Tractatus de Deo Trino secundum personas

« The procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son equally as from the Father is demonstrated from the manifest doctrine of the Son himself, consigned in the Scriptures at Io. XVI. 13 sq.; then from the relation of the Spirit to the Son indicated in many places, no otherwise than He is the Spirit of the Father ».

1. Most manifestly the Son declares not only the relation of the Holy Spirit to Himself, but also the reason for this relation, at Io. XVI. 13-15, in such a way that by this very fact that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, He is said to proceed equally from the Son, because although the Father is not the Son, nevertheless all perfections and formal reasons (except being the Father and being the Son, or, what amounts to the same, except the generation of the Word and the formal reason of the Word) are altogether common and one in the Father and in the Son, and therefore in both there is also one power or one act of spirating the third person through the communication of the one essence.

« When he, the Spirit of truth (ἐκεῖνος, τὸ Πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας), has come, he will teach you all truth; for he will not speak from himself, but whatever he will hear¹ , he will speak; and the things that are to come he will announce to you. He will glorify me, because he will receive from what is mine, and will announce it to you. All things whatsoever the Father has, > are mine. Therefore I said: because he will receive from what is mine² , and will announce it to you. »

The Spirit of truth, τὸ Πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας, teaching all truth, is absolute truth itself, ἡ ἀλήθεια, of which there is now no need to speak; for the divinity of the third person is here presupposed.

1°. Now the Spirit of truth « will not speak from himself, but whatever he will hear, he will speak »; indeed this is given as the very reason and declaration why he is absolute truth: he will teach all truth, for he will not speak from himself. These words, spoken of a divine person, evidently cannot have any other sense than that speech, doctrine, absolute wisdom is not to this person from herself, that is, is not uncommunicated; but is communicated to her by another divine person, who is the principle of her origin. For this hearing and learning in a divine person cannot signify anything other than the communication of wisdom, which is identified with the divine essence. In exactly the same way the Son demonstrates His procession from the Father: « he who sent me is true; and the things that I have heard from him, these I speak in the world; and they did not know that he said God was his Father »; « I do nothing of myself, but as the Father taught me, so I speak » Io. VIII. 26. 28. cf. VII. 16; XII. 49. 59; « the Son cannot do anything of himself, except what he sees the Father doing; for whatever he does, the Son also does in like manner; for the Father loves the Son, and shows him all things that he himself does » ibid. V. 19.

2°. If it is certain, nor can it be denied except by perverting the divinity of the person and the whole economy of the mystery, that the person from whom the Holy Spirit is said to hear is the principle of procession communicating the essence, the only thing to be inquired is which person that is.

But a) it is evident that in this passage it is the Son from whom the Spirit of truth, speaking nothing from himself, is said to hear. Even if this were not said expressly, it would already be established from the very scope of the discourse; for by these clauses Christ gives the reason why and how His doctrine and the doctrine of the Holy Spirit must necessarily be one, as s. Cyril of Alexandria excellently observes (Thesaur. T. V. P. I. p. 350. cf. in Io. l. XI. T. IV. p. 930). « Lest anyone suspect that the doctrine of the Holy Spirit would at some time not be according to his mind, he shows manifestly that, since the Spirit is his (the Son's), he will also administer the words from him (the Son)... just as if honey should say of the natural quality that is in it: of itself it will send nothing into the sense of those tasting, but it will receive from what is mine. »

b) Also by express words the Son declares himself to be the one from whom the Holy Spirit hears, and hears by proceeding from him. « He will glorify me, because he will receive from what is mine. » Here first of all is to be rejected the absurd distortion of the recent Greeks, who interpret ἐκ τοῦ ἐμοῦ as: from my Father. Such a sense could not of itself underlie the particle, since the name of the Father had not preceded, and it is evidently excluded by what follows. For « mine », τὸ ἐμόν or τὸ ἐμοῦ, is repeated in the plural number: « all things are mine (ἐμά ἐστι), therefore I said that he will receive from what is mine » (ἐκ τοῦ ἐμοῦ λαμβάνει); where evidently that « mine » is not referred to the Father, but designates that which is in the Son, communicated by the Father³.

c) Moreover, all the Fathers, even the Greek, understood that in the neuter gender is signified that which is in the Son, and that in the masculine gender it cannot be referred to the Father. « The Spirit receives from the Son (ἐκ τοῦ υἱοῦ λαμβάνει), for 'from what is mine,' he says, 'he will receive' » Athanas. ad Serapion. ep. I. n. 20. « It is not the Spirit who joins the Word with the Father; but rather the Spirit receives from the Word (ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον τὸ Πνεῦμα παρὰ τοῦ Λόγου λαμβάνει).... He himself (the Son) gives to the Spirit (δίδωσι τῷ Πνεύματι, al. τὸ Πνεῦμα), as has been said, and whatever the Spirit has, he has from the Word » (καὶ ὅσα ἔχει τὸ Πνεῦμα παρὰ τοῦ λόγου ἔχει) Id. orat. III. contr. Arian. n. 24. « From me the Spirit proceeds (παρ' ἐμοῦ ὁρμᾶται); but when I say 'from me,' I also signify 'from the Father,' for mine are the things that are the Father's; understand therefore in this manner that saying, 'he will receive from what is mine' » Apollinarius (in Catena Corderii p. 396). « 'He will receive from what is mine,' that is, the things that I have said, he also will say.... he will speak my things » Chrysost. in Io. hom. 78. al. 77. n. 2. « Since (the Spirit) is consubstantial with the Son, and in a manner befitting God proceeds through him (καὶ τρόπῳ θεοπρεπεῖ δι' αὐτοῦ), having his most perfect power and efficacy of operating in all things, therefore he says: because he will receive from what is mine..... it is therefore altogether free from reproach and calumny if his Spirit is said to receive anything from the Only-begotten; for since he proceeds through him naturally, as being his own proper Spirit, he is said to receive his own things together with all (the divine attributes) which he possesses perfectly » (προϊὸν γὰρ δι' αὐτοῦ φυσικῶς, ὡς ἴδιον Πνεῦμα αὐτοῦ, μετὰ πάντων ὧν ἔχει τελείως, λαμβάνειν λέγεται τὰ αὐτοῦ) Cyrill. in Io. T. IV. p. 929. 930. Beyond every doubt, therefore, those words, « he will receive from what is mine », signify receiving from those things which are the Son's.

3°. He receives not only of those things, insofar as they are in the Father (which is the other cavil of the schismatics), but formally insofar as they are in the Father and in the Son.

For a) the same reasons which prove that the receiving of those things which are the Son's is signified also prove that the receiving of them is signified formally insofar as they are the Son's. For the question concerns those things which are internal to the person; where, if « to receive from what is mine » does not signify to receive of that thing insofar as it is mine and to receive from me, but it is permitted to intrude glosses of this kind having no foundation in the words themselves, what interpretation, whether of Scripture or of human speech, will still remain safe? b) Although the Holy Spirit glorifies the Father and the Son and himself equally, nevertheless in this passage, through the clause « because he will receive from what is mine », the immediate reason is given why he glorifies the Son; and so he must necessarily be understood to receive from the Son. c) Christ gives the reason why the Holy Spirit receives from him, although a little before he had said that he proceeds from the Father (XV. 26). By this very fact, namely, that he proceeds from the Father, he receives in the same manner, and so proceeds from the Son. For because all things which are the Father's (except only the formal reason of the Father) are the same in number as the Son's, among all these things common to the Father and the Son he expressly teaches that there is contained the power and act of communicating all things to the Holy Spirit, i.e., through the communication of the essence with all the absolute perfections, of spirating the Holy Spirit. « All things whatsoever the Father has are mine; therefore I said that he will receive from what is mine. » This sentence of Christ the Lord, being in the form of an enthymeme, can be resolved into a syllogism: whatever the Father has is mine; but the Father has the power of principle, that the Holy Spirit may receive of that which is the Father's; therefore the same power of principle is also mine, that the Holy Spirit may receive from what is mine. « From the Son therefore he has received, and all things which the Father has are the Son's, which the Holy Spirit has received, because he proceeds not from the Father alone, nor from the Son alone, but from both at once » Fulgent. contr. Fabian. fragm. 27. p. 612. Hence d) the holy Fathers, where they have the purpose of setting forth the personal character of the Holy Spirit in the very words of Scripture, are accustomed to join these two things from Io. XV. XVI.: « The Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father, and receives from the Son (or from those things which are the Son's, or those things which are the Son's) » Athanas. ad Serap. ep. I. n. 20.; Cyrill. Hieros. cat. XVI. n. 24; Epiph. ancorat. n. 67. 73; haeres. LXIV. n. 4; Didymus Alex. de Sp. S. (from the version of s. Jerome) n. 37; Hilar. Trin. VIII. n. 20; Ambros. in Luc. l. VIII. n. 66; Iacobus Sarugens. (apud Asseman. B. O. T. I. p. 302); the Syriac liturgies of ss. Dionysius, Maruta, Xystus (Renaudot. liturg. orient.); other Fathers.

4°. One difficulty remains, which the Photian heretics use as their principal argument to elude the force of this and of other testimonies. For it can be said that in this passage there is no question of the immanent and eternal procession of the Holy Spirit, but of the operation in time and ad extra. For the Holy Spirit is not said to receive the communicated essence, but to receive from the doctrine of Christ, and that in the future, namely for the time of the inspiration in the Apostles and of the assistance in the Church, and therefore according to an operation ad extra.

Objections of this kind, by which the mission, the emanation, any reception whatsoever of one divine person from another (unless perhaps the question is of the incarnate Son according to the assumed humanity) are proposed with the internal procession set aside — these, I say, objections of the schismatics show that by them the very notion and the whole mystery of the Most Holy Trinity are perverted. In one word, therefore, we could answer that whatever and in whatever manner one divine person (who has only one nature) is said to receive, or rather to accept, from another divine person, that can neither be said nor conceived without the perversion of the whole mystery, unless the internal procession is presupposed. For God can receive nothing for himself from another, except insofar as one person is relative to another by origin; this origin, however, is through the communication of the divine essence itself. Nevertheless, let us consider the words of Christ the Lord individually.

a) Evidently the discourse is not only indeterminately about the operation ad extra, but at least the operation of the Holy Spirit is enunciated in such a way that it is communicated by the Son. This is shown both by the negative expression: he will not speak from himself; and by the affirmation: whatever he will hear he will speak, he will receive from what is mine and will announce it to you. But just as action in the divine persons is nothing other than the divine essence itself (with respect ad extra), so the communication of operation from one person to another is nothing other than the communication of the essence or divine nature. Whence also the Son demonstrates His procession from the Father from the unity of action, which is communicated from the Father into the Son himself, as we said a little before.

b) What that "mine" may be, of which the Holy Spirit is said to receive, can be asked in two ways: what it is formally and according to a distinction of reason, and what it is identically and really. In the formal signification it must again be distinguished, what is internal and communicated to the divine person itself, and insofar as from there it is something passing over into the creature. In this last signification that "mine" is the announcement of the doctrine and the doctrine itself: « the things that are to come, he will announce to you »; « he will receive of mine, and will announce to you ».

To this transient action there corresponds, and is presupposed in the divine person, immanent wisdom and knowledge; and this immanent wisdom the Spirit of truth is said to receive from the Son, the truth; for only by such a reception can one divine person hear from another person. Therefore in the formal signification that "mine," which the Spirit of truth is said to receive as communicated by the Son, is absolute wisdom with a respect ad extra, namely for the doctrine to be inspired and announced. But assuredly absolute wisdom identically and really is the very divine essence itself. See John the theologian in Conc. Florent. Hard. IX. p. 255. 258.

Hence we have likewise seen that the Son declares his own procession through the knowledge and wisdom communicated to him by the Father. « This is it: the Father taught me (Io. VIII. 26), that is: the Father begot me knowing..... just as he gave to him by begetting that he might be, so he gave by begetting that he might know » Aug. in Io. tract. XL. n. 5. Thus, therefore, even for the Holy Spirit this is to know through hearing from the Son, and by receiving of that which is the Father's and the Son's, which is to be by proceeding from the Father and the Son. « He will not speak from himself, because he is not from himself; but whatever he will hear he will speak; he will hear from him, from whom he proceeds. For him to hear is to know, but to know is to be; as was disputed above. Because, therefore, he is not from himself, but from him from whom he proceeds, from whom is his essence to him, from him is knowledge; from him, therefore, is hearing, which is nothing other than knowledge...... From whom, moreover, the Son has that he is God — for he is God from God — from him he has it assuredly, that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from him; and through this the Holy Spirit, that he also proceeds from the Son just as he proceeds from the Father, has from the Father himself » August. in Io. tract. XCIX. n. 4. 8. cf. contr. sermon. Arianor. c. 23.

Most worthy is Didymus, de Spir. Sanct. n. 36. 37., in the version of St. Jerome, to be read.

c) From what has been said it is clear how the form of the future tense "he will hear," "he will receive," is to be understood. The hearing and reception immanent to the divine person is eternal, with a respect to the temporary effect ad extra. If, therefore, it is regarded as immanent and eternal, without succession it always was, is, and will be; and so every temporary thing, then when it exists, coexists with it. In which sense we have said elsewhere that the Son is eternally begotten by the Father even then, when according to his humanity he is born of the Virgin, and when he rises from the dead. Whence concerning eternity no time can be enunciated properly, and in some sense neither past, nor present, nor future, namely insofar as times in their succession coexist with unchangeable eternity⁴. (See Tract. de Deo th. XXXI. XXXII.). Thus, therefore, also concerning the eternal immanent reception of wisdom and of essence, with a respect to the effect in future time ad extra, the future tense can be employed: he will hear, he will receive, and he will announce; by which there is not signified a hearing and reception then beginning, but that he hears and receives even then, when the effect ad extra first really exists. In one word: the Holy Spirit eternally hears and receives from the Son with a respect to the effect in time, which then, when Christ was speaking, was promised as still future; therefore the hearing and the reception, which is eternal and therefore exists even then, when the effect exists, could, on account of this operation and on account of this future effect ad extra, be enunciated in the form of a future tense.

For the Greek Fathers who from this testimony of Io. XVI. teach the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son, see for the time being Petav. l. VII. c. 6.

II. The Holy Spirit is said relatively to another person, as the Spirit of someone; for in the absolute signification the name spirit and holy is not proper to one but is quite common to the three persons (Aug. Trin. V. c. 11). Necessarily, therefore, insofar as it is the proper name of the third person, distinguishing it from the other persons, it is taken relatively, like all the other personal names in the Most Holy Trinity, so that Spirit, Πνεῦμα, is the same as the one spirated or the spiration, πνοή (cf. above p. 365.), and thus expresses the relation of origin to that person, and the procession or the being spirated from that person whose Spirit it is said to be.

Athanasius, in the book de Trin. et Spir. S. (which was also published as if l. XII. de Trin. among the Works of Vigilius of Thapsus, preserved for us in an ancient Latin version, and is judged without hesitation by the Maurists to be a genuine offspring of Athanasius), excellently explains this relative signification. « God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts. But seeing also the Only-begotten breathing upon the face of the Apostles and saying: receive the Holy Spirit, let us be taught that the Spirit is the spiration of the Son abiding in his own life and substance (perhaps: abiding), and let us know that he is neither begotten nor created by the Son..... For this reason, however, the Spirit is not begotten by him, because he is not his Word; but to call the Spirit a creature, far be it! Nevertheless, since we have been taught from the holy Scriptures that he is the spiration of the Son of God, we call both the fountain of the Spirit and the Son » Athan. l. c. n. 19. By the same author the Spirit is called « the spiration and good odor of the Son » (πνοή, εὐωδία τοῦ Υἱοῦ) ep. I. ad Serap. n. 23. 24.; ep. 3. n. 3. Augustine declares the matter most eloquently. « Our faith is to believe and confess that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one God; yet not to call him who is the Son, the Father; nor him who is the Father, the Son; nor to name him who is the Spirit of the Father and of the Son, either Father or Son. For by these appellations this is signified, that by which they are referred to one another, not the substance itself, by which they are one. For also when the Father is said, he is not said except as the Father of some Son, and the Son is understood not except of some Father, and the Spirit, according to that by which it is referred to something, is of someone breathing, and the one breathing is certainly breathing the Spirit..... But in a certain proper way (hypostatically) the Holy Spirit is said, according to which he is referred to the Father and to the Son, because he is their Holy Spirit » Aug. ep. 238. al. 164. n. 14. 15. ad Pascent.

« In that in which the Holy Spirit is properly (hypostatically) said, he is said relatively, since he is referred both to the Father and to the Son, because the Holy Spirit is the Spirit both of the Father and of the Son » Id. de Trin. V. n. 12. In the same way Fulgentius. « The Father is begotten by no one, the Son is begotten by the Father, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Father is not for himself but for the Son; the Son is not for himself but for the Father; the Spirit is of someone breathing; therefore he is referred to the Father and to the Son. These relative names, therefore, make the Trinity; but the essential ones are in no way tripled » Fulg. ad Felicem notarium de Trin. c. 2; ep. 14. n. 9. ad Ferrand. diacon. In the profession of faith of the Council of Worms⁵ this very thing is proposed. « We believe the Holy Spirit.... proceeding from the Father and from the Son to be the Spirit of both.... He is called the Spirit not of the Father only nor of the Son only, but at the same time of the Father and of the Son. In the relative names of the persons the Father is referred to the Son, the Son to the Father, the Holy Spirit to both » Mansi T. XV. p. 868.

Indeed, among the Fathers the truth that the Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of another person solely insofar as he proceeds from that person is so far beyond every doubt, that they explain the one by the other. Thus Athanasius: « The Spirit who has been called the Son's is the Father's, since the Son himself says: the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father » ep. 3. ad Serap. n. 1. In the same way Augustine argues. « That he is the very Spirit of the Father, the Son himself says: he proceeds from the Father; and in another place: the Spirit of your Father, who speaks in you » Serm. 71. n. 29. And Gregor. Nyssenus, serm. 3. in oration. dominicam: « The Holy Spirit is confirmed by testimony to be said both to be from the Father and from the Son⁶; for if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, says (the Apostle), this one is not his. Therefore the Spirit is from God and is the Spirit of God; but the Son, since he is from God (the Father), is no longer the Son of the Spirit himself (τοῦ Πνεύματος) nor is he said to be, nor is this relative consequence converted » (because namely, of whatever person the Son or the Spirit is said to be, he is understood to proceed from that person). Basil: « The Apostle made manifest that the Holy Spirit shines forth through the Son, naming him the Spirit of the Son as also of God; and he called him the mind of Christ, as also the Spirit of God » (1. Cor. II. 11) contra Eunom. l. V. T. I. p. 305. Cyril likewise: « as the Spirit is proper to the Son, naturally existing in him and proceeding through him, so also (the Spirit is) of the Father » Cyrill. in Io. l. X. p. 910; ep. 17. synod. ad Nestor. T. V. P. II. epp. p. 74. Then s. Maximus: « As the Holy Spirit is by nature according to essence of God and of the Father, so also according to essence he is of the Son, as proceeding essentially from the Father through the Son, begotten » Maxim. in Script. quaest. 63. in Opp. T. I. p. 238. 239. (cited also by Beccus, Opusc. aur. p. 117). To Augustine they are synonyms, whether the Spirit be called the Spirit of the Son, or be said to proceed from the Son. « Nor can we say that the Holy Spirit does not also proceed from the Son; for not in vain is the same Spirit called the Spirit both of the Father and of the Son » Aug. Trin. l. IV. n. 29; XV. n. 47; contra Maxim. l. II. c. 14. n. 1. and often elsewhere. « Since the Holy Spirit is also the Spirit of the Father and of the Son, not like any creature which is of the Father and of the Son, but as living and powerful with both, and sempiternally subsisting from that which is the Father and the Son » s. Leo M. in Pentecost. sermon. I. c. 3. cf. serm. 2. c. 2; ep. 15. ad Turrib. c. 1. and Vigil. Tapsens. (or another) contr. Varimadum l. II. c. 12. So also s. Fulgentius: « Hold most firmly and doubt in no way that the same Holy Spirit, who is the one Spirit of the Father and of the Son, proceeds from the Father and from the Son. For the Son says: when the Spirit of truth comes, who proceeds from the Father; where he taught that he is his Spirit; because he himself is the truth » Fulg. de fide ad Petrum c. 11; de Incarn. ad Scaril. n. 3.

Surely no one could deny it except most absurdly, and the Photians themselves must admit, that by the expressions Spirit of God Matth. III. 16; Rom. VIII. 9. 11. 14; 1 Cor. II. 10. 11; Spirit of the Lord Luc. IV. 18; Act. V. 9; VIII. 39; 2 Cor. III. 17. 18; Spirit of the Father Matth. X. 20. there is signified one spirated by God, by the Lord, by the Father. If these men should dare to deny this too, they would be convicted from the Scriptures themselves, where the signification of this appellation Spirit of God is explained by definition: the Spirit who is from God, τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ, 1 Cor. II. 11. 12.

And yet no less than Spirit of God and Spirit of the Father, there is a proper designation of the third person in relation to the Son: « Spirit of the Son » Gal. IV. 6; « Spirit of Christ » Rom. VIII. 9; 1. Pet. I. 11; « Spirit of Jesus Christ » Phil. I. 19; « Spirit of Jesus » Act. VI. 7. And indeed this appellation, as equally proper and in the same form of speech, is joined with the other, « Spirit of God ». « You are not in the flesh but in the spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you; but if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, this one is not his » Rom. VIII. 9.

If the three designations are compared among themselves, in the first (Spirit of God or Spirit of the Lord) by the name of God and of Lord there is exhibited as principle of the Holy Spirit every divine person which is not the Holy Spirit himself; whence the complex proposition is resolved into two others by distinguishing the persons comprised in the name of God and of Lord: Spirit of the Father, Spirit of the Son. In like manner creation is now ascribed indistinctly to God and to the Lord, now by a distinction of persons to the Father or to the Son or to the Spirit, or conjointly to the three persons (see thes. XII.). As therefore the three persons are one creator, because they operate ad extra not as distinct, but as they are one, by one creative power, which is the divine essence; so the Father and the Son are one spirator, insofar as they are one in essence under the formal reason of the spirating power, i. e. of the love producing love. When Spirit of God is said, there is signified one principle quo of spiration, and the distinction of the persons who spirate, or who are the principle quod of spiration, is presupposed; when separately Spirit of the Father and Spirit of the Son is said, one spirating person is explicitly signified and the other is presupposed implicitly. For the Spirit of the Father is as of one communicating the spirating power also to the Son, and the Spirit of the Son as of one having the spiration communicated from the Father, in the same way in which we have said elsewhere that, in ascribing an absolute attribute or an operation ad extra to one person, the remaining persons are not excluded but included. The expression, therefore, Spirit of God is to be resolved into two, conjointly not divisively: Spirit of the Father and Spirit of the Son, or into a copulative proposition: Spirit of the Father and of the Son. « The Holy Spirit, who is equally from God and God; for the Spirit of God, and the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of the Son — not according to some composition, as in us there is soul and body — but middle between the Father and the Son, from the Father and from the Son⁷ third in appellation » Epiphan. ancorat. n. 8. « Since the Holy Spirit dwelling in us renders us conformed to God, and indeed also proceeds from the Father and from the Son; it is manifest that he is of the divine essence, proceeding essentially in it (as his own) and from it (as of the Father and of the Son, and as principle quo) »⁸ Cyrill. Thesaur. p. 345.

« The same procession of the Holy Spirit is demonstrated to be from the Son as well from the revealed internal order of the persons, which cannot be other than an order of origin; and likewise from the mission of the Holy Spirit, which, necessarily presupposing the internal procession of the person sent from the one sending, is from the Son just as it is from the Father ».

I. The order of the divine persons is handed down in the Scriptures themselves as altogether fixed and settled, wherever the three divine persons are enumerated according to their internal necessary relations: « in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit » Matth. XXVIII. 19; « the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit » 1. Io. V. 7; and, beginning from the third person as from the other extreme: « the same Spirit, the same Lord, the same God » 1. Cor. XII. 4-6. On this passage of the Apostle St. Basil observes that it is not an inverted ontological order that is handed down, but that there is set forth « our condition; for when we receive gifts, first the one distributing occurs to us, then we think of the one sending (the Son), then we lead our thought to the fountain and cause of goods » (to the first person, who is not from another and from whom the other persons are) Basil. de Spiritu Sancto c. 16. n. 37. « Hence the way to the knowledge of God is from the one Spirit through the one Son to the one Father. And conversely, essential goodness and sanctity according to nature and royal dignity flow from the Father through the Only-begotten into the Spirit » ¹ ibid. c. 18. n. 47. cf. s. Iren. 1. V. c. 36. n. 2.

Moreover, the Christian profession expressed in all the creeds, in the solemn liturgical formulas, in the whole ecclesiastical preaching does not permit one to doubt this ontological and intrinsically necessary order of the persons. « Let them learn that the Spirit is pronounced in the same way with the Lord (the Son) as the Son also is pronounced with the Father. For the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit has been uttered in like manner. Therefore, just as the Son is related to the Father, so also the Spirit is related to the Son, according to the order of words handed down in baptism. But if the Spirit is joined to the Son, and the Son to the Father, it is clear that the Spirit himself also is joined to the Father... One, however, is the Holy Spirit himself, uttered also singularly, coupled through the one Son to the one Father, and by himself completing the blessed Trinity, which is to be glorified above all things » s. Basil. de Spiritu Sancto c. 17. 18. n. 43. 45. « He who has understood the Father has understood him in himself, and has at the same time embraced the Son in his understanding; but he who has apprehended the Son has not separated the Spirit from the Son; but he has expressed in himself the faith of the three, united by the identity of essence, holding themselves consequently indeed according to order, but unitedly according to nature ². And he who has said the Holy Spirit has at the same time embraced in this profession him whose Spirit he is; and because the Spirit is of Christ and from God, according to the saying of Paul (Rom. VIII. 9), just as one who takes hold of one extremity of a chain has also drawn the other at the same time, so he who has drawn the Spirit, as the Prophet says (Ps. CXVIII. 131), has drawn through him both the Son and the Father at the same time. Likewise, if anyone has apprehended the Son in truth, he will have him at the same time bringing along from both sides, here indeed his Father, there his own Spirit (ἑκατέρωθεν τὰ μὲν τοῦ ἑαυτοῦ Πατρός, τὰ δὲ τοῦ ἰδίου Πνεύματος συνεπαγόμενον); for he can be neither divided from the Father, always existing in the Father, nor separated from his own Spirit, working all things in him (the Son in his own Spirit). Similarly, he who has apprehended the Father has at the same time virtually embraced the Son and the Holy Spirit » Id. ep. 38. al. 43. n. 4.

1°. Now in this internal and necessary order of « consequence » of the persons, ἀκολουθίᾳ κατὰ τὴν τάξιν, as Basil speaks, considered in itself together with the numerical unity of the nature and of all absolute perfections in the three persons, the procession of the third person is contained as implicitly revealed, from the first as also from the second. For the real order of « consequence » in God says two things: the real distinction through the relations of origin, and determinately the origin of the consequent from the antecedent, in that way in which antecedent and consequent can be said in God. For a) if there is no real distinction, no real order can be conceived, since order says the connection of several distinct things according to some principle of unity; but in God, from what was demonstrated earlier, there is no real distinction except according to the relations of origin. Hence b) the order in the divine persons, because it is an order of origin, is analogous to the successive. Lest this be taken perversely, it must be understood that the three are not such that it is indifferent which person is called first, which second, and which third; for then there would no longer be a relation of origin of one person to another as to its principle, and accordingly the real distinction, and consequently the order itself, would be removed. But the first person is the Father, the second the Son, the third the Holy Spirit; yet it can be said neither that the Son and the Holy Spirit are two second persons, nor that the Spirit is the second and the Son the third person ³. But this internal order, that the Son is the second person and the Spirit the third, cannot be except from the mode of procession, because from this alone is there order in the divine persons. Therefore the procession of the second person is in some way prior to that of the third; but there can be no priority among the divine persons except the priority a quo, i. e. except the relation of principle and of what proceeds from the principle (above p. 387). Therefore in this very fact that the Holy Spirit is exhibited in Scripture as the third person in order, it is contained that the first and the second are prior with the priority a quo (which alone is given in the divine), i. e. that the first and the second are the principle of the third person (cf. S. Th. I. q. 48. a. 3).

The same thing is explained in other words. Namely, from the internal necessary order handed down in the Scriptures, the generation of the Son is pre-understood before the procession of the Holy Spirit; but the Son, by being born, has from the Father all perfections and formal reasons communicated, paternity excepted, and in all things is one with the Father, the formal reason of Father and Son excepted, by which alone the two persons are distinguished from each other; therefore the Son has from the Father the nature communicated also under the formal reason of the spirative power (or of the love producing love as an immanent term), and consequently he is no less one principle of the Holy Spirit with the Father, than he is one God with the Father.

2°. To this very point the holy Fathers, especially ⁴ even the Greeks, reduced that fixed order of the persons, namely that just as the second person has a relation of origin to the first, so the third to the second. St. Athanasius declares the order of the Trinity thus: according to the analogies handed down in the Scriptures, the Father is light, the Son splendor, the Holy Spirit illumination, whence « it is even allowed to discern in the Son the Holy Spirit, in whom we are enlightened »; likewise the Father is a fountain, the Son a river, the Holy Spirit water; the Father wise, the Son wisdom, the Holy Spirit the Spirit of wisdom, etc. « Since therefore in the Holy Trinity there is such an ordered conjunction (συνάφεια) and unity, who would now dare to separate either the Son from the Father, or the Spirit from the Son, or from the Father himself? »

If therefore it is asked, « how, when the Spirit is in us, the Son is said to be in us, and likewise when the Son is in us, the Father likewise is said to be in us; or how, when the Trinity is complete, the Trinity is nonetheless designated in one?.... a hesitation of this kind will be able to be healed by faith, and also by the aforementioned examples of image, splendor, fountain, river, substance and figure. For just as the Son is in the Spirit as in his own image, so also the Father in the Son... that we may believe that the sanctification is one, which is from the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit... For because the Son is one, who is also the living Word, his virtue and gift must also be one, perfect and full, sanctifying and illuminating, living (ἐνέργειαν αὐτοῦ καὶ δωρεάν), which is said to proceed from the Father, because it shines forth from the Word, which is conceded to be from the Father, and is sent, and is given (διὰ τοῦτο ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς λέγεται ἐκπορεύεσθαι, ἐπειδὴ παρὰ τοῦ λόγου τοῦ ἐκ Πατρὸς ὁμολογουμένου ἐκλάμπει, καὶ ἀποστέλλεται, καὶ δίδοται) ⁵. For the Son indeed is sent by the Father; is sent; for thus, he says, God loved the world, that he might send his only-begotten Son (ἀπέστειλεν); but the Son sends the Holy Spirit; for if, he says, I go away, I will send the Paraclete to you; likewise the Son glorifies the Father, saying: I have glorified thee; but the Spirit glorifies the Son: for he, he says, will glorify me; moreover the Son says: the things which I have heard from the Father, these I speak in the world; but the Spirit receives from the Son: for from mine, he says, he will receive and will announce to you; furthermore the Son comes in the name of the Father; likewise also of the Holy Spirit the Son says: whom the Father will send in my name. Since therefore the Spirit has the same order and the same nature (the same property and natural relation) toward the Son as the Son has toward the Father, how would he who says the Spirit is a creature not necessarily think the same of the Son? For if the Spirit of the Son is a creature, it will follow that they also call the Word of the Father a creature » ⁶ Athanas. ep. I. ad Serap. n. 19-21.

Similarly St. Basil, in l. V. contra Eunom., lays down this proposition: « that as the Son is related to the Father, so the Spirit is related to the Son ». In his declaration the holy Doctor could seem to affirm not only the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, but also the same mode of procession as that of the Son from the Father; but his aim must be attended to, which was to demonstrate the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, and by this very fact from God, i. e. from the Father and the Son, as they are one; he did not, however, need to give the intimate reason why this procession is not generation, and so why the Holy Spirit is not the Son of the Son. To this proposed question, in which he evidently presupposes as catholic doctrine the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son through the communication of nature, he answers only two things: a) that in the Scriptures he is not called the Son of the Son, although the Holy Spirit is from the substance of the Son; b) that he is called not Son but Spirit, so that the processions in the internal life of God may be understood as closed by the procession of the Spirit, lest, if the one proceeding from the Son were a Son, this second Son too would seem to demand a third Son, and so on to infinity. « As the Son is related to the Father, so the Spirit is related to the Son. Therefore the Word of God (the Father) indeed is the Son, but the Word of the Son is the Spirit...... and since the Word is of the Son, consequently it is of God ⁷. But the Word and Speech of God is living and operative...... Why then is the Spirit not also called the Son of God? Not because he is not from God through the Son (ἐκ Θεοῦ δι' Υἱοῦ), but lest the Trinity be thought an infinite multitude, as if it seemed to have sons from sons, as happens among men. But you say: if the Son is indeed the image of God and the Spirit the image of the Son; likewise if the Son is the Word of God and the Spirit the Word of the Son, why has the Spirit not been called the Son of the Son? But if we are silent, as those who are unwilling to inquire curiously into the things of God, you judge the glory of the divine Spirit to be vanquished, for this reason, that the appellation of Son has not been applied to him, as if the same could not be asked of you. For if you confess that countless sons of adoption are made through the Spirit, why is the Spirit not called Son even by adoption?.... We, moreover, also answer this for ourselves as best we can..... We say therefore, that if anyone had said a Son from the Son, he would have brought the Trinity of the Godhead into suspicion of multitude among men who heard this ⁸. For it was prone to be suspected that, if the Son had been begotten from the Son, from him too another would again have been begotten, and again another... Therefore the Apostle openly proclaimed that the Spirit is from God, saying: we have received the Spirit who is from God (1. Cor. II. 12); and that he shone forth through the Son (ὃ δι' αὐτοῦ ἐκλάμψαν) he made manifest by naming him the Spirit of the Son just as the Spirit of God, and by calling him the mind of Christ just as the Spirit of God, just as also is the spirit of a man (1. Cor. II. 11); but to call him the Son of the Son he was careful not to do » Basil. l. V. cont. Eunom. T. I. p. 304. sq.

Now, I ask, who, agreeing with the Photian heresy, has ever so anxiously sought, or could seek, subtle reasons why the Spirit of the Son is not, or is not called, the Son of the Son? In that opinion the reason is unique and altogether evident, because the Spirit has no origin from the Son. But the holy Fathers, holding without doubt the fixed order of the persons through the relations of origin, and accordingly that the consubstantial Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son through the communication of nature, felt the difficulty to be not slight and had need either simply to confess that it is unknown to us, or to seek out more subtle reasons why the Spirit is not the Son of the Son, about which matter, as Basil here, so Augustine and others often dispute. Indeed the Arians themselves, unless they had had in view the doctrine of the catholic Church concerning the procession of the Spirit from the Son through the communication of nature, could not even have proposed that question; for in the Photian opinion it could only be asked why the Spirit is not the brother of the Son; but in no way why he is not the Son of the Son?

Most clearly St. Gregory of Nyssa, Basil's brother, from the very order, namely that the Son is to be understood by reason as prior to the Holy Spirit, declares that priority in God cannot be other than by reason of principle and of what proceeds from the principle, and therefore, just as the Father is presupposed to the Son in the order of principle, so the Son (with the Father) is presupposed by the same reason of principle (priority a quo) to the Holy Spirit proceeding from him, or (as Gregory speaks) depending on him. After he demonstrated that by the generation of the Son from the Father the eternity of the Son is not excluded, because the Father is prior to the eternally begotten Son not by duration but only by the reason of the principle eternally generating, he descends to declaring this same thing about the Holy Spirit. « Our doctrine concerning the Holy Spirit is the same, recognizing the difference (between the persons) in order alone. For just as the Son is joined to the Father, and, having being from him, is nonetheless not posterior in existence; so likewise the Holy Spirit depends on the Only-begotten, so that the Son is pre-understood by thought alone, according to the reason of principle, before the hypostasis of the Spirit ⁹. For temporal dimensions have no place in the eternal life, so that, the reason of principle excepted, the Holy Trinity is discerned in nothing in itself » Nyss. contr. Eunom. l. I. p. 104.

Still more lucidly the same Gregory, from the common catholic doctrine, hands down the order of the persons in such a way that the second is from the first alone, where he presupposes the signification of the name of the Only-begotten as begotten from one; but when the first and second person are presupposed, by this very fact, he says, the third is indeed also from the first, but not except through the second, and therefore only the Son is from the Father alone, but the Holy Spirit, according to the reason of principle and of what proceeds from the principle, is from the Father through the Son, and so not from one but from two persons. « We do not deny the difference according to principle and principiate (κατὰ τὸ αἴτιον καὶ αἰτιατόν), in which alone we admit one to be distinguished from another, because we believe one indeed to be the principle, another however to be from the principle. And of that which is from the principle we consider again another difference; for one is proximately (and without a medium) from the first, the other however through that which is proximately from the first, so that in the Son too the property of the Only-begotten may remain without ambiguity, and that the Spirit is from the Father may not be doubtful, while the interposition of the Son (between the Father and the Spirit) preserves for him too the property of the Only-begotten and does not remove the Spirit from the natural relation to the Father » ¹⁰ Nyss. ad Ablav. quod non tres Dii T. II. p. 459 (cf. above p. 159).

II. The Holy Spirit is said to be sent by the Son just as by the Father. « I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Paraclete.... the Spirit of truth »; « the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name » Io. XIV. 16. 26. « When the Paraclete comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father »; « if I do not go away, the Paraclete will not come to you; but if I go away, I will send him to you » ibid. XV. 26.; XVI. 7.

The words of Christ are so manifest that not even the Photians themselves deny that the Holy Spirit is sent also by the Son; but they are unwilling to acknowledge that in the mission itself the eternal procession of the person sent from the one sending is necessarily presupposed; indeed they abuse this distinction between the eternal procession according to the being of the person, and the mission and procession in time according to the effect ad extra, for a false interpretation of the holy Fathers, where they speak of the procession of the Holy Spirit.

That the darkness obscured by evil arts may be dispelled, the effect ad extra and in particular the conferral of supernatural gifts must be distinguished from the mission of the divine person itself. For although the mission of a person includes supernatural effects ad extra and the conferral of gifts (if it be a mission for sanctifying souls), nevertheless this effecting and conferral of gifts, considered simply and in itself, is not the mission of the person. Insofar as the effect is considered as of God insofar as He is the one God, or by appropriation as of God the Father, no mission of a person can be conceived; but in order that this be understood, it is necessary that the supernatural effect be referred to a person proceeding from another, by whom He is said to be sent. And so the mission of a divine person is necessarily determined to a person with the connotation of a twofold respect: first, of a real and eternal relation to the sending person as to the principle of the sent person; and then, of a respect to the actual existence of the supernatural effect in time (cf. S. Th. above p. 191).

Against the Arians, in order to demonstrate that the one sent is not less than the one sending, Augustine sometimes considers only the efficiency ad extra and, calling the mission thus incompletely regarded improper, says that a person is sent even by Himself, because e. g. the Son effected the assumption of the flesh in one operation with the Father and the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit the form of the dove in one operation with the Father and the Son. But we are treating of mission properly so called, as it is exhibited in the Scriptures, and by which Augustine himself completes or corrects that former consideration. For the present cause only stands in need of the declaration of what we have said about the real relation of the one sent to the one sending.

In the first place, when a person is said to be sent by a person, a real distinction between the one sending and the one sent is demonstrated; for no one is properly sent by himself. Whence also the Fathers frequently use this doctrine of the mission of persons to confute the Sabellians (Petav. l. VIII. c. 1. n. 1.). Furthermore, mission among creatures — from which, like other names, so also this name was first taken — includes some authority of the one sending over the one sent, whether in the proper sense of command, or in the improper sense of counsel, or generally by a transmission of the will from one to another. Whence necessarily also in the transference to the divine persons the name retains not indeed the same but an analogical signification; for with all analogy set aside, the revelation about the mission of one divine person by another would remain for us wholly without intelligible sense (cf. th. XIX.). Now indeed authority, superiority, dignity (ἀξίωμα) of one person over another, the transmission of the will or, as Basil speaks, the irradiation (ἔλλαμψις) in divine things, is and can be conceived solely according to origin, as of a principle over the one proceeding from the principle, unless perhaps the incarnate person be regarded according to His assumed nature, formally as He is man.

Hence it is that the Father, who proceeds from no person (ἀνέκφοιτος, ἀγέννητος), is never said, nor can be said, to be sent by another person ¹¹. The Son, regarded according to divinity, is said to be sent by the Father alone; but with the incarnation supposed, formally as man, for the offices of the Redeemer He is said to be sent even by the Holy Spirit: The Spirit of the Lord is upon me...... to preach the gospel to the poor He hath sent me Luc. IV. 18.

« But what Christian is ignorant that the Father sent, and the Son was sent? For it was fitting that not the begetter be sent by him whom he begot, but the begotten by the begetter; yet this is not an inequality of substance but an order of nature (of nativity), not that the one was prior to the other, but that the one was from the other...... But if you are unwilling to acquiesce in this rule, that wherever you have read in the authority of the divine utterances that the Son appears shown as less than the Father, you accept it as said either from the form of a servant, in which He is truly less than the Father, or as said for this reason, that He may be shown to be the one from the other; if, I say, you are unwilling to acquiesce in this most correct rule, certainly nevertheless you will in no way call Him the true Son of God, unless you say that He is of the same substance of which the Father is » Aug. contr. Maxim. Arian. l. II. c. 14. n. 8.

And so, as regards the signification of the personal relations, it must be understood in almost the same way when a person is said to be sent by a person, as when Christ the Son of God says: « because the Father is greater than I » Io. XIV. 28. The Fathers teach, namely, that this appellation of the greater can be taken in two ways: either that the Father is said to be greater than the Son regarded according to human nature, and so not only the Father but also the Holy Spirit is greater than the Son, indeed even the Son Himself according to the divine nature is greater than Himself, inasmuch as He is man and emptied Himself (Aug. in Io. tract. 79. n. 2); or so that the Father is said to be greater than the Son regarded according to the divine nature, and so nothing else can be understood than the notion of principle in the Father over the begotten Son (cf. above p. 156). Now according to the same notion, mission, if indeed it be referred to Christ as He is man, expresses authority properly so called, and can be attributed both to the Father and to the Holy Spirit, indeed in some less proper signification even to the Son Himself; but if it be referred to the person regarded according to the divine nature, it necessarily indicates the ἀξίωμα of principle in the sending person and the relation of procession in the sent person. For this reason, while the Holy Spirit, who is of the divine nature only, is exhibited as sent equally by the Son as by the Father — not indeed separately by the Father and separately by the Son, but by both inasmuch as they are one — by this very fact the Son together with the Father is predicated the principle of the immanent and eternal procession of the Holy Spirit, because the procession of the sent person from the sending person is the first presupposition and, as it were, the root of mission.

Therefore Athanasius, as we saw a little earlier, joins the procession (ἔκλαμψιν) and the mission of the Holy Spirit from the Son. Likewise Cyril: « it is necessary to confess, he says, that the Spirit is of the essence of the Son; for, as existing from Him naturally and sent by Him into the creature (ὡς ἐξ αὐτοῦ κατὰ φύσιν ὑπάρχον καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν κτίσιν παρ' αὐτοῦ πεμπόμενον), He works renovation » Thesaur. p. 358. Most lucidly do the Latin Fathers, after Augustine, explain this intimate connection of mission with procession. « The Son is sent by the Father, not the Father by the Son, because the Son is born of the Father, not the Father of the Son; similarly also the Holy Spirit is read as sent by the Father and the Son, because He proceeds from the Father and the Son » Fulgent. contra Fabian. fragm. 29. « Behold, here is the Paraclete whom the Father sends in the name of the Son; the Son Himself sends Him from the Father. He sends, moreover, from the Father the Spirit of truth; He sends therefore from the Father His Spirit, for He Himself is the truth. The Father sends Him in the name of the Son, because He is the one Spirit of the Father and of the Son; the Son sends Him from the Father, because He proceeds from the Son just as He proceeds from the Father; the same also is the Spirit of the Father, who is the Spirit of truth » Ibid. fragm. 27.

Indeed, speaking more exactly, the mission ad extra must be called the manifestation of the procession ad intra. This is the one difference, that mission is understood as the eternal procession with the connotation of a term and of supernatural operation ad extra; but procession in itself does not have this connotation. There can therefore be an eternal procession without mission, but there cannot be, nor can there be conceived, a mission of a person according to the divine nature without the eternal procession of the same from the one sending. Thus the Word could be eternally begotten of the Father, without the Father's creating through the Word, and without the Word's being sent into the world; but no operation of the Father through the Word, nor mission of the Word (according to the divine nature) can be conceived, unless the eternal procession of the Word from the Father be understood; since those locutions say nothing other than the eternal procession itself with the connotation of the manifestation ad extra, which takes place in time.

The same hold concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit as gift and as giftable. « As therefore the Father begot, the Son was begotten; so the Father sent, the Son was sent.... For as being born is for the Son to be from the Father, so to be sent is for the Son to be known to be from Him. And as for the Holy Spirit to be the gift of God (by His property, to be giftable) is to proceed from the Father, so to be sent is to be known to proceed from Him. Nor can we say that the Holy Spirit does not also proceed from the Son; for not in vain is the same Spirit called the Spirit both of the Father and of the Son.... What therefore the Lord says: whom I will send you from the Father, shows the Spirit of the Father and of the Son.... Not therefore is the Son less because He was sent by the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit less because both the Father and the Son sent Him, has been sufficiently, as I judge, demonstrated. For whether on account of the visible creature (on account of the effect ad extra) or rather for the commendation of the principle, not on account of inequality or imparity or dissimilitude of substance, are these things understood to be set down in the Scriptures; because even if God the Father had willed to appear visibly through a subject creature, nevertheless He would most absurdly be said to be sent, either by the Son whom He begot, or by the Holy Spirit who proceeds from Him » s. Aug. Trin. l. IV. n. 29. 32. « The mission of the Holy Spirit is the procession itself by which He proceeds from the Father and the Son. As therefore the Spirit is said to be sent because He proceeds, so also the Son is not incongruously said to be sent because He is generated » s. Gregor. M. in Evangel. Io. hom. XXVI. n. 2. This unity of procession and mission, as it is in God Himself, Hugo Etherianus declares from the eternity and immutability of God. « Although the Apostles and the prophets received the Spirit from Christ in time, nevertheless the Son of God did not begin to have the Spirit in time, nor did the same Spirit take a beginning of going out from the Son through any time. Surely from the days of eternity, as the Son is generated by the Father, so the Holy Spirit goes out from both, is sent eternally by both.... As far as concerns themselves (the Father and the Son in themselves), before all ages they send and give (breathing the Spirit to be sent and to be given); but with creatures worthy of the gift or mission existing, they are said to begin to send or to give (the existence of the term ad extra begins)... Wherefore perhaps it may not be unsuitable, if the procession of the Holy Spirit flowing eternally from the Father and the Son be called, with respect to the receiving creatures, mission; more commonly, donation; and if anything else of this kind » Hug. Ether. cont. Graec. l. III. c. 18.

Cardinal Bessarion concludes the argument most beautifully. « That power of sending which is in the Father and the Son, according to which both send the Holy Spirit, as even our countrymen (the Greeks) confess, is either the same in the Father and the Son, or other and other. But if it be other and other, it will namely be greater and less, and consequently the missions will be diverse; therefore neither will there be one power and potency, nor one operation of them.... Therefore not other and other, but the same is (the power of sending). But indeed in the Father the power of sending the Spirit is at the same time with the power of spirating Him; for the Father always spirates the Holy Spirit and, spirating, sends Him. Therefore also the Son, together with the power of spirating and producing Him, sends Him; therefore also the Son is the producer of the Holy Spirit » de Process. Sp. S. (inter Opusc. aurea p. 237).

Although therefore the Photinians should prevail, maintaining that the locutions of the Greek Fathers, by which they say the Holy Spirit is poured forth, gushes forth, goes forth, shines forth, appears (προχεῖσθαι, ἀναβλύζειν, προϊέναι, ἐκλάμπειν, πεφηνέναι) from the Son or through the Son, designate by their immediate signification the mission and procession ad extra, they would nevertheless profit nothing; for this procession ad extra includes as its foundation the procession ad intra, or rather, if we speak theologically, the mission is the very procession ad intra with the connotation of supernatural efficiency ad extra (see Hieronym. Donatum l. IV. c. 4. apud Em. Mai SS. vv. nova Collect. T. VII. P. II. p. 125. sqq.).

In almost the same way we have seen above (p. 166-169) that some ancient Fathers speak of the generation of the Son in the creation of the universe, i. e. of the manifestation of the Son eternally begotten. Moreover, the Greek Fathers also in many places so speak that those words must necessarily be understood in the immediate sense of the eternal immanent procession of the Holy Spirit, so that He physically, essentially, according to nature shines forth, appears, gushes forth, proceeds from the Son or through the Son, or from the essence of the Son (φυσικῶς, οὐσιωδῶς, φύσει, κατὰ φύσιν, ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ υἱοῦ) Epiphan. Haeres. 62. n. 4; Ancor. n. 7; Cyrill. de adorat. l. I. p. 9; Thesaur. p. 345. 354. 358; in Io. p. 126; Maxim. q. 63. in Scriptur. Opp. T. I. p. 238. 239. (cited also by Beccus the patriarch among the Opusc. aurea. p. 117). But there will be a place for speaking of the Fathers below.

« From the foregoing it follows that in the words of Christ affirming Io. XV. 26: « the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father », not only is the Son not excluded, but, when the whole doctrine of the Scriptures is brought together, the Son is most manifestly included as one with the Father the principle of the Holy Spirit; which moreover is indicated more expressly in this very passage, when the Son is said to send the Paraclete from the Father ».

I. If the expression, who proceeds from the Father, is considered alone by itself, it is an affirmative expression and enunciates the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father, which indeed all Catholics believe and confess; but it is not an expression excluding procession also from the Son, but rather including it.

1°. If the words « the Spirit proceeds from the Father », abstracting from the whole remaining doctrine of the economy of the most Holy Trinity, are viewed as it were materially alone by themselves, they teach that the Father is the principle of the Holy Spirit, but they do not teach under what formal reason He is the principle, whether He is the Spirator insofar as the Father is one with the Son, or insofar as He is distinguished from the Son. Thus it is most truly said « the Spirit of the Father »; but the Spirit is of the Father, not insofar as the Father is distinguished from the Son, but insofar as He is one with the Son; and so the relation expressed by these words, Spirit of the Father, is not proper to the Father alone, but common to the Father and the Son, though not common to the Holy Spirit, to whom through that relation the Father and the Son are opposed. Whence the Spirit is called the Spirit of the Son no less truly nor in another sense than the Spirit of the Father (th. XXXII). Just as therefore from the fact that He is called the Spirit of the Father one would ineptly infer that He is the Father's alone in such a way that He is not equally the Spirit of the Son; by the same reasoning the Photinians argue absurdly that the Holy Spirit, because He is predicated and believed to proceed from the Father, does not equally proceed from the Son.

Indeed, as s. Thomas (I. q. 36. a. 2. ad 1.), the patriarch Beccus (de Process. Spiritus Sancti c. 12. ed. Allatii p. 331. sqq.; et in dictis Sanctorum inter Opusc. aur. ed. Arcudii p. 155) and Bessarion (ep. general. ad Graecos ibid. p. 341) have rightly observed, even if it were written, which nowhere is written, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, neither should it be understood in such a way that procession from the Son is excluded.

For it is a general principle often inculcated by the Fathers that, except for the relations of origin opposed to one another and therefore really distinct, by such excluding particles it is not one divine person that is opposed to another, but God to creatures. « Many things are said to belong to the Father alone, although the Son is not without all of them, since it is written: the only true God the Father,.... and Paul somewhere says: to the immortal, invisible, only wise God.... The Son therefore will nonetheless be naturally the same as the Father, although some things are predicated of the Father alone; for all things that belong to the Father naturally and necessarily are likewise communicated to the Word proceeding from Him » s. Cyrill. Thes. p. 142. (cf. th. III. coroll. 2; and see the general principle in the words of Chrysostom, which we cited p. 243).

2°. If the revealed doctrine of the unity and distinction that exists between the divine persons is kept before one's eyes, the procession of the third person, whether from the first or from the second, necessarily includes procession from both. For whatever belongs to one person is understood to be common to all divine persons on account of the unity of essence and the total simplicity, except only the formal relative reason according to which one person is the principle of another: « all things are one, where the opposition of relation does not stand in the way » (supra p. 188). But the Father by spiration is not the principle of the Word; or otherwise: the Father under the formal reason of begetter is referred to the Son as a principle to the one proceeding from Himself, but under the formal reason of spirating the Holy Spirit, that is, of producing love by loving, He has the relation of principle not to the Son but to the Holy Spirit alone; by this very fact therefore the Father as Spirator is distinguished not from the Son but from the Holy Spirit. Therefore when the Father is named, from whom the Holy Spirit proceeds, the Father is understood as the principle of the Holy Spirit not by the property by which He is distinguished from the Son, but insofar as the Father and the Son are one by the spirating power, that is, by the love productive of subsistent love; just as when the Father is called creator, He is understood as creator insofar as by the creating power He is one with the Son and the Holy Spirit.

II. In the words themselves: « whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father », the Son is exhibited as one with the Father, insofar as the Father is the principle of the Holy Spirit proceeding from Himself. This is demonstrated first from what was said in the preceding thesis, where we showed that the mission of one divine person by another is a manifestation of the procession of the person sent from the sender, and that procession ad intra is the necessary foundation of mission ad extra. Then let the proposed words be weighed specifically.

1°. In the first clause: « I will send to you from the Father », the mission of the Holy Spirit ad extra is expressed, and the principle of this mission is declared to be the Father and the Son, the Son in the nominative, the Father in the oblique: I will send from the Father; just as elsewhere the Father is put in the nominative, the Son in the oblique: « whom the Father will send in my name » Io. XIV. 26. Likewise elsewhere the Father alone is expressed, elsewhere the Son alone as sending: « the Father will give you another Paraclete » ib. XIV. 16; « if I go away, I will send him to you » ib. XVI. 7. In these places therefore the Son is understood together with the Father, the Father together with the Son, as principle of mission, the Father as communicating to the Son, the Son as having from the Father the power and act of mission communicated. Hence the propositions: the Father sends, the Son sends, the Father sends in the name of the Son, the Son sends from the Father, are contracted into the complex proposition: « God gave His Holy Spirit in us » I. Thess. IV. 8; 2. Cor. I. 22; V. 5; just as we saw the appellations Spirit of the Father, Spirit of the Son to be simultaneously comprehended by the other, Spirit of God.

Therefore the Son sends from the Father the Holy Spirit with one power, one mission common to the Son with the Father, and therefore the Father and the Son are one principle of mission. Now why this is a mission from the Father, the definitive declaration and necessary foundation is given in the second clause: who proceeds from the Father. There would not therefore be, nor could there be, a mission of a divine person from the Father, unless He proceeded from the Father. But the mission of the Holy Spirit from the Son is one and the same. Therefore also the necessary foundation, without which the mission could not be, is one in the Son sending as in the Father, namely the power and act by which they spirate the spirit to be sent and sent, with one mission common to both.

Where it is said: « the Father will give you the Paraclete », the Father is understood as simultaneously communicating to the Son the act of mission, which the Photinians themselves cannot deny without Arian heresy. This communication of mission is explicitly expressed in our first clause: « I will send from the Father ». Therefore while in the second clause: « who proceeds from the Father », the foundation of the mission is declared, the Father is necessarily understood as communicating to the Son that very foundation of mission, which the Son in the first clause is said to have from the Father, that is, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father as communicating to the Son just as the mission so also the power and act of spiration. And so the Spirit proceeds from the Father formally as from the One having the Son, and by that very fact as communicating to the Son the act of spiration ¹. « He did not say, whom the Father will send from me, just as He said, whom I will send from the Father; evidently showing that the Father is the principle of the whole divinity, or, if it is better said, of the deity. He therefore who proceeds from the Father and the Son is referred to Him (as to the primordial principle) from whom the Son was born » Aug. Trinit. IV. n. 29.

2°. Assuming those things which we said in the preceding thesis about the relative signification of the name Spirit of Christ, Spirit of the Son, we can show that in the way in which here the mission of the Holy Spirit from the Son is connected with procession from the Father, elsewhere the mission from the Father is joined with procession from the Son in the inverse order. « God (the Father) sent the Spirit of His Son into your hearts » Gal. IV. 6. Evidently, with Paul, in the subject God the Father the Son is included; for the active donation or mission of both is one; likewise in the predicate the Spirit of His Son the relation of the Spirit to the Father is included; for just as the Spirit is of the Son so also of the Father. The full sense therefore of the Apostle's words is: God the Father, and therefore the Son with the Father, sent the Spirit of His Son and by that very fact the Spirit of the Father. Whence also in the words of Christ according to John, in the first clause indeed the Son with the Father is expressly expressed as one principle of mission, that is, the mission through the Son from the Father is expressed; in the other clause, however, the relation of the Spirit to the Father is explicitly declared (who proceeds from the Father), and the relation to the Son is included; just as with Paul conversely the relation to the Son is explicitly declared (He sent the Spirit of His Son), and the relation to the Father is included ².

As for the consignification, so to speak, of the Son with the Father, another saying of Christ can be compared with our passage, although in a different matter. « That they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent ». Here in the appellation the only true God the Son is not excluded but included as the only true God (cf. supra th. III. coroll. 2); nevertheless still for greater clarity the Son is further joined with the Father in the same order ³.

In the same way also in the words of which we treat: « the Spirit proceeds from the Father », the Son is already included with the Father as principle of the Spirit, and this is signified still more expressly by joining the Son with the Father in the same relation to the Holy Spirit: « I will send to you from the Father ».

When therefore it is said: the affirmative revelation that the Spirit proceeds from the Father is equivalent to the exclusive one, that He proceeds from no other; a distinction is needed: that affirmation is an exclusion of all who are not one with the Father, I concede; it is an exclusion of another divine person from the reason of principle of the Holy Spirit, I distinguish: it is the exclusion of the person who proceeds by spiration, that is, of the Holy Spirit, I concede; it is the exclusion of the person pre-understood, who is not distinguished from the Father by spiration, that is, of the Son, I deny. Unless it were so, and if that objection of the schismatics held, other divine persons would have to be said to be excluded as often as the Father is individually called God, or any divine attribute is predicated of Him; and so at last this whole schismatic wisdom is reduced to the Arian principle ⁴.

Why the Son explicitly refers the procession of the Holy Spirit to the Father, although the reason of principle is common to the Son with the Father, the cause is the same for which He is accustomed to refer all His things to the Father; namely that the Father may be understood as principle without principle (αἰτία προκαταρκτική), the original source of the Trinity, from whom the Son also, just as essence with all perfections, so also the spirating power (or the essence under the formal reason of the spirating power and of the love producing love) has communicated by generation.

« If therefore the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, why did the Son say, He proceeds from the Father? Why, do you think, unless as He is accustomed to refer to the Father even that which is His own? Whence is that which He says: my doctrine is not mine, but His who sent me. If therefore here His doctrine is understood, which nevertheless He said was not His but the Father's; how much more there is the Holy Spirit to be understood to proceed also from Him Himself, where He so says that He proceeds from the Father, that He would not say: He does not proceed from me? From whom however the Son has it that He is God, for He is God of God, from Him He has it that also from Him proceeds the Holy Spirit; and through this the Holy Spirit has from the Father Himself that He also proceeds from the Son, just as He proceeds from the Father » Aug. in Ioan. tract. 99. n. 8.

He explains the reason itself still more diffusely in another place. « Not in vain in this Trinity is the Word of God not called unless the Son, nor the gift of God unless the Holy Spirit, nor that from which the Word was begotten and from which the Holy Spirit principally proceeds unless the Father. I added, however, 'principally' for this reason, because the Holy Spirit is found to proceed also from the Son; but this also the Father gave Him, not as already existing and not yet having; but whatever He gave to the only-begotten Word, He gave by begetting. If therefore He begot Him, that also from Him the common gift should proceed, and the Holy Spirit should be the Spirit of both » Aug. Trin. l. XV. c. 17. n. 29. See also ibid. c. 26. n. 47; contra Maximin. l. II. c. 5.