THE CITY of GOD  BOOK 1

AUGUSTINI DE CIVITATE DEI LIBER I

chap. 4.—what the doctrine of the catholic faith is concerning the trinity.

7. All those Catholic expounders of the divine Scriptures, both Old and New, whom I have been able to read, who have written before me concerning the Trinity, Who is God, have purposed to teach, according to the Scriptures, this doctrine, that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit intimate a divine unity of one and the same substance in an indivisible equality;³ and therefore that they are not three Gods, but one God: although the Father hath begotten the Son, and so He who is the Father is not the Son; and the Son is begotten by the Father, and so He who is the Son is not the Father; and the Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son, but only the Spirit of the Father and of the Son, Himself also co-equal with the Father and the Son, and pertaining to the unity of the Trinity. Yet not that this Trinity was born of the Virgin Mary, and crucified under Pontius Pilate, and buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven, but only the Son. Nor, again, that this Trinity descended in the form of a dove upon Jesus when He was baptized;⁴ nor that, on the day of Pentecost, after the ascension of the Lord, when “there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind,”⁵ the same Trinity “sat upon each of them with cloven tongues like as of fire,” but only the Holy Spirit. Nor yet that this Trinity said from heaven, “Thou art my Son,”⁶ whether when He was baptized by John, or when the three disciples were with Him in the mount,⁷ or when the voice sounded, saying, “I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again;”⁸ but that it was a word of the Father only, spoken to the Son; although the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as they are indivisible, so work indivisibly.⁹ This is also my faith, since it is the Catholic faith.^[1]

[IV 7] Omnes quos legere potui qui ante me scripserunt de trinitate quae deus est, diuinorum librorum ueterum et nouorum catholici tractatores, hoc intenderunt secundum scripturas docere, quod pater et filius et spiritus sanctus unius substantiae inseparabili aequalitate diuinam insinuent unitatem, ideoque non sint tres dii sed unus deus — quamuis pater filium genuerit, et ideo filius non sit qui pater est; filiusque a patre sit genitus, et ideo pater non sit qui filius est; spiritusque sanctus nec pater sit nec filius, sed tantum patris et filii spiritus, patri et filio etiam ipse coaequalis et ad trinitatis pertinens unitatem. Non tamen eandem trinitatem natam de uirgine Maria et sub Pontio Pilato crucifixam et sepultam tertio die resurrexisse et in caelum ascendisse, sed tantummodo filium. Nec eandem trinitatem descendisse in specie columbae super Iesum baptizatum aut die pentecostes post ascensionem domini sonitu facto de caelo quasi ferretur flatus uehemens et linguis diuisis uelut ignis, sed tantummodo spiritum sanctum. Nec eandem trinitatem dixisse de caelo: Tu es filius meus, siue cum baptizatus est a Iohanne siue in monte quando cum illo erant tres discipuli, aut quando sonuit uox dicens: Et clarificaui et iterum clarificabo, sed tantummodo patris uocem fuisse ad filium factam — quamuis pater et filius et spiritus sanctus sicut inseparabiles sunt, ita inseparabiliter operentur.

Haec et mea fides est quando haec est catholica fides.

ON THE TRINITY: BOOK 5

AUGUSTINI DE TRINITATE LIBER V

chap. 11.—what is said relatively in the trinity.

12. But whereas, in the same Trinity, some things severally are specially predicated, these are in no way said in reference to themselves in themselves, but either in mutual reference, or in respect to the creature; and, therefore, it is manifest that such things are spoken relatively, not in the way of substance. For the Trinity is called one God, great, good, eternal, omnipotent; and the same God Himself may be called His own deity, His own magnitude, His own goodness, His own, eternity, His own omnipotence: but the Trinity cannot in the same way be called the Father, except perhaps metaphorically, in respect to the creature, on account of the adoption of sons. For that which is written, “Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord,” ¹ ought certainly not to be understood as if the Son were excepted, or the Holy Spirit were excepted; which one Lord our God we rightly call also our Father, as regenerating us by His grace. Neither can the Trinity in any wise be called the Son, but it can be called, in its entirety, the Holy Spirit, according to that which is written, “God is a Spirit;”² because both the Father is a spirit and the Son is a spirit, and the Father is holy and the Son is holy. Therefore, since the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are one God, and certainly God is holy, and God is a spirit, the Trinity can be called also the Holy Spirit. But yet that Holy Spirit, who is not the Trinity, but is understood as in the Trinity, is spoken of in His proper name of the Holy Spirit relatively, since He is referred both to the Father and to the Son, because the Holy Spirit is the Spirit both of the Father and of the Son. But the relation is not itself apparent in that name, but it is apparent when He is called the gift of God;³ for He is the gift of the Father and of the Son, because “He proceeds from the Father,”⁴ as the Lord says; and because that which the apostle says, “Now, if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His,”⁵ he says certainly of the Holy Spirit Himself. When we say, therefore, the gift of the giver, and the giver of the gift, we speak in both cases relatively in reciprocal reference. Therefore the Holy Spirit is a certain unutterable communion of the Father and the Son; and on that account, perhaps, He is so called, because the same name is suitable to both the Father and the Son. For He Himself is called specially that which they are called in common; because both the Father is a spirit and the Son a spirit, both the Father is holy and the Son holy.⁶ In order, therefore, that the communion of both may be signified from a name which is suitable to both, the Holy Spirit is called the gift of both. And this Trinity is one God, alone, good, great, eternal, omnipotent; itself its own unity, deity, greatness, goodness, eternity, omnipotence.^[2]

[XI 12] Quod autem proprie singula in eadem trinitate dicuntur nullo modo ad se ipsa sed ad inuicem aut ad creaturam dicuntur, et ideo relatiue non substantialiter ea dici manifestum est. Sicut enim trinitas unus deus dicitur magnus, bonus, aeternus, omnipotens, idemque ipse sua sic dici potest deitas, ipse sua magnitudo, ipse sua bonitas, ipse sua aeternitas, ipse sua omnipotentia; non sic dici potest trinitas pater nisi forte translate ad creaturam propter adoptionem filiorum. Quod enim scriptum est: Audi, Israhel: dominus deus tuus dominus unus est, non utique excepto filio aut excepto spiritu sancto oportet intellegi, quem unum dominum deum nostrum recte dicimus etiam patrem nostrum per gratiam suam non regenerantem. Trinitas autem filius nullo modo dici potest. Spiritus uero sanctus secundum id quod scriptum est: Quoniam deus spiritus est, potest quidem uniuersaliter dici quia et pater spiritus et filius spiritus, et pater sanctus et filius sanctus. Itaque pater et filius et spiritus sanctus quoniam unus deus et utique deus sanctus est et deus spiritus est potest appellari trinitas et spiritus et sanctus. Sed tamen ille spiritus sanctus qui non trinitas sed in trinitate intellegitur in eo quod proptrie dicitur spiritus sanctus, relatiue dicitur cum et ad patrem et ad filium refertur quia spiritus sanctus et patris et filii spiritus est. Sed ipsa relatio non apparet in hoc nomine; apparet autem cum dicitur donum dei. Donum enim est patris et filii quia et a patre procedit, sicut dominus dicit, et quod apostolus ait: Qui spiritum Christi non habet hic non est eius, de ipso utique spiritu sancto ait. 'Donum' ergo 'donatoris' et 'donator doni' cum dicimus relatiue utrumque ad inuicem dicimus. Ergo spiritus sanctus ineffabilis quaedam patris filiique communio, et ideo fortasse sic appellatur quia patri et filio potest eadem appellatio conuenire. Nam hoc ipse proprie dicitur quod illi communiter quia et pater spiritus et filius spiritus, et pater sanctus et filius sanctus. Vt ergo ex nomine quod utrique conuenit utriusque communio significetur, uocatur donum amborum spiritus sanctus. Et haec trinitas unus deus, solus, bonus, magnus, aeternus, omnipotens; ipse sibi unitas, deitas, magnitudo, bonitas, aeternitas, omnipotentia.

Book 6

chap. 5.—the holy spirit also is equal to the father and the son in all things.

7. Wherefore also the Holy Spirit consists in the same unity of substance, and in the same equality. For whether He is the unity of both, or the holiness, or the love, or therefore the unity because the love, and therefore the love because the holiness, it is manifest that He is not one of the two, through whom the two are joined, through whom the Begotten is loved by the Begetter, and loves Him that begat Him, and through whom, not by participation, but by their own essence, neither by the gift of any superior, but by their own, they are “keeping the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace;”¹ which we are commanded to imitate by grace, both towards God and towards ourselves. “On which two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”² So those three are God, one, alone, great, wise, holy, blessed. But we are blessed from Him, and through Him, and in Him; because we ourselves are one by His gift, and one spirit with Him, because our soul cleaves to Him so as to follow Him. And it is good for us to cleave to God, since He will destroy every man who is estranged from Him.³ Therefore the Holy Spirit, whatever it is, is something common both to the Father and Son. But that communion itself is consubstantial and co-eternal; and if it may fitly be called friendship, let it be so called; but it is more aptly called love. And this is also a substance, since God is a substance, and “God is love,” as it is written.⁴ But as He is a substance together with the Father and the Son, so that substance is together with them great, and together with them good, and together with them holy, and whatsoever else is said in reference to substance; since it is not one thing to God to be, and another to be great or to be good. and the rest, as we have shown above. For if love is less great therein [i.e. in God] than wisdom, then wisdom is loved in less degree than according to what it is; love is therefore equal, in order that wisdom may be loved according to its being; but wisdom is equal with the Father, as we have proved above; therefore also the Holy Spirit is equal; and if equal, equal in all things, on account of the absolute simplicity which is in that substance. And therefore they are not more than three: One who loves Him who is from Himself, and One who loves Him from whom He is, and Love itself. And if this last is nothing, how is “God love”? If it is not substance, how is God substance?^[3]

[V 7] Quapropter etiam spiritus sanctus in eadem unitate substantiae et aequalitate consistit. Siue enim sit unitas amborum siue sanctitas siue caritas, siue ideo unitas quia caritas et ideo caritas, quia sanctitas, manifestum est quod non aliquis duorum est quo uterque coniungitur, quo genitus a gignente diligatur generatoremque suum diligat, sintque non participatione sed essentia sua neque dono superioris alicuius sed suo proprio seruantes unitatem spiritus in uinculo pacis. Quod imitari per gratiam et ad deum et ad nos ipsos iubemur, in quibus duobus praeceptis tota lex pendet et prophetae. Ita sunt illa tria deus unus, solus, magnus, sapiens, sanctus, beatus. Nos autem ex ipso et per ipsum et in ipso beati quia ipsius munere inter nos unum; cum illo autem unus spiritus quia agglutinatur anima nostra post eum. Et nobis haerere deo bonum est quia perdet omnem qui fornicatur ab eo. Spiritus ergo sanctus commune aliquid est patris et filii, quidquid illud est, aut ipsa communio consubstantialis et coaeterna; quae si amicitia conuenienter dici potest, dicatur, sed aptius dicitur caritas; et haec quoque substantia quia deus substantia et deus caritas sicut scriptum est. Sicut autem simul substantia cum patre et filio, ita simul magna et simul bona et simul sancta et quidquid aliud ad se dicitur quoniam non aliud est deo esse et aliud magnum esse uel bonum et cetera sicut supra ostendimus. Si enim minus magna est ibi caritas quam sapientia, minus quam est diligitur sapientia; aequalis est igitur ut quanta est sapientia tantum diligatur. Est autem sapientia aequalis patri sicut supra disputanuimus; aequalis est igitur etiam spiritus sanctus, et si aequalis in omnibus aequalis propter summam simplicitatem quae in illa substantia est. Et ideo non amplius quam tria sunt: unus diligens eum qui de illo est, et unus diligens eum de quo est, et ipsa dilectio. Quae si nihil est, quomodo deus dilectio est? Si non est substantia, quomodo deus substantia est?

Book 15

chap. 26.—the holy spirit twice given by christ. the procession of the holy spirit from the father and from the son is apart from time, nor can he be called the son of both

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; since Holy Scripture calls Him the Spirit of both. For it is He of whom the apostle says, “But because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts:”¹ and it is He of whom the same Son says, “For it is not ye who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaketh in you.”² And it is proved by many other testimonies of the Divine Word, that the Spirit, who is specially called in the Trinity the Holy Spirit, is of the Father and of the Son: of whom likewise the Son Himself says, “Whom I will send unto you from the Father;”³ and in another place, “Whom the Father will send in my name.”⁴ And we are so taught that He proceeds from both, because the Son Himself says, He proceeds from the Father. And when He had risen from the dead, and had appeared to His disciples, “He breathed upon them, and said, Receive the Holy Ghost,”⁵ 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.”⁶

[XXVI] Deinde in illa summa trinitate quae deus est interualla temporum nulla sunt per quae possit ostendi aut saltem requiri utrum prius de patre natus sit filius et postea de ambobus processerit spiritus sanctus quoniam scriptura sancta spiritum eum dicit amborum. Ipse est enim de quo dicit apostolus: Quoniam autem estis filii, misit deus spiritum filii sui in corda nostra, et ipse est de quo dicit idem filius: Non enim uos estis qui loquimini, sed spiritus patris uestri qui loquitur in uobis. Et multis aliis diuinorum eloquiorum testimoniis comprobatur patris et filii esse spiritum qui proprie dicitur in trinitate spiritus sanctus, de quo item dicit ipse filius: Quem ego mitto uobis a patre, et alio loco: Quem mittet pater in nomine meo. De utroque autem procedere sic docetur quia ipse filius ait: De patre procedit, et cum resurrexisset a mortuis et apparuisset discipulis suis, insufflauit et ait: Accipite spiritum sanctum, ut eum etiam de se procedere ostenderet, et ipsa est uirtus quae de illo exibat sicut legitur in euangelio, et sanabat omnes.

46. But the reason why, after His resurrection, He both gave the Holy Spirit, first on earth,⁷ and afterwards sent Him from heaven,⁸ is in my judgment this: that “love is shed abroad in our hearts,”⁹ by that Gift itself, whereby we love God and our neighbors, according to those two commandments, “on which hang all the law and the prophets.”¹⁰ And Jesus Christ, in order to signify this, gave to them the Holy Spirit, once upon earth, on account of the love of our neighbor, and a second time from heaven, on account of the love of God. And if some other reason may perhaps be given for this double gift of the Holy Spirit, at any rate we ought not to doubt that the same Holy Spirit was given when Jesus breathed upon them, of whom He by and by says, “Go, baptize all nations in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” where this Trinity is especially commended to us. It is therefore He who was also given from heaven on the day of Pentecost, i.e. ten days after the Lord ascended into heaven. How, therefore, is He not God, who gives the Holy Spirit? Nay, how great a God is He who gives God! For no one of His disciples gave the Holy Spirit, since they prayed that He might come upon those upon whom they laid their hands: they did not give Him themselves. And the Church preserves this custom even now in the case of her rulers. Lastly, Simon Magus also, when he offered the apostles money, does not say, “Give me also this power, that I may give” the Holy Spirit; but, “that on whomsoever I may lay my hands, he may receive the Holy Spirit.” Because neither had the Scriptures said before, And Simon, seeing that the apostles gave the Holy Spirit; but it had said,” And Simon, seeing that the Holy Spirit was given by the laying on of the apostles’ hands.”¹¹ Therefore also the Lord Jesus Christ Himself not only gave the Holy Spirit as God, but also received it as man, and therefore He is said to be full of grace,¹² and of the Holy Spirit.¹³ And in the Acts of the Apostles it is more plainly written of Him, “Because God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit.”¹⁴ Certainly not with visible oil but with the gift of grace which is signified by the visible ointment wherewith the Church anoints the baptized. And Christ was certainly not then anointed with the Holy Spirit, when He, as a dove, descended upon Him at His baptism.¹⁵ For at that time He deigned to prefigure His body, i.e. His Church, in which especially the baptized receive the Holy Spirit. But He is to be understood to have been then anointed with that mystical and invisible unction, when the Word of God was made flesh,¹⁶ i.e. when human nature, without any precedent merits of good works, was joined to God the Word in the womb of the Virgin, so that with it it became one person. Therefore it is that we confess Him to have been born of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary. For it is most absurd to believe Him to have received the Holy Spirit when He was near thirty years old: for at that age He was baptized by John;¹⁷ but that He came to baptism as without any sin at all, so not without the Holy Spirit. For if it was written of His servant and forerunner John himself, “He shall be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb,”¹⁸ because, although generated by his father, yet he received the Holy Spirit when formed in the womb; what must be understood and believed of the man Christ, of whose flesh the very conception was not carnal, but spiritual? Both natures, too, as well the human as the divine, are shown in that also that is written of Him, that He received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, and shed forth the Holy Spirit:¹⁹ seeing that He received as man, and shed forth as God. And we indeed can receive that gift according to our small measure, but assuredly we cannot shed it forth upon others; but, that this may be done, we invoke over them God, by whom this is accomplished.

[46] Quid uero fuerit causae ut post resurrectionem suam et in terra prius daret et de caelo postea mitteret spiritum sanctum, hoc ego existimo quia per ipsum donum diffunditur caritas in cordibus nostris qua diligamus deum et proximum secundum duo illa praecepta in quibus tota lex pendet et prophetae. Hoc significans dominus Iesus bis dedit spiritum sanctum, semel in terra propter dilectionem proximi et iterum de caelo propter dilectionem dei. Et si forte alia ratio reddatur de bis dato spiritu sancto, eundem tamen spiritum datum cum insufflasset Iesus de quo mox ait: Ite, baptizate gentes in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti, ubi maxime commendatur haec trinitas, ambigere non debemus. Ipse est igitur qui etiam de caelo datus est die pentecostes, id est post dies decem quam dominus ascendit in caelum.

Quomodo ergo deus non est qui dat spiritum sanctum? Immo quantus deus est qui dat deum? Neque enim aliquis discipulorum eius dedit spiritum sanctum. Orabant quippe ut ueniret in eos quibus manum imponebant, non ipsi eum dabant. Quem morem in suis praepositis etiam nunc seruat ecclesia. Denique et Simon magus offerens apostolis pecuniam, non ait: Date et mihi hanc potestatem ut 'dem spiritum sanctum,' sed: cuicumque, inquit, imposuero manus accipiat spiritum sanctum, quia neque scriptura superius dixerat: 'Videns autem Simon quod apostoli darent spiritum sanctum,' sed dixerat: Videns autem Simon quod per impositionem manuum apostolorum datur spiritus sanctus.

Propter hoc et dominus ipse Iesus spiritum sanctum non solum dedit ut deus sed etiam accepit ut homo, propterea dictus est plenus gratia. Et manifestius de illo scriptum est in actibus apostolorum: Quoniam unxit eum deus spiritu sancto, non utique oleo uisibili sed dono gratiae quod uisibili significatur unguento quo baptizatos ungit ecclesia. Nec sane tunc unctus est Christus spiritu sancto quando super eum baptizatum uelut columba descendit; tunc enim corpus suum, id est ecclesiam suam, praefigurare dignatus est in qua praecipue baptizati accipiunt spiritum sanctum. Sed ista mystica et inuisibili unctione tunc intellegendus est unctus quando uerbum dei caro factum est, id est quando humana natura sine ullis praecedentibus bonorum operum meritis deo uerbo est ut utero uirginis copulata ita ut cum illo fieret una persona. Ob hoc eum confitemur natum de spiritu sancto et uirgine Maria. Absurdissimum est enim ut credamus eum cum iam triginta esset annorum (eius enim aetatis a Iohanne baptizatus est) accepisse spiritum sanctum, sed uenisse ad illud baptisma sicut sine ullo omnino peccato ita non sine spiritu sancto. Si enim de famulo eius et praecursore ipso Iohanne scriptum est: Spiritu sancto replebitur iam inde ab utero matris suae, quoniam quamuis seminatus a patre, tamen spiritum sanctum in utero formatus accepit, quid de homine Christo intellegendum est uel credendum cuius carnis ipsa conceptio non carnalis sed spiritalis fuit? In eo etiam quod de illo scriptum est, quod acceperit a patre promissionem spiritus sancti et effunderit utraque natura monstrata est, et humana scilicet et diuina. Accepit quippe ut homo, effudit ut deus. Nos autem accipere quidem hoc donum possumus pro modulo nostro; effundere autem super alios non utique possumus, sed ut hoc fiat deum super eos a quo id efficitur inuocamus.

47. Are we therefore able to ask whether the Holy Spirit had already proceeded from the Father when the Son was born, or had not yet proceeded; and when He was born, proceeded from both, wherein there is no such thing as distinct times: just as we have been able to ask, in a case where we do find times, that the will proceeds from the human mind first, in order that that may be sought which, when found, may be called offspring; which offspring being already brought forth or born, that will is made perfect, resting in this end, so that what had been its desire when seeking, is its love when enjoying; which love now proceeds from both, i.e. from the mind that begets, and from the notion that is begotten, as if from parent and offspring? 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. And let him who can understand, in that which the Son says, “As the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself,”¹ not that the Father gave life to the Son already existing without life, but that He so begat Him apart from time, that the life which the Father gave to the Son by begetting Him is co-eternal with the life of the Father who gave it:² let him, I say, understand, that as the Father has in Himself that the Holy Spirit should proceed from Him, so has He given to the Son that the same Holy Spirit should proceed from Him, and be both apart from time: and that the Holy Spirit is so said to proceed from the Father as that it be understood that His proceeding also from the Son, is a property derived by the Son from the Father. For if the Son has of the Father whatever He has, then certainly He has of the Father, that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from Him. But let no one think of any times therein which imply a sooner and a later; because these things are not there at all. How, then, would it not be most absurd to call Him the Son of both: when, just as generation from the Father, without any changeableness of nature, gives to the Son essence, without beginning of time; so procession from both, without any changeableness of nature, gives to the Holy Spirit essence without beginning of time? For while we do not say that the Holy Spirit is begotten, yet we do not therefore dare to say that He is unbegotten, lest any one suspect in this word either two Fathers in that Trinity, or two who are not from another. For the Father alone is not from another, and therefore He alone is called unbegotten, not indeed in the Scriptures,³ but in the usage of disputants, who employ such language as they can on so great a subject. And the Son is born of the Father; and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father principally, the Father giving the procession without any interval of time, yet in common from both [Father and Son].⁴ But He would be called the Son of the Father and of the Son, if—a thing abhorrent to the feeling of all sound minds—both had begotten Him. Therefore the Spirit of both is not begotten of both, but proceeds from both.^[4]

[47] Numquid ergo possumus quaerere utrum iam processerat de patre spiritus sanctus quando natus est filius, an nondum processerat et illo nato de utroque processit ubi nulla sunt tempora sicut potuimus quaerere ubi inuenimus tempora uoluntatem prius de humana mente procedere ut quaeratur quod inuentum proles uocetur, quia iam parta seu genita uoluntas illa perficitur eo fine requiescens ut qui fuerat appetitus quaerentis sit amor fruentis qui iam de utroque, id est de gignente mente et de genita notione, tamquam de parente ac prole procedat? Non possunt prorsus ista ibi quaeri ubi nihil ex tempore inchoatur ut consequenti perficiatur in tempore. Quapropter qui potest intellegere sine tempore generationem filii de patre intellegat sine tempore processionem spiritus sancti de utroque. Et qui potest intellegere in eo quod ait filius: Sicut habet pater uitam in semetipso sic dedit filio uitam patrem dedisse sed ita eum sine tempore genuisse ut uita quam pater filio gignendo dedit coaeterna sit uitae patris qui dedit, intellegat sicut habet pater in semetipso ut et de illo procedat spiritus sanctus sic dedisse filio ut de illo procedat idem spiritus sanctus et utrumque sine tempore, atque ita dictum spiritum sanctum de patre procedere ut intellegatur quod etiam procedit de filio, de patre esse filio. Si enim quidquid habet de patre habet filius, de patre habet utique ut et de illo procedat spiritus sanctus. Sed nulla ibi tempora cogitentur quae habent prius et posterius quia ibi omnino nulla sunt.

Quomodo ergo non absurdissime filius diceretur amborum cum sicut filio praestat essentiam sine initio temporis, sine ulla mutabilitate naturae de patre generatio, ita spiritui sancto praestet essentiam sine ullo initio temporis, sine ulla mutabilitate naturae de utroque processio? Ideo enim cum spiritum sanctum genitum non dicamus, dicere tamen non audemus ingenitum ne in hoc uocabulo uel duos patres in illa trinitate uel duos qui non sunt de alio quispiam suspicetur. Pater enim solus non est de alio, ideo solus appellatur ingenitus, non quidem in scripturis sed in consuetudine disputantium et de re tanta sermonem qualem ualuerint proferentium. Filius autem de patre natus est, et spiritus sanctus de patre principaliter, et ipso sine ullo interuallo temporis dante, communiter de utroque procedit. Diceretur autem filius patris et filii si, quod abhorret ab omnium sanorum sensibus, eum ambo genuissent. Non igitur ab utroque est genitus sed procedit ab utroque amborum spiritus.