title: Dist. 11, Art. 1, Q. 1

title_alt: Utrum Spiritus sanctus a Patre et a Filio procedat

title_alt: Whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son

source_text:
<!-- page 209 -->

### Articulus unicus.
### Quaestio I. *Utrum Spiritus sanctus a Patre et a Filio procedat.*

Quod autem solum a Patre procedat, probant Graeci ratione et auctoritate.

1. *Ratione* sic: emanatio Spiritus sancti est processio; sed processio est motus ab uno in alium: ergo si recte est processio in divinis, Spiritus sanctus aeterna processione procedit ab uno in alium. Si ergo procedit a Filio, aut procedit in Patrem, aut in aliam personam; non in Patrem, quia Pater nihil accipit a Filio, nec in aliam personam, cum non sit dare quartam: ergo non procedit a Filio.

2. Item, alia ratione sic: quia Spiritus sanctus procedit per modum spirationis, sicut Verbum per modum locutionis; sed ita videmus in creaturis, quod exitus locutionis non praecedit spirationem, nec egressus spiritus est a verbo: ergo nec in divinis Spiritus sanctus a Filio.

3. Item, Spiritus sanctus, ut omnes dicunt, procedit per modum nexus, sed nexus tenet rationem medii; sed si procederet a Patre et Filio, teneret rationem tertii et extremi, non medii: ergo non procedit a Patre et Filio, sed potius a Patre in Filium.

4. Item, Spiritus sanctus procedit a Patre aut sufficienter, aut non. Si non sufficienter et plene, ergo Pater imperfectus est in spirando; si sufficienter, ergo superfluum est fieri per duo quod potest fieri per unum sufficienter[^1]: ergo si a Filio procedit, cum procedat plene a Patre, in illa summa Trinitate est superfluitas, quod absurdum est.

5. Item, hoc ipsum nituntur Graeci ostendere per *auctoritatem*; sed non possunt per sacrae Scripturae introductionem[^2], ideo arguunt per privationem in Evangeliis, et maxime in Evangelio Ioannis et Epistolis, ubi integre traditur nostra fides, sed in nullo dicitur, quod Spiritus sanctus procedat nisi a Patre tantum; Ioannis decimo quinto[^3]: *Spiritum veritatis, qui a Patre procedit*: ergo aut Evangelia insufficienter fidem docent, aut Spiritus sanctus tantum procedit a Patre.

6. Item, in quatuor Conciliis apud Graecos celebratis, ubi a Patribus fides sufficienter est explicata, dicitur, quod Spiritus sanctus procedat a Patre, et nihil dicitur de Filio: ergo si Deus sufficienter illis fidem revelavit: ergo etc.

7. Item, hunc errorem munire[^4] nituntur per Doctores, qui non solum apud eos, sed etiam apud nos celebres sunt. Et primo per Gregorium Nazianzenum[^5], qui dicitur Theologus: «Filius et Spiritus sanctus, geminus Patris radius, usque ad nos miserunt claritatem suam»: ergo exeunt a Patre, ut duo radii.

8. Et Dionysius etiam dicit in libro *de Divinis Nominibus*[^6]: «Ex immateriali et impartibili bono cordialia exorta sunt lumina», — loquitur de Patre — ergo exeunt ut lumina; sed talia sic se habent, quod unum non est ab altero: ergo etc.

9. Item, Damascenus[^7] expressius: «Spiritum sanctum ex Patre dicimus et Spiritum Patris nominamus; Spiritum vero sanctum ex Filio non dicimus, et tamen Spiritum Filii nominamus».

10. Item, si Latini hoc cognoverunt, cum Graeci non cognoverunt, aut fuit hoc *Scripturae auctoritate*, aut *praedicatione*, aut *ratione*, aut *revelatione*. Scripturae auctoritate non; quia eandem per omnia Scripturam habent Graeci; similiter nec praedicatione, quia idem doctor Graecorum, qui est et Latinorum, qui eis fidem perfecte tradidit, scilicet Paulus Apostolus; si ratione, sed ratione non sufficit aliquid affirmare in his quae sunt fidei. Unde Dionysius et Damascenus dicunt, quod nihil est dicendum nec cogitandum de illa summa Trinitate praeter id quod nos sacra eloquia docuerunt, et Hieronymus[^8]: «Nil credatur mihi, nisi confirmavero per novum et vetus Testamentum». Si revelatione, quaeritur, cui fuerit revelatum et cum Deus velit omnes homines salvos fieri, quare hoc non revelavit Graecis? Et iterum, quomodo constat quod hoc fuerit a Deo?

**Contrarium**[^9]. *Fundamenta.*

1. Arguitur ratione ostensiva sic: Spiritus sanctus secundum omnes fideles procedit ut donum, sicut ex multis locis Scripturae probatur; et iterum, omnes tam Graeci quam Latini dicunt, Spiritum sanctum a Filio nobis donari: ergo omnes concedunt, procedere ab utroque, cum non detur, nisi a quo procedit.

2. Item, Spiritus sanctus secundum omnes, et sicut supra ostensum est[^10], procedit ut amor; sed amare non tantum est Patris, sed etiam Filii, unde et per omnia amat Filius, sicut et Pater: ergo si a Patre amante amor procedit, eadem ratione a Filio.

3. Item, Spiritus sanctus secundum omnes procedit ut nexus[^11]; sed perfectior nexus est, qui ab extremo utroque procedit, quam qui ab altero: ergo si Spiritus sanctus est nexus perfectissimus, non solum a Patre procedit, sed etiam a Filio.

4. Item, hoc idem ostenditur ratione ducente ad impossibile sic: omnis distinctio personarum in divinis attenditur secundum relationem et originem: ergo si Spiritus sanctus non procedit a Filio, nec e converso, nulla est ibi origo: ergo nulla est ibi mutua relatio, ergo nec distinctio.

5. Item, maior germanitas est inter duos, quando unus procedit ab altero, et ambo a tertio, quam si unus nihil habeat ab altero; haec est per se nota: ergo si Spiritus sanctus non est a Filio, nec e converso, non[^12] est perfecta unio: ergo nec summa nec perfecta beatitudo.

<!-- page 211 -->

6. Item, perfectior est expressio, quando generans communicat genito non tantum substantiam, sed etiam actum, qui naturae geniti non repugnat; sed actus spirandi non repugnat Filio, quia nullum ex hoc inconveniens sequitur, si spiret: ergo si Pater hunc actum ei non communicat, Filius non est perfecta imago.

7. Item, hoc ipsum ostenditur *auctoritatibus*, et primo auctoritate Apostoli ad Galatas quarto[^13]: *Misit Deus Spiritum Filii sui* etc.; ergo cum Pater non mittat Spiritum nisi Filii, idem est Spiritus Patris et Filii; sed eius est Spiritus, a quo procedit: ergo Spiritus sanctus procedit a Patre et Filio. Si dicas, quod non sequitur, quia non dicitur Filii, quia procedit a Filio, sed quia est in Filio: ergo eadem ratione, cum Filius sit in Spiritu sancto, potest dici Filius Filius Spiritus sancti[^14].

8. Item, Ioannis decimo quinto[^15]: «Quem ego mittam vobis a Patre Spiritum veritatis». Ex hoc arguitur sic: nullus mittit alium, nisi habeat auctoritatem super illum; nullus autem habet auctoritatem super alium, nisi aliquid tribuat ei; sed nulla persona tribuit alii[^16], nisi ab ipsa procedat: ergo a primo, Spiritus sanctus procedit a Filio. Si dicas, quod a Filio mittitur ex tempore et ex tempore procedit; contra: Filius non ideo habet auctoritatem, quia mittit, sed ideo mittit, quia habet auctoritatem: ergo ante habet auctoritatem, quam mittat temporaliter: ergo antequam mittat temporaliter, necesse est Spiritum sanctum procedere a Filio: ergo etc.

9. Item, Ioannis decimo sexto[^17]: *Ille me clarificabit, quia de meo accipiet*. Ex hoc arguitur sic: quisquis est omne quod habet, est omne quod accipit; sed Spiritus sanctus, cum sit Deus summe simplex, est omne quod habet, ergo omne quod accipit: ergo si accipit aliquid ab aliquo, accipit esse; sed a quo accipit esse, ab illo procedit: ergo si aliquid accipit a Filio, procedit a Filio. Si dicas, quod accipere illud est temporaliter; tunc obiicitur ex hoc, quia omne quod temporaliter accipit aliquid ab aliquo, mutatur, etc.

> **Conclusio.** *Spiritus sanctus procedit a Patre et a Filio.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod, sicut ostensum est auctoritatibus et rationibus, fidei veritas est, quod Spiritus sanctus procedit a Patre et Filio.

Ad intelligentiam autem controversiae Latinorum et Graecorum et originem[^18] eius notandum est, quod circa processionem Spiritus sancti de Filio est duo considerare, scilicet *articuli cogniti* et eiusdem cogniti *professionem*. In primo orta[^19] est differentia, in secundo controversia.

*Cognitio* autem huius articuli fundamentum habet a Scriptura, profectum vel incrementum a ratione, sed consummationem[^20] a revelatione. In Scripturae auctoritate Graeci et Latini conveniunt, quae dicit, Spiritum sanctum esse Filii et mitti a Filio; sed in ratione et revelatione differunt.

*In ratione* quidem intelligendi. Nam cum Scriptura dicat[^21], Spiritum sanctum procedere, Graeci ad intelligendum usi sunt alio modo et alia similitudine processionis, alio modo Latini. Nam cum processio dicatur in creaturis motus localis ab uno in alium et dicatur motus causalis unius ex[^22] alio, Graeci intellexerunt processionem primo modo, ab uno in alium; Latini vero secundo modo. Et in hoc melius intellexerunt Latini quam Graeci, quia comparaverunt processionem aeternam processioni magis spirituali; et ideo magis simili[^23] comparaverunt, et sic melius.

Similiter, Scriptura dicit, Spiritum sanctum per spirationem procedere. Et cum duplex sit spiratio, scilicet flatus exterioris et amoris interioris, Graeci comparaverunt Spiritum spirationi flatus exterioris; sed Latini spirationi amoris interioris: et ideo Latini melius, quia spiritualiori et similiori similitudini aptaverunt.

Similiter, cum Scriptura dicat[^24], Spiritum sanctum procedere ut nexum et communionem, et duplex possit esse nexus, vel sicut medium iungens unum[^25] alteri, vel sicut extremum, in quo coniunguntur; Graeci comparaverunt primo modo, Latini secundo, et ideo spiritualiori modo[^26] et similiori, quia ille nexus magis habet similitudinem personae.

<!-- page 212 -->

Quia ergo differentiam habuerunt in ratione, et Latini spiritualius et convenientius comparaverunt; ideo in ratione sua sunt elevati, et per hoc ad intelligentiam Scripturae dispositi, et ideo manifesta revelatione edocti sunt de Spiritus sancti processione. Graeci vero, quia similitudines differentes et minus proprias aptabant, ideo sunt sua ratione depressi; et non valentes intelligere, Spiritum a Verbo procedere, nec in alium ab aeterno procedere, arctaverunt Scripturam ad intelligendum de processione temporali, et ideo sibi viam revelationis clauserunt. Haec est ergo ratio diversitatis in huius articuli cognitione.

*Controversia* vero venit ex huius articuli professione. Professio vero huius[^27] articuli venit ab Ecclesia Latinorum ex triplici causa, videlicet *ex fidei veritate, ex periculi necessitate et ex Ecclesiae auctoritate*. Fides dictabat hoc, et periculi necessitas imminebat, ne forte aliquis hoc negaret[^28], in quod periculum inciderunt Graeci; et Ecclesiae auctoritas aderat: et ideo sine mora exprimi debebat.

*Negatio* vero huius articuli venit ex triplici causa, scilicet *ex ignorantia, ex superbia et*[^29] *pertinacia*. Ex ignorantia, quia nec Scripturam intellexerunt nec habuerunt congruam rationem nec apertam revelationem. Ex superbia, quia, cum reputarent se sciolos et vocati non fuerunt[^30], noluerunt profiteri quod non erat per eos inventum. Ex pertinacia, ne convincerentur et irrationabiliter moveri viderentur, invenerunt pro se rationes contra veritatem: et ideo suam sententiam defendere ausi sunt et auctoritati Ecclesiae Romanae obviare; et ideo facti sunt haeretici, quia denegant[^31] fidei veritatem, et schismatici, quia recesserunt ab Ecclesiae unitate.

Sed quia mos est haereticorum et schismaticorum, cum se non possunt rationibus communire, adversam partem accusare; ideo nos accusant, et redarguunt tanquam *curiosos* et tanquam *excommunicatos* et *schismaticos*. Curiosos[^32], quia sine huius articuli professione salus erat. Quare ergo intromiserunt se Latini hoc perquirere, quod non fuit necessarium?

Sed ad hoc patet *responsio*, quia[^33] opportunum fuit propter periculum in quod ipsi inciderunt.

Similiter, dicunt nos *excommunicatos*, quia Symbola corrumpimus, in quibus per sanctos Patres sub excommunicationis poena hoc erat prohibitum.

Et ad hoc patet *responsio* per praedicta, quia non corrumpimus, sed perficimus[^34]; nec sententia lata est contra perficientes, sed contra corrumpentes. Vel potest dici, sicut dicit Anselmus[^35], quod novum edidimus; et hoc quidem facere potuimus, quia Romana Ecclesia plenitudinem potestatis a Petro, Apostolorum principe, acceperat, in qua[^36] nulla Patrum sententia nec interdictum potuit nec arctare nec ei praeiudicare nec ligare eam ad aliquid.

Similiter dicunt nos *schismaticos*, quia a nobis incepit[^37] divisio; cum enim hoc vellemus asserere, noluimus eos vocare.

Et ad hoc responderi potest pro Latinis, quod eos vocare non fuit opportunum — quia Ecclesia sine eis hoc poterat — et hoc[^38], quia erat laboriosum propter distantiam, erat infructuosum, quia iam non erat in Graecis sapientia tanta, sicut fuerat, immo ad Latinos transierat, erat nihilominus periculosum, quia quod pro certo habendum erat periculum erat ducere in dubium.

Et sic patet, quod frivolae sunt eorum accusationes. Ad rationes autem, intellectis quae dicta sunt, facile est respondere.

**Ad argumenta pro parte Graecorum:**

*Ad 1.* Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod processio est ab uno in alium; dicendum, quod verum est de processione *locali*, sed non est verum de processione *causali*, sicut infra melius patebit[^39]; cum procedere in alium sit dupliciter, aut quia in alium tendit sicut[^40] obiectum; et sic Spiritus sanctus est amor, quo Filius amat Patrem, sicut e converso; si autem sic dicatur procedere in aliquem, ut ab eo recipiatur, omnino stultus est intellectus. Est enim dicere, quod amor, qui est Spiritus sanctus, oriatur a Patre et subsistat in Filio, sicut rivus oritur a fonte et requiescit in lacu profundo[^41].

<!-- page 213 -->

*Ad 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de spiratione, quod praecedit verbum; dicendum, quod verum est de exteriori verbo, et non de interiori: et exterius[^42] non est simile.

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de nexu, dicendum, quod nexus non habet rationem medii, sed rationem tertii, quidquid[^43] aliqui voluerunt dicere, quod locum tenet et medii et tertii; et voluerunt sustinere opinionem Graecorum et Latinorum et distinguunt duplicem modum procedendi, scilicet *in alium*, et sic procedit a Patre; vel *ab alio*, et sic procedit a Patre et Filio. Istud[^44] est exsufflandum hodie, quia non habet intellectum sanum; immo omnino eodem modo procedit ab utroque, et tamen utriusque nexus est, sicut ponitur exemplum de duobus lignis, ex quibus procederet una flamma.

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod ab altero sufficienter, ergo etc.; dicendum, quod istud verum esset, si essent diversa principia Spiritus sancti; quod non est verum, sicut infra patebit[^45]. Unde sicut non valet hoc argumentum: Pater creat, et Filius similiter; et Pater est sufficiens in creando: ergo Filius superfluit; — quia sunt unum principium in creando — similiter solvendum est in proposito.

*Ad 5.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non reperitur in Scriptura; dicendum, quod si verba non reperiantur, reperitur tamen *sensus*, sicut in obiiciendo monstratum est. Tamen argumentum non valet: non reperitur in Scriptura, ergo non est verum; quia Scripturae mos est, quaedam tacere propter insinuandam humilitatem: unde Dominus, volens nos erudire ad humilitatem, omne quod suum est Patri attribuit, sicut dicit Ioannis septimo[^46]: *Mea doctrina non est mea*. Similiter dicit Ioannis decimo quinto[^47]: *Qui a Patre procedit*, loquens de Spiritu sancto, et tamen ipse subiungit[^48]: *omnia, quae Pater habet, mea sunt*: et ideo argumentum non valet.

*Ad 6.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de Conciliis, dicendum, quod nec in Conciliis illis sunt omnia instituta, quae spectant ad mores, nec etiam omnia dicta, quae ad fidem pertinent; sicut in Symbolo, quod cantatur in missa, nihil dicitur de descensu ad inferos. Sed nunquid[^49] latuit sanctos Patres processio Spiritus sancti a Filio? et si non latuit, quare non dixerunt? Credo quod non latuit, sicut patet per antiquos Graecos, quorum Magister adducit auctoritatem in littera[^50]; sed tamen non fuit expressum, quia non erat opus. Nullus enim negabat nec negare volebat. Sed haeretici multa, quae erant implicita fidei nostrae, sua importunitate compulerunt explicare; et sic patet illud.

*Ad 7. 8.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de auctoritate Dionysii et Gregorii, dicendum, quod non est omnimoda similitudo, sed maior dissimilitudo. Attenditur autem similitudo in hoc; scilicet quantum ad plenitudinem fontalitatis in Patre et in divisione[^51] personarum emanantium ab eo, et in receptione influentiae in creatura: non tamen est omnimoda similitudo quantum ad modum emanandi; et sic patet illud.

*Ad 9.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de Damasceno, dicendum, quod non est in ista parte ei assentiendum, sicut enim intellexi, ipse fuit in tempore, quando orta est contentio. Unde non est in hoc sustinendus, quia simpliciter fuit Graecus, tamen ipse caute loquitur. Unde non dicit, quod Spiritus non sit a Filio, sed dicit, *non dicimus a Filio*, quia Graeci non confitebantur, nec tamen negabant; sed modo eorum maledicta progenies addidit ad paternam dementiam et dicit, quod non procedit a Filio nisi temporaliter. Et ideo tanquam haereticos et schismaticos eos damnat Romana Ecclesia.

english:
### Sole Article.
### Question I. *Whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.*

That He proceeds from the Father alone, the Greeks try to prove by reason and by authority.

1. *By reason* thus: the emanation of the Holy Spirit is procession; but procession is motion from one to another: therefore if there is properly a procession in the divine being, the Holy Spirit by an eternal procession proceeds from one to another. If then He proceeds from the Son, either He proceeds into the Father, or into another person; not into the Father, because the Father receives nothing from the Son, nor into another person, since there is no fourth to be granted: therefore He does not proceed from the Son.

2. Likewise, by another reason thus: because the Holy Spirit proceeds by way of spiration, just as the Word proceeds by way of locution; but in creatures we see that the going-out of locution does not precede spiration, nor is the going-forth of spirit from a word: therefore neither in the divine being does the Holy Spirit [proceed] from the Son.

3. Likewise, the Holy Spirit, as all say, proceeds by way of bond (*nexus*), but a bond holds the formal character of a middle; but if He were to proceed from the Father and the Son, He would hold the formal character of a third and an extreme, not of a middle: therefore He does not proceed from the Father and the Son, but rather from the Father into the Son.

4. Likewise, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father either sufficiently, or not. If not sufficiently and fully, then the Father is imperfect in spirating; if sufficiently, then it is superfluous to be done by two what can be done by one sufficiently[^1]: therefore if He proceeds from the Son, since He proceeds fully from the Father, in that supreme Trinity there is superfluity, which is absurd.

5. Likewise, this same the Greeks try to show by *authority*; but they cannot do so by an introduction from sacred Scripture[^2], so they argue by privation in the Gospels, and especially in the Gospel of John and the Epistles, where our faith is integrally handed down, but in none of them is it said that the Holy Spirit proceeds except from the Father alone; John 15[^3]: *the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father*: therefore either the Gospels insufficiently teach the faith, or the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone.

6. Likewise, in the four Councils celebrated among the Greeks, where the faith is sufficiently explained by the Fathers, it is said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and nothing is said of the Son: therefore if God sufficiently revealed the faith to them: therefore etc.

7. Likewise, they try to fortify[^4] this error by Doctors who are celebrated not only among them but also among us. And first by Gregory Nazianzen[^5], who is called the Theologian: «The Son and the Holy Spirit, the twin ray of the Father, have sent down to us their brightness»: therefore they go forth from the Father, as two rays.

8. And Dionysius too says in the book *On the Divine Names*[^6]: «From the immaterial and indivisible good there have arisen heart-springing lights», — he is speaking of the Father — therefore they go forth as lights; but such things are so disposed that one is not from the other: therefore etc.

9. Likewise, Damascene[^7] more expressly: «We say that the Holy Spirit is from the Father and we name Him Spirit of the Father; but we do not say the Holy Spirit is from the Son, and yet we name Him Spirit of the Son».

10. Likewise, if the Latins knew this when the Greeks did not, it was either by *authority of Scripture*, or by *preaching*, or by *reason*, or by *revelation*. Not by authority of Scripture, because the Greeks have the same Scripture in every respect; likewise not by preaching, because the same teacher of the Greeks is teacher of the Latins, who handed down the faith to them perfectly, namely the Apostle Paul; if by reason, then reason does not suffice to affirm anything in matters of faith. Hence Dionysius and Damascene say that nothing is to be said or thought concerning that supreme Trinity beyond what the sacred utterances have taught us, and Jerome[^8]: «Let nothing be believed by me, unless I confirm it through the New and Old Testament». If by revelation, the question arises to whom it was revealed, and since God wills all men to be saved, why did He not reveal this to the Greeks? And again, how is it established that this was from God?

**On the contrary**[^9]. *Foundations.*

1. The argument is made by demonstrative reason thus: the Holy Spirit, according to all the faithful, proceeds as a *gift*, as is proved from many places of Scripture; and again, all, both Greeks and Latins, say that the Holy Spirit is given to us by the Son: therefore all concede that He proceeds from both, since He is not given except by Him from whom He proceeds.

2. Likewise, the Holy Spirit, according to all, and as was shown above[^10], proceeds as *love*; but loving belongs not only to the Father, but also to the Son, whence the Son loves through all things, just as the Father does: therefore if from the loving Father love proceeds, by the same reasoning [it proceeds] from the Son.

3. Likewise, the Holy Spirit, according to all, proceeds as a *bond*[^11]; but the more perfect bond is one which proceeds from both extremes, than one which [proceeds] from the other [alone]: therefore if the Holy Spirit is the most perfect bond, He proceeds not only from the Father, but also from the Son.

4. Likewise, this same is shown by reason leading to impossibility thus: every distinction of persons in the divine being is taken according to relation and origin: therefore if the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son, nor conversely, there is no origin there: therefore there is no mutual relation there, therefore no distinction.

5. Likewise, there is greater kinship between two when one proceeds from the other, and both from a third, than if one had nothing from the other; this is self-evident: therefore if the Holy Spirit is not from the Son, nor conversely, there is no[^12] perfect union: therefore neither supreme nor perfect beatitude.

6. Likewise, expression is more perfect when the begetter communicates to the begotten not only substance but also the act which does not conflict with the nature of the begotten; but the act of spirating does not conflict with the Son, because no inconvenience follows from this, if He spirates: therefore if the Father does not communicate this act to Him, the Son is not the perfect image.

7. Likewise, this same is shown by *authorities*, and first by the authority of the Apostle to the Galatians 4[^13]: *God sent the Spirit of his Son* etc.; therefore since the Father does not send the Spirit except as the Spirit of the Son, the Spirit of the Father and of the Son is the same; but He is the Spirit of Him from whom He proceeds: therefore the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. If you say that this does not follow, because He is not called of the Son because He proceeds from the Son, but because He is in the Son: then by the same reasoning, since the Son is in the Holy Spirit, the Son can be called Son of the Holy Spirit[^14].

8. Likewise, John 15[^15]: «Whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth». From this it is argued thus: no one sends another unless he has authority over him; but no one has authority over another unless he gives him something; but no person gives to another[^16] unless [the latter] proceeds from him: therefore from the first [premise], the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. If you say that He is sent from the Son in time and proceeds in time; on the contrary: the Son does not have authority because He sends, but rather He sends because He has authority: therefore He has authority before He sends temporally: therefore before He sends temporally, it is necessary that the Holy Spirit proceed from the Son: therefore etc.

9. Likewise, John 16[^17]: *He shall glorify Me, because He shall receive of mine*. From this it is argued thus: whoever is everything that He has, is everything that He receives; but the Holy Spirit, since He is supremely simple God, is everything that He has, therefore everything that He receives: therefore if He receives something from someone, He receives being; but from whom He receives being, from Him He proceeds: therefore if He receives something from the Son, He proceeds from the Son. If you say that that receiving is temporal; then it is objected from this that whatever receives something temporally from someone is changed, etc.

> **Conclusion.** *The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son.*

**I respond:** It must be said that, as has been shown by authorities and reasons, the truth of faith is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

For the understanding of the controversy of the Latins and the Greeks and its origin[^18], it must be noted that, concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, two things are to be considered, namely the *known article* and the *profession* of that same known [article]. With respect to the first, *difference* arose[^19]; with respect to the second, *controversy*.

The *cognition* of this article has its foundation from Scripture, its progress or increment from reason, but its consummation[^20] from revelation. In the authority of Scripture Greeks and Latins agree, which says that the Holy Spirit is the Son's and is sent by the Son; but in reason and revelation they differ.

*In reason*, indeed, of understanding. For when Scripture says[^21] that the Holy Spirit *proceeds*, the Greeks have used one mode and one likeness of procession to understand it, the Latins another. For since procession is said in creatures of local motion from one to another, and is also said of the causal motion of one from[^22] another, the Greeks understood procession in the first mode, from one *into* another; the Latins in the second mode. And in this the Latins understood better than the Greeks, because they compared the eternal procession to a more spiritual procession; and so they compared it to a more like[^23] [analog], and thus better.

Likewise, Scripture says that the Holy Spirit proceeds by *spiration*. And since spiration is twofold, namely of an *exterior breath* and of *interior love*, the Greeks compared the Spirit to the spiration of an exterior breath; but the Latins to the spiration of interior love: and so the Latins did better, because they fitted Him to a more spiritual and more like likeness.

Likewise, since Scripture says[^24] that the Holy Spirit proceeds as a *bond* and *communion*, and bond can be twofold, either as a middle joining one[^25] to the other, or as an extreme in which they are joined; the Greeks compared in the first mode, the Latins in the second, and so [the Latins] in a more spiritual mode[^26] and more like, because that bond has more the likeness of a person.

Therefore because they had a difference in reason, and the Latins compared more spiritually and more fittingly; therefore they were elevated in their reasoning, and through this disposed to the understanding of Scripture, and so they were taught about the procession of the Holy Spirit by manifest revelation. The Greeks, however, because they applied differing and less proper likenesses, were depressed in their reasoning; and not being able to understand that the Spirit proceeds from the Word, nor proceeds from eternity into another, they constricted Scripture to be understood of the temporal procession, and so they closed the way of revelation to themselves. This therefore is the reason for the diversity in the cognition of this article.

The *controversy*, however, comes from the profession of this article. The profession of this[^27] article comes from the Latin Church from a threefold cause, namely *from the truth of faith, from the necessity of danger, and from the authority of the Church*. Faith dictated this, and the necessity of danger was imminent, lest perhaps someone deny[^28] this, into which danger the Greeks fell; and the Church's authority was at hand: and therefore without delay it ought to be expressed.

The *negation* of this article comes from a threefold cause, namely *from ignorance, from pride, and*[^29] *from obstinacy*. From ignorance, because they understood neither Scripture, nor had they suitable reasoning, nor open revelation. From pride, because, since they regarded themselves as learned and were not summoned[^30], they refused to profess what was not discovered by them. From obstinacy, lest they be convinced and seem to be moved unreasonably, they invented reasons for themselves against the truth: and so they dared to defend their opinion and to oppose the authority of the Roman Church; and so they became heretics, because they deny[^31] the truth of faith, and schismatics, because they withdrew from the unity of the Church.

But because it is the way of heretics and schismatics, when they cannot fortify themselves by reasons, to accuse the opposing party; therefore they accuse us, and reproach us as *meddlesome* and as *excommunicated* and *schismatics*. *Meddlesome*[^32], because there was salvation without the profession of this article. Why then did the Latins involve themselves in inquiring into this, which was not necessary?

But to this the *response* is plain, because[^33] it was opportune on account of the danger into which they themselves fell.

Likewise, they call us *excommunicated*, because we corrupt the Symbols, in which by the holy Fathers under penalty of excommunication this was forbidden.

And to this the *response* is plain through what has been said: that we do not corrupt, but perfect[^34]; nor was the sentence laid down against those who perfect, but against those who corrupt. Or it can be said, as Anselm says[^35], that we have issued a new [Symbol]; and this indeed we could do, because the Roman Church received the plenitude of power from Peter, the prince of the Apostles, in which[^36] no sentence of the Fathers nor any interdict was able either to constrain nor to prejudice it nor to bind it to anything.

Likewise they call us *schismatics*, because the division began[^37] from us; for when we wished to assert this, we did not summon them.

And to this it can be replied for the Latins, that to summon them was not opportune — because the Church without them could do this — and this[^38], because it was laborious on account of the distance, was unfruitful, because there was not now in the Greeks such great wisdom as there once was, but rather it had passed over to the Latins, was nevertheless dangerous, because it was a danger to bring into doubt what was to be held for certain.

And so it is plain that their accusations are frivolous. To the [Greek] arguments, however, once what has been said is understood, it is easy to reply.

**To the arguments for the Greek side:**

*To 1.* To that, then, which is objected, that procession is from one to another; it must be said that this is true of *local* procession, but is not true of *causal* procession, as will appear better below[^39]; since to proceed *into* another is in two ways, either because He tends to another as[^40] to an object; and so the Holy Spirit is the love by which the Son loves the Father, just as conversely; but if procession into someone is taken as being received by him, the meaning is wholly foolish. For it would be to say that love, which is the Holy Spirit, arises from the Father and abides in the Son, just as a stream arises from a fount and rests in a deep pool[^41].

*To 2.* To what is objected concerning spiration, that it precedes the word; it must be said that this is true of the *exterior* word, and not of the *interior*: and the exterior[^42] is not similar.

*To 3.* To what is objected concerning the bond, it must be said that the bond does not have the formal character of a middle, but of a third — whatever[^43] some have wished to say, that it holds the place both of a middle and of a third; and they wished to sustain the opinion of the Greeks and of the Latins and they distinguish a twofold mode of proceeding, namely *into another*, and so He proceeds from the Father; or *from another*, and so He proceeds from the Father and the Son. That [view][^44] is to be hissed off today, because it does not have a sound understanding; rather, He proceeds in altogether the same mode from both, and yet is the bond of both, just as the example is given of two pieces of wood from which one flame proceeds.

*To 4.* To what is objected, that from the one [He proceeds] sufficiently, therefore etc.; it must be said that this would be true if there were diverse principles of the Holy Spirit; which is not true, as will appear below[^45]. Hence just as this argument does not hold: the Father creates, and the Son likewise; and the Father is sufficient in creating: therefore the Son is superfluous; — because they are one principle in creating — likewise it must be solved in the case at hand.

*To 5.* To what is objected, that it is not found in Scripture; it must be said that, although the words may not be found, yet the *sense* is found, as has been shown in the objecting [arguments]. Yet the argument does not hold: it is not found in Scripture, therefore it is not true; because it is the way of Scripture to keep some things silent in order to inculcate humility: hence the Lord, wishing to instruct us in humility, attributes to the Father everything that is His own, as He says in John 7[^46]: *My doctrine is not mine*. Likewise He says in John 15[^47]: *Who proceeds from the Father*, speaking of the Holy Spirit, and yet He Himself adds[^48]: *all things that the Father has are mine*: and so the argument does not hold.

*To 6.* To what is objected concerning the Councils, it must be said that neither in those Councils are all the things instituted that pertain to morals, nor again all the things said that pertain to faith; just as in the Symbol which is sung at Mass, nothing is said of the descent into hell. But did[^49] the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son lie hidden from the holy Fathers? and if it did not lie hidden, why did they not say so? I believe that it did not lie hidden, as is plain from the ancient Greeks, whose authority the Master adduces in the text[^50]; but nevertheless it was not expressed, because there was no need. For no one was denying or wished to deny it. But heretics, by their importunity, compelled the explication of many things which were implicit in our faith; and so that [point] is plain.

*To 7. 8.* To what is objected concerning the authority of Dionysius and Gregory, it must be said that the likeness is not in every respect, but greater is the dissimilarity. The likeness is held in this respect, namely as to the *plenitude of fontality* in the Father and the *division*[^51] of the persons emanating from Him, and the reception of influence in the creature: yet the likeness is not in every respect as to the *mode of emanating*; and so that [point] is plain.

*To 9.* To what is objected concerning Damascene, it must be said that he is not to be assented to in this part, for, as I have understood, he was at the time when the contention arose. Hence he is not to be sustained in this, because he was simply a Greek; yet he speaks cautiously. Hence he does not say that the Spirit is not from the Son, but says, *we do not say from the Son*, because the Greeks did not confess [it], and yet did not deny [it]; but in our time their accursed offspring has added to the paternal madness and says that He does not proceed from the Son except temporally. And so the Roman Church condemns them as heretics and schismatics.

la: Aristot. verba vide supra d. 10. n. 1. q. 1. ad 4. Cod. W in textu agendo agit loco agitur.

en: For Aristotle's words see above d. 10, art. 1, q. 1, ad 4. Codex W in the text reads *agendo agit* in place of *agitur*.

la: Postulantibus mss. et sex primis edd., substituimus *introductionem* loco *inductionem*. Mox verba *per privationem in Evangeliis* idem valent ac haec: *ex silentio Evangeliorum*.

en: With the manuscripts and the first six editions calling for it, we have substituted *introductionem* in place of *inductionem*. Just after, the words *per privationem in Evangeliis* mean the same as these: *from the silence of the Gospels*.

la: Ioan. 15, vers. 26.

la: Vat. contra vetustiores codd. et ed. 1 *tutari* loco *munire*.

en: The Vatican [edition], against the older codices and ed. 1, reads *tutari* (to defend) in place of *munire* (to fortify).

la: Oratio 45 ad Evagrium Monach. *de Divinitate* (ed. Venet. 1753): *Salvator quoque noster et Spiritus sanctus geminus ille Patris radius, simul et ad nos usque veritatis lucem ministrant et Patri uniti sunt*.

en: Oration 45 to Evagrius the Monk, *On Divinity* (Venice ed., 1753): «Our Saviour also and the Holy Spirit, that twin ray of the Father, both minister to us the light of truth and are united to the Father.»

la: S. Doctor respicere videtur haec Dionysii (c. 2.) verba, quae et a S. Thom. (hic a. 1.) et a Richard. (hic q. 1.) allegantur: «Rursum a Scripturis sacris accepimus, Patrem quidem esse originem in divinis, Iesum vero et Spiritum sanctum, quasi Dei prolem, vel, si dictu fas sit, quasi germina divina, floresve ac lumina supersubstantialia existere». Sed textus noster in versionibus Scoti et Corderii verbotenus non legitur.

en: The Holy Doctor seems to have in mind these words of Dionysius (*De div. nom.* c. 2), which are also alleged by St. Thomas (here a. 1.) and by Richard [of Mediavilla] (here q. 1.): «Again from the sacred Scriptures we have received that the Father is origin in the divine being, and Jesus and the Holy Spirit, as it were the offspring of God, or, if it is permissible to say so, as it were divine germs, flowers and supersubstantial lights, exist». But our text is not read verbatim in the versions of Scotus or Corderius.

la: S. Ioan. Damasc., libr. I *de Fide orthod.* c. 8.

en: St. John Damascene, *On the Orthodox Faith*, bk. I, c. 8.

la: Haec verba a Scholasticis communiter attribuuntur S. Hieronymo, in quo tantum sententia similis in Epist. 41 ad Marcellam legitur. Sunt autem S. Cyrilli Hierosol. Cath. IV *de Decem Dogmat.* n. 17 (Patrolog. Graec. tom. 33. col. 478) dicentis: «Ne mihi quidem ista proferenti ultro credas, nisi de divinis Scripturis eorum quae tibi annuntio demonstrationem acceperis».

en: These words are commonly attributed by the scholastics to St. Jerome, in whom only a similar thought is read in Epist. 41 to Marcella. They are, however, of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, *Catechesis* IV, *On the Ten Dogmas*, n. 17 (PG 33, col. 478), where he says: «Do not even believe me when I freely declare these things, unless you receive a demonstration of what I announce to you from the divine Scriptures».

la: Aliqui codd. ut TVX *In contrarium*.

en: Some codices, as TVX, read *In contrarium*.

la: Dist. 10, a. 1, q. 2. — Paulo post cod. W *amor* loco *amare*.

en: D. 10, a. 1, q. 2. — Just after, codex W reads *amor* in place of *amare*.

la: Vat. cum cod. cc minus distincte et contra alios codd. et ed. 1 *nec* pro *non*. Paulo ante ed. 1 *hoc est per se notum* pro *haec est per se nota*.

en: The Vatican [edition] with codex cc, less distinctly and against the other codices and ed. 1, reads *nec* in place of *non*. Just before, ed. 1 reads *hoc est per se notum* in place of *haec est per se nota*.

la: Aliqui codd. ut G X Z *vel habet actum quem*, vel ut K T *habet actum et*. — Galat. 4, vers. 6.

en: Some codices as G X Z read *vel habet actum quem*, others as K T *habet actum et*. — Galatians 4:6.

la: Vat. cum aliquibus mss. omittit semel *Filius*, sed contra alios codd. ut A F G H K M T V etc. cum ed. 1.

en: The Vatican with some manuscripts omits *Filius* once, but against the other codices, as A F G H K M T V etc., with ed. 1.

la: Ioan. 15, vers. 26, in quo textu contra Vulgatam et antiquiores codd. omittit Vat. *a Patre*, sicuti et paulo post bis habet *supra* loco *super*.

en: John 15:26 — in which text, against the Vulgate and the older codices, the Vatican omits *a Patre*, just as also a little after it twice has *supra* in place of *super*.

la: E vetustioribus mss. et ed. 1 supplevimus male omissum *alii*.

en: From the older manuscripts and ed. 1 we have supplied *alii*, which had been wrongly omitted.

la: Ioan. 16, vers. 14. — Mox, consentientibus antiquis mss. et ed. 1, posuimus *hoc* pro *quo*.

en: John 16:14. — Just after, with the agreement of the ancient manuscripts and ed. 1, we have put *hoc* in place of *quo*.

la: Aliqui codd. ut H P Q Y *originis*.

en: Some codices, as H P Q Y, read *originis*.

la: Reliquimus cum Vat. ac ed. 1 et aliquibus mss. *orta*, licet maior pars codd. cum edd. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 habeant *tota*, quod minus contextui correspondet.

en: We have retained with the Vatican and ed. 1 and some manuscripts the reading *orta* (arose), although the greater part of the codices with editions 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 have *tota* (whole), which corresponds less well to the context.

la: Sequimur plures codd. ut F H I K P Q T etc. et ed. 1, loco *conservationem* ponendo *consummationem*, quod et gradationi membrorum divisionis et subnexis magis correspondet. Cod. X *confirmationem*. Paulo infra post *conveniunt* codd. inter se dissentiunt; maior pars eorum ut A C F G I L O R S V W X Z etc. pro *quae* habet *quia*; plures deinde ut C I L O R *dicunt* loco *dicit*.

en: We follow several codices, as F H I K P Q T etc. and ed. 1, in placing *consummationem* (consummation) in place of *conservationem* (preservation), which corresponds better both to the gradation of the members of the division and to what follows. Codex X reads *confirmationem*. A little below, after *conveniunt*, the codices disagree among themselves; the greater part, as A C F G I L O R S V W X Z etc., have *quia* in place of *quae*; several then, as C I L O R, read *dicunt* in place of *dicit*.

la: Nonnulli codd. ut A S T V X aa minus congrue *Nam Scriptura dicit*. Paulo infra multi codd. cum ed. 1 omittunt verba *et alia*.

en: Some codices, as A S T V X aa, read less aptly *Nam Scriptura dicit*. A little below, many codices with ed. 1 omit the words *et alia*.

la: Codd. aa bb *ab*.

en: Codices aa bb read *ab*.

la: Cod. K *secundum veritatem*, cod. V *secundum rationes* pro *simili*.

en: Codex K reads *secundum veritatem*, codex V *secundum rationes* in place of *simili*.

la: Sacra Scriptura canonica hoc non dicit expressis verbis, sed implicite et ex Ss. Patrum interpretatione. Cfr. d. 10, a. 2, q. 3 et 2, et hic ad 5. — Mox fide multorum mss. ut A F G H K S T W X Y Z etc. et ed. 1 substituimus *Et cum* loco *Sed cum*, et paulo infra *comparaverunt* pro *comparant*. Propter repetitionem verborum *flatus exterioris* et *amoris interioris* aliqui codd. hic sive omittendo sive permutando erraverunt.

en: Canonical Sacred Scripture does not say this in express words, but implicitly and from the interpretation of the Fathers. Cf. d. 10, a. 2, qq. 2–3, and here ad 5. — Just after, on the testimony of many manuscripts (A F G H K S T W X Y Z etc.) and ed. 1, we substitute *Et cum* in place of *Sed cum*, and a little below *comparaverunt* in place of *comparant*. On account of the repetition of the words *flatus exterioris* and *amoris interioris*, some codices have erred here either by omitting or by transposing.

la: Ex pluribus mss. ut H M N P Q aa (T ee ff in margine) adiecimus *unum*, pro quo ed. 1 habet *alterum*.

en: From several manuscripts, as H M N P Q aa (T ee ff in the margin), we have added *unum*, for which ed. 1 has *alterum*.

la: Multi codd. omittunt *modo*, quod Vat. transponit post *similiori*.

en: Many codices omit *modo*, which the Vatican [edition] transposes after *similiori*.

la: Fide mss. et ed. 1 supplevimus *huius*. Mox aliqui codd. ut I Z cum ed. 1 *Latina* pro *Latinorum*, et paulo infra multi codd. ut A F G H T etc. cum ed. 1 post *necessitate* addunt nobiscum particulam *et*.

en: On the testimony of the manuscripts and ed. 1 we have supplied *huius*. Just after, some codices, as I Z, with ed. 1 read *Latina* in place of *Latinorum*, and a little below many codices (A F G H T etc.) with ed. 1 add with us after *necessitate* the particle *et*.

la: Vat. contra antiquiores codd. et ed. 1 *aliqui hoc negarent*.

en: The Vatican, against the older codices and ed. 1, reads *aliqui hoc negarent*.

la: Ed. 1 addit *ex*.

en: Ed. 1 adds *ex*.

la: Ed. 1 *defuerunt* loco *non fuerunt*. Paulo infra post *pertinacia* codd. P Q adiiciunt *quia*.

en: Ed. 1 reads *defuerunt* in place of *non fuerunt*. A little below, after *pertinacia*, codices P Q add *quia*.

la: Vat. cum cod. cc *negant*, sed contra alios codd. et ed. 1.

en: The Vatican with codex cc reads *negant*, but against the other codices and ed. 1.

la: Cod. V *Tanquam curiosos*.

en: Codex V reads *Tanquam curiosos*.

la: Praeter fidem mss. et sex primarum edd., in Vat. omittitur *quia*, sicuti et paulo infra contra antiquiores codd. et edd. 1, 4, 5 praepositio *in*.

en: Against the testimony of the manuscripts and the first six editions, *quia* is omitted in the Vatican, just as also a little below, against the older codices and editions 1, 4, 5, the preposition *in* is omitted.

la: Aliqui codd. ut K X Z *corrupimus, sed perfecimus*; aliqui ut G H I S cum ed. 4 *corrumpimus, sed perfecimus*; alii exhibent cum Vat. lectionem nostram.

en: Some codices, as K X Z, read *corrupimus, sed perfecimus*; others, as G H I S with ed. 4, read *corrumpimus, sed perfecimus*; others present with the Vatican our reading.

la: S. Anselm., libr. *de Process. Spir. S.* c. 22: *Respondemus, nos illud non corrupisse, sed aliud novum edidisse*. — Mox ex pluribus codd. ut X V aa cum ed. 1 *et hoc quidem* loco *quod quidem* posuimus, quod confirmatur ex incongrua lectione aliorum codd. *et quod quidem*.

en: St. Anselm, *On the Procession of the Holy Spirit*, c. 22: «We answer that we have not corrupted that [Symbol], but have issued another, new [Symbol].» — Just after, from several codices, as X V aa, with ed. 1 we have put *et hoc quidem* in place of *quod quidem*, which is confirmed by the incongruous reading of the other codices, *et quod quidem*.

la: Vat. contra multos codd. ut A F G I L O T W etc. et ed. 1 *quam*, ac praeter fidem mss. et ed. 1 post *interdictum* addit *ponere*. Ed. 1 *interdicere* pro *interdictum*.

en: The Vatican, against many codices (A F G I L O T W etc.) and ed. 1, reads *quam*, and against the testimony of the manuscripts and ed. 1 adds after *interdictum* the word *ponere*. Ed. 1 reads *interdicere* in place of *interdictum*.

la: Praeferimus lectionem nonnullorum mss. ut H I W etc. *incepit* loco *incipit*.

en: We prefer the reading of some manuscripts, as H I W etc., *incepit* (began) in place of *incipit* (begins).

la: Auctoritate plurimorum mss. et ed. 1 supplevimus ab ed. Vat. omissum *hoc*, sub quo intelligas: *non fuit opportunum*. Mox post *infructuosum* consensu mss. et ed. 1 expunximus verba *propter insipientiam*.

en: On the authority of very many manuscripts and ed. 1 we have supplied *hoc*, omitted by the Vatican edition, under which understand: *it was not opportune*. Just after, following *infructuosum*, by the consensus of the manuscripts and ed. 1 we have expunged the words *propter insipientiam*.

la: Unus alterve cod. ut H (a secunda manu) cum ed. 1 *in obiectum*; post quod cod. X addit *aut quia in alium tendit ita, quod ab eo recipiatur; si quia in alium tendit sicut obiectum*.

en: A codex or two, as H (by a second hand) with ed. 1, reads *in obiectum*; after which codex X adds: *aut quia in alium tendit ita, quod ab eo recipiatur; si quia in alium tendit sicut obiectum*.

la: Quomodo ista similitudo intelligenda sit, apte explicat S. Anselmus, *de Process. Spir. sancti*, c. 17: *Constat quia una eademque aqua est, quae et fons et rivus et lacus dicitur, non tres aquae, quamvis tres sint, fons, rivus et lacus. Discernamus itaque inter fontem, rivum et lacum, et videamus quid singula. Haec, cum tria sint, in una intelligantur aqua. In fonte quidem aqua de abysso ascendens ebullit; in rivo de fonte descendens fluit; in lacu colligitur et manet. Per fontem ergo intelligitur aqua de abysso ebulliens; per rivum, quia de fonte fluit; per lacum, quia simul ibi coadunatur. Videmus autem quia rivus non est de hoc, unde aqua fons dicitur, sed de hoc, quod est, id est de aqua; nec lacus est de hoc, unde aqua dicitur fons aut rivus, sed de ipsa aqua, quae una et eadem est in fonte et rivo. Non ergo de hoc, unde differunt fons et rivus, sed de hoc, in quo unum sunt, lacus existit. Si ergo non magis fons est hoc, unde lacus est quam rivus, nequit intelligi lacus magis esse de fonte quam de rivo. Sic itaque, cum dicitur Deus Pater aut Filius aut Spiritus sanctus, una in tribus intelligitur essentia et unus Deus... sed in Patre intelligitur gignens, in Filio genitus, et in Spiritu sancto singulari quodam et ineffabili modo procedens.*

en: How that simile is to be understood, St. Anselm aptly explains, *On the Procession of the Holy Spirit*, c. 17: «It is established that it is one and the same water which is called both fount, stream, and pool, not three waters, though there be three: fount, stream, and pool. Let us therefore distinguish between fount, stream, and pool, and see what each is. These, though they be three, are understood in one water. In the fount the water rising from the abyss bubbles up; in the stream, descending from the fount, it flows; in the pool it is gathered and remains. By the fount, then, is understood water bubbling up from the abyss; by the stream, that it flows from the fount; by the pool, that there it is gathered together. We see, however, that the stream is not from that whence water is called fount, but from this, which it is, that is, from water; nor is the pool from that whence water is called fount or stream, but from the very water, which is one and the same in the fount and the stream. Not, therefore, from that in which fount and stream differ, but from that in which they are one, does the pool exist. If, then, the fount is not more than the stream that from which the pool is, the pool cannot be understood to be more from the fount than from the stream. Thus also, when God is called Father, Son, or Holy Spirit, in three is understood one essence and one God... but in the Father is understood the begetter, in the Son the begotten, and in the Holy Spirit, in a certain singular and ineffable mode, the proceeding.»

la: Fide mss. et ed. 1 pro *ideo* substituimus *exterius*, scil. *verbum*; deinde supple: *processioni divinae*; cod. R *non enim est simile de interiori et externis (exteriori)*; cod. Z post *exterius* addit *et interius*.

en: On the testimony of the manuscripts and ed. 1, in place of *ideo* we have substituted *exterius* (sc. *verbum*); then supply: *to the divine procession*; codex R reads *non enim est simile de interiori et externis (exteriori)*; codex Z after *exterius* adds *et interius*.

la: Plurimis mss. et ed. 1 refragantibus, Vat. *quamquam*.

en: Against the testimony of very many manuscripts and ed. 1, the Vatican reads *quamquam*.

la: Vat. contra mss. et ed. 1 *Sed istud*.

en: The Vatican, against the manuscripts and ed. 1, reads *Sed istud*.

la: Quaest. seq.

en: The following question.

la: Ioan. 7, vers. 16.

la: Ibid. c. 16, vers. 15, in quo textu Vulgata loco *quae* habet *quaecumque*.

en: *Ibid.* c. 16, vers. 15, in which text the Vulgate has *quaecumque* in place of *quae*.

la: Lectio plurium codd. ut H I L O ee ff et ed. 1, in qua *nunquid* loco *nunquam* ponitur, a nobis electa est, quia subnexis magis correspondet.

en: The reading of several codices, as H I L O ee ff and ed. 1, in which *nunquid* (did?) is placed in place of *nunquam* (never), has been chosen by us, because it corresponds better to what follows.

la: Cap. 2. — Paulo ante Vat. corrupte et praeter fidem antiquiorum mss. et ed. 1 post *sicut* omittit *patet*.

en: [Lombard, Sent. I, dist. 11,] cap. 2. — Just before, the Vatican corruptly and against the testimony of the older manuscripts and ed. 1, after *sicut* omits *patet*.

la: Cod. Y *in distinctione*, quae lectio explicat, quo sensu vocabulum *divisione* sumendum sit.

en: Codex Y reads *in distinctione*, which reading explains in what sense the word *divisione* is to be taken.

latin_scholion:
**I.** Haec conclusio, quam schismatici Graeci reiiciunt, habetur in Symbolo Concilii XI. Toletani (a. 675) et definita est ut articulus fidei decretis plurium Conciliorum, scil. Barensis (1098), Lugdunensis II. et Florentini in decreto unionis. Ceterum etiam formula apud Graecos usitata, scil. Patrem per Filium spirare Spiritum sanctum, a Concilio Florentino (Decret. unionis) approbata et in hoc sensu explicata est: «ut per hoc significetur, Filium quoque esse secundum Graecos quidem causam, secundum Latinos vero principium substantiae Spiritus sancti, sicut et Patrem. Et quoniam omnia, quae Patris sunt, ipse Pater unigenito Filio suo gignendo dedit, praeter esse Patrem, hoc ipsum, quod Spiritus sanctus procedit ex Filio, ipse Filius a Patre aeternaliter habet, a quo aeternaliter etiam genitus est».

**II.** S. Doctor (in corp. ante med.) dicit, quod «Latini manifesta revelatione edocti sint»; hoc tamen non est intelligendum de aliqua nova revelatione, quae aliquid addat ad depositum fidei, sed uti patet ex contextu, de charismate veritatis, quo recte expositum est depositum fidei, in quo saltem implicite hoc dogma iam erat revelatum.

**III.** Respectu ad solut. ad 3. dicit Dionys. Carth. (hic q. 1. in fine): «Distinctionem quoque Alexandri, in principio responsionis ad quaestionem hanc positam, dicit Bonaventura nunc exsufflandam, affirmantis, Spiritum sanctum eodem modo procedere a Patre et Filio, quemadmodum a duobus lignis una progreditur flamma». Errat autem doctissimus et sanctissimus vir. S. Bonav. enim non exsufflat illam distinctionem in se, sed tantum *usum* eius, quem nonnulli fecerunt putantes, aliter procedere Spiritum sanctum a Patre, aliter a Filio. Seraphicum Doctorem plene consentire suo magistro, probat locus sequens Alexandri (S. p. I. q. 43. m. 4.), quem eo libentius hic describimus, quia in edd. gravi errore laborat. Desunt enim in eis verba italicis litteris a nobis distincta: *quia ex eo sequeretur, quod procederet a Filio*, et immediate post edd. habent *inconveniens* loco *conveniens*. Hac lectione sensus omnino perturbatur. Correximus hunc errorem ex cod. ms. biblioth. nation. Florentiae, in fol., membr., saec. XIV., sig. I. III. 9, fol. 75. recto; est ibi q. 15. m. 12. a. 5.

«Dicendum, quod procedere dicitur dupliciter: uno modo dicitur procedere in motu locali, qui motus est ab aliquo in aliquid. Alio modo dicitur procedere in exitu causati a causa vel motus a movente. Secundum primum modum procedere requirit duplicem terminum: *a quo* et *in quem*. Secundum modum secundum non requirit nisi unum, scilicet *a quo*. Unde et secundum hos duos modos potest transsumi ad processionem Spiritus sancti verbum procedendi. Graeci vero verbum procedendi transtulerunt a motu locali; unde processionem Spiritus sancti aeternam intellexerunt ab aliquo in aliquem; et ideo secundum hunc modum non concesserunt, quod procederet Spiritus sanctus a Filio, *quia ex eo sequeretur, quod procederet a Filio* in Patrem, quod non est conveniens, cum in ipso Patre sit ratio primi principii, et nihil habeat Pater a Filio. Si autem diceretur, quod procederet a Filio in Patrem, videretur Pater aliquid habere a Filio. Sed concesserunt, quod procedat in Filium, in quo ostenditur, quod est amor Patris ad Filium, et etiam insinuatur, quod Filius habet esse a Patre. Latini vero transsumunt verbum procedendi ab exitu sive processu causati a causa. Unde dicunt, quod procedere est ab aliquo exire, quamvis non in aliquem, secundum quod dicitur a mente et notitia procedere amor, quamvis non intelligatur, in aliquid. Et secundum hunc modum dicunt Latini, quod Spiritus sanctus procedit a Patre et Filio, quia exit ab utroque, velut amor a notitia et mente.»

**IV.** S. Ioannes Damascenus, cuius doctrinam S. Bonav. (hic ad ultim.) asserit non esse in hac re sustinendam, etiam a S. Thom. (S. I. q. 36. a. 2. ad 3.) erroris accusatur; additur autem, quod a nonnullis excusetur. Sed iam Scot. (hic q. 1.) illum S. Doctorem melius explicat eiusque orthodoxiam in hac re vindicat, quod nunc a theologis communiter est receptum.

**V.** Argumentum 4. in fundam., quod, negata processione Spiritus sancti a Filio, etiam distinctio utriusque debeat negari, a plerisque theologis approbatur, ut ab Alex. Hal., B. Albert., S. Thom., Petr. a Tar., Durand. et fere communiter a sequentibus theologis extra scholam Scoti. Tamen contrarium docent Henr. Gand. (Quodl. 5. q. 9.), Scot. (hic q. unic., et Report., hic q. 2.), Dionys. Carth. (hic. q. 2.); sed Richard. a Med. (hic q. 2.) haeret anceps. Celebris est de hac re controversia inter scholam Scotisticam et Thomisticam aliosque theologos. De argumentis Scotistarum videsis Claud. Frassenium (*Scotus academicus*, tom. 3. tract. 3. disp. 3. a. 3. q. 2.), Ioan. de Rada (l. controv. 15.), et Franc. Macedo (*Collationes doctrinae S. Thom. et Scot.*, coll. 6. diff. 4.).

**VI.** Quoad conclusionem: cfr. Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 43. m. 4, et q. 46. m. 5. — Scot., hic q. unic.; et Report. hic q. 1. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 1; S. 1. q. 36. a. 2; S. c. Gent. IV c. 24. 25; Opusc. 6. *contra Errores Graecorum*. — B. Albert., hic a. 6; S. p. I. tr. 7. q. 31. m. 1. 2. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic q. 1. 2. — Aegid. R., hic 1. princ. q. 1. — Henr. Gand., S. a. 54. q. 6. — Durand., hic q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 1. — Biel, hic q. 1. 2.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** This conclusion, which the schismatic Greeks reject, is contained in the Symbol of the Eleventh Council of Toledo (a. 675) and was defined as an article of faith by the decrees of several Councils, namely Bari (1098), Lyons II, and Florence in the Decree of Union. Moreover the formula in use among the Greeks, namely *that the Father spirates the Holy Spirit through the Son*, was approved by the Council of Florence (Decree of Union) and explained in this sense: «that by this it is signified that the Son too is, according to the Greeks, *cause*, but according to the Latins *principle of the substance* of the Holy Spirit, just as the Father is. And since all things which are the Father's, the Father Himself in begetting gave to His only-begotten Son, except being the Father, this very thing, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, the Son Himself has eternally from the Father, by whom He is also eternally begotten».

**II.** The Holy Doctor (in the body of the article, before the middle) says that «the Latins were taught by manifest revelation»; this however is not to be understood of any new revelation which would add anything to the deposit of faith, but, as is plain from the context, of the *charism of truth*, by which the deposit of faith was rightly expounded — in which deposit, at least implicitly, this dogma had already been revealed.

**III.** With respect to the *reply to 3*, Dionysius the Carthusian (here, q. 1, at the end) says: «Bonaventure also says that Alexander's distinction, at the beginning of his response to this question, is now to be hissed off — Alexander affirming that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son in the same mode in which one flame goes forth from two pieces of wood». But that most learned and most holy man errs. For St. Bonaventure does not hiss off that distinction in itself, but only the *use* of it which some made, supposing that the Holy Spirit proceeds in one way from the Father and in another from the Son. That the Seraphic Doctor fully agrees with his master, the following passage of Alexander proves (S. p. I. q. 43. m. 4.), which we transcribe here all the more willingly because in the editions it labors under a grave error. For there are missing in them the words distinguished by us in italics: *because from this it would follow that He proceeds from the Son*, and immediately after the editions have *inconveniens* in place of *conveniens*. By this reading the sense is wholly disturbed. We have corrected this error from a manuscript codex of the National Library of Florence, in folio, parchment, of the 14th century, sig. I. III. 9, fol. 75 recto; there it is q. 15. m. 12. a. 5.

«It must be said that *to proceed* is said in two ways: in one way, to proceed is said in local motion, which motion is from something to something. In another way, to proceed is said of the going-out of a thing caused from a cause, or of a moved from a mover. According to the first mode, *to proceed* requires a twofold terminus: *from which* and *into which*. According to the second mode, it requires only one, namely *from which*. Hence according to these two modes the term *to proceed* can be transferred to the procession of the Holy Spirit. The Greeks transferred the term *to proceed* from local motion; hence they understood the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit as from someone into someone; and therefore according to this mode they did not concede that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, *because from this it would follow that He proceeds from the Son* into the Father, which is not fitting, since in the Father Himself is the formal character of the first principle, and the Father has nothing from the Son. But if it were said that He proceeds from the Son into the Father, the Father would seem to have something from the Son. But they conceded that He proceeds *into* the Son, in which it is shown that He is the love of the Father for the Son, and also it is intimated that the Son has being from the Father. The Latins, however, transfer the term *to proceed* from the going-out or process of a caused from a cause. Hence they say that to proceed is to go out from something, although not into something — according to the way in which love is said to proceed from the mind and from cognition, although it is not understood [as proceeding] *into* something. And according to this mode the Latins say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, because He goes out from both, as love from cognition and mind.»

**IV.** St. John Damascene, whose doctrine St. Bonaventure (here at the end) asserts is not to be sustained in this matter, is also accused of error by St. Thomas (S. I. q. 36. a. 2. ad 3.); it is added, however, that he is excused by some. But Scotus already (here q. 1.) explains that holy Doctor better and vindicates his orthodoxy in this matter — which is now commonly received among theologians.

**V.** The fourth argument among the *fundamenta*, that, the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son being denied, the distinction of the two must also be denied, is approved by most theologians, as by Alexander of Hales, Bl. Albert, St. Thomas, Peter of Tarantasia, Durandus, and almost commonly by the theologians following [them] outside the school of Scotus. The contrary, however, is taught by Henry of Ghent (Quodl. 5. q. 9.), Scotus (here q. unica, and *Reportata*, here q. 2), Dionysius the Carthusian (here q. 2.); but Richard of Mediavilla (here q. 2.) hesitates undecided. There is a celebrated controversy on this matter between the Scotist school and the Thomist school and other theologians. On the arguments of the Scotists see Claude Frassen (*Scotus academicus*, vol. 3, tract. 3, disp. 3, a. 3, q. 2.), John of Rada (l. controv. 15.), and Francis Macedo (*Collationes doctrinae S. Thom. et Scot.*, coll. 6. diff. 4.).

**VI.** As to the conclusion: cf. Alexander of Hales, S. p. I. q. 43. m. 4, and q. 46. m. 5. — Scotus, here q. unica; and *Reportata* here q. 1. — St. Thomas, here q. 1. a. 1; S. I. q. 36. a. 2; *S.c.G.* IV cc. 24. 25; Opusc. 6, *Contra Errores Graecorum*. — Bl. Albert, here a. 6; S. p. I. tr. 7. q. 31. m. 1. 2. — Peter of Tarantasia, here q. 1. a. 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, here q. 1. 2. — Giles of Rome, here 1. princ. q. 1. — Henry of Ghent, S. a. 54. q. 6. — Durandus, here q. 1. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 1. — Biel, here q. 1. 2.

---

translators_notes:
This is the central *Filioque* question of Bonaventure's *Commentary on the Sentences*. Cross-references inside the chunk:

- *Ad 1* refers forward to **d. 14, a. 1, q. 1** for the full account of *processio causalis* vs. *processio localis*.
- *Ad 4* refers forward to **q. seq.** (d. 11, a. 1, q. 2) on whether Father and Son are *unum principium* of the Holy Spirit.
- *Contra 2* and *Contra 3* refer back to **d. 10, a. 1, q. 2** (Spirit as love) and **d. 10, a. 2, q. 2** (Spirit as bond).

Doctrinal core: Bonaventure casts the Greek/Latin disagreement as a difference at two levels — *cognitio* (the article known) and *professio* (its profession). The cognitive divergence rests on three pairs of analogies, in each of which Bonaventure judges the Latin choice the more spiritual:

| Scriptural term | Greek analog (rejected) | Latin analog (preferred) |
|---|---|---|
| *processio* | local motion *from one into another* | causal procession *of one from another* |
| *spiratio* | exterior breath | interior love |
| *nexus* | middle joining two | extreme in which two are joined |

This same tripartition (causal procession / interior love / extreme-bond) reappears as the structural principle of the responses to objections 1, 2, and 3.

The Anselmian fount/stream/pool simile in apparatus [^41] (from *De Processione Spiritus Sancti*, c. 17) is the classical Western image Bonaventure leans on for *Ad 1* and is one of the most extensively quoted patristic texts in d. 11.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity

title: Dist. 11, Art. 1, Q. 2

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 214 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum Spiritus sanctus procedat a Patre et Filio tanquam ab uno principio.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum Spiritus sanctus procedat a Patre et Filio, in quantum sunt unum, aut in quantum differentes.

1. Et quod *in quantum unum*, videtur per Anselmum in libro *de Processione Spiritus sancti*[^1]: «Nullus intellectus capit, Spiritum sanctum esse Patris et Filii, secundum quod alter est Pater, alter Filius, sed secundum quod uterque est idem Deus».

2. Item, ratione ostenditur sic: unitas effectus est ab unitate actus, et unitas actus ab unitate potentiae vel subiecti; ergo cum una sit persona producta a Patre et Filio, ergo per unum actum producitur et per unam potentiam: ergo spirant, in quantum sunt unum.

3. Item, quod est a duobus, in quantum duo, aut est insufficienter a quolibet, aut ab altero superflue; sed Spiritus sanctus a nulla persona est insufficienter nec superflue, quia neutrum convenit naturae perfectae: ergo etc.

4. Item, quod est a duobus in quantum duo, est compositum, si consubstantialiter[^2] est ab illis; ergo cum a duobus in quantum duo procedit unus, oportet quod illud unum habeat differentiam; sed Spiritus sanctus non est compositus: ergo etc.

5. Item, nihil unum procedit a duobus consimilibus[^3] in natura in quantum duo, nisi alter sit sicut principium activum, alter sicut principium passivum, sive alter ut pater, alter ut mater; sed hoc non est in divinis: ergo etc.

**Contra:**

1. Qui procedit a duobus, ita quod ab uno principalius quam ab alio, procedit[^4] in quantum sunt duo; sed Spiritus sanctus principaliter procedit a Patre, sicut dicit Augustinus et habetur in sequenti distinctione[^5]: ergo etc.

2. Item, qui procedit a duobus in quantum sunt distincti, procedit a duobus in quantum sunt duo; sed nexus non est nisi distinctorum: ergo qui procedit ut nexus, procedit ab eis ut a distinctis, et ita ut a differentibus.

3. Item, ab unitate subiecti est unitas actus, et a pluralitate subiectorum pluralitas actuum[^6]; sed Pater et Filius sunt duo: ergo spirant duplici spiratione: ergo spiratur Spiritus sanctus ab eis, in quantum sunt duo: ergo etc.

4. Item, si spirant Spiritum sanctum in quantum sunt unum, aut[^7] in quantum sunt unum *in substantia*, aut *in notione*, aut *in persona*. Si in quantum sunt unum in substantia: ergo cum Spiritus sanctus sit idem in substantia, Spiritus sanctus procedit a se. Si in quantum sunt idem in notione; hoc nihil est, quia non ideo spirant, quia sunt spiratores, sed e converso. Nec in quantum sunt unum in persona, quia in persona non uniuntur.

> **Conclusio.** *Spiritus sanctus procedit a Patre et a Filio, non quatenus sunt distinctae personae, sed quatenus in eis est una fecunditas voluntatis sive una spiratio activa.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod Spiritus sanctus procedit a Patre et Filio, in quantum sunt unum in fecunditate voluntatis. Una autem est in Patre et Filio voluntas, quia Pater et Filius sunt una substantia; si ergo est in eis voluntatis fecunditas, una est fecunditas in eis. Voluntatis autem fecunditas est in Patre et in Filio, quia uterque[^8] Deus improcessibilis. Sicut enim superius dictum fuit de numero personarum[^9] et infra melius patebit[^10], cum agetur de innascibilitate, quae idem est in Patre quod primitas; cum *primum* et *principium* sint idem[^11]; ratio primitatis est ratio principiandi, sive fecunditatis. Quoniam igitur Pater prior est omni emanatione, scilicet processione et generatione, quia nec generatur nec procedit, hinc est, quod utroque modo est principium. Quia vero Filius prior est emanatione processionis, non generationis — quia generatur, tamen est inspirabilis — hinc est, quod est principium spirandi, non generandi. Quia vero Spiritus sanctus neutro modo se habet, neutro modo est principium. Inde est igitur, quod[^12] quamvis Spiritus sanctus a duobus procedat, quia tamen procedit non ut sunt differentes, sed ut est in eis una fecunditas voluntatis, Spiritus sanctus procedit ab eis, in quantum sunt unum.

**Ad argumenta in oppositum:**

*Ad 1.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod *principaliter* procedit a Patre; dicendum, quod *principaliter* potest dici dupliciter: aut respectu secundarii; et sic importat ordinem prioris et posterioris, et sic ponit diversitatem, et hoc modo non accipitur hic; alio modo prout principalitas dicit quandam *auctoritatem*, sicut Pater dicitur operari per Filium. Unde unaquaeque[^13] creatura producitur a Patre per Filium, in quantum sunt unum; et sic intelligendum est in proposito.

*Ad 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod nexus procedit a pluribus etc.; dicendum, quod ratio nexus *incipit* a distinctione et tendit sive perducit[^14] in unitatem: unde ultima et completiva ratio est unitas. Licet ergo nexus sit duorum et a duobus, si est perfectus nexus, est ab eis in quantum sunt unum, non in quantum sunt plures[^15].

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod ab unitate subiecti est unitas actus et a pluralitate pluralitas; dicendum, quod istud non habet instantiam secundum modum loquendi, quia si duo sunt termini copulati, actus numeratus debet eis[^16] reddi; sed secundum rem distinguendum est, quia subiectum dicitur dupliciter: aut *per se et primo*, aut *non primo*; et illud verum est de subiecto per se et primo, non de alio; et sic accipiendo, Pater et Filius non sunt unum principium, seu[^17] primum subiectum spirationis, quia non spirant secundum quod Pater et Filius, sed secundum quod in eis est una fecunditas voluntatis, et ita in quantum unum.

*Alia solutio.* Vel aliter dicendum, quod est loqui de actu, ut est *actus vel*[^18] *origo*, et de actu, ut est *accidens*. Si loquamur de actu, ut est accidens, de necessitate numeratur ad numerum subiecti, quia non est unum accidens in duobus subiectis. Si autem loquamur de actu, ut est actus, sic comparatur ad subiectum ut ad principium, et sic non numeratur ad numerum subiecti secundum quod subiectum, sed secundum quod principium. Quoniam igitur in divinis spiratio non est accidens, sed productio vel relatio: ideo sequitur unitatem subiecti, ut est principium, quia[^19] Pater et Filius, quamvis duae sint personae, tamen sunt principium unum, quia per eandem virtutem spirant: ideo actus non numeratur in illis, ideo spirant una spiratione, quamvis sint duo.

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod quaeritur ultimo, *aut in quantum unum in substantia* etc.; dicendum, quod in quantum unum *in fecunditate voluntatis*, prout illa voluntas tracta est ad notionem per fecunditatem, quae fecunditas est ratione *primitatis*, quae primitas significatur per hoc quod est *improcessibilis*. Et hoc est quod dicit Anselmus, quod Pater et Filius spirant, secundum quod uterque est *idem Deus*, non secundum quod *Deus simpliciter*, sed secundum quod *Deus in utroque*; hoc est considerare voluntatem in personis.

*Duplex opinio.* Si ergo quaeras, utrum in quantum unum in substantia, aut notione, aut persona; dicendum, quod responderi potest dupliciter, secundum duas opiniones prius positas de potentia generandi, distinctione septima[^20]: quod quidam dicunt, quod potentia generandi non differt a generatione sive paternitate nisi modo loquendi, et ita dicit notionem, scilicet personalem proprietatem, ut generatio, licet alio modo. Similiter isti dicunt, quod fecunditas voluntatis sive vis spirativa dicit eandem notionem quam spiratio, licet alio modo, quia vis spirativa dicit ut in ratione *aptitudinis*, sed spiratio[^21] in ratione *actus*; et ita secundum hos in quantum sunt unum *notione*. Alii dicunt, quod sicut potentia generandi dicit naturam in persona, ita essentiam personaliter, sic vis spirativa voluntatem dicit, ut voluntas est in personis, in quibus est fecunda[^22]; et ita Pater et Filius spirant in quantum unum *in essentia* sive natura sive voluntate, ut dicatur proprius[^23] voluntate considerata in personis. Quaelibet harum positionum mihi videtur satis probabilis.

english:
### Question II. *Whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle.*

Secondly it is asked, whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son *insofar as they are one*, or *insofar as they are differing*.

1. And that [it is] *insofar as they are one* seems [to follow] from Anselm in his book *On the Procession of the Holy Spirit*[^1]: «No understanding grasps that the Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son according as the one is Father and the other Son, but rather according as each is the same God».

2. Likewise, by reason it is shown thus: the unity of the effect is from the unity of the act, and the unity of the act from the unity of the power or subject; therefore since the person produced from the Father and the Son is one, He is produced through one act and through one power: therefore they spirate insofar as they are one.

3. Likewise, what is from two, insofar as [they are] two, is either insufficiently from each, or from the other [given] superfluously; but the Holy Spirit is neither insufficiently nor superfluously from any person, because neither befits a perfect nature: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, what is from two insofar as [they are] two is composite, if it is from them consubstantially[^2]; therefore since one proceeds from two insofar as [they are] two, that one must have difference; but the Holy Spirit is not composite: therefore etc.

5. Likewise, no one [thing] proceeds from two things alike[^3] in nature insofar as [they are] two, unless the one be as an *active* principle, the other as a *passive* principle, or the one as father, the other as mother; but this is not so in the divine being: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:**

1. He who proceeds from two, in such a way that from one more principally than from the other, proceeds[^4] insofar as they are two; but the Holy Spirit principally proceeds from the Father, as Augustine says and as is found in the following distinction[^5]: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, he who proceeds from two insofar as they are distinct, proceeds from two insofar as they are two; but a bond exists only of distinct things: therefore he who proceeds as a bond proceeds from them as from distinct things, and so as from differing things.

3. Likewise, from unity of subject is unity of act, and from plurality of subjects plurality of acts[^6]; but the Father and the Son are two: therefore they spirate by a twofold spiration: therefore the Holy Spirit is spirated by them, insofar as they are two: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, if they spirate the Holy Spirit insofar as they are one, then either[^7] insofar as they are one *in substance*, or *in notion*, or *in person*. If insofar as they are one in substance: then since the Holy Spirit is the same in substance, the Holy Spirit proceeds from Himself. If insofar as they are the same in notion; this is nothing, because they do not spirate because they are spirators, but conversely. Nor [do they spirate] insofar as they are one in person, because they are not united in person.

> **Conclusion.** *The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son, not insofar as they are distinct persons, but insofar as in them there is one fecundity of will, or one active spiration.*

**I respond:** It must be said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son insofar as they are one in fecundity of will. Now there is one will in the Father and the Son, because the Father and the Son are one substance; if therefore there is in them fecundity of will, there is one fecundity in them. Now the fecundity of will is in the Father and in the Son, because each[^8] is the unprocessible God. For as was said above concerning the number of persons[^9], and as will appear better below[^10] when treatment is made of *innascibility*, which in the Father is the same as *primacy*; since *first* and *principle* are the same[^11]; the formal character of *primacy* is the formal character of *being-a-principle*, or of *fecundity*. Since therefore the Father is prior to every emanation, namely procession and generation, because He is neither generated nor proceeds, hence it is that He is principle in either mode. But because the Son is prior to the emanation of procession, not of generation — because He is generated, yet is not-spirable — hence it is that He is principle of spirating, not of generating. But because the Holy Spirit is in neither mode, He is in neither mode a principle. Hence it is, therefore, that[^12] although the Holy Spirit proceeds from two, yet because He proceeds not as they are differing, but as in them there is one fecundity of will, the Holy Spirit proceeds from them insofar as they are one.

**To the arguments to the contrary:**

*To 1.* To what is objected, that He *principally* proceeds from the Father; it must be said that *principally* can be said in two ways: either with respect to a *secondary*; and so it imports the order of prior and posterior, and so posits diversity, and in this way it is not taken here; in another way, insofar as principality denotes a certain *authority*, just as the Father is said to operate through the Son. Hence every[^13] creature is produced by the Father through the Son, insofar as they are one; and so it is to be understood in the case at hand.

*To 2.* To what is objected, that the bond proceeds from many etc.; it must be said that the formal character of bond *begins* from distinction and tends or leads[^14] into unity: hence the ultimate and completive formal character is unity. Although therefore a bond is *of two* and *from two*, if it is a perfect bond, it is from them insofar as they are one, not insofar as they are several[^15].

*To 3.* To what is objected, that from unity of subject is unity of act and from plurality plurality; it must be said that this admits no instance according to the mode of speaking, because if there are two terms coupled, the act, [though] numbered, ought to be predicated of them[^16]; but in reality a distinction is to be made, because *subject* is said in two ways: either *per se and primarily*, or *not primarily*; and that [maxim] is true of subject *per se* and primarily, not of the other; and taking it thus, the Father and the Son are not one principle, or[^17] the primary subject of spiration, because they do not spirate according as they are Father and Son, but according as in them there is one fecundity of will, and so insofar as they are one.

*Another solution.* Or it must be said otherwise, that there is to speak of *act* as *act or*[^18] *origin*, and of *act* as *accident*. If we speak of act as accident, of necessity it is numbered to the number of the subject, because there is not one accident in two subjects. But if we speak of act as act, then it is referred to the subject as to a *principle*, and so it is not numbered to the number of the subject as subject, but as principle. Since therefore in the divine being spiration is not an accident, but production or relation: it follows the unity of subject, as it is principle, because[^19] the Father and the Son, although they be two persons, yet are one principle, because they spirate by the same power: therefore the act is not numbered in them, therefore they spirate by one spiration, although they are two.

*To 4.* To what is asked last, *whether [they spirate] insofar as [they are] one in substance* etc.; it must be said: insofar as [they are] one *in fecundity of will*, inasmuch as that will is drawn into a notion through fecundity, which fecundity is by reason of *primacy*, which primacy is signified by the fact that [the Father] is *unprocessible*. And this is what Anselm says, that the Father and the Son spirate according as each is the *same God*, not according as [each is] *God simply*, but according as [each is] *God in both*; this is to consider the will *in the persons*.

*Twofold opinion.* If, therefore, you ask whether [they spirate] insofar as [they are] one in substance, or in notion, or in person; it must be said that it can be answered in two ways, according to the two opinions previously laid down concerning the power of generating, in distinction seven[^20]: that some say that the power of generating does not differ from generation or paternity except by mode of speaking, and so it denotes a notion, namely a personal property, just as generation does, although in another way. Similarly these say that the fecundity of will, or the spirative power, denotes the same notion as spiration does, although in another way, because the spirative power denotes [it] in the formal character of *aptitude*, but spiration[^21] in the formal character of *act*; and so according to these, [Father and Son spirate] insofar as they are one *in notion*. Others say that, just as the power of generating denotes nature in the person, and so essence personally, so the spirative power denotes the will, as the will is in the persons, in which it is fecund[^22]; and so the Father and the Son spirate insofar as [they are] one *in essence*, or nature, or will — so that it is said more properly[^23] of will considered in the persons. Each of these positions seems to me sufficiently probable.

la: Cap. 21: *Nullus sensus capit, Spiritum sanctum esse Spiritum Patris aut Filii... uterque unus idemque Deus est.*

en: [Anselm,] cap. 21: «No sense grasps that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father or of the Son... each is one and the same God».

la: Plurimi codd. cum ed. 1 *consubstantialiter* loco *substantialiter*. In proxime sequenti propositione exhibemus lectionem, quae in pluribus tantum codicibus ut A H P Q W etc. invenitur. Maior quidem pars codd. cum ed. 1 legit *procedit unus* loco *procedit unum*, quod habet Vat., sed in reliquis convenit cum Vat. ponendo *quia* loco *ergo si* et praemittendo particulas *et ita* verbo *oportet*. Inspicienti tamen patet, in hac propositione non contineri rationem maioris, etiamsi cum cod. T legatur *quia a duobus in quantum duo non procedit unus*; unde in ipsa continetur applicatio maioris ad aliquod speciale, quod et satis clare indicatur per terminum *unus*, scil. persona Spiritus sancti, quae tanquam quid unum habere deberet in se compositionem seu differentiam. Aliqui codd. ut H M bb ee bene post *habeat* addunt *in se*.

en: Very many codices with ed. 1 read *consubstantialiter* in place of *substantialiter*. In the proposition immediately following we present a reading found only in several codices, as A H P Q W etc. The greater part of the codices with ed. 1 reads *procedit unus* in place of *procedit unum*, which the Vatican has, but in the rest it agrees with the Vatican by placing *quia* in place of *ergo si* and prefixing the particles *et ita* to the verb *oportet*. Yet it is plain to one who inspects [the text] that in this proposition the reason of the major is not contained, even if with codex T one reads *because from two insofar as two one [thing] does not proceed*; whence in [this proposition] there is contained the application of the major to something special, which is also indicated clearly enough by the term *one*, namely the person of the Holy Spirit, which as a certain unity ought to have in itself composition or difference. Some codices, as H M bb ee, well add *in se* after *habeat*.

la: Ex mss. et ed. 1 substituimus *consimilibus* pro *similibus*.

en: From the manuscripts and ed. 1 we have substituted *consimilibus* in place of *similibus*.

la: In cod. O additur *ab eis*.

en: In codex O *ab eis* is added.

la: Vide ibid., lit. Magistri, c. 2 et q. 2.

en: See in the same place, the *littera Magistri* (Lombard's text), c. 2, and q. 2.

la: Supplevimus ex cod. T *et a pluralitate subiectorum pluralitas actuum*, quia et contextus ea verba requirit, et in principio solutionis huius obiectionis ipsa explicite recitantur. — Ratio haec fundatur in illo axiomate: *actus sunt suppositorum*; ergo duorum suppositorum non est unica actio.

en: From codex T we have supplied *and from plurality of subjects plurality of acts*, because the context requires those words and they are explicitly recited at the beginning of the solution of this objection. — This reasoning is grounded in the axiom: *acts belong to supposits*; therefore of two supposits there is not one [single] action.

la: Cod. W non male addit *ergo*.

en: Codex W not unfittingly adds *ergo*.

la: Cod. Y addit *est*; cod. Z vero habet *est* loco *Deus*.

en: Codex Y adds *est*; codex Z has *est* in place of *Deus*.

la: Dist. 2, q. 2 et 4.

la: Dist. 28 per totam.

en: D. 28 throughout.

la: Aristot., I *Poster.* c. 2: *Idem enim dico primum et principium*. — Vat., variata constructione, praeter fidem mss. et ed. 1 *et primum et principium sunt idem, et ratio*, sed minus distincte, quae et paulo infra cum cod. cc, antiquioribus interim codd. et ed. 1 refragantibus, post *prior est* perperam adiungit *in*.

en: Aristotle, *Posterior [Analytics]* I, c. 2: «For I call the first and the principle the same». — The Vatican, with altered construction, against the testimony of the manuscripts and ed. 1, reads *et primum et principium sunt idem, et ratio*, but less distinctly; and a little below, with codex cc — the older codices and ed. 1 meanwhile resisting — after *prior est* it wrongly adds *in*.

la: Auctoritate plurimorum mss. expunximus *patet*, quod Vat. minus apte praefigit verbo *quod*; ed. 1 loco *patet* habet *hinc est*. — Consentit Augustinus, V *de Trin.* c. 14, n. 15: *Si ergo et quod datur principium habet eum a quo datur... fatendum est, Patrem et Filium principium esse Spiritus sancti, non duo principia; sed sicut Pater et Filius unus Deus, et ad creaturam relative unus Creator et unus Dominus, sic relative ad Spiritum sanctum unum principium etc.*

en: On the authority of very many manuscripts we have expunged *patet*, which the Vatican less aptly prefixes to the word *quod*; ed. 1 has *hinc est* in place of *patet*. — Augustine agrees, *De Trin.* V, c. 14, n. 15: «If, then, what is given also has the principle [from] which it is given... it must be confessed that the Father and the Son are the principle of the Holy Spirit, not two principles; but just as the Father and the Son are one God, and relatively to the creature one Creator and one Lord, so relatively to the Holy Spirit they are one principle, etc.»

la: Praeferimus lectionem plurium mss. ut F G H P Q *unaquaeque* loco *una*.

en: We prefer the reading of several manuscripts, as F G H P Q, *unaquaeque* (every) in place of *una* (one).

la: Ita plures codd. ut A D E G H I P Q R T etc. Vat. *procedit*, sed minus bene; alii cum ed. 1 falso *produxit*. Mox cod. Z post *ratio* addit *eius*.

en: So several codices, as A D E G H I P Q R T etc. The Vatican reads *procedit*, but less well; others with ed. 1 falsely *produxit*. Just after, codex Z after *ratio* adds *eius*.

la: Vide d. 10, a. 2, q. 2, ad 3. — Richard. a Med., hic q. 3, eandem obiectionem ita solvit: *Dico, quod istud argumentum non plus concludit, nisi quod procedit a pluribus; et hoc est verum. Ab eis tamen procedit in quantum in potentia spirativa sunt unum.*

en: See d. 10, a. 2, q. 2, ad 3. — Richard of Mediavilla, here q. 3, solves the same objection thus: «I say that this argument concludes no more than that He proceeds from several [persons]; and this is true. Yet He proceeds from them insofar as in spirative power they are one».

la: Vat. *ei* loco *eis*, castigatur ope plurimorum mss. et edd. 1, 2, 3, loco cuius cod. X habet *sic*. Exemplum accipe in hoc: *Petrus et Paulus currunt*; ubi actus currendi redditur in plurali utrique subiecto.

en: The Vatican reads *ei* in place of *eis*; it is corrected with the help of very many manuscripts and editions 1, 2, 3, in place of which codex X has *sic*. Take an example in this: *Peter and Paul are running*; where the act of running is rendered in the plural for both subjects.

la: Codd. inter se non conveniunt; multi cum ed. 1 omittunt *seu*; cod. T omittit *principium seu*, cod. H *principium seu primum*; codd. G Z substituunt *unum* pro *seu*.

en: The codices do not agree among themselves; many with ed. 1 omit *seu*; codex T omits *principium seu*, codex H *principium seu primum*; codices G Z substitute *unum* for *seu*.

la: Ed. 1 *sive*. — Vat. praeter fidem mss. et ed. 1 addit *vel origo*.

en: Ed. 1 reads *sive*. — The Vatican, against the testimony of the manuscripts and ed. 1, adds *vel origo*.

la: Vat., fere omnibus antiquioribus mss. et ed. 1 reluctantibus, *quare*; cod. I *et quia*.

en: The Vatican, with nearly all the older manuscripts and ed. 1 resisting, reads *quare*; codex I, *et quia*.

la: Quaest. 1. — Fide mss. et edd. 1, 2, 3, 6 supplevimus verba *distinctione septima; quod quidam dicunt, quod*, loco quorum Vat. *quia ipsa*, quae et paulo infra, post *sive*, multis mss. ut A F G I P Q S T V W X etc. obnitentibus, addit *in*.

en: Q. 1. — On the testimony of the manuscripts and editions 1, 2, 3, 6, we have supplied the words *distinctione septima; quod quidam dicunt, quod*, in place of which the Vatican has *quia ipsa*; and a little below, after *sive*, with many manuscripts (A F G I P Q S T V W X etc.) resisting, [the Vatican] adds *in*.

la: Cod. V repetit hic *ut*.

en: Codex V here repeats *ut*.

la: Aliqui codd. ut H I Z *fecunditas*.

en: Some codices, as H I Z, read *fecunditas*.

la: Pauci codd. ut F M X perperam *prius*. Mox ex antiquis mss. et ed. 1 substituimus *harum* loco *illarum*.

en: A few codices, as F M X, wrongly read *prius*. Just after, from the ancient manuscripts and ed. 1, we have substituted *harum* in place of *illarum*.

latin_scholion:
**I.** Pro intelligentia huius quaestionis notandum, quod Pater et Filius conveniunt in aliqua re notionali scil. *spiratione activa*, in qua Spiritus sanctus non convenit cum eis; unde ipsa ad relationem aliquo modo spectare debet, cum constet, in essentia tres personas omnino convenire. Ad eandem quaestionem accuratius explicandam S. Doctor redit infra d. 29. a. 2. q. 1. 2.

**II.** In solut. ad 4. recurrit S. Doctor ad ea quae supra d. 7. q. 1. de duplici opinione circa potentiam generandi dixit; cfr. ibi Scholion, et infra d. 27. p. I. q. 2, et d. 28. per totam. Sibi constans Seraphicus, qui ibi utramque opinionem probabilem declaravit, etiam hoc loco secundum utramque positionem respondit.

**III.** Conclusio est, quod Pater et Filius producunt Spiritum sanctum, quatenus sunt unum *in fecunditate voluntatis*. Evidens enim est, quod non possint spirare, quatenus sunt unum *in essentia*, quia in essentia etiam cum Spiritu sancto unum sunt, quoad personam vero sunt duo, non unum; ergo producunt Spiritum sanctum, quatenus sunt unum *in notione*, i.e. in spiratione activa.

**IV.** Cfr. infra d. 29. a. 2. q. 1. 2. — Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 70. m. 3. a. 3. seqq. — Scot., *I. Sent.* d. 12. q. 1; et *Report.* d. 12. q. 1. 2. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 2. seqq.; S. I. q. 36. a. 4; S. c. Gent. IV. c. 25. — B. Albert., hic a. 3. i. 5; S. p. I. tr. 7. q. 31. m. 3. q. 1. incident. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 2. seq. — Richard. a Med., hic q. 3. seq. — Aegid. R., hic 2. princ. q. 1. et 2. — Henr. Gand., S. a. 34. q. 6. n. 50. seqq. — Durand., hic q. 3. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 3. 4. — Biel, *I. Sent.* d. 12. q. 1. 2.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** For the understanding of this question, it must be noted that the Father and the Son agree in some *notional* reality, namely *active spiration*, in which the Holy Spirit does not agree with them; whence that [reality] must in some way pertain to relation, since it is established that in essence the three persons agree altogether. To explain this same question more accurately, the Holy Doctor returns below at d. 29, a. 2, qq. 1–2.

**II.** In the *reply to 4*, the Holy Doctor recurs to what he said above at d. 7, q. 1, concerning the twofold opinion about the power of generating; cf. the Scholion there, and below d. 27, p. I, q. 2, and d. 28 throughout. Consistent with himself, the Seraphic [Doctor], who there declared each opinion probable, also in this place answers according to each position.

**III.** The conclusion is that the Father and the Son produce the Holy Spirit insofar as they are one *in fecundity of will*. For it is evident that they cannot spirate insofar as they are one *in essence*, because in essence they are also one with the Holy Spirit, while as to person they are two, not one; therefore they produce the Holy Spirit insofar as they are one *in notion*, i.e. in active spiration.

**IV.** Cf. below d. 29, a. 2, qq. 1–2. — Alexander of Hales, S. p. I, q. 70, m. 3, a. 3, seqq. — Scotus, *I. Sent.* d. 12, q. 1; and *Reportata* d. 12, qq. 1–2. — St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 2, seqq.; S. I. q. 36, a. 4; *S.c.G.* IV, c. 25. — Bl. Albert, here a. 3, i. 5; S. p. I, tr. 7, q. 31, m. 3, q. 1, incident. — Peter of Tarantasia, here q. 1, a. 2, seq. — Richard of Mediavilla, here q. 3, seq. — Giles of Rome, here 2, princ. q. 1 et 2. — Henry of Ghent, S. a. 34, q. 6, n. 50, seqq. — Durandus, here q. 3. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here qq. 3–4. — Biel, *I. Sent.* d. 12, qq. 1–2.

---

translators_notes:
This question completes Bonaventure's *articulus unicus* on the *Filioque* (with q. 1 above): given that Father and Son both spirate the Holy Spirit, the further question is *under what formal aspect* they so act — as one, or as two.

**Doctrinal core.** The conclusion: Father and Son spirate as *one principle*, where the unity in question is the *fecundity of will* (= *spiratio activa*). Bonaventure rules out three alternative formulations:

| Alternative | Why rejected |
|---|---|
| in quantum unum *in substantia* | the Holy Spirit is also one in substance with them; would imply procession-from-self |
| in quantum unum *in persona* | Father and Son are not one in person |
| in quantum *duo* | would mean two principles, two spirations, hence composition in the Spirit |

The remaining option — unity *in notione* (active spiration) — is what allows the Spirit to proceed from two persons without composition and without two principles.

**Cross-references inside the chunk:**
- Conclusio: backward to **d. 2, qq. 2 + 4** on the number of persons; forward to **d. 28** on innascibility.
- *Solutio ad 1*: backward to Augustine's "principaliter" via **d. 12** Lombard text.
- *Solutio ad 2*: backward to **d. 10, a. 2, q. 2, ad 3** for the bond doctrine.
- *Solutio ad 4 (duplex opinio)*: backward to **d. 7, q. 1** on the twofold opinion concerning the *potentia generandi* — Bonaventure declines to choose, treating both as "satis probabilis."

**Anselm parallel.** The opening objection (Anselm, *De Processione Spiritus Sancti* c. 21 — "uterque unus idemque Deus est") supplies the very formula Bonaventure adopts in *Ad 4*: spiration *secundum quod uterque est idem Deus*, not *secundum quod Deus simpliciter*. The objection turns out to state the truth.

method: LLM-assisted translation from the Quaracchi Latin, verified chunk-by-chunk against the printed plates (apparatus roster, cross-references, page/gutter boundaries).

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0