Dist. 12, Art. 1, Q. 1
Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity · Distinction 12
Quaestio I. Utrum Spiritus sanctus a Patre prius quam a Filio procedat.
Circa primum, quod prius sit a Patre quam a Filio, sic ostenditur.
Ad oppositum:
1. Causa prima est, in qua est status, ergo et principium primum est, in quo est status; sed status est in Patre: ergo Pater est principium primum; sed primum supponit prius1: ergo prius procedit a Patre quam a Filio.
2. Item, causa prima est quae agit, alia non supposita2: si ergo Pater producit non per suppositionem alterius principii, Filius per suppositionem, prius producit Pater quam Filius.
3. Item, quod habet aliquis ex se per prius habet, quam quod habet ex alio; sed producere Spiritum sanctum habet Pater a se, et Filius a Patre: ergo per prius habet Pater quam Filius.
Contra. Fundamenta:
1. Ubi non est ponere posterius, nec prius, quia prius respectu posterioris dicitur; sed in Trinitate non est ponere posterius: ergo nec prius. Si ergo processio Spiritus sancti a Patre et Filio est aeterna, patet etc.
2. Item, ubi est ponere prius et posterius, est3 ponere diversitatem principiorum; sed Pater et Filius producunt Spiritum sanctum in quantum unum, ut supra monstratum est4: ergo non est ibi ratio prioris.
3. Item, si per prius procedit a Patre quam a Filio, aut5 a Filio non procedit, aut bis procedit; sed procedit a Filio et non procedit bis: ergo etc.
4. Item, contingit intelligere prius, non intellecto posteriori: ergo si per prius procedit a Patre, contingit intelligere, quod procedit6, non cointellecto Filio. Sed contra: Spiritus sanctus est amor uniens et amor nectens; sed non est accipere mutuum amorem ad minus quam inter duos, ergo nec Spiritum sanctum esse7 nisi a duobus: ergo nec per prius procedit ab uno quam ab alio.
Conclusio. Spiritus sanctus auctoritate quidem prius procedit a Patre quam a Filio, non vero prius duratione, vel causalitate, vel etiam origine.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod prius dicitur multipliciter. Dicitur enim prius duratione, dicitur prius causalitate, dicitur prius origine, dicitur prius auctoritate8. Et primis duobus modis prius nullo modo cadit in Deo; quia prius duratione contrarium est aeternitati, prius causalitate contrarium est essentiae unitati9. Sed prius origine, quo alter ex altero, et prius auctoritate, quo alter accipit ab altero10, cadit ibi.
Sed prius origine cadit respectu producentis et producti, cum alter oritur ex altero; cum vero unus oritur a duobus, non cadit ibi prius origine, quia tunc ambo sunt unum originale principium; tamen cadit ibi prius auctoritate, quia quamvis Pater et Filius sint unum in producendo, tamen hoc accipit Filius a Patre.
Si igitur quaeritur, utrum per prius procedat Spiritus sanctus a Patre quam a Filio; si intelligatur prius11 duratione, falsum est; similiter si prius causalitate; similiter si prius origine, sicut probant primae rationes ad hoc inductae. Si autem prius auctoritate, ut prius idem sit quod principalius, veritatem habet.
Ad argumenta in oppositum:
Ad 1. Ad illud ergo12 quod primo obiicitur, quod Pater est primum principium et causa; dicendum, quod illae rationes habent veritatem, ubi est pluralitas causarum vel principiorum; sed respectu Spiritus sancti nec est pluralitas causarum nec principiorum.
Ad 2 et 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod per13 prius habet quod habet ex se: dicendum, quod si intelligatur prius, id est principalius, verum est; si autem alio modo, falsum, quia unum et idem potest haberi a pluribus personis, ita quod ab una per aliam; nec talis est prioritas aliquo trium praedictorum modorum.
I. Posita quadruplici prioritatis distinctione, primo negatur, Spiritum sanctum procedere prius duratione, causalitate, origine a Patre quam a Filio. Prioritas enim durationis et causalitatis in Deo esse omnino non potest; prioritas autem originis dici quidem potest in divinis, sed tantum, quatenus una persona procedit ab uno, et altera a duabus. Ergo non est ponenda inter Patrem et Filium, quatenus producunt Spiritum sanctum. Deinde conceditur, quod Spiritus sanctus prius procedat auctoritate, vel etiam principalius a Patre quam a Filio. Hoc nulla alia ratione asseritur, nisi quia Pater a se ipso habet potentiam spirativam, Filius vero a Patre; unde Patri quaedam principalitas convenit, quae tamen nec subiectionem Filii nec distinctionem in principio spirativo importat. In re hoc idem est cum eo quod dicit Scot. (hic q. 2.): «Non est ergo ordo originis inter spirationem Patris et Filii, quasi spiret Pater in aliquo signo originis, in quo non spiret Filius, sed in eodem signo originis simul spirant. Est tamen ibi ordo spirantium in spirando, quia Pater (producto termino primae fecunditatis) in illo tertio signo originis spirat a se, Filius autem non a se».
II. Pro maiore explicatione solutionis ad 3. serviunt quae dicit B. Albert., hic n. 3. ad 2: «Dicendum, quod hoc (quod una proprietas non est duorum subiectorum) verum est in illis suppositis, quae per essentiam et substantiam dividuntur ab invicem; in illis enim quod inest uni idem numero non inest alii. Sed duobus suppositis, quae in nulla diversa sunt, nisi (quod) inter ea est relationis oppositio, potest inesse idem, in quantum non relative opponuntur. Pater autem et Filius talia sunt supposita divinae naturae; et secundum quod comparantur ad virtutem spirativam et ad Spiritum sanctum, non habent oppositionem relativam inter se; ergo secundum hoc remanent idem, et sic unum numero erit quod in hac comparatione inest eis. Hoc autem est proprietas spirandi, et sic unum sunt principium spirandi Spiritus sancti».
III. Cfr. infra d. 20. a. 2. q. 1. 2. — Scot., de hac et duabus seqq. qq. hic q. 2. — S. Thom., de hac et seq. hic q. 1. a. 2. — B. Albert., hic a. 2; de hac et seq. q.; S. p. I. tr. 7. m. 3. q. 2. incident. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. unic. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic q. 1. — Aegid. R., hic 4. princ. q. 2. — Henr. Gand., de hac et duab. seqq. qq. S. a. 54. q. 5. et 7; a. 60. q. 9. — Dionys. Carth., de hac et duabus seqq. qq. hic q. 1. — Biel, de hac et duab. seqq. qq. hic q. 3.
---
Question I. Whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father prior to [proceeding from] the Son.
Concerning the first point — that He is from the Father prior to [being from] the Son — it is shown thus.
For the affirmative:
1. The first cause is that in which there is rest [status], and likewise the first principle is that in which there is rest; but rest is in the Father: therefore the Father is first principle; but first presupposes prior1: therefore [the Spirit] proceeds prior from the Father than from the Son.
2. Likewise, the first cause is that which acts when no other [cause] is presupposed2: if therefore the Father produces without presupposition of another principle, while the Son [produces] by presupposition, the Father produces prior to the Son.
3. Likewise, what someone has from himself he has prior to what he has from another; but the Father has [the power] to produce the Holy Spirit from Himself, and the Son [has it] from the Father: therefore the Father has it prior to the Son.
On the contrary. Foundations:
1. Where there is no posterior, there is no prior, because prior is said with respect to posterior; but in the Trinity there is no posterior: therefore neither prior. If, then, the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son is eternal, [the conclusion] is plain.
2. Likewise, where there is prior and posterior, there is3 a diversity of principles; but the Father and the Son produce the Holy Spirit insofar as one, as was shown above4: therefore the formal character of prior is not there.
3. Likewise, if [the Spirit] proceeds prior from the Father than from the Son, either5 He does not proceed from the Son, or He proceeds twice; but He proceeds from the Son and does not proceed twice: therefore etc.
4. Likewise, it is possible to understand the prior without the posterior being understood: therefore if [the Spirit] proceeds prior from the Father, it is possible to understand that He proceeds6 without the Son being co-understood. But on the contrary: the Holy Spirit is uniting love and binding love; but a mutual love cannot be taken between fewer than two, therefore neither can the Holy Spirit be7 except from two: therefore neither does He proceed prior from one than from the other.
Conclusion. The Holy Spirit indeed proceeds prior from the Father than from the Son in [the order of] authority, but not prior in duration, nor in causality, nor even in origin.
I respond: It must be said that prior is said in many ways. For there is said prior in duration, prior in causality, prior in origin, prior in authority8. And in the first two ways prior in no way falls in God; because prior in duration is contrary to eternity, [and] prior in causality is contrary to the unity of essence9. But prior in origin, by which the one [is] from the other, and prior in authority10, by which the one receives from the other, do fall there.
But prior in origin falls with respect to producer and produced, when the one arises from the other; but when one arises from two, prior in origin does not fall there, because then both are one originative principle; yet prior in authority does fall there, because although the Father and the Son are one in producing, yet the Son receives this from the Father.
If, then, it is asked whether the Holy Spirit proceeds prior from the Father than from the Son: if prior11 is understood in duration, it is false; likewise if prior in causality; likewise if prior in origin, as the first reasons adduced for this prove. But if prior in authority, so that prior be the same as more principal, it has truth.
To the arguments to the contrary:
To 1. To that, then12, which is first objected — that the Father is first principle and cause — it must be said that those reasons hold true where there is plurality of causes or principles; but with respect to the Holy Spirit there is neither plurality of causes nor of principles.
To 2 and 3. To what is objected, that one has prior13 what one has from oneself: it must be said that if prior is understood, that is, more principally, it is true; but if in another way, false, because one and the same can be had by several persons, in such wise that by one through another; and such priority is not in any of the three aforesaid modes.
I. With the four-fold distinction of priority laid down: first, it is denied that the Holy Spirit proceeds prior in duration, causality, or origin from the Father than from the Son. For priority of duration and of causality cannot be in God at all; priority of origin can indeed be spoken of in the divine being, but only insofar as one person proceeds from one, and another from two. Therefore it is not to be posited between the Father and the Son insofar as they produce the Holy Spirit. Thereafter it is conceded that the Holy Spirit proceeds prior in authority, or also more principally from the Father than from the Son. This is asserted on no other ground than that the Father has the spirative power from Himself, the Son from the Father; whence to the Father a certain principality belongs, which yet imports neither subjection of the Son nor distinction in the spirative principle. In substance this is the same as what Scotus says (here q. 2): «There is therefore no order of origin between the spiration of the Father and that of the Son, as if the Father spirates in some sign of origin in which the Son does not spirate, but in the same sign of origin they spirate together. Yet there is here an order of the spirators in spirating, because the Father (the term of the first fecundity having been produced) in that third sign of origin spirates from Himself, while the Son [spirates] not from Himself».
II. For greater clarification of the reply to 3, what Bl. Albert says here serves (n. 3, ad 2): «It must be said that this (that one property is not of two subjects) is true in those supposits which are divided from one another by essence and substance; for in them what is in the one is not in the other identically. But in two supposits which are not diverse in anything, save (that) between them there is opposition of relation, the same can be in [both], insofar as they are not relatively opposed. Now the Father and the Son are such supposits of the divine nature; and according as they are compared to the spirative power and to the Holy Spirit, they have no relative opposition between them; therefore according to this they remain the same, and so it will be one in number that in this comparison is in them. Now this is the property of spirating, and so they are one principle of spirating the Holy Spirit».
III. Cf. below d. 20, a. 2, qq. 1–2. — Scotus, on this and the two following questions, here q. 2. — St. Thomas, on this and the following, here q. 1, a. 2. — Bl. Albert, here a. 2; on this and the following question; S. p. I, tr. 7, m. 3, q. 2, incident. — Peter of Tarantasia, here q. unica, a. 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, here q. 1. — Giles of Rome, here 4. princ. q. 2. — Henry of Ghent, on this and the two following questions, S. a. 54, qq. 5 and 7; a. 60, q. 9. — Dionysius the Carthusian, on this and the two following questions, here q. 1. — Biel, on this and the two following questions, here q. 3.
---
- Cod. K adiungit: quia superlativum supponit comparativum.Codex K adds: because a superlative presupposes a comparative.
- Aristot., IV Phys. text. 7 (c. 1) ait: Id enim, sine quo aliorum nihil aliud est, ipsum vero est sine aliis, necesse est esse primum. — Paulo infra post Filius in cod. O additur vero.Aristotle, Physics IV, text 7 (c. 1), says: «For that without which nothing else exists, but which is itself without the others, must be first». — A little below, after Filius, codex O adds vero.
- Cod. 1 praemittit ibi.Codex 1 prefixes ibi.
- Dist. 11, q. 2.D. 11, q. 2.
- Cod. T cum ed. 1 bene addit ergo.Codex T with ed. 1 well adds ergo.
- In cod. T et ed. 1 adiungitur bene a Patre.In codex T and ed. 1 a Patre is well added.
- Vat. absque auctoritate mss. et ed. 1 Spiritus sanctus est.The Vatican, without the authority of the manuscripts and ed. 1, [reads] Spiritus sanctus est.
- Cfr. Aristot., de Praedicam. c. de Priori, et V Metaph. text. 16 (IV, c. 11). — In hac propositione ex multis mss. ut A F G H I K T V W Z aa etc. et ed. 1 ter supplevimus dicitur.Cf. Aristotle, Categories, ch. On the Prior, and Metaphysics V, text 16 (IV, c. 11). — In this proposition, from many manuscripts (A F G H I K T V W Z aa etc.) and ed. 1, we have three times supplied dicitur.
- Cod. X immutabilitati.Codex X reads immutabilitati.
- [?] — Apparatus block for page 221 missing from IA djvu OCR. Body marker present after alter accipit ab altero. Reconstruction (unverified): possibly a Vatican-vs-mss variant on accipiat / accipit. → Resolve by PDF p. 221.[?] — Apparatus missing from OCR; body marker present after the one receives from the other. See `manual-review/tier2-ambiguities.md`.
- [?] — Apparatus block for page 221 missing from IA djvu OCR. Body marker after si intelligatur prius. Reconstruction (unverified): possibly a manuscript variant on the placement or omission of prius. → Resolve by PDF p. 221.[?] — Apparatus missing from OCR; body marker after if prior is understood. See `manual-review/tier2-ambiguities.md`.
- [?] — Apparatus block for page 221 missing from IA djvu OCR. Body marker after Ad illud ergo. Reconstruction (unverified): possibly a manuscript variant on ergo / autem. → Resolve by PDF p. 221.[?] — Apparatus missing from OCR; body marker after To that, then. See `manual-review/tier2-ambiguities.md`.
- [?] — Apparatus block for page 221 missing from IA djvu OCR. Body marker after quod per prius. Reconstruction (unverified): possibly a manuscript variant on quia per / quod per. → Resolve by PDF p. 221.[?] — Apparatus missing from OCR; body marker after what one has prior. See `manual-review/tier2-ambiguities.md`.