|
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 (Question 36,
Article 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 (Question 27,
Articles 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
(Question 27, Article 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 Question 24,
Article 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 (Question 14,
Article 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.
|
|