Articulus 4 Article 4 Utrum Spiritus Sanctus procedat a Filio Whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son Quarto quaeritur utrum Spiritus Sanctus procedat a filio. The fourth point of inquiry is whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. Et videtur quod non. Dicit enim Dionysius, quod Filius et Spiritus Sanctus sunt sicut flores deigenae divinitatis. Flos autem non est a flore. Ergo Spiritus Sanctus non est a Filio. Obj. 1: And it would seem that he does not. For Dionysius says that the Son and the Holy Spirit are, as it were, flowers of the God-bearing divinity. Now, a flower is not from a flower. Therefore, the Holy Spirit is not from the Son. Praeterea, si Filius est principium Spiritus Sancti, aut hoc habet a se, aut ab alio. A se non habet: non enim Filio in quantum Filius est, convenit esse principium, sed magis esse a principio. Si autem habet a Patre, oportet quod hoc modo sit principium sicut Pater. Pater autem est principium per generationem. Ergo Filius erit principium Spiritus Sancti per generationem; et ita Spiritus Sanctus erit Filius Filii. Obj. 2: If the Son is the principle of the Holy Spirit, he has this either from himself or from another. He has it not from himself, since it belongs to the Son as Son to be from a principle rather than to be a principle. And if he has this from the Father, he must be a principle in the same way as the Father. But the Father is a principle by generation. Therefore, the Son must be the principle of the Holy Spirit by generation, and thus, the Holy Spirit will be the Son of the Son. Praeterea, quidquid est commune Patri et Filio, similiter convenit utrique. Si ergo esse principium est commune Patri et Filio, Filius erit principium eo modo quo Pater. Pater autem est principium per generationem. Ergo et Filius; et sic idem quod prius. Obj. 3: Whatsoever is common to the Father and the Son belongs to each in the same way. If, then, it is common to the Father and Son to be a principle, the Son will be a principle in the same way as the Father. Now, since the Father is a principle by generation, the Son will be so also; and thus, the same conclusion follows as above. Praeterea, Filius ideo Filius est, quia procedit a Patre et est Verbum ipsius; Spiritus autem Sanctus dicitur verbum Filii, secundum Basilium, qui hoc accipit ex eo quod apostolus dicit Hebr. I, 3, quod Filius portat omnia verbo virtutis suae. Si ergo Spiritus Sanctus procedit a Filio, oportet quod sit Filius Filii. Obj. 4: The Son is Son because he proceeds from the Father and is his Word. Now, the Holy Spirit is the word of the Son, according to Basil, who gathers this from the statement of the Apostle that the Son upholds all things by the word of his power (Heb 1:3). Therefore, if the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, he must be the Son of the Son. Praeterea, licet secundum rem paternitas et filiatio per prius sit in Deo quam in nobis, secundum illud apostoli ad Ephes. III, 15: ex quo, scilicet Deo Patre, omnis paternitas in caelo et in terra nominatur; tamen secundum nominis impositionem haec nomina translata sunt ab humanis ad divina. Sed in humanis procedens a filio vocatur nepos. Si ergo Spiritus Sanctus procedit a Filio, erit nepos Patris; quod est absurdum. Obj. 5: Although in reality paternity and filiation are in God with priority, compared to their being in us, according to the saying of the Apostle: of whom, namely, God the Father, all paternity in heaven and earth is named (Eph 3:15), yet as regards the imposition of the name, these names have been transferred from human things to divine. But among human beings, the one proceeding from a son is called a “grandson.” So if the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, he will be the Father’s grandson, which is absurd. Praeterea, proprietas Filii est in accipiendo: ex hoc enim Filius dicitur quod accipit naturam Patris per generationem. Si ergo Filius ex se emittat Spiritum Sanctum, erunt in Filio proprietates contrariae; quod est inconveniens. Obj. 6: The property of the Son consists in his receiving; for he is called “Son” because he receives the Father’s nature by generation. If, then, the Son sends forth the Holy Spirit from himself, there will be two contrary properties in the Son, which is inadmissible. Praeterea, quidquid est in divinis, aut est commune, aut proprium. Emittere autem Spiritum Sanctum non est commune toti Trinitati: non enim convenit Spiritui Sancto. Ergo est proprium Patris, et sic non convenit Filio. Obj. 7: Whatsoever is in God is either common or proper. Now, to send forth the Holy Spirit is not common to all the Trinity, since it does not apply to the Holy Spirit. Therefore, it is proper to the Father, and in this way it does not apply to the Son. Praeterea, Spiritus Sanctus amor est, ut Augustinus probat in Lib. de Trinit. Amor autem Patris in Filium gratuitus est; non enim amat Filium quasi aliquid ab eo accipiens, sed solum quasi aliquid ei dans. Amor autem Filii in Patrem, est amor debitus; sic enim amat Patrem quasi aliquid ab eo accipiens. Amor autem debitus est alius ab amore gratuito. Si ergo Spiritus Sanctus sit amor a Patre et Filio procedens, sequitur quod sit alius a seipso. Obj. 8: Augustine proves, in On the Trinity, that the Holy Spirit is love. Now, the Father’s love of the Son is gratuitous; for he loves the Son not as though he received something from him but only as giving him something. But the Son’s love of the Father is a love that is due; for he loves the Father as receiving something from him. Now, the love which is due is distinct from the love that is gratuitous. Hence, if the Holy Spirit is love proceeding from the Father and Son, it follows that he is distinct from his very self. Praeterea, Spiritus Sanctus est amor gratuitus; unde et ab eo profluunt divisiones gratiarum, secundum illud I Cor. XII, 4: divisiones gratiarum sunt, idem vero spiritus. Si ergo amor Filii in Patrem non est amor gratuitus, Spiritus Sanctus non erit amor Filii; non ergo procedit a Filio. Obj. 9: The Holy Spirit is gratuitous love. Hence, from him flow the diversities of graces, according to 1 Cor 12:4: there are diversities of graces but the same Spirit. If, then, the Son’s love of the Father is not gratuitous, the Holy Spirit will not be the Son’s love, and thus he does not proceed from the Son. Praeterea, si Spiritus Sanctus procedit a Filio ut amor, cum Filius amet Patrem sicut Pater Filium, oportebit quod Spiritus Sanctus sicut procedit a Patre in Filium, ita procedat a Filio in Patrem. Hoc autem est impossibile, ut videtur; sequeretur enim quod Pater aliquid a Filio reciperet, quod penitus esse non potest. Obj. 10: If the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as love, since the Son loves the Father as the Father loves the Son, it will follow that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son to the Father just as he proceeds from the Father to the Son. But this is apparently impossible, for it would follow that the Father receives from the Son, which is utterly inadmissible. Praeterea, sicut Pater et Filius diligunt se, ita Filius et Spiritus Sanctus, vel Pater et Spiritus Sanctus. Si ergo Spiritus Sanctus procedit a Patre et Filio, quia Pater et Filius diligunt se; pari ratione quia Pater et Spiritus Sanctus diligunt se, procedit Spiritus Sanctus a seipso, quod est impossibile. Obj. 11: As the Father and Son love each other, so also do the Son and the Holy Spirit, or the Father and the Holy Spirit. If, then, the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father and Son because Father and Son love each other, in like manner, because Father and Holy Spirit love each other, the Holy Spirit proceeds from his very self, which is impossible. Praeterea, Dionysius dicit: universaliter non est audendum dicere aliquid nec etiam cogitare de supersubstantiali occulta divinitate, praeter ea quae divinitus nobis ex sacris eloquiis sunt expressa. In Scriptura autem sacra non exprimitur quod Spiritus Sanctus procedat a Filio, sed solum quod procedat a Patre, secundum illud Ioan. XV, 26: cum venerit Paraclitus quem ego mittam vobis a Patre, Spiritum veritatis, qui a Patre procedit. Non ergo dicendum est nec cogitandum quod Spiritus Sanctus procedit a Filio. Obj. 12: Dionysius says: we must not dare to say or even think anything concerning the supersubstantial and hidden divine nature except what has been divinely revealed to us by the sacred oracles. Now, Scripture does not assert that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, but only that he proceeds from the Father, according to John 15:26; when the Paraclete comes whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father. Therefore, we must neither say nor think that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. Praeterea, in gestis I Ephesinae synodi sic dicitur, quod perlecto symbolo Nicenae synodi decrevit sancta synodus aliam fidem nulli licere proferre vel conscribere vel componere, praeter definitam a sanctis patribus, qui in Nicaea congregati sunt cum Spiritu Sancto; praesumentes autem aut componere fidem alteram aut protendere aut proferre volentibus converti ad notitiam veritatis vel ex paganitate vel ex Iudaismo, vel ex haeresi aliqua; hos, si quidem sint episcopi aut clerici, alienos esse episcopos ab episcopatu, et clericos a clericatu; si vero sint laici, anathematizari. Et similiter in gestis Chalcedonensis synodi, post recitatam determinationem Conciliorum subditur: eos autem qui ausi sunt componere fidem alteram, aut proferre aut docere aut tradere alterum symbolum volentibus vel ex gentilitate ad cognitionem veritatis, vel Iudaeis, vel ex haeresi quacumque converti; hoc, si episcopi fuerint aut clerici, alienos esse episcopos ab episcopatu, et clericos a clero; si vero monachi aut laici fuerint, anathematizari. Obj. 13: In the Acts of the Council of Ephesus, it is stated that, after the reading of the Creed of the Council of Nicaea, the holy synod decreed that no one might profess, write, or devise any faith other than that which was defined by the holy fathers assembled at Nicaea together with the Holy Spirit, and whosoever shall either presume to devise or teach or suggest another faith to such pagans, Jews, or heretics as are desirous of being converted to a knowledge of the truth, let them be deprived of their bishopric, if they be bishops, and banished from the clergy if they be clerics: if they be laymen let them be excommunicated. In like terms, the Council of Chalcedon, after setting forth the decisions of other councils, continues: whosoever shall dare to devise another faith, or pronounce, teach, or deliver another Creed to pagans, Jews, or heretics wishing to be converted, such, if they be bishops or clerics, shall be deprived of their sees in the case of bishops, and unfrocked if they be clerics; and if they be monks or laymen they shall be excommunicated. In praemissa autem Concilii determinatione non habetur quod Spiritus Sanctus procedit a Filio, sed solum quod procedat a Patre. Legitur etiam in symbolo Constantinopolitanae synodi: credimus in Spiritum Sanctum dominum et vivificantem, ex Patre procedentem, cum Patre et Filio adorandum et conglorificandum. Nullo ergo modo debuit addi in symbolo fidei quod Spiritus Sanctus procedat a Filio. Now, in the definitions of the foregoing councils it is not stated that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, but only that he proceeds from the Father. Moreover, we read in the profession of faith of the Council of Constantinople: we believe in the Holy Spirit, Lord and lifegiver, who proceeds from the Father; with the Father and the Son to be adored and glorified. Therefore, by no means should it have been added in the Creed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. Praeterea, si Spiritus Sanctus dicitur a Filio procedere, aut hoc dicitur propter aliquam auctoritatem Scripturae, aut propter aliquam rationem. Auctoritas quidem sacrae Scripturae ad hoc ostendendum nulla videtur esse sufficiens; habetur siquidem in sacris Scripturis, quod Spiritus Sanctus sit Filii; sicut dicitur Galat. IV, 6: misit Deus spiritum Filii sui in corda vestra; et Rom. VIII, 9: si quis spiritum Christi non habet, hic non est eius. Habetur etiam quod Spiritus Sanctus sit missus a Filio: dicit enim Christus, Ioan. XVI, 7: si enim non abiero, Paraclitus non veniet ad vos, si autem abiero, mittam eum ad vox. Non autem sequitur quod Spiritus Sanctus procedat a Filio ex eo quod est Filii, quia hoc huius multipliciter dicitur, secundum Philosophum. Similiter etiam neque ex eo quod Spiritus Sanctus dicitur missus a Filio; quia licet Filius non sit a Spiritu Sancto dicitur tamen a Spiritu Sancto missus, secundum illud Is. XLVIII, 16, ex persona Christi: et nunc misit me dominus Deus, et spiritus eius; et Is., LXI, 1: spiritus domini super me . . . ad evangelizandum mansuetis misit me: quod in se dicit Christum esse completum.—Similiter etiam non potest per rationem efficaciter probari. Licet enim Spiritus Sanctus non sit a Filio, adhuc tamen, ut videtur, distincti ad invicem remanebunt: differunt enim suis proprietatibus personalibus. Nihil ergo videtur cogere ad dicendum Spiritum Sanctum procedere a Filio. Obj. 14: If it be asserted that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, this statement is made either on the authority of Scripture or on account of some proof. But seemingly Scripture nowhere affords sufficient authority for this statement. It is true that Holy Scripture speaks of the Holy Spirit as being of the Son; thus, it is said: God sent the spirit of his Son into your hearts (Gal 4:6), and: if any man have not the spirit of Christ, he is none of his (Rom 8:9). Again, we read that the Holy Spirit was sent by the Son; thus, Christ said: for if I go not, the Paraclete will not come to you, but if I go, I will send him to you (John 16:7). But it does not follow that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son because he is the Spirit of the Son, for according to the Philosopher the genitive case has many senses. Likewise, neither does it follow because the Holy Spirit is stated to be sent by the Son, since although the Son does not proceed from the Holy Spirit, he is said to be sent by the Holy Spirit, according to the words spoken in Christ’s person: and now the Lord God and his Spirit has sent me (Isa 48:16), and: the spirit of the Lord is upon me . . . he has sent me to preach to the meek (Isa 61:1), which words Christ declared to have been fulfilled in himself. Furthermore, the statement cannot be proved through any satisfactory argument. For allowing that the Holy Spirit is not from the Son, it seems that they would still remain distinct from each other; for they differ by their personal properties. Nothing, therefore, compels us to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. Praeterea, omne quod procedit ab aliquo, habet aliquid ab eo. Si ergo Spiritus Sanctus procedit a duobus, scilicet a Patre et Filio, oportet quod a duobus accipiat; et sic videtur sequi quod sit compositus. Obj. 15: Whatsoever proceeds from something has something from it. If, then, the Holy Spirit proceeds from two, namely, the Father and the Son, it follows that he receives from two, and thus, it seems to follow that he is composite. Praeterea, de ratione principii est quod non sit ab alio, secundum Philosophum. Sed Filius est ab alio, scilicet a Patre. Ergo Filius non est principium Spiritus Sancti. Obj. 16: It is of the account of a principle that it is not from another, according to the Philosopher. Now, the Son is from another, namely, the Father. Therefore, the Son is not a principle of the Holy Spirit. Praeterea, voluntas movet intellectum ad operandum, homo enim intelligit quando vult. Sed Spiritus Sanctus procedit per modum voluntatis ut Amor, Filius autem per modum intellectus ut Verbum. Non ergo videtur quod Spiritus procedat a Filio, sed magis e converso. Obj. 17: The will moves the intellect to its activity, since a man understands when he wills to do so. But the Holy Spirit proceeds through the mode of will as Love, and the Son through the mode of intellect as a Word. Therefore, it seems that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son but contrariwise. Praeterea, nihil procedit ab eo in quo quiescit. Sed Spiritus Sanctus a Patre procedit et in Filio quiescit, ut scribitur in passione beati Andreae. Ergo Spiritus Sanctus non procedit a Filio. Obj. 18: Nothing proceeds from that wherein it abides. Now, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and abides in the Son, as is written in the Acts of the blessed Andrew. Therefore, the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son. Praeterea, simplex non potest procedere a duobus, quia effectus esset simplicior et prior quam causa. Sed Spiritus Sanctus est simplex. Non ergo procedit a duobus, scilicet a Patre et Filio. Obj. 19: A simple thing cannot proceed from two, since then the effect would be simpler than and prior to the cause. But the Holy Spirit is simple. Therefore, he does not proceed from two, namely, the Father and the Son. Praeterea, si aliquid perfecte procedit ab uno, superfluum est quod procedat a duobus. Sed Spiritus Sanctus perfecte procedit a patre. Ergo superfluum esset quod procederet a Patre et Filio simul. Obj. 20: If a thing proceeds perfectly from one, it is superfluous for it to proceed from two. Now, the Holy Spirit proceeds perfectly from the Father. Therefore, it would be superfluous for him to proceed from the Father and Son together. Praeterea, sicut Pater et Filius sunt unum in substantia et natura, ita Pater et Spiritus Sanctus. Sed Spiritus Sanctus non convenit cum Patre in generatione Filii. Ergo nec Filius convenit cum Patre in emissione Spiritus Sancti. Obj. 21: As the Father and the Son are one in substance and nature, so also are the Father and the Holy Spirit. Now, the Holy Spirit does not belong with the Father in the generation of the Son. Neither, therefore, does the Son belong with the Father in sending forth the Holy Spirit. Praeterea, Filius est radius Patris, ut patet per Dionysium. Spiritus autem Sanctus est splendor. Splendor autem non est a radio. Ergo nec Spiritus Sanctus est a Filio. Obj. 22: As Dionysius expresses it, the Son is the ray of the Father. Now, the Holy Spirit is brightness; and brightness does not issue from the ray. Therefore, neither does the Holy Spirit proceed from the Son. Praeterea, Filius est quoddam lumen Patris, cum sit Verbum eius. Spiritus autem Sanctus est sicut calor, est enim amor quidam; unde et super apostolos in specie ignis apparuit. Calor autem non est a lumine. Ergo nec Spiritus Sanctus a Filio. Obj. 23: The Son is a certain light of the Father, since he is his Word, whereas the Holy Spirit is like heat, for he is a certain love; wherefore also he appeared over the Apostles in the form of fire (Acts 2:3). But heat does not come from light. Neither, then, does the Holy Spirit proceed from the Son. Praeterea, Damascenus dicit, quod Spiritus Sanctus dicitur esse Filii, sed non a Filio. Obj. 24: Damascene says that the Holy Spirit is said to be of the Son but not from the Son. Sed contra est quod Athanasius dicit: Spiritus Sanctus a Patre et Filio non factus nec creatus nec genitus, sed procedens. On the contrary (1), Athanasius says: the Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son; not made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. Praeterea, Spiritus Sanctus dicitur tertia in Trinitate persona, secunda Filius, prima Pater. Ternarius autem procedit ab unitate mediante binario. Ergo Spiritus Sanctus procedit a Patre mediante Filio. Furthermore (2), the Holy Spirit is called the third person in the Trinity, the Son the second, the Father the first. Now, the number three proceeds from unity by the mediation of the number two. Therefore, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father by the mediation of the Son. Praeterea, cum inter divinas personas sit summa convenientia, quaelibet divinarum personarum ad aliam habet immediatam germanitatem. Hoc autem non esset, si Spiritus Sanctus non esset a Filio; tunc enim Filius et Spiritus Sanctus non haberent germanitatem ad invicem immediate, sed solum mediante Patre, in quantum ambo sunt ab uno. Ergo Spiritus Sanctus est a Filio. Furthermore (3), since there is supreme agreement between the divine persons, each of them is immediately akin with the others. But this would not be the case if the Holy Spirit were not from the Son, for then the Son and the Holy Spirit would not be immediately akin with each other, but only through the Father, inasmuch as both are from one. Therefore, the Holy Spirit is from the Son. Praeterea, divinae personae non distinguuntur ab invicem nisi secundum originem. Si ergo Spiritus Sanctus non esset a Filio, non distingueretur ab eo, quod est inconveniens. Furthermore (4), the divine persons are not distinct from one another otherwise than according to origin. Therefore if the Holy Spirit were not from the Son, he would not be distinguished from him; which is inadmissible. Respondeo dicendum quod, secundum ea quae supra determinata sunt, necesse est Spiritum Sanctum a Filio procedere; oportet enim, si Filius et Spiritus Sanctus sunt duae personae, quod alia sit processio unius et alia alterius. Ostensum autem est supra, quod non possunt esse duae processiones in divinis nisi secundum ordinem processionum, ut scilicet a procedente secundum unam processionem sit alia processio. Necesse est ergo quod Spiritus Sanctus sit a Filio. I answer that, according to what has already been concluded, it is necessary that the Holy Spirit proceed from the Son. For if the Son and the Holy Spirit are two persons, the procession of one must be distinct from the procession of the other. Now, it has been shown above that there cannot be two processions in God except according to the order of the processions, namely, that there be a second procession from one who proceeds. It follows, then, of necessity that the Holy Spirit must be from the Son. Sed praeter hanc rationem etiam ex aliis rationibus de necessitate probatur quod Spiritus Sanctus sit a Filio. Oportet enim quod omnis differentia aliquorum sequatur ex prima radice distinctionis ipsorum; nisi forte sit differentia per accidens, sicut ambulans differt a sedente; et hoc ideo quia quaecumque per se insunt alicui, vel sunt de essentia eius, vel consequuntur essentialia principia, ex quibus est prima radix distinctionis rerum. In divinis autem non potest esse aliquid per accidens; quia omne quod inest alicui per accidens, cum sit extraneum a natura eius, oportet quod conveniat ei ex aliqua exteriori causa: quod non potest dici in divinis. Besides this argument, however, there are other reasons that prove that the Holy Spirit is from the Son. For every difference of things must arise from the original root of their distinction (except perhaps in the case of an accidental difference, as that between one who walks and one who sits), and this is because whatsoever is in a thing through itself is either of its essence or results from its essential principles, and from these is the original root of distinction between things. In God, however, nothing can be accidental. For whatsoever is in a thing accidentally, since it is outside the nature of that thing, must come to it from some external cause, and this cannot be said of God. Oportet ergo quod omnis differentia divinarum personarum ad invicem sequatur ex prima radice distinctionis earum. Prima autem radix distinctionis Patris et Filii, est ex paternitate et filiatione. Oportet ergo quod omnis differentia quae est inter Patrem et Filium, sequatur ex hoc quod ipse est Pater, et ille Filius. Esse autem principium Spiritus Sancti non convenit Patri in quantum Pater est, ratione paternitatis: sic enim non refertur nisi ad Filium; unde sequeretur quod Spiritus Sanctus esset Filius. Accordingly, any difference between the divine persons must follow from the original root of their distinction. Now, the original root of the distinction between the Father and the Son is paternity and filiation. Wherefore, any difference between the Father and the Son must follow from the fact that this one is the Father and that one the Son. But it does not belong to the Father as Father by reason of paternity to be the principle of the Holy Spirit, since in this way he is related only to the Son, and it would follow that the Holy Spirit is a Son. Similiter autem nec hoc repugnat rationi filiationis, quia, secundum filiationem, non refertur ad aliud nisi ad Patrem. Non ergo potest esse differentia inter Patrem et Filium in hoc quod Pater sit principium Spiritus Sancti, non autem Filius. In like manner, this is not repugnant to the account of filiation, since filiation implies relation to none but the Father. Consequently, the difference between the Father and the Son cannot arise from the fact that the Father is the principle of the Holy Spirit and the Son is not.