聖山宣言 第 1 章 第 1/17 段

Once again the terrible serpent, the author of evil, raising his head against us, whispers under his breath things contrary to the truth.

Or rather, having had his head crushed by the cross of Christ, yet making each one of those in every generation who heed his ruinous counsels into a head for himself, and thus, like the hydra, sprouting many heads in place of one, he does not cease through them to speak iniquity unto the heights.

Thus, attaching to his own dragging coils Arius, Apollinaris, Eunomius and Macedonius, and very many others who clung to him, through their tongue he spewed forth his own venom against the holy Church, using their words as his own teeth; and he pierced them into the root of true religion, as it were the root of a plant freshly grown beautiful and laden with most lovely fruit. Yet he was not able to do it harm; for by those very men whom he had bitten his teeth were once more broken to pieces — by those who in truth had made Christ their own Head.

This serpent, then, intelligible and therefore all the more accursed, the first and middle and last of evils, the wicked one who ever feeds upon grovelling, earthly malice, the tireless watcher of the heel — that is, of deceit — the resourceful sophist most apt for every God-hated opinion and uncannily ingenious, never forgetting his native craft, through the Latins who are obedient to him introduces strange utterances concerning God,

utterances that seem to involve but a slight alteration, yet are the occasions of great evils and bring many dire consequences — things foreign and absurd to true religion — making plain to all that in matters concerning God even the smallest deviation is no small thing.

For if, in the case of each of the things among us, once a single absurdity is granted as a starting-point, many absurdities ensue, how much more, in the case of the common Principle of all and of those — so to speak — indemonstrable principles that belong to it, will many impious absurdities not arise from this, once a single unaccustomed premise is irreverently granted?

Into which the Latin race would manifestly have fallen, had not most of their heterodoxy been pared away by us who contradict the novel utterance of that ill-opinioned dogma.

For sometimes they contract their position to such a degree as even to say that they are of the very same mind as we, differing only in words — slandering their own selves out of perplexity.

For we do not say that the existence of the Holy Spirit is also from the hypostasis of the Son, whereas they say it is also from the Son — and it is impossible to bring both into one and the same meaning; for the Only-begotten is one, and one is the existence of the Spirit.

The negation, then, is always opposed to the affirmation, and one is always false if the other is true; and it is not possible truthfully both to affirm and to deny the same thing concerning the same subject.

That they not only say but also hold opinions contrary to us, no one, I think, among the right-minded who do not share their view will gainsay.

And that they contradict not us alone but the very word of truth itself — which among us has been preserved undiminished and unincreased and wholly unaltered — all of you know exactly even without demonstration; I mean the whole company of the devout.

Nevertheless it will be shown, God granting, even through this discourse, that every mouth that contradicts may be stopped, and that what wavers in the balance may be made firm in a single confession.

But O God of all, the only Giver and Guardian of true theology and of the dogmas and words pertaining to it, O Trinity most uniquely sovereign — not only because Thou alone rulest over all, but because Thou alone hast in Thyself one super-principal Principle, the only causeless Monad, from whom and to whom timelessly and causelessly proceed and are referred both the Son and the Spirit: the Holy Spirit, the Lord, who has His existence from God the Father by procession, and who through the Son is given and sent and made manifest to those who rightly believe in Thee; O Only-begotten Son, who hast Thine existence from God the Father by generation, and who through the Holy Spirit art formed and dost dwell in the hearts of those who believe in Thee, invisibly seen; O Father unbegotten alone and unproceeding, and, in a word, causeless, the only Father of the lights that never depart and are equal in honour with Thee — one might, one power, the Maker of the makers and of the lights beneath Thy hand, the Bestower of all knowledge, who hast produced the manifold ideas of knowers and things known, and hast naturally implanted knowledge fittingly in those who know: in the intellectual, simple and impassible acts of intellection; in the sensitive, manifold and passible perceptions; and in us who are mixed, both — Thou who also grantest to Thy rational creatures alone, by ineffable goodness, the knowledge of Thee insofar as it is attainable: grant to us also now to theologize in a manner well-pleasing to Thee, in agreement with those who from of old have pleased Thee in deed and word; that we may both refute those who do not theologize about Thee in a God-pleasing way, and may strengthen toward the truth those who in truth seek Thee, so that we may all know Thee as the one and only source-Godhead, the only Father and Emitter,

and Thine one and only Son — Son alone, but not also an Emitter — and Thine one Holy Spirit, who is solely that which is emitted, but not a creature; and that we may glorify one God in a single, simple, and (so to speak) rich and unconstrained Godhead, and in turn be glorified by Thee in rich deification and the threefold-shining outpouring of light, now and unto the incomprehensible ages.

This prayer, then, is common to all who venerate one single Principle.

But what say you, who speak of two principles in the Godhead?

For what does it matter if you do not say this openly, yet it follows of necessity from what you do say?

Such are the depths of Satan, the mysteries of the evil one, which he whispers to those who lend him their ears — not slackening or lowering the pitch of his voice, but concealing the harmfulness of the thought.

Thus too, I suppose, he whispered to Eve.

But we, taught by the divine wisdom of the Fathers not to be ignorant of his designs, since the starting-point is for the most part hidden from the many, would never accept you as in communion with us, so long as you say that the Spirit is also from the Son.

For in saying this, do you not manifestly persist, first, in adding to the revelatory theology concerning the Holy and adorable Spirit which Christ the Self-Truth gave — He who, being God before the ages, became for our sake also a theologian; who, being the very Truth itself, was made manifest to us out of love for mankind as the herald of the truth; who for this came into the world, that He might bear witness to the truth, whose true voice everyone hears who is of the truth and seeks it in truth?

Do you not then resist, first, Him who was the very first of all so to theologize? — for He says, 'the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father.' And next, do you not resist His disciples and apostles, who became eyewitnesses and ear-witnesses; or rather, before these, the Holy Spirit Himself, who came according to the promise given them by the Saviour, who taught them all things, yet did not teach this — namely, that He proceeds not from the Father of lights alone, but also from the Son?

For if He had so taught them, these would likewise have taught us the same.

Since for this very reason, having been taught and enlightened, they were sent forth: to teach as they had been taught, to enlighten as they had been enlightened, to proclaim openly what they had heard in the ear — that is, not in the hearing of all — to speak in the light, that is, manifestly to all, what had been said to them in darkness, as I would put it, by revelation in a more-than-luminous gloom (let it be also figuratively); even such as is the dark saying in Solomon which is made clear to him who has partaken of wisdom.

Or, if you will, let 'darkness' here signify that which is in private, and hiddenly, and not yet known to the many.

But to the point now before us: that which was not spoken by these who proclaimed the truth openly, which the Spirit — who declared all the truth — did not announce, which He who made known to the beloved all that He heard from the Father did not testify or make known, and for this came, that He might bear witness to the truth — how do you dare to assert this, introducing so foreign an addition into the definition of the faith, which the chosen Fathers, gathered together in common under the moving of the Spirit, composed and handed down as a symbol of the unerring doctrine concerning Father and Son and Holy Spirit, a touchstone of pure knowledge of God, and a secure confession for all who have chosen rightly to divide the word of truth?

For the pretext you allege — that, since there are some who say the Son is not equal to the Father because He too does not possess the power of emitting, you, hastening to prove Him equal, introduced this addition — has no reasonableness whatsoever.

For if some should say that He must also possess the power of begetting, on the ground that, this being absent, equality is taken away, then one would be compelled to add this too, in deference to the foolish; and, in short, not to call the Father greater in respect of being cause of the Son, lest we set aside the Son's equality with Him.

Which indeed you seem craftily to insinuate, in opposition to the evangelical dogmas and teachings; for whoever says that the Son too is cause of Godhead sets aside the Son Himself, who in the Gospel plainly said, 'My Father is greater than I' — not as man only, but also as God, in respect of the cause of Godhead.

For this reason too He did not say 'God,' but 'the Father'; for it is not as God that He is greater than the Son — away with such impiety! — but as cause of Godhead, just as the God-bearing Fathers have interpreted to us.

You therefore, it seems, contradict these God-bearing Fathers and Christ the God of the God-bearers, who say that the Son is not equal to the Father in respect of cause.

But we both acknowledge the equality of the Son with the Father according to nature, and confess the Father's being greater according to cause — which 'cause' embraces both, the begetting and the emitting.

And by those very men who at the beginning composed [the Creed], in their concern for the consubstantiality — that is to say, the equality of honour — of the Son with the Father, the symbol of the faith was deemed sufficient without your addition.

Therefore it is neither reasonable nor reverent to introduce this addition into the definition of the faith, which the chosen Fathers, gathered together in common under the moving of the Spirit, composed and handed down;

to which it is by no means permitted either to add or to take away,

after the holy Synod which was second in time to that one, by which whoever shall dare this is made subject to anathemas and is cast out of the Church — and that for an addition not spoken, as has been said, in the word of Scripture, not revealed by the Spirit, not found in the recorded oracles of the holy Apostles.

In accordance with which both those who set forth this divine definition of the faith set it forth, and those who came after them assented to it, even if they did not co-author it;

as is proved by the records, in each particular, of all the holy Synods, and by the agreement — from those times until now, or rather forever — of the four patriarchal thrones, and of the many and diverse peoples and tongues themselves, who bear the original exposition unaltered and without variance.

And so the common revelatory utterances of the God-bearing theologians, evangelists, apostles, and the prophets before them from of old, thus confessedly hold concerning the Spirit, and thus in agreement with the God-man Word; and besides these, all the synods convened at various times and for various causes on behalf of true religion — and one might say, well-nigh every God-bearing tongue — for in none of these synods has the Holy Spirit been theologized as being also from the Son.

One might just now have shown this very thing — that all the divinely-eloquent teachers in turn, each for his part, hold to it without variation — through the words individually set forth by each of them in succession.

But the contentious Latin will not endure our prolonging the discourse so far; rather he will meet us, saying: 'How then, and whence, did you yourselves find this addition, that you conceive the Holy Spirit to proceed from the Father alone,

on which account you also reckon us heterodox — since Christ did not say this, nor did any of His disciples?'

To which we shall now straightway make answer, speaking thus.

The fullness of the devout, having become one lip for good, built a tower of true religion, wholly above the intelligible flood of impiety.

For the Trinity, who accomplishes all good things, came to dwell with them too as they set about to build — not confounding, but binding together both their glories and their tongues into a most devout and orthodox unanimity.

Standing therefore upon His secure stronghold, we shall first, from this very vantage, strike those who are borne against the right dogmas most accurately and most nobly — and at the same time profitably for themselves, if they be willing.

And after this, there are certain proofs of the truth, appearing from many — or rather from all — quarters, which we shall bring forward to them, raising them up to a longing for it, that I may say, according to what is written, 'if perhaps they might feel after it and find it, seeing it is not far from them.'

But now it is not we, rather it is the very rational rampart, as it were, of true religion that will strike and smite and rout them — and, if you will, even heal them.

For such is this divine definition of the divine things: it does not merely surround those who abide by it and establish them in safety, but also wages war beforehand and ranges itself irresistibly against those who rise up. How this is, hear.

'I believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages.'

Is not, then, the word 'alone' both understood together and supplied — that He was begotten from the Father alone — even though the word 'alone' is not added?

You would say so, if you wish to be devout at all.

And whenever, in the same Creed, you hear 'the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father,' straightway reckon the word 'alone' as of necessity supplied; and do not otherwise reckon it an addition of ours — we who add it, for the sake of truth and because of your setting-aside [of it], in our disputations with you, when you hear us add it.

Otherwise you will not allow 'alone' to be supplied even in the case of the Son's generation from the Father; and thus you will multiply your impiety.

Hearing that He was begotten 'of the Father before all ages,' and having 'alone' both understood together with and supplied to 'of the Father' — as you yourself would agree with us — yet no one ever added 'alone' there; so that, even if your opinion that the Spirit proceeds also from the Son were granted, and were agreed upon both by us and simply by the whole Church of Christ, not even so ought it to have been added by you into the symbol of the faith.

It would therefore be a thing most just not even to deem you worthy of discussion, unless you cease from adding to the sacred symbol; and, our addition having first been removed by you, then to inquire whether the Holy Spirit is also from the Son or not also from the Son, and to ratify what appears agreeable to the God-bearing Fathers — yet not even so to add it to the symbol of the faith, just as our predecessors did, well and piously, in the case of the two natures and wills and energies of the one Christ, and of the hypostatic union, and of the title of the Virgin-Mother [Theotokos], inasmuch as they contended for true religion together with the common peace — although they often thereafter assembled together in common, with the prelates of Old Rome who from time to time presided in hierarchical fashion either con-celebrating in council or giving their consent.

But indeed, not only the symbol of the orthodox faith — for one must speak for the sake of those who will listen with good will — not only, then, the symbol of the faith, but well-nigh every theologizing tongue, proclaiming the Son as begotten of the Father and the Holy Spirit as proceeding from the same Father, does not add 'alone'; so that, even if it is not added, it is of necessity supplied — and this you will learn by unrolling and going through the theological books themselves.

For your sake, nevertheless, let us too bring forward a few things, and those written in brief.

The great Athanasius, for instance, asks: 'What is God?'

'The Principle of all things,' according to the Apostle who says, 'one God the Father, of whom are all things'; for the Word is from Him by generation, and the Spirit is from Him by procession.

Do you see that 'from Him' is applied alike to both, and that nowhere is 'alone' added to the term?

You too, therefore, must either, alike in both cases, accept your addition, or understand 'alone' as of necessity supplied.

And what of him who came immediately after him in time, though not after him in greatness before God — that fitly-named 'royal priesthood' — will he not concur and agree in mind?

But hear and learn: properly the Son is from God, since the Son came forth from the Father and the Spirit proceeds from the Father; but the one is from the Father by generation, and the other ineffably from God.

Behold, manifold and alike in both cases he has set down 'from the Father.' Have you, then, any way still to say that the Holy Spirit is not from the Father alone, on the ground that 'alone' is not added?

Will you, then, hear also the great theologian Gregory, who in brief gathers the whole matter together, and as with a chisel pares away your addition, and fits 'from alone' to both?

[He, who says...] — and what is more marvellous, not that he adds, but that he does not add.

'For us there is one God,' he says, 'because there is one Godhead; and the things that are from Him have their reference to one, even though three be believed in.'

Do not you suffer this; or rather, do not remain incurable in your suffering — for the right has already become known to you.

And indeed we say the Son is from the Father, as begotten from the divine essence — that is, according to the paternal hypostasis; for the essence is one of the three. So that begetting is fitted to the paternal hypostasis, and it is not possible for the Son to be from the Spirit.

And indeed we say that the Son is from the Father, as begotten from the divine essence — that is, according to the paternal hypostasis; for the essence is one of the three. So that begetting is fitted to the paternal hypostasis, and it is not possible for the Son to be from the Spirit.

Since, then, the Holy Spirit too is from the Father, He likewise proceeds from the divine essence according to the paternal hypostasis; for the essence is in every way and altogether one of the three.

Therefore the emitting is fitted to the paternal hypostasis, and it is not possible for the Spirit to be also from the Son; for the Son does not possess the properties of the paternal hypostasis.

For according to the sacred Damascene, we recognize the difference of the divine hypostases in three properties alone: the causeless and paternal, the caused and filial, and the [property of procession of the Spirit].

Do you see that the hypostasis of the Son is not also cause, but is caused only?

And do you perceive this also, that the paternal property, insofar as it is paternal, embraces both — the begetting and the emitting?

Consequently, if the Holy Spirit were also from the Son, the Son too would be at once cause and, as cause, Father.

Then the Son would possess something of the paternal hypostasis; and if He possessed it, either there would be two causes — the emitting being in two hypostases (for thus the caused too would be two, the caused being contemplated in two hypostases) — or the Father and the Son would run together into one hypostasis.

From the Father alone, then, does the Holy Spirit proceed — proximately and immediately from the Father, just as the Son too is begotten from the Father.

Wherefore Gregory of Nyssa, the divine prelate, says: 'All the persons of mankind do not have their being proximately from the same person, so that, besides the caused, the causes too are many and diverse.'

But in the case of the Holy Trinity it is not so; for there is one and the same person of the Father, from whom the Son is begotten and the Holy Spirit proceeds.

Wherefore also we confidently say that the one cause, together with the things caused by it, is one God, in the proper sense.

Have you now come to your senses, smitten by the word of truth, and are you unlearning [your error] and learning the truth, and being persuaded by God and by the Fathers who follow God? — that, hearing the Spirit to be 'from the Father,' you understand together with it 'from alone,' and no longer grant Him existence from diverse persons, but theologize that it is from the One, the Father, proximately — glorifying God as one person, the cause of the things caused by Him (not the Son alone, but also the Holy Spirit), and not as one cause in the sense of saying that the two persons are of the same essence as the One; for thus

the causes become many, as happens in our own case, and there is no longer one God — just as we, all of us human beings, are not one man, even though we are of the same essence.

Are you, then, persuaded according to these things by God and by those who theologize according to God? Or do you still seek to hear by thunder, like those who, after Jesus' many divine signs, sought to see a sign from heaven?

Hear, then, also the thunder — John, the most theological of the Lord's disciples, who says: 'We beheld His glory, glory as of the Only-begotten of the Father.'

What then? Shall we not say that the Only-begotten is from the Father alone, since 'alone' is not added?

['as of the Only-begotten] of the Father' — is it not [understood] as of necessity understood together?

So often, then, has it been said concerning the Son that He is 'from the Father,' and nowhere is 'alone' added; yet you yourself everywhere understand this together with it, and you are not displeased with those who everywhere supply it.

Rather, indeed, you would be most exceedingly displeased with those who do not understand this together, and would accuse them as ill-disposed or even impious.

But concerning the Holy Spirit, hearing 'from the Father,' then — what has happened to you? — you do not understand together that which is of necessity supplied, but have even turned aside to the contrary opinion; so that the very fault which you would justly have charged against those who think wrongly of the Son, this you yourself unjustly commit concerning the Spirit, from no occasion at all that furnishes the impiety.

For it is not only because the Spirit is said to be 'from the Father' — as the God-Word is, before the ages, 'from the Father' — that of necessity He is understood to proceed from the Father alone,

but also because, according to Justin the wise martyr of the truth, 'as the Son is from the Father, so also the Holy Spirit is from the Father, save in the mode of existence; for the one shone forth from light by generation, while the other, being itself also light from light, yet came forth not by generation but by procession.'

If the Son is immediately from the Father, the Spirit too is immediately from the Father; and if the Son is not also from the Spirit, the Spirit too is not also from the Son; and if the Son is from the Father alone, the Spirit too is from the Father alone.

For since the Holy Spirit is emitted from the Father, as the Son is begotten from the Father — and that which, like the Son begotten from the Father, is emitted, is emitted from the Father alone — therefore the Holy Spirit comes forth by procession from God the Father alone.

These things, therefore, are both said and exist alike, both together and each apart: through their being alike, furnishing us a causal demonstration of the truth; through their being said alike, an evidential one. For it is not because the Son and the Spirit are simultaneously from eternity that on this account we shall not come to know the things of the Spirit from the Son; rather, because the things of the Son are more knowable to us, from these more knowable things we shall demonstrate the Spirit as well.

In any case, it is demonstrated not simply from the Son, but from the fact that the Spirit, like the Son, is from the Father — and so exists from the Father alone.

And indeed, according to the divine Paul, the Holy Spirit is called 'Spirit' and 'mind' of Christ, just as the great Basil says in his writings against the Eunomians concerning the Spirit: 'The Apostle clearly proclaimed the Spirit to be from God, saying that we received the Spirit which is from God; and that it has shone forth through the Son

he made plain by naming it 'Spirit of the Son,' just as 'of God,' and by calling it 'mind of Christ,' just as 'Spirit of God,' like the [mind] of man.'

Just as, therefore, each of mankind has his own mind, and the proper mind of each of these is indeed his own, yet not from himself, but from the same source as he himself — so that each one's proper mind is not from himself, save indeed according to activity — so too the divine Spirit, naturally indwelling in Christ as God, is both His Spirit and His mind.

And according to His activity He is both His and from Him, as breathed out and sent and made manifest; but according to His existence and hypostasis He is His indeed, yet not from Him, but from Him who begot Him.

In order, then, that we may from every side strike away your handholds against the truth: the Son and Word of God, being by nature from God, is by nature begotten, and does not come to be from the Father by grace.

[from the] Father; but he who is [son] by adoption is not from the Father alone, but through the Son from the Father — although he is not only a son, but is also 'spirit' by grace; for 'he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit,' says the Apostle.

But the Holy Spirit is from God not by grace, but by nature, just as the Son and Word of God is from God.

And the Spirit which is by nature from God proceeds by nature from God; and that which proceeds by nature wells up as from a fountain from God; and that which wells up from God wells up from the fountain-Godhead, which is the Father alone.

The Holy Spirit, therefore, is by nature God, welling up by procession from God the Father alone.

And if anyone does not confess that this is so, he will be convicted of holding a wrong opinion concerning the Son as well.

For Gregory, most theological, bearing witness together with this demonstration of the truth, says: 'In what is the Spirit not addressed by the same names as the Son, save in generation?'

'And all things that are the Son's are also the Spirit's, save sonship.'

And the divine Damascene says: 'On account of the Father — that is, because the Father is — the Son and the Spirit possess all that they possess; that is, because the Father possesses them, save unbegottenness and generation and procession.'

Each of these two, therefore, does not possess the begetting and the emitting; and just as the Spirit in no way possesses generation, so the Son in no way possesses procession.

Consequently, the same definition holds, as it were, of the Son as of the Spirit, save for 'by generation' and 'by procession,' in which alone they differ from one another.

And this, therefore, must be observed in all things by him who wishes not to blaspheme but to theologize.

For just as there is one and only one begotten — the Son, wherefore also Only-begotten — so there is one and only one emitted: the Holy Spirit; and as the Son is begotten from the Father alone, so too the Holy Spirit is emitted from the Father alone; and as the Son is begotten immediately from the Father, so too the Holy Spirit is emitted from the Father immediately.

Do you see that what is added by us is a manifestation of the truth, uttered together [with it] because of your setting-aside of the truth?

For whether present or absent, it gives the same to understand.

But your [addition] could not properly be called an addition, but a plain contrariety and overthrow of the devout understanding; for it turns the mind of the hearers to the opposite, and gives them, in place of one, to glorify two principles in the one Godhead, and opens a way to the polytheistic error.

[Who, then, when he] hears or says or believes 'one from both,' could think otherwise?