|
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' 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."
|
|