|
Objection 1: It would seem that the Holy Ghost does not proceed
from the Father through the Son. For whatever proceeds from one
through another, does not proceed immediately. Therefore, if the
Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father through the Son, He does not
proceed immediately; which seems to be unfitting.
Objection 2: Further, if the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father
through the Son, He does not proceed from the Son, except on
account of the Father. But "whatever causes a thing to be such is
yet more so." Therefore He proceeds more from the Father than from
the Son.
Objection 3: Further, the Son has His being by generation.
Therefore if the Holy Ghost is from the Father through the Son, it
follows that the Son is first generated and afterwards the Holy Ghost
proceeds; and thus the procession of the Holy Ghost is not eternal,
which is heretical.
Objection 4: Further, when anyone acts through another, the same
may be said conversely. For as we say that the king acts through the
bailiff, so it can be said conversely that the bailiff acts through the
king. But we can never say that the Son spirates the Holy Ghost
through the Father. Therefore it can never be said that the Father
spirates the Holy Ghost through the Son.
On the contrary, Hilary says (De Trin. xii): "Keep me, I
pray, in this expression of my faith, that I may ever possess the
Father---namely Thyself: that I may adore Thy Son together with
Thee: and that I may deserve Thy Holy Spirit, who is through Thy
Only Begotten."
I answer that, Whenever one is said to act through another, this
preposition "through" points out, in what is covered by it, some
cause or principle of that act. But since action is a mean between the
agent and the thing done, sometimes that which is covered by the
preposition "through" is the cause of the action, as proceeding from
the agent; and in that case it is the cause of why the agent acts,
whether it be a final cause or a formal cause, whether it be effective
or motive. It is a final cause when we say, for instance, that the
artisan works through love of gain. It is a formal cause when we say
that he works through his art. It is a motive cause when we say that
he works through the command of another. Sometimes, however, that
which is covered by this preposition "through" is the cause of the
action regarded as terminated in the thing done; as, for instance,
when we say, the artisan acts through the mallet, for this does not
mean that the mallet is the cause why the artisan acts, but that it is
the cause why the thing made proceeds from the artisan, and that it has
even this effect from the artisan. This is why it is sometimes said
that this preposition "through" sometimes denotes direct authority,
as when we say, the king works through the bailiff; and sometimes
indirect authority, as when we say, the bailiff works through the
king.
Therefore, because the Son receives from the Father that the Holy
Ghost proceeds from Him, it can be said that the Father spirates the
Holy Ghost through the Son, or that the Holy Ghost proceeds from
the Father through the Son, which has the same meaning.
Reply to Objection 1: In every action two things are to be
considered, the "suppositum" acting, and the power whereby it acts;
as, for instance, fire heats through heat. So if we consider in the
Father and the Son the power whereby they spirate the Holy Ghost,
there is no mean, for this is one and the same power. But if we
consider the persons themselves spirating, then, as the Holy Ghost
proceeds both from the Father and from the Son, the Holy Ghost
proceeds from the Father immediately, as from Him, and mediately,
as from the Son; and thus He is said to proceed from the Father
through the Son. So also did Abel proceed immediately from Adam,
inasmuch as Adam was his father; and mediately, as Eve was his
mother, who proceeded from Adam; although, indeed, this example of
a material procession is inept to signify the immaterial procession of
the divine persons.
Reply to Objection 2: If the Son received from the Father a
numerically distinct power for the spiration of the Holy Ghost, it
would follow that He would be a secondary and instrumental cause; and
thus the Holy Ghost would proceed more from the Father than from the
Son; whereas, on the contrary, the same spirative power belongs to
the Father and to the Son; and therefore the Holy Ghost proceeds
equally from both, although sometimes He is said to proceed
principally or properly from the Father, because the Son has this
power from the Father.
Reply to Objection 3: As the begetting of the Son is co-eternal
with the begetter (and hence the Father does not exist before
begetting the Son), so the procession of the Holy Ghost is
co-eternal with His principle. Hence, the Son was not begotten
before the Holy Ghost proceeded; but each of the operations is
eternal.
Reply to Objection 4: When anyone is said to work through
anything, the converse proposition is not always true. For we do not
say that the mallet works through the carpenter; whereas we can say
that the bailiff acts through the king, because it is the bailiff's
place to act, since he is master of his own act, but it is not the
mallet's place to act, but only to be made to act, and hence it is
used only as an instrument. The bailiff is, however, said to act
through the king, although this preposition "through" denotes a
medium, for the more a "suppositum" is prior in action, so much the
more is its power immediate as regards the effect, inasmuch as the
power of the first cause joins the second cause to its effect. Hence
also first principles are said to be immediate in the demonstrative
sciences. Therefore, so far as the bailiff is a medium according to
the order of the subject's acting, the king is said to work through
the bailiff; but according to the order of powers, the bailiff is said
to act through the king, forasmuch as the power of the king gives the
bailiff's action its effect. Now there is no order of power between
Father and Son, but only order of 'supposita'; and hence we say
that the Father spirates through the Son; and not conversely.
|
|