Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

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.

Articulus 4

Argumentum 1

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.

Argumentum 2

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.

Argumentum 3

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.

Argumentum 4

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.

Argumentum 5

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.

Argumentum 6

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.

Argumentum 7

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.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in V de Trin., quod pater et filius non sunt duo principia, sed unum principium spiritus sancti.

Corpus

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.

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.

Ad 1

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.

Ad 2

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.

Ad 3

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.

Ad 4

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.

Ad 5

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.

Ad 6

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.

Ad 7

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.