For not only because there is one nature is there one God, but because also one person has the things from him referred to it, and the things from a principle are referred to one cause and one principle—not the two together only, but also each of them separately.
And on this account there is one principle of the Godhead and one God, even according to this referring; because each of the two is referred immediately to one.
For if the Spirit too is not immediately from the Father, this 'mediately' necessarily makes two causes of the Spirit—the middle and the extreme—and it is not possible, on account of a referring that stands thus, for the three to be one God; rather, that which is from the Father through a mediating Godhead would not even be God; for it was upon the creatures that the Father came through a mediating Godhead, according to the theologians.
But the Son is one God with the Father; and creatures are from the Father through the Son as from one God, and there is one principle of the creatures—God.
If, then, the Holy Spirit is from the Father through the Son as from one, it will not be as from one God, the Father and the Son, but as from one being Father, of the Father and of the Son.
Wherefore the Latins, fleeing this, say 'as from one God'; which has no place anywhere, as has been shown; and this too because the Spirit is one God with the Father and the Son.
Therefore, since the Father is wholly and altogether one, not both the Son and the Spirit, but each separately too has one principle and one cause only, the Father.
And thus there is one principle of the Godhead—even though those who think in the Latin manner, when called to account as to how they speak of two principles in respect of the Godhead, think to defend themselves by insisting that they hold one principle of the Son and of the Spirit; for, wishing to outwit us, they affirm this, as we already said at the outset.
For this very thing is what is charged against them by us: how do they say that of the Son and of the Spirit there is one principle, yet of the one Spirit they speak of two principles?
And so God the Father, as Father, is principle and cause; and as principle, he is Father of the lights, that is, of the Son and the Spirit; and as cause, he is cause, principle, and Father.
If, then, the Son too is cause of the Spirit, of necessity he will be principle and Father, as being cause; for just as, in the case of a man—since a man is receptive of knowledge—it is not possible for one receptive of knowledge not to be a man, so also in the case of God: since the Father, as Father, is principle and cause, it is not possible for one being a cause not to be also a principle and a Father—and this although the theologian Gregory writes (p.)
Do you see the monarchy, and the hypostatic singularity of the Father, plainly set aside by those who say the Spirit is also from the Son, and who do not refer each of the persons to one sole source, the fountain of the Godhead?
And although, through one another—rather, through those before us—we might be traced back to one forefather, yet the causes are at once many, and on this account we are not from one, and therefore not one.
And if, before you, our Gospel—which was proclaimed among the nations, believed in the world—was deficient, and the saving grace of God and the knowledge of God according to it, which was manifested to all and taught all; if the faith has not been emptied, if the things of the confession have not been corrupted, in which the cloud of martyrs surrounding us both contended and labored, the all-numerous catalogue of the holy ones, the God-taught company of the teachers, all who in deed and word and by their own sufferings bore witness to the truth, for which, doing nobly, they stood firm even unto death—and not for it alone or for themselves, but also for our establishment—if not only all these things but also the faith of those called from Christ is deficient, then in vain indeed are you finding additions and innovating against your own soul.
For if they had also known the Spirit to be from the Son, why did they not continue to proclaim it with boldness, and confirm it through the holy councils that were held many times and on many occasions?
Nay rather, even if we should grant this—which is not so—are not the things handed down in common to be received in preference to the things said privately by each one?
...things unassailable to those who do evil and who, by falsifying, corrupt the word of truth—things known to all, both wise and unlearned, and ever borne upon their lips.
For those who have contrived and dared an addition to that which lies in the mouths of all who are truly Christians and is proclaimed many times each day—what would they not have done in matters unknown to the many?
Nevertheless, in a second discourse we shall examine the things that seem to bear witness to your innovation, and shall refute them, God granting—not those things, far from it, but you, who take what was well said in a bad sense, and who do not, to the best of your power, reconcile the obscure things with the wise, and the things spoken in secret with the things spoken openly.
Next, it has been shown that 'alone' is to be understood together (with the phrase) whenever the Holy Spirit is said to proceed from the Father; since in that same Creed, when we hear that the Son was begotten from the Father, we receive, beyond all dispute, that 'alone' is to be understood together with it.
To this we joined in succession: that even if it were unobjectionable to say the Spirit is also from the Son, it ought not to have been added to the Creed by the Latins.
For even if it should later appear to be sound, it could not be a thing to be added; for to those of our side too, even though all came together and examined together, including the very prelates of Old Rome, none of the things that appeared to be piously held was added.
And from this it appeared that it was a thing just, first to require them to remove the addition, and not, on account of the eminence of the reigning pope, to repudiate those who closed their life with an end attested by God, and then to consent to dispute with them concerning it.
After this, to those who hear the discourse fair-mindedly we say: that hearing both (the Son and the Spirit) to be from the Father, we are able to understand together 'from him alone,' even if it is not co-uttered.
) But also, when we say the Spirit is from the Father by procession, we apply 'to send forth' to the paternal hypostasis; for the essence is wholly and altogether one of the three, but it is not possible for the Son to possess the things of the paternal hypostasis; so that the Spirit is not also from the Son.
After this, those who think in the Latin manner were refuted, as being no longer able to hold the two persons of the Godhead to be from one, since they place the cause in two persons and that differently; nor even to call God one, on account of such a referring to the One; for neither is grandfather, father, and son one man, according to the wise prelate of Nyssa, since the cause is referred to two persons.
We further demonstrated that, since the Spirit is also called the mind of Christ—just as each of us has his own (mind)—according to its energy it is also from him; but according to its hypostasis it is indeed his by nature, yet not from him, but from the Father alone.
And (it was shown) from each one's having all the things of the Father, except for unbegottenness and begetting and procession, according to the theologians.
We established, from the things common to Father and Son being attested as common also to the Spirit, that 'to send forth' is not also the Son's; for it would then be the Spirit's too. In doing which we further refuted them as making the hypostatic properties indifferent from the natural ones.
From the impiety of not saying that the creation—which received its being creatively through the Son—is from the Son, but of giving the creative property to the Father alone, we of necessity consequently concluded that, even if the Spirit had its being by procession through the Son, it would be impious to say so, since (the Fathers) do not say 'Spirit from the Son,' and since the procession-property belongs to the Father alone.
And (we showed) that if the Spirit is through the Son, both together and separately each would be called Father and sender-forth, just as in the case of creation, maker and Father.
Then, from the names of the Son that have been enumerated and contemplated by the saints, we established that the Holy Spirit is not also from the Son.
Again, from the Spirit's being not simply 'proceeding,' but 'proceeding from the Father' being proper to the divine Spirit, we established that the theologians bear witness that the Holy Spirit is from the Father alone.
And by the Spirit too being spoken of as second from the Father, just as the Son is, each one being shown to be immediately from the Father, the theological mediation not resembling three points lying in a row, but those at the angles of a triangle.
) After this, the procession of the Spirit having been plainly shown to be twofold, it was further shown that each of the two processions has its corresponding cessation.
Again, from saying that the Son too is a principle of the divine Spirit, those who think in the Latin manner appeared to be ranking the divine Spirit with created things.
Besides these things, from the things common to the most high Trinity being present equally to each of the divine hypostases, those who think in the Latin manner appeared to be saying that neither the Son nor the Spirit is from the Father, and that God does not have hypostatic differences.
And from this, those who think in the Latin manner were refuted, as being ignorant of the pious order, while the things the theologians confess to be beyond us as not knowing them, they themselves boast to know with precision, and thus innovate, and blaspheme concerning the procession of the all-holy Spirit.
And we also set forth a discourse showing in manifold ways why, for the most part, the Son is hymned after the Father, and the Spirit after the Son, by us, and is handed down to the initiated.
And that the theologians, rightly following the principle of initiation, in the case of all the things contemplated commonly in the three, say that the Spirit stands toward the Son as the Son toward the Father.
) And that, not having heard this with understanding, Eunomius earlier and those who thought in the Latin manner later dogmatized the Holy Spirit to be third from the Father; and from this Eunomius (dogmatized it to be) third also in nature, while the Latins further dogmatized that it also has its being from the Son.
Further, we show that not only both together—the Son and the Spirit—but also each of them separately is referred immediately to the Father; and that, if this be not so, neither will there be one God.
Besides these things, from God the Father's creating as God but not as Father, while begetting and sending forth as Father, we show that, if according to the Latins the Spirit is from the Father and from the Son as from one, it will not be as from one Father, of the Father and of the Son.
And thus the Latin mind is completely refuted, both as impiously saying the Spirit is from both of them in respect of existence, and as (saying it is) from one God of the two of them.
Still further after this we speak concerning the principle, and (show) how those who think in the Latin manner answer sophistically those who ask them whether they speak of two principles of the Godhead of the Spirit.
Hence again, from the Father's being theologized by the apostle as Father of lights, those who think in the Latin manner are demonstrated to be calling the Son too Father; and to be plainly setting aside the monarchy and the hypostatic singularity of the Father.
Then, having said this too—that the things said in common by the Fathers are to be cherished in preference to the things said privately by some of them to each, and that the things not in common usage are suspect, especially when brought forward by the Latins, who lay hands even on what is plain—we promised, with God (the discourse being) in (p.)
These things, then, have been demonstrated above through many arguments; and (it has been shown) that we and the confession according to us have security from every side, and are to us a crown of boasting and a hope that does not put to shame.
For if we ourselves are not deficient in respect of this, much more were those of old—those initiated from above and who, divinely-moved, initiated our race: the apostles, prophets, the venerable councils of the Fathers, many and numerous—not deficient.
But if, knowing it otherwise—as the race of the Latins now insists—they did not make it manifest to us, and that although the Lord said to them, 'What you have heard in the darkness, proclaim in the light,' how would they not be among the accountable?
For they did not think according to the Latins—far from it, as this too has been shown—but they both knew and handed down to us one and only one principle of the Godhead: one Father unbegotten, one Son proceeding from him by begetting, one Holy Spirit co-eternal, itself also proceeding from the Father before the ages and unto the ages; and furthermore glorified together with the Father and the Son, now and ever and unto the ages of ages.
) Having first, then, to the best of our power, gone through the things needful—even to the very catalogue of the pious—for the clarification and confirmation of the right understanding, and through which all the impiety of the opposing Latins is made manifest in brief; but having not yet, in due order, brought to light all the things which they themselves put forward against us and against piety, and by which they insist that they innovate in nothing but think and speak in harmony with the very divine words of Christ and in nothing discordant with those who have theologized according to Christ, nor yet having refuted these—now let us see, point by point, what they say, and by what arguments or scriptural words and concepts they have, having used—rather, having misused—them, fallen away from the God-spoken and Father-handed-down confession.
...(those who are not willing,) but who, like some who are truly ill-bred, are vexed in the extreme and contradict those who extend a hand toward correction—offering the power of the word of truth that leads up toward the truth.
Now, to fall away became common to all the churches, at one time to one and at another to another, when the long passage of time wrought something worse.
But that, having fallen, it should no longer return, became the lot of the Latins alone—and that although it is greatest and chief, and of pre-eminent height among the patriarchal thrones; and the very same thing has befallen it, being the greatest of the churches, (p.)
Of which they say that not even at the time of sleep does it lie down upon the ground for rest, but, leaning a little upon its side limbs, it takes repose; but if it ever falls down, having suffered something, it can no longer rise.
But for the elephants the cause is the weight of the body and the excess of flesh, which is both unwieldy and presses down, like some many-talented lead lying upon them; whereas for the Latins it is pride, I think—the one passion, I am almost moved to say, that is incurable, which is also for the evil one alone the most peculiar judgment, according to the apostle; on account of which that one too is incurable unto the ages.
But if this race of the Latins should put off this (pride)—for they are able, being indeed men—then perhaps we, all of the right faith, gathered into one, and using, as it were, our trunks (like the elephants), might, with the God-inspired oracles—that very remedy which nature devised for fallen elephants through those not lying down—raise them up and set them upright, holding fast unswervingly to the canon of piety.
But for those who lie down willingly, nothing whatsoever will profit, even if the remedy for the false belief should be prepared and applied by the very heavenly minds; for the word concerning them has been declared in prophetic sayings: 'We tended Babylon, and she was not healed.'
Therefore he who extends a hand gives to these almost in vain, having assigned this one thing very well to himself, and rendered to God the demonstration of his own goodness, but having only shown them to be willingly evil, and perhaps having kept them from going further into their falls.
For even now, if they are not plainly willing to dissent, what better remedy could they have for () correction than that the Holy Spirit has its hypostasis from the Father alone, but not also from the Son?
Which has been demonstrated beforehand through many arguments and through the implied 'alone,' the orthodox understanding concerning the secure theology of the Holy Spirit having become clearer, and their addition having been plainly refuted as contrary to the right-dividing proclamation of the truth.
But even apart from these things, we see no necessity brought to bear from anywhere to move the Spirit-moved decrees concerning piety of the holy councils from the ages, and to recast the Father-handed-down Creed of piety, so as to add and to insist that the Holy Spirit has its existence also from the Son.
For what then? If there are some things in the God-inspired Scripture that seem to disagree with the things declared in common by the theologians—and from this acknowledged by us all—shall we not rather, to the best of our power, reconcile those things with the truth that has its indisputableness from every side, instead of ourselves falling away from the truth on account of those things?
Nor, if we should confess that something even surpasses our understanding and should yield the comprehension of it to certain others—whoever might be deemed worthy, even if it be the last of the deep and hidden mysteries of the Spirit—and, judging ourselves unworthy of these, should humble ourselves under the mighty hand of God; not (will we do) like those—oh, the passion!—who would even ignore God himself, because they are unwilling to confess any ignorance, just as those who ignored the Godhead of the Son on account of the things written about him that are hard to grasp.
...the testimonies, not rightly taken, would not be able to assist those who plead unseasonably, nor to deliver them from impiety and from the eternal condemnation on its account; but they shall pay an eternal penalty, because, having set aside the clear utterances and having searched out the unclear ones in puffed-up pretense of knowledge, (p.)
) rather, not having searched, nor having been persuaded by those who truly searched, they justly reaped, from that very puffed-up knowledge, the truest folly.
And yet very many are these utterances, which to those who are not most discerning seem to take away from the Son his being co-unoriginate with the Father and of equal honor, and the very sovereign dignity and the unending kingdom; for, it is said, 'the Son too shall be subjected,' and 'he must reign until a certain time,' and 'the Father is greater,' and 'wisdom was created,' and 'he is ignorant of some of the things created by him,' and 'of himself he can do nothing,' and 'he came down not to do his own will,' and 'he was passing the night in the prayer of God,' and 'he learned,' and 'he advanced,' and 'he was exalted,' and 'he was glorified,' and 'he was made perfect,' and as many things as belong to the lowliness of our lump, and as many as belong to the gratitude, so to speak, of the offspring toward the begetter, and as many as are tokens of his not being anti-God, and as many as are examples of virtue toward us through deeds.
What then? On account of these things, is the divine, as it were inexhaustible height attested to the Son from elsewhere to be set aside—that 'in the beginning he was,' and 'he was with God,' and 'he was God,' and 'before all hills he is begotten,' and 'before the sun his name endures,' and 'this is God and no other shall be reckoned beside him, for he it is who afterward dwelt among men,' and that 'he and the Father are one,' and 'he is in the Father and the Father in him,' and 'he who has seen him has seen the Father,' and 'with him is the principality in the day of his power,' and 'he shall have dominion (p.)
) after the moon is removed,' and 'every knee shall bow to him, of things in heaven and on earth and under the earth,' and 'his kingdom is an everlasting kingdom,' and 'it shall not be left to another king'?
These things, then, and as many others as are similar to them—things so marvelous, so lofty, so unsurpassable—shall we drag down together with those (lowly ones) on account of the words that abase?
These things, then, we too—as many of us as are purely of the Spirit, as many as theologize just as the Spirit clarified itself, as many as both think and proclaim nothing unworthy of it, nor anything departing from the things we say—we, then, even if something should seem not to harmonize with the theology concerning the holy and adorable Spirit alone, the Holy Spirit itself granting it, shall understand spiritually and discern, and cast away the stones of stumbling, and in every way demonstrate the later Fathers to be in agreement with the earlier ones, both in common and severally with themselves, and ourselves with them, and all of us in common with the Master who is by nature common, and our Father by grace.
Come now, let us set forth first the very thing that previously seemed to them altogether unassailable, as having been said by the very Word of truth: 'He breathed upon them and said, Receive the Holy Spirit.'
Is it, then, that because, having breathed, he said 'Receive the Holy Spirit,' the Holy Spirit was the breath—so that the procession is the same as the breath through the flesh? Or do they conclude, from its being given through a breath, that the Holy Spirit is a breath also of Christ's Godhead, and thence infer that it proceeds from the Son?
But whichever of these they say, let them be stopped at once, first, in brief: for the Lord, having breathed, did not say 'Receive the Spirit,' but, without the article, 'Receive Holy Spirit'—that is, some small portion of the Spirit.
It is clear, then, that he gave a partial energy of the Spirit through the breath, not its nature or hypostasis; for the nature and hypostasis of the divine Spirit are altogether without parts.
In order to show that the energy of himself and of the divine Spirit is one; and thence to establish the conjunction and connaturality and equality of honor of one another—of himself and of that one—just as Chrysostom the theologian too says, writing: 'Some say that he did not give the Spirit, but prepared them, through the breath, to be fit for its reception.'
Wherefore he added, 'Whosesoever sins you forgive, they are forgiven,' showing what kind of energy he gives; for the grace of the Spirit is unspeakable and its gift manifold.
) But that we may meet them more thoroughly: if the breath of the Lord was the Holy Spirit, then the respiration too which he was using, through which the breath also came about, was the Holy Spirit.
Therefore he did not become man according to us, but only in appearance, according to the appearance-fantasy of the Acephali; or else, before dwelling among men, the fleshly nature was from the beginning constituted somehow thus, according to the folly of Apollinarius; and the Lord himself did not at all say even this: 'The words that I speak are spirit and are life.'