The Principle of the Blessed Trinity: The Doctrine of the Immanent Processions

Chapter III: The Principle of the Blessed Trinity — The Doctrine of the Immanent Processions

ivine Revelation tells us that there are Three Persons in the Godhead. It also points out the cause of this difference, viz.: the fact of the Divine Processions. It is these Processions that properly constitute the mystery of the Blessed Trinity and furnish the basis for the distinction of three real Hypostases,— Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. By “Procession” we understand “the origination of one Divine Person from another.” There are two such Processions, viz., Generation (generatio, yfayns) and Spiration (spiratio, 7TVCWIS ) # We shall treat them separately. 161 SECTION i THE PROCESSION OF THE SOX FROM THE FATHER BY GENERATION I. The Scriptural Argument. — The Xicene Council having incorporated the notion of yempn* into the dogmatic definition of the Blessed Trinity, there can be no doubt that Christ’s generation by the Father is as much an article’ of faith as His Divine Sonship. This can be demonstrated from Holy Scripture in a twofold manner. a) Indirectly, by arguing from the fact of the Divine Paternity and Sonship, which we have already proved from Holy Scripture. The relation of Father and Son is conceivable only on the assumption of a real and true yevyiyn* in the proper sense of the term.1 Consequently there is in the bosom of the Godhead a first Procession, which is true Generation. If, as St. Paul tells us,2 all paternity in heaven and on earth is a weak imitation of the paternity of “the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ/’ and if the supernatural adoption of the just is but an analogue of Christ’s true Sonship,* it follows, not indeed that the divine geni On the term y^mjen, cfr. New- 2 Eph. Ill, 14 sq. man, Select Treatises of St. Athano- s Cfr. John, I, 12; Gal. IV. 4 sq. sius, II, 352 *q. l62

nests must be conceived figuratively after the manner of creatural generation, but, contrariwise, that the latter is merely an imperfect representation of the former. The only true generation, in the highest sense, therefore, is the divine yewrjm*, as the Godhead alone is Being in its truest and highest sense. Holy Scripture frequently intimates the genuineness of the divine yiv vrjan by applying to Christ such epithets as ” the Only-begotten of the Father/’ 4 and ” the Only-begotten Son of the Father.” 6 b) Holy Scripture, moreover, distinctly teaches that the Son proceeds from the Father by eternal generation. Heb. I, 5: “Cui enim dixit aliquando angelorum: Filius mens es tu, ego hodie genui te (y€yc’vw/#ca ac) ? — For to which of the angels hath he said at any time: Thou art my Son, to-day have I begotten thee?* Most clearly perhaps this divine Procession is taught in Psalm CIX, verse 3. *Tecum principium in die virtutis tuae in splendoribus sanctorum: ex utero ante luciferum [=ab aeterno’] genui te — With thee is the principality in the day of thy strength: in the brightness of the saints: from the womb before the day star I begot thee.” It is true, the Masoretic text, as we have it, renders this passage differently. Inasmuch, however, as (aside from the Itala and the Vulgate) the Septuagint6 and the Syriac 4 John III, 16, et passim. 6 The Septuagint translates: ‘Ejc i John I, 14, et passim. yacrpbs vpb i

Peshitta, which were both made directly from the original Hebrew, give the passage as above quoted, the Masoretic variation can safely be attributed to a mistake made by the Jewish writers who some time previous to the tenth century drew up that collection of criticisms and marginal notes which forms the basis of our present Hebrew Old Testament. This theory is all the more plausible in view of the fact that the elimination of two small words, and and a change in the punctuation of the remainder of the text, would make the seemingly corrupt passage conform with the Vulgate. Another important consideration in clearing up this difficulty is that for several centuries the Fathers employed this particular text to prove the of the Logos with the Father by virtue of His eternal Generation.7 Thus St. Basil, or rather the author of the fifth Book against Eunomius found among St. Basil’s works, writes: ” Propter ea habere se in generando uterutn dixit Deus ad confusionem impiorum, ut vel sua ipsorum natura considerata discant, Filium fructum esse Patris genuinum, utpote ex eius utero emergentem — God speaks of His womb for the purpose of confounding the impious, that they may learn by a consideration of their own nature that the Son is the genuine 7 Cfr. Ruiz, De TriniU, disp. 4, iect z. product of the Father, as if He had emerged from His womb.” 8 A parallel passage to Ps. CIX, 3, is John I, 18: “Unigenitus Filius, qui est in sinu Patris (6 fwvoycvTp mo* 6 &v cts rov koXitov tov Trarpds) The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father.* Taken in connexion with certain pregnant terms found in the Sapiential Books, such as * parturiebar” and “concepta eram” 9 and passages like Ecclus. XXIV, 5,10 these texts seem to remove all doubt as to the scripturality of the doctrine of the divine yewyow.

2. The Argument from Tradition. — The dogma of the Son’s generation was brought prominently forward by all the Fathers and ecclesiastical synods of the fourth century, because it is the foundation and logical antecedent of the dogma of the of Son and Father. a) St. Hilary tersely declares: ” Ignorat Deum Christum, qui ignorat Deum natum; Deum autem nasci non est aliud quam in ea natura esse, qua Deus est — He knows not the God-Christ, who knows not that God is begotten; but to say that God is begotten, is tantamount to saying that He is of the same nature 8 Contr, Eunom., 1. 5; Migne, P. C, XXIX, 715. • Prov. VIII, 34. 10 ” Ego ex ore Altissimi prodivi, primogenitor ante omnem creaturam — I came out of the mouth of the most High, the firstborn before all creatures.” (On “The Doctrine of the Primogenitus,* see Newman, Tracts Theological and Ecclesiastical, pp. 199 sqq.) 166 as God.* 11 And St. Augustine: ” Ideo quippe Filius, quia genitus, et quia Filius, utique genitus — For He is therefore a son, because begotten, and because a son, therefore certainly begotten.,, 12 This unanimous teaching of the Fathers faithfully echoes all the ancient creeds, from the Apostles’ to the Athanasian, — which latter sharply emphasizes the fact that “Pater a nullo est {actus nec creatus nec genitus; Filius a patre solo est, non f actus nec creatus, sed genitus — The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten.* 18 We must also mention in this connection the eleventh of the * Anathematismi” of Pope St. Damasus I (A. D. 380). It reads as follows: “Si quis non dixerit Filium natum de Patre, id est de divina substantia ipsius, anathema sit — If any one will not profess that the Son is begotten by the Father, that is to say, from the Divine Substance of the Father, let him be anathema/’ 14 b) The Fathers and Catholic theologians generally are one in teaching that the process of divine Generation is a relation involving only the Father and the Son. Various attempts at positing in the Godhead other such relations, as, e. g., maternity, were indignantly re11 De Trinitate, 1. xi. Petavius (De Trinit., II, 5, n« 7)» quotes the following passage from Theodorus Abucara: ” Since the Son’s generation does but signify His having His existence from the Father, which He has ever, therefore He is ever begotten. For it became Him who is properly (icvpltos) the Son, ever to be deriving His existence from the Father, and not as we who derive its commencement only. In us generation is a way to existence; in the Son of God it denotes the existence itself; in Him it has not existence for its end, but it is itself an end (t4\os)» and is perfect (riXetov)” Cfr. Newman, Select Treatises of St. Athanasius, II, 353. (On Theodorus Abucara, cfr. Herder’s Kirchenlexikon, XI, 1508 sq.) 12 De Trinitate, V, 6, 7 (Haddan’s translation, p. 151). 13 Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiridion, n. 39. 14 Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiridion, n. 69. jected by the Fathers as blasphemous.15 Since the divine ycvnyai? must be conceived as a purely intellectual process, there is no need of postulating in the Godhead a special principle of conception and parturition. The Father generates His Divine Son by way of understanding,16 as the adequate likeness of His Essence. When the Patristic writers speak of the ” conception ” and “birth” of the Son of God, or advert to the ” bosom ” of the Father, they merely mean to emphasize the truth of the divine Generation as such. of the Old Testament sometimes refer to Hypostatic Wisdom as the ” First-born ” or as ” Mother of fair love.” But these phrases offer no serious difficulty. The epithet ” Mother of fair love” is merely meant to intimate the maternal tenderness of God’s love for us, and the feminine form ” primogenita” (instead of ” primogenitus”) is due to the grammatical accident that in Hebrew flMn (i. e., sapientia), like aola in the Greek Septuagint, is of feminine gender.17 Readings: — St. Anselm, Monologium, c. 39-43; Ruiz, De Trinitate, disp. 4 sqq.; Hurter, Compendium Theol. Dogmat, torn. I, thes. 107 (Hunter, Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, II, pp. 176 sqq., 2nd ed.); Kleutgen, De Ipso Deo, 1. II, qu. 4, c. 1 sqq.; Franzelin, De Deo Trino, thes. 30; Heinrich, Dogmatische Theologie, Vol. IV, § 241; G. B. Tepe, Instit. Theol., Vol. II, pp. 293-325, Paris 1895; Newman, The Arians of the Fourth Century, pp. 158 sqq., New Impression, London 1901; Idem, Select Treatises of St. Athanasius, Vol. II, pp. 287 sqq., 337 sqq.; 9th ed., London 1903; A Studle, De Processionibus Divinis, Frib. Helv. 1895. 15 Cfr. Epiphanius, Haer., 6. Of God and His Creatures, p. 357, 16 * Per modum intellectus.* The et passim). English rendering of this technical 17 Cfr. Pesch, Praelect. Dogmat,, term we adopt from Rickaby (cfr. 3rd ed., torn. II, pp. 283 sqq., Friburgi 1906.

FROM THE FATHER AND THE SON The second Procession in the Godhead is qualitatively distinct from Generation. Though often designated by the generic term processio (cKTTopcvw) 9 it is by most theologians and several councils called Spiration (spiratio, ™«5cr«). Revelation leaves no room for doubt as to from the Father. But the Greeks, since the schism of Photius, heretically assert that He proceeds from the Father alone, and not from the Son. To this heretical assertion, which has been expressly rejected by the Church, we oppose the Catholic doctrine that proceeds from the Father and the Son.

Article 1: The Heresy of the Greek Schism and its by the Church

THE HERESY OF THE GREEK SCHISM AND ITS BY THE CHURCH i. The Heresy of the Schism. — It is impossible to ascertain just when the heresy asserting from 168 PROCESSION OF the Father alone originated. When the Macedonians declared to be a creature of the Logos-Son, the Second Ecumenical Council (A. D. 381), to safeguard the dogma of His Divinity, thought it sufficient to affirm His with the Father in the phrase: Qui ex Patre procedit — Who proceeds from the Father. Petavius and Bellarmine assume, but without sufficient warrant, that Theodore of Mopsuestia and Theodoret were the original authors of the heresy with which we are dealing.1 The more probable theory is that certain Nestorians, whose identity can no longer be ascertained, in course of time somehow came to believe that the Council of Constantinople by * ex Patre * meant * ex solo Patre.* This view was publicly defended for the first time in Jerusalem, A. D. 808, by some fanatic monks, who protested against the insertion of the word “Filioque” into the Nicene Creed, because, as they alleged, does not proceed from the Son. It was, however, reserved for Photius, the ambitious and crafty Patriarch of Constantinople, the most learned scholar of his age,2 (+891), to accuse the Latins of heresy for adopting the ” Filioque” and to raise the denial of from the Son to the rank of a palmary dogma of the Greek Church. At a great council held in Constantinople, A. D. 879, which was attended by 380 bishops, the 1 On Theodore of Mopsuestia, see Bardenhewer-Shahan, Patrology, pp. 318-322; on Theodoret, the same work, pp. 370-376. 2 For a fine character sketch of Photius, see A. Fortescue, The Orthodox Eastern Church, pp. 138 sqq. Cfr. also the same brilliant writer’s C. T. S. brochure, Rome and Constantinople, pp. 12 sqq. Greeks formally pronounced sentence of anathema against all who should add to, or take from, the Symbol of Nicaea. After Photius’s death ” peace was restored temporarily between the churches, although by this time there is already a strong anti-papal party at Constantinople. But the great mass of Christians on either side are reconciled, and have no idea of schism for one hundred and fifty more years.” 3 In the eleventh century came the final rupture under Michael Cerularius. The Great Schism settled into permanency, and, after a brief reunion in the fifteenth century, still continues.4 2. on the Procession of the Holy Ghost. — The Church jealously guarded the Apostolic teaching that proceeds from both the Father and the Son. This appears clearly from the insertion of the word “Filioque” into the Constantinopolitan Creed. Though the Council of Chalcedon (A. D. 451) had forbidden the reception into the Creed of any other faith 1 than that of Nicaea, there soon came a time when it was found necessary to enforce explicit profession of faith in from the Son as well as from the Father. The “Filioque” first came into use in Spain. On the occasion of the conversion of the Arian Goths under King Reccared, the Third Council of Toledo (A. D. 589) decreed the insertion of the term into the Creed and ordered that the 3 Fortescue, The Orthodox East- 5 ‘“Eripa iriffris (whereby it can em Church, p. 171. have meant nothing else than heter4 Fortescue, The Orthodox East- odox additions). em Church, pp. 201 sqq.

words * ex Patre Filioque * should be sung ” with raised voices ” during the celebration of the Divine Mysteries. In course of time the ” Filioque ” spread to France and Germany, thence to England and Upper Italy, and finally to Rome, where, however, for disciplinary reasons, the Popes did not encourage its adoption, though from a purely dogmatic point of view the matter had long been ripe for a decision. As early as A. D. 410, a large number of bishops, assembled in synod at Seleucia, had solemnly professed their faith “in Spiritum vivum et sanctum, Paraclitum vivum et sanctum, qui procedit ex Patre et Filio — In the living and holy Ghost, the living and holy Paraclete, who proceeds from the Father and the Son.”8 The “Athanasian Creed” contains the clause: ” Spiritus Sanctus a Patre et Filio — [is] of the Father and the Son;” and long before its composition (5th or 6th century) a synod believed to have been held at Toledo (A. D. 447), had defined that ” proceeds from the Father and the Son.”7 Pope Hormisdas (+523)> in a letter to the Emperor Justin I, employed the phrase: ” de Patre et Filio!* Many provincial synods inculcated the same doctrine (Aix-la-Chapelle, A. D. 789; Friaul, A.D. 791; Worms, A.D. 868; etc.). The Emperor Charlemagne was particularly attached to the ” Filioque ” and it consequently became very popular among the Franks. But when a few Frankish zealots 6 Cfr. Lamy, Concilium Seleuciae searches of Morin and Kunstle this et Ctesiphonti Habitum a, 410, Lo- synod was never held, and what vanii 1868; Idem, ” Le Concile tenu were hitherto thought to be its a Seleucie-Ctesiphon,” printed in decrees are the production of an the Compte rendu du $e Congrks individual Spanish bishop. Cfr. Scientifique International des Ca- Bilz, Die Trinitatslehre des hi. tholiques, Bruxelles 1895, Sect. II, Johannes von Damaskus, p. 157, pp. 267 sqq. Paderborn 1909. 7 According to the recent re12 undertook to censure as insufficient the Greek formula * a Patre per Filium,* Pope Hadrian I defended it and quoted the Greek Fathers in its support. Long after the outbreak of the Great Schism the Fourth Lateran Council (A. D.. 1215) again took up the matter and defined it as an article of faith that “Pater a nullo, Filius a Patre solo, ac Spiritus Sanctus pariter ab utroque — The Father [is] from no one; the Son [is] from the Father alone; and [is] equally from both the Father and the Son.” Lastly there is the important definition of the Ecumenical Council of Lyons, A. D. 1274, that proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son as from one principle and in one Spiration: ” Spiritus Sanctus aeternaliter ex Patre et Filio, non tatnquam ex duobus principiis, sed tamquam ex una principio, non duabus spirationir bus, sed unica spiratione procedit/* 8 This teaching was solemnly confirmed in the decree by which the Council of Florence ( 1439) sealed the restored union: • ” DiMnimus, quod Spiritus Sanctus ex Patre et Filio aeternalir ter est et essentiam suam suumque esse subsistens habet ex Patre simul et Filio, et ex utroque aeternaliter tamquam ab uno principio et unica sjpiratione procedit — We define that is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has His essence and subsistence at once from the Father and the Son; and that He eternally proceeds from botji as from one Principle and by one Spiration.” 10 In consequence of the machinations of the schismatical Bishop Mark of Ephesus, the re8C£r. Denzinger-Bannwart, En- 10 Upon this definition it based chiridion, n. 460. the well-known theological axiom: 9 Published on July 6, 1439* Den- * Duo quidem spirant es, sed units rlnger-Bannwart, n. 691. spirator*

union brought about at Florence came to as bad an end as that effected at Lyons two centuries earlier. It must have seemed to many like a manifestation of divine anger when, on Pentecost Sunday, A. D. 1453, the Turks broke down the walls of Constantinople, and its last Emperor, Constantine Dragases, fell in battle at the gate of St. Romanus. Readings: — On the history of the Greek Schism, see Werner, Geschichte der apologetischen und polemischen Literatur der christlichen Theologie, Vol. Ill, Schaffhausen 1864; *Hergenrother, Photius, Freiburg 1867-69, I, 684 sqq. Ill, 399 sqq.; Idem, Kirchengeschichte, 4th ed., Vol. II, pp. 234 sqq., Freiburg 1904; Langen, Die trinitarische Lehrdifferenz zwischen der abendlandischen und morgenldndischen Kirche, Bonn 1876; Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, Vol. IV, 2nd ed., Freiburg 1879; Fortescue, The Orthodox Eastern Church, pp. 134 sqq., London 1907; DuchesneMathew, The Churches Separated From Rome, pp. 109 sqq., London 1907; Alzog-Pabisch-Byrne, Manual of Universal Church History, Vol. II, pp. 449 sqq., 5th ed., Cincinnati 1899; S. Vailhe, s. v. “Greek Church,” in #it Catholic Encyclopedia^ Vol VI, pp. 763 sqq. THE POSITIVE TEACHING OF REVELATION i. Scriptural Argument. — Sacred Scripture expressly mentions only from the Father.11 But this does not argue that there is no Scriptural warrant for the dogma of His Procession from the Son. 11 John XV, 26: “The Paraclete … who proceedeth from the Father.”

Article 2: The Positive Teaching of Revelation

On the contrary, from the Son can be proved by a threefold argument based on Biblical texts. a) In the New Testament is represented not only as “the Spirit of the Father,” but likewise as “the Spirit of the Son.” 12 These phrases can have but one meaning, viz., that He proceeds from the Son as well as from the Father. For “Spiritus Filii” expressing as it does a relation (spiritus alicuius), can only mean “spiramen Filii” or “spiratus a Filiof that is to say, is the spiration or breath of the Son. This conclusion cannot consistently be denied by those who, like the Greek schismatics, find themselves constrained to admit that the only reason why can be called “Spiritus Patris” 13 is that He proceeds from the Father. If this be true, it must a pari be concluded that He can be called “Spiritus Filii” only for the reason that He proceeds also from the Son, — a conclusion which is fortified by the Scriptural phrase Filius Patris (or Filius Dei), which evidently expresses a procession of the one from the other. It was but natural, therefore, for the Greek 14 as well as for the Latin15 Fathers to employ 12 ” Spiritus Filii ” (Gal. IV, 6); 14 Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, “Spiritus Christi” (Rom. VIII, 9; Maximus, Cyril of Alexandria, and Phil. I, 19; x Pet. I, zi). others. i8Matth. X, 20. 15 £. g., Augustine. this text as an argument for from the Son. The schismatics object that the Scriptural term ” Spiritus Filii” has its justification in the of the Son with the Father, from whom alone, they claim, proceeds. But this is a mere evasion. Is not the Holy Ghost, too, consubstantial with the Father, from whom alone proceeds the Son? Yet we could not without heresy call Christ ” Filius Spiritus Sancti” because the Son does not proceed from the Holy Ghost. Hence the inevitable conclusion that is “Spiritus FiliV* only because He proceeds from the Son as well as from the Father. b) A still stronger argument can be drawn from what is known as the “Mission” of the Holy Ghost. Missio, in its abstract sense, signifies “the procession of one from another by virtue of some principle and for the purpose of accomplishing some task.” The three essential notes of any mission, be it divine or human, are: (1) A real distinction between the sender and the person sent, for it is obvious that no being can send itself. (2) A certain dependency of the ” sent ” in regard to the ” sender.” (3) A relation on the part of the ” sent ” to some terminus (place or effect). It follows that every ” missus ” enters into a twofold relation: a relation to the sender {mittens) as his terminus a quo, and a relation to the goal of his mission, which constitutes his terminus ad quern. In applying the concept of ” mission ” to the Divine Persons we must first

purge it of all human imperfections. In the Divinity any influence of the ” Sender ” on the ” Sent,” other than the relation of origin, would be repugnant to the Essence of the Triune God. The eternal Procession of one Divine Person from another may be called Internal Mission (missio ad intra). The Temporal Mission is external and merely reflects the internal. We know as the result of a complete induction that Holy Scripture invariably represents the Father as “sending,” never as “sent”; the Son both as “sending” and as “sent”; and always as “sent,” but never as “sending.” Inasmuch as the Father sends the Son as well as the Holy Ghost, it is a patent conclusion, admitted also by the schismatic Greeks, that the Son and proceed from the Father. But the Bible distinctly teaches that is sent not only by the Father, but also by the Son.16 Consequently, proceeds not only from the Father, but also from the Son. This Scriptural argument is so simple and convincing that it was often employed by the Fathers and ecclesiastical writers, both Greek and Latin.17 Thus St. Fulgentius teaches: Films est a Patre missus, l«John XIV, 16: And I will ask the Father, and He shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever.” John XV, 26: “But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father… John XVI, 7: ” It is expedient to you that I go: for if I go not, the Paraclete will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.” 17 Cfr. Franzelin, De Deo Trino, thes. 33. quia Filius est a Patre natus, non Pater a Filio; similiter etiam Spiritus Sanctus a Patre et Filio legitur missus, quia a Patre Filioque procedit — The Son is sent by the Father, because the Son is begotten by the Father, not the Father by the Son; similarly we read that is sent by the Father and the Son, because He proceeds from the Father and the Son. 18 c) The principal Scriptural argument for our present thesis is based on John XVI, 13 sqq.: Cum autem venerit ille Spiritus veritatis, docebit vos omnem veritatem. Non enim loquetur a semetipso, sed, quaecumque audiet, loquetur et, quae ventura sunt, annuntiabit vobis. Ille me clarificabit, quia de meo accipiet et annuntiabit vobis. Omnia quaecumque habet Pater, mea sunt. Propterea dixi: quia de meo accipiet [x^crae, other codices have Aa^ava] et annuntiabit vobis — But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth, for he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you. He shall glorify me; because he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it to you. All things whatsoever the Father hath, are mine. Therefore, I said that he 18 Contra Fabianum, fragm. 29. of St. Fulgentius of Ruspe, cfr. We possess only thirty-nine frag- Bardenhewer-Shahan, Patrology, pp. merits of this precious work. For 616-618. an account of the life and writings shall receive [receives] of mine, and shew it to you.” The bearing of this precious dogmatic text will appear from the following considerations. In the first place it is said of that he “hears” and “receives” His knowledge of “the things that are to come,” (i. e., of the future), from Christ. Being in the future tense, “audiet” and “accipiet” cannot refer to the intrinsic, eternal essence of the Holy Ghost, but solely to His future temporal manifestation ad extra. Now, one Divine Person can “hear” and “receive” from another only in so far as He does not, like the Father, possess His knowledge, and consequently His essence, from Himself (a semetipso, cavrov), but receives it by way of essential communication. “Ab illo audiet,” says St. Augustine, elucidating the passage, “a quo procedit. Audire Mi scire est, scire vero esse… . A quo Mi essentia, ab illo scientia — He shall hear of Him from whom He proceedeth. To Him, to hear is to know; but to know is to be … from whom His Being is, from the same is His knowing.” 19 Christ, too, derives His divine knowledge from the Father and “hears” and “learns” from the Father, by whom He is sent. “He that sent me, is true: and the things I have heard of him, these same I speak in the world. And they 19 Tract, in loa., 99, 4. Browne’s translation, II, 919. THE FILIOQUE understood not that he called God his Father.” 20 And again: “I do nothing of myself, but as the Father hath taught me, these things I speak.” 21 Hence, just as Christ “hears” and “learns” from His Father only in so far as His divine nature with all the attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, etc., are communicated to Him by His eternal Generation from the Father; so, too, “hears” and “receives” from the Son only in this sense that all His knowledge and His whole essence are derived through origination from Christ.22 Consequently proceeds from the Son as well as from the Father. In their anxiety to escape the force of this argument the adherents of Photius have not scrupled to explain the text by interpolation. For & tov ifwv A^crat they read he tov ipov [warpo?] A^erai, i. e., receives His knowledge, as He receives His essence, from the Father, and hence proceeds from Him. But, as Cardinal Bessarion has observed, this construction conflicts with the rules of Greek grammar. It is untenable also for this additional reason that the context does not mention the Father at all, but speaks 20 John VIII, 26 sq.: “Qui me misit, verax est; et ego, quae audivi ab eo, kaec loquor in mundo. Et non cognoverunt, quia Patrem eius dicebat Deum. 21 John VIII, 28: UA meipso (dir ipavTov) facto nihil, sed sicut docuit me Pater, haec loquor,* 22 De meo accipiet »= ex me procedit. See J. E. Belser, Das Evangelium des hi, Johannes ubersetst und erkldrt, pp. 440 sqq., Freiburg 1905. Cfr. Epiphanius, Ancor., c. 8: ” ’ Qui a Patre procedit et de meo accipiet,’ ut ne alienus a Patre et Filio crederetur, sed eiusdem substantiae ac divinitatis, … ex Patre et Filio tertius appellatione.” (Migne, P.G., XLIII, 30.) i8o solely of Christ and His relation to the ” Spiritus veritatis.” 28 Hence U rov ifiov is the genitive of the neuter noun ri Ifiov, i. e., that which is mine. This interpretation is absolutely irrefutable in the light of John XVI, 15: Omnia, quaecumque habet Pater, mea sunt;2 propterea 25 dixi: quia de meo 26 accipiet.* The context is so clear that not a single Greek Father can be adduced who took ac rov ifwv to be other than a neuter phrase, meaning: ” He shall receive of [what is] mine/‘27 For the rest, Christ Himself tells us the precise reason why and in how far “receives” from Him. “All things whatsoever 28 the Father hath,” he says, “are mine; therefore 29 I said that he shall receive of mine, and shew it to yoa”80 Accordingly, the Son has whatsoever the Father has, with the sole exception of Paternity, which is incommunicable. If, therefore, as the schismatics admit, the Father has the power of Spiration, this power, being communicable, also belongs to the Son. Therefore the Son breathes together with the Father. Consequently the latter proceeds from the Son as well as from the Father. Anselm of Havelsburg has thrown this argument into the form of a pretty sorites: “Unde Mi 23 John XVI, 13 aq. 24 ifid ian. 25$i& tovto. 2« iic rov ifiov. 27 On the Patristic exegesis of this passage, consult Petavius, De Trinit., VII, 5; Ruiz, De Trinit., disp. 67, sect. 2. 28irdvra 5o”a. 29&A TOUT©. so John XVI, 15. THE FILIOQUE 181 [scil. Spiritui Sancto] essentia, inde Mi audientia; et unde Mi audientia, inde Mi scientia; et unde Mi scientia, inde Mi processio — Whence He [the Holy Ghost] has His essence, thence He has His hearing; and whence He has His hearing, thence He has His knowledge; and whence He has His knowledge, thence He has His Procession/’ 31 This interpretation coincides with that of the Greek Fathers, and the schismatics cannot disavow it without stultifying themselves.32

2. Patristic Argument. — The Greek schismatics freely admit that the Latin Fathers unanimously teach from the Father and the Son. Note that, in making this admission, they inadvertently condemn their own attitude; for it is absurd to imagine that the Latin Church, which for eight centuries together with the Greek formed the one true Church of Christ, should have harbored a disgraceful heresy during all that time. But even if we put this consideration aside, we can convict the Greeks out of the mouths of their own Fathers. We shall confine ourselves to establish this point here. The argument from Tradition, so far as it rests on conciliar decisions and the usage of the primitive Church, has alSlDial., II, 8. On Anselm of ed. alt., Vol. II, 107 sqq., Oenip. Havelsburg, Ord. Praem., and his 1906. Dialogi, consult Hurter, Nomencla- 32 Cfr. Petavius, De Trinttate, tor Literarius Theoloqiae Catholic at, VII, 6.

ifc ready been developed in a previous Section of this treatise.83 a) One of the most authoritative of the Greek Fathers is St. Athanasius (+373). He expressly teaches that ” holds the same relation to the Son as to the Father,,, and that consequently the total substance of the Father is communicated to ” through the mediation of the Son.” 84 Christ’s breathing upon the Apostles he explains as a symbol of the ” Procession ” of from the Son. ” The Son breathed into the Apostles’ countenance and said: ’ Receive ye the Holy Ghost/ in order that we might learn that the Spirit given to the Disciples is from the fulness of the Godhead; for in Christ, says the Apostle, the whole plenitude of the Godhead indwells corporeally.” 85 For this reason he designates the Son as ” the fountainhead (or source) of the Holy Ghost.” 86 These and many similar phrases are merely equivalent terms signifying the ” Procession ” of from the Son. b) St. Basil’s attitude on the question of the ” Filioque” may be gathered from his constant teaching that proceeds ” from the Father through the Son.” 87 He furthermore affirms that ” the divine dignity comes to from the Father through 88 Supra, pp. 168 sqq. 84 S. Athanas., Ad Serap., ep. i, n. 19: ” Qualem scimus proprietatem (toiSrriTa) ess* Filii ad Pattern, eandem ad Filiutn habere Spiritum S. comperiemus. Et quemadmodum Filius dicit: Omnia, quaecunque habet Pater, mea sunt,’ ita haec omnia per Filium in Spiritu Sane to we deprehendemus.” 85 Ad Serap., ep. 3. 88 r^v tn77^i» rov bylov iryetf/icltos* De Incarnatione contra Arianos, 9. 87 St. Basil, De Spiritu Sancto, XVIII, 45: “Ev ft) koX rb &yu>v irpevfiaf • • 8i* Ms vlov T(f ivl irarpl ffvrairT6fxevov. THE FILIOQUE 183 [His] Only-begotten Son.” 38 In a famous “passage, which gave rise to acrid disputes at Florence, in 1439, St. Basil says that the Spirit holds His place after the Son, “because He holds from Him His being, and receives from Him and communicates to us, and depends entirely on that principle (or cause).” 39 ” Dignitate [i. e., secundum originem] namque Spiritum secundum esse a Filio [cum habeat esse ab ipso atque ab ipso accipiat et annuntiet nobis, et omnino ab ilia causa dependeat] tradit pietatis sermo.” 40 The bracketed clause, which definitely asserts from the Son,41 was vigorously impugned by the Greeks, who claimed that it was spurious. But, as Dr. Bardenhewer points out, “that these are the genuine original words of Basil is proved by good arguments, extrinsic and intrinsic. But even were they the words of a forger, their meaning is true: and the entire argument of Basil presupposes it as something logical and indispensable.” 42 c) Of St. Gregory of Nazianzus (+389) Bardenhewer observes: ” The Filioque is not found in the writings of St. Gregory as clearly and openly as in those of Basil. He takes it, however, for recognized and granted, that the Son also is principle or origin of the Holy Spirit. When he says 43 in his discourse delivered at the Second Ecumenical Council (381), that the Father 88 L. ft, n. 47: iic irarpbs $tct rov fiovoyevovs M rb m-pevfia. 89 The Latin Fathers prefer the word principle for the Father and Son; the Greeks more frequently use cause (atria). 40 Contra Eunom. Ill, z (apud Migne, P. G.t XXIX, 653 sqq.). 41 It runs as follows in the original Greek: Uap* atrov rb elvai lxov Kal ""ttP* atfroi; Xafifi&poy Kal dpayyiWoy iifiip Kal S\u)S r^t ahias iKelprjs ifrjfifiipop. 42 Bardenhewer-Shahan, Patrol’ ogy, p. 2S2. For further information on this point, cfr. A Kranich, Der hi, Basilius in seiner SteUung jtum Filioque, Augsburg z88a. 48 Or., 42, n. 15. is avapxosy” the Son apyrj, and the Holy Spirit to furh rfp apx^s, he implicitly affirms that the mutual relation between the Holy Spirit and the Son is that of one who proceeds to Him from whom He proceeds. Moreover, he expressly says that the Holy Spirit is to c£ ap4>olv avvrjfiiuvov** i. e., He proceeds equally from the Father and the Son. The poem entitled Praecepta ad Virgines ends with these words: ’ One God from the Begetter through the Son, to the great Spirit (ds Oeb* ac ytvirao iC vlios is fieya irvcv/ia [this is the so-called Kenans ttJs fiovdBos cts TptaSa]), since the perfect Divinity subsists in perfect Persons/ 99 46 Gregory of Nyssa, a brother of Basil the Great (+ after 394), also teaches that ” is considered a distinct Hypostasis, because He is from God (e* tov ®cov), and is of Christ (tov Xpiorov), so that He does not share either the property of not proceeding (to ayiwrjrov) with the Father, or the property of being the Only-begotten with the Son.” 47 There is another passage in the writings of Gregory, which, if its genuineness could be established, would be even more conclusive. Cardinal Bessarion cited it against those of his Greek countrymen who were opposed to the reunion, and at the same time protested against the perversion to which the passage had been subjected in an ancient manuscript codex of the works of St. Gregory at Florence, wherein some Greek forger had clumsily expunged the preposition he. The passage occurs in the third of Gregory’s Sermones in Orationem Dotninicam, and reads 44 On this term, in connection with apxh, cr Newman, Select Treatises of St. Athanasius, II, 348 •q. « Or., 31, n. 2. 46 Cfr. Bardenhewer-Shahan, Patrology, p. 292. See also Hergenrother, Die Lehre von der gottlichen Dreieinigkeit nach dem hi. Gregor von Nazianz, Ratisbon 1850. 47 Sermo contr. Macedonianos, n. 2. thus: ” Spiritus Sanctus et ex Patre (& tov trarpos) dicitur et ex Filio esse (kcu [Ik] tov vlov) perhibetur — is said to be from the Father and is shown to be also from the Son.” 48 d) The ” Filioque” was very clearly taught by St. Epiphanius, Bishop of Constantia (+403). In his Ancoratus** he employs the formula to irvev/ia & tov irarpbs kol tov vlov at least three times.50 And in his work ” The Medicine-Chest,” 61 usually cited as Haereses, because written against eighty heresies,52 he says: ” Audi, quisquis es, quod Pater vere est Filii Pater, totus lux, et Filius vere Patris lumen de lumine, … et Spiritus Sanctus veritatis lumen tertium a Patre et Filio (k TpLTOV wapa TraToos xat vlov).9’ 58 To these authorities we may add Didymus the Blind (+ about 395), who, despite his Origenistic tendencies, according to the testimony of St. Jerome was certainly orthodox in his treatise on the Trinity.54 Didymus paraphrases John XVI, 13 as follows: ” Non enim loquetur a semetipso, hoc est non sine me et Patris arbitrio, quia inseparabilis a mea et Patris voluntate; quia non ex se, sed ex Patre et me est: hoc enim ipsum, quod subsistit, a Patre et me illi est — [St. John XVI, 13, says: But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you.] He will not speak of himself, that is to say, not 48 On the Trinitarian doctrine of St Gregory of Nyssa, cfr. Bardenhewer-Shahan, Patrology, pp. 300302. AyKVpwr6st ; the firmlyanchored man. 50 Ancor., nn. 8, 9, 11. si Uavdpiop or Hav&pia. 52 Migne, P. C, XLI sq. Cfr. Bardenhewer-Shahan, Patrology, pp. 310 sqq. 58 Haereses, 74, 8. 54Hieron., Contra Rufin., II, 16: * Certe in Trinitate cat ho lieu s est. 186 without Me and the judgment of the Father, because He is inseparable from Mine and the Father’s will; because He is not from Himself, but from the Father and Me; for He has His very subsistence from the Father and Me. » Lastly we will mention St. Cyril of Alexandria (+444), whose writings fairly swarm with texts in support of the * Filioque” Not only does he employ the formula ” Ek irarpbs Si vlov irpo\€OfJutvov irvev/ia — flows forth from the Father through the Son,” 56 but he distinctly asserts: ” Spiritus Sanctus procedit ex Patre et Filio (irpotun hi kcI Ik irarpis #cal vtov) — proceeds from the Father and the Son.” 57 e) Cardinal Bessarion, in his famous dogmatic discourse at the Council of Florence, A. D. 1439, summarized the teaching of the entire Patristic period on the dogma of the Blessed Trinity in these words: “Latini Patres clarissime et dissertissime docent, Spiritum Sanctum procedere ex Filio et Filium, sicut Patrem, esse eius principium. Deinde Orientates quoque, non secus ac Occidentals, hoc ipsum dicere demonstravimus, cum alii Spiritum ex Patre per Filium procedere, alii ex Patre et Filio atque ex ambobus esse aiunt, sicque aperte docent, esse etiam ex Filio — The Latin Fathers teach most clearly and eloquently that proceeds 55 Didymus, De Spiritu Sancto, 2. 55 De Adorat, in Spiritu et VeriAnothcr, larger extract from the taie, apud Migne, P. G. LXVIII, 147. writings of Didymus on the Trinity 57 Thesaurus Assert,, 34. Migne, is quoted by Petavius, De Trinitate, P. G. LXXV, 586. VII. 3. 6. from the Son, and that the Son, like the Father, is His principle. We have also demonstrated that the Greek Fathers, too, agree in this teaching of the Latins; some of them saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, while others declare that He proceeds from the Father and the Son, or from both, which manifestly means that He proceeds also from the Son. 58 In matter of fact it is only by harmoniously blending the Latin ex Patre Filioque” with the Greek “ex Patre per Filiuni” that we arrive at the whole truth. Nor was the Latin formula limited to the Latins, or the Greek formula to the Greeks. The Greek formula, which Scheeben calls “the organic conception,” occurs e. g. in the writings of Tertullian,59 Novatian, and Hilary;60 while, conversely, the Latin conception, which has been styled the “personal,” is familiarly employed by several of the Greek Fathers, as we have seen in a previous paragraph. In the “organic” formula the preposition &a has a causal meaning, indicating that the Son is not merely the passage or “channel,” as it were, of the paternal Spiration of the Holy Ghost, but Himself positively cooperates in the act of Spiration; for the Father and the Son together constitute one undivided principle of Spiration, and 58 Cfr. Hardouin, Cencil., t. IX, 50 Contr. Prax., c. 4. p. 367. toDe Trinit., XII, n. 57. 13 188 Spiration itself is one single (notional) act consummated by both Divine Persons in consort. The coordinating conception of the Latins brings this out very clearly, but it rather neglects another equally important truth, viz., that, despite the identity of the act of Spiration, the Father is its original principle (x0)> whereas the Son is the ” principiatum” (®° ** ®^), who receives the “virtus spirandi” from the Father. This truth is more sharply emphasized in the Greek formula.61 It is in the light of considerations such as these that we must interpret certain utterances of St. John of Damascus, of which the schismatics make much, and which St. Thomas thought it his duty to censure. In matter of fact the Damascene does not deny from the Son. He merely says: “Kol vlov SI irvcvfia, ov\ d>? i£ avrov, aXX d>s fit’ avrov Ik rov 7raT/>6« c#C7ropcvoficvov’ fiovo? yap amos (=af>X^ avapx0*) ° irarrjp.” 62 This view is fully shared by the Latin Fathers. St. Augustine, e. g., says: ” Spiritus Sanctus principaliter procedit de Patre … qui, quidquid unigenito Verbo dedit, gignendo dedit — proceeds principally from the Father… . who, whatever He gave to the Only-begotten Word, He gave by begetting Him.” 63 Similarly St. John Chrysostom: ” The phrase through Him (8t* avrov), is employed for no other reaei Cfr. St Thomas, 5”. TheoL, la, qu. 36, art. 3. 62 De Fide Orthodoxa, I, 12, Migne, P. G., XCIV, 849. On the analogous teaching of St. Maximus the Confessor (-f- 662), whom the Greek schismatics cite as an authority second only to St. John Damascene, cfr. Franzelin, De Deo Trino, thes. 36, n. 2. ea St. August, De Trinitate, XV, 17. THEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT 189 son than to exclude the suspicion that the Son is ingenerate.,, 64 The Council of Florence (A. D. 1439), following that of Lyons (A. D. 1274), confirmed this view in its famous decree of reunion,65 and formally defined both the * ex Patre et Filio * and the ” unica spiraiio amborum ” as articles of faith.

3. Theological Argument. — In their debates with the anti-unionist Greeks at the Council of Florence, the Latin theologians rightly insisted that, if the Son were excluded from cooperation in the act of Spiration, there would be no ground for distinguishing Him hypostatically from the Holy Ghost; because the Son is hypostatically distinct from only by virtue of the relative opposition involved in breathing (spirare) and being breathed (spirari). a) St. Thomas 66 and his school adopted and developed this theological argument, whereas Duns Scotus,67 with a few of his followers, denied its cogency,68 — an attitude for which they have been more or less severely blamed by the ” sententia communis” 69 In matter of fact the argument stands unshaken to the present day. It is a theological axiom that ” All is indistinctly one in the Godhead, except where a relative opposition of Person to Person furnishes the basis for a real distinction.” If this be true, as we shall demonstrate later on in treat64 Horn, in Joa., V, n. 2. 68 Cfr. De Rada, Controv. Theol. 65 Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiri- inter S. Thomam et Scotum, lib. dion, n. 691. I, controv. 15, Coloniae 1620. 66 5. Theol, ia, qu. 36, art. 2. 60 Cfr. Ruiz, De Trinity disp. 68, 67 Comment, in Quatuor Libros sect. 5. Sent., I, Dist. xx, qu. 2.

ing of the divine Relations, no personal distinction can be posited between the Son and outside of that of a relative opposition between two Divine Persons. Now, no such relative opposition is conceivable between them unless One proceeds from the Other. Consequently proceeds also from the Son, else both would coincide in an indistinguishable unity and lose their independence as distinct Hypostases. b) Scotus’s objections against this theological argument will not bear scrutiny. If, he says, the Son alone without the Father breathed the Spirit, the personal distinction between the Father and would still remain; consequently, Procession as such cannot be a conditio sine qua non of the relative opposition and the hypostatic differences existing in the Godhead. We answer that in the hypothesis of Scotus would still proceed from the Father. True, His Procession would be a mediate one through the Son; but even such a mediate Procession would suffice to establish relative opposition, and therefore a hypostatic difference. If, conversely, we assumed with the schismatics that the Father alone breathes, without the Son, the Son would differ hypostatically from the Father by virtue of His Filiation, but He would not differ hypostatically from the Holy Ghost, nor could any personal difference arise unless the Son were placed in relative opposition to the Holy Ghost, which is conceivable only on the basis of a processio. All of which proves that it is a postulate of theological consistency that proceeds from the Son. Readings: — Van der Moeren, De Processione Spiritus Sancti ex Patre Filioque, Lovanii 1864; *Kleutgen, Theologie der Voreeit, 2nd ed., Vol. I, Minister 1867; A. Vincenzi, De Processione Spiritus Sancti, Romae 1878; *Franzelin, De Deo Trino, thes. 32 

THEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT 191 41, Romae 1881 (a very exhaustive treatise); Idem, Examen Doctrinae Macarii Bulgakow … de Processione Spiritus Sancti, Romae 1876; A. Kranich, Der hi Basilius und seine Stellung zum Filioque, Braunsberg 1882. Of the Scholastics, cfr. St. Thomas, Contr. Gent, IV, 24 sqq. (Rickaby, Of God and His Creatures, pp. 356 sqq., London 1905); *St. Anselm, De Processione Spiritus Sancti contra Graecos; Suarez, De Trinit., 1. X; Ruiz, De Trinit, disp. 67; Petavius, De Trinit., 1. VII. Cfr. also Petr. Arcudius, Opuscula Aurea Theologica, Romae 1670 and Hugo Laemmer, Scriptor. Graeciae Orthodox. Bibliotheca Selecta, Friburgi 1864 sq.

hat there are Three Persons in one God is and must ever remain a sacrosanct mystery which human reason cannot fathom. It is only through Divine Revelation that we know of the existence of that immanent process of Generation and Spiration which underlies the real distinction of three Persons in the Godhead. Enlightened and guided by faith, however, reason is able, by means of syllogistic deductions, analogies, etc., and by skilfully synthesizing the various scattered data furnished by Revelation, to attain to a progressive theological understanding of the dogma, nay even to a degree of certainty concerning some of its more abstruse features. Speculative discussion, which for safety’s sake must always keep itself solidly planted on the teaching of Revelation, as defined by the infallible Church, is concerned chiefly with two classes of problems, viz.: (i) the precise character of the two Processions per intellectum et voluntatem; and (2) the corollaries which flow therefrom with regard to the divine Relations, Properties, and Notions. To these two categories must be added the theory of the and Missions. As for the degree of certitude enjoyed by these 192