Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It would seem that there cannot be any procession in God. For procession signifies outward movement. But in God there is nothing mobile, nor anything extraneous. Therefore neither is there procession in God.

Objection 2: Further, everything which proceeds differs from that whence it proceeds. But in God there is no diversity; but supreme simplicity. Therefore in God there is no procession.

Objection 3: Further, to proceed from another seems to be against the nature of the first principle. But God is the first principle, as shown above (Question 2, Article 3). Therefore in God there is no procession.

On the contrary, Our Lord says, "From God I proceeded" (Jn. 8:42).

I answer that, Divine Scripture uses, in relation to God, names which signify procession. This procession has been differently understood. Some have understood it in the sense of an effect, proceeding from its cause; so Arius took it, saying that the Son proceeds from the Father as His primary creature, and that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son as the creature of both. In this sense neither the Son nor the Holy Ghost would be true God: and this is contrary to what is said of the Son, "That . . . we may be in His true Son. This is true God" (1 Jn. 5:20). Of the Holy Ghost it is also said, "Know you not that your members are the temple of the Holy Ghost?" (1 Cor. 6:19). Now, to have a temple is God's prerogative. Others take this procession to mean the cause proceeding to the effect, as moving it, or impressing its own likeness on it; in which sense it was understood by Sabellius, who said that God the Father is called Son in assuming flesh from the Virgin, and that the Father also is called Holy Ghost in sanctifying the rational creature, and moving it to life. The words of the Lord contradict such a meaning, when He speaks of Himself, "The Son cannot of Himself do anything" (Jn. 5:19); while many other passages show the same, whereby we know that the Father is not the Son. Careful examination shows that both of these opinions take procession as meaning an outward act; hence neither of them affirms procession as existing in God Himself; whereas, since procession always supposes action, and as there is an outward procession corresponding to the act tending to external matter, so there must be an inward procession corresponding to the act remaining within the agent. This applies most conspicuously to the intellect, the action of which remains in the intelligent agent. For whenever we understand, by the very fact of understanding there proceeds something within us, which is a conception of the object understood, a conception issuing from our intellectual power and proceeding from our knowledge of that object. This conception is signified by the spoken word; and it is called the word of the heart signified by the word of the voice.

As God is above all things, we should understand what is said of God, not according to the mode of the lowest creatures, namely bodies, but from the similitude of the highest creatures, the intellectual substances; while even the similitudes derived from these fall short in the representation of divine objects. Procession, therefore, is not to be understood from what it is in bodies, either according to local movement or by way of a cause proceeding forth to its exterior effect, as, for instance, like heat from the agent to the thing made hot. Rather it is to be understood by way of an intelligible emanation, for example, of the intelligible word which proceeds from the speaker, yet remains in him. In that sense the Catholic Faith understands procession as existing in God.

Reply to Objection 1: This objection comes from the idea of procession in the sense of local motion, or of an action tending to external matter, or to an exterior effect; which kind of procession does not exist in God, as we have explained.

Reply to Objection 2: Whatever proceeds by way of outward procession is necessarily distinct from the source whence it proceeds, whereas, whatever proceeds within by an intelligible procession is not necessarily distinct; indeed, the more perfectly it proceeds, the more closely it is one with the source whence it proceeds. For it is clear that the more a thing is understood, the more closely is the intellectual conception joined and united to the intelligent agent; since the intellect by the very act of understanding is made one with the object understood. Thus, as the divine intelligence is the very supreme perfection of God (Question 14, Article 2), the divine Word is of necessity perfectly one with the source whence He proceeds, without any kind of diversity.

Reply to Objection 3: To proceed from a principle, so as to be something outside and distinct from that principle, is irreconcilable with the idea of a first principle; whereas an intimate and uniform procession by way of an intelligible act is included in the idea of a first principle. For when we call the builder the principle of the house, in the idea of such a principle is included that of his art; and it would be included in the idea of the first principle were the builder the first principle of the house. God, Who is the first principle of all things, may be compared to things created as the architect is to things designed.

Articulus 1

Argumentum 1

Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod in deo non possit esse aliqua processio. Processio enim significat motum ad extra. Sed in divinis nihil est mobile, neque extraneum.

Ergo neque processio.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, omne procedens est diversum ab eo a quo procedit. Sed in deo non est aliqua diversitas, sed summa simplicitas.

Ergo in deo non est processio aliqua.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, procedere ab alio videtur rationi primi principii repugnare. Sed deus est primum principium, ut supra ostensum est.

Ergo in deo processio locum non habet.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod dicit dominus, Ioan. VIII, ego ex deo processi.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod divina Scriptura, in rebus divinis, nominibus ad processionem pertinentibus utitur. Hanc autem processionem diversi diversimode acceperunt.

Quidam enim acceperunt hanc processionem secundum quod effectus procedit a causa.

Et sic accepit Arius, dicens filium procedere a patre sicut primam eius creaturam, et spiritum sanctum procedere a patre et filio sicut creaturam utriusque.

Et secundum hoc, neque filius neque spiritus sanctus esset verus deus.

Quod est contra id quod dicitur de filio, I Ioan. Ult., ut simus in vero filio eius, hic est verus deus.

Et de spiritu sancto dicitur, I Cor. VI, nescitis quia membra vestra templum sunt spiritus sancti? templum autem habere solius dei est.

Alii vero hanc processionem acceperunt secundum quod causa dicitur procedere in effectum, inquantum vel movet ipsum, vel similitudinem suam ipsi imprimit.

Et sic accepit Sabellius, dicens ipsum deum patrem filium dici, secundum quod carnem assumpsit ex virgine. Et eundem dicit spiritum sanctum, secundum quod creaturam rationalem sanctificat, et ad vitam movet.

Huic autem acceptioni repugnant verba domini de se dicentis, Ioan. V, non potest facere a se filius quidquam; et multa alia, per quae ostenditur quod non est ipse pater qui filius.

Si quis autem diligenter consideret, uterque accepit processionem secundum quod est ad aliquid extra, unde neuter posuit processionem in ipso deo.

Sed, cum omnis processio sit secundum aliquam actionem, sicut secundum actionem quae tendit in exteriorem materiam, est aliqua processio ad extra; ita secundum actionem quae manet in ipso agente, attenditur processio quaedam ad intra. Et hoc maxime patet in intellectu, cuius actio, scilicet intelligere, manet in intelligente. Quicumque enim intelligit, ex hoc ipso quod intelligit, procedit aliquid intra ipsum, quod est conceptio rei intellectae, ex VI intellectiva proveniens, et ex eius notitia procedens. Quam quidem conceptionem vox significat, et dicitur verbum cordis, significatum verbo vocis.

Cum autem deus sit super omnia, ea quae in deo dicuntur, non sunt intelligenda secundum modum infimarum creaturarum, quae sunt corpora; sed secundum similitudinem supremarum creaturarum, quae sunt intellectuales substantiae; a quibus etiam similitudo accepta deficit a repraesentatione divinorum. Non ergo accipienda est processio secundum quod est in corporalibus, vel per motum localem, vel per actionem alicuius causae in exteriorem effectum, ut calor a calefaciente in calefactum; sed secundum emanationem intelligibilem, utpote verbi intelligibilis a dicente, quod manet in ipso. Et sic fides catholica processionem ponit in divinis.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod obiectio illa procedit de processione quae est motus localis, vel quae est secundum actionem tendentem in exteriorem materiam, vel in exteriorem effectum, talis autem processio non est in divinis, ut dictum est.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod id quod procedit secundum processionem quae est ad extra, oportet esse diversum ab eo a quo procedit.

Sed id quod procedit ad intra processu intelligibili, non oportet esse diversum, imo, quanto perfectius procedit, tanto magis est unum cum eo a quo procedit. Manifestum est enim quod quanto aliquid magis intelligitur, tanto conceptio intellectualis est magis intima intelligenti, et magis unum, nam intellectus secundum hoc quod actu intelligit, secundum hoc fit unum cum intellecto.

Unde, cum divinum intelligere sit in fine perfectionis, ut supra dictum est, necesse est quod verbum divinum sit perfecte unum cum eo a quo procedit, absque omni diversitate.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod procedere a principio ut extraneum et diversum, repugnat rationi primi principii, sed procedere ut intimum et absque diversitate, per modum intelligibilem, includitur in ratione primi principii. Cum enim dicimus aedificatorem principium domus, in ratione huius principii includitur conceptio suae artis, et includeretur in ratione primi principii, si aedificator esset primum principium. Deus autem, qui est primum principium rerum, comparatur ad res creatas ut artifex ad artificiata.