Chapter 27.—What It is that Suffices Here to Solve the Question Why the Spirit is Not Said to Be Begotten, and Why the Father Alone is Unbegotten. What They Ought to Do Who Do Not Understand These Things.

48. But because it is most difficult to distinguish generation from procession in that co-eternal, and equal, and incorporeal, and ineffably unchangeable and indivisible Trinity, let it suffice meanwhile to put before those who are not able to be drawn on further, what we said upon this subject in a sermon to be delivered in the ears of Christian people, and after saying wrote it down. For when, among other things, I had taught them by testimonies of the Holy Scriptures that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both, I continue: “If, then, the Holy Spirit proceeds both from the Father and from the Son, why did the Son say, ‘He proceedeth from the Father?’1062    John xv. 26 Why, think you, except as He is wont to refer to Him, that also which is His own, from whom also He Himself is? Whence also is that which He saith, ‘My doctrine is not mine own, but His that sent me?’1063    John vii. 16 If, therefore, it is His doctrine that is here understood, which yet He said was not His own, but His that sent Him, how much more is it there to be understood that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from Himself, where He so says, He proceedeth from the Father, as not to say, He proceedeth not from me? From Him, certainly, from whom the Son had his Divine nature, for He is God of God, He has also, that from Him too proceeds the Holy Spirit; and hence the Holy Spirit has from the Father Himself, that He should proceed from the Son also, as He proceeds from the Father. Here, too, in some way may this also be understood, so far as it can be understood by such as we are, why the Holy Spirit is not said to be born, but rather to proceed;1064    [Generation and procession are each an emanation of the essence by which it is modified. Neither of them is a creation ex nihilo. The school-men attempted to explain the difference between the two emanations, by saying that the generation of the Son is by the mode of the intellect—hence the Son is called Wisdom, or Word (Logos); but the procession of the Spirit is by the mode of the will—hence the Spirit is called Love. Turrettin distinguishes the difference by the following particulars: 1. In respect to the source. Generation is from the Father alone; procession is from Father and Son. 2. In respect to effects. Generation yields not only personality, but resemblance. The Son is the “image” of the Father, but the Spirit is not the image of the Father and Son. Generation is accompanied with the power to communicate the essence; procession is not. 3. In respect to order of relationship. Generation is second, procession is third. In the order of nature, not of time (for both generation and procession are eternal, therefore simultaneous), procession is after generation. Institutio III. xxxi. 3.—W.G.T.S.] since if He, too, was called a Son, He would certainly be called the Son of both, which is most absurd, since no one is son of two, save of father and mother. But far be it from us to surmise any such thing as this between God the Father and God the Son. Because not even the son of men proceeds at the same time from both father and mother; but when he proceeds from the father into the mother, he does not at that time proceed from the mother; and when he proceeds from the mother into this present light, he does not at that time proceed from the father. But the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Father into the Son, and from the Son proceed to sanctify the creature, but proceeds at once from both; although the Father has given this to the Son, that He should proceed, as from Himself, so also from Him. For we cannot say that the Holy Spirit is not life, while the Father is life, and the Son is life: and hence as the Father, while He has life in Himself, has given also to the Son to have life in Himself; so has He given also to Him that life should proceed from Him, as it also proceeds from Himself.”1065    Serm. in Joh. Evang. tract.. 99, n. 8, 9. I have transferred this from that sermon into this book, but I was speaking to believers, not to unbelievers.

49. But if they are not competent to gaze upon this image, and to see how true these things are which are in their mind, and yet which are not so three as to be three persons, but all three belong to a man who is one person; why do they not believe what they find in the sacred books respecting that highest Trinity which is God, rather than insist on the clearest reason being rendered them, which cannot be comprehended by the human mind, dull and infirm as it is? And to be sure, when they have steadfastly believed the Holy Scriptures as most true witnesses, let them strive, by praying and seeking and living well, that they may understand, i.e. that so far as it can be seen, that may be seen by the mind which is held fast by faith. Who would forbid this? Nay, who would not rather exhort them to it? But if they think they ought to deny that these things are, because they, with their blind minds, cannot discern them, they, too, who are blind from their birth, ought to deny that there is a sun. The light then shineth in darkness; but if the darkness comprehend it not,1066    John i. 5 let them first be illuminated by the gift of God, that they may be believers, and let them begin to be light in comparison with the unbelievers; and when this foundation is first laid, let them be built up to see what they believe, that at some time they may be able to see. For some things are so believed, that they cannot be seen at all. For Christ is not to be seen a second time on the cross; but unless this be believed which has been so done and seen, that it is not now to be hoped for as about to be and to be seen, there is no coming to Christ, such as without end He is to be seen. But as far as relates to the discerning in some way by the understanding that highest, ineffable, incorporeal, and unchangeable nature the sight of the human mind can nowhere better exercise itself, so only that the rule of faith govern it, than in that which man himself has in his own nature better than the other animals, better also than the other parts of his own soul, which is the mind itself, to which has been assigned a certain sight of things invisible, and to which, as though honorably presiding in a higher and inner place, the bodily senses also bring word of all things, that they may be judged, and than which there is no higher, to which it is to be subject, and by which it is to be governed, except God.

50. But among these many things which I have now said, and of which there is nothing that I dare to profess myself to have said worthy of the ineffableness of that highest Trinity, but rather to confess that the wonderful knowledge of Him is too great for me, and that I cannot attain1067    Ps. cxxxix. 6 to it: O thou, my soul, where dost thou feel thyself to be? where dost thou lie? where dost thou stand? until all thy infirmities be healed by Him who has forgiven all thy iniquities.1068    Ps. ciii. 3 Thou perceivest thyself assuredly to be in that inn whither that Samaritan brought him whom he found with many wounds inflicted by thieves, half-dead.1069    Luke x. 30, 34 And yet thou hast seen many things that are true, not by those eyes by which colored objects are seen, but by those for which he prayed who said, “Let mine eyes behold the things that are equal.”1070    Ps. xvii. 2 Certainly, then, thou hast seen many things that are true, and hast distinguished them from that light by the light of which thou hast seen them. Lift up thine eyes to the light itself, and fix them upon it if thou canst. For so thou wilt see how the birth of the Word of God differs from the procession of the Gift of God, on account of which the only-begotten Son did not say that the Holy Spirit is begotten of the Father, otherwise He would be His brother, but that he proceeds from Him. Whence, since the Spirit of both is a kind of consubstantial communion of Father and Son, He is not called, far be it from us to say so, the Son of both. But thou canst not fix thy sight there, so as to discern this lucidly and clearly; I know thou canst not. I say the truth, I say to myself, I know what I cannot do; yet that light itself shows to thee these three things in thyself, wherein thou mayest recognize an image of the highest Trinity itself, which thou canst not yet contemplate with steady eye. Itself shows to thee that there is in thee a true word, when it is born of thy knowledge, i.e. when we say what we know: although we neither utter nor think of any articulate word that is significant in any tongue of any nation, but our thought is formed by that which we know; and there is in the mind’s eye of the thinker an image resembling that thought which the memory contained, will or love as a third combining these two as parent and offspring. And he who can, sees and discerns that this will proceeds indeed from thought (for no one wills that of which he is absolutely ignorant what or of what sort it is), yet is not an image of the thought: and so that there is insinuated in this intelligible thing a sort of difference between birth and procession, since to behold by thought is not the same as to desire, or even to enjoy will. Thou, too, hast been able [to discern this], although thou hast not been, neither art, able to unfold with adequate speech what, amidst the clouds of bodily likenesses, which cease not to flit up and down before human thoughts, thou hast scarcely seen. But that light which is not thyself shows thee this too, that these incorporeal likenesses of bodies are different from the truth, which, by rejecting them, we contemplate with the understanding. These, and other things similarly certain, that light hath shown to thine inner eyes. What reason, then, is there why thou canst not see that light itself with steady eye, except certainly infirmity? And what has produced this in thee, except iniquity? Who, then, is it that healeth all thine infirmities, unless it be He that forgiveth all thine iniquities? And therefore I will now at length finish this book by a prayer better than by an argument.

CAPUT XXVII.

48. Quid hic sufficiat ad solutionem quaestionis, cur Spiritus non dicatur genitus, et cur solus Pater ingenitus. Quid agendum iis qui haec non intelligunt. Verum quia in illa coaeterna, et aequali, et incorporali, et ineffabiliter immutabili, atque inseparabili Trinitate difficillimum est generationem a processione distinguere, sufficiat interim eis qui extendi non valent amplius , id quod de hac re in sermone quodam proferendo ad aures populi christiani diximus, dictumque conscripsimus. Inter caetera enim cum per Scripturarum sanctarum testimonia docuissem de utroque procedere Spiritum sanctum: Si ergo, inquam, et de Patre et de Filio procedit Spiritus sanctus; cur Filius dixit, «De Patre procedit (Joan. XV, 26)?» Cur, putas, nisi quemadmodum solet ad eum referre et quod ipsius est, de quo et ipse est? Unde et illud est quod ait, «Mea doctrina non est mea, sed ejus qui me misit» (Id. VII, 16). Si igitur hic intelligitur ejus doctrina, quam tamen dixit non suam, sed Patris; quanto magis illic intelligendus est et de ipso procedere Spiritus sanctus, ubi sic ait, «De Patre procedit,» ut non diceret, De me non procedit? A quo autem habet Filius ut sit Deus (est enim de Deo Deus), ab illo habet utique ut de illo etiam procedat Spiritus sanctus: ac per hoc Spiritus sanctus ut etiam de Filio procedat, sicut procedit de Patre, ab ipso habet Patre. Hic utcumque etiam illud intelligitur, quantum a talibus quales nos sumus, intelligi potest, cur non dicatur natus esse, sed potius procedere Spiritus sanctus: quoniam si et ipse Filius diceretur, amborum utique filius diceretur; quod absurdissimum est. Filius quippe nullus est duorum, nisi patris et matris. Absit autem ut inter Deum Patrem et Deum Filium aliquid tale suspicemur. Quia nec filius hominum simul et ex patre et ex matre procedit: sed cum in matrem procedit ex patre, non tunc procedit ex matre; et cum in hanc lucem procedit ex matre, non tunc procedit ex patre. Spiritus autem sanctus non de Patre procedit in Filium, et de Filio procedit ad sanctificandam creaturam; sed simul de utroque procedit: quamvis hoc Pater Filio 1096 dederit, ut quemadmodum de se, ita de illo quoque procedat. Neque enim possumus dicere quod non sit vita Spiritus sanctus, cum vita Pater, vita sit Filius: ac per hoc sicut Pater cum habeat vitam in semetipso, dedit et Filio vitam habere in semetipso; sic ei dedit vitam procedere de illo, sicut et procedit de ipso (In Joannis Evang. tract. 99, nn. 8, 9). Haec de illo sermone in hunc librum transtuli, sed fidelibus, non infidelibus loquens.

49. Verum si ad hanc imaginem contuendam, et ad videnda ista quam vera sint, quae in eorum mente sunt, nec tria sic sunt ut tres personae sint, sed omnia tria hominis sunt quae una persona est, minus idonei sunt: cur non de illa summa Trinitate, quae Deus est, credunt potius quod in sacris Litteris invenitur, quam poscunt liquidissimam reddi sibi rationem, quae ab humana mente tarda scilicet infirmaque non capitur? Et certe cum inconcusse crediderint Scripturis sanctis tanquam veracissimis testibus, agant orando et quaerendo et bene vivendo ut intelligant, id est, ut quantum videri potest, videatur mente quod tenetur fide. Quis hoc prohibeat? imo vero ad hoc quis non hortetur? Si autem propterea negandum putant ista esse, quia ea non valent caecis mentibus cernere; debent et illi qui ex nativitate sua caeci sunt, esse solem negare. Lux ergo lucet in tenebris: quod si eam tenebrae non comprehendunt (Joan. I, 5), illuminentur Dei dono prius ut sint fideles, et incipiant esse lux in comparatione infidelium; atque hoc praemisso fundamento aedificentur ad videnda quae credunt, ut aliquando possint videre. Sunt enim quae ita creduntur, ut videri jam omnino non possint. Non enim Christus iterum in cruce videndus est: sed nisi hoc credatur quod ita factum atque visum est, ut futurum ac videndum jam non speretur, non pervenitur ad Christum, qualis sine fine videndus est. Quantum vero attinet ad illam summam, ineffabilem, incorporalem, immutabilemque naturam per intelligentiam utcumque cernendam, nusquam se melius, regente duntaxat fidei regula, acies humanae mentis exercet, quam in eo quod ipse homo in sua natura melius caeteris animalibus, melius etiam caeteris animae suae partibus habet, quod est ipsa mens: cui quidam rerum invisibilium tributus est visus, et cui tanquam in loco superiore atque interiore honorabiliter praesidenti, judicanda omnia nuntiant etiam corporis sensus; et qua non est superior, cui subdita regenda est, nisi Deus.

50. Verum inter haec quae multa jam dixi, et nihil illius summae Trinitatis ineffabilitate dignum me dixisse audeo profiteri, sed confiteri potius mirificatam scientiam ejus ex me invaluisse, nec posse me ad illam (Psal. CXXXVIII, 6); o tu, anima mea, ubi te esse sentis, ubi jaces, ubi stas , donec ab eo qui propitius factus est omnibus iniquitatibus tuis, sanentur omnes languores tui (Psal. CII, 3)? Agnoscis te certe in illo esse stabulo, quo Samaritanus ille perduxit eum quem 1097 reperit multis a latronibus inflictis vulneribus semivivum (Luc. X, 30-34). Et tamen multa vera vidisti, non his oculis quibus videntur corpora colorata, sed eis pro quibus orabat qui dicebat, Oculi mei videant aequitatem (Psal. XVI, 2). Nempe ergo multa vera vidisti, eaque discrevisti ab illa luce qua tibi lucente vidisti: attolle oculos in ipsam lucem, et eos in eam fige, si potes. Sic enim videbis quid distet nativitas Verbi Dei a processione Doni Dei, propter quod Filius unigenitus non de Patre genitum, alioqui frater ejus esset, sed procedere dixit Spiritum sanctum. Unde cum sit communio quaedam consubstantialis Patris et Filii amborum Spiritus, non amborum, quod absit, dictus est filius. Sed ad hoc dilucide perspicueque cernendum, non potes ibi aciem figere; scio, non potes. Verum dico, mihi dico, quid non possim scio: ipsa tamen tibi ostendit in te tria illa, in quibus tu summae ipsius, quam fixis oculis contemplari nondum vales, imaginem Trinitatis agnosceres. Ipsa ostendit tibi verbum verum esse in te, quando de scientia tua gignitur, id est, quando quod scimus dicimus; quamvis nullius gentis lingua significantem vocem vel proferamus vel cogitemus, sed ex illo quod novimus cogitatio nostra formetur; sitque in acie cogitantis imago simillima cogitationis ejus quam memoria continebat, ista duo scilicet velut parentem ac prolem tertia voluntate sive dilectione jungente. Quam quidem voluntatem de cogitatione procedere (nemo enim vult quod omnino quid vel quale sit nescit), non tamen esse cogitationis imaginem; et ideo quamdam in hac re intelligibili nativitatis et processionis insinuari distantiam, quoniam non hoc est cogitatione conspicere quod appetere, vel etiam perfrui voluntate, cernit discernitque qui potest. Potuisti et tu, quamvis non potueris neque possis explicare sufficienti eloquio, quod inter nubila similitudinum corporalium, quae cogitationibus humanis occursare non desinunt, vix vidisti. Sed illa lux quae non est quod tu, et hoc tibi ostendit, aliud esse illas incorporeas similitudines corporum, et aliud esse verum, quod eis reprobatis intelligentia contuemur: haec et alia similiter certa oculis tuis interioribus lux illa monstravit. Quae igitur causa est cur acie fixa ipsam videre non possis, nisi utique infirmitas? Et quid tibi eam fecit, nisi iniquitas ? Quis ergo sanat omnes languores tuos, nisi qui propitius fit omnibus iniquitatibus tuis? Librum itaque istum jam tandem aliquando precatione melius quam disputatione concludam.