No More Learning

Hence it follows that the Holy
Ghost is in no way an Image. But this is no proof: for the Father and
the Son are one principle of the Holy Ghost, as we shall explain
further on ([293]Q[36], A[4] ). Hence there is nothing to prevent there
being one Image of the Father and of the Son, inasmuch as they are one;
since even man is one image of the whole Trinity.

Therefore we must explain the matter otherwise by saying that, as the
Holy Ghost, although by His procession He receives the nature of the
Father, as the Son also receives it, nevertheless is not said to be
"born"; so, although He receives the likeness of the Father, He is not
called the Image; because the Son proceeds as word, and it is essential
to word to be like species with that whence it proceeds; whereas this
does not essentially belong to love, although it may belong to that
love which is the Holy Ghost, inasmuch as He is the divine love.

Reply to Objection 1: Damascene and the other Greek Doctors commonly
employ the term image as meaning a perfect similitude.

Reply to Objection 2: Although the Holy Ghost is like to the Father and
the Son, still it does not follow that He is the Image, as above
explained.

Reply to Objection 3: The image of a thing may be found in something in
two ways. In one way it is found in something of the same specific
nature; as the image of the king is found in his son. In another way it
is found in something of a different nature, as the king's image on the
coin. In the first sense the Son is the Image of the Father; in the
second sense man is called the image of God; and therefore in order to
express the imperfect character of the divine image in man, man is not
simply called the image, but "to the image," whereby is expressed a
certain movement of tendency to perfection. But it cannot be said that
the Son of God is "to the image," because He is the perfect Image of
the Father.
__________________________________________________________________

OF THE PERSON OF THE HOLY GHOST (FOUR ARTICLES)

We proceed to treat of what belongs to the person of the Holy Ghost,
Who is called not only the Holy Ghost, but also the Love and Gift of
God. Concerning the name "Holy Ghost" there are four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether this name, "Holy Ghost," is the proper name of one divine
Person?

(2) Whether that divine person Who is called the Holy Ghost, proceeds
from the Father and the Son?

(3) Whether He proceeds from the Father through the Son?

(4) Whether the Father and the Son are one principle of the Holy Ghost?
__________________________________________________________________

Whether this name "Holy Ghost" is the proper name of one divine person?

Objection 1: It would seem that this name, "Holy Ghost," is not the
proper name of one divine person. For no name which is common to the
three persons is the proper name of any one person. But this name of
'Holy Ghost' [*It should be borne in mind that the word "ghost" is the
old English equivalent for the Latin "spiritus," whether in the sense
of "breath" or "blast," or in the sense of "spirit," as an immaterial
substance. Thus, we read in the former sense (Hampole, Psalter x, 7),
"The Gost of Storms" [spiritus procellarum], and in the latter "Trubled
gost is sacrifice of God" (Prose Psalter, A. D. 1325), and "Oure
wrestlynge is . . . against the spiritual wicked gostes of the ayre"
(More, "Comfort against Tribulation"); and in our modern expression of
"giving up the ghost. " As applied to God, and not specially to the
third Holy Person, we have an example from Maunder, "Jhesu Criste was
the worde and the goste of Good. " (See Oxford Dictionary). ] is common
to the three persons; for Hilary (De Trin. viii) shows that the "Spirit
of God" sometimes means the Father, as in the words of Is. 61:1: "The
Spirit of the Lord is upon me;" and sometimes the Son, as when the Son
says: "In the Spirit of God I cast out devils" (Mat. 12:28), showing
that He cast out devils by His own natural power; and that sometimes it
means the Holy Ghost, as in the words of Joel 2:28: "I will pour out of
My Spirit over all flesh. " Therefore this name 'Holy Ghost' is not the
proper name of a divine person.

Objection 2: Further, the names of the divine persons are relative
terms, as Boethius says (De Trin. ). But this name "Holy Ghost" is not a
relative term. Therefore this name is not the proper name of a divine
Person.

Objection 3: Further, because the Son is the name of a divine Person He
cannot be called the Son of this or of that. But the spirit is spoken
of as of this or that man, as appears in the words, "The Lord said to
Moses, I will take of thy spirit and will give to them" (Num. 11:17)
and also "The Spirit of Elias rested upon Eliseus" (4 Kings 2:15).
Therefore "Holy Ghost" does not seem to be the proper name of a divine
Person.

On the contrary, It is said (1 Jn. 5:7): "There are three who bear
witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. " As
Augustine says (De Trin. vii, 4): "When we ask, Three what? we say,
Three persons. " Therefore the Holy Ghost is the name of a divine
person.

I answer that, While there are two processions in God, one of these,
the procession of love, has no proper name of its own, as stated above
([294]Q[27] , A[4], ad 3). Hence the relations also which follow from
this procession are without a name ([295]Q[28], A[4]): for which reason
the Person proceeding in that manner has not a proper name. But as some
names are accommodated by the usual mode of speaking to signify the
aforesaid relations, as when we use the names of procession and
spiration, which in the strict sense more fittingly signify the
notional acts than the relations; so to signify the divine Person, Who
proceeds by way of love, this name "Holy Ghost" is by the use of
scriptural speech accommodated to Him. The appropriateness of this name
may be shown in two ways. Firstly, from the fact that the person who is
called "Holy Ghost" has something in common with the other Persons.
For, as Augustine says (De Trin. xv, 17; v, 11), "Because the Holy
Ghost is common to both, He Himself is called that properly which both
are called in common. For the Father also is a spirit, and the Son is a
spirit; and the Father is holy, and the Son is holy. " Secondly, from
the proper signification of the name. For the name spirit in things
corporeal seems to signify impulse and motion; for we call the breath
and the wind by the term spirit. Now it is a property of love to move
and impel the will of the lover towards the object loved. Further,
holiness is attributed to whatever is ordered to God. Therefore because
the divine person proceeds by way of the love whereby God is loved,
that person is most properly named "The Holy Ghost. "

Reply to Objection 1: The expression Holy Spirit, if taken as two
words, is applicable to the whole Trinity: because by 'spirit' the
immateriality of the divine substance is signified; for corporeal
spirit is invisible, and has but little matter; hence we apply this
term to all immaterial and invisible substances. And by adding the word
"holy" we signify the purity of divine goodness. But if Holy Spirit be
taken as one word, it is thus that the expression, in the usage of the
Church, is accommodated to signify one of the three persons, the one
who proceeds by way of love, for the reason above explained.

Reply to Objection 2: Although this name "Holy Ghost" does not indicate
a relation, still it takes the place of a relative term, inasmuch as it
is accommodated to signify a Person distinct from the others by
relation only. Yet this name may be understood as including a relation,
if we understand the Holy Spirit as being breathed [spiratus].

Reply to Objection 3: In the name Son we understand that relation only
which is of something from a principle, in regard to that principle:
but in the name "Father" we understand the relation of principle; and
likewise in the name of Spirit inasmuch as it implies a moving power.
But to no creature does it belong to be a principle as regards a divine
person; but rather the reverse. Therefore we can say "our Father," and
"our Spirit"; but we cannot say "our Son. "
__________________________________________________________________

Whether the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son?

Objection 1: It would seem that the Holy Ghost does not proceed from
the Son. For as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. i): "We must not dare to say
anything concerning the substantial Divinity except what has been
divinely expressed to us by the sacred oracles. " But in the Sacred
Scripture we are not told that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son;
but only that He proceeds from the Father, as appears from Jn. 15:26:
"The Spirit of truth, Who proceeds from the Father. " Therefore the Holy
Ghost does not proceed from the Son.

Objection 2: Further, In the creed of the council of Constantinople
(Can. vii) we read: "We believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and
Life-giver, who proceeds from the Father; with the Father and the Son
to be adored and glorified. " Therefore it should not be added in our
Creed that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son; and those who added
such a thing appear to be worthy of anathema.

Objection 3: Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. i): "We say that
the Holy Ghost is from the Father, and we name Him the spirit of the
Father; but we do not say that the Holy Ghost is from the Son, yet we
name Him the Spirit of the Son. " Therefore the Holy Ghost does not
proceed from the Son.

Objection 4: Further, Nothing proceeds from that wherein it rests. But
the Holy Ghost rests in the Son; for it is said in the legend of St.
Andrew: "Peace be to you and to all who believe in the one God the
Father, and in His only Son our Lord Jesus Christ, and in the one Holy
Ghost proceeding from the Father, and abiding in the Son. " Therefore
the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son.

Objection 5: Further, the Son proceeds as the Word. But our breath
[spiritus] does not seem to proceed in ourselves from our word.
Therefore the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son.

Objection 6: Further, the Holy Ghost proceeds perfectly from the
Father. Therefore it is superfluous to say that He proceeds from the
Son.

Objection 7: Further "the actual and the possible do not differ in
things perpetual" (Phys. iii, text 32), and much less so in God. But it
is possible for the Holy Ghost to be distinguished from the Son, even
if He did not proceed from Him. For Anselm says (De Process. Spir.
Sancti, ii): "The Son and the Holy Ghost have their Being from the
Father; but each in a different way; one by Birth, the other by
Procession, so that they are thus distinct from one another. " And
further on he says: "For even if for no other reason were the Son and
the Holy Ghost distinct, this alone would suffice. " Therefore the Holy
Spirit is distinct from the Son, without proceeding from Him.

On the contrary, Athanasius says: "The Holy Ghost is from the Father
and the Son; not made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. "

I answer that, It must be said that the Holy Ghost is from the Son. For
if He were not from Him, He could in no wise be personally
distinguished from Him; as appears from what has been said above
([296]Q[28], A[3]; [297]Q[30], A[2]). For it cannot be said that the
divine Persons are distinguished from each other in any absolute sense;
for it would follow that there would not be one essence of the three
persons: since everything that is spoken of God in an absolute sense,
belongs to the unity of essence. Therefore it must be said that the
divine persons are distinguished from each other only by the relations.
Now the relations cannot distinguish the persons except forasmuch as
they are opposite relations; which appears from the fact that the
Father has two relations, by one of which He is related to the Son, and
by the other to the Holy Ghost; but these are not opposite relations,
and therefore they do not make two persons, but belong only to the one
person of the Father. If therefore in the Son and the Holy Ghost there
were two relations only, whereby each of them were related to the
Father, these relations would not be opposite to each other, as neither
would be the two relations whereby the Father is related to them.
Hence, as the person of the Father is one, it would follow that the
person of the Son and of the Holy Ghost would be one, having two
relations opposed to the two relations of the Father. But this is
heretical since it destroys the Faith in the Trinity. Therefore the Son
and the Holy Ghost must be related to each other by opposite relations.
Now there cannot be in God any relations opposed to each other, except
relations of origin, as proved above (Q[28], A[44]). And opposite
relations of origin are to be understood as of a "principle," and of
what is "from the principle. " Therefore we must conclude that it is
necessary to say that either the Son is from the Holy Ghost; which no
one says; or that the Holy Ghost is from the Son, as we confess.

Furthermore, the order of the procession of each one agrees with this
conclusion. For it was said above ([298]Q[27], AA[2],4; [299]Q[28],
A[4]), that the Son proceeds by the way of the intellect as Word, and
the Holy Ghost by way of the will as Love. Now love must proceed from a
word. For we do not love anything unless we apprehend it by a mental
conception. Hence also in this way it is manifest that the Holy Ghost
proceeds from the Son.

We derive a knowledge of the same truth from the very order of nature
itself. For we nowhere find that several things proceed from one
without order except in those which differ only by their matter; as for
instance one smith produces many knives distinct from each other
materially, with no order to each other; whereas in things in which
there is not only a material distinction we always find that some order
exists in the multitude produced. Hence also in the order of creatures
produced, the beauty of the divine wisdom is displayed. So if from the
one Person of the Father, two persons proceed, the Son and the Holy
Ghost, there must be some order between them. Nor can any other be
assigned except the order of their nature, whereby one is from the
other. Therefore it cannot be said that the Son and the Holy Ghost
proceed from the Father in such a way as that neither of them proceeds
from the other, unless we admit in them a material distinction; which
is impossible.

Hence also the Greeks themselves recognize that the procession of the
Holy Ghost has some order to the Son. For they grant that the Holy
Ghost is the Spirit "of the Son"; and that He is from the Father
"through the Son. " Some of them are said also to concede that "He is
from the Son"; or that "He flows from the Son," but not that He
proceeds; which seems to come from ignorance or obstinacy. For a just
consideration of the truth will convince anyone that the word
procession is the one most commonly applied to all that denotes origin
of any kind. For we use the term to describe any kind of origin; as
when we say that a line proceeds from a point, a ray from the sun, a
stream from a source, and likewise in everything else. Hence, granted
that the Holy Ghost originates in any way from the Son, we can conclude
that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son.

Reply to Objection 1: We ought not to say about God anything which is
not found in Holy Scripture either explicitly or implicitly. But
although we do not find it verbally expressed in Holy Scripture that
the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son, still we do find it in the sense
of Scripture, especially where the Son says, speaking of the Holy
Ghost, "He will glorify Me, because He shall receive of Mine" (Jn.
16:14). It is also a rule of Holy Scripture that whatever is said of
the Father, applies to the Son, although there be added an exclusive
term; except only as regards what belongs to the opposite relations,
whereby the Father and the Son are distinguished from each other. For
when the Lord says, "No one knoweth the Son, but the Father," the idea
of the Son knowing Himself is not excluded. So therefore when we say
that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, even though it be added
that He proceeds from the Father alone, the Son would not thereby be at
all excluded; because as regards being the principle of the Holy Ghost,
the Father and the Son are not opposed to each other, but only as
regards the fact that one is the Father, and the other is the Son.

Reply to Objection 2: In every council of the Church a symbol of faith
has been drawn up to meet some prevalent error condemned in the council
at that time. Hence subsequent councils are not to be described as
making a new symbol of faith; but what was implicitly contained in the
first symbol was explained by some addition directed against rising
heresies. Hence in the decision of the council of Chalcedon it is
declared that those who were congregated together in the council of
Constantinople, handed down the doctrine about the Holy Ghost, not
implying that there was anything wanting in the doctrine of their
predecessors who had gathered together at Nicaea, but explaining what
those fathers had understood of the matter. Therefore, because at the
time of the ancient councils the error of those who said that the Holy
Ghost did not proceed from the Son had not arisen, it was not necessary
to make any explicit declaration on that point; whereas, later on, when
certain errors rose up, another council [*Council of Rome, under Pope
Damasus] assembled in the west, the matter was explicitly defined by
the authority of the Roman Pontiff, by whose authority also the ancient
councils were summoned and confirmed. Nevertheless the truth was
contained implicitly in the belief that the Holy Ghost proceeds from
the Father.

Reply to Objection 3: The Nestorians were the first to introduce the
error that the Holy Ghost did not proceed from the Son, as appears in a
Nestorian creed condemned in the council of Ephesus. This error was
embraced by Theodoric the Nestorian, and several others after him,
among whom was also Damascene. Hence, in that point his opinion is not
to be held. Although, too, it has been asserted by some that while
Damascene did not confess that the Holy Ghost was from the Son, neither
do those words of his express a denial thereof.

Reply to Objection 4: When the Holy Ghost is said to rest or abide in
the Son, it does not mean that He does not proceed from Him; for the
Son also is said to abide in the Father, although He proceeds from the
Father. Also the Holy Ghost is said to rest in the Son as the love of
the lover abides in the beloved; or in reference to the human nature of
Christ, by reason of what is written: "On whom thou shalt see the
Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, He it is who baptizes" (Jn.
1:33).

Reply to Objection 5: The Word in God is not taken after the similitude
of the vocal word, whence the breath [spiritus] does not proceed; for
it would then be only metaphorical; but after the similitude of the
mental word, whence proceeds love.

Reply to Objection 6: For the reason that the Holy Ghost proceeds from
the Father perfectly, not only is it not superfluous to say He proceeds
from the Son, but rather it is absolutely necessary. Forasmuch as one
power belongs to the Father and the Son; and because whatever is from
the Father, must be from the Son unless it be opposed to the property
of filiation; for the Son is not from Himself, although He is from the
Father.

Reply to Objection 7: The Holy Ghost is distinguished from the Son,
inasmuch as the origin of one is distinguished from the origin of the
other; but the difference itself of origin comes from the fact that the
Son is only from the Father, whereas the Holy Ghost is from the Father
and the Son; for otherwise the processions would not be distinguished
from each other, as explained above, and in [300]Q[27].
__________________________________________________________________

Whether the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father through the Son?

Objection 1: It would seem that the Holy Ghost does not proceed from
the Father through the Son. For whatever proceeds from one through
another, does not proceed immediately. Therefore, if the Holy Ghost
proceeds from the Father through the Son, He does not proceed
immediately; which seems to be unfitting.

Objection 2: Further, if the Holy Ghost 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.

Objection 3: Further, the Son has His being by generation. Therefore if
the Holy Ghost is from the Father through the Son, it follows that the
Son is first generated and afterwards the Holy Ghost proceeds; and thus
the procession of the Holy Ghost is not eternal, which is heretical.

Objection 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 Ghost through the
Father. Therefore it can never be said that the Father spirates the
Holy Ghost through the Son.

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. "

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.

Therefore, because the Son receives from the Father that the Holy Ghost
proceeds from Him, it can be said that the Father spirates the Holy
Ghost through the Son, or that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father
through the Son, which has the same meaning.

Reply to Objection 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 Ghost, there is no
mean, for this is one and the same power. But if we consider the
persons themselves spirating, then, as the Holy Ghost proceeds both
from the Father and from the Son, the Holy Ghost 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.

Reply to Objection 2: If the Son received from the Father a numerically
distinct power for the spiration of the Holy Ghost, it would follow
that He would be a secondary and instrumental cause; and thus the Holy
Ghost 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 Ghost 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.

Reply to Objection 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 Ghost is co-eternal with His
principle. Hence, the Son was not begotten before the Holy Ghost
proceeded; but each of the operations is eternal.

Reply to Objection 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.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether the Father and the Son are one principle of the Holy Ghost?

Objection 1: It would seem that the Father and the Son are not one
principle of the Holy Ghost. For the Holy Ghost does not proceed from
the Father and the Son as they are one; not as they are one in nature,
for the Holy Ghost 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 Ghost 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 Ghost.

Objection 2: Further, in this proposition "the Father and the Son are
one principle of the Holy Ghost," 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 Ghost, similarly, on account of His two properties, the Father
would be two principles of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, which cannot
be admitted. Therefore the Father and the Son are not one principle of
the Holy Ghost.

Objection 3: Further, the Son is not one with the Father more than is
the Holy Ghost. But the Holy Ghost and the Father are not one principle
as regards any other divine person. Therefore neither are the Father
and the Son.

Objection 4: Further, if the Father and the Son are one principle of
the Holy Ghost, 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
Ghost.
Objection 5: Further, if the Father and the Son are one principle of
the Holy Ghost, it seems necessary to say, conversely, that the one
principle of the Holy Ghost 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 Ghost.

Objection 6: Further, unity in substance makes identity. So if the
Father and the Son are the one principle of the Holy Ghost, 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
Ghost.

Objection 7: Further, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost 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
Ghost 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
Ghost.

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 Ghost.

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 Ghost it follows that the Father and the Son are one principle of
the Holy Ghost.

Some, however, assert that this proposition is incorrect: "The Father
and the Son are one principle of the Holy Ghost," 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 Ghost 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 Ghost---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
Ghost by reason of the unity of the property that is signified in this
word "principle. "

Reply to Objection 1: If we consider the spirative power, the Holy
Ghost 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 Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son, as distinct;
for He proceeds from them as the unitive love of both.

Reply to Objection 2: In the proposition "the Father and the Son are
one principle of the Holy Ghost," 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.

Reply to Objection 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 Ghost.

Reply to Objection 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.

Reply to Objection 5: This proposition is also true:---The one
principle of the Holy Ghost 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.

Reply to Objection 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.

Reply to Objection 7: Some say that although the Father and the Son are
one principle of the Holy Ghost, 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 Ghost 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 ghost 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.
__________________________________________________________________

OF THE NAME OF THE HOLY GHOST---LOVE (TWO ARTICLES)

We now inquire concerning the name "Love," on which arise two points of
inquiry:

(1) Whether it is the proper name of the Holy Ghost?

(2) Whether the Father and the Son love each other by the Holy Ghost?
__________________________________________________________________

Whether "Love" is the proper name of the Holy Ghost?

Objection 1: It would seem that "Love" is not the proper name of the
Holy Ghost. For Augustine says (De Trin. xv, 17): "As the Father, Son
and Holy Ghost are called Wisdom, and are not three Wisdoms, but one; I
know not why the Father, Son and Holy Ghost should not be called
Charity, and all together one Charity. " But no name which is predicated
in the singular of each person and of all together, is a proper name of
a person. Therefore this name, "Love," is not the proper name of the
Holy Ghost.

Objection 2: Further, the Holy Ghost is a subsisting person, but love
is not used to signify a subsisting person, but rather an action
passing from the lover to the beloved. Therefore Love is not the proper
name of the Holy Ghost.

Objection 3: Further, Love is the bond between lovers, for as Dionysius
says (Div. Nom. iv): "Love is a unitive force. " But a bond is a medium
between what it joins together, not something proceeding from them.
Therefore, since the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son,
as was shown above ([301]Q[36], A[2]), it seems that He is not the Love
or bond of the Father and the Son.

Objection 4: Further, Love belongs to every lover. But the Holy Ghost
is a lover: therefore He has love. So if the Holy Ghost is Love, He
must be love of love, and spirit from spirit; which is not admissible.

On the contrary, Gregory says (Hom. xxx, in Pentecost. ): "The Holy
Ghost Himself is Love. "

I answer that, The name Love in God can be taken essentially and
personally. If taken personally it is the proper name of the Holy
Ghost; as Word is the proper name of the Son.

To see this we must know that since as shown above ([302]Q[27],
AA[2],3,4,5), there are two processions in God, one by way of the
intellect, which is the procession of the Word, and another by way of
the will, which is the procession of Love; forasmuch as the former is
the more known to us, we have been able to apply more suitable names to
express our various considerations as regards that procession, but not
as regards the procession of the will. Hence, we are obliged to employ
circumlocution as regards the person Who proceeds, and the relations
following from this procession which are called "procession" and
"spiration," as stated above ([303]Q[27], A[4], ad 3), and yet express
the origin rather than the relation in the strict sense of the term.
Nevertheless we must consider them in respect of each procession
simply. For as when a thing is understood by anyone, there results in
the one who understands a conception of the object understood, which
conception we call word; so when anyone loves an object, a certain
impression results, so to speak, of the thing loved in the affection of
the lover; by reason of which the object loved is said to be in the
lover; as also the thing understood is in the one who understands; so
that when anyone understands and loves himself he is in himself, not
only by real identity, but also as the object understood is in the one
who understands, and the thing loved is in the lover. As regards the
intellect, however, words have been found to describe the mutual
relation of the one who understands the object understood, as appears
in the word "to understand"; and other words are used to express the
procession of the intellectual conception---namely, "to speak," and
"word. " Hence in God, "to understand" is applied only to the essence;
because it does not import relation to the Word that proceeds; whereas
"Word" is said personally, because it signifies what proceeds; and the
term "to speak" is a notional term as importing the relation of the
principle of the Word to the Word Himself. On the other hand, on the
part of the will, with the exception of the words "dilection" and
"love," which express the relation of the lover to the object loved,
there are no other terms in use, which express the relation of the
impression or affection of the object loved, produced in the lover by
fact that he loves---to the principle of that impression, or "vice
versa. " And therefore, on account of the poverty of our vocabulary, we
express these relations by the words "love" and "dilection": just as if
we were to call the Word "intelligence conceived," or "wisdom
begotten. "

It follows that so far as love means only the relation of the lover to
the object loved, "love" and "to love" are said of the essence, as
"understanding" and "to understand"; but, on the other hand, so far as
these words are used to express the relation to its principle, of what
proceeds by way of love, and "vice versa," so that by "love" is
understood the "love proceeding," and by "to love" is understood "the
spiration of the love proceeding," in that sense "love" is the name of
the person and "to love" is a notional term, as "to speak" and "to
beget. "

Reply to Objection 1: Augustine is there speaking of charity as it
means the divine essence, as was said above (here and [304]Q[24], A[2],
ad 4).

Reply to Objection 2: Although to understand, and to will, and to love
signify actions passing on to their objects, nevertheless they are
actions that remain in the agents, as stated above ([305]Q[14], A[4]),
yet in such a way that in the agent itself they import a certain
relation to their object. Hence, love also in ourselves is something
that abides in the lover, and the word of the heart is something
abiding in the speaker; yet with a relation to the thing expressed by
word, or loved. But in God, in whom there is nothing accidental, there
is more than this; because both Word and Love are subsistent.
Therefore, when we say that the Holy Ghost is the Love of the Father
for the Son, or for something else; we do not mean anything that passes
into another, but only the relation of love to the beloved; as also in
the Word is imported the relation of the Word to the thing expressed by
the Word.

Reply to Objection 3: The Holy Ghost is said to be the bond of the
Father and Son, inasmuch as He is Love; because, since the Father loves
Himself and the Son with one Love, and conversely, there is expressed
in the Holy Ghost, as Love, the relation of the Father to the Son, and
conversely, as that of the lover to the beloved. But from the fact that
the Father and the Son mutually love one another, it necessarily
follows that this mutual Love, the Holy Ghost, proceeds from both. As
regards origin, therefore, the Holy Ghost is not the medium, but the
third person in the Trinity; whereas as regards the aforesaid relation
He is the bond between the two persons, as proceeding from both.

Reply to Objection 4: As it does not belong to the Son, though He
understands, to produce a word, for it belongs to Him to understand as
the word proceeding; so in like manner, although the Holy Ghost loves,
taking Love as an essential term, still it does not belong to Him to
spirate love, which is to take love as a notional term; because He
loves essentially as love proceeding; but not as the one whence love
proceeds.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether the Father and the Son love each other by the Holy Ghost?

Objection 1: It would seem that the Father and the Son do not love each
other by the Holy Ghost. For Augustine (De Trin. vii, 1) proves that
the Father is not wise by the Wisdom begotten. But as the Son is Wisdom
begotten, so the Holy Ghost is the Love proceeding, as explained above
([306]Q[27], A[3]). Therefore the Father and the Son do not love
Themselves by the Love proceeding, which is the Holy Ghost.

Objection 2: Further, the proposition, "The Father and the Son love
each other by the Holy Ghost," this word "love" is to be taken either
essentially or notionally. But it cannot be true if taken essentially,
because in the same way we might say that "the Father understands by
the Son"; nor, again, if it is taken notionally, for then, in like
manner, it might be said that "the Father and the Son spirate by the
Holy Ghost," or that "the Father generates by the Son. " Therefore in no
way is this proposition true: "'The Father and the Son love each other
by the Holy Ghost. "

Objection 3: Further, by the same love the Father loves the Son, and
Himself, and us. But the Father does not love Himself by the Holy
Ghost; for no notional act is reflected back on the principle of the
act; since it cannot be said that the "Father begets Himself," or that
"He spirates Himself. " Therefore, neither can it be said that "He loves
Himself by the Holy Ghost," if "to love" is taken in a notional sense.
Again, the love wherewith He loves us is not the Holy Ghost; because it
imports a relation to creatures, and this belongs to the essence.
Therefore this also is false: "The Father loves the Son by the Holy
Ghost. "

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. vi, 5): "The Holy Ghost is He
whereby the Begotten is loved by the one begetting and loves His
Begetter. "

I answer that, A difficulty about this question is objected to the
effect that when we say, "the Father loves the Son by the Holy Ghost,"
since the ablative is construed as denoting a cause, it seems to mean
that the Holy Ghost is the principle of love to the Father and the Son;
which cannot be admitted.

In view of this difficulty some have held that it is false, that "the
Father and the Son love each other by the Holy Ghost"; and they add
that it was retracted by Augustine when he retracted its equivalent to
the effect that "the Father is wise by the Wisdom begotten. " Others say
that the proposition is inaccurate and ought to be expounded, as that
"the Father loves the Son by the Holy Ghost"---that is, "by His
essential Love," which is appropriated to the Holy Ghost. Others
further say that this ablative should be construed as importing a sign,
so that it means, "the Holy Ghost is the sign that the Father loves the
Son"; inasmuch as the Holy Ghost proceeds from them both, as Love.
Others, again, say that this ablative must be construed as importing
the relation of formal cause, because the Holy Ghost is the love
whereby the Father and the Son formally love each other. Others, again,
say that it should be construed as importing the relation of a formal
effect; and these approach nearer to the truth.

To make the matter clear, we must consider that since a thing is
commonly denominated from its forms, as "white" from whiteness, and
"man" from humanity; everything whence anything is denominated, in this
particular respect stands to that thing in the relation of form. So
when I say, "this man is clothed with a garment," the ablative is to be
construed as having relation to the formal cause, although the garment
is not the form. Now it may happen that a thing may be denominated from
that which proceeds from it, not only as an agent is from its action,
but also as from the term itself of the action---that is, the effect,
when the effect itself is included in the idea of the action. For we
say that fire warms by heating, although heating is not the heat which
is the form of the fire, but is an action proceeding from the fire; and
we say that a tree flowers with the flower, although the flower is not
the tree's form, but is the effect proceeding from the form. In this
way, therefore, we must say that since in God "to love" is taken in two
ways, essentially and notionally, when it is taken essentially, it
means that the Father and the Son love each other not by the Holy
Ghost, but by their essence. Hence Augustine says (De Trin. xv, 7):
"Who dares to say that the Father loves neither Himself, nor the Son,
nor the Holy Ghost, except by the Holy Ghost? " The opinions first
quoted are to be taken in this sense. But when the term Love is taken
in a notional sense it means nothing else than "to spirate love"; just
as to speak is to produce a word, and to flower is to produce flowers.
As therefore we say that a tree flowers by its flower, so do we say
that the Father, by the Word or the Son, speaks Himself, and His
creatures; and that the Father and the Son love each other and us, by
the Holy Ghost, or by Love proceeding.

Reply to Objection 1: To be wise or intelligent is taken only
essentially in God; therefore we cannot say that "the Father is wise or
intelligent by the Son. " But to love is taken not only essentially, but
also in a notional sense; and in this way, we can say that the Father
and the Son love each other by the Holy Ghost, as was above explained.

Reply to Objection 2: When the idea of an action includes a determined
effect, the principle of the action may be denominated both from the
action, and from the effect; so we can say, for instance, that a tree
flowers by its flowering and by its flower. When, however, the idea of
an action does not include a determined effect, then in that case, the
principle of the action cannot be denominated from the effect, but only
from the action. For we do not say that the tree produces the flower by
the flower, but by the production of the flower. So when we say,
"spirates" or "begets," this imports only a notional act. Hence we
cannot say that the Father spirates by the Holy Ghost, or begets by the
Son. But we can say that the Father speaks by the Word, as by the
Person proceeding, "and speaks by the speaking," as by a notional act;
forasmuch as "to speak" imports a determinate person proceeding; since
"to speak" means to produce a word. Likewise to love, taken in a
notional sense, means to produce love; and so it can be said that the
Father loves the Son by the Holy Ghost, as by the person proceeding,
and by Love itself as a notional act.

Reply to Objection 3: The Father loves not only the Son, but also
Himself and us, by the Holy Ghost; because, as above explained, to
love, taken in a notional sense, not only imports the production of a
divine person, but also the person produced, by way of love, which has
relation to the object loved. Hence, as the Father speaks Himself and
every creature by His begotten Word, inasmuch as the Word "begotten"
adequately represents the Father and every creature; so He loves
Himself and every creature by the Holy Ghost, inasmuch as the Holy
Ghost proceeds as the love of the primal goodness whereby the Father
loves Himself and every creature. Thus it is evident that relation to
the creature is implied both in the Word and in the proceeding Love, as
it were in a secondary way, inasmuch as the divine truth and goodness
are a principle of understanding and loving all creatures.
__________________________________________________________________

OF THE NAME OF THE HOLY GHOST, AS GIFT (TWO ARTICLES)

There now follows the consideration of the Gift; concerning which there
are two points of inquiry:

(1) Whether "Gift" can be a personal name?

(2) Whether it is the proper name of the Holy Ghost?
__________________________________________________________________

Whether "Gift" is a personal name?

Objection 1: It would seem that "Gift" is not a personal name. For
every personal name imports a distinction in God. But the name of
"Gift" does not import a distinction in God; for Augustine says (De
Trin. xv, 19): that "the Holy Ghost is so given as God's Gift, that He
also gives Himself as God. " Therefore "Gift" is not a personal name.

Objection 2: Further, no personal name belongs to the divine essence.
But the divine essence is the Gift which the Father gives to the Son,
as Hilary says (De Trin. ix). Therefore "Gift" is not a personal name.

Objection 3: Further, according to Damascene (De Fide Orth. iv, 19)
there is no subjection nor service in the divine persons. But gift
implies a subjection both as regards him to whom it is given, and as
regards him by whom it is given. Therefore "Gift" is not a personal
name.

Objection 4: Further, "Gift" imports relation to the creature, and it
thus seems to be said of God in time. But personal names are said of
God from eternity; as "Father," and "Son. " Therefore "Gift" is not a
personal name.

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. xv, 19): "As the body of
flesh is nothing but flesh; so the gift of the Holy Ghost is nothing
but the Holy Ghost. " But the Holy Ghost is a personal name; so also
therefore is "Gift. "

I answer that, The word "gift" imports an aptitude for being given. And
what is given has an aptitude or relation both to the giver and to that
to which it is given. For it would not be given by anyone, unless it
was his to give; and it is given to someone to be his. Now a divine
person is said to belong to another, either by origin, as the Son
belongs to the Father; or as possessed by another. But we are said to
possess what we can freely use or enjoy as we please: and in this way a
divine person cannot be possessed, except by a rational creature united
to God. Other creatures can be moved by a divine person, not, however,
in such a way as to be able to enjoy the divine person, and to use the
effect thereof. The rational creature does sometimes attain thereto; as
when it is made partaker of the divine Word and of the Love proceeding,
so as freely to know God truly and to love God rightly. Hence the
rational creature alone can possess the divine person. Nevertheless in
order that it may possess Him in this manner, its own power avails
nothing: hence this must be given it from above; for that is said to be
given to us which we have from another source. Thus a divine person can
"be given," and can be a "gift. "

Reply to Objection 1: The name "Gift" imports a personal distinction ,
in so far as gift imports something belonging to another through its
origin. Nevertheless, the Holy Ghost gives Himself, inasmuch as He is
His own, and can use or rather enjoy Himself; as also a free man
belongs to himself. And as Augustine says (In Joan. Tract. xxix): "What
is more yours than yourself? " Or we might say, and more fittingly, that
a gift must belong in a way to the giver. But the phrase, "this is this
one's," can be understood in several senses. In one way it means
identity, as Augustine says (In Joan. Tract. xxix); and in that sense
"gift" is the same as "the giver," but not the same as the one to whom
it is given. The Holy Ghost gives Himself in that sense. In another
sense, a thing is another's as a possession, or as a slave; and in that
sense gift is essentially distinct from the giver; and the gift of God
so taken is a created thing. In a third sense "this is this one's"
through its origin only; and in this sense the Son is the Father's; and
the Holy Ghost belongs to both. Therefore, so far as gift in this way
signifies the possession of the giver, it is personally distinguished
from the giver, and is a personal name.

Reply to Objection 2: The divine essence is the Father's gift in the
first sense, as being the Father's by way of identity.

Reply to Objection 3: Gift as a personal name in God does not imply
subjection, but only origin, as regards the giver; but as regards the
one to whom it is given, it implies a free use, or enjoyment, as above
explained.

Reply to Objection 4: Gift is not so called from being actually given,
but from its aptitude to be given. Hence the divine person is called
Gift from eternity, although He is given in time. Nor does it follow
that it is an essential name because it imports relation to the
creature; but that it includes something essential in its meaning; as
the essence is included in the idea of person, as stated above
([307]Q[34], A[3]).
__________________________________________________________________

Whether "Gift" is the proper name of the Holy Ghost?

Objection 1: It would seem that Gift is not the proper name of the Holy
Ghost. For the name Gift comes from being given. But, as Is. 9:16 says:
"A Son is give to us. " Therefore to be Gift belongs to the Son, as well
as to the Holy Ghost.

Objection 2: Further, every proper name of a person signifies a
property. But this word Gift does not signify a property of the Holy
Ghost. Therefore Gift is not a proper name of the Holy Ghost.

Objection 3: Further, the Holy Ghost can be called the spirit of a man,
whereas He cannot be called the gift of any man, but "God's Gift" only.
Therefore Gift is not the proper name of the Holy Ghost.

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. iv, 20): "As 'to be born' is,
for the Son, to be from the Father, so, for the Holy Ghost, 'to be the
Gift of God' is to proceed from Father and Son. " But the Holy Ghost
receives His proper name from the fact that He proceeds from Father and
Son. Therefore Gift is the proper name of the Holy Ghost.

I answer that, Gift, taken personally in God, is the proper name of the
Holy Ghost.

In proof of this we must know that a gift is properly an unreturnable
giving, as Aristotle says (Topic. iv, 4)---i. e. a thing which is not
given with the intention of a return---and it thus contains the idea of
a gratuitous donation. Now, the reason of donation being gratuitous is
love; since therefore do we give something to anyone gratuitously
forasmuch as we wish him well. So what we first give him is the love
whereby we wish him well. Hence it is manifest that love has the nature
of a first gift, through which all free gifts are given. So since the
Holy Ghost proceeds as love, as stated above ([308]Q[27], A[4];
[309]Q[37], A[1]), He proceeds as the first gift. Hence Augustine says
(De Trin. xv, 24): "By the gift, which is the Holy Ghost, many
particular gifts are portioned out to the members of Christ. "

Reply to Objection 1: As the Son is properly called the Image because
He proceeds by way of a word, whose nature it is to be the similitude
of its principle, although the Holy Ghost also is like to the Father;
so also, because the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father as love, He is
properly called Gift, although the Son, too, is given. For that the Son
is given is from the Father's love, according to the words, "God so
loved the world, as to give His only begotten Son" (Jn. 3:16).