Dist. 32, Art. 1, Q. 2
Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity · Distinction 32
Quaestio II.
In qua habitudine ille ablativus construatur, si dicitur: Pater et Filius diligunt 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.).
Secundo quaeritur, in qua habitudine construatur ille ablativus, cum sic dicitur: Pater et Filius diligunt se Spiritu sancto. Et quod in habitudine formae videtur:
1. Per simile, quia Petrus1 diligit amore a se procedente formaliter: ergo pari ratione Pater et Filius diligunt se Spiritu sancto formaliter.
2. Item, nihil denominat aliquid, ad quod comparatur ut ad principium solum, nisi comparetur ut informans — nam quamvis cursus sit a Deo, non tamen Deus dicitur currere — sed amor est a Patre et Filio, et illo2 dicuntur amare: ergo amor est in ratione formae.
3. Item, omni nexu aliqui nectuntur formaliter; sed Spiritus sanctus est nexus: ergo aliqui illo necluntur, et non nisi Pater et Filius: ergo etc.
4. Item, omni albedine aliquis est albus formaliter, ergo omni amore aliquis est amans formaliter; sed non est amans formaliter amore, nisi ille cuius est amor: cum ergo Spiritus sanctus sit amor Patris et Filii, patet etc.
Contra:
1. Omne quod diligit formaliter alio a se, habet diligere solum per participationem: ergo si Pater et Filius diligunt formaliter alio a se, ergo diligunt per participationem. Sed hoc est inconveniens: ergo etc.
2. Item, si aliquis diligit aliquo formaliter, illo circumscripto, impossibile est intelligere amorem in eo sive ipsum amare: ergo si Pater et Filius3 diligunt se Spiritu sancto, impossibile est intelligere Patrem amare, non intellecto Spiritu sancto; sed hoc est falsum: ergo et primum.
3. Item, nulla hypostasis est forma; sed amor, qui est Spiritus sanctus, est hypostasis: ergo non est forma, ergo nullus illo amore diligit formaliter.
4. Item, nullum relativum potest esse forma sui correlativi — quia ex forma et formato fit unum, relativum autem distinguitur a correlativo — sed amor, qui est Spiritus sanctus, correlative se habet ad Patrem et Filium: ergo etc.
5. Item, omnis forma est ante illud cuius est forma; ergo si Pater et Filius diligunt se4 Spiritu sancto formaliter, amor ille praecedit diligere Patris et Filii. Sed hoc falsum est, quia dilectio producitur: ergo etc.
Conclusio.
Cum dicimus Patrem et Filium se Spiritu sancto diligere, ablativus ille construitur in ratione quasi effectus formalis, et ideo aliquo modo in ratione formae.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod aliquorum positio fuit, quod ablativus ille construitur in ratione signi, non in ratione formae. Nam Spiritus sanctus se habet per modum producti respectu dilectionis Patris et Filii, et ideo illius est signum. Unde dicunt, quod is est sensus locutionis: Pater et Filius diligunt se: et huius signum est, quia concorditer spirant Spiritum sanctum, qui est amor unicus et indivisus. — Sed haec positio non est sufficiens. Nam si ablativus posset construi vere in ratione signi cum verbo, tunc haec esset vera: Pater et Filius diligunt se amore creato, quia amor creatus signum est illius; quam nullus concedit. — Si dicas, quod istud non est signum ita5 propinquum; obiicitur, quod tunc haec esset vera simpliciter: Pater est sapiens sapientia genita, cum sapientia genita sit maxime signum sapientiae in Patre generante.
Aliorum positio fuit, quod ablativus ille construitur in ratione formae. Dicunt enim, quod diligere se nihil aliud est, dictum de Patre et Filio, quam invicem connecti. Et quoniam nexu formaliter connectuntur, et Spiritus sanctus est ille nexus, ideo, formaliter loquendo, ista est vera: Pater et Filius diligunt se Spiritu sancto, sicut haec formaliter est vera: Pater et Filius nectuntur nexu. Sed haec positio non potest omnino stare, quia, cum dicitur: Pater et Filius nectuntur, aut nectuntur dicit aliquid, quod sit in Patre et Filio a Spiritu sancto, aut quod est in eis ut principium Spiritus sancti. Si quod est in eis a Spiritu sancto: ergo Pater et Filius aliquid recipiunt a Spiritu sancto; si aliquid, cum non possint recipere partem, ergo totum: ergo sunt a Spiritu sancto, quod est inconveniens. Restat ergo, quod hoc quod est nectuntur dicat aliquid, quod est in Patre et Filio ut principium Spiritus sancti — quamvis enim sit passiva secundum modum6, activa est secundum rem — et si hoc, Spiritus sanctus comparatur ad connexionem ut ad principium, non ergo ut in ratione formae omnino.
Patet igitur, quod prima positio dicit minus sufficienter; secunda dicit nimis abundanter, quia nimis exprimit. Et prima fuit Magistri Simonis Tornacensis; secunda fuit Magistri Gulielmi Antisiodorensis. Et licet neutra sit omnino sufficiens, tamen utraque habet in se aliquid veritatis. Nam prima dicit, quod Spiritus sanctus se habet ad Patrem et Filium per modum producti; et hoc quidem verum est. Secunda dicit, quod amor comparatur ad amantes ut in ratione formae; et hoc quidem verum est.
Et ideo ex his duabus positionibus, quarum una est insufficiens et alia excedens, colligitur media positio sobria et sufficiens; videlicet quod ille ablativus construitur in ratione effectus formalis, si licet7 nominare effectum quod est ex principio. Et haec fuit positio Magistri Hugonis de sancto Victore8, qui hic clare vidit veritatem. Unde redarguit illos, qui reputant hanc quaestionem insolubilem. Unde dicit, quod, sicut cum dicitur: ego diligo te amore a me procedente, ibi est constructio in ratione effectus formalis; sic in proposito. In hoc tamen est differentia, quia amor a te procedens est in te requiescens ut uniens et inhaerens, quia est accidens; sed in divinis amor a Patre et Filio procedens est in eis requiescens ut uniens, non tamen ut inhaerens, quia non est accidens, sed substantia et hypostasis; et ideo adhuc minus habet rationem formae.
Concedendae ergo sunt rationes ad hoc inductae, quia ablativus habet aliquo modo rationem formae. — Quod tamen ultimo obiicitur, non valet, quia omnis albedo est forma; sed aliquis amor est hypostasis.
Ad argumenta:
Ad 1, 2. Ad illud ergo quod in contrarium obiicitur: si formaliter alio diligunt, ergo per participationem; dicendum, quod diligere alio per essentiam facit participationem, sed alietas personalis non. Unde Hugo: «Animus humanus amor non est, sed ab ipso procedit amor, ideo se ipso non diligit; Pater vero amor est et Spiritus sanctus eius amor est, ideo diligit se ipso; diligit etiam Spiritu sancto»; et ideo patet, quod non per participationem. — Et ideo patet sequens; quia enim Pater se ipso diligit amore essentiali, ideo potest intelligi amare Pater, Spiritu sancto non intellecto; non sic autem est de amore notionali.
Ad 3, 4. Rationes sequentes procedunt de forma, secundum quod habet perfectum actum formae. Formae enim est inhaerere, et ideo non est hypostasis; ideo etiam non distinguitur. Ibi vero ablativus cadit ab actu formae, qui est inhaerere, et tenet actum formae, qui est unire.
Ad 5. Ad illud quod ultimo obiicitur, quod forma praecedit illud cuius est forma; dicendum, quod loquitur de forma, secundum quod habet rationem causae, quia sic praecedit; sed ablativus cadit a ratione causalitatis, quia construitur per modum effectus formalis. Patet ergo, quod quodam modo est ibi ratio formae, quodam modo ratio signi; et in hoc patet responsio ad omnia quaesita.
---
Question II.
In what relation that ablative is construed when it is said: The Father and the Son love each other by the Holy Spirit.
Second, it is asked in what relation that ablative is construed when it is said thus: The Father and the Son love each other by the Holy Spirit. And that it is in the relation of form is shown:
1. By a parallel: because Peter1 loves formally by a love proceeding from himself: therefore by parity of reason the Father and the Son love each other formally by the Holy Spirit.
2. Likewise, nothing denominates a thing to which it is compared only as to a principle, unless it is compared as informing — for although a course is from God, yet God is not said to run — but love is from the Father and the Son, and they are said to love by it2: therefore love is in the relation of form.
3. Likewise, by every bond persons are bonded formally; but the Holy Spirit is the bond: therefore certain persons are bonded by him, and none other than the Father and the Son: therefore etc.
4. Likewise, by every whiteness someone is white formally, therefore by every love someone is loving formally; but he is not loving formally by a love unless it is his own love: since therefore the Holy Spirit is the love of the Father and the Son, the conclusion is plain.
On the contrary:
1. Everything that loves formally by something other than itself has love only by participation: therefore if the Father and the Son love formally by something other than themselves, therefore they love by participation. But this is unfitting: therefore etc.
2. Likewise, if anyone loves by something formally, that being taken away, it is impossible to understand love in him or his loving itself: therefore if the Father and the Son3 love each other by the Holy Spirit, it is impossible to understand the Father loving without the Holy Spirit being understood; but this is false: therefore so is the first.
3. Likewise, no hypostasis is a form; but the love which is the Holy Spirit is a hypostasis: therefore he is not a form, therefore no one loves formally by that love.
4. Likewise, no relative can be the form of its correlative — because from form and what is formed there comes one thing, but a relative is distinguished from its correlative — but the love which is the Holy Spirit stands relatively to the Father and the Son: therefore etc.
5. Likewise, every form is prior to that of which it is the form; therefore if the Father and the Son love each other4 formally by the Holy Spirit, that love precedes the loving of the Father and the Son. But this is false, because the love is produced: therefore etc.
Conclusion.
When we say that the Father and the Son love each other by the Holy Spirit, that ablative is construed in the relation as it were of a formal effect, and so in some way in the relation of form.
I respond: It must be said that the position of certain ones was that that ablative is construed in the relation of a sign, not in the relation of form. For the Holy Spirit stands in the manner of something produced with respect to the love of the Father and the Son, and therefore he is its sign. Whence they say that this is the sense of the locution: the Father and the Son love each other: and the sign of this is that they concordantly spirate the Holy Spirit, who is the unique and undivided love. — But this position is not sufficient. For if the ablative could truly be construed in the relation of a sign with the verb, then this would be true: the Father and the Son love each other by a created love, because a created love is a sign of that love; which no one concedes. — If you say that that is not so5 proximate a sign; the objection is that then this would be true simply: the Father is wise by the begotten wisdom, since the begotten wisdom is most of all a sign of the wisdom in the begetting Father.
The position of others was that that ablative is construed in the relation of form. For they say that to love each other, said of the Father and the Son, is nothing else than to be mutually connected. And since they are connected formally by a bond, and the Holy Spirit is that bond, therefore, formally speaking, this is true: the Father and the Son love each other by the Holy Spirit, just as this is formally true: the Father and the Son are bonded by a bond. But this position cannot stand entirely, because, when it is said: the Father and the Son are bonded, either being bonded says something which is in the Father and the Son from the Holy Spirit, or which is in them as the principle of the Holy Spirit. If something which is in them from the Holy Spirit: therefore the Father and the Son receive something from the Holy Spirit; if something, since they cannot receive a part, therefore the whole: therefore they are from the Holy Spirit, which is unfitting. It remains, therefore, that this being bonded says something which is in the Father and the Son as the principle of the Holy Spirit — for although it is passive according to its mode6, it is active according to the thing — and if this, the Holy Spirit is compared to the connection as to a principle, therefore not entirely as in the relation of form.
It is plain, therefore, that the first position says less than is sufficient; the second says too abundantly, because it expresses too much. And the first was that of Master Simon of Tournai; the second was that of Master William of Auxerre. And although neither is entirely sufficient, yet each has in itself something of truth. For the first says that the Holy Spirit stands to the Father and the Son in the manner of something produced; and this indeed is true. The second says that love is compared to the lovers as in the relation of form; and this indeed is true.
And therefore from these two positions, of which one is insufficient and the other excessive, there is gathered a middle position, sober and sufficient; namely, that that ablative is construed in the relation of a formal effect, if it is permitted7 to name as an effect what is from a principle. And this was the position of Master Hugh of St. Victor8, who here clearly saw the truth. Whence he reproves those who reckon this question insoluble. Whence he says that, just as when it is said: I love thee with a love proceeding from me, there is a construction in the relation of a formal effect, so it is in the proposition. In this, however, there is a difference, because love proceeding from thee is resting in thee as uniting and inhering, since it is an accident; but in divine matters love proceeding from the Father and the Son is resting in them as uniting, yet not as inhering, since it is not an accident, but a substance and a hypostasis; and therefore it has even less of the relation of form.
The reasons brought forward to this effect are therefore to be conceded, since the ablative has in some way the relation of form. — But what is objected last does not hold, because every whiteness is a form; but some love is a hypostasis.
To the arguments:
To 1, 2. To what is objected to the contrary: if they love formally by something other [than themselves], therefore by participation; it must be said that to love by something other through essence makes participation, but personal otherness does not. Whence Hugh: «The human soul is not love, but love proceeds from it, therefore it does not love by itself; but the Father is love, and the Holy Spirit is his love, therefore he loves by himself; he loves also by the Holy Spirit»; and therefore it is plain that not by participation. — And from this what follows is plain; for since the Father loves by himself by an essential love, therefore the Father can be understood to love without the Holy Spirit being understood; but it is not so concerning notional love.
To 3, 4. The following reasons proceed from form, according as it has the perfect act of form. For it belongs to a form to inhere, and therefore it is not a hypostasis; therefore also it is not distinguished. But there the ablative falls away from the act of form which is to inhere, and holds the act of form which is to unite.
To 5. To what is objected last, that form precedes that of which it is the form; it must be said that he is speaking of form according as it has the relation of cause, because thus it precedes; but the ablative falls away from the relation of causality, because it is construed in the manner of a formal effect. It is plain, therefore, that in some way there is here the relation of form, in some way the relation of a sign; and in this lies the response to all that has been asked.
---
- Vat. Pater.The Vatican edition reads Pater (Father).
- Primi codd. ideo; mendose.The first codices read ideo (therefore); erroneously.
- Cod. bene subiicit formaliter, et subinde permulti codd. cum ed. 1 omittunt se.A codex rightly subjoins formaliter (formally), and accordingly very many codices, together with the first edition, omit se (each other).
- Permulti codd. cum ed. 1 omittunt se, ut supra.Very many codices, together with the first edition, omit se (each other), as above.
- Vat. cum cod. cc omittit ita; non bene.The Vatican edition, together with codex cc, omits ita (so); not rightly.
- Supple cum codd. aa bb dicendi. — Post proximum verbum activa Vat. interiicit tamen.Supply with codices aa and bb dicendi (of saying / of grammatical voice). — After the next word activa (active) the Vatican edition interjects tamen (yet).
- Pro si licet codd. GIKST bb (s)liceat, omisso si. Cod. Y hunc locum sic ampliatum exhibet: effectus formalis, non secundum quod forma habeat materiam perficiendi, sed connectendi, ut liceat.For si licet (if it is permitted) codices GIKST bb read liceat (let it be permitted), omitting si. Codex Y exhibits this place expanded thus: «of a formal effect, not according as the form has matter to be perfected, but to be connected, that it may be permitted».
- Non invenitur in Hugone, sed in opusculo impresso inter opera Richardi a S. Vict., cui titulus: Quomodo Spiritus sanctus est amor Patris et Filii, ubi legitur: «Similiter quod Pater Spiritu sancto diligere dicitur, non sic intelligitur, quasi Spiritus sanctus auctor et origo existat dilectionis, quae Pater est, et pro arbitrio amat quod amat, sed quod Pater eam dilectionem, qua Filius diligitur et Spiritus sanctus est, spirat et illius auctor et origo existat... Animus humanus amor non est, sed ab ipso amor procedit, et ideo se ipso non diligit, sed amore, qui a se ipso procedit. Pater vero amor est, et Spiritus sanctus eius amor est, et ideo Pater diligit se ipso, diligit Spiritu sancto; diligit se ipso amore, diligit suo amore... Si recte diligere diceris amore, qui de te procedit, cur Pater et Filius non recte dicantur diligere amore, qui ex ipsis procedit? Haeccine, frater, est illa quaestio, quam insolubilem putant, insolubilem et dicunt et scribunt?»It is not found in Hugh, but in a little work printed among the works of Richard of St. Victor, with the title In what manner the Holy Spirit is the love of the Father and the Son, where it reads: «Likewise, that the Father is said to love by the Holy Spirit is not understood as if the Holy Spirit existed as the author and origin of the love which the Father is, and at his pleasure loves what he loves, but rather that the Father spirates that love by which the Son is loved and which the Holy Spirit is, and is its author and origin... The human soul is not love, but love proceeds from it, and therefore it does not love by itself, but by the love which proceeds from itself. But the Father is love, and the Holy Spirit is his love, and therefore the Father loves by himself, he loves by the Holy Spirit; he loves by himself by love, he loves by his own love... If you are rightly said to love by the love which proceeds from you, why may not the Father and the Son rightly be said to love by the love which proceeds from them? Is this, brother, that question which they reckon insoluble, and call and write of as insoluble?»