← Back to Distinction 14

Dist. 14, Art. 1, Q. 1

Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity · Distinction 14

Textus Latinus
p. 245

Articulus I. De processione temporali Spiritus sancti.

### Quaestio I. Utrum processio temporalis Spiritus sancti ponenda sit.

Quod sit ponenda processio temporalis, videtur:

1. Per Bedam, qui dicit in homilia, et habetur in littera1: «Spiritus sancti missio est eius processio»; sed missio est temporalis: ergo est ponere processionem Spiritus sancti temporalem.

2. Item, hoc ipsum ostenditur ratione sic: procedere est ab uno in alium; cum ergo Spiritus sanctus sit a Deo et sit in creatura et in creatura sit a Deo2, a Deo procedit in creaturam; hoc autem non est, antequam creatura sit, sed hoc est ex tempore: ergo etc.

3. Item, donum sive datum a dante procedit in accipientem, cum datur; sed Spiritus sanctus ex tempore datur: ergo ex tempore procedit a dante in recipientem3: ergo est ponere processionem temporalem.

Contra:

1. Spiritus sancti processio idem est quod eius spiratio; sed non dicitur eius spiratio aliqua temporalis: ergo nec processio.

2. Item, sicut processio se habet ad Spiritum sanctum, sic generatio ad Filium, et quemadmodum Spiritus sanctus mittitur in mentem, ita4 Filius, et utrumque ex tempore; sed generatio Filii ratione talis missionis nullo modo dicitur temporalis: ergo nec processio Spiritus sancti.

3. Item, processio Spiritus sancti non dicitur temporalis, nisi secundum quod est processio ab aliquo in aliquid, utpote in creaturam; sed processio ab aliquo in aliquid non est nisi dupliciter: aut secundum processum ab agente in suscipiens, aut secundum processum a loco in locum. Sed primo modo non est temporalis processio, quia Spiritus sanctus est persona in se fixa et stans: ergo non producitur in suscipiente5. Secundo modo non, quia quod tali modo procedit, a principio recedit et ad terminum accedit; hoc autem non convenit Spiritui sancto.

4. Item, omne quod temporaliter procedit ab alio, habet initium essendi ex tempore; si ergo Spiritus sanctus temporaliter procedit, ergo eius6 esse incipit.

5. Item, processio temporalis aut dicitur temporalis ratione Spiritus sancti aut7 gratiae: non ratione Spiritus sancti, quia persona aeterna est; similiter videtur, quod nec ratione gratiae, quia Augustinus dicit quarto de Trinitate8: «Secundum quod aliquid aeternum mente capimus, non sumus in hoc mundo»: ergo si gratia elevat ad capiendum aeternum esse eius, et processio non est temporalis, ergo nec processio Spiritus sancti ratione gratiae.

6. Item, in processione Spiritus sancti in creaturam est processio Doni increati, quod est Spiritus sanctus, et doni creati, quod est gratia; sed Donum increatum est nobilius; ergo cum a nobiliori debeat fieri denominatio9, processio Spiritus sancti in creaturam debet dici processio increata; sed omnis talis non temporalis: ergo etc.

Conclusio. Ponenda est processio Spiritus sancti temporalis non ratione eius, a quo procedit, sed ratione eius, in quod procedit sicut in susceptivum, in quo recipitur.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod processio, secundum quod communiter accipitur de Filio et de Spiritu sancto, dicitur emanatio ab hoc, scilicet a Patre; secundum quod dicitur de Spiritu sancto, dicitur processio ab uno in alium. Sed procedere ab uno in alium est dupliciter: aut sicut in obiectum, in quod protenditur, aut sicut in susceptivum, in quo recipitur. Et primus quidem modus est in processione aeterna11; quia enim Spiritus sanctus procedit ut amor mutuus, ideo procedit a duobus, ita quod ab uno in alium. «Spiritus enim sanctus, ut dicit Hieronymus10 et Augustinus, amor est, quo Pater amat Filium et Filius amat Patrem».

p. 246

Secundus modus in illa esse non potuit, quamvis ita intellexerint Graeci, quod in Filio recipitur Spiritus sanctus et a Patre producitur. Sed penes secundum modum — cum receptio Spiritus sancti sit per influentiam doni12 gratuiti, quod ex tempore est — attenditur processio temporalis, secundum quam Spiritus sanctus dicitur procedere ab aliquo in aliquem non tantum sicut in obiectum, sed sicut in habitaculum. Et sic concedendum est, quod est processio temporalis Spiritus sancti, non ratione eius a quo, sed ratione eius in quod procedit.

Ad argumenta:

Ad 1, 2. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur de spiratione et generatione, iam patet responsio, quia neutrum praedictorum nominum respectum dicit ad13 terminum, in quem fit processio.

Ad 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod processio Spiritus sancti non potest esse ab aliquo in aliquid14 ut in susceptivum; dicendum, quod verum est ratione ipsius personae; sed tamen ratione connotati, quod est gratia, in qua datur Spiritus sanctus, suscipitur, quia gratia est in aliquo sicut in susceptivo.

Ad 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur: quod temporaliter procedit incipit esse; dicendum, quod hoc est dupliciter15, quia haec determinatio temporaliter potest poni circa actum procedendi per comparationem ad principium a quo, vel in comparatione ad terminum in quem. Primo modo vera est propositio; sed sic non dicitur Spiritus sanctus16 procedere temporaliter, eo quod ex tempore producatur. Alio modo per comparationem ad terminum in quem; sic17 non habet veritatem, si procedit in hoc ex tempore, quod habeat initium, sed solum, quod incipiat esse in hoc.

Ad 5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod gratia non procedit temporaliter, quia elevat ad aeternum; dicendum, quod temporale dicitur tripliciter. Uno modo dicitur temporale quod habet initium et variationem et actum in tempore; et hoc modo dicitur temporale quod subiacet tempori et est corruptibile et variabile. Secundo modo dicitur temporale quod habet initium essendi in tempore18, sed non variationem, ut anima. Tertio modo dicitur temporale quod habet initium in tempore, sed actum extra tempus et supra tempus elevatum; et hoc tertio modo dicitur temporalis processio vel gratiae donatio.

Potest tamen dici, quod gratia habet esse temporale ratione eius in quo est, scilicet liberi arbitrii19, quod mutatur et variatur; et verbum Augustini, quod dicit, quod non sumus in hoc mundo, est intelligendum quantum ad conformitatem.

Ad 6. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod denominatio debet esse a digniori; dicendum, quod totum copulatum, quia destruitur destructione cuiuslibet partis, habet denominationem a parte imperfectiori. Unde si una pars copulationis est falsa, totum copulatum dicitur esse falsum; si una contingens, totum iudicatur contingens; si una temporalis, et totum temporale20. Quia ergo processio temporalis includit emanationem aeternam personae et emanationem gratiae, quae temporalis est, ideo dicitur temporalis et non aeterna.

Et quod21 dicitur, quod denominatio debet fieri a digniori; dicendum, quod non est verum nisi in eo, in quo illud quod minus dignum est, conformatur digniori.

Scholion

I. Posito hoc principio, quod in processione amoris praeter principium a quo sit etiam terminus ad quem, quia amor tendit in alium, unde est in amante ut in subiecto, in amato vero ut in obiecto seu termino, ipse terminus processionis iterum distinguitur. Aut enim est simpliciter obiectum sive terminus, aut est aliquod susceptivum, i. e. tale subiectum, quod aliquid recipit. Hic secundus modus propter suam imperfectionem non convenit divinis personis in se spectatis, invenitur tamen in missione temporali, quatenus creatura rationalis per gratiam fit habitaculum Spiritus sancti.

p. 247

Tunc enim Spiritus sanctus in hac creatura de novo incipit esse vel alio modo esse, quam antea erat; per quod, ut dicit Richard. a Med. (hic q. 1.), «importatur nova realis habitudo ipsius termini ad Spiritum sanctum, cui respondet nova habitudo secundum dici in Spiritu sancto ad ipsum terminum. Sic cum talis habitudo sit ex tempore, dico, quod secundum hanc habitudinem vel ratione huius habitudinis Spiritus sanctus procedit ex tempore».

II. Ut solut. ad 2. melius intelligatur, supponendum est, quod idem Richard. (loc. cit. ad 1.) dicit: «Non est simile de generatione et processione, quia generatio importat tantum habitudinem ad principium a quo, sed processio Spiritus sancti non tantum importat habitudinem ad principium a quo, sed etiam ad terminum ad quem. Divina autem persona non potest importare habitudinem ad aliquid temporale sicut ad principium a quo; ergo non potest esse aliqua generatio divinae personae nisi ratione humanae naturae, quae non sit aeterna etc.».

III. Pro ampliore huius quaestionis dilucidatione serviunt quae sequuntur in hac et duabus seqq. qq. Cfr. etiam Breviloq. p. I. c. 5; Comment. in S. Ioan. c. 1. 34. (in Suppl. Bonelli tom. I.). Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 71. m. 2; et q. 73. m. 1. — Scot., de hac et seq. in utroque scripto hic q. unic. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 1. 2; S. I. q. 43. a. 1. 2. 6. 7. — B. Albert., hic a. 1. 10; S. I. tr. 7. q. 32. m. 1. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 1. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 1. — Aegid. R., hic 1. princ. q. 1. — Henr. Gand., de hac et seq. S. a. 61. q. 2. n. 6; et q. 10. n. 6. seq. — Durand., hic q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 1. — Biel, de hac et seq. hic q. 1.

---

English Translation

Article I. On the temporal procession of the Holy Spirit.

### Question I. Whether a temporal procession of the Holy Spirit is to be posited.

That a temporal procession is to be posited seems [to be the case]:

1. Through Bede, who says in the homily, and is held in the [Master's] text1: "The mission of the Holy Spirit is His procession"; but mission is temporal: therefore a temporal procession of the Holy Spirit is to be posited.

2. Likewise, this same is shown by reason thus: to proceed is from one into another; since therefore the Holy Spirit is from God and is in the creature and in the creature is from God2, He proceeds from God into the creature; but this is not before the creature exists, but is from time: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, a gift or thing-given proceeds from the giver into the receiver, when it is given; but the Holy Spirit is given from time: therefore from time He proceeds from the giver into the receiver3: therefore a temporal procession is to be posited.

On the contrary:

1. The procession of the Holy Spirit is the same as His spiration; but no spiration of His is called temporal: therefore neither [is His] procession.

2. Likewise, just as procession stands toward the Holy Spirit, so generation toward the Son; and just as the Holy Spirit is sent into the mind, so likewise4 is the Son, both from time; but the generation of the Son by reason of such a mission is in no way called temporal: therefore neither [is] the procession of the Holy Spirit.

3. Likewise, the procession of the Holy Spirit is not called temporal except insofar as it is a procession from something into something, namely into a creature; but procession from something into something occurs only in two ways: either according to procession from the agent into the recipient, or according to procession from place to place. But in the first way it is not a temporal procession, since the Holy Spirit is a person fixed and standing in Himself: therefore He is not produced in a recipient5. In the second way [also] not, since what proceeds in such a way recedes from a starting-point and approaches a terminus; but this does not befit the Holy Spirit.

4. Likewise, everything that temporally proceeds from another has a beginning of being from time; if therefore the Holy Spirit temporally proceeds, therefore His6 being begins.

5. Likewise, a temporal procession is so called either by reason of the Holy Spirit or7 of grace: not by reason of the Holy Spirit, since [He is] an eternal person; likewise it seems that not by reason of grace, since Augustine says in the fourth [book] of On the Trinity8: "Insofar as we grasp something eternal with the mind, we are not in this world": therefore if grace elevates [us] to grasping His eternal being, [grace's] procession is not temporal, therefore neither [is] the procession of the Holy Spirit by reason of grace.

6. Likewise, in the procession of the Holy Spirit into the creature there is the procession of an uncreated Gift, which is the Holy Spirit, and of a created gift, which is grace; but the uncreated Gift is more noble; therefore since denomination ought to be made from the more noble9, the procession of the Holy Spirit into the creature ought to be called an uncreated procession; but every such [procession is] not temporal: therefore etc.

Conclusion. A temporal procession of the Holy Spirit must be posited, not by reason of Him from whom He proceeds, but by reason of that into which He proceeds as into a recipient, in which He is received.

I respond: It must be said that procession, insofar as it is taken in common of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, is called emanation from this one, namely from the Father; insofar as it is said of the Holy Spirit [specifically], it is called procession from one into another. But to proceed from one into another is in two ways: either as into an object, into which it is extended, or as into a recipient, in which it is received. And the first way indeed is in the eternal procession11; for since the Holy Spirit proceeds as mutual love, He proceeds from two, in such a way that from one into another. "For the Holy Spirit, as Jerome10 and Augustine say, is the love by which the Father loves the Son and the Son loves the Father."

The second mode could not be in that [eternal procession], although the Greeks so understood [it], that the Holy Spirit is received in the Son and produced from the Father. But under the second mode — since the reception of the Holy Spirit is through the influence of a gratuitous gift12, which is from time — is considered the temporal procession, according to which the Holy Spirit is said to proceed from someone into someone not only as into an object, but as into a habitation. And thus it must be conceded that there is a temporal procession of the Holy Spirit, not by reason of Him from whom, but by reason of that into which He proceeds.

Replies to the arguments:

To 1 and 2. To that which is objected concerning spiration and generation, the response is now apparent, since neither of the aforesaid names expresses a relation to13 the terminus into which the procession is made.

To 3. To that which is objected, that the procession of the Holy Spirit cannot be from something into something14 as into a recipient; it must be said that this is true by reason of the person itself; but yet by reason of what is connoted, which is grace, in which the Holy Spirit is given, He is received, since grace is in something as in a recipient.

To 4. To that which is objected: that what proceeds temporally begins to be; it must be said that this is in two ways15, since this determination temporally can be placed around the act of proceeding either by comparison to the principle from which, or by comparison to the terminus into which. In the first way the proposition is true; but the Holy Spirit16 is not so called to proceed temporally — that He would be produced from time. In the other way, by comparison to the terminus into which: thus17 it does not have truth, [namely] if He proceeds in this from time, [in such a way] that He has a beginning, but only that He begins to be in this [terminus].

To 5. To that which is objected, that grace does not proceed temporally because it elevates to the eternal; it must be said that temporal is said in three ways. In one way that is called temporal which has its beginning and variation and act in time; and in this way that is called temporal which is subject to time and is corruptible and variable. In a second way that is called temporal which has a beginning of being in time18, but not variation, like the soul. In a third way that is called temporal which has its beginning in time, but its act outside of time and elevated above time; and in this third way the temporal procession or the giving of grace is so called.

It can however be said that grace has temporal being by reason of that in which it is, namely free choice19, which is changed and varies; and Augustine's word, where he says that we are not in this world, is to be understood as regards conformity.

To 6. To that which is objected, that denomination ought to be from the more worthy; it must be said that the whole conjoined [thing], since it is destroyed by the destruction of any [one] of its parts, takes its denomination from the more imperfect part. Whence if one part of a conjunction is false, the whole conjoined [whole] is called false; if one [is] contingent, the whole is judged contingent; if one [is] temporal, the whole [is] temporal20. Therefore since the temporal procession includes the eternal emanation of the person and the temporal emanation of grace, [the latter] which is temporal, therefore it is called temporal and not eternal.

And as to what21 is said, that denomination ought to be made from the more worthy; it must be said that this is not true except in that [case] in which what is less worthy is conformed to the more worthy.

Scholion

I. Once this principle is posited — that in the procession of love, besides the principle from which there is also a terminus to which, since love tends into another, whence it is in the lover as in a subject, but in the beloved as in an object or terminus — that very terminus of procession is again distinguished. For either it is simply an object or terminus, or it is some recipient, that is, such a subject as receives something. This second mode, on account of its imperfection, does not befit the divine persons considered in themselves; yet it is found in the temporal mission, insofar as the rational creature through grace is made the habitation of the Holy Spirit. For then the Holy Spirit in this creature begins to be anew, or to be in another way than He was before; through which, as Richard of Mediavilla says (here q. 1.), "a new real relation of the terminus itself to the Holy Spirit is imported, to which corresponds a new relation according to manner of expression in the Holy Spirit to the terminus itself. Thus, since such a relation is from time, I say that according to this relation, or by reason of this relation, the Holy Spirit proceeds from time."

II. That the solution to [obj.] 2 may be better understood, it must be supposed what the same Richard (loc. cit. ad 1.) says: "Generation and procession are not alike, since generation imports only a relation to the principle from which, but the procession of the Holy Spirit imports not only a relation to the principle from which, but also to the terminus to which. But a divine person cannot import a relation to anything temporal as to a principle from which; therefore there cannot be any generation of a divine person except by reason of the human nature, which is not eternal etc."

III. For a fuller elucidation of this question, what follows in this and the two following questions serves. Cf. also Breviloquium p. I. c. 5; Commentary on St. John c. 1. 34. (in Bonelli's Supplement, tom. I.). Alex. of Hales, Summa p. I. q. 71. m. 2; and q. 73. m. 1. — Scotus, on this and the following [question] in both writings here q. unic. — S. Thomas, here q. 1. a. 1. 2; Summa I. q. 43. a. 1. 2. 6. 7. — Bl. Albert, here a. 1. 10; Summa I. tr. 7. q. 32. m. 1. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1. a. 1. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1. q. 1. — Aegidius Romanus, here lect. 1. princ. q. 1. — Henry of Ghent, on this and the following Summa a. 61. q. 2. n. 6; and q. 10. n. 6. seq. — Durand[us], here q. 1. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 1. — Biel, on this and the following here q. 1.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Hic, c. 1, in quo textu fide mss. et ed. 1 adiunximus eius.
    Here [in the Sentences], c. 1, in which text on the authority of the manuscripts and ed. 1 we have added eius.
  2. Ita codd. cum ed. 1, dum Vat. perperam omittit et in creatura sit a Deo. Paulo ante cod. K post alium addit tendere vel ab uno in alio esse.
    Thus the codices with ed. 1, while the Vatican [edition] wrongly omits et in creatura sit a Deo. Shortly before, codex K after alium adds tendere vel ab uno in alio esse.
  3. Plures codd. ut FGH cum ed. 1 accipientem.
    Several codices, as FGH, with ed. 1 [read] accipientem.
  4. In nonnullis mss. ut R bb ff et ed. 1 adiungitur et.
    In several manuscripts, such as R bb ff, and in ed. 1, et is added.
  5. Auctoritate mss. et edd. 1, 2, 3 expunximus hic in Vat. additum sed in se. Paulo ante cod. W post processio legit respectu Spiritus sancti; est enim persona; cod. Y autem nomini persona praemittit tali modo, quod refertur ad primo modo.
    On the authority of the manuscripts and editions 1, 2, 3 we have here deleted, in the Vatican [edition], the added sed in se. Shortly before, codex W after processio reads respectu Spiritus sancti; est enim persona; codex Y, however, prefixes tali modo to the noun persona, which is referred to primo modo.
  6. In Vat. et cod. cc desideratur eius, quod in aliis mss. et ed. 1 habetur.
    In the Vatican [edition] and codex cc eius is missing, which is held in the other manuscripts and ed. 1.
  7. Cod. M hic repetit ratione.
    Codex M here repeats ratione.
  8. Cap. 20. n. 28.
    Chapter 20, n. 28.
  9. Cfr. supra Prooem. q. 4. arg. 2. ad opp.
    Cf. above, the Prooemium, q. 4, arg. 2 ad oppositum.
  10. Comment. in Psalm. 17. — August., VI. de Trin. c. 5. n. 7. Vide supra d. X. lit. Magistri, c. 2. — Verba praecedentia: ab uno in alium procedit, intelligenda sunt secundum ea quae dicta sunt d. 13. a. 1. q. 1. ad 1.
    Commentary on Psalm 17. — Augustine, On the Trinity VI, c. 5, n. 7. See above d. X, the Master's text, c. 2. — The preceding words, ab uno in alium procedit, are to be understood according to what was said at d. 13. a. 1. q. 1. ad 1.
  11. In ed. 1 explicative additur aeterna emanatione, in qua et paulo infra cum aliquibus mss. ut aa bb recipiatur pro recipitur et producatur loco producitur habetur. In fine huius propositionis Vat., omisso puncto, prosequitur propositionem.
    In ed. 1 aeterna emanatione is added by way of explanation, in which [edition] also a little further on, with some manuscripts such as aa bb, recipiatur is held in place of recipitur and producatur in place of producitur. At the end of this proposition the Vatican [edition], with the period omitted, continues the proposition.
  12. Sequimur plures codd. ut H I aa bb ee cum ed. 1 loco boni ponendo doni, quod tertio argumento in princ. huius quaestionis respondet. Paulo infra ex mss. antiquioribus et ed. 1 substituimus secundum quam loco secundum quod.
    We follow several codices such as H I aa bb ee, with ed. 1, putting doni in place of boni, which corresponds to the third argument at the beginning of this question. A little further on, from the older manuscripts and ed. 1, we have substituted secundum quam for secundum quod.
  13. Ex cod. Z et ed. 1 substituimus ad pro minus apta praepositione in, quae et immediate post recurrens forte occasionem praebuit unum pro altero ponendi.
    From codex Z and ed. 1 we have substituted ad for the less apt preposition in, which, recurring also immediately afterwards, perhaps offered the occasion for putting the one in place of the other.
  14. Supplevimus in aliquid, quod et contextu exigitur et ipsa obiectione supra posita nec non auctoritate cod. Z comprobatur. Mox fide antiquiorum mss. et ed. 1 susceptivum posuimus pro receptivum.
    We have supplied in aliquid, which is both demanded by the context and confirmed by the objection itself posed above as well as by the authority of codex Z. Shortly afterwards, on the authority of the older manuscripts and ed. 1, we have put susceptivum for receptivum.
  15. Lectio Vat. haec est duplex emendatur ope mss. et ed. 1.
    The reading of the Vatican [edition], haec est duplex, is corrected with the help of the manuscripts and ed. 1.
  16. Vetustiores codd. cum ed. 1 exhibent sanctus, omissum a Vat. et cod. cc.
    The older codices, with ed. 1, present sanctus, omitted by the Vatican [edition] and codex cc.
  17. Ed. 1 et sic, quae et paulo post cum aliquibus mss. ut A aa cc ponit procedat loco procedit.
    Ed. 1 [reads] et sic, which [edition] also a little afterwards, with some manuscripts such as A aa cc, puts procedat in place of procedit.
  18. Vat. contra antiquiores codd. et ed. 1 minus bene, verbis transpositis, in tempore essendi.
    The Vatican [edition], against the older codices and ed. 1, less well, with the words transposed, [reads] in tempore essendi.
  19. Substituimus fide mss. (propter abbreviationem plures sunt dubiae lectionis) et ed. 1, nec non constructione grammaticali exigente, liberi arbitrii pro liberum arbitrium. — Explicationem verborum Augustini vide etiam infra d. 15. p. II. dub. 5.
    We have substituted, on the authority of the manuscripts (on account of the abbreviation, several are of doubtful reading) and of ed. 1, and also as the grammatical construction demands, liberi arbitrii for liberum arbitrium. — For the explanation of Augustine's words, see also below, d. 15. p. II. dub. 5.
  20. Pro syllogismo exprimitur hoc idem sequenti regula: Peiorem sequitur semper conclusio partem, i. e. si una praemissarum fuerit particularis aut negativa, conclusio erit particularis aut negativa. — Paulo ante post dicitur exhibemus lectionem plurimorum mss. addendo esse, quod Vat. omittit cum ed. 1 et uno alterove codice. Ed. 1 cum cod. aa iudicatur loco dicitur, pro quo cod. V erit et cod. Y est.
    In place of a syllogism, the same is expressed by the following rule: Peiorem sequitur semper conclusio partem, that is, if one of the premises is particular or negative, the conclusion will be particular or negative. — A little before, after dicitur, we present the reading of most manuscripts by adding esse, which the Vatican [edition] omits along with ed. 1 and one or two codices. Ed. 1, with codex aa, [reads] iudicatur in place of dicitur; in place of which codex V [reads] erit and codex Y [reads] est.
  21. Cod. Y si pro quod.
    Codex Y [reads] si for quod.
← Dist. 14, Divisio TextusDist. 14, Art. 1, Q. 2→