And what of him who in his metrical Verses theologically and at the same time paternally exhorts: 'If you should hear concerning the Son and the Spirit that they hold the second rank to God the Father, thus I bid you understand the words of deep-bosomed wisdom — that [the line] goes up to an unoriginate root, and does not sever the Godhead'?
And indeed 'procession,' of whatever it may be said, is a certain coming-forth and movement, corresponding to both the one who emits and the one who is emitted.
And the coming-forth of the Spirit is proclaimed as twofold by the God-inspired Scripture; for it is poured forth from the Father through the Son — and, if you will, also from the Son — upon all the worthy, upon whom it also rests and dwells.
This movement and coming-forth, then — and, if you will, 'procession' too (for we shall not behave unseemly by wrangling over names, since David also says, 'O God, when Thou wentest forth [proceededst] in the midst of Thy people, when Thou didst pass through the wilderness, the earth was shaken,' calling 'procession' here the outpouring of the Spirit upon all flesh that believed in Christ, which was formerly a wilderness of grace, just as he called the turning of the earth from idolatry to God an 'earthquake') — this coming-forth, then, of the Spirit 'from the Father and the Son' would altogether be also 'through the worthy'; and this, again, with reference to those very ones in whom the Holy Spirit dwells and rests by grace.
For there is a resting in these, but not a movement of the Spirit 'out of them'; rather, it is the cessation of the movement toward them; and even if some have acquired the power to impart [it], yet it is altogether in another manner.
That coming-forth of the Spirit 'from the Father through the Son,' which we have spoken of, is also called the 'good pleasure' of the Father and the Son, as accomplished altogether out of love for mankind, and 'mission' and 'gift' and 'condescension'; and it is brought forth ever in time, and to certain ones, and for certain causes — that it may sanctify and teach and remind and convict the disobedient. This, then, is one movement and coming-forth of the Spirit.
But there is also the eternal and supremely-natural procession and movement and coming-forth of the Spirit from the Father — causelessly and altogether absolutely, and beyond good pleasure and love for mankind, as being not according to will but according to nature alone, from the Father, pre-eternal.
We must, then, inquire whether the Spirit, coming forth from the Father even according to this ineffable and inconceivable movement, has also, according to the Scriptures, [one] in whom it rests in a God-befitting manner.
Inquiring, then, we find that the Father of the Only-begotten God was well-pleased to teach and reveal this first to John, the forerunner and baptist of the Lord, who says: 'And I knew Him not; but He who sent me to baptize with water, He said to me: Upon whomever you shall see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, this is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.'
But lest anyone, supposing that these things were spoken and accomplished by the Father on account of the Lord's incarnation, should say that this is not a sufficient proof for the discovery of what is sought,
let him hear the divine Damascene writing in the eighth of his Dogmatic [chapters]: 'We believe also in one Holy Spirit, which proceeds from the Father and rests in the Son'; and in the [chapter] concerning the divine place: 'God is the Holy Spirit, a sanctifying power, enhypostatic, proceeding from the Father without interval and resting in the Son.'
But also Gregory the divine [author] of the Dialogue, in his last discourse, says that 'the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and remains in the Son.'
For thus, beholding [it], we would reverence it, seeing a fountain of life poured forth into itself and standing upon itself, according to the great God-revealer Dionysius.
And so the Holy Spirit, proceeding from the Father according to that pre-eternal and inconceivable procession and coming-forth, and resting in the Son — how could it have this coming-forth 'through the Son' in whom it rests?
Consequently, even if it is again theologized as coming forth 'also from the Son,' this is by no means according to that [eternal procession], but according to another coming-forth — which is the manifestation to us and the imparting to the worthy.
But the steward does not by any means bring forth out of himself the things given; and yet He who is God from God naturally has the Holy Spirit in Himself,
Wherefore the Lord Himself also says: 'When the Paraclete comes, whom I will send to you from the Father' — as proceeding from the Father and resting in Him, and thus being sent to His own.
But if, as having its existence from the Son, the Spirit is sent through the Son from Him, then this too has the Son as its principle and is one of the things that have come to be.
And let the theologian's voice again bear witness: 'For let it be preserved,' he says, 'as my account holds, that there is one God, the Son and the Spirit being referred to one cause, and according to the one and same — so to speak — movement and will of the Godhead, and the identity of essence.
And the three hypostases, no co-mingling or dissolution or confusion being conceived: the Father being conceived and called Unoriginate and Origin — Origin as cause and as fountain and as eternal light; the Son being in no way unoriginate, yet Origin of all things.
If, then, the Son were principle of the Spirit also, the Spirit would, according to you, be one of all [created] things; for the Son is principle of these.
That I may again say the theologian's word: Show that the Spirit has come to be, and then assign it to the Son, so that it may have acquired its existence through Him or also from Him — since the divine Cyril too, against those who say that, even if the Spirit is from God, yet not properly nor in an eminent way (so that thence the from-which may be conceived as consubstantial — for it is written that all things too are from God) — says: The from-which belongs properly to the Holy Spirit, on account of its running from God the Father into being out of non-being; but through the Son. Show, then — that I may say it again — the divine Spirit to be from non-being, and then assign to it its hypostasis from the Son as well — that is to say, from both.
The Spirit, then, if it exists 'from both,' cannot but be one of all [created] things; or — what perhaps seems more moderate — cannot but have both as its cause, and each as its principle.
For just as, when all creation is brought forth 'from both,' each is principle of all things, so too, when the Spirit proceeds 'from both,' according to those who think in the Latin way, each will be principle of the Spirit, and there will thence again be two principles of the one Godhead.
For if [the addition] contributes anything, it has been taken up in vain, and, as if by a geometrical corollary, the Latin theologians have manifestly proved themselves truly vain; for they have not this to say:
that, just as in the case of created things, each [person] being a principle, the principle is nonetheless one, so here too it will be one, even if it be said [to be] 'from both.'
For there, as we said, it is natural, not hypostatic; on this account the creative power is one and [belongs] to both; but here the generative [power] is not [common] to both.
For we heard a little above from him who is surnamed for theology, who said that the Father is fountain and principle of eternal light, but the Son is in no way unoriginate, yet is principle of all things.
Wherefore also 'the Father alone is fountain of the supra-essential Godhead,' said the great Dionysius the Areopagite; and again, 'the Father is the fountain-Godhead, while the Son and the Spirit are, if one must so speak, God-planted shoots of the God-begetting Godhead, and as it were blossoms and supra-essential lights'; and again: 'the supra-essential name and reality of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Spirit, are distinguished, no conversion or community at all being introduced among them.'
And in the third [book] of the Mystical Theology: 'From the immaterial and indivisible Good,' he says, 'there grew forth the heart-lights of the goodness, and of the [shining] that is in it, and in themselves, and in one another — co-eternal with the goodness in its blossoming-forth...'
...it remains within without ever departing; and again: the properties of the supra-essential begetting of God are not interchangeable with one another.
If, then, you should call the Son the one who sends forth (the Spirit), the Father would never be the sender-forth; for he would share with the Son in respect of begetting God—but this is forbidden.
But if you say it is the Father—as indeed it is—then the Son would not be the sender-forth; therefore the Spirit is not from him. For God alone, the sole begetter and sender-forth, is the begetter of God; and it is according to these very things that he is the begetter of God.
This very communion the great Basil also forbids, writing to his own brother: 'The Holy Spirit is dependent upon the Son, with whom it is inseparably apprehended; yet it has its being derived from the cause that is the Father, whence it also proceeds. This is the distinguishing mark of its hypostatic property: that it is made known after the Son and together with him, and that it subsists from the Father.'
And the Son, making known the Spirit that proceeds from the Father through himself and with himself, having alone in only-begotten manner shone forth from the unbegotten Light, has no communion whatsoever, in respect of his distinctive marks, with the Father or with the Holy Spirit.
Do you see how the Holy Spirit stands in relation both to the Father and to the Son, and what are the distinguishing marks of the Son and of the Spirit?
The only-begotten Son of God, then, he says, makes known and manifests to us the Holy Spirit, through himself and with himself, but does not also cause it to proceed—lest he should have communion with the Father in respect of what is distinctive.
For, he says, the Holy Spirit has its being dependent upon the cause that is the Father, which property belongs to the Father alone; for, says the Theologian, all things that the Father has belong to the Son, except being the cause.
Who, then, in all the ages, among the divinely-inspired theologians, has been heard to assign to two persons what is proper to each of the three persons of the one Godhead, instead of preserving them unconfused?
That it is proper to the Father to send forth (the Spirit) is clear; for, he says, (p.) the Spirit is dependent upon his cause, whence it also proceeds and from which it subsists, even though it is made known after the Son and together with him.
) he says, the Spirit is dependent upon his cause, whence it also proceeds and from which it subsists, even if it is made known after the Son and with him.
Since, then, the things held in common in the most high and adorable Trinity are present equally in those to whom they are common, but, according to the Latins, being from the Father does not belong equally to the Son and to the Holy Spirit—for the one has been begotten immediately from him and from the Father alone, while the other proceeds mediately and not immediately, and not from the Father alone, as they themselves hold—if, then, according to them, it does not belong equally, then being from the Father is not common to the Son and the Spirit; and if this is not common to them, then neither of them is from the Father at all.
Thus you who think in the Latin manner would escape none of these absurdities, just as neither would those who said that the Son is from the Spirit; but whatever you attempt to use to escape, by those same arguments they too will avail themselves, and through your own devices will prove against you an inextricable swarm of absurdities.
For if you say that the Spirit is spoken of after the Son, being numbered later—which seems to you the safest of arguments, though I would say it is no less treacherous than the rest—they too will show you the Son spoken of, in certain places, after the Spirit, the Holy Spirit being numbered first, that is.
) Nor do we, as you do, call the Father the first cause in respect of the Spirit, and the Son the second—even if the Father is called these things on account of being the creative cause.
And being so named on that account, he is sometimes so named by the theologians even when they are discoursing concerning the uncreated realities, just as he is also called Father on account of the Son.
But sometimes, even when making our discourse concerning things below, we so name him; for neither do we worship the Father as first God, the Son as second, and the Holy Spirit as third, so as always to speak of the second after the first and the third after it, of necessity bringing under order the things that are above order, as is the case with all other things.
For John of the golden tongue, expounding what was said by Abraham to his own servant, 'Put your hand under my thigh,' as he proceeds in the homily says: 'Let the Holy Spirit be proclaimed; let the Only-begotten be exalted; let the Father be glorified.'
And if there is indeed an order in respect of God, on account of the Godhead being in three hypostases, yet it is not known to us, because it is beyond every form of order.
Wherefore Gregory, the most theological, in the second of the Irenics says: 'We so think and so hold, that to know how these things stand in respect of relation and order should be conceded to the Trinity alone (p.)
But if so, how is it that, when Eunomius said he had learned from the saints that the Holy Spirit is third in order and in dignity, the divine Basil, being displeased—and that not mildly but bearing it very grievously—said that he claimed to have learned it from the saints, yet could not say who the saints were, nor in which of their writings they had made this teaching?
1:332
Δῆλονὡςοὐκὄντωντῶνεἰπόντωνἁγίων
顯然是因為根本沒有說過此話的聖徒。
It is clear that there were no saints who said it.
Then, since that man, from the Holy Spirit's being third in order and dignity, concluded that it is third also in nature—though this by no means follows—the great Basil, yielding and accepting it hypothetically, said: 'Even if the rule of piety perhaps hands down that the Holy Spirit is third in order and in dignity—granting it entirely—yet it is not on that account necessary that it be third also in nature.'
But what he says in the first of the books Against Eunomius—that there is a kind of order, not according to our assigning, but arising from the sequence that inheres in them by nature—he says not concerning the Son and the Spirit, but concerning the Father and the Son, making his discourse about cases in which it is acknowledged and confessed by all that the Son is the caused, while the Father is the cause and is necessarily conceived prior to the caused, even if not in time, as he himself there says.
) This indeed is why, without hesitations or disputes, he says that the Father is ranked before the Son, and that the Son is second to the Father, writing: 'But we, according to the relation of causes to the things derived from them, say that the Father is ranked before the Son; according to the difference of nature, however, no longer so, nor according to any superiority of time.'
And again in the third book he says: 'In order he is second to the Father, because he is from him, and in dignity; but in nature he is no longer second.'
For if he had known this, he would not have disputed at all, nor would he have denied that the Holy Spirit is third in order from the Father; nor would he have been so greatly displeased when Eunomius said even this.
Besides these things, he is also shown—by accepting that the Spirit is second to the Son with much hesitation and hypothetically, but not as holding it himself as doctrine—not himself to know how the Son and the Spirit stand toward one another in relation and order.
For that the Son and the Holy Spirit are together from eternity, existing in one another and held by one another and passing through one another without confusion and without mixture; and that each of them is a form of order and of relation; and that the Son and the Holy Spirit are from the Father together, even if not in the same manner; and that they are of equal honor from one of equal honor; and that to send forth, being a property of the Father's hypostasis, cannot belong to the Son; and that whoever says the Son too possesses the sending-forth makes a confusion of the divine hypostases, impiously setting aside the confessed order in respect of God—for, says Gregory too, the one surnamed for theology, the properties must remain to Father and Son, lest there be confusion in the Godhead which brings even the other things into this order—this confessed order in respect of God we too know; but the order that sets the Holy Spirit second from the Son and third from the Father (p.)
But the Latins—oh, the folly together with the madness!—set aside that pious and confessed order in respect of God, while what Basil the Great and Gregory the Theologian confess to be beyond their own knowledge as being ineffable and beyond us, they themselves boast to have grasped, and they innovate concerning the unutterable and inconceivable procession of the Spirit—rather, to speak more fittingly, they blaspheme—calling it mediate and immediate, proximate and remote; through which they are in danger of even dragging the Holy Spirit down into a creature.
For this is what befalls the Latins, who say the One is from the two—first cause and second—and do not cherish the God-inspired Scripture in all things, but by their own authority add and subtract whatever they wish; but for us, who in piety worship from the One and refer the two back to one, this least of all befalls.
God the Father, the principle of all things, is Father of an only-begotten Son, who, even before being conjoined in mention to the Father, is at once co-understood with him.
How, then, leaving aside him who, even before being spoken of, is most immediately understood with the Father, should we at once place the Spirit after the Father?
For this reason the Spirit is spoken of after the Son of the Father; for since we cannot utter both at once through the tongue—just as they also came forth from the Father—if we should set the Spirit conjoined to the Father before the Son, the Spirit would seem to be the Son; for the name 'Father' immediately introduces the Son into the understanding. (p.)
For the Son, being the Son of the Father, introduces the Father into the understanding together with himself, and especially the one spoken of before him; whereas the Son, placed immediately next to the Father, both preserves the only-begottenness for himself and prevents the Spirit from being by procession from the Father.
This too Gregory of Nyssa says—whose loftiness of thought those who think in the Latin manner failed to contain, and so they hold (oh, the impiety!) the Spirit to be remote from the Father, but proximate to the Son.
But it is not the case that, because the Father and Son introduce one another into the understanding and in this respect are proximate, the Spirit is therefore remote from the Father and not immediately from him.
Now, that we may render the second reason as well—which itself also came about for the sake of the one already stated, that we may instruct you through all things—our race first knew God as Father and the Father as God, his Godhead being manifested and believed dimly, as was profitable for us.
For if, being equally Father and sender-forth, he had then been proclaimed to us not as Father but as sender-forth or as causing to proceed, how could we have received it, being not yet able to contain, on account of being still in infancy, the recognition of the inborn riches of the Godhead?
But the name 'Father' is even something belonging to us, and we have it as common, as it were, with those hypostases that are consubstantial with him but to us are sovereign.
If those (hypostases) have it by nature and beyond us, yet he deigned out of love for mankind that we too should be called (his children)—wherefore the Jews also said, 'We have God as Father'—then very wisely, and as it were stealing away our understanding, or rather drawing us up from the slavery and false belief and false worship of the evil one toward his own lordship, unto the knowledge of God, and intimating that of the Only-begotten (p.)
After him, the Son was manifested to the world, being seen by us through the flesh and dwelling among us; who together with himself also showed forth the Spirit, by words and works confirming through all things that it is conjoined by nature and of equal honor with himself and with the Father.
After the Son, the Holy Spirit sojourned in the world, being sent by the Son—not, then, as anti-God or anti-Christ—and being sent not simply and absolutely, but in time, and to certain persons, and for a cause; whereas from the Father it proceeds not for any cause at all, nor in time, nor to certain persons, but simply and absolutely in every way, as being co-God and consubstantial and no less dependent than the Son upon the same cause and principle, yet coming from itself as Lord and self-authoritative.
And there arose for the theologians a certain third reason, on account of which, after the Son and from the things of the Son, they for the most part set forth the conjunction and perfection and consubstantiality with the Father of the Godhead of the Spirit: namely, that after the madness of the many against the Son had been quelled and recast, and after his connaturality and equality of honor with the Father had been demonstrated in manifold ways and made manifest and most securely established, the war against the divine Spirit was more openly rekindled.
But thus, the one God in three hypostases having been made manifest to us, is also thus glorified; and thus, there being one image and form in respect of the sole formless and adorable Trinity—for the Trinity is conjoined without interval, and co-exists eternally, and shows forth one and the same image, as Athanasius the Great says—there being thus one image in respect of the venerable Trinity, we call the Son the form (p.)
1:361
) τεκαίεἰκόναλέγομεν, τόδέΠνεῦματοῦΥἱοῦ
）和形像，又稱聖靈為子的（形像）。
) and image of the Father, and the Spirit (the image) of the Son.
For thus, as it pleased him, the Godhead made itself known to us; and thus we say the Spirit stands toward the Son as he himself stands toward the Father; for both stand alike toward the Father, except for the mode of existence, as has been demonstrated above through many arguments.
But the Son has been known to us immediately in relation to the Father, and through this immediately-known one the Holy Spirit was manifested, being proclaimed and sent in his name, just as he too earlier came in the name of the Father.
For the Son and the Spirit alike have all the things of the Father except the cause, which encompasses both the hypostatic differences in respect of existence.
Wherefore in some places we even set the Spirit before the Son—though as the lesser practice; but for the most part after the Son, and him after the Father—so that, bearing continual and unceasing remembrance of the three greatest works on our behalf, the God-befitting and most provident dispensations, we may render through all things a most concise thanksgiving.
But Eunomius, and after him those who think in the Latin manner, not having heard with understanding such thanksgiving of the Fathers toward God, and not being able to discern the prudential economy in their refutations against the heterodox, wrongly concluded from this that the Holy Spirit is third from the Father—not even discerning this, that if it were so and on this account the natural order of the Son toward the Father and of the divine Spirit toward the Son were being shown, then, since the co-utterance of the three adorable persons is varied in the divine Scripture, there would not be places where the Son is set after the Spirit, the Holy Spirit being numbered first, that is—just as Gregory, great in theology, says, that the same things are both numbered first and numbered later in the Scripture on account of the equality of honor of the nature; and in the presence of the bishops from Egypt (p.)
) he so exhorts us to theologize: 'Theologize with Paul,' he says, 'who was caught up to the third heaven, sometimes numbering the three hypostases together, and that interchangeably, not keeping to the orders—numbering the same one first, in the middle, and last.'
But neither has the expression 'through whom' been assigned by the divine Scripture to the Son alone; for the divine Cyril in the Thesauri says: 'The Spirit of Christ, inasmuch as God the Word is made to dwell in us through the Spirit.'
Of these things, then, Eunomius and the race of the Latins, making no account, dogmatized that the Holy Spirit is third in order and in dignity—not in the order according to the confession, but in the natural order—wrongly.
Eunomius, indeed, from this further dogmatized that it is third from the Father also in nature, as differing from both in respect of it; but the Latins also contrive that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.
...of the God-befitting and most provident dispensations, that we may render through all things a most concise doxology and thanksgiving and commemoration; not as though they were second and third in honor and dignity, for indeed they are of equal honor—nor making the dyad the principle of the One, nor referring the One back to the dyad, but for us there is one God, the Son and the Spirit being referred to one cause from which alone each of them has its existence; and because there is one principle, the Father, as the wonderworking Gregory too says, accordingly there is therefore one God; and because there is one nature in the three—for those very twos and threes, and the 'from him' and the 'being referred to him,' do not divide the nature, but are divided concerning it; nor indeed is anything properly from the nature, (p.)
) even if not apart from it; nor is anything referred back to the nature, even if not without it. For the One—how could it beget and send forth and refer back to itself?
If, then, all these things are properly according to that very respect in which they are also distinguished—and these are the three hypostases, that is, the three persons of the Godhead that is one in nature—when the Latins say 'the One from both,' they mean from the persons, that is; for it is according to this that they are also 'both,' since the One could never be called 'both.'
Since, then, they say 'the One from the two' according to that very respect in which the principle and the cause are both conceived and spoken of, they say the One is from two principles, and they introduce two principles and two causes and polytheism.