← Back to Distinction 10

Dist. 10, Art. 1, Q. 1

Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity · Distinction 10

Textus Latinus
p. 194

Articulus I

De modo processionis Spiritus sancti.

Quaestio I

Utrum in divinis ponenda sit processio per modum liberalitatis.

Circa primum, quod in divinis sit ponere emanationem per modum liberalitatis, ostenditur:

1. Primo sic. Richardus de sancto Victore in libro de Trinitate1 dicit: «In summa bonitate et beatitudine necesse est ponere plenam et perfectam dilectionem; ubi vero est plenitudo dilectionis, est summa concordia; ubi summa concordia, commune velle, commune nolle; ubi istorum omnium est plenitudo, est summa iucunditas; sed amor, qui terminatur intra duos, videtur sapere amorem libidinosum»: ergo si in Deo est summa dilectio et summa delectatio et2 beatitudo, non est ibi persona, quae mutuo non ametur, sed cui amor mutuus communicetur; sed communicatio amoris mutui est per liberalitatem: ergo etc.

2. Item, in his inferioribus duplex invenitur modus procedendi3 nobilis, scilicet per modum naturae et per modum voluntatis: primo modo emanat Filius a Patre, secundo modo donum a datore; sed omne quod nobilitatis est in creatura, est attribuendum Deo: ergo etc.

3. Item, in Deo est ponere naturam et voluntatem, et sicut naturam perficit fecunditas, ita voluntatem summa liberalitas; sed natura perfecta fecunditate, producit persona aliam personam: ergo pari ratione, voluntate perfecta liberalitate, producit persona4 aliam personam: et sic etc.

4. Item, omnes creaturae a Deo procedunt per cognitionem et voluntatem; sed ante creaturarum productionem ponere fuit in divinis emanationem Verbi ab aeterno, in quo Pater omnia fienda disposuit5: ergo pari ratione necesse fuit emanare personam, in qua omnia vellet6 et donaret; sed talis procedit per modum liberalitatis: ergo etc.

p. 195

Contra:

1. Non est similis modus procedendi sive exeundi7 in creaturis respectu Dei et in personis; nam creaturae sunt extrinsecus, personae vero in essentia unum; sed exitus creaturarum a Deo est per modum liberalitatis: ergo non est ponere personam hoc modo procedere.

2. Item, exiens per modum voluntatis ab aliquo non assimilatur in substantia producenti, nec aequatur, nec necessario producitur; sed persona, si procedit, aequatur et assimilatur et necessario procedit8: ergo non procedit per modum voluntatis sive liberalitatis.

3. Item, ubi est processio per modum voluntatis, ibi est voluntas ratio procedendi9; sed communicatio est per modum naturae: ergo per modum naturae est ratio communicandi; sed prima et summa ratio communicandi est in generatione: ergo non est ponere processionem per modum liberalitatis.

4. Item, processio per modum naturae est nobilior quam processio per modum voluntatis, quia nobilius est procedere per modum naturae10 — cum Filius procedat hoc modo — quam alio modo; sed processio nobilior est processio magis sufficiens: ergo processio per modum naturae est sufficiens: ergo frustra ponitur alia.

Conclusio. In divinis ponenda est processio per modum liberalitatis, quae est donatio amoris.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod sicut probant rationes, necesse est in Deo ponere processionen per modum liberalitatis. Et ratio huius est, quia prima et summa bonitas non tantum se communicat per modum naturae, sed etiam per modum voluntatis, quia non tantum habet fecunditatem per naturam, sed etiam per liberalitatem; et sicut per fecunditatem naturae communicat se Pater Filio, ita per fecunditatem voluntatis communicat se Pater et Filius Spiritui sancto.

Et differentia est inter unam processionem et alteram11. Nam per naturam procedit simile in similitudinem, et ideo Filius procedit a Patre per modum verbi sive per modum exemplaris, in quo Pater omnia exprimit. Per voluntatem vero procedit donum ab amante, et ideo Spiritus sanctus procedit a Patre et Filio per modum amoris sive doni, in quo Pater et Filius omnia donant.

p. 196

Ad argumenta pro parte contra:

Ad 1. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non est similis modus procedendi; dicendum, quod verum est, quia non omnino similis, sed tamen proportionalis12; quia sicut creatura se habet ad Deum in ratione doni, sic aliquo modo persona ad personas.

Ad 2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod exiens per modum voluntatis non assimilatur; dicendum, quod non est simile in creaturis et in divinis, quia in creaturis voluntas et natura differunt re, et ideo differunt processiones; in Deo autem idem est natura et voluntas, et ideo persona procedens per modum voluntatis est eadem in substantia, et per consequens eiusdem nobilitatis.

Ad 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod voluntas est ratio procedendi; dicendum, quod voluntas in divinis non est ratio communicandi naturam — hoc enim facit natura — sed ratio communicandi donum; et ideo non sequitur, quod processio per modum voluntatis sit generatio.

Ad 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod processio per modum naturae sufficit; dicendum, quod processio per modum naturae est sufficiens quantum ad communicationem naturae, sed non quantum ad communicationem boni in ratione doni; et ideo necesse est ponere aliam processionem.

Scholion

I. Haec quaestio supponit generationem, de qua in praecedenti distinctione; modo quaeritur de processione Spiritus sancti. Quaestio igitur est, utrum in divinis ponenda sit processio distincta a generatione, quae sit per modum liberalitatis sive voluntatis. — Cfr. supra d. 6. q. 2; infra d. 13. a. 1. q. 1; d. 27. p. II. q. 1; Breviloq. p. I. c. 3; Hexaem. Serm. II. — Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 46. m. 1. — Scot., I. Sent. d. 2. q. 7; d. 10. q. unic. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 1; S. I. q. 27. a. 3. 4. 5; S. c. Gent. IV. c. 19. — B. Albert., I. Sent. d. 10. a. 1. 2; S. I. tr. 7. q. 31. m. 1. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 1. — Aegid. R., hic 1. princ. q. 1. — Henr. Gand., S. a. 54. q. 2. — Durand., hic q. 1.

---

English Translation
p. 194

Article I

On the manner of the procession of the Holy Spirit.

Question I

Whether a procession by way of liberality is to be posited in God.

Concerning the first point: that an emanation by way of liberality is to be posited in God is shown thus:

1. First, thus. Richard of St. Victor, in his book On the Trinity1, says: "In supreme goodness and beatitude one must posit a full and perfect love; where indeed there is fulness of love, there is supreme concord; where supreme concord, a common willing and common refusing; where there is fulness of all these, there is supreme delight; but a love which terminates within two seems to savor of a libidinous love"; therefore if in God there is supreme love and supreme delight and2 beatitude, there is no person there who is not loved mutually, but to whom mutual love is communicated; but communication of mutual love is by liberality: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, in these lower realities a twofold noble manner of proceeding3 is found, namely by way of nature and by way of will: in the first manner the Son emanates from the Father, in the second a gift from a giver; but everything that pertains to nobility in a creature is to be ascribed to God: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, in God we must posit nature and will, and just as fruitfulness brings nature to perfection, so supreme liberality brings the will to perfection; but nature, when perfected by fruitfulness, has one person produce another: therefore by parallel reasoning, when the will is perfected by liberality, one person produces4 another: and so on.

4. Likewise, all creatures proceed from God through cognition and will; but prior to the production of creatures one must posit in God an emanation of the Word from eternity, in which the Father disposed5 all things to be made: therefore by parallel reasoning it was necessary that there emanate a person in whom He would will6 and give all things; but such a one proceeds by way of liberality: therefore etc.

p. 195

On the contrary:

1. The manner of proceeding or going forth7 in creatures with respect to God is not similar to that in the persons; for creatures are extrinsic, while the persons are one in essence; but the going forth of creatures from God is by way of liberality: therefore one cannot posit a person to proceed in this manner.

2. Likewise, what goes forth by way of will from another is not made like the producer in substance, nor equal, nor produced of necessity; but a person, if it proceeds, is made equal and like and proceeds8 of necessity: therefore it does not proceed by way of will or liberality.

3. Likewise, where there is a procession by way of will, there will is the ground of proceeding9; but communication is by way of nature: therefore by way of nature is the ground of communicating; but the first and supreme ground of communicating is in generation: therefore one cannot posit a procession by way of liberality.

4. Likewise, procession by way of nature is more noble than procession by way of will, because it is more noble to proceed by way of nature10 — since the Son proceeds in this manner — than in another manner; but a more noble procession is a procession more sufficient: therefore the procession by way of nature is sufficient: therefore another is posited in vain.

Conclusion. A procession by way of liberality is to be posited in God, which is the donation of love.

I respond: It must be said that, as the arguments prove, it is necessary to posit in God a procession by way of liberality. And the reason for this is that the first and supreme goodness communicates itself not only by way of nature, but also by way of will, because it has fruitfulness not only through nature, but also through liberality; and just as through the fruitfulness of nature the Father communicates Himself to the Son, so through the fruitfulness of will the Father and the Son communicate themselves to the Holy Spirit.

And there is a difference between the one procession and the other11. For by nature like proceeds into a likeness, and so the Son proceeds from the Father by way of word or by way of exemplar, in which the Father expresses all things. But by will a gift proceeds from a lover, and so the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son by way of love or gift, in which the Father and the Son give all things.

p. 196

To the arguments on the contrary side:

To 1. To what is objected, that the manner of proceeding is not similar; it must be said that this is true, because not entirely similar, but nevertheless proportional12; for as a creature stands to God in the account of a gift, so in some manner does a person stand to the persons.

To 2. To what is objected, that what goes forth by way of will is not made like; it must be said that the case is not similar in creatures and in God, because in creatures will and nature differ in reality, and so the processions differ; but in God nature and will are the same, and so a person proceeding by way of will is the same in substance, and consequently of the same nobility.

To 3. To what is objected, that will is the ground of proceeding; it must be said that in God will is not the ground of communicating nature — for nature does this — but the ground of communicating gift; and so it does not follow that procession by way of will is generation.

To 4. To what is objected, that procession by way of nature is sufficient; it must be said that procession by way of nature is sufficient as regards the communication of nature, but not as regards the communication of the good in the account of gift; and so it is necessary to posit another procession.

Scholion

I. This question presupposes generation, on which the preceding distinction treated; now the question is about the procession of the Holy Spirit. The question, therefore, is whether one must posit in God a procession distinct from generation, which would be by way of liberality or will. — Cf. above d. 6, q. 2; below d. 13, a. 1, q. 1; d. 27, p. II, q. 1; Breviloquium p. I, c. 3; Hexaemeron Sermon II. — Alex. Hal., Summa p. I, q. 46, m. 1. — Scotus, I Sent. d. 2, q. 7; d. 10, q. unic. — St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 1; S. I, q. 27, a. 3, 4, 5; S. c. Gent. IV, c. 19. — Bl. Albert, I Sent. d. 10, a. 1, 2; S. I, tr. 7, q. 31, m. 1. — Petr. a Tar., here q. 1, a. 1. — Richard. a Med., here a. 1, q. 1. — Aegid. R., here principium 1, q. 1. — Henr. Gand., S. a. 54, q. 2. — Durand., here q. 1.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Libr. III. de Trinit. c. 2, 11, 14, 19. Textus compositus ex diversis locis Richardi. — Mox codd. AFGHIK etc. cum ed. 1 iucunditas pro beatitudo.
    Book III, De Trinitate, c. 2, 11, 14, 19. The text is composed from various passages of Richard. — Shortly after, codices AFGHIK etc. with ed. 1 read iucunditas for beatitudo.
  2. Vat. contra mss. et ed. 1 omittit et.
    The Vatican edition, against the manuscripts and ed. 1, omits et.
  3. Cod. T addit sive emanandi.
    Codex T adds sive emanandi.
  4. Vat. contra mss. et ed. 1 personam.
    The Vatican edition, against the manuscripts and ed. 1, reads personam.
  5. Cfr. supra d. 6. q. 2. et infra d. 27. p. II. — Vat. cum cod. cc disponit pro disposuit.
    Cf. above d. 6, q. 2, and below d. 27, p. II. — The Vatican edition with codex cc reads disponit for disposuit.
  6. Cod. Y vult pro vellet.
    Codex Y reads vult for vellet.
  7. Vat. contra mss. et ed. 1 procedendi pro exeundi.
    The Vatican edition, against the manuscripts and ed. 1, reads procedendi for exeundi.
  8. Multi codd. cum ed. 1 producit pro procedit in fine.
    Many codices with ed. 1 read producit for procedit at the end.
  9. Vat. contra vetustiores codd. et ed. 1 addit et producendi.
    The Vatican edition, against the older codices and ed. 1, adds et producendi.
  10. Cod. T addit et actum purum.
    Codex T adds et actum purum.
  11. Multi codd. cum ed. 1 aliam pro alteram.
    Many codices with ed. 1 read aliam for alteram.
  12. Vat. cum cod. cc similis pro proportionalis; contra mss. et ed. 1.
    The Vatican edition with codex cc reads similis for proportionalis; against the manuscripts and ed. 1. ---
← Dist. 10Dist. 10, Art. 1, Q. 2→