Dogmatic Oration

DOGMATIC ORATION OF THE MOST WISE ARCHBISHOP OF NICAEA TO THE EASTERN SYNOD ON UNION

^A There is no one, most excellent men, who would not hold in the highest esteem the holy peace and concord of the Churches of God, and deem it a matter of great happiness. For it is on account of this that the prayer of our Savior is offered to God the Father, when He prayed for His disciples and those who are called by His name: “Make them,” He said, “Father, that they may be one, as We are one.” Through this, the divine love, which is the mark of Christ’s disciples, flows into us, and the mutual enmities and dissensions that ought to be most alien to men, and especially to Christians, are removed from us; and those derisions and opprobria, by which we are continuously afflicted by the enemies of the cross of Christ, are removed—they who mock us, contemn us, and hold us for naught—because, while we are named Christians and have the same Lord, we are nevertheless so divided among ourselves and at variance on the dogmas of faith that we regard one another as enemies and most bitter foes. ^B Therefore, for these reasons and for others far greater than these, we all indeed love peace and hold the concord of Christians in the highest regard. But how such a great good might come about, and by what means it might be advanced—there, indeed, we are divided over differing opinions, and we think diversely about this matter. Therefore, it is precisely this that must now be considered by us, and must be spoken of to the measure of our ability; and we speak as follows.

515 ORATIO DOGMATICA PRO UNIONE.

CAPUT I.

There was a time when the spotless and blameless bride of God, the Church, was prospering ^A and in a sound state, when we held the simple and unencumbered faith according to the Gospel in higher regard, putting aside as secondary—as something superfluous, over-refined, and derived from our own reasonings—what was not in the divine oracles. We clung only to the written words, loving those that came from the Spirit, and being gathered by them into one. Being one flock, and using one shepherd, we understood his same voice, and rendered to him not only the faith in our hearts, but also the confession by our mouths. But from the time that some things were devised by the ancients, and added to the common possession and symbol of the faith without a common vote—I do not even ask whether it had been spoken by some, or not, or even if spoken, in what sense the many understand it, or in another—from the time this occurred, the body of Christ has been divided into many parts, alas! and the members are arming themselves against one another, not understanding that they are fighting against themselves and destroying themselves, by distancing themselves from their brothers. Or rather, while they do understand—for they are men who are wise and adorned with knowledge, and it has not escaped them how great the evil is—they are of necessity and reasonably distancing themselves from each other’s communion; and this is especially true of us ^B and the Latins, remaining as we do in the ancient and approved traditions, and in what is purely decided by every synod, having chosen what had not yet been commonly investigated, nor yet tested by a common, catholic, and ecumenical criterion. For in matters of faith, when there is no necessity, and no one is in danger, and heresies are at rest, one ought to remain in the things that have been handed down, which contain the divine dogmas either openly or in a condensed manner, and contain nothing that is devoid of orthodoxy. But when a necessity has arisen, and some heresy has sprouted up, as often happens according to human nature—and indeed it has happened, and will further happen due to the weakness of human understanding—the Church, having been gathered together from every corner into one, should sit as a judge regarding the matters in question, and using as a canon the divine Scripture and the teachers who preceded them, whom it had previously received in the rank of holy men and doctors, it should thus declare in common what is deemed right, and should work out the faith, setting up obstacles to heresies from every side, and driving them far from the Church. Truly, however, it is necessary to do this in common, and to settle common things commonly, and never to claim, while doing something by one's own authority, that one's own things must necessarily prevail among all; for that is not just. For thus our fathers continued to act, and thus we shall imitate them. ^C

Fuit aliquando tempus quo immaculata Dei sponsa Ecclesia sancta, summa concordia, tranquillissima pace et intemerata veritate fruebatur, cum scilicet simplicitatem ac puritatem evangelicæ doctrinæ maximi omnes faciebamus, solis sacris eloquiis contenti, his inhærentes, his acquiescentes, in unum ab his collecti ovile, sub uno pastore omnes agentes, eamdem units audientes vocem, et aut nihil præter ea quæ nobis tradita erant, cogitantes, nulla urgente necessitate: aut necessitate coacti, et hæresibus undique scatentibus, unum in locum universa Ecclesia congregata, ambiguitates rescindentes, et declarationes necessarias facientes. Postquam autem hæresi quadam, ut Latinos sæpenumero dicentes audivimus, in occidentali regione vigente, Romanorum præsul pontifex maximus sua unius auctoritate fretus, advocata synodo generali, particulam illam communi Symbolo fidei, non cum communi consensu ascripsit, in multas partes, heu rem miseram atque acerbam! Christi sacratissimum corpus divisum est, membraque ejus, hoc est Christiani homines, adversus se invicem arma ceperunt, minime intelligentes, se sibiipsis hostes esse et contra seipsos armari, dum se a fratribus dividunt; aut intelligendum quidem, cum multi sint inter nos doctrina ac sapientia præstantes, quos latere minime potest quantæ jacturæ causa hæc dissensio exstiterit; sed, nescio quomodo, divisi invicem atque alienati, et præsertim nos a Latinis. Oportere majores nostri dixerunt, qui ea tempestate fuere, qua oriri hæc dissensio cœpit in rebus fidei, dum nulla necessitas urget, his acquiescere ^D quæ nobis in sacris litteris tradita sunt, in quibus omnis fidei veritas aut plane explicata est, aut latens erui haud difficulter potest; quoties vero necessitas ingruat, et si aliqua oritur hæresis, quod imbecillitate humani ingenii sæpenumero inter mortales evenit, debere Ecclesiam Dei unum in locum congregatam de rebus dubiis judicare, ac secundum præcepta divinæ legis et sanctorum Patrum, quos jam ut sacrarum litterarum doctores approbavit, communi omnium consensu sententiam ferre, et per hunc modum fidem Christianam augere, obviam eundo hæresibus, procul ab Ecclesia Dei eas fugando. Ubique tamen asseverant iidem majores nostri, communiter hæc agi debere; et quæ communia sunt, communi consensu oportere terminari. Per hunc modum synodus prima generalis consubstantialitatem Patris et Filii prædicavit, Ario de inæqualitate ipsorum nescio quas nugas et deliramenta proferente. Per hunc modum secunda Spiritus divinitatem confessa est, Macedoni...

Macedonio ^A ipsum inter creaturas annumerante. Per hunc modum deinceps unaquæque synodus ea quæ in ancipiti fuerunt pronuntiavit, instante duntaxat necessitate. Neque enim licere inquiunt, pace ac tranquillitate fidei vigente, novas movere quæstiones, neque, ortis hæresibus, aut tacere, aut solum vel cum paucis de his quæ credi communiter ab omnibus debent, tractare; sed communi quidem consensu hoc fieri oportere, fieri vero duntaxat necessitate urgente. Quin etiam, quemadmodum, congregato generali concilio, opus esse aiunt summo studio ac cogitatione omnia discutere, et, quod ratio tandem obtinuerit, accipere omnes atque amplecti, ita, si ante commune judicium de aliqua re quispiam dubitaverit, mota quæstione, et ab aliquibus determinata, jure id facere, meritoque ab his dividi qui absque communi consensu ausi sunt de rebus communibus judicium ferre, quandoquidem ipse communibus rebus et communiter traditis assentiatur, illi vero aliquid dicant quod antequam communiter discutiatur, non parum in se habeat dubitationis.

Quas ob res nostrum plerique asserunt, haud se injuria a Latinorum consortio abhorrere; quod non sit ferendum, uniri nos eis antequam judicio universalis Ecclesiæ, quod recens per eos intro- ^B ductum fuit, subjiciatur. Atque his quidem duplici accusatione succensendum existimant: primo, quod ignaris et nequaquam assentientibus nobis quidquam in communem Ecclesiam introduxerint; tum, quod pati nollent generalem synodum et antiquis illis similem convocari. Hæc nos quoque illis sæpenumero coram objecimus, palamque in eos invecti sumus. Quibus quid illi responderint, quas excusationes in medium adduxerint, quibus rationibus objecta purgaverint, latissime omnes intelleximus. Itaque non est in præsentia repetendi locus, præsertim cum nostra omnis quæstio minime in hoc versetur, utrum per se soli, an nobiscum una particulam illam addiderint, et licueritne addere, necne; sed utrum verum falsumve sit quod additum est, hoc in primis considerandum a nobis esse universi judicavimus. Verum demus in præsentia, non recte illos fecisse, quod sine totius Ecclesiæ congregatione de rebus gravibus ad fidem Christianam pertinentibus tractarint; quousque quidem in hac sententia permansere, ne aliquod dogma in generali synodo propositum discuteretur, fortassis haud injuria succensere illis videbamur, et nostræ adversus illos accusationes jure optimo defendi poterant. Nunc autem cum hujusmodi culpa vacent, ^C sponteque in generalem synodum convenerint, ac omnia se facturos affirmarint quæ ratio persuaserit, et ipsi se omni accusatione prorsus immunes reddiderint, et nos oportet non mediocre studium cogitationemque adhibere, ut quæ agenda a nobis sint caute prudenterque agamus, ne quod ante hunc diem objicere Latinis consuevimus, in nos recidat; denique ea accusatione judicemur, cujus illos olim reos agebamus. Nam si, ut dicere ipsi consuevimus, nondum advocata synodo generali accusandi erant Latini, quod suo duntaxat judicio de re adeo gravi credidissent, quidni nos quoque, cum id quod quærebamus fa- ^D

[GREEK COLUMN] νῆς, ἐκεῖνοι τὴν καταδικάζουσαν ἀπεφέροντο· οὕτω A συστάσης λοιπόν, μέγαν ἡμῖν ἀγῶνα τε καὶ κίνδυνον εἶναι, πῶς ἂν διαχειρισάμενοι τὰ παρόντα, ἀνέγκλητοι ἐντεῦθεν ἀπαλλάξωμεν ὡς εἰκός. Ἤδη γὰρ αὐτοί τε λόγον ὑπέσχον ὧν λέγουσί τε καὶ δογματίζουσι, καὶ ἡμεῖς πρὸς τὰ παρ' αὐτῶν εἰρημένα διὰ τῶν δυνατῶν ἀπηντήκαμεν, πρὸς ἃ μὲν καὶ παντελῶς σεσιγηκότες, πρὸς ἃ δὲ οὐδὲν ὅ τι καὶ ἄξιον λόγου ἀποκρινάμενοι.

Ἐνταῦθα δὲ δὴ λοιπὸν μεγάλης ἡμῖν κρίσεως δεῖ, καὶ σοφῆς μεταχειρίσεως ὡς ἐνόν, καὶ οἰκονομίας τῆς ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ καὶ κρίσει τε καὶ εὐθύτητι. Οὐ γὰρ ἁπλῶς ἀρχίσει τὸ μὴ βούλεσθαι φάναι, καὶ πάντα γέγονεν εὐθὺς τὰ προσήκοντα, οὐδὲ τοῦτο τέλος τῆς οἰκουμενικῆς ἡγητέον συνόδου· ἀλλὰ μετὰ ἀκριβείας σκεπτέον ἅ τε ἐκεῖνοι εἰρήκασιν, ἅ τε B ἡμεῖς προεβαλόμεθα· καὶ ἐπιμελῶς ἐξεταστέον, ὅπη μὲν συμφωνοῦσιν ἡμῖν καὶ τῇ ἀληθείᾳ, ὅπη δὲ τοῦ εὐθέος πλανῶνται, καὶ τῆς ἀληθείας ἀπάγονται· καὶ τί μὲν αὐτοὺς διδακτέον, τί δὲ παρ' αὐτῶν ἀκουστέον· καὶ τί μὲν ὠφεληθῆναι παρ' αὐτῶν, τί δ' αὖ οὓς ὠφελῆσαι δέον· καὶ ὅπως προσληψόμεθα ἀδελφοὺς τοσούτους τε καὶ τοιούτους, ὧν τῷ χωρισμῷ σπαράσσεσθαι πάντας εἰκός· μήποτε τῷ θέλειν χαρισάμενοι μόνον, ἢ οὐ σὺν δίκῃ ζημιωθῶμεν αὐτοῦ, ἢ μετὰ καὶ τῆς ἡμῶν αὐτῶν βλάβης αὐτοὺς προσλαβώμεθα. Αὕτη γὰρ ἡμῖν μόνη βελτίστη πρὸς τὸ τέλος ὁδός, καὶ διὰ ταύτης ἡμᾶς οἶμαι πρός τι χρηστὴν ἀπαχθῆναι καὶ ἄμεμπτον, μήτε τοῖς ἁπλῶς οὕτω σὺν οὐδενὶ λόγῳ λέγουσι διαστῆναι Λατίνων, ὡς οὐδὲν ὑγιὲς οὐδὲ λεγόντων, οὔτε φρονούντων προςσχόντας τὸν νοῦν, μήτε πεισθέντας εὐθὺς τοῖς σὺν οὐδεμιᾷ τῇ ἀπὸ τῶν λόγων πειθοῖ τὴν ἕνωσιν ἐπισπεύδουσιν, ἀλλὰ συνεξετάσει καὶ κρίσει καὶ τῇ ἀπὸ τῶν ἁγίων καὶ διδασκάλων ὁδηγίᾳ χρωμένους ἐπὶ τὸ τέλος ἰέναι. Οὕτω μὲν οὖν ἐγὼ γνώμης ἔχω, καὶ ταῦτα περὶ τούτων φρονῶ. Ὅπως δ' ἂν καὶ διὰ ποίων πρὸς τοῦτο τὸ τέλος ἀπαχθείημεν, ἐντεῦθεν ἐρῶ, C Θεὸν προστησάμενος μόνον, εἰ καὶ μέγας ὁ ἄθλος καὶ δυσχερὴς ὁ ἀγών. Φιλοκίνδυνόν τε γάρ τινα τὰ παρόντα ζητεῖ, καὶ πρὸς πάντα ἁπλῶς ἕτοιμον ἀποδύσθαι· καὶ γενναῖόν ἐστιν οὔτε λεχθῆναι οὔτε πραχθῆναι, μή τινος πάντως παρρησιασαμένου τε τὰ δοκοῦντα καὶ παρακινδυνεύσαντος. Ἄρξομαι δ' ἐντεῦθεν, ὑπόθεσίν τινα καὶ ἀρχὴν ὑποθέμενος.

ΚΕΦΑΛ. Β'. Προῦργου, ὅτι ἀναγκαῖον τοὺς ἁγίους διδασκάλους, τούς τε Δυτικοὺς καὶ τοὺς Ἀνατολικούς, πρὸς ἀλλήλους ὁμοφωνεῖν.

Ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς ἐπὶ τὸ σωτήριον κήρυγμα πέμπων τοὺς μαθητάς, καὶ τὰ συμβησόμενα αὐτοῖς προαγορεύων δεινά, καὶ ὡς ἐπὶ βασιλεῖς τε καὶ ἡγεμόνας ἀχθήσονται παραστησόμενοι, Μὴ μεριμνήσητε, φησίν, εἰ εἴπητε, ἢ τί λαλήσητε· ἐγὼ γὰρ ὑμῖν δώσω λόγον τε καὶ σοφίαν, [Latin translation continues into the next page.]

[LATIN COLUMN] that, having brought the present matters to a close, we might depart from here blameless, as is fit. For they have already rendered an account of what they say and teach, and we have replied to the things stated by them through the means available to us, being in some matters entirely silent, and as to others, having made no reply worthy of mention.

Here then, there is finally a need for great judgment on our part, and for as wise a handling as possible, and for a plan conducted in justice, judgment, and uprightness. For it will not simply suffice to say that one does not wish for it, and that all fitting things have immediately come to pass, nor is this to be thought the end of the ecumenical council; but we must examine with accuracy what they have said, and what we have proposed; and it must be diligently examined where they agree with us and with the truth, and where they wander from the straight path and are led astray from the truth; and what must be taught to them, and what must be heard from them; and what we must gain from them, and what in turn we ought to bestow upon them; and how we shall take back as brothers such and so many men, by whose separation it is fitting that all should be torn. Surely out of a simple desire to gratify them, we should not either be unjustly harmed, or take them back to our own detriment. For this for us is the only and best road toward the goal, and through this I believe we shall be led toward something useful and blameless, by not being persuaded to separate from the Latins simply and without any reason, as those who say nothing soundly or who think rightly, nor by being persuaded immediately by those who hasten the union with no persuasion from sound arguments, but by proceeding toward the end through investigation, judgment, and by using the guidance of the holy fathers and teachers. Such is the opinion I have, and such is what I think concerning these matters. How, then, and by what means we might be led toward this end, I shall state from here, setting God alone before me, even if the labor is great and the struggle difficult. For the present situation seeks someone who risks danger, and who is prepared to strip for action for all things; and it is a noble thing neither to be said nor done, unless someone has indeed spoken out with candor on the things that seem right and has accepted danger. I shall begin from here, assuming a certain hypothesis and principle.

Chapter 2. Proof that it is necessary for the holy doctors, both Western and Eastern, to be in agreement with one another.

Dominus noster Jesus Christus, cum discipulos suos ad prædicandum inter gentes Evangelium mitteret, multa, quæ eis eventura erant, prædicens; et inter cætera, quo ante reges et præsides sua causa ducerentur: Nolite, inquit, cogitare quomodo aut quid loquamini: dabitur enim vobis in illa hora quid loquamini (non enim vos estis qui loquimini, sed Spiritus Patris vestri, qui loquitur in...

vobis'); ^B manifestly signifying by these words that whatever might be said by them, it was his own words and those of the Holy Spirit speaking within them—the Spirit whom he elsewhere affirmed would come, and would teach them all truth, so that their very words, with the Spirit of truth speaking in them, would be truth and life. Now, that these words did not extend only to those eyewitnesses of the Word, but also to all pastors and teachers after them who proclaimed the saving message, everyone knows; and the Savior himself said, "What I say to you, I say to all," and the facts themselves confirm this, as all who came after them were glorified by the same works and signs, and by the abundant streams and ever-flowing fountains of teaching. Thus, it is henceforth manifest that the holy Fathers and teachers spoke through the all-holy Spirit, and uttered the words of the Savior against tyrants and rulers, and against those heretics who fought against the truth, writing, teaching, and preaching it. Being in such a state, it is necessary that they should be in harmony with themselves and with one another; and to say that they possess any contradiction—whether small or great—either toward one another or toward themselves, is not even permissible to think; for in that case, the spirit that spoke in them would have been a spirit of error rather than of truth. For error is characteristic of those who are led astray, whereas it is the mark of a wise man to be consistent with himself and to harmonize ^C with other wise men. By how much, therefore, the Spirit of wisdom and truth surpasses the wisdom of men, by so much is it necessary that He should be more consistent with Himself. And if, perchance, there is anyone who would dare to say that the Fathers at times have contradicted each other, it is time for him to be numbered among the infidels and the enemies of the cross; for from this source, they attempt to undermine our mysteries, presenting instances of apparent contradiction in the divine Scripture—evidence of the supposed weakness of the proclamation—which appear to no one other than themselves. Against these, every teacher stands his ground, and all struggle to show that those who slander the truth are wrong, proving that the divine Scripture is in harmony with itself throughout. Besides, when we consistently obstruct and refute those who are outside our fold and Church—showing that the masters they glory in are in many things contradicting each other, and thereby exposing their ignorance—how could we accept this same calamity against ourselves and allow our Fathers to fall into the same charge, unless we were to wish of our own accord to overturn our very faith? But far be this from the Church of Christ and her nurslings. We see, indeed, all the ecumenical councils, and the Fathers gathered within them, concerning the dogmas proposed, not by the persuasions of human wisdom ^D that this is not [alt-version omitted] the mark of a sage, just as it is the mark of a wise man to be perpetually in agreement with himself, and in no matters to differ from other wise men. How much, therefore, the Spirit of wisdom and truth excels wise men, by so much is it more necessary that He should be consistent with Himself. And if by chance there should be any who deem that our holy Fathers and doctors have said things contrary to each other, it is surely fitting that he be numbered among the infidels and enemies of the cross, who have been accustomed to argue against our faith from this source, feigning certain contrarieties and contradictions of holy Scripture among themselves—which, however, no one deems to be such except themselves, against whom all the doctors contend, arguing that they are slanderers of the truth, and asserting that holy Scripture is everywhere consistent with itself. Moreover, since we in this manner argue against the gentiles and those who are outside our Church, and expose their ignorance—showing, evidently, the philosophers and the heralds of their faith to be contradicting each other in very many things—how shall we accept this same thing against ourselves, and deem our own doctors guilty of the same crime, unless we ourselves should wish of our own accord to overturn our faith? But far be this from the Church of Christ and her nurslings. For we see now all the universal councils, and the Fathers gathered in them, dealing with the dogmas proposed, not by the persuasions of human wisdom

nor by the artifice of words, nor by natural reasonings, nor finally using syllogisms, but relying upon authority alone; and, as the right rule, they followed the glory of the truth in the very words of the superior doctors who preceded them in time. Through these, they settled whatever questions of faith there were, following the footsteps of the holy Fathers. Wherefore ^A I do not know what one could hold regarding our faith, if one concedes that such an absurdity could be imputed to the Fathers. For if the leaders of the faith do not all say the same things, but some contradict each other and others even themselves—oh, the absurdity!—and our faith is founded upon their reasonings, then our preaching is empty, and our faith is empty. But it is truly a matter of great folly even to think such things of those men filled with the Spirit; for it is necessary, both because of what has been said and for many other reasons, that they should be consistent both with themselves and with one another, and that they should neither say nor think anything at all that is contrary. The blessed John of Damascus also speaks of these in his letter to Jordan: "But come, let us also examine the authorities they bring forward, since they are patristic, and we must in no way contradict them. But it is fitting to prove that the holy Fathers and teachers—whose opinion concerning the faith the one power and illumination of the Spirit has shown to be uniform and unchangeable—are consistent, and not contrary to one another, much less ^B at variance and clashing with themselves."

It is also apparent that, because heretics slander the holy Fathers as if they do not say the same things, and drag some of them along to prove their own perverse opinion, the blessed John neither denies those who seem to favor the heretics, nor does he understand them as they do; rather, he accepts them, yet tries to show that they are in agreement both with themselves and with one another. For this is the duty of a teacher, this is the duty of a Christian.

The seventh universal council also, through the holy Tarasius in its first session, says: "We find the holy Fathers in no point discordant; but since they are all of the same mind, they also preach and teach the same thing." And the same council, again in the same session: "For everywhere the holy Fathers are in agreement with one another, and there is no contradiction among them; but those who do not understand their economies and purposes ^C think that they say contrary things." See how the Fathers of the seventh council also feel the same way about this matter, and while saying that the holy teachers are consistent with themselves and with one another, they assign the same reason as the blessed John. For the same Spirit, they say, spoke in all; and it is not even lawful to think that He is not consistent with Himself. And it would indeed be long to recount how all the teachers in the whole of holy Scripture set this before themselves: to reconcile the apparent contradictions therein; to conclude truly and manifestly through the aforesaid, that the leaders and teachers of our faith, by whose doctrines we have been illuminated and instructed, must necessarily hold the same and consistent things, not only with themselves

those who are the leaders of our faith, by whose teachings we have been enlightened and instructed, it is necessary to speak these things to one another, and to speak them in harmony, not only with ourselves, but no less so with one another—for he who does not concede this differs in no way from the unbelievers. ^A Since this is the case, we have the holy [teachers], those from the East who caused the light of the faith to rise for us: Athanasius, Basil, the Gregorys, and Chrysostom, Cyril and Maximus, and Tarasius, and the rest of their company. We have also those from the West, who quenched the flames of error and the darkness with that radiance of the truth which they provide—Hilary, Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, Damasus, Gregory, Leo (who roared with the voice of a lion), and the sacred choir of other saints. We hold them all as common teachers and Fathers, ^B and leaders of the faith; for although they suffered much in this life for the truth—and indeed died for it—they nonetheless live, not only with God, inscribed in the book of life, but also among us through those works and doctrines which they have left behind for us, which ought to be held by us as rules of faith, and revered and believed in just as if they were holy Scripture. We shall therefore do our duty, and that which is owed by grateful sons to Fathers: offering equal ears to all, and subjecting our own mind to all, and accepting the seeds which they have sown. For they will lead us to the same end and will confirm for us the same faith, since they themselves first spoke the same things among themselves, as if they had spoken by one and the same Spirit. Let us consider this in the following way.

CHAPTER III

The holy Eastern Fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and from the Father through the Son; the Westerns say that the same Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. What then shall we say? That this is contrary to that? God forbid! For it is neither contrary nor contradictory that it should proceed from the Father and [that it should proceed] from the Father and the Son. Even if they had expressed the statement contradictorily, so that some were argued to have said it proceeds from the Father and not from the Son, while others said it proceeds from the Father and the Son, not even thus would I have dared ^C to say boldly that the saints contradict one another; but rather, I would have accused myself of not understanding what it is they say—according to what was said by Tarasius in the seventh synod—namely, that those who do not understand their economies and intentions are the ones who oppose them, or that I would have imputed to them [the error of holding] a contradiction or opposition. I have many examples of this matter in the canonical Scripture itself: "My Father," he says, "is greater than I." And again: "I and the Father are one." ^D Which things, even if they could appear to be greater contradictions, are not to be called a contradiction among the saints, but rather I would accuse myself, as if I did not perceive their understanding, according to what was said by Tarasius in the seventh synod; namely, that those who are ignorant of their economies and intentions are the ones who are contrary to them; [than that] I should impute to them that contradiction or contrariety. I have many examples of this thing in the canonical Scripture itself: "My Father," he says, "is greater than I." And again: "I and the Father are one." These things, which might seem to be the greatest con-

* John XIV, 28. John X, 30.

fain. Ἔχω τούτου πολλὰ παραδείγματα ἀπ' αὐτῆς ^A τῆς θείας Γραφῆς · Ο πατήρ μου, φησί, μείζων μου ἐστιν· καὶ πάλιν · Ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ Πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν. Τούτου τις μείζων δοκοῦσα ἀντίφασις; Ἀλλ' ὅμως ἀντιφάσκουσι τῷ ἀληθεῖ οἱ ἀντίφασιν τοῦτο λέγοντες. Ὁ Στέφανος ὑπάρχων πλήρης Πνεύματος ἁγίου, ἀτενίσας εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν εἶδε δόξαν Θεοῦ, καὶ Ἰησοῦν ἑστῶτα ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ· ἀλλ' ὁ Παῦλος σὺν τῷ Δαβὶδ αὐτὸν ἐν δεξιᾷ φησι κεκαθικέναι τῆς μεγαλωσύνης ἐν ὑψηλοῖς· τὸ δὲ καθῆσθαι καὶ μὴ καθῆσθαι, τὸ ἴστασθαι γὰρ οὐ καθῆσθαί ἐστι, περιφανής ἐστιν ἀντίφασις. Λουκᾶς ὁ μακάριος τὸν θεῖον Στέφανον εἰσάγει τὴν δόξαν τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Πατρὸς, καὶ τὸν μονογενῆ αὐτοῦ Υἱὸν ἰδόντα· ὁ δὲ μύστης τῶν ἀποῤῥήτων, Θεὸν οὔτε εἶδεν οὐδεὶς οὔτε ἰδεῖν δυνήσεται πώποτε, παρὰ τῆς αὐτοαληθείας δεδιδαγμένος φησί· τὸ δὲ ἰδεῖν καὶ μὴ ἰδεῖν τὸν Θεὸν οὐκ οἶδ' εἴ τινι μὴ ἀντίφασις δόξειεν. Ὁ μὲν τῶν εὐαγγελιστῶν τρίτῃ ὥρᾳ τὸν Κύριον ἐσταυρῶσθαί φησιν, ὁ δέ γε βοᾷ· Ἦν δὲ ὥρα ἕκτη, καὶ ἐσταύρωσαν αὐτόν. Ἡ δὲ ἕκτη δηλονότι τρίτη οὐκ ἔστιν· ἡ δὲ τρίτη τε καὶ οὐ τρίτη πάντως ἀντίφασις.

^B Τὸν Θεὸν καὶ Πατέρα αἰτίαν Υἱοῦ τε καὶ Πνεύματος τρανῶς ἀνακηρύττουσί τε καὶ διδάσκουσι πάντες οἱ ἐξ Ἀνατολῆς ἅγιοι Πατέρες τε καὶ διδάσκαλοι· ἀλλὰ μετὰ τῶν ἐκ τῆς ἑσπέρας ὁ μακάριος Κύριλλος οὐδὲ προσίεται τοῦτο τὸ ὄνομα τὸ, αἰτίαν, ἐν τοῖς θείοις προσώποις· τὸ δὲ τὸν αὐτὸν αἰτίαν πᾶς τις ἂν οἶμαι ἀντιφατικῶς συγχωρήσειε λέγεσθαι. Καὶ τὶς ἂν ἐξαριθμήσαιτο, ὅσα ἀντιφατικῶς εἰρῆσθαι δοκοῦντα, ὅμως εὐσεβῶς ὑπὸ τῶν διδασκάλων νοοῦνται, καὶ πρὸς ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν ἀναπτύσσονται νοῦν; Οὓς καὶ ἡμᾶς μιμουμένους, καὶ περὶ τοῦ προκειμένου ζητήματος, εἰ συνέβαινεν ἐναντία τε καὶ ἀντιφατικῶς ἀντικείμενα λέγειν τοὺς διδασκάλους, ἡμῖν αὐτοῖς ἔδει μᾶλλον προσάπτειν ἀγνοίας αἰτίαν ἢ διαφωνίαν ἐκείνοις, καὶ πειρᾶσθαι διαλλάττειν ἀλλήλοις αὐτοὺς, καὶ διὰ πάντων ὡς ἐνὸν συμβιβάζειν. Νῦν δὲ λέγουσι μὲν οὐδὲν ἐναντίον, συμφωνοῦσι δὲ παντὸς μᾶλλον ἀλλήλοις. Καὶ τοῦτο συνήσομεν καὶ πείρᾳ εὑρήσομεν, εἰ κατὰ τρόπον αὐτοῖς καὶ τοῖς αὐτῶν χρησόμεθα λόγοις. Ὁ δὲ τρόπος οἷος, ἀκούσατε, καὶ σκοπεῖτε, ὡς ἀληθής τε καὶ δίκαιος.

ΚΕΦΑΛ. Δ'.

That for the understanding of those doctors who have spoken more obscurely, one must use those Fathers who speak more openly and clearly.

Πᾶσα πίστις τε καὶ ἀπόδειξις ἔχει μέν τι ἕτερον, ὃ πρόκειται δεῖξαι, ἔχει δέ τι ἕτερον, δι' οὗ τὸ προκείμενον δείκνυσιν· οὐ δύναται δὲ ταυτὸν εἶναι τὸ δεικνύον τε καὶ δεικνύμενον· αὐτὸ γάρ τι ἑαυτὸ τι δι' ἑαυτοῦ δεικνύναι ἀδύνατον. Ἀλλ' ἐπειδὴ ἔκ τινων ὁμολογουμένων τε καὶ δοκούντων κοινῇ ἐπί τι ζητούμενον ἀνάγκη ἰέναι, διὰ τῶν σαφῶν ἐπὶ τὰ ἀσαφῆ καὶ ζητούμενα προβαίνειν εἰκὸς, ^C καὶ διὰ τῶν δήλων δεικνύναι τὰ ἄδηλα. Καὶ τοῦτο μηδαμῶς τοῖς παρ' ἀμφοτέρων προσήκειν φασὶν οἱ ἐνίοτε, ἵνα μὴ δόξωσιν ἀντιφάσκειν. Ἀλλὰ ταῦτα μὲν ἑτέρωθι.

and to demonstrate the unclear through the clear. And this is so true that it does not require many words. Therefore, here too, since we have before us the inspired utterances of the blessed Fathers from the East, and also those from the West, and since it is necessary, if we mean to preserve Christianity, to show that the teachings from both sides are in agreement with one another—if both are equally clear and no doubt remains for us, there will be no need for further discourse, as we shall have found what is sought. But if any difficulty appears in them, and some things spoken in summary need further exposition, the aforementioned rule must be used; for otherwise it is impossible to attain the sought-after goal. By placing them side by side, and comparing the clearer things to those less clear, we may, through the clearer, trace the meaning of the obscure; and thus, having constructed one harmony from both, we may turn to a unanimous glorification of God. I, for my part, say that we ought to bring together into the Church the clear teachings of both these masters. And one might even be able to draw the same conclusion from the arguments of only one side. And this we shall show hereafter, if God permits, in a few words. Let it be granted, however, that the Easterners may not have declared the procession of the Spirit from the Son as clearly and as openly as those from the West. What then shall we do? What else, but since the Fathers of the West have proclaimed this faith so clearly, we must consider that the Easterners say this very same thing, and do not contend with those who are of one mind with them! For the same Spirit who spoke in the former spoke also in the latter; and what He spoke broadly in the former, He spoke in summary in the latter, for a reason He knows, and perhaps because of the dispensation fitting for that time and place. Yet it must also be shown, even without comparison to the Western holy Fathers, that the Eastern Fathers themselves, by their own authority, conclude the same thing concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit as the Westerners, and hold the same view as they do.

CHAPTER V.

CHAPTER V.

other than to say that place and time are in some way the cause of those things which passed by or came to be. For both place is a cause of motion—since all motion is in magnitude and distance—and time also contributes most to motion; for all motion is in time, and without motion nothing could come to be; and that without which nothing could come to be holds the cause of its own self. And in syllogisms, when we say that the extremes are conjoined ^A through the middle, it is clear that this happens through the middle as through a cause, according to the motion or transition of the intellect. Now the definition, if it is necessary to speak of this universally across all expressions where it is said that someone works *through* another, is that this preposition, "through," signifies a cause or principle in the case [i.e., the grammatical case] in which it is used for that activity. ^B Since, however, the activity is a middle between the actor and the thing coming to be, that case to which the preposition "through" is joined is sometimes the cause of the activity, insofar as it proceeds from the agent—and then it is the cause of the acting to the agent, whether it be a formal cause, a final, an effective, or a motive one; for in the case of a material cause it is not in use to be taken this way, but "from" is used instead; for we do not say that a house is composed "through" stones and wood, but "from" these and those. When, therefore, we say the craftsman works "through" the desire for profit, we signify a final cause; and we mean a formal one when we say the craftsman works "through" his own art; and a motive one if we say it is "through" the command of another. Sometimes, however, the causal word to which the preposition "through" is joined is the cause of the activity, insofar as it is terminated at the product—as when we say: "The craftsman works through the hammer." For it does not signify that the hammer is the cause of the craftsman acting, but that it is the cause for the product to proceed from the craftsman, and that it has this very fact from the craftsman. Since these things are so, we must consider what the saints mean when they say the Holy Spirit proceeds *from the Father through the Son*. Certainly here too we shall say that the "through" signifies some cause; but of the three previously set forth, not one. For neither is the Son the cause of the Father's propelling, which the aforementioned three causes are generally able to be, but rather the converse. For neither is the Son a formal, or final, or effective cause of the Holy Spirit; for the effective cause is referred to creatures and does not befit the Holy Spirit; and the final cause is the whole blessed Trinity itself and its goodness relative to creatures, not one person in relation to another; and the formal cause is the divine essence itself, according to which the Son and the Spirit are brought forth, which is the same for all three. It remains, therefore, to take a fourth mode in the matter proposed, and this insofar as it is plausible. For this, insofar as it has the product as its limit, being a cause of the activity, befits the question now at hand, and especially when they say "through the Son"

^A of ours to proceed; but insofar as it is taken as an instrument, it holds an improper likeness. For we do not say that the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son as if by an instrument, or place, or time, or any of the imperfect causes; for these are far from that [God’s] absolute perfection and from the extreme equality or unity toward the Father. For the Son does not put forth the Holy Spirit by another power, numerically, apart from the Father, so that he might be taken as a second or instrumental cause; but because there is the same and one power in the Father and the Son that is productive, He is said to proceed equally from both. For even if a saw were a human being, just as the carpenter is a human being, and the same human being—just as God is the same in the case of the Father and the Son—then he too would be sawing, just as the carpenter [is]; and the phrase "through the saw" would imply no imperfection regarding the saw. ^B And it is not at all surprising if, being weak, we use names and expressions in reference to divine matters, since we are unable to do otherwise. For we attempt to express divine things through names that are familiar to us; for to speak of them in any other way is impossible. But it is not permissible to attempt to apply to the things themselves, which are signified by the names, what happens in the pronunciation of these names; for many of the things that are agreed upon and necessary would thus be overturned. For we indeed say that all things were made from the Father through the Son. But surely no one would dare to call the Son an instrumental cause, and not the same ^C as the Father, since by the same activity and power He created all things. And so, regarding the procession of the Spirit through the Son, to conceive of it even as an instrumental cause is blasphemous; yet that it is a cause, and this not an imperfect one, is necessary. For the imperfection of the "through" must be rejected from this; but whatever it brings of piety and perfection, this must be accepted. The great Basil says in the eighth [book] of his work *To Amphilochius*: “The creating of the Father through the Son indicates neither a creation by the Father that is imperfect, nor an activity of the Son that is powerless, but displays the unity of their will.” So the phrase "through the Son" holds a confession of the primary cause, and is not taken in accusation of a productive cause. Thus, the "through" signifies the cause clearly. It does not, he says, indicate that the activity of the Son is powerless, but a cause accompanied by order; ^D for it holds a confession of the *primary* cause. For always, when something is said to be from one thing *through* another, an order is indicated toward that from which [it comes], through the [medium] of which [it comes]; [the former] being conceived of as the originating cause, and the latter as the instrument or joint-cause, having its own presupposition of that upon which it is said "from which." It is necessary that this order be accepted also in the case of the Father and the Son; for the Son, having received all things from the Father, possesses those of the Father, and with the Father—and straightway with Him—the Son is immediately conceived; and saying "Son," we are at once led by the mind unto Him whose Son He is, the Father.

and when we say Father, we immediately conceive of the Son. These things direct us to the birth from the Father, the preposition *through* being most able to contain the confession of the primordial cause according to the great Basil. For by saying that the Spirit proceeds through the Son, we conceive of the Father, from whom the Son has received this, and that He refers what is His to Another. Chrysostom also says this, explaining the words, *All things were made through Him*; for if it is said here *through Him*, he says, it is said for no other reason than that one might not suspect the Son to be unbegotten. So that according to this teacher, the *through* ^A also contains from thence to Him the power of creating the things that are, and of putting forth the Holy Spirit; and it is able, most of all, to signify the order between the Father and the Son, and thus necessarily to be accepted. For just as there is among them an extreme equality of power, or rather an extreme identity, so there is no less, in addition to this, an extreme order, which the *through*, being accepted, is able to declare. But these things are so.

CHAPTER V.

While we say this, we are immediately led in mind to the Father, whose Son He is; and when we say Father, we immediately understand the Son. This preposition *per* (through) is, moreover, most able, as the blessed Basil testifies, to lead us back to the principal cause. For by saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son, we conceive of the Father, from whom the Son has this, and who refers to Another what are His own. Likewise, Chrysostom also, in explaining that passage of the Gospel, *All things were made through Him*: For if here, he says, it is said *through Him*, it is said for no other reason than that one might not suspect the Son to be unbegotten. Wherefore, according to this doctor also, the preposition *per*, refers us to the birth from the Father, that we may understand that thence was given to Him the power both of creating the universe and of producing the Holy Spirit: and the preposition *per* can do more than others, namely, signify the order of the Son to the Father, which is most necessary in the Trinity. For just as there is in them the highest equality of power, or rather the highest identity, so it is no less true that there is also a highest order, which it [the preposition] *per*, as has been proved, is most able to signify. And of these things, enough.

CHAPTER VI.

First, therefore, the divine Athanasius, in the discourse which is inscribed: *A Refutation of the Simulation of Meletius and Eusebius*: It was, he says, impossible for the Spirit to be numbered with glory within the Trinity, if He had not emanated from God through the Son, but had been made from God after the manner of a creature, as they suppose. It is therefore to be noted that the argument here of the doctor is concerning the person of the Spirit, who is one in the Trinity: and not, as some might say, concerning a certain grace that does not subsist; and that he says the Spirit Himself, who completes the Trinity, is from God through the Son. For *to be* clearly signifies *to exist*, and to subsist of Himself, and especially to be emanatively. To affirm [this], is to say nothing other than that He subsists and exists from God through the Son. But in saying *from God through the Son*, and not *from the Father through the Son*, he proves the reasoning of some to be vain, who say that he said *through the Son* because he mentioned the Father, which is a relative name, and therefore requires the Son. For this would have some reason, even if not a sufficient one, if he had said *from the Father through the Son*; but now he does not say this, but *from God through the Son*. Next, Basil, when he was asking why the Spirit is not called the son of the Son: Not, says he, because He is not from God through the Son; but that the Trinity might not fall into an infinite multitude, of sons from sons, as happens among men, if it were believed that He propagated. First, therefore, from the very question, when he asks ^D

67 if it is not possible that some people, since the Holy Spirit is from God with the Son, might suspect that He ought also to be called the Son of the Son? That, therefore, none of these three refuges, to which all are accustomed to refer themselves, remains for the present passage, is clearly shown here; for it means that the preposition "through" signifies cause. This is shown more clearly from another of his uses of it, where he says: "For this reason, indeed, the Apostle clearly proclaimed that the Spirit is from God, saying: 'We have received the Spirit which is from God'; and he has made it clear that He appeared through the Son, by calling Him the Spirit of the Son, just as he also called Him the Spirit of God; for that reason, he says, He is called the Spirit of the Son, because He has appeared through Him." But also all the Western Fathers, as if by common consent, say that for this reason He is called and is the Spirit of the Son, because He proceeds from Him. Therefore, "proceeding from the Son" means the same thing to the Westerns as what the great Basil says concerning His appearing "through the Son." But to say that He proceeds from the Son signifies that the Son is the cause of the Spirit, and therefore to say that He appeared "through the Son" clearly intends to call the Son the cause of the Spirit. But if anyone says that by saying that He appeared "through the Son," he intends to signify His manifestation and revelation to this sensible world, he does not speak correctly. For if for this reason the Spirit is the Spirit of the Son, not eternally nor by nature, but He possesses it as acquired, having received it in time, ^{B D} and he does not say that the Holy Spirit is the Son of the Son, it is clearly apparent that the blessed Basil was not of this opinion, namely, that the Son contributes nothing to the being of the Spirit. For he would not have proposed such a question, just as no one would ask why the Spirit is not the Father of the Father, or the begetter of the Son. Furthermore, from the very solution of the question it is apparent that he thought the Son was the cause of the Spirit, and that he signifies this by the preposition "through." For since it was permissible for him to say that He is not the Son of the Son for the reason that He is neither from Him, nor through Him, nor does He have Him as the cause of His own self (what solution could be more convenient?), this he did not say; but he returned another reason: "He is," he says, "from God through the Son," and this cannot be denied. "But if this compels," he says, "that He also be and be called the Son of the Son, this would also be said, were it not that some other absurdity stood in the way, namely, that the Trinity would be thought an infinite multitude." But if this absurdity were not feared, he says, He would also be called the Son of the Son. But if He were called the Son of the Son, no one would doubt that He also had the Son as His cause. Therefore, when it is said that He is "through the Son," He has the Son as His cause; he himself also says "to be," because the word most especially signifies existence and subsistence, and "to be from God through the Son," as the holy Athanasius said. Neither, therefore, is it his purpose to speak of non-subsistent graces, nor was it said "through the Son" on account of a relation; nor can the preposition "through" signify the same thing as the preposition "with." For what reason is there, I ask, for some to suspect that He can be called and be the Son of the Son, because He is from God with the Son? Since, therefore, none of these three refuges, to which all are accustomed to refer themselves, is left by these testimonies of the holy doctors, nor is it convenient, it is plainly evident that this preposition "through" signifies cause here. The same is proved from another authority of the same, who says: "For the reason that the Spirit is from God, the Apostle plainly proclaimed this, saying: 'We have received the Spirit who is from God.' And that He manifested through the Son is shown openly, when he called Him the Spirit of the Son, just as he also called Him God’s; for that reason, he says, it is called the Spirit of the Son, because He was manifested through Him." All the Western Fathers also, by common opinion, say that He is called and is the Spirit of the Son because He proceeds from Him. The Western doctors therefore mean the same thing when they say the Spirit proceeds from the Son, as what Saint Basil says, when he says He is manifested through the Son. But to say that He proceeds from the Son signifies nothing else than that the Son is also the cause of the Spirit. Therefore, to say that He is manifested through the Son plainly signifies that the Son is the cause of the Holy Spirit. But if anyone says that we mean by "manifested through the Son" this sensible mode of His manifestation and temporal mission, he speaks incorrectly. For if the Spirit is the Spirit of the Son for this reason, not eternally nor by nature, but accidentally and

^A clearly manifests as something that has appeared through Him, or together with Him. But, he says, "The Son is not called the Spirit of the Spirit, lest the Holy Spirit seem to be His Father." For because "Son" is a relative name, it is referred back to the Father. So if this absurdity were not feared, the Son would also be named of the Spirit, because He proceeds from the Father with the Spirit and together with Him. But, O excellent sir, "Spirit" is also a relative name, and it is referred back by necessity to the one who breathes, and from whom He is said to be the Spirit, from that one He is also breathed. For that the hypostatic names of the Trinity are relative, no one denies. And that "Spirit" is the hypostatic name of the Holy Spirit, just as "Father" is for the Father and "Son" for the Son, no one contends; and it is relative by necessity, just as those are, if they are not substance, and there is nothing in the divine besides the relations and substance. Just as, therefore, we fear to call the Son the son of the Spirit because, being a relative name, it is referred back to the Father, lest the Spirit be thought His father; so too the Spirit, being a relative name and ^B necessarily referred back to the one who breathes, is also breathed from that one of whom He is said to be the Spirit. But so that no excuse may be left for anyone in these arguments, and so that the "through" which signifies a cause may appear more clearly, let the divine Maximus come forward, in those [writings] where he explains what in the world the golden lampstand in the prophet Zechariah means, and the lamp upon it,

and the lamps, saying in those places thus: For the Holy Spirit, just as it exists by nature according to substance from ^A God and Father, so too does it exist according to substance from the Son, as being ineffably produced from the Father essentially through the Son. For the Spirit, he says, is essentially of the Son, not having been acquired by Him from without, nor having been received in time, but possessing it from eternity according to substance, just as the Father also does. And the reason is that it proceeds essentially from the Father through Him. And observe that regarding one and the same matter, both the great Basil and the most divine Maximus, in rendering the reason for why the Spirit is called the Spirit of the Son, provide the same reason, and both agree; for they maintain that because it proceeds from the Father through Him, it is also His Spirit. So, Maximus said: "It proceeds through Him." The divine Basil says: "It has been manifested through Him," putting "having been manifested" on an equal level with "proceeding." If, then, its "proceeding through Him" signifies that it has its existence through Him, then its "having been manifested through Him" also sets forth that it has its existence through Him; and the preposition "through" of necessity indicates the cause here, and it cannot be understood in any other way. Not only this, but Gregory of Nyssa also, in many places and elsewhere, says this most clearly; not only in those passages where he says that the Trinity is distinguished from one another by the caused and the cause, but also in the first of his books against Eunomius, where he clearly discusses the distinction of the divine persons. The Spirit, he says, by being united to the Father according to uncreatedness, is again separated from Him by the fact that it is not the Father, as He is; but ^B toward the Son, according to the union of uncreatedness, and in the fact that He has the cause of His existence from God over all, it is again separated by the particularity of not having its subsistence from the Father as the Only-Begotten, and in the fact that it has been manifested through the Son. Again, since creation has come into being through the Only-Begotten, so that the Spirit might not be thought to have any commonality with it, the Spirit is distinguished from creation by its being manifested through the Son, in its immutability, unchangeability, and needlessness of goodness from another. Here, while the teacher discusses divine union and distinction, he brings forward the Holy Spirit, and comparing it with the Father and the Son, he finds what is common and uniting for them, and what is proper and distinguishing. It is joined to the Father, he says, by uncreatedness—this refers to those things that are absolute and essential, which the uncreated name signifies—but it is again separated from Him by the fact that it is not the Father, as He is. It shares with the Son both those absolute things and the union according to uncreatedness (for there is one substance of the three, and furthermore, both are commonly caused by the God of all), yet it is again distinguished from Him by these two things: by not having its subsistence as the Only-Begotten, as the Son does, but clearly by the way of procession; this is the difference in the mode of existence; and by the fact that it has been manifested through the Son. If then, here, "through Him" means the same as "with Him," it would be surprising if, by being manifested "with the Son," ^C the Spirit is distinguished from the Son. ^D

^A For if he were united, he would appear to be one thing, and if he were to subsist, he would fear that he might not be distinguished in this way, and that he would be conjoined more than separated. Yet the discourse here is not about the distribution of charisms, but about the distinction of the divine hypostases. Nor can anyone say that the manifestation of the Holy Spirit to the world "through the Son" is indicated by this expression. For first, since the discourse is about the distinction of the hypostases, how could he make this temporal manifestation the cause of an eternal reality? For the Son and the Spirit are eternally distinguished from each other by their personal properties; and surely, before the Spirit was manifested to creation by the Son, they were not undifferentiated from each other; for it is most absurd to say this. Then, since the works of the Trinity toward creation are common, the Holy Spirit was not manifested through the Son more than through himself; rather, he also glorified and manifested the Son himself, and not least the Father, just as the Son also did for him. ^B Thus, therefore, the Holy Spirit would also be distinguished from himself by manifesting himself, and furthermore from the Father; and the Son likewise from himself and from the Father for these same reasons. But this has never been said about them, nor is there any room for this argument in the present case. But what disproves this argument as a vain evasion is that this teacher, wishing to distinguish the Spirit from creation, since he perceived—or rather, has already conceded—that the "through the Son" is common to both him and it, ^C would think to glorify this commonality and identity of essence, to the immutable and the mutable, and to the unchangeable, and not by such things distinguish these from one another—namely, by deeming the fact that one has subsisted and the other has appeared "through the Son" to be common and the same; but instead, he found a mode of distinction: that the one is mutable and alterable, while the other is immutable and unchangeable. ^D Yet, if the fact that the Spirit has appeared "through the Son" did not indicate the Son as its cause, just as the creation subsisting "through the Son" indicates him as its cause (for this indicates him as cause), then the distinction between the Spirit and creation would have been very easy. For it would have been possible to say that, even if both are "through the Son," yet creation is from him as an effect, whereas the Spirit is not as an effect. But now he did not say this; for he could not say what he did not know to be true; but he found another distinction, which also seemed to him to be true and the only one that can be found. Therefore, the preposition "through" has the same power when it is said that the Spirit is manifested "through the Son," as when we say that the creature was made "through the Son." But we say and believe that the Son is the cause of the creature, and the preposition "through" signifies this. Therefore, it also signifies for the Spirit that the Son is his cause. Furthermore, it is evident that because the heretics, in opposing the teachers, say that the Holy Spirit was brought into being "through the Son," because they interpret the Evangelist poorly when he says, "All things were made through Him," and the Spirit [was made] through Him—

they uttered these blasphemous expressions against Him, as if they thought He were one of all things. However, the heretics, in saying that the Holy Spirit was brought into being through the Son, ^A understood two things: for they posited that He was as one of the creatures, and that the Son was His cause, and that this was signified by the preposition "through." If, therefore, they were speaking blasphemy in both respects, the teachers would have taken a stand against both points; and just as they exempt Him from created things—and there is no time when they do not do this, whereupon you would not find them having ever used the word "made" [referring to the Spirit], which drags the Spirit down into being a creature—so too they would never have used [the preposition] "through" if it were taken by the heretics to signify a cause, and yet this did not seem true to the teachers themselves. Thus, through all things, the truth itself appears consistent with itself, and it proves that "through" is the cause in instances in which it is adopted. This same thing is clearly shown from the same teacher's discourse *To Ablabius*; for there too, when he was discussing the distinction of the divine persons, after having distinguished them from one another universally by cause and caused, he then distinguishes the Son from the Spirit by the preposition "through." "For the one," he says, "is immediately from the First, namely the Son from the Father," but speaking here of the Spirit, "through Him who ^B is immediately from the First, this is through the Son; and by this, he says, is the Spirit distinguished from the Son, because He is through Him." For, he says, since both are from the First, they would not be sufficiently distinguished if the one were not also through the other. In this way it is manifest that "through" is taken here for the sake of distinction, and for a distinction that is from eternity, namely that which is according to caused and cause; since he had already beforehand sufficiently established that the divine persons are distinguished from one another only by cause and caused. For one could not correctly understand the following statement to mean another difference between the Son and the Holy Spirit, another one, that is, according to kind; for in this way we would involve the teacher in a contradiction, if—after having previously said that the persons of the Trinity are distinguished only by cause and caused—we then supposed that he had provided another manner of distinction, differing in kind from the former. Taking, therefore, another difference according to number, we might indeed adopt the teachings of the doctor, and clearly accept "through" as having the sense of "cause," so that no argument remains for us to call it "with" instead of "through"; for "with" does not distinguish, or else it would signify by this account the manifestation of the Spirit in the world "through the Son"—for this indeed is not from eternity. But if the word "manifested" scandalizes some, who think that "to proceed" should be attributed solely to the subsistence of the Spirit and to His existential procession, and who drag down "manifested" [to mean] only a distributive or temporal procession, or a manifestation toward creation—it would then be time for them to say that the Son is also distributed, or is sent from the Father, from the

^A Father they hear him to have been manifested, of whom the words of the teachers are full. For the blessed Cyril, in his discourse to Bishop Valerian, says: "For being holy by nature, just as, indeed, the Father is, the Only-begotten Son is manifested from Him." And the same author again concerning Christ: "The Spirit is proper to the Son, not only insofar as He is the Word manifested from the Father, but also if He be thought of as having become man among us." When, therefore, it signifies existence and subsistence here, why shall we not admit that this same thing is signified in the case of the Holy Spirit? And it will force even those not wishing it to accept this, because this same thing is said also of the Spirit and of His substantial procession. And the great Basil also says: "The Spirit possesses nothing adventitious in Himself, but has all things eternally as the Spirit of God, and as manifested from Him." Thus every pretext is taken away from those seeking pretexts. For indeed, what the aforementioned Gregory of Nyssa says even in the revelation of his namesake Gregory the Wonderworker concerning the Holy Spirit—that He has been manifested to men through the Son—has nothing against our argument, so long as "to have been manifested through the Son" signifies both things: both to have been known to men in time through the Son, and to have eternal existence through the Son; provided, however, that both are true, being taken in their proper contexts. For I omit saying for the present, that "to have been manifested to men through the Son in time" necessarily presupposes the "through the Son" having eternal existence; for ^B if He did not have eternal existence through Him, He would not even be manifested through Him. But also the great Gregory in theology, asking why the Spirit is not also called Son, and whether anything is lacking in Him to be Son, says: "Nothing is lacking; for the Godhead is not deficient; but the diversity of manifestation or of the relation to one another has made their names also diverse." By the same and single usage, he shows that the term for manifestation, and that of "having been manifested," denote being and existence here, bearing witness to his namesake Gregory of Nyssa, and that he himself also assigns the same distinction to the Son as to the Spirit, and distinguishes them from one another by these identical and equal ways. For just as he distinguishes the Spirit from the Son by the fact that He did not originate as Only-begotten, and by the fact that He was manifested through the Son, so also this one [distinguishes them] by the diversity of manifestation and by that of the relation to one another. What he [Nyssen] said by "not having originated as Only-begotten, but, clearly, by procession," this one has called a diversity of manifestation, or rather a different mode of existence; and what [the Nyssen] said by "manifested through the Son," this one called a diversity of the relation to one another. And as for the relation of the Son and the Spirit to one another, I do not know if anyone could find any other than that according to cause and caused, according to which the one has [a relation] toward the Spirit Himself as cause, while the other [has a relation] differently toward the Son, according, clearly, to the passive and productive [mode] as a cause of Him. Or let someone show me another relation between the Son and the Spirit, according

to which one is referred to another: but in truth he will never find it. For if someone should object to us that the Spirit is called the Spirit of the Son, first of all this relation is not reciprocal, according to Gregory of Nyssa himself and all other doctors. For the Son is not also called the Spirit, nor does any other relation of the Son to the Spirit correspond to this relation of the Spirit to the Son, nor is it the same, nor different according to action and passion. Furthermore, that the Spirit is called the Spirit of the Son signifies nothing else than that He has been manifested through the Son, according to the great Basil; or that He proceeds through the Son, according to Maximus; or, according to the Western doctors, that He proceeds from the Son and has His existence from Him. Thus, that the Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of the Son is equal to being described by these three things: I mean, by having been manifested through the Son, by proceeding through the Son, and by proceeding from the Son. These things denote a relation to one another, that of cause and caused; ^A which the Theologian also confidently declares to be the cause of the distinction between the divine persons of the Son and the Spirit, and of the difference of their names, the one being called Son and the other Spirit. And both reason and the truth of faith bear witness to this; for the divine persons of the Trinity are no more one than they are three: the one in essence, the other in subsistences or properties; for they are united while being distinguished, and they are distinguished while being united, ^B having a common essence, but differing from one another in their processions and relations. And these differ according to the mode of our conception, even if they do not differ in the thing itself, insofar as the procession is like a path, and the relation is like a form: consequently, they are distinguished according to these. For in whatever things differ, in these they are also necessarily distinguished, even if not in all things alike. Since, therefore, there is found something common in several things, there must be something that distinguishes those several things; so too, it is necessary that the divine persons, being several and communing with one another in essence, have something that distinguishes them, unless they were to be a monad rather than a triad. But since nothing else is contemplated in them besides the divine essence and the relations alone, or rather the property and subsistence of each, and since the common essence cannot be the cause of distinction for them, it remains that they are distinguished by the relations, and primarily and especially by these, and consequently also by the processions; insofar as, as has been said, relation and procession do not differ in the thing itself, even if they differ in the mode of signification. For the procession is signified according to the mode of operation, just as generation is, while the relation is signified according to the mode of form, just as paternity is, which constitutes the person of the Father: and for this reason they are distinguished from one another also by the processions, insofar as relations necessarily follow upon these; for to paternity follows the act of begetting, and to the act of being begotten [follows] ^C sonship, and likewise for the others. The divine and holy Trinity is not more one than it is three: the former in essence, the latter in persons or properties; for they are united in one while being distinguished, and they are distinguished in one while being united, as blessed Dionysius says. And because in any plurality whatsoever, in which there is something common, there is also something distinct, in this Trinity of divine persons also, which agree with themselves in the unity of essence, one must seek that which distinguishes them; and since this is not the essence (for in this they agree in the highest degree), and in the divine there is nothing else to be understood besides essence, relations, and the diverse mode of processions, which the Latins call origin, it remains that either origin, or relation, or both, distinguishes the divine persons. But although relation and origin, even if they differ according to the mode of understanding (since origin is signified by the mode of act, such as generation; but relation by the mode of form, such as paternity), do not differ in reality, nevertheless they are distinguished in both ways; yet they are distinguished primarily and principally according to the mode of understanding by relations, through which the divine persons are also constituted; and consequently by the diverse mode of processions, or by origin. For to generate and to be generated, which pertains to origin, does not constitute the person primarily: but paternity and filiation, or to be Father and Son, which is relation ...

similarly, and likewise as regards the others; yet they are distinguished more primarily and more essentially by these relations, and by these rather than by the processions, although indeed by both. With good reason, therefore, do the theologians distinguish here the Son from the Spirit in two ways, starting from the less perfect and concluding at the more perfect mode. For the divine Persons are distinguished from one another by the processions and by the relations more essentially, as has been said, and these same teachers distinguish the Son from the Spirit; those who name the distinction from the processions a different mode of manifestation, or existence, and those who name the distinction from the relations the difference of their mutual relationship. So that this difference of mutual relationship is a distinction of relation, and the Son is referred to the Spirit, and the Spirit to the Son, by way of relation. But ^B if the Son is the Son, he would not be referred to the Spirit, for he is not called the Son of the Spirit; it remains, then, that he is referred to Him as breathing, while the Spirit is also referred to Him as Spirit—for the Spirit corresponds to the breather, and the breath to the breathing. But the Spirit is also called the Spirit of the Son, as is to be found in many places in Scripture, and the breath of the same. For this Spirit, says Saint Athanasius, is the breath of the Son. And it seems to the theologians, according to what has been said, that the Spirit is referred to the Son in that He is both breath and Spirit—and the Son, therefore, insofar as He is breathing, shall be referred to the Spirit. And who could enumerate the saints who have used the "through" regarding the procession of the Spirit from the Father through the Son? It will suffice to use one, the last, the last of the theologians, to examine also what he thinks about this. And so, John of Damascus, the theologian, speaking about the Father, says: "He himself, then," he says, "is the abyss of the Word's intellect, the progenitor of the Word, and through the Word the producer of the manifestation-bestowing Spirit." And again: "But the Holy Spirit is the manifestation-bestowing power of the hidden divinity of the Father, proceeding from the Father through the Son." Certainly, there is no need to be redundant in clarifying what is manifest. For he says "proceeding," which openly indicates the being and existence of the Spirit, more than any other name, especially according to our usage, for this name is reserved uniquely for the existence of the Spirit. By saying, then, that He proceeds through the Son, he says that He has His existence through the Son. And by this he excludes the argument of Theodoret, who denies that the Holy Spirit has His existence through the Son. So that the support we might have drawn from there is shaken for us, when we rely on the silence of the Council; specifically, since Theodoret said that the Holy Spirit does not have His existence either from the Son or through the Son, and the Council, having heard this, ^C as it were, accepted it by its silence—for see, on the basis of the word, if not both, then at least through the Son, His existence ^D is proved. As for the rest, it is superfluous to want to explain what has been spoken openly. For by saying "proceeding," he says, he signifies the very being itself and the subsistence of the Spirit, more than any other name, especially according to our side, for whom this name alone is appropriated to the subsistence of the Spirit. Since, therefore, he says that He proceeds through the Son, he signifies that He has His subsistence through the Son; and by this he excludes the error of Theodoret, who denied that the Holy Spirit subsists through the Son, so that no support is left for us if, while Theodoret said these things in the presence of the general Council of Ephesus, the holy Council remained silent, which we [opponents] think to be sufficient for our cause, as if the Council by its silence had agreed with the words of Theodoret. For although Theodoret had denied both—asserting that the Holy Spirit subsists neither from the Son nor through the Son—nevertheless, by the statements of these saints, while not both, at least one of them, namely that He subsists through the Son, is openly proven: since all the doctors, and no less those who came after Theodoret, proclaim with a clear voice that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son; then [there are] John of Damascus and Maximus,

^A those blessed men, and furthermore the divine Tarasius, seventh of the ecumenical synods, saying that one must believe in the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father through the Son, and who is himself acknowledged to be God. Others say that he exists from God through the Son—that is, that the Spirit [is] from God through the Word, and proceeds from the Father through the Son—things which amount to the same as proceeding, and having both being and subsistence. Consequently, Theodoret is not speaking the truth in this; but the Fathers were silent when they heard him say this, so that one ought not to make their silence a testimony [to the fact] that the Spirit does not have his subsistence from the Son, nor indeed through the Son. For those who said that he proceeds through the Son are witnesses that he has his subsistence through the Son, if indeed "to proceed" and, according to ours, "to have subsistence" signifies the same thing. And these [Fathers], having lived after Theodoret in time, and having heard him say such things, ^B and knowing that the synod was silent on these matters, nevertheless did not judge that one should follow him in all things.

But what is more elegant is that, while Theodoret denied both [points], the blessed John denies that [he proceeds] *from* the Son—and how, we shall say shortly—but he posits that [he proceeds] *through* the Son, or that he has his subsistence *through* him. But if some [person] should object to us the saying of the blessed ^C John [of Damascus], and also that which Maximus says in the epistle to Marinus regarding the Romans, that they do not make the Son the cause of the Spirit—what the Latins say regarding these things, I for my part would not say: that this [teaching] of the Damascene is not found in most of his books, and that this letter of Maximus is not by Maximus—neither because it is not found in many places, nor in ancient codices, nor inscribed among his works, nor that some of our own people consider it to be spurious. But this I will concede, and I will accept that these are the words and thoughts of those men. I would say, however, that they said these things so that no one would think the Son is being called the pre-initial cause ^D of the Spirit, as if [the Spirit] had not received from the Father the power to proceed through him. For the common usage of the Greeks, when it uses the [preposition] *ek* ("from") strictly for the primordial and pre-initial cause, forced the Damascene to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds not *from* the Son, but *through* the Son; and it persuaded Maximus to translate that which is said by the Romans, [that he proceeds] *from* the Son, into [proceeding] *through* the Son. For even if the Romans say, he says, that the Holy Spirit proceeds *from* the Son, yet the [preposition] *ek*, when taken for the primordial cause, is not used by them to make the Son such a cause of the Spirit. The Damascene also says this: the Spirit is not *from* the Son, but *through* the Son; for the Father alone is such

^A a cause [as the *ex* indicates]. Whatever apology, therefore, might be given to those who wickedly attempt from this to deny such a cause, and who attribute "through" only to the Son—by which a co-cause is signified—the following will suffice: For because the Holy Spirit goes forth "through him"—which, as he himself says elsewhere, is the same as "proceeding"—the Romans are said to say that he proceeds *from* the Son; and the Damascene says that he proceeds from the Father through the Son. These things clearly signify that the Son is a cause, just as the Father is—for there is nothing imperfect in the Son—even if not an archetypal or pre-originating one. Fearing this, they deny the cause from the Son, and also because all things that the Son has, he has received from the Father, and he refers all his own things back to the Father, just as the great Basil says in his eighth chapter to Amphilochius: "For this reason," he says, "the Lord says to the Father: 'All mine are thine,'" as the source of created things is referred back to Him. And Gregory the Theologian also, in his discourse on the crossing of the Egyptians, says: "God is established in three greatest things: as Cause, as Creator, and as Perfecter; the Father, I say, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit." He was saying these things, not because he was removing the cause of all things from the Son and the Spirit—for that is blasphemous to even conceive—but because he was attributing this to the Father alone, and calling Him the cause in an exceptional sense, because everything that individual persons possess comes from Him to them. Whatever, therefore, would have sufficed to take away the cause of existing things from the Son and the Spirit on the grounds that the teacher calls the Father the cause, and not also the Son and the Spirit, the same will also ^B suffice even now for those who do not make the Son a cause of the Spirit. This is because the Damascene, having mentioned that the Spirit is not "from the Son," called only the Father the cause; and Maximus, speaking about the Romans, said they call the Spirit "from the Son," but not in the sense of a cause—knowing indeed what cause *ex* signifies, but not granting such a thing to the Son because he has received everything from the Father, who is the only archetypal and primary cause. As to what *ex* can represent: the Father has all things from Himself and from no other source, whereas all things of the Son are referred back to Him, since he has everything from Him; and for this reason, the things of the Son are reasonably called the things of the Father, as having come to him from that source. For, in fact, one could not at all refrain from calling the Son a cause in some way, if one says that the Holy Spirit proceeds through him. For if "through the Son" to proceed, and to come forth, and to exist—if "through the Son" signifies that he has his existence, as is admitted even by those who contend against it, for they cannot look directly at the most manifest facts—when the teachers say this, they signify neither the manifestation of the Spirit to this sensible world, nor are they speaking about certain gifts, but about the hypostasis of the Spirit and

^A of his eternal procession and existence. Neither did he consider the term “of the Son” to be identical with “with the Son”; yet, as we have demonstrated, “by” (διά) can signify the same as “with” (μετά). To those who are accustomed to taking refuge in such things, what else remains but that they acknowledge it signifies cause? For while those who define the Spirit as having existence “by the Son” (δι' Υἱοῦ) remain, the “by” (διά) itself—not being able to be changed into “with” (μετά)—necessarily signifies its own nature and puts forward [the notion of] cause, having always been shown to signify cause in the contexts in which it is used.

That the “by” (διά) intends none of these three things is shown more clearly from Maximus in his letter to Marinus, and from the Damascene, both of whom plainly exchange “from” (ἐκ) for “by” (διά), and whose discourse concerns the hypostasis of the Spirit and also His eternal existence. As much, therefore, as “with” and “from” share in commonality, so much does “by” also share with “with.” And did Theodoret, when he said that the Holy Spirit does not have existence “by the Son” (δι' Υἱοῦ), perhaps interpret it as instead having said “with the Son” (μετὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ)? If so, he was clearly lying; we should not rely on this nor on the silence of the council. For the Spirit is indeed “with the Son,” proceeding together with Him, accompanying Him, and shining forth with Him. But, considering the term equivocal, he thought that “by the Son” (διὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ) signifies at one time the same as “with the Son” (μετὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ), and at another time that it stands by itself as “by the Son” (δι' Υἱοῦ), and subsequently he denies that the Spirit exists “by the Son.” Therefore, it behooved him, or the council, to clarify this equivocation and make it clear which of the meanings he was speaking about. But neither did he interpret “by” as being able to be so, nor did he accept “by the Son” (διὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ) as “by the Son,” and by bestowing the meaning of cause upon “by” (διά), it becomes apparent ^B from every side that “by” (διά) is substituted for itself in the instances we have just brought forward, that it is able to signify its own nature, and that it plainly signifies cause.

But do not take refuge with me again in the connection and immutability of the essence, saying for this reason it was said that the Spirit proceeds “by the Son” (διὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ), so that the connection and immutability of the essence might be declared. For first of all, “to proceed” (προϊέναι) here is said in place of “to be ex-proceeded” (ἐκπορεύεσθαι); for the divine Maximus himself, who said this in his letter to Marinus, said “to be ex-proceeded” in his exposition on Zechariah. The same is also said by the Damascene and the Seventh Synod. But “to be ex-proceeded” (ἐκπορεύεσθαι) signifies having existence; therefore, to be ex-proceeded “by the Son” (δι' Υἱοῦ) signifies having existence “by Him.” This could not be, unless the Son is also the cause of the existence of the Spirit. Furthermore, it is not the case that we say the Spirit proceeds “by the Son” (δι' Υἱοῦ) because the identity of the essence is or is declared thereby; for the divine essence does wait for us and our discourse to be identified and shared among the persons; but because there is an identity of essence, for this reason it is also said that the Holy Spirit proceeds and does proceed “by the Son” (διὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ). This, indeed, is what the Latins also say. Because the essence is the same for the Father and the Son, and the Son has all that the Father has, except for being the Father, and ^C of the Spirit being ex-proceeded from Him or by Him.

^A To receive communion—which implies that the distinction is nonetheless present—is something clearly set forth by the blessed Cyril in the fifth book of his *Dialogues to Hermias*. For on what grounds, he asks, do we say the Holy Spirit is one’s own? Is it only of God the Father, or also of the Son? Or does it pertain to each individually, and to both, as if from the Father through the Son, by reason of the identity of essence? Meaning, of course, of the Father and of the Son. And Hermias answers: That is how I would say it, my friend. And the saint adds to him: Correct. Because of the identity, he says, of the essence of the Father and the Son, the Spirit belongs to both, and proceeds from the Father through the Son; for he wishes to show either that, because of the identity of essence which the Son has with the Father, the Spirit proceeds through the Son, and is His Spirit, just as He is the Spirit of the Father as well. This is something the Latins also believe.

Furthermore, the "consubstantial" and "unchangeable" nature of the essence would best be shown in the divine persons of the Father towards the Son and the Spirit, and of the Son towards the Father and the Spirit, if they possess the relation of "cause" and "caused" toward one another. For inasmuch as they are such, they communicate most fully with one another, having an affinity according to nature, but because of this same relation, they will be distinguished no less; and indeed, this is shown better by this mode than by any other, as both the same [essence] and the one [cause] are able to be properly applied to divine things. For just as with them, distinction is implied in union, and union is implied in distinction, it is necessary that such a union be contained within itself; and, again, that there be such a distinction in which the union is also included. So if we hear any of the saints say that it is because of consubstantiality that the Holy Spirit is said to proceed through the Son, since the relation of cause and caused expresses this very consubstantiality, we should consider that it is especially because of this relation of cause and caused that they stated the Holy Spirit is said to proceed through the Son.

That such a relation signifies the consubstantial is something to which the great Basil, in addition to what has been said, bears witness in his letter to the Canonesses, saying: "Since the Father is light without principle, and the Son is generated light, yet both are light, they would justly call Him consubstantial, so as to signify the identity of nature." ^B For things which are siblings are not called consubstantial, as some have supposed, but when a cause and that which has its existence from the cause are of the same nature, they are called consubstantial. And in his discourse against Sabellius and the Arians, speaking concerning the Father and the Son, he says: "For we do not say they are siblings, but we confess Father and Son; and the identity of essence exists because the Son is from the Father." If, therefore, it is said that the Spirit proceeds through the Son on account of the consubstantiality—and it is the opinion of the great Basil himself that that which is from something is consubstantial with that from which it is—and especially when they are of the same nature, it has been stated that the procession is through the Son on account of [the relation of] cause and caused.

Authorities of the doctors in whom the Holy Spirit is said to be from the Son, and from both, to proceed, and to flow: and that not the grace of the Spirit, which does not subsist, but the very person of the Spirit is said to proceed, to flow, to emanate, etc., from the Son.

CHAPTER VII.

But now it has been most manifestly proven by these things alone that the Eastern doctors openly profess the Son to be the principle of the Spirit. It must be proven, however, that some of them also used the preposition *from* no less concerning the Son in the subsistence of the Spirit. I have therefore decided that those whose testimonies suffer calumny—as if they were not theirs, or as if they were not published by them in such a way—namely, Saint Athanasius, Basil, and Gregory of Nyssa, should be omitted, along with those who, in most places, prove that the term *through* is equivalent to the term *from* in theology; for these are nearly all or the greater part of the holy doctors. I have decided, however, to bring forward only Cyril and Epiphanius, who more clearly than others and more generally throughout their works used the preposition *from*—whose status, how great and of what kind it is in the Church of God, and whose struggles against the infidels and heresies, no one is unaware of. I shall not produce all their testimonies (for that is not easy), but a few, avoiding prolixity of words. ^A Therefore, the blessed Cyril, in his exposition of the prophet Joel upon the authority: *I will pour out of my Spirit*, says thus: "For in so far as the Son is God from God by nature, since he is born from God the Father, his own Spirit is both in him and from him, just as it is understood of God the Father himself; and he is from him, he says, and thus from him, just as he is understood of God the Father himself," removing all doubt for those seeking the cause. The same man, again, in his discourse to the emperor Theodosius: "Baptizing," he says, "Jesus in fire and the Holy Spirit, he did not pour out a Spirit alien to the baptized, servilely and instrumentally, but as God according to nature with supreme authority, he who is from him and is his own." And again in his *Thesauri*: "When Christ, therefore, gives the law, he establishes it in such a way as if his Spirit were in him and from him." And again: "Paul recognizes, therefore, no difference of nature between the Son and the Holy Spirit, but as he is from him and in him naturally, he calls Him by the name of Lord." ^B And observe that for this reason he says that Paul called the Spirit Lord, which is the name of the Son, because he is from the Son; for we are accustomed to impose the names of causes upon the things caused. Likewise, in the exposition of the ninth anathema: "Having become," he says, "man, the only-begotten Son of God remained no less God, having all things that the Father has, except that he is not the Father, and having as his own the Holy Spirit who is implanted from him and in him."

So it has been shown that the Eastern saints, even from the term *from* alone, considered the Son to be the cause of the Spirit. But it must be shown that some of them nonetheless used *from* concerning the Son in the existence of the Spirit. Those whom I have mentioned—Basil, I say, and Gregory of Nyssa, Athanasius, and others, in whose words some doubt is left—must be passed over for now; nor should we use the words of those who in many places show that *through* is equivalent to *from*; these are the majority, or indeed all, whereas we must select only Cyril and Epiphanius, as they are clearer than the rest and in all their works used *from*. ^C But if anyone should again object with things said by Theodoret against this anathema, we have spoken of this before, and now again I shall present the explanation by which we have met his objection, clearly setting it forth. And again the same man in the discourse to King Theodosius: "Baptizing," he said, "Jesus in fire and the Holy Spirit, [he was] not infusing into the baptized a Spirit alien [to the Baptizer] in a servile or instrumental manner, but as God by nature with supreme authority, the Spirit that is from him and is his own." And again in another place: "Christ therefore, in legislating, legislates as in him and from him exists naturally his Spirit." And in another, "Paul, he says, knows no difference of nature between the Son and the Holy Spirit, but because He naturally exists from him and in him, he calls Him by the title of Lord." And see that for this reason he says that Paul called the Spirit Lord, which is the name of the Son, because he is from him; for we are accustomed to apply the names of causes to the caused. And in the explanation of the ninth anathema: "Having become man," he says, "the only-begotten Word of God has remained just as He was God, having all things that the Father has, except only the being Father, and his own Holy Spirit which is implanted from him and in him." ^D If then, again, anyone should object with things said by Theodoret concerning this anathema, regarding this we have spoken before, and now again

^A we have set up this interpretation, clearly manifesting the mind of the teacher. And furthermore, we are able to show, if anyone will listen with good sense, the same thing also from the apology to Theodoret. For he says: "The Holy Spirit moves indeed as from God and the Father according to the voice of the Saviour, but he is not alien to the Son, for all things," he says, "are the Spirit's, and [are] his own." He says this as if to say, that even if the saving word says that he proceeds from the Father, nonetheless he is also of the Son, as being one who proceeds from him; and the reason is that he has all things with the Father; for this reason, he says, also, "He shall take of mine," which the Lord said regarding the Spirit. Lastly, he proves the same thing by that authority, that the Spirit receives from him, that is, from the Son. For blessed Epiphanius also (as is shown a little later) accepts this for the fact that he proceeds from him. The blessed Cyril also, in his exposition on John, explaining that very authority, says thus: "We say that the Spirit receives from the Father and the Son those things which are theirs, not as if at some time he did not have wisdom and power implanted in them—since he is understood to have the same essence, the Spirit is always indeed wise and powerful; nay rather, he is wisdom and power itself, not by participation, but naturally." If, therefore, that which the Spirit receives from the Son is wisdom and power, and he does not have this at one time and not at another—for such is his nature, not by participation—and he always receives from the Son those things which he has not by participation, but are his nature: who ignores what is inferred from this? And deservedly does blessed Cyril say these things, who in many other places manifestly says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, just as from the Father. For in the epistle to Nestorius: "Even if," he says, "the Spirit is in his own hypostasis as he is Spirit, and not the Son, he is nonetheless not alien to him, but flows from him just as from God and the Father." But lest anyone should think that this word, "flows," was used here concerning a second and temporal procession, first of all let him know that the discourse here is not about the distribution of the gifts and charisms of the Spirit, but about his very hypostasis. Next, you will always find this, "flows," used by this doctor for "proceeds." For both in the exposition of the Creed he says, "flows," that is, "proceeds," and in the sixth book to Hermias, he both names him the Spirit of truth and asserts that he flows from the Father himself, and in many other places he says the same. That also which he says, "Just as from God and the Father," is not superfluous; for he says nothing in vain, but all things with great weight; and thus he wishes the Spirit to be of the Son, just as he is of the Father: and thus to flow, to proceed, and to emanate from the Son, just as from the Father, and in no way otherwise. Therefore, in his discourse to the Emperor Theodosius when speaking of this, and wishing to prove that the Spirit is thus of the Son, just as he is of the Father; and that he thus emanates to us from the Son, just as from the Father: "Not by measure," he says, with John, "does the Son give the Spirit, but he himself sends him forth ^D from himself, just as the Father himself does." Wherefore blessed Paul, with the whole distinction proposed in this, now indeed attributes him to God and the Father, now again to the Son. He brings forward...

^A that which is of the essence. Suffice it then, from the very many [writings] of blessed Cyril and from countless others, as all his work is full [of this], that these alone set forth his thought. Let us hear furthermore what Epiphanius the wonderful says in the *Ancoratus*, thus: "The Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son, third in name"; and again: "Both dwell in the righteous man, Christ and his Spirit. If Christ is believed to be God from God from the Father, and the Spirit [is] from Christ, or from both, as Christ says: 'He who proceeds from the Father, he also shall receive from mine.'" This man, then, does not argue about the distribution of gifts, but conducts the discourse concerning the divine persons and their existence; and he takes "He shall receive from mine" as a testimony that he also proceeds from the Son; and he teaches through these that one should understand the divine Gospel's "He shall receive from mine" as signifying that he proceeds also from the Son. And further, in the same: "But someone will say: Do we then say there are two Sons? And how then is [Christ] the Only-begotten? Indeed, who are you to dispute with God? For if he calls the Son [the one] from him, and the Holy Spirit [the one] from both, and the rest." And further: "The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth, a third light from the Father, through the Son." And again: "For in the way that no one knew the Father except the Son, nor the Son except the Father, so I dare to say that not even the Spirit [is known] except by the Father and the Son, from whom he proceeds and from whom he receives." But mark ^C that the saint above accepted "receives" instead of "proceeds." And "neither the Son and the Father except the Holy Spirit, who truly glorifies, who teaches all things, who [is] from the Father and from the Son." What could be clearer than these, what more pure? Do they not explicitly make the Son also a cause of the Spirit? From whom they also teach that he proceeds from the Son? What then? Shall we close our ears to such voices of the teachers, being so many, and so divine, and so ^D agreeable? All, and the things granted to the anticipation.

[LATIN] ^B ...that both can truly be said. Whence in those things which he writes to Palladius in the form of a dialogue: "The Spirit," he says, "is not at all mutable; for if he were subject to mutability, this defect would be ascribed to the divine nature itself." Since he is of God and the Father, and likewise of the Son, who flows forth essentially from both, namely, from the Father through the Son, is the Spirit. Also, in the fifth [book] to Hermias, rendering the cause of why the Spirit is called the Spirit of the Son. "Whose," he says, "do we say the Holy Spirit is? Whether of God and the Father only? Or also of the Son? Or separated of both, and together of both, as one from the Father through the Son because of the identity of essence?" Therefore he himself also calls the Spirit the Son's, because he is through the Son. But he is through the Son because of the identity of essence, namely, of the Father and the Son. But because of this same [identity], all things that are the Father's are also the Son's, except that he is not the Father. Thus, in all things, he is consistent with himself.

consonant? And shall we, having abandoned all other things and given ourselves up to prejudice alone, condemn all these things to uselessness? ^A This is not for wise and divine men, and those who manage their words with judgment.

CHAPTER VIII.

But since some, stumbling at the utterance of being "sent" and "proceeding," say that the gifts of the Spirit are sent from the Son, and not His very hypostasis itself—for to these they also cause those who partake to partake; so that all the curiosity of those who wish to advance against the sound opinion of the saints with these puerile arguments may be shown to be laughable—let them come forward again, both to refute this logos and to explain themselves. ^B And afterwards, establishing through all points that the hypostasis of the Spirit was God Himself, He who imprinted the divine image upon us in the first formation, and not some non-subsistent grace—and not only this, but also that the second renewal of the creation, which occurred through the life-giving insufflation to the disciples, took place through the Holy Spirit. For it was necessary that [man], having lost [the grace] in the way in which he was made man when he was not previously, should be fashioned again by the divine Spirit Himself, the hypostatic God. He says, therefore: "For if the grace through Him were something separated from the essence of the Spirit, why did the blessed Moses not say clearly that the Creator of all breathed into the living being, for it to exist, a grace through the breath of life? But Christ [says] to us: 'Receive grace through the ministry of the Holy Spirit?' But there it is named the breath of life, for the [breath] of life is truly that of..."

^{C D} [For] this holy doctor speaks consonantly. He claims that one and the same Spirit is from the Father through the Son, by one and the same spiration or procession; and therefore he says that He is proper to them, because He is from the Father through the Son; this, however, on account of the identity of essence.

CHAPTER VIII.

But that the calumny of all those who, against the sound opinion of the doctor, maintain that he said the gifts of the Spirit are sent from the Son, and not His very hypostasis or person, may be refuted more clearly; let him be present again, refuting this false opinion of theirs, and expounding himself as to what it is that he says—that He proceeds, goes forth, emanates, and flows through the Son or from the Son: and simply that which is sent into this world from Him for our sanctification.

For he says in the seventh book *Ad Hermiam*: "For would anyone have Him who is by nature and truly God (speaking of the Son) dwelling in him and innate, if he were to receive the Spirit, who is not alien and separated in essence from Him, but who is from Him, and in Him, and is His own, and is Lord just as He is?" And he proves these things consequently through all points, that the hypostasis or person of the Spirit, being Himself one in the Trinity, was God, who imprinted the divine image upon us in the first formation of man, not as a non-subsistent grace; and he likewise posits that the second reparation of the creature, made through the salutary insufflation to the disciples, was made through the same Holy Spirit. For he was saying: "From whom, before he existed, had man been made, namely through the Holy Spirit, the hypostatic God, by Him also, when holiness had been lost, is he repaired again. For if, he says, the grace of the Spirit were separated from His substance, why would the blessed Moses, once man had been brought into existence, not have said: 'The Creator of all breathed out grace through the Spirit'?" But there it is said indeed, 'Spirit of life' (for life is truly the nature of divinity), but here surely, through the Savior, the Holy Spirit, sending the Spirit himself without doubt into the souls of the believers. These are the open testimonies of the proposed matter. However, he more openly resolves in what follows that opinion, in which some think that a non-subsistent grace is sent to us, and that we are sanctified by it. For he says: "But we are called, and are, the temples of God, and also gods." For which reason, you might ask of the adversaries, if we participate in a grace that is naked and non-subsistent? But the truth does not hold it so.

Whence? Because we are temples of the existing and subsisting Spirit. Indeed, from those ^A many things written *to Hermias*, from which anyone who wishes may collect them, these are sufficient; for they openly prove the point that was proposed to us. But from the many things which the same doctor most elegantly said in his exposition *on John*, we shall bring forward only that which he says on the authority: "Who not of bloods," etc. For he says: "If Spirit is God from God according to nature, in which we also share through faith in Christ, we are also made gods, as already having him in ourselves, according to that: 'I will dwell in them and walk among them.'" And in what way should we be temples of God, if the Spirit were not God by nature? But while the most blessed Cyril says these things and things like them, we must also hear what others say about the same matter ^B.

Great Basil, therefore, speaking in agreement with the aforementioned doctor, asserts against Eunomius—in the chapter entitled "That the Spirit is the divine nature"—both that the Spirit breathed into man from the beginning, and that given to the disciples by the Savior, was the very hypostasis of the Spirit: "For the Spirit," he says, "joined to the living Word for the purpose of creating, a living power and a divine nature, ineffable, manifested from the ineffable mouth, ineffably sent to man by the breathing, and again restored by Him through the breathing in accordance with the bodily figure shown by Christ; for it is fitting that the new restoration should correspond to the creation at the beginning. ^C He prefigured the correspondence by the breathing—a breathing which is not from another besides Him who breathed at the beginning, but the same one through whom God breathed, then indeed with the soul, but now into the soul." Thus this great Father also says that Jesus instilled in his disciples this very same thing, which is numbered and ranked with him and the Father as creator. But it is clear that this is the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit; therefore, the hypostasis of the Spirit both created the first formation of man through the divine breathing, and it was given later to the disciples, and through them to all who believe. And this is that which flows and emanates from the Father through the Son, and from the Son, just as also the first Nicene synod says in a certain place concerning the Spirit: That he proceeds indeed from the Father, but is the property of the Son, and emanates from him. For those fathers say that the very same ^D who proceeds from the Father, emanates from the Son.

And what am I saying, Fathers? The Savior himself, confirming the words of all these, promises that he will send to the disciples that same one who proceeds from the Father; and that it is not one who proceeds from the Father, and another whom he himself will send: "When the Paraclete comes," he says, "whom I will send to you, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father." For the grammarians themselves would construct this in this way: When the Spirit comes, who from the Father pro-

proceeds, ^A whom I will send to you; so that it is manifest that he is to send the very same one who proceeds from the Father. If, therefore, the hypostasis of the Spirit proceeds from the Father, the Son also sends this same one; but if the Son sends the non-subsistent grace, then it is not the Spirit, but grace, that would proceed from the Father. But this, in addition to being unintelligible, is also blasphemous. For since two things are predicated of one and the same subject, namely the Spirit—that is, both to proceed and to be sent—just as it is necessary that upon one of the things predicated, this subject must be taken, so too it is necessary that it be taken for the other. Therefore, if we understand the hypostasis of the Spirit to proceed, we must also understand it to be sent; for to say otherwise without reason, offering no proof, and to attribute proceeding to the hypostasis of the Spirit, but to attribute being sent to a non-subsistent ^B grace, is ridiculous, irrational, and arbitrary, and something that no one would concede. Therefore, the very hypostasis of the Spirit, which also proceeds from the Father, is sent from the Son, as has been proven by the very words of the Gospel and by [the testimony of] the teachers. Wherefore, if we hear that the Spirit is sent, emanates, proceeds, flows, springs forth, or arises from the Son, it is necessary to understand this of his divine hypostasis; and in what other way is it possible for the divine hypostasis of the Spirit to flow or emanate from the Son, unless the Son is the cause or principle of the Spirit's very subsistence? But those things which Cyril says concerning the procession of the person of the Holy Spirit himself from the Father and from the Son are of this kind, and similar to these. Furthermore, let us hear holy Epiphanius in his *Ancoratus* speaking thus: "The Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son, third in naming." And again: "Each dwells in the righteous man, Christ and his Spirit. And if Christ is believed to be God from God, from the Father, the Spirit also [is believed to be] from him," ^C and from both, as Christ says: "He who proceeds from the Father, and he shall receive from mine." And it is evident that he is not speaking here of the distribution of charisms, but of the divine persons and the subsistence of them. In testimony and proof, indeed, that the Spirit also proceeds from the Son, he brings forward that authority: "He shall receive from mine," teaching that when we hear in the Gospels the Lord saying of the Spirit that he shall receive from him, we should understand it as if he were saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from him. The same [author] in the same places: "But someone will say: Do we therefore say there are two Sons? And how is he only-begotten? But who are you, you who contradict God? For if he names the Son, who [is] from the Father, the Holy Spirit, who [is] from both, etc." And again: "The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth, the third light from the Father and the Son." And again: "For just as no one knows the Father except the Son, and [no one knows] the Son except the Father; ^D so I dare to say, no one [knows] the Spirit except the Father and the Son, from whom he proceeds, and from whom he receives (but note that he used 'receive' for 'proceed' in the preceding statements), and no one [knows] the Son and the Father, except the Holy Spirit, who truly glorifies, who teaches all things, who [is] from the Father and the Son." What can be said more plainly, what more clearly than this? Do not these teachers openly posit the Son also as the cause or principle of the Spirit? Do they not teach that [the Spirit] himself proceeds from him as well? What then? Shall we close our ears to these authorities and testimonies of the saints, so many, so clear, so divine, so much in harmony with themselves and with the truth, and with an obstinate heart contend against these things? But this is not the trait of wise men, nor of good men, nor of those who wish to be and to be seen as stewards of the word and of the mysteries of Christ.

CHAPTER VIII.

^CThat the Western doctors also openly say the same thing as the Eastern [doctors], as is clearly apparent to those who look at their authorities provided for us by the Latins.

I indeed believe that I have fulfilled, in a few words, what I promised, having omitted many things, as much as was possible. For I have shown that, without having made any use of the Romans, the holy Fathers from the East themselves considered the Son to be a cause of the Spirit and that they agreed with one another in all respects; and that they, both those who say the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son from the Father, and those who say He proceeds from the Father and the Son, hold the same belief and teach us the same. It would remain for you, having embraced what is from them, to be united to the Romans and to the holy Church of the Romans, since they believe the same things as our Fathers and teachers. And do not think that either they or their Fathers and ours, the holy men from the West, have declared things contrary to those from the East. This is not so, it is not; for they are on the contrary entirely in accord and of one mind. And I would have placed before you their usages for the sake of greater persuasion, and so that the agreement between the Easterners and the Westerners might be shown, had I not known that all of you were already aware of them and had heard them from the Latins who brought them forward, and also because, since the discourse has been extended to length, it is not necessary to add more; besides, it will be possible for those who take them up from what the Latins have provided to us, to read them. It is necessary only to remind you of this, that all from the West generally—Hilary, Jerome, Damasus, Augustine, Ambrose, Leo the Great ^B and Gregory the Dialogist, and as many others—expressly, clearly, and everywhere in their own discourses, not by one or two clauses, but through many arguments and reasonings, say that the all-holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son; and that the Son is cause of the Spirit just as the Father is, and is His principle, and that the Father and the Son together are one and the same principle and cause of Him, but not two principles or two causes. All of which, having been considered and presented to the teachers from the East, it is necessary to believe that they agree with one another, and think the same things about the same subjects. For both the arguments previously spoken about the agreement of the teachers compel us to think that they come to the same conviction, and say the same things; and they themselves, and those from the East according to them, were shown to have this conviction, as the Westerners did, so that they appear to us to be clearly in agreement. And even if we had no way of supposing that they attribute the cause of the Spirit to the Son, by the single fact that they do not deny in any of their own words that the Son is a cause of the Spirit, we could say that they do not oppose the Romans, as they so clearly say the Holy Spirit is from the Son, and now, not only do not deny it, but rather even clearly [say it is] through the Son and from the

assert that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, ^A staying and remaining, so that we could not claim that the same thing happens to the Romans in the things they say? But I do not know if anyone would praise us for this. You must also know this: that we must either not accept at all the writings found of the holy Westerners, or if we do accept them, we must of necessity also accept the appearances and the things said regarding this article. For so it is in most places of their discourses, and so it is scattered in all of them; and such and so great is the continuity and sequence of what precedes, that there is nothing left to suspect. Since this matter and the arguments concerning it are removed from their discourses, nothing else remains; nor would the remaining parts preserve their meaning, so entirely throughout their works are whole chapters and different questions moved and woven together by these arguments. But as for the things that needed to be said about this dogma, as it has been stated before you briefly for the present, it has been said, and nothing more needs to be added.

CAPUT IX. Brief summary and repetition of the foregoing, and solution of the frivolous answer by which some respond to the authorities of the Westerners, and exhortation to union.

I ask and entreat you all, most holy Fathers and masters, ^B a most sacred assembly, a holy congregation, that having considered these things and having scrutinized them all strictly, you deliver the appropriate verdict, which will be viewed by you with approval throughout all time, and which will send us down to posterity with glory, crowns, and the praise of all. For first conclude that our defense will not be the same later as it was before, given such a great division among brethren and such hostility toward the Latins, who are so many, and adorned with such wisdom and knowledge and every kind of virtue—that which leads to the soul and its state and improvement, and that which looks to the body and bodily things. When a common council has now been convened, the weight of the charges of others has turned against us, ^C if we do not have an honorable cause to show, for which we have been separated from them. Then remember that it is a necessity that the Fathers agree with one another, and that otherwise it is not possible, being Christians, to speak or think so, so long as we wish to preserve the principles of our faith; and that the Roman Fathers most clearly and obviously say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, and that He has Him as a cause of His being, just as the Father; in addition to this, no less do those from the East also say the same things as proven, ^D our defense was simpler, but after this, our accusation will be grave if we do not have a cause worthy of such a division to state. Next, may it not escape you what was said concerning the necessary concord of the doctors, and that we cannot speak otherwise so long as we wish to be Christians and to save the principles of the faith: and that the Western Fathers most plainly assert that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and that the Son is His principle, just as the Father; and that the Easterners also say this same thing, partly as proceeding from the Father through the Son, partly from the Father and the Son, and from both, and saying that He is from the Son; and since they say these things, that they agree with the Westerners, and are not only of the same opinion, but in truth also...

speaking by one and the same Spirit. Moreover, regarding the defense that I see is left to us concerning what the Roman Fathers say, and knowing that it is nothing—or rather, a clear jest and mockery—let us take counsel for the better, and let us hasten toward union, wishing to please God. For either one would have to say that the saints should not be accepted, and that everything must yield to them; or that, while it is necessary to accept them, it is impossible that they—being human—could have been led into error; or lastly, a third option, that even if they are beyond all error and everything they say must be believed, these passages of the saints which have been read from the Latins are not genuine to their own meaning, but are some sort of counterfeit, interpolated, and altogether corrupted additions of a foreign hand.

But you would not ^B accept any of the first options, or else all the mysteries of the Church would be immediately overturned for us, and we would stand upon nothing firm. The third option, however, is a clear mockery and an obvious condemnation, if we are to call all these books, so many in number, and of such a kind, counterfeit, even though there exist ancient and most ancient [proofs] of their authenticity by the very sequence of the preceding and following [passages], and of all those of ours—even the most ancient ones—and [of the time] at the very peak and beginning of the first evil and of the schism, bearing in mind these things, yet being unable to gainsay anything worthy of words; especially since there are no other books of ours at hand with which, by comparing them to the Latin ones, we might have detected their corruption.

Having pondered all these things, and having applied our minds to them, let us not choose the worse path, nor pass judgment against ourselves; for it is terrible if we condemn ourselves and betray ourselves and ^C our race, first by pretending to turn away from the truth and closing our eyes to the light; and then by voluntarily bringing the most dreadful things upon ourselves and multiplying our evils. For as to what physical evils shall follow therefrom for us, and how we make the common enemy and foe more powerful against ourselves, and that there is a danger of an almost total destruction of those under us and of our Christian Church, and that the name of Christ shall be utterly extinguished from there, no one is ignorant. And I could have recounted everything one by one, and lamented the evils that are coming upon the race and all those who are called by the name of Christ, [those in the islands, those on the continents, and] of spiritual harm we should partake; and...

that we should choose the true and pious things, and those of them who think [rightly] and are in no way wandering regarding the faith, since neither our Fathers nor theirs are wandering, but are in agreement with our own Church and with the saints and teachers from the East—that we, through our own evil, should decide to be separated from such men. For that they themselves clearly follow the Fathers from the West, I know that even you will say; and that these same men harmonize with those from the East has been demonstrated here briefly as far as possible, so that it is henceforth manifest to all that they follow the saints who are Western and at the same time Eastern, ^B who are common Fathers and teachers. By what right, then, should we be separated from such men? With what specious arguments could we avoid their communion? What sufficient apology will we have before God for such a great evil as the division of the brethren, to unite whom and to bring all together, Christ Himself descended and was incarnate, and accepted the cross, and delivered Himself up? And what [apology will we have] to our descendants, or rather even to those who exist now? For I do not know if even any of our race will exist hereafter because of the great and many calamities which we willingly bring upon them. Do not, fathers and brothers, do not let us be of this mind; do not let us plan so badly for ourselves; do not let us appear as wolves instead of shepherds to those who look to us; do not let us destroy both our souls and our bodies by betraying them to the enemies. For indeed—and let this be my word ^C lest we also choose the destruction of the body together with the ruin of the soul—if indeed those things which are true and pious, and nothing erroneous, are held by the Latins, as they are by their Fathers and ours—that is to say, Western doctors and those common to the Orientals, with the Fathers teaching the same and consistent things—that we, for our own evil and without any reason, should wish to be divided from them. For that they [the Latins] follow the Western Fathers, you yourselves also say. And that those same men think the same things as the Orientals, has been proven briefly and sufficiently in this oration, so that it is manifest to all that all Latins follow the Fathers, both Western and Oriental, who are common teachers and Fathers to both sides. By what reason, then, shall we be at variance with such men? What excuse shall we be able to bring forward, as to why we are unwilling to join with them? What answer will be left for us before God, as to why we have been divided from the brethren, whom, that He might unite and bring them into one fold, He Himself descended from heaven, was incarnate, and was crucified? What will be our defense before our posterity? Or indeed, before our people who are present today? For I do not know if any of our posterity will exist [at all] after such a great and grave calamity, and so many dangers, which we are inflicting upon them. Do not let us suffer this, O best of fathers: let us not hold this opinion: let us not plan so badly for ourselves and our own: let us not be willing to become wolves instead of pastors to those who look to us: let us not...

we might betray to the enemy, to the destruction of both souls and bodies at once. For I (and may these words be for me a perpetual testimony to the whole nation and to all ^A Christians) declare that I shall always be of this opinion, and I would never willfully betray bodies, souls, faith, cities, the tombs of our fathers, liberty, and all these things together, which I find all would surely follow upon the schism and our division from the Latins without any just cause. For what worthy cause is there for which we should choose such and so many dire perils? And I pray and beseech that you, too, either all of you, or the greater part of you, may think the same as I do concerning these matters and consult for the common good. But if you are unwilling, I call to witness the most high God, and you who are present, and all our descendants, that without passion or deceit, what I have seen to be true, just, useful, and conducive to our salvation, I have not ceased to declare from the beginning to this very day, nor have I failed to counsel, nor have I been silent, deterred by fear (lest anyone think me partial to the Latins), nor have I preferred my own security to the common ^B good; but committing myself and all I have to God, and subjecting myself to His divine will, who has guided and directed my whole life from my earliest youth better than I could have ^C desired or planned, I have kept the common good before me as my aim, and looking only to this, I have both done and said whatever I have done or said, striving at once to preserve the truth of the faith, as far as I was able to understand it, and to provide for the physical safety of our nation as far as I could. Do you, however, since you have free will, do whatever seems to you must be done. But may the better and saner views prevail, even among you, by divine guidance. If, however (which God forbid), the worse opinion prevails, let this whole human race, every age, every order and condition of life, know (for it must be protested again) that I am innocent of this evil, of this bitter schism; nor have I ever been of this opinion, nor am I now, that we should be divided from the Latins contrary to all reason. For I do not persuade myself that they do not think rightly and truly concerning the faith, and that they do not believe the same things as the holy doctors, both Eastern and Western. Nor am I ignorant of the perils, the calamities, and the destructions that will follow for us and our commonwealth from this. But I foresaw, I predicted, and I provided as well as I could that they should not happen. But if I could not succeed, the fault lies not with him who spoke, but with those who did not listen. ^D

DECLARATION OF CERTAIN MATTERS CONTAINED IN THE SAID DOGMATIC ORATION, WHICH ARE VERY WELL KNOWN TO THE GREEKS, BUT UNKNOWN TO THE LATINS

Let it be noted first, that the holy doctors of the East also use the name "cause" and "caused" in theological matters in a broad sense; not indeed as it imports limitation or dependency, but as it signifies the production and emanation from a principle of that which is from the principle; and therefore, when speaking to the Greeks, I also made use of these terms. Furthermore, because I am replying briefly to certain oppositions of the Greeks, though their oppositions have not first been set forth, I am nonetheless replying to the tacit question.

^A for the reason that I was speaking to Greeks, to whom those things were known: it must be known that, when the doctors say that the Holy Spirit proceeds or flows forth from the Father through the Son, and other such things; and from this it appears that the Son is also the principle of the Spirit, which tells against them; they try to evade this truth with four evasions. For first, since the doctors very rarely say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, but very often say that he is sent, flows forth, goes forth, emanates, wells up, arises, and the like, they have made up for themselves this voluntary distinction: that, namely, the word "proceeds" would signify only the hypostatic and personal emanation of the Holy Spirit, while the other words signify the distribution of his charisms and gifts to us, and his temporal mission into the world, which they also concede happens ^B through the Son. Second, they say that it is therefore said "from the Father through the Son," not because the Son is the principle of the Holy Spirit, but because Father and Son are relative names; and the one of the relatives cannot be spoken of without the other being understood; therefore, by saying "from the Father," it is necessary also to name the Son because of the force of the relation itself. Third, they say that the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son is the cause why the Spirit is said to be from the Father through the Son: for since the Father and the Son are of the same substance, it is necessary, when it is said "from the Father," that it should also be said "from the Son." Fourth, because sometimes—though very ^C rarely and among poets, who are permitted by the constraints of meter to use words metaphorically and abusively—they have found the preposition "through" sometimes signifying the same as the preposition "with," they say that the Holy Spirit is therefore said to proceed from the Father through the Son, because he proceeds from the Father with the Son at the same time: and by these ways they explain, or rather pervert, all those authorities. We have refuted these points from the very sense of the authorities and from most true reasons, proving that these things cannot stand, nor do they agree with the opinions and words of the holy doctors, as is very clearly seen from the words themselves. Furthermore, it must be known that in the third ecumenical council, St. Cyril, against Nestorius and his heresy, among many other things which he wrote most wisely, also published twelve chapters against the heretical articles of Nestorius, which he called ^D Anathemas, because in them he anathematized his errors; in the ninth of which, against the error of Nestorius, who blasphemed that the Son of God was a pure man, sanctified by the grace of the Holy Spirit through participation, the same holy Cyril says that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Son and proper to the Son. After these things, a certain Theodoret, bishop of Cyrrhus—a man indeed most learned, yet subject to human frailty—coming late into the synod with John, the patriarch of Antioch, when they had found that Nestorius had already been condemned, and for his demerits deprived of the patriarchal see of Constantinople, being indignant that the conclusion had been reached without them being awaited, undertook the defense of Nestorius. Theodoret therefore, as a most learned man, published other twelve chapters against the twelve Anathemas of Cyril; in the ninth of which, where St. Cyril says that the Holy Spirit is of the Son and proper to the Son, he says in these words: "But if Cyril says the Holy Spirit is proper to the Son, as if consubstantial to him, we accept this: but if as if from the Son, or as having existence through the Son, we reject this as blasphemy." To this the entire third ecumenical council remained silent, nor did it rebuke Theodoret as if he were speaking maliciously: yet Cyril replied to these things, and explained all his chapters anew in twelve other new chapters, in such a way that his opinion, even if not in overly clear words, yet clearly appears to be on our side. This greatly delights the Greeks, in this they trust most of all, this they think to be their greatest and insoluble argument: that while Theodoret denied that the Spirit has being and subsistence from the Son or through the Son, the entire council remained silent, nor did it refute him of lie and error; Cyril also did not reply as openly as they think; although they know, however, that Theodoret was condemned for that reason, and was cast out of the Church many years ago. To these things, therefore, as being most known to the Greeks, I do not reply by explaining them at greater length, as it appears in the oration. But let no one grieve for Theodoret, a most learned man; for he acknowledged his error, and in the fourth general council of Chalcedon (for he survived until that time) he openly confessed it, and was received and restored by the holy synod as an honorable member of the Church.