I Sentences, Distinction 10
The Holy Spirit as Love

Art. 3: utrum spiritus sanctus sit unio patris et filiiArt. 3: Whether the Holy Spirit is the union of the Father and the Son
ad tertium sic proceditur.Proceeding thus to the third.
videtur quod spiritus sanctus non sit nexus vel unio patris et filii. quod enim est discretum et distinctum ab aliquibus, non est unitivum ipsorum. sed spiritus sanctus est distinctus a patre et filio. ergo non est unio utriusque.Obj. 1: It seems that the Holy Spirit is not the connection or union of the Father and the Son. For what is discrete and distinct from things is not unitive of them. But the Holy Spirit is distinct from the Father and the Son. Therefore He is not the union of both.
praeterea, nexus vel unio habet quasi rationem medii inter ea quae uniuntur vel connectuntur. sed spiritus sanctus non est media in trinitate persona, sed tertia. ergo non est unio vel nexus.Obj. 2: Further, connection or union has the account, as it were, of a mean or middle between the things which are united or connected. But the Holy Spirit is not the middle in the Trinity of Persons, but the third. Therefore He is not the union or connection.
praeterea, nexus dicitur quo aliqua nectuntur. sed sive hoc intelligatur effective, sive formaliter, illud quo aliqua nectuntur habet aliquam rationem principii annexam. ergo cum spiritus nullo modo sit principium patris et filii, immo e contrario, non poterit dici nexus vel unio utriusque.Obj. 3: Further, that by which things are connected [nectuntur] is called the connection [nexus]. But whether this nexus be understood effectively or formally, that by which things are connected has some account of a principle annexed to it. Therefore since the Holy Spirit is in no way the principle of the Father and the Son -- rather the converse -- He will not be able to called the connection or union of both.
contra, dionysius: amorem sive divinum sive angelicum sive intellectualem sive animalem sive naturalem dicamus, unitivam quamdam et concretivam accipimus virtutem. sed spiritus sanctus est amor patris et filii. ergo est unio ipsorum.Against this is what Dionysius says: "When we speak of love, whether divine, angelic, intellectual, animal, or natural, we mean a certain unitive and concretive power." But the Holy Spirit is the love of the Father and the Son. Therefore He is their union.
hoc etiam videtur ex auctoritate apostoli, eph. 4, 3: soliciti servare unitatem spiritus in vinculo pacis; et ita amor habet rationem vinculi et nexus.This is also seen from the authority of the Apostle in Eph. 4:3: "solicitous to serve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace"; and so love has the account of a bond and a connection.
respondeo dicendum, quod amor semper ponit complacentiam amantis in amato. quando autem aliquis placet sibi in aliquo, trahit se in illud et conjungit se illi quantum potest, ita ut illud efficiatur suum; et inde est quod amor habet rationem uniendi amantem et amatum. et quia spiritus sanctus procedit ut amor, ex modo processionis habet ut sit unio patris et filii. possunt enim pater et filius considerari vel inquantum conveniunt in essentia, et sic uniuntur in essentia; vel inquantum distinguuntur in personis, et sic uniuntur per consonantiam amoris: quia et si per impossibile poneretur quod non essent unum per essentiam, ad perfectam jucunditatem oporteret in eis intelligi unionem amoris.I respond: it should be said that love always signifies [ponit] a complacency of the lover in the beloved. But whenever someone takes pleasure in someone, he transports himself into that other and joins himself to it as much as he can, so that the other might become his own; and it is for this reason that love has the account of uniting the lover and the beloved. And because the Holy Spirit proceeds as love, He has from this mode of procession that He is the union of the Father and the Son. For the Father and the Son can be considered either insofar as they come together in essence, and in this way they are united in essence, or insofar as they are distinguished in Person, and in this way they are united by the consonance of love. For if it were posited per impossibile that they were not one by essence, it would be necessary for their perfect joy that a union of love be understood [to be] in them.
ad primum ergo dicendum, quod ex ipsa processione spiritus sanctus habet quod procedat ut persona; sed ex modo processionis habet quod sit vinculum vel unio amantis et amati. utrum autem pater et filius diligant se spiritu sancto, infra quaeretur, dist. 32, quaest. 1, art. 1 et 2.To the first, therefore, it should be said that the Holy Spirit has from the procession itself His proceeding from a Person, but He has from the mode of procession His being a bond or union of lover and beloved. But whether the Father and the Son love themselves by the Holy Spirit will be sought below (d. 32, q. 1, a. 1 and 2).
ad secundum dicendum, quod inquantum procedit a duobus, habet quod sit tertia in trinitate persona; sed ex modo procedendi, quod sit unio utriusque personae.To the second, it should be said that He has His being third in the Trinity of Persons insofar as He proceeds from two things, but He has His being the union of both Persons from the mode of proceeding.
ad tertium dicendum, quod pater et filius dicuntur uniri spiritu sancto, non effective, sed quasi formaliter. sed forma est duplex: quaedam enim manens et quiescens in his quorum est forma; et sic per modum formae se habet ad personas divina essentia, et sic uniuntur formaliter amore essentiali. est etiam aliquid formaliter uniens, non quasi inhaerens, sed sicut procedens ab utroque unitorum; ac si diceremus, aliqua duo corpora uniri per aliquem aliquorum ab eis procedentem; et ita pater et filius uniuntur spiritu sancto. unde non sequitur quod sit principium patris et filii, sed e converso. hoc tamen magis discutietur, dist. 32, ut sup., quando quaeretur, utrum pater et filius diligant se spiritu sancto.To the third, it should be said that the Father and the Son are said to be united by the Holy Spirit not effectively but quasi-formally. Form, however, is twofold. For it is [=can signify] a certain remaining and resting in those things of which it is the form; and so [according to this understanding of form] the divine essence stands to the Persons through the mode of form, and thus they are united formally by essential love. It is also [=form can also mean] something formally uniting, not as if inhering, but as proceeding from both of the united things, as though we were to say that two bodies were united through something which proceeds from them; and so [according to this understanding of form] the Father and the Son are united by the Holy Spirit. Hence it does not follow that He is the principle of the Father and the Son, but rather the converse. Nevertheless, this will be analyzed more in d. 32, as was mentioned above, when it will be inquired whether the Father and the Son love themselves by the Holy Spirit.


© Peter Kwasniewski
(pak@wyomingcatholiccollege.com)

The Aquinas Translation Project
(http://www4.desales.edu/~philtheo/loughlin/ATP/index.html)