ARTICLE IV

DOES THE HOLY GHOST PROCEED FROM THE SON?

Sum. Th. I, Q. xxxvi, A. 2: C.G. IV, xxiv, xxv

THE fourth point of inquiry is whether the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son: and it would seem that he does not.

             1. Dionysius (Div. Nom. iii) says that the Son and the Holy Ghost are as it were flowers of the God-bearing divinity. Now flower does not proceed from flower. Therefore the Holy Ghost is not from the Son.

             2. If the Son is the principle of the Holy Ghost he has this either from himself or from another. He has it not from himself, since it belongs to the Son, as Son, to be from another rather than to be a principle. And if he has this from the Father he must needs be a principle in the same way as the Father. But the Father is a principle by generation. Therefore the Son must be the principle of the Holy Ghost by generation, and thus the Holy Ghost will be the Son of the Son.

             3. Whatsoever is common to the Father and the Son belongs to each in the same way. If then it is common to the Father and Son to be a principle, the Son will be a principle in the same way as the Father: and since the Father is a principle by generation the Son will be so also: and thus the same conclusion follows as above.

             4. The Son is Son because he proceeds from the Father and is his Word. Now the Holy Ghost is the word of the Son, according to Basil (Contra Eunom. v), who gathers this from the statement of the Apostle (Heb. i, 3) that the Son upholds all things by the word of his power. Therefore if the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son he must be the Son of the Son.

             5. Although in reality paternity and filiation are in God before being in us, according to the saying of the Apostle (Eph. iii, 15): Of whom, i.e. God the Father, all paternity in heaven and earth is named: yet as regards the use of the terms they were transferred from human things to divine. Now among men the offspring of a son is a grandson: so that if the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son he will be the Father's grandson, which is absurd.

             6. The property of the Son consists in his receiving: for he is called Son because he receives the Father's nature by generation. If then the Son sends forth the Holy Ghost from himself there will be two contrary properties in the Son, which is inadmissible.

             7. Whatsoever is in God is either common or proper. Now the emission of the Holy Ghost is not common to all the Trinity, since it does not apply to the Holy Ghost. Therefore it is proper to the Father and does not apply to the Son.

             8. Augustine proves (De Trin. vi) that the Holy Ghost is love. Now the Father's love of the Son is gratuitous, since he loves the Son not as though he received something from him but only as giving him something: whereas the Son's love of the Father is a love that is due; because he loves the Father in that he receives from him. Now the love which is due is distinct from the love that is gratuitous. Hence if the Holy Ghost is love proceeding from the Father and Son it follows that he is distinct from himself.

             9. The Holy Ghost is gratuitous love: wherefore from him flow the diversities of graces according to I Cor. xii, 4: There are diversities of graces, but the same spirit. If then the Son's love of the Father is not gratuitous, the Holy Ghost will not be the Son's love, and thus he does not proceed from him.

             10. If the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son as love, since the Son loves the Father as the Father loves the Son, it will follow that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son to the Father just as he proceeds from the Father to the Son. But this is apparently impossible: for it would follow that the Father receives from the Son, which is utterly inadmissible.

             11. As the Father and Son love each other, so also do the Son and the Holy Ghost, or the Father and the Holy Ghost. If then the Holy Ghost proceeds from Father and Son because Father and Son love each other, in like manner because Father and Holy Ghost love each other, the Holy Ghost proceeds from himself: and this is impossible.

             12. Dionysius (Div. Nom. i) says: We must not dare to say or even think anything concerning the supersubstantial and hidden Godhead except what has been divinely revealed to us by the sacred oracles. Now Scripture does not assert that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son, but only that he proceeds from the Father, according to Jo. xv, 26: When the Paraclete cometh whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father. Therefore we must neither say nor think that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son.

             13. In the Acts of the Council of Ephesus it is stated that after the reading of the Creed of the Council of Nicæa the holy synod decreed that no one might profess, write or devise any other faith other than that which was defined by the holy fathers assembled at Nicæa together with the Holy Ghost, and whosoever shall either presume to devise or teach or suggest another faith to such pagans, Jews or heretics as are desirous of being converted to a knowledge of the truth, let them be deprived of their bishopric if they be bishops, and banished from the clergy if they be clerks: if they be laymen let them be excommunicated. In like terms the Council of Chalcedon, after setting forth the decisions of other councils, continues: Whosoever shall dare to devise another faith, or pronounce, teach or deliver another Creed to pagans, Jews or heretics wishing to be converted, such, if they be bishops or clerks, shall be deprived of their sees in the case of bishops, and unfrocked if they be clerks; and if they be monks or laymen they shall be excommunicated.

             Now in the definitions of the foregoing councils it is not stated that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son, but only that he proceeds from the Father. Moreover we read in the profession of faith of the Council of Constantinople: We believe in the Holy Ghost, Lord and Lifegiver, who proceedeth from the Father; with the Father and Son to be adored and glorified. Therefore by no means should it have been added in the Creed that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son.

             14. If it be asserted that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son, this statement is made either on the authority of Scripture or on account of some proof. But seemingly Scripture nowhere affords sufficient authority for this statement. It is true that Holy Writ speaks of the Holy Ghost as being of the Son, thus (Gal. iv, 6) it is said: God sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, and (Rom. viii, 9): If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. Again we read that the Holy Ghost was sent by the Son; thus Christ said (Jo. xvi, 7): For if I go not, the Paraclete will not come to you, but if I go, I will send him to you. Now it does not follow that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son, from the fact that he is the Spirit of the Son, because according to the Philosopher the genitive case has many significations. Again it does not follow from the fact that the Holy Ghost is stated to be sent by the Son; since although the Son does not proceed from the Holy Ghost, he is said to be sent by the Holy Ghost, according to the words (Isa. xlviii, 16) spoken in Christ's person: And now the Lord God and his Spirit hath sent me, and (Isa. lxi, 1): The Spirit of the Lord is upon me . . . he hath sent me to preach to the meek: which words Christ declared to have been fulfilled in himself. Furthermore the statement cannot be upheld by any satisfactory argument. Thus even if the Holy Ghost did not proceed from the Son they would still remain distinct from each other, since they differ by their personal properties. Nothing therefore compels us to say that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son.

             15. Whatsoever proceeds from another derives something from that other. If then the Holy Ghost proceeds from two, namely the Father and the Son, it follows that he receives from two, and thus apparently that he is composite.

             16. It is essential to a principle that it derive not from another, according to the Philosopher (Phys. i, 6). Now the Son proceeds from another, namely the Father. Therefore the Son is not a principle of the Holy Ghost.

             17. The will moves the intellect to its act, since a man understands when he wills. But the Holy Ghost proceeds by way of will as love: and the Son proceeds by way of intellect as word. Therefore seemingly the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son but contrariwise.

             18. Nothing proceeds from that wherein it abides. Now the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and abides in the Son, as stated in the Acts of the Blessed Andrew. Therefore the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son.

             19. A simple thing cannot proceed from two, since then the effect would be more simple than and prior to the cause. But the Holy Ghost is simple. Therefore he does not proceed from two, namely the Father and the Son.

             20. If a thing proceeds perfectly from one it is superfluous for it to proceed from two. Now the Holy Ghost proceeds perfectly from the Father. Therefore it would be superfluous for him to proceed from the Father and Son together.

             21. As the Father and the Son are one in substance and nature, so also are the Father and the Holy Ghost. Now the Holy Ghost does not concur with the Father in the generation of the Son. Neither therefore does the Son concur with the Father in sending forth the Holy Ghost.

             22. As Dionysius expresses it (Coelest. Hier. 1) the Son is the ray of the Father. Now the Holy Ghost is brightness: and brightness does not issue from the ray. Therefore neither does the Holy Ghost proceed from the Son.

             23. The Son is a kind of light of the Father, since he is his word: and the Holy Ghost is like heat, for he is love: wherefore he appeared over the Apostles under the form of fire (Acts xi). But heat does not come from light. Neither then does the Holy Ghost proceed from the Son.

             24. Damascene (De Fide Orth. i) says that the Holy Ghost is said to be of the Son but not from the Son.

             On the contrary Athanasius says (Symb.): The Holy Ghost is from the Father and the Son; not made, nor created, but proceeding.

             Again, the Holy Ghost is said to the third Person in the Trinity, the Son the second, the Father the first. Now the number three proceeds from unity through the number two. Therefore the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father through the Son.

             Again, since there is supreme agreement between the divine Persons, each of them is immediately akin with the others. But this would not be the case if the Holy Ghost were not from the Son, for then the Son and the Holy Ghost would not be immediately akin with each other, but only through the Father, inasmuch as both are from one. Therefore the Holy Ghost is from the Son.

             Again, the divine Persons are not distinct from one another otherwise than according to origin: so that if the Holy Ghost were not from the Son he would not be distinguished from him; which is inadmissible.

             I answer that according to what has already been concluded it is necessary that the Holy Ghost proceed from the Son. For since the Son and the Holy Ghost are two Persons the procession of one must be distinct from the procession of the other. Now it has been proved (A. 2) that there cannot be two processions in God except by reason of order between processions, namely that there be a second procession from one who proceeds. It follows then of necessity that the Holy Ghost must be from the Son.

             Besides this argument, however, there are other reasons which prove that the Holy Ghost is from the Son. All differences between any two things must arise from the original root of their distinction (except in the case of an accidental difference, as that between one who walks and one who sits) and this because whatsoever is in a thing per se, is either essential to it or results from its essential principles, and these things are the original root of distinction between things. In God, however, nothing can be accidental: because whatsoever is in a thing accidentally, since it is outside the nature of that thing, must come to it from some external cause, and this cannot be said of God. Accordingly any difference between the divine Persons must follow from the original root of their distinction. Now the original root of the distinction between the Father and the Son is paternity and filiation. Wherefore any difference between the Father and the Son must follow from the fact that this one is the Father and that one the Son. But it does not belong to the Father as Father by reason of paternity to be the principle of the Holy Ghost, since thus he is related to the Son only, and it would follow that the Holy Ghost is the Son. In like manner this is not repugnant to the notion of filiation, since filiation implies relation to none but the Father. Consequently the difference between the Father and the Son cannot arise from the fact that the Father is the principle of the Holy Ghost and the Son not.

             Again, as stated in De Synod., it is proper to the creature that God produced it by his will: and Hilary proves this from the fact that the creature is not as God is but as God wills it to be. Now because the Son is as the Father it is said that the Father begot him naturally. For the same reason the Holy Ghost is from the Father naturally because he is like and equal to the Father, since nature produces its like. Now the creature which proceeds from the Father according to his will must also proceed from the Son, since the Father and the Son have the same will. Likewise they both have the same nature. Consequently as the Holy Ghost is from the Father so also must he be from the Son. And yet it does not follow that the Son or the Holy Ghost is from the Holy Ghost, although he also has the same nature with the Father (whereas it does follow that the creature is from him inasmuch as he also has the same will with the Father) on account of the absurdity that would follow if one were to say that the Holy Ghost proceeds from himself, or that the Son, who is his principle, proceeds from him.

             The same conclusion may be proved in yet another way. No distinction is possible between the divine Persons except according to the relations, since in God whatsoever is ascribed absolutely signifies the essence and is common, such as goodness, wisdom and so forth. But diverse relations cannot cause distinction except by reason of their opposition: since one and the same thing can have diverse relations to the same thing. Thus A may stand to B in the relation of son, disciple, equal or any other relation that does not imply opposition. Now it is plain that the Son is distinguished from the Father in that he stands in a certain relation to him, and likewise the Holy Ghost is distinguished from the Father by reason of a relation. Wherefore, their relations, however diverse they may appear to be by no means distinguish the Holy Ghost from the Son unless they be opposed to each other. But there can be no opposition in God other than that which is by reason of origin, in that one Person is from another. Therefore the Son and the Holy Ghost can by no means be distinguished from each other simply because each is differently related to the Father, unless one of them be related to the other as proceeding from him. Now it is evident that the Son does not proceed from the Holy Ghost, since the notion of son consists in being related to father by receiving existence from him. It remains then of necessity that the Holy Ghost is from the Son.

             Since, however, someone might say that articles of faith should be confirmed not only by reasons but also by authorities, it remains for us to show by the authority of Holy Writ, that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son. In several passages of Scripture the Holy Ghost is mentioned as (the Spirit) of the Son. Thus (Rom. viii, 9) He that hath not the Spirit of Christ is none of his; (Gal. iv, 6) God hath sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts; and (Acts xvi, 7) They attempted to go into Bithynia, and the Spirit of Jesus suffered them not. For we cannot take this as meaning that the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of Christ as to his humanity, filling him as it were, because the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of a man as haver and not giver: whereas the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of the Son as giver, according to I Jo. iv, 13, In this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit: and (Acts v, 32) it is said that God hath given his Spirit to them that obey him. Accordingly the Holy Ghost must be called the Spirit of the Son inasmuch as he is a divine Person. Either then he is said to be his absolutely, or his as his spirit. If absolutely, then the Son must exercise authority over the Holy Ghost. Thus with us one may be said to be another's in a restricted sense, as, for instance, Peter is John's companion, but we cannot say that Peter is John's absolutely, unless there be some kind of possession, thus a slave as to all that he is is his master's. Now in God there is no slavery or subjection, and authority in him is only in respect of origin. Consequently the Holy Ghost must originate from the Son. The same conclusion follows if it be said that the Holy Ghost is the Son's as his spirit: because Spirit as a personal name, implies the relation of origin to the Spirator, as the Son to the Begetter.

             Moreover we find it stated in the Scriptures that the Son sends the Holy Ghost, as stated above. For the sender apparently always exercises authority over the one sent. Now as already stated authority in God is only in respect of origin. Hence it follows that the Holy Ghost originates from the Son. Now we have it from Holy Writ that by the Holy Ghost we are conformed to the Son, according to Rom. viii, 15, You have received the Spirit of adoption of sons; and Gal. iv, 6, Because you are sons God hath sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts. But nothing is conformed to a thing except in its proper characteristics. And in creatures that which conforms A to B is from B, thus the seed of man produces the like not of a horse but of a man whence it is. Now the Holy Ghost is from the Son as his proper characteristic, wherefore it is said of Christ (2 Cor. i, 22): Who hath sealed us and given the pledge of the Spirit in our hearts. More explicit still are the words spoken by Christ of the Holy Ghost (Jo. xvi, 14): He shall glorify me because he shall receive of mine. Now it is plain that the Holy Ghost does not receive from the Son as though he had not before, since thus he would be of a changeable and indigent nature. It is evident then that he received from the Son from eternity; nor could he receive anything that was not his from eternity. Therefore the Holy Ghost received the essence from the Son. The reason why the Holy Ghost received from the Son, is stated by the Son himself when he says (ibid. 15): All things whatsoever the Father hath are mine: therefore I said that he shall receive of mine: as though to say: 'Since mine and the Father's is the same essence, the Holy Ghost cannot have the same essence as the Father without having mine.'

             Holy Scripture also states that the Son works through the Spirit: for instance (Rom. xv, 18, 19): Which, i.e. miracles and other blessings, Christ worketh by me, says the Apostle, in . . . the Holy Ghost, i.e. through the Holy Ghost: and (Heb. ix, 14) it is stated that Christ offered himself by the Holy Ghost. Now whenever one person is said to work through another, either it is he who gives active power to the one through whom he works, as a king is said to work through a provost or bailiff, or contrariwise as when the bailiff is said to work by virtue of the king. Accordingly if the Son works through the Holy Ghost, either the Holy Ghost gives operative power to the Son, or the Son to the Holy Ghost: and consequently one gives the essence to the other, since the operative power in each is not distinct from the essence. Now it is plain that the Holy Ghost does not give the essence to the Son, since the Son is Son of none but the Father. It follows therefore that the Holy Ghost is from the Son.

             Yet another argument in support of the same conclusion may be taken from the points acknowledged by the Greeks. They believe that the Holy Ghost is from the Father through the Son, and that the Father spirates the Holy Ghost through the Son. Now that through which a thing is produced is always a principle thereof. Wherefore it follows that the Son is a principle of the Holy Ghost. If, however, they refuse to acknowledge that the Holy Ghost is from the Son because the Son is from another and consequently is not the first root of the Holy Ghost's origin, it is plain that this motive is unreasonable: since no one declines to allow that the stone is moved by the stick, although the stick is moved by the hand: or that Jacob was of Isaac, although Isaac was of Abraham. In fact in the point at issue still less reason is there for this refusal: since Father and Son have one and the same productive power, which is not the case in created movements and agents. Therefore just as we must acknowledge that creatures are from the Son though the Son is from the Father, even so must we acknowledge that the Holy Ghost is from the Son, though the Son is from the Father. It is evident then that those who assert that the Holy Ghost is from the Father through the Son, but not from the Son, know not what they are talking about, as Aristotle said of Anaxagoras: and it is written: Desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither the things they say nor whereof they affirm (I Tim. i, 7).

             Reply to the First Objection. The Son and the Holy Ghost are said to be flowers of the Godbearing, i.e. paternal Divinity, inasmuch as both are from the Father. But inasmuch as the Holy Ghost is from the Son, the Son may be called the root and the Holy Ghost the flower: for comparisons with corporeal things must not be extended to all things in God.

             Reply to the Second Objection. The Son has this from the Father that of himself he sends forth the Holy Ghost: wherefore it belongs to him in the same way as to the Father. Now the Father is the principle of a divine Person not in one way only, but in two ways, namely by generation and spiration. Wherefore we cannot conclude that the Son is the principle of the Holy Ghost by generation: this is a fallacy of the consequent, and so much the more so, seeing that the Father is not the principle of the Holy Ghost by generation.

             The same answer applies to the Third Objection.

             Reply to the Fourth Objection. The Holy Ghost cannot be called the Word strictly speaking, but in a loose manner of speaking, for as much as anything that makes a thing known is the word of that thing. Thus the Holy Ghost makes the Son known as stated by this same Son concerning the Holy Ghost (Jo. xvi, 14): He shall glorify me because he will receive of mine. But the Son is called the Word in the strict sense, because he is the concept of the divine Intellect.

             Reply to the Fifth Objection. In a human genealogy a grandson is one who proceeds from the son in the same way as the son from his father: whereas in God the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son in the same way as the Son from the Father: hence the objection fails.

             Reply to the Sixth Objection. There is no opposition between being a principle and being from a principle except in respect of the same thing; thus A cannot be a principle of B if B is a principle of A. Hence it does not follow that there are contrary properties in the Son if he proceeds from the Father as his principle and is himself the principle of the Holy Ghost.

             Reply to the Seventh Objection. Whatsoever is in God is indeed either proper or common. Proper, however, admits of a twofold application: it is said simply and absolutely of a thing to which it applies exclusively, thus risibility is proper to man: and it is said of a thing not simply but relatively, as, for instance, one might say that rationality is proper to a man in relation to a horse, although it applies to another, viz. an angel. Accordingly in God there is something common that applies to the three Persons, for instance 'to be God' and so forth: something that is proper simply and applies to one Person only: and something that is proper relatively, as, for instance, to spirate the Holy Ghost is proper to the Father and the Son with respect to the Holy Ghost: since we must needs acknowledge this kind of property in God even if the Holy Ghost were not from the Son, because 'to be from another' still remains proper to the Son and Holy Ghost as compared with the Father.

             Reply to the Eighth Objection. If we are to come to a right decision on this point it seems hardly correct to speak of anything being due in the divine Persons, since this word due implies subjection and obligation of a kind, and such things cannot be in God. Richard of St Victor, however (De Trin. iii, 3; v. 17, 18), distinguishes between due and gratuitous love: but by gratuitous love he means love not received from another, and by due love, that which is received from another. In this sense there is nothing to hinder the same love from being gratuitous as the Father's, and due as the Son's: since it is the same love whereby the Father loves and whereby the Son loves: yet this love the Son has from the Father, but the Father from none.

             Reply to the Ninth Objection. The Holy Ghost is gratuitous love, only inasmuch as it is opposed to mercenary love whereby a thing is loved not for itself but for the sake of some benefit extrinsic to it. But if by gratuitous love we understand the love that originates from another, it is not incompatible with the Holy Ghost that he be gratuitous love, since the love whereby we love God through the Holy Ghost originates in God's benefits bestowed on us: and thus nothing prevents even the love of the Son who derives this love from another, from being the Holy Ghost.

             Reply to the Tenth Objection. The Holy Ghost proceeds both from the Father to the Son and from the Son to the Father, not as recipients but as objects of love. For the Holy Ghost is said to proceed from the Father to the Son inasmuch as he is the love whereby the Father loves the Son; and in the same way it may be said that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the son to the Father inasmuch as he is the love whereby the Son loves the Father. He may be understood, however, to proceed from the Father to the Son inasmuch as the Son receives from the Father the power to spirate the Holy Ghost, and in this sense he cannot be said to proceed from the Son to the Father, seeing that the Father receives nothing from the Son.

             Reply to the Eleventh Objection. This word love signifies not only the outpouring of love, but also a certain affection or disposition according to love. Now in God whatsoever is significative of outpouring must be taken as referring to the Person only, as, for instance, begetting, spirating and so forth: while terms that do not denote outpouring but pertain rather to the information of the subject whereof they are predicated, must be taken as referring to the essence, as, for instance, being good, intelligent, and the like. For this reason the Holy Ghost is said to love not as emitting love--for thus it applies to the Father and the Son--but for as much as to love is an essential property in God.

             Reply to the Twelfth Objection. In Holy Writ it must be regarded as a constant rule that what is said of the Father must be understood as applicable to the Son, and what is said of both or either of them must be taken as applicable to the Holy Ghost, even though the expression should contain an exclusive term, except when reference is made to the distinction between the divine Persons. Take, for instance, the following: This is eternal life that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent (Jo. xvii, 3): for it cannot be denied that the Son is true God, although the Son himself affirms this of the Father alone, because since the Father and Son are one thing though not one Person, it follows that what is said of the Father must be understood of the Son also. Nor again may we deny (seeing that no mention is made there of the Holy Ghost) that eternal life is in knowing the Holy Ghost, since there is but one knowledge of the Three. In like manner we are not to deny that the Holy Ghost knows the Father and the Son, although it is said (Mt. xi, 27): No one knoweth the Son but the Father, neither doth any one know the Father but the Son. Wherefore since to have the Holy Ghost proceeding from oneself does not enter into the notion of Paternity or Filiation whereby the Father and the Son are distinguished from each other, it follows that from the very fact that it is said in the Gospel that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father we must gather that he proceeds from the Son.

             Reply to the Thirteenth Objection. The doctrine of the Catholic Faith was sufficiently laid down by the Council of Nicæa: wherefore in the subsequent councils the fathers had no mind to make any additions. Yet on account of the heresies that arose they were at pains to declare explicitly what had already been implicitly asserted. Thus in the definition of the Council of Chalcedon it is said: This holy, great and universal synod teaches this doctrine which has been constantly held from the beginning, the same which 318 holy fathers assembled at Nicæa defined to be the unalterable faith. On account of those who contend against the Holy Ghost, we confirm the doctrine delivered afterwards by the 150 fathers assembled at Constantinople concerning the substance of the Holy Ghost, which doctrine they made known to all, not indeed as though something were lacking in previous definitions, but by appealing to the authority of the Scriptures to explain what had already been defined against those who endeavoured to belittle the Holy Ghost. Accordingly we must acknowledge that the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son was contained implicitly in the definition of the Council of Constantinople inasmuch as it is declared there that he proceeds from the Father: because what is said of the Father must be understood to be true of the Son, since they differ in nothing except in that one Person is the Son and another the Father. However, on account of errors arising of those who denied that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son, it was becoming that in the Creed should be made an insertion not by way of addition but by way of explicit interpretation of what it already contained implicitly. Thus were a heresy to arise denying the Holy Ghost to be the Maker of heaven and earth, it would be necessary to mention this explicitly, since in the Creed this is attested explicitly of the Father only. Now just as a subsequent Council has the power to interpret the Creed of a previous Council, and to insert an explanation of what that Creed contains, as appears from what has been said above; even so the Roman Pontiff can do this of his own authority, since by his authority alone can a council be convoked, and by him are its decisions confirmed, and since from the Council appeals can be made to him: all of which is clear from the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon. Nor does such an explanation require the assembling of an ecumenical council, since sometimes this is impossible on account of war: thus we read of the sixth Council that the Emperor Constantine found that he was prevented by the imminence of war from summoning all the bishops together: and yet those who met decided certain doubtful points of faith in accordance with the mind of Pope Agatho, to wit that in Christ there are two wills and two operations. In like manner the fathers assembled in the Council of Chalcedon adopted the view of Pope Leo who defined that after the Incarnation there were two natures in Christ.

             We must observe, however, that we may gather from the definitions of the principal councils that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son. Thus as stated in its decree the Council of Chalcedon received the synodal letters of the Blessed Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, addressed to Nestorius and others in the East. In one of these we read: Seeing that Christ in proof of his Godhead used his Spirit to perform great works, asserted that he was glorified by him, even as a man might say of his own strength, knowledge or any other gift that they glorify him: even so is this true of the subsistent Spirit considered as a distinct Person from the Son; although he is not of a different nature, for he is called and is the Spirit of truth and flows from him, as also from God the Father. It does not signify that he says flows and not proceeds, because as we have already clearly stated this word proceed is the most general of all the terms denoting origin. Wherefore anything that is emitted or flows forth or in any way originates may be said for this very reason to proceed. Again in the definition of the fifth Council held at Constantinople it is said: In all things we follow the holy doctors of the Church, Athanasius, Hilary, Basil, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Augustine, Theophilus, John of Constantinople, Leo Cyril Proclus, and we receive all that they have taught in the true faith for the refutation of heretics. Now it is plain that many of these taught that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son, and that this has not been denied by any one of them. Wherefore it is not contrary to but in harmony with the Councils to say that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son.

             Reply to the Fourteenth Objection. It is true that the genitive case of the personal pronoun has many significations, but in God it has no other signification than that of origin. As regards mission it must be observed that all doctors are agreed that no Person is sent who does not proceed from another: wherefore it is altogether inappropriate to the Father to be sent since he proceeds not from another. But as regards the Person sending doctors are divided in opinion. Athanasius (in his epistle against those who said that the Holy Ghost is a creature: and beginning Literae tui sanctissimi) and others say that no Person is sent temporally save by the Person from whom he proceeds eternally: thus the Son is sent temporally by the Father from whom he proceeds eternally: and in accordance with this view it may be inferred without fear of error that if the Holy Ghost is sent by the Son, he proceeds from him eternally. And if the Son is said to be sent by the Holy Ghost this must be understood in reference to the Son in his human nature being sent to preach by the Holy Ghost. Wherefore it is said explicitly (Isa. lxi, 1): He hath sent me to preach to the meek! This is the interpretation given by Ambrose (De Spir. Sanct. iii, 1): but Hilary (De Trin. viii) expounds the words as referring to the Father inasmuch as in God the word spirit may be taken essentially. On the other hand Augustine (De Trin. et Unit. x) holds that a Person who proceeds may be sent temporally even by one from whom he does not proceed eternally. For since the mission of a divine Person is understood in reference to some effect in creatures who proceed from the whole Trinity, the Person sent is sent by the whole Trinity: so that mission does not imply authority of the sender over the Person sent, but causality in reference to the effect, and with regard to this effect the Person is said to be sent.

             The argument proving that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son because they are distinct from each other is not refuted by saying that they are distinct by their properties, since these properties are relative and cannot cause distinction unless they be mutually opposed, as already stated (Q. viii, AA. 3, 4).

             Reply to the Fifteenth Objection. Although the Holy Ghost proceeds from two he is not composite: because those two, namely the Father and the Son, are one in essence.

             Reply to the Sixteenth Objection. The Philosopher (Phys. 1) says that principles derive from nothing else in so far as they are first principles: and the First Principle (so to say) is a Principle proceeding from no other, and that is the Father.

             Reply to the Seventeenth Objection. Although the will moves the intellect to the act of understanding, it cannot will but what is already understood: wherefore since it is impossible to go on indefinitely, one must come at length to an act whereby the intellect understands something naturally and not at the will's command. Now the Son proceeds from the Father naturally, so that although he proceeds by way of intelligence, it does not follow that he proceeds from the Holy Ghost but vice versa.

             Reply to the Eighteenth Objection. The Holy Ghost may be said to abide in the Son in three ways. In one way in respect of the human nature, according to Isaiah xi, 1: There shall come forth a rod out of the root of Jesse, and a flower shall rise up out of his root, and the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him. In another way the Holy Ghost is said to rest in the Son, since the spirative power is given to the Son by the Father and extends no further. Thirdly, according as love is said to rest in the beloved, thereby staying the emotion of the lover. In none of these ways is the procession of the Holy Ghost excluded from the Son.

             Reply to the Nineteenth Objection. It is not incompatible with the simplicity of the Holy Ghost that he proceeds from two, namely the Father and the Son, inasmuch they are of one essence.

             Reply to the Twentieth Objection. The same perfection is that of Father and Son: wherefore the fact that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father perfectly does not exclude his proceeding from the Son: else it would follow that the creature is not created by the Son, since it is created perfectly by the Father.

             Reply to the Twenty-first Objection. Unity of essence does not involve confusion of Persons: wherefore from unity of essence we cannot draw conclusions that are incompatible with relative distinction: thus from the fact that Father and Son are one thing, we cannot infer that the Son proceeds from the Holy Ghost although he proceeds from the Father, because the Holy Ghost proceeds from him: and again because it would follow that the Holy Ghost is the Father, seeing that to be the Father is nothing but to have the Son proceeding from him.

             Reply to the Twenty-second Objection. Brightness comes indeed from the ray, since it is nothing else than the reflection of light shining on a clear body. Moreover brightness is attributed to the Son (Heb. i, 3), Who being the brightness of glory.

             Reply to the Twenty-third Objection. Heat proceeds from brightness: for the heavenly bodies by their rays cause heat in the lower world.

             Reply to the Twenty-fourth Objection. It was the contention of the Nestorians that the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son: hence in one of their synods condemned by the Council of Ephesus it is said thus: We hold that the Holy Ghost neither is the Son nor receives his essence from the Son. For this reason Cyril in the epistle already quoted, affirmed against Nestorius that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son. Again Theodore in an epistle to John of Antioch expresses himself as follows: The Holy Ghost does not come from the Son nor has he his substance from the Son, but he proceeds from the Father: he is called the Spirit of the Son because he is consubstantial with him. Now the above words were attributed by this Theodore to Cyril, as though he had written them in a letter which he wrote to John of Antioch, and yet they are not to be found there: but he expresses himself thus: The Spirit of God the Father proceeds indeed from him, but he proceeds also from the Son, being one with him in essence. Later on Damascene followed this opinion of Theodore, although the latter theologian's teaching was condemned in the fifth Council. Wherefore in this we must not agree with Damascene.