Dist. 12, 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/12/q/bon-sent-I-d12-a1-q1
----------------------------------------
### Question I. *Whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father prior to [proceeding from] the Son.*

Concerning the first point — that He is from the Father prior to [being from] the Son — it is shown thus.

**For the affirmative:**

1. The first *cause* is that in which there is rest [*status*], and likewise the first *principle* is that in which there is rest; but rest is in the Father: therefore the Father is first principle; but *first* presupposes *prior*: therefore [the Spirit] proceeds prior from the Father than from the Son.

2. Likewise, the first cause is that which acts when no other [cause] is presupposed: if therefore the Father produces without presupposition of another principle, while the Son [produces] by presupposition, the Father produces prior to the Son.

3. Likewise, what someone has from himself he has prior to what he has from another; but the Father has [the power] to produce the Holy Spirit *from Himself*, and the Son [has it] *from the Father*: therefore the Father has it prior to the Son.

**On the contrary. Foundations:**

1. Where there is no *posterior*, there is no *prior*, because *prior* is said with respect to *posterior*; but in the Trinity there is no *posterior*: therefore neither *prior*. If, then, the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son is eternal, [the conclusion] is plain.

2. Likewise, where there is *prior* and *posterior*, there is a diversity of principles; but the Father and the Son produce the Holy Spirit *insofar as one*, as was shown above: therefore the formal character of *prior* is not there.

3. Likewise, if [the Spirit] proceeds prior from the Father than from the Son, either He does not proceed from the Son, or He proceeds twice; but He proceeds from the Son and does not proceed twice: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, it is possible to understand the prior without the posterior being understood: therefore if [the Spirit] proceeds prior from the Father, it is possible to understand that He proceeds without the Son being co-understood. But on the contrary: the Holy Spirit is *uniting love* and *binding love*; but a mutual love cannot be taken between fewer than two, therefore neither can the Holy Spirit be except from two: therefore neither does He proceed prior from one than from the other.

> **Conclusion.** *The Holy Spirit indeed proceeds prior from the Father than from the Son in [the order of] authority, but not prior in duration, nor in causality, nor even in origin.*

**I respond:** It must be said that *prior* is said in many ways. For there is said *prior in duration*, *prior in causality*, *prior in origin*, *prior in authority*. And in the first two ways *prior* in no way falls in God; because *prior in duration* is contrary to *eternity*, [and] *prior in causality* is contrary to *the unity of essence*. But *prior in origin*, by which the one [is] from the other, and *prior in authority*, by which the one *receives* from the other, do fall there.

But *prior in origin* falls with respect to producer and produced, when the one arises from the other; but when one arises from two, *prior in origin* does not fall there, because then both are *one originative principle*; yet *prior in authority* does fall there, because although the Father and the Son are one in producing, yet the Son receives this from the Father.

If, then, it is asked whether the Holy Spirit proceeds prior from the Father than from the Son: if *prior* is understood *in duration*, it is false; likewise if *prior in causality*; likewise if *prior in origin*, as the first reasons adduced for this prove. But if *prior in authority*, so that *prior* be the same as *more principal*, it has truth.

**To the arguments to the contrary:**

*To 1.* To that, then, which is first objected — that the Father is first principle and cause — it must be said that those reasons hold true where there is plurality of causes or principles; but with respect to the Holy Spirit there is neither plurality of causes nor of principles.

*To 2 and 3.* To what is objected, that one has prior what one has from oneself: it must be said that if *prior* is understood, that is, *more principally*, it is true; but if in another way, false, because one and the same can be had by several persons, in such wise that by one through another; and such priority is not in any of the three aforesaid modes.