Chapter 24 — That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son

Now some are in error about the procession of the Holy Spirit, and hold that he does not proceed from the Son. Accordingly, we must show that the Holy Spirit does proceed from the Son.

It is evident from Sacred Scripture that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Son, for it is said: Any one who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him (Rom 8:9). And, lest anyone say that the Spirit proceeding from the Father is distinct from the Spirit of the Son, it is plain from the words of the same Apostle that the same Holy Spirit is the Father’s and the Son’s. For the words quoted above: Any one who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him, are preceded by these: If the Spirit of God really dwells in you (Rom 8:9). Now, the Holy Spirit cannot be called the Spirit of Christ merely because Christ possessed him as man: Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan (Luke 4:1); since it is said: Because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying: ‘Abba! Father!’ (Gal 4:6). Accordingly, the Holy Spirit makes us to be sons of God inasmuch as he is the Spirit of the Son of God. Now, we become sons of God by adoption through being conformed to him who is Son of God by nature: For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the first-born among many brethren (Rom 8:29). Hence the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Christ inasmuch as he is the natural Son of God. But the Holy Spirit cannot be called the Spirit of Christ by reason of any other relationship, save that of origin, since this is the only distinction to be found in God. Therefore, we must say that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Christ in the sense that he proceeds from him.

Again. The Holy Spirit is sent by the Son: When the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father (John 15:26). Now, the sender has a certain authority in respect of the person sent. Hence we must say that the Son has a certain authority in respect of the Holy Spirit—not an authority of dominion or greatness, but only in point of origin. Therefore, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. But someone might say that the Son also is sent by the Holy Spirit, because our Lord declares that in himself was fulfilled the saying of Isaias: The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor (Luke 4:18–21). To this we reply that the Son is sent by the Holy Spirit in respect of his human nature. Now, the Holy Spirit did not assume a created nature in such a way that in respect of that nature he could be said to be sent by the Son, or that the Son has authority in relation to him. It follows, therefore, that the Son has authority over the Holy Spirit with regard to the eternal person.

Moreover. The Son says of the Holy Spirit: He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you (John 16:14). Now, he cannot be said to receive what is the Son’s, unless he receive from the Son—for example, if he be said to receive the divine essence, which is the Son’s from the Father. Hence the text continues: All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you (John 16:15). For if whatsoever the Father has is the Son’s, it follows that the Father’s authority, inasmuch as he is the principle of the Holy Spirit, must be the Son’s also. Consequently, as the Holy Spirit receives from the Father of what is the Father’s, so from the Son he receives of what is the Son’s.

Besides, we can quote the authority of the doctors of the Church, even of the Greeks. Thus Athanasius says: The Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son; not made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. (Athanasius, Symbol of Faith.) Cyril also, in his epistle received by the Council of Chalcedon, says: He is called the Spirit of Truth, (John 15:26.) and is the Spirit of Truth: for he proceeds therefrom, as also from God the Father. And Didymus says: Neither is the Son distinct, save in those things which he receives from the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit of another substance besides what is conceded; namely, that he is from the Son and proceeds from him. (Didymus, On the Holy Spirit.)

But it is ridiculous to concede that the Holy Spirit is from the Son, or flows from the Son, but not that he proceeds from him. For this word ‘procession,’ among all those that indicate origin, is the widest in its signification. Thus, in whatever way anything is from anything else, it is said to proceed from it. And, since divine things are better expressed in general than in special terms, the word ‘procession’ as denoting the origin of the divine persons is to be specially noted. Hence, if it be granted that the Holy Spirit is from the Son, or flows from the Son, it follows that he proceeds from him.

Again. We read in the decree of the fifth Council: In all things we follow the teaching of the holy Fathers and doctors of the Church, of Athanasius, Hilary, Basil, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Augustine, Theophilus, John of Constantinople, Cyril, Leo, Probus. We subscribe to all that they taught concerning the true faith and the condemnation of heresies. (Constantinople 2, session 1.) Now, it is clear from many of Augustine’s works, especially the book On the Trinity and his Commentary on John, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. Therefore, it must be granted that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.

The same may be evidently proved by reason. Apart from the distinction of matter, which can have no place in the divine persons, there can be no distinction in things except by way of opposition, since things which are in no way distinct from one another can be together in the same subject, so that they cannot be a cause of distinction. Thus ‘white’ and ‘triangular,’ although diverse, yet, because they are not opposed to each other, can be in the same subject. Now, according to the teaching of the Catholic faith, we must grant a distinction between the Son and the Holy Spirit: otherwise there would not be three, but two persons. Consequently, this distinction must result from some kind of opposition. But it cannot be the opposition of affirmation and negation, since such is the distinction between being and non-being. Nor can it be the opposition of privation and habit, since such is the distinction between perfect and imperfect. Nor can it be the opposition of contrariety, since such is the distinction between things having different forms: for contrariety is difference of form (as the philosophers teach), and such a difference is incompatible in the divine persons inasmuch as they have one form, even as they have one essence. Thus the Apostle, speaking of the Son, says: who, being in the form of God (Phil 2:6), namely of the Father.

It follows, therefore, that one divine person is not distinct from another save by relative opposition: thus the Son is distinct from the Father in respect of the relative opposition between a father and his son. For there can be no other relative opposition in God save that which is according to origin, since relative opposition is founded either on quantity, as ‘double’ and ‘half,’ or on action and passion, as ‘master’ and ‘servant,’ ‘mover’ and ‘moved,’ ‘father’ and ‘son’. Again, of those relatives that are founded on quantity, some are based on difference in quantity, as ‘double’ and ‘half,’ ‘more’ and ‘less’; some on unity itself—for example, ‘same,’ which signifies one in substance, and ‘equal,’ which signifies one in quantity, and ‘like,’ which signifies one in quality. Accordingly, the divine persons cannot be distinguished by relations based on diversity of quantity, because this would destroy the equality of the three persons; nor by relations based on unity, because such relations do not cause distinction—in fact they are more akin to conformity, although it may be that one or the other of them presupposes distinction. But in all the relations based on action and passion, one of them is always subject and unequal in power, except only in relations of origin, where no inferiority is indicated, because in their case something produces its like and equal in nature and power. Therefore, it follows that the divine persons cannot be distinguished save by relative opposition of origin. Therefore, if the Holy Spirit is distinct from the Son, he must proceed from him, since it cannot be said that the Son proceeds from the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Son, and is given by him.

Again. Both Son and Holy Spirit proceed from the Father. Consequently, the Father must be related to both Son and Holy Spirit as the principle is related to that which proceeds from it. Now he is related to the Son by reason of paternity, but not so to the Holy Spirit, since then the Holy Spirit would be his Son: for paternity is a relation to none but a son. Therefore, there must be another relation in the Father, whereby he is related to the Holy Spirit; this is called spiration. In like manner, since there is a relation in the Son whereby he is related to the Father, and which is called filiation, there must also be in the Holy Spirit another relation whereby he is related to the Father, and which is called procession. Thus there are two relations corresponding to the origin of the Son from the Father, one in the person who is the origin, and one in the person originated, namely, paternity and filiation. And again, two relations corresponding to the origin of the Holy Spirit, namely, spiration and procession. Hence paternity and spiration do not constitute two persons, but belong to the one person of the Father, because they are not opposite to each other. Neither, therefore, would filiation and procession constitute two persons, but would belong to one person, unless they were opposed to one another. Now, no other opposition is possible, save that of origin. Therefore, there must be opposition of origin between the Son and the Holy Spirit, so that the one proceeds from the other.

Further. Things that have something in common, if they are distinct from each other, must be distinguished by essential differences, and not by differences accidentally belonging to what they have in common. Thus man and horse agree in animal nature, and are differentiated not by black and white (which are accidental to animal), but by rational and irrational which belong to animal essentially. For, since ‘animal’ means that which has a soul (anima), it follows that it must be differentiated in the point of its having this or that kind of soul (for instance, rational or irrational). Now it is manifest that the Son and the Holy Spirit agree in the point of proceeding from another, since each is from the Father: accordingly, the Father is fittingly distinguished from both in that he is innascible. If, then, the Holy Spirit is distinct from the Son, this must be by distinctions which essentially divide the fact of being from another: and such distinctions must be of the same kind—that is, distinctions of origin, so that one of them proceed from the other. It follows, therefore, that the Holy Spirit must proceed from the Son in order to be distinct from him.

Moreover. Someone might say that the Holy Spirit is distinct from the Son not because he proceeds from him, but on account of the difference in the origin of each from the Father. But these amount to the same thing. For if the Holy Spirit is other than the Son, their respective origins or processions must differ. Now, two origins cannot differ save as to term, principle, or subject. Thus the origin of a horse differs from the origin of an ox as regards the term, insofar as these two origins terminate in specifically distinct natures. On the part of the principle—thus in the same animal species, there may be some animals engendered by the active force of the sun alone, while others are engendered by the same force co-operating with the active power of seed. On the part of the subject—the engendering of one horse differs from that of another insofar as the specific nature is received into a different matter. Now, this distinction on the part of the subject cannot be ascribed to the divine persons, since they are utterly devoid of matter. Again, on the part of the term, if one may use the expression, there can be no difference in the processions, because the Holy Spirit, by proceeding, receives one and the same divine nature as the Son receives by being born. Consequently, the distinction of their respective origins can only be on the part of the principle. Now, it is plain that the Father alone is the principle of the Son’s origin. Therefore, if the Father alone be the principle of the procession of the Holy Spirit, the procession of the Holy Spirit will not be distinct from the generation of the Son, and so the Holy Spirit will not be distinct from the Son. Consequently, if there is a distinction of processions and of persons proceeding, we must conclude that the Holy Spirit is not from the Father alone, but from the Father and the Son.

Again, someone might say that the processions differ as to the principle inasmuch as the Father produces the Son as the Word proceeding from his intellect, and the Holy Spirit as the love proceeding from his will. Then we shall have to say that the two processions and the two proceeding persons are distinct by reason of the difference between will and intellect in God the Father. But will and intellect are not really distinct in God the Father, but only logically, as we have proved. (Bk. 1, cc. 45, 73.) Consequently, there will only be a logical distinction between the two processions, and the two proceeding persons. Now, things that differ only logically are predicated of one another: for it is true that God’s will is his intellect and vice versa. Hence it will be true that the Holy Spirit is the Son, and vice versa, which is the impious statement of Sabellius. Therefore, to account for the distinction between the Holy Spirit and the Son, it is not enough to say that the Son proceeds by way of the intelligence, and the Holy Spirit by way of the will, unless we add that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.

Further. From the very fact that the Holy Spirit is said to proceed by way of the will, and the Son by way of the intellect, it follows that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, because love proceeds from the word, since we cannot love a thing unless we first conceive it in the word of our hearts.

Again. If we consider the various species of things, we shall observe a certain order in them, in that living beings are above lifeless things, animals above plants, and man above other animals; and that there are various grades in each one of these in respect of their various species. Hence Plato said that species are like numbers, which differ specifically by the addition or subtraction of unity. Consequently, in substances devoid of matter, there can be no distinction but by reason of order. Now, the divine persons are immaterial, and in them there can be no order but that of origin. Therefore, two persons cannot proceed from one unless one of them proceed from the other. Thus the Holy Spirit must proceed from the Son.

Again. The Father and Son, as regards the unity of essence, do not differ save in that the one is the Father, and the other the Son. Whatsoever, therefore, is in addition to this is common to Father and Son. Now, to be the principle of the Holy Spirit is in addition to paternity and filiation, since the relation whereby the Father is father is distinct from that whereby he is the principle of the Holy Spirit, as stated above. Therefore, it is common to Father and Son to be the principle of the Holy Spirit.

Moreover. Whatsoever is not against the nature of a thing can be ascribed to it, unless there be something accidental in the way. Now, to be the principle of the Holy Spirit is not incompatible in the Son, neither as God (since the Father, who is God, is the principle of the Holy Spirit), nor as Son (since the procession of the Holy Spirit differs from that of the Son). Also, to proceed from a principle by one kind of procession is not incompatible with being the principle of another’s procession. Consequently, it is not impossible for the Son to be the principle of the Holy Spirit. Now, what is not impossible is possible; in God, what is possible is not different from what is. Therefore, the Son is the principle of the Holy Spirit.