Question Two. Whether the Father and the Son uniformly inspirit the Holy Spirit

54. Second I ask whether the Father and the Son altogether uniformly inspirit the Holy Spirit.

That they do not: Augustine On the Trinity XV ch.17 n.29: “The Holy Spirit proceeds principally from the Father.” Therefore not principally from the Son; therefore not altogether uniformly.

55. Again, Jerome Epistle 88 [=Ps.-Jerome Epistle 17 to Cyril]: “The Holy Spirit is properly from the Father,” through the Son. Not therefore properly from the Son.

56. Again, Hilary On the Trinity XII n.57: “May I merit the Holy Spirit, who is from you through your only Begotten.”     Therefore he is from the Father through the Son; therefore not uniformly from both.

57. Again, Richard [of St. Victor] On the Trinity V ch.9: “The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father mediately and immediately, but from the Son only immediately.” Therefore etc     .

58. Again, every first cause acts more than the second, from the first proposition in On Causes; and it is plain from the statement of the Philosopher in Posterior Analytics 1.2.72a29-30, and in Metaphysics 2.1.993b26-30: “The principles of necessary things must always be most true, because they are cause of truth for other things.”     Therefore every first producer produces more than the second producer; the Father seems to produce first, because he gives the producing to the Son, therefore etc     .

59. On the contrary:

They inspirit the Holy Spirit by one principle, insofar as it is altogether one in them, - from the preceding question [n.36 above]; therefore altogether uniformly.

I. To the Question

60. I reply. An act can be considered in three ways: either in itself, or insofar as it is of a term, or insofar as it is compared to the acting supposits. In the first two ways there is altogether uniformity, or rather unity, because there is most truly one act and one produced term. Speaking in the third way, just as the inspiriting force is communicated to the Son by the Father, so also the Son has from the Father the fact that he inspirits, - and so the Father inspirits from himself, the Son not from himself.

61. On the contrary: therefore the Father inspirits the Holy Spirit before the Son inspirits the Holy Spirit, because in the first moment of origin, in which the Father has being from himself, he has inspiriting from himself, - and then the Son would not inspirit, because if the Holy Spirit is pre-understood to have being from the Father prior to from the Son, then the Son will not produce an already existing Holy Spirit.

62. I reply. About these orders or origins, or about many orders of priority and posteriority, there will be discussion elsewhere [II d.1 q.1 nn.13-18]. But as to what concerns the intended proposition, one should not understand that the Father inspirits before the Son inspirits, in the way that the Father generates first in origin before he inspirits, because then the Son would not inspirit (as the argument [n.61] deduces), just as the Holy Spirit cannot generate a Son already understood to be generated. But the order that exists in the Father is as follows: first both fecundities are from himself; second, there is in the Father the act of first fecundity, and then in the Son there is the second fecundity; third there is the act of the second fecundity, from the Father and the Son together as then having that fecundity, - yet still in a certain order, because the act is of the Father from himself, but of the Son not from himself but from the Father, just as neither in the second moment is there that fecundity of the Son from himself, but it is of the Father from himself. There is not then an order of origin between the inspiriting of the Father and of the Son, as if the Father inspirited in some moment of origin in which the Son does not inspirit, but they inspirit together in the same moment of origin; there is however there an order of inspiritings in the act of inspiriting, because the Father in that moment of origin inspirits from himself, but the Son not from himself.

II. To the Principal Arguments

63. Through this is the answer plain to all the authorities adduced [nn.54-58], -because it is for this reason that Augustine says the Father inspirits principally [n.54]; for he himself expounds it: “Therefore I said ‘principally’, because the Son has from the Father the fact that he inspirits.”

64. However, a certain doctor [Bonaventure] says that the Father inspirits principally and more principally, but the Son only principally, because the Son has authorship with respect to the Holy Spirit while the Father has authorship both with respect to the Son and with respect to the Holy Spirit, insofar as he inspirits. - But another doctor [Henry] contradicts him, because there is not there any comparison properly speaking in some one form, but there is only there comparison in words; just as [the Archangel] Michael is said to be holier than the demon, where there is only a comparison in words and not in any from common to each extreme (but the form is only in one extreme and not in the other), so principality is in the Father, so that it is the same thing for the Father to inspirit more principally and for him to inspirit principally.

65. As to the other from Jerome [n.55], I say that he alone is said to be proprietor who does not, in possessing a thing, depend on another, but a borrower is said to be he who, in using a thing, depends on another and is not properly a proprietor. The Father, therefore, who has inspiriting force from himself, is rightly said properly to inspirit, but the Son does not thus properly inspirit - that is from himself -, although he does properly inspirit, that is not improperly or imperfectly.

66. Through the same point [n.62] the answer is plain to Hilary when he says that the Holy Spirit is from the Father through the Son [n.56]. - Yet a distinction is drawn, because something determined by this preposition ‘through’ with its causal force is compared either to a transitive verb or to an intransitive one; if to a transitive verb, then sub-authorship is noted in the causal force of this preposition, as ‘the Father creates through the Son’; if to an absolute or intransitive verb, then authorship is noted in the causal force of this preposition, and this either authorship of efficient causality, as ‘man lives through God’, or authorship of formal causality, as ‘man is wise through wisdom’.

67. And through the same point [n.62] the response is plain to Richard [n.57]. For the Father, with the same fecundity, inspirits the Holy Spirit immediately, but, insofar as he gives to the Son the virtue of inspiriting whereby the Son inspirits, the Father can be said to inspirit mediately; nor is there here any difference of form in perfection and imperfection, or anything which might posit diversity in act, but only a different way of having the same virtue, - because the Father has it from himself and the Son not from himself but from the Father.

68. To the final one [n.58] I say that the proposition is true about cause and caused, because of the fact that, in ordered causes, there is a different and a more principal virtue of causing in the prior cause, but it is not so in a principle which is not a cause, because there is not there a different virtue of being principle. Thus it is in the intended proposition, and therefore the first principle is not more of a principle than the second, just as neither is a superior cause more of a cause if it causes along with the second cause by the same causative virtue as that by which the second cause causes.