to the reproach of Christ; and may it be even worse than that to confess the same to be a ministerial instrument of the Father? Clearly these things are Arian. And I, avoiding this, do not shun the reproach, even if to some it may seem a disgrace, to hold and openly profess the procession from the Father through the Son, and the existence from the Father through the Son. This confession I prefix to this my testament; furthermore, I bequeath not wealth, not riches, not possessions—for all these, along with my throne, I have been stripped of, distributing them to my own and to others. But these things which I now have, being meager and lowly, I distribute according to my will to those who have remained with me in prison to this day, of whom the one is in the place of a son, the other of a servant. B John, humble by divine mercy 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—sentenced to exile and prison until death, have written and subscribed this my testament with my own hand.
ANNO DOMINI MCCLXXV
OF THE MOST WISE CHARTOPHYLAX OF THE GREAT CHURCH, CONSTANTINE MELITENIOTA, ON THE ECCLESIASTICAL UNION OF THE LATINS AND GREEKS, AND ON THE PROCESSION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT THROUGH THE SON, ORATION I
(Leo Allat. Græc. orthod. t. 11.)
C Hear, O heaven, and I will speak, and let the earth hear the words from my mouth. For it is time for me to utter the same words as the most blessed Moses, even if not with equal feeling, nor concerning similar matters. Since—
A as he stood for the people who were rebellious and contradicting the commandments of the Lord, he called heaven and earth to witness; but I, rejoicing in the magnificent things which have now been done for us by Him who is better than us and above us, shall, while he rebuked the murmuring Israel, offer thanks unto the Lord of all. But what were the words of thanksgiving in joy to the Most High? They were the same words which that man, inspired by the Divine, made the starting point of his rebuke against those who provoked Him: "God, His works are true, and all His ways are judgments. God is faithful, and there is no injustice in Him; righteous and holy is the Lord" [Deut. xxxii, 4]. He, in order that I may adapt my own words to those of the prophet and lawgiver, moved by the bowels of His love for mankind, did not abandon us to walk after our own desires, as did the many who preceded us in past generations, who—concerning the truth of the one of the supersubstantial Trinity, I mean the all-holy and life-creating Spirit—erupted from their own bellies, declaring His ineffable existence from themselves with wide and unrestrained mouths, and contending—woe to them!—for the ruin of the Churches, which is of all things most harmful and dangerous. Instead, He visited us by a better inspection of reason and intelligence, just as the Lord Himself commanded all in the Gospels: "Search the Scriptures" [John v, 39]. He urged us forward, and having determined that this was the most important task for us now, He prepared the writings of the holy Fathers, and having directed us to go through them, and to ponder them diligently, He led us to attain the best understanding of the Spirit. From these, having discovered the truth that had been hidden until now, we have been conjoined in the present time with those of elder Rome, truly and according to Christ, to whom a mode of economy joined us a little while ago, though we had been rashly separated from them for a long time—for which God, on account of our countless sins, allowed the destruction of our race.
B 2. From this, all the terrible things have fallen upon us, and the prosperity of our ancient happiness has been overturned—partly because the descendants of Hagar, having overrun the greater part of our cities and lands in the East, have made them their own dwellings, and they hold them to this day tyrannically, so that where the divine mysteries of Christ were once performed, now the orgies of the base Mahomet are performed, and the holy and venerable temples of God have become the habitations of wicked and soul-harming demons, because the loathsome and profane invocation of Mahomet is proclaimed in them—very evilly, indeed, in those places where once the great and terrible name of our Savior was most rightly extolled. C And it is partly because of the Italians who descended upon us from the West, from whom we first endured the greatest and worst of all the things we have suffered: the conquest, alas, of the city of Constantine. O who, according to Jeremiah the—
one preeminent in lamenting and weeping over calamities, A and one exceptionally skilled at matching sorrows to sufferings, will be able to bewail our misfortune at that time as it deserves, and wail piteously over the things that have befallen us? And following this, the seizure of towns and regions throughout the whole of the West, and the destruction and overthrow of all of them; and likewise, if any remained toward the East, they succumbed to the cruel dominion of the godless Agarenes, except for a very few which, though previously existing as the smallest part of the Roman Empire, were then accounted as a great portion for our people, who, out of very many, very few escaped the danger, and for whom the affairs of the empire were brought into a narrow compass, enclosed within small boundaries. Such and so great were the difficulties and things full of hardship—the mere memory of which wrings my soul—that we suffered, as the Divine allowed, after we dissociated ourselves from our Roman brothers (which I wish had never happened!).
3. But now, recently, when God, who mortifies and again brings to life, has willed to recall us, we have come together into harmony, so that the one Church of the Christians, divided long ago into Latins and Greeks by the wickedness of B Satan, the author of evils, might return purely to the same, and become one again, having completely cast off the division. For even if we did unite and reconcile with those in Rome only yesterday or the day before, and established a peace that would hold nothing of treachery, nevertheless some have not yet restored themselves to this ancient harmony as if they were whole in piety, because the sacred voices of the Fathers concerning the Holy Spirit were not yet known to all, as they are now. But who shall tell of the mighty acts of the Lord, or make heard all his praises, which he has wrought through generations and generations, and even now works? Who shall declare his multiform wisdom, by which he, ordering our affairs, directs them clearly by a providence known to himself? For when at last, as it pleased him, the Father of mercies and God of all consolation, C because of his rich mercy toward us, decreed that the two great and most illustrious eyes of the Church, having been sadly separated from one another for a long time, should again come together well, so that they might walk as one in the firmament of faith, and shine upon the face of the whole earth, that by the radiance of this splendor the rest of the nations of the pious might discern more sincerely—yet not immediately nor suddenly, even though he can do all things in a moment, but just as in the primal creation of the universe, so too now he accomplishes what is pleasing to him bit by bit.
4. And first, indeed, the Prince of peace and Father says to speak of peace among ourselves—a thing we have not been able even to hear of for a long time—and he calls our souls to this often and many times, D and seeing that some do not yet grasp the concord with the Romans, among whom we worship God, as being preoccupied in their understanding by those arguments which our ancestors, in contentious and litigious disputations, not—
A even with a love of truth, wrote against them. And for this reason, he has brought us to a compact with those who held and spoke everything to the contrary about them, under terms that have nothing at all in common with the sacred dogmas. To what end, then, and what fruit shall He who governs all things by the measures of providence reap from this? That at a convenient time, having taken us, who were so disposed, into a gentle and inward tranquility of mind, through the complete casting away of the ancient malice that had possessed us against them, He might easily lead us to what is before us, and thus accomplish a union according to piety, by gradually casting into our mind the things concerning the dogma as they truly are, from which those who theologized in faith about the Spirit in their various writings once philosophized.
B 5. Therefore, the Dispenser of our souls long beforehand—as is always His law—casts forth the causes for such things, having set up our God-crowned and greatest Emperor as a fervent protector of this work. Who, indeed, would be able to express in words the zeal, the ardor for peace, and the care which he has shown? Nay, it would be permitted to no one among all to track with words his assiduous labors, which were beyond human strength. For he did not, as soon as he received the divinely-granted empire, immediately serve the ministry and at the same time issue commands to his subjects—as if one were to look only to the authority given him from above and execute his orders. But when he found that almost everyone opposed him, and that, because a long time had passed since the schism had arisen, they were attempting to solidify this absurd custom as if it were a law, C he condescended to their infirmity and yields to their will—he shapes and accommodates himself entirely to them and manages the affair with great tolerance. And now the Emperor attempts to lure those subject to him with gentleness, and now the master bears with those under his hand who oppose him with magnanimity—partly employing his own customary goodness here, and partly giving discernment to himself—knowing that the wall of enmity was long-standing and of many years, from which he hastened in every way to bring about peace for you. In this he passes his days, always keeping vigil and enduring through whole nights, until, if not all—for it is not given to all to have knowledge and the understanding of what is profitable—at least the greatest and best part of the fullness of the D Church, by gathering them into one, and by rendering them of one mind and will through the cooperation and grace of Christ, the Author of peace, he has piously perfected the peace with the Church of the Romans.
But it is not the present time to speak of our sovereign, the God-crowned and divinely-magnified one, as to how he struggled for it most fervently, with what intense and rapid impulse of soul, and with what patience and magnanimity he perfected the peace. For hardly would anyone be able to recount all things clearly, even in a separate treatise.
A To those things indeed whither I have been impelled from above, whence shall fountains of words break forth for me, and the veins of knowledge expand, so that, even if not according to worth—for these things transcend all mind and thought—I might yet tell of them fittingly with human tongue and mind, and not fall short of their majesty by as much as one who walks upon the earth and is enslaved to the senses appears inferior? It will certainly come to me from no other source than from the Spirit, who breathes life even into the dead; which, even if—to speak with Isaiah—I bear about unclean lips and am burdened with much filth of sins, yet trusting in this lover of goodness, because God does not turn away from sinners through the sea of His mercies, if only we turn and incline our mind back to Him, and from there opening my mouth, as the God-bearing David sings, I shall draw in the fragrance, to speak as the Scripture does, and again I shall be filled B with the grace from Christ, and from thence, as if nourished by a coal, and having been cleansed in heart and senses, I shall dispose heart-ascensions in Him, and I shall recount, as did the divine herald Paul, the wisdom hidden for many years, which God, who creates hidden things with authority C through these means, revealing them to those worthy at one time or another—as he who has devoted his soul to examining books is able to learn from many things—has in these last days manifested to us all through the unrolling of the divine Scriptures, calling us thence to a more complete communion, and one greater than the first. For as the King of kings and Lord of lords is God, so through him who now deservedly moderates the empire, and whom He found truly, like David, a man after His own heart, He has well joined together the limbs of the Church of Christ, long ago severed, and first firmly established peace in the bond of charity.
7. It was necessary, therefore, not long after, for the whole mystery of His providence concerning us to be revealed, and to show the Roman Church to differ in nothing from our own with regard to the principle of piety. What, then, does He work, and how does He bring into the light His truly admirable and hidden counsels? D From among those who previously opposed the matter, He raises up a man who was easily the leader in the ecclesiastical assembly both in doctrine and in the power of speech—for I deem it altogether superfluous for us to be prepared to make mention of rank and order—just as He once raised up the great Paul, not merely announcing peace and all the other good things which he collected from the sacred Scriptures after praising it; for he did not stop at the deed like many others, nor did he rest satisfied merely with well promoting it, but by a curious inquiry of the mind, interpreting the writings of the holy Fathers, he proceeded to the further depths of it, and, grasping the end of those things which were being examined, he truly and sincerely applied the fulfillment of peace according to Christ. Him, who was previously of the opposite party, now acknowledged as an advocate because of his zeal for all good things, and who foresees all things before they come to pass...
He predestined in an episcopal manner to preside over His Church at the present time, and to provide A a declaration of faith regarding the matters proposed to you, having been taught from on high both the understanding and the depth of the divine Scriptures. He who is the primary mover amongst us, having been the first and only one from the beginning to dip into the truth—as we have learned from what follows—received from his own self, or rather from God, certain rays of illumination concerning this; but he did not have the means to cause it to shine forth clearly to others, inasmuch as he lacked anyone at all in this matter to strengthen him and to assist him. And so, while proposing textual difficulties in our midst and seeking their solutions from every source, because he found no one capable of reconciling the mind of the letter, he was indeed halted in his purpose for a little while, but he would not depart entirely from the investigation of the Scriptures, God in all things propelling him toward this, so that the light of the truth, from his continuous engagement with them, might shine upon the eyes of those who contradict—which indeed, not long after, came to pass. For he who was growing strong in that former zeal, a little later himself, also moved by God, resolved in his mind to peruse the divine Scripture diligently. Having also meditated upon it in this way, he fixed his mind on many passages, and by deeply probing them with his reasoning, he attained the accuracy of the dogma and rendered the knowledge of what was hidden into the open for all to see, having duly redirected his zeal to the opposite side, and having acquired [it] here even more fervently than there, in that he was enriched by a far greater certainty from the scriptural testimonies. And now, having become a shepherd of the reasonable sheep of Christ, he is revealed to us as a teacher of the truth. Through him, God—who does and changes all things—has stirred up all those who were previously negligent in the investigation of the holy oracles (with the exception of a few, since it is fitting that remnants of wickedness remain, and also [fitting] at the present time to reveal its full power), and has brought into the light the entire divinely inspired Scripture, which until now was not known to many, unless one might claim to know more of it than just its name, and has deemed it worthy to be enjoyed with boldness. B Through this, the Church of the Romans—oh, the ineffable gifts of God!—has been judged to believe rightly and to think according to the mind of the holy Fathers. Hence, too, every pretext for scandal has been taken away from us, having broken apart like a spider's web and come to nothing. For the things of peace move about openly, giving no cause as a pretext for division; since those whom we previously shunned as implacable enemies, because we suspected them of thinking differently than you regarding worship, we now recognize as having the same opinion as we do. For thus I name the adherents of the Church of the Romans, and I shall never cease to name them so in the future, even if some, either addicted to wickedness or distracted by ignorance, are rent asunder; we cherish them as brothers, and like our own members, C first and more honorable, we embrace them, caring little for those who, [having their own] ideas about dogma D
are truly wandering into emptiness, and refusing to follow the God-bearing Fathers, who, being inspired by the all-holy Spirit through their purity of both flesh and mind, have theologized most beautifully and according to their worth.
8. Such, O God and Creator of all, are the wonders Thou hast wrought for us who have clearly arrived at the end of the ages (thou didst not cease, in every way, to bestow benefits upon those whom Thou didst fashion with Thine own hands, and to demonstrate Thy care for us), wonders which those before us did not perceive, whether through sloth regarding the divine Scriptures, or through enmity toward the Latins. For many are the dissensions that have been stirred up between us and them, and the nobler part of the soul, whenever it harbors ingrained enmities, is darkened when troubled, even in the truth itself. B These things Thou hast now caused us to learn properly and as they truly are by Thy good pleasure, and by commencing the arguments concerning these matters in another way—according to Thy varied and manifold wisdom and the depth of Thy knowledge—Thou hast prepared for them a very much better end and outcome, and Thou hast truly gathered those who were dispersed for a long time into one, and hast brought those who were scattered into the same sheepfold. And again, behold one flock, composed of all of us from different and diverse nations, whose shepherd is Thy only-begotten Word, Christ, who took on our form through Thy bowels of mercy, for whom what thanksgivings shall be rendered to Thee? And what debt of gratitude shall we render to Thee, who art replete with every good, who art beyond every grace, and who, having a superabundance of all human things, art in no way in need of anything? C It is not possible, because of these things and what Thou hast now accomplished, that we could duly render thanks, even were it to fall short of Thy dignity, and all the more because we are least qualified to speak, since even if we were to attain a celestial or super-celestial voice, not even then would we satisfy what is owed. Thus, O all-powerful and most sublime Lord, the magnitude of Thy benefits toward us is greater than any speech. But let these things concerning this matter rest here. For I do not think there is need of longer words for the presentation of what has been said.
9. But since we have offered to God, as best we could, the glory that is fitting for the things that have taken place, D calling to mind His great gifts toward us and proclaiming to all His wonders even up to this day, it would be just from this point to turn the discourse toward those who think the opposite of us, and who have a zeal, but not according to knowledge, as the divine Apostle says. Some of these, while hearing the voices of the holy Fathers, do not perceive the meaning inherent in them, but understand them rashly; they slander and accuse the peace of the Churches, which has so well and with God’s help come to pass, and going about everywhere they speak evil of us, although they are most ignorant of the very things about which they make assertions.
A Others, destitute of experience in the Scriptures, do not even endure to look upon us, much less to engage in conversation or dialogue with us on the matters we are discussing. For as to others—those who do so out of wickedness and hatred (and there are, there are indeed some so disposed, with Satan showing his own power here as well)—they flee from us in disgust; what, then, is to be said of those whom only God, who raises the dead to life, could restore, as they have already clearly fallen through envy and are in danger? To them, tears of compassion are more appropriate than arguments intended to draw them toward the better course; for, as the wise man said, even if they were to be persuaded, they would not be convinced. So dead are they to communion with the good, their minds having been gradually consumed by jealousy, and having thus clearly trickled away B into nothingness.
But let those people be cast far from this discourse, as possessing an incurable disposition; our speech must be turned toward the others who are differently inclined, and concerning whose soundness we do not despair; for we believe that, in the end, their hearts will one day be moved by the saving word. In this discourse, we shall arrange the testimonies handed down in the Scriptures, into which, when we happen upon them, we have looked more deeply and accurately without error, setting forth our own positions and explaining theirs as much as possible, while also bringing in the contradictions of our opponents in some places and refuting them as the Spirit grants us; so that those who turn away from us out of ignorance may be taught—whether merely by hearing the divine voices—to cast aside fear where there is no fear, as the Psalmist David suggests; or rather, that by trembling in their hearts with a laudable fear, and by conceiving the spirit of salvation, they may bring forth a fetus, as they readily hasten to us and their souls are glued fast to ours. C But as for those who interpret these things perversely: if they prove able to give their assent to our correct and unwavering thoughts, having abandoned their prior opinion, they may be instructed with the accurate knowledge of the dogma. And let them not dare to say—as I have heard from someone among them—that we, without any examination, accept the voices of the holy Fathers and draw evil conclusions from what seems to us; but rather, that they may come to think one and the same thing with us, and that together we may all glorify the Trinity—the one Godhead and power.
Concerning this, before entering into the actual question, I have thought it necessary to set forth a few things briefly, for in this way the discourse will be directed harmoniously toward the matter at hand. I invoke that very One who makes the foolish and unwise prudent and wise, in whom, according to the great Apostle, are all the hidden treasures of knowledge, to provide me with words in the opening of my mouth, so that, having aimed at what is fitting as much as possible, I may be able to speak something worthy of the divine majesty.
10. Be propitious to me, O name dreadful and terrible to all, God and Lord of the universe, Father unbegotten, only-begotten Son, and Spirit coessential and co-throned, the sovereign principle and supra-temporal archetype of all things that exist, the triple-rayed and indivisible dominion, the one...
A sovereign power and might, if to Thee, the Most High, who sanctifiest and illuminest life, I, a creature of earth, embolden myself and loose my tongue, being not at all purified beforehand, or, to speak more modestly, being in the process of purification. For it is neither out of contempt—may I not be so mad—nor out of ignorance of Thy infinite and inaccessible glory that I undertake this task; but, trusting in the sea of Thy goodness, by which alone, when I was nothing, Thou didst fashion me at the very beginning of things, and daily, as I transgress, Thou supportest me, awaiting my repentance.
The discourse concerning God, O friends, is indeed very difficult and surpasses all comprehension, not only for us, whose intellect, overshadowed by the darkness of the passions, is not granted a clear vision, but even for those who have advanced in speculation, and who have kept the reasoning power of their soul pure. Nevertheless, in so far as it has come to our mind from those who, devoted to the Spirit, have made it clear, it has appeared twofold and in a different mode: the one is proper to the unity of the essence or nature, the other to the trinity of persons or hypostases (which is to say the same thing). For God, being one in essence and nature, is known in three hypostases or persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—which are and are called these things by their own proper property, each when considered by itself being perfect God; and yet again, these three are known as one God, while the division according to the properties does not produce an alienation of nature, nor does the union according to essence produce a confusion of the hypostases, as Arius, famous for his madness, and Sabellius, of shallow mind, B who held contradictory views to one another, impiously decreed—the one by severing the Divinity, the other by commingling the persons. For the life-originating and most holy Trinity is divided indivisibly and joined dividedly, which is marvelous. Nevertheless, the Father is without principle and without cause, for He is not from anyone. But the Son and the Spirit, even if you look at time, they too have no beginning of their own; for how could the Maker and Creator of times be under time? Yet according to another concept, they are not without principle, and therefore not without cause. For both are from the Father, yet not in the same way, nor in a similar manner, since it is necessary that there be a distinction even in these things, so that they may also be discerned from one another; and hence the Trinity is truly a trinity, just as the essence is a unity. C D
11. Therefore, the Son is begotten, and the Spirit, as the God-given oracles say, proceeds; these are different distinct names for different existences. But here the cause of the dissensions between us appears, because of which whole nations—which were the first among others to bear the name of Christ, and from there gave themselves their names, I mean Latins and Greeks—have for a long time been severed and separated from one another. And along with them all the other nations of Christians have been led astray, as, from the malice of Satan, great tempests and savage waves have overcome the Church, and a mighty storm and surge have taken hold of her, from which the affliction and destruction of our affairs have ensued, so that these things have advanced...
A to complete ruin and annihilation, D just as we have said before, had not the Lord clearly brought us aid. And even now, after the truth which the Holy Spirit has provided has been found and apprehended, some of our own people, defending the opinion of their predecessors, charge those from the Church of the Romans with the crime of blasphemy, because they assert that the Spirit is from the Son, and they wickedly dissociate themselves from us who have attached ourselves to them according to God, and they strive to cause scandal and universal turmoil. For, having seized upon the single, naked evangelic voice of the Savior mentioned above, they say that the Spirit proceeds immediately from the Father, neither turning their minds to the whole preceding passage, through which it is apprehended by those who attend to it in any way that the existence of the Spirit is not outside the Son, nor paying any heed to the sayings of the great Paul, the defender of piety, which are read every day in the Church and which insinuate the same opinion, passing over them lightly, and in no way considering the writings of the God-bearing Fathers on this same matter, in which it is most clearly proclaimed that the Spirit is through the Son and from the Son, but inventing new expressions for themselves to please men.
B 12. But we say, following the God-breathed interpretations of the saints, and since these very interpretations develop not a few of the Lord’s words in the Gospels, and the apostolic sayings no less, all of which we shall set forth in due time as the discourse proceeds, that the Holy Spirit receives existence from the Father through the Son, and therefore from the Son, as being from the Son. For the Son proceeds immediately from the Father, but the Holy Spirit C through the Son; and this is the medium of them that produces the difference, according to which the Son exists and is from this named solely "begotten," while that which is named Holy Spirit is, and is called, solely "proceeding." And Gregory the Great, the prelate of the Church of the Nyssenes, who from this one city filled all the ends of the world with his dogmas, testifies to my discourse; in his theology to Ablabius, he speaks thus: "Confessing the immutability of the nature, we do not deny the difference of cause and caused, in which alone we perceive the one to be distinguished from the other; for we believe this to be the cause, and that to be from the cause, and in that which is from the cause we perceive again another difference. For the one is immediately from the first, but the other through that which is immediately from the first." And such is Gregory of Nyssa, a trustworthy witness of the things said above, from which it is believed by us, and rightly so, that the Spirit differs from the Son in that He has His existence from the Father through Him. Since if this were not so, D surely he too would be a begotten Son. Or what is the reason for this one being the Son and the other the Spirit and not the Son? Let someone propose another difference between them, from which they might also, as is fitting, obtain their different appellations, and we shall be silent. But no one will ever be able to propose another, as long as this divine Father is acknowledged by all
A to be a teacher of the truth, who in this alone established the distinction between the Son and the Spirit, in that the one is directly from the Father, the other through that one—or, to say the same thing, through the Son. This indeed being so, there is no one of sound understanding and steady mind who could gainsay it, unless perhaps he has wandered far from the straight path.
13. That the Holy Spirit exists B from the Father through the Son, besides this luminary of the Church, who in many other of his writings has clearly defined these same things, as the argument will show as we proceed, has been handled in a similar manner by almost all the holy Fathers, whose commentaries the Church of God has determined to hold as tablets inscribed by God: and this dogma was common and universal from ancient times, preserved for her as if in a treasury, although now I know not for what cause many do not admit it, even after such an inquiry into the truth and such a discovery of it. For straightway the great Basil, in matters theological, to whom all things are conceded by all in all respects, in one of his chapters to the holy Amphilochius, says: "How then could those things be separated which cannot be separated, the Word of God and the Spirit from God through the Son?" Who, hearing this great herald of piety, would not immediately assent to these words, and, being devoted and consecrated to them, fight with all his might for the dogma, following as a leader of his faith the one whom the Divinity has C illuminated, endowed with no fewer honors than those great Fathers, he who has many times over initiated many struggles for piety, as his refutations against the heretics most clearly demonstrate, which silence every wicked and impious tongue, and in which he at times discusses the matter proposed to us, as we can collect from another chapter also.
For to those who are doubtful: "Why is the Holy Spirit not also a son of the Son?" this great man presents himself, as if those men were utterly destroying His being through the Son, and destroying the absurdity that would follow from that, he replies: "Not because He is not from God through the Son," and he adds the reason: "But lest an infinite multitude, the Trinity, might be thought to have sons from sons, even as in men." Furthermore, establishing that "through the Son" by the authority of Holy Scripture, he adds: "For this reason, the Apostle D openly proclaimed the Spirit to be from God, saying, 'The Spirit which is from God we have received,' and he made it clear that He appears through the Son, when he named Him the Spirit of the Son, just as he calls Him the Spirit of God, and the mind of Christ, just as also the Spirit of God is like that of a man." What bounds of insanity would he not exceed, who, hearing these words, does not change his opinion for the better? And especially since this great Father brings forward Paul, the mouth of Christ, to confirm his own opinion, for he seems to interpret the things dictated by him concerning the Spirit, by which, as I said before, he also explains the evangelical voice to those who investigate them considerately, if they are nothing other than those dictated by
A the Spirit of truth in the Gospel, according to Paul, the Spirit of the Son, and the mind of Christ. And Christ is the truth. Well, then, having previously said that those who set themselves against us stumble at that very passage in the Gospels, and indeed at the apostolic utterances also, as if passing over the things concerning these matters in a cursory manner, and not with the requisite attention and examination. Yet, even if not formerly, for the future at least I think no one of all those who have not decided to contradict every word perversely to the end will pass over any of these things unexamined, nor, having arrived at a knowledge of them, will they remain held by their own willful opinion; but, having turned away their unreasonable opposition, I think every such person will change his disposition to wonder, and will become one of us, one of the defenders of the truth, which this divine man, by the power of argument, has shown us and urged us, in a way, to defend, confirming the common opinion, which has always been undoubted, that the Holy Spirit receives existence through the Son, as is evident also from the mind of those who doubt. For what reason would they seek the cause of these things, asking, "Why is the Holy Spirit not the Son of the Son," B unless they acknowledged that it is through Him that He possesses existence, and have firmly and undoubtedly held such a dogma before all? Truly, even if the one who, abounding in heavenly wisdom for his greatest and most illustrious virtues, demonstrated that it is so, has confirmed the defense made to them, by speaking words full of truth and power. The things of the great Basil are such, and they have enough power to persuade a soul to assent to his right dogmas, as they possess much strength.
14. But what of Gregory of Nyssa, who is no less a brother in the confession of faith than in the relationship of nature, and who has dogmatized on this matter in various writings, which we promised a little before to set forth as we proceeded with our discourse? These also are surely in agreement, and they are completely consistent, not lacking the strength of those previously mentioned, but girding themselves with such truth. C For in the first book of his Antirrhetics against Eunomius, treating these matters, he too says: "The Father is understood as without beginning and unbegotten. But from Him, at once and indivisibly, the only-begotten Son is conceived with the Father; and through Him and with Him, before any empty and unsubstantial thought can intervene, the Holy Spirit is straightway conceived as conjoined, not existing in substance after the Son, so that the Only-Begotten should ever be conceived without the Spirit, but having the cause of His own essence from the God of all things, from whence also the only-begotten light arises, and shining forth through the true light, neither divided...
A by interval nor by difference of nature from the Father or from the Only-begotten. And after many things, he says again: We conceive of the Son as another sun from the unbegotten sun, shining forth together with Him at the same time in the conception of the First, and having everything in like manner; and again: Another such light, in the same way, not separated by any interval of time from the begotten light, but shining forth through Him, yet having the cause of its hypostasis from that first prototype light. Nothing could be clearer or more manifest than these things, by which it is truly necessary that all, who are not given over to folly by excessive contentiousness, be persuaded. For to oppose these things and to try contentiously to refute such evident truths, would be not unlike one who, seeing the very bright and cheerful day, says that it is a deep and pitch-black night. Thus, such a man would seem to be blind in the eyes of his soul, just as the other is truly blind in the eyes of his body—which may it never happen to suffer, nor to hear these things so desired by those who have a sound mind. For this is a proof of the utmost folly, from which I do not know how anyone could escape who presumes to go against the words of this most divine Father, who excels in the highest wisdom that is above us, and who speaks openly of such matters, than which nothing more divine can be imagined. And to me, even the mere ability to reach the height of what is said is a great and manifest gift of God. Therefore, I do not cease to persuade myself, and I would counsel others who have ears ready to receive exhortation, not to do violence to the words, nor to extend them too far. For it is good for those remaining in these things to strive with the utmost effort for safety. Safety, however, is to follow the dogmas securely established, which this divine man and others, free from the affections of material things, comprehended sincerely and accurately by their own mind, and have handed down in writing to all. But to invent and devise other things for oneself and to forge contradictions from one's own imagination leads to the precipice of ruin, into which it is horrible to fall, and most of all for those who slip through malice and not through ignorance: which may it never befall anyone, O God and Lord of all.
15. The words of these great men alone are sufficient D to demonstrate to fair-minded listeners the fraternal concord maintained in these matters regarding the Spirit, and the existence of the Spirit through the Son; yet my discourse also desires to bring forward the statements of the other God-bearing Fathers, who, moved by the most holy Spirit at their own times, as grace granted to each, all theologized about divine matters. For by how many more the testimonies are, by so much the more certainty will be added to the argument. Let there come forward, therefore, the luminaries of Egypt, who arose in Alexandria, and from there illuminated the entire world with their divine doctrine; both the foundation of piety, he who is named after immortality, and Cyril, the greatest in establishing dogmas, and they too [bring forward] their own [teaching] regarding this.
A The older of these, in his Refutation against the hypocrisy of Meletius and Eusebius, declares: "But it was impossible for the Spirit to be glorified in the glory of the Trinity, unless He is from God by the mode of proceeding through the Son, and not by the mode of being created from God, as they say." Continuing the Disputation between the Orthodox and the Macedonians, he writes: "Therefore, if it is shown that the Spirit, who is poured forth from the Father through the Son, is of the same divinity as the Son and the Father, He shall also be demonstrated as worthy of worship and adoration."
More recently, Cyril, in his exposition of the evangelical utterance of John that says, "When the Comforter comes," teaches: "For just as He is the own Spirit of the Son, existing naturally in Him and proceeding through Him, so is He also [the own Spirit] of the Father." The same author, regarding the text, "For He shall not speak from Himself," says: "For I have foretold, even if you are not able to learn everything. He will not, therefore, foretell future things *as I do*, unless He entirely exists in Me and proceeds through Me." B And further explaining the passage, "He shall glorify Me," he says: "But since He is of the same essence as the Son, and proceeds—as befits God—through Him, possessing all His most perfect operation and power in all things, for this reason He says: 'He shall receive of Mine.'" And annexing a few things, he adds: "For proceeding naturally through Him, as His own, He is said to receive His things together with all things which He possesses perfectly."
What then? He also explains the statement, "All things that the Father has are Mine," and teaches: "For this reason He told us that He receives of Mine, and shall announce it to you—the Spirit, namely, who is through Him and in Him." These things, indeed, were gathered from the sacred interpretation by the wise Cyril on the Evangelist John, who, being consistent with himself everywhere, contains these very words in his second book of discourses to Hermias: "Furthermore, you shall call the Holy Spirit [the One] who is naturally poured forth from God the Father through the Son, and, to explain this by an image, C indicating to us His own existence like that of breath from the mouth." In the books also to Palladius, which themselves are arranged by way of question and answer, he again discourses in this manner: "But the Spirit is in no way mutable; for if He is subject to change, the reproach will redound upon the divine nature itself, if He is the Spirit of God and the Father, and moreover of the Son, substantially poured forth from both, that is, from the Father through the Son."
16. What would those who in no way accept the "through the Son" [phrase], but rather vehemently condemn it, answer to the voice of this divine Father regarding the "from both"? For he asserts that the Holy Spirit is from both, D and immediately connects the explanation, namely, "from the Father through the Son"; by which explanation he does not even reject the preposition "from" in regard to the Son, doing so well and entirely worthily of his own magnificence, since he is sufficiently skilled [to know that] piety is in no way harmed, when indeed, just as he himself has interpreted that preposition, someone...
A should receive it. For our worship does not consist in the words themselves, but in the meaning of those words. But those who avoid the “through,” by which no evil thought is conveyed, are thinking wrongly about these matters. For how could they demonstrate the conjunction and indivisibility of the life-originating Trinity, if they do not say that the Spirit is from the Father through the Son? But it is not the present time to speak of the indivisible and conjunctive nature of the Trinity, and much more of the “from,” seeing that most of the Fathers, and especially the most divine Cyril, have used this term in harmony, and have even delivered that the Holy Spirit is from the Son. For we shall treat of these things in their proper place.
17. Now, following the logical order of what has been said before B, we say that the Damascene, that wise melodist, rich in divine grace as his own name proclaims, proclaimed more clearly than others that the Holy Spirit exists from the Father through the Son. For he, in one of his hymns, setting forth more clearly the things concerning this, having received the theology exactly and diligently as it was guarded by the saints who were illustrious in times of old, thus cries out to the Lord: “Grant us a propitious Spirit, the communicater of goodness, proceeding from the Father through Thee.” And this is known clearly to all who have even the slightest concern for gathering in holy houses, as it is often sung in church in a loud and clear voice; and no one can truly refute the statement even under the pretext of ignorance. C That such theology came down to him from the teachers of old as a paternal inheritance, we have sufficiently shown already, and we have proven that the first among them had delivered it in almost this same way. We shall also show the present, if it pleases, by bringing to witness Gregory, who shone in miracles, from whom he also gained his surname. For the Lord said, “By the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established” (Matt. xviii, 16), declaring that such a number is sufficient for proof; but we, abounding in an abundance of these matters, have doubled such a number, and now bring forward this sixth witness, to whom trust is granted even above the others; he, in his discourse on the Faith, has this, saying: “We confess the Son and the Spirit to be consubstantial with the Father, that is, one divinity, while the Father remains naturally unbegotten, but the Son is begotten from the Father, and the Holy Spirit is eternally sent D forth from the essence of the Father through the Son.”
18. It behooved those who had once given themselves over to the opposing faction, and had broken away from our communion, if not before, at least at this time, upon hearing these words, to be struck with awe and to show themselves obedient to us, fearing and respecting the mere reverence due to such a man. But they, as I see, laying hold even more of the word “sent forth,” have at last openly burst forth with the oppositions which they had long conceived and cherished in their hearts.
A And they say that nothing is gained by the present discourse, nor that the majority of the cited testimonies are pertinent to the matter at hand, because the word “to be” or “to exist” is not strictly added to them. For to some is attributed “to have appeared,” to others “to beam forth,” to others “to flow forth” and “to be poured out,” to others after these “to be sent forward,” and to this one “to proceed,” and to this one “to be sent forth” by the saints. But none of these signifies the existence of the Spirit; each signifies that which is appropriate to it: “to have appeared” signifies its manifestation to us; B “to beam forth” signifies the ineffable illumination of this radiance upon the world; “to flow forth” and “to be poured out” signifies the distribution of its gifts to the worthy; “to be sent forward,” and additionally “to proceed,” signifies its divine descent into us; and “to be sent forth” signifies the mission of this same Spirit promised to the disciples by the Savior; all of which we believe to have been accomplished through the Son, with none of them denoting the existence of the Spirit. And these are the assertions of these people, who are entirely ignorant of the matters about which they contend, and who maliciously keep silent about the passages of the great Basil and of the divine Father Athanasius, in which the word “to be” is added. For in the case of the first, there is no need for us to differ at all, as it stands absolute and without any word whatsoever, since by its power the word “to exist” is necessarily understood by those skilled in such matters. Nevertheless, these men have set forth their own opinion by such means; but I shall add to those already discussed others that follow them, namely “to gush forth,” “to spring forth,” and if there be anything else similar found everywhere in the divine Scriptures taken regarding the Spirit; declaring that all these things connote its existence. And this will be proven to be altogether indubitable, since most of the saints have used such expressions concerning the existence of the Son from the Father, the remarks of whom will be set down here a little later. C But for now, even in one of the cited testimonies, this is clear to those who do not examine similar things rashly and carelessly. For Gregory of Nyssa placed “to beam forth” first concerning the Son, and then duty-bound regarding the Spirit, so that he might close off every pretext for contradiction to the contentious. For it will not at all be considered by fair-minded readers that that cold notion of theirs could have any place in the case of the Son. For I omit to say that “to flow forth” and “to be sent forth,” having certain things attached to them, do not admit their aforesaid ideas—the former [denoting what is] eternally, the latter what is naturally and essentially. For how would the Spirit, naturally and essentially poured forth, be taken regarding the gifts? And how would the eternally sent [Spirit] be understood regarding the mission? But these things are [mentioned] in passing, [points] which will be able to win victory over the adversaries by a wide interval of strength.
D 19. Now it is not inopportune to set forth the sayings of the saints regarding the aforementioned matters. For the unshakable pillar of the Church, Athanasius the Great, he who has many struggles for the sake of the right doctrines, the noble soldier and champion of piety,
A in his discourse on the eternal existence of the Son and of the Spirit, employing the term "appearance" regarding the Son's existence from the Father, has this to say: "Therefore, the Son is not a Word in the heart of the Father, but a living Word from the living God, having appeared through eternal generation, joined to the Father without beginning."
Cyril, the supreme authority in determining theological matters, in his discourse to Valerian the Bishop, spoke in this manner: "For while He is holy by nature, just as the Father is, the only-begotten Son who appeared from Him is said to have been sanctified by the Father, insofar as He appeared as a man." The same author, applying "shining forth" in the same sense in one of his chapters concerning the perpetuity of the Son, sets out these very words: "But God, who is exalted above all things, caused the Son to shine forth from Himself indivisibly." And in another: "The Father caused the Son to shine forth from Himself indivisibly and inseparably." B And in another: "Just as the Holy Spirit does not undergo division regarding His essence while sending forth various ways in His gifts, so too no one of those who have wisdom will say that the generative essence of God suffers injury, or division, or some outflow, when it causes the one and only Son to shine forth from itself."
The divine and great Athanasius, again, in explaining divine matters in his discourse on Dionysius the Bishop, showing that terms like "effusion" are also taken from the Son's existence from the Father, is found to have said this: "God is the Fountain of all good things, and the Son is recorded as the river flowing forth." For the Word is an efflux of the mind, and, to speak using a human example, it flows from the heart through the mouth. Again, the most divine Cyril, in one of his chapters mentioned above, shows that "to proceed" has no other meaning, expressing it in these very words: "For He who proceeds from the essence of the Father immediately shows the One who begat Him to be Father." And in another: "Just as the Father is without beginning, so too is the Word who proceeded from His essence without beginning." C And in another: "Thus also the Son of God, having proceeded indivisibly from the Father, is the character of His eternity." In another of these same chapters, attributing "to be sent forth" to the Son's existence from the Father, he expressed himself in this way: "For what passion is perceived in the sun when it brings forth light? What division occurs in fire when it sends forth the illumination from itself? But if these things beget indivisibly, and send forth what is from themselves without passion, does not the Maker of these things all the more send forth the Radiance of His own nature?"
In addition to these, the same author, again in one of the same chapters, taking "to come forth" in the same signification, sets out the following word for word: "The entire being of the Son comes forth from the essence of the Father." Furthermore, this same author takes "to gush forth" D regarding the very existence of the Son in one of the aforementioned chapters, explaining it thus: "The Son was therefore co-eternal with the Begetter, gushing forth from the paternal essence as if from a certain fountain." The light of the Church once again, the most divine Athanasius, adapting "to spring forth" to the same meaning, called the Father the fountain of the Son with these words, in the letter from the Synod of Jerusalem to the Alexandrians: "They recognize, those who have subjected the Arian heresy to anathema, that He is not a creature, but out of..."
γεννή- σαντι συναΐδιος ὁ Υἱός, ὅπερ ἀπό τινος πηγῆς A τῆς πατρώας ἀναβλύζων οὐσίας. Ὁ τῆς Ἐκκλησίας αὖθις φωστὴρ ὁ θειότατος Ἀθανάσιος, τὸ πηγάζειν προσαρμόζων αὐτῷ, πηγὴν τὸν Πατέρα τοῦ Υἱοῦ κέκληκεν, οὕτως εἰπὼν ἐν τῇ πρὸς τοὺς Ἀλεξανδρεῖς ἀπὸ τῆς συνόδου τῆς ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις ἐπιστολῇ· Γινώσκοντες εἰσὶν οἱ τὴν Ἀρειανὴν αἵρεσιν ἀναθεματίσαντες, μὴ κτίσμα, ἀλλ’ ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας γέννημα εἶναι τὸν Λόγον, καὶ τὴν οὐσίαν τοῦ Πατρὸς ἀρχὴν καὶ ῥίζαν καὶ πηγὴν εἶναι τοῦ Υἱοῦ. Τούτων ἐνῆν καὶ πλείω προθεῖναι τοῖς βουλομένοις ἀπὸ τῆς θείας Γραφῆς ἐκλεξάμενον· ὅμως τὸν κόρον φεύγων τὸν ἀπὸ τοῦ πλήθους τῶν λεγομένων τοῖς ἀκροαταῖς ἐκτικτόμενον, ἀποχρὴν ἡγοῦμαι καὶ ταῦτα τοῖς γε μὴ πάντη κακοσχόλοις, ἢ ταπεινοῖς τὴν διάνοιαν.
κ’. Ἐπέκεινα δὲ τῶν ῥηθέντων τὸ πεφηνέναι, καὶ τὸ πηγάζειν, ὅτι κἀπὶ τοῦ Πνεύματος λαμβανόμενα τὴν ὕπαρξιν τούτου σημαίνουσιν, ὁ μέγας B Βασίλειος παραστήσει τοῖς πᾶσιν ἀριδηλότατα. Καὶ γὰρ ἐν τῷ περὶ τοῦ Πνεύματος αὐτοῦ λόγῳ ταῦτά φησιν· «Τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον οὐδὲν ἐν ἑαυτῷ ἐπίκτητον ἔχον ἐστὶν, ἀλλ’ ἀϊδίως πάντα ἔχον, ὡς Πνεῦμα Θεοῦ καὶ ἐξ αὐτοῦ πεφηνός, αἴτιον αὐτὸν ἔχον, ὡς πηγὴν ἑαυτοῦ, κἀκεῖθεν πηγάζον· πηγὴ δὲ αὐτὸ τῶν προειρημένων ἀγαθῶν. Ἀλλ’ αὐτὸ μὲν ἐκ Θεοῦ πηγάζει ἐνυπόστατόν ἐστι· τὰ δὲ ἐξ αὐτοῦ πηγάζοντα ἐνέργειαι αὐτοῦ εἰσιν. Τοῦτο τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἐξέχεεν ἐφ’ ἡμᾶς πλουσίως ὁ Θεὸς διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.» Ποῦ ποτέ εἰσιν οἱ πάντα τοῖς ἑαυτῶν λογισμοῖς ἐπιτρέποντες, καὶ ὅπερ ἂν αὐτοῖς δόξειε, τοῦτο τῶν ζητουμένων ἐφ’ ἑκάστῳ τιθέμενοι, καὶ τὴν οἰκείαν γνώμην ὡς νόμον στέργοντες καὶ κρατύνοντες, οἱ μήτε θέλοντες ἐπαίειν, εἴ που τις καὶ λέγειν ἔχοι τι χρήσιμον οἴκοθεν, καὶ τῶν θείων Γραφῶν προτεινομένων, ὡς ἀσπὶς C τὰ ὦτα πρὸς ἐπάσματα βύοντες; Ἰδοὺ γὰρ ἐν τῷ παρόντι πρὸς τοῖς ῥηθεῖσι καὶ ἕτερον δόγμα τῷ θείῳ τούτῳ Πατρὶ συγκατασκευάζεται, περὶ οὗ πολὺς λόγος πολλάκις ἑκατέροις τοῖς μέρεσι. Κοινῶς γὰρ ὁμολογουμένου, καὶ παρὰ πᾶσι τοῦ τὴν τοῦ Πνεύματος χορηγίαν γίνεσθαι δι’ Υἱοῦ τοῖς πιστοῖς, οἱ πλείους αὐτῶν, ἵνα μὴ λέγω πάντες, ἐπείπερ εὐγνωμονοῦσιν, ὡς ἐγᾦμαι, τὸ γοῦν μέρος τοῦτό τινες, τὰ τοῦ Πνεύματος χαρίσματά φασιν ἀποτετμημένως παρέχεσθαι δι’ Υἱοῦ τοῖς πρὸς οὓς τὸ Πνεῦμα λέγεται δίδοσθαι· καὶ τὰ τῆς μαρτυρίας, ὅτι πνεύματα καλοῦνται καὶ τὰ χαρίσματα, παρευθὺς ἐπὶ γλώττης ἐξ Ἡσαΐου τοῦ μεγαλοφωνοτάτου τῶν προφητῶν, περὶ τοῦ Κυρίου προλέγοντος, «Καὶ ἐπαναπαύσεται ἐπ’ αὐτὸν ἑπτὰ πνεῦματα, πνεῦμα σοφίας, πνεῦμα γνώσεως,» καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς. Ταῦτα γοῦν ὀρέγεσθαι δι’ Υἱοῦ τοῖς εὐσεβέσι φασίν, οὐ μὴν αὐτὸ τὸ μετὰ Πατρὸς καὶ D Υἱοῦ συνταττόμενον καὶ συναριθμούμενον, ὅπερ καὶ Θεός ἐστι τέλειος, ἐπεὶ μὴ δυνατὸν φύσιν ἀνθρώπου χωρῆσαι Θεόν. Τί συνάγειν ἐντεῦθεν τάχα πειρώμενοι; Τὸ τῇ ψευδεῖ ταύτῃ προτάσει συμπεραινόμενον πάντως ἄτοπον· ὡς, εἴπερ μὴ δι’ Υἱοῦ προσνέμεσθαι τὸ Πνεῦμα τοῖς ἀξίοις νομίζεται, σχολῇ γ’ ἂν ὑπάρχειν δι’ αὐτοῦ πιστευθήσεται.
to the false proposition is surely absurd; for if it is not believed that the Spirit is bestowed upon the worthy through the Son, it will hardly be believed that He subsists through Him.
A 21. To these we respond by saying: It is not the gifts of the Spirit that are divided—for this almost strikes against piety itself—and bestowed upon the faithful through the Son; rather, it is the Holy Spirit Himself, who completes the Trinity, and who is uniquely proclaimed to be given to pious men through the Son, dwelling habitually; and thus He pours forth the operation of His own gifts, as the great Basil says, stopping the shameless mouths of those who contend against us in these matters. Now, concerning God dwelling in us, it is written of those who pleased Him after the law and before grace: "I will dwell in them and walk among them." And concerning the apostles, our Savior, speaking of this in the Gospels, said: "I and the Father will come, and we will make our abode with him." That the gifts of the Spirit are sometimes called "spirits" it would be superfluous to say, since no one doubts it; B yet that it is the Holy Spirit Himself in reality, and not merely His gifts, that is bestowed upon the faithful through the Son, this God-speaking Father declared, and no less—nay, even more clearly and sublimely—when he discusses the Savior’s breathing upon the disciples. For in one of the chapters to the blessed Amphilochius, he again intimates these things: "For the Spirit, joined to the living Word for the purpose of creating, is a living power and a divine nature, ineffable, appearing in an ineffable manner from an ineffable mouth, and through that breathing sent into man, and restored by Him through that breathing according to the bodily image shown by the Christ. For the current renewal must correspond to the original newness, and He who breathed expressed this concurrence, being the same who breathed at the beginning, and He through whom God bestowed the breathing—then indeed with the soul, but now into the soul." Let those who fight against us turn their attention to this saying, and let them learn from it that it was not some spiritual gift, as they contentiously argue, that was bestowed upon those who had looked upon the Word C after the resurrection, but the Holy Spirit Himself, whom God had also breathed into man at the very creation of the world. And this could not possibly have come to pass unless the Spirit had His very existence through Him by whom He is breathed into those with whom He is well-pleased, and is sent supplied to the worthy. For if this were not so, it would be wrongly and incorrectly said that He is bestowed through the Son. For, of necessity, the supply follows upon the existence, unless one imagines that the Spirit subsists outside the Only-Begotten, and that He [the Son] receives Him as having been given to Him by the Father in order to be able to communicate Him to those in need—a position which the most admirable Cyril in many places cuts off as being full of all impiety. For in one of the chapters of the second book of the *Treasury* he says this expressly: "For the Spirit is entirely proper to the essence of the Son, and does not have His hypostasis from without." And in the third [chapter] to Hermias: "Therefore the Holy Spirit, honoring us men with the glory of sonship, D since He is of the Son, will indeed work the adoption of sons in others,
but will be altogether idle in Him whose [Spirit] He is, A nor is He adventitious, nor indeed does He come from without, but exists essentially of the Son, and is poured forth through Him to those worthy to receive Him according to the good pleasure of the Father." Again, in the Gospel according to John, where he interprets that passage, "And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Paraclete," he says: "Will not someone, therefore, think—and indeed very justly, or rather will he not be firmly convinced—that since the Son is essentially a partaker of the natural and essential goods of God and the Father, He has the Spirit in the same manner as the Father is understood to have Him, not as something added nor from without? For it is the part of one who is foolish, or rather insane, to think otherwise." And regarding the text, "I beheld the Spirit descending from heaven as a dove, and it remained upon Him," he says: "For we shall surely not fall into such folly as to imagine that the Spirit exists in the Son by nature as a thing shared, B and not rather as substantially in-dwelling, just as He also belongs to the Father Himself." And after a few words: "How, then, shall we separate the Spirit from the Son, who is thus innate to Him, so substantially conjoined, and proceeding through Him, and thus naturally is within Him?" Thus does this great Father, C refuting the aforementioned opinion, prove that the Son possesses the Spirit naturally and essentially, though at times he also embraces the same [truth] according to another line of reasoning. For, in expounding the prophet Joel, after having discussed the divinity of the Only-Begotten, he adds this: "But in that He became man and appeared among us, the Spirit is said to be something added to Him. For He descended upon Him in the form of a dove, when, having become as we are, as I have said, He was baptized economically as one of us; then even His own Spirit is said to be given to Him because of the human state; and this is the emptying (kenosis)." These things are by way of digression, for the time for such matters is elsewhere; yet they seemed necessary for the sake of those who oppose everything D proposed to them. But by the authorities already adduced, I think I have sufficiently and as was fitting demonstrated that the expressions "to appear," "to shine forth," and other things similar to these, of which we made mention above, when said of the Son, signify His existence. So that, henceforth, there will be no further need for us to construct a proof when these same things are applied to the Spirit, to say they signify the existence of the latter. For by the same reasoning we shall rightly accept such expressions here, just as we have received them in the case of the Son.
22. But again, those who are always looking for strife and girding themselves for battle stand up and say: "And why has no one of the acknowledged Fathers clearly stated that the Holy Spirit has His existence through the Son, or used the specific term for this, which is, as we know, 'to proceed'?"
'?" A For it might perhaps be conceded that the Spirit exists through the Son, as they have all declared by what they have said, since some of them also appear to have used that term expressly; but that He has His existence [through the Son], one would not concede. For it is one thing to exist, and another thing to have existence; because the former is often wont to be said even of external things, as for instance, "this man exists from this city," and that man, perhaps, from another; but "to have existence" is used exclusively of those things which contribute to the constitution of a substance. They have therefore passed over in silence this term, which is most expressive, as they did likewise the term 'to proceed,' which is the proper term for the Spirit. And it is known to all that there is nothing among all things as proper to Him as 'to proceed.' For this has been attributed to the Spirit and to Him alone as a singular and proper characteristic, and is designated as His own. These are the things which those clever men, B adept at devising contradictions, have put forward so that they might establish their own opinion. But I affirm that between "to exist" and "to have existence" there is no difference, but that they signify one and the same thing. For "to exist" is clearly resolved into "to have existence," and "to have existence" is in turn gathered into "to exist," and there is no way at all to understand matters concerning these otherwise. I would have wished to construct a lengthy argument for the proof of this, if I did not know that I would incur the charge of folly from it. For to whom of all men is it not manifest that where "to exist" is mentioned, there also "to have existence" will be expressed in one and the same sense, whether naturally and essentially, or according to another mode, and that these will not differ at all for those who know how to discern the meaning of terms? Meanwhile, the divine Cyril has anticipated the difficulty and solved the question in one of the authorities written above, when he says: "You shall call the Holy Spirit, who flows naturally from the Father through the Son, and, as in the example of the breath from the mouth, signifies to us His own existence." For when he had said that the Spirit flows from the Father through the Son naturally, he added, "and signifies to us His own existence as in the example of the breath from the mouth," clearly deciding that the Holy Spirit has His existence through the Son, which, I suppose, escapes no one at all—even though these things, lying in the midst before everyone, they have consulted to pass over. And of this, so much is sufficient; for since these things are most clear, they cannot be overturned or repelled. C D 23. To the second [objection] indeed we say, firstly, that "to proceed" does not signify the very essence of the Spirit more expressly than "to exist," which is by nature the first among all words, and into which, as those who are obsessed with these matters hand down, this very term "to proceed" is resolved in addition to other words, but both are resolved equally and in the same mode. But if any difference is seen in these, it is according to another reason, proper and suitable to each. For since both the Son and the Holy Spirit are from the Father, lest anyone might think also that the Spirit, like
A the Son, is generated, the term "procession" was employed to distinguish it from generation. This is what John, the golden-tongued, explains in his homily on the Holy Spirit, saying: "In order that Scripture might bypass the name of generation, it has said 'to proceed'." Thus, through the "having an existence" is signified being simply, and through "to proceed" is signified the "how" of being. For this reason, some of the Fathers, who took care to examine these matters with greater precision, declared the "procession" to be a mode of existence, or, to say the same thing, a difference of existence. B And indeed, procession is the property of the Spirit, just as generation is the property of the Son. However, just as in the case of the Only-Begotten himself, "being generated" is not the only term taken in all parts of theology to signify his existence from the Father—as we have already demonstrated through many instances—so also with the Spirit, not all of the saints restricted themselves to the word "procession" alone, but one declared the Spirit’s existence by this word, another by a different one, and another by yet another. And so that we may immediately bring these instances to the fore, the great Basil, in the seventeenth of his chapters to Amphilochius, speaks thus: "The Spirit C is said to be from God, not as all things are from God, but as proceeding from God; not in the manner of generation as the Son, but as the Spirit of His mouth." And Gregory, he whose mind is on high and carries him to things above, he who is named for theology, introduces his discourse on the Son in this way: "Therefore, the Monad from the beginning, having moved into a dyad, stood at the Trinity. And this for us is the Father, the Son, and the Spirit; the former is Begetter and Producer, but of the latter, the one is offspring, the other is D product." The same author again, in his first [oration] on theology and the constitution of bishops: "Do you hear of generation? Do not curiously inquire into the 'how'. Do you hear that the Spirit proceeds from the Father? Do not busy yourself with how it happens. But if you busy yourself with the Son's generation and the Spirit's progression, I, too, will busy myself with the combination of your soul and body." And in the [oration] to Heron the philosopher: "Define also our piety, teaching us to know one God, the Father, who is unbegotten; one Lord, the Son, who is begotten; and one Holy Spirit, having proceeded, or proceeding, from the Father." And after a few words: "For it is common to the Son and the Holy Spirit to be from the Father, but the property of the Father is unbegottenness, that of the Son is generation, and that of the Spirit is mission." Likewise, the divine Cyril, in his explanation of the twelfth chapter, sets it forth clearly: "We confess, therefore, that the Son and the Holy Spirit are consubstantial with the Father, with the Father being truly unbegotten, the Son begotten, and the Holy Spirit being eternally sent from the essence of the Father through the Son." And in his [works] to Hermias: "The Holy Spirit is, as it were, a vapor or quality of the paternal essence. But if the Father is unbegotten and uncreated, how can the Spirit who is poured forth from Him be created?" But it would be a long task to collect the utterances concerning the Spirit that contribute to this matter of ours.
A And yet, these things are sufficient to show that the existence of the Spirit was not expressed solely by the term "procession." Indeed, the great Basil and John Chrysostom, the golden-mouthed, will concordantly teach us that this term is not truly the primary one for the Spirit, as our adversaries contend. For the former, in his aphoristic thoughts on the Spirit, says: "The Holy Spirit is His primary and proper name, which is the chief designation of everything incorporeal and purely immaterial." Likewise: "Nor are we going to have any less knowledge that the Spirit exists from God, by hearing 'Spirit of His mouth.' But this name also is sufficient to express His existence from God." And the Father golden of tongue, in his homily concerning the Holy Spirit: "It is called, therefore, Holy Spirit; for this is the primary and preeminent appellation, having a more revealing meaning and setting forth the nature of the Holy Spirit." Since these two luminaries of the Church's firmament have decided this, who that disagrees with them would dare to say anything at all, unless he is truly insane and, laboring under black bile, babbles foolishly outside the subject at hand? Therefore, against those who spout such things, we have first applied these arguments to refute them.
24. Furthermore, even if we grant that the term "procession" has the power that they themselves claim for it, then we will be the more superior to them, even if they are unwilling, nor do we despair. B And above all, just as in the case of the Son it follows necessarily for "to be begotten" that "to exist" must follow, in the same way it will follow in the case of the Spirit; and wherever "to exist" is found, the mode of procession must be understood therefrom, as is reasonable. But if this were not so, it would necessarily follow that He exists by way of generation, which is patently absurd and alien to the sound doctrine of the Fathers. Consequently, we shall have sufficient authorities concerning this term handed down in writing. For the greatest and most excellent in speculations before all others, Maximus, in his exposition C on how "the golden lampstand, and the small lamp upon it, and the lamps" in the prophet Zechariah ought to be understood, says: "For the Holy Spirit, just as He exists according to essence from God and the Father, so also He is of the Son according to essence, as proceeding in an ineffable way from the Father essentially through the Son who is begotten." Unquestionably, no one will justly contradict these things, unless he is by nature inept and wicked; and being thoroughly difficult regarding the acceptance of peace, he rashly and thoughtlessly resists the truth, seeing nothing at all that is upright. For behold, the confessor of the orthodox faith, Maximus, has publicly proclaimed that the Spirit proceeds through the Son. D For this reason, having also removed every opportunity for contradiction from the contentious, he has handed down to all to believe purely that the Holy Spirit exists from the Father through the Son, having uttered nothing in these things that is circuitous or difficult to grasp, to whom it is reasonable for all to offer belief, having considered the measure of his zeal according to God and his supernatural knowledge of divine things. If, however, some...
of those who are hard to please A grumble against him—as if, in a proverbial sense, "one swallow does not make a spring," because this is not in keeping with their own custom—these people are so minded that they treat those who are worthy of honor and reverence for their excellence in speech and standard of life with disdain, and they act impudently against them. Let them therefore return at last to themselves and to the right path, grasping the greatness of the man, luminous both in his teaching and in his mode of life (for he is one who, in all things, may stand in the stead of many). Let them abandon their wicked and perverse bias and apply their minds to fruitfulness, bestowing faith upon his words without any hesitation, and seeking nothing further to confirm their opinion, so that God may be propitious to them on the day of judgment.
But lest, in bringing forward these things, I be thought by some to be in want of others for the proof and support of this matter, wise John of Damascus, who flourished in every kind of virtue and progressed greatly in the multifarious graces of discourse, is here invoked, that he may resolve their doubt and the question at hand. He said, in his chapter on the divine names: "The Holy Spirit, revealing the mysteries of the Godhead, is the power of the Father, existing from the Father B and proceeding through the Son, as He knows, not in the mode of generation; and therefore He is the Holy Spirit." And again in the same place: "The Spirit is the Spirit of the Son, not as if from Him, but as proceeding from the Father through Him." I know now that the greater part of our adversaries, having overlooked the phrase "through the Son" because they gain no support for themselves from it—or rather, being overthrown by the clarity of the discourse—fix their gaze upon the phrase "not from Him," striving to make this the pretext for their own hypothesis. As for this matter, as we have indicated above, we shall attempt to discuss it in its proper place and at our leisure; now, however, adhering to the sequence of what is being said, we shall examine the procession from the Father through the Son, as it is found in the authorities delivered to us in writing.
So those men, who have no lack of credibility, since they possess the surpassing excellence in all things that are according to God, are C thus. But I shall not hesitate to bring forward a third. Who is this? He who holds the first place among the gathering of the Fathers who truly convened the seventh ecumenical holy synod—which was assembled second at Nicaea, as surpassing all those of that time in benefits according to Christ—and who, for this reason, was at that time presiding as high priest over this royal city, I mean the divine Tarasius. In his letter to the archpriests and others who were of the order of Alexandria, Antioch, and the holy city—which he wrote and sent out to those who had been distinguished, before those who had come together for the aforementioned synod were convened, containing a form of confession—he adds, after many things, the following: "And in the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father through the Son, and who is recognized as being God." D I have already brought forward the entire divine band of the Fathers as witnesses to the things said. For it is not the case that he alone is seen to be holding to the present opinion because he proclaims it so, but all strictly, to whom he transmitted the letter, since they accepted it and returned it adorned with very many praises. Furthermore
the A entire fullness of the divine synod, which gathered later in the Holy Spirit at Nicaea, also did so. For when the aforementioned letter was read in their hearing, all were pleased and consented to it in common, and declaring that it held correctly, each one confirmed it by their own judgment. No excuse therefore remains for all, if they should wish to recognize the truth from the divine texts already proposed, and readily hasten toward it by walking in the footsteps of these God-bearing Fathers. For it is necessary for those held back by fear, and thus wavering in the acceptance of what has been said, putting aside contentions henceforth, to entrust their own salvation without hesitation to so great and such a catalog of Fathers, and to follow those whose teaching is according to the knowledge of the truth and the discernment of the better path; and for those who oppose themselves out of malice, as those who decline the peace established with us, putting aside the biases they have fostered to this day, to give their hand to the most divine choir of these saints, fearing to offend them, whose brightness of deeds and the dignity resulting therefrom—which contains a glory that remains perpetually—are in admiration; and for both to avoid what is harmful, to embrace what is profitable, and to cleave to God with the safer and better side.
25. It is so, they say, but it greatly disturbs our C souls to say that the Holy Spirit is through the Son, lest any imperfection thence be imputed to the Father regarding the existence of the Spirit. And whence does this happen to you—that I might direct an interrogation to them, o men exceptional in wisdom, and therefore draining the Gospel—to conceive such an absurd impiety in those matters in which the brilliant lights of the Church’s firmament made decrees not without that same Spirit? O ill-sane mind! You who, deeming there to be a crime in these things, have belched forth the aforementioned blasphemy. Yet, so that we may free them from this charge and reproach, as is fitting, this does not denote any imperfection in the Father, o men; just as it is not so in created things because they were made through the Son, although the reason in these is one thing and in those another, as we shall demonstrate in the proceeding discourse; rather, they demonstrate the Son as living virtue subsisting in hypostasis, D and reveal more clearly the cause from the Father. Great Basil will clearly teach that this is so regarding created things; for he says in the eighth chapter of his *Ad Amphilochium*: "Therefore the Lord says to the Father: 'All things that are mine are yours'" (John XVII, 10), as if the origin of the created things were to be referred back to Him, "and yours are mine," as from Him the authority for creating proceeds to Him. For whatever things have equal power, of these the operation is also equal. For Christ is the virtue of God and the wisdom of God, and thus all things were made through Him. And adding a few things: "For the Father to create through the Son excludes neither an imperfect Father..."
A nor signifies a weak operation of the Son, but expresses the conjunction of will. Wherefore the expression 'through the Son' contains the confession of the primary cause; it is not taken as implying a deficiency in the creating cause."
26. B To these points, he who is quick and ready to contradict snaps up the argument: "And what communion does the Holy Spirit have with the creation, that you have entirely included it in your discourses on this subject, adapting the expression 'through the Son' to both, and declaring that the imperfection thence suspected concerning the Father in no way exists? Now I, for my part, declare that the Holy Spirit has no communion whatever, nor any relationship at all, with the creation, except such as a maker has in the things made, and a master and lord has toward slaves and subjects; and whoever, not thinking this, admits otherwise, may he never see the morning star rising, as C Scripture says. And this is my sentiment regarding these things, and it shall be so perpetually, as long as there is breath remaining in my nostrils. But finding the expression 'through the Son' used by the holy Fathers concerning both the Spirit and the creation, I do not discard it as if refusing to apply it to the Spirit, since in this way {we admit} the Spirit exists—for I pass over the Son for the present—if we were not to allow Him to be from God. For we believe that all things have their existence from God. Nevertheless, let us immediately distinguish them from one another. Not so, O best of men, do we say that all things are from God D just as the Spirit is. For the latter is naturally existing in Him, and essentially inherent, if we may so speak, and indivisibly proceeding from Him, whereas the former are the works and fabrications of His action," writes the most admirable Cyril in one of the chapters of the second book of his *Thesaurus*, discoursing on the existence of the Spirit. In the same way, therefore, I here also, adopting the expression 'through the Son' for both the Spirit and the created things, apply an appropriate meaning to each: saying that the Spirit exists through the Son naturally and essentially, since it is not permitted even to conceive of Him apart from the Only-Begotten; but that creatures are through the Son—for they could never have been constructed without the Word—according to the mode of creation and the rest of the works of artifice, in accordance with the divine tradition of the Fathers, which is now even for all a common and undoubted understanding. That both the Holy Spirit and the creation are through the Son, Gregory of Nyssa, that great and illustrious man in divine dogmas, clearly expounded and loudly proclaimed the distinction. For he says in the first of his *Antirrhetica* against Eunomius: "The Spirit is joined to the Father in that He is uncreated, and again, by not being the Father, just as He is not, He is separated. And with the Son, He is joined in that He is uncreated, and because He has the cause of His existence from the God of all, and again He is separated by the property that He does not subsist as the Only-Begotten from the Father, and that He appeared through the Son Himself." And again, since the creature has subsisted through the Son, lest
A it be thought that the Spirit has some community with it because He appeared from the One who appeared through the Son, the Spirit is distinguished from the creature in the immutable and unchangeable. Let the one who is sharp for unjust opposition look at this holy and divine Gregory, how the blessed one, receiving the phrase "through the Son" indiscriminately both for the Spirit and for the creature, indicated and distinguished the separation of this [Spirit] from that [creature]; and in these matters he fittingly applied the wealth of divine praises to Him, and desisting from doing evil, let him no longer attempt in any way to accuse me maliciously, the innocent one, as though I had asserted that imperfection is brought upon the Father by the fact that I claimed the Holy Spirit has His existence through the Son, and for the proof of this I brought forward the creature. But let those who fear this fear, just as they add "through the Son" in created things and deem that no imperfection is attached to the Father, accept this in the same way B also regarding the Holy Spirit, yet with the high words appropriate to His divinity. And let them by no means suspect that imperfection is coming to the Father even from this, and thus they will safely hold fast to the correct opinion. These things, then, which we have collected from the holy Fathers who at their own times shone like luminaries in the venerable firmament of piety, we have set forth, wishing to demonstrate that the Holy Spirit has His existence from the Father through the Son, of which perhaps many more will be found by those who diligently search the divine Scriptures.
27. But that we also, as we have comprehension regarding this, may speak from our own resources, and again weave into what is ours what those who hold the word of life for the common body of the Church have grasped as examples: It is necessary that the Holy Spirit be from the Father through the Son, so that the Trinity may have what is joined, and [be] inseparable as to Itself, and that there be no division or separation conceived in It in any way. For how, if this is not the case, will the oneness of the Trinity be C maintained? What, then, will be the relationship between the Son and the Spirit? For they depend on the Father, and in this way both, having their existence enriched as if from Him, have the relationship to Him that is fitting for each. But from whence will that which is undivided be present to them in relation to one another? And what relationship will be attributed to these? Absolutely none, as is gathered from what has been said. But the unity will depart altogether, unless someone were to invent a "fraternal" relationship by bringing the Spirit into close proximity to the Son, which is the only thing left for those who have things this way. But that these things are foreign to the apostolic teaching and contrary to orthodoxy is something everyone recognizes clearly and fully, and none of this has escaped the knowledge of anyone. What then remains? It is impossible for the Holy Spirit to be otherwise than through the Son from the Father, so that from this the indivisible D and joined nature of the Trinity may be seen, which again whoever holds, I do not know how he does not admit that through the Son from
the Father the Holy Spirit exists—a A truth which is grasped from the conjunction by those who rightly immerse their mind into the depths of the proposed question. For since the Spirit continuously and inseparably adheres to the Son, and it is not permitted at all for anyone to conceive of Him in thought without the Spirit, it is manifest that it is by Him that He receives His existence. For if not, what prevents the Son from being understood without the Spirit, and the Holy Spirit apart from the Only-Begotten? Let him who wishes answer me regarding such a question. Perhaps someone might answer this by saying that the fact that the Son and the Holy Spirit go forth together from the Father B is the very cause of these being conceived together, which indeed rather excludes the place for "through the Son." And yet, if I must first make a defense concerning this, it is acknowledged by all that the Son and the Spirit co-exist together with the Father, and not one before and the other after. Shall these things, therefore, not be for this reason also from Him? And where will such impiety be placed? And yet it is obvious that we, abiding by the God-inspired teachings of the Fathers regarding the Holy Trinity, also hold to the "together"—for they are co-eternal—and we believe the Son and the Spirit to be from the Father. For they are not without a Beginning according to this very cause. Thus, therefore, even in the case of the Son and the Spirit, we both confess that they proceed C together from the Father, and we proclaim with a clear voice that the Holy Spirit has His existence through the Son.
28. Let those who differ not at all from the vulgar listen when they say that the "together" destroys the expression "through the Son." For just as there, that the Son and the Holy Spirit are "together" with the Father does not harm the fact of their existing from the Father, because no time intervenes in their existence from the Father; in the same way here, too, that the Son and the Spirit proceed together from the Father does not destroy that the Holy Spirit has His existence through the Son. For He is "through the Son" without time, just as He is "from the Father." For what penetration of time could there ever be D into that nature which is above time? This, then, has been demonstrated as necessary, as it seems to me. But regarding that part of the response—that the fact that the Son and the Holy Spirit proceed together from the Father is the very reason why they are conceived together—I say in opposition: And from where, and from what images—since many similitudes have often been taken by the divine Fathers from sensible things for explaining theological matters—might one be able to prove this? For I, indeed, carefully investigating this subject matter, clearly perceive union in that which exists from another, but in those where "together" is the only thing, I find no conjunction. And let everyone consider what is said. Two rivers burst forth together from a source; from a root two branches perchance sprout up together. Of these, if I should have taken one, I can most easily see it without the other. Likewise, two rays again together from the sun
A produce hands from the body; and even in these, if I have set one aside, I can easily perceive the other without the first, since in all these cases the things that are left behind in each sequence do not necessarily pull the others along with them at all. But regarding the Son and the Spirit, it is not possible at all to conceive of the Son without the Spirit being brought along with Him, nor to contemplate the Spirit without Him being conjoined to the Son inseparably. Just as with the word and breath in us—which are used symbolically in theological matters by the God-instructed Fathers above all others—one proceeds through the other (that is, the spirit through the word) openly from the mind, and hence they possess both their interconnection and their union. Consequently, the Holy Spirit is not conceived of together with the Son because He exists from the Father at the same time as Him; for thus, even in those former conjoined things, if one were taken, the other would follow; for both are from their own principle at the same time. But now the matter is otherwise, because one is not at all through the other. Therefore, the Holy Spirit is inseparable from the Son, because He has His existence from the Father through Him. Just as the human breath also goes forth from the mind through the word. Although these also differ most seriously, and in no way agree as things that are without B hypostasis. And the present solution will be abundantly sufficient for fair-minded listeners.
29. Since our discourse has once advanced to the arguments concerning the examples, it would be well also to examine those things which the founders and teachers of piety employed in their own commentaries, which might perhaps be very useful to those who read them. The great Gregory, who has the surname "Theologian," says in his discourse on the Holy Spirit that he considered a certain eye, a spring, and a river. And having explained these, as he himself testifies, by reporting them from others who were famous before him, he agreed that by proportion, the eye corresponds to the Father, the spring to the Son, and the river to the Holy Spirit; although he avoided these same things in another way, fearing first that we might suspect a flowing in the divinity, having no stability, and secondly, that as they are one in number, so we might suspect that the Trinity is one [individual]. But these absurdities having been rejected, he gave his assent to all the rest that are considered in them. I, likewise, accepting this image, will explain what is clearly gathered from it. C Just as he says, the river flows forth from the eye through the spring, so also the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Only-Begotten. Again: "I conceived of a sun," this most divine Father includes in the same discourse, "and a ray, and a light." Although he immediately deflected the saying in another way, fearing, first, lest we should conceive of some composition of an incomposite nature; and second, lest we should attribute hypostasis to the Father alone. Having omitted these things as not being said perfectly, he admitted all the rest of the image. I also, admitting this example, which I demonstrate from it—
A I declare and herald the same: for "Just as," he says, "from the sun the light rises through the ray, so too the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son." And these things this theologian—this mystic and mystagogue of the truth—received from others, as he himself clearly stated, having accepted them regarding these matters.
Others of the holy Fathers have spoken of fire, flame, and light; others of the root, the branch, and the fruit, among whom is the most divine Cyril, and by these things he denoted that immaterial essence. Just as, therefore—so as not to prolong my speech—the light shines forth from the fire through the flame, and the fruit is brought forth from the root through the branch; in the same manner, the Holy Spirit is sent forth from the Father through the Son. Furthermore, the greater number of them have almost all called the Son the "hand," according to the scripture: "Did not my hand make all these things?" and this "change of the right hand of the Most High," for the sake of the renewal of the mass [of humanity] from its oldness, and because nothing is on the left side in God; and they named the Holy Spirit the "finger," adapting this title to Him from the evangelical scroll. For there our Savior is also recorded, at one point saying that He casts out demons by the Spirit of God, and at another point again, by the finger of God, calling the Holy Spirit the finger of God. B And the most theological Cyril clarified this in the book of the *Treasury* on the exposition of theological matters, saying thus: "He says somewhere, Christ speaking to the Jews: 'But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.'" And here he calls the Holy Spirit the "finger," as it were, which has sprouted from the divine essence and is naturally hung from it, just as the finger is from the human hand. For the divine Scriptures call the Son the "arm" and "right hand" of God, according to that which is written: "His right hand and His holy arm have saved Him." And again: "Lord, Thy arm is high, and they did not know; but when they know, they shall be ashamed."
As, therefore, the arm is naturally fitted to the whole body, performing all things, whatever may be pleasing to the mind, while it habitually anoints, using the finger for this purpose; so we conceive the Word of God to be naturally fitted and, so to speak, ingrained C from Him and in Him; and in the Son, the Spirit naturally and essentially passes through from the Father, through whom He anoints and sanctifies all things. The Holy Spirit, therefore, appears neither alien nor estranged from the divine essence, but 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, in the body, not being of a different essence than it. These things the most admirable Cyril [states] according to the book of the *Treasury*; but elsewhere in this same work he calls the Father the rose, the Son the flower, and the Holy Spirit the scent. D Just as, therefore, the finger depends on the body through the hand, and from the rose the scent is breathed forth through the flower, so too the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Only-Begotten. Furthermore, the things which are brought forward by the divine Fathers as examples—these and things like them—although they are very slight and very humble, they fall far short of the dignity of the things to which they are likened: for God, according to the witness of Cyril, who is moved by the same Spirit, surpasses all things.
30. B But what then do those who are skilled in nothing else but simply contradicting everything, and who exult greatly in this, thinking it to be an indication of wisdom, say to these things? "Where," they say, "are those things handed down by the same saints in various writings—the rivers flowing on two sides, of course, the diaphanous rays, the twin lights, the double branches, the two hands, and the twin flowers, by which they clearly showed that the Son and the Holy Spirit are immediately from the Father? How have those come into your memory, but these others have been consigned to oblivion?" To these I would truly answer that these things, too, are handed down by the holy Fathers regarding divine matters, yet not for the purpose of overturning what we have said. For by the same reasoning, the things stated often by the same teachers concerning the blessed Trinity—three suns and three rays—would overturn the fact that the Son and the Holy Spirit exist from the Father, since there is no sun from a sun, nor a ray from a ray. But we do not think this, yet believing both of the right dogmas to be in harmony, we grant the appropriate meaning to each: confessing, on the one hand, that the Father is the origin of the Son and of the Spirit, and indicating the hypostatic existence of the three, the identity of their essence, and that the Son and Holy Spirit are not parts of God and the Father. By the same reasoning, therefore, we accept both sets of images here, believing that they contain nothing contrary to one another, since we grasp both in piety. C For when we hear of the eye, the fountain, the river, the sun, the ray, the light, and all other similar things concerning the super-divine Trinity, we understand its supreme unity, and that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son; but when we hear of double-channeled rivers, and the twin rays—the Son and the Holy Spirit—we perceive the unconfused nature of the perfect hypostases, and we contemplate the first cause and the immutability of the nature, though we do not hold them to be divided from one another. For far be from us such a bare and petty comprehension concerning these things. D Regarding the hands, properly speaking, which I have not observed in the case of the others, I have found that sometimes the Son alone is called the hand of the Father. For in the discourse on the incarnation of the Only-begotten Word, the most divine Athanasius says this about Him: "When He commits His Spirit into the hands of the Father, as man He commits Himself to Himself as God: for He Himself is the one and the two hands of the Father." And this is how it stands.
31. That the Holy Spirit is through the Son, and not, as most say, immediately from the Father—for it is the same thing to say "through the Son" and "not immediately"—I myself have harmoniously brought forward the testimonies from the inspired Scripture. But if anyone...
A wishes to contend that the Spirit also proceeds from the Father, let him show where it is written in the divine oracles, and we shall be satisfied. But as this is nowhere to be found, no expositor of the truth has uttered it; whereas that the Son is immediately from the Father, numerous teachers of piety have affirmed, and not just once, as we shall demonstrate from many testimonies. And let whoever wishes receive the passages we have so far encountered. For immediately B the great Basil in the second of his books against Eunomius says this: "The Father, therefore, has no principle, but the principle of the Son is the Father, and there is nothing between them." And after a very few words: "If, therefore, the eternal communion of the Son with God and Father is revealed to our mind, with no gap occurring through which it might proceed from the Son to the Father, but rather with the mind so connecting the Son with the Father that no interval is given between them, while the Son is separated by no medium, what opening does that leave for their wicked blasphemy?" And in his letter to the canonesses: "For if he says the Spirit is superior to God, he is not from God; but if he is from God, how is he prior to that from which he is? But neither is he prior to the Only-begotten; for there is nothing between the Son and the Father." In accordance with this great herald of piety, Gregory of Nyssa also, in the fourth of his discourses against Eunomius, says: "Since we also confess the union of the Son with the Father to be such that nothing is conceived C as arising between them." And in the eighth of the same discourses: "For this immediate union does not cast out the will of the Father, as if he possessed the Son by some necessity of nature and not voluntarily." And after a few words: "The union of the Son with the Father is immediate, and the will, which exists outside the good nature, is not excluded by this inseparable union." And these things both of them said at one and the same time. Later, the most admirable Cyril, in one of the chapters of the first book of the *Thesaurus*, openly cries out: "The Father begets the Son immediately." And in his exposition of the Gospel according to John, clarifying that saying, "This was in the beginning D with God," he says: "The Son is immediately and closely in God and Father." And again on the text, "All things were made through him," he says: "We understand the Father to be joined to the Son because of the immutability of the essence, and the most excellent manner of continuity and immediation of him with the one from whom he naturally proceeded." And adding a few words: "For the Son is the Word and Wisdom because he is from the intellect, and in the intellect continuously and indivisibly, and because of what one might call the mutual injection of the meanings." The same author, in the sixth book of his works to Hermias, says: "Following, therefore, the faith of the holy Scriptures, and treading, so to speak, the path worn smooth by the wise, we say that the Son is the might of God and Father, immediately and continuously." By these and similar testimonies it is clearly shown that the Son is between the Father and the Spirit. For if the Father is the principle, as is in everyone's mouth, and the Son is immediately from the Father, as has become known from the passages brought forward, and the Holy Spirit is through him: therefore, the Son is the mediator between the Father and the Spirit. For
it is manifest from the words of the great Basil in the letter which he gave to his brother, Gregory of Nyssa: for in it he proceeds thus: "Just as one who in a chain catches hold of the top of one link, by this very same act at once drags along the other linked to it; so too, he who draws the Spirit draws along through Him both the Son and the Father at once; and if anyone truly apprehends the Son, he will have Him from both sides, drawing along with Him on the one side the Father, and on the other the Holy Spirit." For there cannot by any means be conceived any section or division, such that either the Son could be thought of without the Father, or the Spirit separated from the Son. Assuredly, the assertion that the Father and the Holy Spirit are on either side of the Son holds an open meaning, and requires no exposition at all. B Nay, the divine Gregory, to whom the said letter was addressed, the prelate of Nyssa, wishing to indicate the difference of the blessed Trinity in his discourse to Ablabius, spoke of cause and caused, and again added another difference for that which was from the cause. For inasmuch as one thing is immediately from the first, and another flows from the first through the Son, as we have already noted above, he added: "So that the Only-begotten remains indubitable in the Son, and the Spirit’s being from the Father is not in doubt, the mediation of the Son preserving the Only-begotten for Himself, and not withholding the Spirit from His natural relation to the Father." Likewise, treating of the Holy Spirit while inveighing against Macedonius, he wrote: "In whom the operation according to the good has no diminution or change. How is it consistent with reason to imagine an order according to number to be a sign of some diminution or change according to nature?" Just as if anyone, seeing a flame divided in three lamps (let us suppose the first flame to be the cause of the third light, enflaming the extreme one through communication with the middle one), were then to assert that heat abounded in the first flame, while that which follows is changed and gradually diminished, and that the third is no longer even to be considered fire, although it burns and shines in equal measure and performs all the operations of fire. C The most perspicacious Epiphanius agrees with these, who in his own discourse on Great Sabbath speaks in this manner: "Jesus the Son of God is known in the midst of two animals; in the midst of the Father and the Spirit, the two living ones, life from life, known as life by nature." Thus did these men philosophize about the Trinity, as was revealed by the Spirit, asserting the Father to be the principle, the Son the middle, and through Him the Holy Spirit, whom we, following as guides of piety, insist upon their doctrines and discourses. But recent theologians, I know not taught by whom, altogether cast false things at us from their own bellies, pretending that we understand it according to a straight line, and opposing us, they attempt to circumscribe it in another way—things which in no way can be circumscribed—and they argue that it should be arranged according to a second figure, or a triangle. Others also introduce certain circles, belching out certain trifles of thoughts, which in
A their hearts they drag about and carry with them. But we, daring to speak nothing of our own, according to the voice of the Theologian, say that the Godhead is Undivided in divided things, if the matter must be summarized, and, as it were, in three suns clinging to one another, a single commingling of light; and an infinite union of three infinite ones, extending everywhere and truly beyond everything. Yet, even so, being rich—according to the tradition of the saints—in the beginning, and boasting of the middle, and receiving what follows after this, all things in a manner befitting God. That the Holy Spirit is to be understood after the Word, witness is the great Basil, who in his discourse to his own brother Gregory of Nyssa, says: "The Spirit possesses this notion and recognizable sign of His property according to hypostasis, that after the Son, and together with the Son, He also makes Himself known."
B 32. Since these things are so, I am not unaware that perhaps those things which seem to stand against what has now been said also suggest themselves; wherefore, having set forth those things here, I shall endeavor, as far as my powers allow, to dissolve the doubt arising from them, having relied upon the truth as much as possible. For our holy Father Athanasius, in the eighth of the fifty chapters—the exposition of which he approached from written testimonies—wishing to prove that the same things exist in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and demonstrating that there is a session of the Spirit, just as there is of the Father and the Son, and not only this, but also that they sit together—says these things verbatim: "The Father of the Lord saying to John: 'Upon whomsoever you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon him,' the Lord said: 'If the Father who abides in me, He does the works.' Say then, according to these testimonies, do the Father and the Spirit abide in the Son or not?" He says: "They abide." "If then the Father and the Spirit abide in the Son, when the Son has sat, it is necessary that those who abide in Him also sit together with Him." And after a few words: "We know that a place at the right hand of the Father has been prescribed for the Son. For just as He said to His own Son: 'Sit at my right hand' [Ps. CIX, 1], so when the Son has sat at the right hand, it is given to us to understand that He who commanded also said to His own Spirit: 'Sit at my left'; and the designation of the one sitting is a sign C of dignity." These, then, are the things which the most divine Athanasius, while asserting that the Son sat at the right hand of the Father, and while mentioning a seat at the left on account of the Spirit, seems in a certain way to have decreed that the Father is the middle between the Son and the Holy Spirit. And Gregory, who excelled in theology, in his discourse on the arrival of the 150 bishops, speaks these very words: "The nature to the three is one; but the union is the Father, from whom and to whom those things which follow are referred." He too seems in a certain way to place the Father in the middle. For among those things which are united, the middle is that which unites, and is the union. And in the antirrhetic on the Holy Spirit, the Spi-
Spirit is expressly declared to be the middle of the Father and the Son. For he says thus: A “The Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father, in so far as he proceeds from thence, is not a creature; and in so far as he is unbegotten, he is not the Son; but in so far as he is the middle of the unbegotten and the begotten, he is God.” But in order that, beginning from here to resolve the proposed questions, I may eventually arrive at the first of these by a reversed order—for this is how the argument will proceed most easily and better—the alert mind, B when it judges the Holy Spirit to be the middle of the Father and the Son, does not say this of the hypostasis of the Spirit itself. Rather, it is refuting the division of the opponents—who, if the Spirit is God, assume that he is either unbegotten or begotten, thinking that there is nothing middle between them, as he said before. And there is no more accurate interpreter of this matter than this man himself, who, anticipating the adversary, asked: “For where will you place that which proceeds, tell me, which has appeared as a middle in your division?” That is to say: “You indeed suspected that your division was such that it could comprehend C the whole, and that nothing was left outside of it; but in the middle of it, from the negation of the extremes, that which proceeds has appeared, being neither unbegotten nor begotten.” According to this argument, he called the Holy Spirit the middle, as being something other than these—namely the unbegotten and the begotten—that is, the proceeding, which, as has been said, is the middle by the negation of the division of the extremes, which the opponent maliciously suppressing, and joining one of the two to the Spirit by necessity, was attempting to argue, perversely, that God is not that which is neither of these by common consent. D Yet, being left as a middle of the opposed division by negation, as it has been said, that which proceeds—according to the voice of the Lord—has appeared as God. That same great Father himself says this, too: “I am stronger than such divisions. This is how I feel about this matter, and this is the sense I give to the present statement.” But now let us address where he seems to say that the Father is the middle, in that passage where he says again: “The Father is the union, from whom and toward whom the things that follow are referred.” First, I do not see how a man of such virtue could be believed by fair-minded men to say things contradictory and manifestly contrary to himself, now establishing the Spirit, and now the Father, as the middle; for not both can be true, as some might perhaps suppose. Furthermore, that the Father is the middle cannot be admitted at all, since he is the principle of all by common consent; and the very fact that the things which follow are added forbids understanding this in such a way, since those things which are on one side or the other of something will never be given the name of “things that follow,” but are truly things from either side: for those things follow which come into consideration after it. Although, here, the things that follow—namely the Son and the Holy Spirit—are after the Father, and together with the Father, both in what they have of being from him, and in that they exist beyond time, and possess no principle with him. Thus, this being removed by this reasoning, the Father will be called the union in the saying of the great Gregory, because the Son and the Holy Spirit, naturally proceeding from him, without any departing, in him according to
A their own existence remain, the Son immediately cleaving to the proper begetter, and the Spirit, as the discourse will later declare in many ways, conjoined to the Father through the Son. Indicating this, this man, eminent in theological matters, in his first discourse concerning the Son, among the other things he said in excellence of establishing the monarchy, he also spoke of the inclination towards the one of those things which are from him. These things, even if I might not be judged a bad interpreter of them by prudent men, are enough. It remains, therefore, to also examine the words of the great Father Athanasius, and to bring, as far as possible, a solution becoming to them. B For the blessed one, speaking symbollically from human and our own affairs about those things which are above us, when he had shown the Son sitting at the right hand of the Father, after he had said: "As it is given to understand, the one commanding spoke also to his own Spirit," it appeared for this reason that he also placed the Father in the middle between the Son and the Spirit. But that is very far from the true understanding. For the Great one said that it is given to understand the Holy Spirit sitting at the left hand of the Father, while bringing forward the absurd opinion of some that arose from thence, to which he himself does not in the least give his assent; nay rather, from those things which he subjoins, refuting it as being implicit with falsehood, he openly and clearly reveals the truth by the authority of Scripture: for proceeding at the end of the said chapter, he sets it out: "As in the one hundred and ninth Psalm he says: 'The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand,' and when they were seated, the Scripture says to Christ: 'The Lord has sworn, and will not repent, You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek,' and 'the Lord is at your right hand.'" C It is manifest, therefore, that the Spirit is at the right hand. And in the fifth chapter also of the chapters, explaining the same dictum of such a Psalm, he says: "Therefore the Spirit is again at the right hand of the Son." Therefore, that the Holy Spirit is at the right hand of the Only-begotten, so that from this it is also to be understood that the Son is in the middle, he demonstrated through this one trustworthy Scriptural usage even in these two chapters. But that sitting at the left hand of God and the Father, which is truly unworthy even to express in words—for there is no place for the left there at all—is, he said, but given to be understood, perhaps hinting at the curiosity of many from thence, which, as the discourse proceeded, he repelled by those things which he had pronounced. For it is impossible for both to be; unless someone, excelling in this lowest intelligence and removing profound thoughts, should say that from the right hand of the Only-begotten D the Spirit is in a certain way at the left hand of the Father, so that both might thus be reconciled, as it seems to him. But this would not be right to utter even with the mouth, much less to hold in the mind at all; since neither is it necessary to conceive of circular periods there, as it pleases some of the wise in these days, as we have already indicated from above.
33. That the Son is in the middle between the Father and the Spirit has already been demonstrated by many things: and
A this is in every way consistent with the divine nature according to order. For there is a certain order even in the Trinity, in which the Father is understood before the Only-Begotten, and the latter before the Spirit, even if those who oppose us attempt to abolish even this. For they say that one should not admit an order in God, and they take as an assistant for their argument the golden-mouthed one, who in one of his homilies—the one he gave on the saying of Abraham which says, "Put your hand under my thigh" (Gen. xxiv, 2)—uses these words: "For the Trinity is said to have an order, not as though it were disordered, but because it is above order." Proposing this, therefore, they strive to confirm their own opinion, as those who have utterly ignored the purpose of the divine Father, and have not paid attention to what he says not long after this. For he himself proceeds and says: "Therefore, the order that distinguishes the divine hypostases becomes known to the worthy; but the one that distinguishes the natures in the holy Trinity is altogether rejected." So, declaring that the order distinguishing the natures in the Trinity is rejected by the saints, he determines that the one distinguishing the divine hypostases has become known to these same ones. To whom, as being altogether purified, the Trinity has revealed the things concerning itself, to use the words of the great theologian Gregory, who writes in the second oration on Peace: "We hold and we feel in such a way that we concede the knowledge of how these things stand toward one another in relation and order to the Trinity alone, and to those to whom the Trinity itself—purified—will reveal it, either now or hereafter." Who indeed these are, and what and in what place each one has treated this, I will set forth according to my strength, without any delay. B For the great Basil first, in the first of his antirrhetics against Eunomius, having used a long discourse on order, explains this in his very words: "But one order is natural, another is artificial. The natural one is that which is disposed according to the creative reasons of creatures, such as the position of number and the relationship of causes to effects, with that first among all things being confessed, that God is the nature's own creator and maker. The artificial one, however, is that which is devised by human industry, which is in structures, and disciplines, and dignities, and number, and the like." Eunomius, concealing the former of these, made mention of the second species of order, and says that there is no need to assert an order in God, since order is later than that which orders. But he does not notice—or else he willed and prudently concealed—that there is a certain kind of order not constituted by our industry, but happening according to the sequence of nature, just as fire is to the light which is from it. C For in these we say the cause is first, and that which is from it is second, not separating them from one another by an interval, but conceiving the cause before the effect in our reckoning. How, therefore, was it consistent with reason to deny order in those things in which there is a prior and a posterior—not by our industry, but by a natural sequence existing in them? For what reason, therefore, does he reject the assumption of order in God? He supposes that if he shows that what is first in God is not understood otherwise, he will have the rest, namely in the very
A substance an eminence of demonstration. But we confess that the Father is placed before the Son according to the relation of causes to the things that are from them, but not in any way by a diversity of nature, nor by an over-shining according to time. For thus we would also reject that the Father is God, since an essential diversity rejects a natural conjunction. And this indeed is in the first *Antirrheticus* against Eunomius, but in the third: "For what necessity is there," he says, "that if the Spirit is third in dignity and order, he should also be third in nature? For reason regarding piety teaches that he is second in dignity to the Son, but we are neither taught by the Holy Scriptures that he is third by nature, nor can we demonstrate it by a correct sequence from what has been said." For just as the Son is second in order to the Father, because he is from him, and in dignity, because the Father is his principle and cause, 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 divinity is one in both: thus, clearly, the Holy Spirit, B even if he is inferior to the Son in order and dignity, we will never rightly say that he follows as being of another nature. The same (Basil) has these words in his letter to his own brother, Gregory of Nyssa: "He who has understood the Spirit, has understood him in himself, and has at the same time embraced the Son in that understanding; and he who has received this has not divided the Son from the Father, but has expressed in himself the faith of the three persons, formed according to the order of the persons, but conjunctively according to nature, tempered in the same way." And in the seventeenth chapter to Amphilochius: "As, therefore, the Son is related to the Father, so is the Spirit related to the Son, according to the construction of the word delivered in baptism. But if the Spirit is ranked with the Son, and the Son with the Father, the Spirit is clearly also with the Father." Basil the Great, that C sounding trumpet of truth, spoke these things, partly contradicting and partly teaching. By disputing in another place also about the order, he vehemently accuses those who do not admit it. For he writes in his *Canonical Letters*: "The Holy Spirit is numbered with the Father and the Son, because he stands above every creature, but he occupies the place which 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' (Matt. xxviii, 19). He who prefers him to the Son, or says that he is older than the Father, resists this ordering of God, and wanders away from the true faith, while he does not keep inviolate that order of glorification which he received as delivered, but, so that he may please men, devises novelties of words for himself." And adding a few things: "To such a degree does this innovation concerning D order involve the annihilation of his subsistence itself and the denial of the whole faith." It is equally impious, therefore, both to demote the Spirit to the creatures and to set him as superior to the Father and the Son, whether that superiority be according to time or according to the reason of order. And in the letter to Eustathius he has these words: "That those who invert the series delivered to us by the Lord are to be shunned, as..."
A clearly fighting against piety, and putting the Son before the Father, and before the Son putting the Holy Spirit." Such are the things said by the great man in divine matters, Basil, concerning the order in the Trinity, and in this way they are for the most part filled with dread and terror for those whose consciences are sensitive.
34. But if some of those who resist say, regarding those who fearlessly change the position of the names in their own discourses, that the great man declared all these things because the Father and Son are relative terms, and for this reason the Son must be enumerated along with the Father; since for any other reason there is nothing to prevent the Holy Spirit from being listed immediately after the Father—for this is what some, daring all things, have not hesitated to blurt out, thinking that the Son is introduced immediately thereafter according only to the relation to the Father, and not according to existence; for indeed according to the latter, they contend that the Word and the Holy Spirit are equal, both having it equally from the Father—and perhaps they confirm this by the words of Gregory the Theologian from his Oration on Holy Baptism: "I have it in mind to call the Father the greater, from whom both the being equal of these who are equal, and the very fact that they are, exists." For this will be conceded by all; "and I fear that I may make a principle of the inferior, and by B pre-eminence inflict injury upon those which, on account of equal honor, proceed equally from the Father." If they speak these things, they insolently pride themselves against the manifest truth, and attempt with these, as with sturdy chains, to brazenly impede the course of the discourse. But first, indeed, the words of the great Basil will confound them, for he called the innovation concerning order the annihilation of existence itself, and the abnegation of the entire faith. For how could the innovation regarding order be the annihilation of existence, if the order is not according to existence? And after this, they will be confounded by what all know to be the mystery and mystagogue of the Gospel, for he reported those words of Christ: *I and the Father are one*, and again: *I and the Father will come, and we will make our abode with him*; the mouth of my Christ, the great apostle Paul, having heard these voices C from the Gospel, he himself cries out with a sonorous voice: *The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God and the Father, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all.* And in another place: *There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are diversities of ministries, and the same Lord; and there are diversities of operations, and the same God, who works all in all.* There, indeed, he puts the Son before the Father; here, before the Father and the Son, the Holy Spirit; and again, before the Father, the Son. And the parent of God, the king David: *Whither shall I go*
from thy Spirit? Or whither shall I flee from thy face?* A But the Son is the face of the Father. *For he that hath seen me,* he says, *hath seen my Father.* The discourse will demonstrate this more clearly a little further on. Since these things are thus known to all, whence could he, who was instructed in the teaching according to Christ beyond all others, and who practiced this so accurately that he became a teacher to others, and for whom nothing while he lived was more precious than the Gospel scroll and the sacred Epistles of Paul the herald of God, have been able to censure the change of the order of names according to enumeration, and to call this impiety, and an alienation from the sound faith—he who, having explored the depth of the Davidic Psalms, did not interpret them unworthily but most excellently, even those things which theretofore seemed difficult of comprehension to the many? I for my part would never say this, and I judge those who say such things to be acting under great mental confusion; since they must necessarily draw one of these two conclusions: either that the great man had never encountered these divine B utterances—which is impossible, for one so concerned with the examination of the sacred Oracles could not have been unaware of the statements read almost every day in the church for the common hearing of all—or that, while knowing them, he proceeded on a path contrary to them. And where is this compatible with the Christian constitution? For I leave it to all to consider whither such an affront, once uttered, might lead. But it is not even necessary to think such things, much less to bring them to the lips; for the one is full of frequent shamelessness, and the other is replete with every kind of blasphemy. Thus, even the great Basil, being in knowledge of such divine utterances, and having grasped them perfectly, and cherishing them as is fitting, as things well-spoken, and accepting them as such, does not blame the change in the order of the enumeration of names, but rather their transposition according to subsistence.
That the equal honor of the Son and of the Spirit, according to the Theologian Gregory, does not compel one to think that their subsistence is likewise the same, such that there is no order at all therein, is manifest to those who are in any way attentive, from the aforementioned patristic usage. For *I fear,* says the great one, *lest I should make the principle C a principle of inferiors,* clearly indicating thereby that the Principle is also absolutely equal to those who are from it, and that the "principle-nature" [τὸ ἀρχικὸν] is not nullified by the equality, which, to speak with him, shows the equal honor of nature, and the agreement of will, and the identity of motion. Regarding this, the same speaker of divine things discourses more clearly again in his second speech on peace, saying: *The Trinity, in truth, brethren, the Trinity is not an enumeration of unequal things, but a comprehension of equal and equally honored things, from which he portrays the equality of the Son and the Spirit toward the Father.* By this he confirms the parity of the Son and of the Spirit toward the Father; but just as by these things the paternal order is not impaired, while in this way even the Father is the Principle, so also in the Son and the Spirit, the equality of these does not in the least destroy the order that is in them. It is therefore most necessary to preserve this order in the Trinity, which even the great Athanasius, understanding D well, in his third oration
against the Arians writes: “The Spirit does not connect the Word to the Father, but rather the Spirit receives this from the Word.” A And after a few words: “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 Him, having the Spirit of the Word which is in the Father, we also might appear to be in the Word through the Spirit, and through Him in the Father.” And going on a little: “Thus we shall be in the Son and in the Father, and shall be thought to have become one, because the Spirit is in us, who is in His Word, who is in the Father.” B And in one of the letters to Serapion concerning the Holy Spirit: “For if, on account of the union of the Word with the Father, they do not wish the Son Himself to be from among created things, why then do they call the Holy Spirit a creature, who possesses the same union with the Son that He has with the Father?” And they are plainly ignorant that, just as by not dividing the Son from the Father they preserve the existence of one God, so by dividing the Spirit from the Word, they no longer preserve one Divinity in the Trinity. And with many things added: “The Spirit was in Christ, as the Son in the Father.” And again: “The holy and blessed Trinity is undivided and united to Itself; and when the Father is named, His Word is also present, and in the Son, the Spirit.” But if the Son is named, the Father is in the Son, and the Spirit is not outside the Word. And again in another of the letters to this same person: “For by partaking of the Spirit, we have also the grace of the Word, and in Him, the love of the Father.” C Divine Basil also instructs us in agreement with these things. For in one of his chapters he says: “That the Trinity is glorified in the same divine works is a proof of one Divinity, since the Father does not work without the Son, nor the Son without the Spirit.” And in another of the same chapters: “And the Son was never wanting to the Father, nor the Spirit to the Son.” The same thing is taught by Gregory the Theologian in his oration on Pentecost, and the wise John of Damascus, having followed him afterward, says in his chapter concerning the Spirit: “And the Word was never wanting to the Father, nor the Spirit to the Word.” The most absolute mind of theology, from which he also claimed his name for himself, says: “For it was not fitting that either the Son should ever be wanting to the Father, or the Spirit to the Son.” And after a few words: “All things that the Father has are the Son’s, except that He is not begotten; all things that the Son has are the Spirit’s, except that He is not begotten.” D The same person, in his funeral oration on the great Basil: “We recognize one glory of the Father, the equal honor of the Only-Begotten, and one of the Son, which is that of the Spirit.” Then in his oration to the Arians and on himself: “The Father does not endure to be despoiled of the Son, nor the Son of the Holy Spirit.” What more could anyone seek for the demonstration of our proposition, namely, that there is an order in the Trinity, than that it is most evident?
A
35. But also those appellations, in which the Son and the Holy Spirit communicate one with another—the one indeed when he is referred to the Father, claiming them for himself, but the Spirit truly when he is referred to the Son, and besides these all the rest, through which the order in the Trinity is preached B more especially and clearly—those we shall set down in this place. The Son is the image of the Father; the Holy Spirit is also the image of the Son, just as Gregory of Nyssa, in recounting the achievements of Gregory Thaumaturgus to stir the soul to virtue, in the revelation of the faith to this same man, introduces the evangelist John himself, who was the first among those who saw the Word, instructing him by his dictation. For he confesses there word for word, most openly: “And one Holy Spirit, having his existence from God, and appearing through the Son, to men clearly, the perfect image of the perfect Son.” Furthermore, the divine Athanasius confirms this in his epistle to Bishop Serapion. For he also sets these things forth explicitly: C “The Spirit is called and is the image of the Son.” And he immediately appends a testimony taken from the Apostle: “For whom,” he says, “he foreknew, he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son.” But as to what the image is, Gregory the Theologian in his second oration on the Son declares most openly with these words and puts together: “But the Son is the image of the Father, as one who is consubstantial with Him, and that because this is from Him, but the Father is not from Him. For this is the nature of an image: to be a copy of the archetype.” And where the Son is said again to be the form of the Father, the Holy Spirit is asserted to be the form of the Son. The great teacher Athanasius also treats D of this in his epistle to Bishop Serapion, saying: “But if the Spirit is the good fragrance and form of the Son, it remains plainly manifest that the Spirit is not a creature, since the Son, existing in the form of God, is not a creature.”
Again, the Son is the face of the Father, and the Holy Spirit is the face of the Son. But Cyril inculcates in many places that the Son is the face or countenance of the Father. In his exposition of the Gospel according to John, on those words: “He was the true light,” he says: “Plainly the face of God and the Father, that is, the Son, bestows illumination upon the creature.” And on that phrase: “Labor for the food which does not perish,” he says: “For they transmit that the Son is the face of God and the Father, who is the character. But the light is from him, with the grace coming through the Spirit into the creature.” And after a few words: “But since, with no one gainsaying it, the Son is the face of God and the Father, he will altogether be himself also the character in which God seals.” And in the fifth book Against Hermias: “For that the Son is, as it were, the face of God and the Father, the Psalmist would easily instruct us, sometimes saying: ‘Whither shall I go from thy Spirit? and from thy face whither shall I flee?’ and sometimes as if from the person of those who have believed in him: ‘The light of thy countenance has been signed upon us’; for we have been signed by the Holy Spirit unto the likeness and expression of the face of the Father, that is, of the Son. And these things insinuate that the Son is the face of the Father; and that the Spirit is the face of the Son, the same Holy One demonstrates to us quite abundantly.
For A in the exposition of the Gospel of John, on the statement, "But if you do not believe because of these works," he says: "For if the Son has filled the heavens and the extremities of the earth, that is, those things which were among the shades below, how will it not be most absurd to attach to him the name of 'circumscription,' since they do not even conceive that [the Spirit], in his face—for the Spirit is called the face of the Son—fills all things; how could he himself be enclosed within an ambit?" Similarly, the Son is the act of the Father, according to the luminaries from Egypt—I mean the great Athanasius, most learned in divine things, and Cyril, most divinely inspired. Of whom the former, in his second discourse against the Arians, says: "There is no point in doubt that this is the living counsel of the Father, and the act inherent in his essence, and the true Word." And Cyril, in one chapter of the first book of the *Treasures*: "The Son is the living and essential act and virtue and wisdom of the Father." And the Holy Spirit is the act of the Son. B And let no one produce for me the Theologian Gregory, as though he does not admit that this can be said of the Spirit. For indeed, I myself do not claim such an act for the Holy Spirit as that which the great Father rejects, discarding it as unworthy of him, but rather that this act—living and, as it is the Son's, the Father's act subsisting in itself and in essence—and the Holy Spirit is, and is called, a similar act of the Son, and these same men again, who from Egypt fight for piety, are my witnesses. For the great Athanasius, in his letter to Serapion concerning the Holy Spirit, has these words: "For since the Son is one, the living Word, there must necessarily be one perfect and full life, sanctifying and illuminating, which is his act and gift." And the divinely inspired Cyril, in the [books] to Hermias: "Therefore, if Christ performs signs and portents through Paul in the power of the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is as a certain natural and living act and, so that we may say so, a quality of the divinity of the Son." And in one of the chapters of the second of the *Treasures*: "It is shown clearly that the Holy Spirit is not alien to the Son, but is as a certain natural act, powerful in accomplishing all things, whatsoever it wills." C The Word is from elsewhere the Son of the Father, and the Holy Spirit is the utterance of the Son; in this case, the appellation differs in its pronunciation, but the meaning is the same. For that there might not be accepted by some two Sons in the Trinity, and two generations—because "generation" is for the most part spoken of the Word according to the likeness of the Son—Scripture has called the Holy Spirit the "utterance," who, as the parent of God and royal prophet David says, is proceeding and not begotten: "For the things that proceed from my lips I will not make void," he says. That the Holy Spirit is the utterance of the Son, the great Basil will confirm for us, who in one of his chapters has these words literally: "Therefore, the word of God is indeed the Son; but the utterance of the Son is the Spirit. For he bears, he says, all things by the word of his power. And since the Son's Word is through God, he calls the Spirit a sword, which is the word of God. But the word of God, and the Word, is living and active." And beyond all these, as the Son is proper to the Father, so likewise he is proper to the Son. D
A Since it is common to speak of the birth, in the case of the Word and the Son by way of similarity, Scripture has called the Holy Spirit "a word"; but when it relates to the God-begetting prophet among kings, David, it speaks of Him as proceeding, not being begotten. "For," he says, "the things that proceed from my lips I will not invalidate." That the Holy Spirit is the word of the Son, the great Basil will demonstrate to us, who has said these very words in one of his chapters: "Therefore, the Son is the Word of God, and the Spirit is the word of the Son. For he says, 'Upholding all things by the word of his power.'" And since it is the word of the Son through God, he calls it the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, and the Word of God is both a living and active word. On top of all this, the Son is proper to the Father, and the Holy Spirit is proper to the Son. And that the Son is indeed proper to the Father, I have the most divine Athanasius as my teacher. For in his first discourse against the Arians, he says: "The Son is truly by nature the genuine offspring of the Father, proper to His essence. He is not a product, nor a creature, but a proper fetus and virtue of the Father's essence, and a true image of the Father's essence." Also: "The Son is proper to the Father, existing in His bosom." And again: "It would be evident that since God is the creator, He possesses the creative Word not from without, but proper to Himself." And after much: "Therefore the Word is not a creature, but is solely proper to the Father." And adding a few words: "Since He is not a creature, but a proper fetus of the essence B of the worshipped God, and is Son by nature, for this reason He is worshipped and believed to be God." And after many more: "He is not foreign, but is proper to the essence of the Father." And after a few: "He who believes in the Son believes in the Father. For he believes in Him who is proper to the essence of the Father." And after not many: "For if the Word were not a fetus proper to the essence of the Father, as the radiance of the light, but the Son were separated from the Father by nature, it would suffice to give the Father alone." And the admirable Cyril, in one of the chapters of the first book of the *Treasury*: "Since He is seen to have received all things naturally and essentially, with the rule and lordship of the Begetter clearly running through Him, the Son alone is proper to the Father." And these things are to show that the Son is proper to the Father, of which I have passed over many more for the sake of brevity; but those others will surely be taken up by me in due time. That the Holy Spirit is proper to the Only-Begotten, one might see—set forth primarily in the practical acts of the First Council of Nicaea, where the Fathers held the discussion through Bishop Leontius to the philosopher—as follows in the very words: "The Spirit is found to be proceeding indeed from the Father, but proper to the Son." And after this, the greatest Athanasius, who was then with them, and who is shown to be the protector of the Word in his letter *Concerning the Holy Spirit* to Bishop Serapion, has expressly declared the same, saying: "The Spirit is proper to the essence of the Word." And later, the divine Cyril spread this same teaching C many times in his dogmatic discourses. And now, indeed, in his exposition of the prophet Ezechiel, he says: "For He who is God from God according to nature is the Son; since He is indeed truly begotten from God the Father, the Spirit is His own and in Him and from Him"; and now in the discourse to the Emperor Theodosius: "He said, 'He who baptizes Jesus in fire,' is not foreign to those who are baptized, sending forth the Spirit, not as a servant and minister, but as God with supreme authority, who is from Him and is His own." And he adds not long after: "For He who justifies the one who clings to Him from sins, subsequently anoints him with [His] own Spirit." And besides all others, he not only confirms but also persuades in one of the chapters of the second *Treasury*, which we have discussed above: "The Spirit is indeed absolutely proper to the essence of the Son, and does not subsist outside Him." Comparable to these, and sounding no other note, are those things which are inserted by our great Father Athanasius in his various discourses. For in the first discourse against the Arians he has this:
A “For the Spirit does not speak from Himself, but the Word is the One who distributes Him to those who are worthy.” And again: “Certainly, just as before the incarnation, being the Word, He granted the Spirit to the saints as His own, so also, having become man, He sanctifies all through the Spirit.” In the third discourse of the same work: “If the Spirit knows, much more does the Word, insofar as He is the Word, know—from whom also the Spirit receives.” And again: “Whatever the Spirit has, these things He has from the Word.” And explaining the saying, “Whoever speaks against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him,” he interprets it concerning Christ, that since He is the Word of God, He Himself works all things through the Spirit. B And to Serapion the bishop he speaks these very words item by item: “The Son is sent by the Father, but He Himself sends the Spirit; and the Son glorifies the Father, saying, ‘Father, I have glorified You’; but the Spirit glorifies the Son, for He says, ‘He shall glorify Me.’ And the Son says, ‘What I have heard from the Father, these things I also speak to the world’; but the Spirit receives from the Son, for He says, ‘He shall receive of what is Mine, and shall announce it to you.’ And the Son came in the name of the Father; but the Holy Spirit, He says, whom the Father will send in My name.” Now, since the Spirit possesses such order and nature toward the Son as the Son possesses toward the Father, how can anyone who calls Him a creature not necessarily think the same thing concerning the Son? The great Basil, excelling in contemplation, while discussing the Faith in his *Ascetica*, says: “The Father sending the Son, and the Son sending the Holy Spirit.” And again: “The Holy Spirit who teaches and reminds us of all things whatsoever He might hear from the Son.” C Such and so strong are the things said by the God-bearing Fathers concerning the order in the Trinity. Nevertheless, though these things are so, those who rashly and inconsiderately prefer disturbances to peace assert that all these things were stated on account of the same essence, not understanding that if this were granted, the principle predicated only of the Father would be brought into jeopardy within the Father Himself. For if whatsoever the Spirit has with respect to the Son, He also possesses from the Son because of the same essence, then for this same reason, whatsoever the Son has with respect to the Father, He must also possess from the Father, since the Fathers employed the same formulas for both. And where, then, is the Father's prerogative,
A and the order so much celebrated, which we follow, proceeding as is right from the Father at the beginning, advancing to the Son, and thus passing on to the Holy Spirit? As Gregory of Nyssa says in the first of his Antirrhetics against Eunomius: "We proceed from the Father through the Son to the Spirit." But we shall reserve a more perfect and superior solution to this for the second discourse, as we hope it will be more useful to us there. For now, however, I will ask them just this much: How and in what way do you propose this same nature, when you answer concerning all these things? Is it because the Holy Spirit is of the same nature as the Son, that you say He possesses all the things enumerated, and the titles distinguished above, from the Son and in relation to the Son? And if the fact that He is of the same nature is the cause why the Spirit possesses all these things, and there is no other relationship besides this same nature by which He is appropriated to the Son, and by which this same nature especially belongs to the Holy Spirit, B since this sameness of nature is reversible—and just as the Spirit is of the same nature as the Son, so the Son is of the same nature as the Spirit—then all the things written above will be said in reverse.
And having recalled these one by one, I will set them forth here for a clearer explanation. The Spirit is the image of the Son, and the Son would be the image of the Spirit. The Spirit is the form of the Son, and the Son would also be called the form of the Spirit. The Spirit is the face of the Son, and the Son would be called the face of the Spirit. The Spirit is the energy of the Son, as has been shown, and for this same reason the Son would also be termed, in all ways, the energy of the Spirit. The Spirit is the word of the Son, and the Son would also be addressed as the word of the Spirit. Furthermore, C the Spirit is proper to the Son, and the Son would be proper to the Spirit. In addition to these, the Son gives the Spirit, and the Spirit would also give the Son. The Son provides the Spirit, and the Spirit would also provide the Son. The Spirit receives from the Son, and the Son would also receive from the Spirit. Whatever the Spirit has, He has from the Word; and whatever the Son has, He would have from the Spirit. The Son acts through the Spirit, and the Spirit would also act through the Son. The Son sends the Spirit, and He Himself would also be sent by the Spirit. The Spirit glorifies the Son, and the Son would also glorify the Spirit. The Spirit speaks those things which He hears from the Son, and the Son would also speak those things which He might hear from the Spirit. The Spirit is sent by the Father in the name of the Son, and the Son would also be sent in the name of the Spirit. If the Spirit has such an order and nature toward the Son as the Son has toward the Father, then the Son would also have toward the Spirit the same order and nature that He Himself has toward the Father. D Hence confusion would follow in the Trinity, which brings the Spirit into order and preserves it in status and dignity. Who, then, among those who choose to be orthodox, could tolerate this?
37. I have heard some people utter things quite rashly, that nothing prevents saying that the Son is also proper to the Spirit. At which it comes over me to wonder how they do not tremble to speak from themselves, A [what has been kept silent by the teachers of piety.]
For where will anyone find this, and by whom at all of the saints has it been said? Except that such people seem to me to easily reverse B all the other things I have mentioned one by one above. For what will they say when they learn that, as the Father is the fount of the Son, so the Son is called the fount of the Spirit? And not only this, but also the prototype of the Spirit, just as the Father is the archetype of the Son. And again, just as the Father is greater than the Son, in the same way is the Son also greater than the Spirit? Will they dare to alter even these things so rashly? But if they proceed to such impudence that, in the manner of those playing, they dare to move things that are clearly immovable, their wickedness will be immediately detected even by those who serve even the slightest sense. That the Son is indeed the fount of the Spirit, the sonorous trumpet of the truth, the divine Athanasius, and the golden-tongued John will clearly demonstrate. For the former, in his discourse C on the incarnate manifestation of God, says: "For this reason David, singing to God, says: 'With thee is the fount of life; in thy light shall we see light.'" (Ps. xxxv, 10). For he knows that with God the Father exist the Son, the fount of the Holy Spirit. And John Chrysostom, in his discourse on the mystery of baptism: "For this reason the Savior shows himself to be the fount of life, and the Holy Spirit to be living water." And that this same one is also the prototype of the Spirit, the Thaumaturge Gregory will be witness, whom no one contradicts, who in the discourse on the faith by parts, which we mentioned above, has this: "The Father of the Lord is the beginning, eternally begetting him, and the Lord is the prototype of the Spirit." Perhaps the adversaries will not attempt to alter any of these things, because their plain refutation is perceived from them; for they will not be able to assert that even these are turned against us, which is ready at hand for them to answer and overturn the truth.
38. Most D people, I know, ask to know clearly where exactly the Son is said to be greater than the Spirit. For they set this before all other things, and seek it as the most desirable, because they are annoyed by this one utterance alone. But I shall no longer delay bringing it forward; nonetheless, I will immediately free them from the disturbances of their minds, whatever they may be, by relating the utterance as it stands, and by bringing into the middle the author of it, who is truly great and worthy of being believed. This person, then, is the eminent Athanasius in divine matters, who in the first discourse against the Arians uses these very words: "The giver of the Spirit says now that he casts out demons in the Spirit." But this is said in no other way except for the sake of the flesh. For since human nature is not competent of itself to cast out demons unless by the power of the Spirit, for that reason he said as a man, "But if I in the Spirit of God cast out demons" (Matt. xii, 28). Thus indeed the Lord spoke to the Jews as a man; but to the disciples, demonstrating his divinity
A and his grandeur, he no longer indicated himself to be inferior to the Spirit, but greater and equal, bestowing the Spirit and saying, "I will send him, and he will glorify me, and whatsoever he shall hear, he shall speak" (John xvi, 13-14). Regarding this—for I pass over other things, fearing to seem altogether redundant—what will those who groundlessly attack the truth truly say to us, they who suffer nothing correctly stated by us to be beyond reproach, but readily pounce upon all things, and add to them at random? Is it possible for us to declare the Son greater than the Spirit, and not accept the order in these matters, just as we are able to transfer the "greater" to the Spirit from the Son and cast it about? What folly! If they claim to insist on this at all. For they themselves, I think, would not even remotely contemplate this. For it is not even just, as it is obviously ridiculous B. Unless, of course, one were to interpret this also according to the humanity of the Savior, as the Great one [Basil] has already noted in advance. They will rather inquire, and indeed most praiseworthily, how and in what manner the wise Athanasius, who possessed the highest and Christ-centered knowledge, said the Son is greater than the Spirit? To these I would answer mildly and gently that, since we use the teachers and interpreters of piety for the exposition of every divine utterance, we must consider how the rest of the saints, to whom the task of discussing this fell, understood the "greater" in relation to the Father, C and then transport that meaning to the present subject. If we find it to be suitable and in harmony with other scriptural testimonies concerning the Son, we must accept it here and now, embrace it alone, and hold fast to it in every way; but if not, we must inquire, as is reasonable, for the fitting meaning.
Therefore, among the first, the heaven-revealer Basil—for he suffices in place of all the great men who before him and with him excelled in the wisdom of God—in the first of his *Antirrhetica* against Eunomius, explaining how the Father is said to be greater than the Son, goes through the matter word for word as follows: "But to whom among all people is it unknown that the 'greater' is said either according to the principle of cause, or according to an excess of power, or according to an excellence of dignity, or according to an abundance of bulk?" Therefore, the "greater" shall not be said here according to bulk, nor according to excess of power, nor according to excellence of dignity. It remains, then, that the "greater" is stated here according to the principle of cause. For since from the Father is the origin of the Son, in this respect the Father is greater, as cause and principle D.
And after him, the most divine Cyril also, in one of the chapters of the first *Thesaurus*, says: "The Son, being therefore equal according to the account of essence to the Father, and like in all things, he calls the Father greater, as having an origin without an origin, only insofar as he is from whom he is, even if he has an existence co-occurring with him." And a few things later: "The Father is said to be greater, as the principle of the co-eternal offspring." These things John of Damascus also, famous for his wisdom, and who in matters handed down
A shines brighter than many, follows—or rather, follows Gregory the Theologian, for he too treats of these things in many of his discourses—but passing over the intervening ones, B studious of brevity as is permissible, he teaches in his discourse on the Holy Trinity: "When, therefore, we hear of a principle, and that the Father is greater than the Son, let us understand it as the cause." It is surely superfluous to say that many of the Saints have also delivered that the Father is greater on account of the incarnation of the Word, since that is altogether irrelevant here. Therefore, passing over things regarding this, I take up that which I judge to be useful for the present question from the God-bearing Fathers; namely, that "greater" is stated in terms of principle and cause, and not incongruously, as I am persuaded. It is also clearly established, as I find Gregory of Nyssa to be in the greatest harmony with me on this point. For he says in the first of his Antirrhetics against Eunomius: "For just as the Son is conjoined to the Father, and, having his existence from Him, is not posterior in existence, so again the Holy Spirit is conjoined to the Only-Begotten, the existence of the Spirit being preconceived by thought alone according to the account of the cause."
39. "But behold," they say, "you have been caught by your own words." For that which we long suspected, this you have now openly and from your own mouth proclaimed, by asserting that the Son is the cause of the Spirit—which is the most absurd of all things. For if the Son is the cause of the Spirit, and, as is confessed by all, the Father is also the cause, then there are absolutely two causes of the same Spirit. For this is their final and ominous conclusion, and that toward which every effort, and the sum of the arguments, and all the designs of those C who seemingly oppose us in debate are directed, as they strive to cast us, the defenders of the truth, into this as if into the lowest abyss. But I can say, and consistently with the facts themselves, that I have not been caught at all; and if there is anything in what was said that is not free from criticism, it is not just that it be imputed to me, since these are not the fruits of my own thoughts. For if those who ponder such things are not raving and out of their minds, then the luminary of the Nyssaeans and of the whole world is caught, not I; and he too would be worthy to pay the penalty D for these things, if they must be settled by the calculation of those who set themselves against us. Nevertheless, since it is a duty for all to defend the truth as best they can, it is incumbent upon us not to overlook the argument when it is harassed by calumnies even here. And so, let us bring the aid available to us to this point as well. It does not say that the Son is also a cause of the Spirit, so that from this two causes of the Spirit might be understood, namely the Father and the Son, as some suspect. For this is far removed from our pious tradition. But it teaches that the Son is preconceived by thought alone according to the account of the cause of the Hypostasis of the Spirit, [which is] no other cause than that which is the Father's. For the one cause of the Spirit is that which is from the Father, according to which the Son is preconceived before the Spirit, because this [cause] exists [for the Spirit] through the Son, as has been proven by the whole discourse.
ἀποδέδειχται. A For this reason, he said "the cause" with the addition of the article, and not "cause" simply, as it was known and manifest to everyone. And as his discourse proceeded, he added: "So that, with the nature of the cause being excepted, in no way can the holy Trinity be at variance within itself, being everywhere consistent with itself." For we have not forgotten that we brought forward at the beginning of this discourse the words to Ablabius, saying: "While confessing the immutability of the nature, we do not deny the difference with respect to cause and caused, in which alone we perceive the one to be distinguished from the other." For by speaking of cause and caused, he did not only indicate the difference of the Father with respect to the Son and the Holy Spirit, but also that of the Son with respect to the Spirit. For having laid these things down, he adds after a few words: "For this is directly from the first, but this is from the first through the proximate." Can anything be said more clearly, if one wishes to apply a right mind to the divine Scriptures and to look to the intent of the holy Fathers? For since he here calls the Father the cause, and the Son and the Holy Spirit from the cause, but the Son directly, and the Spirit through that which is direct—that is, through the Son—he rightly said that the Son is B to be understood there in the account of the cause of the Spirit's hypostasis, because the Spirit has this from the Father through the Son. Thus it is that I understand the power of this Patristic statement, by which their supposedly wise and difficult-to-defeat argument is overturned and destroyed from its very foundations, so that the Son is also greater than the Spirit—not as though there were some other cause here besides the Father, but because the Spirit has the cause and origin from the Father through the Son. Therefore, the Father is the cause of both, of the Son and of the Spirit, but of the Son directly, and of the Spirit through the Son. This is also what the greatest and most dogmatic Maximus openly cries out in one of his chapters to Elpidius on love, arranging the discourse thus: "Just as the mind is the cause of the word, so also [it is the cause] of the spirit, but through the word as mediator; and just as we cannot say that the word is of the voice, so neither that the Son is of the Spirit." And the wise John of Damascus, in his chapter on divine C names, says: "Through the Word, the Father is the producer of the revelatory Spirit." For what he signifies there by "cause," he intends here by "producer." For both mean the same thing; and thus both indicated one and the same thought using similar words. But let no one brand me with the mark of curiosity if, resuming the end of the great Maximus' statement, I submit it to examination, for it leads to my point and contributes greatly to it. "For just as," he says, "we cannot say the word is of the voice, so neither the Son of the Spirit." Hence, another handle for argument is given to us, which splendidly confirms our opinion. For if, just as we cannot say the word is of the voice, so neither the Son of the Spirit; we can, however, conversely say the Spirit indeed [is] of the Son, just as [we say] the voice [is] of the Word. To this D Gregory of Nyssa adds his vote,
A as does the wise John of Damascus, the former saying in his homily on the *Our Father* that the Spirit is indeed of God and the Spirit of Christ; but the Son, being of God, is no longer also of the Spirit, nor is he [so] called, nor does this relative consequence invert. The latter, in his work on the Trinity, [says]: “That we call the Spirit of the Son, but we do not call the Son of the Spirit.” If these are found to be true, and far removed from any falsehood, as indeed they are, it is evident that a certain relation is observed in them, by which the Spirit is and is called of the Son, but the Son is not of the Spirit, nor is he so called. But what is this? It is precisely what has been set forth by me in many places and demonstrated through the divine Scriptures which we have earlier praised: namely, that the Holy Spirit has [his] existence from the Father through the Son. Therefore, in his books *Against Hermias*, the most divine Cyril designates this as a quality of the Son, just as also of the Father, asserting at one point: B “The Holy Spirit is, as it were, a certain natural quality of the holy and wise divinity, which is considered to be in the Father and the Son.” Then again: “If, therefore, Christ performs signs and wonders through Paul in the power of the Holy Spirit, as a certain natural and living operation, and, if we may so speak, the Holy Spirit is a quality of the divinity of the Son, and is as a certain emanation and quality of the Father’s essence.” But why do I dwell over-much, when with one brief authority of the Fathers I can suppress the voice and discourse of the adversaries, if only there is among them a spirit of discernment, and not diabolical contention, regarding what is being inquired into? The authority—not to draw it out longer—is in the epistle of the divine Athanasius to Bishop Serapion C concerning the Holy Spirit, in which he asserts: “For this unction is an inspiration of the Son.” Who among those opposing, hearing [that] the Spirit [is] an inspiration of the Son, will persist in his own opinion, and not rather, with a changed mind, wholly subscribe to our opinion which is braced and established by divine Scriptures, provided he is not far removed from wisdom, nor conducts matters contentiously, but endures also being overcome in some things honorably? For from this each one will more clearly discover by what reasoning the Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of the Son by the divinely inspired Scripture, and will examine the relationship which decreed that he be so called, and which likewise remains so continuously; since the divine and blessed nature is immutable, no one will be able to persuade us truly to change it or pervert it, though he may tire himself much, D rolling up countless imaginations within himself. Since the Son is neither the son of the Spirit nor is he so called—as the luminaries of the Church, Gregory of Nyssa and the wise John of Damascus, have, as we said before, forbidden—they can now judge the weight of the present question from the testimonies here recorded in writing, provided they have understood the opposition made by the more equitable [fathers] against them, to which alone, as is fitting, everyone lending a ready ear will conveniently attend to their sentiments, nor will they search the Scriptures for the confirmation of the truth. For if they do not attend to these, as is right, it is manifest...
that they will not attend to the others either, even if one were to carefully collect all A of them—from which our position derives its strength—and arrange them alongside what has just been said. For thus, even if there is an order in the Trinity, it is also above all order on account of its supernatural and superessential nature. I have enough such proofs, by which the existence of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son is demonstrated no less than by the scriptural testimonies already cited.
40. But it is time now to conclude the present discourse by adding these remaining brief points, and to establish the beginning of the coming one. We have already placed before you many of the divine utterances, some of which clearly and plainly declare that the Holy Spirit is from the Father through the Son, and others which signify this same thing symbolically; B and now we shall set forth a few more for a more perfect discerning of such a conception. For the wise and great Basil, who appeared as an unshakable foundation of piety for the people named after Christ, in the eighteenth chapter to Amphilochius, having previously discoursed on the knowledge of God, adds: "The way of the knowledge of God is, therefore, from one Spirit through one Son to one Father." He certainly did not say this because we have come to know the holy Trinity in this manner—for it was through the Incarnate only-begotten Son that we have attained the knowledge of the Father as Father, and of the Holy Spirit—but because he is interpreting and arranging C as best he can the sequence of the knowledge of God that is proper to us, as the life-creating Trinity possesses it. And these things which he says regarding the knowledge of God are in no way different from what he says thereafter: "And conversely, the natural goodness, and the sanctification which is according to nature, and the royal dignity, extend from the Father through the Only-Begotten to the Holy Spirit." In this way, the hypostases are also maintained, and the pious dogma of the monarchy is not destroyed. Gregory, that great and most theological mind, who rendered the Church of God more luminous by the height of his thought and the majesty of his words, teaches something consonant with this; he who, in his own verses D concerning Virginity, is found uttering these words: "One God from the Begetter through the Son unto the great Spirit, the Deity remaining perfect in perfects."
41. As a crowning conclusion and a greater and more powerful principle to all these things—against which no speech will be able to prevail in contradiction—is the fact that the Holy Spirit is united to the Father through the Only-Begotten. Wherefore, it is fittingly reserved as the head and hinge of my entire discourse, and as a seal safe from any traps. For if the Spirit obtains union with the Father through the Son, how, of necessity, should one not also believe that this occurs through Him by best right? Witnesses worthy of faith in this matter are the great Athanasius and Basil, for the former, in his epistle to Serapion concerning the Holy Spirit, has the following:
“For the Spirit is not outside the Word, but while being in the Word, it is in God through Him.” And a little further on: “Since the Spirit is in the Word, it would be manifest that the Spirit was also in God through the Word.” The great Basil, in the eighteenth chapter of his work to Amphilochius, says: “And one is the Holy Spirit, joined to the one Father through the one Son.” This same thing the wise John of Damascus, in his chapter concerning the place of God, teaches by revelation, explaining it in these very words: “The Spirit, who is joined to the Father through the Son.” Such things have been determined by these God-bearing Fathers concerning this matter, which drive all doubts and dissensions far away. Indeed, no one would dare to contradict them. And will there be, or is there to be, a man of such audacity and boldness who attempts to overturn the things so clearly spoken by the Saints, as if he does not think it desirable to follow what has been said by them, but is eager to carve out another path of theology, as if he presumed to peer into the depths of the Spirit and to be replenished with new contemplations therefrom? For who is so proud and boasting so arrogantly, or rather, who is so B deranged and foolish, to dream such magnificent things about himself, and to rise up impudently against the men of the Spirit, whose voice has gone out into all the earth, and whose words into the ends of the world, just as the lyre of David, the ancestor of God and prince of the prophets, sang as one moved by God? Against them, heretics rising up throughout the ages against piety, and struggling boldly with Satan’s harsh strength to remove it from the midst, have been vanquished most effectively—partly by the majesty of their dogmas, collapsing in terror as if by the noise of thunder, and partly by withdrawing with disgrace—all those, that is, who persisted in the malice of their own heresy to the very end, due to the depravity of their way of life, and who, having perceived no fruit of their divine wisdom, through which the heavenly powers C indeed looked on in astonishment and showed reverence, while demons, struck with the greatest fear, took fright, seeing all their arts, which they suggested daily to their own minions, cast down utterly by them through the power of the Word and the Spirit. I, for my part, do not think that there is any such wicked man appearing now, and an enemy and foe to his own salvation. For this is precisely what it is to contend openly against the divine Fathers, in those things which they declared they said along with the Spirit; since, in this way, he sins most against God, inasmuch as God is truthful, just as the Holy Spirit, by whom they were continually addressed while they safely and securely determined dogmas, most truly is. Therefore, I also make this common exhortation: D “If God is truthful, as indeed He truly is—and truly the Holy Spirit is, by whom they were constantly inspired and determined their dogmas most safely—I therefore offer this common call:”
42. Come now, all you who have until now stood against us, crying out aloud, and having listened to the teachers of piety mentioned a little above, and having understood that the Holy Spirit both is through the Only-Begotten and is joined to God and the Father, and through Him necessarily has its existence—believe this, and do not stand hesitant, I entreat you, with us, and the…
good confession you have made, confess it with your own lips, agreeing in this with the divine Scriptures, so that you may sanctify both the mind and the tongue, the former by believing in the truth, the latter by confessing it. Do not, I pray, while you are right in all other things, fail in this one respect, lest you appear to sensible men to have fallen, reasonably enough, from the whole truth. For what logic is there in accepting that the Holy Spirit is and is joined to God and the Father through the Son, but rejecting that He has His existence through Him? It is entirely necessary that if the Holy Spirit does not possess this through the Word, He does not through Him exist and join with God and the Father; and there is a danger that, B in this way, such a theology regarding the Spirit would be rendered altogether superfluous. According to you, every utterance of the divine Scripture that proclaims that the Holy Spirit exists from the Father through the Word would have perished; as we have demonstrated in the present work, having set forth each of these, it remains to accuse the saints who said such things of not having spoken well, nor having given the first place to the truth. But this is a product of a satanic mind, and the echoing clamor of wicked lips. For whence have we a right understanding of the faith, if not from these whom we recognize as the firm defenders of piety and the dispersers of heretical error? But just as that—namely, that the Holy Spirit is and is joined to God and the Father through the Son—is not a theology handed down in an C empty or superfluous manner, but is quite indeed necessary and possessing much usefulness, in the same way, the worshiper of the truth will not deny that He even has His existence from the Father through Him. For the Holy Spirit, as all divine and sacred Scripture teaches me, is God, perfect and truly proceeding from the perfect God the Father through the perfect God the Only-Begotten, according to the testimonies previously set out. Such is my judgment concerning this, and thus I stand firm and unshaken in the present opinion, relying on all sides upon the wise utterances of the saints as upon certain mighty columns, and fearing nothing of the assaults of savage spirits, which the crowd of adversaries stirs up against me, meeting me face-to-face D every day. But these things are regarding the fact that the Holy Spirit has His existence from the Father through the Son, with which we have already concluded this first discourse, for which may there be grace to God, the Perfecter of all good things. As for what lies beyond these, this is another contest, lacking nothing of the present one in any way. Having descended to the second stadium, let us contend in Christ Jesus our Lord, through Whom may the Holy Spirit, proceeding from the Father, breathe grace into us for the successful direction of our words.
BY THE SAME CONSTANTINE MELITENIOTES ON THE PROCESSION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT ALSO FROM THE SON, ORATION II
1. "Interrogate your father, and he will declare to you; your elders, and they will tell you" (Deut. xxxii, 7). This passage from the song of the blessed Moses shall stand for me in the place of a proemium; for it is truly a divine and most wise admonition, and from that time to these days of ours, it has remained firmly lodged in the minds of the prudent, and is preserved intact. We already satisfied ourselves abundantly and properly in the preceding part of this treatise, A when, in examining the existence of the most holy Spirit from the Father through the Son, we brought forward the divine Fathers as masters and witnesses of our assertions, from all of whom we once and for all learned the truth as it really is. And now, likewise, we shall be no less satisfied in our current contention regarding the existence of the life-giving Spirit from the Father and the Son. For there is need here, too, of the greatest aid from the divine Scriptures, and a frequent necessity for guidance from that source; not because we count ourselves among the many in the knowledge of things, nor because we excel by any logical faculty or power of our own, while the question is a great one and requires great demonstrations; but because the greater part of men do not so easily give their assent to the truth in discourses on piety, since their minds are preoccupied with the opposing side, unless that which persuades and moves them is corroborated by the authority of antiquity, and by the action and speculation of those who have surpassed others in life and are of the highest standing, so that they may thus gain for themselves faith that is rich in many respects, which is a very prudent and highly commendable practice. For whom else, they say, should we follow than those whose life, weighed in the balance by the most rigid judges, has proved their words to be sublime, and their thoughts even much more sublime; and whose continual meditation, as the knowledge of real things requires, was death—from which the faculty was granted to them to have the eyes of the soul and the keenness of vision purged from the darkness B of the passions, C as far as is possible for those in the flesh? Such were those who were mentioned a little while ago, or rather, even those beyond...
better and more prudent than they, who love to be persuaded in matters that transcend us, whom it is just both to admire for their judgment and to receive gladly at all times. A For as for the rest, who, while appearing to surpass all others in their education in letters, not only care for nothing at all—even if someone were to say something useful regarding the faith—but do not even deem the sacred Scriptures worthy of attention, as if they had, forsooth, seized upon the accuracy of the preaching of their own selves: to them there applies properly that word of the Apostle: *They were made vain in their reasonings; claiming to be wise, they became fools* (Rom. 1, 21), in consequence of which, by blinding their minds entirely through vanity, they prefer their own conceits to the teaching of the God-bearing Fathers. Sometimes, indeed, they even attempt to pervert the unshakable view of those men of the Spirit to suit their own opinion, B contentiously discussing it with whomever they may happen upon. They do not shudder to play word-games—that which is so bruited about—in matters that are not for playing, especially when they are eager to slander divine things. And I omit speaking of those who, out of envy and hatred—for not a few, having been enslaved to these passions, attach themselves to us—overlook or even intentionally distort the truth; to whom it is satisfaction enough, solely for the purpose of vilification, to be, and to be called, evil by those who are the best at discerning and who know most perfectly about such things. But to even conceive of them in one's mind, so long as they remain uncorrected while harboring enmity toward us out of malice, C is both harmful and dangerous, lest we who are sound should ourselves be infected by the poison of their wickedness. Thus they disregard the divinely inspired Scripture, as the discourse has indicated from above, however faintly. For which reason it is best, from this point on, not even to look upon those who are so disposed, much less to deem them worthy of conversation, since they do not follow the footsteps of those taught by the divine Spirit, nor do they hold to divine doctrine, but walk contentiously in their own opinions, through a vain estimation of themselves. We, however, not daring to hold or to utter anything of our own regarding God—for we deem it the act of headstrong and D utterly irrational men to think and speak of the things of the Spirit apart from the Spirit—diligently and continuously unroll the sacred scriptures of the saints. And listening to them as explicitly the voices of God, we inscribe them upon the tablets of our hearts, and, as far as is possible, we put them forward through our tongue to those outside, when there is need, asking in a manner of speaking, through these very writings, those who conceived and brought them forth in the Spirit, concerning all things pertaining to piety, as Fathers common to us in faith and elders in the antiquity of days, according to the most divine and wise admonition of the blessed Moses; and thus we both learn these things securely, and, when need arises, pass them on to others as we are able. Hence, therefore, the present proof of the question before us will also come from those very sources, because even this
A exceeds our power to manifest and to set forth by strength of speech regarding God and the uncorrupted and first nature; and it requires men who long ago acquired the highest and superior wisdom through purity of mind, who also hold the place of Fathers for us who are faithful—as they are always, through their teaching, begetting all people according to God—and who, when questioned, provide information in the present as the Mosaic admonition instructs, and again, as they report in the scriptures, and since they are our elders in all respects, they will speak appropriately and teach us regarding the question now proposed for examination, just as they evidently did in the discourse before this one, in which they instructed us that the Holy Spirit has existence from the Father through the Son. But while in that discourse they taught only the existence of the Spirit from the Father through the Son, because at that time our inquiry did not proceed further, yet in this present discourse they will clearly initiate us into the truth that the Holy Spirit also exists from the Father and the Son—for this is the task at hand—and they will do so much more openly than those who, at their leisure, interpret the childish marks of letters. For not once, nor twice, nor thrice has each of the saints, and indeed every one of them, pronounced judgment on this dogma and then kept silence afterward; but wherever they occur in their discourses, and in some places frequently—following the example of skilled painters who often apply colors to panels with intensity because they wish to portray what is being characterized more clearly and vividly—so too have those who are wise in divine things, in all their writings, deliberately treated the doctrine that the Holy Spirit exists from the Father and the Son, stubbornly and with abundance in some of their homilies, so that even here they will instruct us most generously and copiously from their own works Regarding this subject.
2. And so, having now brought the discourse to B a fitting beginning, we shall grapple from there with the task at hand. For a truly fitting beginning would be to render the Divine propitious in the things we attempt. For who are we, truly, that we should eagerly contemplate things of this sort, which the order of all intellectual powers cannot attain due to the inaccessibility of His glory? Unless one were to invoke those who, while in the body, strove against the incorporeal, to whom the Trinity—for this sake—revealed Itself as much as they were able to contain It. And as for those who have received such an illumination—a dim and moderate one, to be sure—regarding God, and one above even the celestial minds because they maintained an incorporeal life while in the flesh, and thereby obtained an ascent of the mind, how would it not be difficult for us, who are wrapped in mud below and around the earth, to investigate such things, when we ought to acquiesce without so many reasonings in the dogmas set forth by the holy Fathers for common benefit, and not to emulate the confidence and boldness of those whose life we have not imitated? Nevertheless, since testimonies from these very sources will, as we promised, proceed in the present case on account of the C abundance of the written traditions,
it will not be at all difficult, as it seems to me, to examine the present speculation. And if, on the other hand, it is absurd for those who are deceived by the exterior senses—through which war is waged against the interior—to hold any questions at all about God, just as it is neither pious nor holy to touch holy things while one is not holy, nevertheless, may God be merciful to us, the indivisible and inseparable Trinity, the consubstantial and equally powerful authority, the Father without beginning, I say, the coeternal Son, and the coeternal Holy Spirit. B We approach this not ignorant of ourselves, nor do we presume to occupy ourselves impurely with the most holy things out of a disdain for reality, for we clearly know how many pollutions we are befouled with, and we hold it to be a certain destruction of the soul to treat divine things with contempt. We are not, therefore, moved to this from such a source, nor are we so deliriously out of our minds; rather, we are moved by that abundance of self-opinion which now occupies the many, who are incessantly drawn to treat divine matters and to apply faith as if they were merely admiring their own ideas, while neglecting the divine Scriptures. Compelled in varied ways and also by a zeal for God, we impel ourselves toward these tasks lest we be condemned for having betrayed the truth by withdrawing; for the words of Scripture must here be used by way of illustration. C This is the reason for our impulse to penetrate into the inner sanctuary, and to examine the divine utterances with the Spirit; it is not a trivial reason, as I am persuaded. Therefore, I trust in finding forgiveness from those who are fair-minded judges of these matters. Such, then, is the defense, and it is so strong and irrefutable. Now, however, we must pass within the veil and go forth to the very examination of the holy oracles, having placed the Spirit of truth, for whom and on whose account war is waged against us, and in turn we wage war, before our discourses, as is fitting, so that, contending worthily for the proposed argument and arranging the Divinely-inspired voices of the saints one after another in their order, we may perform a demonstration that is safe, stable, and subject to no doubt for anyone.
3. First, therefore, so that the present treatise may proceed distinctly and in order, just as there is a beginning D to the scope of the subject, that which we sought at the beginning in our previously published discourse, and which we brought to an end by the power of the Spirit—having now grasped this as certain and indubitable, and proceeding from there, we say: just as it is pious to think that the Holy Spirit is through the Son, so too is it orthodox to maintain that He is likewise from the Son. For we do not, by thinking in a servile manner that the Holy Spirit is through the Son, for that reason proceed to reject in every way that He is from the Son; far be it from us that we should ever fall away into such impiety, and may no such blasphemy take hold of us! But as we acknowledge that the Holy Spirit exists essentially through the Son, so we rightly and fittingly think that He holds His existence from the Son as well. Since not only does that which has come to be through someone in the manner of creation also exist from that source—in which sense all things were made through the Son, according to the word of the Evangelist John, for the rest of the examples, though many are at hand, are such that...
A I pass them all over because of the obviousness of the matter; we believe these things also to be from the Son, as we have been taught this lesson by almost all the Fathers who have made it their concern to examine right doctrines. Moreover, by these same God-inspired men, the most wicked thinking of the heretics has been plainly cast down, nor is there anywhere one among all, as far as we have been able to understand with precision, who now contends against this and resists; indeed, even that which is "through someone" according to essence has appeared likewise to be "from him." This is also spoken of in the usage of the sacred and divinely inspired Scripture in this way, just as that which is "from someone" according to a cause—whether natural or productive—and, besides these, that which is not according to existence is found spoken of in the same way in many places.
But so that I may mention briefly for the sake of the testimony of both these things, I shall not be long in adhering to my purpose with all my strength. Regarding that which is "from someone" according to a cause, which is also immediate, the most divine Athanasius says in his first Discourse against the Arians: "When, therefore, a man has progressed to such an age as nature provides, he at once becomes, without any impediment, the father of the son who is through him." This Athanasius produces as a natural cause from B his own proper arguments, he who will be judged altogether sufficient and alone to be instructed in the reception of teaching by those who judge rightly. But the great and wise Basil, who excels in the highest speculation after Christ, in the fifth of his chapters C to the holy Amphilochius, regarding the productive cause and the other—which one may name as he pleases—brings forth testimonies from the Old Testament for a similar question, distinguishing it quite clearly in this way: "Already, even regarding the things signified by them, the prepositions 'through' and 'from' are often interchanged, whenever the one takes on the meaning of the other; for instance, 'I have acquired a man through God,' the same as saying 'from God.' And elsewhere: 'What things Moses commanded to Israel through the commandment of the Lord.' And again: 'Is not the manifestation of them through God?' Instead of saying 'from God,' he has said 'through God.'" Added to these is the most dogmatic Cyril, in his fifth book to Hermias: "For how would we consider," he asks, "the life existing according to nature, and the Son? Why is it also not to be believed while he says: 'I am the way and the truth and the life?' But while saying with the article, and singularly, that he himself is the life, would he not deny that the Father and his God is the life, unless we grant that both are of one nature, and that life comes to us equally through both, and that we are D made alive not from two, but from one God?" Here, meanwhile, let anyone who wishes consider how, although he had previously said "through both," he afterwards spoke of "from one." In his sixth [book] to the same: "Whatever will be done by the Father, that will altogether be rightly done also by the Son, and that which is said to be accomplished through the Son, that will altogether be also rightly done by the Father. For all things are indeed by both in equal measure." In his Exposition on John, on that saying: "And John bore witness"
A saying: "I saw the Spirit descending as a dove from heaven." But how will the divine nature be altogether both simple and incomposite, if the perfect and the imperfect appear to exist in it? For it would be composed of both, if the perfect and the imperfect are unlike. And again, touching the saying of the Gospel according to John, "All things were made by Him," branding the foolish Arians with infamy, he brought forward the great apostle Paul, a master of the question proposed in various pericopes: "What, then," he says, "shall we understand concerning the Father himself, whom we shall find to be him—since the particle 'by' [per] is also applied to Him by the divine Scriptures? 'For faithful,' he says, 'is God, by whom you were called into the communion of His Son'; and, 'Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God'; and elsewhere Paul writes to some: 'So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir by God.'" B These same testimonies Basil, the luminary of the Church, also arranges in the fifth chapter to Amphilochius, which I have cited above, to which he adds also those: "Who rose again by the glory of the Father," and Isaiah says: "Woe to them that take deep counsel, and not by God!" What more? The lyre of grace, I mean the wise John of Damascus, the melodist, here in his canticles extolling the immaculate Virgin, the Theotokos, that is to say, proclaimed: "Conceiving God in your womb, O Virgin, by the most holy Spirit, you remained unburnt." And these things indeed [are said] of that which, by reason of cause, is from something, according to the same reasoning as being through the same. For it is manifest that whatever is from this naturally, or effectively, or in any other way which we have considered above, by this fact—as these interpreters of true theology have indicated in these produced testimonies—it is indicated as having the same signification. Two C of whom have brought forth confirmation from the Old and New Testament.
4. Concerning that which is by essence, that it also has appeared from Him according to the same, Cyril, who shone in dogmas, will bear witness as a trustworthy testifier, who in one of his own epistles to Nestorius, after many things, says: "The Word from God the Father is from the holy Virgin." And after very few words: "He was born as we are, from a woman." And after some things again: "For the Word was as it were in His own body, which was from a woman; but He delivered it to death for a time." And in his address to the most pious Emperor Theodosius he says expressly by way of question: "Do we not say that Emmanuel was born from a woman? Or how else has He ascended to where He asserts He is?" And the wise and D gracefully-named melodist from Damascus, chanting to the all-immaculate Mary in the Church, cries out loudly for our sake even until now: "You have given birth to God, O immaculate Mother, incarnate from you as it befits God, you who are all-praised." And one might see many such things
A whoever diligently turns the pages and runs through the sacred books of the saints, for all of them clearly signify that God the Word and Lord, although begotten according to his essence through the ever-virgin Mary, took on humanity from her. That the Word of God was physically begotten through her according to the flesh, the same saints will signify again from what they have written and theologized in other places; and the great Basil, explaining the matter more clearly, will point it out better.
For among them, the inspired and venerable Cyril, in the letter to Nestorius mentioned a little above, says the following: "But perhaps, O Nestorius, you will say: 'Tell me, then, has the Virgin become a mother of divinity?' To this we reply that the living and subsisting Word of God and the Father is confessed to be begotten from his very essence; but in the last times of the age, since he became flesh, that is, was united to flesh possessing a rational soul, he is said to have been born also according to the flesh through a woman." And after a few words: "Since, by taking on flesh, he also became Son of man, it is necessary to confess that he was born according to the flesh through a woman." And again: "The Word from God the Father, existing in the form of the one who begat him, dwelt in a man born through a woman." And after a few things: "But perhaps someone might say, 'What is the difference between Christ and Moses, if both have been born through women?'" Likewise, in the prosphonetic oration to the most pious Emperor Theodosius, which we mentioned above: "The Word from God the Father was made manifest in the flesh; for he was begotten through the holy and God-bearing Virgin, taking the form of a servant." And after some intervening text: "To think, however, that some reject the generation of the Word of God B which took place through the holy Virgin is to speak blasphemously of the dispensation." And after many more words, having discussed the passage I set forth earlier, namely, "Do we not say that Emmanuel was born of a woman? Or how did he ascend where he says he is?" he subjoins: "Although the body united to him was born through the holy Virgin."
And the wise John of Damascus, hymning the all-pure one, again cries out: "Through you, O Mother Virgin, a bright light has risen for the whole world." These men, then, and others like them, proclaim such things, the greater part of which this discourse passes over for fear of satiety. Yet the most divine Basil delivers these same things, explaining them most fully. For in the fifth of the chapters mentioned by me above, addressed to the blessed Amphilochius—wherein he holds discourse regarding these prepositions, in what manner they are to be taken concerning the God-ruling Trinity, in order to ground the dogmas safely—he supports them for the most part by the authorities of the great Paul. And when there was need of an example, he recalled that voice which the master of the world boomed forth, clearly and perspicuously speaking of God’s incarnation from the Virgin, "Born of C a woman"; and that divine Father, expounding this saying, asserted in place of "through a woman" [that it means "from a woman"], and immediately adjoined the same divine herald Paul as the interpreter of his own opinion, adding: "For this holy herald of the faith, Paul, D
A in other places has clearly distinguished for us that it is fitting for a woman to be born from a man, but for a man to be born through a woman," in which he says that just as the woman is from the man, so also is the man through the woman. Behold, the clarion-call of piety, the great and mighty Basil, through the holy Virgin, most clearly demonstrated that God the Word was incarnate, employing the interpretation of Christ's herald Paul above all others, which both the venerable Cyril and the wise John of Damascus, those aforementioned accurate witnesses of the truth, decreed after him. But also, from the holy Virgin, as I have indicated above, the same brilliant lights of the Church declared that God the Word was born. Therefore, by these means it is now B sincerely demonstrated that what is "per" (through) something in relation to essence, is also "ex" (from) it according to that same essence.
8. This will be clear and plain to everyone from elsewhere, according to a common and agreed-upon notion: for instance, in examples. Through a ray the light clearly shines; it glows no less *from* the ray itself. The spirit [or sound] goes forth clearly through the word; it comes forth *from* the word no less. Through the flower, the scent is carried purely, and it is dispersed equally *from* the flower. To those who look deeply into it, the source truly springs forth through the fountain-head, and it gushes forth *from* the fountain-head in a similar and like manner. Through the stalk, the fruit germinates C visibly; and it grows in such a way *from* the stalk. Smoke is clearly sent up through the flame; it is also emitted *from* the flame in no lesser degree. In all these, that through which each thing naturally exists, is also that from which it entirely is. In such a sense, and without any hesitation, we decree that the Holy Spirit is also *from* the Son. Those who do not accept the present theology, and on account of this bring charges against us, should know that they understand divine worship poorly, and from this recklessly cast blame upon us. For since it has been demonstrated that the Holy Spirit exists from God and Father through the Word, they themselves—by rejecting the claim that He is also *from* the Son, and for this reason everywhere besmirching our reputation with insults—show that they mean D a "transitory" existence (a claim that is full of every blasphemy), not an essential and natural one, such as we, rigorously demanding it through the truth itself, decree. And let that most excellent and great Basil be my witness in this present discourse—he who is beyond all exception—that the existence of the Spirit "through the Son" is interpreted by some as "transitory." In the fifth chapter of his work to the holy Amphilochius, which I have mentioned above, he treats that Apostolic saying, "born from a woman," in the manner I have already described for you. He takes up the discourse again, and goes on thus: "Although the Apostle here, while at once showing the different usage of these terms, and at the same time correcting the error of certain people who thought that the Lord's body was spiritual, preferred to use a word signifying that, in order to show that the flesh of the Bearer of God was fashioned from the human mass"
A For these expressions, "through a woman," were intended to signify the transitory understanding of generation; while "from a woman" sufficiently declares the communion of the begotten nature with her who begot it. Not that the Apostle is at variance with himself, but he shows that these terms easily yield to one another. And this indeed the great Basil allows, and recognizes that "through" imports mediation, as if to indicate a transitory state, even in those cases where it is determined that "from" could in no way have a place. But who among those who have proposed to live with a correct understanding of dogma could hold that the existence of the Holy Spirit is merely transitory through the Only-Begotten, to the extent that it would be understood as something imported from without for some ministerial use, and not naturally, truly, and essentially mediating; while the Holy Spirit is considered utterly a stranger and completely alien to the Son and the Father? B For it is necessary that these consequences follow from such a view, which Arius and Macedonius of old, the true enemies of the truth, being filled with extreme impiety, fastened in the depth of their abominable hearts and even dared to vomit forth openly—alas, for their intolerable impudence! For which they, the sons of perdition, were subjected to anathema by the holy Fathers who were previously gathered at Nicaea, and by those who celebrated the second synod in this royal city, and were delivered to the inextinguishable flames. Who, therefore, would be so bold as to presume to revive these things, which have been utterly vacant since that time, by a similar method, wandering in their worship, whether lead astray by their own opinion or by the inanities of those heresiarchs? Certainly no one, even should they reach the height of wickedness, will be found, neither at this time nor in the future, who would brazenly proclaim what has been openly and publicly condemned by so many and such great spiritual and God-taught Fathers, whether because they are wandering in their own minds and conceiving rash ideas, or because they have been deceived by the foolish babbling of those I mentioned above. Since it is the most absurd of all things that, in matters where the heralds of the truth have through frequent struggles driven away error and decreed the sound dogma, one person among all should go out of their mind in some way regarding them. But there is certainly no one who has even conceived these things in his mind, so far is it from being the case that he believes them; nor will there ever be one who will conceive such things. C D 6. Now there are some who at the present time boast most magnificently and parade themselves before their own people as knowledgeable in doctrine and erudition, who, while clearly confessing that the Holy Spirit exists "through the Only-Begotten," deny with every means that what has been stated—just as if they were surpassing all blasphemies—and do not even admit that the Son is naturally a medium between the Father and the Spirit; and for this reason they do not accept that the Holy Spirit is from the Son according to reason. Rather, they loudly proclaim some other notion, according to which they think it is said...
A that the Holy Spirit is, and is called, such, as being joined to Him by nature and as consubstantial. And these men, by saying such things, cause a buzzing in the ears of many. But I truly do not know whether one should accuse them of madness or of perversity of purpose, since they clearly posit the union of the Holy Spirit to the Son and His consubstantiality as the cause of His being "through the Son." For that the Holy Spirit is joined to the Son by nature, and that He is truly consubstantial to Him, every one who has been well instructed in divine matters would confess; yet no one will say that for this reason He also exists for all things "through the Son." On the contrary, whoever is possessed of knowledge will loudly proclaim, asserting that what is "through the Son" is without doubt the cause of the Spirit's union with the Son, and also of His consubstantiality. For because the Holy Spirit is through the Son, He is on that account naturally joined to Him and consubstantial. And concerning this, which has been spoken of by us more immediately—so that we might divide in words those things which are in every way inseparable, but which surely are nothing else than consubstantial—of which we made mention in our first composition as briefly as possible, promising to bring forward a more complete and better solution at the present time: as the discourse proceeds in its proper order, we will at the fitting time treat of it more fully, and with God’s help, we will demonstrate by arguments that you cannot contradict, and by true and most certain sayings of the Fathers, what His manner of being is in Sacred Scripture, and how it is right for us to understand this.
C 7. We think it necessary to speak now only of the union, having a few things to say regarding this as if by way of preamble. For the things which we were able to set forth in our preceding treatise while we were occupied with the subject itself, these same things, since "proper" and "own" are the same, D apply entirely and without any change here as well. Hence we believe it is sufficient, even if what is to be said be brief, and especially when here, as in all other matters, the demonstration will be sought simply from the testimonies handed down in Scripture. And so, just as we say from the beginning that the Holy Spirit is joined to the Son, and that this Spirit is called the Spirit of the Son, we are also taught thus from another source. Nevertheless, if we wish to examine these things more deeply, and from there resolve the question proposed: the Holy Spirit is joined to the Son by essence, as He is His Spirit; and again, He subsists as the Spirit of the Son, because He is joined to Him by essence, just as the great Basil, handing down to us what concerns these matters, posits the cause of each by each in the way we have said. For he, disputing against Eunomius and Arius, says these things regarding the Holy Spirit: "I understand His union towards the Father, because He proceeds from the Father; but towards the Son, because I hear, ‘If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his’ (Rom. viii, 9). And in the eighteenth [book] to Amphilo-
Amphilochius on the chapters: But indeed A there is also a relationship which the Word reserves for us; but for the present, since we have arrived more quickly at the object of our purpose, B the Spirit [G1159/L1159] of Christ is called such, as being appropriated to Him by nature. In this way, having known that these terms are cross-convertible B because they are equivalent, we say that they are equally used interchangeably, according to the great Basil, who is very learned in dogmas.
5. Now, we must consider how it is that the Spirit exists through the Son, and how they possess that being which is proper to Him. For are these also equivalent to each other, like those former terms, and do they convert? By no means; the cause of the relationship is rather, strictly, the "through the Son." And the same great Basil clearly confirms this, who, in the same chapters to the blessed Amphilochius, having spoken previously of the existence of the Spirit from the Father, says thus: "He is said to be from God, not as all things are from God, but as having proceeded from God, not begotten as the Son, but as the Spirit of His mouth." Hereby the relationship is shown, while the mode of ineffable existence is preserved. The great one says that the relationship of the Spirit to God is shown by His proceeding as the Spirit of His mouth from Him. I say that this is most appropriate to understand here also regarding the relationship to the Son, of the same Spirit. For the Holy Spirit is proper to the Son, inasmuch as He is also naturally through the Son—not otherwise, however, but as the Spirit of His mouth, according to what was stated by Paul, the herald of Christ. For indeed, this same Apostle, when writing C the second letter to the Thessalonians, after having announced the destruction of the evil one who was then crushing the whole world—and that impious Nero was he—prophesying of the future, said: "And then shall that wicked one be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus shall consume with the Spirit of His mouth," cried out with a loud voice, calling the Holy Spirit the Spirit of the mouth of the Only-Begotten. Moreover, "through the Son," as far as existence is concerned, is absolutely the same as "from the Son," just as the argument demonstrated from the beginning and will demonstrate as it proceeds further. Thus, since the Holy Spirit is through the Son, for this reason He is also joined to Him—not because the Holy Spirit is joined to the Son, for that reason He is through Him, as some of the adversaries contend. But this question will be treated better and more completely below, when the subject of the consubstantial is called into examination, as we have already promised. But, at present, the things mentioned a little earlier must be touched upon again, lest we fall away from the purpose to which we have D more quickly drawn near.
9. It is therefore evident, as we have said a little before, that it is the sum of all evils to think that the existence of the Holy Spirit through the Son is transitory. Wherefore, it is necessary, since such an opinion is forbidden as being full of every blasphemy, and since no other reason emerges from any quarter—for regarding the relationship of the Spirit to the Son, and the consubstantial, because of the inconsistency of the opinions, which even
A we have barely examined, having left the greater part of the investigation for later, it seems to me that even thinking about it further is superfluous. For someone who is in every respect devoted to piety, and who wishes to hold correct opinions, it is necessary to hold that the Holy Spirit exists essentially through the Son. Once this has become clear, He is also entirely from the Son, as the Son is naturally the mediator in the existence of the Spirit from the Father. And this has been theologized by almost all those who have, at different times, explained the teachings of the apostolic Church; it is opportune to set forth their actual words, having mentioned them by name, for the purpose of demonstrating the question at hand.
Therefore, in order that we might proceed with method and order, and that we might be considered, as is appropriate, to have treated the matter worthily of them, let us begin—as is contained in the practical records of the first council of Nicaea—with what the God-bearing Fathers said to the philosopher through Bishop Leontius: "The Holy Spirit is found to proceed B from the Father, but to be proper to the Son and welling forth from Him." For fair-minded listeners, the present and solitary citation would suffice, as it was spoken by many Saints together, and is thus beyond reproach; and all the more so because these, for us, were from God the beginning and foundation of the orthodox faith, being the first to strike down the arrogance of the heretics by common consensus and assembly.
But now we are also well-supplied with abundant, certain, and indubitable testimonies from others, which the greater part of the Fathers each wrote down for themselves, or which some of them published privately. For the very first among them, who is named for immortality, and who at that same first council C was celebrated and eminent for his lofty wisdom that leads toward the things above, clearly declares these things about the Spirit in his discourse on the appearance of God in the flesh: "For He Himself, as God, was sending Him from above, and He Himself, as man, was receiving Him from below. He descended, therefore, from Himself into Himself, from His divinity into His humanity."
And the one golden of tongue, in his discourse on the two Testaments: "For because the God-bearing body of the Lord was made a temple of the divine power, you also become a temple according to His likeness; for you receive the Spirit sent from Him [παρ' αὐτοῦ]." By all means, "from Him" [παρ' αὐτοῦ] is the same as "out of Him" [ἐξ αὐτοῦ]. And no one is so childish and foolish D as to imagine any difference of any kind between these prepositions.
These things, then, from the great Athanasius and the divine Chrysostom. But the most dogmatic Cyril discusses this in many of his discourses and very frequently. In his discourse *Against Nestorius*: "Although the Spirit exists in His own hypostasis and is understood by Himself, in the respect that He is Spirit and not the Son, nonetheless He is not alien to Him. For He is called the Spirit of truth, and Christ is the truth, and He is poured forth from Him [παρ' αὐτοῦ] just as, indeed, also from the Father." And in his discourse *To the Emperor Theodosius*: "Liberating from sins him who clings to Him, He subsequently anoints him with His own Spirit, whom He sends forth as from God the Father"
and by His own nature emits to us. A And again, in those things which he wrote to Palladius, which we also recited in our first treatise on this subject—and most aptly so: "The Spirit is by no means mutable; for if He were liable to change, the reproach would redound to the divine nature itself, if the Spirit is of God the Father, and furthermore also of the Son, essentially poured forth from both, that is to say, from the Father through the Son." What, moreover, in the second book of the *Thesaurus*? "When, therefore, the Holy Spirit, coming to us, makes us 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, indeed, a breath issues from a human mouth." Likewise, in the explanation of the Gospel of John, on the saying: "I saw the Spirit descending as a dove," B he says, "The identity of the Son to the Spirit is immutable, who is His own, and who is poured forth from Him according to nature." On the same: "For the Spirit, being the Mind of Christ, speaks everything that is in Him to the disciples, not by any private will, nor by an alien impulse, speaking from Him in whom and from whom He is, but as proceeding naturally from His essence." And on the saying, "For He shall not speak from Himself," he calls the Spirit of truth the Paraclete; "For the Holy Spirit is not understood as alien to the essence of the Only-begotten, but proceeds naturally from it, being nothing other than it as far as identity of nature is concerned, even if He be thought of in His own hypostasis." The same author, in the third book to Hermias, C when he had adduced Saint John saying: "From His fullness we all have received," he questions the one conversing with him: "Would a good gift and a perfect present, in your opinion, be anything other than the possession of the Holy Spirit itself?" And when he rightly answered, "By no means," the saint immediately adds: "Consider, therefore, also through these things, that the Son sends the Holy Spirit, His own and inseparably inherent one, from His own fullness, through whom is every good gift." In the fourth book to Hermias: "When, therefore, the Only-begotten became man, finding the human nature stripped of the good which had been communicated from the beginning, He hastened to transform it again into that state, just as from a fountain, D sending forth from His own fullness and saying: 'Receive the Holy Spirit.'" These things also the divine Cyril, decreeing them, openly proclaims, and he does not teach anything other than the Fathers who preceded him and whom we have mentioned above; and in these things, quite rightly and as is fitting, he insists on their footsteps—whom it is just for us also to follow in all things, as guides of piety—and he holds the same opinions as they do, and does not descend to foolish oppositions, as some have not feared to do, whose contentious and turbulent opinion has been abundantly refuted with many arguments in our first treatise, and again no less will be refuted in the present in a few words. For in our proposed treatise in
A which we previously wrote, striving at the beginning to demonstrate that the Holy Spirit exists from the Father through the Son, and bringing forward scriptural testimonies to this point—some clearly declaring that the Holy Spirit shines forth, is produced, flows, and proceeds through the Son, while others say that He appears, gushes, is poured out, and whatever else is similar—since we saw that some by no means accepted these regarding the existence of the all-holy Spirit, but rather regarding the gifts granted by the Spirit to those who have once cleansed themselves, and regarding His mission and appearance, we set forth for the confirmation of our own opinion other sayings using the same words regarding the existence of the Son, from the same Scripture. By these we confirmed that those former testimonies must by all means be taken regarding the existence B of the all-holy and adorable Spirit. And those will surely suffice for the present question; for the reason that they possess for the expression "through the Son," they have also for the expression "from the Son."
10. Meanwhile, it has come to my mind to bring forward here, not unseasonably, a solution to the matters concerning the all-holy Spirit which have recently been called into doubt by some. And the solution, so that matters might be concluded briefly as promised, is what the great Athanasius, in his own dialogue which he composed between an orthodox person and a Macedonian, declares with a resonant voice: "Far be it from me to say that anything at all is acquired in the Holy Spirit. For I do not say that the holy, C nor the incorruptible, nor the immortal, nor the good, nor anything else that is contemplated and spoken of regarding God is acquired in the Holy Spirit; but He is by nature holy, by nature good, by nature incorruptible, by nature immortal, as the Spirit of God and gushing forth from Him, that is to say, proceeding." You see, O opponent, how the divine Father, having said "gushing forth," clearly interpreted it as "proceeding," which is more proper to the all-holy Spirit, since He exists in the manner of procession, just as the God-bearing Fathers, all without exception, having received the word from the Savior Christ, have theologized? Indeed, the God-inspired Cyril also, in his discourse to the monks, when he had said that the Holy Spirit is poured forth from the Father, added: "That is to say, He proceeds." For he says D there as follows: "The Spirit is poured forth indeed, that is to say, He proceeds as from a source, God and Father." And the greatest and most dogmatic Maximus, composing a dialogue between an Anomoean, that is to say an Arian, and an orthodox person, pronounces these words from the mouth of the orthodox person: "The Father sends forth the Spirit, but the Spirit," he says, "proceeds." For since he could not, according to the custom of grammarians, put the word "proceeds" in the active mode, because it is not in use among them, he changed the diction to "sends forth," as though it could mean the same thing, and thus signified the existence of the all-holy Spirit from the Father. By such Patristic testimonies, I confirm my own opinion even now, alongside the aforementioned scriptural testimonies, which are irrefutable...
A and look toward nothing that is open to doubt. For who among the adversaries will try to distort these things, and adapt them to his own way of thinking, and to those notions that he nurtures within himself? For to oppose these, besides being an effort exerted in vain, would be a matter of extreme audacity, since they are illustrious teachers of the apostolic Church, from whom no one at all dissents; therefore, it is necessary for all to believe them, as those who speak continuously with the Spirit. But thus, through such testimonies, they have confirmed that the previously proposed patristic utterances possess strength and are beyond all controversy.
11. B But so that we may more perfectly demonstrate what is sought by many through scriptural citations once again, the most clear-sighted Epiphanius, in his own discourse which is called *Ancoratus*, says: "The Holy Spirit is not a brother of the brother, nor a brother of the Father, but is from the same essence of the Father and the Son." And Cyril, who is wise in divine things, in one of the chapters of the second series of the *Thesaurus*, says: "Christ therefore decreeing, he decrees that his Spirit exists naturally in him and from him." And again in another place concerning the Holy Spirit: "As existing from the essence of him who bestows him upon the saints, that is to say, of Christ." And in another: "It is necessary therefore to confess him to be from the essence of the Son and of God, possessing all his power and operation." And again in another: "Paul therefore recognizes no difference of nature between the Son and the Holy Spirit, but designates him C as one existing naturally from him and in him by the name of lordship." And again in another: "Therefore the Spirit is from the essence of the Son." The same author, in his commentary on the Gospel according to John, on the passage, "He shall not speak from himself," added this: "Therefore he added, 'He will announce the things to come to you,' because the Spirit is altogether from my essence, and is as it were my mind, so that he announces future things just as I do." There is nothing in these words of the divine Cyril that requires explanation. For in all these instances he has openly demonstrated that the Holy Spirit is also from the Only-Begotten, wisely following Epiphanius, who is renowned for his piety, whose dictum we have already cited above, just as it stands in his own words.
12. Yet there are still some among our adversaries who struggle against this clear truth too contentiously and shamelessly, D and say that this divine Father—that is to say, the wise Cyril—most of the time proclaims in these utterances of his, according to the mind of Epiphanius, that the Holy Spirit exists clearly from the essence of the Son, but whenever a discussion about the Son is found, he again adds "naturally": and that the Holy Spirit is not found to be decreed to be from the Son simply, unless the word "naturally" is added, and "from his essence," as has been said, which he enunciates in the greater part of these utterances. We certainly all know that the Holy Spirit is of the same essence and nature as the Son without any difference, and that this is the Catholic dogma handed down from ancient times in the Church. Therefore
A that the Holy Spirit is of the same essence and nature as the Only-Begotten without any difference, according to the common confession, that is to say, that He is truly consubstantial with Him and of the same nature; for this reason, Cyril, who is profound in divine matters, in many of these sayings—together with Epiphanius, who is illustrious in his life—declared Him to be "from the essence of the Son," and in some cases even "from the Son," naturally of his own accord, not denoting by these words the divine existence itself of the most Holy Spirit from the Son, but signifying His connaturality and consubstantiality with the Son in every way. B These men, moreover, putting forward here as well that which is always ready at hand for them as a pretext for contradiction—namely, "consubstantial"—and wishing to prove by these terms that all the holy sayings we have previously set forth in their entirety imply this [kind of procession], regarding which I promised to speak both in my previous treatise and in the present one, I shall now, according to my ability, fulfill my promise in both respects, so that it may appear how lightly and with worn-out minds they put forward such things, intertwining the connatural with the consubstantial, when it is a clear thing, and celebrated in the speech of all, that they are the same. C For my part, I know from the Sacred Oracles, and furthermore, being taught from above by the knowledge infused into us by the Divinity, that the Holy Spirit is of the same nature and consubstantial with the Son; but that this is the meaning of the sayings under discussion, I cannot fully grasp, neither from the divinely inspired Scripture itself, nor indeed by often reasoning within myself. For in this way, when we hear the saints saying that the Son and the Spirit are from the essence and nature of the Father—in the writings they have labored to produce—we ought there too to understand their connaturality and consubstantiality with the Father, not their divine existence from the Father, which is undisputed by all. And where is this even at all a sound thought, not to say worthy of a Christian mind? And who are the saints who assert that the Son and the Spirit are from the essence and nature of the Father? And these I shall also mention, bringing forth the testimonies of each one as it is fitting, and without any delay. D First, learn about the Only-Begotten. The most divine Athanasius, in his dialogue with Arius, says: "Therefore, God saying to His own Son through the prophet, *From the womb before the morning star have I begotten thee* (Ps. cix, 3), signifies the begetting of the Son from the paternal essence." And after a little: "For no other reason does He name the womb, but to show that the Son Himself was begotten from the essence of the Father." And after a short while: "We learn, therefore, that the Son was begotten from the essence of God and the Father." He [also says] the same in the letter from the synod in Jerusalem to the Church at Alexandria: "For those who have anathematized the Arian heresy acknowledge clearly that the Word is not a creature, but is a birth from the essence." And again elsewhere: "The essence of the Son was not brought in from without, nor introduced from things that are not, but was born from the essence of the Father, just as the radiance of light and the vapor of water." And these things, indeed, the most divine Athanasius says concerning the Only-Begotten.
Great Basil also says in one of his orations: A *From the Father the Son, not brought into being by command, but begotten of His nature.* To these words Cyril, that marvel of dogmatic science, also responds in harmony, in the third book *To Hermias*: *How is it not entirely effortless to see that He is truly God, and that the Son has sprung from the essence of God and the Father, if He exists as God, and it is not some other thing that the Spirit dwelling in us is?* Again, in one of the chapters *On the Eternity of the Only-Begotten*: *The Son was therefore co-eternal with the Begetter, gushing forth like the first cause from a certain spring.* And in another of the same: *For He who has proceeded from the essence of the Father immediately manifests the Father who begot Him.* And in another clearly: *Just as the Father is without beginning, so too is the Word that has proceeded from His essence without beginning.* Likewise in another: *Just as the Holy Spirit admits no separation regarding the essence, while emitting various modes in the gifts, so too would no one of sound mind say that the generative essence of God suffers injury, or undergoes any separation or efflux, in having sent forth the one and only Son from Himself.* And in another of the same chapters: *The entirety of the Son's being proceeds from the essence of the Father.* And in another: *For what passion is seen to occur regarding the sun when it begets light? Or what division occurs regarding fire when it sends forth the illumination that is from it? And if these beget without partitioning, and emit that which is of them without passion, will not the Maker of those things much more send forth the effulgence of His own nature?* Venerable Cyril teaches many such things while theologizing, all of which I have almost entirely covered together with these in my previous commentary, as things contributing much there also, according to various other reasonings; but here, with those things already said, and with the authorities of the divine Father Athanasius and the great Basil already set out by us, we have abundantly demonstrated one of the two questions.
13. It remains to set forth here the voices of the holy Fathers, which indeed openly proclaim Him to be from the essence and nature of the Father, so that the argument of our examination may proceed perfectly and absolutely, and not limp, being deprived of one of those things which we promised. And at the very beginning let the saying of Gregory the Thaumaturge, most renowned throughout the whole world, be placed, of whom we made mention also in the previous treatise, but for a different purpose; this saying, however, in order that we may comprehend it more quickly, is found in the oration of the faith expounded by him in parts: *We confess the Son and the Spirit to be consubstantial with the Father, that is, one divinity by nature, while the Father is unbegotten, the Son is begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit is eternally sent forth from the essence of the Father through the Son.* And this is what the interpreter of divine revelations says here. And afterwards Cyril, most instructed in the mysteries of the Spirit, in
one of the chapters of the second of the Treasures, declares these things clearly: A “The Spirit is not separated from the divine essence, but being naturally sent forth from it, he possesses the whole operation of the Father and the Son.” And again in another place he says: “The man possessing within himself the Spirit, who is from the essence of God, is called the image of God and the glory of God.” And in another: “God, therefore, is the Spirit, naturally sent forth from the divine essence.” And elsewhere: “The Holy Spirit [is] naturally from God.” Furthermore, in another of such chapters of the Treasures: “But that which is from another will remain properly his own, because it is from the essence of the Father.” Behold, I have brought forward also the testimonies which confirm that the Holy Spirit naturally exists from the essence of the Father, and naturally from the Father, connecting them with the ones previously brought forward, which openly and clearly assert that the Son is from the essence of the Father, and naturally from the Father. From all these things pertaining to both, the prudent auditor will discern that those statements also, which assert that the Holy Spirit exists naturally from the essence of the Son and from the Son, denote the B existence of the Spirit. For if these indicate the existence of the Spirit and of the Son without any hesitation, and all men openly confess this with me, and there is no one who would presume to contradict even in the slightest, then by all means those will also signify the existence of the divine and adorable Spirit. Or who will ever grasp, to whom the attribution pertains, that these indeed signify the existence of the Son and of the Spirit, but those signify something else and not the existence of the life-giving Spirit? If those who are easy and prone to pour forth and proclaim all things would explain to us both the distinction and the author of the distinction, then we, eventually restrained by modesty, would abstain from discourse regarding these matters; but as long as they have nothing to say about these things, they should rather seal their mouths and be silent. For it is manifest that by the reason by which these are to be received, it is apt and congruent to receive those as well, C because both are comprised by the same phrases, except only for the difference of the persons. Wherefore, since by these the existence of the Son and of the Spirit from the Father is noted, with no one disagreeing, by those also the existence of the divine and adorable Spirit from the Son is indicated in every way.
14. In addition to this, if they also say that because it is said that the Spirit is consubstantial and connatural to the Son, from the essence and from the nature of the Only-Begotten, and that the Holy Spirit is not from any other source, let them hear from us that according to the consubstantiality and connaturality understood by them simply, the Son himself is also consubstantial and connatural to the Spirit, just as the Holy Spirit is to the Son. Since, therefore, the Son is also consubstantial and connatural to the Spirit (for I omit to speak about the Father here, lest I seem to exceed the measure), why has it not been said by any of the saints that the Son is also from the nature and essence of the Spirit? D By all means, if because of the Spirit’s consubstantiality toward the Son...
and their connaturacy, A the Holy Spirit has been termed from the essence and nature of the Son, some of the Fathers ought to have also affirmed the Son to be from the nature and essence of the Spirit, since the Son is also consubstantial and connatural with the Spirit. But now, no one of the God-speaking men has uttered that the Son is from the nature and essence of the Spirit, even though he is consubstantial and connatural with the Spirit. Consequently, neither has the Holy Spirit been said to be from the essence and nature of the Son, inasmuch as this is connatural and consubstantial with Him.
15. And let no one of the bold and reckless, who wish to belabor everything, intending to establish the consubstantial and connatural character of the Spirit toward the Son as the cause why the Holy Spirit is said to be from the essence and nature of the Son through these testimonies, intrepidly presume to show from his own resources that the Son is also from the essence and nature of the Spirit, contending that nothing prevents the Word, who is of the same nature and essence as the Spirit, from being said to be from the essence and nature of the Spirit—a thing I have heard some of such people sometimes say B rashly. For in order that, passing over the arguments coming from the outside, we may refute the very mind of the adversaries from their own position: it is one thing for something to belong to someone of the same essence and nature—that is, to be consubstantial and connatural—and another thing to be from the essence and nature of someone naturally. For the connatural and consubstantial is wider, while that which is from the essence and nature is narrower. Wherefore, as those skilled in such matters observe, the former implies the latter; yet the latter, as the same philosophers say, is implied [by the former]. Again, when the consubstantial and connatural is abolished, that which is from the essence and nature is also abolished. C But how these things stand, anyone who wishes may learn if he examines each of them with precision. For if the connatural and consubstantial is absent, neither can that which is from the essence and nature exist; yet if the latter does not exist in some things, it is possible for the former to happen to be. And whatever is naturally from the nature and essence of something, it is necessary for it also to be consubstantial and connatural to Him. If, however, anything is consubstantial and connatural to another, it is not necessary that it be from the essence and nature of that one. Since the Holy Spirit is, therefore, from the essence and nature of the Son, it necessarily exists for Him as both connatural and consubstantial. But the Son, being consubstantial and connatural with the Spirit, D does not likewise exist from His nature and essence. If it were otherwise, the Father, who is the primordial principle, would also be from the essence and nature of the Son and of the Spirit, since He is consubstantial and connatural with them; and what could be thought of as worse or more absurd than this? But it is manifest that the Father is consubstantial with the Son and the Spirit, because He possesses the Son and the Holy Spirit from His own essence and nature. But the Son and the Holy Spirit are connatural and consubstantial with the Father, because they are from...
the essence and nature of A His own and possess this. The Spirit, in turn, is consubstantial with the Son and connatural, because He derives from His essence and nature. For in this way, truly, that which is consubstantial and connatural will be more universal in relation to the totality which is from the nature and essence—if I must for a moment repeat the argument and tarry here briefly—while being consubstantial and connatural to another in a way that is more particular, which is from the nature and essence. And in this manner, the others also, which we mentioned and enumerated individually above, would follow.
16. But let us examine these things in regard to contemplation according to the elements of logical science and the tradition, as the Apostle says, of men, and not according to Christ. But if we shall inquire into these matters on a higher level, as is appropriate for such things, according to the dignity of the supernatural and supersubstantial archetypal Trinity, as far as our powers allow, the argument concerning what is consubstantial and connatural with It is something different for us who are pious. And an accurate master of this, in the divine realm, is the great and multifaceted Basil in his wisdom, who, having put forward for examination nothing but the consubstantiality of the Father and the Word in the epistle written regarding the canonical B matters, speaks expressly of this as follows: "Since, therefore, the Father is unbegotten light, and the Son is begotten light, and light and light each is, they would justly be called consubstantial, so as to demonstrate the equal honor of their nature. For things that are brothers to one another are not called consubstantial, as some have supposed, but when both the cause, and that which derives its existence from the cause, are of the same nature, they are called consubstantial." Do you perceive, O listener, how this divine Father interpreted "consubstantial," which is entirely one and the same as "connatural"? Using this as an interpreter of mysteries, Cyril, who speaks of God, says in the first book of the [treatise] *Against Hermias*: "For if the Son is truly consubstantial with the Father, He is from Him naturally and essentially." Wherefore, according to this very thing, both the Son and the Holy Spirit are connatural and consubstantial with one another, because C the one, being an effect from the other, possesses its existence from that which is its cause. This being agreed upon, it is not necessary from this point onward to inquire which of them possesses existence from which. For it is clear that the Holy Spirit exists from the Son, as the previously cited testimonies bear witness. Whether, therefore, the consubstantial and connatural in the archetypal Trinity D exists in this way, as the wise and great Basil, clarifying these matters for the faithful, hands them down, or rather in that other way according to logical demonstrations, which we have already sufficiently explained above, it is manifest that the Holy Spirit is not called consubstantial and connatural with the Son for the reason that the Holy Spirit is from the essence and nature of the Only-Begotten, but for the reason that...
He happens to be, and is called, connatural and consubstantial with Him. And this is demonstrated in the case of the Son by his own utterances by both the great Basil and the illustrious Cyril, both of whom have said—one of them in one of his orations, the nature of which oration we have indicated above—the following: "For we do not call the Father and the Son brothers, but we confess the Father and the Son." A And that this is of the same essence is because the Son is from the Father, not made by command, but begotten from His essence. The most wise Cyril, in the third book of his *Against Hermias*, says: "There is nothing, then, that perfectly prevents us from thinking and holding it to be true, that since for us the Son is from the essence of God and the Father Himself, He would not be considered another than Him in regard to physical identity." And to the saying, "I have descended from heaven," he teaches most clearly: "That the Son was generated from the Father forces us, even against our will, to render to Him that He is consubstantial." B Observe, whoever may be the examiner of the things said here, that these heralds of the sound dogmas posit the fact that the Son exists from the Father according to essence and naturally as the cause of His being connatural and consubstantial with Him; they do not, however, hold the converse, that being consubstantial and connatural is the cause of His being from the Father according to nature and essentially. According to these arguments, since the Holy Spirit is also from the essence and nature of the Only-Begotten, of necessity there is ascribed to the adorable Spirit in every way the identical essence and nature with the Son—not, indeed, that He is from the essence and nature of the Only-Begotten because He happens to be consubstantial and connatural with Him, as some of those of the present day say. But this clever problem of the adversaries, having been demolished from many sides, has been thus thoroughly overturned, and in such a way as none of them themselves in any way expected.
17. Another argument from such men squarely opposes us, one which is not much inferior in strength to the one just mentioned. "And why," they say, "did the cited Fathers not say that the Holy Spirit is from the hypostasis of the Only-Begotten, but from His essence and nature?" To whom we can answer, first of all: C If, for this reason, the Holy Spirit has not been said by the divinely inspired great men already praised here to be from the hypostasis of the Son, but from His essence and nature, because, as you assert, He does not possess existence from the Son, then the great Athanasius is no longer to be accepted, nor should he in any way be considered to be speaking about the existence of the Son and the Spirit in those passages where he is found teaching that the essence of the Father is the cause of the Son and the Spirit. For he, in the disputation which an Anomoean instituted against an orthodox person, and which was arranged by the same man, has these very words: "For it is not the being unbegotten that is the cause of the essences of God, but the essence is the cause of the essences." He calls the essence the cause, not the hypostasis. Yet when he says the paternal essence, he did not understand it as being without hypostasis. And this is evident from the things that [are contained in the letter from the synod of Jerusalem] D
to the Church at Alexandria, treating of the existence of the Son from the Father alone; after many other things, this great Athanasius clearly says as follows: that the essence of the Father is the origin, root, and fountain of the Son. For here, too, having stated "essence," he immediately added "of the Father." Moreover, the term "Father" denotes one of the ruling hypostases of the Godhead, which possesses for itself no origin or cause at all, being itself eternally the origin and cause of the other two. But let not that which is placed between the words of the cited utterance escape the hearer—namely, that "essence is the cause of essences." For indeed, this wise Father, declaring essence to be the cause, and not the hypostasis, again said "of essences," not "of hypostases," nor even of the Son and the Spirit, which is indeed of the same meaning, since he did not conceive of these as being without hypostasis. And of these, there are clear examples, needing no interpretation, from this same man whose name is derived from immortality, and who is preeminent in expounding divine matters. In his oration concerning the Only-Begotten, he has this: "The Son could not be the same as the creature, lest his essence be thought to be both from God and outside of God." While having just previously proposed the Son as his aim, he appears to be speaking of his essence, not his hypostasis.
Regarding the adorable Spirit, the divine Basil, in the eighteenth chapter of his work to the holy Amphilochius, having previously said, "He has proceeded from God, not in the way of generation as the Son, but as the Spirit of his mouth"—which statement we have ourselves inculcated B often before—immediately adds to these, saying: "But the mouth is by no means a limb, nor is the Spirit a breath that dissolves, but rather both the mouth, as befits God, and the Spirit are the essence of life, the lady of sanctification." By thus instructing us in the mystery that the Spirit who is from God is not a dissolving breath, this teacher of orthodox dogmas has clearly handed down that he exists of himself, according to that which is silently implied—for that is all that is left. Yet he has proclaimed here simply "essence," not "hypostasis." Do you see, you who presume to defend the side opposed to us, that "essence" is mentioned in all these places, and not "hypostasis"? And if it pleases you, I will also append other sayings in which the name of essence is not obscurely contained, and yet the hypostases themselves of those of whom they are predicted are very truly indicated. And now, since we must here study brevity, consider, while following me attentively, how these things stand.
The great Basil, in the second book against Eunomius, says: "Until they hold their peace, let them not escape your notice for making the essence of the Only-Begotten to be after the ages." By asserting "the essence of the Only-Begotten," he implies nothing else at all than the *being* of the Only-Begotten, that is to say, his existence. C And the high-toned Gregory, renowned in theology, in his oration on Baptism, speaks thus in these very words: "Do you fear generation, lest God should suffer something, He who is not capable of suffering? I, for my part, fear the creature, lest by inflicting injury and an unjust division, I should destroy God, either by cutting off the Son from the Father, or the essence of the Spirit from the Son." D Here he calls the essence of the Spi-
Spirit, A Gregory did not signify anything other than the Spirit by way of analogy. And the proof of this is that, a little above in that same passage, he himself, where he was discussing the Son, declared the Son, not His essence. In this way, these brilliant and clear lights of the firmament of the Church, who illuminated the ends of the world with their own divine words and thoughts, in all these things understood the essence to be absolutely and simply inseparable from the hypostasis. Therefore, just as here no one of those we have mentioned took the essence to be separate from the hypostasis, so likewise in the preceding discourses, where the Holy Spirit was said by the Fathers to be from the essence and nature of the Son—those who inculcated this openly through their own expressions—no one separated the essence and nature from the hypostasis. But all of them who said "essence and nature" of the Only-Begotten understood Him as a whole, namely, an essence and nature subsisting in a hypostasis. And from this they truly professed that B the Holy Spirit also possesses existence from Him, knowing no difference, nor even considering in their minds any distinction at all between that which is "from the essence and nature" and that which is "from the hypostasis," since there is almost none, nor can there be.
18. But come now, whoever you may be who are eager to contradict these things, as a subtle theologian, C investigate finer and more minute things, so that you might fabricate from your own resources, if it is right, an innovation, and then subsequently fall brilliantly into an offense against the Holy Spirit Himself, as one who wrongly introduces a difference of existence into Him; since He is not only said by the venerable Fathers to be from the nature and essence of the Only-Begotten, but—as we shall show subsequently and most openly through these same men—also from the Only-Begotten, who is altogether a hypostasis. Indeed, that introducing a difference of existence in the case of the Holy Spirit is to offend against Him, all know who possess any spirit of discernment and whose mind is not completely darkened. Who among such men—having heard that the Holy Spirit exists in one way from the essence and nature of the Only-Begotten, and in another way from the hypostasis—does not immediately understand the blasphemy that arises from this, which both of these diverse existences generate? But to think of these things, let alone to speak of them, is not good, since, as my opinion holds, they bring not a small, but a great fall to the one who even conceives of them in his mind. D Furthermore, it would be worth the effort, while we repel the opinion of those who oppose us with all our might, to expound the only true cause for which the Fathers decreed that the Holy Spirit is from the essence and nature of the Son, and not from the hypostasis. We say, therefore, that the mystagogues of the catholic Church, those truly infallible and illustrious heralds, did not hand down to us all things regarding the sound faith by their own motion, but rather they formulated the greater part of their teachings while contending against those who opposed them.
A All heresies crept in during their own times, since the devil had, A so to speak, exhausted his entire quiver against the truth at that time, so that he left no form of malice for us who were to come later for the sake of impiety, inasmuch as he was struggling against adversaries who were strong and always equipped with the weapons of the faith. These men, indeed, regarding the devil’s attacks as mere wounds of infants, utterly cast him down, overturning the stratagems of all the heresies, so that it is possible for us, their successors, to adhere firmly to the correct dogmas without stumbling. And it seems to me that this was well arranged by the guardian of our souls, who foresaw both the weakness of our knowledge and our sluggishness regarding good things. For if any heresy—far be it from this—were to arise from elsewhere at the present time, what noble action, worthy of educated minds, would we be able to display? Or how would we, being so unskilled in logical arrays, stand and fight against it? And whence would we hunt out the truth, tracking it down in the depth of the question, when we do not even slightly understand the certainty of the dogmas B set before us because of our negligence? Just as this present time, having unmasked our great perplexity regarding these matters, has shown, when, although nothing new has been said at all, we have been shaken in our way of thinking. And although, upon hearing what is said, it behooved us not to have our minds disturbed in the least, knowing the unfolding of the truth from the divine Scriptures, we have instead been so far overcome by a tempest—by which we have even been divided, having fallen fearlessly into many opinions—that we even strike one another, alas for this lack of perception! As if in some deep darkness, we are struck by one another, neither knowing the precision of the dogma from the reading of the divine Scriptures themselves, nor, if someone produces the sacred utterances contained in them, understanding anything at all, so that we are C justly assigned the saying from one of the poets outside [the Church], that we are both useless and—to speak plainly—known as being useless when it comes to recognizing the truth. Such is our current state, diametrically opposed to that of those of old. And I am not unaware of the objection that seems to be raised, which someone might perhaps put forward: that God, who girt the strength of those in that time and armed them for piety, if there were need even at the present time of such great men, would certainly have brought them forth again. However, I know clearly that He wishes a sober and dignified life to take precedence in those to whom He is about to lavish His grace. And although the end D of this is awarded by Him to those who practice it, yet at the very least the eager beginning of the intention is required, which those men had acquired—or rather, had become rich in according to God—and they brought their purpose to such a degree of virtue, having completed it, that they henceforth appeared as clear lamps, providing a pattern of life for all others. On account of this, the One who alone is wise by nature filled them also with wisdom from above, through which they cast down the wiles and machinations of the deceitful and archetypal dragon—I mean the manifold heresies, which he discovered
A against the faith—they strengthened orthodoxy. For God, who is all-powerful, then arranged for that crooked serpent, as it seems, to vomit forth all his heresies, when He knew that there were those who would triumph over him, and who, like prophylactic medicines, would deliver us from the harm caused by him by means of their utterances. Moreover, it was necessary at that time for the entire madness of the enemy to be branded with infamy, so that from the beginning the Word who establishes piety might have a firm and stable foundation. For all these reasons, therefore, those who were then B joined in mutual defense—though by no means broken—as the entire cohort of the heretics made an onslaught against those who thought rightly in piety. Against these, the strong soldiers of the truth, engaging with those who blasphemed against the Most High with impunity, theologized, as was said before, the greater part of our doctrines, and of our blameless faith.
19. For it was enough at first to assert that the Son derives his generation from the Father, in order to signify the identity and immutability of the nature of both; but since Arius, who gave his name to such madness, and C those who infelicitously claimed the name from him, were in no way moved by these testimonies—neither by the name of Father in regard to such a concept, nor of Son, nor by the generation itself—for this reason, because they were deranged in mind, they dared to call the Son a creature of the Father, and entirely alien to His eternal and venerable divinity. Those who were the expellers of error, well refuting this blasphemy, piously proclaimed that the Son exists from the essence of the Father. For the same reason, in the question now proposed for examination, it was enough to affirm that the Holy Spirit, insofar as He is Spirit, is both of the Only-Begotten and from Him, in order to signify the singular form of both, their unity, and the communion of their nature.
Nevertheless, those who, like dogs, have been driven by madness against the θεοπρεπής (God-befitting) glory of the Holy Spirit D have impudently barked that He is a creature of the Son, and have utterly alienated Him from His divinity, not taking into account that the Holy Spirit is most truly said and held by all to be the Spirit of the Son. The originator of such impiety was none other than the God-hated Arius, who was almost the first to speak injustice against the height, setting his mouth against the Only-Begotten in heaven, and his tongue traversed the earth, bringing down His supra-mundane nature to the creatures. Having been schooled by this one—bad disciples of a bad master, one might say—these wicked men transferred this blasphemy even to the Spirit, and with more inauspicious progress, imagining altogether unequal degrees of nature in the God-principled Trinity; and that which Arius, the son of perdition, inconsiderately attached to the Only-Begotten, this the heirs of perdition who followed him fearlessly attributed to the Spirit, declaring Him to be a creature, as I have already announced, despoiling Him entirely of the pre-temporal and venerable divinity. The opponents of this fraud, in order to remove their impiety, rightly defined the Holy Spirit as being from the essence of the Son.
But none of the holy men who have been mentioned said “from the hypostasis of the Son,” because A there was no doubt about this, nor was there any doubt at all concerning anything else. For in saying that the Son is related to the essence—which is truly the hypostatic name—it caused every evil suspicion to be cast far away. Hence it seemed redundant to add “from the hypostasis.” This is the most true reason why our God-speaking Fathers said the Holy Spirit is from the essence of the Son, and not from the hypostasis, to which all must give assent, with all doubt removed. For to say that the Holy Spirit is from the essence of the Only-Begotten is not to divide the Son into this essence and this hypostasis, or to understand first the one, I mean the essence, and then the other by itself, that is to say the hypostasis—for thus the Holy Spirit would be from himself, since the essence of the Son and of the Spirit is one and the same, which would be the most absurd of all things; but rather to hold both joined together as is fitting. Hence it is necessary that we be swayed by all men, and listen to our words as we have set them forth. B
20. But if some of those who have contended against us from the beginning are still hesitating about him, suspecting that this signifies something other than this, those authorities which clearly testify that the Holy Spirit exists from the Son will confirm our opinion to our hearers without any hesitation at all; and since many such authorities abound in the divinely inspired Scripture, we shall here set forth all of them, as far as it is possible. First of all, therefore, the great Basil, in the third of his Antirrhetics against Eunomius, 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 rule of piety teaches that he is second in dignity to the Son, having his being from Him, receiving from Him, and announcing to us, and—in a word—depending upon that Cause as the summit; but that he is third in nature, we are neither taught by the holy Scriptures, nor can we demonstrate it by a direct consequence from what has been said. C And these things were said by this man, who is so deeply conversant with divine matters, while discoursing on the Holy Spirit. Gregory of Nyssa, who was his brother not only by nature but even more so by piety and the zeal he had for it—and especially for that [piety]—in his homily on the Lord’s Prayer, discoursing on the common and proper attributes in the God-heaping Trinity, sets forth these things among others: “For the Only-Begotten Son is called by the holy Scripture ‘from the Father,’ and the discourse stops the property of his nature at this point. But the Holy Spirit is spoken of as ‘from the Father,’ and is also testified to be ‘from the Son’: ‘For if anyone has not the Spirit of Christ,’ he says, ‘he is not his.’ ” D None of those who even maliciously oppose the doctrine concerning the Spirit will find in these words a handle for perverse interpretation; but rather to that
which they flee, claiming that these words are not simply found in this manner in all books wherever they may be. For in some, while the passage of the great Father Basil clearly displays our true meaning through the middle part—that is, the receiving of existence from him, and the receiving and announcing to us from him, and in sum, the hanging of that cause upon him—the final part is missing, according to which, perhaps, the hesitant wording which follows is set down as being added. And indeed, from the passage of the wise Gregory, the preposition *ex* (from) the Son is missing again.
21. Therefore, those of the faction of our adversaries, claiming these things as an excuse, contend that corruption has happened in the books that represent the words as stated above, asserting most fraudently that they have been adulterated—a thing which it would be foolish even to conceive in the mind. For whence and from whom did such corruption creep into all the books which are everywhere in the world? From the Pneumatomachians, as some of the adversaries make public? And yet, from the contents of those books, it is not understood even slightly that the Holy Spirit is a creature, as it pleases those foolish and delirious people, and to which all the efforts of that heresy turn. But was it from the Latins, or from some of our own people who have long followed their side? Even this will not be persuaded or proven to men of sense. First, because they are entirely ignorant of our language, and there is a great separation between both nations after the schism. Hence, from that time, no learned man among them is found to have practiced the Greek language. Second, who is such an enemy and foe of his own race as to invent any random addition against it in the commentaries of the saints, and to forge from himself, for the destruction of a dogma which had gained strength and was approved in his entire nation, what the God-instructed Fathers nowhere and in no place seem to declare in their own words? Furthermore, if any such thing had ever happened, those before us would not have failed to point out the mischief. None of these things are as they say, for they are truly not so. They are not true, nor do they approach the truth in any way; rather, the opposite is the case, if one conjectures correctly. For those who are of the schism, when they had—though not without error—altogether rejected that the Holy Spirit is from the Son, and when they had even stirred up a most terrible war against those who believe the opposite to be true, and had confirmed this and separated them from themselves as heretics insofar as they had the strength: since many years have passed since this was done, and during that time books have been transcribed in great numbers, they malignantly refused to transcribe in the later copies what had been correctly written in the primary ones, as these things clearly refuted their opinion. That *ex* (from) they perhaps added to the rest of the great Father Basil, because those things did not please even them, as we shall show hereafter. Nor did these men merely—while transcribing—inconsiderately A, rashly and blindly, but they also corrupted a great many other things, B some by not writing them at C all, D
A while in other places they added similar things as they saw fit, all of which—as far as my strength allows—I will recount at the proper time.
22. And what need I say regarding the volumes transcribed by these same men at various times, given that some of them did not even refrain from those works written in ancient times? From such books they simply erased some things, substituted others in their place, and even abolished some altogether. My statement is abundantly confirmed by a fact that has been shown to have taken place in our own time. Among the prominent ecclesiastical figures, one man—at first most addicted to the schism, though one among many in rank and order, and not unskilled in the art of rhetoric—held a very ancient and truly commendable volume, containing the commentaries of Gregory of Nyssa, B which was completely unassailable on two counts, possessing both trustworthiness for being flawless and that which comes from its ancient date. This man, therefore, leafing through it at the beginning of the dispute, when he arrived at the previously praised dictum of the Father, was seized by a certain zeal—though not according to knowledge—and erased the preposition "ex" [from] placed before the Son, which many of us, when we were perusing that dogmatic treatise previously, had clearly seen with our own eyes to be written; and by erasing the "ex" from the complete statement, he left it to be read thus: "But the Holy Spirit is said both to be from the Father, and is testified to be of the Son." C And then, dissenting from us, he tried to conform it to his own opinion. But as time slipped by, having embraced union, and being vexed in his conscience as is proper, he revealed what he had done. Wherefore, having diligently sought out the volume, we inspected with our own eyes what we had heard by report. And now the book, as is fitting, remains and is preserved by us, bearing the place where the preposition was erased as an empty space; but the proof of the matter was sealed and committed to writing by synodic examination and judgment, so that posterity might, for their own security, recognize these things just as they happened. D And this has now been done, when almost all of us adhere to peace and unity; but in the time of the universal dissension and discord, there were clearly some who corrupted the sacred volumes for the sake of contention, and no one was there to examine and verify them. Especially here is it manifest that many of them were corrupted at that time in their transcriptions. For when we were searching through all the volumes, we found one containing the treatises of the same Gregory, which, in the discourse to Ablabius on the cause and the caused, stating, "Acknowledging the immutable nature which is in all things equal, we do not deny the difference of cause and effect," further down, when he subdivides the effect, the other part of it—namely, "this indeed immediately from the first," as the other remaining volumes contained—the other [part], which necessarily follows, since it is read in all the others, that is, "this indeed through the contiguous from the first," in this
A way, a little further down, to the division of the cause—I mean, one limb of it, to wit, "for the one [part] is immediately from the first,"—this too led along well according to all the rest; but the second, which necessarily follows and is missing in none of the others except this one, that is to say, "the other [part] is through the immediately from the first," was wrongly not included; nor, indeed, was there anything else at all; and this, too, while the discourse hung in suspense, and itself demanded something more for the completion of the sense.
23. B Such corruption and damage have the malevolent, who rejoice in ecclesiastical scandal and this turmoil, inflicted upon the sacred volumes from time to time. Along with others, therefore, they treated in this way those about which we now speak, and, as far as they could, corrupted them. This we gather not from suspicion and conjecture upon that which has already been said, but rather from the knowledge which we shall present, and precise comprehension. But if it pleases [us], let us examine the good which arises therefrom—and it will not be far off—repeating the words of the praises [of the Saint]. "For what necessity," says the great Basil, "if the Spirit is third in dignity and order, [is there] that He should be third also in nature? For the doctrine of piety hands down that He is second in dignity to the Son, possessing being from Him, and receiving from Him, and announcing [it] to us, and in sum, dependent upon that Cause. But that He is third in nature, we are neither taught by the Holy Scriptures, nor can we demonstrate it from what has been said by a correct chain of reasoning." These things, indeed, [we take] from the faultless books of the Right. But those who hold the contrary bring forward the adulterated ones. Therefore, they also—ignorant—blot out "possessing being from Him, and receiving from Him, and announcing [it] to us, and in sum, dependent upon that Cause," and confess and embrace all that precedes and follows these in the edition of the things of divine Basil, yet attached with the "perhaps," which brings about hesitation; and those madmen were in no way able to perceive that those things which they themselves accept and rightly cherish, they require to be of a pious sense, yet they send off the "perhaps" which is most hesitating. Since how, indeed, [can He] be second in dignity to the Son—for this they concede here—and according to what reason will it be understood as true, if the Holy Spirit does not possess being from Him, and receive from Him, and announce [it] to us, and in sum [is not] C dependent upon that Cause? And how, after this, in sequence, will the "perhaps," which brings hesitation, suit [the phrase] "the doctrine of piety hands down"? Where there is a tradition of pious speech, will the "perhaps," which puts the matter in doubt, have a place? And who is so bereft of his senses and mentally deranged as to accept such a sentiment at all? None at all. Not even the most light-minded would suspect it, unless they have their brain in their heels, as the proverb goes. For if the great Father had said [the word]—which some might concede or perhaps grant—then it would not seem incongruous that the "perhaps," which brings doubt, should be freely brought into the middle. But now, when the great [man] speaks in the very words, as is fitting, "as the doctrine of piety also hands down," he does not give it simply; by these words, he has plainly and truly removed far away every occasion of doubt. D
A And it is manifest to all that these sayings are of the venerable Basil, the revealer of divine things, and of no other, both from the fact that they are carried in all the books without contradiction, and — by much more — from what the following words declare. For he says in these things himself, in such a continuous manner, that he is not interrupted by any middle term: "But we are neither taught by the holy Scriptures to use a third nature [for the Spirit], nor can we, from the things that have been said, demonstrate it by a direct logical sequence." In short, it is entirely baseless and indemonstrable. That other point, however—namely, that the Holy Spirit is second to the Son in dignity—the doctrine of piety hands down. Therefore, it is altogether firm and unquestionable. Such is the meaning which these words, when taken with the following ones, convey; so that even from these, it is believed to be from the edition of the great man. B And since these things have become manifest to us as belonging more especially to this wise Father, the "perhaps" which renders the matter doubtful must necessarily be alien and added later; for it is unsuitable to them, and it is impossible for both to belong to the same. Thus, in many different ways, the discourse has demonstrated that the "perhaps" of doubt is an addition, and an addition which contains nothing sound in itself, as it does not harmonize with those things to which it was added. But this, which had not entered the mind of the God-inspired Father at all, some of the contentious men, having fabricated it, wickedly added in certain books, thinking that by their brief and few-syllabled expression they had once and for all secured their own purpose. And that saying—that it has its being from Him, and receives and announces to us from Him, and in sum depends upon that cause—this entire saying, recognizing its origin from the mind of the wise man, C and being contained in many books, yet because it is openly contrary to their opinions, those men foolishly removed from the rest of the passage; they did not write it in the books mentioned above when they first transcribed them, imagining that they had confirmed their own intent firmly and in such a way that it could never be broken in the future, while they had deceitfully removed a branded part of the saying from the middle. Not fixing their mind accurately on the things that are recognized from both sides, they wrote it—even if they added to them the "perhaps" of doubt—with those things, when they should have received it as is fitting. By this they supposedly, as having the matters in bad order, censure such things, which the discourse has already sufficiently presented as alien to them, as being entirely incoherent. Therefore, because they did not fix their mind accurately on such things, as we have said, nor did those who strive to promote the schism continuously and with diligent care ponder them, they demand this saying as necessary, as though it were consonant with the right faith according to a pious opinion and thought; both because we have learned that "wisdom will not enter into a malicious soul" from the divine Scripture, and also, what is more proper, that God perhaps deceived them in these very things, and provided for these to remain as a test of their knavery. D For if they had truly let them be in their own transcripts, had they pondered such things, what they wish—according to the
A extent of their malice—in order to refute it, then this matter would have remained unexamined until the end; but now that part is clearly refuted by the things which we have often examined here.
24. Yet, so that this inquiry may now have its proper treatment, and that one may henceforth attain to a truly sound contemplation and knowledge, we have set it as the starting-point of our discourse—a point which we proposed, perhaps skeptically, at the beginning to the question—how exactly it is that even those who are in schism acknowledge and admit that the Holy Spirit is "second" in dignity, and by what reasoning it is to be understood, if He does not have His being from the Son, and does not receive from Him, and does not declare to us, and, in sum, does not depend upon that Cause. What is this dignity, by which the Holy Spirit is piously and rightly said to be second from the Son? Is it that which arises from time, or place, or natural capacity? For according to the mass of principality, or power, or dominion, or anything else by which we recognize one being simply surpassed by another, it is known to all that these are the B barkings of the Pneumatomachians, who acted wickedly against the divine proclamation—nay, even more perniciously against themselves—in that they disparaged the fearful threat in the Gospels made by the Lord against those who blaspheme against the Holy Spirit; while they barked such things about the Spirit, the Maker of the universe, they brought about total destruction for their own souls. Hence those men of no discernment, and savage enemies of their own salvation, by diminishing the majesty of the life-giving Spirit, boldly contended that He possessed less essence and deity—as if inflated and inspired by an evil spirit. Against these, that great Basil, constantly doing battle, refuted such absurdity and confidently and freely condemned it. It would not be right to think that we at all embrace the same opinion as those by which they established their heresy and by whose frantic aid they were fortified, in order to confirm their wickedness—I mean the dignity by which it has been said that the Holy Spirit is second from the Son. We do not embrace this with mind or thought, being followers of the instruction of the wise Basil, who, having drawn from the salutary streams of grace—and from the springs no less than Israel—the water of infallible knowledge, dogmatized most correctly that the Holy Spirit is of the same essence and deity as the Father, and clearly as the Son. From which it follows entirely that He is with the Father and the Son, above all time, as the Author of times; present everywhere; fulfilling all things, as He is infinite and uncircumscribed; by His nature most mighty; all-powerful; as the Creator of every creature; glorious in power, in authority, and in the dominion over all things, as He who holds all things in the palm of His hand and governs all things by His will alone; and in addition to these, [as being] of the same session with the Father and the Son, and D thence also of equal glory and honor with them
A in short, endowed with all things, in no way alien from divine dignity, with which the Father and the Son are together and essentially adorned, except for the individual properties of each, and if there is anything else that pertains to both of these. In this way we decide concerning the one of the divine-ruling Trinity, namely the most holy Spirit. We maintain Him such, following the wise instructions of the great Father Basil. And for this reason, we do not at all remove from what is written above the dignity, by which the Holy Spirit is said to be second from the Son, lest we fall into monstrous blasphemies; that He has His being from Him, and receives from Him and announces to us, and in sum hangs from that cause, [this] we believe proceeded from the pen and hand of the God-speaking and great Basil without any contradiction; explaining in some way the reason why he said the Holy Spirit is second in dignity to the Son, namely because He has His being from Him, and receives from Him and announces to us, and in sum depends upon that cause. Or let those who have proposed for themselves to walk in a way B altogether contrary to us bring forward another notion, one consonant with the sound perceptions of the Fathers concerning the Godhead, according to which they think the Holy Spirit is said to be second in dignity to the Son. For it is absurd simply to reject this one, and for them to be unable to bring forward any other righteous [notion] whatsoever. Whence? Since there is only one truth in every word and matter, it is necessary that here too there be some one true notion. And this surely is established, if one must speak briefly, which we have delivered, having been instructed by this great man. For just as, in order to speak again with this most divine man according to him, the Son is second to the Father in order and dignity, because He possesses from Him—along with the other good things with which He is enriched—both the cause and the principle of His existence, with no other significance of dignity and order at all, since all other things, if you except this one, would bristle with monstrous blasphemy: so also the Holy Spirit is second from C the Son in dignity and order, not as they suppose, but as He exists from the Only-Begotten, only because He has His being from Him, and receives from Him, and announces to us, and in sum depends upon that cause, as the wise and great Basil decides. We declare that those volumes of all the books in which such a statement is inscribed, preserve the genuine beauty of the Father, and those others, in which it is not read, we declare to be spurious and adulterated. D 25. Those who, being unable to contradict what has been said, always follow only the appetite and will of their own soul, and repute this to be the delight and pleasure of their own soul, will perhaps say, leaping over to the statement of Gregory, the chief shepherd of the Nyssaeans, who is most celebrated in the establishing of dogmas, in the manner of the ignoble athletes who descend into the stadium, who, filled with both impudence and conceit, when they are defeated in one contest—I mean, perhaps, wrestling—suddenly and immediately and boldly leap to another, without in the least respecting the spectators, in whose
should have been, out of shame, to veil their faces in the presence of those same persons, they conduct themselves, for the most part, shamelessly and inconsiderately, after the manner of youths. On account of this, perhaps, those who once rashly and vainly conceived an objection against us might say: 'What, furthermore, will you say concerning the saying of Gregory, formerly prelate of the Nyssenes, which in some volumes retains the preposition "from" regarding the Son, but in most others—as you yourself not without diligence have observed—in no way does so? By what evident sequence will you harmonize it with the Son? Whence will you confirm that it is adapted to the discourse by the very series of the phrasing?' For we, embracing the fact that it is also asserted to be 'from the Son' concerning the Holy Spirit, and insisting upon the traces of the volumes that so read, confirm that it stands well and is held to be certain and indubitable in view of the appended apostolic testimony. Since the greatest [theologian] Gregory himself manifestly subjoined: 'For if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not his.' But as for that [objection], 'And it is asserted to be from the Son,' which you approve by the reading of other volumes, you will be able in no way to demonstrate that this is harmonized with what follows; nay, rather, the most excellent men, who are present to examine these things with a better mind, would say that it remains refuted and rejected from these very things. These are the objections of the adversaries, as we have often conjectured from these elsewhere, and conjecture now. I, however, say that the statement, 'It is asserted to be from the Son,' is so far from being refuted or destroyed by what follows that, as one who is able to penetrate into the inmost meaning of the doctrines might say, it is even much more confirmed and demonstrated thereby. For because the Apostle with resounding voice proclaimed the Holy Spirit to be the 'Spirit of Christ,' for this reason Gregory, who shines forth in dogmas, openly declared Him to be 'from the Son.' Since the spirit of anyone is altogether by nature from him—and a precise teacher of this is the great and abundant Basil in divine matters, who, in one of the chapters to the holy Amphilochius, having spoken concerning the Holy Spirit as being 'from God,' and having brought forward as a witness the orator of the Church, saying, 'The Spirit, which we have received from God,' uses this for confirmation, that He is also 'through the Son.' Most wisely, having discussed these things word by word and spoken them, he has made it clear that He appears 'through the Son,' calling Him the Spirit of the Son just as [He is the Spirit] of God. Truly, no one needs an exposition of this saying; for its meaning is manifest and open. Following this, I think, and walking as it were in the footsteps of the god-speaking Father Basil, Cyril, the most accurate guardian and master of the orthodox dogmas, truly has done likewise in the interpretation of the evangelical and divine saying according to John, the true friend of Christ, who reclined upon His breast, who says: 'When therefore the Paraclete comes,' in this manner he speaks: 'Behold, for behold the Spirit of truth'—that is, having called the Paraclete His own—'He says that He proceeds from the Father.' For just as He is the proper Spirit of the Son, naturally existing in Him,
A and proceeding through Him, so too [is He the Spirit] of the Father. For because Christ said, in calling the Paraclete the Spirit of truth, that He also added 'that is, His own,' He interpreted [the text] according to Him, since He is the Spirit proper to the Son, naturally existing in Him and proceeding through Him, clearly revealing the goal of the divine Father Basil through another sacred utterance that signifies the same thing. In this same way, the great Gregory also, concerning the most holy Spirit, B is testified to have affirmed with great confidence that He is also from the Son, and having said this, he immediately added, 'For if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ,' he says, 'he is not His,' utilizing the testimony of Christ’s herald, Paul, according to the great and mighty Basil, and selecting another [passage] from elsewhere. Here it is manifest that it has been demonstrated in part that, between the prepositions 'from' (ἐκ) and 'through' (διὰ), when theological matters are being discussed among those who securely and rightly define sacred dogmas, there is no difference: for in cases where those [earlier ones] properly adapted the word 'through,' this divine Gregory C substituted 'from.' And these things, indeed, are what I undertook to examine in the first place, as I began the present refutation, I mean overturning strongly the opponents [using the very tools] from which they themselves had presumed to draw help.
26. But if one must, having mentioned the passage, examine accurately from slightly higher up what concerns it, perhaps even from the preceding [text] it will appear that the great man also said and posited 'from' in the case of the Son. For concerning common and proper [properties], as I had previously said—discussing those which are in the Godhead’s supreme Trinity—he discourses in this way, theologizing according to the word, and expanding appropriately upon the dogma: 'For the Son went forth from the Father, as the Scripture says, and the Spirit proceeds from God and from the Father.' But just as the state of being without cause, belonging solely to the Father, D cannot be applied to the Son and to the Spirit; so on the contrary, the state of being from a cause, which is proper to the Son and the Holy Spirit, is alien by nature to be considered of the Father. But since it is common to the Son and the Spirit that they are not unbegotten, so that no confusion regarding the subject might be observed, it is again easy to find the difference between them in their properties, so that the common element might be preserved, and the proper element not be confused. This Gregory, distinguished in theology and in dogmas, treating and composing these things, recognizes only the [distinction between] being without cause and being from a cause as the difference in the supreme Trinity, assigning that which is without cause to the Father, and that which is from a cause to the Son and to the Spirit. And again, in order to show an unconfused difference for these latter [two], and that hence the Trinitarian nature of the hypostases might be guarded, dividing the 'from a cause' in a manner worthy of God, he declares the difference, explaining it thus: 'For the only-begotten Son is called from the Father by the holy Scripture, and the discourse halts the property at this point. But the Holy Spirit is said to be from the Father and is testified to be also from the Son.' What could be said more clearly to those who do not waver in their minds? What more openly to those who do not refuse to show themselves as fair-minded? The Only-Begotten, he says, is called from the Father alone
A by Holy Scripture. This is also what it clearly signifies. And the discourse fixes the property upon Him up to this point. But the Holy Spirit is spoken of as being from the Father, and is also attested to be from the Son, having this difference toward the Son, that it also exists from the Son. This is the natural sense of this god-minded man. But in order to present this better to those who require it, if the Holy Spirit were from the Father alone, just as the Son is, then this also would be a begotten Son, and not the Holy Spirit. But now there is no other difference between these two, but this alone is known, and defines Him, insofar as one is called and appears as the Son, while the other is properly called and is the Holy Spirit; since the Son possesses His existence from the Father alone, but the Holy Spirit from the Father and from the Son together.
27. But it is not present, say those of the party opposed to us, in some books, the preposition *from* the Son, and on account of this we say that the divinely-speaking Gregory spoke of this difference between the Son and the Spirit. B Yet, since the Only-Begotten exists from the Father, he is not, nor is he even in any way called, the Spirit, just as this wise teacher, through his succeeding discourse, instructs and declares with a sonorous voice. But the Holy Spirit, even though He also happens to be from the Father, is attested to be from the Son as well, according to appropriation; and we adapt the testimony which he brings forward and constantly appends to this saying, according to that same sense. For since he himself proposed: *If anyone, he says, has not the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.*
Likewise, those who, insisting on their own books, are eager for the zeal of contradiction and are continually incited, flee to the exposition of the testimony as if it were a valid and great defense of their own proposition, and do not wisely open their ears to the interpretation of the great Basil, which the divine Cyril, as we showed not long ago, followed without dissenting from it, but rather they devised a difference from within themselves to stabilize their own opinion. C But as for us, to reply now to the difference itself: regarding the testimony, we have already replied sufficiently above to those who show themselves attentive, as to the reason why, if the discourse of the blessed doctor was about a relative difference, noting in no way any existence—as our adversaries interpret—did he not previously say that the Holy Spirit also exists from the Father, when he was considering the Son and the Holy Spirit with the Father? But he said that He exists from the Father, which is a difference that altogether implies existence! For no one, even if he stands out for his audacity and sheer nerve, would say—since the Father is and is also called the Spirit—that it was enough for the great man to comprehend there only a difference of existence, which perhaps those who finally intend to contradict us in all things would not rightly say. But here, because there was no difference at all according to existence, he assumed the difference according to relation. Or this, as rather more D and more honorable...
he passed by as superfluous. A And yet it is clear to those who discern even in the slightest degree—not only to those lofty in thought—that if there is no difference in these—the Son, I say, and the most holy Spirit—according to existence, they do not truly and properly differ from one another, and from this follows a confusion of hypostatic properties, which is truly most absurd and very alien to piety. B And again, since this wise man possessed a difference according to existence, he would never have preferred another difference here besides this; not only because this is naturally the only difference strictly and truly, and the difference according to relation follows such – that is, that according to existence – but also because he himself, for this reason, proposing to speak in the God-ruling Trinity about a difference from on high—that is, from the Father—, and still proceeding from that which is according to existence, he mentioned no other. For, first of all, he spoke of the Father as being "without cause," that is, "not from anything"; subsequently, having said that it is common to the Son and the Spirit to be from a cause, he indicated the difference of their divine existence with respect to the Father. C Then, wishing also to explain the difference between them, that I may grasp the words of the statement literally, he spoke thus: "For the Only-begotten Son is named by the holy Scripture as being from the Father, and up to this point the discourse establishes his property. But the holy Spirit is both said to be from the Father, and is testified to be from the Son." The discourse here is indeed altogether about the existence of the Son and of the Spirit. Wherefore, the difference between them, for those who understand things best, is according to existence; since for others—I mean those who now take the difference according to relation—this regarding the Spirit is altogether unconnected and inappropriate. Do you see, you who oppose, how necessarily the thought of the discourse requires the preposition "from" regarding the difference occurring according to existence in the sacred Trinity? Hence, therefore, it is manifest that this most excellent interpreter of dogmas published his cited statement with this preposition, and that certain men, utterly abusing their leisure, have mutilated the truth in some volumes. D So many things and in such a way have been said by us for the present regarding the statement of Gregory, who is most excellent in dogmas, by which we have shown that he also, holding opinions as a brother to the wise Basil, stated that the holy Spirit, according to him, has his existence also from the Son; whom it is right for all to follow in this also, persuaded by their most learned and divine dogmas. For they were found to be leaders of the sound faith and interpreters and at once heralds of orthodox dogmas.
28. Nevertheless, since for the demonstration of such a dogma we abound in many other firm and secure patristic testimonies, which are not even subject to calumny, because they are set forth in all sacred books everywhere in the same way and are entirely unchangeable—and these, as is fitting, to be added here
A so that by the abundance of those scriptural testimonies, we may completely stop the mouths of those voicing opposition. Straightway, therefore, John, the light of the Church—I mean the far-shining and sovereign mind, he who had a tongue and lips of gold—in his discourse on the Incarnation of the Lord, and on the text: *In each region stood the angels*, writes thus: "Christ came to us, gave us the Spirit which is from Him, and took up our body." Then, in another hortatory discourse, which is also inscribed as the first prophylactic oration: "And thus," he says, "may the Spirit which is from Christ preserve us against the day of future redemption."
At that same time, moreover, the most perspicacious Epiphanius B, in his discourse entitled the *Ancoratus*, speaks clearly and plainly. He says, therefore, that the blessed Peter said to those around Ananias: "Why has Satan tempted you to lie to the Holy Spirit?" And he says: "You have not lied to men, but to God." Behold, God is the Spirit from the Father and the Son, to whom they lied, having embezzled from the price. And again: "The Holy Spirit is the third in nomenclature from the Father and the Son." And after many intervening words, again: "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 this very saying is found fraudulently written in some volumes as follows: "But if Christ is believed to be God from God from the Spirit, and the Spirit from Christ, or from both." And the fraud is manifest and in no way difficult for anyone to detect, not only because it is completely unthinkable that Christ should be from the Spirit—since no one at all among all men has ever truly thought this—but because the belief that one is from the other is reputed to be the most absurd of all. C But in what place could anyone place the evil that arises from this? For by this very reasoning, the Spirit would also be found to be from Himself. How? When the blessed one had said: "and the Spirit from Christ," he immediately added: "or from both." If, therefore, it is held there in such a way, "Christ from the Spirit, not from the Father," let whoever now hears these things collect what follows from it. And what use is there then of the evangelical and divine declaration, which he immediately adduces and applies as testimony, saying, as Christ says: *Who proceeds from the Father*? It is entirely superfluous and incongruous. All these absurdities have happened to such a saying because "from the Father" was changed into "from the Spirit." But whence and by whom this was done, it is not for us to discern. For it is manifest D that it was done by the adversaries of the dogma now being demonstrated—which indeed was very easy, by the change and variation of a single small letter. Yet the intention, that this was not something for us to believe, is that they so fell away from the right dogma that they might piously hold that Christ is from the Spirit, perhaps for this same reason, and also for that which remains, namely, that [the claim that] the Spirit is from Christ [is] not well-spoken.
A For this reason, the entire error might be attributed to the copyist. Nevertheless, they have fallen short of such a purpose, gaining nothing of what they had supposed. We have not only just refuted their wickedness as far as possible, but, what is greater, the adulteration and corruption of a single saying will not at all remove the credibility of the many utterances of the Father. And I omit, for the sake of justification, the uncorrupted state of the remaining books at this time. But what and which are the many utterances of the Father of which we spoke? We have already set forth a few small ones from these a little above, and we shall set forth more in their proper order for the present. B For a little later, the aforementioned text continues in this more forensic manner: "But someone will say, 'Do we then say there are two Sons? And how is He the only-begotten?' But who are you, O man, who reason against God? For if He calls the Son [Him] who is from Him, but the Holy Spirit [Him] who is from both, [they] which are understood by the saints only by faith, they are bright, light-giving, and have a luminous operation." And after a little: "The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth, a third light from the Father and the Son." And again, with a few things added: "For just as no one knows the Father except the Son, nor the Son except the Father, so 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 [do they know] the Son and the Father except the Holy Spirit, who truly glorifies, who instructs all things, who [is] from the Father and the Son." To these things, C Cyril, the interpreter of the mysteries of the Spirit, speaks in agreement and harmony in many places, saying then in his exposition on the prophet Joel, on the text, "I will pour out of my Spirit" (Joel iii, 1): "For as the Son is God by nature from God, for He is begotten from God and the Father, the Spirit is His own, and in Him, and from Him, in the same way by which He is understood [as being] from the God and Father." Then in his address to the emperor Theodosius: "Baptizing," he says, "Jesus in fire and the Holy Spirit, not sending forth the Spirit upon those being baptized in the manner of a servant or minister, but as God by nature, with supreme authority, [He] who is from Him and [is] His own." Likewise, in one of the chapters of the second [book of the] Treasures, it is clearly shown that the Holy Spirit is not alien to the Son, but D in Him and from Him. And in the exposition of the Gospel according to John, on the text, "He will bring to your remembrance all things that I have said to you" (John xiv, 26), he proclaimed with a clear voice: "Therefore, as one knowing all things that are in the will of the Only-Begotten, the Spirit will announce them to you, not having knowledge from instruction, lest He be seen to fulfill the order of a minister, but as the Spirit of Him and knowing all things, not taught by Him, from whom and in whom He is." Likewise, in his seventh address to Hermias, he writes these things: "Therefore our Lord Jesus Christ says concerning all, I believe, the faithful and good: 'We will come, I and the Father, and will make our abode with him'" (John xiv, 23). "And in this we know that there is in us [something] from the Spirit whom He has given to us: for He who is by nature [God] will possess him as an inhabitant and dweller."
A Thus he has spoken: "Therefore, since the Spirit knows the things in the counsel of the Only-Begotten, he announces all things to us, not having knowledge from learning, so that he may not appear to fulfill the rank of a servant, but as His Spirit, he knows without being taught all things from Him, and in whom He is." He, having also discussed these things in the seventh discourse to Hermias, says: "And indeed our Lord Jesus Christ, I think, regarding every faithful and good man, says: 'We will come, I and the Father, and we will make a dwelling with him.' And in this we know that there is in us [something] from the Spirit whom He gave to us; for one would rightly call Him an indwelling and taking up of residence, as He is by nature and truly God, having received the Spirit not as something alien and essentially partitioned off from Him, but as being from Him and in Him and His own, and bearing dignity equal to that of the Father." In this same discussion with Hermias B he continues: "Therefore, if the Spirit who is in us is not holy by nature, let them say, what kind of nature has he then received? And if they are unwilling to attribute holiness to him, would not their argument utterly and in every way fall into unavoidable blasphemy?" And when he replied, "It seems so," nevertheless he says this: that Christ said concerning him, "He shall receive of mine, and shall announce it to you." "Do they therefore say that the Spirit is a participant of the Son?" The holy man, quickly adding, says: "By no means, far from it, I think, as is necessary. For the one who is of Him and in Him, and His own, how could he ever participate in Him, and be sanctified relatively just like those from without, and be alien by nature from Him of whom he is said to be the own?" Many such things does the venerable Cyril, speaking C as a theologian, set forth in his various writings. And to gather all these things together would be a matter most difficult indeed. Therefore, content for the present with those things mentioned, I proceed to the one among the saints, the great Anastasius, who, speaking as a theologian concerning the true dogmas of our faith, also spoke thus most clearly and explicitly concerning the Spirit: "And yet the Lord, showing him to exist from Himself, breathing upon the disciples, said: 'Receive the Holy Spirit.'" By such and so many God-taught Fathers, in so many places and so openly, has it been declared that the Holy Spirit has His own existence also from the Son.
29. Yet even these sayings, as is likely, being spoken for our confirmation and clear assurance of such a dogma, it is necessary, even if not before, at least at present, that those who have contentiously opposed it up to this time should become compliant, as they have nothing at all noble to say against this truth that is worthy of a thoughtful mind and a sound understanding. D But those who seem to harass us most strongly, and who set themselves against us from this point more violently, say: "And who of the aforementioned Fathers, whose sayings mostly form the greater part of these citations, dogmatized that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, in any one of these [citations], which is what most properly signifies the existence of the Spirit?" To this we reply, first, that which was said also in our previous treatise, that the word "is" denotes rather the existence of the divine and adorable Spirit, since that word
A is more ancient than all others, and, being truly the root-idea of terms, it receives into itself all other terms that are resolved back into it. And this term, to "proceed," being resolved, like the rest of the terms, into that "is," has been taken up by the wise teachers of the Church to signify the manner of the existence of the Spirit, denoting the distinction in relation to the Son and the different mode of existence in relation to Him. For, so that the term "generation" might pass over, Scripture, as John Chrysostom says, has adopted the term "procession." Whenever, therefore, it is proposed to them to speak of the manner in which the Spirit exists, they then adopt the word "proceeds." But whenever their discussion desires to treat of the simple and sole existence of the Spirit, they then use all other terms, apart from "being begotten," which is strictly proper to the Son; and they do this especially when they proclaim that He is also from the Son, because in that way the mode of existence remains in no way doubtful to anyone. For who, upon hearing that the Holy Spirit is from the Son, B would ever suppose that this signifies a generation, which is the divine existence from Him? For this reason, they most often denote it by other terms, to all of which it is necessary to mentally add the mode of existence, namely, "to proceed." And if this should not be understood by anyone to mean that, then, according to him, it would be the other, that is, like a generation. For in the case of the causes in the holy and divinely-principled Trinity, these two alone are naturally fit to denote the mode of existence. Therefore, for one who does not wish to understand "procession" in those terms, the Holy Spirit would be "begotten," than which what could be imagined as more absurd? Thus, all words which stand by themselves regarding the Spirit have "procession" following them, necessarily and in all ways. Knowing this, the Fathers, to whom it was granted by the Holy Spirit to treat of theological matters, used such terms regarding His simple existence; and much more readily, as we have already said, when they clearly signified that the Spirit is from the Son, because by that reasoning the mode [of existence] would be put in doubt by no one. For, in asserting that the Holy Spirit exists from the Father, they have often used "proceeds," as it expresses the distinction between Him and the Son, who Himself also acknowledges having originated from there, from the Father. Often, too, they place this expression as a Gospel usage, wishing to demonstrate the divine existence of the Spirit from the Father, just as they have taken the statement, "He shall receive of mine," as a Lordly testimony, wishing to prove C that the Holy Spirit has His existence also from the Son. And that these things cannot be contradicted in the least, the famous Epiphanius and the admirable Cyril will abundantly prove. For Epiphanius in the *Ancoratus* pronounces these things most clearly and plainly: "The Holy Spirit is not a brother of the brother, nor a brother of the Father, but of the same essence of the Father and the Son." For the Only-Begotten Himself also says, "The Spirit of the Father," and, "Who proceeds from the Father," and, "He shall receive of mine," so that He might not be thought of as a stranger to the Father or the Son. And after much, he adds the statement also cited by us before: "Both dwell in the just man, Christ and His Spirit." And if Christ is believed to be God from God from the Father, and the Spirit from Christ or from both, as Christ says, "Who proceeds from the Father," and, "He shall D receive of mine,"
A And these are the words of the venerable Epiphanius. But the truly admirable Cyril, in his treatise on the Gospel of John, which he worked out well for the benefit of believers, on the text: "He shall glorify me, for he shall receive of mine," puts forward this divine saying and writes after some considerations on the Spirit: "Since he is consubstantial with the Son and proceeds, as befits God, through him, having all his most perfect operation and power in all things, for this reason he says: 'He shall receive of mine.' For we believe that the Spirit subsists in himself, and is in truth what he is and is called. Indeed, as being inherent in the essence of God, he comes forth and proceeds from it." Having previously spoken about the Spirit, as to how he proceeds through the Son, for this reason our Lord says that "He shall receive of mine," he subsequently adds the evidence for his proceeding through the Son, as one who, being inherent in the essence of God, altogether comes forth and proceeds from it, possessing equally that which is through the Son; and the expression "from the essence of God," and from there accepting into the same meaning also the "He shall receive of mine." And toward the end of this exposition he says: "It is therefore entirely blameless, and will be beyond all reproach, to say that the Spirit receives something from the Only-begotten; for as he proceeds through him naturally, as his own, together with all things which he has perfectly, he is said to receive his own things." B In addition to these points, regarding the saying: "For he shall not speak from himself," he discusses these matters more clearly: "For this reason he added that 'He will announce to you the things to come,' because the Spirit is altogether from my essence, and he is as it were my mind, which will declare the future things, just as I do. For I said before: 'Even if you cannot learn all things.'" Thus, having interpreted the Lord's voice, "He shall receive of mine," he also establishes from this that the Holy Spirit has his existence from the Son as well. And setting the statement that he proceeds from the Father as an evangelic testimony for the proof of the divine existence of the adorable Spirit from him, he most wisely manages to show that the same Lordly statement, and what was previously said by the Savior—that is, the Spirit of truth—can also demonstrate the same, only transferring the meaning directly from the Father to the person of the Only-begotten. For he is the truth. And indeed, so that I may mention his own words, on the text: "But when the Paraclete comes," lo, behold, he calls him the Spirit of truth, that is to say, his own; having called him the Paraclete, he says that he proceeds from the Father. For just as...
he is the proper Spirit of the Son, naturally existing in him and proceeding through him, so too is he of the Father. And after a few words in such a passage, it is found again A by those who are attentive, speaking as follows: "In this same way, therefore, both demonstrating the unity of the essence of himself, I say, and of the God and Father, he says that the Paraclete is the Spirit of truth, proceeding from the Father." And again, continuing, he repeats these things: "When, therefore, the Paraclete comes," he says, "the Spirit of truth, that is to say, my own, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness concerning me." But how will he bear witness? For having worked in you and through you the wonders, he will be a just and true witness of my God-befitting power and of the majesty in power. For the Spirit working in you is my own. And just as he is mine, B so too is he of God and the Father. Here it is clearly shown that the divine and venerable Cyril, gathering both the utterances into one and truly the same meaning, says: "The Spirit of truth, [I say,] and he who proceeds from the Father." And this has been taught by another God-speaking Father. And who is this? The man of great wisdom, Basil, who in the discourses against Eunomius and Arius plainly states these things: "I understand the connection towards the Father, because he proceeds from the Father; towards the Son, however, because I hear, 'If any man has not the Spirit of Christ, this one is not his.'" And towards the end of the discourses against Eunomius he expounds thus: "But how is it not full of manifest danger to dissociate the Spirit from God, when the Apostle C delivers him to us as joined, now calling him Christ's, now God's, when he writes: 'If any man has not the Spirit of Christ, this one is not his'? And again: 'But you have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God.' And the Lord calls this the Spirit of truth, since he himself is the truth, and he proceeds from the Father." Pay attention, you who are now hearing, how the great Basil, having gathered these apostolic and evangelical sayings into one, most clearly gave judgment that the Holy Spirit is, through them, proper and inseparable from the Father and the Son. In order that you may also know Cyril, the steadfast champion of piety, in what way he explained such evangelical utterances, and having likewise understood his meaning to be in harmony with that of the other, and having grasped D that it does not differ at all—for he also interpreted the Spirit's inseparable [existence] towards the Father and the Son through them, and how he is proper to them—you will know with precision at the same time the aim of each, that is, to what end the uses of sacred texts point for them. Since, according to the reason for which they have received into testimony "proceeding from the Father," he denotes first the existence of the divine and adorable Spirit, he signifies in the second place, by all means, that the Holy Spirit has existence also from the Son, just as that divine saying, "He shall receive of mine," as the discourse demonstrated not long before. Therefore, as regards the simple existence of the Spirit, what more does that word, so much intoned by our adversaries, import, by which alone all these men attempt to circumscribe the meaning of the existence of the adorable Spirit? But what the discourse had adopted at its very beginning remains here absolutely most evident to all: that the venerable Fathers have frequently usurped the word "proceeding" as a Dominical word, to prove the divine existence of the holy and life-giving Spirit from the Father, just as they accept that word, "He shall receive of mine," as an evangelical testimony; for I pass over now the other Dominical saying that lies in the middle, the Spirit, I say, of truth. Indeed, the Holy Spirit also
also from the Father, according to him and that other saying of his, the Spirit, I say, of truth, have they handed down. If, therefore, the first [statement] signifies the existence of the divine and adorable Spirit from the Father, it signifies B by all means the second [point] as well: that the Holy Spirit has Its existence also from the Son, just as that divine utterance, "He shall take of mine," as the discourse has C already shown a little above, has demonstrated. And further, as regards the existence of the Spirit D simply, what more does that word "proceeds," which is so much bruited about by our opponents—and to which alone all these people hasten to confine, wrongly, the significance of the existence of the adorable Spirit—boast? But that which my discourse, starting out, addressed at the beginning, is made manifest here as much as possible for all: that the holy Fathers often place "proceeding" as a Dominical usage for the setting forth of the divine existence of the holy and life-originating Spirit from the Father, just as they accept the saying, "He shall take of mine," as an evangelical testimony. For the other Dominical saying that was mentioned in between—the Spirit, I say, of truth—I pass over now, A as regards the Holy Spirit from the Son; and that He truly possesses His divine existence [from Him]. For this reason some of the saints use "proceeds" at the proper time, B when, that is, they are dogmatizing that the Holy Spirit [proceeds] from the Father.
30. But if, because among them the term is not found explicitly according to those who oppose us—even when they do theologize that the existence of the Spirit is completed from the Son—they for that reason do not approve at all precisely of [the claim that] the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, what will they say if someone asks them by way of counter-examination, "But do you not believe, O best of men, that the Holy Spirit takes from the Father? What sort of 'taking' do you wish to think of?" They will not differ from us on this, because it does not come at the wrong time, since it is not to be found in divine Scripture C that "the Holy Spirit takes from the Father." They will by all means answer immediately, if they have zeal according to piety, "Let him not receive from God the salvation of body or soul, whoever does not hold that he receives the Holy Spirit from the Father." Then how can they confess that they believe [that He] receives the Holy Spirit from the Father—and that too, while it is not stated by any of the saints, as they themselves know, in any way at all—while they drive away as far as possible the fact that the Holy Spirit and adorable [One] proceeds also from the Son, because the [exact] term, according to them, is not found explicitly, even though they are being instructed in the sense [of it] by many other synonymous names D by all the Fathers without exception? Even if for others—for me, at any rate, for the present—they are not in truth just judges of such a distinction between the two pious utterances. For that this discourse has shown, both that the pious [way] is unloving toward those who oppose it, and that it has shown it to those of goodwill before, and will show it again not long hence, more clearly and more perfectly. Nevertheless, the majority of the God-speaking Fathers passed over this [term] in silence, just as the other, not rejecting it—far from it, that be far from us!—but preserving the word "procession" as a Dominical testimony to be approved [as showing] the existence of the Spirit from the Father, the Giver of life and Principle, just as they again preserve untouched and secure the "taking" as a Dominical usage for the demonstration that the Holy Spirit also has His existence from the Son.
31. And nevertheless some of the saints, the adversaries again reply, opposing us, have at times decreed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. By what reasoning, therefore, do you contend and assert that they do not reject that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son? And they bring forward the authors of such an addition.
namely the venerable Gregory of Nyssa and the renowned Cyril; the latter, forsooth, they claim to have stated clearly and purely in a certain oration that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone; and they do not show the oration, although it is often demanded by us, but they deafen us everywhere with its being inscribed "Concerning the Trinity." As for Gregory of Nyssa, they say he wrote thus in a book—I mean the one on the *Knowledge of God* (the book is known to all): "Spirit proceeding from the paternal hypostasis; and for this reason he said 'Spirit of the mouth,' but not 'Word of the mouth,' so that he might authenticate the property of proceeding as belonging to the Father alone." By fabricating the one and corrupting the other of these sayings, they think they possess something strong and valiant for their defense. But that which they fabricated and falsely attached to the most wise Cyril, because it is a lie and altogether without substance, may it be committed to the winds to be dissolved. For we ourselves have unrolled not a few volumes of this Father, and we have not been able to find in any of them the oft-sung speech, except for that saying, naked and alone, with the aforementioned inscription, circulating on certain papers B prepared against the Romans. And these men, when requested by us to produce such an oration, have it not now, nor will they ever be able to produce it. Whence? Because they themselves fabricated it, taking it from their own store to publish it publicly. But that they have adulterated the saying of the divinely-speaking and divinely-minded Gregory, there is no need for me to demonstrate with many words, since a certain man wise in divine things, who preceded us, has already refuted them most excellently and has clearly placed the corruption of such a saying before our eyes. Nevertheless, since it is not unlikely that those who are reading this our present commentary may not be able to come into possession of his writings, for their sake—so that we may not seem to them to wander far from the truth, and for this reason be seen as putting off and delaying the matter—I myself shall endeavor to signify something, however briefly, concerning the mere corruption of the cited saying. The purpose of the great man in this cited saying is to manifest how the Most Holy Spirit exists. He says, therefore: "Spirit proceeding from the paternal hypostasis"; and wishing to provide a confirmation of this proceeding, he makes the prophet-king David his teacher, saying: "For this reason also 'Spirit of C the mouth,' but not 'Word of the mouth'"; and he has continuously and excellently appended the interpretation to these words: "In order that he might authenticate the property of proceeding as belonging to the Spirit alone." This, then, is what Gregory, the radiant luminary of the Church, said, adapting the property of proceeding to the Spirit alone, and not to the Son and Word, in accordance with the divinely-inspired holy singer David himself, who, as the great man says, spoke of "Spirit of the mouth," but not "Word of the mouth." Since—so that I may reveal the judgment of the God-taught Father more and more—although David, obeying God, asserted that the heavens were made firm by the Word of the mouth of the Lord God, there was absolutely no reason from this to confirm this property of proceeding for the Son and Word, D inasmuch as
we are accustomed to call A that which proceeds from the mouth without artifice. "For what proceeds from my lips I will not make void," the Psalmist David says elsewhere. B Now, however, this man, moved by the Spirit, said "Spirit of the mouth" and not "Word of the mouth," and thereby he confirms—beyond all controversy—that the property of proceeding pertains to the Spirit alone. This, then, as I previously discussed above, is what Gregory, so excellent in matters of doctrine, has said. Those who hold the opposite view, however, have craftily altered such a saying to suit their own preferences, changing the word "Spirit" into "Father," just as they have done in another saying. Indeed, in one of the sayings of the blessed Epiphanius set forth above, they changed "Father" into "Spirit," as we have indicated there. But for the sake of levity amidst these serious matters, for those who constantly intend to alter complete sayings, it is truly a game to change one immutable thing into another, and that very one into an immutable letter. Thus, concerning divine worship, they are so "pious" as to liken venerable and sacred dogmas to dice, and to deem the changing and casting aside of their words entirely easy and most convenient, provided only that they can bolster what pleases them and what they set before themselves. C But they have been deceived by their own devices here too, both because they did not perceive the meaning of the entire saying, and, what is greater—or rather, greatest of all—because they hurried through the subsequent discourse as if doing something else, it seems; whereas, if they had applied their mind to it with becoming consideration, they would not have attempted to corrupt such a saying. For this great man himself makes it clear that the property of proceeding is the characteristic mark of the Spirit, setting it forth in these very words: "So that through [the expression] 'Word' we might receive the passionless and ineffable generation of the Son from the mind of God and Father, but through saying '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 property of proceeding." And the holy Father Anastasius, knowing that "to proceed" is an idiom of the divine Spirit, sets this forth in the sixteenth chapter of his book called the *Odego*, clearly saying: "For neither did the unbegotten person of the Father assume flesh, nor did the proceeding hypostasis of the holy Spirit." D Thus, the discourse, having shown in many ways that the property of proceeding belongs to the Spirit, has most clearly and manifestly refuted the corruption of the aforementioned saying. From which it shines forth most purely that the divine Gregory himself did not teach that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, neither in the saying already adduced, nor in his other sayings in which he treated of the Spirit. Wherefore, the argument of those who contradict us has been entirely overturned and laid low.
A 52. Nevertheless, we treat them with humanity and grant them this addition. Let it be, we say, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone; in what way will this concession be able to injure our argument? They will say that it is then entirely overturned, even by being said to be from the Son. And yet, the Fathers—or rather, the Truth itself, whose heralds they are—and the sound consideration of the mind do not allow such a word to imply this when they find it pronounced concerning the Father, unless the foolish hypotheses of these same men are admitted. Since the Lord says to the Father in the Gospels: *That they may know thee the only true God* (John 17:3). If this be the case—though let the blasphemy be turned back upon the heads of those who force us to speak such things with our mouths—then God is merely a name falsely applied. And how would that be which is essentially the truth? Again, when we hear Christ saying: *But of that day or hour no one knoweth, not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the Father alone* (Matt. 24:36); shall we deny to Him—who made known to the apostles and disciples everything that took place before them and everything that would happen afterward—a similar knowledge? B Furthermore, if we interpret the apostolic and divinely inspired words which explicitly proclaim concerning the Father—at one time that He is the *only wise God* (Rom. 16:27), at another that He *only hath immortality, dwelling in light inaccessible* (1 Tim. 6:16), and elsewhere, *King of ages, immortal, invisible, the only God* (1 Tim. 1:17)—according to how this mind desires, we shall judge the opposite of all of them regarding the Son. And we shall declare—accusing the divine Wisdom—that He is entirely unwise; of life, that He is death; of the first light, that He is extreme darkness; of the Lord of ages, that He is a late-born servitude and a follower of times themselves; of the Only-begotten who is in the bosom of the Father, that He is corporeal matter and the density of sensible nature, from which we shall entirely deny that He is God. This, in truth, is the culmination of the things mentioned, for it brings about an alienation—naturally—from the essence and the divinity of the glory that is supernatural and befitting to God, to such an extent that the preaching concerning Christ becomes empty, and the faith which we have received is in vain. C But since we have from above the testimony from the Father, *For this is,* He says, *my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him* (Matt. 17:5), we are fully assured regarding our preaching and our faith: the God-Son is confessedly God, and of the essence and nature of the Begetter. And since this has appeared, all the remaining attributes which we have recounted are, in every respect, also His: namely, He is invisible, King of the ages—or Lord—dwelling in inaccessible light, an ocean of immortality; furthermore, He is wise and the giver of wisdom, enriched with all these attributes of the Begetter. The discourse, returning now from these latter points to the former, is thus established, standing well and leaning upon a safe and firm foundation. D Wherefore the Father alone is said to be these things, and truly is, not for the destruction of the Son, as they suspect, but for the absolute overthrow of those gods which do not exist and of those who are reputed to be gods; who
being nothing, were fashioned by pestiferous and superstitious men, and these god-befitting titles were erroneously assigned to them by these very men, to be addressed and named. According to this sense, the Savior called the Father A alone the true God, rejecting in this way everyone falsely called God from the true God. But the passage, "But of that day or hour no one knows, except the Father alone," is spoken according to another mind, for the destruction of all knowledge of generated beings, as being utterly bankrupt in such matters and unable to lay claim to the foreknowledge of the future. These points regarding "alone" have been examined by us according to the truth, and they will fully suffice for sensible hearers for their understanding. But if there are any of a different disposition who are annoyed at what is said, the very word "alone" will persuade them when it is recognized as being applied to the Son. For no one will have anything at all to contradict then, since by the very weapons with which he contends he will destroy the Father. And where is this set down? they ask to learn. In those prophetic words: "This is our God, and no other shall be reckoned in comparison with him." Here the phrase, "And no other shall be reckoned in comparison with him," indicates the "alone." That the discourse is about the Son, what follows shows most clearly. For it is added: "Upon B the earth he appeared, and conversed with men." Since, therefore, it is sufficiently manifest that this is said of the Son, regarding whom there is not the slightest doubt among anyone—since he is the very one who appeared in the flesh upon the earth and conversed with men in the body—whoever is persuaded by the explanation given by us regarding the word "alone," unless he is of a lost mind, will not wish to afflict the Father with an intolerable injury among sound and prudent men; and to those to whom he might have favored the Son, to those same men he would be aiming to bring upon the Father the most atrocious and most miserable danger of all that ever were. I can also demonstrate from another place of divinely inspired Scripture that "alone" is said of the Son, which, while it reaches the proposed goal quite closely, will attack more powerfully those waging war against us, and will stoutly resist them. And this, for those who understand things in a sound manner, will in no way wound the Father, and will loudly proclaim the supreme glory of Christ to all. But now the Scripture must be recited, and the author of the saying, and the statement itself, so that from this we too may provide ourselves with certainty about the matter proposed. C In his first speech against the Arians, the light of the world, Athanasius, writes: "The Son, on the contrary, being God, and always reigning with the kingdom of the Father, and being himself the sole dispenser of the Holy Spirit." In what sense will that "sole" be taken here? To you I turn my discourse at present. Shall we despoil the Father of the giving of the Spirit, so that the procession becomes the gain of the Son alone? Far be it! And if many and great absurdities which arise from this stand in need of a great and prolix discourse, they should be passed over by us. But all these things are manifest and known to everyone. Do not, I beseech you, be such wicked merchants against the Father—the fountain, I say, of the Spirit—that we might... How are we to understand "alone" here, towards you who... D
concede to the Father alone, that is, without the Son, that which the Son possesses no less abundantly with Him. A For "alone," as that same Athanasius—who is almost the father of dogmas—demonstrates in his dialogue with Arius, does not necessarily import any division of the sovereign hypostases of the simple and indivisible Triad of the Godhead. In the same way, even if some of those who treated of theological matters in ancient times said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, there is no reason why this should obstruct or hinder us from asserting and holding that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son.
33. Nevertheless, now no one among the Fathers has said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone; indeed, some even assert that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son. If we were to bring forward the words of all of them here, all the doubts of those who contradict would be dissolved. B Therefore, the first, Athanasius, who excels in holiness, has this to say in his treatise *On the Right Dogmas of Truth Which Are According to Us*: "And the Spirit, again, who proceeds from Him and is sent, not only by the Father but also by the Son." The majority of those who are contentious will, I know, place a punctuation mark after "proceeds from the Father," and thus they will read what follows, attributing the mission of the Holy Spirit to the Son alone along with the Father; but they will be refuted by what is appended not many words later, which we have already discussed above in this same discourse, namely: "And yet the Lord, showing that He is from Himself, breathing upon the disciples, said: 'Receive the Holy Spirit' (John xx, 22)." C For from this it is decided and confirmed that this same Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son. And he who recounted the lives and deeds of the saints and their struggles in a revised style, speaks thus concerning the testimony of the Areopagite Dionysius—I mean the expositor of hidden things—whenever the discourse happened to touch upon the economy of Christ, at the end he uses these very words: "And my Christ ascends into heaven, and returns to the paternal throne, and sends down the Spirit who proceeds from Him to the disciples, so that they might be leaders of the infidel nations." Even if they were not persuaded before, certainly now they should be altogether persuaded, the adversaries, inasmuch as what D they themselves seek continuously and everywhere—I mean, that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son—they find now at last clearly proclaimed in the Church and published every year, not only written down like other dogmas, but also handed down. But those who are addicted to contentions and disturbances, here too, though basely, oppose the truth, and prefer to contend even in this statement, maliciously at...
acting in this way, both against themselves and against us. Against us, in that they in no way wish to admit that He proceeds from the Son, which the scope of the divine Scripture and of the writer requires; and against themselves once more, in that they do not agree in the least in interpreting that passage according to its sense and meaning, as those who have departed from the one straight path, namely our own. For some of them say: "He who proceeds from Him, the Spirit"—meaning from the paternal throne—and B they do not recoil at all from decreeing that He proceeds from the throne of the Father, out of the essence of the Father. Others say: "He who proceeds, or as having proceeded, the Spirit of Christ"—a very frigid opinion, and they themselves are extremely frigid in their minds; no one who is taught to distinguish words and who knows how to compose them properly would praise them for the curious exposition of the text. They have fallen into this position, as the matter itself allows us to understand, not from any other source but from malice and from the sheer folly of their opposition to us. The cause of this is that, when God in His own goodness alone inclined toward us, we were the first to search the Scriptures and attain the truth of the present dogma. This is the starting point of their wickedness against us. On account of this they contradict us, and since they cannot at all overthrow this truth of ours, they have been deluded in their minds and have turned at times to absurd and frigid curiosities, as they have now suffered in the common fashion regarding the present text as well. Though they are in no way inferior to learned men, had they wished to perceive the meaning of this. And otherwise, even if their reasoning were to falter C even slightly regarding this, they could have certainly considered by themselves and the one who wrote it that, since he lived at the time of the first schism and understood the contradiction of the dogma, he would never have thus harmonized and composed such a text if he were exercising hostilities, just as the others were, toward the Latins. Rather, he clearly set forth "who proceeds from the Father," avoiding, as one might say, the opposite suspicion. But now, from the very structure of his words, it is clearly confirmed that he is asserting entirely that He proceeds also from the Son. They ought to have considered these things, to have applied their minds to them, and from that to have become yielding to us and to have received the dogma in concord, listening to this wise and most illustrious man, not needing anyone else to grant assent. Yet they, in all things, criticize the opinion of this man as being contrary. Nevertheless, D as I heard from a man of similar lot, I know not whom, they are torn by their own conscience, they who are not at all ignorant of the mind of that great man, but, carried away by wickedness, they attempt to contradict us. And so that I may not seem to be making up vain things from myself, I will not hide what I heard from one of them. We were in the very beginning of the examination of this divine and venerable dogma, when the day arrived on which the oration containing the statement is accustomed to be read. And since its reading could neither be hidden from all, nor could it escape those who had fixed their minds upon it more solidly, it was offered as a kind of manifest gift to the Emperor by the grace of God. On that same day, with a certain monk of their heresy, it came to pass that the Emperor, instructed by God,
held a discourse, in the presence of many A others, and when the Emperor, who is gifted with a divine mind, recited that passage and at the same time pointed to it, that monk, without any delay, revealed the hidden things of his mind and confirmed his words with an oath: "By my salvation," he said, speaking after the manner of monks, "as we were reading the life of the blessed Dionysius in church today, I fixed my mind, I know not how, on the assigned passage and, burning with anger, I intended to consign the volume to the fire; and perhaps, as anger suggested, I would have carried it out, and the counsels of my mind would have achieved their end, had I not known that our entire world, by land and by sea, was full of similar books." To one who tells such things, what ignorance shall be attributed? Or what summit of wickedness has he not exceeded? I myself also saw a volume, sufficiently ancient and old, which, as was fitting, gained credence for itself by its many chapters. In this entire treatise, as in other passages, it did not have the slightest line, let alone a letter, erased; but in this passage, so often praised by us and free from B any reproach, it showed an erased space between "proceeds" [ἐκπορευόμενον] and "from him" [αὐτοῦ], where the word "through" [δι'] was written, which is altogether a preposition. For someone had later erased the final syllable of the word "proceeds," namely the -v [νον], which had previously been placed there, and had placed the preposition "through" [δι'] above the line in such a way that even to one observing from afar, the appearance of the letters indicated that they were different from those ancient and old ones, and clearly displayed a more recent hand. He inscribed the word thus, too boldly and rashly, and then added an apostrophe to the "from" [αὐτοῦ], so that it should not be read according to the original position, but rather as "proceeding through him." Many of the prominent men of the ecclesiastical assembly, together with me, saw this volume of the Metaphrast. But before everyone and with everyone, our venerable Patriarch, the rule and standard of dogmas, looked upon it. From C this it is entirely shown, even to any who are at all attentive and not given over to wickedness against us, that some before us also did not reject that the Spirit proceeds also from the Son. And therefore, those who were of the schism, no less than those who live now, attempted each according to his ability to alter and invert it. Thus, the discourse clearly confirmed against those who oppose us that some saints have used the expression of "procession," when they decreed that the Holy Spirit has existence also from the Son.
34. But since we have found what was sought and have dissolved their difficulty in the end, come now, since we intend to say a few words here also about this expression, let us see, if you please, first how the golden-tongued John interpreted it: "For he knows," he says, explaining the evangelical voice, "the deep things of God; and D
even in his homily on the worshipful Spirit, he sets forth these things: What is the power of 'proceeding'? In order that Scripture might pass over the name of 'generation,' so that it might not call him Son, it says: 'The Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father.' He introduces him as proceeding, like water flowing from a spring, according to what is said about Paradise: 'And a river proceeds from Eden, and it proceeds and flows.' What do you say? It proceeds, I say, it springs A from the Son, flowing as water from a spring, the Holy Spirit. Or do you utterly reject so many voices placed in the Gospels, which the Truth himself, Christ, while teaching in many places, has said? 'If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink' (John vii, 37). And: 'He who believes in me, rivers of living water shall flow from his belly' (ibid. 38), which the evangelist interpreting, and freeing us completely from difficulties, says: 'But this he said about the Spirit, which those who believe in him were about to receive' (ibid. 39). And to the Samaritan woman: 'The water that I shall give will become a fountain of water leaping up into eternal life' (John iv, 14). You would surely not have pushed on to such B extreme impiety, as to be obstinate against these saving voices and to be emboldened. And I pass over the sayings of the Fathers, which are a drawing from this water, which openly proclaim the Son to be the fountain of the Spirit, which were duly placed before us in our first section. And certainly that the Holy Spirit also knows the deep things of the Son, you will not deny; since he is true God according to the Father, and is indeed believed to be so. Whoever, therefore, contends against these things—if there is anyone who even still remains entirely perfect—you would not dare to distort anything, because it is against the Son, and because it is against the Spirit, or rather even both against each together, that is, against the Son and the Spirit. And if these things are so, why do you seek the term, C while holding the meaning of the term? Our god-speaking Fathers do not do so, they do not cling so tenaciously to a term. And let the wise Cyril be a witness to my present argument. For he, in the sixth book of his work *To Hermias*, partly speaks, having first grasped and uttered the evangelical saying itself: 'Is the aforementioned utterance clear to you, and have you perceived that he called the Paraclete the Spirit of Truth? He says indeed that he proceeds from the Father, showing all things of the Father as his own; but elsewhere he declares it clearly and manifestly, thus setting forth the argument from the beginning: That the Spirit of the Father is also the Spirit of the Son, he himself will guide you through himself, saying, "When the Paraclete comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of Truth, who proceeds from the Father; D he," he says, "will bear witness concerning me." Do you understand, therefore, how he promises to send to us from the Father what is his own? And he calls him the Spirit of Truth, but he has determined that he is poured forth from the Father. Thus likewise he foretold that he would bear witness concerning himself.' These things Cyril, the champion of correct dogmas, explained in various places of the same oration. Therefore, I also do not declare using other words, assuming from both sides what is relevant to the matter: Is the force of the sayings mentioned not becoming known to you, who…
until now have been contentiously resisting A us? And do you not perceive who you are, you who carry on such strife against us until now, how Cyril the wise, having placed the evangelical usage in both sayings, brought forward there "goes forth," and here "is poured out" afterwards? Although it is manifest that in these cases there was nothing impeding the use of the actual word of the testimony, namely "proceeds," which would have seemed much more fitting and appropriate to the series of the discourse. Nevertheless, the Great [Cyril], applying his mind to the meaning, accepted "goes forth," "proceeds," and "is poured out" in place of it, recognizing no difference between them as regards signifying the existence of the Spirit.
35. But you, who desire that this word "proceeds" should signify only this, would certainly be troubled if you were to acknowledge that he used this same word also concerning the existence of the Son. O what a trifler you are in the greatest matters, and petty, and unworthy of divine speculations and disciplines! But our venerable Fathers did not hand down the B treatises on these subjects to men of such sort in the beginning, but altogether to those who were worthy hearers of these sublime matters, and to those who recognized their high-mindedness and greatness of soul; to whom, along with others, this Cyril the wise, having made the exposition of his own dogmas, set down this "proceeds" magnificently also concerning the existence of the Son, neither terrified by your ignorance, nor failing to maintain the meaning becoming to it. And that from this point we may discuss the text also for the hearing of all, since some perhaps desire to hear this, in the treatise against the evangelist John, regarding the saying "When the Paraclete comes," he spoke thus: "For if it does not proceed from the Father—that is, from his essence—the Son, as you suppose, how would the Spirit not be understood to be of a better condition than the Son?" Where are you all now, you defenders of "procession"? Come, and having listened to this saying, cease from now on to summon the word "procession" everywhere as a model, and to seek it always and alone as if it were the only one C that expresses the existence of the Holy Spirit. For our worship is concerned not with words, but with the meaning of words. Since, if you had to contend about words, it would be more just, and in truth more fitting, for you to adapt "spiration" to the Spirit. And of this, the divine Father Athanasius is the accurate teacher, who, where he refutes the hypocrisy of those around Meletius—which is the title of the work—treating of the progress of the Holy Spirit, wrote this most clearly: "The progress of the Spirit is not assimilated to generation, but to spiration on account of the reception, since it is like a breath coming from the mouth, and sanctifying the one who receives it, by which it is also called Spirit." This spiration, the most perceptive Epiphanius, considering it also to be from the Son, sets forth these things himself in the discourse called the *Ancoratus*: "Therefore the Father was always, and the Spirit D proceeds from the Father and the Son, and he received the spiration, in a certain manner, the Spi
Spirit, as the Father, who is worthy of the name of true immortality, had most especially stated." The blessed and faithful servant of God, Epiphanius, clearly determined that this, namely the Holy Spirit, breathes also from the Son, just as he does from the Father, since he is also naturally the spirit of his mouth. For the God-inspired Scripture is full of testimonies that he is also the spirit of the Father’s mouth. But that this same one is also the spirit of the mouth of the Son, the divine Apostle alone suffices to prove to us, who, having spoken—as we said before—concerning the wicked one who is to be revealed in the last days, cried out with a loud voice toward the end: "Whom the Lord Jesus Christ shall slay with the spirit of his mouth" (II Thess. II, 8). Now, since the Holy Spirit is the spirit of the mouth of the Son, it is clearly demonstrated that he also has his existence from the Son. And the mystagogue of this matter is the great Basil, who in his fourth oration against Eunomius openly and clearly states these things by name: "For we shall not have anything less for knowing the Spirit to exist from God, when we hear 'the Spirit of his mouth.' But this very name is sufficient to signify his existence from God. Wherefore, just as when the Holy Spirit is called the 'spirit of the mouth of God,' it is sufficient for noting his existence from God, according to the opinion of this greatest Father: so when he is called the 'Holy Spirit, the spirit of the mouth of the Son,' it will be truly and properly sufficient for denoting his existence from the Son." And by this reasoning, our discourse has demonstrated from many parts that C the Holy Spirit also has his existence from the Son.
36. But what, they say, of the many things that have perhaps not reached our hands? The wise John of Damascus, being later than almost everyone, entirely forbade the Holy Spirit to be called "from the Son," and his saying is set forth thus: "We say 'Spirit of the Son,' but we do not say 'from the Son.'" And in another place, confirming the same thing again, he said: "For the Father alone is the Cause." These things, therefore, both of our adversaries, heaping them into one, set before us, keeping them in the D last place as if they were supposedly difficult to encounter and hard to gainsay, yet they are as easy to overturn for those who run through them rightly and accurately as they are considered difficult to assault by those who are otherwise disposed. For to the first we respond immediately, so that the great question of theirs may be dissolved in a brief oration, that for those who apply their mind well and diligently to our words and examine them, we do not pronounce "the Holy Spirit is from the Son" without a conjunction, but we proclaim him to be this also "from the Son" with an open mouth. With these small and very slight words we dissolve the problem which they themselves deem the greatest, by the overturning of which by us, the other is also entirely overturned. But let us briefly expound the proposed statement.
A Since the one who bears a name of grace said, "We do not say 'from the Son,'" he was not overturning the statement that the Holy Spirit is also from the Son. For if it were so, he would seem to be ignorant of so many voices of the God-speaking and venerable Fathers; and who else would have understood them more perfectly than he, unless one should assert that this great examiner of sacred dogmas, while knowing them, proceeded to their complete destruction? And yet he praised their authors for the most part in the hymns published before the Church. Therefore, the wise man spoke the statement that has been understood, not to overturn the fact that the Spirit is "also from the Son," but to reject from thence the belief that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as from a first principle, which was wrongly deemed to be the case by some in times past. This is why he said "from the Son," but did not declare "and from the Son." For he himself has declared this clearly many times in his dogmatic chapters, and furthermore in B his own hymns, in as many instances as he theologized the All-Holy Spirit as being "through the Son"—meaning that "through the Son" and "and from the Son" are one and the same for those who penetrate more deeply into the meaning of such expressions. For just as the expression "through the Son" boasts a confession of the primary cause, according to the great Basil, in the same way he shows that "from the Son" is also this, and to this, the enlightened refer their minds. But the term "from the Son," even if the prepositions possess the same force in every way, as we have sufficiently set forth at the beginning of our discourse, nonetheless offers and gives a certain suspicion of the Son being considered a first principle. And let no one, quick only to contradict, immediately object to me that this preposition carries the indication of two principles. For when combined with C the Son, it avoids this evil notion, since the Son is by no means without an origin in regard to cause, but is naturally referred to the Father as his origin. The divine Father therefore teaches that "from the Son"—as something suspicious—should not be used. But that "through the Son," which in accordance with the prior proof is truly the same as "also from the Son," as has been said by us many times, he himself declared in his dogmatic chapters, and also handed down to be sung by all in the Church itself. This is what Cyril, the speaker of God, also declared in his writings to Palladius, saying: "The Spirit is nowhere mutable; but if it were subject to change, then the accusation would recoil upon the divine nature itself, if the Spirit is of God and the Father, and indeed also of the Son, substantially poured forth from both, that is, from the Father through the Son." Having said many times that the Holy Spirit is "through the Son," the most divine Cyril D just as often said that it is "also from the Son," and we have set the statements in the two discourses; for since he declared it to be from both, that is to say from the Father and from the Son, he arrived at saying this with a brilliant tongue and with very clear lips, interpreting that he does not say "from the Son" as from a first cause, but added those words, namely, as being poured forth "through the Son."
A This has been handed down to us by nearly all the Fathers who speak by the inspiration of the Spirit, and it is no less celebrated in their various writings, and resounds even more clearly within the Church herself. Thus, this divine Melodist also clearly seems to defend this very dogma, being so far from tending to destroy it, as his adversaries believe.
37. But that B the Father alone is the Cause is also rightly stated by the divinely wise man; yet this is not in order to destroy or overthrow the understanding that the Holy Spirit is also "from the Son." For the Father is acknowledged to be the sole cause even of created things, which nevertheless possess their constitution "from the Son." But lest I again waste time in speaking only about the word, repeating the same things frequently, and circling around the same points, appearing to exceed all measure—which I have pursued at greater length in the aforementioned—the great Basil affirms this in his second book against Eunomius, composing and arranging his discourse in this manner: "What is said to have been made 'by the Son' has its reference back to the first Cause; C so that even if we believe that all things were brought into being by God the Word, we do not deny that God is the cause of all things." Consider, meanwhile, whoever you are who currently hear our discourse, both the force of that "from the Son" and of that "by God the Word," so that you may recognize in all matters the equal power of both these prepositions; and observe before this how, even of the things made, the Father alone truly stands as the Cause, since, he says, "what is said to have been made 'by the Son' has its reference back to the first Cause; wherefore D we believe that all things were brought forth 'by the Son,' yet we know God to be the cause of all things." But let no one at all be disturbed that I have brought forward creation as an example to demonstrate similar things. For the divine Father, who had a name derived from immortality, exposing a conversation between an Orthodox person and a certain Anomoean, speaks thus: "The nature of God, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and of all creation is a cause. But for the Son, as the Word: 'In the beginning was the Word'; but for the Spirit, as a breath: 'For the breath of the Almighty is that which has taught me'; but for creation, as of created things, from which the Creator of them is known by a certain proportion." He hands down here one cause for the hypostases of the Godhead and for all creation, although he immediately assigned the greatest possible distinction between it and the divine persons. Wherefore, not inappropriately, I too, bringing aid to my discourse, have now used creation as an example. But this great man, in those things which he said in the proceeding discourse, nonetheless also effectively brought us aid in our prior purpose in another way. For, continuing the things already said, he hands down these things clearly again: "Neither [is] the word, which goes forth, [made] through vocal...
organs, nor is it some breath diffused and sent forth through respiratory organs; but it is both a living and active Word, 'For all things were made through him,' and a living and active Spirit, 'But all these things one and the same Spirit works.'" Having previously stated, as we have said, that God himself is the cause of creation, he now bears witness here that all things came to be for generation through the Word. Just as, therefore, created things are also from the Son, of which again the Father is the cause, so also the Holy Spirit is from the Son; although of Him too the Father is the established cause. For since B there is one cause, according to the tradition of the teachers, of the Godhead of the caused hypostases, and of all creation, it is the natural [cause] of the Son and of the Spirit, but the creative [cause] of all creation. But he who says, "If the Holy Spirit is also from the Son, there are by all means two principles of the same and two causes," seems to me to be entirely ignorant that the creation [also comes] from the Son and from the Spirit, or, if he is aware of this, such a person imagines three principles of the same and three causes, and [would] not even know God the Son to be perfect, nor again God the Holy Spirit to be perfect; or even if he knows these things, he would, according to the polytheistic deception of the Greeks, worship three gods, which is the head of the aforementioned impiety and of all other evil-mindedness. Yet the mystagogues of theology, knowing the Father to be perfect God, the Only-Begotten again to be perfect God, and the Holy Spirit to be perfect God, preach the three as one perfect God; C likewise also regarding the constitution of the creatures, proclaiming the Father as perfect Creator, the Only-Begotten as perfect Creator again, and the Holy Spirit as perfect Creator, they understand the three as one perfect Creator. Hence, the good things bestowed by them to those who are worthy instruct us in addition to these, that these things are given as from one. And this the great and divine Athanasius will now clearly confirm, who in his fourth discourse against the Arians arranges his speech in this manner: "When God bestows grace and peace, the Son also bestows it. For one and the same grace is from the Father in the Son, as is one light of the sun and the ray, and the illumination of the sun happens through the ray." Furthermore, Paul also, writing to the Thessalonians: "Now may God himself and our Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, direct our way to you," D preserved the unity of the Father and the Son; for he did not say, "direct" (plural), as if it were granted by two, from this one and from that one, but, "may he direct" (singular), so that he might show that it is handed down from the Father through the Son. Thus do I hold and think concerning these things, putting faith in all things in the God-inspired Scriptures; wherefore, believing also in the existence of the divine Spirit from the Son, I confess the Father to be the one principle and one cause, since it is referred back to Him as to the first principle of the cause of the worshipful Spirit itself.
A Therefore, they say, the Son too is a begetter of God, just as the Holy Spirit is from the Son, as if He were the creator of things that have come to be, because all things consist through the Son, and the provider of all good things, because these too are distributed from the Son. And if this were so, it would be necessary for the Holy Spirit also, like the Son, to be a begetter of God. For everything that is properly considered and spoken of by us concerning God is either common to the blessed and life-creating Trinity, or proper to one of its worshipful hypostases; for we know only natural and personal attributes in It, by which It is both unified and distinguished among theologians. Beyond these, we know nothing else. B Since, therefore, the Father is admittedly a begetter of God, if the Son is also a begetter of God, and this is proper to the Father, then the Holy Spirit must also necessarily be a begetter of God, and the dignity of the Trinity as far as you are concerned departs. But what would be the nature of that which possesses its existence from Him, if it is necessary to stop the inquiry at that point and not proceed further, nor in any way advance this examination because of the infinite nature of the subject? Men of the opposite faction, proposing such things to us, think they are leading our discourse to an inescapable and irrefutable necessity. But we, in order to refute their arguments point by point, ask on what grounds they say that the Son is also a begetter of God because the Holy Spirit is from the Son? And yet, the Spirit subsists primarily from the Father, and yet the Father is not called by us a begetter of God for that reason, but solely because of the only-begotten Son who is begotten of Him. C But if the Father is asserted to be a begetter of God, as they say, because the Holy Spirit is from Him, look, then this would be a second offspring of God. And from this, the title "only-begotten" would disappear. For how could the Son ever be called only-begotten, if there existed another offspring, this adorable Spirit? But we should not be at all surprised if they have fallen into this error, imagining the God of all to be a begetter of God because the Holy Spirit is from Him, just as those who, hearing Scripture call Him the Father of lights, erroneously interpret the lights as the Son and the Holy Spirit. And the fact that this is not to be accepted in this sense can be proven by the example of God being called the Father of mercies. D For just as He is called the Father of mercies because He is the cause and dispenser of mercies, so also, being the Father of lights, He is called by this very title. "Lights" are absolutely the illuminations, all these heavenly gifts according to Scripture, and good gifts and truly perfect endowments. God is the creator and giver of all these things, even to all the super-celestial powers. Nevertheless, these men, having fallen far from the intent of Scripture, understood the lights to be the Son and the Holy Spirit, not understanding at all that the Son—and the Holy Spirit itself—is called by such a name in this manner. Those who have erred in this understanding and regarding the truth, so as to speak of God as the Father of the worshipful Spirit, consequently are also now—regarding the matter put forward for examination—far from the truth and the correct understanding.
For the Father generates God in that the Son is begotten of Him, not because the Holy Spirit proceeds, having existence from Him. The Son, however, is clearly not the generator of God, inasmuch as He does not possess the Son. A Consequently, neither is the Holy Spirit a generator of God according to the Son; and this is proper above all to the Father, and to His hypostasis in an exceptional way. Such is the absurdity fashioned against us and the truth itself by the adversaries. Thus, the principle having been posited as false, the conclusion necessarily also stands as false.
39. What, then, of that argument by which they gather this syllogistically, which they also set forth as if it were a postulate and common notion? "Whatever," they say, "is truly considered and spoken of concerning God is either common to the blessed and life-creating Trinity, or proper to one of its worshipful hypostases," as a sort of necessary position or assumption of theirs. Hence, too, they bring this forward as something needing no demonstration. Nevertheless, we shall ask B them two questions, if indeed they are able to answer the second. You would surely say, in accordance with the voices of the saints, that the status of being "caused" occurs in God. Is this, then, common to the life-creating Trinity, or proper to one of its worshipful hypostases? As I see it, they gape, with mouths wide open, unequal to the answer, since they are unable to say either one. For that which is truly seen and spoken of in God as "caused" is neither common to the life-creating Trinity, nor proper to one of its hypostases, but is—if one might say so—proper and common to two, namely to the Son and to the divine and all-working Spirit. Wherefore, their C postulate has now been overturned, and their general notion has been trampled upon by all. How could anyone ever win so swift a victory, if not by the power of the Spirit who inspires even the dead?
But that we might strengthen our discourse through many points, and—leaving aside those that are furthest and distant from the goal—rather [speak of] those that are closest to the proposition: it is of the Father and of the Son to send the Holy Spirit; but it is in no way of the Holy Spirit to send—nor is it said—because the same subject cannot at all be both sender and sent; nor does He boast of sending any other at all, being of the same glory and honor as Him. But what is this to the goal I set for myself from the beginning? Let us approach more closely to the subject itself. D The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of the Son, but He is not, nor is He called, the Spirit of the Spirit, because He does not exist from Himself, nor is He found to be so named. Nor, again, is anything else assigned to the Spirit Himself, since the Godhead consists in three hypostases. Wherefore, since the Holy Spirit has existence from the Father and the Son simultaneously, He will not possess it at all from Himself, nor is it proclaimed by the faithful that He has it—which cannot be, nor is it permitted in any way that He should be the cause of His own existence. Now, since the Trinity bears within itself perfection regarding all things in the Godhead, no other person proceeds essentially from Himself, to which absurdity
the prolix discourse of our opponents was driving us. A This is in no way a diminution of the adorable Spirit, just as it is in no way a lessening of the Only-begotten that, while the Father possesses the Son and the Holy Spirit from Himself, the Holy Spirit possesses that which is strictly from the Father, and this Son likewise. Furthermore, why do they distinguish essential attributes from personal ones, not understanding that in God even properties exist by nature, since accident has no place there, and He is superior to all composition? And more importantly, each of the divine persons holds the primacy, possesses solely His own proper property, which in no way began at any time. Therefore, the Father is truly Father by nature—for this is proper and eternal to Him alone—and the Son is Son by nature, possessing all that is the Father’s, save B for the fatherhood; just as the Holy Spirit is by nature that which He is called, although He neither shares in the fatherhood nor has been allotted the sonship. Thus, in the least composite and most simple Trinity, the very differences of each hypostasis and their properties exist by nature, even if those already mentioned, along with the others, have been utterly ignorant of this.
40. I have spoken sufficiently and enough concerning these things. Nevertheless, I have it in my power to demonstrate by many other testimonies handed down in writing that the Holy Spirit also has His existence from the Son; all of which, having set them forth now with all speed in their proper order, I shall then turn to the consultation and exhortation of our C opponents, and, drawing the discourse together into a sober praise of God and a particular act of thanksgiving, as I am able, I shall summarize it, as I had proposed to myself from the beginning and had resolved at the outset of my first Commentary. And thus, having poured forth fitting prayers, as is meet, with the help of God, I shall impose a worthy end upon this my labor. But the sayings must now be set down briefly, and as they stand. Among others, the great Basil, most excellent in the exposition of divine matters, declares these things in his discourse on the Faith in certain words: D “For we beheld,” says the evangelist, “his glory, glory as of the Only-begotten from the Father,”* that is to say, not by the grace of miracles newly bestowed upon Him, but by communion according to nature, the Son possessing the dignity of the paternal Godhead. For to receive is something common even to the creature, but to have by nature is proper to the Begotten. Just as, therefore, the Son naturally possesses whatsoever belongs to the Father, so the Only-begotten has all things gathered together within Himself, nothing being divided into another. In one of the chapters of the second book of the *Thesaurus*, the admirable Cyril, in agreement with these things, writes: “How could he be numbered among created things, who naturally gathers within himself all the properties and excellences of the divine and paternal essence of the Father?” And again in another: “How will He not be a Son living from a living Father, since the property of the Begetter passes into Him naturally?” This is in reference to the saying:
*Joan. 1, 14.
A “The Son can do nothing of himself.” He has, the text says, the goods of the essence just as He has the essence itself. And concerning the saying, “But as many as received him,” he says: The Son, having radiated from the very essence of the Father, brings with Him the proper good of that essence by nature. B The interpreter himself stands forth as the author of all these things in the sixth book *Against Hermias*, discussing such matters and speaking thus: The Spirit is not foreign to the Son. For He has been brought forth, containing in Himself the entire property of the Father. And since He is the fruit of the highest Divinity, how could He be conceived as despoiled of the goods of the Divinity? For the proper characteristic of the Divinity is sanctification, of which the Spirit is the recipient. For He is holy by nature, and is the sanctifier of the whole nature. Here Cyril, as a mystagogue of divine things, has clearly taught that the venerable saying of the wise Basil, as well as all the others—which, recognizing this author, were correctly and fittingly arranged by us in this place—pertained to the adorable Spirit. For this is the dignity of the paternal Divinity, and the greatest good of the Father’s essence, and its natural and preeminent property, so that—to sum up the meaning of all these sayings universally—such sayings have indicated that the Son also possesses and has these things by nature, as is now clear.
But if we must conduct our discourse on this subject more perfectly, we must also take up the remaining sayings of this same Father, which are able to set forth the matter of our proposal more brightly. This greatest in truth and most divine Cyril, in one of the chapters of the first of his *Thesauri*, says: C “Just as a plant communicates to the fruit produced from it the quality naturally inherent in itself, so too is the Son understood to have received from the Father the things pertaining to Himself, being all that the Father is, excluding only the being Father.” And in his book *On the Trinity*, he says: “In the Son, the Only-Begotten, by all things similar and equal to the Father, without the paternity.” And again: “The Son is a partaker of all the natural goods of the Father, without being the Father.”
What, then, in his explanation of the Gospel according to John regarding the saying, “He was in the beginning with God”? D But there, discussing it more broadly, as if interpreting these things, he proceeds: Showing Himself as the true God revealed from the true God the Father, the Only-Begotten says: “All things that the Father has are mine.” If the Son is the heir of all the natural properties inherent in the Father, as one who exists from Him, yet He will never obtain being Father. For this is one of the things inherent in the Begetter. But the Son will remain, deprived of nothing that is inherent in the Father, even if He is not conceived as Father, since He has in Himself, perfectly, the proper and preeminent [properties] of the Father’s essence. The same [author], once again similarly using the same [logic] in the third book *Against Hermias*, proclaimed with a clear voice: “The discourse compels one to confess, quite often, that one must understand the Son as true God from true God, born from the essence of God the Father through true generation, not as having been transferred into some spurious and foreign nature, but as...”
A existing essentially as that which the Father is also understood to be, save only for the fact that He is Father. Lastly, let there be added the statement from his second book to Hermias. For there, this divine Cyril is clearly found saying this: We believe the Son to be coeternal with the Father, and possessing everything in equal measure, save for one generation alone; for this is appropriate only to God and the Father. B All these things this God-taught and divinely-minded Father asserts individually, confessedly, and openly in so many of his writings: sometimes saying that the Son executes everything that the Father does, save for being Father alone; at other times declaring that, apart from the fatherhood, He is known to be the Father's equal in all things and like Him; now, that the Son is a partaker of the natural goods of the Father, without, however, becoming Father, as he distinguishes in his own words; now, that such a one is an heir of those things that are naturally in the Father, as existing from Him by nature, yet will never attain to being Father, C as he expounds—for this too is of those things that belong to the Begetter. Yet the Son will remain in no way deprived of those things that are in the Father, even if He is not understood as Father, but possessing all the properties of the essence of the Father perfectly and exclusively in Himself; and again, in another place, asserting that the Son is and is known to exist essentially, as the Father is understood to be, save only for the fact that He is Father; and in another, clearly declaring Him to be coeternal with the Father, and having whatever is in the Father in equal measure, if you make an exception only for the act of begetting; for this alone is proper to God and the Father. From all these it is manifest that the Holy D Spirit also has existence from the Son. For whatever the Father is, the Son is also, and He possesses all that is the Father's in Himself, only He is not Father, nor begetter, a distinction which has deprived Him of this. Wherefore the Son will never be said to beget a Son, for He is not Father, but is Son alone. But why, then, would it not be affirmed that the Holy Spirit also proceeds [emits] in accordance with existence from Him, if He is attested to have all the properties of the Father naturally, save only that He is not Father and does not beget? If the Holy Spirit did not have His own divine existence from the Son, the most divine Cyril would have included this in his qualification, and would have added to the words where he has clearly stated "save only for begetting" also "and for emitting," in regard to the existence of the Holy Spirit. But now, having deprived the Son only of this, he allowed Him this, no less than in his other statements brought forward by us above, which openly proclaim that the Holy Spirit exists also from the Son. Such is the dogma in the present case, which from statements of this kind obtains both demonstration and firmness; and as we have sufficiently and abundantly proven that it was most true before these, as being correct, inoffensive, and secure, by many other testimonies of the Fathers which clearly require no exposition nor interpretation for their understanding, not in
the case of those who possess an understanding superior to the many, and who know more of the Scriptures than others, but even in the case of those who are sluggish and dull regarding these arguments; for to the greater part of these, no exposition is necessary. A And we have proposed these, having collected them from all the mystagogues of piety without exception. Thus all our god-speaking and divinely-inspired Fathers, to whom the investigation of the holy and venerable dogmas has been a care, the stable and solid pillars of the Church, and the unshaken and firm bulwarks of the truth, have frequently decreed in their own writings, and most patently, that the Holy Spirit has His existence also from the Son; whom it is right for all to believe and to follow in this matter, just as in all their other theological writings, since to contradict them in this one point, of which we are now speaking, is to contradict the dogmas of the Godhead in all things. But he who does this clearly resists the holy and adorable Spirit, by whom those men, being for the most part, or rather incessantly, moved—or, to speak more aptly, inspired—were setting forth for us the divine and holy dogmas of the true faith; this is to many a sign of madness, and to others an indication of insanity, which may we not suffer to the end, I pray, nor undergo the danger to the soul that threatens therefrom.
41. C For I now properly turn the face of my discourse towards you, who even up to this time wickedly oppose the truth, whom I am not ashamed to call brethren again, even if you have stood so far apart from us and from the truth itself. I claim as my own even your distress, and no less the ruin of the soul that arises from this, by the law of the love which ought to intervene between us who have obtained our name from Christ, and chiefly because of all friendship and benevolence, and further by reason of our common nature, which suggests this to us before all else, then because of our genuine and kindred relationship through the sacred font, and then because of the fellowship and custom of those whom, as I have said, I revere—our own members, although cut off long ago, members once to be honored, even if lost long ago. What maleficent demon, what spirit pathologically envious of the good and of our peace, has torn you from the body of the holy and catholic Church of Christ, so that, to speak with the apostle Paul D, you do not at all obey the truth? When will you be glued together again, when will you be joined together, committing yourselves to concord with us, and having perfectly embraced the truth? You listen to and follow those who before you, as they had the capacity, opposed the dogma; and you would be doing this rightly, if they themselves in turn listened to and followed the ancients, who by a larger measure and in all other matters most openly surpass them, of whom
A their lives are attested by their words, and their words commend their lives, who, having dissipated the darkness of many gods and scattered the entire gloom of heresies, shone forth more clearly in the world with solar rays, to such an extent that Satan was shamed at both, seeing their power in these things, and whom the order of angelic hosts, testing them, admired in a wondrous way, both for their excellence in each and for their immense fortitude. And what now surpasses all that has been said, and is set forth in praise as being more proper to them, is that the Church of God, receiving their commentaries and writings as if they were Mosaic tablets and truly divine voices of God, entrusts them to us to be reverenced and kissed. If, therefore, those who hear these were to follow them, as is fitting, it would behoove us all in turn to follow the same, and to be persuaded and believe in their words. And this we have pursued with you precisely before, without any interlude of time, until we recognized that those who assert the contrary are continuing to insist upon the footsteps of our common Fathers. B However, it would now be a manifest displacement of mind and an open alienation of thoughts if we were to desert the saints received by common judgment, and instead follow those who, because of a lust for ruling and because they refuse to acknowledge, as is the custom, the privileges granted to the Roman Church from antiquity and for all time, have confounded all things and, perturbing them rashly, have contradicted—would that this had not happened—and have caused a universal scandal and common tumults for all men against the dogma that is rooted in the sense of our right and pious faith, and fighting against it, they have made no end of it, fabricating causes for their absurd opinions, until they sowed dissension between both Churches, to the destruction of our race, woe unto me! and, taking to their aid in this the ignorance or rather the lack of knowledge of divine Scriptures of many, and joining them as partners to their own purpose, because of which, I am well persuaded, all those harmful things later overwhelmed us, so that the offense committed by those who were before us against the Divine might be audaciously avenged. Furthermore, C that the lust for ruling and the desire to exempt themselves entirely from the judgment of the tempests and fierce billows was the cause of this, which they adorn with a specious name, so that it might be thought by posterity to have been done not without reason, the destruction of this dogma, along with other harm, they undertook—a heinous deed, many years ago in the age of Photius the patriarch, which resounds with a great voice like a stentor and clearly demonstrates it. For he, having become the author of the first schism for no other reason, and similarly contradicting the dogma with others with all his might, when he had obtained pardon for those things of which he was accused by the Roman Church, which he had previously committed against it, for the sake of obtaining the great throne of Constantinople, once his disputes had been laid to rest, and he had subsequently been restored to his own see by the kindness of the prelates, with everything wrapped in silence, and no discussion being held concerning a similar dogma, every
A endeavor and diligent study was directed toward peace and concord. And I pass over the letters and writings which he reverently and with great submissiveness sent to the president of the apostolic see, where, testifying to his great holiness, he begs him to offer up prayers for him, as has been examined by diligent men. And yet, by what right could he be in communion with men who were altogether wandering astray in the dogma of piety, unless they had first properly rejected that error and subjected their own heresy to anathema? And nevertheless, even if someone has labored much and become exhausted by inquiring, he will never find that he demanded any correction of error from them, nor a profession of the pious faith, nor even, which was the least thing, a mere promise of the matter; but having obtained only reconciliation, he immediately seized it without any examination. B Thus Photius, the author of the first schism, who was much wiser than these men—if you consider the power of speaking—resisted this sound and excellent dogma out of contention and rivalry, and in no way out of the love of truth. For this reason, therefore, those who followed him many years later, of whom we are now speaking, divided the one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, and tore it into parts, having published many and various treatises against this safe and secure dogma, for which God, perhaps, did not long delay to inflict punishments in return for this crime rashly attempted; for He is not usually accustomed to overlook sin, however C most merciful He may be. Nor do I speak of all who were of the times of the schism, since it is neither decent nor just to attach that crime to them all. For there are some, indeed there are, who, moved by a similar affection to their predecessors, as truth clearly has it, vigorously uphold this dogma in their various writings; some openly, as if they were entirely surrendered to the Spirit, and others more obscurely, or as I might say more clearly, accommodating themselves to the fragility of human life and the times. But in order that I may open up to you all the very manner of their accommodating themselves to the times, they clearly publish the truth under the guise of a dialogue, and anyone may see both of them demonstrating and confirming this dogma from the divinely inspired D Scriptures. Those, however, who are of the schism strive with the greatest effort for the contrary, bringing forth contradictions from their own bellies, flowing into their own principles in theological matters, from which they drive their discourse into countless absurdities. Shall we, therefore, pay heed to those who belch forth such things from themselves, while neglecting our own common Fathers, who speak with the Spirit? I beseech you, by the hope which we hope, by the Triad toward which our worship is primarily directed, let us not make such a harmful and easy choice as to prefer earth-born men to heavenly men, and those who reason in a human manner to true intelligences. Let us finally give our ears with an alacritous spirit to the sacred words of the saints. Why, as if we were rejecting the very hearing of them, do we hide our face?
vertinus? These are the machines and frauds of the wicked A demon, who leads us away from the advantages arising thence. If we perceive them with ready and attentive ears, we shall pluck richer fruits from them, understanding by their aid the certainty of the dogma, and, while striving intensely for peace, let us not tremble at what is unaccustomed and foreign in the phrasing; nay, rather, let us feel a greater fear regarding its rejection until now, lest we render an ultimate account for it, namely on the day of retribution. It is best that we be addicted to right faith, not to custom. Custom ought to maintain its strength when it does not damage canonical observations, as happens in civil affairs, and when it does not look toward the overturning of laws; but when it brings harm to the worship of piety and creates danger for us, then it must be shunned in every way as insidious and hostile to the soul. But if you conceive fear within yourselves, and stand in an uneasy state of mind, because this present dogma is not found in the sacred Symbol of faith, it is right for you to acknowledge that this venerable Symbol in no way contains many other necessary things, since it is not possible for all and singular points to be gathered in minute detail into one single presentation, and one so contracted and compendious; nor do we on that account disapprove of them or drive them far from us, but on the contrary, we hold them safely and preach them with a resonant voice. And that I may pass over many things in silence, I shall make mention of only one or two, the contemplation of which will not be far from this dogma of ours. That the Holy Spirit is God nowhere appears in this Symbol of faith, B nor that He is consubstantial with the Father and the Son in express and explicit words, although at the time of that edition His divinity had been brought into controversy. Nevertheless, we openly and clearly confess that He is God, and we receive Him as consubstantial with the Father and the Son, nor are we deemed, in the judgment of prudent men, to have attempted anything new in the dogmas of the faith. The Holy Spirit again—that I may touch more closely upon the purpose proposed to us—is not called the 'Spirit of truth' in this same Symbol of faith, and yet no one anywhere has been so rash, or affected by such confidence, as not to embrace the evangelical voice of the Savior. I also wrap in silence those divine and venerable dogmas which we, the cultivators of piety, profess concerning the incarnation of the Only-Begotten, C and above others the very word 'Theotokos', not unlike the designation 'Mother of God', for whose sake it was necessary even for our holy Fathers who shone forth afterward to issue a particular definition, and they appointed it to be chanted in the Church. As, therefore, we embrace and confess all these things, though they are nowhere held in the venerable Symbol of faith, in like manner also the fact that the Holy Spirit has His existence also from the Son D must be held by all, even if it is in no way comprehended in it, because it has been clearly decreed by all the Fathers inspired by the Spirit with one mouth; and it is to be preached in all places, both
in mutual conversations and in commentaries, yet not to be added—as I have often mentioned—to the Symbol of faith, since the better part of the saints who proclaimed this venerable dogma recited the Symbol as it was composed from the beginning, and as it is still; they added nothing whatsoever to it, nor on the other hand did they omit anything. A This we also keep unchanged, and will keep forever, just as they published it. Our divinely minded and God-taught emperor has been a sufficient guarantor of this. Wherefore, even if some of you suspect something of the sort not ingenuously, having heard these things, learn now the truth correctly. From this point on, casting away the dissension and putting aside the discord, embrace fully the peace with us and B welcome the reconciliation. All of you, in general, who have until now been given over to schism and turmoil, fill your souls with tranquility for the future. Do not be ashamed of the change for the better, nor let the transition to a more sound state alarm you; do not disdain to become one with us, just as the disagreements among yourselves do not escape us. Give this fruit, namely peace, in the present to Christ the Prince of peace, who through His goodness long ago joined what was separated into one perfectly. Nothing is more pleasing to Him among all things than that we be perpetually bound to one another by the link of concord; while He was living in the body on earth, He always offered it as a kind of gift to the apostles and disciples, and, departing again from earthly things, C He granted and left it to them as a kind of inheritance: from which, brothers, I beseech you not to tear yourselves away to the very end; nay, rather run quickly to it, and you will share in the good things that flow from it. How great a multitude of men and women, do you suppose, have lost their souls through this schism, for whose salvation—though not as is fitting, nor justly—you labor and struggle so much? How many monks and how many nuns has the deceitful enemy snatched away and stolen, whom, cutting off from the communion of Christ, he has consumed as his own prey, and others, separated from our common flock, he has thrown into insults and disgrace? You will D properly render this injury void if only you return to us, and if you recall again some of the fallen whom the common fate has not taken away. Do not, therefore, brothers, neglect either the brothers lying thus, or, what is most important, yourselves who are rushing into perdition and are in danger. Recognize at last the security of the dogma. Leave behind empty dissensions and contentions, and repent of those things which you have fought against inopportune and not without error. Return to the truth, and conspire with us to keep it. If we persuade you with these words, O friends, come, let us join hands. Behold, I myself first of all offer you this as a sign of an indissoluble spiritual bond; and do you likewise grant yours, and stand all of you with us as one, and let us with one mind magnify the Lord.
But if not, we call to witness now all the angels of God who have charge of us, and before them the Lord himself, who is religiously worshipped in the Trinity, that we are innocent, for our part, in the matter regarding you, for we have paid what was due. These things, after God, we say to those among whom something vital still appears—to you, I mean, who, not being subject to the passions, are more steadfast in the judgment of finding such things; for as for those in whom the good of love has completely grown cold, and who have become altogether dead through their wickedness toward us, what words, what counsels, or what admonitions are to be used toward them, whose resurrection and correction clearly belong to God alone, and to the more perfect and greater work of our prayers to God? B
42. But since I now long to dedicate also the final praise and thanksgiving for our sakes to the Giver and Bestower of all good things, my discourse desires to leap forward and expand itself, and it longs to dwell upon the marvelous things that have now been wrought in us by Him. Yet, on the other hand, since the matters of my treatise and the scope of my purpose have reached their end, the present situation does not permit this, because the marvelous works of God toward us are truly too vast for this present and great argument. Hence, in order to express at least the desire of our own soul toward Him, confessing and declaring this, I shall bring my discourse to a close in a prayer appropriate to the situation, so as to avoid satiety, as I promised a little while ago. But in order that I may begin the praise as is fitting and as we ought, having borrowed the most opportune words of the sacred chanter David, I cry out with a clear voice to the Most High with a wonder not unlike his own: "How magnified are thy works, O Lord! In wisdom hast thou made them all"C; not only those things which, at the beginning, from what was not, Thou didst creatively bring into being, but also those which, at various times, Thou didst accomplish for the benefit of humanity, as is the case with this present work toward us, which Thou hast completed as both the greatest work and one fashioned in wisdom. For since it did not belong to the merciful and human-loving God—Who out of His goodness alone fashioned our race from the beginning—to overlook or neglect Thy Church, which had been torn asunder and was laboring most miserably at the end; that Church which Thine only-begotten and co-eternal Son and Word, being the Son of the most powerful Father, on account of the bowels of Thine infinite mercy toward us, having assumed human flesh, had gathered from the ends of the earth onto the Cross by the extension of His all-pure and most holy hands, and had acquired for Himself by the blood flowing from His life-giving and precious side;—Thou didst deign to cause this same Church to come together again into one in this our age, and to heal through Thy disposition that wound which, being in a most wretched state—a wound which the author of evil and the deceitful enemy, unable to bear seeing her prosper and succeed, had inflicted—Thou hast been well-pleased to bind together. Therefore, before all else, having led us economically into treaties of peace and friendship alone, which is Thy disposition of human affairs, Thou... D