Greek original · 112 verses · some words can be tapped for a gloss · long chapter, split into parts; this part covers 1:1155–1:1266 (2009 verses in all)
Since there are some who say that 'comes forth' and 'is poured forth' and 'proceeds' differ from one another, the foregoing citations of holy Cyril, and after them the (p. ...), have been selected as incontrovertible proof of their equivalence.
Seventh Counter-heading. Since some, hearing that the Holy Spirit exists and gushes and comes forth from the Son, do not monstrously say that the nature of the Spirit wells up and gushes from the substance of the Son, but (mean) the spiritual gift that comes to be in the worthy—because the indwelling that comes to be in them, of the everywhere-present Godhead of the Holy Spirit, occurs relationally—thus taking such a gift as if it were conceived as separated from the divine essence of the Spirit: the present scriptural citations have been collected, from which one can discern that, even though the indwelling of the all-holy Spirit that comes to be in the worthy is relational, ineffably and beyond reason, yet, since the gifts are poured forth there where its divine nature relationally indwells, the Holy Spirit itself—the one of the Trinity and completive (of it), which is the divine nature and perfect God, as the Father and the Son— (p. ...)
For none of those who have chosen to be pious thinks the divine grace and energy of the divine nature is scattered abroad; nor, because the divine energy is inseparable from the divine nature, is the energy therefore also nature, differing in nothing from it (for this is the impiety of Barlaam and Akindynos); for the divine energy is from the divine nature and is contemplated in it, according to the theologians, but does not exist of itself; whereas the divine nature is not from the energy, but is of itself and is the fountain of the divine energies.
But we too say the Holy Spirit is not from the hypostasis of the Son; and this man, saying it is 'from the nature,' thinks he contradicts us and establishes the opposite of our view, supposing, as it seems, the nature to differ in nothing from the hypostasis—or else senselessly introducing a difference of nature in the case of the Holy Trinity, since there is a difference of hypostases.
Eighth Heading. For proof that the Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son, the present scriptural resolutions have also been collected, which show it to be a quality of the essence of the Father and the Son, and moreover a fragrance, breath and odor of the Father and the Son; after which other citations, which also (the ...) (p. ...)
Eighth Counter-heading. The present collected scriptural citations also present, by means of examples, the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son, as far as is possible; for it is not possible to find in the case of God an example altogether suitable.
And since the Holy Spirit is also called 'living water' according to grace and energy, the Son too with the Father is called fountain of this water, and sometimes also the Holy Spirit itself; but he who brought forward these sayings here passed over some of them, and misuses others, and thus thinks to steal his readers away, by means of them, to his own ill opinion.
The present scriptural citations, in which the Fathers theologized that all the properties of the Father pass naturally onto the Son begotten of Him, have been set down to prove that the Spirit exists and comes forth and wells up also from the Son, just as indeed from the Father, according to the holy Cyril.
For if the qualifications of the citations remove from the Son only the fatherhood and the begetting, it is evident that there will be no Son from the Son, but the Spirit which wells up from the paternal essence will also be the Spirit welling up and being poured forth from the non-begetting essence of the Son.
Truly, impiety is illogical; for this Latin-minded man, hearing that the properties of the Father pass onto the Son naturally and essentially, supposed them to be properties of the paternal hypostasis, but not of the nature.
Therefore, according to his understanding, which he has acquired in the theologies of the God-bearing Fathers—the divine Cyril writing in the Thesauri, 'How shall the Spirit not be God, having essentially the whole property of the Father and of the Son'—the Spirit will have the hypostatic properties of the Father and the Son, and will be both offspring and begetter, and Father of lights, having the power to beget and to cause to proceed; than which what could be heard more impious and more novel?
And he himself, and those who think like him, will suffer almost the same again, whenever they hear the sacred Damascene saying, in the eighth of his dogmatic works: 'All that the Father has belongs also to the Spirit, except unbegottenness'; and Gregory surnamed of theology writing, in his work To Those Who Sailed Down from Egypt: 'All that is the Son's is also the Spirit's, except sonship.'
And what great folly again, to hear 'from the essence' and glorify it as 'from the hypostasis of the Son'—as if there were one hypostasis in God, just as one essence; and moreover, not to perceive that, since the Spirit is called 'of the Father' and 'from the Father,' those who deny the Son to be Father co-deny also the Son's communion with the Father according to the procession-causing property.
...so that one may discern that the Spirit too is said to be the Son's own on this account—because it is from His essence; and again, on this account it is said to be from the essence of the Son—because it is the proper good of such an essence, which also displays the consubstantiality of the Spirit with the Son.
For if the Spirit were the Son's own and from the essence of the Son according to some other notion of consubstantiality—such as that spoken of concerning two consubstantial things, in which the one is not 'through the other'—then the Son too would be the Spirit's own and from the essence of the Spirit, because of the convertibility of such consubstantiality; which has neither been said by any of the saints nor will ever be said by anyone who chooses to be orthodox.
And such consubstantiality is not even properly consubstantiality, but the kind that conjoins the one to the other, as existing through it or from it, naturally and essentially.
And this is witnessed by the citation of the great Basil set down here, which says that things kindred to one another are not called consubstantial; and there are added also the citations which show the Son to be consubstantial with the Father on this account—because He is from His essence—so that whoever wishes may thereby discern that the Spirit too is on this account consubstantial with the Son, namely because it is from His essence.
Tenth Counter-heading. The Son is the Father's own, as begotten from Him; likewise also the Holy Spirit, as proceeding from the Father Himself, (p. ...)
...just as the great Basil also says in his chapters Against the Eunomians, writing: 'I conceive the Spirit's kinship with the Father, since it proceeds from the Father.'
And the Spirit is also called 'of the Son,' since the same Basil says, in the eighth chapter of his work To Amphilochius, that it is appropriated to Him according to nature.
And it is impossible for things identical in nature not to be also kindred to one another; but the Son is not said to be 'of the Spirit,' lest the Holy Spirit should seem to be Father, inasmuch as the Son shows to be Father the one of whom He might be called Son.
He is indeed refuted even by himself, saying that on account of the consubstantiality the Spirit is said to be from the essence of the Son; for it will not on this account be also from the hypostasis; for it would follow that these are from one another—wherefore none of all (the saints) ever said the Holy Spirit is from the hypostasis of the Son, but from that of the Father.
Eleventh Heading. Since some, hearing that the Spirit is from the essence of the Son, say that 'from the essence' is one thing and 'from the hypostasis' another—unable to perceive that the name 'Son' is hypostatic, and that he who says 'from the essence of the Son' signifies the whole Son, namely the enhypostatic essence—the present scriptural citations have been collected for the refutation of their notion, which show the Son to be begotten from the essence of the Father.
For it being agreed that the generation of the Son from the Father is one, how is it possible for 'from the essence' and 'from the hypostasis' to differ, unless someone, blaspheming, wishes to say that there is one generation of the Son from the essence and another from the hypostasis of the Father?
But whenever something is of one essence, yet not of one hypostasis but of several, that which is from that one essence is not from the remaining hypostases of it, but from some one of them.
Since, then, the most exalted and adorable Trinity is for us one nature in three hypostases, not everything that has its hypostasis from the essence is from the remaining hypostases, but from some one of them—namely the paternal; for it is not possible for it not to be from this.
And this is clear from human beings; for each of us is from the essence of Adam, but no longer from the hypostasis of Adam, because the essence of human beings is now one, but the hypostases are many; but when human nature was in the beginning one essence and one hypostasis, that of Adam, Eve, being from the essence of Adam, was also from his hypostasis.
And likewise before Cain existed, when there was one male essence and hypostasis, Cain came from one and the same male essence and hypostasis, that of Adam; but when two men already subsisted according to hypostasis, the son begotten to Cain was indeed from the essence of Adam, but not also from his hypostasis—rather from that of Cain alone.
) But this Latin-minded man, maintaining here that the Spirit is also from the hypostasis of the Son—if indeed it is theologized as being from the nature—shows that he thinks there is one hypostasis just as one essence in God, the wretch utterly setting aside either the Son or the Father, and moreover showing the existence of the divine Spirit to be from the Son alone.
And even from the sayings which theologize that the Father is a perfect essence and the Son a perfect essence, and likewise the Holy Spirit, he does not recognize the oneness and unalterableness of the essence of the three, but senselessly tries to contemplate therefrom some multiplicity and difference according to it (the essence).
Twelfth Heading. Since there are some who dare to say that 'the Spirit wells up and comes forth and shines forth and appears from the Son' does not signify it to exist essentially and enhypostatically from the Son, but the distribution of spiritual gifts from Him, for the refutation of such folly the present scriptural citations have been selected, which show the Son to well up and shine forth and appear from the Father; for surely no one will say that it is not the Son who wells up and shines forth and appears from the Father essentially and enhypostatically, but the gifts of the Son.
Twelfth Counter-heading. That which has its existence from something by generation or by procession is also said to come forth and be sent forth and shine forth from it, (p. ...)
第十二反題。凡以受生或發出方式從某物而有其存在者，也被說為從它出來、被差出、放光，（頁……）
1:1194
) εἴπερφῶςἐστι, καίὅσαπαραπλήσιατούτοις
...if indeed it is light, and whatever else is similar to these.
But not everything that comes forth or is sent forth or shines forth from something has its existence from it by generation or procession, and is in its own hypostasis.
The necessity, from which you may grasp, dear friend, as from a geometrical corollary, the cause also of my former silence (in writing); for now too I have come unwillingly to writing, under inescapable necessity.
We have heard that a book Against the Latins has been issued by the fine fellow—fine both in other respects and in matters of discourse, and most of all in the chief form of these—Barlaam the Calabrian; and it was our earnest desire to obtain and read the book.
It was very much my wish to meet also with the Father of the Word; but since He dwells so far removed, together with you, I judged it necessary to inquire, through you, into one of the most essential matters.
He accuses those of the Latins with whom he had conversed, charging that they make two principles of the Spirit's divinity—namely the Father and the Son—dogmatizing that the Spirit proceeds from both.
But they say, "Not so; for there is one God, and the procession is as from one"—alas, healing evil with evil, or rather with something worse, as will become plain as the discourse proceeds.
—that is, of those who hold there are two principles of the Holy Spirit—might say there is nothing absurd if one speaks of two principles, namely the Father and the Son, provided they are not set over against one another nor opposed to each other, but the one is under the other or from the other.
Proceeding further, he insists that this opinion is in no way absurd, bringing forward as witness Gregory, who is great in theology, who says concerning the Son: "the Principle from the Principle."
And coming to that part of the discourse where he lists what bears upon the disputation among the things handed down to us concerning God, having first laid down that we confess one nature in God but three hypostases, and that the natural properties differ from the hypostatic ones, he adds, saying that this too is granted by hypothesis: that there are not two principles in such a way that the one has its existence from the other, since it is impious thus to speak of two principles in God.
For indeed he himself again adds: "Perhaps in this way nothing prevents it, as the Theologian says, 'the Principle from the Principle.'" And, supposing that from such words he proves it—and disputing through other matters in between—he holds that it is not impious to call the Son also a principle of the Holy Spirit, inasmuch as the Son too is from a principle, even though He is Himself a principle.
And indeed, not even with respect to the creative principle—according to which the Son too is plainly called "principle" by Scripture—is it pious to speak of two principles; but he does not here premise this sense, since it contributes nothing to the matter under examination,
) Besides, if it signifies the creative power, one could speak not only of two—though not rightly—but even of more; for this principle is tri-hypostatic. And being by nature, it is also common; and being common, how would the Spirit too not possess this principle?
And Elihu, who debated with Job on behalf of God's justice, when he says, "the Spirit of the Lord is that which made me," does he not call the Spirit a creative principle?
And the divine psalmist David, when he sings that the heavens were established by the word of the Lord, but the powers of the heavens by the Spirit—does he not attribute the creative principle to the Spirit just as to the Son?
If then, because it is written "the Principle from the Principle," nothing prevents one from speaking of two principles, then since it is also written that the Spirit too is a maker, nothing prevents one from speaking of two makers; or since creation is established by the Word of God and by the Spirit—which is the same as to say it is constituted by them—nothing prevents one from speaking of three principles.
But nowhere did any of the theologians say either two or three; for just as we call each of those adorable hypostases God, and each of two of them God from God, yet not on this account ever two or three gods, so also we say "principle from principle," yet never two principles; for a second principle we have not, even to this day, heard from the orthodox, just as neither a second God.
But one is our God, and what we worship is a monarchy—not composed of two gods, nor coming together out of two principles—and it is one, since what we revere is not on these grounds divisible; nor indeed is it divided and gathered in the same respect: for it is distinguished by the hypostatic properties, but united by what pertains to the nature.
If, then, nothing prevents speaking of two principles, it follows that these are that by which the divinity is divided; and so it is impossible for it to be united again according to them; therefore the two are not one.
He, then, who says there are two principles in God on the ground that the Son is "the Principle from the Principle"—if he means this in the creative sense, then, besides the fact that (p.)
) it otherwise does not accord with our confession, he also casts the Holy Spirit out of the creative power—which is the same as casting it out of the divinity; for what is not creative is not God either—but if he means it in the divinity-begetting sense, then he plainly hands down that the Spirit is from the Father and from the Son.
Him, then, we shall come to know, and indeed with pleasure; for what else could we expect from a man who, out of longing for exactness in piety, has left his homeland behind?
Know exactly, and be unshakeable concerning this: that this is the mind of the Latins, and in this lies almost the whole of their strength, and against this the opponent must take his stand—unless he wishes to expend his strength on what is beside the point, and be found weaker in the decisive matters.
For whenever they construct their syllogisms not from what is agreed upon by us, nor use as principles the words and concepts handed down from God, we need to make little or no defense—on the ground that such men are willfully malicious and carry on the dispute for the sake of contention rather than for truth—and especially because such arguments avail nothing against us.
For if neither the musician nor the geometer, as such, ought to converse with one wholly ignorant of geometry or unmusical—that is, one not grounded in the principles of geometry or music—and if those mathematicians need not even answer should the inquiry be made about the principles themselves, then much more ought we not to answer, nor dispute, with one who reasons about the properties of God yet not from the theological principles; for from false premises his (p.)
But that this which seems so strong to those who think in the Latin way is in fact thoroughly rotten, we have already demonstrated in many places and at length in our earlier discourses composed with him On the Holy Spirit; and now too we shall not hesitate, for the sake of those who are going to read this writing.
For we cannot endure that an argument of the heterodox, recorded by us, should lie before the many unrefuted; rather, taking it up again and giving the discourse another beginning, let us, to the best of our power, make clear the things of the most monarchical Principle, and refute those who dogmatize two principles of the one Spirit—both that they do dogmatize this, and that they do not do so rightly.
Whenever, then, we speak of the things brought forth from non-being by God—namely the goodness through which they received being, and the grace implanted in them, whereby each shares fittingly in well-being, and the grace later added on, through which the fallen returned to well-being—whenever we make our discourses about these and such matters, we call the Son too, in the Holy Spirit, a principle and source and cause; not another, far from it, but the same, since the Father, through Him in the Holy Spirit, both brings forth, leads back, and holds all things together well.
But the Father, besides being the source of all things through the Son in the Holy Spirit, is also source and principle of divinity, being alone the begetter of divinity.
) and "with You is the principle in the day of Your power," understand it of created things—just as John too cries out plainly about Him in the Apocalypse, "the Principle of God's creatures"—not as an originating principle, far from it (for He is God), but as their Creator; for He shares in the paternal principle from which these things come, according to which He too bears the name of lordship over all.
But if the Son is the principle of the Holy Spirit's divinity, and it is impossible for the Father to share with Him in this (for the Father alone has been theologized as the fontal divinity), then the Son is the principle of some other, different divinity, and has torn the Spirit away from the divinity that wells up from the Father; or shall we, by reason of two different divinities, grant this to the One, while confessing one divinity for the Three?
But we are not asking about the two persons, but about the one; and concerning this rather we make our argument against them: since the principle of the two is rightly one, how will there be two principles of the one, and how, according to them, are the two one?
Has Eve, then, been begotten from one principle because she was from Adam, and are there not two principles of this one, on the ground that the one is from the other?
And yet both have the power of generating, but it is also different and in different hypostases; for this very reason these principles are not one, even though the one is from the other.
If, then, even here, where—even if it is not one—the power of generating nevertheless belongs to both, it is not possible for the principle of the one to be one, how, in the case of the supreme Trinity, are the two principles of the one Holy Spirit one, in which there is by no means any communion in respect of the begetting of divinity?
Again, Eve, being from Adam alone, is from one principle; and Adam is from the earth, but Eve is not on this account from the earth and from Adam; for Adam alone is from the earth.
Either, then, let them too say the Spirit is from the Son alone, and so say it is from one principle—but not from the same principle from which the Son also is, and thence again there are two principles in the divinity, and the Father is no longer greater in being the cause of the Son, for the Son too is equally cause of divinity; or, saying that the Spirit is from the Father alone, let them piously grant one principle in the Spirit as also in the Son.
For as long as they say the Spirit is from the Son or from both, but not from the Father alone, it is impossible that there be one principle of the divinity of the one Spirit.
For one who in such cases joins them together, even if he should say the principle is one, says it equivocally, so that it is not one; but if he, dividing, views the divine hypostases one by one, then of necessity two principles plainly come to be from the one.
For if the Son shares with the Father in respect of begetting divinity, projecting the Spirit, and the begetting power is one in them, and this procession is from them, then this belongs to the nature, and there are not two principles, nor are the two one, (p.)
But if the Son does not share with the Father in this, nor is this projecting one in them, then the procession of the Spirit belongs hypostatically to the Son.
And indeed, when the great Basil, in his refutatory chapters Against the Eunomians, writes that all things common to the Father and the Son are common also to the Spirit—if then the procession-producing is common to the Father and the Son, this will be common also to the Spirit, and the Trinity will be a tetrad; for the Spirit too will then proceed-produce another Spirit.
But if, according to the Latins, the procession-producing is not common to the Father and the Son—on the ground that, according to them, the Father produces the Spirit mediately, but the Son immediately (for in this way they say the Son has the projecting power hypostatically)—then, according to them, are not creating and sanctifying and, in short, all the natural operations also not common to the Father and the Son?
Since the Father creates and sanctifies through the Son, and fashions and sanctifies by means of the Son, but the Son not through a Son, therefore, according to them, the Son has creating and sanctifying hypostatically; for He does so immediately, and not as the Father mediately; and thus, according to them, the natural properties differ in nothing from the hypostatic ones.
But if then they should say that the Son creates and sanctifies through the Spirit, yet, first, it is not customary for the theologians to say that the Son or the Father is creator of creatures through the Spirit, but rather "in the Holy Spirit"; and next, besides their not even thus escaping the absurdity demonstrated above, for the Son is again not shown to be creator through a Son as the Father is, it will follow for them to say that creating and sanctifying are not common also to the Spirit (p.)
According to them, then, the Spirit has creating and sanctifying hypostatically, as not mediately like the Father who creates—and the natural properties are shown to be indifferent from the hypostatic; and if this is so, then the nature too is the same as and indifferent from the hypostases.
But to construct syllogisms in such matters we have been taught in practice by the fathers, and on this account no one could write down even the Latins as transgressors.
Neither do they reason demonstratively, as you yourself say, owing to their not using the self-attesting oracles as principles and axioms, nor rightly following the divinely wise fathers; nor dialectically, owing to their not constructing their syllogisms from the premises granted among us—and I would entirely affirm this.
But that there is no demonstration concerning any of the divine matters and of what is sought in the supreme Trinity, but that one should suppose and call every syllogism about them dialectical, and never demonstrative—from this I am far from agreeing.