John Bekkos, Patriarch of Constantinople

NOTICE ON JOHN VECCUS.

(Fabric. Biblioth. Græc., ed. Harles., tom. XI, p. 544.)

Joannes Beccus, or Veccus—in Greek Βέκκος, Βέχος or Βίκων (1)—formerly chartophylax of the Great Church, was Patriarch of Constantinople from the year 1274, having been placed into the position of the deposed Joseph, abbot of Galesius, until the death of Emperor Michael Palaiologos. Following the Emperor’s death in 1282, Joseph was restored under Andronikos, while Joannes was relegated repeatedly after that time ^A in prison, where he died in the year 1298. At first a Photian, he later read the writings of Nikephoros Blemmydes (3) and became a *Latinophrōn* ["Latin-minded"], writing many works in which he endeavored with all his might both to defend the dogmas of the Latin Church and to reconcile them with the Greek. For this reason, on account of his talent, eloquence, and learning, he was most acceptable to Emperor Michael and admired by others.

Many of his writings have perished, or certainly have not been published: for those which he wrote individually against the Methonensian, against Joannes Phurnes, against the Archbishop of Bulgaria, against Georgios Moschompares, and the *Antirrhetikoi* composed again against the same, have not yet seen the light of day. He mentions these himself in Allatius, *Graecia Orthodoxa*, tom. II, p. 8 sqq. See below, p. 678. The epitome, or the essence, of all these works is contained, as is credible, in the writings which we have in print. They are as follows:

1. *De unione Ecclesiarum veteris et novæ Romæ liber*. It begins: Τὸ ἐπὶ πᾶσιν ἀψευδὲς τοῦ Σωτῆρος. [The truth of the Savior concerning all things.] In Greek, together with the version of Leo Allatius, in his *Graecia Orthodoxa*, Rome 1652, 4°, tom. I, pp. 16–224. In this writing, Veccus refutes Photios, p. 154 sqq.

2. *Ex Vecci λόγῳ sive libro περὶ τῆς ἐκκλησιαστικῆς εἰρήνης τὸ τοῦ σκανδάλου ἀλόγιστον καὶ ἐκ μόνης ἱστορίας ἀποδεικνύντος* [On ecclesiastical peace, proving the irrationality of the scandal solely from history]. Ample excerpts are given by Allatius on the ages of religious orders, pp. 165–169; and on Purgatory, pp. 591–626; and by William Beveridge in *Magnum Synodicum*, tom. I, pp. 273–292, where there is much on the Photian Synod. It begins: Ἦν ἂν μακάριον ἀληθῶς. (Fabric.) See above, vol. X, p. 674, init., and below, vol. XI, p. 59, n. 18, ed. vet. In the Royal Library of Paris, tom. II, p. 279, it is said to be present in cod. 1293, n. 22. Veccus' *Tomus Dogmaticus*. (Harl.)

3. *Περὶ τῆς ἐκπορεύσεως τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος* [On the Procession of the Holy Spirit], 12 chapters, in *Graecia Orthodoxa*, tom. I, pp. 223–259. It begins: Καλέσαντι πρὸ τῶν ἄλλων οὐκ ὀλίγην τις ἀνέκυψε ζήτησις. (Fabr.) Jo. Verci and others have certain writings concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit in *Arcudii Opuscula aurea theologica*, Rome 1630 and 1670, 4°. (In the catalog of the library of Nicolaus Rossius, p. 82, and in the Bodleian library, among the books of Rob. Huntington, n. 6114 of the catalog of the manuscripts of England, etc., vol. I, p. 283, it is cited by others and by Fabricius himself in the edition of 1671.) – MS. Paris, in cod. Radulph. in the public library, Beccus *De processione Spiritus sancti*. *Ibid.* *De processione Spiritus sancti contra Photium*. See Montfaucon, *Bibliotheca bibliothecarum Mss.*, p. 769 E, n. 45 and p. 775 A, n. 29. (Harl.)

NOTITIA

Epistle on the profession of faith to Pope John XXI, in Latin in Allatius, *De consensu*, lib. II, cap. 15, § 5, pg. 746-752. It begins: *Principis boni optimum esse finem*. [Add. infra, vol. XI, p. 643, old ed. HARL.]

5. ^A *Note*, or *Synodal opinion* [a. 1280], from the place of Gregory of Nyssa (concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son), taken from his homily on the Lord's Prayer, which begins: «Ὅτε προήγαγεν ὁ μέγας Μωσῆς». In Greek and Latin, Vol. I of *Græcia orthodoxa*, pg. 366-374. The beginning of this note: «Καὶ θρὶξ ἐμπεσοῦσα τῷ ὀφθαλμῷ». (Fabr.) Paris, in the public library, cod. 1258, n. 3. Three scholia of Veccus on as many [homilies], of Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, and Cyril of Alexandria. (Harl.)

6. ^B *Testament*, written by an exile. In Greek and Latin, Vol. I of *Græcia orthodoxa*, pg. 375-378, and lib. II of *De consensu*, cap. 15, § 8, p. 763. It begins: «Πολλοὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἐν ἐξορίαις καὶ φυλακαῖς». It exists also in the notes of Peter Possinus on Pachymeres, Vol. I, p. 541 sq. (FABR.) MS. at Florence in the Laurentian library, cod. 51, n. 4, plut. 7. V. Bandini, *Catal. codd. Gr. Laur.* I, p. 292. (HARL.)

7. ^C Epistle to Alexius Agallianus, Deacon of the Great Church of Constantinople, concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit. It begins: «Ἐγὼ μὲν οὐκ ἄν ποτε ἀκοῦσαι ᾠήθην τοιαῦτα». Tom. I of *Græcia orthodoxa*, p. 360, 365.

8. ^D *Annotations on the concordance of all his books and writings*, an animadversion addressed to Theodore, Bishop of Sugdaea. For I prefer to understand this person as Theodore Xiphilinus, the great oeconomus of the Church, to whom he had promised that he would not write about dogmas nor contradict them, whatever others might say, «ὡς οὐ γράφοι, ὡς οὐκ ἀντείποι περὶ δογμάτων, κἂν ἄττα λέγοιεν ἄλλοι», which he could not thereafter maintain, as Pachymeres reports, lib. VI. It begins: «Καὶ τὴν παροῦσαν δέξαι τὴν βίβλον, φίλον μοι ψυχῆς ἐνδιαίτημα, κύριε Θεόδωρε». Tom. II *Græcia orthodoxa*, pg. 1-10, Rome 1659, 4to.

9. *On the injustice which he suffered, having been ejected from his own throne*. Id. pg. 11-36. It begins: «Ἐσιώπησα, μὴ καὶ εἰσέτι σιωπήσωμαι».

10. *Apologetic and Antirrhetic Oration, partially apologetic regarding the injustice which he suffered, partially antirrhetic against the depraved expositions of certain authorities handed down in writing*. Id. pg. 36-83. It begins: «Τὰ μὲν οὖν ἐφ' οἷς ἀδίκως τοῦ οἰκείου ἡμεῖς ἀπηλάθημεν θρόνου».

11. *Apology*, that our customs are in no way being destroyed, but that it contributes much to reconciling peace in Christ, that they agree among themselves in asserting the dogma. Id. pg. 84-94. It begins: «Πρόσεχε, οὐρανὲ, καὶ λαλήσω». [In the Bodleian library, codd. Barocc. 71 and 111. HARL.]

12. Address to Theodore, whom he himself had ordained Bishop of Sugdaea, books III, *On the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son*. The beginning of the first: «Ἐπειδὴ τὸν εὐαγγελικὸν ζυγόν», id. p. 95. Of the second: «Σὺ μὲν, ἀγαπητὲ ἀδελφέ», pg. 117. Of the third, in which Photius is specifically opposed: «Πάλιν σου τὰ γράμματα πρὸς ἡμᾶς», pg. 133-148. Barthold Nibusius combined these books from the version of Allatius with a Latin epistle of the same Allatius to Boineburg on the concord of both Churches, Mainz 1655, 8vo. The third book, in Greek and Latin, was given by Allatius himself at the end of his book *De purgatorio*, p. 827-857, Rome 1652, 8vo.

13. Address to Constantine (Meliteniota, as the 9th volume says, p. 198 — Vol. X, p. 490, n. new ed.), 4 books on the same subject. The beginning of the first: «Φθάνω μὲν τάξας καὶ οἷον διορισάμενος», p. 149. Of the second: «Οὐδὲ τὴν δευτέραν σὴν ἀποπέμπομεν αἴτησιν», pg. 169. Of the third: «Ναι, ναὶ, τὰ ἐπηγγελμένα σοι», p. 287. Of the fourth: «Ἀπορεῖ καὶ πάλιν, καὶ οὐκ ἀποροῦμεν ἡμεῖς», p. 303-314.

14. *Against the Tome of George Cyprius, Patriarch of Constantinople, who claims that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, and [against] other new heresies of his, two extemporaneous books addressed to Theodore, Bishop of Sugdaea*, whom he addresses on p. 252: «Σὺ δὲ, γνήσιε υἱὲ, φίλτατέ μοι Θεόδωρε». The beginning of the first: «Ἔμελλεν ἄρα πολλὰς κατὰ καιρὸν», pg. 215. Of the second: «Δεύτερος ἡμῖν οὗτος ὁ κατὰ τοῦ Κυπρίου ἀγών», pg. 252-286. A third oration against Cyprius is cited by Nicolaus Comnenus, p. 356 *Prænot. mystagogic.*, and Veccus himself mentions his third [oration] on the heresies of Cyprius in his *Animadversio on his own books*, tom. II *Græcia orthodoxa*, pg. 7.

15. *Antirrhetics. Refutations against D. Andronicus Camateros, under Manuel Comnenus, formerly Drungary of the Watch or Prefect of the Vigiles (concerning whom see above in the preceding chapter § 7), regarding the testimonies concerning the Holy Spirit handed down in letters. It begins: «Βουλόμενος ἡμᾶς τὴν ἐκκλησιαστικὴν εἰρήνην ἀεὶ προάγειν ἐπὶ τὸ βεβαιότερον», pg. 287-321.

16. *Epigraphs. Epigraphæ, being thirteen prescriptions, or sentiments of the holy Fathers collected concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit.* It begins: «Ῥήσεις διάφοροι γραφικαὶ συλλεγεῖσαι εἰς ἀπόδειξιν τοῦ εἶναι τὸ Πνεῦμα καὶ ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ», pg. 322-341. These epigraphs were published in Greek and Latin by Petrus Arcudius, a Corcyræan, in *Opuscula aurea*, Rome 1630, 4to; 1671, 4to [al. 1670], together with certain writings of Gregory Palamas, and of Bessarion against Palamas, as well as those of Demetrius Cydonius and Maximus Planudes. They are also held in MSS. in the Imperial Library. See Lambecius V, pg. 186. (FABR.) Or p. 317 sq. ed. Kollar. in

cod. 150, n. 14. — It. ibid. p. 390 sqq. in cod. 262. — At Venice in the Nanian codex 303, n. 13, *Chapters* whose title, etc. And Mingarelli, in *Catalogus codicum Græcorum Naniensium*, p. 508, contends that this work, which by Allatius is divided into *Epigraphæ* (Inscriptions/Titles), should be divided into chapters, and inscribed: *Capitula de processione Spiritus sancti* (Chapters concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit). He also teaches that this Collection is mutilated at the end in Allatius, and that what are the final words in him are read in this codex on page 357, but the whole work is completed on p. 359; then after those words follow in the codex testimonies taken from Clement of Alexandria, and another Epistle of St. Maximus to Marinus. — In the same codex, n. 14, *Auctoritates Patrum* (Authorities of the Fathers) by which Purgatory is confirmed. Then many other things for confirming the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son. And finally another chapter is added, as a supplement to the work of Beccus, and it is inscribed, p. 367, *Αποδείξεις καὶ ἐκ τῶν οἰκουμενικῶν ἁγίων συνόδων* (Proofs also from the holy ecumenical synods); Mingarelli gave more from it. Afterward, authorities of other general synods are brought forward, II, V, VI and VII. — Ibid. in the Marcian library, codices 160 and 161, *Auctoritates Patrum de processione Spiritus sancti*; the chapters are numbered in the margin XIX, indeed without the name of the author, who is nevertheless indicated in the later column by a note of Bessarion as Beccus. See *Catalogus codicum Græcorum Marcianorum*, p. 90. — At Florence in the Medicean-Laurentian library, cod. 14, 4, plut. 10, there are XII chapters of J. Beccus's *Epigraphæ*, with as many refutations by Gregory Palamas, and the *Apologiae* of Cardinal Bessarion. In cod. 12, n. 20, plut. 4, *Collectio mirabilis* (Wonderful Collection), i.e., Jo. Beccus's *Epigraphæ*, etc.; in this codex also, at the end of the work, other excerpts are brought forward which are missing in Allatius's *Græcia orthodoxa*, tom. II, after page 641. See Bandini, *Catalogus codicum Græcorum Bibliothecæ Laurentianæ* I, p. 483 and 535. — The same author, ibid. p. 546, conjectures that those things which exist in cod. 22, n. 4, plut. 4, *Περὶ Τριαδικῆς καὶ ἀσυγχύτου τάξεως* (On the order of the Trinity and of the unconfused, distinct order of persons), are taken from Beccus, who composed a similar work, edited by Petrus Arcudius, Rome 1630. — The same collection of *Epigraphæ*, Paris in the public library cod. 1270, n. 4. At Madrid, in the royal codex 77, are contained: Gregory Palamas’s *Sermones* on the procession of the Holy Spirit; Joannes Beccus’s *Epigraphæ*, and Palamas’s *Antiepigraphae*; Barlaam the monk on the same subject, etc. See Iriarte, *Catalogus codicum Græcorum Matritensium*, p. 279 sqq., having examined the individual items more fully. In the Coislin codex C., Gregory, Archbishop of Thessalonica, against Beccus and others on the same subject. See Montfaucon, *Bibliotheca Coisliniana*, p. 171 sq. add. ibid. p. 405 sq. Compare Oudin, *Commentarius de scriptoribus ecclesiasticis* III, page 510 sq., to the year 1270, who furthermore notes that those opinions collected by Beccus are found in Bzovius in his *Annales*, tom. XIV, to the year 1339; likewise the Epistle of Joannes Beccus sent to the Roman Pontiff in 1277 is in Greek and Latin in the *Concilia*, edited by Labbe, tom. XI, col. 1033. The same author, from page 506, narrates more fully the history and fate of Beccus and the controversies arising from it, and appeals to Henr. Spondanus in the continuation of Baronius’s *Annales* to the year 1274, n. 15; to the year 1283, n. 9 and 10; and to Antonius Arnaldus, doctor of the Sorbonne, *De perpetua Ecclesiæ catholicæ fide circa Eucharistiae sacramentum* (On the perpetual faith of the Catholic Church concerning the sacrament of the Eucharist), lib. III, chapters 3 and 4, page 299 sqq. (HARL.)

Allatius also mentions, p. 767, *De consensu*, *Κεφάλαιά τινα περὶ τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος* (Certain chapters concerning the Holy Spirit). It begins: *Εἶτα καὶ πάλιν οἱ αὐτοὶ καθ᾽ ἑξῆς*. Also *Titulos de recens natis hæresibus* (Titles concerning recently born heresies), it begins: *Ἔμελλεν ἄρ᾽ ἀντ᾽ ἐπισκόπου κατὰ λύκου καὶ αἱρεσιάρχου*.

Nic. Comnenus, page 14 *Prænot. mystagog.*, cites Jo. Beccus’s *Oration I on his inauguration*, which begins: *Ἀκούσατε ἱερὸν συνέδριον, φίλοι συμπράκτορες, ἀρχιερεῖς ἀδελφοί*. *Oration IV on the union of the churches*, page 164, 207. *Synodicon on the ordination of clergy*, in Canonarchus, Christophorus Campana, page 292. *Synodicon on the office of the parish priest*, page 310. *Synodicum III*, page 145. *Synodicon of the year 1275*, promulgated concerning the head of the corpus of St. Mamas having been severed, page 242. *Encyclical Epistle*, page 203; *Admonition towards union*, p. 346. (FABR.)

[At Moscow, in the synodal codex 324, concerning the ecumenical synod, "Ητις ἀποκατέστησε Φώτιον... εἰς τὸν θρόνον Κωνσταντινουπόλεως· ἀπὸ τοῦ λόγου τοῦ Βέκκου" (Which restored Photius... to the throne of Constantinople; from the discourse of Beccus). Begins: *Ἦν ἂν μακάριον*. See Matthaei, *Notitia codicum Græcorum Mosquensium*, page 212. It pertains to n. 2. The same work, perhaps, in the *Catalogus manuscriptorum Angliæ, etc.* vol. 1, p. 55, n. 691, in the codex of Gulielmus Laud 39, is cited thus: *Acta synodi æcumenicæ, quæ Photium, patriarcham, in thronum CPol. restituit, et scandala novæ et antiquæ Romæ sustulit, ex relatione Becci scribe.* (HARL.)]

[In the catalogue of Greek manuscripts of the Escorial library, in the edition by Clarke, *Briefe von dem gegenwärtigen Zustande des Königreichs Spanien*, from the German version of Jo. Tob. Koehler, Lemgo 1765, 8, page 406, is cited Jo. Bechii (or rather, I judge, Beccii) patriarch of Constantinople, *De unione ecclesiarum* (On the union of the churches). (See above, n. 1.) In Pluerus's *Catalogus manuscriptorum Escorialensium*, page 173, no mention of this work is made; but there are wrongly attributed to J. Bechius (sic) patriarch of Constantinople: *Paraphrasis in Aristotelis libros ethicorum ad Nicomachum*, and *Adversus legem Saracenorum apologiæ IV*, and *Adversus Mahumetem libri IV*, which by Clark (loc. cit.) are ascribed to Joannes Cantacuzenus, Emperor of Byzantium. (HARL.)]

OF JOHN, HUMBLE BISHOP OF CONSTANTINOPLE, ON THE UNION AND PEACE OF THE CHURCHES OF OLD AND NEW ROME.

1. The truth, which is in all things of the Savior, permits me now, even as I begin this discourse, to say: rightly did the Lord declare in the Gospels, ^A *Search the Scriptures* (John v, 39). For while this divinely spoken oracle has perhaps been cited by many others at their own appropriate times, never has it seemed more apt than now. And that this, and no other, fits the present matter—concerning which I have now set out to speak, having borrowed this prelude from the evangelical text—the matter itself will show when this present discourse shall have been applied to the arguments concerning it; and this matter, which is now being spoken of, which I have already set out to discuss, is the union of the Churches. Of which Churches? Of the elder Rome, and of this our own new one; in whose previous separation I was torn and aggrieved, but at whose present union I leap and rejoice. ^B But, moved by the mention of this separation, I cry out in perplexity: Whence shall fountains of tears be given me, that I may weep—if not as is worthy, nor in proportion to the magnitude of the calamities, yet weep nevertheless—for the darkness that has thence seized upon the world inhabited by us, and the harm that has thence invaded the expanse of the Roman territories belonging to our lot? This has devastated us not only in the mutilation of our bodily dominion, through the loss of many cities and regions, and the seizing away of islands scattered far and wide, and of entire nations; but it has wounded piety itself—if indeed Mohammed and Muchumetus are to be called the bane of piety—who, ^C with their followers, celebrate their orgies amid our sacred things, and there—alas, the abominable deed!—hold their banquets where formerly the great mystery of the Christian mysteries was celebrated. For that the malice of this schism has, through the long passage of time, harmed us to such a degree—not only us who have suffered it, but

also to all the nations everywhere in the world, it has made manifest. ^A But if anyone wishes to examine the strength of this invincible evil in another way, he can grasp it from those things which even I myself, from memory alone, am now suffering. For having a different aim for the present discourse—namely, to speak about ecclesiastical peace, and to answer both the men of today and those of the future, so that the separation of the destructive schism of the Churches may be well repudiated by us, and its God-beloved peace and union be exchanged in its place—I, however, setting these things aside, since I have remembered the evils that have overtaken us from the separation, began to weave together calamities and laments. And if the urgency of my stated purpose were not drawing us elsewhere, perhaps I would have just now moved the whole creation to mourning, recounting the evils that have befallen Christianity from the schism of the Churches. But that the invincible strength of this evil is manifest even from this, is clear from the fact that we are not yet permitted to enter upon the intended subject.

^B 2. But since there is every necessity to touch upon what we have once and for all purposed, we say that the most purposeful aspect of our argument for the demonstration is that this schism has crept into the Churches perversely and not according to ecclesiastical principles, nor for causes that rightly separate peoples and clergy, pastors and priests, but through the inopportune variation of a sound, one which does not at all harm piety, but which yet, to both sides, seemed to introduce a difference of faith. Therefore, for such an aim of the argument, I wish to summarize the entire treatise of the discourse into these two points: ^C one, to set forth in the discourse, in a structured way, all the scriptural utterances through which those who have at various times theologized about the Trinity appear to declare explicitly that the Holy Spirit exists from the essence of the Father and of the Son, which the Church of the Romans confesses, saying that He proceeds from both; the other, by arguments, such as God may grant us, to demonstrate that the opposition of the leaders of the schism, and furthermore the inclination of those who followed them toward like things, had no rational causes for promoting to such an extent the ruinous schism of the Churches. For if it were possible for us, having demonstrated from scriptural passages that the Church of Rome fails in nothing regarding piety, to establish that those who spoke against it spoke not rightly; ^D and on the contrary, if even from the sole demonstration that those who were studious of the schism did not rightly use the contradictions for the schism, it was possible to make known that the Church of Rome fails in nothing regarding piety. But since we are supported to a great degree by the light of truth itself, and we desire to make an exposure of the falsehood, we shall engage in this double contest; and having first completed one part of the discourse, as God may grant, taking testimonies from the Scriptures to corroborate the sound doctrine of the Roman Church, in the other we shall set forth what remains; we shall refute, that is, what they have said and

^A what they have written, those who through the ages have undertaken the struggle of debate against the Roman Church.

3. But since we are speaking not only to the men present, but also to those who shall be born after us and are to come, I do not know what we should do. For if our discourse were only to those present, even if some of those who encountered us disagreed, yet for the time being, the fact that they remained to hear our counter-arguments would have provided us ^B with a pretext to offer a defense before God—from whom comes every perfect gift—directing our mind toward Him; and even if we were unable to persuade them, it would still have been gratifying to us to see them, even if they came to the contradiction out of an unreasonable persuasion, considering it a victory that we were not overcome by their irrational arguments. But since the discourse will also be for those yet to be born, and those whom coming time shall call to an encounter with these our present words, because we do not know what kind of judgment and resolve they will have—whether of the conscientious and discerning, and to say it all, peaceable sort, such as the present ^C time has revealed many good men to be; or of the obstinate sort, of whom not a few have also appeared now, not devoting themselves to reason and rational discernment, but simply choosing to follow blindly those who preceded them, promoting this one thing only, up and down, as the proverb goes, claiming that the schism—which those before us brought about, whether rightly or wrongly—should not be laid aside—if, then, they are of this second disposition, they will perhaps not be persuaded by the arguments we have set forth for the purpose of establishing ecclesiastical peace. Yet we must not for that reason fall silent, but must direct our attention toward the one ^D eye that sees all, and toward that infallible judgment seat, where the accusation of those who oppose us foolishly will do us no harm, for there is no need of accusers there; just as the commendation of those who show favor unreasonably will provide no benefit, for there is no need of advocates there.

4. Therefore, looking toward that infallible judgment seat, we must go straight to the mark, urging each one who shall afterwards read these our present writings to examine what is contained herein with a straight conscience and a mind not inclined in either direction; and if what we have corrected regarding the error of those before us pleases the reader, thanks be to God, the giver and bestower of every good thing. But if anyone deems that we have taken poor counsel regarding this peace, whoever he may be, let him know only this about us: that whatever has been thought out, or said, or done, or written by us, has been attempted for the sake of establishing the peace of the Church, not for the sake of refuting any of our own rites or dogmas. For anyone who has approached this ecclesiastical peace, scorning our customs and dogmas, and judging the Roman Church as holding a view more pious than our own...

may he fall from the kingdom of Christ and be numbered with the traitor Judas, his associates, and the crucifiers of the Savior. Having placed this fearful oath as a kind of foundation for our discourse, we begin to speak.

^A 5. There is something else which I believe ought to be set before my discourse, a thing I will not pass over, for it is fitting to adapt it to the present place. Those who, as has been said, have often and many times fought with pen and ink against men of the Roman Church—those against whom our present discourse will turn in the second encounter—are as if compelled by justice to defame themselves, vanquished by their own opinion, and believing that victory consists in this alone: to indulge in sheer obstinacy and, when exhorted to peace, to oppose themselves in a timely or untimely fashion, adorning ^B the whole collection of their dissertation with injuries against those who converse along with them as if with some ornament. And would that it were only injuries! For perhaps the evil would be less if it persisted only in those insulted by their irrational rush. But now, it is not only this, but they also vomit forth most audacious slanders and revilings against them and their Church, the absurdity of which injures the very piety of Christians. And they have not been able to perceive that by this very fact alone—that they have conducted their disputes and conversations with injuries and slanders—they have been judged by fair-minded observers to have forfeited the victory. For who, when he might obtain victory peacefully, especially in matters where ^C God and divine things are being discussed, attempts to crush the person with whom he is debating with injuries, as if he does not study to win over brothers, but rather strives to subjugate and destroy them? I, for one, perusing such discourses of theirs and observing the Romans, who are admitted to be more prone to anger, sowing peaceful conversations with them, while our own men—not like those fighting reasonably, but as if making an assault against them with sword, blade, and spear—are overcome with shame, and reflecting the infamy within myself, I am all but moved to cover my face.

6. Therefore, wishing to gainsay these ^D gainsayers in the future, I entreat God that I may not be dragged into such things, and I ask the same favor from those who shall read these writings of ours: that they may not look upon any of our words as directed toward contention. We, indeed, looking not to men but to God, have thought that this peace should be received with open arms. If to some it seems otherwise, it is nothing to us. But if we turn our mind to the secular affairs of the Roman principate, truly we cannot say that it is nothing to us. For if the struggle with the Roman Church had been justly undertaken, and for something conducive to our piety—the evils from which, having invaded us, are not for the present business to relate, and perhaps their history has been committed to writing by others—we, too, would come together with those inclined toward scandal. But since it is for no just cause, but from the sole malice of Satan...

we are far from joining the promoters of this scandal. Rather, we are caught in such great grief that we entreat our own people—with all the fervor we can muster—to cast off their madness and not so rashly stir up a new war once again against their own cities and regions, the cause of such great calamities and misfortunes. But if anyone should nonetheless desire to be once more the author of such scandal, he will be liable to judgment. Now, however, let us proceed to our statement.

7. What are you saying, brothers? Why does the schism of the Churches seem to us a thing to be fought over? Because, they say, a long time has already elapsed since this schism began; for this reason the schism is a thing to be fought over—because it is also of long duration. Must we therefore consider that we are divided, or must we inquire *how* we are divided? That we are divided, they say. ^B But to me—and I think to every right-thinking person—it does not seem that we should look at *this*, but rather at *how* we were divided. And if we find those who established the schism before us, accusing the Roman Church of having supposedly committed great errors concerning dogmas—examining and testing the things they brought forward as charges against the Romans, and the things which the latter answered to clear themselves of the accusations—then, following the rectitude of our own discernment, we must either agree with those who [were found to be] thinking correctly, praising them and calling them blessed, or judge that they [who promoted the schism] erred in this scandal, deceived by human fallibility.

We must either hold what was done by them as a source of disgrace, replacing it with what is praiseworthy in our own account, or—if we say nothing at all about those who came before, out of respect for our predecessors—we must at least order well that which concerns us, enjoying a twofold benefit: that we have not followed those who strayed, and that we have handed down a pattern of what is right to those who come after us and are born after us. For my part—and, I believe, for anyone who hates the irrationality of obstinacy—what is approved is pleasing, as is the question of *how* we were divided. But if some judge that because we are divided, the schism must be continued without any further examination, I utterly loathe such foolish compliance toward those who were before us.

8. ^C But now, from another quarter, there appears3 someone who does not follow the irrationality of mere time, but who, as if being of a more learned and logical sort, hastens to argue with us more seriously. “What are you saying?” he asks us. “Does it seem to you that the ecclesiastical peace of the Italians should be embraced, seeing as they posit—in the blessed Trinity—two causes and two principles for the one Spirit?” By the Trinity, no, my good man! For in this way I have fortified myself from the start, so that you might not even suspect such a thing of us. We do not say that the peace of the Roman Church should be attended to for any such reason; ^D rather, we invoke the fall from the blessed Trinity upon all who would desire the peace of such men as speak of two principles in the consubstantial Trinity. For those are the words of men who, having once blinded themselves to the light of the truth, have walked in the darkness of their own wickedness.

^A But we, reading the Creed delivered to us by the holy Fathers, proclaim thus openly: ‹And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the life-giver, who proceeds from the Father.› Thus we read it, and thus we shall read it until our dying breath, and thus believing we shall stand before the Trinity. Now the Latins, by adding to the reading ‹and from the Son,› do not affirm two causes for the one Spirit; because in no way do they claim that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son in such a way as to imply a dyarchy. For those of the ancient heretics, I mean those around Manes and Marcion, who professed a dyarchy, imagined one principle of good and another principle of evil; and those who stood with Eunomius, and all after them, decreed that just as the Son is from the Father alone, so the Holy Spirit is from the Son alone. But the Church of the Romans, having utterly disregarded all these as deserving of laughter and derision, has remained unshaken and immutable within the bounds ^B of piety, never dogmatizing an origin of good and a different origin of evil, nor ever aligning itself with those around Eunomius such that it would dare to say that the Father is the sole principle of the Son, and the Son is the sole other principle of the Spirit—and from this be convicted of asserting two principles.

9. But, leaning upon the decrees of the great holy men ^C and following their thoughts, the Church proclaims the Son to be from the Father alone, and says that the Holy Spirit is also from the Son. Yet it purely and openly maintains and confesses one single principle in the holy Trinity, because it knows, through the teaching of the Fathers, that all things of the Son are referred to the Father as the first cause. For to say that the Spirit is from the Father and from the Son, and not to acknowledge two causes of the Spirit, comes entirely from nothing else than this very fact: that all things of the Son, as has been said, are referred to the Father as the first cause. But if you also require the testimony of one of the theological men, so that you may have from there a guarantee for the things already said, for the sake of knowing that the Father and the Son are not, nor are they said to be, two causes of the Spirit when it is said that the Spirit is from the Father and from the Son (because all things of the Son are referred to the Father as the first cause), let the great Basil be brought forward as a witness worthy of our trust. ^D For he, who was mighty in treating divine matters, whose speech is insuperable and whose character inimitable, when he found Eunomius in his own commentaries dogmatizing about the cause of the Spirit and saying "He is from the Son alone," wrote the following in the second of his discourses against him, near the end: "To whom of all men is it unknown that there is no action of the Son separated from the Father, nor is there anything in things that is in the Son which is alien to the Father? For all things of mine, he says, are yours, and yours are mine. By what reasoning, then, does he attribute the cause of the Spirit to the Only-Begotten alone, and wish to have his creation preached as belonging to his nature?" If, therefore, he speaks this while asserting two contrary principles, he will be crushed together with Manichaeus and Marcion. But if he reduces these things that exist to one, which...

^A is said to have been generated by the Son, he has the reference to the first cause. So that, even if we believe that all things were brought into being through God the Word, we do not strip God of all, the God of the universe, of being the cause of all. ^B To this high-sounding herald and witness of the truth shall be added Gregory, who is surnamed the Theologian, who in his oration on Pentecost, the beginning of which is, “Let us briefly philosophize concerning the feast,” says thus: “For it was not fitting that the Son should ever be lacking to the Father, or the Spirit to the Son.” And after a few words: “For it was always self-communicating, not participating, invisible, timeless, omnipotent, even if, just as all things of the Only-Begotten, so also those of the Spirit are referred to the first cause.” Thus, therefore, with these great Fathers as trustworthy witnesses, it being openly manifest that all things of the Son are referred to the Father as the first cause, we have not spoken discordantly when we say that the Italians, when they add to the reading of the Creed, “and from the Son the Holy Spirit proceeds,” do not assert two causes of the one Spirit.

10. And since the aforementioned scriptural testimonies establish this with complete certainty, let us leave those fruits of a contentious mind and insane obstinacy to those whose opinion contrary to the faith creates a balance against the judgment. But since one faith derived from the Fathers has flowed down to us, a God-chosen lot, which general and local synods have confirmed, and which from that time has been established ^C and preserved by us as immutable up to the present time, may nothing be an impediment to us from living at peace with our brothers, once peace has been placidly established, until the terms proposed by them suggest the same opinion of piety. And this counsel shall not be from my own head, but according to the zeal of the great Athanasius, whom if one were to call the foundation of piety, he would not deviate from what is fitting. For since he appeared as the leader and promoter of the first ecumenical synod, it is manifest that that very synod, and all those after it, built up piety upon the foundation of his words. What further, then, is that in which I exhort you, brothers, to emulate this great light of the Church, who earned for himself a name from immortality? Let him himself be present, and let him proclaim to us with words uttered in his own tongue; and indeed let also the Theologian Gregory, Basil the Great, and Maximus, who is most acute in defining dogmas, conspire with him, among whom they suggest most excellently that differences which arise from words are to be neglected, provided that the brothers agree in one consensus regarding the sense. Let Athanasius himself, who is profound in divine matters, lead the others in this. For he, in the Tome to the Antiochenes, the beginning of which is, “We are persuaded that you, being ministers of God and good stewards,” ^D writes thus: “For to those who were accusing some as being affirmers of three hypostases, since such words were not found in the Scriptures and could therefore appear suspicious, we were the authors that they should no longer inquire into the Nicene confession, nor examine...

^A whether, as the Arianomaniacs say, they were alienated and estranged and separated from one another, and each hypostasis divided of itself, as are the other creatures and those born of men; or whether they understand them as different substances, as gold, silver, or bronze; or whether, as other heretics say, they mean three principles and three gods, and thus, harboring such a notion, they say "three hypostases."

They firmly asserted that they had never said nor thought such things. When we asked them, "Why then do you say these things, or why in the world do you use such expressions?" they answered that it was because they believe in a holy Trinity—not a Trinity in name only, but one that truly exists and subsists—a Father who truly is and subsists, and a Son who is truly ^B coessential and subsists, and a Holy Spirit that subsists and exists. They further stated that they had never spoken of three gods or principles, nor would they at all tolerate those who say or think such things; rather, they acknowledge a holy Trinity, but a single Deity and a single principle; and that the Son is coessential with the Father, as the Fathers have said; and that the Holy Spirit is not a creature, nor alien, but proper and indivisible from the essence of the Son and the Father.

Accepting this interpretation and apology for the words, we in turn examined those who had been accused by them of saying there is one hypostasis, ^C lest they should be speaking in the manner of the Sabellian heresy, with the intention of erasing the Son and the Holy Spirit, as if the Son lacked essence or the Holy Spirit did not subsist. These, too, asserted that they neither said nor had ever thought such a thing. "We say," they said, "one hypostasis, considering it to be the same thing to say hypostasis and essence; and we conceive it as one because the Son is from the essence of the Father, and because of the identity of nature. For we believe in one Deity and that its nature is one, and that the nature of the Father is not one, and another, alien to it, that of the Son and the Holy Spirit."

Indeed, those who had previously ^D been accused of saying "three hypostases" agreed with these. And those who had said "one hypostasis" interpreted and acknowledged the others' words in the same way.

And proceeding after other matters: "Since these things have thus been confessed, we exhort you not to condemn rashly or reject those who confess in this way and provide such an interpretation for their confession, but rather to receive them, having accepted their excuse. On the other hand, we would wish you to restrain and oppose those who do not make such a confession and do not employ such an interpretation for these words, as men of suspicious mind. But when you have decided that those who interpret and think correctly are to be tolerated, you should advise them not to conduct any further inquiry among yourselves, nor to engage in word-battles of no profit at all, nor to fight over such words, but rather to agree in the disposition of piety. For those who do not think in this way, but merely wrangle over such small words and demand things beyond what was written at Nicaea, are doing nothing other than pouring out..."

^A a turbid subversion for their neighbors, like those who envy peace and love schisms." And further: "Impiety is indeed to be entirely rejected, even if someone attempts to cloak it in varied words and plausible sophistries; but that to practice piety is holy is confessed by all, even if they use certain foreign terms, provided that the speaker holds a pious sentiment and piously expresses through them what he has in his mind." And again after other things: "Therefore, if these people adjudge these words to be as it were foreign, let them hold the sentiment according to which they are found in writing; but, as was said before, let them believe that—by being uttered—they signify the sentiment to those who have kept their hearing whole for piety."

Who, therefore, will seek any other teaching more worthy of belief and clearer than this, that one ought not to pay attention to mere sound, provided that they result in the same mind, even if they should differ greatly in the articulation of the discourse? Having judged the profession of both sides and ^B perceived their unanimous consensus, he accepted the words, not hesitating at all, nor shrinking back, even though they seemed to be at variance with each other in the sound of their pronunciation, had he not examined them wisely and correctly accepted them. "It is not necessary," he says, "to contend over words in a matter that is not profitable, nor to wrangle over petty terms, lest someone should seem to give his neighbor a turbid subversion to drink, and to envy peace, and deliberately hunt for schisms." And indeed, for the sake of persuading to this, the mere reverence of such a man would have been more than sufficient, and he would not have needed to add any other testimony for one who was speaking well. But I shall bring forward to you the great Gregory among theologians, who also highly divinizes the work of the economy. For having set as a subject for his praises both the ^C life that surpassed others and the power of the man in words, he counts this most of all among his praises, because, to use his words, "Having called both parties, he conducted himself so gently and kindly, and having carefully and accurately weighed the sentiment of their words, since he found them to be of one mind, and in no way at odds regarding the doctrine, he transacted the business in such a way that, while conceding the use of the names, he bound them to the realities. For when one essence," he says, "and three hypostases were being piously taught by us (for the former signifies the nature of the Godhead, and the latter the properties of the three), and were being understood in the same way among the Romans, but they were not able, on account of the ^D narrowness of their language and the poverty of terms, to distinguish the hypostasis from the essence, and because of this they introduced the term 'persons' so that they might not be thought to admit three essences, what at last happened? A thing truly ridiculous, or rather pitiable. That light and jejune altercation over the sound of words presented the appearance of a difference in faith. Hence, this Sabellianism was fabricated from the three persons, and Arianism from the three hypostases; these are the inventions of contentiousness. And then what? By the addition of something small always causing pain, that which is a pain—contentiousness—

caused the situation to arrive at last at such a point that there was a danger that the ends of the earth might be torn away along with syllables. When that blessed man, a true man of God and a great steward of souls, saw and heard this with his own eyes and ears, he did not think it right to overlook such an absurd and irrational tearing apart of the word; rather, he applies the medicine of his own person to the malady. ^A For this reason, after having resolved these things, he praises them with encomia, saying: “This is more profitable than those long labors and discourses; this is more worthy than the man’s celebrated exiles and flights; this is preferable to his many vigils and sleeping on the ground, the profit of which is limited to those who achieve them.” And that it is not so trivial, he himself says again a little above: “For the action may become an instruction even for those of the present time, if we look toward him.”

And these are the things on account of which he who has the surname of Theologian reinforces Athanasius the Great, who was counseling to prefer agreement in meaning over the difference arising from words. I, however, will further show you this same Theologian granting the difference of names in other matters of much greater importance. For when he saw some who, out of ignorance, were avoiding the term "God" in reference to the life-giving and Holy Spirit, but were attributing other things to Him, yet none the less expressing the same intent, he says: “It is shameful, it is shameful and quite irrational, while we are strong in spirit, to spin long discourses about the sound of a voice, and to hide the treasure, as if begrudging it to others; but it is more shameful for us, while we criticize and condemn this very fault in others, to be ourselves nitpicking over letters.” Therefore, ^B “But if you are distressed by syllables, and stumble at the term, and this becomes for us a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense—even as Christ was to some—it is a human weakness. Let us settle this between ourselves spiritually. Let us become lovers of the brotherhood rather than lovers of self. Grant the power of the divinity, and we in turn will grant you the concession of the term. Acknowledge the nature in other terms, to which you attribute more, and we will care for you as for the weak, whispering some things that are pleasing and agreeable to you.”

What then? Does he not also censure those who find fault with Great Basil to no purpose, and does he not praise that ineffable dispensation of his, ^C thereby removing every pretext from the evil-minded and not permitting the simpler folk, who had an incorrect opinion of him, to be harmed, while they held the worse belief about him? “For he,” says the divine, that is to say, the great Basil, “on behalf of true doctrine and the conjunction and union—or I know not what word is more proper and clear—of the Holy Trinity, did not merely accept as a gain being cast out and removed from the throne, to which he had not even eagerly aspired from the beginning, ^D but also exile and death, and the various tortures before death,

he bore with a ready and eager mind, and accounted it a gain rather than a danger. That this was indeed the case is declared by the things he both did and suffered, since even when punished with exile for the defense of the truth, he undertook no other business than to command one of his disciples to follow him, taking the tablets. ^A However, he judged it necessary to manage his words according to the counsel and judgment of David, and to endure the time of war and the tyranny of the heretics for a little while, until the time of liberty and clear weather should arrive, and give freedom of speech to his tongue. For they were seeking to seize upon the naked and open expression regarding the Holy Spirit, that He is God; which, although it was true, yet appeared impious to them and to the wicked leader of their impiety, so that they might drive him from the city along with his theological tongue, while they themselves occupied the Church and made it a stronghold of their own wickedness, and from thence, as from some citadel, might ravage all that remained. But he, using other expressions sought from Scripture and testimonies that were beyond doubt and had the same force, and with necessary arguments, constrained his adversaries in such a way that they could in no way resist or struggle against him: but, which is the greatest power and prudence of discourse, they were bound by their very own words: as that book, which he published on this subject, will clearly show, in which he moves his pen as if from the casket of the Spirit. But nevertheless, he delayed for the time being from using the proper expression, asking both of the Spirit Himself and of His sincere champions, for the sake of the economy, not to be offended, nor to commit the error of losing everything due to insatiable greed while they struggled to hold fast to one little word, with piety having been torn away and destroyed in such a turbulent time. For they themselves would receive no inconvenience or detriment from this, if the terms were slightly changed, provided that the same things were taught in other words: for our salvation does not consist in words rather than things; since not even the Jews are to be rejected, if for a time they ask that the name of the Anointed [Christ] be granted to them for Christ’s sake, and wish to be enrolled in our number and order. But that no greater ruin and pestilence could be brought upon the republic than if the Church were occupied by heretics. ^B

These things, the one surnamed the Theologian, confirming his agreement with the great Basil, establishes the support he gave to our Father Athanasius. ^C But Maximus, truly Maximus, writing to the presbyter Pyrrhus, among other things says: "For we do not bring forward words that signify nothing, but we express meanings through words. For which reason I have often found the God-speaking Fathers yielding on words, but in no way on meanings; because the mystery of our salvation consists not in syllables, but in meanings and realities. For they did the one out of concern for peace, and the other to strengthen souls in the truth." But see, furthermore, the holy and great Basil, in what manner he, writing peaceably to those who were fellow-initiates of the same Spirit, advises them. These are his words: "Great is the inclination of the time toward the subversion of the Churches." And this has long ^D

^A been known to us since we began to perceive it. The edification of the Church, the correction of faults, and sympathy toward the weak, and the defense of the healthy among the brethren—none of these exist; there is no aid, nor anything to heal the disease that has taken hold, nor anything to guard against that which is expected. And, in short, the state of the Church now resembles—if I may use a clear example, even if it seems a rather humble one—an old garment that is easily torn apart by any slight pretext, and which is unable to return again to its original strength. As therefore in such a time there is need of great zeal and much diligence so that something of the Church might ^B be benefited. And benefit consists in being united to those who have heretofore been scattered. Union might happen if we were willing to conduct ourselves toward the weaker ones in matters where we do no harm to souls. Since, therefore, many mouths have been opened against the Holy Spirit, and many tongues have sharpened themselves to cast blasphemies against Him, we deem it best, as far as lies within us, to reduce the number of blasphemers to a few, and to receive into communion those who do not call the Holy Spirit a creature, so that only the blasphemers might be left behind." And after some lines: "Let us therefore seek nothing more, but let us propose to those who wish to enter into fellowship with us the faith which was ^C at Nicaea; and if they agree to it, we then require them also not to say that the Holy Spirit is a creature, nor to be in communion with those who do say this. Beyond these things, I do not ask that anything more be required of us. For I am persuaded that by living together over time, and by dispassionate exercise, and if anything more needs to be added for clarity, the Lord will grant it, who works all things together for good for those who love Him." Consonant with this, the divine Gregory also gives his opinion again, in the first of his Peace Orations, where from the very proem he begins thus: "Readiness loosens my tongue, and I disregard human law for the sake of the law ^D of the Spirit; saying that one should not be more sluggish than is moderate, nor more fervent, so that either through fickleness one joins oneself to everyone, or through rashness and insolence removes oneself from everyone; for both lazy sluggishness and instability and inconstancy are equally alien to society and communion: but where impiety openly reveals itself, then indeed we must act, so that we may encounter fire and sword, and times, and princes, and finally all things at close quarters, rather than be tainted as participants in the evil leaven and consent to those who are ill-affected. But when it is only suspicion that troubles our soul, and a fear resting on no certain arguments, then indeed it is fitting to employ leniency rather than haste, and indulgent humility rather than arrogance and obstinacy: and it is much better and more advantageous, while remaining in the common body, for us to correct one another mutually as

^A members of one another, than that, having committed prejudice by secession, and lost authority through separation, we should afterwards, as from an edict, like tyrants and not as brothers, command correction. The same great Gregory in his theological discourse, the third Oration on Peace, whose beginning is ^B ‘Peace is a friend, and pleasant not only in reality but also in name,’ has these things in the progress of the oration: ‘Why do we commit these things, brothers? And how long will we commit them? When will we emerge from this drunkenness? Or when will we remove this film from our eyes and look up to the light of truth? What is this darkness? What is this night-battle, what is this storm that does not distinguish the faces of friends and foes? Why have we become a reproach to our neighbors, a scoffing and a derision to those who are round about us? What is this so persistent zeal for evil? Why are we exhausted by such an immortal labor? But why do I say exhausted? Nay, rather, from the evil itself, as madmen are wont to do, we gather strength, and although we are being consumed, we rejoice, and there is nowhere any reason, nor friend, nor ally, nor physician, who may either drive away the disease with drugs or amputate it, nor does an angel assist, nor God: but besides other things, we have also closed off God’s kindness to ourselves. “Why, O Lord, have you stood afar off? How will you turn away at the end? And when will you visit us?” And where will these things proceed, and where will they stop? I fear lest the present state of affairs may be a kind of smoke of the fire that is awaited, lest ^C the Antichrist may come upon these things and seize our lapses and diseases as an opportunity for his rule: for he will not, I think, attack those who are healthy, nor those who are fenced and fortified by charity.’ And after a few words: ‘What are the things that should not even be inquired into at all, what things moderately, what things should be conceded and left to contentious men, however they may stand, as they bring no detriment to our doctrine? What things should be given to faith alone? What things also to logical arguments, for which, in the end, one must fight with a sharp spirit, but with reasons, not with iron and arms? For even to raise hostile hands is entirely alien to our cause, and is to be thrown back upon those who are hostile to us. We shall not think that this one rule of piety has been proposed to us, that we adore the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, one Deity and power in three persons, neither over-worshiping nor under-worshiping: for I am pleased to imitate somewhat those ^D who are wise and skilled in such things; for the one is impossible, the other is wicked and impious: nor splitting the one greatness through the novelty of names: for nothing is greater or less than itself. This being indeed posited and established, we shall agree also in other things, at least those who worship the same Trinity, and are of almost the same dogma and body, and we shall prune and remove from our midst, like some common disease, the superfluous and useless shoots and digressions of the questions of this storm.’ But these are the exhortations of the luminaries of the Church, according to which they appear to suggest that we should overlook the difference in terms, when the agreement of thought might manifest itself in the midst of those who are called in common by Christ among the nations and men; how many and such—or rather not so many, since there are many others of others—the presentation of which we have here passed over because of the length of the lines.

^A 11.

Concerning the Union of the Churches.

^A these expressions—that is, "to proceed," "to progress," and "to pour forth" (for all of these commonly signify that the Spirit exists essentially from God)—the junior theologians, who in their own opinion are more secure dogmatists than the Fathers, invent differences of their own; and on these fabricated differences they refuse the reconciliation of the Roman Church, insisting that to say the Spirit is from the Father and the Son, because they believe it makes no difference to say the Holy Spirit "progresses" from the Father and the Son, or "pours forth" from the Father and the Son, or "advances," or that it "proceeds" from the Father and the Son, since all these terms signify that the Spirit essentially exists from the Father and the Son. But they put forward this as the one most important reason for the schism, namely, that the Father and the Son appear as two causes of the Spirit if anyone says the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and, struggling against every other point ^B of this reasoning, they stop their ears. For the Italians, not only in response put forward that "proceeding," "progressing," "coming forth," and "pouring forth" are indifferent as far as the meaning is concerned, in order to signify that the Spirit essentially exists from God, so as to avoid the opinion that there are two causes of the Spirit—since it is admitted among us Greeks that there are two causes of the Spirit when it is asserted that the Spirit is "progressing" and "coming forth" from the Father and the Son—but they also place in the firm foundation of their own defense that theological thought of the great Basil, which was set out at the beginning of this discourse, which signifies that all things that are the Son's are referred to the first cause, the Father, by no means arguing that there are two causes of the procession, because, according to ^C the great Basil, whatever is said to be from the Son is referred to the first cause, the Father. The Latins, then, reasonably setting forth their defenses in this way, seek ecclesiastical peace; but the followers of the schism do not attend to any of the things that are so reasonably proposed. And yet the most divine Athanasius embraced as pious, and kissed as orthodox, the sons of the Roman Church, who asserted that the Father and the Son are one substance because the Son is from the essence of the Father and because of the identity of nature. Who will be a Jeremiah now, and will lament and wail, not as he did over the collapse of the towers and the walls of the ancient Jerusalem, but over the devastation and plunder of the daughters of our Jerusalem—that is, the destruction of the ^D Churches, which the impious descendant of Hagar placed into ruin and pillage for no other cause than this alone: the schism of the Churches? But you, who surpass the zeal of Athanasius—would that you had never claimed it for yourself! Athanasius received into communion the Roman Church, which called the Father and the Son one hypostasis because the Son is from the essence of the Father and for the sake of the one nature, and you reject this same Church, which asserts that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, because it maintains that there is no difference whether you say that the Spirit is "progressing" and "coming forth" from the Father and the Son, or "proceeding" from the Father and the Son, on account of the words signifying one and the same thing, which all together commonly hint at this: that the Spirit is essentially from God.

Furthermore, because they obey the great Basil, who says that "everything said to be from the Son is referred to the first cause, the Father"—which this saint said, as is entirely manifest, for the overturning of dualarchy and the establishment of monarchy. ^B But you, if you do not discern the great Basil in the things where he says that what is said to be from the Son has its reference towards the first cause, as he is framing the overturning of dualarchy and introducing the concept of one principle, then apply yourself accurately to what the saint says there, and you will come quickly to the discernment of these things. Consider, for the great Basil, struggling on behalf of the Holy Spirit against Eunomius the Spirit-fighter, does not contradict him in those things where he hears him saying that the Spirit is from the Son. And yet, if the saint did not accept that the Spirit is from the Son, perhaps he would have shut the unbridled mouth of Eunomius even more from that point on, being able to say: "How at all, Eunomius, do you dare to say that the Holy Spirit, who exists from the Father alone, is from the Son?" But he contradicts that most base and God-fighting man because he was dogmatizing that the Spirit is from the Son alone. For he reveals this by saying: "How then does he attribute the cause of the Spirit to the Only-Begotten alone?" And that the saying of Eunomius, who dogmatized that the Son is from the Father alone and the Spirit from the Son alone, contained an implication of dualarchy, the saint adds immediately: "If, then, he is opposing two principles to one another," he says—meaning Eunomius—"he will be shattered along with Mani and Marcion; but if he suspends what exists from one [principle], what is said to be from the Son has its reference towards the first cause." What is clearer than this for the understanding of one principle and one cause, when someone also says the Spirit is from the Son? Since the saint takes this—that it has its reference to the first cause—for the establishment of the fact that what exists depends upon one cause, namely, what is said to be from the Son. ^C 12. But since some, even here, as in many other matters, shamelessly do not hesitate to slander the words of the great Basil, saying, "These things were spoken about creatures and not about the Spirit, because of the word 'made' (for how could the Spirit, who is uncreated and unbegotten, be the one 'made' from the Son?)"; let these men be ashamed who so clearly slander the luminary and teacher of the Church. For let them not slander the discourse to him just because the saint said that what is said to be made from the Son is about creatures. But let them understand that the discourse is about the Spirit, as the entire passage is made about nothing else but the very hypostasis of the Spirit itself. But if, maliciously seizing upon the word that denotes creatures, they proceed to a depraved, willed contradiction, let them understand...

[...] to the intention of the Son ^A, have used the term, as if they were saying: Even if the Spirit were a creature of the Son, as you say, Eunomius, the cause of it ought not to be attributed to the Only-Begotten alone, because no operation of the Son is cut off from the Father, and whatever is said to be made by the Son has its reference to the primary Cause. And these things, because the authority of the great Basil is most ample, explaining in this manner the things pertaining to the cause of the Spirit, seem to have been said abundantly, to establish that the Father and the Son are not to be understood as two causes of the Spirit, when someone affirms the Holy Spirit to be from the Father and the Son.

13. But since the argument is brought forward in defense ^B of the Italians, that the term "proceeding" is equivalent to "issuing forth" and "going forth," let the utterances of the saints be laid out here by me, from which it becomes possible for me to discern how not only the name of "procession," but also certain other terms, are most clearly and without any veil understood as referring to the very essential existence of the Spirit from the Father. For immediately the great Basil, in the second chapter of his writings *To Amphilochius*, after citing in many other terms the communion of the Spirit with the Father and the Son, also adds this: "And not from this alone is the demonstration of natural communion, but also because he is said to be from God, not as all things are from God, but as having gone forth from the Father—not generated as the Son, but as the Spirit of his mouth." Herein their familiarity and connection is opened up, but the mode of existence is wrapped in silence. And will it be obscure to any mortal that in these ^C terms, "the Spirit going forth from God not generated as the Son, but as the Spirit of his mouth," is signified his essential and natural existence from the Father? The great and wonder-working Gregory, Bishop of Neocaesarea, in the discourse whose beginning is, "Most hostile and alien to the apostolic confession are those who say the Son is from things that do not exist," says: "The Father of the Lord is the beginning, eternally begetting Him, and the Lord is the prototype of the Spirit." And after a few words in the same place: "The Father being unbegotten, the Son being begotten from the Father, and the Spirit being eternally sent forth from the essence of the Father through the Son." Who would doubt that "sent forth" in this place has as great power for the manifestation of the essential existence of the Spirit as it would have if "proceeding" had been ^D placed there? Gregory the Theologian, in some places of his writings, said: "You hear of generation? Do not curiously investigate the manner. You hear that the Spirit proceeds from the Father? Do not anxiously inquire into the how. But if you curiously investigate the generation of the Son and the procession of the Spirit, I also will curiously investigate for you the commingling of soul and body." Who here, hearing that "the Spirit proceeds from the Father," will imagine that the term denotes anything else than that same thing which, if "proceeding" had been substituted in its place—namely, the very essential and natural existence of the Spirit from the Father—it would denote? The same [author] says in his oration to Meron the philosopher: Why does our piety

^A prescribe, instructing us so that we might recognize one unbegotten God the Father, one begotten Son, and one Holy Spirit, proceeding or coming forth from the Father? Who here will distort the sense clearly displayed by these words into another meaning, so as to say that "to progress" or "to come forth" from the Father signifies something other than that which "to proceed" would have signified if it had been placed there? The same [author] says in other places: The property of the Father is unbegottenness, that of the Son is generation, and that of the Spirit is emission. Does "emission" here signify something other than "procession"?

14. But since we have proven, as a certain and indubitable fact, that the manifestation of the Spirit's essential existence from the Father is signified not by one single expression—namely, "procession"—but also by other expressions already adduced, we entreat those who will read this, our present work, to accept the sense of these cited scriptural testimonies with a correct and upright mind and not in a contentious manner, like many of our predecessors. These, as if they were accomplishing some extraordinary thing by promoting the dissension of the Churches, taught that "procession" alone signified the essential existence of the Spirit, and that the other words were assumed for the purpose of denoting the distribution of gifts. For, lest the Spirit being found in the writings of the saints as "coming forth" and "progressing" and "being sent" from the Son, might be understood to exist essentially also from the Son—and from this a path might be opened for those desiring to join the schism of the Church for the sake of peace—they would invent differences in the words, not in true and becoming thoughts, but in crafty and captious and unbecoming ones. ^B By this they openly contradicted the Fathers who had theologically debated the matters and had already published the testimonies adduced, deeming it a loss to gain brethren whom the exhortations of the Doctors of the Church draw into our communion; while they admonish that differences in terms are to be disregarded by us when brethren agree in one mind concerning the meaning. But you, whom our discourse has reached to exhort, receive with a correct and upright mind the meaning of the spoken scriptural testimonies and of those handed down to us in writing; understanding how "to proceed," "to progress," and "to be sent" receive the force of "to proceed" when spoken of the Spirit from the Father; and ^C how these very same things—namely, to progress, to come forth, and to be sent—are found in the Scriptures of the same Spirit also from the Son. Judge impartially whether anything unworthy of the admonitions of our teachers has been done by those who have embraced the peace of the Roman Church, which asserts that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and which, in its apology, declares that it does not conceive of two causes of the Spirit—the Father and the Son—because it obeys the great Basil, who says: "Everything that is said to be from the Son is referred to the first cause, the Father." For it is clear that if the one saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son is saying two causes of the Spirit—the Father and the Son—then the one also saying that He comes forth, progresses, or is emitted from the Father and the Son ^D signifies nothing else than what

is indicated by those saying He proceeds and is emitted from two causes. But surely no one who desires to be pious will say that the Spirit either progresses or proceeds from two causes. And if I were to say that the addition of the word made by the Romans to the Symbol of faith, since it has already happened, was not well done? It is not to be called good, whatever brings discord to the brethren. I myself agree with you in saying these things. However, since the addition of this word in its own sense in no way injures the piety handed down to us (for it harms neither the oneness of the essence nor the trinity of the hypostases), I grant pardon to the brethren, and passing over the addition of the word, I grasp the consonant meaning, and I become a disciple of those teachers who, disregarding dissonances in words, embraced peace on account of the consensus of meaning. ^B

15. I know that you, wishing to contradict me again, will say: how will it not introduce a confusion of properties to say that the Spirit proceeds also from the Son? But I, having set forth for you from the written authorities that these three names, Father, Son, and Spirit, are the most proper properties of the Trinity, will refute this contradiction of yours. For if the true property of the Spirit is this very thing, that He is neither Father nor Son, but only Spirit, and the Spirit of the Father and the Son, you can accurately discern from hence that, just as the Spirit is called the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of the Son the Holy Spirit, and the properties of the hypostases are not confused, so also when He is said to proceed from the Father among us, and from the Father and the Son among the Romans, the unconfused nature of the properties is preserved. What, then, are the scriptural testimonies for such a property? Nyssenus, in his second oration against Eunomius: "The property of the hypostases," he says, "makes a clear and unconfused distinction of the persons, I mean of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. For by these appellations we are not taught a difference of natures, but only the distinct, recognized properties of the hypostases." Chrysostom in one of his sermons says this: "For when I say property, understand the Father to be the Father, the Son to be the Son, and the Holy Spirit to be the Holy Spirit. For these properties are not convertible; for the Father cannot be the Son, nor the Son the Father, nor the Holy Spirit be the Father or the Son." And the abbot Theodore the philosopher: "These three," he says, "in nothing differ among themselves except only in their properties, namely, that this one is the Father, that one is the Son, and that one is the Holy Spirit." ^C

16. Do you wish now to propose another point for consideration? He says that "to be poured forth," "to progress," "to emanate," and the like, although they are found in some places asserted of the Spirit from the Father, indicate His essential and natural existence from the Father: but they do not equally, when they are said from the Son, imply that the Spirit exists naturally and essentially from the Son, but from Him ^D

^A the distribution of spiritual gifts. But, O beloved, who among the Saints has said this? Answer me as I ask. For it is not permitted for everyone to interpret simply just as it pleases him those things that contribute to the rationale of dogma, but rather as the theologian Fathers have handed them down; and this is not a simple matter nor one containing little difference, if the fact that the Spirit is poured forth, and proceeds, and bursts forth from the Father signifies that the Spirit exists ^B essentially from Him, while you draw the being poured forth, and the proceeding, and the bursting forth from the Son into some other meaning. For if there were a difference in these points, how would it have been passed over in silence by those who have examined them with the greatest exactness, not only regarding those points that concern the essence of the dogma, but even regarding others much smaller than these, which, if overlooked, would seem to cause harm? Therefore, first of all, answer me as I ask if you have such a thing to say; then, yield to me as I advise and warn you: in dogmatic expressions, concerning which the Fathers have handed down no difference, do not ^C so thoughtlessly provide a difference of your own. But that the notion of such a difference is not accurate will be known to you if you approach without prejudice the scriptural testimonies which I shall now set forth for you, which are as follows: In the practical records of the first synod at Nicaea, in which the Fathers answered the Philosopher through Bishop Leontius, the beginning of the cited passage is, "And that must also be understood, O friend, philosopher of the truth, it has been found. The Spirit, proceeding indeed from the Father, but proper to the Son and bursting forth from Him!" What does "bursting forth from the Son" seem to you here? Does it seem to burst forth ^D essentially, or non-essentially? I do not know who would dare to say "non-essentially"; but if it is "essentially," it is also "hypostatically" in every respect. For what else could "bursting forth essentially and hypostatically from the Son" be than "existing essentially from Him"? But if you also need some evidence of how the bursting forth, or the outpouring, of the Spirit is essential and hypostatic, let the statement of the great Basil be read to you, which he set forth in his discourse on the Spirit, the beginning of which is, "Let us consider, every soul seeking concerning divine things," he says. For those things there so indicate the outpouring of the Spirit: "The Holy Spirit has nothing acquired in itself, but eternally has all things as the Spirit of God, and has appeared from Him, having Him as its cause, as its own fountain, and pouring forth from thence; and it itself is the fountain of the aforementioned good things. But it itself, while pouring forth from God, is hypostatic; but the things pouring forth from it are its operations." Do you see how the outpouring of the Spirit is called hypostatic? And that the outpouring of the Spirit, or bursting forth (for it will make no difference to say 'outpouring' or 'bursting forth'), is hypostatic is established by such a worthy scriptural testimony. Saint Cyril [*] in his discourse to Nestorius, the beginning of which is, "Our Savior clearly saying, 'He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me,'" says: "Even if the Spirit is in hypostasis [*] Matth. x, 37.

^A proper, and is understood by itself, insofar as it is Spirit and not Son, yet it is not alien to Him. For it is called the Spirit of truth, and Christ is the truth, and it is poured forth from Him in the same manner as it is from the Father." What do you say here? Does it seem to you that the discussion is about the essential existence of the Spirit from the Son, when the saint says the Spirit is poured forth from the Son just as it is poured forth from the Father Himself? Or is it about the dispensation of gifts? The same author expresses this in the second book of the *Thesaurus*, in a discourse with the following heading:

That the Holy Spirit is from the essence of the Father and the Son,

^B 17. But that which has been deemed worthy of attention by me here, this I shall now entrust to the discourse. "The saint said," he says, "that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son," and he made mention of these two hypostases, the Father and the Son; then, lest anyone should suspect because of the duality of the hypostases that the Spirit is from two causes, he immediately added, "that He is of the divine essence, proceeding essentially in it and from it," expressing this in the singular number, showing absolutely nothing else from this than that, when he called the Spirit [as proceeding] from the Father and the Son, he was not asserting Him to be from two causes. And furthermore, he again showed more clearly that there are not two causes of the Spirit, when He proceeds from the Father and the Son, in that he added, "Just as indeed also the breath issuing from a human mouth." For having said earlier, "that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son," he did not append to the comparison "as from human mouths," but "from a human mouth," in the singular number, and showing the appearance ^C of the same union while the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. This same thing another saying of the great Basil written for you will confirm. For he, in one of the chapters whose inscription is,

That the Spirit is a divine nature,

and it was then with a soul, and now it is into a soul.» But how the present statement of the great Basil establishes the aforementioned expression of unity, we shall say in what follows. Now, however, you are perfectly able, beloved, to discern from the words just set forth, which this great and profound Basil spoke concerning the breathing, that our brethren who, at the time of the schism, set themselves against the Romans, for the most part made their contradiction against them contentiously and without heeding the truth. For this great and profound theologian Basil says that the Spirit was breathed by the Savior onto the disciples, not so that they might receive some determined gift, as all those who were present at the time of the schism explained, ^B but so that the whole Spirit Himself might habitually inhabit them, just as we believe that such a habitual indwelling of the Holy Spirit is granted to everyone who believes afterward, if we profess that the entire Trinity ineffably and beyond reason inhabits every believer.

18. And if the coming of the Spirit, promised to the disciples for the future, poses an obstacle for some, they should know that, on account of the coming of the Spirit in the corporeal form of tongues of fire, the Savior’s promise was fulfilled in the Gospels: «For it was necessary,» says he who bears the name of theology, «that He Himself also appear corporeally.» And that such a breathing was not a determined spiritual gift, but the habitual indwelling of the whole Spirit, if you consider the statement carefully, you will discover even from his exposition that the saint says that this breathing is of that Spirit who is placed in the same order as the living Word for the purpose of creating; for surely no one would say that a spiritual gift is placed in the same order as the Word ^C for the purpose of creating. But the discourse concerning the breathing was interposed here in the meantime, to demonstrate that the sentiment of the holy Fathers was interpreted by some in one way, and by those who were later not well-disposed to union with the Roman Church in another.

19. Now the sequence of the discourse demands that the expression of the unity of the Father and the Son, as the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, be established, and this shall indeed be said for me. The great Basil now calls this Spirit a divine nature, ineffable, appearing from an ineffable mouth, saying that there is one mouth from which the Spirit is, and not two; but now, proceeding a little further, he says that He who breathed upon the disciples is not another, but the selfsame One through whom God ^D of old gave the breathing to the first-formed man. And when he says that He who breathed upon the disciples is not another, but the selfsame one through whom God breathed upon the first-formed man, he expresses the certain and indubitable knowledge of the divine persons, both of God and Father, from whom is the breathing, and of God and Son, through whom is the breathing. And what is indicated from this is that, whatever is said concerning the Spirit from the Father through the Son, it is not said as if from two causes. For this, in the end of the eighth...

^A chapter to Amphilochius, the saint said: “The phrase ‘through the Son’ confesses the primary cause.” But I shall not hesitate to repeat that passage word-for-word here as well, in order to demonstrate that it reveals the declaration of the unity of the Father and the Son, which the great Athanasius, in his fourth discourse against the Arians (the beginning of which is, “The Arians, as it seems, having once decided to become deserters and betrayers of the truth”), expressed in this manner: “As the Father bestows grace and peace, the Son also bestows it; for there is one and the same grace from the Father in the Son, just as there is one light of the sun and the radiance, and the illumination of the sun comes through the radiance.” For this reason, Paul also, writing to the Thessalonians, “May God himself and our Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, direct our way to you,” preserved the unity of the Father and the Son. For he did not say “direct” (plural), as if it were granted as from two, by this one and that one, but “direct” (singular), in order to show that the Father bestows it through the Son. Thus, then, from the sayings of these holy men—I mean Athanasius and the great Basil—the unity of the Father and the Son shines forth so clearly that it is not permitted for anyone at all, from the interpretation given, to think that everything which is from the Father through the Son stems from two causes, whether one speaks of creation through the Son from the Father, or of the providence of created things through the Son from the Father, or of the bestowing of spiritual gifts through the Son from the Father. What could anyone say, when he finds in countless places in Scripture that the Holy Spirit has his being from the Father through the Son, and exists from the Father through the Son, and is poured forth from the Father through the Son, and proceeds from the Father through the Son? But that the cited testimonies of the saints have sufficiently set forth, by means of the phrase “through the Son,” the unity of the latter with the Father—inasmuch as this expression contains the confession of the primary cause—no one, I think, will doubt, unless such a person should appear who is moved by no fear at all, and, having cast off shame, shamelessly opposes the most evident Scriptures.

^C 20. But that this common concept of our piety also gives us to understand this is not difficult to grasp. For where “through the Son” is taken, if one does not wish to understand it according to the natural and essential unity of the Son with the Father—in accordance with the primary cause confessed by the preposition “per” (“through”)—it will be absolutely necessary to take it in the sense of a ministerial operation. But since the common concept of our piety prohibits and proscribes taking “through the Son” in such a sense as impious, it remains clear that the phrase “through the Son,” when we say that the Spirit is from the Father through the Son and proceeds, signifies essential unity. And when this has been confessed—namely, that the phrase “through the Son” possesses a declaration of essential unity—it will subsequently be very easy to see that there is no difference at all between saying “from the Son” and saying that which is from the Father through the Son. But if to some it seems difficult for these prepositions to occupy the place of one another, the great Basil

^A will confirm this, too. For indeed in his fifth chapter of his work inscribed "On the Holy Spirit," addressed to the blessed Amphilochius, which begins, “These things, then, are as they are; we shall demonstrate what we proposed,” he says thus: “Not only regarding theology do the usages of these terms vary, but they are also frequently interchanged in reference to things signified by them, when one takes the meaning of another. For example, ‘I have acquired a man through God,’ says Adam, meaning the same as ‘from God.’ And elsewhere: ‘All that Moses commanded to Israel through the command of the Lord,’ and again, ‘Is not the explanation of these things through God?’ as Joseph says, speaking to those in the prison. For it is clear that he too, instead of saying ‘from God,’ has said ‘through God.’ And ^B conversely, he has used the preposition ‘from’ instead of ‘through,’ as when Paul says, ‘Made of a woman.’ For this he has clearly distinguished for us elsewhere, saying that it is appropriate for a woman to be born from a man, but for a man through a woman, in those places where he says that, ‘As the woman is from the man, so is the man through the woman.’ Nevertheless, here the Apostle, while at once indicating the difference in usage and in passing correcting the error of some who thought the Lord’s body to be spiritual, choosing to show that the God-bearing flesh was composed from the human lump, preferred the more emphatic term. For ‘through the woman’ was meant to indicate the ^C transient sense of birth; but ‘from the woman’ sufficiently declares the communion of nature of the one begotten with her who gave birth, not that the Apostle contradicts himself, but he shows that these terms easily yield to one another.” That, therefore, in theology the usages of terms are interchanged is confirmed by the great Basil from the words already spoken. But if we should need a second witness to show that these prepositions are interchanged with one another, the holy Cyril will also bear witness to us for the same things; for in his discourses in question and answer to Palladius, he says thus: “The Spirit is in no way mutable; but if it were subject to change, the reproach would revert to the divine nature itself, if it is the Spirit of God and the Father, and furthermore of the Son, essentially ^D from both, that is, poured forth from the Father through the Son.” Observe also the admirable Cyril, who comes to you as a trustworthy interpreter, that it makes no difference whether you say the Spirit is poured forth essentially from the Father and the Son, or you say it is poured forth from the Father through the Son. For having said, “essentially from both,” in order to demonstrate that the force of the prepositions is equivalent, he immediately added, “that is, from the Father through the Son.” These, then, are the scriptural testimonies proving the equivalent force of “from” and “through.”

21. But let the discussion return to the refutation of those who do not rightly understand the term “through the Son,” when it is said that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.

^A For when some hear that the Spirit has existence through the Son, and proceeds from the Father through the Son, they say: “And what is new, if the Spirit is said to be through the Son, and to proceed from the Father through the Son?” For we will concede neither that the “through” denotes a ministerial office here, nor that it denotes essence; or perhaps, indeed, neither of these. And what do you say to these things? What do we say? The expression indicates the relation of the Father to the Son. For when we say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, we cannot understand the expression, which signifies the very name of the Father, without the Son; for the name “Father” absolutely implies the relation to the Son. Thus, when the Spirit is said to proceed from the Father through the Son, this is stated because of the Father's relation to the Son, and not because the Son is essentially a mediator between the Father and the Spirit. For we detest and anathematize the saying that he mediates as a minister. What, then, do we say to this? That you abolish and anathematize the Son’s mediating as a minister in the Spirit’s existence from the Father, we do not reckon this as a favor to you, but as a debt that must absolutely be paid by you. But that you procrastinate in openly confessing that the Son is, in essence, a mediator in the Spirit’s existence from the Father, and contend that the phrase “through the Son” is a manifestation of habitual operation, this pleases neither us nor the truth. For by what other means, if not essentially, will the Son mediate in the Spirit’s existence from the Father? Therefore, lend your ears with an attentive mind. The Spirit is said to be from the Father through the Son; and who would call into doubt that the Spirit is from the essence of the Father? And who will not openly confess that, since He is from the essence of the Father, the Spirit Himself is a subsistent essence? Since, therefore, the Spirit proceeds essentially and subsistently through the Son from the essence of the Father, who would here decree that the “through the Son” is to be taken for the manifestation of a relative notion, and not for the presentation of an essential mediation? For that which exists essentially from the essence of the Father, since it is not immediately from the Father, absolutely has the Son as essential mediator in its existence from the Father. For no one, even if he wearies himself greatly while searching all God-inspired Scripture, will find the Spirit existing or proceeding from the Father immediately. For he who says the Spirit is immediately from the Father makes the “through the Son” void; and he who says the Spirit is from the Father through the Son does not accept that He is immediately from the Father. For it is impossible for these to coexist: “immediately” and “through the Son.” To whom, therefore, must one pay attention: to him who dogmatizes “immediately” from his own mind, or to those who theologize that He is from the Father through the Son? To the holy Fathers, and to the theologians, who openly handed down that the Spirit is from the Father through the Son, and not to him who belches forth from his belly whatsoever comes into his mouth. And that he who believes the Spirit is immediately from the Father is refuted by the phrase “through the Son,” and does not think rightly, is evident from the fact that “immediately” and “through the Son” cannot coexist.

^B 22. That it is not only by these theological expressions that the ^A declaration exists that the Spirit is immediately from the Father, but that many other scriptural usages present the same meaning to those who contemplate it in depth, the following words will demonstrate. For what else could any one conceive, when he encounters the Thaumaturge Gregory writing: “The Lord’s Father is the principle, begetting him from eternity; and the Lord is the prototype of the Spirit”? And in what way could the Lord’s being the prototype of the Spirit be understood, if the Spirit, like the Son, is immediately from the Father? Or how could the Son be understood as the image of the Father, and the Spirit as the image of the Son? Or how could the Father be conceived as existing prior to the Son in causality, and the Son, according to the principle of cause, as conceived prior to the hypostasis of the Spirit? Or how could the Father be understood as greater than the Son, and the Son as greater than the Spirit? Or how could the Spirit be understood as being joined to the Father through the Son?

23. But again, they say, if the Spirit exists from the Father through the Son, even essentially, what reason is there for speaking of the hypostasis of the Son as being in the middle between the Father and the Spirit, in the hypostases of the Trinity which are contemplated above every order, as if an order were necessarily to be introduced there? Regarding this order, I will say nothing to you of my own, but I will put forward those Fathers themselves who have spoken about it, in their own words, just as each has spoken. Immediately, Gregory of Nyssa, in his discourse to Ablabius, the beginning of which is: “It is fitting, indeed, for you who are flourishing in all strength to contend,” writes: ^C “Confessing the nature to be immutable and similar in all things, we do not deny the difference of cause and effect, in which alone we perceive the one to be distinguished from the other; for we believe this one to be the cause, and that one to be from the cause. And in that which is from the cause, we perceive yet another difference. For one exists immediately from the primary source, while the other exists from the primary source through that which is immediate. So that the uniqueness of the Son remains indubitable, and that the Spirit is from the Father is not brought into doubt, since the mediation of the Son preserves the uniqueness for itself, and does not shut off the Spirit from his natural relation to the Father.” Who among the Fathers will explain more clearly the order that is in the Trinity, and the absolutely necessary mediation of the Son toward the Father and the Spirit? But if Gregory of Nyssa is not enough to establish the order in the Trinity, the Great Basil will add himself as another witness to this order. For thus, in his ^D first Antirrhetic discourse against Eunomius, the beginning of which is: “If all men wished, upon whom the name of God and our Savior Jesus Christ has been invoked,” he says: “But one order is natural, another is artificial. The natural is that which is arranged according to the principles of creation for creatures, and the position of number, and the relation of causes to effects, with the acknowledgment before all else that God is the author and creator and maker of the nature itself. The artificial, however, is that which is devised by the industry of men, as in structures, and disciplines, and dignities, and number, and the like.” Concealing the first of these

Eunomius made mention of the second species of order, and says that one ought not to speak of order in God, since order is subsequent to the one ordering. Now, that which he either does not perceive, or voluntarily and prudently concealed, is that there is a kind of order not constituted by our industry, but ^A occurring according to the series of nature, as, for instance, fire is related to the light that comes from it; for in these cases we call the cause the "first," and that which is from it the "second," not separating them from one another by an interval, but by logic thinking of the cause before the caused. How then is it reasonable to deny order, in cases where there is a "first" and "second," not according to our arrangement, but from the succession of nature subsisting within them? For what reason, therefore, does he refuse to allow order to be attributed to God? He supposes that if he can show that "first" in God is not understood in any other way, the rest will follow—namely, that the superiority could be demonstrated in the substance itself. We, however, declare that the Father is placed before the Son according to the relation of causes to those things which are from them, but by no means according to any difference of nature, nor according to a superiority of time. If we were to say otherwise, we would also reject that God is Father, since essential difference rejects natural union.” The same writer, in his Epistle to his brother Gregory, the beginning of which is, “Since many, because they do not discern the commonness of the essence in the mystical doctrines,” writes: “He who has drawn the Spirit has, through Him, drawn both the Son and the Father at the same time; and he who truly grasps the Son will have the same from both sides, on this side His Father, and on that side the Holy Spirit brought along with Him. For it is not possible to devise any schism or division, so that either the Son is understood without the Father, or the Spirit is separated from the Son.” ^B By this reasoning, and by similar witnesses, order in the Trinity being proven, how will those who say, “What is the rationale, in the hypostases of the Trinity viewed above all order, for asserting the hypostasis of the Son to be between the Father and the Spirit, as if the order were introduced there by force?” not be convicted of understanding things dangerously? But that the "through the Son" is not taken in the Scriptures to signify a relationship, as some imagine, and that such a phrase is a sufficient refutation of those who imagine that the Spirit is from the Father immediately, and that this expression is constitutive of the order in the Trinity, has been sufficiently demonstrated by what has already been said.

24. Furthermore, that the [expression] which carries the declaration of essential existence is taken as equivalent to that which is [derived] from [the preposition] *ex*, will also be recognized from things that naturally come to pass and are manifest. For when we speak of fruit from the root through the branch, what else do we mean than that we speak of it from the branch? And when we speak of a river from the spring through the fountainhead, what else do we mean than that we speak of it from the spring? But there are others who contend that the [doctrine] that the Spirit is from the Father through the Son is not affirmed by the Fathers because the Son essentially mediates between the Father and the Spirit, but because it is

^A believed by the pious that the essential mediation of the Son exists in the Spirit’s procession from the Father through the Son.

But let those who fear an indication of time in the phrase "through the Son," and who interpret it to mean the same as "together with," so that no hindrance to piety might arise from thence, hear that the pious understanding is in no way hindered if the Spirit is both "together with the Son" from the Father, and also "through the Son" from the Father. For the Son, too, is at once with the Father and yet from the Father; and no concept of time is shown thereby, because the Son co-exists with the Father and, while existing with the Father, is also from the Father; nor is any concept of place or any other of those things which, among us, are known as causes and effects revealed. Just as, therefore, the Son, co-existing with the Father and being with the Father, has no concept of time preceding his being spoken of as "from the Father," so too the Spirit, while being "together with the Son," is said to be from the Father "through the Son," and avoids every temporal implication. And again, just as the Son is ^B together with the Father, and yet the Father is conceived before the Son in terms of causation—because the Son is from the Father—so likewise the Spirit is together with the Son from the Father, and the Son is conceived before the Spirit according to the logic of cause, because the Spirit is from the Father "through the Son." We do not shy away from saying what the Fathers have said, and who are these? Those whom the Church has received as heralds of piety, and whose words and dogmas she has embraced.

Furthermore, let anyone who wishes to understand this well consider: if it were successful for those who say that everything the holy Fathers have spoken regarding the order in the Trinity was spoken in vain and insecurely—for who, having any share of mind, and being adorned with the understanding that comes from study, would say that the preposition "through" signifies "together with" when we speak of the Spirit being from the Father through the Son?—he would clearly be convicted of being deceived when he finds the same preposition "through" used to link the Spirit to the Father in the phrase "through the Word." And I shall set before you trustworthy witnesses of this fact. Immediately, the great Athanasius in his epistle to Serapion, which begins, "Perhaps you will marvel at how he commands," writes: "For the Spirit is not outside the Word, but while existing in the Word, it is in God through Him." And shortly after: "The Spirit, then, being in the Word, it would be manifest that the Spirit was in God through the Word." And the great Basil ^C in his seventeenth of the chapters to Amphilochius says as follows: "If indeed the Spirit is placed in the same order as the Son, and the Son in the same as the Father, and the Spi- ^D

Spirit ^A clearly to the Father." And in the eighteenth of the same chapters again: "One also is the Holy Spirit, being joined through one Son to the one Father." If, therefore, Athanasius and Basil the Great are reliable witnesses of the conjunction of the Spirit with the Father through the Son, it is clear that just as the preposition "through" in such a conjunction denotes the mediation of the Son, so also in the procession of the Spirit from the Father through the Son, it signifies the same thing through essential mediation. And that those who argue that the phrase "through the Son" signifies "at the same time" have interpreted it poorly, has, I think, been sufficiently demonstrated from what has been said.

^B 25. But those who are unseasonably contentious regarding contradictions say again: "And what is new if Gregory of Nyssa said in one of his orations: 'The Father is to be pre-understood to the Son by the logic of cause, and the Son to be pre-understood to the Spirit according to the logic of cause'?" For whatever was not said by the speaker before a universal audience of a synod, but in corners and in privately composed commentaries, it would be nothing new if we should neglect those things. What are you saying, brothers? Would it be nothing new for the writings of Nyssen to be neglected? Nyssen? That man, for whom I have no equal title; because there is neither time for praises outside of season, nor does the present argument allow us to apply ourselves to that study, so as to demonstrate the excellence of the man, if indeed he must be called a man and not an angel. But only because he himself said it, the words are not to be rejected, because they are his. For what is judged by us worthy of contempt? That he is one, they say, and that he did not declare those things in a full synod. But indeed, I do not ask you yourselves to judge that Nyssen ^C is to be regarded as merely one of many, most excellent as he is in handling theological matters, and I refuse the vote of others. Nevertheless, those who hold the same age of those men will themselves bear witness to me that Nyssen did not hand down things as one, but as three; I speak of Nyssen himself, the greatest Gregory, and most illustrious Basil, and those who do not ignore that throughout all things they possessed one mind and concordant spirits. For what did any one of the three say which he did not share with the others? And if it seems to some that certain things were perhaps dictated by the one who remained in life later, and who had not made the one already deceased a participant in his considerations—but since even while living they were inspired by the same Spirit to dogmatize concerning the things of the Spirit, and after their departure from here they are bound by the same Spirit—I for my part do not accept that anything was inspired to the one after the death of the others which did not also depend upon the judgment of those who had departed first. And if, because one or another of these sayings did not have a synodal audience, these sayings are condemned to be overlooked, I, however, contend that their audience was universal. And how can those things be worthy of contempt which were worthy of universal audiences? For from that time down to ours ^D all the ecumenical and local synods that have occurred in the interim, who would doubt that they received them, and embraced them, and like some treasure

^A of piety committed them to be stored in the Church? Therefore, brethren, the things uttered separately by any of the Fathers must not be condemned by the foster-children of the Church as if they were worthy of contempt; just as neither are those things which the great Athanasius has spoken, nor those which the greatest of men in theology, Cyril, has spoken. For both of them were leaders of a synod, and of an ecumenical one at that: the one of the first in Nicaea, the other of the third in Ephesus. And that the sayings of these saints should not be overlooked is established by the fact that they were deemed worthy of universal audiences.

26. ^B And what, then, is the meaning of the passage written by Nyssen that seems to be contained here, if it is not directed by the canon of the piety handed down to us? For everything that is found written anywhere in the Scriptures, when it is directed toward the tradition of our piety as toward a canon or rule, strengthens piety and does not damage its truth. But here, they say, this Father, Nyssen, in the first of his Antirrhetics against Eunomius, says clearly toward the end: "The Father is to be thought of before the Son only by the principle of cause." And again, after some intervening words: "For just as the Son is joined to the Father, and, having his being from Him, is not posterior in existence, so also the Holy Spirit adheres to the Only-Begotten, the hypostasis of the Spirit being thought of ^C beforehand by pure conception according to the principle of cause." Does this not convey some notion that there are two causes of the Spirit, the Father and the Son? But, O friends and brethren, since the sayings of the saints should not be overlooked simply, but it is necessary for us to reconcile everything as toward a canon or rule—the piety which we must follow as our teacher—if the saint said that the Father is thought of before the Son by the principle of cause, and again that the Only-Begotten is thought of before the hypostasis of the Spirit according to the principle of cause, this does not mean that from this there appear two causes of the Spirit. Far be it! For I judge that mind and tongue to be blasphemous which would conceive or speak this. But I affirm that the Father is thought of before the Son by the principle of cause, because the Son is from the Father; and the Son is thought of before the hypostasis of the Spirit according to the principle of cause, because the Spirit ^D is from the Father through the Son. And thus, through this explanation, I make the meaning of the statement concordant with the view of those who have theologized that the Spirit is from the Father through the Son. For just as those who said that the Spirit is from the Father through the Son did not say this as dividing the cause of the Spirit into two, but as wishing to show that the Spirit does not proceed immediately from the Father. For how could the continuity of the three hypostases be understood, "if the third in order, the Holy Spirit," as the great Basil says, "were not joined to the God-begetting origin through the second in order, the Son?" Namely the Father. In this way, then, this saint also, by saying that the Father is thought of before the Son by the principle of cause because the Son is from the Father, and again that the Only-Begotten is thought of before the hypostasis of the Spirit according to the principle of cause because the Spirit is through the Son, did not assert two causes of the Spirit. And the Holy

^A Father expressed this not with the intention of two causes; the discourse will establish this from other things said by him. For in the first of his *Antirrhetica* against Eunomius, which begins, "It does not seem possible for one to deserve well of all," he speaks thus: "From the unbegotten sun we conceive another sun, the Son, shining forth with it by generation at the same time in the conception of the first, and being in all things likewise." And again: "The Spirit is another such light in the same manner, not cut off from the begotten light by any interval of time, but shining forth through it, while having the cause of its hypostasis from the prototypical light, yet being itself also light, shining and illuminating according to the likeness of that which was thought of before." Consider, whoever you are, if you wish, ^B the theology hidden in the depth of this utterance, and you will most gladly kiss the saint. For what he expressed there in other words—asserting that the Father is thought of before the Son as Cause, and the Son is thought of before the Spirit according to the principle of cause—he explained here in other words. For having said, "From the unbegotten sun we conceive another sun, the Son," he did not add, "and again another such light, the Spirit," and then say, "not cut off from the unbegotten light by any interval of time," which is what those who wish to say it is immediately from the Father want to think; instead, he said, "not cut off from the begotten light by any interval of time, but shining ^C forth through it, while having the cause of its hypostasis from the prototypical light." For in saying, "From the unbegotten sun we conceive another sun, the Son, shining forth with it by generation at the same time in our conception of the first," he presented the immediate natural and essential union of the Father and the Son; and in saying that the Spirit is another light, not cut off from the begotten light, he again presented the natural and essential union of the Spirit with the Son. Then, since by these words he united the Spirit to the Son, and the Son to the Father, lest anyone think of some separation of the Spirit from the Father, he immediately added, most admirably and theoretically, ^D "but shining forth through it, while having the cause of its hypostasis from the prototypical light." Do you see how the holy man did not say that the Father is thought of before the Son as Cause, and the Son is thought of before the hypostasis of the Spirit according to the principle of cause, with the intention of two causes? See and understand that these things were said by the saint for no other reason than that his discourse might show that the natural and essential union of the Spirit is not immediately to the Father, but through the Son. If, therefore, you accept the statement that the Spirit is from the Father through the Son in this sense, whoever you are who hears the words of those who have treated theological matters with an impartial mind, it will no longer seem difficult to you to be united with the Church of Rome. For those who say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son do not immediately admit two causes of the Spirit; on the contrary, they condemn and subject to anathema, as most hostile, anyone who dares to say such a thing.

But because they know that ‘to proceed’ signifies that the Spirit exists from the Father naturally and essentially, and because they know that those among our Fathers who are numbered among the theologians also teach that the Spirit is from the Son, and confess that he proceeds from the Father and the Son, declaring with a clear and resounding voice that he is essentially from both, and ^A imploring the faith of God, they assert that their own ancestors, having followed the footsteps of our Greek theological Fathers, have proclaimed this. And who are these? The illustrious and great Basil, the exalted Athanasius, the divine Chrysostom, the greatest Cyril, and Epiphanius, the most skilled in theological speculation, who delivered many and most beautiful speculations regarding the Spirit in his discourse called the ‘Ancoratus.’

27. Perhaps it will not be inconsistent with the purpose of this discourse if I set down in this commentary the phrases of these same men, which clearly and explicitly declare the Spirit to be also from the Son, in their very own words, which is what I am now doing. The holy Basil, in the third book of his Antirreticus against Eunomius, which begins, “Vix tandem aliquando exsaturatus in Unigenitum effusis blasphemiis,” says: “For what necessity is there, if the Spirit is third in dignity and order, that he should also be third in nature? For the standard of piety teaches that he is second in dignity to the Son, having his existence from him, and receiving from him and announcing to us, and being in every way dependent on that cause; but that he is third by nature, we are neither taught by the holy Scriptures, ^B nor can we demonstrate it from the things said by way of any valid consequence. For just as the Son is second in order from the Father, because he is from him, and in dignity, because the Father who is his principle and cause is before him, and because through him is the approach and introduction to God and the Father, yet he is in no way second by nature, because the Deity is one in both: so, evidently, even if the Holy Spirit is inferior to the Son in order and dignity, we would nevertheless never rightly say that he follows as being of a different nature.” Behold here how the saint has explained in every way, and quite explicitly, that the Spirit has his existence from the Son. ^C

But having reached this point in our discourse, it would not be untimely to relate those things which accurately prove that the scandal of the Churches arose for the most part from contention and the irrational impulse of the many. For there are found some volumes from which those words have been erased: “having his existence from him, and receiving from him and announcing to us, and being in every way dependent on that cause.” You, therefore, leaning toward neither side, pass judgment by the Trinity itself, on one who has acted maliciously against the very sayings of the holy Fathers, and has erased from the written text the passage of the scriptural record ^D which he knew to provide material for ecclesiastical peace—how is he not to be recognized as one moved by contention and foolish counsel to disrupt peace? Nevertheless, even if the excised passage of the scriptural record was erased,

you, from those things which remain, note with what strength they contribute to the pacifying of minds. For this saint says in the following: ^A “Just as the Son is second to the Father in order, because He is from Him, and in dignity, because the Father is the beginning and cause of Him, yet not second in nature, because the Godhead is one in both; so, clearly, the Holy Spirit, even if He is subordinate to the Son in order and dignity, we would not therefore rightly say He follows as being of a different nature.” What seems to you from these things? Absolutely nothing else is gathered from them but that, just as the Son is second to the Father in order and dignity, so also the Holy Spirit is second to the Son in order and dignity. ^B For if anyone were to call the things of the Son toward the Father second in order and dignity, but the things of the Spirit toward the Son in no way so, he will, along with others, also slander the great Athanasius, who says in these very words: “Whatever the Son is toward the Father, the Spirit also is toward the Son.” If, however, the subordination of the Spirit toward the Son is analogous to the subordination of the Son toward the Father, you are able to perceive what follows by the necessity of the argument, even if I remain silent. ^C But if appearing as something harsh and again unacceptable to you that the Spirit should be second to the Son in order and dignity according to the analogy of the Son’s subordination in order and dignity toward the Father, if you recall the words of Nyssen, in which he said that “the Father is conceptualized before the Son by the formula of cause, and the Son is viewed before the hypostasis of the Spirit according to the formula of cause,” all harshness will be softened for you, and what is difficult to perceive in the words of the great Basil will be perceived most easily by means of the similar words of Nyssen. And you will conceive of the Son as immediately from the Father, but the Spirit as through Him who is continuously with the Father. For what else does the meaning of these words imply than that the Father is conceptualized before the Son by causality, because the Son is from the Father, and the Son is conceptualized before the Spirit according to the formula of cause, because He is through the Son? You, therefore, hearing that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, and exists from the Father, and has what He is from the Son, and is essentially poured forth from the Father, and likewise essentially poured forth from the Son; if you interpret the expressions according to the sense of the great Basil, and always recall in memory that saying: ^D “Whatever is said to be from the Son has its relationship to the Father, the first cause,” you will embrace the reconciliation of the Roman Church from the heart, asserting both that the Spirit is from the Son, and decreeing that all things of the Son are referred back to the Father. But how else again can we perceive that which the great Athanasius said, most clearly declaring the Son to be greater than the Spirit? For in his first discourse against the Arians, whose beginning is: “Whatever heresies have grasped the truth, they procure madness for themselves as is manifest,” he writes: “The Giver of the Spirit says He now casts out demons in the Spirit, but this was not said otherwise than on account of the flesh. For when na-

^A the father says that he now casts out demons in the Spirit, yet this is said in no other sense than by reason of his flesh. For as human nature is not of itself capable of casting out demons, unless by the power of the Spirit, for this reason he spoke as a man: "If I by the Spirit of God cast out demons." Such things, then, the Lord said to the Jews as a man; but to his disciples, showing his divinity and greatness, as one who is not lesser than the Spirit, but greater and equal, he was bestowing the Spirit, and saying, "I will send him, and he shall glorify me, and whatsoever he shall hear, he shall speak." Consider this statement and compare it with those written above, so that these three who are witnesses without exception may be taken as confirming that the Romans do not speak of two causes of the Spirit, even though they claim that he is from the Father and from the Son. ^B For if neither the great Basil has established two causes of the Spirit, saying "the Spirit, having his being from the Son," nor Nyssen defines the Son as being conceived before the Spirit in terms of the concept of cause, nor the great Athanasius writes "the Son is greater than the Spirit," then neither do the Romans assert two causes of the Spirit, in saying that he proceeds from the Father and the Son.

28. But in addition to these three witnesses, receive also the other testimonies which will be mentioned for the proof that the Spirit is also from the Son. St. Cyril, in his interpretation of the prophet Joel, at the place where it is written, "I will pour out from my Spirit," ^C interprets, saying: "For in that he is God, and Son from God by nature—for he has been begotten from God and the Father—the Holy Spirit is his very own, and in him, and from him, just as, indeed, he is understood to be from God and the Father himself." The same author, in his discourse to the emperor Theodosius, the beginning of which is, "The highest of glory which is among men," says: "He said that Jesus baptizes in fire, not as one casting into those who are baptized a Spirit that is foreign to them, in the manner of a slave or minister, but as God with supreme authority, since he is from him and his own." The great Athanasius, in his discourse on the incarnate appearing of God the Word, the beginning of which is, "Those who wickedly wish to understand the divine Scriptures," ^D relates: "For he himself was sending him from above as God, and he himself was receiving him from below as man. From him, therefore, he was descending into him, from his divinity into his humanity." Chrysostom, in his discourse on the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, and on that text, "In whatever region stood the angels," the beginning of which is, "Truly, the divine grace has appeared to us," reports: "Christ came to us; he gave us the Spirit who is from him, and he took up our body." The same author, in his discourse on the mystery of baptism, the beginning of which is, "Again for us the spiritual lyre of the blessed David," says: "For this reason the Savior shows himself to be the fountain of life, and the Holy Spirit to be living water." The same author, in his discourse on the two Testaments, the beginning of which is, "And one God and the"

^A them manifest as having done so from the beginning, the Law and the prophets,” he says: “For because the body of the Lord, which is God-bearing, became a temple of the divine power, you also become a temple according to his likeness; for you receive the Spirit sent forth from him. Just as, therefore, having acknowledged Christ, you have acknowledged God, so also, having received the Spirit of Christ, you have received God.” The same author in his first *Prophylactica*, the beginning of which is, “Since we approach the Good, we must be on guard against the devil who works against the good,” says: “And in this way the Spirit who is from Christ shall preserve us until the day of future redemption.”

The holy Cyril likewise, in one of the chapters of the second book of his *Thesaurus*, says: “The Spirit is in every way proper to the essence of the Son, and does not have his subsistence from any external source.” In another place again: “When Christ therefore gives the Law, as the Spirit who is in him and exists from him by nature, he gives the Law.” And again in another: “It is therefore necessary to confess that he exists from the essence of the Son and of God, possessing all his power and operation.” Item in another: “Paul knows of no difference in nature ^B between the Son and the holy Spirit; but as existing naturally in him and from him, he calls him by the name of dominion.” Again in another: “Therefore, the Spirit is from the essence of the Son.”

The same author, in his exposition of the Gospel according to John, says: “For the Son, being substantially a participant in the natural goods of God and the Father, also has the Spirit, just as each one of us contains our own spirit within ourselves, and pours it forth from our inmost parts to the outside; for which reason he also breathed him upon the disciples with his body.”

The same author, in one of the chapters of the second book of the *Thesaurus*: “It is clearly shown that the holy Spirit is not foreign to the Son, but is in him and from him, just as a certain natural power, able to fill all things, whatever it wills.”

The holy Epiphanius of Cyprus, in his discourse on the Trinity and the Resurrection, the beginning of which is, “But concerning the Trinity of God and the Father, and ^C the Son, and the holy Spirit, we being weak and unlearned, bringing forward nothing from our own knowledge, nor surrendering ourselves to the sophistry of men, but gathering particularly testimonies from the divine Scriptures, set forth for the consolation of the faithful and the refutation of those holding evil and novel opinions,” says the following after much else: “The Father, indeed, if I may so speak, is the image, the Son is as the soul in man, and the Spirit is as the breathing through the man. For some practice deceit and do not hold the Deity. But we have not learned these things. But behold the Father in heaven, behold the holy Spirit, at the time he descended, assumed for himself the form of a dove, although he did not put on a body of a dove, but took only a figure according to himself as he descended, not foreign to the essence of the Father and the Son, but the same, a hypostasis from the hypostasis of the Father and the Son, the holy Spirit.”

The same author, in the discourse which he named *Ancoratus*, says: “Send forth thy ^D light and thy truth, David says. He himself is the Lord, who said: 'In the last days I will pour out from my Spirit upon all flesh, and their sons and their daughters, and their young men, shall see visions—

^A three persons of Holy Trinity he shows to us, hypostasis existing from hypostasis in a third way.' Again in the same place: 'The Spirit is incomprehensible, not alien to the Father and the Son, nor is it a contraction of the Father and the Son.' And after a few words: 'The Holy Spirit is not a brother of a brother, nor a brother of the Father, but is of the same essence as the Father and the Son. For the Only-Begotten himself says: "The Spirit of the Father, and who proceeds from the Father, and will take from mine," that he might not be thought alien to the Father, nor to the Son.' And after a few words: 'From the Father and the Son, the third in designation.' And after many things: 'Both dwell in the righteous man, Christ and his Spirit. But if Christ is believed to be God from God, from the Father, and the Spirit from Christ, or from both, as Christ says: ^B "Who proceeds from the Father, and this one will take from mine."' And after a few words: 'But someone will say: Therefore we say there are two Sons. And how then is he the Only-Begotten? Indeed. But who are you who contend with God? For if he calls the one from himself Son, and the Holy Spirit that which is from both—which we perceive only by faith, being [things] bright and light-giving, possessed by the saints, and having a radiant operation.' And after a few words: 'The Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth, is the third light from the Father and the Son. For in the way that "No one knows the Father except the Son, nor the Son except the Father," in the same way I dare to say that No one [knows] the Spirit except the Father and the Son, from whom he proceeds, and from whom he receives, nor [does anyone know] the Son and the Father except the Holy Spirit, who truly glorifies, who teaches all things, from the Father and the Son.' And after some things: 'Therefore the Father was always, and the Son was always, and the Spirit breathes from the Father and the Son.' Let the saying of the most dogmatic Nyssen, which is in the explanation of the [Lord's Prayer] homily, the beginning of which is,

When the great Moses led

^D 29. Since in innumerable places of the relevant Scriptures, which have been set forth above, Saint Cyril is found saying that the Spirit exists from the essence of the Son, it has seemed to some [appropriate] to say that 'to exist' is one thing, and

'to have existence' is another. And that something exists from something else, yet does not have its existence from it, is true; this I myself admit, and it will be confirmed for me by what exists from this city, as if it had originated from it, and by what exists from this choir, which, together with the others from whom the choir consists, fills the choir: and, to put it briefly, whatever exists from something externally and not essentially from it. But that which exists from the essence of someone, how could it be anything other than having its existence from him, from whose essence it also is? For that which is from the essence of an ox is an ox, and possesses its existence entirely from the ox, from whose essence it is; and that which is from the essence of a human is a human, and possesses its existence entirely from the human, from whose essence it is. ^B Therefore, the opinion of those who claim simply and indistinctly that 'to exist' is one thing, and 'to have existence' is another, does not please me. For whatever exists from the essence of someone will be understood to exist from him both essentially and hypostatically. But those who contentiously contradict the Romans, having overlooked the true meaning—which was that the Spirit is said to be both from the Son and from the essence of the Son, and yet not to understand two causes for the Spirit, because of the statement of the great Basil, *'that what is said to be from the Son has its reference back to the first cause, the Father'*—(for it is no burden to repeat the same thing in a speech many times and to impress it upon the hearer, when no other more opportune thing can be said to counter him), they have forced their contradiction through violence into other absurd inventions, fabricating distinctions between saying that the Spirit is 'from the essence of the Son' and 'from his hypostasis.' ^C 30. And in order that the absurdity of this fabricated distinction might more clearly appear, let him who says that the Spirit proceeds from the essence of the Father be asked whether, in a special conception, he understands the essence of the Father apart from the hypostasis, and thus says that it proceeds from the essence of the Father as if there were some other knowledge than if he said it proceeds from his hypostasis; or whether, when he says the Holy Spirit proceeds from the essence of the Father, he understands the essence of the Father not without hypostasis, but with hypostasis? For if he who asserts that the Spirit proceeds from the essence of the Father indicates that it exists in the hypostasis from the essence of the Father, then that grave and venerable opinion of those who affirm that the Spirit is poured forth and emanates from the essence of the Son, ^D as the Scriptures hand down, and not from the hypostasis, would be rendered void, and from this they force the conclusion that the Spirit is not from the Son. And then, he who contends that it proceeds from the essence of the Father says that it is from the essence in the hypostasis and not without the hypostasis; for the essence of the Father is not without hypostasis, and it remains most evident to everyone that the same force is in the expression even when the Spirit is said to flow and emanate from the essence of the Son, because the essence of the Son, just as the Father's, is in the hypostasis. But if those who say these things intend, in the reasoning of a special conception, to conceive that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the essence of the Father as if it were said to proceed from his hypostasis, and by an equal reasoning...

they are once again caught, decreeing from their own words that the Spirit exists also from the Son. For it gushes and springs forth from the essence of the Father and of the Son. And if, according to those who reason in such a way, when it is said ^A to be "from the essence of the Father," the notion of hypostasis is not included, and when it is said to be "from the essence of the Son," the idea of hypostasis has no place, then undoubtedly the Spirit exists in this way from the Father and from the Son. For those who say "from the essence of the Father" also made mention of the essence of the Son.

31. But here that great difficulty of those who question everything arises once again, and they say: If essence is one thing and hypostasis another, why is there no difference in saying at one time "from the essence" and at another time "from the hypostasis"? We, however, contend that such things are the words of those who are playing rather than studying. For it should have occurred to such people that, even if essence is one thing and hypostasis another, this is spoken of the whole Deity; for ^B the former signifies the oneness in the Trinity, which is the one essence of the Deity, and the latter the trinity in the unity, which is the indivisible division of the one essence into three persons. And it is entirely alien to pious thought to conceive of the essence of the Father as being without hypostasis, when someone speaking on divine matters says it is "from the essence of the Father," or to conceive of the hypostasis as being without essence when he says it is "from the hypostasis," lest one who offers such things should appear to imply diverse and various births of the one Son from the one Father, by sometimes asserting that the Son is begotten "from the essence of the Father" and at other times "from the Father," which indubitably signifies the hypostasis, and likewise various processions of the Spirit from the same Father, because sometimes it is argued that the Spirit proceeds "from the essence of the Father" and at other times "from the Father." But that it is not one thing to exist and another to have existence has been demonstrated from the fact that it is not possible for anything to exist from the essence of someone without both essence and hypostasis, and from the fact that it is impossible to conceive of the essence of the Father as being without hypostasis when someone asserts that the Spirit is from the essence of the Father, or to conceive of the hypostasis as being without essence when he says that it is "from the Father," that is to say, from the paternal hypostasis. ^C

32. Moreover, since in all the aforementioned testimonies it is not found that the Spirit is said by the word "to exist" alone to exist from the Son naturally and essentially, but that in some places it is also said by those words "to gush forth," "to shine forth," "to come forth," and "to pour forth," it will by all means be a strong proof that these also signify its natural and essential existence from the Son, if it appears that these terms are used by the theologians in certain scriptural passages to signify also the natural and essential existence of the Son from the Father. For if "to shine forth from the Father" regarding the Son, and "to come forth from the Father" regarding the Son, and other such terms indicate an essential ^D subsistence, it remains manifest that the Spirit also, [when described as] shining forth, gushing forth...

and proceeding from the Son, exists from Him naturally and essentially. For the outpouring, emission, and shining forth of the Spirit from the Son is not to be understood as being without subsistence, just as neither is that of the Son from the Father. Observe, then: the holy Cyril at once, in one of the chapters he composed regarding the eternity of the Son, which begins, "God is called and is the Fount of wisdom and life," says: "Therefore the Son was co-eternal with the One who begot Him, as if gushing forth from a certain font, the paternal essence." See here, as if from a certain font, the paternal essence gushing forth the Son; and pay mind to the thought, that by the Son gushing forth from the paternal essence, he indicates that He comes from thence essentially and with subsistence. This will be most aptly applied when the Spirit also is said to gush forth from the essence of the Son. Again, the same great Cyril in another chapter of the first of his *Thesauri*, and again in another, and often in others, writes: "The Word who came forth from the essence of the Father." What else is "the Word who came forth from the essence of the Father" than that the Word essentially subsists from the essence of the Father? If this is so, the Spirit, proceeding or advancing from the Son, must by all means be understood to proceed essentially. The same [author] in another of those same chapters, and again in another, and ^B often in others, says: "The Father caused the Son to shine forth from Himself indivisibly and inseparably." And through this we understand the shining forth of the Spirit from the Son to be essential and subsistent, just as the shining forth of the Son from the Father is also, and is called, indivisible and inseparable.

33. Let the present part of our inquiry also be concluded in the Holy Spirit, from the Father and the Son. All the ministering spirits are angels, archangels, principalities, powers, thrones, and dominations; but the Holy Spirit Himself also is, as our God-bearing Fathers have determined, from the Father and the Son. But while all the ministering spirits are from the Father and from the Son as from their Maker and Creator—being creatures and works—the Holy Spirit is from the Father and from the Son as One of the Trinity and as the completion of the Trinity. Therefore, since the ministering spirits are from the Father and [the] Son as creatures and works, while the Holy Spirit ^C is from the Father and from the Son as of the Trinity and as the completion of the Trinity, it was by all means necessary that the most rigorous of the Fathers and theologians should seek and investigate with what words the diversity of such existences might be distinguished, in which no better or more significant word for such a distinction could be left among all words. As, therefore, it seems to me and to the truth, they could by no other diction more aptly express the difference between the existence of the Spirit from the Father and the Son, and the existence of the ministering spirits from the Father and the Son, than by this alone, as being more proper than all the others, which would ring true: that the Holy Spirit is from the essence of the Father and the Son. For if the Fathers had not determined that the Spirit is from the essence of the Father and the Son, how better [could they have expressed] the difference between Him and the ^D ministering spirits...

since they too exist from the Father and the Son? Those, therefore, who say that identifying the Spirit as existing from the essence of the Father and the Son does not signify the substantial and hypostatic existence of the Spirit seem to me to deviate so far from the truth as to alienate the Holy Spirit from His own divinity. For by what other ^A argument could the Spirit be believed to be God, if one does not believe with accuracy in his heart and confess with pure lips that He proceeds essentially and hypostatically from the divine essence of the Father and the Son? For all the Fathers who engaged in the struggle against the Pneumatomachi in their own times did not make use of any other material for their demonstration that the Spirit is God, than simply this, to demonstrate from the divine Scriptures that the Holy Spirit is from the divine essence of the Father and the Son. Therefore, let those who delve into the immeasurable subtleties of the present-day theologies, which extend beyond all height and depth, be careful lest the vastness of their minute investigations drag them away from the path of the Fathers—who spoke so simply, and as it seems to them, crudely, that the Spirit is from the essence of the Father and the Son. And let them not vainly accuse the Romans, who say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and who—while defending themselves—set forth, for the explanation of the phrase, that the Spirit exists substantially and hypostatically from the Father and the Son, and bring forward the entire chorus of those Fathers who shone brightly in theology to support their defense. But those who say that the substantial and hypostatic nature of the Spirit is not signified in the phrase that He is theologically stated to proceed from the essence of the Father and the Son, are unwittingly clipping away the greatest part of piety, as we have said, for they weaken the power of the expression, through which our theological Fathers demonstrated with a great abundance of truth that the Spirit is God.

These points, which constitute the apology on our behalf, are of such a kind and quantity as to seem to me sufficient for establishing the justification for our having well entered into reconciliation with the Roman Church. ^C For all the scriptural statements of the saints have been set forth so that we might demonstrate to those who are now living, and to those after us, that through Satanic malice, and for no reasonable cause, the Churches have warred against each other for so long a time. And if those who happen upon these pages should judge that we have accurately reached the meaning of the scriptural testimonies laid out here, thanks be to God; but if it seems otherwise to some regarding these matters, who shall take away the free will that these have, a royal gift bestowed upon them by God? But what it remains for me to say fraternally, as one suffering for their sake, is that they should consider whether they might be acting madly against themselves, if they have a sufficiently copious demonstration of that madness in the number of evils that have afflicted our nation following this ecclesiastical dissidium. ^D

^A 34. Since, however, in the beginning this present discourse of ours promised, along with the exposition of the utterances, to refute both the authors of the schism and those who followed them, as men who have uttered nothing sound or adhering to the truth in the writings they have left to posterity against the Roman Church, come now, let us discharge the second part of our obligation. For, lest anyone think that even if the written testimonies contain a semblance of reason, there are nevertheless to be found in the treatises composed against the Romans at various times certain passages that, with an abundance of truth, seem to conceal the plausibility of those mentioned above, it is necessary to bring forward these very writings, as many as have so far come into our hands, and to set forth each excerpt in order, arranged line by line in the discourse, and to oppose to them whatever, with God's help, shall be granted to us for the overthrow of each proposition.

35. Therefore, since Photius, who at that time was presiding over the patriarchal throne of Constantinople, was the most ancient author of the schism, and he himself was the first inventor and progenitor of the propositions that were falsely composed against the Roman Church, we shall begin our discourse from the syllogisms set forth by him to kindle the flame of conflict. His first reasoning is found expressed in these words:

PHOTIUS. ^C "If the Spirit is simple, but proceeds from the Father and from the Son, by all means they must be considered one person, and from this, a Sabellian contraction—or rather, a semi-Sabellian one—will be introduced."

And this is the first syllogism of Photius. But as I now gird myself to refute and dissolve his arguments, I judge it best to place before everything else my own defense, lest any of those who read this present Commentary of ours should accuse us of pride and boastfulness, as if we had entered upon this struggle of contradiction out of empty vanity and haughtiness of mind, or to seem to some to have enough strength to surpass in copiousness of speech and abundance of eloquence the wisdom of those whom we mention. Far be it from us to rave with such madness, or to imagine such things of ourselves, or to reject the blessedness that is promised in the Gospel to the poor in spirit. But the entire struggle of this contradiction will be for us as for men inflamed with the desire for the union of the Churches, which is pleasing to God; on account of which desire for union we descend to this contradiction, wishing to overcome falsehood with truth, and not to claim for ourselves among others the glory of those who excel in wisdom. ^D For before anyone else can even think anything of the kind about us, we openly confess that we are far inferior in both wisdom and eloquence to all those with whom we enter into contradiction; and regarding the powers of wisdom, we would not even dare to meet them eye to eye...

^A because our own word is weak. But since the pinnacle of all wisdom is truth, and God alone is the wise God of truth, having hung our hopes upon that very God of truth, we proceed into the contest against those who do not speak the truth, for the sake of the success that comes with the truth. And since we have made mention of God and truth, for the sake of this very truth, we adjure those who will be the judges of both arguments to approach the examination without attachment, knowing precisely this: that all our effort is on behalf of the union of the Churches, whose division has wrought great harm to piety. And he who judges from favor will bring upon himself the judgment of Him who rejects the bribe—not in matters where the harm is perhaps only corporeal, but in those very matters for which God, as having been wronged, will be indignant. Thus, therefore, having set forth the matters of the discourse in its second part, we actually proceed to speak. But now, the aforementioned syllogism must be taken up again.

36. ^B “If the Spirit is simple,” he says, “but proceeds from the Father and from the Son, they will by all means be thought to be one person, and from this will be introduced a Sabellian contraction, or rather, a semi-Sabellian one.”

Those who proceed to demonstrations by means of syllogisms according to the custom of the dialecticians, first of all set down as most useful the determination of the meaning in the expressions, so that the truth of the demonstration may not be stolen away by the polysemy of the words. You, therefore, most wise Photius—for I shall address the discourse to you as if you were present—with regard to this first syllogism set forth, which is intertwined with a condition: “If,” you say, “the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, since the Spirit is simple, it follows of necessity from the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son that these are contracted into one person,” which you call a Sabellian and semi-Sabellian heresy. Since, therefore, you affirm that the contraction of two persons into one follows of necessity if anyone concedes that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, because the Spirit is simple, it must plainly be asked: in what sense is this “proceeds” taken by you here? For you will surely say that the procession signifies the natural and essential existence of the Spirit from God, and nothing else besides this. But this existence is not ^C always signified by the word “procession” alone, but also by many others, among which are placed “to proceed forward” (progress), “to be poured out” (profundi), and “to come forth” (provenire) from the Father. We know, furthermore, by the common opinion, as is acknowledged, of our Church, that all these things are said of the simple Spirit from the Father and the Son, and that its simplicity is preserved, and no contraction of Father and Son is insinuated thereby. And this is a clear demonstration that what seems absurd to you does not follow if the Romans teach that He proceeds from the Father and the Son. For even when the simple Spirit proceeds and is poured out from the Father and the Son, they are not ^D

^A said to be merged into one person, so that you might thereby force them to contradict common understandings; or if not that, then not even when the Romans say that He proceeds from the Father and the Son will a merging of them be introduced. But you add yet a second syllogism, saying:

37. "If the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son, He would be twofold and composite."

What are you saying, man? Will He be twofold and composite because, according to the Italians, He proceeds from the Father and the Son? Grant first that He is twofold and composite because He exists from the Father and the Son according to our Holy Scriptures, and then it will be granted that He is twofold and composite if He proceeds from the Father and the Son. But if, while existing from the Father and from the Son naturally, essentially, and hypostatically, He does not lose His own simplicity, it is clear that He will not be twofold and composite even if He proceeds from the Father and the Son according to the Romans. ^B Furthermore,

38. "If the Holy Spirit is referred to two principles," you say, "where will the much-hymned monarchy be?"

You say that the much-hymned monarchy is abolished if the Spirit is referred to two principles. And that the much-hymned monarchy will be abolished if the Spirit is referred to two principles, no one would contradict. But why did you not respect the truth, taking as confessed that which is not granted by the one who is debating with you, and concluding from that the absurdity which appears? For where indeed is it found by you that the Italian says there are two principles in the blessed Trinity? Either show him saying there are two principles—and you will be shown to be speaking rightly that the much-hymned monarchy is abolished if the Spirit is referred to two principles—or, if you do not show this, you are clearly proven to ^C be reasoning and concluding not for the sake of truth, but out of hatred. You say, furthermore:

39. "If the Father brings forth the Spirit, and the Son likewise brings Him forth, the Father would be the immediate producer of the Spirit, and remote because of His production from the Son."

Receive also the refutation to this. If you conceive of "immediate" and "remote" only in the production of the Spirit—which is not said by the Latin, yet you allege it as if it were said by him—or also in other things which are plainly confessed by your own Church? For if you combine "immediate" and "remote" productions because the Latin says the Spirit is produced from the Father and the Son, it would then be fitting for you to devise also "immediate" and "remote" profusions, emissions, and suppeditations, because all these are confessed to be from the Father and the Son. But if all these are confessed to be from the Father and the Son, and among those who ^D are followers and students of piety "remote" and "immediate" have no place, consider what a judgment you have brought upon yourself.

In another syllogism you say: ^A 40. "If the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father is complete, the procession from the Son is therefore superfluous."

But we have these things to say to you in reply, through which it will be evident to those who weigh the matter accurately that the discord in the Church was introduced through contention. For if, because of the perfection of the procession from the Father, you call the procession from the Son superfluous, what will you answer to those who say to you: if the supply of the Holy Spirit from the Father is complete, then it is superfluous from the Son? For it is indubitable that the supply of the Holy Spirit from the Father is perfect, and yet the supply from the Son is nonetheless not superfluous because of the perfection it has from the Father. But if you do not admit that the supply of the Spirit is perfect from the Father, and likewise from the Son, and not superfluous, then declare that a superfluous (procession) ^B is, according to you, a superfluous procession. But if you confess that the supply of the Holy Spirit is perfect from the Father, and you also accept that it is perfect from the Son, and do not say it is superfluous, so as not to transcend ecclesiastical boundaries, then those subtle arguments of yours about a superfluous procession remain superfluous for you.

Another of your syllogisms says: 41. "If the Son also produces, but the Spirit is deprived of production, this would be of inferior power compared to the Son—which is the madness of Macedonius."

Those things which we brought forward to refute your first series of syllogisms will suffice for you to refute this present syllogism. For since even here you imply quite openly that if the Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son, ^C if there is not also another Spirit from Him, He would be of inferior power, hear again in turn. This absurdity does not follow only when the Son produces the Spirit, while the Spirit is deprived of production, but also when the Son sends, pours forth, and illuminates the Spirit—yet the Spirit neither sends Himself nor another Spirit, nor pours forth, nor illuminates. For the Spirit, possessing all these things from the Son, as one who has them from the Son, as is confirmed by the authority of our Scriptures, is not subject to any deficiency that would make Him inferior in power to the Son, because neither is it from Himself, nor is another Spirit from Him sent, or shining forth, or poured forth. ^D Therefore, it will not be of inferior power to the Son because of the fact that it is produced from the Father through the Son, while it itself is deprived of production.

You add these things to the rest: 42. "If the Son has the same production of the Spirit as the Father, the property of production is common to them. And how will that which is common be a property? But if it is the opposite, how does the one not destroy the other? For contraries destroy one another. But if it is different, in this way a part of the Spirit, and in another way a part..."

of the proceeding will come forth, and this will be composed of unequal parts. »

But who, my man, would not suffer from vertigo, so long as he intends to refute this composition of your arguments? For you say: If the property of the production of the Father and the Son is common, how will the common be a property? And this ^A seemed to you perhaps strong and invincible. I, however, tell you: By what reasoning does it seem most absurd to you that there is something common to the Father and the Son, contemplated properly in them alone, and not being common to the Spirit as well? For there is indeed something common to the Father and the Son which is not also common to the Spirit; and that such a thing is of two persons, and not one, it both is and is called common. But because it is contemplated in them properly, the Spirit not participating in these, it is called their property, to the end that the Spirit is distinguished from them. For it is considered common to them—that they have one indivisible Spirit—because the Spirit is called the Spirit of the Father and the Son. But since there is not also a Spirit of the Spirit, for this reason to have the Father and the Son in one indivisible Spirit is their property, and the communion herein, contemplated eternally in the two persons alone, dissolves your doubt, saying, “How will the common be a property?” Again, there is something common to the Son and the Spirit, that they are not without origin, and their being from a cause is called their own, which, as a nature, ^B cannot be contemplated in the Father. But if you also ask for a witness to confirm for you how it is called common to the Son and the Spirit—being these two persons alone not without origin—and how the property of these two persons alone is called being from a cause, in order to resolve the difficulty which you proposed in your aforementioned syllogism, saying, “How will the common be a property?” Nyssen shall again be present, and in his homily on the Lord’s Prayer he will clearly say thus: “For when the Son went forth from the Father, as the Scripture says, and the Spirit proceeds from God and from the Father. But just as being without cause, being of the Father alone, cannot be applied to the Son and the Spirit, so conversely, being from a cause, which is the property of the Son and the Spirit, cannot, as a nature, be contemplated in the Father. But while it is common to the Son and the Spirit not to be without origin, it is again easy to find the difference that is in their properties.” ^C Pay attention to this testimony of the theologian Father, and perceive how he called being from a cause the property of the two persons alone, and how he showed that being from a cause, which is the same as not being without origin, is common to these same two persons. And know that you were not right to hesitate as though over an absurdity, saying, “How will the common be a property?” With this solved, there is no longer need for counter-argument to refute the remaining parts of the syllogism. For because one part of the division is thus understood—if indeed the Son has the contrary production to the Father, namely ^D of the Spirit, then these and those absurdities will exist—since no one asserts this contrary production, whatever has been adduced

^A for the overturning of the absurdities that follow from this, will be superfluous. You said, furthermore, regarding these, the following:

43. «If from one cause, namely the Father, both the Son and the Spirit have come forth, and the Son again produces the Spirit, then the Spirit also will produce the Son. For the Father and Producer brought forth both with equal dignity.»

Hear then also regarding these things. Since you make the fact that the Father brought forth the Son and the Spirit with equal dignity the material for your demonstration that the Son is also brought forth from the Spirit, if the Latin says that the Son and the Spirit are brought forth from the Father, but then that the Spirit is also brought forth from the Son, what will you reply to him when he retorts to you, "If both the Son and the Spirit shine forth from one cause, namely the Father, and the Son shines forth the Spirit, will the Spirit therefore also shine forth the Son?" For the Father brought forth both with equal dignity. Tell us, by the truth itself, what will you reply to these things? Will you not be refuted as speaking poorly, if, because the Son and the Spirit are brought forth from the Father with equal dignity, and the Spirit is also brought forth from the Son, you say it is necessary ^B that the Son is also brought forth from the Spirit? For it is manifest that the Son and the Spirit are not only brought forth from the Father with equal dignity, but they flow forth with equal dignity, and they proceed with equal dignity, and they shine forth with equal dignity. And the Church confesses that the Spirit which flows from the Father with equal dignity flows from the Son, and that He who shines forth from the Father with equal dignity with [the Son], shines forth from the Son; yet it does not for this reason admit, as if it followed by necessity, that the Son also flows, proceeds, and shines forth from the Spirit, because they both have their existence from the Father with equal dignity.

Another of your syllogisms contains this:

44. «If the Son shares with the Father the production of the Holy Spirit, then the Holy Spirit also will share in this. For all things that are common to the Father and the Son, these are also common to the Holy Spirit. And then He will be at once both cause and caused, which is more monstrous than the very fables of the Greeks.»

Your proposition is not true, ^C by which you wish perhaps to establish that the Holy Spirit also shares His own existence with the Father and the Son, if the Son shares something of His own existence with the Father. For the proposition stating that "everything that is common to the Father and the Son, the same is also common to the Holy Spirit," will not be taken simply and without distinction by those who examine the divine Scriptures with care. First, because this proposition belongs to none of the Fathers who have handed down theology to our Church, but is your own offspring, fabricated for the purpose of strengthening the schism; and second, because those who examine the divine Scriptures more attentively know that certain things are common to the Father and the Son, and are also common to the Spirit, which are indeed goods that naturally exist in them,

^A and not from without, nor acquired, like justice, goodness, wisdom, and the like. But they also recognize certain things that are naturally present in the Father and the Son, but not present in the Spirit—not because the Spirit is not of the same nature as the Father and the Son (for this is far from all pious thought), but because the natural properties of the Father as Father, and of the Son as Son, are not common to the Spirit. For although the Holy Spirit is of the same nature as the Father and the Son, yet He is received as Spirit in the Trinity, and He will possess the entire communion of common natural goods as Spirit, but He will not possess the communion of the natural properties of the Father and the Son as Father and as Son. For by what reason would these have been called natural properties if they were common also to the Spirit? For these are natural because they exist in the Father and the Son by nature; but they are properties of the Father and the Son because they do not exist in the Spirit. Therefore, that the Spirit is had together from the Father and the Son is a natural good of the Father and the Son, but as their natural property. Therefore, because the Son communes with the Father in that ^B the Spirit is from both, it does not follow that the Spirit will commune with them in such a way that He Himself is from Himself. By this distinction, considered for the examination of the aforementioned proposition, which asserts, "Whatever things are common to the Father with the Son, these will also be common with the Holy Spirit," and from thence reproving those who think not rightly, who opine that the Spirit is a common cause of His own existence with the Father and the Son—if the Son has something common with the Father in that the Holy Spirit is from both—by what reasoning and similar communion do you, as if necessarily concluding something true, insinuate and decree that what is asserted by the Latins as dogma is more monstrous than the fables of the Gentiles? In the syllogisms of Photius, therefore, these and similar things were contained, and those already brought forward by us are sufficient, I think, to overturn them. Furthermore, in the progress of his speech, instituting a futile disputation, he says that these things are alleged by the Italians, who assert that the procession from the Son was decreed by Ambrose, Augustine, and Jerome; and in order to strike—perhaps—shame into the Italians, for the sake of these men who are most renowned for wisdom, he derives his answer from these things, namely: ^C 45. "Even if the aforementioned have said this, perhaps they said it according to dispensation, which the great Basil also used in his own time, or as men they fell away from the accurate knowledge of things, which many excellent men have suffered, such as Dionysius of Alexandria, Methodius of Patara, and others and others who have vindicated for themselves a name for holiness, whose certain sayings the Church—he reports—did not receive, although in other things they were held in the greatest admiration." ^D And this is the response of Photius on behalf of Ambrose, Augustine, and Jerome—contrived, perhaps, for the infamy of the Italians akin to them; we, however, judge these things to be rather to the infamy of those who, with both...

^A hands, reject the peace of the Roman Church. And let him who so wishes ^B consider this with respect to the truth itself. You say, Photius, that Ambrose, Augustine, and Jerome theologically asserted the Holy Spirit to be from the Father and the Son by dispensation, a usage which you admit even the great Basil employed in his own times. How, then, are you not overcome with shame, claiming for your own self an accurate knowledge of matters more sublime than even the great Basil, while not taking into account the weaknesses of others? And how did you fail to consider that, in those ancient days, our Fathers who shone in the firmament of our Church—namely the great Basil, Gregory who bore the surname of 'Theologian', the other Gregory of Nyssa, and John whose eloquence is a golden stream, as well as the many other great teachers who appeared after them—all of whom, in reading the commentaries of Ambrose, Augustine, and Jerome, numbered them among the saints, considered them to be among those who asserted the procession of the Spirit from the Son, and held communion with the Church of Rome which embraced their commentaries, attending to it as the Mother of the Churches? You say that they had fallen away from accurate knowledge, just as you say of this one or that one among our saints; but here you will appear clearly to be peddling falsehoods. For those who record ecclesiastical affairs are perfectly well aware of all the sayings of those saints which you claim the Church did not approve, since they are all sealed within the ecclesiastical volumes. And from that, it became evident that they had fallen ^C away from accurate knowledge. If, therefore, those other Fathers of the Roman Church—whom that age produced in such great numbers and of such high standing—and the lights of our own Church, who at that time embraced the union of the Churches, had perceived that the alleged Fathers of the Roman Church had fallen away from accurate knowledge, they would never have overlooked so great a mistake, which later became an object of inquiry for us, leaving it unmarked as they did. This too Photius says.

46. "The three said," he says, "as the Romans say. But the prelates of the seven synods did not say this, for they joined in decreeing that no dogma should be added to, nor taken away from, the handed-down definition of the faith, and that anyone who dared to do so should be utterly cut off from the Church." And Photius imagines that there is nothing common here—if indeed the three said this—because they said it as Romans. But I, for my part, declare it to be something very new, that Photius himself, and all who have been ^D zealots of the schism after him, were unwilling to embrace the union of the Roman Church, just as our own progenitors of those who first declared the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son, I mean Ambrose, Augustine, and Jerome, were unwilling. But as for his statement that "the prelates of the seven synods joined in decreeing that no dogma should be added to, nor taken away from, the handed-down definition of the faith, and that anyone who dared to do so should be utterly cut off from the Church," how does he not perceive that the definition of the faith from all the synods [is] the Creed of Nicaea...

as anyone who peruses the acts of the various synods can know? And I indeed affirm that this Creed of the Nicaean synod held its force without any alteration in the second, the third, and the other synods that followed. For I do not define alteration by the addition or subtraction of words, because our piety is defined not by terms, but by meanings. But if Photius defines the alteration of the definition of the faith handed down at the Nicaean synod by the addition or subtraction of words, then he judges all the prelates from the second synod and the other synods thereafter to be bold, and renders them liable to the prescribed penalties against those who dare such things. For no one who examines ecclesiastical matters is unaware that some words were subtracted from the Creed of the first Nicaean synod, and others were added to it. And if the Romans are to be judged by penalties because, in reciting the Creed of the second synod, they add that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, then the Fathers of the second synod should have been accused and punished much earlier, since they inserted this entire addition regarding the procession of the Spirit into the Creed of the first synod. But those very people who pronounce such terrible penalties against those who would dare [to make] an addition or subtraction in the Creed of the Nicaean synod, they themselves removed words from it, and they themselves added words to it. And this is clear evidence that the Fathers did not consider any addition or subtraction to be such, except that addition or subtraction which harms the meaning of piety. Therefore, the Romans, by adding a word while preserving the pious meaning concerning the Trinity, are not to be reckoned by us among the schismatics if we wish to render a right judgment. Among other things, the writing of Photius also contained: ^C 47. "That Pope Leo, having opened the treasury of the apostolic church, brought out two shields preserved among the other sacred offerings, containing an exposition of the faith in Greek letters and words, which he relates that Pope Leo ordered to be read before the entire Roman people." And I do not know what this contributes to Photius for the establishing of the schism. For the Romans have not neglected what Pope Leo did with these shields; for they have kept them set up even to this day, and at certain times they do not hesitate to read the Creed of the faith in Greek. Why do they do this? To show clearly that piety is honored by them not in words, but in meanings. For if this were not so, perhaps they would not have hesitated to add the addition of the word made in the Creed into the codex of the Gospel as well. But they have not so far lost their sense of shame; rather, they also answer when questioned, declaring that to say the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son is the same thing, as it makes no difference whether one says He proceeds from the Father, or from the Father and the Son; and to prove this, they say, [that] the name of the Father does not lie solely in that evangelical text, with the name of the Son being passed over in silence, but also in many

and that the one [Creed] which confirms the faith of Nicaea, the Second [Synod], did not make mention of the Son in that clause? They say this, desiring ^B to show that the name of the Father is not set down in this Gospel passage alone without the Son being proclaimed along with Him, but also in many other passages of Scriptural texts, in which it is not possible that the Son should not be understood as appropriately there. Not, then, [that] the Son is not proclaimed along with Him at times, nor that He will not be conceived together with the Father, but [it is] that He is conceived together with the Father, and will be proclaimed together with Him at times, just as it might seem to one wishing to speak about the Father and the Son, provided that He is conceived together with Him according to a pious understanding, even if not proclaimed together with Him, and is proclaimed together with Him in turn, when He is also conceived together with Him. And besides these, they bring forward those apostolic ^C sayings, saying: The Apostle said, "To the only invisible, wise God," and, "Who alone has immortality, dwelling in light unapproachable." And who will be so devoid of shame towards the truth as to dare to say that the Son is not a participant with the Father in the invisibility and wisdom which the Apostle assigns to the Father alone in the aforementioned passage? Likewise, who will say that the Son is devoid of the immortality attested by the Apostle ^D to the Father alone, and of the unapproachable light, which the Apostle says only the Father dwells in? Bringing forward these apostolic sayings, the Italians add: If here, where "only" is expressly expressed regarding the Father, the Son is not separated from the Father, how is He not also to be understood together with the Father in those [passages] where "only" is not attached to the Father? Furthermore, they propose that Gospel saying, "But of that day and that hour no one knows, not even the Son, but the Father only," as no weak argument for their defense. For behold, they say, it is the Son Himself who says that only the Father knows. But because He attaches the humility of ignorance to His own humanity, He allows one to understand His natural union with the Father, and from this, the one knowledge of the Father and of Himself. By which Gospel saying He insinuated the knowledge of natural union into the mind of those who were about to embrace piety. For of whose saying indeed? His own: "I and the Father are one." But it is now time to examine the final words of Photius. For when he had reached their end, he has this:

But what is the need to say many things?

and Gregory ^A another, and the golden-mouthed John, while accurately holding this voice of the Gospel, did not reject Ambrose, Augustine, and Jerome, who set it down that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (for I take this as acknowledged by you, and needing no other proof), but received them into communion, and through them the entire fullness of the Roman Church. ^B Similarly, the Fathers of the seven holy ecumenical synods considered all the disciples of the aforementioned theologians—men of Rome who filled the roll of the priesthood in the Roman Church—as partners and brothers. To whom, then, should we attach ourselves? To all of them, or to you, who assert this after the schism you propagated in the Church, and to those who have followed you, not in union, but in schism alone, which you yourself later admitted when led by repentance, and when, having assembled a great synod, you restored ecclesiastical affairs to their former splendor?

These things, then, have been said in response to the first of the two statements that appear to Photius to be most powerful for establishing the dissension of the Church. Now let us examine the ^C second, in which he introduces the great Paul pronouncing an anathema against anyone preaching an gospel alien to his own. Here, too, I warn anyone who wishes to examine the matter attentively not to seize heedlessly upon what has been said, and cast the vote of this condemnation against the Roman Church—or, before it, against all the synods which set forth and proclaimed many dogmas of which the great Paul is not found to have made any mention at all. For even this supreme height of the apostles forbids the introduction of anything contrary in sense to the Gospel; yet he does not attach the crime of corrupting the Gospel to anyone for any future addition of words to his Gospel. Whoever, therefore, wishes to impose the penalty of anathema so foolishly and indiscriminately upon those who, after Paul's Gospel, have decreed certain things not found in Paul's Gospel, I do not know how he will answer our Fathers who set down the term "consubstantial." For in which of Paul's writings is this found? ^D No one will ever encounter the term "Theotokos" in the Gospels of Paul, yet the Church of God proclaims it with a clear voice and rejects those who oppose it as heretics. And it is not because Paul did not use these words that those who spoke them later are judged as corruptors of the Gospel, but because they decreed these things according to the mind of Paul, they are ranked among the heralds of piety.

Among other things, consider also this now, by God himself, you who are a prudent and upright examiner of the present matters. Does it ever seem to you that the great Athanasius and the holy Fathers of ours who have been mentioned so often in these commentaries of ours, the defenders of piety—whom I am unable to address as fittingly as I should—ever conceived or spoke anything against our God and Savior? And to whom could such a thing ever enter their mind? But these men, even if the Savior says in the Gospels that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, did not [intend] the rejection of that doctrine

and that those who say the Spirit is from the Son did not hold it to be a rejection of his teaching? For some of them explicitly theologized that He exists from the Father and the Son, while others [said He exists and] proceeds from the Father through the Son. Therefore, let those who accuse the Latins of violating the evangelical words because of the addition of the term to the Creed take heed, lest before they accuse the Latins, they cast the crime of violating the evangelical words upon our own theologians, the Fathers themselves. For if one judges the addition of a term in other theological expressions to the evangelical terms to be a violation of the Gospel, without examining whether the meaning is in agreement with the evangelical and scriptural words of the theology of the Fathers, such a person will call even him who says the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son a violator of the Gospel, and will charge him who says He exists from the Father and the Son with the same violation; and not only them, but also him who said that He comes forth from the Father. For perhaps such a person ^B would be brazen enough to say even to the Theologian [Gregory of Nazianzus]: "Why, when Christ says in the Gospels that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, did you, in many of your theological writings, say that He comes forth from the Father?" For if you—whoever you may be—are going to be so grudging with words and accuse one who says "comes forth" instead of "proceeds" of perverting the evangelical words, if the greatness of the one who spoke convinces you to see both these terms as having the same meaning, no reason is left for you not to embrace from the heart the union of the Roman Church, which indeed added the term to the Creed of the faith, but preserves the true and genuine meaning of piety ^C unchanged.

49. But since everything regarding Photius has an end, the discourse must now turn to those things which, some time ago, the monk John Phurnes, head of Mount Ganos, composed against the Latins, thinking it a great thing for his own glory, as it seems, if he were to untimely and ambitiously promote the dissension of the Church, not seeing the prejudice impending upon him from this. For he, turning his discourse toward a certain archbishop of Milan, and having introduced this archbishop as proposing—in order to demonstrate that the Spirit is also from the Son—that evangelical text in which the Son says, "All things that the Father has are mine," ^D brings forward these words to overturn the archbishop's proposition:

JOHN PHURNES

"That the Son has all things of the Father is entirely true and undeniable, but only what is common to the whole Godhead, such as the eternal, the super-substantial, and the like. But the characteristic property of the paternal hypostasis, the Son cannot have. For the name 'Father' is personal, and peculiar only to the unbegotten Father."

^A Thus much, then, from Phurnes to the Archbishop. But you, reader, who look upon these things, consider them carefully. When the Archbishop proposed the words, "All things that the Father has are the Son's," he himself [Phurnes] counters: "It is so. Everything of the Father's is the Son's, save only those things common to the whole Deity"—as if he were saying that the Son possesses those things of the Father that are also common to the Spirit. For this is what his induction signifies, when he mentions, for instance, the eternal, the supersubstantial, and things of that sort. ^B By this he clearly signals that he wishes only that which is common to the Spirit to be considered common to the Father and the Son, and that there is nothing peculiar that is common to the Father and the Son which does not also belong to the Spirit. But I say that he has strayed from the truth in this. For as we have shown in our objections against Photius, there are indeed goods common to the three which naturally reside in them, as things belonging to them by nature and not acquired from without, such as the eternal, the supersubstantial, and the like; yet there is also something common to the Father and the Son which is not common to the Spirit. And this will be made manifest not from other sources, but from the Spirit of Truth Himself, of whom our discourse treats. For it is common to the Father and the Son that the Spirit should be from both, and it is common to the Father and the Son that both ^C pour forth, send out, and radiate the Spirit hypostatically and essentially. But the Spirit Himself does not pour forth, radiate, or send out another Spirit from Himself in the hypostatic sense, save only His own proper gifts. Phurnes, then, denying that there is anything common to the Father and the Son that is not also common to the Spirit, and thereby contradicting the Archbishop regarding those points on which he proposed this evangelical utterance, "All things that the Father has are mine," as a proof that the Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of the Son, does so neither correctly nor in a manner worthy of the tradition of the Scriptures. For that which this man says, he adds to this: that the Son cannot possess the characteristic property of the paternal hypostasis, and he thinks that by this means he can invalidate ^D the ability of the Son to send forth the Spirit just as the Father does. This was not a clever line of reasoning. For the characteristic property of the paternal hypostasis is this: to be the Father, and unbegotten, and the Father of the Son; and the Son cannot possess this property. But if Phurnes wishes to say that the act of sending forth the Spirit is the property of the paternal hypostasis, if this were true, the Spirit would never have been called the Spirit of the Son. For if the Father possesses the Spirit in the capacity of Father, since the Son cannot be the Father, He would not have the Spirit. But it is confessed that the Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of the Son, and this is henceforth irrefutably manifest, that the Spirit is from the Father as from God, and from the Son as from God; yet from the Father as from a fount without beginning—a beginningless source of Divinity—and from the Son as from a fount having its being from thence, whence it also has the cause of its own hypostasis. Therefore, whether Phurnes or anyone else says that the Spirit cannot be from the Son because it is the property of the paternal hypostasis,

he falls away from correct understanding. And since Phurnes, proceeding further, repeats: ^B 50. “If the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son, the property of the Father is displaced.”

We, opposing this, say: Just as the property of the Father is not displaced when it is said that the Spirit is from the Father and from the Son, in the same way, the property of the Father is not displaced when the Italians say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son. For those who assert that the Spirit is also from the Son, if they were saying that He is from the Son as from an independent fountain without the Father, they would be bringing about a displacement of the paternal property, decreeing the Son to be a fountain of the Spirit without a beginning, just as the Father is. But if, when they say the Spirit is from the Son, they bring forward the great Basil, who affirms that what is said to be from the Son has its reference to the Father as the first cause, they leave no suspicion of any displacement of the paternal property. Therefore, just as those who confess that the Spirit is from the Father and the Son, because of the things already said, preserve the paternal property unmoved, so for the same reasons those who assert that He proceeds from the Father and the Son preserve the paternal property unmoved.

Regarding the things subsequently said by Phurnes, in which he says: ^C 51. “If all things that the Father and the Son have, the Holy Spirit also has, since He is of the same nature and deity, it will necessarily be concluded that something must also proceed from Him.”

We say: Even though it is pious to affirm that the Holy Spirit has all things that the Father and the Son have, this must be understood entirely of those common things which the three persons of the Deity have in communion among themselves because of their one nature and one deity. But it has not been decreed that the Spirit is from the Son because of the Son’s nature and deity being the same as the Father’s, in such a way that, as Phurnes supposes, it would follow that something also proceeds from the Spirit because of the Spirit’s same nature and deity with the Father and the Son. For the three persons of the Deity commonly participate among themselves in the same nature and the same deity. And what is inherent in one because of its same nature with the rest will also be in the other two. And if the Spirit were also from the Son because of the Son’s same nature with the Father, then the Son would also be from the Spirit because of the Spirit’s same nature with the Father; ^D or rather, these three would be one from the other. But now it follows, indeed, that the Son is of the same nature as the Father, because He is from the essence of the Father, yet the Father is not compelled to be also from the Son because of the Father’s same nature with the Son. For whatever is from the Father, like the Son, that is of the same essence with the Father, because it is from the essence of the Father; but it is not the case that whatever is of the same essence with someone, this is also as if it exists from the Father of that same essence. And so, the Spirit is indeed of the same essence as the Son,

but not because He is of the same essence with the Son, is He therefore from the Son; for otherwise the Son would also be from the Spirit, if His being of the same essence were convertible. Thus, those who have at various times explained the Spirit as being the Son’s Spirit because of their consubstantiality—these are caught having vainly concocted such interpretations. And Phurnes is now refuted regarding what has already been said, as he does not speak correctly:

52. ^B "If whatever the Father and the Son have, the Holy Spirit also has, on account of His consubstantiality and consubstantial deity, it will necessarily be inferred that He must also proceed from Him."

That the Spirit is not said to be from the Son because the Son is of the same nature as the Father—from which Phurnes was striving to derive the aforementioned absurdity—has already been demonstrated. But if he wishes to learn the cause for which the Spirit is said to be from the Son, let him listen and give credence to the great Basil, who decrees that the Spirit is from the Son because "whatever the Father has, belongs to the Son," while still preserving the unoriginate cause in the Father, because everything said to be from the Son is referred back to the primal cause, the Father. Regarding the subsequent syllogism, which he sets out thus:

53. ^C "If there are two causes of the Spirit’s procession, ^D then the following absurdities will ensue."

It will be quite sufficiently refuted by saying that there is none who asserts two causes for the Spirit; and since this is not posited, he vainly weaves the chain of absurdities that he imagines follow from it. Meanwhile, the archbishop continues to be troubled by him, as he calls the fact that the Spirit is from the Father the "hypostatic property" of the Father, and accuses him of "ditheism" for saying that He is also from the Son. How could someone saying these things—I know not with what eyes—look upon Gregory of Nyssa, that most learned in theological matters, who weaves a long discourse concerning the properties which are in the Trinity, and does not assert what Phurnes does—namely, that being the Spirit from the Father is the hypostatic property of the Father—but most clearly establishes the property of the Father as being that He is the Father and that He is without cause. And if someone were to affirm that this—the Spirit being from the Father—is the hypostatic property of the Father, this Father of ours, the Nyssene, also says that the Spirit is from the Son, and, what is more worthy of consideration, he does this not in his other orations, but in those where he explains the distinction between the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, and defines the property of the Spirit toward the Son Himself. Thus, if the saint, arranging the three holy properties in their own order, says that the property of the Father is that He is without cause, and clearly teaches that the property of the Son is solely, and is encompassed only by, being from the Father, then he subsequently defines the property of the Spirit as being that He is from the Father and from the Son. How, then, does he not explicitly contradict the view of Nyssa's hypostatic...

^A property of the Father, who defines the Spirit as being from the Father? And lest we perhaps seem to be inventing these things from ourselves, we shall set down the sequence of his words, which he laid out in his homily on the Lord's Prayer, the beginning of which is: "When the great Moses was conducting the Israelite people in the mystery on the mountain," here again, as before, we shall place what is digested in these words: "For when the Son went forth from the Father, as the Scripture tells us, and the Spirit proceeds from God and from the Father, but just as being without cause belongs only to the Father—which cannot be adapted to the Son nor to the Spirit—so conversely, to be from a cause, which is proper to the Son and to the Spirit, is alien to the nature of the Father. But since it is common to the Son and the Spirit not to be unbegotten, lest a confusion regarding the subject be introduced, it is possible again to find an unmixed difference in their properties, so that the common may be preserved and the proper not be confused. For the only-begotten Son is said in the holy Scripture to be from the Father, and the discourse does not extend his property beyond this. But the Holy Spirit is said to be from the Father and is testified to be from the Son. For 'if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ,' he says, 'he is not His.' Therefore, the Spirit who is from God is also the Spirit of Christ; but the Son, being from God, is no longer also the Spirit, nor is He so called, nor does this relative sequence convert." When this holy Father is theologizing about the divine properties ^B and clearly establishing the property of the Son as being from the Father, and explicitly confessing as the property of the Spirit that He is said to be from the Father and testified to be from the Son, it is in vain that the Phurnes denominates as a hypostatic property of the Father that the Spirit is from the Father. But who would not blush at the subsequent syllogisms? For he writes the following in his reasoning against his opponent:

54. "But if you say that the Spirit is from the Son because He is called the Spirit of the Son, what shall we say about Joseph, who said to his brethren: 'Do not be afraid, for I am God's?' Do we think that Joseph had his existence from the divine nature? And when David says: 'The earth is the Lord's,' shall we grant that it is from God's nature?"

Papae! What power does an unjust exasperation have against brothers? For unless the contradiction had arisen from ill-timed and irrational zeal, when would a man instructed in wisdom and eloquence have ever uttered such things? Moreover, he adds to what has been said—nor is this from a sense of shame—he adds: "What is said to be someone's ^C will not necessarily be from him," and he was unable to detect the falsehood of his proposition. For the proposition asserting, "Everything that is someone's is not from him" is not true, but rather the statement, "Not everything that is someone's is also from him." For some things will be found which are both someone's and yet not from him, such as things that are external to someone's nature, like someone's garment, someone's bed, and the like. ^D

There will also be found some things that both belong to someone and are from him, as all things that are of someone's essence, such as someone's son, who is also from him, and someone's spirit, which is also from him. But what a fine example, for it approaches our subject very closely. For if, in all things subject to corruptible spirit, there is not one in which the spirit is not from that person, by what reasoning could anyone contend that the Spirit of the Son is not also from the Son? By these points, therefore, the words of Phurnas are concluded, ^B which seemed to me worthy of refutation. For if he intermixes anything else in them, it has been judged that it should be disregarded rather than subjected to contradictions, because from those things which have been said, the refutation of those that have not been said can easily be prepared. [53.] Now we subject the pronouncements of Nicolaus of Methone to examination.

NICOLAUS OF METHONE

For he, at the very beginning of his speech, attempts with very prolix loquacity to assert that “to produce from oneself is a paternal property.” However, this opinion does not please us, because both are not produced from the Father as Sons. For simply to produce is not a paternal property—for then the Spirit would also be a Son—but to produce by way of generation, this is truly a property of the Father, in that ^C what is produced as a Son is produced from the Father, not simply as from God, but from the fount, I mean, of the Deity. And there is one and the same fount of the Deity, from which the Son and the Spirit proceed in different ways. But because the Son is produced from this fount of the Deity by way of generation and immediately, for this reason the Father, and the God-generating deity, is called the fount of the Deity in the generation of the Son. But because the Spirit is not from it by way of generation, nor immediately as the Son is, but is from it through the Son according to a different mode of existence, for this reason the Father is called the fount of the Deity here, so that it is not simply "to produce," but "to produce in this way," that is demonstrated as a paternal property in the God-generating deity. For if the Spirit were also from the Father ^D directly and immediately just as the Son, certainly no one among the saints would ever have dared to assert that the Spirit is also from the Son. But since the Fathers declare that the Son is from the Father directly and immediately, but that the Spirit is from the Father through the Son, and they teach that He proceeds from the Father through the Son, for this reason they have also said in many places in their writings that the Spirit is from the Son. And the Spirit is both as from the Father, the God-generating source, and as from the Son, the fount, yet not as from a fount separate from the Father: for the Father is a fount of the Spirit, and the Son is a fount of the Spirit; but the Father is and is called the fount of the Spirit, as the fount of Deity and the principle without beginning; but the Son is a fount in that He naturally and essentially pours forth the Spirit who emanates from the Father through Himself. We have therefore demonstrated, I believe, that the Methonian does not rightly attribute the procession of the Spirit to a paternal property, which is instead more fittingly accommodated to the beginningless fount of the Deity. Now, furthermore, we must consider what he then—

^A adds, that most celebrated saying of the great Dionysius, which runs as follows:

"That the Father is the fountain-source of the Deity, and the Son and the Spirit are, if one ought to say it so, God-begotten shoots, and as it were blossoms and supersubstantial lights, we have received from the sacred Oracles; but how these things are is impossible to express or conceive."

This saying, the writer of Methone, weaving it into his own arguments, appears to involve in such an interpretation, one that many others after him also take—as I myself have heard them explaining with my own ears—contending from that word by which you name the two effects as "God-begotten shoots" that no one can ever say the Spirit is also from the Son, "because a shoot cannot be from a shoot." And the Methonensian, indeed, bringing forward this saying of the great Dionysius to overthrow [the doctrine] that the Spirit is also from the Son, proposes the image of the duality of shoots in the example to bolster his own argument, saying, "it cannot be that a shoot is ever from a shoot."

But I say that the image of this example would have been appropriate ^B if those God-begotten shoots were separated into distinct parts, as is sometimes the case here among these lower things which are perceived by sight. But now, that those God-begotten shoots are not separated is known from the fact that the Son is indeed named a shoot, but one proximate to the one from whom He is, and the Spirit is also a shoot, but [proceeding] through the shoot of the Son, growing from the root of the Father. Therefore, the Son and the Spirit have been named God-begotten shoots by the holy writer, not because they bloom from thence in a separated manner, but simply because they bloom forth. For the expression denotes only the notion of the effect, ^C signifying their simple existence and that they do not emanate from thence dividedly.

How, then, does the Methonensian ordain that the Son and the Spirit are from the Father as shoots separated from one another, and imply that the disciple of Paul was ignorant of the natural order of the Trinity, by saying "it cannot be that a shoot is from a shoot"? For if, as the Methonensian contends, the Son and the Spirit are like separated shoots from the Father, how then will the Spirit be third in order as the great Basil teaches, and the Son be said to be intermediate between the Father and the Spirit? Or how is the Spirit called the immediate image of the Son, but the image of the Father through the Son?

That the great initiate in divine things, Dionysius, named the Son and the Spirit shoots not because they bloom dividedly from the Father, but because they bloom simply and solely, can be understood by those who examine his words more attentively, ^D and also from the fact that he does not here call the Father the "root," although we have found [others/him] having spoken in this manner elsewhere. For, having called the Father the fountain-source of the Deity, he directly added: "The Son and the Spirit are God-begotten shoots, and as it were blossoms and supersubstantial lights." And yet, in relation to the shoots, the Father ought to have been called "root" by the great Dionysius.

But he, lest anyone perhaps should dwell on the expression, conceiving in his imagination the immutability of that which was brought forward as an example ^A regarding the example itself, by calling the Father the fount of Deity, signified by the names of shoots, flowers, and lights the effects that proceed from Him, of which none has a proportional relation to the fount. Let those, therefore, who encounter such expressions understand that the theologian Fathers who said such things did not intend to introduce a division between the Son and the Spirit, but looked only to the effect from the Father; and, according to a varied use of terms, desiring to signify the cause and the effect, they called them twin rivers from one fount, shoots born from a root, two blossoms from one branch, two lights from one sun. And some of them, signifying only the effect in such varied terms, thus hinted at it; but others, showing how the effects relate to one another and are referred to the cause, said that this one was immediately from the first, and that one through him who was immediately from the first. But he who can more attentively fix his thought upon this expression, "through him who is immediately," and grasp how no one among the Fathers ever asserted that the Spirit is immediately from the Father, will say that the Spirit is also from the Son, and will preserve the cause for the Father; just as one who says ^B the fruit is from the root through the branch, and from the branch, and the stream from the eye through the fount, and from the fount.

56. And of these things, indeed, this is enough. But as for the things that follow in the sayings of the Methonian, since no other new opinion is concluded therein, but the same which others have hinted at, and to which we have responded in what was said above, we say nothing, rejecting untimely talkativeness. For ^C to inculcate the same things over and over and to treat them with delirious futility brings satiety: such as are discussed in the progress of his speech, concerning the one principality of theology, concerning the singularity of generation and procession, concerning the immutability of sonship into fatherhood and of fatherhood into sonship, concerning the indivisible relation to two principles, concerning the most absolute perfection of each of the three persons, concerning the distinction of mission and procession, in which difference he even complicates that wonderful [notion] that ^D "Gabriel proceeds from the Father, as sent by God the Father, and Moses also as sent by God." Since, therefore, his subsequent speech expounds these things, he who has accurately read through what has been treated of previously in this our Commentary will have no need of others to refute them. And for that reason, we have deemed it superfluous and untimely to repeat anything from them again.

7. But as for that section of the Methonian's sayings where, in expounding the text, "He shall take of mine," he affirms that "nothing is signified by this evangelical text, that the Spirit receives from the Son, but from the Father," who would not judge that he wanders from the truth when he has run through the expositions of the Fathers concerning this text, one of which lies in the *Ancoratus* of the great Epiphanius, which even alone

can suffice, and I shall set it forth again in the present work for the refutation of that perverse interpretation of those who do not accept this saying as a declaration that the Spirit is from the Son. For this man, so great in divine matters, Epiphanius, in one part of the aforementioned *Ancoratus*, says thus: "But if Christ is believed to be from the Father, God from God, and the Spirit from Christ, or from both, as Christ says, 'He who proceeds from the Father, and he shall take from mine,' ^A who, running through this passage, would not discern as this saint does, that to take from the Son is to indicate nothing other than that it is from the Son, while the expression states that He proceeds from the Father?"

58. But the Methonensian also weaves long-winded discourses concerning the breathing, to demonstrate, perhaps, that the gift breathed [upon them] was a spiritual one, and not the relative indwelling itself of the whole Spirit. Nor does he blush in this to contradict the great Athanasius, the great Basil, and the admirable Cyril; but, seizing on the manifold meanings of "Spirit"—as if it were one of those instances in the Holy Scriptures where the name of the Spirit insinuates various meanings—he attempts to accept the Spirit breathed by the Son also in this sense. By which, as if mocking the Italian, he says that the procession of the Divine Spirit is revealed to be manifold from this concept, calling the breathing that was given to the apostles one specific procession, and another the one breathed of old along with the soul into the first-created man, and another that which strengthened all the power of the heavens. And he does not perceive that there is nothing sound in these claims. For the Italian does not at that time represent the Spirit—that which is the complement of the Trinity—as receiving existence [in time] when He was breathed by the Creator into the first-created man, and subsequently into the disciples by the Savior; nor does he consider that He indwells the disciples essentially. Wishing, rather, to signify the relative indwelling of the whole Spirit, which occurs ineffably and beyond words in those who receive Him, he contends to demonstrate that the Spirit is not given by the Son to those to whom He does give Him as if it were something foreign to His essence, and as if He were not existing from His essence, but that He is sending Him ^B as if emanating from Himself, and pouring Him forth as His own essential and hypostatic breathing. For it is not the character of those who possess and pass Him on merely by participation—namely, the prophets and apostles and those after them who have been deemed worthy of the apostolic gift—to give Him in that way [i.e., essentially].

58. But when again in what follows the Latin, for the purpose of demonstrating that the Spirit is from the Son, puts forward the fact that the Spirit is called the Spirit of Christ, ^C the Methonensian objects in return, "Not everything that belongs to someone is already from him"; and he speaks of the changing of paternal boundaries, the innovation of preaching, the subversion of the faith, the imposition of curses, the imperfection of the confession of the saints, the vanity of the martyrs' contests, and the ascetic labors ^D

^A Likewise, therefore, since the force of the preposition does not concede that "from the Father alone," or the existence of the Spirit from the Father, is taken in order to distinguish the Son from Him, do we persuade you to accept this view based on what we have already said, or do you require other scriptural testimonies so that you may know more clearly, in order to prove that the Father is the first cause, and that the "from the Father alone" is to be understood in that sense—if indeed this were ever to be found set down in any theological pronouncements? I know that you require other testimonies, which we are compelled to bring forward ourselves even though they are not demanded by you, as we promised to announce them in the upper parts of our discourse. ^B Great Basil, in one of his letters to Amphilochius, the beginning of which is, “The evangelical statement has already been investigated by many, concerning our Lord Jesus Christ not knowing the day and the hour of the end,” says: “The word ‘no one’ seems to be a universal statement, such that not even one person is excluded by this expression; however, it is not recorded in the Scripture in that way, as we have observed in the case of, ‘No one is good except one, God.’ For the Son does not say this by placing Himself outside the nature of the Good; but because the Father is the first Good, when ‘the first’ is understood along with ‘no one,’ we believe that the ‘second’ is spoken of.” Observe the incomparable, great, and profound Basil, whom you consider in his wisdom, and what kind of interpretation he deems worthy for the evangelical statement, “No one is good except one, God.” For it clearly manifests that the name of the Father is indicated in the phrase, “except one, God.” For this reason he adds, “For the Son does not say this by placing Himself outside the nature of the Good.” ^C For having said, “except one, God,” and then adding that the Son does not say this by placing Himself outside the nature of the Good, he has declared that the phrase, “except one, God,” was said concerning the Father. In interpreting how it is possible for the Son to be understood together with the Father, and yet be distinguished from the Father in this evangelical utterance, “No one is good except one, God,” he adds again: “But because the Father is the first Good, when ‘the first’ is understood along with ‘no one,’ we believe that the second is spoken of.” What could be clearer than this for you, to prove that the statement, “No one is good except one, God,” is not taken in order to distinguish the Son, but to declare that the Father is [and is to be understood as] the first Good? ^D And if the authoritative word of the great Basil persuades you not to argue against the things said by him, you can certainly discern that it is not in vain that we promised you at the beginning of our discourse to prove, from the explanations of the great Basil regarding evangelical statements, that the phrase “from the Father alone”—if indeed it were ever to be found set down in any theological pronouncements—is not spoken in order to distinguish the Son, but only to represent that the Father is the first cause and is [to be understood as] the first.

Since the Father alone is said to be the cause, we shall not hesitate to provide other passages from the interpretations of the great Basil, which we believe contribute to the substantiation of the purpose we have set before us. For in the above-mentioned epistle, which is one of those [written] to Amphilochius, after explaining the text, "No one is good except one, the Father," and clarifying how the Lord said this in the Gospels, "not by placing himself outside the nature of the Good, but by declaring that the Father is the first good," he adds that the same is true of the text: "No one knows the Son except the Father; for the Son does not accuse the Spirit of ignorance there, but testifies that the knowledge of the [divine] nature resides in the Father first." ^A Do you see how, here too, he does not interpret [the text] as meaning that the knowledge of the Son—which is said to be from the Father alone—is [so stated] for the purpose of distinguishing the Spirit, but [rather] to declare that the knowledge of the Son's nature resides in the Father first? Observe this, and derive from it the conclusion that the phrase "the Father alone" is not to be taken in the Scriptures as [implying] a distinction of the Son, where the Son must also be understood together [with Him]. For had it been so, there would have been a distinction of the Spirit from the Father in the text, "No one knows the Son except the Father." But the great Basil subsequently adds, again, in this way: "And we believe that the text, 'No one knows,' is spoken for the purpose of ascending [in thought] to the Father as the first knowledge of things present and future, and of indicating to men the first cause through all things." And a few lines after this passage, he adds further: "Having therefore passed over his own person in silence, as something confessed, the Lord says that the Father alone knows, saying that the knowledge of the Father is also his own by implication [lit. *through reticence*]." Consider the depth of this interpretation and perceive the reasoning according to which the Saint explains why the Father alone knows. For he says: "The Lord says that the knowledge of the Father is also his own by implication." If you investigate the depth of this argument, you will recognize that those who present as a great difficulty the problem—"If the Spirit also exists from the Son, why did the Lord in the Gospels say, 'who proceeds from the Father,' without adding 'and from me'?"—are uninitiated in the dogmatic mysteries. ^B If the great Basil assigns the cause for the withholding of the name of the Son, in those places where he says the Father alone knows this, clearly by stating that the knowledge of the Father is, by implication, the knowledge also of the Son, who would be justified in doubting, like some cleaner dwelling-place of the Spirit, or according to the great Basil, why the name of the Son is not uttered openly together with the name of the Father? And if it is not uttered, why is it understood together [with Him]? ^C The great Basil sets forth, as a kind of axiom and dogma, that the Son is understood together with the Father by implication where the name of the Father is spoken with the addition of "alone"; and you, whoever you may be who raise these questions, say: "Why is the Son not uttered together with the Father in the procession of the Spirit?"

^A Indeed, that the Italians saying the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son does not make two principles of the one, the great Basil will testify; and again, that what is said to be from the Son is referred to the first cause, the Father, as he writes: "For he who in this manner weighs the words, saying due to the declaration that the Spirit is from the Father and from the Son, will never accuse the Romans as if they were dogmatizing two principles of the Spirit in saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son." And these things have been said concerning the first syllogism mentioned. ^B But the second of the syllogisms—"Since the Spirit being from both introduces imperfection for both persons"—is sufficiently confuted by what we have already said for the overthrow of one of those very opinions taken from the syllogisms of Photius; since it has for the matter of its own proof that it is impossible for something common in the Trinity to be proper, and for all that is proper not to be common: and in the overthrow and traversal of this syllogism, no doubt will remain for the reader of what we have written, when we refuted similar syllogisms of Photius. Similarly, the refutation of the other syllogism of Methonensis will be easy, in which he fabricates a confusion into one of the Father and the Son, and a division of the simplicity of the one Spirit, if we say the Spirit is from the Father and the Son. But when I arrived at the subsequent syllogism, it seemed necessary to arrange it just as it lies in the discourse, and to use a more extended argument in its refutation. The syllogism is as follows: ^C

68. "If the Father and the Son are altogether one in nature, for this reason, just as from the Father, so also from the Son must it be granted that the Spirit proceeds: for this is what the innovation of the Latin dogma demands; then it must also be granted that the Son necessarily is begotten from the Spirit, just as from the Father; because the Father and the Spirit are one in nature; if not, the Spirit risks not being one in nature with the Father. And again we shall grant Macedonius free room to speak."

Man of God, have you yourself alone been constituted the accuser and judge of the Romans? And who among those who are now or ever have been has heard from the Italians such an interpretation concerning the holy Trinity? ^D For if the Latins said that the Spirit is from the Son as from the Father because of the sameness of nature, not only would the absurdity result which you yourself collect—namely, that the Son necessarily is begotten from the Spirit as from the Father—but many other things besides. For if it were said that the Spirit is from the Son just as from the Father because of the same nature, for this same reason it would similarly be compelled that he [the Son] beget along with the Father. Likewise, if because of the same nature the Spirit were from the Son just as from the Father, then the Son also, like the Father, would be without beginning and without cause. For the Spirit is from the Father as from a source without beginning; if he were also from the Son in the same manner, as you suppose, in every way he [the Son] too would be without princi-

^Aple, and would refer the entire effusion of the Spirit to the Father as the first cause and principle, according to the great Basil. The Romans, therefore, holding such a view, assert that the Spirit is from the Son. But you, characterizing them as if they were replying that they assert the Spirit to be from the Father and from the Son on account of the same nature, appear to wickedly accuse them, calling [their doctrine] a novel usage of Latin dogma—which they do not state—and blatantly naming these things [the teachings] of Macedonius. Another syllogism is again woven for you, that the Son is generated from the Spirit, and you conclude [your argument] as if by necessity:

63. If, on account of the equal dignity of the Father and the Son, the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son; for the Father is of the same dignity with the Spirit.

And what shall we answer you in these matters? Perhaps many monstrous generations of the Son from the Spirit will be devised by you, if now you wish the Spirit to be from the Father and the Son on account of the same nature, now on account of the same dignity, now on account of the same glory, now on account of the same power. Furthermore, what is the consequence of your syllogisms already stated, in which you strongly maintain that the Son would appear to be, by all means, greater than the Spirit in the Scriptures, if the Spirit were also said to proceed from the Son? For it seems, most wise one, that it has escaped you that the great Athanasius, in his first discourse against the Arians, quite clearly declares the Son to be greater than the Spirit. ^C The syllogism which you connect after this, and which gravely attacks the Italian [the Latin doctrine], in that it affirms that "Everything which is understood and spoken of in the supersubstantial Trinity is either common to the three, or proper to one," has been refuted by us through the grace of God, while we showed that there is something common to two which is not communicated to the third, and that there is something proper to two of which the third is not a participant. Similarly, the other of the syllogisms following this, asserting that two causes of the Spirit appear, the Father and the Son, if anyone says the Spirit is from the Father and the Son, has been rejected by those words of ours in which we showed that he who says the Spirit is from the Father and the Son brings forward one cause, because He [the Spirit] is from the Father through the Son; for the expression "through the Son" has ^D the declaration of the pre-initiatory cause, as we affirm again with the great Basil. Nor will the syllogism that follows, which suggests an imperfect procession from the Father if the Spirit is also said to exist from the Son, require any new thought for its refutation; for it will suffice for its overturning to use what we have said regarding the syllogism of Photius which has a similar structure. Likewise, for the refutation of the syllogism following that one, which says that the Father and the Son are two principles of the Spirit, there will be taken the arguments we stated against the syllogism of the same Photius, which is in precisely the same condition.

65. Just as the syllogism following this one, ^A both together will have the same answer. For when each of them possesses the substance of the propositions, when they call the Father the "cause of those things which are from him, by reason of the hypostasis and not by reason of the nature," this one proves one absurdity, that one another; while you yourself, who put them together, do not know that none of the saints has ever said that the Father is the cause of those things which are from him by reason of the hypostasis, and not by reason of the nature. To me, indeed, who have diligently searched and examined almost all theological writings, it has never happened that I have encountered such distinctions. For if such a distinction between essence and hypostasis ^B were found among our theological Fathers in the causality of the persons who are from the Father, the Father would never have been called "generating naturally" according to you, who call the Father the cause of those things that are from him by reason of the hypostasis and not by reason of the nature. But now, the Scriptures decree that the Son is begotten sometimes "from the Father," which denotes his hypostasis, and sometimes "from the essence of the Father." From which it is clearly evident that such distinctions have been vainly concocted by those who concoct them. And it will not be beside the point to recount here the testimonies handed down in writing, that God begets naturally, and that the offspring or child ^C is called the Son of God's essence and nature, so that the madness of him who dares to assert that the Father is the cause of those things that are from him by reason of the hypostasis, and not by reason of the nature, may be refuted in every way. For immediately the great Athanasius, in the dialogue with Arius held at the Council of Nicaea, the beginning of which is, "By the providence of God, I have arrived with my dearest brothers to the servants of Christ, whom I desired," reports: "Therefore, God saying to his own Son through the prophet, 'From the womb before the morning star I have begotten thee' (Ps. CIX, 3), ^D denotes the generation of the Son from the paternal essence." And after a few words: "He names the womb for no other reason than to show that the Son himself was begotten from the essence of the Father." And again: "We have received that the Son was begotten from the essence of God and the Father." The same man, in the discourse whose beginning is, "Rightly did you do in signifying to me the inquiry made by you," has these words: "The Son would not be the same as a creature, lest his essence be accounted as being both from God and outside of God." And after many words in the same place: "The essence of the Son is not something extraneous and invented, nor was it introduced from things that are not, but it sprang from the essence of the Father, as refulgence from light, and as vapor from water." And the great Basil, in the letter to the Canonicae, whose beginning is: "How much a sad rumor, echoing in our ears, has distressed us," writes: "When we are taught that the Son is from the essence of the Father, let us not fall away into bodily notions of passions; for the essence is neither divided from the Father into the Son, nor did it flow as it begat, but the mode of the divine generation can by no means be explained." But also again the great

Athanasius, in the epistle from the synod to those in Jerusalem, to the Church of Alexandria, the beginning of which is: "To all of us who have assembled in one place from different provinces," says: ^A "For those who have anathematized the Arian heresy know that the Word is not a creature, but a generation from the essence, and that the essence of the Father is the beginning and root and fountain of the Son."

Will these many scriptural testimonies seem sufficient enough to you, in reading our present arguments, to refute the Methonean for not having spoken correctly that "the Father is the cause of those things which are from Him by reason of hypostasis, and not by reason of nature"? For if the essence of God is spoken of, and the Son is named as the generation of the Father's essence, just as the adduced written testimonies prove, what compels the Methonean to divide the essence of the Father and the hypostasis of the Father in the cause of those things which are from Him? For he who says that the Son or the Spirit is from the Father has openly brought forth the essence of the Father in the hypostasis; and he who says that the Son or the Spirit is from the essence of the Father reveals the whole Father. And he who says that the Spirit is from the essence of the Son declares the whole Son to be essential and subsistent.

But if anyone wishes to say that the Father is the cause of those things which are from Him by the logic of hypostasis, and not by the logic of nature, and through this superfluous and inopportune hair-splitting wishes to take it into another meaning—when he hears "from the essence of the Father," taking "from the Father" for the declaration of hypostasis, but distinguishing "from the essence of the Father" for the declaration of a ^B special meaning, so that from this there might follow as a necessary consequence that the Spirit is not understood to exist from the Son when the Scriptures say the Spirit is from the essence of the Son—let him consider to what absurdities this inopportune hair-splitting will force him. For whoever it may be that says these things, he says that one thing is meant when the Scriptures say the Spirit is from the essence of the Son, and another when they theologize that He exists from the Son.

I, however, maintain that the hypostasis of the Son is not to be understood in a separate division when the Spirit is said to be from His essence, nor is His essence to be separated from the hypostasis when the same Spirit is said to be from the Son; but I maintain that the Son is taken as a whole when the Spirit is said to exist both from the Son and from the essence of the Son. I rather discern that it is signified even more fully that the Spirit exists essentially from the Son when It is said to be from the essence of the Son, because the ministering spirits are indeed from the Son, but as His creatures and works, whereas the Holy Spirit is from Him, but from His essence, as being essentially subsistent from Him, but not as one of the ministering spirits that are from Him, the created and made ones. I, therefore, as I said, when I hear that the Spirit is from the essence of the Son, and when [I hear that it is] from the ^C essence of the Son, ^D and when I conceive of the same as being from the Son, I conclude that the Spirit is essentially from the Son. But if anyone fashions implausible and inopportune divisions, and while the Spirit is said to be from the essence of the Son, does not understand Him to be essentially from the Son, but demands, "Why"

if he who said "from the essence" did not say "from the hypostasis," let him consider that in some of the divine Scriptures, ^A the Spirit is found to proceed from the Father, and in others to proceed from the essence of the Father. If, therefore, whenever He is found to proceed from the Father, he wishes to understand Him as proceeding from the hypostasis, it is manifest that whenever He is found to proceed from the essence of the Father, he will conceive of another procession from the essence of the Father, and there will be, according to him, one Spirit from one Father having two processions: one from the hypostasis, and another from the essence. What could be said to be more absurd or more monstrous than this? But such a person will also be forced to grant a double generation of the Son from the Father. For if the Scriptures sometimes hand down that the Son is begotten from the Father, and sometimes assert that He is begotten from the essence of the Father, how will there not be one generation of the Son from the hypostasis of the Father, and another from the essence of the Father, according to those who determine that the Father is the cause of those things that are from Him by reason of hypostasis and not by reason of nature? For since he who asserted that He is begotten from the hypostasis of the Father presented the Father as the cause of the Son, he who said He is begotten from the essence of the Father displayed an entirely different cause, and from this, two causes of the one Son appeared from the one Father. If, therefore, because of the absurdity and irrationality that follow from this, you—who favor these irrational concepts—are compelled ^B even against your will to confess that there is no difference between saying the Spirit proceeds from the Father and saying He proceeds from the essence of the Father, then recognize that there is also no difference when one says at one time that the Spirit is from the essence of the Son, and at another that He is from the Son. Since this has been shown to be indifferent, how will you not understand the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the essence of the Father and exists from the essence of the Son, as proceeding from the essence of the Father as from the fountainhead of the Godhead without beginning, and existing from the essence of the Son as flowing forth naturally and essentially from the Father through the Son? If you understand it in this way, the Bishop of Methone will be convicted by you as one who has rashly connected the syllogism set forth above, in which he contended—against the distinction ^C of his own invention and with untimely and futile disputation—that the Father is the cause of those things which are from Him by reason of hypostasis, and not by reason of nature. For if, as it has been said by me at other times, essence is one thing and hypostasis is another in the Godhead, it is not therefore the case that when someone says "from the Father" and "from the essence of the Father," he understands the hypostasis of the Father without the essence, or the essence without the hypostasis. But since, after the syllogisms that have been counted, others also have been exaggerated by him, and there is none among them which requires a new notion for its refutation ^D beyond those which have been brought forward to refute the other syllogisms of the same kind, and which this our present discourse has examined, we have therefore decided to make an end of the refutations against them here. We only admonish him who has run through the syllogisms fashioned by the Methonensian with superfluous and untimely loquacity, that it is clearly and without any hesitation in one of these same syllogisms that the Me-

Methonensian asserted the Spirit ^A to be *immediately* from the Father, a thing which no one of the holy Fathers ever asserted. Since, therefore, we have determined to put an end to the contradictions against the Methonensian, we shall immediately address those things which Theophylact of Bulgaria also contrived for the promotion of the ecclesiastical schism. For immediately, at the very beginning of his own discourse, striving to show that the Spirit is not from the Son, as if directing his speech toward the Italian, he says this:

Theophylact of Bulgaria.

65. "It is written," you say, "Spirit of the Son, and Spirit of Christ, and I also agree, but not as proceeding from him, but as his own. For it is related and not alien, and as if sent by him to the worthy, and supplied, and communicated."

Thus he. But we ask those who judge our words to consider how this wise man accepted the phrase, "not as proceeding from him." For it seems to me that he accepted it in the sense as if he had said, "not as proceeding from him." And the induction sufficiently indicates this, in which he says: "But as if sent by him to the worthy, and supplied, and communicated." For all these things are distinguished ^B from that which proceeds. But after it has been exactly and openly known to you, the examiners of my words, that in this place "proceeding" is taken by the bishop of Bulgaria for "procession," I ask you, how will the Bulgarian be able to contradict the Italians who say that the Spirit proceeds from the Son, if we show that among the chief and most celebrated theologians it is openly and plainly asserted that the Spirit proceeds from the Son? But that the Spirit does indeed proceed from the Son has been sufficiently demonstrated by me beforehand, and it seems to me ^C superfluous to repeat the same things. I ask of the rectitude of your discernment to distinguish how, in his malice, he spoke such things, concealing the truth, as many others before him and after him have also suffered, who, finding that the Spirit proceeds from the Son—and not simply only, but essentially—and that the same proceeds essentially, all of which indicates that the Spirit is from the Son essentially, nevertheless contradict the Italians, as if demanding the very bare word of "procession," and not receiving what is signified thereby, which is that the Spirit exists essentially from the Son. ^D For, paying heed to what is uttered in syllables, as if our piety consisted in words and not in thoughts, they neglected what was insinuated by the meaning. Therefore, this which we have said is sufficient for the refutation of the man who, by his own contentious opinion, rejects the reconciliation of the Churches.

^A But regarding what he says, when he claims that the Spirit has a special meaning in its procession, distinct from that which they bring forward—namely, being sent, being supplied, and being given? For he produces these terms, which are manifestly distinguished in meaning from procession, as if the Italian were to be refuted by them. But he makes no mention whatsoever of those words—namely, that certain of the Fathers said the Spirit has his being from the Son, that He is the Spirit from the Son, that He is from the essence of the Son, that He is from the Son naturally and essentially, and that another said He has His hypostasis from the essence of the Son. I, however, as if he were present, say to him: Most wise man, if you truly wished to make a rebuttal to refute the Italians for incorrectly saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, you should not have contemplated the difference in procession solely with respect to being sent, being supplied, and being given, but rather you should have given some proof that the Spirit is from the Son, and that He essentially is from the Son, and that He proceeds forth and is poured out from the Son. By doing this, you would have provided some indication that the cause of the schism fastened upon the Italians, regarding the difference between procession and being sent, being supplied, and being given, has any reasonable appearance of truth. ^B But as it is, since being supplied and being sent differ from the word "to proceed," while "to proceed forth," "to advance," and "to be poured out" do not differ at all from what he implies by "being essentially," you seem to rashly establish an ecclesiastical schism by saying that "to proceed" has a special meaning, different from that which "being sent," "being supplied," and "being given" have.

Something similar is sounded by the exposition made by the Savior to His disciples regarding the breathing of the Spirit, to which exposition our discourse has sufficiently replied, using the same arguments to refute it that we used against others who, even before you, introduced such an interpretation of the breathing. Meanwhile, I thank you for your good intention, when I find that you have caused the union of the Church, as they say, to hang by a fine thread in those things which you suggest to the Italian: "In other things, I grant you the use of the term regarding the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son, as your language permits, in common speech and ecclesiastical conversations if you wish; but in the Creed alone I will not grant it." I kiss the candor of your soul, and I recognize that you have added great weight to the union, if it had been your lot to have a few others—from among the eminent and conspicuous hierarchs of your age—as supporters of your own proposal. ^C But among the things where you argue and reason again, you say:

67. ^D "If the Father is greater than the Son by cause, if the Son also is the cause of the Spirit, He will also be greater than Him." And questioning as if you were raising a great problem for the Italian, you say: "Where have you ever found it said that the Son is greater than the Spirit?" Consider whether this doubt might turn into your own reproach.

^A If the Italian brings before you the great Athanasius in his first discourse against the Arians, the beginning of which is, “Heresies, which have devised madness against the truth for themselves, are manifest,” he delivers this teaching: “The Lord, showing His divinity and majesty to the disciples, indicating that He is not less than the Spirit, but greater and equal, was bestowing the Spirit, and saying: ‘I will send Him, and He will glorify Me, and whatever He hears, He will speak.’” ^B Do you see, examiner of my words, how many of the wise, because they did not carefully examine the theological sayings of the saints, have taken offense at the union with the Roman Church? Again, the syllogism of the Bulgarian which follows brings up the breathing upon the disciples, and says: “If at that time,” he says, “the Lord gave the Paraclete to them, where will you place, ‘If I do not go away, He will not come to you’?”

He says these things, ignorant that the coming of the Spirit in the corporeal form of tongues of fire was promised by the Savior to the disciples. “For it was fitting, as the Savior had associated with us in the body, that the Spirit also should appear corporally,” to use the words of the great Gregory. Of the same sort is what he strings together with the preceding syllogisms, saying: “The coming of the Spirit at Pentecost, if it is of the same Spirit, is it superabundant, or of another Spirit? And which one is this?” For in saying these things, he does not know that they are inventions of a contentious mind and of one who is headstrong. For whence does he say that the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost, if it is of the same Spirit, is superabundant? ^C For if he declares the coming at Pentecost to be superabundant, if it is of that same Spirit that was breathed upon the disciples before Pentecost, many superabundances of His coming will appear; which is the height of absurdity. For from the time that He was breathed upon the first-formed man by the Creator into a living soul, He has subsequently descended upon those who are worthy in diverse comings. But yet, even if He has descended upon many and many times, none of His comings is superabundant. But the Bulgarian, if because He was breathed upon the disciples before Pentecost, he wishes to call the coming at Pentecost either superabundant, or the coming of another Spirit, ^D he will not then only claim that the Spirit descended superabundantly upon the disciples, but also before the coming at Pentecost, and whenever He came and communed with this one or that one of the prophets at different times and in different ways. For even if now He came in the form of tongues of fire, and then He came not in such a way to those who received Him, nevertheless it was the same Spirit who was coming, and no one of the different comings of the Spirit will be called superabundant by those who direct their own steps along the straight paths of the Scriptures. If these things are so, this wise man declares in vain, “The coming at Pentecost…

of the Spirit, either is that of the same [Spirit] and is redundant, or is that of another Spirit; and which one is this?”

69. ^B But as to what was said at the end of his syllogisms, in which as something necessary before all else he concludes that “the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone,” nothing could be more opportune for the Italian to use to refute him than the very same concept which he himself, at the beginning of his discourse against the Latin, proposed. For just as there this man, as if stopping the mouth of the Italian and driving him into an unavoidable impasse, said: “If the Spirit proceeds also from the Son, what was the hindrance that prevented Christ from saying, ‘Who proceeds from the Father and me’?”—so too, the Latin, using his own words, will say to him: “If the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, what prevented Christ from saying, ‘Who proceeds from the Father alone’?” And since he reproaches the Italian for not following the footsteps of Christ, the evangelist of the poor, because he adds “and from the Son,” he himself will be liable to the same reproaches because he adds “from the Father alone.” And these things are brought forward to refute the statements of the Bulgarian.

70. ^C And among those whom it has been our lot to see up to this time, we have directed our efforts to show that the men who were illustrious for their wisdom before us, wrongly promoted the dissension of the Churches. For most of them did not deign to receive, as it behooves brothers, what was brought forward by their brothers; but they attacked them in a contradictory manner, and each of them—thinking that he would carry off some first prize in wisdom if he were able to attach the accusation of heresy to his neighbors—strove to cast aside all whom he encountered by the inventions of certain crafty opinions, if perhaps by this means there might come to him the reputation of a perhaps more fervent faith, and of a certain zeal for ^D defending the right faith, while having condemned the coldness of others regarding divine things and the treachery of our affairs. And most did these things because charity had grown cold and because iniquity had been multiplied, as it has been handed down in writing. We, however, revolving nothing of the sort in our mind, have most sincerely embraced the concord of the Churches. And that we might not seem to anyone to embrace ecclesiastical peace inconsiderately and without any examination, and supported by no testimonies of the Scriptures, we have thought it worthwhile, in order to demonstrate that the Spirit is from the Father and the Son—which, when the Italians asserted it, caused the scandal dividing the Churches to break out—to collect in one place here, in the first part of our discourse, the sayings of the saints dispersed in various places, and then, in the second part, to set forth the refutation of those who, against all law and right, foster the dissension of the Churches. And since a defense had to be left behind by us—while this long passage of time did not appear so easy for many to overcome, as if the schism rending the Churches had not lasted for even one day—

a schism has occurred, we have left behind a defense—for the present, as far as it appears to our judgment, strong and invincible—to those who come after us, procuring the concord of the Roman Church and adhering entirely to our own customs and rites without any change, to the glory of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the consubstantial Trinity. Amen.

OF THE SAME CONCERNING THE PROCESSION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

(Græcæ Orthod. tom. I, p. 225.)

^{A B}

CHAPTER I

^A And since, before all other things, the dictum which the great Basil asserts in his third oration against Eunomius, while discoursing on the Spirit, is called into great dispute and controversy, let us now above all else examine what should be thought of it. In this oration, or rather in its very opening, the saint is found to have written these things: "For what necessity is there, if the Spirit is third in dignity and order, that he should be third also by nature? For the discourse of piety delivers that he is secondary to the Son in dignity, as one who has his being from Him, and receives from Him, and announces to us, and is ^C altogether referred to that Cause; but that he is third in nature, we have neither been taught by the divine Scriptures, nor can it be consequently inferred from what has been said. For just as the Son is second to the Father in order, because He is from Him, and in dignity, because the Father is the origin and cause of His being, and because through Him is the approach and access to God the Father; yet He is in no way second in nature, because in both there is one Deity. So too, evidently, the Holy Spirit, even if He is second to the Son in dignity and order, we would not therefore reasonably say, as if He were of an alien nature, that this follows." This is the dictum of the great Basil concerning the Holy Spirit, over which the nurslings of our Church ought to rejoice and manifest the greatest delight, because they have found in Basil the foremost [authority] in treating of theological matters, whether

^A in [the matter of] the Roman Church stirring up peace, they are afflicted by manifold distress and lead a life of grievances far more unjust, as if they were contending not to gain brethren, but to destroy them. And since from this saying it is clearly distinguished, they are wrongly accused of introducing two principles when they speak of the Spirit through the Son, and [the accusers] do not fear to criminate and to blame this. And the crime, not yet being clear, is referred to great Basil, or to the transcribers of the books in which the saying is contained; howbeit those who criminate the saying contend, while I, examining single things in the one who in all matters, which he delivered in writing in explaining divine things, has been held unassailable, ^B am convinced throughout, observing the calumny against him, [namely] the one who has theologized concerning all things in an indisputable manner.

2. And that the calumny directed against him may be well understood, it is necessary to present the person of those who contradict and what is objected to them, and then after that to set in the middle the things we have thought out for refuting them, and to bring forward the things said by us for their proof. For in every way one of these two things will be: either the books containing the saying will be found false, and the reasons will be those who are accused by the transcribers, [namely] to be fully demonstrated; and then no doubt will remain, the great Basil himself being accused of the crime. Moreover, it is to be examined whether the saying is great Basil's or not. Its reason, if it be requested, they reply, is not that this ^C is circulated in all the books in which the speech containing this saying is written. And they think this alone to be abundantly sufficient to demonstrate that the books referring to a similar saying were corrupted, and they whet their tongue as they defend themselves not in the theology of Basil, but as they contradict.

3. But since it is my intention to demonstrate, it is strictly necessary in the volumes containing the saying to be the truth, that by one demonstrated truth of the volumes, the great Basil may be shown to be falsely accused by them, [and] I make a beginning of speaking in this manner: If [the saying] were not written in any volume at all, [there] would be things that could be brought forward, superior to every objection; but since in some it is not had, [and] in other some it is inserted, it must be considered by those who do not incline to either side, and judge matters with a right mind, which part of the volumes ^D is corrupt, whether that in which it is written, or the other in which it nowhere appears; for by such a demonstration of the adulterated part, it will be simultaneously shown who the calumny attacks. But those who weigh the matter in this way, I think, understand that it is supreme folly to think the volumes preferring the saying to be fabricated. For if after the schism with the Roman Church these volumes were written, how could anyone, provided he is sane and his mind is not bereft of wisdom, admit, at a time when the fight between the Churches was on, that those who were copying books among us were either inserting anything into our books, [or] that the adversaries

^A of our books had omitted [words], or had appended anything to our volumes, which might give strength to those adversaries? If there was no disagreement, what reason would there be for anyone to tamper with books in such matters and dogmas, about which no question had been raised, for the sake of such villainy? For neither the time of the fight, nor that of peace, allows us to admit that volumes contain forced additions, and as for those which do not [contain additions], a prudent man most certainly recognizes [the truth] and perceives what is spurious. For the time of the disagreement had been spread over whole hundreds of years, and meanwhile not a few who were very skilled in dialectical disputations had been opposing the Romans; thus, it is most unlikely that anyone would have thought that a statement had been removed from those books which provides a valid refutation of those who are studiously ensuring the disagreement of the Churches and are trying to confirm [it]. Therefore, those who try to attribute corruption to the books which contain the argument [against them] are directly contradicting common sense, just as one who tries to prove that the sun is the author of darkness, and yet [the sun] pours light upon our things above [and] our things below, ^B approaching the western horizon. If this is so, it seems to me to be sufficiently demonstrated to those who raise objections to the great Basil, not to oppose the great Basil. It is not necessary to ask for anything else, but it is sufficient to be satisfied with what has already been proven, in order to diagnose the statement as being truly that of the great Basil, and that the books containing it do not have anything new, nor any [false] addition.

4. But indeed, when it is also possible to establish the truth of this statement from other scriptural authorities, the Nyssen Gregory, in order to assist the great Basil who is being contradicted, will answer face-to-face those who do not believe him, saying: "The Spirit also has its existence from the Son." For this man, too, in his own discourse—at the beginning of which he says: ^C "When great Moses was being initiated by the waters in the mystery of the instruction of the Israelite people"—says: "For the Son went forth from the Father, just as Scripture says, and the Spirit proceeds from God, and from the Father." And a little further on: "For the only-begotten Son is named in the Holy Scripture from the Father, and up to this point the Word fixes the property for Himself. But the Holy Spirit is said to be from the Father, and is attested to be from the Son." What, then, will they say, all those who wish to object to the theological statement? [That] the Holy Spirit, having His existence from the Son, is to be rejected, not being theologized [as such] by that Father of ours, Basil? But behold, the Nyssen also testifies that He is from the Son, and the great Cyril, after them, ^D theologizing in his own time, clearly demonstrated in many of his theological writings that the Spirit exists from the Son. If, then, all are agreed—that it is not possible to speak of the Spirit as not having His existence from Him—[then] the construction that the Spirit is secondary to the Son in dignity, [derived] from the expression "He has His existence from Him" and "He receives from Him" and "He announces to us," is almost as if saying [this] because He is from the Son, and that He is secondary to Him. And if you wish, whoever you may be who is struggling against this, to know that if He were not from Him, He would not have been called secondary to Him at all: remove this statement and grant us another argument according to which the Spirit is secondary to the Son. For, apart from such an argument, [the term] "secondary" will be understood either by an interval of time, or by a lower seat in sitting, or by a lack of glory. If, therefore, those who erased [the parts] "having His existence from Him" had also erased the clause stating that the Spirit is secondary to the Son in dignity, they would have perhaps reached the result of their wickedness which they desired; but now, when the Spirit of truth was subverting their intention, they erased the [words] "the Spirit is from the Son," but left written in all the books that He is secondary to the Son. And from this, he who seizes the wise men in their craftiness grants to those who diligently examine such things the ability to perceive what has been plotted. And furthermore, that the great Basil would never have said that the Spirit is second to the Son for any other reason, it is possible to calculate from what he adds to those things already said; for he says, having gone down [to a lower point]: "For just as the Son is second to the Father in order and dignity—in order, because He is from Him; and in dignity, because the Father is the beginning and cause of His being; and because through Him is the access and bringing to God and the Father; but He is no longer second in nature, because the divinity is one in each—so it is evident that the Holy Spirit, even if He is inferior to the Son in order and dignity, we would not therefore reasonably say [He] follows as if belonging to a different nature." Let anyone who wishes to do so consider that it is not inconsistent with the logic of piety that the Spirit should be secondary in dignity to the Son; he establishes this from the proportion of the Son to the Father, [who is] secondary to the Father. For he says as [follows]: Even if He is inferior to the Son in order and dignity, He is not, on account of this, inferior in order and dignity to the Son as if composed of an alien nature, since the Son, even though He is second to the Father in order and dignity, is not therefore second in nature. And the saint, interpreting the argument according to which the Son is second to the Father, says: "In order, indeed, He is second to the Father, because He is from Him, and in dignity, because the Father is the beginning and cause of His being, and because through Him is the access and bringing to God and the Father."

5. But who knows, say the objectors, if the saint thinks that the secondary position of the Spirit in relation to the Son is analogous to the secondary position of the Son in relation to the Father? Who knows? He who diligently goes through the theological passages, from which such an analogy has its revelation, of which, since they are many, we will set forth here a few, [being content] only with [the statements of] the great Athanasius, [to whom] this great man [Basil] in the [letter] to Serapion concerning...

the Spirit—it is impossible for them to express any difference between the saying of the great Basil, "that the Spirit has existence from the Son," and that of Gregory of Nyssa, "that he is from the Son," and that of the most theological Cyril, "that he exists from the Son." Let them devote much effort to seeing how the statement of the great Basil, which theologianizes that "the Spirit is from the Son," might be overthrown for them. But if saying he is "from the Son," or "out of the Son," or "exists out of the Son" does not differ at all, they struggle in vain against this statement, perhaps by the sheer force of their own contrived objection recording things well-defined by the great Basil.

^B 5. But we can also prove by other arguments, out of sheer necessity, that the books containing the statement—or those not containing it—possess [the truth] uncorrupted and pure, joined to Truth itself. For the great Basil, having accepted that the Spirit is secondary to the Son in dignity, and not fearing to call this secondary position a tradition of piety, required a proof through which the true meaning might appear, by which he called this secondary position of the Spirit regarding the Son a tradition of piety. And since he recognized neither any ranking of glory—for the divinity of both is equal—nor any other reason, such as that by which things secondary in a relative sense are subordinate to those that are primary, but rather knew only one criterion of piety by which the Spirit is secondary to the Son—which was that he has his existence through him, and therefore is from him—he expressed it thus: "For the word of piety hands down that he is secondary to the Son in dignity, as one who has his existence from him, receives from him, and announces [it] to us, and thus adheres entirely to that Cause. But [to think of] a third nature, we have neither been taught by the holy Scriptures, nor can we demonstrate it to follow from what we have said." And having said these things, he concluded the account of his speech thus: "For the word of piety hands down [that he is] secondary to the Son in dignity." He fulfilled the proof of that [statement], that the Spirit is secondary to the Son in dignity, by the fact that he has existence from him, and receives from him, and announces it to us, almost saying that because he is from the Son, he is secondary to the Son. ^C For if this were not so, he would never have been called secondary to him. And if it is in your mind, whoever it is who resists, to know: if he were not from the Son, he would not have been called secondary to the Son at all. Remove this statement, and give us another reason by which the Spirit is asserted to be secondary to the Son. For apart from this one single reason, the secondary position will be conceived [as due to] either an interval of time, or an inferior seat, or a deficiency of glory; and then impiety will roam far and wide with these notions. If, therefore, those who erased from the whole discourse the statement saying "the Spirit is secondary in dignity to the Son," the statement which clarifies "having his existence from him"—if they had erased [that], they might perhaps have obtained the result of their wickedness, which they desired. But now, because the Spirit of Truth

^A has overturned their thoughts, they have removed from the discourse that the Spirit "is from the Son," but they have left it described in all their books that he "is secondary to the Son." And thus, he who catches the wise in their craftiness allows those who diligently examine such things to understand what has been wickedly contrived. For that Basil the Great would never have said the Spirit is secondary to the Son according to any other account, one can infer from what he himself adds to these words; for he says further down: "For just as the Son is second to the Father in order and dignity—in order, because he is from him, and in dignity, because the Father is the principle and cause of him, and because through him is the access and bringing to God and the Father—yet in nature he is no longer second, because the Godhead is one in both; so, evidently, the Holy Spirit, ^B even if he is thought of as subordinate to the Son in order and dignity, we would no longer reasonably say that he follows as belonging to a different nature." Let anyone who wishes consider how Basil the Great, wishing to establish the account of piety by not losing the secondary nature of the Spirit in dignity to the Son, establishes this from the analogy of the Son’s secondary position to the Father. For he says: "If he is thought of as subordinate to the Son in order and dignity, he has not on that account followed him in order and dignity as belonging to a different nature; since even the Son, being second to the Father in order and dignity, is not for that reason second in nature." And the saint, interpreting the statement according to which the Son is second to the Father, says: "In order, he says, he is second to the Father, because he is from him; and in dignity, because he [the Father] is the principle and cause in that he is his Father, and because through him is the access ^C and bringing to God and the Father."

6. But who knows, say the objectors, if the secondary position of the Spirit regarding the Son responds in proportion to the secondary position of the Son regarding the Father? Who knows? He who diligently peruses the theological statements, by which such a proportion is clearly made known. Although these are numerous, we shall nonetheless set down a few here, contenting ourselves only with the words of the great Athanasius, which that great man used in his epistle to Serapion concerning the Holy Spirit. For the saint speaks in it thus: "For if, because of the Word's union with the Father, they refuse to call the Son himself a creature, for what cause do they assert the Holy Spirit, who has the same union to the Son which he himself has to the Father, to be a creature?" And with many things intervening: "Indeed, the Son is sent by the Father: 'For so,' he says, 'God loved the world ^D that he gave his only-begotten Son'; but the Son sends the Spirit: 'For if,' he says, 'I depart, I will send the Paraclete.' And the Son indeed glorifies the Father, saying: 'Father, I have glorified you.' But the Spirit glorifies the Son: 'For he,' he says, 'will glorify me.' And the Son indeed says: 'What I have heard from the Father, these I speak.'

' The Spirit, however, receives from the Son: 'For he will receive from what is mine,' he says, 'and will announce it to us.' And the Son indeed came in the name of the Father: 'But the Holy Spirit,' he says, 'whom the Father will send in my name.' Since the Spirit possesses such an order and nature toward the Son as the Son possesses toward the Father, how will he who calls the former a *creature* not necessarily think the same thing regarding the Son? ^A Whoever accurately weighs these theological sayings will, with an impartial mind, grant his assent and will agree with those who affirm that the Spirit is termed second to the Son for the same reason that the Son is also maintained to be second to the Father. For if this were not so, the same great Basil would never have written in the seventeenth chapter of his work *To Amphilochius*: 'Just as the Son stands in relation to the Father, so too does the Spirit stand in relation to the Son according to the order in baptism handed down by the Word.' And if the Spirit shines forth in the same order with the Son, and the Son with the Father, it is clear that the Spirit also shines forth in the same order with the Father.

7. But oh, the malice! Oh, the evil victory which many strive to attain while they doubt everything and attempt to turn all things into uncertainty! For if, they say, the Spirit is second to the Son for the same reason as the Son is second to the Father, he will either be from the Son, as from a primary cause and first principle; or, if this is not the case, [he will be] as from two principles of equal dignity, the Father and the Son; or, if this also is not the case, [he will be] as from an unoriginate and primary cause, the Father, and from a secondary [cause] having a principle, the Son. ^B To these points, therefore, although this battle does not concern us in the least, but rather him who said the Spirit has his being from the Son and is second to the Son in dignity, just as the Son is second to the Father in dignity, nevertheless we respond thus: Even if the Saint handed down that the Holy Spirit is second in being and dignity from the Son, as one who has from him that which he is, and assumed the secondary role of the Son toward the Father in order to strengthen the tradition of piety, it does not follow from this that the Spirit is from the Son as from a primary and unoriginate cause, or as from two principles of equal dignity, the Father and the Son, or as from an unoriginate cause, the Father, and a caused principle, the Son. ^C Away, away with words of this kind which reek of blasphemy surpassing all other blasphemies! Verily, he who calls these things into doubt and uncertainty will be brought before the tribunal against the great Basil, as he threatened those who slandered him by claiming he taught three gods. For since there were in his time those who maligned many of his theological sayings, the Saint describes their slander word for word in a tragic tone: 'What then is the madness of those who sharpen their tongues against the truth? I do not lose heart when I am reproved, but I await the tribunal of Christ. There those who fabricate this malice will be set against me. ^D The Lord is [with] those who are his; and he who slanders the poor provokes the One who made him.' If the [malice] of...

I follow the faith of the Fathers, why, passing over the Fathers, do you wage war on me? If I believe in the Father, if I profess the Son, if I do not reject the Spirit, why, taking up my person, do you wage war against the Lord? ^A Who left instructions to be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit? Was it I, or the Master? Whose are the words? Of the herald, or of the One who sent him? Why, having found my person easy to attack with slanders, do you through me wage war against the truth? Through me do you shake the fortress of the faith? But I am easily captured by you; the faith, however, remains unshaken.

η. And these are the things which the great Basil says against those who malign his theological works. But as for us, providing a defense for him in the present instance, or rather, receiving help from him, against those who oppose his theological statements set forth above, in which those who enter into a struggle against us, because of their impulse and attack upon us, slander his words as though they were fabrications, we respond that none of the absurdities enumerated by their craftiness follows, if the Spirit is second from the Son in the same ^B reason as the Son is from the Father. For the Spirit will not be from the Son as from a first cause and principle, nor as from two equal principles, the Father and the Son, nor as if from the Father who is without beginning and a first cause, and from the Son who is without beginning and a second cause; but [we say] that the Spirit is from the Father through the Son, and that he does not have his eternal procession from the Father immediately and directly, as the Son has his generation, but is from the Father proceeding through the Son. On account of this, it has been theologized by the great Basil that he has his existence also from the Son, and is second from the Son, just as the Son is from the Father. And there is nothing absurd in saying both that the second place of the Spirit in relation to the Son is analogous to the second place of the Son in relation to the Father, ^C and in believing him to be 'from the Son,' as having his existence from the Father through the Son. For if this were not granted, none of the things that are said to be 'from the Son' concerning the Spirit would be allowed to be true. For the Spirit, gushing forth from the Son, does not gush forth as if from a source of his own, apart from the Father, but because he gushes forth from the Father through the Son, and is said to gush forth from the Son, and to proceed through the Son, and to come forth from the Son. And not only in those terms that signify that he exists naturally and essentially from the Father through the Son ^D is everything said to be also 'from the Son'—all that is through the Son—but also because he is supplied and sent from the Son, because he is sent and supplied from the Father through the Son, these things are said. Therefore, on account of this, it holds well and safely that the Holy Spirit, existing from the Father through the Son, is asserted to be also from the Son, and by this dignity to be second from the Son. For [he is] because through the Son, from the Son, and not as from a first cause and principle, [it is from the] Son; and because through the Son, he is second from the Son. And the most theological Nyssen will confirm my statement with his own authority, while he decides, "The Father is understood before the Son by reason of cause; but the Son is understood before the…

Spirit by reason of cause. For just as there it is said that the Father is conceived before the Son by reason of cause, and there is no other reason for the Father being conceived before the Son than that the Son is from the Father; and the Son is said to be conceived before the Spirit by reason of cause, and there is no other reason for the Son being conceived before the Spirit than that the Spirit is through the Son; so also in this instance, the Son is second to the Father, because he is from the Father, and the Spirit ^B is second to the Son, because he is through the Son." Those, therefore, who erased from the true and genuine volumes the statement, "The Spirit has his being from the Son," if they had—as we confessed earlier—erased from the entire text the other statement which insinuates, "The Spirit is second in dignity to the Son," perhaps they might have reaped some fruit from their own wickedness. But since the Spirit of truth has rendered their attempts vain, their fraud can easily be refuted by those who are examiners of such matters.

9. This is what also happened in many other written texts, for those who made it their concern to establish the schism of the Church not without danger—woe to those miserable men—to the grave detriment of their own salvation, about whom it will not be inappropriate to speak at present. For since in almost all the points of the present discourse already covered by us, our intention was to demonstrate that those volumes which contain the statement, "The Spirit has his being from the Son," have ^C been in no way corrupted, but rather that those which do not contain it have been; and it was a part of our demonstration that it could be judged by thought and deduction that the volumes not containing the statement have suffered alteration and fraud—having been propagated during the time of the schism for hundreds of years and more, while many appeared, contending most contentiously in logical dissertations against the Romans, by whom it is likely that that statement was abrogated from the books of the great Basil, because they perceived it to be a powerful refutation of those who try to propagate, and all but establish, the discord of the Churches—it will contribute greatly to the demonstration that some, at the time of the schism, made it their concern to forestall the statements handed down in writing, if we bring into the middle those very statements that have undergone corruption, and set forth the patent crime of the ^D corruption. And above all, since in matters of theology, the most illustrious Nyssen, in his discourse to Ablabius, had written this: "Confessing the nature to be the same in all things, we do not deny the difference which arises from cause and effect, by which alone we understand one to be distinguished from the other, in that we believe this one to be the cause, and this other to be from the cause; and from him who is from the cause, we understand another difference again: for one is immediately from the first, but the other is from him who is immediately from the first: so that the Only-Begotten remains in the Son without any hesitation, and that the Spirit is from the Father is not controverted by anyone, while the mediation of the Son preserves the Only-Begotten for itself, and the Spirit... from the natural [relation] to the...

Father does not withhold [it]. Not a few volumes have been found, from which that phrase, "this one, however, from him who is immediately from the first," had been removed. ^B Who would not discern that those who have removed a particle of this excerpt were led into error, perceiving therefrom a segment that is not coherent with itself and is in no way in agreement with its own parts? And behold the most manifest head of refutation. The saint divided the difference of him who is from a cause into these two things: the one, namely, immediately from the first, in which, however, he left the distinction to be considered. Nor could he understand, poor man, that this one, being immediately from the first, is necessarily compelled to confess also what the other is, which is distinct from that which is immediately from the first. For in what way would the discourse be otherwise connected? Or how would the discrimination of those differing among themselves be understood, unless the one stands in this way, and the other in that? And the mediation of the Son also, if the Spirit is not through him, how will it preserve for itself the Only-Begotten, and not withhold the Spirit from the natural relation to the Father? You see, you who consider with a right mind these things of which our discourse is, that those who contrive the corruption of the written dicta for the strengthening of ecclesiastical schism are led by the Spirit of truth into error?

11. And indeed consider also that which is found in one of the ^C anti-rhetic chapters of the great Basil against Eunomius, in which the saint, when refuting an objection brought against him by his adversaries, "Why is the Spirit not also called Son of the Son?" answered: "Not because he is not from God through the Son, but lest the Trinity be reputed an infinite multitude, with Sons from Sons, as happens in the custom among men, comprehended by thought." But the party opposed to them, who assert that the Spirit is through the Son, in some codices, omitting "Not because he is not from God through the Son," have written the rest. But what, pray, could it profit them for demonstrating that the Spirit is not through the Son, if the saint, while resolving the doubt, "Why also is the Spirit not called Son of the Son?" said, "Not because he is not from God through the Son, but lest the Trinity be reputed an infinite multitude"? ^D Suspend, I pray, whoever you are who turn your mind to the knowledge of these things, the fair scales of judgment, and discern how the response corresponds to the interrogation. Unless it had been decreed, and was clearly among the things confessed, that the Spirit is through the Son and from the Son, by what reasoning would he who moved the doubt have doubted, "Why also is the Spirit not the Son of the Son?" From whence could the grounds of this doubt have arisen elsewhere than from the fact that it was indubitable that the Holy Spirit is through the Son? For if he were not from the Son, the saint, when asked, "Why also is the Spirit not the Son of the Son?" would have readily and very sharply rejected the doubt by answering that he was not through the Son, or from the Son. But he, while showing that the Spirit indeed is through the Son, with the apostolic voice affirming him to be the Spirit of the Son, [refers]...

^A to [that] voice, and provides an argument: why is the Son not called the Spirit of the Son, who is through the Son? He responded thus: "We say, then, that to speak of a Son from a Son brought the Trinity of the Divinity into the suspicion of a multitude to those who heard it. For it was easy to suppose that, if a Son is begotten from a Son, then from this one another could be begotten, and again another, and so on in a multitude. But each one in the Trinity must be acknowledged as one: for there is one Father, one Son, one Holy Spirit." And these things, indeed, the great Basil [says] on divine matters, which sufficiently and more than enough, I think, refute the corruption of the statement mentioned.

12. We must further consider the corruption of another scriptural statement, and the refutation of that corruption. In the book inscribed *On the Knowledge of God*, Gregory, the prelate of the Nyssaeans, teaches, saying in these words: "The Spirit proceeding from the Father’s hypostasis; and for this reason David said 'Spirit of the mouth,' but did not also say 'Word of the mouth,' so that he might confirm the processive property inherent in the Spirit alone." ^B But those who do not accept that the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son, since they were unable to establish this—namely, that 'proceeding' is stated in a passive formation, but denotes an active force, for 'to walk' and 'to proceed' is to act and not to suffer—and wishing to establish this dogma which they themselves belched forth from their belly, that the Spirit, namely, proceeds from the Father alone, when they found the word 'proceeding' (ἐκπορεύεσθαι) ^C written concisely with three letters in the spelling of the word (πνι), and by a similar logic [applied to] the word for Father, with the middle letter changed and corrupted—for the transition from 'nu' to 'rho' is easy—they deceived those who do not consider carefully, but pass through commentaries transversally, attributing to the Father what was [the] property of the Spirit. And so that the fraud of the corruption may come into the open, let the argument be arranged by us as they themselves arrange it: "For this reason David said 'Spirit of the mouth,' but not 'Word of the mouth,' so that he might confirm the property of procession as inherent in the Father alone." ^D Had David therefore spoken of the Word as "Word of the mouth," just as he also called the Spirit "Spirit of the mouth," was he on that account about to share such a procession-property with another along with the Father? And what necessity does the argument have? But if he had said the Word is "Word of the mouth," just as he also said the Spirit is "Spirit of the mouth," he would certainly have made the property of procession common to both Word and Spirit. For since the words of the mouth are said to be proceeding, "The things which proceed from my lips," he says, "I will not make void," if David had called the Spirit "Spirit of the mouth" and the Word "Word of the mouth," of absolute necessity the property of procession would be communicated to both. This, therefore, the saint, destroying it, in order to demonstrate that the property of procession is inherent in the Spirit alone, assumed that David did not say "Word of the mouth" and "Word."

^A 13. But if those who are of the opposite camp, by distinguishing between "that which proceeds" and "that which is processive," say that the "processive" does not befit the Spirit, but rather the Father, on account of the utterance of the word possessing the power of acting, then through this the refutation of the corruption they have introduced into the books will also be established. For if they were willing to purify their conscience, it would not have escaped them what the saint adds immediately after the aforementioned passage, writing as follows: "In order that, through the word 'Word,' we might understand the birth of the Son from the mind, from God and Father, which is free from all passions and cannot be expressed in words; but through the saying 'Spirit,' we might conceive of the sanctifying and essential power of the mouth, and the life-giving hypostasis of the Spirit, clearly characterized by the name of the processive property." The Father among the saints, ^B Anastasius, also acknowledges the processive property of the Spirit. For in the sixteenth chapter of his book called the *Hodegoi*, he says this: "For the unbegotten person of the Father did not take on flesh, nor did the processive hypostasis of the Holy Spirit." Moreover, Clement the Stromateus, in the various definitions which he composed so that they might precede and lead the way for every pious dogma, before one devotes oneself to theological matters, when defining "What is Spirit, and according to what is it Spirit, and in how many ways is it called Spirit?" relates: "Spirit is a subtle, immaterial, and formless processive existence."

14. What, then, is that which such men have sought to do regarding the end of the first book of the *Antirrhetica* against Eunomius, written by our same Father, the prelate of the Nyssaeans? ^C For there the saint, in his work against Eunomius, while contending regarding the eternity of the Son and the Spirit, weaves into the theology the reasoning concerning the cause of the Son and the Spirit, saying as follows: "If anyone who considers the Father before the Son, solely by the reasoning of cause, were to place any temporal interval before the hypostasis of the Only-Begotten, the doctrine of the eternity of the Son might justly be considered to be in danger. But now, it does not admit that there should ever be a 'when' regarding the pre-eternal nature, and perhaps it is the same regarding the life of the Father, and that of the Only-Begotten, and also the confession of the Holy Spirit; ^D for where there is no time, the 'when' is also taken away." And after a few words: "Our reasoning regarding the Holy Spirit also has the difference only in order. For just as the Son is joined to the Father, and though He has His existence from Him, He does not come after Him in subsistence; so too the Holy Spirit relates to the Son, the hypostasis of the Spirit being preconceived by concept alone according to the reasoning of cause; yet temporal extensions have no place in that life which precedes every age; so that, if the reasoning of cause is excepted, the most holy Trinity in no way disagrees within itself, being well-consonant." And the saint in this way declares that the Father is preconceived by the reasoning of cause before the Son, clearly demonstrating that the Son is caused by the Father contiguously and immediately, and that the Son, in turn, according to the reasoning of cause, is preconceived before the hypostasis of the Spirit, openly stating that the Spirit is produced from the Father through the Son. But those who...

distort everything, perhaps thinking they might derive some gain for their own purpose from the corruption, when the saint says: "The Holy Spirit is held of the Only-Begotten, by conception only according to the reasoning of cause, being preconceived before the hypostasis of the Spirit," they wrote in many books "of the Father's hypostasis," ^B being so myopic regarding the right path that they said the Son is preconceived before the Father according to the reasoning of cause, just to make the Spirit through the Son—and according to this, also from the Son—unthinkable.

15. Such is also what occurred in the theological statements of the great Epiphanius in the book called the *Ancoratus*. For there the Saint says: "But, I think, both dwell in the righteous man, Christ and His Spirit. But if Christ is believed to be from the Father, God from God, and the Spirit from Christ, or from both, as Christ says: 'Who proceeds from the Father,' and 'He shall receive of mine.'" But those who are frantic to corrupt the sayings wrote, "If Christ is believed from the Spirit, God from God, and the Spirit from Christ." And they did not understand that such a corruption of the saying is an outright corruption of reason. ^C For let the saying be written thus: "If Christ is believed from the Spirit." For there is nothing alien to piety in saying Christ is from the Spirit, if it is in accordance with the assumption from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary that He is this, as the Saint himself says further on. What point was there for those who corrupted the saying to prevent the Spirit from being from Christ? For whether he had said Christ is believed from the Father or from the Spirit, the Saint said "God from God." Thus, he clearly demonstrated in every way that the Spirit is from Christ, and the corruption of the saying remained of no use to them for constructing the argument that the Spirit is not from Christ. But also what follows, "or from both, as Christ says: 'Who proceeds from the Father, and He shall receive of mine,'" accuses the great folly of those who, instead of saying "Christ is believed from the Father, God from God," say, "If Christ is believed from the Spirit, God from God."

16. But truly wickedness is blind, and it misleads the wise, ^D as it most often does. And those who have set their hands to adulterating the codices and the sayings handed down in their writing were moved to do so for no other reason than to protect their own contumacy. We, therefore, have exposed the aforementioned corruptions and their futile fabrications, attempting to show that it was not in vain that we asserted that time has revealed that some have employed their efforts in adulterating similar opinions. And when this has been demonstrated, it is simultaneously demonstrated that the copies of the books of the great Basil, in which the statement asserting "From"

the Son the Spirit has its existence is not found, are, for those in whom this is inscribed, ^A genuine and intact. Let those, therefore, who at some time have slandered this statement of the great Basil, and who are carried away toward the absurdities of questionable points—not as ignorant and unlearned men, but as stubborn and wicked enemies of the union of the Churches—let them, out of contentiousness, cease to have been calumniators of the truth to no purpose. But if there has been a corruption of other scriptural statements, and if time makes this known to us, we shall also treat of such matters in our other writings.

CAPUT II.

1. Moreover, how could anyone pass over without examination that which, attached to the things examined just before, has been called into question by them? For they say: If it is pious to assert that the Spirit is second to the Son in dignity, why is it that in some of the books the statement, "The discourse of piety hands down," is not found purely and genuinely, but the word "perhaps" is also added? And as the discourse proceeds, in the places where the saint, continuing, says, "Even if he has subordinated ^C the Son in order and in dignity, we would no longer reasonably say that he follows as being of an alien nature," why is it also found, "So that we may altogether concede"? And these are their points. But we, treating the argument concerning this question more searchingly, shall demonstrate from the very meaning which, by all necessity, must be understood, that the "perhaps" is an interpolation. For the same people have also corrupted the statement by the removal of words, as has been demonstrated by us in those instances where we have clearly proved that in some books they subtracted the statement asserting, "To have the Holy Spirit from the Son," and now they have adulterated it with an addition.

2. And so, let them be asked and tell us, whence is it certain that the "perhaps" was issued by the saint? Who among all those whose diligent work consists in poring over theological books has encountered any of the Fathers ^D who, while theologizing, used "perhaps" in a hesitant manner? Who, being in his right mind, would ever say that one should proceed in theology with any hesitation at all, when the teachers of the Church were recording as law this very point which is the highest summit of piety? Does the great Basil call the statement a "tradition of piety," and yet add the "perhaps"? What consistency does the argument have? For is the statement the "tradition of piety," and what is the need for the "perhaps"? Or was it necessary for the discourse to be issued with the "perhaps"? And how then would it have been called a "tradition of piety"? For not even in other matters, much less in theological discourses, would anyone, if he wishes to ensure that what is said is indubitable, combine the word "hands down" with the word "perhaps." For the statement "hands down," regarding things spoken authoritatively and admitting no contradiction, requires—without the "perhaps"—the discourse to be woven together, and the one setting forth the discourse will appropriately state the meaning in this way, or thus-

-^A the word, or will perhaps allow it, or will perhaps concede it, or something of those things which are connected by dubious words and adverbs. There remains, then, no place, nor "perhaps," nor—that we may concede even this—to think that it was added by the great Basil in the theological matters just mentioned; and in this way it consequently appears as most certain, from the very nature of the sense that is required to be understood by all necessity, that the "perhaps," and the "indeed let us grant it," are an addition.

3. How, moreover, were they unable to perceive that which all the induction most clearly builds up? For if, as they themselves say, the saint, with difficulty and with violence, and—as one might say—by a certain involuntary concession, allowed himself to be extorted into saying that the Spirit is second to the Son in dignity, how, for the sake of the construction of this thought, does he expand so much on the following words concerning those things that are in the second degree of dignity, so as not only to take up the second place of the Son from the Father for the proof of what he wished to say, but also to add the like nature of the angels, and to write much concerning the dignities in them, until he finally pronounced that: “Not everything that is second or third in order and dignity has also a different nature”? If the saint had said under constraint that the Spirit is second to the Son in dignity, he would perhaps even have passed over it cursorily, so as to deceive also one who had not examined the matter so attentively. However, he persists so much in his dissertation on this that not only, after he had disputed many things concerning the dignities of the angels, did he introduce, “Not entirely, if anything is second or third in order and dignity, will it have a different nature,” but, having added a few things, he also added: ^C “Just as there are many mansions with the Father, that is to say, differences of dignities. But the nature of those who are glorified is similar. So, clearly, also the Holy Spirit is third in dignity and order; for we have received Him numbered third from the Father and the Son, the Lord Himself having handed down the order in the tradition of the saving baptism. But we have nowhere heard of the Spirit being cast down into a third nature from the Son and the Father.” In this way do those who trade in dogmas pour themselves into discourses, when they know that the concession regarding them is granted to them violently and under constraint? It is not this, it is not. For it would have been easier for the saint to show that he who was asserting the Spirit to be second to the Son in order and dignity was speaking falsely, than, having admitted the second place of the Spirit from the Son, to labor exceedingly to demonstrate by what reasoning that which is second in order and dignity would not also be second in nature.

4. Thus, therefore, the falsehood of those who say that the adverb "perhaps," which generates hesitation, was added by the saint, is openly refuted. ^D For his whole effort was directed toward removing...

^A the impression from the syllogistic conclusion of the enemy of the Spirit, Eunomius, namely, that the Holy Spirit is third by nature. But he embraced with great readiness and cheerfulness the statement that the Spirit is third in order and dignity from the Father. For since the heretic Eunomius posited his claim as a given—that he had learned from the holy Fathers that the Holy Spirit is third in dignity and order—without naming which saints they were or in what writings they had set forth this teaching, but instead straining toward one single goal, namely, to twist the argument by syllogistic necessities and to conclude that the Spirit is also third by nature—the saint directed his zeal toward this ill-conceived conclusion. While he allows the premise as a minor proposition, consistent with syllogistic methods, he refutes the conclusion because Eunomius cannot bring forward a true major proposition, namely, that "everything which is third in order and dignity is also third by nature." He argues that it is not possible to prove from the things said ^B or from any argument that the Holy Spirit is of a third nature, as he claims to have learned from the holy Scriptures. Therefore, it has been demonstrated that the word "perhaps" is an interpolation, which our discourse promised to prove. Let not those who look only toward one thing—contentiousness—and who are intractable toward peace, attempt to bind together things that cannot be joined.

CHAPTER III

^C 1. Would that wickedness might perish, and its founder, the devil. For a soul once captured by wickedness does not easily recover from it, but with impetuous and uncontrollable force, it pursues the fulfillment of its own desire. Those who have suffered something similar, having surrendered themselves irrevocably to the schism of the Churches, climb to the final pinnacle of wickedness. And when it is most clearly demonstrated to them that the statement, "the Holy Spirit is from the Son," is indeed the statement of the great Basil, and that the word "perhaps" and the clause, "even if we allow such a thing," are interpolations in the volumes ^D of the great Basil, they do not hesitate afterward to stain his name with the worst calumnies. For though we, out of zeal for ecclesiastical peace, bring forward many snippets from his theological discourses which clearly show that the Roman Church neither undermines nor corrupts piety when it asserts that the Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son, they oppose to us, after many other objections that are useless for any part, a final contradiction—one that is as unpropitious and terrible to behold as it is unacceptable—namely, that not all of his theological statements possess firmness and stability, as he himself ingenuously admits in the same discourse on the faith which he published among his Ascetic writings, saying that he used "different expressions at different times."

^A as necessity compelled him, struggling against the heresies arising at each time. » And such are the assertions of these men.

2. We, indeed, going to meet their unbridled impetuosity, have decided that we should not simply refute such a great falsehood by gathering together other phrases from writings, but from that very discourse itself which has been cited. And we shall do this in the following way: we shall divide the section of the discourse from which our adversaries have been led to declare that not all the theological statements of the great Basil possess validity, and we shall bring it forward in our present discourse; then afterward we shall reply with what seems right to us, and thus we shall leave it to the rectitude of our hearers to discern whether all the theological statements of the great Basil possess validity, because he used different expressions at different times, struggling against ^B the heresies which had broken out at given times. And, in fact, doing this, we set forth the following section of the discourse: « Insofar as it was necessary to struggle against the heresies which from time to time were rising up, following those who had gone before, I thought it consistent to check the various kinds of impiety sown by the devil with contrary expressions, or even to overthrow the blasphemies being introduced, using different expressions at different times, as the need of those suffering from the disease compelled, and often with these (expressions) which, although not written, were nevertheless not alien to the pious sense according to Scripture. » These are the items contained in the passage, by which the adversaries attempt to prove that the universal theological ^C statements of the great Basil are not to be considered firm and stable:

3. But you, acting as judge in these present struggles, observe and carefully examine how our refutation toward them meets them, not sought from far off or gathered from other writings, but from those very things which the saint said as the series of his discourse proceeded. For when he had said, « I thought it consistent to check the various kinds of impiety sown by the devil with contrary expressions, or even to overthrow the blasphemies being introduced, using different expressions at different times, as the need of those suffering from the disease compelled, » he immediately adds, « and often with these which, although not written, were nevertheless not alien to the pious sense according to Scripture. » He who ^D therefore confesses that he used expressions not handed down in writing, and at the same time testifies that they are neither foreign nor alien to the pious sense of the sacred Scriptures, how could he be worthy of not being believed on any of the things theologized by him? For even if some of these expressions were perhaps unwritten until that time, yet since the saint gives witness that these are not alien to piety, one must pay attention to them just as to those which the teachers of piety before him used. For each of them also received its principles at its own peculiar times for the rejection of the heresies that were springing up, perhaps not distinguished in syllables from the ones before it or [this one’s]

heresy; for each of them originated at certain times for the refutation of newly arisen heresies, and while perhaps those syllables were not contained in theological writings before this or that heresy had arisen, yet they were drawn from their sense and committed to writing. Since, therefore, the great Basil, insisting upon the opinions of the theologians who preceded him, dared not use unwritten terms, but those which nonetheless depended upon the sense of the older theologians, it should be daring for us also to use those same terms, as they took their beginning from him and do not depart from the pious sense and mind of the Scriptures.

^B 4. And so that the discourse may more clearly exhibit and represent in what way this God-inspired Father used unwritten terms, not however alienated from the pious sense of the sacred Scriptures, those things must be considered by us which were dictated at the beginning of the third book of his Antirrhetic discourses against Eunomius, in which he speaks thus: "Having finally been sated with his blasphemies against the Only-Begotten, he has passed over to the Holy Spirit, and discourses concerning Him in a manner consistent with his whole intent, saying thus: 'Since these things concerning the Only-Begotten are sufficient, it remains for us to speak also concerning the Paraclete, whose doctrine we shall preserve in all things, not following the unexamined opinions of the many, but that of the saints, from whom, having learned that He is third in dignity and order, we have believed that He is also third by nature.'" Having thus set forth this fragment of the Eunomian discourses up to this point, ^C he begins to refute him, and says: "That he does not think one should remain in the simple and artless faith of the many, but that he again distorts the truth toward what seems good to him by means of certain technical and sophistic arguments, he has sufficiently shown by his own words. For while he contemns the opinion of the many, by which they glorify the Holy Spirit, he pretends to preserve the doctrine of the saints, and keeps silent about those who handed it down to him; and now he is doing exactly those things which he was shown to have done when he was discoursing about the Only-Begotten. Next, he says he learned from the saints that the Spirit is third in order and dignity, but that he himself believed that He is also third by nature. But who those saints are, and in what discourses they have set forth this teaching, he cannot say." And with these things, the saint refutes Eunomius.

^D 5. But you, whom the discourse has called as arbiter of the present struggles, observe how the saint undertakes such a refutation, and to what the aim of that refutation tends. First and above all, he convicts that basest man of lying, inasmuch as he says he has learned from the saints that the Spirit is third in order and dignity, and cannot say who these saints are, and in what discourses they have set forth a similar teaching; yet he does not condemn these very words as foreign to a pious mind. But to that which Eunomius inferred from these words—that which was from him-

he turns his refutation toward the charge of impiety. Afterward, ^A although Eunomius falsely claimed that he had learned from the saints that the Spirit is third in order and dignity, and even if such words had not been committed to writing, the saint nonetheless received them, and as he continued the discourse at great length, he concluded that it is not impious to say that He is third in order and dignity, even if one does not conclude that He is third by nature. Therefore, the saint did not begin his refutation as if piety were injured while Eunomius was asserting that the Spirit is third in order and dignity, but rather because he intended to demonstrate that Eunomius was speaking falsely when he claimed that these precise words had been uttered by certain of the earlier Fathers. For he wished to demonstrate that he was a lover of lies, ^B even regarding that which he believed, namely that He is also third by nature. Next, the saint, having accepted these things and having spoken the words according to which the doctrine of piety hands down that the Spirit is second in dignity to the Son, rests the entire head of the refutation upon the task of refuting that which Eunomius had believed of his own accord—that He was also third by nature. How the great Basil proved that the Spirit holds the second place to the Son, and how he likewise termed this a tradition of piety, we have demonstrated, with God’s help, in our preceding discourses—even if Eunomius could not say from which saints he had learned this.

6. But now we consider it necessary only to say this: since the great Basil both received and committed to writing these expressions which had not been handed down in writing up to his time, as being consonant with the pious sense of the Holy Scriptures, ^C they are clearly shadow-boxing, blinking against the light of truth, those who contend that because the great Basil said in his discourse on the Faith that he sometimes made use of expressions while fighting against heresies that arose at certain times—now against one, now against another, as necessity compelled him—one ought not to pay heed to all his theological pronouncements. These, then, are the points concerning which those of the opposite view seized upon the aforementioned passage to criticize its meaning.

7. Since, furthermore, in another section of the same discourse the saint writes, "It is a manifest falling away from faith and a charge of pride either to set aside any of the things written, or to introduce what is not written," and he brings forward the Apostle ^D as an example among men, most vehemently forbidding the addition or subtraction of anything in the divinely inspired Scriptures, through which he says, "Though it be but a man's confirmed testament, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto"—those who contradict us eagerly snatch up these words as well, thinking that they thereby rightfully and deservedly accuse us, as if we had acted wickedly by reconciling ourselves with the Roman Church, which recites in the Creed of the faith that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. We shall arrange our defense in this fashion, and by examining the words of such passages most thoroughly, we shall shape our discourse against the one who contradicts us, saying: Come now, whoever you may be, you who, just because the great one said—

Basil confessed that it is a manifest argument of infidelity to reject anything from what has been committed to writing, or to introduce what has not been written, and because the Apostle forbids adding anything to or taking anything away from the divinely inspired Scriptures, do designate the Roman Church with the crime of heresy, and on account of this do charge the Romans as guilty, because while the Greeks confess in the Creed that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, they [the Romans] add: "and from the Son." It is so entirely, you will say, and you consider it a most manifest and absolutely certain proof of your own assertion that the Italian is deservedly accused by you as a violator of piety, and you offer the evangelical voice of the Savior, by which the Savior pronounced: "The Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father." For you infer that, since the Savior thus spoke, anyone who adds "and from the Son" adulterates the evangelical truth; and you roll and re-roll the words of the great Basil concerning addition, brought up above, in every part of your discourse, vehemently accusing the Italian.

^B 8. But know that you will be refuted again by the very words of the great herald of theology, Basil, just as we have also explained concerning other matters above, and not from his own [words in other places], but from his decrees about divine things in other treatises of his, but from this very same discourse, whose segments were also brought up above, and the faith handed down in it, which is set forth in this manner and not by other words.

Basil’s Exposition of Faith

^A Paraclete, the Spirit of truth, in whom we were sealed unto the day of redemption; the Spirit of adoption, in whom we cry, Abba Father; he who distributes and works the gifts of God to each severally as he wills; who teaches and reminds of all things that he hears from the Son; the good, who guides into all the truth, and confirms all believers unto safe knowledge, and accurate confession, and spiritual and true worship of God the Father and his only-begotten Son, our Lord and God Jesus Christ. And the name of each one ^B of them clearly defines for us the property of the one named; and around each of the things named, the distinctive properties are piously to be considered, in its own way: the property of the Father in the Father, the property of the Son in the Son, and the property of the Holy Spirit in his own proper characteristic, seeing that neither the Holy Spirit speaks from himself, nor does the Son do anything of himself, but the Father sends the Son, and the Son sends the Holy Spirit. Thus we think, and thus we baptize into the consubstantial Trinity, according to the command of our Lord Jesus Christ, who said: "Go, make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to keep all things that I have commanded you." ^C By keeping these things, we demonstrate love toward him, and are accounted worthy to remain therein, as it is written; whereas those who do not keep them are convicted of being disposed otherwise. "For he who does not love me," says the Lord, "does not keep my words." And again: "He who has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me." This, then, is the faith handed down by the great Basil in his very own words.

9. But from this, you shall be refuted on the points you make. For in this [work], by not stating that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son—which the addition of the Italians desires—and by keeping silence also ^D about his proceeding from the Father, which the Lord’s voice in the Gospel has proclaimed—whereby he openly and plainly confirms that such an addition to the Creed made by the Italians is not of the sort that he himself, and the rest of our God-bearing Fathers, forbade, subjecting to anathema anyone who adds anything to or subtracts anything from the sound faith—you are refuted. For a true addition or subtraction is when the sound faith is violated not by words, but by foreign and alien meanings. Indeed, if the Gospel truth is wounded by the addition of words, and if to proffer a faith in which the Gospel voices of the Savior are entirely ignored, but are instead muffled in silence and dissembled, is to violate the Lord’s words and to adulterate the Gospel—if this, I say, were true, never would this great Basil have asserted that it is a plain and open fall from the faith, and a sign of pride, either to reject something from what is written or from those which are not

^A written? Now, however, while handing down a definition of faith and piety, he omitted the voice of the Lord written in the Gospels, which says that the Spirit proceeds from the Father. Is it possible, then, that because the great Basil in this profession of faith did not say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, he has rejected something of what is written, and has rendered himself subject to that condemnation which our Fathers brought against those who add to or take away from the Symbol of faith? And what hell would belch forth such a blasphemy against that luminary of the Church? ^B He himself is the one who calls it a “plain fall from the faith” to reject anything from what is written or to introduce what is not, and by bringing forward the Apostle, who uses a human example to forbid most severely the addition or removal of anything in the divinely inspired Scriptures, he is the same one who says these things. And in the confession of faith issued by him, he passes over in silence the evangelical voice of the Savior concerning the procession of the Spirit—if he had truly judged that the omission of even a single jot or letter of the words found ^C in the divinely inspired Scriptures was a diminution of accurate piety. This is not so; it is not so. But in calling the rejection of something written or the introduction of something not written a “plain fall from the faith” and an accusation of pride, and in bringing forward the Apostle as a human example forbidding most severely the addition or removal of anything in the divinely inspired Scriptures, he then sets forth a confession of faith and keeps silent the evangelical voice which says that the Spirit proceeds from the Father; he thereby provides a clear proof that it is not a rejection of what is written to leave out of silent silence certain evangelical and ^D apostolic words in theological treatises, provided that the theological statements present an accurate and complete understanding based on the meaning of all the other words. And if it is not a removal of piety to remove scriptural words, provided that the meaning of piety is preserved complete, then neither is the addition of words a rejection of piety, provided that the meaning of the added words preserves piety inviolate. Hence, you have not rightly supposed that you can refute us from what was said by the Saint concerning addition and removal in the aforementioned passage, as though we recognized that the faith is in no way harmed by the addition in the Symbol, having embraced the communion of the Roman Church.

10. You may also learn this from other words of the same discourse. For the Saint promises those who requested it of him that he would hand down the exposition of the faith uncorrupted and unadulterated, and just as he himself had learned it from the divinely inspired Scripture. For in one of the passages of the aforementioned discourse, he says clearly: “And you yourselves know certainly that it is the distinct mark of a faithful minister that, whatever he has been entrusted by the good Master to distribute to his fellow servants, these things he must preserve for them uncorrupted and unadulterated. So too, whatever I have learned from the divinely inspired Scripture...”

as it is the will of God, I am bound by necessity to set forth for the common good.” ^A If, therefore, anyone who professes to deliver to those who ask for it a faith that is requested to be entire and in no respect adulterated, and promises to set before them what he himself learned from the divine Scriptures, if the teaching of the divinely inspired Scripture is defined even down to specific words, how could he, in delivering the faith, have passed over in silence that very word which the Lord spoke in the Gospels? And if he did pass it over, how would he not be guilty of a lie, and that a grand one, having promised to say what he had learned from divine Scripture, while remaining silent concerning those things which seemed more necessary than all others?

Surely anyone who confesses the great Basil to be a teacher of piety, as I do, and believes him to be an abode of the Spirit, would agree that he said the faith given by him was entire and unadulterated, ^B and as he had learned it from divine Scripture—and this even though it lacked the Gospel words concerning the procession of the Spirit—for no other reason than that he judges the addition to or subtraction from the faith not by words, but by concepts. Since the proof is thus shown to be firm and manifest that an addition to or subtraction from the faith consists not in words but in concepts, you are caught in vain, confounding the arguments—you who reproach us for the communion and peace entered into with the Roman Church.

CHAPTER IV.

Against those who doubt regarding the saying, "What is said to be from the Son is referred to the Father.”

^C 1. But since, whenever those who are prone to doubt persist in contradicting the words of the saints which manifest that the Spirit is from the Son and out of the Son, they ask again, saying: “And from where are we to learn that what is said to be from the Son has its reference to the Father?” ^D As for a demonstration of what they ask, since we can bring forward nothing more fitting or appropriate than what the great Basil said at the end of his second oration against Eunomius, we bring forward those very words, which are as follows: “But to whom among all is it not clear that no operation of the Son is divided from the Father, nor is there anything in existence which dwells in the Son that is alien to the Father? ‘All things,’ he says, ‘are mine, and thine are mine.’ How, then, does he attribute the cause and origin of the Spirit to the Only-Begotten alone, and take the creation of this [Spirit] as an accusation against his nature? For if he thinks these things while setting up two opposing principles, he will be crushed along with Manichaeus and Marcion; but if he thinks that all things depend upon and proceed from one, then what is said to be from the Son has its reference to the first cause. So that even if we believe that all things have been brought into being through the Word of God, nevertheless..."

we do not deny that God is the cause of all things. ^A And so, by this discourse of ours, we propose to show that the cause of the Spirit is referred to the Father, even if he is also said to be from the Son.

2. But these men, pressing us more contentiously, say: "The great Basil, as we can conjecture from the words spoken, was not here discoursing upon the deity of the Spirit so that those things brought forward would be a solution to our question. But ^B since Eunomius was impiety and blasphemously asserting that he was a creature of the Son, separating him from the Father, and affirming him to be a creature of the Son alone, the saint, proposing as it were certain maxims—namely, 'that no operation of the Son is divided from the Father,' and 'that there is nothing in existence which is in the Son and yet alien to the Father'—concludes from this, wrongly and not without error, that the cause of the Spirit is attributed to the Only-Begotten alone, and that his creation is assumed for the sake of accusing his nature." To those who thus counter-object to our position, we again reply, asking: "And what do you think, ^C best of men? Did Eunomius seem to the Father Basil worthy of condemnation for saying that the Spirit is from the Son alone, because he had previously called the Spirit a creature of the Son? And if, because of this, there follows for you, without doubt, the notion—though it is not expressed in words—that if Eunomius, holding the Spirit to be not a creature but God, had said that he was from the Son alone, he would never have been condemned by Father Basil? For either the Spirit is a creature according to Eunomius—in which case the blasphemy falls upon his own head—or he is not a creature, according to the truth of theology. And if Eunomius is to be condemned because of the opinion that he is a creature, while asserting that the Spirit is from the Son alone, ^D it is manifest that he who holds the Spirit to be God is not to be condemned, even if he says that he is from the Son alone. And take care, lest in fleeing from the smoke you fall into the fire. For you who contend that the Spirit is from the Father alone, as if you had forgotten that he is not the Spirit of the Father only, seem to be bringing forward the great Basil, by means of the objection which he proposed to Eunomius, to establish that the Spirit is from the Son alone according to his divine essence."

3. For I say again that if, according to you, a complaint has arisen against Eunomius, who says that the Spirit is from the Son alone, because he holds him to be a creature; it is evident that he would not have been condemned for saying he is from the Son alone, if he thought him to be God. And since this thought is compelled to follow as a necessary implication, those who insist that the Spirit is from the Father alone, unwittingly prove that he is from the Son alone. But if the absurdity and irrationality that springs from this clearly demonstrates that the heretic Eunomius is not reproved by the great Basil for the sake of the creature-opinion—that is, for saying that the Spirit is from the Son alone—but for the very fact of his saying he is "from the Only" at all, whether, as Eunomius blasphemously supposed, he is a creature, or, as theology...

^A holds, the Holy Spirit is God—there remains no place for doubt for us to conclude that the saint is almost saying this to Eunomius: that the Holy Spirit, even if according to his divine essence he is not separated from the Father by being from the Son alone, yet even if he were a creature of the Son, Eunomius, according to you, even so you ought not to attribute his cause to the Only-Begotten alone and separate him from the Father, because everything that is made by the Son has its reference back to the Father as the first cause. But and since it is undoubtedly manifest that Eunomius was not rebuked by the great Basil for the sake of the opinion of him being a creature, in that he said the Spirit is from the Son alone, but rather because he said he is his in such a way as to be entirely from the Son alone, the refutation of those who doubt whether what is said to be from the Son has its reference back to the Father ^B is simultaneously manifested.

4. But you, if such a refutation does not seem to you to appear sufficiently strong, yet, having examined more accurately the words which the saint proceeds to add after the aforementioned excerpt, you will further perceive what the argument has clearly proven to you, having been laid out at length above. For after the saint has refuted Eunomius, and all but reached the point of saying to him that "even if the Spirit were a creature of the Son, Eunomius, according to you, even so you ought not to attribute his cause to the Only-Begotten alone, because everything that is made by the Son has its reference back to the Father as the first cause," he takes up a discussion concerning the divinity of the Spirit, and, desiring ^C to establish that he exists from the Father and the Son according to his own divinity, as one essentially proceeding from the Father through the Son, he discourses in these very words: "But how does it not involve manifest danger to separate the Spirit from God? Since the Apostle hands him down to us connectedly, now calling him the Spirit of Christ, and now of God, where he writes: 'But if anyone has not the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to him' (Rom. viii, 9). And again: 'But you have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God.' And this, when the Lord calls him the Spirit of truth, since he himself is the truth, and he proceeds from the Father." These, indeed, are the very words of the saint. But you, consider this more attentively: "But how does it not involve manifest danger to separate the Spirit from God?" For the saint did not say, "But how does it not ^D involve manifest danger to join the Spirit to the Son, when he is neither through him nor from him, but from the Father alone?" But he said, "But how does it not involve manifest danger to separate the Spirit from God?" Hence it is evident that all of his effort was to demonstrate in what way the Spirit, who is joined to the Father, would be separated from him as Eunomius pretended, and it is clear from the testimonies he adds, both apostolic and evangelical, by which he demonstrates that the Spirit is connected to the Son and to the Father, and not because he is the Son's, for that reason he is not the Father's, nor because he is from the Father, for that reason he is not

^A through the Son, or from the Son. For the saint brings forward to serve as testimony to the aforementioned connection the evangelical sayings, both that which says, “The Spirit of truth,” and that which says, “He proceeds from the Father,” knowing precisely that as the word “proceeds” can signify the natural relation and affinity of the Spirit to the Father, so it can also signify the relation and affinity of the Spirit to the Son, when it calls him the Spirit of truth. And if anyone, being unconvinced by the equal force of these sayings, from which it is apparent that the Spirit is conjoined to the Son and to the Father, as they are adduced in testimony by the great Basil, were to look for those parts of the writings of the great Basil in which he is found saying, “I understand his affinity with the Father, since he proceeds from the Father, but his affinity with the Son, since I hear, ^B ‘If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not his.’” And our own argument against those who hesitate about whether that which is said to be from the Son has its reference to the Father is, I think, adequately and sufficiently resolved in this way. But that which will be added must be joined to what has already been said as a kind of corollary. For since the saint was striving with all his might to demonstrate that the Spirit is not a creature of the Son, if he had demonstrated that he is in no way from the Son, then it would already have been demonstrated also that he is not a creature of the Son. For that which in no way exists from him, in what sense could it be called his creation? For there was no other approach for Eunomius to assert that the Spirit is a creature of the Son, other than this one: that it was being openly proclaimed by those who lived at that time ^C that the Spirit is from the Father through the Son, and consequently from the Son. For the Spirit is not from the Son as from a first cause and principle, but existing from the Father through the Son. And the argument would not only have had the force that the Spirit is not a creature of the Son, if the saint could have demonstrated that he is not from the Son. But there was also another and much deeper point for those who examine these things more carefully to perceive. For Eunomius, calling the Spirit a creature of the Son and lesser than the Only-begotten, taking the contempt of the Holy Spirit as something proven to all, started from there to demonstrate the diminution of the Only-begotten, as the same great Basil himself ^D testifies a little before the passage proposed for examination, speaking verbally as follows: “For the Lord says concerning the Paraclete, ‘He will glorify me,’ but this slanderous tongue declares it to be an impediment to the Son in being compared with the Father. For since the Spirit, he says, has the Son as Maker, (but may you be propitious to us, O Lord, in the things we speak), this is of such a kind that it adds no glory to the Creator, and therefore he is not even worthy to be compared to the Father, since, by the lowliness of the things he made, he is deprived of the equality of dignity.” The saint, asserting these things verbatim, and proclaiming and demonstrating openly to all the blasphemy of Eunomius,

and representing how the equality of honor of the Son with the Father is destroyed thereby, frames his argument from the fact that the Spirit was made by the Son; ^A next, he produces the frequently cited passage, saying: “And to whom among all is it unknown that no operation of the Son is separated from the Father?” and the rest of the passage. Since, therefore, the saint perceived that Eunomius, in saying that the Spirit is made by the Son, was aiming at the belittling of the glory of the Only-Begotten and at hindering his equality of honor with the Father, if he had been able to demonstrate from the Scriptures that the Spirit does not exist from the Son, what other refutation of the blasphemies of Eunomius could he have found more apt than to demonstrate that the Spirit does not exist at all from the Son? For if it had been demonstrated that the Spirit in no way exists from the Son, such a demonstration would have been sufficient to stop the mouth of Eunomius, the accuser, who says that the lowliness of the Spirit, having been made by the Son, does not permit the Son to be equal in honor to the Father. And the demonstration that the Holy Spirit does not at all exist from the Son would surely have been useful to the saint for the subversion of the blasphemies of Eunomius that had appeared. But the saint, not having the means to demonstrate this, does not contradict Eunomius concerning the Spirit being from the Son, as Eunomius most clearly repeats this in his own writings time and time again; but he contradicts that most base enemy of God only when he says that it is from the Son *alone*. And he who contradicts not the fact that the Spirit is from the Son, but the fact that the Holy Spirit is from the Son *alone*, how does he not clearly establish it as being from both? For no one will say that the saint, while asserting that the Spirit is not from the Son *alone*, is confirming that the Spirit is from the Father *alone*—nor must one reason in this way, that if the Spirit is not from the Son *alone*, then it is from the Father *alone*. ^B Rather, one must know that he who says that the Spirit is not from the Son *alone* is clearly establishing that it is from both. Yet he who wishes to demonstrate that the Spirit is from the Father *alone* will not find any other way for such a demonstration to be easy, unless he undertakes to subvert the fact that the Spirit is entirely from the Son. For only this—and nothing else—will be able to establish that the Spirit is from the Father *alone*.

CHAPTER V.

To those who doubt, “How does the Spirit proceed through the Son?”

1. When I weigh the absurdity of the puzzles that many people devise concerning the incomprehensible Trinity; when I take into my mind the impossibility of the questions, and the sea that these people attempt to swim and the depth that they dare to explore, I marvel at the boldness of the mind stirred to such things, and, as if I myself were one of those who dare to approach such matters, I shudder in my mind and in my whole spirit. For what are the things that they doubt regarding the procession of the most holy Spirit? “We,” they say, “have learned that the Son and the Spirit emanate from the Father simultaneously. And how,” they ask, “does he who emanates from the Father simultaneously with the Son proceed through the Son?” And these are their words. ^D

^A 2. We, indeed, being asked for a solution to such doubts, have no way to find one elsewhere than from the questioning of other doubts brought forward against the stipulated ones. For what sort of solution could anyone ever devise for things that no natural reason can reach, which are superior to all eternity and time, and for which there is no measure of comprehension? For those who are overly inquisitive about these things, after much exhausting labor to put a limit on their knowledge and to find a comprehension of them, eventually arrive only at one end and one comprehension: that they are boundless and beyond comprehension. Given such incomprehensible and inconceivable matters, what solution could one devise for those who doubt? Indeed, there is no other way to stop those who are in doubt about such matters from doubting than by drawing forth other doubts, so that, being brought to a state where they cannot provide a solution to the doubt ^B, they might at length be kept from doubting.

3. Therefore, let them answer us when they ask: “In what manner does the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father?” For those who can provide us with a reason as to how the Spirit proceeds from the Father, we are ready to provide a reason as to how the Spirit proceeds through the Son. But if they begin to doubt because the Spirit proceeds from the Father simultaneously with the Son, wondering how it could be “through the Son” as if it implied some interval of time, let them first tell us: “In what manner is the Son simultaneously with the Father, and yet has his being from the Father?” And we will explain how the Spirit is simultaneously with the Son and has his being through the Son. For if the preposition “through” in the procession of the Spirit through the Son carries the force of time, then the preposition “from” must necessarily have the same force of time regarding the generation of the Son from the Father. But no one who is pious, unless he be mad like Arius and Eunomius, would pre-conceive a temporal concept of the Son’s generation. Note, ^C therefore, that no temporal concept can have any place in the procession of the All-Holy Spirit through the Son either. We must not, therefore, doubt and counter-doubt about matters where all room for doubting ceases, lest those who doubt and counter-doubt appear to be peering into the mysteries of God like the insane or the deranged. It is not, however, that because it is dangerous and perilous to doubt everything concerning God, one must therefore entirely forbid speaking or hearing anything about God, lest the investigation of the knowledge of God in every discourse be entirely abandoned to the point of utter godlessness. But since, because we know in part and comprehend in part, it is safe and beneficial to inquire about God in ways that are fitting, there are times when it is necessary to avoid doubting, and times when it is necessary to raise questions and investigate them diligently.

4. On account of these things, therefore, in the present text, while demonstrating that the exact nature of the inquiry into the Trinity is incomprehensible and unattainable, we have repelled the doubts of our opponents with the aforementioned doubts. ^D

^A Nevertheless, having a few things to say, insofar as we can slightly appease the desire of the one who is questioning—and these not from ourselves, but from those sources through which the divine Scriptures occupy our training toward a dim sort of impression of the truth—we say the following to those who are in doubt. You are in doubt: how is it that the Spirit proceeds from the Father together with the Son, and how is it that He proceeds from the Father through the Son? Yet our discourse knows that our holy Fathers, the theologians, in explaining certain theological matters, have made use of certain images, through which it is granted to conceive that it is not altogether absurd that there should be two effects ^B both emerging from the first cause at once, and yet that one should be through the other. Immediately, Gregory, who is surnamed "the Theologian," takes the sun, the ray, and the light as an image of the un-imaged Trinity. For light and the ray emerge from the solar disk simultaneously, and neither exists without the other, but one is through the other—for the light is through the ray. And the proof of this is our own indemonstrable perception. What, therefore, has the procession of light through a ray damaged the concept of "together"? And already this one example is brought before you by one who is both named "Theologian" and acknowledged as such, sufficient to persuade you not to doubt that the Spirit is from the Father together with the Son and through the Son. ^C But again, he also takes the eye, the spring, and the river as examples of the same concept; for the spring and the river are from the eye simultaneously, but the river is admittedly through the spring, and the fact that the river proceeds from the eye through the spring does not in any way harm the concept of "together." And if you wish, let the things said by others in different ways, but to the same intent, be added to these examples: spring, river, water; root, branch, fruit; rose, flower, scent. Those who are in doubt, while pondering such examples, will cease from being more curious than is fitting about how the Spirit is from the Father both together with the Son and through the Son. For it is sufficient for us, in order to restrain curiosity, to know that those who decreed the procession through the Son held that it was without time and above time, and they never decreed anything either dangerous or implicated in error. ^D

CHAPTER VI

To those who say: "If it proceeds through the Son, how are there not two existences of the Spirit?"

1. And how is it, they say, that one can speak of the Spirit proceeding through the Son, and yet not conceive of two existences of the Spirit, one from the Father, and another through the Son? And who, O friends, taught you these things, which are full of either malice or folly? For of those who utter such things, not all are at fault in both ways, but some do so maliciously, and others foolishly, blaring them into the ears of the multitude. For those whose disposition is contentious, and who are intensely eager to overcome all others into whom they force and intrude themselves, these maliciously both invent and proclaim everything. Others, having obtained a simple nature and no...

^A foresight of the depth of this malice, offer these things as reasonable questions to whomever they wish.

2. We, however, setting nothing before the truth, even if the accusatory tongues falsely accuse us of those things from which we are far removed in deed, word, and thought, say to those who doubt how it is possible to say the Spirit proceeds through the Son and yet not conceive of two ^B existences of the one Spirit: "It behooved you, O friends, having once professed to practice piety, not to attack calumniously anything that is said in the divine Scripture. But since, neglecting the uninquisitive nature of the faith obtained from the Scriptures, you imagine two existences of the one Spirit if the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, hear that not even in these lower and visible things, in which two effects are seen to come forth from a primary cause—one of which is through the other—can it be said that there are two existences of the third in order, ^C and that which does not follow immediately from the primary cause. For, that I may again use the same examples to prove what I desire—those which I used in the preceding chapter—tell us, you who raise these doubts, are there two existences of the solar light, one from the disc and another through the ray? Make clear to us, are there two existences of the one river, one from the eye and another through the fountain? But if in the case of these things, which are sensible and subject to the bounds of created nature, ^D we cannot say that there are two existences of one thing, which possesses its existence from the primary cause through an effect flowing along with it—how can you raise such doubts about those things regarding which the reason of nature falters, whatever they may be? Understand that it is not fitting for one who has once embraced piety to inquire curiously beyond what has been delivered to him, but while he hears that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, to believe that the Spirit is one, and that there is one existence of the one Spirit."

CAPUT VII. To those who desire to learn what the mediation of the Son is, which Gregory of Nyssa defines, saying: "By the mediation of the Son, preserving to Him his status as only-begotten, and not excluding the Spirit from his natural relation toward the Father."

1. What shall we do with you, O man, who have once addicted your mind to curious questioning and put the quest for doubts about everything before all else? You demand from us the reasons for which the Theologian of Nyssa, when discoursing on the Trinity, implies the mediation of the Son. And these reasons surpass not only our own knowledge—who are like us in being defiled by the mire of these lower things and dragging ourselves along the ground—but also that of any other person, whoever he may be, who is adorned with a pure and sublime life and mind. For perhaps if he himself were present, he who declared this mediation, and were asked for reasons of interpretation,

and further, for explanations of that interpretation, and again for still further explications of the explanation, he would not have so easily checked your curiosity, had he not taken refuge in that sanctuary of theology, namely, that divine matters can neither be known nor comprehended. For discourses concerning dogmas, since they are not subject to natural necessities, and are spoken concerning an incomprehensible essence and nature, are for the most part embraced by the practitioners of piety with faith that requires no demonstration. But if there should be a need for arguments by those who inquire for the sake of learning, and not for the sake of contention, the one from whom the arguments are requested will say those things which he is able to demonstrate to have been previously spoken by holy men and theologians, whom the Church has both received and acknowledges as teachers of piety, just as we shall now do, with God, regarding those things about which you have questioned.

^B 2. The name of mediation troubles your mind greatly, and you imagine interval-based concepts and real separation, as happens in our own individuals, forming them in your mind. To such an extent do you conceive these things as corporeal on account of this expression, that you do not even shrink from saying that which Christian piety plainly abhors: that to assert three Gods and to posit the mediation of the Son in the Trinity are the same thing. And you indeed imagine these things, and presume to utter such things from your own inventions, having found my person more vulnerable to calumnies, and through me you wage war against him who spoke them. I, however, taking up the defense not of myself, but of him, am compelled to impart this to you regarding this mediation. Since the most theological Nyssen, in his discourse to Ablabius, writes: "While we confess the similarity of nature, we do not deny the difference which arises from cause and effect, in which alone we perceive the one to be distinguished from the other, in that we believe one to be the cause, and the other to be from the cause. And in that which is from the cause, we conceive again a difference: for one is immediately from the first, and the other is through that which is immediately from the first; so that the unigeniture remains in the Son without any hesitation, and there is no doubt that the Spirit is from the Father, the mediation of the Son preserving both the unigeniture for Himself and not excluding the Spirit from a natural relation towards the Father." ^C This mediation, I say, is nothing other than the natural relation by which the Spirit is joined to the Father through the Son, as one who proceeds from the Father through Him.

3. But if you, hearing of the mediation of the hypostasis of the Son, carve up the three hypostases of the Deity into three things distinct by some essential division, you will come to know that you are not imagining this rightly, if you examine well the concept, according to which the Son is said to be second to the Father. For once you have examined well such a "secondness," knowledge of His mediation will be easy for you. For I ask you: What do you think it is when you hear the Son is second from the Father? For will the Son be declared second to the Father ^D in time, and in time itself produced as an exis-

- tent entity? Or by power? Or by some dignity? Or by some of the others, as many as indicate the preeminence of the first relative to their own secondaries? And who, without Arius and those who are deranged and manic like Arius, would vomit forth such blasphemy? It remains, therefore, that the Son is to be understood and called second from the Father solely according to his being caused from the Father; which ^A even the great Basil clearly demonstrates, saying that the Son is "second from the Father in order and dignity," because he is from the Father. If, therefore, it is brightly apparent from this that the Son is called second from the Father for no other reason than that he alone is caused from the Father—which I have said before and say again—if you carefully consider the Son’s second place in relation to the Father, you will be able to grasp from this that the mediation of the Son is also spoken of for the same reason of cause and effect. Since the person of the Son is produced from the Father, and that of the Spirit is likewise, but the one is immediately from the First, while the other is through the one who is immediately from the First, the proximity of the caused to the First reveals the Son as second from the Father, and as the medium between the Father and the Spirit. For because the Son is immediately from the Father according to his being caused, he is called second to Him. And it is not to be thought of corporeal-^Bly here, regarding the first and second, nor that the second is divided from the first; but, by himself joining the Spirit to the Father, he is called the medium between the Father and the Spirit, and the Spirit is called third from the Father in both order and dignity, because he proceeds from the Father through the Son. And it is not to be thought of corporeally here, regarding the third, nor is the third divided from the First on account of the mediation of the second, but is united, as befits God, in an unconfused unity of essence. The most theological Nyssen indicates this, saying: "The Son’s mediation preserves the Only-Begotten for Himself and does not exclude the Spirit from his natural relation toward the Father." If, therefore, the proximity of the caused, and the Son’s being placed second in relation to the Father, permits his mediation toward the whole holy Trinity to be understood, why do you fabricate ^C for yourself an image of three gods from this expression, as if one should derive that from it, neither terrified by the fear of God nor reverencing the blamelessness of the one who spoke it?

4. And in another way. Who can ever conceive of three persons subsisting, and in themselves superior to the mixing and confusion of the synthesis, without conceiving of a mediation within the three? For if there is no medium, there is no Trinity; and if mixing is not introduced into the Trinity, the medium is present in it by all means. The holy and blessed Trinity, therefore, since it is above all reason and all comprehension, is both unity and Trinity; and for the reason by which it is a true and unconfused Trinity, it has a medium; but for the reason by which it is a Unity, it admits neither the name of the second, nor of the third, nor of the medium. And since the account of the persons is that by which God is a Trinity, according to such an account, the medium is also conceived; however, according to that of the one es-^Dsence and godhead, according to which God is a unity, which can neither be pondered...

nor expressed as a medium in the Trinity. Therefore, we call the person of the Son, which is immediately caused by the Father, the second after the Father—following the footsteps of our theologian Fathers—and we call the Spirit, who proceeds from the Father through the Son, the third from the Father, according to the order delivered by our Savior in baptism; and hence our faith, concerning the second and third persons in the blessed Trinity, is undoubtedly both conceived and expressed. But since the Godhead of the Trinity is one, the Son could never be called a second God, nor the Holy Spirit a third God; nor can the Son be considered a medium between the Father and the Spirit according to the account of the Godhead, for that which is one ^B altogether excludes a medium. Yet, it is not because the Son is not understood or called a medium between the Father and the Spirit—according to the account of the one, and therefore the essence and Godhead that does not admit of a medium—that his mediation toward the Father and the Spirit will therefore not be essential; but it is because according to the account of the persons, by which, as has been said, God is a Trinity, the Word ^C is by his own essence and hypostasis a medium between the Father, who subsists by his own essence and hypostasis, and the Spirit, who also subsists by his own essence and hypostasis; and his mediation will be natural and essential, and not merely according to the bare word of relation, as some have not hesitated to assert. For the natural relation, by which the Son is second from the Father, as being immediately from him, but a medium between the Father and the Spirit, in that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, is not simply indicated by a bare word alone, but clearly expresses the things which are relatively joined together, namely, the persons existing in essence and hypostasis. Since the Son, existing in essence and hypostasis, ^D is immediately from the Father, who subsists in essence and hypostasis, and the Holy Spirit, himself subsisting in essence and hypostasis, proceeds from the Father through the Son, by what reasoning will the mediation of the Son not be natural and essential, but merely understood and expressed by a bare word of relation? And language follows the mode by which the mind, most addicted to speculation and most intently penetrating other things, is not able to conceive what is immediate in the monad, yet conceives a medium in the Trinity, and is not able to discern what is a medium in the Trinity, yet is enlightened by the immediacy of the monad.

5. Nevertheless, since some images can be taken from those things which are subject to us, for those who reach out toward the knowledge of things above us and incomprehensible, we shall add this also, beyond what has already been said, from our own things grasped by thought, even if the divine essence is nothing of these things that are, but is above all things. Let us, however, suppose for the sake of an image and example that it is fire or light. He who attempts to approach the contemplation of such a fire, when he expands himself into that which is without beginning and without end, does not have where he might stand and lean himself.

^A wandering far and wide, does not find where it may halt or rest, but recognizes that entire sea of essence as a unity circumscribed by no boundaries: and it is truly an interminable unity, neither recognizing a beginning from anywhere, nor ending in any place. But when, with all faith, examination, and the aforementioned demonstration (for what demonstration could there be in those things that are above nature?), one attempts to divide this monad into a Triad of persons, he becomes wholly immersed in a division conceived by the intellect, expelling every thought of essential and real division; and since this is already acknowledged, in this admirable division attempted by the intellect, how could the Trinity be a Trinity, if there were not a medium in it? For just as we said before, if there is no medium, there will not be a Trinity; and if there were no medium, perhaps Sabellius and the confusion of Sabellius would revive.

6. But if you, hearing of a division ^B by the intellect, refuse to admit, in that division by the intellect, the mediation of the person who is the mediator, but say that, since the division is by the intellect, the mediation, therefore, exists only in a mere and bare word, know that this is clearly most rash, and full of error, and does not in any way wound piety. For if, because of a division by the intellect, you conceive and imagine the mediation in the divided persons to be in a mere and bare word, the sum of your piety will be in peril, and the Trinity will no longer be a Trinity of persons existing in essence and hypostasis, but rather a Trinity existing only in thought and in a mere and bare word. But what abyss will vomit forth such blasphemy? For even if the division of the mentioned persons ^C is and is called a division by the intellect, yet each of them is a person truly existing in essence and hypostasis, and it does not follow that because the division is by the intellect, their existence also is by the intellect. And for this reason, the mediation of the Son is natural and essential as a medium between the Father and the Spirit.

7. I offer you these arguments concerning this mediation, finding as its interpreter the very Father who had spoken it. For having said before, "Through him who is," he immediately added the name of mediation, thereby demonstrating that the cause of the name of mediation was this very thing: that the Spirit is from the Father through the Son. You, therefore, do not maliciously insist on mere words ^D to disparage the things that have been said as if they introduced three natures, nor presume to perceive by reasons sought from nature those things which are above nature. But knowing that it is incomprehensible to all to understand how the Godhead is both one and three, preserve the reason of the Trinity, whereby God is a Trinity, not shrinking from speaking of a medium in the Trinity, and hold fast to the definition of the unity, whereby God is a unity, in no way daring to interpose a medium in the unity. And thus, not insisting on the words (as I have said), but penetrating into the meaning of the words, you will be able to understand that it is not because the Son mediates naturally and essentially in the procession of the Spirit from the Father that the divine nature is divided, but because the Spirit is conjoined essentially to the Father through the Son,

the Trinity is theologized into a unity of essence. Having said these things concerning mediation, let us turn to another objection.

CHAPTER VIII.

1. Those who reject the name of order in the holy Trinity, being, as it seems, little practiced in the writings of the saints—which openly explain both that order is spoken of and how it is spoken of—hear the term with indignation, and fashion divisions that do not exist in the indivisible nature. But we, in our first *Apologetic*, which has already been made public, have accurately established that order is spoken of by the holy Fathers who delivered the theology to us; and we have now been led to say how it is spoken of. But having first proposed the objection of those who contradict us, we shall subsequently give our attention to the things that tend to its refutation. How, they say, is it possible to speak of order in the Trinity, and not have the theology lapse into three gods? ^A

2. Pay attention, whoever you may be who raises doubts, and you will learn that you are straying greatly from the very things you call into question. Order would indeed be poorly spoken of if the saints had delivered it indefinitely and according to whatever opinion anyone might wish; but now, since they have openly predetermined the mode by which they prescribed the name of order, and the mode is that the order signifies nothing other than the sole nature of the cause's relation to what is caused—by which relation the three persons of the Godhead possess a conjunction one with another—it is possible for anyone who wishes to judge rightly concerning such matters to discern that the mention of three gods does not appear in the name of order, but rather an indissoluble and unbreakable union of a causative person and two caused ones, of whom the one depends through the other from the first cause. ^B And it is equivalent either to deny this order or to deny the natural and continuous unity of the three persons. For without such an order, the connection of the three hypostases into one essence and Godhead will not be preserved. And we must consider by what reasoning this is so. The Son, by conjoining himself to the Father, is both said and believed to be united naturally and essentially to the Father, because he is from the essence of the Father, his genuine offspring. And this is the order affirmed between the Father and the Son, which Great Basil also insinuated when he said, "The Father is prior to the Son in order, ^C according to the relation of causes to the things that are from them." The Spirit, by conjoining himself to the Son, is both said and believed to be united to him naturally and essentially, according to the fact that he is through the Son; and this is the order affirmed between the Son and the Spirit, which the Nyssen also approved when he asserted, "The Son is to be understood before the hypostasis of the Spirit according to the nature of the cause." Thus, the one nature of the three persons, and one continuity, appears from a similar order according to the relation of causes to the things that are from the causes, so that the Spirit, from the Father through the Son ^D

proceeds and through Him is united and joined to the Father. If, therefore, while the Father is set before the Son, and the Son is predetermined before the hypostasis of the Spirit, the continuity and natural union of the three persons of the Godhead appears, how does ^A the order indicate division, and not rather a natural union? These things, therefore, we were bound to say, wishing to clarify the account of the order.

3. But if those who contradict us in every way, wishing to overturn this, say that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Father through the Son, and for this reason is not even united to the Father through the Son, but proceedeth immediately from the Father, and claim for Him an unmediated unity with the Father, let them consider lest, while they fancy a division of the Godhead from the order handed down by the saints, they be proved to hold a more essential division between the Son and the Spirit. For let it be granted, as they themselves say, that the Spirit does not proceed from the Father through the Son, but immediately and directly, as the Son proceeds from the Father; will He not also itself be second from the Father? And let them produce a Father and theologian who has said such a thing, and they will persuade us. But if they have none to cite or to prove it, let them be persuaded [by us] and not dare to contradict the saints so lightly. For we, in saying that He proceeds through the Son, bring forward as witnesses those who say clearly that the Spirit is the third in order from the Father; ^B and the saints who have said this we bring forward as proofs of the faith. We bring forward not a few written testimonies of the saints in support of the fact that the Spirit is joined to the Father through the Son, and whoever desires to learn the truth about the things said, by running through what we have set forth concerning these matters in other treatises, will know it accurately.

4. Moreover, if they in their rush to overturn the order, should shamelessly presume to say that not only the Son, but also the Spirit is second in order from the Father, let them consider lest, as I said, they be proved to hold a division between the Son and the Spirit. And in what way, this is manifest from what follows. If the Holy Spirit is second from the Father in the relation of effect, it is manifest that He is not from the Father through the Son. ^C For the destruction of the Spirit being through the Son is the manifest consequence of the Spirit being the second after the Father in the relation of effect. If this be granted—and it is already acknowledged in the theological writings of the Fathers that the Spirit is not given to the essence and divinity of the Son—how could the Son be called the source of the Spirit, and the Spirit proceed and gush forth from the essence and divinity of the Son? And if neither is the Son the source of the Spirit, nor is the Spirit said to proceed and gush forth from the Son, how would the Spirit not be essentially divided from the Son? And from whence did this division follow, if not from the audacity of those saying that ^D the Spirit is set in second order from the Father according to the relation of effect?

^A 5. O man, do you deny that the Spirit exists through the Son? And again I say, you have failed to notice that you are alienating Him from the Son according to His very essence. For if He exists from the Father, and not through the Son, He is indeed essentially united to the Father, as being from His essence, but how could He have essential union with the Son, unless one wishes to think that the essence of the Spirit is united to the essence of the Son just as the essence of one brother is to the essence of another? But this is blasphemous, and as far as possible from that indivisible essence. For who would dare to establish in God such a division of essential existence for the three hypostases, as the fraternal consubstantiality is divided according to the essential existences of the hypostases, and who would grant a similar division of essential existence to the three persons? For the three hypostases themselves, while distinct in thought, possess what is indivisible between them not in thought, but in reality. And since the three hypostases of the Godhead are indivisible from one another in reality, how can it be conceived that we imagine the indivisibility of the three hypostases in this way, if someone asserts the Spirit ^B to be from the Father, and denies that He exists through the Son?

6. Consider, therefore, without passion, O examiner of my words, before the Trinity Itself. The Son is, and is called, one essence with the Father for this reason: because He is from the essence of the Father immutably and indivisibly. The Spirit is, and is called, one essence with the Son and the Father for this reason: because the essence of the Spirit is through the Son from the Father. But if anyone removes this "through the Son," he cuts, breaks, and divides the very essence that is uncut, unbroken, and indivisible. For what union or coherence of the Spirit to the Son would he devise, if not one understood according to that very indivisible union and coherence of a similar nature, but rather something participated in and sharing in division—that is, ^C the one which, according to natural and essential existence, is from the primary cause of two effects? Therefore, that no one who strives to cultivate piety may be found to be transfixed by a similar blasphemy, the voices of the theologians, the Fathers, must be kissed from the heart, who have declared the Spirit to be from the Father through the Son; and the order handed down by the saints concerning the Trinity must be embraced and approved, which is so far from introducing a division of the Godhead, as the calumniators pretend, that it openly and clearly demonstrates the natural and essential union of the three hypostases.

^D 7. And this, too, must be added to what has been said. The Word, being from the intellect, exists directly and immediately from the intellect, and for this reason, He is called the word of the intellect alone. If, therefore, the Spirit also flowed directly and immediately from the intellect, He would be called the Spirit of the intellect alone; but He is also called the Spirit of the Word. Hence it clearly appears that He is called the Spirit of the Word for this reason: because He proceeds from the intellect through the Word. For if He were not through the Word, He would never be called the Spirit of the Word. For one thing is said to be of another naturally and essentially, either because it exists from it, or because it exists through it, of which they are said

to be, just as light is of the ray, because it is through the ray, and of the sun, because it is from the sun. The Spirit, therefore, is called the Spirit of the Son, as existing through the Son, and the Spirit of the Father, as existing from the Father.

CHAPTER IX.

1. Here our discourse approaches the struggle, not at all lightly equipped. For it desires to set against scriptures those scriptural sayings from which those who read more contentiously or with greater malice might think to oppose the authors of these theologies to themselves; but those who approach them without contention, and not for the sake of malice, will admire the varied and manifold wisdom of God, by which He guided our holy Fathers to harmonize and fit together, in a rhythmic and consistent way, the whole of theology. For all the saints who ascended the pulpit of theology, and discoursed on theological matters, assert sometimes that "the Spirit emanates together with the Son, and proceeds together from the Father," and at other times that "He exists through the Son." And in the examples which they have used, they sometimes call the Son and the Holy Spirit "a twin ray of the Father," and "a double-flowing or two-channeled river"; and at other times "as light and a ray from the sun," and "as a river and water from a fountain." Those who, for the sake of union with the Roman Church, contentiously and ill-disposedly set themselves against one another, by taking such sayings of the saints as being in opposition to each other, overlook the things brought forward by the saints as examples of one thing being through the other, while they bring forward and propose those things that seem to contribute to their view that the Spirit does not exist through the Son. And yet it was necessary for these men to grasp the agreement of both sets of sayings from the single fact that both these things are theologized by the same theologians; for what would be more certain for the proof of the agreement of scriptural sayings than this, if it is approved by common notions that no one of all people says and teaches things contrary to himself, and especially if the illumination of theology comes from the Spirit to those who theologize about that same Spirit? But those blinded by their own will, to the sun, the ray, and the light—which were brought forward for the sake of the examples—they close their intellectual eyes, and they also attempt to drag the fountain, the river, and the water along with the streams of their own self-willed opinion; and the twin ray and the double-flowing or two-channeled river, as if they were perhaps contrary to the aforementioned things and destructive of them, they trample underfoot and above in their discourse. And those men act thus.

2. But we, adhering to the peace of the Churches, for the sake of which we readily undertake the struggle against those who fabricate such things, say this. It is acknowledged by no one to be a matter of controversy that the Spirit emanates together with the Son, and...

^A that He is understood to exist also through the Son; and neither one conflicts with the other to the point of destruction, but that the one follows upon the other, and each appears in harmony with the other. Indeed, to speak with precision regarding these things is not possible for those who know that the divine nature is elevated above all demonstration, and that its incomprehensibility transcends all natural reason. For where is the incomprehensibility of this nature, if someone were to insist on knowing how that which proceeds together with the Son is also that which proceeds from the Father through the Son? But since the Fathers have handed down the recorded images for attaining a dim sort of knowledge of those incomprehensible things, we also shall attempt to speak from these very ones, as to how it is possible to understand the Spirit essentially emanating together with the Word, and proceeding together with Him, and flowing from the Father through the Word, and how none of these statements tends toward the destruction of the others.

3. For immediately in the case of the sun, the light proceeds together and emanates together with the ray, and yet we perceive it proceeding through the ray. And in the case of the source of a river and the water, the water proceeds together and emanates together with the river, and yet we understand it to proceed through the river; and we do not discern that the light proceeding together with the ray is destructive of its being through the ray, nor that the water proceeding through the river is contrary to these things proceeding together. But when we examine the accounts more searchingly and investigate deeply how the light proceeds together with the ray, and proceeds from the sun through the ray; and how the water proceeds together with the river, and proceeds from the source through the river; and how neither of the stated things tends toward the destruction of the other, ^C we arrive at this understanding. We ask whether, in the case of things such as these, there is a cause for one being apart from the other; and we discover that we cannot discern a ray apart from light, nor solar light apart from a ray, nor river water apart from the river, nor a river apart from water. And as we investigate the reason why, in similar effects, one cannot exist apart from another, we clearly recognize that this happens for no other cause than that the one is from the other. For neither is any other cause considered greatest as to why, in the stated effects, one cannot exist apart from another. For if this were not so, nothing would prevent one from existing apart from another, just as with two rays from one sun, and two rivers flowing from one source.

4. ^D Since, therefore, we have learned from the fact that one is through the other that it is impossible for one to be apart from another, we immediately possess a demonstrated certainty that they also proceed together simultaneously. For of those things for which it is impossible for the one to be apart from the other, how could these not be at the same time? And since their proceeding together simultaneously followed from their inability to exist apart from each other, and their not being apart from each other is two

^A different things, how could it be contrary for one of them to be through the other? For that which follows something as if it were a leader would not be contrary to that which it follows. Therefore, the Spirit’s proceeding together with the Son and being from the Father is not contrary to Its being from the Father through the Son. And this having been demonstrated, the error of those who think that they are contrary to each other is also simultaneously demonstrated, and therefore of those who claim that, since the Spirit is said to proceed together with and accompany the Son, It is not through the Son. And from now on, those who shamelessly chatter whatever comes into their mouth must be silenced. But if they wish to bring forward as an objection to some of the things said the example of the twin ray and the ^B twofold river, because in the effects according to them one can exist without the other, let them know that since it is impossible for those who have theologized about both members of these examples to contradict themselves, some parts of the examples were taken by them to demonstrate that of the two effects, one is proximately from the first, and the other is through that which is proximately from the first; others were taken to demonstrate that each of such effects exists by itself and in its own hypostasis. For this is what the twin ray and the twofold river signify. And the trisolar and triradiant [symbols] of the Deity, spoken of figuratively because of the three-hypostases, would also persuade the person who contradicts this.

CHAPTER X

1. The things which we have said concerning the word “proceeds,” having examined its force in relation to “efflue,” “emanate,” and “pour forth” in our other discourses, have been stated. But since we are being requested by those who contentiously oppose these matters to bring forward in addition something concerning the same things that is clearer and represents the matter [better], we shall in no way hesitate to elaborate what occurs to us as opportune ^D for explaining our meaning more openly. For since those who are in doubt question how the Spirit, who is said to efflue and emanate and pour forth from the Son, is not also said to proceed from Him, we propose these things for the sake of clarity.

2. Procession does not signify simply that the Spirit is from the Father, but the manner in which He is. For it is for this reason that the name of “procession” has been theologized by the Fathers as a mode of existence, which is the difference of existence. And the existence signified according to procession differs both from the beginningless existence of the Father, which is connoted by the name of “unbegotten,” and from the existence of the Son, which claims for itself “begotten.” These three names, therefore, have been assigned to the properties of the three persons, since each of these names is so powerful that it denotes the person named by it in the blessed Trinity. So that it is plainly the same thing to say unbegotten and Father, begotten and

^A Son, and it is the same thing to say proceeding and Holy Spirit. For he who names the unbegotten person in the Trinity denotes nothing other than the Father; and he who names the begotten person in the Trinity denotes nothing other than the Son; and he who names the proceeding person in the Trinity denotes nothing other than the Holy Spirit. And conversely, he who says Father indicates the unbegotten person in the Trinity, and he who says Son signifies the begotten person, and he who hears Spirit understands at once the one who proceeds in the Trinity.

And since the theological Fathers have once and for all decreed for each of the two caused persons, the names of existence that indicate the distinction between them—namely, generation and procession—the name of the Son carries with it "begotten," and whenever it is spoken, "proceeding" is thought of alongside the name of the Spirit. Thus, even if the one who speaks of the Son flowing forth, or springing forth, or pouring forth, or proceeding from the Father adds to his utterance the generation, even if he does not add it, by every necessity of consequence the progression of the one who flows forth, or springs forth, or pours forth, or proceeds, is understood as the begotten Son. And he who says that the Spirit flows forth, or springs forth, or pours forth, or proceeds from the Father, even if he adds the procession to his utterance regarding the Spirit, even if he does not add it, by every necessity of consequence the procession of the Spirit who flows forth, or springs forth, or pours forth, is understood as proceeding. For the Son, flowing forth, flows forth with his own characteristic property—that is, in the manner of generation, not of procession. And the Spirit, flowing forth, flows forth with his own characteristic property—namely, in the manner of procession, not of generation.

3. Therefore, because these words, which signify what exists simply, are found used of the Spirit from the Son, those who think that the pious belief is injured in every way because the Italians say that the Spirit, who flows forth, and streams, and proceeds, and is sent from Him, proceeds from the Son, seem to me to be entirely dangerously at odds with ecclesiastical peace. For just as the Son, flowing forth and streaming from the Father, is the Son, begotten and not indeed proceeding, so too is the Spirit, poured forth and proceeding from the Father and the Son, the Spirit who is proceeding and in no way begotten. ^{B C}

CHAPTER XI

Against those who say that the flowing forth and streaming of the Spirit from the Son is said not according to the divinity of the Word, but according to the assumed nature, on account of spiritual gifts.

1. Since there are others who contend that the flowing forth and streaming of the Spirit from the Son is not from Him according to the divinity of the Word, but according to the flesh and the assumed nature, because—as they themselves say—it signifies spiritual gifts, the Spirit who flows forth and is poured forth from the Son must be engaged in debate, and the things which they say concerning such things must be examined, [calling upon] John...

the Gold-mouthed, that golden trumpet of the Spirit, whom they find saying, in his discourse concerning the all-holy Spirit, the beginning of which is: "Yesterday, O lovers of Christ, the advent of the holy and adorable Spirit was celebrated. 'He shall take of mine,' from the things which He supplied to me, to the human nature of the Lord. He shall take it, the One who gave, the One who came, and remained in me, the One who anointed me, who sanctified me, who led me into the desert, who brought me back victorious." And again: "He shall take of mine, and shall declare it unto us." And in order to show that He spoke not of the holy Spirit, but of the gifts, he adds after saying: "He shall take of mine," immediately: "All things that the Father hath are mine; I received them from the holy Spirit." And again: "For this reason He said, 'He shall take of mine,' because God sanctified the flesh by the holy Spirit, and the Father sent the gift of the Spirit into the flesh of Christ." And the grace having come, placed all the gifts in Christ, he says, "He shall take of mine, and shall declare it unto us." Finding the Gold-mouthed one explaining these things in his aforementioned discourse upon the evangelical text, "He shall take of mine," they, as if having seized a security to say whatever it pleases them to say—those who attempt to drag all things to their own opinion—say: "Lo, the authority of the Gold-mouthed one clearly shows that it is in respect to the humanity of the Lord that it is said that the holy Spirit takes from Him, as if His divine flesh had become a receptacle of the Spirit." ^B And in what way is it not evident that these things were said on account of the spiritual gifts? And taking this as they please, as if it were demonstrated from this, they demand henceforth that no reasoning should remain for attaching to everyone an undoubted faith that the name of the holy Spirit is not for the declaration of the very nature of the holy Spirit, but for the indication of spiritual gifts, in whatever part of the divine Scripture the Spirit is found emanating, flowing out, and springing forth from the Son. And these things, indeed, they put forward.

^C 2. We, however, shall make our refutation, which they do not shrink from having previously explained, from no other source than from this same discourse, of which the cited segment is a part. For if the saint, before arriving at the exposition of those words, "He shall take of mine," ^D is found discoursing at length concerning the names of the Spirit, and dividing the name of the Spirit both for the expression of the lordship and nature—which [Spirit] is the completion of the Trinity—and for the expression of the distribution of spiritual gifts, and explaining accurately and interpreting most minutely, at one time that it is lawful to hear the name of the Spirit and conceive of the Paraclete Himself, and at another time to hear the name of the Spirit and understand a certain spiritual grace denoted by it, who would be more just than to decide and determine, just as if he were a more pure dwelling-place of the Spirit than the Gold-mouthed one himself, and a more acute and elevated theologian than him, that the spiritual gift

is signified everywhere, in whatever part of the divine Scripture the Spirit is said to exist, and to bubble up and spring forth from the Son? ^A And so that our account may not delay any longer the refutation of those who thoughtlessly dogmatize such things, those selfsame words pronounced by the Gold-mouthed one concerning the names of the Spirit—within that very written discourse of his, from which those who distort everything according to their own whim, and to whatever suits them, have seized the occasion for their assertion—will be set out here verbatim. For he speaks as follows: “It is worthwhile that we persevere longer in the exposition of the holy and adorable Spirit, and speak somewhat more clearly concerning the holy and glorious power, not through those things which we ourselves devise, but through those by which we are taught. The Holy Spirit is in its nature indivisible, inasmuch as it has proceeded from an indivisible and impartible nature; but its name is Holy Spirit, Spirit of truth, Spirit of God, Spirit of the Lord, Spirit of the Father, Spirit of the Son, Spirit of Christ.” And after a few words: “Therefore it is called Holy Spirit. For this is the primary and proper appellation, which has a more manifest sense, and reveals the nature of the Holy Spirit.” And after a few words: “If any man has not the Spirit of Christ—and indeed it was fitting to say, if any man has not the Spirit of God, but he said, of Christ. But he said this, in order to show that it is the same thing to say Spirit of God and Spirit of Christ. These names belong to the holy and immaculate power of the holy and adorable Spirit. But there are other names which do not pertain to nature, but to operation. The discourse is profound, and requires attentive, prepared, and faithful ears. For the Spirit is called the Spirit of life, when the Savior says, ‘I am the truth and the life’ (John xiv, 6). It is called the Spirit of life, as Paul says, ‘For the law of the Spirit of life’ (Rom. viii, 2).” These names are of the same authority, and of the same nature. There are also other names, which are not ascribed to the Holy Spirit himself, but to his power and operation, such as his gifts. I therefore state and further clarify my opinion, intending hereafter to introduce the testimony. When the Holy Spirit, in response to the prayers of the saints, grants sanctification either to me or to another Christian, and I receive the gift, so that I have both body and soul sanctified, the gift bestowed upon me is called the Spirit of holiness, that is to say, a gift. If the Holy Spirit gives a gift to someone who does not possess wisdom, who does not possess understanding, but gives him faith alone—such as are many who possess the gift of believing in the Scriptures alone, not knowing the Scriptures, yet believing [in] the Scriptures—that gift is called also the Spirit of faith. If any man should receive a gift and power from the Holy Spirit to believe in the promise of the good things which are given in the world to come, he has received the Spirit of promise. If any man receives the gift of wisdom, that gift is called the Spirit of wisdom; and all the gifts of the Holy Spirit are called Spirit. ^B And attend carefully, because we are declaring this to you in a speculative manner. When anyone possesses the gift of charity,

it is said that he has the Spirit of charity. When anyone receives the gift of martyrdom, he is said to have the Spirit of power, which is to say, a gift; ^A since the Spirit who is given is called holy, and the gift is named after the giver as well. And after a few words: Thus also the blessed Isaiah: "There shall come forth," he says, "a rod from the root of Jesse, and a flower shall rise from it, and the Spirit of God shall rest upon him." This is the name of the very nature of the Spirit; but as for the following gifts: Spirit of wisdom and understanding, Spirit of counsel and strength, Spirit of knowledge, Spirit of piety, Spirit of the fear of God. And after a few words: "He who teaches received the Spirit of wisdom, he who learns the Spirit of understanding, so that he may understand." For this reason, Isaiah ascribes wisdom to him who speaks, and understanding to him who hears, and he calls him a wise architect and an intelligent auditor. The Spirit of counsel is given to him who gives advice, the Spirit of strength to him who receives the intention. And after some of the passage: "I repeat, therefore, the names of the ineffable nature, Spirit of God, Spirit who is from God, Spirit of the Lord, Spirit of the Father, ^B Spirit of the Son, Spirit of Christ, Spirit who raised Christ, Spirit of life, Spirit of truth. Then the gifts: Spirit of power, Spirit of charity, Spirit of temperance, Spirit of promise, Spirit of faith, Spirit of revelation, Spirit of adoption of sons."

3. These things have been clearly distinguished and transmitted by the golden-mouthed Father, namely, that at times we hear the name of "Spirit" and understand the Paraclete himself, while at other times we hear the name of "Spirit" and recognize that some spiritual gift is indicated by it. Where, then, are those who, with an unrestrained mouth, utter whatever seems good to them, and argue that it is not the nature of the Holy Spirit that is denoted, but that everywhere in whatever part of the divine Scripture the Holy Spirit is found, it is either spiritual gifts or [that it is] pouring forth and flowing from the Son? [They claim this] in order to demonstrate thereby, according to their own opinion, that the nature of the Spirit is not from the Son according to the divinity of the Word, nor flows from Him, just as indeed it does from the Father? For if the holy man, in his discussion about the names, says: "But the name of His nature is Holy Spirit, Spirit of truth, Spirit of God, Spirit of the Father, Spirit of the Son." ^C And he adds: "For this is the proper and primary appellation, which possesses a more explicit meaning and represents the nature of the Holy Spirit." Then he adds subsequently: "These are the names of the nature of the Holy Spirit itself." Who, provided he does not desire to attack the truth in vain, ^D would not acknowledge that what is called Holy Spirit in the Scriptures indiscriminately, is the name of the very nature, the very authority of the Paraclete? And if this is so, by what reasoning would one dare to say that a spiritual gift is denoted [in those passages], when in nearly innumerable places of Scripture it is found, now indeed the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son, now existing from both, and now emanating from the Father, and now from the Son

^A naturally and essentially? No one, I think, would be so shameless against the truth as not to have, from those things which Chrysostom wrote concerning the names of the Spirit, a certain and manifest demonstration that the very nature of the Paraclete is signified when anyone simply and indiscriminately declares the Holy Spirit.

4. ^B This demonstration having been accepted, how does it not follow from this, beyond contradiction, that the refutation of those who say that the Holy Spirit emanates and proceeds from the Son as a certain spiritual gift is irrefutable? But see, the babblers again cry out: "And if it is not denoted as a spiritual gift everywhere, wherever the Holy Spirit is mentioned, as if from the receptacle of the Lord's flesh, and distributing gifts to the worthy." To these we do not again shrink from speaking. It would have behooved you, who consider inconsiderately concerning the names of the Spirit, to be persuaded by those things which have already been sufficiently discussed in our discourse concerning these matters; but since this becomes for you an ignoble pretext, regarding the things well-explained by the blessed Chrysostom in his already-declared discourse on the evangelical phrase, "He shall receive of mine," ^C come then, let these things be explained even more clearly, so that the absurd opinion of your interpretation may be refuted more and more. The golden-tongued Father, undertaking the struggle against those who strove to establish from this phrase that the nature of the Spirit is inferior to the nature of the Son—for how, they said, can the Spirit be equal to the Son, receiving and borrowing from Him?—in one part of the aforementioned discourse, speaks thus word for word: "He shall receive of mine, and shall announce it unto you," and, in order to show that He made mention not of the Holy Spirit, but of the gifts, He adds after saying, "He shall receive of mine," immediately: "All things that the Father hath are mine."

5. ^D And the golden-tongued Father says these things. But you, maliciously insisting upon the words, hearing that the Saint taught that he made mention not of the Holy Spirit, but of the gifts, seizing the Word in your minds: "See now," you say, "lo, the golden-tongued Father refers that, 'He shall receive of mine,' not to the Spirit Himself, but to the gifts of the Spirit." But we shall demonstrate your opinion, which is clearly absurd and alien to reason, not from other things, but from those things which the aforementioned Father himself said both before this phrase and after this phrase. For he says a little before the phrase, "He shall receive of mine": "From those things which he has provided for me, the Lordly man, He shall receive, that which gave, that which came and remained upon me, that which anointed me, that which sanctified me, that which led me into the desert, that which brought me back a victor." What do you say to this, you who do not fear to announce with too much license and liberty of speech whatever comes into your mouth? Do you say that the Spirit who receives from the Lordly man is a spiritual gift, and not the Paraclete Himself? Nevertheless, paying more attentive mind to the stated things, he declares the Spirit...

^A to be signified here by the name of the Spirit. For if the name of the Spirit does not here signify the Paraclete, how does the saint say from the Lord, "He shall take of mine," from the things which He supplied to me, the Lordly man—He the Giver, He who came, and remained in me, who anointed me, who sanctified me? Would you say that this very Giver, who gave gifts to the assumption, who came and remained in Him, who anointed and sanctified the assumption, is a spiritual gift? You would surely know, unless you wish to be voluntarily blind to the truth, that the Spirit who receives from the Lordly man is the Paraclete Himself. But if, because the Golden-tongued said that He did not make mention of the Holy Spirit, but of the gifts, you wish to take the name of the Spirit here as meaning a spiritual gift, yet by paying close attention to the things now to be said, you will know that each refers to the concept appropriate to it. And indeed, pay close attention. A little before this passage, ^B concerning which we are speaking, the saint introduces the person of the heretics, doubting toward him and saying: "Do you see how the Spirit does not speak of Himself, but receives from the Son? Can the authority of the Spirit be demonstrated? Does not the Scripture show Him to be subject to the authority of the Son, borrowing from Him, and supplying to others?" The saint, while setting forth this difficulty proposed by the heretics in his discourse, does not begin the argument of his refutation concerning the name itself, nor does he reply to the heretics that the Spirit who receives from the Son is not the Paraclete, but a spiritual gift. And how could he? If he says that it is the very same Spirit who gave, who came, and remained in the Lordly man, who anointed and sanctified Him; but, as one searching the depths of the Spirit with the Spirit, since he knew that the heretics, taking as a starting point the thinness of the word "will take," ^C had come to the deception of misinterpretation concerning the name of the Spirit, he sets forth his discourse in such a way, as if to say: Even if the humility of the word "will take" moves you heretics to lower the authority of the Spirit to the stage of someone subject, as it were, to the authority of the Son, and borrowing from Him, and supplying to others, yet, according to His divine nature, the Holy Spirit does not receive from the Lordly man, so that your discourse might have any reasonableness. But because the Holy Spirit, who is without beginning in time, inhabited the assumption which received its beginning, He rendered that same assumption a receptacle of all His own gifts. Indeed, it was necessary for all who would believe thereafter to receive in part from the Lordly body as from a reservoir. For John, the herald of truth, attests that all receive from His fullness; therefore, it was said that He receives from the Lordly man. ^D

6. Therefore, the saint does not assume the name of the Holy Spirit for the indication of a spiritual gift when He spoke of such a receiving, but, by explaining this very receiving as an indication of the distribution of spiritual gifts, he left for consideration

^A that He is the very same Paraclete who, in the assumed nature [i.e., the humanity], dwelt in a given and acquired way; and it is He Himself who makes the distribution of gifts from the recipient of the assumed nature. Thus there is both the Spirit who receives and the Spirit who is received—the former indicating the Paraclete, who receives without borrowing, and the latter the gifts which are received from the Paraclete Himself who gives them. Anyone who peruses in detail what has been said on this matter in his frequently cited discourse will learn more extensively the points concerning the construction of this thought.

The Saint indeed taught about similar things, which are found in the aforementioned pericope, in his own discourse in this way. But you, who do not fear to pronounce rashly on all matters because spiritual gifts are indicated by the word "will receive"—misinterpreting the name of the Spirit itself—you seize upon this depraved interpretation of the name to decide, not without error, that the Spirit is not from the Word according to His nature and divinity. Nevertheless, putting aside contentions and the desire to please yourselves, if you truly wish to learn whether the Spirit is from the Son, take care to know from the divine Scriptures: whence was the Holy Spirit Himself given to the Lord's assumed nature? Whence, existing naturally and essentially, was He given and brought into the Lord's body? Was the Spirit given to the assumed nature only from the Father, as existing only from Him? But the great Athanasius cries out concerning the Son: "From Him, therefore, it descended into Him, from His divinity into His humanity." Was the Spirit, then, assigned to the assumed nature only from the Son, as if He existed only from Him? But Chrysostom, in the frequently cited discourse, among other things, also clearly teaches this: "God sanctified the flesh with the Holy Spirit. And the Father sent the gift of the Spirit into the flesh of Christ; and when the grace had come and endowed Christ with all the gifts, He says: 'He shall receive of mine, and shall declare it unto you.'"

7. And hence it remains clearly proven that the divine Spirit was given and brought to the Lord's flesh neither from the Father alone nor from the Son alone, but from both; and indeed, as existing from both, He was given from both to the flesh. ^C But if, perhaps, you wish to say that the Spirit was given to the assumed nature from the Father, as existing from Him, but from the Son, it was given not as existing from Him, I do not know if anyone would remain who would not recognize the impiety arising from this. For since no one who peruses the divine Scriptures is ignorant that the Holy Spirit was given to the assumed nature both from the Father and from the Son, if He were not given from the Son also as existing from Him—just as it is evident that He is indeed from the Father—it would be manifest that He is given from the Son in a ministerial and servile manner. What could be more absurd or more blasphemous than this? Being taught, therefore, these absurdities which arise from this, at last you—who contend that the Spirit is not from the Son naturally and essentially—lest you maliciously apply the words of Chrysostom, which concerning

the evangelical saying, "He shall receive of mine," he gave in the discourse on the all-holy Spirit, do not say that the Spirit’s welling forth and streaming from the Son is spoken of not according to the divinity of the Word, but according to the assumption for the sake of spiritual gifts.

Chapter 12. Against those who propose the saying of Saint Cyril, 'The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, as from the mouth, but appears through the Son.'

^A1. Since, when we previously drew up an Apologeticus concerning ecclesiastical peace, we made those things the material of our whole discourse which it chanced to be our lot to encounter in the writings of those by whom the God-hated scandal of the Churches was pursued as though it were God-pleasing; and, furthermore, also those things which many of those in our own generation countered against us, rejecting the peace of the Churches; and since, as time went on, others appeared who, from a meticulous search of the Scriptures, culled certain sayings which seemed to have much strength against others for the reinforcement of the schism—it seemed fitting to us to elaborate on these expressions in a separate discourse. For since, of all the things diversely proposed to us for refutation, these ^Bseemed to those who argue against us to have greater strength, it seemed to us fitting—as we leave nothing of the things proposed by the adversaries on the table as if they were stronger than the rest, but rather set forth the sound counter-arguments for each of them—to provide a refutation of those who interpret the Scriptural sayings poorly. One of these, then, is a saying which, as they themselves say, is found in the discourse on the Trinity written by the admirable Cyril, signifying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone; and another, which the Theologian from Damascus ^Csets forth in the thirteenth of his theological chapters, whose beginning is: "The Divine, being altogether incomprehensible, will surely be also nameless." For at the end of that chapter the saint writes: "Spirit of the Father, as proceeding from the Father. For no motion is without the Spirit, and the Spirit of the Son also, not as from him, but as proceeding through him from the Father. For the Father alone is the cause." These are the things which those who oppose ecclesiastical peace judge to further stabilize the schism of the Churches.

^D2. But we, being now ready to refute them, as those who take the meaning of such sayings toward a malicious interpretation, will not launch our refutations against them from ourselves, but will set the celebrated Basil, illustrious in theology, at the head of our discourse. For to that "the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone," and to that "the Father is the sole cause," with which will also be understood "not as from him," his explanation...

shall suffice, which he made in some of the evangelical sayings, in which the name of the Father is introduced with the addition of "alone," to demonstrate that the name of the Father was not spoken in order to distinguish the Son, in those places where the Father alone is mentioned. But even if, out of the explanations of the great Basil, we are able to establish, as a matter of complete certainty, that the phrase saying "the Spirit proceeds ^A from the Father alone" is not spoken to distinguish the Son—lest for the time being we seem to follow the opponents thoughtlessly and without any examination in everything they propose, before we proceed to demonstrate, according to the objection, from the explanations given to the great Basil, that there is no difference whether you sometimes say "the Spirit from the Father alone" or "from the Father and the Son"—to those who press us with "from alone," we say these things insistently.

3. But how, pray, can you present to the wonderful Cyril the statement that "the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone"?

4. We, however, countering these things with our own, say: whence will that statement, which says "the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone," receive its pledge of being Saint Cyril’s? Whence? ^C These say: "Because it is circulated in codices conspicuous for their antiquity of years, which is abundantly sufficient to merit belief." And they indeed, to our insistence that we seek that the faith and authority of the statement be demonstrated by them, put forward the antiquity of the codices in which the statement is held. But we, opposing the faith which they build up for themselves from thence—for still continuing the struggle according to the objection of the contradiction, we refuse both to admit that "from alone," and to demonstrate ^D according to the objection that, even if someone from the Father alone

if anyone among the saints is found saying the Spirit, nor indeed saying anything different ^A from Him being from the Father and the Son, we ask the hearers of the words of both sides, with all affection removed, to come to judgment. Those who put forward this statement, as insinuating that the Spirit is from the Father alone, assert that it belongs to St. Cyril alone, and they confess that it is found in one segment of his writings; and to gain faith and authority for it, they bring forward nothing other than the antiquity of the codices in which it is found.

5. But we, on the contrary, object: since it is confessed by all these with one mind that this statement belongs to St. Cyril alone, by what reason would anyone, a lover of equity and weighing what is just with a double balance, not grant the victory to those who clearly demonstrate that it has been traditionally taught by the great Athanasius, by the great Basil, by Nyssen, by Chrysostom, and by the great Epiphanius, that the Spirit also exists from the Son substantially and essentially? ^B And it must certainly be considered, by the truth itself, whether the testimony of one is to be preferred for establishing faith over that of three or six? But if he who opposes them can also prove that the very person whom they assert—in this one single pericopa of his own writings—to have affirmed that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, in many other places of his writings openly declares that the Spirit is from the Father and the Son naturally, ^C hypostatically, and essentially, who would believe that the same saint contradicts himself?

6. Therefore, against the statement insinuating that it is from the Father alone, which is attributed to St. Cyril alone, we set forward in refutation what was stated by the aforementioned theologian Fathers: "from the Father and the Son." And to demonstrate that even in this one pericopa this expression was not spoken by St. Cyril, we say that no one at all should believe that St. Cyril spoke things contrary to himself. ^D And against the antiquity of the codices put forward by them, the antiquity of other codices will be put forward. And if the antiquity of one set of codices has any power to overcome the antiquity of other codices, from this point also, the palm will be given to him who approaches supported by a greater number. For although they themselves bring forward many schedules, copied from one another, in which this saying is circulated, yet for me—I call the power of the truth itself to witness—when this question had already been in controversy for many years, only once was a single schedule brought forward bearing antiquity, in which the saying was read, and it, as if composed from a varied collection and gathering of diverse writings, did not appear to be part of a book such as many were elaborated by the divinely-speaking Cyril. Nor is this of small importance for refuting the saying: that it is found in no code which embraces the writings of the saint through all its parts, and prides itself in them. Meanwhile, although the schedule discovered by me bore the appearance of antiquity, yet what would one admit...

^A regarding the comparison with the antiquity of the codices of the blessed Cyril, which, having encountered them in the summaries, as they formulate the theology that the Spirit proceeds "from the Father and the Son," I do not know if, through the abundance of the multitude, the truth itself might be a witness to the number?

7. What has been decreed by us in opposition to those who hold to "from the Father alone," and what the discourse promised above to establish—that the Spirit is from the Father and the Son—these are the things. Yet it is worth the effort to set out in this discourse the whole of that segment in which "from the alone" is found, and then to perform what was promised. The segment is conceived in these words: "The most holy and venerable Trinity is before all ages, and always existing, is immaculate and eternal, uncreated, invisible, incorporeal, incomprehensible." And after a few words: "The three adorable hypostases are known and believed in the Father, who is without beginning, without cause, unbegotten, eternal; and in the Son, the Only-begotten, generated ineffably, impassibly, and indicibly before all ages from the very essence of the Father, and therefore consubstantial, sharing the same throne and dignity, in all things similar and equal to the Father except for the fatherhood, having the Father as his beginning and ^B cause through generation; and in the Holy Spirit, the life-giver, who is worshipped, who proceeds from the Father—that is, from the essence of the Father—not by generation as the Son, lest there be two Sons in the Trinity, but proceeding, as has been said, from the Father alone as if from a mouth, but who appeared through the Son and spoke in all the holy prophets and apostles; nevertheless, as I said, existing from the essence of the Father and the Son, and of the same essence as the Father and the Son. And he is incommunicable, just as the Father and the Son are, to every creature according to the account of essence." And this is the segment.

8. But we, having now undertaken the struggle according to the representation against him who seizes upon the word alone, which says "from the alone," we speak. And what seems right to you, my good man? Must one attend only to this word, or also look to the others that precede and follow it in the whole of that segment, and bring together from all of them at once the other scriptural testimonies handed down in writing into a mutual harmony and agreement? I know well that you would agree with me not on the first ^C but on the second. And if this is the case, consider how the saint, before he said "from the alone," said with regard to the "proceeding," "from the Father,"—that is, "from the essence of the Father"—and thus added, "not by generation as the Son, lest there be two Sons in the Trinity, but proceeding, as has been said, from the Father alone as if from a mouth, but who appeared through the Son." If, therefore, you desire to penetrate the meaning of what has been said, by comparing the agreement of those same words with the other scriptural testimonies handed down in writing, you will perceive it. And attend with a focused mind: first he said, "proceeding from the essence of the Father," then he added, "proceeding, as has been said, from the Father alone as if from a mouth, but who appeared through the Son." If, therefore, "from the Father alone as if from a mouth," is to be referred to the distinction of the Son manifesting

^A from the Son, consider whether he who says that the Spirit is from the essence of the Father can deny that He is from the essence of the Son. For if the Son is distinguished from the Father according to the expression "from alone," the whole Son is distinguished from the whole Father—namely, the essence in hypostasis from the essence in hypostasis. Even if, according to you, the essence in the hypostasis of the Father is distinguished by the reason of that expression "from alone," by what reason does this saint, while establishing that expression "from alone" and teaching that the Spirit is from the essence of the Father, together with many other theologians, also say that He is from the essence of the Son?

9. But here I see you breathless, eager to object to us, having frequently heard this being repeated by many, and I have heard it with my own ears, and I hasten to address it. For some, hearing that the Spirit is from the essence of the Son, being unable to grasp the true meaning according to which the Spirit is said to be from the essence of the Son—and that He possesses the cause of His hypostasis and of all things from God, as from the first cause and principle—rush into certain rash ^B divisions of essence and hypostasis. Dividing the whole Son, the en-hypostatic and self-hypostatic essence, separately into essence and separately into hypostasis, according to their indivisible division from the Father and the Spirit, they refer that phrase, "from the essence of the Son," to the consubstantiality of the Spirit with the Son, as the theologians say the saints have spoken. They do not note that if on this account anyone were to assert that the Spirit is from the essence of the Son, since the Son is also consubstantial with the Spirit, He would also be said to be from the essence of the Spirit. For the Spirit is of the same essence as the Son, but it does not follow that because He is of the same essence, the Spirit is from the essence of the Son. For otherwise, everything that is consubstantial with something would be from the essence of that with which it is consubstantial, which is not the case. But rather, the opposite precedes: that the Spirit is from the essence of the Son, so that it follows that the Spirit is of the same essence as the Son, *because* the Spirit is from the essence of the Son. ^C

10. If, therefore, on account of the irrational nature of the division in the Son—separately into essence and separately into hypostasis—it is irrational to think that "from the essence of the Son" and "from the Son" are different, if in your view the en-hypostatic cause of the Son is distinguished from the en-hypostatic essence of the Father according to the expression "from alone," how does the saint—just as I have said before—who uses this expression "from alone," and who here says that the Spirit is from the essence of the Father, in other passages ^D of his theology also say that He is from the essence of the Son? For if the Son is distinguished from the Father, according to those who say "from the Father alone," the Spirit, who is said to be from the essence of the Father, should never be said to be from the essence of the Son. But if it is acknowledged that He is from the essence of both, it remains for you to accept, as most certain, that the words "from the Father alone" were not said to distinguish the Son, but to indicate—as the argument will presently demonstrate—that the Father is the first cause and is without a principle.

^A 11. Let us also state another thing from the same train of thought, ^B or from the context of the words in the aforementioned passage, which you will readily accept if you are willing to be an unbiased listener. For here, where "from the Father alone" is found, there is added "as if from the mouth." And since the Spirit is also called the Spirit of the Son's mouth, according to the divine Apostle, how will you not also discern from this that the phrase "from the Father alone" is not appended to distinguish the Son? For since the Son is said to be begotten from the Father's womb, but the procession of the Spirit is said to be as if from the mouth of the Father, it would never have been stated that the Spirit proceeds also from the mouth of the Son, if it proceeded from the Father alone. Furthermore, since the Son is taught in theological writings to be the mouth of the Father, how could the holy man, when saying "the Spirit proceeds as from the mouth of the Father," be understood as saying "from the Father alone" for the purpose of distinguishing the Son?

12. But if you also consider more accurately ^C the words that immediately follow, you will have from there as well to grasp the sense in which we say the expression "from the Father alone" was not written to distinguish the Son. For after having said "but proceeding, as has been said, from the Father alone, as if from the mouth," he adds, "but having appeared through the Son." For that which exists from the Father alone, if it were from Him alone according to a distinction of the Son, would not appear through the Son. For the distinction of the Son from the Father would never admit "through the Son" in the existence of the Spirit from the Father. But if, perhaps, here too—as I have clearly heard from many who belch forth from their bellies whatever comes to mind—you do not wish to take "having appeared through the Son" for the existence of the Spirit, but for His manifestation and the distribution of His gifts, then you must examine the meaning of the word from other patristic sayings, and not fruitlessly set yourself up as an enemy of the truth. For immediately the great ^D Basil says regarding the Spirit: "Eternally possessing all things, as the Spirit of God, and having appeared from Him." And the most wise Cyril regarding Christ: "We say that God, the mediator of men, as the Scriptures teach, is composed both of our human nature existing perfectly according to its own rationale, and of Him who appeared from God according to nature as Son, that is, the Only-begotten." And again: "The Spirit is proper to the Son, not only as He is the Word and appeared from the Father, but also as He is conceived by us to have been made man." It is manifest, therefore, that God is the Spirit, who possesses from Him as His own, and naturally as God; whereas the other creatures do so more improperly, as those which possess from the Creator and Maker and are said to be from Him. Since, therefore, divine Scripture so openly accepts the word "to have appeared" in place of "to exist" even in the case of the Son, and in the case of the Spirit as well, and by this identifies "having appeared" and "proceeding" regarding the Spirit's existence, it was rightly stated by us above: if the existence from the Father alone were according to a distinction from the Son, He would never have added "from the Father alone," since to the Son from the Father

^A distinction in the existence of the Spirit from the Father would never have allowed that "through the Son."

13. You, therefore, embracing these true sentiments, which are shadowed by no falsehood, do not give your ears to those who speak from their own resources, and who do not interpret the procession of the Spirit from the Father through the Son from scriptural authorities; but who contend that the expression signifies a relation, and others that it signifies "at the same time"; and some even assert that it is to be understood in the place of the preposition "with." Their impudence clearly rages against the great Basil, who exerts himself in a long discourse to demonstrate that in theological pronouncements the preposition "through" is accustomed to be used frequently in the place of the preposition "from." And it is manifest to everyone that the authority and dignity of the great Basil openly refute those who discourse incorrectly concerning the preposition "through," and who accommodate it to the existence of the Spirit through the Son. Furthermore, they are refuted more and more by the testimony of the light of the Nyssaeans, Gregory. For in the first of his *Antirrhetica* against Eunomius, he says the following concerning the Spirit: "Joined to the Father according to the uncreated, again He is separated from Him by the fact that He is not the Father, ^B just as He is. But to the Son, by the conjunction according to the uncreated, and by the fact that He has the cause of His existence from the God of all, He is again separated by a property, in that He did not subsist as the Only-begotten from the Father, and in that He appeared through the Son Himself. And again, since creation has subsisted through the Only-begotten, so that the Spirit might not be thought to have any communion with it—because He appeared through the Son—the Spirit is distinguished from creation by the unchangeable, the immutable, and by the fact that He is in no need of goodness from another." Consider also the judgment of this saint, so that you may condemn from your heart the absurd interpretations which they heap upon the expression "through the Son." The saint teaches both that the Spirit appeared through the Son, and that creatures subsisted through the Only-begotten; afterwards, lest the Spirit be thought to have any communion with the creature, because that too appeared through the Son, he, striving to set forth the distinction of the hypostasis both of the Spirit and of creation, ^C taught that the Spirit is distinguished from the creature by the unchangeable, and the immutable, and by the fact that He is in no need of goodness from elsewhere. The Spirit, therefore, being distinguished from the creature by the unchangeable, and the immutable, and by the fact that He is in no need of goodness from elsewhere, how would He not be distinguished even more and more aptly by the fact that "through" is assumed in the existence of the Spirit in the place of "at the same time," or in the place of "with," or to denote a relation; while in the case of the creature it is assumed for a different faculty? This is not so; it is not so. But the Spirit is through the Son from the Father naturally, differing from the creature by the unchangeable, and the immutable, and by the fact that He is in no need of goodness from elsewhere. The creature, however, is through the Son from the Father ^D as a work of craft, created and a servant, far inferior to the Lord and Maker, being changeable and mutable, and in need of the goodness which is from God.

^A 14. If, then, by the use of scriptural expressions, where the preposition "from" is not excluded, the phrase "from the Father alone," or "in the existence of the Spirit from the Father," is taken to distinguish the Son, are we persuading you now to embrace this opinion based on what has already been said, or do you require other written authorities to learn more clearly, for the purpose of proving that the Father is and is understood to be the first cause, that the phrase "from the Father alone" is taken [in this sense], if it happens to be found written in some theological statements? I know well that you need other testimonies, which, even if not demanded, we are constrained to bring forward, as we promised in the highest parts of our discourse that we would do.

Great Basil, in one of his epistles to Amphilochius, the beginning of which is, "That evangelical statement much discussed by many concerning our Lord Jesus Christ not knowing the day and the hour," writes: "The saying 'No one' appears to be taken in a general sense, so that not even any person seems to be excepted, but we discern from the use of the Scriptures themselves that it is not to be accepted in this way. For it has been said, 'No one is good except God alone' (Luc. XVIII, 19), but by no means does the Son place himself outside the whole number and category of the good in that passage when he said this; but since the Father is the first and principal good, we believe it is said with the first understood, as the second." See the incomparable wisdom of the great Basil, and how he explains the evangelical saying, "No one is good except God alone." For he openly insinuates that the name of the Father is denoted ^B by those words, "except God alone." For this reason he subjoins, "But by no means does the Son place himself outside the number of the good in that passage, when he said this." For when he had said, "except God alone," and then subjoined, "the Son does not place himself outside the number of the good, when he said these things," he signified that those things were said of the Father, "except God alone." Furthermore, explaining how the Son can be understood together with the Father, and not be disjointed from the Father in this evangelical saying, "No one is good except God alone," he adds again: "But since the Father is the first and principal good, with the first understood [with] the word 'no one,' we believe it is said in the second place." Could this be presented more clearly to prove that this ^C is not pronounced to distinguish the Son, but to declare that the Father is, and is understood to be, the first good?

15. And if the authority of great Basil persuades you not to oppose what is said by him, you will be able to recognize entirely that not in vain did we profess at the beginning of the discourse that we would demonstrate from the explanations of the great Basil upon the evangelical sayings that the phrase "from the Father alone," if it should happen to be found written in some theological statements, was not placed there for the distinction of the Son, but only for the purpose of proving that the Father is, and is understood to be, the first cause. And ^D

^A if it disturbs you, and leads you into certain thoughts of doubt, whether the saying, “There is no one good but one, God,” can have the same meaning as the saying, “There is no one good but God alone,” for our discourse is not concerning oneness, but concerning the "alone"—since the excessive curiosity of those who oppose will perhaps not hesitate to proceed even to such objections, but the same interpreter will resolve for you the difficulty here as well, in his apologetic epistle to the Cæsareans concerning his withdrawal, the beginning of which is, “I have often wondered what it is that has affected your minds toward us”—saying: “For we also understand those things pronounced concerning the divine nature, such as, ‘Who alone has immortality,’ and, ‘To the only wise God,’ and that saying, ‘There is no one good but one, God.’ For the ‘one’ here signifies the same as the ‘alone’.” What do you say? Is the great and manifold Basil sufficient for you, clearly interpreting that “but one God” in place of “but God alone”? ^B I know that you would not gainsay him, out of reverence for the irreproachable nature of his theology. And therefore, if the authority of this man persuades you, first of all to understand “but one God” in place of “but God alone,” and subsequently to interpret those things—not at all setting the Son outside of any definition of what is good—as not being taken for the distinction of the Son, wherever “God alone” or “Father alone” is found written in the Scriptures, you will also be able to persuade yourself, if once the admirable Cyril has pronounced “from the Father alone.” But in this way also, such a statement would in no wise conflict with those things which were dictated by the same in most places of his holy Commentaries, affirming the Spirit to be from the Father and the Son, and with the testimonies of other Fathers as well, as many as before him and after him have theologically stated the same. For he who asserts “from the Father alone,” since “alone” when applied to the Father ^C is taken for the manifestation of the “first,” it makes no difference to say “from the Father alone” and “from the Father as the first cause.” Just as, “The Father is alone good,” because the Father is the first good; “The Father alone knows the Son,” because the Father first knows the Son. For the Spirit, even if He knows the Son with the Father, yet because the Father knows Him first, He also knows the Son; “The Father alone knows the day of the end,” because the Father knows it first. For even if the Son knows it with the Father, yet because the Father knows it first, He Himself also knows this day; for the Son possesses the knowledge of it from the Father.

16. And I, for my part, think that you will accept what has been said, having been persuaded by the already cited interpretations of the great Basil. But if you are not yet willing to accept these, and you demand that we strengthen the meaning we have signified with even more passages from the interpretations regarding the word “alone”—namely, that the phrase “the Father alone” is used in the Scriptures not for the distinction of the Son, but for the manifestation that goodness ^D resides in the Father primarily, where the Father is said to be “alone good”; and that knowledge resides in the Father primarily, where the Father is asserted to be the “alone” one who knows; and that the cause resides in the Father primarily, where the Father is said to know [it]

we shall not be reluctant to add here other passages also from the interpretations of the great Basil, which we think most suitable for proving our stated purpose. For in the above-mentioned epistle—one of those which he sent to Amphilochius—after he had expounded, “None is good save one, God,” and had explained how the Lord announced this in the Gospel, “not setting Himself outside the account of goodness, but indicating that the Father is the first good,” he subjoins: “It is similar: ‘No one knows the Son except the Father;’ for not even here does He impute ignorance to the Spirit, but testifies that the knowledge of His nature resides in the Father primarily.” You see how even here he explains that the [statement] “the Son is known by the Father alone” is not to be understood as a distinction of the Holy Spirit, but as a demonstration that the knowledge of the Son’s nature resides in the Father primarily? Observe and deduce from this that even the phrase “the Father alone” in Scripture is not to be taken as a distinction of the Son, where the Son must also be jointly conceived. For if it were a distinction of the Spirit from the Father in the phrase, “No one knows the Son except the Father,” it would be [so] in this case too. But the great Basil adds immediately, and again thus: “And we think that the phrase ‘No one knows’ was spoken as referring the primary knowledge of both present and future things to the Father, and as indicating to men the primary cause in all things.” And a few lines after this passage he adds: “The Lord, therefore, passing over His own person in silence as a matter acknowledged, says that the Father alone knows, stating by this reticence that the Father’s knowledge is also His own.” Observe the depth of this interpretation and understand the reasoning, according to which the holy [Father] explains that only the Father knows. For he says, “The Lord says that the Father’s knowledge is also His own by way of reticence.” If you investigate the depth of this reasoning, you will recognize as untutored in dogmatic mysteries those who propose as some great difficulty the question: “If the Spirit is also from the Son, why did the Lord say in the Gospels, ‘who proceeds from the Father,’ not adding also, ‘and from me’?” For if the great Basil, in those places where he says that the Father alone knows this, clearly assigns as the reason for the silence of the Son’s name that the knowledge of the Father is, by reticence, the knowledge of the Son also, what person could be rightful—as if a more pure dwelling-place of the Spirit than great Basil himself—to doubt why the name of the Son is not also openly and clearly pronounced together with the name of the Father, and if it is not pronounced, why it is nevertheless jointly conceived?

17. The great Basil puts forth as an axiom and dogma that the Son is jointly conceived with the Father by way of reticence, where the name of the Father was spoken with the addition of “alone,” and you say, whoever you may be who call these things into doubt, “Why is the Son not also pronounced together with the Father in the procession of the Spirit?”

^A But even if you imagine yourself to be illuminated by the splendors of theology better than the great Basil, I, for my part, do not shrink from depending entirely upon his theological sayings, and with him as my master and teacher I know the manner in which “alone” is accepted in reference to the Father. For this very luminary of theology, in interpreting the text, “No one knows the Son except the Father” [Matt. 11:27], says: “Nor does the Son there accuse the Spirit of ignorance, but he testifies that the knowledge of his own nature resides primarily in the Father.” And the phrase, “except one, God,” taken instead of, “except the Father alone,” he says in his exposition signifies that the Father is the first good. And since from these expositions I know that “alone” in reference to the Father is taken in place of “first,” nor do I fail to recognize that the phrases where the Father is called “the sole cause,” or “from the Father alone,” signify the Father being understood as the first cause; for since nothing of that which belongs to the Son belongs to him in a way proper to himself, and nothing of that which belongs to the Son is a peculiar operation apart from the operation of the Father, how should the Father not be called the sole cause? For that which this great Father asserts regarding the knowledge ^B of that day and hour, clearly establishing it as a dogma—that the Son would never have known that hour had the Father not known it—trusting in his words, I shall pronounce this very thing concerning the procession of the Spirit: The Spirit would never have proceeded from the Son had he not proceeded from the Father. For whence could the Son have had the Spirit, who has nothing proper to himself apart from the Father, unless he possessed him naturally from the Father? And since all things of which the Son is the cause have their reference to the Father, the first cause, how will the Father not be asserted as the sole cause, according to the Damascene theologian? And since, again, the Son is a participant in all the natural goods of the Father, how shall he who is said to be from the Father not also be said to be from the Son? And how shall the Spirit of the Father not also be said to be the Spirit of the Son? And by what reasoning is the Spirit, subsisting from the Father, not said to subsist from the Son also? For if this were not so, the great Athanasius would never have written in his letter to Serapion concerning the Holy Spirit, the beginning of which is, “The letter written by your piety has now reached me,” the following: “Assuredly, the Father sending the Spirit, the Son breathes and bestows him upon the disciples, since all things that the Father has are the Son’s.” ^C 18. But if, hearing that the Spirit is from the Father and from the Son, you wish to conceive of two causes by every necessity, I suggest these things to you. Since the ratio of piety requires that we follow the theological sayings delivered to us by the holy Fathers, you hear the Father as the first cause, and the one cause of all, because whatever is said to be from the Son is referred back to him, and you do not need to inquire more curiously; you desire to take it as a distinction of the Son where the name of the Father is found with the addition of “alone.” But the great Basil, interpreting, “No one knows the Son except the Father,” and confirming that it was stated not for the distinction of the Son, but to indicate that the first [knowledge belongs] to the Father... ^D

^A for the Son also has his knowledge from the Father. Do not let your inquisitiveness, because it [the phrase "from the Father alone"] is found once and in only one passage, as they say, force you to reject all the other theological statements of the saints, which explicitly proclaim the Spirit to be from the Father and the Son. Therefore, reconciling the statements of the saints among themselves, and not wishing the statement “from the Father alone,” found once—as they say—and in one passage, to be interpreted as an overturning of the great number of scriptural texts scattered about that proclaim the Spirit to exist from the Father and the Son, gracefully and cordially accept the reconciliation of the Roman Church, ^B which asserts that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and professes one cause and one principle in the blessed and interceding Trinity.

19. If you attend more carefully to the aforementioned explanations and examine the mutual reconciliation of the scriptural sayings, even that statement ^C pronounced by the Damascene theologian, “We do not say the Spirit is from the Son,” will cause you no disturbance. For to those who receive the expression “from the Father alone” in the sense of the explanation of Basil the Great—as we also acknowledged at the beginning of this discourse—it will be understood that this Damascene theologian also said it not as from him, but as proceeding through him, and [it will be clear] how he also theologized in other places: “We do not say the Spirit is from the Son.” For since all causality is directed to the Father, the Father is asserted to be the first cause; and because he is the first cause, he is believed by fair-minded ^D dogmatists and those who define the decrees of the faith to be the sole cause. Thus, no room for doubt is left for us to suppose that the Damascene said, “We do not say the Spirit is from the Son,” so that no one might think the Son is the first cause and principle of the Spirit. For if, as some suppose, the saint said, “We do not say the Spirit is from the Son,” to separate the Son from the Father, he would never have said, “not as from him, but as proceeding through him.” For the separation of the Son from the Father, as I have said, would never admit the phrase “through the Son” in the existence of the Spirit from the Father. But I believe I have sufficiently and abundantly produced the explanations of the great Basil, which I promised to bring to you as testimony regarding the word “alone,” to show that this term is not meant for the distinction of the Son.

20. But if you give yourself over to be dragged along by those who treat the dissension of the Churches as if it were a good thing, and who maintain as no small part of the causes of the dissension that no one ought to say [that the Spirit proceeds from the Son, contrary to] the Christian dogma in the confessed Symbol of the faith, when would...

the true logic of your mind be illuminated to your eyes? But if even you—whoever you may be—wishing to be so disposed, stop your ears against everything that calls you to peace, nevertheless, for the sake of the fair-minded among the listeners, I will speak again of the things I have heard those who for this very reason reject the peace of the Churches put forward, and of those things which seem to me to contribute to their refutation. They declare, first of all, that he who dares to add even one apex to the Symbol of the faith is a violator of piety. Yet when they hear: "But [the word] God is not spoken of the Spirit in the Symbol, nor [is he called] consubstantial with the Father and the Son," and [it follows] that, according to what they feel is piety, they should be accused of violating piety for defining this theology which is not contained in the Symbol, they themselves indeed concede that those who set forth things not contained in the Symbol—provided it be with a sense not alien to piety—should no longer be judged as guilty of impiety. Then, as a powerful and simultaneously unshakable argument for their objection, they propose: ^B "But the most great Cyril, who presided over the third synod, if he knew the Spirit to be from the Son, why did he not add in the Symbol: 'and from the Son'?" When afterward they hear, in response to their objections, that the Fathers of the second synod, for no other reason than to engage in the struggle against the Spirit-fighters, were compelled to direct that gathering and their statements entirely toward that goal and scope—namely, the clarification of the theology regarding the Spirit, which is clear from the fact that the entire addition was made regarding the Spirit alone—why did they not openly and clearly proclaim in the Symbol that the Spirit is God and consubstantial with the Father and the Son, which would have demonstrated and established His divinity much more clearly and luminously than all the other words added regarding Him? Hearing these things, and furthermore adding that the admirable Cyril celebrated the gathering of the third synod for the sake of the term "Theotokos" alone, and yet did not explicitly call the Mother of the Lord "Theotokos" in the Symbol, but [called her] "Mary the Virgin," they are indeed ashamed; yet, having once determined to disturb and reject ecclesiastical peace, they do not desist from their own obstinacy. ^C

21. But these men behave as they do. Would that, even if late, it might at some time happen that having acknowledged the great dispensations performed by our Fathers at various times, they would not neglect zeal according to knowledge, but would gaze much more eagerly and promptly upon the peace of the Churches. But you, fair-minded listeners and judges of my words, taking as unimpeachable witnesses the actual events which, since peace came to be between us and the Italians, are contemplated by your own eyes—the preservation of our dogmas, the unchangeable nature of our customs, and all the order and decorum handed down to us by our Fathers—adhere wholly to the peace, trusting without hesitation in Christ, the Prince of Peace, who is binding and joining together what has been torn apart, and who in the time of requital will grant us from this a great reward.^D

together with hope in Christ, the Prince of peace, who has joined and united those that were divided, and you will eventually receive a rich reward for this, when the reward is paid out by God, the Rewarder.

LETTER OF THE SAME TO AGALLIANUS, LORD ALEXIUS, DEACON OF THE GREAT CHURCH

^BJohn, by divine mercy humble Archbishop of Constantinople—but, because of the true dogma of the Fathers, namely the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son, driven from my own see and condemned to perpetual exile and imprisonment, there to be kept confined until the end of my life—to the deacon Alexius, my beloved son in the Spirit, blessing in Christ and a paternal greeting.

1. I never thought that I would ever have to hear such things as I have heard you saying. But when it was reported to me that you were contending in defense of the side of our opponents, maintaining that the Holy Spirit was said by the holy Fathers to be from the essence of the Son simply because of the consubstantiality, I did not think that I should pass over in silence what I had heard. I am speaking now; do you listen, and pay close attention. Do you not recall that I have often explained to you that it was not simply because of the consubstantiality—which, in the expression of its own nature, has no need of the preposition *ex* [from] between the persons of the Trinity—that the Holy Spirit was said by the holy Fathers to be from the essence of the Son, but because of that same nature, which surely and definitely implies an effect? And now tell me, by God, what has possessed you to let all my teachings slip from your memory, while you contend in defense of those who say that the Holy Spirit is spoken of as being from the essence of the Son because of the consubstantiality ^C here?

^B 2. If you want to learn the error in this matter—since it is not alien to theology for us to explain things that are above us by means of things that are among us, using examples from material and sensible things for those other truths that are beyond the mind—then pay attention to the case of human beings. Attend with an alert mind to the discussion of human affairs, so that you may understand what is indicated by us when we say that Paul is of the same essence as Peter, and what is indicated when we say that Paul is from the essence of Peter. If you consider my observation most carefully, you will perceive that by the one of these statements it is signified that Paul is of the same nature as Peter according to the same species, a nature that extends to all other men of the same species. And this statement is reciprocal; for we say that Paul is of the same essence as Peter, and again that Peter is of the same essence as Paul, interchanging the terms when we wish to signify the consubstantiality that consists in the having of the same species. But in the statement that says Paul is from the essence of Peter, it implies that Peter happens to be the father of Paul. For if this were not the case, Paul would never be spoken of as being from the essence of Peter. Moreover, you will find that it is signified that Paul is, as it were, an effect derived from Peter as his cause—not that Peter is a cause in the way that anything external or "factitious" might be, but rather a cause consubstantial and a progenitor of a nature identical to his own. And the statement in this sense is not reciprocal. In this, it seems to me, you will find the difference divided between the two statements mentioned regarding the consubstantiality said to exist between Paul and Peter.

^C 3. If, therefore, these things also seem right to you, and you do not require other arguments for the establishment of the distinction, take from this example derived from humans the truth that the Holy Spirit is also determined to be of the same substance as the Son, on account of their one form with the Son—and this statement is reciprocal, for the Son is also asserted to be of the same essence as the Spirit. But according to the natural, and not factitious, effect from the Son—that is, that He is by the Son from the essence of the Son—the statement is not reciprocal. And by accepting these things in this way, you will well deliver yourself from the error. But if, having once been defeated by the babble of the vaniloquent, you desire the arguments for the establishment of the two manners of our consubstantiality—so that from there, being securely guided to the difference between the statement that says the Spirit is of the same essence as the Son (by which their simple consubstantiality is signified) and the one that says He proceeds from the essence of the Son (by which His being a consubstantial effect through the Son is signified, in contrast to those that are produced through the Son as by a Creator)—I will not hesitate to hand down to you, in brief, the arguments for this establishment. And listen carefully. If there were no difference between Paul being of the same essence as Peter, and

Peter being of the same essence as Paul, but both statements were, in fact, indicative of one and the same essence—that is, ^A of a sameness of essence that is common in kind—there would be no difference at all, and one could equally reverse the phrases as being indicative of the same things. For the things are the same, and they are the same in the same way. And it would be one and the same thing to say that Paul is of the same essence as Peter, and Peter of the same essence as Paul, and that Paul is from the essence of Peter, and Peter, in turn, from the essence of Paul. But this is as impossible as for the sun to rise in the west. For who has ever heard it said that the Father is of the essence of the Son?

4. What do you say to this? Is this method of demonstration through reversal sufficient for you to understand the distinction of the sameness of essence, or do you desire that we establish this with another example? Attend, if you will, to a second ^B example: it is taken from the creatures, though not from those which, like us, are subject to the senses, but from those that are higher and immaterial, the firmness of which not even Satan himself, who by his nature is opposed to the truth, will be able to overturn or call into doubt. What creatures, pray, am I speaking of? Angels and souls. For what do you think in regard to these? Can it be said of them, that Gabriel is of the same essence as Michael, and the soul of Theodore is of the same essence as the soul of John, and vice-versa, or not? You will answer "Yes," I am sure. For all angels are similar to one another in species, and all souls are participants of the same species and ^C of the same reason. And on what grounds would you say that it is impossible to affirm without hesitation regarding these the statement by which sameness of essence is established according to species? But if someone were to ask you, "Is any angel from the essence of another angel, or any soul from the essence of another soul?" would you concede this? I am sure you would cry out loudly, maintaining that such a thing never reached the ears of man. If, therefore, the sameness of essence according to species, asserted by the statement "to be of the essence," was understood by those who speak it—it being agreed that ^D the statement "is of the essence" is used of both souls and angels for this one and that one, and vice-versa—to signify a sameness of essence according to species, how could it be so impossible to say "an angel is from the essence of an angel," or "a soul is from the essence of another soul," that, when you are asked about this, you maintain that such a thing never even reached the ears of man? That this is so impossible is entirely due to nothing else than that there is no causality of sameness of essence found in angels or in souls.

5. Therefore, since where sameness of essence is not caused, it is impossible to say "to be of the essence," it remains manifest that wherever "to be of the essence" is said, it is said because of a caused sameness of essence. Thus, the truth holds its power, to which you cannot respond. Thus, it is everywhere consistent with itself, so that it refutes those who oppose it, both from the visible and sensible creation and from the invisible and intellectual, and ensures their conviction by this unanswerable proof. And so, having learned with certainty from this unanswerable proof, [I conclude] concerning the essence

to the Son, that the Holy Spirit is said [to proceed] from Him, for the precise demonstration that this processional existence is proper to the essence of the Son, as being poured forth from the Father, who is the first and primary Cause, through the Son Himself, those who raise objections against us in this matter, leave to their lamentations, and do you, established in the truth of the dogma, fare well.

SENTENTIA SYNODALIS (SYNODAL SENTENCE) OF THE SAME

On the 3rd day of May, on the sixth day of the week, in the eighth indiction, our most holy Lord, the Patriarch of Constantinople, New Rome, Lord Joannes, presiding in his cells near the church of Saint Theophylact, there sat with his holiness the most holy prelates: Nicolaus of Chalcedon and Hypertimos, Meletius of Athens and Hypertimos, Nicander of Larissa and Hypertimos, Leo of Serres and Hypertimos, Theodorus of Cherson, Theodorus of Sogdaia, Nicolaus of Proconnesus, and Leo of Beroea; while the most pious lord princes stood by.

1. A hair falling into the eye not only darkens the smallest part, but also brings much harm to the rest of the body. For if the eye is the lamp of the body, and it being in a bad state, it is absolutely necessary that the whole body be afflicted by the same malady, and, as if that lamp were extinguished, that which is guided by it be darkened. Similarly, therefore, if the holy Scripture has been corrupted in any way, even if only one apex has been ill-treated by addition or subtraction, it will have brought no small loss to the entire body of the Church. For what else could fulfill the place and use of the eyes for such a body, of which Christ is the head, than the monuments of the holy Fathers, which possess the faculty of seeing from the Head itself, and illuminate those who read them? What, therefore, must be done regarding the corporeal eye, and what must be thought of regarding this spiritual one, without whose direct guidance no one can gaze upon the Lord? Clearly, just as those who are skilled in these matters are accustomed to cleanse it, and to ensure that it shines again for the useful and optimal constitution of all the members of the body: so must we provide for...

this also as far as possible, and remove the mote that is presented, and even the beam itself that exceeds it, through suitable and genuine dogmas of faith, so that, having been freed from the disease and restored to its former state, the light may shine and the darkness be driven away. For to whom else would such care and diligence pertain more than to us ourselves, upon whom, by the mercy of God, the stewardship of these Fathers has been entrusted, as well as all other traditions of the divine Scriptures and of the Fathers? ^B As their legitimate sons, we are deeply aggrieved at the depravation of our paternal testaments, or rather, at being unjustly despoiled of the inheritance coming to us from them—an inheritance truly great and everlasting—and most especially in those matters in which the beauty of peace shines forth and the reconciliation of the Churches is strengthened; and this is all the more the case if those matters are treated shamelessly and faithlessly, as often happens with certain people who tear the truth apart, changing it to suit their own whims to such an extent that not only is the truth violated with impunity in every way, but the outrage itself receives strength and authority from the divine Scriptures as well. But if even the luminary of the Nyssaeans is treated with injury, and a book worthy of belief and ancient becomes subject to depravation—what must this mean for the sorrow of soul of those who pour out their very souls, so that nothing may remain that could hinder the ecclesiastical peace? ^C What diligence, then, must be applied, and in what way must we strive so that the truth may appear freely and with confidence, and obtain security for the future? Certainly, the greatest possible effort, and such as it befits us to exert in similar cases, and to accomplish with all our might. What success the matter has had, therefore, and what beginning it had, this discourse of ours will reveal most clearly.

2. Now that the ecclesiastical peace has been perfected by the grace of God, and the scandal of many years has been driven away—for it was necessary that at some time such darkness be dissolved, the light of concord shine forth, and God, the author of peace, be glorified with great abundance—it was incumbent upon us to promote that peace according to our power, and to establish it from the holy Scriptures, as it seemed most appropriate, ^D lest we be accused of speaking from our own belly, but rather from the lights prepared by God and from bellies filled with living water. Therefore, now this way, now that, at other times another, and in a word all of them, we directed to the hearing of those who obeyed, being guided by the mercy of God toward the peace that had been accomplished, and pointing out the way to others. And although among them some praiseworthy fear had introduced a scandal, we found them easily disposed to be compliant, neither resisting us nor our own cause. But, O the envy and the satanic machinations! Certain of our own people, addicted to the opposing party—since it did not seem discordant to them if they opposed the peace in any way—separated themselves from our Church, gathering together among themselves; and they, immediately, against the peace offered by the holy Scriptures, were distressed.

^A Yet even then, at the time when their obstinacy still had place, and they were preferring their own inclinations to the truth, what else was available to them regarding such Scriptures? For those men, being versatile in discourse and knowledge, were accustomed both to interpret them otherwise as they pleased, and to insist that some were spurious; and in instances where they did confess that some were indeed of the Fathers—speaking correctly only in this—they would bring forth a reply terrible, woe is me, and utterly unworthy of the purpose of the Fathers, namely, that the Fathers, in publishing commentaries on the questions stirred up at that time by the heretics, had departed from the right path. ^B Or do these, who speak such things, not understand that there is absolutely no glory of God, and no constitution of divine truth, which is promoted by falsehoods and those unworthy of the Spirit? But, as we were saying, all of those mentioned, having become masters of their own will, acted captiously against themselves, and abused their leisure to say things from which no advantage accrued to them; bringing forth many and various things into the midst, but aiming at one and the same end—to contradict peace and to struggle against the truth of the Scriptures, in various and many ways procuring their own ruin. But all these things were, to us—which is to say, to the truth—tolerable, had they, while keeping the Scriptures intact, added their own perverse interpretation, whatever it might be. ^C But to turn their minds to the iron, and to scrape away the writing, can easily be perceived by anyone to have been done merely out of caprice and affected desire; but whoever prudently examines the matter will gather from this that men of such a sort, since they could not possibly oppose such evident truth, had induced a mind to remove it from the midst. The method, the author, and the reason itself our discourse shall now pursue.

3. There was present, among other books belonging to the son-in-law of that great steward Xiphilinus, he who was surnamed Penteclesiota—who himself, together with his brother-in-law, the referendary of our Church, called Escammatisenus, was at that time supporting the opposite party—a volume, possessing dignity from its very antiquity, in which were contained various divinely inspired commentaries of the luminary of the Nyssaeans, that is, Gregory, the great and admirable Father. ^D Among those discourses was read also the homily *On the Lord's Prayer*, the beginning of which is: "When the great Moses was bringing the Israelite people to the mystagogy which he had received on the mountain." In it, when it happened that he was treating and teaching concerning the common and the proper qualities of the divine hypostases, he subjoined: "The Holy Spirit is said both to be from the Father and is affirmed to be from the Son." This particle of the sentence, and the aids for peace gathered thence, that great steward of blessed memory, Xiphilinus, brought to the public advantage, volu-

such a book, and having arrived at this passage, when he made use of it for reading from the Penteclesiota, it became manifest to us ourselves, and to him also who possessed the book, and who was actively opposing our position. This was the case, and no small strengthening for the sake of peace in the God who shows mercy occurred thence for the fullness of the Church. The Referendarius, therefore—being a kinsman by marriage and of the same opinion as the one who still possessed the book—having seen such a thing with his own eyes, and not having anything that he could do against this, since it was manifest, and as he was rich in the trustworthiness gathered from many things in the book, he decided to erase this clear proof, still fighting against our side. He used iron, and scraped away the "from," not considering that other volumes had been sought out to prove this very same thing, which all expressed it and abundantly confirmed the proposition, since they had not yet been depraved.

4. But when at some point his stubbornness ceased, and having embraced peace he entered into communion with us, as did many others, our mediocrity conferred with him often about various matters. It happened, however, that we recalled that book. ^B The Referendarius, as if moved by someone, indeed praised the book, and spoke about it according to what he thought; but in the course of the meeting he confessed regarding the volume: that in that place where it was, "and is affirmed to be from the Son," he had scraped it out with a small blade from that series of words—I know not by what reasoning he confessed it, or for what cause. This, however, was entirely the work of the truth and of the God of the Fathers. What followed from this? A fixed consideration, and a wasting of the bones, attacked our mediocrity: how such a sentence had been adulterated and had lost the ^C trustworthiness that contributed so much to ecclesiastical peace; and how, having escaped danger for so many years—when war was raging against the Church of the elder Rome—it was now at last corrupted by a cruel plagiarist; so that in the future, when the "from" was desired, there would be no security for the Church, and even when it was added, the volume would have neither credibility nor solidity, since it would be considered to have been lately added on account of the suspicion of an erasure.

5. Therefore, our mediocrity makes our most holy prelates and fellow ministers, who were present, participants in this matter, and seeks a remedy for the business; and together with them it considers how the right of the Church might be preserved. And a common counsel proceeds, ^D and a synodal opinion, that that place should be left empty where the "from" had previously been inscribed; because it would not be safe to rewrite it again now, and again cast suspicion upon those in the future on account of the recentness of the writing; but that the facts of the matter should be recorded, and a common testimony and proof arise from this, that the written passage had been tampered with, for the sake of the security of those who were to come thereafter.

as truth has been marked, that anyone should distrust it, or offer unseemly pretexts against what has been stated. ^A This was the common view held by all, and now, today, it is brought to a conclusion through this present synodal act, with the referendary himself acknowledging again, and not denying, that the phrase "from" was indeed inscribed by him, while also asking forgiveness for having done such a thing at the time when he was at variance with us. Wherefore this synodal act, which reveals the matter, has been deposited in our archives for the security of those who shall come after, and for the benefit of those who peruse the book, that they may learn from it the pure and unadulterated truth.

BY THE SAME

TO THEODORE, BISHOP OF SUGDAIA

BOOK ONE.

1. ^B Since you have lately taken up the evangelical yoke, and are already about to set out for Sugdaia, over whose flock the Holy Spirit has, through us, appointed you shepherd, you inquired of us concerning certain dogmatic matters, and you requested of our mediocrity that written responses to the questions you proposed be delivered to you, so that you might have ready, prepared, and more firm answers ^C against those who attempt to contradict you, because the number of those who have schismatically separated from us is far greater there than in other regions of the world. We, yielding to the reasonableness of your request, have composed this present writing, proceeding according to the number of your triad of questions and our corresponding answers.

2. At once, among the others, this first question: Whether those who oppose us and contend against us speak rightly when they assert that, even if it is said that the Spirit "proceeds" and "pours forth" and ^C

^A in some places things are said concerning the Spirit proceeding from the Father, which signify that He exists essentially and naturally from the Father, yet when these same things are said to be from the Son, they do not signify the natural existence of the Holy Spirit, but rather some spiritual gifts. The absolute absurdity of such distinctions, constructed by those who propose them, will be demonstrated to you by John, the golden-mouthed, that golden trumpet of the Spirit, in the discourse written by him concerning the most holy Spirit. For in that place, weaving a long argument concerning the names of the Spirit, and dividing the name of the Spirit both to manifest the authority and lordship and the very nature of the Spirit—who is the completion of the Trinity—and to manifest the distribution of spiritual gifts, and explaining the matter accurately and disentangling it very acutely, he sometimes proposes to introduce the name of Spirit as signifying the Paraclete Himself, while at other times he notes that by the same name some spiritual grace is insinuated; he signifies this in these very words: ^B "It is worthwhile, however, that we persevere longer in the narration of the holy and adorable Spirit, and speak more clearly concerning the holy and glorious power, not through those things which we invent, but through those things by which we are taught. The Holy Spirit is by nature indivisible, inasmuch as He has proceeded from an inseparable and indivisible nature: but His names are Holy Spirit, Spirit of truth, Spirit of God, Spirit of the Lord, Spirit of the Father, Spirit of the Son, Spirit of Christ." And after a few words, he adds: "Therefore, He is called the Holy Spirit. For this is the first and proper appellation, and it has a more emphatic meaning, and manifests the nature of the Holy Spirit." ^C And after a few words again: "But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ—and yet it was proper to say, 'If anyone does not have the Spirit of God'—he said 'Spirit of Christ'; but he said this in order to show that it is the same thing to say 'Spirit of God' and 'Spirit of Christ.' These names of the holy and immaculate power are of the holy and adorable Spirit. But there are other names that befit not the nature, but the operation. The discourse is profound and requires attentive, fortified, and faithful ears. For He is called the Spirit of life, since the Savior says: 'I am the truth and the life.' (John xiv, 6) He is called the Spirit of life, as Paul also says: 'For the law of the Spirit of life.' These names are of the same authority and of the same nature. ^D There are other names that are not ascribed to the Holy Spirit Himself, but to His power and operation, such as His gifts. I say, therefore, and further declare the sentence, afterwards bringing forward the testimony. When the Holy Spirit gives to the prayers of the saints, or to me, or to any other Christian, sanctification, I receive a gift so that I may have both body and soul holy. The gift exhibited to me is called the spirit of holiness; this is the munificence. If the Holy Spirit shall have given a gift to anyone, to one not having wisdom,

not having knowledge, but shall have given him only faith—as there are many who possess the gift of believing only in the Scriptures, though they do not know the Scriptures, yet believe in the Scriptures—that gift is called also the spirit of faith. If anyone receives a gift and power from the Holy Spirit to believe in the promise of the good things that are given in the age to come, he has received the spirit of promise. If anyone receives the gift of wisdom, the gift is called the spirit of wisdom; and all the gifts of the Spirit are called "spirit." And attend carefully to the pattern by which we partly clarify the theory. When anyone has the gift of love, it is said that he has the spirit of love. When anyone receives the gift of martyrdom, it is said that he has the spirit of power, that is, a gift; inasmuch as it is the Holy Spirit who is the gift. ^B And the gift bestowed is called "Spirit," and the gift is called by the same name as the one who bestows it. And after a few words: "So too the blessed Isaiah: 'There shall go forth,' he says, 'a rod from the root of Jesse, and a flower shall ascend from it, and the Spirit of God shall rest upon him.' Here is the name of the nature of the Spirit himself; next follow the gifts: spirit of wisdom and understanding, spirit of knowledge, spirit of piety, spirit of fear of God." And after a few words again: "He who teaches received the spirit of wisdom; he who is taught, the spirit of understanding, that he might understand. For this reason Isaiah ascribes wisdom to him who speaks, understanding to him who hears, and he says, 'A wise architect, and an understanding hearer.' The spirit of counsel is given to him who receives the design." And after some parts of the excerpt: "I repeat, therefore, the names of the ineffable nature of the Spirit of God, Spirit from God, Spirit of the Lord, Spirit of the Father, Spirit of the Son, Spirit of Christ, Spirit of him who raised Christ, spirit of life, spirit of truth. Then the gifts: spirit of power, spirit of love, spirit of temperance, spirit of promise, spirit of faith, spirit of revelation, spirit of adoption of sons." ^C Since these things have been clearly distinguished and handed down by the honey-tongued Father—that sometimes we hear the name "Spirit" and understand the Paraclete himself, while at other times we hear the name "spirit," and we acknowledge that some spiritual gift is signified by it—by what reasoning do those who, with unbridled mouths, pour forth whatever they happen to think, contend that it is not the nature of the Holy Spirit, but the spiritual gifts, that is indicated wherever "spirit" is found in any part of holy Scripture to be, to emanate, and to be poured out from the Son? For if, when discoursing on the names, the saint says, "But his name is Holy Spirit, Spirit of truth, Spirit of God, Spirit of the Father, Spirit of the Son," and adds, ^D "For this is the proper and primary appellation, having a more emphatic meaning and representing the nature of the Holy Spirit," and then continues: "These are the names of the holy and immaculate power of the holy and adorable Spirit," and again: "These names are the author

^Aity, the very nature, of the Holy Spirit." Who, if he does not wish to assault the truth in vain, will not acknowledge that the Holy Spirit, mentioned without distinction in the Scriptures, is the name of the very nature and authority of the Paraclete? And if this is so, by what reasoning will he dare to say that a spiritual gift is being signified, since it is found in countless places in Scripture that the Holy Spirit is now proceeding, now emanating, now leaping forth from the Son? No one, I think, will be so shameless against the truth as not to have, from these things which Chrysostom wrote concerning the names of the Spirit, a certain and patent demonstration that the very nature of the Paraclete is signified whenever someone simply and without ^B distinction declares "the Holy Spirit." With this demonstration held as certain, the refutation of those who say that the Holy Spirit proceeds, emanates, or is poured forth from the Son as a certain spiritual gift will follow without contradiction.

3. Moreover, to one who examines with greater attention the things said by the golden-mouthed teacher, other arguments will be suggested to refute these same persons. For since they, as has been said, wherever they hear that the Spirit is proceeding, or emanating, or leaping forth from the Son, are unwilling to understand the essence of the Spirit itself, but rather desire to understand spiritual gifts, separated and, as it were, divided by a cord from the very nature of the Spirit, a refutation of this absurd opinion is not lightly to be set aside, which Chrysostom himself suggests when he handles the saying of Isaiah in his own writing: ^C And see what the blessed Isaiah announces: "There shall come forth a rod from the root of Jesse, and a flower shall ascend from it, and the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him." And there, punctuating as it were the sense, he adds: "Here is the name of the nature of the Spirit itself." And he adds: "Next follow the gifts: spirit of wisdom and understanding, spirit of counsel and fortitude, spirit of knowledge, spirit of piety, spirit of fear of God." If, therefore, Isaiah, by first saying that the Spirit of God would rest upon him, signified the nature of the Holy Spirit, and by adding afterwards "spirit of wisdom and understanding" and other gifts of the Spirit, revealed them, it remains evident, as the holy Father Chrysostom also explains, that when the Holy Spirit, ^D through the prayers of the saints, has been bestowed either upon me or upon another Christian for sanctification, or wisdom, or understanding, or faith, or charity, or this or that (for the gifts of the Spirit are many and cannot be comprehended by number), one ought to understand the Holy Spirit Himself in His habitual indwelling through the Son, in those who are worthy, becoming a distributor of gifts. For Isaiah said first "the Spirit of God," and then added "spirit of wisdom and understanding" and other things, hinting that the gifts which are called by the same name as the Giver do not have an existence of their own, separated from the Spirit as by a cord, but the Holy Spirit Himself...

is the one who, when He bestows wisdom, is called the spirit of wisdom, and when He bestows sanctification, is called the spirit of sanctification. Therefore, those who hear that the Holy Spirit proceeds, and is poured forth, and gushes forth from the Son, and interpret these expressions as referring to the gifts—and not to the manifestation of His own essence—are suffering from a great malice against the truth.

^B 4. That the error of the meaning may, for your benefit, be made manifest also from Scriptural testimonies—namely, of those who conceive of the gifts as having an existence of their own in the Holy Spirit, separated in some way from His essence—hear what the holy Cyril says concerning this matter in his dialogues addressed to Hermias. For in one part of the dialogue, these words are set down verbatim: "The Saint: But is it not the Spirit who imprints the divine image upon us, and, like a seal, imparts heavenly beauty? Hermias: Not as God, they say, but as an administrator of divine grace. The Saint: It is not He Himself, then, who is imprinted upon us, but the grace which is bestowed through Him? Hermias: It seems so. The Saint: It would then have been necessary for man to be called an image of grace, and not rather of God." And adding a few things: "But if the grace given through the Spirit were something separated from the essence of the Spirit, why did the blessed Moses, when the animal was brought into being, not clearly say that the Creator of all breathed in the grace which is through the Spirit of life? And why did Christ not say to us: 'Receive the grace which is given through the ministry of the Holy Spirit'? Instead, in that [passage], it is called the breath of life; for the nature of the Godhead is true life, if it is true that 'in Him we live, and move, and have our being.' And through the voice of the Savior, He is called the Holy Spirit; by the Savior, I say, who truly introduces and sends the Holy Spirit into the souls of those who believe." And so much for the holy Cyril.

The presbyter of Raithu, Theodore, who is most precise in determining dogmas, speaks in this manner in his second discourse on the Incircumscript: "Let us see what they dare to say about God. By operation, they say, God is in all things, but by essence He is nowhere; calling the operation the effect which proceeds from the operation. I for my part would say, of the divine nature, that His operation ^C is inseparable from the nature of God."

^D ...are to be referred to the first cause, that it may be shown from whom it is, and not that three divided principles—and consequently Gods—are introduced; for they bring in equal impiety, whether they connect the persons with Sabellius or divide the nature with Arius. In this way, both the names indicating the nature of the Spirit and the differences of the gifts are proven by diligent enumeration, since when the Spirit is said to emanate, pour forth, and gush from the Son, it is that same Holy Spirit, one of the Triad, and who completes the Triad.

The divine-speaking Gregory, in his oration on the Holy Spirit, will confirm that He completes the Triad itself, and is said to emanate, pour forth, and gush from the Son, writing this clearly: "I indeed tremble all over, considering the abundance of the appellations; since, although they are so many and so great, those who oppose the Spirit still presume to behave shamelessly. He is called the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Christ, the mind of Christ, the Spirit of the Lord, and Lord Himself; the Spirit of adoption, of truth, of liberty; the Spirit of wisdom, understanding, counsel, fortitude, knowledge, piety, fear of God; for He does and creates all things, filling the whole essence, and containing all things, the essence of that which is mundane, fulfilling all." And after a few words:

^A "Since the divine nature is living, it has living operations also; and it is impossible for an operation to emerge without essence. Wherever an operation appears, the essence from which it proceeds is contemplated along with it." And after a few words: "Therefore, God is not present to beings only by operation, but also by essence; for it has been demonstrated that there is no operation without essence." And after a few words: "How then will that which is said be true, that the Spirit of the Lord has filled the world? Being God by essence, He has filled all things that exist with the divine essence, and is in all that exist." And after a few words: "But operation does not proceed without essence, and it is in all things; the essence, therefore, is in all things, according to that which is said through the Prophet: ^B 'Do I not fill heaven and earth? says the Lord?'" These pronouncements of the Saints will contribute greatly to stopping the mouths of those who contend that the Holy Spirit proceeds, is poured out, and leaps forth from the Son like some sort of gift.

5. But if you fix your mind more carefully upon certain of the more authoritative sayings of the great Cyril, which he expresses where he theologizes that the Son possesses the Spirit in the same way as the Father, as a participant in all the natural goods of the Father—not, clearly, as something adventitious or extraneous, but as each one of us contains his own spirit within himself, and pours it forth from his inmost bowels to the outside—you will have from this a great support against perverse distinctions. ^C For if the holy Cyril, using the human example, says that the Son pours forth the Spirit, just as each of us pours forth his own spirit from his inmost bowels to the outside, what else would such a pouring forth be but the natural existence of the Spirit from the Son? For even in the case of men, and of all other things that have a corruptible spirit, each one's spirit possesses its existence from the one breathing it forth.

6. For this reason the great Basil, in certain of his theological discourses, says that when someone proclaims the Spirit of God, this name is sufficient to signify His existence from God. Since, therefore, the Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of the Father and also the Spirit of the Son in most places of Scripture, if He is said to have His existence from the Father as the breath of the Father's mouth, He would certainly have a similar existence from the Son, ^D as the living and essential breath of the Son, because the Son is also declared to be the mouth of the Father in the divine Scriptures. You now have the complete answer to your first question, composed of scriptural testimonies.

^A comprobatum, de iis ob quæ adversarii absurdas descriptarum dictionum differentias comminiscuntur.

7. Regarding the word "appearing" which you noted in your second letter to us as being used by them, and saying that the great Basil also refutes their claim that they do not accept this word as demonstrating the existence of the Spirit—he refutes them in one of his chapters entitled, "That the Spirit is a divine nature," where he says: "For the Spirit, being conjoined with the living Word for the purpose of creation, is a living power and an ineffable divine nature appearing from the ineffable mouth." And in his exposition of the forty-fourth Psalm: "Just as the creating Word established the heaven, so also the Spirit of God, who proceeds from the Father, that is, from His mouth." For he who says that the Spirit now appears from the divine mouth, and now proceeds from that same mouth, ^B does not permit anyone to imagine any difference between such expressions. You, therefore, use all that has been said to demonstrate that they have not implicated themselves in any error, those who profess that He emanates, flows forth, and bursts forth from the Father and the Son, and does not merely appear; they, having embraced the union with the Roman Church, which, on account of the poverty of language perhaps, uses the term "procession" more than other terms, have adopted it.

8. Since you have proposed a third question—whether those who contend that the Spirit exists from the Father immediately and directly are not erring, or rather blaspheming—you have the means to silence them with all the sayings that have theologized the existence of the most holy Spirit from the Father through the Son. For if it is immediate, it is not through the Son; ^C and if it is through the Son, it is by no means immediate; since these two cannot exist together simultaneously. One would never find that the Spirit exists or proceeds from the Father immediately, even if one were to labor ten thousand times in scouring all the divinely inspired Scripture, but rather through the Son, in many places and very frequently. For instance, the divine and truly great Athanasius, in the discourse entitled "A Refutation of the hypocrisy of those around Meletius and Eusebius," which begins, "Man was made according to the image of God," says: "It could not be that the Spirit should be glorified in the glory of the Trinity if He did not proceed from God through the Son, but had been made from God, as they say." ^D The great Basil, in the chapter entitled "Why the Spirit is not also the Son of the Son," says: "That the Spirit is from God, the Apostle clearly proclaimed, saying: 'We have received the Spirit which is of God'; and he clearly signified that He appears through the Son, when he named Him the Spirit of the Son, just as he called Him the Spirit of God, and the Spirit of Christ, just as he also called Him the Spirit of God, as though of a man." Gregory of Nyssa, in his discourse to Ablabius: "Confessing the immutability of the nature, we do not deny the difference according to cause and caused, in which alone we perceive one thing to be distinguished from another; since we believe this one to be the cause, and that to be from the cause, and of that which is from the cause, we observe yet another distinction:"

^A for we conceive of one difference [that is immediate] from the first, and another [that is] through the immediate [cause] from the first. Saint Cyril, in the second book of his *Ad Hermiam*, says: "And you will call the Holy Spirit that which is naturally poured forth from God the Father through the Son, just as in the image of breath from the human mouth, indicating to us its own existence." Saint Maximus says: "He proceeds from the Father essentially through the Son, who is begotten in a way that cannot be expressed in words." The divine Tarasius, in his Epistle to the Antiochenes and Alexandrians, says: "And in the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father through the Son; and we acknowledge Him to be the same God." Damascenus, in the thirteenth chapter of his *Theological Chapters*, says concerning the Father: "He Himself, therefore, is Mind, the abyss of the Word, the begetter of the Word, and the producer of the manifesting Spirit through the Word." And after many things in the same place: "But the Holy Spirit, the manifesting power of the hiddenness of the Godhead of the Father, is from the Father, proceeding through the Son." These are indeed the scriptural testimonies by which the existence of the Spirit from the Father through the Son has been declared, ^B and they are sufficient to silence those who dare to assert that the Spirit is from the Father immediately and directly.

9. However, even here our adversaries do not follow the same opinion, but with dissimilar zeal they pronounce things that are far different. For some, with an immoderate liberty of speech, take the procession "through the Son," which we mentioned above, to mean "with the Son," or "together with the Son," or "one with the Son," and claim for themselves the security to blather whatever strikes their mind. Others, although they do not persistently dare to deny the existence "through the Son," oppose themselves to that which is asserted as "from both." You can refute the former with a few of these statements, whether that of the divine Damascenus, who affirms: "The Father is the producer of the Spirit through the Word; for what difference does it make to say that the Father is the producer of the Spirit through the Word, or the cause through the Son?" or that of Nyssen, who in his first anti-rhetorical work against Eunomius ^C writes that the Son is conceived as prior according to the reason of the cause of the hypostasis of the Spirit. For if anyone understands this saying in any other way than that the Holy Spirit has His cause from the Father through the Son, he will never direct it to a pious and catholic sentiment. And if the Spirit is caused from the Father through the Son, by what reason can those things which are inconsiderately and thoughtlessly put forward by them concerning the preposition "through" be admitted?

10. Furthermore, those who contend that the saying "from the Father through the Son" cannot be reconciled ^D with the saying "from both," the great Basil will, above all others, resist with the royal standard, as they say, in one of his chapters to the blessed Amphilochius, whose beginning is: "As for those things indeed

these are the findings; we, however, shall demonstrate what we have proposed, speaking thus clearly: "Not only in the case of theology does the usage of these terms shift, but already they also frequently exchange the things signified by one another; for whenever one takes on the significance of another—as when Adam says ^A 'I have acquired a man through God,' meaning the same as 'from God'; and elsewhere, 'All that Moses commanded to Israel through the command of the Lord'; and again, 'Is not the interpretation of these things through God?' when Joseph conversed with those in the prison—it is manifest that he himself uses 'through God' instead of 'from God.' And conversely, the preposition 'from' (ex) is used instead of 'through' (di'), as when Paul says, 'Made from a woman.' For this he ^B distinguishes clearly for us elsewhere, saying that to be born 'from the man' pertains to the woman, but 'through the woman' pertains to the man, in those places where he says, 'As the woman is from the man, so is the man through the woman.' Yet here, at the same time as he indicates the interchangeability of usage, he also corrects in passing the error of certain people—those who imagine that the Lord's body is spiritual—in order to show that the God-bearing flesh was composed out of the human mass, he ^C preferred to use the more expressive term. For the phrase 'through the woman' was going to signify the transitory understanding of the birth; but 'from the woman' sufficiently declares the communion of the nature of the one born with the one who gave birth; not that the Apostle contradicts himself, but he shows that these terms easily yield to one another." Afterwards, great Cyril will also overcome them, writing most clearly in his first letter to Palladius: "The Spirit is in no way mutable, for if it is subject to change, the reproach will fall back upon the divine nature itself, if it is the Spirit of God and the Father, and moreover ^D of the Son, essentially poured forth from both, that is, from the Father through the Son." And again, in his commentary on John, interpreting it in this way: "But if they think that the phrase used of him, 'through the Son,' can cast down his substance from the equality and natural likeness which he has with the Father, as if the Son were a minister rather than a creator, let these men, captured in their minds, consider and come out into our midst to answer what they suppose we should think about the Father himself, and who we should imagine he is, when he appears in the divine Scripture receiving the phrase 'through him'? For it says, 'God is faithful, through whom you were called into the communion of his Son,' and, 'Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God,' and again Paul writes to some: 'So you are no longer a slave, but a Son; and if a Son, then an heir through God.' For all these things surely refer to the person of God and the Father. And surely no one of sound mind would fail to give fair assent to these things, assigning the name and reality of ministry in a manner consistent with the glory of the Father himself, since the phrase 'through him' is predicated of him. For indeed

^A divine Scripture often uses expressions indifferently, without harming the subject matter, and in explaining things, it makes use of terms which it thinks properly indicate them. Those who contend that being 'from the Father through the Son' does not cohere with that which is 'from both' are refuted by similar statements. Once this is conceded, it must be admitted that whatever the Spirit has from the Son, it is correctly said to have from the Son, because it has these things through the Son. For the Spirit, flowing forth from the Son, does not flow forth as from a source proper to him and different from the Father, but because he flows forth from the Father, he is said to flow forth through the Son and from the Son; and being poured out through the Son, he is said to be poured out also from the Son; and proceeding through the Son, he is said to proceed also from the Son. And not only in all those expressions which signify his natural and essential ^B existence from the Father through the Son is he said to be also from the Son, as being that which is through the Son, but also to be exhibited and sent from the Son, because he is said to be sent and exhibited from the Father through the Son.

11. Furthermore, those who announce that the Spirit is immediately from the Father will be rejected by these very same testimonies committed to writing. For since the Wonderworking Father Gregory clearly theologizes that "The Father of the Lord is the principle, eternally begetting him, and the Lord is the prototype of the Spirit," how then will the prototype of the Lord with respect to the Spirit be understood, if the Spirit is immediate, just as the Son, from the Father? Or how will the Son be understood to be the image of the Father, and the Spirit ^C the image of the Son? Or how will it be understood that the Father is conceived before the Son as cause, and the Son according to the same reasoning of cause as the hypostasis of the Spirit? Or how will it be understood that the Father is greater than the Son, and the Son greater than the Holy Spirit? Or how will it be understood that the Spirit is joined to the Father through the Son? And what the great Athanasius dictated in his epistle to Serapion concerning the Holy Spirit, proving that the Spirit has the same unity toward the Son as he himself has toward the Father, because the Son is sent from the Father, but the Spirit from the Son; and the Father is glorified by the Son, and the Son by the Spirit. In ^D which he very clearly decrees that the Spirit has the same order and nature toward the Son as the Son has toward the Father. These things will provide you with great and immense help for refuting those who belch forth from their bellies that the Spirit is immediately from the Father, and who apply no effort to understanding the Scriptures. Therefore, do not fear to confess with great confidence and pure hope in God that the Holy Spirit exists from the Father through the Son, and from the Son. Moreover, we, having brought forward responses confirmed by divine Scriptures to your three questions, as you have already seen, if—

after you have returned to the city allotted to you, any other matter worthy of consideration or inquiry should be proposed to you by those who oppose you, we promise to provide the solution for that as well in another work.

BY THE SAME TO THEODORE, BISHOP OF SUGDAEA, BOOK SECOND

^A 1. You indeed, beloved brother, noted for us in a written summary the various objections of those who set themselves against you—objections which they advance sometimes by slandering the Scriptures, and at other times by confused and rashly devised interpretations—which have been proposed to you. But we, discharging the promise by which we are bound, are setting forth the refutations of all that they themselves bring forward, confirmed by the testimony of Scripture, so that from this it may be easy for you to refute robustly and strongly what is said by your opponents more shamelessly than foolishly. And be attentive in mind.

^B 2. Before all else, since the first principal point of the report was the slander which they make concerning what the great Basil, in his third Antirrhetic against Eunomius, teaches regarding divine matters, that whole theological discourse, as it exists in his own words, must be set down before everything else, so that what is suitable for repelling the slander may subsequently be proposed, and the rest may follow in its proper order with its own answer. Moreover, the discourse shall be set down in his words, not others: "For what necessity is there, if the Spirit is third in dignity and order, that He should also be third in nature? For the word of piety teaches us that He is second to the Son in dignity, since He has His being from Him, and receives from Him, and announces to us, and, in a word, is suspended from that ^C Cause; but that He uses a third nature, we have neither been taught by the divine Scriptures, nor is it possible to deduce it from the things said according to the logical consequence

^A This theological passage of the great Basil concerning the Spirit, as it was first pointed out to you in the report, stirs up a great struggle between you and your opponents; while you contend that the books which contain the aforementioned statement complete, and undiminished in any part of it, as it was set forth above, claim for themselves firmness and are not subject to any calumny: they, on the contrary, contend one thing after another, even those fetched from far away, ^B and contentiously produce [the argument] that the books containing similar things are entirely laden with false fallacies, namely in those things which they assert—"As one who has existence from Him, and receives from Him, and announces to us, and is altogether attached to that cause"—while those which do not have such things, and from which such [passages] are judged to be removed, are the most true and most sincere: so that, with the books thus divided into two parties, it is visible even to a blind man that one is entirely adulterated.

3. Since ^C for the discovery of the truth through accurate consideration and logical proof, there is need of this argumentative discourse, we shall explain it in these two ways, which I believe no one will contradict: the one according to judgment, which is sought from logical deductions, and the other according to demonstration, which is gathered from the Scriptures, concerning which we are speaking to you, and which we are imparting to you for the refutation of the adversaries. And let that which is from logical deductions take precedence. The opponents say ^D that the statement, "Having its existence from Him," and whatever other phrases clearly declare the Son to be the cause of the Spirit, do not belong to Basil the Great at all. And what is the proof, when they are asked? They say that it is not contained in all those books in which the discourse containing the said theology has been written down. And they think that this alone is sufficient proof that those containing the passage, as it has been set forth, were corrupted. I, for my part, say that if this passage were not written in any of the books at all, there would be things that could be brought forward concerning it, superior to every objection; but since it is removed from some, and yet appears in others, it is necessary for those who are impartial and of sound mind to consider which part of the books has been corrupted: whether that in which it is written, as we assumed above, or the other, in which it nowhere appears. For I am fully persuaded that those who weigh the matter in this way will incur the mark of total madness, if they suppose that the volumes containing the statement are forgeries. For if these volumes were transcribed after the dissension with the Roman Church, how could anyone, provided he were sane...

and his mind not remote from wisdom, consider this to be the primary method for refuting our adversaries? For one who is able to judge by reason will determine this without any hesitation. ^A Indeed, at a time when enmities are being carried on between the Churches, could any of our copyists have omitted or inserted something in our volumes that would have supplied our adversaries with strength against us? If the case occurred before the dissension, what reason could there be for adulterating books with words and dogmas about which no question had been raised, on account of which someone might at some time be driven to such misdeeds? Therefore, neither the time of war nor of peace permits us to admit that volumes containing the whole statement have been adulterated by the insertion of an addition; but as for those that do not contain it, any prudent person will recognize that they most certainly possess a spurious and counterfeit text. For, although the time of the dissension had been extended to hundreds of full years, and in the meantime many people very contentiously attacked the Romans with dialectical disputations, it is highly improbable that anyone would have supposed that that statement had been removed from certain volumes, whereby a sufficiently valid refutation of those who zealously procure and strive to consolidate the dissension of the Churches arises. Therefore, I believe that he who ascribes corruption to volumes that contain the statement, in which the whole sentence is read, as we noted above, is clearly battling against common notions, just as someone who, while the sun rides above the earth and fills all these things of ours with light, strives to confirm that it is the creator of darkness when it enters the western horizon. And this is my first argument, which, as I said, we have communicated to you for the averting of our opponents. For anyone who is able to judge by reason will determine ^B these things that have been said with complete conviction, without any hesitation at all.

^C 4. It now remains for us to bring forward the demonstration gathered from the Scriptures, which is the second method already mentioned by us. For the great Basil, having accepted that the Spirit is secondary to the Son in dignity, and not fearing to call such a secondary position the tradition of piety, stood in need of a proof through which this true sentiment might appear, for he had called that secondary position of the Spirit in relation to the Son the tradition of piety. And since he knew that the Spirit is neither second to the Son in dignity on account of time, nor by any diminution of glory—for the divinity is equal in both—nor by any other reason by which things that hold second place in relation to those that hold the first are made subordinate, but recognized only one limit of piety by which the Spirit is second to the Son: the limit that He has His existence through Him, and in accordance with this, from Him as well, he spoke in this manner: «The word of piety transmits that He is second in dignity to the Son, as He has his existence from Him, and receives it from Him, and announces it to us, and in every way adheres to that Cause; but that He is third in nature, we are neither taught by the holy Scriptures, ^D nor are we able to demonstrate that it follows from what we have said.» And with these words he concluded the assignment of his opinion: «The word of piety transmits that He is second in dignity to the Son; but that He is third in nature, it must by no means be said.» The proof...

that the Spirit is secondary to the Son in dignity, from the fact that ^A «He has from Him the fact that He is, and receives from Him, and announces to us,» is almost as if he were saying that it is because He is from the Son that He is also secondary to Him. And if you wish, whoever you may be who is contending, to know this—that if He were not from the Son, He would not have been called secondary to Him at all—remove this statement and give us another reason, according to which the Spirit is secondary to the Son. For apart from such a reason, the “secondary” status will be understood either by way of an interval of time, or by way of a lower seat, or by way of a deficiency of glory. ^B If, therefore, those who erased from the whole discourse the words saying that «The Spirit is second to the Son in dignity,» but who plainly and openly proclaim another, namely «He has from Him the fact that He is,» had deleted that, perhaps their wickedness would have attained the end they desired. But now, as the Spirit of Truth overturns their thoughts, they have abrogated the phrase «the Spirit is from the Son,» but have left written in all the books «He is second to the Son.» And from this, He who catches the wise in their craftiness allows those who diligently examine such things to perceive what has been wiles. And further, that Saint Basil the Great would never have called the Spirit second to the Son by any other reasoning at all, one can argue from what he himself adds to these words; for below he has this: «For just as the Son is second to the Father in order and dignity—in order, because He is from Him; and in dignity, because the Father ^C is the principle and cause of His being, and because through Him there is the approach and access to God the Father—but is in no way second in nature, because the Divinity is one in both—by the same reasoning, clearly, we would say that the Holy Spirit, even if He is inferior in order and dignity, does not therefore follow as being of an alien nature.» Let him who wishes consider that it is not alien to the reasoning of piety for the Spirit to be second to the Son in dignity, which is proven from the analogy that the Son has to the Father, while the Son possesses the second status from the Father. For he says: «Although He is inferior to the Son in order and dignity, He is not for that reason inferior to the Son in order and dignity as if composed of an alien nature; ^D since the Son, although He is second to the Father in order and dignity, is not therefore second in nature.» And the Saint, interpreting the statement by which the Son is second to the Father, says: «In order, indeed, He is second from the Father, because He is from Him, and in dignity, because the Father is the principle and cause that He is, and because through Him is the approach and access to God and the Father.»

5. But who knows, say the objectors, whether the Saint thinks the secondary status of the Spirit with respect to the Son is analogous to the secondary status of the Son with respect to the Father? Who knows? He who diligently peruses the theological statements, by which such an analogy clearly becomes known. And although these are many, we shall nonetheless set forth a few here, being content only with the words of the great Athanasius, which that great man, in his letter to Serapion concerning

^A the Holy Spirit, made use of. For the holy man says there: "And indeed, if because of the union of the Word with the Father they do not wish the Son himself to be among created things, why do they call the Holy Spirit a creature, who has the same union toward the Son that the Son himself has toward the Father?" And after many things in this letter: "Verily, the Son is sent by the Father. For so," he says, "God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son." And the Son sends the Spirit: "For if I go away," He says, "I will send the Paraclete." And the Son glorifies the Father, saying, "Father, I have glorified Thee," while the Spirit glorifies the Son: "He," He says, "shall glorify me." And the Son says: "What I have heard from the Father, these things I also speak into the world." And the Spirit receives from the Son: "For He shall receive of mine, and shall announce it to you," He says. And the Son came in the name of the Father, but the Holy Spirit, He says, whom the Father will send in my name. ^B Since, therefore, the Spirit has such an order and nature toward the Son as the Son has toward the Father, how can anyone saying that this is a creature not necessarily think the same also regarding the Son? Whosoever shall carefully examine these theological sayings will yield assent with an impartial mind, and will agree in every way with those who distinguish it, by no other reason is the Spirit theologized as second to the Son, than solely by that same reason by which the Son is second to the Father. He who with an impartial mind judges these things will, as I have said, yield his assent; and for us, the second way having the demonstration from the Scriptures will possess authority over the aforesaid. For if there is a criterion from the Scriptures that is inviolable, according to no other reason than solely that of the cause—both of the Son toward the Father, and of the Spirit toward the Son—and ^C it is accepted by theologians as being in the second place, then most perfectly for us the demonstration of the second way from the Scriptures, being the fulfillment of the books containing the saying, has emerged sound and unassailable.

6. Regarding the second point of the reference, which concerns the insufflation of the Holy Spirit, and the claim of those who contradict us that this grace is merely spiritual—these things which the same great Basil says in one of the chapters, under the heading "That the Spirit is the divine nature," will suffice for you. He says: "For the Spirit, being conjoined with the living Word for creation, is a living power and divine nature, proceeding ineffably from the ineffable mouth, sent ineffably and by way of insufflation into man, and according to the ^D type shown corporeally by the Lord, is restored again by Him through insufflation; for it is necessary that this current renewal concur with the primary innovation, and He expressed this concurrence by insufflating, being the same One who insufflated from the beginning, and He through whom God granted the insufflation, then indeed with the soul, but now into the soul." Since therefore

the great and profound theologian Basil says that this insufflation is of that Spirit, which is ordered with the living Word for creating, surely no one would say that it is spiritual grace that is ordered with the Word for creating, but the living power itself and the divine nature of the Spirit. And if that is the case, consider as vain those who explain the insufflation from the Son as spiritual grace. But observe also what I have been judged worthy to note. The great Basil at one moment calls this Spirit a divine nature, ^A appearing from an ineffable mouth, saying that there is one mouth from which the Spirit comes, and not two; but at another moment, further down, he says it is not another who insufflated the disciples, but He Himself through whom God also gave the breath to the first-created man. And when he says, "through whom God insufflated," he clearly points out two persons: God and Father, from whom the insufflation [proceeds], and God and Son, through whom the insufflation [proceeds]. But when he uses the singular "mouth," he shows that whatever is said about the Spirit from the Father through the Son is not as from two causes; and this he has shown more clearly in his chapters to Amphilochius, decreeing that the expression "through the Son" is a confession of the primal and principal cause.

7. The third chapter of your report was that the Romans are accused of a confusion of properties when they confess the Spirit to proceed from the Father and the Son. But this is ^C clearly refuted as false by the fact that these names themselves are the properties, strictly speaking, of the Trinity: Father, Son, and Spirit. For the exact property of the Father’s hypostasis is recognized to be this: that He is neither Son nor Spirit. And the property of the hypostasis of the Son, in turn, is that He is neither Father nor Spirit. Likewise, the property of the Spirit’s hypostasis, strictly speaking, is that He is neither Father nor Son, but only Spirit. If, therefore, according to those who claim it, a certain confusion of properties occurs when the Spirit is said to proceed from the Son, much earlier this would have occurred when He was called the Spirit of the Son. But the Spirit is also called the Spirit of the Father, and the Spirit of the Son, and the properties do not suffer confusion. Therefore, even proceeding from the Father and from the Son in His own property—proceeding, that is, as Spirit—He is preserved immutable. For a change of property only occurs when either the Father loses being the Father, or the Son [loses] being the Son, or the Spirit ^D [loses] being the Spirit, yet He is called the Spirit of the Father and of the Son; just as the permanence of a property consists in each of the three remaining what it is. And that no confusion follows from this, what has been said proves openly. But that these names themselves—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—are the properties of the Trinity, strictly speaking, is proven manifestly by these testimonies handed down in writing. Nyssen, in his second oration against Eunomius: "The property of the hypostases," he says, "makes evident and unconfused the distinction of the persons—of the Father, I mean, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." For these [properties]—

of the Father, I say, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; for by these appellations we are not taught a difference of natures, but only the distinguishing properties of the hypostases. ^A Chrysostom, in one of his sermons, speaks thus: "When I say 'property,' understand the Father to be Father, and the Son to be Son, and the Holy Spirit to be Holy Spirit. For these properties do not interchange. For the Father cannot be the Son, nor the Son the Father, nor the Holy Spirit the Father or the Son." And Theodore, the abbot and philosopher, says: "These three differ in no way from one another except only in property; namely, that this is the Father, that the Son, and that the Holy Spirit." ^B

8. The fourth and final head of your report contained matters which our adversaries imagine carry great weight against us. Since the Lord said in the Gospels that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, in what way is he who does not recite it in the Creed in every necessity exactly as the Lord Himself said it—that He proceeds from the Father—not to be judged a transgressor of the Gospel? Now, for silencing those who make such pronouncements, the words of the great Basil in his discourse on the Faith, which he published among the Ascetic writings, will suffice. His words are these: "It is undoubtedly a manifest sign of infidelity and a most certain proof of pride, if any man wishes to reject anything of those things which are written, or to introduce things not written, and brings forward the Apostle, taking an example from men, most vehemently forbidding that anything in the divine ^C Scriptures should be taken away or added." For he says: "Yet a man's confirmed testament no one nullifies or adds to." He, therefore, having so carefully guarded against all such things in that very discourse in which these passages are found, when he was delivering the written faith to some who had requested it, in no way expressed therein that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, which the Lord's own voice had declared in the Gospel. What then will they answer to this, they who blurt out everything that comes into their mouths? Will the great Basil, by them, be condemned as a transgressor of the Gospel for having proceeded in this manner? For if in the words an addition injures the evangelical truth and faith, and to teach the definition of the faith while not including therein the evangelical words of the Savior, but passing them over in silence, is also to pervert the Lord’s words ^D and to violate the Gospel; if, I say, this were true, the great Basil would never have said: "It is a manifest sign of infidelity and a certain mark of pride either to reject any of the things that are written, or to introduce things not written," while now, when handing down a definition of faith and piety, he has passed over the word of the Lord written in the Gospels. Having acted in this way, that man, who was like the angels, clearly demonstrates that it is not a violation of the things written to pass over evangelical and apostolic words in silence when we are treating of theological matters, provided that the exactness and completeness are demonstrated from the sense of all the other words, and even if they are not...

diminished by the subtraction of written terms, as long as the sense adheres to piety; nor will the addition of terms be a violation of piety, provided the sense of the added terms does not in any way alter piety. Hence, those who reproach us, who have embraced the communion of the Roman Church, on account of the addition, do not rightly apply their thoughts to prove this, but attack us rashly and insipidly. And as regards the things which are brought forward by them in a similar way, do not set your mind upon these, but take care to perform the task proper to you, which is ^B to bring about peace and concord for the flock entrusted to you. For now, having obtained from us the solutions to the matters you referred to us, you shall obtain the same in the future, if you indicate any similar matter to us again.

BY THE SAME TO THEODORE, BISHOP OF SUGDAEA BOOK THREE

1. Again, letters are sent by us to you, and again we readily provide you with the arguments for discussion, by which you will easily be able to oppose in your reply those who, with newly invented devices, always attempt to show that the Romans err concerning the cult of piety, as though they asserted that the existence of the most holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son, whereas we maintain it from the Father through the Son. And the arguments which are now provided to you by us for your reply will be, first, from history, and second, as we have done in our other treatises, taken from scriptural authorities. For when you have first learned from history that whatever blasphemous and impious things Photius barked against the Roman Church, he poured out driven by rage and ire, you shall acquire no slight strength to restrain the mouths of those who follow Photius without any examination by replying to them; ^C secondly, you will take from the scriptural authorities which are in use, opposing the contradictions of the adversaries, with a firmness that cannot be called into question.

^A 2. History proceeded in this way for you, and matters turned out as I recount. For when Photius had cast eyes of greed upon the episcopal throne of Constantinople, he cast out that man who truly was the holy man of God, Ignatius, who held it in his own time, and secured it for himself. Ignatius reported to Pope Nicholas, who at that time adorned the Apostolic throne, the matters that had been violently perpetrated. The Pope, in the very first of the letters which he issued against Photius to those subject to the patriarchal throne of Constantinople, set forth these things word for word: "For having heard that some of you, driven by envy and pride, have risen up against your shepherd and teacher, our fellow minister Ignatius, and have cast him out of the Church, we have been filled with concern, and most essentially for the reason that we heard that no small schism had arisen in that city and province, and in all the cities subject to it, on account of a certain Photius, who had come from the marketplace and ^B secular military service and habit, and from the palace, and was suddenly tonsured and introduced into the Church contrary to the sacred canons." And a few things later in the same letter: "But our legates, having reached Constantinople and fearing the imperial power, as they themselves say, neglected our commands and communicated in the sacred mysteries with Photius the adulterer, and condemned Ignatius, a man to be revered both for his age and his holiness, and cast him out of his priestly rank." And after a few more words of the same letter: "Photius, known as being from among the schismatics, and from secular ministry, and from military and public office, suddenly tonsured, ^C and consecrated by the condemned Gregory, bishop of Syracuse, while our fellow minister Ignatius, who had been violently cast out, was still living; and communicating and associating with those condemned and bound by the chains of anathema by our predecessor, the holy Benedict, with whom he wove together his plots against the patriarch Ignatius; and having corrupted the bishops sent by us so that they might consent to him, and who even today disturbs the Church of God, and afflicts the patriarch Ignatius and those adhering to him with intolerable torments—by the authority of God Almighty, and of the blessed Peter and Paul, the chiefs of the apostles, and of all the saints together, and of the venerable six ecumenical ^D synods, let him be estranged from every priestly honor and title, and completely stripped of every clerical office." These things, then, are contained in the letter of Pope Nicholas, which he issued at the very first incursion of Photius. But in those which his successor, Adrian, wrote against the same Photius, these words are found exactly: "The conventicle of vanity, which was gathered of old in Constantinople by Photius and his supporter, the emperor Michael, in tyranny and by force against the venerable Roman Church and her authority, as an enemy of the truth and filled with every falsehood, we compare to that Ephesian robbery; and we decree that its impious acts, wherever they may be held, are to be completely abolished, and become fuel for the fire, and be devoted to dire execrations.

^A And after a few words: “Photius, having been condemned and anathematized by our predecessor and by us on account of the charges set forth, and later surpassing his former crimes and intruding himself against the venerable and supreme authority of the Apostolic See, and weaving new fictions of lies and depraved dogmas, and having dared to bark against our most holy predecessor the Pope, and against us ourselves, we condemn again, and for such things we specially strike him with anathema.” After other passages against Photius, these also are found written word for word: “To Photius the courtier and usurper. To Photius the secular and forensic. To Photius the neophyte and tyrant. To Photius the schismatic and condemned. To Photius the adulterer and parricide. To Photius the architect of lies. To Photius the new Dioscorus. To Photius the new Judas, anathema.” Such were these things, and as great as those which stirred up Photius toward the things spoken and written by him as a judgment against the Roman Church.

3. But after Nicholas had passed from the life of men, and Adrian had departed after him, and Pope John had received the Apostolic See, he did not likewise receive the enmity against Photius, but, upon his return to the patriarchal throne, he received him graciously, and Photius gathered a synod in Byzantium, assembled by more than three hundred bishops, and issued canons, and delivered whatever had been done and said against the Roman Church during the time of the schism ^B and pronounced it stricken with anathema. It was incumbent, therefore, upon all who lived before our age, and those who have followed us and who follow us, concerning the things which Photius composed against the Roman Church, not merely to look at the unreasoning nature of the scandal, but also at the peace and concord of that man which followed afterward, which was pleasing to God, and to grant the better portion to these, as disciples of the peaceful Christ. But these men—oh, the worst snares of the author of every evil!—attend more than the ancient Israel did to the stone tablets given and dictated by Him, in order to subvert the pronouncements of the great Basil as well as the other holy Fathers, ^C and they do not notice that he himself invented certain dogmatic propositions from his own mind, nor do they endure to examine the manifest contrariety of these against the divinely-inspired sentiments of the Saints.

4. And when we exhort them that they should at some time repent, and attentively consider the things which he said and wrote for the sake of making peace, those who have once preferred the schism to union oppose us more obstinately, while in the dictates to Eusebius they find him declaring these things word for word: “But my John—for he is mine both in other matters, and because he has embraced our affairs more amicably than others—this John of ours, therefore, strenuous in ^D prudence as well as in piety, and also against injustice and every impiety, and not

^A only able to succor by sacred bonds, but also by civil laws, and to reduce what is disorderly into order. This favored high priest of Rome, through his most God-fearing and glorious representatives—Paul, Eugenius, and Peter, metropolitans and priests of God who arrived at our synod—just as the Catholic Church of God and his predecessors, the high priests of Rome, accepted the Symbol of the Faith, he has signed and sealed it with mind, and tongue, and the sacred hands of the aforementioned most famous and admirable men.

Those with whom we are debating, finding Photius saying these things, ^B imagine that he exchanged enmity for peace, because he signed and sealed the Symbol of the Faith—which is read among us without the addition—through the God-fearing representatives of Pope John. But no one among those capable of making sound judgments would readily believe this, since not even one dogmatic discourse is found to have been delivered in that synod, which was convened for the establishment of peace; rather, this was a concealment of the true cause for which the animosity against the entire Roman Church was kindled in Photius. For Photius, fearing to incur the censure of all—because, while Pope Nicholas would not admit him, he had called the entire Roman Church injurious to the Divine, impious, and a ^C maximum transgressor of laws; and while Pope John had granted his consent to his restoration to the patriarchal throne, he was proclaiming that same [Church] as holy and a teacher of piety—contrived this as a sort of apology for the peace entered into with Pope John, that he had accepted the Symbol through his representatives and had signed and sealed it with mind, and with tongue, and with the sacred hands of such famous and admirable men. And they have done this in such a way, just as all those who adorned the ecclesiastical throne of Rome before Pope John confessed this Symbol to be holy and full of piety; and those who have succeeded him down to this present time both cherish it in their minds and proclaim it with their tongues. And the proof of my statement will be the unalterable nature of the Gospels, and all the patristic writings, which say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, the same being acknowledged without any addition.

^D 5. Having reached this point, and having provided for you how, from history alone, you will be able to confute those who disagree with us by trusting in Photius, I shall now, as is our custom, also add for you the refutation from the Scriptures. As a result, just as you have indicated in the letters now delivered to us, there are those who do not deny their faith to Photius. For he, indeed, in most of the theological testimonies of the Fathers handed down in writing, setting forth his own arguments to the contrary, asserts that the Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of Christ, because He anoints Him. And up to this point he brings the argument correctly. But when he affirms that the Spirit is called Christ's in another way, and [by] some

^A sophistical and distorted interpretation, this is ^A crafty and perversely twisted interpretation: for if he assumes that the Spirit is called "Spirit of Christ" only in that respect in which the Lord has become a partaker of flesh and blood, and has become man, anointed by His own Spirit, and by no means in that respect in which He exists as God from eternity; he will have denied the mode of mutual interchange and interpenetration of the two natures of Christ. Nyssenus also refutes this interpretation, saying that [the fact that] the Spirit is from the Son is confirmed by testimony. And he proves this by the Apostle's saying: "If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His (1)."

6. And again, he says the Spirit is the Spirit of the Son, because He is of the same essence as the Son; and that He remains upon Him, and in Him. But the great Basil, when treating of divine things, now says "the Spirit is the Spirit of the Son, because He is from the Father through the Son," and now teaches quite openly that there is no difference in theological matters between the prepositions "from" [ex] and "through" [per].

7. Again, Photius says that the phrase "Spirit of God, or of the Father, or of the Son" signifies one thing, and the phrase saying that He "proceeds from the Father" signifies another. But the great Basil, concerning the former, says: "I understand a relationship to the Father, since He proceeds from the Father; toward the Son, however, since 'if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His.'" If, therefore, the Spirit is proper to the Father, because He proceeds from the Father, and is proper to the Son, because He is the Spirit of Christ, where then is the force of the difference of terms invented by Photius? But when the same great Basil also says: "For we are not about to have any less for the knowledge that the Spirit is from God, when we hear Him called the spirit of His mouth," but this name is more than enough to indicate His existence from God; who would put faith in Photius, unless he carried his brains in his heels, when he says: "It is manifestly one thing for the Spirit to proceed from the Father, and another thing to be implied when someone says: the Spirit who is from God"? "When we hear the 'Spirit of God,'" says the great Basil, "we know that the Spirit is from God"; and thence he establishes that the term "from God" signifies the existence of the Spirit from God, which the term asserting that He proceeds from God also denotes, as is undoubted among all.

8. And Photius says: "It is clearly one thing for the Spirit to proceed from the Father, and another thing to say that the Spirit is from God." Does he not affirm similar things, ^D and...

^A does he not, unless he wishes to place even the great Basil behind his own interpretations, find it much more consonant with the truth to say that the Spirit is consubstantial with the Father because He is from the Father, and consubstantial with the Son because He is through the Son; or to call the Spirit the Spirit of the Son, and to say that the Spirit is through the Son, because He is consubstantial with the Son? For it is not because He is consubstantial with the Son that He is therefore called the Spirit of the Son and is through the Son, as those who have taken their pretexts from Photius now cavil; but because He has His existence from the Father through the Son, for that reason He is also the Spirit of the Son, and is consubstantial with the Son.

9. Again, laying hold of the voice ^B which the Forerunner uttered at the baptism of the Savior, when he said, "He saw the Spirit descending like a dove, and remaining upon him," Photius takes the descent of the Spirit from the Father upon the Lord as a demonstration that He is, forsooth, from the Father alone. But the great Athanasius, writing—"From Him, therefore, it descended into Him: from His divinity into His humanity"—by this statement of his, clearly demonstrates that the Spirit is also from the Son.

10. Again, Photius refers to the person of the Father that evangelical word of the Lord, "He will take of mine." "And since," he says, "the Lord said, 'not from me, but he will take of what is mine,' what other person could there be, from whom the Spirit of the Lord receives, ^C if not the Father?" But the great Athanasius refutes such a perverse interpretation, when he pronounces these words verbatim: "The Son," he says, "what I heard from the Father, these things I also speak into the world; but the Spirit, for He will take from mine, and will announce it to us," he says. Since the saint teaches that the Spirit receives from the Son, by the fact that He said in the Gospels, "He will take of mine," how can it be said that "of mine" has its reference to the person of the Father? And when the Italian brings forth this evangelical sentiment to prove the existence of the life-giving Spirit from the Son, Photius reproaches him with stupidity, and asserts that he does not even know those things which little children just beginning to attend school ^D know—that to differ from "of mine" [is the case]—I do not clearly understand with what eyes he will look upon the divine Epiphanius, who is truly and sufficiently celebrated in explaining divine matters, who gathers the existence of the Spirit from the Son from this statement, when he says: "But if Christ is believed to be from the Father, God from God, the Spirit also is from Christ, or from both, as Christ says: 'He who proceeds from the Father,' and 'He will take of mine.'"

'" ^A When Photius proposes as something altogether terrible to behold to his adversaries the Gospel voice in which the Lord, having said that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, kept silent about his own name, the various interpretations of the great Basil upon the Gospel sayings that are to be mentioned will be against him in defense of the Italians. In one of the epistles he wrote to Amphilochius, he says of the word "No one": "It seems to be a universal expression, so that no person seems to be excepted. But it is not accepted in this way in the Divine Scriptures, as we have observed in the passage: 'No one is good except one, God.' For the Son does not, by setting himself outside the nature of the good, assert this there; but because the Father is the first Good, we believe that 'the second' is stated alongside the 'No one,' with the 'first' being supplied." ^B And again in the same epistle he writes that the following is not dissimilar: "No one knows the Son except the Father." For the Son does not there note ignorance of the Spirit; but he testifies that the knowledge of his own nature resides primarily in the Father. And again [he says] that the [saying] "No one knows," brings the primary perception of things that are and things that will be to the Father, and through all things he shows to men the first Cause. And after a few lines of that passage [he adds]: "By passing over his own person in silence, therefore, as a matter agreed upon, the Lord says that the Father alone knows, asserting that the Father's knowledge is, by what is passed over in silence, his own also." Such interpretations of Gospel sayings are sufficient to stop the mouths of those who propose it as some great difficulty: "If the Spirit also exists from the Son, why did the Lord in the Gospels, ^C when he said 'who proceeds from the Father,' not add 'and from me'?" For if the great Basil attributes the cause for the passing over in silence of the name of the Son in those [passages] where he says "knowing the Father alone," and clearly declares that "the knowledge of the Father is, by what is passed over in silence, the knowledge also of the Son," who would rightly claim for himself—as if he were a receptacle of the Spirit purer than Basil—to doubt in a different way than Basil does, asking why the name of the Son is not also pronounced along with the name of the Father, since it is manifest to all, and why, when it is not pronounced together [with it], it is not understood together [with it]? For as to what this great Father asserts about the knowledge of that day and hour, clearly stating it as a dogma, "Even the Son would not have known it, had the Father not known it," ^D emboldened by his words, I myself will pronounce this same thing concerning the procession of the Spirit: The Spirit would never have proceeded from the Son, had he not proceeded from the Father. For from where would the Son have [the] Spirit, he who has nothing proper apart from the Father, if he did not have it naturally from the Father?

12. But we have defended ourselves to you regarding all the things that your epistle, which has just been delivered to us, contained. Do you, however, take care in every way, more curiously...

^A to investigate and note how, among all the things Photius uttered against the Roman Church, he made no mention of any scriptural citation of those that say the Holy Spirit proceeds and flows forth, and comes forth and is sent, through the Son and from the Son, and other such things. Anyone who is not maliciously blind to the truth will discern that this did not happen to Photius through ignorance of these things, but because, when he did not dare to set himself openly in opposition to the utterances of the holy Fathers, which reveal the truth more brightly than the sun itself, he fulfilled his own wickedness—born of a desire for vengeance—with warped interpretations by which he thought to soften his own bitterness; but as for what he knew added strength to his adversaries, he passed over it as if he were ignorant of it. For because he was accused by his own conscience, he brought a synod together with great efforts for the sake of establishing peace. But those who, from him and in the times that followed, set at naught the peace that had continued between the Churches for one hundred and seventy years until the age of Cerularius, hold only to those things which he uttered to breed enmity and malice, and taking pretexts from them, have gradually proceeded to the point of contradicting the very Scriptures whose true perceptions it was not right for them to oppose. But as for you, you have the refutation of such things in those matters which we treated in the first and second volumes of our epistle previously written to you. ^B

BY THE SAME TO CONSTANTINE BOOK ONE.

^C 1. I had already set in order and, as it were, determined for myself the direction of my writings against those who oppose the truth of the dogma, since I had—by the grace of Christ and the power of the truth—sufficiently refuted both those who now dangerously introduce absurd opinions into the dogmas, and those before them, if you look back at the past times as far as Photius himself, who left behind writings for the purpose of overthrowing the existence of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son—that is, from the Father through the Son. But since it has seemed good to you, my dear Constantine,

and you have asked that I should point out in a special treatise at which place in his Commentaries Cyprius contradicts himself, I shall comply with your request, and my hand once more applies itself to writing: yet my mind does not turn to think about things different from those which I had previously set forth. For since the work which had to be devised and dictated by us for the purpose of refuting the statements and sayings of Cyprius, which were put together not without error, has been perfectly completed by us, my hand will at present only comply with your request by severing certain parts from those many segments and setting them forth in writing wherever it is appropriate. And now, listen.

^B 2. In his first volume, ^C Cyprius interprets incorrectly the passage which states, “The Spirit proceeds from the essence of the Father and the Son,” and says: “It is known to everyone that while the Holy Spirit is asserted to be from the essence of the Father, it is rightly and piously said to be also from the essence of the Son: for, indeed, it is one.” And having added a few things, he says: “Since the Spirit, who is asserted to be from the essence of the Father, is admitted by all to exist also from the essence of the Son, because it is one. But it does not follow from this that he is also from the hypostasis of the Son.” Such are the excerpts of his words—the inventions of his own mind, and recently devised to refute our writings. But according to this same meaning, a reply is again in readiness from his own words, which will be considered to have nothing firmer, if you possess the mind to contradict him; this you will rightly understand if you attend to what is present. ^D Responding in another part of the same volume to those who assert that the Father and the Son are the one cause of the Spirit, and pouring out many trifles against them, he finally proposes as something unpropitious, and which is most apt to overthrow an adversary without any chance of escape: “What kind of unity,” he asks, “proves one cause? Is it essence? And by what reasoning, when by the common decree of the theologians the Spirit is one as to essence with the Father and the Son, does he not also have the faculty to produce and to cause to proceed?” Cyprius, proposing this question of his, denies on the grounds of cause that which is insinuated by our theological Fathers—that the Spirit is from the essence of the Father and the Son. We, however, who adopt this theological statement in this sense, will first teach how Cyprius here contradicts himself, following the scope of our preceding purpose, and then we will demonstrate how the statement theologically saying that the Spirit is from the essence of the Father and the Son was understood by our Fathers according to the reasoning of cause, and that there is no necessity, from the fact that the Holy Spirit is consubstantial with the Father and the Son, that He Himself also has the faculty of producing and causing to proceed. But in what way shall we teach this? Thus, by directing ourselves to him.

3. Since it seems to you, Cyprius, that if someone, asserting that the Spirit is from the essence of the Father and the Son, were to interpret the statement according to the reasoning of cause, some absurdity

^A regarding the same Spirit being also produced and having the power to cause to proceed, because He is consubstantial to the Father and the Son, were to be gathered—how do you not recognize that you are constructing your own refutation, and openly weaving a noose for yourself, when you, interpreting such a statement, assert that it is "well and piously said, that which is called from the essence of the Father is also said to be from the essence of the Son, since it is one"? For anyone who attempts to contradict you can certainly say: just as, O Cyprian, you who dare everything, the principle of the consubstantiality of the Spirit with the Father and the Son demands, as you decide, that the Spirit has the power to produce and to cause to proceed, if one contends that the statement which traditions the Spirit as being from the essence of the Father and the Son signifies the cause; in like manner, the principle of the same consubstantiality will necessarily require that the Spirit also be from its own essence, if, as you monstrously imagine, "it is well and piously said" that the Holy Spirit, who is established as being from the essence of the Father, is also said to be from the essence of the Son, because the essence of the Son and the Father is one. How did these things escape you, the most wise? How were you, who breathe Aristotle and place your great pride in Plato, unable to perceive how, by saying these things, you weave a noose for yourself, or forge a sword for the spilling of your own entrails? And what must these entrails be understood to be? They are, I think, the convoluted thoughts of your mind, full of refuse—heretical stench, I say. For if you do not show any absurdity—to repeat the same things—in that the Spirit, who is said to be from the essence of the Father and the Son, is also said to be from the essence of Himself (for it follows thus, without any hesitation, because of the one and same essence of both, as you yourself interpret the statement to have been said by the saints; and you will be shown to be rightly refuting those who ^B take it according to the reasoning of cause), or if the demonstration demanded of you by us is confessed by you to be impossible, you are undoubtedly forging the refutation against yourself: now indeed, by contending that it follows of necessity, because of the consubstantiality of the Spirit with the Father and the Son, that the Spirit itself is productive and causative; and now, because of the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, deciding that such a statement was said by the saints, and being unable to conclude what, according to your opinion, should thence be gathered. But you, as if denying that the Spirit is theologically defined by our theologian Fathers from the essence of the Father and the Son according to the reasoning of cause, received through this misinterpretation a sword which you be- ^C stow upon anyone wishing to contradict you against yourself. The goat, as the proverb says, [carries] the sword.

4. Behold, having now completed—well and, as I think, very accurately—this first demonstration of how you fall into contradiction with yourself, according to this portion of the reasoning, regarding the excerpts of your tome previously set forth by us, we proceed, according to our promise, to show how the statement, which confesses the Spirit to be from the essence of the Father and the Son, was taken by the Fathers according to the reasoning of cause,

and how it by no means follows, because of the Spirit’s one and the same essence with the Father and the Son, that the Spirit also has the faculty of producing and causing to proceed. But you, to whom this my discourse is turned, apply your mind to what is said. Those who have spoken of the Spirit as being from the essence of the Father and the Son did not state this by looking simply to their one and same essence; for then it would be no absurdity to say that the Spirit is from its own essence also—but by declaring the Spirit to be from the Father through the Son, they meant to show the distinct procession of these two caused beings from the Father; and Nyssen is for me an unassailable witness. Since, regarding the existence of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son, or indeed from both, there was no one who dared to contradict, nor was it not ^B universally confessed that being from the Father through the Son and being from both differed in nothing; but the Fathers had instituted their entire struggle against those who contended that the Holy Spirit is a creature, so as to stop their mouths and uproot their blasphemy, desiring to indicate the caused Spirit to be consubstantial from both, they added [the words] "from the essence of the Father and the Son" to their theological statement. And consider, then, how from this the end of our promise follows irrefutably. For since the statement declaring the existence of the all-holy Spirit from the Father through the Son expresses the distinct cause of the Spirit in relation to the Son, while the statement declaring it to be "from the essence of the Father and the Son" is a way of indicating that it proceeds in an uncreated and consubstantial manner from that from which and through which it proceeds, this is for us a perfect proof that such a statement was understood by the holy ones according to the reasoning of cause. And that no other spirit was theology-taught by the holy ones to be from the Father through the Spirit, this is again proof, being in no need of [further evidence], that there is no necessity, because of the Spirit’s ^C consubstantiality with the Father and the Son, as Cyprius thinks, that the Spirit itself is also productive and causative of procession.

5. But let the argument proceed for me further, and let it refute the rest of the thoughts by which Cyprius himself falls into contradiction. In another place of the already mentioned volume, these are the very words: «Because of the same essence of the Father and the Son, the Spirit might be called piously from the essence of the Father and also from the essence of the Son; but [to say] from His [their] same hypostasis, when it is from the essence, what reason will ever establish?» We ourselves, having previously instructed you again how this very wise man foolishly falls into contradiction with himself even in these matters, will proceed to set forth for you another new impiety arising from this as if by necessity. For he does indeed contradict himself in those parts of the same volume where he says: «But for us the hypostasis of the Father is perfect, complete, and lacking nothing, being in itself a living and active essence; perfect also is that of the Son, full in all things, and lacking nothing, being in itself a living and active essence.» And again in other places he has these words: «We do not [divide] the essence into hypostasis with a carnal and gross division…

^A nor do we assign to either of them a proper existence apart from the other, but we separate them by reason alone, as by other means they cannot be divided.» And he who before maintained that there was no argument that could prove the Spirit, who is said to be from the essence of the Son, to be also from his hypostasis, is caught having later confessed the hypostasis of the Son to be a perfect, complete, and lacking-nothing essence, both living and active in itself, and further adding to this confession that such an essence is never divided from its own hypostasis, even by a carnal and gross division. What argument could be more powerful for demonstrating that Cyprius is refuted by himself than these? For the very argument which he contends can never be found, he himself, and no other, discovers: that the essence of the Son, from which the Spirit is composed, is said to be indivisible from the hypostasis of which it is predicated; and from this he grants that the person who wishes to do so may conclude that all that is said to be from the essence of the Son and from his hypostasis necessarily exists in every way. Thus, in these matters too, Cyprius falls into contradiction with himself.

^B 6. Now, making the promised demonstration of the impiety arising therefrom, we say this: that from the things which Cyprius thus writes are to be concluded, the connection of the essence of the Father and the Son is, if the reason of the hypostasis is removed, a contact or conjunction, and one which looks only to a bare mental concept or to a division apprehended only by mere reason. For since he himself is the one legislating that the Holy Spirit is said to be from the essence of the Son, as he is said to be from the essence of the Father, because of the identity of the essence of the Father and the Son, yet he in no wise allows him to be from the hypostasis of the Son, and he himself is the one who confesses that the essence of each hypostasis is divided by reason alone; ^C it is manifest that when he legislates that the Spirit must be said to be from the essence of the Son, because of the identity of the essence of the Father and the Son, but in no wise from the hypostasis according to the division of the essence of each hypostasis understood by reason alone, he interprets this "from the essence" in such a way. And this is nothing other than a manifest opinion that the Son is consubstantial with the Spirit by mere concept, and not by nature and truth and in reality. This is the impiety that follows upon the words of Cyprius here also.

7. Let us, however, be concerned from this point on to recount and demonstrate the remaining contradictions through which he falls into conflict with himself. For in other parts of the same volume, ^D with great and intense exertion, he attempts to demonstrate that the Father is the cause of those things that are from him, not by the reason of the essence, but by the reason of the hypostasis alone, and he speaks thus verbatim: «For if the Spirit is from the essence of the Son, because it is one with the essence of the Father, it must be confessed; but from the hypostasis, because it is not one, it is not necessary. For another is the hypostasis of the Father, and another that of the Son, and it is the paternal hypostasis that is the cause of the Son and of the Spirit.» And after a few words: «But if you refer the cause to the essence, and not to the hypostasis, first of all, by what reason is the Father instead the cause of the two? And why are not the others also causes of one another, and of the Father as well, since...»

^A they possess the same essence without any distinction? And secondly, how will the manifestation of the supersubstantial fecundity stand in the Trinity, if the fecundity is attributed to the essence?» Such things does this vain man babble, and many other things similar to these, as one who zealously strives to prove by a non-existent demonstration those things which are caused from the hypostasis without essence, to be from the paternal hypostasis. What a pit of impiety he has dug for himself has been sufficiently demonstrated by us in all those parts of our writings in which those things handed down in writing are organized—those scriptural passages which openly assign the cause to the ensouled hypostasis of the Father. Where, among other testimonies of the theologians, the glorious Athanasius now calls the Son the “own” offspring of the Father’s essence, and now declares the essence of the Father to be the principle and root and fountain of the Son; and now says, “For the Son’s essence is not something external ^B invented, nor was it introduced from things that are not, but it sprang from the essence of the Father, as the radiance of light and as steam of water”; and now determines that the nature of God signifies the cause of both the Son and the Spirit.

8. But let us now, as we have already shown before, demonstrate in the following how Cyprius is openly refuted by himself in the points already set forth, and whence it comes about that most others are deceived by him in this matter. In what place, then, does he refute himself? Where, in the second volume of his excerpts, he writes: «For neither is the common essence and nature the cause of a hypostasis; since the common essence itself is never born, nor is it naturally apt to produce individuals. But the essence with properties, which clearly designates the hypostasis according to the great Maximus, and even according to the great Basil himself—for he also defines hypostasis to be that which represents and circumscribes ^C the common and uncircumscribed in a certain thing by means of the accompanying properties.» What do you say? What could be a clearer refutation, O Cyprius, than Cyprius himself, in these points where he confesses that the essence with properties denotes the hypostasis, persuaded by the great Basil and Maximus, and willingly and gladly attributes the cause to such an essence? For if you confess, O Cyprius, that you denote the Father’s essence existing with the paternal property as His very hypostasis, and you do not hesitate in the least to attribute the cause to such an essence, where then are those great trifles of yours? Where are your decrees, or rather, to speak more aptly, your vanities and curious contentions about things of nothing, which remove the cause from the essence of the Father without any distinction? Do you see to what evils you have been ^D driven while you handle theological matters with little consideration? Furthermore, you assert that «the common nature and essence is the cause of no hypostasis.» But I do not confess that such an essence exists at all—not in God, nor in any of the created things—unless perhaps someone, persuaded by Aristotelian dogmas (as your own words show you to be), wishes to deify and worship what he calls essence, as he did long ago, and you, by your pronouncements, clearly show you are favoring such an essence. But I

^A leave you to groan, being content for the sake of your own refutation with those things by which you convict yourself, now depriving the paternal essence of the title of cause, and now acknowledging that the essence, together with the properties, signifies the hypostasis, and acknowledging a cause for it. Moreover, you again call the Father the natural principle and cause of the Son and of the Spirit, and again, you call him the essential cause of the Son and of the Spirit. For if the Father is not the cause according to essence, as the cited passages of your tome signify, you are both lying when you call him the essential cause and natural principle and cause of the Son and of the Spirit, or else, according to the things confessed by both you and me, and before us by all the theologians, the Fathers, the Father is truly the essential cause and natural cause and principle of those things which are of him, and the falsehood of the writings ^B which define that the Father is not the cause according to essence, and the refutation arising from this against you, is hereby manifest.

9. But to us, O friend, my hearer of what is said, after having added the cause to what has been said, on account of which the Cypriot deprives the paternal essence of being the cause, it must be shown according to our promise, and whence it comes about for him in this deprivation to lead many astray. The cause of the deprivation is that he knows precisely that if he grants that the essence which is predicated of the Father is said to be the cause of the Son, and that the essence which is predicated of the Son acknowledges its essence to be ^C from the Father as its cause, he would not be able to oppose those who establish the Son as the cause of the Spirit, on account of the sayings which they adduce, which claim that the Holy Spirit exists from the essence of the Son. And the deception which follows from such a deprivation, and the refutation following the deception, will be made certain and manifest by these things. Knowing that the whole Church with one consent asserts one essence and three hypostases in the holy Trinity, the Cypriot, taking this very thing—that the essence of the Trinity is one—as the material for his deception, keeps silent regarding the reasons for which the essence is called one, and by twisting this "one" into a different meaning, he has led astray not only the many and the more simple, but by now ^D also not a few of the learned and distinguished men. For the essence is said to be one, not because it does not admit of division into cause and caused, nor because the Father is not a perfect essence, the Son a perfect essence, and the Holy Spirit a perfect essence (for they exist and are called so), but because these three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, being and being called essence, and essence, and essence, are entirely incapable of any difference on account of which one essence is divided from another. But the differences which divide essences from one another are the mortal and immortal, the rational and irrational, and together with many others, the created and uncreated, which difference Arius, having been caught advocating regarding the holy Trinity, forced the Nicene Fathers, for the sake of eliminating it, to set forth their efforts, preaching these words: "one," "one," and "similar in all things" regarding the essence which consists of three persons. And the true

^A argument is that according to which the essence of the three persons is theorized as three-hypostatic. But Cyprius, taking the division and difference into cause and caused as one of the differences according to which one essence differs from another, defines the essence of the three persons as one in such a way that it does not even admit to division into cause and caused, which is a manifest fallacy. For division into cause and caused does not induce a difference of essence, but a difference of persons, while in this very respect—the cause and that which is caused—they differ, yet they are preserved as consubstantial and of the same nature. And if you require some testimony from the Scriptures, Gregory of Nyssa, the shining light of the whole world in the delivery of dogmas, will set forth the conjunctions of the consubstantial, which are in no way harmed by division into cause and caused, when he says: ^B "In those things in which we confess that they are similar in nature in all respects, we do not deny the difference which is according to cause and caused."

10. You now have the argument completely set forth for you, from which it comes about that Cyprius leads many into deception, when he despoils the paternal essence of [its] cause. Come now, therefore, and attend to the remaining contradictions of his against himself. For in another part of his first volume, when it had seemed good to him to receive the word "procession" in some way as having a true and right meaning, he distinguishes ^C concerning that word which openly and most manifestly proves the mode of existence itself and the characteristic property of the Spirit. He writes, indeed, in the passages of the volume somewhere thus: "But that which has neither from there to proceed, nor to be generated, nor would it be said to have its existence from the Father, nor would it possess the Father as its natural principle and cause, since it is neither generated nor proceeds, which are the proper marks of existence from Him." And with a few things annexed: "Let us see, therefore, whether the divine Cyril assigns some mark that the Son is from the Father; not in every place is it generation. But what of the Spirit? Not everywhere is it the procession, and to proceed." He sets these things forth concerning the procession in his first volume. But in the second? ^D "For if," he says, "it has been handed down in writing by some of the saints that the Holy Spirit proceeds also through the Son, the word here wishes to signify an eternal manifestation, not a procession into existence purely and simply." Clearly, in saying these things, he turns the word into a homonym, and leads it away from the power which it truly has. And Cyprius indeed [says] these things; but you, what do you say? Is he not also detected by you herein as refuting himself, as now he brings the procession into [the sphere of] the existence and property of the Spirit, and now leads it away into this multifarious homonymy? Or does something else seem to you to be the case? You will say, I think, that these are nothing other than Cyprius refuting himself, if indeed the same word can be used of those things which, while being diverse, are expressed by one name, and of those things which denote a property.

^A 11. I will add one more thing, not at all different, and I will put an end to my discourse. In the ^B pericopes of the first volume, he writes again as if hesitating: "How could the Father be, according to essence, or the Producer, or the Son and the Spirit, or cause and caused?" He himself appears to assume the word "Producer" in reference to the Father not only because it denotes the cause of the Spirit, but also as if it were posited for the purpose of signifying the hypostatic property of the Father. But you, see how he contradicts and fights against himself, as among other things he also assigns to the word both of these meanings. For in a certain place of his volume, joining battle against those who assert that the Father is the cause of the Spirit through the Son—and who demonstrate this from the saying "Producer through the Word"—after he has exaggerated many things against them, he adds: "For the confirmation of ^C this discourse, they bring up the saying of the divine Damascene: 'The Father is the Producer of the manifesting Spirit, through the Son,' which contributes nothing at all to the matter, since it wishes to show openly that the Spirit is manifested from the Father through the Son." Observe, then, whether the Cypriote, while pursuing these same words in his second volume, does not fight against himself according to both meanings which he attributes to the word "Producer" in the first volume. There, he accepts "Producer" to denote the cause of the Spirit, as truth would seem to demand, and yet here he asserts that the word indicates the manifestation of the Spirit from the Father—which is alien to the truth—and he claims it for the hypostatic property. There, contradicting the truth itself, he vindicates ^D the word for the Father alone; here, taking "Producer of the Spirit through the Word" to be the Father, he determines that the word signifies the communion of both in the production, which comes as close to the truth as possible. What, therefore, does the Cypriote seem to you to be doing in all these things? What? Nothing else than babbling things contrary to himself. And if anyone should call such a contradiction a double-edged sword, handed over by the Cypriote himself to his adversaries against himself, he would not wander from the truth. For by overturning the meanings of two significations with equal contrarieties of opinion, he truly forges a double-edged sword against himself. And consider again whether he destroys his own words by themselves in the same place. For while contending with those who demonstrate that the Father is the cause of the Spirit through the Son from the word "Producer through the Word," he proposes, as if refuting it, that manifestation which he himself invented—which is worthy of being cast into darkness—maintaining that this is signified by the word "Producer." But immediately his mouth is obstructed if you bring forward the confession made by himself, in which he assumed the word "Producer" to denote the cause of the Spirit, and from the same word again he opposes against himself the contrariety of the Son and the Father in the cause of the Spirit. When he proposes, as if he were refuting it, the meaning of hypostatic property which he himself invented, he strips the Paternal essence of the production of the Spirit, and attributes it alone, as if to someone who were devoid of essence, to the hypostasis of the Father: at the same moment his own...

^A mouth is stopped, when those who oppose him present his own confession, by which he himself explained the statement naming the Father as the producer through the Word, as indicating the communion of, as he thought, the manifestations.

12. Thus, the one who has exalted himself to the very pinnacle of wisdom has schooled himself how to theologize; thus, the one who wanders suspended in the air with his knowledge has schooled himself how to expound the Scriptures; thus, the one who is inflated with grand thoughts has schooled himself how to reply to those who hold contrary views. As for you, since you possess everything you requested, having had it exhaustively treated by us from all that we have said (for we have shown exactly where, and in what matters, and by what reasoning Cyprius contradicts himself), do not refuse to read our other writings as well, in which the rest of his blasphemous words—through which it turns out that he attacks not himself, but truth alone—are laid bare. ^B

OF THE SAME: TO CONSTANTINE, BOOK TWO.

1. We do not reject your second request, but, welcoming it, we shall carry it out just as thoroughly as the first. For we have shown you in writing, as you requested, the foolish and vain trifles of Cyprius—those things in which he entangles himself in his writings composed against the truth—and we readily undertake the labor of giving you a written solution for those points which you now ask for again, concerning the doctrine of the Spirit’s procession from the Father through the Son, which you have recently heard expressed in a new way and contrary to common usage. And now, listen and ponder whether these things, which do not deviate from the truth even in the slightest, are spoken prudently.

2. He who employs new terms, setting them down as a premise, as if—D that existence [hypostasis] is not the same...

signifies the thing and the essence, whereas the mode of existence signifies the difference of that which is considered in relation to another existent; he who brings these [definitions] together would not correctly assert that the unity of the Son and the Father is gathered in the cause of the Spirit, on the ground that our Fathers theologized the procession of the Spirit from the Father through the Son. For if, as he says, the Fathers did not declare existence by these words, but a 'procession through the Son,' and 'mode of existence' is in no way 'existence' itself—the procession being that which is certainly and determinately said to have existence through the Son—then he has [the Son] as the cause of that [Spirit], through whom it is theologized as proceeding."

These are the arguments of the new interpretation concerning the procession of the Spirit from the Father through the Son, as it seemed to the interpreter, for those who do not accept the unity of the Father and the Son in the cause of the Spirit. But as for us, if we prove that "procession from the Father through the Son" signifies nothing else but "existence from the Father through the Son," we shall not only allow those who deny the unity of the Father and the Son in the cause of the Spirit no benefit from this interpretation, but we shall also ^B forcefully impose upon them the necessity of agreeing with us, who confess this unity. For if nothing is stronger than being caught in one’s own snares, then if someone, by arguing that "the Fathers did not say *existence* by these words but *procession through the Son*," removes the cause from the Son, it is evident that once we demonstrate that they *do* signify existence through the Son, he will be compelled by strong necessity to concede it. For it is by no means possible that one who removes the cause by the negation of existence should not concede it by the affirmation thereof, especially when it is his concern—and you know well that this is peculiar to us and to all who oppose us—to discourse using philosophical arguments and rules.

3. But as to how those who contradict us hold to such arguments and such rules, taking them to be accurate, we must leave that for another time. We say only this briefly: that their whole endeavor in this matter is to find a place ^C for the deceptions and frauds in which they delight to the point of amazement; we shall turn our whole argument to demonstrating that "procession of the Spirit from the Father through the Son" signifies nothing else but "existence from the Father through the Son," so that we may impose upon them, by an abundance of proof, the necessity of confessing the aforementioned point of our agreement. This demonstration, which of necessity compels, will proceed more easily if we direct our speech against the author of such an interpretation in this manner: "Therefore, O most excellent man, do you distinguish between 'existence' and the 'mode of existence' on this ground: that existence is predicated essentially, but the mode of existence is predicated to signify the category of difference in that which exists? Is it for this reason that you have nothing else to say? But this point of yours, which seems so ^D robust and unassailable, will be dissolved like a spider's web when we argue in opposition that the mode of existence signifies nothing other than this same existence. For if the mode of existence signifies such an existence..."

^A and it intends nothing else, the truth of the dogma will be known by examining what is said part by part. Tell me: when you confess that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, do you confess that He has His existence from the Father? You confess it, I know. But do you also confess that by thus declaring the existence of the Spirit through the procession, you at the same time acknowledge that this is distinct from the generation of the Son, who with Him acknowledges the Father as cause? I am convinced that you do say this. But why do you then say that the generation of the Son is declarative of the existence of the latter? You would surely send to the ravens anyone who did not confess this; and would you not also say that there is a difference with respect to this procession and existence? You would cry out loudly, and I know how to lament for the one who denies it. And I, given these confessions, ^B require nothing further to complete the demonstration. For if the procession from the Father, which you divide, brings with it both things indivisibly, it remains manifest that it is in no other way with that which is through the Son. For the Spirit is said by the Fathers to proceed through the Son, because He has His existence from the Father, which is different from the generation of the Son, by way of the Son. If, then, these things appear thus to you also, come and stand with us, and yourself confess the unity of the Father and the Son in the cause of the Spirit. For this is what seemed right to you, if the Fathers have declared an existence through the Son, and we shall no longer have need of any other argument to persuade you.

4.

^A to lead away from wickedness and errors would not wander, nevertheless, in order that you might deny the existence of the Spirit from the Father through the Son, you would answer nothing other than what proves the unity of the Father and the Son in the cause of the Spirit: unless you were to eliminate from the divine Scriptures the procession from the Father through the Son. But now, since you are in no way able to reject that, believe in the meantime, both from the sure confessions brought forth concerning this dogma and from the philosophical arguments demonstrated by us—so that we might accommodate you—that the procession from the Father through the Son is established as an existence from the Father through the Son. And come, agree with us yourself also, as I have said above, asserting the unity of the Father and the Son in the cause of the Spirit. For if you yourself would judge it unseemly to fight against your own words, if the unity is to be rejected because the Fathers did not state an existence through the Son, indeed this demonstration ^B concerning the existence must be accepted by you in every way, as has been set forth for me in the prologue.

5. But whether we persuade you or not, you, who have asked that a written demonstration be handed over to you by us concerning the unreasonable interpretation, in order to confirm the existence of the Spirit from the Father through the Son, through which the unity of the Father and the Son in the cause of the Spirit is manifested—now that you have already received this fully completed, consider next how the equivocal terms must be erased by you, which the enemies of the truth invent to refute the same dogma. Before all else, erase along with the unreasonable interpretations that homonymy of the procession itself which those abandoned men falsely ^C attribute to it. And after the others which they shamelessly and not without error pour forth—namely, that the Spirit proceeds, issues forth, flows from, and bubbles up from the Father and the Son—they do not shrink from drawing these into homonymy. But erase all of them from their very lips here and now, constraining and refuting them. You will refute them in this way: by rejecting the homonymy of the procession onto those who do not even deny it themselves, since they assert that the procession is a mode of existence. For if it differs in no respect—and surely it does not differ in any respect—to call the procession a mode of existence or a difference and property of the Spirit, and yet the property remains immovable, or how will the property persist—and you are not ignorant of him who said it—if it is moved and ^D falls into change? Where, meanwhile, will there be a place for a multifaceted homonymy, extending into many meanings in a word which they themselves do not reject as a mode of existence? For these two things, the proper and the common, can in no way coincide in the same thing at the same time. And this is proven by the syllogism which establishes the consequence by the thesis of the antecedent. For if it is proper, it is not common; but it is certainly proper, therefore it is not common.

6. Now, erase the homonymy of the procession in this way; but as for the aforementioned words, if you demand from them the rationale of the homonymy, they will answer you saying: Even if the Spirit is said to proceed, issue forth, flow from, and bubble up from both, that is to say from the Father and from the Son, nevertheless the difference of fatherhood and sonship causes the similar terms spoken of the Father

^A to be understood as declaring the existence of the Spirit, with nothing preventing them from being understood as being in the way of procession and according to cause; yet, in the case of the Son, it forces them to be taken as instead of the provision, and the giving, and the sending, and the mission. And so, grasping these words, and having those who are already caught by their own lips—as the saying goes, having caught the eagle by its talons—you may ask them when they acknowledge that the entire series of such terms from the Father declares the existence of the Spirit, while nothing prevents them from being understood in the way of procession and according to cause, you will further demand of them whether they acknowledge that the other series of terms already mentioned, which is admitted by them to be used also of the Son—I mean that of provision and giving, and sending and mission—is also said of the Father. And when they have agreed to this—for they do indeed agree that such a series is spoken of the Spirit from the Father, just as it is also from the Son—you will add to your questioning whether they acknowledge that such a ^B series, I mean of provision and giving, and sending and mission, in both persons, signifies the access of the Spirit according to grace in the worthy. And after you have obtained their assent in these matters as well—for no one will oppose you even in these—you will reserve this final question against them: whether they likewise attribute such a series to the Father and the Son when the discourse is about distribution. And when they have conceded this too, then subsequently there is no labor you must undergo to refute the homonyms invented by them. For since it has been granted, when they put it forward, that although both series of terms already set forth are asserted both from the Father and from the Son, yet the difference of fatherhood and sonship does not impede the unity of Father and Son regarding that series which signifies distribution, whereas the other series—which is, to go forth, to proceed, to pour forth, to spring, and to bubble up—in the Father is understood as ^C marking the existence of the Spirit, but in the Son is necessarily taken as being in place of provision, and giving, and sending, and mission; then, with confidence and great boldness, you will say to them, "O fools, and you who bear before you the greatest likeness to Satan in your zeal for fostering and propagating the schism of the Churches, if, because of the difference of fatherhood and sonship, the terms that are said of the Father, which signify the existence of the Spirit and contain the force of procession and express a cause, are turned into a homonym in the Son, then those that are assumed for the manifestation of the distribution of the Spirit should be of like force. But now this is not so; but, as you yourselves, wishing to be fair, say in this matter, one series is ordained equally and without any discrimination for marking the distribution of the Spirit both from the Father and from the Son, and yet you yourselves do not refuse to confess the Father and the Son as one provider and giver of the Spirit, and the cause of the mission and legation of the Spirit. How then, and for what reason, provided that no one is blinded by wickedness, would someone grant equal power to one series in both, yet deny it to the other? It is the Father and the Son who provide, send, give, and delegate, and here fatherhood and sonship do not hinder the provision, giving, mission,

and delegation; and when you hear that from the Father and from the Son ^A the Spirit proceeds, issues forth, is poured out, springs up, and wells up, could the difference of fatherhood and sonship then be able to imply homonymy in the words? Alas for the blindness! Alas for the boldness which falsehood possesses against the truth!

I am saying these things ^B for the refutation of their falsehood, regarding whom, while they provide the homonymy arising from the difference of fatherhood and sonship in one of the series, they maintain equivalent force in the other, while you, by the configuration of your arguments, support the truth, demonstrating that such a difference of fatherhood and sonship is able to be the same in both series of words. For those who have examined theology accurately regarding such series, which speak of being from the Father and from the Son, acknowledge no other difference of fatherhood and sonship to be interposed, except only that the preposition is applied—in the Father, indeed, to mark the primigenial and principal cause, but in the Son, the 'per' is accepted in place of the preposition, which, as the great Basil asserts in discerning theological matters, expresses the ^C *procatarctic* [pre-starting] cause. And you, proposing such a true concept and asserting it firmly and constantly, will confirm the truth of your arguments, as I said: that he who is said to exist from the Father—which belongs to the first series—is understood as existing from the primigenial and principal cause, but from the Son as through the Son; and also that he who is said to be distributed from the Father—which is of the second series—is understood as distributed from the primigenial and principal cause, the Father, but from the Son as through the Son. For if the difference of fatherhood and sonship, which is truly understood between the two persons, is one and the same in that it is said to follow from both in the aforementioned series of words, and it possesses equivalent force in both and remains without change, it is manifest that if the homonymy, which is fabricated by those who wrong the truth in one series—I mean that which indicates existence—were to hold, a similar difference of fatherhood and sonship would result in the other, which denotes distribution. But in the one that ^D denotes distribution, it is in no way present, as our opponents themselves testify; therefore, it is not present in the other either.

7. Up to this point the refutation of their falsehood is established by two methods of syllogisms: the one, that the homonymy is very far from the truth, since the difference of fatherhood and sonship does not express the same thing in each series, by a hypothetical syllogism which destroys the antecedent by the destruction of the consequent; the other, adhering to this hypothetical syllogism, which it has been demonstrated contains the force of a diathetic syllogism, because the difference of fatherhood and sonship, which is truly looked upon between the two persons, when both series assert one and the same thing, and each possesses the same force and, without any immutation

Do you, therefore, using such proofs of refutation by way of objection, erase every fictitious homonymy. For you no longer have need of any argument to reject the homonymies which they fabricate in order to disparage the unity of the Father and the Son regarding the cause of the Spirit. And our entire discourse on this matter has now been, by us, brought to a complete end.

8. But since it is also possible to refute the opponents—who foolishly and irrelevantly propose a similar homonymy to themselves—by way of a counter-position, pay heed also to the counter-position, and take from it the power it affords. ^B For let it be granted that their homonymy is not fictitious; let it be granted, by their own witnesses and defenders of the Son and Father, that the series of terms truly contains a homonymy which marks the existence of the Holy Spirit; let it be granted that two series of terms regarding the Son are reduced into one, and all the terms together are taken to mark the distribution of the Spirit in Him; not even in this way will the homonymy be able to contribute anything to the rejection of the unity of the Father and the Son, which they pursue, regarding the cause of the Spirit. For we can, from the very provision and giving of the Spirit, according to the inferential demonstrations which prove the preceding from the subsequent, confirm the existence of the Spirit from the Son, from which the unity of the aforementioned cause follows. And consider how this is done, and receive the ^C demonstrations deduced from the two modes of confirmation. The one will be that which is made from the very holy Trinity, theologically spoken of and acknowledged by the opponents themselves—than which demonstration those who are occupied with scrutinizing such things could imagine nothing stronger. The other—for neither is this alien to piety—will be taken from things among us, since things beyond us are clarified by those things which happen naturally every day and are known to all. And now, let the position which is first in dignity lead the way. And so that things which pertain to it may succeed happily, as we entrust the completion of this to you, we suggest that you discover and find it by arranging the argument in this way. ^D First, propose this to them by interrogation: whether they say and confess the Father to be the natural giver and natural provider of the giving and provision which is, among them, confessed to be simply from Him, and not as serving another—if indeed there is no other God besides Him. And when you have received their assent to these things—for there will not even be any one who will make a contradiction to these—ask again whether they believe the Son also to be the natural giver of the Spirit and the natural provider, and not as serving the Father in this giving and provision, a thing which is, by themselves, also simply acknowledged to be His own. And when you have received the answer to this question—for the authority, power, and glory, which is equal in all things, [belonging to] the Father and the Son, rejects serving in all ways, and compels them to this confession—you will ask them a third thing, whether this natural

and departs altogether from the service, then wins them over to incline toward such a confession. Let your third question to them be: if they concede the natural power of distributing equally to the Father and the Son, just as when they were simply asked about this distributive power. And, having received the final ^A confession on these matters—for they grant to the extent that the natural distributive power is equally possessed by the Father and the Son, with only the difference according to the first and primordial cause being preserved for the Father according to theological traditions, so that they do not at all reject calling the Father the one supplier and giver of the Spirit, nor the Son—know that by now you hold the entirety of the demonstration. For you will speak from these confessions fearlessly, directing your argument toward them from that point forward: "If the natural distributive power of the Spirit resides as much in the Son as it does in the Father, come now, let us consider the natural supplying and giving of the Spirit from the Father; whether this natural supplying and giving of the Spirit is truly subsequent to His existence from the Father, and yet is nevertheless not constitutive of such an existence, or not?" And if they look away from the investigation conducted by common agreement, leave them to wail, and send them off to the crows; but if you find them consenting to this, then ask about this matter, together with them, anyone among the worshipers of the Trinity who cares in the slightest about theology; and you will find absolutely no one ^B such, who would dare, even with the tips of his lips, upon the concession that the Father is the natural supplier and natural giver of the Spirit, to deny that from this it is also absolutely necessary that His existence be understood. Once this comes to light, you will demonstrate the existence of the Spirit from the Son by that very supplying and giving, with ease, and clearly—not by the handling of methods, not by the strength of arguments, not by a pile of repeated proofs, but by the very confession of the adversaries themselves concerning the common and natural supplying and giving, than which nothing stronger, as I had previously intimated, can be devised by those who diligently occupy themselves with such things; from which the unity of the Father and the Son as the cause of the Spirit becomes so manifest that no one would dare to contradict it.

^C 9. And thus, having completed the first demonstration from the counter-position, you will finish the second one, taken from things that happen naturally every day, even more easily, as it is taken from things known to all. For a spring naturally supplying water is also the cause of the water, and fire naturally supplying light is the cause of light; likewise, a tree naturally supplying fruit is also the cause of the fruit. And there is no one at all who does not recognize these things. Thus, indeed, the two modes of demonstration proceeding from the counter-position—the one for our present purpose, by which we proposed to point out to you the absurdity of the interpretations regarding the procession of ^D the Spirit from the Father through the Son, and to set forth the outline of false homonyms—now reach a conclusion. And these will not interrupt your desire for the future; for thus our

^A search, to which we invite you as you examine our writings, if there should appear anything in need of questioning and of more accurate discussion, allows you to ask, to look into with curiosity, and to investigate. For it is written: «Ask your Father, and he will tell you; your elders, and they will tell you.»

OF THE SAME, TO CONSTANTINE, THE THIRD BOOK.

^A We respond to these very words as they stand. O with what evil fraud you act, and with how much curiosity you blither in your questioning! In all our writings, asserting that [the Spirit] proceeds from the Father through the Son, and embracing and kissing this doctrine, we prove that the procession from both witnesses to unity; and as followers and imitators of our Fathers—who, relaxing something of the rigor of the law, acted piously and as it befitted the friends of God, and in coming over to the opinion of others achieved something—we have assented. But you, while asserting that we say the Spirit proceeds from the Son just as he does from the Father himself, why did you not also declare that we say the Son is the primary and principal cause of the Spirit, or even the producer of the Spirit, just like the Father, or perhaps even the begetter of another Son, as one who claims for himself all that is the Father’s? For if the Only-Begotten is judged by you ^B to be the cause of the Spirit, just as the Father who begat the Only-Begotten is, he would also be declared the primary cause, just like the Father, and would turn into a Father instead of a Son. Many such absurdities would follow, the blasphemy of which should fall upon your own head.

3. These are the dicta of yours, of which one thing Cyprius disparaged against us, and the other constitutes the grounds for the doubt which we brought forward in our refutation against Cyprius. Therefore, the things you are speaking about must be remembered, and finally the solution to the doubt must be applied. For you say that because we call the curiosity and fraud of Cyprius that which he writes against us—namely, our decreeing that the Spirit proceeds from the Son just as he does from the Father—and because we do not admit that he proceeds from the Son just as he does from the ^C Father himself, you say that you fear, with hesitation, lest some one of the enemies of the truth might accuse us of contradicting ourselves by decreeing one thing and then another; as if we, who in many places in our writings establish the unity of the Father and the Son in the cause of the Spirit through diverse testimonies of the theologians, do not here admit the statement that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son just as he does from the Father himself, which clearly confirms a similar union. We remove this doubt; therefore, attend. If, regarding the things [gathered] from other scriptures, and most especially from those in which the procession from the Father through the Son is established, the unity of the Father and the Son in the cause of the Spirit is gathered, and Cyprius finds fault with this—just as among his other charges he posits also that we say the Spirit proceeds from the Son just as ^D he does from the Father—we are so far from denying it that we even receive the accusation with open arms, as those who, among many other theological sayings that we have laid out in our writings for the establishment of the unity of the Father and the Son in the cause of the Spirit, also assume those of Cyril, which the Saint decrees [(1)]: "now to be poured forth—that is to say, to proceed—from the Father," whose principle is: "that which is studious and loving..."

"—just as, indeed, he does also from God and the Father. For what else is Cyprius doing here but bringing forward these dogmas of Cyril against us, while he condemns our own statements? ^B

4. But if this is not the case, there is another purpose for his accusation—namely, to pin upon us the charge of dual-principle, as if we proclaim the Son to be an unoriginate cause of the Spirit, and an original root—just like the Father—as if the Holy Spirit were from two separate and mutually distinct principles, which acknowledge no principle of their own; for to oppose and set them against each other in this way is openly to set the Son against the Father. And if you consider the individual words of the contradiction, you will clearly recognize that Cyprius has no other aim in undertaking our accusation, and that his entire refutation is directed toward no other end. Consider that while Cyprius accuses us of stating that the Spirit proceeds from the Son, just as he also proceeds from the Father, we do not simply reject the statement that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, but we come to the reconciliation of those who claim a procession from both, as we embrace and kiss the procession from the Father *through* the Son, and we maintain that the one from both is to be held in honor; we answer his wicked thought. For his ^C entire effort and zeal consist in accusing us, as if we were using the preposition "out of" (*ex*) in relation to the Son to indicate a primary and original cause, so that from this he might find a basis for the charge of two principles. Our contest, however, is entered upon with a different reasoning, for we recognize equal power in the prepositions "out of" (*ex*) and "through" (*per*) in relation to the Son, so that from this, in a pious manner, one cause of the Spirit, the Father and the Son, may be glorified—the Father, however, as the primary and principal cause, because whatever is said to be from the Father through the Son is asserted to be from one God and caused from one, as the holy Basil excellently affirms, that the word "through whom" contains within itself the confession of the primary cause. Do you see how our refutation proceeds toward the object of his accusation? ^D This will be proven to you by what follows: for we say, adding: "But you, asserting that we say the Spirit proceeds from the Son just as from the Father himself, why did you not also write that we assert the Son to be the primary and principal cause of the Spirit, or a producer of the Spirit, just as the Father is—and perhaps even a begetter of another Son, as if he claimed for himself all that belongs to the Father? For if the Only-Begotten is acknowledged by us as a cause of the Spirit, according to you, just as the Father who begot the Only-Begotten would also be acknowledged as a primary cause according to the Father, he would also become Father instead of Son." These things we say to him, since our discourse understands the order of rebukes, namely, that when someone has said what ought not to be said, and has shrouded in silence what ought to have been said, we rebuke him for what he ought to have said but did not, and we plainly say: "If you used the preposition 'out of' in relation to the Son to indicate a primary and principal cause..."

^A of the Spirit, just as you do for the Father, it would follow that we say and write these things, as such a view would necessarily require them, but you would use these things to convict us." How, therefore, do you not plainly say that we say this, if you are also able to demonstrate that we say these things? Or by showing that you have nothing of the sort to prove against us, do you say none of these things, but rather persist cunningly on the expression, and slander us for interpreting the preposition regarding the Son in such a sense as no one of the saints ever did? This, friend, is the sense of our words, upon which the Cypriot has spoken against us regarding the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son. And these things are to you a resolution of the problems raised, both standing forth as the reasonableness of your own difficulty, and declaring that your goal in this difficulty is no less a participant in it. For by observing how we receive the procession from the Father and the Son, yet also how we speak against it, you suspect the curiosity of those who cling to words, and since you do not traverse these things cursorily but raise doubts ^B, you demonstrate the reasonableness of the inquiry; and in that you esteem the thoughtful pre-examination, and from afar look ahead to the resolution of things that will eventually become a matter of inquiry, and store up for yourself the goal of this inquiry, you persuade the reader that those who judge are quite eloquent. But these things are so, and in them the difficulty is sufficiently resolved.

5

demands the same, and difference demands that which is not the same, we must take from the things ^A said in the theological writings regarding the Father and the Son those things—upon which every theological man confesses both the unity of the Father and the Son, and also admits to the Father the difference of the first and principal—so that from this you might find the solution to the points of inquiry. For if in all things wherein, according to common theological notions, the unity of the Father and the Son is confessed, one does not deny the first and principal [character] of the Father, it is evident that to those who have once confessed the unity of the Father and the Son in the cause of the Spirit, it is also necessary to grant the first and principal [character] to the Father. Indeed, we must take the confessed unities, and the differences of the principal and first [character] upon these, as a confirmation for the unity and difference under investigation. Immediately, it is confessed by all that the divinity of the Father and the Son is one; but not even on account of this does anyone deny the first and principal [character] of the Father in the divinity. It is confessed by all that the lordship of the Father and the Son is one; but not even on account of this does anyone deny the first and principal [character] of the Father in the lordship. It is confessed by all that the sovereignty over all things of the Father and the Son is one; but not even on account of this does anyone deny the first and principal [character] of the Father in the sovereignty. It is confessed by all that the creation of created things by the Father and the Son is one; ^B but not even on account of this does anyone deny the first and principal [character] of the Father in the creation. It is confessed by all that the productive power of the Father and the Son is one; but not even on account of this does anyone deny the first and principal [character] of the Father in the production of created things. Do you see how the things enumerated are all among those that are confessed, and stand in need of no proof? Consider these things, and from them, receiving solid confirmation, you will see that it in no way disagrees with theology to proclaim the union of the Father and the Son in the cause of the Spirit, and to attribute without error the difference of the primary and principal to the Father.

6. And learn accurately how to arrive at the solution of your inquiry and the difficulties, and ^C the arguments by which those who are led by them declare such things; for we shall speak of these things as well, and even if not asked, for fear that they might escape you. For the Lord in the Gospels, now turning his speech toward the Jews, said: "As the Father raiseth up the dead, and vivifieth them, even so the Son also vivifieth whom he will." And again to the same: "As the Father," he said, "hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself." And further to the same: "I and the Father are one." Now to the disciples: "All things that the Father hath are mine." Now to the Father himself: "All mine are thine, and thine are mine." Those who wish to treat theology piously, concerning the divinity and the lordship and ev- ^D erything else, confess the unity of the Father and the Son, and...

to this confession, being firm and thus having its foundation in the Gospels, there is no one who can contradict. But since the Father alone is the ^A unoriginate cause of all these things, and he himself has nothing of these from any other, while the Son has all these things from the Father, for this reason, again, there is no one among those who uphold the correct theology who does not acknowledge the primary and fundamental distinction of the Father in all these things. And why should this be so? So that the Sabellian confusion does not again obtain boldness and creep in. For to deny such a distinction, while acknowledging the unity, is equal to the confusion introduced into the Trinity by Sabellius. And this account is henceforth irrefutable, and the theologians insist upon the confession of that which is according to the primary and fundamental distinction of the Father. But if it does not seem irrefutable to you, and you doubt, because the Fathers do not phrase their theology in these exact words, but rather [speak] of the primary and fundamental distinction wherever the unity of the Father and Son is mentioned, every theological writing will deliver you from such hesitation, asserting that the Son has received from the Father all things that belong to the Father, and that he is in every way equal to the Father, and possesses everything in equal measure to the Father, save only that he is the Father. Since, therefore, the unoriginate thing in the Trinity, the root, the primary and fundamental source, is the Father, this is what all these things imply when paternity is asserted, ^B and thus there is no further difference in saying that the Son is all things that the Father is, excluding only that he is the Father, or excluding that he is the primary and fundamental cause. And if some of the Scriptures themselves also grant to the Son the equality of the Father, except for the ingeneracy, and even those that make it the same except for the begetting, or except for the bringing forth, say: even these, because these terms indicate paternity, distinguish the Son from the primary and fundamental [source] and assign it to the Father. This is sufficient proof for you that the Fathers likewise profess the primary and fundamental distinction of the Father in all the unities of the Father and the Son.

7. And do you, therefore, having now learned both the confessions and the arguments regarding them accurately, and in addition the distinction by conception of the unities and the differences, take care to hold to them safely. For it is necessary that he who confesses one God, and one Lord, and one principle of all, and one artificer, and one creator, and further the cause of the Spirit—the Father and the Son—should also conceive together the primary and fundamental distinction of the Father in all these unities. But do so in such a way that you do not conceive the unity as divided by the difference; for the whole unity of the Father and the Son is one and the same and undivided, because the Son, having everything from the Father, possesses them just as the Father himself does; nor [should you conceive] the difference as departing from that which is its own ^C by the division of unity. For the greatest of all differences between the Father and the Son is, that while the Son possesses all things of the Father, remaining [in the Father]

^A the Son, not being transformed into the Father, learns these things, whence also the Sabellian contraction is far driven away, being abrogated by this unconfused personal distinction. But if you also wish to learn from testimony handed down in the scriptures how, in the blessed Trinity, partition with unity and unity with partition are understood as conjoined, and that neither is partition hindered by unity, nor unity by partition, it will indeed be sufficient for your persuasion and for solving the ^B question to produce that theological axiom which declares that "the divine Trinity is divided conjunctively and conjoined divisively." Furthermore, let our discourse have its end. For not only, O friend, have we absolutely discharged the debt owed to you—for it is our debt to respond to those things that you, in perusing and considering our writings, ask us to grant, and call into question, whatever has seemed to you worthy of interrogation and doubt—but we have even added matters about which no interrogation has intervened; for we have judged that knowledge of them is necessary for you, and we have appended these, as a sort of corollary, to the answers made to your interrogations and to the solutions of your doubts. These things, indeed, for the present. But we also grant you, long and as liberally as possible, the faculty of questioning and doubting in the future.

BY THE SAME TO CONSTANTINE THE FOURTH BOOK.

1. Again you bring forward a doubt, but we are not pressed by doubt. When you ask, you doubt; yet we do not lack a response to your doubt: for the truth stands on our side, and in our ^D writings, by which we contend for the proof that the existence of the Holy Spirit—from the Father and the Son, that is, through the Son from the Father—is the tradition of the patristic writings; and likewise we demonstrate, from these [writings], that never [are we] at a loss when you raise questions, as long as from the

truth nothing could be more accessible. Question, therefore, ^A again; and doubt again. But for the present, since you raise certain doubts—not as one who believes them and doubts, but as one who probes the calumniators of the truth, so that in all things the prepared response to silence them might be stored up for you—may these doubts and the explanations of the doubts be set forth for you in the form of a guide, by which way [and method] it might be possible for you to silence the whole of the opposition. For the arguments concerning the dogma are being stirred up among us again, as they were yesterday and the day before, as is customary; and the discussion brings to our memory the Epistle of the divine Maximus to Marinus, in which this great-named Father, setting forth the defense on behalf of the Romans concerning the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son, has written: "From which they did not show themselves to be making the Son a cause of the Spirit." And so, while we interpret the things said by divine Maximus as having been dictated on account of the primary and principal cause, which in truth belongs to the Father alone, you, putting on the mask of the adversaries, say that it is possible for anyone who wishes to object that if the accusation against those who blamed the Romans was on account of the primary and non-primary cause, then the explanations would have a plausible appearance; but since they dispute against the very procession from the Son, it is altogether manifest that neither with them, nor with him who ^B pleads for those who are under accusation, is the entire discussion concerning the primary cause, nor concerning the total cause, at all.

2. This is the doubt. We, however, desiring to set forth the solution in the manner of a guide, so that you may have the means to silence those who think these things, expound it thus. You know well that some of these, following the Cypriot leader, among other things which they blather against the pious and orthodox dogma, also blame the procession, asserting it is liable to equivocation; others, however, agreeing with the same persons in the separation of the Son from the Father in the instance of the cause of the Spirit, have shown themselves so fair-minded as to declare that the procession signifies only the mode of existence of the Spirit and nothing more. I refer to the common consent except for this; for that [quotation]: "From which they did not show themselves to be making the Son a cause of the Spirit," reduces their force and leads them into providing their assent. For if this were not so, they would not have hesitated ^C to accuse this, as they have done with many other theological sayings of the Fathers. Look, then, how you will be able to prove strongly, when holding a discussion with both these parties, that the great-named Maximus writes truly on account of the primary and principal cause: "From which they did not show themselves to be making the Son a cause of the Spirit." And let them first be the ones with whom you converse who rightly define the procession; let them propose—which those who suggest equivocation would never do—that if the accusation against those who blamed the Romans were on account of the primary and non-primary cause, then the explanations would have a plausible appearance; but since they ^D dispute against the procession from the Son...

it is altogether manifest that neither among them, nor among others who undertake their defense, has the entire discourse been cast about the primary and principal cause, but about the total cause. What does it seem to you? Will you have much need of labor for the confirmation of the truth of such interpretations? And why labor at all, since they themselves, by already anticipating in the presence of those who are accused the denial of the procession from the Son, do not contend that the removal is of the primary and first cause, but of the total cause? For you will say to them: "Since it seems to you that the procession from the Son must be denied by those who accuse the Romans, so that no communion may be granted to the Son with the Father in the cause of the Spirit, what other thing would one say ^B is being accomplished with eagerness by one who grants the procession from the Son, than—contrary to those who dispute—to establish that the Son shares in this cause?" For if the denial is through 'not', the confession is certainly through 'yea'. Since there is no logic that persuades that both those who deny and the one who grants it are aiming at the one and same goal regarding the holy procession. But they, being altogether pressured by the truth, lest they be caught contradicting themselves—as though they, having once taken the procession, which they correctly hold to be the existence of the Spirit, for the purpose of establishing a cause—will cease to dispute further. And henceforth our explanation will have its strength with force. For it is possible to say with confidence that the holy one who grants the procession from the Son, and who adds to the aforementioned words, "From which they showed themselves not to make the Son the cause of the Spirit," ^C grants the cause entirely to those to whom he grants the procession; but to those for whom he uses "through the Son," taking "ex" (from) for the Son instead of "per" (through), he removes the primary and principal aspect of the cause. For he does not use the interchange of prepositions here rashly and at random; but knowing that the great Basil says, "The word 'through the Son' contains the confession of the pre-initiatory cause," by means of such a word—I mean, the "through the Son"—he clearly demonstrates that even if the Son shares in the cause of the Spirit, it is not in such a way that He Himself is the pre-initiatory cause of the Spirit; for this is the Father.

3. These things you will say, and our explanation will have its strength with force, as has been said. But those on the opposite side ^D will either cease from the goal of disputing further, or, if perhaps changing again, as is their habit, always pursuing every mode of sophistry, they will say that it is possible to speak of both the procession and existence "from the Son" and "through the Son," but with this meaning, as if it passes through the Son. For they are the forgers of this expression as well, not because the Son is united with the Father in the cause of the Spirit, and thus, as the proverb goes, "the fire will seize them as they escape the smoke." For in separating the Son from the Father in the cause of the Spirit, so that, evidently, the Father and Son might not be reputed as two causes of the Spirit—which no discourse of piety has ever admitted—they, very wickedly fabricating [these things], slip headlong into Arianism.

For there is no reason that will assist them, lest the Son be considered a servant or a servile instrument of the Father, serving through this "proceeding"—in the procession which is from Him—of the Spirit. And these things shall be thus arranged for you against them; and thus the victory against them will be yours.

4. But since there is also another, inferior party among them—for there are some who, even while they think rightly concerning the procession, nevertheless, through the exclusion of the cause altogether, claim that the saint said the utterance, understanding "procession through the Son" in place of "procession with the Son"—for if ^B the Spirit is through the Son, they say, and "through the Son," which is the same as if you should say "together with the Son," proceeds, by what logic will the Son hold a part in His procession? But to what extent their empty talk tends, you will discover from the explanations we provide. First, from where can they prove this substitution of prepositions which they put forward? What curiosity of grammatical art has sought this out? For since the mutual interchange of prepositions, when it has once been handed down to those skilled in the art with precision, is never found accepted by any person—the [preposition] "through" in place of "with." And furthermore, no one has any argument from Greek wisdom for this, nor is there any writing at all, out of all those of our higher philosophy, that hands down "through" in place of "with," in the way that the interchange of "of" ^C and "through" is found in the great men Basil, Cyril, and Gregory. Thereafter, if even this were granted, perhaps those who say these things might, contrary to expectation, turn aside and become our allies. For the expression "produced through the Word," of which the divine Damascene is the author, by this reasoning manifests the Father as the cause of the Spirit together with the Son, and would stand unanswerable—which the truth desires—[regarding] the unity of the Father and the Son in the cause of the Spirit. Third, there is a strong [point] for their overthrow, which the argument necessitates: to declare the Son also to be proceeding. For if He proceeds with the Son, it is not possible that the Son also should not be considered and ^D spoken of as proceeding, just as if someone were to say that the Son is begotten with the Spirit, it is not possible that the Spirit also should not be considered and spoken of as begotten. These things, and the second party of those who think correctly about the procession, and such will be the outcome for you when you discourse with any of them: an unanswerable demonstration, clearly, from the fact that they are pressed on all sides by their own arguments, and are led into absurdities due to the exclusion of the first and principal—nay rather, the total—cause, [the fact that] "from which they have shown themselves to be making the Son no cause of the Spirit," which they claim the saint said. For this reason, those things which you often doubt regarding us, storing them up for yourself ready for the silencing of those who oppose, we receive happily and kindly.

5. Let them come forward, then, straightway, others for a dialogue

let them come forward for refutation, for silencing, for shame. For what answer will they give to all the saints, who define the mode of existence and the hypostatic property of the Spirit, when they are refuted on the point of the procession by the royal measure [the standard of the fathers]? Since, even if the phrasing did not have such manifest clarity, but contained something emphatic and requiring interpretation, those who from Photius down to our own times have contended against the Roman Church with their own commentaries would have been more than enough to silence them, as they all strove to prove the procession *from the Son*, and existence *from the Son*, moved solely by this, and indeed turning away from the standard [of the fathers]. Otherwise, would not those alone—Maximus the God-inspired, to whom he is responding, as well as those whom he is answering—have joined in the struggle to overthrow their position, as they did not accept *from the Son* as denoting the cause of the procession? And what need is there of these? One might say, since even if alone they were sufficient for their refutation, they now run together in the same goal and purpose as these, and struggle as fellow-combatants—those who share ^B the struggle with them only to remove the Son from having any causality at all, and who cause such concern regarding the homonymy of the "procession," as though they treat it so rightly, such that they become, instead of friends, enemies, and instead of fellow-soldiers, adversaries. Therefore, while it is by no means necessary to enter into dialogue with them, it will nevertheless be possible, should a meeting occur, to show them from a certain perspective to be beholden to Arianism, and even worse than all those mentioned, insofar as they confess existence *through the Son*, but do not accept [the Son as] the cause *through the Son*. For those [the Arians] are convicted of making the Son a minister of the Father in the procession, and are condemned for Arianism; but these are not only [convicted] of this—since they themselves do not confess the procession *through the Son* as denoting a cause—but they even make [the Son] inferior to the Spirit, because they are detected in the belief that the gifts given through the Son, to which they shift the procession, are not ^C as though the Spirit has its existence *through the Son*, but as though the Son simply ministers to the Spirit in these things. Consequently, let your discussion with them not proceed to any great length. As for us, since we have fully provided you with the solutions to the difficulty you proposed, as we promised, and in the manner of a guide so that you might have them ready to silence the mouths of those striving to show that the [passage] in the letter to Marinus, "From which they showed themselves not to be making the Son the cause of the Spirit," was said by the divine Maximus—we want you to know, as the divine Damascene also [knows], in that passage where he defines the Father as the producer of the Spirit manifesting through the Son, he adds this: "We say the Spirit of the Son, not as from him, but as proceeding from the Father through him," for the Father alone is the cause, and he ^D confirms the same view indiscriminately, in concord with the great Maximus. For under the expression "producer through the Son," affirming the union of the Father and the Son in the cause of the Spirit, and attributing to the Father the preposition *ex* [from], which fully bears with it the sense of primary and principal [cause],

^A for he adds, "For the Father alone is the cause," distinguishing the Father from the Son in respect to that primary cause.

6. Now, meanwhile, it remains that we should also mention the statement of the **Theologian**—the one which our opponents bring forth, not because they propose it as it is, without any alteration of their own, but because it is necessary that we should from it show the Saint to be consistent with himself, just as we did in the passages praised above. For even if the alteration is granted and allowed, it will be of great avail for demonstrating the consensus, namely, that by the holy Fathers the cause is attributed primarily to the Father—which is where the primary and principal [cause] necessarily follows, and is understood to be the very thing that is separated from the Son. For when, in the discourse of the God-speaking Father to those who had come from Egypt, it is found in some manuscripts: "All that the Father has are the Son's, except for being unbegotten," yet in others, "except for the cause," those who oppose us take this very thing—"except for the cause"—as the third part of the weakness of their arguments added to the two previously mentioned. ^B We, however, having sufficiently demonstrated in various discourses that the manuscripts which contain "except for being unbegotten" carry more weight than those which have "except for the cause"—since in all the rest, in which the Saint prescribes the properties of the Trinity, he attributes being unbegotten to the Father—we now grant and allow "except for the cause," discerning that in no way does it cause any similar alteration for those who contradict [us]. For let it be that the Saint said, "except for the cause"; what cause he himself intended by this must be examined. For he did not say it in a separating manner, "except for the cause of the Spirit." For it was not his concern whether the Spirit was caused from the Father alone, or from the Father through the Son, which is the point of the present contention; ^C but he said indiscriminately, "All that the Father has are the Son's," *if* indeed he said, "except for the cause." Now a cause stated thus absolutely signifies not only the natural cause of the Spirit, but also the causative [power] regarding creatures. And it behooves one who tracks the meanings of scriptural words to consider and inquire how one might, by a pious understanding, strip the Son of the cause—both the natural and the causative—and ascribe it to the Father alone. And indeed, everyone who investigates in such a way will perceive that the argument finds success in no other reason than the primary and principal nature of the cause alone. For he will find together both Basil and Athanasius, those men of equal name in theological matters, approving a similar, pious, and correct understanding—the former in those words: ^D "Let no one think that I affirm there are three primary hypostases; for there is one principle of all things, working through the Son, and perfecting in the Spirit"; and again in his words: "For we know one unbegotten, and one principle of all things, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." And Athanasius in those where he says: "What is God?" and adds, "The principle of all things, according to the Apostle: *One God,

^A the Father, from whom are all things." For the Word is from Him by generation, and the Spirit from Him by procession. Then all creation exists through the Word, produced in the Spirit. This is the sum of piety; this is the highest summit of sincere and true confession. And since you now at last have the refined knowledge of the matters you proposed—that the cause is ascribed especially to the Father by the holy Fathers on account of His being the first and primary principle, and that from this it necessarily follows that this is the very thing that is denied to the Son—ask again, doubt again.

BY THE SAME

1. As we have in our heart the desire to continually promote and more and more establish ecclesiastical peace, I do not know if anyone would charge us with the crime of ineptitude or rusticity. For since we have once correctly applied our hand to the matters proposed, we consider it necessary to convert our efforts and studies a second and third time toward confirming and fixing them. And by what reasoning would any of those who read these things justly accuse of ineptitude those who exert themselves with all their might to confirm those things whose undertaking was once correctly begun? Nevertheless, to add second and third studies to what was well-begun for the sake of ^B more stable confirmation—in this way, the charge of ineptitude and rusticity is repelled, provided that these studies derive their strength from the divine scriptures. For when they treat of ecclesiastical peace, it is necessary to accept as having weight only those things taken from written testimonies, without fallacies and sophistries, which will become manifest as our discourse proceeds. For concerning those things for which we struggled elsewhere regarding ecclesiastical peace, I do not know if anyone might charge us with tactlessness. For if we have once correctly ^B set our hand to what was well begun, we consider it necessary to add second and third efforts toward their establishment. And how could anyone reading these things justly charge with tactlessness those who are exerting themselves with all their might to confirm things whose undertaking has once been correctly begun? Yet, to add to what was initially well begun a second and third effort for its more stable establishment—in this way, the charge of tactlessness would be avoided, if all these things possess the power derived from the divine Scriptures. For as the subject concerns ecclesiastical peace, they are compelled to be constituted from scriptural testimonies alone, without sophisms and paralogisms, which will indeed become manifest to us as the discourse proceeds. Regarding what we strove for in other places concerning ecclesiastical peace...

συγ^Aγραφῆσι πρότερον, ἔδοξε καὶ πάλιν ἡμῖν ἐπὶ πλέον κρατύναι τὸν ἔλεγχον τῶν πρὸς τὴν τοιαύτην εἰρήνην ἀντιλεγόντων κακῶς καὶ ἐπισφαλῶς. Ἔδοξε δὲ τοῦτο ποιῆσαι ἡμᾶς, ἄλλην τινὰ καινοτέραν μετελθόντας ὁδόν, δι' ἧς ἂν τὸ τῶν ἐλέγχων κράτος ἐκδηλότερον κατασταίη τοῖς ἀπροσπαθῶς διαγινώσκειν ἐθέλουσι. Καὶ ἡ ὁδὸς τὴν βίβλον μετὰ χεῖρας λαβεῖν, ἣν ἐν ταῖς τῆς αὐτοκρατορίας ἡμέραις Μανουὴλ τοῦ ἀοιδίμου ἐν βασιλεῦσι καὶ αὐτοκράτορσιν ὡς ἐκ προσώπου ἐκείνου Ἀνδρόνικος, ὁ τὴν τοῦ δρουγγαρίου τῆς Βίγλας ἀνεζωσμένος τότε ἀρχὴν Καματηρὸς τοὐπίκλην, ἀνὴρ τὴν σοφίαν οὐκ ἀγεννής, συνεγράψατο· καὶ τὸ μὲν ἐπὶ κάλλει λόγου καὶ φράσει ταύτης θαυμάσιον ἐπαινέσαι, καὶ ἀποδέξασθαι, πρὸς ἓν δὲ μόνον μέρος ἀπαντῆσαι αὐτῆς πρὸς ὅπερ οὐ καλῶς ὁ σοφὸς ἐκεῖνος ἀνὴρ ἡγωνίσατο, οὐδὲ τῆς ἑαυτοῦ σοφίας ἀξίως, διὰ τὸ τοῦ θελήματος ἰδιόρρυθμον, ἢ τὴν προσταγὴν τοῦ κρατοῦντος ἢ τὴν ῥοπὴν τοῦ καιροῦ, ἢ οὐκ οἶδ' ἂν ὅ τι καὶ εἴποιμι ἕτερον· οὐ γὰρ ἀγνοεῖν ἐκεῖνον τὸ ἀληθὲς πείθομαι· καὶ ὑπαντῆσαι οὐκ ἐν σοφιστεία λόγου εἰς πλάτος ῥητορευομένου, καὶ ἐπεκτάδην, ἀλλ' ἐν γυμναῖς παντὸς τοῦ ἐν λογογραφίᾳ κάλλους τῶν θείων Γραφῶν μαρτυρίαις, καὶ οὕτως ἐπὶ πλέον κρατύναι τῶν ἀντιλεγόντων τὸν ἔλεγχον, διὰ τὸ κατὰ τὴν ἐντεῦθεν ἐπινενοημένην μέθοδον τοῦ ψεύδους ἐξέλεγκτον. ^B Τί δὲ τὸ τῆς βίβλου μέρος, πρὸς ὃ καὶ ἀπαντῆσαι διέγνωμεν; Ἦν τοῦ, Ἀνδρὸς ἐκείνου σπουδή, ἣν ὅτι πολλὴν ποιούμενος φαίνεται ἀποδεῖξαι μὴ ἐκ Πατρὸς καὶ Υἱοῦ ὑπάρχειν τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον. Τίς δὲ ὁ τῆς ἀπαντήσεως τρόπος, καὶ τίς ἡ δυναμένη τὸν σαφῆ τοῦ ψεύδους ἔλεγχον μέθοδος; ἐροῦμεν ἤδη σαφῶς. Ὁ τὴν ῥηθεῖσαν βίβλον ἐκθέμενος θαυμαστὸς ἐκεῖνος ἀνήρ, ἰσχὺν περιβεβλημένος λόγων οὐτιμικράν, πᾶσαν μὲν γραφικὴν ῥῆσιν, ἐξ ἧς τὸ Πνεῦμα ὑπάρχον ἐκ Πατρὸς καὶ Υἱοῦ ἀναφαίνεται, συνελέξατο, καὶ κατὰ τὴν τάξιν συνέθετο· ἑκάστῃ δὲ τῶν ῥήσεων τὴν ἑαυτοῦ προσάπτων ἐπιστασίαν, ταύτην ἀεὶ διηυθέτει, οἷς αὐτὸς νοήμασιν ἐνησμένιζε, καὶ πρὸς τὰ δοκοῦντα αὐτῇ τὴν ἀνάπτυξιν τῶν λόγων παρεβιάζετο. ^C Ἡμεῖς δὲ νῦν, πρὸς τὸ ἐλέγχειν γινόμενοι τὸ τῶν ἐπιστασιῶν τούτων βεβηλωμένον, οὐκ ἴδιον μέρος, ὥσπερ μοι καὶ προείρηται, λογοειδοῦς γραφῆς ἐκθήσομεν εἰς ἀντίρρησιν ταύτην λογογραφήσομεν, ἀλλ᾽ ἑκάστην περικοπὴν γραφικῆς ῥήσεως, ὡς αὐτὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξέθετο, ἐκτιθέμενοι, ἔστι δ' ὅποι διὰ βραχυλογίαν καὶ τῶν περικοπῶν τινας ἐπιτέμνοντες, ἐν οἷς δηλονότι μέρεσιν αὗται περίεχουσί τι μετὸν τῆς προκειμένης ἡμῖν σπουδῆς οὐδαμοῦ, καὶ τὰς ἐφ' ἑκάστῃ αὐτῶν ἐπιστασίας, ὡς αὐτὸς ἐκεῖνος αὐταῖς προσήψε, ταύτας προσάπτοντες, τὰς ἐφ' ἑκάστῃ τῶν ἐπιστασιῶν εἴδει ἀντιρρήσεις ἡμῶν ἀντιπαραθήσομεν, ὡς ἂν τοῖς ἐντυγχάνουσι καθαρὰ καὶ ἀνεπιθόλωτα ἐντεῦθεν ἐγγίνοιντο τὰ τῆς διαγνώσεως. Ὡς γὰρ ἐπὶ τῶν ἀντιστρατευομένων ἀλλήλοις σωματικῶς ἡ ἐν στενῷ τῶν ἀμφοτέρων περιοχὴ τῷ ἑνὶ κράτος ἐπιταχύνει, οὕτω καὶ ἡ ἐφ' ἑκάστῃ ἐπιστασίᾳ τοῦ σοφοῦ ἀνδρὸς ἐκείνου ἡμετέρα ἀντίρρησις, ἁπλῆ καὶ ἀμέθοδος προιοῦσα, καὶ γυμνοῖς μόναις γραφικαῖς μαρτυρίαις ^D

μαρτυρίαις ^A in producing accurate discernment for those who read it. And this is the method we have spoken of, devised for the easy refutation of falsehood, a method which so strengthens the power against falsehood that it moves us not only to undertake the refutation of this volume by Camaterus, but also to extend it to all other writings which others, at one time or another, have written to corroborate the schism—whatever those might be. For since those who first initiated the schism fabricated their own doctrinal principles, and assuming these to have been affirmed by the God-inspired luminaries of the Church without any hesitation, those who followed them built their rhetoric against the Roman Church not upon other foundations, but upon these very same ones; it seemed to us a vain ambition to struggle against the same concepts with different forms of writing. These fabricated principles of their doctrine would be: the first proposition, which asserts, "It is proper to the Father to produce the Spirit." The second, which says, "All that is said of the Trinity is either of one or of the three." The third, following these, which says, "All that is said concerning the divine hypostases is either hypostatic or natural." And the fourth, which says that the Father is the cause of those things from Him, asserting: "By reason of the hypostasis, and not by reason of the nature." Furthermore, the fifth, which says: "The Spirit is from the Father ^B proximately and immediately." For none of these—even if one were to expend countless efforts searching through the books of the God-inspired Fathers—will anyone ever find stated by any of them. But the zealots of the schism fabricated these; and those who run superficially and glancingly through the divine Scriptures, trusting in these as if they were true, never had any grounds to prove that there was anything absurd following from those who say the Spirit is from the Father and the Son, unless they laid one of these, as if it were a theological dictum of the Fathers, under their own syllogistic snares. And the arguments by which these propositions are proven to be false and fabricated will be known to the inquisitive reader when, as we proceed in our discourse, we treat of these matters more extensively. Now, however, we must turn our hands to the refutations of Camaterus's volume. But since, before the expositions of the sayings handed down in writing, the author of the volume, Camaterus, donning the persona of the Emperor, has fabricated a dialogue ostensibly proceeding as a middle ground between that same Emperor and the cardinals who were ^C then staying in Constantinople for the sake of ecclesiastical peace, we must also set aside this—believing it to be a sufficient refutation of the lie—by demonstrating that his observations on the scriptural sayings contain nothing of substance. For although in our other volumes we have not neglected the refutation of the contents of this dialogue, especially where he displays the specimen and power of his own wisdom, and in which volumes there is no need for such a summary of the recorded sayings as we now provide; nevertheless, since others, new enemies of the truth, have now appeared, and have lapsed into open and indubitable heresy with newly-composed dogmas, the struggle against them ^D

^A justly demands of us that we overthrow them also with more lengthy refutations. Yet, for the sake of sparing the ears from the surfeit of speech, it will be worth the effort, as I have said, to use a compendium of certain sayings. We must therefore abandon the debate, and take our beginning from the very definitions handed down in writing, and the observations upon these definitions.

SENTENCES FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT

Ex Evangelio Joannis, cap. xiv, vers. 15.

II. ^B "If you love me, keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Paraclete, that he may remain with you forever, the Spirit of truth."

Observation

"Apply your mind, hearer, to the meaning of the evangelical utterance. In what way does the Savior say that he will ask the Father, that He may give the Paraclete? Therefore, learn from this that the Father, through the One-begotten who is consubstantial with Him, bestows the Paraclete who is consubstantial with Him."

Refutation

In this observation, you indeed exhort the hearer to fix his mind on the way in which the Savior asks the Father concerning the giving of the Paraclete, and to learn from this ^C that the Father bestows the consubstantial Paraclete through the consubstantial Only-begotten. I, however, perceive from this that the Paraclete is from the Father through the consubstantial Only-begotten, or proceeds, or whatever else you might wish to call that which denotes the existence of the Paraclete. For in what other way could the Spirit be given from the Father through the Son, if not as existing from the Father through the Son? For if He were given from the Father as existing from Him, but not as existing through the Son, who would not then think that the Spirit is given through the Son in a ministerial and servile manner? And lest, by expanding my speech to establish this meaning, I might appear to be favoring my own opinions, let the great Cyril, a witness above all reproach, be brought forward for me. For he also, explaining the Gospel according to John, having arrived at that part where the Savior says, "But when the Paraclete comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth"—turning his speech toward those ^D who impiously determined the Son to be of a different substance than the Father—speaks in this manner: "For let no one force us, with their words, toward what those who are accustomed to embrace impiety, and what arises from ignorance, and what it is forbidden to conceive [do]—namely, that the Spirit, who is from the Father, is sent to creatures through the Son as through a minister; for some have even dared to say this. But let us rather believe that, since the Spirit is as much [proper] to the Son as he is truly [proper] to God the Father himself, for that reason he is sent by Him for the sanctification of his disciples." And with a few things added: "Furthermore, whatever

^A follows of necessity from the things already said, this too will follow. For if you think that the Son performs a servile ministry—which is not the case—by displaying that which is his very own nature, namely that which is from God and the Father, and since the Spirit is holy by his own nature, the Son will not be holy by nature, but by participation, just as we are." You see how the admirable Cyril has logically gathered that if the Son bestows the Holy Spirit—who exists from God and the Father—not as his own, just as indeed he is also the own of God and the Father, he is bestowing a Spirit alien to his own nature; and thus he gathered the notion of the Spirit’s alienation from the Son, not from elsewhere, but from the words of those who did not fear to assert that the Spirit is bestowed by the Son, not as existing from him, but as proceeding from God and the Father alone. Those who think that the Spirit is displayed, bestowed, and sent from the Father, as existing from him, but through the Son, not as existing from the Father through the Son, undergo a similar fall ^B concerning the faith and stumble around it. Therefore, O listener, whom the author of the present volume has summoned to judge his strictures, if you do not wish to stray from the right opinion of the truth, believe that the Spirit is given, bestowed, and sent from the Father through the Son, as existing from the Father through the Son; so that the Son may not be thought of by you as a servant and minister of this giving, bestowing, and mission, which is impious and clearly blasphemous.

From the same Gospel. Chap. xiv, vers. 26. III. "But when the Holy Spirit comes, whom my Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things." Stricture. "Prudently observe that the Father is said to send the Paraclete in the name of the Son, or through the Son." Refutation. And you, too, prudently observe how the Savior declared here: "Whom my Father will send in my name," and he did not separate himself from the Father, because the Spirit is sent by the Father through him; ^C in the same way, when he said, "who proceeds from the Father," he did not separate himself from the Father, because the Spirit proceeds from the Father through him.

From the same Gospel, c. xv, v. 26. IV. "But when the Paraclete comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me." Stricture. "Observe more attentively how the Only-Begotten himself promises that he will send the Paraclete, yet from the Father; and this altogether agrees with what was said before. But he very clearly teaches you the procession of this one—that is, the mode of his natural existence—from the Father. Whom, therefore, ^D do you seek as a truer and wiser teacher of truth and wisdom?"

^A Since the Only-Begotten promises that he himself will send the Paraclete, yet [says it is] from the Father, it is shown from this that the Paraclete is from both. For that which is sent by the Father and the Son, since it is not sent by either as a servant, exists absolutely naturally, just as if from the essence of both. And your statement—that the Lord clearly teaches you that the procession, that is, the mode of the natural existence of the Spirit from the Father, is rightly said—is correct. But you ought to have understood the entirety of the meaning of the evangelical utterances, and to have known that, just as the natural existence of the Spirit from the Father is indicated by the voice of the Lord, where he says, "who proceeds from the Father," and the Lord uttered all his own things to the Father as to a cause without beginning, so too it is indicated by that other utterance of the Lord in which the holy Spirit is called the Spirit of truth, that such natural existence of the Spirit is through the Son. ^B For it is manifest that the evangelical text which speaks of the Spirit of truth as the holy Spirit means that same thing which the text says about his proceeding from the Father. And the standard of truth, the most divine Basil, will bear witness to my statement in the things which he wrote against Eunomius and Arius, saying these very words: "I understand the relationship to the Father, since he proceeds from the Father; but [the relationship] to the Son, since I hear: 'If any man has not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.' Do you see and understand that the Spirit is related to the Father because he proceeds from the Father, but is related to the Son because he is his Spirit?" See also and understand how the Lord, who uttered these words, himself demonstrated by these very same expressions that the Spirit is of the Father and the Son. ^C But if you still require one to confirm and attest further to this understanding for you, know that saint Cyril also, in his commentary on John, regarding the words "When therefore the Paraclete comes," states as follows: "For behold, behold, calling the Spirit of truth—that is, his own Paraclete—he says that he proceeds from the Father. For just as he is the Spirit of the Son, naturally abiding in him and proceeding through him, so too is he the Spirit of the Father. But those to whom the Spirit is common are certainly not able to be separated according to substance." Behold also saint Cyril asserting that the holy Spirit is proper to the Son and the Father, and common to the Father and the Son, and that he gathers the same powers from these words. And it must be known to the lover of truth that the one who asserts that the Spirit is from the Father and the Son does no violence to the Gospel, as those who slander the truth contend, since it clearly appears from the same words of the Lord that the holy Spirit is from him and from the Father. ^D

APOSTOLIC SAYINGS

we are witnesses. Being therefore exalted by the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the holy Spirit, he hath poured forth this, which you now see and hear." ^A

Animadversion. Give ear to the great apostle Peter, declaring the same thing as his Master. For when He said that He would send the Spirit from the Father, he here teaches that He received the promise of the Spirit from the Father and poured it forth upon us, not that He sent it forth.

Refutation. If it seems to you that the Savior’s having sent the holy Spirit from the Father, and His having received from the Father the promise of the Spirit, and His pouring it out upon us, are the same thing, then we shall have no need of any other refutation than that which proves that the Spirit would never have been sent from the Father through the Son unless He existed from the Father through the Son. For if He was not to be sent through the Son except as existing through the Son, neither was He to be poured forth through the Son except as existing through the Son. And if this is the case, thou accumulatest these evangelical and apostolic sayings in vain to oppress the man who maintains that the Spirit is from the Father through the Son, and consequently from both. ^B

From the Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Galatians, Chapter IV, verse 6. 6. "God hath sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father."

Animadversion. Hear also Paul, the vessel of election, who proclaims that the Spirit is the Spirit of the Son because of the same nature, but that it is sent by the Father.

Refutation. Thou indeed assertest that the Spirit is of the Son because of the same essence, as many others before thee have also proclaimed. However, the great Basil, in the chapter whose inscription is, "Why the Spirit is not also the Son of the Son," ^C clearly speaks thus: "The Apostle has openly proclaimed that the Spirit is from God, saying, 'We have received the Spirit that is of God,' and he has made it clear that He appears through the Son, calling Him the Spirit of the Son just as he calls Him God’s Spirit, and naming Him the mind of Christ, just as he also calls Him God’s Spirit, as if it were the spirit of a man." If therefore the Spirit is the Son’s, in order to speak with the great Basil, because He is through the Son, it will be very opportune for us, in refuting this present animadversion, to say that the Spirit who is sent by the Father is the Spirit of the Son, since, as existing through him, He is sent by the Father through him. ^D

From the same, from the Epistle to Titus, Chapter III, verse 5. 7. "He saved us through the washing of regeneration and renovation of the holy Spirit, which he hath poured forth in

us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior.

^A Animadversion. Do you see here quite openly and without any evasion how the great Apostle teaches that the Spirit is poured forth from the Father through the Son? If, therefore, you hear in other places that the Son obscurely pours forth and bestows the Spirit, reconcile those passages with the teaching of Peter and Paul.

Refutation. Apart from those refutations which have been set forth above, there is no need for any other here.

THE WORDS OF JOHN CHRYSOSTOM

VIII. ^B But since the Father is the fountain, He called the Holy Spirit living water. Why, indeed, does He say "living water"? So that you might learn that He is from the fountain of God. The Spirit is living water; God is the fountain of living water, so that when you have learned of the fountain, you might understand from whence that living water emanates. "Rivers of living water shall flow from his belly." He was speaking of this water regarding the Spirit, whom those who believe were to receive. If the Spirit is living water, let us seek His fountain. Who, indeed, is the fountain? Let Jeremiah say. "Thus saith the Lord: The heaven was astonished at this, and the earth shuddered, because my people have done two ^C evil things: they have forsaken me, the fountain of living water." Do you see that God is the fountain of water? And the Holy Spirit is the living water. The Father is the fountain of living water; the Son is the river proceeding from the fountain; the Holy Spirit is the water of the river. "They have forsaken me, the fountain of living water." Let the prophet Isaiah say these things concerning the Son: "And the Lord shall come as a glorious river to a thirsty land." Do you see the fountain, the river, the living water? And just as you cannot call the fountain a river as long as you behold the root, nor again call the river a fountain, nor call the water that is separated from the river a river, but rather water for irrigation—and while the names are divided, the nature is undivided—so it is not possible to call the Father the Son, nor the Son the Father, lest we fall into the opinion of Sabellius.

^D Animadversion. See also the light of the world and teacher, how, having indicated the Father as the fountain of the Spirit, the Son as the river proceeding from the fountain, and the Spirit as the water of the river, he expressly forbids the river to be called the fountain. If, therefore, the Son is not the fountain, in what manner does the Holy Spirit proceed from Him?

Refutation. You, for your part, snatch the example of fountain, river, and water, taken from the doctor of the golden word for the sake of the Trinity, which is liable to no likeness, in order to demonstrate to us that the Spirit is not also from the Son, as this is your ultimate goal.

^A But it applies much more suitably to the theology of those who have rightly theologized that the Spirit is from the Father through the Son, from which it follows without hindrance that the Spirit is theologized as being from both. For just as water flowing through a river from a spring is acknowledged to flow from both, so too the Spirit, proceeding from the Father through the Son, is proceeding from both. But if, because the Golden-Mouthed forbids the river to be called a spring, you also forbid us to assert that the Son is the spring of the Spirit, know that you are straying from the rule and prescription of the truth in forbidding this, and that you are contradicting the great Athanasius, and indeed the Golden-Mouthed himself, for this reason. For even if here the Golden-Mouthed Father, clearly giving the reason according to which one cannot call a river a spring, nor again a river a spring—and the reason is that the names are not interchanged with one another, so that we might not fall into the opinion of Sabellius—has said such things concerning the names of the spring, the river, and the water, as indeed he has said; ^B yet in his discourse on the sacrament of baptism, the beginning of which is, "Again for us the spiritual lyre of the blessed David," he has spoken in this way, nor has he hesitated: "Therefore the Savior shows himself to be the spring of life, and the Holy Spirit to be the living water." And the great Athanasius, too, in his discourse concerning the incarnate economy of the Word of God and concerning the Holy Trinity, the beginning of which is, "Those who wish to understand the divine Scriptures maliciously," speaks thus: "Therefore David, singing to the Lord, declares: 'With thee is the fountain of life, in thy light shall we see light.' For he knows the Son to be with the Father, the fountain of the Holy Spirit." Having therefore recognized our Fathers, Chrysostom and Athanasius, speak thus, you will no longer say brazenly and inconsiderately that the Son is not the fountain of the Spirit. ^C And consider carefully by what method you will escape shame if, when you have said, "If therefore the Son is not the fountain, how does the Holy Spirit proceed from him?", the Italian should retort to you: "But if the Son is the fountain of the Spirit, how does the Holy Spirit not proceed from him?"

*From the same, from the homily on the Holy Spirit.*

IX. ^D Therefore, he is called *Holy Spirit*. For this is the primary and proper appellation, and as one having a clearer understanding, it demonstrates the nature of the Holy Spirit: Holy Spirit, Spirit of God. Who calls him Spirit of God? Hear the Savior saying: "But if I in the Spirit of God cast out demons." In order, therefore, as I said before, that no one, hearing "Spirit of God," might think that some particular property is signified and not a community of nature, Paul says: "But we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is from God." Again, he is called Spirit of the Father, as the Savior says to the holy apostles: "Be not anxious how or what you shall speak. For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you." And just as he said "Spirit of God," and the Scripture adds, "which is from God," so again he is called

^A Spirit of the Father. And lest you think this is said by way of appropriation, the Savior confirms it: "When the Paraclete comes, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father." There it says "from God," here "from the Father"—which he applied to himself by saying, "I went forth from the Father"; this he also ascribes to the Holy Spirit by saying, "Who proceeds from the Father." Therefore, he is called Spirit of God, and Spirit who is from God; Spirit of the Father, and Spirit who proceeds from the Father. He did not say, "is begotten." For what is not written must not be held. The Son is begotten of the Father: the Spirit proceeds from the Father. Do you ask of me the difference, how that one is begotten and how this one proceeds? When you have learned that he is begotten, you have learned the mode, and you have grasped at least the mode of generation. These are names that are honored by pious faith and held by pious reason. But what is the force of the name "Proceeds"? ^B That the Scripture might pass over the name of generation, lest it name him the Son himself, it says: "The Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father." It introduces him as proceeding like water from a fountain, according to what is said about paradise: "But a river proceeds from Edem, proceeds and springs forth." The Father is called the fountain of living water, according to the prophet Jeremiah who says: "Heaven was astonished at this, and the earth shuddered exceedingly, because my people have committed two evil deeds: they have forsaken me, the fountain of living water." The divine word, defining the Father as the fountain of water, introduced from the fountain of life living water which proceeds. What, then, is that which proceeds? The Holy Spirit. And in what manner? As water from a fountain. Whence, then, is it that the Holy Spirit is called water? The Savior says: ^C "He who believes in me, as the Scripture said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water." And the Evangelist, interpreting this water, adds: "But this he said about the Holy Spirit, whom those believing in him were about to receive." If, therefore, the Evangelist John, declaring the Holy Spirit, said "living water," and the Father says: "They have forsaken me, the fountain of living water," the Father is the fountain of the Spirit; and for this reason he also proceeds from the Father. He says, therefore—for I repeat—the Spirit of God, and the Spirit who is from God, and the Spirit of the Father, and the Spirit who is from the Father. Isaiah testifies to the Spirit of the Lord in the person of Christ: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me," and Paul: "The Lord is the Spirit." ^D

Observation.

Refutation.

^A procession, and teaches that that which is "from God" and that which is "from the Father" are one and the same. And so it is indeed. For that which is "from God" and "from the Father" is one and the same here. But you, having applied your mind to these things which the saint has declared, signifying whence the Holy Spirit has the principles and sources of His being, how did you pass over that observation, by which it is shown that the Spirit is also from the Son? For not even if the Father is the root and unoriginate cause of the Spirit is the Son thereby separated from the Father in the procession of the Spirit. But since He proceeds from the Father through the Son, the Spirit is also from the Son, not as from another cause and principle besides the Father, but as proceeding from the Father through the Son. ^B And what is it that manifests that He is also from the Son? Pay attention now and you shall know. The saint calls the Spirit "the Spirit of God"; and he brings forward the Savior as a witness that He is called "the Spirit of God." Then he adds: "Lest anyone, hearing 'spirit,' should think that a property is signified and not a communion of nature, Paul says: 'But we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God.'" Pay attention, I beseech you. The golden-mouthed one—or rather, to put it the same way, the gold-wrought trumpet of the Spirit—says: "For this reason Paul said 'the Spirit from God,' lest anyone, hearing what the Savior had said in the Gospels, 'the Spirit of God,' should think that a property is signified and not a communion of nature." Thus the communion of nature between the Father and the Spirit is hence from the fact that He is from God and the Father. ^C "For from the mere fact that He is called 'the Spirit of God,' perhaps one might even think that a property is signified, different from the communion of nature." And again, continuing, the golden-mouthed one says: "So again, He is called 'the Spirit of the Father'; and lest you think this is said according to a property, the Savior confirms it: 'When the Paraclete comes, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father.'" If, therefore, both being "from God" and the Holy Spirit's proceeding "from the Father" demonstrate His communion of nature with the Father, so that from the fact that He is simply called "the Spirit of God" and "the Spirit of the Father" some other property might not be thought of by anyone, other than the communion of nature—how then do those who call Him "the Spirit of the Son" and "Spirit of truth" according to some other property simply, ^D besides the communion of nature, not clearly divide the Spirit from the Son as regards His very essential and natural existence? For either He will be from the Son as "Spirit of the Son," just as He is from God as "Spirit of God"; or He will be from the truth as "Spirit of truth," just as He is from the Father as "Spirit of the Father." And in this way He will also have toward the Son a communion of nature, if He has a communion of nature toward the Father, as existing from God and from the Father. But toward the Son, He will have that property of being simply "the Spirit of the Son" and "the Spirit of truth," which would abandon Him, stripped of that natural communion which is toward the Son. But if these new theologians, rejecting the statement of the great Basil, which asserts that the Spirit is indeed the Spirit of the Father because He is from the Father: the Spirit, however, of the Son, because

He is through the Son, ^A they, fearing to confess the relationship of the Spirit to the Son according to natural communion, which is manifestly impious and blasphemous, but also denying that He is from the Son; let them know that they could in no other way maintain the communion of nature between the Father and the Spirit, unless the Spirit is from the Father; nor could they in any other way maintain the like communion of nature between the Spirit and the Son, unless the Spirit is through the Son and from the Son.

From the same, from the same homily.

10. Spirit of God, Spirit from God; Spirit of the Father, and Spirit who proceeds from the Father; ^B Spirit of the Lord, Spirit of the Son. The Apostle says: “Because ye are sons, God sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.” Behold, the very Spirit of the Son. In another place, Paul again calls Him the Spirit of Christ: “But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you.” I beseech you, observe this holy connection, how Paul introduces a certain holy and living chain, as it were, from a threefold power, joining the nature inseparably and pointing to one nature in different names. “But ye,” he says, “are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit.” Behold the Spirit. “If so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you.” Have you seen the Spirit? “But if any man have not the Spirit of Christ.” And yet it behooved him to say, “If any man have not the Spirit of God,” but he said, “the Spirit of Christ.” He had said, the Spirit of God, and added “the Spirit of Christ.” “But if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His.” But he said this ^C to show that if there is the Spirit, there is also Christ; and it is the same thing for Christ to be present, and for the Spirit to be present. And it is the same thing to say the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ. It is therefore the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth, as one might say, the Spirit of the Son. Since the Saviour says, “I am the truth.” He is called the Spirit of truth, which is the Spirit of the Son, as Paul says: “God sent forth the Spirit of His Son.” There is therefore both the Spirit of the Son, and the Spirit of Him who raised up Jesus Christ. And hear Paul himself saying: “But if the Spirit of Him who raised up Christ dwell in you.” These names belong to the holy and immaculate power of the holy and adorable Spirit. But there are also other names, not pertaining to nature, but to operation. The discourse is profound and requires attentive, prepared, and faithful ears. It is said, again, ^D the spirit of life, since the Saviour also says, “I am the truth and the life.” It is said, therefore, the spirit of life, just as Paul also says: “For the law of the Spirit of life.” These names are not ascribed to the Holy Spirit, but to His power and operation, as are His gifts.

Animadversion.

Mark, from the above-cited passage and from this one also, the subtle disputation of the holy Father Chrysostom, with much and exact discussion. For indeed, having a discourse on the procession of the Spirit, he pref—

^Aaces his teaching with the prepositions "from" and "by" ^B—using "from God" and "by the Father" throughout—yet here, while demonstrating the sameness of nature and essence [of the Son and the Spirit], but not the procession, he uses none of such prepositions, but simply and without them calls Him the Spirit of God and of Christ, bringing forth Paul, the divine herald, as a witness beyond exception to such teaching.

Refutation

If, because the Father, endowed with golden eloquence, while explaining the procession of the Spirit, uses the prepositions "from" and "by" throughout, but in the passage of his sermons already cited he uses none of the aforesaid prepositions, and simply and without these prepositions calls Him the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ, you refuse to say that the Spirit is also from the Son, you do not act justly in shrinking from confessing the Spirit to be from the Son, if I show you that he himself declares the Holy Spirit to be from the Son. For indeed, in his discourse On the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, the beginning of which is: "Truly the grace of God has appeared unto us," he says: "Christ came to us; He gave to us the Spirit that is from Him, and He took up our body." And that in the passage cited the saint did not use the aforementioned prepositions, you have noted with your accurate observation; but that he said, "It is the same thing to say the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ," you have neglected, as if it were not worthy of your observation. Yet that point seems to be of the greatest moment for demonstrating that the Spirit is also from the Son. For if it is the same thing to say "the Spirit of God" and "the Spirit of Christ," just as He is from God because He is the Spirit of God, so also He is from the Son because He is the Spirit of the Son.

From the same homily

^CIX. "But if you hear Him saying: 'I will send to you the Holy Spirit,' do not understand this according to the Godhead. For God is not sent. These are names signifying an operation, in that everyone who sends, sends into those places in which he is not. Suppose that I am speaking to someone in this seat. I cannot say to any man: 'Come, I will send you here'; this is not to send, but to place and to make to stand by oneself. But since God is everywhere—'For I fill heaven and earth,' says the Lord—whither does He send, who is everywhere? 'If I ascend into heaven, Thou art there: if ^D I descend into hell, Thou art present: if I take my wings early, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; even there shall Thy hand lead me.' Whither then does God send? Is it perhaps because He Himself is indeed everywhere, but He who is sent is not everywhere? 'God sent His Son into the world'; does this mean as one not present in the world?"

^A How then does John the evangelist say: "All things were made by Him. He was in the world, and the world was made by Him"? How then was He sent into the world? Was He, who was sent elsewhere, sent again; and did the Sender remain above, while the One sent was below? How did He say: "And He who sent Me is with Me"? Safeguard the argument. For the heretic can say: "He is with me by His aid," just as I also say: "God is with me." He did not say this simply; but what did He say? "The Father abiding in Me." If He was with Him and was abiding in Him, how did that One send, or how was this One sent? For if they came, both came, and no one was sent; or if the Father remained above, how does the Son say: "The Father is with Me," if the Sender remained above? How does the One sent possess the Sender with Him? "For I," He said, "am in the Father and the Father is with Me." How then does the One sent say, "The Father is in Me"? And how, again, did He send? When therefore He says, "I will send to you the Holy Spirit," He speaks of the gift of the Spirit, and so that you may learn that the gift is sent, but the Spirit is not sent, the Savior says to the apostles: "Stay in Jerusalem until you are clothed with power from on high. For you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you." Although the power was being provided, it was the Spirit who was providing it. For in all things one and the same Spirit operates, distributing to each one as He wills. ^C You, therefore, cannot show that the Holy Spirit is sent from the naked Godhead. But if I show you the Maker of heaven and earth being sent by the Holy Spirit, what will you do? Either deny Christ and erase the Scriptures, or, since you are a servant of the Scriptures, obey the Scriptures. And where, he says, is this stated? Hear God speaking through the prophet Isaiah, the herald of piety: "Hear me," He says, "Jacob and Israel, whom I call. I am God first and I am after these, and besides Me there is no God." Attend, I pray, for the point under inquiry remains here. ^D Who is the One saying these things, the Father or the Son? Observe how He obscurely proclaims the Trinity in the form of monarchy: "I am God first, and I after these, and besides Me there is no God." Who is it that says these things? The Creator. For He continues: "I haveled with My hand established the earth." See how the Creator speaks. "And My Spirit has established the heaven. I have commanded all the stars. I have raised up a king with righteousness, and all My ways are right." Having called Himself the Creator and Maker of heaven and earth, He says further these things: "Not from the beginning have I spoken these things to you in secret, nor in a dark place." Having said that "I established the earth, and I made the heaven; when they were made, I was there," and now, "the Lord has sent Me, and His Spirit." That is to say, He whom you have made heaven and earth, the Lord has sent according to the flesh. The Maker of heaven and in

says: "The Lord has sent Me, and His Spirit." Heretics take the mission of the Spirit as an insult. The Father sent Him, not leaving His place, nor being transferred from place to place. The Son sent the Spirit, not being divided. For this reason, the Scripture says, "God," it says, "pours out the gift of the Holy Spirit." The Divinity is not poured out, but the gift; for this reason, to show that what is poured out is not the Holy Spirit, but the grace of the Spirit of God, David says to Christ: "Grace is poured forth upon thy lips." Grace is poured forth, not He who bestows the grace. If equal honor is preached, then that expression, "from Himself," becomes clear, and the expression, "He will receive from mine," is interpreted as if from a cistern. ^B

Observation

Fix your mind with care, and consider by what reasoning this divinely inspired Father understands and expounds the effusion and mission of the Spirit, so that, when you hear that the Spirit is poured forth and sent by the Lord, you may compare and harmonize such expressions with this present exposition.

Refutation

Since Chrysostom asserts that God is not sent, and conversely that the gift is sent; but that the Spirit is not sent, when the Son says, "I will send you the Holy Spirit"; and furthermore, that the Deity is not poured out, but the gift; and again, that what is poured out is not the Holy Spirit but the grace of the Spirit of God; ^C do not on these grounds think that it is not that same Paraclete Himself who is indicated, but some certain grace, as it were, torn away from Him. When Scripture asserts that the Holy Spirit is poured forth and sent by the Lord, if you opine these things concerning the Holy Spirit who is poured forth and sent by the Lord, you wander far from the true and right opinion of all. And the Giver and Provider of the Spirit Himself shall be the witness of my words, who, when He says in the Gospel, "But when the Paraclete shall come, whom I will send to you from the Father," does not intimate some spiritual grace, as it were separated and detached from the essence of the Spirit, but the Paraclete Himself, who is perfect and true God, as the Father and the Son are. If, therefore, it is God who is poured forth ^D and sent by the Lord as Spirit, know, when you hear Chrysostom saying, "God is not sent," and "that which is poured forth is not the Holy Spirit, but the grace of the Spirit of God," that he has said these things for this reason only, lest anyone should imagine in his mind some local separation and division when he hears that God is sent and poured forth. For if that saying, "God is not sent," is not accepted in this sense, how would we profess that the Son was sent by the Father as God? And if these things seem true to you, learn that even if the mission and the sending, which occurs in us, signifies the habitual indwelling of the Spirit, nevertheless, from the mission and sending itself, it remains clear that the Spirit [proceeds] from the sending and dismissing Lord.

From the same [author's] discourse on Pentecost.

^B12. «Ten days ago, Christ ascended to the royal throne, and today the Holy Spirit descended to our nature; the Lord elevated our firstfruits to heaven and sent down the Holy Spirit, [as] another Lord distributing these gifts. For the Holy Spirit is Lord, and the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit divided the dispensation undertaken for our sake among themselves. Not yet ten days had passed since Christ ascended, when He sent us spiritual gifts, the rewards of that reconciliation. For, that no one might doubt or wonder what Christ accomplished upon His ascension: Did He reconcile the Father? Did He render Him propitious? Wishing to show us that He reconciled Him to our nature, He sent the gifts of reconciliation.»

Observation.

This passage also, if you attend to it with care, accords with the one above and clearly teaches you that the Son sends the gifts and presents of the Spirit, but not the Spirit Himself.

Refutation.

What a word has escaped the barrier of your teeth! You said that the gifts and presents of the Spirit are sent by the Son, but not the Spirit Himself, and you seem to hold the opinion which asserts that the gifts of the Spirit ^C are sent by the Son as things detached and separated from the Spirit Himself. But the divine Cyril, in the eighth book to Hermias, says: «In this we know that Christ is in us, from the Spirit whom He gave to us. For he who possesses Him as an indweller and settled inhabitant, who is by nature and truly God, will possess Him abundantly, not receiving a Spirit that is something alien and detached from Him essentially, but one who is from Him, and in Him, and is His own, and shares equal dignity when compared with Him.» And again, in the exposition of the Gospel according to John: «God is the Spirit, and [is] from God by nature, of whom we are deemed worthy to become participants through faith in Christ; for how could we be in any way temples of God, if the Spirit is not God by nature?» And again, in the eighth book to Hermias, against those who say that it is not the Spirit Himself, but the grace through Him that is signified to us—something like what you are now echoing—he says: «If that which imprints in us the divine image, ^D and like a seal produces that which is above the world, is not the Spirit Himself, but the grace through Him, then it would necessarily follow that man should be called an image of grace and not rather of God.» And again: «But if the grace which we receive through Him were something detached and torn away from the essence of the Spirit, why did the blessed Moses not say plainly, when the animal had been produced as it is, that the Creator of all things thereafter breathed in the grace of all things, but rather the breath of life; for if the...

Creator, through the breath of life: and Christ to us, "Receive grace through the ministry of the Holy Spirit." But in the creation of man, that which was breathed in is called the breath of life; for the true life is the nature of the Godhead, if it is true that in Him we live and move and are. But by the voice of the Savior, He is called the Holy Spirit, the very same Spirit whom He causes to inhabit and enter into the souls of the faithful, and through Him and in Him transforms them into the form which He possessed in Himself from the beginning. ^A Such are the things stated by the holy Cyril while philosophizing, along with many other of the Fathers, whose sayings are omitted here for the sake of brevity; know that he who claims that the Son sends not the Spirit Himself, but rather the gifts of the Spirit, is subject to no small judgment. For even if the sending indicates the habitual indwelling of the Spirit in those who are worthy, yet the Paraclete Himself is present in all things, and He dwells in a way and manner that cannot be expressed in words. ^B

*From the same, from the same discourse.*

13. "For since He was not yet crucified," He says, "the Holy Spirit was not yet given to men." For 'glorified' carries the same meaning as 'crucified.' For even if the thing is by its own nature ignominious, yet because it was done for the sake of those He loved, Christ calls it 'glory.' But why, I ask, was the Spirit not given before the cross? Because the world was in sins, in offenses, in hatred, and in ignominy; since the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world had not yet been offered. Since, therefore, Christ had not yet been crucified, reconciliation had not yet been made; and since reconciliation had not yet been made, it follows that the Spirit was not sent. Therefore, the sending of the Spirit is the sign of reconciliation. For this reason Christ also says: "It is expedient for you that I go away. For if I do not go away, He will not come; for if I do not go away, and reconcile the Father," He says, "He will not send the Paraclete to you." ^C

*Observation.*

Do you hear how the Master of the world clearly declares here that the Father promised to send the Spirit through the Son?

*Refutation.*

Do you not also hear that the Spirit is sent, and yet it is not a simple grace, as if torn away from the Spirit, but the Paraclete Himself? If, therefore, the Paraclete is sent by the Father, and the Son is not separated from the Father in this mission, while the Paraclete is sent through the Son by one mission and one giving, it remains plainly evident that the Paraclete proceeds from the Father, and the Son is not separated from the Father in this procession, ^D since the Paraclete proceeds through the Son by a single procession and a single existence, and not one proceeding from the Father and another through the Son, as the slanderers of the truth suspect.

^A

SAYINGS OF THE GREAT BASIL. From the Epistle to Eustathius the Armenian.

14. “Having been taught that the Spirit of truth proceeds from the Father, we confess that He exists from God uncreated.”

Animadversion.

Refutation.

From the same, from the Antirretic discourses against Eunomius.

15. “What then is one to call the Holy Spirit, and Spirit of God, and Spirit of truth, sent by God, and supplied through the Son, not a servant, but eternal, good, sovereign, a life-giving Spirit, a Spirit of adoption, knowing all the things of God? In this way indeed will the account of unity be preserved in the Trinity, if we confess one Father, and one Son, and one Holy Spirit.”

Animadversion.

Refutation.

^A you do not contradict the Italian, who well asserts that the Spirit proceeds from both, since He proceeds from the Father through the Son.

In another Antirrhetic against the same. 16. “How then could things that are inseparable be separated, the Word of God and the Spirit from God through the Son?”

*Observation.* The holy man teaches the same things here, asserting that the Spirit is from God, that is, from the Father. For thus he gives men to understand the [procession] through the Son.

*Refutation.* It is not this that you say is given to be understood by the phrase "through the Son," namely, "from the Father." For the phrase "from God," as is completely clear and evident in every way, contains its own well-defined meaning. It does, however, give one to understand that the Spirit is not from the Father continuously and immediately, but through the Son. ^B

From the oration of the same on the Spirit. 17. “He has nothing adventitious in Himself, but possesses all things eternally, as the Spirit of God and appearing from Him, having Him as His cause and as the fount of Himself, and emanating from Him; He is Himself the fountain of the aforementioned good things. But He Himself, while indeed flowing from God in hypostasis, those things which flow from Him are His operations. This Holy Spirit God poured out upon us abundantly through Jesus Christ; He poured out, He did not create; He bestowed, He did not make; He gave, He did not fabricate.”

*Observation.* Always connect the phrase "from God" with what has been said above, understanding it, of course, as "from the Father," as is clearly proven by the present passage. For when the saint has frequently said "the Spirit of God" and "from God," by adding afterward, "God poured out through Jesus ^C Christ," he clearly indicated that he was speaking concerning the Father in the assertions that followed.

*Refutation.* To understand and interpret the phrase "from God" always as "from the Father" is an observation that is excellent and sufficiently pious. Nevertheless, it should also have been observed that the great Basil in divine matters, in the aforementioned passage, spoke of the flux of the Spirit from God as being in hypostasis. For he who notes this will, with little effort, discern that the Spirit, in flowing from the Son, also flows in His own hypostasis, just as one who exists *through Him* from the Father. For what else would a flux in hypostasis be, if not a certain natural and essential existence? ^D

From the interpretation of the same on Psalm 31, regarding the word which says: “By the word of the Lord the heavens were established.”

18. “As therefore the creating Word established the heaven, so also the Spirit of God, who proceeds from the Father, that is to say, from His mouth, [does not] allow anything [foreign to be] in Him,

nor [should] you judge Him as belonging to creatures, but rather glorify Him as having His hypostasis from God. ^A

*Observation.* Do you see here, too, how that great man who teaches divine things, when he said that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, shows that He has His hypostasis from God the Father? Following in his footsteps, therefore, whenever you hear that the Spirit is from God, understand it as being from the Father.

*Refutation.* It must be observed that the saint said the Spirit proceeds from the Father; but one must also pay close attention to what he adds: “that is to say, from His mouth.” For since the Unigenite is the mouth of the Father, as many of the saints have declared, what else does he confess by saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father—that is to say, from His mouth—but that He is from both? Nor is there any difference in saying that He has His hypostasis from God as from the primary cause and principle, and that He flows forth in terms of hypostasis from the Son, as flowing through the Son from the primary cause and principle. ^B

*From the same, from the fortieth Moral Homily.*

19. “Therefore the Spirit is neither foreign to the glory of God, proceeding ineffably from the ineffable mouth, nor is He God Himself, but the Spirit of God and with God; He is sent from God, and is supplied through the Son, as it is said from the person of the Father, ‘My Spirit, which is in you,’ and He is said by the Lord, ‘I will send the Paraclete to you,’ whom He also calls the Spirit of truth.”

*Observation.* The present passage teaches you the same things as the preceding one. For just as that one taught that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, that is to say, from His mouth, so this one declares that He has appeared ineffably from the ineffable mouth. Learn also from this that “from God” is taken to mean “from the Father.” ^C

*Refutation.* This is true. For just as the preceding passage, in teaching that the Spirit proceeds from the Father—that is to say, from His mouth—manifestly demonstrated that He is from both, since the Unigenite is the mouth of the Father; so too, the one that follows it, by asserting that the Spirit who is not foreign to God appeared ineffably from the ineffable mouth, has made the same things clear. Nevertheless, it must be noted that in the passage already mentioned, the saint affirms that the Spirit is common to the Father and the Son, in that He is sent indeed by the Father, but supplied through the Son. This he clearly shows by adding, “As it is said from the person of the Father, ‘My Spirit, which is in you,’ and by the Lord, ‘I will send the Paraclete to you.’” ^D

From the same, from his works against Sabellius, Arius, and Eunomius.

20. ^A “For the Father is, as one possessing being that is perfect and lacking nothing, the root and fountain of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. And the Son is the living Word in the fullness of the Godhead, and the offspring of the Father, lacking nothing; and the Spirit is complete, not a part of another, but perfect and considered as whole in himself.”

Animadversion.

“Do you see that the Father alone is publicly proclaimed by this divine Father as the root and fountain of both, namely of the Son and of the Holy Spirit? If, therefore, the Son were also the root and fountain ^B of the Spirit, how could that great man have passed this over in silence?”

Refutation.

No one who wishes to be pious will deny that the Father is the origin and fountain of the Son and of the Spirit. However, since the Father is the cause of these two persons in a different way, and the difference of the cause is that, whereas he is the cause of the Son directly—with no other common thing joining the Son to the Father—he is the cause of the Spirit through the Son, who also joins the Spirit to the Father; just as the sun is the direct cause of the ray, and without any other common thing [intervening], but [the cause] of the light [is] through the ray. And he who pays attention ^C to these things would know that the Father is the root and fountain of both the Son and the Spirit, and would acknowledge the Son as the fountain of the Spirit, because he proceeds from the Father through the Son.

From the same, from the same works.

21. “But I, while I know that the Spirit is with the Father, do not understand the Spirit to *be* the Father; and I have received him as being with the Son, but not named *as* the Son; but I perceive the relationship toward the Father, and concerning the relationship toward the Son, since I hear, ‘If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not his.’”

Animadversion.

“What is clearer than this teaching, which openly insinuates the procession of the Spirit from the Father, but the relationship toward the Son, because of the consubstantiality?”

Refutation.

^D Truly, there is nothing clearer than this teaching; but not in the way in which you rashly and perversely interpret these scriptural statements which have been handed down in writing, but according to the true meaning, which allows us to understand from the very words of the Lord that we must see that the Holy Spirit is from Him and from the Father. For since the saint said, “I perceive the relationship toward the Father, because he proceeds from him, but [the relationship] toward the Son, because I hear, ‘If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not his,’” he set forth effectively that which the evangelical text says, “The Spirit of truth, the Holy Spirit,” is able to mean the same thing that the passage saying “he proceeds from the Father” [means]. For if he is familiar to the Father because he proceeds from the Father, and familiar to the Son because he is his Spirit, it remains manifest how well [the words] have been spoken.

^A of these evangelical pronouncements, who say that it in no way falsifies the Gospel, which says that the Spirit is from the Father—since the Gospel testifies that it proceeds from the Father—and that it is from the Son, because it is preached in the Gospels as the Spirit of truth.

Of the same, from the same.

22. ^B "If the Spirit is from God, how do you subjugate it under the category of creature? For you would surely not say that it is because all things are from God. For just as Christ is called God, but not a creature, as we are—for we are of Christ, and Christ is of God; but in one way we are called Christ’s, as slaves of a Master, and in another way Christ is called God’s, as the Son of the Father—so too the Spirit: not because there are also ministering spirits is the Holy Spirit already similar to them on account of the appellation. For there is one who is truly the Spirit. For just as many are sons, but one is the true Son, so even if all things are said to be from God, yet strictly the Son is from God, and the Spirit is from God; since the Son also came forth from the Father, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father, but the Son from the Father in the manner of generation, the Spirit in an ineffable manner from God."

Observation.

"What we have frequently inculcated, note here also: ^C how the holy Fathers understand 'from God' and 'from the Father' in the same way. Hear also that the Spirit is from the Father, and not [from] the Son."

Refutation.

You, for your part, intimate to your listener that he should hear that the Spirit is from the Father, but not from the Son. But if I should produce the great Basil, in the third of his *Antirrhetica* against Eunomius, saying, "The Spirit has his being from the Son"; and furthermore the holy Cyril, in one of the chapters of the second of his *Thesauri*, saying, "It is shown clearly that the Holy Spirit is not alien to the Son, but is in him and from him"; and Gregory of Nyssa, in his homily on the Lord's Prayer, saying, "The Holy Spirit is said to be from the Father, and is confirmed by the testimony of all to be from the Son"; and the great Athanasius, in the discourse on the incarnate appearing of God the Savior, saying, "Descending therefore from ^D himself into himself, from his Deity into his humanity"; and finally Chrysostom—or rather, to speak better, the God-speaker—in the homily on the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, saying, "Christ came to us; he gave us the Spirit which is from him, and he took up our body": what will your listener do here? Will he believe you, who blurt out whatever comes into your mouth from your gut, or the enumerated Fathers, who decide theological matters through the Spirit?

Of the same, from the ninth chapter of the work to Amphilochius.

23. "Now then, concerning the Spirit, [these are] the common..."

views we possess; let us examine both those gathered for us from the Scriptures concerning Him, and those which we have received from the unwritten tradition of the Fathers. First of all, then, who, upon hearing the titles of the Spirit, is not stirred in his soul and does not lift up his understanding to the highest nature? For He is called the Spirit of God, and the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father. ^A

Observation

Refutation

From the sixteenth chapter of the same.

^A exuding from respiratory parts; but the Word, which was in the beginning with God, is God, and the Spirit of the mouth of God is the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father himself.

Animadversion

Refutation

From the eighteenth of the same chapters. 25. [25.] The created nature is so far removed, as is probable, that the singular number is a

united to the single ^A nature, just as the monad has affinity with the monad. And not from this alone are the proofs of the communion according to nature, but because he is also said to be from God, not as all things are from God, but as having proceeded from God, not by way of generation as the Son is, but as the Spirit of His mouth. And certainly, the mouth is not a limb, nor is the Spirit a dissipatable breath, but the mouth—as befits God—and the Spirit [are] a living essence, the mistress of sanctification. While the affinity is declared henceforth, the mode of existence is kept ineffable; but he is also called the Spirit of Christ, as being naturally appropriated to Him. ^B

Observation

Understand clearly from this passage how the holy man teaches the affinity of the Spirit toward the Father and the Son, declaring that He is appropriated to the Father, as having His procession and being from Him, and to the Son, as being naturally appropriated to Him.

Refutation

This observation of yours is destroyed as being not in the least learned, but reliant on cavils. For you assert that Basil declares the Spirit to be joined to the Father, because He emanates from Him and has His being; but to the Son, as if He were naturally joined to Him. And indeed, the reason for the Spirit's conjunction with the Father is well stated; however, you bring forward the conjunction of the Spirit with the Son as something truly ^C foolish and equally absurd, and not in the way the saint instituted it. For you assert that Basil declares the Spirit to be joined to the Son, speaking figuratively from the communal, as if He were naturally joined to Him, which is absolutely no different than if someone, when asked, "What is this?", were to reply, "It is this." For to what else do you look when you say, "But the Spirit is joined to the Son, as if joined to Him"? Yet the saint did not speak thus. But having previously said that the communion of the Spirit with the Father is indicated by the fact that He emanates from God—not as all other things do, but as the Spirit of His mouth—he then subjoined: "But he is also called the Spirit of Christ, as naturally appropriated to Him," which is to say, as existing ^D through the Son; just as he himself has clearly demonstrated in other places. For it is the same thing to say "Spirit of the Son," which is "through the Son," and "Spirit of the Son," which is "naturally appropriated to Him." For the appropriation of the Spirit toward the Son followed from this, from His being through the Son [proceeding] from the Father; for He would not otherwise be appropriated to the Son, if He were not through the Son. For no one will be able to assign any other reason for the affinity of the Spirit toward the Son, except that He is through the Son. Nor shall we say, as many of those who inconsiderately blurt out whatever comes into their mouths say, that the Spirit is joined to the Son because He is of the same nature as the Son. For the similarity of nature which exists between them is disputed, and by equal reason it could be said that the Son is not equal to the Spirit.

^A But no one has said this, nor would anyone ever dare to say it, provided that the worship of piety is in their soul.

From the same [author], out of the letter to his brother of Nyssa, concerning the difference between essence and hypostasis.

26. ^B Therefore, if you transfer to divine dogmas the account of the difference between essence and hypostasis that we express regarding human affairs, you will not have erred. As to how the essence of the Father is, whatever your mind suggests to you is to no avail; for the sharpness of the mind is unable to be confirmed in this matter by any certain and fixed knowledge, because persuasion regarding Him surpasses all understanding; and you shall think the same regarding the Son, and in a similar way regarding the Holy Spirit. For the statement that the one God is uncreated and incomprehensible is the same, and applies equally to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit. For He is not more uncreated and incomprehensible, while this one is less so. But since it is necessary that the comparison in the Trinity should be held unconfused ^C through certain proper notions, we shall not use that which is considered in common—as when I say "uncreated" or "surpassing all understanding," or anything of this kind—for the determination of the property; but we shall seek only those things through which the conception of each person will be clearly and distinctly separated from the common consideration for those who examine it. Thus it seems to me to be good to investigate the reasoning in this way. Whatever good may reach us from divine power, we say is the effective operation of the grace that works all things in all, even as the Apostle says: "But one and the same Spirit works all these, ^D distributing to each as He wills." [1 Cor. XII, 11] Seeking, however, whether the supply of goods is thus present to the worthy, so that it takes its beginning from the Holy Spirit alone, we are again led and instructed by the Scripture to believe that the only-begotten God is the author and cause of the good things of grace which are worked in us through the Spirit. For we have been taught by the sacred Scripture that all things have been made through Him, and that in Him all things consist. When, therefore, we are raised to that conception, we are again divinely led, as if by the guidance of inspired Scripture, and are instructed that through that power all things are brought from nothing into being: yet so that they are not produced from it without a beginning, but that there is a certain power, unbegotten and existing without beginning, which is the cause of that cause through which all things were made. For the Son is from the Father, through whom [are] all things, with whom the Holy Spirit is always inseparably conceived. For it is not possible to arrive at the conception of the Son without being enlightened by the Spirit.

^A Since therefore the Spirit, from whom as from a fountain all supply of blessings flows forth to the creatures, depends also upon the Son, because he is conceived by the mind without any distance; for he possesses the inserted essence of the cause, the Father, from whom he also proceeds; he has this notion and a cognizable sign, which is according to hypostasis, of [that] property by which he simultaneously makes himself to be known with the Son, and by which he subsists from the Father: but the Son, who through himself and with himself makes known the Spirit proceeding from the Father, alone as the Only-Begotten has shone forth from the unbegotten light, and he possesses no communion of properties at all according to his own peculiarity, neither with the Father, nor with the Holy Spirit, but is known alone by the aforementioned signs.

Animadversion

^B The same [passage] also in the present pericope teaches that the Holy Spirit subsists indeed from the Father, as [the saint] writes, but is known with the Son and together with him.

Refutation

You have indeed spoken truly in saying that [the saint] says the Holy Spirit subsists from the Father: nevertheless, know that it is true also that he is the same one who says in other places that the Spirit has his being from the Son. And if the sayings of the saint must be compared with one another, as it is absolutely necessary that they should be, because both are from the same Spirit, [they are to be understood] in that the Spirit is from the Father, for the Father is the first and unoriginate cause of both the Son and the Spirit; and from the Son, for he proceeds from the Father not immediately, but through the Son. And for these reasons, neither he who says the Spirit is from the Father, even if he does not proclaim the Son together with the Father, opposes him who pronounces him to be from the Son; nor does he who says he is from the Son oppose him who asserts that he is from the Father: which you will judge more clearly if you examine the already digested pericope more accurately. For in it, the saint, explaining the unshaken conjunction of the Trinity and setting forth its inseparable natural union, says: “But inquiring whether the supply of blessings is so present to those who are worthy, that it takes its beginning from the Holy Spirit alone, we are again led by Scripture and instructed to believe that the Only-Begotten God is the author and cause of the supply of those blessings which the Holy Spirit works in us,” etc. If, therefore, he affirms the Only-Begotten to be the author and cause of the grace of the blessings which the Spirit works in us, then he who investigates matters more diligently, and does not pass through the divine Scriptures superficially, ought to attend to the manner in which the Only-Begotten is to be understood as the author and cause of the gifts of the Spirit, if the Spirit, who bestows similar gifts, has his own existence and subsistence from the Father alone, and not through the Only-Begotten himself. For if the Spirit exists from the Father through the Only-Begotten, then the Only-Begotten will certainly be the cause and author of those gifts of the Spirit which exist through him and therefore from him, just as the Father is also the author and cause of the same gifts, because the Holy Spirit, who pours forth these same gifts, exists from him. But if the Spirit, who pours them forth, exists from the Father alone, then the Son will by no means be the cause and author of them, but perhaps [only] an administrator, and

a servant, a thing which it is clearly impious and blasphemous to assert. ^A

From the same, from the same.

27. But he who has understood the Father, has also understood Him in himself, and at the same time has embraced the Son with that understanding. But he who has received this one, has not divided the Spirit from the Son; but, consistently ^B according to the order of the persons, and conjunctively according to the nature, he has expressed in himself the faith of the three persons, tempered in the same manner. And he who speaks of the Spirit alone, has at the same time included in this confession also the One whose Spirit it is. And because the Spirit of Christ is also from God, as Paul says, it comes to pass that, as in a chain, he who lays hold of the end of one ring, by this very act draws along at the same time the other one that is inserted: so also here, he who draws the Spirit, as the Prophet says, draws along through Him both the Father and the Son together. ^C And if one should truly lay hold of the Son, he will have Him also on both sides, on one side the Father of Him, and on the other side the Holy Spirit joined along with Him. For neither will the One who is always in the Father be able to be cut off from the Father, nor will He who works all things in Him ever be separated from His own Spirit. Similarly, he who has attained to the Father, has also attained to the Son with Him, and the Holy Spirit by the same power. For it is not possible to conceive of any section or division in any way whatever, so ^D that either the Son could be thought of without the Spirit, or the Spirit could be sundered from the Son; but an ineffable and incomprehensible communion, as well as distinction, is perceived in these, whereby the continuity of the nature is neither broken by the difference of the hypostases, nor is the property of the notions confounded by the communion according to essence.

Animadversion.

Observe also here that "from God" is taken by the saint instead of "from the Father"; and admire the exquisite diligence of this most wise doctor, how he used the preposition "from" in the case of God, but when the discourse was about Christ, he passed it over in silence, thereby manifestly determining that the existence of the Spirit is from the Father only.

Refutation.

The present passage indeed confirms most clearly the opinion asserting that the Spirit is through the Son, both by its other statements and especially by this: "If one should truly lay hold of the Son, he will have Him also on both sides: on one side the Father of Him, and on the other side the Holy Spirit joined along with Him." But you, having neglected the entire force of the passage, propose as if it were something worthy of admiration that, when he was speaking of God, he used the preposition "from," but when he had a discourse about Christ, he wrapped it in silence. And from this you infer that the existence of the Spirit is from the Father only. Nevertheless, you do not infer this rightly, nor in a manner worthy of the cleverness and perspicacity you profess, that it is from the Father alone.

For ^A if, because the Holy One placed the preposition "from" before the Father, you say it is from the Father alone, it will by no means be from the Father alone, because of the many passages of Holy Scripture which, in many places, signify that it is also from the Son, as declared by our theologian Fathers.

From the same, from the copy of the faith dictated by him.

28. ^B "There is, however, a proof of the right belief: not to separate It from the Father and the Son. For we must be baptized as we have received, believe as we are baptized, and glorify as we have believed: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; and we must depart from the fellowship of those who call Him a creature, as those who openly blaspheme Him. For a necessary observation is required because of slanderers, that we do not speak of the Holy Spirit as unbegotten. For we know one Unbegotten and one Principle of those that are, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, nor do we speak of Him as begotten; for we were taught in the tradition of the faith that there is one Only-Begotten. But having been taught that the Spirit of truth proceeds from the Father, we confess that He is from God uncreatedly."

Observation. ^C "Do you see here, too, that 'from God' is the same as 'from the Father,' as we have often remarked?"

Refutation. Do not propose to yourself to repeat the same thing continually, that 'from God' is the same as 'from the Father.' Your mind must be applied to other phrases of the Divine Scriptures as well, from which it was provided to our theological Fathers that the Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son. For here the great Basil, clearly indicating the cause for which the Holy Spirit is declared to be from the Father, brings forward the evangelical voice as an incontrovertible testimony of the Spirit's existence from the Father, and therefore we confess the Holy Spirit to be uncreatedly from God, because we were taught in the Gospels that He proceeds from the Father. And now, in this way, the existence of the Spirit from the Father is clearly shown through the evangelical dictum declaring that He proceeds from the Father. Consider further, also, what was determined by the great Epiphanius in his *Ancoratus*, so that you may learn that the existence of the Spirit from the Son is ^D also shown from another evangelical phrase. For he says thus: "Both dwell in the righteous man, Christ and His Spirit." If, then, Christ is believed to be from the Father, God from God, and the Spirit from Christ, or from both—as Christ says, "Who proceeds from the Father," and, "He shall take of Mine"—do you see how from these two evangelical utterances it is gathered that the Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son: from the Father, in that

He proceeds from the Father, and from the Son, in that He receives from Him. Having surveyed this to its depths, you are able to discern, that the great Basil did not say in the cited passage, "Taught that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, we confess Him to be from God," in order to set forth that the Spirit does not exist from the Son, but in order to clarify from whence and from what evangelical dictum it came to the mind of the theological Fathers to say that the Spirit has His existence from the Father.

From the same, from the letter to the Canonicae.

29. "The Holy Spirit is numbered with the Father and the Son, because He is also above every creature, but occupies the third place, just as the Lord teaches us in the Gospel, saying: 'Go, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.' He who puts Him before the Son, or calls Him older than the Father, resists this ordinance of God and wanders far from the sound faith, while he does not preserve the order of glorification which he received handed down, but, that he may please men, devises novelties of words for himself. For if He were superior to God, He could in no way be from God. For it is written: 'The Spirit is from God'; but if He is from God, how can He be more ancient than God, from whom He is? And what is this madness, when one is altogether unbegotten, to affirm another to be superior to the unbegotten? Indeed, not even prior to the Only-Begotten, since there is nothing intermediate between the Son and the Father. But if He does not consist from God, but is through Christ, He certainly does not exist at all; to such a degree does this innovation concerning the order possess the annihilation of His very existence and the abnegation of the entire faith."

Animadversion.

"Do you hear how in all places the holy one takes that, 'from God,' to mean from the Father? For he confirms this here also, when he says: 'But not even prior to the Only-Begotten,' and at the same time teaches through these things that the Spirit’s existence is from the Father, not, however, from the Only-Begotten."

Refutation.

"You wrongly conflate your animadversion here too. For you say that when the saint says, 'But not even prior to the Only-Begotten,' he openly confirms that 'from God' is taken as from the Father; and by the same token he teaches through these things that the Spirit's existence is from the Father, but not from the Only-Begotten. And these are your words. But in truth, [the sayings] 'But not even prior to the Only-Begotten,' and, 'For there is nothing intermediate between the Son and the Father,' and, 'The Spirit is to be placed third,' provide an accurate consistency, with the most theological Nyssen having laid down the theology that the Father is conceived prior to the Son by the logic of cause, and the Son is considered prior to the hypostasis of the Spirit according to the logic of cause—all of which demonstrate that the Spirit is from the Father through the Son. This, therefore, is what is demonstrated by these things which are contained in the aforementioned passage, not as you assert, that through these the Holy Spirit [is] from the Father—

^A nor does he teach [that the Spirit is] from the Only-Begotten.

SAYINGS OF GREGORY THE THEOLOGIAN

^B 30. For if we were intending, while acknowledging the dignity of the Son and of the Spirit, either to introduce them as without beginning, or to refer them to another principle, there would indeed be fear lest God be held in contempt, or lest something contrary to God be introduced by us. But when, however much you may exalt the Son or the Spirit, you nevertheless never place them above the Father, nor remove them from the Cause, but refer that glorious generation and admirable procession to that [source], I will ask you, you who so greatly parade your love for the Only-Begotten and the One who is without beginning, which of the two, in the end, helds God in greater contempt: he who establishes as a principle of such things the kind you introduce, or he who does not, but rather [establishes a principle of] beings of equal nature and equal glory, and such as our doctrine professes? For to you it would be a great honor, and a very great one, that you should have a son—and all the more so if he reflects the father in all things, and truly bears the likeness of his begetter—and you would not accept being master of six hundred slaves as much as being the parent of one son. But for God, will anything be greater or more excellent than being the Father of the Son, which is an accession of glory, not a subtraction, and in like manner being the producer of the Spirit? Or are you unaware that while you establish as the principle of creatures the principle—I mean of the Son and of the Spirit—you neither honor the principle, and you bring ignominy upon those that come from it: the former, ^C because you introduce a principle of small and unworthy [things] of the Godhead; the latter, because you make them not only small and created, but even more abject than all created things, if for the sake of these they subsisted, and at some time, like tools for a craftsman, existed before the artisans, and would not otherwise have come to be, had not God willed to create something through them, as if the will [alone] were not sufficient? For anything that is made for the sake of something else is more abject than that for which it is made. But I, establishing as the principle of the Godhead that which is devoid of time, and inseparable and infinite, honor both the principle and those which flow from the principle equally: the former, because it is the principle of such things; the latter, because in such a way and such things are [derived] from such a [principle], being neither in time, nor by nature, nor by worship and veneration separated; things that exist as one, dividedly, and unitedly, divided, ^D even if it is a wondrous thing to say, no less to be praised for the relation that they have to one another, than each one taken by itself and understood; a perfect Trinity from perfect three, the Monad having moved because of [His] richness, and the Dyad having been surpassed. For it is above matter and form, from which bodies are constituted; the Trinity, however, has been defined because of [its] perfection.

Animadversion

^A of the Lord, how, through the entire passage, the saint teaches the existence of the Holy Spirit from the Father, while at times speaking of the Son and the Spirit as not to be placed above the Father, nor to be alienated from the cause, but rather to refer the noble generation and the wonderful procession thither, declaring the Father to be clearly the cause of both the Son and the Spirit, the begetter of the former and the producer of the latter; and at other times, when he proclaims the Father as the principle of those gifted with equal honor and glory; or again, where he speaks of the Father being the source of glory for the Son, and the producer of the Spirit; and again, where he calls the Father the principle of both?

Refutation. This animadversion has nothing to contribute to the purpose at hand, for which the struggle against the Roman Church has been undertaken by you. For who among those nourished by her does not declare with open mouth that the Father is the cause of both, namely of the Son and of the Spirit? Yet one cannot conclude from this that the Spirit is from the Father alone—which is the primary scope of the struggle you have initiated. For if the Father were an indifferent cause of the Son and the Spirit, it would be entirely beyond doubt that the Spirit is from the Father alone; but since the Father is a different cause, and the difference of the cause depends upon the different mode of the procession of the things emanating therefrom according to the theological explanation of Gregory of Nyssa: ^B "For the one is immediately from the first, while the other is through that which is immediately from the first"—it is most true that the Father is the cause both of the Son and of the Spirit, and that the Spirit is not from the Father alone, because the Son is immediately from the causative Father, while the Spirit proceeds through the Son from the causative producer.

From the same, from the oration which begins: "Rursus Jesus meus" [Again, my Jesus].

XXXI. "The Father is the Father and is without origin; for He is not from any other. The Son is the Son and is not without origin; for He is from the Father. But if you take beginning [as] from time, He is also without origin; for He is the creator of times. The Holy Spirit is truly the Spirit, proceeding indeed from the Father, but not as a Son; for not by way of generation, but by way of procession." ^C

Animadversion. What the saint teaches variously in the above passage with different words, he sets forth most plainly here before our eyes.

Refutation. The saint certainly sets forth more plainly here before our eyes that the Spirit is not from the Father alone. For when he had said that the Holy Spirit is truly Spirit, proceeding indeed from the Father, not as a son—so that it is not by way of generation—but by way of procession, he clearly taught that the existence of both those who proceed is ^D

which shows, with the property proper to each of them, ^A that wherever "proceeding" is said of the Spirit, the hearer must understand at once that it proceeds in the mode of procession; and wherever "proceeding" is said of the Son, the hearer must understand at once that He proceeds in the mode of generation. And who, from this doctrine alone, would not recognize that the Roman Church has in no way wounded piety, hearing in countless places in the divine Scriptures that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son? For no one will say that from the Father He proceeds in the mode of procession, but from the Son He proceeds in the mode of filiation and generation, shedding the property of His procession. For the name "Spirit" having been assigned to Him, He will by all means keep the property prescribed for the name, and will never have lost it; for, to speak with the Theologian himself: ^B "How could a property remain if it were moving and changing?"

From the same, from the oration whose beginning is: "Since yesterday the splendid day of Lights."

XXXII. "I desire to call the Father greater, from whom even the equals have that they are equals; for this will be granted me by all. But I fear the principle, lest I make that principle one of lesser things, and do insult through the preference. For it is no glory to the Father that those who are from Him should be depressed."

Animadversion. ^C This pericope also is almost entirely similar to the first, teaching the very same thing that it does: namely, that the Father is the cause of both, of the Son and of the Spirit.

Refutation. Since you believe this pericope to be almost identical to the first, which I myself do not deny, what we have already brought forward above for the refutation of the first animadversion will suffice to refute the aforementioned animadversion.

From the same, from the oration on Pentecost.

XXXIII. "The Holy Spirit was indeed always, and is, and will be, neither generated by any beginning nor to have an end, but always joined and numbered with the Father and the Son: for it was not fitting that the Father should ever lack the Son, or the Son the Holy Spirit. For ^D otherwise a great disgrace would be brought upon the divinity, as if it had come to perfection as though by repentance. He was therefore always perceptible, not participating; perfecting, not perfected by another; filling, not filled; sanctifying, not sanctified; deifying, not deified; Himself always, and with Himself and with those to whom He is joined, the same and equal; invisible, devoid of time, included in no place, unchangeable in quality, quantity, form, and touch; self-moving, and having eternal motion, free of will, powerful of Himself, omnipotent, although the things which belong to the Holy Spirit, like all things which are of the Only-Begotten, are referred to the First Cause."

^A Animadversion. Observe from these words also that He confesses the Father is the cause of the Son and of the Spirit.

Refutation. But observe this point: "For it was not fitting that either the Father should lack a Son, or the Son [should lack] the Holy Spirit." For the Theologian, by joining the Spirit to the Father through the Son, confirms those who declare that the Spirit is from the Father through the Son.

From the same [author], from the [discourse] on the order to be observed in disputations.

XXXIII. ^B "But one must acknowledge one God the Father, without beginning and unbegotten, and one Son begotten from the Father, and one Spirit having subsistence from God, yielding to the Father in this name alone, that He is not unbegotten, and likewise to the Son, that He is not begotten, but otherwise of the same nature, dignity, honor, and glory throughout."

Animadversion. Here also, hearing concerning the Spirit that He has His subsistence from God, compare this "from God" with the preceding words of the other saints, as we have noted more clearly in many places.

Refutation. No one, hearing concerning the Spirit that He has subsistence from God, fails to understand that "from God" refers to the Father. But again, no one who prefers truth above all else will contradict those who assert that He has such subsistence from the Father through the Son. For these things are neither contrary nor do they conflict with one another, because everything that is said to be through the Son, and from the Son, and out of the Son, has its reference to the Father, the First Cause.

From the same [author], from the first discourse concerning the Son.

XXXIV. ^D "But we worship the monarchy of one God. By monarchy, I do not mean that which one person circumscribes—for it is possible that what is one might be divided against itself and disagree with itself, becoming many—but that which the equality of nature, the concord of will, and the identity of movement constitute, as does the conjunction of things that are from Him unto the One; a quality which is impossible in the nature of created things, so that even if they differ in number, they do not in the least disagree in power. ^D For this reason, unity, moving from the beginning into duality, rested in trinity. And this to us is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; the Father being the Begetter and Producer—I speak, however, without passion, without time, and incorporeally—and the others being, the one an offspring, the other a procession, or by whatever terms one might denote these things, for I know not, as they are completely abstracted from things that fall under the perception of the eyes. For we shall not dare to call it a 'superfusion of goodness,' even if one of those who flourished in the praise of philosophy among the Gentiles did not hesitate to use this term, when he philosophized concerning the First Cause and the second."

^A We bring forward then both the unbegotten and that which is from the Father ^B proceeding, as God and the Word himself somewhere says. When then these things? But if it is necessary to speak somewhat boldly, when the Father. When is the Father? There was not when he was not. This then also [is true of] the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Ask me again, and again I will answer you. When is the Son begotten? When the Father is not begotten. When does the Spirit proceed? When the Son does not proceed, but has been begotten timelessly and above reason, even if we are not able to set forth that which is above time, wishing to avoid a temporal impression by our constraints. Except if we grasp the interval stretching alongside the eternal things, the aeon, not divided or measured by some motion or by the course of the sun, which is time. How then are they not co-without-beginning, if co-eternal? Because from there, even if not after him. For that which is without beginning is also eternal, but that which is eternal is not altogether without beginning, until it is referred to the first principle, the Father. Thus they are not without beginning in relation to the cause. It is clear then that the cause is not altogether older than those things of which it is the cause; for the sun is not before the light; and they are in a way without beginning in relation to time, even if you frighten the simpler ones with bugbears; for things from which time [has its origin] are not under time.

Observation

Refutation

^A indicate a different mode of the cause and of the caused. For the cause has claimed for itself the name of "Begetter" and "Producer," because it is a cause in a different way; and the caused has assumed the name of "offspring" and "procession," in that it emanates from the cause in a different way. And the difference in the terms demonstrates the difference in the procession. "Now as to the difference of the procession, with Nyssen as witness: 'That which is continuous, and that which is through that which is continuous, and that which is by that which is continuous, and that which is through that which is continuous,' it appears that the Spirit emanates from the Father through the Son. This, therefore, is what is gathered from it: 'But the Begetter and Producer of these—the one is offspring, the other is procession,' that is to say, the manifestation of the different mode of the cause, and of the different procession of the caused, and not that they are simply in such a way from one cause, as you have remarked. For 'that which is from one cause' is manifested from that phrase alone which says, 'And to the one, the propension ^B towards that which is from him,' but from the fact that both caused things exist in a different way—the one from the First alone, as being immediately from Him, and the other through the immediate from the First—it occurred to our theologian Fathers to say the Spirit is from the Father and the Son."

Of the same, from the second discourse on the Son. XXXVI. "The proper name of Him who is without beginning is Father; of Him who is begotten without any beginning, Son; of Him who has gone forth or proceeds without generation, the Holy Spirit."

Observation. "Let not the fact that 'proceeded' or 'proceeds' is written here without any addition regarding the Spirit disturb you, but compute and compare it with the things written above. Indeed, rather seek the declaration of this from the additions which are read in the following passage."

Refutation. The declaration of this statement is open. For it shows that the very property of the Spirit is the name of Spirit; and from whence the Spirit proceeds or progresses, [it shows that He is] as Spirit proceeding, not ^C as begotten, like the Son.

Of the same, from the discourse on the Holy Spirit. XXXVII. "And again I imagined the sun, and the ray, and the light. But here also there is a fear: first, lest some composition of the incomposite nature be imagined, just as of the sun and the things in the sun; secondly, lest we attribute essence to the Father, but deny that the others subsist, and instead make them certain powers of God, which exist in Him but do not subsist of themselves. For neither the ray nor the light is another sun, but are as it were certain defluxions of the sun, and substantial qualities. And at the same time we give to God, in these [examples], both the being ^D and the not being, in such a way as can be gathered from this example, which would be even more absurd than the things already said."

Observation. "Observe a very wonderful thing: how, even if he does not like..."

the present example due to fear, yet he thereby clearly demonstrates that both, namely the Son and the Spirit, are from the Father, as light and the ray ^A from the sun." Refutation. "It is true that the example clearly demonstrates that both are from the Father; but nevertheless it demonstrates quite clearly that the Spirit is from the Father *through* the Son, just as light is from the sun *through* the ray."

From the same [author], from the Discourse on the Holy Spirit.

XXXVIII.

Observation. "This passage, which is very clear, does not, in my opinion, need any explanation. For in that the saint said the 'brothers and nephews' would perish, he implies entirely that the Spirit is unbegotten, and proceeds from the Father alone, and not from the Son."

Refutation. "You are surely not speaking the truth, that by the saint's saying 'the brothers and nephews will perish,' he ^D strictly implied that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, and not from the Son, but only that he proceeds, yet is neither unbegotten like the Father, nor begotten like the Son. For that is what the remark, 'Where will you place that which proceeds, which is inserted between the two parts of your division?' signifies."

From the same [author], from the same discourse.

XXXIX.

are they divided by will, nor separated by power, nor is anything of that which happens to divided things to be found here; but it is indivisible within divided things, and, to speak in one word, it is ^A divinity, and as it were in three suns clinging together, one mixture and tempering of light. When, therefore, we look toward the divinity and that first cause, and the monarchy, that which appears to us is one. But when we look toward those in which the divinity is, and those that are from the first cause, existing from thence without time and with equal glory, three are the objects of worship. ^B

*Admonition.* Listen attentively to this: "To us there is one God," because there is one divinity; and towards one, those things which are from Him have their reference, even though three are believed in; and to this: "When we look toward those in which the divinity is," and "Those which are from the first cause, existing from thence without time and with equal glory, three are the objects of worship"; for from these it is clearly established that the Father is the cause of both.

*Refutation.* Although from what has been said it is established that the Father is the cause of both, yet also from them it is established that, just as the one mixture of light which is imagined in three suns clinging together denotes the indivisibility of the three hypostases, so too the indivisibility of these is from nowhere else but from the fact that the Spirit exists from the Father through the Son.

Of the same, concerning dogma and the constitution of bishops.

^C XL. ^D It certainly behooves some not to be so much "lovers of the Father" as to strip away from Him the very name of Father; for whose Father would He be, if the Son were said to be diverse in nature from Him and alienated along with the rest of creation? Nor, again, to be so much "lovers of Christ" as not to preserve intact for Him the name of Son; for I ask, whose Son would He be, if He were not referred to the Father as to a principle? Nor, finally, to diminish for the Father the dignity of principle, which as Father and begetter He possesses; for He would be the principle of small and unworthy things indeed, were He not the cause of His divinity which is contemplated in the Son and the Spirit. Since both the one God must be preserved, and the three hypostases—or rather three persons—must be confessed, and each one with its own property. By this reasoning, in my opinion, God would be preserved as one, if we refer the Son and the Spirit to one cause, and do not compose or mix them, even though we understand one and the same motion and will of divinity, and identity of essence.

*Admonition.* Prudently attend to the syllables of this passage, namely: "For He would be the principle of small and unworthy things, were He not the principle of the Divinity, which is contemplated in the Son and the Spirit"; and to these words, "to the one..."

cause of the Son ^A and the Spirit, as they are referred."

*Refutation.* You exhort me to pay heed to the syllables of the aforesaid pericope, namely: "For it would be the principle of small and unworthy things, were He not the principle of the Divinity which is contemplated in the Son and the Holy Spirit," and "God is one, if we refer the Son and the Spirit to one cause." I indeed embrace what you suggest; yet I also suggest to the listener that he consider more attentively that the fact that the Son and the Spirit are referred to one cause is no obstacle to our understanding at once that these things are referred to such a cause in different ways. And since there is no other difference except that which is "properly" or "directly," and through that which is "properly," the said syllables will contribute nothing at all to proving that the Holy Spirit is from the Father alone. Furthermore, one must also observe this, that the saint says, "The Father is the cause of the Divinity which is contemplated in the Son and the Spirit." But the essence and divinity of the Spirit is said to be from the essence and divinity of the Son, which indeed could in no way be said unless the Spirit were from the Father through the Son. For if He perchance existed immediately from the Father, He would certainly never have been said to "proceed from the essence and Divinity of the Son."

*From the same, from the same oration.* XLI. ^C "You hear of the generation? Do not curiously inquire into the manner. You hear that the Spirit proceeds from the Father? Do not investigate with anxious zeal how this comes about. But if you show yourself curious in investigating the generation of the Son and the procession of the Spirit, I, too, will inquire with equal curiosity into the union and temperament of your soul and body."

*Animadversion.* What is asserted here is very plain, and not unlike the things said above. For here, too, both the Son and the Spirit are openly suggested as being from the Father.

*Refutation.* It is indeed openly asserted that what is built up here confirms that both the Son and the Spirit are from the Father. But it is also clear to understand that this same pericope is most advantageous to those who maintain that the Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son. For since the saint said that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, and used that term in place of "procession," he clearly manifested that he who asserts that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son indicates His ^D existence from both.

*From the same, from the oration in praise of Heron the philosopher.* XLII. "Nay, set forth the doctrine of our piety, instructing us such that we recognize one unbegotten God, that is, the Father, and likewise one begotten Lord, the Son, to be sure, who is indeed called God when discourse is held of him separately, but Lord when he is named with the Father—the former on account of his nature, the latter on account of the unique princedom of the divinity—and finally one Holy Spirit, proceeding from the Father, or also coming forth, God to those who mentally conceive the things lying before them, to the impious indeed even warred against, but to those who..."

ascent above them in spirit and mind, it is grasped; and by those who are more spiritual, it is proclaimed. ^A Likewise, lay down this: that we should not attribute a principle to the Father, lest we introduce something prior to the first, from which that which is first would necessarily have derived its origin; nor should we claim the Son and the Holy Spirit to be devoid of a principle, lest we strip the Father of that which is proper to Him. For they are not without a principle, and yet they are in a way without a principle; which is also paradoxical. For they are not without a principle in respect to the Cause, since they are from God—even if not after Him, as light from the sun—but they are without a principle in respect to time, for they are not subject to time, lest that which flows be older than those which are established. ^B

Animadversion.

Refutation.

From the same, from the same.

XLIII. The Holy Spirit is truly holy; for He is not something different of such a kind, nor does He have holiness as if by addition, but He is holiness itself; nor is He more or less so; nor did He begin in time, nor will He cease. For it is common to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit that they are not created, and the divinity; but to the Son and the Holy Spirit that they are from the Father; while the property of the Father is unbegottenness, that of the Son is generation, and that of the Spirit is procession. But if you seek the manner of this, what will you leave to those who are testified by Scripture to know each other alone and to be known by each other? ^C

Animadversion.

Refutation.

From the same, from the discourse held in the presence of the 150 bishops.

XLIV. The name for the one without a principle is Father; for the principle, Son; and for that which is with the principle, the Holy Spirit.

^A And yet the nature of the three is one. The unity is the Father, from whom and to whom the things that follow are referred. ^B

Animadversion. The teaching is the same in all respects. For in these things too you hear, "From whom and to whom the things that follow are referred."

Refutation. If you understand the difference of those things which are referred to the first cause, you would rightly grasp the point, "From whom and to whom the things that follow are referred."

From the same person's discourse to Evagrius. ^C

XLV. For as no division or separation can be conceived between the mind, the thought, and the soul, so neither is it to be thought that any separation or division has ever intervened between the Holy Spirit, the Savior, and the Father; because the nature of spiritual and divine things, as we have said, is exempt from division. Or again, in the same way as it is impossible to find a division between a sphere and its ray, because of the impassibility, the incorporeality, the simplicity, and the indivisibility—but rather the ray is joined to the sphere, and conversely the sphere, like some eye, pours forth its rays to the whole [sphere] like a river, causing, as it were, certain inundations of light for us, and suddenly flooding the world—no otherwise are the rays of the Father, as it were, sent down to us, both the radiant Jesus and the Holy Spirit. For just as the rays of light, having a natural, indivisible relationship to each other, are neither separated from the light nor cut off from one another, and transmit the benefit of the light to us, in the same way our Savior and the Holy Spirit, that twin ray of the Father, together minister to us the light of truth, and are united to the Father. ^D And just as in the case of a certain fountain of waters, which plentifully pours forth nectar-like water, it happens that a massive stream and an unrestrained flow is divided into two rivers, having had its origin from the one eye of the fountain from the beginning, and [even though] the rivers are fashioned with the waters, still nothing is harmed in their essence by the division: for the stream is divided by the position of the rivers, but it possesses one and the same quality of moisture; and even if each of the aforementioned rivers appears to end far away somewhere and to stand at a great distance from the fountain, they still possess their origin joined and united to the perpetuity of the fountain with their parent; in a not dissimilar way God, the author of all good things, the ruler of truth, and Father of the Savior, that first cause of life and root of immortality, that fountain of eternal life, by sending to us a certain bifluent and bifurcate intellectual grace of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, has neither harmed his own essence in any way (for he suffered no diminution whatsoever through their arrival to us, and they proceeded to us, and are nonetheless inseparable from the Father)

Individua enim, ut diximus, summi numinis natura est. ^A)

Animadversion.

Refutation.

Of the same, from the poems concerning the Holy Trinity.

Animadversion.

Refutation.

From the same poems concerning the Holy Spirit.

^A a monad, as a path of a vast fountain, and as a stream driven into three forms upon the earth. Animadversion. Hearken: from the monad the Triad. But if the Spirit is also from the Son, then the Triad is from a binary, not from a monad.

Refutation. The saint said the Triad is from the monad, and the monad from the Triad, indicating that the monad and the Triad are the same; but in your animadversion you inserted the article, suggesting to the hearer that the Triad is from the monad. ^B If, therefore, it seems to you that the saint says this, that the Triad is from the Father, then the Divinity would be a quaternitas and not a triad. And consider, then, how evilly you have inserted the article, and how much worse you have interpreted the statement. For from such an addition, the Divinity would be a quaternitas, as has been said, and not a triad. And from your asserting that, if the Spirit is from the Son, then the Triad is from a binary number, and not from a monad, one might number the Divinity into a pentad.

DICTATIONS OF THE GREAT ATHANASIUS. Of the great Athanasius from the first oration against the Arians.

XLVIII. « For how shall he speak the truth concerning ^C the Father, who denies the Son, who reveals concerning Him? Or how shall he rightly think concerning the Spirit, who offers contumely to the Word who provides Him? »

Animadversion. Observe how the fountain of divine dogmas, the pillar of the right and sound doctrine, the illustrious one of Alexandria, or rather the luminary of the entire world, asserts that the Spirit is provided by the Son, but not produced. For provision and production are entirely different things.

Refutation. You have learned from our refutations set down above that, although the provision of the Spirit denotes the habitual indwelling of the Holy Spirit ^D toward us from the Lord, yet from that very provision it appears that the Spirit exists from the Son who provides Him, because He is provided by the Lord not ministerially, but naturally and essentially. For clearly it is manifest to all that whatever is not provided by Him ministerially, nor as a slave, but naturally, is provided by Him because it exists from Him.

Of the same, from the same.

XLIX. « But if, as the Lord Himself said, it is His Spirit and receives from His own, and is sent by Him, then it is not the Word, as He is Word and Wisdom, who is anointed by the Spirit given by Him, but the flesh assumed by Him is anointed by Him. »

Animadversion. Note here, too, that the Spirit is said to be exhibited by the Lord, but not to proceed, and there is a very great difference between exhibition and procession.

Refutation. But observe also that what is given derives its existence from the giver, as if it exists from him.

By the same. L. « And, having become man, he said: “I will send to you the Paraclete, the Spirit of truth,” and he sent him, being the Word of God who is far from falsehood. Wherefore Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and for the ages, remaining immutable, and he is the same who gives and receives—giving as God the Word, receiving as man. »

Animadversion. « Here again the Spirit is said to be sent and exhibited, not produced or proceeding. »

Refutation. But here, too, the Spirit is to be understood as existing from the Son, who is sent and provided by him.

From the same oration. LI. « What is wonderful or incredible if the Son, who gives the Spirit, is said now to be anointed by the Spirit? Since, when necessity urges, he does not shrink, on account of his humanity, from calling himself less than the Spirit. For when the Jews said that he casts out demons in Beelzebub, he answered and said to them, after he had rebuked them for blaspheming: “If I in the Spirit of God cast out demons.” ^B Behold, for the giver of the Spirit now says that he himself casts out demons in the Spirit. This, however, was spoken for no other reason than the flesh. »

Animadversion. « And here again the Son is declared to be the giver of the Spirit, not his producer. »

Refutation. But here, too, the Son is called the giver of the Spirit, because he exists from him.

From the same. LII. « Thus the Lord spoke such things to the Jews as man. But showing his divinity and majesty ^C to the disciples, he no longer signifies himself as less than the Spirit, but as greater and equal, and he was giving the Spirit and saying: “I will send him, and he will glorify me, and whatever he hears he will speak.” Just as here, therefore, the Son, being the giver of the Spirit, does not shrink from saying that he casts out demons in the Spirit as man; in the same way, being the same giver of the Spirit, he did not shrink from saying: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, for which reason he has anointed me.” »

Animadversion. « Wherever you perceive this great Father teaching that the Son is the giver of the Spirit, take care to compare his statements ^D and pronouncements. Here...

he speaks of the Son as the giver of the Spirit, as being given by him from the Father. »

Refutation. In the observations digested above, you eagerly exhorted the listener to observe how the saint called the Son the giver of the Spirit, but not the producer. But when you discovered the saint openly showing the cause for which the Son is the giver of the Spirit, you deemed that view, which he put forward, worthy of no observation. But I, applying my mind to a similar statement, say that the great Athanasius, when he asserts that the Lord, demonstrating himself to be no longer less than the Spirit but greater and equal, was giving the Spirit and saying, "I send him," ^B has openly shown that the Savior is the giver of the Spirit for no other cause than that he exists from him. For by what other reason could the Lord be called greater than the Spirit, if not because he exists from him? A testimony handed down in writing is near concerning this. For the most excellent Anastasius in discerning dogmas and in explaining divine matters will confirm this argument of mine, when he says: « So therefore the Lord, showing the Spirit to exist from himself, breathing upon the disciples said: "Receive the Holy Spirit." » And consider how this saint interprets the statement of Athanasius. For that which the light of the world, Athanasius, was indicating by saying: « The Lord, showing himself greater than the Spirit, was giving him, » ^C this man has interpreted more clearly, and with this explanation of his own has arranged the speech: « So therefore, the Lord, showing the Spirit to exist from himself, breathing upon the disciples said: "Receive the Holy Spirit." »

From the same oration. LIII. « Through whom, indeed, and from whom was the Spirit to be given, if not through the Son, whose the Spirit also is? »

Animadversion. « Watch diligently what that signifies, that the Spirit is given through the Son, and from whom it is collected to be given, because it is given by the Son. »

Refutation. You, indeed, in this animadversion insinuate that there is a difference between "through whom" and "from whom." But I maintain that both are said of the Son, since the saint manifestly inculcates that it differs in nothing whether you say the Holy Spirit is "through the Son" ^D or "from the Son."

From the same [author], from the third oration against the Arians. LIV. « Therefore when the Savior says concerning us, "As you, Father, in me, and I in you, that they also may be one in us," he did not signify that we were to have the same identity with him; for that was shown by a sufficiently clear example of John, but that he is reconciled to the Father through the intercession of grace and accepted dignity, so John says, that he might grant the Spirit through himself to them. »

^A

*Animadversio.* This same thing appears from the admirable implication, which is contained in that pericope, and which is all but a syllogism, even though he said that the Spirit is bestowed not *through* the Word, but *from* the Word.

*Refutatio.* Your *animadversio*, which you weave here, does not admit of so easy a reply. For, from the admirable implication and the all-but-syllogism contained in the pericope just cited—to put it in your own terms—what is expressed is not the same as what was posited above, but rather those very things which, as we shall see as we proceed, the saint will say in his *Epistle to Serapion*, in which we shall find him explicitly saying: « The Spirit proceeds from the Father, since it shines forth and is sent and given by the Word who is acknowledged to be from the Father. »

*From the same, from the Refutation of the Hypocrisy of Meletius and Eusebius of Samosata.*

LV. « But it was impossible for the Spirit to be glorified in the glory of the Trinity, ^B if he did not proceed from God through the Son, but had been produced from God like any other creature, as they assert. »

*Animadversio.* Attend diligently to the writing of the Father and examine it: for as soon as he mentions the progression of the Spirit, he immediately declares it to be from the Father. For this implies directly: from God through the Son. ^C

*Refutatio.* May good things befall you, my man, that you confess the progression of the Spirit from God through the Son, and not long after you are caught confessing that the prepositions "from" and "through" have equal force regarding the Son, and thus you are not far from those who decree that the Spirit is from both.

*From the same, from the Epistle to Serapion.*

LVI. « Therefore, those who hold wrong opinions about the Holy Spirit do not hold right opinions about the Son either. For if they held the right opinion about the Word, they would indeed rightly hold the opinion about the Spirit, who proceeds from the Father, and being the Spirit of the Son, is given by him to the disciples and to all ^D who believe in him. »

*Animadversio.* Observe this pericope diligently, and admire the exquisite acumen of the saint; for while he introduces the mention of the procession of the Holy Spirit and his bestowal, he assigns the procession of the latter to the Father, but the bestowal to the Son.

*Refutatio.* You, for your part, are once again inventing distinctions between procession and bestowal; but I will recall to the hearer's memory that the Spirit, who is given by the Son, is bestowed upon others as existing from him.

Of the same, from the same epistle.

Animadversion.

Refutation.

'" ^A It is also said by the Lord: "I will send the Paraclete to you," whom He also calls the Spirit of truth. If, then, great Basil clearly explains that "My Spirit, which is in thee," is said from the person of the Father, and great Athanasius says "From me," meaning "from God," as being from the Son, how is it not clearly shown from this that the Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son, and not as from two causes and principles, but as from one? But also Saint Cyril, with these great Fathers, will agree in the same sense in his interpretation of the Gospel according to John, now indeed speaking as if in his own person: "For just as it is the proper Spirit of the Son, naturally existing in Him and proceeding through Him, so also it is the Spirit of the Father. And to those to whom the Spirit is common, those things which are of the essence will surely not be separated"; now indeed saying as from the Son to the disciples: "For My Spirit, which works in you. For just as it is Mine, so also it is of God and the Father."

From the same Epistle

^B LVIII. "For He did not associate an angel with the Divinity, nor did He join us to Himself and to the Father in a creature, but in the Holy Spirit, whom He Himself, while promising, did not say He would send an angel, but the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, and receives from the Son, and is given."

Observation

"This also accords with what has been said before; for the saint teaches that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, but receives from the Son, and is given."

Refutation

Truly the saint teaches that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, but receives from the Son. Consider also that it is truly shown from these evangelical utterances that the Holy Spirit is from both; since the saint wished to indicate this here, he intertwined these evangelical utterances with one another. For whoever among the Fathers might wish to demonstrate through theology that the Spirit is from the Father and the Son, he would demonstrate it using no other than these evangelical testimonies. And the excellent Epiphanius, in dealing with divine matters, will confirm this discourse of mine when he writes: "Both Christ and His Spirit dwell in the just man. But if Christ is believed to be from the Father, God from God, and the Spirit from Christ, or from both, as Christ intends: 'Who proceeds from the Father,' and 'He shall receive of mine.'" Finally, you who peruse these things, take note how he who, ^D while contending very insistently with the cardinals, says that the phrase "He shall receive of mine" has its reference to the person of the Father and not to Himself, confesses in these similar words that the Spirit receives from the Son; recognize this.

that he does not seek the truth, but is spreading ^A contentiousness.

*From the same.*

LIX. “For the holy and blessed Trinity is indivisible ^B and joined to itself. And when the Father is named, his Word is also present, and the Spirit who is in the Son. But if the Son also is named, the Father is in the Son, and the Spirit is not outside the Word. For there is one grace from the Father, which is completed through the Son in the Holy Spirit.”

*Observation.* Observe how it is said here that the Spirit is *in* the Son, but not *from* the Son.

*Refutation.* In the passage already set forth, you note with your observation that the Spirit is said to be *in* the Son, and not *from* the Son. But you pass over as though it were worthy of no observation the wondrous complexity that is in it—and, to use your own words, the syllogism—that the Spirit appears joined to the Father through the Son, as one who exists from the Father through the Son, from which the saint also gathers the indivisible nature of the blessed Trinity.

*From the same Epistle.*

LX. “For just as the Son, who is in the Father, and in whom the Father is, is not a creature, but proper to the Father’s essence—for this is what you too pretend to say—in the same way, the Spirit also, who is in the Son, and in whom the Son is, must not be ranked ^C with the creatures.”

*Observation.* Consider this passage prudently; for the saint, not wishing to provide you with a handle for your words when he writes that the Spirit is also in the Son through him, and to prevent you from saying that he is *from* him, added also, concerning the Son, the words “in whom he is,” namely, in the Spirit, showing nothing else therein but the essence and the indivisible nature. For the same thing he had previously implied concerning the Father and the Son.

*Refutation.* That the saint indicated the mutual circuminsession of the hypostases—and the indivisible essence and nature which follows therefrom—by the things contained in the stated passage, is manifest. Nevertheless, he did not utter the stated words for the purpose you describe—lest anyone should suspect that the Spirit is from the Son, because the Spirit is in the Son. For the arguments that demonstrate the Spirit to be from the Son do not subsist upon the preposition *from* (ex), but receive their strength from elsewhere, as we have openly and clearly demonstrated many times.

*From the same, by the same.*

LXI. “The Holy Spirit is always the same; for he is not among those who participate, but all things participate in him. But if he is always the same and is participated in, while the creatures are those who participate in him, the Holy Spirit will not be an angel nor a Word ^D...

but rather the property of the Word, from whom he is given ^A and participated in by the creatures.

*Observation.* Observe the wondrous and exquisite diligence of this saint in expressing this matter. For where he placed the preposition "from [ex or para]," he said the Spirit is given.

*Refutation.* The wondrous and accurate diligence of the saint in expressing this matter wishes you to know that the Spirit, who is given by the Son, is shown to exist as if from the Son.

From the same. LXII. For the things which the Spirit distributes to each one, these are supplied from the Father through the Son: for all things of the Father are the Son’s. ^B Therefore, also, the gifts that are given by the Son in the Spirit are the Father’s gifts. And when the Spirit is in us, the Word who bestows him is also in us; and in the Word is the Father.

*Observation.* Observe how he says the gifts of the Spirit are supplied from the Father through the Son.

*Refutation.* If you wish, O auditor, to attend with truth to how this saint teaches that the gifts of the Spirit are supplied from the Father through the Son, you must attend to how the gifts distributed to each by the Spirit are supplied from the Father through the Son. For if you understand the gifts to be supplied from the Father through the Son ^C as the Spirit who supplies them exists from the Father through the Son, you have correctly and prudently grasped the true opinion of the saint. But if, beyond this reasoning, you understand otherwise how the gifts of the Spirit are supplied from the Father through the Son, and you grasp both the Father and the Son as ministers of the distribution of spiritual gifts—for by every necessity, by the same reasoning by which these are supplied from the Father, they will also be supplied through the Son. And if from the Father, as the Spirit exists from the Father, it is evident that it is also through the Son, as the Spirit exists through the Son; but if you say they are supplied through the Son, while the Spirit does not exist through the Son, then by all means they will also be supplied from the Father, while the Spirit does not exist from the Father. And what ^D reasoning can be assigned, that it is not gathered from this that spiritual gifts are supplied in a servile manner by the Father and the Son?

From the same. LXIII. For the grace and gift which is given in the Trinity is given from the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit. For just as the grace given is from the Father through the Son, so there would be no grace of the gift in us except in the Holy Spirit.

*Observation.* Do you see the saint teaching you in all places that the very graces and gifts of the Spirit come from the Father through the Son? If, therefore, the graces and gifts are not from the Son...

but through the Son, how is the mode of the existence of the all-holy Spirit not from the Father alone through the Son, but rather from both?

Refutatio. I, for my part, will speak, having slightly altered the discourse: If the existence of the most holy Spirit were not from the Father through the Son, in what way would the graces and gifts of the Spirit, who is from the Father, be through the Son? Consider, then, you who have knowledge of these things, how a love for one's own opinion causes the minds of wise men to go astray, even to the point that this wise man refuses to say that the graces and gifts of the Spirit are from the Son, and yet contends that the mode of the existence of the most holy Spirit is from the Father alone through the Son. ^B For I know not who, provided he has the eyes of his intellect sound for discerning matters, would not recognize what is most preposterous in this. For that which is from the Father alone, how is it through the Son? And that which exists through the Son, how shall it be from the Father alone? Though I have very often perused the writings of others, which have not been dictated by any coherence of logic, it has never come to mind whether I have encountered anywhere anything more absurd and more inconsistent than what has been said here.

Ex eadem. LXIV. “The true worshippers, therefore, worship the Father, but in spirit and truth, confessing the Son and in Him the Spirit. For the Spirit is not divided from the Son, just as the Son is not divided from the Father. Truth itself says: ‘I will send to you the Paraclete, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, ^C whom the world cannot receive,’” that is to say, those who deny that He is from the Father in the Son.

Animadversio. “See most clearly and plainly here that the Spirit is said to be from the Father, yet in the Son.”

Refutatio. But you, too, see that it is said most clearly and plainly that the Spirit is inseparable from the Son, just as the Son is not separated from the Father. And hence it is demonstrated that the nature of the Trinity is one and common, from the fact that the Spirit is from the Father through the Son.

Ejusdem ex alia Epistola ad eumdem. LXV. “These things are more than enough to persuade anyone, provided he is not swept away by a spirit of contention, so that he may no longer assert that the Spirit of God, who is in God and searches the deep things of God, is a creature of God, and that He is exhibited and given from the Father through the Son.” ^D

Animadversio. “Attend to how this saint teaches you, in almost all his writings, of the gift of the most holy Spirit from the Father through the Son.”

Refutatio. But you, too, attend to how the existence of the Spirit from the Father through the Son establishes His being...

^A.

*Ex eadem*. LXVI. “For he who believes in the Father acknowledges the Son in the Father, and the Spirit not outside the Son, and for this reason he believes also in the Son, and in the holy Spirit. Since there is also one divinity of the Trinity, as recognized from the one Father.”

*Animadversio*. “This text likewise clearly teaches that both the Son and the Spirit are from the Father.”

*Refutatio*. As the saint teaches here that the divinity of the Trinity is acknowledged from the one Father, yet there is no one who forbids saying that the Spirit is also from the divinity of the Son; so, since the Son and the Spirit exist from the one Father, no one of the Fathers has forbidden saying that the Spirit is also from the Son. And whoever diligently examines the reason for what has been said will find no other cause than that the existence and divinity of the Spirit is from the Father through the Son ^B.

*Ex alia ad eumdem Epistola*. LXVII. “Indeed, with the Father sending the Spirit, the Son, breathing upon them, gives Him to the disciples, since whatever the Father has is the Son’s.”

*Animadversio*. “These are common to the Father and the Son, the sending and the giving of the Spirit, but not also the procession.”

*Refutatio*. But just as the sending and giving of the Spirit from the Father gives us to understand that He is from the Father, so also the sending and giving from the Son gives us to understand that He is from the Son. For there is one giving and sending of the Spirit from the Father and the Son, and by whatever reason He is sent from the Father, by the same He is altogether sent also from the Son ^C.

*Ejusdem ex eadem*. LXVIII. “But if this is impossible to the foolish—for each thing remains as it has been made, much more do those things which are above creation possess an eternal persistence, and it is not otherwise than how the Father is Father and not grandfather, and the Son is the Son of God and not the Father of the Spirit, and the holy Spirit is the holy Spirit, and not the grandson of the Father, nor the brother of the Son.”

*Animadversio*. “If, therefore, the Spirit is not the grandson of the Father, how is He from the Son? If the Son is not the Father of the Spirit, how is the Spirit from Him?”

*Refutatio*. The Spirit is not the grandson of the Father because the Son is not the Father of the Spirit. But when you add: “If the Son is not the Father of the Spirit, how is the Spirit from Him?” you are surely denying also that the Spirit is from the Father. For the Father is not the Father of the Spirit, and yet the Spirit is from Him; and the most perfect Maximus will testify to my statement in the affairs of divine matters in the colloquy edited by him, the *Orthodoxo* and ^D

^A of the Anomoeans, when he says: "For the Spirit does not have a Father; for He was not begotten." From the same.

LXIX. "The disciples, therefore, when they had heard: 'Baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,' did not inquire curiously why the Son is second and the Spirit third, or why there is a Trinity at all; but as they heard, they believed, and they did not ask as you do: 'Is the Spirit therefore a Son?' Nor, because the Lord named the Spirit after the Son, did they ask: 'Is the Father therefore a grandfather?' For they did not hear 'in the name of a grandfather,' but 'in the name of the Father,' and they proclaimed this faith to all." ^B

Animadversion. "This here also contains the same sentiment, openly declaring that the Spirit is not from the Son."

Refutation. It is true that the same sentiment is contained in this passage, but not with the scope which you bring forward, but rather that by which the conjunction of the Spirit towards the Father through the Son is shown. For the saint explained this, not refuting the second place in the Son, nor the third in the Holy Spirit. ^C

From the same, by the same. LXX. "Whence, in the deity alone, the Father properly and alone is Father, as He is, and was, and always will be; and the Son properly and alone is Son; and of these it is, that the Father is always Father, and the Son is always Son, and is so called; and the Holy Spirit is always Holy Spirit; and we believe that this is from God, and is given by the Father through the Son. For in this way the holy Trinity remains immutable, known in one deity."

Animadversion. "Here the saint declares that the giving of the Spirit is from the Father through the Son, and therefore we must understand those other places in which he teaches that the Spirit is sent and given by the Son according to this declaration. Note also how this great Father, almost prophesying against the opinions of some, repressing a diverse sentiment from these, did not say: 'We say,' or 'we will say,' but: 'We believe.' " ^D

Refutation. Since the saint declares that the giving of the Spirit is from the Father through the Son, you say that other things he says must be understood according to this declaration, where he teaches that the Spirit is sent or given by the Son, namely, that the one who hears that the Spirit is sent by the Son must understand it to be sent by the Son in that it is given through the Son. You must certainly acknowledge that even the Italian, when he says that the Spirit flows forth and proceeds from the Son, says these things for this reason, that the Spirit flows forth and proceeds through the Son, and this

distinction in your knowledge ^A will follow, in no way differing that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and proceeds from the Father through the Son, just as it does not differ that He is sent from the Father and the Son, and is sent from the Father through the Son.

From another letter to Serapion. EXXI. "For just as the Only-Begotten offspring is the Son, so also the Spirit, who is given and sent by the Son, is one and not many, nor one out of many, but is the Spirit Himself alone. For since the Son, the living Word, is one, there must also be one perfect and full sanctifying life, which is His operation and gift, which is said to proceed from the Father; since it shines forth ^B, is sent, and is given by the Word who is acknowledged to be from the Father."

Observation. "Note the exactness of the saint in the discussion of the matter, how where he enunciated the preposition 'from' regarding the Father and the Son, he distinguished the terms; and regarding the Father he stated the procession, but regarding the Son, the shining forth, the mission, and the giving."

Refutation. But I myself say that the saint did not here distinguish the terms—I mean procession from shining forth, and vice versa—but since all things which the Spirit is said to have from the Son, He possesses not as from a cause proper to Himself, excluding the Father. For jumping forth from the Son, and being poured out from the Son, He does not jump forth and pour out as if from a property of His own, ^C excluding the Father as the fountain, but because He is said to jump forth and pour out from the Son, in this manner the saint reasons. Since the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Word, that is, through the Son, like a ray of light illuminating from the sun through the light, and it is confessed by all that the Word is from the Father, for this reason He too is said to proceed from the Father.

From the forty-eight chapters on the like essence between the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. LXXII. "What is God? The beginning of all things according to the Apostle ^D saying: 'One God, the Father, from whom are all things'; but His Word exists by the mode of being born from Him, and the Spirit by the mode of proceeding, then the whole nature of things was established by the creative reason through the Word and the Spirit."

Observation. "Attend to from whom the saint asserts the Spirit proceeds."

Refutation. He says that the Spirit proceeds entirely from the Father. But even if He is also from the Son, you will not for that reason contend that He has lost the mode of proceeding, and perhaps taken on the mode of being born.

^A

From the same, from the discourse in the form of a dialogue between a Macedonian and an Orthodox.

LXXIII. "If, therefore, it shall have been demonstrated that the Spirit, who has been poured forth from the Father Himself through the Son, is of the same nature and deity as the Father and the Son, He shall also be demonstrated to be worthy of adoration and worship."

**Observation.** "Do not pass over this passage rashly and without diligent attention. For, as I think, you will find within it an admirable clarity. For the preposition 'from' (ex) clearly indicates that it is not from another: from which it appears in every way that He is from the Father alone. But also, by the preposition said of the Son ('through'), it teaches that the Spirit was not poured forth from Him."

**Refutation.** It is impossible for you to deny the equal powers of the prepositions "from" (ex) and "through" (per), wherefore, as we have already said, by this confession, which you cannot escape, you are caught by your own lips. Nevertheless, even if through these equal powers of the prepositions it does not appear that the Spirit is from both, what kind of sequence of consequence is this, for you to say He is from the Father alone, when He exists from the Father through the Son? And we observe your obstinacy in discourse when you deny that the Spirit, who is poured forth through the Son, is poured forth from the Son. For if where the indifference is open and plain to all, you dare to utter similar things, how will you give assent to those who say that there is no difference between saying "from the Father through the Son" and saying that the Spirit proceeds from both? ^B

Of the same.

LXXIV. "And what could be so impious as to assert that the holy Spirit is a creature, when the Son says: 'It is not you who speak, but the Spirit of the Father who speaks in you'? Since He says that He is the Spirit of the Father, how do you dare to call Him a creature? Why do you not hear the Father saying: 'In the last days I will pour out from my Spirit upon all flesh'; and again, 'Behold my chosen Son, in whom my soul is well pleased, I will pour my Spirit upon him'?"

**Observation.** "Observe diligently this passage, which brings forth not only the Savior as a witness that the Spirit is of the Father and proceeds from Him, but also the Father Himself." ^C

**Refutation.** The present passage brings forth both the Savior and His Father as witnesses that the Spirit is the Spirit of the Father. Therefore, if from it you deduce that He proceeds from the Father, then truly in this way, and not otherwise, the truth stands. For because He is the Spirit of the Father, He exists from the Father. What will you do, when in the holy Scriptures you hear in countless places the holy Spirit called the Spirit of the Son? ^D

^A

In Camateri Animadversiones

LXXV. ^A To this, Peter says: “You know the word that came to pass throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee after the baptism which John preached: Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power.” Therefore, is the Son anointed with His own creature? And how is it not insane to say this? And He Himself also says: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, for which reason He anointed me.” And Peter also says in the Acts of the Apostles: “Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you see and hear.”

Animadversion

Observe this passage prudently. For it brings forward as teacher not only Peter, the supreme summit of the Apostles, saying that the Spirit is from the Father, but also his teacher, Christ the Savior.

Refutation

Because Peter said that the Savior received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, do you infer that the Spirit is from the Father? And if this be so—as indeed it is—for how would the Savior have received the promise of the Spirit from the Father, if the Spirit were not from the Father? It will be also from the Son, because that which is poured out from the very one who received it is nothing other than the promised Spirit itself. For if it is poured out from the Son not ministerially, but naturally, it is certainly poured out as existing from Him. And if from the fact that the Savior said, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,” you infer again, as your Animadversion indicates, that the Spirit is from the Father, you correctly infer this, and it will be altogether also from the Son, as He is the Spirit of truth and the Spirit of Christ. ^C

And after a few things

LXXVI. “Of men, indeed, there exist previously other men before Paul and Peter and Timothy, and others before them; but for Adam there does not exist another before him, but God Himself. But of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit there is nothing that exists previously, but from the Father the Son is begotten and the Spirit proceeds.”

Animadversion

If the Spirit proceeds from the Son, why did the saint not teach this also, but decreed the generation of the Son and the procession of the Spirit from the Father alone?

Refutation

That very thing which many others also declare concerning the evangelical saying—if the Spirit is from the Son, why did the Lord not say: “Who proceeds from the Father and me?”—but just as the Lord, saying, “No one knows the Son except the Father,” did not denote an ignorance of the Spirit, but the primacy of the Father’s knowledge of His own…

nature, and just as by saying, “No one is good except one, God,” he does not say this by placing himself outside the nature of the good, but by declaring that the Father is the first good, so also by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, He declares that the Father is the first cause; nevertheless, as existing from the Father as the first cause, the Spirit is not as if from a second [cause] from the Son, but is of the Father through the Son, which is as if from one God, the Father and the Son.

And with other things annexed. LXXVII. ^B “Lest you imagine that the procession has begun and ceased, for this reason it has been said, ‘who proceeds from the Father,’ so that you might not curiously investigate the beginning and the end of the procession.” Animadversion. “Note that in all respects we are taught the procession of the Spirit from the Father.” Refutation. “But furthermore, you should also note: not from the Father alone.”

And with some things added. LXXVIII. “Do not investigate the difference; for it cannot be comprehended. But revolve in your mind what has been commanded to you, and do not examine beyond these things. What, then, has been commanded to you? To believe that the Son is begotten, and the Spirit proceeds.” Animadversion. “From the Father, clearly, from whom the Son is begotten.” Refutation. “The holy man was not speaking here of the origin, but of the manner in which the caused things exist. For the Son exists by the manner of generation, the Spirit by that of procession. And it is certainly true that the Spirit exists also from the Son as the Spirit proceeding, yet he is not the Son begotten.”

From the same. LXXIX. ^C “For the Spirit is unbegotten, but not without cause; for He has as His cause God, whose Spirit He is.” Animadversion. “Meaning the Father, as we have noted before in various pericopes concerning this.” Refutation. “But through the Son, as we also have frequently noted before concerning this.”

From the same, from the oration in the form of a dialogue between an Apollinarian and an Orthodox. LXXX. “God is the Word, who took the form of a servant, and is named Christ, and is and is believed to be, and is anointed as man by the Holy Spirit, but as God He bestows it upon the worthy.” Animadversion. “He says ‘bestows,’ not ‘produces.’” Refutation. “And who among the Fathers ever said of the Father Himself, by an active verb

^A to produce, or to proceed, the Spirit, so that this might be an occasion of scandal to you, O new dogmatists, who say that the Son does not produce nor proceed the Spirit, even if the Father is called the producer of the Spirit, and the Spirit is said to proceed from the Father? But all the theologians, the Fathers, never used an active verb regarding the Father—namely to produce and to proceed—but rather to pour forth, to spring forth, and to send forth; all of which the Spirit is also said to have from the Son.”

From the same, from a discourse in the form of a dialogue, of a Montanist and an Orthodox

LXXXI. “Just as there is nothing intermediate between mind and word and breath, ^B so there is nothing intermediate between the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. But one must understand the Spirit as perfect in a perfect hypostasis proceeding from the Father.”

Animadversion. “Do you hear from whom the Spirit proceeds?”

Refutation. “But pay attention, and fix your mind carefully upon the example, which, just as from a first cause and principle, the Father, insinuates that the Spirit proceeds through the Son, just as breath is from the mind through the word.”

SAYINGS OF SAINT CYRIL

From the Thesaurus

LXXXII. ^C “Since those of the opposing side put these things forward ignorantly, it is necessary now to proceed to those things through which the harm, which they foolishly and blasphemously attempt to introduce, may be repelled. We do not say that all things are from God in this way, just as we say the Spirit is; for the latter exists in Him naturally and adheres essentially, if I may put it that way, and proceeds from Him indivisibly; but works and the creatures of ^D action are produced through the Son in the Spirit, and in this way are understood to be from God. But if you are not persuaded by these words of ours, and place creatures and the Spirit in the same category, because it too is said to be from God just as they are, what prevents us from saying in reply to our opponents: If all things are from God, just as the Spirit is, and there is nothing unique in Him that does not also shine forth in creatures, why does not each one of the creatures, when it is said to be from God, know the things of God and search the depths of God? And why does God not reveal through all things, but only through the Spirit? Since, therefore, other creatures receive revelation through the Spirit, while the Spirit Himself searches the depths of God, as one who naturally exists in Him, just as that which is human exists in man, it remains manifest that the Spirit is God, possessing the claim of being from another properly and naturally as God, while the remaining creatures are so called more loosely, as those produced by a Maker and Creator, and therefore said to be from Him.”

^A

Observation.

Refutation.

From the same.

LXXXIII. “We say that the Holy Spirit is from God, and so we believe. But those who are most inclined only to blaspheme, assert that all other things also were produced from God, as Paul writes: ‘One God, the Father, from whom are all things.’ ^C Then they think they can refute [the claim] that the Spirit is from the essence of the Father, because the [phrase] ‘from whom’ is also applied to creatures—[the phrase] which, when posited regarding the Spirit, demonstrates that He exists naturally from the essence. But it is easy to answer this: even when the discussion is about the Son, the name ‘Son’ is applied strictly [to Him], though it is also applied to humans abusively; for that which is applied by addition and by grace will not subvert that which possesses it naturally. In the same way, when ‘from whom’ is predicated of creatures, it does not draw down to their own humility and consubstantiality the loftiness and divinity of the Spirit; but that ‘from whom’ will remain in Him strictly, because He is from the essence of the Father, ^D while it will also reach toward those things, because it [refers to] bringing things that were not into existence, namely, through the Son.”

Observation.

Refutation.

he determines the same, that He is also from the essence of the Son. For he who considers these things attentively would not justly oppose those who affirm that He is from both. ^A

*From the same.*

LXXXIV. "Therefore, if the Holy Spirit demonstrates those in whom He dwells to be sons of God, and makes them partakers of the divine nature, so that we, united in this way to God who is above all, cry out with greatest confidence, 'Abba, Father,' He will surely not be ranked among servants or among creatures, but will rather bear naturally the dignity of the divine essence, existing from it, and by it being supplied to the saints through the Son."

*Animadversion.*

Do you see? Since he had here obscurely inculcated that the Spirit exists from the divine essence, lest he should give an handle for reasoning to those who assert that He is from the Son, he added, "and by it being supplied to the saints through the Son." He plainly decreed that the existence of the Spirit is from the Father, but the supply is through the Son. ^B

*Refutation.*

The saint did not obscurely define here that the Spirit exists from the divine essence, but rather, by saying that He exists from it and is supplied by it to the saints through the Son, he declared plainly that, just as He is supplied by it because He exists from the divine essence, so also is He supplied through the Son, as existing through the Son. For if the supply of the Spirit is one, it will not be that He is from the divine essence as existing from it, but in another way through the Son; but [He is supplied] entirely as the Spirit who exists through the Son. ^C

*From the same.*

LXXXV. "It is written again: 'The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God.' For as He exists from the essence of Him who supplies Him to the saints—namely Christ—and as God the Word dwells in us and comes into us through the Spirit, we ascend to the dignity of adoption, possessing within ourselves the Son, into whom we are also transformed by the participation of His Spirit; and advancing to an equal level of confidence, we dare to say, ^D 'Abba, Father.' Therefore, the Spirit is God, if He makes those who receive Him gods."

*Animadversion.*

Consider attentively how, in asserting that the Spirit is from the essence of the Son on account of consubstantiality, as we said above—lest anyone should have thought that His procession is also from the Son—he called Him the 'giver' of the Spirit and not the 'producer,' and by insinuating the equal honor of both, he said that the Son dwells in us through the Spirit.

*Refutation.*

In the above-stated animadversion, you declare: "But there will remain strictly to Him that 'from which'," because the saint said that the Spirit is from the essence of the Son.

^A You do not blush to distort this into another meaning, although, even if you say the Spirit is from the essence of the Father in one way, and from the essence of the Son in another—saying that He is from the essence of the Father as existing from the Father, but from the essence of the Son on account of consubstantiality—know that the difference in your exposition converges into the same meaning. For that which exists from the essence of the Father is consubstantial with the Father, and that which exists from the essence of the Son is consubstantial with the Son. If this is not the case, perhaps some difference might be assumed to exist between the essence of the Father and the Son, and that the Spirit differs from Himself, now proceeding in one way from the essence of the Father, and now in another from the essence of the Son. To such absurdities and enormities do your perverse expositions conduct.

From the same.

LXXXVI. "Since, therefore, those who have received the Holy Spirit, possessing Him as God within themselves, prophesy and are on this account objects of human admiration, how shall He be a creature, and not rather a habitual participation of the most sublime essence, naturally passing through from the Father through the Son to those who are apt to receive Him?"

Animadversion.

"Do not seek anything clearer than this; for you will find here, in a manner most wonderful, this great teacher of piety dividing the prepositions, and attributing *from* to the Father, but *through* to the Son."

Refutation.

How blessed you would be, my man, if you did not boast so much of the divisions of prepositions, from which no weight is added to the truth, but instead diligently investigated the meaning which is inherent in the passages handed down in writing. And observe in what way this saint, when he had called the Spirit God, proceeding habitually in the prophets, named Him a participation, "a habitual [participation] of the most sublime essence naturally passing through from the Father through the Son to those who are apt to receive Him." Since, therefore, the Holy Spirit is a habitual participation of the most sublime essence of all, passing through from the Father through the Son to the worthy, how is it not most manifest that the most sublime essence of all is established from the Father through the Son into the divine Spirit, even as Gregory, who justly claimed for himself the name of Theologian, testifies in the heroic poem in which he delivers precepts to virgins, saying: "One God from the Begetter through the Son into the great Spirit, the divinity standing perfect in the perfect." And if the saint determines that the absolute perfection of divinity is established from the Father through the Son into the great Spirit—which he has also handed down in his other writings, when he says: "For the Monad, moved from the beginning into a binary, has stood in the Trinity"—how will the Spirit not be from the Father through the Son, whence theology has asserted that "From both"?

From the same, from his interpretation of the prophet Joel.

LXXXVII. "For in what way He is God, and from God according to ^D

^A nature the Son—for He is truly begotten of God and Father, and is His own—and in Him and from Him is the Spirit, just as indeed it is understood also of God and Father himself; but in that He became man, and appeared according to us, He is said to have the Spirit as an acquisition. For He descended also upon Him in the form of a dove, when, having become as we are, as I have said, He was economically baptized as one of us, then also His own Spirit is said to have been given to Him according to the human condition, and this is the emptying."

Animadversion.

Refutation.

From the same, from the first book On Worship and Cult in Spirit and Truth.

Animadversion.

Refutation.

whether we say the Holy Spirit is from the Father through the Son, or from both.

From the same, from the prosphonetic oration to the great Theodosius, which is held among the acts of the third ecumenical council.

^A LXXXIX. "Whence the divine Peter thus addresses the Jews: 'Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'¹ For, forgiving sins to those who cleave to Him, He soon imparts His own Spirit, whom the Word indeed, inasmuch as He proceeds from God the Father, sends forth, and transfuses into us from His own nature as if from a certain fountain: nay, even with this faculty, on account of the union and the economy of the incarnation, equally in a certain manner communicated with man, He also breathes it corporally as man; for He breathed upon the holy apostles, saying: 'Receive the Holy Spirit.'² And He does not again give the Spirit by measure, according to the voice of John, but He Himself sends Him forth from Himself, just as the Father also pours Him forth. Whence that great Apostle Paul, taking away this whole controversy from the midst, ^B now attributes this matter to God and the Father, now again to the Son Himself. For thus he writes: 'But you are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. If, however, anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, this one is not His. If, however, Christ is in you, the body indeed is dead on account of sin; but the spirit lives on account of justice.'³ It is plain, therefore, that the Spirit is also the property of the Son, and not only inasmuch as the Word proceeded from the Father, but even if He be considered according to the flesh as having been made man, He is not destitute of the properties of divinity, which pertain to His own nature."

Animadversion.

^C "Do you hear how the saint here says that the Spirit appears from the Father, but is sent also by the Son, no otherwise than from the Father, on account of the equality of nature and the indivisibility of essence? Do not, furthermore, let it disturb you that he says He pours Him forth from His own nature as if from a fountain. For when you have learned that He proceeds from the fountain, that is, from God and the Father, ^D know that the essence of God the Father and of the Son is one, true, and immutable, and draw this into that sentiment, namely, that He emanates to us from the fountain through the Son."

Refutation.

From this thy animadversion, we accept what thou puttest in the last place to refute these thy nugatory interpretations. For since thou wishest "to pour forth the Spirit from His own nature as if from a fountain" to be understood in this sense, namely, that He emanates to us from the fountain through the Son, I already hold thee, as one who had previously confessed that the powers of the prepositions *from* and *through*, when the discourse is about the Son, differ not at all, whether they be from the Father through the

¹ Act. II, 38. ² Joan. XX, 22. ³ Rom. VIII, 9, 10.

both, as from one source, to say that this derives its origin.

*From the letter to certain Orthodox presbyters and monks.*

^A XC. When the thrice-blessed Fathers had finished their discourse concerning Christ, they make mention of the Holy Spirit. For they said that one must believe in Him, just as, indeed, one believes in the Father and the Son. For He is consubstantial with them, and flows forth, that is, proceeds as if from a source, from God and the Father; but He is supplied to the creation through the Son. Therefore, He breathed upon His own disciples, saying: receive the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the Spirit is from God, and He is God, not alien to the essence which is above all, but from it, and in it, and proper to it. ^B

*Animadversion.*

Note also that this saint, consistently with those who preceded him, calls the Father the source of the Spirit, decreeing that from Him it is poured forth, that is, proceeds, but that the Son is the provider. Observe also how, having said that this is not alien to the essence that is above all, he has, in a very wonderful way—as it seems to me for the moment—distinguished between the Father and the Son, adding "from it" and "in it," and assigning "from it" to the Father, and "in it" to the Son, and then again uniting both by adding "proper to it." Observe also how our previous note, concerning the Son producing Him from His own nature as from a source, is clearly confirmed by the present passage, which asserts that He is poured forth as from a source from God and the Father, but is supplied to the creation through the Son. ^C

*Refutation.*

If, because the Father is said in the aforementioned passage to be the source of the Spirit, you decree that the Spirit is from Him, but because the Son is said to be the provider, that He is not from Him, see for yourself: whenever you hear the great Athanasius saying, "The Son who is with the Father is the source of the Holy Spirit," and decreeing that the Spirit is from the Son; and when again, in the dialogue which the same great Athanasius composed between an Orthodox and an Anomoean, you hear him saying, "God provides the Spirit," and citing the Apostle's word to strengthen his own point, saying of the Father: "He who supplies the Spirit to us, and works powers in us," do not decree that He is from the Father, but—O man—that He is from the Son as from a source, and is distributed to the worthy from the Father as from a provider; ^D know that whatever is said to be from the Father and from the Son, and from the Father through the Son, is said as from one God. For the Holy Spirit is breathed forth from both, and poured forth from both, and supplied from both, and all these things are as from one God; and the most divine Cyril will establish the argument for me in the sixth book of his works to Hermias, saying thus: "For whatever might be done by the Father, this in all respects will be the operation of the Son, and whatever would

whatever is said to be effected by the Son, this same thing is altogether said to be accomplished by the Father, for all things are from both in equal measure. And again: "How shall we not grant that life is shed upon us through both in equal measure, and not from two, but as from one sole God who quickens all things?" The great Athanasius will further confirm these things for me, saying: "The Father, he says, gives grace and peace, and the Son gives the same. For there is one and the same grace from the Father in the Son, just as there is one light of the sun and of the radiance, and the shedding of light by the sun comes to pass through the radiance." And adding: "For this reason, Paul also, writing to the Thessalonians, says: *But God himself our Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, direct our way unto you* (1 Thess. III, 11), he preserved the unity of the Father and the Son; for he did not say 'direct' (in the plural), as if the thing were granted by two, by this one and by that one, but 'direct' (in the singular), so as to show that the Father grants it through the Son."

From the second of the orations to Hermias.

XCI. ^B "For you will conceive of the Father as the supreme root, beyond which you shall neither understand nor conceive of anything; and you will accept the Son as born and begotten from the supreme root, who has not obtained his generation in time in an order equal to created things, nor in one inferior to those in which the Father declares the beauty of His own nature, but as coeternal and having an equal measure in all things, except for this: that He begets, for that is fitting for God and Father alone. And you will call the Holy Spirit, who naturally proceeds from God the Father through the Son, as if in the figure of a breath issuing from the mouth, [the Spirit] that indicates His own existence to us. And thus, preserving the clear and unconfused peculiarity of the three hypostases in their own existences, you will adore the one and consubstantial nature, the queen of all."

Observation.

Refutation.

From the third oration of the same treatise.

XCII. "But let us by no means ever imagine that God the Son is something external and recently born, or that He is sanctified, or indeed called to sonship by God, and receives an adventitious glory"

^A but rather that we possess by the law of nature that which He Himself is; nor that He is received into the Son through His own Spirit. For that the Spirit is the Son’s own, just as it is, naturally, the Father’s, one might learn even with very little labor, the Lord Himself saying: "If then you, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask Him?" And again: "For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you." And Paul likewise wrote to the believers thus: "But you are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. But if Christ is in you, the body indeed is dead because of sin, but the spirit is alive because of righteousness." ^B The Holy Spirit, therefore, who adorns us who are on earth with the glory of sonship, since He belongs to the Son, will effect adoption in others, but will be altogether inactive regarding Him whose own He is; neither is He something that has entered from outside, nor has He arrived from elsewhere, but He exists substantially as His own, and is poured forth through Him to those worthy to receive Him according to the good pleasure of the Father. Do I not seem to you to say and think these things correctly? Herm. Absolutely. Cyril. But the minister of the divine mysteries, John, when he comes into the midst crying out about God and us: "In this we know that He is in us, because He has given us of His Spirit," how would it not be entirely easy to see that the Son is truly God and has proceeded from the substance of God and the Father, if indeed He is as God, and it is not some other spirit of His that dwells in us? And furthermore, I say this: if the Spirit of God and the Father, in whom He vivifies and sanctifies the nature of those things which have been brought into being, is the own Spirit of the Son, who would arrive at such mental confusion as to think or say that He has fallen away from consubstantiality with the Father and God, and is among creatures, and does not bestow those things which are specific to the divine nature and its preeminent definitions upon the creature, in such a way that nothing appears to vary, but that the creature and the nature possess an equal measure, with that which has sovereignty over all? ^C

Observation. Here, the Holy Spirit is called the Son’s "own," just as He is also the Father’s, by reason of the oneness of nature, but not by reason of the procession. And observe accurately how, where the saint mentions the Son, he says the Spirit is "His," and "in Him," and "through Him," but where he speaks of the Father, he adds the preposition "from," as can be seen here. ^D

Refutation. Since this saint teaches that the Spirit is the Son’s own, just as, naturally, He is the Father’s, I

^A would certainly assert that, just as He is proper to the Father by the fact that He is from the Father, so He is proper to the Son by the fact that He is through the Son, and thus the Spirit is proper to both, because He proceeds from both. But if, as you also argue, the Spirit is proper to the Son and the Father on account of one and the same nature, this does not displease me either. For since He is proper to both, because He proceeds from both, and because He proceeds from both, He is therefore consubstantial with both Father and Son; he who calls Him the proper Spirit of the Father and the Son on account of one and the same nature departs in no way from the truth, even if, by managing the discourse in a more sophisticated manner, he wishes perhaps to prove from this that the Spirit is not also from the Son.

From the same, from the same oration.

XCIII. ^B "But while Holy Scripture addresses us: 'Every good gift, and every perfect gift, is from above, descending from the Father of lights, with whom there is no transmutation, nor shadow of change,' whence, do you think, does the distribution of divine graces to us occur?" Herm. "From God the Father, clearly." Cyril. "Nay, even by His own authority Christ gave to the holy apostles strength against unclean spirits, so that they might cast them out and cure every disease and every infirmity among the people; and, what is more excellent than these, He commanded them to be able to overcome death itself in a most divine manner, saying: 'Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons.' ^C And the divine John confessed this most manifestly, saying: 'Of His fullness we all have received.' But could a good gift and a perfect gift be anything else, as it seems to you, than to become a participant of the Holy Spirit?" Herm. "In no way." Cyril. "Therefore observe, I pray, my friend, even from these things, how the Son has His own inborn Holy Spirit—such that He is not something added—and through whom every good gift exists. For after He rose again, having destroyed corruption and shaken off the bonds of death, guiding us back to sanctification and the primordial beauty of nature, just as in the beginning of the human race, He breathed upon the faces of the apostles, saying: 'Receive the Holy Spirit.' ^D But if every perfect gift is from above and from the Father, yet the Son effects their distribution not as a minister, but rather by divine authority, in what way then will He cease to be, according to nature, what He is who begat Him—that is, true God—and not merely overshadowed by some adulterated honors as if on a painted panel?"

Animadversion.

"Consider with an attentive mind the things said: that every perfect gift is from above from the Father, but that the Son effects their distribution not as a minister, but acts by His own authority as God."

^A Refutation. Consider what is concluded for you from this animadversion? From these things which are contained in the animadversion, it is clear to demonstrate that the Spirit is the common Spirit of the Father and the Son.

Excerpts from the sixth oration of the same treatise.

XCIV.

To whom do we say the Holy Spirit belongs?

^A he shall take," and should characterize [His] natural essence, and not at all as if it were divided by way of participation. You should understand in the same way also concerning the Son and the Spirit. For, being the Spirit of wisdom and discernment, He is altogether wisdom and power, preserving in Himself the efficacy in its entirety from the One who sends Him forth, and demonstrating well in His own nature what He is. But since He added the words, "He shall take of my own," He necessarily appended: "All things whatsoever the Father hath are mine: therefore said I unto you, that he shall take of mine." For just as He is holy by nature, since He is the Spirit of the holy Father, so also is He wise, since He is the Spirit of wisdom, and the Son is Wisdom. And we do not say that the Spirit is holy and wise according to some habit and ^B participation, but rather substantially, and as it were a certain natural quality of the holy and wise Godhead, which is understood as being in the Father and the Son, and in the Spirit Himself. Moreover, that the Spirit of the Father is the Spirit of the Son, He Himself will instruct us by His own words, saying: "When the Paraclete shall come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall bear witness of me." You understand, therefore, how He promises that He will send to us as His own the One who is from the Father, and while He calls Him the Spirit of truth, He has defined Him to be flowing forth from the Father Himself, and He also proclaims that He will bear witness concerning Himself. ^C Her. And how is the mode of this testimony to be understood? Cyril. For since He has performed the works of God through the hands of the saints, He has clearly testified that the Son is God, whose Spirit [the Holy Spirit] also is, just as He is indeed the Spirit of the Father.

Animadversion

Refutation

of truth, who proceeds from the Father," ^A he adds immediately, as if in questioning: "Do you understand, therefore, how he promises that he will send to us his own [Spirit] from the Father, and calls him the Spirit of truth, yet defines that he emanates from the Father himself?" And indeed in the Gospel the Lord said that he proceeds. But the saint, repeating the word of the Lord, used the term "emanate" in place of "proceed." And this is a clear demonstration that, in respect to the Spirit, "to emanate" and "to proceed" are the same thing. And the phrase "from the Father himself" declares that he is not from any other principle of a different substance. For if, as you think, it was added to distinguish [the Spirit] from the Son, how could the saint have concluded that the Spirit is the own [Spirit] of both, from the fact that he is from the Father through the Son?

Of the same, from the same treatise.

XCV. ^B "The nature of the one Divinity is known in the holy and consubstantial Trinity, both by us and by the holy angels; and the Father is perfect according to his own hypostasis, and similarly also the Son and the Spirit. But the creative will of one of those named—whatever it may be said to come to pass—is indeed his operation, yet it runs through the entire Divinity, and is the effect of that essence which is above every creature, as being common to all, and yet also properly belonging to each person. That, therefore, which is effected from one nature through three hypostases, is properly attributed to each, as one which subsists perfectly ^C in itself. The Father works, therefore, but through the Son in the Spirit; the Son acts also, but as the power of the Father, being understood as from him and in him according to his own existence; the Spirit works also, for the Spirit is the all-effecting [Spirit] of the Father and the Son."

Note.

"Here the saint teaches nothing else, I think, than [the Spirit's] consubstantiality with the Father and the Son."

Refutation.

This consubstantiality of the Spirit with the Father and the Son, which you say the saint is teaching here, ^D comes from nowhere else than the fact that the Spirit is from the Father through the Son. Nor is the testimony to be sought far from here, but in the preceding passage, where the saint said that the Spirit is of both, as one who is from the Father through the Son; and he added that the consubstantiality draws its origin from this, on account of the identity of essence. For from this the Trinity is bound together according to continuity and natural conjunction—to speak again with the same—and from this, to use his words again, arises their mutual introduction, which others of the saints have called mutual circuminsession.

From the same [treatise].

XCVI. "The Spirit of God, therefore, knows the things which are in God, and nothing is hidden or obscured from him. He knows; for how could it be otherwise? If, therefore, he is the one who knows all things that are in the Father, and clearly in...

^Adicates that this is brought to the holy apostles, "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." Does not that saying brought forward earlier already manifest itself to you? Do you see that he has called the Paraclete the Spirit of truth? Indeed, he intends by this to intimate that he proceeds from the Father, manifesting that all things which are the Father's are his own.

Animadversio. Here again he teaches the progression of the Spirit from the Father: yet he asserts that he is also the Spirit of the Son, because he is of one and the same nature with him.

Refutatio. Just as the previously discussed passage, because of the identity of [the terms] "to be poured out" and "to proceed," showed that the Spirit is from the Father and the Son—for if it is the same thing to be poured out and to proceed in the case of the Spirit, why will not that which is poured out from both be from both?—in the same way, the passage now brought forward shows the same thing, for the saint, asking the question, says: "Have you noticed that he has called the Paraclete the Spirit of truth?" And indeed, he implies this when he says that he proceeds [or goes forth] from the Father. For what the Savior called "to proceed," the saint called "to go forth," recognizing no difference between these terms. ^B

From the same treatise to Hermias, concerning the Holy Spirit.

XCVII. "It is so," he says, "we have known God the Father and the Son; but not likewise the Spirit. But we shall not bring forward those who are blinded in their mind. For we shall not pay heed to seducing spirits, as Scripture says, but rather we shall believe that the Holy Spirit exists essentially in God, just as the human spirit exists in a human. And just as if someone were to name for us, for instance, Peter or John, he would at the same time and together with them indicate their own spirit which is in them, and would demonstrate the whole living being, I think [we should reason] in the same way concerning the Father and the Son. For the Spirit is indicated together with each of them, and not as if he were a part of him, as we conceive in the case of humans. For he subsists personally, and proceeds from his own nature, and the Son himself indeed supplies him to the worthy." ^D

Animadversio. Learn from these things also that the Spirit indeed proceeds from the Father, but is supplied by the Son.

Refutatio. If you did not find in nearly innumerable places of the Scriptures that the Spirit proceeds from the Son, you would rightly make a distinction...

between the terms "to proceed forth" and "to provide." But since it is written in one place that the Father sends forth the Spirit from His own nature, and in another that the Son also sends Him forth from His own nature, why do you contrive these differences between "to proceed forth" and "to provide"?

From the same, from the same. ^A XCVIII. "Nothing, therefore, is to move or hinder us from believing that it is proper to the divine nature that the Holy Spirit naturally exists both from it and in it—even if He is neither the Father nor the Son—but whatever that nature of the Spirit may be, it is necessary not to inquire too curiously for the present by neglecting the property of names; for this does not demonstrate the deity, but rather it indicates quite well the mode of existence of each of the named as it is conceived by us. For the name 'Father' indicates that He has begotten, and 'Son' has made clear that He has been begotten; and indeed, the designation ^B 'Spirit' has declared that the Spirit is from God and the Father, and is also proper to the Son Himself, after the manner of our human spirit, even if He is understood to exist and truly subsists in an hypostasis."

Animadversio. ^C "Apply your mind carefully and accurately to this passage. For you will be able to gather something harmonious from it, and you will admire the saint’s exactness. For when he had said that the Holy Spirit is of the divine nature, and had thus added 'that which is from it and in it,' and by 'that which is from it' [he meant] from the Father, and by 'that which is in it' [he meant] in the Son—as I personally believe—he, not wishing to draw the reader into one interpretation after another on account of the obscurity, explained what had been obscure from what follows, ^D saying openly that 'the Spirit is from God and the Father, and is truly proper also to the Son Himself.'"

Refutatio. "You have not been able to gather the harmony of the stated passage skillfully. For what is truly harmonious in the aforementioned passage is that the saint asserted that the Holy Spirit is in God just as the human [spirit] is in man, in which he also asserted that He is proper to the Son after the manner of the human spirit. And from this it is gathered by him who truly fixes his mind on these passages that He is the Spirit of the Father, because He is from the Father, and the Spirit of the Son, because He is through the Son and from the Son. Since, as the example proves, every human spirit proceeds through the human [spirit] or from the human mouth."

From the same, from the same.

XCIX.

but as free by nature, and as the Spirit of Truth itself? Or rather, as the Truth itself, according to the Scriptures, by the union with the Son, and Christ is the Truth? ^A Natural identity with the Son, therefore, is enough justification and assurance for us that the Spirit is God."

Observation.

Refutation.

From the twelve chapters, chapter nine.

^{C D}

C.

Observation.

Refutation.

blasphemy, strikes with an anathema him who says that Christ used an alien faculty of the Spirit. It must be considered, therefore, lest the opinion of those who assert that the Spirit is not through the Son and from the Son should fall into a similar blasphemy. For whence else would the power [operating] through the Spirit be recognized as alien to the Son, if not from one point alone—that it does not exist from the Son? For there will be no other alienation of the Spirit from the Son, except that it exists from the Father alone, and not through the Son. And the same great Cyril ^B clarifies this ^B in his explanation of the statement in the Gospel of John, "When the Paraclete comes," saying in these very words: "Besides what has been said, this also will necessarily follow. For if you think that a servile ministry is exercised by the Son, as he provides what is alien to us—that is, the Spirit who is holy by nature from God and the Father—[implying] God is not holy by nature, but by participation just as we are." Do you see where the saint infers the alienation of the Spirit from the Son? "If anyone," he says, "says that the Spirit, who without doubt exists from God and the Father, is provided by the Son in a servile manner, he calls the Spirit alien to the Son; and it will follow that he is not holy by nature, but only by participation, just as we are." Into these absurd opinions do those seem to me to fall, who do not confess that the Spirit exists through the Son.

Explanation of the same ninth chapter.

^C CI. "I have already said that the virtue of the chapters ^C opposes the babblings, or rather the blasphemies, of Nestorius and his excessively reckless pronouncements; for while he said concerning the Holy Spirit: 'He who conferred such glory upon Christ, who made him terrible to demons, and granted him the ascension into the heavens,' and as if he were prattling these things about some common man among us, the anathema was rendered necessary—not against those who say that Jesus was glorified by the Holy Spirit, that is, the Word of God who became man; but rather against those who impudently say that he used the power through the Spirit as if it were alien. For we remember him saying concerning the Holy Spirit, 'He will glorify me.' We know, moreover, that by the operation of the Holy Spirit he crushes ^D the most wicked and unclean ^D powers; but we do not say of him, as we do of each of the saints, that he used the power of the Holy Spirit as if it were alien. For it was and is his Spirit, just as it certainly is the Father's. And this the divine Paul explains to us well enough, writing: 'Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. But you are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, this one is not his.' For the Holy Spirit proceeds from God and the Father according to the voice of the Savior, but he is not alien to the Son. For all things...

^A that the Father has are mine. On account of this, I said to you that he will take from what is mine and will announce it to you. Therefore, the Holy Spirit has indeed glorified Jesus by working wonders, yet as his Spirit and not as an alien power, and one superior to him, in the sense that he is understood as God. We have not, therefore, blasphemed against the holy angels, nor indeed against the prophets, as he who knows only how to accuse has dared to say. Since, however, it is the design of him and his followers to divide the one Christ into two, and to say that the one is being glorified and is being acted upon, while the other is both glorifying and acting; they foolishly carp at every pious discourse and at those who would turn them away from such a perverse opinion. And truly, this calumniator, reflecting on the blessed Gabriel, makes the argument: 'For he,' he says, 'was the first to proclaim that Christ according to the flesh was born of the Holy Spirit, even before his formation.' Therefore, there is one Christ and another Christ specifically according to the flesh, and indeed again the Word who is from God the Father. Where, then, is the union, and what is the benefit from it, if two Christs are understood and preached specifically and separately? Therefore, granted that they don the mask of piety and say there is one Christ, while in truth they think there are two, let them hear from us: 'How long will you halt between two ^B opinions?' For it would be better to walk uprightly, having a faith that is pure and firm, and not one that limps along with foolish notions.

Animadversion.

The teaching of the saint is very clear here as well. For he asserts again in the same place that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, and he brings forward the Savior himself as the teacher of such a dogma, and says that he is proper to the Son and not alien, as being consubstantial.

Refutation.

You say that the Spirit is proper to the Son and not alien, because he is consubstantial with the Son. But I would say that the Spirit is consubstantial with the Son because he is proper to the Son, so that it does not follow that the Son is also said to be proper to the Spirit, as if being consubstantial with the Spirit. But when you say that Saint Cyril brings forward the Savior as the teacher saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, you must know, as we have hinted in other places, that the Dominical voice is taken by the Saint to confirm that the Spirit is from the Father, just as in other places by the Saint Cyril himself and by many other theological Fathers, other Dominical sayings are taken—among which are those which assert that the Spirit of truth is the Holy Spirit, and those which declare that he receives from the Son—to prove that he is also from the Son. ^C

From the same, from the third epistle to Nestorius.

^A 12. When he speaks regarding the Spirit, “He shall glorify me,” we who understand it correctly do not say that the one Christ and Son is in need of glory from another, such that he has glory from the Holy Spirit, since the Spirit is not even superior to him. But because he used his own Spirit as a demonstration of his own divinity for the working of miracles, he says he is glorified by him, just as if one of us were to say concerning the strength or knowledge that resides in him, “My virtue or my knowledge will glorify me.” For even if the Spirit subsists in his own hypostasis and is understood by himself, in that he is Spirit and not the Son, nonetheless he is not foreign to him. For he has been named the Spirit of truth, just as indeed he is also from God the Father. Therefore, the Spirit, having acted through the hands of the holy apostles to perform wonders after our Lord Jesus Christ ascended into heaven, glorified him. For it was believed that he who is God by nature was working once again through his own Spirit. Again, he himself, working through the Holy Spirit, said: “He shall take from what is mine and will declare it to you.” And we do not say anywhere that the Spirit is wise and powerful by participation; for he is altogether perfect and lacks no good. And since he is the Spirit of the Father's power and wisdom, that is to say, of the Son, he is wisdom and power in very essence.

Observation.

^C Hear this passage intelligently, and let not the fact that the saint says here that the Spirit is poured out from the Son, just as he is from God the Father, trouble you. But immediately call to mind those same and entire passages of the same saint that were recorded above, and finding in all of them the procession of the Spirit from the Father being attested, but the giving, or the supply, or the mission, and like things from the Son, understand ^D here also that the “out-flowing” thus placed without distinction indicates something other than the procession—perhaps a giving, or a mission, or something else of that sort.

Refutation.

The saint here says that the Spirit is poured out from the Son, just as indeed he is from God the Father. If, therefore, as you say, the “out-flowing” signifies a giving or a mission, that which is poured out from both will have been given or sent from both. And if the Spirit is understood to be given or sent from both as existing from both, that which we seek is established therefrom, which is that the giving and mission from both follows from the Spirit’s existence from both. But if being given and sent from both is understood not as existing from both, then something else will be sought beyond these three persons of the divinity, from which...

^A the Spirit will exist; which is impious and blasphemous.

*Of the same, from the interpretation of the holy Symbol.*

CIII. ^B "For it is poured forth—that is to say, it proceeds—just as from a fountain, from God and the Father, but it is supplied to the creation through the Son."

*Observation.* The testimony of the previous note is rendered for you in brief by the present passage. For consider here the accurate diligence of the saint: when he had spoken of "pouring forth," and had interpreted this as "procession," he taught that this belongs to the Father alone; but he vindicated the "supplying" to the Son. Wherefore, ^B "being poured forth," as simply placed by the saint in the previous passage, indicates something else, and not procession.

*Refutation.* You, indeed, as also above, invent a different signification for the word "pouring forth," whence you conclude that the expression denotes one thing when it is said that the Spirit is poured forth from the Father, and something else when it is said that He is poured forth from the Son. But the most divine Cyril, the light of the Alexandrians and of the world, in the passage brought forward above, said that the Spirit is "poured forth from the Son, just as, indeed, from God and the Father." And what witness more worthy of faith can we seek to confirm that the significance of the word does not vary in any way in either case? But if, because the saint attributes "pouring forth" to the Father, but "supplying" to the Son in the said passage, you therefore wish the Spirit to have His existence from the Father, but not from the Son, it is time at last for you to concede that He exists from the Son, as one who is poured forth from the Son as from a fountain, and that He does not exist from the Father, as one who is supplied by Him to the creatures.

*Of the same, from the letter to John of Antioch concerning peace.*

CIV. ^C "We do not in any way allow that that faith, or the Symbol of the faith which was published by the holy Fathers, should be shaken by anyone. Nor, indeed, do we allow either ourselves or any other person at all to change a single word placed therein, or even to pass over a single syllable, mindful of Him who said: 'Do not remove the ancient landmarks which your fathers have set.' For they themselves did not speak, but the Spirit of God and the Father Himself, who indeed proceeds from Him, yet is not, on account of that, alien to the Son according to the rationale of essence."

*Observation.* Do you see the most clear ^D doctrine, that the Spirit indeed proceeds from the Father, but according to the rationale of essence is proper to the Son? Wherefore, when you find written in other places that which is not so easily grasped, compare those things to these most clear teachings.

^A Refutation. When the saint says that the Spirit is not alien to the Son according to the rationale of essence, he does not indicate what your [Animadversion] insinuates—namely, that He is the Son’s own, since He is consubstantial with the Son. For so, as has been frequently impressed upon you, the Son would also be the Spirit’s own, because He is consubstantial with the Spirit. But he says that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, signifying that He is from the essence of the Father, yet he teaches that He is not alien to the Son, because He is also from His essence. For this is what he implies when he says: "For He is not alien to the Son according to the rationale of essence."

[Of] the same, from the *Antirrhetics against Julian*. ^B CV. "Ineffably, indeed, the Spirit proceeds from the Father, but through the Son He is supplied to creation."

Animadversion. "And this [passage] is not unlike those brought forward above, which insinuate the procession from the Father, but the supplying of the Spirit through the Son."

Refutation. Truly, this passage too insinuates the procession from the Father, but the supplying of the Spirit through the Son. But from this he shows that He is not from the Father alone. For that no one, hearing the voice of the evangelical witness, ^C "The Spirit who proceeds from the Father," might suspect that the Spirit is from the Father alone—a notion accompanied by the opinion that the Spirit is divided from the Son and consequently alien to the Son—one of the saints, when he said that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, immediately added, "and He is not alien to the Son." Another, when he had said similarly that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, subjoined, "and He is proper to the Son." But this saint here added to the procession from the Father, "and He is supplied to creation through the Son." All of which clearly show that He is not from the Father alone. For if He were from the Father alone, and not naturally and essentially from the Son, He would not be supplied and sent to creation through the Son, unless in a servile and ministerial way only, ^D which would be impious and blasphemous.

SAYINGS OF SAINT GREGORY OF NYSSA.

Animadversion. "Fix your mind attentively and consider how this sublime-minded Gregory [teaches] the same things with the other

^A fathers, clearly and openly attributing the procession of the Spirit to the Father alone."

Refutation. In this animadversion, we shall offer nothing of our own in opposition, but rather what someone else, one of our predecessors, has said after having most excellently examined the corruption of the word in this passage. For the light of the Nyssenes, Gregory, wishing to demonstrate that the Spirit alone is processible according to His own hypostatic property, brought forth the argument in this way: "For this reason, David has spoken of the 'spirit of the mouth,' but has not spoken of the 'word of the mouth,' in order to confirm ^B that the property of procession belongs solely to the Spirit." But those who distort everything, having found the word *Pneumati* [Spirit] written with three elements [letters] abbreviated, and in the same way the word *Patri* [Father], by changing and corrupting the middle letter—for indeed the change of *n* to *r* is easy—have deceived those who do not read the Scriptures considerately, but cursorily, as if doing something else, by attributing to the Father that which was proper to the Spirit. It must therefore be inquired whether the argument necessarily must be put forward in this way. For suppose David had also said "the Word of the mouth" as the Word, just as he had spoken of the "spirit of the mouth" as the Spirit; would he have been ^C about to share such a processional property with another along with the Father? And what necessity of reasoning demands this? But if he had said that the word of the mouth was the Word, just as he also called the Spirit the "spirit of the mouth," he would necessarily have been about to communicate the processional property to both the Word and the Spirit. For since the words of the mouth are said to proceed—"For those things which proceed," he says, "from my lips I shall not disannul"—if David had called the spirit of the mouth the Spirit, and the word of the mouth the Word, of all necessity the processional property would have needed to be common to both. The saint, therefore, in refuting this, to prove that the processional property belongs solely to the Spirit, assumed that David did not say "word of the mouth." Since these things are indeed so, one can conclude from this how much the stubbornness of men who love their own opinions has harmed ecclesiastical peace. ^D Note, moreover, that instead of saying "David said," the one who corrupted the phrasing said "we said," and observe also the inconsistency of the syntax. For he says "we said" in order to confirm.

From the same [book]. CVII. "So that, by saying 'Word,' we might understand the generation of the Son as being from God and the Father, entirely free from all passion and ineffable; and by having said 'spirit of the mouth,' we might understand the sanctifying and essential power and life-giving hypostasis of the Spirit, designated by the name of the processional property."

Animadversion. "Here also, though perhaps quite obscurely, he again attributes the procession of the Spirit to the Father, just as the generation of the Son."

[Refutation] This pericope most clearly clarifies the corruption of the previous one. For observe that he says the hypostasis of the Spirit is characterized by the name of the property of procession. So also our holy Father Anastasius says in the sixteenth chapter of his book, called the *Hodegos*: "For neither the unbegotten person of the Father took flesh, nor does the hypostasis of the holy Spirit [proceed]." ^A This pericope contains something else elegant, and one who has delved into such elegance—I know not how he could deny that the Spirit is also from the Son. For the saint shows that the very sanctifying and essential and life-originating hypostasis of the Spirit is indicated by David having said, "Spirit of the mouth." ^B If, therefore, the Son is, according to the writings of the Fathers, the mouth of the Father, and the spirit of the mouth is the life-originating and essential hypostasis of the Spirit, how could the Spirit not be through the Son and from the Son, just as through the mouth and from the mouth of the Father? Especially since the great Basil also stated that it proceeds from the mouth of the Father.

From the same one, from the discourse on the holy Spirit against the Macedonians. [CVIII.] "To us, however, who confess the holy Spirit to be reckoned with the Father and the Son, so that there is no difference in all that is conceived and said about the divine nature, if you except those things that are proper to the hypostasis and considered about it; ^C that is to say, that it is from God and from Christ, as it is written; and neither confounded with the Father according to the definition of the unbegotten, nor with the Son according to the generated; but considered in itself by certain proper characteristics of its own, while in all other things, as I said, being conjoined and possessing a nature that is in no way different, according to those who confess this—those who follow the contrary opinion contend that it is alien to a natural communion with the Father."

[Animadversion] "Note here also this 'from the Father,' as we have remarked in many of the preceding pericopes, and attend to the saint's accurate diligence: how, when speaking about God, he prefixed the preposition 'from,' but when he had discourse about the Son, he passed it over." ^D

[Refutation] You consider it a matter of great importance that, when the discourse was about the Son, the preposition "from" was passed over in silence. As if, indeed, the preposition "from" were not implied regarding the Son in countless writings of the Fathers.

[From the same one, from the same.] [CIX.] "For those things which operate according to the good admit no diminution or variation, and how could it be agreeable to reason that, in them, the order which arises from number should be thought to be a sign of any diminution or any variation according to nature?"

as equal to be considered? Just as if someone, seeing the flame divided into three lamps, were to suppose the first flame to be the cause of the third light, kindling the tip by communication through the middle, then later were to argue that heat abounds primarily in the first flame, while in that which follows it is changed and gradually diminished, (so that) the third is no longer even to be considered fire, although it burns and shines in an equal manner and performs all the works of fire. ^A

Animadversion. Do you hear that the first lamp alone is the cause? For the saint indicated this when he added, "through the middle." Deduce, therefore, prudently what arises from this. ^B

Refutation. If you had wished to deduce prudently what arises from the passage already set forth, you would never have asserted that only the first lamp is indicated as the cause, from the fact that the saint said "through the middle," but you would have confessed that the Spirit is from the Father through the Son, just as the third light is through the second from the first flame.

Of the same, from the same. CX. ‹The Holy Spirit works all things in all, as He wills, cause, principal, upright, just, true, searching the deep things of God, proceeding from the Father, receiving from the Son.› ^C

Animadversion. Attend to from whom is the procession of the Spirit, and from whom the receiving, and how this great man in no way insinuates something different from the other holy Fathers. For when they had said the Savior is the giver of the Spirit, he also, in harmony, teaches that the Spirit is received from the same. For we have learned that receiving altogether follows giving.

Refutation. But attend you also to how the procession from the Father and the receiving from the Son signify the same thing, namely, that the Spirit is from both, as the great Epiphanius testifies when he says: "But if Christ is believed to be from the Father, God from God, and the Spirit from Christ, or from both, as Christ says, 'Who proceeds from the Father,' and, 'He shall receive of mine'.*" ^D

Of the same, from the First Antirrhetic against Eunomius. CXI. ‹He is conjoined to the Father according to that which is uncreated, and again separated from him in that He is not Father as that One is; he is conjoined also to the Son according to that which is uncreated, and in that He has the cause of existence from the God of all; he is separated again by property, in that He did not subsist from the Father as only-begotten, and in that He appeared through the Son Himself; again, since He subsisted with the creation through the Son, lest one might think that He has any communion

^A with the creature, it is by means ^B of His appearing through the Son, in His immutability, stability, and goodness, which is extrinsic, that the Spirit is distinguished from the creature.»

**Animadversion.** Observe accurately in what respect the Spirit is joined to God and in what respect He is distinguished. He is joined to Him in that He is uncreated, and that He has the same one cause of His existence as [the Son] has with Him. He is distinguished, furthermore, because He is not begotten as He is, and because He appeared not *out of* Him, but *through* Him. There is, indeed, a great distinction between these two: "out of Him" and "through Him."

**Refutation.** Thanks are due to you, because you have confessed that it is the property of the Spirit not to be begotten, as the Son is, and to appear through the Son. For this assertion openly shows that the Spirit is not from the Father alone; for He would then also be a begotten Son. But since He appears from the Father through the Son, He is from both as from one God altogether.

*Ex eodem* (From the same). CXII. If, therefore, in the uncreated nature the admirable things and names—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—are understood, how is it possible that a mind, which in lower things investigates and pries curiously, and grasping [its objects] by comparing one with another, sets one before another by reason of some temporal interval, should conceive of the uncreated and pre-eternal nature, in which the Father is understood as without beginning and unbegotten and always Father, and from Him, immediately and without interval, the Only-Begotten Son is thought of together with the Father? And through Him and with Him, before any empty and unsubstantial thought can intervene, the Holy Spirit is immediately understood as being conjoined, not appearing posterior to the Son in existence in such a way that the Only-Begotten is thought of before the Spirit at any time; but He has His cause of existence from God, the cause of all things, from whence also the Only-Begotten is Light, and has shone forth through the true Light.

**Animadversion.** Receive here also the same doctrine; it proclaims the Father as the cause of both, namely of the Son and of the Spirit, and insinuates that the Spirit has shone forth from God, not from the Son, but through the Son.

**Refutation.** The quoted passage indeed declares the Father to be the cause of both the Son and the Spirit, but in one way and another: in respect to the Son, by continuity, and in respect to the Spirit, through the Son. And this distinction of the caused [terms] insinuates that one is from the Father alone, and the other is from both. For if both caused [terms] were from the Father alone, the cause would not be a cause in a different way.

^A

From the same.

Observation.

Refutation.

From the Oration to Ablabius.

Observation.

Refutation.

From the same, from the Encomium on the Protomartyr Stephen.

does it not follow that ^A His glory is realized? For how else shall we say that the evangelical voice is true, which says: "No man hath seen God at any time?"

Remark. Note here, too, that the Spirit proceeds from the Father.

Refutation. The passage cited also says that the Spirit proceeds from the Father. But since it declares that the Only-Begotten light is beheld in the Spirit proceeding from Him, how could the Only-Begotten be beheld in the Spirit if the Spirit were from the Father alone as light from light, and not through the Son?

DICTATIONS OF SAINT DIONYSIUS

116. "There is also a distinction in the super-essential ^B names of God, not only, as I have said, in that each of the God-head's hypostases is established unmixed and unconfused according to that very union, but also because that which pertains to His super-essential divine generation is not reciprocal among them. The Father alone is the source of the super-essential Godhead, and thus the Father is not the Son, nor is the Son the Father, but the individual praises proper to each of the divine hypostases are inviolably preserved."

Remark. Do you hear the most acute Dionysius in the exposition of divine things, expressly determining that the Father alone is the source of the super-essential Godhead, that is to say, of the Son and of the Spirit?

Refutation. If you did not strive with ^C an overly stubborn will and an inflexible resolve to interpret as you do the words of the Fathers handed down in writing, you could have perceived from this very authority alone that the one who says the Spirit is also from the Son does nothing to injure the unoriginate Cause—that is, the Father. For just as here the Father is asserted to be the sole source of the super-essential Godhead of the Son and of the Spirit, and this is by no means from elsewhere, but from the fact that the Spirit is said to emanate from the Father not immediately, but through the Son; in the same way, where it is found written that the Father is the cause of the Son and of the Spirit, and the principle and root of the Son and of the Spirit, there is nothing else meant but that the Spirit is also from the ^D Son—the cause without a principle being reserved to the Father, while the Son is taken into account in the procession of the Spirit insofar as the preposition "through" applies.

From the same. 117. "Again, we have received from the Holy Scriptures that the Father is the origin in divine things, while the Son and the Holy Spirit are, as it were, the offspring of God, or, if it is right to say so, as it were, divine shoots and lights, from the sacred..."

words we have received; but how they are so, it is neither possible to speak nor to conceive.

^A Animadversio. Do you see that this authority also agrees with the previous teaching, and proclaims the Father as the fountain of deity, and the Son and the Spirit as the shoots of that fountain, or blossoms, or lights, as if both were entirely from that one [fountain]?

Refutatio. The teaching just cited proclaims that both are caused from one fountain. However, that they should be understood as proceeding from that one fountain in different ways, the example makes no obstacle or hindrance. For the Son and the Spirit were not named by the holy man who spoke thus as shoots "born of God," because they spring forth from there distinctly and, as it were, dividedly—as it is sometimes found in these lower and visible things—but solely because they spring forth. For this word represents the concept of being simply caused, not of the "how" of being caused. And it is possible to perceive this for those who examine it more attentatively, from the fact that he does not call the Father the "root" here, although he has indeed spoken thus in other places. For by calling the Father the fountain of deity, the holy man indicated by the name of shoots, blossoms, and lights the caused [beings] that originate therefrom; none of which have a proportionate relation to the fountain. And it is evident from this that the holy man here signifies being simply caused, and not the "how" of being caused, while none of the other scriptural usages are rejected, which, by showing how the caused [beings] exist in relation to each other and to the cause, said now: ^B "The one proximately from the first, the other through the proximate from the first"; and now: "The Son is the image of the Father, and the Spirit is the image of the Son." And again: "The Son is the operation of the Father, and the Spirit is the operation of the Son, and the Son is the face of the Father, and the Spirit is the face of the Son," and other such things, from which it is shown that the Spirit is not immediately from the Father, but through the Son.

Of the same, from the Epistle to Timothy concerning mystical theology, chapter 3. [CXVII]

"In the theological symbolic representations, we have celebrated those things which are specific to affirmative theology: how the divine and good nature is called single, how it is trinitarian; what is that called 'Paternity' and 'Filiation' according to it, what the theology of the Spirit is intended to signify: how from the immaterial and indivisible good, these cordial lights of goodness have sprung forth, and how, in Him and in themselves and in each other, they have remained, by an eternal coexistence in their springing forth, without departing anywhere."

^C Animadversio. Note also here that both cordial lights have sprung forth from the immaterial and indivisible good, and not one from the two.

^A Refutatio. Just as it is true that the cited pericope manifests that both these cordial lights have sprung forth from the immaterial and indivisible good, so it is also true that, from this very same authority as well as from the preceding one, it is indicated that the saint simply called these caused cordial lights of goodness "caused" from the First, which is the First Cause. And this will be discerned from the fact that all interpreters expounded that prophetic saying which states, "My heart brought forth a good word," ^B solely regarding the generation of the Son, just as they expounded the saying "the Spirit of the mouth of the Father, the Holy Spirit," regarding the existence of the Spirit. If the saint had wished to speak precisely about the existence of each, he would never have named both with the common and undefined name of "cordial lights of goodness" and "caused." But neither would he have called the one Cause itself, I mean the Father, "genitress of the divinity of the divine [beings]" ^C if he had wished precisely to theologize the cause [that is] from Him. For the Father is the genitor of the divine in the proper sense, because He generates the Son as God. But in that He sends forth the Spirit, the Father is neither genitor of the divine nor a father. For then the Spirit would be a Son, if God were the Father of the Spirit, and if also, according to the cause of the Spirit, He were called genitor of the divine. And this is what precision in theology demands. But you, failing to discern that the Father is the cause of those that are from Him in one way, and that the caused [effects] from the First Cause are so in a different way, ^D confuse everything from top to bottom, suggesting to the hearer that the Father is the one cause of the Son and the Spirit.

SAINT MAXIMUS' DICTA

[Note: The end of the page contains the start of the word "ἀσύγχυτος" / "inconfusa"].

and the fountain of eternal life alone and of the Holy Spirit.

Animadversion. Learn from this divine Father also that the Father is the cause of both the Son and the Spirit, being proclaimed as the Genetor of the former, and the fountain of the latter.

Refutation. At length you confess a different cause for the Son and for the Spirit—namely, the Father—as Genetor of the one, and fountain of the other. If, therefore, [the Father] is the proximate cause of both the Son and the Spirit, where is the distinction of cause in the Father? Wherefore it is to be noted by you ^B by what reason the Saint, when he called the Father the fountain, manifested the existence of the Spirit from the Father; so that when you also find the Son called the fountain of the Holy Spirit, you may not delay to confess that the Spirit is also from both. For if, as Saint Cyril reports: “The Son is a participant in all the natural goods of the Father, if you except only paternity, but the Father of the Spirit He is not.” How then will He not communicate with the Father in the emanation of the Spirit, if there are not two fountains, but Father and Son are one fountain of the Spirit?

From the colloquy composed between an Orthodox and a Macedonian.

CXXI. ^C A. Can you show me in what place it is written that the Spirit is God? Why do you lead me about with many words here and there? B. If indeed the holy apostles first knew the Spirit and then the Son, you are right to prefer the knowledge of the Spirit to the knowledge of the Son. But if the Son was first known to them, and then the Spirit, do you first acknowledge the deity of the Son, and thus you will learn also the knowledge of the Spirit. A. I know and believe that the Son is God, begotten of God and the Father, whole from whole. B. Therefore from the essence. A. Not begotten. B. By what reason, then, do you say He is whole from whole, just as any of the angels and other creatures? A. But the Son is the Only-begotten. B. Therefore you call Him Only-begotten because there is no other such as He; or because He alone is begotten from the essence. ^D A. Because no other is such. B. Call, therefore, the Holy Spirit the Only-begotten Son, for there is nothing else like Him. A. Far be it. B. Therefore He is not called Only-begotten because He is the only one such, but because He alone is born from the essence. A. Is the Spirit not from the essence of God? B. Most certainly. A. Therefore He, too, is Son. B. But the Son is begotten from the essence, and for that reason is the Only-begotten Son; the Spirit, however, proceeds from the essence: for it is written, "The Spirit proceeds from Me," but not that He is born. A. And what is the difference between generation and procession? B. He who knows the difference, also knows the mode of generation and procession. But the Prophet cries out that no one knows the mode of generation: "Who [shall declare] His generation?"

^A A. How then do you say that the Son is begotten from the essence, but the Spirit proceeds [from it]? B. I repeat what is written. You speak likewise, and you will be in no danger.

A. Where is it written "from the essence"? B. That all things are from God is written, and you also acknowledge this. A. I acknowledge it. Are then all things from the essence? B. By no means, God forbid. But because, while all things that exist are from God, this One is the Only-begotten Son, whereas there are many sons, it is evident that He is from the essence. A. Is the Spirit also the Only-begotten Son? B. I say again, God forbid that one should say so. But just as, there being many sons, we know Him to be from the essence because the Father says, "This is my beloved Son," so also we know the Spirit to be from the Father, because, there being many spirits, the Father says, "I will pour out from My Spirit upon all flesh." ^B For in no other way can He be separated from other holy spirits and joined to the Father, except by the reason of essence.

A. For is it not the Father who says, "I will pour out from My Spirit"? B. Assuredly. A. And whence is this? B. The Apostle Paul says, "For when the grace of God and our Savior appeared, not by works which we did upon the earth, but according to His great mercy, he saved us through the washing of regeneration and the renewal of the Spirit, which He poured out on us through Jesus Christ." Who poured out through Jesus Christ? He, clearly, who said, "In the last days I will pour out from My Spirit." A. Does the Son, then, not give the Spirit? B. You have heard that the Father gives the Spirit through the Son, inasmuch as the Father said, "In the last days I will pour out from My Spirit," [and] the Son, rising from the dead, says, "Receive the Holy Spirit." ^C

*Observation.* In this treatise the saint teaches nothing else, openly decreeing the procession of the Spirit from the Father, but His donation through the Son.

*Refutation.* And yet, here too he declared that what is poured out by the Father is given through the Son. Therefore, either the Spirit exists from the Father through the Son, being poured out by the Father and given through the Son; or, if the outpouring and the giving do not follow [from His] existence, another person must be sought, from whom the Spirit who exists from the Father is poured out and given through the Son.

SAYINGS OF SOPHRONIUS OF JERUSALEM.

CXXII. I believe, therefore, blessed ones, just as I have believed from the beginning, in one God almighty,

^A entirely without beginning and eternal, the maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, who was eternally and impassibly begotten of Him, of God and Father, and knowing no other principle than the Father himself, nor possessing subsistence from anywhere else than from the Father—Light from Light, consubstantial, true God from true God, coeternal; and in one Holy Spirit, proceeding eternally from God and the Father, being recognized as light and God himself, and truly coeternal with the Father and the Son, consubstantial and of the same nature. ^B

*Animadversio.* Hear also this divine and most wise Father, attributing the consubstantiality and coeternity of the Spirit to both, to the Father, clearly, and to the Son, but the procession to the Father alone.

*Refutatio.* In saying that the Spirit proceeds from God and the Father, this divine and most wise Father did not signify that the Spirit is from the Father alone, because it has such a procession from the Father through the Son. By assigning the consubstantiality and coeternity of the Spirit to both—that is, to the Father and to the Son, as you yourself say—he has clearly declared that it is from the essence of both.

SAYINGS OF EPIPHANIUS OF CYPRUS

*Animadversio.* Although this chapter may seem quite obscure, it is nonetheless consistent with the preceding ones, decreeing that both, namely the Son and the Spirit, are from the Father alone. He places "alone" before both: before the Son on account of those who are sons by adoption and grace, and before the Spirit on account of the ministering spirits; but "from the Only," as is taken for the Son, so also is it to be taken for the Spirit.

*Refutatio.* Just as this saint applied the word "alone," which he placed before both, to the Son on account of those who are sons by adoption and grace, and to the Spirit on account of the ministering spirits, declaring thence no distinction of the Spirit of one toward the other—how, then, will the Spirit be from the Father? And if the Spirit is "alone" from the Father to distinguish Him from the Son, how, then, is the Son from the Father? So also the expression "from the Only," according to a correct and unshakable understanding, is not to be understood for the purpose of distinguishing the Son from the Father in the procession of the Spirit. For how could He, through whom the procession occurs, be distinguished from the Father? But it is for the purpose of distinguishing any other extraneous principle. For just as the Father is said to know alone, and any other knowledge of created things is futile.

^A nor are the Son or the Spirit distinguished from the Father, so as not to know as the Father does; and the Father alone is attested as true God, and any other god of different nature is rejected, and neither the Son nor the Spirit are distinguished from the Father, so as not to be God as the Father is. Thus also, if He alone is said to be the cause of the Son and of the Spirit, the Son will be understood as cause through an immediate relationship, and the Spirit through the Son; and yet He alone, since neither the Son nor the Spirit is from any other principle of a different nature. And the fact that the existence of the Spirit through the Son is referred back to the Father as the primary cause—just as, perhaps, the existence of light through a ray is referred to the sun—will not be understood as excluding the Son in the existence of the Spirit.

From the seventh chapter of the same.

CXXIV. "For the Son is only-begotten. But the Holy Spirit is the holy Spirit of God, always existing with the Father and the Son, not alien to God, but existing from God, proceeding from the Father, and receiving through the Son."

Observation.

"Do you hear how this saint, explaining what 'from God' is, just as we have noted above in many sections, immediately subjoins 'from the Father'?"

Refutation.

You did not rightly ^C pay attention here to the 'from God.' For when the saint first said 'not alien to God, but existing from God,' he manifested that the Spirit is not from any other, but from the divine essence itself. Then, he also clarified how He is from the divine essence through evangelical terms, adding 'proceeding from the Father and receiving through the Son.' But it was for you to note on what grounds the saint declared that the Spirit receives through the Son, when he says in countless places that He receives from the Son. Is there anything more apt or suitable to demonstrate that the prepositions 'from' and 'through' are taken in the same sense regarding the Son? And if this is so, how does the Greek who says that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son not agree on this dogma with the Latins, who confess that He proceeds from both?

From the eighth chapter of the same volume.

CXXV. "But the Son is indeed only-begotten, incomprehensible, and the Spirit is incomprehensible, truly from God, not alien to the Father and the Son. Nor is it a contraction of the Father and the Son, but a Trinity always existing of the same essence, not another essence than that which is of the deity, not another deity than that which is of the same essence, but the same deity, and from the deity are the Son and the Spirit, and the Spirit is the holy Spirit, the Son is the Son, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father, and receives from the Son."

Observation.

"You hear clearly that 'from the deity' ^D is accepted by the saint for the Father himself, when he says, 'from the deity, the Son and..."

the Spirit,' and how, since he used the preposition 'from' ^A with the Son, he says 'receives'; he does not, however, say 'proceeds' as he did concerning the Father."

Refutation. Do not consider only this, that he used the preposition 'from' with the Son and said 'receives,' while concerning the Father he used 'proceeds'; but rather that what he said in the previous passage was 'through the Son,' he now says 'receives from the Son.' From this, understand that he brought forward both of these evangelical phrases as a witness that he [the Spirit] is from both.

^B From the sixteenth chapter of the same. CXXVI. "No one knows the Father except the Son, and no one knows the Son except the Father; I dare say, no one knows the Spirit except the Father and the Son, from whom he proceeds, and from whom he receives."

Observation. "You hear how the procession of the Spirit is attributed by all to the Father, and the reception to the Son?"

Refutation. Pay attention also to how the equal force of these expressions is best discerned from the same passage. For the saint proved that the Spirit is known by the Father and the Son from these expressions; and since the Father knows the Spirit—because the Spirit proceeds from the Father—and the Son knows the Spirit—because he himself receives from the Son—is it not manifestly clear that these ^C expressions have the same force?

From the ninth chapter of the same. CXXVII. "If, therefore, he proceeds from the Father, and the Lord says, 'He will receive from what is mine,' in the way that 'no one has known the Father except the Son, nor the Son except the Father,' I dare say, neither [does anyone know] the Spirit except the Son and the Father, from whom he receives, and from whom he proceeds; nor [does anyone know] the Father and the Son except the Holy Spirit."

Observation. "Note how, where the saints use the preposition 'from' for both the Father and the Son, they distinguish the other terms; and to the Father they assign the procession of the Spirit, but to the Son ^D the reception, or the giving, or the supply, or the mission."

Refutation. But rather you ought to have noted that the equal forces of the aforementioned expressions are openly recognized from the fact that the saint gathers from these very things that the Holy Spirit is known by the Father and the Son, and also the Son and the Father by Him.

From the 187th chapter of the same volume, on the Faith. CXXVIII. "So truly we believe in Him, that it is the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God, the Spirit perfect,"

Paraclete, uncreated, proceeding from the Father, receiving from the Son." ^A

Animadversion.

Refutation.

From the last chapter of the same in the Panaria.

CXXIX. "This truly precious dove, and holy Virgin, confesses God to be Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit: a perfect Father, a perfect Son, a perfect Holy Spirit, a consubstantial Trinity; but the Son truly begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit not alien to the Father and the Son; ^B and the Trinity existing always, and never admitting an addition, nor containing anything diminished within itself, and referred to one unity and one principle of God and the Father. From this Trinity of Father and Son and Holy Spirit, all things which had not existed before were created."

Animadversion.

Refutation.

SAYINGS OF GREGORY THAUMATURGUS.

CXXX. "One God, Father of the living Word, of subsistent wisdom and power and eternal character; perfect begetter of the perfect, Father of the only-begotten Son. One Lord, alone from the alone, God from God, character and image of the Deity, effective Word, comprehensive of the constitution of all things, and creative power of the whole creation. True Son of the true Father, His invisible ^D who is invisible, and incorruptible of the incorruptible, and immortal of the immortal, and eternal of the eternal. And one Holy Spirit, having existence from God, and who through the Son appeared, to wit, to men: image of the Son, perfect of perfect, life of the living, cause, holy fountain, holiness, suppeditator of sanctification."

Animadversion.

^A teaches and preaches these things, that the Spirit has existence from the Father, yet appeared through the Son.

Refutation. Most certainly one must heed this one who theologized from Revelation. For he who has penetrated his theology as is correct, would never separate the Spirit from the Son according to His natural and essential existence, which they erroneously hasten to do who deny that He exists through the Son. For the saint, when he had previously said that the Spirit has existence from God, and had clarified that He has the cause of His hypostasis from the first and beginningless cause, the Father—lest anyone might think that He has existence immediately from God, in such a way that it follows by mere thought that the Spirit is divided ^B from the Son, according to the very existence of them both from the Father, so that the connatural, continuous, and indissoluble nature of the three is no longer observed—he immediately added, "and appeared to men through the Son," thinking there is no difference between saying the Spirit appeared to men through the Son, and that He exists through the Son from the Father. For if He did not exist through the Son, He would not have appeared through the Son to men, as He who distributes the dispensation of the Spirit to the worthy does not do so in an administrative or servile manner; and the saint himself proves this most excellently, adding, "Image of the perfect Son, perfect." For if, as those who object contend, the saint did not believe the Spirit exists through the Son, ^C he would never have called Him the image of the Son. For it is impossible that that which does not exist through Him and from Him be called the image of the Son.

From the same, from his particular exposition of the faith. CXXXI. "We confess, therefore, one true God, one principle, and one true Son, God from true God, naturally having the Father's divinity, that is, consubstantial with the Father; and one Holy Spirit, who by nature and truth has the power of sanctifying and deifying all things, who exists from the substance of God."

Animadversion. Prudently hear the same saint declaring the Father to be the one principle; understand that "being from the substance of God" [is to be understood] ^D just as all the other holy Fathers have said. But he himself, in one and the same passage, clarified this when he said the Son is from true God, that is, from the Father.

Refutation. One principle the saint indeed establishes, but he does not on that account abolish that He is a principle in a different manner of cause for those things that are from Him: whence it is clear that from the same one principle there are two things caused, one through the other. That which exists from the substance of God is indeed to be understood as being from the Father, as your animadversion says, yet one must not be ignorant that the Spirit is also from the substance of the Son.

From the same, from the same. CXXXII. But the Son having been begotten from the Father in true

generation, not by a making from the will, and the Holy Spirit having been sent forth eternally from the substance of the Father through the Son, having the power of sanctifying every creature.

^A Animadversion. What he perhaps said obscurely in the previous passage, and for which we stand in need of an external clarification, the saint clarifies here, teaching that the Spirit is emitted eternally from the substance of the Father through the Son.

Refutation. This animadversion is true in all respects. For the saint has explained here the obscurity which the statement "He appeared to men through the Son" presented, teaching that the Spirit is emitted eternally from the substance of the Father through the Son. That the emission is not anything other than the existence of the Spirit, the mind alert to theology will bear witness, speaking in his discourse to Heron the philosopher, saying, "The property of the Father is being unbegotten; of the Son, generation; of the Spirit, emission."

From the same.

CXXXIII. "God the Father, being a perfect person, has a perfect word, truly begotten from Himself, not as a uttered ^B word, which we speak, nor as God by adoption, as angels and men are called sons of God, but as Son, God by nature. He has also a perfect Holy Spirit, granted from God through the Son to those who are adopted, living and vivifying, holy and sanctifying those who partake of Him."

Animadversion. Do you see here also that the phrase "from God through the Son" is set forth, to note that it means "from the Father"?

Refutation. Do you not also see that what was said in the aforementioned passage, "emitted from the substance of the Father through the Son," is written here as "granted from God through the Son"? See and note that these are neither contrary ^C to one another, nor do they conflict with each other, as has appeared to some.

DAMASCENE’S DICTS.

Chapter 7 of Saint John Damascene concerning the Holy Spirit.

CXXXIV. "The Word must also possess the Spirit. For our own word is not devoid of spirit. But there is a difference between the two, in that in us the spirit is foreign to our essence. For it is an attraction and movement of air, which is drawn in and expelled for the sake of the maintenance of the body, which at the time of utterance becomes the voice of the word, ^D bearing the power of the word within itself. But in the divine nature, which is simple and uncompounded, it must be piously confessed that there is a Spirit of God, for the Word of God is not less perfect than our word; yet it is not pious to consider the Spirit a certain foreign thing coming to God from without, as is the case in us who are of compound nature. But just as God’s word..."

^A when we hear it—we do not judge it to be unsubstantial, nor derived from learning, nor brought forth by voice, nor poured out and dissolving into the air; but we think of it as subsisting substantially, being proactive, active, and omnipotent—so also, having learned of the Spirit of God, which accompanies the Word and manifests his energy, we do not conceive of it as an unsubstantial breath. For thus the magnificence of the divine nature would be reduced to lowliness, if the Spirit which is in it were conjectured to be like our own spirit; but we conceive of it as an essential power, ^B viewed in itself in a distinct hypostasis, proceeding from the Father, and resting in the Word, and being itself manifestative; not able to be separated either from God, in whom it is, or from the Word, whom it accompanies, nor poured out into non-existence, but subsisting according to the likeness of the Word in hypostasis, living, proactive, self-moving, active, always willing the good, and having the power joined to the will for every purpose, having neither beginning nor end. For the Word was never wanting to the Father, nor the Spirit to the Word. Thus, through the unity according to nature, the polytheistic error of the Greeks is extinguished, and through the acceptance of the Word and the Spirit, the dogma of the Jews is overthrown, and the useful aspect of each sect remains. ^C

*Observation.* Note how this most accurate asserter of dogmas, in agreement with the other divine Fathers, takes "of God" to refer to the Father, when he says "Spirit of God," and immediately adds, "accompanying the Word." This is most clearly demonstrated by the words added at the end of this passage, while he calls the Spirit an essential power, proceeding from the Father and resting in the Son, by which our own previously stated consideration—namely that it is from Him and in Him, as I think—is established.

*Refutation.* Our consideration is also established, namely that the Spirit is through the Son from the Father, when the saint states: "And it is fitting that His Spirit should be with the Word," and also: "For the Word was never wanting to the Father, nor the Spirit to the Word." While he asserts these things, he appears to join the Spirit to the Father through the Word. But he who joins the Spirit to the Father through the Word, he truly cries out like Stentor that the Spirit is from the Father through the Son. It should also be noted that he substituted "proceeding" for "proceeding forth." ^D

*Of the same, from the 135th of the Theological Chapters on the Holy Trinity.* CXXXV. The Son is also the character of the paternal substance, because he is perfect and truly exists, and, except for the property of unbegottenness, is in all respects similar to the Father.

[The] Only-Begotten, because [he is] the only one begotten ^A from the only Father in an only way. For there is no other generation that can be compared to the generation of the Son of God. For neither is there any other Son of God. For although the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Father, yet [he does] not [proceed] in a begetting way, but in a proceeding way. This is another mode of existence, ungraspable and unknown, just as is the generation of the Son.

*Animadversion.* Attend diligently to how the saint calls the procession of the Spirit from the Father a mode of existence. Whoever, therefore, teaches that this is from the Son errs, introducing ^B without any hesitation two causes for the same [thing].

*Refutation.* Oh, how you speak words unworthy of your wisdom while clinging obstinately to your own opinion! For if this were not so, you would not have affirmed two causes of the Spirit—the Father and the Son—because procession is a mode of existence. The Spirit springs forth from the Father and the Son; that is to say, [he] exists naturally and essentially. The Spirit pours forth from the Father and the Son; that is to say, [he] exists naturally and essentially. The Spirit flows forth from the Father and the Son; that is to say, [he] exists naturally and essentially. All these expressions denote natural and essential existence, and yet the Father and the Son are not presumed to be two causes of the Spirit. And because procession is a mode of existence, which brings with it a distinction of existence, he who asserts that this also [proceeds] from the Son incurs the charge of dual-principle [theology]. The mode of existence, or difference—for it is the same thing—follows the very name of the Spirit; and he who says that the Spirit is springing forth, or pouring forth, or flowing forth, ^C has, by that very name, just as by the procession itself, indicated the different existence of the Spirit in relation to the Son, even if [he] does not express such a difference by a word uttered through the lips.

*From the same.* 136. For the Father alone is unbegotten; for it is not from another hypostasis that he has his being. And the Son alone is begotten; for he was begotten from the substance of the Father without any beginning and outside of time. And finally, the Holy Spirit alone proceeds from the substance of the Father, not being begotten, but proceeding. ^D

*Animadversion.* Since this is most clear, it does not need a more exact exposition, just as neither does what follows.

*Refutation.* Truly, the aforementioned passage asserts that the Spirit proceeds from the substance of the Father, because the Father is without any beginning and [is] the first cause of the Son and of the Spirit. But whoever knows the communion of nature of the Spirit and the Son toward the Father [so as] to realize that it cannot be conceived unless the Spirit be from the Father through the Son, he indeed will assert with complete safety that the Spirit is from both, without any blot of error.

From the same chapter.

^ACXXXVII. "We believe likewise in one Holy Spirit, the Lord, the life-giver, who proceeds from the Father, and rests in the Son; and who is worshiped and glorified together with the Father and the Son."

*Observation.* Accept from this passage also a proof that we have rightly observed and spoken concerning that matter, from it and in it, as we have previously noted.

*Refutation.* Therefore, what we have brought forward above in opposition to this observation of yours, and what we have previously noted concerning that matter, "from it" and "in it," shall suffice for you.

*From the same.*

CXXXVIII. "In all things like to the Father and to the Son, proceeding from the Father, and through the Son imparted to and received by every creature, and by himself creating all things."

*Observation.* Do you hear that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, but is imparted and communicated through the Son, yet not proceeding from Him?

*Refutation.* But you have also heard that that which is imparted and communicated through the Son is imparted and communicated through Him as existing through the Son.

*From the same.*

^B CXXXIX. "For the Father is indeed without cause and unbegotten. For He is not from anyone, nor does He have His being from Himself; nor does He have from another anything of those things which He has: but rather He Himself is the beginning and cause of being, and of the manner of being naturally for all things. The Son, however, is from the Father, in the mode of generation. But the Holy Spirit is also Himself from the Father, yet not in the mode of being begotten, but of proceeding. And indeed, we have learned that there is a difference between generation and procession, but what is the mode of this difference, it does not at all escape us. For at the same time is the generation of the Son from the Father, and the procession of the Holy Spirit. All things, therefore, which the Son and the Spirit have, they have from the Father, including even this very fact of their being. And if the Father is not, neither is the Son, nor the Spirit; and because of the Father—that is to say, because the Father exists—the Son and the Spirit exist. And because of the Father, the Son and the Spirit have all things which He has—that is to say, because the Father has these things. ^C Only the terms 'unbegotten,' 'begotten,' and 'procession' must be excepted. For in these hypostatic properties alone do the three holy persons of the Trinity differ from one another; not in essence, but they are distinguished without confusion ^D by the characteristic mark of their own hypostasis."

*Observation.* Attend diligently: the generation of the Son from the Father and the procession of the Spirit are simultaneous.

^A *Refutation.* It would not be inconsistent with refined investigation to use a counter-question. If, therefore, it is simultaneous, when then is the procession of the Spirit *through* the Son? For it stands thus: if because it is simultaneous, it is for this reason not *from* the Son, it is for this reason not *through* the Son either. But it is *through* the Son, and it is simultaneous; therefore, it is also *from* the Son, and it is simultaneous. The note indicating that the Son and the Spirit have their being *from* the Father is the same one that proves there are not two causes of the Spirit, even if the Spirit is said to be *from* the Son. For if the Son also has his very being *from* the Father indivisibly and co-eternally, how could there be a distinct, or a second, principle after the Father for the Spirit, who proceeds indivisibly from the Father *through* him? Would not the Father rather be the principle of both, to whom that which is said to be *through* the Son is also referred?

*From the same.* ^B CXL. "And therefore, we do not call the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit three gods, but rather one God, the holy Trinity, since they are referred to one cause of the Son and the Spirit." *Observation.* Learn again that the Father is the one cause of the Son and the Spirit. *Refutation.* But again, know that the Father is a different cause of the Son and of the Spirit. The Father is a different cause because he is the cause of the Son through nothing else, but of the Spirit *through* the Son. For if both were directly from the Father, and the Father were an undifferentiated cause, then the things caused would both be sons. And the greatest asserter of dogmas, Theodore of Raithu, will testify to my argument in his dogmatic treatise, the beginning of which is, "I think it is absurd, and I have rightly judged this," stating explicitly just this: "Spirit, as I said before, is called God, and holy God; and when both these names are combined for the one who is properly called so, 'Holy Spirit' fits, just as the title of Father fits the cause, and that of the Son [fits] the one who is directly from the cause."

*From the same.* ^D CXLI. "One Father, and the Father is without beginning, that is to say, without cause. For he is not from anything. One Son, and he is not without beginning, that is to say, he is not without cause; for he is from the Father; if, however, you take 'beginning' in the sense of time, he is also without beginning. For the maker of times is not under time. One Holy Spirit is the Spirit, proceeding indeed from the Father, but not as a son, but by way of procession, neither having the Father departing from his unbegottenness because he has begotten, nor the Son [departing] from his generation because he is from the unbegotten—for how could that be?—nor the Spirit changing into Father or Son because he has proceeded, and because he is God. For the property is immovable. Or how could a property remain, if it were moving and changing? For if the Father were the Son, he would not be Father in the proper sense; and if..."

the Son were the Father, he would not be Son in the proper sense. For one is properly Father, and in one Spirit ^A holy. But one must know that we do not say the Father is from some one, but we call him Father of the Son. And the Son we do not call a cause, nor Father, but we say him to be from the Father, and Son of the Father. And the holy Spirit we say is from the Father, and we name him Spirit of the Father; and from the Son we do not say the Spirit, but we name him Spirit of the Son. "If any man have not the Spirit of Christ," says the divine ^B Apostle, "he is none of his." And we confess that he is made manifest and imparted to us through the Son; "for he breathed on them, and said to his disciples, Receive the holy Spirit." Just as from the sun both the ray and the splendor have their origin; for he is the fountain of both the ray and the splendor, yet through the ray the splendor is imparted to us, ^C and this is what illuminates us and is participated in by us. But the Son we call neither the Spirit, nor of the Spirit.

Animadversio

Refutation

Cyril, Gregory of Nyssa, and the wise John would not dare to contradict, but would themselves declare that in this way the Spirit is also from the Son. For he himself also says "through the Son," as if the [prepositions] "through" and "from" have equal force. But if anyone says [that the Spirit is] from the Son as from a first cause—which none of the saints has asserted—he will oppose himself and will protest loudly. Since that other man, exceedingly excellent in divine matters and of a sublime intellect, having interpreted the statement "we do not say the Spirit is from the Son" before us, we shall add nothing further. But as for your noting that the saint in his very words forbids the Son to be called cause, let the passages scattered in many places in the writings, which manifest that the Father is the cause of all and the principle of all, persuade you; these are not brought forward to exclude the Son, but to manifest that that very same Father is the principle, the origin, and the cause of all, even if all things are said to be through the Son. And the saint himself confirms this notion in the aforementioned passage, saying: "But we do not call the Son cause, nor Father"—for he is intimating this, as it were; "the Son, however, just as He is not the Father, is not cause in the way the Father is," meaning, he himself is not the root and principle of the cause. ^B

From the thirteenth chapter of the treatise On the Divine Names.

^C CXLII. "For when I contemplate one of the persons, I know it to be perfect God, a perfect substance. But when I join and enumerate the three, I know one perfect God. For the Godhead is not something composite; but in [the] three perfect [persons] there is one perfect, simple, and indivisible nature. Finally, when I contemplate in my mind the mutual relation which is between the persons, I discover this: that the Father is super-essential, a sun, a fountain of goodness, an abyss of essence, of Word, of wisdom, of power, of light, [and] of divinity, the generative and productive fountain of the good hidden within Him. He himself, indeed, is mind, an abyss of reason, the Begetter of the Word, and the producer of the manifesting Spirit through the Word. And, not to speak much, to the Father there is no other Word, no other wisdom, power, and will besides the Son, who is the sole power of the Father, from whom the procreation of all things took its beginning. In this way, as a perfect person begotten of a perfect person as He himself knows, He is the Son and is so called. And finally the Holy Spirit is the power of the Father, revealing the hiddenness of the divinity, proceeding from the Father through the Son, in the way He himself knows, yet not by way of generation. Whence also the Holy Spirit brings the procreation of the universe to its fullness in all its respects. Therefore, all things that pertain to the cause, the parent, the fountain, the begetter, must be accommodated to the Father alone; but those things that [pertain] to the caused and begotten Son, the Word, the primordial power, the will, [and] the wisdom by which..." ^D

the created order is fashioned and perfected, it is fitting to assign to the Spirit alone. And the Father indeed is the fountain and author, both of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; but He is the Father of the Son alone, and the producer of the Holy Spirit. But the Son is both Son and Word, and wisdom and power, and image, and splendor, and the character of the Father, and is from the Father. But the Holy Spirit is not the Son of the Father, but the Spirit of the Father, as One who proceeds from the Father. For no impulse toward any thing can exist without the Holy Spirit. He is also called the Spirit of the Son, not as proceeding from Him, but as proceeding through Him from the Father. For the Father alone is the cause. ^B

Animadversion

Refutation

that this was not said for the sake of distinguishing the Spirit, but for the declaration that the knowledge of the Son's nature exists primarily in the Father; and again, when interpreting the passage, "Nor would the Son have known the day of the end except the Father," he clarifies in this also that the Son is not being separated from the Father, but that the primary knowledge is being attested to the Father, because the Son also has [the faculty] of knowing from the Father. All these things the great Basil ^A explains interpretatively, both in one of his letters to Amphilochius, whose beginning is, "It has already been inquired into by many regarding the evangelical saying," and in the apologetic letter regarding his withdrawal to the Caesareans, whose beginning is, "Often I have wondered what you have suffered regarding us," he gives [us] to understand that he who says, "The Father is the sole cause," indicates nothing else but that the Father is the primary cause, as the beginning, and root, and fountain of the cause of all things which are said to be through the Son, and from the Son, and of the Son, inasmuch as they are referred to him. For since everywhere the "sole" [used] regarding the Father is taken for the declaration that the Father is "primary," it differs nothing to say "sole cause" or "primary cause" [is] the Father: "For the Father is solely good," because the Father is the primary good. For according to the great Basil, when the Son says, "No one is good except one, God," he does not say these things ^B by placing himself outside the nature of the good, but because the Father is the primary good, with "primary" being understood for "no one," we believe that "second" is what is said. And again, "The Father alone knows the Son," because the Father first knows the Son. For the Spirit, even if He knows the Son together with the Father, yet because the Father knows [Him] first, He also knows the Son. The Father alone knows the day of the end, because the Father knows it first. For even if the Son also knows this with the Father, yet because the Father knows first, He also knows that day: for the Son possesses the knowing from the Father. All these words are not mine, but [those] of the luminary of the world, Basil the great; and may the authority of such a Father persuade those who encounter [them] to grant faith to the statements.

SAYINGS OF THEODORET.

CXLIII. ^D "We have learned, therefore, that the Holy Spirit has existence from God and the Father. And the manner of His existence is not similar to a creature: for the Holy Spirit is uncreated, nor to the only-begotten Son: for no one of the holy ones has called the existence of the divine Spirit a generation. That He is from God and is God, the sacred Scriptures teach us. For the Lord Christ says these things about Him: 'It is expedient for you that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Paraclete will not come to you.' And again: 'When the Paraclete comes, the Spirit’"

of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will guide you into all truth.' ^A By saying, 'He proceeds from the Father,' He showed the Father ^B to be the source of the Spirit. And He did not say, 'He will proceed,' but 'He proceeds,' showing both the identity of the nature and the indivisibility and non-differentiation and union of the substances. For that which proceeds cannot be separated from that from which it proceeds. The divine Apostle indeed said this concerning the Spirit: 'For the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God.' And lest anyone out of ignorance should think this search is something else, he added: 'No one among men knows the things of man, except the spirit of man which is in him; so also no one knows the things of God, except the Spirit of God.'

Animadversion

Refutation

From the work whose inscription is: 'Eranistes, or Polymorph'

CXLIV. A. The sacred Scripture says that God the Word is from the Father and God. B. You speak the truth. A. And it also teaches that the Holy Spirit likewise is from God. B. That is admitted. A. But it calls God the Word the only-begotten Son. B. It does so call Him. A. ^D Yet it nowhere called the Holy Spirit so. B. Nowhere. A. And yet He also has His existence from the Father and God. B. It is true. A. Since, therefore, we confess that both the Son and the Holy Spirit are from God and the Father, do you ever dare to call the Holy Spirit the Son? B. By no means. A. For what reason? B. Because I do not find this name in the divine Scripture. A. But yet—

to what I do not find in even the divine Scripture. A. And yet, do you not find this name in the divine Scripture? A. But truly ^A generated? B. Nor this either. A. Why so? B. I have not been taught this either by Scripture. A. But what name would that which is neither generated nor created reasonably receive? B. We call it increate and unbegotten. A. And do we say that the all-holy Spirit is neither created nor generated? B. By no means. A. Would you then dare to call the Holy Spirit unbegotten? B. Certainly not. A. And why, pray, do you not call the increate unbegotten, and in no way generated? B. Because I have not learned this from divine Scripture, and I greatly fear to say things passed over in silence by it.

Animadversion

Refutation

From the second discourse of the same work, which he wrote as a remedy against the affections of the Greeks:

^C 145. "But do not be disturbed, having heard that the Word is from the Father and with the Father. For you endure the most absurd teachings of Plato, who speaks of God as the cause of matter, and calls matter coeternal with God, and asserts that the ideas are from God and with God; yet you refuse to be persuaded that the Word of God and the all-holy Spirit come from God and are with God. For if the philosopher said that matter, which is of a different nature and a different genus, and—if I may so speak—alien and extraneous, is from God and with God, much more reasonably and truthfully must our discourse be considered. For we do not say that the Son or the all-holy Spirit is of another nature, but we proclaim one substance of the Trinity. But if any of you seeks to learn the manner of the existence of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, let him first state the manner of the unbegotten existence—how that which has a cause exists. For this question ^D is altogether difficult, and is comprehensible only to the pure and sincere nature. For the mind easily admits that anything which comes to be from a cause is either generated or created; but reason does not accept that there is something without a cause, unless, perhaps, the guarantee of faith appears. If we believe that there is something both unbegotten and beginningless and causeless, we must therefore believe that from this, as from an intellect [the Father], the Word was generated and the Holy Spirit proceeded."

Animadversion

^A proceeded from this very Being who is.

Refutation. He who says that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, and thereby signifies His existence from the Father, does not contradict the one who says that the Spirit proceeds also from the Son, and thus defines that He is from both. Yet one must note what you say here regarding the Word being with the Father ^B and from the Father, as it is appropriate against those who contend that the Holy Spirit cannot be at once with the Son and through the Son.

From the same. 46 "If, therefore, we claim that there is something unbegotten and causeless—the world, according to the opinion of Parmenides; but according to Plato, Timaeus of Locri, Plutarch, and our own opinion, the Creator of all things—it will be much more credible for anyone to assert that both the Word and the all-holy Spirit emanate from that Unbegotten One; the former ^C as Word, begotten from the Intellect, the latter as Spirit, proceeding. For the Spirit proceeds together with the Word, not as being co-begotten, but as being concomitant, accompanying, and proceeding. Nor do we say that the Holy Spirit is some breath of the mouth; for the Divine is without composition and without form. Nor do we understand the Word to be like ours, which is diffused through the air by those who speak; but we understand the Word which exists substantially, and the Spirit who pertains to the hypostasis. These two are considered in the Father, and are believed separately in and of themselves; and they are both conjoined and distinguished. ^D They are united in that they are of the same nature, but distinct by the difference of their properties, and understood separately and of themselves. This, however, no one will grasp exactly, unless he has been versed in the study of Holy Scripture and has received the light of this knowledge conferred by divine grace."

Animadversion. Here again the same doctrine is found, namely that the Son and the Spirit proceed from the one Father, and the same explanation of the term 'proceed' is used. But in this passage there is also something, as I think, more lucid. For this man, so celebrated in the knowledge of divine things, while he maintains that the most holy Spirit proceeds together with the Son and Word, plainly obstructs the mouths of those who assert that He also proceeds from the Son; for how and when will He proceed with Him, with whom He proceeds together? Furthermore, note that this blessed teacher writes things not alien to the divine Damascene, or rather that the latter writes things not alien to him, since he is later in age than the former. For while this one wrote "proceeds together," the other inserted into his own writings: "The generation of the Son and the procession of the Spirit are simultaneous." Wherefore we have noted the same thing both in that passage and in this.

^A

Refutation

Sayings of Gregory the Dialogist

147. "May the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from You, enlighten and lead us into all truth, as Your Son promised."

Animadversion

Refutation

From the end of the same book. 148. "The Paraclete Spirit proceeds from the Father and remains in the Son."

Animadversion

^A fore, as you say, He also proceeds from the Son, why did this divine doctor pass this over in silence?"

Refutation. Do not ponder this, as to why, if the Spirit proceeds also from the Son, this divine doctor passed this over in silence. For in various of our refutations the cause of this has been assigned. But revolve this in your open mind: that which is here called "coming forth," you have expressed as "proceeding" by the word. Wherefore it shall not be lawful for you in the future to establish any distinction between "advancing" and "proceeding" in the progression of the Spirit.

WORDS OF AUGUSTINE

CXLIX. "It is sufficient for a Christian to believe as the cause of created things, whether celestial or terrestrial, whether visible or invisible, none other than the goodness of the Creator, who is one and true God; and that there is no nature that is not either He Himself or from Him; and that He is the Trinity—the Father, namely, and the Son begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeding from the same Father."

Animadversion. "What do you say here, you who lavish many processions upon the most holy Spirit? Here is also ^B a shepherd of your flock. Hear him at least, I pray you, as he teaches not only that the Spirit proceeds simply from the Father, but adds also 'from the same,' and hence forbids [the idea of a procession] from another, just as we have noted also in other places."

Refutation. Here the saint, asserting that the Spirit proceeds from the same Father, openly establishes that the Spirit is not from another principle which is of a foreign essence; and this is confirmed also by those who speak of the Son as being from the Father alone and not from another, and that He does not have His own subsistence from any other essence or hypostasis. But know that in other pronouncements of this blessed man, it is contained that the Spirit proceeds from the Son. ^C

WORDS OF JEROME

CL. "We believe in the Holy Spirit, the true God, proceeding from the Father, equal in all things to the Father and the Son."

Animadversion. "The Savior taught in the Gospels that every word shall be established in the mouth of two or three witnesses; and we have brought you so many witnesses concerning the procession of the most holy Spirit from the Father alone, and finally, three from your own regions who flourished in the dignity of the episcopate so many ages ago. Therefore, by giving credence to them, or [by rejecting] the addition, which has crept in from somewhere... ^D

^A or by whom it was introduced, I fully do not know, banish it from the sacred Symbol: and meanwhile stand with us ^B and sing along, just as we received it from the divine Fathers. Or point out to us yourself some of the heralds of piety, and common luminaries of the world, and teachers, who openly and clearly decreed and taught regarding this addition, and then we will confess our defeat, and as most intimate brothers we will confess the same thing.

Refutation.

OF THEOPHYLACT OF BULGARIA, on the saying from the Gospel according to John: “Whom I will send to you from the Father.”

CLI. “Whom I will send,” signifies [His] equality with the Father. For in another place He said that the Father will send the Spirit; but in this place, that He Himself will send [Him], surely it signifies equality. ^D Lest, however, He should appear to contend against the Father, as if He were sending the Spirit from another substance, He added, "from the Father." For He Himself indeed will send, but from the Father, that is, the Father approving and sending at the same time. For I do not send the Spirit from my own bosom, but by Me He is supplied from the Father. When you hear "he proceeds," do not understand the procession to be a mission, of the kind by which ministering spirits are sent, but the procession is the natural subsistence of the Spirit.

Observation.

not only taught how to interpret various sacred volumes, but the very Gospels themselves, and instructed you that the Paraclete Spirit proceeds not from the Son, but from the Father: and that this procession is not a mission, but the natural subsistence of the Spirit; and furthermore, that the mission itself is not brought about simply by the Son and Word, ^A but with the Father’s approval and simultaneous sending?

Refutation. Although this man flourished at the time of the schism, and his statements need not be deemed worthy of much consideration, nevertheless, much strength is added to those who believe the Spirit to be from the Father and the Son, from those very things which he himself proclaims. First, because he interpreted the procession as the natural subsistence of the Spirit. For if "to proceed" is "to exist naturally," then he who says the Spirit naturally exists from the Father and the Son differs in no way from him who says the Spirit proceeds from both. Furthermore, because he asserts that the mission itself denotes the equality of the Son with the Father. For if the Spirit is sent from the Father and the Son on account of the Son’s equality with the Father, he is not sent as from two; for in what way could the Spirit be one and indivisible if he were sent not as from one cause of mission, but as from two causes of mission—namely, from the Father and the Son? ^B By the same reasoning, since he exists naturally and essentially from the Father and the Son, he exists not as from two, but as from one God naturally and essentially.

ZIGABENUS

CLII. "For since the Father has borne witness concerning me in various ways, the Holy Spirit also will in every way bear witness. He will bear witness, shining in your hearts for greater certainty, and working miracles in my name. See, however, that while the Son also sends him, as sharing the same honor as the Father, yet he is sent from the Father as one who proceeds from the Father. Verily, he proceeds from the Father as from his essence."

Observation. Attend also to this most pious and God-bearing monk, who testifies and teaches in harmony with the other holy Fathers ^D concerning the Holy Spirit and his procession.

Refutation. But just as he proceeds from the Father as existing from His essence, so also is he sent by the Son as existing from His essence, so that he may not be sent by the Son in a servile or ministerial fashion. For although the mission does not denote this very same natural and essential subsistence of the Spirit, nevertheless, since it follows upon this subsistence, the Spirit is sent by the Son [as from his essence].

tti, uti ex ipso exsistens ab ipso mittitur. ^A

OF THE SAME: EPIGRAPHÆ

EPIGRAPHÆ OR PRESCRIPTIONS ON THE SAYINGS AND SENTIMENTS OF THE HOLY FATHERS COLLECTED BY HIM CONCERNING THE PROCESSION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.

PRESCRIPTION 1.

That the Spirit is of the Son.

Gregory of Nyssa, in his homily on the Lord’s Prayer, the beginning of which is: "The Law which contains the shadow of the things to come," says thus: "For when the Son went forth from the Father, as the Scripture says, and the Spirit proceeds from God and from the Father: but just as it is the property of the Father alone to be without cause—which can be applied neither to the Son nor to the Spirit—so conversely, to be from a cause, which is peculiar to the Son and the Spirit, is alien to the nature of the Father. But since it is common to the Son and to the Spirit not to be unbegotten, lest any confusion be introduced regarding the subject, a difference can again be found which is unmixed in their properties, so that the common may be preserved, and the proper not be confounded. For the Only-Begotten Son is called by Holy Scripture [as being] from the Father, and up to this point the discourse limits His property. But the Holy Spirit is said to be from the Father, and is also attested to be from the Son. ^C For if anyone has not the Spirit of Christ, he says, this one does not belong to Him. Therefore, the Spirit who is from God is also the Spirit of Christ: [but] the Son, who is from God, is neither [the Spirit] of the Spirit, nor is so called, nor is this relative sequence reversible."

The great Basil, in the third of his books against Eunomius, the beginning of which is: "Vexed at last with the blasphemies against the Only-Begotten," says: "For what necessity is there, if the Spirit is third in dignity and in order, that He ^D should also be third in nature?"

^A For the word of piety hands it down that while He is second to the Son in dignity, since He has His being from Him, and receives from Him, and announces it to us, and depends entirely upon that cause, we have not been taught by the holy Scriptures to use [the term] 'third' in nature, nor is it possible to deduce it from the things said as a necessary consequence. For just as the Son is indeed second to the Father in order, because He is from Him, and in dignity, because the Father is the origin and cause of His being, and because through Him is the access and bringing to God and the Father, yet He is in no way second in nature, because the divinity is one in both; so, evidently, is the Holy Spirit, even if He is subordinate to the Son in order and dignity, no longer reasonably to be considered as belonging to a foreign nature." ^B Gregory of Nyssa in the first of his *Antirrhetica* against Eunomius, the beginning of which is, "It does not seem possible for anyone to merit well of all," says at the end: "If the one who perceives the Father of the Son purely by the account of cause [thought of] as prior to the Son were to place some temporal interval before the hypostasis or substance of the Son, the teaching concerning the eternity of the Son could rightly be considered to be in danger." And after a few words, having previously stated that the Father of the Son is perceived as prior purely by the account of cause, he adds: "The same account applies to us also concerning the Spirit, having the difference in order alone. For just as the Son is joined to the Father, and while having His being from Him, is not posterior in existence, so again the Holy Spirit also holds to the Only-Begotten, with the hypostasis of the Spirit being perceived as prior [only] by conception according to the account of cause. For temporal extensions have no place in the life that is before the ages; so that, with the account of cause removed, the holy Trinity in no way has disagreement within itself." ^C In the Acts of the first Synod of Nicaea, in which the Fathers responded to the philosopher through Bishop Leontius, the beginning of which response is, "That also, friend philosopher, is to be considered," it is found: "The Holy Spirit, proceeding indeed from the Father, but proper to the Son, and gushing forth from Him." Saint Cyril, in the discourse to Nestorius, the beginning of which is, "Our Savior clearly saying, 'He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me'," says: "Even if the Spirit exists in His own hypostasis, and is indeed understood in Himself, insofar as He is Spirit and not the Son, nonetheless He is not foreign to Him. For He is called the Spirit of truth, and Christ is the truth, and He is poured forth from Him just as, admittedly, He is from the Father." ^D And again in the commentary on the prophet Joel, when he interprets that [passage], "I will pour out of my Spirit," he says: "By the account by which the Son is God and from God by nature—for He is begotten of God and the Father—the Holy Spirit is also His own and in Him and from Him, in the same way, clearly, as He is understood to be of the same God and Father." The same author in the discourse to the Emperor Theodosius, the beginning of which is, "The highest summit of human glory," says: "He said that Jesus baptizes in fire, not...

^A casting upon those who are being baptized a Spirit that is foreign, after the manner of a servant or subordinate, but as God by nature with absolute power, who is from himself and his own." These words, "who is from him, and through him," are found in a most ancient manuscript. And after a few lines in the same discourse: "For forgiving the sins of those who cleave to him, he straightway imparts his own Spirit, which he sends forth indeed as the Word born of God the Father, and pours it forth into us as from his own nature."

Saint Cyril, in the discourses to Palladius in the form of questions and answers, near the beginning, says: "But the Spirit is in no way mutable; for if he were subject to change, the reproach would redound upon the divine nature itself, if he is of God and the Father, and indeed also of the Son, the Spirit being essentially poured forth from both, that is, from the Father through the Son."

The same author, in the second of the *Thesauri*, in the discourse entitled, "That the Holy Spirit is from the essence of the Father and the Son," says: "When, therefore, the Holy Spirit, coming into us, makes us ^B conformable to God, and proceeds from both the Father and the Son, it is manifest that he is of the divine essence, proceeding essentially in it and from it; just as, for example, the breath issuing from a human mouth, although it is a small and unworthy example. For God excels all things."

The great Athanasius, in the work on the incarnation of the Word of God, the beginning of which is, "Those who wish to understand the divine Scriptures maliciously," says: "For he himself sent him from above as God, and he himself received him from below as man. From himself, therefore, he descended into himself, from his divinity into his humanity."

The same author, in the tome to the Antiochenes, the beginning of which is: "To the beloved and most longed-for brothers Eusebius and Lucifer," says: "It is necessary also to anathematize those who say that the Holy Spirit is a creature, and separated from the substance of Christ."

Chrysostom, in the discourse on the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, and on that passage, "In every region there stood angels," the beginning of which is: "Verily the grace of God has appeared to us," says: "Christ came to us. He gave to us the Spirit who is from him, and he assumed our body."

The same author, in the discourse on the two Testaments, the beginning of which is: "The law and the prophets have declared from the beginning that God is one and the same," says: "For because the God-bearing body of the Lord became a temple of the divine power, thou also becomest a temple ^C according to his likeness. For thou receivest the Spirit sent from him. As, therefore, in acknowledging Christ thou hast acknowledged God, so also by receiving the Spirit of Christ, thou hast received God."

The same author, in the first *Prophylactica*, the beginning of which is: "Since we approach the Good, we must be on guard against the devil who works against the Good," says: "And ^D

in this way the Spirit who is from Christ shall preserve us until the day of future redemption."

Magnus and Thaumaturgus Gregory, Bishop of Neocaesarea, in the oration which begins: "Those who say that the Son is from things which do not exist are most hostile and alien to the apostolic confession," writes: "The Father of the Lord is the beginning, having begotten Him from eternity, and the Lord is the prototype of the Spirit." ^B St. Basil the Great calls the Father the Begetter and prototype of the Son in his fourth oration against Eunomius.

St. Cyril, in one of the chapters of the second book of the *Thesaurus*, says: "But the Spirit is altogether proper to the essence of the Son, and does not have His hypostasis from an external source." In another, again: "When, therefore, Christ gives laws, the Spirit who is in Him and exists from Him by nature gives those laws." And in another: "It is necessary, therefore, to confess that He is from the essence of the Son and of God, since He possesses all His operation and virtue." Item, in another: "As existing from the essence of Him who supplies Him to the saints, that is to say, Christ." Item, in another: "Paul recognizes no difference of nature between the Son and the Holy Spirit, but as existing from Him and in Him, he distinguishes Him by the name of lordship." ^C Item, in another: "It is necessary to confess that the Spirit exists from the essence of the Son." Item, in another: "Therefore the Spirit is from the essence of the Son."

The same author, in his exposition of the Gospel according to John, on the passage: "And the Word was God," says: "He is not, therefore, inferior, for He possesses the same operation as the perfect Father, and has the Spirit of the Begetter as His own proper good, just as the Begetter Himself has Him, who is subsistent, as is indeed the Father Himself."

The same author, in his exposition of the Gospel according to John, on the passage: "And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Paraclete," ^D says: "For since the Son shares substantially in the natural goods of the Godhead with the Father, He possesses the Spirit in the same manner as the Father is understood to possess Him, not as something adventitious or from without. For it is foolish and even insane to think thus; but just as each one of us contains his own spirit within himself, and pours it forth from the deepest parts of his vitals to the exterior, for this reason Christ breathed forth corporeally, showing by this sign that just as the human spirit proceeds corporeally from the human mouth, so the Spirit, who is from the divine substance, is poured forth from it in a manner befitting the Godhead."

The same author, in his sixth book to Hermias, says: "Furthermore, how does the Son indwell in us through the Spirit? And how will that which is more excellent by nature communicate the participation of itself to that which is less excellent? And if we are made partakers of the divine nature by receiving the Spirit, how is the Son in the second place after the Spirit? Or how is He more excellent than Him?"

^A

The Metaphrast, in the martyrdom of the holy Dionysius the Areopagite, says at the very beginning of his discourse: "Formerly the things of faith were in types and riddles, and the light of truth was covered by the cloud of the shadow. But since the great mystery of our salvation was accomplished, and He who formed our hearts individually, through His own compassion for us, was born sinlessly as we are, and underwent all other things that belong to human weakness, so that I might regain my first nobility, and finally was condemned to death by the cross; and, not to mention the details—for the mysteries in the midst of His economy are many—the bodily advent reached its end, the manifestation of the truth begins, and my Christ ascends into the heavens and returns to the paternal throne, for the Spirit that proceeds from Him He sends down to the disciples as a guide for the unfaithful nations." In some books this inscription contains "Ascension."

^B Theodorus, presbyter of Raithu, speaking of the dogmas of our right faith and truth, says: "Taking the property of the body as an example, we have represented the mutual cohesion of the divine hypostases by the analogy and assimilation of the members; for it is for this reason that the Spirit of His mouth—that is, clearly, of God—is called the Holy Spirit, the Only-Begotten being the mouth. And again, the Spirit, proceeding from Him and being sent not only by the Father, but also by the Son." And after some things: "And yet the Lord, showing Him to exist from Himself, breathing upon the disciples said: 'Receive the Holy Spirit.'" ^C

Saint Athanasius, in the confession of his faith, says: "The Holy Spirit is from the Father and from the Son, not made, not created, not begotten, but proceeding."

Saint Epiphanius, in the discourse to which he prefixed the name *Ancyrotos*, says: "The Spirit is incomprehensible, not alien to the Father and the Son, nor is He a commingling of the Father and the Son." After a few words: "The Holy Spirit is not a brother of the brother, nor the brother of the Father, but is of the same essence as the Father and the Son. For the Only-Begotten Himself says, 'the Spirit of the Father who proceeds from the Father, and He shall take of mine,' so that He might not be thought alien to the Father nor to the Son." And after a few words: "Third in appellation from the Father and the Son." ^D And after a great many things: "Both dwell in the righteous man, Christ and His Spirit. But if Christ is believed to be God from God, from the Father, and the Spirit from Christ, or from both, as Christ insinuates, 'who proceeds from the Father, and He shall take of mine.'" And after a few words: "But someone may say, 'Therefore we say there are two sons, and how then is He the Only-Begotten?' But who are you, who, when..."

you ^A dispute with God, if He calls the Son from Himself, and the Holy Spirit from both? Which things, being perceived by the saints by faith alone, are full of light, giving light, and possess an effulgent operation." And with a few words added: "The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth, a third light from the Father and the Son." And after many things: "For in the same way that no one knows the Father except the Son, and neither the Son except the Father," I dare to say, "neither the Spirit except the Father and the Son, from whom He proceeds, and from whom He receives; and neither the Son and the Father except the Holy Spirit, who truly glorifies, who teaches all things, He who is from the Father and from the Son." And after some things: "Therefore the Father was always, and the Son was always, and the Spirit breathes from the Father and the Son."

That the Spirit is through the Son.

Great Athanasius in the discourse which is inscribed, *Refutation of the hypocrisy of those around Meletius and Eusebius*, and which begins: "Man was made in the likeness of God," writes: "But it was impossible for the Spirit to be glorified in the glory of the Trinity, unless He had His nature by the mode of proceeding from God through the Son, and not by the mode of being made, as they say." The same author, in the disputation of an Orthodox and a Macedonian which he sets forth, says: "Therefore, if it shall have been shown that the Spirit is of the same divinity with the Son and with the Father, He who is poured forth from the Father Himself through the Son, He will be demonstrated ^B as to be adored and worshipped."

Gregory Thaumaturgus in the discourse whose beginning is: "Most hostile and alien to the apostolic confession are those who say that the Son is from things which do not exist," writes: "The Father remaining unbegotten, the Son being begotten from the Father, and the Holy Spirit being eternally sent forth from the substance of the Father through the Son."

Great Basil in one of the chapters whose inscription is: "Why is the Spirit not also called a son of the Son," says: "Not because He is not from God through the Son, but lest the Trinity be suspected of having sons from sons, as is the case among men, and be thought to be an infinite multitude." And after a few words: "For this reason the Apostle clearly proclaimed the Spirit to be from God, saying: 'We have received the Spirit which is from God,' and he made it clear that He shone forth through the Son, when he named Him 'Spirit of the Son,' just as he named Him 'God's own,' and called Him 'the mind of Christ,' ^C just as he also called Him 'Spirit of God' as of a man." And after a few words: "And one truly is the Spirit, who is truly holy, who also is named the spirit of the mouth." And in the chapter to which is prefixed: "If any one does not say that the Spirit is from God, neither does he say [so of] the Word," he says: "How then shall things inseparable be separated: to wit, the Word from God, and the Spirit from God through the Son?"

Gregory of Nyssa in the first of the Antirrhetics against Eunomius, which begins: "It cannot, as it seems, be that one who desires to do good to all," says: "That... ^D

The ^A Spirit, being joined to the Father in respect of being uncreated, is again separated from Him in that He is not the Father; just as that one is separated. But in respect of the joining with the Son according to the uncreated nature, and in that He has the cause of His existence from the God of all, He is again separated by that which is proper to Him, in that He does not subsist from the Father as Only-Begotten, and in that He has appeared through the Son Himself. And again, since the creation has subsisted through the Only-Begotten, in order that the Spirit may not be thought to have some community with it, because He has appeared through the Son, the Spirit is distinguished from the creation in His immutability and unchangeability." And after many things in the same: "From the unbegotten sun we conceive another sun, the Son, shining forth together with Him at the very first conception by generation, and being in all things the same; and again, another such light, the Spirit, in the same ^B manner, not separated from the begotten light by any interval of time, but shining forth through it, and having the cause of His hypostasis from the prototypical light, being, however, Himself also a light, shining and illuminating after the likeness of the light previously conceived."

The Theologian Gregory, in his instructions to virgins, written in heroic verse, says: "Gracious, gracious to us, holy Trinity, coming together into one, shining forth from one to the eyes with bright rays; today, and still more brightly at the last, with which you have shone. For there is one God, from the begetter through the Son into the great Spirit, the divinity standing perfect in perfect ones." The paraphrase is as follows: "Be gracious to us, O pure Trinity, proceeding into one, beholding with eyes that are bright today, and more brightly at the last, with which you have shone. There is one God from the Father through the Son ^C into the great Spirit, the divinity standing perfect in perfect ones."

Damascenus in the thirteenth chapter of his theological chapters, the beginning of which is, "The Divine is incomprehensible," says concerning the Holy Spirit: "He is indeed Mind, an abyss of reason, the Begetter of the Word, and through the Word the producer of the manifesting Spirit." The same, in the same place: "And finally, the Holy Spirit is the power of the Father, declaring the hiddenness of the divinity, proceeding from the Father through the Son."

Saint Cyril in the second book of his work to Hermias: "You may call the Holy Spirit that which by nature is poured forth from God the Father through the Son, and, as in a figure, indicating to us His own existence from the breathing of the mouth. And thus, while keeping clear and unconfused the particularity ^D of the three hypostases in their proper existences, you shall adore the one and consubstantial royal nature of all."

The Great Gregory the Theologian in his Antirrhetic concerning the Holy Spirit, speaking as if objecting to himself, says: "What then is lacking, he says, to the Spirit, that He is not the Son? For if something were lacking, He would certainly be the Son." He adds, therefore: "We say that nothing is lacking, for God is not deficient in anything. But the difference of manifestation, if I may so speak, or of the mutual relationship, has rendered their appellation also different."

^A Gregory of Nyssa in his oration to Ablabius, which begins: "It is indeed just for you, who possess strength in every power, to contend," writes: "While confessing the nature to be immutable and alike in all respects, we do not deny the difference concerning cause and effect, in which alone we perceive the one to be distinguished from the other; since we believe this to be the cause, and that to be from the cause, and again we perceive another difference in that which is from the cause. For the one is immediately from the first, and the other is from the first through that which is immediately from the first; so that the 'only-begotten' remains undisputed in the Son, and the fact that the Spirit is from the Father does not vacillate, since the mediation of the Son preserves the 'only-begotten' for Him, and does not exclude the Spirit from the natural relationship to the Father."

The same one, in his discourse concerning the Holy Spirit against the Macedonians, says: "For in those things in which operation according to goodness has no diminution or change, how is it reasonable to think that the order according to number is a sign of any diminution or change according to nature? Just as if someone, seeing a flame divided into three lamps, were to suppose that the first flame is the cause of the third light, having ignited the furthest through communication with the intermediate one; then he were to assert that warmth abounds in the first flame; that the one which follows it is changed and gradually diminished; and that the third should not even be considered fire, although it burns and shines in an equal manner and performs all the works of fire." ^B

Saint Maximus, in his exposition "How the golden candelabrum, and the small lamp upon it, and the lucern ought to be understood," teaches: "For the Holy Spirit, just as He is by nature according to essence of God and the Father, so also is He of the Son according to essence, as one who proceeds from the Father essentially through the begotten Son, in a manner which cannot be expressed in words." ^C

Divine Tarasius, in his epistle to the prelates and priests of Antioch, Alexandria, and the Holy City, which begins: "With many and great providences, the Lord God governing and leading the lives of men," adds many other things, and says: "And into the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father through the Son, and is recognized to be God Himself." ^D

Great Athanasius, in his epistle to Serapion concerning the Holy Spirit, the beginning of which is: "Perhaps you will wonder at how, while commanding," writes: "For the Spirit is not outside the Word, but existing in the Word, He is in God through Him." And after a few words: "But since the Spirit is in the Word, it would be manifest that the Spirit was in God through the Word."

Gregory of Nyssa in the first of his Antirretic orations against Eunomius, which begins: "It is not possible, as it seems, that he who wishes to benefit all," says: "The Father is understood as without beginning and unbegotten; and from Him, immediately and without interval, the only-begotten Son [is] to the Father

^A is simultaneously understood; and through Him, and with Him, before any empty and unsubstantial notion can intervene, the Holy Spirit is immediately perceived in conjunction, not existing after the Son in His subsistence, so that the Only-begotten might at any time be conceived without the Spirit, but having His own cause of existence from the God of all—from whom also the only-begotten Light arises—and shining forth through the true Light, He is separated neither by difference of nature from the Father nor from the Only-begotten."

These testimonies, handed down in writing, have been collected in order to confirm the equal force of the prepositions "through" (*per*) and "from" (*ex*).

The great Basil, in his compendious discourse on the Holy Spirit, the fifth to the blessed Amphilochius, which begins, "Things related in this way are maintained by those people; but we shall demonstrate what we proposed," ^B writes: "The things that are signified by them are very often interchanged, whenever one receives the significance of the other; as for instance, 'I have acquired a man through God,' meaning the same thing as 'from God'; and elsewhere, 'All that Moses commanded to Israel through the commandment of the Lord.' And again, 'Is not the manifestation of these things through God?' For where it was 'from God,' he said 'through God.'"

Saint Cyril in the fifth book of the *Against Hermias* says: "These men assist their own dogmas and attempt to persuade us that the Father is a life-giver in a more excellent way than the Son, and that the Son is less than He is, although the Son is Life by nature. But they will not be able to do this." ^C And after a few words: "Then they think they honor the Father when they offend the Son, who was born of Him by nature, with their calculations intended to make Him lesser, although He says clearly: 'He who believes in me, does not believe in me, but in Him who sent me. And he who sees me, sees Him who sent me.' For how could we see the Life that exists by nature and the Son? Why should we not also believe Him who says: 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life'? But by adding the article and saying that He Himself is the Life in the singular, would He not have denied that the Father and His God is Life, unless we grant that both are of one nature, so that life comes to us equally through both, and not from two, but as from one God who gives life to all?"

The same author, in the sixth book of the *Against Hermias*: "For whatever is done by the Father, that itself is entirely the operation of the Son; and whatever is said to be accomplished through the Son, that itself is the accomplishment of the Father. For all things proceed through both in equal manner." ^D

Saint Cyril, in one of his letters to Nestorius, which begins, "Some people are prattling before your piety, as we have learned, against my understanding," says: "But perhaps you will say this, Nestorius: 'Tell me, has she become Mother of the Divinity?'"

'" ^A To this we respond that it is acknowledged to be born of the very essence of God and the Father, the living and subsisting Word of God; but in the final times of the age, since He became flesh—that is, was united to flesh possessing a rational soul—He is also said, in a carnal manner, to have been born through a woman." And after a few words: "Since, having taken flesh, He has been named also Son of man, it is necessary to confess that He has been born according to the flesh through a woman." And again after a few words: "The Word from God the Father is from the holy Virgin." And after a few lines again: "He has been born among us from a woman." And after three or four clauses He says: "The Word from God the Father, existing in the form of Him who begat Him, dwelt in a man born through a woman." And after some words: "But perhaps someone might say, what is the difference between Christ and Moses, if both were born through a woman?" And with some things interposed: "For the Word was as in His own body, which was from a woman; but He delivered it to death for a time."

The same holy Cyril, in the ^B Prosphoneticus to the most pious Emperor Theodosius, the beginning of which is: "Of what is supreme among men," says: "The Word from God the Father manifested Himself in the flesh: for He was born through the holy and God-bearing Virgin, having taken the form of a servant." And after some other things: "But that some should imagine that the Word, who was begotten from the Father, renounced birth through the holy Virgin is the opinion of those who are blaspheming the dispensation." And after many things in the same work: "Do we not say that Emmanuel was born from a woman? Or how has He ascended to that place where He says He is? And yet the body united to Him was born through the holy Virgin."

Great Athanasius in his first oration against the Arians, the beginning of which is: "All heresies, as many as have apprehended the truth, bring insanity upon themselves," writes: "When therefore a man has arrived at that age in which he acquires manhood, at once, with nothing hindering, by his own nature, a man becomes a father of a son who is through him."

The holy Cyril, on the saying of St. John, "All things were made through Him," says: "But if they think, because it is written 'through Him'—that is, through the Son—that He falls away from the natural equality and natural likeness of the Father, and that He is rather a minister than a creator, let these madmen consider among themselves and come into our midst to answer what we are to think about the Father Himself, whom we discover to be the same, since He does not refuse the particle 'through' to be used of Himself in the divine Scriptures? For, He says, 'Faithful is God by whom ye were called into the communion of His Son.' And Paul an Apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God. And again, writing to others: 'So he is no servant'"

' ^A but a son, and an heir through God.' These all refer their relation to the person of God and the Father, and no one is so insane as not to agree with what has already been said, namely, that the name and reality of "ministry" may reasonably be attributed to the glory of the Father himself, since the particle "through" has been used even of Him. For divine Scripture occasionally uses terms indifferently in a figurative manner, so that it may signify great things as well as possible for man, offending nothing, but applying both the words and the means by which it thinks it may be well set forth, in a somewhat abusive sense."

The same author writes in the first book against Palladius: "Is the Spirit not then mutable in any way? Or if it suffers change, the blame will recoil upon the divine nature itself; if it is of God ^B and the Father, and moreover of the Son essentially from both, that is to say, the Spirit poured forth from the Father through the Son."

Damascenus, singing in concert, says now: "You bore God, immaculate Mother, who in a divine manner assumed flesh from you, worthy of all praise;" and now: "Through you, Mother and Virgin, light shone upon the whole world;" and again: "From you He put on my mass."

EPIGRAPH II

Since there are many who contradict the scriptural testimonies which state that the Spirit is from the Father through the Son, these words and testimonies have also been collected, which show ^C that the Son is immediately and directly from the Father, to corroborate those statements which prove that the Spirit is through the Son. For if the Spirit were not through the Son, why was He not also said to be immediately from the Father?

Great Basil, in the second book against Eunomius, which begins: "Since, therefore, in that discourse which he had concerning the God of all," writes: "The Father has no origin, but the Father is the origin of the Son, and there is nothing between them. How then was He not from the beginning—for this is that which is meant ^D by 'before his subsistence,' which is said by them through cavil—He before whom nothing is understood except the Father, from whom He also has His being, not superior by an interval, but preordained in cause? If, therefore, the eternal conjunction of the Son with the Father and God is demonstrated: since our thought proceeds from the Son to the Father through no vacuum, but joins the Son to the Father without interval, what opening does He who is separated by no medium leave for their pernicious blasphemy?"

The same author, in the letter to the canonics, which begins: "How much a sad rumor previously stung our ears," says: "For if the Spirit is superior to God, He is not from God. But if He is from God, how is He older than that from which He is? But not even prior to the Only-Begotten? For there is nothing between the Son and the Father."

Gregory of Nyssa, in the first of the Anti-rhetorical [discourses]

^A against Eunomius, which begins, "To wish to benefit all, it seems, is not possible," writes: "The Father is understood as without beginning and unbegotten; and from Him, immediately and indivisibly, the only-begotten Son is conceived together with the Father; and through Him and with Him, before any empty and unsubstantial concept can slide in between, the Holy Spirit is straightway apprehended in conjunction, not existing in His subsistence after the Son, so that the Only-Begotten would ever be conceived without the Spirit, but having even Himself from God, the God of all, the cause of His being; whence He is also the only-begotten light, and shining forth through the true light, He is not divided or separated from the Father or the Only-Begotten Son by any interval or diversity of nature." ^B The same [author], in the fourth [book] against Eunomius, the beginning of which is, "It would be time to examine also the physiology regarding the generation," says: "Since even among us the connection of the Son toward the Father is confessed to be joint and undivided, so that there is nothing inserted between them."

The same, in the eighth discourse against Eunomius, the beginning of which is, "The strong points of Eunomius, then, are such," says: "For this immediate contact does not reject the will of the Father, as if He had possessed the Son by some necessity of nature without free choice." And after some things [added]: "The connection of the Son toward the Father is immediate, and the will, which is inherent within the good nature, is not pushed out by the indivisible connection." ^C Saint Cyril, in one of the chapters of the first [book] of the *Thesaurus*, says: "The Father generates the Son with no medium interposed."

The same, on the saying, "This was in the beginning with God," in the exposition of the Gospel according to John, says: "Immediately and continuously the Son is in God and the Father."

The same, on the saying, "All things were made through Him," says: "We understand the Son as existing together with the Father on account of the immutability of the essence and the most excellent way of continuity, and the immediateness of His [relation] to Him from whom He naturally proceeds." And after a few words [added]: "For the Son is the Word and the Wisdom, [existing] out of the mind and in the mind continuously and inseparably, and [there is] between them themselves a reciprocal ^D interpenetration of those things which are signified, as one might say."

Saint Epiphanius, in his oration on Holy Saturday, the beginning of which is, "What is this today?" says: "In the midst of two living beings, Jesus, the Child of God, is recognized, in the midst of the Father and the Spirit, the two living beings; life from life, recognized as life by nature."

Saint Cyril, in the fifth [book] of the [commentary] on Hermias, says: "Following, therefore, the faith of the sacred Scriptures, and treading upon the path that is, so to speak, well-worn by the wise, [we call] Him the power of God and the Father

as being the Son, we say, immediately at once and directly. ^A

Theodorus the presbyter of Raithu, in his dogmatic discourse, which begins: "I think it absurd, and I rightly deem it so," after many preceding remarks, says: "The Spirit, as I have said before, is called God, and Holy God; and these appellations joined together belong to Him who is properly called the Holy Spirit, just as the invocation of the Spirit [belongs] to the Cause, and that of the Son to Him who is immediately from the Cause."

EPIGRAPH III

Saint Cyril, in the sixth book of his works to Hermias, says: "Whence also the divine David, knowing the living and hypostatic efficacy and power of the Father, and the Son, prayed, saying: 'Command, O God, thy power; confirm, O God, that which thou hast wrought in us.' And Paul, most wise, clearly proclaimed Christ [to be] the power of God and the wisdom of God." ^C

The same author, in one of the chapters of his *Thesaurus*, says: "It is clearly shown that the Holy Spirit is not alien to the Son, but [is] in Him and from Him, and as it were a certain natural operation, capable of fulfilling all things whatsoever He wills."

The same author, in one of the chapters of the first *Thesaurus*, says: "The Son is the living and essential operation and power and wisdom of the Father."

Great Athanasius, in his letter to Serapion, calls the Spirit "the action of the Son."

Saint Cyril, in the fifth book of his works to Hermias, says: "For that the Son is, as it were, the face of the God and Father, the Psalmist will easily teach [us], saying in one place: 'Whither shall I go from thy Spirit, and whither shall I flee from thy face?' ^D And in another place, in the person of those who have believed in Him: 'The light of thy countenance, O Lord, has been signed upon us.' For we have been sealed with the Holy Spirit unto the image and likeness of the face of the Father, that is to say, of the Son."

The same author, in his commentary on the Gospel according to John, on the passage, "He was the true light," says: "Indeed, the face of God and the Father, that is to say the Son, supplies illumination to the creature."

The same author, on the passage, "Labour not for the meat that perisheth," says: "For the face of God and the Father is the Son

if the Son has filled the heavens and the ends of the earth, that is to say, those things which are in Hades, how is it not most irrational to attach the name of containment to him, not even considering this, that if his face, that is to say the Spirit—for the Spirit is called the face of the Son—fills all things, how could he himself be confined within the limits of containment?"

EPIGRAPH IV

Since some do not admit the mediation of the Son in the Trinity, which is openly and clearly declared by the holy Fathers, and deny altogether the speaking of an order in the Trinity, the present scriptural testimonies and dictated writings have been collected, to show that the Spirit is conjoined to the Father through the Son, and to demonstrate most manifestly that to no one should there be any doubt about the order in the Trinity.

The great Athanasius in his fourth discourse against the Arians, the beginning of which is: "The Arians, as it seems, having once judged ^B themselves to be deserters and betrayers of the truth, seem for their part to wish to pervert what is written," says: "The Spirit does not join the Word to the Father, but rather the Spirit receives this from the Word." And after a few words: "For since the Word is in the Father, and the Spirit is given from the Word, he wishes us to receive the Spirit, so that when we have received it, then having the Spirit of the Word which is in the Father, we may appear also ourselves, through the Spirit, to have become in the Word, and through him in the Father." And with a few words added: "By this reason we shall be in the Son and in the Father, and shall be considered to have become one, because the Spirit is in us, who is in his Word, who is in the Father."

The same author in his epistle to Serapion concerning the Holy Spirit, the beginning of which is: "The letters of thy holy disposition were delivered to me in the desert," says: ^{C D} "For if, on account of the unity of the Word with the Father, they do not wish the Son to be counted among creatures, why do they call the Holy Spirit a creature, who has the same unity with the Son that he himself has with the Father? And they have not understood that just as they do not maintain that there is one God if they divide the Son from the Father, so also by dividing the Spirit from the Word, they no longer preserve one divinity in the Trinity." And after many things in the same work: "In Christ was the Spirit, just as the Son is in the Father." And again: "The holy and blessed Trinity is indivisible and united with itself, and when the Father is named, there is present also his Word, and the Spirit who is in the Son; but if the Son is named, in the Son is the Father, and the Spirit is not...

^A extra Verbum. And after many things: "For since the Son, the living Word, is one, it is necessary that his sanctifying and illuminating life, that is to say, his power, faculty, and gift, which is said to proceed from the Father, should be one and perfect and full, because it takes from the Word of the Father, and is sent and given: but the Son sends the Spirit."

The same, in the epistle to Serapion concerning the Holy Spirit, which begins: "Thou will perhaps wonder what has been done," says: "For the Spirit is not outside the Word, but being in the Word himself, he is in God through him." And after a few things: "For partaking of the Spirit, we have the grace of the Word, and in it the love of the Father." And ^B after a few things: "But since the Spirit is in the Word, it is clear that the Spirit was also in God through the Word."

The same, in the first epistle to Serapion, says: "And having such an order and nature toward the Son as the Son has toward the Father, how will he who calls this a creature not of necessity affirm the same also regarding the Son?"

Saint Basil, in one of the chapters whose inscription is: "That the Spirit is shown to be glorified with God," says: "The fact that the Trinity is glorified in the same divine works is a testimony of the one Godhead, that neither does the Father work without the Son, nor the Son without the Spirit, of whose Godhead it is a testimony."

The same, in one of the chapters whose inscription is: "That the unity of the Trinity is recognized from the divine nature," says: ^C "And the Son was never lacking to the Father, nor the Spirit to the Son."

The same, in the seventeenth chapter of those to Amphilochius, says: "As therefore the Son has a relation toward the Father, so too does the Spirit toward the Son, according to the order delivered by the Word in baptism. But if the Spirit is joined with the Son, and the Son with the Father, then the Spirit is clearly joined with the Father."

The same, in the eighteenth of the same chapters, says: "And the Holy Spirit, being joined through one Son to the one Father." And after certain things: "The path, therefore, to the knowledge of God is from one Spirit through one Son to the one Father; and conversely, the natural goodness, ^D and the holiness by nature, and the royal dignity, flow from the Father through the Only-begotten to the Holy Spirit; and in this way also the hypostases are confessed, and the pious dogma of the monarchy is not destroyed."

The same, in the epistle to his brother Gregory, says: "This Spirit has as a sign of the property according to the hypostasis, that he is known after the Son and with the Son, and subsists from the Father."

The same, in the third of the Antirrhetics, says: "For just as the Son is second in order to the Father, because he is from him, and in dignity, because he is the origin and cause... the Father is sent; but the Son [sends] the Spirit."

^A

The same [author] in the first of his *Antirrhetici* against the same Eunomius, the beginning of which is: "If all upon whom the name of God and our Savior Jesus Christ has been invoked wished," says: "But an order is of one kind, natural, and of another, artificial. Natural is that which is arranged according to the creative reasons of created things, even the position of number, and the relationship of causes to effects, it being confessed beforehand that God himself is the maker and creator of nature. Artificial, however, is that which is devised by the industry of men, as in structures, disciplines, dignities, number, and such things. Eunomius, therefore, hiding the former of these, made mention of the second kind of order and says that it is not right to speak of order in God, since the order is posterior to that which orders. But he either does not notice, or willingly and prudently hid, that there is a certain kind of order not constituted by our industry, but happening according to the sequence of nature, as fire is [related] to the light which is from it. For in these we say the cause is prior, and what is from it is posterior, not dividing them from one another by an interval, but knowing the cause before the effect. How then could it be reasonable to deny order where there is 'prior' and 'posterior,' not by our industry, but by the sequence naturally existing in them? ^{B C} For what reason, therefore, does he reject the assumption of order in God? He supposes that if he shows there is no other way to understand 'prior' in God, he will have left over the ability to demonstrate [his] superiority in substance itself. We, however, confess that the Son is placed before the Father according to the relationship of causes to those things which are from them, but by no means according to diversity of nature, nor according to superiority. For thus we would also reject that the Father is God, since essential diversity rejects natural conjunction." ^D

The same [author] in the *Letter to the Canonical [Women]*, which begins: "How much a sad rumor, echoing around our ears, had first afflicted us." He says: "When we are taught that the Son subsists from the substance of the Father, and indeed as begotten, not as made, let us not descend to the bodily perceptions of passions. For the essence is not divided from the Father into the Son, nor did he beget by efflux; but the mode of divine generation is altogether inexplicable. The Holy Spirit, however, is numbered with the Father and the Son because he is also above all creation; but he holds the place which I have mentioned, just as the Lord teaches us in the Gospel, saying: 'Go, baptize all nations in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.' He who places [him] before the Son, or the Father

[GREEK COLUMN] Υἱοῦ, ἢ πρεσβύτερον λέγων Πατρός, οὗτος ἀνθίσταται μὲν τῇ τοῦ Θεοῦ διαταγῇ, ἀλλότριος δὲ τῆς ὑγιαινούσης πίστεως, μὴ ὃν παρέλαβε τρόπον δοξολογίας φυλάττων, ἀλλ᾽ ἑαυτῷ κενοφωνίαν εἰς ἀρέσκειαν ἀνθρώπων ἐπινοῶν. » Καὶ μετ' ὀλίγα· « Ὥστε ἡ περὶ τὴν τάξιν καινοτομία αὐτῆς τῆς ὑπάρξεως ἀθέτησιν ἔχει, καὶ ὅλης τῆς πίστεώς ἐστιν ἄρνησις. Ὁμοίως οὖν ἐστιν ἀσεβὲς καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν κτίσιν καταγαγεῖν, καὶ ὑπερτιθέναι αὐτὸ ἢ Υἱοῦ ἢ Πατρὸς ἢ κατὰ τὸν χρόνον ἢ κατὰ τὴν τάξιν. » ^A

Ὁ αὐτὸς ἐν τῇ πρὸς Γρηγόριον τὸν ἀδελφὸν ἐπιστολῇ, ἧς ἡ ἀρχή, « Ἐπειδὴ πολλοὶ τὸ κοινὸν τῆς οὐσίας ἐπὶ τῶν μυστικῶν δογμάτων μὴ διακρίνοντες, » φησίν· « Ὁ τὸ Πνεῦμα νοήσας αὐτό τε ἐφ' ἑαυτοῦ ἐνόησε, καὶ τὸν Υἱὸν τῇ διανοίᾳ συμπαρεδέξατο. Ὁ δὲ τοῦτον λαβὼν τοῦ Υἱοῦ τὸν Πατέρα οὐκ ἀπεμέρισεν· ἀλλ' ἀκολούθως μὲν κατὰ τὴν τάξιν, συνημμένως δὲ κατὰ τὴν φύσιν τῶν τριῶν κατὰ ταὐτὸ συγκεκραμμένως ἐν ἑαυτῷ τὴν πίστιν ἀνετυπώσατο. Καὶ ὁ τὸ Πνεῦμα μόνον εἰπὼν συμπεριέλαβε τῇ ὁμολογίᾳ καὶ τὸν, οὗ ἐστι τὸ Πνεῦμα. Καὶ ἐπειδὴ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐστι τὸ Πνεῦμα, καὶ ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, καθὼς φησιν ὁ ᾿Απόστολος, ὥσπερ ἐξ ἁλύσεως ὁ τοῦ ἑνὸς ἄκρου ἀψάμενος, καὶ τὸ ἕτερον ἄκρον συνεπεσπάσατο, οὕτως ὁ τὸ Πνεῦμα ἑλκύσας δι' αὐτοῦ καὶ τὸν Πατέρα καὶ τὸν Υἱὸν ἐφειλκύσατο. Καὶ τὸν Υἱὸν ἀληθῶς εἴ τις λάβῃ, ἕξει αὐτοῦ ἑκατέρωθεν πῆ μὲν τὸν αὐτοῦ Πατέρα, πῆ δὲ τὸ ἴδιον Πνεῦμα συνεπαγόμενον. Οὐ γὰρ ἔστιν ἐπινοῆσαι τομὴν ἢ διαίρεσιν, ὡς ἢ Υἱὸν χωρὶς Πατρὸς νοηθῆναι, ἢ τὸ Πνεῦμα τοῦ Υἱοῦ διαζευχθῆναι. » ^B

Ὁ αὐτὸς μέγας Βασίλειος ἐν τῇ πρὸς Εὐστάθιον ἐπιστολῇ, ἧς ἡ ἀρχή, « Τοὺς ἢ προληφθέντας ἑτέρα πίστεως ὁμολογία, » φησὶν ὅτι « Φεύγειν δεῖ καὶ τοὺς τὴν ἀκολουθίαν, ἣν παρέδωκεν ἡμῖν ὁ Κύριος ἐναμείβοντας ὡς φανερῶς μαχομένους τῇ εὐσεβείᾳ, καὶ Υἱὸν μὲν προτάσσοντας τοῦ Πατρὸς, Υἱοῦ δὲ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον προτιθέντας. »

Ὁ Δαμασκηνὸς ἐν τῷ ιδ' τῶν θεολογικῶν αὐτοῦ κεφαλαίων φησί· « Θεὸς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον μέσον ἀγεννήτου καὶ γεννητοῦ, καὶ δι' Υἱοῦ τῷ Πατρὶ συναπτόμενον. »

Ὁ Θεολόγος Γρηγόριος ἐν τῷ β' τῶν Εἰρηνικῶν οὕτω φησίν· « Οὕτω φρονοῦμεν, καὶ οὕτως ἔχομεν, ὥστε, ὅπως μὲν ἔχει ταῦτα πρὸς ἄλληλα σχέσεώς τε καὶ τάξεως, αὐτῇ μόνῃ τῇ Τριάδι συγχωρεῖν εἰδέναι, καὶ οἷς ἂν ἡ Τριὰς ἀποκαλύψαι κεκαθαρμένοις ἢ νῦν ἢ ὕστερον. » ^{C D}

Ὁ Νύσσης Γρηγόριος ἐν τῷ α' τῶν πρὸς Εὐνόμιον Ἀντιρρητικῶν, οὗ ἡ ἀρχή, « Οὐκ ἦν, ὡς ἔοικε, τὸ πάντας ἐθέλειν εὐεργετεῖν, » φησίν· « Ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς διὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ πρὸς τὸ Πνεῦμα ἀναχωροῦμεν. »

Ὁ Χρυσόστομος ἐν μιᾷ τῶν ὁμιλιῶν αὐτοῦ τῇ εἰς τὸ ῥητὸν τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ τὸ λέγον, « Θὲς τὴν χεῖρά σου ἐπὶ τὸν μηρόν μου, » φησίν· « Λέγεται γὰρ μὴ ἔχειν τάξιν ἡ Τριάς, οὐχ ὡς ἄτακτος, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς τάξιν [ὑπερβαίνουσα.]

ὑπερβαίνουσα. » ^A Καὶ μετ' ὀλίγα· « Οὐκοῦν ἡ μὲν τῶν θείων ὑποστάσεων διακριτικὴ τάξις τοῖς ἁγίοις καθέστηκε γνώριμος, ἡ δὲ φύσεων διακριτικὴ ἐπὶ τῆς ἁγίας Τριάδος ἀπόβλητος. »

ΕΠΙΓΡΑΦΗ Ε΄.

Ἐπειδὴ εἰσί τινες ἀντιλέγοντες τοῖς λέγουσιν ὡς οἱ θεολογήσαντες ἅγιοι εἶναι τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἐκ Πατρὸς διὰ Υἱοῦ, καὶ ἐκ Πατρὸς καὶ Υἱοῦ ἐξ αὐτῶν τῶν τοῦ Σωτῆρος φωνῶν ἔσχον τὰς ἀφορμάς, τὸ μὲν ἐκ Πατρὸς ὑπάρχειν αὐτὸ θεολογήσαντες, διὰ τὸ τὸν Σωτῆρα ἐν Εὐαγγελίοις εἰπεῖν, « Ὃ παρὰ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται, » τὸ δὲ διὰ Υἱοῦ καὶ ἐξ Υἱοῦ ὑπάρχειν, διὰ τὸ τὸν αὐτὸν Σωτῆρα Χριστόν, νῦν μὲν Πνεῦμα ἀληθείας λέγειν αὐτό, νῦν δὲ σωματικῶς τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ ἐμφυσᾶν· καὶ νῦν μὲν πρὸς τοὺς αὐτοὺς μαθητὰς λέγειν ὅτι « Ἐκ τοῦ ἐμοῦ λήψεται, καὶ ἀναγγελεῖ ὑμῖν, » νῦν δὲ πρὸς τὸν Πατέρα, ὅτι « Πάντα τὰ ἐμά σά ἐστι, καὶ τὰ σὰ ἐμά. » Ἔτι δὲ καὶ ἐκ τοῦ οὐκ ἰδίᾳ μὲν διδόναι τὸν Πατέρα τὸ Πνεῦμα, ἰδίᾳ δὲ τὸν Υἱόν, ἀλλ' ἐκ τοῦ χορηγεῖσθαι αὐτὸ παρὰ Πατρὸς δι' Υἱοῦ μιᾷ δόσει καὶ χορηγίᾳ μιᾷ, καὶ ἐκ τοῦ τὴν Υἱὸν κοινωνὸν πάντων τῶν φυσικῶν ἀγαθῶν τοῦ Πατρὸς εἶναι, καὶ ἐκ τοῦ μὴ διακονικῶς καὶ ὑπηρετικῶς, ^B φυσικῶς δὲ μᾶλλον καὶ κατ' ἐξουσίαν θεϊκὴν χορηγεῖσθαι ὑμῖν αὐτὸ παρὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ, συνελέγησαν αἱ παροῦσαι περικοπαὶ τῆς πονηθείσης τῷ ἁγίῳ Κυρίλλῳ πραγματείας εἰς τὸν εὐαγγελιστὴν Ἰωάννην, ὡς ἂν ὁ ἐντυγχάνων αὐταῖς διαγινώσκοι ἐκ τῶν τοιούτων εὐαγγελικῶν ῥήσεων ἔχειν τὰς ἀφορμὰς τοὺς θεολογήσαντας ἐκ Πατρὸς διὰ Υἱοῦ καὶ ἐκ Πατρὸς καὶ Υἱοῦ εἶναι τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον.

Ὁ ἅγιος Κύριλλος ἐν τῇ ἑρμηνείᾳ τοῦ κατὰ Ἰωάννην Εὐαγγελίου εἰς τὸ ῥητὸν τό, « Κἀγὼ ἐρωτήσω τὸν Πατέρα, καὶ ἄλλον Παράκλητον δώσει ὑμῖν, » φησίν· « Ἄλλον τοίνυν Παράκλητον τὸ Πνεῦμα καλεῖ ὁ Υἱός, ἐν ἰδίᾳ μὲν ὑποστάσει νοεῖσθαι θέλων αὐτό, τοσαύτην γε μὴν ἔχον τὴν ἔμφερειαν ὡς πρὸς αὐτόν, καὶ ἀπαραλλάκτως οὕτω ἐνεργεῖν ἰσχύον, ἅπερ ἂν καὶ αὐτὸς ἐνεργοίη τυχόν, ὡς αὐτὸν εἶναι δοκεῖν τὸν Υἱόν, καὶ ἕτερον οὐδέν. Πνεῦμα γάρ ἐστιν αὐτοῦ. Καὶ γοῦν τῆς ἀληθείας αὐτὸ κατωνόμασε Πνεῦμα, καὶ διὰ τῶν προκειμένων ἑαυτὸν εἶναι τὴν ἀλήθειαν λέγων. Ἀλλ' ἐρεῖ τις εἰκότως τοῖς ἀλλότριον εἶναι νομίζουσι τὸν Υἱὸν τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Πατρὸς οὐσίας. Καὶ πῶς, εἰπέ μοι, τὸ τῆς ἀληθείας Πνεῦμα, τουτέστι τὸ τοῦ Υἱοῦ δίδωσιν ὁ Πατὴρ οὐχ ὡς ξένον ἢ ἀλλότριον, ἀλλ' ὡς ἴδιον Πνεῦμα, καίτοι καθ' ὑμᾶς διωρισμένον ἔχων τῆς οὐσίας τὸν λόγον πρὸς τὸν Υἱόν; Οὐ γὰρ ἀμφίλογον ὅτι καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ τὸ Πνεῦμά ἐστι. Πῶς δὲ αὖ πάλιν, εἴπερ ἐστὶν ἑτεροούσιος ὁ Υἱός, τὸ τοῦ Πατρὸς Πνεῦμα δίδωσιν ὡς ἑαυτοῦ; Γέγραπται γὰρ ὅτι ἐνεφύσησε τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ λέγων· « Λάβετε Πνεῦμα ἅγιον. » Ἆρ' οὖν οὐκ οἰήσεταί τις καὶ μάλα δικαίως, μᾶλλον δὲ καὶ ἀραρότως διακείσεται, ὅτι, τῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Πατρὸς φυσικῶν ἀγαθῶν οὐσιωδῶς ὑπάρχων κοινωνός, ὁ Υἱός, ἔχει τὸ Πνεῦμα κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον, καθ' ὅνπερ νοοῖτο καὶ ὁ

ὁ ^A Πατὴρ, οὐκ ἐπακτὸν οὐδὲ ἔξωθεν (εὐηθὲς γὰρ, μᾶλλον δὲ μανικὸν τὸ οὕτω φρονεῖν), ἀλλ’ ὥσπερ ἡμῶν ἕκαστος τὸ ἴδιον ἐν ἑαυτῷ πνεῦμα συνέχει, καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἐνδοτάτων σπλάγχνων εἰς τὸ ἔξω προχέει. Διὰ γάρ τοι τοῦτο καὶ σωματικῶς ἐνεφύσησεν ὁ Χριστός, δεικνὺς ὅτι καθώσπερ ἐκ στόματος τοῦ ἀνθρωπείου προΐησι τὸ Πνεῦμα σωματικῶς, οὕτω καὶ ἐκ τῆς θείας οὐσίας θεοπρεπῶς προχεῖται τὸ ἐξ αὐτῆς. Ὅτε τοίνυν αὐτὸ τὸ Πνεῦμα τοῦ τε Θεοῦ καὶ Πατρός ἐστι καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ, πῶς οὐχὶ πάντως μίαν ἐξουσίαν ἕξουσι διῃρημένως τε ἅμα καὶ συνημμένως; Πατὴρ γὰρ ὁ Πατὴρ, καὶ οὐχ Υἱός, καὶ Υἱὸς ὁ Υἱός, καὶ οὐχὶ Πατήρ, πλὴν ὁ Πατὴρ ἐν Υἱῷ, καὶ ὁ Υἱὸς ἐν Πατρί. Δίδωσί γε μὴν τὸν Παράκλητον, ἤτοι τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, οὐκ ἰδίᾳ μὲν ὁ Πατήρ, ἰδίᾳ δὲ ὁ Υἱός. Χορηγεῖται δὲ μᾶλλον τοῖς ἀξίοις παρὰ Πατρὸς δι’ Υἱοῦ. Διὰ γάρ τοι τοῦτο διδόναι λεγομένου τοῦ Πατρὸς, ὁ δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα δίδωσιν ὁ Υἱός, καὶ διδομένου λεγομένου τοῦ Υἱοῦ, ὁ ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα δίδωσιν ὁ Πατήρ. Ὅτι δὲ θεῖόν τε τὸ Πνεῦμα, καὶ οὐχ ἑτερούσιον ὡς πρὸς αὐτόν γε, φημὶ, τὸν Πατέρα καὶ τὸν Υἱόν, οὐδενὶ μὲν οἶμαι τῶν εὖ φρονούντων ὑπάρχειν ἀμφίβολον, καὶ ἀναγκαῖος δὲ ἡμᾶς ἀναπείσει λόγος. Εἰ γὰρ οὐκ εἶναί τις αὐτό φησιν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Θεοῦ, πῶς ἂν εἴη Θεοῦ μέτοχος ἡ κτίσις, εἰ καὶ λαβοῦσα τὸ Πνεῦμα; Κατὰ τίνα δὲ τρόπον ναοὶ Θεοῦ χρηματιοῦμεν καὶ ἐσόμεθα, κτιστὸν ἢ ἀλλογενὲς κομιζόμενοι Πνεῦμα, καὶ οὐχὶ μᾶλλον τὰ ἐκ Θεοῦ; Πῶς δὲ θείας φύσεως κοινωνοὶ κατὰ τὰς τῶν ἁγίων φωνὰς οἱ Πνεύματος μέτοχοι, εἰ γεννητοῖς ἐναρίθμιόν ἐστι καὶ οὐχὶ μᾶλλον ἐξ αὐτῆς ἡμῖν τῆς θείας φύσεως πρόεισιν, οὐ διικνούμενον δι’ αὐτῆς εἰς ἡμᾶς ὡς ἀλλότριον, ἀλλ’, ἵν’ οὕτως εἴπω, ποιότης ὥσπερ τις τῆς θεότητος ἐν ἡμῖν γενόμενον, καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἁγίοις κατοικοῦν, καὶ ἁπτόμενον αὐτῶν διαπαντός, εἰ τῆς ἑαυτῶν διανοίας τὸν ὀφθαλμὸν διὰ πάσης ἐπιεικείας ἀποκαθαίροντες, καὶ διὰ τῆς εἰς πᾶσαν ἀρετὴν ἀνενδότου σπουδῆς συντηροῖεν ἑαυτοῖς τὴν χάριν;

Ὁ αὐτὸς εἰς τὸ ῥητόν, τὸ, ὅτι «Τεθέαμαι τὸ Πνεῦμα καταβαῖνον ὡσεὶ περιστερὰν ἐξ οὐρανοῦ,» φησίν· «Οὐ γὰρ δήπου πρὸς τοσαύτην ἀλογίαν καταβησόμεθα καὶ ἡμεῖς, ὡς οἴεσθαι μεθεκτὸν ἐν τῷ κατὰ φύσιν Υἱῷ τὸ Πνεῦμα ὑπάρχειν, καὶ οὐχὶ μᾶλλον οὐσιωδῶς ἐμπεφυκός, ὥσπερ ἀμέλει καὶ αὐτῷ τῷ Πατρί· ὥσπερ γὰρ τοῦ Πατρός, οὕτω δὴ καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἐστι τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον.» Καὶ μετ’ ὀλίγα τῆς περικοπῆς· «Πῶς δ’ ἂν καὶ ὅλως δίχα ποτὲ τοῦ ἰδίου Πνεύματος ὁ Λόγος νοοῖτο; Ἡ γὰρ οὐκ ἄτοπον ἀνθρώπου κεχωρίσθαι λέγειν τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἐν αὐτῷ, κατά τε τὴν τῆς φύσεως ὅρον, καὶ εἰς ὁλόκληρον τοῦ ζῴου τὴν ἀπαρτισμόν; Τίνα οὖν τρόπον ἀπομεριοῦμεν τὸ Πνεῦμα τοῦ Υἱοῦ, τὸ οὕτως ἐμπεφυκὸς καὶ οὐσιωδῶς ἡνωμένον, δι’ αὐτοῦ τε προκύπτον καὶ ὑπάρχον ἐν αὐτῷ φυσικῶς, ὡς μηδὲν ἕτερον εἶναι νομίζεσθαι παρ’ αὐτόν;» Καὶ μετ’ ὀλίγα· «Ἀπαράλλακτος ἡ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ὁμοιότης πρὸς τὸ ἴδιον αὐτοῦ καὶ παρ’ αὐτοῦ κατὰ φύσιν προχεόμενον Πνεῦμα.»

^A The same author, in the fifth of those to Hermias: “If, therefore, the character of the hypostasis of the Father is spoken of, conceive of it as coexisting inseparably and adhesively at once, and as it were the form of Him who begat him; and whenever, as a luminescence from a light that has brought forth and shone out, you bring into your mind the procession, as it were, out of the Father towards the exterior—neither entirely alienated from the hypostasis from which it originates, nor yet entirely contracted—but protruding, as it were, so as to subsist in itself, and have its own proper existence.”

^B The same author, on the text: “As you sent me into the world, I also sent them into the world,” says: “The Spirit is proper to God and the Father; but it is no less proper to the Son also, not as one thing and another, or as understood and existing in each dividedly. But because the Son is by nature in the Father and from the Father, being the true fruit of His substance, He possesses the Spirit—proper to the Father by nature—who is poured forth indeed from the Father, but is bestowed upon the creatures through the Son; not in a ministerial manner, that is, one understood as being in service, but, as I said just now, proceeding from the very substance of God and the Father, yet poured forth to those who are worthy through the consubstantial Word, from whom, according to the emanation, it is present and subsists, and remains in Him, and is always conjointly at once and dividedly. For we say that the Son subsists, and that He is in His Spirit, and we confess the Spirit in turn to be in Him. ^C And the Spirit of the Father is also the Spirit of the Son, and since the Father sends, or promises to distribute, the Son also distributes Him to the saints because of the identity of the essence which He has with the Father.”

The same author, on the text: “And John bore witness, saying, I saw the Spirit descending as a dove from heaven,” says: “The contentious heretic will perhaps spring up again and again, and with a broad laugh mock and say: ‘What again do you answer us regarding these things, O friends, or what discourse will you contrive, twisting what is written with new sophistries? Behold, it says the Spirit descends upon the Son. Behold, He is anointed by God and the Father; what He does not have, it is evident He receives.’ And the Psalmist confirms this with his own testimony when he says to the Son, ‘Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your fellows.’ ^D How then will the Son be in the consubstantiality of the perfect Father, if He is not such, and for that reason is anointed? To such men, who pervert the reverend truth of ecclesiastical dogma and the upright meaning of the Scriptures, we can opportunely say that word: ‘Awake, you who are drunk on your wine, that you may be able, having beheld the bright beauty of the truth, to cry out with us to the Son: You are truly the Son of God.’ For if you believe Him to be God by nature, how would He not possess perfection? Even now also

^A you speak impiously against the Father Himself. For whence will the Father necessarily have perfection? Or how will the Father Himself not also be driven to the diminution of the Son, who according to you is imperfect, if the divine substance once receives imperfection in the Son? For I do not think you would dare, according to your foolish and ill-mannered discourse, to cut the divine and immortal nature into diverse ways of substance, so that it appears perfect in the one and imperfect in the other, especially when you see that the definition of human nature is one and the same in all, and no man possesses less or more than another man, insofar as he is man. Nor will one angel ever be able to differ from another angel, by that reason in which both are angels, namely, because they are all bound together by their mutual likeness into one nature. How, then, will the divine nature, which is incomparably above all these things, be seen possessing less in its own goods than created things, and endure a passion which the creation knows not how to suffer? How, furthermore, will it be simple and incomposite if the perfect and the imperfect appear in it? For it will be composed of both, if the imperfect is not similar to the perfect. For if it were similar, and the difference between them were nothing, then everything that is perfect would indifferently be also imperfect, and if anything were imperfect, that would also be perfect, and there would be no predicate in the Son, even if He does not appear to our minds as having the perfect. But not even the Father Himself will surpass the Son, being testified to in perfection; and thus the problem is again solved for us. But if a great argument walls off the imperfect from the perfect, yet the divine nature, according to you, receives both at once, it is therefore composite and not simple. ^B But perhaps someone will say that contrary things cannot be in the same subject at once; but they can exist separately and in succession, as in a body, a color is now white, now black. You indeed, O friend, have fought well and very promptly for our arguments. For if there is one nature of the divinity, and no other can be conceived beside it, how is it receptive of contraries? Or how will things that are mutually contrary happen to one and the same subject? For the Father is God by nature, and the Son is simultaneously God by nature. There is therefore no difference of perfect and imperfect between the Father and the Son, who has emanated from the most perfect substance of the Father. Is it not necessary that the offspring of the most perfect begetter should be perfect? For He is the incommutable image and character of His hypostasis, as it is written; I think all will agree with us in this, or let someone come forward and say: ^C How is the Son the character and image of the hypostasis of the perfect Father, not having by His own nature that He is perfect, as some rashly say? Since He is indeed a character and image, He is certainly perfect, just like Him whose image He is. "But John," he says, "saw the Spirit descending from heaven upon the Son, wherefore the Son also has sanctification from without," into whom the Spirit descends as if He did not have sanctification. You perceive how manifestly you proclaim the Son of God to be a creature, hardly attributing anything great to Him, since ^D similarly and like other creatures

^A He is brought to perfection and sanctified, and possesses as an acquired gift the distribution of good things? Furthermore, how will the Evangelist not be proved a liar, saying that "of His fullness we have all received"? For how shall He who receives from another be full in His own nature? Or how in any way could God be thought of as Father, if it is a created thing, and not rather the only-begotten Son? For in this way he would be a father in name only, and he himself would be Father, but the Son would by no means be such in truth, having the dignity as a false title, and the designation only as far as empty words go.

^B Saint Cyril, in his exposition of the Gospel according to John, says regarding the saying, "But when the Paraclete shall come": "Behold—look—the Spirit of truth, calling Him His own, he says that He proceeds from the Father." For just as the Spirit of the Son is naturally in Him and proceeds through Him, so certainly it is also the Spirit of the Father. And those to whom the Spirit is common, they surely cannot be substantially separated. Let none of the impious try to drive us with their words to those things which it is forbidden to understand. No one, I say, should believe that the Spirit of the Father is sent to creatures through the Son as through a minister. For there were even some who did not fear to say this. But rather, one should believe it because the Spirit is as much the property of the Son as it is, of course, of God the Father Himself, and for that reason is sent by Him to sanctify His own holy disciples. But if they do not blush in any way and boldly dare to understand and declare that the Son is a minister and servant to us in the sending of the Spirit from the Father, it will not be inappropriate to say to them: "Stupid and blind, do you not perceive toward what precipices you are rushing, diminishing the glory of the Only-begotten, and devising frivolous arguments through ignorance?" For if the Son is considered in the place of a minister, dispensing the Spirit from the Father, how will it not be necessary to confess that the Spirit is entirely alien to the substance of the Son, and perhaps even more excellent than Him, and by many parasangs more superior, if we grant place to your ignorance? For if the Son, according to you, does not proceed from the Father—that is, from the substance of the Father—how shall the Spirit not be placed above the Son in a more exalted position? What furthermore shall we answer, when the Son clearly says, "He will glorify me, for He will take of mine and will declare it to you"? ^C In addition to these things, this also will necessarily follow: if you think that the Son performs a servile ministry, [He who is] alien to you—that is, [He] who has provided the holy [Spirit] which is the Spirit by nature from God and Father—not a Son by nature holy, but by participation, just as you are. For those impious, cowardly, and sluggish men assert that the Spirit, who proceeds from the Father and is provided by Him, is alien to the substance of the Father. Therefore, it will be possible, if the Spirit is not proper to the Son, but is even Himself sanctified from without like a creature, for Him to lose at some time the sanctification that is in Him. For that which is acquired externally as an addition, how can it not be able to depart

^A according to the logic of that which admits of change? And then, who would not run away from such doctrines? But I think it is more fitting to say this: Truth is dear to us, and the doctrines that arise from the truth; and we shall in no way follow those others, but by tracing the faith of the holy Fathers, we proclaim the Paraclete—that is, the Holy Spirit—to be proper to the Son, and not imported from without, nor acquired in Him, as is the case in those who are capable of receiving holiness and are produced out of nothing; but we confess Him to be consubstantial with Him, just as He is with the Father. For in this way the strength of ecclesiastical dogmas will not fall into the myths of many gods for us, but the Holy Trinity will be bound together ^B into one principle of divinity. Therefore, at the same time, by demonstrating the identity of His own essence and that of God the Father, in calling the Paraclete the Spirit of Truth, He says that He proceeds from the Father, and He clearly and undeniably convicts the Christ-fighter of being a total enemy of God. For he who has willed to act wantonly against the Son would logically be judged to have offended also against Him from whom He is. "When, therefore, the Paraclete comes," He says, "the Spirit of Truth, which is Mine, proceeds from the Father; He will bear witness to Me." And how will He bear witness? By performing mighty wonders in you and through you, He will be a just and true witness of My divine authority and of My greatness in power. For it is My Spirit that works in you, and just as it is Mine, so too is it of God and the Father.

The same one says regarding the passage, "For He will not speak on His own authority" ^C: "When, therefore, that one comes, that is, the Paraclete, the Spirit of Truth, He will guide you into all the truth." Observe the wakefulness of the voice, see the sobriety of the Word. For having previously said that the Paraclete would come to them, He named Him the Spirit of Truth, that is, His own. For He Himself is the Truth. For in order that the disciples might know that He would not be sending a power alien and foreign to them, but Himself, He promised them this in another way, calling the Paraclete the Spirit of Truth, that is, His own. For the Holy Spirit is not understood as alien to the substance of the Only-Begotten, but proceeds naturally from it, in no way existing as something other than Him in terms of identity of nature, even if He is conceived of in His own proper ^D person. "Therefore," He says, "the Spirit of Truth will guide you into all knowledge of the truth." For as One who knows the truth accurately, of which the Spirit also consists, He will not reveal it in part to those who worship Him, but the mystery concerning it will instead flourish completely. For even if we know in part in this life, as Paul says, the beauty of the truth has shone upon us not in a mangled way, but whole and uninjured. Therefore, just as no one knows the things of a man, according to that which is written, except the spirit of man that is in him, so too, as I think—or rather as Paul says—no one knows the things of God except the Spirit that is in Him. When therefore

^A He comes, He says, He will not speak from Himself—meaning that He will instruct us, and will reveal the mystery concerning the truth, but will say absolutely nothing that is out of harmony with me, nor will He introduce to you any strange teaching. For He will not, perhaps, introduce His own laws. But since the Spirit is, as it were, my own mind, He will certainly speak the things that are in me. And the Saviour says this, not that we might think the Holy Spirit is a ministering [agent] according to the ignorance of some, but rather because He wished to assure the disciples that the Spirit is not something other than Himself, according at least to the argument of consubstantiality. These things He will certainly speak and do and will. For this very reason He added that He will also announce to you the things to come, saying almost, "This will be a sign to you, that the Spirit is certainly from my substance, and is, as it were, my own mind: that He will speak of things to come, just as I do." For I have spoken beforehand, even if you have not been able to learn everything. He would not, therefore, just as I do, speak of things to come, unless He were entirely in me and proceeding through me.

The same [author], on the passage in the Gospel according to John, in the fourth book, chapter 18, on the text, «As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father.» ^B For just as light is said to be from light, so also life is from life. And just as God and Father illuminates those things that are in need of light through the light that is His own, the Son, and makes those who are able to receive wisdom wise, as through His own wisdom, and strengthens those who are in need of strength through His own strength again, so He gives life to all those things that are in need of the life that is from Him, through His own life, and which is poured forth from Him, that is to say, from the Son.

The same [author], on the text, «He will glorify me, because He will receive from what is mine,» ^C He says: "The Paraclete, that is, His own Spirit, who is able to do all things and knows all things, does indeed glorify the Son. But how does He glorify Him? For if the Spirit of the Son knows and can do ^D all things, how could He [the Son] Himself not perhaps know, or how could He not be able? And if, as He Himself says, the Spirit receives from Him, although He can do and accomplish all things, how could He [the Son] not possess that which is most powerful in all things? But one must in no way suspect that the Paraclete, that is, the Spirit, is in need of innate and natural power, as if, should He not receive it, He would not suffice for Himself to be able to [perform] the perfecting operation of divine achievements. For it would be the ultimate crime of impiety to entertain such a thought, and very reasonably so, for anyone even to think that any such thing were true concerning Him. But since He is consubstantial with the Son, and proceeds godfittingly through Him, having all His most perfect operation and power in all things, for this reason He says that «He will receive from what is mine.» For we believe that the Spirit subsists by Himself, and is, in truth, that which He is and is called, yet existing in the substance of God, and proceeding

naturally from it, having all things that are His within Himself. For it is not by participation, nor by a relative mode, nor as being something other than it, since it is essentially its own. For just as the sweet scent of highly-fragrant flowers, having taken in a certain way the essential and natural operation or quality belonging to them, brings knowledge to those outside, falling upon the smelling organs of the body, and appears indeed, as far as the reason of our thought can grasp, to be something other than the nature that sends it forth, whereas in its own nature it contains no other nature than those from which it is and in which it is; ^A so you should understand also in the case of God and the Holy Spirit, rising up to the logic of the example. It is therefore entirely beyond reproach, and lies outside of all calumny, to allow that the Spirit is said to receive something from the Only-Begotten. For since He proceeds naturally through Him as being His own, along with all that He has in perfection, He is said to receive those things which are His.

The same [author] on the text: «All things that the Father has are mine, and for this reason I said to you that He shall take of mine, and shall declare it to you,» says: ^B «The Son shows Himself to you again in these words as the sincere and most exact character of the hypostasis of the Father; and He makes you understand through what He said that, since He is the fruit of His substance, He draws to Himself all things that are its by nature, so that they are and are rightly called properly His own. For since the Son differs in no way at all from the Father, nor is He carried over from that nature into another, He is in all things similar and equal to Him, except only that He is Father. And since the same substance shines ^C forth in both, in the same way, how will those things not be common—or rather, the very same—which are in both; so that whatever things are in the Father, the same are also in the Son? And whatever things are in the Son, the same are similarly in the Begetter. Therefore, as I think, His use of language in discussing these things is most exquisite; for He did not say, 'Not all things that the Father has do I have'—lest some naked and base image, formed by the intellect and fashioned by external ornaments, be conceived in relation to the archetype, just as even we ourselves are, for we were made in the image of God—but 'Mine are,' He says, ^D showing thereby the most absolute identity of substance which He has toward the Father, and the power of consubstantiality in those incommunicable properties, which He points out elsewhere also when directing His speech to the Father: 'For all my things are yours, and yours are mine.' For if there is absolutely no difference in them, but the greatest identity of substance, and equality, how will the same things not be theirs by nature? For God and Father has from Himself and in Himself His own Spirit, namely the Holy Spirit, through whom He dwells in the saints and reveals mysteries, not using Him for this as a minister—for do not conceive of anything of the sort—but as proceeding from Him substantially, and emanatating from Him inseparably and indivisibly, as though interpreting the things which are in Him and from whom He is; for not...

^A If you contest this, I call to witness now all the angels of God who have charge over us, and before them the Master Himself, who is worshipped with awe in the Trinity, that as far as in us lies, we are innocent, for we have discharged our debt. These things, after God, we say to those among whom some vitality still appears—I mean to you who are healthy and thus unburdened, and possess a mind inquisitive regarding such matters. For as to those in whom the good of love has cooled entirely, and who have become utterly deadened by their malice against us, what words should be used toward them, or what counsel and exhortation, when it is the work of God alone that is clearly capable of rousing and correcting them? And that is indeed the task of our more perfect and greater prayer.

42. But now, as I wish to dedicate a hymn and thanksgiving for our deliverance to the Giver and Bestower of all good things, the discourse leaps and bounds forth here, toward a wider scope, and is eager to dwell upon the wonders that have been wrought for us by Him. But, on the other hand, the present state of this treatise and the point it has reached do not allow this, because the wonders of God in our regard are in truth too vast for this present great argument. Hence, to manifest to Him alone even the desire of our soul, confessing and saying as much, we shall bring our discourse to a pause in a prayer befitting those who hear, as we promised a little above. ^B But that I may begin the doxology as is fitting and as a duty, I borrow the most appropriate words of the sacred singer David and cry out to the Most High with a sound as piercing as his own astonishment: "How magnified are thy works, O Lord! In wisdom hast thou made them all"^C; not only those things, that is, which Thou didst bring into being from nothing in the beginning, but also all that Thou hast wrought at various times for the interest of men, as this present work also has it, which Thou hast accomplished as the greatest and in [Thy] wisdom. For since it did not befit Thy compassionate and philanthropic God—Who of Thy goodness alone didst fashion our race from the beginning—to overlook and neglect Thy Church which was rent asunder to the point of destruction, and which Thy co-eternal Son and Word, born of the beginningless Father, through the bowels of Thy infinite mercy toward us, having taken on the human form, ^D had gathered together from the ends of the earth upon the cross by the stretching forth of His all-pure and most holy hands, and had acquired for Himself with the blood that flowed from His life-giving and precious side, Thou hast deigned in this our own age to make this same Church come together again into one, and to heal the wound that was suffering so grievously, which the evil-originating and guileful foe, not bearing to see it prospering, had inflicted. Therefore, first of all, having brought us together economically into covenants of peace and friendship alone,

^A in the Acts of the first Council of Nicaea, in the response of the bishops to the philosopher through Bishop Leontius, it is stated thus: "The divine Scripture says, therefore, of the Son of God, *He shall descend upon them as a river of peace* [Isa. 66:12], proceeding, that is, from the true fountain of life, the divinity of the Father, even as the Lord himself says in the Gospels: *I came forth from the Father, and am come* [John 16:28]."

EPIGRAPH VI

Since there are some who do not accept that evangelical utterance which says that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth, which is what the saying also means when it says that He proceeds from the Father; and furthermore, they insist that this does not contain the same meaning as saying that He proceeds from the Father and receives the Holy Spirit from the Son, the present scriptural testimonies have been arranged in writing to prove the equivalent force of such evangelical statements.

The Great Basil, in his discourses against Eunomius and Arius, says: "I understand the relationship to the Father, because He proceeds from the Father; as to the Son, however, when I hear: *But if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his* [Rom. 8:9]." ^B

The same author, near the end of the second of his discourses against Eunomius, says: "How is it not manifest that there is danger in separating the Spirit from God? For the Apostle hands it down to us in conjunction, now calling Him the Spirit of Christ, and now of God, where he writes: *But if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his*; and again: *But ye have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God* [1 Cor. 2:12]. And the Lord calls Him the Spirit of truth, because He himself is the truth, and He proceeds from the Father."

The same author, in the eighteenth chapter of his (works) to Amphilochius, says: "He is said to be from God, not as all things are from God, but as having proceeded from God, not having been brought into being as the Son, but as the Spirit of His mouth, the relationship being declared from this, while the mode of existence is kept ineffable. But He is also called the Spirit of Christ, as having by nature an affinity with Him." ^C

Saint Cyril, in his interpretation of the evangelical utterance according to John, "When, therefore, the Paraclete shall come" [John 15:26], says: "In the same (passage), therefore, showing both the identity of His own essence and that of God and the Father, by calling the Paraclete the Spirit of truth, he says that He proceeds from the Father. And he convicts the one who fights against Christ as being plainly and indubitably a fighter against God. For he who has wished to behave insolently toward the Son, has deservedly offended also against Him from whom the Son is. 'When, therefore, the Paraclete shall come,' he says, 'the Spirit of truth, who is mine, who proceeds from the Father,' ^D that He will bear witness concerning me. But how will He bear witness? By doing great miracles in you and through you, O righteous one."

He will be a just and true witness of my God-befitting authority and of the greatness in power. For the Spirit that works in you is mine, and as it is mine, so it is also the Father's. The same, in his exposition on John, regarding the text, “When therefore the Paraclete comes,” says: “For behold, behold the Spirit of truth, that is to say, of Himself, having named the Paraclete, He says that He proceeds from the Father. For just as the Spirit is the Son’s own, naturally existing in Him and proceeding through Him, so too is He the Father’s. And to those for whom the Spirit is common, to them the things of the essence will also surely not be separated or divided.” ^B

Saint Epiphanius, in *Ancoratus*, says: “The Spirit is incomprehensible, not alien to the Father and the Son. For the Only-Begotten Himself calls Him ‘the Spirit of the Father,’ and ‘who proceeds from the Father,’ and ‘He will take from mine,’ so that He might not be thought alien to the Father or the Son.” And after very many things added: “Both dwell in the righteous man, Christ and His Spirit. But if Christ is believed to be God from God from the Father, and the Spirit from Christ, or from both, as Christ insinuates, ‘He who proceeds from the Father, He will take from mine.’”

Theodorus of Raithu in his dogmatic oration, the beginning of which is: “I think it absurd, and I have rightly considered this,” says after very many things: “The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth; this proceeds indeed from the Father, but receives from the Son, who possesses all things of the Father, to demonstrate and declare that the essence of Him who receives, and of Him from whom He receives, and of Him from whom He naturally proceeds, is one. For He would not have proceeded from Him if He were of another essence, nor would He have received from Him who was not of the same substance as Himself. But if they are of the same nature as Him from whom they came forth, and from whom He receives, then those also are of the same nature. For those things which are of the same nature are, in that same [nature], truly, and will be among themselves truly of the same nature.” ^C

EPIGRAPH VII

Since some contend among themselves that “to come forth,” “to be poured out,” and “to proceed” differ from one another, there have been selected, for an irrefutable demonstration of their equivalence, the following sentiments of Saint Cyril, to which are annexed other testimonies of other Fathers, who decree that the Holy Spirit proceeds, is poured out, and is sent forth from the Father in those passages in which it was to be asserted that He proceeds from the Father. ^D

Saint Cyril, in the sixth book to Hermias, has: “Therefore, if the Spirit of the Father is the Son's own, how will He be ignorant of anything hidden in God, when He has as His own the Spirit who knows all things that are in the Father; and I hear Him saying clearly to the holy apostles: ‘I have yet many things to say to you,

but you cannot bear them now. But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all truth. For He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.’ ^A Is the passage adduced clear to you, and have you observed that He named the Paraclete the Spirit of truth? He said indeed that He proceeds from the Father, showing that all things of His Own are the things of the Father.

The same author in book VI to Hermias says: ‘That the Spirit of the Father is also the Spirit of the Son, He Himself will teach you through Himself, saying: “But when the Paraclete comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will bear witness of Me.”’ Do you understand, therefore, in what way He promises to send to us as His own the One who is from the Father, and while he calls Him the Spirit of truth, he stipulates that He is poured forth from the Father Himself, and furthermore announced that He will bear witness of Himself?

The same author in his discourse to the monks, which begins: ‘The desire of your love for learning and your zeal for labor, I deem worthy of all consideration,’ after many other things adds: ‘The Spirit is poured forth, that is, proceeds as from a fountain from God and the Father, and is supplied to the creatures through the Son.’

Great Athanasius, in the dialogue he holds between an Orthodox and a Macedonian, says: ^B ‘Far be it from me to say that anything in the Holy Spirit is adventitious. For I do not say that the holy, nor the incorruptible, nor the immortal, nor the good, nor anything else of those things contemplated in relation to God is adventitious to the Holy Spirit, but He is holy by nature, incorruptible by nature, as the Spirit of God, and springing from Him, or proceeding.’

Saint Cyril in one of the chapters of the second of the Thesauri says: ‘Not in this way, O excellent men, do we say that all things are from God, as also the Spirit. For the Spirit in fact naturally exists within, and is essentially implanted, if we may so speak, and indivisibly proceeds from Him; but these others are works of action and creatures.’ ^C And again in another: ‘He is not separated from the divine essence, but naturally going forth from it, He contains in Himself the entire action of the Father and also of the Son.’ The same in another: ‘But that “from which” will remain in Him, because He is from the essence of the Father.’ And again in another: ‘It is manifest that He is of the divine essence, essentially in it, and proceeding from it.’ And again in another: ‘Since, therefore, the Holy Spirit, coming into us, shows us to be conformable to God, and proceeds from both the Father and the Son, it is manifest that He is of the divine essence, essentially in it and proceeding from it.’

The same author in the discourse to Nestorius says: ^D ‘For even if the Spirit exists in His own proper hypostasis, in the way in which He is Spirit, and is not the Son; nevertheless, He is not alien

to Him. He pours forth from Him, just as, of course, He does also from God and the Father. ^A

Magnus Basil in one chapter of the fourth book against Eunomius: ‘For we are not going to have any less knowledge that the Spirit exists from God, because we hear that He is the Spirit of His mouth; but this name is sufficient to declare His existence from God. Neither is the Son, nor is generation, a property of the Godhead, but has been taken from human likeness; and likewise also is the appellation of the Spirit.’

The same in the same book: ‘He who separates the Spirit from the Godhead has taken away the perfection of the things that are made. For by the emission and supply of the Spirit the things that are made come into being; that which proceeds from God does not proceed in time, even if it renders the makings in time.’ ^B

Magnus Maximus in the dialogue of an Orthodox with an Anomoean or Arianist, as he sets it forth from the Anomoean contradicting him by means of an interrogation: Anom. ‘Is there, then, no difference between the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit?’ Orthod. ‘In essence, no; in will, no; when it is a matter of begetting and being begotten, and of sending forth and proceeding, yes.’ Anom. ‘What, in truth, is it to beget and to be begotten, and to send forth and to proceed?’ Orthod. ‘That the Father begets, that is to say He has begotten; and the Son is begotten, that is to say He has been begotten. And that the Father Himself sends forth the Spirit, that is to say He has sent Him forth, and the Spirit proceeds, that is to say He has proceeded.’ ^C

Magnus Basil in the eighteenth chapter of the chapters to Amphilochius, after having demonstrated with a longer discourse the communion of the Spirit regarding the Father and the Son, adds this: ‘But it is not from this alone that the communion of nature is proven, but also from the fact that He is said to be of God, not as all things are of God, but as having proceeded from God, not generationally as the Son, but as the Spirit of His mouth—the propinquity being declared from this, while the mode of existence is kept ineffable.’

Gregory the Theologian in the oration to Heron says: ‘But defining and teaching our piety, to acknowledge one ingenerate God the Father, and one begotten Son, and one Holy Spirit proceeding or progressing from the Father.’ ^D

Theodore of Raithu, the presbyter, in his dogmatic discourse, which begins: ‘I consider it absurd, and I rightly deem it so;’ long after the beginning, says: ‘Let us not marvel while the Lord calls the exit from the Father the progression of both. “For I,” He says, “have come forth from the Father, and have come” 3; and again, “The Spirit who proceeds from the Father.” For even if here "to come forth" and "to proceed" signify the same thing, He nonetheless adapted the latter more properly to the Spirit, just as He did generation to Himself.’

EPIGRAPH VIII

^A Since some people, upon hearing that the Holy Spirit is from the Father, emanating and proceeding, do not proclaim in their monstrous speech that the divine nature of the Spirit emanates and flows from the divine essence and nature of the Son, but instead maintain that a spiritual gift comes to those who are worthy—the indwelling of the holiness of the Holy Spirit, who is present everywhere, occurring in them in a relative sense—and by thus conceptualizing this gift, it is as if the Spirit’s nature were to be considered separated and severed from the divine essence; therefore, these present written testimonies have been collected. From these, anyone can discern that, even if the indwelling of the Most Holy Spirit that occurs in the worthy is inexpressible and beyond reason in its relative aspect, yet since the gifts of the Spirit ^B are poured forth there, where His divine nature dwells habitually, the Holy Spirit Himself—who is one of the Trinity and the complement of the Trinity, who is the divine nature and perfect God just as the Father and the Son—is signified when someone says that the Holy Spirit proceeds, and flows forth, and exists from the Son.

Saint Cyril, in the seventh book to Hermias, says: “And indeed our Lord Jesus Christ, I believe, concerning every faithful and good man, says: ‘We will come, I and the Father, and we will make our abode with him.’ And in this we know that He is in us, because He has given us of His Spirit. For it is thought that he who has received the Spirit of God has received the true and nature-inhabiting God, ^C not as something alien and separated substantially, but as Him who is from Him, and in Him, and who bears a property equal to His own. And after a few words: He sent down to us from heaven the Paraclete, through whom He is with us and dwells within us, not pouring out into us anything alien, but His own Spirit of His substance and of His Father.”

The same author, in the seventh book of the dialogue to Hermias, says: “For since God is holy by nature, the Spirit is holy substantially, and through Him and in Him one becomes a participant in holiness.” To which Hermias says: “They do not mean it as His own, but as if He had a holiness which was adventitious, to transfer it to creatures from God.” The Saint responds: ^D “Therefore, if the Spirit is sanctified beforehand, He does not impart His own sanctification to creatures, if it is to be confessed as true that in everything assumed for the purpose of transferring, that which reaches others through it must necessarily be of a different nature from it. For one would not transfer oneself to others as not being oneself.” Then Hermias says to this: “That is true.” The Saint: “Therefore, if the Spirit who is in us is not holy by nature, let them say, what kind of nature has He acquired? And if they are unwilling to attribute holiness to Him, does not that argument seem to tend entirely and absolutely toward an inevitable blasphemy?” Hermias: “It seems so. But say, what is it that Christ said about Himself: ‘He shall receive of mine,’

and shall declare it unto you.” Are they saying, then, that the Spirit is a partaker of the Son?” ^A The Saint: “Not at all. Far from it, I think. For how could He who is from Him, and in Him, and His own, ever be a partaker of Him? Or how could He be sanctified only in a relative sense, like those things which are external, and be considered alien by nature to Him whose own He is said to be?”

The same, in Book III to Hermias, says: “How is it not entirely effortless to perceive that the Son is truly God, and has sprung from the essence of God and the Father, if He is indeed God, and His Spirit is not something foreign dwelling within you?”

The same, in the same book, says: “The Holy Spirit, therefore, who gilds us who dwell upon the earth with the glory of sonship, since He is of the Son, will indeed work sonship in others, but will undergo no change Himself regarding the One whose Spirit He is; He is not poured in, nor does He come from without, but exists essentially of Him, and is poured forth through Him to those who are worthy to receive Him according to the good pleasure of the Father.”

The same, ibidem, says: “The divine John most manifestly confessed this to us, saying: ‘Of His fullness have we all received.’ But is a ‘good gift and perfect donation’ anything else, in your view, than becoming a partaker of the Holy Spirit?” Hermias: “By no means.” The Saint: “Consider, then, I implore you, even from these words, how the Son produces from His own fullness His own Holy Spirit—who is naturally inseparable from Him—through whom comes every good gift.”

The same, in Book VII to Hermias, says: “Regarding the Spirit to the holy disciples, He says: ‘When the Paraclete comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, He shall bear witness of Me.’ Is He not clearly God, known as God, and dwelling in us—not as a creature and a product, subject to our servitude, but as free by nature, being the Spirit of Truth Himself, or rather, the very Truth Itself according to the union with the Son, according to the Scriptures? And the Truth is Christ.” ^D

The same, in Book III to Hermias, says: “But if every perfect gift is from above and from the Father, and yet the Son works the distribution of these gifts not in a servile manner, but rather with the authority that befits God, how then would He be far from being by nature what He is who generated Him, namely, the true God?”

The same, in his oration to the Emperor Theodosius, says: “He states that Jesus baptizes with fire, not by infusing into those who are baptized a Spirit that is foreign, in a servile and ministerial manner, but as God with supreme authority, [bestowing] that which is from Himself and His own.”

The same [author], in his exposition on John, on the passage: "Who were born, not of blood," ^A says: "If the Spirit is God and from God by nature, of whom we are made worthy to become partakers through faith in Christ, we are called gods, as having now God Himself within us, according to the word: 'I will dwell in them and walk among them'; [677/678] for in what way are we temples of God, if the Spirit is not God by nature?"

The same, on the passage: "He will teach you all things that I have said," he says: "Therefore, in that He will announce to us all things which are in the will of the Only-Begotten, as one who knows all things, the Spirit does not possess this knowledge as from learning, lest He appear to be fulfilling the order of a servant, but as His Spirit, and as one who knows without being taught all things from whom and in whom He is; just as, indeed, the human mind [knows] the volitions of the soul whose mind it is, and is not something else by nature, ^B but as a part completing the whole, existing in it and believed to be growing forth from it."

The same, in the seventh book of the dialogue to Hermias, says these things, the Saint [saying]: "Is it not the Spirit who imprints the divine image upon us, and, like a seal, produces the supernatural beauty?" Hermias: "But we do not say as God, but as the minister of divine grace." The Saint: "It is not He, therefore, who is signified to us, but the grace through Him." Hermias: "It seems so." The Saint: "It was necessary, then, that man be called an image of grace and not rather of God. Consider this also; for the discourse is clear, I think, and simple. For the living being was fashioned in the beginning, with God forming it and honoring it, as it were, with His own hand, according to the Scriptures. But after it was brought into being, it was configured toward God ^C when the breath of life was breathed into it; but having lost the sanctification through the deviation into depravity, it was brought back again to that ancient and primeval beauty, renewing what had grown old into the divine and intelligible form of Christ—and in no other way, except that which was in the beginning. For He breathed upon the holy apostles, saying: 'Receive the Holy Spirit.' Or is not 'he who is in Christ a new creation'?" Hermias: "Yes." The Saint: "Is it not true to say, or rather necessary even to conceive, that if the aging and the mode of corruption have impaired the image which [man] had in sanctification, shall we not admit that the recovery and renovation of the divine likeness ^D is brought about through Christ, by the return to the ancient state?" Hermias: "Certainly so." The Saint: "But if the grace through the Spirit were something separated from the essence of the Spirit, why did the blessed Moses not say clearly that when the living being was brought into being, the Creator of all breathed grace through the breath of life, and Christ [does not say] to us: 'Receive the grace through the ministry of the Holy Spirit,' but it is named in him the spirit of life? For the true life is the nature of the Deity, if it is true that in Him we live and move and have our being."

But through the voice of the Savior, He is the Holy Spirit Himself, who in truth dwells in the souls of believers and infuses that Spirit; and through Him and in Him, He transforms ^A them into the form that was in the beginning, that is, into Himself, or rather towards His own likeness, by means of sanctification; and thus He also leads us back to the archetype of the image, that is, the character of the Father. For the Son Himself is the true character, and the limit of the exactness that is understood in the [divine] impression, while the Spirit is the lucid and natural likeness of the Son; being fashioned toward which, we ourselves are also conformed to this same form of God through sanctification. The apostolic statement will convince us of this, for he said: "My little children, of whom I am again in labor until Christ ^B be formed in you." Now He is formed through the Spirit, who refashioned us toward God through Himself. When, therefore, we are formed toward Christ, He also is marked and well imprinted within us; so that, if the Spirit is naturally a similar [likeness], is He not God, the Spirit who changes us toward God not as if by a servile grace, but as one granting to those worthy a participation in the divine nature? And learn that the Spirit is the true likeness of the Son from the blessed Paul, who writes: "For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren." For we are re-formed into an iconic representation toward the Holy Spirit, even though it is toward God through faith and sanctification and the relationship ^C toward Him. It is evident, however, that this is by way of participation and distinctly, even if we are called partakers of the divine nature.

Theodorus, presbyter of Raithu, in his second discourse "On the Uncircumscribed," which begins: "A deceitful tongue dares everything," says: "Let us consider what they dare to assert about God. They say that God is in all things by His operation, but by His essence is nowhere at all," calling the result that proceeds from the operation an 'operation.' I would say that His operation is inseparable from the nature of God. And after a few words: "Since the divine nature is living and possesses living operations, and it is impossible for an operation to proceed without an essence, wherever the operation appears, the essence from which it proceeds is seen simultaneously with it." And with a few things added: "If the action is around the whole, and from it the essence cannot be separated, then the essence of God is around the universe and in all things." And with a few things annexed: "Therefore God is present in all things not only by action, but also by essence; for it has been shown that there is no action without an essence." And after a few words: "How then will that which is said be true, that the Spirit of the Lord has filled the whole earth? Since God is essence, He has filled all things ^D that are with the divine essence, and is in all things that exist." And after a few words: "But the action does not proceed without the essence, and it is in all things. The essence, therefore, is in all things, according to what is said by the prophet: 'Do I not fill heaven and earth? says the Lord.'"

' ^A The same presbyter, in his dogmatic discourse, the beginning of which is, "I think it absurd, and I rightly consider it so," says after a long interval: "The Word, being the Son, shows the Spirit with Himself; for the Word is not without the Spirit, just as the intellect is not without the word. We identify the Father as the intellect, and the mind of the Word, in which is the Word, with whom is the Holy Spirit, who is named the Spirit of the mouth of God. For the Son is the mouth of the Father."

The same person says in the same discourse: "But the Holy Spirit also, appearing with the Father and the Son, as with the intellect and the word. And indeed the Lord, showing Him to exist from Himself, breathing upon the disciples, said: 'Receive the Holy Spirit,' which they, praying through the laying on of their own hands, imparted to those who believed—from which it is possible to observe the difference that exists between servitude and equality of honor. For the apostles, supplicating and pouring out prayers as to a Master, brought the Holy Spirit into those worthy of His visitation, as one might say; but our Savior, from Himself, as from some treasury, provided Him to those who, through purity of life, had become capable of receiving His operation." ^B

The great Basil, in his restrictive considerations concerning the Spirit, says: "The Holy Spirit, this is His primary and most peculiar title, which is indeed, above all others, the name of the incorporeal and purely immaterial and infinite."

The same: "For we shall not have anything less for coming to know that the Spirit exists from God, when we hear Him called the Spirit of His mouth. But even this title sufficiently and abundantly explains His existence from God."

Chrysostom, in his homily on the Holy Spirit, says: "The Savior says to the apostles: 'Stay in Jerusalem, until you are clothed with power from on high. For you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you.' Although the power was being provided, it was the Spirit who was providing it. 'For one and the same Spirit works all things, distributing to each person privately as He wills.'" ^C

The same person, in his discourse on Pentecost, says: "Ten days ago Christ ascended to the royal throne, and the Holy Spirit descended today to our nature. Christ brought up our first-fruits, and brought down the Holy Spirit. Another is the Lord who distributes these gifts. For the Spirit is Lord."

The same person, in the homily on the Holy Spirit, the beginning of which is: "Yesterday, O Christ-lovers, the visitation of the holy and adorable Spirit was celebrated," says: "It is necessary to persevere in the exposition of the holy and adorable Spirit, and to say something more clearly regarding the holy and glorious power, not from what we reason, but from what we^D

^A are taught. The Holy Spirit is in nature inseparable, as it is that which has proceeded from the inseparable and undivided nature. Its name is Holy Spirit, spirit of truth, spirit of God, spirit of the Lord, spirit of the Father, spirit of the Son, spirit of Christ; and thus the divine Scripture calls it, or rather it calls itself even Spirit of God, and spirit which is from God. » And after a few words: « It is called, therefore, Holy Spirit. For this is the primary and proper appellation, which possesses a more manifest meaning and portrays the nature of the Holy Spirit. ^B And after a few words: « It is therefore the spirit of God, and the spirit from God the Father, and it proceeds from the Father. What is it, that it proceeds? It did not say, it is begotten. What is not written, one must not hold. The Son is begotten from the Father; the Spirit proceeds from the Father. Do you seek from me, by all means, the difference? By learning how that one was begotten, you have learned and grasped the manner; but since it is not proclaimed, you have not grasped the manner of the begetting. These are names honored by faith and kept by pious reasoning. But what is the power of "it proceeds"? In order that the Scripture might pass over the name of begetting, so that it might not call it Son, it says ^C Holy Spirit, which proceeds from the Father; it introduces it as proceeding like water gushing from a fountain, just as it was said regarding Paradise: "A river proceeds from Eden, it proceeds, and it gushes forth." » And with a few things added: « Spirit of God, and spirit which is from God, and spirit of the Father, and Spirit which proceeds from the Father, spirit of the Lord, spirit of the Son. That you are sons, the Apostle says: "God sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father" (Gal. IV, 6). Behold, the spirit of the Son itself. In another place again, Paul calls it the spirit of Christ: "But you are not in the flesh, but in the spirit, if indeed the spirit of God dwells in you" (Rom. VIII, 9). And a little below: "But if anyone does not have the spirit of Christ," and it was reasonable to say, "If anyone does not have the spirit of God," but he said spirit of Christ. Truly he said this, to show that it is the same to say spirit of God and spirit of Christ. These names of the holy and immaculate virtue belong to the holy and adorable Spirit. But there are other names not pertaining to nature, but to operation. Deep is the discourse, and it requires ears that are attentive, guarded, and faithful. For it is said that the Spirit is the spirit of life. Since the Savior says, "I am the truth and the life" (John XIV, 6). ^D It is called, therefore, spirit of life, just as Paul also says: "For the law of the spirit of life" (Rom. VIII, 2). These names belong to its very authority, to its very nature. But there are other names which are not ascribed to the Holy Spirit, but to his power and operation, such as his gifts. I say, therefore, and furthermore I declare the opinion, intending afterwards to bring in the testimony. When the Holy Spirit gives sanctification to the prayers of the saints or to me, or to another of the Christians, I receive the gift in such a way that I receive it holy in body and soul. The gift is presented to me

is called the spirit of holiness, that is to say, a charism. If the Holy Spirit gives a gift to someone who does not possess wisdom, who does not possess knowledge, but gives him faith alone—just as many possess the gift of believing in the Scriptures only, without knowing the Scriptures, yet believing them—that gift is called the spirit of faith. If someone receives a gift and the power from the Holy Spirit to believe in the promise of the good things that are given in the world to come, he has received the spirit of promise. If someone receives the gift of wisdom, the gift is called the spirit of wisdom, and all the gifts of the Spirit ^B are called spirit. And observe the pattern as we elucidate these theories in part. When someone has the gifts of love, it is said that he has the spirit of love. When someone receives the gifts of martyrdom, it is said that he has the spirit of power, that is, the charism. Because the one who is given is the Holy Spirit, the gift also is called the Holy Spirit, and the gift is called by the same name as the one who gives it. And after a few words: So too the blessed Isaiah says: "There shall come forth," he says, "a rod out of the root of Jesse, and a flower shall ascend from it, and the spirit of God shall rest upon him." This is the name of the nature of the Spirit itself; then follow the gifts: spirit of wisdom and understanding, spirit of counsel and fortitude, spirit of knowledge, spirit of piety, spirit of the fear of God. And after a few words: He who teaches received the spirit of wisdom, and he who is taught received the spirit of understanding, that he might understand. For this reason, Isaiah attributes wisdom to the one who speaks, [namely] the wise architect, and understanding to the one who hears, the intelligent listener; the spirit of counsel is given to the one who gives counsel, the spirit of strength to the one who experiences [the] counsel. And after some things in the passage: I repeat therefore the names of the ineffable nature: spirit of God, spirit which is from God, spirit of the Lord, spirit of the Father, spirit of the Son, spirit of Christ, spirit of the one who raised Christ, spirit of life, spirit of truth. Then the gifts: spirit of power, spirit of love, spirit of temperance, spirit of promise, spirit of faith, spirit of revelation, spirit of the adoption of sons. The Great Athanasius in his epistle to Serapion, the beginning of which is: The letters of your most holy affection, says: Say, then, where in the Holy Scriptures do you find the Holy Spirit mentioned simply as "spirit," without the addition of "of God" or "of the Father," or "of me," which is [to say] "of Christ," and "of the Son," or "from me," which is [to say] "from God," or [without] the article; so that it is not said simply "Spirit," but "the Spirit," or indeed "the Holy Spirit," or "the Comforter," or "of truth," which is [to say] "of the Son," who says, "I am the truth"; so that you, hearing this, may not simply infer by the word "spirit" that [it must be] the Holy Spirit. Theodorus the presbyter of Raithu in his *Preparation*

^A and exercise for one wishing to learn what is the mode of the divine Incarnation, of which the beginning is: "I consider it absurd, and I have rightly judged this," says after very much: "You will not find another Spirit spoken of in this way as the Holy Spirit. But the Spirit, as I said before, is called God and holy God. When both names are joined together, it is adapted to that which is properly called the Holy Spirit, just as the title of Father is adapted to the Cause, and that of the Son to that which is immediately from the Cause."

The great Gregory the Theologian, in his *Antirrhēticon* on the Holy Spirit, as if objecting to himself, says: ^B "What then is lacking," he says, "to the Spirit for Him to be the Son? For if something were lacking, He would be the Son." He adds, therefore: "We say that nothing is lacking; for God does not at any time fail. But the diversity of manifestation, if I may so speak, or of mutual relation, has also produced a difference in their naming."

Saint Cyril in his commentary on John, regarding the statement, "This was in the beginning with God," says: "When divine Scripture places articles before names according to the usage of the Greek language, then it signifies that one thing which alone is properly and truly what it is said to be. For many are called gods, but when 'God' ^C is spoken with the article, it signifies Him who alone exists and is properly God. And again, there are many men, but when the Savior says with the article, 'the Son of man,' He distinguishes Himself from the infinite multitude of men. In like manner also the Evangelist, placing the article before that, 'In the beginning was the Word,' has signified the one and properly existing Word of the Father."

The same author, in the seventh book of his dialogues *to Hermias*, says: "And why do we say that the nature and generation of man attained only with difficulty to the perfection most appropriate to it, when it was enriched through the Spirit with the divine image within itself? And this is not obscure, if anyone considers the fall of nature and its reformation ^D into what is good. For since the animal was prone to transgression and sin—which then was adventitious—and the spirit was languishing through excessive love of the flesh, transforming it into the divine image was like a seal ineffably and deeply set, but it was separated, and thus it appeared as corruptible and base, and dragging with it nothing that was not absurd. But when the Creator of all things wanted to restore what had fallen into corruption, having become ignoble and base on account of sin, back to its original firmness and beauty, He permitted the divine and holy Spirit to come again and to reform well the most beautiful image as something apt and powerful, so that He might adapt us to His own likeness. Therefore, to sustain the creature and to adorn it according to His own state, and to transfigure the animal to the likeness of God, in need of the Creator, and to give the most perfect [qualities] to individual creatures in another nature...

or by saying that it is of equal nature and consubstantial with Him, we shall honor that which is from Him, perfected through the Son in the Spirit. ^A Great Basil, in one of the chapters whose title is, "That the Spirit is a divine nature," says: "For the Spirit, being joined to the living Word for the purpose of creating, is a living power, and a divine nature, ineffable from an ineffable mouth, having appeared ineffably, being sent into man according to the insufflation, and according to the form corporally shown by the Lord, being restored again by Him through the insufflation. For it is necessary that the present renewal and concurrence should correspond to the novelty at the beginning. He fashioned, therefore, when He breathed, not being someone other than He who breathed from the beginning, but He Himself through whom God gave the insufflation, then indeed with the soul, but now to the soul."

^B Saint Cyril, in the seventh book of those to Hermias, says: "The reformation, therefore, and the change of that which had been corrupted toward renewal and transformation, must be a work, as is right—and it seems excellent to me—of the same nature and operation as that which in the beginning was ineffably fashioned."

^C Great Athanasius, in his epistle to Serapion concerning the Holy Spirit, the beginning of which is, "I have also received the letter written just now by your piety," says: "Indeed, while the Father is sending the Spirit, the Son, breathing [upon them], gives Him to the disciples, since all things that the Father has are the Son's."

Saint Cyril, in the fourth book of those to Hermias, says: "For at the same time as human nature was produced into existence by the ineffable nods of the Creator, it was also adorned with a certain relationship with the Spirit. For He breathed into his face the Spirit of life, which, I think, is nothing other than the animal, which, in holiness and familiarity with God, would be manifest, ^D if it were not adorned by the presence of the Holy Spirit. For when the Only-Begotten became man, finding human nature bereft of that ancient and primitive good, He urged it again to return to those things, as if pouring it in from the source of His own fullness, and saying, 'Receive the Holy Spirit,' thus by the carnal and more manifest breath, shadowing forth the nature of the Spirit."

The same, in the book of the *Treasures*: "Just as, therefore, because the Son is the most exact image of the Father, he who receives Him has at the same time the Father also; in the same way, as the analogy proceeds, he who receives the image of the Son, namely the Spirit, has entirely through Him the Son, and in Himself the Father."

^A Metrophanes, Metropolitan of Smyrna, in the exposition which he composed upon the first catholic Epistle of John, contains these very words: "In this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, because He has given to us of His Spirit." He establishes from this that the God-ruling and blessed Trinity is naturally connected and coheres within Itself, and that ^B by the access and indwelling of one hypostasis, the meeting and concurrence of the other two naturally occurs, on account of the divine and primal simplicity of the supersubstantial nature that is above all things, and also on account of the singular and unique nature of the operation, power, and will. For thus also Paul the great apostle insinuates: "You are the temple of God, and the Spirit of God dwells in you" (1 Cor. 3:16), as if he were to say that by the indwelling of the Spirit, both God the Father and the only-begotten Son are accustomed to dwell and abide with pure souls.

EPIGRAPH IX

To demonstrate that the Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son, these testimonies committed to writing have been collected, which infer that He is a quality of the essence of the Father and the Son, as well as an odor, a breath, and a blowing. Near to these same ^C testimonies are attached others, contributing greatly to the same meaning, which ordain that the Father is the fount of the Spirit, and the Son likewise is the fount of the Spirit. Similarly, it is gathered from other scriptural testimonies that indicate both that the Son is sent from the Father and the Spirit from God, that this same thing is brought together.

Saint Cyril in the Book of Treasures has: "But if the Holy Spirit were truly a production and creature, according to the madness of those who think otherwise, how does He possess the entire efficacy of God? For I do not think anyone will proceed to such a pitch of audacity as to dare to assert, even by a mere word, that the divine essence uses certain instruments created from eternity, ^D and employed for an operation which naturally passes from Itself to those who are worthy to receive it. Since, therefore, the Son is life by nature, and the Spirit is provided by Him, it will necessarily follow that He exists from the essence of the Son and of God, possessing His entire power and efficacy: just as if moisture rises from water, and by its operation refreshes those to whom it reaches, it indicates the nature of Him who sends it forth."

The same, in the fifth book to Hermias, says: "The Holy Spirit is as it were a certain natural quality of the holy and wise Deity, which is understood in the Father and the Son."

The same, in the books to Hermias: "Therefore, if Christ works signs and wonders through Paul in the power of the Holy Spirit, it is a certain natural and living efficacy, and, so to speak, the Holy Spirit is the quality of the deity of the Son."

^A If the Father is unbegotten and uncreated, how can the Spirit that is poured forth from Him be created?

Saint Athanasius says in his letter to Serapion: "If the Spirit is the fragrance and form of the Son, it remains plain and manifest that the Spirit is not a creature; since the Son also, existing in the form of God, is not a creature."

Saint Cyril in the Book of Treasures calls the Father the rose, the Son the flower, and the Holy Spirit the fragrance.

The great Athanasius, in his letter to Serapion concerning the Holy Spirit, which begins, "Perhaps you will marvel," says: "This anointing is the breath of the Son."

Damascenus, in his discourse concerning the Holy Spirit, whose beginning is, "The Word must also have the Spirit," says: "We do not conceive of the Holy Spirit as an unsubstantial breath, but as an essential power, proceeding from the Father, having neither beginning nor end. For the Word was never wanting to the Father, nor the Spirit to the Word." And Job: "The divine Spirit is that which has made me, and the breath of the Almighty that teaches me." ^B

Saint Maximus, in the dialogue which he held with an Anomoean, says these things: The Anomoean says to the Orthodox: "And so you say that the Spirit is of the divine nature?" The Orthodox replies: "Not simply that it is of the divine nature, but that it is the divine. For the Father Himself said: 'In the last days I will pour out from my Spirit upon all flesh.' And the Son: 'For it is not you that speak, but the Spirit of my Father that speaks in you.' And Job called the Spirit divine in this way: 'The Lord lives, who has so judged me, and the Almighty who has embittered my soul, verily while the breath still remains in my nostrils. The divine Spirit that remains in my nostrils, let not my mouth speak unjustly.' Do you see how he makes mention of the Holy Trinity? 'The Lord lives,' he says, indicating ^C the Son; 'and the Almighty who has embittered my soul,' the Father; 'the divine Spirit that remains in my nostrils,' the Holy Spirit."

The great Athanasius, in the discourse entitled "Refutation of the Hypocrisy regarding Meletius," which begins, "Man was made according to the likeness of God," says: "The procession of the Spirit is not like birth, but is likened to a breathing, on account of the participation, as of breath coming from the mouth, and enlightening the one who receives it, just as it is indeed called 'Spirit'."

Saint Cyril, in his exposition on the Gospel according to John, on the saying, "And the Word became flesh," says: "Since, however, man was being punished on account of the transgression, he was stripped of grace, and the breath of life—that is to say, the Spirit of Him who says, 'I am the life'—was severed from the earthly flesh." ^D

The same, upon the text: ^A “I have seen the Spirit descending,” says: “And God created man; according to the image of God He created him.” That, however, it was through the Spirit that he was sealed into the divine image, Moses taught by saying: “And He breathed into his face the breath of life.”

The Great Athanasius, in the dialogue where he sets out [the arguments of] the Orthodox and the Anomoean, says: “The nature of God is the cause both of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and of all creation; but of the Son [it is the cause] as the Word, ‘For in the beginning was the Word,’ and of the Spirit as breath: ‘For the breath of the Almighty is what taught me’; and of creation [it is the cause] as of things made, from which the Artist of them is inferred by analogy. Neither is it a spoken word emitted through the vocal organs, nor is it some breath diffused and emitted through the respiratory organs, but [it is] both a living and active Word—‘For all things were made through Him’—and a living and active Spirit—‘For all these things the one and the selfsame Spirit works.’ ^B That which is unbegotten, moreover, is not the cause of that which is begotten. For it is not the fact of not being begotten that is the cause of God being the cause of essences, but the essence is the cause of the essences, as has been said. For if that which is unbegotten is the cause, and the Son is the cause of the creatures, then He is unbegotten; but He is not unbegotten according to you, yet He is [a] cause. Therefore, that which is unbegotten is not [the] cause.”

Saint Cyril, upon the text, “He will glorify Me, because He will take from what is Mine,” says: ^C “For just as the fragrance of most sweet-smelling flowers, in some way receiving into itself the natural and substantial efficacy or quality of the things from which it is, carries it to things outside and, falling upon the organs of the body that serve for sense of smell, imparts knowledge; and it seems, in so far as it pertains to the realm of mental representation, to be some other thing than the nature that sends it forth; yet when considered in itself, it no longer has a nature other than that from which and in which it exists: so too, you shall understand in the case of God and the Holy Spirit, ascending to the logic of the example. It is, therefore, entirely beyond reproach and beyond any calumny to say that the Spirit is said to take from the Only-Begotten. For, proceeding through Him naturally as His own, He is said to take His own things, together with everything that He has perfectly.” ^D

The same, upon the text, “All things that the Father has are Mine, and for this reason I said to you, that He takes from what is Mine and will announce it to you,” says: “Just as if we were to say of the fragrance from aromatics that impinges upon our senses of smell, that it is, in one way, as it were, different from them, if one were to grant it to [the realm of] mental representations, yet one would not think it to exist in any other way than as receiving the power to manifest itself from those [things] from which it is, not being, however, 'other' because of the fact that it is naturally from them and in them: [understand] something of this kind, or rather even something beyond this, in the case of God and the Holy Spirit. For it is, as it were, a certain living and manifest scent of His essence, transporting to creation those things which are of God and the...

^A proper virtue of them remains in the garments, and in some way changes into itself those things to which it has adhered: so how shall the Holy Spirit, who is naturally from God, not make those to whom He comes partakers of the divine nature by Himself? Since therefore the Son is the fruit and character of the hypostasis of the Father, He draws to Himself all things that are His by nature: and therefore He says, "All things that the Father has are mine." For this reason I said to you, that "He shall take of mine, and shall declare it to you," meaning the Holy Spirit, who is through Him and in Him, through whom He dwells in the saints as He Himself does; for His Spirit is not other than Him, even if it be understood to subsist by itself and in its own way. For the Spirit is Spirit, and not the Son. ^B

Hermias, in the seventh book of the dialogue with Cyril, says: "Acknowledge then that the Spirit is life, naturally, and not by participation." The Saint replies to this: "Entirely so, O friend. And you will understand this well also from other thoughts. For one might hear God speaking, and pouring forth the crime of desertion upon those who sacrifice to idols: 'The heaven was astonished at this, and shuddered exceedingly, says the Lord, because my people have committed two evil things. They have forsaken me, the fountain of living water, and have dug for themselves broken cisterns, which shall not be able to hold water.'" And we shall find our Lord Jesus Christ having addressed the Jews: "If any man thirst, let him come to me, and drink. He that believes in me, as the Scripture says," and so forth. Which fact the divine Evangelist John also ^C clarifies and makes manifest, and refers it to the nature and efficacy of the Holy Spirit, saying: "This he said concerning the Spirit, which they who believe in him were about to receive."

John Chrysostom, in the discourse on the mystery of baptism, the beginning of which is, "Again to you, the spiritual cithara of blessed David," says: "For this reason the Savior shows himself to be the fountain of life, and the Holy Spirit to be the living water."

The great Athanasius, in the discourse in which he sets out the debate between the Orthodox and the Anomoean, speaking as the Orthodox person, says: "And when I say the Spirit is unbegotten, I do not mean it has no originator, but that it has a fountain of itself. For just as a fountain does not ^D produce the water it dispenses from outside, but has it, and it gushes out from itself, so also God is the fountain of the Spirit, as it has been said, and the dispenser of it, not receiving it from without, but causing it to gush from Himself. For it is written, 'My people have committed two evil things: they have forsaken me, the fountain of living water, and have dug for themselves broken cisterns, which shall not be able to hold water.' And the Apostle says: 'He who imparts the Spirit to us, and works miracles among us.' That the living water is the Spirit, Christ taught, saying..."

^A And here the great Athanasius called the Father the fountain, and the Spirit the water. But when he is collecting the testimonies from Scripture through which the communion of nature is established—that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are similar to one another—he calls Christ the fountain of the Spirit, and the Holy Spirit the water. For the Savior says again, “He who believes in me, as the Scripture has said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.” And the Evangelist, explaining what “living water” is, said: “But this he said about the Spirit, whom those believing in him were about to receive.” For the prophet says: “They have forsaken me, the fountain of living water, and have dug for themselves broken cisterns that cannot hold water.” ^B The same great Athanasius, in the discourse on the Incarnation of the Lord, which begins: “Those who wish to interpret the divine Scriptures maliciously,” says: “For he knows that with God the Father is the Son, the fountain of the Holy Spirit.”

EPIGRAPH X

The authorities committed to this writing, in which the theologian Fathers establish that all things which are proper to the Father naturally pass over into the Son, who is begotten by Him, are arranged here to prove that the Spirit exists, proceeds, and flows also from the Son, just as He does from the Father, according to the teaching of Saint Cyril. For if the determinations of the testimonies cited are to be stripped of all but fatherhood and begetting where the Son is concerned, it remains manifest that the Son would never be from the Son; but the Spirit, springing from the paternal essence, would spring forth and be poured out from the non-begetting essence of the Son. ^C Saint Cyril writes in one of the chapters of the first *Thesaurus*: “Since, however, He is seen to have received all things naturally and substantially, the authority and dominion of the Begetter clearly flowing into Him, the Son is alone proper to the Father.” And in another: “How could He who possesses in Himself naturally all the proper and unique attributes of the Father belong to created things, being of the divine and first essence?” And in another: “How shall He not be a Son living from a living Father, since the property of the Begetter naturally passes into Him?” And in another: “Just as a plant communicates to the fruit ^D that proceeds from it the quality naturally inherent in itself, so the Son is understood to have received from the Father the attributes that are His, being all that the Father is, if you except only that He is the Father.”

The same author says in the sixth book against Hermias: “The Spirit is indeed poured out as if from the Father, the fountain; yet He is not alien to the Son. For He is begotten, containing in Himself the entire property of the Father. And since He is the fruit of the supreme divinity, how could He be conceived of as stripped of the goods of the divinity? For the property of divinity...

^A is sanctification, which the Spirit shows; for He is holy by nature, and the sanctifier of the whole creation.

The same, on the saying, "The Son can do nothing of Himself": For the Son has from the Father, as His substance, so also the goods of the substance.

The same, in the second book to Hermias, says: We believe the Son to be coeternal with the Father, and possessing all things in equal measure, setting aside only the begetting; for this would properly belong to God the Father alone.

The same, in the discourse on the Trinity: In the Only-begotten Son, in all things similar and equal to the Father, apart from the fatherhood.

The same: The Son is a partaker of all the natural goods of the Father, only He is not the Father. ^B

The same, in the exposition of the Gospel according to John, on the saying, "This was in the beginning with God," says: The Only-begotten, demonstrating Himself to have appeared as true God from true God the Father, says, "All things that the Father has are mine." But the Son is also the heir of all the properties existing in the Father, as existing from Him by nature. Yet the being Father He will never possess. And this is also one of the things belonging to the begetter. But the Son will remain deprived of nothing of those things that inhere in the Father, even if He is not conceived as Father, but possessing in Himself perfectly all things that are proper and exclusive to the Father's essence.

The same, on the saying, "But as many as received Him," says: Having shone forth from the very essence of the Father, He derived His own proper good by nature. ^C

The same, in the third book to Hermias: The discourse rather impels [us] to an avowal, that it is absolutely necessary to understand that, through true generation, the Son has sprung from the essence of God the Father, being true God from true God, not led into a bastard and foreign nature, but being essentially that which the Father is also understood to be, setting aside only the being Father.

Great Basil, in the discourse on the Faith, which begins, "To make mention of God is always pious," says: "For we beheld," says the Evangelist, "the glory of Him, glory as of the Only-begotten from the Father," that is, not as [gifts] given to Him by means of a favor and grace, but as having ^D the dignity of the paternal divinity by a natural communion of the Son. For to receive is common even to the creation; but to have is proper by nature to the begotten. As Son, therefore, He possesses naturally the things of the Father; and as Only-begotten, He comprises all things in Himself, with nothing being divided with another.

EPIGRAPH XI The present scriptural testimonies have been collected here, in which the Fathers have theologized that the Son is the property of the Father, as being from His essence.

^A And again, that He is from Him as being proper to His essence, so that it may be available to anyone who wishes to discern from this that the Spirit is likewise said to be the property of the Son because He is from His essence, and again is said to be from the essence of the Son, because He is the proper good of such an essence, which also indicates the consubstantiality of the Spirit with the Son. For if by any other mode of consubstantiality—such as that which is spoken of regarding two things that are consubstantial, in which one is not from the other—the Spirit were the property of the Son and from the essence of the Son, then the Son would also be the property of the Spirit and from the essence of the Spirit, due to the reciprocal nature of such consubstantiality, which has never been uttered by any of the saints, nor will it ever be uttered by those who propose to cultivate piety and follow the right dogmas of the Church. And such consubstantiality is not even properly consubstantiality, but rather that which joins one to the other, as being from Him or existing of Him naturally and substantially. And the testimony of the great Basil, here set forth, ^B will bear witness to this, clearly saying that things related by a bond of brotherhood are not called consubstantial. Further, other authorities are added to these testimonies, which assert that the Son is consubstantial with the Father because He is from His essence, so that anyone, if he only wills, may be able to discern from this that the Spirit is for this reason consubstantial with the Son, because He is from His essence. Still other authorities are added to these, which establish the consubstantiality of the Spirit toward the Father and the Son, because He exists from the Father through the Son.

Saint Cyril, in his oration to Nestorius which begins, "Some are babbling, as I have learned, against my own opinion," says: "For just as what is born of man—or indeed of any other animal—according to nature is his property, so too that which has arisen from the essence of God is and will be understood and called the property of God."

The great Athanasius, in his first oration against the Arians, whose beginning is: "The other heresies which invent madness against the truth prove themselves manifest," has: "For since the Word is proper by nature to the essence of God, He is from Him and in Him."

The same author in the same oration says: "The Son is truly the genuine offspring by nature of the Father, the property of His essence; He is not a creature or a work, but the offspring and power ^C proper to the Father’s essence, and the true image of the Father’s essence." And again in the same oration: "The Son is the property of the Father, existing in His bosom." And again: "It would be manifest that since God is Creator, He has the creating Word not from without, but as His own property." And after many things in the same oration: "Therefore the Word is not a creature, but the sole property of the Father." And a few things interspersed in the same oration: "Since He is not a creature, but the offspring proper to the essence of the God whom we worship, and is the Son by nature, for this reason He is ^D worshipped and is God.

And after a few words: "He is not alien, but proper to the essence of the Father." ^A And after a few words: "For we see the Word as ever-existing and existing from Him, and proper to the essence of Him whose Word He is." And after a few words: "Just as our word is from us, and is not a creature, nor like the word of men." And after a few more words: "He who believes in the Son, believes in the Father. For he believes in that which is proper to the essence of the Father." And after a few words: "For if the Word were not the begotten of the Father’s essence, as the radiance is of the light, but the Son differed in nature from the Father, it would suffice to grant the Father alone."

Magnus Basilius in the letter to the canonesses, which begins: "How much a sad rumor, sounding in our ears earlier..." ^B says: "Since, therefore, the Father is light without beginning, and the Son is begotten light, and both are light, they have not inappropriately called them consubstantial, so that they might demonstrate the equal dignity of their nature. For not those things which are related to one another are called consubstantial, as some have supposed, but when both the cause and that which has its existence from the cause participate in the same nature in all respects, they are said to be consubstantial."

The same author in the oration whose beginning is: "Judaism opposes Hellenism," ^C says: "For we do not call the Father and the Son 'related,' but we confess the Father and the Son, and one and the same nature. Since the Son is from the Father, not made by a command, but begotten from the nature."

Saint Cyril on the saying, "But when the Paraclete shall come," writes: "Therefore, to say, 'We have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God,' the Only-Begotten taught the world, not that the Holy Spirit is anything other than existing from the divine essence."

The same on the saying, "For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will," ^D says: "For the fact that the Son was begotten from the Father will in every way compel us, even against our will, to grant Him consubstantiality."

The same in the first book to Hermias says: "For if the Son is truly consubstantial with the Father, He is from Him and in Him naturally and consubstantially."

The same in the third book to Hermias: "Nothing, therefore, prevents us from thinking and truly believing that, since the Son had His origin for us from the very essence of God and the Father, He is not to be conceived as different or alien, as far as natural identity is concerned."

Saint Maximus in his exposition: "What then is meant by the golden lampstand of the prophet Zechariah, and the lamp upon it, and the lights," says: "For the Holy Spirit, just as He is by nature and according to essence that of God and the Father, so also is He according to essence that of the Son,"

proceeding ineffably in a manner which cannot be expressed in words.

Saint Cyril, in book II to Hermias: "You will call the Holy Spirit that which is naturally poured forth from God the Father through the Son, as, for example, the breath from the mouth, denoting to us ^A its own existence. And in this way, keeping the clear and unconfused property of the three hypostases in their own existences, you will worship the one and consubstantial royal nature of all."

The same, in book VI to Hermias, as if leading the discourse by questioning Hermias, says: "Whose own should we say the Holy Spirit is? Is it of God and the Father alone, or also of the Son, or of each separately, and of both, just as one from the Father through the Son because of the identity of essence?" Then Hermias: "So I would say." And the Saint: "Rightly indeed, O friend, and I admire you for your sharpness ^B and affirm that you have spoken an opinion on this matter that is highly consonant with the divinely inspired Scriptures."

EPIGRAPH XII

The great Athanasius, in the disputation concerning the Nicene ^D council against Arius, the beginning of which is: "By the providence of God I was going, accompanied by my dearest brothers, to those who are to me beloved friends of Christ," says: "Therefore, God, speaking to His own Son through the prophet, 'From the womb before the morning star I have begotten you' (Ps. CIX, 3), denotes the generation of the Son from the paternal essence." And after a few words: "He names the womb for no other reason than to show that the Son himself was begotten from the essence of the Father." And after a few words: "When, therefore, the Scripture says that the Son was generated from the womb, it signifies the generation of the Son from the divine hypostasis." And after a few words: "We therefore learn that the Son is begotten from the essence of God and the Father."

In the letter from the synod in Jerusalem to the Church in Alexandria, the beginning of which is: “To all of us who have gathered together from various provinces,” the following points are found: ^A “For those who have anathematized the Arian heresy acknowledge that the Word is not a creature, but a generation from the essence, and that the essence of the Father is the beginning, root, and fountain of the Son.” And after some words in the same letter: “Whence if the Son were from participation, and not the essential deity and image of the Father from Him, He would never have deified, being Himself deified.”

Great Athanasius in the discourse whose beginning is: “You have done well in informing me of the question posed by you,” has this: “The Son will not be the same as a creature, lest His essence be considered as being from God and yet outside of God.” ^B And with a few intervening words: “The essence of the Son is not something extraneous and adventitious; nor was it introduced from things that are not, but it sprang from the essence of the Father, as the radiance of light, and the vapor of water.”

The same author in the dialogue of the Orthodox and the Anomoean says: “For it is not the state of being unbegotten that is the cause of substances, but essence is the cause of substances.”

Damascene in chapter 13 concerning divine names, whose beginning is: “The Divine is incomprehensible,” says: “For when I grasp one of the hypostases with my intellect, I know it as a perfect God, a perfect essence.”

Great Basil in the second of the Antirrhetics against Eunomius says: “As long as they keep silence, let them not be unaware that they are placing the essence of the Only-Begotten after the ages.” ^C

The same author in the 18th of his letters to Amphilochius: “He is said to be from God, not as all things are from God, but as having proceeded from God, not by generation like the Son, but as the breath of His mouth. And yet neither is the mouth a limb, nor the Spirit a breath that is dissipated, but both the mouth is spoken of in a way befitting God, and the Spirit is an essence of life and Mistress of sanctification.”

Gregory the Theologian in the discourse: “Yesterday, on the splendid day of Lights,” says: ^D “You fear generation, lest God, who is impassible, should suffer something. I, on the other hand, fear the cutting, lest I lose God through (this) contumely and unjust division, if I should either cut the Son from the Father, or the essence of the Spirit from the Son.”

EPIGRAPH XIII

Since there are some who dare to say that to well up, and to proceed, and to shine forth, and to appear from the Son does not signify that the Spirit exists substantially and in His own hypostasis from the Son, but (only) the distribution of spiritual gifts from Him, to refute this opinion these written testimonies have been selected, which clearly indicate that the Son wells up, shines forth, and appears from the Father: for no one would assert that it is not the Son who wells up, and shines

forth and appears from the Father essentially and in his own hypostasis, but rather the gifts of the Son. ^A

Magnus Basilius in his second *Antirrheticus*: “It is a common opinion among all Christians that the Son is the light begotten and shining forth from the unbegotten light.” And again: “A good Son of a good Father, the eternal light has shone forth from the unbegotten light.” ^B

The same author, concerning the difference of essence and hypostasis: “The only-begotten Son, shining forth from the unbegotten light, possesses absolutely no communion—as regards the peculiar characteristics—either with the Father or with the Holy Spirit.”

Saint Cyril in one of the chapters on the eternity of the Son, which begins, “He is called the fountain of wisdom and life, and is God,” says: “For the Son was co-eternal with the Begetter, as if gushing forth from a certain fountain of the first essence.” And in another chapter: “For the Word, having proceeded from the essence of the Father, immediately indicated the One who begot Him.” And in another: “Just as the Father is without beginning, so also is the Word who proceeded from His essence without beginning.” And in another: “The Word who proceeded from the essence of the Father.” And in another: “The Son from Him who proceeded without time.” And in another: “The Son who proceeded from the essence of the Father.” And in another: “The God who is above all things has shone forth the Son from Himself indivisibly.” And in another: “The Father shone forth the Son from Himself indivisibly and inseparably.” And in another: “Thus also the Son of God, having proceeded indivisibly from the Father, is the character of His eternity.” And in another: “Just as the Holy Spirit does not suffer any division concerning the essence, while distributing diverse modes in the gifts, so too would no one of sound mind say that the generative essence of God has undergone either division or some sort of efflux, since He emitted one and only the Son from Himself.” And in another: “Whatever is in the existence of the Son proceeds from the paternal essence.” And in another: “For what affection or passion is conceived concerning the sun when it generates light? What division occurs concerning fire when it emits the illumination that is from it? If these things generate indivisibly and emit without any passion the things that are from them, how much more shall the Creator of them emit the radiance of His own nature?” ^C

The Studite, in one of the *Graduals*, has: “For the Father is without beginning, from whom the Son was generated without time, and the Spirit, of the same throne and same essence, who shone forth together from the Father.”

Damascene: “You were made Mother of God without any conjunction, having given birth to Him who shone forth from the incorruptible Father.” ^D

Saint Cyril, in the discourse to Valerian the bishop, says: “For being holy by nature, just as truly is the Father, the only-begotten Son who arises from Him is said to be sanctified by the Father, insofar as He has appeared as man.”

The same author, concerning Christ: “We say that the Mediator of God and men is composed, according to the Scriptures, of our

^A humanity, as it exists perfectly in its own right, and [is manifested] from the Son who has had His origin from God according to nature, that is to say, from the Only-Begotten.” And again: “The Spirit is proper to the Son, not only insofar as He is the Word who has appeared from the Father, but even if He be thought of as having become man among us.” The same author: “Not alien to the glory of God is the Spirit, who proceeds ineffably from the ineffable mouth.”

Great Basil: “The Holy Spirit has nothing within Himself that is adscititious, but He possesses all things eternally as the Spirit of God, having appeared from Him.”

Great Athanasius, in his first discourse against the Arians, which begins: “The heresies, whosoever have devised for themselves a madness against the truth,” after much has been added and interspersed, says: ^B “While demonstrating His own deity and greatness to the disciples, the Lord, indicating that He is not lesser than the Spirit, but greater and equal, was bestowing the Spirit and saying: ‘I will send Him, and He will glorify Me, and whatever He hears He will speak.’” And after some other things, in explaining how the Father is greater than the Son, he said: “The Lord called the Father greater than Himself not in any magnitude, nor in time, but because of the generation from the Father Himself.” Whoever, therefore, will have accurately considered this, will properly understand that He pronounced the Son to be greater than the Spirit, on account of the Spirit’s existence through the Son.

Great Basil, in his letter to the canonicals, which begins: “How much a sad rumor, resonant in our ears, previously grieved us,” ^C says: “Since, therefore, the Father is light without beginning, but the Son is begotten light, and light and light one to another, they have rightly called them of the same essence [homousion], so that they might demonstrate an equal dignity of nature. For things that are cognate to one another are not called of the same essence—which some have supposed—but when both the cause and that which has its existence from the cause share the same nature in all things, they are said to be of the same essence.”

The same author, in chapter 8 of those to Amphilochius, says: “For this reason the Lord says to the Father: ‘All mine are thine,’ ^D as if the origin of created things were being referred back to Him, and ‘thine are mine,’ because from the Father the authority for creating things proceeds to Him. For of those whose power is equal, the operation also is surely equal. For Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God, and thus ‘all things were made through Him.’ And with a few things annexed: ‘That the Father creates through the Son neither establishes the Father's creation as imperfect, nor does it imply a weak operation of the Son, but it expresses the union of the will. Wherefore the phrase “through the Son” has the confession of the primary cause, and is not taken as a defect of the creating cause.’”

As to that which is said, *from an alien essence or hypostasis.*

^A St. Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem: “I believe, therefore, blessed ones, as I have believed from the beginning, in one God, the Father Almighty, altogether without beginning and eternal, the maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, who was eternally and impassibly born of God and the Father himself. And He acknowledges no other principle but the Father; nor does He have His substance from any source other than the Father—Light from Light, consubstantial, true God from true God, co-eternal. And in one Holy Spirit, who proceeds eternally from God and the Father, to be acknowledged as Light and God himself, truly co-eternal with the Father and the Son.”

Magnus Basilius in the copy of the faith published by him, of which this is the beginning: “Those already preoccupied with another confession of faith,” he says, “Some of those who follow the impiety of the Libyan Sabellius, assuming that *hypostasis* or subsistence and *essence* are the same thing, draw from there arguments to support their own blasphemy, because it is written in that faith: ‘If any man says that the Son is from another essence or hypostasis, the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes him.’ For those Fathers did not say that essence and subsistence are the same thing. For if those words indicated one and the same concept, what need would there be for both? But it is clear that they were posited for this reason: because, while some denied that the Son is from the essence of the Father, and others said that the Son is indeed from the essence of the Father but also from some other subsistence, they rejected both opinions as alien to the ecclesiastical mind. Otherwise, when they declared their own mind simply, they said that the Son is from the essence of the Father, and did not add ‘from His hypostasis.’ Therefore, the former was written to refute the evil meaning, while the latter holds the declaration of the saving dogma.”

^B The same [Basil], in his epistle to his brother Gregory, on the difference between essence and hypostasis—that they are not the same—and on the theology of the Holy Trinity, which begins: “Since many in mystical dogmas.” “Seeking, indeed, whether such a supply of good things is present to those who are worthy, that which takes its beginning from the Holy Spirit alone, we are again led by Scripture and instructed to believe that the progenitor and cause of those good things which the Holy Spirit works in us is the only-begotten God. ^C For we have been taught by Holy Scripture that all things were made through Him and in Him consist. When, therefore, we are lifted up to that thought, we are again taught, as if by the leading of divinely inspired Scripture, that by that power all things are produced from that which is not into that which is; yet they are not produced from it without principle, but that there is a certain power, unbegotten and subsisting without beginning, which is the cause of that cause of all things that exist. For the things of… ^D

^A the Son are from the Father, through whom are all things, with whom the Holy Spirit is always considered and joined inseparably.

The same author, in the fourth book against Eunomius, says: "Not indeed because the Apostle here made mention first of the Spirit, and second of the Son, and third of God and the Father, must we think that the order has been reversed; for it took its starting point from our own relationship. For since we receive the gifts, we first encounter him who distributes them, then we conceive of the sender in our mind, and finally we lead our thoughts to the source and cause of good things."

The great Athanasius, in the dialogue between an Orthodox and an Anomoean that he sets forth, says: ^B "The nature of God is the cause, both of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and of the whole of creation." And a few things later: "The unbegotten is not the cause of the begotten in God; for it is not 'not being begotten' that is the cause of essences in God, but the essence is the cause of essences."

Saint Cyril, in his commentary on John, regarding the passage: "I have come down from heaven, not to do my will," says: "For every kind of virtue has as its source and root, even as it were, the highest essence of all things."

The great Basil, near the end of his second book against Eunomius, says: "That which is said to have been made by the Son has its reference back to the primary cause; so that, although we believe all things to have been produced through God the Word, ^C nevertheless we do not deny that God is the cause of all things."

Gregory the Theologian, in the oration on the arrival of the Egyptians, the beginning of which is: "I shall greet those who came from Egypt," says: "For God stands in three greatest things: in cause, and in creator, and in perfecter—I mean to say, in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Spirit." And a few things later: "Whatever the Father has is the Son's, except for unbegottenness; and whatever the Son has is the Spirit's, except for sonship, and those things which are spoken of him in a bodily manner for the sake of man and my salvation."

The great Basil, in chapter 16 of the work to Amphilochius: "And let no one think me to be saying there are three original ^D substances, or to say that the Son's operation is imperfect. For the beginning of the things that come to be is one, working through the Son and perfecting in the Spirit."

The same author, in the antigraph of the faith dictated by him: "For we know one unbegotten, and one principle of the universe, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Saint Athanasius, in his testimonies of holy Scripture concerning the like essence of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, chapter 48, writes: "What is God? Every...

origin, according to the Apostle, is: 'One God the Father, from whom are all things.' For the Word also exists from Him by way of generation, and the Spirit by way of procession; then the whole of creation through the Word and in the Spirit was established creatively."

Saint Epiphanius in the *Ancoratus* says: "The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth, a third light from the Father and the Son." And after a few words: "For just as no one knows the Father except the Son, nor the Son except the Father, I dare to say the same: that neither is the Spirit known except by the Father and the Son, from whom He proceeds and from whom He receives."

The Great Athanasius in his letter to Serapion, the beginning of which is: "The letter written by your piety has been delivered to me," says: "And the Son indeed says: 'What I have heard from the Father, these things I also speak into the world'; but the Spirit receives from the Son. 'For He shall receive of mine, and shall declare it to you,' He says."

Saint Cyril on the text: "Believe in God, and believe in me," says: "For the holy and consubstantial Trinity is distinguished both by the diversities of the names and by the qualities and properties of the persons." ^B Idem on the text: "All things were made through Him," says: "For we shall not consider the Son in the Father merely by reason of a similarity of essence as a character, or again the Father in the Son as an archetype; but we shall receive the God-Word as shining forth from the essence of the Father by way of generation, existing and subsisting in it and from it in His own proper hypostasis. And likewise the Father [is received] as united to the Son by a consubstantial nature, yet distinguished by that one reason alone, by which He is Father."

Idem in the syllogisms which he gathers on that text: "And the Word was with God," he says: "By believing in God the Father, and in the Son the Only-begotten, and in the Holy Spirit, we are saved. For this reason the Savior Himself, commanding His own disciples, said: 'Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.' But if the diversity of names contributes nothing to our advantage, but he who names the Father denotes the Son, and he who calls Him Son brings in mention of the Father, what need was there to command that believers be baptized not into unity, but into a Trinity? ^C But since the discourse concerning the divine nature runs into the number three, it is evident to all that while each of those enumerated exists in a proper hypostasis, yet because they have in no way departed from the nature, we ascend into one Godhead and follow [them] with the same adoration."

Seek in the third book against Eunomius the explanation of the...

^A position of the great Basil upon the text of Isaiah which contains: "The Lord has sent me and His Spirit," which indicates that this was spoken according to the humanity of the Savior.

Seek also in the oration of the great Athanasius, which begins: "Judaism is countered by Gentilism," some things necessary for refuting local distance when he says: "God is not poured out, and God is not sent."

Theodoret in his *Ecclesiastical History*, book II, chapter 25, reporting the letter of the great Athanasius to the Africans concerning the Council of Ariminum, contains these things among others from the same letter: "Who indeed would wish to accede to the opinion of these men, who do not even approve of their own institutes? For those who, as we said above, wrote more than ten formulas of faith (for at another time they were always composing another and a new one) in their councils, openly demonstrate that they themselves reprove their individual councils, and the same happens to them as once happened to the Jewish traitors. For as they, having abandoned the only fountain of living water, as the prophet Jeremiah writes, dug for themselves cisterns which cannot hold water: so these, having undertaken a fight against the general council, constitute for themselves many councils."

But also the great Athanasius himself in his first oration against the Arians writes that the Savior ^B alone supplies the Holy Spirit in those places: "The Savior, however, conversely, since He is God and always rules with the paternal authority, is Himself the sole supplier of the Holy Spirit."

The great Athanasius in one of his letters to Serapion says: "But if this is impossible for the senseless (for each thing remains as it was made), much more do those things which are above creation have an everlasting endurance, and are not in another way than as the Father is the Father, and not a grandfather; and the Son is the Son of God, and not the father of the Spirit; and the Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit, and not the offspring of the Father nor the brother of the Son."

The great Maximus in the dialogue he sets forth between an Orthodox and an Anomoean, says: "For the Spirit has no Father; for He was not begotten."

The holy Cyril in the thirteenth book of the *Treasury* says: "Where Christ, addressing the Jews, said: 'If I by the finger of God cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.' And he calls the Holy Spirit the 'finger' here, in a way as having proceeded from the divine substance, and naturally hanging from it, just as the finger does from the human hand. For the Holy Scriptures call the Son the arm and the right hand of God, according to the text: 'His right hand and His holy arm have saved Him.' And again: 'O Lord, ^C Your arm is high and they did not know; but let them be ashamed when they have known.' As therefore the arm is naturally joined ^D to the whole body, om-

^A acting out everything that seems good to the mind—and he usually anoints by using his finger for this purpose—so we consider the Word of God as naturally fitted and, so to speak, inborn in Him and from Him, while we believe that the Holy Spirit naturally and essentially proceeds from the Father into the Son, through whom He anoints and sanctifies all things. The Holy Spirit therefore appears not as foreign nor as estranged from the divine essence, but ^B as naturally from it and in it, just as the finger of the body is in the hand, being of the same nature as it, and the hand in turn is in the body, not being of a different nature when compared to it. Since these things are so, the Holy Spirit is certainly the true God and not otherwise. The blessed David says somewhere while chanting and directing his words to God: “Where shall I go from Thy Spirit, and where shall I flee from Thy face? If I ascend to heaven, Thou art there; if I descend to Hades, Thou art present. If I take my wings at dawn and dwell in the extremities of the sea, even there Thy hand shall guide me, and Thy right hand shall hold me.” ^C Since, therefore, he calls the Spirit both the face of the Father, as imaging forth by His God-befitting energy the essence from which He is, and also calls Him hand because of the all-creating power inherent in Him, how would He not be God, and joined to the Father according to essence, being from Him and in Him, just as the hand of the human body is not separated from it, but is rather bound up in it and is naturally rooted and established within it? ^D

REFUTATION OF PHOTIUS' BOOK ON THE SPIRIT

JOHN VECCUS, PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE, REFUTATION OF PHOTIUS' BOOK ON THE PROCESSION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

Editor and Translator: D. J. Hergenröther, Doctor of Theology and Professor at the University of Würzburg.

PREFACE.

Photius' book, *On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit*, had already been printed when, in the autumn of the year 1857, in the Laurentian Library at Florence, the editor obtained ^A another manuscript of the same work, which contained a refutation of it that had been found in no other codex. That these [avtρρήσεις] (refutations) were the product of the most celebrated patriarch John Veccus, or Beccus—even though they do not bear his name—was judged according to many indications and arguments ^B, both external and, most especially, internal. For besides the fact that this writing is read among Beccus's intermediate works, both preceding and following them, and that Photius' book is titled in the same manner as in another work of this man ^C, being addressed in the inscription to a certain philosopher named Eusebius, Beccus not only explicitly names Photius among the patrons of the schism refuted by him ^D, but he also appeals to another writing where he had demonstrated more fully and clearly that Photius did not attack the dogmas of the Roman Church out of zeal for truth and divine glory, but out of hatred and a spirit of contention—something which fits no other book of his as well as ours, especially since elsewhere, in his oration *On the Union of the Church* and in his books to Theodore, Bishop of Sugdaea, he had touched upon certain Photian sophisms only briefly and together with other matters. Furthermore, the entire manner of argumentation pertains to that state of the controversy which obtained in the thirteenth century, and the author has in his sights the schismatics of this age rather than Photius and his contemporaries. The style altogether smacks of the patriarch John; his own sentiments and words, frequently used in other books, recur almost everywhere, and many things agree with these verbatim. For Beccus is accustomed to repeat very often what he has said elsewhere, and he takes pleasure in his own arguments and vocabulary, whereas his disciples Constantine Meliteniota and George Metochita, although they rely in reality upon his arguments, differ from him with respect to elocution and arrangement. Finally, everything that is peculiar to Beccus recurs in our work. Regarding the subject matter itself, the book offers almost nothing new or not said elsewhere, yet it is worthy, on account of the dignity of the author and his celebrated name, to be added to the remaining writings collected in the *Graecia Orthodoxa*. For the rest, in some places it also presents its own documents and, in others, it illustrates and perfects those which had been disputed in other books. Indeed, the entire method of disputation relies upon the Fathers of the Greek Church, so that it may be shown that those absurd consequences which Photius deduces from the dogma of the Latins strike them no more than they strike these, and that the crimes imputed by him to the Italians, or Romans, can with equal right be branded upon the Oriental doctors. For a man who was remarkably learned, whose life was agitated by excessive storms, did not treat with extreme refinement every one of those subtleties with which Photius fought for his cause; nor was that neces-

necessarily his intent. Yet he dismantled those sophisms with a hurried pen, as time and opportunity allowed, lest they occupy the minds of his fellow citizens too much. It seems, moreover, that in the time of Photius, the book which Hugo Eterianus had already read in Constantinople a century earlier was read and received by many. Assuredly, Job the hieromonk, called Jasites, a disciple of the Patriarch Joseph Galesiotes, has much in his Apology—which exists in the codex of Vienna and in the Munich Greek codex of the 16th century—that can easily be believed to have been taken, at least mediately, from this work of Photius. He so accuses the dogma of the Latins of confounding the properties of the divine hypostases, by which alone the Trinity is the Trinity, using almost the same words as Photius uses (c. 35), and in a brief summary levels against them the same crimes that Photius had enumerated at length. Hence, in the notes to this unpublished Apology, we have referred to it several times.

REFUTATION OF THE BOOK WRITTEN BY PHOTIUS AGAINST THE LATINS TO A CERTAIN PHILOSOPHER EUSEBIUS, ENTITLED: ON THE SACRED DOCTRINE OF THE MOST HOLY SPIRIT

Just as the Son is said in the sacred oracles to be born from the Father alone, so the Holy Spirit is proclaimed to proceed from that same single cause; yet He is said to be the Son's, inasmuch as He is consubstantial with Him and sent through Him.

^A PHOTIUS' TEXT.

1. In many and lengthy books are found scattered and inserted arguments by which the pride of those is suppressed who strive with great contention to hold the truth in unrighteousness. But since your magnificent and God-loving zeal has requested that those arguments be brought into a synopsis and compendium, with divine providence consenting, the execution of this matter shall be accomplished, not unworthy of your love for God and your desire. ^{B C D}

40. There exists, therefore, against them a sharp and inescapable weapon, and before all other things, the voice of the Lord, which like lightning strikes down and destroys every beast and every fox. What is this? The voice which says that the Spirit proceeds from the Father. The Son himself, by his sacred instruction, transmits that the Spirit proceeds from the Father; yet you seek another teacher, by whom you may be perfected? Or rather, is it that you may be perfected in impiety, and may fable that the Spirit proceeds from the Son? If you have not feared to take up the impulse of your own madness, that the dogmas of the common Savior, Creator, and Lawgiver should yield to it, what else could one seek to take up by which to refute and tear down your impious zeal? If you despise the Lord’s laws, who with a pious mind will not loathe your opinion? And what other thing will raise you up from your fall? What other medicine of care will heal your whole-body wound? It is not the word which the Savior sent forth, but the voluntary ^B disease that you have deepened, and with which you have struggled to change the medicine of the Lord’s teaching into deadly poison out of disobedience. Or rather, you have run under the sword which is the champion against enemies, and have transferred yourself into the side of those to whom you have sought to go over. Therefore, since you are cast down by the two-edged sword of the Spirit, we nevertheless—showing no less our love and readiness for our common Master, and as much as the reasonings of our sacred leadership which arms us for the struggle stir us up—will not allow you, through our own neglect, to escape even those wounds which the arguments of our sacred theology, instructing and arming us in the battle, inflict upon you.

REFUTATION

I. Since it has seemed necessary to us, once we have begun to speak about the Trinity, which is subject to no boundary of nature and admits of no demonstration from the nature of existing things, that in the struggle against those who oppose us regarding ecclesiastical peace, we should maintain the truth of the propositions we defend without demonstration, relying on the sentences of authority—seeing that the truth can in no other way flash forth in dogmatic questions—we should not seek, from the very start, an answer from reasonings and syllogistic methods, but from the Scriptures themselves, without sophisms and paralogisms.

I shall make ^A my reply to you regarding those things you call “fables”—namely, that the Roman Church says the Spirit proceeds from the Son. But by bringing forward that theologian among the saints, Cyril, who declares that the Spirit proceeds from the Son, I grant you the choice of one of two things: either you must call the one who is truly a theologian a “fable-monger,” or you must desist from that reckless accusation with which you contend that the mother of the Churches is fabricating fables and talking nonsense. For this “fable” of theology, the most divine Cyril, in his holy work on the Gospel according to John, regarding the text: *For he shall not speak of himself*, said the following: “For the Holy Spirit is not understood as being alien to the essence of the Only-Begotten, but proceeds naturally from it.” And again, in the third book of his *Against Hermeias*: “Behold, therefore, through these things: the Holy Spirit is implanted from His own fullness, through whom is every good gift.” Since, therefore, the great Cyril has said that the Spirit proceeds from the Son, either cease charging the mother of the Churches with fabricating fables, or know that you are calling a true theologian a fable-monger. But if you have found an occasion for uttering such grave falsehoods against the Roman Church because the Spirit is said in the ^B Gospels to proceed from the Father—thereby imagining a certain separation from the Father on the part of the Son in the procession of the Spirit—you will be refuted, along with your false accusation against the Romans, by the very fact that in other passages of the Gospel the name of the Father is placed without the name of the Son being pronounced at the same time, and that the Son is aptly and congruently understood there—as Basil, who soared high in the contemplation of divine things, explains—and this even when the word “alone” is added to [the name of] the Father. For this great Basil, who is profound in the speculation of divine things, in one of his letters to Amphilochius, explaining the Gospel text concerning our Lord Jesus Christ’s not knowing the day and the hour of the end ^C, said: “So also [that verse]: *No one knows the day of the end, except the Father*.” For even if we had shown from scriptural phrases that the Church of Rome is not in any way faltering in piety, and even if we had stood firm against those who spoke in opposition to what I have said, observing thus through those things: the Son sends forth from His own fullness His own, and inseparably implanted, Holy Spirit.

^A and the first knowledge of things present and future, referring them to the Father, and in all things demonstrating the primary cause to men, we believe it has been said. And after a little: Therefore, silently, as if it were a confessed fact, the Lord, passing over His own person, says that the Father alone knows, saying by this that the knowledge of the Father is also His own, by way of what is passed over in silence. And again: Such also is the saying, "No one knows the Son except the Father"; for the Son does not there charge the Spirit with ignorance, but testifies that the knowledge of His own nature resides in the Father. Thus, as the great Basil explains this evangelical passage, wherein the Lord, by the addition of the word "alone," mentions the Father, and clearly shows that the Son does this as one who refers all things to the Father and in all things demonstrates the primary cause to men, and as one who pronounces a kind of maxim and dogma, implies that the Son is understood together with the Father, where the name of the Father is found with the addition of "alone," ^B how could you not be refuted, falsely accusing the Roman Church of impiety and wrongly imagining a division of the Son from the Father in the procession of the Spirit, because it is said in the Gospel that the Spirit proceeds from the Father? For if (as you think) the Lord’s voice went forth in such a way as if the Lord were alienating Himself from the Father regarding the procession of the Spirit, none of the luminaries and teachers of the Church would have said that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. But indeed, the clear-voiced heralds of the truth, Maximus and Tarasius, with the entire seventh ecumenical council, and John, the ornament of Damascus and of the world, have theologized that He proceeds from the Father through the Son; and who is there who cannot understand that the phrase "through the Son" cannot be reconciled with that opinion which excludes the Son from communion with the Father? Therefore, because the Lord indeed teaches in His holy institution that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, ^C while those steadfast pillars of piety said that He proceeds from the Father through the Son, and that He issues and comes forth from both Father and Son, will you call them myth-makers and slander them as though they were seeking a different initiation than that of the Son? For if you were to call the Romans— ^D indeed, their arguments are entirely ridiculous, which the schismatics derived from the words of John 15:26; among whom Job the monk of the 12th century, in his Apology written in the name of the patriarch Joseph Galesiotes (Cod. Monac. 68, f. 6), refuting those who say that there is no difference between the Greeks and the Latins, but that they have split out of a desire for dominion, says: "The Savior taught that those who do not love Him are to be recognized by the fact that they do not observe His words, as if by a prearranged sign. Therefore, those who do not keep the word which [proceeds] from...

the Holy Spirit, ^A they do not love Him. For if they loved Him, they would also keep His word.

If you call those who say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, and that He comes forth and proceeds from the Father and the Son, vacant babblers, and slander them as if they were seeking some other teacher than the Son, do you not, by accusing the Romans of the crime of violating the commandments of the Gospel because they add that expression, "and the Son," make those very same theological Fathers of ours, even earlier, guilty of contemning the Lord’s words? For when the Lord Himself said in the Gospels that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, they said that He proceeds from the Father through the Son. But I do not believe that you have climbed to such a height of impertinence as to spew forth such a blasphemy against these blameless theologians, nor against the rest of our Fathers, who have taught that the Spirit comes forth from the Father and the Son. Nor shall you, I imagine, ^B weave again these certain differences, as do many of those who from their mother's womb occupy themselves with vain trifles, the differences between the words "to proceed" and "to come forth" or "to advance." For I know that you reject this feigned difference, and that you take the terms "to come forth" and "to be brought forward" as synonymous with "to proceed" in relation to the Spirit, just as you do now and will in what follows. ^C But if you also support those who invent these fabricated differences and adhere to them, you would be refuted, along with the others, by the lofty theologian Cyril, who in the sixth book against Hermias says thus: "He called the Paraclete the Spirit of truth; he also said that He comes forth from the Father, showing all things of the Father as His own." And again in the same book: "When the Lord says: 'When the Paraclete comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father,' He promises to send to us, as His own, Him who is from the Father; and while He calls Him the Spirit of truth, He also defines that He is poured forth from the Father Himself." By handing down these things, the most divine theologian Cyril silences and utterly crushes those who invent the said differences. For the Lord said in the Gospels that the Spirit proceeds, but the Saint, repeating and explaining these words of the Lord, used the word "poured forth" in place of the word "to proceed." And again, saying "the Son called the Paraclete the Spirit of truth," he stated that "He comes forth from the Father, showing all things of the Father as His own," using "comes forth" in place of "to proceed." And this itself becomes clear proof that, in regard to the Spirit, "to be poured forth" and "to proceed" are the same. Having therefore taken these things as premises, let us now proceed to the following part of the argument. ^D If the Savior has handed down that those who do not love Him are to be recognized, as by a sure sign, from their not keeping His words, then do those who do not keep the word which He spoke concerning the Holy Spirit not love Him? For if they had loved Him, they would also have kept His word. Or perhaps they are "new theologians," and, according to what pleases them, more secure dogmatists than the Fathers themselves.

PHOTIUS' TEXT

REFUTATION

TEXT

REFUTATION

^A and the Son, seems to you to refer the Spirit to a dual principle because the Father and the Son are two hypostases, then those very luminaries of the Church, shining with perpetual splendor, who taught that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, will also seem to you to refer Him to a dual principle, because the Father and the Son have a distinct subsistence. But since everything that is said to be "through the Son" and "from the Son" has its reference back to the Father, and for this reason, what is said to subsist "from the Father through the Son" or "from both" is not thereby held to be from two principles, therefore, neither he who says the Spirit proceeds "from the Father and the Son," nor he who says He proceeds "from the Father through the Son," refers Him to a dual principle. And because of this, neither will composition ensue, as your sophism would have it, nor will the Spirit, being endowed with the same honor as the Son, be blasphemously and sacrilegiously claimed to be inferior to the Son.

TEXT

5. Who, I ask, of our holy and renowned Fathers said that the Spirit proceeds from the Son? What synod, supported and fortified by universal confessions, or rather, what council of priests and bishops divinely assembled did not condemn this opinion, even before it ^B appeared in the light, through the inspiration of the most holy Spirit? For those who were initiated into the Lord Christ’s teaching regarding the Spirit of the Father themselves also clearly and with a loud voice proclaimed that He proceeds from the Father, and they subjected those who did not think so—as being despisers of the Catholic and Apostolic Church—to anathema, since from ancient times they beheld with prophetic eyes this newly-born impiety, and condemned it, together with the manifold falling-away of earlier heresies, by writings, and words, and in spirit.

REFUTATION

IV. You ask to learn which of the holy Fathers said that the Spirit proceeds from the Son, what synod, and what divinely assembled council of priests? Know that these are all those who taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. For whatever the Spirit is said to have "from the Son," He does not have as from a cause proper to Him ^C besides the Father; for He wells forth from the Son not as from a source different from the Father, but because He wells forth and proceeds from the Father through the Son, and is said to well forth and proceed from the Son, and, since He is poured forth from the Son as if through the Son, He is also said to be poured forth from the Son. And one could say much more of this kind. If, therefore, because He wells forth through the Son and is poured forth through the Son, He is also said to well forth and be poured forth from the Son, then the Romans, without any mark of error or destruction, assert for their own defense that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, because He proceeds from the Father through the Son; but you lie, both in writing and in speech, saying that you are condemned by the Fathers and, as one who insults the Ca- ^D tholic Church...

^A that those who teach and maintain that the Spirit proceeds and exists from the Father through the Son and from both are subject to anathema.

TEXT

REFUTATION

TEXT

(as is of necessity, so that nothing should be contemplated in the two divine persons that has not been contemplated in the other, but rather that which belongs to one and one only of the two should be, as it were, set aside—for it is spoken of as common to all three and equally and indivisibly the same in nature) manifest in natural terms]—if all things of this sort that pertain to the Spirit and the Father are also present in the Son, and likewise those that are contemplated in the Spirit and the Son must be confessed to exist also in the Father—no, nor can anything of those things which pertain to the Son and the Father be taken away from the Spirit—consider with me the kingdom, the goodness, the supersubstantial nature of the Essence, the power beyond conception, the eternity, the incorporeal spirituality, and the countless other terms of this kind by which the most divine doctrine concerning the Deity has been handed down to the pious from the beginning. If things are contemplated in this way, and there is no one among Christians who would dare to oppose them, yet this heretical rashness is brought forward as a plan—that is, as the logic of the heretics boasts—that the procession of the Spirit is common to the Father and the Son, then the Spirit would also ^B (what could be more daring toward impiety?) be divided into the procession of the Spirit, and one part of Him would be the producer, and the other the produced, and the one the cause, and the other the caused, and a vast array of other blasphemies would follow.

REFUTATION.

VI. You, indeed, in asserting that the procession of the Spirit is common to the Father and the Son in the same way that the other things common to the three are—I mean the kingdom, goodness, and the rest—consequently infer that, if this is so, the Spirit would also have to be divided in the procession of His own self, and one part of Him would be the producing [part], and the other the produced. But I ^C say that such a syllogism would have carried logical necessity only if it were absolutely impossible for there to be anything in the Trinity that pertains to only two persons, with the third excluded from its communion. But if it is demonstrated from the scriptural testimonies that there are certain things common to two persons alone, then there is communion for the Father and the Son concerning the procession of the Spirit, according to the fact that He proceeds from the Father through the Son; but the Spirit does by no means communicate with them in the procession, because He proceeds neither from Himself nor through Himself, and therefore He will neither be divided in the procession of His own self, nor will one part of Him be producing, and the other produced ^D (b). And if it is necessary, as in other matters, so here too to bring forward the sayings of the saints recorded in words, from which it becomes manifest that there are certain things common to the Son and the Spirit which the Father does not have, and there are certain things common to the Father and the Son which the Spirit does not have, [he who is of] theology [speaks]—

For it is common to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit that they are uncreated, and their divinity; but to the Son and the Holy Spirit it is common that they are from the Father. And Gregory of Nyssa, in his homily on the *Our Father*, says: "Since it is common to the Son and to the Spirit not to be unbegotten, it is possible, on the other hand, to find their difference in their properties, which remains unconfused." And now these two Gregories will be irrefutable witnesses to the fact that it is common to the Son and to the Spirit that they are caused by the Father—a property the Father lacks, ^B inasmuch as He is uncaused and from no one. And that there is something common to the Son and the Father, which the Spirit does not have, all Scripture is a witness, which calls the Spirit the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of the Son, and proclaims that the Son sends, pours forth, and wells up the Spirit, just as the Father sends, pours forth, and wells up Him. For since neither is the Spirit called the "spirit of the Spirit," nor is the Spirit said to send, pour forth, or well up either Himself or another, it is manifest that all the things aforementioned apply only to the two persons. And for these reasons, the procession of the Spirit will not be common to the Father and the Son in the same way that the other common attributes are, ^C of which the Spirit also partakes along with them.

TEXT

REFUTATION

TEXT

REFUTATION

according to your opinion, indeed, the Son would also be disparaging the dignity of the consubstantial union with the Father, if He, too, is not generating after the manner of the Father. But just as the essence of the Son is not generative, yet the Son nevertheless does not disparage the dignity of the consubstantial union with the Father, so too the Spirit does not indeed produce another as the Father and the Son do, yet He does not disparage the dignity of the consubstantial union.

TEXT. 9. Consider this also from here: If the Spirit proceeding from the Father proceeds also from the Son, what reason will stand in the way [of the conclusion] that the most constant firmness of the idioms must necessarily collapse—[O mind soaked in unadulterated impiety!]—and that the Father [may the Lord be gracious to us and turn this blasphemy back upon the heads of those persons—let us call them adversaries—for whose sake ^B we speak these things!]—would be left as a mere bare name, with that idiom which characterizes Him having been made common, and the two divine hypostases contracted and confused into one person? And thus Sabellius will emerge for us again, or rather some other semi-Sabellian monster. 10. For neither does the generation concerning the Son—now conceived and proposed as a subterfuge for absurdity—at all produce a less intolerable and more bearable impiety, which rises up against the paternal property, which indeed denotes the cause of the procession; since this very property, according to the fables of the impious, is poured back and poured together into the idiom of the Son. For [this results in] cutting and partitioning, and the division of the indivisible. For if the Father gives one of His idioms and withdraws from the property by which He is distinguished through it, while guarding the other inviolate, how will they not concede that a part of it is considered in the idiom, while a part is divided along with the innovation of the idiom? But indeed, a horror seizes me, that we have endured even as far as this to bring forth their blasphemy into the midst.

REFUTATION. IX. But the procession of the Spirit from Him is not a paternal idiom, since the Son shares in it according to the fact that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through Him, and for this reason, it does not at all necessarily follow from the procession of the Spirit from both that the constant and invariable firmness of the idioms must collapse, and that the Father must be left a bare name, and the two divine hypostases be contracted and coalesce into one person; nor [do] any of the other absurdities which you have asserted result from it. But that the fact that the Father produces the Spirit from Himself is not a paternal idiom—let our theological Fathers persuade and show you, who speak clearly and without any obscurity, that the Son is a participant in all the natural ^D goods of the Father...

and let the procession of the Spirit from the Father through the Son be fixed; but if the Father is the productive Cause of the Spirit, what is the argument for defining the Son's relation to the Father, through whom the Father Himself is theologized as the producer of the Spirit? Since, therefore, the procession of the Spirit has not been theologized ^A by any of our Fathers as a patristic idiom, the cleavings, divisions, and splittings of the indivisible which you fabricate are in vain, while you say that the Father withdraws from one of the idioms, but preserves the purity of the other; and it is indeed terrifying that you have exerted yourself to such an extent for the division of the Churches.

TEXT

11. Besides what has been said, if two causes are observed in the God-ruling and supersubstantial Trinity, where will the much-sung and God-befitting power of the monarchy be? How will not the godlessness of polytheism now revel in this? And how will not the superstition of Hellenic error—under the pretext of Christianity—sneak in along with these things, for those who dare to say such things?

REFUTATION

10. I do not know what dialectical canons have taught you to take what your interlo- ^B cutor has not conceded, and to conclude from it things that seem to look toward his refutation. For where in the world have you found the Italian asserting two principles in the blessed Trinity? Either show him stating principles, and you will be recognized as correctly concluding that the much-sung power of the monarchy is taken away if the Spirit is referred to two principles, or, if you do not show this, you are clearly proven to be weaving any old syllogisms and conclusions according to your own whim, for the sake of exercising enmity and not for the sake of revealing the truth.

TEXT

12. Again, if two causes of the monarchical Trinity have surfaced, how will not the third also emerge, proceeding from the same opinion? For once the unoriginate and super-original Principle has been dislodged from ^C its own seat by the impious and cut into a duality, the cleavage of the principle will proceed more boldly even to a trinity, since even in the supernatural, indivisible, and unitary nature of the Godhead, the triadic is more manifest than the dyadic, as it is also suited and adapted to the idioms. 13. Are these things, then, tolerable to the ears of Christians? Does not the recklessness of these impious men compel anger and weeping—affections generally incompatible—to come together over them? Anger indeed— ^D [concerning] those who are emboldened to act impiously.

^A

REFUTATION. XI. If it were permitted to you, from the confession of the adversaries, to posit this proposition—namely, that if two principles are admitted in the monarchical Trinity—it would be permissible for you to agitate other difficulties even worse than those proposed, and by reasoning to add other things to these doubts, which would lead to even more iniquitous conclusions surpassing those already brought forward. If, however, taking this proposition from your own ingenuity and from your own mind, you yourself apply it to such syllogisms, then all the blasphemies which you fabricate against the adversaries, as if arising from that axiom and to be gathered from it, will be turned against your own head. And the impiety which you claim against them—as if they were ousting the Principle, which is without principle and above every principle, from its own seat and casting it into a duality, whence you assert that the sectioning of the Principle will advance even unto the sectioning of the Trinity—subjects you to the charge of being an enemy of Christianity. ^B Indeed, the conjunction of affections that are for the most part incompatible, namely anger and weeping, is shown to come together much more fittingly regarding you: anger, because with a fury proper to wild beasts you rave against your brethren; weeping, because you tell such and such great lies against pious and orthodox men.

TEXT. 14. Moreover, even through the things which are about to be said, it is easy to perceive the magnitude of the impiety. For if, after the supreme and independent paternal principle and the cause of the consubstantial person, the Son is established as a principle and cause, how can anyone avoid saying that there are two differing principles in the Trinity, one possessing the "without-principle" [character] and being established in it, the other being both caused and simultaneously recurring to a principle and being brought along with the difference of the relations? 15. If the Father is the cause of those things that are from Him, not by the logic of nature but by the logic of person, and if the logic of the paternal hypostasis ^C binds it to no one—not even until now has anyone, however slippery and impious, affirmed that the hypostasis of the Son is included and contained within the paternal person (not even Sabellius himself, who invented the monstrous fiction of Fatherhood for the Son)—then assuredly the Son can in no way be the cause of any person in the Trinity. 16. Nor should this be passed over: that this impious doctrine divides the very hypostasis of the Father into two, or at any rate it ordains and establishes that the person of the Son is assumed as a part of the paternal hypostasis. For if, as was just said, the Father is the cause of the persons proceeding from Him not by the logic of nature, but by the logic of ^D the hypostasis—and the Son is the cause of the Spirit, as this sacrilegious opinion proclaims—it either proves the Son to be a sharer in the paternal hypostasis, from which he provided the cause to be taken, or [it deems] the Son to be fulfilling the person of the Father—and that [same]

dread mystery of the Trinity [it] cuts down into a duality. 17. And a great multitude of other tares might also spring up from that evil seed cast down from the beginning; a seed which, as it seems, the enemy of the human race has sown in their miserable souls, coming upon them not while they slept, but while those deranged men were keeping a watch of death according to the soul and seeking how they might adulterate that supreme, noble, and saving seed.

REFUTATION

XII. Spare these blasphemous words, O man! For you slander the Italian, as if he were to say that after the beginningless and paternal principle and cause, the Son is again established as a principle and cause of the consubstantial. For the word *again*, being temporal, has no access into the eternal and timeless Trinity. ^B How, then, could the Romans, who uphold the divine as eternal and superior to time, dogmatize that after the paternal principle, another principle—or, what is the same, a second principle—is established as the Son? For they both know and worship the Father as an archetypal cause. But that this archetypal cause is a cause of those of Him through a differentiation of the cause—they do not say the Spirit is from Him alone, but, asserting according to our holy Fathers that the Spirit proceeds from Him through the Son, they do not think that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son as if from one principle through another, but that whatever is said to be through the Son ^C is referred to the Father, that one archetypal principle; and they say that He proceeds from the Father through the Son and from both as from one God. And where, then, is the difference in the principle that is without beginning and the principle that is originated, and the rest of the fabrications of your contentiousness? ^D And as for the divisions of the cause into nature and hypostasis, which you devise with such great audacity—not understanding how it is impossible to call the hypostasis an essential cause of those things that are from it—where have these been found by you in the divine Scriptures? Which of the Fathers have handed this down? Or are you ignorant that it has been explicitly theologized that both the Son is begotten and the Spirit proceeds from the essence of the Father? But the claim that the paternal hypostasis is shared by the Son, or that he fulfills the person of the Father, and the deficiencies before the fulfillment, and the cuttings of the mystery of the Trinity into a duality, and the other multitudes of tares and the adulterations of the noble and saving seed—all these things possess that which is false and unproven, since the proposition you have hypothesized, which you follow as if it were true, is false; for none of the saints divides the cause into a principle of nature and a principle of hypostasis in the causal order of those things that are from the Father.

See to it, lest by taunting the Romans as watching for a death in the soul, you yourself be secretly contracting for your own soul the death that comes from hastening the schism of the Churches. ^A

TEXT

REFUTATION

and exclusive, Damascus, the glorious light of the world, having been hearkened to, who through the Word reveals the Father as the producer of the Spirit. For he who says that the Father is the producer of the Spirit through the Word, declares the Spirit to be common to the Father and the Son.

TEXT

18. If that which is proper to the Father is transferred into the property of the Son, then must that which is proper to the Son be transferred into the property of the Father. For where impious garrulity has once opened the way by which it wishes the characteristic properties of the hypostases to migrate and change into one another through mutual transition, the Father ^A himself will also (O the depth of impiety!) undergo generation, because the Son has been generated; for those most audacious men ought not to have refrained even from this impious daring. 19. Universally, however, in all things that are proper by themselves, when any one of these is truly verified of any hypostasis as having been received from Him who first claimed it for Himself as His own—even if it does not draw with it the dignity of reciprocal conversion—yet that which grants to another that it may partake of a property, we see to be reduced to the category of nature. If, therefore, that which was from the beginning known as proper to the Father, this audacity of these men makes available also to the Son, let them see, even against their will, where their impiety finally ends.

REFUTATION

XIV. Since innascibility and the lack of a principle, and furthermore active generation, are preached by our Fathers as the property of the Father, and none of these things is claimed by the Romans for the Son; and since passive generation and sonship are preached as the property of the Son, and none of these things is referred by them to the Father; then the translation and transition of properties into one another is altogether false, and that which you say—that the property is reduced into the category of nature in that it is transferred from Him who first claimed it for Himself as His own into another—is left to you as useless and achieving nothing. ^B

TEXT

Consequent, then, it would be, for those lovers of lies, once they have raved against the properties of the Father, to dissolve even the hypostasis itself entirely into nature, so that the rationale of "cause" is removed altogether from the divine hypostases. 20. Yes, they say, but the Savior said while schooling and instructing the disciples, that the Spirit "shall take of mine and shall declare it to you." And who does not see that you have fled to this voice of the Savior not that you might find a defense, but in order that you might accuse even the Lord Himself, the perennial fount of truth, of dissonance? For thus is your tongue prone to dare anything, and ^C to fashion and invent handles where there are none. For if HeHimself...

the Creator and Curator of the human race, now teaches that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, in no wise adding that He proceeds also from Himself, but teaches as a mystery that the Father alone is the cause—just as of His own generation, so likewise of the Spirit’s procession—yet now, as you say, because He claims: *"He shall receive of mine,"* He has suppressed by deep silence the former instruction and doctrine, even though it was necessary, upon entering into a second initiation, to recall the memory of the first and to unite things so distant from each other in contemplation; yet He, though obliged to do this, does not do it; but instead of the Spirit proceeding from the Father, He transfers the procession of the Spirit into Himself. How can it not be clearly proven that the substantial and immutable truth is accused by you of an iniquitous dissonance?

REFUTATION

^A XV. You indeed, having once declared against the Romans that they are raving against the properties of the Father, accuse them of resolving the hypostasis into nature, and of destroying the cause of the divine persons. See to it, however, lest perhaps, while resolving the hypostasis into nature, you should suppose that the Son and the Spirit proceed from the essence and nature of the Father, as if from an essence-less hypostasis, understood in a peculiar sense apart from its own essence and nature. But if you maintain this regarding the Cause which is in the Trinity, the Fathers, who have handed down [the doctrine] by theological reasoning, will utterly dissolve the resolutions and analyses you have forged regarding the Son and the Spirit proceeding from the essence and nature of the Father. If, however, you also feign an opposition and, arguing in the place of an adversary (under the form of an exception introduced by the opposite side), you slander him who contradicts you, as if he were interpreting poorly this evangelical voice of the Savior, "He shall take of mine," and were not rightly supposing that this phrase is equivalent to the procession from the Father [and the Son], Epiphanius, most skilled in divine things, will be entirely sufficient to refute such a great calumny; who, in the ^B *Ancoratus*, hands down these things expressly: "Both dwell in the just man—Christ and His Spirit." If, however, Christ is believed to be from the Father, God from God, and the Spirit from Christ, or from both, as Christ implies in these words: "Who proceeds from the Father," and "He shall take of mine." While this holy man in such a way declares the equivalence of these evangelical expressions, he will expose as false the difference you are so eager to defend.

^A 21. For the fact that that great rashness of yours, with which you contend even for impossible things, prevented you from knowing even those things known to children, yet now, even if not before, you ought to understand that nothing stands so clearly against your senselessness as this voice of the Lord and Savior. For if He had said: *It shall take of me*, not even so would that which you are striving for be achieved; yet, nonetheless, the error would have had some pretext. For to take from someone for the sake of some other need, and to proceed to subsistence, do not, in their meaning, come together; far from it. Since, however, the Savior, foreseeing the magnitude of such impiety, did not utter such a voice, so that the wickedness of the Evil One might not, through you, consume many, how is it that, instead ^B of accusing the Master, you do not flee—for the sake of obtaining forgiveness—to the Master’s philanthropy, and open the ears of your heart to His teaching? 22. The Savior said, what? Not, *It shall take of me*, but, *It shall take of mine*. For He who came to teach all to agree with the truth knew He must much more keep the agreement within Himself unimpeachable. *It shall take of mine*: there is a great and vast difference, even if it differs by a short word, between *of mine* and *of me*; for the one, *of me*, introduces the speaker of the voice himself, while *of mine* signifies an altogether different person from the one speaking. And who could this be, from whom the Spirit takes, if not the Father? Neither do these [Opponents] themselves, fighting against God, concoct anything else; for it is neither from another Son, nor indeed from the Spirit himself who is taking. Do you see how not even the things known to children are wont to be present to you? For even children who have just begun to attend the school of ^C grammar know that the expression *of me* implies him who uttered the passage of speech, while *of mine* signifies another person, united indeed by bonds of relationship to the one who uttered the voice, but entirely different in substance; to this [person] it also directs the mind of the listeners to be carried without error. So that your subterfuge, if you would only prefer to think piously rather than impiously, would be a refuge of repentance for you, and not a pretext for fighting against God.

REFUTATION

16. Whoever thinks that the taking of the Spirit from the Son is one of those [takings] that commonly occur for the sake of some other need will perhaps not hesitate ^D to think also that the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father is one of those [processions] that are spoken of as being from someone according to various modes of signification. But just as the procession of the Holy Spirit differs from every other procession, being essential and natural, so too the taking of the Spirit from the Son signifies nothing given to the Spirit by the Son, but is necessarily understood as a natural and essential taking.

^A And in vain do you yourself advance those [arguments]: "For neither is 'to receive from someone' for the sake of some other need, and 'to proceed unto subsistence' coming to the same thing in thought." For thus it seems to you that the Spirit receives from the Son, just as those who receive from someone [do so] because they are in need and want. Do not say these things, O man; do not speak so humbly concerning God. You do not say this because you are ignorant, but because you are vindicating your own grief, which a spirit embittered against the Roman Church has offered you on account of the wound inflicted upon you from thence; for ^B the judgment of one's own will very often deceives even wise men. For if this were not so, when would you have reproached the Italian as one who does not know even what boys know and is unable to understand how the Lord said, *He shall not receive from me*, but *from mine*? And if you wish to learn how he who objects to the Latin as a crime that he does not know what boys just recently attending the schools of the grammarians know, attributes this shameful ignorance to the great Athanasius, that letter to Serapion, the beginning of which is—*The letters ^C of your sacred affection were delivered to me in the desert*—will demonstrate this clearly. For there the saint speaks word for word: "The Son," he says, "what I heard from the Father, these I also speak into the world; but the Spirit receives from the Son; for He says: *He shall receive of mine and shall announce it to you*," he says. Since, therefore, the saint says that the Spirit receives from the Son because He said in the Gospels, *He shall receive of mine*, how is it possible to say that "of mine" has reference to the person of the Father? ^D TEXT. 23. What then? Should you not have sought, if nothing else, to learn these things, which even boys know, before you uttered blasphemy? And how did fear not seize you, even though you are skilled at hiding wickedness, so as to insult and mock the Lord's words so rashly and shamelessly? And you do not blush to assert that the Lord declares things which neither the sequence of the discourse nor the integrity of the thought permits? For certainly Christ did not utter the word *from me*; yet you, although not by word, at least by the zeal of practicing fraud, transforming the word *of mine* into this other *from me*, and asserting that the Lord taught what you seem to signify by that locution, attribute these three things to Him at once by calumny: namely, to have said what He did not say, not to have said what He did say, and to teach a meaning which He not only did not signify by the voice, but which is seen to be clearly opposed to His own doctrine; and fourthly, you import Him as ordaining things contrary to Himself. In what way? He Himself said: *He shall receive of mine*, but not: *from me*; you, however, maintain that He teaches those things which the word *from me* seems to you to signify. Thus, what He did say, you abolish and deny; but what He did not say, as if it were said, you obtrude. For you shout that Christ is teaching the disciples a meaning of a voice which He did not utter, and through it [the meaning], the blasphemy.

^A which was not known at all, he brought forth. And indeed the subsistent Wisdom of God teaches that the Spirit proceeds from the Father; but you, as though rushing to refute every zeal, disagreeing with yourself, shout that the Spirit teaches that He proceeds from Himself, and that [the proponents] depart from the former theology, and through that second one, they both make it flawed and do not even preserve the lordship for it. For once the theology in grace is overturned by grace, it will nowhere find a firm endurance.

REFUTATION

say that they also hold the divine words in mockery and assail them with lies, and convict the God of truth, the Truth itself, of contradiction with Himself? And who, being free from madness, would admit these things?

TEXT

24. But now the time is at hand, from the beginning [Δ] to hear both the series of the Lord’s words and the meaning that those words convey as their goal; for the shamelessness of impiety is laid bare and refuted by them not less, but by far more. For after He said, *I go to the Father*, He adds in these very words: *But because I have spoken these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart. But I tell you the truth: it is expedient for you that I go away. For if I do not go away, the Paraclete will not come to you.* And after a little: *I have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will teach you all truth. For He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak, and He will announce to you the things to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and announce it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of what is Mine and announce it to you.* Are these not sacred and divinely spoken oracles? Do they not clearly present the mystery of piety to be understood? Do they not manifest the cause for which the Savior wished to speak them? Do they not preserve inviolate the doctrine handed down from the beginning? Do they not confound every calumny and cut off every handle for impiety? For since He saw the disciples fallen into sadness, because He had declared to them His future separation according to the body and His departure to the Father, ^B for that reason, having looked upon them as they were immersed in sorrowful thoughts, raising them up and refreshing them with true consolation, He teaches them first that it is expedient for them that He depart, then explaining also how it is expedient: *For if I do not go away*, He says, *the Paraclete will not come to you.* These voices indeed excite and lift them up toward the sublime majesty of the Spirit, just as does this: *You cannot bear them now.* But when? *When the Spirit of truth has come, for He will guide you into all truth.* Again, another marvelous ^C prerogative of the Spirit emerges here, which, being explained to the disciples, elevates their mind to an immense height, in which the dignity of the Spirit shone forth to them beyond measure.

25. What then? It was likely for them ^D to reason thus in their mind concerning the Spirit: "But You, while present, O Master, did not supply us with the strength to bear the burden of the secrets? Yet the Paraclete, coming upon us, will make us more fit and stronger to carry the knowledge of them without a burden?" And You, indeed, from

^A a side to us, you have revealed the truth; but He will guide us into all the truth. And while You are teaching us the mysteries, we still stand in need of wisdom, and virtue, and truth; but He, when He has arrived, may He abundantly provide us with the enjoyment of all things. If, therefore, You, the essential Wisdom and Truth, teach these things, it certainly does not befit us to hesitate to accord to the Spirit from us greater honor and glory.

26. ^B Since, therefore, the Savior sets forth these sublime things concerning the Spirit to the disciples, removing their sorrow, and at the same time handing down the true doctrine concerning the Spirit; but as it was human for the minds of the disciples to be agitated by thoughts not altogether pure (for the soul, when seized by sorrow, easily clouds the power of judgment and can distort what is salutary into what is harmful); for this reason, lest they should think the Spirit greater than the Son, as one providing greater things, and lest any thought should arise in them injuring the consubstantiality and tearing their equality into inequality, as the best physician of both bodies and souls, He prepares a salutary medicine.

27. But if such thoughts did not seize or agitate or disturb the disciples (for perhaps it is holier to admit that that holy company was not subject to such confusion and disturbance), nevertheless the inventor and artificer of evil, most skillful at wrapping ^C good in the appearance of evil, could have made many the prey of his own fraud and implanted a heretical opinion in the souls of men; which, confounding and dissipating along with the fraud itself and the artificer of the fraud, the Savior most sharply and divinely adds, saying that *He shall not speak from Himself, but whatsoever He shall hear, He shall speak.* For He had also said previously concerning Himself, *All things that I have heard from my Father, I have made known to you.* As if He were to say: "It is for both of us, from the Father, to teach and illuminate your minds." And on this account, because in the progress of the discourse He said concerning His Father, *I have glorified You on the earth;* and indeed the Father also glorifies the Son: for *I have glorified [it],* He says, *and I will glorify it again;* but now the Son also ^D glorifies the Spirit through the aforementioned sublime and divine words; for this reason, a little later, He adds that *He will glorify Me,* everywhere maintaining the consubstantiality and natural identity and the dignity of equality inviolate. As if one were to say: "It is common to the supersubstantial and super-glorified Trinity that one person is glorified by another in an ineffable way." The Son glorifies the Father, but the Father also glorifies the Son, and so does the Spirit; for from thence the wealth of gifts flows to Him; but the Spirit also glorifies the Father, because He searches, or rather knows, the deep things of God, and reveals them, insofar as they can be perceived by human nature, to those who have prepared themselves as fit and worthy to receive the light of divine knowledge.

^A The Son glorifies the Spirit, and the Spirit the Son, exactly as has been said; and just as their kingdom, power, and might are common, so too is their glory—not only that which is offered by us, but also that which they receive from one another.

28. “He shall glorify me”: that is, neither because I have attributed glory to the Paraclete have I therefore declared Him to be greater than I, nor, conversely, because I said “He shall glorify me,” do I prefer myself to Him in honor. “He shall glorify me” means: insofar as you understand His height, you are able to contemplate my glory through Him. For just as I have taught you what I heard from the Father, so He too will take from what is mine and will illuminate you. Equally, the fountain of our gifts flows eternally; equally, the procession from the Father is eternal; equally, the consubstantiality and identity of nature; everything points to an equality of honor. ^B The very idea of greater and lesser is banished on all sides.

29. Then, having said that “He shall take,” He clearly proclaims the reason *why* He shall take. For He does not say, He asserts, that He might proceed, nor that He might have subsistence (pay attention, O man, to the Lord’s words), but why shall He take? Why? “So that He may announce to you the things that are to come.” For having previously stated this, He seals it again, saying: “He shall take of mine, and shall announce it to you.” ^C And laying open more clearly what it is that I say, “He shall take of mine,” He briefly adds: “All things whatsoever the Father has are mine”; so that in taking what is mine, He takes also from my Father. Nor does He stop even there in unfolding the same thought, but, revealing and confirming it still more perfectly, He says: “For this reason I said that He shall take of mine, because what is mine is in the Father, but the Spirit takes from the Father; for the things of the Father are mine.” So that He seems almost to cry out: When I say “of mine,” you ought to direct your thoughts toward my Father, and not turn aside to another. For I have left you no pretext which I have not cut away, lest you be carried off in your imaginations toward some other thing, ^D especially since I had already discussed with you that all things whatsoever the Father has are mine.

30. What is more brilliant than these holy utterances? What is clearer to demonstrate that the words, “He shall take of mine,” refer us to the person of the Father and are to be traced back to Him, and that the Spirit is declared to receive the operation of the gifts from the Father as from the cause—those gifts, I say, by which He will strengthen the disciples, that they might bear the knowledge of things to come with a constant and firm mind, and might be constituted as beholders and spectators of hidden and recondite things without any difficulty, and, indeed, as performers and workers of supernatural wonders?

REFUTATION. XVIII. And again, discoursing regarding the words, “of mine,” and “He shall take of mine,” according to that which seems good to you...

you manifest your position, that the Spirit does not receive from the Son naturally and essentially, but morally and accidentally. ^A For your words betray this: the Spirit is declared to receive the operation of those gifts from the Father as from the cause; of those gifts, I say, by which He strengthened the disciples for the knowing of things to come, for the beholding of arcana and recondite things, and for the working of supernatural wonders. But the great Basil will refute your faulty interpretations, declaring that the Unigenite Himself is also the cause of these gifts. For in his book to his brother Gregory he says: “But seeking whether the supply of good things takes its beginning from the Holy Spirit alone, and so reaches the worthy, we are again led by Scripture and instructed to believe that the Unigenite God is the author and cause of the supply of those good things which the Holy Spirit works in us.” If, therefore, from the fact that the Spirit receives the operation of the gifts from the Father as from the cause, you conclude that He is not from the Son, the great Basil, on the contrary, from the fact that he glorifies the Unigenite Himself as the author and cause of such gifts, will establish that the Spirit is from the Son. For if the Spirit proceeded from the Father alone, He would perhaps have the Son as a minister ^B and servant of his own gifts, but in no wise as author and cause. For which reason you ought not to think that the Spirit receives from the Son morally and accidentally, but naturally and substantially.

TEXT

31. Is the pretext for thinking in an impious manner not cut away from you on every side? Will you still dare to devise calumnies and lies against the truth, or to plot guile against your own salvation? 31. I, for my part, will not henceforth cast away my care for you; but if you are incurable, I shall argue and rebuke, and strike you still while you lie upon the ground; but if you can be healed, I shall offer you medicine from the very cup of truth, one that is soothing to pain and purgative of the disease. For if (by what name shall one call you?) the procession of the Spirit from the Father is perfect—and it is perfect because it is perfect God from perfect God—what, pray, ^C could that procession from the Son add to it? For if it added anything, it would be necessary to show also what it added; but if, besides the divine hypostasis of the Spirit, nothing else can be conceived by the mind or shown by the tongue, why, I ask, do you choose to injure the Son with lies, and the Spirit, and with them, and even before them, the Father?

32. Again, if in that which the Spirit proceeds from the Father His property is recognized, and likewise in that the Son is begotten, the Son’s property is recognized; whereas, according to their delirium, the Spirit also proceeds from the Son, then the Spirit is distinguished ^D from the Father by more properties than the Son is. For the procession from the Father, even if the one proceeds begottenly and the other...

processively, still equally distinguishes each of them from the paternal hypostasis; but the Spirit is also distinguished by a second difference, which the duality of procession creates in Him. But if the Spirit is distinguished from the Father by more differences than the Son is, the Son would be closer to the paternal substance, and with the existence of twin properties distinguishing the Spirit, through one of these the Spirit will be defamed as being inferior to the Son in the equality of consubstantial affinity with the Father, and thus the madness of Macedonius against the Spirit will again emerge, being itself worse than his impiety.

33. Furthermore, if the reference to different principles belongs only to the Spirit, why does it not necessarily follow that the reference to a multi-princed principle belongs only to the Spirit? ^B

34. Moreover, if in those things in which these men, most bold in their innovation, have created a communion for the Father and the Son, they exclude the Spirit from these; for the Father is joined in communion with the Son according to substance, not according to any property: therefore, they exclude the consubstantial Spirit from the paternal kinship according to substance.

35. The Spirit proceeds from the Son: is it the same procession or the opposite of the paternal? For if it is the same, how are the properties, by which alone the Trinity is characterized as being and as being worshiped, not rendered common? But if it is the opposite of that, how will Manichæans and Marcionites not dance along with us again, given this sacrilegious word, widening their impious chatter once more against the Father and the Son? ^C

36. And since, according to what has been said, if everything that is not common to the omnipotent and consubstantial and supernatural Trinity belongs to only one of the three; and the projection of the Spirit is not common to the three ^D: therefore, it belongs to only one of the three. Do they say, then, that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, and how will they not abjure their own dear and novel mystagogy? But if from the Son, why did they not dare to vomit out all their poison immediately from the beginning, but pour it out little by little and bit by bit? For they ought, if they really were confident in their impious dogma, to have professed from the beginning that they not only proclaim the Son as the producer of the Spirit, but also drive the Father out from that production; and thus they ought also to have overturned the generation together with the production, declaring with monstrous futility that not the Son is begotten from the Father, but the Father from the Son, so that they might not only obscure all the impious men of the ages, but also be found more insane than the madmen themselves.

37. Again, if the Son is begotten from the Father, but the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, why to the Spirit...

^A must something else also proceed from It? So that from this impious opinion, not three, but four hypostases are collected, or even infinite ones, seeing as the fourth would produce another again, and that one another, until the pagan multitude of gods were surpassed.

38. But this also may be cast at them: what, pray, is this? If all things which the Son possesses, He possesses having received them from the Father, from there He would have received also the being the cause of the Spirit’s procession. Whence, therefore, this partial favor, through which the Son is indeed seen as the cause of the Spirit’s procession, but the Spirit—although possessing equal worth and having proceeded from the same source in the same order and with equal honor—is defrauded of equal rights? ^B

39. Again, the Father is Cause, and the Son is also Cause. Whom, therefore, will these arbiters of things not to be dared judge to have the cause more? For if the Father, how will the honor vindicated by them for the Son not be adscititious, spurious, and injurious, especially since the Father already has the strength, as He holds the better parts? But if the Son, alas for the more grievous temerity! For they did not judge it enough for themselves in their audacity of impiety to divide the paternal cause and assign a part of it to the Son, unless they also took away the better part from Him, and in place of the Father substituted the Son as cause to the Spirit.

40. What do you say? Has the Son received from the Father, having come forth from Him through generation, the ability to produce another of the same nature? How, therefore, did the Son Himself, producing the Spirit which is of the same nature, not communicate to It, as He Himself had participated, similar power and prerogative, so that the Spirit might likewise have the glory of producing another consubstantial with It? And yet it was fitting that the Son, if for no other reason, at least in imitation of the Father, should preserve the likeness through similar operations. ^C

41. I, however, would not pass over even this absurdity in silence: to call Him greater—though not by nature (away with such a thought! for the Trinity is consubstantial)—but in the reason of being the cause. The Lord’s voice does indeed initiate the one who has been begotten of the begetter. And our holy Fathers’ choir, instructed from thence, teaches this as well. But that the Son is greater than the Spirit according to the reason of being cause, we have neither heard in divine Scriptures, nor have we found that any pious person down to this day has thought it. But the God-fighting tongue makes the Son not only greater than the Spirit according to the reason of cause, but also closer to the Father. ^D

42. Still, if the Son is the cause of the Spirit, how would a second emerging cause not be found in the super-archic and supernatural principle of the Trinity, and one that is caused, and devised not only to the insult of the first principle, but even of that very one in whose favor that honor is fashioned? For since this causality provides no use at all—indeed, not even an occasion

^A from anywhere to provide it—how will it not be shown that they represent the Son as insulted, and by the title of honor perform a more malicious insult? For since the Spirit possesses his procession from the Father from eternity, lacking nothing, what other bringing-forth or formation of substance will the cause fashioned by them be recognized to provide?

43. Truly, how will the Spirit not be divided by them into two, of which one proceeds from the Father as the true and primary cause (for the Father acknowledges no other cause), but the other from the second and caused cause (for the Son acknowledges the Father as his cause)? And so this heresy performs a drama, introducing not only a distinction and diversity of the Spirit by order, relation, and causality, but daring ^B to push the Godhead worshipped by us into a quaternity instead of a Trinity; indeed, it omits no effort so that nothing in the most holy Trinity, the architect of all things, remains immune from injuries.

44. Moreover, if the Son is a cause of the Spirit, but the Father is the cause of both, there will be found in the perfect and perfecting Trinity a certain cause removed from the perfection of its own prime cause, both imperfect and half-cause or composite, receiving its composition from an imperfect and a perfect one. And it must be observed here that while the ancient mythology once jokingly concocted hippocentaurs in things subject to generation and corruption, their impiety does not shrink from seriously proclaiming in eternal and immutable things either a half-cause or a cause concocted from a cause and a caused; ^C neither of which exempts itself from imperfection. For both, although they keep up a mutual fight among themselves (for that is the fruit of an impious opinion), nevertheless converge into the same mark of imperfection.

45. Furthermore, aside from what has been said, if the Spirit is one, and is uniquely and properly one—just as the Father and the Son are purely and ineffably one—how would it not be both unjust and absurd to ascribe twin causes to the same one?

REFUTATION.

XIX. If, while the Spirit is also said to exist from the Son, He appears to you to have existence imperfectly from the Father, as if His very subsistence were immediately divided into that which is from the Father and that which is from the Son, these are altogether the thoughts of a mind that is able to imagine nothing great ^D concerning that blessed nature which surpasses all natural reason. For if the Spirit proceeds from the Father without any defect and completely perfect, yet the perfection of this, His procession—as He knows it who searches the deep things of God—this, I say, is the perfection: that He proceeds from the Father not proximately and immediately, but through the Son. For you will certainly not be able to contradict him who, as a luminary of Damascus and the world, maintains the Father

manifesting the Spirit who is brought forth through the Son; and that the Spirit proceeds through the Son, and is also said to proceed from the Son; and because this happens without division, it is by no means divided into perfect and imperfect. This is also clear to see by the example of the sun, of the ray, and of the light: for solar light proceeds through the ray ^A entirely from the disk, and not from the disk alone; yet the progression of the light through the ray does not destroy the perfection of the causality from the disk in the light, since such is the nature of the sun that, with no time or space intervening, it is simultaneously the cause of the caused, of which the one proceeds through the other from the first cause.

Again, if, because the property of the Spirit is recognized in the fact that He proceeds from the Father, and similarly the property of the Son in the fact that He himself is begotten, you think that those who also say that the Spirit proceeds from the Son distinguish the Spirit from the Father by more properties than the Son (cap. 32): you think this dangerously and not rightly. For if the Spirit were proceeding separately from the Father and separately from the Son, then the increase of the properties you have contrived would indeed have validity, and to this increase and pleonasm there would be connected by a nexus of consequences that the Spirit is distinguished from the Father by more differences than the Son, and similarly for the other absurdities you enumerate as following from a double procession. But now, because the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son is one and simple, there are neither dual idioms separating the Spirit from the Father, nor is the Spirit blasphemed ^B as being inferior to either of these, that is, to the Son, in the equality of consubstantial affinity with the Father, nor, despite the parity of honor, does the madness of Macedonius against the Spirit emerge. Furthermore, nor is the Spirit [shown] to be referred to different principles, so that it would follow that He is referred to a many-headed principle.

Furthermore, if because of the Son's communion with the Father, in that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, you think the consubstantial Spirit is excluded from the paternal affinity according to essence, as if He were not a participant in this communion with those consubstantial to Him (cap. 34): but that would hold firm only when no natural good could be found at all that belongs in common to merely two persons; but now, since the Son possesses a natural good common with the Father, because the Spirit of the Father is also His Spirit, and because He Himself also sends forth the Spirit, just as the Father does, the weakness of the aforementioned syllogism is evident. For just as the Son, even though He possesses all the natural goods of the Father, ^C does not, however, have the power to beget, which is a natural good of the Father, it does not follow from this that He lacks the nature of the Father; so also the Spirit, although He Himself shares in all the natural goods of the Father, does not have ^D

the power of sending the Spirit, which is a natural good of the Father, and therefore He is in no way lacking in the Father's nature.

But as for your ^B hesitation whether the Spirit proceeds from the Son by the same procession or by one contrary to the paternal one, and your belief that the identity of the procession implies a communion of idiomatic properties (cap. 35), this has its solution in the fact that it is by no means a property of the Father to produce the Spirit Himself, since nothing of all that is said to be from the Father through the Son is a property of the Father; whence it follows that, together with the Marcionites, the Manichaeans also are rightfully reduced to nothing. Furthermore, since what you already said (cap. 36) is that everything which is not common to the supernatural Trinity must necessarily be the property of one of the three persons—so that from this you might conclude by logical necessity that the Holy Spirit proceeds either from the Father alone or from the Son alone—by this conclusion you cast those who say the Spirit is from the Son into such a chasm of blasphemy that they appear to exchange generation with spiration and to imagine that the Father is from the Son! Against you stands and opposes the mind of Gregory the Theologian, who says that that which is from the Father is common to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, and from this he clearly proves those to be liars who say: Whatever is conceived and spoken of in the supersubstantial Trinity is either common to the three or the property of one.

Furthermore, since a certain innovation ^C seems to you to exist regarding the Spirit if, proceeding from the Father and the Son, He does not also Himself send something else, true discourse demonstrates that this is by no means an innovation, from the fact that the Spirit is indeed from the Father through the Son, but nothing else is through the Spirit. For it is true to say that the Spirit is from the Father through the Son, and to say He is from both; but through the Spirit there is nothing else from the Father; therefore, it cannot be said that anything else proceeds from the Spirit. And thus no innovation of the Spirit appears here, even if nothing else proceeds from Him, since nothing else is from the Father through Him. Such too is what you suppose to be the lopsided favoritism of the Father toward the Son, and the deprivation of equal rights for the Spirit, unless He Himself, having come forth from the same cause as the Son with equal honor, also produces something else (cap. 38). For know that this is not in accordance with any more inclined favoritism of the Father toward the Son, but because the Son is the Son in the Trinity, and the Spirit is the Holy Spirit, and neither is the Son the Spirit, nor the Spirit the Son; thus, the Spirit is said to be from the Son because He is from the Father through the Son; ^D but nothing else is said to be from the Spirit, because nothing is from the Father through the Spirit.

Again (cap. 39), while you divide the Father and the Son in causality, and fashion and doubt between them a "more" and "less" in causation, and an adventitious and spurious element,

^A you will find no other means to refute these things so rashly fabricated by you than by invoking the most dogmatic Cyril, who proclaims the Spirit as proceeding from the Son. For he speaks thus in his Exposition of the Gospel according to John: "For the Holy Spirit is not understood as being alien to the substance of the Only-Begotten, but proceeds naturally from Him." And again, in the third book *To Hermias*: "Consider, then, I implore you, how even from his own fullness He sent out His own and inseparably connatural Holy Spirit, through whom is every good gift."

Since, therefore, the great Cyril has said that the Spirit proceeds from the Son, that division of the Father and the Son into cause and caused, and that "more and less" in causality, and that spurious and adventitious element, are utterly rendered vain and profligate. ^B The doubt, too, is rendered vain as to how the Son, while producing the Spirit, does not communicate to Him the same power and honor; for common sense demands that we by no means admit that any such absurdities were ever conceived by the holy Cyril.

Likewise, in that which you assert as your discourse proceeds, that "neither in the divine oracles is it heard, nor can a pious mind be found conceiving this, that the Son is greater than the Spirit," whereby you establish the Spirit as more remote from kinship with the Father and find a second incipient cause (cap. 41), and furthermore the contumely devised against the First Principle (cap. 42), and the division of the Holy Spirit into two—the one from the uncaused and first cause, the other from the caused and second cause—and the ^C boldness with which you push the Godhead into a quaternity instead of a Trinity (cap. 45); these things, I say, the great Athanasius will refute in his first discourse against the Arians, the beginning of which is: "Whatever heresies, having apprehended the truth, have made their own madness manifest..." Speaking of the Son in these very words: "But displaying His divinity and greatness to the disciples, no longer signifying Himself to be less than the Spirit, but greater ^D and equal, He bestowed the Spirit and said: 'I will send Him; and He shall glorify Me, and whatever He shall hear, He shall speak.'"

By saying these things, the saint clearly shows the cause according to which the Son is the giver of the Spirit. For by saying that the Lord, signifying that He Himself is greater than the Spirit, gave Him, he has shown clearly that the Savior is the giver of the Spirit for no other reason than that the latter exists from Him. And if you wish for the matter to be confirmed by another scriptural testimony, I will provide it for you; for indeed, the one most versed in dogmas and abundant in divine matters among the saints, Anastasius, says thus: "And certainly"

^A the Lord, showing that the Spirit is from Himself, breathing upon the disciples, said: Receive the Holy Spirit." You see how this saint interprets the statement of the great Athanasius; for that which Athanasius, the luminary of the world, indicated by those words, that the Lord, by showing Himself greater, gave the Spirit, this man has explained more clearly, as if by a commentary, illustrating those words while saying: "And certainly the Lord, showing that the Spirit is from Himself, breathing upon the disciples, said: Receive the Holy Spirit." If you were not ignorant of these things, O most wise one, would you not have said that so many absurdities follow if one says the Son is greater than the Spirit? But again, if the Son is specifically ^B the cause of the Spirit according to you, and the Father is specifically the cause of both, then from this emerges an imperfect and semi-divine cause, and one composed of the imperfect and the perfect, which you bring forward freely, like the mythology that jokingly devises hippocentaurs—just like the other matters which you yourself term fruits of an impious sowing; to which also belongs that lawless binary of causes you also touch upon. But sufficient against these spiderwebs is the counter-objection that the Son is not a cause apart from the Father, nor is He said to be. For the Church of Rome does not ignore that the Father alone is the principal cause, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit naturally, but of the whole creation efficiently and by ^C creation. Yet because the cause of the Son is immediate, while the cause of the Holy Spirit is through the Son, not as if from two causes and principles, but as proceeding from one God, the Church teaches purely and most deservedly, following our theologian Fathers.

TEXT

46. For these reasons and for such as these, even if late, it is appropriate that you at last recover a sense of your impieties, and, having abandoned the superstition which is the mother of many errors, you should gather yourselves to the judgment of the Catholic and Apostolic Church; and, initiated into the pure doctrine of piety, you should learn to believe with your whole heart and without any hesitation of mind that every single person ^D of the consubstantial and divine Trinity is joined by an ineffable reason into an inseparable communion by nature, but according to the reason of hypostasis, they keep unchangeably among themselves the character of their properties. For the distinction does not permit any entrance for confusion among them; away with that! But just as the communion according to nature admits no partition or division of them, so neither do the properties, by which each of the three persons is distinguished, become intermingled into any confusion at all.

REFUTATION

XX. And what is that confusion which arises to disturb the distinction of the persons, and what is that transmutation of the character of the properties which is pretended to follow from the fact that the Spirit is said to proceed through the Son or from the Son? For just as the Spirit

his Father, contains a distinction ^A (for the Father remains unbegotten, but the Spirit proceeds), just so, proceeding from the Son, it possesses its own personal distinction from the Son, unconfused, and is by no means blended into any confusion (for the Son remains begotten, and the Spirit proceeds). For since the Holy Spirit is separated from both by this same distinction, if it were blended into any confusion, birth and procession would occur because that which proceeds has come forth from the begotten Son; it is evident that there would be some confusion of unbegottenness and procession because that which proceeds would have come forth from the unbegotten Father; but the second state does not exist, and therefore neither does the first.

TEXT

REFUTATION

TEXT

^A is said by the sacred Oracles and most constantly believed by Catholics to produce the Spirit, the Son, by the production of the Spirit, will certainly neither change the degree of his Sonship, in so far as he is preached as Son, nor will he remove the causation of the Spirit from the Father and draw it to himself, any more than he [would draw] the causation of his own most peaceful and most pure generation. For these things are by no means of nature, according to which communion is preached, but are properties of the hypostasis, through which we confess the distinction in the Trinity.

REFUTATION. XXII. You indeed often and in many parts of your discourse assert that the Father is the cause of those things which are from him, not by the logic of nature, but ^B by the logic of the person; and you accuse the Italian of blindness, as if he does not immediately perceive this, and you charge him with impiety and superstition circumvented by fraud, and other things of that kind, which bring eternal condemnation upon the one who utters them. But I fear for you most of all, lest while you go forth to fight for piety with the most vehement impulse, you should unconsciously deflect from the straight path. For many absurdities seem to me to follow from this proposition invented by you. First, indeed, because you yourself have fabricated it as a kind of principle of dogma: for what remains of that which you say and establish as dogma, which ^C none of the saints has ever established? Then, because it also stands against the doctrines of the Fathers. For tell me: if anyone says that the Father produces the Spirit by the logic of nature, will he be judged, because the Trinity is of the same nature, not only to transpose the Son into the producer of the Spirit, but also to divide and cut the Spirit himself into the generation and proper production of the Son? But our Fathers, teaching that the Son is generated from the essence of the Father, were not moved by any fear that someone, because the Holy Trinity is of the same nature, might think that the essence generating the Son is likewise after the fashion of the essence of the Father. How then did you not fear, when ^D the Fathers preach the Son from the essence of the Father and say that the essence of the Father is generating, to divide the cause of the Father into the logic of nature and the logic of hypostasis, and to deny indeed that the Father is the cause by the logic of nature, but to assert and teach that he is the cause by the logic of hypostasis alone, as though the hypostasis of the Father were void of essence when it emits those things which are from it? Neither is the nature of the Father, O man, without hypostasis, when one preaches the Son and the Spirit from the essence and nature of the Father; nor is the hypostasis without essence, when one says that those things which are from it proceed from the hypostasis of the Father. But you, however, if you hear that the Son is God from the Father, God from God, you will not say that the essence and deity of the Son are from the essence and deity of the Father, lest, because the Holy Trinity is of the same nature, those absurdities predicted by you should follow. For since the Son, who is originated from the beginning, the Father, is God from God, if the Father is the beginning or cause by the logic of the person, as if from

the fact that it is a distinct essence and nature, ^A what else would emerge but that we teach God the Father and God the Son by the logic of the hypostasis, and not by the logic of the nature? But since you say that as Father, the Father is preached to produce the Spirit, and you assert that for the pious this is not in doubt, I, for the pious, assert that it will never happen that they find the theology of any of the Fathers who says that the Holy Spirit is from the Father *in that* He is Father, but only those saying that, in that He is the principal cause, the Spirit proceeds from Him, not immediately but proceeding through the Son, with the dignity of the Son suffering no innovation at all.

TEXT

48. Be it so. But, say some, ^B the heretics say: "How would you not reject the herald of the Church and teacher of the world, Paul, that heavenly man, who cries out with a great and truly heavenly voice: *God sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying: Abba, Father?* If, therefore, Paul, the standard of right dogmas, says the Spirit proceeds from the Son, how do those who do not admit this not reject the teacher of heavenly mysteries himself?" But who, I ask, rejects Paul, the teacher of secret mysteries, by all accounts? Is it he who strives to show him contradicting his Master and common Lord, or he who reveres and celebrates his concord and harmony with Him? For if the Lord indeed teaches that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, but the heresy introduces Paul as asserting [He proceeds] from the Son, who, I ask, rejects him? Nay, rather ^C he rejects him, who accuses him of contradiction against the Lord and maintains that he acquires for himself the inescapable punishment of such rashness. You see how you have known not to strip the teacher of the whole world of the honor of a teacher, how you do not follow with veneration and obedience him who leads us to piety, but bespatter him with infamy and ignominy. But the heresy does nothing here beyond its own custom. For since it slandered the Son and Word of God Himself, that He sometimes fought against Himself, how does it not act consistently with itself, while it also sets his genuine servant and disciple in opposition to Him and strives to show him a corrector of his own Master? 49. But where, I ask, does Paul affirm that the Spirit proceeds from ^D the Son? That the Spirit is of the Son (for He is not alien, heaven forbid!) both he said and the Church of God confesses and preaches; but that He proceeds from the Son neither went forth from his divine tongue, nor has any of the pious ever written such a calumny against him in their own writings; so far is this from having been done, that a Catholic would not even endure to hear such blasphemy.

^A 50. Paul said—he who with the course of his divine preaching demonstrated the magnitude of the world to be smaller than his own zeal—"the Spirit of His Son." Why then do you not also say this, but instead act fraudulently, turning everything upside down and perverting the word of the herald, and what is more serious, intruding this perversion and blasphemy of yours into the voice of the teacher? 51. He said "the Spirit of the Son." Quite rightly and wisely and divinely. But to what end do you pervert this voice, and while not saying what he actually said, you are not ashamed to proclaim as though said by him what he did not even think? "The Spirit of His Son." For it could not have been stated more aptly in any other way. For the Spirit is of the same nature and substance, glory, honor, and power as the Son. He, therefore, who says "the Spirit of His Son," indeed teaches the perfect likeness (and identity) of nature, but he nowhere introduces the cause of the procession; he acknowledges the unity of substance, but he in no way declares the person who produced the hypostasis consubstantially, nor does he indicate the cause.

^B REFUTATION

XXIII. The Romans, when they bring forward the voice of the Apostle saying "the Spirit of the Son," in order to demonstrate that He is from the Son, display the great Basil as the standard-bearer of this theology, who sometimes says that the Spirit is the Spirit of the Son, because He is from the Father through the Son, and at other times teaches that in theology there is no difference between the preposition "through" and the preposition "from." But you, who with wide mouth call them heretics, and [accuse them of] attacking the herald of God, Paul, with insults, and slandering the Word and Son of God, and ^C of trickily perverting everything upside down and distorting the herald's word—know that you are proclaiming and saying all these things against our teachers and the genuine ministers of the Lord and the true disciples of Paul. Who are these? They are those who affirmed that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. For if, as it seems to you, the Church of the Romans distorts Paul’s voice, and does not say what Paul actually said, but proclaims as though said by him what he did not even think, then our Fathers—who taught that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son—have become liable to these same accusations before her. For you indeed say "Spirit of the Son" as being connatural and consubstantial with the Son, and you say that this voice teaches the ^D lack of difference of nature; and this is true, that the Spirit is connatural and consubstantial with the Son, and is not separated from Him by any difference according to nature, because He is from the Father, proceeding through the Son.

TEXT

52. What then? Is it not theologized by all (4) that the . . . [note: see facsimile column 796 for the following]

this reason should attribute generation to Him? But if the Father is said to be of the Son, not because He is generated, but because He is consubstantial—yet if you also wish it because He has been generated—how, when you hear here the Spirit of the Son, are you dragged off, instead of calling Him the cause and producer, into the order of one produced and caused? For if a desire to be impious had taken hold of you through the similarity of terms, you would be equally impious in calling the Spirit the producer of the Son, and conversely, the Son the producer of the Spirit; except that here the error seemed to proceed and to be confirmed by an example through a certain appearance of truth. But now, both your absurdity exists, and your impiety contends and litigates with folly regarding its pre-eminence.

^B 53. The Church, therefore, theologizes that the Son is of the Father, and the Father of the Son; for they are consubstantial; and it is not, of course, because the Son is theologized as generated from the Father, that it is also said that the Father is of the Son. For this reason we shall not conversely speak evil; thus then, and thereafter, we theologize that the Spirit is of the Father and of the Son, introducing by these terms the consubstantiality which is altogether with each; but we know that He is consubstantial with the Son, not because He proceeds (far be it; since neither is the Son consubstantial with Him through [his own] generation), but because the procession to each is from one and indivisible Cause, before the ages, and in the same order.

^C 54. The Spirit of His Son. Understand, O man, and do not make the divine and saving voice of the herald of truth a subject for ruinous passion for yourself. The perception is not laborious; it does not require a sharper mind that is able to penetrate into more hidden mysteries. It signifies one thing, the Spirit of His Son, and teaches another, the Spirit proceeding from the Father. Let not the similarity of the cases drive you into an incurable fall. For many words brought forward in a similar form of speech do not exhibit a similar meaning, nor even close to it; and I would have gathered a very large list of such for you, if your rebelliousness did not turn my zeal into sluggishness.

^D 55. But you might perhaps be led to say, or rather, since you are enslaved to your own laws, you have a necessity not to depart from absurdity. Since the Son is theologized not only as the brightness of the Father and light from light, but also He Himself says: "I am the light of the world," and since light is consubstantial to light, the Son is indeed consubstantial to the Father; [you ought] at least to be just and seek how you might escape a death by strangulation—the noose which you have woven for yourself from your own cunning and opinion and tongue, so that I might not say you have put it around yourself.

^A 56. The divine Paul, who narrowed the circuit of the whole earth by the breadth of his evangelical preaching, said: *God sent the Spirit of his Son.* When you enunciate what he said, we demand no penalty from you; but when you establish as preached by him that which he did not say, we judge you guilty of punishment and impiety. That heavenly man said: "The Spirit of his Son." But you, as if you had ascended above even the third heaven and had become a listener to more secret matters, reject his voice as imperfect and banish it from your faith. You "perfect" what he left imperfect; instead of saying "the Spirit of his Son," you dogmatize (O, the surpassing and intolerable audacity!) that the Spirit proceeds from the Son. And while acting out this drama and blaspheming the One who is blasphemed, you take no shame in claiming as your teacher and advocate the Apostle himself, whom you have wounded by your sacrilege. You have plainly shown by what spirit you are possessed and filled, that you have vomited forth such and so great a poison of impiety.

^B REFUTATION.

XXIV. The things discussed in the present passage do not need a lengthy refutation, since they have already received a sufficient rebuttal from what has been said before. As for your desire that the Spirit of the Son be understood in the same way that the Father is said to be the Father of the Son, and the Son the Son of the Father, know that the natural order in the Trinity does not permit these things to be stated simply and confusedly. For the Son is the Son of the Father and consubstantial with the Father, because He is from the substance of the Father; and the Father is the Father of the Son, because He emits Him from His own substance. The Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and consubstantial with the Father, because He is from the substance of the Father; but the Father is not the Father of the Spirit, but the Producer, because He pours Him forth from His own substance. So likewise the Spirit is consubstantial with the Son, because He is from the substance of the Son, and the Son is consubstantial with the Spirit, because He emits Him from His own substance. Thus, the natural order within the Trinity dictates that these things be stated and understood in this way, and not according to your pleasure—that the Spirit is consubstantial with the Son because the procession to each of these is from one and indivisible Cause; for this is a "fraternal" consubstantiality, which has no place in that blessed Nature. ^C

TEXT. ^D

57. You wish that I should place before you other sacred utterances: (For if, because the Son is consubstantial with the Father, He produces the Spirit—for this is what the children of the Italians put forward in their defense—then He too, having been confessed as consubstantial with the Father and the Son, would produce another Spirit for Himself and for those whose consubstantial He is, so that, unless it is posited that He is of equal power to those who produce Him, He might appear lesser in substance and thus introduce the madness of Macedonius into the Church.) [He] produces (in an active verb)...

^A by which the evil craft of thy madness and folly stands refuted? The most holy Spirit is proclaimed [as] Spirit of wisdom, Spirit of understanding, Spirit of knowledge, Spirit of love, Spirit of temperance, Spirit of adoption. "For you have not received," he says, "the spirit of bondage again to fear" (he who spread the unsetting light of truth together with the path of the sun and embraced the whole earth with its rays from there), "but the Spirit of adoption." And again: "God has not given you the spirit of bondage, but the Spirit of wisdom and of love and of temperance." And indeed He is also called the Spirit of faith and of promise, and of power and of revelation, and of counsel and of strength—and of piety and of meekness. "If a man be overtaken in any trespass, you," he says, "the spiritual ones, restore such a one in the spirit of meekness," Paul, the fiery tongue of the Spirit. And indeed [there is] also the Spirit of sensation; for the Scriptures say: "Behold, I have called by name Beseleel; I have filled him with the Spirit of wisdom and knowledge and sensation." ^B Nay, but He is also called the Spirit of humility, as the children sing when cooled in the fire: "But in a contrite heart and in a Spirit of humility may we be accepted." But He is also called the Spirit of judgment and of burning, by which the avenging and purifying power of the Spirit is manifested. For Isaiah cries: "The Lord will wash them with a Spirit of judgment and with a Spirit of burning." But indeed also the Spirit of fullness; the most compassionate of the prophets, Jeremiah, says: "The way of the daughter of my people is not toward a holy nor toward a pure Spirit of fullness"; [meant] instead of: "She is not filled with a pure and holy Spirit." Why then, because of this, dost thou knit thy brows? From the gifts which He grants and bestows, wilt thou wage war against God [to claim] that the all-holy Spirit proceeds [from them] and draw His subsistence and procession from thence? Do not let the invitation of impiety, running ^C under [the guise of] what is right, persuade thee to outwit thine own salvation. For that the Son and Word of God and Wisdom and Power and Truth is proclaimed in our sacred Scriptures is most known to all; but that the most holy Spirit is not only called the Spirit of the Son, but also the Spirit of the gifts, the distribution of which He has the authority over, is equally explored by those who have been deemed worthy to have the mind of Christ.

58. Therefore, thy law shall command thee, or rather will compel [thee], not only to say that the Spirit proceeds from the Son because He is called the Spirit of the Son, but also from the understanding, and from the distribution of gifts, and from the myriad other god-befitting energies and powers, of which the most holy Spirit is proclaimed and recognized as the source and bestower, ^D and especially from faith, and revelation, and promise, and judgment, and understanding; since thou art not able to act wickedly, nor even if thou wishest greatly, to [deny that] the Son is distinguished by these names.

^A But if any one should suppose that the Spirit is here taken to refer not to the all-holy and consubstantial Spirit of the Father and of the Son, but to the gifts that pour forth from Him, because, since they have their reference to Him, and He Himself distributes these, they have taken to themselves the title of "Spirit"—though I have much to say, yet for the present I will not speak [of it]. Why? Because, even if this were granted, their attempt is none the less refuted of its lawlessness. For since the gifts are called [gifts] of the Spirit, and their new law orders them to proclaim that the Spirit proceeds from that source of which it is also said to be, they will no longer say that the Spirit produces these [gifts] of which He is said to be the Spirit; but, reversing it, they will assert that the gift proceeds and goes forth from the understanding, and from wisdom, and from all the other things previously mentioned; so that it is not the gift—or rather, through the spiritual gift, the Spirit—that grants understanding, or wisdom, or power, or sonship, or revelation, or faith, or piety; but rather the contrary: understanding, and revelation, and piety, and faith, and sobriety produce the gifts which it pleases you to call "spirits," and each of the others in like manner. Indeed, if you think that each gift is to be called a "spirit," then by the number of gifts you also increase the multitude of spirits, and hence it makes no difference to you whether you speak of the Spirit or of a gift; but the source of which the Spirit is said to be, from there your law decrees that it proceeds and is produced. Therefore, by cutting each of the gifts or spirits into two, instead of one you will make many, so that one may be the bestowing and the other the bestowed, and one the producing and the other the produced—faith, that is, producing faith, and understanding [producing] understanding; and how much time would one spend going through your nonsense? ^B Therefore it is not right to pass over these things either.

^C But indeed, this heresy brings [difficulties] upon itself. The all-holy Spirit distributes gifts to the worthy; but this [heresy], pleased with no one, as it appears, not even with His distribution, cuts these up, and thins them out, and divides them into many partitions, so that it may have wherewith to compensate its own followers with gifts both more and more abundantly; and thus the disturbance and confusion of their mind perverts and confounds the nature and order of things, and the first foundation of the impiety brings forth myriad heresies. But even if these things are sufficiently enough to persuade those who have not altogether lapsed into impiety, and to refute those who choose to be brazen, and to set straight those who have inclined toward superstition, nevertheless we shall not leave out what remains. For one of the sick is relieved of his disease by one [type of] treatment, another by another, or is [otherwise] convinced of his own accord, enduring what is incurable through the wickedness of his own judgment. Wherefore, not even these things are to be passed over. ^D

^A XXV. If the name "Spirit" is taken in one and the same sense, both when it is called the Spirit of the Son and when it is termed the Spirit of understanding, and the Spirit of knowledge, and the Spirit of love, and of other charisms, then reason also, you who boast of having the mind of Christ, that it must in some way follow that those who say the Spirit proceeds from the Son because he is called the Son's, must also affirm that he proceeds from understanding, and from the distribution of gifts, and from other operations and powers. But if the difference in names overthrows such a syllogism—or rather, paralogism—why do you contradict the divine Fathers who have said that the Spirit is through the Son and from the Son, on account of the fact that he is called the Spirit of the Son by the Apostle Paul? And that I may not long delay in refuting a sophism of this kind, I shall set forth a few of the words of the Golden-mouthed [Chrysostom], which he uttered for the purpose of showing the difference in the names of the Spirit, from which the sophism is clearly overturned and removed for those who wish to argue that the Spirit also proceeds from his own proper gifts, if he is to be considered produced by the Son as the Spirit of the Son. For he, in the book which he wrote concerning the most holy Spirit, speaks thus in these very words: "The Holy Spirit, as regards his nature, is inseparable, inasmuch as he has proceeded from an inseparable and indivisible nature; but his names are Holy Spirit, Spirit of Truth, Spirit of God, Spirit of the Lord, Spirit of the Father, Spirit of the Son, Spirit of Christ. These are the names of the holy and most pure power of the holy and adorable Spirit. ^C There are also other names which are not ascribed to the Holy Spirit, but to his power and operation, as are his gifts. I speak, and further explain the meaning, afterward introducing the testimony: if the Holy Spirit gives a gift to anyone not possessing wisdom, not possessing knowledge, but gives to him faith alone, that gift is also called the Spirit of faith. If someone receives the gift of wisdom, that gift is called the Spirit of wisdom. When someone has the charism of love, it is said that he has the Spirit of love. And all the charisms of the Spirit are called 'Spirit'; for because that which is given is the Holy Spirit, the gift that is given is called Holy Spirit, and the gift is called by the same name as the Giver."

^D Since, therefore, the holy Father Chrysostom has for you clearly distinguished and set forth these things, sometimes it is to hear the name of Spirit and understand the Paraclete himself, and to think that the name is used regarding his very nature; but at other times to hear the name of Spirit and understand a certain grace

^A of a spiritual nature. Why do you, holding this difference of names for nothing, force the Italian, who says the Spirit is from the Son—because the Spirit is the Son’s—to be compelled to say that he is so because of intelligence and the distribution of charisms and the other operations and powers, of which the all-holy Spirit is glorified and recognized as fountain and dispenser? The Italians, in saying the Spirit is through the Son and from the Son as the Spirit of the Son, spoke not irrationally, nor far from the tradition of the Scriptures; but you, by babbling that the multitude of spirits increases in number with the gifts, and by dividing the charisms and making many out of one, and by calling one producing and another produced, and that faith is produced from faith and intelligence from intelligence, falsely and for diabolical persuasion string all these things together, unmindful of that condemnation ^B which is inflicted upon those who rend and separate the Church of God.

TEXT

61. If the Son is indeed generated from the Father, but the Spirit proceeds from the Son, how will this opinion of yours not relegate the Spirit into the condition of a grandson, and banish the awesome mystery of our theology into laughter and trifles?

62. You may see from this, too, the excess of the impiety. If the Father is the proximate cause of the Spirit, just as he is of the Son—for both generation and procession exist immediately; for the Son is not generated through any medium, and likewise the Spirit proceeds immediately—yet the nonsense of the impious claims that the Spirit also proceeds from the Son, then the same cause, namely the Father, would have to be said to be both the remote and ^C the proximate cause of the same, which cannot be conceived even in this flux-prone and alteration-bound nature.

63. Do you see the irrationality of the impiety? See it from this point also. That the Son is generated from the Father and the Spirit proceeds simultaneously is consonant with sacred theology, and is not foreign to the laws of incorporeal and supernatural substance. But if the Spirit proceeds simultaneously at once from the Father and from the Son (for "prior" and "posterior" are foreign to the eternal Trinity), how, I ask, will the difference of divine causes not constitute different hypostases as well, and introduce a cleavage into the simple, individual, and singular hypostasis of the Spirit? For it is easy to understand and to adduce numberless arguments ^D that diverse operations and powers proceed from the same hypostasis, especially in supernatural matters exceeding our mind; but you will never find a hypostasis that is referred to diverse causes without, along with the difference of the causes, also

^B its own nature being divided and rent asunder.

64. Furthermore, beyond what has been said, if anything resides in God, but is not seen within the unity and consubstantiality of the omnipotent Trinity, that indeed belongs entirely to one of the three persons; however, the procession of the Spirit is not observed as belonging to that miraculous unity which is considered in the Trinity; therefore, it belongs to one only of the three persons. One must also attend to this sort of reasoning: if the Spirit proceeds from the Son, and neither after nor before the Son is begotten from the Father (for these temporal adverbs are far removed from the eternal Deity), then at the very moment the Son is begotten from the Father, in that same moment the Spirit proceeds from the Son. If, therefore, while the Son comes forth through generation, he then produces the Spirit by way of procession, it would follow that the Spirit is constituted and exists together with the Son who produces and is produced (for this is the fruit of an impious sowing); while therefore the Son is being begotten, it would follow at the same instant that the Spirit is also being begotten together with the Son and is proceeding from the same. Wherefore the Spirit would simultaneously exist as begotten and as proceeding; begotten, because he would come forth along with the begotten Son, and proceeding, because he would undergo a double procession. What could be found more impious or more insane than these things?

65. ^C You see into what pit of error and perdition your sophistries and the abuse of sacred testimonies have thrust you; you see that those words, *He shall receive of mine*, and also, *God has sent the Spirit of his Son*, not only provide no advocacy for your blasphemous tongue, but rather refute its temerity and summon upon you judgment and inescapable punishment.

REFUTATION

XXVI. You construct many things artificially and curiously concerning principles. For behold, while you say the Son is from the Father, you do not assert the progression of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son simultaneously with the Son, but you assert it as if some time were intervening between the existence of the Son and the Spirit; you pronounce the Son to be from the Father and, placing a point here, you infer the Spirit is from the Son as from another ^D principle, so that from this there might spring forth that fabricated grandson. But neither is the Son apart from the Spirit from the Father, nor is the Spirit from the Son as from another principle besides the Father; and for this reason, that fabricated grandson of yours does not spring forth. From this you may also see the excess of your calumny. You indeed assert that the Father is the proximate cause of the Spirit, just as he is of the Son, and you establish the procession of the Holy Spirit immediately from the Father; yet you accuse the Romans of impiety because they also pronounce that the Spirit is from the Son, and you argue with great confidence that the Father is both the remote and the proximate cause of the same. But Gregory of Nyssa proves your principle to be false, when he says that the Father is the proximate cause of the Holy Spirit,

^A in the first of his works against Eunomius, speaking as follows: "The Father is understood to be without beginning and unbegotten; and immediately and indivisibly from Him the Only-Begotten Son is understood to exist together with the Father; and through Him and with Him, before any empty and unsubstantial notion can intervene in the middle, the Holy Spirit is straightway apprehended together with them."

Hence, then, the proposition saying that the Father is the proximate cause of the Holy Spirit having been refuted as false, you contradict our theologian Fathers, as many as have delivered that [the Spirit] proceeds through the Son. Yet the Father is not *not* the proximate cause of the Spirit—as if He were now a remote cause. For that which is distinguished as "remote" in opposition to "proximate" concerns things that denote an interval, and which have a mutual relationship or position or conjunction and union, according to more or less, in time or place or some other account of distance. But in the Holy Trinity, since nothing can be thought of as existing between the Father and the Son, or between the Son and the Spirit, the Father is not called the "proximate" cause of the Spirit because the Spirit does not proceed from Him immediately, but through the Son; yet, on the other hand, He cannot be called a "remote" cause of the Spirit, because the Spirit, ^B who proceeds through the Son from Him, is separated and excluded from Him by no interval.

Do you see the excess of your calumny? See also what follows. You, by fabricating differences of divine causes, affirm that various hypostases are also constituted, and that divisions of the indivisible and simple and singular nature of the Spirit follow, and that the same hypostasis is referred to diverse principles. But the truth is as follows: If the Spirit were the Spirit of the Father according to the personal property of the Father, by which the Father is distinguished from the Son, He would not be the Spirit of the Son; and if the Spirit were the Spirit of the Son according to the personal property of the Son, by which the Son is distinguished from the Father, He would not be the Spirit of the Father. But He is the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of the Son, as the Spirit of one God; and since the Spirit is of both, as the Spirit of one God, and existing from both, He exists as from one ^C God. And how then can the Holy Spirit have His own single hypostasis referred to two different principles? If He does not exist from two principles, then according to your empty and futile opinion, neither are diverse hypostases constituted, nor is any division admitted into His indivisible person. But if you contend that it is absolutely necessary that the Father and the Son be considered two different principles of the Spirit, because they differ from one another according to their personal properties, beware lest your imprudent curiosity and preposterous industry impel you to say that the Father and the Son are two gods, because they differ from one another according to the same difference of personal properties; but indeed they are not two gods. ^D

even if they differ from one another by these personal differences. ^A Furthermore, in addition to the things said, it is not true for you to say that because the procession of the Spirit is not an operation and emission of the only one of the three—that is, of the unity contemplated in the Trinity—that it is not the Spirit. For the Holy Spirit, just as He is the living and essential operation of the Father, is also proclaimed to be that of the Son; and if He were only the emission of the Father, the Father would not be called by the theologians the producer of the Spirit through the Word. ^B One must also pay attention to such a line of reasoning. At one moment you confess that temporal adverbs are far removed from the eternal Godhead; yet at another moment, when you say in your syllogizing that "at the moment in which the Son proceeds by generation, in that same moment He brings forth the Spirit by procession, and He exists and is constituted simultaneously with the producer and the product," you cunningly fabricate within this syllogism intervals of time, and force them upon the Roman Church to calumniate her, as if she were asserting that the Spirit is at once generated and proceeding—generated, insofar as He comes forth together with the generated Son, and proceeding, because He undergoes a double procession. But whoever knows that the Roman Church glorifies the Godhead as being free from time and eternal, will condemn you for satanic malice in making such accusations against her. For there is no pious and faithful person who does not believe that the Spirit exists from the Father simultaneously with the Son and together with the Son; but the Spirit is not on that account generated, because He has His procession simultaneously with the Son, and together with the Son—or, to speak more properly, He has it in an ineffable way from the Father through the Son, without time and without interval—He is always said to proceed from both, being ^C Spirit and never generated.

TEXT.

66. ^D They set Ambrose and Augustine and Jerome and certain others against the dogma of the Church; for they say that it is taught by them that the Spirit proceeds from the Son. But the holy Fathers, they say, ought not to be subjected to the charge of impiety. For they either spoke piously and correctly, and all who recognize them as Fathers ought to agree with their opinion; or else they taught impious dogmas, and then those too ought to be rejected, together with their doctrine, as impious. And who are those saying these things? They are, naturally, those who, puffed up with adolescent arrogance and rashness, fear lest they might leave any of their most grave crimes uncommitted, as far as lies within them. For it was not enough for them to have perverted the Dominical utterance, nor to have branded the herald of piety with the stain of impiety...

but they deem their own striving incomplete, unless they also seek out those whom they celebrate as Fathers, through whom they offer insults. Yet the simple speech of truth, which puts them to shame in this matter as well, cries out: "Understand where you are rushing, how far you are thrusting your own destruction into the very deep interior of the soul." ^B

67. Who are they who truly respect those holy men as Fathers, whom the ill-fated love of defection has forced you to bring forward as protectors of your impiety? Who more religiously observe the rights of the Fathers toward them? Is it they who deny that they in any way contradict the common Master, or they who force these men to render a testimony opposed to the Dominical voice and to overturn, with their own inventions, that marvelous theology by which we are taught to believe that the Spirit proceeds from the Father? For how is it not manifest that heresy, while indeed attributing the name of Fathers to the aforementioned men—stripping it, however, of all honor ^C—actually, by the machinations it constructs to build up its own pleasure, thrusts them into the party of the impious and the ruinous? Unless, perhaps, these men, who dare all things, believe that their Fathers delight and glory in such privileges?

68. Ambrose, or Augustine, or anyone else has spoken against the Dominical voice. Who says this? If I say it, I am insulting your Fathers; but if you are the one asserting it, and I am the one denying it, then you are the one insulting them, and I condemn you for insulting the Fathers. "But," you say, "they have written these things, and it is contained in their books that the Spirit proceeds from the Son." And what of this? If, having been better instructed, they did not change their opinion, and if, having been conquered by just arguments, they did not recede from their error, you are ^D ascribing your own work and your own uncorrectable mind (this is another calumny, again, against your own Fathers) to their teaching. But if, such as is the state of human affairs, although they were otherwise adorned with every virtue, they fell either through some ignorance or were carried away by negligence, yet, when admonished, they did not resist, nor did they stubbornly harden their minds against correction, what is this to you? How, moreover, will you find a refuge for avoiding inevitable punishment in those who had nothing similar to your own ways? For if those men were not even slightly partakers of the things with which you abound, but were rather adorned with many other specimens of admirable virtue and piety, and pronounced your impious dogma out of ignorance or negligence, why do you establish their human defect as a law for yourself to believe impiously, and—

^A by your own law, do you declare those who are found to have ordained nothing of the kind to be wicked and violators of the law, and judge them guilty of the utmost impiety under the mask of love and benevolence? The rewards of your studies and efforts are not good. But look at the excess of impiety and the senselessness of a wicked mind. They call upon the Master for their defense: they have been caught being liars and slanderers; they called the apostles as patrons: they were convicted of also attacking these with the same sort of slanders; they fled again to the Fathers, and in place of honor, they pour upon them immense blasphemy.

69. ^B And they do indeed call them Fathers (for they do call them that, but not so as to assign the honor due to Fathers, but so that they might find the means by which they could become parricides). Nor do they shudder at the voice of the divine Paul, which they themselves distort against their own Fathers with a great deal of wickedness. For he who received the power to bind and to loose, and that with a bond at once terrible and valid (for it reaches even unto the kingdom of heaven itself), he, I say, cries out with a great and clear voice: *But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel to you contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be anathema.* Paul, that resounding and never-silent trumpet of the Church, such a man and so great, delivers to the anathema those who dare to conceive and introduce any opinion contrary to the Gospel; and he does not subject only others, who might dare this, to unsurpassable curses, but even himself, should he be found guilty, he drives to the same judgment. ^C And he does not restrict or limit the terror of this sentence to that extent, but he even searches the heavens themselves, and if he should find there even an angel set over men by God and preaching any other thing contrary to the evangelical preaching, he subjects him to the same bonds and consigns him to the devil. And you, calling upon the Fathers to the insult of the Master's dogmas, to the insult of the preaching of which the disciples were heralds, to the insult of all the ecumenical councils, and to the insult of the piety which is preached throughout the whole world, do you not shudder, nor tremble, nor fear these threats? But you consider your life unlivable unless you make your Fathers partakers of this crime. And Paul does not even fear the incorporeal nature, nor does he care at all that the angels, as pure minds, purely and immediately attend to the common Master; ^D he fears none of this at all, but draws the angels just as he does earthly men to the anathema. You, however, calling Ambrose and Augustine and the rest Fathers (alas, a destructive honor!) and deploying them in battle against the Master's doctrine, do you think you are inviting a lighter damnation upon yourself or upon them? For you do not render good rewards to your Fathers, nor do you pay back good returns for your upbringing to those who begat you. But in truth, toward those blessed men, just as they themselves partook of nothing of your captious arguments, your obstinacy, and your impiety, so neither does your anathema

^B find room to pass. Yet, through those means by which you yourself imagine that your impiety is reinforced, you bring forth your anathema against them with manifest deeds and with a cry louder than any voice.

70. Nor do I say this, that in every respect whatsoever you condemn is openly taught as doctrine by them; but even if it should have happened that they said some such thing (for they were men, and it is not possible for one who consists of clay and flowing matter to dwell forever above human failings; nay, sometimes traces of blemishes even take root in the best of men), yet if they were carried away into some indecency, I would imitate the noble sons of Noah, and instead of exposing their father’s shame, I would rather cover it with silence and gratitude; I would not follow the example of Ham, as you do. Nay, in fact, you publish the shame of your, as you call them, Fathers, much more bitterly and shamelessly than he did. For he incurred a curse, not because he revealed it, but because he did not cover it; but you both reveal it and boast in this audacity. And he told the secret to his brothers; but you, not to brothers, nor to one or two, but—as far as your effort and impudence reach—setting up the whole world as a theater, you proclaim with a great clamor that your Fathers are defiled by filth, and you revel in their shame, and you rejoice in their disgrace, and you seek accomplices through whom you might bring their dishonor and deformity into the public light and celebrate it solemnly. ^C

71. Augustine and Jerome said that the Spirit proceeds from the Son. And whence can there be certainty found or given, after so many years have elapsed, that their writings have not been corrupted by malice? For you ought not to think that you alone are fervent for impiety and bold in doing the forbidden, but rather, from this very disposition of your own mind, consider that even then it was easy for the most crafty enemy of the human race to abound in such vessels.

72. They said, those whom you mention, these things. But if because of some circumstance, or while opposing the madness of the pagans, or refuting some other heretical opinion, or indulging the weakness of their hearers—or for some other reason such as these, which are wont to happen daily in human life—if, I say, because of some such cause, or even because of many, such a voice escaped them, how is it that you, taking what they did not proclaim with a dogmatic sense, as if it were dogma and law, are creating an irreparable perdition for yourself, and are striving to drag them into your ^D own madness?

REFUTATION

XXVII. Since you grant pardon to Ambrose, Augustine, and Jerome, even if something of that kind happened to be said by them—as if you were instituting a defense on their behalf—because they were men composed of clay and flowing matter

[821] comprised of clay and flowing matter, why do you call the perversion of the Lord’s voice and the slander of the preaching of piety [an act of] impiety, which the Italians utter as they flee to the Fathers? And why do you say that they are driven by the Italians into the company of the God-defiers and destroyers, if the Roman Church refers the saying that the Spirit is from the Son to their teaching? For if to say this is impiety, what pardon follows for those who so teach? But if you call it merely a human shortcoming that they so speak, while at the same time testifying that they are adorned with many and admirable examples of virtue and piety in all other things, why do you call that which was said by men whom you yourself proclaim to be worthy of wonder the ultimate and extreme impiety? ^B But observe the excess of slander. You call the Romans slanderers of the Lord, liars regarding the disciples, blasphemers against the Fathers, and parricides, because they say the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and you do not consider that in saying these things you are blaspheming our holy Fathers—I mean Athanasius and the other champions of piety, whom I do not even know how to name. For these men, even if the Savior said in the Gospels that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, did not consider it a setting aside of His teaching to say that the Spirit is also from the Son; but some of them explicitly taught that He exists from the Father and the Son, and others that He exists and proceeds from the Father through the Son. You, therefore, accusing the Romans of the transgression of the evangelical words because of the addition of the word in the Creed, see how before the Latins you brand our own theologians, the Fathers, with the same mark and accusation, and how you rebuke them without even trembling at the voice of the divine Paul, which he cried out with a great and clear voice, saying: "Even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel other than that which we preached, let him be anathema." For if you apply the anathema uttered by Paul against one who preaches something foreign to his Gospels to the Romans, because the doctrine concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son is not contained in Paul's Gospels in explicit words, see lest you pass a judgment of such condemnation not so much against the Roman Church, as rather [822] ^C even against all the synods which explained and proclaimed many dogmas of which the great Paul is not found to have made mention at all. For he, the summit of the apostles, forbids a preaching diverse from the meaning of the Gospel, but he charges no one whatsoever with the crime of a "different gospel" for the later addition of words following the Gospel. Whoever, therefore, wishes to adjudicate the condemnation of anathema so simply and indiscriminately against those who have proposed dogmatically things appearing in the teachings after the Gospel of Paul—things not [found] word-for-word in Paul's—I do not know how he will defend our Fathers who sanctioned the word "consubstantial." For where was that word found in the writings of Paul? ^D

The word ^A *Theotokos*, while found nowhere in the Gospels of Paul, is yet clearly proclaimed by the Church of God, which rejects as heretics those who do not think in this way. And it is not judged that those who later uttered these words are guilty of preaching an "other gospel"—simply because Paul did not utter these very terms—but rather, because they formulated their doctrine in accordance with the mind of Paul, they are approved as heralds of piety. But since you again grant indulgence to Augustine and Ambrose, in the event that due to some necessity or circumstance, or by condescending to the weakness of their hearers, or for some other reason ^B of the kind that is wont to occur daily in human life, they uttered such a word: how is it that you have not taken into your mind the fact that our Fathers, who in those ancient days shone like stars in the firmament of our Church, if those writings happened to come into their hands, would have numbered among the choir of saints both them and us who profess the procession of the Spirit from the Son? How did they not have in communion the Church of Rome, which embraced the books of these men, and cleave to her as the mother of the Churches? And how is it that you, as their disciple, imitating them, have not yourself come into a true concord ^C in Christ with the disciples of Ambrose, Augustine, and Jerome?

THE TEXT

§ 73. The herald of the world, the contemplator of hidden mysteries, he who ennobled human nature by his own virtues—he, I say, spoke against the Athenians, who were powerful in their elegant and flowing manner of speech, and, subduing and humbling their overly haughty spirits (or rather, condescending to their weakness), what is it that he said? "Passing by and observing your objects of worship, I found also an altar on which was inscribed: 'To an Unknown God.' Therefore, what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you." What then? Will you take those things through which the teacher of the Church snared the wise men of the Greeks and led them by the hand from impiety to piety, and will you convert them into a dogma, and will you dare to proclaim that He who ^D destroyed idols was preached by Paul as the very one whom the pagan error worshiped and named the "Unknown God"? For your cleverness in weaving fallacious arguments is not a thing that should surprise us. That altar was erected to Pan; the city of Athens, however, not yet understanding the name of him who was worshiped upon it, had inscribed on the altar: "To an Unknown God." For since that glorious and heavenly man perceived, from the oracles of the prophets and the words of Christ the Lord, that the Gentiles would by no means be turned, he recalled them from those very detestable idols to the worship of the Creator, and from the very agendas of the devil he condemned the tyranny of that same power, and from his strongest fortifications he overturned the strength of that selfsame power, harvesting piety from error.

He brings forth for us the sprouts of salvation from perdition; he raises them up from the snare of the devil to the course of the Gospel; he makes the pinnacle of apostasy the starting-point of the path, by which they could ^A enter into the Church, the most pure and undefiled bridal chamber of Christ. To such a degree did that sublime mind excel, being aided most of all by heavenly support, in using the enemy's own weapons to confound and subdue the enemy himself. What, then? Because Paul destroyed the enemy with the enemy's weapons, should you for that reason treat the enemy's weapons with honor and call them divine weapons, and push them toward your own slaughter? And how many such examples could one find from him who disposed all things wisely by the power of the Spirit!

74. But what need is there of examples? He himself says with a clear voice: "I became to the Jews as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to those who were under the law as ^B under the law, that I might gain those who were under the law; to those who were without the law as without the law (not being without the law of God, but under the law of Christ), that I might gain those who were without the law." Are you, therefore, for this reason going to restore Judaism, or are you going to legislate for life that, having abrogated divine and human laws, one should live entirely without law in the intercourse of men, and will you cry out shamelessly, or rather, most impiously, that these are the precepts preached by Paul?

75. But among how many other of our blessed and holy Fathers can one find such things! Consider for me Clement, the high priest of Rome, and those things which are named from him, the Clementines (not to say, as the ancient account has it, that those things were written by the command of the chief of the apostles, Peter), and Dionysius of Alexandria, who, while he was fervently arguing against Sabellius, almost stretched out a hand to Arius; and the great Methodius, ^C who shines among the holy martyrs, who did not deem it incredible that the incorporeal and passionless nature of angels had fallen into earthly love and the embrace of bodies. I shall pass over Pantaenus and Clement, Pierius also, Pamphilus and Theognost, holy men and teachers of holy learning, whose positions, although we do not entirely accept them all, we nevertheless—rendering to them the rewards of their excellent lives and other teachings—follow with great honor and acclaim, especially Pamphilus and Pierius, seeing as they were also renowned for their martyrdom struggles. With these we also pass by the Western Fathers, Irenaeus, the priest of God and holder of the episcopate of the people of Lyons, ^D and Hippolytus, his disciple and a martyr among the high priests—men wonderful indeed in many things, yet who at times, in certain matters, strayed from the most exact norm of truth.

76. Are you, then, going to bring forward your dilemma against all these, and raising your eyebrows, will you say: "Either one must honor these men and [accept] those things which were by them...

or else, while rejecting [certain] things, reject those very men themselves?" And how much more justly will these men turn this clever argument of yours back upon you, saying: "O man, why do you join together things that cannot be joined? If you truly call us Fathers, how do you not shudder to take up arms against Fathers, and, what is most grievous, against the common Lord and Creator of all? But if you have once resolved to exercise petulance against us, how are you not clearly insane while you call us Fathers ^A while simultaneously raising your parricidal hands against us?" And how many other ways could this sophism of yours be turned against you!

REFUTATION

XXVIII. The true defender of piety makes a certain simple and artless introduction to his defense, not labored according to your custom in an artificial and twisted manner. Even now, in order to show the Romans’ refuge in the aforementioned holy and sacred men to be empty and weak, you assert that those who say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son bring forward words of such power as those spoken by the herald of the universal world and observer of mysteries, Paul, when that distinguished and heavenly man deemed the altar dedicated to Pan in Athens to be dedicated to the Creator and God of all, and took the inscription "to an unknown God" as the stuff of his own discourse. ^B And saying these things, do you not shudder? For you will not say that because Paul called the altar of Pan the altar of the true God, there is as much difference between the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit handed down by the luminaries and teachers of our Church and that which Augustine and Ambrose say about it, as there is a difference between the true God and that idol of Pan. Paul said: "Passing through and seeing your idols, I found an altar on which was inscribed: 'To an unknown God.' Whom therefore you worship unknowingly, him I announce to you." And you, doing well to treat those words of Paul as dogma, forbid us to do so; for not because Paul defeated the enemy with the enemy's own weapons does it follow that the enemy's weapons ought to be honored and called divine ^C arms. The statement seems to me acceptable and in nothing contrary to piety. Augustine and Jerome also said that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son; the teachers of our Church said that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. What, then, do you command? That we should separate the theological expressions "from the Son" and "through the Son" into different parts, and thus establish that these dictates differ from one another, just as the God preached by Paul differs from the one supposed by the Athenians to be God? But our Fathers, having said that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, and having handed down to us the rule that in theology there is no difference between the prepositions "through" and "from," and again having taught that the Spirit pours forth and proceeds from the Father and the Son, have acknowledged no difference regarding the Spirit between the terms ^D "proceeding" and "coming forth."

^A And since they reduce to nothing such differences, as they do not even regarding the Son between “coming forth” and “being begotten,” you would have done well yourself, had you not craftily spun empty sophistries against the truth. But when you bring forward Dionysius of Alexandria and Methodius of Patara and such and such others, who sometimes fell short of an accurate knowledge of theological matters, and urge that we should establish that Ambrose, Augustine, and Jerome likewise taught the procession from the Son, you will be shown to be speaking untruths. For as regards those holy men whose sayings you claim certain people say were not received ^B by the Church, all who study ecclesiastical affairs know that they are recorded in ecclesiastical volumes, and from this it became known that they had fallen short of an accurate knowledge of these matters. If, therefore, the other Fathers of the Roman Church, whom that age brought forth in such numbers and so great, had recognized that the aforementioned Fathers of the Roman Church had swerved from accurate theological knowledge, as well as the lights and teachers of our own Church, who at that time were cherishing and embracing the union of the Churches, they would never have passed over and left unnoted that error which is so worthy of investigation later on. ^C

TEXT

But, just as we treat the aforementioned Fathers, so let us set these matters aside for the present. 77. Yet who does not know that the great Basil kept his piety pure and undefiled in the chambers of his soul, while remaining silent concerning the divinity of the Spirit? O soul glowing with divine love, yet not bringing the flame out into the open, lest it be extinguished too quickly at its very rising and in the brilliance of its own liberty! Therefore, he managed his words with judgment and took care ^D that the truth, instilled little by little in growing increments, might be more firmly established in the hearts of men. For when it has been slowly insinuated into the souls of men, a stronger flame of dogma is kindled; but by the speed and sudden onset of brilliance, the eye of the mind, especially in the case of the simple-minded, is often wont to be darkened, just as lightning obscures the vision, especially of those who are weaker. For this reason, he remained silent, though he burned to preach this before anything else; yet he maintained silence, so that at an opportune time he might preach with a stronger voice that which he had kept silent. A massive volume could be compiled if anyone wished to commit to writing the names and causes of those for whom they often did not bring forth the flower of truth, so that the flower itself might bloom most beautifully, and the growth might advance more and the yield be gathered more bountifully. But we admire and commend them for the heavenly inspiration by which they were led, and for their wise and provident counsel; yet if anyone were to try to introduce such things into the Church as laws and dogmas, we consider him a foe of the saints, and one who

is a destroyer of the truth and of piety, and we condemn him with those punishments ^B to which he has rendered himself liable by his own guilt.

78. Do you object that you are striving to pour forth this deep gloom over the whole world from the West? But I, in turn, will kindle for you the light of piety, which is not subject to the sunset and is spiritual, from that very West; before its splendor your gloom will not be able to avoid vanishing. You say, "Ambrose stated that the Spirit proceeds from the Son." From your mouth this gloom proceeds. But the thrice-blessed Damasus, radiating the rays of the true faith, resists, and your darkness immediately vanishes. For he, confirming the second synod—whose dogmas the furthest ends of the habitable world revere—clearly confesses that the Spirit proceeds from the Father. You say, "Ambrose or Augustine said it." Another mist again poured forth from your mouth. But Celestine did not say it, did not hear it, did not admit it; rather, flashing with the light of the true faith, he dissipates the mists of your words. ^C

79. But what need is there for me to linger over others? Leo the Great, who showed the sacred cares of Rome to be holier still, the pillar of the fourth synod—he, through his God-inspired and dogmatic epistles, and through the legates who held his place, and through his consensus, by which he illuminated that great and God-assembled gathering—pours forth that same illumination of orthodoxy not only into the whole of the West, but even to the borders of the East, and teaches most clearly that the all-holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. And not only this, but he also declares those who dare to assert anything else contrary to the mind of the synod to be deposed from the priesthood, if they hold the rank of priesthood; and if they fill the place of laymen, whether they have entered into the monastic life or are involved in the affairs of the common people, he subjects them to anathema. For what the God-inspired synod decreed, this divine Leo openly seals through the holy men Paschasinus, Lucentius, and Boniface, as it is permitted to hear six hundred times from them themselves—and not from them alone, but also from him who had sent them. For in sending the synodal letters, he testifies and confirms that the words, the mind, and the votes of those holding his place are his own, and not theirs. ^D Although, even if nothing of the sort were present, it would suffice that he sent them to sit in the synod on his behalf, and that he professes, once the synod has reached its conclusion, to acquiesce in what was decreed.

80. For it is better to listen to the sacred words themselves. For it says, after the exposition of the faith which the first and second synods confirmed and handed down: "This wise and saving symbol of divine grace would therefore suffice for the full knowledge and confirmation of piety." He says "perfect" or "full," but not "deficient," to which one might add or remove anything. And how "full"? Pay attention to what follows: "For regarding..."

the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit it teaches that which is perfect." And how does it teach what is perfect? By proclaiming that the Son is begotten of the Father, and that the Spirit proceeds from the Father. And after a little bit: "And on account of those who fought against the Holy Spirit, it confirms the doctrine regarding the essence of the Spirit that was handed down in times past by the one hundred and fifty Fathers who gathered in the imperial city." ^B And how did they confirm the essence of the Spirit, if not by saying clearly that the Spirit proceeds from the Father? Therefore, he who teaches anything other than this overturns, confuses, and corrupts—insofar as his own audacity is concerned—the very essence of the Spirit itself. Then weigh those words, "on account of those who fought against the Holy Spirit." And who were these who fought? Formerly, those who made Macedonius their teacher in place of the holy Scriptures; but now, those who in place of Christ and his sacred institution—but I have no name to call them, so headless is their impiety—who, I say, flee to destruction in place of the Savior. But this the Council speaks with a many-tongued voice moved by the Holy Spirit, and the all-wise Leo proclaims it along with them and confirms it with every vote. But do you apply your mind to what follows, for towards the end of the whole section of the discourse it says: "These things, therefore, having been defined by us with all exactness and care from every side, the holy and ecumenical synod has decreed" (namely, the one of which Leo, who possessed a royal mind and speech, was the leader). ^C What did it decree? "It is not permitted for anyone to produce another faith, that is to say, to write or compose or think or teach it to others; but those who dare to compose another faith, or to produce or teach or deliver another creed to those wishing to turn to the knowledge of the truth from paganism or from Judaism or indeed from any heresy whatsoever, these, if they are bishops or clerics, are to be alien, the bishops from the episcopacy and the clerics from the clergy; but if they are monks or laymen, they are to be anathematized."

REFUTATION.

XXIX. ^D Well done to you, O man, that you confess that the great Basil kept his piety undefiled in the chambers of his soul, and you call his soul one burning with divine love. And if these things are true—and they are entirely true—it will no longer be permitted for you to accuse the Romans of heresy and impiety, since the great Basil explicitly teaches in the third book of his *Refutations against Eunomius* that the Spirit has his existence from the Son, and receives from the Son, and announces to us, and is altogether connected with that cause. But what profit is it to you to set the Fathers against one another, as if they had taught things contrary to one another? For the fact that such and such of the saints, and of those who adorned the Roman See as pontiffs, said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father is true, and is in co-

^Anfesso, and the anathema will strike those who do not think in this way, and indeed most justly; but it is also true and no less admitted that He proceeds from the Father through the Son; and it is also true that there is no difference between saying that He is from the Father through the Son and that He is from both. And because all these things are true and consistent with one another, he who sets the Fathers against one another—speaking now in this way and now in that—is a liar. And therefore you labor in vain in the present passage when you set forth these words: "The holy and ecumenical synod, whose president was Pope Leo, defined that it is not permitted for anyone to set forth another faith," and what follows, thereby accusing the Romans as if they were immediately inventors and ^B introducers of a faith that is alien. For he who says that the Spirit is from the Father and the Son does not have a different faith than him who says that He is from the Father simultaneously; for the Son is understood with the Father, even if He is not pronounced at the same time, and He is pronounced at the same time because He is also understood at the same time.

TEXT. 81. Look, O ye blind, and hear, O ye deaf, who sit in the darkness of the heretical sunset; fix your eyes upon the light of the Church that shines perpetually, and look upon the strenuous Leo, the trumpet of the Spirit; hear what he sounds forth through his instrument, and tremble, if you do not reverence any other, then at least your own Father—or rather, through him, the others who, acquiescing in the former synods, are numbered among the distinguished Fathers. You name as Fathers Augustine, Jerome, and others like them; and you do well, not for the reason you allege them, but because you do not count it as glory to contemn their paternal name. And indeed, if your artifice concerning the Fathers proceeded only so far, your wickedness would be so much the more imperfect, and would require a milder punishment. For to begin an impious counsel but by no means to lead it to an end is equivalent to cutting off the vehemence of the crime, which surely mitigates and softens the rigor of the penalty. You have proposed to frighten us with the mask of the Fathers, against whom you act insolently. But the heaven of the Fathers, which piety sets against your machinations, is the Fathers of the Fathers; for you will not deny that those whom you claim as Fathers are themselves the Fathers of these [the ones you cite]; but if you should deny this, they certainly will not.

82. Consider the ^D glorious Vigilius, equal in throne and glory to these; he also stood by the fifth synod, which was distinguished by equal and holy ecumenical decrees. He, therefore, as a most upright standard and deviating in nothing, conforming himself to its right dogmas, both utters harmonious voices in other matters, and declared that the most holy and consubstantial Spirit proceeds from the Father, with equal and similar zeal as the Fathers before him and those of his own age, and those who [assert] anything else in the matter of dogma beyond the unanimous and common Catholic...

faith, he subjected them to the same bonds of anathema. ^B

83. You may also see the good and noble Agatho glorying in the same virtuous deeds; for he also, being present—not in body, but in spirit and with full zeal—celebrated and adorned the Sixth Synod (which likewise shines with ecumenical dignity) through his own legates. And for this reason he kept the symbol of our sincere and pure faith unchanged and without innovation, in accordance with the preceding synods, and he rejected those who would be so bold as to remove anything from what were confirmed there—or rather, what were confirmed from the beginning—confirming and sealing it with equal curses.

REFUTATION. XXX. No less, indeed in the very same way, do those who acknowledge that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, and confess that He is from both, behold the light of the Church shining perpetually, just as much as those who say He proceeds from the Father; and it is in vain, therefore, that you rise up against your brothers and belch forth words overflowing with bitterness against them. ^C

TEXT. 84. Moreover, how could I pass over in silence the high priests of Rome, Gregory and Zacharias, men who excelled in virtue and increased their flock with divinely wise teachings, and who indeed shone forth with the gifts of miracles? For although neither of them sat in an ecumenical synod, yet they openly and clearly taught, in imitation of those before them, that the all-holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. Divine Gregory flourished not long after the Sixth Synod, while the inspired Zacharias did so one hundred and sixty-five years later. Both of them, guarding the dogma and proclamation handed down by the Lord and the Fathers in their minds as in a pure and undefiled bridal chamber, connected their flock—one in the Latin tongue, the other in the Greek—to Christ, the true God and Bridegroom of our souls, through pious worship. But, as I said, this wise Zacharias spread abroad to the whole world, through the trumpet of the Greek tongue, both other sacred writings of the holy Gregory and those most useful instructions fashioned in the form of a dialogue. Therefore, these two divine men, near the end of the second of the dialogues, ^D when addressing the archdeacon Peter—for this man was a lover of God—who was in doubt as to why the holy martyrs... display even greater signs... where the whole body does not lie.

^A He responds that divine grace is indeed present in both, but that its operation is shown more clearly in the small fragments of relics. For no one doubts regarding the whole bodies that they belong to the saints to whom they are attributed, or that they can pour forth miracles by the grace of their glorious souls which endured such labors and struggles in those bodies. ^B However, not a few of the weaker sort despise those small particles, doubting lest they might not be those of the saints whose names they bear, and that they might not be endowed with the same grace and virtue. Therefore, where doubt seemed to prevail, there the supersubstantial (personal) and inexhaustible fountain of good things pours forth its miracles more abundantly, beyond all hope, both in quantity and magnitude. This previously mentioned perplexity, then, the one—as I said—solved by the Latin language, the other by Greek interpretation, along with many other explanations which were provided, and shortly thereafter they add these words: *The Paraclete Spirit proceeds from the Father and remains in the Son.*

85. This doctrine the Forerunner first proclaimed in the law of grace, and the multitude of the faithful drew from him, and the Catholic faith perpetually exults in it. For that man, being almost more than human, while baptizing in the waters of the Jordan the very Fountain of life and immortality, the Lord and Creator of the whole world and the Purifier of the world, and seeing the heavens opened—a wonder confirmed by wonders—watched the most holy Spirit descending in the form of a dove; but he uttered a voice—the truly true voice of the Word—while he saw these portents: *I saw the Spirit descending as a dove, and remaining upon him.* ^C The Spirit, therefore, remains descending from the Father upon the Son, or if you prefer, in the Son; for no difference in the cases introduces any variation at this point. And the prophet Isaiah, prophesying from above things similar to these and referring the prophecy to the person of Christ, says: *The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me.* Have you ever heard those renowned men, Gregory or Zacharias (for perhaps these will be more suitable for restoring your impudence to shame), have you heard them, I say, asserting that the Spirit remains in the Son? And how is it that you did not immediately betake yourself from there to the voice of Paul, by which he says, *the Spirit of his Son*? Certainly, instead of inventing a monstrous procession, you could easily have understood that he is deservedly called the Spirit of the Son, since the Spirit remains in the Son. For the indwelling of the Spirit in the Son would not be a cause hidden or too ^D obscure as to why he is called the Spirit of the Son. For what more intimate meaning does that testimony of the Apostle offer than that the Spirit remains in the Son and proceeds from the Son? Indeed, even this very derivation [of the Spirit from the Son] is rejected by no one, but this Gregory says expressly that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, in these very words, and anyone who is able to read the Latin letters will know this.

^A Does the apostolic practice allow one to understand that the Spirit remains in the Son, or that He proceeds from the Son? Rather, this comparison itself is absurd. For the Baptist proclaims that which the Lord of all has taught, and the prophet long ago foretold it, and the Savior Himself, reading the passage, puts His seal upon it; and the Orthodox Church, having received this initiation from thence, sets it before all the faithful as a teacher. But you, having emerged from the dark gates of impiety, instead of glorifying the fact that the Spirit remains in the Son and upon the Son, fight against God by saying that He proceeds from the Son. He remains in the Son; for this reason He is the Spirit of the Son; and because, as I have said before, He is of the same nature, deity, glory, kingdom, and power. And if you wish, also because He anoints Christ: "The Spirit of the Lord," He says, "is upon Me; for which reason He has anointed Me"; and because, through His overshadowing of the Virgin, the conception beyond reason took place, and the ineffable and seedless birth came forth; and also because He sends Him: "For He has sent Me," He says, "to preach the gospel to the poor." How much better and more consistent would it have been for you to think and say that the Spirit is called the Spirit of the Son and the Spirit of Christ for one or more of these reasons, rather than to despise these such strong and consistent arguments, and, using your own fabrications and empty imaginings, to attempt to corrupt the dogmas of the Church!

REFUTATION.

^B 31. The Roman pontiffs Zacharias and Gregory, whom you attest to have been such as they truly were—the one in the Latin tongue, the other through Greek interpretation—asserted that the Spirit Paraclete proceeds from the Father and remains in the Son; and from this it is clearly recognized that the words "to proceed" (progredi) and "to proceed" (procedere) are equivalent. And since our theologians teach that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, who will still be able to charge with impiety those who say that He proceeds from the Father and the Son? Moreover, that voice which the Forerunner uttered at the Savior’s baptism, when he said, "I saw the Spirit descending like a dove and remaining upon Him," contributes much support to the Romans through the great Athanasius. For just as you now take the descent of the Spirit from the Father as an argument that He is from the Father, so too the Romans, if they consult the commentaries of the great Athanasius and find there what is said concerning the Son—"From Him, therefore, He descended into Him, from His divinity into His humanity"—they take this as a proof that He is also from the Son.

TEXT.

86. But again, let the renowned Zacharias and Gregory come forward; they are working with me to refute your opinion; for a refutation that proceeds from one's own side creates shame even in the most shameless. 86. If, therefore, Zacharias and Gregory, separated by so many years, did not have divergent opinions concerning the procession of the most Holy Spirit, certainly...

^A the choir of pontiffs who stood between them,, having succeeded to the sacred institutions of the Roman Church, preached and cherished the same faith without any innovation; for just as the middle is held and anchored by the extremes, so it is also constituted and directed. Although if any one among the earlier or later holy men should be detected to have turned aside to a foreign opinion, he is undoubtedly, in that he has torn himself away from their faith, stripped of the order and throne and pontificate. Thus, therefore, the choir of the aforementioned holy men guarded piety their whole life.

87. But are you ignorant of the ancient things, and do you have an aversion to examining the sentiment of your Fathers, and truly Fathers? Lately, for the second generation has not yet passed, that most celebrated Leo, who even shone with the glory of miracles, cutting off every heretical pretext for all—since the sacred teaching of our Fathers, when enunciated by the Latin race, because of the poverty of that language, which does not spread as widely as Greek, did not fit the words to the sense purely or sincerely or appositely, and provided to many a suspicion of diversity concerning the faith, as that extreme narrowness of terms was not sufficient to explain the sentiment accurately—for that reason that divine and most wise man brought it into his mind (the cause, moreover, why he brought it into his mind, beyond what has already been said, was also that heresy which is now publicly and openly preached, but was then muttered within the teeth in the city of the Romans) to command that the Romans also recite the sacred symbol of the faith in the Greek language; for by this divinely inspired counsel, both the poverty of the language would be supplied and repaired, and the suspicion of diversity in the faith would be removed by the Catholics, and furthermore, the recently sprouting impiety would be cut out by the roots from the Roman state. Wherefore, not only in the city of the Romans itself did he set forth programs and edicts, that among the solemnities of the Holy Masses the sacred symbol of our faith, in the manner in which it had been enunciated by synodical voices and decrees from the beginning, should be recited in the Greek language even among those very people who spoke Latin, but he also commanded all the provinces that revered the Roman pontificate and government to think and do the same, and he secured the firmness of the dogma by both speeches and synodical letters and ties of dire anathemas. ^{B C}

88. And the action was not only carried out by him while he was acting as pontiff; but also that mild and gentle man, renowned for his ascetic struggles, the illustrious Benedict, his successor in the pontifical see, strove not to be second in maintaining and establishing this, even though time assigned him to the second rank. But if anyone after them, with a deceitful tongue and feigning veneration (for he did not dare with an open face to attack the best and most pious constitutions), under a specious title, which in ^D

truth was a mask for his design, he wished to rescind that most pious and most beneficial work of the Churches, and to destroy it—for it is not my place to recount at length his wicked deeds; he himself knows them, or rather, even now he bitterly and miserably knows them, paying the penalty for such deceitful temerity. But let him lie cast into the region of silence (for he is silent himself, though unwillingly). ^A But the divine Leo did not advance this good and divinely inspired care and order only to what we have mentioned; rather, because there were kept in the treasuries of the princes of the apostles, Peter and Paul, from very ancient times, when piety was still flourishing, two shields or tablets in those sacred repositories, which displayed in Greek letters and words the aforementioned holy exposition of our faith, he ordered these to be recited before the Roman people and to be exposed to the view of all; and many of those who then saw and read these things are still living among us.

REFUTATION

XXXII. There is no disagreement of opinion concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit, in that some say the Holy Spirit is from the Father, others from the Father through the Son, and [others] from both. ^B And therefore Zacharias and Gregory are in harmony with each other, saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father—as we also say—denoting the uncaused cause both of the Son and of the Spirit. All those who held the Roman sees in succession between them are also in harmony with them, saying the same thing; ^C nor, indeed, have those who succeeded them, saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, been found to have swerved to a different opinion, by which they show a clearer declaration that the Spirit is not proximately and immediately from the Father as is the Son, but is from the Father through the Son, nor have they separated themselves from the faith of the former. But even that most famous Leo, who also has the glory of miracles in which he may take pride, did not—to cut off a heretical pretext, as you say, now openly and freely proclaimed, but then still muttered between the teeth in the city of the Romans—issue a command ^D that the Romans should also recite the holy symbol of the faith in the Greek tongue, but he performed this arrangement showing that there is no difference in the symbol. This is evident from these facts. For if Pope Leo had judged it a heresy that the Holy Spirit should be said in the Latin tongue to proceed from the Son, and therefore had prescribed the recitation of the symbol in Greek, then it would also have behooved him, for clear instruction in a synodical gathering of the bishops subject to him, to name this a heresy and to destroy it by the pronunciation of anathema, just as those who occupied the same see after him and recited the symbol with the addition—if they believed there was anything contrary [to the truth] in that which is read without the addition—

they would have suppressed this symbol without the addition, and they would not have hesitated to add the *Filioque* to the book of the Gospels as well. ^A Since, however, from Leo onwards the Roman Church considers that there is no difference—sometimes saying the Holy Spirit is from the Father and signifying His principle that is without principle, and sometimes expressing the diversity of the procession from the Father through the Son—it is evident that the Church recites it sometimes understanding the Son together with the Father, though He is not simultaneously enunciated here, and sometimes enunciating the Son together with the Father, insofar as He is also simultaneously understood. For this was clearly what moved Leo and his successor, Benedict, to command that the symbol be recited in Greek by the Romans, and yet not to remove the Latin symbol from the midst. For it is a lie that any other pontiff after these men cut away and destroyed this most religious and useful work of the Churches. For it flourishes even until now, and those tablets, which were placed in the repositories of the holy apostles Peter and Paul, made of bronze, upon which the holy symbol of the faith was inscribed in the Greek language and the Roman, are still there in the places where Pope Leo placed them, and the symbol in both dialects, as those of us who have learned this on the spot have affirmed, is recited everywhere among the Romans. ^B

TEXT

89. And so they shone with these splendors of piety and preached that the Spirit proceeds from the Father. My John (he is mine both for other reasons and because he more ardently than the rest supported my cause)—this John of mine, therefore, manly in mind, manly also in piety, and manly, finally, in attacking and putting to flight every injustice and impiety, and capable of assisting not only by sacred laws but also by civil ones and of restoring order that had been disturbed; this, I say, blessed Pontiff of Rome, through his most religious and illustrious legates Paul, Eugenius, and Peter—bishops and priests of God who came to our synod—as the catholic Church of God and his predecessors, the Roman Pontiffs, receiving the symbol of the faith, subscribed and sealed it in mind, in tongue, and by the sacred hands of the aforementioned most illustrious and admirable men. ^C And indeed, his successor, the holy Adrian, sending us a synodical letter according to the ancient custom, proclaimed the same piety within it and taught that the Spirit proceeds from the Father. Since, therefore, these holy and blessed Roman pontiffs so thought and taught while they lived, and from this fragile life into the immortal one in the same

confession transierint, whom can those suffering from the heretical malady bring forward, from whom they might have imbibed that lethal poison of such impiety, without at once declaring them adversaries to those who have illuminated the western regions with the true faith?

[K] 90. But do you not yet wish to lay aside this error? I, therefore, shall sing to you other incantations from the oracles of the Holy Spirit, even if you prefer, instead of coming to your senses, to imitate the viper that stops its ears to the voices of those who charm it. The all-holy Spirit is called the Spirit of God; for the Saviour says: *If I by the Spirit of God cast out demons.* Furthermore, the Spirit of the Father. *For it is not you who speak,* the same fountain of truth says again, *but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you.* And the Spirit of God; Isaiah cries: *And the Spirit of God will rest upon him,* the Spirit who is from God. But you, says Paul, the great herald of right doctrines, *have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God*; and elsewhere: *If you are led by the Spirit of God, you are not in the flesh.* The Spirit of the Lord; Isaiah cries: *The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me.* Again, he is called the Spirit of the Son, the Spirit of Christ, the Spirit of the one who raised Jesus Christ, as Paul again instructs: *God has sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying: Abba, Father*; and, *The Spirit of the one who raised Jesus Christ dwells in you*; and, *If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not his.* ^B Observe carefully that the Spirit is called the Spirit of God, and of God and the Father, and of the Lord, and of the one who raised Christ from the dead, and the Spirit of the Father. Is it then the case that when it says the Spirit of God or of the Father or of the Lord or of the one who raised Jesus Christ, or the Spirit who is from God, these voices denote the very same thing that is signified by the phrase saying that he proceeds from the Father? Or is there no one so foolish, nor so ignorant of the simple words themselves, as to be unable to see most easily that each of these locutions, even if it is stated concerning the same persons, nevertheless exhibits a different meaning, the voice that says the Spirit proceeds from the Father, and the voice that says the Spirit of God or of the Lord or each of the others mentioned? For the former declares the procession by the word itself, but the others do not; but even if they are said because he proceeds from Him, yet none of the words mentioned interprets the procession by its language. For it is manifestly one thing to say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, and something ^C else is signified by the names that say the Spirit of God and of the Lord and the like.

91. Though if each of these voices signified the procession, since indeed to them, by divine words...

^A declaration was made that it proceeds from the Father, this also would have been in our favor; for since it is understood six hundred times according to that hypostasis that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, how is it that it was not once said that it proceeds from the Son? For there is no room to say that it was said by words which do not at all signify this by their voice, and that neither by divine, nor by human and spirit-bearing words was it ever literally ^B uttered that the Spirit proceeds from the Son. And if the saying "Spirit of God" and the like have as their first and most sovereign cause the procession (for indeed it is consubstantial because it proceeds, not, however, because it is consubstantial is it processional), the saying "Spirit of the Son" or "of Christ" or the like proceeds from a manifold cause (for it is because it is consubstantial, and because he anoints it, and because it remains upon him, and because it is in him). If, therefore, the procession, although it is the most sovereign cause for why the Spirit is said to be of God and of the Lord and the like, does not however grant to these voices that they signify the procession, how, I ask, can it be possible that where more causes are considered, on account of which the Spirit is called of the Son and of Christ, there the procession must necessarily seem to be admitted, which nevertheless is not even numbered among the causes?

92. But you, straining your ears and mind ^C toward impiety, whenever you hear the "Spirit of Christ" or "of the Son," passing by all things from which you could not have strayed from the theology, run headlong toward that which no one has dared to assert. It is said that the Spirit proceeds from the Father; it is said also to be of the Son and of God, and the others, the account of which our discourse has often unfolded; and none of these, except the first voice, signifies the procession. The Spirit is called that of the Son, of Christ, and the like, but nowhere that the Spirit proceeds from the Son. Since, therefore, the procession has by no means been declared, how is it not the height of madness and insanity to reduce voices to that to which they have never in any way been declared? For those who are bold in all things will not dare to say even this, that it is possible to take from the sacred oracles, in their very words, the procession of the Spirit from the Son.

REFUTATION

XXXIII. May the Lord grant understanding ^D to you, whoever you may be, who one day will more accurately examine and weigh these things, so that you may comprehend the force of those things which have been argued here by Photius, that most wise man and most tenacious lover of true piety; and you will indeed have need of no other thing to discern that he vomited forth such blasphemies against the Roman Church not for the sake of truth, but for the sake of revenge and contention. Consider how, in the opinion of Photius, with Pope Nicholas not receiving him, the entire Roman Church was insulting God, and was impious and lawless.

and in the extreme a prevaricator, and how John was confirming his restoration to the patriarchal throne, and all heresy had vanished from the Roman ^B Church (1). Are these things, then, becoming to high priests and imitators of the Prince of Peace and heralds of His doctrine? Yet, as if [(2)] offering an apology for the peace made with Pope John, he says that through his legates he accepted that symbol of his faith, and with mind and tongue and the sacred hands of those most illustrious and admirable men, subscribed to it and sealed it. But for my part, ^C I would never deny that it is possible to call the man graceful, and manly in mind, and manly also in piety, and one who truly hated and trampled upon injustice, having acted manfully against the injustice of the schism. But I do not in any way accept that Photius exchanged his enmity for peace because the pious Pope John’s legates subscribed to and sealed the symbol of the faith, which is read among us, without the addition. For this was a concealment of the true cause on account of which the hostility and enmity against the entire Roman ^D Church had arisen for Photius, which were grounded in Pope Nicholas’s decision and sentence against Photius. But the fact that the Roman Church accepted such a symbol was by no means the cause of peace for Photius, because there was no cause for scandal in it, even if perhaps he had not accepted it earlier, given that even the Pontiffs who adorned the Roman chair before Pope John confessed this same holy symbol and were filled with piety, which also those who succeeded him up to this day both embrace in mind and proclaim with their tongue. And my statement will be proven by the fact that the Gospels remain unchanged, and all the writings of the Fathers, which teach that the Spirit proceeds from the Father without addition, are read and acknowledged by them [(6)]. And it is possible for those who are inquisitive and searching to know that it was not truly on the grounds of ecclesiastical dogmas that Photius took up the fight against the Romans, and [this is clear] from what he adds in the following parts of his present discourse. For after having established Pope John as manly in mind, and manly in piety, and one who hated and trampled upon all iniquity and all impiety (c. 89), as if mindful of those things which he had previously spoken in blasphemy against the Roman Church, he immediately ^A retracts them, and so does Photius. For he perhaps blasphemes the same things even now which the most holy Photius had at that time inserted into his epistle—yet Photius did not receive the Pope as one persisting in these, but as one having confessed through his own ^B legates the holy symbol without variation, and having anathematized anyone who added anything to it. Do not tell me that, because the Church of Rome did not innovate anything other than what the most holy Photius wrote against them—as his encyclical epistle shows—it must be accepted, just as Photius received it. ^C For the same things that Photius then inserted into his epistle he perhaps blasphemes even now. However, Photius did not receive the Pope as persisting in these, but as confessing through his legates the sacred symbol and striking with anathema him who would add anything to it or subtract anything from it.

^A Considering it shameful to pass over all these things as lies on account of the reception of one man, Pope John, he again (c. 90) directs his discourse toward the common body of the Church, and calls the Romans, who are still held in error, those who, like the asp, stop their ears to the voices of the enchanters. He strives to present a manifold difference between the expressions that assert the Holy Spirit to be the Spirit of God, the Spirit of the Father, and Spirit from God, and those that declare Him to proceed from the Father. He reproaches with utter madness those who cannot most easily perceive that, although "Spirit of God" and "from God" are said of the same persons, yet the expression that says the Spirit proceeds from the Father exhibits a different meaning than that which calls Him the Spirit of God or of the Lord. For if the Romans were still misled after Pope John had been installed on the pontifical throne of Rome, and if the Romans had not accepted to recite the symbol without the addition, then what was the root of the impiety and injustice to which Photius bore solemn witness in the case of Pope John? If, however, nothing pertaining to the Church was changed by Pope John, and Photius claims him as his own and extols him with the highest praises, while he places the fullness and universality of the Church into the camp of the enemies, how is it not manifest that he acts and thinks everything just as it pleases himself?

^C Such also are the things he says concerning the differences of the expressions, as well of that which says the Spirit proceeds from the Father, as of that which calls the Holy Spirit the Spirit of God and of the Lord. He asserts that none of the aforementioned expressions indicate the procession by the words themselves, but he establishes, as if it were a law (for to establish as a law is, with great confidence and without any shame, to invent differences which none of the Saints have spoken of), that it is one thing for the Spirit to proceed from the Father, and something else to signify by the very words those expressions which say "Spirit of God" and "of the Lord" and others of this kind. So much for Photius. But the great Basil, in one chapter of the books which he wrote against Eunomius, speaks thus clearly: "For we shall not have any less [understanding] in knowing that the Spirit exists from God, when we hear Him being the Spirit of His mouth, but this name shall be sufficient to indicate the existence of the Spirit from God." Since, therefore, the great Father Basil clearly asserts that the very existence of the Spirit from God is indicated by the expression that calls the Holy Spirit the "Spirit of God," how is Photius not evidently contradicting the Spirit of God Himself, who speaks through the great Basil, in these already mentioned differences? "Hearing 'Spirit of God,'" says the great Basil, "we know that the Spirit exists from God"; and Photius says, "The expression presents a different meaning... ^D

^A namely that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, and another thing when it calls it the Spirit of God or of the Lord. And again: "None of the aforementioned words interprets the procession in its literal phrasing; for it is clearly one thing for the Spirit to proceed from the Father, and those words which speak of the Spirit of God or of the Lord, and the like, signify something else." Where, O most wise man, have you encountered these differences in the Scriptures? Whence has it come to you to establish such laws? For if he who says "Spirit of God" signifies the existence of the Spirit from God—according to an interpretation ^B much more worthy of faith than yours, namely that of the great Basil—what place do the differences spoken of by you have? "The Spirit proceeds from the Father": the expression denotes entirely that the Spirit exists from the Father. "Spirit of God" is the Spirit; the expression denotes entirely the existence of the Spirit from God, unless you wish to place the great Basil behind your interpretations; and where then is the difference between the expressions? The existence of the Spirit, insofar as it is the existence of the Spirit, carries within the very term "Spirit" the notion of procession understood together with it, and it is impossible to say "Spirit" and not conceive of it as proceeding. For whether one says that the Holy Spirit ^C is welling up from the Father, or springing forth, or using any other of the words which declare His existence from the Father, he signifies nothing else than he who says it proceeds from the Father. For even if all the other expressions simply denote the being of the Spirit, while "procession" denotes the mode of His being peculiarly; yet since the very naming of the Spirit manifests the difference from the Son, even without being called "proceeding," this very existence by way of procession—inasmuch as it is the existence of the Spirit—is declared by the words "welling up," "springing forth," and "pouring forth." And for this reason, O most wise man, you have not rightly legislated ^D as much as you have legislated concerning difference, saying that the expression "the Spirit proceeds from the Father" presents one meaning, and that which calls it "Spirit of God or of the Lord" presents another. But you have not even used well the subsequent passages concerning the consubstantial, and the phrases that declare "Spirit of the Son" and "Spirit of Christ," concerning which, having spoken often, we pass over in silence for the present.

TEXT

93. You, on your part, consider it from here also. The Spirit is called Christ's, and in what way it is so called, it is not difficult to learn from Isaiah, or rather from the very reading and voice of the Lord: "For the Spirit," He says, "is upon me, on account of which He has anointed me." So that the Spirit is called the Lord's in one way, and the Son's in another: the former as consubstantial; the latter, although it is consubstantial, is yet called Spirit of Christ on account of the anointing;

^A for the Truth herself says, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me." The Spirit anoints Christ. O man, how do you understand this? In what respect did he partake of flesh and blood and become man, or in what respect did he exist as God from eternity? But the latter, I suspect, even if you were most bold, you would not dare to affirm. For the Son is not anointed insofar as He is God; far be it. Therefore, Christ is anointed by the Spirit insofar as He is man; and insofar as the Spirit anoints Christ, He is called the Spirit of Christ. But you say: "Since He is called the Spirit of Christ, He must also proceed from Him." Therefore, the Spirit of Christ will not proceed from Him insofar as He is God, but insofar as He is man, and He did not possess substance from the beginning and before the ages and together with the Father, but only then, when the Son assumed the human lump.

§ 94. Fix your mind and recover from your error, ^B O man, and do not show your own wound and injury to be of such a nature as to reject every cure. The Spirit is called the Spirit of Christ because He anoints Him; but your pernicious law commands one to say that He proceeds from Him; and He proceeds from Christ, as the argument following your opinion shows, not insofar as Christ is God, but insofar as He assumed our flesh. If, therefore, insofar as Christ partook of our flesh, the Spirit proceeds from Christ according to this, and yet proceeds from the Son insofar as He is God (for these are the commands of your law-making), then it will necessarily be concluded that human nature is consubstantial with the Deity, if indeed you hold the Spirit to be consubstantial with the Son and again with Christ; for you make Him proceed both before the incarnation and after ^C the incarnation, yet you have not removed the consubstantiality. If, therefore, the Spirit is consubstantial with the Son, and is also consubstantial with the assumed nature (for you command Him to proceed from it), it would be proved by the unanswerable logic of demonstrations that the Deity in Christ is consubstantial with the humanity in Him. But I do not wish at present to show that by the same force of argument it follows from your dogma that the flesh of Christ would be consubstantial even with the Father Himself; and what could be more detestable than this impiety, or more calamitous than this error?

§ 95. But you still do not wish to perceive into what precipices and abysses of spiritual corruption this wicked will of yours casts and buries you, since you refuse to obey Christ and His disciples, or to follow the ecumenical synods, or to apply your mind to the arguments and ^D reasoning deduced from the holy Scriptures, but instead you accuse the common Lord, you falsely claim things against the eminent Paul, you rise up against the ecumenical and holy synods, you slander the Fathers and your own Pontiffs, and by banishing the Fathers from the true sense of the Fathers, you send them off to the bad cross, and you turn a deaf ear to the arguments of reason; and you have already swallowed all the remedies which

could cure the disease of fallacious preoccupation. But in our stead, David, the psalmist and forefather of God, will cry out to you: ^A *Understand, you who are foolish among the people, and you who are stupid, show some wisdom at last*, lest the common enemy of the human race, setting so many snares for you, snatch your souls like a wild and roaring lion, and there be no one to rescue.

16. These outlines, then, you possess, as you requested, most venerable and most studious of men. But if ever the Lord restores to us the books and our scribes that were taken away, you shall perhaps have—with the most holy Spirit breathing upon and favoring us—the very arguments which these new enemies of the Spirit, or rather these furious enemies of the entire supremely good and triune Godhead, put forward (for they have left nothing within It that they do not rend with their own madness); and you will also have the refutation of them, drawn from the very testimonies they produce, as well as their tricks and frauds in these matters, and likewise the most constant and irrefragable testimonies of our blessed and most wise Fathers, by which the ^B mind of this apostasy is confounded and driven out of all true religion.

REFUTATION

34. Since you know how to explain well the anointing which Christ receives from the Spirit (for you say that Christ is anointed not as He existed from eternity as God, but as He participated in flesh and blood and was made man), why do you perversely interpret with sophistical and contorted reasoning the expression which calls the Spirit the "Spirit of Christ," by saying: "If the Spirit proceeds from Christ because It is called the 'Spirit of Christ,' then the Spirit will proceed from Christ not as He is God, but as He is man; and It did not derive subsistence from the beginning and before the ages and together with the Father, but only then, when the Son assumed human nature"? ^C See lest, by saying such things, you be carried away into a great absurdity. For if you determine that the Spirit is not from Christ as the Eternal from the Eternal, but you accuse him who affirms that the Spirit is from Christ as holding a false opinion—as if he were deeming the procession to be temporal—then you will neither call the passion of Christ the passion of God, nor will you call his blood the blood of God. But indeed both blood and passion of God are called the passion and blood of Christ; and the reason for this is the mode of the reciprocity and the mutual ^D communication of the natures. And there is no one imbued with the accurate doctrine of religion who, reflecting on the passion of God—which possesses both a divine and a human nature, in that He is the Son of God and the Son of Man, yet one and the same—would not recognize how both divine and human things are predicated of Christ, concerning the same Person, though not according to the same nature. He who separates Christ, as if He were the Son of man distinct from the Son of God, must needs fall into Nestorianism. Christ is the Word made flesh, He is the very Son of God; consequently, the Spirit of Christ is also the Spirit of the Word, the Spirit of the Son, although the Spirit relates differently to the humanity of Christ than to His divinity, when these are considered in themselves.

audience, does not know in what God suffers, nor does he know that He suffered in the flesh and in the assumed nature. And there is no one who, hearing that Christ is a child before the ages, does not know in what sense the child is before the ages, namely, in the sempiterntiy of the Divinity. If, therefore, true Catholics must fittingly refer whatever is said about Christ to each of His two natures, it makes no difference at all whether we say the Spirit of the Son or the Spirit of Christ. You conclude in vain and falsely that the Spirit proceeds from Christ in that He became a participant of our flesh, and you reason to the eternal damnation of your own soul that the human nature is consubstantial with the Divinity. For neither by any inescapable force and weight of arguments will the Divinity that is in Christ be consubstantial to the humanity that is in Him, nor will the consubstantiality with the flesh fall onto the Father ^B by force of logic, according to the excess of impiety; but the Divinity that is in Christ will be consubstantial with the Father and the Spirit, as the Divinity of the eternal Word is eternal, and the humanity in Him will be consubstantial with the Mother, as her true seedless offspring and the immaculate gestation of her substance. But you, having greatly troubled the Church of Christ and having stirred up long-standing hatred between two great peoples, both of whom are devoted to piety, I do not know what pardon you will obtain at that tremendous and never-erring judgment. For we shall not harshly condemn you, not even as you yourself, with great arrogance, have condemned the Romans, handing them over as prey to the common enemy of the race, like a wild and roaring lion. ^A Well-trained is the one who hears of the passion of God and does not know ^B

BY THE SAME: ON THE TOME OF THE CYPRIAN, COMPOSED AGAINST HIS NEWLY-FLOURISHED HERESIES

BY THE SAME: ON THE TOME OF THE CYPRIAN, AND HIS NEW HERESIES, COMPOSED IMPROMPTU

ORATION I

1. It was destined, therefore, that at various times, the disturbances between the Churches of Old and New Rome—

^A had stirred up the enemy of our salvation, bringing his own zeal now to the ultimate point of all evils. For even if a space of three whole centuries has elapsed since the schism of these Churches began to gain strength, nevertheless, up to this time, the foundation of the Church's correct dogmas had not been shaken, but a pure schism intervened between the two sides, and arguments on both sides, entangled by dialectical methods, disturbed the purity of meaning with certain misinterpretations of the Scriptures. But now, alas, the wicked one insolently vomits forth open heresy, and, having now openly introduced the rejection of the patristic dogmas, he is unashamed to infect the whole Church of God with the resulting heretical wickedness. But how, and by what means, and using what instruments the leader of such things achieves this against the Church of God, is not for the present moment to state. ^B For it would be a matter for another treatise to recount how he is not one of her legitimate children, but a bastard and a foreign growth of her birth-pangs—the leader of that new heresy; and further, how, by inscrutable judgments of God, he mounted the throne of Constantinople, exercising tyranny under the guise of piety, and ruined all canons and all ecclesiastical laws. But having said this much in few words, let us identify the man: this fine creature came to us from across the sea, a beast directly from the sea, a wild whale cast out from Cyprus, and dwelling among us—not so that he might receive a fugitive prophet and save him for the ministry of God, ^C but—to swallow the whole Church and render it non-existent—we shall devote the rest of our speech to setting this forth clearly and precisely, to show into what a chasm of heresies he himself has been precipitated, and how he miserably draws those who obey him down with him, alas!

2. The schism of the Churches was, as I have said, of long standing and not brief, and having broken forth in the first birth-pangs of the times of Photius, it stretched until that time; and there were, as I have also said before, arguments on both sides entangled by dialectical methods, and by certain misinterpretations of the Scriptures they troubled the purity of the meaning. ^D But those who conversed with the Italians, while for the most part refuting them with sophisms and syllogistic deceits, never so shamelessly rejected the dogmas of our Fathers, which the Italians used for their own corroboration, as the tongue and mind of the Cyprian do now. For who, from that time down to the present, is found to have rejected the procession of the Holy Spirit "from the Father through the Son"? Let it be sought, and no one will be found. Who among all has declared that "that which is through that which is contiguous does not differ from the contiguous itself"? Neither will this man be found, even if he be anxiously searched for. But the Cyprian—O wicked mind and soul that deems nothing terrible!—if all are heretical...

^A in the custom of speaking, for having pronounced everything, if he had only exercised his own wickedness against us, in both these dogmas he has vomited forth huge blasphemies, as we shall see as our discourse proceeds; and concerning other patristic dogmas, he has not a little injured the truth. And in order that the discourse refuting these things may proceed for us in order, the codex must be taken into our hands—which he, in his savage madness, composed rashly against us yesterday and the day before, partly to vent his wickedness upon us, and partly to deceive the souls of the simpler-minded, by cutting us off from the common integrity of the church as if we were introducers of some novel and alien dogmas—a man worthy of suffering the things which he impudently dares to inflict upon others, not shrinking back from doing these things to others, and in this again imitating the first author of pride, whom, from childhood even to this present time and age, as those who know his affairs well are perfectly aware, he holds within himself as a companion and a bedfellow. Having taken such a codex into our hands, we must select from it all the things by which he himself, truly holding and thinking heretical views, accuses us as if we felt and held those very things.

3. Since, however, he reproaches and attacks in an astonishing manner the ^B economy and peace that have heretofore taken place, even though he himself, before and above others, had zealously approved and promoted it, before we embark on a disputation concerning dogma, we shall divulge his huge insanity in this regard. We shall divulge it, if in this, too, we demonstrate that he openly opposes the Fathers, just as we shall prove him to be with regard to the dogmas. For if the matter and even the name of this economy was so known to our Fathers, that they even left behind for us, their descendants, written admonitions urging us to follow the same zeal and emulation as those who, according to God, brought about the union of the Churches—how could we not be judged as truly disciples of the Fathers, ^C having pursued that economy, which is being dragged through the mire by this man both above and below, with godly zeal, while he, on the contrary, by slandering it, is truly an enemy and adversary of them? And the one great in divine things, Athanasius, shall establish my discourse for me, who in the Tome to the Antiochians clearly advises: “That it is best and very godly to overlook differences in words, when brothers are in agreement according to the meaning.” And what is more worthy of admiration is that he is speaking not of others, but of these very nations and churches ^D of which our discourse is concerned at present. Basil, the incomparable in wisdom and holiness, will confirm my discourse, who deferred the word “God” concerning the life-giving Spirit for a little while, so that he might unite the brethren and better order things. The one who, because of his excellence in theological matters, claimed the name Theologian for himself, will confirm my discourse, while pursuing the way of a not dissimilar dispensation, when he did not reject the nation of the Jews, but rather gladly embraced them, if they, seeking for a little while the word of the Anointed instead of that of Christ, would deign to be ranked with us...

^A The truly great Maximus will also support my argument; he constantly protests that he is distorting the words of the divinely inspired Fathers, but by no means their thoughts, because the mystery of our salvation consists not in syllables, but in thoughts and realities. Dionysius the hieromartyr will also support my argument, calling it irrational and perverse ^B not to attend to the power of the word, but to the expressions, and asserting that this is not characteristic of those who wish to understand divine things, but of those who catch mere sounds with their ears; just as if it were not permitted to signify the number four by means of "twice two," or straight lines by means of "linear lines," or "mother" by "parent," or any other thing that signifies the same thing in the majority of parts of speech. These all are the Fathers, the saviors, the accurate guardians of the faith, who will support my argument, in accordance with which I affirm that the accusation against the economy and peace initiated from the beginning, as if it were the act of a foe of the Fathers, is an accusation against Cyprius. For if, as the rule and canon of theology plainly declares, not even the least actions happened to be neglected by those who recorded them, and their memory was preserved down to the present time, in order that we might have commentaries and instructions for when circumstances should arise for similar deeds to be performed, like rules and forms following the examples that preceded us, what new thing, or thing alien from the truth, have we committed, when, in theological matters, finding the powers of the prepositions "from" (ἐκ) and "through" (διά) to be equal without any hesitation, along with those who assert that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, we have secured peace, as we both embrace and profess the procession from the Father through the Son? Are these the "maleficent" acts in dogma? Are these the "spurious and foreign" dogmas which the enemy of the truth, Cyprius, has impudently and thoughtlessly blurted out against us ^C as though we had dared to initiate them, to the great turmoil and immense inciting of ecclesiastical war? But you, who boastfully blather similar things against us, you will assume the preposition "through" in regard to the Son, if all things are naturally from the Father through the Son, and whatever things are asserted "through the Son"; for you would never dare to assert a servile understanding of this preposition, unless you are completely and openly deranged: what reason, therefore, will not persuade you that the powers of these prepositions are equal?

4. But it is already time ^D to collect the pericopes from the book of blasphemies, to arrange those which are full of our truth in writing, and to apply the refutation most aptly to each one of them. "Does anyone among us," he says, "dare to say that the Spirit proceeds from the Son, just as, indeed, from the Father? That the Only-Begotten is also His cause, in the same way as the Father who begot the Only-Begotten?" O man, what a snare you are sewing! What curiosity your words contain! We, through all our writings, while embracing and not denying that we profess the procession from the Father *through* the Son, in order to seek peace with those who say there is a procession from both, as followers and imitators

of our Fathers, who ^A in their condescension and economy performed such things in a manner pleasing to God. But as you, in insisting that we say the Spirit proceeds from the Son just as He does from the Father Himself, why did you not also say that we describe the Son as the primary and originating cause of the Spirit, or even as the producer of the Spirit just like the Father—and perhaps even the begetter of another Son, as one who has appropriated all things that are the Father’s? For if the Only-Begotten is asserted by us to be the cause of the Spirit according to you, just as the Father who begot the Only-Begotten is, he would then also be asserted as the primary cause according to the Father; and he would be Father instead of Son, and many such absurdities would follow, the blasphemy of which should fall upon your own head.

5. “We reject,” he says, as he hints therein ^B at the dangerous statements uttered regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit. For having learned from the same God and Word that the most Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, we confess that He has His existence from the Father, and we acknowledge the Father essentially as the cause of His being, just as the Son does. We know and believe the Son to be from the Father, and to be enriched with the Father as His cause and natural principle, while having as consubstantial and connatural to Himself the Spirit who is from the Father; it is not the case, however, that the existence of the most Holy Spirit is through the Son or from the Son. Here is the very pinnacle ^C of blasphemies. Here is the most open triumph of the newly arisen heresy. With these words and sentiments, the new heresiarch paraded his heresy: “There is not,” he says, “for the most Holy Spirit an existence through the Son or from the Son.” And consider how admirable his proof of this is: “For even if it is stated by some of the saints that the Holy Spirit proceeds ‘through the Son,’ the expression here signifies an eternal manifestation, and not purely a progress into being.” And first of all, I am unable to understand by what rationale this admirable and subtle theologian distinguishes the eternal manifestation ^D of the Spirit from a pure progress into being. For if, as the most excellent Gregory hands down in theological matters, “The difference of manifestation or of the mutual relationship between them constitutes the difference in the naming of the Persons,” and our Father of Nyssa, interpreting and openly declaring this difference of manifestation or of mutual relationship, leads us without any hesitation to the difference of the causality of the two Persons—judging that they are distinguished from one another in this alone, and determining that this is nothing other than “the one being immediately from the First, and the other being from the First through that which is immediate”—then I do not understand what else the eternal manifestation of the Spirit through the Son could be, if not the progress of His very own hypostasis from the Father through the Son.

6. Furthermore, if it should be granted that these things differ from one another, in what secret and hitherto unknown theological decrees has this inquisitive theologian found...

that it is one thing to say "from the Father," when the Son is not added, and another thing to walk forth "from the Father through the Son"? "We have learned from God the Word," he says, "that the all-holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and we confess that he has his principle from the Father." This confession is true. Proceeding further in his discourse, he says: "But if it is also said by some of the saints that the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son, the expression here signifies an eternal shining forth, not a departure simply to existence." The summary of those who speak in this way is not true in this instance. For the truth requires that the term should signify one meaning and the same concerning both persons. But if we should again concede this fabricated distinction, a refutation of this new heresiarch will arise according to another line of reasoning. Let there be granted to you, O Cypriot, that the procession from the Father through the Son ^B is a shining forth of the Spirit from the Father through the Son. Let this shining forth be accepted, just as it pleases you. What then will you assert concerning the "through"? Will you call the Only-Begotten the minister of this shining forth of the Spirit—which you have devised—from the Father through him? Or, avoiding the blasphemy that arises from this, will you acknowledge this natural mediation of the Only-Begotten in this shining forth? But if he shines forth naturally through the Son, it is the same thing to say—as you yourself judge—that he proceeds through the Son. And will you strive further, and withdraw yourself from the union of those who prove that the Spirit proceeds from both? For the preposition "through," which you have naturally assumed, does not destroy the equal power it has with the preposition "from." Either you will now concede that to proceed from the Father through the Son is the same as to proceed from both, ^C or you will deny that which you have just now stated. But if this is the case, it was not appropriate for you to belch forth those blasphemies against us so savagely, and to call us instruments of the evil one, and shameful offspring of the Church of God, and her spurious and limping children, and a crooked and perverse generation, and the other things which your poisonous glibness audaciously and shamelessly babbles against our piety. For if there is some procession through the Son that in no way differs from that which is from the Son, we have not fallen into as many evils, as you wish, to the offense of God and the Church. And if there is but one procession, which is clearly supported by the truth and is naturally assumed in the "through" itself, no one can, without diabolical obstinacy, deny that the same ^D and similar power belongs to the preposition "from." We are so far from having fallen into the offense of God when we procured the union of the Churches, that we have walked in the path of our Fathers in performing it quite piously.

7. "The saying of the divine Damascene," he says, "does not set forth the Father as the cause of the Spirit through the Son, or that the Father is the producer of the revealing Spirit through the Son. It does not at all carry this meaning, but wishes clearly to set forth the manifestation of the Spirit from the Father through the Son." And who, hearing someone decree such things in theological matters, will not think that he is openly suffering from black bile?

^A And will he not condemn him as having fallen into a reprobate mind, and will he not judge that a whole legion of spirits has truly taken possession of and filled the entire region of his soul? Such are the youthful follies of our opponent in his breaking of our words. For if I, finding the Father in the Scriptures as the producer of the Spirit through the manifestative Word, and concluding that this in no way differs from affirming that the Father is the cause of the Spirit through the Son, am, as he himself says, wickedly and improperly unraveling the Scriptures and babbling, and from thence practicing sacrilege, and misinterpreting the mind of both the Scripture and those who hear me superficially—who would not judge that he himself is guilty of this impropriety, and how would he not be judged to be a perverter of the mind of the Scriptures and of his hearers, he who is unable to produce any Scripture to confirm his own absurd interpretations? ^B "The Father is the producer of the Spirit through the manifestative Word; the phrase 'through the Son' from the Father," he says, "establishes the manifestation of the Spirit." O foolish and senseless enemy of the truth! If one does not accept the term "producer" to designate the cause and the existence of the Spirit from the Father, what other word could convey such things? "But," he says, "Damascenus taught that the producer is not the cause of the Spirit, (namely) the Father." Bah! What a smoke of wickedness is this, and what a mist he spreads over the intellect of those who have once surrendered their minds to him! This divine Father Damascenus, not in other places, but in the same chapter in which he determines these things, says, "The Father is the fountain and cause of the Son and of the Spirit"; and immediately he adds: "But the Father is the Father of the Son only, and the producer of the Spirit." If the divine Damascenus, distinguishing the cause of the Son and of the Spirit from the fountain without beginning, asserts this fountain to be the cause of the Son, because the Father is his Father, and of the Spirit, because the Father is his producer: by what reason will the producer not most clearly be the cause? And how will that expression—"The Father is the producer of the manifestative Spirit through the Son"—import any other manifestation than that which is the existence of the Spirit? ^C 8. But if the same Damascenus, in this same chapter, called only the Father the cause, let this subtle theologian know that he errs in this matter, being blinded by the word "only," which is introduced by the phrase "through the Son," because he plainly does not know that, on account of the primary and principal authority of the Father, the word "only" is attributed to him in many writings handed down by the authorities. For in the epistle concerning the Synod of Ariminum written to the Africans, the great Athanasius most clearly calls the Father the "only fountain of living water," plainly understanding this living water to be the Holy Spirit. ^D But the same man does not hesitate to call the Son also the "fountain of living water" in many other places of his commentaries. And we also, asserting in ecclesiastical songs that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the only God, both hold and proclaim with our mouths that the same is the Spirit of the Son. And the great one in divine speculations

^A Basil, saying: "Let no one think that I am speaking of three primary hypostases; for there is one principle of all things, operating through the Son and perfecting in the Spirit." And again in other places: "For we know of one unbegotten, and one principle of existing things, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ," insofar as the thought, according to the superficial view, seems somewhat to divide the other two hypostases from the Father in the principle of existing things. But the accurate meaning of theology desires that these recorded expressions be spoken of the Father because He is the principle of all. And the Cypriot would have found it much more beneficial if he, in his investigation of the scope of the Scriptures in all things, had diligently scrutinized such matters, rather than writing sacrilege and casting impious, empty chatter against those who study such things with zeal, while he himself, without any investigation, and with very great freedom and audacity, hands down those things as if they were declared theological truths—things which neither the teachers of the Church have handed down, nor have we received from them, and he either completely deletes some things of the Fathers as spurious, or admits them while corrupting them, and in their place insinuates terms completely unknown to absolutely everyone, and which until this very time have never even reached the ears of those being nurtured by the Church.

^B 9. "For the writing of some Fathers," he says, "which declares that the Spirit exists through the Son, and from the Son, indicates His effulgence and manifestation from Him; for through the Son, by common consent, He is eternally effulgent, and the Paraclete is shown forth, just as light from the sun through a ray. But it also indicates the bestowal, and the giving, and the mission towards us; not, however, that He subsists through the Son, and from the Son, and receives His essence through Him and from Him." Who, O gathering of all men devoted to theological speculations, has ever heard from any of those who preceded us that the Holy Spirit is accepted in such a thought as existing through the Son and from the Son? He confesses that the Spirit exists through the Son, and does not deny that it is handed down in writing that the Spirit exists from the Son, and recognizing the true meaning of these statements, ^C he thinks it contributes greatly to confirming the peace of the Churches—for the sake of which he has taken up an irreconcilable war against us—so that he cannot live if he does not pervert the meaning of these things toward an unholy end.

For, in the first place, regarding what he said concerning the eternal manifestation through the Son, I am unable to discern if there is anything else that is the eternal effulgence of the Spirit through the Son besides the eternal existence through the Son. And then, even if I were to concede a difference between the expressions, I do not think that even in this way does he speak appropriately for his own intention. For since what he proposes above all others—that the Spirit's existence from the Father is immediate—if the effulgence through the Son is something different from ^D the existence through the Son, just as perhaps the bestowal, giving, and sending towards us through the Son [is different], how could the Holy Spirit, eternally effulgent through the Son, be understood not to have His existence through the Son? For if it were granted by one who theologians these things that He is given as if by liturgical instruments,

we shall be silent. But if it is granted by that very one who decides this that the Holy Spirit exists ^A through the Son naturally in this effulgence from the Father, or manifestation, or suppeditation, or giving, or mission, then this natural mediation through the Son establishes His existence from the Father before all other things. And he who denies the existence through the Son, both because of the innovation regarding the order and because of the setting aside of the existence itself, commits a denial of the whole faith, to speak with the great and divine Basil. For because these things—I mean the suppeditation, the giving, the mission, the manifestation, the effulgence, and whatever else one might wish to call such—are necessarily provided through the Son in the manner of servants and ministers, as we have already posited, he who claims otherwise manifestly separates the Son from the Father according to essence and nature. Finally, what absurdity is not surpassed by the rashness of confessing that the Spirit exists through the Son and from the Son—to which is now added the phrase "to exist naturally and essentially"—and yet denying that existence of the Spirit which is through the Son and from the Son?

10. "But through the Son," he says, "and from the Son to exist naturally, but not to have existence through the Son and from the Son, is what the Fathers who stated this have confessed." ^B O the shrewd mental acuity of those who assert such things! How admirable is your wisdom, my Cyprian; how sublime and ethereal your thoughts! But I, who am not so curious, but rather crude and dull, take the phrase "the Spirit naturally exists from the Son" as equivalent to "existence from the Son"; and by taking the preposition "from"—instead of "through"—about the Son, as the tradition according to the Scriptures always dictates, I proclaim with great confidence arising from theology that there are not two causes of the Spirit, but the Father is the cause through the Son. And I interpret the procession of light from the sun through the ray as the existence through the ray, so that, with much latitude, I might say that the light is from both—that is, from the sun and the ray—and that I might be able to call the ray a fountain of light. But that which you negate—that the Spirit has existence through the Son and from the Son—I confess to kiss and embrace, discerning the saying of the great Basil that the Spirit is from the Son, and enumerating it among his theological decrees, just as also that of our blessed Father of Nyssa, which declares Him to be from the Son. ^C

11. "Not the common," he says, "essence and nature is the cause of an hypostasis, nor is it ever generative, nor is this common essence naturally productive of individuals; but it is the essence with properties, which clearly according to the great Maximus denotes the hypostasis itself. Nay, even according to the great Basil himself, for he too defines the hypostasis as that which represents and circumscribes in a particular thing that which is common and uncircumscribed by means of the apparent properties." Well done for this confession of yours, O man, even if you uttered these things looking toward something other than the truth! You confess that it is not the common essence and nature, but the essence with properties which clearly denotes the hypostasis itself, that is the cause of hypostasis, and to generate and to produce simi- ^D

similarly—you do not delay in speaking of such an essence. And to this ^A we not only object nothing, but we also agree and consent. But we wish to learn this from you: do you assign the essence with properties to the Father alone, and not also to the remaining persons, for the indication of a hypostasis? For if, in the case of the Father alone, the essence with properties clearly denotes the hypostasis to you, many of the Patristic writings will convict you of falsehood, since they similarly speak of this essence with properties in the case of the Son and of the Spirit, just as in the case of the Father—unless one reads that passage of the Damascene cursorily: “For when I conceive of one of the hypostases, I recognize Him as perfect God, a perfect essence.” And also that of the great Basil: ^B “Until they are silent, let it not escape your notice that they create a second essence of the Only-Begotten after the ages.” And again, that of the great Gregory: “You fear generation, lest God, who does not suffer, should suffer something. But I fear the creature, lest I destroy God through insult and unjust division, either by cutting the Son from the Father, or by cutting the essence of the Spirit from the Son.” But if, on the one hand, you yourself also accept that the hypostasis of the Father is to be understood when this whole [expression], with the qualification, is called the essence of the Son, and [that] the hypostasis of the Spirit is to be understood ^C when this whole [expression], with the qualification, is called the essence of the Spirit, yet you assign the generative and productive [power] to the essence of the Father alone—at this point you will be required to produce some Scriptural testimony for the definition of such properties. For the generative [power] is confessedly defined as belonging to the hypostasis of the Father alone, and every writing concerning the hypostatic properties inherent in the Father establishes this. But you will not be able to show any writing that assigns the productive [power] to the Father alone, if indeed everything said to be from the Father through the Son implies union, not division, between the Father and the Son. Moreover, the Father has been proclaimed by the theologians as the Producer ^D of the Holy Spirit through the Son; you have absolutely no way, even if you labor a myriad of times in investigating every divinely inspired Scripture, to find the productive [power] defined as belonging to the property of the paternal hypostasis. For if this were the case, the Spirit, who is said to be from the essence of the Father, would not be said to be from the essence of the Son. And do not again bring up for me those subtle notions, granting that the Holy Spirit is endowed with hypostasis when He is said to be from the essence of the Father, but insisting that He is said to be from the essence of the Son on account of the unity of the essence, as if the essence of the Son were thought of as separate from His hypostasis. For since you have once confessed with your own lips that the essence with properties is clearly indicative of a hypostasis, you cannot deny that the Son Himself is understood as a whole—that is, as an essence with hypostasis—when someone says that the Holy Spirit is from the essence of the Son. But if this is so, another absurdity will again arise, if, because the essence of the Son and Father is one, it is said to be from the essence of both...

and not only from the Spirit, but also from its own essence.

12. "To argue," says the enemy of truth, "that the Father is the cause of the Spirit not by the principle of ^B hypostasis, but by the principle of nature, and that from this it must be concluded that the Son is also necessarily revealed as the cause of the Spirit, since he possesses the same principle of nature as the Father. Furthermore, that it follows from this that the Spirit himself is also a cause of something, since he receives the same principle of nature as the Father; and so to extend the causes into a multitude, in how those who share the nature participate in the cause, and how the common essence and nature is the cause of the hypostasis." By attributing these absurdities to us—absurdities foreign to the truth—he who is truly an alien to the truth does not recognize how much he himself by these words of his worse mangles and wounds the truth of the dogma. We, in many of our writings, have reprehended the one who says truly that the Father is the cause of those things that are from him by the principle of hypostasis and not by the principle of nature, and we consider him to be reprehensible, as he transgresses the tradition of the Fathers who theologized such things. ^C But that we have in any of our writings stated that the Father is not the cause of the Spirit by the principle of hypostasis, we do not know. For it is not that we blame the one who attributes the cause to the Father not by the principle of nature. But this Cyprius himself is the one who refutes him who attributes this cause to him by the principle of hypostasis, while no distinction is recognized by us if the Father is the cause of those things of which he is the cause in both respects, as we who truly know our theologian Fathers do not ignore—who at one time define those things which are caused by him as coming from the hypostasis, and at another time from the essence of the Father. But he, granting only one thing—for he determines that what is from the essence does not denote cause, but simply consubstantiality—thus openly opposes our Fathers, of whom one indeed ^D asserts "the generation of the Son from the paternal essence": and again, he terms the Son "the peculiar offspring of the paternal essence": and likewise, another defines "the paternal essence to be the principle, and root, and fountain of the Son": and again, another writes in a published document, "For the essence of the Son is not discovered from outside, nor introduced from things that are not, but has sprung from the essence of the Father, as the splendor of light, and the vapor of water": and also, "The nature of God is the cause of both the Son and the Holy Spirit." All these things clearly demonstrate that the Son is caused from the essence of the Father. But this man, resisting the Fathers who define these things—as if he were better than them, and, out of innate boasting and pride, imagining that he theologizes much more divinely and sublimely—fails to see that in the division he has invented between essence and hypostasis, he falls into it himself, and

^A just as though he were ashamed to be refuted by another and not by himself, and deems it an out-and-out disgrace if he should demonstrate himself alone sufficient to contradict himself—now he forbids, and zealously casts away as something abominable, the notion that the essence of the Father is the cause of those things which are from Him; ^B yet now he accepts that the essence with its properties clearly denotes the hypostasis, and declares it to be generative and productive. Thus he has trained himself in the lofty things of theology, yielding in his foolish and arrogant self-estimation to not even Satan himself. But even if he, in those places where he separates the essence of the paternal hypostasis in the things that are from Him—assigning the consubstantial to the one, and the cause to the hypostasis—were to do so, we, however, as disciples and servants following in the footsteps of our lords and teachers the Fathers, and never daring to introduce anything of our own into theological matters, having already demonstrated previously how being "from the essence of the Father" demonstrably signifies what is caused by It, we have now demonstrated accordingly from the same Scriptures, how that which is "from the hypostasis of the Father" is taken as indicative of consubstantiality. For the great Basil among the divine, "We do not call," he says, "the Father and the Son brothers, but we confess Father and Son, and the identity of essence, since the Son is from the Father." And the holy Cyril: "For being born," he says, "from the Father will force us, even against our will, to attribute the same nature to Him." What are you saying here, O new theologian, and one truly sublime in insane estimation? If "Father" doubtlessly signifies the hypostasis, and the Fathers conclude from the fact that the Son is from it that He has the same nature with the Father, how is it that you now prattle emptily in your writings and commit to paper that he who asserts the Son to be from the essence of the Father shows a double sense to arise in the similar phrasing—denoting both the same essence from the "from the essence" and the caused state of the Son from the "from the Father"? Do you see how the beam of such wickedness has blinded the eyes of your intellect, so that you do not perceive that you undergo in truth the very things which you falsely cast upon us? And that you are clearly suffering from black bile, and have so completely lost the ability to distinguish between enemies and friends, that you treat yourself in the same way as an enemy and a foe?

13. Again, "It is not well," he says, "for us to say that, ^D just as in creation the expression 'through the Son' conveys the procata-arctic cause, but does not separate the Son from the Father, so too in the matters of theology themselves, even if the Father is the primary cause of the Son and the Spirit, since He is the cause of the Spirit through the Son, the Son would not be separated from the Father in the procession of the Spirit." To refute such a reproach, we shall bring forward not many things, nor things of our own, but a few from the authorities handed down in writing. For the luminary of the Nyssaeans and of the world, writing, "The Spirit," he says, "is joined to the Father according to the uncreated, yet is again separated from Him by the fact that He is not Father, just as He [meaning the Father] is separated from the union with the Son according to the uncreated, and in the…

fact that He does not subsist as Only-begotten from the Father, and in the fact that He has appeared through the Son Himself; and again, since the creation has subsisted through the Only-begotten, so that the Spirit may not be thought to have any communion with it—the Spirit is distinguished from the creation by the fact that He has appeared from the Father through the Son, and by the fact that He is immutable, unchangeable, and lacking nothing. This establishes us well, and on both grounds—that He is said to be from the Father through the Son—it preserves the inseparable nature of the Father and the Son. ^B For if the Son possesses the "from the Father" in an inseparable way regarding the creative cause—not because He works together in some way and, as it were, supplies what is lacking in the Father regarding the cause of beings (for the Father is in need of nothing and is the perfect and absolute cause of creatures), but because He is united to Him in essence and nature, and the Father wills that what is created be created through Him—then much more so will He possess such an inseparable nature regarding the natural cause of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit Himself is also naturally sent forth from the Father through the Son. And we, in this manner, refute the rebuke leveled against us by that fault-finding and sharp-tongued man. But what will he himself answer to God in the coming judgment, and to the Church of God now, when he discovers the holy Father of Nyssa himself clearly deciding that there is a distinction between the Son and the Spirit as to their being caused by the Father, ^C when he says that the Son is caused "immediately," but the Spirit from Him who is immediate, "from the Father"? And he rejects this distinction, and as if it had been pronounced by a man of no worth, he marks it with an obelus as spurious, and determines that the Spirit is "immediately" and "directly" from the Father, just as the Son is (O tongue full of audacity, which blathers such things!).

14. This contentious man attacks us again, saying that nothing new follows if those who take "life" to be the Holy Spirit understand, according to the principle of cause, that the Son is called the "fount of life" because through the Son He is the cause of the Spirit from the Father. And he explains that the Only-begotten Word of God Himself is the "fount of life" because He became the cause of life for us who were dead because of sin, ^D like a river's stream to all who believe in Him, as if pouring it forth from Himself as from a fountain. But he does not know—how could he not know?—what he is saying or what he asserts. For we, in declaring that it is nothing new for the Son to be understood as the "fount of life" by those who refer life to the Holy Spirit (according to the rule that the Spirit is through the Son), have by no means rejected the fact that the Only-begotten Word of God was also called the "fount of life" because He is the cause of life for those dead in sin, pouring it forth to all from Himself. But he, inserting into his own discourses, "It is nothing new, nor foreign to the usage of the Scriptures, if the spiritual gift is equivocally called 'Holy Spirit,' and if the action sometimes seems to take to itself the name of the one acting, just as the splendor of the sun and the light [are] often [called] the sun," brings forward for us, who ask for his proof for these things he says, that it is not foreign [to the truth] that the grace of the Spirit...

^A be called Holy Spirit. But if not, we shall, on the contrary, provide scriptural testimonies in proof that it is most foreign to the Scriptures for the energy to appropriate the name of the one who acts. For the very wisest and most dogmatic, and no one will be so shameless as not to bear me witness that these things in his discourses on divine names are not Theodore Abucara's [own words]: "The word God," he says, "is derived from a certain operation, yet it does not signify the operation, but the active nature. For if the name God signifies an operation, and every name is the name of that thing of which it is the signifier, then the name God is the name of an operation. So that what is named God is the energy of God. God, therefore, is the energy of God, and God is His own energy. The same, therefore, are God and the energy of God, which is impossible. But if anyone contends ^B that this can be posited and granted, know that many absurdities follow from it: first, that they are predicated of the same thing; for things that are the same are predicated of the same thing, if they admit the same definition. But the energy of God is called the energy of God; yet God is not called the God of God. Furthermore, the energy of an actor is an energy; but God is not the God of an actor. Again, if God and the energy of God are the same thing, let both be predicated of the same subjects, but God is predicated of the Father and the Son and the Spirit, whereas the energy is not so predicated: for the Father is God, and likewise the Son and the Spirit; but the Father is not an energy, nor is the Son, nor the Spirit, but they are agents. But what is most important is not to say that God is before His ^C operation, but simultaneous with it: for those things which are the same must necessarily be confessed to be simultaneous. If, therefore, God is eternal, then His energy is also eternal, from which it follows that the effect of the energy is eternal; but the effect of the energy is the world; therefore, the world is eternal according to the proposed hypothesis. Which is not only impossible, but also impious to say." Thus have we practiced ecclesiastical training. Thus have we been instructed to follow the theological path, and to confirm all that we theologize from the Scriptures; and above all, concerning those things for which we are attacked by our adversaries, to break their insolence through the power of the Scriptures. But as he says he is the "illustrious defender of the truth," calling us calumniators and insulters of the saints, who in this manner treat of theological matters, how shall he be refuted by us, who introduces into the Church of ^D God terms of dogmas newly sprung from his own [mind] and from his own belly?

15. Questions us this man, "Where did the God-bearing Fathers say that God and Father is the cause of the Spirit through the Son?" He hears from us, where they called Him "the producer through the Word of the manifesting Spirit." Asking, "Where did they say the Paraclete has existence from the Son?" he hears, where they said "he exists from the Son naturally and essentially." Asking, where again [they said] the Paraclete himself [takes existence] from

the Father through the Son? he hears, that no one [does], nor in any of the theological treatises, and for these reasons neither do we. Asking again, who decided that the Father is the cause of the Spirit not by reason of hypostasis, but by reason of nature? he hears that no one [does]. For all have handed down that the Father is the cause of those things that are from him in both ways, both by reason of hypostasis and by reason of nature. But this man, being asked by us, "Who of all has pronounced that 'through' does not differ at all from 'immediately'?" has no one of the Fathers to bring forward who has asserted this. Who, when asked to interpret the procession that is from the Father into one meaning and then another, ^B and who does not receive the "proceeding from the Father" as [referring to] existing from the Father, and the "proceeding through the Son" as [referring to] the eternal radiance, and not as a progression into existence—[who,] having been asked, does not have even the slightest thing to answer? Being asked, who has theologized that the Spirit has existence from the Father immediately and directly? he casts the sum of the defense upon himself. Being asked, who has defined that it is one thing for [the Spirit] to proceed from the Father through the Son, and another thing for [the Spirit] to have the procession from the Father through the Son, and to say the same thing—to have existence? he defends the definition he has prescribed for these matters by his own judgement and by no other. Being asked, who has attributed to the paternal ^C hypostasis the power of producing, just as [he has attributed to it] the power of begetting? He has no one of the Fathers whom he can bring forward. Being asked, who of the Fathers is it who defines the essence of the Father to be understood as subsistent when the Holy Spirit is said to be from the essence of the Father, but [as] non-subsistent indeed, that of the Son, when [it is said] from the essence of the Son? He attributes these definitions to himself and to his own thoughts. Being asked, who divides the essence of the Father from the hypostasis on the grounds of the cause of those things that are from him, and defines this expression as having a twofold meaning appearing together in the word, [namely] according to the essence, the consubstantial, but according to the [proceeding] from the Father, the caused, manifesting ^D from the hypostasis? He has not even the slightest thing to answer. Being asked, who decided that non-subsistent spiritual grace is to be called God and Holy Spirit? He shows himself to be the one who decides these things. Then is not the injustice against us, and before us against the dogma of the faith, manifest (O earth and heavenly height, all ye men produced from the earth, and all the angels who are in the heavens!), if the invincible one, as he himself thinks, this adversary of the truth, calls the things pronounced by us so piously and with such meditation thorns and thistles, and evil tares, and deadly offspring of vipers, and evil brood of basilisks, and exhorts [others] to remove and destroy them from the midst with iron and water and fire and all other things which can serve for this purpose, and admonishes all the sons of the Church to cast them far away with the utmost effort, and not even to pass

^A their ears to them to hear. But those things which he produces from himself, and, as we have said, belches forth from his belly, he calls a column and a firm discourse of piety, and, as if erecting such a column on high, does he force the eyes of the soul of all to turn toward them? If these things are not the injustice of a dogma, if the rejection of the truth does not appear from this, I do not know from what other things, or whence else, such dreadful things could come.

16. But why do I say these things, while attempting to demonstrate his zeal against the truth from the things which have been written by him against us, and which he declaims in his daily conversations for our contempt, as one who violently occupies our see against all right, and has free power to say whatever he pleases against us? For his injustice’s excess is abundantly demonstrated by his deeds and actions, which I do not know if anyone would call the actions of anyone other than a brigand and a tyrant. ^B For if he had the intention of speaking and understanding regarding dogmas in accordance with ecclesiastical decrees and laws, he would never, being possessed of license in all matters, and having girt himself with power over all, be delivering us, who speak against him, to wards and prisons. But now, wards and prisons, more secure hour by hour, receive us; he, however, sits upon the throne, exulting, and while he engages in conversations, he deceives; while setting forth dogmas, he practices paralogism. Finally, he composes tomes, and forces all to cherish his tomes by the signatures of their own hands, and forces them to subscribe to codices composed by him for the sake of piety and fear, lest they wander from the truth, and he punishes those who put off [subscribing] to another time, as it pleases him. Why do I not add more atrocious things? Not considering the securities that are promised to him from his guards to be sufficient for him, lest anyone at all should learn anything from us, either through a face-to-face encounter, or through a written or oral question, regarding the divine patristic dogmas that are being subverted by him, he employs a counsel that is ^C very wicked, and such as no one else, if you except him, would have devised. For, slandering the things that have been spoken by us to confirm the patristic dogmas, and condemning them by a decree that pleases himself, he separates us, the parents of the words and discourses, from the gathering of the faithful, as it seems good to him, and proclaims us as cast out: things which he himself is worthy to suffer, he performs against us with great license and freedom, and he strikes with the anathema—which is turned upon his own head—those who dare to laud, or publish, or contemplate anything at all in the things that have been spoken or written by us. He separates us from the Church, a genuine man such as who? A spurious and adulterous one. The wolf casts out the shepherds from the fold of Christ. The profane one casts out the priests from the choir of the priests.

17. But this man, God allowing it for the multitude of sins, just as he has played the tyrant over all canons and patristic precepts, having obtained a seat on the patriarchal throne as a prize for his efforts in acting wickedly, in the same way he also ^D [continues] against the sound [dogma] of the Fathers

[...gnowing] at the doctrine and the faith, he introduces new and absurd phrasings of dogmas, and insinuates spurious dogmas and sentiments plainly unknown to our Fathers, and spreads all these in published tomes, which one might aptly name a pillar, a herald of his own new heresies, and compels all to subscribe to them by force; and thus he subverts the thoughts of many of the simpler sort, because they are unable to penetrate into the perversity of his ways, and of the stronger sort, because they are unable to resist the harm which he can forcibly inflict. Of them one might most aptly say that not their minds, but their hands, obey him. Nevertheless, God, who slowly but inevitably frustrates the artifices of those who act unjustly, will, whether sooner in this time, or later after we have departed from this life, raise up those who will judge honestly, and will show that we have devoted our efforts to confirming the procession from the Father through the Son—which is, in truth, the ancient dogma of our Fathers—while he, puffed up by the wicked demon with a malice balanced against us, has belched forth clearly destructive heresies for the ruin of those who believe in him, and that the structures of his tomes will show themselves to be a tower of Chalanne, while the Church, preserving her own in the paternal customs and dogmas, part of which are proclaimed confidently in public and to the common hearing of all, and part of which are stored as a treasure in the sacred volumes of our Fathers, will make all those who have not allowed themselves to be seduced from that unshakable faith worthy, not of a fleeting, but of a stable kingdom of heaven, through the prayers of her who gave birth to Him, the ever-Virgin and Theotokos, and of all the divine Fathers of ours who handed down to us the venerable dogmas. ^{B C}

ORATION II

1. This is our second struggle against the Cypriot. But as for you, my true and most beloved son Theodore, when you see us now girding ourselves for a second response in return to those things in which his first zeal against us proceeded, do not be ignorant of the cause. For those things which we encountered first, those we opposed first; and those which came to our knowledge a second time, these we reject in this later refutation. And first, indeed, the later inconsiderate acts of that man, in the manner of young men, became known to us, because our exiles, sustained for the sake of the truth of the dogma, kept us from the knowledge of the former. But between the origin and our knowledge of the latter there was nothing, because we were living together after our meeting and restoration in the royal palace, where there was opportunity for exercising mutual exchanges. And this is the cause that compels us to enter upon this second struggle. Furthermore, we begin not in an equal manner with our antagonist, so as to contend against him with insults and taunts as if these were defensive weapons to ward off force. For it is the way of that man alone, and of another who knows neither how to conduct himself as a man of truth nor as a philosopher, to contend in such a fashion, which he, not knowing, professes to know. But we, since we know that this alone of the struggle is...

^A to establish the truth of the paternal dogma, for the overthrow of which he has labored so much that he does not think he can live unless he establishes himself as a new heresiarch in the Church of God, we shall behave toward his insults and blasphemies—which he has poured out against our mediocrity in such countless numbers, and of such weight, and perhaps unendurable to another who had as small and degenerate a spirit as he—no better than he who is deaf and mute in the Psalms. The new dogmas which he produces from his belly, entirely alien to the Church of God, we shall cut out from the oration which he first cobbled together in contradiction to us and bring into the middle, and we shall leave it to those who wish to judge, whether we shall institute ^B a refutation of his work by demonstrations firmly provided in writing. Let him therefore hear, whoever he may be, and let him judge.

2. "The Spirit," he says, "which is called holy from the essence of the Father, may rightly and piously be said to be from the essence of the Son as well. For it is one, and as an essence it can in no way admit of division. And because it is one, it is acknowledged that the Spirit which is declared to be from the essence of the Father, also exists from the essence of the Son. Yet not on account of this is the Spirit therefore from the hypostasis of the Son, although it is asserted that it is called from the essence and hypostasis of the Father." What do you say, you who judge these things? Are these things worthy of the wisdom which the champion of these ideas boasts that he possesses—not only above all those who live at present, but above all the rest who in other times have been ennobled by the fame of wisdom? Who ever, O you, among the many ^C theologians who have been appointed for us by God during the intervening time, has pronounced similar things concerning the divine Trinity? "It is right," he says, "and pious that he who is called from the essence of the Father, should also be said to be from the essence of the Son, because the essence of the Son and of the Father is one." But it would be more pious, in your judgment, if the Holy Spirit were also said to be from his own essence. For if this is truly demonstrated, it will truly persuade the listener that the Spirit is said to be from the essence of both for no other reason, but only on account of the unity of the essence of the Father and the Son; or if a manifest blasphemy arises from this, you yourself will be proven to be ^D guilty of the greatest blasphemy. And by proposing the indivisible cause of the essence for this theological statement, you are openly caught leading astray, not persuading, the listener. For who will have divided the essence worse than you, if you separate the essence of the Spirit from that which is the essence of the Father and the Son, perhaps not conceding that the Spirit is also from his own essence? But why, tell me, is it said to be from the essence of the Father and also from his hypostasis, but concerning the essence of the Son, it will not be said from his hypostasis? Does not here too, not by reason only, do you prove to be confessing what is indivisible in essence, while truly subdividing it yourself, and with something more atrocious than the Arian division? For that man, by the posteriority of the Father, and because he was generated from the Father, did not [consider him] coeternal

^A with the Father, and said the Son was not coeternal with the Father, was condemned for the division of the essence. But you, while legislating that essence is to be taken in one way when the Holy Spirit is said to be from the essence of the Father—for it is "in hypostasis"—and in another way when from the essence of the Son—for it is "without hypostasis"—you surpass his blasphemy by a wide margin. And let this be your first blasphemy. But what follows?

3.

The Nature of Essence and Hypostasis

4.

On the Nicene Fathers

from the Father is the Son." And the holy Cyril says: "For the fact that the Son was generated from the Father will compel all of us, even against our will, to attribute to Him consubstantiality." ^A What do you say, whoever you may be who judges these things? If the name of the Father is by the confession of all indicative of hypostasis, and the Fathers infer that the Son is like the Father because He is from it [the hypostasis], in what falsehood shall this philosopher be placed, who, in saying “He who says the Son is from the essence of the Father,” expresses this twofold meaning in one phrase: by “from the essence,” that He is of the same substance, and by “from the hypostasis,” signifying that the Son is the caused [effect]?

5. ^B But let us see how this most wise man contradicts himself and the truth most absurdly. "Even if we divide," he says, "the hypostasis from the essence, we do not divide the essence from the hypostasis by a fleshy and thick division, nor do we assign an individual existence to either separated from the other. But we distinguish them by reason alone, for otherwise they are not naturally apt to be separated." And to this we reply: to say "by reason alone" is the same as saying "by thought alone," and as the matter truly stands, the essence is divided from the hypostasis by nothing else—if it is divided at all—save by reason alone and by bare thought. But may the blasphemy turn upon the heads of the impious: let the procession of the Spirit be from the essence of the Son, if it proceeds from an essence without hypostasis; or if in actual truth and by essence and nature the Spirit is from the essence of the Son, how is the Spirit that proceeds not an essential hypostasis from an essence without hypostasis?

6. ^C “But if,” he says, “you refer the cause to the essence, and not to the hypostasis, how will the Father be the cause of the two, and not rather will they also be causes of each other and of the Father, since they are utterly one and the same according to essence? And how will the manifestation of the supersubstantial fecundity in the Trinity stand, if the essence is simply the source of fecundity, and not immediately an infinite number of persons arise, all equally ^D generating and producing on account of the identity of the essence?” Here, firstly, even if we do not say the cause, into what else will one refer it to the essence, from whence from elsewhere will that which is consubstantial with the cause be gathered for things that are from a cause? For if, as this innovator maintains, the essence is divided from the hypostasis by the account of cause, and in the blessed Trinity the consubstantial is one thing and the cause and caused are another, the caused and the consubstantial will be divided; and these, having been divided, will also divide the Trinity along with them—not by the division which it claims for itself according to the pious confession, but by another new and monstrous one, so that its consubstantiality is according to the division of essence from hypostasis understood by reason and thought, and the cause and caused are according to the hypostases of consubstantiality purely and simply. Furthermore, how do we say that the persons are causes to each other on account of the identity and immut

immutability of the essence; how would there then not be an infinite number of persons, if through the same arguments someone were to assert that the essence is productive?

To you who say these things, turning our faces, we say: Do you not confess that the essence in them is in all respects similar? You will not deny it, I know. If therefore, as you maintain, there is some reason that persuades us that generation of persons and processions necessarily follow from the essence being in all respects similar, then either deny the Scriptures that affirm the Son is born from the essence of the Father and the Spirit proceeds from it, or grant that another Son is generated from the essence of the Son, and another Spirit proceeds from the essence of the Spirit. But if you do not take the generation of the Son from the essence of the Father, and likewise the procession of the Paraclete from the same, as referring to the caused ^B, but solely and simply as a declaration of consubstantiality, we will not struggle against this. Grant to us generation from the essence of the Son, and grant to us procession from the essence of the Spirit on account of the fact that the three are in all respects similar in essence, and we, doing you a favor, will accept these generations and processions as referring not to the caused, but to the consubstantial. But you clearly do not grant this. And how are the Son and the Spirit consubstantial with the Father, if these are neither causes of one another, nor possess anything else from themselves that might be generated or proceed? For that which is of the same nature and in all respects similar in essence necessarily demands, by your own assertion, these generations and processions. It cannot be that these three are of the same nature among themselves unless, in your judgment, the Son were generated from the essence of the Son and the Spirit proceeded from the essence of the Spirit, not according to cause, but only on account of their same essence with the Father; that is, if these are the effects of your determinations, and are absolutely not anything else. Finally, lowering yourself, you who are clear in mind and sublime in thoughts, and applying your mind to those things which are brought forward by us humbly on account of the attention befitting theology, perceive in what danger you are. For the Son is truly of the same nature as the Father, and the Holy Spirit is truly of the same nature as the Father and the Son, and there is no necessity, on account of the fact that the essence of these three is similar in all respects, to make the productivity of the paternal essence common also to the caused. Since the properties of the persons are believed to be present in each also according to essence, provided that nothing accidental is in them, nor adventitious from without, and the similarity of the essence in all respects is not lost. ^{C D}

7. Again: "If," he says, "that which generates as generating is one thing, and that which is generated as generated is another, and likewise that which produces as producing is one thing, and that which proceeds as proceeding is another, while according to essence the supersubstantial Trinity is both unity, and not one thing and another; how could there be, according to this, Father, or Producer, or Son and Spirit, or cause and caused, and would not distinctions and differences immediately arise even according to essence?" Because, I say, the three do not coalesce into one person on account of the unity of the essence. For either the relation of the one generating to the one generated, and of the one producing to the one —

^A produced, allows someone to depart from proper division, or, if one is unable to concede this, let him not imagine distinctions and diversity of essence on account of the diversities of the generating and generated, and of the producing and produced. For just as the essence of the persons is not divided by the relation of the appellations and the division into fatherhood and sonship—whose division and relation it is—so too it is not distinguished by the distinction of the generating and generated, and of the producing and produced.

8. “Not because it is from the essence of the Father,” he says, “do we call the Son and the Spirit [so], therefore do we confess Him to be the principle and cause; but because He is the natural principle and cause of those things that subsist essentially from Him, therefore they are also from His essence.” The discourse, using sophistical arguments here, attempts to lead away the hearer from what precedes and follows, not to persuade him. I, for my part, even if I could prove the conversion regarding what has been said from all things ^B that exist by nature—for anyone would affirm that whatever is said to be from the essence of someone is as if from a cause, and vice-versa, that whatever is as if from a natural cause from someone, he would assert to be of the same nature as the cause—but setting these aside for the present, I will add something to the discourse that asserts: if one should posit that the Spirit and the Son are from the essence of the Father, it follows, as a premise, that He is the cause of those things that are from Him. For either erase from the Scriptures that the Holy Spirit is said to be from the essence of the Son, or if we admit this, it will necessarily be gathered by your argument that, according to the “through the Son,” the Spirit was said by the theologians who decreed it to be caused from the Father. For if, because the Son and the Spirit have their being from the Father, they are therefore from the essence of the Father, it will also be from the ^C essence of the Son that the Spirit is, because the Spirit has its being through the Son. This argument, even without the conversion of your discourses, will demonstrate the absurdity of your meanings. But if, again, O you who blabber everything by your own authority, you will not say that the Spirit is from the essence of the Son *because* it is through the Son, but simply on account of the same essence, the argument will meet you, extending the conversion of “consubstantial” even here, and in a similar manner, converting it, it will necessarily pronounce that the Spirit is from the essence of the Son. For who among those who can perceive things of even slight moment will not say, in a way that is altogether necessary, that if on account of the same essence the Holy Spirit is said to be from the essence of the Son, then the Son is also said to be from the essence of the Spirit for the same reason?

9. In one of the passages of his own discourse, he sets this forth before other things as a sort of premise: “Many are the significations of the expression ‘from something.’ ^D For it signifies from matter, and from place, and after this, sometimes even from a beginning, and from an essence whence it is said, and whence it had motion, and you will find the word signifying very many other things.” But when the discourse is about God, Cyril, needing none of the others, takes this “from something” in three of these ways. For it signifies in him that which

^A subsists and is made essential from something, which also would be the first and proper meaning of this, as it represents the very existence from something in the proper sense. It signifies also the manifestation, and as it were the demonstration, from a consubstantial being, in the same way as we say the Lord took upon himself our nature, or is consubstantial with us; it would also seem to be said of the movement “from something,” and anything similar.

Having taken these as a kind of premise to his discourse, as has been said, he adds: “Therefore, when you hear Cyril saying that the Holy Spirit exists from the Father, consider that this indicates that he subsists, that he has being, that he proceeds. But when he turns to the Son, immediately have recourse to another meaning, namely, that he is manifested and shown from thence as from a consubstantial being, and that he seems to have his movement ^B from thence.”

Come now, you sir, provide us with the proof for these things that are said. Where does Cyril say this? And if it is not Cyril, who is it who claims that these are Cyril's? Let the scriptures be produced, and we shall not refuse to carry them upon our heads. But if these are the offspring and germs of your own mind—and that they are is doubted by no one—let them be held in honor by you alone, and not only by you, but also by those who, like cattle, do not find it displeasing to follow in your footsteps.

However, you are devising nothing new here either, unless one were to consider it new that, while you fashion dogmas with the authority you possess in all other matters, here you specifically constitute Cyril as the author of the things said by you. But I, although I can abundantly show these inventions of yours to be such, while you are unable to show that Cyril ever said them, will also expose your folly against the truth in another way, placing it openly before the eyes, seeing as they admit of their own refutation due to their absurdity: “When from the Father,” you say, “Cyril says the Spirit ^C exists, he indicates that he subsists, that he has being. When from the Son, he means that he is manifested and demonstrated as from a consubstantial being, and that he moves from thence.”

But I say: if you were attributing diverse meanings to two different expressions, or if you were able to prove that the same expression was used by one theologian regarding the Father and by another regarding the Son, or by one and the same person regarding both in a different pericope, with an added determination regarding the Father that implies the former, and in another regarding the Son with a determination that implies the latter, perhaps you would seem to be saying something by presenting what you say. But if it is one and the same expression, which among others is the chief and most powerful for explaining the essential production and existence of someone; what will represent essential production “from something” more aptly than that which signifies existing and being essential from this or that?

If the connection is taken from one and the same person, in one and the same scriptural pericope, regarding both persons, and is confirmed by a conjunction that is ^D removed from all examples of determination—greatly binding the persons and, as it were, gathering them into a unity—why do you fashion these absurd determinations against your own head? If the Spirit existed from the Father and the Son in a diverse manner, the Saint would not have demonstrated him as indifferent regarding both on account of the conjunction; yet he now decrees that he proceeds from the Father and the Son, and now that he is poured forth by

^A exactly as he is from the Father himself. We, however, know and profess this one division of Father and Son, which these very appellations of fatherhood and sonship contain, drawing with them all defined personal properties; and no one, having taken any one of the terms denoting this division, would ever say of both persons conjointly that "the Father and the Son are unbegotten," or "the Father and the Son are begotten," or this and that, regarding whatever pertains to the division. For this reason, we maintain that even the phrase "proceeding from the Father and the Son" ^B was not taken by the Holy Spirit for the purpose of declaring whatever difference you wish. But you, while uttering such oracles, drag it into an ambiguity—a thing not even attempted by demons up to this time—that very appellation of the Holy Spirit which the Son and Word of God himself set apart for the Paraclete, when he enjoined the baptism of the nations upon the disciples. For how will it not be an open ambiguity if, when the Holy Spirit is said to exist from the Father, it signifies the Paraclete, but from the Son, it signifies the individual operations of his, which these fictitious manifestations and declarations of yours imply? Furthermore, if it is common to the Father and the Son that the Spirit is from both, ^C and is moved, and is manifested, and is shown, let it also be common that he subsists, and our whole question is settled; or if the meaning of "to subsist" has been allotted specifically to the existence in the Father alone, then it is not common to the Father and the Son that he is moved and manifested and shown, but these things also have been allotted specifically to the Son alone. And grant these things according to what is evident, O new legislator of dogmas, and we shall be silent. But you cannot grant them; rather, with great authority, you decree that those things which are spoken of as from the Father and the Son with the addition of the conjunction "and" are common, while others are special—and I do not know if any other of the heretics ever ^D mentioned has uttered such blasphemies against God.

10. And besides these things, how much refutation does the example have, which he brings forward for the overthrowing of the (Spirit's) existence, namely, the manifestation from the consubstantial Son? "It signifies," he says, "the manifestation and showing of the Spirit, (the one) who asserts that the Spirit exists from the Son, in the way in which we also say that the Lord assumed the nature from us, that is, the one consubstantial with us." But I, for my part, what else do I say that the manifestation and showing of the Lord, which took place from our nature, signifies, other than his existence according to man? For because the Lord had his existence according to the flesh from the Adamic lump, his manifestation and showing occurred; and it is logical, therefore, that it follows to confess the manifestation and showing of the Lord according to the flesh along with his existence according to the flesh. If, then, these things are so—and they are indeed so entirely—even the manifestation and showing of the Spirit from the Son will represent existence from the Son, according to the evidentiary proofs of the demonstrations. For that which exists from the Son, and is manifested, and shown by him, is also provided and given,

and whatever else is asserted regarding his existence, since the consideration regarding the Father is not different. But if this is one way from the Father, but another way from the Son, another snare of blasphemy will be woven by the contriver of differences. For he will not be reputed to acknowledge the Son as the natural giver and supplier of the Spirit, but as a subordinate and servant of manifestation and showing. ^B

11. "Existing from the Son," he says, "Cyril has said the Spirit, but not on account of his production to essence, but on account of the grace from the Spirit, which remaining in the Son, shines forth upon the faithful." Another excess of blasphemy is this again. For if the effects of spiritual gifts are the grace of the Spirit shining on the faithful, and if these are without hypostasis, while the naming of the Spirit existing from the Father and the Son indicates these, by what reasoning will the Spirit existing from both not be understood as existing without hypostasis from them? Unless, perhaps, he will again divide the one and same naming of the Spirit into both, declaring the same Spirit to exist with hypostasis from the Father, but without hypostasis from the Son, in a prodigious display of speech! "The Spirit exists from the Son," he says, "but when we understand him as supplied, when as sent, and given, when as coming to renovate the creation." And if, when these things are so, then we understand the Spirit to exist from the Son, but these things are later and fall under time, clearly no one will say that he exists from the Son from eternity. But if he does not exist from the Son from eternity, while existing from the Father from eternity—for not even he himself declines to confess this—how will the expression "to exist," taken in the same sense for both, not again divide the same Spirit into that which is without beginning and that which falls under a beginning? ^C

12. "From the Father," he says, "Cyril writes that the Spirit proceeds, as if from the mouth and as if from the fountain of the Father." Basil likewise: "The Holy Spirit is said to be from God, not as all things are from God, nor begottenly as the Son, but as the Spirit of his mouth." And I do not know what kind of contradiction against our stated argument he thinks these things contain. For if because the Spirit proceeds from the Father as from the mouth, he is the Spirit of the mouth of the Father, he has his existence from the Father according to him who speaks and who truly tells the truth regarding these things. And if it is confessed that he is from God, as having proceeded from God, and as the Spirit of the mouth of God, it is evident that it will be acknowledged to the right-minded that he is also from the Son and has his existence from the Son, as one also proceeding from the Son and as being the Spirit of the mouth of the Son. But if, because the Father is the fountain of the Spirit, for that reason the Spirit is from the Father, why is he not also from the Son, since the same Scriptures proclaim the Son to be the fountain of the same Spirit? ^D

13. But let Theodoret also be brought forward, and the censures of Theodoret. For since those things which Theodoret said against Cyril are expressed in these words: "But if

^B for this reason he said the Spirit is the property of the Son, because He is of one nature and proceeds from the Father, we shall concur; but if because He has His existence from the Son, we shall reject this as blasphemous and impious" — he puts this forward for his own defense, caring nothing that they have been delivered over to anathema. For how could he care, who does not even fear those things which, by the canons, are shaken at those who profanely handle sacred things, bound as he is by the transgression? Let us see if he does not support these censures (as it were) upon a reed staff. ^C "Theodoret," he says, "well knowing that Cyril was censuring him, neither strove, nor for a while passed over it in silence, clearly showing by this that he did not admit those who held such opinions." Yet he struggles vehemently to show that the Spirit is the property of the Son, and makes the Apostle a witness for the argument, and says: "For the Holy Spirit proceeds from God and the Father according to the voice of the Savior, but He is not alien to the Son." Well done, for having so well preserved the inviolate apology of Cyril! And what else could have more strongly confirmed the refutation of the censures of Theodoret? For when the most divine Cyril ^D says: "The Holy Spirit proceeds from God and the Father according to the voice of the Savior," by this Gospel testimony he establishes the existence of the Spirit from the Father; but when he appends, "And He is not alien to the Son," he also gives to understand that He is from the Son. And everyone who prefers the truth to all else, and admits the argument by which the Spirit is called the property of the Son, will agree with me; and if you wish, you too, observe. But how you, I say, consider. "What do you think?" the discourse asks, following the interrogation, aiming to hold its ground, just as the assumption of those sayings of Athanasius, in which he says: "The Spirit has such a nature and order toward the Son as the Son has toward the Father." Or what else will you say? You will say it holds ground, since you have nothing here that satisfies your curiosity. If, therefore, it is necessary that the saying holds ground, if your memory does not fail you, the discourse will again require of you another saying of Athanasius, asserting: "When the Son is of God, He is proper to His essence," which you have rashly included in the tome composed against us, or rather against the truth. And if you do not assent to it, the tome brought into the midst will immediately convict you; and now consider whether Cyril does not establish that the Spirit is from the Son, when he says, "He proceeds indeed from the Father, but is not alien to the Son." For if, because the Son is from God, and—recall the Athanasian proportion of the persons—because of this He is proper to His essence, what argument will there be to persuade one not to think that the divine Cyril also holds the Spirit to be proper to the essence of the Son, since He is from the Son? Athanasius posits that the Son is proper to the essence of the Father as a consequent to that which is antecedent, that He is from the Father. And you, admitting that the Spirit is proper to the essence of the Son, and thus granting the consequent, then [must also grant] its antecedent, that is, [that He is] from the Son.

^A If, however, we should also wish to refute you in those things where you determine that the Spirit is "proper to the Father, as being from Him, and consubstantial," but as to the Son, that He is "not from Him at all, but only consubstantial," what will you answer to these points? How do you not shudder? How do you not reflect that you will give an account to God for the divisions and determinations which you yourself hatch from your own mind against the dogmas of the Fathers, carrying with them a great opposition to them?

14. Come now, O listener, let us proceed to the unfolding of the misinterpretations which this wonderful philosopher of yours brings forth from his own brain regarding the sayings of Nyssen to Ablabius. For this man anticipates the truth, and, thinking that we are all as if oppressed by sleep and unable to grasp the matter, he brings forth what he brings forth. But you, consider attentively whether he is acting wickedly: "It is not the purpose," he says, "for Nyssen to despoil the Father of the procession of the Spirit; he would indeed despoil Him if he were to change it into the Son—calling it a change—if it were to be understood that that which passes 'through the proximate' differs in nothing from that which is 'from the proximate'." I, for my part, think there is no reason which compels [one] to infer a division of the Father and the Son in the progress of the Spirit, so long as the Scriptures persuade me that whatever is said to be from the Father through the Son is [to be understood] as being and being called from one God. "But," he says, "if the Spirit proceeding from the Son did not proceed from the Father, He would rather be begotten, if the Son also, from whom the Spirit [proceeds], is begotten of the Father." ^B And I do not know what these things contribute to the truth. For what prevents us, in turn, from saying: "And if He proceeds through the Son, would He not [on that account] proceed from the Father, but rather be begotten?" so that in this way we may expose your shamelessness regarding the expression "through the proximate" concerning the Father—either grant a division of the Son and the Father according to the expression "through the proximate" and invent these new monstrous generations, or, if the expression "through the Son" implies the union of both, you blather in vain that it affirms nothing less than that this [Spirit], whatever He is, is from both of them at the same time. The saintly [Doctor] theologizes that the Spirit is caused from the Father through the Son; and the fluent and—as he thinks—invincible orator of this new theology says: "If the expression 'through the proximate' points to the cause of the Spirit, the Father would not be the cause in the proper sense; since something else having a cause before the Father would not be referred back to Him as to the proper Cause." ^C And he thinks that he looks down upon us, and not upon him who said: "through the proximate," when he attempts to establish from this expression that the Father is not the cause in the proper sense, and that the Son is shown to be the cause of the Spirit before the Father. For if, because the existence of the Spirit from the Father is "through the Son," it would not be referred back to the Father as to the proper cause, and if because of this the Son were judged to be the cause of the Spirit before the Father, then neither would the supply and gift of the Spirit be referred back to the Father as to the proper cause; for this new theologian cannot deny that these things are also "through the Son." Either, therefore, let the Father not be the proper...

^A cause, and let the Son be cause of these things before the Father, because these things are through the Son; or if in these matters the blasphemy is manifest, then let not the enemy of the truth, regarding the natural and essential existence of the Spirit—because it is through the Son—turn it toward [the interpretation of] non-proper and secondary causes by the expression "through the Son." And let him not present to me those clever arguments with which, while boasting loudly, he scatters much labor of words upon those who establish the existence of the Spirit "through the Son" and "from the Son" — by the giving and supplying of the Spirit through the Son and from the Son — according to cogent proofs and demonstrations. For even if these are truly the fulfillments of a will, and are secondary to the will, there is nothing new, ^B nor is it alien to theology, to prove by these very words the indivisibility of the Son from the Father in the procession of the Spirit. And that this is not alien to theology, no one will establish better than this man himself, who transmitted that the Spirit is caused from the Father through the Son, who is contiguous. For in his *Antirrhetica* against Eunomius, he declares at once the property of the Spirit in respect to the Son, from the fact that he does not subsist from the Father as the Only-Begotten does, and that he appears from the Father through the Son himself; at the same time, he also introduces the mention of the creature from the Father through the hypostasis of the Only-Begotten, and, by the expressions which he himself knows, he excellently dispels that which might thence perhaps come into suspicion—the low and unworthy ^C similarity of the Spirit to the creature—showing clearly that we say and conceive nothing absurd if we insinuate the indivisibility of the Father and the Son by the expression "through the Son," for the Holy Spirit is caused through the Son, and the creature is created through the Son. By this reasoning, therefore, and by similar ones, the Nyssen confirms us in those matters for which this man—studious in mocking with insolence, and most ignorant of all things except the power of reviling—blames our position.

15. He again strives to disturb the truth in every way, saying: "Because of the construction of the names alone, which brings the appellation of the Spirit after the Son, and because of the relative and mutually drawing appellations—of the Father, I say, and of the Son—they admit no medium between themselves, and ^D thus it is said by the Saint that they are 'contiguous' and 'through that which is contiguous.' For when," he says, "the power of the names, by immediately joining the Son to the Father, prevents one from saying that the Spirit is 'contiguous,' and because the progression of number never shows two units immediately after one, but leads from one to another, therefore the Son is contiguous to the Father, and not because of the consequence of existence." But if these things are so, and if it is for these reasons that the teacher said "contiguous" and "through that which is contiguous," he would never have said these things if he were teaching the difference of cause and caused that is considered among the three Persons. For while stating these things in such a division, and while he divides the Father from the Son by the cause, and the Son again from the Spirit, by [saying] he himself is "contiguous," and through that which is contiguous, that the Spirit is caused from the Father, he clearly demonstrates...

the consequences of being, as if he who is creating new dogmas wishes to do so by the arrangement of names alone. ^A For our faith, say the chosen of the Fathers, is not in names, but in things. And if, according to the aforementioned babbler, the appellations were simply a token of our confession, and not the persons indicated by the appellations, I do not see what argument could exist to persuade us that the one true God, and God alone, is three. For I confess and I believe that unity accompanies their natural and essential existence, which I am persuaded has no other manifestation than that the Holy Spirit has its existence and substantiality from the Father through the Son. But he, not thinking this way, I know not by what machines and sophistries of words will escape being condemned for believing in a Triad without substance, consisting only of names and the mere enumeration of names.

"Not so," he says, "does the appellation of the Spirit constrain a conjunction with another, as from the Father and the Son, unless one wishes to change the name of the Father into 'Productor.' For then," he says, "you shall see not the Son, but the product itself being 'contiguously' drawn on." ^B Exquisite quibbles! Nevertheless, the Damascene, who filled the whole world with his own theology, would by no means approve of these things: "For the Father," he says, "is the Productor through the Word of the Spirit." And where will that "contiguously" find its place in the product? "It is nothing," says this new theologian, "to have changed the truth if, by that which is 'contiguously,' he asserts the product to be holy, and nonetheless understands it to be 'contiguously.' For the Father is the Productor of the Spirit, and the word denotes the cause of the Spirit. Productor through the Word—this word does not in any way express the same thing."

And whence will the speech obtain authority from a transmitted scriptural witness? And in what volumes does it lie, which, although we have labored much until this day, lie hidden and unknown? But does it come from his necessary consequence? And first of all, no logical method or reason will prove that which is "contiguously" to be of necessity in agreement with that which is "through the contiguous." Second is the authority of him who decreed this, which, even if reason itself were to confirm it, would certainly be of greater dignity. For if he clearly asserted a difference in the two caused persons, regarding that which is "contiguously" and that which is "through the contiguous," who would be more worthy of credence than he regarding the harmony of the terms? ^C And third, if there were no distinction—that sometimes it is said to be "contiguously" from the Father, and sometimes "through the contiguous"—for what reason, when in most theological statements the Son is said to be "contiguously" from the Father, and in some, he is not said to be "through the contiguous," and the Spirit, who is affirmed to be from the Father "through the contiguous," is not found in even one single writing said to be "contiguously" from the Father? ^D Since, moreover, the mutual attraction and relation of the appellations of Father and Son are without doubt sufficient to express the progress of the Son from the Father "contiguously," the statement asserting that the Son is "contiguously" from the Father shows itself to be redundant and superfluous. For those who understand even a little, would rather...

require the infallible theology concerning the procession of the Spirit—and will discern that it is not once only, but in many places and more frequently, that "contiguously" is applied. For since, according to the pattern of public confession in the Gospels, the name of the Spirit is always brought forth in the third place, if those who are the rules and standards of theology—the Fathers who have articulated its subtle points—had known the truth, they would not have used "contiguously" to denote the existence of the Son; rather, they would have theologized "contiguously" concerning the existence of the Spirit. But as it is, they appear so ignorant of this that they theologize "contiguously" and "immediately" concerning the existence of the Son, to the most accurate illustration that the Spirit is not in this same manner from the Father.

16. "But let it be," says Cyprius, "that the Saint is teaching not the existence itself, but the effluence and illumination of the Spirit from the Father through the Son, by the word 'contiguously.'" Now, I would never shrink from confessing the effluence and illumination of the Spirit from the Father through the Son, provided that ^B this denotes natural existence; and every theological writing will confirm the truth of the harmony of the terms, which also represents, in the case of the Son himself, the existence from the Father through the effluence and illumination. But if the legislator of the new theologies determines that these words signify will and counsel—as do "supplies," "missions," "givings," and whatever else is brought forward by him for the subversion of existence, and is not presented with too much caution—then let those who wish to follow what is pleasing to them, follow it. What does this matter to us and the truth, if some, like cattle, wish to follow the footsteps of one who speaks vainly and rashly? Let them follow.

17. But come now, let us also consider the last point, which the adversary of the truth puts forward as a dogma that is, as it were, invincible and impregnable for the subversion of the truth: "The Son is conceived prior to the Spirit according to the principle of cause," he says, "not because," he says, "it was said to the holy one ^C because of the procession to being, but because the Father is the cause of the Son and of the Spirit; and with the Father, as Father, the Son is immediately conceived along with Him, according to the nature of the relations gathering themselves together by the principle of cause, that is to say, of the relationship toward the Father who is the cause; thus, the Son is conceived prior to the Spirit, in relation to the Father who is the Cause." Now, I have in many of my own writings explained that the Son is conceived prior to the Spirit according to the principle of cause, in that He has His own proper cause from the Father through the Son, ^D since the same Saint is he who openly declares the [Spirit] Himself to be caused from the Father through the Son; and I have thought that there is nothing more plain than this explanation, nor do I deem that there is anything truer. But this man, by referring the principle of cause to the mutual attraction of the appellations, and by contending that the term indicates the relationship toward the Father who is the cause, besides the fact that he speaks things like an enigma, also seems to [treat] the term "cause" not as a manifestation of a real existence, according to which the caused persons are subsistent from a subsistent cause,

^A and thus to think of the Trinity only by mere words. For if, by calling the Father the cause, we signify that His existence is without beginning and without cause, and that the Son and the Spirit are caused—not, however, without beginning, insofar as they are from the Father, but understanding and confessing their essential ^B and natural existence together with a coexistence without time—how does this good and honest man maintain that the teacher [Gregory] intends, not a progression of being, but simply to signify, in this way, the relation toward the causal Father, that the Son is conceived prior to the Spirit according to the logic of the cause? And besides this, if these things are true according to this relative reasoning, and the Father is conceived prior to the Son by reason of being the cause—for this too is from Gregory—in what other cause before Him is He Himself conceived prior to the Son in relation to person? O, the errors, or rather, the vain contentions of a man who is laboring with evil intent! For I am not persuaded that the man is ignorant of the truth, unless perhaps some would grant that he has been led into such error that the demon of his own conceit has occupied a place and seat within him. For the man suffers from this truly more than all who have ever suffered from it.

18. ^B As for what comes next, he persists in the same position, saying that the Son is conceived prior to the Spirit by the same logic by which the cause, namely the Father, is foreseen prior to the Only-Begotten. This must be passed over without censure, lest, being forced to censure such things as is fitting, we run the risk of being swept away into words similar to those uttered by his own insolent and calumnious tongue. But as for the one to whom this sudden discourse of ours is addressed, when you have judged that what has already been said is an abundant demonstration against those blasphemies of his into which it has poured forth, and when you have learned accurately from it that this new heresiarchy has appeared in our times, recognize at the same time what deceit it contains, namely that the anathema ^C declared by him and his followers against those who have ever dared either to preach, to praise, or to use at all any of our writings. For, understanding the clear refutation of his enumerated blasphemies, which is set before his eyes in these writings of ours, and contriving every way to escape the reproof he has incurred by reason of them, he seizes the time of his authority against us as a time to establish his own heresies, and in this way pronounces the aforementioned anathema, doing something similar to what he would do if he were trying to persuade the many that piety has no place anywhere. And this man indeed does so; but God, who is straight with the straight and who perverts together with the perverse, turns this also upon his own head. ^D For those who are able to understand things more deeply than the many are, from this very thing, all the more ardently kindled toward the reading of the Scriptures and toward studies; and before the refutation proceeds, they recognize the refutation, clearly and not without wonder. For just as if holding some foreknowledge of this among themselves, because they conceive that he has for a long time been applying his hands to similar superfluous labors, once they have examined the Scriptures in the refutation

difficulties remain for them as they read each item, in order to condemn his heresies. Thus God, thus the truth that conquers all. And do not neglect, together with us, to cease giving thanks to God and the truth, and to pray that its restoration may arrive the sooner.

BY THE SAME ON ECCLESIASTICAL PEACE FRAGMENT

^B For if the discussion concerning the addition to the Creed were being brought forward for the first time now between the Greeks and the Latins, it might perhaps be treated bare of any other question: whether any adulteration of the accurate faith is being forced upon the Creed, or whether the controversy extends no further than the wording, while preserving the integrity of the meaning. But since, from the very times of Photius, the account—having thus broken open this painful wound—has come to light, if the discourse now before us demonstrates to those who are fond of history that Photius himself was the father and the destroyer of the very cause of the scandal, an impartial auditor will need nothing else; rather, he will discern from history alone that the Churches have engaged in enmities and mutual antagonism for so many years for no reason, and for no cause consistent ^C with reason. But if someone who runs through these present discourses of ours should find no cause for the scandal consistent with reason from those things he has read in the histories concerning Photius—now threatening a schism, in the letters which he sent to Pope Nicholas, while he was still fed with the hope of being received, as he put forward the customs of the Roman Church; now, however, when disturbances and disputes increased, calling such customs of the Roman Church a heresy and impiety; and again, when the tranquility of peace smiled upon him, proclaiming the Roman Church to be divine, holy, and a teacher of piety—he will obtain a complete discernment from the things we shall add after the history, because we shall undertake the struggle logically, having pondered more

^A accurately. As for the historical facts, to speak of them in passing, they are as follows.

Ignatius governed the patriarchal throne, a man who had advanced to such a degree of holiness that his memory is celebrated in the Church even to this day with the distinction usually accorded to those who have pleased God. Photius, a man thoroughly versed in all branches of knowledge and intellectually gifted, cast eyes of greed upon the throne; but having done so in a way that was not right, he removed the one placed in the see and intruded himself. Ignatius reported the circumstances of this usurpation to Nicholas, the Pope, who at that time was governing the Apostolic See; and there followed the assistance owed by the holy protector to the holy man who had suffered injury and was in need of that protection. ^B Letters were delivered to Photius, in which he was enjoined to resign the dignity and the chair to the one who had been wronged. And how could Photius, possessed as he was by the desire he held, act otherwise, since the opportunity to possess them freely was being taken away? He conceived resentment against the Roman Church, yet did not hold it inside; rather, he still carried the wicked fetus of division womb-bound, and, buoyed by the hope of better things, he fortified a plan for himself: either to die along with the unborn fetus of his heart once he had attained his desires, or, failing to attain them, to bring the labor to fruition and cast the miscarriage of division into the open dissension of the Churches. ^C And this followed to the detriment, woe is me, of our nation and our empire. For while he strove by these letters to reconcile Pope Nicholas to himself, and the Pontiff, roaring like a lion against the injustice, was not softened by the fox-like flatteries, Photius, stirred to vengeance and lacking the means by which to wreak vengeance on the Pontiff—for what could he personally do to the person of the Pope, being at such an immense distance that he had no power even to inflict the slightest vengeance upon him?—devised a common war between the Churches and stirred up an implacable battle between both. And in what manner? Knowing full well that the addition of the phrase had been made by the Italians to the Creed many years prior, as the letters of the great Maximus to Marinus, presbyter of Cyprus, are testimony, and knowing also all the other customs that were in use among them and in which they seemed to differ from us, and covering all these in silence—not perhaps out of love, by which he might be bound to them, but because justice itself compelled him, if indeed it was just to follow the things with which all those before him embraced peace with the Romans—after that enmity, or rather, to speak more appositely, after that God-hated Fury, he publicized all these things as if they were nefarious; and composing one multiform type of writing from all of them, he erected a circular letter like a pillar for the churches everywhere, a similar type of writing. And so that this account may make these things clear to the diligent investigators of such matters, it will extract certain pieces of the Epistle and attach them to its own parts: but since I have already asserted beforehand that the customs and practices of the Romans were not unknown to Photius before he declared war upon the Roman Church, this is ^D evident from the letters to the most holy—

^A Pope Nicholas, which Photius himself sent to him while he was still suspended upon the hopes of his own reinstatement. It is necessary, before the aforementioned encyclical, to interweave into the discourse a few parts of such a letter, so that, being known in this way, it might be in the understanding of all that Photius, before the brilliant and transparent battle, might be seen by those who wish to judge with uprightness ^B as having known—if the torch of wickedness had not been brandished into the clear and open air—that the aforementioned encyclical letter sent by him would not have traversed the inhabited world. And what are the parts which the discourse wishes to bring forward from the letter to Pope Nicholas, for the demonstration that Photius all along knew the customs of the Latins before the schism, and yet kept silent? These are those very things, which literally run as follows:

"But since, for our sake, the holy and blessed Fathers who were before us are in danger ^C of being maligned and brought into accusation—such as Nicephorus and Tarasius (for they too ascended from the lay order to the summit of the priesthood, those brilliant lamps of our generation, and fervent heralds of piety, who confirmed the truth by life and word)—I thought it necessary to add the remaining points to my discourse, showing those blessed men to be superior to every charge and above every calumny. But if even others, although they do not dare to call them into this accusation, yet place the fact that they came to the priesthood from the laity in the realm of offense and scandal, they do indeed blame those whom they do not blame, ^D for they too were promoted from the laity; while those whom they again hold in honor and admiration, they avoid vituperating. But did these men, Tarasius or Nicephorus, shining in the secular life like stars, and being chosen for the high-priestly dignity, preside over the Church contrary to the canon and ecclesiastical form? Far be it from me to utter such a voice, or to hear another saying these things. For they were accurate guardians of the canons, champions of piety, accusers of impiety, lights in the world, holding, according to the divine oracle, the word of life. But that they did not observe canons which they did not know, no one acting justly could blame them. But that they were guardians of what they had received, for this they were glorified by God. For to preserve what has been given is the mark of a stable mind that rejects the desire for novelty; but to attempt to legislate or to guard what one has not received, when need does not call for it, is a superfluity of an innovative and wandering mind. For each person is held and directed by his own measure and rule. Many canons are delivered to some, while to others they are not even known. He who has received one and violates it is worthy to be brought to judgment; but he who does not know it, and has not received it, how is he liable? Many laws also were observed by those upon whom they were imposed, and they demonstrated that their observers were servants of God; but those who had not received them, and for that reason did not turn their minds to them, were none the less recognized as beloved by God."

^A And to pass over other things, Abraham was circumcised, having received circumcision from the divine command as a legislation, while Melchizedek was uncircumcised, who in his likeness to the Son of God had an unknown beginning of his birth and an unknown end. But God, while approving of the keeping of circumcision by Abraham, nowhere appears to bring a reproach of transgression against Melchizedek. Indeed, whoever would accuse him of transgression would be shown to have accused himself of daring to write such things. And yet, for those born of Abraham who had taken this law to their bosom, the penalty for one who transgressed was death, brought about not only by men, but also threatened by the angels themselves. But even in this, although Abraham and Melchizedek differed, they preserved the gratitude and worship toward the common Master in a manner similar ^B to each other, from which no blame was attached to the one by the other. But in the most crucial matters, a strong and un-innovating communion did not allow one to look into and examine the difference in the remaining matters. For it is true that there are things common to all, which it is necessary for all to keep, and before everything else, things pertaining to the faith, where even to turn aside a little is to commit a sin unto death. There are also things specially pertaining to some, the transgression of which is harmful to those to whom they were given, but for those who have not received them, not to keep them is without judgment. And things that have been defined by ecumenical and common votes are fitting for all to keep; but what one of the Fathers has set forth individually, or what a local synod has determined, it shows the mind of those who keep them to be scrupulous, yet it is not dangerous for those who have not accepted them to overlook them. Thus, to shave the beard is customary for some, while for others it is to be rejected by synodical definition. For it was necessary that these things be said in good terms, just as we have said them. But if we were to propose the canon that is in Side, we would appear heavy and too burdensome; so, except for the one [Sabbath], to keep the other Sabbaths is not without fault for us; but for others, more than one is fasted, and tradition, having conquered the canon through custom, thinks to escape blame. A priest in Rome is not found joined to a wife by lawful marriage, ^C but we have been taught to raise to the rank of presbyter those who have regulated their lives by a single marriage; and we altogether exclude from the participation of the Lord’s Body those who dispute this and separate themselves from these, ranking them in the same place as those who legislate for fornication or who destroy the law of marriage. Again, if anyone among us, bypassing the ordination of presbyter, were to bestow the honor of bishop upon a deacon, he is condemned as one who has sinned most gravely; yet by some it is considered as in the same place to promote a bishop from a presbyter, and from a deacon to snatch the dignity of a bishop, jumping over the intermediate order. And indeed, how much difference is there between these? For in each order and rank there are distinct prayers, distinct ^D ceremonies, and again distinct ministries, and distinct observances of times, and distinct probations of character. But as for the fact that one does not accept something in place of a law, bringing forward this defense for not observing it, that he did not receive it, by him

^A a defense will not be required. But if any one among us were convicted of having done this, no one would instill into him even a drop of forgiveness. For the transgression of lesser laws, remaining unpunished, brings about a greater contempt for the more important ones. To others, once they have become monks, the eating of meat is forbidden, not because they abominate it, but that they may exercise themselves until the end; to others, however, this is not a thing to be observed for long. I myself have heard an account from men who hold the truth in high honor, that he who was about to become the prelate of the Church of the Alexandrians was forced to submit to this condition, that because of some local circumstance that had taken hold in those places, he might never be free from the eating of meat. And as for the habit of a monk, no one among us would change it into that of a cleric; ^B some, however, when they wish to raise a monk to the height of the episcopacy, tonsure him in a circle and change his former habit. Thus, where there is no betrayal of the faith, nor any falling away from a common and catholic decree, while different customs and rules are kept by different people, one who knows how to judge rightly would determine that neither are the guardians acting unjustly, nor are those who have adopted them acting unlawfully. And yet, that which is brought against us as a crime, when compared with some of the things enumerated, does not even reach the level of being blameless. But while those things are banished to the place of the unlawful and the abominable, this very thing is attached to the class of the praiseworthy and the most beautiful. And that it has been done and is still being done is proclaimed even now with open voice, and opinion, and face. How could anyone be praised who, not yet having obtained the rank of the priesthood, has so ordered his own life that he is preferred for the pontificate even by those who have been allotted the priesthood, and by all the rest of the fullness? But those other things—that they are even done, as far as I know—are not admitted by those who err, perhaps ^C because of the magnitude of the transgression, or I know not what to say, by those who have done them, preferring the denial of the truth to the truth itself. For who, among those who are counted as Christians, would not abjure observing the Sabbath, even if he were a thousand times subjected to it? Or who would abominate lawful marriage, unless one were to prefer the opinion of impious and godless men to the Creator, and to that hypostasis which derived from Him through His goodness? And who, of the Lord’s and the Fathers’, and the synodal decrees, not to speak of them individually, would not be ashamed to confess that he was contriving contempt for them? From the laity, indeed, when one has undertaken a holy manner of life, to be promoted to the pontificate is shown to be highly consistent, not by words proclaimed by the divine Fathers, but by the deed itself accomplished, to the great utility of the bride of Christ, the Church, at various times. Observe also, if you will, in addition to what has been said, the varieties of the liturgies—those in the prayers, those in the invocations, those in order and sequence, those in the length and brevity of time, those in multitude and paucity; and through them—O miracle!—the common bread is changed into the body of Christ, and the common wine is his blood, which he poured out for our redemption from his own side, and the difference and variety of these multiple and [uniform and deifying grace of the Spirit...

and has not prevented one from receiving the things for which these rites are fulfilled in an identical manner. But even witnesses among us, when numbered up to three according to our canons—if they are otherwise beyond reproach—are sufficient to confirm the truth, even if they should bring an accusation against a bishop; yet among others, unless the number of witnesses exceeds seventy, as if he were a people, the accused, however much he may have been caught in the act itself, ^B is acquitted, free from every charge. I consider what has been said sufficient for fair-minded men, and for those who would not prefer to be refuted rather than to understand.

Observe, you who encounter the aforementioned passages of the letter of Photius to Pope Nicholas, how accurately this man knew the customs of the Roman Church, and how he put these forward as a threat of ecclesiastical schism. For the listing of these things intends to make this more emphatically clear. And understand that he would never have burst forth into open war over these matters, if only he had obtained some token of acceptance from ^C Nicholas himself. But when Nicholas himself departed from this life, leaving Photius bound by canonical fetters, and Hadrian, who succeeded Nicholas, had bound him with stronger chains of penalties, Photius girded himself for the task and unfurled his wings against the Roman Church; and the letter, labored over by him, flies out over the whole world and wanders far, to which letter it is required that the speech add the fragments to their proper members, so that it may stand by its promises. These are as follows: “But, O impious, envious, and God-detested counsel and action! For not yet had the nation of the Bulgarians for even two years embraced the right religion of the Christians, when certain impious and execrable men—and what title would any pious man ^D not bestow upon these?—men crawling up out of the darkness, for they drew their birth from the western regions. Alas, how shall I recount the rest? These, upon a nation whose piety was newly planted and recently established, like lightning, or an earthquake, or a heavy hail, or, to speak more appositely, like a wild boar, leaping into the beloved and newly planted vineyard of the Lord, with feet and teeth, or rather with the paths of a shameful way of life and the corruption of dogmas (such was their audacity!), they ravaged and laid it waste. For with all manner of fraud they attempted to lead them away from the sound and pure dogmas and from the blameless faith of the Christians, and to corrupt them. And first, indeed, they unlawfully brought them to the fasting of the Sabbaths; and the small setting aside of what has been handed down is accustomed to lead men to the contempt of the whole doctrine. Then, severing the first week of the Lenten fast from the rest of the fast, they dragged them into the drinking of milk, the eating of cheese, and the gluttony of similar things. Hence, widening for them the paths of transgressions, and turning them aside from the straight and royal road, they—and indeed even the priests—con-

taught them to abominate and turn away from the true priests of God, sowing among them the seeds of Manichaean husbandry, and destroying souls that had just begun to bring forth the seed of piety by over-sowing them with tares. Furthermore, they do not hesitate to re-anoint those who have already been anointed with chrism by priests, proclaiming themselves to be bishops and inventing the claim that the chrism of the presbyters is something useless and performed in vain. Is there anyone, who has heard with his ears such madness—such as these frantic people were not afraid to commit—that they would re-anoint those who had been once anointed with the ointment, and would prostitute those august and divine mysteries into very long trifles ^B and the sport of laughter? But see also the fallacies of those who consider themselves sanctified: "It is not lawful," they say, "for priests, who are led to perfection, to anoint them with oil. For this has been granted by law only to bishops." Whence is this law? Who is the legislator? Which of the apostles, or of the Fathers, or from which synod? Where on earth is it, or when was it convened, and by whose votes and suffrages was it sanctioned? "It is not lawful for a priest to sign those who are being baptized with oil." Therefore, neither is it lawful to baptize at all, nor even to exercise the priesthood; so that the priest would be, for you, not even half-a-priest, but would depart as one fully ^C cast out into a profane lot. He performs the sacred work of the Lord's Body and Blood of Christ, and through these he sanctifies those who were once initiated into the sacred things; how then will he not sanctify by anointing with oil those who now are being initiated? A priest baptizes, perfecting an expiatory gift in the one being baptized; by what reasoning will you deprive him of the guardianship and seal of that purification, of which he himself is the consummator? But you take away the seal, nor allow it to serve the gift, nor to consummate anyone through it; so that, while your priest is marked only with the bare name, he might declare you to be the leader of the assembly and the bishop of that same choir-standing. But in truth they were not only led on to transgress against these things ^D but also descended to the very climax of impiety, if there be any such thing. For beyond the aforementioned absurdities, they attempted to adulterate with spurious calculations, with interpolated words, and with an excess of boldness—O those machinations of the devil!—the holy and sacrosanct Symbol, which is confirmed by the calculations of all the ecumenical councils and possesses invincible power, by inventing that the Holy Spirit proceeds not only from the Father, but also from the Son! Who has ever heard such a voice uttered by those who have ever lived impiously? What twisted serpent belched this into their hearts? Who, initiated into Christian worship, could bear to have a double cause given in the Trinity: the Father for both the Son and the Spirit, and the Son again for the Spirit, and to dissolve the monarchy into a twofold deity, and no less than the Greek mythology to tear apart the theology of the Christians, and to diminish through insult the dignity of the super-substantial and monarchical Trinity?

^A These are also the sections of the encyclical letter; and the discourse, which goes through the parts of both letters—both that which was sent to Pope Nicholas and those which are contained in the encyclical—shows clearly, from the recitation of their very words, that the fair-minded listener needs nothing other than the mere history of the events to discern that the Churches have for so many years exercised hostilities and enmities toward one another in vain and for no reasonable cause. For since, before the schism, Photius was holding up the customs of the Roman Church as if they were a threat of schism in his letters to Pope Nicholas, while he had not yet lost the hope of restoration; but after that hope failed, frustrated in his desire, he brought to pass in deed what he had threatened, and sent the encyclical letter everywhere in the inhabited world—it is manifest that the schism was devised by Photius not for the sake of truth, but out of his own will. Let there be added to what has been said, for the sake of further demonstrating Photius’s individual plan in devising the ecclesiastical schism, those things which he himself, after peace had been established and treaties made, stated in contradiction to his encyclical letter, on behalf of the Church which previously had been defamed by him with so many calumnies and insults. For when Nicholas had died, and Hadrian had followed him, and Pope John was elevated to the Apostolic See, he did not inherit the hatred against Photius, but, upon his return to the patriarchal throne, he welcomed him kindly. Photius assembled a synod in the city of Byzantium, consisting of more than three hundred bishops, and set forth canons, and consigned to anathema whatever had been done and spoken against the Roman Church in the time of the discord. ^B And in the very acts of this synod, which was gathered for unity, he proclaims the following in his own words regarding that same John who presided over the Church that had been previously so ill-treated by him. For during the very first entrances of the cardinals and legates of the most holy Pope John into the synod, Photius, after embracing and kissing them, stated these things word for word: “May the Lord receive your labor. May He bless and sanctify your souls and bodies. May He also receive the care and solicitude of our most holy brother and fellow-minister, and our spiritual Father, the most holy Pope John.” ^C And after the cardinals and legates had fulfilled the reverence on behalf of the Pope, Photius says: “We also venerate the most holy and ecumenical Pope John with desire from our inmost heart; and we pray to God that His Holiness may bestow upon us his blessings and precious charity; and may there be for him a recompense of sincere charity and true benevolence toward us from our common Lord Christ, our true God.” And as the conversation continued, he added: “For just as the first and great High Priest Christ, our true God, did not content Himself with those things by which the heavenly orders worshipped Him ^D and He kept His love pure and unstained, but emptying Himself, and undergoing the emptying even to the form of a servant, He drew to Himself our race that had wandered and been alienated: in like manner and as an imitator of His spiritual

father, our own, did not rejoice in the peace which the Church under him possessed, but through those same honorable legates he rose up to visit us as well. » ^B And after some of the discourse, as Cardinal Peter in the midst of that holy assembly revealed what had been sent to Photius by the most holy Pope John—the pontifical vestments, that is to say, the omophorion, the sticharion, the phelonion, and the sandals—Photius said: « Christ our God, Who wrap the heaven in clouds, and Who took upon Yourself our nature to refashion and cleanse it, grant to our brother and fellow-minister, and spiritual Father, safe protection and sure salvation, and in the future age, clothing him in the bridal garment, show him worthy of that blessed bridal chamber. » ^C Photius spoke many other things during the course of the proceedings of the council of peace, from all of which it is established what the discourse set out to prove: that all the things spoken and done by Photius against the Roman Church were the offspring of wickedness and the abortions of a pestilential strife. And although no further proof is needed for this demonstration, yet that the discourse which set out to show this might possess power from an abundance, we have determined to set forth here, word for word, three of the letters of Photius which were sent to certain of the Latin bishops of the western sees who were held worthy of the episcopate at that time, after his own return to the patriarchal throne.

Et post epistolas ad Marinum Castellanum, Gaudericum Veliternum, et Zacchariam Anagninum episcopos, quos sibi conciliare, et in amicitiam trahere, et sibi amicos conservare incumbit, subdit Veccus:

Similar things are found to have been said and written by Photius, both concerning John himself, who at that time was the head of the Roman Church—which had been defamed by the same man in miserable ways and even branded with the charge of impiety—and concerning the Latin bishops who were reckoned as its members; he is found saying and writing this after the treaties and truces. ^C By all these things, the discourse has paid its debt, what it had promised, completely and absolutely; for it was its purpose, if the auditor were fair-minded, to prove that there is no need for anything other than solely history to discern that the Churches had, for so many years, exercised rivalries and enmities against one another in vain and for no reasonable cause.

JOANNES VECCUS, PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE EPISTLE TO POPE JOHN With a profession of faith and recognition of the primacy.

To the most holy and most blessed Supreme Pontiff of the Apostolic See of the elder Rome, and universal Pope, Lord John, Joannes, by divine mercy Patriarch of Constantinople of the new Rome, together with all our sacrosanct synod, sends due reverence of our obedience, and inclination, and the petition of our prayers.

^A It is clear to all, without doubt, that the end of a good beginning is optimal. And why not, since "every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights"? For this being granted, it follows that every beginning of any matter whatsoever, optimally begun, must be believed to depend upon divine counsel, and for this reason, such a beginning must necessarily end gloriously. For what has been well begun by God, how can it not be optimally concluded with God’s assistance, just as has been done, and regarding those things of which it is now our proposal to speak, O divine and holy head? For the ecclesiastical union, happily begun in the time of that man of happy memory who was most blessed (if indeed it is fitting to call that most happy man, the most holy Pope Gregory the tenth, a man, and not an angel), the Most High Lord has brought to a more glorious end than the union itself, specifically in the days in which God, by choosing you—you who are named by the name of grace—has established you for the ornament of the Apostolic See and the clear illumination of the firmament of the universal Church. The most reverend nuncios of the Apostolic See, namely our brothers and co-bishops Jacob of Ferentino and Geoffrey of Turin, and our most religious brothers of the God-accepted Order of Preachers, Raymund the Prior of Viterbo and Salvus the Rector of Lucca, having been favored by the prayers of your Holiness, have arrived to our holy and most powerful sovereigns, and to our humility, and to that holy and sacred synod which was found among us, having been left behind from the entirety of the great synod which had been celebrated among us a little while ago: the inchoation of the said ecclesiastical union, with God as its author, has, without defect, been brought to a prosperous conclusion.

^B And how powerful and holy is our administrator, with the divinely germinated branch of our sacred, powerful, and holy root—that administrator who, with diligent certainty and in perfect faith, has effected the confirmation of the ecclesiastical union—this your most great Holiness will be able to know both from the letters of his power which are sent to you, and from the instrument of the oaths made by them, and from those things which the nuncios of the Apostolic See have sounded into the divine ears of your Holiness by word of mouth. How we also offer our strength, and how we put an end to the glorious beginning of this work of union, your most God-magnified Holiness will be able to know from the synodical volume which is being shown to you, which our humility, along with his entire sacred convent, has signed and reinforced with manual subscriptions, which among us possess the force of an oath.

Moreover, it is permitted to know from those things which we shall say more specifically in the present writing in every way, providing to your Apostolic Holiness the certainty of our pure and perfect obedience to the Apostolic See. We say, indeed, speaking under the witness of God and the angels, that we despise and reject every schism between the Churches of God—namely, that of the elder Rome and our new Rome—which was introduced wickedly to the injury of Christianity; and with a heartfelt affection, and casting it off first from our whole soul, through tongue and lips and our spoken word, even in the present writing we deny it, and we confess, recognize, accept, and of our own accord embrace ecclesiastical peace and unity, and the primacy of the Apostolic See. And coming spontaneously to its obedience, we promise and assert that we hold it ratified and shall preserve it immutably, and we promise to preserve intact and inviolable those prerogatives which from the beginning, before the schism, were offered to the Apostolic See by those who, for the time being, held the pontificate in Constantinople. For the schism, which intervened in the midst, we despise with the intimate affection of our heart and with the entire will of our mind, and we join together

^A and we enroll ourselves in the line of those pontiffs who canonically and legitimately preserved their obedience to the apostolic See of old Rome; and we promise not to omit anything at all imperfect from those things which, before the schism, the divine and holy emperors strengthened and affirmed by rendering obedience to the apostolic see; moreover, also of those things which, in sacred councils, our Fathers demonstrated they were preserving for its obedience. Again, we confirm to the apostolic see, inviolably and entirely, all the prerogatives and privileges which, before the schism, the reverend and blessed emperors, and our God-bearing Father-doctors, were demonstrating for the primacy of the apostolic see in obedience: namely, that the same most holy Roman Church holds the highest and perfect primacy and principate over the entire Catholic Church, which we truly and humbly recognize that she received in herself from the Lord Himself, in blessed Peter the prince or head of the apostles, whose successor is the Roman pontiff, with the fullness of power. And just as she is bound to defend the truth of the faith before others: so too, if any questions have arisen regarding faith, they ought to be defined by her judgment. To her, anyone burdened in matters pertaining to an ecclesiastical forum may appeal: and in all cases, looking to an ecclesiastical examination, appeal may be made to her judgment: and all Churches are subject to her, and their prelates owe obedience and reverence to her. Moreover, the fullness of power consists in this, that those privileges which other Churches, and especially the patriarchal ones, obtained at different times, the same Roman Church confirmed and strengthened by the sanctions of those blessed holy emperors and by the canonical sanctions of sacred and divine councils: and these prerogatives of the Churches could not have obtained confirmation otherwise, unless the same Roman Church had brought forth its judgment and sentence upon them: nevertheless, her own prerogative remains safe both in general councils and in any others whatsoever. And let so much be said regarding the abnegation of the schism and the recognition of the primacy of the apostolic see.

^C Since, however, the long time of the schism has given rise to a vain and false opinion in some, that there is some difference of dogmas between both Churches, namely the Greek and the Latin, on account of the addition made in the Creed by the Roman Church: it is therefore necessary for us to set forth a profession of faith, from which your majesty, magnificent to God, and the entire Roman Church, may know that there is no difference of faith between those who read the Creed of the first Nicene council, and those who proclaim the Creed of the second Constantinopolitan council, and those who venerate this Creed, which is read by the Roman Church, with the addition.

We believe, then, in one God, the unbegotten Father, ^A omnipotent, immortal, invisible, impalpable, filling the universe, and existing above all things, the creator of all creation, visible and invisible, corporeal and spiritual. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Word, the only-begotten Son, eternal from the eternal Father, principle from principle, light from light, God from God, omnipotent from omnipotent, equal to the Father who generates Him incommutably, just as our Lord Himself asserts in the Gospel, saying: "He who sees me, sees also the Father;" who was born before all ages, and has a birth ineffable and incomprehensible to the intellect: "Who shall describe his generation?" the sacred Scriptures confess; that is, no one. In the consummation of the ages, He descended inseparably from the Father's bosom into the undefiled and ever-Virgin Mary, and assumed from her our nature, namely human flesh with a rational soul, not according to phantasm, but according to truth; and neither adopted according to the supernal and intemporal birth, nor according to the inferior and temporal [one]: for existing as natural and true Son of God, He, the same, exists as the natural and true son of the ever-Virgin Mary, who received flesh from her, visible though invisible, mortal though immortal, passible though impassible, palpable though impalpable: in which flesh He willingly endured passion for us, by a true passion of the flesh. Dead, and buried, and descending into the underworld, and on the third day, according to the Scripture, rising from the dead by a true resurrection of the flesh. After forty days from His resurrection from the dead, He ascended into the heavens, with the same flesh and soul with which He rose: and He sits at the right hand of God the Father, granting us entry into the heavenly kingdom. He who is to come again as judge of the living and the dead, about to render to each according to his works.

We believe in the same way also in the Holy Spirit, ^C searching all things, even the depths of God, who naturally exists in God and the Father, and is essentially implanted, if we may so speak, and indivisibly proceeding from Him, naturally exists also in the Son, and is essentially implanted in Him, and indivisibly proceeds from Him. He is poured forth, indeed, and proceeds, just as from a fountain, from God and the Father: He is poured forth, however, also from the Son Himself, just as from a fountain, as if, certainly, also from God and the Father Himself. But even if the Father is the fountain of the Spirit, and the Son is the fountain of the Spirit; yet the Father and the Son are not two fountains of the Spirit. For faithful and pious intelligence holds the Father and the Son to be one fountain of the Spirit: and on account of this, the luminaries and doctors of the Church have theologized the Holy Spirit as the common [Spirit] of the Father and the Son. For just as the Spirit is naturally from the substance of the Father, so also He is naturally from the substance of the Son: and just as He exists according to the substance of God and the Father, so also He exists according to the substance of the Son, and as He is proper to the essence of the Father, and does not proceed into being outside of this, so too

^A He remains the sharer of the natural goods of God and the Father, existing essentially as the Son; and He possesses the Spirit, just as each one of us possesses a spirit of his own contained within himself, and pours it out from his inward bowels to the outside. On account of this, He even breathed it corporally upon the disciples, because we know of the Spirit through the inspiration of the Son, and we have been taught by the Apostle that the Spirit is the Spirit of Christ. Wherefore, confessing that there is one catholic and holy apostolic Church, in which one baptism is given, and truly the remission of all sins, we refer the glory to the three persons—namely to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit—in whom and to whom we are baptized, as to one God: and acknowledging these three persons to be the same, we recognize them as one omnipotent God, and we preach and confess the entire deity in the Trinity to be co-essential, co-eternal, and co-omnipotent; of one dignity, of one power, of one will, of one operation, and we preach and confess each single person of the holy Trinity to be God, full and perfect. And believing thus, we offer glory to the Father, we offer glory to the Son, we offer glory to the Holy Spirit. We believe in the true resurrection of our flesh, which we bear in the present life, and we look for the future life, eternal and perpetual. We believe also that He Himself is the one God, and author and omnipotent Lord, of the Old and New Testaments, of the prophets and the apostles: we bless the one God known in the Trinity now and unto the ages. Amen. And this is thus far.

But when, again, the holy apostolic Roman Church says and preaches along with the aforementioned that there are seven ecclesiastical sacraments—baptism, of which it is spoken above; the sacrament of confirmation, which they confer by the imposition of the bishop's hands upon the reborn by chrism; penance, the eucharist, the sacrament of orders, matrimony, and extreme unction, which is administered to the infirm according to the teaching of blessed James—we say these things concerning them: We receive baptism, and we confess it; likewise also concerning the sacrament of confirmation, although among the Roman Church they confer it by the imposition of hands—solely by a bishop—upon the reborn by chrism, whereas among us the prelates and presbyters do this indiscriminately; yet we, preserving the custom which has hitherto prevailed among us in the ordination itself, confess that what is from the Roman Church upon this matter is sanctifying and perfecting. We embrace, confess, and receive penance and that sacrament of the Eucharist itself, which is celebrated by the holy Roman Church from unleavened bread, according to its ancient custom hitherto venerated by it; we say similarly that the sacrament which is celebrated by us is indistinguishable, and we believe that we, too, in that same sacred office of the Eucharist, truly transubstantiate ^C the unleavened bread into the body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the wine into His blood through the virtue and operation of His most holy Spirit. We also acknowledge that other sacrament as well, which is celebrated by us from leavened bread. And preserving this as it has been handed down to us from the beginning, we believe likewise that this bread also is truly transubstantiated into the body, and the wine into the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ through the virtue and operation of the most holy Spirit, as has been said. We embrace, confess, and receive the sacrament of orders also. Concerning matrimony, which the Roman Church itself holds, that neither is one man permitted to have multiple wives at once, nor one woman multiple husbands at the same time; but that the law of matrimony being dissolved by the death of one of the spouses, second and third, and then subsequent ^D marriages 5 lawfully contracted are said to be licit, if a canonical impediment or other cause does not stand in the way: we receive this in the same manner, and we say the same regarding it. We also receive Extreme Unction itself, similarly with the others, which is also celebrated by us and is called *eptapapadum* 6. Let us say one thing in summary: as the said holy Roman Church venerates and preaches all these things, so we believe and say that the same holy Roman Church truly, faithfully, and orthodoxly teaches and preaches.

From the time, however, that the holy Roman Church, because of diverse errors introduced by some out of ignorance and by others out of malice, says and preaches that those who fall into sins after baptism are not to be rebaptized, but can obtain the forgiveness of sins through true penance, and that if they depart truly penitent in charity before they have satisfied for their committed and omitted sins with worthy fruits of penance, their souls are purged in the fire of purgatory after death; and that for the relieving of such punishments, the suffrages of the living faithful are beneficial to them—namely, the sacrifices of Masses, prayers, almsgivings, and other duties of piety which are accustomed to be performed by the faithful according to the institutions of the Church; and that those souls which after the holy baptism received have incurred no stain of sin at all, and those also which after baptism have contracted a stain of sin, whether remaining in their bodies or stripped of them, as has been said above, have been purged, are straightway received into the heavenly kingdom; but that the souls of those who depart either with mortal sin or with only original sin straightway descend into hell, to be punished with unequal punishments; and that nevertheless on the day of judgment all men will appear before the tribunal of Christ with their own bodies, to render an account for their own deeds: since indeed the holy Roman Church so says and preaches, we receive these things and confess them, since divine scripture of the holy Fathers contains them.

...in the same way we must remain unchangeably in ^A our Church according to the understanding of the orthodox faith of the holy apostolic Mother of all churches, the Roman Church. All these things written above, for the most complete confirmation of our renunciation of schism and of our pure and true obedience to the primacy of the Roman Church, and for the representation and demonstration that he is in most complete accord, we have confirmed with our customary seal, in the month of April, in the fifth indiction, in the year six thousand seven hundred eighty-fifth (7), in the second year of our pontificate.

(7) The Year of the Greeks 6785 corresponds to our 1277.

OF THE SAME: ON THE INJUSTICE WHICH HE SUFFERED, HAVING BEEN EJECTED FROM HIS OWN THRONE

^B 1. Should I have kept silent, lest I continue to be silent? I shall take the beginning of the present discourse from the words of Isaiah. Solomon, too, will provide me with aid in my introduction, having clearly defined a time for silence and a time for speech. That we did not choose the temporary period of silence without reason, but rather were reserving our speech for a proper time, a kindly and fair judge reading our words will discern. For we need many prayers to obtain kindly listeners, since the calumny against which we are preparing to reply could stir up against us, not just one, or two, or ten, or three, or ten times, or a hundred times that many, but almost our entire nation; and it would ^C not be easy for us to contend against a calumny of such magnitude, had not God, the truth from on high, brought us aid. For, fully trusting in this, I gird myself for this reply, expecting both to be guided by Him in just answers and believing that the listeners will be led by Him to an impartial judgment; and thus, I must embark upon my speech. Concerning the ecclesiastical union between us and the Latins, as it is a matter known to all, I shall say nothing at present, except that it has been brought about in the way in which it was brought about, and that the patriarchal throne of Constantinople was entrusted to us by those reasons which Providence, the guide of our affairs, knows; and the scandal because of the said union spread more widely, and the torch of wickedness grew more and more every day, and ^D peoples were being divided from one another, and priests were being separated from priests, and countless other evils were being committed, in which the author of wickedness exulted and was filled with joy. What, then, per the Trinity Itself, was it necessary for us to do in the face of this? To yield, and through sloth to allow the...

schism to persist? ^A Not to me, at least, even if it might seem so to another. We were, therefore, as was necessary, eager to persuade all men not to absent themselves from the gatherings, not to be deprived of the communions, not to neglect our mutual union, nor to injure brotherly concord; and our zeal regarding these things did not allow us to stop merely at the level of oral exhortation, but persuaded us to apply ourselves to writing as well. And since this one thing seemed to all the most potent cause of the scandal—that the Roman Church had added to the Symbol of faith that the Holy Spirit also proceeds "from the Son"—it seemed to me very opportune to call to mind some actions of the Fathers, in which our ancient Fathers, who shone forth as brilliant lights in ecclesiastical affairs, utilizing *oikonomia*, brought to peace and concord not a few multitudes of Christians, and entire Churches severed from one another by mutual dissensions, having removed the foolish disagreement that separated them, and having persuaded the many to withdraw from [vain] scandal.

^B 2. And indeed, there came to our mind how the divine and truly great Athanasius preserved these same Churches—about which all our discourse is concerned—in that conjunction which is in God, having most excellently resolved the scandal that had erupted between both sides over the term *hypostasis*; how the great Basil, over the word "God," calmed the dissension among those who affirmed it and those who refused to say it; and, moreover, how the great Gregory, when handling theological matters, was prepared to receive the Jewish people with a prompt and ready mind, if they, understanding the word "Anointed" as being for Christ, had wished to join themselves with us. ^C Reflecting earnestly, therefore, upon these things, we were inflamed with great care—by means of an accurate and written discourse—to demonstrate that nothing absurd follows if we embrace the peace of the Roman Church, even if she asserts that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son, while we [say] from the Father through the Son. And that we were not deviating too far from the way of the Fathers in such *oikonomiai* of this kind, and that we have indeed spoken and acted in accordance with what was done by the great Athanasius in the aforementioned *oikonomia*, will be abundantly proven from those things contained in the book we compiled on this same matter. When, after the present account of the injustice with which we have been affected, it becomes manifest in our response that we have not pursued the peace of the Churches as heretics—which is the chief head of the slander—nor as enemies of the Greeks, but as those who have embraced it just as he who arranged it describes, this will be clear. But now, pursuing the series of the discourse we have proposed, we say that peace between both Churches was indeed procured by us, following in the footsteps of the Fathers; but the spindle of affairs had been twisted in another way, and [there occurred] a sudden change, about which it is not now the time to institute a discourse, since it truly demands a narration of its own, [when] all men of our generation together—men, women, the elderly, the young, maidens, old women—[turned to] strife, and not...

to peace, held division and not conjunction to be ^A peace. What then followed? A few of those who were in authority bent their greatest efforts to this, and with all their might they sought to inflame the entire populace against us; and thus they were able to carry out their counsel, so that we were compelled, on account of the expectation of death—which was already almost hanging before our very eyes—to withdraw from ecclesiastical rule.

§ 3. For it seemed to us that by doing so we might in some measure soften the swelling of the mad rage against us. But it turned out otherwise than they had hoped. For he whom the common vote of the high priests had removed from the patriarchal throne, before they had installed us in it, they brought back and placed upon it again. And this is the beginning of our narration. For the monastery, to which we had committed ourselves, held us, but a bed—not a throne, for he did not sit, but was placed upon it, as we have said—held him; and we recount this not to cast any mark of infamy upon him. Far be it! For we are far removed from such things; and even if we had such an intention, the matter itself, as far as it is possible, admits no mark of any crime. For what reproach would a man incur if, being near to death, he is ^B senseless and does not perceive it? But we say these things in order to show the excess of the wickedness against us, while those who were conspiring against us with such things were not looking to the public utility, but only to this one thing: to cast us out from our own throne. The bed, therefore, held him, and he did not even perceive where he was or in what place he was dwelling. For a long time, weighed down by disease, he had lost the entire faculty of sense. A gathering of certain monks, formed around him—possessed of no knowledge of the canons, and being completely infantile, but burning with excessive hostility toward us, as those who had cut themselves off from our communion from the beginning—straightway produced a decree against us; and they called this a deposition, as if it had been pronounced by that man himself, with no canonical right observed, and ^C contrary to all justice. Then they commanded the doorkeepers and ministers of the temple, and those who hung upon the towers in the narthex, those brazen heralds of common assemblies without word or voice, that they should make a great clamor, and call forth the confused and vile rabble of the city’s multitude. And who could number the multitude of the crowd that was gathered there? All the interior and exterior parts of the holy temple were packed with the number of those running together; and not only were the lower floors filled with a multitude of diverse age and rank, but because also the buildings founded on either side, and on the west of the temple, a short distance from the middle portico, possess floors of their own, distinguished by columns and by porticoes above the columns, erected one over another, of fitted stone, and well-arranged, these also were filled ^D with a crowd of every kind.

§ 4. But before we take up the accounts of what followed after this gathering, this must first be addressed. Has anyone of those who now live, or who lived in ancient times, heard of a Patriarch of Constantinople being removed by...

those who were not even clothed with the name of bishop, much less the dignity of a priest? ^A Yet the decision against us was drafted by such men, and none of those who know the dullness of that man will respond to this argument of ours. I, however, passing over such a defense—fitter though it is for the cause, just as the sentence against us was drafted by him—reply in this manner. Is it established by any precept of the canons that one who was a rival in seizing the throne, and that alone, and approved by none of the presiding authorities, nor received by any acclamation—is it permitted for him to pronounce a sentence of deposition against one who was subject to no synodal decree? Tell me, you who are entrusted with the guardianship of the canons by God, if these things are canonical, if they are lawful, if they are not outside the ordinances of the Fathers. ^B For it was surely necessary, if the canons are not merely a name among you, either justly—or, for I pass over the other option in silence out of respect for your reverence—to first decree a suspension against us for our inactivity, and so, by common vote, replace the former one, who had been disapproved because of his disagreement with the counter-balancing economy, and install the second on the throne. But now, since nothing of the sort has been done, with a deaf condemnation, the monastery received us, while the throne—unless it were more apt to say, the couch—received him.

5. And this, then, is the first wrong that has been committed against us: that before our synodal condemnation, our rival was installed on the throne. ^C But let the account now recall what was done after the crowd had been gathered. What they called—against the canons and all law—depositions were read aloud. They accused us, who had been judged by no one beforehand, as if we were guilty of certain and indubitable transgressions of patristic dogmas; they proclaimed us, O righteousness, and O eyes of the Lord who see all things, as heretics and enemies of the Greeks—us, the teachers of piety, and those who had already demonstrated their benevolence toward the Greeks for years past, they shouted this everywhere with impudence. What need is there of many words? Such statements so stirred the frenzy of the vile rabble against us that for three whole days we constantly doubted whether, having seen the morning of a day alive, we would likewise see its end in the same state. For a man who is destitute of reason, which is of its own definition, hearing absurd accusations hurled against someone, if he does not discern the momentum of slander and accusation, is quickly and without delay inflamed by the charges arising from the calumny; ^D and if the accusation has emanated from someone established in dignity and possessing distinction, that inflammation acquires greater strength, as dignity easily secures belief, while those who attend to such things cannot discern when the truth—which dignity and authority ought to contain—is subverted by anger and frenzy, which are perturbations of the human mind; and sometimes also, when knowledge is far from the dignity, they depart toward a lying and rash man of this kind, not as...

^A truth requires, but as is pleasing to them, they approach to accuse. But if the accusations concerning God and the faith are instituted, then some measure, which in man is more devoid of reason, is kindled; for he thinks he provides the greatest worship to God if he punishes the accused with slaughter and blood, to which peril we had almost come. For during three whole days, as we have said, we were in excessive fear, whether we, who had seen the morning hours of the day alive, would see its end in the same condition.

6. On the day which followed the third, those same proclamations were heard again with the clanging of bells; again the onrush of an inordinate multitude; again a confused and motley gathering, not of all, but not of a few men, who were for the time being murderous, filled the temples, the porticos, and the higher parts of the temples, and these especially, as if the assembly of the high priests was happening there for the discussion of our affairs. I myself, arriving at this point in my discourse, do not know how I should use it. For the truth itself persuades me to undertake the defense of those judges whose ^B accusation I am instituting, and I do not know toward which side I should incline, whether to accusation because of the unjust outcome of the action, or to defense because the action was performed not willingly but by compulsion. For they did not approach the work of their own volition, but were driven to it against their will, and were not permitted to act as judges, but were threatened like criminals if they did not once and for all confirm the decrees drafted against us, contrary to all law and canon. And the threat was not of fines, not of loss of possessions, not of the forfeiture of the high priesthood itself, but of death, and that a cruel and most violent one. For those who seemed, after our condemnation, to turn every evil upon themselves, as the following time clearly demonstrated, they ^C directed the gatherings of the base and murderous men, as has been said, so that if anyone should ever open his mouth even a little against what was being ordered, he would be punished with death. What then were those to do who could not withstand the insane frenzy and the unchecked onrush of the multitude? What else could they do but yield to the violence, and not attempt to extinguish with a few drops of water a whole flame reaching up to the heavens? Thus, for the time being, the tribunal dealt with them in such a way, and it remains for us to relate the rest of the injustices, and to what end these things ^D came.

7. For these things, as I said, had their beginning before the synodal judgment against us: to replace our throne with a rival, and furthermore to have the sentence against us published by him and him alone; and what is even more monstrous, not even by him, but to have it dictated in his name by profane men who had long been committed to an ancient malice against us; the progression of which, how far it went, we shall declare from the facts themselves. It was the fourth day from the time that the things which by

those men were termed a deposition were read, and we were called to the tribunal. ^A Hear, O heaven, and listen, O earth! The deposed is called to make a defense; he who has been condemned by judgment is called to an answer on his own behalf; he who was cast out from the throne even before the sentence was passed is called to a legal justification. To what end? That his arguments for his defense, and his answer, and his justification, being deemed plausible, might have their own proper force. And what would be the end of the force of these? The patriarchal throne? But this was taken away beforehand, and another lies upon it—for we call this chair by a more general name. And who, even among those most inept at understanding, would not judge that everything which we might bring forward in our defense, whether just or true, was bound to be treated by you as worthless? But you, the messengers commanded, were to proceed to our tribunal without any sign of our prelacy. Thanks be to you for this truth—for I will not call it injustice. For hence you have openly demonstrated the truth, that you were not gathered to judge, but to confirm against us a sentence passed contrary to divine law. O, the brotherly love held in such esteem by you! Rightly, then, and truly, having arrived above at the point where I have been declared innocent by you, I have spoken in defense of your own dignity regarding the things I have unjustly suffered. For it is no small declaration of our innocence, given the way the aforementioned matters have proceeded.

8. But perhaps someone might think that the things which follow were carried out more in accordance with the prescription of canons and laws? ^B Whosoever you are that listen with an impartial mind, attend to my speech. For as the messengers were sent to us according to the canons—which even contained this point as canonical, that it was not by prelates, but by certain laymen and subordinate clerics—we, borrowing the voice of Paul, as Paul cried out, "I appeal to Caesar," ^C thus I also appealed to the Emperor as the listener to my affairs and an impartial judge. When the messengers had brought these words of ours to those who were contriving all evils against us, returning from there, they said, "It is not permitted for you even to enjoy the sight of the Emperor. Do not think of it, nor expect any other benefit to come to you from there." Shall not even this—for I will ask you, whom my speech has addressed as an impartial listener—show a great inclination toward the observance of justice on the part of my judges? For if even a murderer, or a perpetrator of some other crime prohibited by the most severe penalties, had appealed to the hearing of the Emperor, believing himself to have been wronged by those who had cast their vote against him, would he have incurred the mark of a crime on account of the appeal? ^D But for us, this too was reckoned a crime; and I do not yet grasp what other judgment a defendant will appeal to, besides that which is the Emperor's. For if, when the person on trial is a patriarch, and the crime is hatred against the Greeks and error in dogmas, the hearing of the Emperor was reckoned as something superfluous and nearly useless, then in what other person, and in what other trial, would those who are accounted subject to similar

^A suspicions be heard? This, therefore, was how this matter was concluded for us; and then the synod was dissolved, and the assembly gathered against us was dispersed.

9. The third gathering following that, held with the assistance of the princes and again with the same wickedness of many of the common people—if not all of them—involved an impetus, a concourse, and again messengers, and messages not unlike the previous ones. We, however, first committing ourselves to God, and afterwards revolving in our minds what seemed useful to us, perceived that both going to those who summoned us and showing contumacy in spurning their orders were equally dangerous: the former, if it were to be accompanied by a defense of ourselves; the latter, because it would have granted full license to those who slander our affairs to do anything they wished. For our presence, together with a defense, could have stirred up the multitude to our own detriment, because the part of it that is less guided by reason would have considered this not a defense of us, but a public accusation and a demolition of the attempts made against us; and they would have judged that we were not helping ourselves, but siding with the Latins, if we were to do so. And perhaps even for this very reason someone, thinking he was offering a sacrifice to God, would have handed us over to a cruel death. For such ^B is a man, as we have said, listening less rationally when any question is raised regarding God and the faith. But not to go at all would have, to a greater degree, provoked the aforementioned danger toward us, providing, perhaps, proof of the accusations brought against us. Since, therefore, both these things seemed dangerous to us, we decided to pursue a third path. For, being conscious in ourselves that our conduct in all our accustomed ways was invulnerable, and that we had preserved the integrity of our piety unbroken, we judged that there was need for action, namely, not to prolong our attendance any further, but that an answer sufficient for us would be to issue a profession of our faith, and to pass over in silence all other things which our adversaries might contentiously oppose to us, and to reply nothing at the time to all the injustice we had suffered and were likely to suffer in the future. And this is what happened. And the tribunal held us, not to be judged, but to receive ^C more firmly, perhaps, the condemnation we had already suffered, it being the case, as it appears, that they were eager for our presence only so that those who were weaving dire things for us might inflict upon us both injustice and infamy. For what did we say then? And what did we hear?

10. Immediately, first of all, we were examined concerning what we had written about the ecclesiastical union. And the eagerness of the adversaries was to open a stadium for discussion and to organize a great contest of contradiction, so that by means of perverse interpretations—to construct which they use the voices of the Fathers more in the manner of lawgivers than by methods of demonstration—they might lure the more insane multitude of the common people with a sort of enticement, and thus carry off the victory against us. But it did not escape us what was ^D being plotted by them; and it was...

^A for the crowd to be inflamed with anger against us, long since prepared by the reputation that had been spread among them, that we were striving greatly for that ecclesiastical union which is hated by them. Such was our defense. If we are being questioned today concerning the faith, we said, we cry out openly and freely that we believe, and profess, and hold as the holy and catholic Church holds and professes, from whom we received baptism, from whom we imbibed the pure milk of the faith, from whom we were taught the dogmatic discourses, which from our very childhood even to this gray-haired age we have gone through in proportion to each of our years, learning at first, and teaching afterwards. And this, indeed, was our defense; but as for the response in return to this, that it should be delivered in an appropriate manner, I do not believe it was at all. For while the judges acknowledged that we held to the Orthodox Christianity, they nevertheless decreed the deprivation of our priesthood/archiepiscopacy, I know not for what reason, and moved from what source to such a decision—but certainly from no other source than those things we have mentioned above. For they were in no way able to resist the irrational mania of the multitude and the unbridled rage which each man ^B thought would be turned upon himself if he were to offer even the slightest resistance to those things which, otherwise powerful men, they were undertaking against us. The condemnation, therefore, as we have said, was for no other reason than this.

11. But we, who for the reasons adduced made no answer, now openly and plainly answer with our mouth, that all may hear. Was it fitting, O all you priests, and you who possess the knowledge of the divine canons and holy constitutions, to deprive of his priesthood him who believes with his soul and proclaims with his tongue the aforementioned profession of faith? Do you, O judge, testify that our Christianity is Orthodox, and yet do you take away our priesthood? Perhaps you will say it is because I published writings for the sake of ecclesiastical union. Very well, very well—if our sentiment did not present a correct, sincere, and most excellent piety; if we disapproved of your affairs; if we introduced a dogma alien to the Church. But if in all these things we are innocent, both in soul and mind, and the sum of the treatise written by us was nothing other than the nexus/union of both ^C Churches, proceeding well and most usefully by the grace of God; if whatever we have said or written proves us to be mediators and peacemakers, not assertors of new dogmas, and not, as the impudent and bold tongue of the calumniators contends against the truth, why was a decree issued for the taking away of our priesthood, a decree unworthy of those who suffer it, and unworthy of those who decreed it thus?

12. And how, says the contradictor, when your volume was being delivered to the fire, did you not undertake its defense, nor object yourself to the burning? But that time did not admit of a hearing, when all things were being tossed about in a disturbed order of affairs, with confusion and tumult, and the instigators of sedition were urging the base rabble to tear us apart ^D and cut us into pieces. And again, the writings were no longer food for the fire

and yet, because they are imputed to them, will you escape the charge of the subversion of dogmas? ^A This is not what I say, O excellent one, nor has it ever entered my mind; but I say very clearly that by this your meddlesomeness is exposed. For why else, if not to deprive us of the confirmation contained in the book, did you plot, and that you might thereby provide the masses with the notion that the book is full of truly great absurdities and impieties? But your snares to this end are in vain. For God was not going to overlook his servants who live in sincere simplicity. For you devised such a plan yesterday or the day before, yet God, who knows all things before they come to pass, was providing the confirmation of the truth from afar. For no small number of the archbishops ordained by us for the parts of the East have copies of this book with them, and no few monks living in various parts of the earth. And if God from above grants it, and an entrance to a court of righteous judgment is once opened to me, it will be easier for us, aided by the Spirit, to show those who slander us to be calumniators and enemies of the truth. For our whole effort in these writings was for the sake of the common benefit to our empire and dominion; and its primary aim was solely to persuade those who object not to oppose the peace, since piety is in no way harmed as long as it is confessed among us that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, just as it is confessed by the Latins that He proceeds from the Father and the Son. ^B

13. What power will the adversary have against us, when he calls us transgressors of piety and enemies of the Romans? He will be proved a gaping wolf in vain, since we have demonstrated the union of the Churches by the example drawn from the deeply beneficial dispositions of our Fathers, which, moved by God for the union of the Churches, they employed at prescribed times. As for us, looking to all the dispositions of the holy Fathers as an example, we have undertaken similar things which, as we also promised above, will now be verified by the fragments of the book composed by us, which are as follows word for word. And before others, the sun of the ecclesiastical firmament, the great and manifold Athanasius, whose speech is insuperable and whose manner is inimitable: seeing that in his day no small scandal had arisen among these very Churches of which our discourse treats, we find the reconciliation of both was arranged in no other way than by the defense undertaken for the Roman Church regarding those matters for which the Orientals were drawing the Occidentals into the opposite party. And what was the defense? Let the man himself be present to proclaim it in his own words. For in the Tome to the Antiochenes he contains this: For to those who were accusing some as being affirmers of three hypostases, since such words were not found in the Scriptures and could therefore appear suspect, we were the authors that they no longer [continue] in the Nicene confession. ^{C D}

But they were questioned nonetheless because of the contention, lest peradventure, as the Arians say, they hold them to be estranged and alienated from one another, or—as other heretics say there are three principles and three gods—they too, holding such an opinion, speak of three hypostases. And upon the defense given by those who speak of three hypostases in response to this inquiry, and after the explanation of the expressions offered by them in a pious sense, he adds: “Having accepted the explanation of these expressions from them, we inquired in turn of those accused by them of saying there is one hypostasis, whether they too, like Sabellius, in this way speak [of it] to the negation of the Son and the Holy Spirit.” Then he also sets down in his discourse the defense of the latter upon this inquiry, and subsequently, praising the harmony of the meaning over the difference of the wording, he says: “Indeed, even those accused of having said three hypostases agreed with these, and they themselves, who said one hypostasis, explained the others' [terms] as they did, and agreed.” And proceeding to what has already been said, he adds: “Since these things have thus been confessed, we exhort you not to condemn rashly those who confess in this way and who interpret the words they use in such a manner, nor to reject them as men of suspicious mind, but rather to receive them as peaceable and justifying themselves. ^B But those who are not willing to confess and interpret the words in this way, these you should restrain and put to shame, as suspect in their mindset. But as for those who do not bear with such, counsel them, those who interpret and think rightly, to inquire no longer of one another, nor to quarrel about words for no useful purpose, nor to fight over such words, but to agree with the mindset of piety. For those who are not thus disposed, but only contend over such petty words, are doing nothing else but giving their neighbor a murky drink of subversion, as enemies and zealots for discords and schisms.” And further: “To be impious is wholly forbidden, even if one attempts to cloak it with diverse words and plausible sophistries; but to practice piety, all confess, is righteous, even if one uses strange words, provided only that the speaker holds a pious opinion and through them intends to signify that which he has piously in his mind.” And again after other matters: “Therefore, if these people reject these words as strange, let them hold to the opinion according to which the synod wrote as follows: That, even if the words are not thus in the Scriptures, nonetheless, as has been said before, they possess the meaning from the Scriptures, and pronouncing this, they signify it to those who have kept their hearing whole for piety.” ^D 14. These echoes of the thunderous tongue of Athanasius, when we were writing about the union of the Churches, we made a part of our volume; now, however, as we answer concerning the things we have suffered, a defense becomes opportune, which here [I will justify].

I propose to terminate [my discourse]. But hoping that I shall undertake a more extensive treatment of that subject, I desire—provided God grants it and life permits—to enter into a contest before auditors who cherish integrity, regarding our piety and good will toward the Greek nation. Nevertheless, because in the mouth of two or three witnesses the truth of what is said is established, I shall bring to your recollection, as auditors, those things which I placed at the very beginning of my discourse, in no way discordant with the same sentiment: namely, how the great Basil, when managing the affairs of the Church, of which Christ God is the cornerstone and the bond, ^A reconciled those who did not assert that the Spirit is God but expressed it in other terms, with those who openly proclaimed Him God with a clear voice; and furthermore, how Gregory, who draws his name from theology, entering upon a similar path of reconciling these parties, also argued at length and openly that the Jewish nation should not be cast out if, seeking to be granted for a time the name of the Anointed instead of [that of] Christ, they wished to be ascribed to our number and order. Adding these things to what was previously set down, I think they are sufficient for our defense; and if we, showing by testimonies handed down in Scripture that the procession of the most holy Spirit from the Father through the Son differs in no way from the opinion which confesses that It is from both, ^B have given ourselves over for the sake of the peace of ecclesiastical economy, I shall set an end to my speech. But you, O pair of patriarchs, of whom one adorns the Church of Alexandria, and the other that of Antioch—and whom Constantinople now holds in her midst—recall to memory that the One who is to judge us is none other than how we judge, and those who will demand an accounting from us are as we demand an accounting from our neighbor. And if it is not burdensome to you, now that you are being brought by us into this reflection, which you know precisely, consider what the canonical constitutions and the decrees of the Fathers ordain, and what we have suffered contrary to canon and law.

BY THE SAME (AUTHOR)

DISCOURSE, PARTLY SECOND APOLOGETIC FOR THE INJUSTICE SUFFERED, PARTLY ANTIRRHETIC AGAINST THE PERVERSE EXPOSITIONS OF CERTAIN TRADITIONAL AUTHORITIES.

1. The matters, then, for which we were unjustly driven from our rightful throne have stood in this way, in which, neither as betrayers of piety, nor as ^D those who...

are enemies, as our slanderers claim, but as friends to the Greeks—wounding piety in no part, and providing for the better interests of our empire and rule—we have striven to procure peace for the Roman Church; these things, we have related in summary. But since the authorities which the recent theologians propose in the discussions regarding dogmas are different and do not agree with those with which we satisfied [the inquiry] abundantly in the volume we previously wrote on this subject, it seems to us that we must now respond to them again in a specific discourse. Furthermore, it does not escape me that there are many who think that our benevolence toward the Greeks is being referred to and proposed by us under the pretext of Patroclus. Therefore, it seems good to me, having delayed for a short time the response regarding dogmatic matters, to place a few words before the discourse, by which it will be made plainly evident that we genuinely strived for ecclesiastical peace out of benevolence toward the Greeks. For once this has been demonstrated by me beforehand, the rest will follow smoothly, deemed worthy of a second proof regarding the soundness of our piety, whenever the discourse, proceeding dogmatically, makes the refutation of these newly-appeared interpretations of theological phrases; and when these have been refuted, it will be shown that those who contradict us are rather the betrayers of piety and enemies of the Greeks.

2. Therefore, O auditor, you who take upon yourself the judgment, pay attention and consider carefully above all the evidence from history—a history which no one can oppose—by which we show the defense and the arguments of our friendship, through which we are joined with the Greeks. For Peter, illustrious in life and speech and namesake of the prince of the apostles, who adorned the patriarchal throne of Antioch—under whom Michael Cerularius, during whose time the schism of the Churches broke out, held the Constantinopolitan throne—being grieved by the schism and regarding it as the most atrocious of all evils, writes to this Cerularius, among other things saying: "I pray, I entreat, I beseech, and in my mind I embrace your holy feet, that, abating somewhat from your excessive rigor, your holy beatitude may accommodate itself to the actual circumstances. For there is a fear that, while one is eager to sew up that which is torn, one may effect a greater schism, and while attempting to raise up that which has collapsed, one may effect a more serious fall." ^C

3. Furthermore, reflect in your mind whether it is not clearly evident from this—that is, from this long separation and discord, and the breaking away of this great and first apostolic throne from our holy Church—that all manner of evils have accumulated and overflowed among men, that the whole world has suffered grievously, that all kingdoms have been shaken and perturbed, and that everywhere men have been tormented by wailing and tears and great miseries, by the cruel and inhuman conflict, and that regions and cities have been perpetually tormented by plague and famine, and that in no place has our army ever prospered. What, therefore, will you say to these things, you whom I have chosen as judge in this discourse? Is it not sufficiently...

^A proven that those who exert themselves with the greatest zeal for the union of the Churches—the division of which has been the cause of all miseries, tears, and lamentations—are truly friends of the Greeks? Surely no one, unless he shamelessly opposes the truth, will say that we have not labored for the union of the Roman Church as if we were friends of the Greeks. But if we have acted in this matter out of love for the Greeks, it remains manifest that those who oppose it show most bitter hatred toward Greece, and there is no need for further arguments to demonstrate this hatred of theirs toward Greece and their wondrous alienation of mind from them. And yet those evils which that holy and, in truth, prophetic man exposed at that time, were the smoke of a future fire, which, breaking out from that time until today into one part and another of our dominion and empire, consumes everything. For then the whole of Syria and Mesopotamia were in our hands; still all Iberia was subject to our emperors; still our boundaries extended to the Danube, enclosing the whole of Bulgaria and the region inhabited by the Triballi; still Cyprus and Crete, and with it Sicily, those more famous islands, and Calabria and the greater part of Italy, ^B served the Roman emperors. For what need is there for anyone to recount the Peloponnese, and the island of Euboea, and all the others that the Aegean and Adriatic seas interspersed here and there? But now, to what a state our affairs have been reduced, it is a shame even to say.

4. But I know that there is a stirring toward contradiction in one who possesses knowledge of the aforementioned letter. For perhaps such a person might oppose us from another side, and seizing upon another part of it, in which the writer appears to be finding fault with the addition, he will affirm that by this alone, and perhaps by a divine and fervent zeal for the faith, he prefers division to union. We, however, from what we have said concerning our own pro-Greek disposition and our proofs of the anti-Greek hostility of our opponents, having shown them to be traitors and deserters of their own piety—in that, though they ought to have paid their debt, they keep delaying—will demonstrate this when our discourse proceeds dogmatically, as we said, to examine the claims of the newly-appeared interpretations in theological matters. But now, since we have made mention of that passage of the letter, which an opponent might perhaps use as a matter of great importance, as it especially serves his own side, we shall entreat you, as judge and listener, not to pass over the things contained in this part of the letter in transit or superficially, but to examine them with accurate study and an attentive mind. And now, apply your mind. As we have said, the aforementioned Constantinopolitan, being most devoted to the division, among many other accusations to which the Antiochene pays no attention, enumerates the addition made ^C to the Symbol: "I," the Antiochene replies in these very words, "in order to make my opinion known, if they had corrected the addition in the holy Symbol, I would have required nothing further," leaving aside, among other things, the question of the azymes as something indifferent. And I openly showed this when I was writing to the bishop of Venice,

^A that the supper at which our Savior and Lord Jesus Christ delivered the mystery of the divine mystagogy to the disciples took place before the Passover, at which time it was not lawful to eat azymes; and I praise your divine blessedness for agreeing to accept this, so that by seeking everything, we do not lose everything. Observe the expression, you who judge these things with an impartial mind: "If they corrected the addition in the holy Symbol," he said; he did not say, "If they blotted out the impiety therein," or "If they cast out the blasphemy against God therein," which is what those who are now reputed wise and those now inflamed with zeal for piety contend; but rather, "If they corrected the addition." It remains, therefore, for the prudent listener to consider in a spirit of gentleness and peace toward what end the intention of the correction for that person was directed. For as for me, I quickly think that he would have overlooked even what appeared to be a fault in the addition, if he had perceived that even a little spirit of peace was contained in the one to whom he was sending the letter; and I gather this—and not wrongly—from those things which he sets forth in another part of the letter in these words: "For it is good that we, being inclined toward equity, and most especially when neither God nor the faith is in danger, should always incline toward peace and brotherly love; for these are our brothers, and it is not required of us to investigate ^B the discussion of words with such exactitude among nations that use a foreign tongue, as is required of us, who are practiced in the art of rhetoric." And again: "In the most holy monastery of Stoudios the deacons gird themselves, engaging in a matter that does not harmonize with ecclesiastical tradition. And observe how you, having labored and exerted yourself greatly, have not been able to root out such a singular custom. And if we cannot impose order on those who are under us, by what means shall we be able to move that great nation, high-minded in its own customs, away from them?"

5. From these and such things I am able to see how the Antiochene suggested to the Constantinopolitan the matters concerning the correction of the addition. Furthermore, by carefully examining the writings of those who stirred up the schism before us, I gather that I am not wandering from the truth when I discourse in a similar way about that divine man, and I reckon his intention concerning the correction to have been no other than what I have said. For I find a certain Theophylact, archbishop of Bulgaria, who was also ^C famous for his art of discourse, who reproved the addition only in the Symbol, but in all other writings and public colloquies ^D without doubt permitted it; and I do not think he would ever have permitted anything of the sort if that wise man had opined that piety was being harmed in this regard. But let there also be added what happened almost in our own age. I find that Blemmydes, a man great in the gravity and copiousness of his discourse, and whose wisdom even those who are most hostile will admit has attained to great glory, directed a writing he had composed on this subject to a certain elected archbishop of Bulgaria, although he...

being moved by divine instinct, had chosen to live a solitary life on Mount Athos, to whom many of those still living bear witness regarding his excellence in discourse. Yet, there is no surer proof than the works he himself left behind after his death, which are now in everyone’s hands; the man’s name was James. Blemmydes, writing to him and lamenting the dissension of the Churches, sets forth his indignation regarding the causes of that schism. This seems to me to suggest sufficiently that he would never have said or written such things unless he had recognized that he too took this dissension of the Churches ill, as another might perceive from a summary of his letters. ^B Nicetas, too, who in his own time held the archieratic helm of the metropolis of Thessalonica, composed a dialogue supposedly between a Greek and a Latin, assigning the victory to the Latin, and in a way aptly leading the Greek to accept the union joyfully. For there were indeed—and truly, there were very many before us—those who embraced this union but did not dare to set their hand to it, because of those very things which we, who did set our hand to it, have suffered. Finding all these men, from what I have said and from what they themselves set forth in their own writings, to be joyfully disposed toward the union of the Churches, I conclude—and I think I do not err from the truth in so doing—especially when I consider what I have already said regarding that divine man, ^C in the section of his letter where he treats of this subject, striving zealously for the union of the Churches, he wrote: "If they should correct the addition."

6. I distinguish, moreover, those who find fault with the addition to the Creed, not because it mars the purity of the faith, but because it became, as indeed has happened, the cause of no small scandal. If one wishes to examine the matter more deeply or more searchingly, he will find that the addition was never the beginning or root of the scandal, but rather that it was other causes of scandals, appearing at different times from the circumstances of the age, and arising from various courses of events and disturbances, that simply cast this addition into the midst, like an untimely birth of contention. ^D And if, upon close consideration, this is found to be the case, why would this not also defend our inclination toward union and show our zeal in procuring it to be blameless? And not to wander far, the very letter of Peter of Antioch—for the momentum of my discourse leads me to recall it—openly confesses that he does not know how or for what reason the commemoration of the Pope was cut off, whereas he had previously complained at length about the chartophylax of Constantinople, because in the letters he sent to this Antiochene he had asserted that the commemoration of the Pope had been erased from the sacred diptychs by the holy Sixth Ecumenical Synod. If, therefore, the addition to the Creed were laboring under such a mark of impiety as those of this age

^A profess to believe, and if this were truly the most significant part of the scandal, how could that great man have ever claimed to be ignorant of how—and for what reason—the commemoration of the Pope was cut off? Moreover, when he presents himself as an unassailable witness to the fact that the Pope was commemorated in Constantinople with the other patriarchs during the divine mysteries forty-five years prior, how much strength does this not lend to the contention that the addition was not considered from the beginning to be a primary, great, and sole scandal of the Churches? For, as you see, the authority of one speaking openly confirms that in his own day the commemoration of the Pope existed among them.

7. ^B Furthermore, we do not find it at all easy to determine the period from when the addition was made down to the time of Cerularius—under whom this man from Antioch was living in fame and by whom the schism that could never subsequently be appeased had its beginning—because we do not know with certainty the emperor under whom Pope Leo decreed, for I know not what causes or in what manner, that this addition should be made in the Creed. However, we do find, by tracing back from the reign of Monomachus, under whom all the aforementioned events took place, to the beginning of the reign of Constans, the grandson of Heraclius—under whom the great Maximus flourished—a period of nearly or about 400 years. And just as we find the first beginning of the contradiction regarding the addition to have occurred in the days of the great Maximus, so we perceive that ^C it did not progress any further, except in that it went no further than the extent to which those in Constantinople were taking issue with the synodical decrees of the Pope of that time.

That the cause of the scandal which had arisen at that time was that the Easterners were being harassed by the heresy of the Monothelites, we recognize as being entirely evident; any other man can also recognize this, provided he does not peruse in a perfunctory manner the letter of the great Maximus to Marinus, the priest of Cyprus. From that time, a period of two hundred years and much more passed during which peace smiled upon the Churches, before Photius again began to slander the addition. We are not ignorant that the cause of his action was nothing other than the fact that Photius had been thrust from the patriarchal throne by the Roman pontiff, who was championing the cause of Ignatius. Hence, and from no other source, did he utter and write those great and most grievous things against the Roman Church. ^D That Photius was driven to such actions not by divine zeal, but by fury and unholy rivalry, we have demonstrated more extensively and quite clearly in the book published by us. Whatever the case may be, the scandal that arose then did not have long duration; for the same authority who gave it birth also extirpated it by the root, and by a great and almost ecumenical synod applied healing hands to the wound of the scandal with the remedy of correction.

8. And again, the time that elapsed from then until Cerularius, extending beyond one hundred and seventy years, [original-script column: see facsimile] maintained a deep peace among

^A both Churches. But even the scandal in the time of Michael Cerularius himself had its origins in worldly matters, as anyone who wishes to investigate it can learn, which Argyrus the Italian is recorded to have disturbed quite a bit. Who, therefore, among those who record these things not just casually, would not judge, from the mere count of the years during which—as various other causes for scandals arose—this addition was brought into the open and boldly reproached and objected to, and yet again was suppressed and receded, that it was neither the preceding, nor the great, nor the sole scandal of the Churches? And when such a person has clearly recognized that it was temerariously—and as if the agitators were doing something else—objected to as a cause of scandal between Greeks and Latins to be started and promoted, and yet again neglected as having perhaps no great harm in itself, how would he not be more cheerfully disposed toward those who are hastening their union? Therefore, these things have all been enumerated by us, wishing to establish that the accusation of the addition against the Roman Church was not considered by those before us as great as it is by those who now live, so that from this we might also show that we have not been so far turned from the proper path as our opponents think, regarding the zeal for the union of the Churches which we have demonstrated.

9. But if we intended to delay a little our account regarding our dogmatic matters, and to demonstrate our goodwill towards the Greek nation further than was perhaps appropriate, in order to make a defense of our goodwill towards the Greeks, with the subject matter supplying us with material in our speech, and having more things ready to add to what had been said, had not a more necessary contest called us to itself—namely, the answer regarding the dogmas—we ask for forgiveness for this. Nevertheless, reminding you, who are both judge and auditor, of the demonstration of the hatred of our adversaries against the Greeks ^C that was built up above from all these facts, so that now also, regarding the harm we have sustained for the betrayal of their own piety, let it be added—let us now lay our hands upon the promised refutation of the new interpretations which they pronounce concerning the theological statements. For what is this which they have invented last of all? ^D They assert that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, not to indicate the existence of the Spirit from the Father through the Son, but that He, proceeding from the Father, passes through the Son. But as for me, I do not know what this "passing through" is, nor do I comprehend whence the thought of this "passing through" came into their minds. And turning every thought over within me, to see if I might by some means, however dimly, understand something about it, I find myself with nothing more than doubt; unless they are conceiving of some nature of Divinity according to which they say the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. But this is not of the wisdom of those who say it. For I acknowledge the men to be wise, but truly to have their wisdom darkened by malice. But that they are wise, I greatly doubt, from where those who are such are moved by this word, "to pass..."

^A over into investigation,"—I discover, I say, that this preconceived opinion is the cause of such inventions. For what else could ever cause a soul, capable of discerning matters soundly, to wander from a right and secure judgment? And I have a sure proof of this, in that the disagreement regarding ecclesiastical matters between Greeks and Latins is not spoken of in one way by some and another way by others, but it is asserted by all with one voice that they are in the same balance: that they depart from piety, while insisting that the Latins do not cultivate piety. For the long duration of the schism has so strengthened this insane opinion, that when some have a discussion about a meeting, a disagreement, or any other action in which a Latin and a Greek participate, they express it thus: "A certain Christian and a Latin ^B in this or that manner spoke or acted with one another."

10. When, therefore, they are all so entirely preoccupied that they treat the name of "Latin" as a distinction against that of "Christian," what at all could be devised there sufficient to reconcile both parties? But why do I say this regarding those who are apt to say and inquire into such things, where even women and children, still lingering in the women's quarters, and men who know nothing at all beyond agriculture or some other base craft, count it a great crime and accuse those who even dare to whisper in favor of approving ecclesiastical peace? For that which I found in the most theological of the saints, I mean Gregory of Nyssa, speaking of the existence of the Son of God, which was in controversy in that age: ^C "Someone," he says, "went away to the bath, and does not ask to learn how his master might derive utility from the bath-keeper, but asks whether the Son is from things that are or from things that are not. And another went away to the butcher-shop, and does not inquire how much the goods offered for sale are worth, but moves a question about things that are and things that are not with those found there." I find this being done now in everything and through everything, almost; and boys in schools, and women in their gatherings together for the sake of the distaff and spindle, and laboring men also and those following any other base occupation ^D — all these set aside everything else at hand as less important than to examine and act the busybody regarding those who say the Spirit is from the Son. What then, my present discourse asks, do you think we suffer, when we are called before a judge and arbiter, being examined by women, and children, and other such little men, at whose hands we have sought to reconcile our Church with the Roman, and think that we do not depart even a whit from what is right, although they say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, whereas our own holy Fathers, who have treated of theological matters, [say that He] emerges from the Father and the Son, and moreover is poured forth and springs forth, and in some places even naturally and es-

essentially ^A from the Father and the Son? Whence shall the veins of my speech be opened, so that I may be able to recount the mocking taunts which are hurled at me in a similar way? That I may speak with David: "They that sat in the gate spoke against me, and they that drank wine made songs against me" 1; but we, with the Lord helping us, have endured all things; we have sustained the madness of the crowds; we have become the object and the study of the wrath of secular princes; we have borne the weight of an unjust sentence.

11. But do you, as witness ^B and judge before the God of truth, judge impartially whether we have suffered these things justly, truly, and as was fitting—we, who introduce no innovations into the customs which our Church embraces, and who demonstrate our piety through the testimonies of the divine Scriptures, yet manage peace and concord with the nation of the Latins for the great benefit of our authority and empire. Judge, therefore, as you wish, concerning these things. As for me, I shall expound the attacks and efforts of the new theologians, which I have noted from my very youth as being stronger than those of the others, just as I proposed to myself. They say that the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father through the Son does not signify the ^C existence of the Spirit from the Father through the Son, but that it is said in this way, that the Spirit pervades from the Father through the Son. But if they have anything else to say for a greater explanation of the word "pervade," let them bring it forth into sight and light, and set it out in their own defense. But if they wish to learn from us how we receive this word—and in what meaning, not foreign to other expressions handed down in writing, which assert the existence of the most holy Spirit from the Father through the Son—let them hear us, when we find it handed down in blessed Cyril in the *Thesaurus*, that the Spirit ^D naturally and essentially pervades from the Father in the Son; we understand nothing else than that the Spirit, having all things that are His own from the Father—to whom the Son refers all things—does not have them from Himself. And when we encounter the great Basil in the eighteenth chapter of the treatise to Amphilochius, saying that "natural goodness, and sanctification which is according to nature, and royal dignity pervade from the Father through the Only-begotten to the Spirit," we understand nothing else than that He does not have them from Himself, but from the Father to whom all things of the Spirit are referred; and that the Holy Spirit possesses all these things through the Son, just as He possesses His own natural and essential existence. For if He did not have such an existence through the Son, He would never be said to have these things through the Son.

12. And why do we say so much about "pervading," when it is possible to demonstrate with many other testimonies handed down in writing, without any contradiction, that this signifies nothing other than the procession of the most holy Spirit from the Father through the Son? For the divine and great truth...

^A Athanasius writes: "It was impossible for the Spirit to be glorified in the glory of the Trinity if He were not proceeding from God through the Son, but were instead made of God, as they say." Does then, O discerning listener, he who speaks theologically of the Spirit’s existence—which the Arians referred to as a generation from creation, but which he refers to as a procession fitting for God—mean by these things the very "passing-through" that they claim? ^B Saint Cyril, in the passages where he says: "You shall call the Holy Spirit, who is poured forth naturally from God the Father through the Son, and who signifies to us his own existence as if in the likeness of the breath coming from the mouth"—does he leave anything else wanting for the declaration of this aforementioned existence? The [Bishop] of Nyssa, in the places where he says: "For the one is immediately from the First, but the other is through that which is immediately from the First"—does he signify by this the distinct mode of existence of each of the two caused things, or does he imply something else besides this? Absolutely not. And they will interpret "The one is immediately from the First" as meaning the "passing-through." But if "The one is immediately from the First" is said regarding *His* existence, then the one rendered as being towards Him is also an indicator of existence, and not of the "passing-through" spoken of by them. And when the divine Damascene calls the Father the producer of the manifesting Spirit through the Word, is this production through the Son the natural and essential existence of the most holy Spirit, or is it this much-discussed "passing-through" of theirs? For what difference does it make to assert that the Father is the producer or cause of the Spirit through the Word? ^C Truly, one who holds the truth in honor will declare that these differ not at all. And if the existence of the most holy Spirit from the Father were not through the Son, when would the Son have been called the fountain of the Spirit?

13. But, he says, if the one named for theology rightly took the example of the sun for the image of the divine Trinity, it is not permissible to say that the Holy Spirit has His existence from the Father through the Son, since the light issuing from the sun through the beam does not have its existence from the sun through that beam. What else, therefore, can one think of these things other than that it is [the result of] an opinionated obstinacy and unreasonable persuasion on the part of those who say such things? I am not persuaded that they are ignorant of the truth, but rather that, in order to flatter the multitudes who are given over to a preconceived opinion, they are carried away to such assertions. ^D For who, having wit and intellect, would not say that the procession of the light through the beam is its existence through it? For if the existence of the light from the sun were not through the beam, the light would never have been called the light of the beam; but as it is, we say both "light of the beam" and "light from the beam," and this is from nothing else than the fact that it has its existence through it. Or whence, tell me, are two caused things from one sun—the two beams? And in the same way, two caused things from the same sun, a beam and light, such that regarding the two beams one cannot say of the beam, or through the beam, or from the beam, one as the other; whereas regarding the beam and the light, the light is said to be "of the beam," "through it," and "from it"? I, for my part, think that everyone who has salt in his breast, provided there is no

^A contradiction, but by his own assent and approval of what has been said, [would agree] for no other reason than that the light has its existence through the beam. Hence it is that there is nothing to prevent one from asserting that the beam is the source of the light. Furthermore, tell me: why is it that in the case of two caused beams, one can easily conceive of one without the other, since they emerge at the same time, but in the case of these two causes, the beam and the light, it is impossible to conceive of one without the other? This is absolutely for no other reason than that neither of the beams needs the other for its existence, whereas the light, by every necessity, needs the beam for its own existence. For take away the beam, and there will be no solar light. But not even any of those things which are light-bearing emit their own proper light without the ray naturally inherent in them, as can be observed in other stars and in coals. If then, that without which this cannot be, how, by what reasoning, will it not be assumed ^B in its existence, when it is said "through the Son"?

14. We, too, are able to support our position with other examples from Scripture. But since testimonies taken from our adversaries deserve greater credence in all matters, what will they say when they find that he who, in opposition to the Italians, wrote the book called the sacred *Armamentarium*—I mean that Camaterus—in his comment on the noted saying, "The Spirit naturally poured forth from the Father through the Son," writes word for word as follows: "Note also in this place the natural effusion of the Spirit decreed from the Father through the Son, but not from the Son"? And again, in another comment, "It is poured forth through the Son," to which he subsequently adds: "Great is the difference between these two, 'from Him' [ex ipso] and 'through Him' [per ipsum]." My good man, whoever you may be who devised this way of reasoning, you see that he, ^C who wrote so similar and so great a volume against the Italians—an erudite and truly wise man, even if he was of an unfair mind toward the Latins—acknowledges existence "through the Son," and yet you, nevertheless, cannot endure such a great light of truth?

15. But if it seems right to you to object to us regarding these things, "Why do we not follow him when he opposes the preposition 'from'?" you shall hear: "Because he himself openly confesses that all the saints accept the preposition 'from' regarding the Son in place of 'through'." For if 'from' is in place of 'through,' there is absolutely nothing to prevent 'through' from being accepted in place of 'from.' For our great Basil will support for us the mutual exchange of such prepositions, when he clearly teaches that they are taken one for the other to denote the things signified by each. ^D Add to this that Saint Cyril, in those places where he accepts "through whom" regarding the Father, a phrase which is said of the Son, says that divine Scripture often uses terms indifferently in the manner of a catachresis, inflicting no force upon the subject. But also that which is found in other places by the same Saint Cyril—that all things are accomplished and brought to completion by both in equal measure; and again in other places, that life comes to us through both in an equal way, namely the Father and the Son—these very securely confirm the passage.

^A Indeed, the one celebrated for his theology also establishes the aforementioned interchangeability concerning the meanings of these prepositions, in those places where he says: “The same account applies for me both concerning the word ‘God’ and the word ‘Lord’.” For as for the prepositions *from whom*, and *through whom*, and *in whom*, through which you treat the Godhead for us scientifically, attributing one to the Father, another to the Son, and another to the Holy Spirit—what indeed would you have done, since all are said about each, as is clear to the diligent, if [you claim that] one is firmly attributed to one [person], while you introduce through these such an inequality of both dignity and nature?

16. ^B But well done that we have remembered the utterance of this great Father at the right time. For it checks the impetus of the argument for us, and persuades us with bright boldness to speak against those who charge us with the crime of impiety. O judgments, and laws, and O truth departed from among men! See to it that you yourselves are not rather found to be proponents in the Church of some forbidden heresy. For if the most wicked Aetius was condemned because he strove to maintain that things which are stated in a different way are also different in essence, and on this account gathered that the Father is of another nature because "from whom" was stated of him, and the Son of another because "through whom" is attributed to him—and our God-speaking Father strove to [prove] the "from" and "through" to be equivalent, and the great Basil expended many arguments in asserting this—what else can we expect, when it is contended that "through" is stated of the Son in a different way, and it is divided from the similar meaning of the preposition "from," than the revivifying of a heresy long since extinguished? ^C But these things have been said by way of digression, as we have indicated.

17. ^D The thread of the argument brings you back to a reminder that you do not correctly assert that "procession through the Son" does not denote the existence of the most holy Spirit from the Father through the Son. For that Blemmydes, who achieved great glory both in speaking with gravity and in discoursing copiously, as we said before—whose wisdom not even one who was most hostilely disposed could drag into blame, nor anyone dare to deny that he had acquired a celebrated name—composed entire orations on this subject, in which among other things he also expresses this: "Just as, therefore, the Holy Spirit is the action of the Son and God the Word from eternity, shining forth from Him,"—which is the same as saying, "through Him [and] from the Father"—and he immediately adds, "But to 'shine forth' in theological matters denotes an existence which is neither subject to passion nor measured by time." And the great Basil shows this in his second *Antirrheticus*. And again in other places he says: "Others of the holy men call the Father the root, the Son the branch, and the Holy Spirit the fruit," demonstrating the existence of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son. And in this manner that wise man truly [theologized] concerning this existence. As for us, after this further objection raised by our adversaries,

^A one must remember the written statements which they advance to refute the existence of the Spirit through the Son, and by which they endeavor to strike down this doctrine. For they say: If the Father is the cause of the Spirit through the Son, how did the Theologian Gregory, in his speech on the return from Egypt, say: "All things that the Father has, belong to the Son, except the cause"? And likewise, the holy Maximus, in his letter on behalf of the Italians to Marinus, a priest of Cyprus, says: "From which they demonstrated themselves not to make the Son the cause of the Spirit; for they know one cause of the Son and the Spirit, the Father, but they say 'through him' to declare the procession." And the Damascene writes: "Not as from him, but as proceeding through him from the Father; for the Father alone is the cause."

18. ^B These are the things which they put forward to us as if they were difficult to refute. But we, before all else, contradicting what seems to them to be a genuine statement of the Theologian, say that it is a mistake of those who copied the books—a state of affairs which many who copied books after the schism wickedly brought about, a subject about which we have treated more fully in the book published by us. For in many trustworthy volumes it is found written not "except the cause," but "except the unbegottenness"; and those books which have it thus possess greater authority than the others, from the fact that the saint, in other diverse writings of his, when theologizing about the properties in the holy Trinity, ^C everywhere defines unbegottenness as the property of the Father. For the same author, in his discourse on order to be observed in discussions, says: "The Spirit, having its existence from God, yields to the Father the reasoning of unbegottenness, to the Son that of generation, while as regards the rest, it is co-natural, co-throned, and of equal glory"; he did not say "the cause," but "yields the reasoning of unbegottenness to the Father." And again in the discourse to Heron the philosopher: "The property of the Father is not being begotten, of the Son is generation, of the Spirit is emission." And again in the discourse on the Spirit: "For what does he not possess of those that are unbegotten? By what names is he not distinguished, being God, except for the reasoning of unbegotten and begotten? For it was fitting that the properties be reserved to the Father and the Son, ^D lest confusion arise in the Godhead." And likewise, in the discourse on Pentecost: "What need have I of many words? All things that the Father has belong to the Son, except the reasoning of unbegottenness; all things that the Son has belong to the Spirit, except the reasoning of generation." Thus, therefore, in so many writings, the great Gregory the Theologian, by defining unbegottenness as the property of the Father, and not the absolute term "cause," does not permit the book containing the phrase "except the cause" to claim credit for itself.

19. But if this reasoning does not seem far from the probable, these theological propositions are also confirmed by other patristic testimonies. The Damascene, in the eighth of his theological chapters, says: "The Son is also the character of the paternal hypostasis, because he is both perfect and subsisting in his own person,"

and similar in all things to the Father, except for ingenerateness. And again in the same chapter: "On account of the Father, the Son and the Spirit have everything they have," that is to say, because the Father has them, except for ingenerateness, generation, and procession. For it is in these hypostatic properties alone that the three holy hypostases differ from one another, not in essence, but being divided without division by the characteristic note of their own hypostasis. ^A But indeed, the strength of the books that bear the clause "except for the cause"—that is, those that contain the clause "except for ingenerateness"—is directed against those who exclude that cause. We, however, have much to say about the statement of the great Maximus, but since we are about to dwell at length upon those of our Father the Damascene, we pass over these things, and only say this to those who contradict us on this point: Would it not be a pleasure for us to follow the great Maximus, who undertook the defense of the Romans, who at that time affirmed that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and taught that "from the Father through the Son" differs in nothing from "from both," from which the letter clearly understands "proceeding from the Son" as "proceeding through the Son"?

20. ^B To me—even if not to you—it is most desirable to follow this holy Father; fortified and accompanied by whose prayers, I shall now approach the interpretation of the statement of the divine Damascene for you. No one among you will surely say that this divine Father was ignorant of what the great Basil, and Nyssen, and he who is named from theology [Gregory the Theologian] have declared concerning divine matters; and if this is so, neither was he ignorant of what they clearly and openly declared concerning the equal power of the prepositions, about which we have spoken above. If, then, this saint knew these things, and knew them so well that, adapting a hymn to the Theotokos, he would say on one occasion, "From you, God became clothed in my lump," ^C and on another, "Through you, Mother and Virgin, light has dawned for the whole world," who among all men will judge that he taught divine matters according to their opposition, and not according to another rationale, by which all other such statements can be harmonized together, especially when he wrote: "Not as from himself, but as by him proceeding from the Father"? This phrase, which is brought forward to determine the hypostases by the determination of the prepositions—if someone does not read that statement of the one named from theology perfunctorily, where he said: "Of him from whom, and through whom, and in whom, not dividing the natures (for the prepositions or the order of the names do not divide, but designate the properties of one and unconfused nature)"—^D this discrimination of the prepositions, which designates the properties of the persons, is adopted here by the Damascene, and this is manifest from what he adds: "For the Father alone is the cause." Namely, because of the first cause he applied "of him" to the Father, and "through him" to the Son; for when the confession of the first and principal cause is introduced, in all these same places the expression "through the Son" also has a place; wherefore, he immediately added, "For the Father alone is the cause," doing the same as if he were to say: "For the principal and first cause is the Father alone," and he adds, moreover, what [pertains] to this first...

^A truth which the preposition denotes. And so, the saying being understood in this manner, the preposition *by* (διὰ) does not lose its force which is equivalent to the preposition *from* (ἐκ), and the saying may henceforth be reconciled with great security with the statements of the great Basil and of the other saints who hold the theological view that the Spirit is from the Son. For even if I have heard one of you asserting that the other statements of the saints ought to be directed toward the statements of the Damascene as though toward a rule, nevertheless the statement of the great Basil will be a rule for the statements of the Damascene. For ^B this also is the nature of a rule, that the later things should be directed toward the earlier ones wherever there is a necessity that both of these be reconciled; and for this reason, the [phrase] "not as from him, but as through him," must be directed to that sense in accordance with which it may agree with those things which the great Basil decreed, when he theologized that the Spirit occupies the second place after the Son, as having existence from him, and receiving from him, and announcing him to us, and being altogether suspended from that cause.

21. But if it seems to anyone a very absurd thing to harmonize the statements [that say the Spirit is] "from the Son" and "not from the Son," let him who thinks this reflect that it is the custom of divine Scripture to lead things which appear to be contrary to one another to their proper and legitimate understanding. For Gregory, the prelate of the Nyssenes, in his discourse to Ablabius, says: "Acknowledging the immutability of the nature, we do not deny the difference according to cause and caused." But St. Cyril, in the second book of his [writings] to Hermias, says: ^C "It is not right even to name 'cause' and 'caused'; it would be fitter rather to speak of the Spirit and the begotten Son in God." Again, Gregory the Theologian, in his first discourse concerning the Son, says: "Therefore, staying within our own terms, we introduce the unbegotten and the begotten." The great Basil in his *Antirrhetica* says: "It is not, therefore, the term 'unbegotten' that we ought to use rather than 'Father,' if we do not wish to be wiser than the teachings of the Savior, who said: 'Go, baptize in the name of the Father,' and not of the unbegotten." And if in these matters those who are of the same Spirit seem to look toward some contradiction according to the surface of the thought, nevertheless the precise determination of the dogmas reconciles what has been said by them, explaining that ^D Nyssenus accepts 'cause' and 'caused' in the holy Trinity as if they were said of consubstantial things, which Saint Cyril rejected as if they were declared concerning the Creator of all things and of creatures; and again, that Gregory the Theologian defines 'unbegotten' and 'begotten' as hypostatic properties, but the great Basil rejects these as being wrongly introduced by the Eunomians, as if they were divisive of the nature and indicative of different essences. In the same way, the [phrases] "from the Son" and "not from the Son" will likewise be reconciled with ease regarding the preposition *from* (ἐκ) with respect to the preposition *through* (διὰ), according to the determination which we have spoken of. For when someone asserts that the Holy Spirit is from the Son in place of that which is "through the Son," nothing

^A of the truth does he miss; but when he asserts [that it is] from the Son as from an original and primary cause, he will wander far from what is reasonable, and he who desires to avoid this error will affirm the procession of the Spirit from the Father through the Son, and not from the Son ^B. This is what the divine John has done, knowing the Father alone to be, in truth, the principal cause, and according to this concept, he has minutely refined the definition of these prepositions, and very aptly appended to such a concept the phrase, "For the Father is the alone cause." That it is by reason of the original cause that he has theologized the Father as the only cause is clear from the ^C passage just before this, where he calls the Father the producer "through the Word," or, to say the same thing, the cause of the Spirit "through the Son." For if He is the cause through the Son, in what other way, except according to the original reason of causality, could He be called the only cause of the Spirit? But also, the great Basil, in his sixteenth chapter to Amphilochius, saying: "And let no one think that I am asserting three original hypostases. For there is one principle of things, operating through the Son and perfecting in the Spirit," clearly confirms what we have said. For in so far as the intelligence is quick, it discerns the two hypostases from the one and first [hypostasis] as the principle of things. For this is the meaning of saying they are not "original," but rather, a concept holding more accurately to the theological rule, it assigns the principle of things to the Father alone on account of the original cause, allowing ^D the Son and the Spirit to be considered with Him, in whom the Father is said to operate through the Son and to perfect in the Spirit. I now pass over in silence, nor is it my intention to enumerate, how "alone invisible," "alone good," and "alone wise," which are asserted in Scripture concerning the Father, and furthermore that which the Lord says in the evangelists Matthew and Mark: "Concerning that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels who are in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone" (Matt. xxiv, 36; Mark xiii, 32); nor that which is sung by all in the Church during the divine offices, in which we sing of the Holy Spirit as being of God alone, which also contributes not a little to the understanding of these things. For that which is confessed to be the Son's also is ascribed to the Father alone. And for what other reason would this be asserted, unless someone were to explain this expression in terms of the Father as the principal cause?

22. Furthermore, the great Athanasius in his letter concerning the Synod of Ariminum to the Africans, calling the Father the sole fountain of living water—and no one will doubt that the Holy Spirit is this living water—gives us the opportunity to understand the statement for no other reason than on account of the Father's original causality, since he himself is also found, most significantly in other places, to call the Son the fountain of the Spirit. Yet, it is plainly evident among the ancient Fathers that "from the Son" is recognized and used in place of "through the Son," just as the great Basil, and in theological discussions...

and with the most theological Nyssen ^A in all the works which they wrote against Eunomius, the *Antirrhetica*, never contradicted the expression "from the Son," but fashioned their entire refutation against him based solely on the fact that he was foolishly and blasphemously declaring the Spirit to be a creature and production of the Son. And he who examines the aforementioned *Antirrhetica* more attentively will recognize the truth of these words. And yet, if this [expression] "from the Son" were not freely asserted, these Fathers would have had nothing stronger to say for the overthrow of the Eunomian heresy, when they could have said: "Although you dare to assert, Eunomius, that the Spirit is a creature, why do you assert that He is a creature of the Son, and not of the Father, when He is not even confessed to be through the Son, or from the Son?"

^B 23. Having said so much regarding the utterance of the divine Damascene, we say to you now, who adhere to the divine Scriptures more and more wickedly and contentiously—I know not with what intent—: Do not conduct yourselves in this way, neither against the Fathers themselves who interpreted them, nor against the truth with which they examined them, nor against the Triad itself, in the defense of which they labored beyond measure; there are enough perversions that others have invented at one time or another. For one man erased from the writings of Nyssen the phrase "and from the Son," which follows immediately upon "from the First." Another [erased words] from the commentaries of the great Basil: "Which has its being from Him,"—that is to say, that the Holy Spirit is from the Son. Another, where the words of Nyssen were meant to confirm the property of procession as belonging to the Spirit alone, changed the letters and applied them instead to the Father. Another, having found the same Nyssen ^C deciding that the Son is to be understood prior to the hypostasis of the Spirit according to the logic of cause, substituted "Father" in the place of "Spirit." And again, where the same [author] had said that the Spirit is witnessed to be from the Son, the one making the alteration used a blade to scrape away the preposition "from" [ἐξ]. And likewise another, in the place where the holy Epiphanius said: "For if Christ is believed to be God from God from the Father, and the Spirit from Christ, or from both; if Christ is believed to be from the Spirit,"—he substituted [the latter]. So many and so great are these perversions, and others attempted and carried out in the Scriptures besides these, that I urge you: do not contentiously cling to their opinions.

24. And it is worth observing this as well: those who have from time to time compiled refutations against the Latins in their own writings, not being able to lead to any absurdity—by means of proofs from the Scriptures—that which was asserted by them, ^D invented their own principles of dogma under their leader Photius, the primary introducer of such things. And no one can prove that the phrase "from the Father and the Son" leads to any absurdity, unless he invokes one of these fabricated principles. And of the one, indeed, the falsehood is brightly exposed by the Theologian Gregory, who says, "Everything that is said of the Trinity is either of one or of three," in the passages where he says: "Common

to the Son and the Holy Spirit is that they are from the Father. For if the fact of being caused by the Father is common to the Son and the Holy Spirit, ^A to these two alone, and if they are distinguished by this from the one uncaused Father, where then does the truth lie that is pretended in the universal proposition, that "There is nothing common to two persons in the Trinity"?

The other proposition, which says, "Whatever is said of the divine hypostases is either hypostatic or natural," is also refuted in common by not a few testimonies of the Fathers, by which it is demonstrated that all hypostatic properties exist naturally in each person. For it is not the case that because such a property is hypostatic to the Father, or to the Son, or to the Holy Spirit, it is therefore not natural. For by nature, and not by convention, the Father is the Father—which is the first of his properties—and by nature the Son is the Son, and not by convention—which is the most important of his properties. And the Holy Spirit naturally proceeds from the Father, and ^B the property of the procession of his hypostasis exists naturally in his hypostasis alone. Therefore, it was not right to say, "Whatever is said of the divine hypostases is either hypostatic, or, to say the same, proper, or natural." For the common is not contrasted with the hypostatic, but rather with the natural. For both the common and the hypostases exist naturally in the divine hypostases; for nothing that exists by convention, or from without, or by accident, has any place in them at all.

The third of these fabricated propositions, which defines the hypostatic property of the Father to be the production or emission—whichever one might choose to call it—of the Holy Spirit, is refuted by those testimonies in which the unity of the Father and the Son in all things that are said to be "from the Father through the Son" appears. And there are indeed many such testimonies of truth, but for me, two alone, taken for the present, will suffice. ^C For the great Basil, in the eighth chapter of his *Letters to Amphilochius*, speaks thus: "The Father's creating through the Son does not establish an imperfect creation of the Father, nor does it imply an ineffective operation of the Son, but it indicates the unity of their will, so that the phrase 'through the Son' contains a confession of the primary cause, and is not assumed to insinuate a cause that is merely an instrument."

The great Athanasius likewise, in his fourth oration *Against the Arians*, discourses in this manner: "When the Father grants grace and peace, the Son also grants it; for there is one and the same grace from the Father in the Son: just as the light of the sun and the [light of the] radiance are one being, and the illumination of the sun ^D occurs through the radiance." For this reason, Paul also, writing to the Thessalonians, says: "Now may God himself our Father and our Lord Jesus Christ direct our way to you" (1 Thess. 3:11); he preserved the unity of the Father and the Son. For he did not say "direct" (plural), as if it were granted by two, by this one and that one, but "direct" (singular), that he might show that it is bestowed from the Father through the Son. Since, therefore, the great Basil manifested the unity of the two persons in the will by the expression "through the Son," and the great Athanasius confirmed their unity in the bestowing of grace from the Father through the Son, by the fact that it is bestowed from the Father through the Son, nothing henceforth from these things which are said to be from the Father through the Son

^A is permitted to be understood otherwise, even in the unity of the Father and the Son. If, therefore, the Father is the producer of the Spirit through the Son, how is it possible for the producing or proceeding to be placed into his hypostatic property? For if there is anything that the Father has properly, this he does not have through the Son; and if there is anything [he has] through the Son, this is not proper. The precision of the doctrines requires this understanding, truly, and no other.

25. Do not, therefore, you yourselves, as I said, following those who have at times distorted the divine Scriptures and those who have fashioned for themselves their own principles of doctrines, ^B stubbornly and contentiously cling to their concepts. For what is the benefit in opposing the manifest truth to you? And what is the gain in you shamelessly calling us impious and atheists, because we say that there is nothing impure in being at peace with the Roman Church, while the Latins say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and we, for our part, profess that he is poured forth and goes forth from the Father through the Son—for I omit other things for now? And indeed, even if we pass over other things because of the excessive length of the discourse, I will not, even now, leave these two sayings unexamined. ^C For my part, whenever I chance upon the great Cyril speaking about the Lord in the sixth book of his works to Hermias: "Is the passage cited clear to you, and have you perceived that he called the Paraclete the Spirit of truth?"—he said indeed that he goes forth from the Father, showing all things of the Father as his own. And again, when I find him in the same place and saying to the same person: "Do you perceive, then, how he promises to send us, as his own, the Spirit who is from the Father, and calls him the Spirit of truth, but decides that he is poured forth from the Father himself?"—I am moved in my soul, and feel myself insulted together with him, and set at naught together with him, I who am the most useless of all to the ^D multitude, even if I am not the holiest of all. For it is not my place to make such pronouncements, I imagine, and do not blame me for these words, most divine and holy Cyril, nor charge me with headstrong and irrational audacity; for it is not I, but those who unreasonably and abusively provoked me to come forward regarding these things. For if the Lord said in the Gospels that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and he asserts that he [Cyril] said the Lord calls him to go forth, now that the Spirit goes forth from the Father, and now that he is poured forth from the Father, by what reason should I henceforth doubt about these expressions, or place them in controversy as if they possessed equal force? Assuredly the saint, if he had known any distinction between *proceeding*, *going forth*, and *being poured forth*, would never have said that the Lord said in the Gospels that the Holy Spirit goes forth from the Father, and then determined that he is poured forth from the Father.

26. If even you are for the peaceful Christ

^A and wish to unite in peace, you would never have delayed it; but now, alas, you prefer to satisfy the hatreds and factions of this all-powerful nation, and I know not by what reasoning, you suggest only this one thing in your discussions both here and everywhere: that we must decree that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, as if this were entirely manifest. I, however, in addition to what I have said on this subject at other times, have this also to say now: that from the very beginning of the preaching, after the evangelical and apostolic traditions, although many theological matters were treated, and more than three hundred years had passed until the age of5 great Athanasius, no one of the saints had proclaimed or theologicaly discoursed that the Holy Spirit goes forth or emanates ^B through the Son or from the Son, or anything similar. Rather, these things had their origin with the great Basil, and the Nyssen, and the great Epiphanius, and likewise John of the Golden Mouth, and advanced in succession only after a long time. And again, how, from the days of the great Athanasius to the time of the great Maximus—and here, too, a period of more than three hundred years elapsed—no one among those who wrote on theological matters said that the Spirit proceeds "through the Son." He was the first himself, after so many years, to theologicaly discourse this; and subsequently, after another period of almost a hundred years, the holy Tarasius inserted this same thing into his own writings; then, after him, the great Damascene, and thus, finally, the whole Church in common. ^C Whoever considers such things peacefully and truly will easily be led to embrace benevolence and peace. For not every dogma was stated immediately by the first Fathers in the very words as it is now held, but as time and occasion for rising disputes allowed. For thus the term "consubstantial" was collected by the Fathers from various scriptural phrases; thus the "equal honor" of the Trinity in all things; thus the term "Theotokos," and other things whose enumeration is not now so easy. One, therefore, who is more inclined to peace may say that, just as the most great Maximus, in the years following the aforementioned three hundred, changed that which had been previously proclaimed by the Fathers—namely, that [the Spirit] "goes forth through the Son"—into the statement that he "proceeds through the Son," so also that the Latin Fathers, among them Augustine ^D and Jerome—whom Photius himself affirms, among others, to be chief authorities and to propound this as a dogma—and who are numbered without any hesitation among those whom our own Church also receives, transposed what our Fathers had called "going forth and being poured out from the Father and the Son" into the statement "proceeding from the Father and the Son," since the narrowness of the language perhaps did not allow them to say otherwise.

27. How much the great Athanasius blames those who, on account of syllables and words that in no way injure the truth of the dogma, stir up schisms in the Churches; and further, the one named for theology, together with the great Basil himself—we have sufficiently and abundantly grasped this in our volume, and we have no wish to add more regarding these matters here. But turning the face of our discourse back to you, whom in the preamble of our sermons [we recognized as...]

^A we have called you to judge our arguments; we adjure you by God and by truth itself to incline in no way from the straight path, and to judge from this hour whether it is justly that we are called by our adversaries traitors to piety and enemies of our own people, the Greeks, or whether it is they themselves who are such, and with much better reason. For you have the arguments by which one might justly fasten these two crimes upon them, abundantly explained by us, both from what the epistle of the divine prelate of the Church of Antioch—who bears the same name as the prince of the Apostles—has supplied to us in accordance with history, and from what we have gathered in the struggles of debate from the statements of the saints, written down to demonstrate the ^B existence of the all-holy Spirit from the Father through the Son, which they rashly and not without error deny. And know that it is not of little importance, in the defense we put forward for ourselves, that we have not walked this path as if it were something new and freshly trodden, but as one once traversed by the great Maximus. For he was the first to carve out and walk it, he who spoke with the free tongue of the Latins, extending the defense of those who said the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, into that of the Father through the Son. And do you perform this judgment without any bias. But those who have erupted with bold and unbridled mouth against us things unnameable—things it is sacrilege even to express in words—or who have committed them to writing with a rash hand, shall be set over against us where the Judge of hearts and discerner of thoughts shall sit. For there they will not withstand the word “proceeds,” and all the troubles they have stirred up for us here regarding it; rather, even before we begin our defense concerning it, as Judge of thoughts, the Judge before whom the trial shall stand shall look directly into the thought ^C by which we have negotiated the peace of the Churches, and by His innate goodness shall pronounce judgment concerning us.

APOLOGY OF THE SAME

THAT THE UNION OF THE CHURCHES IS NOT TO BE RECEIVED FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF OUR CUSTOMS, BUT FOR PEACE IN CHRIST, BECAUSE THEY AGREE WITH ONE ANOTHER IN THE MEANING OF THE DOGMA

^D 1. Hear, O heaven, and I will speak; and let the earth hear the words of my mouth. Heaven and earth today of my

^A speeches I summon as my audience. But whence shall I acquire a voice whose sound all ends and boundaries of the earth might catch? And if I do not possess such a voice, how shall I myself satisfy my desires, I who am moved by a certain impulse of spirit to summon heaven and earth today to the hearing of my words? But He who chose the fishermen, and fortified their weakness to such a degree that their sound went out into all the earth, and their words were heard to the ends of the world, will strengthen the weakness of my own voice with the abundance of His own power, and will prepare the hearts of all those to whom this my speech shall reach, for the reception of the truth. For if God is truth, for He even rejoices in being called Truth, since David teaches me to address Him as Truth, He will direct our words before the Christians everywhere in the world; for the defender of falsehood has spread the nets of his calumny against us, not only to those named after Christ across the whole earth, to nations and cities distinguished by name, but even to those who inhabit caves and mountains.

2. And what is this calumny, and what is the apology from us who have been slandered? Come, listen, all ye nations; give ear, all ye who inhabit the world. You all certainly know, and there is no one among you who is ignorant, how the long-standing enmity between the Churches of Christ—the older one, I mean Rome, and this new and our own—has, by the favor of the author of peace, Christ, who gathers and makes them cohere, returned into that ^B formerly blessed and ancient friendship. But you also know how Satan, who always envies what is good, he who sets his own hatred against the peace of Christ, he who always campaigns and wars against all the followers of Christ, has not a little troubled the majority in order to hinder the peace, and not knowing how else he might prevail over the good of peace, he has devised an engine of his own malice that fits every person. And he spreads the rumor in the ears of all, that the Bishop of Constantinople is an advocate for the Roman Church regarding the addition made by the Romans to the Creed, so that he may also persuade the Church of the Greeks to recite such a Creed with that same addition. And the wing of this rumor, once let loose, and flying with rushing speed across the whole world to everyone, fills every ear with the ^C calumny constructed against us.

3. And this is the calumny against us. But the apology for this, for which we summon the universal audience, will not be composed from the persuasiveness of words, which one who draws out his own cause by the persuasion of human wisdom sometimes uses to act craftily; but we will demonstrate the truth through the deeds and actions of the luminaries and teachers of the Church, looking to which as to an archetype we have come to these words for ^D

^A the slanders against us are spread everywhere. For since we are simple, being clothed as with a garment in the simplicity that is in Christ, we shall make our defense without any artifice, leaving it to the impartial judgment of the hearers to examine and discern with attentive mind whether we are defending the Roman Church for the addition made by the Romans to the Creed, in accordance with the form transmitted by the Fathers to the Church, or whether moved rashly by our own opinion and, as our accusers contend, by a neglect of our own customs and the order of the Fathers. Straightaway, the sun of the ecclesiastical firmament, the great and most mighty Athanasius—whose discourse is impregnable and whose manner of life is inimitable—since in his days a scandal of no small importance arose in the midst of these same Churches of which we are now speaking, we find that he managed the reconciliation of both parties in no other way than by defending that which the Roman Church held, for which the Orientals, taking the matter in the opposite direction, were condemning the Romans. And what is this defense? Let that very man himself come forward here, and let him tell us in the words uttered by his own tongue. For in the Tome to the Antiochians he says thus: "For those whom some were blaming as affirmers of three hypostases, because such words were not found in the Scriptures and therefore might seem suspicious, we ^B deemed it right to require nothing more than the confession made at Nicaea; yet, because of the perversity of their wrangling, we held an inquiry and questioned them whether they held these to be alien and foreign [notions], after the manner of the Arians, or substances diverse from one another, or whether, like other heretics, they spoke of three principles and three gods." And after the explanation of the expressions brought forward by them into a pious sense, he adds: "Having approved the explanation of the expressions of these men, and the defense, we also examined those who were accused by them of saying there is one hypostasis, questioning them whether they spoke with the intention of the Sabellian dogma, as if they wanted to remove the Son and the Holy Spirit from the Trinity." Then he sets down their defense regarding this investigation in his narrative, and following the agreement of the meaning over the difference of the ^C expressions, he declares: "Indeed, those who were accused of saying there were three hypostases agreed with them, and those who said there was one hypostasis likewise interpreted and confessed according to them." And proceeding, he adds to what has already been said: "These things therefore having been confessed in this way, we exhort you not to condemn or rashly cast out those who confess and interpret their expressions in this way, but rather to receive those who are at peace and speak in [their] defense; but those who are not willing to confess and interpret the expressions in this way, these you should restrain and turn away as suspicious in their disposition. But if they do not endure these things, advise those who interpret and think correctly to examine one another no further, nor to wrangle over words to no useful end, and neither to be occupied with such...

contentions. For those who are not so disposed, but only contend over such petty terms, are doing nothing else than offering a turbid subversion to their neighbor, as if envious of peace and lovers of schisms. And furthermore: Impiety is indeed utterly prohibited, even if someone attempts to cloak it in various expressions and persuasive sophistries; but to practice godliness is acknowledged by all as a holy thing, even if they use certain foreign terms, provided that the speaker holds a godly opinion, and through these words desires to signify what he has piously conceived. And again, after other things: ^B "Therefore, if these people reject these words as foreign, let them hold to the opinion according to which the Synod wrote thus, that even if the words are not so in the Scriptures, yet, as has been said before, they obtain their meaning from the Scriptures, and when pronounced, they signify this to those who have kept their ears integer for the sake of piety." These are the echoes of the thunder-voiced tongue of Athanasius.

We, finding that clear luminary of the inhabited world—who in his own day arranged the reconciliation of the Churches—to be of great importance because of such dispensations and such thoughts, and considering it a great thing to walk in his footsteps and to be illuminated as if by a guiding light by the dispensations brought about by him for the edification of the Church (of which the cornerstone and binding stone is Christ God), have given ourselves to the reconciliation of the Roman Church, having cast aside the logomachy that is useful for nothing, and the wrangling over words, ^C ignoring those things wherein the understanding and thoughts of piety of the Roman Church agree with us, so that we ourselves may not be heard wrangling contentiously over petty words and offering a turbid subversion to our neighbors, like enemies of peace and imitators of discord and schisms.

4. Come therefore, O hearers of my words, judge without bias by the Triad Itself, by all the heavenly powers, whether those who charge us with a great crime are bringing just stones of vote against us, when we agree with the Roman Church in those things which she confesses most piously: for although the Romans are accused of positing two principles and two causes in the most holy Triad, ^D they nevertheless repel the charge of being a cause, since they profess to hold to one principle and one cause. Athanasius agrees with the Roman Church and defends her, although he has no prior example of his defense, nor a preceding act that he might imitate; and this at a time when the Italians were reputed to be erring in the most important matters, as those who were suspected of Sabellianism, as assertors of one hypostasis regarding the Triad. And we are accused of a transgression of the paternal ordinances, we who, as disciples, follow the teacher Athanasius, and conform ourselves to his actions as if to an archetype and exemplar. I indeed...

^A opine that there is no need for more words to demonstrate that we have undertaken the defense of the Roman Church not wrongly, but safely, neglecting the disagreement in terms, and seizing upon the concord that exists in meaning, because of that peace which is pleasing to God and lawful. But if, on account of the evangelical saying concerning two or three witnesses, there is a need to confirm what has been said, and to bring forward other teachers of piety—not indeed to lead those whose defense they undertook to accept what they were contradicting, but only to reconcile peace between both parties—this was the aim of their own purpose, as imitators of Christ, the author of peace, who binds together and unites things that are apart; and the great Basil, divine in such matters, shall be brought in here, and Gregory, who is worthy of the name of theologian, shall support what has been said. For the great Basil does not strive to reconcile ^B those who do not call the Spirit God with those who clearly proclaim Him God and consubstantial with the Father and the Son; and the great Gregory in theology, treading the same path of reconciliation between these parties, adds after other things: "For I would not reject the Jewish nation, if, while seeking for a short time the voice of the one assumed instead of Christ, they wished to be ranked with us." But neither did the great Athanasius, in defending those who say there is one hypostasis, support them to the extent of shifting those who dogmatize three hypostases into their confession; nor did the great Basil, in arranging peaceful agreements, defend those who confess the Spirit to be God without qualification and those who do not call Him God—but signify the same thing in other words—in such a way as to shift those who do not call the Spirit God ^C to the same opinion as those who do. Nor did he who is named for theology, as far as it depended upon him, accept the Jewish nation, if they were willing, having received the voice of the one assumed instead of Christ, to be ranked with us, in such a way as to defend them on the basis of this voice of the one assumed, so as to persuade those who did not yet say it to use it thereafter. And we, therefore, in defending the Church of Rome, defend her only to the extent of shifting those who from the beginning and until now have read in the Symbol of faith that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, to the point of reading that He proceeds from the Father and the Son; but just as those luminaries of the world, looking to the concord of meaning, ^D showed zeal in their defense only for the sake of peace, so we too, as disciples following those teachers, yielding the whole matter of reconciliation to the meaning, not the word, for the sake of peace alone, defend the cause of the Roman Church. But let those who are ready to slander and eager to accuse everything, slander and accuse. God is the one who will judge. There is certainly a judge to whom we shall render an account of both our words and our manner of life. We, furthermore, offer this apology, lest any scandal creep into the hearts of the simple, who pronounce nothing soundly in the manner of heralds, to you, whom these my

^A and in order to call it to a hearing, we speak thus: Just as we promised in the prologue of this apology of ours, we have not produced this our apology through the verisimilitude of words or persuasive arguments which someone directing his own discourse by the suasion of human wisdom often craftily devises; rather, for the demonstration of the truth, we have set forth the deeds and acts of the lights and teachers of the Church of old. And if you also demand a witness, do you accept God Himself given by us as a witness; pay no heed to those who have a tongue prepared for accusation, but instead, solicitously searching out the truth, maintain the peace of the Church, knowing that a great reward is laid up for those who procure it and prove it on the day of retribution from the Author and Prince of peace. ^B

OF JOANNIS THE HUMBLE BISHOP OF CONSTANTINOPLE, ANIMADVERSION ON ALL HIS BOOKS AND THE CONSENSUS OF HIS WRITINGS

^C 1. And do you receive this book, clear and intimate lord Theodore, which the turbulence that raged against ecclesiastical matters showed to be the fruit of my understanding, and which, on account of it, exiles and prisons have made to be the labor of my hands. For although the undertaking was abhorrent both to eyes worn out by old age and to hands not unlike them, yet since a great necessity demanded a copy of the volume, and it could not be accomplished by the hands of our usual assistants (and how could it be, when, by the enemies of the truth, the sight of all things whatsoever, except for the guards, is denied to us?), committing all things to God, by whose grace we endure these hardships, we applied our hands to the work, and at length we brought it to the end which had been proposed to us. Have, therefore, for yourself the cause of the necessity of transcribing this volume by my own hand, the bitter and in-

- ^Ahuman custody. But if you also desire to know the reason for the transcription itself, know that this was nothing other than the correction of many parts of the original book. To what end? That some of the things more economically treated by us in the original book might receive correction from those things which are more accurate in the copy.

2. Since, moreover, throughout the entire struggle against the enemies of the truth, that which is most eagerly sought by us is this: to refute and dissolve everything proposed by them for the defamation of the right dogma, not by our own notions, but by the sentiments and sayings of the Patristic theologies, and even if there should be a need anywhere for some economy, to handle this in no other way than by imitating what was economized by them (for as Gregory, the apex and rule of theology, the dwelling place of the Spirit, truly said, not even the slightest actions were recorded by writers in vain, nor were they preserved in memory down to the present time, but so that we might have reminders and instructions of similar things, if ever a time for investigation should fall, following as it were certain rules and preceding types as examples), we neither neglected to speak economically at the appropriate time, nor when the time itself demanded strictness, did we overlook it.

3. Immediately from the beginning it seemed best to go through the first economy, because the enemies of the truth, knowing the foolish ^Cand irrational mobs from an ancient prejudice, as soon as they would hear that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and being vexed at this mere phrase, they themselves slandered us as saying and teaching the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son; this, then, they made the ready handle for their zeal against us. But we, whereas we should have held fast to this very phrase, and in support of it should have presented against them everything which the beloved and bosom disciple, the Evangelist, said in the Apocalypse, declaring the Spirit to proceed from the Father and the Son; nay, but also all other sayings of Scripture which clearly manifest the procession from the Father and the Son (all of which the inquisitive reader will find in those things which we have sketched in the sixteenth chapter of the chapters of Moschampar)—this, indeed, we were not doing readily. But, since we caught sight of the undeniable nature of the procession from the Father *through* the Son, and knew that this differed in no way from that which is *from both* as strictly as possible, we ourselves willingly embraced and professed the procession from the Father *through* the Son, and we spoke with an open mouth, ^Dthat the reconciliation of those who say it is *from both*—due to the equal and same power of the prepositions *from* (ex) and *through* (per)—is blamelessly performed; just as if even the great Athanasius, being troubled by those who said there are three hypostases, as if he had not well entered into fellowship with those holding one, would have silenced the mouths of all those molesting him if he had said that he, as one of those holding to the three hypostases, held to...

^A a fellowship in regard to those who speak of one hypostasis, such that, through the derivations of the meaning of "hypostasis," he could blamelessly produce an agreement of common opinion.

4. Our discourses in our original book preserve this economy. The second [discourse] differs not in the least from the first. For, demonstrating from written traditions—which not even the adversaries themselves would deny—that the existence of the life-giving Spirit is from the Father through the Son, and therefore from both, and hence gathering the blameless dogma of the Roman Church, which asserts that the Holy Spirit is from one cause, the Father and the Son, we did not openly write this specific phrase, but in most parts of our writings, by arranging the said written-down testimonies, we constantly concluded that [He is] from one God—a phrase we recognized that everyone accepted gladly. Why did we do this? We were using the economy, which the one titled "the Theologian" attributes to the Great Basil, when he relates regarding him: "He thought to dispose his words in the judgment of righteous men, tolerating for a little while the time of war and the power of the heretics, until the time of liberty and clarity should come, and he could give boldness to the tongue." For since it differs nothing to say "from one God" or "from one cause" (provided that all that is said to be from God and through God is said solely according to the account of causality, and not according to any other account), I add to my discourse the remainder of the theological saying, ^B just as our great Father Basil, who was also outstanding in his actions: "When the enemies of the truth were striving to find fault with the bare expression concerning the Spirit, that He was God—which, although true, was deemed impious by them and by the wicked leader of that impiety—he thus confined those who contradicted him, by other scriptural phrases and indisputable testimonies having the same force, so that they dared not even mutter, but were bound by their own expressions. But he deferred the proper expression to another time, thinking that no harm would come if, by slightly changing the words, the same thing were taught by other expressions; because our salvation consists not in words, but in things." By parity of reason, we also, as pupils and ministers following the footsteps of our teacher and master Basil, while putting forward "from one God," because it easily found a place among our adversaries, we deferred "from one cause" to another time, knowing full well that when the opportune time presented itself, the equal force and identical meaning of the words would provide us with the liberty and boldness to assert the precise dogma.

5. And finally, as was expected, it happened. For not long after, a time of true serenity and liberty did not indeed befall us—which he who is called "the Theologian" considered to be the time of boldness—but nevertheless, the time ^C did befall us, which, both because of the storm that had arisen in it and because of the power in it, demanded it.

^A For when I was first writing about ecclesiastical union and peace, there was a hope cherishing me that those who contradicted these things might be changed. For what man of good conscience—having proposed to himself this one thing, to prefer the truth above his own voluntary opinion, setting all else aside—would ever have formed such a judgment about others? As if some good counselor, he would have persuaded men to remember, as has been said, the *oeconomiae* of the Fathers, and with all one’s strength to smooth out conversations with those who contradict, through such words as those to whom they might give ear most gladly. Nevertheless, I did employ the aforementioned *oeconomic* words.

^B 6. But when, as all know, matters were altered and ecclesiastical affairs fell into the direst confusion, and the leaders and authors of falsehood, after the face-to-face struggle we had with them in the palace, raged so shamelessly against the true dogma that they dared to proclaim in writing their manifest heresy, and to publish volumes, or, as one might more aptly say, to erect pillars and monuments of their own impiety—we, considering this to be the more authoritative time for boldness concerning the precision of dogma, embraced the said dogmas in a special volume. This volume completes the third refutation of Cyprios’s heresies, and we deemed it necessary to hand the book to copyists, so that this volume, having become a part of the copied book, might sufficiently and abundantly indicate the reason why, in many parts of our earlier lucubrations, we have made changes. For in some places we have replaced expressions which we had used with an eye to *oeconomia* with more precise ones, and in other places, moved by more exact study, we have changed them, and in some, we have even expunged entire passages.

^C 7. You, therefore, having received this book, since you know that the earlier original copies have grown to such a measure that they have reached many of our cities, know that while we adjudge the first place to this new one, we do not nevertheless adjudge idleness to all those others. For even if this one is a summary of the more precise ones, yet the *animadversio* (that is, the notations) within it concerning what was written more *oeconomically* in those others, also serves to confirm them. ^D Since many things that were discussed at greater length in those can be found condensed in this one; and one ought by no means to consider this condensation as idleness on the part of any of the whole, but rather to recognize the reason for the condensation and to consider it the fruit of our own intellect, which contains no contradiction in itself, even in those matters which we at first composed more fully. And note the cause of the condensation: after we had written our contradictions against Photius, and the Bishop of Methone, and Phournes, and the Bulgarian, and also the book of Kamateros separately, and again separately those against Moschompares, when other enemies of the truth were revealed from the start, namely this Cyprios and his followers, the struggle against them justly demanded of us...

extorted [from them] to overthrow them with long and prolix refutations. ^A

8. And since we had decided to include in the one book that is now handed to you everything that went before and everything that followed after, we were compelled by necessity to excise from it much material, because we knew that no impediment to the understanding of the truth would be introduced by its amputation. For if, after we had condensed our refutations against Photius, the Metropolitan of Methone, Phurnes, and also the Archbishop of Bulgaria, we omitted nothing that possessed the force of demonstration, what mutilation of the truth follows from that? But if, in the first place, when we instituted our refutation against Camaterus, we wrote out word-for-word the disputation which he, putting on the person of the Emperor, concocted as though it had taken place between the Emperor himself and those who were at that time in Constantinople to treat of ecclesiastical peace, and we recorded it quite broadly and copiously—if, in the new copies of the book, we discarded this entirely and gave an account only of the testimonies produced and his observations upon them; and likewise, if, whereas at that time we were setting out each passage of Scripture, as he himself had ^B set it out, and adding our own refutation to each observation he attached to each text, we afterwards amputated those parts from the passages which, obviously, contained nothing that contributed to our purpose, who would on that account accuse the books of contradiction? In the same way we acted in the *Antirrhetics* against Moschompar: for we preserved our refutation whole and unchanged in any part in both volumes, just as in the case of Camaterus, but we cut away the parts of his chapters which merely rattled on with vain loquacity without any use and recklessly, and contained nothing sound or requiring refutation. You now have the clear and patent account of the entire method of transcription which we have transmitted to you in this our writing, and one sufficiently apt to establish that our commentaries are in no respect contrary to themselves, an observation we have fully provided. ^C

TESTAMENT OF THE SAME

(Greek Orthodox, Vol. I)

Many who depart this life while in exile and in prison, although perhaps they have nothing else ^D from which

they might profess their denial of the crime for which they happen to have been condemned to exile and prison, nevertheless, in this manner, I believe, they intend nothing other than to cast away from themselves the stigma of the evildoing for the cause of which many endure such condemnations, in order to wipe away the reproach. But for me, humble and a sinner, driven from the throne which I obtained by the ineffable judgments of God, and condemned to exiles and prisons until my very last breath, it is so far from being a concern, when I must compose a miserable and wretched testament, that I should deny the crime which is the cause of my evils for which I am summoned to judgment, that I even affirm it with zeal, and pressed by the final necessity of death, I witness and confess it. For just as to others the denial serves greatly for the putting away of the disgrace of ^B the crime, so for me the answer is directed to the same purpose. For since it was reckoned as a crime against me—for which I was driven from the patriarchal throne and condemned to exiles and prisons until death—to believe and to profess the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son, as the existence of the Spirit from the Father through the Son, I do not flee from the "crime," I do not deny it as a stain, I do not cast it away as a reproach; and even if it is deemed worthy of insults by anyone, I do not refuse to be crowned with such a crown of insults. For how could I possibly deny that which is turned into a reproach against Christ Himself by those who contradict us? For if the Scripture announces any reproach of Christ, I affirm that this is none other than such a reproach. For those who, constrained as though in straits by the examination of the Scriptures, are forced to affirm the sentiment that the procession is through the Son: yet, not walking rightly in the homonymy of the procession, but as though throttled by the same examination of the Scriptures which ^C plainly set forth the hypostatic property of the Father—the procession—they nonetheless shamelessly assert too much that the Spirit has His existence from the Father alone; they are refuted by every force of necessary demonstration against this very procession. For the same thing it is to say that the existence, which—as they say—the Holy Spirit has from the Father alone, passes instrumentally through the Son, so that this sentiment seems to follow, that in words alone they constitute the Spirit as the Son’s own, while in reality they make Him alien to Him, since there is no reason that could persuade one that it is the Son’s own which is not from Him, or which does not have its own existence through Him. ^D Therefore, these two absurd and impious things, to tell the truth, are necessarily demonstrated from the things they say—namely, the instrumental ministry of the Son to the Father regarding the procession of the Spirit, and the alienation of the Spirit from the Son—by those who assert that the Spirit has His existence from the Father alone, and who, when they are now forced by an exact examination of opinions to confess the procession through the Son, since they are unable to go about denying the property of the procession, convert the procession from the Father through the Son, as I say, into the reproach of Christ. For what could anyone devise more iniquitous for the reproach of Christ than to alienate from Him His own Spirit, who is His true glory, even as He himself is the Father’s? And what could be imagined more savage for the reproach of Christ,