Commentaria in Summam contra Gentiles, Liber IV

After St. Thomas has determined the truth concerning the divinity of the Holy Spirit, he wishes to respond to the arguments brought forward to the contrary¹.

I. For the solution to the first argument, he sets down beforehand that the name "spirit" seems to be taken from the breathing of animals, in which air is drawn in and sent out with a certain motion. — Hence it is extended to every impulse and motion of any aerial body whatever: for in this way wind also is called a spirit in the Psalm², Fire, hail, etc.; and a subtle vapor diffused through the limbs for their motions. — But because air is invisible, the name "spirit" has also been transferred to all invisible and motive powers and substances: and thus the sensitive and the rational soul, and angels, and God, especially as proceeding by way of love, are called spirits.

Then, to the first argument, he says that the prophet Amos understands by "spirit" the wind. Zechariah, on the other hand, understands by the spirit of man the human soul, but not the Holy Spirit.

II. To the second he says, first, that the Holy Spirit is said to speak in holy men not of Himself because He does not act of Himself. For from another, namely from the Father and the Son, just as He has essence, so also He has knowledge and power and operation, which are the same with the essence.

He says, second, that His hearing is His receiving knowledge from the Father and the Son.

He says, third, that it ought not to move us that it says He shall hear in the future tense, although the receiving of the Holy Spirit is eternal: because words of any time whatsoever can be adapted to what is eternal, since eternity encompasses all time.

Note that, from the fact that eternity encompasses every difference of time, words of the future tense are understood to be said of God not because God expects anything in the future, but because He eternally coexists with the time that is future to us. Hence what is said of the Holy Spirit, that He shall hear, is not so understood as if He were about to receive knowledge from the Father and the Son and had not yet received it: but that His receiving knowledge, which is eternal, coexists with future time, in which He will manifest to us what He eternally receives from the Father.

III. To the third he says that, since there is a two-fold mission of the Holy Spirit, just as of the Son: namely visible, as when He appeared in the form of a dove upon Christ, and in tongues of fire upon the Apostles; and invisible, as when a man is made a lover of God through the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit Himself inhabits the man: — neither of these induces a diminution, but only denotes a procession from another. For nothing else is signified when it is said in the cited authority that the Holy Spirit was sent by Christ, than that He was in the world in a certain new way, namely visibly, and that this was His from the Father and the Son. And it is to be understood similarly when He is said to be sent invisibly: because, namely, through a new proper effect He inhabits man, and that it is His from the Father and the Son that He makes this effect in man. In the same way also the Son is said to be sent by the Father: visibly indeed, because He appeared to men in visible flesh; invisibly, however, when someone is so constituted in divine knowledge that from it the love of God proceeds in him; and each of these belongs to the Son from the Father.

It should be noted concerning what has been said, that the Holy Spirit is sent invisibly through a new proper effect, that this is not to be understood efficiently, as is clear from the foregoing³, as if, namely, there were some effect of the Holy Spirit that He alone effects, and not the other divine persons: but only exemplarily. For the created love by which we love God, insofar as it is such, is exemplarily derived and formed from the love by which God loves Himself.

2. But a doubt arises. For St. Thomas seems to intend that it belongs to the notion of mission that one proceed from the one sending. But this does not seem to be true. Because according to Augustine, De Trinitate II⁴, the Son is sent by Himself and by the Holy Spirit; and the Holy Spirit by the Son and by Himself. But it is certain that neither does the Son proceed from Himself or from the Holy Spirit; nor does the Holy Spirit proceed from Himself.

It is answered from the doctrine of St. Thomas, Prima, q. xliii, the last article, that the name "mission" signifies two things in divine matters. For sometimes it signifies the procession of the person sent from the person sending, and His new mode of existing in a creature. And this is the primary significate. And thus only a proceeding person is sent, and only by Him from whom He proceeds. — But sometimes it signifies the sent person's procession from someone, although not from the sender, and His new mode of existing in a creature. And this is the secondary significate. And thus for a person to be sent, it is required that He be proceeding, and that He have a new mode in a creature: but it is not required that He proceed from the sender. Therefore St. Thomas speaks here of the primary significate of mission, but Augustine of the secondary significate.

3. But a doubt still remains. For according to this answer, to be sent, even in its secondary significate, includes to be produced, although not by the sender. But this seems to imply a contradiction. For if to be sent includes to be produced, it is necessary that to send include to produce. And thus it is necessary that the person sending produce the person sent: and consequently that to be sent be to be produced by the sender.

It is answered that for to be sent to include to be produced can be understood in two ways: in one way, formally and directly; in another way, materially and obliquely. In the first way, to be sent, as to its secondary significate, does not include to be produced, but only in the second way. For thus to be sent is not formally to be produced, but for a person produced by another to come to be in some new mode. Therefore it is not necessary that to send include to produce.

Through this it is clear that the arguments of Scotus in the fourteenth distinction of the First Book⁵ (which he himself nevertheless also solves) are not against the mind of St. Thomas. For they proceed as if we were saying that to be sent, as to its secondary significate, formally includes to be produced. See Capreolus on the First Book, d. xv and xvi⁶.

IV. To the fourth he says that mention not being made at times of the Holy Spirit, while the Father and the Son are commemorated, does not exclude Him from divinity: just as neither is the Son excluded when mention is made of the Father, no mention having been made of Him. — For by this Scripture tacitly insinuates that whatever, pertaining to divinity, is said of one of the three, is to be understood of all, for the reason that they are one God. Nor could God the Father even be understood without the Word and Love, nor conversely. And therefore in one of the three all three are understood. Hence in things of this sort mention is sometimes made of the Son, as in Matt. xi, Neither does anyone know the Father, etc., when nevertheless both the Father and the Holy Spirit know the Father; sometimes also of the Holy Spirit, as in 1 Cor. ii, The things that are of God, etc., when nevertheless neither the Father nor the Son is excluded from the knowledge of divine things.

V. Concerning this response, as to that which is said, that the Father cannot be understood without the Word and Love, nor conversely, a doubt arises first, because these are not correlatives under these names; nor is one of the intrinsic notion of the other, as it seems. Therefore it does not appear how one cannot be understood without the others.

A doubt arises second, because, even granting that one cannot be understood without the others, it still does not follow that in one all are understood with respect to the same predicate: as St. Thomas seems to intend. For although in human matters a father cannot be understood without a son, yet when the father is said to be wise, it is not understood that the son also is wise.

2. To the first of these it is said that St. Thomas does not say that the Father cannot be understood without the Word and Love in the sense that they are correlatives, or that one is of the formal notion of the other: — for this would be irrelevant to the matter at hand, as is clear from the second doubt; and from Prima, q. xxxi, a. 4; and I Sent., d. xxi, q. 1, a. 2 — but because they are of one numerically identical essence. For from the unity of essence it follows that the essence of God the Father cannot be understood without the essence of the divine Word and Love being understood. And therefore in one of the three all three are understood as to their essence, and as to those things that do not accompany their relative opposition.

3. To the second doubt it is answered that from the understanding of all in one, in the manner just explained, it follows that in one all are also understood as to essential predicates: for of these St. Thomas is speaking. For since things of this sort accompany the divine essence; and in the understanding of one divine person all are understood as to the essence: it follows that, when some essential predicate is said of one person, the other two are not excluded. — Nor is that valid which is brought forward concerning father and son in creatures: because in them father and son do not have one numerically identical essence, as is the case in divine matters.

VI. To the fifth he says, first, that motion is attributed to the Holy Spirit metaphorically: as also when it is said of God, Gen. iii, When they heard, etc.; and xviii, I will go down, etc. For when the Holy Spirit is said to move over the waters, it is understood in the way that the will is said to move toward the willed and love toward the beloved. — Although some wish to understand this of the air, which has its natural place above the waters, to signify whose manifold transmutations it was said that it moved over the waters.

He says, second, that the saying of Joel is to be understood by the same reasoning whereby the Holy Spirit is said to be sent to men by the Father or the Son. But by the word outpouring the abundance of the effect of the Holy Spirit is understood: namely, that it will reach more people, from whom also it may in a certain way be derived unto others, as is evident in things that are poured out corporally.

Note that St. Thomas does not say absolutely from whom it is derived unto others, but adds in a certain way: because the effect of the Holy Spirit, which is charity, cannot be principally caused by man, but only dispositively and ministerially, as is clear from the IV Sentences⁷.

VII. To the sixth he says, first, that that saying of Numbers is not to be referred to the very essence of the Holy Spirit, but to His effects, which can be increased and diminished in man, insofar as something similar can increase in one in whom another decreases.

He says, second, that it is not necessary, in order for it to increase in one, that it be taken away from the other: because a spiritual thing can be possessed simultaneously by many without detriment to any of them. Hence it is not to be understood that something had to be taken away from Moses regarding spiritual goods in order for it to be conferred on others, but it is to be referred to an act or office: because what the Holy Spirit had previously effected through Moses alone, He afterwards fulfilled through many. — In the same way it must be said that Elisha asked for two effects of the Holy Spirit that were in Elijah, namely prophecy and the working of miracles: not, however, that the essence or person of the Holy Spirit would be increased twofold, or that in spiritual effect he would surpass his master: — although it is not unfitting for one to participate in an effect of the Holy Spirit more abundantly than another, according to a double or any other proportion, etc.

VIII. To the seventh he says that the Holy Spirit is said to be grieved by a similitude of effect: for He abandons sinners, just as those who are grieved abandon those who grieve them. For by the custom of Scripture, passions of the human mind are transferred to God through a certain similitude.

To the eighth he says that the Holy Spirit is said to ask, because He makes us askers, by causing in us the love of God, by which we desire to enjoy Him, and desiring we ask: just as it is also said in Gen. xxii, Now I know that thou fearest the Lord, that is, Now I have made it to be known. For it is customary in Sacred Scripture that that is attributed to God which He produces in man.

To the ninth it is said that, since the Holy Spirit proceeds by way of love, and makes us lovers of God, it belongs to Him to be given. By reason, indeed, of the love with which God loves us, in that manner of speaking by which one is said to give his love to someone when he begins to love him: — although God begins to love no one in time, if the will itself be considered; but the effect of His love is caused in someone in time. By reason, however, of the love by which we love God, because the Holy Spirit produces this in us, and according to it He dwells in us and we have Him, as one whose aid we enjoy, that is, as one whose help we possess. And because this is the Holy Spirit's from the Father and the Son, He is fittingly said to be given to us by the Father and the Son. In this, however, it is shown not that He is less than they, but that He has His origin from them. He is also said to be given to us by Himself: insofar as He causes the said love in us together with the Father and the Son.

Note that from this response it is had that this assumption is false: No one fittingly gives except that of which he has dominion. For it is said that in divine matters one also fittingly gives that of which he is the originative principle, although he does not properly have dominion over it.

IX. To the tenth he says that, although the Holy Spirit is true God, and has the true divine nature from the Father and the Son, it is nevertheless not necessary that He be a son: because the procession of the Holy Spirit does not have the nature of nativity. For someone is called a son from the fact that he is begotten: for if any thing were to receive the nature of another from him not through begetting, but through any other mode whatsoever, it would lack the notion of filiation. This is shown by an example, namely if a man were to make a man from some part of his body, or in an external manner, as artificial things are made: for the man produced would not be called the son of the producer.

Note, as is evident from the foregoing ⁸, that the reason why the procession of the Holy Spirit does not have the nature of nativity or generation, although He receives the divine nature, is that from its own nature, by which it is a procession by way of will or by way of love, it does not have that the product be similar to the producer, but rather that it be a certain impression and inclination toward the beloved thing; but it is of the nature of generation that the begotten be similar to the generator.

X. To the last he says that it is reasonable that in the divine nature alone nature is communicated in several modes. Because, since in God alone His operation is His esse, that which proceeds in Him by way of intellect, or by way of love and will, must have divine esse and be God.

It should be noted from this response that that proposition, Of one nature there is only one mode of communication ⁹, has truth in created nature only, in which operation is distinguished from the esse of the operator, and therefore it is not necessary through every procession of it that nature be communicated of which there is one mode; not, however, in the divine nature, in which operation is the same as the esse of God, and therefore through every procession of it ad intra it is necessary that nature be communicated of which the esse of God is proper. On account of this St. Thomas says ¹⁰ that in the divine nature alone it is reasonable that nature is communicated in several modes, because in God alone His operation is His esse. For thus it is clear that divine understanding and willing, by which the Son and the Holy Spirit are produced ad intra, are the same as divine esse; and therefore it is necessary that the products, whose esse is understanding and willing, have the divine nature, as having divine esse.

2. But concerning this response there is a doubt. For this response admits that in creatures one nature is communicated in only one mode. But against this is the fact that there are some natures that are produced through putrefaction and through propagation: for it has been shown in the preceding sections ¹¹ that things produced through putrefaction, and through generation, are of the same species, according to the mind of St. Thomas. But it is clear that to be produced through generation, and through putrefaction, are diverse modes of communication of nature.

It is answered in two ways. First, that that proposition has truth in perfect natures: but the counterinstance is given in imperfect natures.

Second, that that proposition is universally true in every nature, understanding communication as it is from an individual of that nature. For the sense is that one nature can be communicated in only one mode by a supposit and individual of that nature. But against this sense it is clear that the counterinstance is nothing.

Lastly, St. Thomas says that these things have been said concerning the divinity of the Holy Spirit; but that the difficulties concerning His procession ought to be considered from those things that were said concerning the nativity of the Son.