← Back to Distinction 12

Dist. 12, Art. 1, Q. 3

Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity · Distinction 12

Textus Latinus
p. 223

Quaestio III. Utrum Spiritus sanctus mediante Filio a Patre procedat.

Tertio quaeritur, utrum Spiritus sanctus procedat a Patre mediante Filio.

Fundamenta:

1. Et quod sic, videtur per Hilarium duodecimo de Trinitate1, qui loquens ad Patrem ait: «Spiritum sanctum, qui ex te per eum est, promerear»: ergo Spiritus sanctus est a Patre per Filium, ergo mediante Filio.

2. Item, Richardus2 dicit, quod in divinis est processio immediata tantum, et mediata et immediata — mediata tantum esse non potest — et dicit, quod mediata et immediata est processio Spiritus sancti ex Patre: ergo cum non possit cadere medium nisi Filius, Spiritus sanctus procedit a Patre mediante Filio.

3. Item, similis est processus in illa Trinitate processui imaginis creatae3; sed amor procedit a mente mediante intelligentia: ergo Spiritus sanctus procedit a Patre mediante Filio. Si dicas, quod non est similitudo quantum ad hoc: ergo destruitur ratio imaginis, quia imago debet repraesentare ordinem et originem personarum, non tantum numerum in personis, quia hoc4 etiam est in vestigio.

4. Item, si solus Filius spiraret5, ita quod non Pater, tunc Pater diceretur spirare, sed mediante Filio, ita quod esset processio mediata tantum: ergo cum spiratio conveniat Patri per se et conveniat ei per hoc, quod est principium Filii spirantis, ergo convenit ei et mediate et immediate; sed si hoc6, Spiritus sanctus procedit a Patre mediante Filio.

Ad oppositum:

1. Nobilius est immediatum principium quam mediatum; sed omne nobilius est Deo tribuendum7: ergo si Pater est nobilissimum principium Spiritus sancti, ergo tantum immediate, non mediate producit ipsum. Si tu dicas, quod producit simul mediate et immediate; contra: mediatum et immediatum sunt opposita; sed opposita non sunt simul vera de eodem et respectu eiusdem8: ergo impossibile est, quod simul producat mediate et immediate.

2. Item, sicut se habet per se ad per accidens, ita mediatum ad immediatum; sed Deus nullius, cuius est causa per se, est causa per accidens: ergo nullius, cuius est principium immediatum, est principium mediatum.

3. Item, magis est immediatum quod nullo modo recipit medium, quam quod recipit medium; sed Filius nullum medium recipit in spirando: ergo immediatius producit, quam producat Pater: non ergo uniformiter omnino producunt Pater et Filius Spiritum sanctum.

Conclusio. Spiritus sanctus procedit a Patre tum immediate, tum mediante Filio.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod, sicut vult Richardus, productio9 Spiritus sancti est mediata simul et immediata: mediata, in quantum est a Filio, et Filius a Patre; sed immediata, in quantum ipse Spiritus sanctus ab ipso Patre spiratur.

Exemplum. Et huius exemplum ponitur in exitu Abel de Adam. Abel enim10 immediate exiit de Adam, quia ipse ex lumbis suis genuit eum; nihilominus exiit mediate, quia exiit ab Eva, quae fuit ab Adam sive de Adam deducta. Et hunc modum oportuit esse in Deo propter summam germanitatem.

Ratio. Si enim tantum mediata esset processio Spiritus sancti, ut tantum esset a Filio, non esset summa germanitas Spiritus sancti cum Patre. Similiter, si omnino immediata, ut esset a Patre tantum, non esset summa germanitas cum Filio. Et sic concedendum11, quod mediante Filio.

Ad argumenta in oppositum:

Ad 1. Ad illud ergo12 quod obiicitur in contrarium, quod nobilius est immediatum principium; dicendum, quod mediatio est tribus modis. Tres modi mediationis. Quaedam enim est mediatio, quae excludit immediationem tantum, ut quando effectus ultimus non continuatur influentiae causae prioris, sed per medium omnino producitur, priori non cooperante13; et haec dicit ordinem et diversitatem agentium et separationem. Alio modo dicitur mediatio, prout dicit ordinem causarum ad invicem, non separationem in agendo, sed solum diversitatem agentium14 et ordinem. Tertio modo, prout dicit ordinem, non tamen separationem virtutum agentium nec diversitatem.

Conclusio 1. Prima mediatio non cadit in Deo, quia Deus est causa simpliciter prima, cuius influentia est tanta, quod nulla creatura aliquid agit, eius influentia remota; et ideo nihil a15 Deo exit mediate tantum.

p. 224

Conclusio 2. Secunda mediatio cadit in Deo respectu effectus producti a causa creata, quia ibi est ordo causarum et diversitas virtutum; sed tamen non est separatio, quia Deus intime agit, quia per se ipsum; agit16 nihilominus per virtutem creatam, quae ab ipso est.

Conclusio 3. Tertia mediatio cadit in operatione divina, in qua sunt agentes personae, in quibus attenditur ordo, quia una habet ab alia quod agat, sed tamen nec est ibi virtutum diversitas nec separatio vel distantia aliqua, immo una virtute et aeque intime agunt. Et sic Pater mediante Filio producit Spiritum sanctum, non quia sit medium distantiae vel differentiae, sed quia, quod Filius producat, hoc habet a Patre, ita quod est ibi quidam ordo. Et sic patet responsio ad sequens, cum dicit, quod mediatum et immediatum sunt opposita; verum est enim primo modo, sed non secundo nec tertio17.

Ad 2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Deus nullius est causa per accidens, ergo nec mediate; dicendum, quod per accidens aliquid causare derogat veritati18 causae supremae. Illius enim dicitur aliquid causa esse per accidens, cuius est causa per aliquid aliud, quod non est ab ipso, sed aliunde; si ergo Deus alicuius esset causa per accidens, non esset causa universalissima et prima, et ita nec nobilissima. Sed19 mediatio non repugnat nobilitati causae supremae. Causare enim aliquid20 per se et per id quod ab ipso est non dicit indignitatem, immo dignitatem, quia dignitas est non tantum per se aliquid posse, sed posse alii communicare, ita tamen quod ille sine eo nihil possit.

Ad 3. Ad illud quod ultimo obiicitur, quod Filius est immediatior causa; dicendum, quod non valet, quia ista mediatio, quae praedicta est, non repugnat immediationi, et ideo non diminuit eam.

Scholion

I. Pro elucidatione huius quaestionis servire potest quod dicit Petr. a Tar. (hic q. 1. a. 3.): «Respiciendo ad principium quo spirant, aeque immediate procedit Spiritus sanctus a Patre, sicut a Filio; respiciendo ad ipsos spirantes, similiter aeque immediate procedit a Patre, sicut a Filio, sed nihilominus etiam mediate procedit a Patre, quia non solum per se spirat, sed etiam mediante Filio».

II. Locutio: procedere mediante Filio in eodem sensu explicatur a S. Thom. (S. I. q. 36. a. 3. ad 1, 2). — Tres modi mediationis, qui in solut. ad 1. occurrunt, exemplis magis illustrari possunt. Primi modi exemplum est avus, qui est causa tantum mediata filiorum sui filii; et sic mediate et immediate contradictorie opponuntur, nec talis mediatio Deo tribui potest. Secundi modi exemplum in ipso textu adducitur, scil. cooperatio Dei cum actibus creaturarum. Deus enim sic operatur mediantibus causis secundis, ut tamen ista mediatio non excludat immediatam operationem divinam, qua intime attingit et causam secundam et effectum eius; sic sumtum mediatum et immediatum non opponuntur. Tertius modus mediationis respicit tantum ordinem divinarum personarum ad invicem, sive attendatur in operibus divinis ad extra, quae sunt indivisa, et tamen operantes personae habent ordinem inter se, sive attendatur in spiratione Spiritus sancti, in qua est ordo spirantium.

III. Circa id quod dicit ad 2, Deum non esse causam per accidens, cfr. II Sent. d. 37. q. 2. a. 2, ubi dicit: Causa per accidens dicitur respectu intentionis, non quatenus accidens est differentia entis.

IV. Quoad conclusionem: cfr. Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 46. m. 6. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 3; S. I. q. 36. a. 3. — B. Albert., hic a. 1. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. unic. a. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic q. 3. — Aegid. R., hic 2. princ. q. 2. — Durand., hic q. 3.

---

English Translation

Question III. Whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father with the Son as medium.

Thirdly it is asked whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father with the Son as medium.

Foundations:

1. And that He does, [it] seems [to follow] from Hilary, On the Trinity XII1, who, addressing the Father, says: «May I merit Thy Holy Spirit, who is from Thee through Him»: therefore the Holy Spirit is from the Father through the Son, therefore with the Son as medium.

2. Likewise, Richard2 says that in the divine being there is procession immediate only, and both mediate and immediate — mediate only cannot be — and he says that the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father is both mediate and immediate: therefore since no medium can fall save the Son, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father with the Son as medium.

3. Likewise, the procedure in that Trinity is similar to the procedure of the created image3; but love proceeds from mind through the medium of intellection: therefore the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. If you say there is no likeness in this respect, then the formal character of image is destroyed, because an image must represent the order and origin of the persons, not only the number in the persons, since this4 is found also in a vestige.

4. Likewise, if the Son alone were to spirate5 in such wise that the Father did not, then the Father would be said to spirate, but with the Son as medium, in such wise that there would be procession mediate only: therefore since spiration belongs to the Father per se and belongs to Him through this, that He is the principle of the spirating Son, therefore it belongs to Him both mediately and immediately; but if so6, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father with the Son as medium.

On the contrary:

1. An immediate principle is more noble than a mediate; but everything more noble is to be attributed to God7: therefore if the Father is the most noble principle of the Holy Spirit, He produces Him only immediately, not mediately. If you say that He produces both mediately and immediately at once; on the contrary: mediate and immediate are opposites; but opposites are not at once true of the same thing and with respect to the same8: therefore it is impossible that He produce both mediately and immediately at once.

2. Likewise, as per se is to per accidens, so mediate to immediate; but God is per accidens cause of nothing of which He is per se cause: therefore He is mediate principle of nothing of which He is immediate principle.

3. Likewise, that is more immediate which in no way receives a medium, than that which receives a medium; but the Son receives no medium in spirating: therefore He produces more immediately than the Father produces: therefore the Father and the Son do not altogether uniformly produce the Holy Spirit.

Conclusion. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father both immediately and with the Son as medium.

I respond: It must be said that, as Richard intends, the production9 of the Holy Spirit is both mediate and immediate: mediate, insofar as He is from the Son, and the Son from the Father; but immediate, insofar as the Holy Spirit Himself is spirated by the Father Himself.

Example. And an example of this is given in the going-forth of Abel from Adam. For Abel10 went forth immediately from Adam, because he himself begot him from his loins; nonetheless he went forth mediately, because he came forth from Eve, who was led from Adam or out of Adam. And this mode had to be in God, on account of the highest kinship.

The reason. For if the procession of the Holy Spirit were mediate only, so that He were only from the Son, there would not be the highest kinship of the Holy Spirit with the Father. Likewise, if [the procession were] altogether immediate, so that He were from the Father only, there would not be the highest kinship with the Son. And so it must be conceded11 that [He proceeds] with the Son as medium.

To the arguments to the contrary:

To 1. To that, then12, which is objected to the contrary — that the immediate principle is more noble — it must be said that mediation is in three modes. Three modes of mediation. For there is a mediation which excludes immediation altogether, as when the ultimate effect is not continued from the influence of the prior cause but is wholly produced through the medium, the prior not co-operating13; and this kind says order and diversity of agents and separation. In another way, mediation is said insofar as it says order of causes among themselves, not separation in acting, but only diversity of agents14 and order. In a third way, insofar as it says order, but not separation of the powers of the agents nor diversity.

Conclusion 1. The first mediation does not fall in God, because God is simply the first cause, whose influence is so great that no creature does anything if His influence is removed; and therefore nothing goes forth from15 God mediately only.

Conclusion 2. The second mediation falls in God with respect to an effect produced by a created cause, because there is order of causes and diversity of powers; yet there is no separation, because God acts intimately, because by Himself; He acts16 nonetheless through the created power, which is from Him.

Conclusion 3. The third mediation falls in the divine operation, in which the persons are agents, in whom an order is observed, because the one has from the other that He acts, but yet there is no diversity of powers nor separation or any distance, but rather they act by one power and equally intimately. And so the Father, with the Son as medium, produces the Holy Spirit — not because [the Son] is a medium of distance or difference, but because, that the Son produces, this He has from the Father, in such wise that there is here a certain order. And so the response to what follows is plain, when it says that mediate and immediate are opposites: this is true in the first mode, but not in the second nor the third17.

To 2. To what is objected, that God is cause of nothing per accidens, therefore neither mediately; it must be said that to cause something per accidens derogates from the truth18 of the supreme cause. For something is said to be cause of something per accidens whose cause it is through something else, which is not from itself but from elsewhere; if therefore God were cause per accidens of anything, He would not be the most universal and first cause, and so neither the most noble. But19 mediation does not repugn the nobility of the supreme cause. For to cause something20 per se and per that which is from Him does not say unworthiness, but rather worthiness, because it is worthiness not only to be able [to do] something by oneself, but to be able to communicate [it] to another, in such wise, however, that that one without [the first] could do nothing.

To 3. To what is objected last, that the Son is a more immediate cause; it must be said that [the argument] does not hold, because the mediation which has been described does not repugn immediation, and therefore does not diminish it.

Scholion

I. For the elucidation of this question, what Peter of Tarantasia says (here q. 1, a. 3) can serve: «Looking to the principle by which they spirate, the Holy Spirit proceeds equally immediately from the Father as from the Son; looking to the spirators themselves, likewise He proceeds equally immediately from the Father as from the Son, but nonetheless He also proceeds mediately from the Father, because [the Father] does not only spirate per se, but also with the Son as medium».

II. The expression to proceed with the Son as medium is explained in the same sense by St. Thomas (S. I, q. 36, a. 3, ad 1, 2). — The three modes of mediation occurring in the reply to 1 can be illustrated more by examples. An example of the first mode is a grandfather, who is cause only mediately of the children of his son; and so mediately and immediately are contradictorily opposed, nor can such a mediation be attributed to God. An example of the second mode is given in the text itself, namely the cooperation of God with the acts of creatures. For God so operates with second causes as media, that yet this mediation does not exclude the immediate divine operation by which He intimately reaches both the second cause and its effect; mediate and immediate taken in this way are not opposed. The third mode of mediation regards only the order of the divine persons among themselves — whether one looks to the divine works ad extra, which are undivided, and yet the operating persons have an order between themselves, or whether one looks to the spiration of the Holy Spirit, in which there is an order of the spirators.

III. Concerning what he says ad 2 — that God is not cause per accidens — cf. II Sent. d. 37, q. 2, a. 2, where he says: Cause per accidens is so called with respect to intention, not insofar as accident is a difference of being.

IV. As to the conclusion: cf. Alexander of Hales, S. p. I, q. 46, m. 6. — St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 3; S. I, q. 36, a. 3. — Bl. Albert, here a. 1. — Peter of Tarantasia, here q. unica, a. 3. — Richard of Mediavilla, here q. 3. — Giles of Rome, here 2. princ. q. 2. — Durandus, here q. 3.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. In fine. Vide lit. Magistri supra.
    [Hilary, De Trin. XII] at the end. See Lombard's text above [d12-littera].
  2. Libr. V de Trin. c. 7–9.
    Richard of St-Victor, On the Trinity V, cc. 7–9.
  3. De imagine creata vide supra q. 2.
    On the created image, see above [d. 9 / d. 3] q. 2.
  4. Fide mss. et ed. 1 substituimus hoc pro haec, quod Vat. perperam ponit. Sub hoc intellige: repraesentare numerum.
    On the testimony of the manuscripts and ed. 1 we have substituted hoc for haec, which the Vatican wrongly places. Under hoc understand: to represent number.
  5. Ex pluribus mss. ut I aa bb et ed. 1 mutavimus spirat in spiraret, quod subnexis magis congruit. Mox post non Pater ed. 1 addit non.
    From several manuscripts (I aa bb) and ed. 1 we have changed spirat to spiraret, which agrees better with what follows. Just after non Pater, ed. 1 adds non.
  6. In ed. 1 additur ergo.
    In ed. 1, ergo is added.
  7. Unus alterve codex ut Y cc attribuendum.
    A codex or two, as Y cc, read attribuendum.
  8. Vide Aristot., XI Metaph. c. 4 (X, c. 5), et de Praedicam. c. de Oppositis.
    See Aristotle, Metaphysics XI, c. 4 (X, c. 5), and Categories, ch. On Opposites.
  9. Cod. E processio.
    Codex E reads processio.
  10. Vat., plurimis mss. et ed. 1 refragantibus, omittit enim. — De hoc exemplo vide Richard. a S. Vict., V de Trin. c. 6.
    The Vatican, with very many manuscripts and ed. 1 resisting, omits enim. — On this example see Richard of St-Victor, On the Trinity V, c. 6.
  11. Cod. V addit est; cod. O autem post quod adiungit procedit.
    Codex V adds est; codex O after quod adds procedit.
  12. Ope plurium mss. ut A F W etc. et ed. 1 supplevimus ergo.
    With the help of several manuscripts (A F W etc.) and ed. 1 we have supplied ergo.
  13. Cod. A operante. Ed. 1 paulo infra post Alio modo habet est pro dicitur.
    Codex A reads operante. Ed. 1, a little below, after Alio modo has est in place of dicitur.
  14. Auctoritate mss. et edd. 1, 2, 3, 6 expunximus virtutum, quod Vat. praemittit verbo agentium. Mox post Tertio modo cod. X repetit dicitur mediatio.
    On the authority of the manuscripts and editions 1, 2, 3, 6 we have expunged virtutum, which the Vatican prefixes to the word agentium. Just after Tertio modo, codex X repeats dicitur mediatio.
  15. Fide mss. et ed. 1 substituimus a loco ex.
    On the testimony of the manuscripts and ed. 1 we have substituted a in place of ex.
  16. Vat., interpunctione mutata, refert verbum agit ad per se ipsum, atque deinde adiungit et, sed mss. obnitentibus; ed. 1 loco et bene repetit agit; cod. F minus bene post nihilominus addit est actio; insuper secundum ponit pro per.
    The Vatican, with the punctuation altered, refers the verb agit to per se ipsum, and thereafter adds et, but with the manuscripts resisting; ed. 1 in place of et well repeats agit; codex F less well after nihilominus adds est actio; moreover it places secundum in place of per.
  17. Varii codd. varie legunt; cod. F loco enim ponit sed; cod. H post enim addit aliquo modo scilicet; multi codd. cum edd. 1, 2, 3 mendose verum est enim, sed non primo modo, sed secundo vel tertio; cod. T incomplete verum est enim, sed non cadit mediatio in Deo primo modo, sed secundo vel tertio, quae lectio a posteriore manu mutata est in eam quam habet Vaticana. Coniectamus, lectionem genuinam esse: verum est enim primo modo; sed non cadit mediatio in Deo primo modo, sed secundo vel tertio, qua lectione et codices reconciliantur.
    Various codices read variously; codex F places sed in place of enim; codex H after enim adds aliquo modo scilicet; many codices with editions 1, 2, 3 erroneously [read] verum est enim, sed non primo modo, sed secundo vel tertio; codex T incompletely verum est enim, sed non cadit mediatio in Deo primo modo, sed secundo vel tertio, which reading was altered by a later hand into that which the Vatican has. We conjecture that the genuine reading is: verum est enim primo modo; sed non cadit mediatio in Deo primo modo, sed secundo vel tertio — by which reading the codices are also reconciled.
  18. In cod. H additur et nobilitati; in cod. T a secunda manu nomen veritati mutatum est in universalitati. — De causa per se et per accidens cfr. Aristot., II Phys. text. 50 (c. 5), ubi ait: Ut enim et ens, aliud quidem per se est, aliud autem secundum accidens; sic et causam contingit esse...
    In codex H et nobilitati is added; in codex T by a second hand the noun veritati was changed to universalitati. — On cause per se and per accidens cf. Aristotle, Physics II, text 50 (c. 5), where he says: «For just as being is one thing per se, another per accidens, so it happens with cause...»
  19. Pauci codd. ut V X Z addunt haec; cod. Y melius post mediatio adiungit quae in Deo ponitur.
    A few codices, as V X Z, add haec; codex Y better adds after mediatio the words quae in Deo ponitur.
  20. Ex antiquioribus mss. et edd. 1, 6 substituimus aliquid loco aliud. Mox aliqui codd. ut B T X illud pro id, et paulo infra cod. Y cum ed. 1 dignitatis loco dignitas.
    From the older manuscripts and editions 1 and 6 we have substituted aliquid in place of aliud. Just after, some codices, as B T X, read illud in place of id, and a little below codex Y with ed. 1 reads dignitatis in place of dignitas.
← Dist. 12, Art. 1, Q. 2Dist. 12, Art. 1, Q. 4→