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.