D. 12 - Order between the Father and the Son as regards the procession of the Holy Spirit

Division of the text

Having shown that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, here he asks whether there is any order between the Father and the Son with respect to this procession. And this is divided into three parts: in the first, he excludes the order of time; in the second, he excludes the order of dignity or power, at now we must address the question posed second; (Sent. I, 12.2(40).1.) in the third, he teaches that there is an order of nature, at nevertheless Augustine, in On the Trinity*, book 15, says that the Holy Spirit proceeds principally from the Father*. (Sent. I, 12.2(40).2.)

In the first part he does three things: first, he presents the question; second, he lays out the heretic’s objection, at this is what the heretic attempts to show; (Sent. I, 12.1(39).2.) third, he presents the solution, at to these and similar questions, which are more laborious than fruitful, Augustine provides a response. (Sent. I, 12.1(39).3.)

Now we must address the question posed second. (Sent. I, 12.2(40).1.) Here he excludes the order of dignity or power, showing that the Holy Spirit does not proceed more fully from the Father than from the Son. And first he presents the question; second, he lays out the solution, at to which we say. (Sent. I, 12.2(40).1.)

Nevertheless Augustine, in On the Trinity*, book 15, says that the Holy Spirit proceeds principally from the Father*. (Sent. I, 12.2(40).2.) Here he establishes that there is an order of nature. And it is divided into four parts, according to the four things that show the authority of the spiration in the Father: the first, through the Holy Spirit’s being said to proceed principally from the Father; second, from his being said to proceed properly from him, at in the same sense, the Spirit is also said to proceed properly from the Father; (Sent. I, 12.2(40).4.) third, from the Holy Spirit being said to be from the Father through the Son, at it is perhaps also in this sense that the Holy Spirit is said to be sent from the Father through the Son; (Sent. I, 12.2(40).5.) and fourth, through the fact that sometimes only the Father is named in the procession of the Holy Spirit, at that is also what truth, showing the Father to be the author of the procession by which the Spirit proceeds from the Son, said in the Gospel. (Sent. I, 12.2(40).5.)

Question 1

The order between the Father and the Son as regards the procession of the Holy Spirit

To understand this part, three things are asked:

first, whether the generation of the Son precedes in any way the procession of the Holy Spirit;

second, whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father prior to, or more fully, than from the Son;

third, whether he proceeds from the Father by the mediation of the Son.

Article 1

Whether the generation of the Son precedes the procession of the Holy Spirit

To the first we proceed as follows. It seems that the generation precedes the procession.

Obj. 1: For the principle of a procession is at least naturally prior to the procession itself. Now, the Son, the terminus of the generation, is the principle of the Holy Spirit’s procession, as was said above. (Above, d. 5, q. 2, a. 1.) Therefore the generation precedes the procession.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, although there are two agencies in created things—that is, nature and purpose, or will—the action of nature precedes the action of will, since the action of will is founded on the action of nature. But the generation of the Son is from the Father through the mode of nature, and the procession of the Holy Spirit is from both through the mode of will. Therefore the generation is prior to the procession.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, in the soul is the image of the Trinity wherein knowledge’s advance from the mind precedes love’s advance. But knowledge’s advance represents the generation of the Son, and love’s advance represents the procession of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, as before.

On the contrary, we have what is said in the text, (Sent. I, 12.1(39).2‒3, quoting Augustine, On the Trinity, bk. 15, ch. 26 (CCSL 50A; PL 42:1092).) that the Holy Spirit does not proceed when the Son has already been born—which would be necessary if the birth precedes the procession.

Furthermore, as the Son stands to the Father in the account of order, so does the Holy Spirit stand to the Son. But the Father is in no way prior to the Son, as was shown above (Above, d. 9, q. 2, a. 1.)—neither in understanding, nor in dignity, nor in time. Therefore neither is the Son prior to the Holy Spirit. Therefore neither is the generation prior to the procession, since as the Son stands to the Holy Spirit, so does the generation stand to the procession.

I answer that, according to Augustine, (Augustine, Against Maximinus, bk. 2, ch. 14, para. 8 (CCSL 87A; PL 42:770).) in the divine there is no order except an order of nature. Now, the order of nature is that by which someone is from another, not that by which someone is prior to another. And therefore in the divine in no way can something be said to be prior to another.

And the reason for this is that in the divine there can be considered only what is absolute—and this is one and indivisible, and priority or posteriority is not found here—or what is spoken of as toward-something. Now, of the latter, it is by nature that they are simultaneous in time, concept, and nature. And therefore we say that the generation is not prior to the procession in any way that can be referred to the divine, but only according to a mode of understanding, which is in our intellect only, by taking generation and procession in the divine according to likenesses with what is found in created things—which are deficient at representing generation and procession insofar as they are in the divine.

Reply Obj. 1: A principle, with respect to the relation of a principle, is not thereby prior to that of which it is the principle in some way; but the thing that is a principle is naturally prior. However, if that which is a principle, by the relation itself, is someone, or a distinct person, then every priority is removed from him in reference to that of which he is the principle. And in this way, since the Son is a distinct person by his very relation, (Above, d. 9. q. 2, a. 1.) he is in no way prior to the Holy Spirit. But it is true that, on account of the order of nature, the Holy Spirit is from the Son. For although common spiration is not a personal property of the Son, it is nevertheless the very person of the Son—just as the divine goodness is God himself. And the first procession corresponding to him is a personal property of the Holy Spirit.

Reply Obj. 2–3: Those arguments fail because the likenesses found in created things do not perfectly represent things that are in God. And this is clear in the proposed matter, since there is no created thing that is spoken of as toward-something and subsistent in itself for the very same reason.

Article 2

Whether the Holy Spirit proceeds more from the Father than from the Son

To the second we proceed as follows. (Parallel texts: In I Sent., d. 11, aa. 2, 4; ST I.36.4.) It seems that the Holy Spirit proceeds more from the Father than from the Son.

Obj. 1: For as the Philosopher says, (Rather: Proclus, Book of Causes, prop. 1.) every primary cause influences its effect more than does a secondary cause. But the Son is, as it were, a second cause, whereas the Father is, as it were, the first principle, who is not from another. Therefore the Holy Spirit proceeds more from the Father than from the Son.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, the Philosopher says, that on account of which something is such is more such. (Aristotle, Posterior Analytics 1.2, 72a29‒32.) But the Son has the fact that he is the principle of the Holy Spirit from the Father. Therefore the Father is the principle more than the Son is.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, what is the principle of something principally and properly seems to be the principle of it more than what is not such. But the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father principally and properly, (Sent. I, 12.2(40).2‒3.) whereas this is not said of the Son. Therefore and so on.

Obj. 4: Furthermore, the Holy Spirit has nothing that he does not have from the Father. However, he has something that he does not have from the Son—namely, that he proceeds from the Father. Therefore the Holy Spirit proceeds more from the Father than from the Son.

On the contrary, there is what is said in the text. (Sent. I, 12.2(40).1.)

Furthermore, where there is the highest equality there cannot be degrees of more and fullness. But between the Father and the Son there is the highest equality. Therefore the Holy Spirit cannot be from one more than from the other.

I answer that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father neither before nor more fully than he proceeds from the Son. And the entire reason for this is that the Father and the Son are one principle of the Holy Spirit, and where there is unity there cannot be distinction of fullness.

Reply Obj. 1: Although the Father is called the principle of the Son and the Holy Spirit, nonetheless he cannot be called their cause, properly speaking. For “cause” always asserts a diversity of essence, as is clear in all cases. But sometimes a principle from which a thing flows is consubstantial with the thing of which it is the principle; for example, we say that a point is a principle of a line, and the heart is a principle of an animal, and the foundation is that of a house. And therefore, on account of their consubstantiality, the Father is called their principle, but not their cause. Furthermore, an effect has a dependence on its cause, whereas “principle” indicates a certain origin, in reference to which it is called a principle, from which something begins.

Moreover, although he is called their principle, nonetheless he cannot be called “first.” For there is nothing prior and posterior here, as was said. (Above, d. 9. q. 2, a. 1.) Whence it is clear that that authority is not relevant to the proposed matter, since the Father is neither the cause nor primary with respect to the Son and the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, if the full force of these words is not brought to bear, still the Father and the Son stand not as two principles with respect to the Holy Spirit, but as one. And therefore no gradation can be found between them in spirating the Holy Spirit.

Reply Obj. 2: The Philosopher’s statement is verified when what belongs to something on account of something else is diverse from both of them, and especially when one is the cause of the other in an essential order. For then its causality is extended with respect to the entire species and not to only one individual, as Avicenna says, (Avicenna, Metaphysics, bk. 9, cc. 2–4.) just as heat is more in fire than in a mixed body, since it is in the mixed body because of the fire. But although the Son has the fact that he spirates the Holy Spirit from the Father, nevertheless this is not something different in the Father and the Son. For the same spirative power that the Father possesses he also communicates to the Son; and therefore through that power the Father and the Son equally spirate the Holy Spirit. And even if that power were not numerically one, but only one in species, the argument would not be valid. This is clear in all univocal generations, for Socrates’s father does not influence Socrates’s son more than Socrates does.

Reply Obj. 3: The Holy Spirit is said to be principally from the Father because the authority of spiration is in the Father, from whom even the Son has the spirative power—and not on account of any order or gradation of priority or posteriority of the Father and the Son. Likewise even for the same reason he is said to proceed properly from the Father, most of all since this preposition “from,” among the Greeks, denotes a relation to a first origin. Whence among them it is not said that a lake is from the river, but rather that it is from the spring. And this is also why they do not grant that the Holy Spirit is from the Son; rather, he is from the Father. Nonetheless one should not say even that he proceeds from the Son properly, who along with the Father is one principle of the Holy Spirit. However, a river and a spring are not one principle of a lake in this way.

Reply Obj. 4: The Holy Spirit does not proceed in a different way or by a different procession from the Father than from the Son. Whence the whole procession of the Holy Spirit is from the Son, just as the whole is from the Father. This is why it does not follow that a different reality is in the Holy Spirit that is not from the Son. But it is true that that procession is not from the Son with respect to its every relation; but this in no way derogates from the fullness of the procession. For it befalls the Holy Spirit’s procession that, according to the bearing by which he is from the Son, he is also from the Father—but not because the Holy Spirit is from the Son, but rather because the Son is from the Father.

Article 3

Whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father by the mediation of the Son

To the third we proceed as follows. (Parallel texts: ST I.36.3; On the Catholic Faith of the Greek Fathers (Contra errores Graecorum), pt. 2, ch. 9.) It seems that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father by the mediation of the Son.

Obj. 1: For that through which something proceeds seems to be a middle in the procession. But the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. Therefore he proceeds from the Father by the mediation of the Son.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, it is certain that a third thing does not go forth from a first except through the middle. But the Holy Spirit is said to be the third person in the Trinity. Therefore he does not proceed from the Father, who is the principle that is not from a principle, except by mediation of the Son.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, in the created image, love represents the Holy Spirit, and knowledge the Son. But love does not proceed from the mind except by the mediation of knowledge. Therefore neither does the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father except by the mediation of the Son.

On the contrary (4), it seems that he proceeds more immediately from the Father than from the Son. For an immediate principle is called more principal than a mediated one is; this is clear in first propositions, which are called “immediate.” But the Holy Spirit proceeds principally from the Father. Therefore he proceeds more immediately from him than from the Son.

I answer that every middle is in some way distinguished from the things between which it is said to be a middle. Now, since in the spiration, the Father and the Son are two spirating, insofar as they are one in spirative power, we can speak of the act of spiration through a comparison to the very ones spirating, or through a comparison to the principle of the spirating as that by virtue of which the spiration occurs. Now, if we consider the principle itself, that is, the spirative power, then, since the Father and the Son are not distinguished thereby, the spiration cannot be said to be from the Father by mediation of the Son. However, if we consider the very ones spirating, who are distinct, and with respect to this they show forth the supposit of the spiration, then in this way mediation is here, insofar as the order of nature is here. For the Son is from the Father, and the Holy Spirit is simultaneously from the Father and the Son.

Whence Richard of Saint Victor says (Richard of Saint Victor, De Trinitate, bk. 5, cc. 6, 7 (PL 196:952).) that in the divine the generation is from the Father immediately, but the procession of the Holy Spirit is in a certain way mediately from the Father and in a certain way immediately. It is immediately so in reference to the spirative power, which is one power of the Father and the Son, and also in reference to the very supposit of the Father, which is immediately the principle of the procession, since he and the Son spirate simultaneously. But it is mediately so insofar as the Son, who spirates, is from the Father.

Reply Obj. 1: In saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, the authority in the Father with respect to the Son is being designated. For the Son has it from the Father that he spirates the Holy Spirit. However, no mediation is being asserted from this except on the side of the supposits, which are distinguished through the fact that one is from the other, by reason of which there is authority in one with respect to the other.

Reply Obj. 2: The Holy Spirit in one way, as was said, proceeds from the Father by mediation of the Son, but this does not exclude that he proceeds from the Father immediately as well, as was said before in the body of the article.

Reply Obj. 3: The image in the soul represents the Trinity deficiently, for our knowledge is wholly distinct from the mind, and therefore, simply speaking, our love proceeds from the mind by the mediation of knowledge. But in the divine persons, the Son is not distinguished from the Father in all respects, and therefore, in a certain respect, mediation is not there.

Reply Sed Contra 4: When there are many ordered agent causes, they can be considered in two ways, insofar as one finds two elements in an agent: namely, the very agent that exercises the action, and its power, which is the principle of the action in it. Therefore if the agent causes be considered as ordered according to the account of the agent, to which the acting belongs, then to the degree that the agent is posterior, so much closer and more immediate it is to the action, and to that which is brought forth through the action. However, if they are considered with respect to the power that is the principle of the action, then to the degree that the cause is more first, so much more is it immediate to the action and its effect; this is because a secondary agent acts only insofar as it is moved by the first, and insofar as the power of the first is in it. This is why the power of the last agent must always be resolved to the power of the first agent. For example, the plant has the fact that it generates a plant from the power of the sun, and the sun has the fact that it moves a plant to generate a plant from the power of its own mover, whatever that might be.

And this is why, because God is the first agent, according to his power, he stands more immediately to every activity of nature whatsoever than does any natural agent. And so it also is that the first propositions are said to be immediate, because in such propositions the predicate is not joined to the subject through the power of another cause prior to it. And this is also why even the preposition “through,” which denotes a middle cause, sometimes denotes the authority directly, but sometimes obliquely. It does so directly when one says, “the king does this through the bailiff,” for then mediation is being attended to in reference to the very ones acting. But it does so obliquely when one says, “the prefect does this through the king,” for here the mediation is being considered in reference to the power that is the principle of the action.

For the power of the superior is, as it were, the middle through which the one acting is joined to his own action. But in the Father and the Son one cannot find a distinction with regard to the principle of the action, since it is the same in both of them—that is, the divine power. Rather, one can find a distinction only with regard to the ones acting, who are distinct from each other. And therefore, since the authority is in the Father, the Father is said to act through the Son, and in no way does the Son act through the Father. This is also why in a certain way the Son is a middle in the Father’s action, but the Father is in no way the middle in the Son’s action.

Exposition of the text

Either he proceeded when the Son was already born, or before the Son was born. (Sent. I, 12.1(39).2.) It seems that one must grant one of these, since they differ as an affirmation and a negation. And one should say to this that each of these has two parts, because when one says, “the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, with the Son already born,” the participle “born” can designate past time, and the adverb “already” the now right before the present time; and then this is false. For it is being signified that the generation of the Son precedes the procession of the Holy Spirit by a duration. And in this sense the negative is true, if it is taken negatively, such that the negation is applied to the whole and not only to the participle. Or the participle designates the completion of the birth, and the adverb designates the “now” of eternity; then it is true. For the procession of the Holy Spirit exists from eternity by the existing complete generation of the Son. And in this sense the negative is false.

Whether the Holy Spirit proceeds more fully or to a greater extent from the Father than from the Son. (Sent. I, 12.2(40).1.) These two are different, such that one is said to proceed “more fully” from that from which one receives more things, but one is said to proceed “to a greater extent” from that which acts from a greater power for one’s procession.

The Holy Spirit proceeds principally from the Father. (Sent. I, 12.2(40).3.) This seems false, since if he proceeds from the Father principally, then he proceeds from the Son secondarily. And one should say to this that principally does not indicate a gradation of power, but an order of origin. For the Son has it from the Father that he spirates the Holy Spirit.