CONTRA ERRORES GRAECORUM

by
ST. THOMAS AQUINAS, O.P.

translated by
Peter Damian Fehlner, F.I.
re-edited and missing chapters supplied by Joseph Kenny, O.P.

CONTENTS

PART ONE

    PROLOGUE

  1. How the Son is understood to be related to the Father as something caused to its cause.
  2. How the Son is to be understood as second from the Father and the Holy Spirit third.
  3. How the Holy Spirit is to be understood as third light.
  4. How the essence is to understood as begotten in the Son and spirated in the Holy Spirit.
  5. How Jesus is to be understood as Son of the paternal essence.
  6. How properties of the Father are to be understood as proper to the Son.
  7. How the Father is to be understood as needing neither Son nor Holy Spirit for his perfection.
  8. How the Holy Spirit is to be understood as unbegotten.
  9. How the Holy Spirit is to be understood as the mean between Father and Son.
  10. How the Holy Spirit is to be understood as the image of the Son.
  11. How the Holy Spirit is to be understood in the Father as in his image.
  12. How the Holy Spirit is to be understood to be the word of the Son.
  13. How by the name of Christ is to be understood the Holy Spirit.
  14. How the assertion that the Holy Spirit does not send the Son is to be understood.
  15. How the assertion that the Holy Spirit truly works through the Son is to be understood.
  16. How God is to be understood as not dwelling in men before the incarnation of Christ.
  17. How the divine essence is to be understood as conceived and born.
  18. How the assertion that the deity was made is to be understood.
  19. How the Son of God is to be understood to have assumed a human nature in his essence.
  20. How the assertion that a man was assumed is to be understood.
  21. How the assertion ‘God made man God’ is to be understood.
  22. How the likeness of the first parent is to be understood as erased in Christ.
  23. How the assertion: the creature cannot cooperate with the Creator, is to be understood.
  24. How the assertion that the creature does not belong to the Creator, is to be understood.
  25. How our assertion that the angels by nature are not ranked second and third is to be understood.
  26. How the assertion that even the Seraphim learn from Paul as a teacher is to be understood.
  27. How the assertion that the breath of life which God breathed into the face of man is not the rational soul, but the outpouring of the Holy Spirit is to be understood.
  28. How the impossibility of not blaspheming for one who has once blasphemed is to be understood.
  29. How the assertion that faith cannot be preached is to be understood.
  30. How the assertion that faith is not ministered to us by angels is to be understood.
  31. How the assertion that even the New Testament is a death-dealing letter is to be understood.
  32. How the sole definition of the Nicene Council is to be understood as the unique and true possession of the faithful.

PART TWO

    PROLOGUE

  1. That the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Son.
  2. That the Son sends the Holy Spirit.
  3. That the Holy Spirit receives of that which is the Son’s.
  4. That the Son works through the Holy Spirit.
  5. That the Holy Spirit is the image of the Son.
  6. That he is the character of the Son.
  7. That he is also the seal of the Son.
  8. That the Holy Spirit is from the Father through the Son.
  9. That the Holy Spirit is from the Son.
  10. That he is jointly from Father and Son.
  11. That he is from both from eternity.
  12. That the Holy Spirit is a person from persons.
  13. That he is also from the essence of Father and Son.
  14. That he also is naturally from the Son.
  15. That the Son also spirates the Holy Spirit.
  16. That the Son spirates he has from a personal property.
  17. That on the same grounds he is spirated by Father and Son.
  18. That he is spirated from the Son eternally.
  19. That the Holy Spirit is spirated from the essence of the Son.
  20. That the Holy Spirit emanates from the Son.
  21. That the Holy Spirit flows from the Son and this from eternity.
  22. That the Son also originates the Holy Spirit.
  23. That the Son is the author of the Holy Spirit.
  24. That the Son is also principle of the Holy Spirit.
  25. That the Son is also source of the Holy Spirit.
  26. The general conclusion: that the Spirit proceeds from the Son.
  27. That in the divine person to flow and to proceed is the same.
  28. That to demonstrate the procession of the Holy Spirit the Greek and Latin Doctors use the same arguments.
  29. That the Holy Spirit is distinguished from the Son in this that he is from him.
  30. That the distinction of persons should be according to some order of nature.
  31. That to believe the Holy Spirit is from the Son is necessary for salvation.
  32. That the Roman Pontiff is the first and greatest among all bishops.
  33. That the same Pontiff has universal jurisdiction over the entire Church of Christ.
  34. That the same possesses in the Church a fullness of power.
  35. That he enjoys the same power conferred on Peter by Christ.
  36. That to him belongs the right of deciding what pertains to faith.
  37. That he is the superior of the other patriarchs.
  38. That to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation.
  39. Against the position of those who deny the Sacrament may be confected with unleavened bread.
  40. That there exists a purgatory wherein souls are cleansed from sins not cleansed in the present life.

    EPILOGUE

PART ONE

PROLOGUE

The book, most Holy Father, Pope Urban, which your Excellency called to my attention [the Libellus de fide SS. Trinitatis of Nicholas of Durazzo, Bishop of Cotrone] I have studied carefully and have found expressed in it much that is useful to the affirmation of our faith. I believe, however, its fruitfulness for many persons could be considerably diminished because of some perplexing statements contained in texts of the holy Fathers, and so could provide the quarrelsome with the material and occasion for calumny. And so, after eliminating all ambiguity from the authorities found in the aforesaid book so that the purest fruit of the faith might be harvested, I have proposed first to explain what seems perplexing in the abovementioned authorities, and then to show how by means of them the truth of the Catholic faith may be taught and defended.

There are, in my opinion, two reasons why some of the statements of the ancient Greek Fathers strike our contemporaries as dubious. First, because once errors regarding the faith arose, the holy Doctors of the Church became more circumspect in the way they expounded points of faith, so as to exclude these errors. It is clear, for example, that the Doctors Footnote who lived before the error of Arius did not speak so expressly about the unity of the divine essence as the Doctors who came afterwards. And the same happened in the case of other errors. This is quite evident not only in regard to Doctors in general, but in respect to one particularly distinguished Doctor, Augustine. Footnote For in the books he published after the rise of the Pelagian heresy he spoke more cautiously about the freedom of the human will than he had done in his books published before the rise of said heresy. In these earlier works, while defending the will against the Manichees, he made certain statements which the Pelagians, who rejected divine grace, used in support of their error. It is, therefore, no wonder if after the appearance of various errors, present day teachers of the faith speak more cautiously and more selectively so as to steer clear of any kind of heresy. Hence, if there are found some points in statements of the ancient Fathers not expressed with the caution moderns find appropriate to observe, their statements are not to be ridiculed or rejected; on the other hand neither are they to be overextended, but reverently interpreted.

“Second, because many things which sound well enough in Greek do not perhaps, sound well in Latin. Hence, Latins and Greeks professing the same faith do so using different words. For among the Greeks it is said, correctly, and in a Catholic way, that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three hypostases. Footnote But with the Latins it does not sound right to say that there are three substantiae, even though on a purely verbal basis the term hypostasis in Greek means the same as the term substantia in Latin. The fact is, substantia in Latin is more frequently used to signify essence. And both we and the Greeks hold that in God there is but one essence. So where the Greeks speak of three hypostases, we Latins speak of three personae, as Augustine in the seventh book on the Trinity Footnote also teaches. And, doubtless, there are many similar instances.

It is, therefore, the task of the good translator, when translating material dealing with the Catholic faith, to preserve the meaning, but to adapt the mode of expression so that it is in harmony with the idiom of the language into which he is translating. For obviously, when anything spoken in a literary fashion in Latin is explained in common parlance, the explanation will be inept if it is simply word for word. All the more so, when anything expressed in one language is translated merely word for word into another, it will be no surprise if perplexity concerning the meaning of the original sometimes occurs.

 

CHAPTER 1

How the Son is understood to be related to the Father as something caused to its cause.

Doubt may trouble some persons on discovering that in many passages of these authorities the Father is said to be the cause of the Son, and the Father and Son the cause of the Holy Spirit. And this occurs first in the words which Athanasius is reported Footnote to have spoken at the Council of Nicaea: “Whatever the Son has from the Father, he has a word from the heart, as brightness from the sun, a stream from its source, or an effect from its cause. He who insults or denies what is caused quite certainly also denies its cause. The begotten Son who is caused says: He who rejects me rejects Him who sent me” (Lk. 10:16). Footnote Elsewhere Athanasius says: “The Spirit is not unoriginated, that is, without any principle or cause, but rather he shows himself to be true God, originated, however, not in time, but from the cause of true origin.” Footnote And Basil says: “The Holy Spirit, sent by God himself, has a cause.” Footnote And Theodoret commenting on the Epistle to the Hebrews says: “The cause of the Son is the Father.” Footnote

Among the Latins, Footnote however, the Father is not usually called the cause of the Son or of the Holy Spirit, but only their principle or origin, for this there are three reasons.

First, because the Father cannot be understood as a cause of the Son in the manner of a formal or material or final cause, but only after that of an originating cause, to wit an efficient cause. But we find that an efficient cause is always diverse in essence from that of which it is the cause. Therefore, to exclude the notion that the Son has an essence diverse from that of the Father, we are not accustomed to speak of the Father as cause of the Son, but prefer to use words connoting origin jointly with consubstantiality, such as fount, head, and the like.

Second, because for us cause and effect are correlative terms. Hence we do not say the Father causes, lest someone take this to mean that the Son was made. And even with the philosophers God is called prime cause; whatever is caused is included by them in the universe of creatures. And so, if the Son could be said to have a cause, he could be understood as being included within the universe of caused beings or creatures.

Third, because when speaking of God man should not lightly depart from the scriptural mode. Sacred Scripture, however, calls the Father the beginning (or principle) of the Word, as is clear from John 1:1. “In the beginning was the Word.” Footnote Nowhere does it say that the Father is a cause or that the Son is caused. Therefore, since cause says more than principle, we do not presume to say that the Father is a cause or the Son is caused.

No word, however, connoting origin is more aptly used when speaking of God than this word principle. Because what is in God is incomprehensible and cannot be defined by us, in speaking of God we more fittingly use general terms rather than proper terms: hence his most proper name is said to be “Who Is”, which is as a term most general, as is evident in Exodus 3:14. And as cause is more general Footnote than element, so principle is more general than cause. Therefore, in speaking of God we very appropriately use the term principle.

This is not to be interpreted, however, as if the aforementioned saints who used such terms as cause and caused meant to imply that the divine persons did not have the same nature, or that the Son was a creature. They wished to indicate merely the origin of the persons, as we do when we use the term principle. Hence Gregory of Nyssa states: “When we say cause and caused, we do not mean by these terms natures. For we do not employ these terms as substitutes for essence or nature; rather we illustrate how precisely Father and Son differ, namely we show how the Son is not begotten of anyone.” Footnote Similarly, Basil says: “Because unbegotten the Holy Spirit, I say, has not a Father; nor is he a creature, because he is not created, but has God as his cause; God of whom he is truly the spirit, and from whom he proceeds.” Footnote

 

CHAPTER 2

How the Son is to be understood as second from the Father and the Holy Spirit third.

In the abovementioned authorities passages are found where the Son is said to be second in order from the Father and the Holy Spirit third in order from the same. For in the discourse to Serapion Athanasius says: “The Holy Spirit is third in order from the Father, but the Son is second.” Footnote Similarly, Basil says: “In dignity and order the Spirit is second from the Son.” Footnote

These statements may strike a person as false. For, as Augustine says, the only order existing among the divine persons is an order, not of priority whereby one comes before another, but of origin, whereby one is from another. Footnote For there is no mode of priority in virtue of which the Father could be said to be prior to the Son. For the Father is not prior in time, since the Son is eternal; nor prior in nature, since the one nature belongs to Father and Son; nor prior in dignity, since Father and Son are equal; nor even prior in understanding, since they are distinguished only by relations, and relative entities are understood simultaneously, Footnote since each pertains to the understanding of the other. And so it is clear that properly speaking the Son cannot be said to be second in order from the Father and the Holy Spirit third in order from the Father.

The aforementioned Doctors, therefore, call the Son second and the Holy Spirit third according to their numerical order. This is clear from Basil himself who says: “We have received the Holy Spirit from Father and Son as third numbered and conglorified, the Spirit of the very Son of God, who when instituting the order of salvific baptism said: ‘Going, baptize all men in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit’.” Footnote And Epiphanius says: “The Spirit of God who is from Father and Son is third named.” Footnote

But when Basil asserts that the Spirit is second from the Son in dignity, he appears more seriously mistaken, because he seems to posit degrees of dignity in the Trinity, whereas all three persons are equal in dignity. This statement, however, can be explained as referring, not to natural, but to personal dignity in God, just as we say that “a person is a hypostasis in virtue of a distinct property entailing dignity.” Footnote Hilary adopts this manner of speaking when he says Footnote that the Father is greater than the Son by reason of authority of origin. But by reason of oneness in substance the Son is not thereby less than the Father.

 

CHAPTER 3

How the Holy Spirit is to be understood as third light.

Even more calumnious seems the inference to be drawn from a text of the Cypriot bishop St. Epiphanius: “The Holy Spirit is the spirit of truth, a light third in order from Father and Son.” Footnote Now where there is unity, there is no order of first and third. But Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one light, Footnote just as they are one God. Therefore, just as Catholics cannot say that the Holy Spirit is a third God distinct from Father and Son, so they cannot say that he is as third light.

He is said, however, to be the third person because of the plurality of persons. From the fact, then, that he speaks of a third light, it follows that there are three lights. This Ephiphanius expressly states in a subsequent passage: “All other things are called lights by reason of position or composition or appellation, not however being similar to these three lights.” Footnote

On the other hand, it might be said in explanation that a light implies a certain origin; for light Footnote is what is diffused from some source and of itself can also diffuse further light. In this way the word light can be stretched to connote personal properties in virtue of the diffusive property of light, even though light by nature properly pertains to the realm of essence. Noting this the said Father spoke of a third light and three lights in God. But this statement should not be pressed too far. Rather, Father, Son and Holy Spirit should simply be confessed as one light.

 

CHAPTER 4

How the essence is to understood as begotten in the Son and spirated in the Holy Spirit.

Among the sayings of the aforesaid Fathers Footnote is met the assertion that the essence is begotten in the Son and spirated in the Holy Spirit. For Athanasius in his third discourse on the Acts of the Council of Nicaea, speaking in the person of the Son, says: “I distribute to men your Spirit together with the divine essence begotten of you.” And a little further on: “From your essence which you have begotten in me I give the Holy Spirit to them.” Footnote The same Father writes in his letter to Serapion: “The Parent himself keeping in himself his essence ineffably begot it whole and entire in his Son.” Footnote And again: “As the Father has life in himself, that is, a living spirating nature, so he has given to the Son to have life in himself, that is, he begot in the Son the same nature spirating a living Spirit.” Subsequently he says of the Father and Son “that the deity is one naturally spirating one Holy Spirit.” Footnote From these passages it follows that in the Son the divine nature spirates the Holy Spirit.

Cyril in his Thesaurus against the heretics states: “The power, uncreated and begotten in the Son, pertains to the Son according to every modality of the Son’s nature.” And again: “The Father gives life to the Son, that is, he begot his natural life in the Son.” Footnote And Basil says: “The Son himself whom the Father gives us is God in essence begotten of God, having in himself the whole essence of the Father as begotten.” Footnote Athanasius likewise asserts in his letter to Serapion that the divine essence in the Holy Spirit is spirated. He says: “The Holy Spirit is the true and natural image of the Son in virtue of the essence wholly spirated into him by the same.” Footnote

This manner of speaking, however, is highly misleading, and at the [Fourth] Lateran Council Footnote the teaching of Joachim, who presumptuously defended it against Master Peter Lombard, was condemned. In the 5th distinction of his First Book of the Sentences Footnote the aforementioned Master Peter shows that the common essence does not beget, is not begotten, and does not proceed; this is because in God there is a common element indistinct and one which is distinguished and not common. Therefore, that which is the ground of distinction in God cannot be attributed to what is common and indistinct, but only to that which is distinguished. There is, however, no other ground of distinction in God but this: that one person begets, another is begotten, and another proceeds. Therefore, to beget or to be begottten or to proceed cannot be attributed to the divine essence, which is common and indistinct in the three persons. What is distinct in God, however, is the person or hypostasis or supposit of the divine nature, i.e., what has the divine nature. Hence, those terms which signify or can stand for a person receive the appropriate predication of generation or procession. Thus, these terms: Father, Son and Holy Spirit, connote specific persons, while this term: person, or hypostasis, connotes them generically. Hence, it is proper to say that the Father begets the Son, and that the Son is begotten of the Father and that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and also that a person begets or spirates a person, or is begotten or spirated by a person.

The term God, however, because it signifies the divine essence as existing concretely—for it signifies someone who possesses divinity—can, therefore, because of its manner of signifying, stand for a person and so the following ways of speaking are properly permitted: God begets God; God is begotten or proceeds from God.

But the terms essence and divinity and any other connoting abstractly cannot by reason of their mode of signifying signify or stand for a person. And so, personal properties cannot rightly be predicated of the essence or of the godhead, for instance, the essence begets or is begotten. Some of these terms, however, are more closely linked to the personal, inasmuch as they signify principles of acts proper to persons, e.g., light, wisdom, goodness and the like. Hence, it is less inappropriate to predicate personal properties of such, for example, the Son is light of light or wisdom of wisdom. But the phrase: essence of essence, entails greater difficulty.

Although the mode of signifying is diverse in the case of the terms God and deity, the reality to which they refer is absolutely the same. And therefore, just as by reason of that identical reality one is predicated of the other, as when God is called the deity, or a divine person or the Father the divine essence, so too from time to time the saints have used the terms interchangeably, stating, for example, that the divine essence begets because the Father who is the divine essence begets, or that the essence is from the essence because the Son who is the essence is from the Father who is the same divine essence. Cyril in his Thesaurus says: “ The Father living of himself by his own life and truly existing by his own essence, in begetting the Son as from a true root, gives him naturally his own natural life and essence.” Footnote So when it is stated that the Father begets his own nature in the Son, this is to be interpreted as meaning that by generation he gives his own nature to the Son, as in the text of Cyril just quoted.

 

CHAPTER 5

How Jesus is to be understood as Son of the paternal essence.

From this it is clear how is to be interpreted what in the same work Cyril is led to say: “How, therefore, will Jesus, the Son, be a product of the Father’s essence?” Footnote For he is not called the Son of the Father’s essence as if he were begotten by the essence of the Father, but as it were receiving by generation the essence of the Father. And this is how all similar statements are to be interpreted, as, e.g., the Son and the Holy Spirit are said to proceed by essence Footnote in so far as by proceeding they receive essence from the Father.

 

CHAPTER 6

How properties of the Father are to be understood as proper to the Son.

Another statement of Cyril in the same Thesaurus could be considered dubious. “All that is by nature proper to the Father is also proper to the Son.” Footnote For this could either refer to the essential attributes, which are proper neither to Father nor to Son, but are common to both; or it could refer to the personal attributes, and thus those which are proper to the Father are not proper to the Son, as for instance innascibility and paternity pertain only to the Father and no wise to the Son.

It is clear, however, from his prior affirmations that he is speaking of essential attributes. For he takes as premise that: “Whatever by nature belongs to the Father belongs also to the Son,” Footnote such as life, truth, light and the like. These are said, however, to be proper to the Father not in relation to the Son, and proper to the Son not in relation to the Father, but to both in relation to creatures, to which in contrast with God the aforementioned do not properly belong. Or they may be said to be proper to each person, not as pertaining to him exclusively, but as pertaining to him of himself.

 

CHAPTER 7

How the Father is to be understood as needing neither Son nor Holy Spirit for his perfection.

A further difficulty stems from a passage of Athanasius in his letter to Serapion, namely, that the Father “existing fully and perfectly as God in himself and of himself, without need of anyone, needs neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit”. Footnote That the Father has no need of anything is beyond doubt; in the same way neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit wants for anything. To be in need, in the proper sense of the term, is to lack something pertaining to one’s perfection; and to be in need in this sense cannot be said of the Father, or the Son, or of the Holy Spirit.

Nevertheless, the Father could not be perfect unless he had a Son, because the Father would not exist without the Son nor would God be perfect, unless he had a Word and unless he had the breath of life, as the same Athanasius says in this third discourse on the Acts of the Council of Nicaea. Speaking of the Arians who denied that the Son and Holy Spirit are consubstantial with the Father, he says: “They describe as sterile and unfruitful the nature of the Father who has given to each things its inmost nature capable of propagating in kind. And they make the Father dumb and wordless, although he gave to all rational creatures the faculty of speech. They describe the Father as dead and deprive him of a living nature,” Footnote inasmuch as they deny that the Holy Spirit is coessential with the Father. From this it is clear that the Father would not be perfect God if he did not have the Son and the Holy Spirit. The same Athanasius states in his letter to Serapion that “the Father could not create the creature except through his Word and could not communicate himself through creatures who were to be made godlike except through the Word. And similarly neither could the Son do this except in the Holy Spirit.” Footnote

It is, therfore, common to Father, Son and Holy Spirit that none of them is in need. So, too, it is common to each of them that none can be perfect God without the other two. But for this reason Athanasius specifically says of the Father that he does not need the Son or the Holy Spirit because he does not have his perfection from another, whereas the Son and Holy Spirit have their perfection from the Father. Thus, the same Athanasius in his letter to Serapion says: “Neither by reason of the Son, nor by reason of the Holy Spirit does the Father exist as God perfect and blessed. Nor has he any source before him from whom he is, nor any after him from he derives anything, that is, which would be from the Son or from the Holy Spirit.” Footnote

 

CHAPTER 8

How the Holy Spirit is to be understood as unbegotten.

Doubtful also seems a text of Gregory Nazianzenus in his sermon on the Epiphany: “The Holy Spirit as he exists in God proceeds such that he is unbegotten and not the Son, a mean between unbegotten and begotten.” Footnote Now it does not seem that the Holy Spirit can be said to be unbegotten. For Hilary in his book on the Synods Footnote states that if anyone say there are two unbegottens, he asserts there are two gods. Similarly, Athanasius says in his letter to Serapion that “the Holy Spirit is not unbegotten, because the Catholic Church assembled at Nicaea rightly and faithfully attributed to the Father alone the property of being without origin and unbegotten, and commanded this to be believed only of the Father and preached to the whole world under penalty of anathema.” Footnote

It should be noted, however, that unbegotten can be taken in two senses. Taken one way it connotes him who is without a principle, and in this sense it applies only to the Father, as is clear from the words of Athanasius. Taken in the other way it signifies him who, though he has a principle, is not begotten; and in this sense, not only Gregory Nazianzenus in the passage quoted above, but also Jerome Footnote in his rules for definitions against heretics says the Holy Spirit is unbegotten.

 

CHAPTER 9

How the Holy Spirit is to be understood as the mean between Father and Son.

There is another doubt in the passage of Gregory cited above (chapter 8) where he says that “the Holy Spirit is a mean between the unbegotten and the begotten,” Footnote that is, between Father and Son, whereas he should rather be termed third or third person in the Trinity, as noted previously (chapter 2).

But it is to be observed that he is not said to be a mean by reason of the numeration corresponding to the order of origin. For in this order the Son is a mean between Father and Holy Spirit. But the Holy Spirit is said to be a mean in the sense of a common link between Father and Son, for he is the common love of Father and Son. A similar interpretation is to be given the statement of Epiphanius in his book on the Trinity that “the Holy Spirit is in the middle of the Father and the Son.” Footnote

 

CHAPTER 10

How the Holy Spirit is to be understood as the image of the Son.

So, too, in many passages of these authorities the Holy Spirit is said to be the image of the Son, as Athanasius says in his third discourse on the Council of Nicaea: “The Holy Spirit is said to be and is the one deifying and vivifying truth of Father and Son, the image of the Son, throughout all holding him fast by essence in himself, by nature representing him, just as the Son is the image of the Father.” Footnote And in his letter to Serapion: “The Holy Spirit naturally contains the Son within himself as his true and natural image.” Footnote And Basil: “The Holy Spirit is called the finger, breath, unction, breeze, mind of Christ, prccession, production, mission, emanation, effusion, warmth, splendor, image, mark, true God.” Footnote And elsewhere: “The Holy Spirit exists as true power emanating from Father and Son and as the natural image of Father and Son, naturally representing both to us.” Footnote

Among the Latins, Footnote however, the Holy Spirit is not ordinarily called the image of Father or Son. For Augustine in the sixth chapter on the Trinity says that “only the Son is called the Word”, and that “only the Son is the image of the Father as only he is Son.” Footnote Richard of St. Victor in his book on the Trinity Footnote also gives a reason why the Holy Spirit, though like the Father in nature as is the Son, is not one with him in any relative property as is the Son with the Father in actively spirating the Holy Spirit.

Some, Footnote however, assign as reason why the Holy Spirit cannot be called an image the fact that this would make him the image of two persons, namely of the Father and of the Son, since he proceeds from both. But to be the one image of two persons is impossible. And on the authority of Holy Scripture as well, which it is forbidden to contradict in treating of God, the Son is explicitly called the image of the Father. For the Epistle to the Colossians (1:13) says: “He has transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins: he is the image of the invisible God”, and in the Epistle to the Hebrews (1:3) it is stated of the Son: “He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature.”

It should be kept in mind, however, that the saintly Greeks Footnote offer two texts of Holy Scripture in proof that the Holy Spirit is the image of the Son. For in the Epistle to the Romans (8:29) asserts: “Those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son.”; and the image of the Son seems to be none other than the Holy Spirit. Second, the First Epistle to the Corinthians (15: 49) says: “Even as we have borne the image of the earthly, let us bear also the likeness of the heavenly”, that is, of Christ

By this image they understand the Holy Spirit, though in these passages the Holy Spirit is not expressly called an image. It might also be interpreted to mean that men are conformed to the image of the Son, or that they bear the image of Christ, inasmuch as these holy men are by gifts of grace perfected so as to be similar to Christ, as the Apostle says in 2 Cor. 3:18: “But we all, with faces unveiled, reflecting as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into his very image from glory to glory, as through the Spirit of the Lord.” For he does not state here that the image is the Spirit of Christ, but something from the Spirit of Christ existing in us.

But because it would be presumptuous to contradict the explicit texts of such great Doctors. We may say that the Holy Spirit is the image of the Father and of the Son provided image is understood to mean derived from another and bearing his likeness. If, however, image is understood to mean something deriving its being from another and by reason of that origination bearing the likeness of that from which it has being inasmuch as it is from that other, as a begotten Son or a conceived Word, then the term applies only to the Son. For it is distinctive of a son to possess the same nature as his father, whatever the nature involved. Likewise it is distinctive of a word to resemble that which is expressed by the word, whatsoever be the word. But it is not proper to the nature of a spirit or of love that it be the likeness in all things of him to whom it belongs. Such likeness, however, is in fact verified in the Spirit of God because of that unity and simplicity of the divine essence, whence whatever is in God must be God.

Nor is the fact that the Holy Spirit does not share with the Father some personal property a reason for refusing to speak of him as an image. For the likeness and equality of the divine persons does not rest on what is proper to each, but on essential attributes. Nor should inequality or unlikeness be attributed to God on the basis of different personal properties, as Augustine says in his book against Maximus. For when the Son is said to be begotten of the Father, “inequality of substance is not indicated, but order of nature.” Footnote In like manner, also, no difficulty arises from the fact that the Holy Spirit is from two persons; for he is from two in so far as they are one, since Father and Son are the one principle of the Holy Spirit.

 

CHAPTER 11

How the Holy Spirit is to be understood in the Father as in his image.

A still greater difficulty arises from what Athanasius says in his letter to Serapion: “The Son is in his Father as in his own image.” Footnote The Father, in fact, is not the image of the Son, but it is the Son who is the image of the Father.

But it is to be observed that here image is used improperly in the sense of exemplar; for thus it is sometimes Footnote used less than correctly.

 

CHAPTER 12

How the Holy Spirit is to be understood to be the word of the Son.

What Basil says in the third discourse on the Holy Spirit against Eunomius appears to be false: “As the Son is related to the Father, so the Holy Spirit is related to the Son. And this is why the Son is the Word of the Father, and the Holy Spirit is the Word of the Son: upholding the universe, says the Apostle (Heb. 1:3), by the word of his power.” Footnote For as Augustine says in the book on the Trinity, Footnote only the Son is the Word. This is why John also names the Son Word. For at the beginning of his Gospel he says: “In the beginning was the Word” (Jn 1:1). He states also in his first Epistle (5:7): “There are three who give testimony in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit.” Nor does it make any difference whether one translates: Eloquence, in place of Word. For that which one utters is his word. Hence, as the Son alone is the Word in the Godhead, so he alone is the Eloquence.

But it should be noted that sometimes by word of God is meant a discourse divinely inspired and uttered. This is how Basil understands the term when he says that the Holy Spirit is effectively Footnote the word or eloquence of the Son, in so far as the saints inspired by the Holy Spirit have spoken of the Son in accord with what is said in the Gospel of John about the Holy Spirit (16:13): “Whatever he hears, he will speak.” That this is Basil’s mind is clear from what he adds later : “From him the eloquence of the Son for God.” Footnote For the very word of faith uttered by the saints is obviously called the sword of the Spirit.

 

CHAPTER 13

How by the name of Christ is to be understood the Holy Spirit.

Doubtful seems the passage of Cyril in his Thesaurus where he says that sometimes by the title Christ is understood the Holy Spirit. He states: “The Apostle by the name of Christ calls the Holy Spirit Christ; for he says: Christ is in you, although your bodies are dead, etc. (Rom. 8:10), and a little further on:”The Holy Spirit working in the name of Christ and representing Christ in himself is said to receive the name of Christ and to be called Christ by the Apostle.” Footnote

To attribute, however, the name of one person to another seems incompatible with the distinction between persons. For, as the Father is never called the Son, Footnote and vice versa, so the Son is never called the Holy Spirit, and vice versa. Hence, the term Christ may never be predicated of the Holy Spirit; nor can it stand for the Holy Spirit.

But it should be observed that this Father does not say the Spirit is called Christ or receives the name of Christ, as if Christ is predicated of the Holy Spirit or vice versa, for this would smack of impious Sabellianism; but the Holy Spirit is understood included in the term Christ by reason of concomitance, just as wherever the Father is present, there is the Son. Hence, the same Father interjects: “Did the preacher of truth”, namely the Apostle, “deny the distinction of persons, as Sabellius did? No. Rather he was at pains to point out to the Church that the Holy Spirit has the same nature as the Son.” Footnote

 

CHAPTER 14

How the assertion that the Holy Spirit does not send the Son is to be understood.

Likewise perplexing is a test of Athanasius in his third discourse on the Council of Nicaea. Speaking of the Arians he says: “The Spirit does not, as these people far removed from the grace of the Gospel and deprived of God the Spirit assert, gratify the Son and send him. They base their opinion on two texts; And now the Lord and his Spirit have sent me; and: The Spirit of the Lord is upon me.” Footnote Now, this seems to contradict what Augustine says in his book on the Trinity Footnote that the Son was sent by the Holy Spirit, proving this by the very authorities just quoted. Moreover, he proves that Christ was sent not only by the Holy Spirit, but also by himself, because he was sent by the whole Trinity.

But it is to be observed that in the mission of a divine person two things may be considered: first, the authority of the person sending with respect to the person sent; and second, the effect in the creature for the sake of which the divine person is said to be sent. For, since the divine persons are everywhere by essence, presence and power, a divine person is said to be sent inasmuch as in some new way through some new effect he begins to be present in a creature. Thus, the Son is said to be sent into the world inasmuch as he begins to be in the world in a new way through the visible flesh which he assumed, as the Apostle says in Galatians (4:4): “God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law.” He is also said to be sent someone spiritually and invisibly inasmuch as he begins to dwell in him through the gift of wisdom. It is of this that the Book of Wisdom speaks: “Send her, that is wisdom, forth from the throne of thy glory that she may be with me and toil with me” (9:10). Similarly, the Holy Spirit is also said to be sent to someone inasmuch as he begins to dwell in him through the gift of charity, according to Romans (5:5): “God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.”

If, therefore, in the mission of a divine person the authority of the person sending be considered with respect to the person sent, only that person from whom another proceeds can send the other. Thus, the Father sends the Son, and the Son sends the Holy Spirit, not however the Holy Spirit the Son; and it is in this sense that Athanasius speaks. But, if in the mission of a divine person the effect for the sake of which the person is said to be sent is considered, then it may be said that the person is sent by the whole Trinity, since the effect is common to the whole Trinity. (For the whole Trinity produced the flesh of Christ and produces wisdom and charity in the saints). In this way Augustine understands the matter.

It must be borne in mind, however, that although according to Augustine a divine person may sometimes be said to be sent by a person from whom he does not proceed, it cannot be said of a person who does not proceed from another that he is sent. Now, since the Father is from no one, he cannot be sent, although he dwells in man by the new gift of grace and may be said to come to him, according to John (14:23): “My Father will love him and we will come to him and make our home with him.” Hence, for a person to be sent it is necessary that he proceed eternally from another person; but it is not necessary that he proceed eternally from that person by whom he is sent. It is enough that the effect according to which he is sent should proceed from that person. I say this in accord with the manner in which Augustine speaks of mission.

But according to the Greeks a person is not sent except by that person from whom he proceeds eternally; hence the Son is not sent by the Holy Spirit except perhaps in so far as he is man. For this reason Basil Footnote explains the aforementioned authorities in the sense that by Spirit is meant the Father in so far as Spirit connotes the divine essence as in the Gospel of John (4:24): “God is spirit”; and so Hilary explains this in his book on the Trinity. Footnote

 

CHAPTER 15

How the assertion that the Holy Spirit truly works through the Son is to be understood.

Another doubt stems from a passage of Basil in his book against Eunomius: “The Holy Spirit Footnote truly works through the Son.” This indeed seems to be false; for a divine person is said to work through the person who proceeds from him, as the Father is said to work through the Son, and not vice versa.

Rather the Holy Spirit should be said to work through the Son according to his human nature, not according to his divine.

 

CHAPTER 16