Et huic quidem consonat ratio processionis utriusque. Dictum enim est supra quod filius procedit per modum intellectus, ut verbum; Spiritus Sanctus autem per modum voluntatis, ut amor. Necesse est autem quod amor a verbo procedat, non enim aliquid amamus, nisi secundum quod conceptione mentis apprehendimus. Unde et secundum hoc manifestum est quod Spiritus Sanctus procedit a filio. Furthermore, the order of the procession of each one agrees with this conclusion. For it was said above (Q. 27, AA. 2, 4; Q. 28, A. 4), that the Son proceeds by the way of the intellect as Word, and the Holy Spirit by way of the will as Love. Now love must proceed from a word. For we do not love anything unless we apprehend it by a mental conception. Hence also in this way it is manifest that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. Ipse etiam ordo rerum hoc docet. Nusquam enim hoc invenimus, quod ab uno procedant plura absque ordine, nisi in illis solum quae materialiter differunt; sicut unus faber producit multos cultellos materialiter ab invicem distinctos, nullum ordinem habentes ad invicem. Sed in rebus in quibus non est sola materialis distinctio, semper invenitur in multitudine productorum aliquis ordo. Unde etiam in ordine creaturarum productarum, decor divinae sapientiae manifestatur. Si ergo ab una persona patris procedunt duae personae, scilicet filius et Spiritus Sanctus, oportet esse aliquem ordinem eorum ad invicem. Nec potest aliquis ordo alius assignari, nisi ordo naturae, quo alius est ex alio. Non est igitur possibile dicere quod filius et Spiritus Sanctus sic procedant a patre, quod neuter eorum procedat ab alio, nisi quis poneret in eis materialem distinctionem, quod est impossibile. We derive a knowledge of the same truth from the very order of nature itself. For we nowhere find that several things proceed from one without order except in those which differ only by their matter; as for instance one smith produces many knives distinct from each other materially, with no order to each other; whereas in things in which there is not only a material distinction we always find that some order exists in the multitude produced. Hence also in the order of creatures produced, the beauty of the divine wisdom is displayed. So if from the one Person of the Father, two persons proceed, the Son and the Holy Spirit, there must be some order between them. Nor can any other be assigned except the order of their nature, whereby one is from the other. Therefore it cannot be said that the Son and the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father in such a way as that neither of them proceeds from the other, unless we admit in them a material distinction; which is impossible. Unde etiam ipsi Graeci processionem spiritus sancti aliquem ordinem habere ad filium intelligunt. Concedunt enim spiritum sanctum esse spiritum filii, et esse a patre per filium. Et quidam eorum dicuntur concedere quod sit a filio, vel profluat ab eo, non tamen quod procedat. Quod videtur vel ex ignorantia, vel ex protervia esse. Quia si quis recte consideret, inveniet processionis verbum inter omnia quae ad originem qualemcumque pertinent, communissimum esse. Utimur enim eo ad designandum qualemcumque originem; sicut quod linea procedit a puncto, radius a sole, rivus a fonte; et similiter in quibuscumque aliis. Unde ex quocumque alio ad originem pertinente, potest concludi quod Spiritus Sanctus procedit a filio. Hence also the Greeks themselves recognize that the procession of the Holy Spirit has some order to the Son. For they grant that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Son; and that He is from the Father through the Son. Some of them are said also to concede that He is from the Son; or that He flows from the Son, but not that He proceeds; which seems to come from ignorance or obstinacy. For a just consideration of the truth will convince anyone that the word procession is the one most commonly applied to all that denotes origin of any kind. For we use the term to describe any kind of origin; as when we say that a line proceeds from a point, a ray from the sun, a stream from a source, and likewise in everything else. Hence, granted that the Holy Spirit originates in any way from the Son, we can conclude that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod de Deo dicere non debemus quod in sacra Scriptura non invenitur vel per verba, vel per sensum. Licet autem per verba non inveniatur in sacra Scriptura quod Spiritus Sanctus procedit a filio, invenitur tamen quantum ad sensum; et praecipue ubi dicit filius, Ioan. XVI, de spiritu sancto loquens, ille me clarificabit, quia de meo accipiet. Regulariter etiam in sacra Scriptura tenendum est, quod id quod de patre dicitur, oportet de filio intelligi, etiam si dictio exclusiva addatur, nisi solum in illis in quibus pater et filius secundum oppositas relationes distinguuntur. Cum enim dominus, Matth. XI, dicit, nemo novit filium nisi pater, non excluditur quin filius seipsum cognoscat. Sic igitur cum dicitur quod Spiritus Sanctus a patre procedit, etiam si adderetur quod a solo patre procedit, non excluderetur inde filius, quia quantum ad hoc quod est esse principium spiritus sancti, non opponuntur pater et filius; sed solum quantum ad hoc, quod hic est pater et ille filius. Reply Obj. 1: We ought not to say about God anything which is not found in Holy Scripture either explicitly or implicitly. But although we do not find it verbally expressed in Holy Scripture that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, still we do find it in the sense of Scripture, especially where the Son says, speaking of the Holy Spirit, He will glorify Me, because He shall receive of Mine (John 16:14). It is also a rule of Holy Scripture that whatever is said of the Father, applies to the Son, although there be added an exclusive term; except only as regards what belongs to the opposite relations, whereby the Father and the Son are distinguished from each other. For when the Lord says, No one knoweth the Son, but the Father, the idea of the Son knowing Himself is not excluded. So therefore when we say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, even though it be added that He proceeds from the Father alone, the Son would not thereby be at all excluded; because as regards being the principle of the Holy Spirit, the Father and the Son are not opposed to each other, but only as regards the fact that one is the Father, and the other is the Son. Ad secundum dicendum quod in quolibet Concilio institutum fuit symbolum aliquod, propter errorem aliquem qui in Concilio damnabatur. Unde sequens Concilium non faciebat aliud symbolum quam primum, sed id quod implicite continebatur in primo symbolo, per aliqua addita explanabatur contra haereses insurgentes. Unde in determinatione Chalcedonensis synodi dicitur, quod illi qui fuerunt congregati in Concilio Constantinopolitano, doctrinam de spiritu sancto tradiderunt, non quod minus esset in praecedentibus (qui apud Nicaeam congregati sunt), inferentes; sed intellectum eorum adversus haereticos declarantes. Quia igitur in tempore antiquorum Conciliorum nondum exortus fuerat error dicentium spiritum sanctum non procedere a filio; non fuit necessarium quod hoc explicite poneretur. Sed postea, insurgente errore quorundam, in quodam Concilio in Occidentalibus partibus congregato, expressum fuit auctoritate Romani pontificis; cuius auctoritate etiam antiqua Concilia congregabantur et confirmabantur. Continebatur tamen implicite in hoc ipso quod dicebatur Spiritus Sanctus a patre procedere. Reply Obj. 2: In every council of the Church a symbol of faith has been drawn up to meet some prevalent error condemned in the council at that time. Hence subsequent councils are not to be described as making a new symbol of faith; but what was implicitly contained in the first symbol was explained by some addition directed against rising heresies. Hence in the decision of the council of Chalcedon it is declared that those who were congregated together in the council of Constantinople, handed down the doctrine about the Holy Spirit, not implying that there was anything wanting in the doctrine of their predecessors who had gathered together at Nicaea, but explaining what those fathers had understood of the matter. Therefore, because at the time of the ancient councils the error of those who said that the Holy Spirit did not proceed from the Son had not arisen, it was not necessary to make any explicit declaration on that point; whereas, later on, when certain errors rose up, in another council assembled in the west, the matter was explicitly defined by the authority of the Roman Pontiff, by whose authority also the ancient councils were summoned and confirmed. Nevertheless the truth was contained implicitly in the belief that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. Ad tertium dicendum quod spiritum sanctum non procedere a filio, primo fuit a Nestorianis introductum; ut patet in quodam symbolo Nestorianorum damnato in Ephesina synodo. Et hunc errorem secutus fuit Theodoretus Nestorianus, et plures post ipsum; inter quos fuit etiam Damascenus. Unde in hoc eius sententiae non est standum. Quamvis a quibusdam dicatur quod Damascenus, sicut non confitetur spiritum sanctum esse a filio, ita etiam non negat, ex vi illorum verborum. Reply Obj. 3: The Nestorians were the first to introduce the error that the Holy Spirit did not proceed from the Son, as appears in a Nestorian creed condemned in the council of Ephesus. This error was embraced by Theodoric the Nestorian, and several others after him, among whom was also Damascene. Hence, in that point his opinion is not to be held. Although, too, it has been asserted by some that while Damascene did not confess that the Holy Spirit was from the Son, neither do those words of his express a denial thereof. Ad quartum dicendum quod per hoc quod Spiritus Sanctus dicitur quiescere vel manere in filio, non excluditur quin ab eo procedat, quia et filius in patre manere dicitur, cum tamen a patre procedat. Dicitur etiam Spiritus Sanctus in filio quiescere, vel sicut amor amantis quiescit in amato; vel quantum ad humanam naturam Christi, propter id quod scriptum est, Ioan. I, super quem videris spiritum descendentem, et manentem super eum, hic est qui baptizat. Reply Obj. 4: When the Holy Spirit is said to rest or abide in the Son, it does not mean that He does not proceed from Him; for the Son also is said to abide in the Father, although He proceeds from the Father. Also the Holy Spirit is said to rest in the Son as the love of the lover abides in the beloved; or in reference to the human nature of Christ, by reason of what is written: On whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, He it is who baptizes (John 1:33). Ad quintum dicendum quod verbum in divinis non accipitur secundum similitudinem verbi vocalis, a quo non procedit spiritus, quia sic tantum metaphorice diceretur, sed secundum similitudinem verbi mentalis, a quo amor procedit. Reply Obj. 5: The Word in God is not taken after the similitude of the vocal word, whence the breath does not proceed; for it would then be only metaphorical; but after the similitude of the mental word, whence proceeds love. Ad sextum dicendum quod per hoc quod Spiritus Sanctus perfecte procedit a patre, non solum non superfluum est dicere quod Spiritus Sanctus procedat a filio; sed omnino necessarium. Quia una virtus est patris et filii; et quidquid est a patre, necesse est esse a filio, nisi proprietati filiationis repugnet. Non enim filius est a seipso, licet sit a patre. Reply Obj. 6: For the reason that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father perfectly, not only is it not superfluous to say He proceeds from the Son, but rather it is absolutely necessary. Forasmuch as one power belongs to the Father and the Son; and because whatever is from the Father, must be from the Son unless it be opposed to the property of filiation; for the Son is not from Himself, although He is from the Father. Ad septimum dicendum quod Spiritus Sanctus distinguitur personaliter a filio in hoc, quod origo unius distinguitur ab origine alterius. Sed ipsa differentia originis est per hoc, quod filius est solum a patre, Spiritus Sanctus vero a patre et filio. Non enim aliter processiones distinguerentur, sicut supra ostensum est. Reply Obj. 7: The Holy Spirit is distinguished from the Son, inasmuch as the origin of one is distinguished from the origin of the other; but the difference itself of origin comes from the fact that the Son is only from the Father, whereas the Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son; for otherwise the processions would not be distinguished from each other, as explained above, and in Q. 27. Articulus 3 Article 3 Utrum Spiritus Sanctus procedat a patre per filium Whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son? Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod Spiritus Sanctus non procedat a patre per filium. Quod enim procedit ab aliquo per aliquem, non procedit ab eo immediate. Si igitur Spiritus Sanctus procedit a patre per filium, non procedit a patre immediate. Quod videtur inconveniens. Objection 1: It would seem that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Father through the Son. For whatever proceeds from one through another, does not proceed immediately. Therefore, if the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, He does not proceed immediately; which seems to be unfitting. Praeterea, si Spiritus Sanctus procedit a patre per filium, non procedit a filio nisi propter patrem. Sed propter quod unumquodque, et illud magis. Ergo magis procedit a patre quam a filio. Obj. 2: Further, if the Holy Spirit 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. Praeterea, filius habet esse per generationem. Si igitur Spiritus Sanctus est a patre per filium, sequitur quod prius generetur filius, et postea procedat Spiritus Sanctus. Et sic processio spiritus sancti non est aeterna. Quod est haereticum. Obj. 3: Further, the Son has His being by generation. Therefore if the Holy Spirit is from the Father through the Son, it follows that the Son is first generated and afterwards the Holy Spirit proceeds; and thus the procession of the Holy Spirit is not eternal, which is heretical. Praeterea, cum aliquis dicitur per aliquem operari, potest e converso dici, sicut enim dicimus quod rex operatur per ballivum, ita potest dici quod ballivus operatur per regem. Sed nullo modo dicimus quod filius spiret spiritum sanctum per patrem. Ergo nullo modo potest dici quod pater spiret spiritum sanctum per filium. Obj. 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 Spirit through the Father. Therefore it can never be said that the Father spirates the Holy Spirit through the Son. Sed contra est quod Hilarius dicit, in libro de Trin., conserva hanc, oro, fidei meae religionem, ut semper obtineam patrem, scilicet te; et filium tuum una tecum adorem; et spiritum sanctum tuum, qui est per unigenitum tuum, promerear. 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. Respondeo dicendum quod in omnibus locutionibus in quibus dicitur aliquis per aliquem operari, haec praepositio per designat in causali aliquam causam seu principium illius actus. Sed cum actio sit media inter faciens et factum, quandoque illud causale cui adiungitur haec praepositio per, est causa actionis secundum quod exit ab agente. Et tunc est causa agenti quod agat; sive sit causa finalis, sive formalis, sive effectiva vel motiva, finalis quidem, ut si dicamus quod artifex operatur per cupiditatem lucri; formalis vero, ut si dicamus quod operatur per artem suam; motiva vero, si dicamus quod operatur per imperium alterius. Quandoque vero dictio causalis cui adiungitur haec praepositio per, est causa actionis secundum quod terminatur ad factum; ut cum dicimus, artifex operatur per martellum. Non enim significatur quod martellus sit causa artifici quod agat, sed quod sit causa artificiato ut ab artifice procedat; et quod hoc ipsum habeat ab artifice. Et hoc est quod quidam dicunt, quod haec praepositio per quandoque notat auctoritatem in recto, ut cum dicitur, rex operatur per ballivum, quandoque autem in obliquo, ut cum dicitur, ballivus operatur per regem. 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. Quia igitur filius habet a patre quod ab eo procedat Spiritus Sanctus, potest dici quod pater per filium spirat spiritum sanctum; vel quod Spiritus Sanctus procedat a patre per filium, quod idem est. Therefore, because the Son receives from the Father that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Him, it can be said that the Father spirates the Holy Spirit through the Son, or that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, which has the same meaning. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod in qualibet actione est duo considerare, scilicet suppositum agens, et virtutem qua agit; sicut ignis calefacit calore. Si igitur in patre et filio consideretur virtus qua spirant spiritum sanctum, non cadit ibi aliquod medium, quia haec virtus est una et eadem. Si autem considerentur ipsae personae spirantes, sic, cum Spiritus Sanctus communiter procedat a patre et filio, invenitur Spiritus Sanctus immediate a patre procedere, inquantum est ab eo; et mediate, inquantum est a filio. Et sic dicitur procedere a patre per filium. Sicut etiam Abel processit immediate ab Adam, inquantum Adam fuit pater eius; et mediate, inquantum Eva fuit mater eius, quae processit ab Adam; licet hoc exemplum materialis processionis ineptum videatur ad significandam immaterialem processionem divinarum personarum. Reply Obj. 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 Spirit, there is no mean, for this is one and the same power. But if we consider the persons themselves spirating, then, as the Holy Spirit proceeds both from the Father and from the Son, the Holy Spirit 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. Ad secundum dicendum quod, si filius acciperet a patre aliam virtutem numero ad spirandum spiritum sanctum, sequeretur quod esset sicut causa secunda et instrumentalis, et sic magis procederet a patre quam a filio. Sed una et eadem numero virtus spirativa est in patre et filio, et ideo aequaliter procedit ab utroque. Licet aliquando dicatur principaliter vel proprie procedere de patre, propter hoc quod filius habet hanc virtutem a patre. Reply Obj. 2: If the Son received from the Father a numerically distinct power for the spiration of the Holy Spirit, it would follow that He would be a secondary and instrumental cause; and thus the Holy Spirit 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 Spirit 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. Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut generatio filii est coaeterna generanti, unde non prius fuit pater quam gigneret filium; ita processio spiritus sancti est coaeterna suo principio. Unde non fuit prius filius genitus, quam Spiritus Sanctus procederet, sed utrumque aeternum est. Reply Obj. 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 Spirit is co-eternal with His principle. Hence, the Son was not begotten before the Holy Spirit proceeded; but each of the operations is eternal. Ad quartum dicendum quod, cum aliquis dicitur per aliquid operari, non semper recipitur conversio, non enim dicimus quod martellus operetur per fabrum. Dicimus autem quod ballivus operatur per regem, quia ballivi est agere, cum sit dominus sui actus. Martelli autem non est agere, sed solum agi, unde non designatur nisi ut instrumentum. Dicitur autem ballivus operari per regem, quamvis haec praepositio per denotet medium, quia, quanto suppositum est prius in agendo, tanto virtus eius est immediatior effectui, quia virtus causae primae coniungit causam secundam suo effectui, unde et prima principia dicuntur immediata in demonstrativis scientiis. Sic igitur, inquantum ballivus est medius secundum ordinem suppositorum agentium, dicitur rex operari per ballivum, secundum ordinem vero virtutum, dicitur ballivus operari per regem, quia virtus regis facit quod actio ballivi consequatur effectum. Ordo autem non attenditur inter patrem et filium quantum ad virtutem; sed solum quantum ad supposita. Et ideo dicitur quod pater spirat per filium, et non e converso. Reply Obj. 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. Articulus 4 Article 4 Utrum pater et filius sint unum principium spiritus sancti Whether the Father and the Son are one principle of the Holy Spirit? Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod pater et filius non sint unum principium spiritus sancti. Quia Spiritus Sanctus non videtur a patre et filio procedere inquantum sunt unum, neque in natura, quia Spiritus Sanctus sic etiam procederet a seipso, qui est unum cum eis in natura; neque etiam inquantum sunt unum in aliqua proprietate, quia una proprietas non potest esse duorum suppositorum, ut videtur. Ergo Spiritus Sanctus procedit a patre et filio ut sunt plures. Non ergo pater et filius sunt unum principium spiritus sancti. Objection 1: It would seem that the Father and the Son are not one principle of the Holy Spirit. For the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Father and the Son as they are one; not as they are one in nature, for the Holy Spirit would in that way proceed from Himself, as He is one in nature with Them; nor again inasmuch as they are united in any one property, for it is clear that one property cannot belong to two subjects. Therefore the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as distinct from one another. Therefore the Father and the Son are not one principle of the Holy Spirit. Praeterea, cum dicitur, pater et filius sunt unum principium spiritus sancti, non potest ibi designari unitas personalis, quia sic pater et filius essent una persona. Neque etiam unitas proprietatis, quia si propter unam proprietatem pater et filius sunt unum principium spiritus sancti, pari ratione, propter duas proprietates pater videtur esse duo principia filii et spiritus sancti; quod est inconveniens. Non ergo pater et filius sunt unum principium spiritus sancti. Obj. 2: Further, in this proposition the Father and the Son are one principle of the Holy Spirit, we do not designate personal unity, because in that case the Father and the Son would be one person; nor again do we designate the unity of property, because if one property were the reason of the Father and the Son being one principle of the Holy Spirit, similarly, on account of His two properties, the Father would be two principles of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, which cannot be admitted. Therefore the Father and the Son are not one principle of the Holy Spirit. Praeterea, filius non magis convenit cum patre quam Spiritus Sanctus. Sed Spiritus Sanctus et pater non sunt unum principium respectu alicuius divinae personae. Ergo neque pater et filius. Obj. 3: Further, the Son is not one with the Father more than is the Holy Spirit. But the Holy Spirit and the Father are not one principle as regards any other divine person. Therefore neither are the Father and the Son. Praeterea, si pater et filius sunt unum principium spiritus sancti aut unum quod est pater; aut unum quod non est pater. Sed neutrum est dare, quia si unum quod est pater, sequitur quod filius sit pater; si unum quod non est pater, sequitur quod pater non est pater. Non ergo dicendum est quod pater et filius sint unum principium spiritus sancti. Obj. 4: Further, if the Father and the Son are one principle of the Holy Spirit, this one is either the Father or it is not the Father. But we cannot assert either of these positions because if the one is the Father, it follows that the Son is the Father; and if the one is not the Father, it follows that the Father is not the Father. Therefore we cannot say that the Father and the Son are one principle of the Holy Spirit. Praeterea, si pater et filius sunt unum principium spiritus sancti videtur e converso dicendum quod unum principium spiritus sancti sit pater et filius. Sed haec videtur esse falsa, quia hoc quod dico principium, oportet quod supponat vel pro persona patris, vel pro persona filii; et utroque modo est falsa. Ergo etiam haec est falsa, pater et filius sunt unum principium spiritus sancti. Obj. 5: Further, if the Father and the Son are one principle of the Holy Spirit, it seems necessary to say, conversely, that the one principle of the Holy Spirit is the Father and the Son. But this seems to be false; for this word principle stands either for the person of the Father, or for the person of the Son; and in either sense it is false. Therefore this proposition also is false, that the Father and the Son are one principle of the Holy Spirit. Praeterea, unum in substantia facit idem. Si igitur pater et filius sunt unum principium spiritus sancti, sequitur quod sint idem principium. Sed hoc a multis negatur. Ergo non est concedendum quod pater et filius sint unum principium spiritus sancti. Obj. 6: Further, unity in substance makes identity. So if the Father and the Son are the one principle of the Holy Spirit, it follows that they are the same principle; which is denied by many. Therefore we cannot grant that the Father and the Son are one principle of the Holy Spirit. Praeterea, pater et filius et Spiritus Sanctus, quia sunt unum principium creaturae, dicuntur esse unus creator. Sed pater et filius non sunt unus spirator, sed duo spiratores, ut a multis dicitur. Quod etiam consonat dictis Hilarii, qui dicit, in II de Trin., quod Spiritus Sanctus a patre et filio auctoribus confitendus est. Ergo pater et filius non sunt unum principium spiritus sancti. Obj. 7: Further, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are called one Creator, because they are the one principle of the creature. But the Father and the Son are not one, but two Spirators, as many assert; and this agrees also with what Hilary says (De Trin. ii) that the Holy Spirit is to be confessed as proceeding from Father and Son as authors. Therefore the Father and the Son are not one principle of the Holy Spirit. Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in V de Trin., quod pater et filius non sunt duo principia, sed unum principium spiritus sancti. On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. v, 14) that the Father and the Son are not two principles, but one principle of the Holy Spirit. Respondeo dicendum quod pater et filius in omnibus unum sunt, in quibus non distinguit inter eos relationis oppositio. Unde, cum in hoc quod est esse principium spiritus sancti, non opponantur relative, sequitur quod pater et filius sunt unum principium spiritus sancti. I answer that, The Father and the Son are in everything one, wherever there is no distinction between them of opposite relation. Hence since there is no relative opposition between them as the principle of the Holy Spirit it follows that the Father and the Son are one principle of the Holy Spirit. Quidam tamen dicunt hanc esse impropriam, pater et filius sunt unum principium spiritus sancti. Quia cum hoc nomen principium, singulariter acceptum, non significet personam, sed proprietatem, dicunt quod sumitur adiective, et quia adiectivum non determinatur per adiectivum, non potest convenienter dici quod pater et filius sint unum principium spiritus sancti, nisi unum intelligatur quasi adverbialiter positum, ut sit sensus, sunt unum principium, idest uno modo. Sed simili ratione posset dici pater duo principia filii et spiritus sancti, idest duobus modis. Dicendum est ergo quod, licet hoc nomen principium significet proprietatem, tamen significat eam per modum substantivi, sicut hoc nomen pater vel filius etiam in rebus creatis. Unde numerum accipit a forma significata, sicut et alia substantiva. Sicut igitur pater et filius sunt unus Deus, propter unitatem formae significatae per hoc nomen Deus; ita sunt unum principium spiritus sancti, propter unitatem proprietatis significatae in hoc nomine principium. Some, however, assert that this proposition is incorrect: The Father and the Son are one principle of the Holy Spirit, because, they declare, since the word principle in the singular number does not signify person, but property, it must be taken as an adjective; and forasmuch as an adjective cannot be modified by another adjective, it cannot properly be said that the Father and the Son are one principle of the Holy Spirit unless one be taken as an adverb, so that the meaning should be: They are one principle—that is, in one and the same way. But then it might be equally right to say that the Father is two principles of the Son and of the Holy Spirit—namely, in two ways. Therefore, we must say that, although this word principle signifies a property, it does so after the manner of a substantive, as do the words father and son even in things created. Hence it takes its number from the form it signifies, like other substantives. Therefore, as the Father and the Son are one God, by reason of the unity of the form that is signified by this word God; so they are one principle of the Holy Spirit by reason of the unity of the property that is signified in this word principle. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, si attendatur virtus spirativa, Spiritus Sanctus procedit a patre et filio inquantum sunt unum in virtute spirativa, quae quodammodo significat naturam cum proprietate, ut infra dicetur. Neque est inconveniens unam proprietatem esse in duobus suppositis, quorum est una natura. Si vero considerentur supposita spirationis, sic Spiritus Sanctus procedit a patre et filio ut sunt plures, procedit enim ab eis ut amor unitivus duorum. Reply Obj. 1: If we consider the spirative power, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as they are one in the spirative power, which in a certain way signifies the nature with the property, as we shall see later (ad 7). Nor is there any reason against one property being in two supposita that possess one common nature. But if we consider the supposita of the spiration, then we may say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, as distinct; for He proceeds from them as the unitive love of both.