Dist. 11, Art. 1, Q. 1
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/1/d/11/q/bon-sent-I-d11-a1-q1
----------------------------------------
### 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: 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, 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: *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 this error by Doctors who are celebrated not only among them but also among us. And first by Gregory Nazianzen, 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*: «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 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: «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**. *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, 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*; 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 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: *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.

8. Likewise, John 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 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: *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, 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; 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 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 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 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 [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 that the Holy Spirit proceeds as a *bond* and *communion*, and bond can be twofold, either as a middle joining one 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 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 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 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* *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, 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 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*, 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 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; nor was the sentence laid down against those who perfect, but against those who corrupt. Or it can be said, as Anselm says, 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 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 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, 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; since to proceed *into* another is in two ways, either because He tends to another as 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.

*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 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 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] 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. 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: *My doctrine is not mine*. Likewise He says in John 15: *Who proceeds from the Father*, speaking of the Holy Spirit, and yet He Himself adds: *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 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; 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* 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.