D. 11 - Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son

Division of the text

Here he considers the procession of the Holy Spirit as regards its principle. And this is divided into two parts: in the first, he shows that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son; in the second, he asks whether he proceeds from each of them equally: also, the question is raised whether, since the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, he proceeded earlier or more fully from the Father than from the Son. (Sent. I, 12.1(39).1.)

The first part is divided into two: in the first, he shows the truth; in the second, he excludes an error, at but the Greeks say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, and not from the Son. (Sent. I, 11.1(37).3.)

This latter is divided into two: in the first, he explains the controversy of the Greeks; in the second, he leads it back to a harmony of understanding, at but it is to be known that the Greeks confess the Holy Spirit to be of the Son, just as he is of the Father. (Sent. I, 11.2(38).1.)

The first is divided into two: in the first, he lays out the objection of the Greeks; in the second, he lays out the solution, at but we determine the above words in the following manner. (Sent. I, 11.1(37).4.)

But it is to be known that the Greeks confess the Holy Spirit to be of the Son, just as he is of the Father. (Sent. I, 11.2(38).1.) Here he manifests the harmony of the Greeks with the Latins as regards the meaning, even though there is a difference in the words. And with regard to this he does two things: first, he shows that the Greeks grant that the Holy Spirit is from the Son in their equivalence, since they grant that he is of the Son; second, he shows, by many authorities of the Greek doctors, that they too grant that the Holy Spirit is expressly from the Son, at and so it is that some of their Catholic teachers . . . have professed that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son. (Sent. I, 11.2(38).2.)

Question 1

The Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son

To understand this part, four things are asked:

first, whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son;

second, given that this is so, whether he proceeds from them insofar as they are one, or insofar as they are many. And if he does so insofar as they are one, then

third, it is asked whether this is insofar as they are one in essence, or insofar as they are one in a certain notion; and

fourth, whether the Father and the Son can be said to be one spirator.

Article 1

Whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son

To the first we proceed as follows. (Parallel texts: ST I.36.2; SCG IV.14 & 25; On the Power of God, q. 10, aa. 4, 5; On the Catholic Faith of the Greek Fathers (Contra errores Graecorum), pt. 2, cc. 27‒32; Compendium theologiae, ch. 49; Commentary on John, ch. 15, lect. 6; ch. 16, lect. 4.) It seems that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son, but only from the Father.

Obj. 1: For Dionysius says, we have received from the holy elocutions the fact that the Father is the fontlike Godhead, the Son and the Holy Spirit are, if one must speak this way, germinations of God-begotten Godhead, both like flowerings of the divine nature, and like divine lights. (Pseudo-Dionysius, On the Divine Names, ch. 2, para. 1 (PG 3:635).) But a germination does not come from a germination, nor a flower from a flower. Therefore neither does the Holy Spirit come from the Son.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, in the legend of Saint Andrew it is said, peace to you and to all who believe in the one God the Father, and in his one Son, our Lord Jesus, and in the one Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and remaining in the Son. (Iacobus de Voragine, Legenda aurea (vulgo Historia Lombardica dicta*), ch. 2.)* Now, what remains in someone while proceeding from another does not proceed from the one in whom he remains; otherwise he would not be said to remain in him. Therefore the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, Damascene says, we say the Holy Spirit is from the Father, and we name him the “Spirit of the Father”; however, we do not say the Spirit is from the Son, though we do name him the “Spirit of the Son.” (John Damascene, On the Orthodox Faith, bk. 1, ch. 8 (PG 94:831).) Therefore and so on.

Obj. 4: Furthermore, this appears to be true through certain similitudes. For the bodily spirit, or breath, by which a spoken word is carried forth does not proceed from the word; rather, each proceeds from the speaker. Therefore neither does the Holy Spirit proceed from the Son, who is the Word; rather, each of them is from the Father.

Obj. 5: Furthermore, both brilliance and heat proceed from the sun in such a way that neither is from the other. But the Son is the brilliance of the Father, according to Hebrews 1:3, (RSV: he reflects the glory of God; Vulgate reads splendor instead of glory.) whereas the Holy Spirit is as his heat, since he is love. Therefore and so on.

Obj. 6: Furthermore, we see that what proceeds in a bodily way proceeds from one place to another, and not from those two places. Therefore also the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father to the Son, and not from the Father and the Son.

Obj. 7: Furthermore, this seems true based on reason. For nothing simple can be from two, for otherwise the effect would be simpler than its cause, which is impossible. But the Holy Spirit is simple. Therefore he is not from two.

Obj. 8: Furthermore, the Holy Spirit does not belong with the Father more than does the Son, nor is he of lesser dignity. Therefore, if the Son communes with the Father in the spiration of the Holy Spirit, it seems that the Holy Spirit would commune with the Father in the generation of the Son. And that is false. Therefore so is the first claim.

Obj. 9: Furthermore, either the Father perfectly spirates the Holy Spirit, or he does not. If not, then there is a certain imperfection in the Father—which is impossible. But if he does it perfectly, then it is superfluous that there be another spirator. Now, nothing in the divine is superfluous. Therefore the Son does not spirate the Holy Spirit.

On the contrary, we have the many authorities noted in the text. (Sent. I, 11.1(37).2; 2(38).2‒5.)

Furthermore, the same thing is shown through a likeness. For the image of the Trinity is in the soul. But the love in the soul, which represents the Holy Spirit, proceeds from knowledge, which represents the Son. Therefore in the divine the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.

Furthermore, every love proceeds from the lover. But the Holy Spirit is of the Father and the Son, according to the authority introduced from Damascene, as their love. (John Damascene, On the Orthodox Faith, bk. 1, ch. 8 (PG 94:831), quoted above in objection 3.) Therefore he proceeds from each.

I answer that, simply speaking, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. For if one removes this, inevitably one removes the distinction of the Son from the Holy Spirit. For because the divine persons are distinguished according to nothing absolute, every distinction between them must be according to relations of origin. Whence if the Holy Spirit and the Son be not distinguished through one of them being from the other, they would both have to be one person. Nor, if one removed this, could one say that the Son and the Holy Spirit would be distinguished personally through their diverse modes of proceeding from the Father, insofar as the Son proceeds through the mode of nature, and the Holy Spirit proceeds through the mode of will. For that diverse mode either would have a diversity through an opposition of relation, and this way it would amount to the same thing as before, or it would signify a diversity in absolute things—and then this would be either a real diversity, and then there would be composition in God, or a diversity only of account; and then there could only be a diversity of account between the Son and the Holy Spirit—and that is not enough for a distinction of persons, as was said above. (Above, d. 2, q. 1, a. 5.) Therefore, since the Son is not from the Holy Spirit, what is left is that the Holy Spirit is from the Son.

Reply Obj. 1: Those expressions are symbolic, and therefore no argumentation follows from them. Dionysius says the same thing in his letter to Titus, (Pseudo-Dionysius, Epistle 9, “To Titus,” para. 1 (PG 3:1103‒7).) for symbolic theology does not proceed by argument. For there is a likeness here in a certain respect, that is, insofar as flowers are from one plant, but not in all respects.

Reply Obj. 2: The Holy Spirit is said to remain in the Son not because he is distinct from him, but because the spirative power is in the Father and is also in the Son from the Father. This is just as all that the Son has remains in him, and does not proceed further. For the Holy Spirit does not have the power of spiration, that is, such that he might spirate; but he does have it such that he is spirated, as was said above about the Son’s generative power. (Above, d. 7, q. 2, a. 2.) Or one should say that the Holy Spirit’s remaining in the Son might be understood to be about the Son according to his assumed nature, wherein there was nothing contrary to the grace of the Holy Spirit, so he is said to rest in him, just as he is also said to dwell in those who are holy.

Reply Obj. 3: In this part, one should not give credence to Damascene, since this is said to have been in that time in which the controversy between the Greeks and the Latins about this question began. Nonetheless, he does not deny that he is from the Son; rather, he says he does not grant that he is from the Son, since at that time the question was being turned about in doubt among them.

Reply Obj. 4: A word is of two sorts: the vocal and the word of the mind. And to the two words there corresponds two spirits. For to the vocal word corresponds a bodily spirit, or breath, and to the mental word corresponds a spirit of inmost love. Whence, I say that the Word is, according to his eternal generation, like a mental word, and therefore from the Word proceeds the Holy Spirit just as love does from a mental word. But the Son, insofar as he assumed flesh, has a likeness with a vocal word, and just as the formation of the voice is through respired air, so too is the Incarnation of the Word brought about by the action of the Holy Spirit.

Reply Obj. 5: In that likeness something false is being supposed. For the sun’s heat does proceed from its brilliance, according to the philosophers. Whence Avicenna says (Avicenna, Liber de anima, pt. 3, ch. 1.) that the sun makes heat in lower things only by the mediation of its brilliance.

Reply Obj. 6: “Procession” is said properly in the divine, just as “generation” is. Whence it is not taken from a likeness with local procession, since this would be said metaphorically. Rather, it indicates a going forth from a principle. Now, not everything that is from a principle proceeds into another; rather, sometimes a thing proceeds as subsisting in itself. And this is how the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

Reply Obj. 7: The simple cannot proceed from many that are diverse by essence; of such things there are diverse actions. But the Father and the Son, by the power of their one nature, spirate the Holy Spirit by a single spiration. And this is why the one who is spirated is simple.

Reply Obj. 8: For two reasons the Holy Spirit cannot commune with the Father in the generation of the Son. The first is because the Son proceeds through the mode of nature, since he proceeds through the act of generation; and the act of the nature is the act of only one thing. But the Holy Spirit proceeds as love, through the mode of will. Yet many are united in will for some act, and therefore the Holy Spirit can be from the Father and the Son. The other reason is that it is repugnant to the property of the Holy Spirit by which he proceeds from the Father and the Son as love. For it cannot be that two things are the principle of each other. Whence, just as the Father does not communicate his paternity to the Son such that he would generate his very self, so neither does he communicate his generating of the Son to the Holy Spirit. For just as it is incongruous that something might be generated out of its very self, so too, or even more so, that something might be generated by that of which it is the principle.

Reply Obj. 9: The Father perfectly spirates the Holy Spirit. But because the Father’s every perfection is communicated to the Son, provided that is not repugnant to what is proper to him—since nothing distinguishes them other than a relation of origin—therefore just as he communicates the perfection of the divinity to him, so he must communicate the perfection of spirating to him. This is why it is not on account of the Father’s imperfection that the Son would spirate, but on account of the Son’s perfection, who has the whole of the Father’s perfection. For in the same way one could argue that the Son would not be God, or that he would not create.

Article 2

Whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son insofar as they are one

To the second we proceed as follows. (Parallel texts: In I Sent., d. 29, a. 4; ST I.36.4; SCG IV.25.) It seems that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Father and the Son insofar as they are one.

Obj. 1: For the Holy Spirit proceeds from them as a certain bond or union. But a bond belongs to distinct things. Therefore he proceeds from them insofar as they are distinct.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, the Father and the Son love themselves both insofar as they are one in essence, and insofar as they are distinct persons; for if they were distinguished by essence, they would still love themselves. Now, they love themselves insofar as they are one in essence, by the essential love. Therefore they also do so insofar as they are distinct in their persons, by the personal love proceeding from them. But this love is the Holy Spirit. Therefore the Holy Spirit proceeds from them insofar as they are distinct persons.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, acts belong to supposits. Therefore if to spirate is the act of the Father and the Son, it must be their acts insofar as they are distinct supposits. But the Holy Spirit proceeds from them through the act of spiration. Therefore he proceeds from them insofar as they are distinct persons.

On the contrary, the Father and the Son are distinguished by paternity and filiation. Therefore, if the Holy Spirit proceeds from them insofar as they are distinct persons, he proceeds from the Father insofar as he has paternity, and from the Son insofar as he has filiation. Therefore by his paternity the Father is referred to the Holy Spirit. Therefore by the same relation he is referred to the Son and the Holy Spirit, and the procession of each will be the same—which cannot stand.

Furthermore, as has been said, (Above, d. 8, q. 5, a. 2.) nothing simple proceeds from many unless they are united in essence and action. But the Holy Spirit is simple. Therefore he proceeds from the Father and the Son insofar as they are one.

I answer that every act is referred to two things as origin: to the agent, and to the principle of the action. Now, the agent is the supposit itself, like a man or a fire, and the principle of the action is a certain form in it, whether substantial or accidental. Therefore I say that the word “insofar as” can signify the condition of the agent or the principle of the action. If it signifies the condition of the agent or the actor, in this way the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son insofar as they are many, and insofar as they are distinct persons; for he proceeds from those who are many and distinct. However, if it signifies the condition of the principle of the action, then I say that he proceeds from them insofar as they are one. For because when the action is from only one principle, there must be something one in the Father and the Son that is the principle of this action that is spiration, which is one and simple, by which the one and simple person of the Holy Spirit proceeds.

Reply Obj. 1–3: This makes clear the solution to all of them. However, what that one common thing is in the Father and the Son will be clear in the next article.

Article 3

Whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son insofar as they are one in nature

To the third we proceed as follows. It seems that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son insofar as they are one in nature.

Obj. 1: For a nature is communicated only through an act of nature. But the Holy Spirit, in proceeding, receives the entire divine nature just as the Son does in being born. Therefore the principle of the act by which the divine nature is communicated to him is the nature. Therefore and so on. And Anselm seems to say the same thing when he says (Anselm of Canterbury, On the Procession of the Holy Spirit, ch. 6 (PG 158:296).) that it is ridiculous to say that the entire essence of the Father and the Son is in the Holy Spirit on account of a relation, and not rather on account of the essence.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, the Holy Spirit proceeds as love. But “love” indicates a process of the will. Therefore the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son insofar as they are one in will. But the will, since it is one of the absolute attributes in God, stands on the side of the nature. Therefore and so on.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, since a property receives its number from the supposit, it is impossible that numerically the same property or notion belong to two supposits. But the Father and the Son are distinct supposits. Therefore they cannot come together in any one notion. And thus the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Father and the Son insofar as they are one in some notion. Therefore what remains is that he does so insofar as they are one in essence.

On the contrary (4), not only the Son, but also the Holy Spirit communes in the power of the divine essence. Therefore if the Father and the Son spirate the Holy Spirit insofar as they are one in nature, the Holy Spirit must also along with them spirate his very self—which is impossible. Therefore so is the first claim.

Furthermore (5), you might say that the property of the Holy Spirit is repugnant to this.

On the contrary, properties do not distinguish or determine the essence, but only the person. Therefore whatever belongs to the essence in the persons of the Father and the Son does so also in the person of the Holy Spirit.

I answer that the Father and the Son spirate the Holy Spirit insofar as they are one in the spirative power. Now, the “spirative power,” as was also said above, (Above, d. 7, q. 1, a. 2.) signifies something that is, as it were, a middle between the essence and the property, by the fact that it signifies the essence under the account of a property. For in this way a notional act goes forth from the essence: not as from an agent, but as from that by which it acts. For generation does not go forth from the essence insofar as it is the essence, but insofar as it is paternity. And if these two—the essence and the paternity—differ in the divine, generation would go forth from each of them, but from the paternity immediately, and from the essence as from a first principle.

Likewise, I say that spiration goes forth from the essence, not as from the one spirating, but as from the principle of the spiration, insofar as it has the account of a certain notion common to the Father and the Son; this is called “common spiration.” And in this way the “spirative power” signifies the essence under the account of such a property. And therefore I say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son insofar as they are one in essence and in a certain notion, that is, in common spiration. And through this the arguments on each side are to be resolved.

Reply Obj. 1: The nature is communicated through the act of the nature, speaking commonly, but the determinate sharing should be through the act of the nature taken under a certain proper account. And therefore the sharing that occurs through spiration is the act of the divine nature insofar as it has the account of spiration. And this is what Anselm intends, that it is impossible to say of the procession that ends in a nature that the nature is in no way the principle, since it is there, as it were, by a univocal sharing. For God proceeds from God, just as fire does from fire.

Reply Obj. 2: Thereby this solution is clear as well, since the argument about the will and the essence is the same.

Reply Obj. 3: There cannot be one notion of diverse supposits that are distinct in essence. But if they have one essence, there will also be one action. And because the relation, according to its understanding, is born from a certain action, consequently it will be one relation. And thus the Father and the Son can come together in one relative property.

Reply Sed Contra 4: The act of spirating is not from the essence as essence, but insofar as it has the account of a certain property—that is, that of common spiration. And because the essence does not have this account in the Holy Spirit, therefore it does not follow that the Holy Spirit spirates through his own essence.

Reply Sed Contra 5: If a property in a person were other than the essence, it would necessarily determine it, through itself or incidentally. But because the property is really the same as the essence, it does not supervene on it as restricting or determining it. Nonetheless, according to one property it is the principle of one act, of which act it is not the principle according to the account of another property. So too it is clear that it is also the principle of the act of willing, according to the account of will, and of the act of knowing, according to the account of knowledge. And yet the essence is not thereby determined or distinguished really. And therefore, since the essence in the Father and the Son, according to the account of the common spiration, is the principle of the notional act by which they spirate the Holy Spirit, it is not necessary that in the Holy Spirit the same essence be the principle of the same act. For the divine essence in the Holy Spirit is not the common spiration, as it is in the Father and the Son.

Article 4

Whether the Father and the Son are one spirator

To the fourth we proceed as follows. (Parallel texts: In I Sent., d. 29, q. 1, a. 4, ad 3; ST I.36.4, ad 7.) It seems that the Father and the Son are one spirator.

Obj. 1: For by this is indicated only a unity in the act of spirating. But the Father and the Son spirate by one act. Therefore they are one spirator, just as they are one God on account of the unity of the Godhead.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, just as the Father and the Son come together in the act of creating, so do they in the act of spirating. But on account of the former coming together the Father and the Son are called one Creator. Therefore for the same reason they should be called one spirator.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, “principle” signifies a relation that follows upon an act, by which it is a principle. But the Father and the Son are called “one principle” of the Holy Spirit, as will be presented below. (In I Sent., d. 29, q. 1, a. 4.) Therefore they should also be called “one spirator.”

On the contrary, whoever spirate are spirating. But the Father and the Son spirate the Holy Spirit. Therefore they are spirating, and therefore they are also spirators of the Holy Spirit.

I answer that an act receives its number from its supposits; this is why also a verb signifying the divine substance through the mode of act is said of many persons in the plural, even though it is one essence; for example, I and the Father are one (John 10:30). Now, an act is signified not only in a verb, but in a participle, and in a verbal noun; but still a participle is closer to substance than a verb is, and a verbal noun even closer than a participle or verb. And therefore we cannot say that the Father and the Son spirates the Holy Spirit, or that they are a spirating, or that they are a spirator, even though there is one act by which they spirate. Nonetheless, insofar as each of these words is closer to signifying the act, the less properly can it be predicated in the singular. (However, in ST I.36.4, ad 7, Aquinas says that although we can say that the Father and the Son are two spirating, we are not able to say that there are two spirators. The relevant text in the Summa reads as follows: 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; “it seems better to say that, because ‘spirating’ (spirans) is adjectival, and ‘spirator’ (spirator) is substantive, we can say that the Father and the Son are two spirating, on account of the plurality of supposits, but not two spirators, on account of the one spiration. For adjectival names have their number according to the supposits, whereas substantive names have it from themselves, according to the form signified.” Mandonnet notes that “spirator” is a verbal noun, and according to grammarians, verbal nouns are substantive in language and adjectival in meaning. Therefore they can be taken either substantively or adjectivally, and if “spirator” is taken adjectivally, then there are two spirators, but if substantively, as it is expressly taken to be in the Summa, there is only one spirator.)

Reply Obj. 1: Although the act is one, still when it is signified as an act going forth from many supposits, one must signify it in the plural. For an act draws its number from the supposits.

Reply Obj. 2: Creation is an act of the three persons not insofar as they are distinct, but insofar as they are united in essence. For even if the distinction of persons were removed by the intellect, the act of creation will still remain. And therefore we say that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are one Creator, even though we do not say that they are one creating. For a verbal noun draws back from the act more than does the participle. But spiration is an act belonging to several supposits in a certain way, insofar as they are distinguished, as was said above in the body. Therefore even in the verbal noun the act must be signified in the plural.

Reply Obj. 3: “Principle” does not name any act, but only a relation; and because the Father and the Son are referred by one relation to the Holy Spirit, therefore they are called “one principle” of the Holy Spirit, but not “one spirator.” (See note above at the end of the respondeo.)

Exposition of the text

God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts. (Sent. I, 11.1(37).2, quoting Galatians 4:6.) This proof does not seem sufficient, since the Greeks confess that the Holy Spirit is of the Son, but not that he is from the Son. (What is here expressed by a preposition in English (“of”) is in Latin expressed by the possessive genitive form of the noun “Son” (filii); however, in both the Latin and in the English, the word “from” is expressed by a preposition (Latin: a).) But one should say to this that, because a genitive noun must be constructed in a certain relation, no other relation can be found than one of origin; for only such a relation distinguishes the persons. Therefore one must grant that the Holy Spirit arises from the Son.

Whom I send to you from the Father. (Sent. I, 11.1(37).2, quoting John 15:26.) It seems that this proof is also insufficient, since here he is speaking about the temporal procession of the Holy Spirit, which the Greeks grant is from the Son, but not that the eternal one is. But to this one should say that, because the temporal procession includes the eternal, as will be explained below, (Below, d. 15, q. 4, a. 5.) he from whom he proceeds temporally is also he from whom he proceeds eternally.

‘Whoever should teach or preach otherwise,’ that is, whoever should teach the contrary. (Sent. I, 11.1(37).4, quoting the Constantinopolitan Creed.) Here the Master explains it well, taking “otherwise” to mean “contrariwise.” For what is not contrary to Sacred Scripture is the truth of it, according to Anselm; (Anselm of Canterbury, De concordia praescientiae et praedestinationis et gratiae dei cum libero arbitrio, q. 2, cc. 2, 6 (PL 158:522, 528).) nor can it be the case that all things that should be explicitly believed are contained in that creed, wherein no mention is made of the descent into hell. However, the procession of the Holy Spirit is contained there implicitly, insofar as the distinction of persons is contained there, which could not be otherwise, as was said.

But the Greeks ask how the Latins dared to add this. (This question refers to the addition of the filioque clause to the Nicene Creed.) To this one should say that it was necessary, as their error shows, and as does the authority of the Roman Church gathering the synod, in which something that was implicitly contained in the articles of the faith was being made explicit.