Thomistic Apologetics

The Filioque in Patristics

​

Initial Claim

​

Before delving into history, it is important to establish the following. While only some church fathers explicitly express that the Spirit proceeds from the Son and the Father, through one principle, almost all use the phrase "through the Son" when referring to procession. Instantly, we can rule out that the word "through" expresses the giving of the Spirit by the Son in the order of the divine economy, transiently or ad extra, since it is attached to procession from the Father. It is apparent then that the word "through" delineates immanent or ad intra relation unless one would try argue that "proceeds" in that context refers to some transient operation. But no one is willing to argue this because they would then be forced to reject that the word "proceeds" has respect to immanent operation at all. The word "through" must be an expression of order, the essence beginning in the Father and passing through the Son to the Spirit eternally. But if such is the case, then Son is an intermediate between the Father and the Spirit, It is succinct way of expressing that the Father is the monarch and cause in the absolute sense while maintaining the Son's virtual priority over the Spirit in the order of the communication of the divine essence. Some fathers, such as Gregory of Nazianzus, do not venture to determine the difference between generation and procession:

​

What then is Procession? Do tell me what is the Unbegottenness of the Father, and I will explain to you the physiology of the Generation of the Son and the Procession of the Spirit, and we shall both of us be frenzy-stricken for prying into the mystery of God. And who are we to do these things, we who cannot even see what lies at our feet, or number the sand of the sea, or the drops of rain, or the days of Eternity, much less enter into the Depths of God, and supply an account of that Nature which is so unspeakable and transcending all words? What then, say they, is there lacking to the Spirit which prevents His being a Son, for if there were not something lacking He would be a Son? We assert that there is nothing lacking—for God has no deficiency. But the difference of manifestation, if I may so express myself, or rather of their mutual relations one to another, has caused the difference of their Names. (5th Theological Oration, Sect. 8, 9)

​

Now, though he does not dare to affirm anything about the difference between generation and procession, he does indeed venture to suggest that it is there relation to one another. Since we are comparing generation to procession in this matter, this is not a relationship in creation, ad extra manifestation, but a relation of origin. For if it is not a relation of origin, what kind of relation is it? Are we to posit some other kind of relation in God so that He is composed? Ore are we just to say that their mutual opposition is unintelligible? If it is unintelligible, then they are two Sons. 

 

Irenaeus of Lyons

​

St. Irenaeus is one of the great Fathers of the first few centuries of the Church, bringing forth an amazing corpus of writings debunking heretical claims that try to disrupt the orthodox church and their teachings. But within this line of argumentation and refutation of heretics we see hints of a greater affirmation that Christ is the Source and legitimate Cause of the Holy Spirit. Now, many will try and argue against this conclusion, not to say Irenaeus doesn’t say Christ is the “πηγὴ” of the Holy Spirit but that this can mean other things. But this cannot be asserted as true to cover ground but must be proven by the language and true nature of his words and what he implies. Also, when we look at these authors, we must see what their understanding truly did to the later Fathers articulation of God and his inner Trinitarian life. With this taken into account we can truly affirm St. Irenaeus is a Filioquist by implication of his words and their full logical conclusion. St. Irenaeus states the following:

​

εἰ μὲν οὐκ ἔχει [τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα], οὐκ ἔχει τὴν γνῶσιν τῶν κτισμάτων· ὁ παρεσχάμενος τὴν ζωὴν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, οὐκ οἶδε τὸν Πατέρα τὸν ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. (Fragment 26)

​

Translation:

If indeed one does not have the Holy Spirit, he does not have knowledge of created things; and the one who has not obtained (or received) the life of Jesus Christ does not know the Father who is in heaven.

​

Here we see that St. Irenaeus is bringing forth the conclusion that Our knowledge stems one way, through the Spirit to the Son and from the Son to the Father. Such language does not directly teach the eternal procession from or through the Son, but the Spirit’s role is so intrinsically tied to the Son that His operation cannot be understood independently of the Son. Suggesting not merely cooperation, but an eternal relational order reflected in the economy.

 

The Son is the “πηγὴ” of the Holy Spirit

 

Some with hard hearts may proclaim that this conclusion jumps from the direct conclusion of his words in this section, but this is just an interpretation that stays consistent with St. Irenaeus and his entire corpus, for elsewhere he states...

 

Δι’οὐδὲ δὲ (Μωϋσῆς) οὐκ ἐμψύγισε καθάπερ, ὁ Χριστός· ὅτι μὴ ἦν πηγὴ τοῦ Πνεύματος. (Fragment 21)

​

Translation:

But he does not give, as Christ did, by means of breathing, because he is not the fount of the Spirit.

​

Other Translations:

For this reason Moses did not breathe (life) as Christ did, because he was not the source of the Spirit.

 

Now, the only possible interpretation is that Christ can Breathe life (The Spirit) because he is the source of that same Spirit. For Moses did not have the Authority to Breathe such life (The Spirit) because he is not the source of that same Spirit. The term also indicates something more than just temporal mission, for the phrase states, “πηγὴ τοῦ Πνεύματος.” or “the source of the Spirit.”

​

This term “πηγὴ” is indicating a source of a thing, showing forth a principle. It is the direct equivalent in meaning to ἀρχή (principle); αἰτία (cause); ἐκπορεύομαι (to proceed). Showing that this authority is only given because He (Christ) is the Source of the Spirit that gives life or The Holy Spirit. One can’t get around this clear doctrinal teaching, that in my mind actually affirms such a beautiful doctrine within St. Irenaeus’s Corpus.

Now, if we dare to go to the other Fathers that bring forth this same conclusion from a passage that seems directly parallel to this statement from St. Irenaeus. We will see that this conclusion is beyond a shadow of a doubt. In scripture it states:

 

When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.’ (John 20:22-23)

​

St. Augustine makes the connection that this particular passage indicates the Son also spirates the Spirit. He states:

​

Further, in that Highest Trinity which is God, there are no intervals of time, by which it could be shown, or at least inquired, whether the Son was born of the Father first and then afterwards the Holy Spirit proceeded from both…He breathed upon them, and said, ‘Receive the Holy Ghost’ (John 20:22-23), so as to show that He proceeded also from Himself. And Itself is that very power that went out from Him, as we read in the Gospel, and healed them all. (De Trinitate, Book 15, Ch. 26)

​

St. Cyril of Alexandria brings forth an almost exact replica of this same conclusion within his Commentary on John’s Gospel where he states:

​

It is written, ‘He breathed on his disciples and said, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ (John 20:22) So would not someone be quite right in thinking, or rather in being firmly convinced, that since the Son ontologically shares the Natural attributes of God the Father, He has the Spirit in the same way that the Father is understood to have Him, not as something imported from the outside (it would be silly, or rather crazy to think this), but just as all of us possess our own spirit in ourselves and pour it forth from the inmost parts of our body? That is why Christ physically breathes on them. He is showing that just as the breath proceeds from the human mouth, so also His Spirit pours forth in a God-befitting way from his Divine Nature. (commentary on John [John 14:16-17])

​

Now, these are just two Fathers who come to this conclusion, but there are many more if needed for others to be convinced. But this will suffice for now unless compelled to do more by opposition. But from this perspective we can clearly see that St. Irenaeus is clearly making the way for a great expansion on the procession of the Spirit from both the Father and the Son alike.

 

The Knowledge of God and His Eternal inner Life

 

Now, we will conclude with this final Quotation from St. Irenaeus and how this truly does logically lead to the later formulation of the Filioque. St. Irenaeus writes:

​

hanc esse adordinationem et dispositionem eorum qui salvantur, dicunt presbyteri Apostolorum discipuli, et per huiusmodi gradus proficere, et per Spiritum quidem [ad] Filium, per Filium autem ascendere ad Patrem. (Book 5, Ch. 36, Sect. 2)

​

Translation:

The presbyters, disciples of the Apostles, say that this is the order and arrangement of those who are saved, and that by such stages they make progress: through the Spirit indeed to the Son, and through the Son, however, they ascend to the Father.

​

Now, this may be something you think doesn’t prove anything when just read on the surface. But this brings such a beautiful implication to the inner life of God or the relations between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I think St. Basil the Great says it better than I ever could. He states:

​

Thus the way of the knowledge of God lies from One Spirit through the One Son to the One Father, and conversely the natural Goodness and the inherent Holiness and the royal Dignity extend from the Father through the Only-begotten to the Spirit. Thus there is both acknowledgment of the hypostases and the true dogma of the Monarchy is not lost… (De Spiritu Sancto 18, Para. 47)

​

Here we see the same framework of us ascending to know God, St. Irenaeus like St. Basil affirms it is “through the Spirit indeed to the Son, and through the Son, however, they ascend to the Father.” But St. Basil rightly carries this to its logical conclusion, that from this ascension we can know that the inner trinitarian life that flows “from the Father through the Only-begotten to the Spirit.” The consistent patristic pattern, where all divine operations proceed from the Father through the Son and are perfected in the Spirit, strongly suggests that this order is not accidental or merely economic, but reflects an eternal mode of relation within the Godhead.

​

In light of the passages examined, it becomes increasingly difficult to treat St. Irenaeus’ language as merely incidental or purely economic. His description of Christ as “πηγὴ τοῦ Πνεύματος,” together with his structured presentation of the divine order (through the Spirit to the Son and through the Son to the Father) reveals a relational pattern that is both consistent and theologically significant. We can clearly see that the conceptual foundation for the Filioque is clearly present. The Son is not portrayed as a passive instrument of the Spirit, nor as unrelated to the Spirit’s origin, but as intimately and intrinsically connected to the Spirit’s life and operation. When read alongside the later reflections of Augustine of Hippo, Cyril of Alexandria, and Basil the Great, the trajectory becomes clearer: the economic missions reveal eternal relations. Thus, one may reasonably conclude that St. Irenaeus provides an early and profound witness to the theological logic that would later be expressed explicitly in the Church’s confession that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

​

Epiphanius of Salamis

 

St. Epiphanius was born between the years A.D. 310 and A.D. 320 in Palestine and studied in Egypt. Afterward he founded a monastery in his homeland; around the year A.D. 366 he became bishop of Salamis in Cyprus, which see he ruled until his death in A.D. 402. He has wide experience of the Eastern Church, therefore, as well as well-known devotion to the cause of orthodoxy.

 

Proceeds and Receives

 

Within St. Epiphanius’s works (Panarion and Ancoratus) he consistently uses the formulation “proceeds from the Father” and “Receives from the Son” to portray the Spirits connection to the other two persons of the Trinity (Consubstantiality) and his eternal relation with them as well (personal origin). He states:

 

There is one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. For the Spirit is forever with the Father and the Son—not brother to the Father, not begotten, not created, not the Son’s brother, not the Father’s offspring. He proceeds from the Father and receives of the Son and is not different from the Father and the Son, but is of the same essence, of the same Godhead, of the Father and the Son [ἐκ Πατρὸς καὶ Υἱοῦ], with the Father and the Son, forever an actual Holy Spirit—divine Spirit, Spirit of glory, Spirit of Christ, Spirit of the Father. (Panarian 62.4.1)

​

The two main passages that bring forth this formulation are the following:

​

But when the Comforter comes, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me… (John 15:26)

​

I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you. (John 16:12-15)

​

Now, what is interesting is that, within the church fathers, John 15:26 is consistently used for a proof that the Spirit is communicated the divine essence eternally from the Father and therefore is God. But St. Epiphanius while doing this pairs John 16:12-15 with this passage to speak on the Spirits origin. This is a clear affirmation that the Spirit in St. Epiphanius’s mind not only proceeds from one person of the Trinity but proceeds from both.

​

It would be plausible to claim a distinction between the concepts of “proceeding from the Father” and “receiving from the Son." But the problem with this approach is that St. Epiphanius himself doesn’t make this distinction:

​

But someone will say: ‘Therefore, we say that there are two sons, and how is he only-begotten?’ ‘No! Who are you, speaking against God?’ For if he [the Father] calls the one from him ‘Son,’ and the Holy Spirit the one from both [τὸν Υἱὸν καλεῖ τὸν ἐξ αὐτοῦ, τὸ δὲ ὅγιον Πνεῦμα τὸ παρ’ἀμφοτέρων], who being perceived by the saints by faith alone, as shining and illuminating, have a light-giving activity and make for themselves a harmony of light with the Father himself, for faith, listen, O man, because the Father is Father of the true Son, entire light, and [the] Son is [Son] of the true Father, light from light, not in appellation alone, as things which are made or created. And the Holy Spirit is the ‘Spirit of truth,’ third light from [παρά] the Father and the Son. But all the others [sons and spirits] are by adoption and by name, not similar to these in activity or power or light or notion. (Ancoratus 71.1–3)

​

There is a sender and a sent, showing that there is one source of all good things, the Father; but next after the source comes one who— to correspond with his name of Son and Word, and not with any other—is one Source springing from a Source [πηγή ἐκ πηγῆς], the Son come forth, ever with the Father but begotten. ‘For with thee is the source of life.’ And to show the name of the Holy Spirit, “In thy light we shall see light,” showing that the Father is light, the Son is the Father’s light, and the Holy Spirit is light, and a Source springing from a Source, from the Father and the Only-begotten—the Holy Spirit [ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ μονογενοῦς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ὅγιον]. ‘For out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water springing up unto eternal life; but,’ says the Gospel, ‘he said this of the Holy Spirit. (Panarian 69.54.1)

​

Thomas Crean, a scholar who comments on St. Epiphanius, notes the following:

​

Thus, while he retains the scriptural language of proceeding (ἐκπορεύεσθαι) from the Father and receiving or taking (λαμβάνειν) from the Son, his own commentary on this language makes no distinction between the Holy Spirit’s relations to the first two divine persons. (Vindicating the Filioque: The Church Fathers at the Council of Florence)

​

In his commentary on the second quotation claims:

​

The Son is here described as a ‘source’ of the Holy Spirit not merely in his humanity, but insofar as he is ‘ever with the Father.’ Epiphanius also here reaches the doctrine of the Father and the Son as one principle of the Holy Spirit, though without quite expressly formulating it: the Holy Spirit is described as a source springing not from two sources, but ‘from a source, from the Father and the Only- begotten.’ (Vindicating the Filioque: The Church Fathers at the Council of Florence)

​

​Fortunately, Epiphanius is strongly reaffirmed on this opinion by St. Hilary of Poitiers in the West:

​

For the present I forbear to expose their licence of speculation, some of them holding that the Paraclete Spirit comes from the Father or from the Son. For our Lord has not left this in uncertainty, for after these same words He spoke thus — “I have yet many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now. When He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He shall guide you into all truth: for He shall not speak from Himself: but whatever things He shall hear, these shall He speak; and He shall declare unto you the things that are to come. He shall glorify Me: for He shall receive of Mine and shall declare it unto you. All things whatsoever the Father has are Mine: therefore said I, He shall receive of Mine and shall declare it unto you.” Accordingly He receives from the Son, Who is both sent by Him, and proceeds from the Father. Now I ask whether to receive from the Son is the same thing as to proceed from the Father. But if one believes that there is a difference between receiving from the Son and proceeding from the Father, surely to receive from the Son and to receive from the Father will be regarded as one and the same thing. For our Lord Himself says, “Because He shall receive of Mine and shall declare it unto you. All things whatsoever the Father has are Mine: therefore said I, He shall receive of Mine and shall declare it unto you.” That which He will receive — whether it will be power, or excellence, or teaching — the Son has said must be received from Him, and again He indicates that this same thing must be received from the Father. For when He says that all things whatsoever the Father has are His, and that for this cause He declared that it must be received from His own, He teaches also that what is received from the Father is yet received from Himself, because all things that the Father has are His. Such a unity admits no difference, nor does it make any difference from whom that is received, which given by the Father is described as given by the Son.

 

The Spirit “Breathes Forth”

 

What’s interesting is that St. Epiphanius uses the language of “breathing forth," but he actually attributes this to the Spirit:

 

Some people are accustomed, deciding wrongly and not thinking, to differentiate the reading in the saying, ‘All things came to be through him, and apart from him nothing came to be,’ while thus setting aside the literal meaning, to accept an opinion of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. They err concerning the reading, and from the error of reading they stumble, being turned toward blasphemy. Thus the reading has: ‘All things came to be through him, and apart from him nothing came to be, that which has come to be in him,’ that is to say that if something has come to be, it came to be through him. Therefore the Father always was, and the Son always was; and the Spirit breathes forth from Father and Son [τὸ Πνεῦμα ἐκ Πατρὸς καὶ Υἱοῦ πνέει], and neither is the Son created nor is the Spirit created. But after Father, Son and Holy Spirit, all things, created and originated, not existing at some point in time, came to be from Father and Son and Holy Spirit. (Ancoratus 75.1-3)

​

Now, the concept of breath is clearly a testimony to personal eternal origin, as was aforementioned in the writings of Augustine and Cyril.

​

So, this "breathing forth" is not intending to claim that the Spirit is breathing itself but is taking its origin from both Eternally. Thomas Crean states:

​

While the breathing is attributed here to the Holy Spirit himself, rather than to the Father and the Son, the two ideas are obviously correlative: if the Holy Spirit can be said to ‘breathe forth’ from them eternally, they can be said to breathe him forth eternally. (Vindicating the Filioque: The Church Fathers at the Council of Florence)

​

St. Gregory of Nyssa

​

Of the leading theologians in the East, Gregory of Nyssa is one to suggest the Filioque more directly. In the West, it seems as though Augustine was the first, not to suggest that relations distinguish the persons, but to affirm it. However, Gregory of Nyssa proves that this was already within Eastern theology:

​

In regard to essence He is one, wherefore the Lord ordained that we should look to one Name: but in regard to the attributes indicative of the Persons, our belief in Him is distinguished into belief in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; He is divided without separation, and united without confusion. For when we hear the title Father we apprehend the meaning to be this, that the name is not understood with reference to itself alone, but also by its special signification indicates the relation to the Son. For the term Father would have no meaning apart by itself, if Son were not connoted by the utterance of the word Father. When, then, we learned the name Father we were taught at the same time, by the selfsame title, faith also in the Son. (Against Eunomius, Bk. 2, Ch. 2)

​

Here it is clearly articulated that they are only distinct relative to each other, the Son in that He is not the Father, the Father in that He is not the Son, and the Spirit in that He is neither. And still elsewhere, Gregory of Nyssa presents it as matter of "law":

​

And by this deliverance the Word seems to me to lay down for us this law, that we are to be persuaded that the Divine Essence is ineffable and incomprehensible: for it is plain that the title of Father does not present to us the Essence, but only indicates the relation to the Son... Whereas, then, the world is admitted to be something good, and from what has been said the world has been shown to be the work of the Word, who both wills and is able to effect the good, this Word is other than He of whom He is the Word. For this, too, to a certain extent is a term of relation, inasmuch as the Father of the Word must needs be thought of with the Word, for it would not be word were it not a word of some one. If, then, the mind of the hearers, from the relative meaning of the term, makes a distinction between the Word and Him from whom He proceeds, we should find that the Gospel mystery, in its contention with the Greek conceptions, would not be in danger of coinciding with those who prefer the beliefs of the Jews. (The Great Catechism, Pt. 1, Ch. 1)

​

Not only does Gregory of Nyssa beat Augustine to the method of distinguishing the persons by their relativity to one another, but he clearly steers himself toward the psychological analogy for the Trinity, which is later presented in more rigorous form by Augustine, when he makes mention of the operational relation between mind and thought. Gregory, also like Augustine, acknowledges the order of immanent action in God, that generation is virtually and immanently prior to procession:

​

If, however, any one cavils at our argument, on the ground that by not admitting the difference of nature it leads to a mixture and confusion of the Persons, we shall make to such a charge this answer — that while we confess the invariable character of the nature, we do not deny the difference in respect of cause, and that which is caused, by which alone we apprehend that one Person is distinguished from another — by our belief, that is, that one is the Cause, and another is of the Cause; and again in that which is of the Cause we recognize another distinction. For one is directly from the first Cause, and another by that which is directly from the first Cause; so that the attribute of being Only-begotten abides without doubt in the Son, and the interposition of the Son, while it guards His attribute of being Only-begotten, does not shut out the Spirit from His relation by way of nature to the Father. (Not Three God’s)

​

​Not how clearly Gregory makes it. Among the two which are caused, that being the Son and Spirit, the distinction is that one is "by that which is directly from the cause," here speaking of immanent action because he transitions into speaking of hypostatic distinction which he indicates by "we shall make to such a charge this answer." He even has to clarify that the Spirit's nature is from the Father by emphasizing that the Son's interposition (His being between them in immanent order)... "does not shut out the Spirit from Him."

​

Gregory's Analogies

 

To clarify that this is what Gregory means, we will look to later analogy that he uses:

​

For the plea will not avail them in their self-defense, that He is delivered by our Lord to His disciples third in order, and that therefore He is estranged from our ideal of Deity. Where in each case activity in working good shows no diminution or variation whatever, how unreasonable it is to suppose the numerical order to be a sign of any diminution or essential variation! It is as if a man were to see a separate flame burning on three torches (and we will suppose that the third flame is caused by that of the first being transmitted to the middle, and then kindling the end torch), and were to maintain that the heat in the first exceeded that of the others; that that next it showed a variation from it in the direction of the less; and that the third could not be called fire at all, though it burnt and shone just like fire, and did everything that fire does. But if there is really no hindrance to the third torch being fire, though it has been kindled from a previous flame, what is the philosophy of these men, who profanely think that they can slight the dignity of the Holy Spirit because He is named by the Divine lips after the Father and the Son? (Gregory of Nyssa, On the Holy Spirit: Against the Macedonians)

​

Considering Epiphanius of Salami, note the word "receives" also used here by Gregory:

​

He ever searches the deep things of God, ever receives from the Son, ever is being sent, and yet not separated, and being glorified, and yet He has always had glory. (Gregory of Nyssa, On the Holy Spirit: Against the Macedonians)

​

Notice here that Gregory mentions both "receiving from the Son" and "being sent" as distinct. This is another critical find in the Cappadocian Fathers. And finally, we have Gregory's holy grail, which could not be more explicit in reference to the Spirit finding origin in the Son. It is contained within one of his best Trinitarian analogies, though still falling short:

​

For once having taken our stand on the comprehension of the Ungenerate Light, we perceive that moment from that vantage ground the Light that streams from Him, like the ray co-existent with the sun, whose cause indeed is in the sun, but whose existence is synchronous with the sun, not being a later addition, but appearing at the first sight of the sun itself: or rather (for there is no necessity to be slaves to this similitude, and so give a handle to the critics to use against our teaching by reason of the inadequacy of our image), it will not be a ray of the sun that we shall perceive, but another sun blazing forth, as an offspring, out of the Ungenerate sun, and simultaneously with our conception of the First, and in every way like him, in beauty, in power, in lustre, in size, in brilliance, in all things at once that we observe in the sun. Then again, we see yet another such Light after the same fashion sundered by no interval of time from that offspring Light, and while shining forth by means of It yet tracing the source of its being to the Primal Light; itself, nevertheless, a Light shining in like manner as the one first conceived of, and itself a source of light and doing all that light does. There is, indeed, no difference between one light and another light, qua light, when the one shows no lack or diminution of illuminating grace, but by its complete perfection forms part of the highest light of all, and is beheld along with the Father and the Son, though counted after them, and by its own power gives access to the light that is perceived in the Father and Son to all who are able to partake of it. So far upon this. (Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius Bk. 1, Ch. 36)

​

St. Augustine of Hippo

​

That Augustine was a Filioquist is not heavily disputed so we will not spend much time on him. His psychological analogy set the framework for philosophical discussion and jargon in the future. He argues that the Spirit also proceeds from the Son because no one can will what they do not know. Since knowledge is prior to love in virtual immanent order, it stands from his analogy that the same love is in both the knower and the object known. For since the object known is his own essence, if this object excludes love then the intellective act is inexhausted, the object differing in essence since it doesn't embrace the fullness of the knower, which includes love.

​

And yet the Evangelist does not say, 'He who breathes upon them shall receive the Holy Spirit;' but, 'He breathed upon them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Spirit.'... For the Holy Spirit is not the Spirit of the one of them only, but of both. For it is not to be thought that because nothing can be loved unless it is known, therefore the Holy Spirit is the knowledge of the Father and the Son; but He is the love of both. And why, then, should He not proceed from both, since He is the love of both? (De Trinitate, Bk.15, Ch. 27, Par. 50)

​

By this time the West has grown accustomed to saying that the Spirit proceeds from both, firstly in Augustine, but also in other fathers such as Hilary of Poitiers:

​

​God the Father alone is He from whom the Word is born, and from whom the Holy Spirit principally proceeds. And therefore I have added the word 'principally,' because we find that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son also. But the Son has this also from the Father, that the Holy Spirit should proceed from Him also. (De Trinitate, Bk. 15, Ch. 26, Par. 47)

​

These things it is absolutely impossible to ask in this case, where nothing is begun in time, so as to be perfected in a time following. Wherefore let him who can understand the generation of the Son from the Father without time, understand also the procession of the Holy Spirit from both without time. (De Trinitate, Bk.15, Ch. 26)

​

and

​​​​

Concerning the Holy Spirit I ought not to be silent, and yet I have no need to speak; still, for the sake of those who are in ignorance, I cannot refrain. There is no need to speak, because we are bound to confess Him, proceeding, as He does, from Father and Son. (Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Bk. 2, Par. 29)

​​

St. Basil the Great

​

 St. Basil the Great lived around 330-379 AD and is well known in modern day to be a Great defender of Orthodoxy in regards to his Trinitarian theology. He is venerated in both the Orthodox and Catholic Church, he is also considered a Doctor of the Catholic Church. So, by nature both sides want to claim him and defend the fact that he held to their Trinitarian Theology. We shall be proving, within this examination of his writings [De Spiritu Sancto and his work Adversus Eunomium] that he understood the Filioque to be of the true Apostolic Faith. 

 

Adversus Eunomium, On the Holy Spirit’s Procession

 

To begin we will be examining the controversy surrounding St. Basil’s statements in Adversus Eunomium. St. Basil within this work is responding to Eunomim's statements regarding the Son’s Divinity, for Eunomim was an Arian that rejected the Orthodox Faith decided within the Council of Nicaea. From his denial of the Divinity of the Son, this naturally extended to his examination of the Spirit. There are other details surrounding the controversy, but this is the only thing that is relevant for this particular examination. In response to Eunomim St. Basil states, 

 

Isn’t it clear to everyone that no activity of the Son is severed from the Father? That none of all the existing things that belong to the Son is foreign to the Father? For he says: ‘All that is mine is yours, and all that is yours is mine.’ So, then, how does Eunomius impute the cause [τὴν αἰτίαν] of the Spirit to the Only-begotten ALONE, and take the creating of the Spirit as an accusation against the Only-begotten’s nature? If he says these things to introduce two principles [ἀρχὰς] in conflict with one another, he will be crushed along with Mani and Marcion. But if he makes the beings depend on a single principle [μιᾶς ἔξαπτει τὰ ὄντα], that which is said to come into being from the Son [τὸ παρὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ γεγενήσθαι λεγόμενον] has a relationship with the first cause [πρὸς τὴν πρώτην αἰτίαν τὴν ἀνάφοραν ἔχει]. Hence, even if we believe that all things have been brought into being through God the Word, we nevertheless do not deny that the God of the universe is the cause of all. How is it not an unmistakable danger to separate the Spirit from God? On the one hand, the Apostle hands down to us that they are connected, saying now that he is the Spirit of God, now that he is the Spirit of Christ. For he writes: ‘If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to him.’ And again: ‘You have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit that comes from God.’ On the other hand, the Lord says that he is the Spirit of truth—since he is himself the Truth—and that he ‘proceeds from the Father.’ But Eunomius, in order to diminish the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ, separates the Spirit from the Father and imputes him exclusively [διαφερόντως] to the Only-begotten in order to diminish his [Christ’s] glory. (Adversus Eunonium 2.34)​

 

Within this section we see an accusation St. Basil attributes to Eunomim that he tries to tie the Spirit's causation to the Son “ALONE” and therefore lowering the Son's nature to something beneath that of the Father’s. But notice that St. Basil isn’t denying the idea that the Son Spirates the Spirit in union with the Father as one Principle, but that Eunomim attributes this act to the Son by himself, therefore introducing two Causes. St. Basil prior to this objection brings forth the idea that the Son and the Father work as one, not as two different beings quoting John 17:10. This further strengthens the argument, as he explicitly teaches that to affirm the Spirit’s being as from the Son [insofar as this being is directly connected to the First Cause] is an orthodox position. He states, “But if he makes the beings depend on a single principle [μιᾶς ἔξαπτει τὰ ὄντα], that which is said to come into being from the Son [τὸ παρὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ γεγενήσθαι λεγόμενον] has a relationship with the first cause [πρὸς τὴν πρώτην αἰτίαν τὴν ἀνάφοραν ἔχει]. Hence, even if we believe that all things have been brought into being through God the Word, we nevertheless do not deny that the God of the universe is the cause of all."

 

After this amazing examination we see that he defends this last thought [that the Father and The Son act as one source in relation to the Spirit] by quoting scripture in support of the fact that the Spirit is of Both Divine Persons. He quotes Romans 8:9; 1 Corinthians 2:12; and John 15:26. This suggests that the Spirit in St. Basil’s mind only proceeds from the Son insofar as this does not violate the Spirit's origin from the Father in eternity and therefore affirming the formulation of the West. St. Augustine directly articulates what St. Basil would affirm, He states, 

 

If, therefore, that also which is given has him for a beginning by whom it is given, since it has received from no other source that which proceeds from him; it must be admitted that the Father and the Son are a Beginning of the Holy Spirit, not two Beginnings; but as the Father and Son are one God, and one Creator, and one Lord relatively to the creature, so are they one Beginning relatively to the Holy Spirit. But the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is one Beginning in respect to the creature, as also one Creator and one God. (On the Trinity Bk. 5, Ch. 14, Par. 15)

 

Fr. Thomas Crean within his work “Vindicating the Filioque” also comments on this passage and states, 

 

St. Basil does not object to Eunomius’s holding that the Son is a principle of the Holy Spirit, but to the way in which he applies this principle. There are, he says, two ways to understand it: either the Son is the principle exclusively, διαφερόντως, or else he is in such a way that the Holy Spirit also has a relation to the first ‘cause,’ the Father. Only the second sense is acceptable, and since St. Basil explains this second sense by scriptural texts, we must assume that he himself holds it to be not only possible but true that the Holy Spirit is παρὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ (‘from the Son’). Even more than this, the word μιᾶς (‘one’) in this extract, agreeing as it does with the word ἀρχή (‘principle’) just before, seems intended to encompass both the παρὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ, and the relation to the first ‘cause.’ In other words, St. Basil comes, as St. Hilary does around the same time, very close to the formulation that was later to become standard in the west, that the Father and Son are one principle of the Holy Spirit. The importance of this passage seems to have been overlooked by many who have written about St. Basil and the Filioque. (Vindicating the Filioque, Ch. 5, Pgs. 105-106)

 

De Spiritu Sancto, On the Holy Spirits Procession

 

Continuing from his other work we shall now do an examination of De Spiritu Sancto which was written because requests from his fellow bishop Amphilochius compelled him to write a treatise on the Holy Trinitarian formula “Glory be to the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit”. St. Basil takes it even further and writes what we are about to examine, dealing with the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. Many of St. Basil’s opponents [To combat the Spirit’s Divinity] would argue that the Spirit is ranked lower than the Father and the Son. St. Basil responds by stating:

 

Do you maintain that the Son is numbered under [ὑπαρισμεῖσθαι] the Father, and the Spirit under the Son, or do you confine your sub-numeration to the Spirit alone? If, on the other hand, you apply this sub-numeration also to the Son, you revive what is the same impious doctrine, the unlikeness of the substance, the lowliness of rank, the coming into being in later time, and once for all, by this one term, you will plainly again set circling all the blasphemies against the Only-begotten. To controvert these blasphemies would be a longer task than my present purpose admits of; and I am the less bound to undertake it because the impiety has been refuted elsewhere to the best of my ability. If on the other hand they suppose the sub-numeration to benefit the Spirit alone, they must be taught that the Spirit is spoken of together with the Lord [συνεκφωνεῖται τῷ Κυρίῳ] in precisely the same manner in which the Son is spoken of with the Father. The name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is delivered in like manner, and, according to the co-ordination of words delivered in baptism, the relation of the Spirit to the Son is the same as that of the Son to the Father [Ὡς τοίνυν ἔχει ὁ Υἱὸς πρὸς τοῦ Πατέρα, οὕτω πρὸς τὸν Υἱὸν τὸ Πνεῦμα]. And if the Spirit is co-ordinate [συντέτακται] with the Son, and the Son with the Father, it is obvious that the Spirit is also co-ordinate with the Father. (De Spiritu Sacnto, Ch. 17, Sect. 43)

 

What we see within St. Basil’s formulation is that there is an equality of essence because the Spirit's relation to the Son is the same as the Son’s relation to the Father and by virtue of this, we can connect the Spirit to the Father. This not only reflects the idea that the Spirit is one in essence, but in eternity bears the same relation or connection with the Son that the Son has to the Father. We see similar wording from St. Athanasius when speaking about the Holy Spirit. He states:

 

As the Son, the living Word, is one, so must the vital activity and gift whereby he sanctifies and enlightens be one perfect and complete; which is said to proceed from the Father,* because it is from the Word, who is confessed to be from the Father, that it shines forth and is sent and is given. The Son is sent from the Father; for he says, ‘God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son.’ The Son sends the Spirit; ‘If I go away,’ he says, ‘I will send the Paraclete.’ The Son glorifies the Father, saying: ‘Father, I have glorified thee.’ The Spirit glorifies the Son; for he says: ‘He shall glorify me.’ The Son says: ‘The things I heard from the Father speak I unto the world.’ The Spirit takes of the Son; ‘He shall take of mine,’ he says, ‘and shall declare it unto you.’ The Son came in the name of the Father. ‘The Holy Spirit,’ says the Son, ‘whom the Father will send in my name.’ But if, in regard to order and nature, the Spirit bears the same relation to the Son as the Son to the Father, will not he who calls the Spirit a creature necessarily hold the same to be true also of the Son? (Serapion 1, Par. 20-21)

 

St. Athanasius tells us that the Holy Spirit “is said to proceed from the Father, because He from the Word.” The Greek verb used for “proceed” or “ἐκπορεύομαι”, the same term found in John 15:26, this conveys a causal sense rather than a mere temporal one. This wording reveals something profound: Athanasius is affirming that the Holy Spirit’s hypostatic procession from the Father is due to His being from the Word. In other words, the Spirit proceeds from the Father on account of His origin from the Son. Some may object and suggest that this being "from the Son" refers only to an economic or energetic procession. But that fails to hold up under scrutiny. Ask yourself: is the Holy Spirit hypostatically from the Father because He is economically or energetically from the Son? Obviously not. The logic only makes sense if the Son is involved in the hypostatic origin of the Spirit.

What’s most striking is that St. Basil takes this route in arguing for the Spirit’s Divinity. He is using the Spirit’s relation to the Son, to Ground the Spirit's relation to the Father and Him being God with them. To continue we see that St. Basil states:

The greatest proof of the conjunction [συναφείας] of the Spirit with the Father and the Son is that He is said to have the same relation [οὕτως ἔχειν … ὡς] to God which the spirit in us has to each of us. ‘For what man,’ it is said, ‘knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man but the Spirit of God.’ (De Spiritu Sancto, Ch. 16, Sect. 40)

 

Notice that within this passage St. Basil is explaining that the conjunction of the Spirit to the Father AND the Son is more apparent in a passage that is dealing with relation. For St. Paul [in St. Basil’s mind] is showing that the Spirit has the same relation [Or at least a comparable relation] to God [Father and Son] that the spirit of man has with the man itself. Showing that St. Basil believes that the Spirit is relationally connected to Both. He states again:

 

One moreover is the Holy Spirit, and we speak of Him singly, conjoined as He is to the one Father through the one Son [δι’ ἑνὸς Υἱοῦ τῷ ἑνὶ Πατρὶ συναπτόμενον], and through Himself completing the adorable and blessed Trinity. Of Him the intimate relationship [οἰκείωσιν] to the Father and the Son is sufficiently declared by the fact of His not being ranked in the plurality of the creation but being spoken of singly; for he is not one of many, but One. For as there is one Father and one Son, so is there one Holy Ghost. He is consequently as far removed from created nature as reason requires the singular to be removed from compound and plural bodies; and He is in such a way united to the Father and to the Son as unity has affinity with unity [Πατρὶ δὲ καὶ Υἱῷ κατὰ τοσοῦτον ἤνωται, καθόσον ἔχει μονὰς πρὸς μονάδα τὴν οἰκειότητα]. (De Spiritu Sancto, Ch. 18, Sect. 45)

 

We see that in the prior quote St. Basil can affirm that the relation of the Holy Spirit is to Both, While also affirming that this same conjoining can be spoken of as “... to the one Father through the one Son [δι’ ἑνὸς Υἱοῦ τῷ ἑνὶ Πατρὶ συναπτόμενον], and through Himself...” Showing that these two formulas are not somehow contradictory, but inherently are used to present the exact same conclusion. That the Spirit is relationally connected to Both the Father and the Son, which demonstrates his Hypostatic relation to Both and Natural identity as God. 

 

Fr. Thomas Crean argues [Within “Vindicating the Filioque”] that St. Basil the Great is speaking about the Trinity in its eternal inner life, not just how God reveals Himself in history. In this context, Basil’s language that the Spirit is “attached” to the Father through the Son suggests something active and relational, not just that they share the same divine nature. Crean also explains that Basil defends the Holy Spirit’s divinity by emphasizing His unique unity unlike creatures, the Spirit is not something that could exist in multiples. Finally, when Basil says the Spirit is united to the Father and Son “as unity to unity,” Crean interprets this to mean the Spirit is connected to them insofar as they are one principle. From this, Crean concludes that Basil is effectively teaching [though in different words] that the Holy Spirit has His origin from the Father through the Son, supporting the Filioque understanding.

Homily 24

 

I acknowledge the Spirit as being with the Father, not as being the Father; I have received him as being with the Son, not as called Son; I perceive his relation [οἰκειότητα] with the Father, because he proceeds from the Father, and his relation with the Son, because I hear: ‘If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not his.’ (Homily 24 Pg. 31)

 

Mark Eugenikos, in his principal speech at Florence, quoted this passage from St. Basil’s Homily 24, against Sabellians, Arians, and Eunomians. Eugenikos insisted that nothing could show more clearly than this passage that St. Basil would have rejected the dogma of the Latins, and that he taught that the Holy Spirit was related to the Son only by consubstantiality; if Basil had believed in a procession from the Son, this would have been the moment to mention it.

 

John of Montenero, in his response to Eugenikos, argued that the same passage told clearly in favor of the Latin position: since Basil explains relationship in regard to the Father by referring to the Holy Spirit’s origin, it is reasonable to assume that he is also thinking of a relationship of origin when he compares the Holy Spirit and the Son. It certainly seems true that if Basil had thought there was no relationship of origin between the Son and the Holy Spirit, it would have been natural to say so, to avoid giving a false impression.

 

Looking at each explanation it seems clear that St. Basil within this passage is directly worried about the Spirit’s Hypostatic relation to the Father and the Son. For he begins by directly dealing with “procession” [reflecting the language of scripture] then continues [Quoting scripture directly] by stating the Spirit is of Christ. He is presenting the Spirit’s relation to the Father and the Son, not wanting to overstate what scripture has plainly given. That he is “the Spirit of the Father and the Son."

 

How St. Basil Understood Through

    

It’s helpful to look at an earlier passage in the treatise [De Spiritu Sancto, Ch. 5], where the saint speaks more broadly about this preposition. When Scripture says that creation comes through (διά) the Son, he explains that this doesn’t mean the Father’s creative power is somehow lacking, nor that the Son acts in a secondary or inferior way. Rather, it points to the unity of will that proceeds from the Father to the Son while still remaining one and the same will. So, as he puts it, “the expression ‘through whom’ contains a confession of an antecedent cause [προκαταρκτικῆς αἰτίας], and is not adopted in objection to the efficient cause [οὐκ ἐπι κατηγορίᾳ τοῦ ποιητικοῦ αἰτίου παραλαμβάνεται].”

 

The application to the inner life of the Trinity follows naturally. When St. Basil says that the Holy Spirit is joined to the Father through the Son, this suggests that the Son truly functions as an “efficient cause” or, in Western terms, a genuine principle by which the Spirit is joined. At the same time, the Father remains the first principle, since it is from him that the Son himself receives being as αἰτία ποιητική.

 

Conclusion

 

Since it is most certain in many fathers, let anyone who gives the accusation of quote mining in any of these cases attend to delving into these fathers, diligently analyzing the context. And if it be contested that not all fathers explicitly claimed the truth of the Filioque, I would venture to say that it is the majority. And even if the split is even, what then? Are we left to reason? Reason affirms that the immanent act of intellection is exhausted virtually prior to the immanent act of volition, so that the one generated receives volition not yet exhausted. Therefore, if the Son can only be excluded from being principle if He differs in essence because essence is what is communicated, making the essence, modified by the generation which imports the virtual notion of two hypostasis from the mutual opposition of their relation to one another, the principle of that which proceeds, the Father and Son communicating the essence to the Spirit through one spiration since both are of that same essence. 

​

​

​

By Hayden Newton, edited by Matthew Shuler