I.

The Filioque Defined and Key Developmental Influences and Presuppositions

1. The Filioque Defined

Traditional Christian theology asserts the Father eternally is the cause of the existence of the Son and the
Holy Spirit. The Son is “Light of light, true God of True God, Begotten not created.” The Father of lights
not only begets the Son, Who is Light of Light, but processes the Spirit, Who, as well, is Light of Light,
and true God, thus echoing the Brother of God, who said “every good gift comes down from above, from
the Father of lights.” (Js.1:17)

The Nicene Constantinopolitan Creed of 381 fully articulated the deity of the the Holy Spirit, amplifying
the Nicene Creed of 325. The text, quoting the biblical passage John 15:26, states,
“We believe…in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Creator of life, Who proceeds from the Father, Who
together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified…”

The Latin Church added to the phrase, “Who proceeds for the Father” the phrase “and the Son”, which in
the Latin is Filioque. As defined by the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “…The Western tradition
expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit
proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, "legitimately and with good reason",
for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the
Father, as "the principle without principle", is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as
Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit
proceeds. This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the
identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed. “1

2. The Theological Impetus for the Filioque: Defend Against Arianism

A concise summary of the Filioque as a defence against Arianism is given in the United States Council of
Catholic Bishops statement, “The Filioque: A Church Dividing Issue?: An Agreed Statement”

“The earliest use of Filioque language in a credal context is in the profession of faith formulated
for the Visigoth King Reccared at the local Council of Toledo in 589. This regional council
anathematized those who did not accept the decrees of the first four Ecumenical Councils (canon
11), as well as those who did not profess that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the
Son (canon 3). It appears that the Spanish bishops and King Reccared believed at that time that
the Greek equivalent of Filioque was part of the original creed of Constantinople, and apparently
understood that its purpose was to oppose Arianism by affirming the intimate relationship of the
Father and Son. On Reccared’s orders, the Creed began to be recited during the Eucharist, in

1
Catechism of the Catholic Church: Revised in Accordance with the Official Latin Text Promulgated by Pope John
Paul II. Ottawa: Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2006. 248.
imitation of the Eastern practice. From Spain, the use of the Creed with the Filioque spread
throughout Gaul.”2

3. The Theological Influence of Saint Augustine

There is perhaps no greater doctor of the Latin Church than Blessed Augustine of Hippo. His
theological reflections on the Trinity and numerous other dogmas shaped the trajectory of Latin
Theology. Book 9 of his De Trinitate details the two psychological models he imported. In
chapter 3, he introduces the triad of lover, beloved and love. He analogously identified the
Father, Son and All Holy Spirit with these attributes. Τhus the Father as Lover, loves the beloved
Son by His love, the Holy Spirit. Eventually this hypostasizing of a shared attribute, love, reduced
the Spirit to be the product of the divine will.3 In chapter 4, he introduces the triad of mind,
knowledge, and love.4 The human psychological acts correspond to the interior relations of the
Trinity. The Father is analogously the Mind Which knows Itself, conceiving the Word,
corresponding with the begetting of the Son. The Mind having known Itself, loves Itself by Its
knowledge, which corresponds to the procession of the Spirit by the Father and the Son. The
trajectory of this thought continues even until Aquinas, the architect of Scholasticism, who
enshrined these Augustinaian conceptions. A cursury reading of Aquinas, in his discussion
about the procession of the All Holy Spirit, betrays he was constrained to explain the Filioque as
necessary due to this inner human psychology.5

2
The Filioque: A Church Dividing Issue?: An Agreed Statement. Accessed September 8, 2019.
http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/orthodox/filioque-church-
dividing-issue-english.cfm.

3
Compare the statement, “In God there are two notional acts, notional knowing…through which the Father
generates the Son, and notional willing (love) through which the Father and the Son breathe the Holy Ghost. The
notional and the essential acts are factually identical; they are only virtually different.”

In Ott, Ludwig, Patrick Lynch, and James Bastible. Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. Oil City, PA: Baronius Press,
2018, 70.

4
Augustine, Saint. 1990. De Trinitate, Book 9. Edited by Phillip Schaff. Hendrickson. October. Accessed september
11, 2019. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/130109.html

5
cf. Aquinas, Summa Question 27; article 4; objection 3,
“I answer that, the procession of love in God ought not to be called generation. In evidence whereof we must
consider that the intellect and the will differ in this respect, that the intellect is made actual by the object understood
residing according to its own likeness in the intellect; whereas the will is made actual, not by any similitude of the
object willed within it, but by its having a certain inclination to the thing willed. Thus the procession of the intellect
is by way of similitude, and is called generation, because every generator begets its own like; whereas the
procession of the will is not by way of similitude, but rather by way of impulse and movement towards an object.
So what proceeds in God by way of love, does not proceed as begotten, or as son, but proceeds rather as spirit;
which name expresses a certain vital movement and impulse, accordingly as anyone is described as moved or
impelled by love to perform an action.
4. The Theological Influence of Aristotelian metaphysics: Actus Purus

Latin theology posits there is no potentiality in God. This follows the Aristotelian metaphysic of being
and becoming. As God is perfect, there is no becoming in Him. While this is true with created beings,
traditional Orthodox theology does not permit an analogy of being with the uncreated. God is perfect in
Himself, and not contingent on creation, therefore He has uncreated energies or potentialities. This
theological distinction is ultimately what is the heart of the issue between St. Gregory Palamas and
Barlaam. Orthodox theology seeks to maintain the integrity of the biblical revelation and the continued
experience of the Saints. God’s uncreated glory, His energies, can be participated in. Ultimately this
Augustinian theology, and then later developed under Thomas Aquinas, led to an identification of the
Trinitarian relations being reflected perfectly in the economy of God. The reasoning is the creation was,
“from the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Spirit”, therefore the Father generates “ through the Son.” 6
In several passages Saint Gregory addresses Actus Purus and shows that it is illogical.

5. The Theological Influence of Papal Primacy

This is actually a root distinction between Orthodox epistemology and Latin, and it is for this reason why
it was one of the first topics addressed in the treatise. The primacy of the Pope. Since the Pope was not
president at the Ecumenical Synods, Saint Gregory dismisses the primacy of the Pope as help in his day.
Nonetheless, this is at the heart of why discussions cannot proceed any further, for there is an
epistemological divide. Without digressing too far, it needs to be noted that Saint Gregory’s two
greatests works, The Treatises here, and the Triads are not unrelated. The error of the Filioque was due
to the encroachment of reasoning outside the Church, a wrong epistemology rooted in Paapla primacy and
natural reason rather than revelation. The Triads address the very reason for the epistemological divide:
the abandonment of hesychasm as the true path to noetic understanding.

II. Synopsis of the Trinitarian theology of St. Gregory Palamas and his Method of Demonstration

1. The Monad, the Dyad and the Triad

The Old Testament revealed God to be a Monad. A singular Source of being, the Great “I AM”
Who singularly created the world. This revelation was inchoate and thus the New Testament
revelation of the Son and Spirit shows us God is not just one, but three in one.

2. The Single Cause Unifies the All Holy Trinity

God is one in three for one reason: the Father. As the source of being He is the causal unity
which directly relates to the Son and the Spirit bestowing existence immediately and
simultaneously to Both. The causality of the Father ensures the unity of the divinity. If two
causes were present, there would be two different gods. Saint Gregory argues that if there were
two causes God would be a dyad, consisting of the Father and Son coalesced into one and the
Spirit spirated. This might seem pedantic, but why is it that only one cause must be in the
Trinity? Because cause, aitia, is the what gives the effect, existence. Existence is literally to be
6
Cf, Fokin A. (2003) St Augustine’s Doctrine of the Trinity in the Light of Orthodox Triadology of the
Fourth Century. In: Stewart M.Y. (eds) The Trinity. Studies in Philosophy and Religion, vol 24. Springer,
Dordrecht
under a principle, up- arxi. Or de-pendent to hang from. If the Son was not from the Father
directly, He would not be integrally one with the Father but a “part.” This is why the Spirit
cannot be “through” or “from” the Son, for His de- pendence and ex-istence from God is in
effect reduced to the status of a creature. This explains the utter insistence St. Gregory
Nazianzus had on the monarchy, the single origin, in his Triniatarian theology. This monarchy of
the Father, then, is what differentiates Christians from polytheists and Pagans.

3. The Heresy of confusing Hypostatic and Natural Properties in the Trinity

This is the natural result of actus purus, but it is a root error based on wrong predication. Saint
Gregory starts with the axiom, “the Father is the Origin for all the Persons of the Trinity.”
This universal predication eliminates Son and Spirit as originator or Father. Latin theology
excludes spiration from the Trinity of God in order to justify the spiration through the Son.

4. The Root heresy is rejection of the Theologian and unbroken Conciliar Tradition

Saint Gregory starts with epistemology. We know the Filioque is in error because the Lord, the
Theologian, did not tEach it. He taught His disciples and they were enlightened so that they
might enlighten in the same way. The saint argues the pleroma of the Church is enlightened and
fights against the virus of heresy. This gnosiology is markedly different than the magisterial
conception of the Roman Catholic Church, which finds verissitude in the Papacy.

5. Logical demonstration is possible when dealing with theological truth. Holy Reasoning

This is self evident for the very title of the treatises is Aristotelian. Truth can be apodictically
verified. At the first, he assumes we can know if the Filioque is true or not based on the simple
law of the excluded middle, that a is always true is b is always false.

Within the text, we can see his acceptance of Aristotelian logic and actual insistence on it. Logic
is not rejected, but sophistry is. After all, he calls the evil one the greatest sophist. Gregory states
we are to employ holy dianoia, holy reasoning. Synthesizing his statements about reasoning, an
interesting picture is painted. Reasoning, διανοια, is to aim for truth correctly, that is, with an
ortho dox dianoia, ορθοδοχος διανοια. This is orthodoxy. The Faith is logically coherent. If
reasoning does not aim for truth, it is kakonoia, κακονοια, or wrongly guided reasoning. The
corresponding belief from this reasoning is kakodoxy, κακοδοξια. In that case, reasoning is also
aponoia, απονοια, or senseless, without good, orthos, justification. In the true sense, then, a false
reasoning is anoia, ανοια, senseless, when it has failed at the truth. Further, when truth has not
been achieved, it is falsehood, or ψευδος. Acceptance of these false conclusions is ψευδοδοχια,
pseudodoxy. Saint Gregory says, then, we do not need to remain aniatos, incurable in
understanding, and in agnoia, in a state of unknowing, about these resplendently clear truths.
This presupposition is critical in our current climate of theological dialogue, which while it
embraces every belief, still does not tolerate the belief truth can can be known. It is at this point
we turn without further distraction to the text.

ΛΟΓΟΣ ΠΡΩΤΟΣ
 First Treatise, Preamble
______________________________________________________________________________
Πάλιν ὁ δεινός καί ἀρχέκακος ὄφις, τήν ἑαυτοῦ κεφαλήν καθ ἡμῶν διαιρών, ὑποψιθυρίζει τά τῆς
ἀληθείας ἀντίθετα. Μᾶλλον δέ τήν μέν κεφαλήν τῷ τοῦ Χριστοῦ σταυρῷ συντριβείς, τῶν δέ
κατά γενεάς πειθομένων ταῖς ἀπολουμέναις ὑποθήκαις αὐτοῦ κεφαλήν ἑαυτοῦ ποιούμενος
ἕκαστον καί οὕτω πολλάς ἀντί μιᾶς κατά τήν ὕδραν ἀναδούς κεφαλάς, δι᾿ αὐτῶν ἀδικίαν εἰς τό
ὕψος λαλῶν οὐκ ἀνίησιν. Οὕτως Ἀρείους, οὕτως Ἀπολιναρίους, οὕτως Εὐνομίους καί
Μακεδονίους, οὕτω πλείστους ἑτέρους προσαρμοσάμενος τῷ αὐτοῦ προσφύντας ὁλκῷ, διά τῆς
ἐκείνων γλώττης τόν οἰκεῖον κατά τῆς ἱερᾶς Ἐκκλησίας ἐπαφῆκεν ἰόν, ἀντ ὀδόντων ἰδίων τοῖς
ἐκείνων λόγοις χρησάμενος καί περιπείρας τούτους τῇ τῆς εὐσεβείας ἀρχῇ, οἷόν τινι ρίζῃ νεαρῶς
καλόν τεθηλότος φυτοῦ καί καρποῖς ὡραιοτάτοις βρίθοντος, οὐ μήν τούτῳ καί λυμήνασθαι
ἴσχυσε˙ καί γάρ ὑπ᾿ αὐτῶν τῶν δηχθέντων αὖθις συνετρίβη τάς μύλας, ὑπό τῶν ὡς ἀληθῶς
κεφαλήν ἑαυτῶν ποιησαμένων Χριστόν.

The subtle7 serpent and source of vice,8 once again rearing his own head9 against us, whispers
things opposite to the truth. Or, to elaborate, seeing he had indeed been crushed in his head by
the Cross of Christ,10 yet he made each one of those who are obedient to his destructive
counsels to successively take the place of his own head. And so, like a hydra, he sprouted
many heads instead of the one.11

He relentlessly speaks utter unrighteousness through them. As it was with the Arians, so it was
with Apollinarians, and so it was with the Eunomians and Macedonians. And thus he attached to
his coiled body the host of others, who found refuge in him.12 He spewed his venom through the
speech of the these mentioned heretics against the sacred Church. In lieu of fangs, he has used
these words, and sunk his teeth into the origin of piety.13 Because of its’ health, caused by its’
particularly healthy root, having a bough burdened with the ripest of fruits, he still was not able
to utterly lay waste to the plant.14 For, his fangs also were in turn shattered by those who had
7
Cf. Ge.3:1. Δεινός in the sense of clever, as the context elaborates.
8
The parallelism is to the Trinity, the fount of goodness, in contrast. The Trinity has a single head, the Father. The
Monarchy of God. The hydra was deliberately used here because the Filioque creates many heads, three of them
actually.
9
One possible variant is divide, in the sense of fission into another. He cleaves another head for himself since his
had been crushed. The context is the evil one multiplies, divides, like a hydra. It is a statement, as well, against the
Filioque which multiplies divinities.
10
Gen.3:15. Cf. Rom.16:20.
11
Throughout the treatise, he employs biblical motifs and allusions. The hydra is pagan, and out of place, fitting for
the Filioque, which in his words was aethos, or not customary.
12
Προσαρμοσάμενος, from προσαρμόζω. Med., fit on to oneself.
13
καί περιπείρας τούτους τῇ τῆς εὐσεβείας ἀρχῇ, “he pierced them at the origin of piety. The useage is similar to
this: he hit them in the gut. He pierced them at the root. It is the believers who were pierced. See also the next
sentence. “For, his fangs also were in turn shattered by those who had been pierced by him, meaning, by those who
have truly made Christ their own Head.” He attacked believers.
14
The familiar biblical metaphor is the church was fruitful plant and the evil one sought to ravage the vineyard of
the Lord. “λυμήνασθαι” This word is used here and again in the second treatise. The evil one did lay waste to the
Roman church. And she was desolate, for some time. So Gregory is comparing the two churches- the Roman has
been ravaged in Treatise 2, here the Church of God survived. Cf. Is. 5:1-2 “ Now will I sing to my wellbeloved a
song of my beloved touching his vineyard. My wellbeloved hath a vineyard in a very fruitful hill: 2 And he fenced it,
and gathered out the stones thereof, and planted it with the choicest vine, and built a tower in the midst of it, and
also made a winepress therein: and he looked that it should bring forth grapes.” The next verse is an amplification
been pierced by him, meaning, by those who have truly made Christ their own Head.15

1
___________________________________________________________________________
Οὗτος τοίνυν ὁ νοητός καί διά τοῦτο μᾶλλον ἐπάρατος ὄφις, τό πρῶτον καί μέσον καί τελευταῖον
κακόν, ὁ πονηρός καί τήν χαμερπῆ καί γηΐνην πονηρίαν ἀεί σιτούμενος, ὁ τῆς πτέρνης, δηλαδή
τῆς ἀπάτης, ἐπιτηρητής ἀκάματος, ὁ πρός πᾶσαν θεοστυγῆ δόξαν ποριμώτατος σοφιστής καί
ἀμηχάνως εὐμήχανος, μηδαμῶς ἐπιλελησμένος τῆς οἰκίας κακοτεχνίας, διά τῶν αὐτῷ πειθηνίων
Λατίνων περί Θεοῦ καινάς εἰσφέρει φωνάς, μικράν μέν δοκούσας ἔχειν ὑπαλλαγήν, μεγάλων δέ
κακῶν ἀφορμάς καί πολλά καί δεινά φερούσας, τῆς εὐσεβείάς ἔκφυλά τε καί ἄτοπα, καί τοῖς
πᾶσι φανερῶς δεικνύσας, ὡς οὐ μικρόν ἐν τοῖς περί Θεοῦ τό παραμικρόν. Εἰ γάρ ἐφ᾿ ἑκάστου
τῶν καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς ὄντων ἑνός ἀτόπου τήν ἀρχήν δοθέντος πολλά τά ἄτοπα γίνεται, πῶς οὐ μᾶλλον
ἐπί τῆς κοινῆς ἁπάντων ἀρχῆς καί τῶν κατ᾿ αὐτήν οἷον ἀναποδείκτων ἀρχῶν ἑνός ἀήθους
δοθέντος οὐκ εὐσεβῶς πολλά γενήσεται παρά τοῦτο τά ἀτοπήματα;
___________________________________________________________________________

Accordingly, this noetic serpent is because of this all the more accursed, evil at the
beginning and middle, and end evil. 16

The wicked one,

ever feeding from serpentine and earthly wickedness,
the vigilant stalker poised to strike the heel,17that is, to say, to strike it with deceit,18
the sophist skilled in every opinion obnoxious to God, with utter ease, as he has not
forgotten his own evil art, introduces innovative expressions concerning God, through the
Latins which hearkened to him.19

While he thought he was able to make but a small change, yet he created 20 the
occasion for many evils and brought in many that were subtle, estranged from piety and
logically absurd. In doing this, he clearly displayed to all, that even the smallest thing is
not small in matters concerning God.

of the thought, with the causal particle, explaining how it was not laid waste. “For, his fangs also were in turn
shattered by those who had been pierced by him, meaning, by those who have truly made Christ their own Head.”
Cf. Psalm 80:8-9 “8 Thou hast brought a vine out of Egypt: thou hast cast out the heathen, and planted it. 9 Thou
preparedst room before it, and didst cause it to take deep root, and it filled the land. 10 The hills were covered with
the shadow of it, and the boughs thereof were like the goodly cedars. 11 She sent out her boughs unto the sea, and her
branches unto the river.”
15
Cf. The 6th priestly Orthros prayer “crush under their feet the invisible and warring enemies.” andROm.16:20.
16
He is cursed for his deception. Ge 3:14
17
Cf. Gen.29:17, “Dan shall be a serpent by the way, an adder in the path, that biteth the horse heels, so that his
rider shall fall backward.”
18
Cf. Gen.3:15 - καὶ ἔχθραν θήσω ἀνὰ μέσον σου καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τῆς γυναικὸς καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ σπέρματός σου
καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ σπέρματος αὐτῆς αὐτός σου τηρήσει κεφαλήν καὶ σὺ τηρήσεις αὐτοῦ πτέρναν
19
1:1 He relentlessly speaks utter unrighteousness through them.
20
Φερούσας, having caused. Cf 7, “you have caused irreverence.”
For, with our mere mundane discussions,21 in every instance, if one absurd premise had
been made at the beginning, many absurdities ensue,

then, naturally, when one absurd thing had been premised, which was not done as is
usual or reverently, with the common definition 22 of all {the Persons}, Who are then as
definitions which cannot be proven in relation to it,  
how can it not be that many more absurdities will happen from this?

____________________________________________________________________________

Πρός ἅ καί φανερῶς τό Λατίνων γένος ἐκπεπτώκασιν ἄν, εἰ μή παρ ἡμῶν ἀντιλεγόντων τῇ
καινοφωνίᾳ τοῦ δόγματος τῆς κακοδοξίας τό πλεῖστον περιῃρεῖτο. Καί γάρ ἐπί τοσοῦτον ἔστιν
ὅτε συστέλλονται ὡς καί διανοίας23 ἡμῖν εἶναι τῆς αὐτῆς λέγειν, διαφωνοῦντας τοῖς ρήμασι, σφῶν
αὐτῶν ὑπ ἀπορίας καταψευδόμενοι. Ἡμῶν γάρ οὐχί καί ἐκ τῆς ὑποστάσεως τοῦ Υἱοῦ λεγόντων
εἶναι τήν τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος ὕπαρξιν, ἐκείνων δέ καί ἐκ τῆς τοῦ Υἱοῦ, τῶν ἀδυνάτων εἰς μίαν
ἀμφοτέρους συνάγεσθαι ἔννοιαν˙ εἷς γάρ ὁ μονογενής καί μία ἡ τοῦ Πνεύματος ὕπαρξίς ἐστιν. Ἡ
γοῦν ἀπόφασις τῇ καταφάσει ἀεί ἀντίκειται καί ἀεί ψευδής ἡ ἑτέρα, εἰ ἀληθής ἡ ἑτέρα˙ καί τό
αὐτό περί τοῦ αὐτοῦ καταφῆσαι καί ἀποφῆσαι σύν ἀληθείᾳ οὐκ ἔνι.
_____________________________________________________________________________

Evidently, the race of the Latins would have fallen for these absurdities, unless by
our disputing their dogmatic innovation, the greatest part of the cacodoxy were cast
off. For, it is so evident that when they pull back from saying those who disagree
verbally are of the same reasoning with us, that they have lied about their own,
under the pretense of being dubious. For,  we do not say the existence of the Holy
Spirit is from the hypostasis of the Son.

These, however, who do say He is from the hypostasis of the Son, are not able to
infer both {statements} into one thought. For, the only begotten is one and the
existence of the Spirit is one.

At any rate, since the denial {trans. denial  that the existence is from the hypostasis
of the Son} is always the antithesis to the affirmation, then the other proposition is
21
The phrase τῶν καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς ὄντων typically refers created things. St Gregory is drawing a
comparison: if making an error with mundane arguments creates absurdities, making an error
with trinitarian truths is a super cosmic error.
22
“ ἐπί τῆς κοινῆς ἁπάντων ἀρχῆς καί τῶν κατ᾿ αὐτήν οἷον ἀναποδείκτων ἀρχῶν” κοινη ἀρχη
Is a technical Aristotelian logical term with variant translations as: common principle,. The
most literal; shared axiom, common definition. It points to a definition shared by the other
points of the syllogism. For the sake of the reader, this more familiar phrasing was adopted.

23
σφῶν αὐτῶν ὑπ ἀπορίας καταψευδόμενοι
They falsely characterize their own writers as dubiously unclear.
always false. It also is not possible to affirm the one to be true and then deny the
truth at the same time concerning the same thing {trans. thus they cannot infer both
statements in a single thought}.[1] 

______________________________________________________________________________

Ἀλλ ὡς μέν ἡμῖν οὐ λέγουσι μόνο ἀλλά καί φρονοῦσι τά ἐναντία, οὐδείς οἶμαι τῶν εὖ
φρονούντων καί μή ὁμοφρονούντων ἐκείνοις ἀντερεῖ. Ὡς δέ οὐχ ἡμῖν μόνον, ἀλλά καί αὐτῷ τῷ
τῆς ἀληθείας ἀντιδογματίζουσι λόγῳ ὡς παρ ἡμῖν ἀμείωτος καί ἀναυξής καί τό πᾶν
ἀμεταποίητος διαπεφύλακται, πάντες μέν ὑμεῖς, τό τῶν εὐσεβούντων λέγω πλήρωμα.
Δειχθήσεται δέ ὅμως, Θεοῦ διδόντος, καί διά τοῦδε τοῦ λόγου, ὡς ἄν καί «πᾶν στόμα» τό
ἀντιλέγον «φραγῇ», καί πρός μίαν ὁμολογίαν στηριχθῇ τό ἀμφίρροπον.
______________________________________________________________________________

But,that they, in fact, not only speak things contrary to us, but also {in their phronema} consider
things contrary to us, I think no one, from those who possess a sound phronema, will dispute
these Latins cannot be of the same phronema.

Or,{will one dispute} that they not only {speak} against us, but that they dogmatize against the
Word of Truth itself, as the entirety (τό πᾶν) has been preserved by us undiminished, and without
increase, and unalterable,24 you all indeed precisely know this without a need for logical
demonstration (by you I am referring to the entirety of the pious). Notwithstanding, God willing,
it will be logically demonstrated, through this present treatise here, so that “every mouth” which
disputes this, “may be shut”, and what is ambivalent may be made more firmly supported
relative to the one Confession. (Rom.3:19)

A Prayer

Ἀλλ ᾿ ὦ Θεέ τοῦ παντός, ὁ μόνος δοτήρ καί φύλαξ τῆς ἀληθινῆς θεολογίας καί τῶν κατ᾿ αὐτήν
δογμάτων καί ρημάτων, ἡ μόνη μοναρχικωτάτη τριάς, οὐ μόνον ὅτι μόνη τοῦ παντός ἄρχεις,
ἀλλ᾿ ὅτι καί μίαν ἐν σεαυτῇ μόνην ἔχεις ὑπεράρχιον ἀρχήν, τήν μόνην ἀναίτιον μονάδα, ἐξ ἧς
προάγεσθον καί εἰς ἥν ἀνάγεσθον ἀχρόνως καί ἀναιτίως ὁ Υἱός τε καί τό Πνεῦμα, Πνεῦμα τό
ἅγιον, τό κύριον, τό ἐκ Θεοῦ Πατρός ἐκπορευτῶς τήν ὕπαρξιν ἔχον, καί δι᾿ Υἱοῦ τοῖς ὀρθῶς
πιστεύουσιν εἰς σέ καί διδόμενον καί πεμπόμενον καί φαινόμενον˙ Υἱέ μονογενές, ἐκ Θεοῦ
Πατρός γεννητῶς τήν ὕπαρξιν ἔχων καί διά τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος ταῖς καρδίαις τῶν εἰς σέ
πιστευόντων ἐμμορφούμενος καί ἐνοικῶν καί ἀοράτως ὁρώμενος˙ Πάτερ ἀγέννητε μόνε καί
ἀνεκπόρευτε, καί, τό σύμπαν εἰπεῖν, ἀναίτιε, ὁ μόνος πατήρ τῶν ἀνεκφοιτήτων καί ὁμοτίμων σοι
φώτων, ἕν κράτος, μία δύναμις, ἡ δημιουργός τῶν ποιητῶν καί ὑπό χεῖρά σοι φώτων, ἡ πάσης
γνώσεως δότειρα, ἡ πολυειδεῖς ἰδέας παραγαγοῦσα γνωστικῶν τε καί γνωστῶν καί καταλλήλως
24
Cf his later statement, concerning the Creed: And so, you also are refuted by the credal document which had
been publicly exhibited… by the same many synods which brought forth, (from the start, irrespective of different
races and tongues), the unalterable document.
τοῖς γινώσκουσι καί φυσικῶς ἐνθεῖσα τάς γνώσεις, τοῖς μέν νοεροῖς ἁπλᾶς καί ἀπαθεῖς νοήσεις,
τοῖς δέ αἰσθητικοῖς πολυμερεῖς καί παθητάς αἰσθήσεις, τοῖς δέ μικτοῖς ἡμῖν ἀμφότερα˙ ἡ καί τήν
περί σοῦ κατά τό ἐγχωροῦν γνῶσιν μόνοις τοῖς λογικοῖς σου κτίσμασιν ἀφάτῳ χρηστότητι
χαριζομένη, δός καί ἡμῖν ἀρτίως εὐαρέστως σοι θεολογῆσαι καί τοῖς ἀπ᾿ αἰῶνος ἔργῳ σοι καί
λόγῳ εὐαρεστήσασι συμφώνως˙ ὡς ἄν καί τούς μή θεαρέστως σε θεολογοῦντας ἀπελέγξωμεν,
καί τούς ἐν ἀληθείᾳ σε ζητοῦντας πρός τήν ἀλήθειαν στηρίξωμεν, ἵνα σε γινώσκωμεν πάντες
μίαν μόνην πηγαίαν θεότητα, τόν μόνον Πατέρα τε καί προβολέα, καί σοῦ Υἱόν ἕνα καί Υἱόν
μόνον, ἀλλ᾿ οὐχί καί προβολέα, καί σόν ἕν Πνεῦμα ἅγιον, καί πρόβλημα μόνον, ἀλλ᾿ οὐχί καί
ποίημα˙ καί δοξάζοιμεν ἕνα Θεόν, ἐν μιᾷ μέν καί ἁπλῇ, πλουσίᾳ δ, ἵν᾿ οὕτως εἴπω, καί
ἀστενοχωρήτω θεότητι, καί ἀντιδοξαζοίμεθα παρά σοῦ ἐν πλουσίᾳ θεώσει καί τρισσοφαεῖ
φωτοχυσίᾳ, νῦν καί εἰς τούς ἀκαταλήπτους αἰῶνας. Ἀμήν.
______________________________________________________________________________

But - O God of all, Thou art the only Giver and Preserver of genuine theology and of the
dogmas and expressions, which relate to it.

Thou alone art the absolutely singular source Trinity,25 not only because Thou alone reignest
over all, but because Thou hast a single Origin in Thine own self, the Origin which is prior to all
origination, the singular uncaused Monad,26 from Whom and in Whom originateth and returneth
timelessly and causelessly the Son and the processed Spirit.

O Holy Spirit, Lord, Thou hast being by procession from the Father, and through the Son hast
been given and sent and manifested to those who rightly believe in Thee.

O Son, Only Begotten, Thou hast being by generation from the Father and through the Holy
Spirit art formed and indwelling, and seen invisibly in the hearts of those who believe in Thee.

O Father,Thou alone art Unbegotten and Unprocessed, and to express the entirety, Uncaused,
the only Father of Thine unapproachable and equally-honored Lights, One dominion, One
power, the Creator of lights made under Thine hand.

Thou {art} the Bestower of all knowledge, Who bringest forth diverse forms of knowledge. Thou
hast naturally implaced different knowledges, both common knowledge and scientific. And in
those who know, Thou hast, as befits us, naturally implanted knowledge. On one hand, in those
who are capable of spiritual cognition {Thou hast placed} simple dispassionate cognitions.

But on the other hand, in those who perceive through the manifold senses, {Thou has placed}
the passionate perceptions. To us, who have mixed perceptions, {Thou hast} placed both.27

25
Lit. ἡ μόνη μοναρχικωτάτη τριάς. Most Monarchial Trinity. The intent of St. Gregory is to
show the absolutely singular nature of the origination of divinity, in contrast to the Filioque
which posits a spiration from two, as from a single source.
26
For elaboration, please see the prefatory remarks and glossary. The intent of the Treatise is to apodictically prove
what is Scripturally stated, as he stated, without the need for proof, that “the Holy Spirit which proceedeth from the
Father…” (Jn.15:26) The prayer here is addressed to the Trinity, which has one Principle, one Origin, the Father,
which is above all origination. The next phrase is appositive and restates the Principle, the Monad, the Father as
stated in 1:20, quoting St. Dionysios: “the monad, in a manner as befits God, has been moved into duality, until it is
stood, established, as a Trinity.”
Thou hast granted by Thine ineffable goodness the knowledge concerning Thee to only Thy
rational creatures, according to their capacity.

Grant us, as is appropriate to completely, as is pleasing to Thee, theologize in harmony with

those who from the ages have pleased Thee well in word and deed.

So that we may refute those who do not theologize Thee in a manner befitting Thee, and may
embrace in the truth those who in truth seek Thee;

so that we all know the Fount of Divinity is one: the Father alone as the Originator, and Thy Son
as One and Only Son, but not also an Originator, and Thy One Holy Spirit, the only One
Procession, but also not a creature;

so that we may glorify One God, in one and simple and bountiful –that is to say boundless,
divinity;

so that we may be glorified in return by Thee in Thy rich deification and threefold effulgence of
Light, now unto the unending ages. Amen.

____________________________________________________________________________

Κοινή μέν ἥ δε ἡ εὐχή πᾶσι τοῖς μίαν σέβουσιν ἀρχήν. Ὑμεῖς δέ τί φατε οἱ τάς δύο λέγοντες ἐπί
τῆς θεότητος ἀρχάς; Τί γάρ, εἰ μή φανερῶς τοῦτο λέγετε, ἀλλ ἐξ ὧν λέγετε τοῦτο συνάγεται;
Τοιαῦτα τά βαθέα τοῦ Σατανᾶ, τά τοῦ πονηροῦ μυστήρια, ἅ τοῖς ὑπέχουσιν αὐτῷ τά ὦτα
ψιθυρίζει οὐ χαλῶν καί ὑπεκκλύων τόν τόνον τῆς φωνῆς, ἀλλά τό βλαβερόν ὑποκρύπτων τοῦ
νοήματος. Οὕτως καί τῇ Ευῃ ώς έγᾦμαι, ἐψιθύρισεν.
____________________________________________________________________________

The above prayer is indeed common to all who revere the single Origin. So, why do you say
there are two origins for the divinity? For, what can be inferred, if you do not plainly explain the
basis for what things you say? Such things are the depths of Satan (Re.2:24), the mysteries of
the evil one, which he whispers to those who lend their ears to him, not softening or lowering the
tone of his voice, rather, whispering to conceal the intended harm. I gather he also whispered to
Eve this way, as well.

_________________________________________________________________________

Ἆρα γάρ οὕτω λέγοντες οὐ φανερῶς διατελεῖτε προστιθέντες πρῶτον μέν τῇ περί τοῦ ἁγίου καί
προσκυνητοῦ Πνεύματος ἐκφαντορικῇ θεολογίᾳ τῆς αὐτοαληθείας Χριστοῦ, ὅς Θεός ὤν
προαιώνιος δι᾿ ἡμᾶς καί θεολόγος ἐγεγόνει, ὅς αὐτόχρημα ὤν ἀλήθεια διά φιλανθρωπίαν κῆρυξ
ἡμῖν ἀναπέφηνε τῆς ἀληθείας, ὅς διά τοῦτο εἰς τόν κόσμον ἦλθεν, ἵνα μαρτυρήσῃ τῇ ἀληθείᾳ, οὗ
καί πᾶς ὁ ὤν ἐκ τῆς ἀληθείας καί ταύτην ἐν ἀληθείᾳ ζητῶν, ἐπαΐει τῆς ἀληθινῆς φωνῆς;
____________________________________________________________________________

For, when you so speak, are you not evidently effectively adding, from the very start, to the
theology about the holy and worshipful Spirit which had already been expressed as the absolute

27
There are three forms of knowledge: sensible, mixed, and pure angelic intellection. Man as a microcosm has
bodily, soulish and potentially spiritual knowledge, corresponding to 1 The. 5:23. and 1 Co.2:14.
truth from Christ? He,28 being the pre eternal God, had also become a Theologian on account of
us. He, being the exact truth, on account of His love for mankind, was revealed as a herald of
the truth for us. He came into the world because of this: that He might bear witness to the truth,
Whose truth everyone, being from the truth and truly seeking, gives heed to as the genuine
voice (Jn.10:27).29
____________________________________________________________________________

Ἆρ᾿ οὖν οὐ πρώτῳ μέν τούτῳ ἀντιπίπτετε τῷ καί πρώτῳ πάντων οὕτω θεολογήσαντι («τό
Πνεῦμα γάρ, φησί, τῆς ἀληθείας, ὅ παρά τοῦ Πατρός ἐκπορεύεται»), ἔπειτα τοῖς αὐτόπταις καί
αὐτηκόοις γεγενημένοις μαθηταῖς καί ἀποστόλοις αὐτοῦ, μᾶλλον δέ πρό τούτων καί αὐτῷ τῷ
ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι, ὅ καί ἦλθε κατά τήν δεδομένην ὑπό τοῦ Σωτῆρος αὐτοῖς ἐπαγγελίαν, ὅ καί
ἐδίδαξεν αὐτούς τά πάντα, ὅ τοῦτο οὐκ ἐδίδαξεν ὡς οὐκ ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρός ἐκπορεύεται τῶν
φώτων, ἀλλά καί ἐκ τοῦ Υἰοῦ; Εἰ γάρ οὕτω τούτους ἐδίδαξε, καί ἡμᾶς ἄν οὗτοι ὁμοίως ἐδίδαξαν.

Therefore, are you not, in fact, resisting Him Who was the first Who theologized like this? For,
He says, “the Spirit of truth which proceeds from the Father.” (Jn.15:26) And are you not, after
Him, subsequently resisting those who were eyewitnesses and who had heard with their own
ears, who had become His disciples and Apostles? Or, better yet, above all these, are you not
resisting the Holy Spirit, Who also came to them according to the promise of the Savior, Who
also taught them all things, Who did not teach that He does not proceed only from the Father of
lights (Js.1:17), but also proceeds from the Son? For, if that was how He taught them, those
same people should similarly have taught us.

____________________________________________________________________________

Ἐπεί καί διά τοῦτο διδαχθέντες τε καί φωτισθέντες ἀπεστάλησαν, ἵνα διδάξωσιν ὡς
ἐδιδάχθησαν, ἵνα φωτίσωσιν ὡς ἐφωτίσθησαν, ἵνα κηρύξωσιν ἐν παρρησίᾳ, εἰς τό οὖς
ἀκούσειαν, τουτέστιν οὐκ ἐν ἐπηκόῳ πάντων, ἵν᾿ εἴπωσιν ἐν τῷ φωτί, δηλονότι φανερῶς τοῖς
πᾶσιν, ἅ τούτοις εἴρηται ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ ὡς ἔγωγ ἄν φαίην, δι ἀποκαλύψεως ἐν ὑπερφώτῳ γνόφῳ,
ἔστω δέ καί παραβολικῶς, καί οἷος ὁ παρά τῷ Σολομῶντι σκοτεινός λόγος ὁ τῷ μετειληχότι τῆς
σοφίας τρανούμενος. Εἰ δέ βούλει, τό κατά μόνας ἡ σκοτία δηλούτω καί ἀποκρύφως καί μήπω
τοῖς πολλοῖς ἐγνωσμένως.

And so because of this, having been taught and been enlightened, they sent,
so that they may teach like they had been taught,
so that they may enlighten like they had been enlightened,
so that they may boldly proclaim what they would have heard with their
own ears.

In other words, though at that time it was not in the hearing of all, it was said
so that they may speak in the light, that is, may speak in the presence of all, what had been
spoken in darkness to them. Like I would say,{it was spoken} by revelation in the darkness
which brilliantly transcends the light. Or let that be {understood} parabolically, and like the dark
saying from Solomon (Pro.1:6) which was made brilliantly clear to one who has partaken of the
wisdom.30

28
For the sake of the English reader, I have translated the relative clause as a new sentence.
29
ὅς… ἐπαΐει τῆς ἀληθινῆς φωνῆς” The main verb is hearken, with a genitive of hearing.
Or, if you prefer, let the darkness indicate it that it was privately and in a hidden manner, 31 as
not yet having been made known in the open to many people.32

Ἀλλά πρός ὅ νῦν ἡμῖν ὁ λόγος, ὅ μή τούτοις εἴρηται τοῖς παρρησιασαμένοις τήν ἀλήθειαν, ὅ μή
ἀνήγγειλε τό Πνεῦμα τό πᾶσαν ἀπαγγεῖλαν τήν ἀλήθειαν, ὅ μή ἐμαρτύρησεν ἤ ἐγνώρισεν ὁ
πάντα ὅσα ἤκουσε παρά τοῦ Πατρός τοῖς ἀγαπητοῖς γνωρίσας, καί διά τοῦτο ἐλθών, ἵνα
μαρτυρήσῃ τῇ ἀληθείᾳ, πῶς ὑμεῖς τοῦτο τολμᾶτε λέγειν οὕτως ἔκφυλον εἰσάγοντες προσθήκην
ἐν τῷ τῆς πίστεως ὅρῳ, ὅν οἱ πρόκριτοι πατέρες κοινῇ συνειλεγμένοι πνευματοκινήτως,
σύμβολον ἀψευδοῦς δόξης τῆς εἰς Πατέρα καί Υἱόν καί ἅγιον Πνεῦμα καί βάσανον εἰλικρινοῦς
θεογνωσίας καί ὁμολογίαν ἀσφαλῆ πᾶσι τοῖς ὀρθοτομεῖν προῃρημένοις τόν λόγον τῆς ἀληθείας
συνεγράψαντό τε καί παραδεδώκασιν;
___________________________________________________________________________

But to the point to of our present treatise, this

-which is not uttered by those who plainly proclaim the truth,
-which the Spirit did not announce, though He announced all truth,
-which He Who made known all things
-which He heard from the Father to those whom He loves did not bear witness to or
acknowledge, although He came for this very reason that He may bear witness to the truth,

-how is it you then have the audacity to say this?

And in so doing, you innovatively introduce an alien addition in the Definition of the Faith,
which the esteemed Fathers, in General Assembly, composed, having been moved by the
Spirit,33 delivered as a Symbol free from false belief in the Father and the Son and the Holy
Spirit, to be a sincere touch stone of genuine knowledge of God and safe confession for all
those who had been chosen34 to rightly teach the word of truth.35
____________________________________________________________________________

Ἥν γάρ ὑπολογίζεσθε πρόφασιν, ὡς ἔστιν ὧν λεγόντων οὐκ ἴσον εἶναι τῷ Πατρί τόν Υἱόν, ὅτι μή
καί αὐτός ἔχει τό ἐκπορεύειν, ὑμεῖς ἴσον δεικνύναι σπεύδοντες τήν προσθήκην εἰσηνέγκατε
ταύτην, οὐδαμόθεν ἔχει τό εὔλογον. Εἰ γάρ τινες φαῖεν χρῆν εἶναι καί τό γεννᾶν ἔχειν τοῦτον, ὡς
μή τούτου προσόντος τό ἴσον ἀφαιρουμένου, ἀνάγκη προστιθέναι καί τοῦτο πειθομένους τοῖς
ἀσυνέτοις˙ καί ἁπλῶς μή μείζω λέγειν τῷ αἰτίῳ τοῦ Υἱοῦ τόν Πατέρα, ἵνα μή τό πρός αὐτόν ἴσον
τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἀθετήσωμεν.

30
When had ears to hear, God disclosed the dark saying to him and others and he partook of the wisdom …τῷ
Σολομῶντι.. .τῷ μετειληχότι τῆς σοφίας… and thus was the wisest man. The truth is given privately to those who
have ears to hear, lest we throw our pearls before swine.
31
Cf. Mk 4:10-11, “And when he was alone, οτε δε εγενετο καταμονας they that were about him with the twelve
asked of him the parable.11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God:
but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables”
32
Cf. 1:13 Μᾶλλον δέ ἀναλαβόντες καί ἑτέραν ἀρχήν τῷ λόγῳ δόντες τά τῆς μοναρχικωτάτης ἀρχῆς εἰς δύναμιν
διατρανώσωμεν, Let us rather clearly disclose as much as possible the truths of the most monarchial Origin, rather
than having to taking up a different origin…” St. Gregory is desirous to make this as clear as humanly possible.
33
Πνευματοκινήτως
34
Teachers are appointed to rightly teach the word of truth. Heb 5:4, “No man takes this honor unto himself, but he
that is called of God.”
35
Eparchial translation of 2 Tim. 2:15, bishops have been chosen to, “rightly teach the word of Your truth.”
____________________________________________________________________________

For, what you are taking under consideration is a false justification, since it orginates from those
who say if the Son also is not capable of procession, the Son is not equal to the Father. You
have introduced this very addition, endeavoring to prove the equality. It cannot be reasonably
justified from any vantage.

So, naturally, should some people say the Son would also need to beget, for when He is not
attributed this He has been deprived this equality, what does need to be added is that they have
listened to those who do not understand.36 And in general, they do not say the Father is greater
than the Son in respect to cause, lest we disregard the equality of the Son with respect to Him.37
_________________________________________________________________________

Ὅπερ ἄρα δοκεῖτε καί ὑποβάλλειν δολίως πρός ἀντίθεσιν τῶν εὐαγγελικῶν δογμάτων καί
διδαγμάτων˙ ὁ γάρ καί τόν Υἱόν αἴτιον θεότητος λέγων αὐτόν ἀθετεῖ τόν Υἱόν ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ
σαφῶς εἰπόντα «ὁ πατήρ μου μείζων μού ἐστιν», οὐχ ὡς ἀνθρώπου μόνον, ἀλλά καί ὡς Θεοῦ, τῷ
τῆς θεότητος αἰτίῳ. Διό καί οὐχ ὁ Θεός εἶπεν, ἀλλ o Πατήρ˙ οὐ γάρ ὡς Θεός μείζων τοῦ Υἱοu,
ἄπαγε τῆς ἀσεβείας, ἀλλ ὡς αἴτος θεότητος, καθάπερ καί οἱ θεοφόροι πατέρες ἡμῖν ἡρμήνευσαν.
Τούτοις οὖν ὡς ἔοικε τοῖς θεοφόροις καί Χριστῷ τῷ Θεῷ τῶν θεοφόρων ἀντιλέγετε, τῷ Πατρί
τόν Υἱόν οὐκ ἴσον κατά τό αἴτιον λέγουσιν.

_____________________________________________________________________________

So, then, this here which you seem to deceitfully propose, is in opposition to the evangelical
dogmas and statutes. For, one who says the Son is the cause of divinity despises the Son, Who
clearly said in the Gospel, “My Father is greater than Me.” (Jn.14.28). He said He was greater
with respect to cause of divinity, not as human, but as God. And He did not say “God,” but said
the “Father.” For, He was not greater than the Son because He was God – away with that
irreverence! – but {the Father is greater} as Cause of divinity, precisely like all the God-bearing
Fathers interpreted to us. So, it would seem you dispute with these God-bearing Fathers and the
God of the God bearers, who say the Son is not equal to the Father, relative to the cause.

______________________________________________________________________________

Ἀλλ ἡμεῖς καί τό ἴσον ἴσμεν τοῦ Υἱοῦ πρός τόν Πατέρα κατά τήν φύσιν καί τό μεῖζον τοῦ
Πατρός ὁμολογοῦμεν κατά τό αἴτιον, ὅπερ ἄμφω, τό τε γεννᾶν καί ἐκπορεύειν, συμπεριβάλλει.
Καί αὐτοῖς δέ τοῖς συγγραψαμένοις τήν ἀρχήν ὑπέρ τῆς πρός τόν Πατέρα τοῦ Υἱοῦ συμφυΐας,
ταὐτό δ᾿ εἰπεῖν ὁμοτιμίας, οὔσης τῆς ἀγωνίας, χωρίς τῆς παρ᾿ ὑμῶν προσθήκης ἀποχρῶν
ἐνομίσθη τό τῆς πίστεως σύμβολον.
______________________________________________________________________________

36
Cf 1:1 “The wicked one... introduces innovative expressions concerning God, through the Latins which
hearkened to him.”
37
Latin theology posits the Son must be able to generate divinity in order to maintain the equality.
But while we acknowledge the equality of the Son with the Father, according to nature, we also
confess the greatness of the Father, according to cause, as cause encompasses in definition both
begetting and causing procession. And it is noted, for those who in the beginning composed a
defense of the con-naturality of the Son with the Father, which is the same as saying equality of
honor, this being the point of contention, the Symbol of Faith without the addition had been
considered sufficient.
______________________________________________________________________________

Οὐκοῦν εὐλόγως οὐδέ εὐσεβῶς ταύτην εἰσάγειν τήν προσθήκην ἐν τῷ τῆς πίστεως ὅρῳ οἱ
πρόκριτοι πατέρες κοινῇ συνειλεγμένοι, πνευματικινήτως συνεγράψαντό τε καί παραδεδώκασιν.
Ὧ καί προσθῆναι ἤ ἀφελεῖν ὅλως οὐκ ἐφεῖται μετά τήν τῷ χρόνῳ δευτερεύουσαν ἐκείνης τῶν
ἁγίων σύνοδον, δι ἧς καί ὁ τοῦτο τολμήσων ἀραῖς ὑποβάλλεται καί τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἐκβάλλεται,
καί ταῦτα προσθήκην οὐκ εἰρημένην ὡς εἴρηται τῷ λόγῳ, οὐκ ἀποκεκαλυμμένην τῷ Πνεύματι,
οὐχ εὑρημένην ἐν τοῖς τῶν ἁγίων ἀποστόλων ἀναγράπτοις λογίοις.
______________________________________________________________________________

Surely, then, and reasonably so, neither {is it possible} to reverently introduce this very addition
in the definition of the Faith. The esteemed Fathers having convened in General Assembly, as
they had been moved by the Spirit, composed and had it handed down. Herein, it is not permitted
to add or subtract at all after what is considered the second Synod of the saints chronologically.
Wherefore, one who will also audaciously suggest this addition is liable to denunciations and is
excommunicated from the Church. And these things {are spoken} as the addition had not been
uttered by treatise, been revealed by the Spirit, or been found in the written pronouncements of
the Holy Apostles.38

______________________________________________________________________________

Οἷς συμφώνως καί οἱ ἐκθέμενοι τόν τῆς πίστεως τοῦτον θεῖον ὅρον ἐξέθεντο καί οἱ μετ᾿ αὐτούς
γεγονότες συνέθεντο, εἰ καί μή συνεξέθεντο. Οὐ γάρ ἔχετε λέγειν, ὡς οὐχί οὕτως οἱ μέν

38
Schaff, Phillip, ed. Seven Ecumenical Councils. Vol. 14. Peabody, MA: CBD, 2001, 437.

The text which supports this is generally held to be Canon 7 of the 4th Ecumenical Synod, as follows:
Canon VII. When these things had been read, the holy Synod decreed that it is unlawful for any man to bring
forward, or to write, or to compose a different (ἑτέραν) Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers
assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicæa. But those who shall dare to compose a different faith, or to introduce or
offer it to persons desiring to turn to the acknowledgment of the truth, whether from Heathenism or from Judaism, or
from any heresy whatsoever, shall be deposed, if they be bishops or clergymen; bishops from the episcopate and
clergymen from the clergy; and if they be laymen, they shall be anathematized. And in like manner, if any, whether
bishops, clergymen, or laymen, should be discovered to hold or teach the doctrines contained in the Exposition
introduced by the Presbyter Charisius concerning the Incarnation of the Only-Begotten Son of God, or the
abominable and profane doctrines of Nestorius, which are subjoined, they shall be subjected to the sentence of this
holy and ecumenical Synod. So that, if it be a bishop, he shall be removed from his bishopric and degraded; if it be a
clergyman, he shall likewise be stricken from the clergy; and if it be a layman, he shall be anathematized, as has
been afore said.
ἐξέθεντο, οἱ δέ τοῖς τήν ἀρχήν ἐκθεμένοις συνέθεντο, ὑπό τε τῶν ἀναγραψάντων τά καθέκαστα
τῶν ἁγίων ἁπασῶν συνόδων ἐξελεγχόμενοι, καί αὐτῆς τῆς ἐξ ἐκείνων μέχρι καί νῦν, μᾶλλον δέ
καί ἐσαεί συμφωνίας τῶν τεσσάρων πατριαρχικῶν θρόνων, καί αὐτῶν τῶν πολλῶν καί διαφόρων
καί γενῶν καί γλωσσῶν ἀδίαφορον φερουσῶν τήν ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἔκθεσιν καί ἀμεταποίητον.
______________________________________________________________________________
_________

The expositors, who actually articulated this divine Definition of the Faith, articulated it
harmoniously with them and they who had come after them, agreed with them,
even if they were not at the time exegeting it with them.

This means, you are not able to say, that they did not, actually articulate it this way, or they did
not agree with those who articulated it in the beginning. And so, you also are refuted by the
credal document which had been publicly exhibited, the particular proceedings, from all the
Holy Synods, and by the very harmony from these Synods until even now, or better said, by the
enduring harmony of the four patriarchal thrones, and by the same many synods which brought
forth, (from the start, irrespective of different races and tongues), the unalterable document.

____________________________________

Καί τοίνυν αἱ μέν ἐκφαντορικαί κοιναί φωναί τῶν θεοφόρων θεολόγων, εὐαγγελιστῶν,
ἀποστόλων, καί τῶν πρό αὐτῶν ἐξ αἰῶνος προφητῶν οὕτως ὁμολογουμένως ἔχουσι περί τοῦ
Πνεύματος καί οὕτως ὁμολόγως τῷ Θεανθρώπῳ λόγῳ˙ πρός δέ καί αἱ κατά διαφόρους αἰτίας καί
καιρούς ὑπέρ εὐσεβείας συγκροτηθεῖσαι πᾶσαι σύνοδοι, ταὐτό δέ σχεδόν εἰπεῖν πᾶσα γλῶσσα
θεοφόρος˙ ἐν οὐδεμιᾷ γάρ τῶν συνόδων τούτων καί ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ τεθεολόγηται τό Πνεῦμα τό
ἅγιον. Ἔδειξα δ ἄν ἀρτίως τοῦτ᾿ αὐτό καί τούς θεηγόρους πάντας αὖθις ἕκαστον ἐν μέρει
στέργοντας ἀπαραλλάκτως διά τῶν ἰδίως ἑκάστῳ τούτων ἐξενηνεγμένων λόγων ἐφεξῆς.
______________________________________________________________________________

And, accordingly, on one hand, the expressions promulgated for the general public are
expressive of the God bearing Theologians, evangelists and the Prophets, who were before them,
even from the age of creation,and this is how they maintain a confessed agreement concerning
the Spirit and thus confessed agreement with the Theanthropic Word.

But, on the other hand, all the synods had been convened, for correspondingly different causes
and were compelled at different occasions for the sake of piety, still, in not one of these Synods
had it been theologized that the Holy Spirit is from the Son. And on this point, I could have
perfectly displayed this very thing, that the divine instructors of God all warmly embraced this,
each, in turn, and done so in particular detail, through those treatises, for each Father
individually, which had been published, in the following.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ ἐπί τοσοῦτον ἀνέξεται τό φίλερι τοῦ λατίνου μακρούς ἡμῶν ἀποτεινόντων λόγους, ἀλλ
ἀπαντήσει λέγον˙ πῶς οὖν καί ὑμεῖς καί πόθεν εὑρόντες τήν προσθήκην ταύτην, παρά μόνου
τοῦ Πατρός ἐννοεῖτε τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον ἐκπορεύεσθαι, διό καί ἡμᾶς ἑτεροδόξους οἴεσθε, τοῦ
Χριστοῦ τοῦτο μή εἰπόντος, ἀλλ᾿ οὐδέ τῶν ἐκείνου μαθητῶν τινος;
______________________________________________________________________________

But the Latin’s love to debate will not control itself for long, when we prolong broad treatises.

LAT OBJ: But, it retorts saying:

“So, how, and from where, can you find this addition?
You conceive that the Holy Spirit proceeds “from only the Father.39
So how do consequently think we are heterodox when Christ did not say this, neither did any of
His disciples?”
______________________________________________________________________________

Πρός ὅ νῦν ἡμεῖς εὐθύς ἀπαντήσομεν, οὕτω λέγοντες. Τό τῶν εὐσεβούντων πλήρωμα χεῖλος
γεγονότες ἕν ἐπ ἀγαθῷ, πύργον εὐσεβείας ὠκοδόμησαν, δυσσεβείας νοητοῦ κατακλυσμοῦ
παντάπασιν ἀνώτερον. Ἐπεδήμησε γάρ καί αὐτοῖς οἰκοδομεῖν ἐπιχειροῦσιν ἡ τελεσιουργός τῶν
ἀγαθῶν τριάς οὐ συγχέουσα, ἀλλά συνδέουσα καί τάς δόξας καί τάς γλώσσας εἰς εὐσεβεστάτην
καί ὀρθόδοξον ὁμοφροσύνην. Αὐτοῦ τοίνυν ἡμεῖς ἐπ ἀσφαλοῦς ὀχυρώματος ἱστάμενοι τούς
ἀπεναντίας τῶν ὀρθῶν δογμάτων φερομένους πρῶτον μέν ἐντεῦθεν εὐστοχώτατα καί
γενναιότατα βαλοῦμεν, ἅμα δέ καί λυσιτελῶς αὐτοῖς, εἰ βούλοιντο. Μετά τοῦτο δέ τάς
πολλαχόθεν, μᾶλλον δέ τῶν πανταχόθεν ἀναφαινομένων ἀποδείξεων τῆς ἀληθείας, ἔστιν ἅς
προκομίσομεν αὐτοῖς πρός πόθον ταύτης καί αὐτούς ἐπαίροντες, ἵν᾿ εἴπω κατά τό γεγραμμένον˙
«εἰ ἄραγε ψηλαφήσειαν αὐτήν καί εὕροιεν, καί γε οὐ μακράν ὑπάρχουσαν αὐτῶν». Νῦν δέ
μᾶλλον τούτους οὐχ ἡμεῖς, ἀλλ᾿ αὐτό τό οἷον λογικόν τῆς εὐσεβείας περιτείχισμα καί βαλεῖ καί
πατάξει καί τροπώσεται, εἰ δέ βούλει, καί ἰάσεται.
______________________________________________________________________________

ORTH RES:We will now straightway respond to this objection speaking thus: the full entirety of
the pious, when they had become of one speech, for the protection of the good, built a revered
tower, which was altogether altogether higher than all the noetic cataclysmic flood of
irreverence. And, thus, the Trinity, not to put to confusion, but to bring to completion the good
work, met those who were trying to build, and so joined together the beliefs and languages into
the most revered and orthodox unanimity of phronema.40 We, accordingly, stand in vigilant
defense of this same Citadel, against the enemies of right dogmas. From within the citadel,
(enteuthen) we will launch the first volleys, those which, while they are the most accurate and
inflict the most damage, yet at the same time, {they are}for their advantage, if, on their part, they
were willing.

And after this, the proofs from many sources, or moreover, from everywhere there may be
39
Ott, 62 “Since the 9th century, the Greek Orthodox Church has taught that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the
Father alone. A Synod at Constantinople in the year 879, under the Patriarch Photius, rejected the "filioque" of the
Latins as heretical. In contrast to this, the Second General Council of Lyons (1274) declared… (The Holy Ghost
eternally proceeds from the Father and Son as from one principle and only one spiration.)”

40
The Saint compares the construction of the tower of Babylon, Genesis 11, as the antithesis of the Creed.
apparently accepted logical demonstrations of the truth, these are what we will bring forth like an
engine to assault proskomizw A -ιῶ Th.4.115:— carry or convey to a place, πρὸς Σύβοτα Id.1.50,
cf. X.Cyr.7.3.4, Oec. 11.16; λίθους π., for building, D.55.20; π. τὴν μηχανήν bring up the engine to
assault the wall,

against to them to create in them a longing and lift them up. I ought to express it like it has been
written, “If so be they may touch and find the truth, though it is not far from us" (Acts 17:27).
But now it is better for them, not that we do so, but that this same citadel, like a rational defense
of the piety, will strike, throw down, turn to flight, and, if you will, shall heal them (Is.9:22). For,
this definition of divine things is such that it not only encloses those who abide in it and
establishes them in safety, but also defends, impenetrably withstanding those who have risen in
rebellion. But how exactly it
does this, listen:

Then, it had been shown that when it is said the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father the “only” is implied. For,
when we hear in the same symbol that the Son is begotten from the Father, without any argument, we accept that the
“only” is implied.41

______________________________________________________________________________

«Πιστεύω εἰς ἕνα Θεόν, πατέρα, παντοκράτορα», «καί εἰς ἕνα Κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, τόν Υἱόν
τοῦ Θεοῦ, τόν μονογενῆ, τόν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός γεννηθέντα πρό πάντων τῶν αἰώνων». Ἆρ᾿ οὖν οὐ
συννοεῖται οὐδέ συνυπακούεται τό μόνου, οὐδ ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρός γεγέννηται, εἰ καί μή
προστέθειται τό μόνου; Καί πάνυ μέν οὖν συνυπακούεται, καί οὐχ ἦττον προσκείμενον, εἰ ὅλως
εὐσεβεῖν ἐθέλεις, εἴποις ἄν. Ἐντεῦθεν τοίνυν καί περί τοῦ Πνεύματος διδάσκου. Καί ἡνίκ ἄν
ἀκούοις ἐπί τοῦ αὐτοῦ συμβόλου, «τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον τό ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός ἐκπορευόμενον»,
εὐθύς ἐξ ἀνάγκης συνυπακουόμενον νόμιζε τό «μόνου» καί μή προσθήκην ἄλλως νόμιζε ἡμῶν,
ὑπέρ ἀληθείας διά τήν σήν ἀθέτησιν ἐν ταῖς πρός ὑμᾶς διαλέξεσι προστιθέντων ἀκροώμενος. Εἰ
δέ μή, οὐδ ἐπί τῆς ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός τοῦ Υἱοῦ γεννήσεως ἐάσεις συνυπακούεσθαι τό «μόνου»˙ καί
οὕτω σου πολυπλασιάσεις τό δυσσέβημα.
______________________________________________________________________________

“I believe in One God, the Father, Almighty,”

“and in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only Begotten, Who was begotten of the
Father before all ages.”

Is not the word “only” taken together in the meaning and implicitly understood? Does it mean
unless the word “only” is added, He has not been begotten from “only” the Father? This is
implicitly understood very well. And even if that was not, out of sheer necessity if you wanted to
41
These heading are the epilogue found in the entirety at the end of the treatise. They are here for the benefit of the
reader, to allow Saint Gregory to explain himself.
be reverential in any sense, you ought to say it.

From that vantage, then, teach, on your part, concerning the Spirit. And, so, should you hear
from the same Symbol,“the Holy Spirit which proceeds from the Father,” straightway, out of
sheer necessity, consider the word “only” is understood. And so, when you hear in our
argumentations toward you what (i.e. the only) has been added because of your disdain, lest also
you consider our addition differently, it is for the sake of truth.

Although if you will not concede the word “only” is understood with the generation of the Son
from the Father, you will thus multiply irreverences.

We continue discoursing on the following: that if it has been possible to say without censure that the Spirit is from
the Son, there was still no need to add to the Symbol what was from the Latins. For, even if this had reasonable
justification, you come to the following conclusion, it would not needed to be added. For, nothing could possibly be
reverently added to what had been declared by those which were before us, who all had synod-ally assembled and
investigated the matters in unison (συνεξετάζω), and even if it was by those who presided in Rome of old .
______________________________________________________________________________

Καί τοῦτο δέ μοι λάβε κατά νοῦν, ὡς ἐπί τοῦ τῆς πίστεως συμβόλου τόν Υἱόν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός
ἀκούοντες γεννηθέντα πρό πάντων τῶν αἰώνων καί τῷ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός συννοούμενόν τε καί
συνυπακουόμενον ἔχοντες τό «μόνου», καθάπερ ἄν καί αὐτός ἡμῖν συμφήσαις, ὅμως οὐδείς
οὐδέποτε τό «μόνου» προσέθηκεν ἐκεῖ ὥστε καί τήν σήν δόξαν ὅτι καί ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα
ἐκπορεύεται, εἰ καί ἀνωμολογημένον ἦν, καί ἡμῖν καί ἁπλῶς πάσῃ τῇ τοῦ Χριστοῦ Ἐκκλησίᾳ
συνδοκοῦν, οὐδ᾿ οὕτως ἐχρῆν ἐν τῷ τῆς πίστεως συμβόλῳ προστεθῆναι παρ ὑμῶν.
______________________________________________________________________________

Now intellectually grasp this for me, that as we hear in the Symbol of Faith, the Son has been
begotten of the Father before all the ages, in the phrase “from the Father” we have the word
“only” taken together in the meaning and implicitly understood, exactly like you yourself would
agree with us. However, no one ever added “only” to the Symbol. As a result, your conjecture
that the Spirit proceeds also from the Son, even if it were agreeable, even if it were pleasing both
to us and the entire church of Christ, it would not thus be needed to be added by you to the
Symbol of Faith.

4
And on this basis, it is declared to be entirely appropriate, for the sake of those who were justified from the start, to
demand the {Latins} to remove this addition and not to withhold our embrace those which had concluded their life
with an end testified from God, on account of the episcopal oversight of the Pope, and then to seek with them to be
tolerant concerning this.
___________________________________________________________________________

Ἦν οὖν ἄρα τῶν δικαιοτάτων μηδέ λόγου ἀξιοῦν ὑμᾶς, εἰ μή τοῦ προστιθέναι τῷ ἱερῷ συμβόλῳ
παύσησθε˙ τῆς δέ παρ ἡμῶν προσθήκης παρ ὑμῶν ἐκβεβλημένης πρότερον, ἔπειτα ζητεῖν, εἰ καί
ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἤ οὐχί καί ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον, καί τό ἀναφανέν τοῖς θεοφόροις
συνδοκοῦν κυροῦν˙ ἀλλ᾿ οὐδ᾿ οὕτω προστιθέναι τῷ συμβόλῳ τῆς πίστεως, καθάπερ ἐπί τῶν δύο
τοῦ ἑνός Χριστοῦ φύσεων καί θελημάτων καί ἐνεργειῶν, τῆς τε καθ ὑπόστασιν ἑνώσεως καί τοῦ
ἐπωνύμου τῆς παρθενομήτορος, οἱ πρό ἡμῶν πεπράχασι καλῶς τε καί φιλευσεβῶς, ὡς μετά τῆς
εὐσεβείας καί τῆς κοινῆς εἰρήνης ἀντιποιούμενοι, καίτοι πολλάκις ἔπειτα κοινῇ συνειλεγμένοι,
συνεκκλησιαζόντων ἤ συνευδοκούντων καί τῶν κατά καιρούς τῆς παλαιᾶς Ρώμης ἀρχιερατικῶς
προϊσταμένων. Οὔκουν ἔχει τις ὑπολογίζεσθαι τήν τοῦ περιόντος πάπα περιωπήν˙ οὐ γάρ διά
τοῦτον ἤ τούτους τούς μετ ἐκείνους ἀποστερκτέον τούς τοσούτους καί τηλικούτους καί μακαρίῳ
τέλει τήν ἡγιασμένην καί πολυειδῶς παρά Θεοῦ μεμαρτυρημένην κατακλείσαντας ζωήν.
_____________________________________________________________________________

Consequently, it would not be possible from the most precise of arguments to make you worthy
of even a word, if you do not cease from adding to the sacred Symbol. 42
But at the first, as this addition from you had been cast out by us, then inquire if the Holy Spirit
is from the Son, or, if the Holy Spirit is not from the Son, and ratify what had been proclaimed
was well pleasing to the God bearers {the hierarchs}. But {as this was}, do not add to the
Symbol of Faith.

Precisely like when, with respect to the two natures and wills and energies of the one Christ, and
the hypostatic union and the eponymous title of the Virgin Mother,
those before us had piously acted in the interest of the common peace, although the many times
when they did convene together in synod, and voted their approval, they also presided
hierarchally during the times of ancient Rome.43 So, someone, then, cannot take into account the
perspective of papal primacy.

And so of course {we can}not, on account of him,

ἤ or else those, who were after these {aforementioned hierarchs}, {we} ought to loath those
who came after, who were people of such stature, which concluded their blessed and sanctified
life, which had been borne witness in many ways by God.
ἀποστερκτέον ἀποστέργω, get rid of love, love no more, Theoc.14.50; μητέρα ἀ.
Philostr.VS2.25.2; loath, reject, τι A.Ag.499; ἀοιδάν Terpand. 5; πόθους τινός Theoc.Ep.4.14;
πίστιν Doroth. in Cat.Cod.Astr.2.175. Perfect passive participle. Generally Must.

42
The argument is since the Council forbade adding, unless you cease there is no possiblitiy to
make you worthy of {adding }even a word. It has been ratified already and so to further enquire
if the Filioque is true or not is not possible.
43
Saint Gregory’s argument is since the Bishops of old presided, and not necessarily the Pope of Rome, it is not
possible to base our acceptance of the addition to the Creed solely by Papal authority. For instance, the 2nd
Ecumenical Synod , 318, had as the Presidents Timothy of Alexandria, Meletius of Antioch, Gregory Nanzianzus,
and Nectarius of Constantinople. He further insinuates this, when he pointedly calls Nazianzus the president of the
Synod.
 5
After this, we say to those listeners who were receptive to the arguments, that when hearing Both proceed from the
Father, we must imply “from only” to Both; even if it is not expressed within the text.
______________________________________________________________________________

Ἀλλά γάρ οὐ μόνον τό τῆς ὀρθοδόξου πίστεως σύμβολον, - δεῖ γάρ τῶν εὐγνωμόνως
ἀκουσομένων ἕνεκα λέγειν˙- μή μόνον οὖν τό τῆς πίστεως σύμβολον, ἀλλά καί πᾶσα σχεδόν
γλῶσσα θεολόγος ἐκ Πατρός γεννηθέντα τόν Υἱόν κηρύττουσα καί παρά τοῦ αὐτοῦ Πατρός τό
Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον ἐκπορευόμενον, οὐ προστίθησι τό «μόνου»˙ ὡς κἄν μή προσκέηται, ἐξ ἀνάγκης
συνυπακουόμενον, καί τοῦτ᾿ εἴσῃ ἀνελίττων καί διεξιών αὐτάς τάς θεολόγους βίβλους. Σήν δ᾿
ὅμως χάριν, καί ἡμεῖς ὀλίγ ἄττα προενέγκωμεν καί διά βραχέων γεγραμμένα. Ὁ γοῦν μέγας
Ἀθανάσιος, «τί ἐστι», φησί, «Θεός; Ἡ πάντων ἀρχή κατά τόν Ἀπόστολον, λέγοντα, “εἷς Θεός ὁ
Πατήρ, ἐξ οὗ τά πάντα”, καί γάρ ὁ λόγος ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεννητῶς καί τό Πνεῦμα ἐξ αὐτοῦ
ἐκπορευτῶς». Ὁρᾷς ὁμοίως ἐπ ἀμφοῖν τό ἐξ αὐτοῦ καί οὐδαμοῦ ρήματι προσκείμενον τό
«μόνου»; Καί σύ τοίνυν ὁμοίως ἐπ ἀμφοῖν ἤ τήν σήν προσθήκην λήψῃ ἤ τό μόνου ἐξ ἀνάγκης
συνυπακουόμενον νοήσεις.
_____________________________________________________________________________

For, not only the Symbol of Faith, (for, this needs to be said for the the sake of those who with
good will hear it ), so, not only the Symbol of Faith, but also in nearly every expression, if it was
even remotely theological, when proclaiming that the Son had been begotten from the Father and
the Holy Spirit processed from the same Father, there is not found the “only.” Consequently,
even if it is not added, it is necessarily implied. And if you opened and leafed through the same
theological books, you will also know this. For your sake, however, let us succinctly put forth
what had been written.
And so, Athanasius the Great says, "Who is God? The Origin of all, according to the Apostle,
who says ‘there is One, the Father, from Whom are all things' (1 Cor. 8:6). For, the Word is from
Him by way of begetting, and the Spirit from Him by way of procession.”44 Do you see that in
Both uses of the phrase “from Him,” that similarly nowhere is the “only” added? And so, you
ought to take the addition as similar in Both instances, and doing this you will instead understand
that, the “only” is necessarily understood.
NEXT
PARAGRAPH_________________________________________________________________
____________

Τί δέ ὁ μετ᾿ αὐτόν εὐθύς τῷ χρόνῳ καί οὐ μετ᾿ αὐτόν τῇ μεγαλειότητι παρά Θεῷ, τό φερωνύμως
βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα, ἆρ᾿ οὐ συμφωνήσει τε καί συμφρονήσει; Ἀλλ ἄκουε καί μάνθανε˙ «κυρίως
ὁ Υἱός ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐπειδή ὁ Υἱός ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός ἐξῆλθε καί τό Πνεῦμα ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός
ἐκπορεύεται˙ ἀλλ ὁ μέν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός γεννητῶς, τό δέ ἀρρήτως ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ». Ἰδού
πολυπλασίως ὁμοίως ἐπ ἀμφοῖν τέθεικε τό ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός˙ ἔχεις οὖν ὅλως λέγειν ἔτι, ὡς οὐκ ἐκ
μόνου τοῦ Πατρός τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον, ὅτι μή πρόσκειται τό «μόνου»;
_____________________________________________________________________________

LATIN OBJ: “But why is He immediately after Him in time and not inferior to Him with respect

44
Αθανασίου (ψευδ.) Μαρτυρίαι εκ τῆς Γραφῆς 48 (St. Athanasius, Witnesses from the Scripture)
to the majesty with God, meaning, that which bears the name royal priesthood. Will this not
harmonize and not agree?”45

ORTH RES: But listen, and learn, “The Son is literally from God, since the Son came forth from
the Father and the Spirit is processed from the Father. But the one is from the Father, by way of
begetting, but the other is ineffably from God.” Behold in multiple instances he asserted for the
Both They were similarly from the Father. Can you, then, still say, that the Holy Spirit is not
from only the Father, because the “only” is not in the text?

Βούλει δή καί τοῦ μεγάλου θεολόγου ἀκοῦσαι Γρηγορίου, ἐν βραχεῖ τό πᾶν συνάγοντος καί τήν
σήν ὥσπερ τινί σμιλίῳ ἀποσμιλεύοντος προσθήκην καί ἀμφοτέροις τό ἐκ μόνου ἐφαρμόζοντος;
καί τό θαυμασιώτερον, οὐχ ὅτι προστίθησιν, ἀλλ ὅτι μή προστήθησιν. «Ἡμῖν εἷς Θεός», φησίν,
«ὅτι μία θεότης, καί πρός ἕν τά ἐξ αὐτοῦ τήν ἀναφοράν ἔχει, κἄν τρία πιστεύηται». Ἀκήκοας; Ἐξ
αὐτοῦ εἶπεν ἄμφω. Ἆρ᾿ οὖν οὐ νοήσομεν καί προσθήσομεν, ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός καί ἐξ ἑτέρου
τινός προέρχεται ἀμφότερα, ὅτι μή πρόσκειται τό «μόνου», καί τοῦ μόνου Θεοῦ τῆς ἀνωτάτω
Τριάδος διά τοῦτο ἐκπεσούμεθα; Μή σύ γε τοῦτο πάθῃς, μᾶλλον δέ μή διαμείνῃς ἀνίατος
παθών˙ γνωστόν γάρ ἤδη γέγονέ σοι τό ὀρθόν.
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
On this point, if you wish, hear from the Theologian, Gregory the Great. He briefly sews up the
entire matter. As with like a scalpel, he removes your addition and applies the scalpel to the
“from only” for the Both. And the most marvelous thing is not that he adds, but that he does not
add. He says, "for us there is One God, because One is the Divinity. And to the One, those that
are from Him have their return, although He is believed in as three.”

Did you hear? He said Both came “from Him.” Does this mean we will not take this into
consideration? Or {can we} add that Both come forth from the Father and something else,
because the word “only” is not added and thus fall away from the only God, from the Most High
Trinity? At any rate, may you not experience this, or, rather, may you not continue to suffer as if
incurable, for what is right has already been made known to you.

6
But when saying the Spirit is from the Father by way of procession, we attribute causing procession to the paternal
hypostasis. As the essence is in all Persons and entirely one for the three, therefore it is not possible for the Son to
have that which is of the paternal hypostasis. Therefore, the Spirit is not also from the Son.
______________________________________________________________________________
45
This requires explanation. As Gregory says in the Second treatise, Latins assumed, like the Eunomians did prior
to them, that the phrase Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the doxological ekfonesis, implied a ranking of worth. I.e. the
Father has greater honor than the Son and the Son than the Spirit. Likewise, some reasoned that in the economy of
God, since the Son was manifested after the Son, He must be lesser than the Father. This is incoherent, for the
divinity is omotimos, equal honor.

Compare 1:32: But whenever we make justifications about descending order, we name Him thus. For, we do not, on one hand,
revere God the Father first, but, on the other hand, the Son, as second, and the Holy Spirit as a third, so as to name the second
after the first and the third after Him, reasoning on this basis there is a necessary subordination in what transcends order, as if
this order were like all other things.

Modern Catholic apologetics do not emphasize this now, but still affirm that the liturgical phrase “Father, Son and
Holy Spirit” reveals the nature of the internal relations of the Trinity.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Καί μήν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός φαμεν εἶναι τόν Υἱόν, ὡς ἐκ τῆς θείας οὐσίας γεννηθέντα, δηλονότι κατά
τήν πατρικήν ὑπόστασιν˙ ἡ γάρ οὐσία μία τῶν τριῶν ἐστιν˙ ὥστε τό γεννᾶν τῇ πατρικῇ
ὑποστάσει ἐφαρμόζεται καί οὐκ ἔστιν εἶναι τόν Υἱόν ἐκ τοῦ Πνεύματος. Ἐπεί οὖν καί τό Πνεῦμα
τό ἅγιον ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός, ἐκ τῆς θείας οὐσίας καί αὐτό κατά τήν πατρικήν ὑπόστασιν
ἐκπορευόμενόν ἐστιν˙ ἡ γάρ οὐσία πάντῃ τε καί πάντως μία τῶν τριῶν. Οὐκοῦν τό ἐκπορεύειν τῇ
πατρικῇ ὑποστάσει ἐφαρμόζεται καί οὐκ ἔστιν εἶναι τό Πνεῦμα καί ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ, οὐ γάρ ἐστι τά
τῆς πατρικῆς ὑποστάσεως ἔχειν τόν Υἱόν.
______________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________

LAT OBJ: Spiration is bestowed on the Son.46

ORTH RES: Paternity includes begetting and spiration.

We certainly say that the Son is from the Father, as having been begotten from the divine
essence, meaning, by the paternal hypostasis. For, the essence is one for the three. As a result,
begetting is attributed to the paternal hypostasis and the Son cannot be from the Spirit.
Therefore, since the Holy Spirit is also from the Father, from the divine essence, He exists as
having been processed by the paternal hypostasis. For the essence in all is entirely one for the
three. Therefore, to cause procession is attributed to the paternal hypostasis and so the Spirit
cannot be from the Son, insomuch as it is not possible for the Son to have what pertains to the
paternal hypostasis.

______________________________________________________________________________
Κατά γάρ τόν ἱερόν Δαμασκηνόν, «τήν διαφοράν τῶν θείων ὑποστάσεων ἐν μόναις τρισίν
ἰδιότησιν ἐπιγινώσκομεν, τῇ ἀναιτίῳ καί πατρικῇ, τῇ αἰτιατῇ καί υἱϊκῇ, καί τῇ αἰτιατῇ καί
ἐκπορευτῇ». Ὁρᾷς ὡς ἡ τοῦ Υἱοῦ ὑπόστασις οὐχί καί αἰτία, ἀλλ᾿ αἰτιατή μόνον ἐστί; Μόνην γάρ,
φησί, ταύτην ἔχει τήν ἰδιότητα, καθάπερ καί ἡ τοῦ Πνεύματος. Συνορᾷς δέ καί τοῦτο, ὡς ἡ
πατρική, καθό πατρική ἰδιότης, ἄμφω τό γεννᾶν καί ἐκπορεύειν συμπεριβάλλει; Τοιγαροῦν, εἰ
καί ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον, εἴη ἄν καί ὁ Υἱός αἴτιός τε ἅμα καί Πατήρ ὡς αἴτιος.

For, according to the sacred Damascene, "we acknowledge the difference of the divine
hypostases, in only three personal properties: in the causeless and paternal, in the caused and
filial, and in the caused and processed.”47 Do you see that the hypostasis of the Son is not an
Origin also, but only that which is caused? For, he says, He only (the Father) has this property,
just as there is a property of the Holy Spirit. And do you comprehend this, that the paternal,
inasmuch as it it is a paternal property, encompasses in its scope Both begetting and causing
procession? So, because of this, if the Holy Spirit is from the Son, the Son would be a cause,
simultaneously with the Father, as if a cause.
46
Ott, Ludwig, Patrick Lynch, and James Bastible. Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. Oil City, PA: Baronius Press,
2018, 70. In contradiction the Damascene’s definition, Catholic Dogma does not consider spiration as paternal.
“…The active spiration is a common property of two Persons, the Father and the Son, and is, therefore, not a
proprietas in the strict sense.”

47
Έκδοσις άκριβὴς τῆς όρθοδόξου πίστεως 3, 5 (49). (St. John Damascus, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith)
 7
After this, those who were minded as the Latins had been refuted, as no longer able to think the two persons of the
divinity are from one, because of having placed the cause in two persons differently. Nor are they able to say God is
one, with the anaphoral return back to the One such as it is. For, neither is one man a grandfather, a father and son,
according to the wise Nyssan President of the synod, inasmuch as the cause refers back to two people. And in
reference to this, we commended, forasmuch as they say the effect is in two persons, that it is just as if the two are
effects.
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Οὐκοῦν ἔνι τι τῶν τῆς πατρικῆς ὑποστάσεως ἔχειν τόν Υἱόν˙ εἰ δ ἔχει, ἤ δύο ἔσονται τά αἴτια, ὡς
ἐν δυσίν ὑποστάσεσι τοῦ ἐκπορεύειν ὄντος (οὕτω γάρ δύο καί τά αἰτιατά, ὡς τοῦ αἰτιατοῦ ἐν
δυσίν ὑποστάσεσι θεωρουμένου), ἤ συνδραμοῦνται εἰς μίαν τήν ὑπόστασιν ὁ Πατήρ καί ὁ Υἱός.
Ἐκ μόνου ἄρα τοῦ Πατρός ἐκπορεύεται τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον, καί προσεχῶς καί ἀμέσως ἐκ
Πατρός, ὡς καί ὁ Υἱός ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός γεννᾶται.
______________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________

ORTH RES: Two causes or a coalesced hypostasis result from the Filioque.

Therefore, the Son cannot possibly possess what is from the paternal hypostasis. But if He can,
either there will be two causes, since causing procession is in two hypostases, (for, in this way,
there are two effects, as the effect is theorized as being in two hypostases), or the Father and the
Son coalesce into one hypostasis. Therefore, the Holy Spirit proceeds from only the Father, Both
directly and immediately from the Father, like the Son is also begotten from the Father.48

______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Διό καί Γρηγόριος ὁ Νύσσης θεῖος πρόεδρος, «τά τοῦ ἀνθρώπου», φησί, «πρόσωπα πάντα, οὐκ
ἀπό τοῦ αὐτοῦ προσώπου κατά τό προσεχές ἔχει τό εἶναι, ὡς πολλά καί διάφορα εἶναι πρός τοῖς
αἰτιατοῖς καί τά αἴτια. Ἐπί δέ τῆς ἁγίας Τριάδος οὐχ οὕτως˙ ἕν γάρ πρόσωπον καί τό αὐτό τοῦ
Πατρός, ἐξ οὗπερ ὁ Υἱός γεννᾶται καί τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον ἐκπορεύεται. Διό καί κυρίως τό ἕνα
αἴτιον μετά τῶν αὐτοῦ αἰτιατῶν ἕνα Θεόν φαμεν τεθαρρηκότως».
______________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________

Following along with this, Gregory of Nyssa, the divine president of the Synod,49 also says,
“every man among mankind does not not have being from the same person immediately, as the
48
If we assume the Orthodox major premise and the Latin minor premise:
There are literally only 3 ways the cause can exist:
a. Hypo-statically. The Latin interpretation as above is atopos, incoherent, because the cause has to be in one
Person by definition, thus the Latin view creates a new father. This is how the Father and Son coalesce into one
hypostasis.
b. Naturally. But then we have three origins, one for each Person and technically a tetrad will ensue.
c. Energetically. But then there is no divinity. This is not even ventured by the Latins, at least openly. They
indirectly made the Spirit an act of the will, by calling Him the bond of love.
49
This was a statement aimed against Papal primacy, for the President of the Synod was not the Pope.
causes are many and there is a difference in respect to the effects. But in the case of the Holy
Trinity, it is not like this, for there is one Person, (the same is the Father’s), from Whom the Son
is begotten and the Holy Spirit proceeds. Wherefore, we boldly say there is one Cause, that is,
one God with Those Who are caused by Him.”50

______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Ἆρα νοῦν ἔλαβες πληγείς τῷ τῆς ἀληθείας λόγῳ καί μεταμανθάνεις τήν ἀλήθειαν καί πείθῃ Θεῷ
καί τοῖς κατά Θεόν πατράσιν, ὡς ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός ἀκούων τό Πνεῦμα συνυπακούειν τό ἐκ μόνου
καί μηκέτι ἐκ διαφόρων προσώπων τήν ὕπαρξιν αὐτῷ παρέχειν, ἀλλ ἐκ τοῦ ἑνός, τοῦ Πατρός,
κατά τό προσεχές θεολογεῖν, οὐ τόν Υἱόν μόνον, ἀλλά καί τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον ἕν πρόσωπον τό
αἴτιον τῶν αὐτοῦ αἰτιατῶν εἶναι δοξάζων τόν Θεόν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐχ ἕν αἴτιον ὡς τῆς αὐτῆς οὐσίας τά
δύο πρόσωπα λέγων τοῦ ἐνός, οὕτω γάρ πολλά γίνεται τά αἴτια, ὡς ἐφ ἡμῶν συμβαίνει, καί
οὐκέτι Θεός εἷς, ὥσπερ οὐδ ἡμεῖς εἷς οἱ πάντες ἄνθρωπος, εἰ καί τῆς αὐτῆς ἐσμεν οὐσίας;
______________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________

Therefore, as you have suffered a blow by the word of truth to your intellect and your learning is
undone to learn the truth,51 will you also not, then, obey God and the Fathers as pertains to God;
so when you hear that the Spirit is from the Father, you would agree about the “from only” and
would no longer afford His existence as if it was from different persons, but would grant that His
existence is from the one, from the Father; so that theologizing His existence is accordingly
immediate, not for the Son only, but also the Holy Spirit, you would think the one Person is the
Cause of those caused by Him, namely, of God? When you speak of the one, there is not one
cause in your case, as the Persons are of the same essence. For, this is how many causes happen,
as happens to us. And God is no longer one, just like we are not all one person, even if we are of
one essence.
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Ἆρ᾿ οὖν πείθῃ κατά ταῦτα Θεῷ καί τοῖς κατά Θεόν θεολογοῦσιν ἤ ζητεῖς ἔτι καί διά βροντῆς
ἀκηκοέναι κατά τούς μετά τάς πολλάς Ἰησοῦ θεοσημίας σημεῖον ζητοῦντας ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανῶν
ἰδεῖν; Ἄκουε δή καί τῆς βροντῆς, Ἰωάννου καί θεολογικωτάτου τῶν τοῦ Κυρίου μαθητῶν, ὅς
φησιν˙ «εἴδομεν τήν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρά τοῦ πατρός». Τί οὖν, οὐκ ἐροῦμεν
τόν μονογενῆ παρά μόνου τοῦ Πατρός, ἐπεί μή πρόσκειται τοῦ «μόνου»; Ἀλλά καί ὁ Κύριος
αὐτός πρός Ἰουδαίους λέγων, «εἰ ὁ Θεός πατήρ ὑμῶν ἦν, ἠγαπᾶτε ἄν ἐμέ, ἐγώ γάρ ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ
ἐξῆλθον καί ἥκων», καί πάλιν, «οὐχ ὅτι τις ἑώρακε τόν πατέρα, εἰ μή ὁ ὤν παρά τοῦ Θεοῦ, οὗτος
ἑώρακε τόν πατέρα», πῶς οὐ προσέθηκε τό «μόνου» λέγων ‘ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός μόνου ἐξῆλθον’, ἤ
ὁ ὤν παρά μόνου τοῦ Πατρός”, οὐχ ὡς ἐξ ἀνάγκης συννοούμενον;
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

Therefore, will you obey God concerning these things and obey those who theologize in
agreement with God? Or do you still seek to hear through the thunderous peal like those who,

50
Logos 31, 14. (St. Gregory the Theologian, Oration 31)
51
μεταμανθάνεις τήν ἀλήθειαν. Elsewhere, he says they kata-mathainousi. There is a sense of re teaching the first
principles, hence by taking the audience through the Creed , they are unlearning presuppositions.
after many auspicious acts of God, were seeking to see from from Jesus a sign from heaven?
Listen here to the son of thunder, to John who was the most theological of the disciples of the
Lord, who says, "we have seen His glory, the glory as of the Only-Begotten of the Father." (John
1:14) What, is it, then? Will we not say that the Only Begotten is from “only” the Father, as there
is no addition of the word “only”? But the Lord Himself says to the Jews, "If God were your
Father, you would love Me, for I am come forth from God and have come” (John 8:42). And
again, "not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from God, this One He has seen
the Father" (Jn.6:46). How come He did not add the word “only,” saying, "I have come ‘only’
from the Father” or “who is ‘only’ from the Father?” Is it not necessarily already understood?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Τοσαυτάκις οὖν εἰρημένου περί τοῦ Υἱοῦ ὅτι παρά τοῦ Πατρός καί μηδαμοῦ τοῦ «μόνου»
προσκειμένου, αὐτός τε πανταχοῦ συνυπακούεις τοῦτο καί τοῖς πανταχοῦ συνυπακούουσιν οὐ
δυσχεραίνεις. Μᾶλλον μέν οὖν καί τοῖς μή συννοοῦσι τοῦτο ἐς τά μάλιστα δυσχερανεῖς καί ὡς
δυσεβέσιν ἤ καί ἀσεβέσιν ἐγκαλέσεις. Περί δέ τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός ἀκούων,
εἶτα τί παθών, οὐ συννοεῖς τό ἐξ ἀνάγκης συνυπακουόμενον, ἀλλά καί εἰς τήν ἐναντίαν
ἐξετράπης δόξαν, ὅ ἄν ἐνεκάλεσας δικαίως τοῖς περί τοῦ Υἱοῦ κακῶς νοοῦσι, τοῦτ᾿ αὐτός
ἀδίκως πεπονθώς ἐπί τοῦ Πνεύματος, ἐκ μηδεμιᾶς ὅλως τό δυσσεβές προεξενούσης ἀφορμῆς;
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

ORTH RES: “Only” is implied.

Therefore, when it has been said so many times concerning the Son that He is from the Father
and nowhere at all has the word “only” been present in the text, you personally in every case
consent to it, and are not displeased with those who do in every case {consent to i}t ACCEPT IT.
Yet when it concerns the Holy Spirit, you are actually utterly displeased with those who do not
agree with you in this, and utterly accuse them as being irreverent or impious. So, conversely,
when you hear that He proceeds from the Father, what is the matter with you, that you do not
understand that the word “only” is also necessarily implied, that you instead turn aside to the
opposite belief, which, with good reason, you would have laid INTO{a charge} against those
who wrongly thought this concerning the Son? You personally have unjustly instigated this
belief with reference to the Spirit. It is entirely irreverent ὅλως τό δυσσεβές,
on the basis (ἐκ μηδεμιᾶς …προεξενούσης ἀφορμῆς) there is not a shred of evidential support.

Colloquial, but conveys the thought.

ON THE BASIS OF CONTEXT, I HAVE USED THE 3RD DEFINTION, for proxeneo.WHICH
FITS with HIS SENTENCE.
Proxeneo III. = μαρτυρέω, give evidence, Hsch.; π. ἐπὶ κακῷ IG92(1).138.9 (Calydon, iv B.
C.); αἰ ψευδέα προξενέοι ib.9(1).333.8 (Locr., v B. C.).

The definition for aformi

Aformi 5. Rhet., food for argument, material, subject, ὑποθέσεις καὶ ἀφορμαὶ λόγων
Luc.Rh.Pr.18, cf. Men.Rh.p.334 S., Aps.p.264H.

8
But in reference to the {begetting and the Procession}, since, according to the divinely wise theologians, as the Son
is from the Father, so also is the Spirit, except for the manner of begetting and procession. The Son is not from the
Spirit, if the Son is begotten immediately. He is from only the Father. The Spirit is also directly from the Father, but
not also from the Son.
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

Οὐ γάρ μόνον ὅτι λέγεται παρά τοῦ Πατρός τό Πνεῦμα, ὡς ὁ Θεός Λόγος πρό αἰώνων παρά τοῦ
Πατρός, ἐξ ἀνάγκης παρά μόνου τοῦ Πατρός ἐκπορευόμενον νοεῖται, ἀλλ᾿ ἐπεί καί κατά τόν
σοφόν μάρτυρα τῆς ἀληθείας Ἰουστῖνον, «ὡς ὁ Υἱός ἐστιν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός, οὕτω καί τό Πνεῦμα
τό ἅγιον ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός, πλήν τοῦ τρόπου τῆς ὑπάρξεως˙ ὁ μέν γάρ γεννητῶς ἐκ φωτός
ἐξέλαμψε, τό δέ, φῶς μέν ἐκ φωτός καί αὐτό, οὐ μήν γεννητῶς, ἀλλ ἐκπορευτῶς προῆλθεν». Εἰ
ὁ Υἱός ἀμέσως ἐκ Πατρός, καί τό Πνεῦμα ἐκ Πατρός ἀμέσως˙ καί εἰ ὁ Υἱός οὐχί καί ἐκ τοῦ
Πνεύματος, καί τό Πνεῦμα οὐχί καί ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ˙ καί εἰ ὁ Υἱός ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρός, καί τό
Πνεῦμα ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρός. Ἐπεί γάρ τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον ἐκπορευτόν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός, ὡς ὁ
Υἱός γεννητός ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός, τό δέ ὡς ὁ Υἱός γεννητός ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός ἐκπορευτόν, ἐκ μόνου
τοῦ Πατρός ἐκπορευτόν, τό Πνεῦμα ἄρα τό ἅγιον ἐκ Θεοῦ Πατρός μόνου ἐκπορευτῶς
προερχόμενος.
______________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________

So, of course, the Spirit is not said to be “only” from the Father, in that God the Word before the
ages was from the Father, as out of sheer necessity He is thought to be processed from “only” the
Father. And further, according to the witness of this truth, Justinian, “as the Son is from the
Father, so the Holy Spirit is from the Father, apart from His manner of existence. For, the one,
indeed, shone forth from Light by the manner of begetting, but the other, on the other hand, was
from the Light and identical, except the manner was not by begetting, but He came forth by
procession.”52 The Spirit also was immediately from the Father. And if the Son was not from the
Spirit, the Spirit also is not from the Son. And if the Son is from the Father only, the Spirit is also
only from the Father. And of course, since the Holy Spirit processed from the Father like the
Son was begotten from the Father, He is, then, processed like the Son is begotten from the
Father, namely, processed from the Father only. Therefore, the Holy Spirit, comes forth by
procession from only the Father.

______________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
Ταῦτα ἄρα καί ὁμοίως λέγεταί τε καί ἔστιν, ὁμοῦ τε καί χωρίς ἑκάτερον, διά μέν τοῦ ὁμοίως
εἶναι τήν ἀπόδειξιν ἡμῖν τῆς ἀληθείας αἰτιώδη παρεχόμενα, διά δέ τοῦ ὁμοίως λέγεσθαι
τεκμηριώδη ̇ οὐ γάρ ὅτι ἅμα ἐξ ἀϊδίου ὁ Υἱός τε καί τό Πνεῦμα, διά τοῦτο οὐκ ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ τά
52
Ἰουστίνου (ψευδ.), Ἔκθεσις τῆς όρθῆς πίστεως 9. (St. Justin, Exposition of right Faith)
τοῦ Πνεύματος γνωρίσομεν, ἀλλ ̓ ὅτι γνωριμώτερα ἡμῖν ἐστι τά τοῦ Υἱοῦ, ἐκ τῶν γνωριμωτέρων
τούτων καί τό Πνεῦμα ἀποδείξομεν. Ἄλλως τε οὐδέ ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἁπλῶς, ἀλλ ̓ ἐκ τοῦ εἶναι ὡς ὁ
Υἱός τό Πνεῦμα ἐκ Πατρός, ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρός ὑπάρχον ἀποδέδεικται.

______________________________________________________________________________
So, the {begetting of the Son and the procession of the Spirit} are the same and are similarly
described, Both at the same time and Each separately. On one hand, in existing similarly, Each
has provided us the true demonstration of cause. But, on the other hand, in being explained
similarly, there has been provided a direct proof. For, {the addition} is not true because the Son
and the Spirit are simultaneously “from eternity.” On that account, we will not acknowledge that
the things of the Spirit are from the Son. But, we will prove the Spirit on the basis of these more
acknowledged truths, seeing that the matters pertaining to the Son are more acknowledged by us.
It has been demonstrated, He exists from only the Father. Neither is the Spirit simply from the
Son in a different way, but from the Father’s being; as the Son is from the Father, so is the
Spirit.

9
We have previously proven that, as the Spirit is also called the mind of Christ, so also is the individual mind for
Each one of us. On the one hand, according to His activity He is from Him, but on the other hand, according to His
hypostasis He is naturally, not from Him, but from only the Father.

______________________________________________________________________________

Καί μήν κατά τόν θεῖον Παῦλον Πνεῦμα καί νοῦς λέγεται Χριστοῦ τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον, καθάπερ
ὁ Μέγας Βασίλειος ἐν τοῖς πρός Εὐνομιανοῦς περί τοῦ Πνεύματός φησιν γράφων˙ «τό ἐκ Θεοῦ
τό Πνεῦμα εἶναι τρανῶς ἀνεκήρυξεν ὁ ἀπόστολος λέγων, ὅτι “τό Πνεῦμα ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ
ἐλάβομεν”˙ καί τό δι᾿ Υἱοῦ πεφηνέναι σαφές πεποίηκεν, Υἱοῦ Πνεῦμα ὀνομάσας αὐτό καθάπερ
Θεοῦ, καί νοῦν Χριστοῦ προσειπών, καθάπερ Θεοῦ Πνεῦμα, ὡς τό τοῦ ἀνθρώπου».
______________________________________________________________________________

LATIN OBJ: “the phrase Spirit of the Son shows the Spirit receives the essence from the Son.”53
ORTH RES: The Spirit of a man is integrally part of him, not emenating from the man.

And certainly, according to the divine Paul, the Holy Spirit is called the Spirit and mind of
53
Catechism of the Catholic Church: Revised in Accordance with the Official Latin Text Promulgated by Pope John
Paul II. Ottawa: Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2006.
CCC 245 upholds this notion that the phrase “Spirit of the Son” denotes origination, “The apostolic faith
concerning the Spirit was confessed by the second ecumenical council at Constantinople (381): "We believe in the
Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father.” By this confession, the Church recognizes the
Father as "the source and origin of the whole divinity".  But the eternal origin of the Spirit is not unconnected with
72

the Son's origin: "The Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, is God, one and equal with the Father and the Son,
of the same substance and also of the same nature. . .Yet he is not called the Spirit of the Father alone,. . . but the
Spirit of both the Father and the Son."
Christ, just like Basil the Great says in his letters to Eunomios Concerning the Holy Spirit, when
he writes, “the apostle distinctly proclaimed the Spirit is from God. He says, “we have received
the Spirit from God” (1 Co.2.12). And he made it apparent He had been manifested through the
Son having named Him the Son’s Spirit, like He accordingly is God’s. He also addressed Him as
the mind of Christ, just like the Spirit of God is like the spirit of man.”
______________________________________________________________________________

Καθάπερ οὖν τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἕκαστος τόν οἰκεῖον ἔχει νοῦν καί αὐτοῦ μέν ἐστιν ἑκάστου τούτων
ὁ οἰκεῖος νοῦς, ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ ἐξ αὐτοῦ ἀλλ εξοὗπερ καί αὐτός, οὐκ ἐξ αὐτοῦ τοίνυν ἑκάστου ὁ
οἰκεῖος νοῦς, εἰ μή ἄρα κατ ἐνέργειαν, οὕτω καί τό θεῖον Πνεῦμα φυσικῶς ἐνυπάρχον ὡς Θεῷ τῷ
Χριστῷ, καί Πνεῦμα καί νοῦς ἐστιν αὐτοῦ. Καί κατά μέν τήν ἐνέργειαν αὐτο ἐστι καί ἐξ αὐτοῦ
ὡς ἐμφυσώμενον καί πεμπόμενον καί φανερούμενον, κατά δέ τήν ὕπαρξιν καί τήν ὑπόστασιν
αὐτοῦ μέν ἔστιν, οὐκ ἐξ αὐτοῦ δέ, ἀλλ ἐκ τοῦ γεννήσαντος αὐτόν.
______________________________________________________________________________

Therefore, {it is} just like each person amongst men has his own mind.
Even though the mind is his own for each of them, still it is not from him, as it is instead from
the very same essence he {is}. For each person, it accordingly means that his own mind is not
from him, except, by his activity {energy}.

The divine Spirit similarly is also naturally existent, as in God, in Christ and is both His Spirit
and Mind. And, while, according to activity, energy, He is from Him, as when He had been
insufflated and sent and manifested, yet, according to His existence and His hypostasis, He
indeed, is not from Him, but from Him Who begat the Son.

.
10
In reference to this, it has been shown the Spirit has His existence not by grace, but by nature only from the Father.

______________________________________________________________________________

Ἵν᾿ οὖν σοι πανταχόθεν τάς κατά τῆς ἀληθείας ἐκκρούσωμεν λαβάς, ὁ Υἱός καί Λόγος τοῦ
Θεοῦ, φύσει ὤν ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, φύσει γεννᾶται, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ χάριτι γίνεται ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός. Ἐπεί δέ ὁ
γεννῶν πηγαία θεότης καί πηγή θεότητος, πηγάζεται ὁ γεννώμενος. Ἐπεί δέ μόνος πηγή
θεότητος καί πηγαία θεότης ὁ Πατήρ, ὡς Διονύσιος ὁ Ἀρεοπαγίτης καί Ἀθανάσιος ὁ μέγας
συνῳδά φθέγγονται, ἐκ μόνου ἄρα ὁ φύσει Υἱός ὑπάρχει τοῦ Πατρός˙ ὁ δέ θέσει οὐκ ἐκ μόνου
ἀλλά δι᾿ Υἱοῦ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός, καίτοι οὐχ Υἱός μόνον, ἀλλά καί Πνεῦμα χάριτί ἐστιν˙ «ὁ γάρ
κολλώμενος τῷ Κυρίῳ ἕν Πνεῦμα ἐστι», φησίν ὁ ἀπόστολος. Τό δέ Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον οὐ χάριτι,
ἀλλά φύσει ἐστίν ἐκ τοῦ Θεου ὡς καί ὁ Υἱός καί Λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ. Τό δέ φύσει ὄν
Πνεῦμα ἐκ Θεοῦ φύσει ἐκπορεύεται ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ˙ τό δέ φύσει ἐκπορευόμενον πηγάζεται ἐκ τοῦ
Θεοῦ˙ τό δέ πηγαζόμενον ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐκ τῆς πηγαίας θεότητος πηγάζεται, ἥτις ἐστί μόνος ὁ
Πατήρ. Τό Πνεῦμα ἄρα τό ἅγιον φύσει Θεός, ἐκ Θεοῦ Πατρός μόνου ἐκπορευτῶς πηγαζόμενον.
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
LATIN OBJ: “Through the Son” denotes the Spirit receives existence from Him.54
ORTH RES: “Through the Son” is only for created things. Thus the Spirit is reduced to a
creature.

So,from every perspective, let us refute your attacks against the truth. The Son and Word of
God, being by nature from God, is begotten, by nature, and so the begetting does not occur by
grace from the Father. And as the Father is the only Fount of divinity and divinity which issues
forth, like Both Dionysius the Areopagite and Athanasius the Great harmoniously proclaim,
therefore, the Son exists by nature from only the Father. In contrast, someone is by position (or
adoption, thesis) not from Him only, but is also “through the Son” from the Father. That person
is by grace a spirit. And, in this way, the Apostle says, “he that is joined to the Lord is one
spirit.”(1 Co.6:17) Yet the Holy Spirit is not “by grace.” He is instead, “by nature”, from God,
like the Son and Word of God is from God. Note here, the Spirit, being by nature from God, is
by nature processed from God. Further, what processed, by nature, springs from God. And what
is sprung forth from God, is sprung forth from the only fount of divinity, which is only the
Father. Consequently, the Holy Spirit, by nature being God, sprang forth, by means of
procession, from only the Father.

11
And on the basis, Each of them possesses all things of the Father’s, according to the theologians apart from
unbegotteness, and begottenness, and procession.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
Εἰ δέ τις τοῦτ᾿ οὕτως ἔχειν οὐχ ὁμολογεῖ, καί περί τοῦ Υἱοῦ κακῶς δοξάζων ἐξελεγχθήσεται. Τῇ
γάρ τῆς ἀληθείας ἀποδείξει ταύτῃ συμμαρτυρῶν καί ὁ θεολογικώτατος Γρηγόριος, «τί», φησίν,
«οὐ προσαγορεύεται τό Πνεῦμα ὧν ὁ Υἱός, πλήν γεννήσεως»; Καί «πάντα ὅσα τοῦ Υἱοῦ, καί τοῦ
Πνεύματος, πλήν τῆς υἱότητος». Δαμασκηνός δε ὁ θεῖος, «διά τόν Πατέρα», φησί, «τουτέστι διά
τό εἶναι τόν Πατέρα, ἔχει ὁ Υἱός καί τό Πνεῦμα πάντα ἅ ἔχει, τουτέστι διά τό τόν Πατέρα ἔχειν
αὐτά, πλήν τῆς ἀγεννησίας καί τῆς γεννήσεως καί τῆς ἐκπορεύσεως».
______________________________________________________________________________

LATIN OBJ: The Son has all that the Father has except begottenness, therefore the Son causes
spiration.55
54
The Latin argument is the Spirit is, “through the Son”, therefore the Spirit is, “from the Son.” But, “through the
Son”, is a phrase for all created things. By saying the Spirit is through the Son in that sense, the Spirit is reduced to
a creature. Saint Gregory is not asserting the Latins believe this, but logically this is what is entailed. Whatever is
through mediation of the Son is created, for it does not have a direct connection to the Father, and hence is “con”
tingent, and is not God.
55
Ott, 63. “That the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and from the Son as from One Single Principle and
through One Single Spiration, is clear from John 16:15: " All that the Father has, is mine." If the Son, by virtue of
His eternal generation from the Father, possesses everything that the Father posesses except the Fatherhood and
the ungeneratedness which are not communicable, then He must also possess the power of spiration (vis
spirativa) and with it the being a Principle in relation to the Holy Ghost . “
ORTH RES: Paternity encompasses begetting and spiration.

Now, if someone is not able to confess this to be so, and thinks wrongly concerning the Son, he
will also be refuted. For, when he bears witness to this exact same proof of the truth, Gregory,
who is incomparable theologically, also says, "what is not given as a name to the Spirit, which is
also the Son’s, apart from begottenness?” 56 And "all things, as many as are of the Son, are also
the Spirit’s, except Sonship.”57 Further (DE) the divine Damascene says, "because of the Father,
that is, on account of the Father’s being, the Son and Spirit have all things which He has. That
is, because of the Father, they have the identical things, apart from unbegottenness or
begottenness or procession."58

______________________________________________________________________________

Ἑκάτερον ἄρα τούτων οὐκ ἔχει τό γεννᾶν καί ἐκπορεύειν˙ καί ὡς τό Πνεῦμα κατ᾿ οὐδένα τρόπον
ἔχει τήν γέννησιν, οὕτω ὁ Υἱός κατ᾿ οὐδένα τρόπον ἔχει τήν ἐκπόρευσιν. Τοιγαροῦν ὁ αὐτός
Υἱοῦ καθάπερ ὅρος καί τοῦ Πνεύματος, πλήν τοῦ γεννητῶς τε καί ἐκπορευτῶς, καθ᾿ ἅ καί μόνα
διενηνόχασιν ἀλλήλων.

Consequently, Each of them is not able to beget and to process. And as the Spirit does not
possess begottenness in any way at all, so the Son can in no way at all have procession.
Consequently, the same definition accordingly holds for the Son and the Spirit, apart from either
being begotten or processed, which accordingly, is alone what has differentiated them from Each
other.
______________________________________________________________________________

Καί τοῦτ ἄρα τηρητέον ἐφ ἅπασι τόν μή βλασφημεῖν ἀλλά θεολογεῖν ἐθέλοντα. Ὡς γάρ εἷς καί
μόνος γεννητός ὑπάρχει, ὁ Υἱός, διόπερ καί μονογενής, οὕτως ἕν καί μόνον ἐκπορευτόν ὑπάρχει,
Πνεῦμα ἅγιον˙ καί ὡς ὁ Υἱός γεννητός ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρός, οὕτω καί τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον
ἐκπορευτόν ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρός˙ καί ὡς ὁ Υἱός ἀμέσως ἐκ Πατρός γεννητός, οὕτω καί τό
Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον ἐκπορευτόν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός ἀμέσως.

This here is implied also and this has to be observed by all those who do not wish to blaspheme
but to theologize. For, of course, as the Son exists as one and “only” begotten, (and that is the
reason why He rightly is “only” begotten), so also the Holy Spirit exists in this way as the one
and only processed. And as the Son has been begotten from only the Father, so also the Holy
Spirit has been processed from only the Father. And as the Son is begotten directly from the
Father, so also the Holy Spirit has been processed from the Father directly.

56
Λόγος 31, 29 (St. Gregory the Theologian, Oration 31)
57
Λόγος 34, 10 (St. Gregory the Theologian, Oration 34)
58
Έκδοσις άκριβὴς τῆς όρθοδόξου πίστεως 1, 8. (St. John Damascus, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith)
The Latin Tradition believes the bestowing of all things includes spiration. But spiration is caused, which the Son as
caused does not possess, or else He would be the Father.
 12
And while the Latins decided to add it to the symbol of faith on the basis of their reasoning, we, in contrast,
reasoned that neither can we, as this correspondingly is external to the Church, add to the divine symbol, even if it
was with a reverential rationale.

______________________________________________________________________________

Ὁρᾷς ὅτι τό μέν παρ ἡμῶν προσκείμενον ἔκφανσίς ἐστι τῆς ἀληθείας συνεκφωνουμένη διά τήν
σήν πρός τήν ἀλήθειαν ἀθέτησιν; Καί γάρ παρόν τε καί ἀπόν τό αὐτό δίδωσι νοεῖν. Τό δέ σόν οὐ
προσθήκη λέγοιτ ἄν κυρίως, ἀλλά σαφής ἐναντιότης καί ἀνατροπή τοῦ εὐσεβοῦς φρqονήματος˙
περιτρέπει γάρ τήν τῶν ἀκουόντων διάνοιαν εἰς τοὐναντίον καί ἀντί μιᾶς δύο δίδωσι δοξάζειν
ἐπί τῆς μιᾶς θεότητος ἀρχάς καί τῇ πολυθέῳ πλάνῃ πάροδον παρέχει. Τίς γάρ τό ἕν ἐξ
ἀμφοτέρων ἀκούων ἤ λέγων ἤ πιστεύων ἑτέρως ἄν φρονῆσαι;
______________________________________________________________________________

Do you see, in fact, that our addition is a truthful expression, which has been pronounced on
account of your disregard for the truth? For, whether it is present or absent, it yields the same
understanding. Yet yours would literally not be designated an addition, but would be labeled as a
clear opposition and overturning of a reverential phronema. For, it diverts the train of thought of
the hearers to the opposite and gives two origins to think of in place of the one Origin of divinity
and thus provides an inroad to the error of polytheism. For, who, when he hears or says or
believes that the One is from Both, would not be disposed in their mind to think differently?

______________________________________________________________________________

Ἀλλ᾿ οὐδέν ἄτοπον, φησίν, εἴ τις δύο μέν ἀρχάς λέγει, οὐκ ἀντιθέτους μέντοι, ἀλλά τήν ἑτέραν
ἐκ τῆς ἑτέρας, ὡς καί Γρηγόριος ὁ θεολόγος περί τοῦ Υἱοῦ φησιν, «ἡ ἐκ τῆς ἀρχῆς ἀρχή»˙οὕτω
γάρ πάλιν μία ἔσται ἡ ἀρχή καί τό τῆς μοναρχίας δόγμα περισώζεται. Πρός ὅ λέγομεν ἡμεῖς, ὅτι
καί Θεόν ἐκ Θεοῦ φαμεν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ δύο ποτέ θεούς.
______________________________________________________________________________

LATIN OBJ: But, he says, “there is nothing logically absurd if someone does, in fact, say that
there are two origins. However, there are no arguments to the contrary. But the one origin is from
the other, even as Gregory the Theologian says concerning the Son ‘the Origin from the Origin.”
Again, in this way, there will be one Origin and the dogma of monarchy will be preserved.”59

ORTH RES: We respond to this, that we affirm God is from God, but there are never two gods.

59
Λόγος 40, 43 (St. Gregory the Theologian, Oration 40)
 The center illustration of the Filioque gives us to think there are 2 gods

13
We accused the Latins of dogmatizing these things, from which two origins of the one Holy Spirit are referred back.
But they said that there is nothing to prevent these from being one, inasmuch as the one is from the other. They have
correspondingly been proven to be blaspheming.
______________________________________________________________________________

Ἄλλως τε τό δημιουργικόν ταύτης σημαινούσης τῆς ἀρχῆς οὐ δύο μόνον ἄν εἴποι τις, εἰ καί μή
καλῶς, ἀλλά καί πλείους. Τρισυπόστατος γάρ αὕτη ἡ ἀρχή˙ φύσει δέ οὖσα καί κοινή ἐστι˙
κοινήν δέ οὖσαν πῶς οὐκ ἄν ἔχοι καί τό Πνεῦμα ταύτην τήν ἀρχήν; Καί ὁ τῷ Ἰώβ δέ
προσδιαλεγόμενος ὑπέρ τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ δικαιοσύνης Ἐλιούς, «Πνεῦμα, λέγων, Κυρίου τό ποιῆσάν
με» οὐ ποιητικήν ἀρχήν τό Πνεῦμα λέγει; Καί ὁ θεῖος ᾠδικός Δαβίδ, «λόγῳ μέν Κυρίου τούς
οὐρανούς στερεωθῆναι» ψάλλων, «Πνεύματι δέ τάς τῶν οὐρανῶν δυνάμεις» οὐχ ὥσπερ τῷ Υἱῷ,
οὕτω καί τῷ Πνεύματι, τήν δημιουργικήν ἀρχήν προσμαρτυρεῖ; Εἰ τοίνυν διά τό γεγράφθαι «ἡ ἐκ
τῆς ἀρχῆς ἀρχή» δύο εἰπεῖν ἀρχάς οὐδέν κωλύει κατά σέ, οὐκοῦν καί διά τό γεγράφθαι καί τό
πνεῦμα ποιητήν, δύο ποιητάς εἰπεῖν οὐδέν κωλύει˙ ἤ διά τό «Λόγῳ Θεοῦ καί Πνεύματι τήν
κτίσιν στερεοῦσθαι», ταὐτό δ᾿ εἰπεῖν συνίστασθαι, τρεῖς ἀρχάς εἰπεῖν οὐδέν ἄτοπόν ἐστιν.
______________________________________________________________________________

ORTH RES: The creative origin is distinct from the origin of divinity, and shared.

Put otherwise, when this same origin signifies the creative capacity, someone could say, even if
it is unsoundly,there are not only two, but more. And, of course, the same origin is tri-hypostatic.
Note that being by nature, it is common. And being common, how come the Spirit would not
also have this same origin? Note also, when Job was dialoguing with Elioud about the
righteousness of God, saying, "the Spirit of the Lord made me" (Job 33:4) did he not call the
Spirit the creative origin? Further, the composer of odes, the divine David when chanting, "by
the word of the Lord the heavens were established, and by the Spirit the powers of the heavens"
(Ps. 32:8), was he not attributing the creative origin as belonging not to the Son, but in this way
also attributing it to the Spirit? Therefore, if, on account it has been written, “the origin from the
Origin,” then nothing prevents us from saying there are two origins, according to you. Therefore,
on account it has been written, the Spirit is also a creator, nothing prevents us from saying there
are two creators. Better yet, because of this “by the word of God and by His Spirit the creation is
established,” the same reasoning establishes it is not inconsistent to premise there are three
origins.

______________________________________________________________________________

Ἀλλ᾿ οὐδαμοῦ τῶν θεολόγων εἶπέ τις οὔτε δύο οὔτε τρεῖς. Ὥσπερ γάρ Θεόν ἑκάστην τῶν τριῶν
προσκυνητῶν ἐκείνων ὑποστάσεών φαμε καί Θεόν ἑκατέραν ἐκ Θεοῦ, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ παρά τοῦτο τρεῖς
ἤ δύο ποτέ θεούς, οὕτω καί ἀρχήν ἐξ ἀρχῆς φαμεν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ δύο ποτέ ἀρχάς˙ δευτέραν γάρ ἀρχήν
οὐδέπω καί τήμερον ὑπό τῶν εὐσεβῶν ἀκηκόαμεν, ὥσπερ οὐδέ θεόν δεύτερον. Ἀλλ᾿ εἷς ἡμῖν
Θεός καί μοναρχία τό προσκυνούμενον, οὐκ ἐκ δύο θεῶν, οὐδἐ ἐκ δύο ἀρχῶν συνιόντα εἰς ἕν˙
ἐπεί μηδέ κατά ταυτά μεριστόν ἡμῖν τό σεβόμενον. Καί μήν οὐδέ κατά τό αὐτό μερίζεταί τε καί
συνάγεται˙ διαιρεῖται μέν γάρ ταῖς ὑποστατικαῖς ἰδιότησι, ταῖς δέ κατά τήν φύσιν ἑνοῦται. Εἰ
γοῦν δύο ἀρχάς εἰπεῖν οὐδέν κωλύει, λοιπόν αὗταί εἰσι, καθ ἅς μερίζεται˙ ἑνωθῆναι τοίνυν αὖθις
κατ᾿ αὐτάς ἀδύνατον˙ οὐκ ἄρ᾿ αἱ δύο μία.
______________________________________________________________________________

Yet at no time did any of the theologians say there were either two or three. For, just as we
affirm Each of those three worshipful Hypostases is God and Each is God from God, but do not
ever say there are two or three gods from Him, this is how we affirm an origin from the Origin.
But never at any time do we affirm two origins. For, we heard never from someone revered about
a second origin even to this today. Just as we have not heard of a second god. But our God is
one, and He that is worshipped is a single source,60 not from two gods, nor from two origins
being joined into one, since what is revered by us would not be divisible in those senses. And
certainly, God is not separable and joined together, by the same reasoning. For, He is divided in
respect to hypostatic properties, yet according to nature, the properties are united. So, if nothing
prevents us from saying there are two origins, it remains, then, these are the same, identical, into
which it is divided. So, again, it is not possible with these origins to be united. Therefore, the
two are not one.
______________________________________________________________________________

Μᾶλλον δέ ἀναλαβόντες καί ἑτέραν ἀρχήν τῷ λόγῳ δόντες τά τῆς μοναρχικωτάτης ἀρχῆς εἰς
δύναμιν διατρανώσωμεν, ὡς ἄν φερωνύμως ἔχοντά τε δείξωμεν τόν τῆς θεολογίας ἐπώνυμον καί
ἀπελέγξωμεν τούς τοῦ ἑνός ἁγίου Πνεύματος δύο δογματίζοντας ἀρχάς, ὅτι τε τοῦτο
δογματίζουσι καί ὅτι οὐ καλῶς.
______________________________________________________________________________

Let us clearly disclose as much as possible the truths of this absolutely singular source Origin,61

60
Lit. monarchy. To avoid confusion, I have opted for this rendering which conveys his intent: there is a single
source in the Trinity . the most singular source possible. Hence not two as one.
61
Lit. Most monarchial Origin. He uses this superlative to emphasisize the fact the origin is singular. There is no
divided origin in the Trinity, with the Father as the initial cause and the Son as Second.
rather than having to take this up again, and having to give a different origin for the sake of
argument. Let us offer Gregory, who bears the eponymous name Theologian, and in doing so
refute those who dogmatize that there are two origins for the Holy Spirit, because they dogmatize
this, but not soundly.
14

Afterward, resuming our discussion concerning the Origin, we have showed it is not possible in any way for there to
exist two origins of the Holy Spirit.
______________________________________________________________________________

Ἡ δημιουργική ἀρχή μία ἐστίν, ὁ Πατήρ καί ὁ Υἱός καί τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον. Ὅταν οὖν ἐκ τοῦ
Θεοῦ τά ἐκ τοῦ μή ὄντος προηγμένα λέγωμεν, τήν τε ἀγαθότητα, δι ἥν τό εἶναι ἔσχον, καί τήν
ἐγγεγενημένην χάριν, ὅθεν ἕκαστον τοῦ εὖ εἶναι καταλλήλως μετεσχήκασι, καί τήν
ἐπιγεγενημένην ὕστερον, δι ἥν πρός τό εὖ εἶναι τά διαπεπτωκότα ἐπανῆλθον, ὅταν ταῦτά τε καί
περί τούτων ποιώμεθα τούς λόγους, ἀρχήν καί πηγήν καί αἴτιον τόν Υἱόν ἐν ἁγίῳ Πνεύματί
φαμεν, οὐχ ἑτέραν ἄπαγε, ἀλλά τήν αὐτήν ὡς τοῦ Πατρός δι᾿ αὐτοῦ ἐν ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι καί
προάγοντος καί ἐπανάγοντος καί συνέχοντος καλῶς τά πάντα. Ὁ δέ Πατήρ πρός τῷ πηγή τῶν
πάντων εἶναι διά τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἐν ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι, καί πηγή καί ἀρχή ἐστι θεότητος μόνος θεογόνος
ὤν. Καί τοῦτ ἐσμέν εἰδότε κρεῖττον ἤ κατά ἀπόδειξιν, διά τῶν θεοπνεύστων λογίων τρανῶς
ἐκπεφασμένον.
______________________________________________________________________________

ORTH PRESUPPOSITION: Only created things are through the Son.

The creative origin is one: the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Therefore, whenever we
say the things which have been brought forth into being from non being are “from God” it is the
goodness, on account of which they had being, and the subsequent grace which had been
engendered, from which Each one had appropriately participated in well being and the latter
grace which brought to perfection, by which those which have fallen are recalled to well being.

And further, whenever we discourse, concerning them, they{the Persons} are the same. We
affirm the Son is the origin and fount and cause in the Holy Spirit, not that there is another.
Banish the thought. But the same is the Origin, like the Father, Who through Him, in the Holy
Spirit, Both brings forth and recalls and sustains all things well. And the Father is the fount in
reference to all created things, through the Son, in the Holy Spirit. And He is also the fount and
origin of the divinity, being the only one capable of generating divinity. Further, we know this
better than by logical demonstration, as it has been transparently expressed through the God
inspired oracles.

______________________________________________________________________________
Ὅταν οὖν ἀκούσῃς ὅτι ὁ Υἱός, «ἡ ἐκ τῆς ἀρχῆς ἀρχήν» καί «ὁ καλῶν αὐτόν ἀπό γενεῶν ἀρχήν»
καί «μετά σοῦ ἡ ἀρχή ἐν ἡμέρᾳ τῆς δυνάμεώς σου», τῶν δημιουργημάτων νόει, καθάπερ καί
Ἰωάννης ἀριδήλως ἐν τῇ Ἀποκαλύψει περί αὐτοῦ βοᾷ, «ἡ ἀρχή τῶν κτισμάτων τοῦ Θεοῦ», οὐχ
ὡς καταρχή, ἄπαγε, Θεός γάρ, ἀλλ ὡς δημιουργός αὐτῶν˙ κοινωνός γάρ ἐστι τῆς ἐξ ἧς ταῦτα
πατρικῆς ἀρχῆς, ἥ καί τῆς πάντων δεσποτείας ἐστίν ἐπώνυμον.
______________________________________________________________________________

Therefore, whenever you hear; the Son is the, “Origin from the Origin in the beginning", and,
“Who calls him in the beginning of the generations " (Is. 41:4), and, "with You is the beginning
in the day of Your power" (Ps. 109:3), consider that it refers to Him as the origin of created
things, as like John so clearly shouts out about Him in the Apocalypse as "the beginning of the
creation of God" (Re.3:14). Consider it refers instead to Him as their Creator, not as if He was
from the beginning. Banish the thought! For, He is God. It instead refers to Him as their Creator.
For He is a communicant of the Paternal Origin from Whom these same things issue. It is
eponymous for his dominion over all things.

______________________________________________________________________________

Τοῦ δέ Πνεύματος τόν Υἱόν ἀρχήν ἐπί τῆς σημασίας ταύτης πῶς ἄν φαίη τις, εἰ μή καί τό
Πνεῦμα δοῦλον καί κτιστόν; Ἀλλ ἐπεί Θεός τό Πνεῦμα, οὐκ ἀρχή αὐτοῦ κατά τοῦτο ὁ Υἱός, εἰ
μή ἄρα ὡς θεότητος ἀρχή. Εἰ δέ τῆς τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος θεότητος ὁ Υἱός ἐστιν ἀρχή, κοινωνεῖν
δέ κατά ταύτην τήν ἀρχήν τῷ Πατρί ἀμήχανον, μόνος γάρ τεθεολόγηται πηγαία θεότης ὁ Πατήρ,
ἑτέρας ἄρα διαφόρου τινός θεότητος ὁ Υἱός ἐστιν ἀρχή καί διέσπασε τό Πνεῦμα τῆς πηγαζούσης
ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός θεότητος. Ἤ δύο διαφόρους θεότητας δώσωμεν τούτῳ τῷ ἐνί, οἱ καί τοῖς τρισί
μίαν ἀνομολογοῦντες θεότητα;
______________________________________________________________________________

Now, how could someone with this same indicated meaning say the Son is the Origin of the
Spirit, unless the Spirit is also a servant and created? But consider, since the Spirit is God, the
Son is not His origin, according to this, unless, by some chance, as an origin of divinity. Now, if
the Son is an origin of the divinity of the Holy Spirit, then, in some uncontrivable way He shares
in this same origin with the Father. For, only the Father has been theologized as the issuing
fount. This implies the Son is the Origin of some other different divinity and by implication has
sundered the Spirit from the divinity springing forth from the Father. Or, will we, who confess
the three in one divinity, concede two different divinities to this One?

______________________________________________________________________________

Πῶς δέ καί αἱ δύο κατά Λατίνους τοῦ ἑνός Πνεύματος ἀρχαί μία ἐστίν ἀρχή; Οὐ γάρ ἀξιώσουσιν
ἡμᾶς πίστει δέχεσθαι τούτων τά προβλήματα, ἀλλά μηδέ σοφιστικῶς ἀποκρινέσθωσαν, ἄλλην
ἀντ ἄλλης ποιούμενοι τήν ἀπόκρισιν. Ἡμῶ γάρ ἐρωτώντων πῶς δύο κατ᾿ αὐτούς τοῦ ἑνός
Πνεύματος ἀρχαί, μίαν ἐκεῖνοι διισχυρίζονται τῶν δύο εἶναι τήν ἀρχήν. Ἡμεῖς δέ οὐ περί τῶν
δύο προσώπων ἐρωτῶμεν, ἀλλά περί τοῦ ἑνός, καί περί τούτου μᾶλλον πρός αὐτούς ποιούμεθα
τόν λόγον ὡς ἐπεί τῶν δύο μία ἡ ἀρχή καλῶς, πῶς τοῦ ἑνός δύο ἔσονται ἀρχαί καί πῶς αἱ δύο
μία κατ᾿ αὐτούς; Φασίν οὖν˙ «διότι ἡ μία ἐστίν ἐκ τῆς ἑτέρας». Τί οὖν Σήθ; Ἐκ μιᾶς ἆρα
γεγέννηται ἀρχῆς ὅτι ἡ Εὔα ἦν ἐκ τοῦ Ἀδάμ, καί οὐ δύο εἰσί τούτου τοῦ ἑνός ἀρχαί, ὅτι ἡ μία
ἐστίν ἐκ τῆς ἑτέρας; Τί δέ ἡ Εὔα; Οὐ δευτέρα ἀρχή τῶν ἐξ αὐτῆς, ὅτι καί αὐτή τήν ἀρχήν ἔσχεν
ἐξ Ἀδάμ; Καίτοι ἀμφοῖν τό γόνιμον αὐτοῖς, ἀλλά καί διάφορον καί ἐν διαφόροις ὑποστάσεσι˙
διόπερ οὐδέ μία ἐστίν αὗται αἱ ἀρχαί, καίτοι ἡ μία ἐστίν ἐκ τῆς ἑτέρας. Εἰ γοῦν ἐνταῦθα, οὗ, εἰ
καί μή ἕν, ὅμως ἐστί τό γόνιμον ἀμφοῖν, οὐκ ἔνι τοῦ ἑνός μίαν εἶναι τήν ἀρχήν, πῶς ἐπί τῆς
ἀνωτάτω Τριάδος αἱ δύο τοῦ ἑνός ἁγίου Πνεύματος μία εἰσίν ἀρχαί, ἐν ᾗ μηδαμῶς ἐστι κατά τό
θεογόνον κοινωνία; μόνος γάρ τεθεολόγηται «θεότης θεογόνος» ὁ Πατήρ.
______________________________________________________________________________

ORTH OBJ: But how, according to the Latins, are the two origins of the Holy Spirit one? For,
they cannot make their emanations justifiable for us to accept by faith. But, neither let them
answer as sophists,62 making in response, one instead of the other. For, we are asking how two,
according to them, are origins of the one Spirit. The Latins assert that the origin is one from two
{persons}. But we do not ask concerning the two persons, but concerning the one {God}.

In particular, we make the treatise to them concerning this. If the origin of the two is one, how,
according to them, will there soundly be two origins of the one and how are these two?63

LAT RES: They say, then, “because the one is from the other.”

ORTH RESP:What, then, of Seth? Had he, therefore, been begotten from one origin? Because
Eve was from Adam. Are there not two origins for this one person (Seth), because the one is
from the other? But what of Eve? Is she not a second origin for those from her, because she had
an origin from Adam?64 Yes, as what was generated was in the Both, the difference is in

62
Cf. the preamble “the evil one is the most cunning sophist.”
63
CCC, 246: “The Latin tradition of the Creed confesses that the Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son
(filioque)". The Council of Florence in 1438 explains: "The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his
nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one
principle and through one spiration…” This definition of one principle is never explained.

And then, 248 “At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father's character as first origin of the Spirit. By
confessing the Spirit as he "who proceeds from the Father", it affirms that he comes from the Father through the
Son.77 The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that
the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, "legitimately and with good reason",78 for
the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as "the principle
without principle",79 is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son,
the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds. This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not
become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.”

64
Aquinas, ibid.

Reply to Objection 1. In every action two things are to be considered, the "suppositum" acting, and the power
whereby it acts; as, for instance, fire heats through heat. So if we consider in the Father and the Son the power
whereby they spirate the Holy Ghost, there is no mean, for this is one and the same power. But if we consider
the persons themselves spirating, then, as the Holy Ghost proceeds both from the Father and from the Son, the Holy
Ghost proceeds from the Father immediately, as from Him, and mediately, as from the Son; and thus He is said to
proceed from the Father through the Son. So also did Abel proceed immediately from Adam, inasmuch
as Adam was his father; and mediately, as Eve was his mother, who proceeded from Adam; although, indeed,
different hypostases.

Consequently, neither are these same origins one, even if the one is from the other. So, if here, in
these examples, even there it is not one, but what was generated was in two, it is not possible for
the origin to be from one, how, is it possible in the most high Trinity the two origins of the one
Holy Spirit are one, in Whom there is no communication at all of the generation of divinity? For,
only the Father has been theologized as the divinity begetting divinity.
______________________________________________________________________________

Πάλιν ἡ Εὔα, ἐκ μόνου οὖσα τοῦ Ἀδάμ, ἐκ μιᾶς ἐστιν ἀρχῆς, ὁ δέ Ἀδάμ ἐκ γῆς ἐστιν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ
παρά τοῦτο ἡ Εὔα ἐκ τῆς γῆς καί τοῦ Ἀδάμ˙ ὁ γάρ Ἀδάμ μόνος ἐκ τῆς γῆς. Ἤ τοίνυν καί αὐτοί
ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ μόνου λεγέτωσαν τό Πνεῦμα, καί οὕτως αὐτό ἐκ μιᾶς ἀρχῆς λεγέτωσαν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ ἐκ
τῆς αὐτῆς, ἀφ᾿ ἧς καί ὁ Υἱός, κἀντεῦθεν πάλιν δύο εἰσίν ἐπί τῆς θεότητος ἀρχαί καί οὐκ ἔτ᾿ ἐστί
μείζων ὁ Πατήρ τῷ αἰτίῳ τοῦ Υἱοῦ, ἐπίσης γάρ καί αὐτός αἴτιος θεότητος, ἤ ἐκ μόνου τοῦ
Πατρός αὐτό λέγοντες, μίαν ἐν τῷ Πνεύματι ὡς καί τῷ Υἱῷ εὐσεβῶς διδότωσαν ἀρχήν. Μέχρι
γάρ ἄν ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἤ ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων λέγωσιν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρός, οὐκ ἔστι μίαν εἶναι
τῆς θεότητος τοῦ ἑνός Πνεύματος ἀρχήν.
______________________________________________________________________________

Again, Eve, being only from Adam, is from one origin. Now consider that Adam is from the
earth, but Eve is not from him, but from the earth and from Adam. Which means, Adam only is
from the earth. In view of that, let them say instead, “the Spirit is only from the Son” and let
them in that way say, “He is from one Origin.” But He is not from this same Origin from which
the Son is. Here {with the Filioque}, again, there are two origins for the divinity, and the Father
is no longer greater than the Son in cause, for He is likewise a cause of divinity.

Let them instead reverently grant there is one origin in the Spirit, like when they say the Son is
from only the Father. For, as long as they might say He is from the Son or from Both, but not
from only the Father, there cannot possibly be one origin of the divinity of the one Spirit.

______________________________________________________________________________

Συνάπτων γάρ τις ἐπί τῶν τοιούτων, εἰ καί μίαν φαίη τήν ἀρχήν, ἀλλ ὁμωνύμως, ὥστε οὐ μία˙ εἰ
δέ διαιρῶν κατά μίαν ὁρᾷ τάς θείας ὑποστάσεις, τῆς μιᾶς ἐξ ἀνάγκης δύο φανερῶς γίνονται
ἀρχαί. Ἐμοί δ ἔπεισι θαυμάζειν καί τό ὑπερβάλλον τῆς ἀνοίας τῶν τάς δύο ταύτας, ὥς φασιν,
ἀρχάς μίαν λεγόντων τε καί οἰομένων. Εἰ μέν γάρ κοινωνεῖ τῷ Πατρί κατά τό θεογόνον ὁ Υἱός,
προβαλλόμενος τό Πνεῦμα, καί ἕν αὐτοῖς τό θεογόνον καί ἡ ἐκ τούτων αὕτη πρόοδος, τῆς
φύσεως ἄρα τοῦτο καί οὐ δύο εἰσίν ἀρχαί, οὐδ᾿ αἱ δύο μία, ἀλλ ἁπλῶς μία, καί ἀποξένωται τῆς
θείας φύσεως αὐτό τό Πνεῦμα, μή καί αὐτό κατά τό θεογόνον κοινωνοῦν. Εἰ δέ μή κοινωνεῖ ὁ
Υἱός κατά τοῦτο τό Πατρί, μηδέ ἕν αὐτοῖς τοῦτο τό προβάλλειν, καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν τῷ Υἱῷ ἡ
πρόοδος τοῦ Πνεύματος˙ διάφορος ἄρα αὕτη τῆς ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός τοῦ Πνεύματος προόδου˙ τά γάρ
ὑποστατικά διάφορα.
______________________________________________________________________________

this example of a material procession is inept to signify the immaterial procession of the divine persons.
ORTH RES: The 2 causes are effectively one father, and the Spirit is severed from the divinity.

For, someone, when he joins such things, although he might say the origin is one, he speaks
homonymously, so that it is not one. For, once he divides this into one, he logically sees the
divine hypostases. Two origins necessarily clearly result from this one origin. Now, they make
me marvel, and the exceeding folly on the part of those who say and think these are two origins,
as they do. For, if the Son actually communicates with the Father in the generation of divinity by
emanating the Spirit, then their one divinity generated and this same procession from them is
natural. The origins are not two. Neither are the two one, but simply one, and the very Spirit
Itself is severed from the divine nature, since It does not share in the generation of divinity. Note
that unless the Son accordingly shares this with the Father, neither is the ability tο emanate
divinity in them Both, according as the procession of the Spirit is hypostatic for the Son. This
procession then is different from the procession of the Spirit from the Father; for the differences
are hypostatic.

Πῶς οὖν μία αἱ διάφοροι ἀρχαί, καί μήν τοῦ μεγάλου Διονυσίου ἐν δευτέρῳ κεφαλαίῳ τοῦ Περί
θείων ὀνομάτων λόγου λέγοντος «ὅσα ἐστί τοῦ Πατρός καί τοῦ Υἱοῦ, ταῦτα καί τῷ θεαρχικῷ
Πνεύματι κοινῶς καί ἡνωμένως ἀνατίθεσθαι», καί τοῦ μεγάλου Βασιλείου ἐν τοῖς πρός
Εὐνομιανούς Ἀντιρρητικοῖς αὐτοῦ κεφαλαίοις γράφοντος, «πάντα τά κοινά Πατρί τε καί Υἱῷ
κοινά εἶναι καί τῷ Πνεύματι»; Εἰ μέν κοινόν ἐστι Πατρί τε καί Υἱῷ τό ἐκπορεύειν, κοινόν ἔσται
τοῦτο καί τῷ Πνεύματι, καί τετράς ἔσται ἡ Τριάς˙ καί τό Πνεῦμα γάρ ἐκπορεύσει Πνεῦμα
ἕτερον. Εἰ δέ μή κοινόν ἔστι κατά Λατίνους τῷ Πατρί καί τῷ Υἱῷ τό ἐκπορεύειν, ὡς τοῦ μέν
Πατρός ἐμμέσως κατ᾿ αὐτούς, τοῦ δέ Υἱοῦ ἀμέσως ἐκπορεύοντος τό Πνεῦμα, οὕτω γάρ καί
ὑποστατικῶς ἔχειν τόν Υἱόν τό προβλητικόν φασιν, οὐκοῦν κατ᾿ αὐτούς καί τό δημιουργεῖν καί
ἁγιάζειν καί ἁπλῶς ἅπαντα τά φυσικά οὐ κοινά Πατρός τε καί Υἱοῦ, ἐπειδή ὁ μέν Πατήρ διά τοῦ
Υἱοῦ κτίζει τε καί ἁγιάζει, καί διά μέσου τοῦ Υἱοῦ δημιουργεῖ καί ἁγιάζει, ὁ δέ Υἱός οὐ δι᾿ Υἱοῦ.
Τοιγαροῦν κατ᾿ αὐτούς ὑποστατικῶς ἔχει τό δημιουργεῖν καί ἁγιάζειν ὁ Υἱός˙ ἀμέσως γάρ καί
οὐχ ὡς ὁ Πατήρ ἐμμέσως˙ καί οὕτω κατ᾿ αὐτούς τά φυσικά τῶν ὑποστατικῶν διενήνοχεν οὐδέν˙
οὐκοῦν καί ἡ φύσις τῆς ὑποστάσεως, ὡς μή τρισυπόστατον ἤ τριφυᾶ κατ᾿ αὐτούς εἶναι τόν Θεόν.
______________________________________________________________________________

ORTH RES: The Trinity will be a tetrad, since the Spirit will spirate.

How, then are the different origins one? And, indeed, Dionysios the Great, in the second chapter
of his treatise Concerning the Divine Names, wrote, “As many things which are of the Father and
the Son, the same are predicated to the thearchical divine Spirit.” And Basil wrote in his rebuttal
chapters To the Eunomians, “all things common with the Father are also common with the Son
and with the Spirit.” If, on one hand, it is common with the Father and the Son to cause
procession, this will also be common with the Spirit, and thus the Trinity will be a tetrad. For, the
Spirit will also process another Spirit.

LAT OBJ: The principle of spiration is different for the Son.

ORTH RES: Natural properties would not be common to the Father and the Son.

But, on the other hand, in accordance with the Latins, if it is not common to the Father and the
Son to cause procession, since the Father, on one hand, causes procession mediately, in
accordance with them, but {does so}through the Son, immediately, (for, this is how they explain
the Son can hypostatically have an emanation), then in accordance with them, Both creating and
sanctifying and simply all natural things not common to the Father and the Son. That is because
inasmuch as while the Father creates and sanctifies through the Son, the Son in contrast does not
do so through a son. As a consequence, in accord with them, the Son is able to hypostatically
create and sanctify. For, it is immediate and not as the Father mediately. And thus, according to
them, the natural properties have not differed from the hypostatic at all. Therefore, the nature is
from the hypostasis, as it is not trihypostatic. Or, the three natures, in accord with them, are God.

______________________________________________________________________________

Εἰ δ᾿ ἄρα φαῖεν διά τοῦ Πνεύματος τόν Υἱόν δημιουργεῖν καί ἁγιάζειν, ἀλλά πρῶτον μέν οὐ
σύνηθες τοῖς θεολόγοις διά τοῦ Πνεύματος τόν Υἱόν ἤ τόν Πατέρα δημιουργόν εἶναι λέγειν τῶν
κτισμάτων, ἀλλ᾿ ἐν ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι. Ἔπειτα πρός τῷ μηδ᾿ οὕτω τό ἀνωτέρω δεδειγμένον ἄτοπον
αὐτούς ἐκφεύγειν, οὐ γάρ δι᾿ Υἱοῦ πάλιν ὁ Υἱός ἀναφαίνεται δημιουργός καθάπερ ὁ Πατήρ
συμβήσεται τούτοις μηδέ κοινόν εἶναι λέγειν καί τῷ Πνεύματι τό δημιουργεῖν καί ἁγιάζειν, ὡς
μή δι᾿ ἑτέρου, μηδέ ὡς ὁ Πατήρ ἤ καί ὁ Υἱός αὐτοῦ ταῦτα ἐνεργοῦντος. Κατ᾿ αὐτούς οὖν
ὑποστατικῶς ἔχει τό Πνεῦμα τό δημιουργεῖν καί ἁγιάζειν, ὡς οὐκ ἐμμέσως καθάπερ ὁ Πατήρ
κτίζον τε καί ἁγιάζον. Ἐντεῦθεν δή πάλιν κατ᾿ αὐτούς, ταῦτά τε εἶναι καί ἀδιάφορα δείκνυται
τοῖς ὑποστατικοῖς τά φυσικά. Εἰ δέ τοῦτο, καί ἡ φύσις ταῖς ὑποστάσεσι ταὐτόν τε καί ἀδιάφορον.
Ἆρ᾿ οὐ σαφῶς τῆς ἀνωτέρω Τριάδος ἐκπεπτώκασι καί τῆς ἑνότητος τῆς πίστεως καί τῆς
κοινωνίας τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος οἱ ταῦθ᾿ οὕτω λέγοντες τε καί φρονοῦντες;
______________________________________________________________________________

Now, then, if they should say the Son creates and sanctifies “through the Spirit,” on one hand, it
is truly not customary with the Theologians to say that the Son or the Father is the Creator of
creatures “through the Spirit,” but theologians say is “in the Spirit.” So, as a consequence, they
do not thus escape the logical inconsistency which had been shown further up, since the Son
again is displayed as Creator not through a son, precisely like the Father. The burden, then, lays
on them to say that creating and sanctifying are not common to the Spirit, inasmuch as creating
and sanctifying are not through another. In this way, He is unlike the Father or the Son, as
another brings to completion creation and sanctification. This also means, according to them, the
Spirit is able to hypostatically create and sanctify, as he does not do so mediately, precisely like
the Father creates.

LAT OBJ: On this point here, again, according to them, the natural properties are shown to be
the same and not different with the hypostatic.

ORTH RES: But, if this is so, the nature is the same and indifferent with respect to hypostatic
properties. Does not it imply these, who speak65 and think this way about these matters, have
obviously fallen away from the Most High Trinity and from the unity of the Faith and from the
communion of the Holy Spirit?

____________________________________________________________________

Ἀλλά γάρ ἐπανέλθωμεν ὅθεν ἐξέβημεν. Τίς γάρ τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον τήν ὕπαρξιν ἔχειν ἐξ
ἀμφοτέρων Υἱοῦ τε καί Πατρός ἀκούων ἤ λέγων ἤ πιστεύων καί παρά μέν τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἀμέσως,
παρά δέ τοῦ Πατρός ἐμμέσως καί τά παρ᾿ αὐτῶν θρυλλούμενά τε καί περιᾳδόμενα προσεχῆ τε
καί ἐφεξῆς καί πόρρω, τίς ταῦτ᾿ ἀκούων καί πιστεύων οὐ δύο δοξάσει τοῦ ἑνός Πνεύματος
ἀρχάς; Πῶς δέ οὐκ ἄν εἴη ὁ Υἱός τῷ Πατρί συναίτιος, εἰ μή μάτην λέγεται καί ἐξ αὐτοῦ; Πῶς δέ
οὐκ ἄν τό Πνεῦμα εἴη κτίσμα; Ἐπί γάρ τῶν κτισμάτων τῷ Πατρί συναίτιος, εἰ μή μάτην λέγεται
καί ἐξ αὐτοῦ; Πῶς δέ οὐκ ἄν τό Πνεῦμα εἴη κτίσμα; Ἐπί γάρ τῶν κτισμάτων τῷ Πατρί ὁ Υἱός
συναίτιος.

Any how, let us resume from where we digressed.

And of course, without a doubt,
when someone lends his ears or says or believes the Holy Spirit has existence from Both the
Father and the Son, as certainly from the Son immediately, yet from the Father mediately, from
ON? the basis they {Son and Spirit} are repeated and hymned in praise with the {Son} as near
and the {Spirit} following as more remote,
-who, if he lends his ears and believes these things will not be glorifying two origins for the one
Spirit?

LAT OBJ: “But how would the Son not be a joint cause with the Father, unless it is said in vain,
that He is from Him?”

ORTH RES: Rather, how would not the Spirit be a creature? As, of course, {the Spirit} is a
joint cause with the Father with respect to created things, unless it is said in vain to be from Him.
And so it implies, the Son is a joint cause with the Father with respect to created things.

16

It is irreverent to not say that creation has being creatively through the Son, and to attribute the creative property
only to the Father. We necessarily conclude, it would be irreverent to say, the Spirit had existence also from the Son
by means of procession. Because we do not say the Spirit is from the Son, because the processional property is only
the Father's. But since those who express these things this way are not only reverent, but also God-bearers,
therefore, those who say that the Spirit is from the Son are irreverent .

Καί μήν ἐπί τῆς κτίσεως, ἐφ᾿ ἧς φανερῶς αἴτιός ἐστι καί ὁ Υἱός καί τῷ Πατρί συναίτιος, ὡς ἐκ
Πατρός δι᾿ αὐτοῦ καί ἐξ αὐτοῦ τό εἶναι λαβούσης, ἀσεβές παντάπασιν εἰπεῖν ὅτι τήν κτίσιν ἐκ
τοῦ Υἱοῦ οὐ λέγομεν καί ὅτι τό δημιουργικόν ἰδιότης ἐστί τῆς τοῦ Πατρός ὑποστάσεως.

65
Lit. φρονοῦντες, who are of the phronema.
Τοιγαροῦν εἰ καί τό ἐκπορευτῶς ὑπάρχον Πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἐκ Πατρός δι᾿ Υἱοῦ καί ἐξ αὐτοῦ τό
εἶναι εἶχεν, οὐκ ἄν ἦν ὅλος εὐσεβοῦς εἰπεῖν, ὡς ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό εἶναι τό Πνεῦμα οὐ λέγομεν καί
ὡς ἡ ἐκπορευτική ἰδιότης τῷ Πατρί μόνῳ πρόσεστιν.
______________________________________________________________________________

This is certainly true, with respect to creation, for which the Son obviously is a cause and joint-
cause with the Father, as it “from the Father” through the Son, having received being from Him.
It is entirely irreverent to say that the creation is, “from the Son”, because the creative property is
from the hypostasis of the Father.

Accordingly, then, if the Holy Spirit existing by procession from the Father, through the Son,
and had being from Him, it would not be entirely reverent to say. As we do not say the Spirit is
from the Son, so also the idiom to cause procession is attributed to the Father only.

Ἐπεί δέ οἱ ταῦτα λέγοντες Δαβίδ ἐστιν ὁ θεοπάτωρ καί Γρηγόριος ὁ Νυσσαέων φανότατος
φωστήρ καί Δαμασκηνός ὁ θεοφόρος, κατά πᾶσαν ἀνάγκην οἱ συναίτον τῷ Πατρί τόν Υἱόν
λέγοντες ἐπί τοῦ παναγίου Πνεύματος καί ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός διά τοῦ Υἱοῦ καί ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ τήν
ὕπαρξιν αὐτῷ διδόντες, τοσοῦτον ἀπέχουσι τῆς εὐσεβείας, ὅσον ἀντέχονται ταύτης οἱ
προαπηριθμημένοι τῶν ἁγίων καί οἱ τούτοις συνῳδά θεολογοῦντες.
______________________________________________________________________________

Now consider, since David, the ancestral father of God and Gregory, the most brightly shining
star of Nyssa, and the God-bearing Damascene, are the ones saying these things, then those who
say the Son is jointly a cause with the Father for the All Holy Spirit and concede His existence is
from the Father through the Son and from the Son, by utter necessity, distance themselves as far
from piety, as much as those clung to it, who were numbered before among the saints and who
also theologize in unison with the saints.

17
And, that, if the Spirit is through the Son, at the same time and separately, Each would be called Father and
Originator, as in creation, Originator and Father.

Καί τοῦτο δέ συνορᾶν τῶν ἀναγκαιοτάτων, ὡς καθάπερ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός δι᾿ Υἱοῦ καί ἐξ Υἱοῦ τήν
γένεσιν ἔχοντες ἡμεῖς, Πατέρα καί ποιητήν ὁμοῦ τε καί χωρίς ἑκάτερον ἐπικαλούμεθα καί
ἀνομολογοῦμεν, οὕτω καί τοῦ θείου Πνεύματος ὁμοῦ τε καί χωρίς ἑκάτερος Πατήρ ἄν ἐλέγετο
καί προβολεύς, εἴπερ ἐκ Πατρός δι᾿ Υἱοῦ καί ἐξ Υἱοῦ τήν ὕπαρξιν τό Πνεῦμα εἶχεν. Ἀλλά τά
τοιαῦτα πάντα πολυειδῶς συγχέοντα τάς θείας ὑποστάσεις παρίστησι σαφῶς, ὡς οὐχί καί ἐκ τοῦ
Υἱοῦ τήν ὕπαρξιν ἔχει τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον.
______________________________________________________________________________

ORTH RES: “From the Son” makes the Son a Father, as creation is “from the Father.”
This here is one of the things which must absolutely be understood. According as the genesis
was "from the Father" "through the Son,” if we suppose the genesis was "from the Son," we then
invoke and indisputably confess that Each is a Father and Creator simultaneously and is so
separately.Comparatively, Each {Father and Son} at the same time and separately would be
called Father and Generator, if, it is granted the Spirit had existence "from the Father" "through
the Son” and “from the Son.” But everything thing like this, when it fuses together the divine
hypostases in different ways, obviously supports the Holy Spirit does not have existence from
the Son.

18

On the basis the Son has all things, it is theologized He has all things except for being the cause, which, accordingly,
would not be the cause of created things. We have demonstrated again the Spirit is not processed from the Son,
since Its’ {in that case} cause is from the Son and the Spirit.

______________________________________________________________________________

Καί μέν δή, «πάντα ὅσα ἔχει ὁ Πατήρ, τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἐστι», κατά τόν θεολόγον Γρηγόριον, «ἄνευ τῆς
αἰτίας. Ποίας αἰτίας; Τῆς τῶν κτισμάτων; Ἄπαγε˙ τούτων γάρ ἀρχή καί αἴτιος καί ὁ Υἱός.
Τοιγαροῦν ἄνευ τῆς αἰτίας καί ἀρχῆς τῆς ἐν Τριάδι νοουμένης θεότητος˙ πάντα οὖν ἔχει ὁ Υἱός
τοῦ Πατρός, ἄνευ τοῦ ἀρχή καί αἴτιος εἶναι καί αὐτός τῆς θεότητος τοῦ Πνεύματος. Ἐκ μόνου
ἄρα τοῦ Πατρός ἐκπορεύεται τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον, καθάπερ ὁ Υἱός ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρός
γεννᾶται, καί προσεχῶς καί ἀμέσως τοῦ Πατρός ἔχεται καθ᾿ ὕπαρξιν, καθά καί ὁ Υἱός, εἰ καί διά
τοῦ Υἱοῦ Πατρός εἶναι Πνεῦμα ἔσχεν, ὡς τοῦ ἐκπορεύοντος ὄντος καί Πατρός.
______________________________________________________________________________

LATIN OBJ: Again, it is certain here, according to Gregory the Theologian, "all things that the
Father has are the Son’s apart from {being the} Cause.” 66

ORTH RES: The cause is the Cause of divinity.

Cause of what in particular?

The cause of creatures? Banish the idea! For the origin and cause of created things is also the
Son. Consequently, it means this is separate from the cause and origin which is considered to be
the cause of divinity in the Trinity. And so, the Son has everything of the Father’s, without
being Himself the Origin and Cause of the divinity of the Spirit. The Holy Spirit, therefore, is
processed from only the Father, exactly like the Son is begotten from only the Father. And,
according to HIs existence, He possesses it Himself Both directly and immediately from the
Father, just like the Son. And if the Spirit had being through the Son, the Son is a father, seeing
the One causing procession is also Father.

66
Λόγος 34, 10. (St. Gregory the Theologian, Oration 34)
 19

We presented witnesses who forbid the Latin addition.

______________________________________________________________________________

Ἐπεί δέ καί δύο ἀνθρώπων ἡ μαρτυρία ἀληθής ἐστι κατά τόν τοῦ Κυρίου λόγον, «καί διά δύο ἤ
τριῶν μαρτύρων σταθήσεται πᾶν ρῆμα», καί ἡμεῖς τό νῦν εἶναι τῶν ἄλλων ἀφέμενοι διά τό
μῆκος τρεῖς παραστήσομέν σοι μάρτυρας, σαφῶς ἀπαγορεύοντάς σου τήν προσθήκην. Καί δή
παρίτω πρῶτος ὁ καί τῷ χρόνῳ πρότερος Βασίλειος ὁ μέγας˙ ἐν γάρ τοῖς Κατ᾿ Εὐνομίου
κεφαλαίοις, «γεννᾷ», φησίν, «ὁ Θεός οὐχ ὡς ἄνθρωπος, γεννᾷ δέ ἀληθῶς˙ καί τό γεγεννημένον
ἐξ αὐτοῦ ἐκφαίνει λόγον οὐκ ἀνθρώπινον, ἐκφαίνει δέ λόγον ἀληθῆ ἐξ αὑτοῦ˙ ἐκπέμπει Πνεῦμα
διά στόματος, οὐχ οἷον τό ἀνθρώπινον, ἐπεί μηδέ στόμα Θεοῦ σωματικῶς˙ ἐξ αὐτοῦ δέ τό
Πνεῦμα καί οὐχ ἑτέρωθεν». Ὁρᾷς ὅτι οὐχ ἑτέρωθεν, ἀλλ ἐκ μόνου τοῦ καί τόν Υἱόν γεννῶντος;
Ὥστε οὐκ ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα, ἐπεί καί λόγος ὁ Υἱός, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ στόμα τοῦ Πατρός ἐνταῦθα τῷ
μεγάλῳ τεθεολόγηται. Ὅς ἀλλαχοῦ δεικνύς καί τόν λόγον τοῦτον ἐκ τοῦ αὐτοῦ προϊόντα
στόματος, «εἰ γάρ τό Πνεῦμα μή πιστεύεις», φησίν, ἐκ στόματος Θεοῦ προεληλυθέναι, οὐδ᾿ ἄν
τόν λόγον πιστεύσεις». Ὁρᾷς σαφῶς ὅτι Λόγος ὁ Υἱός, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ στόμα τοῦ Πατρός˙ ἐξ οὗ
στόματος κατά τόν μέγαν Βασίλειον πρόεισι καθ ὕπαρξιν ὡς τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον;
______________________________________________________________________________

Now since, the witness of two men is true, according to the word of the Lord, "and every word
will be established according to the witness of two or three" (Mt.18.16), although we presently
desire to bring more witnesses, on account of the length, we will present to you but three
witnesses, who clearly forbid your addition.

And on this point, let Basil the Great be presented first, who is foremost chronologically, who in
his chapters “Against Eunomius” says, "God begets, not as man, but truly begets. And what has
been begotten from Him expresses a Word, not as it were among men, but shines forth a Word in
truth from Him. He sends forth the Spirit through His mouth, but not like a human mouth, since
the mouth of God does not exist bodily. And the Spirit is from Him, and not from another.”67

Do you see, then, that the Spirit is not from another, but is only from Him, from Him Who also
begets the Son? Thus the Spirit is not from the Son, since the Son is the Word. He has been
theologized by Basil the Great contrariwise not as the mouth of the Father. After he indicated
from another passage that this Word proceeds from the same mouth, he says, “for, if, you will
not believe that the Spirit has come forth from the mouth of God, neither will you believe
concerning the Word.” Do you see that the Son obviously is the Word, but is not the mouth of
the Father, from which mouth, according to Basil the great, the Holy Spirit receives existence?
______________________________________________________________________________

Τόν αὐτόν δέ τρόπον καί ὁ ἀδελφός αὐτῷ καί ἀδελφά φρονῶν Γρηγόριος ἐν τῷ Περί θεογνωσίας
λόγῳ, «Πνεῦμα δέ», φησί, «τό τῆς πατρικῆς ἐκπορευόμενον ὑποστάσεως. Τούτου γάρ ἕνεκα καί
Πνεῦμα στόματος ἀλλ᾿ οὐχί καί τόν λόγον στόματος ὁ Δαβίδ εἴρηκεν, ἵνα τήν ἐκπορευτικήν

67
Κατ' Ευνομίου 5. (St. Basil, Against Eunomius)
ἰδιότητα τῷ Πατρί μόνῳ προσοῦσαν πιστώσηται».
______________________________________________________________________________

And in the same manner, Gregory, who was Both his brother and brotherly minded with him,
says in his exposition Concerning Divine Knowledge, “the Spirit proceeds from the paternal
hypostasis. David said the Spirit (breath) of His mouth, but did not say the Word of His mouth,
in order to ensure that the property to cause procession is attributed the Father only."68
______________________________________________________________________________

Μετ᾿ αὐτόν τόν ἀψευδῆ τῆς ἀληθείας μάρτυρα, ὁ ζῶν φωστήρ γεγονώς Ἀλεξανδρείας Κύριλλος,
συμμαρτυρήσων παρελθέτω˙ φησί γάρ ἐν τῷ Περί τῆς ἁγίας Τριάδος˙ «αἱ προσκυνηταί τρεῖς
ὑποστάσεις γινώσκονται καί πιστεύονται ἐν Πατρί ἀνάρχῳ καί ἐν Υἱῷ μονογενεῖ καί ἐν
Πνεύματι ἁγίῳ τῷ ἐκ πορευομένῳ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός, οὐ γεννητῶς καθάπερ ὁ Υἱός, ἀλλ
ἐκπορευομένῳ καθάπερ εἴρηται ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρός ὡς ἀπό στόματος, πεφηνότι δέ διά τοῦ
Υἱοῦ καί λαλήσαντι ἐν τοῖς ἁγίοις πᾶσι προφήταις τε καί ἀποστόλοις». Καί ἀλλαχοῦ πάλιν˙ «οὐχ
ὥσπερ ὁ Υἱός καί τοῦ Πατρός γεννητῶς οὕτω καί τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον ἀπό τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἐκπορευτῶς,
ἄπαγε τῆς βλασφημίας καί πολυθεΐας˙ εἷς γάρ παρ ἡμῖν ἀμφοῖν τοῖς προσώποις αἴτιος καί
σύνδεσμος, ὁ Πατήρ».
______________________________________________________________________________

After him is this same truthful witness free from falsehood. Because he became a luminary of
Alexandria when he was alive, he will now testify, let him be brought forth. For, he says in his
work Concerning the Holy Trinity that, "the three worshipful hypostases are recognized and are
believed on; in the Father, Who is without beginning, and in the only begotten Son, and in the
Holy Spirit, Who proceeds from the Father. Although He exists not by begetting, as with the Son,
but by processing, just like it has been said (He proceeds) from only the Father as from a mouth.
Yet He has been manifested through the Son and has has spoken in all the saints and prophets
and apostles.”69

And, again, from another place,“ not like the Son was from the Father by begetting, so the Holy
Spirit is from the Son. Away with the blasphemy and polytheism! For, among us there is one
cause and union for Both persons, namely, the Father."70
______________________________________________________________________________

Ἆρ ἔστι τρανότερον ἔλεγχον τῆς σῆς δυσσεβείας παρελθεῖν; Ἀνθρώπῳ μέν οὐκ ἄν ἔδοξεν. Ἀλλά
καί τοῦθ ἡμῖν τό Πνεῦμα δέδωκε τόν ἐκ Δαμασκοῦ σοφίσαν Ἰωάννην˙ «τό Πνεῦμα γάρ», φησίν
οὗτος, «τοῦ Υἱοῦ μέν λέγομεν, ἐκ δέ τοῦ Υἱοῦ οὐ λέγομεν˙ δι᾿ Υἱοῦ δέ πεφανερῶσθαι καί
μεταδιδόσθαι ἡμῖν ὁμολογοῦμεν».

68
This is a reference to a work by St. Gregory of Nyssa, or at least here attributed to St. Gregory of Nyssa by St.
Gregory Palamas, Περἰ Θεογνωσίας, which has been lost.

69
Λόγος 2 περὶ άγίας καὶ ὁμοουσἰου Τριἀδος, PG 75, 724 A (St. Cyril of Alexandria, Second Oration on the Holy
and Consubstantial Trinity)
70
Ομολογία Πίστεως, Johannes Vegelinus, De sacrosancta Trinitae 1604, σ. 121. (St. Cyril of Alexandria,
Confession of Faith)
______________________________________________________________________________

Is it, then, even possible to bring forth a more convincing refutation of your irreverence? It
would certainly not be thought possible for a man. But the Holy Spirit has given to us this very
thing, John from Damascus, who was made wise. This saint says, “for while we say the Spirit
‘of’ the Son, yet we do not say the Spirit ‘from’ the Son. But we confess that He has been
manifested through the Son and has been communicated to us.”71

______________________________________________________________________________

Ἀφείς δέ σοι τούς ἄλλους συνείρειν ἐφεξῆς ὅτι πλείστους ὄντας καί σχεδόν ὅσοι τῶν πατέρων
οὐδέν ἧττον ἤ ζῶντες ἐν τοῖς καθἑαυτούς συγγράμμασι λαλοῦσιν, ἐκ τῶν λόγων σου κρινῶ σε˙
πάντως δέ καί ὁ Θεός. Σοῦ γάρ αὐτοῦ λέγοντος ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός καί τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἐκπορεύεσθαι τό
Πνεῦμα καί τό «μόνων» οὐ προστιθεμένου, ἆρ᾿ οὐδ᾿ ἐκ τούτων μόνων τό Πνεῦμα ἐννοεῖς, οὐδέ
συνυπακούεις τό μόνων, κἄν μή συνεκφωνῇς; Ἀλλά ζητήσομεν κατά τήν σήν, ἵν᾿ οὕτως εἴπω,
φιλοπολυεκπόρευτον διάνοιαν, καί ἐκ ἄλλου του ἐκπορεύεσθαι τό Πνεῦμα διά τήν σήν περί τοῦ
μόνου ἄγνοιαν;
______________________________________________________________________________

But having given up compiling for you the rest of the following, (because the majority, nearly all
the Fathers, and those living nonetheless, speak for themselves in their own writings), then from
your words I will instead judge you. Yet ultimately God will. For, when you yourself say that
the Spirit is processed from the Father and the Son, and you do not add the word “only”, do you
not then contemplate the Spirit from the logical implications of these “onlys"? Or do you not
agree about these “onlys” whether pronounced or not? Or, on account of your ignorance
concerning the word “only” will we instead debate (that I may express it this way), following
your reasoning which is so fond for so many processions, based on the idea the Spirit processes
from another?

20

We have shown again that the Spirit also does not have being from the Son, on the basis the
Son does not have existence from the Spirit.

Οὐ μήν, ἀλλ ἵνα πάλιν ἐκ τῶν αὐτῶν σοι συσκευάσω τῆς ὡς ἀληθῶς πληγῆς τό ἴαμα καί τῶν
δυσσεβῶν ἐκσπάσω καί δογμάτων καί ρημάτων, εἰπέ μοι, ὦ βέλτιστε, εἴ τις ἔροιτό σε περί τοῦ
Υἱοῦ, oς ἐπειδήπερ γέγραπται ὅτι, «εἴδομεν τήν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρά
Πατρός», καί ὅτι «πιστεύω εἰς ἕνα Υἱόν τόν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός πρό αἰώνων γεννηθέντα, καί τ ἄλλα
ὅσα σοι ἀνωτέρω ἀπηρίθμηται, οἷς οὐ πρόσκειται τό «μόνου», ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός καί ἐκ τοῦ ἁγίου
Πνεύματος προσθείς φαίης ἄν γεγεννῆσθαι τόν Υἱόν, τοῦτ᾿ αὐτό προφασιζόμενος ὅτι μή
πρόσκειται τό «μόνου»; Ἄπαγε δήπου, φαίης ἄν. Καί αὐτῆς ἐκπέσοι τῆς ἄνωθεν ἀναγεννήσεως ὁ
τοῦτο προστιθείς καί μή ἐκ μόνου δοξάζων γεγεννῆσθαι τοῦ Πατρός τόν Λόγον. Οὐδαμοῦ γάρ
γεννήτωρ εἴρηται τό Πνεῦμα σύν ἡμῖν καλῶς ἐρεῖς, οὐδέ κοινόν ἔχει τι Πατρί, ὅ μή ἔστι κοινόν

71
Ἔκδοσις ἀκριβὴς 1, 8. (St. John Damascus, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith)
καί τῷ Υἱῷ˙ οὐδ ἐκ τῆς δυάδος προάγεται τό ἕν, οὐδ᾿ εἰς τήν δυάδα ἀναφέρεται˙ οὐδ᾿ ἡ μονάς
εἰς μονάδα κινηθεῖσα καί εἰς ἑτέραν αὖθις μονάδα ἡ δυάς, «ἀλλ᾿ ἡ μονάς θεοπρεπῶς εἰς δυάδα
κινηθεῖσα, μέχρι τριάδος ἔστη». Καί «εἷς ἡμῖν Θεός˙ οὐ μόνον ὅτι μία θεότης, ἀλλ ὅτι καί εἰς ἕν
ἀμφότερα τά ἐξ αὐτοῦ τήν ἀναφοράν ἔχει. Καί μία πηγαία θεότης, ὁ Πατήρ καί μόνος αἴτιος καί
μόνος πηγή θεότητος». Οὐκοῦν καί ταῦτ᾿ ἐστίν αὐτοῦ τά ἰδιάζοντα τῶν γνωρισμάτων˙ μόνος
γάρ˙ οὐδεμίαν ἄρα τήν κοινωνίαν ἕξει πρός ταῦτα τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον, ἐπεί καί «τά τῆς
ὑπερουσίου θεογονίας οὐκ ἀντιστρέφει πρός ἄλληλα», Διονύσιος αὖθις ἄν εἶπεν ὁ οὐρανόφρων.

We certainly will not {debate this}72, but that we would not need again to prepare from these
words the medicine for your truly serious wound to draw out the irreverent dogmas and words,
tell me, good man, if someone should ask you concerning the Son, -inasmuch as it has been
written that "we have seen His glory, the glory of the only begotten of the Father,” (Jn. 1:14) and
that "I believe in one Son, begotten from the Father before the ages,” and all the other things
which have been enumerated by you above, in which the “only” is not placed in the text, -would
you affirm the “only,” if someone was proposing that the Son is begotten from the Father and
from the Holy Spirit? For, this is the very exact same argument you are making a pretext for,
because the word “only’” is not present in the text. Perhaps there is a way you could say away
with the idea. Consider this; that one who adds this and does not think that the Word is begotten
“only” from the Father may fall away from the same regeneration from above. For, you will
correctly say with us that no where is it said the Spirit called begetter, nor does He share
anything with the Father which is not also shared in common with the Son, neither is the One
processed from duality, nor is it brought back to the duality; nor has the monad been moved (to
rest) in a monad, and the duality again in another monad. “ Rather the monad, in a manner as
befits God, has been moved into duality, until it is stood, established, as a Trinity.” And “our
God is one. Not only because the deity is one, but because the Both which are from Him have
their anaphoral return to the One. And there is one Fountainhead of deity, the Father and only
Cause and only Fount of divinity.”73

Surely, then, the very same things are His. They are individuated from what are acknowledged
characteristics. And, so naturally {He is} “only.” This, then, means, the Holy Spirit will have no
part in relation to {the Father and Son}, since Dionysios, the celestial minded, would also have
said, again, “those from the generation of divinity, which transcends essence do not return to
one another.”74

Ἀλλ᾿ εὖγέ σοι τῆς ἐν τούτοις πρός τε τούς θεοσόφους τῶν πατέρων καί ἡμᾶς τούς ἐξ ἐκείνων
σοφισθέντας ἀπαραλλάκτου συμφωνίας. Ἑάλως δ ὅμως, τό τοῦ λόγου, τοῖς σαυτοῦ πτεροῖς καί
λυσιτελῶς ὄντως ἐπατάχθης τῷ τοῦ ὀρθοῦ προπολεμοῦντι λόγῳ˙ τό γάρ εἰς αὐτόν ᾗκον, οὐ
72
Οὐ μήν, this is in response to the previous sentence that he will not debate.
73
Γρηγορίου Θεολόγου, Λόγος 29, 2. (St. Gregory the Theologian, Oration 29)

74
Διονυσίου Ἀρεοπαγίτου, Περι Θειων Ὀνομάτων 2, 6. (St. Dionysius the Areopagite, On Divine Names)
μόνον ἐπατάχθης, ἀλλά καί ἰάθης κατά τό εἰρημένον ὡς ὑπό Θεοῦ, «πατάξω καί ἰάσομαι».
______________________________________________________________________________

But, of course, unwavering agreement in these matters with those who were made wise by God
and us who have been made wise by them, is for your benefit. And though you have fallen into
our hand, the intent of the treatise was that with these arrows of yours, you may be truly
profitably struck by the treatise, which was launched preemptively to defend what is right. For
the hope is it would fall to you not only to be stricken, but that you may be healed, according to
what has been said as by God “I will strike and I will also heal.” (Dt.32:39)

Ἅ γάρ ἄν εἶπες μεθ ̓ ἡμῶν τε καί τῆς ἀληθείας πρός τούς ἐκ Πατρός τε καί ἐκ τοῦ Πνεύματος
λέγοντας γεγεννῆσθαι τόν Υἱόν, ἄλλας τε προφάσεις προφασιζομένους ἐν ἁμαρτίαις, μᾶλλον δέ
δυσσεβείαις, καί ὅτι μή προστέθειται τῷ γεγεννῆσθαι ἐκ Πατρός τό “μόνου”, ταῦτα καί αὐτός
ἀρτίως ἀφ ̓ ἡμῶν τε καί τῆς ἀληθείας ἄκουε, ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός καί τοῦ Υἱοῦ λέγων ἐκπορεύεσθαι τό
Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον ̇ ἑτέρωθέν τε τοῦτο πειρώμενος πιστοῦσθαι καί τοῦ μή προσκεῖσθαι τῷ ἐκ
Πατρός ἐκπορεύεσθαι τό μόνου ̇ καί αὐτῆς γάρ ἐκπεσεῖται τῆς διά τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος
υἱοθεσίας ὁ καί ἐκ Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα λέγων ̇

And so, of course, the arguments are precisely the same for us,
which you would have said with us and the truth to those who say the Son had been begotten
from the Father and the Spirit, who make excuses for their sins, or, rather impieties, on account
the “only” is not added to His having been begotten from “only” the Father.

And so hear for yourself the truth, when you say the Holy Spirit is processed from the Father and
the Son. Further, you essayed from a different source to logically warrant this on the basis of the
“only” not being present in the procession from the Father. And do this, at any rate, because one
who says that the Spirit is from the Son will fall away from this same adoption through the Holy
Spirit.

21
Then, from the enumeration of what has been observed by the saints about the names of the Son, we presented that
the Holy Spirit is not also from the Son.

Ποῦ γάρ τῶν θεοπνεύστων λογίων προβολέα τόν Υἱόν εὕροι τις ἄν ὠνομασμένον, καίτοι
Γρηγορίῳ τῷ μεγάλῳ θεολόγῳ τῶν τοῦ Υἱοῦ προσηγοριῶν πασῶν καί πολλάκις ἀπηριθμημένων
καί οὐκ ἀπηριθμημένων μόνον ἀλλά καί τεθεωρημένων; Ὅς καί τό “μονογενής” ἐξηγούμενος,
«οὐχ ὅτι», φησί, «μόνος ἐκ μόνου καί μόνον, ἀλλά καί μονοτρόπως»˙ ὅ ἀλλαχοῦ μόνως εἶπε
ἰδιοτρόπως, τοῦτ᾿ αὖθις ἐξηγούμενος. Τό δέ “μόνος” ὡς εἷς˙ τό δ᾿ “ἐκ μόνου” ὡς ἐν παρθενίᾳ
γεννήσαντος, ταὐτό δ᾿ εἰπεῖν ὡς οὐκ ἀπό συζυγίας. Τό δέ “μόνον” τί ἄν ἄλλο εἴη ἤ ὅτι μόνος
Υἱός, ἀλλ᾿ οὐχί καί Πατήρ οὐδέ προβολεύς; Εἰ δέ καί ὁ Πατήρ, Πατήρ μόνον λέγεται, εἰκότως –
καί γάρ ἐκ Πατρός τό Πνεῦμα – καί Πατρός λέγεται Πνεῦμα καί ὁ Πατήρ καί τοῦ Πνεύματος
λέγοιτ᾿ ἄν ὡς αἴτιος˙ Πατέρα γάρ τῶν φώτων τοῦτον εἶπεν ὁ μέγας Ἰάκωβος ὁ ἀδελφόθεος,
τουτέστιν Υἱοῦ καί Πνεύματος, ὡς καί Ἀθανάσιος ὁ μέγας ἐξηγούμενος λέγει. Εἰ δέ τοῦτ᾿ οὕτως
ἔχει, ὥσπερ οὖν ἔχει, λέγοιτ ἄν καί ὁ Υἱός Πατήρ φωτός, τουτέστι τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος, εἰ καί
ἐξ αὐτοῦ κατά σέ τό Πνεῦμα.

ORTH RES: No Theologian called the Son an Originator of the Spirit.

For, where in the God-breathed oracles75 would someone find the Son named as an originator,
despite the fact with the Theologian Gregory the Great out of all the appellations for the Son and
which had been enumerated so many times, it was not enumerated but also had never even been
observed? When he exegeted “only Begotten” he says “only is not “from only” and “alone” but
also, μονοτρόπως “unique manner.” Elsewhere he said that “μόνως”, uniquely, is
ἰδιοτρόπως,“belonging to a particular species”, when he exegeted this again. And the “only”
means as one. And that He was “from only”, {means} it was as if He was virginally, from Him
Who begat, which is the same as saying not from a coupling. And what else would “only” be
than {He is} only a Son, but that He is also neither a Father nor a generator? Now, if the Father
is called a Father only, (and this is reasonable, for the Spirit is from the Father and is called the
Father’s Spirit), the Father also would be named as the Cause of the Spirit. For, the Great
Iakovos, the Brother of God, said He is the Father of the Lights (Js.1:17), that is, of the Son and
the Spirit, even as Athanasios the Great when he exegeted says. But if this is true, then, just like
it is assumed, the Son would also be called Father of lights, that is, of the Holy Spirit, if the
Spirit, according to you is “from Him.
______________________________________________________________________________

Εἰ γοῦν ταῦτ ἦν ὀνομάσαι, οἷον Πατέρα φωτός ἤ προβολέα τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος, πῶς ἄν οὐχί
τῶν ἄλλων αὐτοῦ σχεδόν πάντων ὀνομάτων ὁ μέγας ἐν θεολογίᾳ Γρηγόριος προὔθηκε, καίτοι τό
πρός τόν Πατέρα ἀγωνιζόμενος δεικνύναι; Διό φησιν˙ «εἰ μέγα τῷ Πατρί τῷ μηδαμόθεν
ὡρμῆσθαι, οὐκ ἔλαττον τῷ Υἱῷ τό ἐκ τοιούτου Πατρός. Καί πρόσεστιν τῷ Υἱῷ τό τῆς γεννήσεως
πρᾶγμα τοσοῦτον». Εἰ γοῦν προσῆεν τό προβολέα εἶναι, πῶς οὐκ ἄν εἶπε πρᾶγμα τοσοῦτον, δι᾿ ὅ
καί μᾶλλον ἄν δεικύειν ἔδοξεν ἴσον τῷ Πατρί; Ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ εἶπεν˙ οὐκοῦν οὐδέ πρόσεστιν.

Well, then, if these are the very names which he would name, like Father of Light, or Originator
of the Holy Spirit, how come Gregory, insofar as he was greatly versed in theology, could not
have proposed at least something from all his designations, though he painstakingly toiled to
show it just in respect to the Father? And so, he says, "if the Father’s greatness lay in not being
moved (into being) from any where, it is not lesser for the Son to be from such a Father. Such a
great thing as being capable to beget does not belong to the Son.”76 If origination, then, was
75
St Gregory calls the writings of the Fathers God-breathed, or inspired.
76
Λόγος 25, 16. (St. Gregory Theologian, Oration 25)
present in Him, how come he did not say an important thing like that, through which he would
prove even more strongly that He has been thought equal with the Father? But he did not say it,
so it is not attributed to Him.

Ὁ γάρ μέγας οὗτος θεολόγος οὐδ ἁπλῶς οὕτω τό ἐκπορευόμενον ἴδιον τίθησι τοῦ Πνεύματος,
ἀλλά τό ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός ἐκπορευόμενον, προορῶν δήπου καί προανατρέπων σου τήν δυσσεβῆ
προσθήκην. Ἀνωτέρω γάρ μικρόν εἰπών, τόν μέν Πατέρα γεννήτορα καί προβολέα, τόν δέ Υἱόν
προβολέα μέν οὐ, γέννημα δέ μόνον, προσϊών, ἡμεῖς δέ, φησίν, «ἐπί τῶν ἡμετέρων ὅρων
ἱστάμενοι, τό ἀγέννητον εἰσάγομεν καί τό γεννητόν καί τό ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός ἐκπορευόμενον». Οὐκ
εἶπε τό ἐκπορευόμενον ἁπλῶς ἴδιον τοῦ Πνεύματος ὑπάρχειν, ἵνα μή τις ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἤ καί ἐκ
τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἐκπορεύεσθαι νομίσῃ τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον˙ τό μέν γάρ γεννητόν συνεισάγει τῇ διανοίᾳ
τόν Πατέρα, τό δέ ἐκπορευτόν οὐχ οὕτω. Διά τοῦτο τό ἐκ Πατρός ἐκπορευόμενον ἴδιον τέθηκε
τοῦ Πνεύματος˙ «τοῦτο γάρ», φησί καί Βασίλειος ὁ μέγας, «γνωριστικόν τῆς κατά τήν
ὑπόστασιν ἰδιότητος σημεῖον ἔχει τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον, τό μετά τόν Υἱόν καί σύν αὐτῷ
γνωρίζεσθαι καί ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός ὑφεστάναι». Ἀλλ ὁρᾷς, ὅπως παρ ἡμῶν δικαίως ἀπελήλασθε τῆς
κοινωνίας, οὐκ ἐπί τῶν ἡμετέρων ὅρων καί τῆς εὐσεβείας ἱστάμενοι;
____________________________________________________________________________

ORTH RES: Procession “from the Father” is the idiom of the Holy Spirit.

For, this great theologian does not make the thesis that the characteristic of the Spirit is simply
“procession”, but rather makes the thesis, procession “from the Father,” perhaps because he
foresaw and was forewarning against your irreverent addition. And so having said a little above
that the Father, on one hand, is Begetter and Originator, the Son, on the other hand, then, is
certainly not the Originator, but begotten only. And he says, “but standing firm in our
definitions, we advance in our introductory tEaching the Unbegotten, and the Begotten, and Him
who proceeds from the Father.” He did not say that merely procession is the characteristic of the
Spirit, lest someone could think that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son or also from the Son.
For, while begottenness conveys the thought of a Father, yet procession is not like this. On
account of this, he premised procession “from the Father” as characteristic of the Holy Spirit.
For, Basil the Great says this, “the Holy Spirit has this acknowledged idiomatic sign, as far as
hypostasis is concerned, being known (recognized) after the Son and with Him and to subsist
from the Father.” So, do you not see that you all were justifiably banned from communion with
us, not standing-fast upon our definitions and piety?77

Ἤ γάρ καί τόν Υἱόν Πατέρα προσερεῖς, ὡς καί ἀνωτέρω δέδεικται, ἵν ἐκπορευόμενον εἴη σοι καί
ἐξ αὐτοῦ τό Πνεῦμα, ἤ τό ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός ἐκπορεύεσθαι οὐκ ἄν ἴδιον εἴη σοι τοῦ Πνεύματος,
οὐδέ τό ἐκπορεύειν ἴδιον εἶναι νομίσεις τοῦ Πατρός, καί ἀπ ἐναντίας θεολογήσεις τοῦ τό
θεολογεῖν ἐπωνυμίαν κτησαμένου καί πρός τήν ἐναντίον ὄντως μοῖραν στήσῃ καί παρ᾿ ἡμῶν
ἐκκήρυκτος γενήσῃ˙ τάς γάρ αὐτοῦ φωνάς ἐκφαντορίας οὔσας ἴσμεν τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος.
Ἀλλά γάρ, ὥσπερ τῆς νοτίδος ἐξ ὑγρῶν σωμάτων ἐκπορευομένης καί τοῦτ᾿ ἴδιον ἐχούσης καί
77
Ἀλλ ὁρᾷς, ὅπως παρ ἡμῶν δικαίως ἀπελήλασθε τῆς κοινωνίας, οὐκ ἐπί τῶν ἡμετέρων ὅρων καί τῆς εὐσεβείας
ἱστάμενοι;
τῶν ὑγρῶν σωμάτων ἴδιόν ἐστι τό νοτίδα ἐκπορεύειν, τόν αὐτόν τρόπον καί τοῦ Πνεύματος ἴδιον
ἔχοντος τό ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός `ἐκπορεύεσθαι καί τοῦ Πατρός ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἐστι τό τό Πνεῦμα
ἐκπορεύειν.

ORTH RES: The reason for severing communion is the Son is characterized as a Father.

For, either you are characterizing the Son as a Father, as had been shown above, so that in your
eyes the Spirit may be processed from Him, or, in your eyes, to be processed “from the Father”
would not be the idiom of the Spirit.78 Neither do you think causing procession is the idiom of
the Father. But, in that case, you will be theologizing against him who has acquired the
eponymous title of theologian, and in all reality will be standing with the opposing party and be
renounced by us. For, we know St. Gregory’s utterances are expressions of the Holy Spirit. But
to return to the topic, just like when humidity is processed from bodies of water, and has this
property, and the property of bodies of water is to cause the humidity to process, in this same
manner, the Spirit has a property to be processed from the Father. And so it necessarily belongs
to the Father to cause the Spirit to proceed.

Μόνου ἄρα τοῦ Πατρός ἡ τοῦ Πνεύματος ἐκπόρευσις˙ καί ἀεί ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρός ἐκπορεύεται
τό Πνεῦμα καθ᾿ ὑπαρκτικήν ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ ἐκφαντικήν προέλευσιν. Καί ἐν οἷς γάρ τῷ ἐκπορευτῷ μή
συνεκφωνεῖται τό ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός, συνυπακουόμενον ἐστιν ἀεί τοῖς συνετῶς ἀκούουσιν, ὥσπερ
καί ἐπί τοῦ Υἱοῦ τῷ γεννητῷ συνυπακούεται. Γεννητός γάρ καί ἡμῶν ἁπάντων ἕκαστος˙
γεννητός δέ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός, ταὐτόν δ᾿ εἰπεῖν ἐκ Θεοῦ Πατρός, μόνος ὁ Υἱός, ὥστε τό
συννημένον τοῦτ ἔστιν ἴδιον αὐτοῦ καί ἀεί συννοεῖται, κἄν μή συνεκφωνεῖται. Τόν αὐτόν οὖν
τρόπον ἐκπορευτόν ἄν εἴποις καί τό πνεῦμα τό ἡμέτερον. Οὐκοῦν οὐ τό ἁπλῶς ἐκπορευτόν ἴδιον
τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος, ἀλλά τό ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός ἐκπορευτόν˙ ἐκεῖνος γάρ ἀεί Πατήρ. Τῶν
ἀδυνάτων ἄρ ἐστίν ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἐκπορευτόν ὑπάρχειν, εἰ μή καί ὁ Υἱός εἴη σοι Πατήρ. Οὐ μόνον
δέ τό ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός τῷ ἐκπορευτῷ συνυπακούεται, ἀλλά καί τό ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρός, καθάπερ
καί τῷ γεννητῷ˙ ὡς γάρ οἱ ἔνθεοι θεολόγοι διδάσκουσιν ἡμᾶς, ὅ καί ἀνωτέρω ἔφημεν, χωρίς τοῦ
γεννητῶς τε καί ἐκπορευτῶς, ὡς ὁ Υἱός ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός, οὕτω καί τό Πνεῦμα˙ τοιγαροῦν
παντάπασιν ἀδύνατον εἶναι καί ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ.
______________________________________________________________________________

Therefore, the procession of the Spirit is from only the Father. And according to His existence,
the Spirit always proceeds from only the Father, although does not in His coming forth which
manifests. For, in some passages {only} is not expressed in the procession from the Father, but it
is understood by those who hear with understanding, exactly like it is understood with the Son in
respect to His begottenness. For, every one of us all is He is begotten; but begotten from the
Father. But that is the same as to say the Son is “only from God the Father.” As a result, this is
joined to Him as His property and is ever understood, even if it is not expressed. In the very
same way, then, you would say our own our spirit is processed.

78
Ott, 63. “That the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and from the Son as from One Single Principle and through One Single
Spiration, is clear from John 16, 15: " All that the Father has, is mine." If the Son, by virtue of His eternal generation from the Father,
possesses everything that the Father posesses except the Fatherhood and the ungeneratedness which are not communicable, then He must
also possess the power of spiration (vis spirativa) and with it the being a Principle in relation to the Holy Ghost.”
As the property of the Holy Spirit is not simply to have been processed, but to have processed
“from the Father,” for He is ever the Father, so as it is not possible to exist processed from the
Son, unless the Son would be for you a Father. But this is understood not only with having been
processed from the Father, but also the phrase “from only the Father,” is understood just like it is
understood with having been begotten. For, as the God-inspired theologians tEach us,( which we
also said earlier in the treatise), as the Son is from the Father, apart from (χωρίς) being by being
begotten or processed, as the Son , so the is the Spirit. Accordingly, it is entirely impossible He is
from the Son.

23

Also, from the Father being what unites the Son and the Holy Spirit; for a medial position is postulated for Each of
them in their names.
ORTH RES: The Father is the union of the Son and Spirit.

Πρός δέ, εἰ καί ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα καί δι᾿ αὐτοῦ τήν ὕπαρξιν ἔχει κατά σέ, αὐτός ἐστιν
ἕνωσις Πατρός καί Πνεύματος. Πῶς οὖν ὁ αὐτός μέγας ἐν θεολογίᾳ Γρηγόριός φησιν, «ἄναρχον
καί ἀρχή καί τό μετά τῆς ἀρχῆς εἷς Θεός», «φύσις δε τοῖς τρισί μία˙ ἕνωσις δέ ὁ Πατήρ, ἐξ οὗ
καί πρός ὅν ἀνάγεται τά ἑξῆς, οὐχ ὡς συναλείφεσθαι, ἀλλ ὡς ἔχεσθαι»; Ἀκούων γάρ τις διά τοῦ
Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα τῷ Πατρί συναπτόμενον, νοεῖν ἄν ἔχοι τοῦτο λεγόμενον, διά τήν κατά τήν
ὁμολογίαν ἐκφώνησιν, μέσου κειμένου τοῦ Υἱοῦ. Καί ὅτι Πατρός Πνεῦμα οὐκ ἄν ἄλλως λέγοιτο,
εἰ μή διά τόν Υἱόν. Ἕνωσις δέ ὁ Πατήρ πῶς ἄν εἴη, εἰ μή προσεχῶς ἔχει πρός ἑκάτερον ἀμέσως
προβαλλόμενος ἑκάτερον; Ἀλλά καί τό οὐχ ὡς συναλείφεσθαι δέ, ἀλλὡς ἔχεσθαι, τήν προσεχῆ
καί ἄμεσον ἑκατέρου σχέσιν πρός αὐτόν δηλοῖ.

Now, to this. If the Spirit is from the Son and has His existence from Him, according to you, then
the Son is the union of the Father and Spirit. But how come the same Gregory, great in theology,
says, “the unoriginate and the origin and what is with the origin are one God”? "The nature is
one in three; but the Father is the union, from Whom and to Whom those following are led back,
not so that they are fused together, but as having been given existence”79

For, someone who hears the Spirit is conjoined to the Father through the Son, could justifiably
think this was said because in the confessed doxological ekfonesis the Son occupies the middle
position. And {think} that he could not be called the Spirit of the Father any other way except
because of the Son. But how would the Father be the union, unless He possesses direct relation
to Each, emanating Each directly? Instead, it (the union) clearly indicates the relation of Each to
Him as direct and immediate so as to not fuse together, but as having it differently.

24

And on the basis, the Spirit is not said to be from the Origin, but with the Origin, the Son is theologized as of the
origin.

Τί δέ, ὅτι «τό ἄναρχον καί ἡ ἀρχή καί τό μετά τῆς ἀρχῆς εἷς Θεός»; Εἰ γάρ ἐξ Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα
ᾔδει, τό ἐκ τῆς ἀρχῆς ἄν εἶπεν, οὐ τό μετά τῆς ἀρχῆς.

ORTH RES: The Spirit is with the Origin {the Son}, therefore the Spirit is not from the Origin.

But {if it is true} why does he say that “the unoriginate, and the origin, and Him with the origin
are one God”?80 For, if he {Gregory} knew the Spirit is, “from the Son”, he would have said
“Who is from the origin,” and not “with the origin.”

25

And one who says that the Spirit has existence from the Son and transforming “through” to mean “from” sins. For as
it is witnessed in the word, the Spirit is said to be through Him, not from Him, but together with Him, Who had been
begotten from the Father, and that the Spirit proceeds.
______________________________________________________________________________

LATIN ASSERTION: “Through the Son” denotes existence from the Son.

ORTHODOX RESPONSE: Through is understood in the sense of “with”

Οὐκοῦν ὅταν ἀκούσῃς διά τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα ἐκπορεύεσθαι, ὡς συμπαρομαρτοῦν τῷ λόγῳ
νόησον. Οὕτω γάρ καί τήν “διά” οὐκ εἰς τήν “ἐκ” κακῶς, ἀλλ᾿ εἰς τήν “μετά”, τῷ τῆς θεολογίας
ἐπωνύμῳ συνᾴδων μεταλήψῃ. «Πνεῦμα γάρ», φησί, «μεμαθήκαμεν», Δαμασκηνός ὁ θεῖος, «τό
συμπαρομαρτοῦν τῷ λόγῳ καί φανεροῦν αὐτοῦ τήν ἐνέργειαν». Συμπαρομαρτεῖν δέ ἐστι τό

79
Ἐκδοσις ἀκριβὴς (St. John Damascus, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith)

80
Λὀγος 42, 15. Ἄναρχον είναι ὁ Πατήρ, ἀρχή ὁ Υἰός, τὸ μετά τῆς αρχῆς είναι τὸ Πνεῦμα. (St. Gregory the
Theologian, Oration 42)
συνακολουθεῖν, ὡς ὁ αὐτός ἐκεῖ φησιν ὥστε οὐχί καί ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἀλλά σύν τῷ Υἱῷ τό Πνεῦμα
ἐκ Πατρός, συνακολουθούσης ἀδιαστάτως τε καί ἀχρόνως τῇ γεννήσει τῆς ἐκπορεύσεως.
Μεμαθήκαμεν δέ εἶπεν, ὡς τῶν πρό αὐτοῦ θεοφόρων οὕτω διδασκόντων, παρ ὧν μυηθείς οὕτω
νοεῖν τό Πνεῦμα δι᾿ Υἱοῦ, τό ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ τοῦτο λέγειν παντάπασιν ἀπηγόρευσεν.

Therefore, whenever you hear that the Spirit is processed through the Son, understand Him to be
accompanying with the Word. For, in this way, you would not take the word “through” wrongly,
in the sense of “from,” but in the sense of “with,” in harmony with him who is eponymously
named Theologian. As the divine Damascene says, “for, we have learned that the Spirit
accompanies the Word and reveals His energy."

Συμπαρομαρτεῖν δέ ἐστι τό συνακολουθεῖν, ὡς ὁ αὐτός ἐκεῖ φησιν ὥστε οὐχί καί ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ
ἀλλά σύν τῷ Υἱῷ τό Πνεῦμα ἐκ Πατρός, συνακολουθούσης ἀδιαστάτως τε καί ἀχρόνως τῇ
γεννήσει τῆς ἐκπορεύσεως. Μεμαθήκαμεν δέ εἶπεν, ὡς τῶν πρό αὐτοῦ θεοφόρων οὕτω
διδασκόντων, παρ ὧν μυηθείς οὕτω νοεῖν τό Πνεῦμα δι᾿ Υἱοῦ, τό ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ τοῦτο λέγειν
παντάπασιν ἀπηγόρευσεν.

LATIN PRESUPPOSITION: “Through the Son” denotes existence “from the Son.”
ORTHODOX RESPONSE: The Spirit is “with the Son” not “through the Son.”

Now to accompany is to follow along with, as he himself says there. As a result, the Spirit is not,
“from the Son”, but He is together, “with the Son”, “from the Father”, when the procession
accompanies the begetting in a non spatial and non temporal manner.

We have learned, in that he said, the God bearers, who were before him, who taught as this,
by whom he was initiated, we should as well think the Spirit is “through the Son” like this. He
completely forbade saying that the Spirit is, “from the Son.”
Εἰ δ ὁ μέγας Βασίλειος οὐδέν εἶναί φησιν ἀπᾷδον εἰς τήν “ἐκ” τήν “διά” μεταλαμβάνειν, ἀλλ ἐπί
τῶν κτισμάτων, διό καί τόν ἀπόστολον προήγαγεν εἰπόντα, «ἐξ αὐτοῦ καί δι᾿ αὐτοῦ καί εἰς
αὐτόν τά πάντα», παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ γάρ δεδημιούργηνται καί δι᾿ αὐτοῦ συνέχονται καί πρός αὐτόν
ἐπιστρέφονται τά ὄντα πάντα, ὁ δέ ἱερός Δαμασκηνός κἀν τῷ ἑβδόμῳ τῶν Θεολογικῶν αὐτοῦ
κεφαλαίων προθείς πάλιν ὅ καί ἀνωτέρω ἔφημεν, μετά τινα συνᾴδων τῷ Κατηχητικῷ λόγῳ τοῦ
Νύσσης ἐνθέου Γρηγορίου, «τό ἅγιον Πνεῦμα δύναμιν εἶναί φησιν οὐσιώδη, αὐτήν ἐφ ἑαυτῆς ἐν
ἰδιαζούσῃ ὑποστάσει θεωρουμένην καί αὐτοῦ, δηλονότι τοῦ Λόγου, οὖσαν ἐκφαντικήν, οὐ
χωρισθῆναι τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν ᾧ ἐστι καί τοῦ Λόγου ᾧ συμπαρομαρτεῖ δυναμένην», ἆρ᾿ οὐ σαφές
κἀντεῦθεν, ὡς οὐχί καί ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον;

ORTHODOX RESPONSE: “through the Son” is for created beings.

Now if Basil the Great says there is nothing inharmonious in transforming, “from” , into
“through,” yet this is for created beings. And consequently, he also refers to the Apostle, who
said, "all things are from Him and through Him and in Him" (Rom. 11:36). For, from Him, all
beings have been created by Him and through Him are sustained and return to Him. And the
sacred Damascene in his seventh theological chapter, having placed the passage which we cited
earlier above, after a particular section says in agreement with the Great Catechism of the divine
Gregory of Nyssa, "the Holy Spirit is the essential power which is contemplated from Itself in
His individualized hypostasis and being His expression, that is, of the Word, is not able to be
separated from God, in Whom He is, and in Whom He accompanies with the power of His
Word."81 Therefore, is it also not clear from this passage here that the Holy Spirit does not
proceed also from the Son?

26

Again, on the basis Each of the three Persons been theologized as a middle point of the other two hypostatically.

Οὐ μήν, ἀλλ᾿ ἐπεί παρά τῶν θεολόγων ποτέ μέν ὁ Πατήρ μέσος εἶναι λέγεται Υἱοῦ καί
Πνεύματος, ποτέ δέ ὁ Υἱός μέσος τοῦ Πατρός τε καί Πνεύματος, ποτέ δέ τό Πνεῦμα μέσον τοῦ
Πατρός τε καί Υἱοῦ, οὐκ ἄν εἴη τό Πνεῦμα τρίτον ἀπό τοῦ Πατρός, οὐδ᾿ ἄν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός διά
τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό εἶναι ἔχοι. Τοῖς γάρ ἐφεξῆς τρισί σημείοις, οὐκ ἄν εἴη ποτέ τι τῶν ἑκατέρωθεν
κειμένων ἄκρων μέσον˙ ἀλλ᾿ ἔοικεν ἡ ἐπί τῆς θεολογίας μεσότης νοουμένη τοῖς ἐπί τῶν γωνιῶν
τοῦ ἰσοπλεύρου τριγώνου σημείοις ἄκροις˙ ἐκεῖ γάρ ἕκαστον μέσον ἑκατέρωθεν εὑρίσκεται. Ἄν
δέ καί τόν μεσότητα πρῶτον ἔχοντα ἐν ἀριθμοῖς ἐπισωρεύσας ὡς ἐν ἐπιπέδῳ θῇς, οὕτω τόν τε
πρῶτον ἐνεργείᾳ τρίγωνον ἀποτελέσεις ἀριθμόν, καί ἥν ἄν λάβοις τῶν ἐν αὐτῷ μονάδων μέση
δυσῖν ὑπολοίποιν ἔσται. Εἴ τις οὖν ἀρχήν καί αἴτιον τῶν δύο κέντρων ὑποθοῖτο τό ἕν, προσεχῶς
καί ἀμέσως ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἐκεῖνο πρός ἑκάτερον ἔχει κἀν ταῖς μονάσι δήπου τόν αὐτόν τρόπον
______________________________________________________________________________

81
Ἐκδοσις ἀκριβὴς 1, 7 (St. John Damascus, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith)
It is certainly not true.82 Rather, since the Father, on one hand, is sometimes said to be in
between the Son and the Spirit by the Theologians and sometimes the Son is between the Father
and the Spirit, and sometimes the Spirit is between the Father and the Son, the Spirit would not
be third from the Father, neither could He have being from the Father through the Son.

The Filioque

For with three consecutive points, never would any of them be the middle from the end points
plotted. But, pertaining to theology, the center is calculated in respect to the end points of the
sides of an equilateral triangle. For, in that {illustration} Each is found to be the midpoint of
Each single one.

And so, should you have added up what had the first midpoint, in the calculations, as if you set it
on a plane, this is how you actually calculate the triangle’s first measurement. And what you
would take from the units in it, will be the middle for the two remaining. If someone, then, was
hypothesizing the one is the origin and cause of the two points, that point necessarily has to
relate to Each directly and immediately, assuming it also is maintained in the same manner, with
the units.

27

And that they are related to Each other as Each other is related toward Himself.
______________________________________________________________________________

Τί δέ, οἱ λέγοντες ὡς ἕν ἕκαστον αὐτῶν ἔχει πρός τό ἕτερον οὐχ ἧττον ἤ πρός ἑαυτό, ἆρ᾿ οὐκ
ἀριδήλως ἀμέσως ἔχειν παριστῶσι πρός ἄλληλα;
82
An affirmation of the previous sentence, “Therefore, is it also not clear from this passage here that the Holy
Spirit does not proceed also from the Son?”
______________________________________________________________________________

But why, (when those who are saying that Each one of them is able to relate to the other not less
than to its own self), does this illustration not obviously prove they have a direct relationship to
one another?

28

And it has been shown that Each exists directly from the Father by the Spirit being called second from the Father,
just as the Son, not likened to a theological illustration in three continuous points in a text, but to the three points of
a corners of a triangle.

Τί δ ὁ ἐμμέτροις Ἔπεσι θεολογικῶς τε ἅμα καί πατρικῶς ἐγκελευόμενος, ὡς εἴπερ ἀκούσαις περί
Υἱοῦ καί Πνεύματος, «ὥς ρα Θεοῖο τά δεύτερα Πατρός ἔχουσιν, οὕτω νοεῖν κέλομαί σε λόγους
σοφίης βαθυκόλπου»˙ ὡς εἰς ρίζαν ἄναρχον ἀνέρχεται, οὐ θεότητα τέμνει. Εἰ γάρ μή ἀμέσως ἦν
ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός τό Πνεῦμα, οὐκ ἄν δεύτερον καί τοῦτ ἀπό τοῦ Πατρός ἐτίθει, καθά καί τόν Υἱόν.

This is why you have simultaneously been theologically and patristically enjoined to hearken to
poetic verses, with the expectation you would hearken concerning the Son and the Spirit,“as to
why those who are second from the Father possess the divinity, I urge you to consider the words,
so you may be made deeply wise in your heart”83 As the Unoriginate springs into a root, He does
not sever the divinity. For, if the Spirit was not immediately from the Father, He would not have
placed Him second from the Father, just like he did with the Son.

29

After this, since it was obviously proven that the procession of the Spirit is twofold, it had also been shown that
Each of the processions has a corresponding resting point. And in this, again, the Holy Spirit does not have being
also from the Son.

Καί μήν ἐκπόρευσις, ἐφ᾿ οὗπερ ἄν λέγοιτο, πρόοδός τις καί κίνησίς ἐστι, κατάλληλος τῷ τε
ἐκπορεύοντι καί τῷ ἐκπορευομέν ῳ Ἡ δέ τοῦ Πνεύματος πρόοδος διττή διά τῆς θεοπνεύστου
κηρύσσεται Γραφῆς˙ προχεῖται γάρ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός διά τοῦ Υἱοῦ, εἰ δέ βούλει καί ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ
, ἐπί πάντας τούς ἀξίους, οἷς καί ἐπαναπαύεται καί ἐνοικεῖ. Αὕτη οὖν ἡ κίνησίς τε καί πρόοδος,
εἰ δέ βούλει καί ἐκπόρευσις – οὐδέ γάρ περί τῶν ὀνομάτων ζυγομαχοῦντες ἀσχημονήσομεν, ἐπεί
καί ὁ Δαβίδ λέγει, «ὁ Θεός ἐν τῷ ἐκπορεύεσθαί σε ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ λαοῦ σου, ἐν τῷ διαβαίνειν σε ἐν
τῇ ἐρήμῳ, γῆ ἐσείσθη», ἐκπόρευσιν ἐνταῦθα λέγων τήν τοῦ Πνεύματος ἔκχυσιν ἐπί πᾶσαν σάρκα
τήν εἰς Χριστόν πιστεύσασαν, ἥτις ἔρημος ἦν πρότερον τῆς χάριτος, ὥσπερ καί σεισμόν τῆς γῆς
τήν ἐξ εἰδωλολατρίας πρός Θεόν μετάθεσιν – αὕτη οὖν ἡ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός καί τοῦ Υἱοῦ πρόοδος
83
Γρηγορίου Θεολόγου, Θεολογικά Έπη, Περὶ Πνεύματος στ. 54-57 PG 37, 412A (St. Gregory the Theologian,
Theological Verses - On the Holy Spirit)
τοῦ Πνεύματος οὐκ ἄν εἴη πάντως καί διά τῶν ἀξίων˙ καί ταῦτα πρός τούς αὐτούς πάλιν, ἐν οἷς
οἰκεῖ τε καί ἀναπαύεται χάριτι τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον. Ἀνάπαυσις γάρ ἐστιν ἐν τούτοις, ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ ἐξ
αὐτῶν κίνησις τοῦ Πνεύματος, ἀλλά μᾶλλον τῆς ἐπ᾿ αὐτούς κινήσεως παῦλα˙ κἄν τινες
μεταδιδόναι δύναμιν ἐκτήσαντο, ἀλλ ἑτέρῳ πάντως τρόπῳ.

And certainly the procession, about which it could be said is some type of coming forth and
motion, is befitting the Processor and the Processed. But the procession of the Spirit is
proclaimed to be two fold through the God breathed Scripture. For, He comes forth from the
Father, through the Son, or, if you prefer, also from the Son, upon all those who are worthy,
upon whom He rests upon and indwells. Therefore, this is a movement and going forth, or if you
will, a procession. For, we do not want to start unseemly debating about names. As David says
elsewhere, "O God, when You went forth before Your people, when You passed through the
desert, the earth shook" (Ps. 67, 8), “going forth” here means the outpouring of the Holy Spirit
on all flesh believing in Christ, which previously was a wilderness with respect to grace, as if the
seismic earthquake was the transition from idolatry to God. This coming forth, then, of the Holy
Spirit from the Father and the Son would not completely realized, even by worthy men. And,
again, these things happen, in those in whom Holy Spirit dwells and rests by grace. For, it is a
rest in them. But the movement of the Holy Spirit is not from them, but rather a cessation of
movement from them; although some acquired the power of transmission, but it is in a different
way.

Ἡ μέντοι ἐκ Πατρός δι ̓ Υἱοῦ, ἥν ἔφημεν, πρόοδος τοῦ Πνεύματος καλεῖται καί εὐδοκία Πατρός
τε καί Υἱοῦ, ὡς διά φιλανθρωπίαν πάντως τελεσθεῖσα, καί ἀποστολή καί δόσις καί
συγκατάβασις, καί χρονικῶς ἀεί προάγεται καί πρός τινας καί δι ̓ αἰτίας, ἵνα ἁγιάσῃ καί διδάξῃ
καί ὑπομνήσῃ καί τούς ἀπειθεῖς ἐλέγξῃ ̇ μίαν μέν οὖν αὕτη κίνησις καί πρόοδος τοῦ Πνεύματος.

Indeed, the procession from the Father, through the Son, which we said is called a coming forth
of the Spirit, is the good pleasure of the Father and the Son, as it was completely wrought to
perfection on the basis of the love of God for mankind, and is a sending and a transmission and a
condescension. Further, it always comes forth temporally and to certain persons for a cause, that
He might sanctify and tEach and bring to remembrance and reprove the disobedient. On the one
hand, he named the one, then, this same movement and coming forth of the Spirit.

Ἔστι δέ καί ἡ ἀναιτίως τε καί ἀπολελυμένως πάντῃ καί ὑπέρ εὐδοκίαν καί φιλανθρωπίαν, ὡς μή
κατά θέλησιν ἀλλά κατά φύσιν μόνην ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός οὖσα προαιώνιος καί ὑπερφυεστάτη τοῦ
Πνεύματος ἐκπόρευσις καί κίνησις καί πρόοδος. Ζητῆσαι δή χρεών ἡμᾶς καί κατά ταύτην τήν
ἄφραστόν τε καί ἀπερινόητον κίνησιν τό Πνεῦμα προερχόμενον ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός, ἆρ ἔχει κατά
τάς γραφάς καί «ἐν ᾧ ἀναπαύεται» θεοπρεπῶς; Ζητοῦντες οὖν εὑρίσκομεν εὐδοκιμήσαντα τόν
Πατέρα τοῦ μονογενοῦς Θεοῦ διδάξαι καί ἀποκαλύψαι τοῦτο πρῶτον Ἰωάννῃ τῷ τοῦ Κυρίου
προδρόμῳ τε καί βαπτιστῇ, ὅς φησι˙ «κἀγώ οὐκ ᾔδειν αὐτόν, ἀλλ᾿ ὁ πέμψας με βαπτίζειν ἐν
ὕδατι, ἐκεῖνός μοι εἶπεν˙ ἐφ᾿ ὅν ἄν ἴδοις τό Πνεῦμα καταβαῖνον καί μένον ἐπ᾿ αὐτόν, οὗτός ἐστιν
ὁ βαπτίζων ἐν Πνεύματι ἁγίῳ». Διό «καί ἐμαρτύρησεν ὁ Ἰωάννης λέγων ὅτι τεθέαμαι τό Πνεῦμα
καταβαῖνον ὡσεί περιστεράν ἐξ οὐρανοῦ καί ἔμεινεν ἐπ᾿ αὐτόν».

But the other, on the other hand, is causeless and completely separated from relations and
transcendentally beyond His goodwill and love for man, since it is not on the basis of will,84 but
by nature from only the Father, being a pre-eternal and absolutely super natural procession and
movement and emanation of the Spirit.

At this point, do we not need to examine this inexpressible and incomprehensible movement, the
Spirit being processed from the Father, how there is an explanation in a God-befitting manner,
then, of the phrase “in Whom He rests”?

So, when we enquire, we find the Father of the only begotten God was well pleased to tEach and
reveal this in the first place to John, the Forerunner and baptizer of the Lord, who says, “and I
knew Him not, but He that sent me to baptize with water. That one said to me, ‘I did not know
Him, but He who sent me to baptize in water, He told me: upon Whom you will see the Spirit
descending and remaining, this is He Who baptizes with the Holy Spirit" (Jn 1:33). And so "John
bore witness saying that “I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove and remaining
upon Him” (Jn 1:32).

Ἀλλ ἵνα μή τις, νομίσας διά τήν ἐνανθρώπησιν τοῦ Κυρίου ταῦτα λεχθῆναί τε καί τελεσθῆναι
παρά τοῦ Πατρός, οὐχ ἱκανόν εἶναι δεῖγμα τοῦτ᾿ εἴπῃ πρός εὕρεσιν τοῦ ζητουμένου ἀκουέτω
Δαμασκηνοῦ τοῦ θείου γράφοντος ἐν ὀγδόῳ τῶν Δογματικῶν, «πιστεύομεν καί εἰς ἕν Πνεῦμα
ἅγιον, τό ἐκ Πατρός ἐκπορευόμενον καί ἐν Υἱῷ ἀναπαυόμενον», καί ἐν τῷ περί θείου τόπου,
«Θεός τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιόν ἐστι, δύναμις ἁγιαστική ἐνυπόστατος ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός ἀδιαστάτως
ἐκπορευομένη καί ἐν Υἱῷ ἀναπαυομένη». Διό καί ταμίας τοῦ θείου Πνεύματος ὁ Χριστός ἐκ
Θεοῦ γνήσιος Υἱός ἐστί τε καί λέγεται. Ὅ καί ὁ θεῖος Κύριλλος ἐν Θησαυροῖς δεικνύς, «ἀνάγκη
πᾶσα», φησί, «τῆς θείας φύσεως εἶναι λέγειν τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον, ἧς καί ἔστιν ἀπαρχή κατά τόν
ἀπόστολον˙ εἰ δέ τοῦτο, οὐκ ἔστι κτίσμα, Θεός δέ μᾶλλον ὡς ἐκ Θεοῦ καί ἐν Θεῷ». Καί πάλιν,
«Θεός ἄρα τό Πνεῦμά ἐστι τό ἐν Υἱῷ παρά Πατρός φυσικῶς ὑπάρχον καί ὅλην αὐτοῦ τήν
ἐνέργειαν ἔχον». Ἀλλά καί ὁ τοῦ Διαλόγου θεῖος Γρηγόριος ἐν τῷ τελευταίῳ αὐτοῦ λόγῳ φησίν,

84
This is the major theological divide between the Orthodox and official Roman Catholic Dogmatics. The
statement from Aquinas is worthy of repetition:
Summa Question 27; article 4; objection 3,
“I answer that, the procession of love in God ought not to be called generation. In evidence whereof we must
consider that the intellect and the will differ in this respect, that the intellect is made actual by the object understood
residing according to its own likeness in the intellect; whereas the will is made actual, not by any similitude of the
object willed within it, but by its having a certain inclination to the thing willed. Thus the procession of the
intellect is by way of similitude, and is called generation, because every generator begets its own like; whereas the
procession of the will is not by way of similitude, but rather by way of impulse and movement towards an object.
So what proceeds in God by way of love, does not proceed as begotten, or as son, but proceeds rather as spirit;
which name expresses a certain vital movement and impulse, accordingly as anyone is described as moved or
impelled by love to perform an action.
ὅτι «τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός ἐκπορεύεται καί ἐν τῷ Υἱῷ μένει». «Οὕτω γάρ ἄν
θεώμενοι σεφθείημεν πηγήν ζωῆς εἰς ἑαυτήν χεομένην καί ἐφ᾿ ἑαυτῆς ἑστῶσαν ὁρῶντες», κατά
τόν μέγαν θεοφάντορα Διονύσιον.

But, lest someone might say this proof is not sufficient for finding an answer to our inquiry,
because he thought these things had been said by reason of the Incarnation of the Lord and His
having been perfected by the Father (Lk.13:32), let him hear the Damascene when he writes in
the eighth chapter of his dogmatics,“we believe also in one Holy Spirit, Who proceeds from the
Father and rests in the Son."85

And, in this passage concerning the place of the divine, “the Holy Spirit therefore is God, an
enhypostatic power capable of sanctifying, Who proceeds nonspatially and rests in the Son.”86
And in this way Christ is and is called the genuine Son of God and dispenser of the divine Spirit.
Which also the divine Cyril has shown in his treasuries, “there is every necessity,” he says, “to
say the Holy Spirit is of the divine nature of which He also is the firstfruits, according to the
Apostle. But if this is so, He is not a creature, rather He is God, as from God and in God.”87

And, again, “therefore, God the Spirit is He Who exists naturally in the Son, from the Father and
possessing all His activity.” And consider also the divine Gregory, who is the author of the
dialogues, in his final exposition, says, that, "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and rests
in the Son.”According to Dionysius, who is great amongst those who have spoken of God, “for
in this way we have been deified, we will find ourselves in reverent awe of the fountain of life,
beholding it flow into Itself and stand still established in Itself."88

Καί τοίνυν τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον κατά τήν προαιώνιον ἐκείνην καί ἀπερινόητον ἐκπόρευσίν τε καί
πρόοδον ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός ἐκπορευόμενον καί ἐν Υἱῷ ἀναπαυόμενον, πῶς ἄν διά τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἐν ᾧ
ἀναπαύεται ταύτην ἔχει τήν πρόοδον; Οὐκοῦν εἰ καί ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ πάλιν προέρχεσθαι θεολεγεῖται,
οὐ κατ᾿ ἐκείνην πάντως, ἀλλά καθ᾿ ἑτέραν πρόοδον, ἥτις ἐστίν ἡ πρός ἡμᾶς φανέρωσις καί πρός
τούς ἀξίους μετάδοσις. Ὁ γάρ Χριστός ἐστι κατά τόν θεολόγον Γρηγόριον ὁ τοῦ Πνεύματος
ταμίας, ὡς Θεός τε καί Θεοῦ Υἱός. Ὁ δέ ταμίας οὐκ ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ πάντως τά διδόμενα προβάλλεται,
καίτοι φυσικῶς ἔχει ἐν αὐτῷ τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον ὁ ἐκ Θεοῦ Θεός καί φυσικῶς ἐξ αὐτοῦ προϊόν
εἰς τούς ἀξίους, ἀλλ᾿ οὐχί τήν ὕπαρξιν ἔχον ἐξ αὐτοῦ. Ταῦτ ἄρα καί αὐτός ὁ Κύριος, «ὅταν
ἔλθῃ», φησίν, «ὁ παράκλητος, ὅν ἐγώ πέμψω ὑμῖν παρά τοῦ Πατρός», ὡς παρά τοῦ Πατρός
ἐκπορευόμενον καί ἐν αὐτῷ ἀναπαυόμενον καί οὕτω πεμπόμενον πρός τούς οἰκείους.

And so, in correspondence with the afore mentioned pre eternal and incomprehensible
procession and coming forth from the Father, the Holy Spirit accordingly is processed and rests

85
Ἔκδοσις ἀκριβἠς 1, 8. (St. John Damascus, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith)
86
Ἔκδοσις ἀκριβἠς 1, 13. (St. John Damascus, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith)
87
Θησαυροί PG 75, 580 C. (St. Cyril of Alexandria, Treasuries)
88
Περὶ Θείων ὀνομάτων 2, 5; 2, 7; και 2, 3 (St. Dionysius the Areopagite, On the Divine Names)
in the Son. How, then, will He possess this procession through the Son in Whom He rests?
Therefore, again, if it is theologized that He proceeds from the Son, it definitely does not refer to
this procession, but to another procession, which is a manifestation to us and transmission to
those who are worthy. For, Christ is, according to Gregory the Theologian, the Treasurer of the
Spirit, as God and Son of God. But the Treasurer no doubt does not emenate from Himself what
had been given, even though as God from God He naturally has in Himself the Holy Spirit, Who
naturally proceeds, “from Him”, to the worthy, but Who does not have existence “from Him.”
The Lord Himself, then, says the same things. “When the Holy Spirit comes, Whom I will send
from the Father" (Jn 15:26), as processed from the Father and resting in Him, and thus sent to
those of His household.

Εἰ δ ὡς τήν ὕπαρξιν ἔχον ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοu ὡς δι᾿ Υἱοῦ παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ τό Πνεῦμα πέμπεται, ἀρχήν
οὐκοῦν ἔχει καί τοῦτο τόν Υἱόν καί τῶν γεγονότων ἐστίν ἕν. Καί μαρτυρείτω πάλιν ἡ θεολόγος
φωνή˙ «τηροῖτο γάρ», φησίν, «ὡς ὁ ἐμός λόγος, εἷς μέν Θεός, εἰς ἕν αἴτιον καί Υἱοῦ καί
Πνεύματος ἀναφερομένων, καί κατά τό ἕν καί ταὐτόν τῆς θεότητος, ἵν᾿ οὕτως εἴπω, κίνημά τε
καί βούλημα καί τήν τῆς οὐσίας ταυτότητα.

But if He had existence from the Son, as if the Spirit is sent “though Him”, “from Him”89 then,
He has an Origin and this is the Son, and the Spirit is one of the things which have come into
being. Let the voice of the Theologian once again testify to this.
For, he says, “let this be observed , like as in my treatise, on one hand, God is one, with the
anaphoral return back to the one Cause of the Son and Spirit, and with respect to the one there is
also identicalness of divinity,(that I may so say), Both in movement and counsel and in
identicalness of essence.90

Αἱ δέ τρεῖε ὑποστάσεις μηδεμιᾶς ἐπινοουμένης συναλοιφῆς ἤ ἀναλύσεως ἤ συγχύσεως, Πατρός

μέν ὡς ἀνάρχου καί ἀρχῆς ἐπινοουμένου καί λεγομένου, ἀρχῆς δέ ὡς αἰτίου καί ὡς πηγῆς καί ὡς
ἀϊδίου φωτός, Υἱοῦ δέ ἀνάρχου μέν οὐδαμῶς, ἀρχῆς δέ τῶν ὅλων». Εἰ οὖν καί τοῦ Πνεύματος
εἴη ἀρχή ὁ Υἱός, ἕν τῶν ὅλων ἔσται κατά σέ τό Πνεῦμα˙ τούτων γάρ ἀρχή καί ὁ Υἱός.
______________________________________________________________________________

But, O three hypostases! When there has been no coalescing in conceptualization, either division
or fusing together, the Father indeed has been conceptualized and spoken of as unoriginate and
Origin, though as Origin, as a Fount of the eternal Light. But the Son, is not unoriginate at all,
but is the Origin of all things.”91 So, if the Son might be the Origin of the Spirit, the Spirit will
be one of all things created, according to you. For, the Son is origin of these things.

89
παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ, not ἐκ τοῦ
90
As the Three are one in will, it is blasphemy to say the Spirit is the mutual will of the Father and Son.
91
Λόγος 31, 12. (St. Gregory the Theologian, Oration 31)
Ἵν᾿ οὖν αὖθις εἴπω τό τοῦ θεολόγου, «δεῖξον ὅτι γέγονε τό Πνεῦμα καί τότε τῷ Υἱῷ δός», ὥστε
δι᾿ αὐτοῦ ἤ καί ἐξ αὐτοῦ τήν ὕπαρξιν κεκτῆσθαι,
- ἐπεί καί ὁ θεῖος Κύριλλος πρός τούς λέγοντας ὡς, εἰ καί ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ τό Πνεῦμα, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ
κυρίως οὐδ᾿ ἐξῃρημένως, ἵν ἐντεῦθεν ὁμοούσιον νοῆται τό ἐξ οὗ, γέγραπται γάρ ὅτι καί τά
πάντα ἐκ Θεοῦ «μένει», φησί, «τῷ ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι κυρίως τό ἐξ οὗ, διά τό ἐκ Θεοῦ Πατρός πρός
τό εἶναι τά οὐκ ὄντα δραμεῖν, δι᾿ Υἱοῦ δέ»
- δεῖξον οὖν, ἵνα πάλιν εἴπω, τό θεῖον Πνεῦμα ἐκ μή ὄντων, καί τότε καί ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ τήν
ὑπόσταστιν αὐτῷ παράσχου, ταὐτό δ᾿ εἰπεῖν παρ ἀμφοτέρων.

Therefore, I ought to repeat the saying of the Theologian, “prove that the Spirit had a becoming
and then attribute it to the Son,” so that is He is “through Him” or had acquired existence, “from
Him,”

Since Cyril the Divine says this to those who were saying, even if the Spirit was from God it was
not precisely or absolutely, because {“from God”} is considered consubstantial, he, of course,
says it is written, “all things ‘from God’ abide in the Holy Spirit, precisely the Source from
Whom things exist. Because What is “from the Father” brings things which are not existent into
being, but through the Son.” So, I ought to repeat it: prove the divine Spirit is from things which
are not existent, and then grant His hypostasis to the Son, but that is the same as to say, from
Both.

Ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων οὖν ὑπάρχον τό Πνεῦμα οὐκ ἔστι μή ἕν τῶν πάντων εἶναι ἤ τό τάχα μετριώτερον
δοκοῦν, μή καί ἀμφοτέρους τό ἕν αἰτίους ἔχειν καί ἀρχήν ἑκάτερον. Ὡς γάρ ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων τῆς
κτίσεως ἁπάσης προηγμένης ἑκάτερός ἐστιν ἀρχή τῶν ὅλων, οὕτως ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων τοῦ
Πνεύματος ἐκπορευομένου, κατά τούς λατινικῶς φρονοῦντας, ἑκάτερος ἔσται τοῦ πνεύματος
ἀρχή, καί δύο κἀντεῦθεν ἔσονται ἀρχαί τῆς μιᾶς θεότητος.

Therefore, the Spirit does not exist from Both, for He cannot possibly be one of all things. Or,
perhaps what seems more accurate, the One cannot have Both as causes and Each cannot have an
Origin.

LATIN PRESUPPOSITION: For, as with every created thing which came forth from Both, Each
is the origin of all, so also the Spirit has been processed from Both, according to those who think
as the Latins.

ORTHODOX RESPONSE: Each will be an origin of the Spirit, and on this basis, there will be
two origins of the one divinity.

Εἰ γάρ συντελεῖ τι, μάτην εἴληπται καί ὡς ἐκ γεωμετρικοῦ πορίσματος μάταιοι ὄντως
ἀνεφάνησαν οἱ λατῖνοι θεολόγοι˙ οὐ γάρ ταῦτ ἔχουσι λέγειν. Ὡς, καθάπερ ἐπί τῶν
δημιουργημάτων ἑκατέρου ὑπάρχοντος ἀρχῆς, μία οὐδέν ἧττόν ἐστιν ἀρχή, οὕτω δή κἀνταῦθα
μία ἔσται, κἄν ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων λέγηται. Ἐκεῖ μέν γάρ, καθάπερ ἔφημεν, φυσική ἐστιν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐχ
ὑποστατική, διά τοῦτο ἡ δημιουργική δύναμις μία καί ἀμφοῖν˙ ἐνταῦθα δέ οὐχί τό γόνιμον
ἀμφοῖν.

For, if this solves anything, as it has been attempted to be solved incorrectly, like geometry it
proves the Latin theologians are genuinely incorrect. For, they are not able to explain these
things.

“As, just like with created things, Each {person} exist as an origin, nonetheless the origin is one,
so here, even if it is spoken of as from Both.”

Of course, just like we have said, the former case is actually natural, but not hypostatic, because
the creative power is one but in the Both. But, in the latter case, the generative capacity is not in
Both.

Ἠκούσαμεν γάρ μικρόν ἀνωτέρω τοῦ τῆς θεολογίας ἐπωνύμου, τόν μέν Πατέρα πηγήν καί ἀρχήν
εἰπόντος ἀϊδίου φωτός, τόν δέ Υἱόν ἄναρχον μέν οὐδαμῶς ἀρχήν δέ τῶν ὅλων. Διό καί «μόνη
πηγή τῆς ὑπερουσίου θεότητος ὁ Πατήρ», ὁ μέγας εἶπε Διονύσιος ὁ Ἀρεοπαγίτης˙ καί αὖθις
«ἔστι πηγαία θεότης ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ δέ Υἱός καί τό Πνεῦμα τῆς θεογόνου θεότητος, εἰ οὕτω χρή
φάναι, βλαστοί θεόφυτοι καί οἷον ἄνθη καί ὑπερούσια φῶτα»˙ καί πάλιν˙ «διακεκριμένα δέ ἐστι
τό Πατρός ὑπερούσιον ὄνομα καί χρῆμα καί Υἱοῦ καί Πνεύματος, οὐδεμιᾶς ἐν τούτοις
ἀντιστροφῆς ἤ ὅλως κοινότητος ἐπεισαγομένης». Κἀν τῷ Περί μυστικῆς θεολογίας τρίτῳ, «ἐκ
τοῦ ἀΰλου», φησί, «καί ἀμεροῦς ἀγαθοῦ τά ἐγκάρδια τῆς ἀγαθότητος ἐξέφυ φῶτα, καί τῆς ἐν
αὐτῷ καί ἐν ἑαυτοῖς καί ἐν ἀλλήλοις συναϊδίου τῇ ἀναβλαστήσει μονῆς ἀπομεμένηκε
ἀνεκφοίτητα»˙ καί αὖθις˙ «τά τῆς ὑπερουσίου θεογονίας οὐκ ἀντιστρέφει πρός ἄλληλα».

For, we heard, a little above from Gregory, eponymously titled the theologian, who said, “while
the Father is the source and eternal Fount of light, yet the Son is not at all unoriginate, even
though He is the origin of all things.”

Wherefore, Dionysius the Great, the Areopagite, said, “the Father is the only Fount of the super
essential divinity.” And, “while the Father is the well-spring of divinity, yet the Son and Spirit
are, (if there is a need to speak thus), shoots of the divine plant of the divinity generated from
God, like blooms and super essential lights.”

And again, "the name and possession of ‘Father’ is transcending essence, thus distinguishing
Him from the Son, and from the Spirit.There is no exchange or communicability of this
distinction introduced among them.” 92 And in his third chapter on Mystical Theology, he says,
“the lights within the heart of goodness radiate forth from the immaterial and undivided

92
Περὶ Θείων ὀνομάτων 2, 5; 2, 7; και 2, 3 (St. Dionysius the Areopagite, On the Divine Names)
goodness, and returning from their abiding state, the lights have remained unapproachably
separate abiding in itself and in themselves and in one another”93 And again, “the lights from the
generation of divinity, which transcends essence, do not return back to one another.” 94

31

Again, it is presented that the Holy Spirit does not have being from the Son, from the fact Father and the Son cannot
share in the generation of divinity.

Εἰ τοίνυν εἴποις προβολέα τόν Υἱόν ὁ Πατήρ οὐδέποτ᾿ ἄν εἴη προβολεύς˙ κοινωνήσει γάρ κατά
τό θεογόνον τῷ Υἱῷ˙ ἀλλά τοῦτ᾿ ἀπείρηται. Εἰ δέ τόν Πατέρα φαίης, ὥσπερ οὖν ἐστιν, ὁ Υἱός
οὐκ ἄν εἴη προβολεύς, οὐκ ἄρα ἐξ αὐτοῦ τό Πνεῦμα˙ μόνος γάρ θεότης θεογόνος ὁ μόνος
γεννήτωρ καί προβολεύς˙ κατά ταῦτα γάρ καί θεογόνος. Ταύτην δή τήν κοινωνίαν καί ὁ μέγας
Βασίλειος ἀπαγορεύων πρός τόν ἑαυτοῦ γράφων ἀδελφόν, «τό Πνεῦμα», φησί, «τό ἅγιον τοῦ
Υἱοῦ μέν ἤρτηται, ᾧ ἀδιαστάτως συγκαταλαμβάνεται˙ τῆς δέ τοῦ Πατρός αἰτίας ἐξημμένον ἔχει
τό εἶναι, ὅθεν καί ἐκπορεύεται, τοῦτο γνωριστικόν τῆς κατά τήν ὑπόστασιν ἰδιότητος σημεῖον
ἔχον, τό μετά τόν Υἱόν καί σύν αὐτῷ γνωρίζεσθαι καί ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός ὑφεστάναι. Ὁ δέ Υἱός τό ἐκ
τοῦ Πατρός ἐκπορευόμενον Πνεῦμα δι᾿ ἑαυτόῦ καί μεθ᾿ ἑαυτοῦ γνωρίζων, μόνος μονογενῶς ἐκ
τοῦ ἀγεννήτου φωτός ἐκλάμψας, οὐδεμίαν κατά τό ἰδιάζον τῶν γνωρισμάτων τήν κοινωνίαν ἔχει
πρός τόν Πατέρα ἤ τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον».

Accordingly, should you say the Son is an Originator, then the Father would never be an
Originator. For, corresponding to the generation of divinity, He will communicate with the
Father, but this is forbidden. And if you are affirming Him to be a Father, like the Father is, the
Son would not be an Originator, and so, the Spirit is not from Him. For, the only generator of
divinity is the only Begetter and One Who causes spiration, as the generation of divinity
correspondingly encompasses these two.

On this point, Basil the Great forbids this very communion, when he writes to his own brother.
He says, “the Holy Spirit truly depends upon the Son, with Whom He is understood as being
together with Him non spatially. He has being, but by the cause of the Father, from Whom also
He is processed, having this sign which distinguishes His own hypostatic property; to be
acknowledged as being after the Son and together with Him, and to receive His substance from
the Father. And the Son, in making the Spirit known, Who proceeds from the Father through His

93
Περὶ Μυστικής Θεολογίας 3. (St. Dionysius the Areopagite, On Mystical Theology)
94
Περὶ Θείων ὀνομάτων 2, 5. (St. Dionysius the Areopagite, On the Divine Names)
own-self and with Himself, Who alone shone forth as uniquely begotten from the unoriginate
Light, which corresponds to His individuating idiom, has no communion with the distinguishing
characteristics, in relation to the Father or the Holy Spirit.”95

Ὁρᾷς ὅπως ἔχει πρός τε τόν Πατέρα καί τόν Υἱόν τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον καί τίνα Υἱοῦ καί
Πνεύματος τά γνωρίσματα; «Γνωρίζει τοίνυν ἡμῖν», φησί, «καί φανεροῖ τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον, δι
ἑαυτοῦ καί μεθ ἑαυτοῦ ὁ τοῦ Θεοῦ μονογενής Υἱός, ἀλλ᾿ οὐχί καί ἐκπορεύει, ἵνα μή κοινωνίαν
ἔχῃ κατά τό ἰδιάζον τῷ Πατρί. Τῆς γάρ τοῦ Πατρός, φησίν, αἰτίας ἐξημμένον ἔχει τό εἶναι τό
Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον, ἥτις ἰδιότης μόνου τοῦ Πατρός ἐστι˙ «Πάντα γάρ», φησίν ὁ θεολόγος, «ὅσα
ἔχει ὁ Πατήρ, τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἐστιν, ἄνευ τῆς αἰτίας». Τίς οὖν ἐκ τοῦ παντός αἰῶνος τῶν ἐνθέων
θεολόγων τά ἴδια ἑκάστου τῶν τριῶν τῆς μιᾶς θεότητος προσώπων τοῖς δυσίν ἤκουσται
προσνείμας, ἀλλά μή ἀσύγχυτα φυλάξας; Ὅτι δέ τοῦ Πατρός ἴδιον τό ἐκπορεύειν δῆλον˙ Τῆς
γάρ αὐτοῦ, φησίν, αἰτίας ἐξῆπται τό Πνεῦμα, ὅθεν καί ἐκπορεύεται, παρ᾿ οὗ καί ὑφέστηκεν˙ εἰ
καί μετά τόν Υἱόν καί σύν αὐτῷ γνωρίζεται.
______________________________________________________________________________

Do you see how the Holy Spirit exists in relation to the Father and the Son and what specifically
are the identifying characteristics of the Son and of the Spirit? He says, “the only-begotten Son
of God, then, is known by us and manifests the Holy Spirit through Himself and with Himself.
But He also does not cause procession, lest He communicates with what specifically individuates
the Father.” So, of course, that is why he says, the Holy Spirit has being, being dependent on the
cause of the Father, which is the property only of the Father. The Theologian says, "all things
which the Father has, are the Son’s, apart from causality.” Who, then, from all the inspired
theologians from any generation has been heard granting the properties of Each of the three
persons of the divinity to the other two? Or, rather, who has not instead guarded them without
fusing them? It is obvious the property of the Father is to cause procession. For, he says, the
Spirit depends upon Him as a cause, from Whom He also proceeds, from Whom He has been
substantiated, even if He is known after the Son and together with Him.

32
Now in these matters, they who think as the Latins proclaimed the common properties of the
Most High Trinity on the basis of equally being predicated to Each of the divine hypostases that
neither the Son nor the Spirit can be from the Father, nor can God have hypostatic differences.

Ἐπεί δέ τά κοινά ἐπί τῆς ἀνωτάτω καί προσκυνητῆς Τριάδος ἐπίσης ἔνεστιν, οἷς ἐστι κοινά, τό δέ
ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός εἶναι κατά τούς Λατίνους οὐκ ἐπίσης πρόσεστι τῷ Υἱῷ καί τῷ ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι, - ὁ
μέν γάρ προσεχῶς ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεγέννηται καί ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρός, τό δέ ἐμμέσως καί οὐ
προσεχῶς ἐκπορεύεται καί οὐκ ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρός ὥς γε αὐτοί φρονοῦσιν – εἰ οὖν κατ᾿
αὐτούς οὐκ ἐπίσης πρόσεστιν, οὐδέ κοινόν Υἱῷ καί Πνεύματι τό εἶναι ἐκ Πατρός˙ εἰ δέ μή
κοινόν τοῦτ ἔστιν αὐτοῖς, οὐδ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός ὅλως οὐδέτερον αὐτῶν. Θάτερον γάρ ὁποιονοῦν ἐκ
τοῦ Πατρός ὑπάρχον, θάτερον ἐκβάλλεται μή κοινωνοῦν, καί δι ἀλλήλων ἀμφότερα. Οὕτως
οὐδέν ἄν διαφύγοις τῶν ἀτόπων ὁ λατινικῶς φρονῶν, ὥσπερ οὐδ ἐk τοῦ Πνεύματος εἰπόντες τόν
95
Ἐπιστολή 38, 4. (St. Basil, Letter 38)
Υἱόν, ἀλλ᾿ οἷς ἄν ἐπιχειρήσῃς διαφεύγειν, τοῖς αὐτοῖς ἐπιχειρήμασι κἀκεῖνοι χρήσονται καί σοι
δι ἑαυτῶν ἄφυκτον ἀποδείξουσι τόν τῶν ἀτόπων ἑσμόν.

ORTHODOX PRESUPPOSITION: Being “from the Father” is equally predicated. Therefore

the Spirit is sharing the divine nature.

Now, since things common for the most high and worshipful Trinity are predicated equally to
Those in Whom they are common,
and since being from the Father is not likewise predicated to the Son and the Holy Spirit,
according to the Latins,( for, the one has been begotten immediately from Him and and from
only the Father, yet the other proceeds indirectly and not immediately, and not from only the
Father, at least as they proclaimed),
then, according to them, as it is not equally predicated, then being from the Father is not common
to the Son and Spirit.

Now, unless this is common to them, one of them is not entirely from the Father. For, whichever
one of the two in particular exists from the Father, the other one is emanated, not sharing, and
Both are through the other.
In this way, you who think as the Latins,
you will not avoid any of the logical absurdities, just as neither would they who would have said
the Son is from the Spirit. But with these exact same arguments you use to escape {their
arguments}, with these exact same arguments these Latins take up, they will prove to you, by
their own selves, the unavoidability of your own absurd conclusions.

Εἰ γάρ ὅτι μετά τόν Υἱόν λέγεται τό Πνεῦμα ὑπαριθμούμενον ἐρεῖς, ὅ σοι δοκεῖ τῶν
ἐπιχειρημάτων ἀσφαλέστερον, ὡς ἔγωγ ̓ ἄν φαίην οὐχ ἧττον τῶν ἄλλων σφαλερόν, κἀκεῖνοί σοι
τόν Υἱόν δείξουσιν, ἔστιν οὐ λεγόμενον μετά τό Πνεῦμα, προαριθμουμένου δηλαδή τοῦ ἁγίου
Πνεύματος. Ἀμφοτέροις δέ ἡμεῖς μετά τῆς ἀληθείας ἀντεροῦμεν λέγοντες, οὐκ ἐν τῇ τάξει τῶν
ὀνομάτων, ὦ οὗτοι, κεῖνται τά πράγματα.

For, if will you say He is reckoned to be less because the Spirit is said after the Son,
(which appears to you safer than all explanations undertaken, or, at least as I myself would say,
is nevertheless safer than others),
,these arguments will explain to you why the Son has not been spoken of after the Spirit by the
Holy Spirit having been numbered prior.
In fact, we will rejoin with the truth for the Both, by saying,(O the people who think this) the
actual realities do not find basis in the order of their names.

Εἰ γάρ τοῦτο, τί κωλύει κατά τόν αὐτόν λόγον τῆς συναριθμήσεώς τε καί προαριθμήσεως
ἐπαλαττομένης παρά τῇ θείᾳ Γραφῇ, ποτέ μέν γεννᾶν τε καί προβάλλειν, ποτέ δέ τά αὐτά
γεννᾶσθαί τε καί προβάλλεσθαι; Οὐδέ γάρ προκαταρκτικόν , οὐδέ πρῶτον αἴτιον ἐπί τοῦ
Πνεύματος, ὡς ὑμεῖς, τόν Πατέρα λέγομεν, δεύτερον δέ τόν Υἱόν,εἰ καί διά τό δημιουργικόν
αἴτιον ταῦτα καλεῖται ὁ Πατήρ. Κἀκεῖθεν οὕτω κεκλημένος, ἔσθ ὅτε παρά τῶν θεολόγων οὕτως
ὀνομάζεται καί περί τῶν ἀκτίστων τόν λόγον ποιουμένων, ὥσπερ καί Πατήρ διά τόν Υἱόν
καλεῖται.

For, if this is so, what hinders, according to this same argument, which is based on alternating
enumeration as prior in the divine scripture, the begetting and causing procession from being at
one time, to be begotten once and then processed at another time?

It is because we do not call the Father the initial point, or the first cause in the Spirit, in the same
way you do. We say the Father is first, but the Son is second, even though the same two are
called the Father on account of the creative cause. With this understanding, He has so been
called, sometimes by the theologians, when they make an argument concerning uncreated things,
like He is called Father on account of the Son.

Ἀλλ ἔσθ ὅτε καί περί τῶν κάτω ποιούμενοι τούς λόγους, οὕτω τοῦτον ὀνομάζομεν˙ οὐδέ γάρ
πρῶτον μέν Θεόν τόν Πατέρα σέβομεν, δεύτερον δέ τόν Υἱόν, τρίτον δέ τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον, ἵν᾿
ἀεί τό δεύτερον μετά τό πρῶτον λέγωμεν καί μετ᾿ αὐτό τό τρίτον, ὑπό τάξιν ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἄγοντες
τά ὑπεράνω τάξεως, ὥσπερ καί τῶν ἄλλων πάντων.

But whenever we make justifications about descending order, we name Him thus. For, we do
not, on one hand, revere God the Father first, but, on the other hand, the Son, as second, and the
Holy Spirit as a third, so as to name the second after the first and the third after Him, reasoning
on this basis there is a necessary subordination in what transcends order, as if this order were like
all other things.

33

Next, after we made an argument concerning order in God, we demonstrated that it is not particularly known to the
saints how the Son and the Holy Spirit have order and relationship toward Each other. We further commended that
the great theologians agree with this, Basil and Gregory and John the golden theologian, although we presented and
further clarified the pious and traditionally confessed order of God. And in this, those who were minded as the
Latins have been refuted, shown to be ignorant of this pious order, which is instead something which the theologians
admit they do not know, transcending us. These boasted they exactly knew these things and thus they innovate and
blaspheme, relative to the procession of the All Holy Spirit.
Ὁ γάρ χρυσοῦς τήν γλῶτταν Ἰωάννης ἐξηγούμενος τό παρά τοῦ Ἀβραάμ πρός τόν οἰκεῖον
οἰκέτην εἰρημένον, «θές τήν χεῖρά σου ὑπό τόν μηρόν μου», κατά τήν ὁμιλίαν προϊών φησι˙
«κηρυττέσθω Πνεῦμα ἅγιον˙ ὑψούσθω ὁ μονογενής˙ δοξαζέσθω ὁ Πατήρ. Μηδείς ἀνατετράφθαι
τήν ἀξίαν νομιζέτω, εἰ Πνεύματος πρῶτον μνημονεύομεν, εἶτα Υἱοῦ, εἶτα Πατρός˙ ἤ Υἱοῦ
πρῶτον, εἶτα Πατρός. Οὐ γάρ ἔχει τάξιν ὁ Θεός, οὐχ ὡς ἄτακτος, ἀλλ᾿ ὡς ὑπέρ τάξιν ὤν. Οὐδέ
γάρ σχῆμα ἔχει ὁ Θεός, οὐχ ὡς ἀσχήμων, ἀλλ᾿ ὡς ἀσχημάτιστος».

For, the Golden tongued John, when explaining the saying from Abraham to the domestic
servant "place your hand under my thigh" (Gen. 24:2), making his introduction in the homily
says, "let the Holy Spirit be proclaimed, let the Only Begotten be lifted up, let the Father be
glorified. Let no one think that their worth has been overthrown, if we commemorate the Spirit
first, then the Son, then the Father; or if we commemorate the Son first, then the Father. For, God
does not have a taxis an ordering. But that does not mean He is without taxis, but that He is
transcendent to taxis. For, does God have form, though it is not as though He is without form, but
that He is incapable of being represented."

Ὑπέρ τάξιν οὖν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐχ ὑπό τάξιν ὁ Θεός. Εἰ δ ἔστι καί τάξις ἐπί τοῦ Θεοῦ διά τό
τρισυπόστατον τῆς θεότητος, ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ ἔστιν ἡμῖν ἐγνωσμένη διά τό ὑπέρ πᾶν εἶδος τάξεως
εἶναι. Τήν μέν γάρ κατά τήν ἐκφώνησιν τάξιν ἴσμεν, διδαχθέντες παρά τῆς θεοπνεύστου Γραφῆς,
παρ᾿ ἧς καί ἐπαλλαττομένην ταύτην εὐσεβῶς διδασκόμεθα. Τήν δ᾿ ἐκ τῆς φυσικῆς ἀκολουθίας
προσοῦσαν, καί μάλιστα τοῖς δυσί προσώποις, τῷ τε Υἱῷ καί τῷ ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι, οὐδαμῶς ἴσμεν.
Διό Γρηγορίων ὁ θεολογικώτατος ἐν τῷ δευτέρῳ τῶν Εἰρηνικῶν φησιν, «οὕτω φρονοῦμεν καί
οὕτως ἔχομεν, ὡς ὅπως μέν ἔχει ταῦτα σχέσεώς τε καί τάξεως, αὐτῇ μόνῃ τῇ Τριάδι συγχωρεῖν
εἰδέναι καί οἷς ἄν ἡ Τριάς ἀποκαλύψῃ κεκαθαρμένοις, ἤ νῦν ἤ ὕστερον».

Therefore, it transcends order, and God is not subordinated. But even if there is an order for God,
seeing the divinity is tri-hypostatic, it would not be known to us, because it transcends every
form of order. For, on one hand, we know the order by the liturgical pronouncement, the
ekphonisis, having been taught by the God-inspired Scripture, from which we reverently teach,
that this order alternates. But, on the other hand, we do not know at all what is properly
attributed as deriving from the course of their nature, and especially respecting the two Persons,
for the Son and for the Holy Spirit. Wherefore, the most theological of the Gregorys says in the
second Chapter of his Eirinikon, “so we are of this mind and so, in fact, hold that how exactly the
matters of relation and taxis exist is conceded as known only to the Trinity Itself, or to those to
whom the Trinity will reveal it, to those who have purified themselves, either now, or
afterward.”

Ἀλλ, ὁ μέγας, φασί, Βασίλειος, ὡς κεκαθαρμένος ἐξ ἀποκαλύψεως, τοῦτο μαθών εἶπεν ἐν τοῖς
Κατ᾿ Εὐνομίου. Συγχωρεῖν δέ καί Γρηγόριον τόν θεολόγον εἰδέναι ταύτην, οἷς ἄν ἡ Τριάς
ἀποκαλύψῃ κεκαθαρμένοις. Ἀλλ᾿ εἰ τοῦτο, πῶς τοῦ Εὐνομίου μαθεῖν εἰπόντος ἐκ τῶν ἁγίων
τρίτον τῇ τάξει καί τῷ ἀξιώματι τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον, δυσχεράνας οὔμενουν ἠρέμα τούτῳ καί
λίαν ἐπαχθῶς ἐνεγκών ὁ θεῖος Βασίλειος, «παρά τῶν ἁγίων», φησίν, εἶπε μεμαθηκέναι˙ τίνες δέ
οἱ ἅγιοι καί ἐν ποίοις αὐτῶν λόγοις τήν διδασκαλίαν πεποίηνται εἰπεῖν οὐκ ἔχει»; Δῆλον ὡς οὐκ
ὄντων τῶν εἰπόντων ἁγίων.

“But Basil the Great speaks as if he learned it by revelation, as having been purified, he said this
in his chapters to Eunomios. He makes allowance for Gregory the Theologian to have known
this.”

Perhaps to these people the Trinity should reveal it, to these which have been purified. But if
this was revealed, how come when Eunomius said he learned from the saints that the Holy Spirit
is third in order and in designation, Basil had consternation with it, with his indifference, and
deeply indignant by it, put forward this explanation. He says, “he (Eunomios) said he learned it
‘from the saints.’ But what saints, or in which of their particular treatises, have they made this
tEaching, he cannot say.” It is clear that there are no saints who said this.

Εἶτα, ἐπειδήπερ ἐκεῖνος ἐκ τοῦ τρίτου εἶναι τῇ τάξει καί τῷ ἀξιώματι τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον τρίτον
εἶναι καί τῇ φύσει συνήγαγε, καίτοι μηδέ παρά τοῦτο συναγόμενον, ἐνδούς ὁ μέγας καί καθ᾿
ὑπόθεσιν παραδεξάμενος, «εἰ καί τρίτον εἶναι», φησί, «τῇ τάξει καί τῷ ἀξιώματι τό Πνεῦμα τό
ἅγιον ὁ τῆς εὐσεβείας ἴσως παραδίδωσι λόγος, ἵνα καί ὅλως συγχωρήσωμεν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ ἀνάγκη
παρά τοῦτο τρίτον εἶναι αὐτό καί τῇ φύσει». Ὡς οὖν καθ᾿ ὑπόθεσιν παραδεξάμενος, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ
τοῦτο δογματίζων αὐτός, ἀμφισβητικῶς ἔχοντα τόν λόγον προήγαγεν.

Then Eunomios, concluded He was third by nature inasmuch as the Holy Spirit was third in order
and in designation. Although, the conclusion cannot be drawn from this, either. The Great
theologian still conceded, having accepted it hypothetically. He says, “if the reverential argument
traditionally handed down that Holy Spirit is third in order and dignity, by all means let us
concede the point, but it does not necessarily mean from this He is also third in nature.” So
although hypothetically it has been received, yet not dogmatizing this, he hesitatingly advanced
an argument.

Ὅ δέ φησιν ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ τῶν Πρός αὐτόν Εὐνόμιον, ὡς «ἔστι τάξεως εἶδος οὐ κατά τήν
ἡμετέραν θέσιν, ἀλλ ἐκ τῆς κατά φύσιν αὐτοῖς ἐνυπαρχούσης ἀκολουθίας», οὐ περί τοῦ Υἱοῦ καί
τοῦ Πνεύματος ἀλλά καί περί τοῦ Πατρός καί τοῦ Υἱοῦ ποιούμενος τήν διάλεξίν φησιν, ἐν οἷς
ἐγνωσμένον τε καί ἀνωμολογημένον ἅπασιν αἰτιατόν μέν εἶναι τόν Υἰόν, τόν δέ Πατέρα αἴτιον
καί τοῦ αἰτιατοῦ προεπινοούμενον ἐξ ἀνάγκης, εἰ καί μή κατά χρόνον, ὡς αὐτός ἐκεῖ φησι. Ταῦτ
ἄρα καί χωρίς ἐνδοιασμῶν τε καί ἀμφισβητήσεων, τόν μέν Πατέρα προτετάχθαι τοῦ Υἱοῦ φησι,
τόν δέ Υἱόν δευτερεύειν τοῦ Πατρός, γράφων˙ «ἡμεῖς δέ, κατά μέν τήν τῶν αἰτίων πρός τά ἐξ
αὐτῶν σχέσιν, προτετάχθαι τοῦ Υἱοῦ τόν Πατέρα φαμέν, κατά δέ τήν τῆς φύσεως διαφοράν
οὐκέτι, οὐδέ κατά τήν τῶν χρόνου ὑπεροχήν». Ἐν δέ τῷ τρίτῳ πάλιν, «τάξει μέν», φησί,
«δεύτερος τοῦ Πατρός, ὅτι ἀπ ἐκείνου, καί ἀξιώματι, φύσει δέ οὐκέτι δεύτερος».

But what he says in the first of the letters Against Eunomius that, "there is a form of order, not
according to our constitution, but from the course of nature existing in them.”

He says he was not making a dialectic treatise concerning the Son and the Spirit, but concerning
Both the Father and the Son, in whom the Son, on one hand, is known and confessedly
acknowledged by all to be caused. On the other hand, the Father is necessarily conceptualized
first as the Cause of the Caused, although not temporally, as he himself says there. So, these
matters are Both without apprehensions or doubts. He says, while the Father has been ranked
before the Son, but on the other hand, the Son is placed second from the Father. He writes,
“while we say the Father is categorized first before the Son, according to the relationship of
causes with those caused from them, yet not according to the difference of nature, or a
temporally based superiority.”

And in the third again, he says, “He is second in order (τάξει) from the Father. Because He is
from Him, He is not second in dignity, in nature.”

Οὕτως οἶδεν ὁμολογουμένως ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός εἶναι τόν Υἱόν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐχί καί τό Πνεῦμα ἐξ Υἱοῦ. Εἰ
γάρ τοῦτ ἐγίνωσκεν, οὐκ ἄν ὅλως ἠμφισβήτει, οὐδ` ἄν ἀπηγόρευε τρίτον εἶναι τῇ τάξει ἀπό τοῦ
Πατρός τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον˙ ἀλλ᾿ οὐδέ κατά τοῦ Εὐνομίου καί τοῦτ᾿ εἰπόντος λίαν ἐδυσχέραινε.
Πρός δέ τούτοις καί τό δευτερεύειν τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα σύν ἀμφιβολίᾳ πολλῇ καί καθ
ὑπόθεσιν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐχ ὡς αὐτός δοξάζων παραδεξάμενος, δείκνυται μηδ᾿ αὐτός εἰδέναι, ὅπως
ἔχουσι πρός ἄλληλα ὁ Υἱός τε καί τό Πνεῦμα σχέσεώς τε καί τάξεως.

So, he unequivocally confessed he knew that the Son is from the Father, but did not confess that
He knew the Spirit is from the Son. For, if had he known this, then there would be no argument
at all, nor would he forbid the Holy Spirit from being third in order from the Father. Nor would
he have had great difficulty with Eunomios when he said this. But he did have consternation
with these things, and with making the Spirit second from the Son, and did so with great
equivocation and on a hypothesis, but not is if he was thinking this way or had received this. It is
indicative that not even he knew the manner in which the Son and the Spirit have relationship
and order between themselves.

Ὅτι μέν γάρ ἅμα ἐξ ἀϊδίου ὁ Υἱός τε καί τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον, ἐν ἀλλήλοις τε ὄντα καί ἀλλήλων
ἐχόμενα καί δι ἀλλήλων ἀφύρτως τε καί ἀμιγῶς χωροῦντα, καί ὅτι τούτων ἕκαστον τάξεώς τε
καί σχέσεως εἶδος, καί ὡς ὁ Υἱός τε καί τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός ἅμα, εἰ καί οὐχ
ὡσαύτως, καί ὅτι ὁμότιμα ἐξ ὁμοτίμου, καί ὅτι τό ἐκπορεύειν ἰδιότης ὄν τῆς πατρικῆς
ὑποστάσεως οὐκ ἔστιν εἶναι τοῦ Υἱοῦ, καί ὡς ὁ λέγων καί τόν Υἱόν τό ἐκπορεύειν ἔχειν
σύγχυσιν ποιεῖ τῶν θείων ὑποστάσεων, δυσσεβῶς ἀθετῶν τήν ἀνωμολογημένην τάξιν ἐπί τοῦ
Θεοῦ -

«δεῖ γάρ», φησί καί Γρηγόριος ὁ τῆς θεολογίας ἐπώνυμος, «τάς ἰδιότητας μένειν Πατρί καί Υιῷ
ἵνα μή σύγχυσις ᾖ παρά θεότητι τῇ καί τά ἄλλα εἰς τάξιν ἀγούσῃ» - ταύτην μέν οὖν τήν
ἀνωμολογημένην τάξιν ἐπί τοῦ Θεοῦ καί ἡμεῖς ἴσμεν˙ τήν δέ δεύτερον μέν ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ, τρίτον
δέ ἀπό Πατρός τιθεῖσαν τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον οὔθ ἡμεῖς ἴσμεν οὔτε οἱ διδάσκαλοι καί
προασπισταί τῆς Ἐκκλησίας.

Because, at the very least, “from eternity” certainly implies the Son and the Spirit are
simultaneously from eternity,
(being in the others and possessing the others, with out being fused together}, and in motion,
without fusing together,
because Each of them is a form and relation,
that Both the Son and the Holy Spirit are thus “from the Father” at the same time,even if not
identically so.

Further, because the equally honorable are from the equally honorable, and because causing
procession, being the idiom of the paternal hypostasis cannot be from the Son,
then one who thus says the Son can cause procession creates a confusion, a fusing together of the
divine hypostases, when he irreverently disregards the admittedly confessed taxis for God.
Naturally, then, Gregory, who was eponymously named for theology, says,”the personal
properties must remain in the Father and Son, lest there be confusion with respect to the divinity,
which leads the others into an order. Thus, we acknowledge, on one hand, this admitted order in
God.” But, on the other hand, we do not acknowledge at all positioning the Holy Spirit as
second, as from the Son, but third from the Father, nor do the teachers and defenders of the
Church.

Λατῖνοι δέ, ὤ τῆς ἀνοίας ὁμοῦ καί ἀπονοίας, τήν μέν εὐσεβῆ καί ἀνωμολογημένην ἐκείνην ἐπί
τοῦ Θεοῦ τάξιν ἀθετοῦσιν, ἅ δέ Βασίλειος ὁ μέγας καί Γρηγόριος ὁ θεολόγος ὑπέρ τήν οἰκείαν
γνῶσιν ὁμολογοῦσιν εἶναι ὡς ἀπόρρητα ὄντα καί ὑπέρ ἡμᾶς, αὐτοί καταλαβεῖν αὐχοῦσι καί περί
τήν ἄφραστόν τε καί ἀπερινόητον ἐκπόρευσιν τοῦ Πνεύματος καινοφωνοῦσι, βλασφημοῦσι δέ
εἰπεῖν οἰκειότερον, ἔμμεσόν τε καί ἄμεσον αὐτήν λέγοντες καί προσεχῆ καί πόρρω, δι ὧν
κινδυνεύουσι καί εἰς κτίσμα κατασπᾶν τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον. Διό οὐκ ἀναγκαίως οὐδ᾿ ἀεί μετά
τόν Υἱόν παρά τῆς θεοπνεύστου τίθεται Γραφῆς τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον.

Now the Latins, (O the simultaneous senselessness and sloth in not thinking this through),
actually despise the revered confessed order in God. And what Basil the Great and Gregory the
Theologian confess is that it {the order} is above personal knowledge, as being ineffable and
transcending us. The Latins boast that they understand. But they innovate regarding the
inexpressible and incomprehensible procession of the Holy Spirit. Or, to speak more bluntly,
they blaspheme, when they say the procession is indirect and direct, Both proximate and far, by
which they risk degrading the Holy Spirit into a creature. Wherefore, according to the divinely
inspired writing, not by necessity is the Holy Spirit always placed after the Son.

Τοῦτο γάρ Λατίνοις συμβαίνει, τοῖς ἐκ τῶν δύο, πρώτου αἰτίου καί δευτέρου, λέγουσι τό καί μή
κατά πάντα στέργουσι τήν θεόπνευστον Γραφήν, ἀλλά κατ ἐξουσίαν ἅττα βούλονται προστιθεῖσί
τε καί ἀφαιροῦσιν˙ ἡμῖν δέ τοῖς ἐκ τοῦ ἑνός εὐσεβοφρόνως σέβουσι καί εἰς ἕν ἀναφέρουσι τά
δύο, ἥκιστα.

For, this logically happens with the Latins, who say that the one is from a first and second cause,
and do not embrace the God breathed writing in everything, but deliberate with their own
authority add and take away. But this does not happen to us at all, who with a reverential
phronema revere Him as being from One and refer the two back to the One.

34
Ἵνα δέ σοι καί λόγον δῶμεν, μᾶλλον δέ καταξιώσωμεν διδάξαι˙ τίνος ἕνεκεν ὡς ἐπί πλεῖστον ὁ
μέν Υἱός μετά τόν Πατέρα, τό δέ Πνεῦμα μετά τόν Υἱόν ἡμῖν ὑμνεῖται, καί μυεῖσθαι
παραδέδοται; Ὁ Θεός καί Πατήρ, ἡ πάντων ἀρχή, Υἱοῦ Πατήρ ἐστι μονογενοῦς, ὅς καί πρίν ἤ
προστεθῆναι τῷ Πατρί συννοεῖται πάραυτα. Πῶς οὖν ἀφέντες τόν καί πρίν ἤ λεχθῆναι
προσεχέστατα τῷ Πατρί νοούμενον, εὐθύς ἄν τό Πνεῦμα μετά τόν Πατέρα θείημεν; Διά τοῦτο
μετά τόν τοῦ Πατρός Υἱόν λέγεται τό Πνεῦμα˙ μή δυναμένων γάρ ἡμῶν ἄμφω προφέρειν διά
γλώττης ἅμα, ὥσπερ ἄρα καί ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός προῆλθον, εἰ πρό τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα τῷ Πατρί
συννημένον θείημεν, δόξαι ἄν Υἱός τό Πνεῦμα˙ τό γάρ “Πατήρ” ὄνομα εὐθύς συνεισάγεται τῇ
διανοίᾳ τόν Υἱόν˙ προϊόντες δ᾿ αὖθις καί μετά τό Πνεῦμα προσεχῶς εὐθύς τιθέντες τόν Υἱόν,
Πατέρα τό Πνεῦμα ποιήσομεν νοεῖσθαι. Ὁ γάρ Υἱός, Πατρός Υἱός καί συνεισάγει τῇ διανοίᾳ τόν
Πατέρα καί μάλιστα τόν πρό αὐτοῦ λεγόμενον˙ ὁ δέ Υἱός προσεχῶς τῷ Πατρί τιθέμενος καί τό
μονογενές ἑαυτῷ φυλάττει καί τό ἐκπορευτῶς ἐκ Πατρός εἶναι τό Πνεῦμα κωλύει. Ὅ καί ὁ
Νυσσαέων Γρηγόριός φησιν, οὗτινος οἱ λατινικῶς φρονοῦντες τό ὕψος τῆς διανοίας μή
χωρήσαντες, πόρρω μέν τοῦ Πατρός, ὤ τῆς ἀσεβείας, δοξάζουσι τό Πνεῦμα, προσεχές δέ τοῦ
Υἱοῦ. Ἀλλ᾿ οὐχ ὅτι ὁ Πατήρ τε καί Υἱός ἄλληλα εἰσάγουσι τῇ διανοίᾳ κατά τοῦτο ὄντα προσεχῆ,
διά τοῦτο πόρρω τό Πνεῦμα τοῦ Πατρός καί οὐκ ἀμέσως ἐξ αὐτοῦ
Ἀλλά περί μέν τούτων, ὕστερον.

But let us propose to you a rationale, or rather, we should offer justification to tEach this. For,
what compelling reason, for the most part, on the one hand, is the Son hymned with the Father?
Further, why, on the other hand, is the Spirit hymned with the Son?
Further, why has it been the tradition to initiate this way?
God is Father, the Origin of all things, Father of the Son, the only begotten,Who, moreover, is
conmouth
ceptually understood as before or with the Father.
So, how can we abandon that He is spoken of first, with Him still being understood as near as
possible to the Father? Would we position the Spirit directly after the Father? Because of this,
the Spirit is spoken of after the Son of the Father; because we are not able to pronounce Both of
them at the same time with our tongue. And so, if we position the Spirit united to the Father
before the Son, the Spirit would be thought to be a Son, as if He came forth from the Father. For,
the name “Father” immediately conveys to our thought the notion of a Son. And, again, placing
Him forward, placing the Son directly immediately after the Spirit, we will make the Spirit to be
considered the Father. For, the Son is the Son of the Father and He brings the Father to mind,
especially since the Father is mentioned before the Son. So, by placing the Son directly with the
Father, Both preserves His own only begottenness and keeps Him from being the Spirit from the
Father by a procession. This is the point Gregory of Nyssa also makes, whose height of thought
those minded with the Latins, cannot give consideration. They think the Spirit is truly far from
the Father, (o the irreverence) yet He is proximate to the Son. But they do not consider, in view
of the fact that the Father and the Son introduce to one’s thought process a proximity to one
another, this is the reason why the Spirit is further from the Father and not directly next to Him.
But concerning these matters, they are for later.

Νῦν δ ἵνα καί δευτέραν αἰτίαν ἀποδῶμεν, ἥτις καί αὕτη, ἵνα διά πάντων συνετίσωμέν σε, διά τήν
προειρημένην γέγονε˙ πρῶτον ἡμῶν τό γένος Θεόν ἔγνω τόν Πατέρα καί Πατέρα τόν Θεόν, τῆς
αὐτοῦ θέοτητος φανερωθείσης τε καί πιστευθείσης ἀμυδρῶς, ὥς γε συνήνεγκεν ἡμῖν. Εἰ γάρ
ἐπίσης ὤν Πατήρ καί προβολεύς, τόθ ἡμῖν οὐ Πατήρ ἀλλά προβολεύς ἤ ἐκπορεύων ἐκηρύττετο,
πῶς ἄν παραδεξάμεθα, μή δυνάμενοί πω χωρῆσαι διά τό νηπιῶδες ἔτι, τήν ἐπίγνωσιν τοῦ
ἐμφύτου πλούτου τῆς θεότητος; Τό δέ “πατήρ” ὄνομα καί πρός ἡμῶν ἐστι καί οἷον κοινόν
ἔχομεν αὐτό ταῖς ἐξ αὐτοῦ ὁμοουσίοις μέν αὐτῷ ἡμῖν δέ δεσποτικαῖς ἐκείναις ὑποστάσεσιν. Εἰ
κἀκεῖνοι μέν φύσει καί ὑπέρ ἡμᾶς ἔχουσιν αὐτό, ἡμῶν δ ὑπό φιλανθρωπίας καλεῖσθαι κατηξίωσε
– διό καί Ἰουδαῖοι ἔλεγον, «ἡμεῖς Πατέρα ἔχομεν τόν Θεόν – σοφῶς οὖν ἄγαν καί οἷον
ὑποκλέπτων τήν διάνοιαν ἡμῶν, μᾶλλον δέ ἡμᾶς ἀπό τῆς τοῦ πονηροῦ δουλείας καί ψευδοδοξίας
καί ψευδολατρίας ἐπί τήν οἰκείαν δεσποτείαν πρός θεογνωσίαν ὑφαιρούμενος καί τήν τοῦ
μονογενοῦς ὑπεμφαίνων συνεισέφερε θεότητα, Πατήρ κηρυττόμενος αὐτός. Μετ᾿ αὐτόν ὁ Υἱός
πεφανέρωται τῷ κόσμῳ, διά σαρκός ἡμῖν ὀφθείς καί συναναστραφείς˙ ὅς σύν ἑαυτῷ καί τό
Πνεῦμα ὑπεδείκνυ, λόγοις τε καί ἔργοις διά πάντων πιστούμενος, συνημμένον φύσει καί
ὁμότιμον ἑαυτῷ καί τῷ Πατρί. Μετά τόν Υἱόν τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον ἐπεδήμησε τῷ κόσμῳ, παρά
μέν τοῦ Υἱοῦ πεμπόμενον, ὡς οὖν ἀντίθεον οὐδέ ἀντίχριστον, καί πεμπόμενον οὐχ ἁπλῶς καί
ἀπολύτως, ἀλλά χρονικῶς καί πρός τινας καί δι᾿ αἰτίαν˙ παρά δέ τοῦ Πατρός ἐκπορευόμενον οὐ
δι᾿ αἰτίαν ὅλως, οὐδέ χρονικῶς ἤ πρός τινας, ἀλλ᾿ ἁπλῶς καί ἀπολύτως πάντ ὡς ὁμόθεον καί
ὁμοούσιον καί τῆς αὐτῆς οὐχ ἧττον ἐξημμένον τῷ Υἱῷ αἰτίας καί ἀρχῆς, παρ ἑαυτοῦ δέ
ἐρχόμενον ὡς κύριον καί αὐτεξούσιον.

But now, let us propose a second cause, -which is also for this, - so that we may always make
you consciously aware why it happened He was spoken prior. At the first, our race knew God
the Father, and God as a Father. When His divinity had been manifested indistinctly and believed
in, it was, of course, for our profit. For, if He was Father, He was likewise Originator. Now if He
instead was prEached not as our Father but as Originator, or as One causing procession, how
could we have received the knowledge of the innate richness of the divinity, since we were still
childlike? But the name “Father” belongs to us, and we have this very same thing in common
with hypostases which are from Him, which are truly consubstantial with Him, but Who for us
are our Lords. While they truly possess this by nature and transcendent to us, yet we are deemed
worthy to call Him Father on account of His love for man. And so even the Jews were saying
"we have God as Father" (Jn 8:41). Therefore, He wisely beguiled their understanding. Or,
better, once He proclaimed the Father, He introduced the divinity of the only Begotten so that He
may draw us away from bondage to the wicked one and away from false belief and false
worship, drawing us to His own rightful dominion, to the knowledge of God. The Son had been
manifested to the world after Him. Afterward He was seen bodily and sojourned with us. His
own-self also displayed the Spirit, assuring everywhere in His words and deeds that the Spirit is
united to Him by nature and that He is of the same honor with the Father. After the Son, the
Holy Spirit sojourned with the world, when, on the one hand, He was sent from the Son, not as
instead of God or instead of Christ, and had been sent not simply or un conditionally, but
temporally and to certain people and with cause. On the other hand, He processed forth from the
Father because of no cause at all, nor temporally, nor was sent to certain people, but was sent
simply and entirely unconditionally, and is the same God, same substance, and united to the Son
from the very same cause and origin. He processed from Himself as Lord and self determined.

Ἐπεγένετο δέ καί τρίτη τις αἰτία τοῖς θεολόγοις, δι ἥν μετά τόν Υἱόν καί ἐκ τῶν τοῦ Υἱοῦ
παριστᾶσιν ὡς ἐπί πλεῖστον τό συναφές καί τέλειον καί ὁμοούσιον Πατρί τῆς θεότητος τοῦ
Πνεύματος˙ ὅτι μετά τό κατευνασθῆναι καί μετασκευασθῆναι τήν πλειόντων κατά τοῦ Υἱοῦ
μανίαν, πολυειδῶς ἀποδειχθείσης καί ἀναφανείσης καί στηριχθείσης ἀσφαλέστατα τῆς τούτου
πρός τόν Πατέρα συμφυΐας καί ὁμοτιμίας ὁ κατά τοῦ θείου Πνεύματος ἐμφανέστερον
ἀνερριπίσθη πόλεμος. Ταῦτ ἄρα καί τοῖς θεολόγοις ὁ λόγος ἅπας, οὐ περί τοῦ τρόπου τῆς
ὑπάρξεως, ἀλλά περί τήν πρός τόν Υἱόν ὁμοουσιότητος τοῦ Πνεύματος, εἰ καί Λατῖνοι βιάζονται
τάς ρήσεις, μεθέλκοντες αὐτῶν τήν διάνοιαν εἰς τήν οἰκείαν κακόνοιαν.

Finally, there occurred a third particular cause for the theologians, because of which, they
present the Spirit after the Son and as from the things of the Son, as it in the main proves His
connection is perfect and consubstantial with the Father of divinity. Because after the mania of
the masses against the Son was quenched, the madness was redirected. As the Son’s con-
naturality and equality of honor to the Father had been logically proven and assuredly defended
in many ways, then the war against the Divine Spirit was rekindled more violently. In sum, the
whole argument with the theologian is not about the mode of existence, but regards the
existence of the Spirit in relation to the consubstantiality of the Son. Yet the Latins do violence
to the words, dragging the discourse down to their own poorly connected train of thought.

Ἀλλά γάρ οὕτως ἡμῖν ὁ ἐν τρισίν ὑποστάσεσιν εἷς Θεός ἐκπεφασμένος, οὕτω καί δοξάζεται˙ καί
οὕτω μιᾶς εἰκόνος οὔσης καί μορφῆς ἐπί τῆς μόνης ἀνειδέου καί προσκυνητῆς Τριάδος – «ἡ γάρ
Τριάς συνάπτεται μέν ἀδιαστάτως, σύνεστι δέ ἀϊδίως, εἰκόνα δέ προφαίνει μίαν καί τήν αὐτήν»,
Ἀθανάσιος ὁ μέγας λέγει – μιᾶς οὖν οὕτως εἰκόνος οὔσης ἐπί τῆς σεπτῆς Τριάδος, τόν μέν Υἱόν
τοῦ Πατρός μορφήν τε καί εἰκόνα λέγομεν, τό δέ Πνεῦμα τοῦ Υἱοῦ. Οὕτω γάρ ἡμῖν ὡς
εὐδόκησεν ἑαυτήν ἐγνώρισε καί οὕτως ἔχειν πρός τόν Υἱόν τό Πνεῦμα λέγομεν, ὡς αὐτός πρός
τόν Πατέρα˙ ὁμοίως γάρ ἀμφότερα ἔχουσι πρός τόν Πατέρα, πλήν τοῦ τρόπου τῆς ὑπάρξεως, ὡς
ἀνωτέρω διά πλειόνων ἀποδέδεικται. Προσεχῶς δέ τῷ Πατρί ὁ Υἱός ἔγνωσται ἡμῖν καί διά τοῦ
προσεχῶς τούτου ἐγνωσμένου τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον ἐφανερώθη, κηρυχθέν τε καί πεμφθέν ἐν τῷ
ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ ὡς καί οὗτος πρῴην ἦλθεν ἐν τῷ τοῦ Πατρός ὀνόματι. Καί πάντα λέγομεν ἔχειν
ἔχειν τόν Υἱόν τά τοῦ Πατρός ἄνευ τῆς ἄνευ τῆς αἰτίας, πάντα δέ τά τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα ἄνευ
τῆς υἱότητος. Πάντα γάρ τοῦ Πατρός ὁμοίως ἔχει ὁ Υἱός τε καί τό Πνεῦμα ἄνευ τῆς αἰτίας,
συμπεριβαλλούσης ἄμφω τάς ὑπαρκτικάς καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν διαφοράς. Διό καί πρό τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἔστιν
οὗ τίθεμεν τό Πνεῦμα, εἰ καί ὡς ἐπ ἔλαττον, ὡς δέ ἐπί πλεῖστον μετά τόν Υἱόν καί μετά τόν
Πατέρα τοῦτον, ἵνα τῶν τριῶν ὑπέρ ἡμῶν μεγίστων ἔργων θεοπρεπῶν καί προμηθεστάτων
οἰκονομιῶν, συνεχῆ καί ἀδιάλειπτον τήν μνήνην φέροντες, συντομωτάτην διά πάντων
ἀποδιδῶμεν τήν εὐχριστίαν.

Instead, God has been expressed to us as One in three hypostases, and is this way glorified. And
in this way, there is one image and form of the only formless worshipful Trinity. For, “ the
Trinity, on one hand, is joined non spatially, but, on the other hand, is eternally present, and
shines forth the one and same image .” Athanasius the Great says, then, we in this way say there
is the one image of the revered Trinity. We, on one hand, call the Son the form and image of the
Father, but, on the other hand, call the Spirit an image of the Son. For this is how it pleased Him
to make known Himself to us. And as we say the Spirit has being in relation to the Son, so the
Son has being in relation with the Father. For Both are thus similarly related to the Father, apart
from the mode of existence, as has been logically demonstrated above in many ways. Now the
Son is known to us as immediately proximate to the Father. And through His known proximity
the Holy Spirit has been manifested, proclaimed and sent in His name, like He (i.e. the Son)
came earlier in the name of the Father. And we say that the Son has all things which are the
Father’s apart from cause, but the Spirit has all things of the Son apart from sonship.

For the Son and the Spirit in a similar way have all that is the Father’s except for cause, (which
embraces the existing hypostatic differences for the Both). Consequently, if He is before the Son,
we do not position the Spirit as if it to diminish Him.
But for the most part, He is after the Son, and after the Father, that we may convey as befits God,
a successive and seamless remembrance of the three greatest works and most providential
economies wrought for our sakes, that we may ever offer the briefest possible thanks due.

36

And we showed that Eunomius first, and those who later had been minded as the Latins, not
having listened wisely to this, dogmatized the Holy Spirit as third from the Father. It was on this
basis that Eunomius previously dogmatized, on the one hand, that He is third by nature, but the
Latins, on the other hand, that He had existence from the Son.

Εὐνόμιος δέ καί μετ᾿ αὐτόν οἱ λατινικῶς φρονοῦντες μή συνετῶς ἀκηκοότες τῆς πρός τόν Θεόν
τοιαύτης εὐχαριστίας τῶν Πατέρων καί τῆς ἐν ταῖς πρός τούς ἑτεροδόξους ἀντιρρήσεσιν
οἰκονομίας μή δυνηθέντες συνιδεῖν, συνήγαγον κακῶς ἐντεῦθεν τρίτον ἀπό Πατρός εἶναι τό
Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον, μηδέ τοῦτο συνιδόντες, ὡς εἴγε τοῦτο ἦν καί διά τοῦτο «ἡ φυσική τάξις τοῦ τε
Υἱοῦ πρός τόν Πατέρα καί τοῦ θείου Πνεύματος πρός τόν Υἱόν ἐδείκνυτο, οὐκ ἄν,
ἐπαλλαττομένης ἐν τῇ θείᾳ Γραφῇ τῆς συνεκφωνήσεως τῶν τριῶν προσκυνητῶν προσώπων,
ἔστιν οὗ μετά τό Πνεῦμα ὁ Υἱός ἐτίθετο, προαριθμουμένου δηλαδή τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος,
καθάπερ καί ὁ πολύς ἐν θεολογίᾳ φησί Γρηγόριος, ὅτι «τά αὐτά καί προαριθμεῖται καί
ὑπαριθμεῖται παρά τῇ Γραφῇ διά τήν ἰσοτιμίαν τῆς φύσεως»˙ ἐν δέ τῇ παρουσίᾳ τῶν ἀπ᾿
Αἰγύπτου ἐπισκόπων καί ἡμᾶς οὕτω παραινεῖ θεολογεῖν, «μετά Παύλου», λέγων, «θεολόγησον,
τοῦ πρός τρίτον οὐρανόν ἀναχθέντος, ποτέ μέν συναριθμοῦντος τάς τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις, καί τοῦτο
ἐνηλλαγμένως, οὐ τετηρημένως ταῖς τάξεσι, προαριθμοῦντος, ἐναριθμοῦντος, ὑπαριθμοῦντος τό
αὐτό».

But Eunomius and those who think as the Latins considering the Son after, have not heard with
understanding the thanksgiving such as the Fathers give to God and so did not understand the
economy used in the rebuttals toward the heterodox. They wrongly deduced from this
thanksgiving that the Holy Spirit is third from the Father. But neither did they understand this;
that if so be this were true then if the natural order of the Son to the Father, and of the divine
Spirit to the Son has been displayed, it would not be true when there is alternation in the divine
scripture in the doxological proclamation of the three worshipful Persons. It is not true when the
Son is placed after the Spirit, namely, when the Spirit is numbered before Him, Just like
Gregory, who was very versed in theology, says that,“they are the same who are numbered as
prior and numbered as after in the Scripture due to the natural equality of honor.” And in the
presence of the bishops from Egypt, he exhorts us to theologize in this way, saying, "theologize
together with Paul, who when he was taken up into the third heaven, at that time counted
together three hypostases, and did this in alternation, without holding strictly the orders,
numbering as first, in the middle, and after the same one.”

Ἀλλ᾿ οὐδέ τό “δι᾿ οὗ” μόνῳ τῷ Υἱῷ παρά τῆς θείας ἀπονενέμηται Γραφῆς˙ ὁ γάρ θεῖος Κύριλλος
ἐν Θησαυροῖς φησι, «Χριστοῦ τό Πνεῦμα, ὡς τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου διά Πνεύματος ἡμῖν
ἐνοικιζομένου». Τούτων οὖν Εὐνόμιός τε καί τό τῶν Λατίνων γένος, μηδένα ποιησάμενοι λόγον,
τρίτον εἶναι τῇ τάξει καί τῷ ἀξιώματι τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον ἐδογμάτισαν, οὐ τῇ κατά τήν
ὁμολογίαν τάξει ἀλλά τῇ φυσικῇ, κακῶς. Ὅ γε μήν Εὐνόμιος ἐντεῦθεν τρίτον ἀπό τοῦ Πατρός
εἶναι καί τῇ φύσει, ὡς ἀμφοτέρων κατ᾿ αὐτήν διαφέρον, προσεδογμάτισεν, οἱ δέ Λατῖνοι καί ἐκ
τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἐκπορεύεσθαι τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον κατασκευάζουσιν.

But neither is the prepositional phrase “through whom” distributed only to the Son by the Holy
Scripture. For, the divine Cyril in his Treasuries says, “God the Word indwells us through the
Spirit, as the Spirit of Christ.” Therefore, those of Eunomius and those of the race of the Latins,
have not produced a single treatise, which dogmatized the Holy Spirit to be third in order and
dignity. They wrongly dogmatized Him to be third not in the confessed order, but natural order.

What, at any rate, Eunomius, certainly did from this stand point, was he dogmatized He was
third from the Father and in nature, as according to nature, He is different from Both. The Latins
as well {from that vantage} frame their argument the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.

37

We further show that not only are the Son and the Spirit not Both together, but Each of them is
separate, referred directly back to the Father; and that, unless this were so, God will not be one.

Ἡμεῖς δέ σύν τοῖς ἱεροῖς πατράσιν ὡς ἐπί τό πλεῖστον τό Πνεῦμα μετά τόν Υἱόν τιθέαμεν καί
μετά τόν Πατέρα τοῦτον, ἵνα τῶν τριῶν ὑπέρ ἡμῶν μεγίστων ἔργων καί θεοπρεπῶν καί
προμηθεστάτων οἰκονομιῶν συντομωτάτην ἀποδιδῶμεν διά πάντων τήν δοξολογίαν καί τήν
εὐχαριστίαν καί τήν ἀνάμνησιν˙ οὐχ ὅτι δεύτερα καί τρίτα τῇ τιμῇ καί τῇ ἀξίᾳ - καί γάρ ὁμότιμα
– οὐδέ τήν δυάδα ποιοῦντες τοῦ ἑνός ἀρχήν, οὐδ᾿ εἰς τήν δυάδα ἀναφέροντες τό ἕν, ἀλλ᾿ εἷς ἡμῖν
Θεός, εἰς ἕν αἴτιον καί Υἱοῦ καί Πνεύματος ἀναφερομένων, ἐξ οὗ μόνου ἔχει τήν ὕπαρξιν
ἑκάτερον αὐτῶν˙ καί ὅτι μία ἀρχή, ὁ Πατήρ, ὡς καί ὁ θαυματουργός Γρηγόριος λέγει, κατά
τοῦτο τοίνυν εἷς Θεός˙ καί ὅτι μία φύσις τοῖς τρισίν, αὐτά γάρ τά δύο καί τά τρία καί τό ἐξ
αὐτοῦ καί τό ἀναφέρεσθαι εἰς αὐτόν οὐ τήν φύσιν διαιρεῖ
ἀλλά περί αὐτήν διαιρεῖται, οὐδέ γοῦν ἐξ αὐτῆς ἐστι κυρίως, εἰ καί μή χωρίς αὐτῆς, οὐδ᾿ εἰς
αὐτήν ἀναφέρεται, εἰ καί μή ἄνευ ταύτης˙ τό γάρ ἕν, πῶς ἄν αὐτό ἑαυτό γεννήσαι τε καί
προβάλοιτο καί εἰς ἑαυτό ἀναφέροιτο; Οὐδ ἀρχή τοίνυν καί τά ἐξ αὐτῆς, οὐδέ αἴτιον καί αἰτιατόν
αὐτό ἑαυτοῦ τό ἕν. Εἰ τοίνυν ταῦθ ἅπαντα, κατά ταῦτα κυρίως καθ ἅ καί μερίζεται, ταῦτα δ ἐστίν
αἱ τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις, εἶτ᾿ οὖν τά τρία πρόσωπα τῆς μιᾶς τῇ φύσει θεότητος, ὅταν οἱ Λατῖνοι
λέγωσιν ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων τό ἕν, τῶν προσώπων δηλαδή φασι˙ κατά τοῦτο γάρ καί ἀμφότερα, τό
γάρ ἕν οὐκ ἄν ρηθείη ποτέ ἀμφότερα.

In contrast, we, along with the sacred Fathers, for the most part, position the Spirit after the Son,
and the Son after the Father, so that we may always render the briefest possible doxology and
thanksgiving and remembrance for the three greatest providential works wrought on our behalf
as it befits God and His dispensations. We do not do so because there is a second or third in
honor or worth- for there is equality of honor. Neither do we do this making the origin of the one
into a dyad, nor are we referring back the one into a dyad. But, for us God is one, Who have been
referred back into the one cause of the Son and Spirit, from Which Cause alone Each of them has
existence.

And because the Father is the one origin, as also Gregory the Wonder Worker says, according to
this, then, God is one. And {God is one} because one nature is in the three. For, the two and the
three and what is from Him and the returning back to Him, are the same. He does not divide the
nature.

Οὐδ ἀρχή τοίνυν καί τά ἐξ αὐτῆς, οὐδέ αἴτιον καί αἰτιατόν αὐτό ἑαυτοῦ τό ἕν. Εἰ τοίνυν ταῦθ
ἅπαντα, κατά ταῦτα κυρίως καθ ἅ καί μερίζεται, ταῦτα δ ἐστίν αἱ τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις, εἶτ᾿ οὖν τά
τρία πρόσωπα τῆς μιᾶς τῇ φύσει θεότητος, ὅταν οἱ Λατῖνοι λέγωσιν ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων τό ἕν, τῶν
προσώπων δηλαδή φασι˙ κατά τοῦτο γάρ καί ἀμφότερα, τό γάρ ἕν οὐκ ἄν ρηθείη ποτέ
ἀμφότερα.

But concerning this same origin, it is divided. Of course, strictly speaking the one is not even
from the origin, unless separate from it. Nor is it referred back to the origin, if it is not apart
from it. For, how would the one beget itself? And should it be emanated could it even be
referred back to itself? So, accordingly, neither are those from the origin the origin, nor is the
cause and what has been caused the very same thing.

And again, if all are the same, there are the three hypostases, corresponding to those, by which it
is divided. Therefore, the three persons are of one divinity by nature. Whenever the Latins say
the one is from Both, they speak in particular of the persons. And as”Both” corresponds to
persons, it means, of course, the one could never, at any time, be called Both.

Ἐπεί τοίνυν κατά ταῦτα λέγουσιν ἐκ τῶν δύο τό ἕν, καθ ἅ καί ἡ ἀρχή καί τό αἴτιον καί νοεῖται
καί λέγεται, ἐκ δύο ἀρχῶν λέγουσι τό ἕν καί δύο ἀρχάς καί δύο αἴτια καί πολυθεΐαν εἰσάγουσιν.
Οὐ γάρ μόνον ὅτι μία φύσις εἷς Θεός, ἀλλ ὅτι καί ἕν πρόσωπον τήν ἀναφοράν ἔχει τά ἐξ αὐτοῦ,
καί εἰς ἕν αἴτιον καί μίαν ἀρχήν τά ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἀναφέρεται˙

οὐ τά δύο μόνον ἄμφω, ἀλλά καί ἑκάτερον αὐτῶν χωρίς. Και διά τοῦτο μία τῆς θεότητος ἀρχή
καί εἷς Θεός ἐστι καί κατά ταύτην τήν ἀναφοράν˙ ὅτι καί ἑκάτερον ἀναφέρεται εἰς ἕν ἀμέσως. Εἰ
γάρ μή ἀμέσως καί τό Πνεῦμα ἐκ Πατρός, τό ἐμμέσως τοῦτο δύο ἐξ ἀνάγκης τά αἴτια ποιεῖ τοῦ
Πνεύματος, τό τε μέσον καί τό ἄκρον, καί οὐκ ἔνι διά τήν οὕτως ἔχουσαν ἀναφοράν ἕνα Θεόν τά
τρία εἶναι˙ μᾶλλον δέ οὐδέ Θεόν εἶναι τό διά μέσης θεότητος ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός˙ ἐπί γάρ τά
κτίσματα ἦλθεν ὁ Πατήρ διά μέσης θεότητος κατά τούς θεολόγους.

Accordingly, it follows in accordance with being the same, they say “the one is from the two,”
according to which the one is thought and said to be an origin and cause. They say the one is
from two origins and introduce two origins and two causes and thus polytheism. For, God is one
not only because there is one nature, but because one Person possesses the anaphoral return of
those which are from Him, and those from the Origin are returned back to one cause and one
nature.
The two are referred back alone, not Both together, but Each one of them separately. And
because of this, one is the origin of divinity and God is one God, corresponding to this same
anaphoral return. Because Each is returned to one im-mediately. For, if it was not im-mediately
and the Spirit is from the Father, as this is mediately by necessity, it creates two causes for the
Spirit, a middle and end. Further, it is not possible the three are one, on account of having the
anaphoral return this way. Or, better said, neither is God, by the interposition of divinity, from
God. For, of course, it was with respect to created things the Father came by the mediation of
divinity, according to the Theologians.

Οὐ γάρ ὡς Πατήρ ταῦτ ἔκτισεν, ἀλλ ὡς Θεός. Ὁ δέ Υἱός εἷς Θεός μετά Πατρός˙ καί τοῦτο ἐκ
Πατρός δι᾿ Υἱοῦ ὡς ἐξ ἑνός Θεοῦ κτίσματα καί μία ἡ ἀρχή τῶν κτισμάτων, ὁ Θεός. Γεννᾷ δέ ὁ
Θεός καί ἐκπορεύει ὡς Πατήρ τῶν αὐτῷ συναϊδίων φώτων. Εἰ γοῦν ἐκ Πατρός δι᾿ Υἱοῦ ὡς ἐξ
ἑνός ἐστι τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον, οὐχ ὡς ἐξ ἑνός ἔσται Θεοῦ, τοῦ Πατρός καί τοῦ Υἱοῦ λλ ὡς ἐξ
ἑνός ὄντος Πατρός, τοῦ Πατρός καί τοῦ Υἱοῦ. Καί ταύτης τῆς συγχύσεως τίς ἄν ἀτοπωτέρα
γένοιτο; Διό καί ταύτην οἱ Λατῖνοι φεύγοντες ὡς ἐξ ἑνός φασι Θεοῦ ὅ χώραν οὐδαμόθεν ἔχει,
καθάπερ ἀναπέφηνε˙ καί ταῦθ ὅτι καί τό Πνεῦμα εἷς Θεός ἐστι μετά Πατρός τε καί Υἱοῦ.

For, He did not create things as Father, but as God. For the Son is one God with the Father. And
creation is from the Father through the Son, as created things are from one God and the Origin of
created things is one, that is,God. God begets and causes procession, as Father of the lights
coeternal with Him. If, therefore, the Holy Spirit is from the Father through the Son, as from one
He will not be from one God
but from the Father and the Son
but from one Father,
namely, the Father and the Son.

And what would be more logically incoherent than this confusion?

And so, the Latins fleeing this, say He is “from One God,”
which has admissibility, from no where at all, just like it has been shown.
And that is because the Spirit is one God with the Father and the Son.

Τοιγαροῦν, ἐπειδήπερ πάντῃ τε καί πάντως εἷς ὑπάρχει ὁ Πατήρ, οὐκ ἄμφω ὁ Υἱός τε καί τό
Πνεῦμα, ἀλλά καί χωρίς ἑκάτερον μίαν ἀρχήν καί ἕν αἴτιον ἔχει μόνον, τόν Πατέρα. Καί οὕτω
μία τῆς θεότητος ἀρχή, κἄν οἱ λατινικῶς φρονοῦντες ἐγκαλούμενοι, πῶς δύο λέγουσιν ἐπί τῆς
θεότητος ἀρχάς, ἀπολογεῖσθαι οἴωνται μίαν ἀρχήν ἰσχυριζόμενοι δοξάζειν τοῦ Υἱοῦ τε καί τοῦ
Πνεύματος˙ σοφίζεσθαι γάρ ἡμᾶς βουλόμενοι τοῦτο διαβεβαιοῦνται, ὡς καί τήν ἀρχήν ἔφθημεν
εἰπόντες. Αὐτό γάρ τοῦτό ἐστι τό παρ ἡμῶν ἐγκαλούμενον αὐτοῖς˙ πῶς Υἱοῦ μέν καί τοῦ
Πνεύματος μίαν τήν ἀρχήν φασι, τοῦ δέ ἑνός Πνεύματος δύο λέγουσιν ἀρχάς; Ἐκεῖνοι δέ περί
τοῦ ἑνός ἐρωτώμενοι, σοφιστικῶς περί τῶν δύο τήν ἀπόκρισιν ποιοῦνται˙ σφῶν αὐτῶν μᾶλλον
ἤ τῶν πυνθανομένων κατασοφιζόμενοι.

Consequently, forasmuch as the Father exists as one in entirely every respect, then, the Son and
the Spirit are not two together, but are Each separate and have one Origin and only one Cause,
the Father. And this is how there is one Origin of the divinity, even if those who are minded as
the Latins have laid an accusation.
How exactly they say the two are origins in respect to the divinity, is they think it is defensible
saying they are thinking of the single origin of the Son and Spirit.

For, they want to make us wise assuring this, “ we rEached rEached the conclusion about the
origin like we said.”

But this very thing is what our accusation against them is; how exactly, do they, on one hand,
affirm the origin of the Son and the Spirit is one, but, on the other hand, say there are two origins
for the one Spirit? But when they are asked about the one, they sophistically make a response
about the two. They have been fooled with their own fallacies, more than their own who have
hearkened to them.

39

Further, after this we speak concerning the origin, and that those who think as the Latins
sophistically answer to those who enquire of them, if they say there are two origins of the
divinity of the Spirit.

Πατήρ μέν οὖν καί ἀρχή καί αἴτιον ἐπί Θεοῦ πάντῃ τε καί πάντως ἕν˙ προβολεύς γάρ παρ᾿
οὐδενός τῶν ἀποστόλων ἤ τῶν εὐαγγελιστῶν ἐκλήθη, ἀλλά καί ἀντί τούτου ἡ τοῦ Πατρός
ἀπέχρησεν αὐτοῖς φωνή. Ἀρχήν δέ λέγω οὐ τήν καταρχήν, οὐδέ τήν δημιουργικήν, οὐδ᾿ ᾗ τό τῆς
δεσποτείας ἐστίν ἐπώνυμον.

So, one consideration is the Father is entirely the Origin and the one cause in respect to God.
For, He has not been described by one of the apostles or evangelists as an originator. But the
name “Father” was instead appropriated by them. And when I speak of origin, the other
consideration is I speak of it not as the point of origin, meaning the creative, or what is
eponymous with His dominion.

40

From this vantage, again, the Father is theologized as Father of the Lights according to the
Apostle (Js.1.17), and on this basis it is demonstrated that those who think as the Latins, saying
the Son is a father, they clearly despise the monarchy and the union and the hypostatic singleness
of the Father.

Καί τοίνυν ὁ Θεός καί Πατήρ, καθό Πατήρ, ἀρχή καί αἴτιός ἐστι˙ καί καθό ἀρχή, Πατήρ τῶν
φώτων, δηλαδή Υἱοῦ καί Πνεύματος˙ καί καθό αἴτιος, αἴτιος, ἀρχή τε καί Πατήρ. Εἰ οὖν καί ὁ
Υἱός αἴτιός ἐστι τοῦ Πνεύματος, ἐξ ἀνάγκη ἔσται καί ἀρχή καί Πατήρ ὡς αἴτιος˙ ὡς γάρ τοῦ
ἀνθρώπου, καθό ἀνθρώπου ἐπιστήμης δεκτικοῦ ὑπάρχοντος, τόν ἐπιστήμης δεκτικόν οὐκ ἔνι μή
καί ἄνθρωπον ὑπάρχει, οὕτω καί ἐπί Θεοῦ ἐπεί ὁ Πατήρ, καθό Πατήρ, ἀρχή καί αἴτιός ἐστι, τόν
αἴτιον ὑπάρχοντα οὐκ ἔνι μή καί ἀρχήν εἶναι καί Πατέρα, καίτοι τοῦ θεολόγου Γρηγορίου
γράφοντος, «οὕτως εἶναι Υἱόν κυρίως τόν Υἱόν, ὅτι μή ἔστιν οὗτος καί Πατήρ».
Further, according as God is a Father, as Father, He is an origin and cause, like an origin He is
the Father of Lights meaning, of the Son and the Spirit. According as a cause, He is an origin and
Father. Therefore, of course, if the Son is a cause of the Spirit, out of sheer necessity He will be
be a father, and comparatively a cause. For, as with a man, inasmuch as a man exists with the
capability to know, it is not possible for a man to exist who is not capable of knowledge, so it is
with God, since the Father, like as a father, is an origin and cause, it is not possible for a father to
not possibly exist as origin and cause.

And so Gregory the Theologian writes, “in this way, the Son strictly speaking, is the Son,
because He is not the Father.”

Ὁρᾷς ἀθετουμένην σαφῶς τήν μοναρχίαν καί τό καθ ὑπόστασιν ἑνιαῖον τοῦ Πατρός ὑπό τῶν
λεγόντων καί ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα καί μή ἀναγόντων ἑκάτερον τῶν προσώπων εἰς μίαν
μόνην, τήν τῆς θεότητος πηγήν; Μία γάρ φύσις καί οἱ πάντες ἄνθρωποι, ἀλλ᾿ οὐχ εἷς οἱ πάντες
ἄνθρωπος. Καίτοι δι᾿ ἀλλήλων, μᾶλλον δέ διά τῶν πρό ἡμῶν, ἀναχθείημεν ἄν εἰς ἕνα τόν
προπάτορα, ἀλλ᾿ εὐθύς πολλά τά αἴτια, καί οὐκ ἐξ ἑνός ἡμεῖς διά τοῦτο καί οὐχ εἷς. Ἆρ᾿ οὐ
φανερῶς καινοτομεῖς ὁ λατινικῶς φρονῶν;

Do you see that the monarchy clearly has been disregarded and the singleness (in respect to His
hypostasis) of the Father by those who say the Spirit is from the Son and by those who do not
return Each of the Persons back to a single place of repose, to the fount of divinity? For, all men
are one nature, but they are are not all one person, even though, they are through the others, or
rather, through those before us, we would still be led back to one forefather. But there are many
direct causes, and because of this, we are not from one, and are not one. So when you think as
the Latins, are not clearly innovating?

41

41.) We show that from ancient times the dogma among us is venerable, and since it lacked
nothing, there is no need of at all for the addition.

Καί εἰ μή πρό ὑμῶν ἐλλιπές ἦν τό καθ ̓ ἡμᾶς εὐαγγέλιον, ὅ «ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν, ἐπιστεύη ἐν
κόσμῳ, καί «ἡ τοῦ Θεοῦ σωτήριος χάρις» καί ἡ κατ ̓ αὐτήν θεογνωσία, ἡ πᾶσιν ἐκφανεῖσα καί
διδάξασα πάντας, εἰ μή «κεκένωται ἡ πίστις», εἰ μή διέφθαρται τά τῆς ὁμολογίας, αἷς καί
ἐνήθλησαν καί ἐνήσκησαν «τό τῶν μαρτύρων ἡμῖν περικείμενον νέφος», ὁ τῶν ὁσίων
παμπληθής κατάλογος, ὁ τῶν διδασκάλων θεοδίδακτος θίασος, πάντες οἱ ἔργῳ καί λόγῳ καί τοῖς
καθ ̓ ἑαυτούς παθήμασι μαρτυρήσαντες τῇ ἀληθείᾳ, ὑπέρ ἧς καί μεχρι θανάτου καλῶς ποιοῦντες
ἐνέστησαν, καί οὐχ ὑπέρ αὐτῆς μόνον ἤ καί ἑαυτῶν, ἀλλά καί ὑπέρ τοῦ ἡμετέρου στηριγμοῦ - εἰ
μή μόνον ἤ ταῦθ ̓ ἅπαντα καί ἡ τῶν ἀπό Χριστοῦ καλουμένων πίστις ἐλλιπής, διακενῆς ὄντως οὐ
προσθήκας ἐξευρίσκεις καί κατά τῆς σεαυτοῦ καινοτομεῖς ψυχῆς.

Unless our gospel prior to you had an omission,

(which "was prEached among the gentiles, believed on in the world" (1 Tim. 3:16) and "the
grace of God which brings salvation" (Tit. 2:11) and the knowledge of God, by it, which has
been revealed to all and has taught all),
unless the “ faith was made void" (Rom. 4:14),
unless the articles of the confession are corrupted,
(for which "the great cloud of witnesses surrounding us (Heb. 12:1) which struggled and
ascetically strove which is the replete registry of the sanctified, the brotherhood of God taught
tEachers, all who bore witness to the truth in deed and word and their own sufferings, who for
that sake sake stood stedfast doing well even unto death, and not for the sake of truth alone or
for themselves but for our own strengthening,)
unless {the Procession} is “only”
then the faith of those called from the time of Christ and every exact same thing mentioned has
an omission. You will not discover the additions. It is truly a vain endeavor. And you innovate
against your own soul.

Εἰ μέν γάρ ἐγίνωσκον καί ἐξ Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα, τίνος ἕνεκεν οὐ παρρησίᾳ διατέλεσαν
κηρύττοντες καί διά τῶν ἱερῶν συνόδων πολλῶν καί πολλάκις γενομένων βεβαιώσαντες; Ἀλλ᾿
οὐκ ἐγνωσμένον ἦν αὐτοῖς; Οὐκοῦν οὐδ᾿ ἦν οὕτω τἀληθές˙ πάντα γάρ ἐγνώρισεν αὐτοῖς ὁ δι᾿
ἡμᾶς ἐγνωσμένος καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς. Καί πάντα κατά τήν ἐπαγγελίαν ἐδίδαξεν αὐτούς τό Πνεῦμα καί διά
τοῦτ᾿ ἐδίδαξεν, ἵν᾿ ἡμᾶς οὗτοι διδάξωσιν, ὡς ἐδιδάχθησαν, ὡς καί ἀνωτέρω εἴρηται. Εἰ γάρ
τοῦτο λέγειν τολμήσεις, ὡς οὐκ ἔγνωσαν οἱ πρό ἡμῶν θεολόγοι τἀληθές, ὡς καί τοῦτο μηδέν
ἧττον βλάσφημον ἀποπεμψόμεθα.

For, had they actually known the Spirit is also from the Son, why did they not boldly continue to
prEach it and confirm it many times through the sacred synods which happened? But it was not
known to them, was it? So, then, neither was it true. For He that is known among us, made
known all things to them, for our sake. And the Spirit taught them all things, according to the
promise. And for this reason taught, that these might tEach us, like they had been taught, as it
was said above. For, if you dare to say this, that the theologians prior to us did not know the
truth, we will deal with this disease as nothing less than blasphemy.
Τίς γάρ εἰ ὁ τοῦτο γρύξαι τολμῶν; Ποία δ ἰσάριθμος σύνοδος, μᾶλλον δέ πόσαι καί ποῦ
μαρτυρηθεῖσαι παρά τοῦ Πνεύματος, ὅ καί ζῶσιν ἐκείνοις καί γεγονόσιν ἐξ ἀνθρώπων
συνεμαρτύρησε, καί ἀεί συμμαρτυρεῖ τε καί συμμαρτυρήσει διά τῶν ἐπί τοῖς σοφοῖς τούτων
τελουμένων τε καί τελεσθησομένων θαυμάτων; Ἀλλ ἔχω κἀγώ, φησί, πολλούς τῶν πατέρων
συμμαρτυροῦντάς μοι τῇ προσθήκῃ. Τί οὖν, ἕτερα μέν οὗτοι κοινῇ συνειλεγμένοι παρεδίδουν
ἐκκλησίᾳ ἕτερα δέ καθ ἑαυτούς ἐδογμάτιζον; Οὔμενουν. Ἀλλ᾿ ἤ παραχαράττεις αὐτός ἤ
παραλογίζῃ καί παρεξηγῇ, μή μετά τοῦ Πνεύματος ἑρμηνεύων τά εἰρημένα διά τοῦ Πνεύματος.

For who are you who dares to murmur this? Is this such a thing an equated synod? Or, better,
how many are there and where have they been witnessed to by the Spirit, which have attested
together with those who lived among men, and always attests and will be attested by wonders
wrought by the wise and by the wonders yet to be wrought?

But, he says, “I also have many of the Fathers who attest to my addition.”

What, then? Did these same bishops when they convened in General Assembly deliver one thing
to the church, but some others dogmatized something different by themselves? Absolutely not.
Rather, either you yourself redefine, or you falsely infer and so misinterpret, not interpreting
with the Spirit things which have already been said through the Spirit.

42

Οὐ μήν, ἀλλ᾿ εἰ καί τοῦτο θείημεν, ὅπερ οὐκ ἔστιν, οὐ προσδεκτέα μᾶλλον τά κοινῇ
παραδεδομένα τῶν ἰδίως εἰρημένων ἑκάστῳ; Έκεῖνα μέν γάρ πρός τῷ πάντων εἶναι καί
ἀνεπιχείρητα τοῖς κακουργοῦσι καί τῷ παραχαράττειν δολοῦσι τόν τῆς ἀληθείας λόγον, πᾶσιν
ἐγνωσμένα σοφοῖς τε καί ἰδιώταις καί διά στόματος ἀεί φερόμενα. Τά δέ μή ἐπί τοσοῦτο
καθωμιλημένα ὕποπτά ἐστι καί μάλιστα προαγόμενα παρά Λατίνων, οἵ καί τῷ φανερωτάτῳ τῆς
πίστεως συμβόλῳ διά προσθήκης ὑπεβούλευσαν. Οἱ γάρ τῷ ἐν τοῖς τῶν ὡς ἀληθῶς χριστιανῶν
ἁπάντων στόμασι κειμένῳ καί τῆς ἡμέρας ἑκάστης πολλάκις ἀνακηρυττομένῳ προσθήκην
ἐπινοήσαντές τε καί τολμήσαντες, τί οὐκ ἄν ἔδρασαν ἐν τοῖς ἀγνοουμένοις παρά τῶν πλειόνων;
Τά γοῦν μή κοινά μηδέ καθωμιλημένα ὕποπτά ἐστι, μή πονηρός ἄνθρωπος ἐνέσπειρεν αὐτοῖς
ζιζάνια. Ταῦτα ἄρα, κἄν μέν ὁμολογῶσι τῇ κοινῇ ὁμολογίᾳ, προσδεκτέα˙ ἄν δέ μή, οὐχί.

However, even if we premise this, (which is not possible), must we not accept what things had
been handed down in Tradition, in common, rather than that which what had privately been said
by an individual? For, these traditional definitions, which relate to being for all the Persons are
completely unassailable by malicious workers and to those who deceitfully re define the word of
truth. They have been acknowledged by all, Both by the wise and private laymen and have ever
been borne on our lips.
But expressions not commonly maintained are suspiciously dubious, and especially as having
been produced by the Latins, who through their addition held suspect the plainest symbol of
faith. For having invented and audaciously ventured this addition to the text, which is in the
mouth of all those who are truly Christians and which is proclaimed every day, what else would
they not have done to the ignorant among the masses? Therefore, expressions which are not
maintained in common or in customary use-age are held in suspicion. Would to God, an evil man
had not sown tares among them. These very things {the traditional arguments about being is the
same for all} then, if they are indeed are unequivocally aligned with the common confession,
must be received, but if they are not, they are not {to be received}.

Ὅμως ἐν δευτέρῳ λόγῳ τά δοκοῦντα συμμαρτυρεῖν σου τῇ καινοτομίᾳ ὀψόμεθα καί

ἀπελέγξομεν, Θεοῦ διδόντος, οὐκ ἐκεῖνα, ἄπαγε, ἀλλά σέ τά καλῶς λελεγμένα ἐκλαμβάνοντα
κακῶς, καί μή τοῖς σοφέσι τά ἀσαφῆ καί τοῖς παρρησίᾳ εἰρημένοις τά ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ
συμβιβάζοντα πρός δύναμιν.

But on the other hand, in the second discourse, if God grants it, we will look at what appears to
corroborate your innovation and refute them. But we will not refute the texts which have been
written well, and taken badly, but refute you, and refute unclear arguments not with sophistries,
but as much as able, with what has been said with bold certitude, the unapparent inferences.

Νῦν δ ἀνακεφαλαιωσώμεθα τόν νῦν λόγον, κἆθ᾿ οὕτω τά λείποντα προσθῶμεν.

But now, let us summarize the present treatise, and accordingly add what remains.

Πρῶτον μέν οὖν ἐξελήλεκται κενή τυγχάνουσα παντάπασιν ἡ τῆς προσθήκης τούτων
ἀπόφασις.

1.) In the first place, the decision of their addition has been refuted, happening to be
entirely unbiased.

Ἔπειτα δέδεικται συνυπακουόμενον τό “μόνου”, ὅταν λέγηται παρά τοῦ Πατρός ἐκπορευόμενον
τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον˙ ἐπεί κἀν τῷ αὐτῷ συμβόλῳ παρά τοῦ Πατρός ἀκούοντες γεννηθέντα τόν
Υἱόν, ἐκτός ἀντιλογίας πάσης δεχόμεθα συνυπακουόμενον τό “μόνου”.

2.) Then, it had been shown that when it is said the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father the
“only” is implied. For when we hear in the same symbol that the Son is begotten from the
Father, without any argument, we accept that the “only” is implied.

Τούτῳ συνείρομεν ἑξῆς˙ ὡς εἰ καί ἀνεπιλήπτως εἶχε τό λέγειν καί ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα, τῷ
συμβόλῳ προστεθεῖσθαι παρά Λατίνων οὐκ ἐχρῆν. Ἐπεί κἄν εὖ ἔχον εἰς τό ἑξῆς ἀναφανῇ,
προσθετέον οὐκ ἄν εἴη˙ καί τοῖς πρός ἡμῶν γάρ, καίτοι συνεληλυθόσι καί συνεξητακόσι πᾶσι
καί αὐτοῖς τοῖς τῆς παλαιᾶς Ρώμης προεστῶσιν, οὐδέν τῶν ἀναφανέντων εὐσεβῶς ἔχειν
προσετέθη.

3.) We discourse on this in the following: that if it also had been possible to say without censure
that the Spirit is from the Son, it still was not necessary to add what was from the Latins to the
Symbol. Since, even if this had a reasonable justification, you will come to the following
conclusion, it would not needed to be added: for, with reference to those who were before us,
even though they convened and all the very same ones examined who presided in ancient Rome,
nothing from what had can reverently continue to be added

nothing could possibly be reverently added to what had been declared by those which were
before us; even though, who all had synod-ally assembled and investigated the matters in unison
(συνεξετάζω) , and even if it was by those who presided in Rome of old.

Κἀντεῦθεν ἀνεφάνη τῶν δικαίων ὄν πρῶτον ἀπαιτεῖν αὐτούς τήν προσθήκην ἐξελεῖν
καί μή διά τήν περιωπήν τοῦ περιόντος πάπα τούς μεμαρτυρημένῳ παρά Θεοῦ τέλει
κατακλείσαντας τόν βίον ἀποστέργειν, εἶται συζητεῖν μετ᾿ αὐτῶν ἀνέχεσθαι περί αὐτῆς.

4.) And herein, it has been proven, because it was previous for the righteous, to demand them to
remove this addition and not to deprive those which had concluded their life with an end testified
from God, on account of the episcopal oversight of the Pope, and then to seek with them to be
tolerant concerning this

Μετά τοῦτο πρός τούς εὐγνωμόνως τῶν λόγων ἀκροωμένους λέγομεν, ὡς καί ἀμφότερα ἐκ τοῦ
Πατρός ἀκούοντες, ἔχομεν συνυπακούειν τό “ἐκ μόνου”, κἄν μή συνεκφωνῆται.

5.) After this, we say to those listeners who were receptive to the arguments, that when hearing
Both proceed from the Father, we must imply “from only” to Both; even if it is not expressed
together.

Ἀλλά καί ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός ἐκπορευτῶς τό Πνεῦμα λέγοντες τό ἐκπορεύειν τῇ πατρικῇ ὑποστάσει
ἐφαρμόζομεν˙ ἡ γάρ οὐσία πάντῃ τε καί πάντως μία τῶν τριῶν, οὐκ ἔνι δέ τά τῆς πατρικῆς
ὑποστάσεως ἔχειν τόν Υἱόν˙ ὥστε οὐχί καί ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα.

6.) But when saying the Spirit is from the Father by way of pro-cession, we attribute causing
procession to the paternal hypostasis. As the essence is in all things and entirely one for the
three, it is not, then, possible for the Son to have that which is of the paternal hypostasis.
Therefore, the Spirit is not also from the Son.

Μετά τοῦτο ἐξηλέχθησαν οἱ λατινικῶς φρονοῦντες μηκέτι ἐξ ἑνός δύνασθαι τά δύο πρόσωπα
τῆς θεότητος φρονεῖν, ὡς ἐν δυσί προσώποις τό αἴτιον τιθέμενοι καί ταῦτα διαφόρως, ἀλλ᾿ οὐδέ
Θεόν ἕνα λέγειν διά τήν τοιαύτην πρός τό ἕν ἀναφοράν˙ οὐδέ γάρ εἷς ἄνθρωπος πάππος, πατήρ
τε καί υἱός, κατά τόν σοφόν τῆς Νύσσης πρόεδρον, ἐπειδήπερ εἰς δύο πρόσωπα τό αἴτιον
ἀναφέρεται. Καί πρός τούτῳ παρεστήσαμεν, ὡς, καθάπερ δύο τά αἰτιατά, ἐπειδήπερ τό αἰτιατόν
ἐν δυσίν φασιν αὐτοί προσώποις.
7.) After this, those who were minded as the Latins had been refuted, as no longer able to think
the two persons of the divinity are from one, because of having placed the cause in two persons
and are so differntly. Nor are they able to say God is one, such as the anaphoral return back to
the One is. For neither is one man a grandfather, a father and son, according to the wise Nyssan
President of the synod, inasmuch as the cause refers back to two people. And in that respect, we
commended, forasmuch as they say the effect is in two persons, that it is just as if the two are
effects.

Πρός δέ τούτοις, ἐπεί κατά τούς θεοσόφους θεολόγους, ὡς ὁ Υἱός ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός ἐστιν, οὕτω καί
τό Πνεῦμα, πλήν τοῦ γεννητῶς τε καί ἐκπορευτῶς, εἰ ὁ Υἱός ἀμέσως καί οὐχί καί ἐκ τοῦ
Πνεύματος, ἀλλ᾿ ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρός, καί τό Πνεῦμα ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός ἀμέσως, ἀλλ᾿ οὐχί καί ἐκ
τοῦ Υἱοῦ.

8.)But in reference to the {begetting and the Procession}, since, according to the divinely wise
theologians, as the Son is from the Father, so also is the Spirit, except for the manner of
begetting and procession. The Son is not from the Spirit If the Son is begotten immediately. He is
only from the Father. The Spirit is also directly from the Father, but not also from the Son.

Προσαπεδείξαμεν ὡς, ἐπεί καί νοῦς λέγεται Χριστοῦ τό Πνεῦμα, καθάπερ καί ἡμῶν ἑκάστου ὁ
οἰκεῖος, κατά μέν τήν ἐνέργειαν αὐτοῦ ἐστι καί ἐξ αὐτοῦ, κατά δέ τήν ὑπόστασιν αὐτοῦ μέν ἐστι
φυσικῶς, ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ ἐξ αὐτοῦ
ἀλλ ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρός.
THERE IS A FORMATING ERROR HERE.

9.) We have previously demonstrated that, as the Spirit is also called the mind of Christ, so also
the individual intellect for Each one of us. On the one hand, according to His activity He is from
Him, but on the other hand, according to His hypostasis He is naturally, not from Him, but from
only the Father.

Πρός τούτῳ μή χάριτι, φύσει δέ εἶναι ἐκ Πατρός τό Πνεῦμα, ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρός ἔχειν τήν
ὕπαρξιν ἐδείχθη.

10.) In reference to this, it has been shown the Spirit has His existence not by grace, but by
nature only from the Father.

Καί ἀπό τοῦ πάντα ἔχειν ἑκάτερον τά τοῦ Πατρός, ἄνευ τῆς ἀγεννησίας καί τῆς γεννήσεως κάι
τῆς ἐκπορεύσεως κατά τούς θεολόγους.

11.) And from the fact Each of them possesses all things of the Father’s, according to the
theologians apart from unbegotteness, and begottenness, and procession.

Κἀντεῦθεν ἀναπεφήνασιν οἱ μέν Λατῖνοι προστιθέντες καί κατά διάνοιαν ἐν τῷ τῆς πίστεως
συμβόλῳ ̇ ἡμεῖς δέ ἀναπεφήναμεν μηδέ κατά τόν ἔξω λόγον τῇ κατά τό θεῖον σύμβολον εὐσεβεῖ
διανοίᾳ προστιθέντες.

12.) And while the Latins decided to add it on the basis of their reasoning to the symbol of faith.
We, in contrast, reasoned, we cannot, as this accordingly is external to the Church, add to the
divine symbol even with reverential rationale.

Κατηγορήσαμεν τῶν Λατίνων ὡς ἐκεῖνα δογματιζόντων, ἐξ ὧν δύο ἀναφέρονται τοῦ ἑνός

Πνεύματος ἀρχαί. Οἱ δέ μηδέν κωλύειν πρός τό μίαν εἶναι ταύτας ἔφησαν, ἐπειδήπερ ἡ μία ἐστίν
ἐκ τῆς ἑτέρας˙ καί ἀπεδείχθησαν καί κατά τοῦτο βλασφημοῦντες.

13.) We accused the Latins of dogmatizing these things, from which two origins of the one Holy
Spirit are referred back. But they said that there is nothing to prevent these from being one,
inasmuch as the one is from the other. They have been proven, according to this, to be
blaspheming.

Εἶτ᾿ αὖθις ἡμεῖς ἀναλαβόντες τόν περί τῆς ἀρχῆς λόγον, ἐδείξαμεν κατ᾿ οὐδέν τρόπον δύο εἶναι
τοῦ ἑνός Πνεύματος ἀρχάς.

14.) Afterward, resuming again our discussion concerning the Origin, we have showed there
cannot in any way exist two origins of the Holy Spirit.

Παρεστήσαμεν ἐκ τοῦ τά κοινά Πατρί τε καί Υἱῷ, καί τῷ Πνεύματι κοινά εἶναι μαρτυρεῖσθαι,
ὅτι οὐχί καί τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό ἐκπορεύειν˙ ἦν γάρ ἄν τοῦτο καί τοῦ Πνεύματος˙ ἐν ᾧ
προσεξηλέγξαμεν αὐτούς, ἀδιάφορα τοῖς φυσικοῖς τά ὑποστατικά ποιοῦντας. Εἰ δέ τοῦτο, καί
ταῖς προσκυνηταῖς ὑποστάσεσι τήν θείαν φύσιν.

15.) We presented proof from the fact what is common to the Father is common to the Son, is
testified to be common to the Spirit. And because of this, to cause procession is not from the
Son, for this would also be the Spirit’s. Herein, we censured them, for they render the hypostatic
properties as without any difference from the natural properties. But if this is so, then they make
even the divine nature without difference from the worshipped hypostases.

Ἐκ τοῦ ἀσεβές εἶναι τήν δημιουργικῶς διά τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό εἶναι σχοῦσαν κτίσιν ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ μή
λέγειν, ἀλλά τήν δημιουργικήν ἰδιότητα μόνῳ διδόναι τῷ Πατρί, κατ᾿ ἀνάγκην ἀκολούθως
συνηγάγομεν, ὡς, εἰ καί ἐκπορευτῶς τό Πνεῦμα δι᾿ Υἱοῦ τό εἶναι εἶχε, δυσσεβοῦς ἦν ἄν λέγειν,
ὅτι Πνεῦμα ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ οὐ λέγομεν καί ὡς ἡ ἐκπορευτική ἰδιότης μόνον τοῦ Πατρός ἐστιν. Ἐπεί
δ᾿ οἱ τοῦθ᾿ οὕτω λέγοντες οὐκ εὐσεβεῖς μόνον, ἀλλά καί θεοφόροι, δυσσεβεῖς οὐκοῦν οἱ
λέγοντες καί ἐξ Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα.

16.) It is irreverent to not say that creation has being creatively through the Son,
and to attribute the creative property only to the Father. By necessity, we conclusively gather, it
would be irreverent to say, the Spirit had existence also from the Son by means of procession.
Because we do not say the Spirit is from the Son, because the processional property is only the
Father's. But since those who express these things this way are not only pious, but also God-
bearers, therefore, those who say that the Spirit is from the Son are irreverent.

Καί ὡς, εἰ δι᾿ Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα, ὁμοῦ τε καί χωρίς ἑκάτερος Πατήρ ἄν λέγοιτο καί προβολεύς, ὡς
καί ἐπί τῆς κτίσεως, ποιητής τε καί Πατήρ.

17.) And, that, if the Spirit is through the Son, at the same time and separately, Each would be
called Father and Originator, as in creation, Originator and Father.

Ἐκ τοῦ πάντα ἔχειν θεολογεῖσθαι τόν Υἱόν τά τοῦ Πατρός , τῆς αἰτίας, ἥτις οὐκ ἄν ἡ τῶν
κτισμάτων εἴη, τοιγαροῦν ἡ τοῦ Υἱοῦ καί τοῦ Πνεύματός ἐστιν, ἀπεδείξαμεν αὖθις οὐχί καί ἐκ
τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα ἐκπορεύεσθαι.

18) From the Son having all things it is theologized He has all things except for being the cause,
which, accordingly, would not be the cause- source- of created things. We have demonstrated
again the Spirit is not processed from the Son, since Its cause is from the Son and the Spirit.

Καί μάρτυρας παρηγάγομεν ἀπαγορεύοντας τήν λατινικήν προσθήκην.

19.) We presented witnesses who forbid the Latin addition.

Ἐδείξαμεν αὖθις ἐκ τοῦ μή τόν Υἱόν καί ἐκ τοῦ Πνεύματος ὑπάρχειν, ὅτι καί τό Πνεῦμα οὐχί καί
ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό εἶναι ἔχει.

20.) We have showed again that the Spirit also does not have being from the Son on the basis of
the Son’s not having existence from the Spirit.

Εἶτα, ἐκ τῶν ἀπηριθμημένων καί τεθεωρημένων τοῖς ἁγίοις ὀνομάτων τοῦ Υἱοῦ, παρεστήσαμεν
ὡς οὐχί καί ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιόν ἐστι.

21.) Then, from the enumeration of and what has been observed by the saints about the names of
the Son, we presented that the Holy Spirit is not also from the Son.

Πάλιν ἐκ τοῦ μή ἐκπορευτόν ἁπλῶς, ἀλλά τό ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός ἐκπορευτόν ἴδιον εἶναι τοῦ θείου
Πνεύματος, τούς θεολόγους μαρτυρεῖν παρεστήσαμεν ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρός τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον.

22.) Again, we presented theologians who witness that the Holy Spirit is only from the Father,
from the fact that to be processed is not simply (belonging to the nature), but the processional
property pertains to the divine Spirit.

Καί ἀπό τοῦ ἕνωσιν Υἱοῦ καί Πνεύματος εἶναι τόν Πατέρα˙ ἡ γάρ τῶν ἄλλων ἑκατέρου μεσότης
ἐν τοῖς ὀνόμασι κεῖται.

23.) Also, from the Father being what unites the Son and the Holy Spirit; for a medial position is
postulated for Each of them in their names.
Καί ἀπό τοῦ μή ἐκ τῆς ἀρχῆς τό Πνεῦμα λέγεσθαι, ἀλλά μετά τῆς ἀρχῆς, ἀρχῆς εἶναι
θεολογουμένου τοῦ Υἱοῦ.

24.) And from the Spirit not said to be from the Origin, but with the Origin, the Son is
theologized as of the origin.

Καί ὡς ὁ δι᾿ Υἱοῦ καθ ὕπαρξιν τό Πνεῦμα λέγων καί εἰς τήν ‘ἐκ’ τήν ‘διά’ μεταλαμβάνων
ἁμαρτάνει. Ὡς γάρ συμπαρομαρτοῦν τῷ λόγῳ δι᾿ αὐτοῦ τό Πνεῦμα λέγεται καί οὐκ ἐξ ἐκείνου,
ἀλλά σύν ἐκείνῳ, γεννηθέντι ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός, καί τό Πνεῦμα ἐκπορεύεται.

25.) And that he who says that the Spirit has existence from the Son and changing “through” to
mean “from” sins. For as it is witnessed in the word, the Spirit is said to be through Him, not
from Him, but together with Him, Who had been begotten from the Father, and that the Spirit
proceeds.

Αὖθις ἐκ τοῦ θεολογεῖσθαι τῶν τριῶν προσώπων ἕκαστον, τῶν καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν ἑτέρων δύο
μέσον.
26.) Again, from Each of the three Persons been theologized as a middle point of the other two
hypo-statically.

Καί πρός ἄλληλα ἔχειν ὡς ἕκαστον πρός ἑαυτό.

27.) And that they are related to Each other as Each other is related toward Himself.

Καί τῷ δεύτερον ἀπό τοῦ Πατρός καί τό Πνεῦμα λέγεσθαι, καθά καί ὁ Υἱός, ἀμέσως ἑκάτερον
ὑπάρχον ἐκ Πατρός ἐδείχθη μή ἐοικυίας τῆς θεολογικῆς μεσότητος τοῖς κειμένοις ἐφεξῆς τρισί
σημείοις, ἀλλά τοῖς ἐπί τῶν τοῦ τριγώνου γωνιῶν.

28.) And by the Spirit being called second from the Father, just as the Son, it has been shown
that Each exists directly from the Father, not likened to a theological illustration in three
continuous points in a text, but to the three points of a corners of a triangle.

Μετά τοῦτο διττῆς φανερῶς δειχθείσης τῆς τοῦ Πνεύματος προόδου, προσεδείχθη καί τῶν
προόδων ἑκατέραν κατάλληλον τήν παῦλαν ἔχειν. Κἀντεῦθεν πάλιν, ὡς οὐχί καί ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό
εἶναι ἔχει τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον.

29.) After this, since it was clearly shown that the procession of the Spirit is twofold. It has also
been shown that Each of the processions has a corresponding resting point. And in this, again,
the Holy Spirit does not have being also from the Son.

Πάλιν ἐκ τοῦ λέγειν καί τόν Υἱόν ἀρχήν τοῦ θείου Πνεύματος ἀναπεφήνασιν οἱ λατινικῶς
φρονοῦντες τοῖς κτιστοῖς συντάττοντες τό θεῖον Πνεῦμα.

30.) Again, those who are disposed like the Latins in their mind, have decided to place the divine
Spirit in rank with creatures saying the Son is the origin of the divine Spirit.
Αὖθις ἐκ τοῦ μή ἔχειν κοινωνίαν κατά τό θεογόνον τόν Πατέρα καί τόν Υἱόν παρίσταται μή εἶναι
καί ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα.

31.) Again, it is presented that the Holy Spirit does not have being from the Son, from the fact
Father and the Son cannot share in the generation of divinity.

Πρός δέ τούτοις, ἐκ τοῦ τά κοινά τῆς ἀνωτάτω Τριάδος ἐπίσης εἶναι τῶν θείων ὑποστάσεων
ἑκάστῃ ἀνεφάνησαν οἱ λατινικῶς φρονοῦντες μήτε τόν Υἱόν μήτε τό Πνεῦμα λέγοντες ἐκ τοῦ
Πατρός, μηδ ὑποστατικάς ἔχειν τόν Θεόν διαφοράς.

32.) Now with reference to Son and Spirit, on the basis of the common attributes of the Most
High Trinity, predicated equally for Each of the divine hypostases, they reasoned, thinking as the
Latins do, that neither can they say the Son is from the Father, neither the Spirit is from the
Father, nor can God have hypostatic differences.

Εἶτα περί τῆς ἐν Θεῷ τάξεως ποιησάμενοι τόν λόγον προσαπεδείξαμεν μή γνωστόν εἶναι τοῖς
ἁγίοις, ὅπως ἔχει πρός ἄλληλα σχέσεώς τε καί τάξεως ὁ Υἱός τε καί τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον˙ καί
συμφωνεῖν κἀν τούτῳ παρεστήσαμεν τούς μεγάλους, Βασίλειον καί Γρηγόριον καί Ἰωάννην τόν
χρυθοῦν θεολόγον, πρός δέ καί τήν εὐσεβῆ καί ἀνωμολογημένην ἐπί τοῦ Θεοῦ τάξιν
παρεστήσαμέν τε καί διευκρινήσαμεν. Κἀντεῦθεν ἀπηλέγχθησαν οἱ λατινικῶς φρονοῦντες τήν
μέν εὐσεβῆ τάξιν ἀγνοοῦντες, ἅ δέ οἱ θεολόγοι μή εἰδέναι ὁμολογοῦσιν ὡς ὑπέρ ἡμᾶς, αὐτοί
ταῦτα γινώσκειν ἀκριβῶς αὐχοῦντες καί οὕτω καινοφωνοῦντες, καί βλασφημοῦντες περί τήν
ἐκπόρευσιν τοῦ παναγίου Πνεύματος.

33.) Next, after we made an argument concerning order in God, we have demonstrated that it is
not particularly known to the saints how the Son and the Holy Spirit have order and relationsh3ip
toward Each other. We further commended that the great theologians agree with this, Basil and
Gregory and John the golden theologian, although we presented and further clarified the pious
and traditionally confessed order of God. And in this, those who were minded as the Latins have
been refuted, shown to be ignorant of this pious order, which is instead something which the
theologians admit they do not know, transcending us. These boasted they exactly knew these
things and thus they innovate and blaspheme, relative to the procession of the All Holy Spirit.

Ἡμεῖς δέ καί λόγον ἐκδεδώκαμεν πολυειδῶς δεικνύοντες τίνος ἕνεκεν ὡς ἐπί πλεῖστον ὁ μέν
Υἱός μετά τόν Πατέρα, τό δέ Πνεῦμα μετά τόν Υἱόν ἡμῖν ὑμνεῖται καί τοῖς μυουμένοις
παραδίδοται.

34.) And we have put forward an explanation showing in many ways for what purpose exactly, it
is, for the most part the Son on one hand is with the Father, yet the Spirit is hymned by us after
the Son and {showed} why it is traditionally handed down to us who have been initiated.

Καί ὡς ἑπόμενοι καλῶς οἱ θεολόγοι τῷ λόγῳ τῆς μυήσεως,

ἐπί πάντων τῶν κοινῶς ἐνθεωρουμένων τοῖς τρισίν ,
οὕτω φασίν ἔχειν πρός τόν Υἱόν τό Πνεῦμα, ὡς πρός τόν Πατέρα ὁ Υἱός.
35.) And that the theologians who followed well the initiating word, say the Spirit is related
toward the Son, as the Son is related toward the Father, for all things are perceived as common in
the three.

Καί ὅτι τοῦτο μή συνετῶς ἀκούσαντες Εὐνόμιός τε πρότερον καί οἱ λατινικῶς πεφρονηκότες
ὕστερον, τρίτον ἀπό τοῦ Πατρός ἐδογμάτισαν τόν Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον˙ κἀντεῦθεν ὁ μέν Εὐνόμιος
τρίτον καί τῇ φύσει, Λατῖνοι δέ καί ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό εἶναι ἔχειν προσεδογμάτισαν.

36.) And we showed that Eunomius first, and those who later had been minded as the Latins, not
having listened wisely to this, dogmatized the Holy Spirit as third from the Father. It was on this
basis that Eunomius previously dogmatized, on the one hand, that He is third by nature, but the
Latins, on the other hand, that He had existence from the Son.

Ἔτι δείκνυμεν, ὡς οὐκ ἄμφω μόνον ὁ Υἱός τε καί τό Πνεῦμα, ἀλλά καί ἑκάτερον αὐτῶν χωρίς,
ἀμέσως ἀναφέρεται πρός τόν Πατέρα˙ καί ὡς, εἰ μή τοῦθ᾿ οὕτως ἔχει, οὐδέ Θεός εἷς ἔσται.

37.) We further show that not only are the Son and the Spirit not Both together, but Each of them
is separate, referred directly back to the Father; and that, unless this were so, God will not be
one.

Πρός δέ τούτοις ἐκ τοῦ τόν Θεόν καί Πατέρα ὡς Θεόν ἀλλ᾿ οὐχ ὡς Πατέρα κτίζειν, γεννᾶν δέ
καί ἐκπορεύειν ὡς Πατέρα, δείκνυμεν, ὡς εἰ κατά Λατίνους ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός καί ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ ὡς
ἐξ ἑνός τό Πνεῦμα, οὐχ ὡς ἐξ ἑνός ἔσται Πατρός, τοῦ Πατρός καί τοῦ Υἱοῦ. Καί οὕτω τό
λατινικόν φρόνημα τελέως ἐξελέγχεται καί ὡς ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων αὐτῶν δυσσεβῶς καθ ὕπαρξιν τό
Πνεῦμα λέγον καί ὡς ἐξ ἑνός Θεοῦ τῶν ἀμφοτέρων.

38.) And we show to them, from creating, that He is God and Father as God, but not in the same
way as the Father, able beget and process as Father. We show that if, according to the Latins, the
Spirit is from the Father and from the Son as if from one, it will not be as if He is from one
Father, but from the Father and the Son. And so the Latin mindset is finally checked as it
impiously says the Spirit existentially is from Both of them, and as from one God, namely, from
the Both of them.

Ἔτι μετά τοῦτο περί ἀρχῆς φαμεν, καί ὡς οἱ λατινικῶς φρονοῦντες σοφιστικῶς ἀποκρίνονται
πρός τούς ἐρωτῶντας αὐτούς, εἰ δύο λέγουσιν ἀρχάς τῆς θεότητος τοῦ Πνεύματος.

39.) Further, after this we speak concerning the origin, and that those who are minded as the
Latins sophistically answer to those who enquire of them, if they say there are two origins of the
divinity of the Spirit.

Ἐντεῦθεν πάλιν ἐκ τοῦ Πατέρα φώτων θεολογεῖσθαι παρά τοῦ ἀποστόλου τόν Πατέρα, καί τόν
Υἱόν κἀντεῦθεν Πατέρα λέγοντες οἱ λατινικῶς φρονοῦντες ἀποδείκνυται˙ καί ἀθετοῦντες σαφῶς
τήν μοναρχίαν καί τό καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν ἑνιαῖον τοῦ Πατρός.
40.) From this vantage, once again, the Father is theologized as Father of the Lights according to
the Apostle (Js.1.17), and on this basis it is demonstrated that those who are minded as the
Latins, saying the Son is a father, that they clearly despise the monarchy and the union and the
hypostatic singleness of the Father.

Ἀναφαίνομεν τό αἰδέσιμον ἔχειν καί ἀπό τῆς ἀρχαιότητος τό καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς δόγμα, καί ὡς ἀνελλιπές
μηδαμῶς προσθήκης δεῖσθαι.

41.) We show that from ancient times the dogma among us is venerable, and since it lacked
nothing, there is no need of at all for the addition.

Ἔπειτα καί τοῦτ᾿ εἰπόντες, ὅτι τά κοινῶς εἰρημένα παρά τῶν πατέρων στερκτέα μᾶλλον τῶν
ἰδίως τισί τούτων εἰρημένων ἑκάστῳ, καί ὅτι τά μή καθωμιλημένα ὕποπτά ἐστι, καί μάλιστα
παρά Λατίνων προαγόμενα τῶν καί τοῖς φανεροῖς παρεγχειρούντων, ὑπεσχέθημεν, σύν Θεῷ δ ὁ
λόγος ἐν δευτέρῳ λόγῳ τά διαφωνεῖν δοκοῦντα συμφωνοῦντα παραστήσειν.

42.) And then, we have said this. That what is commonly spoken of from the Fathers must be
affectionately embraced, more so than those things said privately by certain of them. That those
things not in common conventional speech are dubious, and especially when they have been
advanced by the Latins, who also falsely deduce from apparently clear statements. We have
promised, with God's help, a rationale in the second treatise to present that what seems to be
discordant is actually harmonious.

Ταῦτα μέν οὖν ἀνωτέρω διά πλειόνων ἀποδέδεικται˙ καί ὡς ἡμεῖς καί ἡ καθ ἡμᾶς ὁμολογία
πανταχόθεν ἔχει τό ἀσφαλές καί στέφανος ἡμῖν ἐστι καυχήσεως καί ἀκαταίσχυντος ἐλπίς. Εἰ γάρ
μή οὕτω καί ἡμεῖς κατά ταύτην ἐλλιπεῖς, πολλῷ μᾶλλον οἱ ἐκ παλαιοῦ καί μυηθέντες ἄνωθεν καί
τό καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς γένος θεοκινήτως μυήσαντες ἀπόστολοι, προφῆται, σεπταί σύνοδοι πατέρων
πολλαί τε καί πολυάριθμοι. Εἰ δέ καί γινώσκοντες ἑτέρως, ὡς νῦν ἰσχυρίζονται τό τῶν Λατίνων
γένος, οὐ πεφανερώκασιν ἡμῖν, καί ταῦτα τοῦ Κυρίου πρός αὐτούς εἰπόντος, «ἅ ἠκούσατε ἐν τῇ
σκοτίᾳ, κηρύξατε ἐν τῷ φωτί», πῶς οὐκ ἄν τῶν ὑπευθύνων εἶεν; Ἀλλ ὁ Θεός αὐτούς δι ἔργων
κἀνταῦθα μεγίστων ἐδικαίωσεν.

These points indeed had been thoroughly logically demonstrated further up in the treatise. And
as we and our confession are safe in every way, it is our crown of boasting and hope
unashamable. For, according to this account, unless there are omissions, we have been initiated
in this same way. And so it was they of old had been initiated from above like this, and so it was
with the prophets, and the many greatly attended and revered synods of the Fathers being moved
by God also initiated our race. But on the other hand, if they knew it differently, (as the race of
Latins is now contending), they have not clearly proven this to us. But about these matters, as
the Lord has said to them "that which you hear in the darkness, proclaim in the light,” (Mt 10:27)
how would they not be liable? But herein God vindicated them, through the greatest works.

Οὐ γάρ ἐφρόνουν κατά τούς Λατίνους, ἄπαγε, ὡς καί τοῦτο δέδεικται, ἀλλά καί ἐγνώκασι καί
παραδεδώκασιν ἡμῖν μίαν καί μόνην ἀρχήν τῆς θεότητος, ἕνα Πατέρα ἀγέννητον, ἕνα Υἱόν ἐξ
αὐτοῦ γεννητῶς προερχόμενον, ἕν Πνεῦμα ἅγιον συναΐδιον, ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός καί αὐτό
ἐκπορευόμενον πρό αἰώνων καί εἰς αἰῶνας˙ καί ἔτι καί συνδοξαζόμενον τῷ Πατρί καί τῷ Υἱῷ
νῦν καί ἀεί καί εἰς τούς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. Ἀμήν.

For, they were not minded like the Latins, far from it, as this has already been shown. But they
have Both known and delivered to us that there is only one source of divinity, one unbegotten
Father, one Son Who proceeds from Him by way by being begotten, one co-eternal Holy Spirit,
Himself proceeding forth from the Father before the ages of ages unto the ages; and further, Who
is glorified with the Father and the Son now and ever and unto ages of ages.

ΑΜΗΝ

ΔΙ ΕΥΧΩΝ ΤΟΥ ΑΓΙΟΥ ΓΡΗΓΟΡΙΟΥ ΣΩΣΟΝ ΗΜΑΣ

Bibliography
Augustine, Saint. 1990. De Trinitate, Book 9. Edited by Phillip Schaff. Hendrickson. October.
Accessed september 11, 2019. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/130109.htm.