Dist. 13, 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/13/q/bon-sent-I-d13-a1-q1
----------------------------------------
### Sole Article.

*On the procession of the Holy Spirit and on the difference of procession from generation.*

### Question I.

*Whether procession is to be posited in divine things.*

Concerning the first point — that procession is to be posited in divine things — it is shown:

1. First, by the authority of the Lord, *John* fifteen, where the Saviour himself says: *I will send you the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father.* If, then, Truth speaks only what is true, and the Word of God does not speak

improperly, then truly and properly there is procession in divine things.

2. Likewise, in divine things there is most truly origin, therefore also production; but to every active production there corresponds a passive production; but passive production is procession: therefore from the first point there truly and properly is *[procession]* in divine things.

3. Likewise, our love both is love and is from another, and its issuing-forth from another is truly and properly expressed by the verb *to proceed*: since therefore the divine love, which is the Holy Spirit, is truly and properly love and is from another — just as the name *love* belongs to him most properly, so likewise *procession* seems to befit him.

4. Likewise, for the complete account of procession these two are required: that it be from another, and that it tend toward another; but the love who is the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Father insofar as the Father loves himself, nor from the Son insofar as the Son loves himself, but insofar as one loves the other, since he is the *bond*: therefore the Holy Spirit is the love by which the lover tends toward another: therefore he is love both from another and toward another, and these two embrace the account of perfect procession: therefore procession is in divine things.

**On the contrary:**

1. Procession from the meaning of its very name signifies *withdrawal* and *recession*; whence *processio* is as it were *procul cessio* ("a going-away-from-afar"), just as *praecessio* signifies *antecession*; but just as in divine things there is no antecession on account of supreme simultaneity, so there is no withdrawal on account of supreme unity: therefore, just as in divine things the name of *praecession* is not posited, so neither ought the name of *procession* to be posited.

2. Likewise, in creatures procession from the very meaning of its genus signifies motion, and so indigence and imperfection; but no such name ought to be transferred to God: therefore neither procession.

3. Likewise, creation signifies a specific difference of procession, a difference adding nobility, since it signifies the going-forth of a thing from the Creator, who is the most noble cause; but passive creation is in no way found in divine things, for no person is said to be created: therefore by parity of reasoning neither procession.

4. Likewise, procession in creatures is said only in two ways, namely *local* and *causal*: local, which is in progressive motion, causal, which is the effect from a cause. But local cannot be transferred to divine things, since no change with respect to place falls in God either generically or specifically. And besides, since such [local procession] is from one to another, we should have to posit that the Holy Spirit does not proceed eternally from the Father and the Son; therefore local procession is not found. But this is more noble than causal, since the former [local] is of a complete being and from an intrinsic principle: therefore by argument *a maiori* through place, neither is causal procession found in God: and so no mode of procession is found.

### Conclusion.

> The account of procession is found in divine things truly, properly, and perfectly.

**I respond:** It must be said that procession in creatures signifies a relation to a principle *from which* — as a ray is said to proceed from the sun, or a flower from a tree; and the fact that it signifies change is incidental to it. And likewise, by reason of its name, it signifies a relation to a term *to which*; and the fact that it signifies withdrawal is incidental to it.

Since therefore in divine things both relations are found — for the proceeding person has a relation to the principle *from which*, and the proceeding love has a relation to what is loved (that love, namely, who is the bond and charity) — for that reason the account of procession is found truly, properly, and perfectly in divine things. Hence the arguments adduced for this are to be granted.

**To the arguments to the contrary:**

*To 1.* To that which is objected to the contrary — that procession signifies withdrawal — it must be said that this is true in creatures, in which by approach to the term *to which* there comes about a withdrawal from the term *from which*, on account of their finitude, circumscription, and distance; and it is not so in God.

*To 2.* To what is objected — that it signifies motion in creatures — it must be said that it is not transferred by reason of the motion which it signifies, but by reason of the twofold relation, which, although it cannot be in creatures without motion on account of imperfection, nonetheless is in the Creator.

*To 3.* To what is objected concerning creation, it must be said that creation in its principal imposition signifies *issuance from nothing*; and therefore its signification can in no way be saved in God, neither properly nor by transferred meaning; but it is not so concerning generation and procession.

*To 4.* To what is objected — that neither causal nor local [procession applies] — it must be said that on the contrary, *in the manner of causal* procession, divine procession has a likeness with local. For causal procession in one mode terminates in the proceeder, in such a way that it looks no further, as when it is said: *the son proceeds from the father*; in another mode, insofar as the effect regards something as a term; and in this way love proceeds from the lover into the beloved, and in some manner agrees with local procession, since it regards a term *to which*; in another manner it differs, since it does not regard [the term] as if it were received in it, but as an object. And since relation and emanation are truly found in divine things, hence it is that the emanation [in God] is said in likeness to causal emanation. But the likeness of local procession does not fall there except remotely; and therefore the Greeks were deceived.

And to the point that local procession is the more perfect, it must be said that local procession always has imperfection joined to it from the meaning of its name; not so the originative kind. And it is true that it is the more perfect among motions; but procession in divine things does not signify motion, but *origin without motion or change*, as was said above concerning generation.

### Scholion.

**I.** The account of procession in creatures contains essentially a twofold relation, namely *to the term from which* and *to the term to which*. These relations of themselves entail no imperfection, hence they can also be posited in divine things. Secondarily, however, and by accident ("this is incidental to it," as the Holy Doctor says), procession in creatures imports imperfections, namely both change or motion *of the principle from which*, and withdrawal *of the term to which*. These imperfections must be excluded from procession in divine things. On this distinction and the other given in the response *to 1*, cf. Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. 1, q. 43, m. i, in corp.

**II.** The conclusion pertains to faith. Cf. Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. — Scotus, on this and the two following questions in *Oxon.* and *Report.* here, q. 1. — St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 1; *Summa* I, q. 27, a. 1. — Bl. Albert, I *Sent.* d. 11, a. 1; *Summa* p. I, tr. 7, q. 31, m. i. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, here q. 1. — Aegidius of Rome, here, 4. princ. q. i. — Henry of Ghent, on this and the following, *Summa* a. 61, q. 2, n. 6 ff. — Durandus, here q. 1. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 2. — Biel, I *Sent.* d. 11, q. 1.

---