In his work “On the Descent of the Holy Spirit” (“Against the Latins”) (1335 or 1355), St. Gregory Palamas considers the doctrine of the Filioque as a dangerous innovation, likening it to “the poison of the beginning-evil serpent,” which, through “the Latins obedient to him, brings new words about God.”

The treatise emphasizes the monarchy of the Father as the sole Source of the Godhead, and also clearly distinguishes between: the pre-eternal emanation of the Spirit from the Father; His temporal reference/revelation through the Son.

Word 1

The First Word of His Beatitude Archbishop Gregory Palamas of Thessaloniki on the fact that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father, not from the Son.

Here is a translation of the provided text into Ukrainian with the addition of appropriate headings and subheadings:

The wiles of the mental serpent and opposition to heresies

Again the fierce and incipiently evil serpent, raising its head against us, whispers the opposite of the truth. Or rather, struck in the head by the cross of Christ, makes each of those who in [different] generations have been obedient to his pernicious counsels his own head, and thus, instead of one, having stretched out many heads like a hydra, he does not weaken, “speaking falsely on high” (Ps. 72:8). Thus, having adapted [for this] the Arians, Apollinarians, Eunomians and Macedonians, and many others who grew on his trunk, with the help of their tongues he poured out his poison against the holy churches, using their words instead of his teeth and inserting them into the foundation of piety, as into some root of a plant that has blossomed with youthful beauty and is burdened with beautiful fruits, — and he was unable to harm them by this. But on the contrary, his [own] teeth were crushed by the bitten one.

Latin innovations and the exposure of their sophisms

This, therefore, the mental and therefore even more accursed serpent, the first, middle, and last evil, the cunning one and the one who always feeds on lowly and earthly wickedness, the unsleeping guardian of the heel (Gen. 3:14, 15), that is, of error, an inventive inventor and an inept craftsman of every godless doctrine, who never forgets his evil art, through the Latins obedient to him introduces new words about God, which seem to contain [only] a small change, but serve as a pretext for great evils and bring terrible [consequences, very] inappropriate and unnatural to piety, and clearly show everyone that even the least of what concerns God is not small.

For if a wrong principle is laid down for each of the [subjects] that exist among us, much incongruity results; how much more absurdity will there be if something unusual is impiously introduced into the principle common to all and the principles corresponding to it, as if they were not demonstrable? The Latin race would clearly have fallen into these inconsistencies if we, speaking against [their] dogmatic innovation, had not abolished a considerable part of the slander. For they are so pressed [by us against the wall] that they say that they think the same as us, [although] they contradict themselves in words, resorting to lies about themselves from despair.

For if we say that the being of the Holy Spirit is not from the hypostasis of the Son, but they say that it is from the Son, then it is impossible to reduce both opinions to one, since there is only one Only-begotten and one being of the Spirit. For negation is always opposed to affirmation, and one is always false if the other is true, and to affirm and [simultaneously] deny the same thing about one and the same thing is incompatible with truth.

But that they not only speak but also think contrary to us, I think no one of the sensible and not of one mind with them will undertake to dispute. For they dogmatize not only contrary to us, but also to the very word of truth, which we have preserved without addition or subtraction absolutely unchanged, which you all (I mean the fullness of the godly) know for sure and without [any] syllogistic argument. However, it will be shown, God will give, and by this word, so that every contradictory “mouth will be stopped” (Rom. 3:19).

Prayer to the One Principle — the Holy Trinity

But, O God of all, the only Giver and Preserver of true theology and of dogmas and expressions consistent with it, the One, One-principal Trinity, — not only because You are the beginning of all, but also because You have in Yourself the one supra-primary principle, the one uncaused Unity, from which the Son and the Spirit proceed and to which they are raised agelessly and guiltlessly (without cause);

Holy Spirit, sovereign, who has [hypostatic] existence from God the Father according to the manner of emanation, and through the Son to those who truly believe in You, and is given, and sent, and manifested;

The Only-begotten Son, having existence from God the Father in the image of birth, and through the Holy Spirit being formed and dwelling in the hearts of believers, and being invisibly visible;

O Father, the only unbegotten and unoriginated, and—generally speaking—uncaused, the only Father of the worlds inseparable from You and coequal with You (James 1:17).

O One Power, O One Power, Creator of the created worlds and [existing] under Your hand, O Giver of all knowledge, Who hast brought forth the manifold ideas of those who know and of that which is known, and hast bestowed knowledge according to the nature of those who know and of their nature:

• mental – simple and dispassionate speculations;
• sensual – multi-part and passionate feelings;
• but for us, who are of mixed [sensible and intellectual nature], both are the same.

[You], Who, by Your ineffable goodness, bestow upon us the knowledge of Yourself, as far as it is possible to contain, through Your verbal creation alone, grant us also to theologize in a manner pleasing to You and in accordance with those who have pleased You from time immemorial in word and deed, so that we may both reprove those who theologize about You in an unpleasing manner, and confirm those who truly seek You in the truth, so that we may all know You, the one Source Divinity, the one Father and Creator, and Your only Son and the only Son (unique), but not Creator, and Your only Holy Spirit, and the one Derivation, but not creation; and that we may glorify the One God in the one and simple, rich, so to speak, and boundless Divinity, and that we may mutually be glorified by You in the rich deification and threefold effulgence of light, now and forever and ever. Amen.

Exposing the false doctrine of two principles and loyalty to the Fathers’ Creed

This is a common prayer for all who honor the One Beginning. What will you say, who speak of two beginnings in the Godhead? For what is the use if you do not say it explicitly, but it is inferred from what you say. Such are the depths of Satan, the mysteries of the evil one, which he whispers to those who listen to him, without lowering or weakening the tone of [his] voice, but concealing the perniciousness of his intention. Yes, I think he whispered to Eve.

But we, taught by the divine wisdom of the fathers “not to remain ignorant of his purposes” (2 Cor. 2:11), which are usually the implicit beginning of many [evils], will never receive you into fellowship as long as you say that the Spirit [proceeds] from the Son.

Contradictions to Christ Himself and the Apostles

For, by saying this, do you not show yourselves first of all to be those who openly add [something] to that theology of Truth itself – Christ, which reveals [the truth] about the Holy and worshipable Spirit? Christ, who, being God eternal, became for us also the Theologian, who, being in reality the Truth, appeared for us as the preacher of the truth, who “came into the world for this purpose, to testify to the truth, whom everyone who is of the truth and truly seeks it hears the voice of truth” (John 18:37).

So, are you not contradicting, first of all, Him, the First of all, Who theologized in this way (for He says: “The Spirit of Truth, which proceeds from the Father” (John 15:26)), then — the “self-seeing” (Luke 1:2) and the self-conscious ones who became His disciples and apostles, and first of all — the Holy Spirit Himself, Who came according to the promise given to them by the Savior (Acts 1:4), and Who taught them all things (John 14:26), and Who did not teach them that He proceeds not from the “Father of the Worlds” (James 1:17) alone, but also from the Son? If He taught them thus, then they have taught us in a similar way.

Then, having been taught and enlightened, they were sent to teach as they had been taught; and to enlighten as they had been enlightened, that they might preach with boldness (daring) what they had heard with their ears, that is, not with their whole feeling; to “say in the light what was spoken in darkness” (Matt. 10:27), – as I would say, through revelation in the most luminous darkness, even if in parables – and which, like the dark word (Prov. 1:6) in Solomon, becomes clear to him who has partaken of wisdom. If desired, darkness is revealed privately and secretly, and never – openly to many.

The inadmissibility of other people’s additions to the faith

But [let us turn] to what we are now talking about, what was not said by those who boldly spoke the truth, what was not proclaimed by “the Spirit, who reveals all truth” (John 16:13), what was not witnessed and announced by Him who, about all that He heard from the Father (John 8:26, 38–40), announced to the beloved [disciples], who came “to bear witness to the truth” (John 18:37).

How dare you say this, thus introducing a foreign addition into the definition of faith, which the chosen fathers, who gathered for this purpose, being moved by the Spirit, wrote together and handed down to all the elect “rightly teaching the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15) [as] a symbol of unfalsified faith in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and as a touchstone of unblemished knowledge of God, and as a firm confession?

Here is a translation of the provided text into Ukrainian with the addition of appropriate headings and subheadings:

The groundlessness of the Latin addition to the Creed

For what you consider as a pretext [to justify you], that is, [allegedly] because of those who say that the Son is not equal to the Father, because He has no origin (origin), and you, in haste to show [Him] equal [to the Father], have introduced an addition, has no reasonable justification. For if some say that He must possess and [have the property] to beget, so that without this addition the equality does not disappear, then it will be necessary to add this also, listening to the unreasonable, and not at all to say that the Father is greater than the Son by reason, so as not to reject the equality of the Son [with regard to] Him.

Refutation of the idea of ​​the Son as the cause of the Godhead

So, this is what you think to introduce cunningly, contrary to the dogmas and teachings of the Gospel. For he who says that the Son is also the cause of the Godhead, rejects the Son, who clearly said in the Gospel: “My Father is greater than I” (John 14:28), not as a man only, but also as God, in that He is the Cause of the Godhead. Therefore He did not say “God,” but “Father.” For [He] is not greater than the Son as God—how impious!—but as the Cause of the Godhead, as the God-bearing Fathers have explained to us, namely, through the cause. So, you seem to contradict these God-bearers and Christ Himself—the God of the God-bearers, who call the Son unequal to the Father through the cause.

Equality by nature and primacy of the Father by causality

But we know both the equality of the Son with the Father by nature, and we confess the greatness (superiority) of the Father by causality, which encompasses both: birth and emanation. And to those who first wrote the Creed — although they [precisely] had a struggle for the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, that is, for equality — it seemed sufficient without your addition.

The Immutability of the Creed at the Ecumenical Councils

At the Second [Ecumenical Council], at which, although the pope did not preside, he enjoyed the privileges of [his] see, the Creed of the Orthodox Faith, drawn up on the First, foreign to the Latin addition, which preaches the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father, came into its perfect form. It was also preserved unaltered by the Third, over which Cyril [of Alexandria] presided, who, having been slandered by Theodoret of Cyrus, as if he were saying that the Spirit also has existence from the Son, and, justifying himself, exposed him [i.e. Theodoret] as a real slanderer.

And the Fourth, with whom the more blessed Pope Leo also agreed, who determined to preserve the Creed set forth by the First Council and supplemented by the Second, in addition to this, turned out to be such that he did not allow anything else to be added to the Creed at all, and for those who dared to add anything [to it], [he determined]: if they are bishops, let them be deprived of their dignity; if they are clerics, let them be excluded from the clergy; if they are laymen or monks, let them be anathema.

And at the Fifth, at which, taking the place of Vigilius, Pope of Rome, the Patriarch of Constantinople was the head, the Creed was preserved unchanged. At the Sixth, George of Constantinople took the place of Pope Agathon, although there were also his vicars, and the honest and inviolable Creed was fully preserved at that, as well as at the Seventh, which took place after it.

Prohibition of any changes and consent of the Patriarchal Thrones

Therefore, you unjustifiably and impiously introduce such an addition into the definition of faith, which the chosen fathers, gathered together, wrote and handed down to us, being guided by the Spirit, and to which it is absolutely not permitted to add anything or take anything away from it, after the Council that took place in the time after the Council of these saints, because of which he who dares to do so is subject to anathemas and is expelled from the Church – and likewise [he who dares to make] an addition, not pronounced, as they say, by the Word, nor revealed by the Spirit, nor found in the written words of the holy apostles.

With them also those who expounded this divine definition of faith, and those who came after them joined in agreement, even though they did not compose [it] with them. For you cannot say that some did not compose [the Creed] in this way, and others did not agree with those who composed [it] at the beginning, being rebuked by those who have described in order [the proceedings] of all the holy Councils, – and this very Council of theirs, [and subsequent ones, even] to this day. Moreover, [you are rebuked] by the constant agreement of the four patriarchal sees and the many and diverse peoples and languages ​​themselves, which carry the unchanging and unchangeable original exposition [of faith].

The Testimony of the Prophets, Apostles, and Holy Fathers

Therefore, the common [for all] explanatory voices of the God-bearing theologians, evangelists, apostles and prophets, who preceded them from the age, thus speak in agreement about the Spirit and thus [confess] in accordance with the God-man Word. Moreover, all the Councils, gathered for various reasons and at various times in defense of piety, and, which is almost the same, all the God-bearing language, for in none of these Councils did they theologize that the Spirit [proceeds] also from the Son.

I would have shown you enough that this very [confession] has been consistently preserved by all theologians, each in his turn, in the words composed by each of them on separate occasions. But the argumentativeness of the Latin will not endure such a long speech of ours, and will reply, saying: “But how and where did you find such an addition, that you believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone (and therefore you think that we are heretics), if neither Christ nor His disciples said this?”

Orthodox unanimity as a fortress of truth

To this we will immediately answer: in speaking thus, the fullness of the pious, who became one mouth for the sake of the [common] good, built a tower of piety, which in every way rises above the mental flood of impiety. For even to them, when they were about to build, the Performer of good things, the Trinity, overshadowed, not merging, but binding both thoughts and speech into a more pious and Orthodox unanimity.

And now, being in this safe fortress, we will first of all aptly and valiantly strike from there those who oppose the right dogmas, however, with benefit to them, if they [themselves] wish it. Then [we will apply] proofs of the truth from many sources, or rather [to say] from those that appear from everywhere, which we will extract for them, leading them also to the desire for it [i.e. the truth], so that it may be said, as it is written: “if only they would grope for him and find him, although he is not far from each one of us” (Acts 17:27).

Now it is not we who are more likely to be their enemies, but rather that verbal fortification of piety will both overthrow and strike and turn them into fugitives, and if it pleases, it will also heal them. For such is this divine definition of divine things that it not only surrounds those who are in it and keeps them safe, but also fights for [their] protection and invincibly opposes those who rebel [against it]; and how [it does this] – listen.

The relationship between the birth of the Son and the emanation of the Spirit from the One Father

“I believe in one God, the Father, Almighty,… and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages.” But is not this also implied and heard, “from one,” and was He not begotten of one Father, even if “from one” were not added? And it is very much implied, and no less than if this were added. If you want to be completely pious, you will probably say so.

Hence, therefore, learn also about the Spirit. And when you hear in the same Creed, “The Holy Spirit, Who proceeds from the Father,” then of necessity consider that at the same time “one” is also heard, and, hearing, do not think of our addition otherwise, [except that it was made] for the sake of truth, in order that you may reject the addition in your reasonings. If not, then you will not agree that “from one” is also meant in regard to the birth of the Son from the Father, and thus you will multiply your wickedness.

Inadmissibility of arbitrary additions to the Creed

Consider also that those who hear in the Creed of the Son, “begotten of the Father before all ages,” [with the words] “from the Father,” also mean and understand “the only one,” as you would say [this] with us, but no one has ever added there “from the only one.”

Therefore, even if your opinion were recognized that the Spirit also proceeds from the Son, and it were believed by us and the entire Church of Christ in general, then even then you would not have to add it to the Creed.

The need to remove impurities from the Creed before starting the discussion

It would be most just not to grant you a word at all until you cease making additions to the sacred Symbol. And when your addition is first removed by you, then we can discuss whether “and from the Son” or not, “and from the Son” the Holy Spirit, and confirm what has been revealed by agreement with the God-bearers.

Historical experience and concern for church peace

But even then, no additions should be made to the Creed, just as those who came before us did admirably and piously in regard to the two natures, wills, and actions of the one Christ, the unity in hypostasis, and the naming of the Virgin Mother. For along with piety, they also cared for the common peace, although they repeatedly gathered together [in Councils], and from time to time with the participation or consent of the bishops-prelates of ancient Rome.

Attitude to the authority of the Roman See

Therefore, it is not appropriate to take into account the high throne of the present pope, because it is not right for his sake, or for those who came after them [i.e., the fathers], that we should hate them, such and such as sealed with a blessed end a life sanctified and variously witnessed by God.

The problem of the absence of the wording “from one” in Orthodox theology

Not only the Creed of the Orthodox Faith (this must be said for the sake of those who will listen favorably), not only the Creed, but almost all theological language that preaches the Son begotten of the Father and the Holy Spirit, Who proceeds from the same Father, does not add the word “from one.” And what this, although not added, is necessarily implied, you will learn by opening and examining these theological books. However, for your sake, we will also offer something, albeit briefly written.

The Testimony of Saint Athanasius the Great

Thus, Athanasius the Great says: “What is God? The beginning of all things, according to the Apostle, who says: ‘one God the Father, from whom are all things’ (1 Cor. 8:6). And the Word is from Him in the manner of generation, and the Spirit is from Him in the manner of proceeding.” Do you see that in both cases [he] equally [says] “from Him,” but nowhere is “from one” added to the words? Therefore, you will also use your addition in a similar way either in relation to both, or you will necessarily mean “from one.”

The testimony of Basil the Great about the origin of the Son and the Spirit

Now, does not he who [stands] immediately after him in time, but not after him in greatness in God, who is famously named after the royal priesthood, agree and agree with him? But listen and learn: “In the proper sense, the Son is from God and the Spirit is from God, since the Son proceeded from the Father and the Spirit proceeds from the Father; but the Son proceeds from the Father in the manner of begetting, but the Spirit proceeds inexpressibly from God.” Thus it is established in many ways equally with regard to both [i.e., the Son and the Spirit] that they are from the Father. Can you then still say at all that the Holy Spirit is not from one Father, since the word “one” is not added?

Theological synthesis of Gregory the Theologian and warnings against heresy

Do you want to listen to the great Theologian Gregory, who sums everything up concisely and, as if with a scalpel, cuts off your addition, and applies “from one” to both (and the most amazing thing is not what he adds, but what he does not add)? “We have one God,” he says, “for there is one Godhead, and to the One are reduced Those Who are from Him, although they believe in Three.” Did you hear? He said that from Him are Both.

So, will we not still think “from one,” but will we think “not from one,” and will we think and add that Both come from the Father and some other, since “from one” is not added, and thereby fall away from the One God of the highest Trinity? May this not happen to you, and even more so may you not remain unhealed, having suffered [in this way], for the right [confession] has already become known to you.

The hypostatic properties of the Father, Son, and Spirit and the refutation of the filioque

6. And yet we say that the Son’s being is from the Father, as born of the divine essence, that is, according to the paternal hypostasis. For the essence of the Three is one; so that [the property] of begetting is attributed to the paternal hypostasis, and it is impossible for the Son to be from the Spirit. Since the Holy Spirit is also from the Father, He is also a proceeding from the divine essence according to the paternal hypostasis, for the essence of the Three is always and in everything one. Therefore, [the property] of deriving is attributed to the paternal hypostasis, and it is impossible for the Spirit to be from the Son, since it is impossible for the Son to have what belongs to the paternal hypostasis.

The testimony of Saint John of Damascus about the peculiarities of the hypostases

For according to the most holy Damascene, “we recognize the distinction of the divine hypostases in only three particularities: the uncaused and paternal, the conditioned and filial, and the conditioned and emanating.” Do you see how the hypostasis of the Son is not [at the same time] also a cause, but only a conditioned cause? For only one,” he says, “has this [hypostasis of the Son] a particularity, just as the [hypostasis of the Spirit] does.

Do you see at the same time that the paternal [hypostasis], as a paternal characteristic, encompasses both birth and descent? Therefore, if the Holy Spirit is from the Son, then the Son will also be the Cause and also the Father as the Cause.

The impossibility of mixing hypostatic properties and the unity of Cause

Therefore, it is impossible for the Son to have anything that belongs to the Father’s hypostasis. If He does, then either there will be two causes, since in two hypostases there will be [the peculiarity] of derivation (for thus there are two conditioned causes, since conditioning by cause is contemplated in two hypostases), or the Father and the Son converge into one hypostase. Therefore, from one Father alone proceeds the Holy Spirit, and in a proximate and immediate manner from the Father, just as the Son is begotten of the Father.

The Testimony of Gregory of Nyssa about the One Cause

Therefore, Gregory, the divine primate of Nyssa, says: “All human persons do not have their being from one and the same person in the most immediate way, since in addition to those conditioned [by them as] causes [persons] there are many different [persons] who are responsible for [their being]. But with regard to the Holy Trinity, this is not so, for there is one and the same person of the Father, from Whom the Son is born and the Holy Spirit proceeds. Therefore, in the proper sense of the word, we boldly call the one Cause with Those Conditioned by It as causes one God.”

A Call to Understand the Truth About the One Chief

Have you, then, gained understanding, having been struck by the word of truth, and do you now learn the truth, and do you believe God and the fathers according to God, that everyone who hears about the Spirit who [proceeds] from the Father, at the same time [as if] hears “from one” and do you no longer theologize that He receives His existence from different persons, but, upon careful consideration, that from One alone, [that is] from the Father not only the Son, but also the Holy Spirit? Do you consider God to be one causal Person with [two] conditioned by Him as causes, and do you not say that the two Persons are one cause of One, since they are of one and the same essence, for thus many causes arise, as is the case with us, and then there is no longer one God, just as we are all not one man, although we are of one essence?

Testimony from the Gospel of Saint John the Theologian

So, do you obey God and those who theologize according to God in this, or do you also want to hear from thunder, like those who, after many divine signs of Jesus, sought to see “a sign from heaven” (Mark 8:11)? Listen to the thunder, John, the most theological of the Lord’s disciples, who says: “and we have seen his glory, the glory as of the Only Begotten from the Father” (John 1:14). Well, shall we not say that the Only Begotten is from one Father, since “from one” is not added?

But the Lord Himself, speaking to the Jews: “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God” (John 8:42), and also: “Not that any man hath seen the Father, save He which is from God; He hath seen the Father” (John 6:46), how could He not add “from the only one,” saying “from the only Father proceeded” or “Who is from the only Father”? Is it not because this is necessarily implied?

Rebuke for inconsistency in the perception of the Son and the Spirit

So it is said so many times of the Son that He is from the Father, and never is the word “one” added, but you yourself everywhere mean this and do not get angry with those who everywhere mean this. But you will rather get angry with those who do not understand this and will reproach them as impious or even [completely] impious.

But what is the matter with you, that when you hear of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father, you not only do not understand what is necessarily meant, but you also turn to the opposite opinion? And in what you rightly reproach those who think evil of the Son, in the same you yourself have fallen unjustly into concerning the Spirit, absolutely without any occasion that would cause impiety.

The Unity of the Mode of Origin of the Son and the Spirit from the One Father

For not only because it is said that the Spirit is from the Father (as the Word of God before the ages was from the Father), it is necessarily understood that He proceeds only from the Father, but also because, according to the wise witness of the truth, Justin, “as the Son is from the Father, so [exactly] is the Holy Spirit from the Father, apart from the tropos of existence, for one shone from the Light in the manner of birth, and the other, also being Light from the Light, proceeds not in the manner of birth, but in the manner of emanation.”

If the Son is directly from the Father, then the Spirit is directly from the Father; and if the Son is not from the Spirit, then the Spirit is not from the Son; and if the Son is from one Father, then the Spirit is from one Father. For yet the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, as the Son is begotten of the Father, and He is in the same way emancipated, as the Son is begotten of the Father, [that is] proceeding from one Father. Therefore the Holy Spirit [is] God, Who proceeds from the one God the Father according to the manner of emancipation.

Theological proof through the properties of the Son

Therefore, the same thing is said and is said in a similar way, both together and separately. Because they exist in a similar way, they give us a causal explanation of the truth, and because they are said in a similar way, they give us a demonstrative explanation.

For not only are the Son and the Spirit together from the Ever-Existent, [and] that is why it is not from [what is said about] the Son that we learn about what belongs to the Spirit, but since we know more about what concerns the Son, we will also show [the properties] of the Spirit from this more known.

The Identity of the Spirit as the Mind of Christ and His Hypostatic Origin

For according to the divine Paul, the spirit and mind of Christ are called the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 2:16; Rom. 8:9; 2 Cor. 3:17–18; Gal. 4:6), as the great Basil, speaking of the Spirit, writes: “that the existence of the Spirit is from God — the apostle clearly announced, saying: “The Spirit, which from God… we received” (1 Cor. 2:12); and that the Spirit appeared through the Son — calling Him the Spirit of the Son, just as [the Spirit] of God, and calling Him the mind of Christ, just as [he called Him] the Spirit of God [in a similar way] as [they speak of] the spirit of man.”

The distinction between energetic manifestation and hypostatic being

Therefore, as among men each has his own mind, and the mind of each of them is his own mind, but not from himself, but from him from whom he himself [came]. Therefore, not from himself does each one’s own mind proceed, except in energy; and the divine Spirit, which naturally dwells in the Son as in God, is His spirit and mind.

And according to His energy He is [also] from Him, being breathed into, sent forth, and made manifest; but according to His being and hypostasis He is not from Him, but from Him Who begot Him.

The natural origin of the Son and the Spirit from the One Source of the Godhead

Therefore, in order that we may completely deprive you of the pretexts [to rebel] against the truth, [we will say that] the Son and Word of God, being in essence from God, is born in essence, and not in grace becomes from the Father. Since He who gives birth is the Source of Divinity and the Source of divinity, then the Begotten is made. Since the Father is the only Source of divinity and the Source of Divinity, as Dionysius the Areopagite and Athanasius the Great agree, then, therefore, He who is in essence the Son exists from one Father, and who is [a son] in position (adoption) is not from one, but from the Father through the Son.

However, he becomes not only a son, but also a spirit by grace: “and he who is united to the Lord is one spirit [with Him]” (1 Cor. 6:17), says the apostle. And the Holy Spirit is from God not by grace, but by nature [of His own], just as the Son and the Word of God are from God.

The Divine Outpouring of the Spirit in the Image of Exodus

Being by nature the Spirit from God, He proceeds by nature from God; and by proceeding by nature He is drawn from God; and by drawing from God, He is drawn from the source of divinity, which is the Father alone. For the Holy Spirit is by nature God, Who proceeds from God alone in the manner of emanation.

The only distinction of hypostases and the immediacy of the origin of the Son and the Spirit

But if anyone does not confess that this is so, he will be found guilty of thinking evil of the Son. In favor of this proof of the truth, the most theologian Gregory also testifies, saying: “What [names] of Christ is not called [the Spirit], except birth?” And [also]: “Everything that [constitutes the distinctive signs] of the Son [distinguishes] the Spirit also, except sonship.”

And the divine Damascene says: “Through the Father, that is, through the being of the Father, the Son and the Spirit have everything that they have, that is, because the Father has it; [this applies to everything] except unbegottenness, birth, and emanation.”

The commonality of the properties of the Son and the Spirit except for the mode of being

Therefore, neither of Them has [the property] of begetting or of producing; and as the Spirit has no birth in any way, so the Son has no emanation in any way. Therefore, the definition of the Son and the Spirit is one and the same, except for [the concepts] “in the manner of begetting” and “in the manner of emanation,” in which alone and only do They differ from each other.

Preservation of the purity of theology and unity of origin

And this must be observed by all means by him who wishes not to blaspheme but to theologize. For as there is one and only one begotten Son (which is why He is called the Only-begotten), so also the Holy Spirit is one and only in origin.

And as the Son is begotten of one Father, so also the Holy Spirit proceeds from one Father. And as the Son is begotten directly from the Father, so also the Holy Spirit proceeds directly from the Father.

Revealing the truth against the Latin distortion of dogmas

Do you see [now] that what we have added is a revelation of the truth, which is proclaimed through your deviation from the truth? For whether it is present or absent, the meaning remains the same. And your [formulation] addition should be called, if it is to be precise, not an addition, but certainly a contradiction and distortion of pious wisdom, since it turns the minds of those who listen to it to the opposite, and induces them to think of two principles in relation to one deity instead of one, and opens the way to polytheistic (polytheistic) error. Who among those who hear, or speak, or think one of [these] two, will think otherwise?

Refuting the argument about “Beginning from Beginning” and preserving the one-origin principle

“But there is nothing inappropriate,” [the Latin] will say, “if someone speaks of two principles—not opposite, of course, but [so that] one [of them] comes from the other, just as Gregory the Theologian says of the Son: ‘The beginning from the beginning,’ for thus again there will be one principle, and the dogma of one principle will be preserved.”

To this we will say that if we say “God from God,” it is by no means about two gods.

The inadmissibility of the division of the One Principle and the refutation of the doctrine of two principles

But since this Principle manifests itself as creative, perhaps someone will say that there are not only two (although this is not good), but even more. For this Principle is trihypostatic, being of one common nature. And if the nature is common, how can the Spirit not also possess the same principle? And does not Elias, who spoke to Job about the truth of God, saying: “The Spirit of God made me” (Job 33:4), call the Spirit a creative principle? And does not the divine psalmist David, singing that “By the word of the Lord the heavens were established, and by the Spirit the hosts of heaven” (Ps. 32:6), testify in favor of the fact that both the Son and the Spirit have a creative principle?

So, if, in your opinion, because of what is written about the “Beginning from the Beginning,” nothing prevents us from speaking of two Beginnings, then consequently nothing prevents us from speaking of two Creators, if it is written that the Spirit is also the Creator; or since [it is written that] by the Word of God and the Spirit the creation was established or, what is the same, was established, then there is nothing inappropriate in speaking [also] of three Beginnings.

The Orthodox Confession of the One Principle Against the Dismemberment of the Trinity

But none of the theologians has ever spoken of two or three. For just as we call each of the three worshipped Hypostases God, and each of the two [determined] God from God, and yet they are by no means three or two gods, so we also say, “The Beginning from the Beginning,” and by no means [we have] two beginnings. For we have not heard of a second beginning even to this day from the pious, just as we have not heard of a second god.

But we worship one God and one principle, who is not united into one from two gods or two principles, because He is indivisible and thus venerated by us. And truly, He is not divided or united in this way, but is divided by hypostatic characteristics, while He is united by natural characteristics.

Exposing the false teaching about the origin of the Spirit

If there is nothing to prevent us from speaking of two principles, then they are those [parts] into which [the one] is divided. And then it is impossible for them to unite again, and therefore two are not one.

But it is better, having turned and given the word another beginning, to explain as much as we can that which belongs to the one-principled Beginning, in order to show Him who bears the name of theology in a remarkable way, and to expose those who teach about two beginnings of one Holy Spirit, in that they teach [precisely] this, and that it is not good.

The creative principle and the dogma of oneness in the Holy Trinity

The creative principle is one — the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.. But when we call [derived] that which was brought forth from non-being by God, the goodness through which they received being, and [from the beginning] the inherent grace by which each [of the beings] was a partaker of well-being in its proper way, and that which came afterwards, by which the fallen away was returned to well-being, when [that is] we speak in this way and of such things, then we also call the Son in the Holy Spirit the Beginning, Source, and Cause. Not another [beginning] — far from it [such impiety] — but the same as the Father, who through Him in the Holy Spirit makes, and returns, and keeps all [beings] well.

And the Father, in addition to being the Source of all things through the Son in the Holy Spirit, is also the Source and Beginning of the Godhead, being alone divine. And we see this better or more clearly when it is clearly expressed in the inspired sayings.

The meaning of the expression “Beginning from Beginning” in relation to the Son

Therefore, when you hear of the Son: “The beginning of the beginning,” and “He who calls Him from the beginning of generations,” and “with You the beginning in the day of Your power” (Ps. 109:3), then [who says this] has in mind [Him as the beginning] of creations, just as John most clearly in the Apocalypse proclaims with a loud voice about Him, [saying]: “The beginning of the creations of God” (Rev. 3:14) — not as the beginning [of them] (apart from [such an idea], for He is God), but as their Creator, for He is a partaker of the Father’s Beginning, from which these [received existence], and by whose name is called dominion over all.

Refutation of the Latin doctrine of the Son as the beginning of the Spirit

And how can anyone call the Son the beginning of the Spirit in this sense, unless he also calls the Spirit subordinate and created? But since the Spirit is God, the Son is not the beginning of Him in this sense, unless He is the beginning of the divinity.

If the Son is the principle of the divinity of the Holy Spirit – and it is impossible for him to be a partner with the Father in this principality, since it is theologized about Him alone that He is the Source Divinity – then the Son is therefore the principle of a certain other, distinct divinity, and a division of the Spirit from the divinity that flows from the Father. Or shall we give to this one [i.e., the Spirit] two different divinity, we who recognize only one divinity for the Three?

Distinguishing causality and exposing sophisms about “two principles as one”

And how, according to the Latins, are the two principles of the Spirit one principle? For they will not demand that we accept their proposition on faith, but neither will they justify themselves sophistry by putting forward one answer instead of another. For when we ask how, according to them, [can there be] two principles in one Spirit? they affirm that there is only one principle in two. But we are not asking about two Persons, but about one, since we are talking to them about Him.

The example of Adam and Eve and the impossibility of a dual beginning

For if two are justly one principle, how can one have two principles, and how can two, in their opinion, be one? And so they say that this is because one [principle] exists from another. What then, Seth was born from one principle, if Eve was [created] from Adam, and are not two principles of this one, if one [of them] is from another? What [now] is Eve not another principle of those who [came] from her, if she also took [her] principle from Adam? For there is only one Adam from the earth.

So that either they would then say that the Spirit is from one Son, and thus they would say that He is from one principle, [and then they would say] according to themselves, although not piously, because [then] He is not from the same [principle] from which the Son is, and again there are two principles of the divinity, and the Father is no longer greater than the Son in the sense of causality, since He is also the causer of the divinity [of the Spirit]; or, saying that the Spirit is from one Father, they would piously give the Spirit one principle, as well as the Son. But as long as they speak [of the emanation of the Spirit] from the Son or from Both, and not from one Father, there cannot be one principle of the divinity of one Spirit.

The absurdity of combining two principles by nature or hypostasis

For, having delved into such [teachings], if anyone speaks of a single principle, it is [only] homonymous, because [it is] not one. But if one looks at the hypostases, [mentally] dividing them one by one, then of necessity in one [of them] there will clearly be two principles. I am astonished and extremely foolish by those who consider and call one the two principles about which [they themselves] speak.

For if the Son is a partner with the Father in the divine birth, bringing forth the Spirit, and the divine birth and the very emanation from Them are one in Them, then [therefore] this belongs to nature, and not two are the principles, nor two are one, but simply one, and the Spirit Himself is alienated from the divine nature, since He does not participate in the divine birth. But if the Son is not a partner with the Father in this, then this [property] of bringing forth is not one in Them, and the emanation of the Spirit [appears to be peculiar to] the Son by hypostasis and distinct from the emanation of the Spirit from the Father, because the hypostatic [peculiarities] are distinct.

The impossibility of mixing natural and hypostatic properties in Latin doctrine

How, then, are the different principles one? For the great Dionysius says in the second chapter of his words on the divine names: “What belongs to the Father and the Son, the same is added to the divine Spirit as a common possession and in equal measure”; and the great Basil in his refutation chapters on the eunomians: “Everything common to the Father and the Son is also common to the Spirit.”

If the Father and the Son have common descent, then it is common to the Spirit, and the Trinity will become a quadruple, and the Spirit will bring forth another spirit. If, according to the Latins, descent is not common to the Father and the Son, since the Father, in their opinion, indirectly, and the Son directly brings forth the Spirit (for they thus say that it is proper to the Son by hypostasis to bring forth), then, therefore, both creation and sanctification, and in general all natural properties, according to them, are not common to the Father and the Son, since the Father creates and sanctifies through the Son and through the mediation of the Son, and the Son does not through the Son.

Therefore, according to them, it is proper for the Son by hypostasis to create and sanctify – directly, and not indirectly, like the Father – and thus, according to them, the natural properties appear to be in no way different from the hypostatic ones, and, consequently, the nature [does not differ in anything] from the hypostasis, so that the Godhead appears in them either not to be trihypostatic, or trinatural.

Refutation of the Latin view of the creative action of the Spirit

And if we say that the Son creates and sanctifies through the Spirit, then, firstly, it is not proper for theologians to assert that the Son or the Father is the Creator of creation through the Spirit, but rather in the Holy Spirit.

Then, in addition to the fact that even in this way they cannot escape the absurdity shown above (for the Son is not shown by them as the Creator through the Son, as the Father is), they will have to say that the Spirit does not have the [property] of creating and sanctifying in common [with the Father and the Son], since He does not perform this action through another (i.e., not as the Father and the Son).

Therefore, according to them, the Spirit possesses the property of creation hypostatically, as one who creates and sanctifies not indirectly, like the Father. Hence again, according to them, the natural properties are shown to be identical and inseparable from the hypostatic ones. If so, then the nature is also identical and inseparable from the hypostases. And will not those who speak and reason thus and in this way clearly fall away from the Most High Trinity and the unity of faith and the communion of the Holy Spirit (2 Cor. 13:13)?

Refutation of the indirect origin of the Spirit and His likening to creation

But let us return to that from which we departed. Who among those who hear, or say, or believe, that the Holy Spirit has his being from both the Father and the Son (from the Son directly, and from the Father indirectly), and [other] things which are invented and repeated by them first, second, and third; who, [I ask], hearing this and believing this, will not teach that there are two principles of one Spirit? How can the Son not be a cause [of the divinity] together with the Father, unless it is said in vain that [the Holy Spirit proceeds] from Him? How can the Spirit not be a creation? For in this respect the Son is co-creator with the Father.

The distinction between the origin of the Divine Hypostases and the creation of the world

For in regard to creation, of which the Son is clearly the Author and co-author of the Father (as having received being from Him and from the Father through Him), it would be utterly impious to say that we do not affirm that creation is from the Son, and that to create is a property of the hypostasis of the Father. Therefore, if the Holy Spirit, who is in the image of emanation, has being from the Father through the Son and from the Son, it would not be entirely pious to say that we do not say that the Spirit is also from the Son, and that the derivational property is peculiar to the Father alone.

Fidelity to the Testimony of the Holy Fathers Against Latin Innovations

Since the father of God, David, and Gregory, the brightest luminary of Nyssa, and the God-bearing Damascene, speak thus, it is necessary that those who call the Son co-creator with the Father in regard to the All-Holy Spirit and attribute to Him being from the Father through the Son and [also] from the Son, are as far from piety as the saints mentioned above and those who theologize according to them adhere to it.

Refutation of the Latin confusion of hypostases through the concept of the origin of the Spirit from Both

And it must be borne in mind that just as we, having existence from the Father through the Son and from the Son, call each of Them together and separately and acknowledge them accordingly as Father and Creator, so also for the Divine Spirit each of Them together and separately would be called Father and Maker, if the Spirit had existence from the Father through the Son and from the Son. But all this clearly reveals one who variously mixes up the divine hypostases, since the Holy Spirit has existence not also from the Son.

Hypostatic distinction and the Father as the Only Cause in the Trinity

And now, “everything that the Father has belongs to the Son,” according to Gregory the Theologian, “except for the cause.” What cause exactly? The cause of creatures? Away with such an idea: after all, their beginning and cause is also the Son. So, except for the cause and principle of the deity, which is contemplated in the Trinity.

Thus the Son has all that belongs to the Father, except that He is also the beginning and cause of the divinity of the Spirit. Therefore, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, just as the Son is born from the Father alone, and is in the closest and most immediate contact with the Father in [His] existence, just as the Son is, although the Spirit also received existence through the Father of the Son, as He is the Author and Father.

The Testimony of Three Saints and John of Damascus Against the Addition to the Creed

Because according to the word of the Lord, the testimony of even two people is true, because “in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established” (Matt. 18:16)., then we, leaving the others alone for now because of the length of time [which our language would then have acquired], will present you with three witnesses who clearly forbid your addition.

Testimony of Basil the Great

And let Basil the Great, the first and in time, speak first, for he says in his “Chapters Against Eunomius”: “God begets not as a man, but begets truly, and to those who are begotten He reveals from Himself the Word not as a man, but the true Word reveals from Himself; He sends the Spirit from the mouth not as [it happens] in a human way, because the mouth of God is not bodily; but the Spirit is from Him, and not from another.” Do you see that it is not from another [that the Spirit proceeds], but from the one only Who begets the Son? And therefore the Spirit is not from the Son, because the great [Basil] theologizes about the Son here as about the Word, and not as about the mouth of the Father.

In another place, He also showed [this very] Word that proceeds from His mouth, saying: “For if you do not believe in the Spirit, which proceeded from the mouth of God, you will not believe in the Son either.” Do you see [now] clearly that the Son is the Word, and not the mouth of the Father, from whose mouth, according to Basil the Great, the Holy Spirit also proceeds in the sense of existence?

The Testimony of Gregory of Nyssa

In the same way, his brother, who philosophizes in a brotherly way, Gregory, in his work “On the Knowledge of God,” says: “…The Spirit, Who proceeds from the Father’s hypostasis. For this reason David called Him “the Spirit of the mouth” (Ps. 32:6), and not the word of the mouth, so that they may believe in the one and only property of the Father to produce.”

The Testimony of Cyril of Alexandria

After him, let the living conscience of Alexandria, Cyril, stand as an unfalsifying witness to the truth, testifying in agreement with them, for he says in [his book] “On the Holy Trinity”: “The three worshipable hypostases are known and believed in the beginningless Father and the only-begotten Son and the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father not according to the manner of birth, like the Son, but proceeds, as it is said, from the one Father as if from the mouth, who appeared through the Son and spoke in all the holy prophets and apostles.”

And in another place again: “not as the Son is from the Father in the manner of birth, so also the Holy Spirit is from the Son in the manner of proceeding, – away from such blasphemy and polytheism, – for we have one Cause and Connection for both [conditioned by Him] Persons – the Father.”

The Final Exposition Through the Synthesis of St. John of Damascus

Shall I give a clearer exposition of your wickedness? It would not seem necessary to man. But this too was given to us by the Spirit who enlightened John of Damascus, for he says: “We call Him the Spirit of the Son, but we do not say that the Spirit is from the Son; but we confess that He is revealed through the Son and is given to us.”

Therefore, leaving [the task] of listing to you in order the other [fathers] – because there are many more of them, and [even] perhaps all the fathers, each living in his own writings, say [the same] – “by your words… I judge you” (Matt. 12:37; Luke 19:22), certainly [not only I, but] also God. For when you yourself say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and do not add “from one,” do you not mean that the Spirit is from Them alone, is it not meant, although you do not say it aloud? But shall we then demand, according to your – so to speak, “a matter of mutual origin” – opinion, that the Spirit proceeds from [someone else] also, because of your silence about “one”?

Violation of the oneness of leadership and the logic of the birth of God

Of course not! But in order to prepare for you again from the same thing a remedy against the real ulcer and to rescue you from the ruin of impious dogmas and words, tell me, O most good one: if someone asks you about the Son, will you – since it is written that “we have seen his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father” (John 1:14), and that “I believe in the only Son, who was begotten of the Father before the ages,” and the other things that were listed to you above, where “from one” is not added – will you, adding [to this from yourself], say that the Son is begotten of the Father and the Holy Spirit, putting forward as an excuse that which is not added “from one”?

I think you will say: “Away [from such impiety].” And he who adds this and does not teach that the Word was born of one Father, for the Spirit is nowhere called a parent, will be deprived of the very rebirth from above, for you will say well with us.

And He has nothing in common with the Father, which would also not be common to the Son, and not from the two does the One proceed, nor is it reduced to the two, nor did the One rise to the One and then the two to another One, but the One, having risen in a godly manner into duality, stopped at the Trinity. And we have one God, not only because there is one divinity, but also because those who are from Him are reduced to the One. And one Father is the Source Divinity and the only Author and Source of the divinity. Therefore, His [hypostatic] signs are not the same, — for He is one, — and the Holy Spirit will have no part in them, since what belongs to the superessential God-birth does not turn one against the other, — the unwise Dionysius would say in his turn.

Healing with truth and exposing with one’s own arguments

But in these [citations] you have wonderfully [already been shown] the unbreakable agreement with our godly fathers, who were taught by them. You have been defeated, so to speak, by your own arrows, and you have truly successfully wounded yourself with a word that is opposed to the right [word], for, as far as is possible, you have not only been wounded, but also received healing from God, according to what is said: “I will strike, and I will heal” (Deut. 32:39).

For whatever you say, together with us and those who speak the truth, that the Son is born of the Father and the Spirit, “seeking justification in sins” – or rather, in wickedness – and [in particular] that, as they say, the word “one” is not added to what is said about the birth from the Father, you will immediately hear the same from us and the truth, you who say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. And having convinced yourself of this from another, you will testify that even the [word] “one” is not added to the words about the emanation from the Father, and the adoption itself (adoption), which is accomplished through the mediation of the Holy Spirit, is deprived of the one who says that the Spirit [proceeds] also from the Son.

The Names of the Son in Gregory the Theologian and the Absence of the Title “Builder”

For where in the inspired sayings does anyone find that the Son is called the Creator?? Although Gregory, the great Theologian, enumerates many times all the names of the Son — and not only those enumerated [in Scripture], but also those that are mentally deduced [from it].

He, explaining the name “only-begotten,” says, “not because He is the One from the One and only, but also [because] He is uniformly,” which in another place he has designated as “exclusively” and “peculiarly,” explaining the same thing once again.. And “only” is like “one”; so “from only” [means] as if born of virginity, or, what is the same, not from marriage..

And “only” what else would [mean], if not that [He] is only the Son, and not [at the same time] also the Father or Creator?? If the Father is called only Father, then it is natural (for the Spirit is from the Father, and the Spirit is called the Spirit of the Father) that the Father will also be called the Father of the Spirit as [His] Cause.. For the great James, the Brother of God, calls Him “the Father of the Lights” (James 1:17), that is, the Son and the Spirit, as Athanasius the Great, explaining this, says.. If this is so, then the Son would also be called the Father of Light, that is, the Spirit, if, according to you, the Spirit [proceeded] from Him..

Refutation of the Latin argument for the equality of the Father and the Son through the filioque

For if [He] were to be called thus, as the Father of Light or the Originator of the Holy Spirit, how could Gregory, the great theologian, not have proposed this among almost all His other names, although he strove to show His equality with the Father??

Because he says: “If it is great for the Father to begin from nowhere, then it is no less great for the Son to [begin] from such a Father. And to the Son is added such a great work of birth.”. If it were added that He was the Creator, how could He not have said such an important thing, by which He would have shown [the Son] even better to be equal to the Father?? But he didn’t say, so it doesn’t add up..

The hypostatic property of the Spirit and the impossibility of origin from the Son

For this great theologian does not simply consider the emanation as a characteristic property of the Spirit, but the emanation from the Father, foreseeing, perhaps, and in advance refuting your impious addition.. For a little above, having called the Father the parent and the creator, he did not call the Son the creator, but only the creation, and then he says: “We, standing within our [given] limits, introduce [the divinity] unbegotten, begotten and proceeding from the Father.”He did not say that mere emanation is a characteristic of the Spirit, lest anyone should think that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, or even from the Son; for “begotten” implies the idea of ​​the Father, but “originating” does not..

For this reason, he considers it a characteristic property of the Spirit to proceed from the Father.“For this sign of hypostatic property,” says Basil the Great, “the Holy Spirit has a distinctive feature, [namely] that after the Son and together with Him, He is known and realized by the Father.”But you see that we have rightly excluded from communion those who do not abide by our boundaries and piety.?

Refutation of the Latin distortion of the Father’s attributes

For either you will call the Son Father beyond measure, as was shown above, so that the Spirit in you will proceed from Him and from Him, or it will not be a characteristic property of the Spirit for you to proceed from the Father; nor will you consider that it is also a characteristic property of the Father to beget, and you will theologize the opposite of him who has earned his name from theology, and you will rush to a truly opposite fate, and you will be justly declared [excommunicated] by us, for we know that his words are the manifestation of the Holy Spirit..

For just as liquid emanates from moist bodies, and this is its characteristic property, and the characteristic property of moist bodies is to emit liquid, in the same way the characteristic property of the Spirit is to emanate from the Father, and the characteristic property of the Father is of necessity to emit the Spirit..

Eternal emanation from the One Father

Therefore, the descent of the Spirit belongs to the Father alone; and from the Father alone the Spirit proceeds continually in the sense of an essential, and not of an outward manifestation, of a emanation.For even in those [theological positions] in which the words of genesis are not explicitly stated as “from the Father,” this is always heard by those who listen intelligently, just as it is implied in the words of the Son by the words of birth..

For each of us is begotten; and begotten of the Father (or, to say the same, of God the Father) is one Son, so that this is his characteristic quality and is always implied, even if it is not spoken.In the same way you would call our spirit [i.e. breath] also original..

Therefore, not only is emanation a characteristic of the Holy Spirit, but emanation from the Father, for He is always the Father.. And it is among the impossible for [the Spirit] to proceed from the Son, unless the Son be your father.And not only “from the Father” is meant when speaking of emanation, but also “from the one Father,” as when speaking of birth.. For as divinely inspired theologians teach us (as we said above), without [the terms] “in the manner of birth” and “in the manner of proceeding” – as the Son is from the Father, so also is the SpiritTherefore, it is absolutely impossible for Him to be from the Son..

The Father as the only and immediate unity in the Trinity

Moreover, if the Spirit also has existence from the Son and through Him, according to you, then He is the union of the Father and the Spirit. How then does the great theologist Gregory himself say: “The beginningless, the Beginning, and the Being with the Beginning are one God,” “the nature of the Three is one, and the unity is the Father, from Whom and to Whom the Following [after Him in the order of the list] are reduced, not mixing, but directly touching.”

Refutation of the lateral mediation of the Son in the origin of the Spirit

For when one hears that the Spirit is connected to the Father through the Son, one must perhaps think that this is said through the [sequence of] the pronunciation of [names] in the confession [of the Creed], where the Son is in the middle. And that the Spirit could not be called the Father otherwise than through the Son.

How then can the Father be a unity if He is not most closely related to Both, having directly founded Each of Them? But also [the expression] “not mixing, but directly touching” indicates the closest and immediate connection with Him.

Applying the phrase “Being with a Beginning” to the Holy Spirit

What does it mean: “The Beginningless, the Beginning, and the Being with the Beginning are one God”? For if he had known the Spirit as such, which [proceeds] from the Son, he would have said “Being from the Beginning,” and not “Being with the Beginning.”

The Coexistence of the Spirit with the Son and the Meaning of the Preposition “Through”

Therefore, when you hear that the Spirit proceeds through the Son, think of Him as accompanying the Son.. So also [the preposition] “through” change not in a malicious way to “from”, but, echoing the one who received the name from theology, to “with”. “For we have known the Spirit,” says the divine Damascene, “who accompanies the Son and manifests His action.” “To accompany” means “to accompany,” as he himself there says that the Spirit is not from the Son, but together with the Son [has being] from the Father, so that the emanation accompanies the birth without time and without extension. And “we have known,” he said, [meaning] the God-bearers who taught him so, from whom, having been taught to understand [the words] “the Spirit through the Son,” he absolutely forbade saying that He is from the Son..

Refutation of the Latin interpretation of prepositions according to Basil the Great and John of Damascus

If Basil the Great says that there is no falsehood in changing “through” to “from,” then [he says this] with regard to creation, which is why he cites the apostle who says: from Him and through Him and in Him are all things; all things that exist were created by Him and are maintained [in being] by Him and return to Him.

And the divine Damascene, although in the seventh of his “Theological Chapters” he proposed again what we said above, but a little lower down, echoing the “Declarative Word” of the divinely inspired Gregory of Nyssa, calls the Holy Spirit “an essential Power that is contemplated by Itself in a special hypostasis and is His (i.e., the Word) revealer, which cannot be separated from God, in Whom It is, and from the Word, with whom It accompanies,” and which, no matter which of the units existing in it, will be taken, it will be average in relation to the other two..

The sequence of the Hypostases and direct descent from the Father

What does he say who, in the poetic “Songs” theologically and at the same time fatherly, commands [you]: “If you hear about the Son and the Spirit, that They occupy the second place after God the Father, I call upon you to understand the words of bottomless wisdom, that it goes down to the beginningless root, and does not cut through the divinity”?

For if the Spirit were not directly from the Father, He would not be placed second to the Father, just as the Son is.

Theological understanding of the descent and abiding of the Holy Spirit

And, of course, the proceeding, in whatever sense it is spoken of, is a certain projection and movement, corresponding to the one who brings forth and the one who is brought forth. And the proceeding of the Spirit is declared in two ways by the inspired Scriptures: for He proceeds from the Father through the Son, or, if you will, even from the Son, upon all worthy ones, in whom He both rests and abides. Therefore, we will never subject this movement and appearance, and if you like, then also the descent, to ridicule, quarreling over the name, since David also says: “O God, when you went out before your people, when you marched through the wilderness, the earth trembled” (Ps. 67:8–9), and here he calls the outpouring of “the Spirit… upon all flesh” (Joel 3:1), which believed in Christ and which was previously a desert of grace, as well as an earthquake – the conversion from idolatry to God – is this, therefore, the outpouring of the Spirit from the Father and the Son, or will it not also be through those worthy of [God] (and this [outpouring] also to them), in whom the Holy Spirit lives and rests by [his] grace? For there is a rest of the Spirit in them, not a movement [of Him] from them, but, rather, the completion of the movement [that is, His descent] upon them; [for] although some [of them] acquired the ability to impart [the gift of the Spirit to others], but in a completely different way.

Moreover, this outpouring of the Spirit from the Father through the Son, which we have spoken of, is called both the benevolence of the Father and the Son, as being carried out in every way out of love for mankind, and a sending, a giving, and a descent, and it always happens in time and to someone, and for [various] reasons, to sanctify, and to teach, and to remind, and to reprove the disobedient; [and all this is accomplished] by this one movement and outpouring of the Spirit.

The eternal emanation of the Spirit and His rest in the Son

There is also [something] without cause and absolutely, and beyond benevolence and love of man, as not by will, but by nature alone, the pre-eternal and supernatural emanation, movement and appearance of the Spirit from the Father. It behooves us to ask: does the Spirit proceeding from the Father, according to Scripture, have “where to be worshipped” in a godly manner, according to this ineffable and inconceivable movement? In asking, we find the Father, the Only-Begotten God (John 1:14, 18), who was pleased (Matthew 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22) to teach and reveal this first to John, the Lord’s Forerunner and Baptist, as [he himself] says: “And I did not know Him; But he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘Upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining on him, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit’ (John 1:33). Therefore, “John bore witness, saying, ‘I have seen the Spirit descending like a dove from heaven, and it remained on him’” (John 1:32).

But lest anyone, thinking that this was said and done by the Father because of the Lord’s incarnation, should say that this is not an adequate example to resolve the confusion, let us hear what the divine Damascene says, who writes in the eighth of [his] dogmatic [chapters]: “We believe also in one Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father and rests in the Son”; and in [the chapter] “On the Place of God”: “God is also the Holy Spirit, the sanctifying, hypostatic Power, proceeding inseparably from the Father and resting in the Son.” Therefore, Christ as the true Son of God is called and is the dispenser of the divine Spirit. Showing this, the divine Cyril also says in the “Treasures”: “It is necessary to say that the Holy Spirit is of the divine nature, which is the beginning according to the apostle; if so, then He is not a creature, but God, as [existing] from God and in God.” And again: “God, therefore, is the Spirit, naturally existing in the Son from the Father and possessing all His action.” But even the divine Gregory the Theologian says in his last word that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and dwells in the Son. For, looking in this way, we will be able to honor the “Fountain of Life” (Ps. 35:10), contemplating Him as He pours out into Himself and rests on Himself, according to the great among the seers of God, Dionysius.

The distinction between eternal existence and the temporary message of the Spirit

Therefore, the Holy Spirit, in that eternal and inconceivable emanation and manifestation from the Father and resting in the Son, how will it be through the Son in whom He rests, to have the same manifestation? Therefore, if it is theologically said of Him that He also proceeds from the Son, then in every way [it is spoken] not of this, but of another manifestation, which is a manifestation [of Him] to us and a worthy teaching. For Christ is, according to Gregory the Theologian, the dispenser of the Spirit as God and the Son of God. And the dispenser in every way does not derive from Himself what He gives, although He who is God from God naturally has the Holy Spirit in Himself, and naturally [has Him] emanating from Him to those who are worthy, and not as having existence from Him. The Lord Himself says the same thing: “When the Comforter comes, whom I will send to you from the Father” (John 15:26), as proceeding from the Father and resting in Him [i.e., in the Son] and thus sent [by Him] to His own [people close to Him].

Refutation of the Latin doctrine of the emanation of the Spirit from the Son (Filioque)

If, however, as one who has being from the Son, just as through the Son the Spirit is sent forth from Him [i.e. the Father], this [i.e. the Spirit] also has the beginning of the Son, then, therefore, [He] is also one of the created. And let the theological voice testify [to us] again: “Let us maintain, according to my reasoning,” he says, “the belief that] there is one God, by reducing both the Son and the Spirit to one and the same Cause, according to one and the same, — I will call it this, — divine movement and will, and according to the identity of essence. And [we will maintain] the belief in the three hypostases, without inventing any erasure of boundaries, dissolution or fusion, but thinking and calling the Father as beginningless and beginning (the beginning, as Cause and as Source, and as the ever-existent Light); The Son is by no means beginningless, but nevertheless the beginning of all things” (Gregory the Theologian).

If the Son is the beginning of the Spirit, then the Spirit will be, according to you, one of all, because the Son is the beginning of this. So, I will say again from the Theologian: “Prove that the Spirit is brought into being, and then give Him to the Son,” in order to receive being through Him or from Him [the Spirit].

Therefore, the divine Cyril, to those who say that if, say, the Spirit is from God, it is not in the proper and special sense of the word, so that from this that from which [He] is considered to be of one essence, since it is written that everything is from God, says: “it remains [belonging] to the Holy Spirit in the proper sense of the word [understanding of the expression] ‘from Him,’ for the reason that from God the Father those who did not exist rushed into being, but through the Son.”

Prove, then, I will tell you again, that the divine Spirit [comes] from [the number of] those who did not exist, and then [already] give Him existence from the Son. The same can be said about “from Both”, for the Spirit existing from Both cannot but be one of all; or, perhaps, what will seem [to you] more reasonable, cannot [then] have one [Spirit] Both as the causes [of His existence] and of each [of Them] as the beginning. For since all creation is brought forth from Both, each is the beginning of all [beings]; thus, if the Spirit proceeds from Both, according to the Latin philosophers, each will be the beginning of the Spirit, and hence there will be two principles of the one divinity. For if [the Son] here [i.e. in the case of the production of the Spirit] also does something jointly, as, of course, there [i.e. in the case of the creation of creatures from nothing] also does jointly, then He is also quite clearly the cause of the Spirit; and if they do not do anything together, then the work is done in vain, and, as the geometrical example shows, the Latin theologians were foolish, for they cannot say the same thing in all cases.

The Unity of the Principle and the Hypostatic Property of the Father as the Only Source

Since, as in the case of creations, where Each is the beginning, there is but one Beginning, so here there will be one, even though it be said that “from Both.” For there, as we have said, it is natural, not hypostatic, and therefore the creative power is one for Both; here the fruitfulness is not in Both. For a little above we heard him who received the title from theology, who called the Father the Source and Beginning of the ever-existing Light, and the Son — by no means without beginning, but nevertheless the Beginning of all.

Therefore, “the only Source of the pre-essential divinity is the Father,” said the great Dionysius the Areopagite; and then: “The source Divinity is the Father, and the Son and the Spirit, if one must speak so, are the God-grown shoots of the God-giving divinity and are like flowers and pre-essential Lights”; and again: “the pre-essential name and possession of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are distinct, and no permutation or communion in them is absolutely permissible.” Although in the third [chapter] of “Mystical Theology” he says: “from the immaterial and indivisible Good came the cordial Lights of goodness and remained inseparable from their co-eternal growth of abiding in Him, in Themselves and the Friend in the Friend.”

The indivisibility of hypostatic properties and the refutation of the common derivation of the Spirit

Therefore, if you call the Son the begetter, then the Father will no longer be the begetter: for then He would be the Son’s partner in the theo-begetting, and this must be rejected. But if you call the Father [the begetter] (as it really is), then the Son will not be the begetter, and then the Spirit is not from Him, for [there is] only one theogony of the divinity – the One Parent and Begetter, because therefore He is the “theogony.”

This very communion is rejected by the great Basil when he writes to his brother, saying: “The Holy Spirit is attached to the Son, with whom He is inseparably perceived; but He has His being as such, having received its beginning from the cause of the Father, from whence He proceeds, having a distinctive sign as a hypostatic peculiarity, in order to be known after the Son and together with Him and from the Father to receive existence. But the Son, the Spirit who proceeds from the Father, making known through Himself and with Himself, alone shining forth from the unbegotten Light, has nothing in common with the Father or with the Holy Spirit in respect of the signs that distinguish [Each of Them].”

The hypostatic sign of the Father as the only Cause

Do you see how the Holy Spirit relates to the Son and to the Father, and what are the signs of the Son and the Spirit? Therefore, the only-begotten Son of God, he says, through Himself and with Himself makes known to us and reveals the Holy Spirit, but does not bring [Him] down so that He does not have communion with the Father in respect of distinctive signs. For the Holy Spirit has His being as such, having received its beginning from the cause of the Father, which [cause] is a property of the Father alone, for “everything,” says the Theologian, “that the Father has belongs to the Son, except the cause.”

Which of the divinely inspired theologians of all ages has been heard to attribute the proper [signs] of each of the three Persons of the one Godhead to two [of Them], and not to preserve them inseparably? And that it is a characteristic sign of the Father to deduce is evident, for from His cause, says [Basil the Great], the Spirit has its beginning, whence it proceeds, and from Him He was made real, although He is known after the Son and together with Him.

Refutation of Latin arguments about the indirect emanation of the Spirit and the divine order

Since the common [properties] in the highest and worshipped Trinity are equally present in those to whom they are common, and to be from the Father, according to the Latins, does not belong equally to the Son and the Holy Spirit, because the One was born most immediately and directly from Him and [moreover] from the one Father, while the Other proceeds indirectly and not most immediately and not from the one Father, as they think. Therefore, if, according to them, it does not belong equally [to them], then it is not common for the Son and the Spirit to be from the Father; and if it is not common for them, then neither of them is entirely from the Father. For if one of them is from the Father, the other is excluded, not participating [in this property]; and vice versa. Thus, you will not escape any absurdity, O Latin scholar, like those who say that the Son is from the Spirit, but by whatever means you try to avoid it, they will use the same tricks and by their example will show you the inevitable multitude [of absurd consequences that flow from this].

For if you say that the Spirit is spoken of as if He were placed after the Son in the enumeration, which seems to you the most reliable of all tricks, and I would call it no less shaky than the others, then they will show you that in other places He is spoken of after the Spirit, and therefore the Holy Spirit is enumerated before. In answering both these, we say with the truth: the essence of the matter does not lie in the order of the names, O like ones.

Criticism of temporal or causal order in the Godhead

For if this were so, what prevents, on the basis of this calculation and the successive enumeration, which in the divine Scripture varies [in its various places], sometimes to beget and to beget, and sometimes to be begotten and to be begotten? For we do not, like you, call the Father the immediate prior cause in relation to the Spirit, and the Son the second, although because He is the cause of creation, the Father was so called. And for this reason, being so called, He is sometimes so called by theologians, and when it is spoken of the uncreated, as He is called the Father through the Son. But it happens that when it is spoken of inferior things, we call Him so, because we do not honor the Father first, the Son second, and the Holy Spirit third, so that we always speak of the second after the first, and after the second – the third, bringing under [a certain] order, as is necessary, that which is higher than order, as well as everything else.

Theological Reflections on the Divine Order and the Descent of the Holy Spirit

For John the Chrysostom, interpreting what Abraham said to his servant: “Put your hand under my thigh” (Gen. 24:2), says in the course of the conversation: “Let the Holy Spirit be proclaimed; let the Only-Begotten be magnified; let the Father be glorified. Let no one think that dignity is being taken away if we first mention the Spirit, then the Son, and then the Father, or first the Son, and then the Father. For there is no order with God: not as with one who is disorderly, but as with one who is above order. For God also has no image, not as with an ugly, but as with an ugly.”

Therefore, God is above order, and not subject to order. If there is an order in relation to God through the trihypostasy of the Godhead, it is unknowable to us, since it is higher than any [known] kind of order. Of course, we know the order in the pronunciation [of the divine names], having been taught by the divinely inspired Scripture, from which we have also learned piously that it is changeable. But what is inherent in virtue of natural sequence, and even more so in the Two Persons – the Son and the Holy Spirit – we do not know at all. Therefore, the most theologian of Gregory says in the second of the “Words on Peace”: “Thus we reason and thus we hold, and as for Their relation and order, we leave it to the Trinity Itself and to those purified to whom the Trinity will reveal [it] either now or later.”

The Dispute with Eunomius and the Testimony of Basil the Great

But they say that the great Basil, as one who learned this, having been purified by revelation, said [this] in his writings against Eunomius. Gregory the Theologian also allows this to be known by those purified to whom he reveals the Trinity. But if so, why, when Eunomius said that he had learned from the saints that the Holy Spirit is the third in order and dignity, the divine Basil, truly not jokingly angry, expressed this very harshly, saying: “He learned from the saints, he says, but which saints and in what words they expounded this teaching, he cannot say”? It is clear that there are no saints who would say this.

However, since he inferred from the fact that the Holy Spirit is third in order and dignity that [He is third] also in nature, although this does not follow from that, the great one, [as if] yielding and hypothetically agreeing, says: “If the Spirit is third in order and dignity, and perhaps he is reciting the word piety — so that we may yield to [him] altogether — but from this it does not [follow] the necessity that He should also be third in nature.” Therefore, as if hypothetically agreeing, and not teaching this himself, he presented this position as controversial.

And when he himself says in the first book to Eunomius himself that “there is a kind of order not according to our establishment, but [such as comes] from the sequence inherent in them by nature,” he speaks not of the Son and the Spirit, but of the Father and the Son, concerning whom it is known and acknowledged by all that the Son is conditioned by a cause, and the Father is a cause and is necessarily thought before the conditioned, although not in time, as he himself says there. Therefore, saying this without any hesitation or ambiguity, that the Father is placed before the Son, while the Son occupies the second place after the Father, he writes: “We say that in the relation of cause to that which is from the cause, the Father is placed before the Son; and in no way in the difference of nature, just as in the precedence of time.” And in the third [book] he also says: “in order [the Son] is second after the Father, because He is from the Father, and [second] in dignity, but not second in nature.”

The relationship between the Hypostases and criticism of Latin doctrine

Thus [Basil] clearly knows that the Son is from the Father, but not that the Spirit is from the Son. For if he had known this, he would not have insisted on his own position and denied that the Holy Spirit is third in order from the Father, nor would he have been so angry with Eunomius who said this. Moreover, he agrees with great doubt and hypothetically that the Spirit is second to the Son, and not as if he himself taught this, showing by this that he himself does not know what relationship and order the Son and the Spirit have to each other.

We also know that the Son and the Holy Spirit are together from the Ever-Existent One, existing in each other and belonging to each other, and passing through each other inseparably and incomprehensibly; and that each of Them [forms] a kind of order and relation [to the Father]; and that both the Son and the Holy Spirit are together from the Father, although not in the same way; and that They [are] equal in dignity from the equal in dignity; and that [the property] of begetting, being [an acquisition] of the paternal hypostasis, cannot belong to the Son; and that he who says that the Son also has [the property] of begetting, commits a fusion of the divine hypostases, wickedly rejecting the order recognized by all concerning God, “for it is fitting,” says Gregory, also known as the theologian, “that the properties of the Father and the Son should remain [unchangeable], so that there should be no fusion in the divinity, which also brings the rest into order.” We know this order, recognized by all, regarding God, but neither we nor the teachers and defenders of the Church know that the Holy Spirit is considered second after the Son and third after the Father.

The Latins, however,—oh, what madness and at the same time absurdity!—reject that pious and universally recognized order, and that which Basil the Great and Gregory the Theologian confess as something that exceeds their knowledge, as something ineffable and that which is above us, they boast that they understand, and they proclaim an innovation about the ineffable and incomprehensible descent of the Spirit, or, to be more precise, they blaspheme, calling it “immediate” and “mediated,” and [that which occurs] “in the immediate way” and “not in the immediate way,” through which they fall into the danger of lowering the Holy Spirit to the level of a creature.

This is what happens with the Latins, who say that from the Two, the first Cause and the second, there is One, and do not agree in all things with the inspired Scripture, but arbitrarily add or subtract whatever they please. But with us, who piously revere [those who are] the Two who proceed from One and to One, [nothing of this kind] at all [happens].

Reasons for the traditional order of veneration of the Persons of the Trinity and the Descent of the Holy Spirit

But to give you a word, or rather to make you worthy to learn [the truth], we will ask: why is the Son most often sung by us after the Father, and the Spirit after the Son, and this is the same order we traditionally observe in initiation into the mystery [of theology]? God and the Father, the Cause of all, is the Father of the only-begotten Son, who is immediately, before even joining [the mention of Him] to the Father, meant. How then, leaving aside even the mention of the conceivable near the Father, shall we place the Spirit immediately after the Father? For this reason the Spirit is spoken of after the Son of the Father; for we cannot with our tongue pronounce both [names] together at once in the same way as They [together] proceed from the Father. If, however, we place the Spirit united with the Father before the Son, then the Spirit will seem to be the Son, because the name “Father” immediately brings to mind the Son with itself. Further, if we place the Son immediately after the Spirit, we will make the Spirit be considered the Father, because the Son is the Son of the Father and together with Himself brings to mind the Father, and especially [this applies] to what was mentioned before him. And when the Son is placed near the Father, then this preserves his oneness, and does not prevent the Spirit from being [conceived] as proceeding from the Father. This is also said by Gregory of Nyssa, whose loftiness of thought the Latins, not understanding, teach that the Spirit is not in the closest way [related] to the Father (oh, what impiety of them!), but in the closest way – to the Son. But the fact that the Father and the Son bring to mind each other, being close because of this, does not mean that the Spirit is far from the Father and does not [proceed] directly from Him. But more on this later.

The Graduality of Revelation and Divine Pedagogy

Now, to present to you a second reason, which also follows from what has been said before, [we will say], in order to persuade you by means of all this, that our race first acknowledged God the Father and God the Father, when His divinity was revealed and received by faith, it is not entirely clear how this was beneficial to us. For if He, being equally Father and Creator, had then been preached to us not as Father, but as Creator, how could we have received, not yet being able to contain it through [spiritual] infancy, the knowledge of the wealth of the divinity inherent in [Him]? For the name “father” is both close to us, and we have it in a certain sense in common with [those who come] from Him, consubstantial [with Him] – and for us powerful – those Hypostases. If this [name] belongs to Them by nature and above our understanding, and we are worthy to call upon Him out of love for mankind, for which reason the Jews also said: “We… have God as our Father” (John 8:41), then very wisely and as if deceiving our reason, or rather, diverting us from slavery to the evil one and false doctrine and false worship to His dominion and knowledge of God, and hinting at it, He also exalted the divinity of the Only Begotten, calling Himself the Father.

After Him the Son appeared to the world, visible through the flesh and living with us. He also pointed to the Spirit by Himself, testifying in every way by words and deeds that He is united by nature and equal in honor to Himself and the Father. After the Son the Holy Spirit also came into the world, sent by the Son – because He is not in the place of God or in the place of Christ – and sent not generally and not absolutely, but in time and to some [people] and for a [certain] reason, and proceeds from the Father not at all for a reason, neither in time nor to some, but generally and in everything absolutely, as co-divine and consubstantial and dependent no less than the Son on one and the same Cause and Principle, and coming from Himself as Lord and Sovereign.

Historical context of theological disputes

A third reason is also adduced, why theologians, for the most part, after the Son and in what pertains to the Son, present the immediate proximity and perfection and consubstantiality of the divinity of the Spirit with the Father. For after the madness of many against the Son had subsided and was destroyed, when His consubstantiality and equality with the Father had been variously proved, explained and confirmed in the most reliable way, the war against the divine Spirit clearly flared up again. Therefore, all the attention of theologians was directed not to the tropos (manner) of existence, but to the consubstantiality of the Spirit with the Son, although the Latins forced [their] expressions, adapting their thought to their own malicious thinking.

Relationships and hypostatic properties of the Persons of the Trinity

But, of course, God, who revealed Himself to us in three hypostases, is thus glorified. And thus, since there is only one image and icon in the one imageless and worshipped Trinity, – “for the Trinity is inseparably united, co-exists eternally and represents one and the same image,” says the great Athanasius, – since, therefore, it exists in the revered Trinity, we call the Son the image and icon of the Father, and the Spirit – [the image] of the Son. For thus He [i.e. the Image and Icon] made Himself known to us, as [He] pleased, and [here] we say that the Spirit relates to the Son as He Himself relates to the Father; for Both of Them relate to the Father in a similar way, except for the tropos (manner) of existence, as has been shown above by many.

And the Son was known to us in the closest way to the Father, and through Him, known in the closest way, the Holy Spirit appeared, preached and sent in His name, just as He came before in the name of the Father. And we say that everything that the Father has belongs to the Son, except the cause, and everything that the Son has belongs to the Spirit, except sonship. For everything that the Father has belongs equally to the Son and the Spirit, except the cause, which encompasses the hypostatic differences of the existence of both.

Therefore, in some places we place the Spirit before the Son, although in a minority of cases, while in most cases we place Him after the Son and after the Father, so that, constantly and unceasingly remembering the three greatest works accomplished for us and the most godly and providential house-buildings, we may offer brief thanksgiving for everything.

The Equality of the Persons of the Trinity and the Critique of the Naturalization of the Order

But Eunomius, and after him the Latinists, not listening intelligently to this thanksgiving of the Fathers to God, and not being able to understand the economy [through which they allowed certain applicable expressions] in disputes with the heretics, falsely inferred from this that the Holy Spirit is third from the Father.They do not even understand that if this were the case and this showed the natural order of the Son in relation to the Father and the divine Spirit in relation to the Son, then the Son could not have been placed after the Spirit at another time, when in Holy Scripture the [order] of the joint proclamation of the three worshipped Persons is changed.. Then the Holy Spirit is mentioned first, as the great theologist Gregory says: “the same ones are listed by divine Scripture now earlier, now later, due to the equality of nature.”.

And [in the Word spoken] in the presence of the bishops from Egypt, he also calls us to theology in this way, saying: “Theologize with Paul, who was taken up to the third heaven, who sometimes enumerates three Hypostases together and [does] this alternately, not observing an [inviolable] order, [but] placing one and the same [Hypostasis] now at the beginning, now in the middle, now at the end.”.

Refutation of the False Conclusions of Eunomius and Latinus

But it is not only to the Son that the Holy Scriptures apply the expression “through him”; for the divine Cyril in his “Treasures” says: “The Spirit is of Christ, for the Word of God through the Spirit has dwelt among us.” Completely disregarding this, Eunomius and the Latin race began to falsely teach that the Holy Spirit is third from the Father in order and dignity, meaning the order not in confession, but in nature.

From this, of course, Eunomius also arrived at the teaching that [the Holy Spirit] is third from the Father and by nature, as one who differs in it from both [i.e., the Father and the Son]; and the Latins [from this] conclude that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Son.

Unity of the Divine Principle vs. Latin Duality

We, together with the holy fathers, most often place the Spirit after the Son, and the latter after the Father, in order to give a brief eulogy, thanksgiving, and remembrance of the three greatest works and the most God-like and providential constructions accomplished for our sake, and not because They are second and third in honor and dignity, for They are equally honorable, and not because they place the beginning of the One [Spirit] as a duality, nor because they reduce the One to a duality.

But we have one God, because the Son and the Spirit are reduced to one Cause, from which we attribute the existence of each of Them to One [Cause]; and since one Beginning is the Father, as Gregory the Wonderworker says, therefore there is one God. And since one nature is in the Three, — whence both Two and Three are one and the same, — then [the relations expressed by the words] “from Him” and “reduced to Him” do not divide the nature, but differ in relation to it, and are therefore not in their proper sense [such as come from] it, although they do not [exist] without it, and are not reduced to it, although not without it; for if the One, as it were, begot and reduced Itself, would it also be reduced to Itself? Therefore, the One is not [at the same time] the beginning and that which is from It, nor is Itself for Itself [not] the cause and the conditioned [cause].

If, then, all this refers to that by which [the one essence] is divided, that is, to the three Hypostases, or three Persons of the one Godhead by nature, then [therefore] when the Latins say that the One [comes] from the Two, they speak of the Persons, and in this sense they speak of “both,” for the One is never called “both.”

Refutation of the False Doctrine of Mediated Ascension

Therefore, since they say that the One [comes] from the Two in the sense in which the beginning and cause are understood and spoken of, they say that the One is from two beginnings and causes, and [thereby] introduce two beginnings and two causes, and polytheism. For God is one not only because the nature is one, but also because those who are from Him are related to only one Person, and to one Cause and one Beginning are reduced not only the Two [together], but also each of Them separately. And therefore there is one Beginning of the divinity and one God, and also because each [of the Two] is directly reduced to the One.

For if the Spirit is not directly from the Father, then this mediation necessarily conveys to the Spirit two causes, a middle and an extreme one, and because of this relation it is impossible for the Three to be one God; rather, it is absolutely impossible for Him to be God who through mediating divinity [comes] from the Father, because it is through mediating divinity that the Father came to creatures, according to the theologians.

Criticism of the concept of “One Beginning” in Latin teachings

For He created them not as Father, but as God.. The Son is one God with the Father; therefore the creation [came] from the Father through the Son, as from one God, and one [is] the beginning of creations, God.. God gives birth and brings forth – as the Father of the Worlds coexistent with Him.

Therefore, if the Holy Spirit is from the Father through the Son as from one [principle], then He will not be as from one God — Father and Son — but as from one existing Father, [Who is] Father and Son.And what could be more inappropriate than such a mix-up?? Why do the Latins, fleeing from such confusion, say [that He proceeds from the Father and the Son] as from one God, which is nowhere confirmed, as has been shown?And this is all the more so because the Spirit is one God with the Father and the Son..

Sophisticated justifications and defense of the United Leadership

Therefore, since there is one Father perfectly and absolutely, not only both, the Son and the Spirit, but each of Them separately has only one Beginning and one Cause, the Father.. And thus [there is only] one Beginning of the divinity, even though the Latinists, being deceived by speaking of two beginnings in relation to the divinity, thought to justify themselves by insisting that they teach one Beginning for the Son and the Spirit.For by asserting this they wish to deceive us, as we said at the beginning..

For this is the very thing we reproach them with: how they say that in [the Two, that is] the Son and the Spirit there is one Beginning, and in the one Spirit there are two Beginnings.? They, when asked about One, sophistryfully answer about Two, deceiving themselves rather than those who ask..

• The Father is wholly and perfectly one Beginning and Cause in relation to God.
• He is not called “Creator” by any of the apostles or evangelists, but instead the name “Father” was enough for them.
• By beginning I do not mean the starting point, nor the creative [beginning], nor what you call dominion.

Hypostatic differences and the immutability of paternity

And truly, God is both the Father, and in virtue of the fact that the Father is the Beginning and the Cause; and since the Beginning is the Father of the Worlds, that is, of the Son and the Spirit; and since the Cause is the Cause, the Beginning and the FatherIf the Son is also the author of the Spirit, then of necessity he will also be the beginning and the father as the cause..

After all, as regards man: by virtue of the fact that man is susceptible to scientific knowledge, man cannot but be susceptible to scientific knowledge.. The same is true of God: since the Father as Father is the Beginning and Cause, it is impossible for Him who is the Cause not to be both the Beginning and the Father, although Gregory the Theologian writes: “so also the Son is in the proper sense the Son, because He is not [at the same time] the Father.”.

You see the clear denial of the oneness of the Father and the hypostatic unity of those who say that the Spirit is also from the Son, and do not reduce each of the Persons to only one Source of divinity.? After all, there is one nature, and all are people, but not all are one person.. Even if through each other, or rather through those who [lived] before us, we would all be reduced to one forefather, but at the same time [there are] many culprits [of our existence], and [we] are not all from one, which is why we are not oneSo, aren’t you clearly innovating, oh Latin-wise one??

The Immutability of the Orthodox Faith and Criticism of Latin Additions

Was our gospel, which was preached among the Gentiles, believed on in the world, a defect to you? (1 Tim. 3:16), і “God’s saving grace” (Titus 2:11), and the knowledge of God according to it, which has been revealed to all and taught all? Unless faith is in vain (Rom. 4:14)and that which pertains to confession has not decayed, for which those who entered into the “cloud of witnesses which surrounds us” (Heb. 12:1) struggled and struggled., [in] a numerous list of saints, [in] a divinely wise host of teachers. All of them, by deed and word and by their sufferings, bore witness to the truth for which they stood up, doing well even unto death—and not only for its sake and for themselves, but also for the sake of our confirmation.If all this is not in vain, and the faith of those who are called by Christ is not defective, then truly you are a hypocrite, seeking to add and introducing new things to the detriment of your own soul..

For if [those saints] recognized the Spirit as one who [proceeds] from the Son, why did they not openly preach this and affirm it in many and frequently assembled holy Councils?? Didn’t they know this?? Then, therefore, it was not true, because He who for our sake became known as one like us informed them about everything.. And the Spirit taught them all things according to the promise, and taught them that they might teach us as they themselves had learned, as was said above.If you dare to say that the theologians who came before us did not know the truth, then we will refute this as no less blasphemy..

The Authority of Councils and the Error of Private Interpretations

Because who are you to dare to babble about this?? What is the council equal in number [to these saints], or rather, how many and where [are the assembled councils], witnessed by the Spirit, Who testified in their favor, both when they still lived and were among men, and who constantly testifies and will testify by means of the miracles that are happening and are to happen at their tombs??

But, – will say [the Latin], – I have many fathers who confirm with their testimony my increase. Well, when they gathered together [in councils], they handed down one thing to the Church, and taught another thing themselves.? Absolutely not.. But you yourself either distort, or make mistakes and misunderstand, interpreting without the Spirit what was said through the mediation of the Spirit..

On the Truth of Common Confession and the Exposition of Latin Innovations

But if we allow this (although it is not so), should we not rather accept what they have given in common than what each one has said individually? For first, in addition to what is common to all and not suitable for those who criminally seek to pervert the word of truth, it is also known to all, both wise and ignorant, and is always spoken by the lips. And what is not so common is suspicious, and all the more so when it is brought forward by the Latins, who by their addition have devised [plots] against even the most obvious [content] of the Creed. For those who have dared to invent an addition to what is on the tongue of all true Christians and is daily repeated many times, what would they not have dared to do in [texts] unknown to the majority? Indeed, what is not common and widespread is suspect: would not the wicked man have sown tares there (Matt. 13:25). Thus, if it is confessed by [all the fathers] in common confession, it should be accepted; but if not, it should not be.

In the same way, God willing, in the second Word we will examine and expose what seems to you to be evidence in favor of your addition. Not that itself [we will expose] – may it not be so! – but you, who misinterpret what is well said and do not reconcile in force the obscure with the clear and the secret spoken with the openly pronounced.

Epilogue

Now let us briefly list what is said anew in this Word and, in addition, add what was omitted.

1. So, firstly, it has been established that their reason for adding is completely empty.
2. Then it is shown that when it is said about the descent of the Holy Spirit from the Father, it is meant “from the only one,” because when in the same Creed we hear about the Son being born of the Father, we accept without any objection what is meant “from the only one.”
3. To this we add this: even if it were possible to say without fault that the Spirit is also from the Son, then even then the Latins should not have made any additions to the Creed. For even if this [thought] had later proved to be good, it would not have been worthy of being added, because even those who were before us, although they all gathered together and discussed everything together under the chairmanship of the representatives of ancient Rome themselves, did not add anything [to the Creed] that seemed pious to them.
4. From this it is clear that it is right for us to first demand that they remove their addition and, for the sake of the high position of the current pope, not turn away from those who have sealed their lives with a death witnessed by God, and only then agree to discuss this [proposition] with them.
5. Then we say to the sympathetic listeners of [our] words that in the case of both, when we hear [the expression] “from the Father,” we also mean “from the one,” even though this was not explicitly stated at the same time.
6. But even when we say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, we attribute the descent to the Father’s hypostasis, because the essence in the Three is entirely and completely one; the Son cannot possess anything that belongs to the Father’s hypostasis; so the Spirit is not from the Son.
7. Then those who reason in Latin are exposed in that they cannot possibly believe that two divine Persons [originate] from one, since they see the cause in two [Persons] and moreover in a different way. But they cannot even speak of one God through such a reference to the One. For grandfather, father and son are not one person, according to the wise patriarch of Nyssa, since the cause is reduced to two persons. And before this we have presented that just as there are two conditioned [Persons] by the cause, since the conditioning is in two Persons, so, according to them, there are also two causes by necessity, since they attribute the property of being a cause to two Persons.
8. Moreover, since, according to the wise theologians, just as the Son is from the Father, so is the Spirit, apart from birth and descent, then if the Son [is born] directly [from the Father] and not also from the Spirit, but from the Father alone, then the Spirit [proceeds] directly from the Father, and not also from the Son.
9. We have also shown that since the mind of Christ is called the Spirit, just as the mind of each of us is called our own spirit, then by His action He is from Him, and by His hypostasis He is His own Spirit, but not from Him, but from the Father alone.
10. In addition to the fact that the Spirit is not by grace, but by nature from the Father, it is shown that He has existence from the Father alone.
11. And [this is further shown] from the fact that Each [i.e., the Son and the Spirit] possesses, according to theologians, everything that belongs to the Father, except unbegottenness, birth, and ascension.
12. Hence the Latins are such as, even in [internal] content, add [something] to the Creed; while we are such as, even in external words, add nothing to the pious thought of the divine Creed.
13. We accused the Latins of teaching that the two principles of the one Spirit proceed from one another. They said that nothing prevents these [two principles] from being one, since one [of them] is from the other, and in this they were found to be blasphemous.
14. Next, having begun to speak about the beginning, we showed that there are in no way two beginnings of the one Spirit.
15. We have presented from the evidence that what is common to the Father and the Son is also common to the Spirit, [proofs that] it does not belong to the Son to [produce] [the Spirit], for then it would be [a property] of the Spirit also. Here we have also exposed them in that they do not distinguish natural [properties] from hypostatic [properties]; and if so, then the divine nature from the hypostases which we worship.
16. Since it is impious not to speak of creation as having received being from the Son in the manner of creation, but to attribute the creative property to the Father alone, we necessarily deduced that if the Spirit had [His] being in the manner of descent also from the Son, it would be impious not to say that the Spirit is also from the Son, and that the property of deriving belongs only to the Father. Since those who say this are not only pious, but also God-bearing, therefore those who say that the Spirit is also from the Son are impious.
17. And if through the Son the Spirit, then each together and separately will be called Father and Creator, just as in relation to creation [each] is Creator and Father.
18. Since it is theologically said of the Son that He possesses everything that belongs to the Father, except for the cause, which is not to be understood as the cause of the creatures, but is therefore the cause of the Son and the Spirit, we later showed that the Spirit does not proceed from the Son.
19. And we have cited witnesses who forbid the Latin addition.
20. Again, starting from the fact that the Son is not [born] from the Spirit, we have shown that the Spirit also has existence not from the Son.
21. Then, based on the names of the Son listed and considered by the saints, we presented [evidence] that the Holy Spirit is not from the Son.
22. Also based on the fact that the characteristic sign of the Holy Spirit is not simply to proceed, but to proceed from the Father, we presented theologians who testify that the Holy Spirit [proceeds] from the Father alone.
23. And [this also comes] from the fact that the union of the Son and the Spirit is the Father, since in the naming He is in the middle between the other Two.
24. And [further] from the fact that it is not said of the Spirit that He is “from the Beginning,” but “with the Beginning,” we have presented [evidence] that the Beginning in theology is called the Son.
25. And that he who says that the Spirit is through the Son in the sense of [His] being, and changes “through” to “from,” is mistaken. Because it is further said that the Spirit is “through Him,” but not “from Him,” but “with Him,” born of the Father, the Spirit also proceeds.
26. Again, from what is theologically said about each of the three Persons, that She is in hypostasis the middle between the Two [others].
27. And [from the fact that] Each possesses the same in relation to Others as it possesses in relation to Itself.
28. And the fact that the Spirit is called second from the Father, just as the Son is, shows that Everyone exists directly from the Father, since the middle in the theological sense corresponds not to the three points lying on a straight line, but to [those that are] at the corners of a triangle.
29. After this, when it has been clearly shown that the manifestation of the Spirit is twofold, it is also shown that each manifestation has its corresponding end. And from this also [it follows] that the Holy Spirit does not have his being from the Son.
30. Moreover, since they call the Son the beginning of the divine Spirit, those who reason in Latin have shown themselves to be those who reduce the divine Spirit to the level of creation.
31. Then, from the fact that the Father and the Son do not have communion in the divine birth, it is proved that the Spirit is not from the Son either.
32. Moreover, from the fact that the common [properties] of the highest Trinity belong equally to each of the divine Hypostases, it becomes clear that those who reason in Latin [in fact] do not call either the Son or the Spirit [as proceeding] from the Father and do not confess hypostatic differences in God.
33. Then, speaking of the order in God, we showed that the saints do not know what the mutual relationship and order of the Son and the Holy Spirit are, and we brought the great Basil, Gregory, and John the Golden Theologian to agree on this. Moreover, they presented and explained the pious and universally recognized order concerning God. And therefore those who are wise in Latin are exposed [by us] in that they do not know this pious order; and what the theologians confess their ignorance of as something higher than us, they boast of knowing exactly, thus proclaiming new and blasphemous teachings about the descent of the All-Holy Spirit.
34. We have also proposed a word, variously demonstrating the reason why the Son is most often praised by us after the Father, and the Spirit after the Son, and [in the same order] is taught [the doctrine of Them] to those who are initiated [into the mysteries of faith].
35. And that theologians, following the order of [this] initiation well, say of everything that is contemplated together in the Three that the Spirit is related to the Son in the same way as the Son is to the Father.
36. And hearing this as foolish, first Eunomius, and then those who reason in Latin, began to teach that the Holy Spirit is third from the Father: Eunomius – that, they say, therefore the Spirit is third by nature; and the Latins – that He has existence also from the Son.
37. We also show that not only the Son and the Spirit together, but also each of Them individually, are directly reduced to the Father; and that if this were not so, God would not be one.
38. Moreover, from the fact that God and the Father creates as God, and not as the Father, while He begets and brings forth as the Father, we show that if, according to the Latins, the Spirit is from the Father and the Son as from one [principle], then He will not be as from one God, but as from one Father, who is Father and Son. And thus the Latin philosophy is absolutely exposed as such, which speaks both of the essential descent from Both of one Spirit, and of Both [Son and Spirit] from One [Father].
39. After this we speak further about the beginning, and how the Latins sophistryally answer those who ask them whether they speak of two beginnings of the divinity of the Spirit.
40. Further, it is shown again, based on the fact that the apostle theologizes about the Father as the Father of Light, that those who reason in Latin also call the Son the Father, and clearly reject the one-headedness and hypostatic unity of the Father.
41. We show that our teaching, despite its antiquity, is respectable and does not require – if not insufficient – ​​any addition.
42. Then, having said that what is said by the Fathers together and publicly is to be preferred to what is said privately by some of them individually, and that what is not generally known is doubtful, and all the more so when it is brought forward by the Latins, who reason perversely even about the obvious, we promised that with God’s help we would show in a second Word that the judgments of the Fathers, which seem to contradict [each other, are in fact] in agreement [with each other].

This, then, is what has been shown above by the most extensive [reasonings] and also – that we and our confession are safe everywhere, and it is for us a crown of boasting and an unashamed hope. If this is not so, and we are infringed in it [i.e., confession], then much more [will be infringed] the ancient apostles, prophets and venerable councils of the fathers – many and numerous, who learned from above and taught our generation by divine inspiration. If, having learned differently – as the Latin generation now insists – they did not reveal this to us, although the Lord said to them: “What you hear in darkness, preach in the light” (Matt. 10:27, Luke 12:3), then how can they not be responsible for this?

But God justified them in this by their greater works. For not only did they not think like the Latins, far from it, but they also knew and handed down to us the one and only Beginning of the Godhead; one unbegotten Father; one Son, who proceeds from Him according to the manner of birth; one Holy Spirit, co-eternal and also proceeding from the Father before all ages and forever, who is also glorified with the Father and the Son, now and ever and unto ages of ages. Amen.