Chapter 25 — Arguments of those who would prove that the Holy Spirit proceeds not from the Son, and their solution

Some men, in their obstinate opposition to the truth, adduce arguments to the contrary, but they scarcely deserve a reply. They say that when our Lord spoke of the procession of the Holy Spirit, he stated that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and makes no mention of the Son, as when he says: When the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me (John 15:26). Therefore, as we must not believe anything about God save what we are taught by the Scriptures, we must not say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.

Now this is utter nonsense. By reason of the unity of essence, whatsoever the Scripture says about one person must be understood to apply to another person, even though an exclusive term be employed, unless it be incompatible with the latter person’s personal property. For though it is said: No one knows the Son except the Father (Matt 11:27), neither the Son himself, nor the Holy Spirit is excluded from knowledge of the Son. Hence, even were it said in the Gospel that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, this would not imply that he does not proceed from the Son, since this is not incompatible with the Son’s property, as we have proved. (Ch. 24.) Nor need we wonder if our Lord said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, without mentioning himself, because he is wont to refer all things to the Father, from whom he has whatsoever he has. Thus he says: My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me (John 7:16); that is, the Father’s. We find many such utterances of our Lord, stressing the Father’s authority as principle. And yet, in the passage quoted above, he does not wholly omit to say that he is the principle of the Holy Spirit, for he calls him the Spirit of truth, and he had previously called himself the truth (John 14:6).

They also object that in some Councils it was forbidden, under pain of anathema, to make any addition to the Creed approved by the Councils: and that in this Creed no mention is made of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son. Therefore, they argue that the Latins who made this addition to the Creed are anathematised.

But this avails nothing, because it is stated in the decree of the Council of Chalcedon, (Cf. ST I.36.2, ad 2.) that when the Fathers assembled at Constantinople confirmed the doctrine of the Council of Nicea: They did not imply that the previous Council contained less doctrine, but their object was to explain the mind of the fathers by quoting the authority of Scripture against those who denied that the Holy Spirit is the Lord. In like manner, we must say that the procession of the Holy Spirit is implicitly recognized in the Creed of Constantinople, inasmuch as it states that he proceeds from the Father, because what applies to the Father applies also to the Son, as we have said above. Moreover, the authority of the Roman pontiff suffices to make this addition: by which authority the early Councils were confirmed.

They also argue that since the Holy Spirit is simple, he cannot proceed from two persons; and that if he proceed from the Father perfectly, he does not proceed from the Son; and adduce many similar arguments, which can easily be solved even by those who are not far advanced in theology. For the Father and the Son are one principle of the Holy Spirit, on account of the unity of the divine power, and by one productive act produce the Holy Spirit. Thus too the three persons are one principle of the creature, and create by one action.