That there exists a purgatory wherein souls are cleansed from sins not cleansed in the present life.
|Libellum ab excellentia vestra mihi exhibitum, sanctissime pater Urbane Papa, diligenter perlegi, in quo inveni quamplurima ad nostrae fidei assertionem utilia et expressa. Consideravi autem, quod eius fructus posset apud plurimos impediri propter quaedam in auctoritatibus sanctorum patrum contenta, quae dubia esse videntur, et unde possent materiam ministrare et contentiosis dare occasionem calumniae et ideo, ut remota omni ambiguitate, ex auctoritatibus in praedicto libello contentis verae fidei fructus purissimus capiatur, proposui primo ea quae dubia in auctoritatibus praedictis esse videntur exponere, et postmodum ostendere quomodo ex eis veritas Catholicae fidei et doceatur et defendatur.
||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.
|Quod autem aliqua in dictis antiquorum sanctorum inveniuntur quae modernis dubia esse videntur, ex duobus aestimo provenire. Primo quidem, quia errores circa fidem exorti occasionem dederunt sanctis Ecclesiae doctoribus ut ea quae sunt fidei, maiori circumspectione traderent ad eliminandos errores exortos; sicut patet quod sancti doctores qui fuerunt ante errorem Arii, non ita expresse locuti sunt de unitate divinae essentiae sicut doctores sequentes; et simile de aliis contingit erroribus, quod non solum in diversis doctoribus, sed in uno egregio doctore Augustino expresse apparet. Nam in suis libris quos post exortam Pelagianorum haeresim edidit, cautius locutus est de potestate liberi arbitrii quam in libris quos edidit ante praedictae haeresis ortum: in quibus libertatem arbitrii contra Manichaeos defendens, aliqua protulit quae in sui defensionem erroris assumpserunt Pelagiani, divinae gratiae adversantes. Et ideo non est mirum, si moderni fidei doctores post varios errores exortos, cautius et quasi elimatius loquuntur circa doctrinam fidei, ad omnem haeresim evitandam. Unde, si qua in dictis antiquorum doctorum inveniuntur quae cum tanta cautela non dicantur quanta a modernis servatur, non sunt contemnenda aut abiicienda, sed nec etiam ea extendere oportet, sed exponere reverenter.
||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
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.
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.
|Secundo, quia multa quae bene sonant in lingua Graeca, in Latina fortassis bene non sonant, propter quod eandem fidei veritatem aliis verbis Latini confitentur et Graeci. Dicitur enim apud Graecos recte et Catholice, quod pater et filius et spiritus sanctus sunt tres hypostases; apud Latinos autem non recte sonat, si quis dicat quod sunt tres substantiae, licet hypostasis idem sit apud Graecos quod substantia apud Latinos secundum proprietatem vocabuli. Nam apud Latinos substantia usitatius pro essentia accipi solet, quam tam nos quam Graeci unam in divinis confitemur. Propter quod, sicut Graeci dicunt tres hypostases, nos dicimus tres personas, ut etiam Augustinus docet in VII de Trinitate. Nec est dubium quin etiam simile sit in aliis multis.
||“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.
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
also teaches. And, doubtless, there are many similar instances.
|Unde ad officium boni translatoris pertinet ut ea quae sunt Catholicae fidei transferens, servet sententiam, mutet autem modum loquendi secundum proprietatem linguae in quam transfert. Apparet enim quod si ea quae litteraliter in Latino dicuntur, vulgariter exponantur, indecens erit expositio, si semper verbum ex verbo sumatur. Multo igitur magis quando ea quae in una lingua dicuntur, transferuntur in aliam, ita quod verbum sumatur ex verbo, non est mirum si aliqua dubietas relinquatur.
||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.
Quomodo intelligitur hoc quod dicitur quod filius habet a patre sicut causatum a causa
How the Son is understood to be related to the Father as something caused to its cause.
|Potest autem apud aliquos esse dubium quod in plerisque locis harum auctoritatum dicitur, patrem esse causam filii, et patrem vel filium esse causam spiritus sancti. Et hoc quidem habetur primo in verbis Athanasii, quae in Nicaena synodo dixisse refertur, ubi dicit: quidquid habet filius a patre, habet sicut verbum a corde, splendor a sole et fluvius a fonte et a causa omne causatum. Qui autem iniuriatur vel negat causatum, equidem et causam eius negat. Dicat causatus genitus filius: qui me spernit, spernit eum qui me misit. Et alibi: non est imprincipiatus spiritus, hoc est sine principio et causa: sed potius ipsum demonstrat Deum verum, principiatum tamen non ex tempore, sed ex causa verae originis. Item Basilius spiritus sanctus ab ipso Deo missus, causam habet ipsum. Et item Theodoritus super epistolam ad Heb.: causa filii pater est.
||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
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).
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.”
And Basil says: “The Holy Spirit, sent by God himself, has a cause.”
And Theodoret commenting on the Epistle to the Hebrews says: “The cause of the Son is the Father.”
|Apud Latinos autem non est consuetum quod pater dicatur causa filii vel spiritus sancti, sed solum principium vel auctor. Et hoc propter tria.
||Among the Latins,
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.
|Primo quidem, quia pater non posset intelligi causa filii per modum causae formalis vel materialis vel finalis, sed solum per modum causae originantis, quae est causa efficiens. Hanc autem semper invenimus secundum essentiam diversam ab eo cuius est causa. Et ideo, ne intelligeretur esse filius alterius essentiae a patre, non consuevimus dicere patrem esse causam filii, sed magis utimur illis nominibus quae significant originem cum quadam consubstantialitate, sicut fons, caput et alia huiusmodi.
||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.
|Secundo, quia causae apud nos correspondet effectus: unde patrem non dicimus esse causam, ne aliquis intelligat filium esse factum. Nam et apud philosophos prima causa Deus nominatur; omne autem causatum sub universitate creaturarum comprehenditur apud eos: et ideo si filius causam dicatur habere, posset intelligi quod sub universitate creaturarum comprehenderetur.
||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.
|Tertio, quia de divinis non de facili debet homo aliter loqui quam sacra Scriptura loquatur. Scriptura autem sacra patrem nominat principium filii, ut patet Ioan. I, 1: in principio erat verbum. Nusquam autem dicit patrem causam, vel filium causatum. Unde, cum causa plus dicat quam principium, non praesumimus patrem dicere causam, nec filium causatum.
||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.”
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.
|Nihil autem ad originem pertinens, adeo proprie dicitur in divinis, sicut hoc nomen principium. Quia enim ea quae sunt in Deo, incomprehensibilia sunt, et definiri a nobis non possunt, convenientius utimur in Deo nominibus communibus quam propriis: propter quod maxime proprium nomen eius dicitur esse qui est, quod est communissimum, ut patet Exod. III. Sicut autem causa est communius quam elementum, ita et principium quam causa: dicitur enim punctum principium lineae, sed non causa. Et ideo convenientissime nomine principii utimur in divinis.
||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
than element, so principle is more general than cause. Therefore, in speaking of God we very appropriately use the term principle.
|Nec tamen intelligendum est, quod sancti praedicti, qui nomine causae et causati utuntur in divinis personis, intendant diversitatem naturae inducere, aut filium esse creaturam. Sed per hoc volunt ostendere solam originem personarum, sicut nos nomine principii. Unde dicit Gregorius Nyssenus: causam autem et causatum dicentes, non naturam propter haec nomina significamus. Neque enim haec nomina loco essentiae vel naturae ratione damus; sed qualiter se habent differentiam, demonstramus; ut scilicet filium non ingenitum esse, neque patrem per generationem aliquam demonstramus ab aliquo. Item Basilius dicit: spiritum sanctum dico ingenitum, non habere patrem; nec creatorem; quia non est creatus; sed causam habet Deum, cuius est vere spiritus, a quo et procedit.
||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 unbegotten and the Father is not from anyone through a generation.”
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.”
Quomodo intelligitur cum dicitur, quod filius sit secundus a patre, et spiritus sanctus sit tertius
How the Son is to be understood as second from the Father and the Holy Spirit third.
|Item invenitur in auctoritatibus praedictorum doctorum, quod filius sit secundus a patre, et spiritus sanctus tertius ab eodem. Dicit enim Athanasius in sermone ad Serapionem: spiritus sanctus tertius est a patre; a filio tamen est secundus. Et Basilius dicit: dignitate quidem, et ordine secundus est a filio spiritus.
||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.”
Similarly, Basil says: “In dignity and order the Spirit is second from the Son.”
|Hoc autem alicui potest videri esse falsum. In divinis enim personis non est nisi ordo naturae, secundum quem, ut Augustinus dicit, non est alter prior altero, sed est alter ex altero. Nullus enim modus prioritatis est, secundum quem pater prior filio dici possit. Neque enim prior tempore, cum filius sit aeternus; neque prior natura, cum patris et filii sit una natura; neque dignitate, cum pater et filius sint aequales; neque etiam intellectu, cum non distinguantur nisi relationibus, relativa autem sunt simul secundum intellectum, cum unum sit de intellectu alterius. Et ita patet, quod proprie loquendo, filius non possit dici secundus a patre, nec spiritus sanctus tertius a patre.
||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.
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,
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.
|Dicunt ergo doctores praedicti, filium esse secundum et spiritum sanctum tertium, secundum ordinem in numerando, quod patet ex ipso Basilio, qui dicit: recepimus spiritum sanctum a patre et filio, tertium connumeratum, et glorificatum spiritum ipsius filii Dei, qui tradens ordinem salutiferi Baptismatis, dixit: euntes, baptizate omnes gentes in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti. Et Epiphanius dicit: spiritus Dei ex patre et ex filio tertius est appellatione.
||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’.”
And Epiphanius says: “The Spirit of God who is from Father and Son is third named.”
|Quod autem dicit Basilius, quod spiritus est secundus a filio dignitate, videtur maiorem habere calumniam: quia videtur in dignitate Trinitatis constituere gradum, cum sit par dignitas et eadem trium personarum. Potest autem hoc exponi non de dignitate naturali, sed de personali; sicut et secundum nos dicitur, quod persona est hypostasis proprietate distincta ad dignitatem pertinente. Secundum quem modum dicit Hilarius, quod pater est maior filio propter auctoritatem originis; filius tamen non est minor patre propter substantiae unitatem.
||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.”
Hilary adopts this manner of speaking when he says
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.
Quomodo intelligitur hoc quod spiritus sanctus sit tertium lumen
How the Holy Spirit is to be understood as third light.
|Adhuc autem videtur esse magis calumniosum quod ex verbis sancti Epiphanii Cypriensis episcopi inducitur dicentis: spiritus sanctus spiritus est veritatis, lumen tertium a patre et filio. Ubi enim est unitas, non est ordo primi et tertii. Pater autem et filius et spiritus sanctus sunt unum lumen, sicut et unus Deus. Sicut ergo non potest Catholice dici, quod spiritus sanctus sit tertius Deus a patre et filio, ita non potest dici quod sit tertium lumen.
||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.”
Now where there is unity, there is no order of first and third. But Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one light,
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.
|Dicitur autem quod est tertia persona propter personarum pluralitatem. Ex hoc ergo quod dicit lumen tertium, sequitur quod sint tria lumina; quod ipse postmodum expresse subiungit, dicens: alia vero omnia positione vel compositione sive appellatione lumina dicuntur; non tamen istis tribus luminibus similia.
||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 Epiphanius 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.”
|Potest autem dici, quod lumen originem quandam importat: nam lumen est quod ex aliqua luce diffunditur, et etiam aliud lumen diffundere potest. Et secundum hoc, nomen luminis ad personales proprietates trahi potest ratione proprietatis diffusivae, licet secundum ipsam naturam lucis ad essentiam pertineat. Et hoc attendens dictus pater, tertium lumen et tria lumina dixit in divinis; licet hoc nullo modo sit ad consequentiam trahendum, sed simpliciter confitendum, quod pater et filius et spiritus sanctus sunt unum lumen.
||On the other hand, it might be said in explanation that a light implies a certain origin; for light
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.
Quomodo intelligitur, quod essentia sit genita in filio, et spirata in spiritu sancto
How the essence is to understood as begotten in the Son and spirated in the Holy Spirit.
|Invenitur autem in dictis praedictorum patrum, quod essentia sit genita in filio, et spirata in spiritu sancto. Dicit enim Athanasius in tertio sermone gestorum Nicaenae synodi, ex persona filii loquens: tuum spiritum ex mea essentia a te genita ipsis hominibus compenso; et parum post: ex tua essentia, quam in me genuisti, spiritum sanctum da eis. Et idem in epistola ad Serapionem: essentiam suam in se ipse genitor retinens, totam in filio suo inenarrabiliter genuit. Et iterum: sicut pater habet vitam in semet ipso, idest naturam vivam spirantem, sic dedit et filio vitam habere in semetipso, id est eandem naturam genuit in filio spirantem spiritum vivum. Et infra dicit, patris et filii unam esse divinitatem naturaliter spirantem unum spiritum sanctum. Ex quibus verbis habetur, quod natura divina in filio sit genita, et in patre et filio sit spirans.
||Among the sayings of the aforesaid Fathers
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.”
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.”
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.”
From these passages it follows that in the Son the divine nature spirates the Holy Spirit.
|Item Cyrillus in libro thesaurorum contra haereticos: virtus increata et genita in filio, filii est per omnem modum naturae paternae. Et iterum: pater filio dedit vitam, idest suam vitam naturalem genuit in filio. Item Basilius: ipse filius, quem dat nobis pater, est Deus de Deo essentialiter genitus, habens in se totam essentiam patris genitam. Item Athanasius dicit in epistola ad Serapionem, essentiam divinam in spiritu sancto esse spiratam, dicens, quod spiritus sanctus est vera et naturalis imago filii per essentiam omnimode ab eodem in se spiratam.
||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.”
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.”
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.”
|Hic autem modus loquendi calumniosus est: et in sacro Lateranensi Concilio reprobatum est dogma Ioachim, qui hunc modum loquendi contra Magistrum Petrum Lombardum defendere praesumpsit. Ostendit enim praedictus Magister in quinta distinctione primi libri sententiarum, quas edidit, quod communis essentia nec generat, nec gignitur, nec procedit. Et hoc ideo, quia in divinis invenitur aliquid commune indistinctum, et aliquid quod distinguitur et non est commune. Illud ergo quod est distinctionis ratio in divinis, non potest attribui ei quod est commune et indistinctum, sed solum ei quod distinguitur. Nulla autem alia distinctionis ratio in divinis invenitur nisi ex eo quod unus generat et alius nascitur et alius procedit. Non ergo hoc ipsum quod est generare vel nasci vel procedere potest essentiae divinae attribui, quae est communis et omnino indistincta in tribus personis. Id autem quod est distinctum in divinis, est persona vel hypostasis vel suppositum divinae naturae, id est, quod est habens divinam naturam. Et ideo illa quae significant, vel supponere possunt personam, recipiunt congruenter praedicationem generationis aut processionis, sicut haec nomina pater et filius et spiritus sanctus significant personas determinatas, et hoc nomen persona vel hypostasis, in communi. Unde convenienter dicitur quod pater generat filium, et quod filius nascitur a patre, et quod spiritus sanctus procedit a patre et filio; et similiter quod persona generet vel spiret personam, aut generetur aut spiretur a persona.
||This manner of speaking, however, is highly misleading, and at the [Fourth] Lateran Council
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
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.
|Hoc autem nomen Deus, quia significat essentiam communem per modum concreti (significat enim habentem divinitatem), potest supponere ex modo suae significationis pro persona; et ideo etiam huiusmodi locutiones convenienter conceduntur: Deus generat Deum, et Deus nascitur vel procedit a Deo.
||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.
|Hoc autem nomen essentia, et divinitas, et quaecumque in abstracto significantur, non habent ex modo suae significationis neque quod significent neque quod supponant pro persona. Et ideo non proprie ea quae sunt propria personarum, de huiusmodi nominibus praedicantur, ut dicatur essentia generans vel genita; licet quaedam horum nominum propinquiora sint personis, inquantum significant principia actuum qui proprie sunt personarum; sicut lumen, sapientia, bonitas, et huiusmodi. Unde et quae sunt propria personarum, de talibus minus inconvenienter praedicantur; ut cum dicitur filius lumen de lumine, sapientia de sapientia; sed essentia de essentia magis inconvenienter dicitur.
||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.
|Sed quia, licet modus significandi diversus sit cum dicitur Deus et divinitas, tamen res est penitus eadem: ideo propter rei identitatem, sicut unum de altero praedicatur, ut cum dicitur, Deus est divinitas, vel persona divina sive pater est divina essentia; ita et a sanctis interdum unum pro alio ponitur, ut sic dicatur quod essentia divina generat, quia pater, qui est essentia divina, generat; et essentia est de essentia, quia filius qui est essentia, est de patre, qui est eadem essentia divina. Et sic exponit Cyrillus in Lib. thesaurorum, dicens: pater de se vita vivente et essentia veraciter existente, tanquam a vera radice, generando filium, dat ei naturaliter suam naturalem vitam et essentiam. Sic etiam cum dicitur quod pater genuit naturam suam in filio, exponendum est, quod per generationem suam naturam filio dedit, sicut ex praemissis verbis Cyrilli habetur.
||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.”
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.
Quomodo intelligitur quod Iesus dicitur filius paternae essentiae
How Jesus is to be understood as Son of the paternal essence.
|Ex hoc etiam patet qualiter exponendum sit quod idem Cyrillus in eodem libro dicere inducitur: quomodo ergo Iesus filius paternae essentiae, erit creatura? Non enim dicitur filius paternae essentiae, quasi a paterna essentia genitus, sed quasi paternam essentiam per generationem accipiens. Et per hunc modum exponenda sunt omnia quae similiter dici inveniuntur; sicut quod dicitur filius vel spiritus essentialiter procedere, inquantum procedendo essentiam a patre accipiunt.
||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?”
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
in so far as by proceeding they receive essence from the Father.
Quomodo intelligitur, quod quae sunt propria naturaliter patris, sunt propria filii
How properties of the Father are to be understood as proper to the Son.
|Potest esse dubium quod Cyrillus in eodem Lib. thesaurorum dicit: omnia quae patris sunt propria naturaliter, sunt propria et filii. Aut enim hoc intelligitur de essentialibus attributis, et sic neque patri neque filio sunt propria, sed utrique communia; aut de personalibus, et sic quae sunt propria patris, non sunt propria filii, sicut innascibilitas et paternitas nullo modo sunt filii, sed solum patris.
||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.”
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.
|Patet autem ex praemissis ab eo, quod loquitur de essentialibus attributis. Praemittit enim quod quaecumque naturaliter dicuntur inesse patri, illa omnia insunt filio, sicut vita, veritas, lux et huiusmodi. Haec autem dicuntur esse propria patri non in respectu ad filium, nec filio in respectu ad patrem, sed utrique in respectu ad creaturam, cui in comparatione ad Deum non proprie praedicta conveniunt; vel proprium, hic dicitur non quod convenit uni soli, sed quod proprie et vere alicui convenit secundum se.
||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,”
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.
Quomodo intelligitur quod pater neque filio neque spiritu sancto indiget ad sui perfectionem
How the Father is to be understood as needing neither Son nor Holy Spirit for his perfection.
|Item potest esse dubium quod Athanasius dicit in epistola ad Serapionem, quod pater per se et in se sine alicuius indigentia plenus et perfectus existens Deus, ad sui perfectionem neque filio neque spiritu sancto indiget. Quod enim pater non sit indigens, dubium non est: sic enim neque filius neque spiritus sanctus indigens est. Illud enim proprie est indigens cui in se considerato aliquid deest ad suam perfectionem: quod non potest dici neque de patre neque de filio, neque de spiritu sancto.
||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”.
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.
|Sed tamen non posset esse pater perfectus, nisi filium haberet, quia nec pater sine filio esset, nec esset Deus perfectus, nisi haberet verbum, et nisi haberet spiramen vitae, sicut idem Athanasius dicit in tertio sermone gestorum Nicaeni Concilii, sic inquiens de Arianis, qui negabant filium et spiritum sanctum esse coessentiales patri: dicunt sterilem esse et infructuosam naturam paternam, quae omnibus rebus insitam et propagativam similium dedit naturam. Et mutum faciunt patrem et sine verbo, qui omnibus rationalibus facultatem dedit loquendi. Mortuum etiam ipsum patrem dicunt, et expertem viventis naturae, inquantum scilicet negant spiritum sanctum coessentialem patri. In quo apparet quod non esset pater Deus perfectus, nisi filium et spiritum haberet. Idem etiam Athanasius dicit in epistola ad Serapionem, quod pater non potuit creare creaturam nisi per verbum, et deificandis creaturis se non potest communicare nisi per idem verbum: et similiter nec filius nisi in spiritu sancto.
||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,”
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.”
|Commune ergo est patri et filio et spiritui sancto, quod nullus eorum sit indigens. Item commune est cuilibet eorum quod nullus sine aliis duobus potest esse Deus perfectus. Sed hac ratione proprie de patre dicit Athanasius, quod ad sui perfectionem filio et spiritu sancto non indiget, quia ipse suam perfectionem non habet ab alio; filius autem et spiritus sanctus suam perfectionem habent a patre. Unde idem Athanasius dicit in epistola ad Serapionem: non ratione filii, nec ratione spiritus sancti pater existit plenus beatus Deus. Neque enim a supra se habet a quo sit, neque ab infra se habet a quo habeat, idest quod sit a filio, vel a spiritu sancto.
||It is, therefore, 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.”
Quomodo intelligitur quod spiritus sanctus dicatur ingenitus
How the Holy Spirit is to be understood as unbegotten.
|Item videtur esse dubium quod Gregorius Nazianzenus in sermone de Epiphania dicit, quod spiritus sanctus secundum quod est inde procedit ut sit ingenitus et non filius, medius ingeniti genitique. Non enim videtur quod spiritus sanctus ingenitus dici possit. Hilarius enim dicit in Lib. de synodis, quod si quis duos ingenitos dicit, duos deos facit. Et Athanasius dicit in epistola ad Serapionem, quod non est ingenitus spiritus sanctus, quia imprincipiatum esse et ingenitum soli Deo patri Catholica Ecclesia congregata apud Nicaeam recte et fideliter attribuit, et de solo patre hoc esse credendum et praedicandum, sub anathemate toti mundo mandavit.
||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.”
Now it does not seem that the Holy Spirit can be said to be unbegotten. For Hilary in his book on the Synods
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.”
|Sed dicendum, quod ingenitus dupliciter accipi potest. Uno modo pro eo quod caret principio, et sic soli patri convenit, ut ex dictis Athanasii patet. Alio modo pro eo quod non est genitum, licet sit principium habens, et sic non solum Gregorius Nazianzenus in verbis praemissis, sed etiam Hieronymus in regulis definitionum contra haereticos spiritum sanctum dicit esse ingenitum.
||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
in his rules for definitions against heretics says the Holy Spirit is unbegotten.
Quomodo intelligitur quod spiritus sanctus dicitur medius patris et filii
How the Holy Spirit is to be understood as the mean between Father and Son.
|Item in verbis praemissis Gregorii Nazianzeni dubium est quod dicit, spiritum sanctum esse medium ingeniti genitique, idest patris et filii, cum magis dicatur esse tertius, vel tertia in Trinitate persona, ut supra dictum est.
||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,”
that is, between Father and Son, whereas he should rather be termed third or third person in the Trinity, as noted previously (chapter 2).
|Sed dicendum, quod non dicitur esse medius secundum ordinem enumerationis, qui respondet ordini originis, sic enim filius medius est inter patrem et spiritum sanctum; sed dicitur medius quasi communis nexus amborum: est enim communis amor patris et filii. Et similiter exponendum est quod Epiphanius dicit in libro de Trinitate, quod spiritus sanctus est in medio patris et filii.
||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.”
Quomodo intelligitur hoc quod dicitur, quod spiritus sanctus sit imago filii
How the Holy Spirit is to be understood as the image of the Son.
|Item in pluribus locis harum auctoritatum dicitur, quod spiritus sanctus sit imago filii, sicut Athanasius in sermone tertio Nicaeni Concilii: spiritus sanctus patris et filii una deifica et vivifica dicitur et est veritas, imago filii, ipsum per omnia in se essentialiter tenens, naturaliter repraesentat, quemadmodum et filius est imago patris; et in epistola ad Serapionem: spiritus sanctus ipsum filium in se continet naturaliter, tanquam eius vera et naturalis imago. Item Basilius: spiritus sanctus dicitur digitus, spiramen, unctio, sufflatio, sensus Christi, processio, productio, missio, emanatio, effusio, vaporatio, splendor, imago, character, Deus verus; et iterum: spiritus sanctus a patre et filio tertius vera et naturalis imago patris et filii existit, ipse utrumque nobis naturaliter repraesentans.
||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.”
And in his letter to Serapion: “The Holy Spirit naturally contains the Son within himself as his true and natural image.”
And Basil: “The Holy Spirit is called the finger, breath, unction, breeze, mind of Christ, procession, production, mission, emanation, effusion, warmth, splendor, image, mark, true God.”
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.”
|Apud Latinos autem non consuevit dici quod spiritus sanctus sit imago patris vel filii. Dicit enim Augustinus in VI de Trinitate, quod verbum solus filius accipitur, et quod sic verbum dicitur quomodo imago, et quod solus filius est imago patris, quemadmodum et filius. Richardus etiam de sancto Victore in suo libro de Trinitate assignat rationem, quare spiritus sanctus non possit dici imago, sicut filius; quia scilicet, licet patri sit similis in natura, sicut et filius, non tamen convenit cum eo in aliqua proprietate relativa, sicut convenit filius cum patre in spiratione activa spiritus sancti.
||Among the Latins,
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.”
Richard of St. Victor in his book on the Trinity
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.
|Quidam etiam huius rationem assignant, quod propter hoc spiritus sanctus non potest dici imago, quia esset imago duorum, scilicet patris et filii, cum sit a duobus: non potest autem duorum esse una imago. In auctoritate etiam sacrae Scripturae, quam praetergredi non licet de divinis loquentes, expresse habetur quod filius sit imago patris: dicitur enim Coloss. I, 13: transtulit nos in regnum filii dilectionis suae, in quo habemus remissionem peccatorum, qui est imago Dei invisibilis; et Hebr. I, 3, dicitur de filio: cum sit splendor gloriae et figura substantiae eius.
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.”
|Sed sciendum, quod a sanctis Graecis duae auctoritates sacrae Scripturae inducuntur, in quibus videtur dici quod spiritus sanctus sit imago filii. Dicitur enim Rom. VIII, 29: quos praescivit et praedestinavit conformes fieri imaginis filii sui. Imago autem filii nihil aliud videtur esse quam spiritus sanctus. Item I ad Cor. XV, 49, dicitur: sicut portavimus imaginem terreni, portemus et imaginem caelestis, idest Christi;
||It should be kept in mind, however, that the saintly Greeks
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
|per quam imaginem intelligunt spiritum sanctum, licet in his auctoritatibus non expresse spiritus sanctus imago dicatur. Potest enim intelligi, quod homines conformentur imagini filii, vel quod portent imaginem Christi inquantum ipsi homines sancti per dona gratiarum, ut sint similes Christo, perficiuntur, secundum illud apostoli II ad Cor. III, 18: nos omnes revelata facie gloriam domini speculantes, in eandem imaginem transformamur a claritate in claritatem tanquam a domini spiritu. Hic enim imaginem non dicit esse spiritum Christi, sed aliquid a spiritu Dei in nobis existens.
||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.
|Sed quia praesumptuosum est tantorum doctorum tam expressis auctoritatibus contraire, possumus quidem dicere spiritum sanctum esse imaginem patris et filii, ita quod per imaginem nihil aliud intelligatur quam existens ab alio et eius similitudinem gerens. Si autem per imaginem intelligatur aliquid existens ab altero, ex ipsa suae originis ratione habens quod similitudinem gerat eius a quo existit, inquantum est ab altero, ut filius genitus, vel ut verbum conceptum, sic solus filius dicitur imago: de ratione enim filii est quod similitudinem patris habeat in quacumque natura; et similiter de ratione verbi est quod sit similitudo eius quod verbo exprimitur, cuiuscumque sit verbum; sed non est de ratione spiritus vel amoris, quod sit similitudo eius cuius est, in omnibus. Sed hoc in spiritu Dei verificatur propter divinae essentiae unitatem et simplicitatem, ex qua oportet quod quidquid est in Deo, sit Deus.
||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.
|Nec obstat ad rationem imaginis quod spiritus sanctus non convenit cum patre in aliqua personali proprietate, quia similitudo et aequalitas divinarum personarum non attenditur secundum proprietates personales, sed secundum attributa essentialia. Neque enim inaequalitas et dissimilitudo secundum personalium proprietatum differentiam in divinis dici debet, sicut Augustinus dicit in libro contra Maximinum. Cum dicitur filius a patre genitus, non ostenditur inaequalitas substantiae, sed ordo naturae. Similiter etiam non obstat quod spiritus sanctus est a duobus. Est enim a duobus, inquantum sunt unum, cum pater et filius sint unum principium spiritus sancti.
||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.”
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.
Quomodo intelligitur quod spiritus sanctus dicitur verbum filii
How the Holy Spirit is to be understood to be the word of the Son.
|Item videtur esse falsum quod Basilius dicit in III sermone de spiritu sancto contra Eunomium haereticum: sicut, inquit, filius se habet ad patrem, eodem modo spiritus sanctus se habet ad filium. Et propter hoc Dei quidem verbum filius, verbum autem filii spiritus. Portansque omnia, inquit apostolus, verbo virtutis suae. Verbum enim, ut Augustinus dicit in Lib. de Trinitate, solus filius est. Unde et Ioannes nomen verbi pro nomine filii ponit, tam in principio Evangelii sui cum dicit: in principio erat verbum; quam etiam in sua canonica ubi dicit: tres sunt qui testimonium dant in caelo: pater, verbum et spiritus sanctus. Nec refert, si quis translationem mutet, ut loco verbi eloquium ponat: nam id quod quis loquitur, verbum eius est. Unde sicut solus filius in divinitate est verbum, ita solus est eloquium.
||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.”
For as Augustine says in the book on the Trinity,
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.
|Sed dicendum, quod verbum Dei quandoque dicitur etiam sermo divinitus inspiratus et prolatus: et de hoc verbo hic Basilius intelligit, dicens spiritum sanctum esse verbum vel eloquium filii effective, inquantum sancti ab eo inspirati de filio sunt locuti, secundum quod dicitur Ioan. XVI, 13, de spiritu sancto: quaecumque audiet, loquetur. Et quod hic sit intellectus Basilii, patet ex eo quod subdit: ex quo eloquium filii per Deum: gladium spiritus, dicit, sumite, quod est verbum Dei. Ipsum enim verbum fidei a sanctis prolatum, gladius spiritus manifeste dicitur.
||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
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.”
For the very word of faith uttered by the saints is obviously called the sword of the Spirit.
Quomodo intelligitur quod dicitur, quod nomine Christi intelligitur spiritus sanctus
How by the name of Christ is to be understood the Holy Spirit.
|Item dubium esse videtur quod Cyrillus in Lib. thesaurorum videtur dicere, quod aliquando nomine Christi spiritus sanctus intelligatur, sic inquiens: apostolus appellatione Christi spiritum Christum vocavit; ait enim: si in vobis Christus est, corpus quidem mortuum est et cetera. Et post pauca: spiritus sanctus in nomine Christi operando, et eundem Christum in se repraesentando, nomen Christi accipere, et Christus ab apostolo appellari dicitur.
||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.”
|Hoc autem videtur esse contra personarum distinctionem, ut nomen unius personae alteri attribuatur. Sicut enim pater nunquam est filius, nec e converso, ita filius nunquam est spiritus sanctus, nec e converso. Non potest ergo nomen Christi de spiritu sancto praedicari, neque igitur pro spiritu sancto poni.
||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,
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.
|Sed dicendum, quod dictus pater appellatione Christi dicit spiritum Christum vocari, vel nomen Christi accipere, et Christus appellari, non quasi Christus de spiritu sancto praedicetur, vel e converso (hoc enim esset Sabellianae impietatis), sed intelligitur in nomine Christi spiritus sanctus ratione concomitantiae, quia ubicumque est Christus, est spiritus Christi, sicut ubicumque est pater, est filius. Unde interponit: numquid in hoc veritatis praedicator, scilicet apostolus, veritatem inconfusibilium personarum confudit sabellizando? Non, sed potius hoc Ecclesiae indicare curavit ut spiritus sanctus non sit alienus a natura verbi.
||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.”
Quomodo intelligitur quod dicitur: quod spiritus sanctus non mittit filium
How the assertion that the Holy Spirit does not send the Son is to be understood.
|Item dubium esse videtur quod Athanasius dicit in III sermone Nicaeni Concilii, loquens de Arianis. Non, inquit, ut asserunt alienati a gratia Evangelii, et privati Deo spiritu, spiritus gratificat et mittit filium, propter quod audierunt: et nunc dominus misit me, et spiritus eius: Isai. XLVIII, 16; et alibi: spiritus domini super me: Isai. LXI, I. Hoc enim videtur esse contrarium ei quod Augustinus dicit in Lib. de Trinitate, quod filius sit missus a spiritu sancto, probans hoc per auctoritates inductas. Nec solum a spiritu sancto, sed etiam a se ipso probat eum missum, quia est missus a tota Trinitate.
||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.”
Now, this seems to contradict what Augustine says in his book on the Trinity
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.
|Sed dicendum quod in missione divinae personae duo possunt considerari: primo auctoritas personae mittentis ad personam quae mittitur; secundo effectus in creatura, ratione cuius persona divina mitti dicitur. Cum enim personae divinae sint ubique per essentiam, praesentiam et potentiam, secundum hoc persona mitti dicitur, secundum quod novo modo per aliquem novum effectum incipit esse in creatura: sicut filius dicitur esse missus in mundum, inquantum novo modo incepit esse in mundo per visibilem carnem quam assumpsit, secundum illud apostoli Gal. IV, 4: misit Deus filium suum, factum ex muliere, factum sub lege. Dicitur etiam mitti spiritualiter et invisibiliter ad aliquem, inquantum per sapientiae donum in eo incipit inhabitare: de qua missione dicitur Sap. IX, 10: mitte illam, scilicet sapientiam, a sede magnitudinis tuae, ut mecum sit et mecum laboret. Similiter etiam spiritus sanctus ad aliquem mitti dicitur, inquantum ipsum inhabitare incipit per donum caritatis, secundum illud Rom. V, 5: caritas Dei diffusa est in cordibus nostris per spiritum sanctum, qui datus est nobis.
||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.”
|Si ergo in missione divinae personae consideretur auctoritas mittentis ad personam missam, sic sola persona potest aliam mittere a qua est persona missa: et secundum hoc pater mittit filium, et filius spiritum sanctum, non autem spiritus sanctus filium; et sic Athanasius loquitur. Si autem in missione personae divinae consideretur effectus, ratione cuius persona mitti dicitur, cum effectus sit communis toti Trinitati (nam tota Trinitas operata est carnem Christi, et operatur sapientiam et caritatem in sanctis), tunc potest dici, quod persona mittitur a tota Trinitate; et sic intelligit Augustinus.
||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.
|Sed tamen sciendum quod licet persona divina interdum secundum Augustinum dicatur mitti a persona a qua non procedit, non tamen persona quae a nullo procedit, potest dici quod mittatur. Pater enim, quia a nullo est, a nullo mittitur, licet per aliquod novum gratiae donum hominem inhabitet, et ad hominem venire dicatur, secundum illud Ioan. XIV, v. 23: pater meus diliget eum, et ad eum veniemus, et mansionem apud eum faciemus. Sic ergo in persona quae mittitur, requiritur quod aeternaliter ab aliqua persona procedat, sed non est necessarium quod procedat aeternaliter ab illa persona a qua mittitur, sed sufficit quod ab illa persona sit effectus secundum quem mittitur. Et hoc dico secundum modum quo Augustinus loquitur de missione.
||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.
|Sed secundum Graecos, persona non mittitur nisi ab illa a qua procedit aeternaliter: unde filius non mittitur a spiritu sancto, nisi forte secundum quod est homo. Propter quod Basilius auctoritates praedictas exponit, ut per spiritum intelligatur pater, secundum quod spiritus essentialiter sumitur, ut habetur Ioan. IV, 24: Deus spiritus est; et sic etiam Hilarius exponit in Lib. de Trinitate.
||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
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.
Quomodo intelligitur quod Deus non habitaverit per gratiam in hominibus ante Christi incarnationem
How God is to be understood as not dwelling in men before the incarnation of Christ.
|Item dubium esse videtur quod dicit Athanasius ad Serapionem: impossibile erat secundum praedeterminationem divinae rationis ut Ecclesia Deum invisibilem formam et incorpoream immediate nudam reciperet; sed consubstantiavit se Deus eidem Ecclesiae, formam eius in se assumens. Ex quo videtur quod ante Christi incarnationem Deus per gratiam in hominibus non habitaret. Quod etiam quidam haeretici dicere praesumpserunt occasione illius quod dicitur Ioan. VII, 11: nondum erat spiritus datus, quia nondum erat Iesus glorificatus.
||Doubt provoking also is a statement of Athanasius to Serapion: “According to the forechoice of the divine counsel it was impossible that the Church of the Lord should directly receive an invisible form, incorporeal and unclothed, but the Lord made himself of one substance with the Church by assuming her form to himself.”
This would seem to imply that before the incarnation of Christ God did not dwell in man by grace. Certain heretics
presumptuously asserted this while commenting on the Gospel of John (7:39): “As yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not net glorified.”
|Utrumque autem eodem modo est intelligendum. Nam sicut dicitur quod spiritus sanctus non fuerit ante datus, quia non in tanta plenitudine datus fuerat, in quanta apostoli eum post Christi resurrectionem acceperunt, ita etiam Ecclesia in tanta plenitudine gratiae Deum accipere non potuit secundum ordinationem divinam, in quanta accepit per Christi incarnationem, quia gratia et veritas per Iesum Christum facta est, ut habetur Ioan. I, 17. Unde in sermone Nicaeni Concilii Athanasius dicit: equidem ipsos consummari et perfici impossibile est, nisi ego perfectum suscipiam hominem. Quod eodem modo intelligendum est sicut et quod supra dictum est.
||Both texts are to be interpreted in the same way. For just as it is said that the Holy Spirit was not given previously because he was not yet given with the same fullness as when he was received by the Apostles after the resurrection of Christ, so the Church was not able to receive the gift of grace with the same fullness as, in accord with the divine ordinance, she received it through the incarnation of Christ, since grace and truth as John says (1:17) came through Jesus Christ. Therefore, in his discourse on the Council of Nicaea Athanasius says: “It is indeed impossible that they should be consummated and perfected unless I assume a perfect man.”
This is to be understood in the sense above.
|Ideo autem dicit secundum praedeterminationem divinam, quia possibile erat Deo alio modo quam per Christi incarnationem, perfectionem gratiae humano generi conferre, loquendo de potentia absoluta; sed non potuit humanum genus hanc plenitudinem aliter consequi, supposita Dei ordinatione.
||There, however, the qualification “in accord with the divine forechoice” was added, because, although it was possible for God by his absolute power to confer the perfection of grace on the human race in a way other than the incarnation of Christ, it was not possible, given the divine ordinance, for the human race to acquire this fullness of grace in any other way.
Quomodo intelligitur, essentiam divinam conceptam esse et natam
How the divine essence is to be understood as conceived and born.
|Item videtur esse dubium quod Athanasius dicit in epistola ad Serapionem, essentiam divinam increatam, conceptam esse et natam ex divina virgine matre. Magister enim in III Sentent., dist. VIII, dicit, quod quae res non est de patre genita, non videtur de matre esse nata, ne res aliqua filiationis nomen habeat in humanitate quae non habet in divinitate. Et sic, cum divina essentia non sit nata de patre, non potest dici esse de matre.
||Likewise doubtprovoking are these words of Athanasius in his letter to Serapion: “The uncreated divine essence was conceived and born of the Virgin Mary.”
Now, the Master says in his third book of the Sentences, dist. VIII,
that what is not begotten of the Father is not properly said to be born of the Mother, lest some reality, of which the term filiation is not predicated in the divine order, should enjoy such predication in the human. Hence, since the divine essence is not born of the Father, so neither can it be said to be born of the Mother.
| Sed dicendum, quod sicut improprie essentia divina dicitur generans vel genita secundum generationem aeternam, inquantum essentia ponitur pro persona, ut intelligatur essentia generare, quia pater, qui est essentia generat; secundum eundem modum dicitur essentia divina nata de virgine, quia filius Dei, qui est divina essentia, est de virgine natus.
||But it is to be noted that just as the divine essence is said improperly to beget or to be begotten via an eternal generation in so far as the essence stands for person and so is understood to beget, because the Father who is the essence begets, so in the same way the divine essence is said to be born of the Virgin, because the Son of God, who is the divine essence, was born of the Virgin.
Quomodo intelligitur cum dicitur deitas homo facta
How the assertion that the deity was made is to be understood.
|Item potest esse dubium quod Athanasius dicit in eadem epistola: deitas homo facta, per suum spiritum sibi Ecclesiam conformavit. Dicit enim Magister in quinta distinctione tertii libri sententiarum, quod non debet dici quod divina natura sit caro facta, sicut dicitur: verbum caro factum est. Sic autem dicitur verbum caro factum est quia verbum homo factus est. Non ergo debet dici quod divina essentia, sive divinitas, facta sit homo.
||Doubt also arises from another passage of Athanasius in the same letter: “The Godhead made man has conformed the Church to himself through his Spirit.”
Now, the Master in the fifth distinction of the third book of the Sentences
states that the divine nature should not be said to have become flesh, as is said: The Word became flesh. For the statement: The Word became flesh, is made, because the Word was made man. Therefore it should not be said that the divine essence or divinity was made man.
|Sed dicendum, quod non dicitur divinitas esse facta homo quasi divina natura sit conversa in humanam, sed per illum modum quo dicitur quod natura divina assumpsit naturam humanam in una persona, scilicet verbi. Sicut etiam Damascenus dicit, quod natura divinitatis in una suarum personarum incarnata est, idest carni unita.
||But it is to be observed that the divinity is not said to have been made man because the divine nature was changed into human nature, but was made man in the sense that the divine nature is said to have assumed a human nature in the one person, namely, of the Word. As also the Damascene says that: “the nature of the divinity in one of its persons became incarnate,”
that is, united to flesh.
|Sciendum tamen, quod alia ratione dicitur quod verbum est homo, et quod divinitas est homo. Cum enim dicitur, verbum est homo, est praedicatio per informationem; quia scilicet persona verbi est subsistens in humana natura. Cum vero dicitur, divinitas est homo, non est praedicatio per informationem, quia humana natura non informat divinam, sed est praedicatio per identitatem; sicut etiam cum dicitur, essentia divina est pater, vel, essentia divina est filius: homo enim supponit pro persona filii, cum dicitur, divinitas est homo. Et eadem ratio veritatis est cum dicitur, divinitas facta est homo, quia incepit esse persona filii incarnata, quod importatur in nomine hominis, licet non inceperit esse filii persona: semper enim deitas fuit filius, sed non semper fuit homo.
||It should be recognized, however, that it is on a different basis that the Word is said to be man and the divinity is said to be man. For when it is said: The Word is man, the predication
involved is that via information, because the person of the Word subsists in a human nature. But, when it is said: the divinity is man, the predication is not via information, because the human nature does not inform the divine. Rather the predication is via identity, as when it is said: the divine essence is the Father, or: the divine essence is the Son; for man stands for the person of the Word when it is said: the divinity is man. And the same is true when it is said: the divinity is made man, because the person of the Son has begun to be incarnate, a fact implied by the term man, even though the person of the Son did not begin to be. For the deity was always Son, but not always man.
Quomodo intelligitur quod filius Dei assumpsit humanam naturam in sua essentia
How the Son of God is to be understood to have assumed a human nature in his essence.
|Item dubium videtur quod Athanasius dicit in III sermone Nicaeni Concilii de filio Dei loquens: in sua usia, idest essentia, nostram naturam a nobis assumpsit. Cum enim assumptio ad unionem terminetur: sicuti unio non est facta in natura, sed in persona, ita non videtur quod humana natura sit assumpta in essentia filii.
||Another doubt occurs when Athanasius says of the Son of God in his third discourse on the Council of Nicaea: “In his ousia, that is, essence, he assumed from us our human nature.”
Since assumption terminates at union, and the union was not effected in the nature but in the person, it therefore seems that the human nature was not assumed in the essence of the Son.
|Dicendum est ergo, quod locutio est impropria, et est sic exponenda: assumpsit naturam nostram in sua usia, idest ut esset unita suae usiae in una persona.
||Rather, this manner of speaking must be described as imprecise, and should be interpreted thus: He assumed our nature in his essence in such wise, namely, that it is united in his essence in the unity of the person.
Quomodo intelligitur cum dicitur, hominem esse assumptum
How the assertion that a man was assumed is to be understood.
|Item videtur esse dubium quod Athanasius dicit in eodem sermone, hominem esse assumptum, sic inquiens, ex persona filii loquens: pro pleno homine assumpto, plenum et perfectum hominibus donem spiritum sanctum Deum; et in epistola ad Serapionem: communio Ecclesiae est a patre per filium in spiritu sancto per deificum et Deum factum hominem ab eodem filio assumptum.
||Likewise perplexing in the same discourse by Athanasius is the assertion that man is assumed. Speaking in the person of the Son he says: “Having assumed man in full I have given the Holy Spirit fully and perfectly to men.”
And in his letter to Serapion he states: “The unity of the Church is from the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit through the deifying and deified man, assumed by the same Son.”
|Sciendum est autem, quod cum nihil sumat seipsum, oportet semper esse diversum assumens et assumptum, sicut et recipiens et receptum. Si ergo homo dicitur assumptus a filio Dei, oportet quod id quod supponitur nomine hominis, diversum sit ab eo quod supponitur in nomine filii Dei. Nomine autem hominis potest supponi vel aliqua persona hominis completa, vel saltem aliquod suppositum hominis, non habens rationem personae. Si ergo dicatur quod homo sit assumptus, secundum quod homo supponit pro aliqua persona humana, sic sequetur quod persona divina assumpsit humanam personam, et sic erunt duae personae in Christo: quod est haeresis Nestorianae; et ideo Augustinus dicit in Lib. de fide ad Petrum, quod Deus verbum non accepit personam hominis, sed naturam.
||It should be noted, however, that since no one assumes himself, the one assuming must be distinct from what is assumed, the recipient from what is received. If, therefore, man is said to be assumed by the Son of God, what is connoted by the term man must be diverse from what is connoted in the term Son of God. By the term man, however, can be connoted either a complete human person, or less: a human supposit not enjoying human personhood. If, therefore, the statement should be made that a man is assumed, where man connotes a human person, it will follow that a divine person has assumed a human person, and thus there will be two persons in Christ, which is the Nestorian heresy. Augustine, therefore, says in his book De fide ad Petrum that “God the Word did not take to himself the person of a man, but the nature.”
|Quidam vero dixerunt, volentes hunc errorem vitare, quod cum dicitur homo assumptus a verbo, in nomine hominis intelligitur quoddam suppositum humanae naturae, quod est hic homo, non tamen est persona hominis, quia non est per se separatim existens, sed est unitum alicui digniori, scilicet filio Dei. Et quia hoc suppositum hominis, quod significatur assumptum, cum dicitur homo assumptus, est aliud a supposito filii Dei, dicunt in Christo duo supposita, sed non duas personas.
wishing to avoid this error, have said that when a man is said to be assumed by the Word, by the term man is understood a supposit of human nature, namely, this man, but not a human person, because it does not exist separately of itself, but is united to someone of greater dignity, namely, the Son of God. And because this human supposit, which is designated as assumed when the phrase: assumed man, is used, is distinct from the supposit which is the Son of God, they affirm that these are two supposits in Christ, but not two persons.
|Sed ad hanc positionem sequitur quod haec propositio non sit vera: filius Dei est homo. Impossibile est enim quod duorum quorum unum est aliud secundum suppositum ab altero, unum de altero vere praedicetur. Et ideo communiter tenetur, quod sit unum tantum suppositum, quod supponitur nomine hominis, et nomine filii Dei. Ex quo sequitur quod haec sit falsa vel impropria: homo est assumptus; sed est exponenda: filius Dei assumpsit hominem, idest humanam naturam.
||But on this view, it follows that this proposition: the Son of God is a an, would not be true. For it is impossible
that of two things different from one another as two supposits one could truly be predicated of the other. And, therefore, it is commonly
held that there is but one supposit connoted by the term man and the term Son of God. From this it follows that the statement : man is assumed, is false or imprecise. It should be interpreted
to mean: The Son of God assumed man, that is, human nature.
Quomodo intelligitur quod dicitur, quod Deus fecit hominem Deum
How the assertion ‘God made man God’ is to be understood.
|Item dubium est de hoc quod Athanasius dicit in eadem epistola: filius Dei, ut hominem ad se reduceret, hominem in sua hypostasi assumens deificando Deum fecit; et in III sermone Nicaeni Concilii: ipsos consummari impossibile est, nisi ego perfectum suscipiam hominem, et deificem, et mecum Deum faciam. Ex quibus datur intelligi quod haec sit vera: homo factus est Deus.
||Another doubt arises from what Athanasius says in the same letter: “The Son of God, assuming man in his own hypostasis in order that he might lead man back to himself, made him God, deifying him.”
And in his third discourse on the Council of Nicaea: “It is impossible for them to be consummated unless I assume a perfect man and deify him and make him God with me.”
By this it is implied that the proposition: man has become God, is true.
|Sed sciendum, quod secundum illam opinionem quae in Christo dicit duo supposita, aequaliter utraque est vera: Deus factus est homo, et: homo factus est Deus. Est enim sensus secundum eos, cum dicitur, Deus factus est homo: suppositum divinae naturae unitum est supposito humanae naturae; et e converso cum dicitur, homo factus est Deus, sensus est: suppositum humanae naturae est unitum filio Dei.
||It is to be noted
that the propositions: God was made man, and man was made God, are equally true according to the opinion which claims there are two supposits in Christ, for when it is said: God was made man, from that point of view, is that a supposit of divine nature was united to the supposit of human nature: and conversely, when it is said that man was made God, the sense is that a supposit of human nature was united to the Son of God.
|Sed tenendo quod in Christo sit unum tantum suppositum, haec est vera et propria: Deus factus est homo, quia ille qui fuit Deus ab aeterno, incepit esse homo ex tempore. Haec autem non est vera proprie loquendo: homo factus est Deus; quia suppositum aeternum quod supponitur nomine hominis, semper fuit Deus; unde exponenda est sic: homo factus est Deus, idest, factum est ut homo sit Deus.
||But if it is maintained that in Christ there is but one supposit, then the statement : God was made man, is true in the proper sense, because he who was God from eternity began to be man in time. Properly speaking, however, this proposition is not true: man was made God, because the eternal supposit connoted by the term man was always God. Hence, the passages of Athanasius are to be explained thus: man was made God, that is, it came to be that man is God.
Quomodo intelligitur amotam esse a Christo imaginem primi parentis
How the likeness of the first parent is to be understood as erased in Christ.
|Item dubium est quod dicit Athanasius in praedicta epistola, ex persona Christi loquens: post resurrectionem amota a me omni imagine primi parentis, et abolita per trophaeum crucis, ego iam immortalis vos patri meo in filios adopto.
||Dubious also is what Athanasius in the aforesaid letter says speaking in the person of Christ after the resurrection: “Having erased in myself the likeness of the first parent, destroying it in the victory of the cross, I being now immortal make you the adopted sons of the Father.”
|Sciendum est enim, quod imaginem primi parentis tripliciter aliquis potest habere. Primo quidem quantum ad similitudinem naturae, sicut dicitur Genes. V, 2: vixit Adam centum triginta annis, et genuit filium ad imaginem et similitudinem suam. Secundo, quantum ad culpam, de quo dicitur I Corinth. XV, 49: sicut portavimus imaginem terreni, ita portemus imaginem caelestis. Tertio, secundum poenalitatem, sicut habetur Zach. XIII, 5: homo agricola ego sum, quoniam Adam exemplum meum ab adolescentia mea. Primam ergo Adae imaginem Christus assumpsit cum nostra natura, et nunquam deposuit; secundam vero nunquam habuit; tertiam assumpsit quidem, sed in resurrectione deposuit: et de hac loquitur Athanasius.
||Now, it is to be observed that a person may possess a likeness to the first parent in three ways. First, in terms of likeness in nature, as in Genesis (5: 3): When Adam had lived a hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness. Second, in terms of sin, as in 1 Cor. 15: Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall bear also the image of the man in heaven. Third, in terms of punishment, as in Zechariah (13:5): I am a tiller of the soil, for Adam has been my model from my youth. Christ assumed the first likeness to Adam in assuming our nature and he has never laid it aside; the second likeness he never had; and the third he did assume, but laid it aside at the resurrection, and it is of this third likeness that Athanasius speaks.
Quomodo intelligitur quod dicitur, quod creatura non potest cooperari creatori
How the assertion: the creature cannot cooperate with the Creator, is to be understood.
|Item dubium esse videtur de hoc quod Athanasius in sermone Nicaeni Concilii dicit: aut quomodo creatura creatori cooperatur, intiment nobis. Ex quo datur intelligi quod creatura creatori cooperari non possit: quod videtur esse falsum, cum sancti dicantur esse Dei adiutores et cooperatores, secundum apostolum.
||Perplexing also is what Athanasius says in his discourse on the Council of Nicaea: “Or let them tell us how the creature cooperates with the Creator.”
Thereby it is implied that the creature cannot cooperate with the Creator. This seems false, since the saints are said by the Apostle to be God’s helpers and fellow-workers.” (1 Cor. 3:9)
|Sed sciendum, quod aliquid dicitur cooperari alicui dupliciter. Uno modo, quia operatur ad eundem effectum, sed per aliam virtutem; sicut minister cooperatur domino, dum eius praeceptis obedit, et instrumentum artifici, a quo movetur. Alio modo dicitur aliquid cooperari alicui, inquantum operatur eandem operationem cum ipso: sicut si diceretur de duobus portantibus aliquod pondus, vel de pluribus trahentibus navem, quod unus alteri cooperetur.
||It must be borne in mind, however, that something is said to cooperate with another in two ways. First, because it works toward the same effect, but by a different power, as a servant cooperates with his lord, or an instrument with the artisan by whom it is moved. Second, something is said to cooperate with another in so far as it effects conjointly with another the same operation, as when two men carry a single burden or drag a boat.
|Secundum ergo primum modum creatura potest dici creatori cooperari quantum ad aliquos effectus, qui fiunt mediante creatura: non tamen quantum ad illos effectus qui sunt immediate a Deo, ut creatio et sanctificatio. Secundo autem modo creatura creatori non cooperatur, sed solum tres personae sibi invicem cooperantur, quia earum est operatio una; non autem ita quod quaelibet earum partem virtutis possideat, per quam operatio completur, sicut accidit in multis trahentibus navem: sic enim cuiuslibet virtus esset imperfecta; sed ita quod tota virtus ad operationem sufficiens est in qualibet trium personarum.
||A creature, therefore, can cooperate in the first way with the Creator in respect to effects which come to pass through the creature, but not in respect to those effects which are immediately from God such as creation and sanctification. A creature, however, does not cooperate in the second way with the Creator; only the three persons of the Trinity cooperate in this way, since theirs is a single operation: not, however, as if each possessed a part of the power by which the operation is performed as is the case with many men dragging a boat, for thus the power of each would be imperfect; but in the sense that the entire power sufficient for the effect is in each of the three Persons.
Quomodo intelligitur quod dicitur, creaturam creatori non esse propriam
How the assertion that the creature does not belong to the Creator, is to be understood.
|Item dubium videtur esse quod Basilius contra Arrium dicit, quod creatura increato non est propria: quod est contra id quod dicitur Ioannis I, 11: in propria venit.
||Dubious, too, is what Basil says in his book against Arius: “The creature does not belong to the Creator.”
This contradicts what is said in John (1:11) : He came unto his own.
|Sed hoc solvit Gregorius in quadam homilia dicens, quod creatura est propria Dei secundum potestatem, aliena vero secundum naturam, idest alterius naturae a Deo existens.
||But Gregory resolves this doubt in one of his homilies
when he says that the creature belongs to the Creator in relation to his power, but is foreign to him in relation to his nature, that is, exists of a nature different from God’s.
Quomodo intelligitur quod in Angelis, quantum ad naturam, non dicimus esse secundum et tertium
How our assertion that the angels by nature are not ranked second and third is to be understood.
|Item dubium est quod Basilius dicit contra Eunomium: in Angelis ordinatum dicimus unum principem, alium autem subiectum in natura, tamen non dicimus secundum et tertium. Ex quo videtur quod omnes in natura sunt aequales a Deo creati, ut posuit Origenes. Apud nos autem dicitur, quod sicut differunt in donis gratiarum, ita et in naturalibus bonis.
||Another doubt stems from what Basil says in his book against Eunomius: “We say that among the angels there is rank, one being prince and another subject, but we do not rank them as second or third by nature.”
This seems to imply that all the angels were created equal by God, as Origen held.
however, that as they differ in gifts of grace, so they differ in natural endowments.
|Sed dicendum, quod dicit Basilius, in Angelis non esse quantum ad naturam secundum et tertium, non est intelligendum quod unus non sit perfectioris naturae quam alius, sed quia omnes communicant in una generis natura, licet non in natura speciei.
||Basil’s assertion about the angels not being ranked second and third by nature, is not, therefore, to be interpreted as meaning that one is not naturally more perfect than another, but that all share one nature generically, although not specifically.
Quomodo intelligitur quod dicitur, quod docente Paulo etiam Seraphim addiscunt
How the assertion that even the Seraphim learn from Paul as a teacher is to be understood.
|Item dubium est quod dicit Cyrillus in libro thesaurorum, quod docente Paulo non solum humana ratio addiscit, verum etiam et Seraphim supernis mysteria cordis paterni occulta reserantur. Ex quo videtur quod ad Angelos etiam summos cognitio deveniat per homines. Et videtur hoc esse dictum propter id quod habetur Ephes. III, 8: mihi omnium sanctorum minimo data est gratia haec, in gentibus evangelizare investigabiles divitias gratiae Christi ut innotescat principibus et potestatibus in caelestibus per Ecclesiam multiformis sapientia Dei.
||Perplexing also is what Cyril says in his Thesaurus that “from Paul as teacher not only is human reason instructed but the hidden mysteries of the Father’s heart are disclosed to the Seraphim alone.”
This seems to mean that even to the highest angels knowledge comes from men. And the basis for this appears to be Ephesians (3:8): To me, the least of all the saints is granted this grace, to proclaim to the pagans the unfathomable riches of Christ, so that through the Church the manifold wisdom of God may be known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places.
|Sed contrarium huius docet Dionysius in IV cap. angelicae hierarchiae, ostendens quod cognitio divinorum prius ad Angelos quam ad homines pervenit; et in VII eiusdem libri capitulo dicit, quod Seraphim immediate a Deo edocentur. Et Augustinus dicit super Genesim ad litteram, quod non latuit Angelos mysterium regni caelorum, quod opportuno tempore revelatum est pro nostra salute.
||But Denis teaches the contrary in chapter four of the Angelic Hierarchy,
where he shows that the knowledge of things divine is received by the angels before men; and in chapter seven of the same book he says that the Seraphim are taught immediately
by God. And Augustine says in his literal commentary on Genesis
that “the mystery of the Kingdom of heaven was not hidden from the angels, the mystery revealed in due season for our salvation.”
|Et ideo dicendum est quod cum Angelorum non sit futura praenoscere, sed Dei solius, licet Angeli ipsum mysterium nostrae redemptionis a saeculis cognoverint, ut Augustinus dicit, tamen aliquas huius redemptionis circumstantias nesciverunt plene quandiu erant futura, sed eis completis, eorum notitiam acceperunt, sicut et aliorum quae praesentialiter fiunt. Non ergo sic intelligendum est quod docente Paulo mysteria divina supernis Seraphim sint revelata, quasi ipsi a Paulo didicerint, sed quia Paulo praedicante, et aliis apostolis, perficiebantur ea quae praesentialiter Angeli cognoscebant, et futura ignoraverant. Et hoc sonant verba Hieronymi dicentis, angelicas dignitates praefatum mysterium ad purum non intellexisse, donec completa est passio Christi, et apostolorum praedicatio per gentes dilatata.
||And so it is to be noted
that since future events are foreknown only to God and not to angels, although as Augustine says the angels knew the mystery of our redemption from the beginning,
they did not therefore know at all some circumstances of this redemption so long as such were still in the future. But once these were accomplished, they came to know them as they do other things actually occurring. Hence, the divine mysteries are not to be understood as being revealed to the highest Seraphim by Paul in the act of teaching, as if they had learned from Paul, but rather on the preaching of Paul and the other apostles there were accomplished those things which the angels came to know because present reality, but which had remained unknown to them so long as they were still in the future. And this is what the words of Jerome mean when he says that “the angels had no full understanding of the mystery until the passion of Christ was accomplished and the preaching of the Apostles extended to the Gentiles.”
Quomodo intelligitur cum dicitur, quod spiramen quod spiravit Deus in faciem hominis, non est anima rationalis, sed spiritus sancti effusio
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.
|Item dubium est quod Cyrillus dicit, quod cum dicitur Genes. I, quod spiravit Deus in faciem hominis spiraculum vitae, ut fieret homo in animam viventem: ipsum spiramen non dicimus animam: si enim esset anima inconvertibilis esset et non peccaret, quia de essentia esset divina: sed sancti spiritus effusionem in ipso principio superpositam humanae animae dixit Moyses;
||Another doubt arises from Cyril’s statement that “when in Genesis 1
God is said to have breathed the breath of life into the face of man in order that man might become a living being, we do not call this breath of life the soul. For were it the soul, the soul would be unchangeable and would not sin because it would be of the divine essence; rather Moses said the outpouring of the Holy Spirit was superimposed on the human soul.
|quod est contra expositionem Augustini, qui animam humanam per illud spiramen ponit, et ostendit quod non propter hoc sequitur quod sit de substantia divina. Est enim tropica locutio, ut dicatur inspirasse non corporaliter, sed quia spiritum, idest animam, fecit ex nihilo. Et quod est amplius, videtur esse repugnans dictis apostoli, qui I ad Cor. XV, 45, dicit: factus est primus homo Adam in animam viventem; novissimus Adam in spiritum vivificantem; sed non prius quod spirituale est, sed quod animale. Ubi expresse illam vitam animae dicit esse aliam a vita quae est per spiritum sanctum: unde illa inspiratio per quam dicitur homo factus in animam viventem, non potest de gratia spiritus sancti intelligi.
||This is contrary to the explanation of Augustine
who claims that by that breath is meant the human soul, and who shows how from this it does not follow that it is of the divine substance: for it is a figurative way of speaking,
meaning not that the Holy Spirit breathed as a body, but only that he made the spirit, that is the soul, out of nothing. And what is more, it appears to contradict statements of the Apostle who says in 1 Cor. 15 (45): The first Adam became a living being; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. But it is not the spiritual which is first but the physical, and then the spiritual”. Here the life of the soul is expressly declared to be different from the life which is through the Holy Spirit. Hence that inbreathing by which man became a living being cannot be understood as the grace of the Holy Spirit.
|Unde dicendum est, quod expositio Cyrilli non potest esse litteralis, sed solum allegorica.
||Hence, Cyril’s explanation cannot be described as literal, but only allegorical.
Quomodo intelligitur quod qui semel blasphemat, impossibile est non blasphemare
How the impossibility of not blaspheming for one who has once blasphemed is to be understood.
|Item dubium esse potest de hoc quod Athanasius in epistola ad Serapionem dicit, quod Arianos qui non semel tantum, sed pluries blasphemarunt, impossibile est non blasphemare: quod videtur esse libertati arbitrii repugnans.
||Still another doubt arises from the statement of Athanasius in the letter to Serapion that it was impossible “for Arians who had not only once but often blasphemed not to blaspheme.”
This appears to contradict the freedom of the will.
|Sed dicendum, quod impossibile hic pro difficili sumitur, quae difficultas ex consuetudine provenit; sicut et Ier. XIII, 23, dicitur: si mutare potest Aethiops pellem suam, et vos poteritis benefacere, cum didiceritis malum.
||But here impossible must be taken as the equivalent of difficult, the difficulty stemming from habit as Jeremiah (13:23) says: Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil.
Quomodo intelligitur quod dicitur, quod fides non sit nobis ministrata per Angelos
How the assertion that faith is not ministered to us by angels is to be understood.
|Item dubium est de hoc quod Athanasius dicit quod fides nobis administrata est non ab Angelis, neque a signis et portentis; cum dicatur Hebr. II, 4, quod fides annuntiata est contestante Deo signis et portentis.
||A further difficulty centers on Athanasius’ assertion that “faith is given us neither by angels nor by signs and wonders,”
whereas in Hebrews 2:4 it is said that faith was proclaimed, God bearing witness by signs and wonders.
|Sed intelligendum est, quod fides nostra non habet auctoritatem neque ab Angelis, neque ab aliquibus miraculis factis, sed a revelatione patris per filium et spiritum sanctum; licet et Angeli ea quae sunt fidei nostrae revelaverint aliquibus, ut Zachariae, et Mariae, et Ioseph; et etiam ad fidei robur miracula plurima facta sint.
||But our faith is to be understood as deriving its authority not from angels nor from any miracles worked, but from the revelation of the Father through the Son and the Holy Spirit; although angels also revealed some matters pertaining to our faith to certain persons, such as Zachary and Mary and Joseph,
and many miracles were also worked to strengthen the faith.
Quomodo intelligitur quod dicitur littera mortalis etiam novi testamenti
How the assertion that even the New Testament is a death-dealing letter is to be understood.
|Item dubium est quod Athanasius dicit in epistola ad Serapionem: littera mortalis haec est: ab initio et ante saecula, etc.; et subiungit multa testimonia de veteri et novo testamento. Littera autem legis novae non videtur esse littera mortis, sic enim non differret a littera veteris legis, de qua dicitur II Cor. III, 6, quod littera occidit.
||A further difficulty arises from a text of Athanasius in the letter to Serapion: “This is a deathdealing letter: From the beginning and before all ages I was created, etc. (Eccl. 24: 14),
and he adds many illustrations from the Old and New Testaments. The letter, however, of the New Testament does not seem to be deathdealing; for thus it would not differ from the letter of the Old Testament, about which 2 Cor. 3:6 says that the letter kills.
|Sed dicendum, quod neque littera novi testamenti neque veteris occidit nisi per occasionem. Sed occasionem mortis ex littera accipiunt aliqui dupliciter. Uno modo inquantum ex littera sacra accipiunt occasionem erroris; et hoc est commune tam litterae veteris testamenti, quam novi: unde et Petrus dicit, II canonicae, ult. 16, quod in epistolis Pauli sunt quaedam difficilia intellectu, quae indocti et instabiles depravant, sicut et ceteras Scripturas, ad suam damnationem.
||But a correct formulation should say that neither the letter of the New Testament nor that of the Old kills, except occasionally. Occasion of death some take in a twofold sense. In one sense, in so far as the sacred text is an occasion of error, something common both to the letter of the Old as well as the New Testament; hence St. Peter says in his second letter (3:16) that in the letters of St. Paul there are some things hard to understand, which the ignorant an unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do not understand the scriptures.
|Alio modo inquantum ex praeceptis in littera sacrae Scripturae contentis sumitur occasio male vivendi, dum per prohibitionem concupiscentia augetur, et gratia adiuvans non confertur; et sic littera veteris testamenti dicitur mortalis, non autem littera novi.
||In another way, in so far as the precepts contained in Holy Scripture become the occasion for evil living, concupiscence being intensified by its prohibition when helping grace is not given; and in this way the letter of the Old Testament is said to be deathdealing, but not the letter of the New.
Quomodo intelligitur quod sola definitio Nicaeni Concilii est unica et vera possessio fidelium
How the sole definition of the Nicene Council is to be understood as the unique and true possession of the faithful.
|Item dubium est de hoc quod dicit Athanasius in eadem epistola quod sola paterna definitio Nicaeni Concilii, emuncta a spiritu et non littera, est unica et vera possessio orthodoxorum. Posset enim aliquis intelligere, quod definitio dicti Concilii, auctoritate praeferatur litterae veteris, vel novi testamenti, quod est omnino falsum.
||Doubt also arises from the same letter where Athanasius says that “only the definition of the Fathers of the Council of Nicaea, discerned in the spirit and not in the letter, is the unique and true possession of the orthodox.”
Someone might interpret this as implying that the definition of the said Council enjoys greater authority than the letter of the Old Testament, which is absolutely false.
|Intelligendum est autem quod per dictum Concilium verus intellectus ex sacra Scriptura est acceptus quem soli Catholici habent, licet littera sacrae Scripturae sit communis Catholicis et haereticis et Iudaeis.
||The text, however, must be read in the sense that through the said Council the true meaning of Sacred Scripture is perceived, a meaning which only Catholics possess, although the letter of Sacred Scripture is common to Catholics and heretics and Jews.
|His igitur expositis, ostendendum est quomodo ex auctoritatibus in praedicto libello contentis vera fides docetur, et contra errores defenditur. Considerandum siquidem est, quod in hoc apparuit filius Dei, ut dissolvat opera Diaboli, ut dicitur I Ioan. III, 8, unde et Diabolus versa vice ad hoc totum suum conatum apposuit et apponit, ut ea quae sunt Christi, dissolvat. Quod quidem primo per tyrannos facere tentavit, Christi martyres corporaliter occidentes; sed postmodum per haereticos, per quos spiritualiter plurimos interfecit. Unde si quis diligenter inspiciat haereticorum errores, ad hoc principaliter videntur tendere, ut Christi derogent dignitati.
||After these explanations, then, we proceed now to show how on the basis of the authorities contained in the aforementioned book the true faith is taught and defended against error. It is to be kept in mind that the Son of God appeared precisely in order to destroy the works of the devil, as stated in 1 John 3:8). Hence, he has exerted and continues to exert his every energy in the opposite direction to destroy the work of Christ. He attempted to do this initially via tyrants who inflicted bodily death on the ministers of Christ: subsequently, however, via heretics through whom he worked the spiritual death of many. Hence, on careful examination the errors of heretics appear tending mainly to diminish the dignity of Christ.
|Derogavit namque dignitati Christi Arrius, dum filium Dei coessentialem patri esse negavit, eum asserens creaturam. Derogavit et Macedonius, qui dum spiritum sanctum creaturam esse dixit, filio subtraxit auctoritatem spirandi divinam personam. Derogavit et Manichaeus: qui dum visibilia a malo Deo creata asseruit, per filium omnia esse creata negavit. Dissolvit et quae sunt Christi, Nestorius, qui dum aliam personam esse filii hominis, et aliam filii Dei docuit, Christum esse aliquid unum negavit. Dissolvit et Eutyches, qui dum ex duabus naturis, divina scilicet et humana, in Christi incarnatione unam conficere voluit, utramque subtraxit: quod enim ex duobus conficitur, neutrum eorum veraciter dici potest. Dissolvit et Pelagius, qui dum gratia nos non indigere ad capessendam salutem confixit, adventum filii Dei in carnem frustravit: gratia enim et veritas per Iesum Christum facta est: Ioan. I, 17. Derogavit et Christo Iovinianus, qui dum virgines in coniugio viventibus aequavit, dignitati Christi detraxit, qua eum natum de virgine confitemur. Derogavit et Vigilantius, qui dum paupertatem pro Christo susceptam impugnavit, perfectioni, quam Christus servavit et docuit, contradixit; unde non immerito dicitur I Ioan. IV, 3: omnis spiritus qui solvit Iesum, ex Deo non est, et hic est Antichristus.
||Indeed, Arius diminished the dignity of Christ by destroying that He was the Son of God consubstantial with the Father and by asserting Him to be a creature. Macedonius, by asserting that the Holy Spirit is a creature, took from the Son the honor of spirating a divine person. Mani diminished the dignity of Christ when he claimed that visible things were created by an evil God, thereby denying that all things were created through the Son. So, too, Nestorius destroyed what belonged to Christ, for in making one Person in Christ the son of man and another the Son of God he denied the unity of Christ. So, too, Eutyches, who by asserting that in the incarnation of Christ one nature was formed out of two, namely, the divine and the human, in fact deprived Him of both natures; for what is a composite of two things cannot truly be said to be either. Pelagius also dissolved Christ, for by saying that we do not need grace to attain salvation, he rendered Christ’s coming pointless; for, as stated in John 1:17: Grace and truth come through Jesus Christ. Jovinian lessened the dignity of Christ when he said that married persons were the equal of virgins, since we profess that Christ was born of a Virgin. Vigilantius lessened the dignity of Christ, when in attacking poverty embraced for the love of Christ he spoke against the perfection which Christ observed and taught. Therefore, it is justly remarked in 1 John 4:3 : Every spirit that dissolves Jesus is not of God, but is the Antichrist.
|Sic ergo et in hoc tempore aliqui esse dicuntur qui solvere Christum tentant, eius dignitatem quantum in ipsis est minuentes. Dum enim dicunt spiritum sanctum a filio non procedere, eius dignitatem minuunt, qua simul cum patre est spiritus sancti spirator. Dum vero unum caput Ecclesiae esse negant, sanctam scilicet Romanam Ecclesiam, manifeste unitatem corporis mystici dissolvunt: non enim potest esse unum corpus, si non fuerit unum caput, neque una congregatio, si non fuerit unus rector; unde Ioan. X, 16, dicitur: fiet unum ovile et unus pastor.
||So, also, at the present time
are described as dissolving Christ by diminishing His dignity so far as this lies in their power. In saying that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son, they lessen His dignity, since He together with the Father is the Spirator of the Holy Spirit. In denying, moreover, that there is one head of the Church, namely, the holy Roman Church, they clearly dissolve the unity of the Mystical Body; for there cannot be one body if there is not one head, nor one congregation if there is not one ruler. Hence, John 10:16 says: There will be one fold and one shepherd.
|Dum vero sacramentum altaris ex azymis posse confici negant, manifeste ipsi Christo repugnant, qui prima die azymorum, quando nihil fermentatum secundum legem debebat in Iudaeorum domibus inveniri, Evangelistae tradunt eum hoc sacramentum instituisse. Videntur etiam et puritati ipsius sacramentalis corporis Christi derogare, ad quam apostolus fideles exhortatur, dicens, I ad Corinth. V, 8, quod non est epulandum in fermento malitiae et nequitiae, sed in azymis sinceritatis et veritatis. Huius etiam sacramenti virtutem minuunt dum Purgatorium negant, quod in Ecclesia communiter pro vivis et mortuis consecratur; cum, Purgatorio sublato, in mortuis nullam efficaciam possit habere. Non enim prodest his qui sunt in Inferno, ubi nulla est redemptio; neque illis qui sunt in gloria, qui suffragiis nostris non egent.
||In denying that the sacrament of the altar can be consecrated of unleavened bread, they are manifestly in opposition to Christ, who, as the evangelists relate, instituted this sacrament on the first day of the unleavened read, when it was against the law for there to be leavened bread in the houses of the Jews. Their view also seems to diminish the purity of the sacramental body of Christ, to which the Apostle exhorts the faithful in 1 Cor. 5:8, saying: Let us, therefore, celebrated the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. In denying purgatory they also lessen the power of this sacrament which is offered in the Church both for the living and for the dead; for if purgatory does not exist, it avails the dead nothing; it cannot profit them if they are in hell, where there is no redemption;
nor can it do them any good if they are in heaven, where they are in no need of our prayers.
|Quomodo igitur ex praemissis auctoritatibus errores huiusmodi confutentur, breviter ostendam, incipiens prius a processione spiritus sancti.
||How these errors may be refuted using the authorities already cited, I will briefly demonstrate, dealing first with the procession of the Holy Spirit.
Quod spiritus sanctus est spiritus filii
That the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Son.
|Ad ostendendum autem quod spiritus sanctus a patre procedat et filio, primo sumendum est quod etiam ab ipsis errantibus negari non potest, cum expresse auctoritate Scripturae probetur: quod scilicet spiritus sanctus sit spiritus filii.
||The starting point of any demonstration that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son must be what those in error also cannot deny, namely, that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Son, since this is expressly proved on the authority of Holy Scripture.
|Dicitur enim ad Galat. IV, 6: quoniam estis filii Dei, misit Deus spiritum filii sui in corda vestra clamantem, abba, pater; et Rom. IIII, 9: si quis spiritum Christi non habet, hic non est eius; et actuum XVI, 1: cum venissent Misiam, tentabant ire in Bithyniam; et non permisit eos spiritus Iesu. Dicitur etiam I Corinth. II, 16: nos autem sensum Christi habemus; quod de spiritu sancto necesse est intelligi, ut patet per ea quae ab apostolo praemittuntur.
||Galatians, 4:6: Because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying Abba, Father. And Romans 4 (rather 8:9): Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. Acts 16: 7: When they had come opposite Mysia, they attempted to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them. And 1 Cor. 2:16: We have the mind of Christ. And from what the Apostle says previously it is clear that this must be understood of the Holy Spirit.
|Nominatur etiam spiritus sanctus, spiritus veritatis, Ioan. XV, 26, ubi dicitur: cum venerit Paraclitus, quem mittam vobis a patre, spiritum veritatis et spiritus vitae, Rom. VIII, 2: lex spiritus vitae in Christo Iesu; unde cum filius de se dicat, Ioan. XIV, 6: ego sum via, veritas et vita, concludunt doctores Graecorum, quod sit spiritus Christi; quod similiter adstruunt ex hoc quod habetur in Psal. XXXII, 6: verbo domini caeli firmati sunt, et spiritu oris eius omnis virtus eorum. Nam os patris filius dicitur, sicut et verbum.
||The Holy Spirit is also called the Spirit of truth, as in John 15:26: When the Paraclete comes, whom I shall send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth. He is also called the Spirit of life, as in Romans 8:2: The law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus. Hence, when the Son says of himself: I am the Way, the Truth and the Life (John 14: 6), the Greek doctors conclude
that this is the Spirit of Christ. They argue
similarly from the words of the Psalm (32:6): By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host by the breath of his mouth. For the Son is also called mouth of the Father
as well as Word.
|Sed ne aliquis posset dicere, quod alius sit spiritus qui a patre procedit, et alius qui est filii, ostenditur ex Scriptura, quod idem spiritus sanctus sit patris et filii. Nam Ioan. XV, 11, simul dicitur: spiritus veritatis et qui a patre procedit; et Rom. VIII, 9, postquam dixerat: si spiritus Dei habitat in vobis, statim subiungit: si quis spiritum Christi non habet, ut ostendat eundem esse spiritum patris et filii. Unde Basilius dicit contra Eunomium, postquam praedicta verba apostoli induxerat: ecce in patre et filio, et patris et filii, unum spiritum vidit, scilicet apostolus; et Theodoretus dicit super Epist. ad Rom., exponens idem verbum apostoli: communis est patris et filii spiritus sanctus.
||But lest anyone claim that the Spirit who proceeds from the Father is other than the Spirit of the Son, the Scriptures show that the same Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son. For in John 15:11 he is simultaneously called Spirit of truth and Spirit who proceeds from the Father. And Romans 8:9 after stating : If the Spirit of God who dwells in you, immediately adds: If anyone has not the Spirit of Christ, to indicate that the Spirit of Father and Son is one and the same. Hence Basil, after citing these words of the Apostle, refutes Eunomius thus: “Behold he, namely, the Apostle, saw in Father and Son the one Spirit both of Father and of Son.”
And Theodoret, explaining the same passage in his commentary on the letter to the Romans, says: “The Holy Spirit is common to Father and Son.”
|Quaerendum est ergo, quomodo spiritus sanctus sit spiritus filii, vel spiritus Christi. Potest autem aliquis dicere, quod est spiritus Christi quasi in homine Christo plenarie inhabitans, secundum illud Luc. IV, 1: Iesus plenus spiritu sancto regressus est a Iordane; de cuius plenitudine nos omnes accepimus, ut dicitur Ioan. I, 16. Haec autem responsio sustineri non potest, ut scilicet hac tantum ratione spiritus sanctus spiritus Christi dicatur.
||The question, then, to be pondered is how the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Son or the Spirit of Christ. One might say that he is the Spirit of Christ in so far as he dwelt fully in the man Christ, ad in Luke 4:1 : Jesus full of the Holy Spirit returned from Jordan, or in John 1:16: Of whose fullness we have all received. This solution, however, cannot be defended when taken as the only reason why the Spirit is called the Spirit of Christ.
|Invenitur enim a doctoribus Graecorum, quod spiritus sanctus sit naturalis spiritus filii. Dicit enim Athanasius in sermone III Nicaeni Concilii: sicut in Christo vivit nostra natura deifice, et ipse in ea regnat; ita et nos in suo naturali spiritu simus, vivamus et regnemus. Idem in epistola ad Serapionem: accepistis spiritum adoptionis, idest naturalem spiritum de natura naturalis filii. Et Cyrillus dicit super Ioan.: existit siquidem filius in proprio genitore, habens in se ipsum gignentem se. Et sic patris spiritus, veraciter et naturaliter filii videtur et est spiritus. Spiritus autem non est naturalis Christo secundum humanitatem, quia non pertinet ad naturam humanitatis, sed gratis a Deo in natura humanitatis effunditur. Non igitur potest propter hoc dici spiritus filii, quia Christum excellenter replevit secundum humanitatem.
||For it is shown by the Greek doctors that the Holy Spirit is the natural Spirit of the Son. Athanasius says in his third discourse on the Council of Nicaea: “As our nature lives divinely in Christ and He reigns in it, so in his natural
Spirit we are and live and reign.”
The same Doctor adds in his letter to Serapion: “You have received the Spirit of adoption, that is, the natural Spirit from the nature of the natural Son.”
And Cyril comments on John: “The Son indeed exists in his own Begettor, having for himself the one begetting him; and so the Spirit of the Father truly and naturally appears to be and is the Spirit also of the Son.”
But the Spirit is not naturally of Christ according to his humanity, since he does not belong to man by nature, but is poured forth gratuitously by God on human nature; hence, the Spirit cannot be called Spirit of the Son because he filled Christ par excellence according to his humanity.
|Item Athanasius dicit in sermone de incarnatione verbi, quod ipse Christus mittebat spiritum e sursum sicut Deus filius, et ipse deorsum accipiebat spiritum ut homo. Ex ipso igitur in ipsum habitat de divinitate eius, in humanitate eiusdem. Non solum ergo spiritus sanctus est spiritus Christi quia humanitatem eius replevit, sed magis quia est ex divinitate ipsius.
||Similarly Athanasius states in a sermon on the Incarnation of the Word that: “The Christ, qua God the Son, sent the Spirit from on high, and as man he received the Spirit on earth. From him, therefore, unto him he (the Spirit) dwells in the humanity of the same (Christ) from his divinity.”
Therefore, the Holy Spirit is not only the Spirit of Christ because he filled his humanity, but more so because he proceeds from his divinity.
|Potest autem aliquis dicere, quod spiritus sanctus est filii secundum deitatem, sicut a filio Dei datus et missus, non autem sicut a filio personaliter et aeternaliter existens. Sed hoc etiam stare non potest. Dicit enim Cyrillus super Ioannem: proprius est spiritus sanctus Dei et patris; sed non est minus ipsius Dei filii, non tanquam alius et alius spiritus. Idem dicit in exhortatorio sermone ad Theodosium imperatorem: spiritus sanctus sicut est proprius patris, a quo procedit; sic et in veritate est et ipsius filii. Si ergo patris est, non solum quia ab ipso temporaliter datur et mittitur, sed etiam quia ab ipso aeternaliter existit; eadem etiam ratione et filii erit, quasi ab eo aeternaliter existens. Item Cyrillus dicit super Ioan. Veracissimus fructus essentiae ipsius filii existit ipse spiritus; est igitur filii, quasi a filio essentiam habens.
||One might, however, object that the Holy Spirit is of the Son according to his divinity in so far as given and sent by the Son of God, but not as existing from the Son personally and eternally. But neither can this stand on analysis. For Cyril, commenting on John, says: “The Holy Spirit is properly the Spirit of God the Father, but is no less the Spirit of God the Son, not however as two distinct Spirits.”
He also says in his exhortation to the Emperor Theodosius: “As the Holy Spirit belongs to the Father from whom he proceeds, so also in truth he belongs to his Son.”
If, therefore, he is of the Father, not only because he is given and sent by him in time, but also because he exists from him eternally, by the same token he is the Spirit of the Son as eternally existing of him. Cyril, commenting on John, likewise says: “The Holy Spirit exists as the truest fruit of the essence of the Son himself.”
He is, therefore, of the Son, as it were having his essence from the Son.
|Patet ergo quod ex hoc quod spiritum sanctum spiritum Christi confitentur, necesse est quod ulterius dicatur esse a filio ab aeterno
||Hence, it is clear that since they confess the Holy Spirit to be the Spirit of Christ, they must further recognize that he is from the Son eternally.
Quod filius mittit spiritum sanctum
That the Son sends the Holy Spirit.
|Similiter autem patet ex auctoritate sacrae Scripturae quod filius mittit spiritum sanctum. Dicitur enim Ioan. XV, v. 26: cum venerit Paraclitus, quem ego mittam vobis a patre, etc., et XVI, 7: si enim non abiero, Paraclitus non veniet ad vos. Si autem abiero, mittam eum ad vos. Habetur etiam ex auctoritate Scripturae, quod pater dat spiritum sanctum: Ioan. XIV, 16: ego rogabo patrem, et alium Paraclitum dabit vobis. Sed quod et filius det eundem spiritum sanctum patet; dicitur enim Ioan. XX, v. 22, quod post resurrectionem dominus discipulis insufflavit, et dixit eis: accipite spiritum sanctum; quod etiam Athanasius confitetur in sermone Nicaeni Concilii, dicens ex persona filii loquens: quomodo erunt consummati ipsi, nisi ego verbum tuum consummem, idest perfectum assumam, et perficiam in me hominem, et eis mihi aequalem per omnia mihi cooperantem donem spiritum sanctum? Et idem in epistola ad Serapionem: hunc spiritum sanctum a filio te recepisse credo, o sancte consacerdos.
||It is likewise evident on the authority of Holy Scripture that the Son sends the Holy Spirit. For in John 15:26 it is stated: When the Paraclete comes whom I shall send you, and in John 16:7: If I do not go away, he Paraclete will not come to you, but if I go, I will send him to you. On the authority of Scripture (John 14:16) it is also certain that the Father gives the Holy Spirit: I will ask the Father and he will give you another Paraclete. But that the Son gives the same Holy Spirit is clear from John 20: 22), for it is there stated that after the resurrection the Lord breathed upon the disciples and said to them: Receive the Holy Spirit. Athanasius confesses the same in his discourse on the Council of Nicaea: “How will they be consummated unless I, your Word, am consummated”, that is, assume a perfect man, “and perfect mankind within myself and grant them the Holy Spirit, my equal and in all things my cooperator?”
And the same point in the letter to Serapion: “I believe, o holy fellow priest, that you have received this Holy Spirit from the Son.”
|Dicit autem idem Athanasius in eadem epistola: hic est ordo naturae divinae a patre in filio: ut qui a nullo est, a nullo mittatur; et qui est ab alio, in nomine suo non veniat, sed in nomine illius a quo existit. Ita et spiritus sanctus, qui a se non est, a se venire non debuit; sed in nomine illius a quo est, et a quo habet ut hypostasi sit Deus: quemadmodum de eo dicit filius: Paraclitus spiritus sanctus, quem mittet pater in nomine meo. Patet ergo quod ex hoc quod spiritus sanctus mittitur a filio, sequitur quod a filio existat aeternaliter, et ab eo habeat quod sit Deus.
||The same Athanasius, moreover, in the same letter says: “This is the order of divine nature from the Father in the Son that he who is from no one should be sent by no one, and he who is from another should come not in his own name, but in the name of him from whom he exists. So the Holy Spirit who is not from himself, should not come of himself, but in the name of him from whom he is and from he derives his hypostatic status as God, wherefore of him the Son says (John 14:26): The Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name.”
From the fact that the Holy Spirit is sent by the Son, it clearly follows that he exists eternally of the Son and derives from him his status as God.
|Item Niceta dicit super Ioan. V: non alia proprietate pater mittit spiritum, qua proprietate non mittat filius; vel aliqua alia proprietate filius mittit spiritum qua, non mittit et pater. Ex quo patet quod eadem proprietate et ratione pater et filius mittunt spiritum sanctum. Si ergo pater mittit spiritum quasi ab ipso aeternaliter existentem; et similiter filius spiritum sanctum mittet quasi de se aeternaliter existentem.
||Nicetas, commenting on John, likewise says: “The Father does not send the Holy Spirit in virtue of a property other than the one by which the Son sends him; nor does the Son send the Holy Spirit in virtue of some property by which the Father does not send him.”
Whence it is clear that the Father and the Son send the Holy Spirit in virtue of the same property and on the same basis. If, therefore, the Father sends the Holy Spirit as one who exists eternally of him, similarly the Son will send the Holy Spirit as one who eternally exists of him.
|Item Athanasius dicit in sermone Nicaeni Concilii, ex persona filii loquens: sicut me perfectum genuisti Deum, et perfectum me assumere fecisti hominem; sic ex te et ex mea essentia da eis perfectum spiritum sanctum. Idem dicit in epistola ad Serapionem: sicut in filio Dei nostra sibi unita manet natura, quam de nobis assumpsit; ita et ipse manet in nobis per suum spiritum coessentialem sibi, quem de sua essentia essentialiter spirat et donat nobis. Idem dicit in sermone de incarnatione verbi, quod datus est spiritus sanctus discipulis de plenitudine deitatis. Item Niceta super Ioan. dicit: filius spiritum sanctum ex se dat ut pater.
||So, too, Athanasius in his discourse on the Council of Nicaea, speaking in the person of the Son, says: “As you begot me perfect God and caused me to assume a perfect man, so of yourself and of my essence give them the perfect Holy Spirit.”
And in his letter to Serapion, “As in the Son of God the nature which he took from us remains united to him, so also he remains in us through his own Spirit coessential with him, whom in virtue of his essence he spirates from his essence and gives to us.”
And in his sermon on the Incarnation of the Word he says” “The Holy Spirit is given to the disciples from the fullness of the Godhead.”
Likewise Nicetas commenting on John says: “As the Father, the Son gives the Spirit of himself.”
|Ex quibus omnibus accipitur quod non solum sic dicitur spiritus a filio dari vel mitti, inquantum donum gratiae, per quod spiritus sanctus nos inhabitat, est a filio; sed inquantum ipse spiritus sanctus est a filio. Impossibile est enim quod donum gratiae, cum sit quoddam creatum, sit ex essentia filii, sed spiritus sanctus coessentialis est filio: unde de essentia filii dari potest vel mitti.
||From all this it is concluded that the Spirit is said to be given or sent by the Son, not only in so far as the gift of grace through which the Holy Spirit dwells in us is from the Son, but in so far as the Holy Spirit is from the Son. For it is impossible that the gift of grace, being something created, should be of the essence of the Son. But the Holy Spirit is coessential with the Son. Wherefore he can be given or sent from the essence of the Son.
|Item a nullo potest dari nisi quod eius est. Spiritus ergo sanctus ab eo datur cuius est, sicut habetur I Ioannis IV, 13: in hoc cognoscimus quoniam in eo manemus, et ipse in nobis, quia de spiritu suo dedit nobis. Si ergo filius mittit vel dat spiritum sanctum, oportet quod sit spiritus eius. Ex hoc autem quod est spiritus eius, sequitur quod ab eo sit aeternaliter, sicut ostensum est. Ex hoc ergo quod filius mittit vel dat spiritum sanctum, sequitur quod ab eo similiter aeternaliter existat.
||Moreover, nothing but what belongs to him can be given by anyone. The Holy Spirit, therefore, is given by him whose he is, as 1 John 4:3 states: By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his own Spirit. If, therefore, the Son sends or gives the Holy Spirit, the Spirit must be his. From the fact that it is his Spirit, it follows that the Spirit is from him eternally, as has been shown.
From this, that the Son sends or gives the Holy Spirit, it follows that the Spirit likewise exists of him eternally.
Quod spiritus sanctus accipit de eo quod est filii
That the Holy Spirit receives of that which is the Son’s.
|Ulterius autem ex auctoritate sacrae Scripturae habetur quod spiritus sanctus accipiat de eo quod est filii. Dicitur enim Ioan. XVI, 14: ille me clarificabit, quia de meo accipiet, et annuntiabit vobis.
||Further, on the authority of Holy Scripture it is proven that the Holy Spirit receives of that which is the Son’s. For in John 16:4, it is said: He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.
|Potest autem aliquis dicere, quod spiritus sanctus licet accipiat id quod est filii, non tamen accipit a filio: accipit enim essentiam patris a patre, quae quidem essentia est etiam filii, et pro tanto dicit filius, quod de meo accipiet; quod videtur innui ex consequentibus domini verbis; subdit enim, quasi se exponens: omnia quaecumque habet pater, mea sunt: propterea dixi vobis, quia de meo accipiet.
||Someone may object that, although the Holy Spirit receives what is the Son’s, he does not receive it from the Son; for he receives the essence of the Father from the Father, an essence identical with that of the Son, and this would explain why the Son says: He shall receive of mine. And the Lord’s words which follow (John 16:15) seem to suggest this, for he adds, almost in explanation of himself: All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine.
|Sed ex hac domini expositione de necessitate concluditur, quod spiritus sanctus a filio accipiat. Si enim omnia quae sunt patris, sunt etiam filii, oportet quod auctoritas patris, secundum quam est principium spiritus sancti, sit etiam filii. Sicut ergo spiritus sanctus accipit de eo quod est patris a patre, ita accipit de eo quod est filii, a filio;
||But from this explanation of the Lord, it is necessarily concluded that the Holy Spirit receives from the Son. If all that belongs to the Father belongs to the Son, then the authority by reason of which the Father is the principle from whom the Holy Spirit proceeds must also belong to the Son. As, therefore, the Holy Spirit receives from the Father what is the Father’s, so he receives from the Son what is the Son’s.
|hinc est quod Athanasius dicit in epistola ad Serapionem: de sua propria essentia spiritum sanctum existentem Deum de se essentialiter suis apostolis et suae sponsae Ecclesiae demonstrando Christus affirmavit, sic dicens: de meo accipiet; idest ut de mea essentia habet ut sit Deus; sic a me habet et esse et loqui. Item Athanasius in sermone Nicaeni Concilii: spiritus sanctus quidquid habet, habet a verbo Dei; et in epistola ad Serapionem dicit: spiritus sanctus est coessentialis filio, a quo habet omnia quaecumque habet. Idem in eadem epistola: filius ait: ille, scilicet spiritus sanctus, me glorificabit; idest, in se meam, ut habet a me, deitatem, me gloriosum Deum demonstrabit; sicut et ego glorifico patrem meum, idest sicut in me ab ipso eius habeo deitatem. Et Basilius contra Eunomium dicit: denominatio a patre transit in filium, ut de Deo patre sit Deus filius, ex domino dominus, ex omnipotente omnipotens, ex sapiente sapientia, ex summe loquente verbum, ex virtute virtus: verus filius denominationes patris habet in se. Ita etiam et spiritus sanctus est dominus et Deus omnipotens, sapiens, virtus; naturaliter sumens habet a domino Deo patre et filio, a quo est et datur.
||This is why Athanasius says in his letter to Serapion: “In teaching his Apostles and his Bride the Church Christ affirmed that from his very own being the Holy Spirit exists of himself essentially as God, saying thus: He shall receive of mine, that is, he has from my essence his divinity, so he has from me existence and speech.”
And again in his discourse on the Council of Nicaea: “Whatever the Holy Spirit has, he has from the Word of God.”
And in his letter to Serapion he says” “The Holy Spirit is coessential with the Son from he has whatever he has.”
And, again, in the same letter: “The Son says: He, namely, the Holy Spirit, will glorify me, that is, as he has in himself my Godhead from me, he will prove me to be the glorious and just God, just as I glorify my Father, that is, as I have in myself his Godhead from him.”
And Basil writing against Eunomius says: “An attribute passes from the Father to the Son, such that the Son qua God is God from the Father, Lord from the Lord, Almighty from the Almighty, Wisdom from the Wise, Word from the highest Speaker, Power from Power; the true Son has the attributes of the Father in himself. In the same way the Holy Spirit is Lord and God, the Almighty, Wisdom, Power, naturally taking the attributes he possesses from the Lord God, Father and Son, from whom he is and by whom he is given.”
|Patet autem quod per hoc quod filius habet deitatem (et quidquid habet) a patre, aeternaliter est a patre. Spiritus ergo sanctus est aeternaliter a patre et filio sicut ab eis accipiens deitatem et quidquid habet.
||It is clear, however, that from the fact that the Son has the Godhead and whatever else he has from the Father, he is eternally from the Father. Hence, the Holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and Son as receiving from them the Godhead and whatever he has.
Quod filius operatur per spiritum sanctum
That the Son works through the Holy Spirit.
|Habetur etiam ex auctoritate sacrae Scripturae quod filius operetur in spiritu sancto, vel per spiritum sanctum. Dicit enim apostolus, Roman. XV, 19: non audeo aliquid loqui eorum quae non per me efficit Christus in obedientiam gentium, verbo et factis, in virtute signorum et prodigiorum, in virtute spiritus sancti; et I Corinth. II, 10: dicitur nobis revelavit Deus per spiritum suum. Est autem spiritus patris et filii. Pater ergo et filius per spiritum sanctum revelando operantur.
||It is also established on the authority of Sacred Scripture that the son works in the Holy Spirit or through the Holy Spirit. The Apostles in Romans 15: 18 says: For I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has wrought through me to win obedience from the Gentiles, by word and deed, by the power of signs and wonders, by the power of the Holy Spirit. And in 1 Cor. 2:10 it is said: God has revealed them through his Spirit. For he is the Spirit of the Father and the Son. Hence the Father and the Son work in revealing through the Holy Spirit.
|Hinc est quod Athanasius dicit in epistola ad Serapionem: filius Dei illuminando nos praeveniens, et iustificando in fide corroborans, et Scripturas reserando donis suae sapientiae nos replens, non in alieno, et non suo spiritu dona concedit, remittens peccata, et charismatibus nos imbuens; sed potius in suo proprio spiritu sancto. Cyrillus etiam dicit in sermone dogmatum Dei, quod filius proprium habet in se essentialiter spiritum sanctum, et ex se naturaliter missum, in quo operatus est divina miracula, tanquam in propria et vera sua virtute.
||This is why Athanasius says in the letter to Serapion: “The Son of God, by enlightening us in going before us and by justifying us in strengthening our faith and by unlocking the Scriptures in filling us with the gifts of wisdom, bestows his gifts while he forgives sin and endows us with his charisms, not in the spirit of another not his own, but in his own Holy Spirit.”
And Cyril also says in his discourse on the dogmas of God: “The Son has by essence in himself the Holy Spirit as his own and as naturally sent from him; in him he has worked divine miracles as by his own true and proper power.”
|Ex hoc autem quod filius operatur per spiritum sanctum, de necessitate concluditur quod spiritus sanctus sit a filio. Potest enim dici aliquis per aliquid operari dupliciter. Uno modo ex eo quod illud per quod operatur, est sibi principium et causa operandi, sive efficiens et movens, sicut dicitur balivus operari per regem; sive causa formalis, sicut dicitur homo per artem operari. Alio modo ita quod id per quod operatur, sit causa operato, et non operanti, sicut cum dicitur rex operari per balivum, et artifex operari per instrumentum: et tunc oportet quod e converso operans sit principium operandi ei per quod operatur, sicut rex balivo, et artifex instrumento.
|| From the fact that the Son works through the Holy Spirit it is necessarily concluded that the Holy Spirit is from the Son. Someone may be said to work through another in two ways. One way, in so far as that by which one works is a principle unto itself and cause of the operation, either as the efficient and moving cause, as the bailiff is said to work through the king; or as the formal cause, as man is said to work through his art. The other way, in so far as that by which one works is a cause in relation to the work and not to the agent, as the king is said to work through his baliff and the artist through his instrument. In this case the one working must contrariwise be called the principle of the operation in relation to that by which the operation is accomplished, as the king in relation to that by which the operation is accomplished, as the king in relation to the bailiff or the artist in relation to the instrument he uses.
|Cum autem dicitur filius per spiritum sanctum operari, non potest intelligi quod spiritus sanctus sit principium operandi filio, quia filius a spiritu sancto non accipit. Relinquitur ergo quod filius sit principium operandi spiritui sancto: quod quidem esse non potest nisi per hoc quod dat ei virtutem operativam. Non autem dat ei tanquam prius non habenti: sic enim daret ei tanquam indigenti, et sequeretur quod spiritus sanctus esset filio minor. Relinquitur ergo quod ab aeterno ei dederit. Nec est aliud virtus operativa spiritus sancti quam eius essentia, cum spiritus sanctus sit simplex, sicut et pater. Relinquitur ergo quod ab aeterno filius essentiam divinam spiritui sancto dederit.
||When, therefore, it is said that the Son works through the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit cannot be understood to be the principle of operation in relation to the Son, since the Son does not receive from the Holy Spirit. The only alternative, then, is that the Son is the principle of operation in relation to the Holy Spirit. And this cannot be except on this basis that he give him his operative power. But he does not give this to him as though he had it not previously, for this would imply that the Holy Spirit lacked it and so would be less than the Son. Hence, the only alternative is that he give it to him from eternity. Nor is the operative power of the Holy Spirit anything else than his essence, since the Holy Spirit, like the Father, is simple. Hence, the only alternative is that the Son give the divine essence to the Holy Spirit from eternity.
|Et hoc expresse ostendit Athanasius in epistola ad Serapionem: sicut pater per filium, et in filio a se deoriginato operatur naturaliter, et non e converso; ita et filius in spiritu sancto a se deoriginato naturaliter operatur tanquam in sua propria virtute, et non e converso.
||And Athanasius says this expressly in his letter to Serapion: “As the Father naturally works through the Son and in the Son originating from him and not contrariwise, so the Son naturally works in the Holy Spirit originating from him as in his own power, and not contrariwise.”
Quod spiritus sanctus sit imago filii
That the Holy Spirit is the image of the Son.
|Habetur etiam ex auctoritate sacrae Scripturae quod spiritus sanctus sit imago filii, secundum expositiones doctorum Graecorum, ut supra dictum est: quod, hoc quod dicitur Roman. VIII, 11: quos praescivit conformes fieri imaginis filii sui etc., et iterum quod I Corinth. XV, 49: sicut portavimus imaginem terreni, ita portemus imaginem caelestis, exponunt imaginem filii spiritum sanctum esse dicentes. Hinc est quod Athanasius dicit in epistola ad Serapionem, ex persona filii Dei loquens: accipite ipsam imaginem meam spiritum scilicet sanctum; et Gregorius Caesariensis dicit: spiritus sanctus est imago filii perfecti. Constat autem quod imago deducitur ab eo cuius est imago. Ex hoc ergo quod spiritus sanctus est imago filii, sequitur quod spiritus sanctus sit a filio.
||On the authority of Sacred Scripture it is established, according to the interpretation of the Greek doctors as noted above,
that the Holy Spirit is the image of the Son. They interpret what is said in Romans 8:29: Those whom he foreknew he predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son”, and in 1 Cor. 15: 49: Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, so we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven, as meaning that the image of the Son is the Holy Spirit. This is why Athanasius in his letter to Serapion, speaking in the person of the Son, says: “Receive my very own image, the Holy Spirit of knowledge.”
And Gregory of Caesarea says: “The Holy Spirit is the perfect image of the Son.”
It is well known, however, that an image derives from that of which it is the image. From the fact, therefore, that the Holy Spirit is the image of the Son, it follows that the Holy Spirit is from the Son.
|Posset autem aliquis dicere, quod est imago filii, inquantum assimilatur filio secundum aliquem effectum quem facit, sicut et filius: vel quia est a patre, sicut filius. Sed hoc excluditur per auctoritates sanctorum, quae spiritum sanctum naturalem imaginem filii esse dicunt. Non enim potest dici imago naturalis filii spiritus sanctus, nisi inquantum secundum naturam filio similatur, accipiens a filio naturam. Semper enim oportet quod forma imaginis proveniat a forma eius cuius est imago.
||One might indeed object that he is the image of the Son in so far as he is likened to the Son on the basis of some effect which he brings about jointly with the Son, or because he is from the Father just as the Son is. But on the basis of texts of the saints which state that the Holy Spirit is the natural image
of the Son this is excluded. For he could not be called the natural image of the Son, except in so far as he is likened to the Son in nature, receiving his nature from the Son. For the form of the image must always be derived from the form of that of which it is the image.
|Hinc est quod Athanasius in praedicta epistola dicit: quemadmodum consubstantiavit Deus Ecclesiae, formam eius in se assumens; ita ipsam eandem sua imagine naturali, scilicet spiritu sancto de sua essentia naturaliter existente, deifice et superabunde insignivit; et Cyrillus in libro thesaurorum: qui recipit filii imaginem naturalem, hoc est spiritum sanctum, habet veraciter per ipsum spiritum eundem filium, et filii patrem. Quomodo ergo connumerabitur creaturis spiritus sanctus, cum sit naturalis et incommutabilis imago filii Dei? Item Basilius dicit contra Eunomium: naturalis filii imago est spiramen eius spiritus.
||This is why Athanasius in the aforementioned letter says” “As God made himself consubstantial with the Church by assuming her form in himself, so he sealed her divinely and superabundantly with his own image, namely, the Holy Spirit by nature existing of his essence.”
And in his Thesaurus Cyril says: “He who receives the natural image of the Son, that is, the Holy Spirit, through the Son truly possesses the same Son and the Father of the Son. How, therefore, could the Holy Spirit be numbered among creatures since he is the natural and incommunicable image of the Son of God?”
And Basil writing against Eunomius says: “The natural image of the Son is his breath, the Spirit.”
Item quod est sigillum filii
That he is also the seal of the Son.
|Similiter etiam dicunt, quod spiritus sanctus sit sigillum filii. Dicit enim Athanasius in praedicta epistola: equidem spiritus sanctus est unctio et sigillum impressivum imaginis in se habitae: in quo spiritu vere tanquam in suo sigillo, idest imagine suae naturae, consignat et characterizat imprimendo ipsam suam imaginem Deus verbum Ecclesiae sponsae suae; et infra: Christus in suo proprio spiritu ungit et superungit, et eo tanquam suo sigillo continente ipsius essentiam se imprimit Ecclesiae suae sponsae. Et Chrysostomus dicit super epistolam ad Romanos: si spiritus est sigillum et caracter Christi; qui non habet sigillum et characterem Christi, hic non est ipsius Christi.
||Similarly they say that the Spirit is the seal of the Son. For Athanasius in the aforementioned letter says: “The Holy Spirit is the anointing and seal, impressing the image contained in himself, in which Spirit, as truly as in his own seal, that is, by the image of his nature, God the Word seals, and marks the Church his spouse, impressing on her his very own image.” And further on: “Christ in his own image anoints, and super-anoints the Church and through him, as through his seal containing his own essence, he impresses himself on the Church his spouse.”
Chrysostom commenting on Romans says: “If the Spirit is the character and seal of Christ, he who does not have the seal and character of Christ is not Christ’s.”
|Constat autem quod character et sigillum derivantur ab eo cuius sunt. Unde per auctoritates doctorum dictorum aperte ostenditur, quod spiritus sanctus a filio derivatur.
||It is well known, however, that the character and seal are derived from him whose they are. Hence, from the texts of these Doctors it is expressly shown that the Holy Spirit derives from the Son.
|Horum autem auctoritates etiam ex auctoritate sacrae Scripturae confirmantur. Dicitur II Corinth. I, 21: unxit nos Deus, et signavit nos, et dedit pignus spiritus in cordibus nostris; quod quidem de patre et filio intelligi oportet; cum uterque spiritum sanctum det, ut ostensum est; et ad Ephes. I, 13: in quo, scilicet Christo, credentes signati estis spiritu promissionis sancto, qui est pignus hereditatis nostrae.
||The texts of these Doctors, moreover, are also confirmed by the authority of Holy Scripture. For in 2 Cor. 1:22 it is said: God who has anointed us has also put his seal upon us and given his Spirit in our hearts as his guarantee. This is to be understood, naturally, of the Father and Son, since both give us the Holy Spirit, as has been shown.
And in Eph. 1: 13-14: In whom, that is, in Christ, you also, who have heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation and have believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance.
Item quod spiritus sanctus est a patre per filium
That the Holy Spirit is from the Father through the Son.
|Traditur etiam a praedictis Graecorum doctoribus, quod spiritus sanctus est a patre per filium. Dicit enim Cyrillus in libro thesaurorum: Deus pater per manum suam propriam, idest suam sapientiam et potentiam, cuncta produxit in esse in uno suo vero et vivifico atque deifico coessentiali sibi spiritu, quem de se essentialiter per eundem filium naturaliter coaeternum spiravit; et Basilius dicit: non est filius filii spiritus, quia est ex Deo, scilicet patre per filium. Et idem dicit contra Eunomium: si ex verbo tuo, o qui inimicaris veritati, ex proprio intellectu tuo spiritum producis, aereum per verbum verberans non eiusdem essentiae, spiritum sanctum ex intellectu patre per verbum unigenitum dubitas provenire? Et infra: ex patre se ipsum filius nominat verbum, et ex patre per se verbum spiritum nobis indubitanter affirmavit.
||It is also taught by the aforesaid Doctors that the Holy Spirit is from the Father through the Son. For in his Thesaurus Cyril says: “God the Father by his own right hand, that is, by his power and wisdom, brought all things into being in his one true and life-giving and divinizing Spirit coessential with himself, whom in essence he spirated from himself through the same Son by nature coeternal with him.”
And Basil says: “The Son is not the Son of the Spirit because the Spirit is from God the Father through the Son.”
And writing against Eunomius the same Saint says: “If from your own word, O you who resist the truth, from your very own intelligence your produce a spirit by beating the air with a word not of the same kind, do you doubt the Holy Spirit proceeds in an intellectual manner from the Father through the only-begotten Son?” And further on: “The Son calls himself the Word of the Father and unhesitatingly declares to us that the Spirit is of the Father through himself, the Word.”
|Ex hoc autem ostenditur de necessitate quod spiritus sanctus sit a filio. Dictum est enim supra, quod cum dicitur aliquis per aliquid operari, oportet quod sit principium operandi ipsi operanti, vel saltem sit principium operationis ex parte eius ad quod terminatur operatio. Filius autem non potest esse principium spirandi patri. Unde si pater per filium spiritum sanctum spirat, de necessitate sequitur quod filius sit principium spiritus sancti.
||Thus, it is shown conclusively that the Spirit is from the Son. For it was remarked above
that when anyone is said to work through something, that something must be a principle of operation for the agent, or at the least must be a principle of operation for that in which the operation terminates. But the Son cannot be a principle of spiration for the Father. Hence, if the Father spirates the Holy Spirit through the Son, it necessarily follows that the Son is a principle of the Holy Spirit.
|Idem autem habetur ex eo quod Gregorius Nyssenus dicit: spiritum sanctum ex patre esse mediante filio tenemus. Sic enim dicitur esse spiritus sanctus a patre, mediante filio, sicut et a patre per filium, inquantum pater est principium filii, et filius principium spiritus sancti.
||The same is proven from the statement of Gregory of Nyssa: “We hold the Holy Spirit is from the Father through the mediation of the Son.”
For so the Holy Spirit is said to be from the Father through the Son, in as much as the Father is the principle of the Son, and the Son is the principle of the Holy Spirit.
Quod spiritus sanctus sit a filio
That the Holy Spirit is from the Son.
|Sed iam accedere oportet ad ponendum auctoritates doctorum Graecorum, ex quibus habetur expresse quod spiritus sanctus sit a filio. Dicit enim Athanasius in epistola ad Serapionem: Christus de suo spiritu dixit: non loquetur a semetipso, sed quaecumque audiet loquetur, idest, non est a semet ipso ut sit imprincipiatus spiritus, quod est solius patris; sed maxime et proprie est ab ipso filio, a quo et accipit ut sit Deus essentia, ab eo etiam audit quae et loquitur. Et Basilius dicit contra Arium et Sabellium: quomodo adoptat in filio spiritus sanctus, si alienus est a patre et filio? Quomodo inhabitat extraneus in illis quos Christus redimit, si non est a Christo?
||But this is the point where authorities from the Greek Fathers are to be adduced stating that the Holy Spirit is from the Son. For in his letter to Serapion Athanasius says: “Christ said (John 16: 13) of his Spirit: He will not speak of himself, but will speak whatever he shall hear, that is, not as though an unoriginated Spirit, a property of the Father alone, but above all in the proper sense he is from the Son himself from whom he receives the divine essence and from whom he also hears whatever he speaks.”
Against Arius and Sabellius Basil says: “How does the Holy Spirit adopt in the Son, if he is a stranger to Father and Son? How does he, an outsider, dwell in those Christ redeems, if he is not from Christ?”
Quod ab utroque ab aeterno
That he is from both from eternity
|Si vero dicat aliquis, quod spiritus sanctus esse a patre et filio dicitur, tanquam ab eis temporaliter datus et missus, et non ab aeterno ab eis existens, per sequentia ostenditur esse falsum. Dicit enim idem Epiphanius in libro de vestibus pellicinis Adae et Evae: sicut dicit Christus: spiritus veritatis qui a patre procedit, ita et de meo accipiet. Ecce ex ambobus duorum semper spiritus existit. Idem dicit in sermone de incarnatione verbi: pater siquidem erat semper, et filius erat semper, et spiritus sanctus a patre et filio erat semper. Est ergo aeternaliter ab utroque.
||If anyone says that the Holy Spirit is said to be from the Father and the Son in the sense of being temporally sent by them and not existing from them from eternity, this is shown to be false from what follows. For the same Epiphanius says in his book on the skin dresses of Adam and Eve: “As Christ says, the Spirit of Truth which proceeds from the Father shall also receive from what is mine. So the Spirit always exists from both of the two.”
He also says in a sermon on the Incarnation of the Word: “The Father, after all, always existed; the Son always existed, and the Holy Spirit always existed from the Father and the Son.”
He is therefore eternally from both.
Quod spiritus sanctus sit persona de personis
That the Holy Spirit is a person from persons.
|Item ex auctoritatibus praedictorum doctorum habetur quod spiritus sanctus sit persona de personis patris et filii. Dicit enim Athanasius in sermone Nicaeni Concilii: damnat Ecclesia mater hic congregata adinventores huius haereseos, scilicet Arianorum, et spiritum sanctum increatum, Deum verum, hypostasim de patris et filii hypostasibus, eisdem coessentialem confitetur; et Epiphanius in libro anchorali: spiritus sanctus in se est hypostasis vera, non alia a patre et a filio essentia, nec aliena, sed eiusdem essentiae veraciter existens, hypostasis vero per se ex hypostasibus patris et filii.
||So, too, from texts of the same Doctors it is established that the Holy Spirit is a person from the persons of Father and Son. For Athanasius says in his discourse on the Council of Nicaea: “Holy Mother Church here assembled damns the inventions of his heresy”, namely of the Arians, “and confesses the Holy Spirit to be uncreated, true God, a hypostasis from the hypostases of Father and Son, and coessential with them.”
And Epiphanius in his Ancoratus says: “The Holy Spirit in himself is a true hypostasis, not other or different essentially from the Father and the Son, but truly existing of the same essence, a hypostasis in himself from the hypostases, however, of Father and Son.”
|Non ergo solum est a patre et filio secundum donum gratiae, in quo datur vel mittitur, sed ratione suae personae. Est igitur a patre et filio ab aeterno.
||Hence, he is from Father and Son, not only in relation to the gift of grace in which he is given or sent, but by reason of his very person. He is, therefore, from Father and Son from eternity.
Item quod est ex essentia patris et filii
That he is also from the essence of Father and Son.
|Item ex auctoritatibus praedictorum habetur quod sit ex essentia patris et filii. Dicit enim Athanasius in sermone Nicaeni Concilii: in spiritu sancto omnium peccatorum et omnis blasphemiae fit remissio, qui, ut dictum est, de essentia existens patris et filii, eorum habet virtutem, cuncta per omnia cum eisdem creans et disponens. Item in epistola ad Serapionem ostendit: Christus de sua et patris communi essentia sempiternaliter existentem spiritum sanctum spiratum; et infra: Christus in suo proprio spiritu sancto, de sua, ut supra dictum est, usia existente, omnia nobis condonat. Et in eadem epistola: ab una et eadem divinitate patris et filii de filio existens spiritus sanctus, unus est.
||So, too, from texts of the aforementioned it is proven that he is from the essence of Father and Son. For in the discourse on the Council of Nicaea Athanasius says: “Remission of all sins and of every blasphemy is accomplished in the Holy Spirit, who, as was said, being from the essence of the Father and the Son shares their power, with them creating and disposing all things.”
Again, in his letter to Serapion he says: “Christ of his own and the Father’s common essence spirated the eternally existing Holy Spirit.”
And further on: “Christ in his own Holy Spirit, existing as noted above of his own essence, forgives us all.”
And in the same letter: “The Holy Spirit existing of the Son by one and the same divinity of Father and Son is one.”
Item quod sit naturaliter a filio
That he also is naturally from the Son.
|Item habetur quod sit naturaliter a filio. Dicit enim Cyrillus: quis est vita? Ille equidem qui dixit Christus, ego sum via, veritas, et vita, tanquam in ipso veraciter, et ex ipso naturaliter spiritus eius existens spiritualem legem ponit.
||So, too, it is established that he is naturally from the Son. For Cyril says: “Who is life? Christ himself who said (John 14:6): I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, as it were, his Spirit truly and naturally existing in him and of him lays down the law of the spirit.”
|Ex quibus omnibus habetur quod spiritus sanctus non tantum est a filio sicut temporaliter datus vel missus, sed sicut ab aeterno ab eo procedens, utpote essentiam et naturam ab ipso accipiens.
||From this is is proven that the Holy Spirit is from the Son, not merely as given or sent in time, but as proceeding from him eternally, as receiving from him eternally, as receiving from him his essence and nature.
|Hoc etiam haberi potest ex ipso modo loquendi: quia praedicti doctores non solum dicunt quod spiritus sanctus est a filio, quod posset referri ad temporalem missionem, sed etiam quod a filio existit, quod non potest referri nisi ad processionem aeternam: existit enim unumquodque secundum quod in se est. Dicit enim Cyrillus Ierosolymitanus patriarcha: spiritus sanctus a patre procedit, et ex deitate patris et filii existit. Basilius etiam dicit contra Eunomium: spiritus sanctus a filio habet existere, et ab ipso accipere, et annuntiare nobis.
||This can also be proven from the very turn of phrase of the aforesaid Doctors for not only do they say that the Holy Spirit is of the Son, which could refer merely to a temporal mission, but also that he exists by the Son, which can refer only to the eternal procession; for each thing exists in so far as it is in itself. For Cyril, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, says: “The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and exists from the Godhead of Father and Son.”
And against Eunomius Basil says: “The Holy Spirit has being from the Son and from him receives what he announces to us.”
Item quod filius spirat spiritum sanctum
That the Son also spirates the Holy Spirit.
|Ulterius autem habetur ex auctoritatibus praedictorum expresse quod filius spirat spiritum sanctum. Dicit enim Athanasius in epistola ad Serapionem: filius de patre genitus, de sua immensa essentia non extra se, sed intra se, immensum Deum spirat spiritum sanctum. Item Cyrillus dicit in exhortatorio sermone ad Theodosium imperatorem: salvator de se ipso producit spiritum, et spirat, sicut et ipse pater.
||Further, it is expressly established from texts of the aforementioned that the Son spirates the Holy Spirit. For Athanasius in his letter to Serapion says: “The Son, begotten of the Father, from his immense essence spirates, not outside himself, but within himself, God the Holy Spirit.”
Cyril, too, in his exhortation to the Emperor Theodosius, says: “The Savior produces and spirates from himself the Spirit, just as the Father does.”
Quod hoc quod spirat, ex sua proprietate habet filius
That the Son spirates he has from a personal property.
|Ne autem aliquis dicat, quod filius non proprie spirat spiritum sanctum, nominatur a praedictis doctoribus filius spiritus sancti spirator, tanquam hoc ex sua proprietate habens quod spiritum sanctum spiret. Dicit enim Athanasius in epistola ad Serapionem: haeretici ipsum filium verum spiratorem veri spiritus Paracliti blasphemant et negant; et in eadem epistola: qui blasphemat in spiritum spiratum, blasphemat equidem in spiratorem eius, idest in ipsum filium, et per filium blasphemat in genitorem eius. Item Basilius dicit contra Eunomium: filium spiritus sancti spiratorem et datorem sine aliquo dubio credimus.
||Lest anyone object that the Son does not spirate the Holy Spirit in the proper sense of the term, the Son is called by these Doctors the spirator of the Holy Spirit, having precisely from a personal property that he should spirate the Holy Spirit. For Athanasius says in his letter to Serapion” “The heretics blaspheme and deny the Son, the Spirator of the true Spirit, the Paraclete.”
And again in the same letter: “He who blasphemes against the Spirit spirated also blasphemes his Spirator, that is, the Son, and through the Son he blasphemes his Father.”
Against Eunomius Basil also says: “Without any doubt we believe the Son to be the Spirator and giver of the Holy Spirit.”
Quod eadem ratione spiratur a patre et filio
That on the same grounds he is spirated by Father and Son.
|Ut autem ostendatur quod simul et eadem ratione spiritus sanctus a patre spiratur, et filio, dicit Athanasius in praedicta epistola ad Serapionem, quod filius est conspirans patri, sic inquiens: Deus pater per Deum verbum non tanquam per organum, quod absit, sed per coessentialem suae essentiae vere viventi conspirantem vivum et deificum spiramen spirat Deum plenum et beatum spiritum sanctum.
||To show, however, that the Holy Spirit is spirated on the same grounds jointly by the Father and Son, Athanasius says in the just cited letter to Serapion that the Son co-spirates with the Father: “God the Father through God the Word, not indeed as through an organ —God forbid— but through a co-spirator, co-essential with his own truly living essence, he spirates the living and divinizing Breath, fully God and blessed Holy Spirit.”
Quod est aeternaliter a filio spiratus
That he is spirated from the Son eternally.
|Ne quis autem dicat quod spiratio ad processionem pertinet temporalem, exprimunt praedicti doctores, quod spiritus sanctus sit aeternaliter a filio spiratus. Dicit enim Athanasius in sermone Nicaeni Concilii, ex persona filii loquens: ut credat mundus a me essentialiter spiritum Paraclitum, et aeternaliter spiratum. Item Cyrillus in libro thesaurorum: spiritum sanctum a Christo et aeternaliter et essentialiter credimus et confitemur spiratum existere Deum.
||Lest someone object that this spiration pertains to the temporal procession, the aforesaid Doctors state that the Holy Spirit is spirated eternally by the Son. For Athanasius says in his discourse on the Council of Nicaea,speaking in the person of the Son: “That the world may believe that the Spirit, the Paraclete, is in essence and from eternity spirated by me.”
And in his Thesaurus Cyril says: “We believe and confess that the Holy Spirit, from eternity and in essence spirated by Christ, exists as God.”
Quod de essentia filii spiratur spiritus sanctus
That the Holy Spirit is spirated from the essence of the Son.
|Ad hoc etiam facit quod in eisdem auctoritatibus continetur, quod de essentia filii spiratur spiritus sanctus. Dicit enim Athanasius in sermone Nicaeni Concilii: de essentia ipsius verbi adoramus spiramen spiritum coaeternaliter spiratum Deum; et in eodem: Deus filius ex sua essentia spiravit spiritum sanctum; et in epistola ad Serapionem: haeretici a filio sunt exheredati, quia ab eius essentia essentialiter Deum spiratum non recipiunt spiritum sanctum; et in eadem quasi exponens quod dicit ex sua essentia, idest ex se essentia, sic dicit: filius natus a patre in se patris naturam tenens, equidem nomen non paternitatis, sed communicabilitatis cum ordine naturae servavit, ut ex se sua essentia non filium gignitive, sed spiritum sibi per omnia aequalem Deum et coaeternum spiraret; et hoc quidem multoties in eius verbis habetur.
||Also confirmatory of this is the fact that in the same texts it is stated that the Holy Spirit is spirated from the essence of the Son. For Athanasius says in his discourse on the Council of Nicaea: “We adore the Breath of life from the essence of the Son, the Spirit, the coeternally spirated God.”
And again in the same work: “From his essence God spirated the Holy Spirit.”
And in his letter to Serapion: “The heretics are disinherited by the Son because they do not accept the Holy Spirit as in essence God spirated from his essence.”
And in the same letter explaining as it were what “from his essence” means, that is, “from himself as essence”, he says as follows: “The Son born of the Father, truly possessing in himself the Father’s nature, retained not the property of paternity, but that of natural communicability, so that of himself from himself as his own essence he should spirate not a son by generation, but the Spirit, equal and coeternal with him as God in all things.”
And the same point it repeatedly made in his texts.
|Ex quo patet quod cum dicitur spiritus sanctus spiratus esse a filio, non potest referri ad processionem temporalem tantum, sed ad aeternam, secundum quam spiritus sanctus a filio essentiam divinam accepit.
||From this it is clear that when it is asserted that the Holy Spirit is spirated by the Son, this cannot be said in reference only to his temporal procession, but to his eternal as well whereby the Holy Spirit receives the divine essence from the Son.
Quod spiritus sanctus profluit a filio, et quod ab aeterno
That the Holy Spirit flows from the Son and this from eternity.
|Utuntur autem et praedicti doctores ad processionem spiritus sancti a filio ostendendam, verbo profluxus. Dicit enim Athanasius in sermone Nicaeni Concilii, ex persona Christi loquens: mitto apostolos in mundum non in virtute hominis, sed in virtute spiritus sancti ex mea usia profluentis; et in eodem sermone: si non ita credendum est de spiritu sancto, et praedicandum, quod sit veritas patris et filii coessentialis utrique, de eorum essentia profluens; quomodo in divino symbolo salutiferi Baptismatis salvator Deus filius sibi et patri cooperantem salutem nostram connumeraret? Et in epistola ad Serapionem dicit: spiritus sanctus coessentialem patri filium, cuius ipse erat spiritus, et eidem coessentialis, ipse tanquam de essentia eius profluens Deus, per patres Nicaenos credi et praedicari fecit. Et Cyrillus dicit in libro thesaurorum: quando spiritus sanctus in nobis effunditur, configuratos demonstrat nos Deo: profluit enim a patre et filio.
||The same Doctors, moreover, also employ the term ‘outflowing’ to demonstrate the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son. For Athanasius in his discourse on the Council of Nicaea, speaking in the person of Christ, says: “I send Apostles into the world, not in the power of man, but in the power of the Holy Spirit flowing out of my own essence.”
And in the same discourse: “If it is not to be believed and preached of the Holy Spirit that he is the truth of the Father and Son, coessential with both, flowing out of their essence, how in the divine creed of saving baptism does God the Son, our Savior, count him with the Father and Himself as cooperating to effect our salvation?”
And in his letter to Serapion he says: “The Holy Spirit caused it to be believed and proclaimed by the Fathers at Nicaea that the Son is coessential with him, as it were God flowing out of his essence.”
And Cyril in the Thesaurus says: “When the Holy Spirit is poured out on us, he reveals us configured to God; for he flows out of the Father and the Son.”
|Ex quo etiam habetur quod spiritus sanctus ab aeterno est a filio tanquam ab ipso essentiam habens.
||From this it is also established that the Holy Spirit is eternally from the Son, precisely in having the divine essence from him.
Item quod filius est principium spiritus sancti
That the Son is also principle of the Holy Spirit.
|Habetur etiam ex praedictis auctoritatibus quod filius sit principium spiritus sancti. Dicit enim Gregorius Nazianzenus in sermone Constantinopolitani Concilii: nostrum est credere sanctam Trinitatem, patrem scilicet sine principio, filium vero principium a patre principio, spiritum autem sanctum cum principio filio unum Deum esse per omnia et super omnia. Pater autem per hoc est principium filii quod filius est ab eo aeternaliter. Spiritus ergo sanctus aeternaliter est a filio.
||It is also proven from the aforesaid authorities that the Son is the principle of the Holy Spirit. For Gregory Nazianzen says in his discourse on the Council of Constantinople: “We believe the holy Trinity” namely, the Father without a principle, the Son, however, a principle from a principle, the Father, but the Holy Spirit with the Son as principle, to be one God throughout all and over all.”
But the Father is principle of the Son in this that the Son is from him eternally. Hence, the Holy Spirit is from the Son eternally.
Item quod filius sit fons spiritus sancti
That the Son is also source of the Holy Spirit.
|Habetur etiam ex auctoritatibus eorundem quod filius sit fons spiritus sancti. Dicit enim Athanasius in sermone Nicaeni Concilii: sicut spiritus est in filio, sicut fluvius in fonte: et filius est in patre sicut splendor in sole gloriae per naturam: sic per gratiam spiritus sancti electi sunt in patre et filio. Et in epistola ad Serapionem dicit: est equidem filius apud patrem fons et lux; cuius fontis et lucis spiritus sanctus est verus fluvius, et splendor aeternae gloriae. Et in eadem epistola dicit: non enim spiritus sanctus operatur in Deo Christo verbo, suo scilicet naturali fonte; et infra: genitus filius et fons spiritus sancti utrumque in se continet, patrem scilicet, et spiritum, quorum ipse medium ordinem tenet: et idem Athanasius in sermone de incarnatione verbi dicit: David psallit dicens: quoniam apud te est fons vitae: quoniam siquidem apud patrem filius est fons spiritus sancti.
||It is established from the same authorities that the Son is source of the Holy Spirit. For Athanasius in his discourse on the Council of Nicaea says: “Just as the Spirit is in the Son as a stream in its source, and just as the Son is in the Father as splendor in the sun of glory by nature, so by the grace of the Holy Spirit the elect are in the Father and the Son.”
And in his letter to Serapion he says: As a fountain and as light the Son is indeed with the Father; of this fountain and light the Holy Spirit is the true stream and the splendor of eternal glory.” And in the same letter he says: “For the Holy Spirit does not work in God, the Christ and Word, namely, in his natural source.” And further on: “The begotten Son and source of the Holy Spirit, between whom he holds the middle place.”
And Athanasius in his sermon on the Incarnation of the Word says: “David sings in the psalm (35:10), saying: For with you is the font of life; because jointly with the Father the Son indeed is the source of the Holy Spirit.”
|Ex quo etiam habetur quod filius sit principium spiritus sancti sicut a se aeternaliter existentis.
||From this it is also proven that the Son is the principle of the Holy Spirit as one existing of him eternally.
Conclusio ex omnibus, quod spiritus procedit a filio
The general conclusion: that the Spirit proceeds from the Son.
|Volunt autem quidam adversarii veritatis post tot testimonia, verae fidei confessioni resistere, dicentes, quod spiritus sanctus quamvis probetur esse, existere, spirari, emanare et profluere a filio, non tamen est concedendum quod a filio procedat. Hoc enim in nulla praemissarum auctoritatum continetur, neque etiam in auctoritate sacrae Scripturae, quae spiritum sanctum a patre dicit procedere, patri in hoc filium non adiungens, cum dicitur Ioan. XV, 26: cum venerit Paraclitus, quem ego mittam vobis a patre, spiritum veritatis, qui a patre procedit. Ostendendum est ergo quod ex praemissis de necessitate sequitur quod spiritus sanctus procedat a filio.
||After so many testimonies, however, certain adversaries
(meaning the Greek theologians opposing the Latins from the time of Photius) of the truth refuse to confess the true faith, saying that although the Holy Spirit has been shown to exist, to be spirated, to emanate, and to flow out of the Son, nonetheless that he proceeds from the Son is not to be admitted. For this is not contained in any of the cited authorities; nor in any authority of Holy Scripture, which states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, without however joining the Son in this to the Father, when in John 15:26 it is said: When the Paraclete comes, whom I shall send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father. Accordingly, it must be shown how on the basis of the foregoing it necessarily follows that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.
|Verbum enim processionis inter omnia quae ad originem pertinent, magis invenitur esse commune, et minus modum originis determinare. Quidquid enim quocumque modo est ab aliquo, secundum consuetum modum loquendi ab ipso procedere dicimus: sive sit ab eo naturaliter, sicut Petrus dicitur a suo patre processisse sive emissive, sicut spiramen procedit a spirante, sive effluxive, sicut fluvius procedit a fonte; sive artificialiter, sicut domus procedit ab artifice; sive localiter tantum, sicut sponsus dicitur de thalamo procedens.
||Now, of all the words relating to origin, the term procession is found to be more generic
and less specific of a mode of origin. For according to accepted usage we designate as proceeding whatever is from another in any way whatsoever, whether this be naturally from another as Peter is said to proceed from his father, or emissively as breath proceeds from someone breathing, or flowingly as a stream proceeds from a source, or artificially as a house proceeds from a builder, or locally as the bridegroom proceeds from the bridal chamber.
|Non autem quidquid est ab alio quocumque modo, potest dici vel spirari, vel generari, vel fluere, vel emitti. Et propter hoc verbum processionis origini divinarum personarum maxime est accommodum: quia, sicut supra dictum est, divina per communia melius quam per specialia designantur. Ex quolibet igitur eorum quae ostensa sunt, scilicet quod spiritus sanctus existit a filio, vel fluit, vel spiratur, vel emanat, de necessitate concluditur, quod spiritus sanctus a filio procedat.
||Not everything, however, in any way from another can be described as being spirated, or begotten, or flowing, or emitted. Hence, the term procession is also particularly suitable
to express the origin of the divine persons, for, as observed previously,
the divine is better designated by generic rather than specific terms. So, from any of the points which have been discussed, namely, that the Holy Spirit exists of the Son, flows from him, or is spirated or emanates, it is necessarily concluded that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.”
Quod idem est in divinis personis profluere et procedere
That in the divine person to flow and to proceed is the same.
|Item Cyrillus in expositione Nicaeni symboli dicit: coessentialis est spiritus patri et filio, et profluit, hoc est procedit tanquam a fonte, ex Deo et patre. Ex quo habetur quod idem est in divinis personis profluere et procedere. Spiritus autem sanctus profluit a filio, ut supra ostensum est. Ergo a filio procedit.
||Again Cyril says in his explanation of the Nicene Creed: “The Spirit is coessential with the Father and the Son and flows forth, that is, proceeds from God and Father as from a source.”
From this it is established that in the divine persons to flow forth and to proceed are synonymous. The Holy Spirit flows forth from the Son as was demonstrated above;
therefore he proceeds from the Son.
|Hoc autem magis confirmatur ex hoc quod in epistola Nestorio directa dicit, quod Christus est veritas, et spiritus sanctus profluit ab eo sicut ex Deo et patre. Si ergo idem est ipsum profluere a patre quod procedere, etiam per hoc quod a filio profluit, ostenditur ab eodem procedere.
||This, moreover, is further confirmed by this statement he makes in his letter sent to Nestorius, namely, that “Christ is the truth and the Holy Spirit flows forth from him as he does from God and Father.”
If, therefore, to flow forth from the Father is the same as to proceed from him, from this that he flows from the Son he is shown to proceed from him.
|Item Gregorius Nazianzenus in sermone de Epiphania: spiritus sanctus unde est, inde procedit. Est autem a filio, sicut probatum est. A filio igitur procedit. Item Cyrillus dicit super Ioelem: spiritus sanctus est proprius ipsius Christi, et in ipso et ex ipso, quemadmodum et ab ipso intelligitur Deo et patre. Et maximus monachus in sermone de candelabro et septem lucernis: spiritus sanctus quemadmodum per naturam existit a Deo patre secundum essentiam, sic et a filio secundum naturam et essentiam existit veraciter, tanquam ex patre per filium procedat Deus: intelligitur autem et est ex patre sicut ab ipso procedens. Ergo est a filio sicut ab ipso procedens.
||Gregory Nazianzen also says in his sermon on the Epiphany: “Whence the Holy Spirit is, thence he proceeds.”
But, as has been proven, he is from the Son. Therefore, he proceeds from the Son. Cyril, too, says in his commentary on Joel: “The Holy Spirit belongs to Christ himself and is in him and from him, just as he is understood to be from God and Father.”
And Maximus the monk says in his sermon on the candlestick and the seven lights: “Just as the Holy Spirit naturally exists by God the Father according to his essence, so also he truly exists by the Son according to his nature and essence, as it were proceeding as God from the Father through the Son.”
|Item Athanasius dicit in epistola ad Serapionem: quemadmodum filius se habet ad patrem ordine naturae, ita et spiritus sanctus se habet ad filium. Et in eadem epistola dicit, ex persona filii loquens: eundem ordinem et eandem naturam habet spiritus ad me filium, ut sit Deus de Deo, quem ordinem et quam naturam habeo ego ad patrem, ut sim Deus de Deo.
||Likewise Athanasius in his letter to Serapion says: “As the Son is by nature related to the Father, so the Holy Spirit is related to the Son.”
And in the same letter, speaking in the person of the Son, he says: “The Spirit has the same nature and relationship toward me, the Son, so as to be God of God, as I have toward the Father so as to be God of God.”
|Item Basilius contra Eunomium: sicut filius se habet ad patrem, eodem modo spiritus sanctus se habet ad filium. Filius autem hoc modo se habet ad patrem sicut ab eo procedens; dicit enim filius, Ioan. VIII, 42: ego ex Deo processi et veni. Ergo et spiritus sanctus procedit ex filio.
||Basil, too, against Eunomius says: “As the Son is related to the Father, so in the same way the Holy Spirit is related to the Son.”
But the Son is related to the Father as proceeding from him. For in John 8: 42 he says: I have proceeded and came from God. Therefore, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.
|Sed et ipso verbo processionis utitur Epiphanius in Lib. de Trinitate, dicens: secundum quem modum nemo novit patrem nisi filius, neque filium novit quis nisi pater; sic audeo dicere, neque spiritum novit quis, nisi pater et filius, a quo accipit, et a quo procedit.
||But Epiphanius even uses the word procession in his book on the Trinity” “In the same way as no one knows the Father except the Son and no one knows the Son except the Father (Matt. 11:27), so I dare to say that no one knows the Holy Spirit except the Father and the Son from whom he receives and from whom he proceeds.”
|Et Athanasius in symbolo dicit: spiritus sanctus a patre et filio, non factus nec creatus nec genitus, sed procedens.
||And Athanasius on the Creed says: “The Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son, not made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.”
Quod ad ostendendum processionem spiritus sancti, eisdem rationibus utuntur Graeci et Latini doctores
That to demonstrate the procession of the Holy Spirit the Greek and Latin Doctors use the same arguments.
|Considerandum est etiam, quod eisdem rationibus utuntur doctores Graecorum ad ostendendum processionem spiritus sancti a filio quibus et utuntur Latini doctores. Argumentatur enim Anselmus in Lib. de processione spiritus ad ostendendam processionem spiritus sancti ex hoc quod pater et filius sunt unius essentiae. Ex quo sequitur quod pater et filius non differant ab invicem nisi in hoc quod hic est pater, et ille filius. Habere autem spiritum sanctum ex se procedentem non pertinet ad rationem paternitatis, neque ad rationem filiationis. Non enim ex hoc pater dicitur pater, quod spiritus sanctus ab eo procedit; neque filiationi repugnat quod habeat ex se spiritum procedentem. Relinquitur ergo quod habere ex se spiritum procedentem, est commune patri et filio.
||That the Greek Doctors use the same arguments to demonstrate the procession of the Holy Spirit as do the Latin Doctors should also be pondered. In his book on the procession of the Holy Spirit
Anselm argues for the procession of the Holy Spirit on these grounds that Father and Son are of one essence. From this it follows that Father and Son do not differ from each other except that the former is the Father and the latter the Son. To have the Holy Spirit proceeding from himself pertains neither to the notion of paternity nor to that of filiation; for the Father is not called Father because the Holy Spirit proceeds from him. Nor is it contrary to the notion of filiation that the Son should have the Spirit proceeding from him. Hence, the only remaining conclusion is that to have the Holy Spirit proceeding from oneself is common to Father and Son.
|Et similiter Niceta super Ioannem sic argumentatur: ex quo filius omnia quae patris sunt, essentialiter habet, habet et spiritum; et Cyrillus dicit in Lib. thesaurorum: vere spiritum Christi et spiritum patris apostolus dixit esse unum, et non plures: quoniam omnia quae sunt patris, veraciter et proprie transeunt secundum naturam in vero filio.
||And similarly Nicetas commenting on John argues thus: “From the fact that the Son has in his essence everything belonging to the Father, he also has the Spirit.”
And Cyril says in his Thesaurus: “The Apostle says that the Spirit of Christ and the Spirit of the Father are truly one and not many, because all things belonging to the Father truly and in the proper sense pass naturally to the true Son.”
|Ex hoc autem patet quod cum dicitur in Evangelio, spiritus sanctus a patre procedere, datur intelligi quod procedat a filio, licet in Evangelio non addatur. Ea enim quae essentialiter dicuntur de patre et filio, dicta de patre, oportet quod intelligantur de filio, etiam si cum exclusione dicatur; sicuti cum dicitur Ioan. XVII, 3: ut cognoscant te solum Deum verum; et I Tim. VI, 15: quem, scilicet Christum, suis temporibus ostendet beatus et solus potens rex regum et dominus dominantium, qui solus habet immortalitatem. Intelliguntur enim huiusmodi et de filio verificari ea ratione, quia filius et pater secundum essentiam unum sunt, secundum quod dicitur Ioan. X, 30: ego et pater unum sumus.
||From this, however, it is clear that when in the Gospel the Holy Spirit is said to proceed from the Father, he is to be understood to proceed as well as from the Son, even though in the Gospel this is not added. For those things which are predicated of the Father must be understood of the Son as well,
even when predicated exclusively; as stated in John 17:3: That they may know you, the only God. And in 1 Tim. 6:15: Whom, that is, Christ, God will cause to appear in his own time- God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone is immortal. For these things are understood as true of the Son as well, because Father and Son are one in essence, as is asserted in John 10: 30: I and the Father are one.
|Cum ergo habere spiritum ex se procedentem, sit commune patri et filio, sicut ea quae essentialiter dicuntur, ut ex dictis patet; cum dicitur in Evangelio, spiritus sanctus a patre procedere, intelligendum est quod procedat a filio. Eadem ratione cum in symbolo a patribus edito dictum est quod spiritus sanctus procedat a patre, intelligi oportet quod procedat et a filio; sicut cum in eodem symbolo dicitur de patre quod sit omnipotens, et visibilium et invisibilium factor, oportet quod et de filio intelligatur.
||Since, therefore, to have the Spirit proceeding from oneself is common to Father and Son, exactly as anything predicated of them essentially, as is clear from what has been said, then when it is said in the Gospel (cf. John 15: 26) that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, he must be understood to proceed also from the Son; just as when in the same Creed the Father is said to be the Almighty, the Creator of things visible and invisible, the Son must be understood equally so.
Quod spiritus sanctus distinguitur a filio per hoc quod est ab eo
That the Holy Spirit is distinguished from the Son in this that he is from him.
|Ostenditur etiam ex dictis dictorum patrum, quod spiritus sanctus a filio distinguitur per hoc quod ab eo est. Dicit enim Gregorius Nyssenus: dogma faciens de deitate, incommutabilem esse naturam divinam confitemur, et differentiam quae est secundum causam et causatum, non negamus; idest, secundum principium et quod est de principio, ut supra expositum est. Et postea subdit: item aliam differentiam intelligimus: unum nempe propinquum ex primo, scilicet filium ex patre; alium autem ex propinquo et ex primo, spiritum scilicet ex filio et ex patre.
||It is also shown from the texts of the aforesaid Fathers that the Holy Spirit is distinguished from the Son, because he is from him. Gregory of Nyssa teaching dogmatically about the Godhead says: “We confess the divine nature to be immutable; but we do not deny the difference between cause and thing caused”, that is, as explained above,
the distinction between the principle and that which is from the principle. Afterwards he adds: “We also recognize another difference, namely, between one who is the Relative from the First”, that is, the Son from the Father, and “the other who is from the Relative and from the First”, that is, the Spirit who is from the Father and the Son.
|Patet ergo quod per primam differentiam spiritus sanctus et filius a patre distinguuntur; per secundam autem distinguitur spiritus sanctus a filio; quia scilicet filius a patre procedit, non per spiritum, sed spiritus sanctus per filium. Sicut et Richardus de s. Victore in V de Trinitate, ostendit duarum processionum differentiam per hoc quod filius procedit ab uno tantum, spiritus vero sanctus a duobus. Relinquitur ergo secundum utriusque sententiam quod filius et spiritus sanctus ab invicem non distinguerentur, si unus ab alio non esset.
||It is clear, therefore, that in virtue of the first difference the Holy Spirit and Son are distinguished from the Father; in virtue of the second the Holy Spirit is distinguished from the Son, namely, because the Son proceeds from the Father not through the Spirit, but the Spirit proceeds from the Son. Similarly, Richard of St. Victor in book five on the Trinity
also shows the difference between the two processions from this that the Son proceeds from only one person, whereas the Holy Spirit proceeds from two. According to the views of both the only possible conclusion is that the Son and Holy Spirit would not be distinguished from one another unless one were from the other.
Quod oportet distinctionem personarum esse secundum aliquem ordinem naturae
That the distinction of persons should be according to some order of nature.
|Item distinctio personarum oportet quod sit secundum aliquem ordinem, qui est ordo naturae, ut Augustinus dicit. Unde et ordinem personarum distinctarum Athanasius in epistola ad Serapionem catenae assimilat, dicens: equidem qui caput catenae trahit, medium et aliam extremitatem trahit; sic et qui in spiritum blasphemat, tertiam personam; et in filium medium, et in patrem extremum, idest principium caput catenae trini discreti inconfusi ordinis divini blasphemat; sicut et e converso qui spiritum credit et recipit Deum, recipit et filium cuius et a quo est: sicut qui tenet unum caput catenae ad se trahens, medium eius tenet, et per medium aliud caput apprehendit.
||Similarly, the distinction of persons should rest on an order which is natural, as Augustine says.
Hence, Athanasius in his letter to Serapion likens the order of distinct persons to a chain: “Indeed, just as he who pulls the head link of a chain pulls also its middle link, and against the Father, the opposite extremity, so he who blasphemes also against the Spirit, the third person, blasphemes also against the Son, the middle link, and against the Father, the opposite link, the head of the chain of the triune, distinct, unconfused divine order. Contrariwise, he who believes and receives the Spirit as God, receives God and the Son whose he is and from whom he is, just as one who holds one end of a chain pulling it toward himself, holds the middle and through the middle grasps the other end.”
|Et propter hoc etiam in eadem epistola idem dicit, quod spiritus Paraclitus terminus trini beati et superessentialis divini ordinis, infallibiliter terminat proprium finem in se sua hypostasi, sicut et pater tenet ipsius ordinis caput et fontale principium imprincipiatus ipse. Medium autem extremitatum ordinis veraciter tenet filius inter patrem scilicet et spiritum. Et paulo post: pater a se principio trini ordinis divini per medium filium genitum terminat ipsius ordinis finem naturali proprietate in tertio spirato spiritu.
||For this reason he also says in the same letter: “The Spirit Paraclete, the term of the blessed and transcendent divine order, infallibly constitutes the proper termination of this order in himself by his own hypostasis, just as the Father himself without principle contains the head and frontal origin of this order. The Son, however, occupies the intermediate position of this order between its extremes, namely the Father and the Holy Spirit.” And shortly after: “The Father from himself, as origin of the triune divine order, through the medium of his begotten Son established by a natural property the term of this very order in the third person, the spirated Spirit.”
|Cyrillus etiam dicit in Lib. thesaurorum: spiritum sanctum ex filio secundum naturam existentem, et ab ipso ad creaturam missum, renovationem Ecclesiae operantem, et terminum sanctae Trinitatis existentem; et concludit: si hoc ita est, Deus ergo ex Deo filio spiritus sanctus est. Si enim spiritus sanctus non esset a filio, non magis spiritus sanctus esset terminus Trinitatis quam filius; nec ordo Trinitatis assimilaretur catenae, sed magis triangulo.
||Cyril also says in the Thesaurus: “The Holy Spirit is by nature from the Son and is sent by him to the creature, to work the renewal of the Church and to be the term of the Holy Trinity.” And he concludes: “If this is so, then God from God the Son is the Holy Spirit.”
For if the Holy Spirit were not from the Son, the Holy Spirit would no more be the term of the Trinity than the Son, nor would the order of the Trinity be likened to a chain but rather to a triangle.
|Hanc etiam rationem tangit Richardus de s. Victore in V de Trinitate: ubi ostendit, quod in divinis personis non potest esse nisi una sola a qua non procedat divina persona; nec etiam possunt esse duae personae quae sint ab una sola persona. Utrumque enim praedicto ordini, qui in divinis personis attenditur, repugnaret: quorum tamen utrumque oportet poni, si spiritus sanctus a filio non procederet.
||Richard of St. Victor also touches on this argument in book five on the Trinity,
where he shows that among the divine persons there can be only one person from another person from whom another person does not proceed, nor can there be two persons from only one person. Either of these alternatives would be in contradiction to the aforesaid order among the divine persons, but both would be posited if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from the Son.
|Hunc etiam personarum divinarum ordinem Cyrillus in Lib. thesaurorum ostendit sub alia similitudine ex auctoritate Scripturae assumpta, quae spiritum sanctum digitum Dei nominat in Evangelio, cum dicit: si in digito Dei eiicio Daemonia; loco cuius in alio Evangelio dicitur: si in spiritu Dei et cetera. Filius autem dicitur brachium patris, Isai. LI, 9: induere fortitudine brachium domini. Dicit ergo: sicut brachium et manus naturaliter a corpore innatum et propagatum existit, et de manu naturaliter provenit digitus; ita a Deo patre naturaliter filius brachium, et manus eius generative deoriginatur Deus de Deo; et ab ipso filio tanquam a naturali manu patris naturaliter producitur profluens spiritus sanctus dictus digitus.
||Cyril in his Thesaurus
explains this order among the divine persons via another analogy employed on the authority of Holy Scripture, which in the Gospel calls the Holy Spirit the finger of God: If I by the finger of God drive out demons (Luke 11:20), and the parallel passage in another Gospel: If I in the Spirit of God, etc. (Matt. 12: 28). The Son, however, is called the arm of God: Clothe yourself with strength, O arm of the Lord (Is. 51: 9). Cyril says: “As the arm and hand exist naturally from the body and prolong it, and as the finger extends naturally from the hand, so from God the Father, as his arm and hand, the Son naturally arises by generation God from God, and from the Son as from the natural hand of the Father God the Holy Spirit called finger is produced, flowing forth naturally.”
|Concludi ergo potest quod spiritus sanctus sit a filio, per rationes uniformiter a doctoribus Latinis et Graecis prolatas.
||To conclude, therefore, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son for reasons affirmed equally by the Latin and Greek Doctors.
Quod spiritum sanctum esse a filio, credere est de necessitate salutis
That to believe the Holy Spirit is from the Son is necessary for salvation.
|Quia vero inter disputantes plerumque contradictio accidit circa aliqua quae non sunt de necessitate salutis, ne aliquis opinetur non esse de necessitate fidei per quam salvamur, credere spiritum sanctum esse a filio, ostendendum est per auctoritates doctorum Graecorum, hoc esse de necessitate fidei et salutis.
||It frequently happens that when disputants disagree, the points on which they disagree are not necessary to salvation. Lest anyone think that believing the Holy Spirit to be from the Son is not necessary to the faith by which we are saved, it should be shown from texts of the Greek Doctors that such is necessary for faith and salvation.
|Dicit enim Athanasius in epistola ad Serapionem: iuxta quod mandat apostolus: haereticum hominem post primam et secundam correctionem devita. Etiam si quos videris cum Elia volantes per aera, et cum Petro et Moyse sicco pede calcantes maria; nisi spiritum sanctum profiteantur Deum naturaliter ex Deo filio existentem, sicut et filium naturaliter Deum genitum aeternaliter ex Deo et patre existentem, ut nos profitemur: eos non recipias. Et iterum: blasphemantibus et negantibus spiritum sanctum Deum esse de natura Dei filii, non communices.
||For Athanasius says in his letter to Serapion: “In accord with the command of the Apostle (Tit. 3:10): After a first and second correction avoid a heretic, even those you might see flying through the air with Elijah or walking dryshod on the water like Peter and Moses; unless they profess just as we profess that the Holy Spirit is God naturally existing from God the Son, as the son also is naturally God begotten eternally and existing of God and Father, you are not to receive them.” And again: “Have no communion with those who blaspheme and deny that the Holy Spirit is God from the nature of God the Son.”
|Item Cyrillus dicit in libro thesaurorum: necessarium salutis nostrum est confiteri spiritum sanctum de essentia filii existere, tanquam ex ipso secundum naturam existentem. Item Epiphanius in libro de Trinitate: te ipsum alienas a gratia Dei, cum non recipis a patre filium, neque spiritum sanctum a patre et filio dicis.
||Likewise Cyril in his Thesaurus says: “It is necessary for our salvation to confess that the Holy Spirit exists of the essence of the Son, as existing of him by nature.”
So, too, Epiphanius in his book on the Trinity: “You cut yourself off from the grace of God when you do not admit the Son to be from the Father or say that the Holy Spirit is not from the Father and the Son.”
|Patet igitur quod nullo modo sunt tolerandi qui spiritum sanctum a filio procedere negant.
||It is, therefore, clear that in no way are they to be tolerated who deny the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.
Quod pontifex Romanus est primus et maximus inter omnes episcopos
That the Roman Pontiff is the first and greatest among all bishops.
|Similis autem error est dicentium Christi vicarium, Romanae Ecclesiae pontificem, non habere universalis Ecclesiae primatum, errori dicentium, spiritum sanctum a filio non procedere. Ipse enim Christus Dei filius suam Ecclesiam consecrat et sibi consignat spiritu sancto quasi suo charactere et sigillo, ut ex supra positis auctoritatibus manifeste habetur. Et similiter Christi vicarius suo primatu et providentia universam Ecclesiam tanquam fidelis minister Christo subiectam conservat. Ostendendum est ergo ex auctoritatibus Graecorum doctorum, praedictum Christi vicarium in totam Ecclesiam Christi potestatis plenitudinem obtinere.
||The error of those who say that the Vicar of Christ, the Pontiff of the Roman Church, does not have a primacy over the universal Church is similar to the error of those who say that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son. For Christ himself, the Son of God, consecrates and marks her as his own with the Holy Spirit, as it were with his own character and seal, as the authorities already
cited make abundantly clear. And in like manner the Vicar of Christ by his primacy and foresight as a faithful servant keeps the Church Universal subject to Christ. It must, then, be shown from texts of the aforesaid Greek Doctors that the Vicar of Christ holds the fullness of power over the whole Church of Christ.
|Quod enim Romanus pontifex successor Petri et Christi vicarius, sit primus et maximus omnium episcoporum, canon Concilii expresse ostendit, sic dicens: veneramur secundum Scripturas et canonum definitionem sanctissimum antiquae Romae episcopum, primum esse et maximum omnium episcoporum.
||Now, that the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter and Vicar of Christ, is the first and greatest of all the bishops, is expressly stated in the canon of the Council which reads: “According to the Scriptures and definition of the canon we venerate the most holy bishop of old Rome as the first and greatest of all the bishops.”
|Hoc autem auctoritati consonat sacrae Scripturae, quae inter apostolos Petro attribuit primum locum tam in Evangeliis quam in actibus apostolorum. Unde dicit Chrysostomus super Matth., super illud, accesserunt discipuli ad Iesum dicentes: quis maior est in regno caelorum? Quoddam humanum scandalum conceperunt, quod in se occultare iam non poterant, et tumorem cordis non sustinebant, in eo quod viderant Petrum sibi praeferri et praehonorari.
||This, moreover, accords well with Sacred Scripture, which both in the Gospels and in the Acts of the Apostles (cf. Matt. 16:18; John 21:17; Acts 1: 15-16, 2:14, 15:17) assigns first place among the Apostles to Peter. Hence, Chrysostom commenting on the text of Matthew !8: 1: The disciples came to Jesus and asked, who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven, says: “For they had created in their minds a human stumbling block, which they could no longer keep to themselves; nor did they control their hearts’ pride, because they saw that Peter was preferred to them and was given a more honorable place.”
Quod idem pontifex in totam Ecclesiam Christi universalem praelationem habet
That the same Pontiff has universal jurisdiction over the entire Church of Christ.
|Ostenditur etiam, quod praedictus Christi vicarius in totam Ecclesiam Christi universalem praelationem obtineat. Legitur enim in Chalcedonensi Concilio, quod tota synodus acclamavit Leoni Papae: Leo sanctissimus, apostolicus et oecumenicus idest universalis, patriarcha per multos annos vivat.
||It is also shown that the Vicar of Christ has universal jurisdiction over the entire Church of Christ. For it is recorded of the Council of Chalcedon how the whole synod acclaimed Pope Leo: “Long live Leo, the most holy, apostolic, and ecumenical, that is, universal patriarch.”
|Et Chrysostomus super Matth.: filius, quae patris est et ipsius filii, potestatem Petro ubique terrarum concessit, et homini mortali omnium quae in caelo sunt, dedit auctoritatem, dando eidem claves ad hoc ut Ecclesiam ubique terrarum amplificet. Et super Iohannem in omelia LXXXV: Iacobum localiter in loco terminat, Petrum autem totius orbis ordinat magistrum et doctorem. Idem super actus apostolorum: Petrus a filio super omnes quae filii sunt, potestatem accepit, non ut Moyses in gente una, sed in universo orbe.
||And Chrysostom commenting on Matthew says: “The power
which is of the Father and of the Son himself the Son conferred worldwide on Peter and gave a mortal man authority over all things in heaven, giving him the keys in order that he might extend the Church throughout the world.”
And in homily 85 on John: “He allocated James a determined territory, but he appointed Peter master and teacher of the whole world.”
Again, commenting on the Acts of the Apostles: “Not like Moses over one people, but throughout the whole world Peter received from the Son power over all those who are His sons.”
|Hoc etiam trahitur ex auctoritate sacrae Scripturae; nam Petro indistincte oves suas Christus commisit, dicens, Ioan. ult.: pasce oves meas; et Ioan. X, 16: ut sit unum ovile et unus pastor.
||This is also taught on the authority of Holy Scripture. For Christ entrusted hi sheep to the care of Peter without restriction, when he said in the last chapter of John (21:15): Feed my sheep; and in John 10:16: That there might be one fold and one shepherd.
Quod idem habet in Ecclesia plenitudinem potestatis
That the same possesses in the Church a fullness of power.
|Habetur etiam ex praedictorum doctorum auctoritatibus quod Romanus pontifex habeat in Ecclesia plenitudinem potestatis. Dicit enim Cyrillus patriarcha Alexandrinus in libro thesaurorum: sicut Christus accepit a patre dux et sceptrum Ecclesiae gentium ex Israel egrediens super omnem principatum et potestatem, et super omne quodcumque est, ut ei genu cuncta curventur, plenissimam potestatem; sic et Petro et eius successoribus plenissime commisit; et infra: nulli alii quam Petro Christus quod suum est plenum, sed ipsi soli dedit; et infra: pedes Christi humanitas est, ipse homo, cui tota Trinitas plenissimam dedit potestatem; quem unus trium assumpsit et in unitate personae, transvexit ad patrem super omnem principatum et potestatem, ut adorent eum omnes Angeli Dei; quem totum dimisit per sacramentum et potestatem Petro et Ecclesiae eius.
||It is also established from the texts of the aforesaid Doctors that the Roman Pontiff possesses a fullness of power in the Church. For Cyril, the Patriarch of Alexandria, says in his Thesaurus: “As Christ coming forth from Israel as leader and sceptre of the Church of the Gentiles was granted by the Father the fullest power over every principality and power and whatever is that all might bend the knee to him, so he entrusted most fully the fullest power to Peter and his successors.” And again: “To no one else but Peter and to him alone Christ gave what is his fully.” And further on: “The feet of Christ are his humanity, that is, the man himself, to whom the whole Trinity gave the fullest power, whom one of the Three assumed in the unity of his person and lifted up on high to the Father above every principality and power, so that all the angels of God might adore him (Heb. 1:6); which whole and entire he has left in sacrament and power to Peter and to his Church.”
|Et Chrysostomus dicit ad consulta Bulgarorum, ex persona Christi loquens: ter te interrogo, an me diligas, quia ter me tepidus et timidus negasti. Nunc autem reductus, ne credant te fratres gratiam et clavium auctoritatem amisisse, quia amas me, coram ipsis tibi iam confirmo quod meum est plenum.
||And Chrysostom says to the Bulgarian delegation
speaking in the person of Christ: “Three times I ask you whether you love me, because you denied me three times out of fear and trepidation. Now restored, however, lest the brethren believe you to have lost the grace and authority of the keys, I now confirm in you that which is fully mine, because you love me in their presence.”
|Hoc etiam trahitur ex auctoritate Scripturae; nam dominus, Matth. XVI, 19, universaliter Petro dixit: quodcumque solveris super terram, erit solutum et in caelis.
||This is also taught on the authority of Scripture. For in Matthew 16: 19 the Lord said to Peter without restriction: Whatsoever you shall bind upon earth shall be bound in heaven.
Quod est in eadem potestate quae collata est Petro a Christo
That he enjoys the same power conferred on Peter by Christ.
|Ostenditur etiam quod Petrus sit Christi vicarius, et Romanus pontifex Petri successor in eadem potestate ei a Christo collata. Dicit enim canon Concilii Chalcedonensis: si quis episcopus praedicatur infamis, liberam habeat sententiam appellandi ad beatissimum episcopum antiquae Romae: quem habemus Petrum petram refugii, et ipsi soli libera potestate loco Dei sit ius discernendi episcopi criminati infamiam secundum claves a domino sibi datas; et infra: et omnia diffinita ab eo teneantur tanquam a vicario apostolici throni.
||It is also shown that Peter is the Vicar of Christ and the Roman Pontiff is Peter’s successor enjoying the same power conferred on Peter by Christ. For the canon of the Council of Chalcedon says: “If any bishop is sentenced as guilty of infamy, he is free to appeal the sentence to the blessed bishop of old Rome, whom we have as Peter the rock of refuge, and to him alone, in the place of God, with unlimited power, is granted the authority to hear the appeal of a bishop accused of infamy in virtue of the keys given him by the Lord.” And further on: “And whatever has been decreed by him is to be held as from the vicar of the apostolic throne.”
|Item Cyrillus Ierosolymitanus patriarcha dicit ex persona Christi loquens: tu cum fine, et ego sine fine, cum omnibus quos loco tui ponam, plene et perfecte sacramento et auctoritate cum eis ero sicut sum et tecum. Et Cyrillus Alexandrinus in libro thesaurorum dicit, quod apostoli in Evangeliis et epistolis affirmaverunt in omni doctrina Petrum esse loco domini, et eius Ecclesiam, eidem dantes locum in omni capitulo et synagoga, in omni electione et affirmatione. Et infra: cui, scilicet Petro, omnes iure divino caput inclinant, et primates mundi tanquam ipsi domino Iesu obediunt. Et Chrysostomus dicit ex persona filii loquens: pasce oves meas; idest loco mei praepositus esto fratrum.
||Likewise, Cyril, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, says, speaking in the person of Christ” “You for a while, but I without end will be fully and perfectly in sacrament and authority with all those whom I shall put in your place, just as I am with you.”
And Cyril of Alexandria in his Thesaurus says that the Apostles “in the Gospels and Epistles have affirmed in all their teaching that Peter and his Church are in the place of the Lord, granting him participation in every chapter and assembly, in every election and proclamation of doctrine.” And further on: “To him, that is, to Peter, all by divine ordinance bow the head and the rulers of the world obey him as the Lord himself.”
And Chrysostom, speaking in the person of Christ, says: “Feed my sheep (John 21:17), that is, in my place be in charge of your brethren.”
Quod ad eum pertinet determinare quae sunt fidei
That to him belongs the right of deciding what pertains to faith.
|Ostenditur etiam quod ad dictum pontificem pertineat quae sunt fidei, determinare. Dicit enim Cyrillus Alexandrinus in libro thesaurorum: ut membra maneamus in capite nostro apostolico throno Romanorum pontificum, a quo nostrum est quaerere quid credere et quid tenere debemus. Et maximus in epistola Orientalibus directa dicit: omnes fines orbis qui dominum sincere receperunt, et ubique terrarum Catholici veram fidem confitentes, in Ecclesiam Romanorum tanquam in solem respiciunt, et ex ipsa lumen Catholicae et apostolicae fidei recipiunt. Nec immerito; nam Petrus legitur primo perfectam fidem esse confessus, domino revelante cum dixit Matth. XVI, 16: tu es Christus filius Dei vivi. Unde et ei dominus dicit: ego pro te rogavi, Petre, ut non deficiat fides tua.
||It is also demonstrated that to the aforesaid Pontiff belongs the right of deciding what pertains to faith. For Cyril in his Thesaurus says: “Let us remain as members in our head on the apostolic throne of the Roman Pontiffs, from whom it is our duty to seek what we must believe and what we must hold.”
And Maximus in the letter addressed to the Orientals says: “All the ends of the earth which have sincerely received the Lord and Catholics everywhere professing the true faith look to the Church of the Romans as to the sun, and receive from it the light of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith.”
Rightly so, for Peter is recorded as the first to have, while the Lord was enlightening him, confessed the faith perfectly when he said to him (Matt. 16:16): You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. And hence the Lord also said to him (Lk. 22:32): I have prayed for you, Peter, that your faith may not fail.”
Quod ipse aliis patriarchis praelatus existit
That he is the superior of the other patriarchs.
|Patet etiam quod ipse aliis patriarchis praelatus existat ex hoc quod Cyrillus dicit, quod ipsius, scilicet apostolici throni Romanorum pontificum, solius est reprehendere, corrigere, statuere, disponere, solvere, et loco illius ligare qui ipsum aedificavit. Et Chrysostomus super actus apostolorum dicit, quod Petrus est vertex sanctissimus beati apostolici chori, pastor bonus.
||It is also clear that he is the superior of the other patriarchs from this statement of Cyril: “It is his”, namely, of the Roman Pontiffs of the apostolic throne, “exclusive right to reprove, correct, enact, resolve, dispose and bind in the name of Him who established it.”
And Chrysostom commenting on the Acts of the Apostles says that “Peter is the most holy summit of the blessed apostolic choir, the good shepherd.”
|Et hoc etiam patet ex auctoritate domini dicentis Luc. XXII, 32: tu aliquando conversus confirma fratres tuos.
||And this also is manifest on the authority of the Lord, in Luke 22:32 saying: “You, once converted, confirm your brethren.”
Quod subesse Romano pontifici sit de necessitate salutis
That to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation.
|Ostenditur etiam quod subesse Romano pontifici sit de necessitate salutis. Dicit enim Cyrillus in libro thesaurorum: itaque, fratres mei, sic Christum imitamur, ut ipsius oves vocem eius audiamus, manentes in Ecclesia Petri, et non inflemur vento superbiae, ne forte tortuosus serpens propter nostram contentionem nos eiiciat, ut Evam olim de Paradiso. Et Maximus in epistola Orientalibus directa dicit: coadunatam et fundatam super petram confessionis Petri dicimus universalem Ecclesiam secundum definitionem salvatoris, in qua necessario salutis animarum nostrum est manere, et ei est obedire, suam servantes fidem et confessionem.
||It is also shown that to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation. For Cyril says in his Thesaurus: “Therefore, brethren, if you imitate Christ so as to hear his voice remaining in the Church of Peter and so as not be puffed up by the wind of pride, lest perhaps because of our quarrelling the wily serpent drive us from paradise as once he did Eve.”
And Maximus in the letter addressed to the Orientals says: “The Church united and established upon the rock of Peter’s confession we call according to the decree of the Savior the universal Church, wherein we must remain for the salvation of our souls and wherein loyal to his faith and confession we must obey him.”
Contra hoc quod negant posse confici in azymo
Against the position of those who deny the Sacrament may be confected with unleavened bread.
|Sicut autem praedicti errantes contra unitatem corporis mystici peccant, Romani pontificis potestatem plenariam abnegantes, sic contra puritatem sacramenti corporis Christi delinquunt, dicentes ex azymo pane corpus Christi consecrari non posse: quod etiam doctorum Graecorum auctoritatibus improbatur.
||But just as the aforesaid misguided persons sin against the unity of the mystical Body by denying the plenary power of the Roman Pontiff, so they sin against the purity of the sacrament of the Body of Christ, saying that the Body of Christ cannot be consecrated from unleavened bread. This, too, is disproved from texts of the Greek Doctors.
|Dicit enim Chrysostomus super illud Evangelii: prima die azymorum: primam diem dicit diem Iovis, in quo incipiebant legis cultores Pascha celebrare, idest azyma comedere omni expulso fermento. Dominus igitur mittit discipulos suos die Iovis, quam dicit Evangelista primam diem azymorum, in qua ad vesperas salvator comedit Pascha. In quo facto per omnia apertissime demonstravit a principio suae circumcisionis suae usque ad extremum diem Paschae, quod non erat contrarius divinarum legum. Patet autem quod esset contrarius, si fermentato pane usus fuisset. Patet ergo quod Christus in institutione huius sacramenti ex pane azymo corpus suum consecravit.
||For Chrysostom commenting on the Gospel pericope, On the first day of the unleavened bread, says: “The first day he says is Thursday, on which observers of the Law began to celebrate the Passover, that is, to eat unleavened bread, absolutely free of yeast. The Lord, therefore, sends his disciples on Thursday, which the Evangelist calls the first day of the unleavened bread, on which in the evening the Savior ate the Passover; in this deed, as in all he did from the beginning of his circumcision to the final day of his passover, he clearly showed that he was not opposed to divine laws.”
But it is obvious that he would have acted against the law if he had used leavened bread. Hence it is clear that in the institution of this sacrament Christ consecrated his body from unleavened bread.
|Sciendum tamen, quod quidam dicunt Christum praevenisse diem azymorum propter passionem imminentem, et tunc fermentato pane eum usum fuisse. Quod quidem ostendere nituntur ex duobus. Primo ex hoc quod dicitur Ioan. XIII, quod ante diem festum Paschae dominus cum discipulis coenam celebravit, in qua corpus suum consecravit, sicut apostolus tradit I Cor. XI. Unde videtur quod Christus coenam celebravit ante diem azymorum, et sic in consecratione sui corporis, usus fuerit pane fermentato. Hoc etiam confirmare volunt per hoc quod habetur Ioan. XVIII, 28, quod sexta feria, qua Christus est crucifixus, Iudaei non intraverunt praetorium Pilati, ut non contaminarentur, sed manducarent Pascha. Pascha autem dicuntur azyma. Ergo concludunt, quod coena fuit celebrata ante azyma.
||It should be remarked,
however, that some
claim Christ anticipated the day of unleavened bread because his passion was at hand, and so used leavened bread. This they attempt to show on two grounds. First, because in John 13: 1, it is said that before the feast of the Passover Jesus celebrated with his disciples the supper in which he consecrated his body, as the Apostle teaches in 1 Cor. 11: 21. Whence it seems that Christ celebrated the Passover before the day of the unleavened bread, and so in the consecration of his body he used leavened bread. Further, they would confirm this by noting that according to John 18: 28, on the Friday on which Christ was crucified the Jews did not enter the praetorium of Pilate in order that they might not defile, but eat the Passover. But the Passsover is called the unleavened bread. They therefore conclude that the supper was celebrated before the unleavened bread.
|Ad hoc autem respondet Chrysostomus super Ioannem sic, super illud: ut non contaminarentur etc.: quid est hoc dicere, nisi quia in alia die comederunt Pascha et legem solverunt, ut pessimi animi sui adimplerent desiderium in morte Christi. Christus autem non praeteriit tempus Paschae diem scilicet Iovis, sed in ipso Pascha comedit.
||To this, however, Chrysostom replies, commenting on that very text of John: That they might not be defiled, etc.: “What does this mean, but that they ate the Passover on another day and broke the law in order that they might fulfill the most wicked desire of their soul in the death of Christ; Christ, however, did not transgress Holy Thursday in paschal week, but on that day he ate the Passover.”
|Sed quia hoc non constat, melius potest dici, quod sicut dominus mandat Exod. XII, festum azymorum septem diebus celebrabatur, inter quos dies prima erat sancta atque solemnis praecipue inter alias, quod erat quintadecima die mensis. Sed quia apud Iudaeos solemnitates a praecedenti vespere incipiebant, ideo quartadecima die ad vesperam incipiebant comedere azyma, et comedebant per septem subsequentes dies. Et ideo dicitur in eodem capitulo: primo mense, quartadecima die mensis ad vesperam comedetis azyma usque ad diem vigesimamprimam eiusdem mensis ad vesperam: septem diebus fermentum non invenietur in domibus vestris. Et eadem quartadecima die ad vesperas immolabatur agnus paschalis.
||But since this is not certain, it might be better to say that, as the Lord commands in Exodus 12:18-19, the feast of the unleavened bread was observed throughout seven days, of which the first day, that is, the fifteenth day of the month, was holier and more solemn than the others. But because among the Jews solemn feasts began to be celebrated on the preceding evening, the unleavened bread began to be eaten on the fourteenth day in the evening and was eaten during the seven following days. That is why it is said in the same chapter: In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month in the evening, you shall eat the unleavened bread, until the twenty-first day of the month in the evening; for seven days leaven shall not be found in your houses. And on the same fourteenth day in the evening the paschal lamb was sacrificed.
|Prima ergo dies azymorum a tribus Evangelistis, Matthaeo, Marco et Luca, dicitur quartadecima die mensis, quia ad vesperam comedebatur azyma, et tunc immolabatur Pascha, idest agnus paschalis; et hoc erat, secundum Ioannem, ante diem festum Paschae, idest ante quintumdecimum diem mensis, qui erat solemnior inter omnes, in quo Iudaei volebant comedere Pascha, idest panes azymos paschales, non autem agnum paschalem. Et sic nulla discordia inter Evangelistas existente, planum est quod Christus ex azymo pane corpus suum consecravit in coena.
|| Hence, the first day of the unleavened bread is called by the three Evangelists, Matthew 26: 17; Mark 14:12; and Luke 22:7, the fourteenth day of the month, because toward evening the unleavened bread was eaten and then the Passover, that is, the paschal lamb was sacrificed. And, according to John 13: 1, this was before the feast of the Passover, that is, before the fifteenth day of the month, because this was the most solemn day on which the Jews wished to eat the Passover, that is, the unleavened paschal bread as well as the paschal lamb. Thus, there being no disagreement among the Evangelists, it is plain that Christ consecrated his body from unleavened bread at the supper.
|Hoc etiam patet quod magis congruit puritati corporis mystici, idest Ecclesiae, quae in hoc sacramento figuratur. Unde dicit Gregorius Nazianzenus de Pascha domini: celebremus domino festum in iubilo, non in fermento veteri malitiae et nequitiae, sed in azymis puritatis et sinceritatis.
||Clearly, also, this is more fitting for the purity of the mystical Body, that is, the Church, typified in this sacrament. Hence, Gregory Nazianzen says in his sermon on the feast of the Passover of the Lord: “Let us celebrate a feast to the Lord with jubilation, not in the leaven of malice and wickedness, but in the unleavened bread of sincerity and purity (1 Cor. 5:8).”
|Non autem propter hoc intendimus quod ex fermentato hoc sacramentum confici non possit. Dicit enim Gregorius Papa in registro: Romana Ecclesia offert azymos panes, propterea quod dominus sine ulla commixtione suscepit carnem; sed ceterae Ecclesiae offerunt fermentatum, pro eo quod verbum patris indutum est carne, et est verus Deus et verus homo. Ita et fermentum commiscetur farinae, et efficitur corpus domini nostri Iesu Christi verum.
||We do not, however, mean by this that the sacrament may not be confected using leavened bread. For Pope Gregory says in his Register: “The Roman Church offers unleavened bread because the Word of the Father took flesh without any carnal conmingling; but other Churches offer leavened bread because the Word of the Father is clothed with flesh and is true God and true man. So, also, yeast is mixed with flour and this becomes the true body of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
Quod est Purgatorium, in quo purgantur animae a peccatis non in vita praesenti purgatis
That there exists a purgatory wherein souls are cleansed from sins not cleansed in the present life.
|Minuitur autem virtus huius sacramenti ab his qui Purgatorium negant post mortem. Nam in Purgatorio existentibus praecipuum remedium ex hoc sacramento confertur. Dicit enim Gregorius Nyssenus in sermone de defunctis: si aliquis hic in labili vita purgare peccata minus potuerit, post transitum hinc, per Purgatorii ignis conflationem citius magis ac magis fidelis sponsa sponso dona et hostiam in passionis memoriam offert pro filiis quos ipsi sponso verbo et sacramento rei praeclarae genuit, poena alacriter expeditur, secundum quod praedicamus dogma veritatis servantes, ita et credimus.
||The power of this sacrament, however, is lessened by those who deny here exists a purgatory after death; for on the souls in purgatory special healing is conferred by this sacrament. For Gregory of Nyssa in his sermon on the dead says: “If anyone her in his frail life has been less than able to cleanse himself of sin, after departing hence, through the blazing fire of purgatory the penalty is the more quickly paid, the more and more the ever-faithful Bride offers to her Spouse in memory of his passion gifts and holocausts on behalf of the children she has brought forth for that Spouse by word and sacrament; just as we preach in fidelity to this dogmatic truth, so we believe.”
|Item Theodoretus episcopus Cyrensis super illud I ad Cor. III, 11: si cuius opus arserit etc., sic dicit: dicit apostolus, quod salvabitur sic tanquam per conflatorium ignem purgantem quidquid intervenit per incautelam practicae vitae ex pulvere saltem pedum terreni sensus: in quo igne tandiu manet, quandiu quidquid corpulentiae et terreni affectus inhaesit, purgetur: pro quo mater Ecclesia orat et dona pacifica devote offert; et sic per hoc mundus et inde prius exiens, domini Sabaoth purissimis oculis immaculatus assistit.
||Likewise Theodoret, Bishop of Cyr, commenting on that passage of 1 Cor. 3: 11: If any man’s work burn, etc., says thus: “The Apostle states that one is saved thus as through a blazing fire cleansing whatever accumulated through carelessness in life’s activity, or at least from the dust of the feet of earthly living. In this fire one remains so long as any earthly and bodily affections are being purged. For such a person holy Mother Church pays and devoutly offers peace offerings, and so through this such a one emerging clean and pure assists immaculate before the most pure eyes of the Lord of hosts.”
|Haec sunt, pater sanctissime, quae ex auctoritatibus doctorum Graecorum secundum vestram iussionem excepi et exponenda, et ad confirmationem verae fidei inducenda. Inveniuntur tamen inter praedictas auctoritates quaedam indecentes expositiones interpositae, sicut quod logon exponit translator fere ubique sermonem mentalem, cum secundum usum Scripturae Latinae convenientius exponeret verbum. Et hypostasim exponit essentialem personam; quam expositionem sequens aliquando cogitur inconveniens dicere, sicut ubi dicit: Deus trinipostatos, idest trinus essentialiter personalis: hoc enim est omnino erroneum, quod Deus sit essentialiter trinus. Sufficeret autem pro hypostasi transferre simpliciter personam. Sic enim utimur nomine personae in confessione fidei, sicut Graeci nomine hypostasis, ut Augustinus dicit, licet non sit omnino eadem ratio significandi per nomen.
||Most holy Father, these are the points which at your command I have excerpted from the texts of the Greek Doctors, both to be clarified and to be cited in confirmation of the true faith. Scattered, however, among the aforementioned authorities are a number of inappropriate interpretations, as when the translator renders “logos” almost always as “sermo mentalis” (mental discourse),
whereas, in conformity with the Latin usage, it should have been more appropriately rendered :verbum” (word).And “hypostasis” he translates as “essential person”,
and following this interpretation he is forced at times to use unfortunate phrases as when he says: “Deus Trinipostatos” (God-tri-postatic), that is, tri-personal by essence.
Now it is absolutely wrong to say God is triune by essence. It would have been enough to render “hypostasis” as “person”; for we so use the term person in the profession of faith where the Greeks use the term hypostasis, as Augustine says,
even though the manner of signifying of each term is not identical.
|Inducit etiam ad laudem sanctorum patrum aliqua quae modum puri hominis excedunt, aliquos nominans patres fidei, quod solius Christi est, a quo secundum apostolum ad Heb. II, principium accepit fides enarrandi. Ceteri vero possunt dici doctores, vel expositores fidei, non autem patres.
||He also introduces certain praises of the holy Fathers which raise them above the level of mere men; he calls some of them “fathers of the faith”,
something exclusive to Christ alone, from whom according to the Apostle in Hebrews 2:3 faith takes its origin. Others, however, may be called teachers or expositors of the faith, but not its fathers.
|Inducit etiam in principio huius libelli quasdam auctoritates sacrae Scripturae, quae si nude proferantur, non expresse probant processionem spiritus sancti a filio, sicut quod inducit: spiritus domini ferebatur super aquas et ego sum Deus Abraham, et cetera.
||He also cites at the beginning of this book certain texts of Holy Scripture which of themselves do not expressly prove the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, such as: the Spirit of the Lord was hovering over the waters (Gen. 1:2);
or : I am the God of Abraham, etc. (Exodus 3:6).
|Utitur etiam et ipse aliquibus modis loquendi quos in auctoritatibus sanctorum patrum invenit, qui, sicut superius dictum est, magis sunt reverenter in dictis patrum exponendi, quam ab aliis usurpandi: sicut quod in divinis personis sit primum, secundum et tertium, et causa et causatum.
||He also uses certain turns of phrase which he finds in texts of the holy Fathers, which, as noted above,
are in the statements of the Fathers to be interpreted reverently rather than be cited by others; for instance that there is in God a first, second, third;
a cause and a caused.
|In suis etiam expositionibus multis impropriis verbis et indecentibus utitur, sicut quod dicit, quod filius habet proprietatem geminam inter patrem et spiritum, ut ita dicam, subalternam per modum praedicandi. Primo se habet ad patrem tanquam subiectum ad praedicatum, et secundo ut praedicatum ad subiectum ad spiritum sanctum. Quod est omnino erroneum.
||In his own explanations
as well he uses words improperly and inappropriately, as when he says that the Son has a kind of twin property, subalternated so to speak in terms of predication. He is first to the Father as subject to predicate and then to the Holy Spirit as predicate to subject, which is absolutely mistaken.
|Item dicit, quod imago in Graeco idem est quod entitas secunda: quod omnino indecenter dicitur. Item dicit, quod imago non importat originem; quod est contra Augustinum in Lib. LXXXIII quaestionum.
||He likewise says that, in Greek, image means the same as second entity, an absolutely inept phrase. He also says that the word image does not imply origin, which contradicts what Augustine says in the book on the 83 questions.
|Sunt autem fortassis et alia in praedicto libello quae vel dubia esse possunt, et expositione indigerent, vel quae ad fidei assertionem utilia esse possent, sed ad ea quae praemissa sunt, ut credo, fere omnia possunt reduci.
||There are perhaps other points in the aforesaid book which either could be considered doubtful and would need clarification, or which could be useful in affirming the faith. But almost all of them can be reduced, I believe, to the points set forth above.