Articulus 3 Article 3 Utrum Spiritus Sanctus procedat a patre per filium Whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son? Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod Spiritus Sanctus non procedat a patre per filium. Quod enim procedit ab aliquo per aliquem, non procedit ab eo immediate. Si igitur Spiritus Sanctus procedit a patre per filium, non procedit a patre immediate. Quod videtur inconveniens. Objection 1: It would seem that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Father through the Son. For whatever proceeds from one through another, does not proceed immediately. Therefore, if the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, He does not proceed immediately; which seems to be unfitting. Praeterea, si Spiritus Sanctus procedit a patre per filium, non procedit a filio nisi propter patrem. Sed propter quod unumquodque, et illud magis. Ergo magis procedit a patre quam a filio. Obj. 2: Further, if the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, He does not proceed from the Son, except on account of the Father. But whatever causes a thing to be such is yet more so. Therefore He proceeds more from the Father than from the Son. Praeterea, filius habet esse per generationem. Si igitur Spiritus Sanctus est a patre per filium, sequitur quod prius generetur filius, et postea procedat Spiritus Sanctus. Et sic processio spiritus sancti non est aeterna. Quod est haereticum. Obj. 3: Further, the Son has His being by generation. Therefore if the Holy Spirit is from the Father through the Son, it follows that the Son is first generated and afterwards the Holy Spirit proceeds; and thus the procession of the Holy Spirit is not eternal, which is heretical. Praeterea, cum aliquis dicitur per aliquem operari, potest e converso dici, sicut enim dicimus quod rex operatur per ballivum, ita potest dici quod ballivus operatur per regem. Sed nullo modo dicimus quod filius spiret spiritum sanctum per patrem. Ergo nullo modo potest dici quod pater spiret spiritum sanctum per filium. Obj. 4: Further, when anyone acts through another, the same may be said conversely. For as we say that the king acts through the bailiff, so it can be said conversely that the bailiff acts through the king. But we can never say that the Son spirates the Holy Spirit through the Father. Therefore it can never be said that the Father spirates the Holy Spirit through the Son. Sed contra est quod Hilarius dicit, in libro de Trin., conserva hanc, oro, fidei meae religionem, ut semper obtineam patrem, scilicet te; et filium tuum una tecum adorem; et spiritum sanctum tuum, qui est per unigenitum tuum, promerear. On the contrary, Hilary says (De Trin. xii): Keep me, I pray, in this expression of my faith, that I may ever possess the Father—namely Thyself: that I may adore Thy Son together with Thee: and that I may deserve Thy Holy Spirit, who is through Thy Only Begotten. Respondeo dicendum quod in omnibus locutionibus in quibus dicitur aliquis per aliquem operari, haec praepositio per designat in causali aliquam causam seu principium illius actus. Sed cum actio sit media inter faciens et factum, quandoque illud causale cui adiungitur haec praepositio per, est causa actionis secundum quod exit ab agente. Et tunc est causa agenti quod agat; sive sit causa finalis, sive formalis, sive effectiva vel motiva, finalis quidem, ut si dicamus quod artifex operatur per cupiditatem lucri; formalis vero, ut si dicamus quod operatur per artem suam; motiva vero, si dicamus quod operatur per imperium alterius. Quandoque vero dictio causalis cui adiungitur haec praepositio per, est causa actionis secundum quod terminatur ad factum; ut cum dicimus, artifex operatur per martellum. Non enim significatur quod martellus sit causa artifici quod agat, sed quod sit causa artificiato ut ab artifice procedat; et quod hoc ipsum habeat ab artifice. Et hoc est quod quidam dicunt, quod haec praepositio per quandoque notat auctoritatem in recto, ut cum dicitur, rex operatur per ballivum, quandoque autem in obliquo, ut cum dicitur, ballivus operatur per regem. I answer that, Whenever one is said to act through another, this preposition through points out, in what is covered by it, some cause or principle of that act. But since action is a mean between the agent and the thing done, sometimes that which is covered by the preposition through is the cause of the action, as proceeding from the agent; and in that case it is the cause of why the agent acts, whether it be a final cause or a formal cause, whether it be effective or motive. It is a final cause when we say, for instance, that the artisan works through love of gain. It is a formal cause when we say that he works through his art. It is a motive cause when we say that he works through the command of another. Sometimes, however, that which is covered by this preposition through is the cause of the action regarded as terminated in the thing done; as, for instance, when we say, the artisan acts through the mallet, for this does not mean that the mallet is the cause why the artisan acts, but that it is the cause why the thing made proceeds from the artisan, and that it has even this effect from the artisan. This is why it is sometimes said that this preposition through sometimes denotes direct authority, as when we say, the king works through the bailiff; and sometimes indirect authority, as when we say, the bailiff works through the king. Quia igitur filius habet a patre quod ab eo procedat Spiritus Sanctus, potest dici quod pater per filium spirat spiritum sanctum; vel quod Spiritus Sanctus procedat a patre per filium, quod idem est. Therefore, because the Son receives from the Father that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Him, it can be said that the Father spirates the Holy Spirit through the Son, or that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, which has the same meaning. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod in qualibet actione est duo considerare, scilicet suppositum agens, et virtutem qua agit; sicut ignis calefacit calore. Si igitur in patre et filio consideretur virtus qua spirant spiritum sanctum, non cadit ibi aliquod medium, quia haec virtus est una et eadem. Si autem considerentur ipsae personae spirantes, sic, cum Spiritus Sanctus communiter procedat a patre et filio, invenitur Spiritus Sanctus immediate a patre procedere, inquantum est ab eo; et mediate, inquantum est a filio. Et sic dicitur procedere a patre per filium. Sicut etiam Abel processit immediate ab Adam, inquantum Adam fuit pater eius; et mediate, inquantum Eva fuit mater eius, quae processit ab Adam; licet hoc exemplum materialis processionis ineptum videatur ad significandam immaterialem processionem divinarum personarum. Reply Obj. 1: In every action two things are to be considered, the suppositum acting, and the power whereby it acts; as, for instance, fire heats through heat. So if we consider in the Father and the Son the power whereby they spirate the Holy Spirit, there is no mean, for this is one and the same power. But if we consider the persons themselves spirating, then, as the Holy Spirit proceeds both from the Father and from the Son, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father immediately, as from Him, and mediately, as from the Son; and thus He is said to proceed from the Father through the Son. So also did Abel proceed immediately from Adam, inasmuch as Adam was his father; and mediately, as Eve was his mother, who proceeded from Adam; although, indeed, this example of a material procession is inept to signify the immaterial procession of the divine persons. Ad secundum dicendum quod, si filius acciperet a patre aliam virtutem numero ad spirandum spiritum sanctum, sequeretur quod esset sicut causa secunda et instrumentalis, et sic magis procederet a patre quam a filio. Sed una et eadem numero virtus spirativa est in patre et filio, et ideo aequaliter procedit ab utroque. Licet aliquando dicatur principaliter vel proprie procedere de patre, propter hoc quod filius habet hanc virtutem a patre. Reply Obj. 2: If the Son received from the Father a numerically distinct power for the spiration of the Holy Spirit, it would follow that He would be a secondary and instrumental cause; and thus the Holy Spirit would proceed more from the Father than from the Son; whereas, on the contrary, the same spirative power belongs to the Father and to the Son; and therefore the Holy Spirit proceeds equally from both, although sometimes He is said to proceed principally or properly from the Father, because the Son has this power from the Father. Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut generatio filii est coaeterna generanti, unde non prius fuit pater quam gigneret filium; ita processio spiritus sancti est coaeterna suo principio. Unde non fuit prius filius genitus, quam Spiritus Sanctus procederet, sed utrumque aeternum est. Reply Obj. 3: As the begetting of the Son is co-eternal with the begetter (and hence the Father does not exist before begetting the Son), so the procession of the Holy Spirit is co-eternal with His principle. Hence, the Son was not begotten before the Holy Spirit proceeded; but each of the operations is eternal. Ad quartum dicendum quod, cum aliquis dicitur per aliquid operari, non semper recipitur conversio, non enim dicimus quod martellus operetur per fabrum. Dicimus autem quod ballivus operatur per regem, quia ballivi est agere, cum sit dominus sui actus. Martelli autem non est agere, sed solum agi, unde non designatur nisi ut instrumentum. Dicitur autem ballivus operari per regem, quamvis haec praepositio per denotet medium, quia, quanto suppositum est prius in agendo, tanto virtus eius est immediatior effectui, quia virtus causae primae coniungit causam secundam suo effectui, unde et prima principia dicuntur immediata in demonstrativis scientiis. Sic igitur, inquantum ballivus est medius secundum ordinem suppositorum agentium, dicitur rex operari per ballivum, secundum ordinem vero virtutum, dicitur ballivus operari per regem, quia virtus regis facit quod actio ballivi consequatur effectum. Ordo autem non attenditur inter patrem et filium quantum ad virtutem; sed solum quantum ad supposita. Et ideo dicitur quod pater spirat per filium, et non e converso. Reply Obj. 4: When anyone is said to work through anything, the converse proposition is not always true. For we do not say that the mallet works through the carpenter; whereas we can say that the bailiff acts through the king, because it is the bailiff’s place to act, since he is master of his own act, but it is not the mallet’s place to act, but only to be made to act, and hence it is used only as an instrument. The bailiff is, however, said to act through the king, although this preposition through denotes a medium, for the more a suppositum is prior in action, so much the more is its power immediate as regards the effect, inasmuch as the power of the first cause joins the second cause to its effect. Hence also first principles are said to be immediate in the demonstrative sciences. Therefore, so far as the bailiff is a medium according to the order of the subject’s acting, the king is said to work through the bailiff; but according to the order of powers, the bailiff is said to act through the king, forasmuch as the power of the king gives the bailiff’s action its effect. Now there is no order of power between Father and Son, but only order of 'supposita'; and hence we say that the Father spirates through the Son; and not conversely. Articulus 4 Article 4 Utrum pater et filius sint unum principium spiritus sancti Whether the Father and the Son are one principle of the Holy Spirit? Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod pater et filius non sint unum principium spiritus sancti. Quia Spiritus Sanctus non videtur a patre et filio procedere inquantum sunt unum, neque in natura, quia Spiritus Sanctus sic etiam procederet a seipso, qui est unum cum eis in natura; neque etiam inquantum sunt unum in aliqua proprietate, quia una proprietas non potest esse duorum suppositorum, ut videtur. Ergo Spiritus Sanctus procedit a patre et filio ut sunt plures. Non ergo pater et filius sunt unum principium spiritus sancti. Objection 1: It would seem that the Father and the Son are not one principle of the Holy Spirit. For the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Father and the Son as they are one; not as they are one in nature, for the Holy Spirit would in that way proceed from Himself, as He is one in nature with Them; nor again inasmuch as they are united in any one property, for it is clear that one property cannot belong to two subjects. Therefore the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as distinct from one another. Therefore the Father and the Son are not one principle of the Holy Spirit. Praeterea, cum dicitur, pater et filius sunt unum principium spiritus sancti, non potest ibi designari unitas personalis, quia sic pater et filius essent una persona. Neque etiam unitas proprietatis, quia si propter unam proprietatem pater et filius sunt unum principium spiritus sancti, pari ratione, propter duas proprietates pater videtur esse duo principia filii et spiritus sancti; quod est inconveniens. Non ergo pater et filius sunt unum principium spiritus sancti. Obj. 2: Further, in this proposition the Father and the Son are one principle of the Holy Spirit, we do not designate personal unity, because in that case the Father and the Son would be one person; nor again do we designate the unity of property, because if one property were the reason of the Father and the Son being one principle of the Holy Spirit, similarly, on account of His two properties, the Father would be two principles of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, which cannot be admitted. Therefore the Father and the Son are not one principle of the Holy Spirit. Praeterea, filius non magis convenit cum patre quam Spiritus Sanctus. Sed Spiritus Sanctus et pater non sunt unum principium respectu alicuius divinae personae. Ergo neque pater et filius. Obj. 3: Further, the Son is not one with the Father more than is the Holy Spirit. But the Holy Spirit and the Father are not one principle as regards any other divine person. Therefore neither are the Father and the Son. Praeterea, si pater et filius sunt unum principium spiritus sancti aut unum quod est pater; aut unum quod non est pater. Sed neutrum est dare, quia si unum quod est pater, sequitur quod filius sit pater; si unum quod non est pater, sequitur quod pater non est pater. Non ergo dicendum est quod pater et filius sint unum principium spiritus sancti. Obj. 4: Further, if the Father and the Son are one principle of the Holy Spirit, this one is either the Father or it is not the Father. But we cannot assert either of these positions because if the one is the Father, it follows that the Son is the Father; and if the one is not the Father, it follows that the Father is not the Father. Therefore we cannot say that the Father and the Son are one principle of the Holy Spirit. Praeterea, si pater et filius sunt unum principium spiritus sancti videtur e converso dicendum quod unum principium spiritus sancti sit pater et filius. Sed haec videtur esse falsa, quia hoc quod dico principium, oportet quod supponat vel pro persona patris, vel pro persona filii; et utroque modo est falsa. Ergo etiam haec est falsa, pater et filius sunt unum principium spiritus sancti. Obj. 5: Further, if the Father and the Son are one principle of the Holy Spirit, it seems necessary to say, conversely, that the one principle of the Holy Spirit is the Father and the Son. But this seems to be false; for this word principle stands either for the person of the Father, or for the person of the Son; and in either sense it is false. Therefore this proposition also is false, that the Father and the Son are one principle of the Holy Spirit. Praeterea, unum in substantia facit idem. Si igitur pater et filius sunt unum principium spiritus sancti, sequitur quod sint idem principium. Sed hoc a multis negatur. Ergo non est concedendum quod pater et filius sint unum principium spiritus sancti. Obj. 6: Further, unity in substance makes identity. So if the Father and the Son are the one principle of the Holy Spirit, it follows that they are the same principle; which is denied by many. Therefore we cannot grant that the Father and the Son are one principle of the Holy Spirit. Praeterea, pater et filius et Spiritus Sanctus, quia sunt unum principium creaturae, dicuntur esse unus creator. Sed pater et filius non sunt unus spirator, sed duo spiratores, ut a multis dicitur. Quod etiam consonat dictis Hilarii, qui dicit, in II de Trin., quod Spiritus Sanctus a patre et filio auctoribus confitendus est. Ergo pater et filius non sunt unum principium spiritus sancti. Obj. 7: Further, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are called one Creator, because they are the one principle of the creature. But the Father and the Son are not one, but two Spirators, as many assert; and this agrees also with what Hilary says (De Trin. ii) that the Holy Spirit is to be confessed as proceeding from Father and Son as authors. Therefore the Father and the Son are not one principle of the Holy Spirit. Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in V de Trin., quod pater et filius non sunt duo principia, sed unum principium spiritus sancti. On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. v, 14) that the Father and the Son are not two principles, but one principle of the Holy Spirit. Respondeo dicendum quod pater et filius in omnibus unum sunt, in quibus non distinguit inter eos relationis oppositio. Unde, cum in hoc quod est esse principium spiritus sancti, non opponantur relative, sequitur quod pater et filius sunt unum principium spiritus sancti. I answer that, The Father and the Son are in everything one, wherever there is no distinction between them of opposite relation. Hence since there is no relative opposition between them as the principle of the Holy Spirit it follows that the Father and the Son are one principle of the Holy Spirit. Quidam tamen dicunt hanc esse impropriam, pater et filius sunt unum principium spiritus sancti. Quia cum hoc nomen principium, singulariter acceptum, non significet personam, sed proprietatem, dicunt quod sumitur adiective, et quia adiectivum non determinatur per adiectivum, non potest convenienter dici quod pater et filius sint unum principium spiritus sancti, nisi unum intelligatur quasi adverbialiter positum, ut sit sensus, sunt unum principium, idest uno modo. Sed simili ratione posset dici pater duo principia filii et spiritus sancti, idest duobus modis. Dicendum est ergo quod, licet hoc nomen principium significet proprietatem, tamen significat eam per modum substantivi, sicut hoc nomen pater vel filius etiam in rebus creatis. Unde numerum accipit a forma significata, sicut et alia substantiva. Sicut igitur pater et filius sunt unus Deus, propter unitatem formae significatae per hoc nomen Deus; ita sunt unum principium spiritus sancti, propter unitatem proprietatis significatae in hoc nomine principium. Some, however, assert that this proposition is incorrect: The Father and the Son are one principle of the Holy Spirit, because, they declare, since the word principle in the singular number does not signify person, but property, it must be taken as an adjective; and forasmuch as an adjective cannot be modified by another adjective, it cannot properly be said that the Father and the Son are one principle of the Holy Spirit unless one be taken as an adverb, so that the meaning should be: They are one principle—that is, in one and the same way. But then it might be equally right to say that the Father is two principles of the Son and of the Holy Spirit—namely, in two ways. Therefore, we must say that, although this word principle signifies a property, it does so after the manner of a substantive, as do the words father and son even in things created. Hence it takes its number from the form it signifies, like other substantives. Therefore, as the Father and the Son are one God, by reason of the unity of the form that is signified by this word God; so they are one principle of the Holy Spirit by reason of the unity of the property that is signified in this word principle. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, si attendatur virtus spirativa, Spiritus Sanctus procedit a patre et filio inquantum sunt unum in virtute spirativa, quae quodammodo significat naturam cum proprietate, ut infra dicetur. Neque est inconveniens unam proprietatem esse in duobus suppositis, quorum est una natura. Si vero considerentur supposita spirationis, sic Spiritus Sanctus procedit a patre et filio ut sunt plures, procedit enim ab eis ut amor unitivus duorum. Reply Obj. 1: If we consider the spirative power, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as they are one in the spirative power, which in a certain way signifies the nature with the property, as we shall see later (ad 7). Nor is there any reason against one property being in two supposita that possess one common nature. But if we consider the supposita of the spiration, then we may say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, as distinct; for He proceeds from them as the unitive love of both. Ad secundum dicendum quod, cum dicitur, pater et filius sunt unum principium spiritus sancti, designatur una proprietas, quae est forma significata per nomen. Non tamen sequitur quod propter plures proprietates possit dici pater plura principia, quia implicaretur pluralitas suppositorum. Reply Obj. 2: In the proposition the Father and the Son are one principle of the Holy Spirit, one property is designated which is the form signified by the term. It does not thence follow that by reason of the several properties the Father can be called several principles, for this would imply in Him a plurality of subjects. Ad tertium dicendum quod secundum relativas proprietates non attenditur in divinis similitudo vel dissimilitudo, sed secundum essentiam. Unde, sicut pater non est similior sibi quam filio, ita nec filius similior patri quam Spiritus Sanctus. Reply Obj. 3: It is not by reason of relative properties that we speak of similitude or dissimilitude in God, but by reason of the essence. Hence, as the Father is not more like to Himself than He is to the Son; so likewise neither is the Son more like to the Father than is the Holy Spirit. Ad quartum dicendum quod haec duo, scilicet, pater et filius sunt unum principium quod est pater, aut, unum principium quod non est pater, non sunt contradictorie opposita. Unde non est necesse alterum eorum dare. Cum enim dicimus, pater et filius sunt unum principium, hoc quod dico principium, non habet determinatam suppositionem, imo confusam pro duabus personis simul. Unde in processu est fallacia figurae dictionis, a confusa suppositione ad determinatam. Reply Obj. 4: These two propositions, The Father and the Son are one principle which is the Father, or, one principle which is not the Father, are not mutually contradictory; and hence it is not necessary to assert one or other of them. For when we say the Father and the Son are one principle, this word principle has not determinate supposition but rather it stands indeterminately for two persons together. Hence there is a fallacy of figure of speech as the argument concludes from the indeterminate to the determinate. Ad quintum dicendum quod haec etiam est vera, unum principium spiritus sancti est pater et filius. Quia hoc quod dico principium non supponit pro una persona tantum, sed indistincte pro duabus, ut dictum est. Reply Obj. 5: This proposition is also true:—The one principle of the Holy Spirit is the Father and the Son; because the word principle does not stand for one person only, but indistinctly for the two persons as above explained. Ad sextum dicendum quod convenienter potest dici quod pater et filius sunt idem principium, secundum quod ly principium supponit confuse et indistincte pro duabus personis simul. Reply Obj. 6: There is no reason against saying that the Father and the Son are the same principle, because the word principle stands confusedly and indistinctly for the two Persons together. Ad septimum dicendum quod quidam dicunt quod pater et filius, licet sint unum principium spiritus sancti, sunt tamen duo spiratores, propter distinctionem suppositorum, sicut etiam duo spirantes, quia actus referuntur ad supposita. Nec est eadem ratio de hoc nomine creator. Quia Spiritus Sanctus procedit a patre et filio ut sunt duae personae distinctae, ut dictum est, non autem creatura procedit a tribus personis ut sunt personae distinctae, sed ut sunt unum in essentia. Sed videtur melius dicendum quod, quia spirans adiectivum est, spirator vero substantivum, possumus dicere quod pater et filius sunt duo spirantes, propter pluralitatem suppositorum; non autem duo spiratores, propter unam spirationem. Nam adiectiva nomina habent numerum secundum supposita, substantiva vero a seipsis, secundum formam significatam. Quod vero Hilarius dicit, quod Spiritus Sanctus est a patre et filio auctoribus, exponendum est quod ponitur substantivum pro adiectivo. Reply Obj. 7: Some say that although the Father and the Son are one principle of the Holy Spirit, there are two spirators, by reason of the distinction of supposita, as also there are two spirating, because acts refer to subjects. Yet this does not hold good as to the name Creator; because the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two distinct persons, as above explained; whereas the creature proceeds from the three persons not as distinct persons, but as united in essence. It seems, however, better to say that because spirating is an adjective, and spirator a substantive, we can say that the Father and the Son are two spirating, by reason of the plurality of the supposita but not two spirators by reason of the one spiration. For adjectival words derive their number from the supposita but substantives from themselves, according to the form signified. As to what Hilary says, that the Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son as His authors, this is to be explained in the sense that the substantive here stands for the adjective. Quaestio 37 Question 37 De nomine amoris The Name ‘Love’ Deinde quaeritur de nomine amoris. Et circa hoc quaeruntur duo. We now inquire concerning the name Love, on which arise two points of inquiry: Primo, utrum sit proprium nomen spiritus sancti. (1) Whether it is the proper name of the Holy Spirit?