Tractatus de Deo Trino secundum personas

« The foundations for conceiving somewhat more distinctly the mode of the divine processions and relations are contained in revelation in this, that in the Scriptures and in the explanation of the Fathers and theologians it is taught that the Son or Word proceeds through the formal character of the intellect, and the Holy Spirit through the formal character of the will or love ».

I. In the Scriptures and in the doctrine of all the Fathers the proper personal character of God the Son is declared most expressly, namely that He is the Word of the Father (ὁ Λόγος). Moreover, He is the Word in a proper, not metaphorical, sense, because this notion of Word is set forth in all revelation as the proper name of the Son, by which his formal and distinguishing character is designated (cf. Ruiz disp. 55. sect. 4.), although certainly in comparison with the word in created spirits the signification is analogical in such a way that, as regards the thing signified, the notion of Word belongs most perfectly to the Son of God, analogically and according to a shadow-image to the created word; as regards the imposition of the name, however, and in accordance with our prior knowledge, in inverse order it is said first of the created word, and from this is transferred to the divine archetype. These things indeed are common to all the ideas and names by which we know and express divine things (supra th. XIX.).

Furthermore, in creatures it is not the uttered word but the word of the mind that must be conceived, so that from the analogy of the image we may be led to some understanding of the archetype. « Attend to your heart... when you conceive a word that you are about to utter, you intend to say a thing, and the very conception of the thing in your heart is already a word; it has not yet gone forth, but it is already born in the heart, and it remains that it may go forth... As you hold in your heart the word that you speak, and it is with you, and that very conception is spiritual; for just as your soul is a spirit, so too the word which you have conceived is a spirit, for it has not yet received sound so that it may be divided into syllables, but it remains in the conception of the heart and in the mirror (al. spectaculo) of the mind: thus God brought forth the Word, i.e. begot the Son. And you indeed in time beget a word even in the heart; God without time begot the Son, through whom He created all times » s. Aug. in Io. tract. XIV. n. 7. and then both Augustine himself often elsewhere and the other Fathers.

If at times the Fathers consider the word even as outwardly uttered, this is done so that against the Sabellians the distinction between the word and the one producing it may appear more evident; besides, even there they regard the word insofar as it is the image and expression of the thing understood, as the offspring of the mind, and so with the internal word included at the same time. For as St. Thomas says (I. q. 34. a. 1.), « for this reason the exterior voice is called word, because it signifies the interior concept of the mind; thus therefore first and principally the interior concept of the mind is called word, and secondarily the voice itself significative of the interior concept ». St. Cyril of Alexandria excellently considers the analogy from the uttered and implanted word conjoined together. « The uttered word (ὁ λόγος ὁ προφορικός) which we use is begotten in the mind (εἰς νοῦν cf. supra p. 209. 210.) and from the mind, and it indeed seems to be something other than that which dwells in the heart, insofar as it is sent forth beyond the mouth as from a depth into the light; but it is again in that (in the internal word) and in all things like to it. For one can discern in the (uttered) word the thought of the heart, and again in the mind the word still silent; so also the Son of God, proceeding indivisibly from the Father, is the character and likeness of His property, being a hypostatic and living Word from the living Father. Thus the Father begot from Himself the Son indivisibly, as if a wise man should beget a wise thought, the knowledge of mechanics or of geometry or something of this sort. For such things seem in a way to be fruits of wisdom, and this they are from their own nature. But the art which wisdom devises is not divided from wisdom; rather it is from her and in her, exhibiting the image of its begetter, and yet without division it seems to be another than she: so also the generation of the Son, since it is undivided from the Father, is preserved in its own hypostasis, yet far exceeding the force of this likeness » s. Cyrill. Thesaur. T. V. P. I. p. 47. 48. Conversely, the holy Doctors sometimes call the Son the reason of the Father, or the reason in the paternal mind, so that the unity of essence may be declared more expressly; although the reason, as proceeding from the mind and thus distinct from the mind, is nothing other than the expressed wisdom or word.

Furthermore, just as the Word, so too begotten wisdom, both in the Scriptures (supra th. VII.) and most frequently by the Fathers, is exhibited as the proper notion of the Son, who is from the Father another, yet not another thing.

If therefore it is asked about the mode of the procession of the Son from the Father, revelation itself contains the doctrine that the Father begets the Son intellectually as His Word and as begotten wisdom. But this is the same as if it were said: the Father, under the formal character of the intellect, by understanding produces the Word; or the paternal intellection from its intimate necessary character produces the Word as its immanent term. The intellection, formally as producing the Word and therefore relative to the Word, constitutes the Father, or is the Father Himself; whence it is a notional intellection, i.e. one which under this formal character of producing the Word is proper to the Father, and by which the Father becomes known to us as a distinct person (supra p. 357).

The very producing through intellection, from the same character, is a notional act, and is wont to be called dictio ad intra; notional speaking, therefore, in God is nothing other than understanding as it were active ad intra, i.e. productive of the Word.

II. We make the transition to the procession of the third person, insofar as pertains to this place, where we ask only one thing: whether this procession is through the will, i.e. through the formal character of volition or love.¹ Here the demonstration is somewhat more difficult, namely by deduction from less explicit testimonies; whence some theologians, not finding the Holy Spirit exhibited in the Scriptures as love, just as the Son is exhibited as the Word, think that the biblical argument is to be restricted to this, that from the already demonstrated procession of the Word through the intellect we should deduce the procession of the Holy Spirit through the will. And the deduction is of this sort. Spiritual processions cannot be except through intellect and will; the procession of the Word is through the intellect, as the Scriptures demonstrate; the procession of the third person, however, is another, so that the Holy Spirit is not the Word; therefore it is through the will (Ruiz disp. 73. sect. 1. n. 7. seqq.). Others judge that this deduction is not convincing, but that one ought to demonstrate by authority and positive doctrine the proper character of the Holy Spirit, namely that He proceeds as subsistent love, and thus is an immanent term produced by love, just as the Word is the term of intellection (Franc. de Lugo disp. II. c. 2. n. 6. sqq.). Certainly, for demonstrating whether this mode of procession exists, that theological argument does not seem sufficiently efficacious unless it rests upon the positive doctrine of the Scriptures and the Fathers concerning the personal character of the Holy Spirit; but with this doctrine presupposed, we can, insofar as the nature of the mystery permits, advance by that internal and as it were a priori argument into the understanding of the mode of procession, why it is so.

1°. The Scriptures teach us about the mode of the divine processions, or about the proper character of the personal characters, through appropriations: namely, that certain operations ad extra, although common to the whole Trinity, are ascribed by a certain law to one person, insofar as those operations have a peculiar analogy with the proper character of the person (vid. th. XIII). Now indeed, to the Holy Spirit in the Scriptures there is specially attributed first the work of the Incarnation itself, which is from the infinite charity of God, and from which is the origin of all grace and sanctity in us; to Him is attributed the union of the humanity with the Word and thus (efficiently) the substantial sanctification of the same humanity, and likewise the anointing of the most holy humanity through created grace Luc. I. 35; Matth. XVIII. 20; Act. X. 38; Luc. IV. 18. (vide Tract. de Incarn. th. XLI.).

Then, as regards the members of Christ, from the Holy Spirit is the diffusion of charity in the hearts of the faithful: « the charity of God is poured forth in our hearts by the Holy Spirit, who is given to us » Rom. V. 5. Whence not only the operation of created charity, but uncreated charity is specially appropriated to Him: « I beseech you by the charity of the Holy Spirit » ib. XV. 30. The highest happiness which the Apostle wishes for the faithful is « the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the charity of God and the communication of the Holy Spirit » 2. Cor. XIII. 13. The Holy Spirit is the author of all sanctity, piety, and sweetness: « but the fruit of the Spirit is charity, joy, peace, patience, benignity, goodness, longanimity, meekness, faith, modesty, continence, chastity » Gal. V. 22. 23. The distribution of all charisms is through the Holy Spirit 1. Cor. XII. 4. 8-11; Heb. II. 4. In the one body of the Church the individual members are baptized and sanctified in the Holy Spirit; regeneration is the « renewal of the Holy Spirit » Io. I. 33; III. 5. 8; Act. I. 5; XI. 16; XIX. 2-6; 1. Cor. XII. 13; Tit. III. 5; Heb. VI. 5. They are transformed « from glory to glory as by the Spirit of the Lord » 2. Cor. III. 18. The Holy Spirit is the « Spirit of adoption of sons, in whom we cry: Abba (Father) » Rom. VIII. 14-16; Gal. IV. 6. The Holy Spirit dwells in His sanctified ones as in a temple; He Himself is the anointing and the pledge in their hearts: « your members are the temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have from God.... Glorify and bear God in your body » 1. Cor. XIX. 20; « He who anointed us is God, who also sealed us, and gave the pledge of the Spirit in our hearts » 2. Cor. I. 22. (vid. Rom. VIII. 9. 11; 1. Cor. III. 16; 2. Cor. V. 5; Eph. I. 13; V. 18; 1. Thess. IV. 8; 2. Tim. I. 14; 1. Io. III. 24; IV. 13). « By the Spirit of God the sons of God are led » Rom. VIII. 14. He Himself « intercedes for us with unutterable groanings » (στεναγμοῖς ἀλαλήτοις) Rom. VIII. 26. The Church « is filled with the consolation (παρακλήσει) of the Holy Spirit » Act. IX. 31; Rom. XIV. 17; the disciples « are filled with joy and the Holy Spirit » Act. XIII. 52; 1. Thess. I. 6. By sins « the Holy Spirit is grieved » Eph. IV. 30. (cf. Matth. XII. 31; Act. V. 3; VII. 5; Heb. X. 29). Likewise the offices and the governance of the body of the Church, above all the infallibility of the Church, are from the Holy Spirit the Paraclete, whom the world cannot receive, who is sent and remains in the Church forever. Act. XIII. 2; XX. 28; Io. XIV. 16. 17. 26; XV. 26; XVI. 13-13. The sensible symbols of the sent Holy Spirit are the breath of the incarnate Word, by which He is given for the remission of sins and for sanctification Io. XX. 22; the dove remaining over the beloved Son of the Father Matth. III. 16. 17; the fiery tongues sitting upon the consecrated Apostles Act. II. 3. 4.²

Certainly all these things are so ordered that the Holy Spirit is shown most manifestly according to His own proper character as love, which cannot be understood of essential or absolute love; for thus love is common to the three persons as the absolute essence: « God is charity » (1. Io. IV. 8); but love, as a character proper to one person, is necessarily a relation of origin, and so is understood according to the mode of procession through an act of love, whose immanent term is produced love.

This too the revealed name itself expresses, the name Spirit, which is proper to the third person.³ Because it is a hypostatic name, it is necessarily relative, so that Spirit (πνεῦμα), in a grammatically passive sense, is the same as one produced by spiration; spiration, however, ad intra, with (virtual) distinction from the intellection producing the Word in a purely spiritual nature, what is it but love producing love as an internal term?

This signification is still further determined by the constant epithet «Holy Spirit». Because the name is relative, as we have said, it is not the essential sanctity, common to the three, that is declared, but the procession in the mode of sanctity; whence also in this sense the Fathers frequently call sanctity or the sanctifying power the proper character of the third person (Basilius, Cyrillus, Damascenus, Augustinus and others apud Petav. l. II. c. 15. n. 2; VII. c. 12. n. 11; c. 13. n. 21. 22. cf. l. VIII. c. 6. n. 7). The formal ratio of divine sanctity, however, is the infinite love of the infinite good (vid. Tract. de Deo th. XXIX.); whence procession in the mode of sanctity amounts to the same as procession through love.

2°. The holy Fathers understood the doctrine of the Scriptures in this sense, which we are stating, and declared it most lucidly, so that if anything of doubt remained, the interpretation of the Fathers would exclude it all. a) By descriptions, both in proper words and in the most apt metaphors, they declare the notion of the Holy Spirit, which is sanctity, sweetness, goodness. «The Spirit, says Athanasius, is the ointment and the seal, in which the Word anoints and seals all things..... The ointment indeed retains the odor and fragrance (εὐωδίαν καὶ πνοήν) of the ointments..... The ointment and the seal belong not to a created but to the nature of the Son, who joins us to the Father through the Spirit, who is in him» Ath. ad Serap. ep. I. n. 23. 24. He repeats the same, slightly altered, in ep. III. Again, «this ointment (the Holy Spirit) is the fragrance (or breath) of the Son (τὸ χρῖσμα τοῦτο πνοή ἐστι τοῦ Υἱοῦ)..... In the Trinity the Apostle prayed (2. Cor. XIII. 13): the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the charity of God and the communication of the Holy Spirit be with you all. For when we are partakers of the Spirit, we have the grace of the Word, and in him the charity of the Father» ib. n. 3. 6.

Without the metaphors that Athanasius uses here, another distinguished herald of the Holy Spirit, Basilius, speaks. «The way to the knowledge of God is from the one Spirit through the one Son to the one Father. And in the opposite order natural goodness and essential sanctity and royal dignity flow from the Father through the Only-begotten into the Spirit» Basil. de Spiritu Sancto n. 47. «The Holy Spirit, since he is essentially holy, is called the fountain of sanctity» id. ep. 8. n. 10. «Whether you speak of angels or archangels or all the heavenly powers, they receive sanctity through the Spirit; the Spirit himself, however, has natural sanctity, received not by grace but essential, whence also he alone obtains the appellation of Holy» ep. 159. n. 2. cf. ep. 38. n. 4.

Likewise Gregor. Nazianzenus handed down sanctity as the character of the Holy Spirit. «You would define our pious faith, teaching.... the Father truly Father.... the Son truly Son.... the Holy Spirit truly Holy; for neither is another such, nor in such a way, nor is sanctity by addition, but he is sanctity itself» (αὐτοαγιότης) Naz. or. 25. al. 23. n. 16.

Saint Cyrillus agrees with these, not only in the matter but also in the manner of speaking and of arguing. The Spirit, he says, is from the Son, just as «sweetness from honey, heat from fire, refreshment from water.... Let those tell us who dare to call the Spirit holy by participation and not naturally, what then is the Spirit himself in his own hypostasis? But we have heard from the Scriptures nothing other than Holy; therefore he is holy not by participation or composition, but is by essence and nature sanctifying, and, so to speak, the quality of the sanctity of God and the Father, as sweetness from honey and good odor from a flower.... This appellation of his signifies what he is according to essence; for he is called Holy» Cyrill. Thes. T. V. P. I. p. 350. 351. «Think something of this kind, or rather above this, about God and the Holy Spirit: for he is, as it were, a certain odor of his substance; living and efficacious, who transmits to the creature the things that are from God, and by himself inserts participation in the supreme substance of all» id. in Io. l. XI. T. IV. p. 930-932. Hither belong all the sayings of the Fathers by which, as the proper notion of the Holy Spirit, either the sanctifying power (ἁγιαστικὴ δύναμις) from the very mode of procession, or the formal ratio of gift is set forth (vid. Petav. l. VIII. c. 3; Ruiz disp. 75.).

For understanding the force of these circumscriptions among the Fathers, it will help to bring in the explanation of Augustinus. «The Holy Spirit consists in the same unity and equality (with the Father and the Son); for whether he be the unity of both, or sanctity, or charity, or therefore unity because charity, and therefore charity because sanctity, it is manifest (from revelation) that he is not one of the two, by whom both are joined» Aug. Trin. l. VI. c. 5. n. 7.

Against the argument that is drawn from all these sayings of Scripture and of the Fathers to demonstrate the mode of procession of the Holy Spirit through the formal ratio of the will or of dilection, of which he himself is the immanent term as expressed love, the only difficulty can be taken from this, that first of all the third person is designated by Christ the Lord himself as the Spirit of truth, who bears testimony and who teaches all truth (Io. XIV. 17. 26.; XV. 26.; XVI. 13. sq.), no less than as the Holy Spirit and the Spirit of grace. Then some of the most ancient Fathers, Irenaeus, Theophilus Antiochenus, Tertullianus (supra p. 102. 136. 160.), expressly designate the Holy Spirit by the name of wisdom, which otherwise, as we said a little before, is wont to be an appellation of the Word, and accordingly they seem to have understood the procession in the mode of intellect in the third person equally as in the second.

I answer: as regards the text of Scripture, the holy Fathers who here understand by the name of truth the appropriation according to the mode of procession say that the Son is the truth.⁴ «He calls (the Spirit) the Spirit of truth, to signify his own, for he himself is the truth» s. Cyrill. (Caten. in Io. ed. Corderi p. 394. ex l. IX. in Io. Opp. T. IV. p. 810). This interpretation, however, most frequent as it is, and several others, though less apt, by which the Spirit of truth is explained as the Spirit of the New Testament, the faithful and constant Spirit, etc., make manifest how certainly it was the persuasion of the Fathers that it is the proper character, according to the mode of proceeding, not of the third but of the second person, that it should be truth. Besides, in the contexts of the Gospel he who is called the Spirit of truth is most aptly understood both by origin from the truth which is the Son, and by the gift of truth,⁵ inasmuch as, sent by the Father and the Son, he revealed to the Apostles and in the Church by his assistance always preserves the doctrine of the faith — all of which things pertain to the distribution of charisms and graces; whence the appellation Spirit of truth is contained under the other, Spirit of grace, if this is taken in the wider signification.

As for what is then said of the Fathers who designated the Holy Spirit by the name of wisdom, they are very few and singular in this manner of speaking, since by the common usage of the Fathers and of the whole Church wisdom is appropriated to the Word from its mode of proceeding through the intellect; indeed, begotten wisdom is a hypostatic name altogether synonymous with the appellation of the Word; nor indeed did those few ancient doctors in this usurpation of the name think of a peculiar mode of procession of the Holy Spirit. There is nonetheless a certain signification in which they could, without dissent from the other Fathers, appropriate wisdom to the Holy Spirit. Wisdom, namely, can be regarded not only inasmuch as it pertains to the intellect, but also and especially inasmuch as it pertains to the will; and thus wisdom is one of the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit (Is. XI. 2.). Indeed Saint Augustinus observes that what in the Scriptures is called true wisdom is θεοσέβειαν, «which name our translators, wishing to render it also by one word, called pietas.... but because one word cannot do it perfectly, it is better interpreted by two, so that it is rather called the worship of God» Aug. Trin. XIV. c. 1. «And what is his worship but his love, by which we now desire to see him, and believe and hope that we shall see him, and as we make progress, we now see through a mirror in an enigma, then, however, in manifestation?» id. l. XII. c. 14. n. 22. Saint Thomas defines the matter more strictly: «Wisdom imports a certain rectitude of judgment according to the divine reasons.... But to have a right judgment about divine things according to a certain connaturality with them pertains to wisdom, inasmuch as it is a gift of the Holy Spirit.... This kind of connaturality with divine things, however, is effected through charity, which unites us to God» S. Th. 2. 2. q. 45. a. 2. If, therefore, the Holy Spirit is called wisdom as the cause of this piety or wisdom, it is reduced to almost the same ratio as when he is called sanctity or charity. Vide Petav. l. VII. c. 12. n. 16.

b) Expressly Augustinus, and after Augustinus other Fathers, teach as the most certain reason, by which anyone may «seek understanding from faith», that the Holy Spirit is the love or goodness or sanctity of the Father and of the Son, inasmuch as he proceeds through the mutual and one dilection of both. August. Trin. l. VI. c. 5. (ex h. l. Fulgentius ad Ferrand. ep. 14. q. 4. n. 38.); l. IX. X. XI. XIII. c. 20. (n. 26); l. XIV. c. 7. 8. 10. 12.; l. XV. c. 17.; c. 19. (n. 37.); c. 27. (n. 50.); Pseudo Hieronymus in Ps. XVII. 1. (Opp. Hieron. ed. Vallarsi T. VII. append. p. 39.); Ambrosius (vel alius) de Trin. al. in Symbolum Apostol. c. 1. (T. II. append. p. 321.); Greg. M. homil. 30. n. 1. in Pentecost. (Opp. T. I. p. 1574.); Isidorus Etymolog. l. VII. c. 3. n. 5. 18-20. (T. III. p. 306. 308.); Anselmus Monolog. c. 50-60.; Bernard. in Pentecost. serm. 3. n. 2.; in Cantic. serm. 8. n. 1. 2. 4.; Guitmundus in Confess. Trin. (Bibl. Max. T. XVIII. p. 466.); Hugo Victor. Erudit. Theol. l. VII. c. 21.; Sent. Tract. 1. c. 6.; Richard. Victor. Trin. l. VI. c. 10.; Conc. Toletan. XI. (anno 675.) in Profess. fidei (Hard. III. p. 1020.). Then all the Scholastics, both the ancient from the Master onward (1. dist. 10.) and the more recent (cf. Ruiz disp. II. sect. 2. 5. 6.), suppose and teach the same, if you except Durandus,⁶ to whom some add Gregorius Ariminensis, and the Nominalists Okamus and Gabriel Biel.

Thus, from the mode in which the Scriptures themselves describe the person of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, from the sense and consensus of the Fathers and doctors, there remains a certain foundation of some analogical understanding of ours, by which we may be able to conceive the Most Holy Trinity. Just as, namely, in the created spirit the internal word proceeds as the term of intellection, and immanent love as the term of active dilection, so in the uncreated spirit the substantial Word, and substantial love, the Holy Spirit, proceed through the formal ratio of intellection and dilection. «Not in vain in this Trinity is nothing called the Word of God except the Son, nor the Gift of God except the Holy Spirit..... Hence it came about that properly (hypostatically) the Word of God was also called the wisdom of God, although (essentially) both the Father and the Holy Spirit are wisdom. If, therefore, one of these three is properly to be named charity, what is more apt than that this should be the Holy Spirit..... Just as, therefore, we properly call the unique Word of God by the name of wisdom, although universally (in the common essence) both the Holy Spirit and the Father himself are wisdom, so the Holy Spirit is properly named by the word charity, although universally both the Father and the Son are charity (both are proved from 1. Cor. I. 24.; 1. Io. IV. 7.)... I see that I have disputed in this book about the Holy Spirit according to the Scriptures this, which suffices for the faithful who already know that God is the Holy Spirit... Of the creature also which God made, as far as we were able, we have admonished those who demand a reason about such things, that they might behold, as far as they could, his invisible things understood through the things that are made, and especially through the rational or intellectual creature, which was made to the image of God, through which as through a mirror, as far as they could, if they could, they might discern God the Trinity in our memory (the intellect informed with habitual ideas cf. supra p. 210)⁷, understanding (in the act of intellection), will..... Indeed, God the Father and God the Son, that is, God the Begetter, who in a certain way spoke all the things that he has substantially in his co-eternal Word, and his Word itself, God, who himself also has neither more nor less substantially than what is in him who begot the Word not mendaciously but truthfully, as I was able, I have taken care to signify — not as that already face to face, but through this similitude in an enigma, as far as could be conjectured — in the memory and understanding of our mind; attributing to memory everything that we know, even if we do not think of it from there, but to understanding, in a certain proper way, the information of (actual) thought...... where also the intimate word is begotten, which is of no language, as knowledge from knowledge, and vision from vision, and the understanding that appears in thought, from the understanding that was already in memory but lay hidden... But about the Holy Spirit nothing was shown in this enigma that seemed similar to him, except our will or love or (expressed) dilection, which is the stronger will...... Although human memory — and especially that which beasts do not have, that is, by which intelligible things are so contained that they have not come into it through the senses of the body — has, according to its measure, in this image of the Trinity an incomparably unequal but nevertheless some kind of likeness of the Father; and likewise human understanding, which is informed from it through the intention of thought, when what is known is said (in the mind) and is the word of no language, has in its great disparity some likeness of the Son; and the love of man proceeding from knowledge and joining memory and understanding, as common to parent and offspring, whence it is understood to be neither parent nor offspring, has in this image some, though very unequal, likeness of the Holy Spirit; not however, just as in this image of the Trinity these three are not one man but belong to one man, so in that supreme Trinity of which this is the image those three are of one God, but they are one God, and those three are not one person» Aug. Trin. l. XV. n. 29. 31. 39. 40. 41. 43. See the rest in the places of Augustinus cited above.