Book 6

Here follows the table of the sixth book. Here begin the chapters of the sixth book, in which is treated the question of the Greeks and the Armenians concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit; and it has thirteen chapters.

The first chapter is on the rule of faith as to the truth of the three persons and the unity of the essence.

The second chapter shows that it is repugnant to the Holy Spirit to beget and that it is not repugnant to the Son to breathe; and there are two arguments.

The third chapter shows the same of the Son through the created image and its acts, and this by a threefold argument.

The fourth chapter shows that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son by the fact that he is the Spirit of the Son.

The fifth chapter shows the same by the fact that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God and the Spirit of the Father.

The sixth chapter shows that if spiration can be proved to belong to the Father, that the same …³

The seventh chapter shows that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son because he is sent and given by him in the divine nature, with its doubts and their solutions.

The eighth chapter shows the same by three testimonies of Scripture, namely what is written, "He shall receive of mine," and by the breathing upon [the apostles], and by "whom he will send in my name."⁴

The ninth chapter sets out the excuse of the Latins from the excommunication pronounced in the early councils and by others.

The tenth chapter sets out the considerations taken from John Damascene, with their resolution.

The eleventh chapter sets out the contrary considerations taken from Saint Dionysius, with their resolution.

The twelfth chapter sets out the considerations of Abbot Barlaam.⁵

The thirteenth chapter replies to his considerations, etc.

John. Although I hold with firm faith that the Holy Spirit proceeds, is breathed, or is from the Son or out of the Son, as from the Father or out of the Father, yet since both the Greeks and some Armenians do not assert this with us—although they affirm,⁶ as we do, that the Holy Spirit is breathed and proceeds and is from God and from the Father, and is the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of God, and is sent and given by God, and also proceeds from the Father, and is the Spirit of the Son or Word, and is sent and given to us by the Son, as John Damascene plainly expounds in the book of his Sentences, chapters 1, 7, 10 and 12⁷—I should nevertheless wish you to show me, from sacred Scripture and from what the Greeks and Armenians confess with us, by a plain and clear deduction, as you promised that Greek doctor Barlaam, that the Holy Spirit is so, and so proceeds or is breathed, [from the Son as] from the Father.⁸ For although the venerable Anselm has done this subtly and sufficiently,⁹ yet because you had promised to do it for this doctor of the Greeks, or because it may avail me too and those like me, I beg you, by the love of the same Spirit, to fulfil your promise.

Richard. For it is written [?],¹⁰ "Who shall know thy thought, except thou give wisdom, and send thy holy Spirit from above?" Be instant, therefore, in season, praying that the same God may send this Spirit, the most truthful teacher of God's thought, from the throne of his majesty, that he may be with me and teach me to labour in what you ask. And see: what you demand I gladly undertake, having invoked the Paraclete himself. Let it be assumed, as that rule of faith which the Greeks and Armenians cannot deny, that whatever belongs or is attributed to God or to one person belongs in common and severally to the three divine persons, on account of the identity of the simple essence of the persons, unless it is repugnant to some person by reason of a personal property; and conversely, whatever belongs or is attributed to some divine person, or to two in common, or to three, belongs to God and is attributed to him, since each person is God and any two persons are God. This shines out more clearly by examples from Scripture. For from what is written, "In the beginning God created heaven and earth" etc., we confidently affirm that the Father in the beginning created heaven and earth, and the Son in the beginning created heaven and earth, and the Holy Spirit in the beginning created heaven and earth; that the Father and the Son were in the beginning the creator of heaven and earth; that the Father and the Holy Spirit were in the beginning the creator of heaven and earth; that the Son and the Holy Spirit were in the beginning the creator of heaven and earth. And as we take it of the act of creation, so of wisdom, of goodness, of omnipotence, of unity, as we read of him that "none is good but one, God alone," or that "of his wisdom there is no number," or that he is almighty, or that God is one;¹¹ and of whatever things are attributed to God in the aforesaid way, we confidently assert that they all evidently belong to the single persons, to two and to three, unless something occurs that is repugnant to some person or to several persons by reason of a personal property or personal properties. So too from what is read of the Father in John 14, "But the Father who abideth in me, he doth the works," and in Matthew 16, "Flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father," we confidently assert by likeness that the same is so of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and of two and of three persons in common. Again, from what is read of the Son in John 8, "The beginning, who also speak unto you," and "I am the way, and the truth, and the life," or the like, we affirm all the same things—namely, to be the beginning, to be the fount of wisdom, and to be the way, the life and the truth—of the Father and of the Holy Spirit, and of any two persons, and of the three as well. Again, from what we read of the Holy Spirit in John 14, "But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things," and in John 3, "The Spirit breatheth where he will,"¹² we affirm [it] also of the Father and the Son, and of any two and three persons. [From] "My Father worketh until now; and I work,"¹³ and John 17, "Now this is eternal life: that they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent," or the like, we here affirm that the same things belong to the Holy Spirit, and also to the three persons in common. So in exceptive locutions, where one person is excepted, we take all as excepted, as is clear from what is read in John 6, "No man can come to me, except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him": we understand the Son as excepted, and the Holy Spirit too, each of whom draws as the Father does; just as, when we read of the Son in John 14, "No man cometh to me but by me,"¹⁴ we understand the Father and the Holy Spirit [as excepted] like the Son, through each of whom one comes to the Son. And from what is read in 1 Corinthians 2, "The things that are of God no man knoweth, but the Spirit of God," we assert that as to this knowledge the Father is excepted, and the Son, as is the Spirit of God. So where two persons are excepted, we understand the [third] person as excepted; as when we read in Matthew 11, "No one knoweth the Son but the Father: neither doth any one know the Father, but the Son, and he to whom it shall please the Son to reveal him," we take the Holy Spirit as excepted from both kinds of knowledge, like the Father or the Son; although this passage, expounded otherwise according to its verbal sense, would make out that the Holy Spirit is excluded from the knowledge of the Father and the Son, except in so far as he receives the essence from them. So, therefore, it is in these examples set out, as we confess it to be in all things that belong to God or to some divine person: namely, that they belong to two or three persons severally [and] in common, and conversely, unless they were repugnant to some person or persons on account of a personal property, etc.

Chapter 2.

From this rule of the catholic faith, which the Greeks confess with us, it seems to follow¹⁵ that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son and is out of the Son, because the Holy Spirit is from the Father and is out of God. For it is read in John 15, "The Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father," and in 1 Corinthians 2, "We have received not the spirit of this world, but the Spirit that is of God." Equally it follows from the same rule that the Son proceeds from the Holy Spirit, and goes out and is produced from the Holy Spirit, because the Son proceeds out of God, goes out from God and the Father, and proceeds out of the mouth of God. For it is read of the Son in John 8, "From God I proceeded," and in John 16, "I came out from God," and there, "I came forth from the Father"; and in Ecclesiasticus 24, "I came out of the mouth of the most High."¹⁶ Unless, that is, this is repugnant to the person of the Holy Spirit or to the person of the Son.

John. Go on where you are heading.

Richard. Let us see, then, by Scripture and reason whether it is repugnant to the Holy Spirit to have or beget a Son, [and] whether it is also repugnant to the person of the Son to breathe. Let us inquire first of the Holy Spirit. For whatever is not in God is repugnant to him; there is no doubt of it: the philosophers say that in eternal things to be and to be able are the same, and consequently not to be and not to be able, or to be repugnant, are the same. And if to beget a Son does not belong to the Holy Spirit, to beget is altogether repugnant to him. Now that it does not belong to him, Scripture affirms with manifest reason: for if the Holy Spirit begot the Son, he would not be the Spirit of the Son; for nature does not allow that the spirit of anyone beget him whose spirit it is. Here the Greeks confess with us that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Son. For the apostle says, Romans 8: "Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his"; and Galatians 4: "God hath sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts";¹⁷ and Philippians: "Through your prayer," he says, "and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ." And in Acts 16 it is said, "And the Spirit of Jesus suffered them not." And Peter in his first epistle, chapter 1, says, "What manner of time the Spirit of Christ in them did signify." And in Isaiah 63 it is said, "They afflicted the spirit of his Holy One," and there, in other words, "The angel of his presence saved," speaking of the Holy Spirit, of whom he adds, "and the spirit of the Lord was their leader."¹⁸ For he is called the Spirit of truth in the gospel, John 14, where the Son had said of himself before, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life." By the fact, therefore, that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Son, it necessarily follows that it is repugnant to him to beget the Son. Again, the teaching of the Greeks holds that the Spirit accompanies the Word, and that the Son is neither of the Spirit nor out of the Spirit, as is clear from Damascene, book 1, chapter 7;¹⁹ therefore it is repugnant to him [?] that he should beget him or be his principle,²⁰ which the Greeks affirm with us. And so, not dwelling further on this, it remains to show that it is not repugnant to the Son or Word to breathe. This is clear thus. First, because sacred Scripture nowhere denies this of the Son, or says anything else from which such a negative follows; nor does any of the greater doctors of the Greeks allege sacred Scripture for this negative, but without alleging Scripture the doctors say that the Holy Spirit ought not to be said²¹ to proceed or be from the Son, as is clear from Damascene in the place cited above, chapter 11, at the end; which saying, with others like it, does not impugn the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, as is shown below in chapter 10.²² Now there is no doubt that, if to breathe were repugnant to the Son, this repugnance could be detected by them or by us from the Scripture of the same Spirit, just as the other heresies concerning the divine persons can be refuted from the same Scripture; nor would the Greeks have omitted such Scripture for their assertion. It is not repugnant, therefore, to the Son or Word to breathe. Again, I ask those who say that it is repugnant to the Word or Son to breathe what would be the case if John the evangelist had not said those words, "who proceedeth from the Father," since they are found said nowhere in sacred Scripture except in John 15. When Scripture expresses that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God, and out of God, and the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of the Son, would they dare to say that spiration could belong neither to the Father nor to the Son? Or would they say, as sacred Scripture would compel, that it belonged to one of them? Since, therefore, they would not then have from Scripture that it belonged to the Father rather than to the Son, they would be forced to confess that it belonged to both. How then do they dare to assert at present that spiration does not belong to the Son, or is repugnant to him, since, with that one irrelevant saying of John taken away, they would affirm that it belongs to the Son? For we have learned from the Philosopher, and it cannot be impugned, that when anything irrelevant to a proposition is posited or taken away, no absurdity follows on that account on the side of the proposition.²³ Let them confess with us, then, that to breathe is not repugnant to the Son, since that assertion of Saint John, that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, would not deny spiration of the Son, but is evidently irrelevant [to it].

John. Put forward other [arguments], if you have them.

Chapter 3.

Richard. For there is no doubt that the human mind is the image of the creating Trinity, according to that of Genesis 1: "Let us make man to our image and likeness"; which saying no one can take as regarding the body, as the apostle took it in Colossians 3: "Stripping," he says, "the old man with his deeds, and putting on the new, him who is renewed unto knowledge of God according to the image of him that created him."¹ Now nothing is renewed unto knowledge of God but the mind, as the apostle himself says in Ephesians 4: "And be renewed in spirit of your mind";² hence it is known that the mind itself is the image of the uncreated Trinity. And since the same apostle has handed down to us the way of beholding the invisible things of God through the things that are from him,³ we cannot behold his invisible things—namely the distinct persons and their processions—more expressly than through the work most like him, namely his image, our mind. Now it is evident that in the human mind, when it actually knows and thinks of God or something else, actual thought, or the word, of the thing known is begotten from the mind and from the species of the knowable thing in the mind as from a parent, and from both proceeds, or is breathed, the love, the spirit [?],⁴ of the same thing. Nor can the mind love that thing without the actual thought which we call the nearest natural word of the mind with respect to the thing known, since from it the vocal word is so called; and conversely it could think of something and not love it at all. Hence it is clear that in the created image the love of a thing is breathed from the word, or proceeds from the species through the word. Therefore we are compelled to confess that it is so [in God]: for, since nothing in the essence of the creature stands in the way, [if in God it were not the case] that the spirit, or love, or charity—as John speaks when he says, "God is charity"—is breathed or proceeds from the Word, the human mind would be much more like the creating Trinity than it now is if in the mind itself love proceeded not from the word but from the species alone.⁵ And there is no doubt that the Almighty would have made it such, since he willed to make it an image as like himself as the creature, in its substance or essence, is capable of his likeness. It is certain, therefore, since he made it the other way, that it is so in God as to the processions as it is found in his creature, the image. Again, to use the words of the Greeks, and especially of John Damascene, chapter 7, in the place cited above: the divine Word must have a spirit, since the Word is not more deficient than our word⁶—I mean the word of our mind, by which it actually says or thinks the thing known. Since, therefore, our word breathes love or affection, it follows that the divine Word breathes love or charity, which we call the Spirit; for otherwise the Word of God would, after its own manner, be in this more deficient than our word. Again, I do not think anyone can deny that, as God, by saying or thinking himself, says or begets or brings forth the Word, so by loving or cherishing himself he breathes or produces love. And especially no one can deny this, since he finds it so in himself, in the image of God. Either, then, God loves himself because he says or thinks or actually knows himself; or conversely he says or thinks or actually knows himself because he loves himself; or these are altogether disparate. Now it seems too foolish to assert that God thinks or says or actually knows himself because he loves himself, since nothing can be loved unless it is first actually known; by the same token it is clear that these are not altogether disparate. It remains, therefore, that he loves himself because he says or thinks himself, and consequently breathes love because he begets or says or brings forth the Word; and consequently the Begotten, or the Word, is the principle of the One breathed. For otherwise spiration would not presuppose generation or production as its cause or principle, which is false, as will also be shown below in the next chapter. And let no one marvel that I say that God, by saying himself, says or begets or brings forth or conceives or even generates the Word; if he searches the Scriptures he will find them expressing it so. For what else is expressed in the beginning of Genesis, when the creation of things is treated, where Scripture so often repeats, "God said: Be light made," "And God said: Let there be a firmament," etc.; and in Judith 16, "Let all thy creatures serve thee: because thou hast spoken, and they were made"; and in the psalm, "For he spoke, and they were made: he commanded, and they were created"⁷—what else but that God, by thinking things, says them? But does he say things other than himself and not say himself? It is too childish to say this. Solomon, in Proverbs 8, says in the person of Wisdom: "The depths were not as yet, and I was already conceived … before the hills, I was brought forth." And Isaiah says in the person of the Father: "Shall not I that make others to bring forth children, myself bring forth, saith the Lord? shall I, that give generation to others, be barren, saith the Lord?"—Isaiah, the last chapter.⁸ Let no one marvel, moreover, that I call the Holy Spirit love or charity, since John so calls him in his first epistle, chapter 4. For he says that charity is of God, and then adds, "God is charity"; from which it follows that God from God is charity or love. And then he says, "In this we know that we abide in him, and he in us: because he hath given us of the Holy Spirit."⁹ From which it appears that he understands the Holy Spirit to be the charity or love by which we abide in God and by which he abides in us.

John. What if someone should say that love is not an action of the mind, or proceeding from the mind or from the things that are in the mind, but is caused in the mind, or impressed on it, by the object?

Richard. Let him who says this consider that, with the object absent and existing really outside the mind, such an act of love is produced in the mind; and a real effect can never come about unless its immediate efficient cause is present together with it. Therefore something efficient other than the object is required to produce the act of love. Again, let him observe that a mind having actual knowledge of many things sometimes stands indifferent, so that it neither actually wills them nor actually rejects them, or does not will them, and afterwards freely chooses and wills them; and he will not be able to deny that love or affection proceeds from the mind by means of the species of the thing known and the word of it; since in such a case the object acts equally before the choice and after, and from a cause that is indifferent, or acting equally by nature—of which sort the object is—a new action never comes forth except by means of another agent along with it, according to what the philosophers say; and it is also evident of itself. As it is in one act of love, so it is evident in all, since all are in the same genus of action or passion. Every act of love, therefore, is breathed or proceeds from the mind.

John. Go on to other things, etc.

Chapter 4.

Richard. Again, I ask how they take it that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Son; for Scripture frequently expresses this, as was clear in the second [chapter].¹⁰ If one should say [it is] because he has been manifested and handed down to us through the Son—a sense which can be made out to be John Damascene's, in the place cited above, chapter 11, at the end, where he says, "we confess that the Spirit has been manifested and handed down to us through the Son"¹¹—against him stands what the same Damascene says in chapter 7: the Father never lacked a Word, nor [the Word] a Spirit, and the Spirit cannot be separated from the Word; from which it follows, therefore, that the Holy Spirit was the Spirit of the Word. And in the same chapter he says that the Word of God must have a Spirit, since it is not more deficient than our word. Since, therefore, the Word always was, the Spirit of the Word or Son always was. And so the same John, in the very passage alleged,¹² says: "We do not say that the Spirit is from the Son, but we name him the Spirit of the Son—'if any man have not the Spirit of Christ,' says the divine apostle—and we confess that he has been manifested and handed down to us through the Son." Here he does not expound the first by the second, but states both copulatively, namely that he names him the Spirit of the Son and that he confesses him manifested and handed down to us through the Son; therefore he understands him to be the Spirit of the Son for another cause than by reason of the manifestation or handing down made to us. Again, if he asserted for that cause that he is the Spirit of the Son, he would have no ground to deny that the Son is [the Son] of the Holy Spirit; yet here he goes on to add, "But we say that the Son is neither of the Spirit nor out of the Spirit." This is clear thus: if we set aside the procession of one from the other, it could more fittingly be said that the Son is of the Holy Spirit than that the Holy Spirit is of the Son, since the Holy Spirit has authority, as effective principle and cause, over the Son in the assumed nature, such as the Son does not have over the Holy Spirit; and consequently it can more fittingly be said that the Son has been given to us by the Holy Spirit, and manifested and handed down, than the reverse. For as to the divine nature, if neither of them exists from the other, the Son has been handed down and manifested to us through the Holy Spirit equally as the Holy Spirit through the Son—namely, the one could be said in that case [as well as the other];¹³ and as to the human nature, therefore, it ought more fittingly to be said that the Holy Spirit is not from the Son than that the Son [is not] from the Holy Spirit, rather than the reverse,¹⁴ as to the handing down and manifestation—unless the Spirit is said to be of the Son for another cause. If, then, it is said, as it must be, that he is called the Spirit of the Son essentially, and for this reason, that the generation of the Son is prior in origin to the spiration of the Holy Spirit, because the Father does not breathe or love unless he first, at least in origin, says the Word—this cannot stand unless the Spirit proceeds from the Son. For if the Son is not the productive principle or cause of the Holy Spirit any more than the reverse, but they are altogether disparate as to priority and posteriority of origin, why should [spiration] [?] presuppose him, if he is wholly irrelevant to the existence of the Holy Spirit as to its being produced? And it is a philosophical rule naturally impressed [on the mind] that, when a sufficient cause with respect to an effect is posited, every impediment being removed, the effect is posited. And so, since the Father is the sufficient principle or cause of the Holy Spirit, if the Son is not his principle or cause, it follows that the Holy Spirit is breathed whether or not the Son has been produced first. From this, therefore, that the Holy Spirit in this way of priority of origin presupposes …¹⁵ if the fathers take it so, I too take it so; but I say that this sense cannot be irrefutably proved from the circumstances of this scripture apart from the other passages mentioned; rather, the eternal spiration is argued more strongly from the other passages mentioned, as I said before, or else it cannot be irrefutably proved from Scripture at all;

which is too absurd.

John. So it seems.

Chapter 7.

Richard. Again, it is read of the Son that he sends the Holy Spirit and that he gives him. Of the sending, John 15[:26]: "whom I will send you from the Father"; and John 16[:7]: "but if I go, I will send him to you";¹ and Luke, the last [chapter, 24:49]: "I will send the promise of my Father upon you."² Of the giving it is said in Titus 3[:5–6]: "by the laver of regeneration and renovation of the Holy Ghost, whom he hath poured forth upon us abundantly, through Jesus Christ"; and Acts 2[:33]:³ "having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath poured forth this which you see." Therefore Jesus poured forth the Holy Spirit, and so gave him. Now it is evident that this giving and sending of the Holy Spirit were done in the divine nature and according to it, since the Holy Spirit never assumed another nature. But no one can send or give another person unless he has authority over him, or superiority, or something equivalent to it; for there would be no reason⁴ why the one could send or give the other rather than the reverse. For whence is it that the Father is not said to be sent by the Son and by the Holy Spirit when the Father's voice was heard over the baptized Son, "Thou art my beloved Son",⁵ or to be given when the Father by his power justifies someone's mind and spiritually enters into it, if power alone, and not authority, is required in the sender? For if anyone said that the Father was given to us, or sent by his Son or by the Holy Spirit, he is convicted of being, outside Scripture, an asserter of novelty, which the teaching of the Greeks abhors, as will be clear in chapters 10 and 11 from the sayings of Dionysius and Damascene. Since, therefore, the Son, as the foregoing shows, sends the Holy Spirit and gives him, it is evident that the Son has authority over the Holy Spirit, or something equivalent, by which he could give and send him rather than the reverse, as the Father has with respect to the Son, so that he can send him and not conversely. But nothing of this kind can be found in the Son unless the Spirit is breathed by him rather than the reverse, since they are equal in all things; just as in the Father, with respect to the Son, nothing can be found by which the Father could send him except the procession alone. It is evident, therefore, from the fact that the Son gives and sends the Holy Spirit in the divine nature, that the Holy Spirit is breathed by the Son and proceeds from him. Hence, as it seems to me, the Son himself uses this same way of proving about himself, John 8[:42]: "If God," he says, "were your Father, you would indeed love me. For from God I proceeded and came. For I came not of myself: but he sent me."⁶ See: he says openly that he did not come of himself but that God the Father sent him, and from this he argues that he proceeded and came from God. Therefore mission in the divine nature necessarily argues the procession of the one sent from the sender. And I say "in the divine nature", because it is read that the Holy Spirit sent the Son, Isaiah 48[:16]: "and now God hath sent me, and his spirit",⁷ which I understand as said in the human nature; just as we read that the Holy Spirit offered the Son, "who," it says, "by the Holy Ghost offered himself", as in Hebrews 9[:14]. And so in the human nature he can fittingly be understood to be given to us by the whole Trinity, as when it is read, "a son is given to us", Isaiah 9[:6]. Hence all these are understood of his mission and giving in the human nature, not into the human nature, nor in the divine nature. Hence the same prophet expounds that mission in chapter 62,⁸ saying: "The spirit of the Lord is upon me, because the Lord hath anointed me: he hath sent me to preach to the meek, to heal the contrite of heart, and to preach a release to the captives, and deliverance to them that are shut up, and to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of vengeance of our God." And the Saviour, as Luke tells in chapter 4[:21], having read the scripture of Isaiah in the synagogue, says:⁹ "This day is fulfilled this scripture in your ears." Hence it is plain in what nature he was sent: namely in that in which he was anointed, in which the Spirit was upon him. All these must be taken in the human nature, because in the divine the Holy Spirit was not upon him, nor was he anointed in it. And this authority in the sender is noted from the aforesaid words of Isaiah. For he says, "The spirit of the Lord is upon me", and then, having put this first as the cause, he adds, "wherefore he hath anointed me; to preach to the meek he hath sent me",¹⁰ showing that mission, as its cause, requires superiority or authority in the sender: "upon me", he says.

John. I wonder that you say the Son was not sent into human nature by the Holy Spirit but by the Father alone; for this mission into human nature is taken by everyone as nothing other than the incarnation of the Son itself, and the Holy Spirit, and also the Son himself, made this incarnation of the Son just as the Father did, because the works of the Trinity are undivided, since the three persons indivisibly have one power. And so he seems [to be sent] by each of them, as he is sent by the Father into the flesh, since each of them performed that mission as the Father did. Again, it otherwise seems to follow absurdly that the Father did something which neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit did, if the Father sent the Son into the flesh, which neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit did.

Richard. Hold unshaken that no person of the three persons did anything that the whole Trinity, whose power is one and simple, did not do. From this it does not follow that the Spirit or the Son, in this work of the incarnation, sent the Son into the flesh, because this word "send", as I said before, connotes authority in the sender and signifies that the one sent is the messenger or legate of the sender.¹¹ Hence if the Father had been incarnate, he would have been sent into the flesh by no one, because he would have been no one's legate or messenger, since no person would have had authority over him, although the whole Trinity and each person would equally have made his incarnation. Although, therefore, the Son himself made the incarnation of the Son, and the Holy Spirit too, yet because the Son was not his own messenger nor the Holy Spirit's, but the Father's alone, who had authority over the Son in the divine nature, therefore neither did the Son send himself nor did the Spirit send him into the flesh, although each of them performed that act which was the Son's mission. Now it is evident that this does not follow: "The Father sent the Son, and the Son did not send the Son, nor did the Holy Spirit; therefore the Father did something which the Son and the Holy Spirit did not do." For the antecedent is verified because of the connotation of authority in the Father with respect to the Son, a connotation contained in this word "sent"; but the consequent cannot be verified for that reason, since the word "did" has no sense of such connotation. But do not understand the word of giving altogether in the same way. Hence it seems to me that the giving of a distinct nature or person requires authority in the giver with respect to what is given or bestowed, as mission requires; but in one person it does not demand this, as mission does. For it seems to me, according to my judgement, saving a better judgement, that someone can give himself, because he can be his own gift by his own will; but no one can send himself in such a way that in the same nature and person he is sent and sends, because no one can be his own messenger or legate, or act as his own deputy, as the one sent acts wholly as the sender's deputy and is deputed by the sender himself. It is evident, therefore, from the fact that the Son sends the Holy Spirit in the divine nature itself and gives the Holy Spirit, that the Spirit is breathed by him, as he is breathed by the Father.

John. This argument I gladly accept.

Chapter 8.

Richard. Again, the Son himself says of the Holy Spirit, John 16[:13–15]: "But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself: but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak. And the things that are to come, he shall shew you. All things whatsoever the Father hath are mine. Therefore I said that he shall receive of mine and shew it to you."¹² Here the Son clearly shows that the Holy Spirit has knowledge from another, and consequently received his essence from another, since no one is so foolish as to say that his wisdom or knowledge is distinct from his essence. Hence he shows besides from whom he received his knowledge, and consequently his essence, when he says, "he shall receive of mine": namely from the Father, or in the Father, because "all things whatsoever the Father hath are mine"; for he put this first. The Greek text, from which this Gospel of St John is evidently translated into ours, bears this out most clearly: it does not have "of mine", as ours does,¹³ but plainly has "he shall receive of me and shall shew it to you", a text that admits no other sense than that he received knowledge from the Son and consequently received essence from him. And certainly, saving a better judgement, it seems to me that this text argues much more evidently that he is from the Son than the word "procession" argues that Christ is from the Father.¹⁴ It appears clearly, therefore, from canonical Scripture that the Holy Spirit is from the Son, or is breathed by him, as by the Father. What else, then, can be understood in the deed of the same Son of which we read in John 20[:22]: "When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost"? For the highest Wisdom did not behave childishly, so as to signify nothing hidden at all by the breathing. By this work he expressed typically that the Holy Spirit proceeded from his deity, or from himself as God according to his divinity, as that bodily spirit or breath proceeded from himself as man, so as to show them all by this that he was true God, in that he intimated that the Spirit proceeded from him. For this was very useful, since some of the disciples doubted of his deity, as the words that follow show of Thomas, to whom for this reason, as is read next, the Lord said, "be not faithless, but believing" [John 20:27]. He did not say this with regard to his resurrection, since Thomas then saw him alive, so that the Lord would have urged faith in that upon him in vain; rather he urged him from then on firmly to believe and to teach that he was true God and man, which he had not done before. It is likely, therefore, that most of the disciples still doubted of this at that time. For it seems that the Lord intimated this doubt concerning Mary Magdalene, as Scripture describes just before this, when he said, "Do not touch me: for I am not yet ascended to my Father" [John 20:17], repelling her from her customary touch because she thought him only a man, not equal to his Father. For the Saviour's saying, "for I am not yet ascended", etc., can be taken thus, as if he said: "I have never ascended in your heart to equality with my Father, and therefore it is not fitting for you to approach me by bodily touch, as you are trying to." The Son himself, then, seems to intimate this procession in John 14[:26], when he says, "whom the Father will send in my name". For if we attend to the usage of speech, to send or give in someone's name is nothing other than to send or give by his authority, or in the stead of another; and that he in whose stead the mission is could send with equal or greater authority, no one doubts.¹⁵ Indeed, he then sends with equal authority, since what one effects by someone's authority, that one himself does.¹⁶ Since, therefore, the Father sends the Holy Spirit, or gives him, in the name of the Son, that is, by the authority or in the stead of the Son, it follows that the Son himself could send the Holy Spirit with equal authority, as he can; indeed, that he then sends with equal authority. Yet he could not do this with such authority unless [the Spirit] proceeded from him as from the Father, rather than the Holy Spirit's being able to send the Son, understanding [this] according to the divine nature. But if anyone then wishes to expound that saying, "whom the Father will send in my name", like that of Acts 2[:38], "be baptized every one of you in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ",¹⁷ and that of Acts 10[:48], "he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ", and Acts 19[:5], "Having heard these things, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus" (which seem to have been said in the sense that the baptizer, invoking Jesus Christ, baptized under his name), he would consequently say that the Father sent the Holy Spirit to Christ's disciples by invoking the name of Jesus Christ. Since this is exceedingly absurd, it follows that the saying is said here because of the same authority existing in the Son as was in the Father with respect to sending or giving the Holy Spirit. Hence, repeating the same thought, he adds a little later in the same discourse, John 15[:26], when he said, "whom I will send you from the Father", showing that the Father, in sending, has the same authority by which he himself was sending; and conversely he showed it when he said, "whom the Father will send in my name". And do not think it absurd that the Father sends the Holy Spirit in the stead and by the authority of the Son, since for sending him in the divine nature there is one indivisible authority in both, which is nothing but the spirative power itself; for from no other source does either have authority over the Holy Spirit rather than the reverse. Nor let the word "authority" in them with respect to the Holy Spirit move you to think from this that the Holy Spirit is less than either of them; for, as I shall say below on similar matters in chapter 13, authority or origin or causality, or anything similar attributed to one with respect to another, argues no greaterness in him, since in the one with respect to whom it is said there is the same simple and indivisible magnitude or essence. Always lay this down for yourself as a principle in this matter, because of other such [terms] that occur frequently in it. Here I call the Father and the Son "cause" with respect to the Holy Spirit, and the Father with respect to the Son, understanding nothing other than an originating principle, or origin, as Damascene speaks in chapter 9 of the first book,¹⁸ and also other major doctors: because of the poverty of words we speak of invisible things, transferring [words] to the ineffable and invisible when we must speak of them.

John. You have satisfied me in proving; now resolve the contrary [arguments] that move me, etc.

Chapter 9.

Richard. State your considerations; and I hope that the same Spirit who teaches all truth will teach us to answer for me, or rather for himself, as he himself hears from the Son.

John. The Greeks object to us that at the council of Nicaea, held under Pope Sylvester and the great emperor Constantine about the year of the Lord 350 because of the Arian heresy, which posited inequality between the Father and the Son, as is found in Distinction 15, chapter Canones,¹ and then at the first council held at Constantinople, under Pope Damasus and the elder emperor Theodosius, about the year of the Lord 426, to confute the heresy of Macedonius, who asserted that the Holy Spirit is not God, creeds were issued by the common assent of the Latins and the Greeks; in these creeds it is asserted that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, nothing at all being expressed of the Son as regards that procession; and at the end it was added: "Whoever teaches anything other, or preaches anything other, let him be anathema."² And Pope Leo III, out of love for the faith, left at Rome on a silver tablet the creed common to those two councils, which creed is sung among us at masses to this day, but without that clause put there, filioque.³ Show first, therefore, that the bond of an anathema of this kind, which some of the Greeks assert we have incurred, is foreign to us.

Richard. By "other" and "otherwise" our holy fathers do not understand anything whatever that is diverse or distinct, but only what stands opposed or contrary to what is contained there. For so Scripture often speaks: hence 1 Timothy 1[:3], "I desired thee ... that thou mightest charge some not to teach otherwise"; and Galatians 1[:9], "If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema."⁴ In these places the Apostle did not mean to prohibit any distinct doctrine whatever, but an opposed one. Hence if they had understood "anything other whatever", the Greeks could not deny that they themselves are bound, since in the council of Constantinople, about the year of the Lord [?],⁵ under Constantine IV, it was defined with their assent that there are two wills in Christ, which is nowhere expressed in the creeds. Again, in the council of Chalcedon, under Pope Leo I and the emperor Marcian, about the year of the Lord 470, against Eutyches, abbot at Constantinople, and Dioscorus, bishop of Alexandria, it was defined, also with the assent of the Greeks, that there are two natures in Christ in one person. Again, in the council of Constantinople, about the year of the Lord 560, under Pope Vigilius and the emperor [Justinian],⁶ against Theodore, who asserted that the blessed Virgin Mary bore only a man, it was defined with the assent of the Greeks that she bore God and man. None of these is expressed in those creeds. If, therefore, the Greeks rightly argue that we are bound by the aforesaid sentence because of an addition we make that is not contrary to the defined words, neither can they excuse themselves for the additions just mentioned and many others made in later councils with their consent. Since, therefore, they can without doubt excuse themselves, they ought lawfully to hold us equally excused; and the more so because, before the definition of this article by the Latins in the Lateran council under Innocent III, about the year of the Lord 1213, through the course of many years a throng of the said holy doctors, shining with miracles, Latin as well as Greek (namely Hilary, Ambrose, Jerome, Gregory, Anselm, also Athanasius the Greek, Didymus the Greek, Cyril the Greek and John Chrysostom the Greek), affirmed this article of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son in their writings most fully and most plainly, none of the major doctors, Greek or Latin, down to those times expressing the contrary in any of their lands; and because, by the authority of the successor of Peter, prince of the apostles, namely Gregory [X],⁷ in whom resides the authority for defining what concerns the faith, as will be shown in the next book, the definition of that same article was then approved in the council of Lyons, with Germanus, patriarch of the Greeks, and other prelates of theirs present and consenting; and it was defined with the assent of those Greek prelates that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son by a single spiration, as from one principle, not as from two principles, as is clear from [the title] De summa trinitate in the sixth book [of the Decretals], chapter Fideli.⁸ These things, I think, suffice for excusing the Latins and showing the error of the calumniating Greeks. Which among these Greeks, then, are wise aright, or (you be the judge)⁹ which are the more foolish? Is it those who follow the express sayings of so many and so great holy doctors, Latin and Greek, in the aforesaid article, Scripture never expressly opposing it, at least according to the Greeks, and indeed, as was shown above, Sacred Scripture expressing the things from which it indissolubly follows; or those who, without express authority of Sacred Scripture or of any holy doctor, try in vain to assail that article? And let them cease henceforth to impugn so illustrious and catholic a truth. But if they say that, as they used of old to be called by the fathers, they ought to have been called to the Lateran council, I grant it; but the haste of defining that article, to close the way to various erroneous dogmas, and also perhaps the difficulty at that time of sending into Greece, did not allow it; and for this reason, when the opportunity of calling them offered itself, they were called to the council of Lyons for that article and another [?].¹⁰ JOHN. You have fittingly excused the Latins, I think. RICHARD. Say the rest.

Chapter 10.

John. Blessed Dionysius the Areopagite, disciple of the apostle Paul, says in his book On the Divine Names, chapter 1: "The Father is the only fountain of the supersubstantial deity."¹¹ But if the Holy Spirit emanates from the Son, the Son is a fountain of the Holy Spirit. Again, in chapter 2: "Again, the Father is the fountain deity, and the Son and the Holy Spirit are, if one must so speak, sproutings of the God-begotten deity, of the divine nature, and as it were flowers and supersubstantial lights, as we have received from the holy oracles; but how these things are, it is possible neither to say nor to think." See: here he says that the Father is the fountain deity, and the Son and the Holy Spirit are sproutings and flowers. Now it is evident that a flower does not proceed from a flower; therefore neither does the Spirit proceed from the Son, since both are flowers of the same nature. Again, in this second chapter he says: "Universally, therefore, one must not dare to say, nor even to think, anything of the supersubstantial and hidden deity beyond what has been divinely expressed to us from the sacred scriptures."¹² John Damascene states this rule in the first [book] of the Sentences, chapter 1.¹³ Since, therefore, nothing is expressed in the sacred oracles of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, but only of his procession from the Father, no one will dare to say that, or even to think it: I mean, by asserting it. RICHARD. The first ought not to move [you], because the Spirit's procession from the Son does not argue that the Son is a fountain with respect to the Holy Spirit; for a lake proceeds from a stream flowing from a fountain, and it does not follow from this that the fountain is called a stream, or that [the stream] reasonably receives the name of fountain, because in each nature that name properly fits only that in which is the first origin of that nature. From the word "flowers", too, you are troubled in vain, since the same Dionysius says that nothing in a creature is so like that Trinity that it does not have unlikeness for the greater part.¹⁴ And therefore, although both the Son and the Holy Spirit are called a flower in comparison with the Father, yet it is not necessary on this account that they be likened to the same tree in such a way that neither of them is called the flower of the other; just as in a devout soul the saints call both thoughts and loves, or affections, flowers of wisdom ("As the vine I have brought forth a pleasant odour: and my flowers are the fruit of honour and riches," says Wisdom [Ecclesiasticus 24:23]), although holy love proceeds from devout thought like a flower from a flower. As to the third, attend prudently to the words. For he does not say "beyond what has been divinely expressed to us in the sacred oracles", but "what has been expressed to us from the sacred scriptures"; and of this kind are all things that follow reasonably from the sacred oracles themselves, of which kind I think this article is, as the foregoing declares. But if we wished to restrict his word to those things only that are written in Scripture in their own form, he would convict himself in his own words of rash daring, since beyond such expression of Scripture he says that the Son and the Holy Spirit are sproutings and supersubstantial lights, which are nowhere expressed in canonical Scripture. Hence, prudently, in the second authority you cited above he says that we "receive" these from the holy oracles; he does not say that we find them expressly in the holy oracles.

Chapter 11.

John. The words of John Damascene in the first [book] of the Sentences, chapter 11, greatly move the Greeks, and us, [who] have received his writings.¹⁵ He speaks thus: "Now one must know that we do not say the Father is from anyone, but we say he is the Father of the Son. And we do not say the Son is anaitios, that is, without cause,¹⁶ nor do we say he is the Father; but we say he is both from the Father and the Son of the Father. And we say the Holy Spirit too is from the Father, and we name him the Spirit of the Father; but we do not say the Spirit is from the Son, though we name him the Spirit of the Son ('Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ,' says the divine Apostle [Romans 8:9]), and we confess that he is manifested and given to us through the Son; for 'he breathed, and said to his disciples, Receive ye the Holy Ghost' [John 20:22]. As from the sun come both the ray and the splendour (for the same is the fountain of the ray and of the splendour), but the splendour is given to us through the ray, and it is this that illumines us and is partaken of by us. But we do not call the Son [Son] of the Holy Spirit, nor [say he is] from the Holy Spirit."¹⁷ Here he himself says, "we do not say the Spirit is from the Son." RICHARD. If this doctor had asserted this, he would seem to be gainsaid by so many and so great holy doctors, Hilary, Jerome, Ambrose, Gregory, Augustine and others, affirming the contrary concordantly and expressly, even if this article had not been defined by the church; and the more so because others of the greater Greek doctors affirm this article with us, as is clear of Athanasius in the creed which he composed, of Didymus in the book On the Holy Spirit, of Cyril in the letter to Nestorius, and of John Chrysostom in the homily on the exposition of the creed;¹⁸ for they expressly affirm the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, as those of ours who have read their books say. Nevertheless it does not seem to me that it was this doctor's intention to deny this article altogether, but only to deny that in his time, or his fathers', it was among the articles of faith defined by the church, or also expressly handed down to them in canonical Scripture. For he argues there only of such things, which appears from that word "we confess", which we use only in matters of faith. Hence he says in the first chapter: "All things, therefore, that have been handed down to us by the law, the prophets, the apostles and the evangelists let us receive and revere and know, inquiring nothing further"; and below: "let us love these and abide in them, and let us not move the eternal bounds, nor transgress the divine tradition."¹⁹ If, therefore, as it seems to me, he denies only that they hold, that is, confess, that the Spirit is from the Son, as they confess that the Holy Spirit is manifested and given to them through the Son, then our Latin church too did likewise at that time, because then this article had not been defined by the church.²⁰ But if we examine his example of the ray and the splendour, which proceed formally, through one of which, namely the ray, the other, namely the splendour, is given to us and illumines us and is partaken of by us, as he describes, it will appear clearly that according to that example the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. For one does not say that the splendour rays, but it is truly said that the ray shines, which could not be said unless the splendour proceeded from the ray. Again, if the splendour is given to us through the ray and illumines us and is partaken of by us, since this giving or partaking or illumination is for us the cause of splendour, as is plain to the eye, it follows that the splendour is caused among us through the ray, and so the ray is its cause and its effective principle. Again, as he speaks according to his principles, from which he intimates that the splendour is really distinct from the ray: if we seek the immediate cause of the splendour itself, we find none but the ray, because, as he himself admits, it is not caused immediately or simply by the sun, since he holds that it is given to us through the ray. So, then, by his example it is clear that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. Other sayings of this doctor I treated above in chapter 4 of this [book]. Why, then, ought there not to have been defined by the church what follows evidently from Sacred Scripture and manifest reason, and what had been so concordantly confirmed by so many holy men and so great doctors, Latin and Greek, in their writings, with no holy doctor contradicting? I do not see. What do you think?

Chapter 12.

John. Although, because of what has been set out, I would give undoubting faith to this article even if it had not been defined by the church, yet I do not have ready what to answer to the contrary considerations that are objected; so I ask you to resolve them in plain speech, at least as far as the matter itself allows, which exceeds the mind of every creature. That Greek doctor, the abbot Barlaam,¹ objects that we posit in God a quaternity of persons, and also that we restrict the trinity of persons to a duality.² Of the first he says thus: every action one in number belongs to some one suppositum or hypostasis one in number, for otherwise the action would not be one in number. Therefore spiration, since it is an action one in number, belongs to some suppositum one in number only: on our view not to the Father, nor to the Son, nor to the Holy Spirit; therefore it must belong to another hypostasis.³ Again, from that middle term, that every action one in number belongs to a suppositum or hypostasis one in number only, together with this, that spiration is common to the Father and the Son, it follows that of the Father and the Son there is one hypostasis in number, and so in God there are only two hypostases. Again, he says thirdly that we posit a greater identity between the Father and the Son than between the Father and the Holy Spirit, because, beyond the essential identity, which is equal on both sides, we say that the Son has with the Father an identity of active spiration which the Father does not have with the Holy Spirit. Again, fourthly, he speaks thus: every relation that is one and simple between supposita, or individuals, or hypostases, is a mean between two supposita or two hypostases only; for otherwise on one extreme of that relation there would be more hypostases or supposita than on the other extreme, and so the unity of that relation would not be simple, since its unity and simplicity is from the extremes. Since, therefore, spiration, or the relation of the spirator to the Spirit by which they are referred to each other, is one and simple between divine supposita or divine hypostases, it follows that on neither extreme does it have a plurality of supposita or hypostases. Again, if I may object: either the Holy Spirit proceeds, or is breathed, sufficiently from the Father, and then it follows that even if the Son did not exist at all he would still be breathed by the Father, because when the cause of something is posited, all others being removed, its effect can be posited, according to the logic handed down to us by Aristotle in the first book of the Posterior [Analytics]⁴ (and you used this principle in chapter 4; besides, it is not doubtful, according to the natural reason implanted in us); and so it follows that the Son is not its cause, by the definition of a non-cause, namely that which being posited or removed, the effect is posited no less. Or the Holy Spirit is not breathed sufficiently by the Father, and so the Father is less sufficient than the Father and the Son together, and is not omnipotent by himself; indeed it follows that they are not one and simple spirator, nor is [either] omnipotent by himself, if neither is sufficient; the opposite of which was defined by the decretal, chapter Fideli ac devota, at the beginning of the sixth book of the decretals of the Roman church. Again, if the Holy Spirit, as you assert you have proved, is breathed by the Son because he is breathed by God and to breathe is not repugnant to the Son, it could equally be proved, if the Son had a son, and the second a third, and the third a fourth, and so to infinity, that the Holy Spirit would be breathed by all; and so it seems that the Holy Spirit is not a determinate principiate,⁵ as the Son is, but that of himself he is indeterminate to infinitely many principiating [persons], which cannot stand. Hence it seems that the Holy Spirit is breathed by the Father alone. Again, this moves me: that procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son either follows evidently and expressly from Sacred Scripture or it does not. If it does not follow evidently and expressly, why ought the faithful to have been constrained to it, and its opposite judged heretical, if it could not be proved evidently and expressly? If you say that it follows evidently and expressly from Scripture, it is wondrous beyond measure that so many most profound doctors of the Greeks did not see that evidence, nor do those of the present, subtle as they are, perceive it.

Chapter 13.

Richard. You ought not to waver at all in an article of faith whose clear and solid reason you perceive, even if difficult objections occur to you at present which you do not see that you can resolve; but rather you ought to ask the resolution with groanings from him "who giveth to all men abundantly" [James 1:5]. For I have heard and written many objections on the mystery of the incarnation and on the sacrament of the eucharist more difficult than I reckon those you set out above. As a foundation in such matters, however, lay down that the Almighty can do many things of which the creature, powerless and weak, cannot perceive the reason. Yet lest the foregoing break you, attend to what is written below. The first and second ought not to trouble you, since unity of action in God is not less because of plurality of hypostases, although in creatures it is otherwise; because the unity of the Father and the Son together, although they are two supposita, is as great as the unity of one of them with himself, since it is supremely one,⁶ which can nowhere be found among created supposita. Hence what you take is not true in God, that every action one in number belongs to one suppositum and not to several supposita; just as neither is one action of God ad extra less one because it is done by three hypostases than if it were done by one only. And so, therefore, the unity of God's action, whether ad extra or ad intra, does not argue unity of the supposita from which it proceeds, nor does plurality of principiating supposita lessen the unity of the action.⁷ Likewise I say to the fourth: plurality of supposita on one extreme, where those supposita are supremely one, does not pluralize the mean relation of the extremes, or lessen its unity, more than unity of suppositum on the other extreme of the relation, although it cannot be found to be so in creatures. For otherwise the relation between Creator and creature would not be supremely one on the Creator's side, since on that extreme there are three supposita; from which it would follow that God is not supremely one, which no Christian, Jew or even Saracen accepts. For the third, it is evident to you that agreement or identity in a relation does not argue greater identity except where there is not supreme identity; but where there is supreme identity, as there is between the three and between any two divine persons, nothing in the world can argue greater identity; just as the agreement in procession, or in being from another, between the Son and the Holy Spirit, which is not between the Father and [either] of them, cannot argue a greater agreement between those two themselves than with the Father. For each of them is principiated from another, and the Father is not; yet all three agree equally. For the fifth consideration, attend that the Father alone is as sufficient a spirative principle as the Father and the Son together, and likewise the Son is as sufficient a spirative principle as the Son and the Father together; because the sufficiency of each for breathing is from the spirative power, which is one and indivisible in both, and because of its indivisible unity in those two, what is breathed is referred to them inseparably, so that, if it were posited, by a contradiction, that one of them did not exist, it follows essentially that the Holy Spirit would not exist, because the spirative principle is removed; although this cannot be found in creatures, that there should be such a unity of power in two supposita. Hence such logical rules are not always kept in them in the same sense. For the sixth, too, hold as certain that if the Son had a son, and the second a third, and so on, it would follow necessarily and essentially that the Holy Spirit is breathed by all; and yet suppose as settled that it involves a contradiction that the Spirit should be breathed by any third person. For whatever is not there, it involves a contradiction that it be there, as was clear above in chapter 2, since what is immutable does not admit change.⁸ And therefore from this, that the Holy Spirit's being breathed by such persons would follow essentially and necessarily, it does not follow at present that the Holy Spirit is not a determinate principiate, to speak so; but it stands, and is necessary, that essentially, according to that by which he is, he is principiated, or proceeds, from the Father and the Son, so that it is essentially repugnant to him to be, or to be breathed, or to proceed, or to be principiated, from another further. What moves you further is resolved from the foregoing, from which it was clear that this procession of the Holy Spirit follows expressly and evidently, and by an unbreakable argument, from Scripture. Nor do I think this evidence wholly hidden from the Greeks at present, although it was hidden from theirs and ours before the holy doctors laboured more diligently to express or draw out this evidence from the various titles of Scripture. But if at present the Greeks pretend to deny this article, it is either from blinding pertinacity, or a pretence of the mouth against the judgement of the mind, for the glory of wisdom which they had of old above the Latins, lest they seem to lose it, and to have lost it already.⁹ Come, most gentle Spirit, most sweet love of the Father and the Son, come, and do not delay, etc.

Here ends the sixth book.