Index [<< | >>]
First Part [<< | >>]
Question: 36 [<< | >>]
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?
Index [<< | >>]
First Part [<< | >>]
Question: 36 [<< | >>]
Article: 1 [<< | >>]
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" (@Mt. 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 Kgs. 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 (Question [27], Article [4], ad 3). Hence the relations also which follow from this procession
are without a name (Question [28], Article [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."
Index [<< | >>]
First Part [<< | >>]
Question: 36 [<< | >>]
Article: 2 [<< | >>]
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 (Question [28], Article [3]; Question [30], Article [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 (Question [28], Article [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 (Question [27], Articles [2],4; Question [28], Article [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 Question [27].
Index [<< | >>]
First Part [<< | >>]
Question: 36 [<< | >>]
Article: 3 [<< | >>]
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.
Index [<< | >>]
First Part [<< | >>]
Question: 36 [<< | >>]
Article: 4 [<< | >>]
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.