Articulus 1 Article 1 Utrum hoc nomen Spiritus Sanctus sit proprium nomen alicuius divinae personae Whether this name 'Holy Spirit' is the proper name of one divine person? Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod hoc nomen Spiritus Sanctus non sit proprium nomen alicuius divinae personae. Nullum enim nomen commune tribus personis, est proprium alicuius personae. Sed hoc nomen Spiritus Sanctus est commune tribus personis. Ostendit enim Hilarius, VIII de Trin., in spiritu Dei aliquando significari patrem, ut cum dicitur, spiritus domini super me; aliquando significari filium, ut cum dicit filius, in spiritu Dei eiicio Daemonia, naturae suae potestate eiicere se Daemonia demonstrans; aliquando spiritum sanctum, ut ibi, effundam de spiritu meo super omnem carnem. Ergo hoc nomen Spiritus Sanctus non est proprium alicuius divinae personae. Objection 1: It would seem that this name, Holy Spirit, is not the proper name of one divine person. For no name which is common to the three persons is the proper name of any one person. But this name of Holy Spirit is common to the three persons; for Hilary (De Trin. viii) shows that the Spirit of God sometimes means the Father, as in the words of Isa. 61:1: The Spirit of the Lord is upon me; and sometimes the Son, as when the Son says: In the Spirit of God I cast out devils (Matt 12:28), showing that He cast out devils by His own natural power; and that sometimes it means the Holy Spirit, as in the words of Joel 2:28: I will pour out of My Spirit over all flesh. Therefore this name Holy Spirit is not the proper name of a divine person. Praeterea, nomina divinarum personarum ad aliquid dicuntur, ut Boetius dicit, in libro de Trin. Sed hoc nomen Spiritus Sanctus non dicitur ad aliquid. Ergo hoc nomen non est proprium divinae personae. Obj. 2: Further, the names of the divine persons are relative terms, as Boethius says (De Trin.). But this name Holy Spirit is not a relative term. Therefore this name is not the proper name of a divine Person. Praeterea, quia filius est nomen alicuius divinae personae, non potest dici filius huius vel illius. Dicitur autem spiritus huius vel illius hominis. Ut enim habetur Num. XI, dixit dominus ad Moysen, auferam de spiritu tuo, tradamque eis; et IV Reg. II, requievit spiritus Eliae super Elisaeum. Ergo Spiritus Sanctus non videtur esse proprium nomen alicuius divinae personae. Obj. 3: Further, because the Son is the name of a divine Person He cannot be called the Son of this or of that. But the spirit is spoken of as of this or that man, as appears in the words, The Lord said to Moses, I will take of thy spirit and will give to them (Num 11:17) and also The Spirit of Elias rested upon Eliseus (4 Kgs 2:15). Therefore Holy Spirit does not seem to be the proper name of a divine Person. Sed contra est quod dicitur I Ioan. ult., tres sunt qui testimonium dant in caelo, pater, verbum et Spiritus Sanctus. Ut autem Augustinus dicit, VII de Trin., cum quaeritur, quid tres? Dicimus, tres personae. Ergo Spiritus Sanctus est nomen divinae personae. On the contrary, It is said (1 John 5:7): There are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit. As Augustine says (De Trin. vii, 4): When we ask, Three what? we say, Three persons. Therefore the Holy Spirit is the name of a divine person. Respondeo dicendum quod, cum sint duae processiones in divinis, altera earum, quae est per modum amoris, non habet proprium nomen, ut supra dictum est. Unde et relationes quae secundum huiusmodi processionem accipiuntur, innominatae sunt, ut etiam supra dictum est. Propter quod et nomen personae hoc modo procedentis, eadem ratione, non habet proprium nomen. Sed sicut sunt accommodata aliqua nomina, ex usu loquentium, ad significandum praedictas relationes, cum nominamus eas nomine processionis et spirationis, quae, secundum proprietatem significationis, magis videntur significare actus notionales quam relationes; ita ad significandum divinam personam quae procedit per modum amoris, accommodatum est, ex usu Scripturae, hoc nomen Spiritus Sanctus. I answer that, While there are two processions in God, one of these, the procession of love, has no proper name of its own, as stated above (Q. 27, A. 4, ad 3). Hence the relations also which follow from this procession are without a name (Q. 28, A. 4): for which reason the Person proceeding in that manner has not a proper name. But as some names are accommodated by the usual mode of speaking to signify the aforesaid relations, as when we use the names of procession and spiration, which in the strict sense more fittingly signify the notional acts than the relations; so to signify the divine Person, Who proceeds by way of love, this name Holy Spirit is by the use of scriptural speech accommodated to Him. Et huius quidem convenientiae ratio sumi potest ex duobus. Primo quidem, ex ipsa communitate eius quod dicitur Spiritus Sanctus. Ut enim Augustinus dicit, XV de Trin., quia Spiritus Sanctus communis est ambobus, id vocatur ipse proprie quod ambo communiter, nam et pater est spiritus, et filius est spiritus; et pater est sanctus, et filius est sanctus. Secundo vero, ex propria significatione. Nam nomen spiritus, in rebus corporeis, impulsionem quandam et motionem significare videtur, nam flatum et ventum spiritum nominamus. Est autem proprium amoris, quod moveat et impellat voluntatem amantis in amatum. Sanctitas vero illis rebus attribuitur, quae in Deum ordinantur. Quia igitur persona divina procedit per modum amoris quo Deus amatur, convenienter Spiritus Sanctus nominatur. The appropriateness of this name may be shown in two ways. First, from the fact that the person who is called Holy Spirit has something in common with the other Persons. For, as Augustine says (De Trin. xv, 17; v, 11), Because the Holy Spirit is common to both, He Himself is called that properly which both are called in common. For the Father also is a spirit, and the Son is a spirit; and the Father is holy, and the Son is holy. Second, from the proper signification of the name. For the name spirit in things corporeal seems to signify impulse and motion; for we call the breath and the wind by the term spirit. Now it is a property of love to move and impel the will of the lover towards the object loved. Further, holiness is attributed to whatever is ordered to God. Therefore because the divine person proceeds by way of the love whereby God is loved, that person is most properly named The Holy Spirit. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod hoc quod dico Spiritus Sanctus, prout sumitur in virtute duarum dictionum, commune est toti Trinitati. Quia nomine spiritus significatur immaterialitas divinae substantiae, spiritus enim corporeus invisibilis est, et parum habet de materia; unde omnibus substantiis immaterialibus et invisibilibus hoc nomen attribuimus. Per hoc vero quod dicitur sanctus, significatur puritas divinae bonitatis. Si autem accipiatur hoc quod dico Spiritus Sanctus, in vi unius dictionis, sic ex usu Ecclesiae est accommodatum ad significandam unam trium personarum, scilicet quae procedit per modum amoris, ratione iam dicta. Reply Obj. 1: The expression Holy Spirit, if taken as two words, is applicable to the whole Trinity: because by ’spirit’ the immateriality of the divine substance is signified; for corporeal spirit is invisible, and has but little matter; hence we apply this term to all immaterial and invisible substances. And by adding the word holy we signify the purity of divine goodness. But if Holy Spirit be taken as one word, it is thus that the expression, in the usage of the Church, is accommodated to signify one of the three persons, the one who proceeds by way of love, for the reason above explained. Ad secundum dicendum quod, licet hoc quod dico Spiritus Sanctus, relative non dicatur, tamen pro relativo ponitur, inquantum est accommodatum ad significandam personam sola relatione ab aliis distinctam. Potest tamen intelligi etiam in nomine aliqua relatio, si spiritus intelligatur quasi spiratus. Reply Obj. 2: Although this name Holy Spirit does not indicate a relation, still it takes the place of a relative term, inasmuch as it is accommodated to signify a Person distinct from the others by relation only. Yet this name may be understood as including a relation, if we understand the Holy Spirit as being breathed. Ad tertium dicendum quod in nomine filii intelligitur sola relatio eius qui est a principio, ad principium, sed in nomine patris intelligitur relatio principii; et similiter in nomine spiritus, prout importat quandam vim motivam. Nulli autem creaturae competit esse principium respectu alicuius divinae personae, sed e converso. Et ideo potest dici pater noster, et spiritus noster, non tamen potest dici filius noster. Reply Obj. 3: In the name Son we understand that relation only which is of something from a principle, in regard to that principle: but in the name Father we understand the relation of principle; and likewise in the name of Spirit inasmuch as it implies a moving power. But to no creature does it belong to be a principle as regards a divine person; but rather the reverse. Therefore we can say our Father, and our Spirit; but we cannot say our Son. Articulus 2 Article 2 Utrum Spiritus Sanctus procedat a filio Whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son? Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Spiritus Sanctus non procedat a filio. Quia secundum Dionysium, non est audendum dicere aliquid de substantiali divinitate, praeter ea quae divinitus nobis ex sacris eloquiis sunt expressa. Sed in Scriptura sacra non exprimitur quod Spiritus Sanctus a filio procedat, sed solum quod procedat a patre; ut patet Ioann. XV, spiritum veritatis, qui a patre procedit. Ergo Spiritus Sanctus non procedit a filio. Objection 1: It would seem that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son. For as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. i): We must not dare to say anything concerning the substantial Divinity except what has been divinely expressed to us by the sacred oracles. But in the Sacred Scripture we are not told that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son; but only that He proceeds from the Father, as appears from John 15:26: The Spirit of truth, Who proceeds from the Father. Therefore the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son. Praeterea, in symbolo Constantinopolitanae synodi sic legitur, credimus in spiritum sanctum, dominum et vivificantem, ex patre procedentem, cum patre et filio adorandum et glorificandum. Nullo igitur modo debuit addi in symbolo nostro quod Spiritus Sanctus procedat a filio, sed videntur esse anathematis rei, qui hoc addiderunt. Obj. 2: Further, in the creed of the council of Constantinople (Can. vii) we read: We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Life-giver, who proceeds from the Father; with the Father and the Son to be adored and glorified. Therefore it should not be added in our Creed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son; and those who added such a thing appear to be worthy of anathema. Praeterea, Damascenus dicit, spiritum sanctum ex patre dicimus, et spiritum patris nominamus, ex filio autem spiritum sanctum non dicimus, spiritum vero filii nominamus. Ergo Spiritus Sanctus non procedit a filio. Obj. 3: Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. i): We say that the Holy Spirit is from the Father, and we name Him the spirit of the Father; but we do not say that the Holy Spirit is from the Son, yet we name Him the Spirit of the Son. Therefore the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son. Praeterea, nihil procedit ab eo in quo quiescit. Sed Spiritus Sanctus quiescit in filio. Dicitur enim in legenda beati Andreae, pax vobis, et universis qui credunt in unum Deum patrem, et in unum filium eius, unicum dominum nostrum Iesum Christum, et in unum spiritum sanctum, procedentem ex patre, et in filio permanentem. Ergo Spiritus Sanctus non procedit a filio. Obj. 4: Further, nothing proceeds from that wherein it rests. But the Holy Spirit rests in the Son; for it is said in the legend of St. Andrew: Peace be to you and to all who believe in the one God the Father, and in His only Son our Lord Jesus Christ, and in the one Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father, and abiding in the Son. Therefore the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son. Praeterea, filius procedit ut verbum. Sed spiritus noster in nobis non videtur procedere a verbo nostro. Ergo nec Spiritus Sanctus procedit a filio. Obj. 5: Further, the Son proceeds as the Word. But our breath does not seem to proceed in ourselves from our word. Therefore the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son. Praeterea, Spiritus Sanctus perfecte procedit a patre. Ergo superfluum est dicere quod procedit a filio. Obj. 6: Further, the Holy Spirit proceeds perfectly from the Father. Therefore it is superfluous to say that He proceeds from the Son. Praeterea, in perpetuis non differt esse et posse, ut dicitur in III Physic.; et multo minus in divinis. Sed Spiritus Sanctus potest distingui a filio, etiam si ab eo non procedat. Dicit enim Anselmus, in libro de processione spiritus sancti, habent utique a patre esse filius et Spiritus Sanctus, sed diverso modo, quia alter nascendo, et alter procedendo, ut alii sint per hoc ab invicem. Et postea subdit, nam si per aliud non essent plures filius et Spiritus Sanctus, per hoc solum essent diversi. Ergo Spiritus Sanctus distinguitur a filio, ab eo non existens. Obj. 7: Further the actual and the possible do not differ in things perpetual (Phys. iii, 32), and much less so in God. But it is possible for the Holy Spirit to be distinguished from the Son, even if He did not proceed from Him. For Anselm says (De Process. Spir. Sancti, ii): The Son and the Holy Spirit have their Being from the Father; but each in a different way; one by Birth, the other by Procession, so that they are thus distinct from one another. And further on he says: For even if for no other reason were the Son and the Holy Spirit distinct, this alone would suffice. Therefore the Holy Spirit is distinct from the Son, without proceeding from Him. Sed contra est quod dicit Athanasius, Spiritus Sanctus a patre et filio, non factus, nec creatus, nec genitus, sed procedens. On the contrary, Athanasius says: The Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son; not made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. Respondeo dicendum quod necesse est dicere spiritum sanctum a filio esse. Si enim non esset ab eo, nullo modo posset ab eo personaliter distingui. Quod ex supra dictis patet. Non enim est possibile dicere quod secundum aliquid absolutum divinae personae ab invicem distinguantur, quia sequeretur quod non esset trium una essentia; quidquid enim in divinis absolute dicitur, ad unitatem essentiae pertinet. Relinquitur ergo quod solum relationibus divinae personae ab invicem distinguantur. I answer that, It must be said that the Holy Spirit is from the Son. For if He were not from Him, He could in no wise be personally distinguished from Him; as appears from what has been said above (Q. 28, A. 3; Q. 30, A. 2). For it cannot be said that the divine Persons are distinguished from each other in any absolute sense; for it would follow that there would not be one essence of the three persons: since everything that is spoken of God in an absolute sense, belongs to the unity of essence. Therefore it must be said that the divine persons are distinguished from each other only by the relations. Relationes autem personas distinguere non possunt, nisi secundum quod sunt oppositae. Quod ex hoc patet, quia pater habet duas relationes, quarum una refertur ad filium, et alia ad spiritum sanctum; quae tamen, quia non sunt oppositae, non constituunt duas personas, sed ad unam personam patris tantum pertinent. Si ergo in filio et in spiritu sancto non esset invenire nisi duas relationes quibus uterque refertur ad patrem, illae relationes non essent ad invicem oppositae; sicut neque duae relationes quibus pater refertur ad illos. Unde, sicut persona patris est una, ita sequeretur quod persona filii et spiritus sancti esset una, habens duas relationes oppositas duabus relationibus patris. Hoc autem est haereticum, cum tollat fidem Trinitatis. Oportet ergo quod filius et Spiritus Sanctus ad invicem referantur oppositis relationibus. Now the relations cannot distinguish the persons except forasmuch as they are opposite relations; which appears from the fact that the Father has two relations, by one of which He is related to the Son, and by the other to the Holy Spirit; but these are not opposite relations, and therefore they do not make two persons, but belong only to the one person of the Father. If therefore in the Son and the Holy Spirit there were two relations only, whereby each of them were related to the Father, these relations would not be opposite to each other, as neither would be the two relations whereby the Father is related to them. Hence, as the person of the Father is one, it would follow that the person of the Son and of the Holy Spirit would be one, having two relations opposed to the two relations of the Father. But this is heretical since it destroys the Faith in the Trinity. Therefore the Son and the Holy Spirit must be related to each other by opposite relations. Non autem possunt esse in divinis aliae relationes oppositae nisi relationes originis, ut supra probatum est. Oppositae autem relationes originis accipiuntur secundum principium, et secundum quod est a principio. Relinquitur ergo quod necesse est dicere vel filium esse a spiritu sancto, quod nullus dicit, vel spiritum sanctum esse a filio, quod nos confitemur. Now there cannot be in God any relations opposed to each other, except relations of origin, as proved above (Q. 28, A. 4). And opposite relations of origin are to be understood as of a principle, and of what is from the principle. Therefore we must conclude that it is necessary to say that either the Son is from the Holy Spirit; which no one says; or that the Holy Spirit is from the Son, as we confess. Et huic quidem consonat ratio processionis utriusque. Dictum enim est supra quod filius procedit per modum intellectus, ut verbum; Spiritus Sanctus autem per modum voluntatis, ut amor. Necesse est autem quod amor a verbo procedat, non enim aliquid amamus, nisi secundum quod conceptione mentis apprehendimus. Unde et secundum hoc manifestum est quod Spiritus Sanctus procedit a filio. Furthermore, the order of the procession of each one agrees with this conclusion. For it was said above (Q. 27, AA. 2, 4; Q. 28, A. 4), that the Son proceeds by the way of the intellect as Word, and the Holy Spirit by way of the will as Love. Now love must proceed from a word. For we do not love anything unless we apprehend it by a mental conception. Hence also in this way it is manifest that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. Ipse etiam ordo rerum hoc docet. Nusquam enim hoc invenimus, quod ab uno procedant plura absque ordine, nisi in illis solum quae materialiter differunt; sicut unus faber producit multos cultellos materialiter ab invicem distinctos, nullum ordinem habentes ad invicem. Sed in rebus in quibus non est sola materialis distinctio, semper invenitur in multitudine productorum aliquis ordo. Unde etiam in ordine creaturarum productarum, decor divinae sapientiae manifestatur. Si ergo ab una persona patris procedunt duae personae, scilicet filius et Spiritus Sanctus, oportet esse aliquem ordinem eorum ad invicem. Nec potest aliquis ordo alius assignari, nisi ordo naturae, quo alius est ex alio. Non est igitur possibile dicere quod filius et Spiritus Sanctus sic procedant a patre, quod neuter eorum procedat ab alio, nisi quis poneret in eis materialem distinctionem, quod est impossibile. We derive a knowledge of the same truth from the very order of nature itself. For we nowhere find that several things proceed from one without order except in those which differ only by their matter; as for instance one smith produces many knives distinct from each other materially, with no order to each other; whereas in things in which there is not only a material distinction we always find that some order exists in the multitude produced. Hence also in the order of creatures produced, the beauty of the divine wisdom is displayed. So if from the one Person of the Father, two persons proceed, the Son and the Holy Spirit, there must be some order between them. Nor can any other be assigned except the order of their nature, whereby one is from the other. Therefore it cannot be said that the Son and the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father in such a way as that neither of them proceeds from the other, unless we admit in them a material distinction; which is impossible. Unde etiam ipsi Graeci processionem spiritus sancti aliquem ordinem habere ad filium intelligunt. Concedunt enim spiritum sanctum esse spiritum filii, et esse a patre per filium. Et quidam eorum dicuntur concedere quod sit a filio, vel profluat ab eo, non tamen quod procedat. Quod videtur vel ex ignorantia, vel ex protervia esse. Quia si quis recte consideret, inveniet processionis verbum inter omnia quae ad originem qualemcumque pertinent, communissimum esse. Utimur enim eo ad designandum qualemcumque originem; sicut quod linea procedit a puncto, radius a sole, rivus a fonte; et similiter in quibuscumque aliis. Unde ex quocumque alio ad originem pertinente, potest concludi quod Spiritus Sanctus procedit a filio. Hence also the Greeks themselves recognize that the procession of the Holy Spirit has some order to the Son. For they grant that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Son; and that He is from the Father through the Son. Some of them are said also to concede that He is from the Son; or that He flows from the Son, but not that He proceeds; which seems to come from ignorance or obstinacy. For a just consideration of the truth will convince anyone that the word procession is the one most commonly applied to all that denotes origin of any kind. For we use the term to describe any kind of origin; as when we say that a line proceeds from a point, a ray from the sun, a stream from a source, and likewise in everything else. Hence, granted that the Holy Spirit originates in any way from the Son, we can conclude that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod de Deo dicere non debemus quod in sacra Scriptura non invenitur vel per verba, vel per sensum. Licet autem per verba non inveniatur in sacra Scriptura quod Spiritus Sanctus procedit a filio, invenitur tamen quantum ad sensum; et praecipue ubi dicit filius, Ioan. XVI, de spiritu sancto loquens, ille me clarificabit, quia de meo accipiet. Regulariter etiam in sacra Scriptura tenendum est, quod id quod de patre dicitur, oportet de filio intelligi, etiam si dictio exclusiva addatur, nisi solum in illis in quibus pater et filius secundum oppositas relationes distinguuntur. Cum enim dominus, Matth. XI, dicit, nemo novit filium nisi pater, non excluditur quin filius seipsum cognoscat. Sic igitur cum dicitur quod Spiritus Sanctus a patre procedit, etiam si adderetur quod a solo patre procedit, non excluderetur inde filius, quia quantum ad hoc quod est esse principium spiritus sancti, non opponuntur pater et filius; sed solum quantum ad hoc, quod hic est pater et ille filius. Reply Obj. 1: We ought not to say about God anything which is not found in Holy Scripture either explicitly or implicitly. But although we do not find it verbally expressed in Holy Scripture that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, still we do find it in the sense of Scripture, especially where the Son says, speaking of the Holy Spirit, He will glorify Me, because He shall receive of Mine (John 16:14). It is also a rule of Holy Scripture that whatever is said of the Father, applies to the Son, although there be added an exclusive term; except only as regards what belongs to the opposite relations, whereby the Father and the Son are distinguished from each other. For when the Lord says, No one knoweth the Son, but the Father, the idea of the Son knowing Himself is not excluded. So therefore when we say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, even though it be added that He proceeds from the Father alone, the Son would not thereby be at all excluded; because as regards being the principle of the Holy Spirit, the Father and the Son are not opposed to each other, but only as regards the fact that one is the Father, and the other is the Son. Ad secundum dicendum quod in quolibet Concilio institutum fuit symbolum aliquod, propter errorem aliquem qui in Concilio damnabatur. Unde sequens Concilium non faciebat aliud symbolum quam primum, sed id quod implicite continebatur in primo symbolo, per aliqua addita explanabatur contra haereses insurgentes. Unde in determinatione Chalcedonensis synodi dicitur, quod illi qui fuerunt congregati in Concilio Constantinopolitano, doctrinam de spiritu sancto tradiderunt, non quod minus esset in praecedentibus (qui apud Nicaeam congregati sunt), inferentes; sed intellectum eorum adversus haereticos declarantes. Quia igitur in tempore antiquorum Conciliorum nondum exortus fuerat error dicentium spiritum sanctum non procedere a filio; non fuit necessarium quod hoc explicite poneretur. Sed postea, insurgente errore quorundam, in quodam Concilio in Occidentalibus partibus congregato, expressum fuit auctoritate Romani pontificis; cuius auctoritate etiam antiqua Concilia congregabantur et confirmabantur. Continebatur tamen implicite in hoc ipso quod dicebatur Spiritus Sanctus a patre procedere. Reply Obj. 2: In every council of the Church a symbol of faith has been drawn up to meet some prevalent error condemned in the council at that time. Hence subsequent councils are not to be described as making a new symbol of faith; but what was implicitly contained in the first symbol was explained by some addition directed against rising heresies. Hence in the decision of the council of Chalcedon it is declared that those who were congregated together in the council of Constantinople, handed down the doctrine about the Holy Spirit, not implying that there was anything wanting in the doctrine of their predecessors who had gathered together at Nicaea, but explaining what those fathers had understood of the matter. Therefore, because at the time of the ancient councils the error of those who said that the Holy Spirit did not proceed from the Son had not arisen, it was not necessary to make any explicit declaration on that point; whereas, later on, when certain errors rose up, in another council assembled in the west, the matter was explicitly defined by the authority of the Roman Pontiff, by whose authority also the ancient councils were summoned and confirmed. Nevertheless the truth was contained implicitly in the belief that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. Ad tertium dicendum quod spiritum sanctum non procedere a filio, primo fuit a Nestorianis introductum; ut patet in quodam symbolo Nestorianorum damnato in Ephesina synodo. Et hunc errorem secutus fuit Theodoretus Nestorianus, et plures post ipsum; inter quos fuit etiam Damascenus. Unde in hoc eius sententiae non est standum. Quamvis a quibusdam dicatur quod Damascenus, sicut non confitetur spiritum sanctum esse a filio, ita etiam non negat, ex vi illorum verborum. Reply Obj. 3: The Nestorians were the first to introduce the error that the Holy Spirit did not proceed from the Son, as appears in a Nestorian creed condemned in the council of Ephesus. This error was embraced by Theodoric the Nestorian, and several others after him, among whom was also Damascene. Hence, in that point his opinion is not to be held. Although, too, it has been asserted by some that while Damascene did not confess that the Holy Spirit was from the Son, neither do those words of his express a denial thereof. Ad quartum dicendum quod per hoc quod Spiritus Sanctus dicitur quiescere vel manere in filio, non excluditur quin ab eo procedat, quia et filius in patre manere dicitur, cum tamen a patre procedat. Dicitur etiam Spiritus Sanctus in filio quiescere, vel sicut amor amantis quiescit in amato; vel quantum ad humanam naturam Christi, propter id quod scriptum est, Ioan. I, super quem videris spiritum descendentem, et manentem super eum, hic est qui baptizat. Reply Obj. 4: When the Holy Spirit is said to rest or abide in the Son, it does not mean that He does not proceed from Him; for the Son also is said to abide in the Father, although He proceeds from the Father. Also the Holy Spirit is said to rest in the Son as the love of the lover abides in the beloved; or in reference to the human nature of Christ, by reason of what is written: On whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, He it is who baptizes (John 1:33). Ad quintum dicendum quod verbum in divinis non accipitur secundum similitudinem verbi vocalis, a quo non procedit spiritus, quia sic tantum metaphorice diceretur, sed secundum similitudinem verbi mentalis, a quo amor procedit. Reply Obj. 5: The Word in God is not taken after the similitude of the vocal word, whence the breath does not proceed; for it would then be only metaphorical; but after the similitude of the mental word, whence proceeds love. Ad sextum dicendum quod per hoc quod Spiritus Sanctus perfecte procedit a patre, non solum non superfluum est dicere quod Spiritus Sanctus procedat a filio; sed omnino necessarium. Quia una virtus est patris et filii; et quidquid est a patre, necesse est esse a filio, nisi proprietati filiationis repugnet. Non enim filius est a seipso, licet sit a patre. Reply Obj. 6: For the reason that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father perfectly, not only is it not superfluous to say He proceeds from the Son, but rather it is absolutely necessary. Forasmuch as one power belongs to the Father and the Son; and because whatever is from the Father, must be from the Son unless it be opposed to the property of filiation; for the Son is not from Himself, although He is from the Father. Ad septimum dicendum quod Spiritus Sanctus distinguitur personaliter a filio in hoc, quod origo unius distinguitur ab origine alterius. Sed ipsa differentia originis est per hoc, quod filius est solum a patre, Spiritus Sanctus vero a patre et filio. Non enim aliter processiones distinguerentur, sicut supra ostensum est. Reply Obj. 7: The Holy Spirit is distinguished from the Son, inasmuch as the origin of one is distinguished from the origin of the other; but the difference itself of origin comes from the fact that the Son is only from the Father, whereas the Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son; for otherwise the processions would not be distinguished from each other, as explained above, and in Q. 27. Articulus 3 Article 3 Utrum Spiritus Sanctus procedat a patre per filium Whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son?