ANNO DOMINI MCCCLV.
MANUEL CALECA MONK OF THE ORDER OF FRIARS PREACHERS. PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE.
NOTITIA.
(FABRIC. HARLES, *Bibliotheca Græca*, vol. XI.)
Manuel Caleca, a Greek A of the family of John Caleca, patriarch of Constantinople from the year 1333 to 1347 B, wrote on behalf of the Latins against his own fellow Greeks, and among the monks of the Order of Preachers C he professed his name, just as Pantaleo did. He lived not at the time of the Council of Lyons in the year 1274 D, but after the errors disseminated by Palamas, whom he refutes at length in a volume, and thus he lived around the year 1360, as H. Wharton correctly notes in the *Appendix to Cave* [E]. His writings are:
1. *Four Books against the errors of the Greeks concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit*, concerning which work Petavius (*Dogma. theol. de Trinitate*, c. 1) says: "Manuel Caleca, a learned and Catholic author, whose excellent volume I possess in favor of the Latins against the Greeks, in which he discourses most abundantly and precisely on the procession of the Holy Spirit, so that nothing more learned or subtle could be written on this subject." Besides Petavius, Allatius produces passages from it in Greek in his *book De purgatorio*, p. 12 seq., and *De consensu*, pp. 1332, 1533, 1360. This work has hitherto seen the light in print only in the Latin version which Ambrosius Camaldulensis composed at the command of Pope Martin V, and which Petrus Stevartius edited from the Bavarian library with notes, Ingolstadt, 1616, 4to; it was reprinted with the same notes in the *Bibl. patrum*, vol. XVI, Cologne edition [col. 1618, vol. XIV, p. 257, in the *Cat. bibl. Leidens.* p. 33] and vol. XXVI, Lyons edition, p. 382 sqq. In the fourth book, Caleca briefly pursues and touches upon many other heads in which the Latin Church is reproached by the Greeks or dissents from them [FABR.]; ms. at Rome in the Vatican library no. 4064, translated by the monk Ambrosius. At Milan, in the Ambrosian library. In the Mazarin library and the library of de Mesme, a manuscript of Man. Caleca is found without the title of the book. See Montfaucon, *Bibl. biblioth. mss.*, p. 114 B, and 157 D, p. 513 E, p. 1308 D, and 1327 C. At Venice, in the Greek codex 159 of the Marcian library, at the end of the book, there is a note in Latin concerning the author and the argument of the book, the author of which [atque]: "Here," he says, "this most illustrious man of great virtues died at Mitylene in the chapel of Saint John in 1410." Ibid., in the Latin codex 138, the same work, translated by Ambrosius Camaldulensis. See *Cat. codd. Gr. Marc.*, p. 90, and Lat. p. 79, add shortly after, § 17, init. [HARL.]
2. *On Essence and Operation*, a work against the tome of Gregory Palamas, approved in the synod of Constantinople, edited in Greek and Latin with notes by François Combefis, vol. II of the *Auctarium novissimum Bibl. Patrum*, p. 1, 67; Paris, 1672 fol. In Latin from Combefis's version, vol. XXVI of the *Bibl. Patrum Lugd.*, p. 321 sqq. The tome itself, promulgated in the year 1351 in the synod under Emperor John Cantacuzenus and Callistus Xanthopulus, patriarch of Constantinople, was published in Greek and Latin by Combefis, p. 135-176 [FABR.]. Paris, in the public library, codex 1279 [HARL.].
3. *On faith and concerning the principles of the catholic faith*, a remarkable book distributed into ten chapters, in which Combefis praises the elegance of the style, the clarity, and the solidity of the doctrine, especially from the tradition of the Fathers; he edited it in Greek and Latin in the same *Auctarium novissimum*.
vol. II, p. 174, 285 [al. p. 182-197] with notes. Thence it was reprinted in Latin, with the notes omitted, in volume XXVI of the *Bibl. Patrum Lugd.*, p. 345. Jacobus Pontanus had given a Latin translation of the same work by Calecas, which was divided into two books; Labbe promised to edit this in the second volume of *De scriptoribus eccles.*, page 45. Allatius testifies that he had read this same work in Greek with the greatest pleasure of mind, from a manuscript in the monastery of St. Ambrose in Milan, of the year 6910, which would be 1402 of Christ, perhaps written not long after Calecas' own time. Arcudius, praising the same man, in chapter 7, calls Calecas a man truly worthy of ancient Greece, and a Catholic. The same man is called a person of great learning and faith by Franciscus Turrianus in his book on the VI and VIII synods. (FABR.) Florence, in the Laurentian Library, codex 13, n. 41, plut. 74, "Mode of Confession" (*τῆς ἐξομολογήσεως*), by Man. Calecas: an interpretation from the Latin, or a form of confession and absolution of sins according to the rite of the Latins, translated into the Greek language by Man. Calecas, beginning: *Ἐξομολογοῦμαι τῷ Κυρίῳ μου, τῷ Θεῷ μου*, etc. There follow the prerogatives of sacramental confession, which are numbered fifteen, and their explanations. See Bandini, *Cat. codd. Gr. Laur.*, vol. III, p. 110. — Munich, in Bavarian codex 127 (see the catalogue of Greek mss. of Bavaria, p. 53; numbered by Hardt as codex 202), on the elements of the Catholic faith according to the tradition of the holy Scripture and the Catholic doctors. (HARL.). [See] p. 855, on the agreement, which as far as I know is unpublished. It begins: *Τῶν παλαιῶν αἱρετικῶν ἦν*. Against Creyghton. Regarding the book on the Simeonites, p. 115. It begins: *Ὥσπερ ὁ ἥλιος πανταχοῦ*. [See above, vol. X, p. 327.] Regarding the Simeonites p. 112. [See above, vol. X, p. 240.] On the work of Macarius Chrysocephalus on Luke, our Wolf suspects in his *Diss. de catenis Patrum*, p. 32, that this refers to Manuel Calecas. (FABR.) Compare above, vol. VI, p. 325. — A certain grammar by Man. Calecas, Paris, in Mazarin codex 91. See Montfaucon, *Bibl. biblioth. mss.*, p. 1319 E. (HARL.) — [Letters of Calecas to Joannicius, in the Vossian codex. See *Cat. mss. Angliae etc.*, vol. II, n. 2240.] The hymn, *Te Deum laudamus*, translated into Greek by Calecas, as it is read in the margin of the Florentine Laurentian codex n. 2, plut. 4. Others attribute that version of the Ambrosian hymn to the monk Sisebutus, who lived in the eleventh century, others to others. See Bandini, *Cat. codd. Gr. Laur. I*, p. 533. Calecas' monody on Meledon, ibid., in codex Laur. 13 n. 49, plut. 74. See Bandini, *l. c. III*, p. 106. A letter of Demetrius Cydones to Calecas, in Coislin codex 315, at the end. See Montfaucon, *Bibl. Coislin.*, n. 429. (HARL.)
MANUEL CALECAS: AGAINST THE ERRORS OF THE GREEKS, FOUR BOOKS
Olim Latine versi ab Ambrosio Camaldulensi; postea ex bibliotheca Bavarica in lucem prolati et notis illustrati a Petro Stevartio, Leodio, SS. Theologiæ D. professore, et Academiæ Ingolstadiensis procancellario, etc.
PREFACE.
To the most holy and blessed Pope Martin, Ambrosius.
I have obeyed your instructions, most blessed father, and have promptly and obediently translated from the Greek that work of the illustrious and learned man Manuel Calecas against the errors of Greek levity, which the distinguished student of theology, Master Antonius Massanus, fired with zeal for the faith, brought back with him from Constantinople, the royal city, and which I hope I have done fittingly and usefully. In this work, that excellent man performed the office of the task he had undertaken in such a way that (in my own judgment) he allowed no diligence to be found wanting in himself. For, as was appropriate in a matter of such importance, he proceeded cautiously A
and proceeds with subtlety according to the dignity of the subject matter, and, like an illustrious warrior, defeats them mainly with their own weapons; and he reveals, uncovers, bares, and pulls up by the very roots, so to speak, the inveterate error—or rather, the inborn love of contention—from its foundations. A I, for my part, translated this the more willingly, both because it was enjoined upon me by you, to whom I owe service in all fidelity, and out of respect for an ancient race, long renowned and illustrious in every kind of praise. For who does not know that the Greeks formerly excelled almost all mortals in wisdom and eloquence, as well as in faith, religion, and the other merits of virtue? It was with difficulty—as was fitting—and with distress that I felt that they had been for too long hindered and ensnared by traps and nets of this kind; and for that reason, having been already for a long time so crushed and consumed by supreme calamities that they preserve scarcely any vestige of their former glory and dignity: I desired that, with you as the chief author and guide, it might be restored, if not to its former dignity, at least to its pristine holiness and appearance; for it is surely greater than what we might hope for, that it be at least delivered from internecine destruction.
For it is your role, and you understand it to be so, most blessed Pope, to recall erring men to the right path, and by the imitation of the true and eternal Shepherd, whose place you hold on earth, to seek diligently for the lost sheep, which has been ill-freed from the mazes of devious error and is walking toward its own destruction, and once found and placed upon your holy shoulders, to bring it back to the flock. It is, I say, primarily within your glory to undertake such a divine work, so noble an achievement, with the full intention of your soul, and to omit no diligence until you accomplish it; so that the pastor by whom the Western Church, divided many years ago, has been united, may also, by his authority, cause the Eastern Church, separated by a far greater and worse schism, to be joined under one head to the rest of the body of the Church: lest, being longer scattered from the rest of the structure, it be a prey and food for the Barbarians; or lest the Christian name be utterly removed from where it first sprang up, than which what can be said that is more grievous, or what can be thought that is more unworthy?
I congratulate your holy mind, most blessed Lord; I congratulate your happiness, and I marvel exceedingly that you have been divinely prompted to this work, than which nothing could be more glorious or more illustrious. If you should be able to effect this—and you will be able, by the mercy of Christ, who chose you for this task—anyone who is not ignorant of judgment and reason will deny that a great deal has been added to the heap of your merits, when you apply yourself with every effort not only to repairing sacred edifices that have long been fallen, but, much more worthily, to restoring the universal Church. But it is not my purpose to pursue your praises. I am mindful of myself; more excellent intellects will do this; it will be enough for me, in the limitation of my talent, to have satisfied your command.
Indeed, this work, which the author himself included in one volume as a continuous discourse, we have, for the utility of readers and to consider their weariness, divided into four books with convenient distinctions, so that through these as it were milestones, the reader's mind might rest from the constant exercise of conflict, and arise always more eager to read the remainder and more intent. If however the prudent reader should find anything in this interpretation that is perhaps too obscure or awkwardly phrased, let him attribute it partly to the necessity of translation and partly to my excessive speed. For the subject matter is such, and so constrained by narrow boundaries, that it was not fitting for the translator to depart too far from the author's footsteps, lest I should seem to have compiled my own work rather than translated another's; and the speed was such that I translated the work of months in almost one month. Nor is your holy erudition ignorant that things which are poured out quickly, or more truly precipitously—especially regarding an arduous and most august subject, and one which ought to be handled with nothing but the greatest caution (for almost the entire discourse is about the Trinity)—cannot be stated accurately and elegantly. I will nevertheless maintain steadfastly that I have translated faithfully. May Christ our almighty God deign to preserve your holiness safe, tranquil in long life, and flourishing, most holy and blessed Father.
AUTHOR'S PROLOGUE BEGINS
Since indeed the care of fraternal love must be guarded as of the utmost importance, and all things must be done and undertaken for its sake, as the Lord commands; and yet nothing is more pleasant, nor more useful, than both to hear and to speak of God; from which it happens that both those who give and those who receive attain great rewards; and we obtain thence everlasting life: For this, He says, is eternal life, that they may know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent 1; and since those things which pertain to the divinity, and those which pertain to the human dispensation—and you have required us, according to the measure of our powers, to be taught how the most correct opinion of the holy Fathers concerning the procession of the Spirit stands: concerning which, indeed, since Greeks and Latins differ, does that dissension also, and that of each A Church's division, follow necessarily. For you wish to know on what arguments each Church relies, and which of these thinks more reasonably; and besides, with the Lord saying: What I say to you in the darkness, speak in the light, and what you have heard in the ear, preach upon the housetops 2. The Apostle likewise insinuating a terrible judgment of silence, and saying: I testify to you this day, that I am clean from the blood of all; for I have not hidden from declaring to you all the counsel of God 3; and admonishing that this same thing must be done: These things, he says, admonish, and testify before God 4. Although it is more fitting for those to speak of God and divine things who, always meditating on the law of the Lord, are of purer life and intelligence, from whom we are removed by a very great distance, more numerous
A than those reasons exhorting and impelling me to write, I shall proceed, with such ability as I may have, Christ being my guide, to expound to you—moderately and simply, while maintaining conciseness—what has been written by the holy Fathers on this matter. I will, of course, omit very many things (for it would be a lengthy task to pursue them all) and will set down only a few, such as may satisfy you as to what their opinion on this subject was. Thus, through this moderation of ours, you may obtain what you have requested from a friend, and I, for my part, while I am not terrified by the prolixity of the others, nor perturbed by the shortness of time, will be of better spirit, knowing that I am not to be subjected to the punishment that threatens him who hides his talent.
I will not, therefore, be silent, since my discourse will be preeminently about the truth of the faith; nor do I doubt that through you these writings of ours will flow to others also, whom we cannot address directly, and whom we might entreat regarding the truth of the faith. To them, however, it will be permitted to speak according to the decree; and thus, while the ministry of the word is multiplied, the reward of a faithful servant will be compensated to me. Although I am to provide only a few things from the many, if anyone, however, putting aside squabbling and contention, should proceed to inquire into the truth of the matter itself, by itself, from these things which are firm and established, he will find that this can be illustrated by much shorter and only the very principles of the faith, and that the more easily because it is certain that God aids those who inquire with piety: "Cooperator," he says, "God is to everyone who seeks the good"*. And He who urges us to search the Scriptures*, and has promised that He will give to those who ask and will open to those who knock, will not permit such as these to stray too far from the truth.
For since it is said: "Give an opportunity to the wise, and he will be wiser"*, and I know you to be such a one, and I hold it as certain that you do nothing for contention, nothing for vanity, and that you inquire wisely and prudently only for the truth of things: I shall now proceed more readily to explain what is sought. Nor am I truly unaware that many have already written very many books on this matter, which, although the truth required fewer words, nevertheless required many of them in order to defend it against those who, in a spirit of contention, attempted to attack it.
Furthermore, just as every one of the faithful brings forth a confession of faith: "For with the heart one believes unto justice; but with the mouth confession is made unto salvation"*: what forbids this truth, also grasped by common faith as we have received it from the holy Fathers, from being brought B forward and handed on to others? Now indeed by fulfilling the task; now by teaching; now by counseling those who are studious of it; now by refuting adversaries; and altogether by proposing the doctrine of the saints concerning this truth, which we have received from our Fathers, and which they had received from their predecessors by succession; and by dispensing all things for the sake of honesty and equity and fraternal love, omitting nothing at all of diligence. Therefore, we do not write out of a desire for glory, but fulfilling the wishes of a friend, we have undertaken this labor for the sake of those things which we have mentioned above. And we do not speak our own, but those things which we have read written by the holy Fathers and their successors; these, having preserved the order of the disputation, we have collected from here and there, and have set them down briefly and strictly, glorying in this matter alone—if it is appropriate to be said so—that, by the grace of God, we show that we both know and constantly defend the opinion of the saints on this matter. Nor are we unaware that many, into whose hands these may happen to fall, to whom the truth is odious, will be provoked by this very constancy and confidence of ours to cast counsels and curses at us. On the contrary, we must act thoroughly and walk a path opposite to that which we would take if we were chasing after empty trifles. For if we were indeed courting human favor and glory, we would never expose ourselves to the hatred of our audience, but would speak only what we thought would be pleasing to them.
It is certain, therefore, that had we not preferred the truth to all things, we would never have descended into this field of words, in which there is much labor and difficulty, but very little of human favor.
Therefore, first invoking the Holy Spirit himself, of whom our discourse is now intended, let us proceed to what we have proposed. For documents, we shall use the very beginnings of the faith, and those things which have been assumed and derived from them, as far as it is proper to use proofs in God and divine matters, and also those things which have been said by the Catholic teachers of the Church. And since you inquire first by what arguments the truth of this question can most effectively be shown; then, that those things which are raised against them be set forth, and subsequently that either the objections be refuted, or those things which seem ambiguous be clarified, we shall observe this same order throughout in what follows. From which, if we should by chance be more prolix than the expectation of the brevity undertaken required, indulgence must be granted to necessity. We shall make our beginning from here.
MANUEL CALECA BOOK ONE AGAINST THE GREEKS ON THE PROCESSION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT
A When our Lord Jesus Christ said to his disciples: *Going into the whole world, preach to all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit*, is there some order in the names and realities of the most holy Trinity of the Father himself, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, which is necessarily and always signified by those very names themselves? And as those names relate to one another according to their utterance, are the divine persons also ordered in relation to one another? Maintaining and honoring this order, must we necessarily utter these names fixedly, changing nothing of the handed-down order and position of the names, if we wish to preserve for ourselves the correct rule of the Trinity in our confession? Or is there no order there, and are those names placed haphazardly; and is it in our power to utter them as we wish, so that, with no order maintained, it is permitted at one time to put the Father’s name first, at another to put it after, and at another time to prefer the Spirit to the Son, as if those divine persons, who are signified to us by these names, were disordered in relation to one another, and were now one way, now another?
B And since we intend to construct and confirm what we propose by the sayings and opinions of the saints, let the great Basil be present now, and let him teach us what is to be thought on this matter. For he says in his Epistle to the Canonicis, the beginning of which is: *How much the rather sadder rumor, which had sounded in our ears, has afflicted us beforehand.* “The Holy Spirit is indeed numbered with the Father and the Son, because He is also above creation; but He is placed third in order, as we are taught by the Gospel, the Lord saying: *Going, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.* He who prefers Him to the Son, or calls Him senior to the Father, he indeed struggles against C the divine ordination and is alien to the sound faith, not preserving the manner of glorification which He received, but devising for himself a novelty of words to please men.” And after a few words, as if concluding, he says: “Therefore it is an abnegation of the faith; for it is equally impious to attempt to lead Him down to the order of creatures, and to prefer Him to the Father or the Son, in time or in order.”
The same author in the first book of the *Questions*, the beginning of which is: *Since all would wish*, when he had presupposed that there is a double order, the one natural, the other invented; and the natural, as is the order of creatures instituted by the reason of the Creator, and the placement of numbers, and the relations of causes to effects; but the invented and artificial, as in the arts and disciplines and the like, he added: “The former being suppressed, Eunomius mentions the order of the second species, and says: that order ought not to be spoken of in God, since the second order is from the orderer. But this he either did not see, or, knowing and deliberate, he passed over: that there is a species of order not consisting of our position, but following from the natural consequence itself: as fire to the light which flows from it. For in these we say the cause is first, the second what proceeds from it, not separating these from one another by an interval, but by thought imagining the cause to us before the caused. How then is it lawful to deny order there, where there is a second and a third: not from our position, but from a naturally inherent consequence? For what reason, therefore, does he refuse the order in God to be accepted? He thinks that if he can effect and demonstrate that the first in God can in no way be understood otherwise, the rest would already be for him the demonstration of an inequality and eminence of the substance itself. We, however, in that order by which causes are preferred to things flowing from themselves, say the Father is put before the Son, but we deny it by difference of nature.”
The same author in the third D *Questions*: “For as the Son is indeed second in order from the Father, because He is from Him, and in dignity, because the Father is the beginning and cause of His essence, and because through Him we have access to God and the Father, yet He is not second in nature, because the Deity is one in both—so, clearly, the Holy Spirit, although He is subjected to the Son in order and dignity, is nevertheless not of an alien, but of one and the same nature with the Father and the Son entirely.”
Item in the same work: “Since the Lord Himself has handed down the order of the salutary baptism.” The same author, in his epistle to Eustathius, which begins: “Those indeed who have been pre-empted by another confession of faith,” says thus: “It is necessary, however, to flee those who alter that sequence which the Lord has handed down to us, inasmuch as they openly fight against piety, placing the Son before the Father, and the Holy Spirit before the Son.”
The same author, in his Epistle to his brother Gregory, which begins: “Since many [think of the] common substance,” [says:] “But he who thinks of the Spirit, and has understood Him in Himself, comprehends the Son also in a single act of thought. He who has grasped this in his mind has not separated the Spirit from the Son, but has formed a belief of the three persons in Himself sequentially, yet conjunctively, according to the nature of identity. And he who says the Spirit alone, also comprehends in that confession Him whose Spirit it is. And because it is the Spirit of Christ, and from God, just as the Apostle says, like a chain, he who has grasped one end has drawn the other at the same time; so also he who draws the Spirit, through Him, draws the Son and the Father at the same time. And he who has truly received the Son will have on both sides, from this one the Father, and from this one the Holy Spirit following. For it is not permitted to think of separation or division, so that either the Son is understood without the Spirit, or the Spirit is separated from the Son.” A
Saint Epiphanius also, in a certain work of his which he called the *Ancoratus*, calls the Holy Spirit the third light and the third substance from the Father.
But also the Divine Chrysostom in a certain sermon of his on that saying of Abraham: “Put thy hand under my thigh,” says: “Thus the discerning order of the divine persons was known to the saints; but whoever would distinguish the natures in the Holy Trinity is altogether to be rejected.”
The Theologian Gregory also, in his second sermon on the *Lights*, says thus concerning the Holy Trinity: “Just as in three contiguous suns there is one commingling of light.”
Since it has been posited, therefore, that God is both one and three, and it has been granted on the one hand concerning the essence and unity of substance, and on the other concerning the hypostasis of the Trinity, or rather the persons, [let us see] concerning their order toward one another from these things which have been said.
Since, therefore, the great Father Basil accuses Eunomius, who does not piously accept the order in God, inasmuch as he considers it irrational to deny this, and brands him who changes the order of names as an inventor, and asserts that he resists God’s ordination, [citing] the Lord Himself to have handed down this order, he says: “But he who places the Spirit before the Father, or the Son, [is one] whom he declares to be alien from sound doctrine, inasmuch as he introduces a novelty concerning the order of the divine persons; moreover, he teaches that this very novelty and alteration of order carries with it the abolition of the divine persons and the denial of the whole faith, and that it makes no difference whether you reduce the Holy Spirit to the order of a creature, or prefer Him in order to the Father or the Son. For we are taught by the Lord in the Gospel, he says, that the third is placed in the order. It is certain indeed that there is an order in the Holy Trinity, according to which the first person is the Father, the second the Son, the third the Holy Spirit.” B
And because not only are the Son and the Holy Spirit joined to the Father, but they are also joined to each other, and this is said of those things in which there is order, and which depend upon each other with no intervening medium, the persons have an order toward each other in every way.
And he who has compared the Trinity to a chain makes it clear that he has rendered an order from the middle to the first, and from the third to the middle; which is why he says: “He who thinks of the Spirit, comprehends the Son also in a single act of thought;” and: “He who says the Spirit alone, comprehends in that same confession Him whose Spirit it is,” and: “He who grasps the Son has not separated the Spirit from the Son.” For it is not permitted either for the Son to be understood without the Spirit, or for the Spirit to be separated from the Son. Which would by no means be the case if the Son and the Holy Spirit did not have an order toward each other, according to which the one is referred to the other. For in those things which are loose, and which simply have [no relation] to each other without any relation and order, we are not compelled, while thinking of the one, to also comprehend the other in our thinking. For that belongs only to those things which have an order toward each other, according to which they are necessarily thought of together. C
From which it is certain that not only does the Son have an order toward the Father, or the Father toward the Son, but also the Son toward the Holy Spirit. This Blessed Athanasius also posited most clearly in his epistle to Serapion concerning the Holy Spirit: “The Spirit,” he says, “has the same order and nature toward the Son, as the Son has toward the Father.”
The great Basil also says thus in his sixteenth epistle to Amphilochius: “Just as the Son has [an order] toward the Father, so also the Spirit toward the Son, according to the connection of terms handed down to us in baptism.”
It is certain, therefore, from these things which have been said, that in the Holy Trinity the divine persons have an order toward one another. D
A For he who refers the order of the Son and of the Spirit to the Father, but the order of the Son and of the Spirit to each other, renders the good of order to God by half. For order is a good thing, and to be ordered is a good thing. Since in those things which have order there is something excellent and best, which contains both heavenly and earthly things at once, and all that is best flows from God; but it must be understood that this good exists much more excellently in God, as in the principal cause. For, as the divine Dionysius says in the book *On the Divine Names*: "It is manifest that those things which are perfections in effects exist far more truly and primarily in the causes themselves."
Who, then, would now presume to contend against such eminent masters of the Church, who openly establish an order of the three persons toward one another in God? Therefore, although we do indeed count the three persons absolutely and simply, and when we wish to insinuate the third alone, we may put one before and another after, as is that of the Apostle: "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the charity of God and the Father, and the communication of the Holy Spirit" B or in whatever other way; yet for those wishing to pronounce the names of the divine persons in the order in which they eternally and ever similarly relate to one another, and in which the perfection of the Trinity is designated, no reason is conceded [to alter it]. Therefore, the great Basil in the fourth book of his *Questions* says: "Yet, because the Apostle mentions the Holy Spirit first here, the Son second, and God and the Father third, it must not immediately be thought that the order is perverse or changed. For he began from our own custom. For when we receive gifts, we first approach the one distributing, then we conceive of the one sending in our mind, and then our thought turns to the very source and cause of the goods."
But if, starting from our own custom, we first remember the Spirit, from whom the bounty of gifts flows to us; then the Son, and thirdly we tend through the Son to the Father—it is clear that, beginning there, we remember first the Father, then the Son, and thirdly the Holy Spirit, according to the proper and everlasting order of the Trinity. Therefore, if a priest were to baptize someone and, while baptizing, were to pronounce: "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Spirit, and of the Son," the Church would never admit one baptized in such a way, as if consecrated by a C baptism, on the grounds that he was not baptized according to the tradition of the Lord; according to which the Trinity of names and things—namely, of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit—as it relates to itself, has been handed down to us, which it is not permitted to change. Indeed, the holy Basil warned against those who would change it, as they are openly attacking piety, and are neither baptizing in the Trinity nor confessing it according to the tradition of the Lord. It appears that he [Basilius] also wants to teach the order by which the natures are distinguished, and to embrace and accept the one by which the persons are distinguished—according to which the cause and the caused are introduced with the coeternal and consubstantial—and not to assert and deny the same thing against itself contrary to the way Eunomius wished, in the holy Trinity, to deny the holy ones entirely.
Beyond these things that have been said, God would by no means be a Trinity unless the three were connected to one another and united according to their own order; but the three, simply and rashly (since the unity which order produces in many things would be removed), would be unordered and many, or rather, simply nothing. For neither could they in any way be three or four unless a Trinity or Quaternity were conceived in the mind beforehand. Since, therefore, we confess one connection of the three, just as we confess one essence, and the Father is the cause in the first place, it is necessary that the third exist as well. For if the third is removed, the first will not exist either. For in many things D where there is a first, those things which are after the first are necessarily referred to the first by a series of connection. And this is especially true in the Holy Trinity, where we confess one connection of the three.
Again, since the teachers preach the Holy Spirit as the third from the Father, certainly he would not be the third if the first were removed. For we call him the third because he is referred to the first. And this likewise would not be so, unless the first also had an order to the second. For otherwise there would be neither a connection of the three nor a unity; but, as we said, three things simply and rashly having themselves in an unordered way and separated from one another. But this is completely contrary to those things which are said by the masters of the Church and to the common confession of the faith. For we confess the first, and the second, and the third, and one connection of the Holy Trinity, and that they are joined and connected to one another in a series, as was said above. These things, moreover, openly commend an order. It is clear, therefore, from these things that have been said—since order signifies discrete things—that those who say that the consubstantial have an order err in divine matters. For thus they will render unity rather than order. For the three persons, insofar as they are consubstantial with one another, are one according to the nature of the same substance. Furthermore, it is impossible for there to be an order of one toward itself, according to the thing. Moreover, that [they] are from the Father, even if it is common to both, is a cause of union rather than of discretion toward one another, unless something else is added. Indeed, all men, in the very fact that they derive their origin from Adam, are united to one another, but are distinguished from one another by certain reasons and properties. Therefore, to say that both are from the Father is not enough to express the order which they have toward one another. But indeed the hypostasis is used for the principle.
A or person, in order to avoid equivocation. To say that these relate to one another according to an unmixed and unconfused reason, is altogether irrational. For it is necessary that they be unmixed with one another, maintaining the boundaries of their own properties; for otherwise the order would not be maintained; but yet it does not follow necessarily that those which are unmixed, in so far as they are unmixed, maintain an order toward one another, unless some habit [relationship] toward one another is also seen to be in them. From which certainly from that order toward one another and [that] habit, the boundaries of their proper properties cannot be confused or mixed. And if this [habit] were removed, that which is unmixed in itself would become a cause of disorder rather than of order. We must therefore inquire in the divine persons, what is the cause of their order toward one another, and also what is the cause of their unmixed state according to their properties. For otherwise, besides the fact that nothing is accomplished, it is a clear argument of ignorance to posit a causal as a cause. Therefore, that it is necessary to confess an B immobile order in the divine persons, and that it is not in our power to change at will the order that has been handed down, and that those who do change it—inasmuch as they openly oppose piety—are to be shunned, has been sufficiently shown from what was said above.
But since we confess God to be both unity and Trinity, and according to the unity indeed neither order, nor procession, nor the number of persons is looked at: for the essence is one thing, entirely indistinct, and there is no order or distinction toward itself according to the thing: it remains that we must acknowledge the order and the number of persons according to their processions.
There are strictly two processions in God handed down to us: one according to nativity, the other according to procession. For we are taught by the divine Scriptures that God is born from God, and that God also proceeds from God. C And indeed the immediate procession of the Son from the Father, the holy Basil, in his book *Against Eunomius*, commends thus: "The Father has no beginning, and none of these [has] a middle." And again in the same: "For as it is a foolish inquiry in Him who is without beginning and unbegotten to seek for something above, so also in Him who is eternally with the Father, and has no medium between Himself and His begetter."
The same person again, in that letter to the Canonical Epistles which we mentioned above: "For if the Spirit is superior to God, He is not now from God; but if He is from God, how is He older than that from which He is? But He is not prior even to the Only-Begotten, for there is no medium between the Father and the Son." D Gregory of Nyssa also in his first book *Against Eunomius*, says: "The Father is understood as without beginning and unbegotten. But from Him, according to the reason of contiguity, the Only-Begotten Son is understood to exist at the same time with the Father, inseparably."
Likewise, Saint Cyril says in his *Thesaurus*: "The Father begets the Son without any medium." The same [author] on the Gospel of John, while expounding that word, *In the beginning was the Word with God*, says this: "We understand the Father to be with the Son, on account of the incommutability of the substance: and therefore, because He is entirely contiguous, with no medium, to Him who naturally proceeded from Himself."
The same great Basil, in his epistle to his brother Gregory concerning the difference of essence and substance, says: "The Son, however, who alone as the Only-Begotten shone forth from the unbegotten light, has no communion toward the Father, or toward the Holy Spirit, in respect to the property of the persons." Likewise Gregory of Nyssa on the *Lord's Prayer*, in that treatise which begins, *The law containing a shadow of things to come*: "The Only-Begotten Son," he says, "is named by Holy Scripture from the Father; and thus far His property is carried."
Saint Anastasius, Bishop of Antioch, also says in his book *On Dogmas*, whose beginning is: *Regarding the reason of our healthy faith*: "The Spirit, as I have said, is called God, and holy God. But both these compound names befit Him who is properly called the Holy Spirit, just as the name of 'cause' is accommodated to the Father, and [the name] of 'Son' to Him who proceeds from the cause with no medium."
Thus, therefore, we learn the procession of the Son from the Father, namely, the immediate nativity, according to which He is both called only-begotten, and is called 'only from the Only'; and He receives His personal and substantial property from this, that He is both begotten, and is distinguished from the Father and the Spirit. For the masters have handed down to us this, His proper recognition: that He alone, the Only-Begotten, proceeds from the unbegotten light. For it was said that up to this point His property brings to a stop the term and reason of truth, so that, namely, He is immediately and continuously and begottenly from the Father, but proceeds no further. For whereas the Spirit is indeed from the Father, the property and recognition of His procession does not subsist thus far.
But it was said also that the title 'Son' properly befits Him who is from the Father, with no medium interjected. Although besides these, the name of 'Father' and 'Son' renders a habit and an individual relation toward one another. For one signifies the cause, the other indeed the *causale* [the caused]. And these things, indeed, stand thus regarding the Son.
But we have learned that the procession of the Holy Spirit is from the Father through the Son, from which it is evidently clear that He does not proceed from the Father without a medium. For Gregory of Nyssa says in the book which he wrote to Ablavius, whose beginning is: *It would indeed have been just that you, who excel in all virtue, should fight*, he says thus: "Confessing the incommutability of nature, we do not deny the difference between cause and *causale*."
although the difference in the reason of the cause and the causale does not differ at all in a general sense."
At, lest anyone should think that on account of this mediation of the Son, some confusion of personal properties follows, and should imagine that the Son is alien to the Father in his natural state, he A does not say—but rather, this mediation of the Son, and the distinction of the persons according to the difference of their procession, preserves the unconfused properties, which could not otherwise be preserved. For once this order is established, the honor of the Only-Begotten also remains undoubtedly in the Son. For he alone is from the alone, and the property of his substance is thus carried forth; and the Spirit is connected to the Father through the Son, just as in all things in which there is a series, the extremes are joined to the firsts through the media; and therefore he subjoins: "Since the mediation of the Son preserves the honor of the Only-Begotten for himself, and does not exclude the Spirit from a natural state toward the Father." And these are indeed the words of Gregory Nyssen.
The holy universal synod which met second at Nicaea says: "I believe in the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father through the Son, and that he is acknowledged to be God."
The same thing B St. Tarasius, Patriarch of Constantinople, who was a great part of the same synod, also says in the letter which he wrote to the bishops and priests of Antioch, Alexandria, and the Holy City, the beginning of which is: "Our Lord and God, in his many and excellent dispensations, disposing and directing the life of men, and the things that C have been received and praised, and that everything is rightly arranged, as proven by their rescripts," after many things, says: "And in the Holy Spirit, who from the Father through the Son proceeds, and he himself is acknowledged to be God."
St. Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, in his Exposition of the Faith says: "I believe in the Holy Spirit, eternally proceeding from the Father and God, who is himself acknowledged to be light, and truly coeternal with the Father and the Son."
Then, when they distinguish these *causalia*, the Son and the Holy Spirit, from the cause, and reasonably separate them from the Father by the method of *causale*—since the *causalia* communicate with one another—he distinguishes them again from each other by the variety of their procession, and just about speaks thus: "For even if both, since they are from the Father, communicate with one another in that they are *causalia*, yet they have their being differently. Therefore, we acknowledge another difference between them." Finally, of these, one, namely the Son, is from the first, that is, from the Father, continuously (or proximately); the other, namely the Spirit, has his being through this very fact, that he is from the first continuously, that is, through the Son, who is from the Father, with no medium interposed. Calling the Father the first, insofar as he is the cause, and designating that which is contiguous or continuous as that which is immediate; but the Spirit from the Father through the medium of the Son. So that the D Father, who is from none, is by that very fact distinguished from the Son and the Spirit, in that he is the Father himself and the beginning. The Son, however, being immediately begotten from him, is distinguished by that very fact; from the Father, in that he proceeded from him by generation; from the Spirit, in that he himself is indeed immediately and incontinently from the first; but the Spirit has flowed from the first through himself. But the Holy Spirit is distinguished from the Father because he is from him; but from the Son, because he is not immediately from the first, as the Son is, but through him who was continuously from the first.
Whence he also rightly said that there is another difference. For that which is immediately from the first, and that which is through a medium from the first, differ by the reason of their procession.
Likewise, the great Athanasius, in that book which is titled *Reprehension of the simulation of Meletius and Eusebius*, the beginning of which is: "Man was made in the likeness of God," says thus: "But it would be impossible for the Spirit to be glorified in the majesty of the Trinity, if he did not proceed from God through the Son, but were made and created from God, as the heretics say."
St. Basil also, in a certain chapter, the inscription of which is: "Why the Spirit of the Son is not the Son," says: "Not because he is not from God through the Son, but lest the Trinity be thought of as an infinite multitude, and, as happens in men, we might imagine it to be sons from sons."
Also in another place, which is inscribed: "Unless anyone says the Spirit is from God, not even the Word": "In what way," he says, "are the inseparable to be separated,
and the one flowing from the other to be divided?"
Gregory, furthermore, the Theologian writing the praises of virginity in heroic verse, sings thus: "Spirit ever flows from the light as light, Through the Offspring, a distinct splendor of the deity for each."
Saint Maximus also, when explaining what he means by the golden lampstand in the prophet Zechariah, and the lamp and lamps that were upon it, says: "The Holy Spirit, just as He is naturally by essence of God and the Father, so too is He of the Son, according to essence, as if proceeding ineffably from the Father essentially through the Son begotten."
John Damascene likewise in the thirteenth chapter of his Theology, whose beginning is: "God is incomprehensible," speaks thus of the Father: "He is indeed the mind of the Word, the abyss, the begetter of the Word, and the producer of the light-making Spirit through the Word." The same, in the same work: "The paternal power of the Holy Spirit, which gives an intimation of the hidden Deity, is from the Father, proceeding through the Son."
Thus, therefore, by the testimonies of many we are taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son; that is to say, from the Father not without a medium.
B Since, therefore, according to the varied manner of the procession, the variety of the Persons also is designated; for indeed the procession of the Son declares that He subsists immediately from the Father, and has substance from Him by the manner of immediate birth; but the procession of the Spirit declares that He exists through the Son Himself—for it was shown above that He proceeds from the Father through the Son—and since the word "procession" is the property of the Person of the Holy Spirit, just as "birth" is the property of the Son (for both "to be begotten" and "to proceed" intimate the persons of both), it is established that the Holy Spirit has substance from the Father through the Son. And it is established at the same time that the fact that He is from the Father both immediately and mediately, and continuously, and through Him who is continuous, intimates the different processions of the divine persons. And to be begotten, and to proceed through the Son, since they are substantial properties of the Son and of the Spirit, are the properties of the Persons themselves, namely of the Son and of the Spirit, by which they are distinguished from one another and from the Father. Wherefore one is called begotten, and another proceeding; just as each is named from his own substantial term, and by this very thing is distinguished from the others. For surely to proceed uniquely from the Father is, as Basil asserts, the proper knowledge of the Son: and that this is distinguished from the Father and from the Spirit, since by this property of His, He has no communion with the Father and the Holy Spirit, and the things that C were said in this sense. But the Spirit is distinguished from the Father, as it were, by a cause as a cause; but from the Son, by the cause which He has from the Father, proceeding through Him: by this difference of procession, namely, that the former is from the First immediately and continuously, but the latter from the First, but through Him who proceeds continuously from the First.
Furthermore, the great Basil in the letter which we mentioned before to his brother Gregory speaks more manifesty about Himself: "The Spirit," he says, "has this mark and sign of His own property, that He is born after the Son, and with the Son, and subsists from the Father."
Whom therefore the holy Fathers transmit in many places as third—that is, third from the Father, and second from the Son, according to personal order—since this One is after the Son; and He whom Gregory of Nyssa said flows from the First, He says more openly: "From the Father," he says. But because that particle, by which we say "through," D introduces no interval of time there—since indeed temporary delays have no place in eternal life, and because what is said to be prior by reason of time is entirely eliminated thence, for the reason that it is said to be "through the Son," it can for that reason be said to be one who is at the same time and with the Son—yet on account of the distinction of the persons appearing from the procession itself, which the particle "through" signifies sufficiently, while it neither denies that He is "at the same time," and intimates the order of the persons with the procession of the Holy Spirit, which is difficult to indicate otherwise, that particle has been most conveniently assumed by theology.
And so what Nyssenus himself says, that He is from the First through Him who would flow continuously from the First, this the great Basil likewise confesses; for because He is from the Father, and is after the Son, He could not be such otherwise than by proceeding from the First through a medium. But if He proceeds from the Father through the Son, it is surely clear that, in the personal series, He is third from the Father. And that is what it means to be "after the Son," as the doctor says.
This same Nyssenus expressed this more lucidly in the book *Questions against Eunomius*: "The Spirit," he says, "is joined to the Father by the fact that He is uncreated, and again is distinguished from Him because the Father is not as He is; but by the conjunction which He has with the Son by reason of being uncreated; and by the fact that He has one cause of substance from God of all, He is distinguished again by that property, that He does not subsist solely from the Father, and that He proceeds through the Son Himself. Again also, since the creature subsists through the Only-begotten, so that the Holy Spirit is not thought to have anything in common with this, because He too proceeds through the Son, by that stable and immutable reason the Holy Spirit is distinguished from the creature." If, therefore, that which alone is that the Son is from the unbegotten Light is His own proper knowledge, by which He is distinguished from the Father and the Spirit—and that is to be from the Father without any medium—but the Holy Spirit is distinguished from the Son by that property, that He is and proceeds through the Son Himself, it is surely established that the Holy Spirit is not from the Father without a medium. For that is what it is to be solely from the Father, which is the property of the Person of the Son. For in that He is neither solely from the Father, but through the Son,
A the proper recognition of the Spirit is said to be the teacher. It is from the primal source, and continuously from the First. And that which is begotten, this is the Only-Begotten. Again, that which proceeds, this is the Spirit, and that which is mediate, this is not continuous; but that which is not continuous, this is not begotten, but is proceeding. Furthermore, that which proceeds through the Son from the Father, this is not the Son. For this is the definition of Nativity: to proceed immediately from the First; whereas the definition of procession is to proceed from the First through a medium.
And since the subsistences of the divine Persons are eternal and immutable—for the Trinity, God the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, always existed—the definitions of the personal subsistences [hypostases] are themselves their substantial [hypostatic] properties, entirely eternal and immutable. B And the same thing is evident, because if the processions be taken away, the properties also and the persons will cease to be at the same time. For if the account and definition of being born, or of being begotten from the First, is to be without a medium, and that of proceeding, or of the proceeding one, is to be through the Son, it is altogether true that with the removal of the definitions of the things by which they subsist, they also are taken away at the same time. For he who removes rationality from man, has at the same time removed the man.
But because both—namely, the Spirit and the creature—are said to be through the Son, I have defined how this is to be understood by adding the different mode of the processions. For the Holy Spirit is without time, stable, and immutable, because He proceeds from God naturally and essentially, and according to the distinguished Athanasius, He is consubstantial with the Father and the Son, and is the creator of the creature equally with the Father and the Son, as being one Creator; whereas the creature is temporal, mutable, and variable; for it was produced through the Son by a mode of fabrication and creation, being most remote from the substance of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. C For as Damascenus says, the creature was not made afterward from the substance of the Creator; no one therefore, endowed with mind and reason, will suppose that the Holy Spirit has anything in common with it, from the fact that it is said that He and the creature proceeded through the Son: except in so far as created things are common to the Creator, and things made are common to the Maker. “For by a stable,” he says, “and immutable reason is the Spirit distinguished from the creature.” But now it is to be understood that what is said, that He proceeded or flowed forth, does not signify the eternal substance of the Holy Spirit before all ages. For first, when he set out to teach how the God Trinity was distinguished personally in Itself before the ages, he did not say this in regard to how It related to the creature. And would that, just as here he asserts that what is said to have proceeded into the creature clearly signifies the essence relative to the creature, so also in regard to the Holy Spirit, when it is said that His procession is before all ages, he commends it; and the more so, since it is asserted by the theologians that He also eternally exists, and proceeds, and proceeds through the Son. D Then it is right also to listen to the masters, that this which is said to have proceeded commends the eternal processions of the Son and the Spirit, which will be proved in what follows.
Gregory the Theologian, in his sermon *On the Holy Spirit* (14), says thus: "The difference of derivation and of relation to one another also made a difference in their appellation." Here he intended "derivation" to be understood as "procession." But the processions, nativity and procession, are different. Rightly therefore it was said that the different processions of the persons have caused it to be, and to be called, one thing begotten, another proceeding. It is therefore evident from what has been said, that it is the same thing when we say that the Son is and is the Only-Begotten, and from the Father without any medium, and that a person is begotten from a person; and it is the same thing when we say that the Spirit is and proceeds: and is from the First through a medium and proceeds from the Father through the Son: and is not without a medium, nor exists solely, nor continuously from the First. For these things are turned against the same person. For what is the Son in the holy Trinity, this is without...
And from this it is clearly evident that, the accounts of the begotten and the proceeding being removed, by such a removal, [both] the nativity and the procession are taken away, and at the same time also that the Trinity is God. From which it is also concluded that he who confesses that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, necessarily confesses Him to be from the Father without a medium. However, by such a confession, he will take away the property of His substance, and that He is a distinct Person in the holy Trinity. And hence he will not confess a third [Person] from the Father according to the account of sound faith and the tradition of the Holy Fathers. Thus nothing will prohibit confessing that the Holy Spirit is also the Son, proceeding from the Father without a medium. For the appellation of Son, according to the theologians, properly belongs to Him who is from the Father without a medium. And from whence it follows, that what is from thence without a medium is the Son. For we discover the property of the Son to be this: to be from the Father without a medium, which also makes Him begotten; and so there will be a confusion of personal properties, and there will be either two Sons from the Father both without a medium, and therefore neither is the firstborn, or two Holy Spirits. For what necessity and distribution urges, if both are from the Father without a medium, that the Son is one person and the Holy Spirit another, and not rather that there are either two sons in the holy Trinity, or two spirits? Moreover, neither would any relation [habitudo] of the Son and Spirit to each other be spoken of, nor would we have by what property, or confession, we could distinguish the Son from the Spirit. From which it would necessarily follow that we should not indeed confess the Trinity to be God, but three beings simply and separately by themselves. For with the order removed, the first and second...
and third would not be mentioned: but rather each one of them as the first, and it would be more convenient and more proper to speak of God as a duality, namely the Father and the Son, or the Father and the Spirit; and for this reason, the Father would be the cause of them without an intermediary, and by the same logic, he would simply have the character of cause and caused alone.
Furthermore, it would be a matter of indifference to enumerate the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit, or the Father, and the Spirit, and the Son; indeed, just as the Spirit is called the Spirit of the Son, and his image, and natural and living power, and operation, and whatever else will be said in what follows, so too the Son would be called the Spirit of the Spirit, equally and indifferently, according to all these things, by the Sacred Scriptures and the holy Fathers. For if they stood in relation to one another similarly—that is, equally subsisting from the Father without an intermediary, and being consubstantial with one another—then the names would surely be interchangeable from the one to the other by a similar logic. For those things which are consubstantial, and equal to one another, are interchangeable. But this has not been found until now; indeed, it is altogether forbidden. For Gregory of Nyssa, in his homily on the Lord’s Prayer, says thus: A “The Son, however, is neither the Spirit of the Holy Spirit, nor is he so called,” nor does this habitual consequence, if I may so speak, turn back upon itself.
Moreover, it is absurd to think that the Holy Spirit is from the Father alone, and for the same to proceed through the Son. For these are most openly contrary to one another, and they destroy one another. For what is said to be "through the Son," is said to occur by mediation of the Son, while that which is "from the sole" signifies the Spirit proceeds from the Father without an intermediary. But we shall see these things later.
It has just been shown from what we have said above that those who, because of the pronunciation of names and the presumption of their own minds, interpret the statement that "the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son" not correctly and substantially, but assert that there is an order of persons to one another merely in the words of divine Scripture, are sinning. For they say: “Since the first person, namely the Father, is called both Father and producer, and the Son is fittingly spoken of in relation to the Father according to the categories of relation—for in saying the Son, we understand the Father at the same time—the Spirit, however, even if he is said to be from the Father, is properly referred to the producer, but improperly to the Father, since the Father is also B the producer and is so understood. For he—the Father—is the same as the producer.”
Having posited these things, they infer thus: “Therefore, since we say the Spirit is from the Father—because in saying the Father, we understand the Son at the same time—for that reason it is said that the Spirit proceeds through the medium of the Son, and through the Son from the Father. But when, in turn, we say the first producer, for the same reason—because in saying the producer, we also think at the same time of that which he produces—if at any time the Son is said to be from the producer, then the Son will be properly said to be through the medium of the Spirit, or as the product from the producer, C just as the name of the product is understood through the producer, and consequently the Son is born from the producer through the product. Nothing prevents, they say, even this from being said: namely, that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, as if from a producer, without an intermediary, but the Son is born from the producer—who is also the Father—through the Spirit.”
But it is truly clear that those who thus pervert the procession of the Spirit through the Son remove the order of the Trinity and introduce a confusion of personal properties, with the persons themselves removed. It is simultaneously clear that they oppose the holy Fathers, the teachers of the Church, while they wish the Spirit to be from the Father without an intermediary, and prefer the Spirit to the Son, and say that nothing prevents even the Son from being born from the producer through the product; from which they confess the Son to be third in order from the Father, thinking that, on account of the pronunciation of names and the subtlety of their understanding of them, they can change the divine, eternal, and immobile order as they please, which is not even possible in creatures. For in these things, if we should prefer the causal to the cause in order, and, while discussing heat, should make mention of fire first, the heat will not immediately become the cause of the fire, or a ray of the sun; nor do things change their own order for the sake of our speech. But let those overly inept and garrulous reasoners think as they may.
But the holy Fathers say that this novelty of order is a deprivation of substance itself and a negation of the entire faith; they accuse Eunomius because he does not accept the order in God; and they define that he who changes the substance opposes the ordination of God, asserting that the Lord himself established the order in the tradition of the saving baptism, according to which one of the persons is first, another second, and another third in personal order. They say it makes no difference whether one leads the Holy Spirit to the status of a creature, or prefers him to the Son or to the Father, not only in terms of time, but of order. Wherefore, the Master (15) rightly says that those who change the order which the Lord handed down to us are to be shunned, as those who manifestly resist the truth and prefer the Son to the Father, or prefer the Spirit to the Son.
Although, according to the aforementioned reasoning, since we believe, induced by the authority of the Holy Scriptures, that all things were made through the Son, and when we say "the Son," we also understand the Father at the same time, nothing would prevent us from saying that creatures flowed from the Son through the Father, so that necessarily the Father would now be the medium between the Son and the Spirit. And since the Paraclete is said to be sent by the Son, and in making mention of the Son we understand the Father at the same time in our mind, for the same reason the Spirit will be said to be sent *through* the Father. And it will be almost the same as if someone were to say that the son of any architect was born from the architect through the house, because the architect is referred to the house. For as soon as you think of the architect, the house also comes to mind at the same time.
A Indeed, by removing the substantial [hypostatic] processions, one must simultaneously remove the persons as well, so that there remains for us neither any order nor a Trinity. Therefore, it has been rightly said that the novelty of this order is the abolition of the substance itself and the abnegation of the entire faith.
Nor, indeed, do the things we have mentioned commend only the order in the holy Trinity and the procession of the persons—through which the Son is indeed from the First without a medium, while the holy Spirit is from the First through a medium—but from many other things which have been said by the masters, we also learn both the mediation of the Son and the natural and essential procession of the holy Spirit.
And that, in the first place, refutes the absurdity of those who, according to the things we have expounded above, say that the Spirit is sometimes from God through the Word, and sometimes, through the Son, from God. For if they were to judge such reasoning to be true, when they said "through the Word," they would never say "from God," but "through the Word, from the mind." For the Word, according to the reason of the name, is referred not to God, but to the mind. But when they said "through the Son," they would never have added, "From God through the Son," but "through a creature." For of this, God is God; nay, indeed, nothing would prevent it being said that the Son is born from God through creatures. For God is referred to creatures. But the same God is understood to be the Father of the Son. But far be it from us to think that such trifles and ineptitudes ever came into the minds of the holy doctors, lest we show them to be sophists rather than masters of piety, saying one thing after another and beclouding our understanding by that part, who ought to be masters of clarifying obscure things, as indeed they are. And it is certainly not advantageous for us to take perversely what was said by them openly and usefully, from which we bring injuries upon them and acquire a loss of salvation for ourselves.
Certainly, since they were masters of proclaiming the truth more clearly than others, they would have said, if they had thought it to be true in that way, that the Spirit is said to be from the Father through the Son only, but does not exist and proceed [that way]. But since they did not say that, they are proven to have held such an exposition entirely. Indeed, even Damascenus says concerning the Father (16): "He himself is indeed the abyss of the mind of the Word, the begetter of the Word, and the producer of the Spirit through the Word." Therefore, according to these men, he ought to have said "commentator of the Word," with the name of the begetter being silent. For the Word is referred to the mind, not to the begetter. It was necessary, also, for him to say that he is the producer of the Spirit through himself alone, suppressing what he says, "through the Word." For the Spirit is indeed referred to the producer. But now, when he says the producer "through the Word," he says: "The Word, however, is relative neither to the Father nor to the producer, and is referred only to the mind"; he surely cuts off every curiosity of this kind as being most ridiculous and pernicious.
B Furthermore, what is said "properly" and "not properly," and what "in itself" and "by accident" will have a place in the divine persons. For that which is said "properly" and "in itself" is opposed to "by accident." Moreover, and because they assert that the Spirit is not "properly" from the Father, he certainly would not be distinguished from the Father. But these things, as we have said, are entirely opposed to the intelligence of the theologians who have distinguished the divine persons in their writings. What has therefore just been said is established by those things which we have said before; he who removes the order has also removed that very procession of the persons, and, as a consequence, has removed the persons themselves. For according to the reason of their procession, one indeed proceeds from the Father in the middle, while another proceeds C through the medium of the Son from the Father; it is clear, therefore, that the processions being removed, the persons must also be removed simultaneously, and that there remains for us neither any order nor a Trinity.
Indeed, the great Athanasius in *Contra Arianos* III, the book of which the beginning is: "Those who follow the insanity of Arius, as it is given to understand, having decided once to become apostates and transgressors of the truth," says thus: "The Word does not join the Spirit to the Father, but rather the Spirit receives this from the Word." And after a few words: "For because the Word is in the Father, but the Spirit is given from the Word, for this reason he wills us to receive the Spirit, so that, when we have received him, then having the Spirit of the Word, which is in the Father, we also may be seen to be one in the Word on account of the Spirit, and through him in the Father."
The same, in the letter to Serapion concerning the holy Spirit, which begins: "The letters of your holy affection for us were returned to me in the desert," says thus: "They are ignorant that just as those who divide the Son from the Father take away the one God, so also, that they sever the Spirit from the Word, they no longer preserve the one Godhead in the Trinity."
The same, again in another letter to the same concerning the holy Spirit, whose beginning is: "Perhaps you will wonder," says: "For the Spirit is not outside the Word, but because he is in the Word, he is in God through him." And after a few words: "But when the Spirit is in the Word, it is clearly evident that the Spirit is in God through the Word."
But Saint Basil, in a certain chapter, the inscription of which is "The Spirit is to be glorified with God," says: "But that the Trinity is glorified in the same divine works is certain testimony of one divinity, because neither does the Father work without the Son, nor does the Son without the Spirit."
The same in another chapter, which is inscribed: "That the unity of the Trinity is insinuated from the divine nature," says: "Never was the Father without the Son, nor the Son without the Spirit."
The same in cap. 16, to Amphilochius: "So, therefore, as the Son is related to the Father, so also is the Spirit to the Son, according to the connection of words delivered to us in baptism. But if the Spirit is connected in a series to the Son, and the Son to the Father, then truly the Spirit [is connected] to the Father."
The same in the place above: "But the one and holy Spirit is connected to the one Father through the one Son." And after.
A a few things: «It is therefore a path to the knowledge of God from the one Spirit through the one Son, to the one Father, and conversely natural goodness, and natural sanctification, and royal dignity pass from the Father through the Only-Begotten to the Spirit. Thus also the persons agree, and the pious dogma of the unique principality does not fall.»
Damascene in the fourth chapter of his *Theological [Discourses]*: «God, he says, is the holy Spirit, the medium of the unbegotten and the begotten; and he is connected to the Father through the Son.» If, therefore, the mediation of the Son is evident through all these things in the holy Trinity, how is the Spirit from the Father without a medium, or how do those who assert this without a medium not divide the Spirit from the Son? How do they confess that they preserve one Godhead in the Trinity? How, according to them, is the Spirit not outside the Word? How can they preserve what is said: "Neither to make the Son without the Spirit, just as neither the Father without the Son?" How shall the Son not be without the Spirit? How will those who say that the Spirit is from the Father alone confess that sanctification by nature, and natural goodness, reach the holy Spirit from the Father through the Only-Begotten according to the handed-down order? How does the pious dogma of the unique principality not fall for them? What necessity is there that the Son should never have been, or ever be, without the Spirit? For if both are from the Father without a medium, these things will not be said of the Spirit to the Son any more than of the Son to the Spirit. For if these things were said on account of consubstantiality, there would be a total conversion of them to one another, since things of this kind are convertible: but it is certain, indeed, that these things were said on account of the order and the habit toward one another, according to which the divine persons eternally have substance, according to the difference of procession, which is also immovable; because substance too is immovable. For this reason it is also said: "The Son, however, is not the holy Spirit, nor is he so called, nor is this B habitual consequence convertible."
Certainly, great Athanasius also, in the tome which he wrote to the Antiochenes: «It behooves us, he says, to anathematize also those who assert that the holy Spirit is separated from the essence of Christ.» In what way, therefore, are both those who think the Spirit is a creature, and those who divide him in any other way, subject to this opinion. But it must be said rather, according to Basil, that it is in no way lawful to think of any section or division: as if either the Son is understood without the Father, or the Spirit is severed from the Son; nor does it become us at all that either the Father should have ever been without the Son, or the Son without the Spirit, according to the theologian Gregory in the sermon on Pentecost. For unless, as was said, the reason of the personal order should compel it, according to which, as it is established that they relate to one another by the distribution of processions, nothing would prevent the Son from being understood even without the Spirit. For according to unity C of essence, there is neither habit nor distinction of persons. Either, therefore, the Son and the Spirit would be one person, or they would not relate to each other at all. For things that have nothing to do with each other, it is not necessary, while one is understood, that the other be understood at the same time.
Furthermore, just as when we think of the Father, the Son necessarily follows, since the latter received substance from Him, and the former gave it, and hence he is understood simultaneously as both cause and caused: so also, while the Son is thought of, because we are necessarily compelled to think of the Spirit at the same time, the reason of the order and the habit toward one another is entirely the cause, through which the Spirit has being from the Father through the Son: and according to which he is asserted by the theologians to both be and proceed from the first through the medium, and they are both distinguished and related to one another.
However, the very examples or similitudes handed down to us by the holy Fathers concerning the holy Trinity demonstrate the aforementioned order and consubstantiality of the divine persons. Finally, the eminent Gregory also says in his theological discourses: «We observe the eye, the fountain, and the river; taking the eye, indeed, in the image of the Father; the fountain, however, of the Son; but assigning the river to the holy Spirit.» As, therefore, the order is observed in these three, according to which something has substance from the first through the medium without a medium, and as a river exists from a fountain, not as if proceeding through an instrument, [receiving] substance through it, and yet one thing and the same substance resides in them: for they are water, but they differ from one another in the order of substance: in a like manner, the one essence being presupposed in the holy Trinity, the third person has its substance from the first, through the medium, naturally and essentially: whence it is also said to proceed through it.
This also John Damascene says, confirming [this] concerning the Spirit (16): «For thou art the river of the Godhead proceeding from the Father through the Son.» The same Theologian also [says]: «I observed the sun, the ray, and the light.» Just as therefore light has substance from the sun through the medium, naturally, that is, and essentially. For it is consubstantial with the ray, without which the light surely would not exist: so also it must be said concerning the holy Spirit, who is conceded by the theologians to proceed from the Father through the Son.
Agreeing with these, Damascene also speaks in his theological chapters, saying (17): «The Spirit is as a ray from the sun through the Son: but through the ray the radiance is given to us.» Indeed, the radiance of the Spirit would never be given through the Father’s ray, that is, the Son, unless it had existence naturally through him; otherwise, indeed, it would be through an instrument. Furthermore, the Theologian says: «The Godhead, to speak briefly, is indivisible in things that are divided, and as it were in three contiguous suns, there is one tempering of light.
A If, therefore, to be contained by one another is this, that the third comes from the first through the middle; for otherwise there would not be a Trinity of God, nor an indivisible Deity; for it is clear that there is one tempering of light; and one [must] also preserve the order with the consubstantiality of the persons, according to which the third is from the first through the middle.
Nyssenus also, in his book *On the Holy Spirit* against the Macedonians, while handing down the immutable order of the divine persons according to their essence and their relation to one another, and rebuking those who dared to introduce a diminution because of the personal order and the mediation of the Son, added: «As if someone looking at a flame divided into three lights; and we assume the first flame to be the cause of the third light; which by distribution through the middle has extended to the highest. Then, he prepares the heat to abound in the first flame; but in the following it decreases, and that change tends toward the lesser; [so that] the third is not even called fire anymore, even if it burns and shines in the same way, and performs all things that fire does.»
From this example, therefore, it is clear that the third has its essential existence from the first through the middle. For from the distribution of the middle, the highest [part] of the flame is said to be kindled; and although the substance of the flame is one, nevertheless, that which is [a part] according to substance is in no way less perceived.
The supreme Chrysostom also [says] in Psalm xcii: «He calls the Father the fountain, the Son the river, but the Holy Spirit the water of the river,» taking up the testimony of the Lord, who says: *He who drinks from the water that I shall give him will not thirst forever.* Expounding upon this, the Evangelist says: *He said this about the Spirit whom those who believed in him were to receive.* As, therefore, the water of the fountain flowing naturally through the river has its substance through it, and together with the order constitutes one and the same substance of water, so far as is possible in human and fragile matters, so it must be said also regarding the Son and the Holy Spirit.
Other holy Fathers also assumed fire, flame, and light in the image of the Trinity, from which the same things can be gathered. The blessed Cyril likewise, in his *Thesauri*, took the root, the branch, and the fruit D for a similitude; and he called the Father the rose, the Son the flower, and the Holy Spirit the fragrance of the odor; and he said that the Spirit of the Son is as it were a vapor from the water, and like its quality. As, therefore, the fruit proceeding naturally from the root through the branch receives its substance from the root through the branch, not from the root without a medium; but with the mediation of the branch removed, the fruit cannot exist, and one natural quality and order shines forth; in the same way it must be said of the Holy Spirit, insofar as the infirmity of the example permits.
The same blessed Cyril says in the *Thesauri*: «Addressing the Jews, he says, *But if I cast out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has surely come upon you.* He says that in this place the finger is the Holy Spirit, in a certain way sprung from the divine essence, and naturally hanging from it, just as the finger hangs from the human hand. For [the] Holy Scriptures call the Son the arm of God and the right hand, as is that [word]: *His right hand and his holy arm have saved him.* And again: *Lord, thy arm is high, and they did not know [it]: but those who know it shall be confounded.* As, therefore, the arm is naturally fitted to the whole body, performing everything that the mind has perceived, but usually utilizing the finger for this; so we think [of] the Word of God as adapted to Him and in Him naturally and essentially, if I may so say, and sprung forth: but in the Son, the Holy Spirit [is] likewise naturally and essentially penetrating, through whom He anoints and sanctifies all things. The Holy Spirit, therefore, does not appear alien and removed from the divine essence, but is naturally in It and from It: just as the finger is not separate from the body, being inborn in the hand itself and sprung forth as one. And the hand, in turn, exists in the body [as] not of another, but of its own substance.»
In this place, the teacher of the Church shows through the image of Scripture, and the order of the persons, by which they depend upon one another, such as the hand [depends] on the body, but the finger is joined to the hand or the arm, according to which order the third also is from the first through the middle, just as the finger [is], by natural connection to it, and by substance, and by power reaching through the arm. As also the great Basil says, the natural goodness and royal dignity reach from the Father through the Only-Begotten to the Spirit. And not only this, but theology has taught that all things are produced and consist from the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the doctor shows the order of the persons themselves, and from this necessarily insinuated their consubstantiality. For the natural and essential substance of the body, and the arm, and the finger is one: although the hand is not the finger, nor is the finger the hand, because the hand is not fitted to the body through the finger. Therefore, having also shown through this image the order of the persons to one another, he immediately added concerning their consubstantiality: «The Holy Spirit, therefore,» he says, «is neither alien nor removed from the divine essence.»
Certainly also the blessed Augustine, whom the universal synods have proclaimed as the highest and most excellent teacher, as is evident from the synodal acts, takes the human mind for the Father in the image; but the Word, which is called inborn and intimate, for the Son; who is also called the Word of God by John the Evangelist: and [He] has been called by Gregory the Theologian the definition of the Father, and the Word, and the sprout, and the will, and the seal, according to which image the image of God is most of all preserved in man. B C
A And the will, which is naturally within all rational and intellectual beings, he assigns to the divine Spirit, taking the occasions for this partly from the divine Scriptures, and partly because God is both called and is intellectual, rational, and willing. For He would never have brought forth beings endowed with reason and will unless He had these things within Himself in a far more excellent way.
But just as the definition of the Father, and the ingrafted Word, is essential and substantial, so too is the will of this kind, according to which God wills Himself, just as He also understands Himself according to His own Word. For there is no accident in God. The Word, therefore, is from the Mind without intermediary; but the will is from the Mind through the Word. For it is impossible for anyone to will anything or in any way, unless he has first thought about what he wills. Therefore, the will proceeds through the Word and from the Word. Hence, also, brute animals, because they lack word and reason, neither will nor are said to will, but are borne by natural motion irrationally. Since, therefore, the word is referred to the mind, and the will necessarily proceeds from the mind through the word, what was proposed is hence also demonstrated.
And the examples which the saints assume are of this kind. But just as a river does not exist without the intermediary of a spring, nor could light exist otherwise than from the sun through a ray, nor could living water flow from a fountain without an intermediary but only through a stream, nor could fruit exist from a root without the intermediary of a branch—for this confuses and destroys the order of things and the process of substance—in these, and in the other examples we have proposed, by surely the same reasoning, the Holy Spirit is not said to be from the Father without intermediary. For the Third is placed after the Father according to personal order, and is asserted by the theologians to exist and proceed through the Son. But to say that the Holy Spirit is from the Father without intermediary belongs to those who would divide the one tempering of light; and those things which are said, that the three persons contain one another, and that the Trinity is likened to a chain, and other examples of this kind—which are intended to show that order in the holy Trinity is to be understood with a certain rectitude, for it would not stand otherwise—they deny these altogether, and divide the Spirit from the Son according to the position of a triangle whose sides are separated from one another at the base. But this perverts the aforementioned order, and takes away all that is said about this by the holy Fathers. For thus it will be permissible to think of the section and division of the Son and Spirit, and to think of the Son without the Spirit; and when we speak of the Son, [to think that] they are not contained by one another; and all things completely contrary to those things which were spoken by the saints will follow; but that is truly inept, insipid, and impious.
Lest, however, this disturb anyone, B it attributes to God none of the things that occur in matter. For we leave to matter local and temporal intervals, and those things which are subject to flux and mortality. But if there is any perfection, and a likeness to the Creator in them, we ascribe this to God as far more worthy. Hence, indeed, we silently remove the consubstantiality of the divine persons, and their order toward one another, as it exists in the fountain, and the river, and the living water. Hence the immobility of the order [is removed], with the personal properties in no way moved; for the eye of the fountain is not called the fountain; nor is the fountain the river. Nor, again, is the sun called a ray; nor is the ray called the light which flows and is diffused through it, even though it itself certainly is light. Yet for the sake of the order to be preserved, the names are distributed and separated, each to each. Just as the Father is not the Son, nor the Son the Father, nor the Holy Spirit the Father or the Son.
And from elsewhere, indeed, the union of the persons is intimated. Basil, in fact, used the excellent example of the rainbow. In which, although the union and distinction of colors appears gently and moderately, yet no process is perceived in them in any way. From elsewhere, however, a process with the difference of order is gathered, or that there are many things from one, and others from another, with the imagination gathering a certain unity of truth. For it behooves us, as long as we live in shadows and enigmas, to rely on these things which are better known to us, as if on certain aids toward God: believing primarily and necessarily in those truths which flow from there; but also taking consolation from these things which are seen, as much as is permitted, and as much as creatures in themselves can faintly insinuate the Creator: and visible things C exhibit certain vehicles toward the first truth.
Whence also Gregory the Theologian says: "There is nothing that stays my soul as I look at these examples, in that which I proceed to imagine and behold, unless someone takes one thing and rejects the rest out of gratitude." For if, because of those things which follow matter and universally created things, we do not take either the identity of essence, nor the order, from these examples which have been said concerning God in an equitable proportion: D no one could say that these examples are of no use to us, as if they were taken by the saints in vain and without a certain reason.
Thus, therefore, by the order of the divine Trinity, and the intermediary of the Son, confirmed in many ways by the masters of the most holy Church, it is clear that if any of the saints at any time spoke of a twin ray, and twin lights of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, and a double branch, and secondaries of the Father—that which some refer to as having been said in verses by Gregory the Theologian—they do not contradict those things which have been said, nor are they contrary to themselves, nor to one another. For they did not intend to hand down the order of the divine persons toward one another, and their process, when they said these things, but simply that there are only three persons, and that the Son and the Holy Spirit are from the Father as the cause, and the cause from whence all things have flowed. For through these things they indicate that all things are referred to the Father. For under the definition of the causal...
A they deduce both, according to the former distinction. This is what Gregory the Nyssen also did, distinguishing the one God into cause and caused, or into cause and that which is from the cause. Then, subjoining that we arrive by intelligence at another difference, again, of that which is from the cause. For the one is that which contains, but the other is through Him who contains, and the one is begotten, and the other proceeds, and whatever of this kind has been said for those who perfectly distinguish. According to this sensible reasoning, he who called the Son the second from the Father, and the Holy Spirit as well, wished to signify only this, that these things are causal from the Father, including both under the definition of the causal. For according to the fact that they are causals, the things that are second may also be commonly called causes according to the order of the persons.
But indeed this same author, distinguishing these things more perfectly in other places, says that the difference of emanation and of the relationship to one another has also made the appellation different. And again, in verses he says: "God is one, from the Father, through the Son, into the Holy Spirit, the perfect Deity remaining in three perfect ones." Not even this—what Damascene (19) says, that the Holy Spirit is the median between the unbegotten and the begotten—clashes with the aforementioned order. For he does not thereby intend to set forth the order of the persons and their substantial procession. But since heretics would scarcely confess the Son to be consubstantial with the Father, and would by no means deem the Holy Spirit worthy of this honor and dignity, the holy Fathers, knowing this to be the true God from the true God, and that He proceeds from God according to the Scriptures, not according to a progress of birth, but according to a B procession, said: "There is also another mode of substance, namely, a procession, according to which another person comes forth from God; and this is that by which the Holy Spirit proceeds, being of the same essence with the Father and the Son; who is neither unbegotten, nor without a cause [principle]: for He is not the Father; nor, on the other hand, begotten, because He is not the Son, according to the procession of birth." For this reason, the doctor (20) here called the Holy Spirit the medium of the unbegotten and the begotten. For wherever, with three terms posited, a third is denied by both of the others, according to the custom of dialectics it is seen to be the medium in the negation of the others. For if he had thought the Spirit to be from the Father according to [that mode of] being (21), he would never have said that He is there joined to the Father through the Son. For this proves the malice of certain people, and clearly shows that the master agrees with himself and with others. Nor would he ever have said this, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, and that the Father is the producer of the Spirit through the Word. For these things are most openly contrary to one another.
If, however, anyone wishes to assert that the procession of the Spirit through the Son signifies consubstantiality, first of all, according to the consubstantial, there is no order of persons in God. For in that respect, by which they are consubstantial, the divine essence is one thing, entirely indivisible and indistinct. But the consubstantial introduces no distinction at all. But according to the reason of the procession, and the order that follows from it, the number of persons is introduced and admitted. And so, he who thinks that it is said by reason of the consubstantial that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, posits that one essence to be the cause of the distinction, which is properly an Arian position; C and, having omitted the personal distinction, he will necessarily confess three essences divided from one another, and beyond all reason he will posit the causal as the cause. Since such a procession is natural and essential, it shows that the things which are produced are consubstantial with one another.
Further, although the consubstantial is truly said to be signified by these words, the order of the persons is nevertheless principally commended. For the particle "through," as Basil says, writing to Amphilochius, discerns the persons first. Consequently, however, it also introduces the consubstantial. For just as the Son, because He is from the Father, is therefore also consubstantial with Him: so also with the Holy Spirit, while He is asserted by the theologians to be naturally and essentially from the Father through the Son, first, this procession through the Son and its distinction is insinuated; then, the reason for the consubstantiality also appears. For this natural and essential procession is held as admitted. Whence also the great Basil, in his book *Against Sabellius and the Anomoeans*, the beginning of which is: "Judaism is opposed to gentility," says: "We confess the Father and the Son, but on account of the identity of nature, since the Son is from the Father; therefore, it must be said likewise of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." For he who has come forth by an equal cause, that is, naturally and essentially, it is established that he is also of the same nature with the producer, and with Him through whom he proceeds.
Although also, according to the proposed examples, if anyone thinks that they indicate only the consubstantial along with the subsequent order of the processions, he also introduces the reason for the consubstantiality. For, since to believe the unity in the Trinity, and the Trinity in the unity, is the summit of our faith, these things are simultaneously inferred through all that has been said by the masters, and they hold together, so that those who have confessed the one, also confess the other. D And thus the order principally, but the consubstantiality consequently, as has been said, appears lucidly in the persons.
But it is established from these things that have been said, that those who wish the procession through the Son to be understood in this way, using their own examples, such as light through glass, or air, or
A water through a conduit, or a man through a door, are thinking things contrary to the faith and to the holy Fathers. For the latter affirm that He proceeds substantially through the Son. But the former, by what they bring forward, remove B what is said to be essential and natural. For neither does water move through a duct, nor man through a door, nor light through the air or through glass, in a natural or essential way. Indeed, these things do not even intimate the order of the divine Persons, nor their procession. For those who are assumed in these examples are entirely of a different substance, and no natural procession is perceived in them.
Wherefore, one should not say that the light goes through the air, but rather in the air. But the Holy Spirit is both in the Son and proceeds through the Son. Therefore, such examples indicate neither the order of the divine Persons nor their consubstantiality. Moreover, if we were to put faith in them, we would attribute a ministerial office to the Son, so that He would fulfill the task of a minister according to a ratio of proportion. But this is both foolish and impious. Therefore, since there is no rationale of unity in them, nor any order, they are to be rejected as harmful and having nothing to do with what we have proposed: and especially because not one of the saints uses them. And this also appears, that the Holy Spirit is not asserted to proceed through the Son because He is given and sent through the Son. For that which is said to be given is temporal; but to proceed is eternal. Nor is it possible that what is temporal should be the cause of that which is above time. And so the Holy Spirit is asserted to proceed from the Father through the Son according to His substantial procession; for His substance, as well as His procession, is eternal.
But it is intimated by this one thing, that He is given and sent by the Son because, according to His substantial procession, He is also through Him. For as the great Athanasius says, writing against Arius: "From whom C should it be necessary for the Spirit to be given, if not from Him whose He is? For otherwise the Son would be a minister, if He were said to give what did not naturally proceed through Him." Simultaneously, we would also be compelled to confess that something happens temporally to the Son and to the Holy Spirit: namely, "to give" for the former, and "to be given" for the latter.
Furthermore, that which, when posited, results in both folly and falsehood, must itself be foolish and false. From which it is clear that there is no double procession of the Spirit—one temporal and another without time. First, because no holy Father said this; second, because if this were conceded, many foolish and unworthy things would emerge. But there is one sole and eternal procession, according to which the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. However, to creatures who become apt and worthy to receive the notion and illustration of such a procession, He is said to proceed, to shine, and to be poured forth, and to be given through the Son; and then, what is eternal in Himself comes to them D temporally.
So, according to that which is said: "From whom," He is one; but according to that which is said: "Into whom," such procession is twofold. For He proceeds solely and singularly from the Father through the Son, as if from one principle, according to the unique and simple procession by which He is said to proceed; yet, with the addition of the creature, by whom He is said to proceed for the sake of sanctification, then He who proceeds from the Father through the Son is understood to be sent and given from the Father also through the Son. And that whole procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son toward the creature is called a mission, which occurs in time for the sake of the creature, who enjoys His temporal participation—that temporal interval being applied not to God, but to us. And it is one, but differs in reason. For we ought not say that there is anything temporal in God because we receive Him temporally, applying the weakness of our condition to Him. Nor, if someone who was blind until now begins for the first time to look and to enjoy the rays of the sun, does the ray begin to flow from the sun, or the light from the ray, only then. For it is certain that even before the blind man looked, both the ray and the light were likewise in the sun, and the ray likewise grazed his eyes with its radiance.
Wherefore also the great Gregorius, a performer of miracles, in the book whose beginning is: "Most hostile and alien from the apostolic confession," called this procession an eternal emission. Yet there would never be a temporal eternity for Him. Finally he says: "While the Father is indeed unbegotten, the Son is begotten from the Father, and the Holy Spirit is eternally emitted from the Father's essence through the Son." But also the Theologian Gregorius, in the book he wrote to Hero the philosopher, called the emission of the Holy Spirit a "proper" one; yet the temporal will never be able to be the proper one of the Holy Spirit. For certainly if, because He is given and sent by the Son, He is therefore also said to proceed through Him, then He has His substance for our sake, according to which He is from the Father through the Son. But also, as for the temporal one they introduce, it follows that even He would have His substance for our sake. But if He is given, He certainly was, when He was not; and again, when He was, He would cease to be. But these things are impious. Therefore, what is proposed is not true. Furthermore, the excellent Basil in Book IV of the Questions says: "He does not proceed in time, who proceeds from God, even if His action is rendered efficacious in time," meaning, of course, when he makes mention of the Holy Spirit. Since, therefore, the Holy Spirit is from the Father through
It is asserted by theologians that the Son proceeds naturally, essentially, and eternally from the Father and the Son, regarding nature and essence. But that which is said A to proceed, indicates that it has substance by reason of the process, just as the Son is also said to subsist by reason of birth. And everything that has substance essentially through something, is also from it. It is evident, therefore, that the Holy Spirit is from the Son and proceeds from Him. For either that which is said "through" denotes nothing in the procession of the Holy Spirit, or it does indeed denote something, but something imperfect, or it fulfills the role of an instrument, or—like "through" a place or time—it certainly denotes that the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son naturally and by reason of the process, and essentially according to the proper mode of substance. But since other things have no place in the holy, supersubstantial, and simple B Trinity, it is left of necessity that we say the word "through" was not inserted by the holy Fathers in vain, and that it denotes one thing: that the Holy Spirit proceeds substantially from the Father through the Son, according to one and the same procession. For indeed, the "through," in those instances where it is assumed, concurs with the preceding cause toward the same efficiency, which that cause regards. And this is widely apparent to those who examine the particulars.
For when fruit proceeds from a root through a branch, the branch, in accordance with the seminal reason of nature that is in the root, strives toward the efficiency of the procession of the fruits along with the root. And in all the aforementioned examples, whoever wishes to exercise his ingenuity will perceive that the same appears. But even in those things where art works—a saw, for instance, through which a carpenter makes a wooden step—it cooperates with the artisan toward that object, and not toward an effect of a different kind. For it will not cooperate with him in heating or whitening, and that through which a machine is pulled will cooperate with the puller toward the drawing of the load.
And if indeed the saw were a man, as is the carpenter, and the same man—just as in the Father and the Son there is the same God—it would cut just as the carpenter does: and that which is done by the saw would be the same as that which is done from the saw. If, however, in those things where nature is different, those things through which something is made cooperate with those who first move, and in their own way become one cause: either like instruments, or helping and conferring in other ways; much more in the Father and the Son, where there is perfect identity and incommutability of the Son toward the Father, and equal Deity according to the same and unique substantial procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son, the Son Himself will share with the Father, not instrumentally or servilely, but essentially and naturally, as being a power natural to Him which is substantially implanted in Him. For if in those things which are lesser, it is believed that through the same and unique [power], the [Spirit] is rendered [as having] the same [nature] with the Father and also with the Son, in which there is certainly an infinite variety of substance, much more so in the Holy Spirit, who is of the same [nature] with Them. C Now, let the admirable Cyril confirm what we have proposed with his authority. For in the second book to Hermias, he says thus: "You shall call the Holy Spirit, who is poured forth naturally from the Father through the Son, and who, as in the likeness of the breath of our mouth, indicates to us His substance."
If, therefore, the likeness of the breath of our mouth is taken as an example—that the Spirit proceeds through the Son: for the holy Fathers say that the Son is the mouth of the Father; or also on account of the signification of that breathing when the Lord, by breathing, gave the Holy Spirit to the disciples, as will be shown in what follows—this indicates to us a proper substance. It is evident that, whether we have said He proceeds through the Son, or whether we have accepted the figure of breathing, we are taught the substance of the Spirit from both of these, through such an eminent teacher. But if these things are proven to be true and entirely to the point, with the beginnings of the faith and the sacred doctors and all in agreement, it is clearly evident, unless someone wishes to be entirely shameless, that the Holy Spirit is from the Son, since He has His substance through Him and proceeds through Him.
Furthermore, we shall teach more openly, from the holy Fathers, that "through" and "from" are of equal value in divine matters; for those who have thought it pious to accept these things interchangeably in these matters, have taught that to understand them otherwise is of heretical malice. For these men were attempting to introduce different natures into the holy Trinity by the difference of prepositions. For D the illustrious Basil says in those things which he wrote to Amphilochius: "Not only is the use of words changed in the divine Scriptures, but often other [words] are put for the signification of others, and they pass from their own [meaning] into an alien one. Finally, in these particles, 'through' and 'from,' one often takes the signification of the other, as is that saying: 'I have gotten a man through God' [Gen. IV, 1], which is the same as if he had said, 'from God.' And elsewhere: 'Whatsoever Moses commanded to Israel through the precept of the Lord' [Exod. XL, 25]. And again: 'Is not the declaration of these things through God?'"
' And the angel says: 'Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is born in her is of the Holy Ghost' [Matt. I, 20].
B Furthermore, Saint Cyril, writing to Palladium, by interrogation and response, almost at the beginning of the book which he entitled *On Spiritual Worship*, says: "The Spirit is certainly not variable. Or, if He is subject to this disease of variation, this stain reflects upon the divine nature itself, since He is of God and the Father, and even of the Son, since the Spirit is poured forth essentially from both, namely from the Father through the Son."
Nor indeed must we treat with many words that which is most manifest. For it is evident from these things which have been said, that 'through' and 'of' amount to the same thing in divine matters. And since the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, He proceeds also from the Son. And it is simultaneously evident that those who say that 'through' and 'of' are equivalent only when they are taken in terms of creatures—as in the text: 'All things were made through the Son' [John I, 3], which is the same as if it were said, 'of the Son'—but deny them in the uncreated order, do not judge rightly; for the divine Cyril declared that the Spirit of the Father and the Son is poured forth essentially from both, namely from the Father through the Son. It is likewise clear that he considers it identical to speak of the Spirit as being from both, that is, the Father and the Son, and from the Father through the Son, as has been said. C But also the excellent Basil, in the 5th chapter to Amphilochius, showing that the term 'of' is appropriate for the Son, alleges the following: 'He shall receive of mine' [John XVI, 14], and that text: 'I know that virtue hath gone out of me' [Luke VIII, 46]. And they themselves, whom they contradict, while considering grace and uncreated efficiency, confess that it proceeds through the Son and of the Son in a different way. And it is furthermore evident that those who assign 'through' only to the Son, while taking away 'of,' will necessarily call the Son less than the Father. For, Chrysostom says, the heretics take this as a sign of diminution. Therefore, no necessity compels us to attribute 'through' to the Holy Spirit. For the Son is not said to be born of the Father through the Spirit, nor will any reasoning whatsoever compel us to say that the Son is of the Spirit.
Furthermore, in very many places in their works, the holy Fathers commend that the Holy Spirit is from the Son. And first Gregory the Theologian, in his book *On the Holy Spirit*, forming an argument from the contrary: "What therefore is lacking to the Spirit, that He should not be the Son? For if anything were lacking, He would certainly be the Son." But having posed this objection, he immediately adds: "We do not say that anything is lacking to Him. For God is in need of nothing; but the difference of procession, so to speak, and of the habit-relation toward one another, has made their different appellation." This habit-relation, moreover, of the Son to the Holy Spirit, and conversely, Gregory of Nyssa also, upon the Lord's Prayer...