D. 14 - Temporal procession of the Holy Spirit

Division of the text

Here the Master begins to consider the temporal procession of the Holy Spirit, and it is divided into two parts. In the first, he considers the Holy Spirit’s temporal procession, and in the second he considers the name of the Holy Spirit that manifests the account of the temporal procession, at moreover, it is to be considered with diligence, since the Holy Spirit is called gift and grant, whether each of the names is fitting for him for the same reason. (Sent. I, 18.2(67).1.)

The first of these is divided into two: in the first, he considers temporal procession in common; in the second, he considers it in reference to the specific modes of sending, at now, concerning the Holy Spirit, . . . we must consider what is his procession in time. (Sent. I, 16.1(58).1.)

The first is divided in two: in the first, he shows that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son with a temporal procession; in the second, he asks whether he proceeds from his very self with the temporal procession, at here it must be considered, since the Holy Spirit is given to men by the Father and Son, . . . whether he is also given by himself. (Sent. I, 15.1(48).1.)

The first is divided in two: in the first, he shows that the Holy Spirit’s temporal procession is from the Father and the Son; in the second, he excludes an error about the understanding of the temporal procession, at but there are some who say that it is not God the Holy Spirit himself who is given, but his gifts. (Sent. I, 14.2(46).1.)

As regards the first, he does two things: first, he determines the truth about the temporal procession as regards the principle from which he proceeds, showing through Augustine that he proceeds from the Father and the Son; second, he shows the truth about it as regards his being said to proceed from them temporally, at as to the procession in time, . . . Bede speaks in these terms. (Sent. I, 14.1(45).2.)

But there are some who say that it is not God the Holy Spirit himself who is given, but his gifts. (Sent. I, 14.2(46).1.) Here he excludes the error of those who say that the Holy Spirit is not given in the temporal procession, but only his gifts are. And he does two things in this regard: first, he shows that the Holy Spirit, who is God, is given in the temporal procession; second, he shows from this that no man can give the Holy Spirit, at here it is asked whether even holy men give or can give the Holy Spirit to others. (Sent. I, 14.3(47).1.)

In reference to this latter part, he does two things: first, he states the question and answers it, showing that no man can give the Holy Spirit, not even Christ insofar as he is a man; second, he objects on the contrary side, and then resolves that objection, at but what the Apostle says . . . seems to contradict this. (Sent. I, 14.3(47).4.)

To understand this part, three questions are asked:

the first is about the temporal procession according to itself; (Q. 1.)

the second, by what account the Holy Spirit is said to proceed temporally, or in what respect this comes about; (Q. 2.)

third, by whom does it come about. (Q. 3.)

Question 1

Temporal procession of the Holy Spirit in itself

As regards the first, two things are asked:

first, whether there is any temporal procession of the Holy Spirit;

second, whether this asserts something countable alongside the eternal procession.

Article 1

Whether there is a temporal procession of the Holy Spirit

To the first we proceed as follows. (Parallel text: ST I.43.5, 7.) It seems that no procession of the Holy Spirit is temporal.

Obj. 1: For just as generation is an eternal property of the Son, according to which he is distinguished from the Father, so too is the procession of the Holy Spirit a property according to which he is distinguished from the Father and the Son. But the Son’s generation is not said to be temporal except in reference to the assumed nature. Therefore, since the Holy Spirit never assumed a nature, nor will he assume one, it seems that no procession of his is temporal.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, everything to which something belongs temporally is changeable or variable. Now, the latter does not belong to the Holy Spirit, since he is true God. Therefore neither does a temporal procession.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, according to the Philosopher in the Book of Causes, (Rather: Proclus, Book of Causes, prop. 31.) between a reality whose substance and activity exists in time and a reality whose substance and activity exists in the moment of eternity, there is an intermediate reality whose activity exists in time, but its substance exists in eternity. Now, the reality whose substance and activity is in eternity he calls the “separated substances,” and especially God. Therefore, since procession is an activity of God himself, whether understood actively or passively, it seems that it does not exist in time, and thus neither should it be called “temporal.”

Obj. 4: Furthermore, that which elevates man above time cannot be called temporal. But by the procession of the Holy Spirit into man, man is elevated above all things temporal; for, according to Augustine, (Augustine, On the Trinity, bk. 4, ch. 20 (CCSL 50; PL 42:907).) to the degree that we seize with the mind something eternal, we are not in this world. Therefore it should not be called “temporal.”

Obj. 5: Furthermore, according to Augustine, (Augustine, On the Trinity (CCSL 50), bk. 5, cc. 15, 16; bk. 2, ch. 5 (CCSL 50; PL 42:921 & 848).) the concept of the eternal procession is included within the temporal procession, which is also called a “sending.” But naming should derive from what is of greater dignity. Therefore, even if in a procession there is something temporal, it should not be called “temporal,” but “eternal.”

On the contrary, authorities are cited in the text. (Sent. I, 14.1(45).1‒2.)

Furthermore, it is possible for someone to possess the Holy Spirit at a certain time, though he did not possess him before. But the Holy Spirit is possessed only as proceeding from the Father and the Son, since he is the gift of both. Therefore there is a temporal procession of him, according to which he proceeds to sanctify the creature, as is said in the text. (Sent. I, 14.1(45).1, quoting Augustine, On the Trinity, bk. 15, ch. 27 (CCSL 50A; PL 42:1095).)

I answer that, although in the divine persons, properly speaking, procession is spoken of in reference to the account of going forth from a principle, which does not necessarily tend into something else, nonetheless the procession of the Holy Spirit, from the mode of its procession, insofar as it proceeds as love, does have it that he tend into another—namely, into a beloved as his object. And because the processions of the eternal persons are the cause and reason (Ratio is here translated as “reason,” since this translation is closest to the principal meaning of the word; however, its use in this context might be narrowed to “model” or “type” or even “paradigm idea.” It is helpful to keep in mind these alternative translations in the rest of the article. See also q. 2, a. 2, below.) for the entire bringing forth of created things, therefore just as the generation of the Son must be the reason for the entire bringing forth of creation, insofar as the Father is said to have made all things in the Son, (See especially John 1:3.) so too the love of the Father tending to the Son as to an object is the reason in which God bestows every effect of love on created things. And this is why the Holy Spirit, who is the love by which the Father loves the Son, is also the love by which he loves creation by imparting his own perfection upon it.

Therefore one will be able to consider the procession of this love in two ways: either insofar as it tends into the eternal object, and thus it will be called an eternal procession; or insofar as it proceeds as love into a created object, that is, insofar as through that love God confers something on what is created. And in this will it be called a temporal procession, from the fact that from the newness of the effect there arises a new relation of the created thing to God. By reason of this, God must be signified under that new orientation to the created thing, as is clear with all things that are said of God due to time.

Reply Obj. 1: “Generation” does not, from its account, indicate reference but to that from which the generation comes. Now, this can be in the Son in two ways: either as that from which he receives the divine nature, and in this way it is the eternal generation from the Father, or as that from which he receives his human nature. And in this latter sense it is the temporal generation from his mother. Now, the Holy Spirit’s procession, as was said, (Above, d. 13, q. 1, a. 2.) not only indicates reference to the principle from which he proceeds—according to which it is only eternal, as is the generation—but it also brings in reference to that into which he proceeds, according to which it can be called “temporal.”

Reply Obj. 2: Insofar as a gift is conferred, through the love who is the Holy Spirit, on a creature, no change or variation occurs in the love itself, but rather in that to which the thing is given through the love. Yet if there is a change, should it not rather be called a “perfection”? And therefore that temporal reference is not asserted to be really something in the Holy Spirit, but only so according to account, whereas it is really in the creature that is changed, as occurs when God is called “Lord” due to time.

Reply Obj. 3: The divine activity can be considered in two ways: either on the side of the one doing it, and thus it is eternal; or in reference to the effect of the activity, and thus it can be temporal. But nevertheless, because God does not act through an activity that is intermediate between himself and the thing done—rather, his activity is within his very self and is his entire substance—therefore his activity is essentially eternal, but its effect is temporal.

Reply Obj. 4: Something can be called “temporal” in many ways: either because it is subject to the variation of time, and in this way the procession is not called “temporal,” even as regards the effect that is grace; or because it has a beginning in time, and in this way grace is said to be “temporal,” and for the same reason his procession is also said to be “temporal,” in the account of the effect of the procession.

Reply Obj. 5: Something composite cannot be affirmed unless it is affirmed for each part of it, but it can be denied in virtue of either part only. This is clear in the truth and falsity of a compound proposition. And because the temporal contains in itself a certain negation with an affirmation—that is, at a certain time it is, and before it was not—whereas the eternal brings in only an affirmation of existence, therefore the composite of the two cannot be called “eternal” unless both are eternal. However, it can be called “temporal” even if only one of them is temporal, just as “Creator” indicates a divine activity and also notes actually the effect in a thing created, by reason of which God is not called “Creator” from eternity, but from time.

Article 2

Whether the temporal procession asserts something really distinct from the eternal procession

To the second we proceed as follows. It appears that the temporal procession does assert something numerically distinct from the eternal, such that they are different processions.

Obj. 1: For the eternal and the temporal cannot be the same in essence. But things that differ by essence are simply speaking multiple and are numbered. Therefore the eternal procession and the temporal are simply speaking two.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, the same thing is not a sign of its very self. But the temporal procession, according to Augustine, (Augustine, On the Trinity, bk. 5, ch. 15; bk. 2, ch. 5 (CCSL 50; PL 42:921, 848).) is a sign of the eternal. Therefore they are not one procession.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, when one procession is called “eternal” and the other “temporal,” either this will be because they differ essentially, or because one adds something to the other. But the eternal cannot add to the temporal, since then the temporal would be naturally prior to the eternal; nor can the temporal have something additional to eternal, since nothing can be added to the eternal, because it is perfect. Therefore what is left is that they differ essentially, and so they are simply speaking two.

Obj. 4: Furthermore, just as the Son stands to passive generation, so does the Holy Spirit stand to passive procession. But because of the eternal and temporal generations the Son is said to have two births and to be born twice. Therefore so too the Holy Spirit is said to have two processions.

On the contrary (5), “procession” asserts something in the very one proceeding. But the temporal procession, as temporal, does not assert something in the Holy Spirit. Therefore the eternal procession must be essentially included in the temporal procession. Therefore they do not differ essentially, nor are they simply speaking many.

Furthermore (6), things that are not of the same account are not counted together. But the temporal and the eternal are not of the same account. Therefore one cannot say that there are two processions, the temporal and the eternal.

I answer that, because “procession” always indicates the reference of what proceeds to that from which it proceeds, but the Holy Spirit is referred to the Father only by an eternal relation, it must be the case that no procession of the Holy Spirit is essentially different than the eternal. But a certain reference, on the side of that to which he proceeds, as to the beloved, can accrue to it. And by reason of this it is called “temporal.” Therefore one should say that the procession is essentially one, on account of the one reference of the one proceeding to that from which he proceeds, which it indicates principally. However, the procession is double, or twin-like, by reason of the two references to two objects, that is, to the eternal and to the temporal. One of these, the eternal, is really in the one proceeding, but the other is in the Holy Spirit only according to account, but according to reality it is in that to which he proceeds. Nonetheless, the first of these references is included in the second, as the reason and cause of it; thus, the second stands to the first as having something additional.

Reply Obj. 1: A procession is not called “temporal” according to what it is; rather, it is called “temporal” by reason of its reference to the created, as was said. (A. 1.)

Reply Obj. 2: The temporal procession is said to be a sign of the eternal procession as regards the effect from which arises that temporal reference, according to which the procession is called “temporal.” Now, the effect of this procession is gratuitous love, which is a certain likeness of the uncreated love, who is the Holy Spirit. And consequently it is a sign of it.

Reply Obj. 3: Although nothing can be added really to the eternal, still the eternal can be understood to stand with a certain orientation to something temporal; but this orientation is not asserted to be really something about the eternal itself, as was said. And because the idea can be represented through a name, since vocal sounds are notes of those passions that are in the soul, therefore a certain name can be imposed on the eternal insofar as it is understood under that orientation, just as God is called “Lord” due to time. So also the procession is called “temporal.”

Reply Obj. 4: The temporal and eternal generations of the Son are distinguished also according to their reference to the principle from which they arise; for the eternal is from the Father and the temporal is from the mother, and according to the diverse natures. And therefore they are not different in reality. But this is not like procession, as was said in the previous article.

Reply Sed Contra 5: We concede the fifth argument.

Reply Sed Contra 6: The temporal and eternal processions, considered according to the reference of the one proceeding to the principle from which he is, are wholly the same, though they are not of the same account, and on that side they are not numbered. But considered according to their reference to what the procession is to, in the way said, they are not of the same account, that is, univocally, since the one is the reason for the other. And in this way they can be numbered, just as we even say God and man are “two things.”

Question 2

How the Holy Spirit is said to proceed temporally

Next one asks in what respect the procession is viewed as temporal. And about this two things are asked:

first, whether the Holy Spirit himself is given according to the temporal procession, or are only his gifts, or both;

and second, if both, one asks about what gifts is the Holy Spirit said to be given or to proceed temporally.

Article 1

Whether the Holy Spirit is given according to the temporal procession; what is given first

Quaestiuncula 1

To the first we proceed as follows. It seems that the Holy Spirit himself does not proceed temporally or is given.

Obj. 1: For what is in itself everywhere does not seem to proceed anywhere in itself. But since he is God, the Holy Spirit is everywhere. Therefore he cannot proceed to anyone.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, if you say that he can exist in someone according to some mode whereby he was not there before, then the objection is granted. For according to Dionysius (Pseudo-Dionysius, On the Divine Names, ch. 3, para. 1 (PG 3:679).) and the Philosopher in the Book of Causes, (Rather: Proclus, Book of Causes, prop. 24.) God stands in the same way to all things, although not all things stand in the same way toward him. But such a mode in the created things is itself diverse due to the diverse perfections that they receive from God. Therefore it seems that the fact that the Holy Spirit might be said to exist in someone in a different way than he did before, would not be on account of something else, unless it were because that person receives some effect that he did not receive before. And in this way, the entire giving or procession is referred to the gifts, and not to the Holy Spirit himself.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, as has been said, (See q. 1, a. 2.) the temporal procession does not add anything real to the eternal procession on the side of the very one proceeding. But according to his eternal procession the Holy Spirit himself does not proceed into anything created. Therefore neither does he according to the temporal procession, on the side of the Holy Spirit himself, but only as regards his gifts.

Obj. 4: Furthermore, it is certain that an infused virtue is not more deficient in meritorious actions than is an acquired virtue in political actions. But an acquired virtue sufficiently directs a man in all civil matters. Therefore so does an infused virtue in all meritorious matters. Therefore it seems unnecessary that the Holy Spirit himself be given with the infused virtue, but either the Holy Spirit alone or the virtue alone.

On the contrary, in Romans 5:5 it says, God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us. Therefore it seems that each is given.

Furthermore, love has the account of being the first gift, since in it all things are conferred from liberality. Therefore, since the Holy Spirit is love, it seems that he has the account of a gift, and only because he is given. Therefore the Holy Spirit himself is given.

Quaestiuncula 2

Moreover, if each is given, then one asks what is given first. And it seems that the Holy Spirit is.

Obj. 1: This seems so since through him the others are given, and because he has the account of the first gift.

On the contrary, it seems that the gifts are given first. For his gifts dispose us toward possessing him. However, a disposition is prior to what it disposes one to. Therefore and so on.

Response to Quaestiuncula 1

I answer that the Holy Spirit himself proceeds, or is given, in the temporal procession, and not only his gifts. For if we consider the procession of the Holy Spirit on the side of that from which he proceeds, there is no doubt that in that respect the Holy Spirit himself is the one proceeding. But if we consider the procession according to its reference to that into which he proceeds, (Above, q. 1, a. 1.) then that reference is placed in the Holy Spirit not because he himself is referred really to it, but because the latter is referred to him. Therefore, since in the receiving of his gifts not only does our relation have the gifts as their terminus, such that we possess only them, but also the Holy Spirit, since we possess him in a different way than before; not only are his gifts said to proceed into us, but so is even he himself. For he is said to be brought to us insofar as we ourselves are brought to him. And therefore he himself and his gifts proceed into us, since we receive his gifts and also, through them, we stand toward him in a different way, insofar as we are joined to the Holy Spirit himself through his gifts—by our being made like him through the gift.

Reply Obj. 1: When it is said that God is everywhere, a certain relation of God to what is created is being indicated that is not really in him, but in what is created. Now, it happens that these relations on the side of the created thing are multiplied, and even diversified, according to the diverse effects by which it is made like God. And this is how it is signified that he stands to what is created differently than before. And on account of this, the Holy Spirit, who is everywhere according to some relation of the creature to him, can be said to be in something in a new way, according to the new relation of the creature itself to him.

Reply Obj. 2: Although that mode of standing otherwise is diverse due to the diverse gifts received in the creature, still the relation of the creature does not stop in those gifts, but tends beyond them to him through whom those gifts are given. And therefore we can signify ourselves as possessing the Holy Spirit in a different way, and the Holy Spirit as being possessed by us in a different way. And this is being signified when we say that he himself proceeds into us, or is given to us.

Reply Obj. 3: He is not said to “proceed into us” because something happens as regards himself, but because from the fact that we stand to him in a different way, he can be signified as standing toward us under a different respect. And so he is said to “proceed into us” according to the respect that the procession asserts for what the procession terminates in, but not according to a respect that it asserts for what the procession comes from.

Reply Obj. 4: An infused virtue is much more sufficient than an acquired virtue, and from the account of its perfection it has it that it joins us to God most of all, and makes us like him; and a new relation to God is born in us according to this joining. Whence to the degree that it is more sufficient, so much more is the Holy Spirit said to proceed within it, and with it. However, whether some created gift must be given with the Holy Spirit will be considered below. (Below, d. 18, q. 1, a. 3.)

Reply Sed Contra: We concede the other two arguments.

Response to Quaestiuncula 2

I say to the second thing that was asked that the order of things according to nature can be considered in two ways. One can consider it on the side of the recipient, or matter, and thus a disposition is prior to what it disposes a thing to; and in this way we receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit before receiving the Spirit himself, because we become like the Holy Spirit through the reception of the gifts themselves. Or one can consider it on the side of the end and the agent, and thus what will be closer to the end and agent is said to be prior; and in this way we receive the Holy Spirit prior to his gifts, because even the Son gave other things to us through his love. And this is to be prior simply speaking.

Article 2

Whether the temporal procession of the Holy Spirit is viewed in reference to all the gifts

To the second we proceed as follows. It seems that the temporal procession of the Holy Spirit is viewed in reference to all the gifts.

Obj. 1: For every gift conferred on a creature proceeds from the liberality of the divine will. But the reason for conferring something through liberality is love. Therefore it seems that the Holy Spirit is given or proceeds in reference to all the gifts bestowed on the creature.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, in the bestowal of any gift the creature is oriented to God in some respect in a way that he was not oriented before. For he becomes like him according to a participation of that perfection that he newly receives from God. But this was the Holy Spirit’s temporal procession: that the Holy Spirit be signified in a certain orientation to the creature due to the fact that the creature was in a new way referred to him. Therefore it seems that the Holy Spirit is sent even according to the natural gifts and not only according to ones that render one favored. (In this article and the next, the phrase gratum facientia is translated as “render one favored,” that is, pleasing to God. This is the expression Aquinas usually uses when indicating the reception of sanctifying grace, which causes the presence of the gifts of the Holy Spirit.)

Obj. 3: Furthermore, according to Augustine, (Augustine, On the Trinity (CCSL 50), bk. 4, ch. 20 (CCSL 50; PL 42:906).) to have been sent is to be known as being from another. But even without grace rendering one favored, someone can know that the Holy Spirit is from another, through his unformed faith. Therefore it seems that the temporal procession is not always according to grace that renders one favored.

Obj. 4: Furthermore, Rabanus says (Rabanus Maurus (archbishop of Mainz, c. 780–856 AD), Expositio epistolam in 1 ad Corinthios, ch. 12, v. 11 (PL 112:107).) that the Holy Spirit was given to the apostles for the sake of performing miracles. Now, this gift is not one that renders one favored, but is only one of those given gratuitously. (A gift or grace “given gratuitously” (gratia data gratis) is how Aquinas usually speaks of what are sometimes called the “charismatic gifts,” which are discussed in 1 Corinthians 12.) Therefore the temporal procession of the Holy Spirit can be viewed even in reference to these gifts.

On the contrary, Wisdom 1:5 says, the Holy Spirit of discipline will flee the counterfeit. (RSV: a holy and disciplined spirit flees deceit.) Now, whoever lacks the grace that renders one favored is held as counterfeit. Therefore the Holy Spirit proceeds into no such person.

Furthermore, the Holy Spirit proceeds only into someone in whom God dwells, as in his own temple; for someone becomes a temple of God through the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:19). But God is said to dwell in no one except through grace rendering him favored. Therefore the temporal procession of the Holy Spirit is considered only in reference to this gift.

I answer that in created things’ coming out of the first principle, one can notice a certain circle or return, insofar as all things turn back, as toward their end, to that from which they came, as from their principle. And therefore one must be attentive to the fact that by means of the same things by which something comes from its principle so too does it return to its end. Therefore, as has been said, (Above, d. 13, q. 1, a. 1; see also the note above concerning the translation of ratio, in this distinction, q. 1, a. 1.) just as the procession of the persons is the reason, or model, of the production of created things from the first principle, so too that same procession is the reason or model of their return to their end. For just as we have also been constituted through the Son and the Holy Spirit, through them too we are joined to the ultimate end; this is clear from the words of Augustine noted above, where he says, the beginning to which we return, that is, the Father, and the form to which we conform, the Son, and the grace by which we can become reconciled, that is, the Spirit. (Sent. I, 3.1(9).8, quoting Augustine, On True Religion (CCSL 32), ch. 55 (CCSL 32; PL 34:172).) And Hilary also says, below, that we refer all things through the Son to the one capable of all beginnings. (Sent. I, 31.2(132).8, quoting Hilary, Liber de Synodis seu Fide Orientalium, para. 59 (PL 10:521). Mandonnet notes that nothing like this quotation is found in either d. 31 or in Hilary’s De Trinitate; however, one manuscript refers to d. 29, where the Lombard quotes Hilary, De Trinitate, bk. 4: confitetur et Filii originem ab initio, non ipsum ab initio, sed ab initiabili, “one confesses also that the origin of the Son is from the beginning, not that he himself is from the beginning, but from what is capable of beginning.”)

Therefore according to this the procession of the divine persons can be considered in created things in two ways.

First, one can consider it insofar as it is the reason or model of the exit from the principle; and in this way this procession is considered with regard to natural gifts, in which we subsist. This is how Dionysius speaks of the divine wisdom and goodness proceeding in created things. (Pseudo-Dionysius, On the Divine Names, ch. 4, para. 4 (PG 3:694).) But we are not speaking about this procession here.

Second, it can be considered insofar as it is the reason or model of the return to the end; and this is only with respect to those gifts that directly join us to the ultimate end, that is, God—which are the grace making one favored and the glory. And it is of this procession that we are speaking here. For just as in natural generation the one generated is joined to its generator in a likeness of species only at the end of the generation, so too in the participations of divine goodness there is not an immediate joining to God through the first effects by which we subsist in the existence of nature; rather, we do so through last effects, by means of which we adhere to the end. And therefore we concede that the Holy Spirit is given only according to the gifts that render one favored.

Reply Obj. 1: Although one can see his great liberality in the bestowal of either natural gifts or those given gratuitously, nonetheless one sees the perfection of his liberality in things that join us to the ultimate perfection. And such are those that immediately order us to the end. And therefore one considers the procession of the Holy Spirit according to these gifts especially.

Reply Obj. 2: In the procession of the Spirit as we are speaking about it here—that is, insofar as it contains within itself the giving of the Holy Spirit—it is not enough that there be in the creature just any sort of new relation to God. Rather, it must be one referred to God as to one who is possessed. For what is given to someone is in some way possessed by him. Now, we can possess a divine person only at either perfect fruition, and in this way he is possessed through the gift of glory, or at imperfect fruition, and in this way he is possessed through the gift of grace rendering one favored—or rather, as that whereby we are joined to what can give fruition. This is insofar as the divine persons themselves, by their mark in our souls, bestow certain gifts by which we formally receive fruition, namely love and wisdom. And on account of this, the Holy Spirit is said to be the pledge of our inheritance. (See Ephesians 1:14.)

Reply Obj. 3: Not just any sort of knowledge suffices for the account of a sending, but only one received from some gift that is appropriated to a person, whereby our joining to God is brought about according to a mode proper to that person: that is, through love, when the Holy Spirit is given. This is why this knowledge is, as it were, experiential.

Reply Obj. 4: Although the activity of virtues is not a gift that renders one favored, still it can be conferred along with a gift that renders one favored. And because the apostles received this gift with the grace that rendered them favored, therefore they are said to have received the Holy Spirit in the bestowal of this gift.

Question 3

From whom is the temporal procession of the Holy Spirit

Article 1

Whether the Holy Spirit is given by holy men

Next one asks from whom the Holy Spirit temporally proceeds, and here one asks whether the Holy Spirit is given by holy men. (The other things that pertain to this question will be discussed later: below, d. 16, q. 1, a. 2.) Now, it seems that holy men can give the Holy Spirit.

Obj. 1: For the remission of sins occurs only through the Holy Spirit, but holy men can remit sins, as it says in John 20:23: if you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven. Therefore it seems that they can give the Holy Spirit.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, the grace of the Holy Spirit is a spiritual light. But a body illuminated by a bodily light can also illuminate another body. Therefore one who exists in grace can bestow grace on another.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, he who causes the occasion for loss seems to have caused the loss. Therefore he who does something by which, when done, the grace of the Holy Spirit is conferred, seems to confer the grace of the Holy Spirit. But the ministers of the Church dispense the sacraments wherein the grace of the Holy Spirit is given. Therefore it seems that they can give the Holy Spirit.

On the contrary, the giver is never inferior to what is given. But every minister of the Church is inferior to the Holy Spirit, and is, as it were, his instrument. Therefore no such minister can give the Holy Spirit.

Furthermore, the Holy Spirit is given only in grace that renders one favored. Now, no created thing can confer such a grace. Therefore neither can it confer the Holy Spirit. Proof of the middle premise: nothing infinite can come out of a finite power. But grace has a certain infinite power, insofar as it joins one to God himself, who is infinite. Therefore, since every power of a created thing is finite, nothing created can confer grace rendering one favored.

I answer that nothing created can give the Holy Spirit; rather, only God can. For in the temporal procession (Sent. I, 14.1(45).2.) there are two aspects: the eternal reference by which the Holy Spirit comes forth from the Father and the Son, and the temporal reference that arises from the fact that a creature, through the gift received, stands toward him in a new way. It is certain that in neither way can the Holy Spirit’s temporal procession be understood to be from something created. For no one doubts that the Holy Spirit proceeds from no creature according to an eternal relation. Likewise also, no creature can bestow grace rendering one favored, in which alone is the Holy Spirit given.

The reason for this can be assigned in two ways.

First, since every action of a creature presupposes the potency of matter, it is impossible that any creature bring forth into existence any form that is not brought out from the potency of matter. This is why the rational soul is created by God alone. And because grace rendering one favored elevates man above the entirety of the existence of nature, insofar as it elicits an act and orders him to an end that nature cannot reach through its own principles, it is not a perfection brought forth from the potency of matter. And therefore it is conferred by God alone.

Another reason can be that, because every action is according to a certain likeness in agents acting through themselves, according to which it is seen that each makes something like itself, if some acquired perfection within something immediately joins it to something else as a likeness of the latter, then it is produced by it immediately. And because through grace we become joined to God himself, and not by the mediation of anything created, therefore grace must proceed to us immediately from God.

A third reason can be drawn even from the power of the grace itself, from which meritorious acts in us are elicited, which acts lead to an infinite good, as an objection touches on. (More specifically, this refers to the second sed contra.) And in all agents ordered in the manner of agent and instrument, the last perfection is attributed to the first agent—for example, a substantial form is not brought about through the heat of a fire, which is, as it were, an instrument, but through a celestial power.

Reply Obj. 1: The ministers of the Church do not remit sins as by the authority, or through the mode of an efficient cause; only God does this, who says in Isaiah 43:25, I am He who blots out your transgressions for my own sake. However, they are remitted through the mediation of a minister. And therefore they can also be called ministers of the bestowal of the Holy Spirit, but not givers of him, since this indicates authority.

Reply Obj. 2: A spiritual light is nobler and more powerful than a bodily light, and because of this dignity it can be brought forth by nothing created, as is so with the rational soul too, as was said in the article.

Reply Obj. 3: He who causes the occasion for loss seems to have caused the loss in an interpretative sense, but not properly speaking. And yet, he who causes the occasion for loss does something proportionate and sufficient for the loss following after. But no action of a minister, considered in itself, insofar as it comes from the minister, is proportionate and sufficient for the giving of the Holy Spirit to follow. Rather, it has this only from divine institution and honor, and therefore the entire causality is referred to God.

Exposition of the text

He does not proceed separately from the Father to the Son and then from the Son to the creature. (Sent. I, 14.1(45).1.) He appears to contradict himself, because above he said they are two processions. (Mandonnet’s Latin text refers to Distinction 13, but Aquinas seems rather to mean the beginning of Distinction 14: Sent. I, 14.1(45).1.) To this one should say that they are not two simply speaking; (Above, q. 1, a. 2.) rather the one includes the other. And in these words one should understand, “and also something else proceeds from the Son to the creature”—that is, such that the Father immediately spirates the Holy Spirit, as does the Son, not only as regards the power, but even as regards the supposit, just as two men doing something simultaneously.

In order to show that the Spirit proceeds also from him. (Sent. I, 14.1(45).2, quoting Augustine, On the Trinity, bk. 15, ch. 26 (CCSL 50A; PL 42:1093), referring to John 20:22.) This seems not to be necessary, since the Holy Spirit is given and proceeds temporally even from his very self, but it is not shown thereby that he is from his very self. To this one should say that when the Holy Spirit is said to be given from himself, this is entirely referred to the gift in which the Holy Spirit is given, and not to the proceeding person himself. For the Holy Spirit is not from himself as from an originating principle. Rather, when the Holy Spirit is signified through a bodily breath, this shows that even the person of the Holy Spirit himself was proceeding from the Son.

And the Spirit is that ‘power’ which ‘went out from him.’ (Sent. I, 14.1(45).2, quoting Augustine, On the Trinity, bk. 15, ch. 26 (CCSL 50A; PL 42:1093), interpreting Luke 6:19.) To say this seems false, since power is appropriated to the Son, as will be explained below, (Below, In I Sent., d. 31, q. 2, a. 1.) and as is stated in 1 Corinthians 1:24: Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. And to this one should say that power can be appropriated to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit for diverse reasons: to the Father insofar as power pertains to the perfection of potency, which is appropriated to the Father; to the Son insofar as it is a medium between essence and action, such that a thing acts through its power, as the Father does through the Son; and, insofar as the power accomplishes a good work, the doer is also good, and so power is appropriated to the Holy Spirit, to whom goodness is appropriated—or in reference to the effect of the power, which is some benefit offered from the divine liberality: the reason for the bestowal of which is love.