I. Opinion of Others to the First Question

8. The first question is held to be difficult by the Master [I d.32 ch.1 n.283] and he dismisses it unsolved.

A. First Opinion

9. Some have denied the proposition ‘the Father and the Son love themselves by the Holy Spirit’, and have said it was retracted by Augustine in a similar case, Retractions I ch.26, where he retracts this proposition ‘the Father is wise by generated wisdom’, to which the former seems to be similar, - and therefore they say the former is retracted in the latter.

10. On the contrary:

Not only does Augustine separately retract matters that need to be retracted, but he even retracts the same matter - which is spoken off in diverse books (though it needs to be retracted) - several times, namely when he makes mention of those diverse books; therefore much more would he separately retract this one, if it was to be retracted.

11. Also Augustine does not retract the sayings of other saints who seem to concede this proposition, - as Jerome On the Psalms [Ps.-Jerome, 17.1]

B. Second Opinion

12. Others have said that the proposition needs to be interpreted, so that the ‘by the Holy Spirit’ is to be taken in the idea of sign, - so that the Father and the Son love themselves by the Holy Spirit as by a sign of common love.

13. On the contrary:

In this way it could be said that they love themselves by a creature, because a creature is a sign of their love.

C. Third Opinion

14. Others say that they love themselves with a love appropriated to the Holy Spirit, and so they are said to love themselves by the Holy Spirit through appropriation, not properly.

15. On the contrary:

In this way they would be good by the Holy Spirit, because goodness is appropriated to the Holy Spirit.

D. Fourth Opinion

16. In another way it is said that “the ablative [sc. ‘by’] is to be construed by way of formal effect.”

17. This is made clear first by the fact that, although not every thing is a form, yet “all that by which something is denominated - as far as this goes - has the disposition of a form; so that, if I should say ‘he is clothed in clothing’, the ablative ‘in clothing’ is construed by way of disposition of a form, although it is not the form of man.”

18. “But it happens that something is denominated by that which proceeds from it, as an agent is not only by the action but also as by the term of the action, which is the effect, when the effect is included in the understanding of the action; for we say that ‘fire is a heater by heating’, although heating is not heat (which is the form of fire) but an action that proceeds from fire; and we also say that ‘the tree is flowering with flowers’, although the flowers are not the form of the tree but certain effects proceeding from it.”

19. “According to this, then, one must say that since we may take ‘to love’ in two ways in divine reality, namely essentially and notionally - as to the way it is taken essentially, the Father and the Son do not love themselves in this way by the Holy Spirit but by their essence; hence Augustine says On the Trinity XI ch.7 n.12: ‘Who dares say that neither Father nor Son nor Holy Spirit love save through the Holy Spirit?’”

20. On the contrary [n.18]:

‘To build’ distinctly includes the term which is ‘a building’, yet it is not conceded that ‘a builder builds by a building’; and in the issue at hand too, ‘to inspirit’ more distinctly includes the Holy Spirit than it includes ‘to love’, and yet it is not conceded that ‘the Father and the Son inspirit by the Holy Spirit’.

21. Again, even if such predication were conceded, yet it is not referable back to the agent - because something that would be a term for the fire by something it produces is not conceded to be said of fire.

22. Further, in a transitive construction never is the effect ‘as effect’ construed in the ablative; but to love is a transitive verb. Hence the example - on which they rely [who adopt this opinion] - is not to the purpose; for ‘to flower’ is a neutral verb and does not formally state the production of anything.

Every neutral verb indeed signifies the same as an adjectival name (if a name were imposed), save that this name signifies by way of having and rest, but the verb signifies it in becoming, - as ‘to be hot’ signifies the same thing in rest as ‘to heat’ signifies it as it were in becoming. And just as such a denominative name could be said of something with the ablative, indicating that by which the subject is denominated with such denominative, so a neutral verb could be construed with the ablative in the same disposition of denominating form; for as fire ‘heats by heat’ so it is ‘hot by heat’, and both are in the idea of the form from which the denomination comes, by way of rest in the one case and by way of becoming in the other. But the form is sometimes inherent, as a quality, - and sometimes it is disposed by way of a form from without of the denominating thing, as in the case of the category of having [sc. being clad] or by way of it (in both ways the denomination can be made); and just as something is denominated not only by the form but by something extrinsic, sometimes, so what denominates can be said of it with the extrinsic thing taken in the ablative, and this whether what denominates signifies nominally or verbally; for just as one can say ‘he is adorned with a garment’ (insofar as ‘adorned’ signifies something in the category of having), so one can say ‘he is glowing with a garment’ (or by some other neutral verb that would signify the same as the denominative ‘is adorned’), - and so it is in the issue at hand, because ‘the tree is flowering’ does not formally signify that the tree is producing a flower. For if an active verb is posited, which would signify in this way, namely ‘to florificate’ (if it were in use), this proposition would be false ‘the tree is florificating with flowers’; but this proposition is true ‘the tree is flowering with flowers’, because by this neutral verb is signified that it denominates the subject as it were by way of having, because although having [sc. being clad] does not properly exist in inanimate things, yet they can be denominated by something next to them, which - insofar as it is in some way an ornament or covering for them - can be reduced to the category of having; and then, just as one would say ‘the tree is flowery with flowers’ and the ablative would be construed in idea of that by which the subject is denominated according to such a denomination, in this way too is the ‘with flowers’ construed with this verb ‘to flower’. The example, then, is to the opposite, when we are speaking of an active verb, and is nothing to the purpose - the way it is true -when we are speaking of a neutral verb.