love there is mutual reflection in the foregoing locution: therefore to love is not taken notionally: therefore the same as before.
4. Likewise, no notion belongs to the three; but to love by the Holy Spirit belongs to the three. For the Father loves by the Holy Spirit, and the Son loves by the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit loves by the Holy Spirit, since [he loves] by himself: therefore it is not taken notionally: therefore the same as before.
5. Likewise, the Father and the Son love themselves and us by the same love; but God's love toward us is essential, since it connotes an effect in the creature: therefore likewise when it is said: "they love each other."
6. Likewise, if it is taken notionally, I ask, for which notion? There is none to give except spiration: either then actively, or passively. If actively: then they love each other is the same as they spirate; but this is false: they spirate by the Holy Spirit10, therefore the first one as well. If passively; on the contrary: that [passive spiration] is not predicated of the Father and the Son, but of the Holy Spirit alone. If you say that it is predicated denominatively; on the contrary: every property which is predicated of a person in the divine in the concrete is predicated also in the abstract11: therefore since procession does not belong to the Father and the Son in the abstract: therefore neither denominatively.
Conclusion.
This manner of speaking is false, if it is taken essentially; but true, if it is taken notionally.
I respond: For the understanding of what has been said, it must be noted that some have simply denied the foregoing locution and have said that all such [locutions] were retracted by blessed Augustine in another similar to this one, namely: "the Father is wise by begotten wisdom"12. — But this solution cannot stand, since not only does Augustine speak it, but also other Saints, whose statements Augustine does not retract.
Therefore there were others who simply conceded it, saying that this locution must be understood by appropriation, not by property, so that the sense is: the Father and the Son love each other by the love which is appropriated to the Holy Spirit. — But this solution cannot stand either, since then this likewise would have to be conceded: "the Father and the Son are good by the Holy Spirit"; since goodness is appropriated to the Holy Spirit, which nevertheless is in no way conceded. Therefore the first opinion cannot stand, which simply denies such locutions, since manifold authority asserts them; likewise the next, which simply concedes them, cannot stand, since manifold reason contradicts.
It remains, therefore, to choose a middle opinion, namely that in one way it is true, in another way false. For to love can be taken essentially or notionally. According as it is taken essentially, so it expresses the complacency of the will, which is common to the three. According as it is taken notionally, so it expresses the fecundity of the will toward producing a person from itself, which fecundity indeed is only in the two, although the will is in the three. If, then, it is taken essentially, the locution is false, since then it follows that the Father and the Son are by the Holy Spirit13. And in this sense the pronoun is construed reciprocally with the verb. But if notionally, it is true, as the reasons for the opposite prove. And in this sense the pronoun is construed retransitively with the verb. Whence the sense is: the Father and the Son love each other, that is, the Father loves the Son and the Son the Father; and then the locution is true, since the love which is the Holy Spirit is the love connecting the Father with the Son and conversely; and then it is not permitted to infer: therefore the Father loves himself by the Holy Spirit.
To the arguments on the affirmative side:
From this the first three are clear. For the first, second, third proceed according as to love is taken essentially; the second likewise, since to know is not said notionally as to love is, but is either common or appropriated; the third likewise, since it proceeds according as the oblique is construed reciprocally, and then to love is taken essentially.
To that which is objected, that it cannot be taken notionally; it must be understood that just as generation can be signified in two ways — in one way, as it expresses emanation, in another way, as it expresses the mode of emanating with a superadded expression: and in the first way by this verb to generate, in the second way by this verb to speak — so spiration likewise can be signified in two ways. In the first way by this verb which is to spirate; in the second way by this verb which is to love. For just as to speak imports generation and further a certain expression with respect to a person, so also to love. Whence as to speak imports the act of generating and of declaring or expressing, and by reason of the act of declaring it is said: the Father speaks himself by the Word, that is, by declaring or expressing himself he generates the Word, or by generating the Word he expresses himself by the Word; so also in the case proposed to love imports the act of connecting or harmonizing and of spirating, and by reason of the act of connecting it is said: the Father and the Son love each other by the Holy Spirit, that is, by mutually harmonizing they spirate the Holy Spirit, or by spirating the Holy Spirit they are mutually connected. From these the [other] objections are clear.
To that which is objected concerning mutual reflection, the response is clear, since this is by reason of an essential act co-understood [therein].
To that which is objected, that to love by the Holy Spirit belongs to the three and is said with respect to the creature; it must be said that it does not belong to the three by reason of the spiration which it imports; and therefore, although it be said with respect to the creature, nevertheless it is not said wholly essentially, but connotes something essential; yet it expresses a notion by reason of the relation which it imports to a person, as was said above of the Word and the Gift.
To that which is objected last, for which notion it stands: it is clear that it stands for common spiration; nevertheless it is not allowed to substitute for it the verb to spirate, since that imports the same notion in another way. Whence just as this is conceded: the Father speaks by the Word, but not this: the Father generates by the Son, although to speak imports generation itself; so it must be understood in the case proposed.
I. This question presupposes that the Holy Spirit proceeds by the mode of mutual charity and as the bond of the Father and the Son, concerning which see above d. 10, a. 1, q. 2–3, and a. 2, q. 2. — On the sense of this locution Peter Lombard (here c. 1) ventured to define nothing, and many opinions arose, of which five are reviewed by Albert, nine by St. Thomas (in Comment. here q. I, a. I), and three here by St. Bonaventure. The first opinion here set out, that St. Augustine retracted this very locution, is ascribed to a certain Gotfred; the second is followed by Durandus, who (here q. 1) says that "all the foregoing propositions are simply false, if to love be taken notionally; but if taken essentially, they are thus true, although they are improper and therefore must be expounded" (namely, that they be taken by appropriation, since love is appropriated to the Holy Spirit). This opinion is overthrown by two arguments set out in the body (but in distinct places). The third opinion is that of Hugh of St. Victor, to whom St. Bonaventure, St. Thomas, B. Albert, Alex. Hal. (the opinion of Durandus is falsely attributed to him), Petr. a Tar., Richard a Med. and others give support. This is best explained in the solution to [argument] 3 (cf. above d. 27, p. II, q. 1, and d. 10, dub. 3). — Scotus uses the foundations laid by St. Bonaventure to [argument] 3, distinguishing between essential and notional love (just as between to understand and to speak), and resolves that the locution is false, both if to love be taken purely essentially, and if taken purely notionally; nevertheless it is true if taken in a middle way, so that the sense is: they produce the Holy Spirit, having a certain relation to the producers, of whom he himself is the love. He also argues quite subtly against the reasons of St. Thomas. Whoever finds these inquiries more subtle than useful pleasing can see them in Cajetan (on S. I, q. 37, a. 2); in the Scotist commentator Lychetus (here q. 1); and in Bada, controv. 17; Macedo, coll. 9, diff. 1, and many other authors of both schools.
II. In the solution to [argument] 5 the minor is denied, namely that God's love toward us is wholly essential, although it connotes something essential. The same is taught more expressly by St. Thomas (loc. cit. ad 3), where he says: "It must be said that the Father loves not only the Son, but also himself and us by the Holy Spirit." Scotus indeed (loc. cit., n. 14), according to his own way, does not approve this, and Suarez also thinks that this locution is not proper nor easily to be employed. On the foundation of the opinion of the Angelic and the Seraphic Doctor cf. above d. 27, p. II, q. 2, and d. 18, q. 2, 5. — But this proposition: the Father loves himself by the Holy Spirit, the Seraphic [Doctor] (at the end of the body) does not seem to concede, which nevertheless St. Thomas (S. I, q. 37, a. 2, ad 3) and Scotus do not hesitate to admit. But St. Bonaventure speaks there of love purely essential and of the Holy Spirit personally, not of to love insofar as "it imports also a person produced by the mode of love, who has a relation to the thing loved" (so St. Thomas at loc. cit.). Of to love not wholly essential St. Bonaventure treats in the solution to [arguments] 4, 6, where he discusses to love taken notionally, and connoting something essential, and distinct from to spirate, just as to speak [is distinct] from to generate. For the terms to spirate and to love signify the same thing indeed, but under a different account. For they differ as the by-which by which a person is produced differs from the mode of this production. But the transition from the thing to the mode is against the rules of logic. As to the solution to [argument] 6, cf. St. Thomas loc. cit. ad 2.
III. Other authors treat this question together with the following one. Alex. Hal., on this and the following question, S. p. I, q. 67, m. 3, a. 3. — Scot., on this and the following question here and Report. q. 1. — St. Thom., here q. 1, a. 1; S. I, q. 37, a. 2. — B. Albert., on this and the following question here a. 1, 2; S. p. I, tr. 12, q. 50, m. 1, q. 3, incid. — Petr. a Tar., on this and the following question here q. 1. — Richard a Med., on this and the following question here a. 1, 2. — Ægid. R., on this and the following question here 1 princ. q. 1. — Henr. Gand., on this and the following question S. a. 61, q. 7. — Durand., on this and the following question here q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., here q. 1. — de Biel, on this and the following question here q. 1, 2.
---
- Vat. addit: Et determinat cum hoc, quod in Trinitate est dilectio, quae est Trinitas, et in Spiritu sancto est dilectio, quae non est Trinitas. Et hoc ibi: Et sicut in Trinitate. — Supple cum Vat. ista locutio: Pater et Filius diligunt se Spiritu sancto.The Vatican [edition] adds: "And he determines this together with the fact that in the Trinity there is a love which is the Trinity, and in the Holy Spirit there is a love which is not the Trinity. And this is at: And just as in the Trinity." — Supply with the Vatican [edition] this locution: "the Father and the Son love each other by the Holy Spirit."
- Cap. 5. n. 7, de quo vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 1.Chapter 5, n. 7, on which see here the text of the Master, c. 1.
- Vers. 1. Vide supra d. 10. c. 2.Verse 1. See above d. 10, c. 2.
- Intellige opus de Contemplando Deo, c. 7. n. 14, qui liber falso tribuebatur S. Bernardo. In ipso textu post verbum Domine originale addit in te ipso.Understand the work On Contemplating God, c. 7, n. 14, which book was falsely attributed to St. Bernard. In the text itself, after the word Domine, the original adds in te ipso ["in you yourself"].
- Habetur apud Richard. de S. Vict. in opere, quod inscribitur: «Quomodo Spiritus est amor Patris et Filii», ubi et sequens textus invenitur, qui verbotenus transcriptus est, excepto solo verbo esset, cuius loco originale exhibet diceretur.It is found in Richard of St. Victor, in the work entitled "How the Spirit is the love of the Father and of the Son," where the following text is also found, which has been transcribed verbatim, except only for the word esset, in place of which the original gives diceretur.
- Codd. L interiiciunt secundum Anselmum in Monologio, de quo cfr. supra d. 27. p. II. q. 2. fundam. 4. Ibidem et in seqq. quaest. istius dist. quae hic sequuntur explanata invenies. — Vat., suffragante solo cod. cc, praetermittit verba omnia usque ad conclusionem ergo etc. Eadem Vat. in initio huius argumenti pro ratione videtur substituit ratio formatur.Codices L insert "according to Anselm in the Monologion," concerning which cf. above d. 27, p. II, q. 2, fundamentum 4. There and in the following questions of this distinction you will find what follows here explained. — The Vatican [edition], with codex cc alone in support, omits all the words up to the conclusion ergo etc. The same Vatican [edition], at the beginning of this argument, in place of ratione seems to substitute ratio formatur.
- Pro Spiritum sanctum codd. L aa amorem.In place of Spiritum sanctum, codices L aa [read] amorem.
- Aristot., II. Rhetor. c. de Amore (c. 4.): Est igitur amare velle alicui bona. — Post verba subsequentia et velle supple in Deo. — Immediate post verbo esse codd. aa bb adiungunt: ergo eo quo Pater et Filius se diligunt, sunt; sed non sunt Spiritus sanctus, etc.Aristotle, Rhetoric II, c. On Love (c. 4): "To love, then, is to wish goods to someone." — After the subsequent words et velle supply in Deo. — Immediately after the word esse, codices aa bb add: "therefore by that by which the Father and the Son love each other, they are; but they are not the Holy Spirit, etc."
- Scotus, hic q. 1. n. 1, hoc ita proponit: Nullus actus notionalis est conversivus in idem agens, a quo est vel procedit, propter distinctionem, quam talis actus requirit inter agens et terminum.Scotus, here q. 1, n. 1, proposes this thus: "No notional act is convertible upon the same agent from which it is or proceeds, on account of the distinction which such an act requires between agent and term."
- Pro Spiritu sancto Vat. cum uno et altero cod. se. — Mox post illa supple: spiratio passiva, vel cum Vat. notio.In place of Spiritu sancto, the Vatican [edition] with one or another codex [reads] se. — Soon after illa supply: passive spiration, or with the Vatican [edition] notion.
- Cfr. supra d. 27. p. I. a. 1. q. 1, et de praedicatione denominativa vide supra d. 5. a. 1. q. 1. ad 2, nec non pag. 473, nota 1. — Pro verbis in abstractione et in concretione, quae in hac propositione occurrunt, multi codd. substituunt abstracte (aliqui abstractive) et concrete (nonnulli concretive).Cf. above d. 27, p. I, a. 1, q. 1, and on denominative predication see above d. 5, a. 1, q. 1, ad 2, and also p. 473, n. 1. — In place of the words in abstractione and in concretione, which occur in this proposition, many codices substitute abstracte (some abstractive) and concrete (some concretive).
- De qua cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 2. notula. Dicta aliorum Sanctorum, quorum mox fit mentio, invenies hic in fundamentis.Concerning which cf. here the text of the Master, c. 2, notula. The statements of the other Saints, of whom mention is shortly made, you will find here in the fundamenta.
- Forsasse lectio genuina est, quae habetur in cod. T: Pater et Filius diligunt se Spiritu sancto, cui appropriatur amor, cui lectioni favere videntur multi codd., in quibus invenitur cui appropriatur pro qui appropriatur. — Maior pars codd. et ed. 1 sic: cui Spiritui sancto appropriatur bonitas; minus congrue. — Plures codd. cum primis edd. Spiritus sanctus. — De duplici constructione, reciproca scilicet et retransitiva, notamus, quod constructio reciproca ea est, in qua actio verbi immediate regreditur ad substantiam, a qua egressus fuerat, v. g. Socrates diligit se; et facta hac constructione, sensus locutionis, de qua hic agitur, esset: Pater diligit se, et Filius diligit se Spiritu sancto; quod falsum est. Constructio autem retransitiva illa est, in qua actio verbi egreditur ab aliquo supposito in aliud, et iterum regreditur ad primum suppositum, v. g. diligo te, ut tu diligas me. Cfr. Priscian., XVII. Grammat. c. 10 et 17. — Intellige: casus, i.e. accusativus se.Perhaps the genuine reading is that found in codex T: "the Father and the Son love each other by the Holy Spirit, to whom love is appropriated," which reading many codices seem to favour, in which is found cui appropriatur in place of qui appropriatur. — The major part of the codices and edition 1 [read] thus: cui Spiritui sancto appropriatur bonitas; less fittingly. — Several codices with the first editions [read] Spiritus sanctus. — On the twofold construction, namely the reciprocal and the retransitive, we note that the reciprocal construction is that in which the action of the verb returns immediately to the substance from which it had gone out, e.g. Socrates loves himself; and were this construction made, the sense of the locution here in question would be: the Father loves himself, and the Son loves himself by the Holy Spirit; which is false. But the retransitive construction is that in which the action of the verb goes out from some supposit into another, and again returns to the first supposit, e.g. I love you, that you may love me. Cf. Priscian, Grammat. XVII, c. 10 and 17. — Understand: casus, i.e., the accusative se.