Complete Works Of

Joseph, The Monk

Of The Bryennios
 All the Discovered Works of
Joseph Breynnios (15th Century)
Volume: 1
Translated by: Osvaldo Ruiz
———————————————————————————————————————
Original Work:
Author: Joseph, the Monk, of the Bryennios Family
Source: The Discovered Writings of Joseph the Monk of Bryennios, Tome A
Published by: The Order of the Most High and Pious Former Prince of Moldavia-Wallachia,
Lord Grigorios Alexandros Ghica, Voivode,
under the care of Eugenios the Deacon
Original Printing: Leipzig, Saxony, at the Printing House of Breitkopf, 1798

Included in Volume 1:
On the Transcendental Trinity.
On the Procession of the Holy Spirit.
On the Unity of the Church.
 Table of Contents
On the Transcendental Trinity
Discourse I. Delivered in the Triklinos of the Palace, in the presence of the
distinguished members of the city. p. 1
Discourse II. In the same palace, and in the same spoken place, with the
silence of those from the Galatian priests, into some sort of
hearing. p. 11
Discourse III. Having been said not in the same palace of all those not in the
city happening/befalling, from Italy to Titus—these things of
those sitting together with the Romans, unto what then this
hearing/audience. p. 21
Discourse IV. It refers moreover to the question concerning the Holy Spirit’s
procession. Making clearer more broadly concerning the
homonymy of the Spirit, and of the term “he is processed” p. 34
Discourse V. Showing that theology surpasses all arts and sciences by an
incomparable degree; whence faith is not demonstrated through
syllogisms. p. 49
Discourse VI. Presenting that the saying among the Italians of "Hypostasis"
and "Essence" and "Person," due to the simplicity of language,
becomes for them a deviation from the Orthodox Faith. p. 58
Discourse VII. With very many usages of the Holy (Fathers) clearly showing
that the Holy Spirit personally proceeds from the Father alone. p. 69
Discourse VIII. Spoken in the same Palace; clearly demonstrating that those
who dare an addition [to the Creed], both synodically and
privately the divine Fathers subject to anathema. p. 79
Discourse IX. Spoken not in the royal bedchamber; demonstrating most
clearly that the Holy Spirit being said to be from the Father
through the Son, signifies not the procession of the hypostasis,
but the dispensation of the Spirit towards us. p. 90
Discourse X. Clearly introducing, that the phrase “the Spirit from the Father
through the Son” is thus understood harmoniously by all the
theologians, [and] signifies at the same time both the with, and
the after preposition, and the together, but not personally the
essence of the Spirit. It was said to the holy great Apostles; with
the King also being present. p. 101
Discourse XI. Clearly presenting, that whatever through is said concerning the
divine Persons, signifies the essential energy, and the grace of
the Spirit towards us, and not the cause of the Spirit’s
hypostasis. It has been said in the presence of the holy
Apostles’ Church and of the Senate. p. 113
Discourse XII. Delivered in the Church of the Holy Apostles, at the gathering
of the Emperor, and of many High Priests, and of the Senate;
Clearly showing that examples for the sake of proof do not
have a place concerning God, but are received for the sake of
clarity alone. p. 126
Discourse XIII. Spoken in the renowned Church of the Holy Apostles;
containing scriptural usages concerning the Spirit; and showing
that in none of these is the Holy Spirit said to proceed also
from the Son. p. 137
Discourse XIV. I say that also all the Scriptural (passages), as many as some
think to be strong against us, refer to one purpose, to make
clear the natural union of the Paraclete with the Son. And this
has also been said by the Choir of the divine Apostles. p. 148
Discourse XV. Spoken in the Assembly of the holy Apostles themselves;
concluding clearly, that also all the theologians, through the
utterance "from the Father and the Son," bear witness to the
identity of nature of the Father and the Son with the Spirit, not
the existence of His own hypostasis. p. 159
Discourse XVI. Showing that both by herself, and through angels, and through
men, the all-causal Trinity is the Trinity, they have taught us in
many ways many times. And it has been said not in the temple
of the divine Apostles. p. 170
Discourse XVII. Asserting clearly through logical proofs, by all necessity, that the
Spirit does not personally proceed also from the Son. And it has
been said not in the royal chamber expressly thus. p. 181
Discourse XVIII. Correcting some opinions of some concerning certain things.
And it has been spoken not to the holy and great Apostles, and
those proposing these things and listening to them, and the
Senate. p. 192
Discourse XIX. Demonstrating necessarily that if it is supposed that the Holy
Spirit also proceeds hypostatically from the Son, countless
absurdities follow. It has been clearly confirmed by the imperial
ones, by the divinely-seen Elijah in the Triclinium of the East. p. 203
Discourse XX. Treating correctly concerning the order observed in the divine
persons. Spoken not in the Secret of the Palace. Which things
also the Emperor immediately ordered to be written. p. 213
Discourse XXI. Spoken in the same Palace; and clearly presenting, how one of
the caused of these persons is said to be proximately from the
first, and the other through the proximately from the first. p. 224
On the Procession of the holy Spirit
Dialogue I. Joseph Breynnios Dialogue with Maximus the Latin-minded
one, of the order of Heralds. It took place concerning
renowned Crete; in the hearing of the whole Metropolis. p. 235
Dialogue II. Joseph Breynnios Dialogue with Envoys from Rome, having
arrived ostensibly for the Union of the Church and seeking to
receive something else form us. p. 245
Dialogue III. Joseph Breynnios Dialogue with the Latin-minded ones not in
Constantinople; whose names have not been written, as they are
still living, and being able to change the things they think. p. 256

On the Unity of the Churches

Dialogue I. Of the one being planned to happen at that time; but it was not
spoken to the Synodal [gathering] of the Great Church of
Christ. p. 271
JOSEPH THE MONK, ALSO CALLED BRYENNIOS: VARIOUS DISCOURSES
DELIVERED IN CONSTANTINOPLE DURING THE REIGN OF THE MOST WISE
MANUEL PALAEOLOGOS AND THE PATRIARCHATE OF JOSEPH, THE MOST HOLY
AND ECUMENICAL PATRIARCH.

DISCOURSE I. CONCERNING THE TRANSCENDENTAL TRINITY.

Delivered in the Triklinos of the Palace, in the presence of the distinguished members of the city.

Paragraph 1: The holy Unity, the Trinity, the Name above every name, the most essential cause
of all good things, the root of salvation, the unending yet inexhaustible self-emptying, which,
though poured out, remains undiminished, overflowing with abundance and ineffable plentitude, a
ceaseless fountain of gifts bestowed according to its will—this is the foundation, the middle, and the
end of my discourse about it, which both begins and ends in it eternally. A most direct and true
demonstration of this lies in the very nature of things: for I exist through it, live in it, and turn
toward it. If in me there is any good will, any righteous deed, any wise word, it is through it that
these come to be. For, as the divine Apostle declares, “No one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except by the
Holy Spirit.” How, then, can one dare to speak of the singular Trinity, to theologize about the
ineffable, apart from God? Therefore, beginning my theology in simplicity, God is its origin. From
Him I begin, orthodoxly; through Him I proceed, unwaveringly, toward the conclusion. And thus I
say unto God and hope to finish in Him. O God, Unity and Trinity, grant this!
Paragraph 2: Let no one reproach me for undertaking this with insufficient strength. For if, in
my daily confession and thanksgiving offered to the Lord, none reproaches me, how can one fault
me for proclaiming and glorifying Him who created me? Were my words always equal to the realities,
I might justly fear failing to do them justice. But since, in every respect, human words fall short of
the divine realities, and even the conceptual word is second to the essence of things, how can I be
afraid of theological discourse, even as I address creation itself ? Surely, when all struggle and
confess the inadequacy of their words, and each acknowledges the superiority of others in some
respect, no one can rightly criticize me. Just as the exceedingly tall still fall short of the heavens, and
the swift cannot outrace the sun, so also the strongest cannot lift Atlas, nor can the wisest number
the stars, nor can angels, in their might, accomplish what God has created. Thus, it follows that all
who attempt to theologize rightly will, by nature, fall short. The voice of theology declares: “Every
word is weak and unmoving, due to the resistance of the subject matter.” How much more so, then,
when the subject surpasses all measure, when zeal increases, when the risk becomes greater! Shall we
fear, then, or shall we be bold? Let us speak and hear; for even in trembling, there is hope.
Paragraph 3: When speaking about God, let us do so as much as is permitted by Him, for this is
both daring and impossible. Yet let us strive as far as is fitting and attainable. Just as our eyes cannot
traverse the space between heaven and earth, and we concede the limits of our sight, so let us, in
these few words, offer acknowledgment of our inadequacy and yet render due reverence to the

1
majesty of the incorruptible and blessed essence. Let us ascribe to it victory over all speech. Even if
the tongues of angels—whatever they may be—were gathered together with those of archangels
and all rational creatures, they would not suffice to grasp it. How, then, we mortals, surrounded by
countless distractions, dare to say anything about God? Let us cast aside earthly concerns, transcend
this air, pass beyond the heavens, and lift our minds above all creation. Let us behold the divine
essence as it is: unchanging, immutable, impassible, simple, indivisible, unapproachable light,
ineffable power, boundless greatness, surpassing glory, desired goodness, and incomprehensible
beauty. In contemplating God in this way, I am certain that you will both marvel and be saved.
Paragraph 4: Since there are four modes by which everything is demonstrated—those associated
with the significant and overarching principles of things—and the divine is above all harm or
deficiency, they are the definitive, the divisive, the analytical, and the demonstrative. We, in some
manner, will also attempt to approach the matter of God through these modes, beginning, as is
proper, from the first principles. This is where all the wise, coming forth from their own disciplines,
begin well by establishing the foundations of all inquiries. Thus, let us speak concerning God.
Paragraph 5: God is a supreme essence, surpassing all comprehension. God is an unfathomable
subject of inquiry, an omnipotent hand, an incomprehensible power. God is the self-generating
good, the encompassing of all existence, the provident majesty governing all. God is the supremely
good Good, the source of all goodness, Love itself, the super-divine Eros, the highest object of all
desires. God is true Light, illuminating and being illuminated, desirable, unapproachable, and
unchangeable. God is self-contained, comprehensible to Himself alone, and contemplative. God is
He who is, He who lives, and He who comes—the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the
end. God is the Lord God, and this is His name, as He Himself defines through the prophet, saying,
“I am the Lord God; this is My name.” God is the ultimate Beauty toward which all things look, the
end to which all things aspire. He is the immutable nature, the sovereign authority, the life without
disturbance, the existence free from sorrow, the unchanging state beyond all transformation. He is
the eternal fountain, the inexhaustible grace, the undiminished treasure, the almighty in mercy, the
abyss of compassion, the boundless sea of philanthropy. God is beyond our comprehension, for He
is not matter, not spirit, not color, not shape, nor anything among existing things or non-existing
things. In terms of essence or existence, He is incomprehensible. God is beyond being; He
transcends all. The more human understanding reaches toward Him, the more it perceives His
unknowable nature. No matter how magnificently one strives to speak of Him, the spoken words
fall short of the truth. For who can comprehend the incomprehensible? Who can articulate the
inexpressible? Who can interpret the unintelligible? How can the clay, animated by Him, and
ignorant even of its own nature, grasp the Creator who gave it life? God is, therefore, both defined
and divided, yet remains undefined and indivisible. This applies to His essence, which is one and
indivisible, but in terms of His persons and energies, there is differentiation. Thus, theologians
sometimes proclaim Him as one and at other times as differentiated, saying that the divine is
indivisible because it is also infinite; infinite because it is unbounded; unbounded because it is

2
simple; simple because it is uncomposed; uncomposed because it is unlimited; unlimited because it is
motionless; motionless because it is without beginning; without beginning because it is uncreated;
uncreated because it is singular and solitary. Because God is singular and solitary, He is, in essence,
entirely inaccessible and thus completely ineffable and unknowable. The only true knowledge one
can have of Him is that He is unknowable. For He is conceived more truly than He is spoken, and
He is more truly than He is conceived.
Paragraph 6: Furthermore, the supreme essence of God is nameless, as it is ineffable and
surpasses all expression through speech. However, each of His energies has a name. Thus, lacking
proper names for that supreme Divinity, we name it from its energies. Again, the divine nature does
not inherently possess a specific name for us, but if anything is said about it—whether from human
convention or from divine Scripture—it pertains to the realities signified about it. Yet the nature
itself remains ineffable and inexpressible, surpassing all expression through speech. Do not seek a
name for God, for you will fail. For everything that is named is named by something greater, so that
it may be called by the name and obey it. Who, then, is the one who has given God a name? For this
reason, someone has said, wishing to speak of God definitively: “It is like one who tries to measure
the depths of the abyss by counting grains of sand.” Since, therefore, God is by nature ineffable,
should we say nothing at all about Him? Certainly not. Such silence would be the counsel of atheists.
But it is proper to speak of God within the bounds of reverence, while refraining from any
irreverence. Otherwise, through such misguided silence, we may fail to affirm that God truly exists.
Instead, let us examine what is spoken of God and what remains unspeakable. Let us honor the
ineffable aspect of His being with complete silence, and where He is knowable, let us define Him
carefully and reverently, as much as we are able
Paragraph 7: Concerning how God is known, and why the divine is incomprehensible, as the
theologians teach, we also remind ourselves: For the energies of God, they say, are manifold, but His
essence is simple. We proclaim that God is known through His energies, but we approach His
essence only through faith. For His energies descend toward us, while His essence remains entirely
inaccessible. Thus, the Holy Spirit is by nature inaccessible, yet through His goodness, He is
receptive, filling all things with His power and communicating Himself only to the worthy. He is
received not in one measure but according to the proportion of each one’s faith, dividing His energy
accordingly. He is accessible in part to the one receiving, while remaining entirely inaccessible in
Himself. That which is entirely incomprehensible is also beyond hope and beyond attainment, and
thus it is only to be marveled at. What is incomprehensible is desired all the more, and this longing
purifies those who desire it. By purification, they are made godlike. To such individuals, God
becomes familiar, as if to His own. Let the word dare to speak boldly: God is united with gods
(those who have become godlike) and makes Himself known to them, to the extent that they are
already able to comprehend what is revealed to them.
Paragraph 8: When I speak of God, I refer to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—the
supreme and most exalted Trinity. We glorify God not in number but in essence. For everything that

3
is described in terms of number must necessarily exist in essence; however, not all that is defined by
number is simple in essence. The world, for instance, is one in number and in unity but is composed
of many elements in essence. Conversely, man is singular in essence but infinite in number through
the diversity of individuals. Likewise, the holy Trinity is one God in essence, absolutely one, and
beyond numerical definition. It is one in the most exceptional sense, opposing the multiplicity and
diversity of false gods. Numerically, it is a Trinity. Whatever is defined by number involves
multiplicity in its essence, but God is one—simple and indivisible, as universally confessed by
theologians. Number pertains to quantity, and quantity is associated with material nature, which is
the foundation of corporeal beings. Yet God, as the Creator of bodies, is incorporeal. Therefore,
how could He be subject to number? Number signifies things that are divisible and circumscribed,
while divine essence is indivisible and infinite. Unity pertains uniquely to God in His essence, as
something utterly simple and incomprehensible. The Godhead, in its totality, is properly called unity
by nature, and Trinity with respect to its hypostases. The essence is the cause of the hypostases, and
the hypostases do not precede the essence. Nor can there be a time when the unity existed without
the Trinity or the Trinity without the unity. God is not the cause of the unity of the Trinity or the
Trinity of the unity—neither partially nor wholly. Rather, in a manner beyond comprehension and
expression, God is both unity and Trinity simultaneously. Thus, the divine Godhead, being above all,
is unity and Trinity—not by our understanding or the created order, but in itself. It is unity in
essence and Trinity in hypostases, yet beyond numerical comprehension. The Father, the Son, and
the Holy Spirit are one Godhead with three properties, one essence with three hypostases, one
nature with three persons, one form with three distinct identities. The Godhead is properly called
essence, nature, form, and being in its singularity, while property, hypostasis, person, and identity are
understood in their triplicity. Therefore, the theologian must first be knowledgeable in the
definitions of divine names, applying them scientifically and with deliberate precision to their
meanings. For example, unity is understood numerically as oneness, while theologically, it signifies a
unified identity that connects all things proceeding from it. Just as the sun is the center of its rays,
from which all rays proceed and to which they are all connected, so too is everything from God,
returning to Him, and revolving around Him.
Paragraph 9: Trinity, in terms of natural progression, is a triple composition of unities. Yet,
concerning divine essence, it is an existence beyond number. In the divine persons, it is not the
essence that begets itself, nor does it generate another essence or one of its hypostases. If essence
were to generate essence, as Augustine says in his work On the Trinity, it would not be generating
itself. For in God, there is no division or separation of essence. Thus, the Father is properly a
hypostasis that is uncaused, begetting, and unbegotten. The Son is properly begotten of the
unbegotten hypostasis, sharing the same essence. The Spirit is properly a power proceeding from the
begetter, sanctifying, sustaining, and immaterial. Though proceeding, it remains indivisible and
incorporeal. It proceeds as a hypostasis from the begetter, and the Godhead is one, with undivided
power and energy shared among the three persons. Essence in God refers primarily and most

4
supremely to being itself, transcending all other beings. Nature in God refers to His intrinsic
existence, which is unconditioned and self-sustaining. Form pertains to the distinctions of essence
shaped by the hypostases, signifying their unique characteristics. Similarly, property refers to that
which is uniquely known in one hypostasis and absent in the others. Hypostasis refers to the union
of essence and properties in a person. Person refers to the manifestation of the unique energies and
properties of each hypostasis, distinctly revealing their identity. Character refers to the essential
relationship of one person as perceived relative to another. Individuality refers to the composition
of properties unique to a person, whose sum cannot be transferred to another. God is unoriginate,
existing before all time and persons, eternal without growth or diminishment. He is immutable,
beyond change in His nature, and incorruptible, sustaining all without deficiency or alteration.
Subsistence pertains to His existence in Himself, recognized through the divine essence.
Consubstantiality signifies the identical essence equally shared. In the incarnation, Christ unites
divine and human natures in one hypostasis, one person. As such, Christ is the light of the world,
the joy, the way, the door, the rest, the peace, the truth, and the life. These and countless other truths
must be understood by anyone who speaks of God. Let us now return to the matter at hand.
Paragraph 10: That we should say that God is three, is according to the same thing as a single
matter, in order that a triad may be introduced instead of a single entity. But I rather direct it with
subjugation to that which is specific to each of them, according to nature. For when we speak of
God, we mean each of the divine persons, and we dare also to speak of divinity, because just as man
and humanity, though both signify the whole, are said differently with respect to their subjects—so
too are God and divinity. For God signifies the being of the Creator, while divinity refers to the
activity of God. There is, then, an action of the three, but rather the action of each one of them
individually. Divinity of the Father is spoken of, and likewise the divinity of the Son and the Holy
Spirit. Just as humanity is spoken of with respect to Peter, so likewise we speak of divinity in terms
of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God signifies the essence, while divinity signifies the energy; and
so the energy of the three is one, though each operates distinctly. Thus, the divinity of the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Spirit are referred to specifically as distinct from one another in their
individual essences, yet in a single being they are all unified. For as we say that man is humanity, so
also we say that God is divinity in the fullness of their expression. The Father’s divinity is distinct, as
is the divinity of the Son and the Spirit, yet they are unified and simultaneous in their essence and
actions.
Paragraph 11: That God is one for us, that same God is the one who is asked, and this is the
uniqueness; one before two, and the triad is preceded by the duo, as if to say that the one comes
before the two, and the two precede the triad in the progression of nature. This triad, therefore, is
subject to the potentiality of both positioning and dissolution, or to the formation and removal of
one from another. Just as the duo leads to one and then the triad follows, so the process is observed
in a cyclical pattern: the duo leads to the triad and becomes one in the final arrangement. And thus,
we see that the one leads to the duo, and then again to the triad, as it is in the natural order of

5
numbers and progression. For in the order of creation, there is a natural unfolding, and thus, we say
that the Father is first, followed by the Son and the Holy Spirit. In their divine essence, the sequence
is ordered, yet they are eternally present and of one essence. For in the creation of all things, the
Father is the source, the Son is the Word, and the Holy Spirit is the completion of all. Thus, the
unity of the divine essence is not dissolved, and the three persons maintain their distinctive
identities, yet they remain perfectly one in essence and in the act of creation. The unity and
distinction of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are expressed as a perfect harmony in which
the Father initiates, the Son completes, and the Spirit perfects the action. This is the mystery of the
Trinity, and this is the essence of divine theology: the unity of the one with the three, as expressed
in the divine will and action, which is a singular act of creation. For in this process, we do not speak
merely of numbers but of a divine reality that transcends simple numerical progression, rooted in
the being of the divine. The Triune God is thus the model for all created beings and the foundation
of all creation.
Paragraph 12: If there is any confusion, the unity moves from the one to the two; and the one is
the cause of unity, and the triad is the result of the progression. And the movement of the one, as it
proceeds, is transcended by the two. And such things are said in relation to the common essence of
the three, but especially regarding the submission of the Father alone as it has been expressed by the
theologian, just as the two pertain to the common nature of the Son and the Holy Spirit, but
specifically to the submissions alone. For the essence, as it is said of all things, is common in its
essence, whatever comes from the cause of submission. But if the Father alone has the cause of
submission in his own essence, the Son and the Spirit will have a cause from the Father that pertains
to each individually. The essence of the Father is without cause, and it is the same for the other
persons, as it pertains to their distinctness. Thus, the entire one is in the whole of the Triad in a
transcendent way, and the entire Triad is in the whole of the one in a definitive way. For in the
totality of the three, the divinity is the same, and all things are the same in the persons: Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit, in the fullness of the transcendent divinity. For if from infinite and various essences
the world is constituted, in this entire world there would be a simultaneous manifestation of the
divine, and this would be seen through the diverse varieties of bodies, which reflect the superior
essence from which they derive. Much more so in the complete absence of matter and in the purest
form of divinity, all things are manifested in the divine persons. For when we speak of God,
whether according to position, or subtraction, or superiority and transcendence, we speak of these
matters concerning essence. These are concerning the essence observed through divine
contemplation, and even when called in a more natural way, they are still parts of the essence, for
divinity is indivisible. Just as fire, which manifests itself in heat and light, exists differently in terms
of the qualities of its effects, yet it is perceived in its whole as fire, in the same way, the divinity is
perceived as transcendent in its fullness. Yet, the substance of fire—whether warm, luminous, or
corrosive—is simply fire, as it exists in the essence of its natural properties. However, the essence of
the fire is considered in its totality, and these distinctions, while appearing in their effects, are seen as

6
one in the essence of the fire. In the same way, the divinity of the Three Persons is seen in its
diversity, but the essence remains indivisible and undivided. Every essence has its power and activity,
yet the essence remains one. Even when appearing as separate, it is indivisible in its action, like the
simplicity of divine energy. Thus, we speak of the unity of essence and the multiplicity of activity,
where the activity is indivisible, but the essence remains undivided. This is necessary, for there must
be a unity of essence and activity, and without the unity of essence, there can be no distinct working
of the divine energy. The simplicity of the essence does not diminish the distinct action of each
person in the Godhead. In all things, where one perceives variety and distinction, there is unity in
essence that transcends division. For every essence has both a power and an energy, though these
manifest themselves as diverse in their effects, yet the unity remains in the essence, transcending all
divisions. And so, in all things, there is both unity and variety, even when distinct manifestations of
the divine energy are observed in each of the persons of the Trinity.
Paragraph 13: If in the case of the simple things it is evident, much more must the same God,
who is both divisible and indivisible, be understood in terms of the same principle: united, not by
distinction, but in the unity of distinctions, and yet distinguished within the unity itself. Unspoken in
its proceeding, and in its immobility, ever in motion; indivisibly divided, yet wholly united according
to the previously mentioned pattern. Gregory of Nyssa also says in his writings on the Eunomian
heresy that there are external meanings by which the faithful gather from many names the orthodox
concepts concerning God. Should we think of the divine in terms of some mixture or progression
from one form to another? Is it some geometrical process that creates such divisions? It could be
said of such things that, by implication, they could hold in other arts such as medicine, grammar,
agriculture, or other practical disciplines. But when such diverse meanings in the sciences lead to one
view in the soul, should the soul itself not be distinguished by its specific practice? If the human
intellect can be swayed by so many names, how much more can the divine not be seen through such
imprecise distinctions, where words and concepts seem to escape from being merely simple? How
then can we think that God, who is clear, just, good, eternal, and all things that are fitting for God to
be called, has one meaning in all these names, except that all these names gather together into one
simple meaning or multitude? Cyril of Alexandria, in his writings, also suggests that the divine is
known through its essence and its nature, including will, vision, and judgment. For the Father does
indeed create naturally, whereas the Son creates by His creative power. It is true that the divine
simplicity transcends such distinctions, as the true God’s nature is far above all these mundane
perceptions. If such a state exists where God's nature is above all, how then can any of these
assumptions be applied to Him? The essence and attributes must be considered as undivided but
also inseparable in their purpose and function.
Paragraph 14: What is simpler than the unit itself in terms of numbers? However, there is a
difference between being one and being divisible or being energy. The unit itself is indivisible, yet
when multiplied, it forms other forms and exists in various numerical relations. For instance, when
multiplying by two, we get the double, and by three, the triple; when multiplying by four, the

7
quadruple, and so on, this process continuing indefinitely. Each of these divisions or formations
maintains its essential quality and order, whether it becomes a square, triangle, or any other
configuration. These forms are always dependent upon the initial unit. But in the divine essence,
these divisions are not merely repetitions of the same but are transformed into a higher
understanding. The divine essence, in its purity, is ever the same but can appear in various forms,
with each manifestation still rooted in its divine nature. It is therefore inappropriate to think that
multiplicity divides the divine simplicity, for in fact, each form is an expression of the unity of the
divine essence. The divine simplicity, therefore, transcends all multiplicity and variety, even as it
includes them. This variety does not disrupt its simplicity but rather reveals its complexity in a way
that does not divide the essence, but enhances the full understanding of the divine nature. Thus,
while the divine may appear in various forms or effects, the essence remains singular and undivided,
united in a perfect simplicity that is beyond human comprehension.
Paragraph 15: But how does he say this about the duality, and how all things are in totality, and
each one according to its own? How? The "how," in fact, does not apply universally to all divine
things, for it transcends everything else; for it surpasses every manner of "how," and also every
reason, and of the questions of those who seek. But here, it appears that in such matters, we must
live with the "how," for anyone who attempts such things would be driven mad; for what is a
beginning is an inherent part of nature, and is known only by itself, in accordance with its own
nature. Yet, in its divine wisdom, it is considered to be something beyond human comprehension or
perception, appearing to be a highest nature and indivisible. For a body moves through the body, or
as a whole, through the whole; the body moves completely and is not confused, being distinct and
unchanging in both parts. Indeed, two bodies can occupy the same space, yet they retain their
separate natures, not intermingling with one another. But the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, while
having distinct manifestations, exist not in time, space, or distance, but above these things: they are
without body, without time, and without measure, yet they exist beyond all of these. In regard to the
Orthodox teachings, and in the correction of the contrary ideas of those thinking otherwise, one
must affirm that, in the totality of the divine persons, there is both unity and a highest point of
blessing.
Paragraph 16: But the single reason (word) of ours stretches far in length, as I see you being
filled with that which was given to you, and being brought to a starting point to further points; for
by what proof can this be done? I call upon you, then, to consider what the divine love in you
understands, that the entire intelligible world, which contains the blissful Trinity, is indeed your soul.
And this happens in the following manner. The tetrad of virtues, in their eighth form, blends with
the physical and parental virtues, one of which takes place at each of the two ends of the days of
these virtues. For each person in the same manner reaches the triadic state. In understanding,
knowledge is revived and the theory of wisdom; in justice, the act of distinction and a rational,
dispassionate mind; in bravery, steadfastness and solid purpose; in temperance, purity and chastity.
This triadic tetrad, as the Creator and Maker of God dwells in wisdom, sits upon the throne of the

8
mind, sending out the Word, for the creation of the world and the virtues. He also takes from the
first causes, from each of the elements mentioned, and creates the intelligible world of piety in the
soul. And the heaven, or the physical fire, extends to it the mind, which is filled with the perfect life.
In it, as two great lights, divine knowledge shines like the theory of nature, illuminating and
brightening the way. As it becomes the foundation for justice, it leads to an ineffable joy. And it
spreads the air with temperance, bringing about cooling and rest for the purest of lives. As the sea
surrounds bravery, the weakness of nature is cleansed, demolishing defenses and uplifting them
against opposition. In this way, the Word builds the world, placing the spirit into motion, making it
mentally active and always moving, to be boundless and constant, as David speaks of the divine
Word, "The heavens declare the glory of God" (Psalm 19:1), and all the spirit and work of creation
is carried out by the will of God.
Paragraph 17: For the ship, the house, the judge, the city, the plant, the earth, the altar, and all
learning, every creation, and God, man is like them. Some by the pattern, some by their motions, in
such a way that they are recognized. Thus, it is necessary, just as a ship faces the waves and the
violent sea, to struggle and avoid the storm, steering it to a calm and safe harbor with the hand of
the captain. Similarly, the home provides comfort and rest to its inhabitants; so too does the judge,
keeping and preserving justice. Likewise, the city is indestructible by the attacks of hostile enemies,
and the plant brings forth fruit through the virtuous labor of the farmer. The earth, too, yields good
things from all the actions that come from it. The altar shines with good deeds, and all teachings
guide one towards goodness. Similarly, everything created is like this, in body and spirit, from the
Creator, and directs towards the other creations. For the Lord rejoices in His works. As God,
through grace, returns to the original, He imitates and becomes like the divine works. Thus, the great
world will appear in a small space of the visible world. And the image of God will be called and
recognized in all His works.
Paragraph 18: Man is thus similar to all of these. It is fitting for him to always remain vigilant, as
he who faithfully follows the law, whose throne is before God, and whose mouth speaks with Christ.
His heart is the temple of the Holy Spirit, the good thoughts are his companions, and his offerings
are prayer, psalmody, and silence. His soul is the sanctuary, and his body is the temple; his senses are
the windows and gates, while his mind is the portal, and his conscience is the doorkeeper. When a
Christian is in his work, he must prepare for departure, leaving behind that which does not belong to
him, not allowing his tongue to speak what is unnecessary, nor accepting the enemy's work in the
temple of God. The doorkeepers must prevent the enemy from entering, while evil offerings must
be denied. They should open the doors and windows of the temple to keep them closed. If the
doorkeeper is negligent, the enemy, as beasts or reptiles, may enter and exit freely, with no
obstruction. This is how the house of God is desecrated. How then will such a person be punished
in the coming age and not in the eternal future?
Paragraph 19: It is necessary for every saved soul to bend towards its own heart daily and hourly,
to examine, judge, and cleanse it of the sinful and impure thoughts and desires. These are the

9
enemies that must be driven out, as described in the Psalms. Early in the morning, one should shut
off all sin and wickedness from the earth and from the city, so as to utterly destroy them. Just as the
eyes purify the sight, the ears purify the listening, the nose purifies the scent, and the mouth purifies
the speech, so should every part of the body be cleansed. One should flee from every thought and
illusion that may lead to defilement, such as ignorance from the mind, malice and wickedness from
the reasoning, false glory and heretical opinions from the imagination, and vain and erroneous
interpretations from the will. All of these should be avoided in the pursuit of a pure and holy life.
Paragraph 20: That these things belong properly to the rational soul: to see itself, to order itself,
to make itself whatever it wishes, to bear its own fruit within itself, to attain its own proper end, to
move in accordance with its own motion, to traverse the cosmos and that which moves around it, to
extend itself into the infinity of the ages, to encompass within itself the periodic regeneration of all
things, to love its neighbor, and to prefer nothing above itself. If these things are so, then, like a
sculptor of a statue which must become beautiful, one thing he removes, another he smooths down,
another he polishes, and another he purifies, until he reveals a beautiful form upon the statue—thus
also you must remove what is superfluous, straighten what is crooked, illuminate what is dark, and
do not cease refining your own statue until the divine radiance of virtue shines forth. For you have
power and authority with God to shape yourself, to fashion yourself, and to adorn yourself with
every form of beauty, as long as you remain in existence. Therefore, in every way strive to elevate
the divine element within you to the divine which is in the whole. For this is how a human being is
truly a work of God, to the extent that he is able to be beautiful. And how much he is able to be
beautiful is testified by the lives and words of the saints. And indeed, your soul is a fountain: if you
dig into it, it is purified; if you neglect it, it disappears. A pure conscience brings it forth, but a
careless mind buries it. It is buried in the flesh if it does not transcend the flesh. For the soul is a
treasury—if filled with good things, it is good; if with evil things, it is evil. A pure soul is with God;
and God is most intimate with a pure soul on the earth, and such a person possesses God. For a
person who is worthy of God is, in a sense, God within a human being. Therefore, since you have
received a mortal body but an immortal soul, strive to leave behind an immortal memory of this
immortal part. For, as you see, due to the weakness of nature, all human beings live only for a short
time in this world and then depart to the next. And for those among us who have accomplished
nothing noteworthy, with the end of their bodies comes also the end of all things pertaining to their
life. But for those who have gained the renown of virtue, both their deeds and their names are
remembered forever. It is a noble thing for those who have wisdom to exchange necessary toils for
undying renown. Let each one of us, therefore, purify his own soul daily and render it worthy of
receiving God, especially now when we have the holy days of fasting for purification. For if we do
this, then as citizens of this world, we will dwell here in the passing things, but there in the unending
things, attaining to the eternal blessedness, which may we all receive by the goodness of the all-holy
Trinity. Amen.

10
 DISCOURSE II. CONCERNING THE TRANSCENDENTAL TRINITY.
In the same palace, and in the same spoken place, with the silence of those from the Galatian
priests, into some sort of hearing.

Paragraph 1: God is to me glory and wealth and boast; God the sweetest and most pleasant
above all things, thing. God the meditation and delight for those living as Christians. God: breath is
my soul, image of God is the shaping of my body; to God I am wholly an icon; by God's divine
grace is my generation. From God is my being, my movement is from God, my breathing is from
God, my utterance is from God; to God in each moment I entrust my spirit. To God I bring my
thanks, as many as are hours. To God I live and die, and I am present to God the great and strong
and living, the giver and fulfillment, and of the good things I am a partaker. God I entreat, what I
think and say and do, I do. God as a fearful judge of those things not done by me I await. And how
then shall I begin the word of the temple from another place, but from God? For to those who are
natural from the universal it is reasonable, because of the known, the way to the particular; and to
those who are skilled it is unreasonable from the technical arts to the signs the ascent. But me having
set aside these methods far, not from the creation to the creator is the word, and again to the
creation I go; but from the maker to the makings, and again to the maker. I do this by word, and not
as if to contradict, or to hate, simply and as it happens; but since the sequence of the Orthodox
Church, and according to God's own will, having begun four hundred and a thousand years ago, and
extending until the age, has shown that it accomplishes what, not beginning from God, discourses
about Him and ends in Him, and me attempting to speak about God, thus the word makes me a
pedagogue.
Paragraph 2: Therefore, the order that follows this generation and upbringing preserves this
without deviation, and this I must speak of and keep, and not carelessly cut a path through the
whole; for this reason, I lead the word back there where I had previously rested it. And at that time
the section had the following wording: Nevertheless, in addition to a refutation of the Orthodox
dogmas, and for a correction of those thinking contrary to the saints, if you wish, thus concerning
the totality in totality of the divine persons, the extremity and the middle must be theologized, as I
had the sayings to you of my obligation. But now I have come to fulfill these things. And let no one
find fault with me in the manner of my demonstration, that I attempt to show with three fingers the
tri-hypostatic nature of the Godhead. For to some this might seem unworthy of the divine majesty,
as it seems to me, and to accuse this at length, which is above these things, because the name of
God is difficult for those accustomed to speaking Greek to syllable; of the tongue, of the teeth, and
of the lips, because they dare to utter at all the unutterable. And to be indignant at the painters,
because they shape not only the incarnate Son, but also the Father and the Spirit with colors; and
moreover to find fault with the holy martyrs, because they showed the formless one to the tyrants
with their own fingers; but these are not blasphemous, nor unworthy of God; far from it! For it only
brings those who are attentive to a single understanding of the things said, and the benefit of the

11
representations is toward them, bringing down the Most High to something petty, and to those who
benefit in many ways, the inaccessible and the inviolable is not even slightly opened. But it is
necessary for one speaking simply to those who are simple to move his hand with something more
elevated and more practiced, and for the tongue to follow this movement, and for both to be shown,
and for the word to be demonstrated; rather, for both to testify to the truth of the things said, and
to represent the godly in a twofold manner, by word and image, if perchance it introduces
knowledge of the things said into both hearing and sight. But let us go closer to the things said and
believed by us; remember, that beginning from nothing, because of the silence of the inactive, we
will be led into those things shortly by the impetus of the word, of which the concept is almost
beyond and attend.
Paragraph 3: Behold, I show you as an example for what is proposed, my two fingers of the
physical hand; the middle of my right hand and the little finger. The one, keeping the center of the
circle, the middle, and the other, making the circumference, the little finger. These alone are the radii
of the three circles of the three fingers of the right hand, having a center common to all, so that the
center of each is the conjunction with the circumference of the rest, and each circumference is
found with the centers of the two. And these being thus, let an immaterial circle be drawn with the
tip of the middle finger as a center and the space of the little finger as a diameter, as a type of the
Trinity beheld as Father; and again, with the tip of the little finger as a center and the circumference
of the middle as a diameter, let another circle be conceived, as an image of the Trinity believed as
Son; and yet again, with the tip of the ring finger as a center and the space of the middle as a
diameter, let another circle be drawn as an example of the Trinity beheld as Spirit. And these circles,
thus shaped by the fingers through the straight line, imagine that you see in the high expanse of the
air, great and beautifully formed in three colors, like the rainbow which we often see, I mean the
circular bow of the rainbow, depicted by way of illustration; then by the power of the mind
transform these into exceedingly great spheres; and having made the spheres not physical but
incorporeal, having lowered them with the sun and raised them up, fix them in the firmament. And
then, having them thus in relation to one another, as the circles had in relation to one another here.
Paragraph 4: So that the example may be closer to the goal and more theologically fitting for us,
let us conceive of these removed centers of the circles, and let all their circumferences contain all
the supercelestial things, and thus let them be beheld as three suns, infinite in size, shining with one
light and in three rays; in beauty, brightness, power, and in all the peculiar properties of each equally,
all in all, and not each in each, and the same and to the rest, and at the same time both middle and
hyper-middle, and again extreme and hyper-extreme to one another, and each beheld individually in
itself as seeing God, as all the prophets saw; for Ezekiel said concerning the same vision, "This is
the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord." And boasting in the Lord I say, "This
image is suitable for the demonstration of the tri-solar Godhead, insofar as it is attainable for us,
and of the equal middle and extremity of the persons there to one another." And you, taking from

12
the example as much as is useful, leave the rest; for leave the form, and the distinction, and the more
local movement to those things which are shaped and moved circumscriptively with a local interval.
Paragraph 5: And that whatever middle of the circles you take, the rest are understood as
extremes of the one taken immediately, and that each of them can be understood as both extreme
and middle, and that whatever middle you conceive of the rest, imagining each, you have not left
either the Father, these things you posit as symbols of the middle and extremity of the Trinity; for
taking the middle of the three persons of the Godhead, you will find the rest extremes; and each is
thus both middle and extreme; and if you consider them as extremes, they have not been separated
from one another; and if you imagine them, they have surrounded you. And that I speak truly in
these things, the teachers are present as witnesses; for of these, Maximus, the greatest in confession,
thus summarizes the discourse for us, saying: "By what theorem, from three circles equal to one
another, and equally distant from one another, let us contemplate; from the right of God and
Father, the Son and Word; from the right of the Son and Word, the Holy Spirit, the Procession; and
from the right of the Holy Spirit and the Procession, God and Father; and conversely; from the
left of God and Father, the Holy Spirit and the Procession; from the left
of the Holy Spirit and the Procession, the Son and Word; from the
left of God and Word, God and Father. And again the same: For
from the Father, passing through the Son by the mind, I arrive at
the Spirit; and in the Father, through the Spirit, I arrive at the Son;
and from the Son to the Father through the Spirit; and from the
Son to the Spirit through the Father; and from the Spirit through
the Father to the Son; and in the Spirit through the Son to the
Father, see, a dance which you have never seen before?" (See the
figure.) And these things Maximus the Great says to me.
Paragraph 6: Athanasius, the much-enduring, as he says in the first and second books of his
theological works, concerning the three who sat down with Abraham, namely, with the only-
begotten Son on the right, and the Father on the left, the Holy Spirit sat down. This is the distinct
seating for him, as the theologian Gregory says concerning the Holy Spirit: "undivided in the
divided, to speak briefly, the Godhead is as if in three suns, connected to one another, one in the
mixture of light." And Gregory the Neo-Caesarean, in his apology to Eunomius concerning the Son
and the Spirit, as to how they are in relation to the Father, says: "We will not conceive of the Son
from the Father in an inclined manner, but rather as another sun from the sun, shining together with
the prior conception in a radiant manner; and in all ways similarly having, in beauty, power,
brilliance, radiance, and simply in all things contemplated concerning the sun; and also the Holy
Spirit, another light of this kind, we conceive in the same manner. Thus have the saints."
Paragraph 7: Nor does anything prevent us from receiving even more theologically fitting
goodwill and ascent concerning God from here; for those things which are indicative of time,
divisive of nature, or additive of local position, or demonstrative of quantity, or significant of

13
quality, or delimitative of interval, or indicative of form, such things are not appropriate; but all
things must be taken theologically, and insofar as they are most fitting to the venerable Trinity; for
suns, and spheres, and circles, and centers, and circumferences, and intervals, and all such things are
bodies, or names of bodies; but God is entirely immaterial and indivisible and nameless, and
moreover incomparably more subtle and immaterial than souls and angels and all the immaterial;
because souls, and angels, and every immaterial thing, whatever it may be, and however it may be
conceived, or beheld, or become, in that it exists, and remains, and is circumscribed, and is
composed, and comes through all, or is in all, is perceivable. God, however, is not limited by time, or
place, or body, or any created thing, material or immaterial, and is similarly not capable of being
greater or lesser in quantity, and of passing through all, and of being defined in all, and of infinitely
surpassing and extending beyond all. And just as the all-embracing and purified, and illuminated by
the Holy Spirit soul, passes through all the creations it energizes impassively and effortlessly, and in
itself and instantaneously and indivisibly reaches to the ends of all things which it knows, and is
immaterially mixed with all, and is unmixed with all; thus also, and in a far more incomparable
manner, God over all, the Trinity, is both the end of beings and infinity; an end, as ending them; and
infinity, as extending beyond them; and is found everywhere, and is present to all, and fills all, as
being above all; for His infinity, completing all, infinitely surpasses all. And when the great is said of
God, it does not signify great in relation to something else, but absolutely great, with nothing with
which it could be great, since if it is great in relation to something, then it is by comparison, and by
nature it is not thus, but incomparably great.
Paragraph 8: For concerning the divine and separated God, let us conceive of a divine length
extending infinitely beyond all; a breadth as providence, which extends to all things by a providential
providence; and a depth as the hiddenness which is seen by all existing things. Therefore, rather the
divine is a house for the whole cosmos, but not the whole cosmos is a house for God. For the whole
cosmos is circumscribed by God, but God is indescribable to the whole cosmos; and being is in
God, and not God in being; for He is above all, and Himself is the cosmos, and around the whole,
and beyond the entire cosmos according to a boundless region, and in every part of the whole
cosmos He is found wholly; and infinitely beyond all things in an infinite manner He extends. And
setting aside the so-called motion, according to generation, according to corruption, according to
increase, according to decrease, according to alteration, and according to every kind of change; the
divine, when it becomes, is always being; when it is corrupted, it is eternal being; when it increases, it
is perfect being; when it decreases, it is immutable being; when it is altered, it is without quality
being; when it changes place, for where shall that which fills all change? Nor does it take away what
it does not have, nor does it lose what it has; nor does it receive beforehand what it does not have.
Paragraph 9: Thus for us, and it is conceived, and glorified, and theologized concerning the
middle and extremity of the divine persons in relation to one another, that as in heavenly bodies the
sun is the most beautiful, and in solid bodies the sphere is the best, and in linear figures the circle is
excellent; and it is fitting, when speaking to human beings, to liken the divine to things greater and

14
more real for us, both things and names, rather than to those things which are unlike its majesty.
However, not all think thus; but while some confess the tri-solar nature of the Godhead out of
reverence for the teachers, yet they imagine the Father as a super-celestial sun, the Son as a celestial
one, and the Holy Spirit as sub-cosmic, or contained within the whole cosmos. So that according to
them, in the indescribable and incomprehensible Trinity, the person of the Spirit is separated from
that of the Father, and that from this one; as if by a kind of interposition and mediation, they are
separated from one another, and the Father is first and highest above the Spirit, and first and higher
than the Son, and as the super-celestial, furthest from us. The Son is second to the Father and lower,
but first and higher than the Spirit, and closer to us than the Father as celestial. The Holy Spirit is
second to the Son, and third to the Father; and is more earthly than the Son and lower, and lowest
of the Father, and closer to us, as having descended from the highest to the lowest; and the Father
alone is directly and immediately related only to the Son; and is the extreme uppermost alone, and
not the middle of anything; but the Son alone is the middle of the Father and the Spirit, and holding
the middle position, and is directly and immediately related only to the Father, and is the extreme of
the indirect; but the Holy Spirit alone is indirectly the extreme of the Father, and directly to the Son,
and the middle of none; and all are from above downward, and in succession the persons are in a
row; neither to the right nor to the left; nor is the Father a union of the Son and the Spirit, nor is the
Holy Spirit a middle between the begotten and the generating, nor are all things in all things. And it
is not fitting for all to be equal to one another, nor do they preserve the sequence in their thoughts,
who do not give through all to the Son, nor to the Spirit. Nor do they remember the Prophet saying,
"Whither shall I go from thy Spirit? Or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend into
heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there." 1 And what contradiction
and opposition will they offer to the Scriptures, which say, "He sits at my right hand," and "He sat
down on the right hand of the Majesty on high," said of the Son; and "The Lord shall crush him on
the right hand in the day of his wrath," said of the Spirit? For "on the right hand" does not indicate
a lower place, as this discourse wishes, but rather it clearly shows an equality here, from the
honorable names of the session, the grandeur of the honor concerning the Son and the Spirit, the
discourse comparing. For I think this establishes for all, and clearly shows the all-holy nature, and
indicates by the right hand a co-equality of dignity. But they wish only to preserve their own
opinion, in whatever way they imagine the divine persons in themselves, as their own discourse, as it
were, sets forth, and the figures below demonstrate.
Paragraph 10: Behold, then, they depict the Trinity with the Son as the middle of both the
Father and the Spirit, and the extremes as the Father above and the Spirit below; so that the Son is
immediately and directly related to both, but they are indirectly and distantly related to each other.
And simply speaking, this figure shows an order and enumeration, and as it were, a kind of local
position concerning the divine, and reveals what is prior and posterior, and whatever was noted a
little while ago; for thus they conceive of it. But despising these, adhere closely to the truth, and
consider carefully what is thought by the theologians concerning the matter at hand. For Gregory

15
says, "And this is common and life-giving, and for the whole Godhead, for all to partake
immediately of the whole, and for none to partake of any part as a center is a point in the middle of
a circle, to which all the circumferences around the circle are attached. And just as many impressions
of a seal partake of the archetypal seal, and in each of the impressions, the whole is present, and yet
none partakes of any part, and very rightly, for I would say that if one touches something which is
everywhere equal, wherever one touches, it does not differ in any part, as a point, I mean, of a
sphere, a circle, and of such simple things; thus the theologian of the Trinity, who surpasses all
equality incomparably, wherever he begins, does not impair the unity, but let him speak as he wishes,
but as God has spoken about Himself through the saints. And also the holy Maximus, again
theologizing about the Holy Trinity, and signifying how it is divided indivisibly, and indivisibly
divided, says, "One God is one Godhead, without beginning, and simple, and super-essential,
undivided and inseparable; the same monad and triad, the whole monad is the same, and the whole
triad is the same monad. The whole is one according to the unity, and the whole is a triad according
to the hypostases. For the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are the Godhead, and the
Godhead is wholly in the whole Father, and the whole Father is wholly in the whole Godhead; the
whole is wholly in the whole Son, and the whole Son is wholly in the whole; the whole is wholly in
the whole Holy Spirit, and the whole Holy Spirit is wholly in the whole. For the Godhead is not
partially in the Father, nor is the Father partially God; nor is the Godhead partially in the Son, nor is
the Son partially God; nor is the Godhead partially in the Spirit, nor is the Holy Spirit partially God.
For neither is the Godhead partial, nor is the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit imperfectly God;
but the whole is perfectly and wholly in the perfect Father; and the whole is perfectly and wholly in
the perfect Son; and the whole is perfectly and wholly in the perfect Holy Spirit. For the whole
Father is perfectly in the whole Son and in the whole Spirit; and the whole Son is perfectly in the
whole Father and in the whole Spirit; and the whole Holy Spirit is perfectly in the whole Father and

16
in the whole Son. For one and the same is the nature and essence of the Father, and of the Son, and
of the Holy Spirit; for there is no essence distinct from itself according to essence, separated from
the other two, nor can it be conceived or said in an impious manner to be divided."
Paragraph 11: But these things, concerning the middle and extremity of each of the divine
persons of the Trinity, are sufficient for the present for those who are doubtful. But what follows
these must be stored up for another hearing, after first calling upon your love, to take care of the
goods of the soul first, and for the sake of the soul to attend to the other affairs of the soul, and to
care for the body, referring its care to the service of the soul; and to acquire wealth or things for the
sake of the body, but to order all things for the sake of the soul, and the pursuits of the soul; for of
our possessions, after God, the soul is the most divine. And all our possessions are twofold, those
which benefit and improve us, and those which harm and corrupt; and those which benefit are to be
preferred to those which harm; therefore, as God is to be preferred to all other things, so also the
soul is to be preferred. But he honors it who does not work evil from good, nor who fills himself
with evils and regrets, nor who flees from praiseworthy labors; for he who does so works
dishonorably; nor he who desires a praiseworthy death; for the dissolution from the body, and the
life of the soul by itself, would be pleasant for such a person; nor he who prefers wealth, beauty, or
money; for thus he shows himself to be more in need of lesser things than the soul. For the one
honor for the soul is the life according to right reason, and the perfection of the soul according to
reason; and to have found and obtained the best of all things, and having found it, to spend the rest
of one's life in perfecting it - this is nothing other than to philosophize properly; that is, to reverence
God in deeds, to praise Him in words, to honor Him with goodwill, and to acquire reason
continually; for all things desirable to humans are of reason and mind. For if a person is deprived of
sensation and mind, he becomes like a plant; and if he is deprived of mind alone, he becomes
bestial; but if he is deprived of irrationality, and remains in mind alone, he becomes similar to God.
Paragraph 12: One must destroy in oneself the power of irrationality, and one must use the pure
energies of the mind, and turn to oneself and to the divine; and one must practice the exercises of
the soul, directing all one's attention and love to this, and in all actions and all other things, one must
turn to mind and to God. The benefit of this practice surpasses all difficulty and labor; for any
difficulty in acquiring it is inferior in magnitude to the greatness of the benefit. Nor should one sail
to Egypt, and the Tanais, and distant Heracles for the sake of wealth, and often be in danger, and
not labor or spend for the sake of this good; or to desire the servile life, rather than the godly life,
and to seek wealth, but to have no care at all for the good. Therefore, one must either care for the
soul, or happily saying "I am about to depart from life," go hence; for all other things seem to be
mere chatter and nonsense; such as money and possessions, glory, honors, and all that are like these.
For instance, God has given us all things in pairs by nature, two eyes, two ears, two nostrils, two
hands, two feet; if one of these is harmed, we are helped by the other; but He has given us one soul,
and if we lose this, with what shall we live? For it is necessary that a soul deprived of its communion

17
with God becomes a dwelling place for unclean spirits; for the light of the soul is holy knowledge,
and the one who is deprived of it wanders in darkness.
Paragraph 13: For the mind is called the head of the soul, and the virtues are like hair upon it,
and being shorn of these, like another Samson, the Christian is separated from the knowledge of
God, and is led captive by demons to a desolate place. Just as health and sickness are considered in
relation to the body, and light and darkness in relation to the eye, so virtue and vice are in relation to
the soul, and knowledge and ignorance in relation to the mind. And just as God created the body
without sickness, so also the soul without evil or sin. But the soul, deviating from its nature, follows
the unnatural. And the good that is primary for it is communion with God, from which having
fallen, it is enslaved by various passions. For just as one who falls from health, the more severely he
is sick, the farther he is from life and the closer he is to death, so also the soul deprived of virtue,
the more it departs from it, the farther it is from God and the closer it is to the enemy; therefore,
they say that as many passions of the soul there are, so many masters of it. And just as a small and
inexperienced child, imagining phantoms, follows them from simplicity, so also our soul, being
simple and good, being thus created by the good God, takes pleasure in the phantasmal attacks of
the opposite, and being deceived, runs forward as if to something good. And as if someone, when
the sun is shining, and the whole earth is illuminated by its light, were to close their eyes and imagine
darkness, although there is no darkness, and then, wandering as if in darkness, often falls over cliffs;
so also the soul, having closed its discerning eye by which it can see God, imagines evils for itself, in
which moving, although it seems to itself to be doing something, it does nothing at all. For it
fashions what does not exist; and it does not remain as it has become, but as it mingles with things,
so it appears to have become. For it is for the sake of seeing God and being illuminated by Him; but
instead of God, it seeks the corruptible and darkness. And therefore, just as one who has closed his
eyes has darkness as his own, so he who is far removed from the true light, having gone outside of
the illuminating, is confused by the spiritual darkness. And just as the separation of the soul from
the body is death for the body, so the separation of God from the soul is death for the soul. And
just as the body lives because the soul is present, so also the soul, with the presence of the divine
Spirit, lives; separated, it perishes, as is said, and lives a miserable life, dissolving into non-being, and
enduring a death more grievous than any; and just as the soul naturally gives life to the body, so
virtue and knowledge give life to the soul; and just as the body appears beautiful when clothed in
golden garments, so the soul appears beautiful and superlatively beautiful, clothed in Christ; for as
many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ, says Christ. And what could be more
beautiful?
Paragraph 14: Therefore, let us be aroused to the care of the soul; let us grieve over the vanity
of the life we have lived; let us strive for the things to come. This age is the age of repentance, the
other is the age of recompense; this is the age of labor, the other of reward; this is the age of
endurance, the other of consolation; now God becomes the helper of those turning away from the
evil path, then He is a fearful and unreasoning judge of human actions, words, and thoughts. For

18
just as the soul is more honorable than the body, so much more excellent is the rational human being
than the whole cosmos. Do not, considering the magnitude of the creatures in it, think that these are
more honorable than you; but looking to the grace given to you, and the worth of the rational and
intellectual soul, glorify the God who honored you above all visible things. For Asia, Libya, Europe
are corners of the cosmos; the Ocean, the Red Sea, the Caspian Sea, the Pontus, the Aegean, and
every sea are waves of the cosmos; Atlas and Caucasus, Haemus and Alps, Lebanon, Olympus are
clods of the cosmos; all the distinction of temporal time is a moment of eternity, and an instant of
the infinite age; all is small and transitory. After God and the angels, truly great and alone is the soul,
and for this reason man was created and exists, to contemplate the reason of the whole of nature,
and to know himself, and to know God. And he who wishes to live as a human being must, if
nothing else, have self-examination. Whence the ancients philosophized thus: "If you wish to know
God, first know yourself." And again, "Whoever is able to analyze all that comes into being, under
one and the same principle, and to synthesize and enumerate them, this one has found a most true
and wise saying; for indeed he has found a beautiful watchtower, from which he will be able to see
God overlooking all things that are in the universe, and having obtained this chariot for the mind, he
will set out on a divine journey, and having perfected the principles to the ends, he will know that
God is the beginning and end and middle of all things that are according to justice, and the right
reason.”
Paragraph 15: But these are the words of perishable and decaying bodies. But what of ours? If
Christ dwells in our hearts by faith, as the divine Apostle says, and all the treasures of wisdom and
knowledge are in Him, then all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in our hearts. For
as the sun rising and illuminating the world reveals both itself and the things illuminated by it, so
also the sun of righteousness rising in the pure mind reveals both itself and all the words that have
been and will be under it.
Paragraph 16: For ignorance of God is terrible, and beyond terrible; it is an immediate darkness
which obscures the senses and renders souls dark, dividing the reasoning faculty into many parts,
and cutting them off from union with God. But to whom the knowledge of God is given, the light
of the mind is given; but he who receives it and dishonors it will see eternal darkness. The
knowledge according to God is queen of all desires, and for the heart that receives it, all sweetness
that is on earth is abundant in it. The sensible sun sends its rays from a closed house, and the
intellectual light pours forth its sweet rays into those who receive it. But if one closes the intellectual
senses from the things seen by the soul, then he will wander in darkness, as if in a cave. And for this
reason, blessed is he who hastens to the boundless infinity; for he has hastened who has passed
beyond the finite.
Paragraph 17: For God is the monad and triad, beginning from a monad to Himself, like a
decade completed circularly. He contains within Himself the beginnings and ends of all things, and
yet is outside of all, as being above all things, having become the inner, or knowing Himself in
Himself, He has become the reason for all beings; and being outside of all, He dwells within all,

19
knowing the beginnings and ends of these. As after the Father, through the Word, He has a rational
connection, and is perfected in the Spirit, the super-divine Trinity itself; to which faith, gratitude, and
proskynesis are fitting from us, for ages of ages. Amen.

20
 DISCOURSE III. CONCERNING THE TRANSCENDENTAL TRINITY.
Having been said not in the same palace of all those not in the city happening/befalling, from Italy
to Titus—these things of those sitting together with the Romans, unto what then this hearing/
audience.

Paragraph 1: Us of the Super-Divine Triad knowing us, God the Word/Reason to us imparting/
bestowing, God perfecting this for the benefit of our souls, from God therefore we begin, and
concerning God we proceed/discuss, as servants of God, as it were upon God. Since every choice/
purpose and every action, and method, and art, and knowledge/science, from good the beginning
having, then certainly strives, as towards it inclines, and hastens, and is carried, until it arrives at it;
where well all the good have declared, which all desired; for this is truly of the desirable things the
one the most ultimate. Of different choices/purposes and intentions being, of methods both and
of arts and of knowledges/sciences, different become the ends of these. Of purpose indeed an
undertaking/attempt, of action however completion, and of method demonstration/proof, of art
however success/attainment; of knowledge/science however comprehension of truth the in things
having been hidden; and to others other end is. If however there is knowledge/science higher of all,
and according to excellence most ultimate more perfect, which indeed this alone constantly to know
we desire, the others however through this, and not all however another we choose, it is clear that
this would be of all the best, both towards knowledge of God greatly greatly contributes; and
indeed the end of this is boundless infinity, and of contemplation/vision rest/cessation. If however
thus, we must attempt in outline to encompass this; and as much as possible to know what ever this
method is, or of which of the knowledges/sciences or arts, fruit or end it is. Of method indeed of
some or of knowledge/science end or of art it is of no one, fruit however of all, after which not
would be another; and grace from above descending towards the of lights Father, so much of all
excels the human knowledges/sciences and arts, as the end of this, of every end, and of all
underlying the underlying according to incomparable reason surpasses; we must proceed/discuss
however also otherwise concerning it.
Paragraph 2: Another is the merchant, and another the craftsman; and another the educated
man, and another the prudent; another the much-knowing, and another the much-learned; another
again the practical, and another the contemplative; just as another the useful, and another the
beautiful. Further another the eloquent, and another the learned; another the intelligent, and another
the knowledgeable; another the silent, and another the cognitive; another the philosopher, and
another the wise; another the simple man, and another the magnificent. And from the beginning
towards men having experience of the things being said, I say, another the grammarian, and another
the poetic, and another the rhetor; another the sophist, and another the dialectician, and another the
demonstrative; another the vote-bearing, and another the logical, and another the arithmetician;
another the land-measurer, and another the geographer, and another the geometrician; another the
singer, and another the harpist, and another the musician; another the meteorologist, and another

21
the astrologer, and another the astronomer; and besides these another the ethical philosopher, and
another the natural philosopher; and simply as many of methods and of arts and of knowledges/
sciences, and of graces towards each other differences, so many also of those partaking of these
from them are the denominations; a man however of one of the knowledgeable ones, having
partaken of one of the said things, will think to partake of all. Of these however all, through the
divine grace the theologian incomparably surpasses; why indeed? Because to each of the
knowledgeable ones of his own knowledge/science is a proper principle; to the indeed arithmetician
the unit, the point to the geometer, the sound to the musician, and the pole to the astronomer.
Similarly also the underlying things, of each other indeed different, proper however to each, to the
indeed the numbers, and the ratios; to the however the line, and the shapes; to the however the in
the air sounds, and the of these dispositions; to the however of the stars the fixings, and the
movements are; this itself however also to all craftsmen one would see following; for also to those
also the ends are different. This indeed all to both the craftsmen, and to the knowledgeable ones
follows. And it is necessary of these each beginning from a small beginning, and according to little
proceeding not will comprehend boundless the and according to little things. However of art of
arts, and of the of knowledges/sciences according to excellence knowledge/science, both beginning
and underlying and end himself is God; if however these are true, and we however concerning God
we purposed to speak, it is fitting to us of the Theology again from there to begin the discourse,
whence before we left it.
Paragraph 3: I however also of these I will remind you of the words; but these indeed to those
doubting concerning middle and ultimate, of each towards the remaining of those in the divine triad
persons to the orthodox suffices. Thus indeed had the towards the end of theology these things
having been said words to us; now however following to the things having been said these things we
proceed/discuss. As of piety the knowledge, from itself the knowable possessing, and sun brighter
itself demonstrates. Through which also David the prophet, the heavens, he says, narrate glory of
God, creation however of hands of him announces the firmament, then he adds, there are not
speeches nor words, of which not are heard the voices of them, into all the earth went forth the
sound of them and into the ends of the inhabited world the words of them. And the divine Paul
cries out, the indeed invisible things of him from creation of the world by the works being
understood are clearly seen, both eternal of him divinity and power. For just as is himself God
above all, thus also the towards him of the knowledge of God path, far off and outside of us is; but
not to us, and from us this to draw the beginning is possible, as also Moses taught saying, the word
of faith near of the heart of you is. Also the Savior confirming said, the kingdom of God within us
is. When indeed the human mind to the material things converses, alone however hastens to itself
just as it became from the beginning, first indeed sees that the here both irregular and disordered;
the however in the stars, irregular and ordered; the however of these above both ordered and
regular, then all the sensible things having traversed, and also the finite things having passed beyond,
of all becomes transcendent and the Word seeing, sees with him also the to the Word Father, and

22
the Spirit the holy. Through this indeed alone is able man God both to perceive and to contemplate,
and to believe rightly into him.
Paragraph 4: For just as someone from afar seeing a lyre, composed of many and different
strings, marvels at their harmony of the consonance, because not only the deep sound produces, nor
only the sharp, nor only the middle, but all beautifully in equal counter-tension to each other stand;
and certainly from these he perceives, not itself the lyre to move, nor indeed by many it to be struck;
but one to be musician the of each string, the sound towards the common and harmonious
consonance having mixed with the knowledge even if this he does not see; for from the works, and
not being seen the craftsman is known; thus the all-harmonious of the order in the world to all, and
neither of the above towards the below, nor of the below towards the above deviating, but of one
of all being produced order, one and not many to be concludes the most logical mind, the ruler of
all the creation. For neither was it necessary many gods one to manage world; nor one God many to
create worlds. For if indeed were worlds many, many it was necessary also gods to glorify, and if
indeed existed gods many, many it was necessary also the worlds to be. Since however one is the
world, necessity also the of it creator one to believe to be. Who indeed from polytheism us leading
away, concerning himself reveals saying, hear Israel Lord the God of you Lord one is. Three-
hypostatic however to be both in word and in deed himself to us presenting, in Jordan somewhere
he showed being baptized both by the Word in flesh. The indeed Father from above, clearly to all
proclaims, this is the son of me the beloved in whom I was well pleased, to him listen; the however
Son through the assumption to those present being seen, and the from there testimony drawing
upon himself; the moreover Spirit the holy upon the Son descending from Father, in form of a
dove, so that not only from hearing, but also through sight, otherwise we might be persuaded the
three-hypostatic of the Godhead.
Paragraph 5: Of three being the of the divine Triad persons, of Father and of Son and of Spirit;
of these, the indeed Father being called person, not Father only is called only, but also Probuler/
Projector. Because indeed the Son indivisibly, just as fire radiance is begotten thespesiously/divinely;
the however Spirit he projects/sends forth ineffably another manner inexpressible, as to the
Damascene John it seems. Again: the indeed Son being called person, not Son is called only, but also
Word/Reason; as says Athanasius the much-suffering, himself the all-powerful; as perfect of the
Father Word/Reason, having ascended upon all and everywhere the himself powers having
extended, and having illuminated both the visible and the invisible, all into himself holds together
and binds closely, nothing outside of the himself power having left behind. And in order not
according to each upon manifest things naming to linger; such as someone a lyre musical having
tuned, and the deep sounds to the sharp, and the middle to the high sounds with art having brought
together, not the signified melody he would leave behind; thus also the to God Word/Reason the
whole as a lyre holding, and the in the air to the upon earth having brought together, and the in
heaven to the in air, and the whole connecting to the parts, and leading around by the himself will,
one the world, and one the himself order he produces.

23
 Paragraph 6: And so that such a thing might be understood by way of example, let what is said
be thus: as in a great circular dance (χορός), like a silent circular dance (χορός) composed of various
people—children, women, and old men, and young men, and one leader (καθηγεµόνος) giving
signals—each one sings according to their own nature (φύσιν) and power (δύναµιν) of voice; the
man, as a man; and the child, as a child; the old man, as an old man; and the young man, as a young
man; but all produce one harmony (ἁρµονίαν); or as our soul (ψυχή), within itself moves the senses
within us, according to the activity (ἐνέργειαν) of each; so that, a single thing being present, it moves
all of us, and the eye sees, and the hearing hears, and the hand touches, and the smell perceives, and
the taste tastes; and often also other parts of the body, so that even the feet walk. Or, so that what is
said might be signified also by a third example, it is like a very large city having been built, and being
managed in the presence of that very one who built and ruled it, that ruler and king; for he being
present and overseeing all that meets the eye, accordingly, all remain, some indeed applying
themselves to agriculture, and some busying themselves with the aqueducts; and others go forth
providing food; and one indeed walks to the council, another enters the church; and the judge sits to
judge, and the ruler to legislate; and likewise the craftsman sits at his work, and the sailor goes down
to the sea; the carpenter to carpentry, the doctor to healing, the builder to building; and some indeed
are occupied around the city, and some go out from the city, and some return into it; but all these
things happen by the presence of the one ruler and by his arrangement. According to these things
also concerning the whole creation, even if the example is small, it is nevertheless necessary to
understand it with a greater understanding. For by one inclination of the will (ῥοπῆς) of the divine
Word (λόγῳ), all things are ordered, and what is proper to each happens, and from all one order is
produced; the heaven revolves, and the stars are moved, and the sun shines, and the moon orbits,
and the air is illuminated by them, and the ether is warmed; winds blow, the mountains stand raised
up; the sea surges, and the animals in it are nourished; the earth remains unmoved and bears fruit,
and man is formed, and again grows old and dies; and simply all things are moved, according to each
one’s nature (φύσεως) and power (δυνάµεως): fire burns, water has coldness, springs gush forth, rivers
overflow, seasons and times appear, rains descend, the new plants are filled, hail is produced, snow
and ice are frozen, birds fly, reptiles crawl, aquatic creatures swim, plants grow, and some become
young, and some grow old and decay. But all these things and even more than these, which on
account of their multitude we are not able to recount, the wonder-working divine Word (λόγος)
moves and orders by its own nod (νεύµατι), producing one world (κόσµον), whence it is also called
Word (λόγος).
Paragraph 7: Again, concerning the Holy Spirit being called a Person, it is not called only Spirit,
but also Problem; because it does not proceed by generation from the Father, but by procession
(ἐκπορευτῶς); so that not two Sons might be believed to be from the Father; and because of nothing
intervening, all the Persons of the all-causal Trinity adhere to each other; and not only the Father to

24
the Son, and the Son to the Father; but also the Father to the Spirit, and the Spirit to the Father; and
the Son to the Spirit, and the Spirit to the Son adhere undividedly .
Paragraph 8: It is necessary, however, to consider also this: that "to beget" and "to process"
(ἐκπορεύειν), having the significance of activities according to the enunciation, while "to be
begotten" and "to be processed" (ἐκπορεύεθαι) are passive, just as the begetter co-suffers in a way
with the Word, in the Word's being begotten, and the projector with the projected, in the problem's
being processed, thus when the Son co-operates with the Father toward generation, and the Spirit
toward its own procession; and again the Spirit with the Father toward the Word's generation, when
the Word with the projector, toward the personal procession of the Spirit. Since just as above every
passivity, in the Son is the being-begotten, and the being-processed in the Spirit, thus in the cause of
these, the Father, both the begetting and the processing, are above every kind of activity. If indeed
the Holy Spirit in some way co-operates with the Father toward the Son's generation, and the Son
with the Father, toward the Spirit's procession; then the Father is only Father in word, and only
projector of the Holy Spirit. If someone dares to propose: that indeed in the projecting the Father
needs in some way the co-operation, but in the begetting in no way of the Spirit, let him bring
forward witnesses of his own opinion; but we hasten to the compelling word.
Paragraph 9: Because a certain insoluble problem, and one seeming beyond the impossible, has
now here been put forward to us, I will set forth the solution according to the phrase. For he says
himself, as I also know, and understand, and practically with my own eyes, as a human being, I am
able to discern, unless I am sleeping, unless I am drunk, unless I am out of my mind, this, unless
something else, I both know and recognize most clearly: that just as you are another human being to
me, and that one is another human being to you, and I again am another to you; and because of this,
when there is one, when two, but certainly three human beings; thus therefore also the Father being
glorified in the Trinity, Himself according to Himself is a distinct Person (πρόσωπον), and the Son,
Himself according to Himself is again a distinct Person, and the Paraclete, Himself according to
Himself is again a distinct Person; and the Father is other than the Son and the Spirit, and not the
same as the Son or the Spirit; and the Son likewise, is other than the Father and the Spirit, and not
the same as the Father or the Spirit; and similarly from them, the Paraclete is other than the Father
and the Son, and not the same at all as the Father or the Son; and properly God is the Father,
properly God is the Son, properly God is the Paraclete; and there is not another. How then, these
things being thus, are they not three Gods, just as we are three human beings? But they are one God,
but we three human beings? These things they put forward; but to us both ready and clear is the
answer to this.
Paragraph 10: Because we who are three, are called three human beings, and not one, since
whatever activity of one of us you might say, the remaining two are not simultaneously [acting], nor
does each one of us possess such an activity as that one has; and when these things are present, in
what way is it possible [for them to be one]? For neither when this one speaks a certain word to me,
do you also speak the same thing to me, nor when he writes a certain letter, do I and that one

25
necessarily write the same thing to you; nor when this one studies some study, do we simultaneously
co-study it with him. But our God, the Holy Trinity, is called one God and three; because of the two
Persons there, they possess the eternal and one energy from which He is called God, the remaining
one also possessing it, both permanently and wholly, and there is no difference of energy among
them.
Paragraph 11: Again, we are three human beings and not one, because when one of us is
conceived of, or exists, or ceases to exist, the others neither co-conceive, nor co-exist, nor co-cease
to exist, and the proof is near; for if someone thinks of this one, in every way he also thinks of us;
nor when you exist from non-being into being, do we co-exist with you; or when I, by conception or
even in truth, pass into non-being, they also immediately co-perish with me; but one God [exists in]
the three divine Persons, not three; because when the Father is conceived of, the Son and the Holy
Spirit are immediately co-conceived with Him; and when the Son exists in conceptions, the Father
also simultaneously co-exists with Him, and the Paraclete; and when the Paraclete is conceived of as
ceasing to exist, the Father and the Son are immediately co-conceived of as ceasing to exist with
Him; this indeed occurs in the confession of the three, as anyone might see; for he who names the
Father, has simultaneously signified with Him also the Son, and the Holy Spirit; because the same is
Father, and is Father of the Son, and projector of the Holy Spirit. Similarly also he who proclaims
the Son, has immediately referred, by mentioning the one who is imaged, to the Father and the Holy
Spirit; since the same Son is both of the Father according to subordination, and of the Holy Spirit
according to the same essence (ὁµούσιον), the Word is; likewise also he who speaks of the Spirit, has
comprehended in his thought both His projector and the Word, immediately; because the same
Spirit is both problem of the projector, and Spirit of the Word.
Paragraph 12: Further, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, is one God, and not three;
because the whole Father is seen in the whole Son and the Spirit; and the whole Son is contemplated
in the whole Father and the Spirit; and the whole Spirit is comprehended in the whole Father and
the Son; and in one word, wholes are in wholes. But we are three human beings, and not one,
because none of us is seen in the other, neither partially, nor wholly, nor in any way personally, by no
means. For neither am I in you, nor you in me, nor are you in that one, nor that one in you, nor I in
him, nor he in me. But each of us exists separately, and is circumscribed within himself; and in
addition to these things, because we are separated both by places, and differ in ways, and in times,
and in powers, and in wills, and in pursuits, and in dignities, and in many other things; for one of the
human beings, as all know, exists sometimes dwelling in Britain, and another here, and another
travels to Damascus; and one is courageous, and another quite the opposite, cowardly, and another is
in between; and one is younger, and another a man, and another an old man; and one is sharp in
learning, and another near to unreason, and another wavers; and this one wishes to be good, and
that one the opposite, and another sometimes this, sometimes that; and one is perhaps a merchant,
and another a musician, and another is a farmer; and one is greater, and another lesser, and another
moderate; either in age, or in dignity, or in both. But the divine Persons, besides not being subject to

26
any of the things said, are bound together by a supreme and ineffable union; who then of us will
dare to open his mouth, unless he is altogether foolish?
Paragraph 13: But how, he says, when there is one and one, are these not two Gods? The great
Basil, being asked before us, responded, saying that a king is spoken of, and the king’s image, and
they are not two kings; for when the power is held together, neither is the glory divided; for as the
ruling authority and power among us is one, so also among us is the glorification one, and not many;
because the honor of the image passes over to the prototype; and what is here the image in a
representative way, this there is the Son naturally; and just as among craftsmen the likeness is
according to the form, so also in the divine and ineffable nature the union is in the communion of
divinity; and they also proclaim the Holy Spirit as uniquely existing, and through the one Son being
connected to the one Father, and through Himself completing the all-hymned and blessed Trinity;
for as the Spirit is God, as according to the temple of God it is, and the Spirit is proper to God as to
us; so also God is the Spirit, the Trinity not being cut apart, nor the nature being divided, even if
they are distinguished by names; therefore also with the Father being one God, the Son is God by
paternal nature, and by paternal name; and with the Son being one Lord, the Father is Lord, being
called by the name of the image, as its prototype and begetter; so also the Spirit has Lord from the
Lord as a title, from whom also the Lord is communicated from the image [as] Spirit, since also God
is called Spirit from Him; and therefore it is not necessary to make three Gods, nor three Lords, nor
three Spirits; but the union of the Trinity is to be recognized not by the communion of names; and
thus indeed he responded to the question divinely, as one divinely inspired, wonderfully.
Paragraph 14: So that we also might know our own God, that the same is both unity and trinity,
from an image both pleasing to Him and connatural to us, I will attempt to demonstrate this to
those possessing understanding; but I ask you to pay attention. Since man is both said to be and is
an image of God, according to the formation of the soul and not according to the form of the face,
it is necessary that all things appearing in this image according to grace exist according to nature in
the archetype. For an archetype is a principle and pre-existing example, from which the characterized
form and the cause of the likeness of the form [arise], and an image is a likeness of the archetype,
containing the whole form in itself through the impression, differing only in the matter according to
the variation of the material. Therefore, in the human soul, mind (νοῦς) and word (λόγος) and spirit
(πνεῦµα) are observed, at once the same as a unity, and at once the same as a trinity in truth; and
these three both being and that they are three does not prevent them from also being one, nor
conversely, that they are one hinders them from also existing as three; but each is whole in wholes,
and wholly in each; for mind and word and spirit is the soul, and in mind and word and spirit is the
soul; not mind by itself, nor word separately, nor spirit apart, but the three together are one whole
soul, whole in the whole mind is the same, and whole in the whole same is the mind, and whole in
the whole word is the same, and whole in the whole same is the word, whole in the whole spirit is
the same, and whole in the whole same is the spirit; for the soul is not by part in the mind, or in the
word, or in the spirit, but the whole same is perfectly perfect in the three; and all the three are

27
perfectly perfect in the whole soul; rather, these are the soul; for whole in the whole word and spirit
is perfectly the mind, and whole in the whole mind and spirit is perfectly the word, and whole in the
whole mind and word perfectly subsists the spirit; therefore also mind, word, and spirit are one soul;
for he who has spoken of the mind, has somehow also spoken of the word and the spirit at once;
because the same and one mind is differently both word and cause of the spirit; for the one as
begotten, as the word proceeding will show, and the other as projector; impassibly however,
ineffably and effortlessly of both; and he who has declared the word, has clearly declared with it
both the mind and the spirit; because the same and one word is word of both mind and spirit; but
of the mind, as begotten from it; and of the spirit, both as the word inspires, and as connatural to it;
and he who has proclaimed the spirit, has together with it proclaimed both the mind and the word;
because the same and one spirit is both spirit of the mind and of the word; but of the mind, as
proceeding from it, and of the word both as co-caused by it from the mind, and as connatural to it;
for the mind also has a connatural and co-eternal word, together with the spirit, lest the mind be
thought to be without word and without spirit, and lest also the word be without mind and without
spirit, lest it be said to be without mind and without word. But let no one, hearing "word," think that
we are speaking of that spoken word, resounding through the vocal organs; or again, by "spirit," of
this our inhalation and exhalation, operating through the lungs; but by "word," that rational part of
the soul, according to which we are all called rational, and again by "spirit," the stable part of it,
noetically resting and undistracted; unless indeed the mind is one, the word another, the spirit, so
called, another; but as they are related to one another by a supreme union, so that by the conceiving
of one, all are co-conceived in the one, and by the ceasing to exist of one, the others co-cease to
exist, and by the existing of one, the others immediately co-exist; and neither the being of the mind
without the word, or the spirit, nor the word without the mind, or the spirit, nor the spirit without
the mind, or the word ever [exists], but mind, word, spirit are together, and are united distinctly, and
are distinguished unitedly.
Paragraph 15: Again, if the image of God is naturally one, being contemplated by those
possessing a pure mind, [namely] mind, word, spirit, being unified according to itself, being the
same, being undivided, but the distinct property of each of the remaining two allows them to be
distinct; because the mind begets the word, and yet is unbegotten; and the word is begotten by the
mind, but itself begets no one; and the spirit proceeds also itself from the mind, but neither begets,
nor is begotten at all; but just as the one nature remains undivided and inseparable in the three, so
also the distinct property of each is preserved altogether unmixed with the remaining two; for the
mind is not begotten from mind, as the word [is], nor does it proceed at all, in the way the spirit
[proceeds] from someone, but it alone remains unbegotten, preserving its own distinct property in
every way unchanged; nor is the word unbegotten, as the mind, nor in the way the spirit, does it
itself proceed from the mind, but it alone is begotten impassibly by it, and preserves its own distinct
property altogether unaltered; nor is the spirit unbegotten according to the mind, nor is it begotten
according to the word from the mind, but it alone proceeds ineffably also from the mind, in a way

28
beyond expression, and preserves its own distinct characteristic unmixed in every way. If these
things are seen dimly as in an image in the image, how much more necessarily do all things pre-exist
in the archetype; but here according to the account of creation, "Let us make man," he says,
"according to our image and according to our likeness," but there beyond all account and beyond
mind. But since the things concerning God are insubstantial, we say that the things seen there in the
Godhead are substantial, and three Persons subsisting in one nature; and these are to us the Father,
and the Son, and the Holy Spirit; they do not dogmatize "God, God, God," for this is outright
polytheism and another Hellenism, but we glorify the three of the subsistence as one God in nature;
just as indeed it is seen and believed among us, mind and word and spirit, not soul and soul and soul,
but these three are one soul in nature, [though distinct] in properties.
Paragraph 16: Therefore, our God is both unity and most truly trinity, which it was necessary for
us to show, and has been shown as far as is attainable for us in an image; and it is necessary for all
human beings to believe this, as it is believed by the Orthodox. To the one indeed daring to object,
that the soul is tripartite, being reason (λογισµός) and passion (θυµός) and desire (ἐπιθυµία), and not
mind and word and spirit, it suffices to declare that passion and desire are the more irrational parts
of the soul, just as also imagination and sensation, and to speak concisely, [things] which we share
with irrational animals; which are not an image of the most impassible Trinity, above all passivity.
But if someone says against these things, that he does not perceive the things spoken by us, as
existing naturally within himself, to speak more appropriately of himself, this one is either near to
irrationality, or far from mind and understanding; for if he does not know himself, how will he
conceive of other things that exist, or recognize the Lord of all, God? We, however, discuss these
things with men possessing mind and sharing in the word, standing before the Autocrat; but with
those living in irrationality, we have no discourse; but rather as if one of the men, standing behind
one of the encircling mirrors, does not see himself face to face, because of being behind, but clearly
sees in the mirror the whole form of that one with every feature of his formation distinctly reflected
in it, so it is with those possessing mind, and looking into the human soul, all the divine Persons are
reflected there as in a mirror. For truly, the human soul is a clear mirror of the super-essential
Trinity, indelibly showing in itself the divine rays, and here clearly portraying the characters of that
[Trinity], and while by nature the prototype is beyond, even if veiled, other kinds of animals possess
the image of man, but man by grace has partaken of the highest Trinity as an archetype within
himself. And in the way that the element of the moon does not possess light proper to itself (for it
would be another sun), but receiving it from the sun, is itself illuminated, and illuminates all the
surrounding [earth] by reflection, and is a second sun, contending with the night, so also the rational
living being, man, does not possess divine light from himself (for he would be another God), but
being a receiver of God by divine grace, and being a light-bearer, is illuminated by God, and by
secondary transmission illuminates many, and becomes a second God, an opponent of the darkness
of sin. And just as heavenly glory at times, being crystallized and transparent, comes indivisibly
together with earthly matter, and as it were congealing, forms a ever-shining and precious stone,

29
sending forth from itself unfailing light-bearing rays, so also from the Father of lights an unfailing
ray proceeding, and reaching as far as human beings, dwells in purified hearts, and shows them
radiating and luminous, not only simply in this corruptible age, but also manifoldly in the age to
come, according to what was said by the Lord, "Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun," as it
seems also to the holy fathers.
Paragraph 17: For the perfect illumination of the Spirit is not only a revelation of thoughts, but
a firm and continuous illumination of hypostatic light in souls; for what was said, "God, who said
light to shine out of darkness," who shone in your hearts; and, "Lighten my eyes, lest I sleep into
death;" and, "Send out your light and your truth; let them lead me; let them bring me to your holy
hill and to your dwelling places of your glory;" and, "The light of your face has been marked upon
us;" and all things similar to these present the same thing. And just as from fire many lamps are
kindled, and the torches are seen burning, clearly shining from one nature of fire, so also Christians
are kindled from one nature of the divine fire, the Son of God, and have their torches burning in
their hearts, and shine before Him, being themselves called Christs. For He says, "Therefore God,
your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions." For Christ was so
called, so that we also, through Him, being anointed with the same oil with which He Himself was
anointed, might become Christs, being of one essence, so to speak, and one body; for He says again,
"Both He who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all from one;" and the Lord also says
concerning John, "He was the burning lamp," on account of the Holy Spirit kindled in him and
setting his heart ablaze. And just as the sun’s rays, illuminating a cloud, cause it to produce a golden
appearance, so also the Holy Spirit coming upon a human soul, gave life, gave sanctification, gave
immortality, raised up the fallen; and that which is moved by the Holy Spirit, by an eternal
movement, became a holy living being; and man possesses the dignity of the indwelling Spirit, of
Prophet, Apostle, Angel, God. And just as when the sun is shining at midday, we clearly perceive the
light sent forth from it, but are not able to clearly behold and comprehend it, yet we truly say that we
see it, so also the angels and the saints, beholding the flashing glory of the Spirit, in it also see the
Son and the Father; but not so the sinners and the impure; for they are like the blind and the
insensible. For just as the blind do not see the light of the sensible sun shining, so indeed they do
not perceive the divine light always shining, even if they are aware of its warmth.
Paragraph 18: Because God, truly existing as light by essence, is truly becoming light to those
walking in Him through the virtues. Just as in the light by participation all the saints through love of
God become in the light by essence, so the light by essence, through love of mankind, becomes light
in the light by participation. If therefore we are according to virtue and knowledge as in light with
God, then God Himself, as light in light, is in us; for God, light by nature, becomes light by
imitation, as archetype in an image; and if someone provides a pure life to Him, He remains clearly
indwelling [him]. For [it is written], "He who loves me will keep my commandments, and I and the
Father will come and make our abode with him;" and, "That was the true Light which gives light to
every man coming into the world," light always for the righteous; "In your light we shall see light;"

30
"Walk as children of light, that you may become sons of light;" "God is light, and if we walk in the
light as He is in the light," and all such things, both lead us to the light, and exhort us to become
light. For Christians are a new generation of another age; children of the holy font, and of the Holy
Spirit, luminous; sons of their Father, of the spiritual Adam, of that luminous city, of that race, of
that power; being in this world, they are of another world; for the Lord Himself says, "You are not
of this world."
Paragraph 19: But oh, the loss for me! How have I overlooked such great grace? How have I
been deprived of such light, alas! If for the blind the inability to see the sun is a great loss, how great
for me, the sinner, is the misfortune of being deprived of the true light? For as many spirit-bearers
carry light, truly being light, are clothed in Christ; and those clothed in Christ have put on the
Father; for it is necessary for this corruptible to put on incorruption, and this mortal to put on
immortality; for those carrying the Spirit carry incorruption of God; and incorruption is God. But
all these things have been said by me not simply, but as I speak of that archetype, the all-causing
Trinity, I will set forth the unity in relation to its image; the true and indeed permanent union for
human beings. And that just as "that which is born of the flesh is flesh," and "that which is born of
the Spirit is spirit," so also that which is begotten of the light is also light by participation; therefore
exceedingly infinite. First indeed, God is light; second, an angel is light; and third, the most God-
loving living being, man, is light.
Paragraph 20: Let us therefore, beginning from these things concerning ourselves, or rather, to
speak more appropriately, concerning human beings, learn what man is; what the human soul is; and
what the human good is; and while we still have time, let us hasten to acquire this, and to live
according to the soul, and to honor the divine image, not in many ways, but let the blasphemous be
silenced. I say these things both to myself, and not only to you, but rather more to myself. For he
who has word only, but does not have deed, is like a tree having leaves, but not fruit; but he who has
deed, but does not have word, is like a tree having fruit, but not leaves. Just as then to a fruitless tree
a ripe fruit is incongruous, so to a soul possessing word a God-loving deed [is incongruous]; and just
as to a tree full of fruit unfruitful leaves are incongruous, so it is fitting for a soul possessing word to
have good activity; and a man teaching, and not doing what he teaches, is like a spring, which waters
and flows for all, but is not able to cleanse itself; but all impurity is with it; or like a lamp illuminating
many, but burning itself. Moreover, he who rightly converses with some, ought also himself, as
receiving the words from God, to listen gladly to those hearing him; for the truth is not in the one
speaking, but in God who works. And just as one who carries a burning lamp without hands
illuminates those present, so also a good word passing on to one's neighbors, illuminates their souls.
And as one carrying myrrh perfumes those approaching, so also one possessing virtue perfumes
those encountering him. It is fitting therefore, just as in those cases, the one indeed shines first for
himself, and the other perfumes himself before others; so also for the one recounting and
suggesting good things, to be himself good; lest he hear from the Lord, "Physician, heal yourself,"
and "You who teach another, do you not teach yourself ?" "Why do you recount my statutes, and

31
take up my covenant in your mouth? But you have hated instruction, and cast my words behind
you."
Paragraph 21: Let us understand then, beginning from these things concerning ourselves, or
rather, to speak more appropriately, concerning human beings: let us learn what man is; what the
human soul is; and what the human good is; and as long as we have time, let us hasten to acquire
this, and to live according to the soul, and to honor the divine image, not in many ways, but let the
blasphemous be silenced. I say these things both to myself, and not only to you, but rather more to
myself. For he who has word only, but does not have deed, is like a tree having leaves, but not fruit;
but he who has deed, but does not have word, is like a tree having fruit, but not leaves. Just as then
to a fruitless tree a ripe fruit is incongruous, so to a soul possessing word a God-loving deed [is
incongruous]; and just as to a tree full of fruit unfruitful leaves are incongruous, so it is fitting for a
soul possessing word to have good activity; and a man teaching, and not doing what he teaches, is
like a spring, which waters and flows for all, but is not able to cleanse itself; but all impurity is with
it; or like a lamp illuminating many, but burning itself. Moreover, he who rightly converses with
some, ought also himself, as receiving the words from God, to listen gladly to those hearing him; for
the truth is not in the one speaking, but in God who works. And just as one who carries a burning
lamp without hands illuminates those present, so also a good word passing on to one's neighbors,
illuminates their souls. And as one carrying myrrh perfumes those approaching, so also one
possessing virtue perfumes those encountering him. It is fitting therefore, just as in those cases, the
one indeed shines first for himself, and the other perfumes himself before others; so also for the
one recounting and suggesting good things, to be himself good; lest he hear from the Lord,
"Physician, heal yourself," and "You who teach another, do you not teach yourself ?" "Why do you
recount my statutes, and take up my covenant in your mouth? But you have hated instruction, and
cast my words behind you." Let us understand then that the good of man, as indeed of man, is an
activity of the soul according to the best and most perfect virtue, perfectly in a perfect life. And the
soul is not the vital, warming, and moving [power] of the blood through a material energy of the
spirit; for this belongs to irrational beings; nor the first entelechy of the body having a natural
organic capacity for life; for this is the soul of those simply called human; but the soul is a subtle
essence, both invisible and formless, image and likeness of God, and its parts are not the three
according to activity only, reasoning, passion, and desire, but much more those existing in it
according to subsistence, are mind, and word, and spirit. And man is a rational mortal living being,
receptive of mind and knowledge, according to the Greeks, only; but man is in truth a noetic and
sensible living being, receptive of divine mind and eternal life, and by the transgression of this,
mortal; man is a rational creation of God, made according to the image of the One who created
him; man is a flesh-bearing angel, and through this, mortal; man is one who practices piety and
virtue with boldness; man is a watchman of life; man is an incarnate mind; man is a spiritual vessel;
man is one who fears God and keeps His commandments; and above all these, only that one is a
true man who preserves the image, and does not obliterate the original beauty. For as the character

32
of the face, and the remaining signs of the body, teach by the likeness who is whose son, so the
conduct of life declares whose son, and student, and imitator one is, interpreting by word the
theoretical, and by deed the practical teacher or Father. What characterizes God, and a man
emulating God, is compassion, goodness, oneness, freedom from anger, forbearance, patience, love
of good, care, and to speak concisely, God is shown in the abundance of goodness; the image of
divine likeness is painted with these colors; these are the characters of the incorporeal form; by
these a kindred soul is recognized, as much as possible, to God. And just as the divine character is
imprinted in the life according to virtue, so the life according to vice becomes a form and face of
the adversary; and in the way that a Greek and a Roman and a Scythian are recognized from their
form and their customs and their language, so good action, and good word, and impassioned
character distinguish a successful Christian, characterizing the image of the super-essential Trinity.
Paragraph 22: Let us therefore consider the archetype of our soul, and how it is, and as far as is
attainable for us, let us strive to imitate it. And this becomes easy in this way. If you become a lover
of brothers, not remembering evil, compassionate, you have become like God; if you release from
your heart the enmity toward your neighbor, you have become like God; if you become toward the
brother who has transgressed against you such as God is toward those [who transgress] against Him,
in your compassion toward him, you have become like God; this word is not mine, but of the One
who is about to judge all the earth; "Become merciful," He says, "just as your heavenly Father is
merciful;" and "that you may become like your Father who is in the heavens."
Paragraph 23: Above all these three things, let us remember with the conscience of our soul:
whose sons we have become by grace, what our homeland is, and what our inheritance is. First,
John, the Son of Thunder, teaches us, saying, "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the
right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born not of
blood, nor of the will of 1 the flesh, nor of the will of 2 man, but of God." Second, the most
divine Paul shows us thus, writing, "For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait
for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ;" and again, "But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city
of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable hosts of angels, to the general
assembly 3 and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven;" 4 and again, "For here we do
not have a lasting city, but we seek the one to come." Third, He who suffered in the flesh for us the
condemned says to His own Father, "Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given Me, be
with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory which You have given Me;" 5 and "I do not ask
on behalf of these alone, but also on behalf of those who believe in Me through their word, that
they all may be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You," so that, having been transformed
according to the image, and having run back again to the archetypal beauty, we all may be deemed
worthy of the glory of the all-causing Father, by the power of the all-powerful Son who wills it, and
by the grace of the all-working Spirit, of the super-essential and blessed Trinity; to whom is due all
glory, honor, and worship, unto the ages of ages. Amen.

33
 DISCOURSE IV. CONCERNING THE TRANSCENDENTAL TRINITY.
It refers moreover to the question concerning the Holy Spirit’s procession. Making clearer more
broadly concerning the homonymy of the Spirit, and of the term “he is processed”

Paragraph 1: Men, men beloved, genuinely beloved friends and brothers in Christ, hear my voice;
those by origin Romans, but by reverence Orthodox, attend to the words of my mouth; offspring by
the will of the one God, and genuine children of the holy font/baptismal font, give ear to my
words, and place your hearts into the power of these and be strengthened; for truth my heart will
meditate, and righteousness my throat will utter, and wisdom indeed these lips will announce. To me
indeed, O men, of that hoped-for blessedness to the faithful a clear prelude and earnest/down
payment seems to be, to here some of the world's disturbances having left behind, and the in-
between sojourns having abandoned, as sources of myriad evils, here in solitude and stillness to
enjoy as is possible the contemplation/theoria of Jesus. For what indeed to man better would
become, than of all vain things to be unconcerned, and these to consider as shadow and dream, as
also they are by nature, but with divine eros/love and with the desire and contemplation/theoria of
God to be carried upwards? And to raise up the body, and the soul upwards. From whence therefore
also often I am accustomed to prefer the in the cell solitude to the with many association. But since
not with godless reasonings alone and with good actions the Lord of all, but also indeed with to the
neighbor useful words to be occupied He wills from us; and now indeed wicked He clearly calls the
one having hidden the talent, to each not to seek his own He commands, but that of the neighbor,
as it is impossible otherwise to attain salvation; having left behind the desired stillness also myself, I
present myself to this church today; not as something necessary or useful, or of the good things, as
is likely, from there being brought, but as a debt I pay and a duty, as to me is customary, an
exhortation of the kingdom, both the nourishments to us, and the debts repaying. Since also words
are proposed for us, by which other things harmonizing our life we are commanded, and indeed
Orthodox dogmas to proclaim, come, as much as time demands, and what the many of those
present desire to learn, having placed in the midst, let us pass through/discuss/examine piously
concerning these.
Paragraph 2: Concerning indeed other dogmas, at other times both by words, as we were able we
have considered and made clear. But since according to the present this year, and moreover the past,
both by those from the West having come, and those being present, by those here being constantly
present, almost nothing else, than this is being sought and will be sought, how would one say,
whether indeed the Holy Spirit from the Father alone proceeds/is processed (ekporeuetai), or
perhaps also from the Son? Concerning this therefore some things to discuss we deemed necessary,
which indeed we also propose; in which all will know (with God let it be said) that not pleasing
ourselves, we glorify and confess with boldness with a persuaded soul and tongue, the Holy Spirit
from the Father alone to proceed/be processed (ekporeuesthai), but by the of all the saints
following the teaching of those with the Spirit concerning the Spirit having spoken. This moreover

34
is pre-received/pre-supposed in our souls, that neither for the sake of striking someone in any way,
nor for the sake of pleasing anyone, but as servants alone of the word of truth and friends, this
truth we announce to you. First indeed what are the causes of the deviation according to ability
must be shown; then moreover also that Orthodox this our concerning the Spirit dogma, from the
of the Divine Spirit words must be demonstrated; so that both the consequences which are against
knowledge, and the deviations of this, as is possible we may escape.
Paragraph 3: Concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit, therefore, this must be known by all
of you before all else, O friends, that the name "Spirit" is a homonymous term, not only in many
other instances, but also concerning the Spirit Himself who is spoken of. For it signifies both the
gifts of the Spirit, which are many and various (for there is the Spirit of truth, of wisdom, of grace,
of counsel, of understanding, of knowledge, of piety, of strength, of might, of fear, and as many
such things are spoken of, as it seems to John of Damascus, and Gregory the Theologian, and Isaiah
the prophet). But it also signifies that very Paraclete Himself, the one of the Trinity, that is, the Holy
Spirit. And not only the word "Spirit," but also the word "to proceed," even if it is attributed in a
particular way to the Holy Spirit, to signify a certain unique and unoriginated procession of Him, yet
even this is common and known also to other things in Scripture; for this (procession) is fitting also
to all the aforementioned energies of Him, as is confessed by all of Holy Scripture. And it is fitting
also to the generation of the Son, for the divine Fathers in Nicaea say that Scripture speaks
concerning the Son, "proceeding from the true life of the Father’s divinity," in which He subsists as
the only-begotten Son. "And the multitudes were astonished at the words of grace proceeding out
of His mouth," the divine Gospel says of the Lord. And the Psalmist says, "God will be manifest in
the midst of her," (Psalm 45:7 LXX) using the word "proceed." "And the Spirit of the Lord began
to depart from Samson," (Judges 16:19 LXX) another scripture states. And someone might rightly
consider that the word "of procession," relating to the cause, is spoken of more commonly; just as a
line proceeds from a point, the radiance from fire, and a ray from the sun, the stream from a spring,
and from liquid bodies, moist vapor proceeds. Whenever you hear in Scripture that the Son "causes
to spring forth" the Spirit, or "sends," or "gives," or something similar, do not understand that He
brings forth the hypostasis of the Spirit, that is, the very Person of the Spirit (for that alone
proceeds from the Father, that is, has its being from Him); but understand that He provides the gifts
of the Spirit as being of the same will with Him and of the same essence. And again, whenever you
find the holy fathers, this one and that one, saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father
through the Son, using this rule, understand that "to proceed" is taken here in the same way as "to
be sent" and "to be given," and in this way they refute a deep-rooted heresy, those who alienate the
Spirit from the Son, and who wish to remove the consubstantiality and genuineness of the Spirit in
relation to the Father and the Son; these things they have said, as one might say, necessarily. And I
suggest that this must be precisely attended to and observed, that this very thing is overlooked by
many of the simpler folk, and being understood as it should not be, has caused a perversion of the
faith, taking "gift" as hypostasis, and "sending" as existence, as if they were not distinct. You have

35
understood the power of the things said; it is necessary to elaborate on these things more fully for
the sake of greater clarity, and to bring forth more testimonies so that the discourse may become
more certain for us.
Paragraph 4: I say that all the gifts of the Holy Spirit are called "Spirit," homonymously with the
Spirit who provides these things. When, therefore, the Holy Spirit bestows upon someone the gift of
sanctification, so that they have a holy body and soul, the gift which has been given is called the
Spirit of sanctification; as Paul says, "Set apart for the Gospel of God, which He promised
beforehand through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures, concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord,
which 1 was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, and declared to be the Son of God
with power, according to the Spirit of holiness" 2 (Romans 1:1-4, KJV altered to match the Greek
"Spirit of holiness" more literally). If someone receives power and the gift of the Holy Spirit to
believe in the promise of the good things being given, not in the future, they have received the Spirit
of promise, wherefore Paul says, "you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise" (Ephesians
1:13). And if the Holy Spirit gives a gift to someone who, even without knowing the Scriptures,
believes in them, that gift is called the Spirit of faith; as Paul says, "having the same Spirit of faith"
(2 Corinthians 4:13). It is called the Spirit of adoption, as Paul himself says, "For you did not receive
the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by
whom we cry, 'Abba! Father!'" 3 (Romans 8:15). If someone is meek and humble in heart, such a
one has received the gift of the Spirit of meekness, as Paul says, "Brethren, if a man is overtaken in
any trespass, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness" (Galatians 4 6:1). It is
called the Spirit of zeal, as Paul says, "Since you are zealous for spiritual gifts," (1 Corinthians 14:1).
There is also the gift of love, as Paul says, that they received the "Spirit of love, and of power, and
of a sound mind" (2 Timothy 1:7). And Isaiah also says, "There shall come forth a shoot from the
stump of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots. And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon
him, the Spirit of wisdom 5 and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of
knowledge 6 and the fear of the Lord" (Isaiah 11:1-2). Here the name of the hypostasis is given to
the Spirit Himself, and the remaining names are of the gifts, in order. The Spirit of wisdom and
understanding, the Spirit of knowledge and piety, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of the
fear of God. If someone interprets Scripture when the meaning is obscure and unclear, and the
Holy Spirit grants that the hidden things of the meanings are revealed to them, this one has received
the Spirit of revelation, as Paul says, "I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the
glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better"
7 (Ephesians 1:17). God, wishing to show that just as He sends the Spirit of wisdom to the one
teaching, so also the Spirit of understanding to the one learning, so that they may understand the
things of God; the one proclaiming and teaching has the grace of wisdom, the heart learning has
the grace of understanding; David says, "My mouth shall speak wisdom, and the meditation of my
heart shall be understanding" (Psalm 49:3 LXX). The one acting with knowledge has received the
Spirit of knowledge, and the one pious in word and deed possesses the Spirit of piety.

36
 Paragraph 5: Because true knowledge is the light of the soul, and the confirmation of all
knowledge is by nature an action. But sometimes the one teaching knowledge does not know fully,
for what they have received… for not everyone receives everything, so that no one might despise the
grace they have by nature; someone receives grace for teaching, and yet, lest they be lifted up by
excellence in matters, they are found to be weak; another, not being able to teach, gives good
counsel and is found lending to others, but borrowing elsewhere. The Spirit of counsel is given to
the one giving counsel, the Spirit of strength to the one receiving the counsel; for just as the one
giving counsel receives grace to say something useful, so the one receiving the counsel receives grace
of strength to accomplish what is beneficial. The Spirit of the fear of God… each of these gifts is
given for a specific underlying need. In another place, God promises to give the grace of loving-
kindness; and He says, “And I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of
Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication” (Zechariah 12:10), that 1 is, the gift of loving-kindness.
Again, He bestows the gift of humility, wherefore the three children praying said to God that they
were sinners, even though they had walked through the fire, as righteous ones; and they rejoiced, as
holy ones, and confessed, as sinners. Since, being righteous, they humbled themselves, they received
the Spirit of humility, the gift of lowliness of mind; therefore, knowing the grace, they say, “But
with a contrite heart and a humble spirit may we be accepted” (Prayer of Azariah 16). When
someone receives the whole gift, being filled with grace, it is said that they have received the spirit of
fullness; thus the Apostles had the spirit of fullness, as it is written, “Then Paul, filled with the Holy
Spirit…” (Acts 13:9). And David asks for a steadfast Spirit, the Spirit leading to steadfastness, and
again a ruling Spirit, a gift ruling over the passions, and making the soul not be enslaved to passions.
But these things are sufficient concerning the homonymy of the Spirit; but concerning the word “to
proceed,” it must be explained next.
Paragraph 6: Thus, we know and not simply about the procession of the Holy Spirit, having
received the starting points for the understanding of the Spirit from the Scriptures from above. For
one (procession) is as it were incomprehensible and ineffable, and thus indeed unoriginated; the
other is in time. For the divine Joel says, and the blessed Peter, having received from him, "And in
the last days it shall be," God declares, "that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh" (Acts 2:17,
quoting Joel 2:28). And one (procession) is without cause, just as the generation of the Son,
concerning which the theologian Gregory says, "from the beginning without cause; for what is the
cause of God?" And again, concerning the same, "from the eternally existing beyond cause and
reason." But the other procession is with cause. For the Lord says in the Gospel according to John,
"But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13). And one
is as it were without cause and towards some, and one is both with cause and towards some. Whence
Paul, writing to Titus, says, "He saved us through the washing of regeneration and renewal by the
Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior" (Titus 3:5-6). 1 And
this is an act of divine nature and will, which also the theologians say concerning the generation of
the Son; and this comes forth to us by the good pleasure of God willing it; for this is a gift from the

37
will of the one giving. Wherefore the divine Paul, writing to the Hebrews, says, "God also bearing
witness with them, both with signs and wonders, and with various miracles, and distributions of the
Holy Spirit, according to His own will" (Hebrews 2:4). And thus it is impossible for it to be from the
Spirit, for it is impossible for the Spirit to proceed personally from Himself, nor is it from the Spirit;
just as from the prophets, as from the face of God, Moses says, “I will take some of the Spirit that is
on you and will put it on them” (Numbers 11:17), and Joel, "I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh"
(Joel 2:28). And from the Apostles, the chief one (Peter) received the gift of the Holy Spirit; and
John, by this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit (1
John 4:13); and the mouth of Christ, Paul, “God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the
Holy Spirit who has been given to us” (Romans 5:5).
Paragraph 7: That the discourse is concerning this procession to the Apostles, about which also
the Prophets speak, is clear both from the things said and is clear also from the things to be said
next by the teachers. For the divine Chrysostom, interpreting “For God gives the Spirit without
measure” (John 3:34), says something like this: “The Spirit here signifies the energy; for this is being
distributed; for we all have received the energy by measure, but He received the whole, the entire
energy; and if the energy in Him is without measure, much more so the essence.” And elsewhere,
setting forth that Psalm for interpretation, “Grace is poured out upon Your lips” (Psalm 45:2), “All
grace,” he says, “was poured out into that temple; for the Father does not give the Spirit to Him by
measure; but we have a small portion, and droplets from that grace; for ‘from His fullness we have
all received’ (John 1:16), as one might say, from the overflowing, from the superabundance.” And
after a while, God says, "He poured out the gift on Him"; the divinity is not poured out, but the gift;
"Grace is poured out upon Your lips"; grace is poured out, not the one giving the grace. And again,
“I will not give the Spirit,” but “I will pour out from My Spirit upon all flesh” (Joel 2:28). And the
grace given in so many places in the world is a part of the gift and a down payment; for He says "the
down payment of the Spirit in our hearts” (2 Corinthians 1:22), He speaks of a part of the energy;
for the Paraclete is not divided, but His energy; this energy that temple (Christ’s humanity) received,
and from itself provided to the worthy, as from a treasury. And elsewhere, it is necessary for the
heretics to understand what the names signifying the nature of the Holy Spirit are, and which the
names interpreting the grace; but they have corrupted the truth; they have confused everything; they
have deviated from the truth; for the one leading is one thing, the gift another; the king is one thing,
the gift of the king another. If you hear someone saying, “I will send to you the Holy Spirit,” do not
understand the Godhead, for God is not sent; these are names signifying the energy. The wonder-
working Gregory mentions this in the Revelation: “The Holy Spirit having existence from God, and
manifested through the Son to men”; this is concerning the pre-eternal, but this is concerning the
temporal. And Cyril of Alexandria, in his exposition of the Symbol of Faith, says, “It is set forth by
me,” that is, “the Holy Spirit proceeds from God and the Father,” this concerning the ineffable
procession; “but is bestowed upon creation through the Son,” this concerning the procession
towards us. And Saint Augustine in his book On the Trinity says, “But indeed, since some give, and

38
some are given, on account of these things that which is given is not lesser; for it is given as a gift
from God, as God even gives Himself; for it is not possible to say that it is not of His own authority,
concerning which it is said, ‘The Spirit blows where He wishes’ (John 3:8).” And with the Apostle,
“But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He
wills” (1 Corinthians 1 12:11). And Gregory of Nyssa in his Against Eunomius says, “The Spirit
who leads is not from God of all things, and He Himself having existence from Him, whence also
He is the consubstantial Light, through whom also the true Light shone forth, neither by interval,
nor by difference of nature, is He cut off from the Father or the Only-Begotten.” Here the
distinction through the conjunctions most clearly gives to understand the procession of the Spirit
according to hypostasis from the Father, and His manifestation towards us through the Son; for the
discourse does not make the one and the other the same and identical in power, but shows that the
one signifies this, and the other that. And the great Basil, knowing such a procession of the Spirit,
even from the Spirit, says in his refutations against Eunomius, “Does the Holy Spirit seek increase,
being most perfect, and therefore also with Him are all perfect things: love, joy, peace, longsuffering,
kindness, wisdom, reverence, counsel, security, piety, knowledge, sanctification, redemption, faith,
workings of powers, gifts of healings, and as many similar things; having nothing acquired to
Himself, but eternally having all things as the Spirit of God, and manifested from Him; having the
cause in Himself as His own spring, and springing forth from there; and He Himself is the spring
of the aforementioned good things.” But that which springs from God is without hypostasis, and
the things springing from Him are His energies. And again, in the same place, “Just as the Father is
said to distribute the energies to those worthy of receiving the energies, and the Son to distribute the
ministries to those worthy of the ministries, so also the Holy Spirit is testified to distribute the gifts
to those worthy of receiving the gifts.” You see how here the energy of the Holy Spirit is
coordinated with the will of the Father and the working of the Son? For when all things are worked
by God through Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit, I see the indivisible working of the Father, and of
the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Athanasius also agrees with these things, referring all things to one
God the Father, in his [letters] to Serapion, he says thus: "Knowing this, the blessed Paul, not
dividing the Trinity as you [Arians do], but teaching its unity, wrote to the Corinthians concerning
spiritual gifts, ‘Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of
ministries, and the same Lord; and there are varieties of 1 workings, but the same God who 2 works
all things in all’ (1 Corinthians 12:4-6). For whatever the Spirit works in each, these things are
provided by the Father through the Word; for all things of the Father are of the Son, wherefore also
the things given by the Son in the Spirit are gifts of the Father. And the Spirit being in us, in Him are
the Father and the Son, and it is one, ‘I and the Father will come and make our home with him’
(John 14:23).” And this again the same Apostle, teaching the same Corinthians, wrote in the second
epistle, “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy
Spirit be with you all” (2 Corinthians 13:14). 3 For the grace and gift being given, is given in the
Trinity, from the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit. For just as the grace being given is from

39
the Father through the Son, so there would not be communion of the giving in us, if not through
the Holy Spirit; for partaking of this, we have the love of the Father, and the grace of the Son, and
the communion of the Holy Spirit Himself. Therefore, one energy of the Trinity is shown from
these; for the Apostle does not signify that the things being given are divided and different in such a
way, but that the things being given are given in the Trinity, and that all things are from one God.
And also the evangelist Luke in the Acts [of the Apostles]: "And there appeared to them tongues as
of fire distributing themselves, and they rested on each one of them. And they were all filled with
the Holy Spirit" 4 (Acts 2:3-4), he says, making the discourse concerning this procession. And again,
“Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was bestowed through the laying on of the apostles' hands”
(Acts 8:18). And again, “While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all
those who were listening to the message” (Acts 10:44). 5 And the most divine Paul in the first [letter]
to the Corinthians [says], “To each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common
good. For to one is given through the Spirit the word of wisdom, 6 and to another the word of
knowledge according to the same Spirit; 7 to another faith by the same Spirit, and to another gifts of
healings by the one Spirit, and to another the 8 working of miracles, and to another prophecy, and to
another the distinguishing of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, and to another the
interpretation of tongues. 9 But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each
one individually just as He wills” (1 Corinthians 12:7-11). 10 And Peter the chief one in the Acts
[says], “Therefore having been exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the
Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, 11 He has poured forth this which you both see and hear”
(Acts 12 2:33). And again, “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have
received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?” (Acts 10:47). 13 And the Lord, making mention of
both processions of the Spirit in the Gospel according to John, says, “But when the Helper comes,
whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father,
He will testify about Me” 14 (John 15:26). By saying “when He comes,” He showed the Lordship of
the Spirit, and defined the time; and by saying, “whom I will send to you from the Father,” He
showed both that the Holy Spirit is not opposed [to the Father], and that this procession is for our
sake; for He was sent to us; and by adding, “who proceeds from the Father,” He has the pre-eternal
and uncaused procession of that divine Spirit, whence He is, divinely handed down.
Paragraph 8: Thus, since there is a twofold procession of the Spirit, both being and being
spoken of, and for the sake of greater clarity it can fittingly be called both first and hypostatic and
according to hypostasis, and second and communicable and according to the energy of the first, of
the first the Father alone is the cause, but of the second both the Son and the Holy Spirit Himself.
Therefore, none of the teachers of our Church has said that the Holy Spirit proceeds personally
from the Son, or has existence from the Son, or that the Son is a principle [arche] [of the Spirit], or
the Son a projector, or has declared the Son to be the cause of the Holy Spirit; but that He is set
forth, and springs forth, and goes forth, and shines forth, and is sent, and is bestowed, and is given

40
through Him, all proclaim; not being ignorant that these things are fitting to the communicable
processions.
Paragraph 9: But the same thing, he says, is the Spirit springing from the Son, and being poured
out, and shining forth, and breathing, and being sent, and being bestowed, and being given, and as
many such things, as the Spirit proceeding from the Son. Therefore, if the Spirit being projected is
the same as being given, the one projecting will be the one giving what is projected, and the one
giving will be the one projecting what is given; but the giving of the Spirit is of energies, but the
projecting is of hypostasis; but hypostasis and energy are not the same; therefore, the projecting is
not the same as the giving. Again, if the communication of the Holy Spirit and procession are the
same, either through the communication the procession, being participated in, will be participated
in, or through the procession, being unparticipated, the communication also will be unparticipated;
but the holy communication is participated in by us, but the procession alone is unparticipated; but
what is participated in and what is unparticipated are not the same; therefore, the procession is not
the same as the participation. Again, if the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and procession are the
same, either through the procession being invisible, the outpouring also is invisible, or through the
outpouring being visible, the procession also will be visible; but the one has been seen by myriads,
but the other remains invisible; but what is visible and what is invisible are not the same; therefore,
the procession is not the same as the outpouring. Furthermore, if the gift of the divine Spirit and
procession are the same, either through the procession being simple, the gift also will be simple, or
through the gift being various, the procession also will be various; but the procession is simple, but
the gift is various; but what is simple and what is various are not the same; therefore, the procession
is not the same as the gift. Further, if the sending of the Spirit and the procession are the same,
either through the sending happening towards us in time, the procession also will be towards us in
time, and it will not be what it is; or through the procession happening towards us both now and
before the foundation of the world, neither will the sending of the Spirit be towards us; but the
sending happens towards us, but the procession is in itself and is what it is eternally; therefore, the
procession is not the same as the sending of the Spirit. Further, if the personal procession of the
Spirit is the same as His grace towards us, either through the procession being personal, the grace
also will be personal, or through the grace being common, the procession also will be common; but
the grace comes equally from the three Persons, but the procession of the Spirit is not from the
three; therefore, the procession is not the same as the grace. Further, if the sending of the Spirit and
the procession are the same, either since the sending is for the sake of goodness towards us, the
procession also will be for our sake, or the procession being without cause, the sending also will
happen without any cause; but the sending happens for a cause, whenever it happens, but the
procession of the Spirit is eternally and is without any cause; therefore, the procession is not the
same as the sending. But if the sending of the Spirit is not the same as the procession, then certainly
something different is sent; and not only the Holy Spirit is sent from the Father, but also the Son
Himself; and the sending of the Son, therefore, will not be the same as His own generation, and not

41
the same as the procession of the Spirit; but the Father generates the Son according to hypostasis,
not by sending Him and giving Him and causing Him to dwell in us through the Spirit; therefore, He
does not cause the Spirit to proceed according to hypostasis by sending and giving and causing Him
to dwell in us. We have the same things to say likewise concerning the Son and concerning the Spirit;
for since not only the Holy Spirit is sent from the Son, but also the Son is sent from the Spirit, if the
sending of the Spirit and the procession are the same, then certainly in the case of the Son also His
sending will be the same as His generation; but the Holy Spirit does not generate the Son by sending
Him and giving Him and causing Him to dwell in us; therefore, neither does the Son, by sending and
giving the Holy Spirit, cause Him to proceed according to hypostasis. And if the timeless procession
of the Spirit is for a cause, the timeless generation of the Son also will be for a cause; and the one
saying concerning Him, "from the beginning without cause," does not speak truly; and if also what
is for the sake of something is inferior, and the Spirit has existence for our sake, then we are
superior to Him, that is, to the perfect One; and what other absurdities follow, who could
enumerate?
Paragraph 10: And if the Person of the Spirit, eternally and inseparably subsisting with the
Father, is the same as the gift being bestowed upon us temporally and communicably, and His pre-
eternal existence is the same as His giving Himself to us; since not only the Father and the Son give
Him, but He also gives Himself; therefore the Holy Spirit Himself proceeds personally from
Himself. But if it is not granted to the Son to generate Himself from the Father, and to be the cause
of His own generation, lest He be considered demonic, shall we believe that the Holy Spirit Himself
personally exists from Himself, and is the cause of His own procession? And what impiety will utter
this? But if the eternal procession of the divine Spirit is not from Himself (for it is absurd for Him
to proceed personally from Himself, as has been shown), but His giving to us is also from the Spirit;
the Person of the Spirit is one thing, and the gift another, the giving of the Spirit is different, and
existence is different.
Paragraph 11: But that which greatly deceives many is this: that whenever the holy fathers make
discourse concerning this giving, or of the gift, since they say that it is given not only from the
Father, but also from the Son, therefore many suppose that it proceeds also from the Father and the
Son, and is bestowed from the Father through the Son, and is manifested from the Father by the
Son, and they posit as many such things. Hearing these things, many, not understanding that these
things are said not concerning the Person of the Spirit, but concerning the gift, and having a certain
zeal perhaps concerning the Spirit, even if not according to knowledge, immediately consider the
giving to be the procession, and the gift to be the Person of the Spirit; and from this their dogma
seems to be fortified, and as a heaven-high wall it stands against us. But the circle of the teachers, a
sufficient teaching itself, persuades against such an opinion; but rather the mouth of Christ, Paul,
suffices for conviction for all, now saying “Now there are varieties of gifts,” and whatever follows (1
Cor. 12:4), now “For to one is given through the Spirit this, and to another that” (1 Cor. 12:8), and
to one one thing, and to another another; and adding to all these, as a kind of seal of the discourse,

42
“But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He
wills” (1 Cor. 12:11); so that the grace is of will, but not of nature; so that the distribution is not of
persons, but of energies; so that just as God working the workings is not a working, but the very
Person of the Father; and the Lord ministering the ministries is not a ministry, but the Person
Himself of the Son; so also the Spirit distributing the gifts is not a gift, but the very Person of the
Spirit. But if the Person of the divine Spirit and the gift are the same, and the giving of the Spirit
and the procession are the same, the ministry of the Lord and the Lord will be the same; and the
working of God and God will be the same; if the Person distributing is the same as the distributed
gift; but the divine Apostle, refuting this opinion, in order to show that the Person distributing the
distributed things is different from the distributed things, says thus openly, “But one and the same
Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills”; that is, the things
being distributed are many and various, but the Person distributing these is one and simple; just as
the Father providing gifts to men does not Himself personally bestow them apart from this, and just
as the Son giving powers to the worthy does not Himself personally impart them; so also the Holy
Spirit distributing the common gifts of the Father and the Son and Himself to the faithful, is not
personally bestowed by anyone, these being the common gifts; and simply, spirit, and giving, and
grace, and gift, and charism; and plurally, spirits, and gifts, and givings, and graces, and charisms; the
holy fathers say, not as being provided individually by each of the Persons in the Holy Trinity, and as
being bestowed by two whomever they may be, and as being given by the three to the worthy; but
only from the Spirit immediately, but from the Father and the Son not immediately.
Paragraph 12: But let falsehood carry away breezes and chaos and darkness; but let the teachers
of truth testify that one thing is nature in the divine Trinity, and another hypostasis, and another
energy. John of Damascus says thus: "It must be known that one thing is energy, and another the
energetic [agent], and another the effect [of the energy], and another the one working; energy indeed
is the active and essential movement of the nature; the energetic [agent] is the nature from which the
energy proceeds; the effect is the result of the energy; the one working is the one using the energy,
that is, the hypostasis." And Gregory the Theologian [says], "Generating and generation, willing and
volition, speaking and word, are not the same; for some are the movers, and others as it were the
movement." And Saint Justin the philosopher and martyr [says], "To exist is one thing, and to be
inherent is another; existence belongs to God, and inherent in the existence is the will; therefore the
existence in God is one thing, and the will another." And the divine Maximus [says], "Nothing of
existing things subsists apart from its natural energy; for the holy fathers clearly say that no nature
whatsoever exists or is known apart from its essential energy." And Cyril of Alexandria [says], "If
generating is the same as making, the one generating will be making the one being generated, and
the one making will be generating the one being made; but making is of energy, and generating of
nature; but nature and energy are not the same; therefore generating is not the same as making." So
that the energy being one thing, and the hypostasis another, and the essence another, just as He does
not generate Himself, so He does not cause Himself to proceed according to hypostasis. The one

43
generating is one person, and the one being generated another; the one causing to proceed is one,
and the one proceeding another; the Son is one, and generation another; the Spirit is one, and the
procession of the Spirit another; the existence of God is one, and the condescension of God
another.
Paragraph 13: But so that we may return to the purpose of the discourse, this indeed is one and
the first cause of the perversion of the faith, to suppose one procession of the Spirit and without
cause, or to think that there are two processions, and assigning both of these to the Spirit. But the
second [cause]—lest, speaking at length, we seem burdensome to some, we will speak about this in
another homily, if God should grant. For there is neither good understanding, nor useful discourse,
nor beneficial action without Him. Nevertheless, knowing that for right Orthodox thinking, before
all it is necessary also to possess love toward one's neighbor, as nothing else is profitable if this is
not also present; therefore we now suggest to your love those things concerning love and
forbearance, that it is the characteristic of those wishing to be saved as Christians, to love even those
who wrong them; and this would happen according to my judgment, if each morning you would say
these things to yourself: “Today I will meet with a busybody, an ungrateful person, an insolent
person, a deceitful person, an envious person, an unsociable person, a worthless person”; all these
things have befallen those people because of ignorance of good and evil; but I, having beheld the
nature of good, that it is beautiful, and of evil, that it is base, and also the nature of the one sinning,
that he is akin to me, I neither desire to be estranged from my kinsman, nor to be at enmity with
him; for we have been born for cooperation, as feet, as hands, as eyelids; to act against one another
is contrary to nature; and to be indignant and to turn away is contrary [to nature].
Paragraph 14: For every lord, and brother, and father, and tutor, and teacher, and doctor, and
lawgiver, and judge are appointed for this: to be hated by those whom they were assigned to benefit,
and to appear burdensome and troublesome and shameless; and the reason is that they do not
benefit by the things they please with, but by the things they grieve with, and the wise are always and
will be and are burdensome to the foolish, the approved to those sinning, the steadfast to the
unstable, the educated to the uneducated, and in general the upright to the perverse; but the vice of
one harms the other; for even if we have been born most especially for each other, nevertheless the
ruling principles of each of us have been allotted their own self-mastery; otherwise the vice of one
would be an evil to another; which did not seem good to God, so that no one might be unfortunate
except by himself; the one sinning sins against himself, and the one acting unjustly does evil to
himself, but he is not able to harm another unless that other himself wills it; and what am I saying,
that man is not able to harm man? Man is not even able to benefit man, unless he himself also wills
to be benefited from within; but even this is nothing to what I am about to say; not even God
Himself is able to benefit or harm anyone, unless the man who is to be benefited or harmed first
wills it; the one [reason] is that the divine majesty has the nature to always benefit and never to
harm; the other [reason] is that He does not wish to reap virtue from us by force; therefore,
whenever you encounter the impudence of someone, immediately persuade yourself, “Is it possible

44
for there not to be impudent people in the world?” It is not possible; do not demand the impossible;
for this one also is one of those impudent people, whom it is necessary to be in the world; and let
this be readily available to you also concerning every lawless person, and concerning the unbeliever,
and concerning everyone who sins in any way.
Paragraph 15: It is also useful to consider immediately what virtue God has given to man against
this sin; for He has given as a counter-remedy, against the ungrateful, meekness; against the
unthankful, forbearance; and against each evil, a certain power of goodness. For what evil or strange
thing has happened, if the uneducated do the things proper to them? To pursue impossibilities is
madness; but it is impossible to make the worthless not worthless, and the uneducated not
uneducated. See if you ought not rather to blame yourself because you expected that he would not
sin in this way; but why do you want to make a man more than he is? Is it not enough that you have
acted according to your own nature, but you then seek a reward? For one art is one thing, but your
art is to always be good, or to become so. Do not blame the unthankful, but turn back to yourself;
for you have done what pertained to you. Neither reproach anyone having bestowed a favor at any
time; for the one reproaching favors is like a farmer sowing eagerly, but allowing swine and wild
beasts to come upon the sown seeds; for as that one harms both the sowing and the fruit from it, so
also this one destroys both the things cast down and the ingrowing unthankfulness. But what is
necessary to do towards the ungrateful and unthankful? I will say this: just as if someone standing by
a clear and sweet spring were to blaspheme it, but it does not cease to gush forth drinkable water
both to the blasphemer himself and equally to all those wishing to draw from there; or someone
were to accuse a precious stone placed on the royal crown, saying that it is useless and without light,
but it would maintain its similar brilliance; or someone were to blame the sun as darkening the eyes,
but it would shine around in the same way all the earth; so also it is necessary for you to be disposed,
whatever anyone does or says to you, but yourself, established in your own ruling spirit, be steadfast
and unchangeable, neither being broken by the present, nor fearing the coming; for mind and reason
are able to proceed through everything that falls upon them, as it is natural and they will: as fire
upwards, as a stone downwards, as a cylinder down a slope; and what has not become by choice,
does not become, will not be; for the nature of man is a part according to a certain unimpeded
nature, both rational and just; but a spring and a precious stone and the sun, as soulless, and as
having the advantage by nature, remain impassible; but to you, since everything lies in your own
choice, the recompense of compassion towards the one provoking is ready from God; whence if
someone has grieved you, do not grieve in return, since you have become equal to him; and just as
the echo [returns] the voices, and the mirror the reflected forms, and the hands the clappings
towards each other, so also you have imitated the vice of your neighbor, and what you received from
there you have given back, and you have fallen into the accusation you are making; but no one heals
evil with new evil, nor does he cure a wound with a wound, but rather opposite remedies with
opposites; whence the sacred words, “With the holy,” He says, “you will be holy; and with a
blameless man you will be blameless; and with the elect you will be elect; and with the perverse you

45
will pervert” (Psalm 18:25-26), that is, you will not be perverse yourself, but upright; and a counter-
remedy against all evils; and just as one is skilled at seasoning foods, and mixing wine, and adapting a
mixture to the changes of the air, so also in every way strive to adapt yourself to your neighbor for
benefit, and to all the matters with which you have been allotted, and to the people with whom
providence has ordained you to live, and nature along with what it brings, to adapt yourself and to
love the allotted truly.
Paragraph 16: Do you not hear that Socrates, being a philosopher, and having received no
publicly evident cause for being struck, and this in the presence of his disciples, endured what
happened as if it had not been done? And Pericles, general of the Athenians, being reviled by the
people for a whole day in the marketplace, did not avenge the insult. And Antoninus Caesar of the
Romans thanked those reviling him, saying, “I am grateful to those who revile me, because they
make me better; for I, striving to refute their falsehoods, become still worse by changing.” But depart
far from our court, both Caesars and Pericles and Socrates, and all the Hellenic brotherhood; there is
no portion for you unbelievers in the lot of the faithful; nor is it necessary for those living in the
light to be taught by the dead in darkness, when it is possible to be enlightened by the living and
those dwelling in the heavens. Consider the sailors, how many contrary winds they endure, so that
they may become masters of the port to which they hasten, and how much the fishermen are
drenched by the sea so that they may catch some sea creature; and how many wounds the soldiers
endure, so that they may acquire some paltry gain for themselves; and how patiently the doctors
endure the revilings of the sick against them, and the disorders and insults of the mad those related
to them [endure]? Emulate these in good, so that you may also at the same time gain the soul of
your neighbor.
Paragraph 17: But "I have benefited him with such and so many things," he says, "but he always
treats me ungratefully and unthankfully." For what, tell me, have the Apostles wronged men, so that
Peter was crucified by them? And Mark had his body pierced with lances? And Bartholomew had all
his skin flayed? What did the divine prophets harm the Hebrews, so that Isaiah was sawn in two with
a wooden saw? Jeremiah and Daniel, one was cast into a muddy pit, and the other into the den of
lions? What terrible things did the martyrs do to the tyrants, so that they consumed one with fire,
another with the sword, and another with various tortures? They proclaimed a kingdom to all, they
led away from demonic error, they brought them to the true and living God; these things are worthy
of crowns, these of proclamations, not of tortures; but nevertheless they all suffered the opposite
of these things, they who are equal to myriads of perishing worlds. Then those who ought to be
grateful and crown them, having suffered myriads of ungrateful things from us, and we, being full
of myriads of faults, if we bestow a small favor on someone, immediately seek to be admired and
repaid in many ways. “But I am not a prophet,” he says, “nor an Apostle, nor a martyr, so that I
should bear such reproaches.” If you are not one of those, I testify to you, but that you are a disciple
of these, you yourself would not deny; but it is characteristic of a disciple to imitate the teacher.
Nothing strange, nothing new has happened to you, but what the nature of the things happening

46
according to this vain world demands to happen; for a son rises up against his father, and a disciple
plots against his teacher, and the one benefited hastens to bury his benefactor; and the common
saying agrees with these things: “If you do good, expect evil from him in return.”
Paragraph 18: Do you see how much God is blasphemed daily? How much He is insulted by the
faithful and the unfaithful, both through words and through deeds? What then? Did He extinguish
the sun because of this? Did He put the moon to sleep? Did He tear down the heavens? Did He
loose thunderbolts? Did He disturb the earth? Did He dry up the sea? Did He confound the air?
Did He obliterate the sources of the waters? Did He unleash wild beasts upon the ungrateful? By no
means! But quite the opposite: He makes the sun rise, He sends down the rain, He gives food, He
gives yearly fruits to the blasphemers, to the foolish, to the impure, to the persecutors. Then God,
being immortal, endures such and so many base men for so many ages; whence [does He do this]?
He even cares for them in every way. But we, being about to receive the rewards of our works, shall
we now give up? And shall we be displeased with perhaps three or ten such [people]? And these
being in many ways no better than ourselves? Far from it! But let us repay their insults with frequent
praises, their ungratefulness with benefactions, their curses with prayers to God, and in general let us
exchange evils for good things. For even if they have repaid our benefactions with ungratefulness,
the commandment not to return evil for evil remains for us; but it is good for us to remember this
here: for the base have worked the things of the base, but we owe nothing more, if not love towards
our fellow men; and this is not a repayment, but a constant virtue, and an indispensable debt. For
neither do the eyes demand repayment from the feet because they see, nor the feet from them
because they walk, nor does the lamp seek honors, as it illuminates the whole house from within; but
each of these is satisfied by working according to what it is naturally suited for. Benefiting, you
imitate God; seeking repayment, you are a tax collector; proclaim the one being benefited; give
silently; benefiting even the ungrateful, bear it nobly; and for both, that is, both for the benefaction
towards your neighbor, and for the ungratefulness then towards you, you will be recompensed by
God.
Paragraph 19: Let us know also this, that you would not have been allowed to be so afflicted,
unless you had first afflicted others; whether willingly or unwillingly, I am not able to say; but for this
reason you are being disciplined, because you have sinned beforehand. Therefore, take a cleansing
remedy in return for the poison you have mixed for someone, and drink it gladly, for it cleanses you
from much impurity. But if you are exceedingly indignant or despondent, the life of man is fleeting,
and after a little while we all depart; but you imagine all things as eternal; for a little while you will be
silent, and another again will soon lament the one who has brought these things upon you. Why do I
not say this, which has slightly escaped me? Ask yourself, ask every Christian, in what do those being
saved have the hope of salvation? And they will all certainly say to you, and all concerning all, and
each one concerning himself, “We hope only in the mercy of God.” And this is the forbearance of
God; for if He were not forbearing towards us, no one would be saved; for no man is without sin,
not even for one day of his life on earth. But if we have the hope of salvation in the forbearance of

47
God, and this is given only to those who are forbearing, and to no one who holds grudges, let us
therefore become forbearing towards our brothers, so that we may also draw down upon ourselves
the great mercy of the Father, and enjoy the eternal good things, by the loving-kindness and
goodness of the super-essential Trinity, to whom is due all glory, honor, and worship unto the ages.
Amen.

48
 DISCOURSE V. CONCERNING THE TRANSCENDENTAL TRINITY.
Showing that theology surpasses all arts and sciences by an incomparable degree; whence faith is not
demonstrated through syllogisms.

Paragraph 1: O Holy Spirit, Comforter, silence us, illuminate us, save us, Most Holy. In my
discourse given to you six days ago, having discussed briefly one of the causes of deviations from
the Faith—concerning which we undertook to speak in the subsequent discourse—now, without
further introductions, let us speak, and pay attention. For there is a second and by far more severe
and worse cause of deviation than the first; and this is, attempting to demonstrate divine things and
their inherent power by syllogisms, which is entirely inappropriate. For from the beginning, those
things had no place in the divine enclosure; but since empty babbling, called "education," seemed to
offer an entry, the corrupters, having found an opportunity for intrusion and having crept into it,
innovating one thing after another and corrupting the well-established truths with their absurd
inventions, filled the Church of Christ, I declare, with countless scandals. Therefore, I advise and
exhort all, neither for us to test divine dogmas with new syllogisms, nor to give the slightest
attention to others who introduce them. Not to test them, because all the divine words have been
most fully tested by the divine teachers, whom the Holy Spirit has delivered them to us; and it is
superfluous and vain for us, the ignorant, to test what has been tested by them from the beginning
and to pronounce judgments about them now one way, now another, and as it seems good to us;
and this, as I believe, leads to impiety and blasphemy and is known to cause many dangers to our
souls. For we are, as it were, setting ourselves up as wiser than the Spirit. Let it not be so, lest in
arguing and, after concluding what seems good to us, when someone brings up a question or inquiry,
we happen to utter what is in falsehood, the worst of confessions, or what is in truth, the accursed
denial, and our tongue becomes defiled by blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which has no
forgiveness, as the sacred words say, neither in this age nor in the age to come. Therefore also the
great herald of truth, the mouth of the Lord, Paul, testifies to all, saying, “Beware lest anyone cheat
you through philosophy and empty deceit,” and again, “Has not God made foolish the wisdom of
this world?” Therefore, we must not use the enemy, nor about what is disputed in divine matters,
should this foolishness sit as judge.
Paragraph 2: “But we test,” someone says, “to discern the truth by testing.” He who makes this
pretext deceives, or speaks falsely, or clearly denies the truth. For if the things of the Spirit had not
been tested by the Spirit, as has been said, if Christ had established us as testers of these things, then
this testing would have boldness. But the truth neither needs testing nor needs any purification; all
cleansing is far from it. For the words of the Lord, says David, are pure words, silver refined, tested
in the earth, purified seven times. Everything that is purified is purified by something; and
everything that is tested provides a doubtful knowledge beforehand and is tested afterward. But the
truth is unmixed purity, an indubitable thing, itself knowledge and understanding and light. For what

49
is more precise than knowledge in the Spirit? Or what is brighter than the light itself ? Or what is
truer than the truth itself ?
Paragraph 3: And what, someone says, prevents us from testing through syllogisms concerning
the procession of the Holy Spirit? First, this is prevented by the ancient and apostolic tradition, to
avoid reliance on syllogisms in discourses about God, since they are weak and lead to falsehood and
attempt nothing other than to obscure what relates to the Cross. Furthermore, if we entrust the
things of faith to syllogisms, our faith is lost, and the crowns of those steadfast in the faith are lost,
and we will no longer give faith to God but to men. Therefore, again says the blessed Paul: “And my
speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration
of the Spirit and of power, that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of
God”; 1 and again, “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with
wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ be made of 2 no effect”; and further, “Which things we
also speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches,
comparing spiritual things with 3 spiritual.” And if any of you is deprived of multifaceted sophistry,
let him not, because of this, defer to those exceedingly skilled in these things, especially if it happens
that we are disputing about reverence; he ought to pay attention: “For what fellowship has light with
darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever?”
4 or Aristotle with the dogmas of the Church of Christ? Let those be rejected who are darkened by
his philosophy or attempt to corrupt our teachings. For the divine Scripture derides and calls this a
counterfeit and superfluous and filthy plausibility, a destructive wisdom. And let no one think that I
am here condemning this in all respects as useless. For it is indeed good and useful and productive
of discourse, but in things that happen in nature; but not in things that are above nature. This
(philosophy) has its own limit; when it promises greater things, it is vanity; and every art not
contained within its own limits becomes this.
Paragraph 4: Therefore, let us receive divine things with faith and not with the power of
knowledge through the Spirit, not with the strength of dialectic, and let us adhere to the divine
Scriptures as superior to proof, we who desire to be pious, “For I became,” says that Spirit-bearer,
“like a beast before You; nevertheless I am continually with You.” And piety is therefore
undemonstrable by human syllogisms. “For faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence
of things not seen.” Syllogisms imposed by men on divine dogmas sometimes seem to speak truth
while being false, and sometimes, while being true, they are thought to be false. But the
demonstrations of the saints are most certain truth and a great light upon all the earth and simply
superior to all deception. The curious inquiries of syllogisms darken the mind, while the sayings of
the saints illuminate the soul. Syllogisms are sometimes inventions and discoveries of impious and
wicked men, but even the syllables of Holy Scripture are the offspring of the Holy Spirit.
Paragraph 5: If you are persuaded by me, adhere simply to what is written, and do not curiously
test these things. If you believe, do not test; but if you test, you do not believe. For he who has a
golden tongue is not yet sound, demanding reasoning. For just as reasonings divide and shake, so

50
faith is carried about and does not establish a firm footing. And again, “But God has revealed them
to us through His Spirit,” not through external wisdom. For this, like a dishonored servant, was not
allowed to enter within and peer into the master’s mysteries. Do you see how great the difference is
between this wisdom and that? What even angels did not know, this (divine revelation) has taught us,
but the external (wisdom) has done the complete opposite; not only has it not taught but also has
hindered and obstructed. And again, “I believe in one God, Father Almighty,” he says; “I believe,” I
do not inquire; “I believe,” I do not pursue the incomprehensible; “I believe,” I do not measure the
immeasurable. If I believe, my soul is illuminated; if I inquire curiously, my reasoning is darkened. If
I believe rightly, I am lifted up to heaven; if I seek curiously, I am cast down into the abyss.
Furthermore, “We urge you to say nothing from reasonings; for the weapons of our warfare are not
carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds,” casting down reasonings and every high
thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God. Therefore, we are exhorted to cast them
down, not to exalt them; we are commanded to destroy them, not to arm ourselves with them. “For
the reasonings of mortals are fearful,” he says. What is “fearful”? He who is fearful, even if he walks
in safe places, is not yet confident but is afraid and trembles. So also what is imposed by reasonings,
even if it is true, does not yet provide full assurance to the soul and sufficient faith. Since such is the
weakness of reasonings, let us turn from them to the battle against the adversaries from the
Scriptures. And in addition to these things, when the soul is feverish from reasonings, then it seeks;
but when it is in health, then it does not seek but receives by faith; for from seeking and disputing it
is easy to err. For what faith alone promises, when inquiry undertakes, it sometimes shows,
sometimes it lets go in silence. For neither if someone, closing his eyes, wished to see something of
the things sought, will he be able; or again, if, with these open, having buried himself and turning
away from the rays (of light), he seeks there, he will be able to see something. Thus, without faith,
nothing is found, but it is necessary for battles to be generated, from which arise envies, strifes,
blasphemies, evil suspicions, that is, evil opinions and dogmas from the inquiries. Then we suspect
about God what we ought not, when we fall into inquiries. Similar things also Cyril of Alexandria
says: “Faith is not what is sought; for just as hope that is seen is not hope, so also faith that is
inquired into and does not have the unsearchable, would not be faith, according to the same
reasoning as hope.” Hear also Gregory the Theologian, how far he casts out of the Church those
who dare to use syllogisms: “To Moabites and Ammonites,” he says, “it is not even permitted to
enter into the Church of God, to those using dialectical and meddlesome arguments, who inquire
much about the generation of God and audaciously scrutinize the ineffable procession of the
Godhead. But we, following the divine Scriptures and solving the problems set before the blind,
pursue salvation, daring everything rather than to act presumptuously against God.” Basil the Great
also follows this, saying that the simplicity of faith is stronger than logical proofs. “For just as in the
case of things lying before our eyes, experience has been shown to be superior to argument, so also
in the case of dogmas that transcend us, faith is superior to comprehension through reasonings. For
if we were to measure all things by comprehension and to suppose that what is incomprehensible by

51
reasonings does not exist at all, the institution of faith would be lost, and the reward of hope would
be lost.” And again, “How then would we be worthy of the beatitudes reserved for those who
believe in the unseen, if we are persuaded only by the things accessible to reason? Whence were the
nations made foolish and their senseless heart darkened, and professing to be wise they became
fools? Was it not because, following the appearances from reasonings, they disobey the preaching of
the Spirit? Whom does Isaiah lament as lost, saying, ‘The wise are wise in their own eyes, and
prudent in their own sight’?” Parallel to these things, also Athanasius the Great, among the
luminaries, says: “The Godhead is not transmitted by demonstration of words, but by faith and
pious reasoning with reverence.” “For Paul preached about the saving Cross, not in persuasive words
of wisdom but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power,” and unutterable powers were seen in
Paradise, which it is not lawful for a man to utter; how then concerning the Holy Trinity itself can
one attain the truth by discourse rather than by faith?
Paragraph 6: Do you see how all the divine teachers reject curious syllogisms and cast them far
from the divine enclosure? Let us flee from them, therefore. And for what reason? he says. Because
everyone who reasons thinks that he can comprehend everything by his own intellect and that what
is impossible for him does not exist at all concerning God; and not only beyond nature, but also
beyond knowledge and art, he attempts to make the divine attainable. Furthermore, he attempts to
demonstrate things beyond the intellect by intellectual means, things beyond nature by natural
means, and things beyond being by beings; and he introduces piety, not established through faith, as
it seems to be comprehended by demonstration. And he no longer has his faith and hope in God,
but in weak demonstrations and random syllogisms, and in many ways he goes to excess, both
defining what is impossible for the Godhead and legislating what is necessary, and finding the
monad and demonstrating the triad, and speculating about the processions and assigning their
modes, and he attributes to himself more knowledge of the Trinity than is fitting. But we worship
and venerate the Trinity as ineffable, incomprehensible, unsearchable, uncontainable, having no
knowledge of existing things, neither of the union nor of the division, incomparably transcending
and being utterly separate from all intellect and word and thought, of which there is no position or
negation at all, but we, making positions and negations about things after it, neither posit it nor
negate it. For the all-perfect and ever-existing cause of all things is beyond every position, and the
transcendence of it, utterly separate from all and beyond all, is beyond every negation. Therefore, we
mystically say both “one” and “three,” and the monad and triad are hymned, yet it is neither monad
nor triad such as is known either by us or by any other of existing things, but it is found in
inaccessible places, having both the monad and the triad and the modes of the processions equally
unknown to all.
Paragraph 7: Therefore, we also in no way use syllogisms to demonstrate only that the Father is
the projector of the Spirit, because we consider the problem to be beyond human understanding,
and therefore beyond every syllogism, and beyond every, if anyone should say, demonstration. But
proposing the conclusion from the adversaries, we examine what necessarily follows from what has

52
been declared by the saints. And if we seem to speak syllogistically, word is taken in place of word,
and the discourse occurs as if for the sake of coming before the eyes. For when a science is under a
science, then the subordinate uses the conclusions of the superior science as its own principles and
proceeds in an orderly fashion, and there is no harm in this, when it refers to its own principles,
which are kindred and proper and proceeding from prior ones toward the truth. But when all
sciences and arts and methods, gathered together, hold the position of a dishonored servant, who is
so daring and reckless as to make Christian theology subordinate to dialectical art? Or how would
this be rightly considered or even attempted, being utterly blasphemous and impossible? How is it at
all possible, without straying from the truth, for one attempting to hunt divine things from human
methods? For if these things are possible, faith is sought in vain, and the revelation from God, since
it readily proceeds through syllogistic demonstrations toward piety. Therefore, and for these reasons,
it is necessary to flee from them, because using syllogisms as weapons against impiety, Arius,
Macedonius, Eunomius, Nestorius, Eutyches, Dioscorus, Origen, and any other heretic disturbed
and troubled it (the Church). But the assembly of the Orthodox yields and is led by syllogisms
according to the truth. For even the foundations of the faith, I mean the Prophets and Apostles and
the venerable Gospel, it received from the beginning without premises and skillfully crafted
conclusions, and it rejoices well. But if some of the luminaries of the Church, making discourses
about God, used syllogisms and offered demonstrations, it is not necessary to be amazed. For it is
necessary to consider not only this, but also when, and to whom they were speaking, and what
opinion they had about these things. For they did not use them for the sake of scrutinizing, nor
always; but in time of war, standing against the heretics, and when necessity brought another
argument to those who brought necessity upon them, they spoke these things. And not all things
said by them are said dogmatically, far from it, but some are said in this way, some economically,
some parabolically, some agonistically; and it is necessary for the listener to examine the intention
with which it is said, and the subject about which it is thus written, and how the divine expositors,
striving to achieve their purpose, wisely manage their words. Thus, if someone from the opposite
side proposes something now and asks me, whether I should only be silent, or agree with what is
said, or expose the many unsoundnesses of the dogma, which allow it to be understood otherwise,
so that we do not believe this, even if we are able to demonstrate it with reason.
Paragraph 8: Therefore, even if you unwillingly fall into such a necessity, oppose all the
propositions from there, trusting in the divine Spirit. Concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit,
do you wish to learn from me, or to teach me? If indeed to teach, I do not accept you as a teacher in
this; but if to learn, it is sufficient for you to honor this with silence. Then, not as a teacher—for
when did you become this to me?—nor again do you ask as one wishing to learn, but testing and
even contending, and seeking only to triumph in your own wisdom, and that you might boast against
us. Since you are thus disposed toward us, and being such, it is fitting not even to pay attention to
the beginnings of your words. “But,” he says, “to be at a loss for a response to the question is to
make these pretexts, and to flee to silence as to some citadel.” Not to be at a loss, I say, far from it;

53
but I judge it much better to be silent about such things than to speak when it is not necessary; and
silence in these matters is better than confession, to me and to every one having understanding. And
to learn such things, or to listen in any way, I consider worse than all listening and learning; since
even to hear blasphemies is harmful, and to speak them is more destructive. Besides, it is not our
role to be overly inquisitive about the highest of dogmas. For we are being shepherded, not
shepherding and legislating, nor legislators being judged, nor judges a part of the Church, not its
fullness. And even if we do not agree with the dogma while contending, the word will only be
emptied in vain. And if we contend, again this is most unsafe, and the labor is expended by us in
vain. What is the need of so much contention?
Paragraph 9: “But I wish to show,” he says, “how the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and
the Son.” Because of this very thing, that you wish to show how, I will not listen to you at all. For
concerning the how, both the generation of the Son and the procession of the Holy Spirit are
beyond understanding. I do not accept your audacious demonstration in these matters. For the
much-learned Dionysius says that the Father alone is the fountainhead of divinity, but the Son and
the Spirit are, if it is necessary to say so, divine offspring of the divine divinity, and like flowers and
superessential lights, as we have learned from the sacred words. But how these things are, it is not
possible to conceive, but the progression (of understanding) is only up to our intellectual capacity.
Do you hear Gregory the Theologian saying concerning generation? Do not be curious about the
how. Do you hear (about) the Spirit proceeding from the Father? Do not be overly inquisitive about
the how. But if you seek the manner, what have you left to those who alone know each other, and
are known by each other, bearing witness? And again, “If you are overly inquisitive about the
unbegottenness of the Father, and I about the generation of the Son, and about the procession of
the Spirit, we will both be driven to madness, peering into the mysteries of God. And who are
these? Not even knowing the things before our feet.” The divine Damascene also says that we have
learned that there is only a difference between generation and procession; but the how of the
difference, in no way. And again, “For if the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Father, yet there is
another manner of existence, ineffable and unknowable.” Therefore, know yourself, O man, that
you are vanity, and a thing of earth, and corruption, and a worm, and dust, and shadow, and smoke,
and even more incomplete than these. Do not inquire into deeper things than yourself, and do not
examine stronger things than you. Understand the things that have been commanded to you, and do
not proceed further, nor pursue the unattainable. Simple is our dogma’s teaching; believe, Christ
delivered it, the Apostles proclaimed it, the Teachers confirmed it; let us be content with these.
Besides, everyone who has lost what he previously had, that one seeks; but he who has lost nothing,
but has entirely what he possessed from the beginning, in no way seeks, but only keeps well what has
been acquired. We have learned to keep the faith, not to seek it. We, by the grace of the Holy Spirit,
neither having lost the things of faith do we seek, because seeking is destructive of faith. He who
believes does not seek; he who seeks does not yet believe. He who is still seeking has not yet found;
he who is seeking until now, how is he able to believe? Where there is seeking, faith is no longer;

54
where there is faith, there is no need of seeking. What is delivered by faith has knowledge without
inquiry. For he who is persuaded by words is also able to be swayed, but he who is confirmed by
faith has henceforth utterly renounced the arguments that harm. And when we examine things
sought in faith, we do not refer them to common concepts to examine if they agree with these, but
if we demonstrate only that these agree with the confessed dogmas of the Church, even if all the
dogmas according to philosophy happen to be refuted, we consider it sufficient for us. For we were
neither led to the truth by the word of wisdom, nor did we learn the mystery of the Trinity from
there, nor did we learn the manner of any of the dogmas of faith from it.
Paragraph 10: For the subject matter of philosophy is beings, but of theology, the One who is
above all beings and the creator of all; and it is necessary neither to consider faith an art, nor to
theologize the things beyond what has been declared by the theologians. For theology transcends
philosophy by an incomparable degree, but is not subordinate to it. And this is easy to see for one
having even a little understanding, that even if all the philosophers were present, illuminated by the
divine light, they would not be able to teach by their own art and persuade any of those from Christ
that the Son is begotten from the Father, and the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, proceeds from the
Father—these things indeed being confessed by all. I consider it most terrible, therefore, if we use
those same arguments by which even confessed truths are either refuted or doubted, on disputed
matters. For how through these will we acquire what we have, through which we are clearly seen to
lose even what we have? And how will there be faith in invisible things through those things which
are unreliable in visible things? Or the argument is, that some of the confessed dogmas are beyond
intellect and demonstration, but the things being sought are comprehensible by common notions, so
that through syllogisms both the Father’s unbegottenness, and the Son’s generation, and the Holy
Spirit’s procession are demonstrated. Therefore, two choices being set before us, either to affirm the
propositions of the intruded syllogisms on divine matters to be true, and to consider the sayings of
the saints, which show the Holy Spirit proceeding personally from the Father alone, to be false, or
considering these to be true, to suppose the propositions of the opposing syllogisms to be false, we
consider it more preferable to yield to the established (sayings) of the saints, and through them to
refute human reasonings, and to consider them false concerning divine matters, than from believing
human notions to reject the sayings of the saints. But if every truth is not contrary to truth (for
what is contrary to truth turns out to be outright falsehood), and according to the theologians it is
true that the Father alone is the cause of divinity, it is clear that a syllogism refuting this will not be
true. And whatever they have been persuaded at any time, or now attempt to do, concluding, from
this truly concluded (premise), that it does not proceed from the Father alone, it is necessary that all
(such conclusions) are paralogisms and sophisms; therefore, let them fight with darkness and
oblivion.
Paragraph 11: And these things are sufficient concerning the second deviation. But lest our
discourse extend to infinity, having stopped this here now, we will reserve the remaining and
consequent things to this for the following discourses. And what was promised in the introductions

55
of the discourse before this one, we will fulfill in the Holy Spirit. For indeed, if the Holy Spirit
Himself permits, we will often be occupied with these matters. But what is now present, those
things concerning love, the queen of virtues, we suggest to your love both to understand and to
remember and to practice, knowing that just as without Orthodoxy it is impossible to be saved, so
without love it is impossible to see God; and that the other parts of virtue have toil connected with
them, but love, along with the gain, has much pleasure, and no toil, and like a good bee gathering
good things from everywhere, it treasures them in the soul of the one who rightly loves. Thus, it is
fitting for the common and equal love toward one another to be such as a man naturally has toward
each of his own members, equally desiring the health of each; for also the pain of each member
equally provides annoyance to him. Whence, each one ought to consider the neighbor as his own, as
if he were clothed with him along with the body, and to bear the whole man, and to suffer with him
in all things, and to rejoice with him, and to weep with him, and simply to be disposed toward him in
all things as if he bears the same body, and has the same face, and the same soul. When someone
acquires love, he puts on God Himself along with it; and he who loves God rightly also loves his
neighbor, lives an angelic life on earth, always thinking good things about God and every man. He
who loves the Lord has already loved his neighbor. But he who says he loves the Lord and hates his
neighbor is like one who eats during the day and affirms that he loves the sun. He who is deprived
of love is deprived of God, since God is love. To love those who hate is virtue and divine; but to
love those who love is human and common; but to hate even those who love is even beastly. Love
has its own peculiar pleasure, only with God; for it is God Himself. Love is either always present and
remains, or having been moved it is reestablished, or having departed it returns, just as plants that,
having been forcibly moved by hands, when they are released, run back to themselves again. This
thing of love is owed indeed to all Christians, but especially to kings and rulers, just as in the case of
the members of the human body, each one owes something to all, but especially the head of all; for
it commands all and bears the passions of all and leaves nothing uncared for; therefore, it is also said
that the king ought to be philanthropic and loving of his city. For neither of horses, nor of
movements, nor of men, nor of any other thing do they think they rule well unless one rejoices in
those things for which he must make provision, and very reasonably. For not so much armies and
weapons and money and a multitude of subjects make rulers more illustrious as philanthropy and
gentleness of soul; and kings must endure more than all; for the wife is governed through her own
husband, and the child through his parents, and the student through his teacher, and the army
through its general, and the ascetic through faith, and the common people through the kings, and
the kings through the laws, and the laws through prudence, and prudence through endurance, and
endurance through love.
Paragraph 12: But many of those in positions of power, because it is possible for them to take
everything, desire everything; because justice is in their hands, for this reason they are unjust;
because they do not fear the laws, they think they do not exist; because they are not compelled to
toil, they never cease living in luxury; because no one avenges those suffering evils, they never cease

56
doing evil; because they lack no pleasure, they are never filled with enjoying pleasures; because no
one openly blames them, they do not abandon the things that are said to be unjust; because no one
wants to grieve them, for this reason they are harsh to all; because when they are angry it is possible
for them to do everything, for this reason they are continually angry. But the good ruler practices the
opposite: he desires nothing, because he thinks he has everything; and he is more just than others,
since he provides justice to all; and he loves the laws, because he does not fear them; and he delights
in toils, because he toils willingly; and he leads a quiet life, since he has no one who contends with
him; and he is sparing of pleasures, because he would lack none if he were to desire them; he speaks
all just things, because no one openly blames him; he is harsh to no one, because no one chooses to
grieve him; and he is never angry, because it is permitted to him that no one be angry with him at all.
So that one is a true ruler who has ruled himself, and has subjected both soul and body to reason.
And just as the mathematicians say about the sun that it is carried in the heavens neither by a straight
movement, nor by a directly contrary and opposing one, but using a slanting and inclined form of
course, it makes a liquid and unbending and circularly turning spiral, by which all things are
preserved and receive the best mixture; thus, indeed, a too upright and opposing tension toward all
things is unpleasant and harsh, as again a slippery and downward tendency is dangerous and
darkening to those who sin, to which many also fall. But if a mean between these is mixed, this is
the most harmonious and most musical mixture of all sounds and all harmonies, by which also God
is said to govern the world, not by force, but leading necessity by persuasion and reason. Whom you,
the rulers, and you yourselves imitating, as the king and ruler of all, becoming philanthropic toward
those ruled by you, while you are in ruling, so that both living you may be praised by all, and having
departed from here you may always be blessed by all. But be eager for listening to me, and run
together more, and gladly listen, so that with exultation of soul and alertness of heart and joy of
spirit, living, we may all attain there to the eternal good things in the Holy Spirit. Amen.

57
 DISCOURSE VI. CONCERNING THE TRANSCENDENTAL TRINITY.
Presenting that the saying among the Italians of "Hypostasis" and "Essence" and "Person," due to
the simplicity of language, becomes for them a deviation from the Orthodox Faith.

Paragraph 1: Concerning the first and second cause of deviation from correct doctrine, which
we discussed in the two preceding discourses, now today we also wish to discourse to you
concerning a third; but I ask you to pay attention. The Latin language, due to its simplicity, or I do
not know how I might express it more clearly, the name of both essence and hypostasis, by which
the Greeks (use) two (terms), but among them it is thus said by one word, substantia, signifying by
one word a twofold meaning to those able to understand; and from this has arisen the schism of the
Westerners from us, concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit; because using this name with the
double meaning concerning the worshipped Spirit, each one understands it as he wishes: one
(understands) hypostasis instead of essence, another (understands) essence instead of hypostasis;
and he thinks that this is also according to the meaning of both, indistinguishable. And because of
these things, they separate themselves from true theology. For going through the usages of the
theologians, and finding the Spirit having substantia from the Father and the Son in many places
there, they do not accept (this) as referring to the first meaning of this name, namely, the essence,
but due to their zeal against us, they immediately refer the discourse to the second, the hypostasis,
that is, to the Person, and they affirm that it is said only concerning this; and this is the cause of
their disagreement with us. And what am I saying about them? Because even from among us,
countless people, from thinking personal characteristics to be essential, or essential characteristics to
be personal, fall from the true doctrine concerning the divine. And this especially affects the
multitude of unintelligent listeners from this: for if in the divine Trinity neither is there essence
apart from hypostasis, nor is there hypostasis without essence, but also the divine essence is not
considered in the hypostases, and the worshippers are hypostases in the essence, consequently also
what is not considered in the essence alone, is easier, for the one not paying attention, to think to
belong to the hypostases, and what belongs to one hypostasis alone, it readily seems to belong also
to the essence, or also to the remaining two hypostases; because from things coexisting and
inseparable and seeming to be especially the same, deception happens to those not paying attention.
Paragraph 2: And this also provides a great impetus toward the aforementioned deviations,
namely that the meaning both of the word "to proceed" and of the word "to go forth," seeming to
mean "to go out," creates much opposition to the intended meaning for those not hearing these
things with understanding. For they immediately think that some temporal and local going out is
signified of the Holy Spirit's hypostasis, from some person to some thing, or place, or person. But it
is not such. For with us, when it is said that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, it is
understood instead that He has His subsistence from the Father alone, just as indeed it is; and
therefore this is said with a qualification, and it does not signify a movement of Him from
something to something and a going forth, but a most steadfast existence. But "to go forth"

58
(πρόεισιν) (signifies) instead "to be poured forth," the abundance of His gifts toward us, but also by
and from the Father. For in what manner we say the Son is begotten from the Father, that is, that He
subsists with the Father indivisibly and eternally, not in place, nor in time, nor through something,
but in Himself ineffably and beyond every cause, in the same manner we say also that the Holy
Spirit proceeds from the Father; that is, that He subsists personally with Him beyond all
understanding, not proceeding transitively, nor for a cause, nor temporally, nor toward anyone,
remaining (with the Father); but according to a steadfast existence, and co-eternal with the Word of
God, even though He has His being from the Father in a manner of generation, but His procession
in another inexpressible manner.
Paragraph 3: Therefore, two things are readily available concerning the Holy Spirit, both existing
and being said: essence and hypostasis; or, if it is pleasing to say, hypostatic procession and essential
existence. For sometimes, looking toward His steadfast hypostatic procession, and declaring its
cause, the theologians say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, hypostatically, that is,
to state it by name in the present time. And sometimes, looking toward the steadfast essential
existence of the Spirit, and striving to show to all the divine that He is consubstantial, and co-equal,
and co-natural with the Father and the Son, they theologize the Spirit in many ways as from both the
Father and the Son; that is, essentially, as we will say more precisely in other (discourses), if God
grants. Hearing these things, some both before and after the schism, not being able to understand,
or perhaps even not willing (to understand), that all these things are said concerning the essence of
the Spirit, they have supposed that they are said concerning His hypostasis, which they should not
have supposed. So that if it were understood that the Holy Spirit is said to be from both the Father
and the Son, and as consubstantial with the Father and the Son, and as proceeding to us from the
Father through the Son, and not also proceeding from both the Father and the Son, that is, having
the existence of His own hypostasis, the schism of such and so many churches would not have
occurred. So that the same theologians, both saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father
alone, that is, subsisting personally, proclaim the truth, and again stating that He has His being from
the Father and the Son, not hypostatically, but essentially, speak most truly.
Paragraph 4: Therefore, let no one urge this upon us, as if we were saying that the Spirit has His
being from the essence of the Father and the Son, and therefore it is then necessary that He also
proceeds from the Father and the Son. For we are so far from being concerned about the proposed
(doctrine), as the saints have been, that we have rather been made its champions. For if the Holy
Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son because He has His being from the essence of the
Father and the Son, and not from elsewhere, then also the Son of God, having His being from the
essence of the Father and the Spirit, and not from elsewhere, is begotten from the Father together
with the Spirit. But the second is absurd, and the first is similar. For in what manner the Son of God
is personally said to be begotten from the Father, if the Spirit also (proceeds) from Him, in every
way He will have two Fathers; thus indeed also the Holy Spirit, if He proceeds hypostatically from
the Father and from the Son, by all necessity He will have two projectors. And just as if there were

59
two Fathers in the divine Trinity, there would also be two Gods in it, and two principles, according
to the great Basil, even if they generate the Son by one generative power, even if by two, likewise if
there are two not projecting in the same way, again two principles, and again two Gods; even if they
project the Spirit by two projective powers, even if by one.
Paragraph 5: But if it is often said concerning the Holy Spirit that He is from the essence of the
Father and the Son, but concerning the Son it is nowhere said that He is from the essence of the
Father and the Spirit, it is not because He is not from there that this is kept silent, far from it. For it
is a great heresy to think the Son to be from a different essence and not from the same as the Father
and the Spirit; but lest the Spirit be suspected to be a Father, it is kept silent that the Son is said to be
from the essence of the Spirit. Besides, it is fitting to believe concerning Person with Person
consubstantiality, referring what is sought to what is confessed by all, the unknown to the known,
the uncustomary to the customary, not at all the reverse. For how will the known be believed from
things entirely unknown? It is as they say, upstream of rivers, just as those theologians proclaiming
the Word not yet known by God to be God by nature, referred this unmanifested God to the one
previously conceived in the opinions of all, persuading all of the Son’s divinity, considering it
sufficient for the acceptance of His divinity, if it is only believed that He is consubstantial with the
God previously known to them. Thus, those wishing to persuade men, and especially the
Pneumatomachi, that the Spirit is God, and consubstantial with the Father and the Son, do not refer
the Son to the Spirit, that is, the known Person to the unknown, but completely the opposite, that is,
the unknown to the known; thinking therefore, which is true, that if this is accepted, that the Spirit
is of the same essence as the Son, that He is also God, will immediately be accepted. For if the
Spirit is consubstantial with the Son, and the Son is already confessed to be consubstantial with His
own Father, then the Spirit is also believed to be consubstantial with the Father; since the Father is
God by nature, and the Son is God by nature, the Spirit consubstantial with these also appeared to
be God by nature; and the three are one God.
Paragraph 6: But it is also necessary to consider this, that the name of both essence and
existence itself, instead of that of hypostasis, is in use among the theologians, as they themselves say
explaining themselves. For the divine Cyril, writing to the Asians, says: “The nature of the Word of
God was incarnate,” that is, the hypostasis. And Chrysostom, also concerning the Holy Spirit,
applying that prophetic (passage), “The Spirit of God will rest upon Him,” here says the name of
the nature concerning the Spirit Himself, that is, of the hypostasis. And simply many of the early
(Fathers) used the names, sometimes pronouncing hypostasis instead of essence, and sometimes
essence instead of hypostasis, and sometimes energy instead of essence or hypostasis; not as
knowing these to be the same; far from it; but because from the beginning, not only Holy Scripture,
but also the teachers of the Church were accustomed to use the words indifferently, often using
them catachrestically, knowing that the words do no injustice when the matters are otherwise. For
this is also the saying of Cyril. And again the same (Cyril) says, “It is necessary,” he says, “for the one
encountering the divine words, both to consider the persons, and the time, and for what cause each

60
thing has been said, to reason; for thus in each matter the proper understanding will be found by the
grace of the Spirit.” And this also the divine Maximus has handed down as a rule. For he says: “Not
always and all things having the same expression will necessarily be understood in one and the same
way, but each of the things being said must be understood according to the underlying power of the
place of Holy Scripture, if we are to rightly attain the purpose of the things being said.” And
Gregory the Theologian also says that “neither let those contending about these things be ashamed,
as if impiety is placed for us in names, but not in matters,” and again, “Not in names, but in matters
is the truth for us.” And the great Athanasius, knowing the simplicity of the Italian language,
accepted not the sound of the word, but the mind rightly having the meaning of the word
“consubstantial”; therefore, he says, “For the words do not take away the nature, but rather the
nature draws the words to itself and changes them.” For the essences are prior to the words, but the
essences are first, and the words are second to them; and the commonality of the word does not
take away the difference of the matters, but the difference of the matters introduces different
understandings concerning them, and is in no way harmed by the sameness of the names. For piety
is not in the sounds of words, but in the correctness of the meanings; whence even if the word is
genuine, but the meaning is spurious, we consider the one speaking as alien and rejected; and if it is
foreign and unusual, but is said according to a pious meaning, because of the pious meaning we
accept it among the pious. For to be impious is completely forbidden, even if someone attempts to
clothe it in various words and persuasive sophisms, but to be pious is confessed as holy by all, even
if someone uses unusual words, as long as the one speaking has a pious understanding, and through
them wishes to signify what is piously understood. And the hierophant Dionysius also says that “it is
unreasonable and foolish not to pay attention to the power of the purpose, but to the…” and again,
“This is characteristic not of those willing to understand divine things, but of those receiving bare
sounds, and clinging to elements and syllables and indistinguishable words, not passing into the
intellectual of their soul, but murmuring outwardly about their lips and ears.”
Paragraph 7: Therefore, things said catachrestically are not properly what they are said to be
(because what they are is not said properly), but they are understood as the one speaking (intends).
But that we may return to the purpose of the discourse, these things ought to be thus observed by
Orthodox listeners of the theologians, since also concerning the Holy Spirit it is sometimes said that
He is from the essence of the Father, and sometimes that He is from the essence of the Son, and
sometimes that He has His being from the essence of the Father and the Son, and sometimes that
He proceeds from the Father. How, therefore, the one wishing to understand the theological
utterances piously, taking each of the things said concerning the Spirit according to the purpose,
according to the cause and the manner, and the understanding underlying the place of Holy
Scripture, does not stumble at all. But if someone should be at a loss concerning these things, how
the Theologians say essence from essence, that is, the Son from the Father, or wisdom from
wisdom, or that the Son is begotten from the essence of the Father, (and) the Spirit (has His being)
from the essence of the Father and the Son, or from the essence of the Son Himself, as it has been

61
said; we say this, that in order that the consubstantiality might be shown, they often intend this very
thing by "from the essence." For if this is not (the case), neither would the Father be Father by
nature, nor the Son Son by nature, nor the Spirit from the Father by nature.
Paragraph 8: But saying the Spirit (is) from the essence of the Son, the saints do not say this as
(Him) proceeding from the Son’s hypostasis, but as Him being a Person also of the same essence, of
which also the Son (is); just as also the persons of the human essence are from the same essence
with each other; for Peter (is) from the essence of Paul, not from his hypostasis; for the essence (is)
common, but the hypostasis (is) particular, characterizing each one, and distinguishing (them) from
those who are consubstantial; and Paul likewise (is) from the essence of Peter, not also from his
hypostasis; for the essence (is) one and the same, as some root and source producing both, and not
indeed (as if they) proceeded from each other; so that even if the Spirit (is) from the essence of the
Son, He would not by all means also be proceeding from Him hypostatically; for what follows does
not also reciprocate, but quite the contrary in every way, if He proceeds personally from Him, of
necessity (He would be) also from His essence. For it is not necessary that if someone is
consubstantial with someone, he also has from that one the cause of his existence, neither in the
divine (realm) nor in the human; for the divine Persons are consubstantial with each other, but not
causes of each other; and all men are of the same nature with each other, but in no way from each
other. For if something is hypostatically from something, it is also necessarily related to that one
according to essence; but if this (is the case), not by necessity (is) also that (reverse). For the Father
is related to the Son according to essence, but He is not from the Son; and the Son also is related to
the Holy Spirit according to essence, but He is not from the Spirit. But that we say both of these
concerning the Father, that is, both that the Holy Spirit (is) from His hypostasis, and also from His
essence, it is not necessary to be amazed; for if, having learned clearly from the Lord, we hold that
the Father (is) the cause of the Spirit’s existence, since this (is) according to the hypostasis, He would
by all means properly be said (to be) from His hypostasis; and if this (is the case), by all means (He
would be) also from His essence; but the argument does not reciprocate universally from this: for if
(He is) from the essence, it does not follow that (He is) also from the hypostasis by all means. For
Seth and Abel, each of them, would be said (to be) both from the hypostasis and from the essence
of Adam; but each is very much from the essence of the other, but in no way from the hypostasis;
since it is impossible for brothers to be from each other, and for the same one to be both father and
brother to himself, and the same one both son and brother to himself. And according to this
meaning, the divine Fathers denied the Holy Spirit to be from the essence of the Son; that is,
consubstantial with the Son.
Paragraph 9: But it is necessary also to consider this, that if the Holy Spirit is consubstantial with
the Son, then the Son is by all means consubstantial with the Spirit; for what is consubstantial with
something, that is by all means consubstantial with it. But if, as some might say, the Father’s essence
is the cause of the Son’s essence alone, or rather the essence of the Father and the Son (is) the cause
of the Spirit’s essence, again it is necessary to confess many essences in the Holy Trinity, some

62
causing, and some caused; and if this prevails, we are far from the Arian madness. But if not, just as
the Spirit is said to be from the essence of the Son, so also the Son (is said to be) from the essence
of the Spirit, not because He is not of the same essence with the Spirit, for this reason this is said
(for He is of the same essence with Him), but because just as the Spirit is called the Spirit of the
Father due to His relationship and the cause from Him, the Father is not also called (Spirit) of the
Spirit (for the Spirit would seem to be a Son), so also if someone says the Son (is) from the essence
of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit would be considered a Father. So that when the venerable teachers say
that the Holy Spirit (has His being) from the essence of the Father and the Son, this is the purpose
for them all; for the Holy Spirit Himself speaks in them; and all their concern is to show Him to be
co-natural and co-equal with the Father and the Son. And this the divinely inspired Cyril shows most
clearly not only in the conclusions of the chapters concerning the Holy Spirit, but also in the book
of the Thesaurus, sometimes indeed gathering that the Holy Spirit (is) from the essence of the
Father, and sometimes that the Holy Spirit (is) from the essence of the Son, and sometimes that the
Holy Spirit (has His being) from the essence of the Father and the Son, and sometimes that the
Holy Spirit (is) of the divine essence, and sometimes that the Holy Spirit (is) not alien to the divine
essence, and sometimes that the Holy Spirit is not divided from the divine essence, and sometimes
that the Holy Spirit is consubstantial with the Father and the Son. But if (the phrase) "from the
essence of the Son" comes to the same (meaning) as the others (for the purpose of all the chapters
there is one and the same), and those (other phrases) clearly show the co-naturality and
consubstantiality of the Trinity, and in no way whence is the cause to the Spirit, and (therefore)
"from the essence of the Son" similarly to the others signifies this very thing, and nothing else.
Paragraph 10: But that the Italians say hypostasis and essence and person, they themselves are
witnesses, and the holy Augustine in his (treatise) On the Trinity, and Gregory the Theologian in his
encomium to the holy Athanasius are witnesses. But if someone should say, why do all the
theologians simply theologize the Spirit as from the Father and the Son? I say this, that being
something from something, being said in many ways, is also said according to the manner of the
persons in relation to each other, signifying consubstantiality; and this is likewise said both of divine
things and of human things; according to which meaning we say that John is from the essence of
Peter and of Paul and of the rest of men, not because he has been generated from all of them, but
because he is of the same nature with them, and of their same essence; and according to this
meaning the divine Fathers say the Holy Spirit (is) from the Father and the Son, which also having
previously anticipated we said, wishing to show the co-naturality of the Spirit with the Father and
the Son; and the cause (is) very clear; that of the heretics from all ages, no one gives trouble to the
Church of Christ, presupposing this and inquiring whence the Holy Spirit proceeds, whether from
the Father alone, or also from the Son, or even from Himself; but as many Pneumatomachi
appeared, they blasphemed and rejected (Him) as completely alien to the essence of the Father and
the Son, or inferior, and a third from them either in dignity or in nature; therefore also all the
theologians contending against that purpose, both with "from," and with "with," and with "with,"

63
and with "through," and with "in," both essentially, and in all ways simply (saying) the Holy Spirit (is)
equal to the Father and the Son, and of the same essence with the Father and the Son, and Him
being God, and God from God, and from both, and from both, and breathing from the Father and
the Son, and proceeding from the Father through the Son, and not from the Son alone, and resting
in Him, and being from the Father, and being with the Son, and proper to the Son, and not alien,
and from the essence of the Father and the Son, and the similar things to these, that I may not speak
of each one, all the divine Fathers striving to show that the Holy Spirit exists of the same essence
and nature of the Father and the Son, both proclaimed, and wrote, and have handed down to us to
believe thus; not therefore striving to show that the Spirit has the cause of His hypostasis (from the
Son), for this is not their struggle; and this is clear even to the blind from their usages of the saints,
both clearly interpreting the reasons of the words, and through their conclusions, and even through
the inscriptions of the words themselves.
Paragraph 11: Therefore, concerning the Holy Spirit, two things being considered according to a
primary understanding, essence and hypostasis, concerning indeed whence the Spirit has His
essence, we in no way differ with those from Rome; far from it; but concerning the hypostasis of the
Spirit alone is our difference. But they, being accused by us concerning the Person of the Spirit, that
they say Him to proceed from the Father and the Son, but defending themselves concerning His
essence, and bringing forward the things being said concerning this, do the same as if someone,
being accused that he asserts David according to hypostasis to be a son of Adam and of Noah, but
he should bring forward as the greatest justification, since David has his own essence from Adam
equally and from Noah; or as if someone being brought to trial because he believes concerning the
Word and the Logos of God, that He has His hypostasis from the Father and the Spirit, that is, that
He is equally generated Son from both, but he should think it fitting to defend himself, saying, since
the Logos has His essence not from elsewhere, but from the Father likewise and the Spirit He
possesses (it).
Paragraph 12: But that what is said may become more trustworthy to us, and be quite clear, with
unveiled face, heart, and tongue, and with bright outspokenness of voice, we proclaim: that to be
essentially (of the Spirit), that is, to have His own essence from the Father and the Son together, or
rather equally from both, we both believe and confess, and we anathematize those who think thus;
but that hypostatically, that is, personally, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, we
both deny, and we turn away from those who think thus. But thinking thus, we are not introducing
new dogmas, but following all the theologians, who say some things concerning the essence of the
Spirit, that the Holy Spirit (is) of the same essence of the Father and the Son, and the Holy Spirit
(is) from the nature of the Father and the Son, and in short whatever has been said a little before;
but what they write concerning His hypostasis, they do not say that the Spirit (is) from the Son, and
(that) the Spirit has His existence from the Son; and whatever (is) similar to these.
Paragraph 13: But that we may conclude again where we began from this hypothesis, mentioning
that to those wishing to listen to the voices of the theologians, this must be considered before all

64
things, that of one essence and three hypostases being considered concerning the divine Trinity, all
things whatever have been said by the theologians concerning God, are either said concerning the
one essence, or concerning the three hypostases together, or concerning two of them in common,
or most particularly concerning one of them; and this (is) an accurate rule to those listening
intelligently to theological (matters); both neither to apply what is said exclusively concerning the
divine essence at any time also to the three hypostases, nor to think the things said specifically of the
three hypostases to be common also to the divine essence, nor to consider the things concerning
two of them to be common to the remaining one, nor to consider the particular (characteristics) of
one to be common also to the remaining two; but both to keep the exclusive (characteristics) of the
essence untouched and unchanged; and to preserve the common (characteristics) of all the
hypostases, or of two, undivided; and the particular (characteristics) of each of the hypostases (to
keep) unconfused both in relation to the common essence of the three, and in relation to the
remaining hypostases; because what (is) particular to someone (is) unshared with the others, and
what (is) common to some could not become particular to any; and just as essential (characteristics)
could not become hypostatic, nor hypostatic (characteristics) essential, so neither (could) common
(characteristics become) particular, nor particular (characteristics) common; for their pairings are
mutually destructive; and just as the common becoming particular immediately destroys its being
common, and the particular becoming common loses its being particular; so also the essential
becoming hypostatic immediately ceases from being essential; and the hypostatic being transformed
departs from being hypostatic.
Paragraph 14: Having discussed these things concerning the deviations from the faith, in the
following (discourse), (unless complete silence should intervene), we will speak concerning the
correct faith, God granting; again exhorting your love, that just as you are zealous to be Orthodox,
you should also strive to possess love through (your) life, the queen of virtues; knowing that just as
the memory of fire warms the body, so faith without love does not benefit the soul for the
illumination of knowledge; and just as a soul without a body is not called a man, nor a body without
a soul, so neither (is) love toward God, if it does not also have as a consequence love toward one's
neighbor; and just as God demands abstinence from some healthy (people), but ingratitude from all,
so (He demands) sharing from some having (it), but love from all; and just as the one loving his
brother truly also loves God, so also the one hating his brother also consequently hates God. For no
road is equal to love, even if you should mention life itself, even the light, even the sun; for it is thus
proper to our nature, as to associate with each other, and to have need of each other, and to love
those of the same nature; and nothing (is) more beautiful and more divine than friendship and
concord. For this is a single citadel impregnable to enemies; and true friendship toward those of the
same nature is by nature the most divine and most perfect of all possessions.
Paragraph 15: But how those called from Christ ought to use friendship, the divine Chrysostom
clearly distinguishes, saying, one must love the one loving (him) so that even if (his) soul should be
asked for, and it is possible, not to withhold (it); and what am I saying, (one) must run toward such a

65
giving; for nothing sweeter than such love could become; nor will anything painful fall out there; for
a truly faithful friend (is) a medicine of life; a truly faithful friend (is) a strong shelter; for what
would a genuine friend not accomplish? What pleasure would he not produce? What benefit? What
safety? Even if you should mention countless treasures, you have said nothing worthy. But let us first
speak a little concerning genuine friendship, and then we will show how much pleasure it has. One is
moved seeing him and is dissolved and intertwined in a certain intertwining with him according to
the soul, having an ineffable pleasure; even if he remembers him alone, he is stirred in his mind and
is filled. I say these things concerning genuine friends, those of one soul, those willing even to die
for those whom they warmly love; let us not simply understanding friends, consider those sharing
tables, and from the appellation (alone) think the word to be understood; if anyone has such a friend
as I say, he will recognize the words; he bears with him every day the same things as with himself; I
know someone who, entreating holy men for a friend, entreated (them) to pray first for him, and
then for himself. So great is a good friend, as to be loved in place and time for his sake; not in word
to show pleasure, which is often put on with pretense; only those having experience know (what true
friendship is); both to ask a favor, and to receive a favor unsuspectingly from a friend; and when
they command us, then we consider it a favor to them; but when they hesitate, we are grieved; we
think we have nothing of what we have, which does not seem to be theirs; often we despise all our
own things for their sake; for their sake we do not even wish to depart from here, and we consider
their light more desirable than our own; friends... for indeed they are truly more desirable than light
itself. I speak concerning genuine (friends), and do not be amazed; for it is better for us for the sun
to be extinguished, than to be deprived of friends; it is better to live in darkness, than to be without
friends; and how? I say, and do not be amazed. Many seeing the sun are in darkness of despondency,
but lacking friends they would not taste any affliction; I speak concerning spiritual friends, those
preferring nothing to friendship. Thus (was) Paul, who also said, “Who is weak, and I am not weak?
Who is made to stumble, and I am not indignant?” Thus one must love, with a disposition set on
fire. I have (something) to say that friends even surpass fathers and sons; but who (are) those loving
according to Christ? Let not the word be merely on the lips, when with the others even this good
has departed, but understand that among the Apostles (I speak of the leaders; but rather of those
having believed), of all, he says, (there was) one soul and one heart; for not what (is) mine (was) then
and what (is) yours. This is friendship, that no one considers his own things to be his own, but
(considers them to belong) to his neighbor, and his neighbor’s (things) to himself; that he spares the
other's soul as his own, and that one likewise shows the same disposition. And how (is) this possible,
they say? It is possible, since we wish, and very much possible; for if it were not possible, Christ
would not have commanded it, nor would He have discoursed so much concerning love. Great (is)
friendship, and how great? No one could learn, nor could any word show (it), except experience
itself. The one loving does not wish to command, nor to rule, but rather has gratitude being ruled;
he wishes rather to bestow favors, than to receive favors; for he is disposed as if he has not fulfilled
his desire; he is not so pleased doing well to himself, as doing well to (his friend); for he wishes

66
rather to possess him, than to owe him; but rather he even wishes to owe him, and to consider him
as owing him and he wishes to bestow favors, and he wishes to seem to bestow favors, but to be
owing him; and he wishes to rule in benefaction, and not to seem to rule, but to repay; which also
God did concerning Abraham, but rather concerning all men. He was about to bestow His Son for
us, and that He might not seem to bestow (Him) as a favor, but to owe (Him) to us, He commanded
Abraham to give his son, that doing a great thing He might not seem to do a great thing. For when
there is not friendship, we even reproach benefactions, and we magnify small (ones); but when (there
is) friendship, we even hide them, and we wish to show even great (ones) as small, that the one loved
might not seem to have one owing (him), but we ourselves (might seem) to be owing to him, not
him to have us owing (him).
Paragraph 16: I know that many do not understand what is being said; and the cause (is) this,
that I am discoursing about a matter inhabiting heaven. What pleasure does he wish to compare for
comparison with that from love? The reverence? The incorruptibility? But friendship surpasses all;
and what am I saying these things? Even if you should mention the sweetness of honey itself, it will
appear as nothing compared to this; for honey often even becomes bitter, but friendship never, as
long as it is friendship; but rather the desire increases, and such pleasure never receives satiety. I have
not yet shown how great the matter is; and a friend (is) sweeter than the present life; many, even
after the loss of friends, did not wish to live ever after; with a friend, even exile would be easily
borne; but without a friend, he would not even choose to dwell in his own (home); with a friend,
even poverty (is) bearable, but without a friend, even health and wealth (are) unbearable to such a
one, having him entirely. I am choked that I am not able to speak from an example; for I would have
known that I have said much less than the truth. And these things indeed (are) here, but with God
(is) so great a reward of friendship, as it is not even possible to say; "Love," He says, "and receive a
reward, for a matter for which a reward is not owed."
Paragraph 17: Have you seen a rule of truly (holy) friendship, salutary to all those using it?
However, no one is able to preserve friendship unbroken to the end, unless he also yokes
longsuffering to it and acquires it for his whole life; for these virtues are somehow near each other,
and as some inseparable chariot, they carry to a fitting and most perfect beauty of piety toward God,
the one having best practiced to drive (it); whence in one place, the most divine Paul says, “Love is
longsuffering, is kind; love does not envy, does not boast, is not puffed up, does not behave
indecently, does not seek its own, is not provoked, 1 does not take account of evil; does not rejoice
in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, 2
endures all things; love 3 never fails,” and in another place the same (Paul), the one with the golden
tongue, praising the longsuffering, clearly puts it thus, “But his soul resembles some peak or
mountain, having a thin air, but receiving pure rays, and pouring forth transparent streams of
springs, and putting forth many graces of flowers, like spring meadows and paradises, adorned with
plants and flowers, and with flowing waters; if indeed there should be some clear sound, pouring
much pleasure to those hearing; for either songbirds sit on the tops of the trees on the petals, and

67
cicadas, and nightingales, and swallows harmoniously produce some one music, and the west wind
gently falling upon the petals of the trees, joins pines and firs, and often imitates a swan, or puts
forth a meadow of roses and lilies clinging to each other, and showing (it) shimmering as a sea of
dark blue, gently rippling; but rather one would find many images; for when someone looks at the
rose, he will forget his grief beholding (it); when (he looks) at the violet, a shimmering sea; when (he
looks) at the heaven; and such a one pleases not only in the sight, but also the very body of the one
seeing that meadow makes (him) rather revive and breathe, so that he thinks (himself) to be rather in
heaven than on earth. And there is also another sound, when water carried spontaneously from the
peak through ravines, gently murmurs against the underlying pebbles with a quiet striking, so that it
relaxes our limbs with pleasure, so as even quickly to bring sleep releasing the limbs to the eyes.
Paragraph 18: You have heard the narrative with pleasure, and perhaps even longed for solitude;
but the soul (is) much sweeter with longsuffering. For not that we might depict a meadow, nor that
we might bring the discourse to a demonstration, did we touch upon this image, but that seeing
from the depiction how great (is) the pleasure of the longsuffering, and that someone associating
with a longsuffering man would be both pleased and benefited, you should pursue such similar
places. For when no violent spirit goes out from this soul, but rather gentle words and approaches,
and truly imitating that gentle west wind, which has a gentle blowing, and imitating the songbirds,
how is this not better? For the air falls upon the body with the word, but it revives souls, and (this is)
agreed; for nothing so harms the human race as to despise friendship; just as nothing again (is) so
right as to pursue it. This (is) a rule of most perfect Christianity; this (is) an accurate boundary; this
(is) the highest peak, to seek the things commonly beneficial; for thus one is able to make imitators
of Christ, as to love one’s neighbor. Do not seek your own, that you may find your own; for the one
seeking his own, does not find his own; for one's own benefit lies in the benefit of one's neighbor,
and do not exchange his for this. Do not exchange the love toward your brother for any of the
things, because he possesses the most precious of all within; it is better having lost many
possessions to acquire one friend, than having lost one friend to acquire many possessions. Have
you paid attention to the things said? Have you marveled at Chrysostom’s wisdom, his composition,
his harmony? May there be grace to you from God, and zeal, and awakening toward good things;
but let not the praise be only in words, and the wonder in thought, but also with works strive to be
longsuffering toward all, and to have all (people as) friends, that both living you may have all (people
as) praisers, and having departed from here, you may enjoy immortal fame, and the unfading good
things with Christ; may it be granted to all of us to attain these things in Him, to whom belongs all
glory, to the Father and to the Spirit, unto the ages. Amen.

68
 DISCOURSE VII. CONCERNING THE TRANSCENDENTAL TRINITY.
With very many usages of the Holy (Fathers) clearly showing that the Holy Spirit personally
proceeds from the Father alone.

Paragraph 1: Do you then keep unforgotten the promises spoken to you in the previous
discourses? Or is some reminder concerning them necessary? I indeed do not think you so quickly
become forgetful of the things you have heard; but since also many are present now who were not
present then, and some of those have perhaps forgotten, nothing prevents us from briefly
reminding concerning them; for the repetition of the things said will be useful to all, becoming a
reminder to those who have heard, and a preparation for the things to be said to those now hearing
for the first time. Therefore, we promised not just in the introductions of the discourses, first indeed
to show the causes of the deviation, then also to clearly demonstrate from the words whether this
our doctrine concerning the Holy Spirit is Orthodox or not. And we immediately added the cause of
these things concerning the Spirit, as necessary, that we might also know what kind of piety it is,
having spoken, (so that) we might escape the deviations from it as far as possible. But what are the
causes of the deviation? That the difference of the Spirit’s procession is understood indifferently,
and the unbefitting introduction of reasonings into the divine words, and also that the Spirit is said
to be from the essence of the Son, instead of this being understood by some as (Him being) from
His hypostasis, and further how it is necessary to guard against these things, the discourses spoken
to you have sufficiently shown. But it is necessary also to examine whether this our doctrine
concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit is Orthodox, or perchance unsound and divergent; and
(it is necessary) for the guardian of the correct faith, by witnessing witnesses, to show and confirm
(it). But I think you being faithful, and having been nurtured by Orthodox words, do not wish (to
believe) such things from elsewhere than from those serving the correct word and the truth, which it
is always and by all necessary to do, and now not least. For it is customary in such unbefitting (cases)
for no one from himself and his own belly, as it is said, to dare to interpret divine dogmas; for this
(is) absurd and dangerous and unstable; but receiving (teachings) from the Spirit and from His saints,
to teach and witness concerning the Spirit, (this is) secure and unwavering and trustworthy.
Paragraph 2: And indeed first let the Confessor Maximus come forward confessing the truth;
who, in the epistle to Marinus, presbyter of Cyprus, whose beginning (is), "By divine law according
to God," says these things concerning the synodical (letters) of the now most holy Pope: "Of those
(chapters) which you have written, not so many as you have written, but of two only which belong
to theology, one indeed exists concerning the procession—and from the Son—of the Holy Spirit,
and the other concerning the divine incarnation, that he has written (that) the Lord (is) not without
the ancestral sin, as a man"; and concerning the first, they brought forward agreeing usages of
Roman Fathers, and of Cyril of Alexandria from the treatise composed by him to the holy John the
Evangelist, from which they showed themselves making the Son the cause of the Holy Spirit's
procession; for they know one cause, the Father, of the Son and of the Spirit; of the one according

69
to generation, of the other according to procession; but that they might show the likeness of
essence, and thereby show the consubstantiality of the essence and its unchangeableness. And the
second, formerly indeed the true eparch of this great city, but later an accurate canon of asceticism,
the blessed Nilus, in his discourse concerning the Trinity, thus theologizing concerning the Spirit
says: “The holy and catholic Church dogmatizes the Father alone as unbegotten, but the Son as
begotten from the Father, but the Holy Spirit as proceeding, and Him from the Father alone, but
not also from the Son.” How supernaturally, O Father, you have refuted the accusations of some,
theologizing the Spirit (as being) in the Father alone, but not also in the Son! But since he is gone, let
some Roman come forward, indeed, witnessing these things; who (is) this? The hieromartyr Jerome,
in the epistle to the divine Damasus, adds thus: “We believe also in the Holy Spirit, who proceeds
from the Father uniquely and truly.” With these (is) a worthy witness the wise Justin, adorned with
the crown of martyrdom, who very clearly declares that as the Son (is) from the Father, so also the
Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father uniquely and truly, except the mode of existence. For the one
shone forth from light as begotten, but the light (proceeds) from light also itself, not as begotten,
but as proceeding; and the divine Metrophanes and Theodore the Studite have handed down to the
Church of Christ to hymn: the one (saying), “Only Father-caused, as having begotten the Word, and
the Spirit having proceeded ineffably,” having comprehended (this) with fitting reasonings and
scriptural teachings, “we worship one God tri-sun”; the other (saying), “Only unbegotten Father,
and only Light, radiance of Light, and only remaining God, Holy Spirit.”
Paragraph 3: And how many also say these same things harmoniously; but John of Damascus,
the theologian much later than many, who would willingly pass him by? Who also beginning his
theology, “I will say,” he said, “nothing of my own, but gathering into one the things labored upon
by the most excellent of teachers, I will make the discourse as concise as I am able”; and he says
these things that we may know that whatever he says, all the theologians say; who also in his
discourse to Theosophos concerning the Lord’s burial, says such things: “This (is) what is
worshipped by us: Father, unbegotten generator of the Son, for (He is) from no one; Son, begotten
of the Father, as having been generated by Him; Holy Spirit of God and Father, as proceeding from
Him; which also (is) said of the Son, as being revealed by Him, and being imparted to creation, but
not having existence from Him.” And in the epistle to the monk Jordan: “One God (is) to us,” he
says, “the Father and His Logos and His Spirit. Logos indeed unoriginate offspring, therefore also
Son; and Spirit unoriginate procession and issue, through the Logos, that is, from the Father; as
Spirit of the mouth of God, proclaiming the Logos.” And in the eighth chapter of his dogmatic
(work): “We say the Holy Spirit (is) Spirit of the Father, as proceeding from the Father; for there is
no movement without the Spirit; and the Son (is) Spirit, not as from Him, but as through Him
proceeding from the Father; for the Father (is) the only cause.” Likewise also in the fourteenth
(chapter): “It is necessary to know,” he says, “that we both say the Holy Spirit (is) from the Father,
and we name (Him) Spirit of the Father, but we do not say the Spirit (is) from the Son;” and again
(he says) those things of himself, whatever are fitting to the cause, source, generator, (being)

70
appropriated to the Father alone, but whatever (are fitting) to the caused, Word, (being appropriated)
to the Son. Also Gregory of Nyssa, in his discourse concerning the names of God, “All the persons
of man,” he says, “do not have their being from the same person according to the proximate (cause),
so as to be many and different in relation to the causes and according to the causes, but not thus (is
it) concerning the Holy Trinity; for not (is there) a person and the same of the Father, from whom
the Son is begotten and the Holy Spirit proceeds; but we confidently say one God, the Father
properly being the cause with those from Him.” And in the same discourse concerning the
knowledge of God, he says, “The Spirit proceeding from the Father’s hypostasis; for this (is) why
(He is) Spirit of the mouth, but not Logos of the mouth,” David has said, that he might confirm by
this the processionary property to the Father alone. What (could be) clearer than this theological
testimony, for the hypothesis before us?
Paragraph 4: And also the blessed Theodoret of Cyrus, whom the Third Synod proclaimed a
teacher, once contending with Cyril, when he in his defense against Nestorius anathematized (him),
saying that the Only-Begotten Son of God “possesses all things whatever also the Father
(possesses), and has as His own and essentially inherent in Him the Holy Spirit,” taking hold of this
phrase, “if indeed,” he said, “you say the Spirit (is) consubstantial with the Son, but proceeding from
the Father, we will agree, lest we be shown to be impious to the phrase; but if (you say Him) as
having existence from the Son, we reject this as blasphemous and impious; for we believe the Lord
saying, ‘The Spirit, who proceeds from the Father,’ and the most divine Paul likewise saying, ‘We
received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God.’” But if someone says that all
the chapters written by Cyril against those things were anathematized by the Fifth Synod, let him
remember that not even the defense against these things was at all harmed, but (Cyril) comes forth
as Orthodox; since when (some) found fault with the great Cyril concerning these things, it is
written that he immediately both said and wrote, not to say “from Him,” (the Son) the Holy Spirit
having existence, but (to say Him) as proceeding from the Father, and (to say Him) as not alien to
the Son, according to the (shared) essence.
Paragraph 5: But that we may further establish our (position), let also the most holy Pope
Damasus come into the midst; who in the epistle to Paulinus of Thessalonica, puts it thus: “If
anyone does not say the Holy Spirit (is) from the Father truly and properly, as also the Son (is) from
the divine essence, and God Word God, let him be anathema.” What then would one say against the
divine Cyril, which he clearly sets forth in his discourse concerning the Trinity? “Three adorable
hypostases,” he says, “are known and believed, in an unoriginate Father, and an only-begotten Son,
and a Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father; the one begotten, as (is) the Son, but proceeding, as
has been said, from the Father alone, as from a mouth, having appeared through the Son, and
having spoken through all the holy Prophets and Apostles.” And again: “Just as the Son (is) from the
Father by generation, so also (is) the Holy Spirit from the Son by procession”—away with the
blasphemy and the polytheism! For one (is) with us the cause of both persons, the Father. O blessed
Cyril, how divine (is) your voice, how you have freed us from troubles by saying “proceeding”! And

71
that (to say) the Spirit (is) from the Son according to existence you call a polytheistic dogma. And
those from the East, sending (a letter) through Theodoret to John of Antioch, and defending
concerning the things said and written at the Third Synod to the aforementioned luminary, write
thus word for word: “Having commonly read the Egyptian writings, and having accurately examined
their meaning, we found (them) agreeing with the things said (by us), the things sent from there; for
the evangelical voice is clearly sounded; both perfect God and perfect man our Lord Jesus Christ is
proclaimed by them; and the Holy Spirit, not having existence from the Son, but proceeding from
the Father, (is) proper to the Son, as being called consubstantial.” Therefore beholding the
correctness in the writings, we hymn the One transforming the stammering tongues of those
serving (Him) from discordant sounds into sweet harmony.
Paragraph 6: And that the impious Nestorius indeed wrote not in his own creed to believe also
in the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father, but not also from the Son, the Third Synod
received the dogma, and did not at all contradict this, you possess the strongest and most
unadulterated mark of our Orthodoxy; for with this having prevailed from afar, not by the local
(decisions) of the Synods, (but by the ecumenical), the sound (parts) of the dogmas remain
unshaken, but all (parts) not thus being (sound), it refutes, both by scriptural necessities, and by
public rejections, and by the other punishments, how (is it) not most terrible (that) this blessed
Synod, having defined all things with the fitting form, passed over in silence the discourse
concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit, (a discourse) brought forward against Nestorius? How
also, when Nestorius said both things, both that the Spirit does not have existence from the Son, and
that Christ (is) a mere man, they convened indeed concerning the one, but did not convene
concerning the other? Or did they hate the falsehood here, but accept (it) there? And these things
(were done) by the divine Cyril, having accurately set forth all things word for word in his twelve
anathemas, by which Nestorius was cast out? But if neither teaching Nestorius, nor judging him, nor
voting against him, nor recalling him as a friend, they appear not at all to blame him concerning
theology, how (is it) just to go against the Fathers, whose opinion has been judged to be the vote of
God? For if it is worthy of anathema to believe that the Holy Spirit does not proceed also from the
Son, why did the Synod not demand Nestorius, saying this, to anathematize (it), setting forth in
detail what it was necessary for him to anathematize?
Paragraph 7: And it is right not to pass over in silence also John with the golden tongue in the
discourse, who in the first of the (discourses) concerning the incomprehensible says that “I know
that God is everywhere, but how, I do not know; I know that He begot a Son, but how, I am
ignorant; I know that the Spirit (is) from Him, but how (He is) from Him, I do not at all
understand.” And in the 61st homily on the Gospel according to John he writes: “For all things of
the Father are also of the Spirit.” And the blessed Augustine, in the fourth book of On the Trinity,
“It is clear that all things whatever the Father has, belong not only to the Son, but also to the Holy
Spirit.” But also the one named for theology, Gregory, removing us from causes, in the discourse
concerning the Holy Spirit says: “One God (is) to us, because the Godhead (is) one, and all things

72
have reference to one (cause).” Consider what the teacher says; because also the Spirit is referred to
the Father as cause, for this reason also the Trinity (is) one Godhead, and one God (is) to us; the
discourse also showing the opposite; that if the things proceeding from the Father do not have
reference to one only cause, then the Godhead is not one, then the Trinity (is) not one God; but if
the Son alone is referred to one cause, the Father, but the Holy Spirit (is referred) not to one, but to
two, this theologian does not speak truly, saying that all things from Him have reference to one.
Again the same theologian says explicitly thus: “All things whatever the Father has, (belong) to the
Son, except the cause.” This “except the cause,” if anyone should think (it refers) either to the Son
(being) a cause in relation to the Father, or to the Son being said (to be a cause) of Himself, he is
utterly foolish; for who of men, speaking concerning a son, telling those hearing that he has all
things of his father, brings this as proof, either that he is other than being a son of his father, or that
he is a cause to himself ?
Here is a literal and accurate translation of paragraphs 8 and 9 of the provided Greek text,
maintaining Orthodox theological terminology:
Paragraph 8: And the great Basil, in (his writings) against Eunomius, (says that) the things
common to the Father and the Son, these (are) also common to the Spirit. Which (are) the common
things? All things, except the unbegottenness and the generation and the procession; and this he,
shining forth from heaven, did not first say from himself, but receiving (it) from Dionysius the
Areopagite, just as indeed he also (received it) from Christ; how then are the sayings from him
concerning the matter at hand set forth? Thus: “Whatever the theological discourse assigns as
communicable and co-essential to the Father and the Son, (it assigns) also to the Holy Spirit.” But if
these things have this mode, and according to some it is common to the Father and the Son to
project the Holy Spirit, this will also be common to the Spirit, and He will personally project
Himself; which (is) alien to the correct doctrine concerning the Spirit. The same things as these also
John the Syrian, as some seal of the theologians, in many of his chapters sets forth in many ways,
now indeed saying: “All things whatever the Son is, the Spirit also (is), except being Son”; now
indeed, “All things (belong) to the Son also to the Spirit, except generation”; and now indeed, “All
things whatever the Father and the Son have and are, the Holy Spirit also has and is, except the
unbegottenness and the generation.”
Paragraph 9: And these things indeed each of the theologians sets forth privately, but all (set
them forth) commonly, (saying that) all things common to the Father and the Son, these (are) also
common to the Spirit; and turning to what has been declared by them, they also question the
discourse, and confirm (it), saying thus: “Which (are) the common things? All things, except the
unbegottenness and the generation and the procession.” Therefore, as the Father does not have to
be begotten, or to proceed, for these (things are) proper to others, and not common, thus each of
the remaining (persons), both has to generate, and to be (begotten), and as the Son has to proceed,
but not also from the Spirit, thus also the Spirit, not also from the Son; and as the Spirit in no way
has generation, thus also the Son in no way has procession; and as the Father (is) only cause, but not

73
also caused, thus also the Son and the Spirit (are) only caused; but not the Spirit only caused, but the
Son also both cause and caused; and as the Son (is) a perfect, unoriginate offspring, from the Father
alone, thus also the Holy Spirit (is) a perfect, unoriginate procession, from the Father alone; and as
the Son (is) immediately from the Father by generation, thus also the Holy Spirit (is) immediately
from the Father by procession, and none of these things (are) successively in place; and as the
Father (is) at once the only cause of both, thus also the Son and the Spirit (are) from the Father
alone at once caused, and none of these things (are) successively in time; and as the Son, not
through another mediator, is begotten personally from the Father, thus also the Holy Spirit, not
through a mediator, proceeds hypostatically from the Father; and as all things whatever the Father
and the Holy Spirit have, the Son also has, except the unbegottenness and the procession, thus all
things whatever the Son has, the Spirit also has, except the generation; and as the Father (is) the only
cause of both the Son and the Spirit, thus also the Son and the Holy Spirit (are) from the Father
alone caused, but not the Son alone from the Father, but the Spirit both from the Father and from
elsewhere; for this the royal voice of the Church refutes, theologizing thus to those objecting: “God
generates not as a man, but He truly generates, and what has been generated from Him shows a
Word not human; He shows a Word truly from Him; and He sends forth the Spirit through the
mouth, not such as (is) human, since neither (is there) a bodily mouth of God; but the Spirit (is)
from Him, and not from elsewhere.” Let everyone who wishes consider that this “not from
elsewhere” (is) a common hypostatic (attribute), and encompasses all things apart from God and
Father, whether someone speaks of the Son, or the creatures, or any other nature altogether
incomprehensible. But if someone of Christians does not accept these things said by us closely, it is
necessary for this one to sing a recantation, as if he had fallen from the track, and immediately to
believe the opposite of these things; that is, that as the Father has both to generate and to proceed,
thus also the Son (has) to generate by Himself, and the Spirit specifically to proceed; and as the Son
personally projects the Spirit, thus also the Spirit generates the Son hypostatically; and as the Son (is)
not only caused, but also cause, thus also the Spirit will be both cause and caused; and as the Spirit
(is) not from the Father alone, thus also the Son (is) not from the Father alone; and as the Spirit (is)
from the Father through a mediator, thus also the Son (is) from the Father through a mediator. But
that we may not even pollute the air by speaking the blasphemies arising from here, let this be said
instead of all things, that if one of the properties considered in the Trinity is confused, immediately
all things not common in this way are confused, both the proper (properties), whether person is the
middle (term), or time is what separates, or place exists between the Father and the Son and the
Spirit, connecting and separating the hypostases, the immediate to the mediate, and the united to the
divided, and in all things and always it is diametrically opposed.
Paragraph 10: But let us return to the proposed discourse, that also the much-suffering
Athanasius, agreeing with the aforementioned Fathers, in his discourse On the Trinity says: “God (is)
the beginning of all,” according to the Apostle saying, “God the Father from whom (are) all things,”
for the Logos also (is) from Him by generation, and the Spirit from Him by procession. Likewise

74
also both in the first book of his theological (works), and in the second, “The Father (is),” he says,
“alone unbegotten, and the Father alone (is) the source of the Godhead.” Similarly to this also the
great Paul and the much-wise Dionysius in the chapter On United and Distinct Theology says: “The
Father (is) the only source of the super-essential Godhead.” Let those having ears to hear, hear, and
those having understanding understand: “The Father (is) the only source of the super-essential
Godhead,” he says, not only generator and producer; for according to these also (He is) the begetter
of God. What (could be) more demonstrative and clearer than this testimony? For “alone,” or
“only,” or “solely,” wherever it is said, being most proper, does not at all admit any communion with
another, precisely by this “alone,” or “only,” or the added defining (word); but if this “alone” is at all
removed, it will no longer be said “alone.”
Paragraph 11: Upon all these things the Synod gathered first at Nicaea declares to the
questioning philosopher (that it) receives one Godhead of the Father generating the Son ineffably,
and of the Son generated from Him, and of the Holy Spirit proceeding from Him, the Father. And
observe here the accuracy of the theologians, how not simply and indefinitely the proceeding (is)
established as proper to the Spirit, but with a most clear definition, they all say (that) the proceeding
from the Father (is) altogether proper to the Spirit, foreseeing and pre-refuting the superfluous
addition, lest anyone should think that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Son; for since the one
(word) “begotten” introduces the Father into the mind, but the (word) “proceeding” not thus, for
this reason they all defined (that) the proceeding from the Father (is) proper to the Spirit. And
before all these things, the Lord Himself (said it); through this they all show whence the Spirit has
existence; whence some say, “The Father (is) the only cause of the Son and the Spirit”; and others,
“The Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father alone”; and others, “The Spirit (is) from the Father
alone, but not also in the Father alone does the processionary property subsist”; and others,
“Whatever is fitting to cause, (is) appropriated to the Father alone”; and others, “Only from the
Father, from whom both the Son and the Spirit have proceeded”; and others, “From the Father,”
they say, as if pointing with a finger, whence the Spirit has existence; just as the Synod clearly
defined everywhere here. Who then among the remaining will dare to contradict these things, unless
he would be shown to be openly fighting against the Divine Spirit?
Paragraph 12: These things thus being presupposed, tell me concerning the Trinity itself, what
seems (right) to you? If indeed the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Son, ought not this saying to
have been written in the Gospel? Ought it not to be borne in the epistles of the Apostles clearly
thus, they caring everywhere for their true knowledge of God? Ought it not to be contained in the
confessions of the Martyrs? Or if it was not found written in these, ought it not to have been
written by the holy teachers both the aforementioned and the rest, as a necessary thing, and great,
and of the indispensable things, this voice being? But now, (it) is found in none of the
aforementioned; and this (teaching), having been silenced by all the aforementioned, has been
silenced as not being, and (is) altogether worthy of silence; just as indeed what has been confessed
by all, has been confessed as worthy of all confession and proclamation. But if the teachers deciding

75
have decreed contrary to what is being said, (are they) not worthy of blame, they striving to silence
this? For there is equal boldness and self-will, both to give silence to the dogma proclaimed by the
saints, and for what has been silenced by them from eternity, to be proclaimed by us now; but
publicly to teach what is diametrically opposed to their dogmas, what excess of shamelessness does
it leave behind? These things thus being so, shall we endure to make a change of faith? And these
things after having passed through so many dangers, and having endured so many terrible things,
now in the completion of life, and in this deep old age, when nothing else is expected by us, than to
receive the crowns of piety and endurance as far as possible? How then will the earth not
immediately be eaten up, and swallow us living? How will heaven bear so great madness, and fire will
not suddenly be kindled from there against us? With what eyes shall we afterwards behold the sun?
What shall we answer to the saints in the day of judgment, that the faith which they conquered with
words, with sweat, and with blood, after so much time has passed we have completely lost from our
minds? Almost all the good things in the world have been taken away from us through impiety—
cities, lands, fields, vineyards, principalities, honors, possessions, and also we have become a
reproach to all people, and now shall we abandon this (faith)? By no means, O Lord of all, may you
allow this to happen, but preserve all here in Orthodoxy, by the prayers of the Orthodox Fathers.
And these things indeed (are) here.
Paragraph 13: But let us come here again concerning love, let us remind (you) of your love; that
every rational soul possesses three (powers), reason, anger, and desire; if there is love and
philanthropy in the anger, and purity and temperance in the desire, the reason is then enlightened.
But if there is misanthropy in the anger, and licentiousness in the desire, the reason is darkened.
Reason indeed is then healthy and temperate, when it has the passions subjected, and spiritually
contemplates the reasons of God’s creatures, and wholly draws near to the holy and blessed Trinity.
Anger indeed again is then moved according to nature, when it loves all people, and has neither grief
nor resentment towards any of them. Desire (is then moved according to nature), when by self-
control and humility it mortifies the passions, that is, the pleasure of the flesh, and the pursuit of
money, and of fleeting glory, and is turned towards divine eros; for desire also has its movement
towards three (things), either towards the pleasure of the flesh, or towards empty glory, or towards
the deceit of money, and through the irrational pursuit of these, it despises God and divine things,
and forgets its own nobility, and becomes beastly towards its neighbor, and darkens the reason, and
does not allow (it) to look up towards the truth; of whom the one having acquired a higher mindset,
from here enjoys the kingdom of the heavens, and lives a blessed life, awaiting the laid-up
blessedness for those loving the Lord.
Paragraph 14: For without love no one will see the Lord, and the most divine Paul testifies,
saying, “You are the body of Christ and members in part. And whom God has placed in the
Church, first Apostles, second Prophets, third Teachers, then powers, then gifts of healings, helps,
governments, kinds of tongues. (Are) all apostles? (Are) all prophets? (Are) all teachers? (Are) all
powers? (Do) all have gifts of healings? (Do) all speak with tongues? (Do) all interpret? But desire

76
the greater gifts. And moreover I show to you a way surpassing (all others). If I speak with the
tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a resounding bronze or a
clanging cymbal. And if I have prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all
faith so as to move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. And if I give away all my
possessions, and if I deliver my body that I may be burned, but do not have love, I profit nothing.”
If indeed Paul, having all these things, would not have profited without love, who then without this
will behold the Lord? But rather Paul would not even be Paul, nor would he even have all these
surpassing gifts of the Spirit, unless he possessed love; but through the abundance of love, he
(became) Paul instead of Saul, and a vessel of election, and a mouth, and an imitator, and such
things.
Paragraph 15: The divine Chrysostom, elaborating similarly on these sayings, proceeds thus:
“Therefore, brother, even if you fast continually, even if you lie on the ground, even if you wear
sackcloth continually, and benefit no one else, you will have accomplished nothing great; for in the
beginning, this especially surpassed those great and admirable men; and examine their life with
accuracy, and you will clearly see that none of them considered their own (interests), but each
(considered) those of their neighbor, whence also they shone forth more. For also in Moses, (he)
accomplished many and great wonders and signs, but nothing thus made him great, as that blessed
voice which he sent forth to God, saying, ‘If you forgive them their sin, forgive; but if not, blot me
out of the book which you have written.’ And David: ‘I the shepherd have sinned, and I have done
evil, but these the flock, what have they done? Let your hand be upon me, and upon the house of
my father.’ And the blessed Paul: ‘I wished to be anathema from Christ for my brothers, my kinsmen
according to the flesh, who are Israelites.’ And I speak of love not the circumscribed (love), but the
(love) poured out upon all; for if the eye has forethought for the whole body, if it should turn to the
hand, and turning away from the other members of itself, should attend only to that one, does it not
harm the whole? Rightly thus also we, if we should extend the love owed to God to the whole
Church, to some secondary limit, both we ourselves, and those (others), and the whole are harmed.
Love (is) root and source and mother of all good things; for as a root it sends forth countless
branches of virtue, and as a source it brings forth many streams, and as a mother it embraces within
her own bosom those turning to her; which also the blessed Paul, calling the fruit of the Spirit, said
thus, ‘The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering,’ and observe here the accuracy of the
teaching’s sequence; he placed love first, and then he mentioned the things following; he placed the
root, and then he showed the fruit; he laid the foundation, and then he brought forward the
building; he began from the source, and then he came to the rivers; for neither can the hypothesis of
joy enter beforehand, unless the root of love appears; neither can we well intertwine the things of
peace, unless we first consider all the things of our neighbors as our own. Whence also he then says,
‘Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Tribulation? Or distress? Or danger? Or sword?’ and
whatever he places in order; borrowing this voice with unwavering and living heart, say, ‘Who will

77
separate us from the love of brother? Tribulation? Or distress? Or danger? Or sword?’ for to the
same end and resting place both these ways lead.”
Paragraph 16: And the God-wise Dorotheos does not present the worker of holy love to us as if
before our eyes, saying thus: “Suppose to me two ladders to exist, one ascending upwards into
heaven, and the other descending into Hades, and you stand on the earth, in the middle of the
ladders; if you do not wish to reason, or to say, how am I able to fly from the earth, and to be raised
once for all upwards to the top of the ladder? For it is not possible, nor does God demand this, but
guard yourself for the time being from descending downwards; do not speak evil of your neighbor,
do not strike, do not mock, do not revile, do not provoke, and from then on begin also to do good
in a small way, through comforting with words, through sympathizing, and if he has need of
something, to give it to him; and thus ascending one step at a time, you arrive also at the very top of
the ladder. Through helping your neighbor little by little, you come also to willing what is beneficial
to him as what is beneficial to you, and his benefit as your own. Do not say, ‘Great are the virtues
and I am not able to attain them,’ for this is either of one not hoping in the help of God, or of one
hesitating to undertake anything good. Do not consider how far you are from virtue, and you will
begin to be afraid and to say, ‘How am I able to love my neighbor as myself ? How am I able to care
for his afflictions, as for my own?’ But cast for the time being the beginning of your petitions to
God; show Him your intention, and your zeal; if we seek, we will find; and if we ask God, He will
enlighten us. And again the same one says, ‘Be united with one another; for as much as one is united
with his neighbor, so much is he united with God; and as much as one is united with God, so much
is he united with his neighbor.’ And I say to you an example from the fathers, so that you may
understand the power of the word. Suppose to me a circle to be on the earth, place your mind on
what is said; consider this circle to be the world, and the middle of the circle God; and the lines
from the circumference to the center, the ways, that is, the conduct of men; for as much as the saints
enter inwards, desiring to draw near to God, according to the proportion of their entry they become
near to God and to one another; and as much as they draw near to God, they draw near to one
another; and as much as they draw near to one another, they draw near to God; similarly understand
also the separation; when they separate themselves from God, and turn outwards, it is clear that as
much as they go out and distance themselves from God, so much do they distance themselves from
one another; and as much as they distance themselves from one another, so much do they distance
themselves from God; behold, such is the nature of love; so that, what I said a little before, without
love, no one will see the Lord. May we all strive to acquire it, so that through it we may draw near
both to God, and through Him partake of the eternal good things. Amen.”

78
 DISCOURSE VIII. CONCERNING THE TRANSCENDENTAL TRINITY.
Spoken in the same Palace; clearly demonstrating that those who dare an addition [to the Creed],
both synodically and privately the divine Fathers subject to anathema.

Paragraph 1: If our discourse had been directed toward another aim, or had held for itself
another end as its mooring, I would have fitted this proem with proems appropriate to that aim and
discourse; but since the present discourse also tends toward the same aim as what has been said
before by us, it suffices to begin what follows without a proem. And indeed we say, that if some
man were the first to theologize concerning the Holy Spirit, his word might perhaps have room for
correction, or let him propose some further definition to it, or even change the name itself, so that
ignorance also might be reconciled with this; but since the Master of all most clearly delivers this,
saying that He proceeds from the Father, who will still dare to open his mouth against Him, so as to
alter what is from the Father, or to deny it, or to add to it, or to take away from it, or to doubt how
to confess it? For just as he who ascribes the generative property to both Father and Spirit, that one
is he who confounds the Trinity into a Dyad, but not he who, preserving the dignity of the
generative property to the Father alone, insofar as He is Father, so also he who ascribes the
projective property to both the Father and the Son, this one is he who conjoins the un-conjoinable,
not he who preserves the things delivered concerning Christ inviolate and unreduced. So that also
the Father alone is unbegotten, being absolutely distinguished in relation to each hypostasis; for in
relation to another, either "having risen above" or "having been placed below" is said; and He alone
is Father, being relatively distinguished in relation to the Son; and He alone is the Projector, in this
way according to another unknown and beyond us relation, being distinguished in relation to the
Holy Spirit.
Paragraph 2: Therefore, he who most genuinely contends for the truth will neither be ensnared
by the complexities of syllogisms, nor will he be stolen away by the misinterpretation of the
Scriptures, so as to yield from thence to any kind of opinion, but he will follow the ancient teaching
of the Fathers, and to the faith which they have delivered from the beginning, to this alone he will
adhere, and he will turn away from everything contrary to their tradition as impious, allowing
nothing towards its acceptance, neither logical proofs, nor the supposedly scriptural arguments,
which many falsely fabricate. For He gives us to be confident in the traditions of the divine Fathers,
not simply the plausibility of proofs, but also all the Old and New Scripture, agreeing with their
words, and before the Scriptures, their incomparable conduct according to virtue, and their angelic
life, and the power of miracles. For these things were clearly a testimony to them at once, both by
their life and by their exactness according to piety; with these also they subdued gentiles, and
converted them to piety.
Paragraph 3: Therefore, from what has been said, it is clear that we are pious, we who thus say
that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and not also from the Son; for this is not our own
opinion and a newer one, but, as has been shown, it is that of the Fathers, both ancient, and in this

79
confession the great champions of Orthodoxy lived together, or rather, by this they live even after
death; but this will also be clearer from thence, not only from the words, as one might say, of the
saints alone, but also from their works, and the gifts of the Spirit which they received; for behold,
from the Lord's Incarnation, four hundred and twenty years have passed, in all of which we have
revered this holy faith, and all the aforementioned were perfected in this same faith, as has also been
shown beforehand, through them the saints have been known to us; before them the chorus of the
Apostles, and with them the host of the martyrs, and the whole catalogue of the sacred and other
teachers; and simply all who contended for the truth in deed and word unto death; and indeed also
the circle of the Prophets, even if in a more obscure way, theologized the Spirit from the Father. If
this faith is erroneous, those perfected in it have all certainly perished; and they wrote their words
only for the sake of ambition, and endured their labors for the sake of display, and thus they all ran
in vain, and thus we and those before us are deceived, honoring them as saints even after death; but
these things are not so, they are not so; for God Himself both glorified those living and those
departed with various and countless miracles, and their memory abides unto the age; and there is no
other faith under heaven orthodox and most true, if not this alone.
Paragraph 4: And behold for me the economy of God; truly great is our Lord, and great is His
strength, and of His understanding there is no number; and He knows all things before their coming
into being, and He transforms and transfigures for the better, and He foreordains and catches the
wise in their own craftiness; such as indeed He governs, and not to all at all times does He
economize all things for the beneficial, so also here He has acted providentially and most wisely. For
in order that no one might have cause to accuse any of the Fathers, or perhaps all of them, that each
of them having individualized for himself a private opinion set it forth, and thus having secretly led
many into heterodox thoughts, either thinking, or saying, or writing, has fallen asleep, He was
pleased that the sacred ecumenical synods should come to pass, and with them moreover many local
ones, so that whatever is rightly established by each individually, or is determined as dogma, this
should be brought forth into the midst of all for examination, so that it might be either accepted by
the rest, or rejected. Thus indeed the first of the ecumenical synods dogmatized, thus the second
defined, thus the third handed down, thus the fourth proclaimed, thus the fifth confirmed, thus the
sixth ratified, and the seventh sealed it brightly, having dogmatized that the Holy Spirit firmly
proceeds from the Father, and not also from the Son, and having consigned those not thinking thus
to anathema. For in the aforementioned synods, not ten and twenty men, perchance common or
market-goers, and worthy of the corner, were gathered, but a multitude almost beyond number, all
instruments of the Spirit. But that all possessed one and the same equal and identical opinion, both
the later ones with the former, and the former with those after these, hear the definition of the
Fathers in the seventh synod. “We,” it says, “follow the ancient legislation of the Catholic Church;
we guard the institutions of the Fathers; we anathematize those adding to, or taking away from the
Church.” Alas! To whom is it necessary to give heed? To these so many and such, and having
threatened with so great power, and spiritual authority, or to those philosophizing plausibly today?

80
Do they then desire to cast us into such anathema, those urging to add the “and from the Son”?
However, this aforementioned seventh synod, gathered in the six thousand two hundred and ninety-
sixth year, and in the eighth year namely of the reign of Constantine and his mother Irene, set forth
this definition, making it known to the present, as to the past and the future orthodox ones, and
sealing this. But what especially brings conviction to me for the refutation of others, but for our
own defense, as striking the opponents from their own weapons, this seems to me to be; and pay
close attention with exactness, so that you may know what happened both in words and in deeds.
Paragraph 5: Because from the aforementioned seventh synod, seventy years later, during the
reign of Basil the Macedonian Emperor, in this queen of cities, another synod was convened; and
the cause of this gathering, which was devised entirely by the will of the Pope, and by the Emperor's
urging, was this, namely, to establish Photios the most holy on the throne of the queen of cities; and
to declare those who, with a subreption, that is, with some concealment, dare to say that the Spirit
also proceeds from the Son, as excommunicated from the Church, and rejected, which indeed it did
well in doing. In this synod indeed, also the most holy Pope John, at that time bishop of the Church
of Rome, through Peter the presbyter Cardinal, Paul and Eugene bishops and his vicars agreed, and
subjects to anathema whoever should dare in the future to add or subtract anything, they having
subscribed in their own name, and the Roman vicars in his stead; or rather, to speak more accurately,
he having subscribed through them; of which indeed the subscriptions are still evidence in the Great
Church. But if you also wish to learn with what dogmas they having been persuaded subscribed, and
through them the most holy Pope, taking in hand the acts of this synod, you will know that after the
commonly proposed opinion and the reading of the sacred Symbol, how they think, all the Fathers
cried out, "Thus we believe, in this confession we were baptized, and we were deemed worthy of the
sacred rank; but those thinking otherwise than these things, we consider as enemies of God, and of
the truth; if therefore anyone should dare to write down, or to add, or to subtract, or to name a
definition, or to attempt to make an addition or a subtraction to this which has been delivered to us,
let him be condemned and alien from all Christian confession; for to subtract or to add shows our
confession, which has been handed down from above until today, concerning the Holy Trinity to be
incomplete, and condemns both the Apostolic tradition, and the teaching of the Fathers." And these
things are brought forward in the acts of this synod, to all of which both the vicars of Rome
subscribed, and all those of the West agreed with what was written.
Paragraph 6: And Photios, the aforementioned most holy Pope John, writing back says such
things, "We again make clear to your reverence, so that you may have full assurance to us concerning
this article, on account of which scandals have arisen in the midst of the Churches of Christ, that
we not only do not say this, but also we judge those who first dared in their own recklessness to do
this as transgressors of the divine oracles, and falsifiers of the theology of the Master Christ, and of
the holy Fathers, who having synodically convened handed down to us the holy Symbol, and we
rank them with Judas." Do you hear a most dreadful sentence? O spare, Lord Savior and God of all,
and deliver every Christian striving to be saved from such a portion! This synod more than all

81
others, concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit, supports us and the truth; not only because
those of this queen of cities, both ecumenical, and indeed also other synods, but because they had
the most holy Pope of Rome judging, as also defending, and confirming our dogma, and indeed
providing not only for the others, but also for his own Church, and those under him, for future
piety, and providentially pre-empting the newly innovating ones; and the wondrous thing, or rather
sufficient for proof, is that from then until Pope Christopher, one hundred and thirty years passed,
in which all the bishops of Rome at the times, and those with them, were in complete agreement
with us, and peace and concord held the Church of Christ. For they received, as it seems, John, who
yesterday and long ago gathered the synod in three epistles. And this also I know to be a clear proof
of our undefiled faith, that from when the aforementioned Christopher, having sent a written
confession of his faith to the four Churches of the East, and having been cast out on all sides by the
two factions, while Sergius was at that time Patriarch of this queen of cities, four hundred and
twenty years have already passed, in which many men sharers of wisdom, sent from thence, in order
supposedly to unite the Churches and to bring them into unity, and these things almost while we
were enduring countless wars from all nations, were not able to accomplish, nor will they be able,
unless this addition which causes the schism is removed.
Paragraph 7: But someone says, "What is the need of so much disputation? And what evil does
the seemingly good addition cause?" What indeed does this addition cause? I think both what has
been said, and the schism of the Church of Christ which has been extended for so many four
hundred years, has shown and shows; but for greater refutation of those who deliberately choose to
be blind to these things, these things also bear witness. This addition causes an obstacle, because all
addition is rejected by the divine Fathers and teachers. For of these the divine Cyril of Alexandria
says, "Why do you meddle with what the Holy Spirit did not prepare to be written? He who does not
know the written things, do you meddle with the unwritten things? Let what is written be said by you
concerning the Holy Spirit; but if something is not written, let us not meddle; the Holy Spirit
Himself spoke the Scriptures; He Himself also declared concerning Himself as much as He willed,
or as much as we are capable of receiving; let what He has said be said, but what He has not said, let
us not dare to meddle with." And indeed the blessed Damasus, the Bishop of Old Rome, writing to
the bishops in the East, says, "Already once we have given a form, so that whoever knows himself
to be a Christian should guard that which was delivered by the Apostles, as the Holy Paul says, 'If
anyone preaches to you besides what you received, let him be anathema.'" And the theologian
Gregory curses those who innovate, writing thus, "May he not see the fierce rising of the sun, nor
behold the glory of the splendor there, who changes with the times, becoming other at other times,
and opining unsoundly concerning the greatest things." And the divine Celestine, who was also
Bishop of Rome, writing against Nestorius, says, "Who, he says, was ever judged worthy of
anathema, either having taken away something, or having added to the faith? For the things delivered
to us most clearly and manifestly by the Apostles admit neither addition nor diminution." And
Agatho the celebrated, who was also Bishop of Rome, writing to the Emperors of the Romans uses

82
supplication, "That nothing be noted besides what has been canonically defined, nor be changed, or
added, but that these things be guarded unchanged both in words and in meanings." With this also
the great Basil agrees, saying, "It is necessary that the tradition delivered in the life-giving Spirit
remain inviolate, for to add to it, or to take away from it, is clearly a rejection of eternal life; for if it
is necessary to write other faiths at other times, and to be altered with the times, false is the
declaration of Him who said as Lord, 'One faith, one baptism'; and again, 'Therefore, brethren,
stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle'; and
again, 'But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which
we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.'" And very reasonably; for if the Lord is faithful in
all His words, and all His commandments are faithful, established unto the age of ages, made in
truth and uprightness, it is a manifest rejection of faith, and an accusation of arrogance, either to
take away anything of what has been written, or to introduce anything of what has not been written.
And Dionysius the great in divine matters, and concerning what must not be dared to be said, unless
to understand concerning the surpassing divinity, besides what has been divinely declared to us from
the sacred oracles. The third of the ecumenical synods says, "In no way do we allow the defined
faith, that is, the symbol of faith, which was synodically composed by the holy Fathers, to be shaken
by anyone; neither do we allow ourselves, or others, either to change a word of what is set down
there, or indeed to transgress one syllable, remembering Him who says, 'Remove not the ancient
landmark, which thy fathers have set'; for they were not themselves who spoke, but the Spirit of
God and Father, who proceeds from Him, yet is not foreign to the Son, according to the account of
essence." Likewise also the sixth openly declares, "But those who dare either to devise, or to bring
forward, or to teach another faith, for the subversion of what has now been defined by us, if they
should be bishops, or clerics, we alienate the bishops from the episcopate, and the clerics from the
clergy, but if they should be monks, or laity, let them be anathematized." The seventh with the
definition proclaimed by it, which was said by us a little before, also sets these things forth: "If
anyone rejects any ecclesiastical tradition, both written and unwritten, let him be anathema." And
these things alone concerning this one thing, it has been said a little before concerning all others,
that it places those adding anything to the divine Symbol as enemies of God and of Christianity.
And I omit to go through in detail all that the orthodox local synods have set forth concerning it not
being necessary to add to the faith, making a moderate provision.
Paragraph 8: Therefore, since no contradiction remains for those wishing to contradict, it is vain
to contradict what is manifest truth; why so? Because these are definitions of the Catholic and
Apostolic Faith; but to dissolve the definitions of the Apostles and the Fathers and of the Faith, is
to overturn piety; and they overturn it, who with an addition confess to believe in the Holy Spirit,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son; for in the same way it is to reject the definitions from
either side, both by adding to them and by taking away from them; and do not suppose that this
transgression concerning the addition is less than the daring of taking away; this does not differ
from that in the alteration of the Faith; for He who said "do not take away" by these words also

83
commanded "do not add." But both these things, the alteration or corruption of what has been
delivered, differ not at all, or differ only slightly; for addition, or subtraction, or alteration, or
corruption, alters and changes not only some dogma, or some faith, but also every matter to which it
is applied.
Paragraph 9: Having learned therefore from these things, that to add anything to the Faith is
opposition to the tradition of all the saints, and a subversion of the orthodox Faith, flee from this
henceforth; have you perceived the penalty? Do not be deprived of salvation for a small thing; or
perhaps do you consider him who dared such a thing to have done a small thing, and that he who is
the cause of so many scandals is subject to a common punishment? For if for him who only
scandalizes one of the little ones, as the Lord says, it is profitable that a millstone be hanged about
his neck and that he be drowned in the sea; and indeed all who strike the conscience of the brethren,
sin against Christ Himself, what will he suffer who has scandalized so many myriads, and confusing
and dividing both those now and those in the future, as far as it depended on him? And if through
some chance occurrence one of the bishops at various times and places, having excommunicated
some of the people, has made them outcasts from God, what shall he be said to suffer who is
excommunicated by so many and such, or rather by all the saints, on account of innovation in the
Faith? What will he suffer? And indeed even those who are able to hinder, and to mend the torn
tunic of Christ, but have not used their power, but overlook the evil condition, and the Church, for
which the Master shed His own blood, being corrupted by the division, will be liable, I think, to the
same punishments, and much more, if they even assist the division, and are themselves an obstacle
to its union.
Paragraph 10: And Paul the divine confirms this word for me, who does not hesitate to deliver
to anathema not only men, but also heavenly angels, even though they know more than men, daring
to add anything; and very reasonably, I would say; for the Lord Jesus Himself, who alone was
deemed worthy to have this, says, "The things which I speak, even as the Father has said unto me, so
I speak," and "the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me"; and "all things
that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you"; but nowhere in His own words is it
found said that the Spirit proceeds from Him; and if it is not found even in His own words, neither
would it be in those of the Father, on account of both being cause, I mean, that He also proceeds
from the Son. But He has said only this concerning the Spirit, "But when the Comforter is come,
whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the
Father, he shall testify of me: And he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself;
but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak"; 2 and He having come, and having revealed to us
all truth most clearly and plainly, and having left nothing still concealed of the things of the faith, all
things which the Lord Jesus and His all-holy Father said, and the Comforter Himself declared
concerning Himself, and having said this concerning Himself, it is nowhere found clearly thus; and
yet if it were so, I mean, that He proceeds from the Son, it was not fitting for His glory either not to
say it at all, or to say it obscurely, and thus to overshadow and not reveal all the truth, having come

84
into the world to reveal it? What things the Son and the Spirit have kept silent concerning
themselves, because they did not have these things to say concerning themselves from the Father,
who then will dare henceforth to conceive, or to say, or to propose these things to all, unless he
thinks himself wiser than the very Wisdom, and more articulate than the Spirit searching the depths
of God, and shows himself to be afflicted with a madness beyond all madness? But enough of these
things; so that our discourse may return again to the former sequence, we will readily take up that
which is the timely exhortation to you.
Paragraph 11: Because not as someone might suppose, do we profess a weak and ambiguous
dogma, or one confirmed by a few and chance individuals, but what Prophets of old proclaimed
beforehand, and Apostles taught to all the inhabited world, Martyrs confessed before tyrants, all
Teachers clearly expounded, Christ delivered, the Holy Spirit sealed, God and Father testified not to
some only but through all and in all, and having received it through the Fathers who announced it,
we guard it unadulterated. Therefore, if anyone attempts to lead you away from this Orthodoxy with
new words, with bare head and loud voice say to him very confidently: "We are members of one
another, being joined together to the head of our Church through holy baptism, and we are
nurtured as lambs belonging to Christ's rational and orthodox flock, and marked and shepherded by
Him; we are servants through the Lord Jesus of the ecumenical [Church] at the proper times, and
therefore we ought to obey no other, whether wise or unwise, private person or ruler, but only our
Lord; we know Him as our shepherd, for a stranger's voice you are; we do not know you as lord,
why do you command us? Why, leaving the head, do you bring a terrible trial upon us weaker
members, if we hold fast to the faith of the Fathers? By opposing the Fathers, do you wage war
against us? As if someone, not being able to come against the lord in battle, would exert all his
strength against his servant; or, being unable to capture the city by any means, would tyrannically
rush upon its fields; but if you wish to show something of your own through words, pour out your
wisdom upon those not knowing God; turn your artful plausibility there, in which you greatly trust;
teach them the God not in Trinity, demonstrate to them how the One of the Trinity was incarnate,
enlighten the unenlightened, and convert the wandering; but what need is there of long words? Why
do you devise? Why do you perhaps attempt to capture us? We will give you a short answer: you will
not prevail, nor will you ever change us; and even if another more eloquent than you rises up against
us, and the sum of all the wise, we will not deny the reverence handed down from the fathers; for
thus holding fast to this patristic confession, even though surrounded by many misfortunes, we
consider it the highest blessedness to live only with it, and to think it no small gain to die for it; for
as we think, so also we say, that this alone is our being, our faith, with which indeed to live is the
highest glory, and to die for it is eternal gain. In this we were begotten, in this we were baptized, in
this we were nurtured, in this we live, and in this we will fall asleep; and if indeed the time calls, we
will die ten thousand times for this, and no one will be able to separate us from this true confession.
Remove not the ancient landmarks, nor alter the ancient laws; we are not persuaded by your long
teaching; we disregard your artificial wisdom; we have one teacher, Christ, He said, the Holy Spirit

85
who proceeds from the Father; we neither add to Him, nor take away from Him; may it not be so
with us; leave off these vain and senseless words; bring trial to others, not to us; for with us neither
are the commonalities of the Trinity divided, nor are the properties again conjoined, but the
commonalities remain undivided, and the properties unconfused, guarding the most pious dogma
unadulterated.”
Paragraph 12: Therefore, until the end, brethren in Christ, let us remain steadfast in Orthodoxy,
let us guard the piety unbroken, let us maintain the faith unshaken and firm, let us reverence the
Fathers, let us fear the Saints, let us venerate the Lord, and let us not betray our salvation; no one
compels us, no one openly uses violence, unless we ourselves cast ourselves out from the good of
the Church's fullness. Let us stand therefore courageously, and no one will be able to overturn us;
and these things with God working together with us in all good things. And these things I have
reminded your love, so that you all may have peace both with yourselves and towards those outside;
towards those outside indeed, by no means receiving the introduced propositions, which generate
untimely battles and strifes, but within yourselves, by no longer having a doubtful mindset
concerning the dogma, but as having been rightly confirmed, to remain unadulterated henceforth.
Paragraph 13: But let us strive to be Orthodox, and to do the commandments of God; for the
commandments of God are more precious than all the treasures of the world, and he who has
acquired these will find the Lord with himself; for we have received commandments from Christ our
God, which from thence illuminate and make us live blamelessly, and to conduct ourselves as angels
among men; such as repentance, humility, constant prayer, love towards God which is produced
from the whole heart, and disposition towards one’s neighbor, pure affection, and self-denial, and to
have death before one’s eyes at all times, and to walk unceasingly in its light, and to have oneself
beneath all creation, and to beseech God constantly; for he who works these divine commandments
with right faith becomes a son of God, and a son of light, and an heir of God, and a joint-heir with
Christ, and conformed to His image, and of the same nature and of the same body, and to speak
simply, a god by grace. But there are also other commandments of Christ, which both cause
remission [of sins], and deem worthy of perfection; such as to confess and declare one's own sins,
not to judge, not to meddle in the affairs of others, to show mercy from one's possessions, to bear
nobly and with thanksgiving the afflictions that come, to confess to be saved by grace and gift. If
therefore someone works the first commandments as being works of God, from thence he receives
the earnest of the Spirit; but if not, let him also work the second ones with diligence, so that he may
attain the forgiveness of his transgressions; but if he falls short of both, he is a useless man and
wretched and miserable, and let him expect the punishment prepared for the devil and his angels.
Paragraph 14: Because of all the commandments given to us by God, we have also received the
powers from Him, as the great Basil says, so that we may neither be grieved as if newer things are
demanded of us, nor be lifted up as if we contribute something more than what has been given.
And having received from Him this very thing, to love God, we possess the power of loving
immediately implanted with our first constitution; and the proof is not from without, but each one

86
himself may learn this from himself and within himself; for we are by nature desirous of good
things, even if what seems good to one person seems different to another; and we have a natural
affection for what is our own and kindred, and we fulfill all goodwill with supplication towards our
benefactors; but if we naturally receive goodwill and affection towards benefactors, and we endure
all labor for a return of the good things previously done to us, what word is able to attain worthily
to the gifts of God? For they are so many in multitude, as even to escape number, and so great in
magnitude and such in kind, as even one of them suffices to draw us into all gratitude to the Giver. I
will pass over the other things, even if they themselves surpass in magnitude and grace, but being
outshone by the greater ones as stars by the sun's rays, they render their own grace more obscure;
for it is folly to leave aside the surpassing ones to measure the goodness of the Most High from the
lesser ones. Let therefore the risings of the sun be silent, and the courses of the moon, the
temperaments of the airs, the change of the seasons, water from the clouds, and other water from
the earth, the whole earth and the things growing from the earth, the sea itself, and the things
dwelling in the waters, the winged creatures of the air, the countless differences of animals, all things
arranged for the service of our life.
Paragraph 15: But it is not possible for us to pass over that either; and for me to be silent about
the grace is altogether impossible for one who is sound and has reason, but to say something worthy
is even more impossible, that God, having made man according to His own image and likeness, and
having deemed him worthy of His own knowledge, and having adorned him alone of all living
beings with reason, and having granted him to live ineffably in the beauties of Paradise, and having
established him as ruler of all things on earth, did not overlook him when he was deceived through
the serpent and fell into sin, and through sin into death, and the things worthy of it; but first, He
gave the Law for help, He set angels over for guarding and care, He sent forth prophets for the
reproof of evil and the teaching of virtue, He restrained the impulses of evil with threats, He stirred
up the working of good things with promises, He frequently revealed the end of each, not to
different persons for the instruction of others; and despite all these things and such as these,
persisting in disobedience, He did not turn away; for we were not abandoned by the goodness of the
Master, nor did the insensitivity of the honors by which we insulted the Benefactor cut off His love
for us, but we were recalled from death, and were made alive again by our Lord Jesus Christ, in
whom also the manner of the Benefaction has the greater wonder; for existing in the form of God,
He did not consider equality with God something to be grasped at, but emptied Himself, taking the
form of a servant, 1 and took our weaknesses, and bore our sicknesses, and was wounded for our
sake, so that by His wound we might be healed; and He redeemed us from the curse, becoming a
curse for us; and He underwent the most dishonorable death, so that He might lead us back to a life
without dishonor; and He was not only satisfied to make us alive when we were dead, but also
bestowed on us to be deemed worthy of divinity, and prepared eternal rests, surpassing every human
conception by the greatness of the beneficence; and He is so good, that He does not demand a
return, but is satisfied only by being loved for what He has given, and seeks from us love towards

87
one another before that towards Himself; but we, having considered one of the commandments to
have been done, (for I would not say that we have done all, for all are connected to one another
according to the sound reasoning of the purpose, so that with the dissolution of one, the rest are
also necessarily dissolved,) do not await the reward for the things that have been done, but for what
has supposedly been accomplished.
Paragraph 16: He who, having received ten talents as a deposit, keeps two, but pays back the rest,
is not shown to be just for the fulfillment of the greater part, but is convicted as unjust and greedy
for the deprivation of the lesser part; and what do I say, deprivation? When he who buried the one
talent, and then returns to that one the whole and undiminished amount that he received, is
condemned because he did not work with what was given; he who has honored his father for ten
years, but then inflicts one lasting blow, is not honored as a benefactor, but is condemned as a
parricide, and very reasonably; for having gone forth, he says, teach all the nations, teaching them,
not to keep some of my commands and to neglect others, but to keep all things whatsoever I have
commanded you; so that through the keeping of the commandments of God is salvation; and what
medicines are to ailing bodies, the commandments of God are to passionate souls; and even if
someone is not able to keep all, the activity according to love, is the fulfillment of the rest of the
actions, and every good action is a fruit of love. Because not those who are moderate in measure are
the best, but he who has more of love is most beloved of God; for it is indeed a great thing to
accomplish the lesser things through virtue, but it is much greater, not to be the least of all, but to
be the greatest of all. Others bring other precious gifts to God, but you bring before all love towards
all, in which God rejoices more than in all other things, a unique gift, a blameless gift, a gift calling
forth the love of God; and do not exchange the love of your brother for the love of any earthly
things; because it has been invisibly called more precious than all things; for in one's neighbor is life
and death; for if we gain our brother, we gain Christ the God, and if we scandalize our brother, we
sin against Christ; therefore, if you truly wish to acquire love, not only what seems [right] to you, but
whatever pleases your neighbor, if it does not cast [you] far from God, let this be both what you say
and do and practice as your heart's desire, and do not seek your own things in order to find your
own; for he who seeks his own does not find his own; for one's own advantage does not lie outside
what is advantageous to one’s neighbor; and what is his again [lies] in you; and become such to all, as
you wish all to be to yourself.
Paragraph 17: This part concerning love, when it needs teachers for demonstration, when words
for learning, thus it is both completely known for knowledge, and readily available for
accomplishment. And I have heard many often saying, “How will we ever be able to escape
Gehenna, and be said to partake of salvation, with so many commandments set before us for
working out? Who is able to guard all as is necessary, or even to number them?” Thus they are
difficult to accomplish, and even to number is difficult. To these I readily answered at once: “And
what labor, or what expense, or difficulty does it have to love every man from the soul?” For the
fulfillment of the Law, and of every commandment, is love; therefore David says in the Psalms,

88
“The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise
the simple. The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the Lord is
pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the
Lord are true and righteous altogether. 1 More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine
gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb”; 2 and the Apostle in the Epistle to the Romans,
“Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
For this, Thou shalt 3 not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not
covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended 4 in this saying, namely,
Thou shalt love thy neighbour as 5 thyself. Love then is the fulfilling of the law”; and the Lord in
the Gospels, “A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another;” and now,
“Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for
this is the law and the prophets.” And 6 again, “On these two commandments hang all the law and
the prophets.” And these things concerning love have been said here. But may the Comforter
Himself, concerning whom we make the discourses, the Spirit proceeding from the Father, establish
our reasonings according to His own will, in hope and faith, and establish our words towards the
commandments of Christ in peace and love, and direct our actions in obedience and patience
towards God and Father; so that both in thoughts, and in words, and in actions, worshipping the all-
causal Trinity, we may attain to the blessedness laid up for the faithful, which may it be granted to us
all to attain, to whom belongs all glory, power, magnificence, and worship, unto the boundless ages.
Amen.

89
 DISCOURSE IX. CONCERNING THE TRANSCENDENTAL TRINITY.
Spoken not in the royal bedchamber; demonstrating most clearly that the Holy Spirit being said to
be from the Father through the Son, signifies not the procession of the hypostasis, but the
dispensation of the Spirit towards us.

Paragraph 1: Since I firmly place my hopes on the help of the Comforter Spirit, and take up
spiritual weapons, which cast down reasonings, and every high thing that exalts itself against the
knowledge of God, let no one accuse me, that having fortified myself with the panoply of the
Fathers, I am puffed up as with my own valor, with the exploits from these weapons; which would
be most wretched of all, for others indeed to be so easily bold against the discourse concerning the
addition, as for those having armed themselves with the words of the saints to attack us, and to be
greatly confident, as supposedly encountering us not with the teachers clearly opposing, but we,
having truth, not opinion, as our champion and advocate, and the very truth itself, to shrink from
laboring the discourse, which from the tradition of the Fathers to us, by sequence of memory, and
by scriptural teachings has already been clarified. But also on account of this putting on of the
weapons of the saints, as if we were being adorned and boasting with our own things, there will be
no envy; for if a son, having fortified himself with his father's weapons, would ward off the enemies
of his fatherland, the father would not be said to envy the son's valor; but this seems bold to me and
to every orthodox one; on the contrary, when someone does not accept to use the theological
pronouncements and proofs of the saints, and strives to establish the dogmas from his own wisdom,
while he who puts forward the saints without qualification, seems to be humble and truthful,
remains unassailable and blameless. However, not by my own will, but by the willing course of
events, I consented to enter into these contests; as I would have chosen ten thousand times to be
reproached for complete ignorance on account of silence, than to come to this as someone bold, as
one might say, and contentious from within; and of this my unseen God is my witness, and the very
events bear witness to what I say, and many of you yourselves are witnesses of this; that for how
many years already running the course of life in silence and privacy, I have in no way spoken such a
courageous thing; however, since love has prevailed, and has erected a trophy against my inactivity
and silence, with the time calling and events drawing me on, I will speak and [it is] better than
silence.
Paragraph 2: Let this also be for us the manner of the following homilies, known for its
comprehensibility; that the chapters proposed against us, and placing the corresponding responses
to these in order, I will immediately bring forward the appropriate solutions to each of them by
arguments, and again I will set forth the fitting counter-arguments following these; and thus, with
the Holy Spirit illuminating us, we will proceed until the end. Let this therefore be placed first as a
foundation of the discourse, and let it remain unmoved, that these words are for us, and for all
Christians, and not against us, nor against anyone; but may the Comforter come to us, the Spirit of

90
truth, and guide these things, turning the crooked things into straight, and filling the deficient gaps
of knowledge, and making smooth for us the rough paths of words.
Paragraph 3: What then is now proposed against us? Pay attention: that the Holy Spirit proceeds
from the Father through the Son, is a common doctrine of the Church; but this is the same as
proceeding from the Father, and to proceed according to hypostasis; therefore the Holy Spirit
proceeds from the Father and the Son. As I think, thus it is necessary to answer: the Holy Spirit is
said by many teachers to proceed from the Father through the Son, not because this is to proceed
from the Father and the Son according to hypostasis—far be it!—but because this "proceeding" is
understood here as "being sent" and "being given"; and this we are clearly able to demonstrate with
God’s help, if we are able to produce interpreters of this theological phrase, the holy ones
themselves who have said this in many places in their own writings; for if this happens, and each of
the saints comes into the midst and interprets himself, and all the rest agree with this, and all
understand this phrase, “the Spirit from the Father through the Son,” in the same and one meaning,
who will be so deranged in his own mind as to then wish to think differently than their
interpretation? But who are those who from the beginning said and interpreted this phrase? And
how do they have an opinion concerning the proposed question? And what does this use of "the
Spirit from the Father through the Son" mean to them? We now say, and pay attention.
Paragraph 4: Those indeed who said this are these: the Holy Spirit, the Theotokos Mary, John
the Evangelist, Gregory the Wonderworker, Cyril of Alexandria, Gregory of Nyssa, Athanasius the
much-suffering, the great Basil, the greatest Maximus, Andrew of Crete, John of Damascus, and all
the choir of venerable teachers; of these, even if the first alone is above all the faithful witnesses in
heaven and on earth, nevertheless for greater confirmation, it is necessary to produce also the
subsequent ones; for thus both their common opinion concerning the procession of the Spirit from
the Father through the Son will become clear. This phrase, “the Spirit from the Father through the
Son,” the Holy Spirit Himself first revealed and interpreted both at once, through the theologian
John, to Gregory the Wonderworker, with the Mother of God interceding; and Gregory of Nyssa,
who also wrote, interpreted it, saying thus: “The Holy Spirit, having His existence from the Father
Himself, and being manifested through the Son, that is, to men.” Here the one who wrote this,
Gregory of Nyssa I say, offered us an irrefutable testimony through one use [of the phrase]; to
whom it was revealed, is synonymous with this Wonderworker; and he is John the bosom [disciple];
and the Mother of the Lord, who mediates the divine things; and the Holy Spirit Himself who
works all things; and what could be more compelling, or clearer, or more trustworthy than this
testimony? When the Holy Spirit Himself testifies concerning Himself with the Theotokos and the
Evangelist? Nevertheless, for more complete assurance, what I said a little before, and for the sake
of clarity, let us see what seems concerning this also to the rest of the theologians; let them come
forward not in a crowd, but each in order, and let them teach the opinion concerning this.
Paragraph 5: And let the first to come forward, who is also first in time, be again this
aforementioned Gregory the Wonderworker himself, who setting forth the faith revealed to him by

91
God, says, "And the Holy Spirit is perfect from God, being dispensed through the Son to those
being adopted." It is necessary to know this also, that the name "God" both here, and everywhere,
whether someone understands it to refer in the singular to two of the Persons in the divine Trinity,
or whether it is said sometimes in the dual, sometimes in the plural; but wherever this is found in all
the divine Scripture, whether concerning the Father alone, it is always said simply concerning the
three Persons at once; here indeed this name "from God" is said concerning the Father alone.
Paragraph 6: And let the second to bear witness come forward, who is not second in worth,
Athanasius the great in divine matters; this one in his [letters] to Serapion, now says, "The Holy
Spirit, who proceeds from the Father, and is given through the Son"; now [he says], "For if they
thought rightly also concerning the Word, they would think soundly also concerning the Holy Spirit,
who proceeds from the Father, and being proper to the Son is transmitted by Him to the disciples,
and to all those believing in Him."
Paragraph 7: And the great Basil in his letter to his brother Gregory says, "And the Son makes
known through Himself and with Himself the Spirit proceeding from the Father alone"; but to
those contradicting, he also introduces the Apostle Paul as a witness to this phrase "from the Father
through the Son," saying, "The Apostle clearly proclaimed the Spirit to be from God, having said
that he received the Spirit from God, and having manifested Him through Him, he has made it clear,
having named Him Son." He interprets it precisely, that the great one understands the Spirit here as
the Spirit from God, that is, the Father; as personally proceeding Him from the Father; but he says
the Spirit through the Son, not as proceeding from Him, but as being manifested to men through
Him; and these things indeed he [says] most clearly.
Paragraph 8: And let Gregory, who holds the same opinions as this one, and is by nature his own
brother, also come forward, and let him explain clearly his own opinion, and let him teach what this
procession of the divine Spirit from the Father through the Son means; for he says in his [writings]
against Eunomius, "The Holy Spirit is another such light, understood in the same way as the
begotten light, not being separated from the begotten light by any temporal interval, but shining
forth through it, having however the cause of its hypostasis from the original light." And again:
"Not from God of all does it have its existence, where also the Only-begotten Light is; but having
shone forth through the true light, it is not separated from the Father or from the Only-begotten by
either interval or difference of nature." And again, the Holy Spirit, being connected to the Son by
the connection according to cause, is distinguished again as His own, not by being understood as
being either not from the Father alone, or not being manifested through the Son Himself.
Paragraph 9: But what does Cyril of Alexandria [say]? Is he in agreement with these, Athanasius,
and Basil, and Gregory, just as indeed in the other things? Or does he contradict them? And who is
so bold as to condemn such great saints, and to think wrongly of them as enemies to each other in
theology, to whom the one and the same grace, using the good Spirit as instruments, revealed the
lofty and saving dogmas to men? This one, the great in wisdom, in his interpretation of the Gospel
according to John, now says, "The Holy Spirit is proper to God and Father, but is not less proper

92
also to the Son Himself; not as one thing and another thing, or as being understood and existing
partially in either, but since the Son is from the Father, and in the Father by nature, being the true
fruit of His essence, the Spirit proper to the Father is naturally understood to be also His,
proceeding indeed from the Father, but being dispensed through Him to creation through the Son."
Now [he says], "Just as I said just now, proceeding indeed from the very essence of God and Father,
but being dispensed to those deemed worthy through the consubstantial Word." And at one time in
his refutation against Julian, he says most clearly, "The Spirit proceeds from the Father, but is
dispensed to creation through the Son"; at another time in his writing to Hermias, "The Father
proceeds from His own nature, and the Son Himself also dispenses Him to the worthy"; and now in
his syllogistic proofs, "The Holy Spirit is not alien to God and Father, nor to the Son, but passing
from the Father through Him into creation; for creation does not partake from itself, but from what
is by nature above it, that is, from God, through the Spirit." And again: "How is the Spirit not God,
having essentially within Himself the properties of the Father and the Son, by whom also the Spirit
is dispensed to creation through the Son?" Now in the exposition of the divine Symbol, he says,
"The Holy Spirit proceeds, that is, is sent forth in God and Father, [and] is dispensed to creation
through the Son"; do you hear? For this very thing, for the teacher to advance the discourse
distinctively through the conjunctions, and to say concerning the Holy Spirit, that the Holy Spirit
proceeds, that is, is sent forth in God and Father, but is dispensed to creation through the Son, is [a
sign] of clearly understanding the Holy Spirit to have His existence from the Father alone? For if
the dispensation of the Spirit were common to the Father and the Son, if the power of procession
also existed commonly in them, the distinction, and the explanation of "being sent forth," and the
declaration of what is said beyond the common usage, would be in vain; but also simply all the
leaders of orthodox theology have often used this distinctive form, distinguishing the divine
Persons.
Paragraph 10: However, Andrew of Crete also [says] the same things as these, as one of the
Fathers of the Sixth Synod, in his discourse on the Transfiguration, saying, “For it is not otherwise
possible for the Father to dwell in the Son, or the Son in the Father, or in the Holy Spirit, which
proceeds indeed from the Father, but dwells and reposes essentially in the Son, and is provided to
men through Him.”
Paragraph 11: After these, let Maximus, the greatest among confessors, come forward, and let
him confess most clearly what opinion he held concerning the proposed question, so that our
discourse may have abundantly those who wrote these things defending [it], with what purpose they
say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, so that with God cooperating, for
those choosing to truly learn the truth, the knowledge of this may become clearer; this one says
therefore in his letter to Marinus, presbyter of Cyprus, “And first, I have adduced harmonious
usages of the Roman Fathers, and of Cyril of Alexandria, from the treatise composed by him on the
holy John the Evangelist, from which they showed themselves not making the Son the cause of the
procession of the Holy Spirit; for they know the Father to be the one cause of the Son and the

93
Spirit, for the one indeed according to generation, for the other according to procession; but in
order to show the procession through Him, and by this to demonstrate the connection of essence,
and the immutability.” Do you see the purpose of the saints, and how they understand the Holy
Spirit to proceed from the Father through the Son? “To show,” he says, “the procession through
Him;” and moreover, “also to demonstrate the connection of essence and immutability,” and
wanting to demonstrate from where the Spirit has existence; “for they know the Father to be the one
cause of the Son and the Spirit.” It is necessary also to consider that which I said, that this teacher,
commonly defending all the Roman Fathers, whose successors in faith the Italians claim to be, and
also taking his stand on behalf of the divine Cyril of Alexandria, clearly refutes those not
understanding well this phrase, “the Spirit from the Father through the Son,” saying that the saints
put this forth not making the Son the cause of the Spirit, “but in order to show the procession
through Him”; so that he says they clearly confess the procession through the Son, but deny the Son
as the cause of the Spirit. From hence it is clear, that neither because the Spirit is said to be from the
Father through the Son, or essentially proceeding from the Father and the Son, is it already
necessary to give the Son as the cause of the Spirit, because this theological principle allows only the
through, but not the from, because the Son does not have the Spirit as cause.
Paragraph 12: But let also the most eloquent theologian of all come forward, John of Damascus,
whom the seventh of the Ecumenical Synods proclaimed as a shining luminary to the world, and
holding the word of life, and let him say what it means to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the
Father through the Son. This one, in his [letter] to the monk Jordan, says, “Through the Son is the
Holy Spirit, and not from the Son, as the Spirit of the mouth of God, the announcing Word”; and
in chapter 11 of his Dogmatics, “It is necessary to know,” he says, “that the Holy Spirit is both said
to be from the Father, and is named Spirit of the Father, but the Spirit is not said to be from the
Son, but we confess Him to be manifested and transmitted through the Son”; and in the 13th
[chapter] the same [John] says, “The Father is without beginning, the Word is begotten, and through
the Word is the manifesting procession of the Spirit.” And in the same place, “And the Spirit is of
the Son, not as from Him, but as proceeding from the Father through Him; for the Father alone is
the cause.” Do you see, how also this teacher allows only the through concerning the Son, but in no
way accepts or rejects the from? And the cause is clear; for he says that the Father alone is the cause
of the Spirit. What could be more precise than this theological distinction? “The Holy Spirit,” he
says, “is not said to be from the Son, but to proceed from the Father through the Son”; why?
Because the Father alone is the cause of the Spirit. If therefore the Father alone is the cause of the
Spirit, the Son is certainly not the cause; and for this reason the preposition from will not be placed
concerning the Son, but the through, he says, because it does not signify cause, but operative
procession. From hence again it is clear, that whenever the Spirit is said to be from the Son, or even
to be from the essence of the Son, it is necessary to confess the Son as the cause of the Spirit,
because this theological rule does not allow the from to be given to the Son, when it signifies cause
concerning the Spirit, but assigns this to the Father alone.

94
 Paragraph 13: But that we do not say these things conjecturing, the Synodal Tome written
against the Latins, more than one hundred and fifty years ago, thus defines: “The saying of the
divine Damascene, that the Father is the sender forth of the manifesting Spirit through the Son,
does not at all allow one to understand that the Spirit has existence and being through the Son, but it
clearly intends to indicate the manifestation of the Spirit from the Father through the Son”; and
after a little: “For if also some of the saints have said the Holy Spirit to proceed through the Son,
the word here intends the procession into eternal manifestation, not the procession into being
purely”; and again: “We cut off from the fellowship of the orthodox and we declare them outcasts
from the Church of God, those who assert that the Paraclete has existence from the Father through
the Son and from the Son, and bringing forward as proof of this, that the Spirit exists through the
Son and from the Son in some writings, which indeed signifies the shining forth and manifestation
of Him from there; for indeed the Paraclete Himself admittedly shines forth eternally and is
manifested, just as the light from the sun through the ray; but it also signifies the dispensation and
giving and sending to us, but not that He subsists through the Son and from the Son, and receives
being through Him and from Him.” But you consider for me, not only the Romans of today, both
the few and the lesser, but how many at that time, men partaking of virtue and wisdom, both
practiced and confirmed these things. And if it is necessary also to produce testimony from an
enemy, that Beccus in his own libel says, “To say that the Holy Spirit has the Father and the Son as
the cause of His own existence, and to this also agrees and harmonizes the saying, the Spirit
proceeds from the Father through the Son, I utterly reject and turn away from and cast aside.”
Paragraph 14: But let us return to the intended purpose, let us see how all the theologians ascribe
the from to the Father, when the discourse to them is not concerning created things, but concerning
the procession of the Spirit, and concerning the hypostatic procession of the Spirit they understand
this to be said, but they give only the through to the Son, and concerning the dispensation and
transmission of the Spirit to us through Him, they understand this to be accepted? To understand
the Spirit from the Father through the Son, not the existence of the divine Spirit from the Father,
but His transmission to us through the Son, consider this to be immediately made clear to you, as it
seems to the saints. And do not wonder how the things concerning the activity of the Spirit are
expressed personally; for Scripture is generally accustomed to call the activity of the Spirit by the
same name "Spirit"; both His hypostasis, and indeed also His nature; but by nature indeed He is
without beginning, according to this the Holy Spirit proceeds from one, because the nature of the
Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is one, being proceeded from one; by hypostasis indeed He is
not without beginning, for He has the Father as the beginning of this, from whom He also
proceeds; but by operation He proceeds from the Father and the Son and from Himself, and this
was first theologically expressed in few words by the cause of the theologians, Jesus Christ, saying,
“When the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth,
which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me”; in saying, “whom I will send unto you
from the Father,” He speaks of the essential activity of the Father; and this sending is common as

95
has been said before; but in saying, “the Spirit of truth,” that is, by saying Himself, He declared the
constant nature of the Spirit, according to which the Spirit is proper to Him and to the Father, as
consubstantial and co-eternal; but in saying, “which proceedeth from the Father,” He very clearly
defined the existence of the Spirit by hypostasis, from whence He is. Therefore, following these
sayings very harmoniously, all the theologians theologize the Spirit from the Father through the Son;
through the from, showing Him to have the cause of His hypostasis from the Father; but through
the through, signifying Him to have the shining forth, and manifestation, and dispensation through
the Son.
Paragraph 15: But it is also necessary to consider this, that not only the Spirit is said to be
dispensed through the Son, but also the Son is sent through the Spirit, not only as man, but also as
God, and is formed in the hearts of the faithful, and dwells [in them], and is seen through Him;
wherefore also the Spirit is manifesting, as it seems to the theologians; for in the Treasures, the
divine Cyril says, “Christ is the Spirit, as He Himself is formed in us”; and again, “Christ is the Spirit
as the Word of God dwelling in us through the Spirit, for us to ascend to the dignity of adoption.”
And Gregory of Nyssa in his [writings] against Eunomius [says], “The beginning of all, which is the
Lord, shining in souls through the Holy Spirit, but through the Lord, who is the beginning of all, the
beyond all beginning is found by us, which is the God over all.” And the theologian Gregory,
interpreting the Apostolic saying, “that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith,” says, “Therefore
Christ dwells in our hearts through the Spirit.” And the great Basil [says], “Being sanctified through
the Spirit, we receive Christ dwelling in our inner man, and with Christ the Father, making the
indwelling common to the worthy.” And John of Damascus in the 13th [chapter] of his Dogmatics
[says], “The Son is the image of the Father, and the Spirit of the Son; through whom Christ
dwelling in man gives to him the according to image”; but rather before these in the Epistle to the
Ephesians the blessed Paul [says], “For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ, that he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might
by his Spirit in the inner man; that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith.” And also from the
sacred rites, we receive Christ through the Spirit, I speak of the grace of Christ; for no one in sound
mind would say either the essence, or the hypostasis. So either Christ is given by hypostasis, being
given through Him, or not even the Spirit is from Him, because He is given through Him; what he
said a little before more succinctly, this I here define more fully, if you wish to be pious here also.
Paragraph 16: There is a twofold procession of the Holy Spirit, one indeed from the Father
alone, being personal and timeless, but the other from the Father through the Son, being operative
and temporal; whenever you find in Scripture the Spirit proceeding, or being dispensed, or going
forth, or shining forth, or being manifested, or being provided, or being given, or something of this
sort, coming from the Father through the Son, do not consider these things to be said concerning
that unoriginate procession, but concerning this operative and temporal one, and keep this as a great
and unalterable rule; since every deviation of the correct doctrine concerning the Spirit has arisen
from this for the Italians; therefore, see what has been said, and again I will say it differently:

96
Whenever you find the through placed with the from concerning the procession of the Spirit, do
not consider the discourse to be about His hypostatic procession, but consider the from alone to
pertain to the procession, to be assigned to the Father alone, and to be fitting to that unoriginate
procession alone; but seeing this through placed with the from, immediately consider the whole
purpose of the discourse to refer to the dispensation of the Spirit to us through the Son, and for
indubitable confirmation have as witnesses the Theologians who have fore-assured you of this, and
the Holy Spirit Himself speaking through them, and the Lord who said, “My doctrine is not mine,
but his that sent me.”
Paragraph 17: Wherefore let us all strive with diligence to care for the soul, knowing that the
soul is divided into three [parts]. For there is of it the rational, and the irascible, and the appetitive.
And the rational indeed, by which we reason, and we take up good counsels; and the irascible, by
which we are angered, and are provoked, and are courageous, we defend ourselves, and all such
things; and the appetitive, by which we desire food and other things. And of the rational the sins are
these: unbelief, heresy, foolishness, blasphemy, lack of discernment, ingratitude, and the assents to
sins, which come from the passionate part; and the healing and therapy of these are: undoubting
faith towards God, the true and orthodox dogmas, the continuous study of the words of the Spirit,
pure attention, and unceasing thanksgiving towards God. And of the irascible the sins are these: lack
of compassion, hatred, lack of sympathy, holding grudges, envy, murder, and continuous meditation
on such things; and the healing and therapy of these are: philanthropy, love, meekness, brotherly
sympathy, forbearance, and goodness. And of the appetitive the sins are these: gluttony,
drunkenness, love of money, desire for empty glory, and [desire for] gold and wealth and carnal
pleasures; and the healing and therapy of these are: fasting, continence, lack of possessions,
distribution of money to the poor, longing for those future and immortal good things, desire for the
kingdom of God, and desire for divine adoption.
Paragraph 18: Because the property of the rational soul is to see itself, to articulate itself, to
make itself whatever it wishes, first to reap the fruit which it bears, by its own power to attain
whatever the end of life sets forth; both to traverse the world, and what is around it, and to extend
itself into the infinity of eternity, and to encompass the periodic regeneration of all things, and to
love one's neighbor, and not to prefer anyone to itself; because the things themselves do not touch
the soul by necessity, nor have entrance towards it, nor are they able to turn or move the soul; for it
is free from all things, and above all things; but it alone turns and moves itself, and with what
judgments it deems itself worthy, such it makes the pre-existing things to itself, and none of the
things given to us by God for use is evil; for all things that are from God are good; and not simply
good, but also exceedingly good; but only the misuse is evil; and this is of our own free will;
therefore, not food is evil, but gluttony; not wine is evil, but drunkenness; not procreation is evil, but
fornication; not money is evil, but love of money; not glory is evil, but vainglory; and it is necessary
to do all things in such a way as to avoid the misuse.

97
 Paragraph 19: Because of things some are properly good, and some properly evil, and some are
intermediate; properly good indeed are: prudence, courage, temperance, and justice; properly evil
indeed are: foolishness, cowardice, licentiousness, and injustice; intermediate indeed are: wealth,
poverty, glory, dishonor, health, sickness, much learning, lack of learning, and the like; and they are
called intermediate because by themselves, they are neither properly good, nor properly evil, but
according to the choice of those using them, becoming either this or that; for example, wealth is
good indeed when given for almsgiving, but evil when spent for pleasures; likewise also poverty,
good indeed when teaching us endurance, and thanksgiving, and freedom, but evil when producing
blasphemy, and lack of freedom, by not enduring us; glory also is good, when we use it for the
protection of the humbler ones, but evil when for contempt; dishonor also is good when it teaches
us humility, and longing for the future glory; but evil when it persuades us to be slavish, and to do all
things out of human fear. Likewise also health is good indeed, when we use it for the service of
God and the working of His commandments, but evil when for licentiousness and injustice;
similarly also sickness, when we give thanks, and use it as a co-worker for salvation, is good, but evil
when it drives us to ingratitude and blasphemy and anger; much learning also is good, when we use
it for teaching and helping those who are wronged and unlearned, but evil when for vainglory and
advocacy of injustice; lack of learning also is good, when it prepares us to be subordinate to those
who know, and to obtain benefit from them, but evil when it persuades us to be content with our
own ignorance, and not to follow the better ones. Likewise also all the rest; such as good birth and
bad birth, beauty and ugliness, euphony and cacophony, strength and weakness, swiftness and
slowness, skill and lack of skill, and suitability and unsuitability for services; for all these, as has been
said, are of the intermediate ones, and he who uses these well will not be harmed by them; as the
blessed Job, having been tested in all things, was shown to be approved, and unconquered, and
through all things he served God; so that it is not necessary to blame the things; for nothing of the
things given by God is evil, as has been said before.
Paragraph 20: Again, but pay attention to me now: there are four things, and if a man has one of
them, he is not able to repent, nor does God accept any request from him: if he becomes arrogant,
if he does not have love, if he judges someone sinning, and if he holds a grudge against someone.
And in what way, he says, will someone then be able both to keep unfeigned love towards his
neighbor, and not to judge him? If he bears with long-suffering the offenses committed against him
by his neighbor, but avenges as much as he is able the sins committed against God or against any of
men. Now there are some thus disposed contrarily to both, that they do not judge or reprove those
offending against God in any way at all, and against their neighbors, but they hate those offending
against themselves in anything throughout their whole life, and remain irreconcilable towards them;
but it is necessary to do the opposite of this: to forgive from the soul all the offenses committed
against us to our neighbors, but to strive against the sins committed against others, and especially
against God, as much as we are able; whence it was said by the Savior, “Forgive us our debts, as we
also forgive our debtors”; not your own, or those of others; and again, “If thy brother trespass

98
against thee,” not if [he trespasses] against God, or any of his neighbors; so that it is possible even
without passion to reprove, and without sin to rebuke, and to judge those who sin in a God-pleasing
way, when these things are done only by the love of God, and the help of one's neighbor, and the
correction of the one sinning. There is, I say, reproof according to malice and hatred, and there is
another, according to the fear of God and truth; for when the harm of one extends to many, then it
is not necessary to be long-suffering, nor to be silent, nor to seek one's own advantage, but that of
the many so that they may be saved; because multi-faceted virtue is more beneficial than one-sided
[virtue]; and I say this to happen without passion; but if in reproving someone you are moved to
anger, you are fulfilling your own passion; and it is not good to save others, but to lose yourself. But
as the beginnings of the forgiveness of sins are not from us, so also in judgment, the measures of
condemnation are placed by us; for in what someone judges another, doing the same things, he
condemns himself, and pronounces the sentence against himself wretchedly.
Paragraph 21: I know a brother sitting in the desert, among seven and ten brothers, who, being
troubled by judging those sinning against him, reproached himself saying: “Thus vain and
unreasonable, and more senseless than the very stones, and without conscience, neither being
restrained, nor fearing the unerring eye, that even concerning what happens to kings, and farmers,
and merchants, and further also to irrational beings, and to plants, and to cities, and to the world,
and from the custom both of the dead and the living, you become a bitter judge, and simply of all
things, even of the perfect things from all, and of God Himself, thus you sit as a harsh, intractable,
and difficult-to-please judge? Because you both judge, and pronounce sentence, and are harsh, and
condemn, as if you were indeed most powerful, and doing injustice? And these things being nothing,
and equal to a common worm in power for these things? O Lord, spare the hardness of heart! Why
are you raving, O soul? Why are you disturbed like those foaming at the mouth? You show this very
thing, that you are sick; if you were not sick, you would not suffer these things; then, were you not
left to live for this reason, that you might judge the world? Or do you enter the church for this
purpose, that you might reason these things? Evil and slothful and ungrateful servant, filth and
refuse and unworthy even to live! O wonder! The worker of all evil, [sits] in the midst of the
workers of virtue? The heir of Gehenna, [sits] in the midst of the heirs of the Kingdom? And the
very demon himself sitting in the midst of men, and these things are not enough for him, but you
also wish to judge all?”
Paragraph 22: Listen to what Dorotheos, who is among the God-bearing Fathers, says about
this: “We have abandoned the path of atheism,” as the Fathers said, “which is to blame oneself, and
we pursue the crooked path,” which is to blame one's neighbor. And each of us strives, in every
matter, to cast the blame upon his brother, to place the burden upon him; each neglects himself, and
does not keep his own commandments, and we demand the commandments from our neighbor;
behold, for this reason we do not find ourselves progressing, for this reason we do not find
ourselves being benefited in anything, but we spend all our time decaying from our reasonings
against each other, and crushing ourselves, since each justifies himself; each lets himself go, keeping

99
nothing, and demands the commandments from his neighbor; for this reason we are not established
in the good; because even if we are illumined in something small, we immediately demand this from
our neighbor, blaming him and saying, 'He ought to have done this, and why did he not do it thus?'
Pay close attention also to Saint Maximus writing, ‘It is not to be shuddered at, and to be amazed,
and to be in that mindset, that God and Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son;
and the Son cries out, “Judge not, that ye be not judged,” and “Condemn not, that ye be not
condemned”; and the Apostle likewise, “Judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come”; and
“In what judgment thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself ”; but men, having left off
weeping for their own sins, have taken the judgment from the Son, and they themselves as sinless
judge and condemn each other? And not only heaven was amazed at this, but the earth shuddered,
but they revel, being senseless? But does zeal afflict you? Let Saint Isaac persuade you, saying, “A
zealous man never attains to the peace of the mind; and he who is alien to peace, is more alien to
joy; for if the peace of the mind is said to be perfect health, and zeal is contrary to peace, then he
who has evil zeal is sick with a great sickness.” O man, who, contrary to the sicknesses of others,
seem to bring forth your zeal! You have driven away the health of your soul; strive for health in your
soul; but if you desire to heal the weak, know that the sick need care more than reproof. But since
you do not help others, and cast yourself into a great and grievous sickness, your zeal is not born
from the forms of wisdom, but from the sicknesses of the soul; because we seem to condemn, they
indeed are lightened of the burden, but we are found bearing burdens instead of them, and
condemning ourselves; and we weaken ourselves, but God chooses them; and we despise them, but
God brings them to measure.’”
Paragraph 23: Thus therefore judge and reprove and rebuke, being moved by guileless love, not
by anger, not by wrath, not by malice; for to rebuke one's brother with anger and wrath is not to be
free from evil, but to clothe oneself with offenses. Therefore, love your brother and correct him, do
not condemn him; knowing that the proof of unfeigned love is the forgiveness of offenses; and I
say again, of those committed against you. And without this, it is among impossible things to attain
salvation; for if someone would choose to do to others the things which he himself would pray to
attain, he would walk according to the purity of love; and he will be a partaker of the undefiled good
things; may it be granted also to us to attain which in Christ, to whom belongs all glory, with the
Holy Spirit, unto the ages of ages. Amen.

100
 DISCOURSE X. CONCERNING THE TRANSCENDENTAL TRINITY.
Clearly introducing, that the phrase “the Spirit from the Father through the Son” is thus understood
harmoniously by all the theologians, [and] signifies at the same time both the with, and the after
preposition, and the together, but not personally the essence of the Spirit. It was said to the holy
great Apostles; with the King also being present.

Paragraph 1: It is necessary for the listeners of divine words to bring to the words those things
which lead to salvation: a well-disposed mind, goodwill towards one’s kindred, the bond of peace, a
grateful disposition, a good character, and the things similar to these. These things unite, these
things join together, these things make those in whom they are present to be of one mind. I also,
therefore, being moved by goodwill towards all, have now purposed to speak to you concerning
what we especially disagree about; wherefore also you are entreated to listen to me with goodwill; for
you will certainly not fail to gain one of these good things: for either having learned the truth from
us, you will be benefited by the surpassing benefit, or having learned in some way the things leading
to it, you will know more clearly how you would not fail to attain it; but having said [this] avoiding
lengthy arguments, and adhering only to the usages of the theologians, do not condemn [me]; but if
you should think me either sophistizing, or pronouncing concerning divine things from my own
mind, or striving to seem to be wise, and not following in all things the doctrines of the saints, and
making the discourses with all truth, accuse me of self-will; but if you should see me not doing
these things which I said, but on the contrary speaking all things in truth, and providing the proofs
of what is said from the God-bearing Fathers, then it would remain for you no longer to attempt to
doubt concerning the dogma, or to wish to contradict them; for he who opposes the saints has
opposed God Himself.
Paragraph 2: Since concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit, not only in the usages of the
sacred teachers, but also it is found in many places [that] the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father
through the Son, and indeed the doctrine concerning the Holy Spirit has been reduced to this phrase
as to a certain common expression, we also, having considered [it] very carefully and clearly and
precisely, speak concerning it thus, even though we have also said and written other things
concerning these in many places; that whenever it is said thus conjointly that the Holy Spirit is from
the Father through the Son, or that this proceeds from the Father through the Son, this phrase
through the Son here signifies the at the same time and the after preposition, and the together with;
that is, that at the same time and inseparably together with the Son being begotten, also the Holy
Spirit proceeds from the Father, not existing separately according to existence after the Son, but
immediately with the hypostatic generation of the Son, also the procession of the Spirit has [its]
hypostasis, that is, has its existence from the Father; that is, the whole Son co-exists entirely with the
Spirit being proceeded; and the whole Holy Spirit inheres in the whole Son being begotten; and
neither does the Son in any way personally have His being from the Spirit, nor again does the Spirit
have His existence from the Son, but both these at the same time and both proceed from the Father,

101
even if they subsist differently; as, for example, the heating power is sent forth from the fire through
the illuminating power; for both at the same time and inseparably, both the heating power is from
the fire with the illuminating power, and the illuminating power proceeds with the heating power,
and all the illuminating power is considered in all the heating power, and all the heating power is
acknowledged in all the illuminating power; and neither does the illuminating power have its being
from the heating power, nor does the heating power have its existence from the illuminating, but
both these both proceed from the fire at the same time; and in the manner of the ray and the light;
for existence according to essence is naturally [derived] for neither of these from the other, but both
have the sun as the source and cause of their being, as the natural beginning of them possesses
both; thus indeed the all-holy Spirit proceeds from the Father ineffably, at the same time with the
Son Himself being begotten timelessly and above every understanding, and proceeds through the
Son both pre-eternally and eternally, just as the light through the ray, even if no one is being
illuminated; for everything that is present now concerning God, whether communicable to us or
incommunicable, is with Him also before the formation of the world, even if the one partaking of
Him is not present.
Paragraph 3: And according to this meaning, the holy ones say the through the Son phrase here
instead of with the Son, as the divine Tarasius in the confession of his own faith, says, "I believe
also in the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father through the Son, and known to be God Himself";
that is, proceeding with the Son, as John of Damascus in the 13th chapter of his Theological
Dogmatics, says, "The Holy Spirit," he says, "is the manifesting power of the hidden divinity of the
Father, is from the Father through the Son being sent forth, that is, with the Son." As Maximus the
Great among confessors states, in his interpretation on the prophet Zechariah: "The Holy Spirit," he
says, "as He exists by nature according to essence in God and Father, so also He is by essence in the
Son, as proceeding in essence from the Father ineffably through the Son being begotten"; having
said through the Son instead of saying with the Son. As the wonderworker Gregory, in a revelation
to him, says, "The unbegotten Father," he says, "and the Son being begotten and being from the
Father, of this Spirit [it is said] having been sent forth knowingly from the essence of the Father
through the Son." As the great Basil in his refutations, in which he asks, "Why is not also the Spirit
Son of the Son?" says, "Not because He is not from God through the Son, that is, with the Son, but
lest the Trinity be thought an infinite multitude, Sons from Sons, as is accustomed to be understood
among men." As the much-suffering Athanasius in the discourse which is entitled "Refutation of the
Hypocrisy of those concerning Melitius and Eusebius," says, "For it is impossible in the doctrine of
the Trinity for the Spirit to be glorified, not previously being [understood as] from God through the
Son, that is, proceeding from the Father at the same time with the Son." And in the dialogue against
the Orthodox and the Macedonians again, "Having been poured out from the Father Himself
through the Son," that is, having proceeded with the Son; and in brief, whenever this conjoint phrase
"from the Father through the Son" is said concerning the Spirit, it signifies either the after, or the
with, or the at the same time.

102
 Paragraph 4: This is not unusual for the divine words; for the divine Apostle, writing to the
Ephesians, says that through the Church was made known to the principalities and the authorities in
the heavenly places the manifold wisdom of God; which the divine interpreter Chrysostom
[explains], “The through,” he says, “is placed here instead of the with”; so that the apostolic saying
has such a meaning, “that with the Church among us, also the angels in the heavens are initiated into
the ineffable mysteries of God.” And Anastasius of Antioch, in his discourse on faith, clearly states
thus: "There is no Word without the Spirit, as there is no Spirit without the Word; but we say the
Father to be with the Word, not as Word without the Holy Spirit." And the divine Damascene, in his
dogmatic chapters, says, “We have learned the Spirit to be the co-attendant of the Word, and
manifesting His activity.” “To be co-attendant” [means] “to follow together with,” as he says there,
following together inseparably and timelessly the generation of the procession; and we have learned
this, as the theologians before him thus teach it, being initiated by whom he thus understands the
Spirit through the Son, and he altogether forbade saying the from the Son, unfolding and clarifying
what is conjointly and difficult to grasp among the Fathers with more subtle and particular
explanations. Therefore, whenever you hear the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father through the
Son, understand Him also as co-attendant with the Word; for thus the through will not be wrongly
understood as the from, but rather correctly as the with and the together with, as it seems to the
saints. And Cyril, great in wisdom, also says, in his agonistic discourse concerning the Holy Spirit:
“The Holy Spirit, as He exists by essence in the Father, so also He is by essence in the Son; as, with
the Son being essentially begotten, He proceeds ineffably from the Father”; do you see? What the
divine Maximus shortly before had said through the Son in a similar usage, this one here places with
the Son, here considering the with to be of the same force as the through. Gregory of Nyssa in his
[writings] against Eunomius says: “The Father indeed is without beginning and unbegotten, and is
always conceived as Father; but from Him, according to the immediate, inseparably the Only-
begotten Son is co-conceived with the Father; and with Him also and with Him, before any interval
and concept without hypostasis falling between, immediately also the Holy Spirit is comprehended
together, not existing separately according to existence after the Son, just as neither is the Only-
begotten conceived without the Spirit.” See that having said through Him, he immediately adds with
Him, in order to remove the deception of those considering the through here to be signifying cause;
for if He proceeds with Him and is apprehended together inseparably, how could He be from Him?
And the Theologian Gregory in his synodal discourse [says]: “To us there is one God without
beginning, and beginning, and that which is with the beginning; and the name of the one without
beginning is Father; and of the beginning Son; and of that which is from the beginning, but with the
beginning and after the beginning, Holy Spirit.” It is fitting to piously understand in the usages of
the saints the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father through the Son, not to understand and
interpret the through as the from, but as the with preposition, saying also ourselves with the one
called the Theologian, "To us there is one God, the Father without beginning, the beginning of all
things the Son, and the Holy Spirit not from the beginning, but with the beginning and after the

103
beginning from the Father." And the great Basil in one of his letters to his brother Gregory says that
the Holy Spirit is known with the Son and together with Him, having subsistence from the Father;
and in the chapters to the holy Amphilochius, he says that the Holy Spirit is known through the Son,
and with the Son, and together with the Son. And again, the Holy Spirit is said to be of the Son,
with whom He is inseparably comprehended, but having His being dependent on the Father's cause,
whence also He proceeds; having this as a distinctive sign of the hypostatic property, to be known
with the Son and together with Him, as subsisting from the Father. Do you hear the distinctive sign
of the Holy Spirit's hypostasis, that it is to be known through the Son, but not to have hypostasis
from Him, but to subsist from the Father? And again in the same [writings]: "Glory to the Father
through the Son in the Holy Spirit"; and moreover, "Glory to the Father with the Son in the Holy
Spirit." And above all, the Church says that it knows both these usages, both the through and the
with, to be said concerning the Son; and rejects neither of them, as destructive of the other. And
Isaiah the prophet also says, “those deeply making counsel, not through the Lord”; and again: “Thus
says the Lord, you have made counsel not from me, and covenants not through my Spirit”; not with
me, nor with my Spirit. And simply, concerning the liturgical pronouncements all the Church, and
concerning the conclusions of the discourses all its teachers, using indifferently both the through
and the with usage concerning the Son.
Paragraph 5: But since the through here has shown the at the same time, and the after
preposition, and the together with, it is necessary likewise, turning the discourse in both directions,
that just as we say with boldness that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, so also
we have [reason] to say confidently concerning the Son, that likewise also the Son is begotten from
the Father through the Spirit; now, since that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son is
agreed upon by all the teachers, but that the Son is begotten from the Father through the Spirit is
passed over in silence by all; so that it is shown more clearly than light to those in any way choosing
to see the truth, that the through is placed here rather than the from, and clearly presents the Son as
cause with respect to the Spirit; just as indeed both the declaration of the Word shows, and the
direct enumeration of the divine Persons testifies. Besides these things, I inquire this of those thus
proposing [this doctrine]: is it the same to say the Spirit proceeds personally from the Father and the
Son, as [to say He proceeds] from the Father through the Son, or does the first gather something
different, and the second intend to signify something different? If indeed it is the same to say from
the Father and the Son, as from the Father through the Son, and these different usages signify
something not different, then certainly the through preposition is the same as the and conjunction,
and the and conjunction is interchangeable with the through, and what is most clearly signified by
one preposition, is also signified by two, which seems superfluous; but if the first signifies
something different, and the second concludes something different; for the one indeed clearly shows
a Person to be constituted proximately from two Persons, concerning which we especially disagree;
but the other, that the Spirit is from the Son by Himself, and from the Father through the Son;

104
therefore, if these things were believed, consider the absurdities arising from these, and contrary to
the theologians of Christ's Church.
Paragraph 6: First, that the Father is not only the cause of the Son and the Spirit, but of the one
alone, but not of the one only. Second, that He is not glorified by us in the divine Trinity as the
cause of two Persons, but of one indeed, but two are from the cause. Third, that to send forth the
Holy Spirit is not proper to the Father alone. Fourth, that whatever pertains to cause, does not
pertain to the Father alone, but also clearly to the Son. Fifth, that the Spirit [is] thus, as also from
Himself, Spirit of the Son, Himself from Himself. Sixth, that we do not say one cause with those
from one God, but also two causes, with the Person caused from them. Seventh, that it is not only
common to the Son and the Spirit to be from the Father, but this is also again proper to the Son,
inasmuch as He alone has being from the Father alone, but not also the Spirit. Eighth, that not all
things that are of the Son, are also of the Holy Spirit, except only the generation, as it seems to the
saints; but also to send forth is itself another Person, since there is no sending forth also of the
sender forth. Ninth, that one of the Persons in the divine Trinity is uncaused cause, but the caused is
cause, but the caused is in some way cause. And tenth above all, that the Spirit proceeds personally
both from the Father and the Son, and from the Father through the Son; that is, the same Person
from the Person of the Father both properly and improperly, and particularly and not particularly,
and immediately and not immediately, and divisibly and indivisibly, and proximately and not
proximately, and personally and not personally, and being distinguished by Person and being held
indivisibly, and the same third being believed as second, and in every way.
Paragraph 7: With these so very clearly absurdities being gathered, if we grant that the Holy
Spirit proceeds hypostatically from the Father and the Son, or from the Father through the Son,
what further need is there to force the concepts, and the words, and the saints, and the divine
pronouncements, and all things to incline like a balance towards our error? But since concerning the
Spirit it is found in many places that He proceeds from the Father through the Son, but concerning
the Son it is nowhere said that He is begotten from the Father through the Spirit hypostatically, the
reason is evident; lest also the Spirit be thought Son of the Father, and the Son Father of the Spirit
by someone, this heretical reciprocity is said neither concerning the Father nor concerning the Son
from the Spirit; and the sacred Augustine says in his On the Trinity; and Gregory of Nyssa in his
interpretation on the Our Father theologizes, and many of the inspired [writers] elsewhere; but
rather the whole Church, proclaims the Spirit from the Father alone, both in words and in writings,
but refuses to say this of the Son from the Father; and although we say the Father to be of the Son,
[meaning] the one proceeding hypostatically from Him, and the proceeding Person personally from
the Father, with reference to the relative reciprocity towards the Father, but nevertheless one of
these is proclaimed by them, but the other is handed down in silence; thus also concerning this
required reciprocity; that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, that is, at the
same time with the Son, and with the Son, and after the Son has His being from there, has been
theologically expressed also by the aforementioned saints, and it is unreasonable to say otherwise;

105
but that also the Son is begotten from the Father through the Spirit is passed over in silence by all;
why? Because just as if we were to say that the Son is begotten from the Father through the Spirit,
we would be saying two Fathers of the Son, so if we were to say that the Spirit proceeds personally
from the Father through the Son, we would be saying two causes of the Spirit; and just as if we were
to say according to essence, Father, Spirit, Son, and thus we would make both two causes of one,
and the two at the same time causes of the one; and just as if we were to say according to a ratio of
magnitude, Father, Son, Spirit, we would necessarily think one greater, and another greater than
these, and another smaller; thus also according to a ratio of dignity, if we were to say Father, Son,
Spirit, we would reckon one greater than the greater, and another smaller; and just as if we were to
say according to enumeration, Father, Son, Spirit, we would necessarily make one of these first, and
another second after this, and another in order; and just as if we were to say according to place,
Father, Son, Spirit, it is necessary also for one of these to be prior, and another subsequent, and
another between; and just as if we were to say approximately according to form, that order is kept in
the divine Trinity, we would be forming the formless one in us; thus if we were to say that He is
contemplated only according to mode, we consider this incomprehensible and invisible to us; and
just as if we were to say that the Son alone is united to the Father, and the Son alone to the Spirit,
we would be saying that the Spirit is separated from the Father; thus if we were to say that the Son
alone is united to the Father through Himself, but the Spirit through the Son, which does not allow
the Son to be conceived whole with the whole, we would be saying that the Spirit is confounded
with the Son; but that the Spirit is not separated from the Father, the great Basil refutes in the
canonical epistle thus writing: "For if the Spirit is not from God, but is through Christ, He is not at
all"; and the theologian Gregory refutes the being confounded with the Son in his synodal discourse,
saying, "For the nature indeed is one in the three, but the union is the Father from whom and to
whom the subsequent ones are referred, not as being confounded, but as being held together very
fittingly; for how would the union be the Father, if He does not have a proximate and immediate
relation to each of those from Him?" But also, "not as being confounded, but as being held
together," declares the proximate and immediate relation of each to Him; concerning which, in the
[discourses] concerning order, God granting, it will be said more clearly and more nobly.
Paragraph 8: But what is their counter-argument to these things? O what a wonder, and how
completely unassailable! For they say, just as we do not say that the Son is personally begotten from
the Father through the Holy Spirit, lest the Spirit be thought Father of the Son by someone, so since
we confess that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, we most clearly declare
the Son to be the cause of the Spirit; but O best of men (everyone rightly asks in response to the
one proposing this), since it is only absurd for the Son to be theologically expressed as being from
the Spirit by anyone, on account of so many consequent absurdities and such as have been said
before, how will the Spirit be said to be hypostatically from the Son? Then in addition to what has
been said, that also must be said, that not because the Son is not from the Father through the Spirit,
is the saying that He is from the Father through the Spirit, that is, with the Spirit, passed over in

106
silence; for this is clearly most heretical, and alien to the whole Church of Christ, to believe that
these two Persons do not both at the same time have their existence from the Father; but in order
that the apostolic, tradition-handed down way of speaking might be preserved unchanged, not from
the Father through the Spirit concerning the Son, but from the Father through the Son concerning
the Spirit is said; since that it is pious to say through instead of with and after concerning the Son,
and to reject neither of them as destructive of the other, the luminaries listed shortly before are
most trustworthy witnesses; so that the preposition through does not signify what is called from
here, but clearly the with, as has been shown; and the Spirit being said by the theologians to be from
the Father through the Son, does not show the Holy Spirit's existence to be from the Father and the
Son; far from it. For the Father would be taken away from being the only cause of the Godhead, and
it would refute the theologians asserting this, as not being true theologians; which is beyond all
boldness. These things indeed the phrase from the Father through the Son signifies when it is
understood conjointly; but if it is understood non-conjointly, and as if it were read separately, so
that the from the Father usage concerning the Spirit is placed separately, and again the half of this
with some words separately, the whole purpose of the discourse refers to the dispensation of the
Spirit to us through the Son, as has been said more precisely concerning this elsewhere, and now for
the sake of clarity, it will be said here from the beginning; and pay attention to me speaking both
true and clear things.
Paragraph 9: That to be from someone, is not said in one way; for this is among the things said
in many ways; whether one inquires the discourse concerning super-essential things, or concerning
beings. For it is said in one way indeed as from matter, as the statue from bronze; in another way, as
from the first moving cause, as the statue from the craftsman; in another way, as from the
composite, as the part from the whole; in another way conversely, as the whole from the part
according to form; for example, for the sake of an example, the definition of man from the biped;
in another way, what comes to be after it in time, as night from day, and winter from fair weather;
again this is said according to generation, as Seth from Adam; according to reception, as Eve herself
also from Adam; according to material separation, as, let us say, this water from that water; according
to local expulsion, as we are accustomed to say that so-and-so is from this city; according to
temporal movement and extension, as we say from that time and until here; according to sending, as
we say that this ruler has been sent from the king; signifying also movement from someone; and the
on account of, as [in the phrase], “since we fell from the sin from the beginning”; that is, on account
of sin. But if anyone should wish to use the from being said concerning God in the divine Scripture,
[it is said] in one way indeed according to cause; and according to cause, as from the energy, just as
the works from God, as from His energy; for these are thus from God, as from His essence; in
another way it is from God according to cause, as from His nature; for we say the divine energy to
be in God, as from His nature; in another way we say [it is] from God according to cause, as from
the hypostasis; and this in two ways, either according to ineffable generation, as the Son from the
Father, or according to ineffable procession, as the Spirit from the Father; for both are from the

107
Father according to hypostasis; in another way we say [it is] in God, not according to cause, but
according to a relation of belonging; for the Lord says, in the Gospel according to John, “He who is
of God hears the words of God”; but besides all these, the from being is also said in another way,
signifying the consubstantiality of the Persons towards each other; and this likewise being said both
of divine things and of human things; according to which meaning we say, John is from the essence
of Peter and Paul and Paul of men; not that he has been generated from all of them, but that he is
consubstantial with them, and of the same essence with them; and according to this meaning, the
divine Fathers declare the Holy Spirit to be from the essence of the Father and the Son, wishing to
show the consubstantiality of the Spirit towards them.
Paragraph 10: Likewise also the through someone is said both as through a place, as this water
flows through the pipe into this cistern; it is also said as through time, as so-and-so has done
[something] through a long time; it is also said as through a person, as through so-and-so one met
with the Emperor; it is also said as through one's own members, as man sees through the eyes,
writes through the hands, and walks through the feet; this is the same as as through an instrument; it
also signifies the same power, as the solar light shines forth through the ray; for the solar light and
the solar ray are the same; it is also taken instead of by, as the world is illuminated through the sun
instead of by the sun; it is also said when it signifies the first and originating and creative cause, as,
“all things were made through Him,” instead of “from Him”; it is also said when it signifies the
demiurgic cause, as the house through the carpenter; and when the material cause, as the ship is
constructed through the planks; and when it shows the instrumental cause, as the door through the
saw; which is also said with the saw; for the carpenter works on the door both through the saw and
with the saw; it is also said when it provides the understanding of the paradigmatic cause, as,
through the virtue of the great Paul, the divine Chrysostom was stirred up to virtue; and when it
shows the proximate cause, as the fruit through the proximate cause, the branch, comes to be from
the tree, that is, the root; and sometimes it also shows movement according to that which looks
towards the end through the middle; for example, someone traveling from Byzantium through the
sea to Alexandria; it also signifies the at the same time and the after preposition, as I said before, as
the heating power proceeds from the fire through the illuminating power; for both at the same time
and inseparably together with the illuminating power also the heating power is from the fire, and
with the heating power the illuminating power proceeds from it; it also signifies the activity of
another mediating through someone, as the law was given through Moses; but concerning the Holy
Trinity we say that the Father does all things through His Only-begotten Son, in a certain other way;
for not as through an instrument, or a servant, or something of this sort, but as of natural and
subsistent power.
Paragraph 11: But in order that we may return to the matter at hand, it is worthy of attention,
that besides all these signified meanings, concerning the divine Persons, wherever the through
someone is placed, it is significant not of energy, but of procession, or generation; however, the
from someone does not signify likewise, but indicates procession of hypostasis, or shows the

108
consubstantiality of those concerning whom it is said; but we thus receive the phrase concerning the
Spirit; for how else would one say the Spirit to proceed through the Son? If indeed transitively and
by passage, what an absurdity! For the Spirit would seem to pass through the Son as through a pipe;
and He would thus have an empty space between, He who is always full and fills all things; and the
Spirit would be contained as in a place by the Son; and there would be a limit to the Son, according
to which the Spirit would be contained; and how is the Son Himself also with Himself, with the
Spirit passing through Him transitively? But if as through an instrument, this also is blasphemous; or
just as through Him [the Son] all things are from the Father, as [the Son] co-working with the Father,
thus also the Spirit through Him, this also is impious; it remains to say, as co-proceeding with Him;
thus also the Spirit would co-proceed with Himself, completing Himself, just as also those creating
complete all things; for what indeed is common to the Father and the Son, which is not also
common to the Spirit?
Paragraph 12: But the through, they say, where it is placed, shows only the Son’s mediation
towards both the Father and the Spirit, but not another difference; for the through, says the great
Basil, does not present an inactive Son, but has the acknowledgment of the pre-existing cause; and
again: wherever the through is taken, it contends together with the cause before it; whether one
should wish to exercise the discourse concerning natural things, or concerning artificial things; but
concerning the Father and the Son, since one in number nature is contemplated, and one of it also
energy and procession, and one and the same God, reasonably the through concerning the Son does
not differ in meaning from the from of the Father; but it itself will be changed to the from, and that
again will be changed to the through; and there will be one and the same common beginning of the
Holy Spirit with the Father, on account of the Son’s being of one essence with the Father, and the
identity of the essence. These things thus word for word those unsurpassed in wisdom set forth,
[being] petty and refutable and blasphemous, and being unworthy of their own reputation; for the
madness of those called from Christ has reached such a point, as to dare to say that the Spirit
proceeds through the Father from the Son, or that the hypostasis of the Spirit is the energy of the
Father and the Son, or that the existence of the Spirit is one procession of the one nature of the
one God? May such babblers be refuted introducing alien things into our pure theology.
Paragraph 13: But if they say, since the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father through
the Son, for this reason it is necessary to understand that it is said thus according to that timeless
procession, let them consider that even if the theologians conjointly say that the Holy Spirit
[proceeds] from the Father through the Son, they clearly declare that the co-eternal procession from
the Father with the Son is eternal; and even again disjunctively, and as if separately, as I said before,
they say that He proceeds from the Father through the Son, they declare by the from from whom
the Spirit has His being, but by the through through whom His essential energy is dispensed to the
worthy, as has been clearly demonstrated in the previous discourse through many [arguments]. But
this divine energy must also be perfect and from eternity in the Trinity, just as the light is in the sun’s
ray, even if no one partakes of this energy; which also does not contend against reasonable

109
discourse; for in the divine nature, neither what is among necessary things, nor what is temporal and
superfluous, is present, or is added. For if even the philosopher and the physician wishes to have
both knowledge and perfect art, even if there are not those learning or being healed; and the seeing
ones also are always seeing, both sleeping and being stirred up at night, even if there are not things
which they see; since the seeing ones are perfect, in order that whenever they wish to see, sight may
be present to them, and not then come to be incidentally; much more necessary is it for the divine
energy to be co-eternal with the divine Persons, and equally not acquired, lest also the Trinity be
thought by us to be at some time incomplete.
Paragraph 14: That these things are true, is also clear from there. For Basil, having enumerated
the energies of the Spirit, and the gifts, and the charisms, in his [writings] against Eunomius, adds
that the Holy Spirit has all these things eternally, not having them acquired, but eternally having all
things; and again: what proceeds from God does not proceed in time, even if it dispenses the
energies in time; likewise in the fifteenth [book], the fifth [chapter] concerning the Trinity the
blessed Augustine explicitly states thus: “But I say concerning us, that the Holy Spirit, if He thus
proceeded as about to be given, was already a gift even before the one to whom He would be given
existed; for a gift is understood to be spoken of in one way, and in another way when it is said to
have been given; for it is possible for [something] to be a gift even before it is given, but if it were
not given, it can in no way be said to have been given.” And in the same [book], the 15th [chapter]
again: “For the Spirit is indeed eternally a gift, but temporally given.” With these agrees also the
great Maximus, saying, “The Holy Spirit is present whole and undiminished in every energy; for the
one and the same Spirit energizes all things.” And someone might very reasonably say this: for what
God has, He has from eternity, and not acquired; even if in time and recently He shows this to
whomever He wills through philanthropy; for He creates indeed recently, and when He wills, but
from eternity He has the power to create.
Paragraph 15: Therefore, gather from all these things, O man who desires to be saved by truth,
and to believe orthodoxly in the Trinity, the one God; that the Holy Spirit is said to proceed from
the Father through the Son, both on account of the identity of the essence, and as co-attendant with
the Word, and being with Him, and after Him being from the Father, and being given through His
worthiness; not indeed because He also proceeds personally from Him. And let every purpose be
towards believing rightly, and acquiring unfeigned love. But he shows such love, not by the sharing
of a table, nor by empty greetings, nor by flattery of words, but by considering and providing for the
advantage of one’s neighbor; to raise up the fallen, to extend a hand to the one lying down, to prefer
the things of one’s neighbor before one’s own good things, this is a genuine proof of love; for love
does not look at its own things, but sees the things of its neighbor before its own; for that it is
necessary to be useful not only to oneself alone, but also to many others, Christ showed calling us
salt, and light, and leaven; but these are useful and advantageous to others; for the lamp does not
shine for itself, but for those sitting in darkness; and you are a lamp not that you alone might enjoy
the light, but that you might also bring back the one who has gone astray; for what is the benefit of

110
a lamp when it does not shine for the one sitting in darkness? And what is the benefit of a Christian
when he gains no one? Nor brings [anyone] back to virtue? Again, salt does not only preserve and
bind itself, but also binds the decaying parts of bodies and does not allow them to flow away and be
destroyed; thus indeed you also, since God has made you spiritual salt, examine and bind the slothful
members, that is, the negligent of the brothers, and rid them of sloth. For this reason He also called
you leaven; for the leaven does not leaven itself, but the remaining dough, the much and ineffable by
the small and short [amount].
Paragraph 16: Because also all the orthodox are one body in Christ and members in part, as it
seems to the most divine Paul; and none of the members in the body is hostile to its own connatural
part, nor envies, nor fights. If we are not in agreement and harmony for one body, we are not
harmonized with the Holy Spirit, but each of us chooses what is his own, not looking according to
what is pleasing to God for the common advantage, but fulfilling the own passion of self-pleasing,
how are we able to preserve unbroken and undivided the harmony of the members towards each
other, or the subjection towards our head, who is Christ? For what the hand, or the foot, or another
of the members of the same body, when it has one power, but is in need [of the others], and
without the cooperation of the remaining members, neither has the power of its own activity, nor
finds itself sufficient for its own duration, nor has consolation from what is lacking; thus also in our
life, both what is present to us becomes useless, and what is lacking inconsolable, apart from mutual
assistance; but if also all are kindred, and all brothers, and all offspring of one Father, and we are all
formed from the same clay and mixture, and our nature is fraternal according to the flesh, and our
generation according to the Spirit is fraternal, we are all equal in Christ, how are we able to be of
Christ and to hold to each other, not cooperating with each other in concord?
Paragraph 17: Wherefore Chrysostom, of golden tongue, says, “Behold the equal power of
concord and harmony through God, for this is multiplied; for if two or ten are of one mind, each
of them becomes not as one, but tenfold, and you will find the one in the ten, and the ten in the
one; and if they have an enemy, the one attacking one is found attacking ten; for he is struck not by
one alone, but by ten bodies; he has been put in difficulty, but he is not in perplexity, for he is
provided for by the greater part, that is, the nine; and the part in perplexity is overshadowed; each of
these has twenty hands, and twenty eyes, and feet likewise; for he sees not with his own eyes alone,
but also with those of others; he walks not with his own feet, but also with those of others; he
works not with his own hands, but also with theirs; he has ten souls; for not he himself alone, but
also they care for him; and if they were to become a hundred, the same would happen again, and the
power would be extended. Do you see the excess of love? How it makes the one invincible and
multiplied? How the one is able to be in many places, the same both in Persia and in Rome? And
what nature is not able to do, love is able to do; for one is here, and the other there; but rather whole
here, and whole there; if he has a thousand friends, or two thousand, consider how again it will
exceed the power; do you see how expansive love is? For this is wonderful, to make the one a
thousand; for what then do we not acquire this power, and establish ourselves in security? This is

111
better than all wealth; this is better than health, this is better than light, this is the foundation of
cheerfulness; learn also the matter from experience; someone having no friends at all, what life will
he live? For even if he is ten thousand times rich, and in abundance and luxury, and having ten
thousand good things, he sits deprived and naked of all; so that the most secure citadel is one, which
no one will be able to overcome, the love and concord towards one’s neighbor.”
Paragraph 18: To love; but if this is not possible, at least do not hate anyone; for Christ does not
wish to have hatred towards man, nor sorrow, nor anger, nor resentment in any way at all, nor
concerning any temporary matter; and the four Gospels proclaim this everywhere; and those living
with you according to right reason, just as they will not cease from turning you away from
blameworthy action, so let them not be cut off from love towards them; but keep the balance
equally in both; not only in the correct judgment and action concerning yourself, but also in the
meekness and gentleness towards those attempting to hinder, or otherwise causing hardship; for to
be harsh with them is [a sign] of weakness, just as is ceasing from the action, and being utterly
terrified; for both are equally deficient; one indeed by withdrawing, but the other by being alienated
towards the naturally related and friend, and if it is necessary to say something wonderful, and not
ungracious, even to acknowledge small thanks to those who compel; for there are such who procure
rewards for those enduring.
Paragraph 19: Be persuaded also of this, that you yourself also sin much, and others likewise;
and if you abstain from some sins, either [it is] through cowardice, or through empty glory, or that
you abstain from some evil; then also if you catch them sinning do not speak harshly; for many
things happen otherwise, and are disposed differently; and in general many things must first be
suffered, in order that someone might speak conclusively concerning another’s action; and when you
are also greatly indignant, or suffering intensely, human life is fleeting, and after a little while we all
depart; remember also how much you owe to God each day, in thought, in words, or in actions; but
nevertheless for the release from such and so great sins, God has given to us a short and easy path,
and [He is] free from every penalty; for what labor is it to forgive the one who has grieved [you]?
The labor indeed is in not forgiving, but in holding onto enmity; but to be released from this, brings
much rest to us, and [is] very easy for the one willing; for neither is it necessary to cross a sea, nor to
travel a long road, nor to surpass lofty mountains, nor to spend money, nor to strain the body, but it
suffices to will alone, and all sins are loosed; for the one who said, “If you forgive men their
trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you your trespasses,” is truthful, to whom be glory
unto the ages. Amen.

112
 DISCOURSE XI. CONCERNING THE TRANSCENDENTAL TRINITY.
Clearly presenting, that whatever through is said concerning the divine Persons, signifies the
essential energy, and the grace of the Spirit towards us, and not the cause of the Spirit’s hypostasis.
It has been said in the presence of the holy Apostles’ Church and of the Senate.

Paragraph 1: With the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit being our God, of these the
Father indeed, as God, made known His own Godhead to men, saying “I am He who is”; but the
Son also, and His Godhead, and moreover, the Fatherhood of the Father, is testified to by both, that
is, through the Father and the Son; by the Father indeed declaring to us, “This is My beloved Son in
whom I am well pleased, hear Him”; and by the Son saying to His own Father, “I have manifested
Your name to men”; but the Holy Spirit, both His Godhead, is manifested to us from the Father and
the Son; and He is sent from the Father through the Son to creation, as you hear, “When the
Comforter comes whom I will send to you from the Father”; and He is provided from the Father
through the Son to all the worthy; wherefore also He is said to proceed, and this is believed from the
Father through the Son; and concerning this there is no room for doubt for those choosing to be
orthodox; for thus the Trinity, the God of all, has willed to be made known to us; in the Old
[Testament] indeed, the Father as God alone; but in the New also as Father; but the Son, in the
incarnate economy, [is] most clearly Son of God and Father; and after His ascension, the Holy Spirit
also [is known] to be God; and this is the promise of the Father, that is, the divine plan of
condescending, and appearing, and being made known to us, the super-essential Trinity, through the
respective in time economy, or presence, or manifestation of each, as the Savior said, “Behold, I
send the promise of My Father upon you.”
Paragraph 2: But concerning this phrase “from the Father through the Son,” with which many
Teachers before have used, some seizing a seemingly opportune starting point have also introduced
a use not holy, saying that concerning the Father and the Son, the through does not differ from the
from, as indeed the great Basil shows in his [writings] to Amphilochius, saying, “It is not absurd to
understand the through as the from; for often the through is interchanged with the from when one
takes on the meaning of the other; for example, ‘I acquired a man through God,’ is the same as
saying ‘from God’; and elsewhere, ‘Whatever Moses commanded Israel, through the command of
the Lord’; and again, ‘Is not their explanation through God?’; instead of saying ‘from God,’ he said
‘through God’;” but this usage does not agree with their conclusion. For even if the Teacher says
that it is not absurd for the through to be understood as the from, and the through and the from are
interchanged, and the subsequent things, but he says “often” not “always,” and with the intention of
the discourse referring to created things, not to the divine Persons. Wherefore also they have
brought forward the Apostle saying, “from Him, and through Him, and to Him are all things”; and
after some things he adds, when the Father having received from whom, passed it on to the Son; but
the Son again [passes on] the Holy Spirit, he does not accept either the from whom, or the through
whom communion. And again in the same [writings] the same [Basil says]: “That these phrases do

113
not contradict each other, is clear from there; for the blessed Paul has brought together both
concerning the same and one subject, saying, ‘from Him, and through Him, and to Him are all
things,’ speaking concerning the Son; for from Him is the cause of being according to the will of
God and Father; through Him is the duration and subsistence of all things, He having created all
things, and measuring out the things towards salvation to each of those being born; wherefore also
all things have been referred to Him, tending with some desire and ineffable love, looking towards
the leader of life and giver, according to what is written, ‘The eyes of all hope in You,’ and again, ‘All
things expect from You; and You open Your hand and fill every living thing with good pleasure’;” all
of which, both concerning the Father, and concerning the Spirit, it is not unreasonable to
understand both specifically and particularly. We have the same things to say also concerning the in
syllable; wherefore not only concerning the Son here, [are used] the through and the from, and the
in and the to, but together with Him also the Father and the Spirit at the same time, if anyone
should wish to add, saying from whom, through whom, to whom, or in whom, nothing absurd will
be said; but as has been said before by the great Basil, with the discourse referring to created things;
but concerning the hypostases of the Godhead daring to utter thus, either commonly, or particularly
concerning the Spirit, he omits nothing impious.
Paragraph 3: Therefore, if it were thus said by the theologians, that the Holy Spirit proceeds
through the Son, perhaps the through would have had a cause with itself, and we would have
understood this instead of the from; and it would have been able to be the same as the Holy Spirit
proceeding from the Son; but now, just as it is nowhere said that the Spirit has His existence from
the Son, or proceeds hypostatically from Him, so neither [is it said that He proceeds] through the
Son [alone], but from the Father through the Son; this indeed especially accuses the Father, but not
the Son at all. For when the from precedes, and having the cause of existence with itself, the
through follows, it is not of necessity to give the same cause again also to the through, nor is it
customary, nor following the art; for when the through characterizes this cause, it is necessary for
this to be understood as equivalent to the from; but when one preposition is placed instead of
another, no harm to the discourse [results] in removing that one, and placing the one having the
same power in the discourse; but this is not possible here in any way; for no one would say simply,
from the Father from the Son, nor would he dare to believe [that the Spirit proceeds] through the
Father from the Son, or through the Father through the Son the Holy Spirit proceeds. But if it is
necessary to signify the cause, what then does the through wish to signify here, we will not hesitate
to say, not at all sleeping and making the hunt for the good better; that wherever the through is
placed concerning the divine Persons, it signifies the essential energy, and the grace of the Spirit
towards us, not a personal cause to those wishing to pay attention; but the from is not likewise, but
[signifies] procession of hypostasis, and the through someone signifying other meanings concerning
the divine Persons, wherever it is placed is always significant of energy, but not of procession, or
generation. Wherefore also some of those having acquired a great name in theology came to say at
some time, that the Spirit has His existence from the Father through the Son; or that the Holy Spirit

114
proceeds personally from the Father through the Son, but that He proceeds from the Father alone
primarily all say, but through the Son both He proceeds, and shines forth, and is poured out, and
simply everything testifies to the giving of Him through the Son, but does not show the cause of
His hypostasis.
Paragraph 4: That the through spoken concerning the divine Spirit is not the cause of the
hypostasis, but clearly shows the dispensation of the Spirit, to one paying attention this will also be
very clear from there, how immediately to this are added manifestations of the Spirit, either being
dispensed, or naturally existing, or being sent out, or being sent, or energy, or gift, or proceeding, or
shining forth, or being poured out, or being given, or in some way some of such determinations, by
which the through either must be accompanied, or must be brought forward, or must precede, but
to find it placed absolutely is most rare; showing clearly through all things, that the purpose of the
discourse is not concerning the uncaused existence and procession, but concerning the [Spirit's
relation] towards us and the communicative. And lest anyone should have to say that the Roman
Fathers believed otherwise concerning this through preposition, when spoken concerning the Spirit,
the saint, Maximus, defending all those, says, “I have brought forward uses of Roman Fathers, and
of Cyril of Alexandria, with whom I am in complete agreement, from which they themselves
showed themselves not making the Son the cause of the Holy Spirit’s procession; for they know the
Father to be the one cause of the Son and the Spirit; of the one according to generation, but of the
other according to procession; but in order that they might show the co-eternity, and thereby
preserve the connection of the essence, and the unchangeableness.” When he says “of Roman
Fathers entirely,” he means Hilary, Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, Damasus, and all the saints who
shone in Italy at that time. But also Athanasius, and Basil, and Gregory the Theologian, the most
eminent of our theologians, having enumerated nearly all the appellations of the Spirit, if it were
fitting for the Holy Spirit to proceed hypostatically from the Son, would they not have preferred this
one from all the other appellations to Him, naming Him the sender forth of the Spirit?
Paragraph 5: To believe the from to have the same power as the through, likewise concerning the
divine Persons, as concerning created things, we will not only say the Spirit to be from the Father,
but we will also suppose Him to be sent forth through the Father. And not only do we believe the
Son to be begotten from the Father, but we will also proclaim Him to be begotten through the
Father; which is entirely both impious and blasphemous. Moreover, if the from has the same power
as the through concerning the divine Trinity, since just as the Spirit is provided to the worthy
through the Son, so also the Son through the Spirit, therefore also the Spirit is begotten from the
Son, and the Son proceeds from the Spirit and from the Father, and from each other these Persons
both exist and proceed; which no one believing that these phrases signify the same thing would
accept, that is, both the from the Father and the Son, and the from the Father through the Son,
when he is judged to change the through preposition into the and conjunction; so long as this
remains a conjunction, and that is called a preposition, one seems to signify one thing for now, and
the other again something else.

115
 Paragraph 6: Then how do they themselves, not confessing to believe according to their own
Symbol in the Spirit proceeding from the Father through the Son, but [believing] that He proceeds
from the Father and the Son, reproach us for believing in the Spirit proceeding from the Father
through the Son? I will say this more clearly. For it is one thing for something to be from one alone,
and another for it to be from two, and another for it to be from someone through someone. For to
be from one, the Person having the cause in Himself, is proper; but to be from two, [means] the two
entirely having acquired the causes; but to be from someone through someone, [means] the one
acquiring through someone mediating to Him that very thing which He is. With these things thus
being so, therefore it is one thing for the Spirit [to be] from the Father alone, and from nowhere else
to proceed, and another for Him to have His existence from the Father and from the Son, and
another for Him to proceed from the Father through the Son; for the one signifies that the Holy
Spirit has the principle of His own hypostasis from one Person alone, the Father of course; but the
other, that He proceeds proximately and immediately from two Persons, that is, from the Father, and
the Son; but the other, that He has the cause of His own hypostasis from the Father indeed, but not
proximately nor immediately, but through the Son mediating. Since they themselves confess to
believe the second of these three, how therefore do they introduce to us to believe the third, which
is other and signifies something other than the first? And again other, and not what the second
[signifies]?
Paragraph 7: But what is their counter-argument to these things? If the Spirit equally is from the
essence of the Father and of the Son, He proceeds equally in every way also from both. For since
the Holy Spirit is from the essence of the Father and of the Son, for this reason He also proceeds
personally from the Father and the Son. But He will either be proceeding as from two Persons, or
entirely as from one; but if as from two, the absurdity is evident; and it is necessary in addition that
there are two causes in the divine Trinity, insofar as two are causes of one; but if as from one, since
the sending forth Person is form, not essence, not nature, and the one sending forth this will entirely
be a Person; but if the one sending forth is not a Person, but the one being sent forth is a Person
alone, therefore in the divine Persons, there will be some Person caused from a Person, the Son; and
there is some Person not caused from a Person, the Holy Spirit; when the Father indeed [is] a
Person, but the one sending forth [is] not a Person; and those confessing the Spirit to proceed
personally from the Person of the Father miss the truth.
Paragraph 8: Again: that the Spirit is and proceeds from the hypostasis of the Father, the
theologians say; but from the hypostasis of the Son, none of them has expressly handed down;
therefore it follows according to the common theologians that the Spirit has His existence from the
nature alone of the Son, but from the Father, both from His essence and His hypostasis; as what has
just now been explained and recently, but has been proclaimed from of old and from the beginning;
but if anyone dares to say that the Spirit [is] also from the hypostasis of the Son, let him bring the
saints saying this as witnesses.

116
 Paragraph 9: Again, since the personal has reference to the essential, but is opposed to the
common, according to the relative, that is, as being begotten to begetting; since to be sent forth is
personal; for if this were not so, neither would the procession be proper to the Spirit; and to send
forth the Spirit is of necessity such; for it is referred as to a cause to the very being sent forth; when
the Holy Spirit proceeds from the essence of the Father and of the Son, which is common also to
the Spirit.
Paragraph 10: Moreover, if the Holy Spirit proceeds from the essence of the Father and the
Son, as from one cause, because the one essence of the Father and the Son is the same, under their
two hypostases, it follows also that the Son is begotten from the essence of the Father and of the
Spirit, as from one cause; because according to the new theology concerning the super-essential
Trinity, essence and hypostasis are the same; but if the second is absurd, the first is also such.
Paragraph 11: Further, if the Father and the Son are one cause of the Holy Spirit both according
to their one essence, and also according to their own hypostases, it remains for the Holy Spirit not
only to be according to His own hypostasis, but also according to His own essence, being one
according to this divine essence peculiarly His own, and those according to His own hypostasis,
which are caused only in the divine Trinity.
Paragraph 12: Further, if the Holy Spirit proceeded as from one cause of the essence of the
Father and the Son, because the essence and Person are the same in the Godhead, not only will the
Spirit be the same as the common essence of the three, but also the Son the same with it, and the
Father of necessity the same with the same; and therefore, either the Trinity will be three the same,
or this alone will consequently be the same.
Paragraph 13: Further, if the Holy Spirit proceeded as from one cause of the essence of the
Father and of the Son, because essence and hypostasis are the same in the all-causal Trinity, the Holy
Spirit therefore, just as He is the same as the Father and the Son according to essence, so He will be
the same as them according to hypostasis; and therefore the same will be from the same; but for one
to be other from another, is confessed by all, but for the same to proceed personally from the same,
is both unseemly and impious.
Paragraph 14: Further, since in the divine things hypostasis is the same in some ways as essence,
but the Person of the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, with the Father being other, and
the Son again other; the Holy Spirit therefore has His existence from two sames.
Paragraph 15: Further, if the Holy Spirit proceeded from the essence of the Father and the Son
as from one cause, because in the divine things both the essence and the Person are the same, not
only will the Father and the Son be the same, but also the Father and the Spirit again another same;
and the Son and the Spirit, another same again; but if the second of these, and the third are
heretical, then also the first is entirely heretical, and again there is Sabellius.
Paragraph 16: Further, if the Holy Spirit proceeded as from one cause of the essence of the
Father and the Son, because essence and Person are the same in the Father and the Son and the

117
Holy Spirit, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit therefore will also be the same in
Fatherhood, and in Sonship, and in procession, and in all things.
Paragraph 17: Further, if the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, because essence
and Person are the same in the Trinity, and there are three Persons of this, and one essence,
therefore three in it [the Trinity] are the same, and three will be other; since none of the divine
Persons is the same as Himself, or other than Himself; but is either the same as something, or other
than something in every way; and simply every sameness and otherness is never from one, but is said
of at least two; but if such absurdities flow everywhere from the Holy Spirit proceeding from the
essence of the Father and the Son, therefore the Holy Spirit [proceeds] not from the essence of the
Father and the Son, but the Spirit has His being what He is from the hypostasis of the Father alone;
for just as the personal things remaining incommunicable show the otherness of the Persons, thus
with the same things being [common] it follows to understand also the sameness of the Persons; or
why would the essential things being the same, characterize the same cause, but the personal things
having likewise, would not show the sameness of the Persons? But if because the Father and the
Son are, for this reason the Father is entirely the cause of both the Spirit, then the Father and the
Holy Spirit also are; for the Father and the Son are one in essence, not the Father and the Holy Spirit
in this way; but if so, then they will therefore be causes of the same thing so that with the Father
being the cause of the Word, He will entirely be the cause of the Holy Spirit also. But since the
Word is the cause of the Spirit through these reasons, the Word in turn will be the cause of the
Spirit.
Paragraph 18: That the things said before are true, that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from
the essence of the Father and the Son, just as neither does the Son have His generation from the
essence of the Father and the Spirit, is clear from there; for in the hundredth chapter of his
Dogmatic [Theses], John of Damascus theologizes thus concerning the unbegotten and the
begotten, not of nature, but of hypostasis; and again, “Wherever we understand that to be begotten
is not of nature, but of hypostasis; for if it were of nature, both the begotten and the unbegotten
would be contemplated in the same nature.” And the divine Gregory of Nyssa, in the book On the
Knowledge of God, says that the Spirit proceeds from the Father’s hypostasis; but in the discourse
On the Names of God, he says that the same is a Person of the Father, from whom the Son is
begotten, and the Holy Spirit proceeds. Maximus, adorned with holy theology, says that the essence
is common to all, according to which He is said [to be] and uncircumscribed, and never being
circumscribed in any one Person, would never appear [as] a cause of hypostasis. With these agrees
also the holy Augustine in the first [book] of On the Trinity, concerning the divine essence he says
such things: “Nothing generates itself, but if the essence generates essence, it would not generate
unless itself, because nothing is in God separated from the divine essence.” Thomas using this saying
adds such a conclusion: “Therefore the essence does not generate essence.” And again from the
same book, in which he discourses concerning divine Names, he says, “The divine nature is
confirmed to be neither generated in the Son according to itself, nor according to coincidence.” And

118
Hugh of St. Victor says, “The essence itself neither sends forth nor is sent forth, neither generates
nor is generated; for the things naturally belonging to the divine essence, belong to every Person; so
that if the essence were generative, both the Son and the Spirit would have generated; none of
which is close to the truth; it is very clear that the Father generates not insofar as [He is] essence, but
insofar as [He is] Father.”
Paragraph 19: To these things I myself would also say, if the essence were sending forth, both
the Son and the Spirit would send forth; but since this neither sends forth, nor is sent forth, it is
clear that neither the Son nor the Spirit has the [power of] sending forth; and not insofar as [He is]
essence, but insofar as [He is] Sender forth the Father sends forth the Holy Spirit; and the Spirit not
insofar as [He is] essence, but insofar as [He is] sent forth proceeds from the Father Himself.
Paragraph 20: But what is their counter-argument to these things? Why indeed do all the Latin
teachers, both ancient and recent, teach in many ways that the Holy Spirit [is] from the Father and
the Son, both in being and in proceeding? I myself will immediately [respond], since according to
my understanding, in this hangs the entire dividing conclusion between Italians and Romans, and I
will say true and necessary things. But attention must be paid with all power; that due to the poverty
of language among the Italians, neither the ECPORREUSIS (procession) itself, nor the
ECPORREUESTHAI (to proceed) verb has been found; whenever instead of saying “the
procession,” they say “the procession” (πρόοδος); but instead of “proceeds,” they say “proceeds”
(πρόεισι); and the most terrible thing, that they also consider these to be the same as those said by
us; but this is not so, not at all. For to us these phrases spoken concerning the Holy Spirit, the
PROODOS (procession) in relation to the ECPORREUSIS (procession), and the PROEISI
(proceeds) in relation to the ECPORREUETAI (proceeds), has such a difference as the genera have
to the species, or the common to the proper, or the universal to the particular. For the procession
indeed [is] common; “for the procession of the Thearchy,” says the great Dionysius; and it is said,
“the sending of the divine Persons is from the whole Trinity”; and the Lord before these, “I and the
Father will come”; but the procession [εκπόρευσις] is proper; for it is defined only by the hypostatic
existence of the Spirit; and the proceeds [πρόεισι] is said commonly especially concerning all the
gifts of the Spirit, and sometimes also concerning His procession, and concerning many other
things; but the proceeds [ἐκπορεύεται] from the Spirit, [is said] only concerning the significant phrase
of the Spirit’s property; whence for this to proceed from the Father and the Son, it is impossible to
find in the uses of the holy Teachers, whenever the phrase is referred to the Spirit’s existing
property, unless their purpose is concerning the giving of His gifts; but to proceed from the Father
and the Son, that is, to be poured out according to His energies, is found in many places; wherefore
also the ancient Teachers of the Latins, having translated the divine Scripture and our holy Teachers
from the Greek language into the Roman language, since they were constrained by this paternal
[language], and otherwise had no way to say [it], used this phrase, “the Spirit proceeds,” both in both
meanings, both signifying His hypostatic existence from the Father, I say the procession, and
signifying His communicative grace and energy through the Son, not as if they considered the

119
different meanings to be the same, glorifying one temporal and one timeless; but with one phrase by
the poverty of the language, signifying now this, now that; which therefore later ones hearing, and
being ignorant of what the “proceeds” sometimes means to them, thought that the word was simply
understood in the sense of “proceeds” [ἐκπορεύεται]; and from there the cause of the distortion
especially arose, with the many not understanding, or perhaps not wishing to understand, the
purpose of those speaking, and for this reason turning aside from the truth; so that if it were
understood that the Holy Spirit is said to proceed from the Father and the Son, but according to His
super-natural gifts, but not to proceed from the Father and the Son, that is, to have His hypostatic
existence from them, the schism of so many Churches would not have had such a place; but now by
these words the entire distortion has taken its beginning, and has continued to be a danger for all
this age.
Paragraph 21: Again, the meaning both of the “proceeds” [πρόεισι] and of the “proceeds”
[ἐκπορεύεται] words, judging to signify “goes out” here also, creates much deception for those not
hearing with experience; for they immediately think of some temporal and local going out of the
Holy Spirit’s hypostasis, from some person to some thing, or place, or person; but the matter is not
such; for to us piously, the “proceeds from the Father” being said concerning the Spirit, is
understood instead of “exists from the Father alone and is with [Him]”; wherefore also this is said
with a determination, and does not signify in Him movement and progress from some place to
some place, but [signifies] according to existence and permanence; but the “proceeds” [πρόεισιν], [is
understood] instead of the abundance of His gifts being poured out towards us, both from the
Father and the Son, and from the Father through the Son; and in the way we say the Son is begotten
from the Father, that is, to subsist undividedly and eternally with the Father Himself; not in time, not
in place, not through something, but according to Himself ineffably and beyond every cause, in the
same way we say also the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father; that is, to exist personally with Him,
beyond every understanding being not transitively sent forth, not having a when, not temporally, not
towards certain ones, not for the sake of something, but according to permanent existence, and
being said to be co-unoriginate with God; although the one has being from the Father by generation,
but the other by procession, in another inexpressible way.
Paragraph 22: Again, concerning the Holy Spirit two things are clearly both existing and being
said, of cause and of hypostasis, concerning indeed whence the Spirit has His essence, we in no way
differ from each other, but the difference for us is concerning the hypostasis alone of the Spirit; but
they accusing us concerning the Person of the Spirit, because they say this to proceed from the
Father and the Son, but defending concerning His essence, and bringing forward the things being
said concerning this, do the same as if someone accusing that they believe David, according to the
hypostasis, to be a son of Adam and of Noah, and he should bring forward indeed as a very great
justification, since David has his own essence equally from Adam and Noah.
Paragraph 23: But in order that what is said by us may become more certain, and more clearly
with many, with unveiled face, with heart and tongue and clear voice, we proclaim with boldness,

120
that we both believe and confess that the Spirit is essentially from both the Father and the Son, that
is, having His own essence from the Father together with the Son, not more from one nor less from
the other, but equally from both, and we anathematize those not believing thus; but that the Holy
Spirit Himself proceeds hypostatically, that is, personally from the Father and the Son, we both deny,
and turn away from those thinking thus. These things we think thus, not as introducing new dogmas,
but being persuaded by all the theologians, both when they say concerning the essence of the Spirit,
that the Holy Spirit [is] of the same essence as the Father and the Son, that the Holy Spirit [is] from
the nature of the Father and Son and therefore from the essence of the Father and the Son the Holy
Spirit [is]; both when and however much similar things they write concerning His hypostasis, not
saying the Spirit [to be] from the Son; and that the Spirit [is] from the Father alone, but not that the
Spirit also has His existence in the Son, and however many similar things [they say]; so that the same
Theologians, both saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, that is, subsists
personally, proclaim the truth; and again, positing that He has His being essentially from the Father
and the Son, are most perfectly truthful; and that we may return to the matter at hand, for these said
causes, both the ancient and the recent Latin Teachers teach in many ways that the Holy Spirit both
is and proceeds from the Father and the Son; to whose intention it is necessary to pay attention
more, not only to the words; which it was necessary to defend. And these things indeed have been
said thus by me.
Paragraph 24: But since for the sake of this we say so many things concerning the Holy Spirit, in
order that not only may we believe rightly now, but that we may also cause the Holy Spirit Himself
to dwell within us through the working of the saving works, leaving off speaking further concerning
the procession of the Spirit, let us briefly philosophize concerning His indwelling in us. Therefore,
the most renowned among ascetics, Mark, says thus concerning this: “It is necessary first to have the
grace of the all-holy Spirit working in the heart, and thus according to proportion to enter into the
kingdom of the heavens.” Making this clear the Lord said, “The kingdom of the heavens is within
you.” Declaring this also the Apostle wrote, “Test yourselves if you are in the faith; or do you not
recognize that Jesus Christ dwells in you? Unless indeed you are disapproved.”
Paragraph 25: And the great Macarius from Egypt posits thus: “The Lord coming into the
houses of our souls, rests in the beauty of our heart; there indeed, when the waves of the impure
demon and the darkness have passed by, the rays of most sweet light shine for Him, deep quiet
having entered into this house. Because Christians are a new creation of another age; children of the
Holy Spirit having appeared; similar to their Father, to Adam the spiritual, to the luminous; of that
city, of that age, of that power; they are not of this world, they are of another world. For the Lord
Himself says, ‘You are not of this world.’”
Paragraph 26: And John from Damascus [says]: “The mother of prayer [is] stillness; but prayer
[is] a manifestation of divine glory; for when we close the senses, and become together with
ourselves and with God, and being freed from the external wandering of the world become within

121
ourselves, then clearly within ourselves, we will see the kingdom of God; for the kingdom of the
heavens is within us, as Jesus the God uttered.”
Paragraph 27: And Saint Maximus says, “God the Word having become man, in order that He
might show the deifying grace of all things, through which He also became man, ‘My Father,’ He
says, ‘works until now, and I work’; the one willing, the other co-working; with the Holy Spirit
essentially completing both the Father’s will in all things, and the co-working with the Son; in order
that through all and in all might be the one God in Trinity, proportionately to each according to the
grace of those existing, and wholly beheld by us, as the soul naturally indwells the whole and each
part of the body without diminution; but each according to the proportion of his own faith,
possesses a more manifest energy; and this [is] in the Gospel of God; the ambassadorship of God
and the exhortation to men, through the incarnate Son, and giving the reward of reconciliation with
the Father to those persuaded by Him [namely] uncreated deification; and he calls uncreated
deification, an unhypostatic illumination according to form, which does not have generation, but an
inconceivable manifestation to the worthy.”
Paragraph 28: Gregory of Nyssa also says: “One of the faithful becomes a place of God, and
another a house, and another a throne, and another a footstool; and someone becoming also a
chariot, or a swift horse, receiving upon himself the good rider, and running the course according to
the one leading; someone also becomes a vessel for Him, adorned according to His wisdom, not
only with woods built in the Libanus, but also with gold and silver, and purple and stones suitably
beautified to each part, through which His love is worked, by which the energy of love is contained
by all, but is recognized as a daughter of the free Jerusalem above.”
Paragraph 29: And Cyril of Alexandria says that the cloud covering [them] signifies the ancient
shadow, I think signifying nothing other than the Church, filled with the glory of Christ, the truest
shadow; therefore Christ has filled the Church; and to those in ignorance and error, as if they dwell
in night and darkness, He sends the noetic illumination, like the kindling of fire; but to those already
illuminated in their ways, and having the noetic day in their hearts, He gives the grace and protection
from Himself, and refreshes them with spiritual dews, that is, with the exhortations from above
through the Spirit.
Paragraph 30: Thus also the golden-tongued one clearly declares, “Then your light will break
forth early”; what light does he say, and what is this light? Not this sensible [light], but another much
better, which shows the heaven, the Angels, the Archangels, the Cherubim, the Seraphim, the
Principalities, the Authorities, the Thrones, the Dominions, the whole host, the royal courts, the
habitations; for if you are deemed worthy of that light, you will see these things, and you will be
delivered from Gehenna; for he did not say the light of the Jews, but generally of men; for this light
is proposed to all as a goal, lest you close the doors to this light, and lose much of the enjoyment;
but this light comes through faith, and coming illuminates with much abundance the one receiving
[it], and if he provides a pure life for it, it remains dwelling within continuously; and just as pure
silver placed towards the rays, also sends forth the rays, not only from its own nature, but also from

122
the brightness of the sun, so also a purified soul, becoming brighter than silver, receives a ray from
the glory of the Spirit, and sends this back; wherefore also he says, “Beholding as in a mirror, we are
transformed into the same image from glory to glory, as from the Lord Spirit,” into our own
becoming glory; and such, as is fitting from the Lord Spirit; and just as fiery bodies flowing to those
nearby from the shining bodies, also impart to those their own brightness, thus indeed it happens
also with the faithful; for this reason those experiencing this are separated from the earth, and dream
of the things in the heavens, those enjoying this ineffable and awesome glory; for some thick mist,
gloom and cloud has been poured out over all the earth; and declaring this the Apostle said, “For
you were once darkness”; and again, “You, brothers, are not in darkness”; since there was as it were
a lawless night, and in this night we were walking, God gave to us a bright lamp, having kindled the
grace of the Spirit in our souls; but of those [having] the light, some having received [it] worked [it
into] brighter and more radiant, as Paul, as Peter, as all those saints; but others extinguished [it], as
the five virgins, as those who suffered shipwreck concerning the faith; for this reason Paul also says,
“Do not quench the Spirit,” that is, the gift; for thus he is accustomed to call the gift of the Spirit;
but an impure life quenches it; and these things indeed [are said by] the golden-mouthed one.
Paragraph 31: And Gregory the Theologian says, “Of the many and great things which we have
and will have from God, this is the greatest and most philanthropic, the inclination and kinship
towards Him; for what the sun is to sensible things, this God is to intelligible things; for the one
illuminates the visible world, but the other the invisible; and the one makes the bodily eyes sun-like,
but the intellectual natures God-like; and just as this to both those seeing and those being seen,
providing the power to some of seeing, but to others of being seen, is himself the most beautiful of
the things being seen, so God to both those understanding and those being understood, creating to
some the [power of] understanding, but to others of being understood, is Himself the highest of
the things being understood; towards whom every desire stands, and beyond whom nothing at all is
carried; for He neither has anything higher, nor will He ever have, neither the most philosophical
mind, nor the most transcendent, nor the most inquisitive; for this is the end of desirable things, and
to those having come to be the rest of all contemplation. Whoever therefore has been granted to
pass beyond the matter, and this fleshly thing, which one must call neither cloud nor veil, to become
akin to God, and to be mingled with the purest light, insofar as is attainable by human nature, this
one is blessed, both of the ascent from here, and of the vision there; for truly to philosophize grants
[one] to become above the material duality, through the one, and the unity understood in the Trinity;
but whoever has become worse by the conjunction [with matter], and has been so much bound to
the clay, as not to be able to look towards the rays of truth, nor to be borne above the things below,
having become from above, and being called to the things above, this one is wretched to me in his
blindness, even if he prospers in the things here, and so much the more, as much as he is more
played upon by the prosperity, and is persuaded that something else is good before the truly good;
pursuing the evil covering of vain glory; the darkness lies upon [him], as fire there, in which he did
not know the light.”

123
 Paragraph 32: And Basil, the voice of the Church, likewise expounded similarly saying, “As the
power of seeing [is] in the healthy eye, so [is] the energy of the Spirit, in the purified soul; wherefore
also Paul prays for the Ephesians, for the eyes of their heart to be enlightened in the Spirit of
wisdom, and to become an athlete of virtue towards God, and to be mingled with the purest light,
becoming a son of that day, which is not interrupted by darkness; for another sun does this, the one
flashing forth the true light; which whenever it shines upon us once, is no longer hidden by settings,
but having embraced all things with its illuminating power, makes the light continuous and
successive to the worthy, and itself makes those partaking of the light other suns.”
Paragraph 33: And the great Athanasius posits thus: “The Word being united to God became
flesh, in order that men being united by the Spirit might become spirit; He Himself is God bearing
flesh, but we men bearing spirit; for having taken a first-fruit from the essence of men, that is, in the
seed of Abraham, which is the form of a servant, and having become in the likeness of man, He
gave to us from the essence of the Father the first-fruit of the Holy Spirit, in order that we all might
become one Son of God; He Himself the true God bears all of us, in order that we all might bear
God; for as many as are spirit-bearers, bear light; and those bearing light are clothed with Christ; and
those clothed with Christ are clothed with the Father; for this corruptible must put on incorruption,
and this mortal put on immortality; for those bearing the Spirit of God, bear incorruption; but
incorruption is God; and this [is] the philanthropy of God, that of whom He is creator, of these He
also afterwards becomes Father by grace; and He becomes [Father], whenever the created men
receive into their hearts the Spirit of God crying ‘Abba, Father’; for otherwise they would not have
become sons, being by nature creatures, unless they receive the Spirit of the one by nature and true
Son; wherefore also the Word became flesh, in order to make the human receptive of divinity.”
Paragraph 33 (duplicate numbering in original text): And the divine Dionysius in these words,
“The divine nature,” he says, “is not participated in by the essence of any of the beings, but by the
gifts of all.” And the divine Paul in addition to these, “And God who also anointed us, and sealed us,
and gave the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts”; and again, “God has sent forth the Spirit of His
Son into our hearts”; and again, “The love of God has been poured out in our hearts through the
Holy Spirit who has been given to us”; and before all and after all our Lord and teacher by nature,
Jesus Christ, thus through the Apostles promises the Holy Spirit to the faithful, “whom the world
cannot receive, because it does not behold Him nor know Him; but you know Him because He
remains with you, and will be in you” - and again, “He who has My commandments and keeps them,
that one is he who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him,
and I will manifest Myself to him,” and “I and the Father will come, and make our abode with him.”
Paragraph 34: Therefore, no one of men is, who without love towards his neighbor, truly has the
Lord; for every commandment, he says, is summed up in “you shall love your neighbor as yourself,”
and love [is] the fulfillment of all things; and just as the sun is everywhere alike and wholly shining,
so also a holy soul having been apprehended and illuminated, perfected by the ineffable beauty of
the glory of the light of the face of Christ, and having communed wholly with the Holy Spirit, and

124
having been deemed worthy to become a dwelling place and throne of God, becomes all eye, and all
face, and all light, and all glory, and all Spirit, whom it carries and sustains and bears, thus being built
up by Him; but rather the one carrying and leading and sustaining it, thus preparing and beautifying
it with the beauty of the Holy Spirit; wherefore also Paul says, “The fruit of the Spirit is love” etc.
The sum of the discourse: we have been shown to become a dwelling place of God; for all both the
actions, and the contemplations, and the gatherings, and the liturgies, and the sacrifices, and the
offerings are done for this, in order that man may be purified of his sins, and God may dwell in him,
according to what has been said by the Lord, as He says, “I and the Father will come and make our
abode with him.”
Paragraph 35: For the living energy of the Holy Spirit is sought by God in living hearts;
wherefore also the Savior came, in order that the intellectual faculties of the souls of the faithful
being restored through the energy of grace, and becoming immutable, might be able to inherit
eternal life; for if a Christian has fasting, vigilance, psalmody, virginity, and every virtue, but the
mystical energy of the Spirit in the altar of the heart is not accomplished by grace, with all spiritual
sense and rest, all his following is incomplete and [he is] a person not having eyes; and almost a body
not having the head of the Spirit; but when a person becomes God-bearing, and the Father and the
Son and the Holy Spirit dwell and walk in him, then the soul departs from every desire of built
churches, and visible sacrifices, and material gatherings, and human feasts; and then he does not
desire to worship God in this or that place in the Spirit, but in every place of His dominion; for he
has within himself God and Father; he has within the Son, the great High Priest; he has within the
Holy Spirit, the true fire; he has within the true sacrifice to God, the contrite spirit; he has within the
altar, the pure conscience; he has within the propitiation for sins, the spiritual tear; he has within the
Jerusalem above, the rejoicing soul; and therefore as spiritual, with spiritual hands he offers spiritual
sacrifices. “For God is Spirit, and those worshiping Him must worship in Spirit and truth”; to Him
[be] the glory unto the endless ages both now and forever. Amen.

125
 DISCOURSE XII. CONCERNING THE TRANSCENDENTAL TRINITY.
Delivered in the Church of the Holy Apostles, at the gathering of the Emperor, and of many High
Priests, and of the Senate; Clearly showing that examples for the sake of proof do not have a place
concerning God, but are received for the sake of clarity alone.

Paragraph 1: It is necessary, concerning what has been said, both to understand something
worthy and to say something reverent and to do something good, not without the Holy Spirit being
co-operative with us, but rather with Him working the whole, entrusting everything to Him,
undertaking to speak concerning this Spirit. But it is necessary to pay close attention to what is being
said, lest we ourselves undergo the unprofitable labor beyond measure, and you, through negligence,
deliver the things said to oblivion; for oblivion is the daughter of negligence, and both are offspring
of heedlessness. Since every statement exists in two ways, one indeed overturning its own (position),
and the other overturning the foreign (position), as I at least consider, but the demonstration of the
truth of both becomes in this manner, sufficient for conviction. I say this: having posited both
hypotheses and the one considering concerning these (hypotheses), then having separately
distinguished, to consider what follows each, which of these are consistent and which are contrary
to the truth; and to respect the consistent ones, I say, and to turn away from the others; for the truth
is entirely consistent with itself; but that which falls into contradiction with itself is entirely outside
of the truth; which especially we must carefully guard and do, lest we fail entirely to attain what is
fitting. And first, it must be stated the scriptural usages, as many as have been received concerning
the procession of the Holy Spirit. Secondly, it must be considered reasonably, how those differing
with us concerning these things understand these (usages); and what also seems right to us
concerning these (usages)? And thirdly, it must be examined concerning each (usage) to what
purpose it refers, and how also it was expressed by the Holy (Fathers) at different times? And neither
we ourselves, nor the opponents of us hereafter, but to the Holy (Fathers) alone must we give
credence concerning all things. For thus both the truth will be clear, and our faith indubitable, and
our portion with God; and every strife will immediately be driven out of the way, and the peace
from above will be proclaimed.
Paragraph 2: We said that we should not confine ourselves to the things said recently among us
concerning the Spirit, a common usage of the Holy Scriptures, that the Holy Spirit is said to proceed
from the Father. But what this saying wishes to signify, investigating this, according to the surpassing
gifts to Him, this we have learned is said by them. Let us consider, if it seems good, how also this
usage is understood or interpreted by those who hold contrary opinions to us; I mean, the (usage)
saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Then, God cooperating, we will
consider again what the Holy (Fathers) declare against these (opinions). And indeed, they say here,
explaining themselves as they themselves say, that “the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the
Son,” we understand in this manner, as the fruit comes forth from the root through the branch, and
the stream flows from the spring through the pipe, and the light shines forth from the sun through

126
the ray; for these and such things are said not only of them, but also from them; that the fruit is
from the root through the branch, and in the branch; and the stream is from the spring through the
pipe, or from the pipe; and the light is from the sun through the ray, or is from the ray; whence also
we say the Son is proximate and immediate to the Spirit, and the Father mediate and prior; and
through the Son we say the Spirit is both in Him, and from the Father Himself He proceeds, just as,
for example, the fruit is from the root through the branch, the stream from the spring through the
pipe, and the light from the sun through the ray.
Paragraph 3: Against these things, we indeed affirm this, that we do not take examples and
images for proof, but for the sake of clarity, the things being presupposed to be thus without any
doubt; but these things having uncertainty, and therefore being sought (investigated), to attempt to
prove these from examples is nothing else than to posit the things being sought as if they were
already agreed upon. For indeed, the theologian Gregory, in the discourse concerning the Holy
Spirit, condemned such a great dissimilarity of examples in discourses concerning God, and this
especially directing his concern toward the inquiry concerning these things, where he says: “It is
necessary to restrain the thought, when one considers the imagined (thing) in the examples; lest
someone, taking one part of the image, through ignorance would cast away the rest.” Finally, it
seemed to me to be best to let the images be, and the shadows as deceptive and greatly falling short
of the truth, holding fast to the more pious understanding, abiding in a few words, and using the
illumination that shone forth from there for each Spirit, guarding this as a genuine common
possession and shared inheritance, to traverse this age. And again, in the same (place), he says: “Give
me God and the nature of God apart from others, and I will give you the Trinity with the same
names and realities; but if there is one God, one highest nature, whence will the likeness be
preserved by you? Or do you again seek from the things below and around you? It is indeed
shameful, and not only shameful, but also altogether vain, to take a conjecture of the things above
from the things below, and of the unmovable from the flowing nature.” And Isaiah says, “to seek
the living among the dead.” And further, even if the sayings are true concerning existing things,
what is the necessity to consider them true also concerning divine things? For we do not consider
that whatever follows in other things must also follow in divine things; for it is not necessary; for
thus we would understand God by nature and by art at the same time. But why should these things,
by which created things are considered, be considered also of God? But it is more just to say,
because these things (apply) to created things, they would not (apply) to divine things; for this is
wholly necessary; for the difference between created things and God is infinite, but the likeness is
either nothing or moderate, and so only to compare (by analogy). And let these things be said in
common against all such things, and then also against each of the things said in order it must be
responded.
Paragraph 4: And first indeed, concerning the first (analogy), that the fruit, being immature,
becomes mature from the root through the branch according to nature, and not from being; for that
which becomes proceeds in every way from non-being into being little by little, being perfected later;

127
but these things do not at all befit the Spirit co-eternal with the Father and the Son. Besides, (it) is
not as if the Son is a branch from the root of the Father, if it is necessary to say thus, and then from
this branch the Spirit is a fruit or a flower, (as) it has been handed down to us by the divine
expositors, so that one holds the first (place), and another the second, and the third holds a third
rank, and the third is far from the first, and that (they) are clearly separated by the interposition and
mediation of the second; and the second (is) near to both, both as from the one just now having
been established, and as having the power of being from both the first and from itself, the Father
indeed providing (this) to the Son; but they clearly declare one beginning root of the divinity of the
Father and the Spirit, and they have written the Son and the Spirit as co-eternal with this root and
existing without beginning. And this is clear from those (writings): for the great Dionysius, in the
third (chapter) of the Mystical Theology, says that from the simple Goodness, the essential
outpourings of goodness proceed, both of itself, and in themselves, and in each other, signifying the
immutability adhering to the generation; and again, in the (treatise) On the Divine Names, he calls
the Son and the Spirit divinely begotten outpourings of the Father’s generative divinity, and living
flowers and over-abundances, this usage clearly being thus: that the Father is the fountainhead
divinity, and the Son and the Spirit (are) of the theogenous divinity, if it is necessary to say thus,
divinely begotten outpourings, and living flowers and over-abundant lights, we have learned,
speaking according to the sacred (writings); but how these things are, it is neither possible to say nor
to conceive, but the progress (of our understanding) is up to the intellectual energy according to us.
And the divine Maximus, explaining this, says, “to signify that they are divinely begotten from the
Father”; and consider this to have been said from the vision of the olive trees (in) Zechariah
(chapter) four of the Prophets; therefore the Seventy (interpreters) (call them) branches of the olive
tree, but the others of the interpreters (call them) offshoots and outpourings. And Metrophanes the
Melodist also set forth this in his Trinitarian canon thus: “A twofold trunk sprouted from the Father
as a root, the Son and the Holy Spirit, the co-natural offshoots and divinely begotten, and co-eternal
flowers.” But if this is a twofold trunk, and others (call them) offshoots, and others branches, and
(others) outpourings and over-abundant flowers, if they theologize the Son and the Spirit from one
root of the Father, according to this reasoning, does the Spirit also possess existence in the Son, and
if someone is found naming the Spirit fruit, or flower, or anything else, (this) shows the co-existence
of the Spirit with the Father and the Son, and this is how it seems also to Cyril of Alexandria, in his
writing Against Hermias, writing thus: “Just as there are the most fragrant flowers concerning the
diffusion of my essence, and being filled with the senses of those around,” I say, “that what will be
received from me signifies a natural likeness,” which certain ones will not partake of, being divided
by distinct and intellectually perceived (differences), also concerning the Spirit. To these things, the
great Gregory, a witness worthy of credence for all Christians, let him come forward, who urges to
understand the things said concerning the Son and the Spirit, (that they) hold the second (place)
after the Father, in this way: “Restrain the deep-thinking words of philosophy, lest you divide the
Godhead into a root.” Do you hear? For if the Spirit is not immediately from the Father, he would

128
not place this second after the Father, just as Gregory also calls the Son. And the great Basil, in the
(treatise) Against Eunomius, where the beginning is, “The beginning is,” contending against Judaism
and Hellenism, sets forth thus: “The Father is the one having perfectly the being and without cause,
root and fountain of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”; besides, as I said before, it is not necessary
that the same things follow in beings and in God; nor what is mortal exists in beings, that this is also
mortal in God; being different from all beings according to an ineffable reason, for the reasons do
not necessarily have the same (properties) in beings concerning their processions. And let these
things have been said concerning the first (analogy).
Paragraph 5: And concerning the second (analogy), that the stream has its being, which it is,
from the spring, but not at all from the pipe, or through the pipe; and this is the same concerning
the example of the spring and the river and the water; but what is a river there, this is not here a
pipe, a receptacle for the passing water; therefore, since the Son is the spring of the Spirit, as it
seems to the revealer of divine things, Basil the Great, Athanasius the much-suffering, Gregory the
all-wise, and all the saints; let us consider concerning this what seems right to the same saints, for the
great Basil, in the eighth (letter) to Amphilochius, enumerating the names belonging to the Son, also
places the name of the spring, not simply to show how he names Him a spring. For he says, yet
again because of the multifaceted grace towards us; that through the richness of goodness,
according to His manifold wisdom, it is given to the fearing (Him), the Scripture signifies Him by
countless other appellations, sometimes calling (Him) shepherd, sometimes king, and again
physician, and the same bridegroom, and way, and door, and spring, and bread, and vine, and rock;
for these do not signify the nature, but the all-various (modes) of the energy; which from the
compassion concerning His own creation, according to the particularity of the need, He provides to
those in need. But if the name of the spring is a name of energy concerning the Son, just as each of
the enumerated (names is), and indeed on account of the cause, for (it is) through the richness of
goodness; and according to the particularity of the need; therefore, not because the Son is called the
spring is He the cause of the Spirit. And the great Athanasius, in his discourse concerning the
incarnate economy, says, “For the pledge and first-fruit of divinity dwells in us, but in Christ the
whole fullness of the Godhead; and therefore David, singing to God, says, ‘For with You is the
fountain of life; in Your light we shall see light’; for he knew the Son being with the Father (as) the
fountain of the Holy Spirit.” Do you see that this one also makes the discourse not concerning the
hypostatic, but concerning the energetic procession of the Spirit? For he says pledge and first-fruit
of divinity; for a pledge and first-fruit would be a part of the whole; but the Spirit is not divided
according to essence, nor according to hypostasis. And these things (are said) by the luminary of
Alexandria. It remains to see concerning the divine Gregory, if he understands the name of the
spring spoken of the Son as (referring to) the cause of the Spirit. This one, in the discourse
concerning the Holy Spirit, making the discourse concerning this image, says, “I have conceived a
spring, and a fountain, and a river; for how is it not that the Father is one, and the Son another, and
the Holy Spirit another analogously?” “For these are neither separated by time, nor broken off from

129
each other in continuity; and it seems somehow to be divided by three properties, but I was afraid
first indeed to accept a certain flow of divinity not existing in all; secondly, lest that which is in
number be introduced through this image. For eye and spring and river are one in number, being
formed differently.” Here it is precisely shown, how the teacher accepted the eye and the spring and
the river, which somehow seem to be as three in their properties, on account of their co-naturalness,
and their not being cut off and separated from each other, the thearchic Persons; since he also
received the other images in this manner; for this was also the purpose of the discourse, and what
the polemic required, not from whom is the cause to the Spirit. And (this is) clear from his own
testimony; for what, tell me, is a spring? Or what a river, or an eye, but the water itself, which welling
up is called a spring, being carried (along) a river, being drawn water? Further, the same one, in the
discourse to Evagrius concerning theology, making the discourse concerning the image of the spring
and the river being referred to the Trinity, (says) in what manner from a certain source of waters,
abundantly sending forth nectar-like water, it happens (that) a very great stream, and an
inexhaustible flow is divided into two rivers by its force, having one flow from one source of the
spring from the beginning; and with the waters of the rivers being formed into two streams, they are
nevertheless not at all harmed in their essence from the division; for by the position of the rivers the
flow is divided, but they possess one and the same quality; for even if each of the aforementioned
rivers seems to terminate far away, and to be far distant from the spring, they nevertheless have the
same beginning connected to the continuousness of the spring. Similarly also the God of all good
things, the president of truth and the Father of the Savior, the first cause of life, and the plant of
immortality, the fountain of eternal life, having sent forth to us a certain intellectual grace of
Himself and of the Holy Spirit, has not Himself suffered any harm in His essence; for no
diminution befell Him through their arrival to us and approaching even to us, and they remain in no
way separated from the Father. So that not from an eye (is) a spring, and from the spring a river, that
is, in the Father (is) the Son, and from the Son the Holy Spirit proceeds, but both as two rivers from
one vein; and not in the Son does the Spirit have (His) being, because He is called the spring of life,
or simply a spring by the theologians concerning the Spirit; but thus concerning the second
(analogy).
Paragraph 6: Concerning the third (analogy), it must be said otherwise: that likewise also the light
being sent forth to us from the sun through a certain ray, has its existence from the sun alone, but
not at all subsists from the ray, or through the ray; and this example is more for us than against us,
and it is clear that (the light) is imparted to us through the ray, (but) the light does not spring forth
from this; and the Spirit is bestowed upon us through the Son, (but) He is not also proceeding from
Him hypostatically; and the countless perception of properties testifies to this, and John of
Damascus clearly presents (this), saying in the same Dogmatic (work): “Just as from the sun (are)
both the ray and the radiance, for he himself is the source of the ray and of the radiance; but
through the ray the radiance is imparted to us, and this is what illuminates us and is partaken of by
us; thus from the Father (is) the Son, but through the Son the Holy Spirit is imparted to us.” And

130
Cyril of Alexandria, explaining the inseparable (union) of the Son and the Spirit, says that they are
sent forth as the ray from the sun, or the gleam from the fire. And the great Basil, in the (letter) to
the Canons, says, “For we say the Father (is) unbegotten light, and the Son begotten light; but that
each of the Persons (is) light of the same essence pleases both, so that we may preserve the equality
of the nature; for those are called consubstantial to each other not only which certain ones have
supposed, but also when there being two certain (beings), one is the cause, and the other from the
cause, and each of the same nature exists, also concerning those we predicate consubstantiality.”
Further, we glorify the Son from the Father and the Spirit together, just as light and ray from the
sun; and this example does not contradict, but agrees with us; for does the ray itself project light
separately from the sun? For the ray itself receives (light) from the sun, it springing forth from itself
together with the ray, conveys that to us; so that the cause of the light is not the ray conveying it to
us, but the solar disc is (the cause), which from its own essence projects both, I say the ray and the
light; and concerning the life-giving Trinity, even if the Son conveys the Spirit to us, He is not also
the cause to Him of existence, the Father being the ray of Him, who also the Son is. And we say
these things showing that (the light) is not from the ray, but is imparted through it; but if (the light)
is also from it, whence is the occasion for the necessity, therefore also the Spirit to proceed from the
Son? For if it is necessary that everything which follows the sun also follows God, which is not
permitted for this not also to exist in God, it would follow that also the common understanding
concerning the ray and the light, and concerning the Son and the Spirit, (we would have) to consider
this true, and not otherwise happening; but since it is neither pious nor reverent to suppose that
exactly the same follows God and His works; how then would He be different from the others?
How not reasonably would we be harmed, considering the words true concerning creation, and
necessarily considering them true also concerning God who created it? Concerning this image, about
which we now consider, the theologian Gregory, making much discourse, in the discourse
concerning the Holy Spirit says, “As I, having considered many things by myself in my studiousness,
and examining the discourse from everywhere, and seeking a certain image of such a matter, did not
have how it is necessary to compare the divine nature with the things below; for even if a small
likeness is found, the greater dissimilarity leaves me below with the example. I thought of sun and
ray and light, not that the Father is one, and the Son another, and the Holy Spirit another
analogously; but I was afraid first lest a certain composition be devised of the incomposite nature, as
of the sun and the things not of the sun; secondly, lest we make the Father alone the essence, and
the others we would not hypostasize, but we would make (them) powers of God existing (but) not
subsisting.” For neither ray, nor light, (is) another sun, but certain solar outpourings and essential
qualities; and at the same time we give to God both being and non-being not in these (analogies), as
much as (is derived) from the example. And in the (discourse) to Evagrius, the same one adds thus:
“In what manner there is not found a division of the circle and the ray, because of the impassible
and incorporeal, simple and undivided (nature), but the ray is united to the circle, and conversely the
circle, like an eye, pours forth the rays upon all, working for us as it were certain floods of light, and

131
suddenly inundating the whole creation; in which also as it were certain rays of the Father have been
sent forth upon us, both the luminous Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.” For just as the rays of the light
have an undivided relation according to nature to each other, neither are the lights separated, nor are
they cut off from each other, and they send forth the grace of the light even to us, in the same
manner also our Savior, and the Holy Spirit, the twin ray of the Father, also minister the light of
truth even to us, and are connected to the Father. And again, in the (discourse) concerning the Holy
Spirit he says, “Undivided in divided (things), if it is necessary to speak concisely, (is) the Godhead;
and as of three suns held together with each other (there is) one mingling of light.” And Gregory of
Nyssa, in the (treatise) against Eunomius, sets forth thus: “We do not conceive the Son from the
Father as a ray from the sun, but from an unbegotten sun another sun, shining forth with Him in
the first conception, and in all ways having similarly, in beauty, in power, in radiance, in brightness,
and simply in all things being observed concerning the sun; and we conceive the Holy Spirit (as)
another of this light, in the same manner.”
Paragraph 7: These things having been distinguished thus by the voice of the theologians, we
reasonably respond to all these (analogies), that if this example of the ray and the light is taken
concerning the existence of the Holy Spirit, it is not rejected by the saints, and it would reasonably
be accepted also by us; but since when their purpose is concerning the sending and imparting of the
Spirit to us, this understanding is taken by them as fitting; and especially when (the analogy) is
rejected concerning the existence of the same Person, how shall we embrace that which is rejected
by the saints? So that to put forward such examples, and from these to think to conclude that the
Spirit subsists personally from the Son, is very far from the purpose; but if from two roots one fruit
immediately proceeds, and from two springs one stream immediately flows, and from two suns light
indistinguishably shines forth according to existence, which neither nature easily wishes to fashion,
nor does nature refuse to make, nor does true theology wish to embrace.
Paragraph 8: But it is necessary, he says, to alter the propositions concerning the Father and the
Son, speaking concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit, lest we think either the Father, just as
He immediately begets the Son, thus also to cause to proceed the Paraclete, or the Son to cause Him
to proceed mediately as the Father; for whichever of the things said someone grants, and grants
similarly to the Father the Son to cause the Spirit to proceed, having in no way received an
understanding of alteration, of the procession of the Spirit from both, he would rightly receive the
accusation as introducing two beginnings of the Spirit. Which may it be far from the mouth and
mind of those wishing to be pious. But to us, against these things and according to the sequence of
the discourse, everything seems contrary, but rather according to truth; that if the procession of the
divine Spirit from the Son were undifferentiated from that from the Father, one beginning of the
Spirit would seem (to exist); but since the (procession) from the Father differs from that from the
Son, two beginnings of the Spirit are introduced. For just as a person proceeding according to
existence undifferentiably from one Person alone, has by all means one cause of His own
procession, thus by all necessity that which proceeds differently from two personally, has two causes;

132
and just as the undifferentiated procession from one alone testifies to sameness and simplicity in
themselves, thus also the differentiated procession from the two declares otherness in themselves
and duality. Or what is the necessity, if the Spirit is projected immediately from the Father alone, for
two beginnings of the Spirit to be introduced, but with Him proceeding immediately from the Son,
for one beginning of the Spirit to be considered? And the reverse of these: if from the Son
projecting, two beginnings of the Spirit are introduced, but from the Father causing to proceed
mediately, for one beginning of this to be considered? As Thomas (Aquinas says) in the one
hundredth and thirtieth question of the First (Part) of his Theological (Summa), saying, “The Holy
Spirit is found also to proceed immediately from the Father, insofar as He is from Him”; wherefore
we, avoiding the absurdity on both sides, just as we do not dare to believe that the Spirit begets the
Son personally, lest we believe two causes of the Word, thus we do not dare to glorify the Spirit also
to proceed hypostatically from the Son, lest we glorify two beginnings of the Spirit; for from both
sides diarchy is introduced, and the much-lauded monarchy is driven out of the way. For as if the
Spirit begot the Son hypostatically, He would be a beginning to Him, because of His begetting Him,
thus also the Son, if He projects the Spirit according to existence, by this very projecting Him, He
will by all means be a beginning of the Spirit; and it is absurd for the same to be both caused and
causing towards God, and to be both co-caused and causing; but how is this not absurd? For neither
grandfather and father and grandson (exist) there; how also would the Spirit alone be deprived of
the equality of the co-natured (Persons), (and this) will give place to the Pneumatomachi? Or what is
the reason, that the Father in the case of the generation of the Son does not need the cooperation
of the Spirit, but in the case of the projection of the Spirit the cooperation of Him is needed?
Paragraph 9: But returning to the purpose of the discourse, we indeed, if there were need a
myriad of times, (affirm) that the "from" (ἐκ) is spoken of the Father alone, and the "through" (διά)
of the Son alone, there indeed when the discourse is concerning the procession, here however
especially concerning the bestowing of the Spirit, it is clearly shown, that the Spirit proceeds
personally from the Father alone, but (He) is projected and shines forth and goes forth and
whatever signifies the grace that is given through the Son to us, (this) we show, testifying countless
times to all; and no one of men exists who will be able to demonstrate the opposite of each of
these, I say that neither is the "from" assigned to the Son alone, nor is the "through" applied to the
Father alone, neither does the Spirit proceed personally from the Son, nor is He bestowed through
the Father from the Son; all of which refers to one purpose, and these things constitute dogma; that
concerning the hypostases of the Godhead, the "from" and the projecting of the Spirit is spoken of
the Father alone, but the "through" of the Son, (refers to) the bestowing of this to those who are
worthy.
Paragraph 10: These things being thus, the "through" is not the same as the "from," spoken of
the divine Persons, as it has seemed to some; nor (is it the same as) "from the Father through the
Son," and "from the Father and the Son"; by no means! But as it seems to the saints; adhering to
whose doctrine, with good judgment, let us be stirred up also to imitation of the common Lord of

133
all, and with fervent love. But how does this happen? The blessed Apostle Paul, commanding and
urging all to imitation of God, also says, “Become imitators of God, as beloved children.” Then
again showing that nothing so effects this imitation as living for the common good, and speaking for
what is useful to all, he added, “Walk in love”; and having well said, “Become imitators of me,” he
discourses at length concerning love, showing that this virtue especially makes (one) near to God;
for the other lesser (virtues) are all concerned with men, such as the struggle against desires, the war
concerning the belly, the battle against love of money, the wrestling against anger; but to love, this is
common to us and to God; therefore also Christ said, “Pray for those who mistreat you, so that you
may become like your Father who is in the heavens”; and again the Apostle, “But the end of the
commandment is love from a pure heart and a good conscience”; and again, “I became to the Jews
as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those under the law as under the law, and to the weak as weak, I
have become all things to all, that I might by all means save some”; and elsewhere, “that I might
present every man in Christ.” Do you see a soul surpassing all philosophy? He undertook to present
every man, and as far as it depended on him, he presented all, correcting the fallen, strengthening
the standing, raising up those lying low, healing the broken, anointing the negligent, crying out
fearfully against the enemies, looking sharply upon the adversaries; like a most excellent general,
himself scout, himself attendant, himself commander, himself becoming everything to the army;
and knowing how to fight by land, and knowing how to fight by sea, and to fight on foot, and to
shoot with a bow, and to wield a spear, and to use a sling, and javelins, and to overcome the
adversaries in every way of battle, and making much provision not only for spiritual things, but also
for bodily things. And as if having begotten all his own household, thus he strove, thus he ran, thus
he exerted himself in every way to bring (them) into the kingdom, healing, exhorting, promising,
doctoring; through presence, through letters, through words, through deeds, through disciples,
through himself; and as iron falling into the fire becomes wholly fire, thus also he, ignited by the fire
of love, became wholly love, offering both body and soul and all things for those who are loved;
therefore also he called this fullness and bond of perfection, and mother of the laws, of all good
things, and beginning of virtue, and end; therefore whoever wishes to acquire this alone through
imitation will be deprived of no part of virtue; but as those concerned with wisdom boast Solomon,
those expecting the rewards of patience Job, those admiring Joseph for his prudence, and others
another, whom they consider preeminent by reason of virtue, thus those wishing to acquire love
towards God and neighbor, imitating Christ and Paul themselves, reach to the highest point of love;
for in these two commandments, on which, as Christ says, hang all the law and the prophets, this
saint surpassed all the saints by a great measure.
Paragraph 11: It is said concerning the blessed Meletius, Patriarch of Antioch, that when he
entered the city from the beginning, the Antiochenes receiving (him), each one called his own child
by his name, each one thinking to bring into his own house that holy one through the name; and
mothers running about with fathers, and grandfathers, and ancestors, placed the name of the blessed
one on the children being born; for the desire for the benefit conquered nature, and the children

134
being born afterward (were dear) to those who begot (them), not only from natural affection, but
also from the exceeding disposition towards the name; for they thought the name itself to be both
an adornment of kinship, and security of the house, and salvation to those being called, and
consolation of desire; and just as some sitting in darkness, having lit many lamps from one
inextinguishable lamp, each brings (a lamp) into his own house, thus also from that name, as if light
having fallen into the city, each one lighting as it were a lamp brought (it) into his own house, the
name of that blessed one then, appropriating a treasure of countless good things through the
invocation; and the teaching of reverence was effected; for being continually compelled to
remember that name, and to have that holy one upon the soul, they had the name as a banisher of
every irrational passion, and of improper thoughts; and this became so much, that everywhere, both
in alleyways, and in the marketplace, and in fields, and in roads, they were surrounded on all sides by
that name. But what they did concerning the name, this also they did concerning his image; for
many also engraved that holy image on signet rings, and on drinking cups, and on bowls, and on the
walls of chambers, so that not only hearing that holy name, but also seeing everywhere the image of
his body, they might have twofold the consolation of his absence.
Paragraph 12: Therefore, what one city did concerning him, this all the inhabited world,
conquered by the desire for Paul, ought to do, so that each one continually remembering Paul,
imitates him according to his ability; for man is able to imitate both plants, and animals, and saints,
and God Himself; for concerning plants David says, “The righteous will flourish like a palm tree, he
will grow like a cedar in Lebanon”; for the cedar is imitated for its thickness, its warmth, its light, its
incorruptibility, its fruitfulness, its shade, its strength, its unbending and many roots; but the palm
tree for its height, its fruitfulness, its small part being fixed to the earth, but the whole holding itself
more aloft; for its heart is stretched towards heaven, for its fruit is difficult for beasts and thieves to
seize, because of its height and inaccessibility; for it requires many years both for the bringing forth
of its fruit and for its growth and moreover for its deep roots and height, for its growing to perfect
thickness of the top, for its being stout-hearted, for bearing the fruit not on the ends of the trunks,
but on a firm and middle bed and layer and only bearing fruit upward, and not on the sides and for
providing the whole of it, and all its parts most useful things to men alone of the other plants; thus
the Prophet says plants are imitated. Concerning animals Solomon suggests, “Go to the ant,” saying,
“and learn how it works; emulate the ant, O sluggard,” and what follows; concerning the imitation
of saints, and of God, Paul instructs, “Become imitators of me, as I also (am) of Christ”; and see
the exactness of the discourse; for he did not say become imitators of me to one, but to all; and
“become”; that is, through all of life, and in every way, not in every good.
Paragraph 13: But it is necessary also to consider this, that the imitation of the image is an
impression of the prototype; and this must necessarily be whole; not to be like it in part, and to be
dissimilar in part, but a whole, complete likeness in all things, if it is not to be something composed
of dissimilar things; being enchanted by divine love, it is necessary for us to be entirely through love
towards one another; not sometimes useless, and sometimes useful, or in one part of virtue

135
beneficial, and in another not such; but just as Paul, having the Spirit of God, breathed Christ
entirely, thus also we, imitating both Paul himself, and through him the Savior Christ, should pass
through this age. But how he breathed Christ, hear him writing: “Paul, a called apostle of Jesus
Christ, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called saints, with all who in every place call upon the
name of our Lord Jesus Christ, grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus
Christ. I 1 thank my God always concerning you for the grace of God which was given 2 to you by
Christ Jesus, just as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you, eagerly awaiting the revelation of
our Lord Jesus Christ, who will also confirm you blameless to the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. God
is faithful, by whom you were called into the fellowship of His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord. I appeal
to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ…” 3 Do you see? Not three times, (but) ten
times he mentioned Jesus Christ; but how did he imitate Him? That just as Christ, even if someone
of you wishes to proceed to any good, He becomes a way for him; therefore He says, “I am the
way”; and if (one wishes) to enter into life, (He is) a door; therefore He says, “I am the door”; and if
(one) wishes to be nourished, (He is) bread; therefore He says, “I am the bread which came down
from heaven”; and the other things, so that I may not speak concerning each; thus also Paul,
imitating Him, became all things to all for good; for example, if you wish to see him as a planter,
hear him saying: “I planted, Apollos watered”; do you wish to see him as a wise master builder? “As
a wise master builder I have laid a foundation”; do you wish to see him as a wrestler? “Thus I fight,
not as one who beats the air”; do you wish to see him as a runner? “From Jerusalem and round
about to Illyricum I have fully preached the Gospel”; do you wish to see him as an athlete? “For our
wrestling is not against flesh and blood”; do you wish to see him as a combatant? “I have fought the
good fight”; do you wish to see him as a victor? “Finally, there is laid up for me the crown of
righteousness”; being all these things, imitating his own Master, which indeed I said before; whom
also we must imitate, becoming all good things to all, so that thus being disposed and conducting
ourselves, and living here blameless and blessed, and having departed from here, we may attain
eternal life; which may it be granted to all of us to attain in Christ, to whom (be) the glory with the
Father and the Spirit. Amen.

136
 DISCOURSE XIII. CONCERNING THE TRANSCENDENTAL TRINITY.
Spoken in the renowned Church of the Holy Apostles; containing scriptural usages concerning the
Spirit; and showing that in none of these is the Holy Spirit said to proceed also from the Son.

Paragraph 1: We believe it necessary to know one God, creator of every essence and nature,
both visible and invisible; for not to believe thus is a testimony of either atheism or polytheism; but
we glorify this one God as also having one subsistent Word, consubstantial with Him in all things,
and co-equal in divinity, and co-eternal; for not to glorify thus, to the most originating cause of all
rational nature, is to directly ascribe falsehood; but also (we confess) one Holy Spirit existing in the
one God and subsistently having existence from God, eternally co-existing with the Word; for not to
confess thus is the mindset of those who say that God Himself, and His Word, are deprived of the
Spirit; and this is to us Orthodox, that the one and only God is the Trinity, the Father and the Son
and the Holy Spirit, as each of us confesses in the Symbol of Faith, saying with a clear voice: "I
believe in one God, Father Almighty, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Spirit,
proceeding from the Father." Of these divine and awe-inspiring names, to alter anything at all, or to
add to them, or to take away from them, is beyond all presumption and blasphemy. But being well
persuaded by Dionysius of Areopagus, speaking generally, "it is not to be dared to speak, nor even
to conceive concerning the super-essential Godhead, apart from the divinely revealed (things) to us
from the sacred oracles"; to which indeed adhering also ourselves, we have taught the things shown
by the saints concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit. And let no one think that these
discourses are made for display, or for strife; for both the order of the confession concerning the
Holy Trinity, and the progress of the sequence of the words, and the incitement of the zeal of the
hearers, urge (us) not to prefer any of these; and that I may speak my whole purpose, such is my
preparation and disposition towards the discourses concerning God, that if throughout all the time
of my life you were willing to hear me attentively, I would not have chosen to speak to you
concerning anything else; why so? Because as much as God surpasses His own creations, so much
the discourses concerning Him are more praiseworthy, and more wondrous, and surpass (discourses
about them) by an incomparable measure. Besides these things, it is not unreasonable for us to judge
this also, that if these discourses will not be spoken to the faithful among you in this queen of cities,
which is the summit of the Orthodox Church, and the foundation of both faith and wisdom, where
else will they be spoken? In Egypt, and Palestine, and Damascus? Where scarcely even the bare
name of the Holy Spirit is spoken by anyone? Or in all the cities of Italy, and Britain, and Spain, and
Germany, is it permitted to those theologizing there to say concerning the Holy Spirit whatever they
wish; but is it not permitted to us even once in the time of our life to speak with boldness
concerning Him? Or is it permitted to each simply to believe as he wishes, but to keep silent and
hide the dogma concerning Him, lest he scandalize any of those not thinking the same as him? But
enough of the introductions.

137
 Paragraph 2: But it is necessary henceforth, concerning the Holy Spirit, to distinguish as much as
possible both logically and concisely, so that we may be persuaded by all of Holy Scripture, that
although the name of the Holy Spirit is brought forth countless times in it, it is nowhere found said
that the Spirit possesses existence from the Son. For immediately the Lord in the Gospels says,
“Unless someone is born of water and Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God; that which
is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the 1 Spirit is spirit; do not marvel that I said
to you, ‘It is necessary for you to be born from above’; the Spirit breathes where He wills, and you
hear His voice, but you do not know from where He comes, and where He goes; thus is everyone
who is born of the Spirit”; and again, “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing”; and
again, “The words which I speak to you are Spirit and life”; further, “But an hour is coming, and
now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in Spirit and truth; for the Father also
seeks such 4 to worship Him. God is Spirit, and those 5 worshiping Him must worship in Spirit and
truth.” Further, “He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart will flow rivers
of living water.’” Further, “If you love Me, keep My commandments, and I will ask the Father, and
He will give you another Paraclete, that He may abide with you forever, the Spirit of truth, 6 whom
the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He
abides with you and will be in you.” 7 Further, “These things I have spoken to you while abiding
with you; but the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, 8 He will teach
you all things, and will remind you 9 of all things that I said to you.” Further, “It is to your
advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Paraclete will not come to you; but if I depart,
I will send Him to you.” Further, “When He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all
truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will
10 declare to you the things that are to come.” Further, “When they deliver you up, do not worry
about how or what you should speak; for it will be given to you in that hour what you should speak;
for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in 11 you.” Further,
“Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against
the Spirit will not be forgiven men; and 12 whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be
forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, 13 either in this
age or in the age to 14 come.” Further, “But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, surely the
kingdom of God has come upon you.” Further, “If you then, being evil, know how to give good
gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give the Holy Spirit to
those who ask Him!” 15 Further, “Going therefore, baptize them in the name of the Father and of
the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” And above all, “John indeed baptized you with water, but you will
be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” And these things the Lord has said.
Paragraph 3: However, the angel Gabriel now says to the Mother of God, “The Holy Spirit will
come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you”; and now, “Joseph, son of
David, do not be afraid to take Mary your wife, for that which is begotten in her is of the Holy
Spirit.” But also John the Baptist in the Jordan proclaimed with boldness to the Jews, saying, “I

138
indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I,
whose sandals I am not worthy to carry; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and 1 with fire.”
And again, the same one testified to the same ones, saying, “I have beheld the Spirit descending like
a dove from heaven, and it remained upon Him; and I did not know Him, but He who sent me to
baptize with water, He said to me, ‘Upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining 2 on
Him, this is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’” And 3 again, “For not by measure does the
Father give the Spirit to Him,” speaking concerning the Son. And the Evangelists (write), “And
having been baptized, Jesus went up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were
opened to Him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and coming upon Him”; 4 and
then Jesus was led up into the wilderness by the Spirit; and “Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned
from the Jordan”; “It happened, all the people having been baptized, Jesus also having been baptized
and praying, the heaven was opened, and the Holy Spirit descended, in bodily form like a dove upon
Him.” And this he said concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him were about to receive.
And from this we know that God abides in us, because He has given us of His Spirit. And “This is
He who came by water and blood and Holy Spirit, Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and
blood. And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Christ is the truth. For there are three who
bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. And there
are three that bear 5 witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood.” And “There 6 appeared
to them divided tongues, as of fire, and it sat upon each one of them. And they were all filled with
the Holy Spirit and began to speak 7 with other tongues, as the Spirit gave 8 them utterance.” And
Simon, having seen that through the laying on of the hands of the Apostles the Holy Spirit was
given, offered them money, saying, “Give me this power also, that on whomever I lay hands he may
receive the Holy Spirit.” And the Holy Spirit said to Philip, “Go near and overtake this chariot.”
And, “When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away, and he was
found at Azotus.” And further, “While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all
those who heard the word.” And, “While they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy
Spirit said, ‘Now separate to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.’” 9
And, “So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleucia.” And these things the
Evangelists clearly say.
Paragraph 4: But the most divine Peter indeed in the Acts says to Ananias, “Why has Satan filled
your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit? You have not lied to men but to God.” And to Sapphira, “How
is it that you have agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord?” And in the First Epistle, “If you
are reproached for the name of Christ, blessed are you, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests
upon you.” And the blessed Paul likewise, in the Acts says, “And now, behold, bound in the Spirit, I
am going to Jerusalem, not knowing the things that will happen to me there, except that the Holy
Spirit testifies to me in every city.” And again, “Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among
which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers.” And again, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when
you believed?” Further, “Rightly did the Holy Spirit speak through Isaiah the prophet to our

139
fathers.” And in the Epistle to the Romans, “Designated Son of God in power according to the
Spirit of holiness.” And “The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of
sin and of death.” And “But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God
dwells in you. But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised
Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.”
And “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.” And “The Spirit Himself
bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and fellow heirs with Christ.” And
“Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as
we ought, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. But He
who searches the hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit.” “I tell the truth in Christ, I am not
lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit.” And “For the kingdom of God is
not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.” And “That the
offering of the Gentiles might be acceptable, having been sanctified by the Holy Spirit.” And in the
First Epistle to the Corinthians, “But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit
searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who knows the things of a man except the
spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of
God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God.” And “Or
do you not know that your body is a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?” And
again, “Or do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom
you have from God?” And “And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were
sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.” And
“No one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except by the Holy Spirit.” And “The first man Adam became a
living being; the last Adam became a life-giving Spirit.” And in the Second (Epistle), “Now He who
establishes us with you in Christ and has anointed us is God, who also has sealed us and given the
earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.” And “Clearly you are an epistle of Christ, ministered by us,
written not with ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of
flesh, that is, of the heart.” And “But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.
Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” “But we all, with
unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same
image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord.” And “With much patience, in kindness,
by the Holy Spirit, in sincere love.” And in the Epistle to the Galatians, “This only I want to learn
from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?” And,
“That the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive
the promise of the Spirit through faith.” And “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace,” etc.
And “If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.” And in the Epistle to the Ephesians,
“And He came and preached peace to you who were afar off and to those who were near. For
through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father.” And “And do not grieve the Holy
Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.” And “Endeavoring to keep the

140
unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” And in the Epistle to the Philippians, “In this I rejoice, yes,
and will rejoice. For I know that this will turn out for my deliverance through your prayer and the
supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ.” And, “That you stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving
together for the faith of the Gospel.” And, “For we are the circumcision, who worship God in the
Spirit, rejoice in Christ Jesus.” And in the First Epistle to the Thessalonians, “For our gospel did not
come to you in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit.” “Therefore he who rejects this
does not reject man but God, who has also given us His Holy Spirit.” And in the (First Epistle) to
Timothy, “Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith.” And in
the Second (Epistle) to Titus, “Keep the good deposit entrusted to you, by the Holy Spirit who
dwells in us.” And in the Epistle to the Hebrews, “Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says: ‘Today, if you
will hear His voice.’” And, “For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have
tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good
word of God.” And “The Holy Spirit thus indicating this, that the way into the Holiest of All was
not yet made manifest.” And, “Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be
thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by
which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace?” And these things the
blessed Paul relates in the aforementioned Epistles. And Stephen the proto-martyr in the Acts of the
Apostles, reproaching the Hebrews, says these things: “You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart
and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you.” And the same (Acts) says
these things of the prophet Agabus in the Spirit, “The man to whom this belt belongs,” and the rest.
Paragraph 5: But the things of the Apostles apart from the things kept silent concerning the
Holy Spirit are such, but what are those of the Prophets? For of these David says, “By the word of
the Lord,” he says, “the heavens were established, and all the host of them by the Spirit of His
mouth”; “Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right Spirit within me. Do not cast me
away from Your presence, and do not take Your Holy Spirit from me. Restore to me the joy of Your
salvation, and uphold me with Your generous Spirit”; “You will send forth Your Spirit, they will be
created; and You will renew the face of the earth”; “Where shall I go from Your Spirit? Or where
shall I flee from Your presence? And Your good Spirit will lead me on level ground.” And Isaiah
(says), “Behold My Servant whom I have chosen, My Beloved in whom My soul is well pleased; I
will put My Spirit upon Him.” “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He has anointed Me to
preach the gospel to the poor; He has sent Me”; “A Spirit from the Lord descended and led them”;
“Thus says the Lord, ‘You have done wickedly,’ against Me,” “and covenants,” “and not through My
Spirit”; “But they rebelled and grieved His Holy Spirit; and it was turned to them into enmity.” And
the divine Ezekiel, “A Spirit lifted me up and brought me to the exiles in Chaldea, in the Spirit of
God,” he says; and the eleventh of the Prophets Zechariah says, “And the Lord of hosts sent His
words in His Spirit”; and Micah, “Is the Spirit of the Lord restricted?” and Haggai, “For I am with
you,” says the Lord of hosts, “and My Spirit remains among you.” And in Job it is written, “The
Spirit of the Lord made me, and the breath of the Almighty teaches me”; and in Wisdom, “For in

141
her is a Holy Spirit, intelligent, a reflection of eternal light.” And again, “For Your incorruptible
Spirit is in all things.” And in Judges, “And the Spirit of the Lord came upon him, and he judged
Israel.” “And the Spirit of the Lord came upon Jephthah.” “And the Spirit of the Lord rushed upon
Samson.” And in Numbers, “I will take of the Spirit that is upon you and will put the same upon
them”; “And would that all the Lord’s people were prophets, that the Lord would put His Spirit
upon them!” And in Genesis, “My Spirit shall not strive with these men forever, for they are indeed
flesh.” But until when shall we attempt to number the things beyond number?
Paragraph 6: So that we may remind your love in Christ of the purpose for which these things
have been thus said in order, behold how many times the Holy Spirit is testified to be with God
through all (Scripture), (but) is nowhere found said to proceed from the Son; this (fact) from all of
Holy Scripture, if indeed it is clearly kept silent by all the saints, it is right that this be honored by all
of us in every way with silence; for I consider it equally absurd, believe me, both to give to silence
the dogma proclaimed by God, and to proclaim by us now that which has been kept silent by Him
from eternity. But it is necessary to know this in addition to these things, so that we may not be
carried about hither and thither, that not only the Holy Spirit is called Spirit, but also the whole
Trinity (is called) Spirit, because of its entirely immaterial, and inaccessible, and by nature
incomprehensible nature, and indivisible; and of the lights the Father (is) Spirit, as the Lord says to
the Samaritan woman, “God is Spirit, and those worshiping Him must worship in Spirit and truth.”
And the Son Himself (is) Spirit, as Jeremiah the Prophet clearly says, “The Spirit before our face,
Christ Jesus.” Spirit also (is) the spiritual gift; that is, the grace and power and energy of the Holy
Spirit Himself, as to the Lord of the angels the angel Gabriel said, “The Holy Spirit will come upon
you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you.” And to Joseph the betrothed again the
same one (said) concerning her, “For that which is begotten in her is of the Holy Spirit.” The good
angel also is called Spirit, as David says, “Who makes His angels spirits, and His ministers a flame of
fire.” And the evil angel (is called) Spirit, as the Lord says, “When the unclean spirit goes out of a
man.” And again, “I command you, spirit, mute and deaf.” And the soul of man (is) spirit, according
to which meaning it is written, “You will take away their spirit and they will fail”; and “Lord, into
Your hands I commit my spirit,” that is, my soul. And that which is perceived not by the human
soul, another spirit besides the soul, is called Spirit; according to which we say, the soul is at the same
time both mind and word and spirit. Spirit also (is) the indwelling mind in the divine words;
according to which meaning, in the Old (Testament), the prophet Ezekiel said to those in it, “Make
for yourselves a new heart and a new spirit”; but in those in the New (Testament), the most divine
Paul says, “Let us not serve in the oldness of the letter, but in the newness of the Spirit”; and again,
“Who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit;
for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.” Spirit also (is) that which is united with the soul, the
body; “For who knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him?” Spirit also
(is) the mind, as it is said by the Apostle concerning the virgin, that she is holy both in body and in
spirit. And the wind also (is) spirit, as (it is written), “And God brought a spirit upon the earth, and

142
the water subsided.” And “The Lord roused a great spirit upon the sea.” And in what manner a tree
is shaken in the forest by the spirit.
Paragraph 7: But beyond all the things said, especially and particularly, the Paraclete Himself is
called the Holy Spirit; that is, the very person of the Spirit Himself, which the prefixed article,
whenever it is named, and the addition “the Holy,” distinguishes from the others. Therefore, this
distinction of the meaning of “Spirit” has now been set forth among us, so that both from the
things signified by the word, and from the usages of the divinely inspired Scripture, we may be
persuaded that nowhere is the Spirit found to have existence from the Son. But to those saying that
the Lord, condescending because of His humanity, kept silent from declaring concerning the Holy
Spirit that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from Himself, we say these things, that
those things which the most highly praised Jesus speaks humbly, as many as refer according to His
humanity to His own person, (He does) so that He may not seem to some to seize the glories of the
Godhead, appearing to be a mere man, and not also God; as (for example), “My Father is greater
than I”; as (for example), “The Son can do nothing of Himself, unless He sees the Father doing”; as
(for example), “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor
the Son, but the Father alone”; and as many things similar to these; but as many things as He says in
the Gospels concerning the Person of the Father, or concerning the Person of the Spirit,
theologizing as concerning persons not having been incarnate, He sets forth the pure doctrines of
theology, and does not in any way either twist the words, or speak humbly, or economically keep
silent anything concerning them. For if to the multitudes of the Jews, even though they were
plotting against Him, He did not hesitate to declare concerning the equality of His own Godhead
with the Father, saying, “My Father has been working until now, and I have been working”; and “He
who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father”; and “No one knows the Son except the
Father, nor does anyone know the Father except the Son”; and “I am in the Father, and the Father in
Me”; and “I and the Father are one”; and countless other things similar to these; how to His own
disciples, and especially to those most initiated of all, and these not at the mystical supper, where He
was making His last dispositions, and was handing down the most perfect mysteries, with no one
opposing being present, did He not fully declare the most necessary dogma of all, and what He had
never said before, speaking concerning the Spirit? Then did the Lord, condescending, keep silent
concerning this because of His humanity, but did all the Prophets, and the Apostles, and the
Teachers keep silent concerning this for what reason? Or perhaps they also were condescending?
Paragraph 8: But what also do they suggest to those wishing to be pious in this way? Let them
say from among you only the written things concerning the Holy Spirit; but if something is not
written, let them not be overly curious; the Holy Spirit Himself spoke the Scriptures, and He
Himself said concerning Himself as much as He willed, and as much as we could contain; let them
say as much as He has said, but as much as He has not said, we dare not be overly curious. And
again, for it is necessary for the tradition concerning the life-giving Spirit to remain inviolable, to add
(to it), or to take away (from it), is a manifest falling away from eternal life. And again, it is not to be

143
dared to speak, nor even to conceive concerning the super-essential Godhead, apart from the
divinely revealed things to us from the sacred oracles. Further, “Even if an angel from heaven
should preach a gospel to you other than what you have received, let him be accursed.” And before
all things God Himself, He says, will guard the word which I command you today; you shall not add
to it, nor take away from it.
Paragraph 9: But if indeed some of the Western theologians have said this once, it is necessary
to consider whether it was not said with another purpose, while others understand it differently, and
not according to the intended meaning. For the teacher there says concerning the Father and the
Son, according to which also the Spirit Himself, not only with the Father and the Son, and equally
with the Father and the Son, as most perfect God, proceeds also Himself, not according to personal
procession, that is, but according to His energetic procession He sends Himself, distributes, bestows.
But if we also grant this, that the teacher there places the word concerning the personal procession
of the Spirit, first we say that they wrote thus looking to another meaning; then if he is numbered in
the circle of the saints, he alone would not be able to stand against all; then even if he perhaps dared
this, we would not endure to prefer one (opinion) to all others; nor would we wish to prefer the
writing of one man to all of divinely inspired Scripture; since truth is testified to not by one person,
but rather by countless witnesses; and one swallow does not make spring, that is to say, nor one line
(makes) the geometer (perfect), when it is not simply as the sea (is vast); and these things warning
him who wrote this not to wish to enslave (others) to his writings, as to canonical Scriptures, but in
those (Scriptures) both believe me, and if you find (something) undoubtedly believe it, but what you
did not have as certain, unless you understand (it) as certain, do not wish to hold it firmly; nor let
anyone love me more than the catholic faith.
Paragraph 10: Thus were the holy God-lovers; thus they all in all things renounced their own
(interests), being mindful of that apostolic exhortation of the blessed Paul, saying, “Let no one seek
his own, but each one the things of another, for the common good”; whence also they shone forth
more brightly; for as they wholly dedicated themselves to God, thus also they imparted all their own
things to their neighbors; wherefore not only did they acquire praises for themselves, but also the
Master of all, and they inherited all those things of Him; and very reasonably; for he who has made
his own things the Master's, has not made them his own, but the Master's for him; for when you
nourish (another), consider yourself to be nourishing (yourself); for such is the nature of the matter;
the things being given pass from us to us. For example, the one having two tunics, let him give one
of these to the one not having, and the one having food to those not having, as it seemed (good) to
the Forerunner; but the one possessing the dignity of a teacher will not limit his mercy even to
kindness concerning external things, but he will proceed to deeper things; and he will cause the
rational flocks to lie down in a place of green pasture, and he will nourish them by the water of rest;
and the one who has wandered from his own homeland, he will gladly lead back to his own dwelling;
and the one stripped of his paternal inheritance he will clothe again; the one weak in faith he will call

144
back to the desired health, and the one imprisoned in the darkness of ignorance, he will take care to
lead forth to the light of the life in Christ.
Paragraph 11: For great is the difference also in the purpose of almsgiving, as also in the nature
of the matter, as it seems to the holy Fathers. For someone makes almsgiving because his land might
be blessed, and God preserves it; another makes (almsgiving) because his children might be guarded,
and God guards his children; another makes (almsgiving) so that he might be glorified, and God
glorifies him; and God does not reject anyone, but gives to each what he wishes to provide for
himself, when his soul is not harmed; but all these receive their reward; for behold, they have laid up
(treasure) for themselves with God; since also the purpose which they proposed was not for the
benefit of the soul. Did you do (it) so that your land might be blessed? God blessed your land; did
you do (it) so that your ship might be preserved? God preserved it; did you do (it) so that you might
be glorified? God glorified you; what then does God owe you? For He gave you the reward for
which you did (it). Further also another makes almsgiving so that he might escape punishment;
behold this one does (it) for the sake of the soul; this one does (it) according to God; but not yet as
God wills; for he still asks in the servile condemnation, and God delivers him from it. Another
makes almsgiving so that he might receive a reward; this (is) higher than the first ones, but not even
this (is) yet as God wills, because in the mercenary rank the one doing this is found. But another
(gives) thus for the sake of the good itself, as if he himself were receiving; thus healing, as if he
himself were being healed; and this is almsgiving in knowledge.
Paragraph 12: But no one can reasonably say that “I am poor and I do not have from where to
show mercy”; for even if you are not able to give as the rich, give two mites, and God accepts them
from you, beyond the gifts of those. Do you not even have this? But you have strength, and you are
able to show mercy to the weak through service. Are you not even able to do this? You are able to
comfort your brother with a word; I suppose. Do you not even say (that) you are able to show
mercy? You are able, if your brother is provoked against you, to show mercy to him, and to sustain
him in the time of his disturbance, seeing him being harmed by the common enemy, and instead of
saying a word to him, and further disturbing him, to keep silent, and to show mercy to his soul; and
if you do not have from where to show mercy to the body, you show mercy to his soul; and what
mercy (is) so great, as the mercy to the soul? For as the soul is more precious than the body, so also
the mercy being done to the soul is greater than that being done to the body. So no one can
reasonably say, that “I am not able to show mercy”; each one is able according to his strength, if
only each one is zealous to do good, to do (it) with knowledge, and to do almsgiving and hospitality
thus, doing all things for himself, so that through the work he himself may be wholly sanctified; so
even if you give to a poor person, do not disdain to give with your own (hand); for you do not give
to the poor person, but to Christ; and who is so wretched as to disdain himself, extending his hand
to Christ? How many servants did Abraham possess? How many maidservants did Sarah have, but
they themselves performed every service with surpassing zeal; and they themselves ran even to the
labor concerning the oxen, and she herself kneading (dough), and performing every service most

145
diligently, thus she refreshed the strangers as (if they were) sent from the face of God; thus also she
was deemed worthy to receive God Himself.
Paragraph 13: In doing good, it is necessary to show both with words and with character and
with the very deeds, that the one doing good does not do good, but rather receives good; he
increases his own (possessions), he does not spend (them), and he himself is benefited, he does not
benefit. For as the one thinking he is being harmed risks nothing, thus the one considering he is
receiving good multiplies what is given. The givers are physicians of our wounds; not thus does a
physician by extending (his) hands, and applying medicines, heal the wounds, as the one extending
(his) hand (to receive), and receiving from us, cuts away the multitude of our sins. So you receive
more than you give; you benefit more than you are benefited; you increase wealth, you do not
diminish (it); you lend to God, you do not give away; you sow into heaven, not into human earth,
where neither moth, nor rust, nor anything is able to corrupt what is sown. Two (things) corrupt this
seed, stinginess and vainglory; the one sowing sparingly, (Scripture) says, will also reap sparingly; and
the one sowing with blessings, will also reap with blessings. And when you are doing almsgiving, let
not your left (hand) know what your right (hand) does; so that vainglory may not scatter the fruit of
almsgiving. For this reason God has given you the necessities, first indeed so that before death
coming from without, you may not endure death coming from within without hope; then so that
you may not murmur against the Creator Himself, because having brought you from non-being into
being He does not in any way provide for you; for this reason He also gives you so many
superfluities, more than the necessities, which it is not even easy to number, so that by imparting
everything that is superfluous to you to those not having, you may find it multiplied many times
over, and unfailing for you in the age to come. Therefore, while we have authority over our
possessions, let us send them ahead to where we are about to return after a short time; while we are
able let us gather oil and lay (it) up, while we still have (the ability) selling these (earthly goods), (let
us care for) the hungry, the thirsty, the strangers, the naked, the oppressed, those in prisons; some
nourish, others give drink, these bring in (to your home), those clothe, others visit, others comfort,
serve all those coming to you in every way; and do not even thus consider that you are doing
something great.
Paragraph 14: But rather when you do both almsgiving as is necessary, and the remaining virtues,
have this knowledge, to do these by choice, in practicing these more, becoming more humble,
beholding your own soul; but if not, believe that what is being done is not virtue; for the one being
humble in mind is not so much lifted up by the things accomplished, as he is humbled by the things
lacking, being concerned how the proposed (goal) might be accomplished; not being turned towards
self-exaltation; but extending himself to the things before (him), and forgetting the things behind;
and one ought to be so much more humble in mind, as he seems to be greater; and the one not
holding himself in truth as a sinner is deceived. For as the one being proud does not recognize his
own shortcomings, so neither (does) the one being humble in mind (recognize) his own good
(deeds); for ignorance covers the one, a base (ignorance), but the other (is covered) by God-pleasing

146
(humility); and always by humility the one ascending to virtue becomes lower in his own mind, but
higher apart from it; and as much as one is led down into true humility, so much is he led up into
progress; and the opposite is evident. So the one seeking human glory for the things he does, having
received the reward he sought falls away from the true (reward), becoming less than human glory,
and through this he misses the true (reward). Understanding does not exist for the one not having
humility, and the one not having humility will not be wise; this is especially the one knowing himself,
the one not considering himself to be anything; and to consider oneself righteous is a fullness of
evils. Humility even without works forgives many transgressions; but these (works) without it have
destroyed those undertaking (them). But do you boast greatly, that being rich you provide
beneficence? If you have gathered these things from injustice, what do you boast (about) scattering
what belongs to others? But if (you gathered them) from your own sweat and labors, you are
ungrateful to the One having granted these things to you; glorify the One leading you to this;
consider what you yourself are, and whose (are) the things being given. Further, concerning those
(who say) that it is not sufficient to give almsgiving for acceptance, but (it must be given) when one
gives readily, when willingly, when from justice, when looking towards vainglory, the fruit is lost,
which also necessarily happens concerning all virtues. Great is the power of almsgiving, especially
when it happens with knowledge; “Blessed is the one understanding concerning the poor and
needy,” says the blessed (David); and this is the one understanding what poverty is, the one
perceiving his affliction; for the one perceiving the affliction of the poor will quickly have
compassion on him and will not overlook (him); for he will quickly consider what he himself would
be, if he himself were the one encountering this poverty; and whatever he would wish to be done to
himself thus disposed, he strives to do all these things (to the poor person); considering this, he
strives to heal that one as (he would) himself. But so that we may not weary your ears by prolonging
what is being said, receive here the end of the discourse; knowing from the very things themselves,
that without love no one has obtained salvation, and (that) love without almsgiving is impossible; let
us acquire both while we live, so that we also may find mercy from Christ; to Whom (be) the glory
with His Father Himself and with the Spirit; may it be.

147
 DISCOURSE XIV. CONCERNING THE TRANSCENDENTAL TRINITY.
I say that also all the Scriptural (passages), as many as some think to be strong against us, refer to
one purpose, to make clear the natural union of the Paraclete with the Son. And this has also been
said by the Choir of the divine Apostles.

Paragraph 1: Concerning the super-essential Trinity, the Spirit is contemplated both as hypostasis
and as energy; for it is neither essence by itself without hypostasis, nor hypostasis without energy,
nor energy separate from essence. And the saying of the wise teachers, that the Spirit is proper to
the Father and the Son, has one and the same purpose for all; for the Holy Spirit who speaks in
them is one; and that they may demonstrate Him to be consubstantial and co-honored with the
Father and the Son, all their zeal is directed to this very thing. And all the Scriptural passages, which
some consider, or even perhaps put forward as strong arguments against us, such as what the most
divine Paul says in the eighth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, "If anyone does not have the
Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him"; and what is in the same place, "For whom God
foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son"; and what is in the fourth
chapter to the Galatians, "And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into
our hearts, crying, 'Abba! Father!'"; and that in the second Epistle to the Thessalonians, "Whom the
Lord Jesus will consume with the Spirit of His mouth"; and "how often He went about and healed
all," which in the sixth chapter of the Gospel according to Luke, Luke says; and "But if I cast out
demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you," which the Lord says
in the eleventh chapter of the same; and "All Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine"; and "All things
that the Father has are Mine"; and "I and the Father are one"; and "I am in the Father, and the
Father is in Me"; and "He breathed on them and said to the disciples, 'Receive the Holy Spirit'"; and
"He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you"; and "whom I will send
to you from the Father," which are contained in the Gospel according to John. For all these refer to
one purpose, to demonstrate the consubstantiality of the Paraclete with the Son, and the equality
and sameness of essence and energy which He has with God; and this is evident from those
passages.
Paragraph 2: Concerning that passage, "Whom I will send to you from the Father," the divine
Chrysostom says, in his discourse on the Spirit, "If you hear the Savior saying, 'I will send to you the
Holy Spirit,' do not understand it as referring to the Godhead, for God is not sent. These are names
signifying the energy." And the blessed Augustine, in the fifteenth book on the Trinity, says, "To be
sent, among the divine Persons, does not befit every Person, but only Him who is from another," he
says, "but to send follows every Person." And the divine Anastasius, in the discourse entitled
"Concerning the Orthodox Dogmas of the Church Among Us," says, "But that the Holy Spirit is
sent, no one should suppose that He is therefore considered inferior to the Father and the Son in
essence; for He is sent not as a servant, but as consubstantial, and as co-honored and co-essential."
Then, if the Holy Spirit, being from the invisible realm, sends the Son, is He not necessarily the

148
cause of the Son for this reason? And will the Son, sending the Spirit, necessarily be the cause of the
Spirit? But let no one think that the Son is said to have been sent by the Spirit only as man; for He
was not first made man, and then sent by the Spirit, but before becoming incarnate, being alone
God, He was sent from heaven to us by the Father and by the Spirit. Concerning that passage,
"Whom I will send to you from the Father," these things having been said are sufficient.
Paragraph 3: Concerning the passage, "He will take of what is Mine," in three homilies,
Chrysostom, the glory of the Church, says thus: "In saying, 'He will take of what is Mine,' that is,
the things which I said, these He also will say; from what I have seen, from My knowledge; for the
knowledge of the Spirit and of Me is one; for He will speak of My things. 'All things that the Father
has are Mine'; since then those things are Mine, and He will speak of the things of the Father, He
will speak of My things. But 'He will take of what is Mine' either refers to the grace of the One who
came into My flesh; or because from the knowledge which I have, not as being in need, nor as
learning from another, but as having one and the same knowledge." And again, "Pay attention to the
accuracy; He did not say 'from My things,' but 'of what is Mine'; He will receive from what the Giver
has bestowed upon Me, the One who came and remained in Me, the One who anointed Me, the
One who sanctified Me." The divine Cyril also, in the Thesauri, concerning the matter at hand, says,
"For the Son, in saying that 'He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you,' does not indicate a
difference of nature between Himself and the Spirit, but that He will use His own words, because
of the sameness of essence, and altogether co-essential, co-operative, and co-eternal; as indeed it
would be fitting for the saints to say that this belongs to Christ. But in the passage to Hermias, as if
one were speaking of the scattering of the fragrance of the most precious flowers, and filling the
senses of those around with it, he would say, 'He will take of what is Mine,' signifying the natural
likeness, even if you were to conceive of the things as not partaking of the same essence, and
somehow divided, both in the Son and in the Spirit." Furthermore, how could "He will take" be the
same in the Son, as "to proceed" in the Spirit, if indeed the one refers to future time, and to us, "for
He will declare to you," but the existence of the Holy Spirit is neither in time, nor for us? So that
"He will take" refers to the teaching, not the existence; the word, not the being. And "He will
declare" shows the understanding of the word. But if the purpose of the Savior was also concerning
the existence of the Spirit, not even thus would they have been able to clearly demonstrate that He is
from Him, when He clearly indicates the Father by the article, as being the cause of the Spirit. And
let these things have been said in passing concerning "He will take of what is Mine."
Paragraph 4: But let those things concerning the breathing be said in due season, that even
concerning this the golden tongue discourses thus: "But if anyone should err, and even then be
brought to the truth, saying that He has a certain spiritual power and grace, so as to forgive sins;
therefore He also added, 'Whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven them,' showing what kind of
benefaction He gives; for the grace of the Spirit is ineffable, and the gift is manifold; but this
happens so that you may learn that the gift and the authority are one in the Father and the Son and
the Holy Spirit." The Great Basil also, in the Chapters to Amphilochius, renewing man, says, "The

149
Lord, having lost the grace from the breath of God, gives this again, breathing on the face of the
disciples, what does He say? 'Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven
them; whose sins you retain, they are retained.'" Moreover, this breathing is carnal, and the divine
Augustine, in his book on the Trinity, and Cyril of Alexandria, in his discourse to the Queens, show
this; the one saying, "For neither is that bodily breathing, which is perceived by the senses in a bodily
way, the essence of the Holy Spirit"; and the other, "Why then does He give the Spirit through a
carnal breathing?" Indeed, it is utterly absurd, and beyond blasphemy, to say that the Holy Spirit is a
body.
Paragraph 5: But concerning the passages "I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me," and "I
and the Father are one," it is necessary to understand that they are said similarly to what the Holy
Spirit also would say the same words; "I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me; the whole Father
is in the whole of Me, and the whole of Me is in the whole of the Father, and I and the Father are
one"; that is, not in divinity, in essence, in nature, in form, in appearance, in power, in authority; or
whatever one would be pleased to call it; but not in number; for this is contrary to Sabellius. And if
anyone is troubled even by the name alone, let him neither say nor think the same things as
Sabellius; for if the Father and the Son are one in number, then that one is manifestly driven out.
And the divine Gregory the Theologian says, "For when you say 'one,' you gather together the
separated things; for the words of the one speaking gather together more than the one speaking."
But if this is not so, they must be asked, "In what do you here understand this 'one,' as said of the
hypostases, or of the nature?" If indeed of the hypostases of the Father and the Son, the hypostasis
of the Father and the Son will be one; but if of the common nature alone, then the Father and the
Son and the Spirit are one. For if the Son, because He is with the Father, also personally proceeds
from the Father, because the Spirit also is with them, then the Spirit also, after the Father and the
Son, proceeds also from Himself personally; but it is absurd for the same Spirit both personally and
causally to be both at the same time and to be the cause of Himself. From which absurdities in the
discourse arise, and He Himself, and all things from Him, are absurd. For if to bring forth the Spirit
belongs to the natural properties, it is not only necessary that the same also proceeds from Himself,
but indeed also from Himself, because there is no difference in essence among the Three; but since
it is personal, it is not necessary because of the sameness of nature and essence, that the Son also be
a producer of the Spirit; for the Son does not have a personal identity with the Father, just as neither
does the Holy Spirit, but only according to essence.
Paragraph 6: But concerning "All Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine," and "All things that the
Father has are Mine," the divine teachers, interpreting these passages, say that the Son has those
things which are fitting to God or befitting God, not so that He Himself may also bring forth the
Spirit, and be a producer; for Athanasius, the much-suffering, explains, in order to pass over others
in silence, concerning this expressly, "Not of created things," the Savior said, "that all things that the
Father has are Mine, but whatever belongs to the Godhead of the Father, these same the Lord
possesses as His own. But the Father has to create, to fashion, to be almighty, to be immutable, and

150
such things." Moreover, if indeed the Son alone had all things of the Father, and the Spirit was
deprived of all these things, the dogma of some who imagine that the Father brings forth the Spirit
from Himself would not have a place, and the Son alone has all things of the Father, and
consequently He also brings forth the Holy Spirit; but if whatever belongs to the Father and the
Son, the theological discourse ascribes these things communally and equally also to the Holy Spirit,
and these things common to the Father and the Son are also common to the Spirit, and all things
that the Father has and is, the Son also has and is, and the Holy Spirit also has and is, except for the
unbegottenness and the begottenness; and all things of the Father are His own in the Spirit, except
for the unbegottenness; and all things of the Spirit are His own, except for the begottenness,
according to what seems good to all the saints; how could the Son, without the Spirit, have the
procession of the Spirit, since all things of the Father are His, and His own are the Father's?
Paragraph 7: But concerning the passage, "But if I cast out demons by the finger of God," the
divine Cyril, interpreting it, in the book of the Thesauri, sets it forth thus: "The finger here," he says,
"is the Holy Spirit, in a way an emanation of the divine essence, and naturally hanging from it, just as
the finger of the hand is from the human hand. For the Scriptures have called the Son the arm and
the right hand of God, according to the saying, 'His right hand has established it, and His holy arm';
for the arm is naturally joined to the whole body, performing all things whatsoever the mind may
direct, and the hand is usually employed for this purpose by the finger. Thus we consider the Word
of God as from Him, and naturally fitted to Him, so to speak, and implanted in Him; but the Spirit,
naturally and essentially proceeding from the Father through the Son, sanctifies all things, anointing
them. Therefore, the Holy Spirit is not seen as alien or separated from the divine nature, but from it,
and naturally in it. Just as also the finger of the body in the hand, being of the same nature with it,
and the hand again in the body, is not different in essence as compared to it. But in the spiritual
worship," he writes, "for just as in us, the Lord of all, God, for our instruction, uses, as it were, a
pen, the Son, in the Spirit," for thus He named Him through David, saying, "My tongue is the pen
of a ready writer"; for He has engraved in the hearts of all, the all-good instruction of the Father,
the pen, that is, the Son, using the all-wise good, as with a certain finger of God, both the Father's
and His own Spirit. And in the interpretation of the Gospel according to Luke, "The finger of
God," He says, "is the Holy Spirit, for the hand and the arm are named thus of God the Father; for
He works all things through Him; and the Son likewise works in the Spirit; just as the finger, being
attached to the hand, is not alien to it, but naturally in it, so also the Holy Spirit, by reason of
consubstantiality, is said to be united to the Son, even though He proceeds from God the Father."
That these things are said for the demonstration of consubstantiality, the theologian Gregory also
showed in his discourse on the Holy Spirit, saying, "The finger," he said, "is spoken of the Holy
Spirit, for the emphasis on consubstantiality"; and thus these things are so.
Paragraph 8: But concerning the passage, "And power went out from Him and healed them all,"
the teachers of the Church, explaining it, say, "We understand it as referring to Christ, not as moving
from place to place; for power is from Christ, given, that is, and distributed to others, and

151
undiminished remaining in Christ. Just as also teachings, while they are with the teachers, are also
imparted to the disciples. For indeed, the Prophets did not have powers going out from themselves,
for by the grace of God they performed miracles; but Jesus, being the source of all good and all
power, has many powers going out from Him. But if the Holy Spirit is He, and the Lord has many
powers going out from the Spirit, and the Paraclete also distributes these powers; and this power is
also distributed to others; how then do you here suppose it to be the Holy Spirit Himself ? Since also
the name of power is common to the Trinity; for the Father also is power, as the Lord says, 'You will
see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power'; and the Son likewise; for Christ is the power
of God and the wisdom of God, as the Apostle says; but the Spirit also is power; for the Lord says
to the Apostles, 'Until you are clothed with power from on high'; and this whole Holy Trinity is
called one power, just as one Godhead, and one form. If indeed these things are true, how is it just
to suppose for this reason that the Spirit personally proceeds from the Son, because it is said once
for all that a healing and wonder-working power goes out from Him? For the divine Cyril says,
explaining this passage, "For Christ did not borrow power from another, but being Himself by
nature God, when He became flesh, sending forth power upon the sick, He healed them all." And in
the interpretation of the Gospel according to Luke, in the ninth anathema, he discourses thus: "The
only-begotten Word of God having become man, remained thus God, possessing all things that also
the Father has, differing only in being Father, and having as His own the Spirit essentially proceeding
from Him, as the God of all, He wrought the divine signs; but it has been said that whatever the
Father and the Son are, the Holy Spirit also is, except only in being Father and Son, and whatever
shows the identity of these with the Father and the Son."
Paragraph 9: But concerning the passage, "Whom the Lord Jesus will consume with the Spirit of
His mouth," it intends to signify the Lord's command, not the very Person of the Holy Spirit. For
the divine Chrysostom says, explaining this passage thus: "Just as fire, coming simply, consumes the
small creatures, and those who are far off before its presence, it makes them numb and consumes
them, so also Christ (for His command alone and His presence suffice; let Him be present, and all
these things are destroyed) will destroy ungodliness, having only appeared."
Paragraph 10: But concerning the passage, "And because you are sons, God has sent forth the
Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying, 'Abba! Father!'" if anyone says, as the name of the Spirit is
of necessity among the relative terms, and those which thus indicate relation, as being referred to
the one who breathes, just as the Son to His own Father, since for this reason He is also called the
Spirit of the Son, because He has His hypostasis from Him, as from the one who breathes Him
forth, this is not a true statement. And this is evident from this: that as many of the names in the
Trinity as are spoken relatively, or referentially, or as related to each other, those are common to the
Three; but the name of the Spirit, above those of the three Persons, as it is more comprehensive
and more participatory in the utterance, is not only the Paraclete who has obtained the appellation
of the Spirit, but also the Father Himself, and the Word distinctly; and moreover, the whole Trinity
especially, as being more comprehensive and more participatory in the expression. But that we name

152
the Spirit differently from the Father or the Son, and differently the Paraclete, the Great Basil says in
the third book Against Eunomius: "For this alone is common to the Father and the Son, the name
of holiness, but also the very appellation of the Spirit." If then the Spirit is of the relative terms,
and is referred to the one who breathes as to a cause, of whose breathing is the whole Trinity, or the
Father alone the Spirit? And to whom is He referred as to a cause? Moreover, if the breathing is a
mode of the Spirit's existence, just as the procession is believed by all, since the Spirit also breathes
Himself, will He therefore personally proceed, or altogether another Person? "For the Spirit," says
Gregory the Theologian, "breathes where He wills, and gives, and as much as He wills." And the
Great Basil in the fourth book Against Eunomius says, "The Spirit of holiness, the cause of
freedom, the Godhead breathing where it wills." The so-called breathing in the Spirit does not
signify a mode of existence, but rather a provision, and a transmission upon the creatures.
Moreover, the name of the Spirit signifies the bodiless and purely immaterial and undivided; for the
same says in the ninth book To Amphilochius: "The Holy Spirit is His proper and distinctive name,
which indeed especially of every bodiless and purely immaterial and undivided being is the name";
therefore the Lord, directing the soul to worship God in spirit, teaching that the incorporeal is
incomprehensible, says, "God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in Spirit and in
truth." But if these things have this manner, and the incorporeal, or immaterial, or undivided, is not
ranked among the relative terms, nor is it referential, it is evident that neither is the Spirit such.
Therefore, not even with such a designation of the relative terms, nor in any way, nor rightly, could it
be said that the Spirit is from the Son, because He is called the Spirit of the Son; since because of
the sameness of essence, this has been rightly said by the saints.
Paragraph 11: But concerning the passage, "Whom God foreknew, He also predestined to be
conformed to the image of His Son," if the Son is said to be the image of the Father, it is not right
to turn the argument around, so as to say that the Father is also the image of the Son, for the
argument would not have any place whatsoever. But if indeed the Son is said to be the image of the
Father, and the Father is also said to be the image of the Son, what is the necessity of not saying
that the Son is also likewise the image of the Spirit? But when this is so, either the Spirit is not from
the Son, being called His image, or also the Son is from Him. And lest also the Father be from the
Word, being His image, as it seems good to many. But that the Father is also the image of the Son,
Cyril of Alexandria testifies, interpreting the passage, "I and the Father are one," saying, "For if
indeed the Father is toward the Son, how will the Son not partake equally with the Father, being an
unchangeable image, having become from an unchangeable image of the Father?" And the Great
Basil, in the first book Against Eunomius, says, "The image is not soulless, but a living image, or
rather, being very life, not in a similarity of form, but in the very essence, always preserving the
unchangeable; for this reason He is said to be radiance, so that we may understand the conjoined,
and character of the hypostasis, so that we may learn the consubstantiality." And Gregory the
Theologian says, "But the Son is the image of the Father as consubstantial; for such is the nature of
simple beings, not in being like in some things and unlike in others, but in being a whole type of the

153
whole, and more the same than a likeness; because indeed in the case of others, the name of the
image gives the idea of some similarity, but in the case of the divine Persons, not simply similarity,
but according to the unchangeable; for the Son is a perfect image of the Father, and the Spirit of the
Son; and a perfect image is unchangeable likeness; and this is identity according to essence, which is
equally in the Father and the Son and the Spirit; therefore not of necessity because of the name of
the image, is the Son also the cause of the Spirit; for anyone partaking of reason could indeed
suggest the opposite."
Paragraph 12: This also is intended by the passage, "If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ,
he does not belong to Him." For the great Basil says, in the eleventh and thirteenth of the Questions
to Amphilochius, "But He is also called the Spirit of Christ, as being appropriated according to
nature, to Him." And again, understanding the Spirit's appropriation to the Father, because He
proceeds from the Father, and to the Son, because He is appropriated, "If anyone does not have the
Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him"; so that the appropriation of the Spirit Paraclete to the
Father is both according to cause and according to essence, but the appropriation to the Son is only
according to essence, not according to cause. Just as therefore the Son's appropriation to the Father
is both according to cause and at the same time according to essence, but to the Spirit it is only
according to essence, and not also according to cause, as the Teacher here says. And the divine Cyril,
in the Thesauri, "But Paul again directly calls the Spirit Christ, saying, 'If Christ is in us,' showing
Him not to be alien to us by reason of nature"; and again, "And Christ and the Spirit are in the
same, as Christ dwells in us through the Spirit"; and writing to John of Antioch, "The Holy Spirit,"
He says, "proceeds from God and the Father, according to the Savior's voice, and is not alien to the
Son, according to the word of essence"; and again, "But the Spirit is proper to the Son, as being
called consubstantial." And the divine Anastasius, in the sixth question of the Synodical Epistles,
says, "He calls the Holy Spirit, in a way always partaken of by the holy Apostles, but by the Savior
Christ and our God, as consubstantial and co-divine"; therefore He is called both the Spirit of the
Son, and the Spirit of Christ, reasonably for these very reasons He is called the Spirit of Christ, and
the Spirit of the Son; for having such a union with Him, as to be all in all of Him, and He in Him,
and at the same time having existence from His Person, not being separated from Him in place, nor
in time, nor in essence, nor in dignity, nor in power, nor in will, nor in energy, He would reasonably
be called His, even if He did not personally proceed from Him. What then prevented the teachers
who interpreted this passage from saying, "He is called the Spirit of the Son, as having existence
from the Son"? And "He understands the Spirit's appropriation to the Son, because He also
proceeds from Him according to hypostasis"? And "Paul calls the Spirit Christ, as proceeding from
the Word"? And "Is He not alien to the Son, both according to the word of essence, and according
to the word of cause"? And "Is the Spirit proper to the Son, as being brought forth from Him"?
What prevented them from saying these things? It is evident to all, even if no one trying to show
this should attempt it; that being heralds of the truth themselves, they did not admit into their minds
what is contrary to the truth. But what has been received and glorified by them, how could they

154
themselves first undertake to glorify what is contrary to it to those who are striving to be orthodox
throughout the whole world? So that all the Scriptural passages, that we may turn to the
interpretation of the Word, refer to one purpose, to demonstrate the consubstantiality which the
Spirit has with the Father and the Son, not to prove the Son to be the cause of the Spirit.
Paragraph 13: But if someone should say in response to these things, "Since the Spirit is likewise
sent to men by the Father and the Son, and the provision of the Spirit towards us is essential, it is
necessary that whence He has the sending, thence He also has the procession, that is, the existence
of His own hypostasis," we say to him in reply, that the sending of the Word to us also was essential,
and moreover personal, but this temporal sending of the Son to us is a timeless generation from the
Father, and the Son was not begotten by us before the ages, or because He was created; but beyond
cause and reason, from the Father alone; and the Holy Spirit likewise, we believe, proceeded and
timelessly before the ages from the Father alone, and was sent to us with cause from the Father and
the Son, and is essentially imparted to us all, and according to hypostasis is His own, even though we
partake least of the essence and the hypostasis, but of His grace; and this divine grace is equally
common to the Father and the Son and the Spirit. Therefore Gregory the Theologian says, "And
this is common and equally shared, and is proper to the whole Godhead, for the whole is wholly
partaken of by each of those who partake, and by no one in any part; just as a center in the middle
of a circle, by all the radii situated in the circle; and just as the many impressions of a seal partake of
the archetypal seal, and in each of the impressions, the whole seal is present, and in no one part by
part." And these things indeed he says commonly concerning the Trinity; but the luminaries of
Alexandria, Athanasius, and after him Cyril, concerning the Father, say, "Through the Spirit He
works all things," and "These things are provided by the Word"; therefore also the things given by
the Son in the Spirit, are gifts of the Father; and the participation would rightly and properly be said
to be through the Father by the Son in the Spirit; just as indeed we partake of the sun through the
ray proceeding from it, which is without heat, or bears the image of the Spirit's energy. And the
Great Basil, concerning the Son, says, "The good things from God," He says, "come to us through
the Son, with greater speed, each one benefiting, than word could express; for there are neither
turnings, nor light in the air, nor swift courses, nor quick movements of the eyes, nor in our own
mind are the movements, but each of the benefits in speed is less than the swiftness, or than the
slowest of the animals among us, I would not say of birds, or of the courses of the stars, but it is
surpassed in movement by our very mind." Concerning the Holy Spirit, He says, "The Holy Spirit,"
He says, "is simple in essence, varied in powers, of which those who partake enjoy, as much as they
are naturally capable, not as much as He is able."
Paragraph 14: Since therefore this argument is equally affirmed of all beings, that it is not as
much as the divine power works toward us, but as much as each of us is naturally capable of
enjoying its energies, let us, having put an end to the present discourse and exhortation, who desire
to attain to His kingdom, while we have time, fear the Lord, let us humble ourselves, let us cleanse
ourselves in soul and body, let us be chaste, let us have mercy on ourselves, through our good deeds

155
towards the poor; and especially now in the time of fasting; for sins are cleansed by alms and
prayers; and almsgiving combined with fasting delivers man from death. Since indeed mention has
been made of fasting and almsgiving, let us consider how the ancient and the new [covenant] teach
us to practice them. "Neither if you bend your neck like a ring, and spread sackcloth and ashes
under you, will you thus be called an acceptable fast," says the Lord; "but loose every bond of
injustice, dissolve the knots of violent agreements, send forth the broken in release, and tear asunder
every unjust writing; share your bread with the hungry, and bring the homeless poor into your
house; if you see the naked, clothe him, and do not despise those of your own seed; then your light
will break forth early, and your healings will spring up speedily; and your righteousness shall go
before you, and the glory of God shall surround you; then you will call, and God will hear you;
while you are still speaking, I will say, 'Behold, I am here'; if you take away from yourself the bond,
and the laying on of hands, and the word of murmuring, and give your bread to the hungry from
your soul, and satisfy the afflicted soul, then your light will dawn in the darkness, and your darkness
will be as noonday, and God will be with you always."
Paragraph 15: How then should we fast and show mercy? For what benefit is it to emaciate
oneself with hunger, and to make the unjustly treated poor cry out against us to the Lord, instead of
refreshing oneself moderately, and usefully caring for them? For fasting truly is not only to weaken
oneself, but also to give the portion of the expense which one was about to consume, to the sick, or
to the orphan, or to the widow, only for God's sake. We are taught not to kill the body, but to
subdue it; to abstain from luxury, not from food, from indulgence, knowing that the extremes of
both sides are equally harmful, both the excess of fasting, and the fullness of the belly; both the
immoderacy of sleeplessness, and the excess of sleep, and the other excesses. Therefore, the royal
way leading us teaches us to avoid immoderacy; for moderation is virtue, but every excess is vice, or
deficiency. For in the same way that the body is burdened by an abundance of food, and makes the
mind sluggish and inactive, so also by excessive abstinence, it makes the contemplative part of the
soul weak and unphilosophical. Therefore, one must adapt to the movements and indulgences of
the body, so that when it is healthy, it may be disciplined appropriately, and when it is ailing, it may
be nourished moderately; for luxury and food are also a kind of dissipation; because the bodies of
men, being continually burdened with excess, easily become submerged by illnesses, but possessing
moderation and sufficient nourishment, have escaped the impending evil of disease, like the uprising
of a storm, and have avoided the already present one, like the incursion of a certain cave. And just
as continuous cloudiness does not allow the rays of the sun to shine upon the earth, so the vapors
rising from luxury, having enveloped the brain as a kind of fog, and having formed a dense cloud
there, do not allow the rational part of the soul to extend to the vision of beings, keeping the
luxurious and dissolute in great darkness; and just as a ship, receiving a multitude of cargo greater
than its proper measure, becomes submerged, being weighed down by the greatness of the burden,
so also the soul, and the nature of our body, receiving more food than its proper capacity, becomes
overwhelmed, and bearing the weight of the imposed things, is plunged into the sea of destruction,

156
and loses both sailors and helmsman and prow and passengers, and the cargo itself with all of them.
And just as when a flood occurs, and the water overflows the doors of the workshops, we see the
inhabitants all in commotion, and casks, and amphorae, and vessels, and many other things they
devise, in order to bail out the water, lest it rot even the foundations, and make all the things
themselves useless, so also the soul, when it is overwhelmed by much luxury, its thoughts are in
commotion, and it gives birth to a multitude of passions. And just as on the pupil of the eyes, if it
has thick tunics placed from without, it no longer has the power to see clearly, and to gaze purely at
the radiance of the light, so also the body, when it is continually fattened, it is very likely that the
soul is surrounded by fatness.
Paragraph 16: The body needs nourishment, not luxury; the body has need of being fed, not of
being cut off and wasted away; for not only to the soul, but also to the very body being nourished, is
luxury an enemy; for it becomes weaker instead of strong, softer instead of firm, and prone to
disease instead of healthy, and heavier instead of light, and thinner instead of dense, and ugly
instead of beautiful, and more foul-smelling instead of fragrant, and impure instead of pure, and
painful instead of relaxed, and useless instead of useful, and old instead of new, and rotten instead
of strong, and slow instead of swift, and lame instead of whole. But if the body is thus destroyed,
how is the soul disposed when indulging in luxury? For of necessity it also partakes of the
corruption; of how many disturbances, of how many waves, of how much turmoil will it be full?
Therefore it becomes useless for everything, and neither to speak, nor to hear, nor to be willing, nor
to do what is necessary, will it be able to move easily. All the rivers flow into the sea, and the sea is
not filled; and all the food is thrown into the belly, and it is not satisfied; for the belly and the sea are
truly the same; for both are insatiably greedy for the things poured into them; the one indeed by
digestion, but the other by saltiness, consuming what enters, and again craving other food, and never
closing what is open; nor do they soothe the thirsty with the continuous and unceasing flow of evil.
Since therefore neither can the body be purified, I mean spiritual purification, without fasting and
sleeplessness, nor can the soul without mercy and truth, let us, fasting these forty holy days, not let
any of them pass by without sharing with those in need. Nothing is so able to produce the beauty of
fasting, as the practice of almsgiving; if you are everywhere looked up to and rich and famous, both
living and after death, it is because you share the good things you have. Tell me, for what purpose do
you run so many years and keep vigil and toil and gather gold? Is it not that you may be glorious and
admired and envied? This is evident to all, and you yourself will not deny it; if indeed you truly wish
this to happen, what you were about to spend on friends and neighbors, and the great ones around
the king, so as to run for the attainment of a glorious dignity, spend it on the brethren of Christ,
and they becoming most ready intercessors for you, will persuade Him immediately to grant you the
kingdom of heaven; for what you provide for each poor person, He Himself confesses to receive,
and for fuller assurance, He has made a written pledge to you; for he who has mercy on the poor
lends to God; and what you provide in the hand of the poor, you will receive in the palm of the
righteous. Therefore, according to my opinion, let us pre-deposit all our wealth, so that when we

157
depart hence, we may find an inexhaustible treasure in Christ, to whom be glory and worship unto
the endless ages. Amen.

158
 DISCOURSE XV. CONCERNING THE TRANSCENDENTAL TRINITY.
Spoken in the Assembly of the holy Apostles themselves; concluding clearly, that also all the
theologians, through the utterance "from the Father and the Son," bear witness to the identity of
nature of the Father and the Son with the Spirit, not the existence of His own hypostasis.

Paragraph 1: Because by nature every discourse is weak and unstable, not having freedom
because of the opposing discourse, and especially that concerning God, by so much the more, as the
subject matter is greater, and the zeal is more, and the danger is more difficult; what shall we fear,
what shall we be bold to say? Now, to speak, or to hear? Are we not shaken by these three dangers?
For indeed to conceive is difficult, and to interpret is impossible, and to attain to a purified hearing is
more laborious, the one named and quick-witted in theology has declared, and every Christian agrees
with this; but that the one who is guided only by the holy dogmas, and who uses only their words in
speaking, is unacceptable to all, no one will deny. Therefore also I myself, concerning the orthodox
dogmas of the Church, agree and bear witness to the holy ones in all things, and not least in these
things, I also agree concerning the Spirit, and I advise the willing in this way brotherly, as the
discourse now present will attempt to show, that all the theologians in every way through the
utterance "from the Father and the Son," and similar utterances, wish to show the identity of nature,
which the Spirit has towards the Father and the Son, and do not endeavor to demonstrate that He
has the existence of His own hypostasis. But that this is true, is evident from all indeed, but
especially also from these things, which seem to have some use against us.
Paragraph 2: For immediately Cyprian Epiphanius, in the discourse called "Ancoratus," says:
"The Holy Spirit is neither co-brother, nor cousin, but from the same essence as the Father and the
Son; for He Himself," he says, "is the Only-Begotten, the Spirit of the Father, and the One
proceeding from the Father; and 'He will take of what is Mine.'" And again, "For just as no one has
seen the Father except the Son, nor the Son except the Father, so I dare to say, neither the Spirit
except the Father, from whom He proceeds, and the Son receives; nor the Son and the Father,
except the Holy Spirit, the truly glorifying One, the One teaching all things, who proceeds from the
Father, and is in the Son, that is, according to the word of essence." And again, "Both dwell in the
righteous man, Christ and His Spirit; but if Christ is begotten from the Father, God from God, and
the Spirit is from Christ, or from both, as Christ says, 'Who proceeds from the Father,' and 'He will
take of what is Mine,' lest He be thought alien to the Father, nor to the Son." Do you see how the
teacher himself interprets himself ? Lest the Spirit be thought alien to the Father, nor to the Son, he
says that Christ said, "He will take of what is Mine"; and this is from the essence of the Father and
the Son, and therefore He is and is called the Spirit of Christ, and from both, for the same reason,
not indeed because He proceeds from the Son?
Paragraph 3: Cyril of Alexandria also sets forth in the Thesauri: "When therefore the Holy
Spirit, having come into us, shows us conformed to God, and proceeds from the Father and the
Son, it is evident that He is of the divine essence, essentially in it and from it proceeding; just as

159
indeed even the breath going out from a human mouth, even if small, is not unworthy of the
example; for God is all-perfect." Observe that the teacher here places "proceeding" not of the
hypostatic procession of the Spirit, that is, "proceeds," but of the energizing; for when he says
"having come into us, He shows us conformed to God," and afterwards also for the demonstration
of consubstantiality, he added, "it is evident that He is of the divine essence, essentially in it and
from it proceeding." And again in the same place, "Since the Son is life by nature, and the Spirit
gives life, being provided by Him, it is necessary therefore that He exists from the essence of the
Son of God, having all His power and energy; just as if also vapor ascending from water, signifies
the nature of those sending it forth." In the same place the same again says, "Having received the
Spirit not as alien and separated, but as from Him, and in Him, and proper to Him"; but let not this
"from Him," and "in Him," and "proper to Him," disturb you; since all the reference is to the
essential; that is, essentially from Him, and essentially in Him, and essentially proper to Him; and the
inscription also of the Chapters, and the conclusion, say not that He is from the Son, but that the
Spirit is not alien to the divine nature. But if we dare to say that the Spirit is proper to the Son
according to hypostasis, will He not also be proper to the Father? For what is proper to one, for the
same to be proper to another is unacceptable; as Paternity, being proper to the Father, it is
impossible to be proper also to the Son, and Sonship, being proper to the Son, it is impossible to be
proper to the Spirit; and simply this is so in the case of every personal property. But in the case of
those things specifically called proper, what is common is also specifically proper, and each of the
persons under the same species is called proper to a person; but he says proper personally, except
appellatively, not didactically. Likewise also in the spiritual worship, "The turning," he says, "which
the Spirit is," or which the turning signifies, "we refer to the divine nature, which is in God the
Father, and also in the Son, the essentially from both, that is, the Spirit proceeding from the Father
through the Son." Observe that the wise hearer understands the specification, that he does not
simply, greatly, nor unqualifiedly say the Spirit is from both, but here he adds the essentially, that is,
of the same essence of both; and he explains this by saying, "that is, the Spirit proceeding from the
Father through the Son." And in the exposition on the Prophet Joel, "God," He says, "the Son,
being begotten from God by nature, from Him is the Spirit," just as indeed it is also understood in
God the Father; do you hear? That is, not as the Son is the Word of God, but as bringing forth, or
simply causative, but as God, from Him is the Spirit; that is, because of the identity of natures,
which is piously understood by us equally in the Father and the Son; but this being silently passed
over as clear, that as from a cause the Spirit is said to be from the Son, while expressly confessing
that it is only because of the consubstantiality, and thus it is said to be from Him; for none of the
persons in the Holy Trinity is said to be alien to another; since the name God is common to the
Three; for when the Father is said to be God, He possessed this also by the Son, and the Spirit;
when indeed the Son is said to be God, the Spirit proceeding from Him possesses this, if this should
be absolutely conceded; for it would also belong to the Paraclete. For He also is God in the same
way as the Son. Therefore He does not here show the "from Him" as referring to a cause, but rather

160
to the consubstantiality of the Spirit with Him. But if someone is troubled by the saying, "as indeed
it is also understood in God the Father," listen to him explaining himself, and cease from this
anxiety. For being asked whose property the Holy Spirit seems to be, whether indeed of the Father
alone, or also of the Son? Or also partly of each? He says, "Of both, as He is from the Father
through the Son, because of the identity of the essence." And in the discourse to King Theodosius,
"Baptizing," He said, "Jesus not with fire and the Holy Spirit, as if the Spirit were alien to those
being baptized, indecently and subserviently, but as God by nature with the highest authority, as
from Him and proper to Him"; lest this "proper" trouble anyone, the same one explaining the same
passage, and interpreting the same utterance, says, "But the Spirit is proper to the Word also; for He
is consubstantial with the Father, and this proper to Him is His own, as being related by nature, as
not alien, as not externally belonging to Him." Do you see how variously and accurately he
enumerated the reasons, by which the Holy Spirit is said to be proper to the Son, setting forth in
order, that He is related by nature, that He is not alien, that He is not externally belonging to Him?
But if indeed He proceeds also from the Son, what prevents him, then, from adding to the things
said most clearly, and for the demonstration of consubstantiality, and for the confirmation of the
Spirit's cause, what is most readily available, and to say freely, "But the Spirit is proper to the Word,
because He also proceeds from Him according to hypostasis"? Moreover, the same says in the
Gospel according to John, "The Son, existing essentially as a partaker of the natural good things of
God the Father, has the Spirit in this way, in which also the Father would be conceived; and not at
all, nor from without," for it is foolish, or rather insane, to think thus; "but just as each of us has his
own spirit within himself, and brings it forth from his innermost parts to the outside." Do you
understand exactly what the teacher says? He says, "The Son, existing essentially as a partaker of the
natural good things of the Father," but not of the hypostatic, nor hypostatically.
Paragraph 4: But concerning the use itself, and things similar to this, the divine Maximus also
took care to apologize, looking to what purpose these things have been set forth by the wise one.
For he says in the letter to Marinus the Presbyter of Cyprus, which he also announced in other
[writings], "And in the first place, I have adduced harmonious uses, of the Roman Fathers, and of
Cyril of Alexandria, from the treatise composed by him, on the Holy John the Evangelist, from
which, making the Son the cause of the procession of the Holy Spirit, they have shown themselves;
for they say that the Father is the one cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one according to
generation, and the other according to procession; but in order that they may show the property of
the Son, and thereby demonstrate the connection of the essence, and the unchangeable," and very
reasonably so; for how could he, falling into contradiction with himself, who writes in the Thesauri,
"Since the Holy Spirit existing in Christ, discourses all things in Him to the disciples; just as in us the
mind is both essentially and energetically; and essentially indeed the mind is in Him, but not from
Him, but energetically both is in Him and from Him; so also the Holy Spirit, is in Christ as God,
both essentially and energetically; but according to essence and hypostasis He is in Him, but not
from Him; but according to energy, He both is in Him, and is from Him."

161
 Paragraph 5: This very thing is intended in all respects, both by Gregory the Wonderworker, and
by the one of Nyssa, and by the wise Chrysostom; by the one saying, "The unbegottenness is proper
to the Father, but the begottenness to the Son from the Father, and the procession of the Spirit
from the essence of the Father through the Son eternally"; and by the one writing, "The Only-
begotten Son is named from the Father by the Holy Scripture, and up to this point the discourse
preserves His property"; "but the Holy Spirit, both is said to be from the Father, and is testified to
be of the Son"; and by the one asserting, "Christ came to us, He gave us the Spirit from Himself,
and assumed our body."
Paragraph 6: The great Athanasius also says in the [letters] to Serapion, "For the Son being from
the Living [One], He says, there is one perfect and complete, loving, illuminating, and life-giving
energy and gift in Him, which is said to proceed from the Father, since in the Son this, being
acknowledged as from the Father, shines forth and is sent and given. For this reason, He says, the
Holy Spirit is said to proceed from the Father, since in the Son this, being begotten from the Father,
is sent and provided to us. And reasonably so; for if this were not promised to us by the Son, and
given, whence should we arrive at the knowledge of Him? But He Himself," they say, "the much-
suffering light-bearer, in the Confession of his own Faith, speaks thus concerning the Spirit: 'The
Spirit is from the Father and from the Son, not made, not created, not begotten, but proceeding.'
This first indeed I would rightly omit, since nowhere else have I found it written, 'Spirit from the
Father and the Son,' but 'Spirit from the Father,' not made, not created, not begotten, but
proceeding; and much is being premised for the inquiry concerning this." Secondly, how does not
this great light-bearer himself fall into contradiction with himself, now indeed saying elsewhere,
"The Father alone is unbegotten, and the only source of Godhead," but now here introducing also
the Son as a source of Godhead? And then it is also unreasonable to judge that those great books
did not arrive to us from there, but were transferred from here to there; and therefore it is not right
for what is among us to follow theirs, but for what is among them to be judged by ours, as also
seems good to the divine Augustine, saying, "Just as the faith of the old books is tested by
comparison with the Hebrew texts, so the trustworthiness of the new [books] seeks the agreement
of the Greek books." Again in the same [words] to Serapion, this holy one says, "The Spirit having
such a nature and order towards the Son, as the Son has towards the Father, how can you, saying this
to be a creature, not of necessity also assert the same concerning the Son?" Shall we accept this as it
is written, or according to what is fitting for this usage? For if according to the greater emphasis of
the utterance, as it is heard, the Spirit will be the Son; but if according to a certain fitting meaning,
there will be nothing absurd. What then does this usage signify? Let us consider. Since the
Pneumatomachoi, concerning the essence and the order, said that the Spirit is inferior to the Son,
against these the holy one opposing, testifies that He is not inferior both in essence and in order; in
essence indeed He is not inferior, because thus He is consubstantial with the Son, as the Son is
consubstantial with the Father; but in order He is not inferior, since indeed according to the order
the Spirit is equal to the Son, just as the Son Himself, according to the order, is equal to the Father.

162
But the same again in the Third [book] Against the Arians says, "He connects the Word with the
Father, but rather the Spirit receives this from the Word." To this it is possible to say, that Basil the
Great also agrees with this, both in the [books] Against Eunomius, and in the Canonical Epistle,
now indeed saying, "As the Son is towards the Father, so also the Spirit towards the Son"; now
indeed, "The Holy Spirit also, being uniquely proclaimed, is united through the Son with the Father,
and completes in Himself the much-praised and blessed Trinity"; but now, "Nor is the Holy Spirit
before the Only-begotten; for there is nothing between the Son and the Father."
Paragraph 7: But since we differ from each other concerning these things, of the differing parts,
the opposing part of them accepts judgment concerning the matter about which they differ, let us
call a chosen and righteous judge, and whatever he decides, let us all abide by, and not contradict
each other rashly. But who would be a just judge to examine these usages? He himself before all
would justly judge these preeminently, the holy one, who both read some, and wrote others; what
then does he say, both concerning those who came after him, and explaining himself ? Does he say
that the Son is from the Father, and the Spirit from the Son, and that there is nothing between the
Father and the Son, and that the Spirit is connected with the Father through the Son, and such
things? In the [book] Against Eustathius he says, "We must flee," he says, "the sequence of names
which the Lord has delivered to us, perverting [them], as openly fighting against the pious faith, and
some indeed placing the Son before the Father, and others placing the Holy Spirit before [the Son]";
and in the Canonical Epistle, "The Holy Spirit is numbered with the Father and the Son, because He
is above creation; but He is placed third, as we have been taught in the Gospels by the Lord saying,
'Going forth, baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.' But
he who places the Son before [the Father], or says [Him to be] older than the Father, this one
opposes indeed the divine ordinance, and is alien to the healthy faith, not preserving the manner of
glorification which he received, but devising for himself a new-fangled way, or seeking the approval
of men." Do you hear? Because of the sequence, he says, the order, and the "being from," and the
"nothing being between the Father and the Son," and the "through the Son being connected, the
Spirit with the Father," and such things, because of the confession, because of the glorification,
because of the initiation, [they are] placed in the middle by the Son; and he introduces as a witness
to the Word, Christ Himself. But if he himself says thus in the second [book] Against Eunomius,
"There is no beginning to the Father, but the Father is the beginning to the Son, and there is nothing
between them"; but explaining himself immediately, he says that this is said concerning cause and
interval. And generally, indeed, it is handed down from above that the Son is named after the Father,
and the Spirit after the Son, lest also the Spirit be thought to be the Son of the Father, and the Son
again Himself to be the Father of the Spirit, the confession being thus uttered, Father, Spirit, Son.
Paragraph 8: For the sake of brevity, I will say this more broadly, that when we wish to speak
through language concerning the Son and the Spirit, how indeed both are from the Father, and at
the same time proceeded, if before the Son the Spirit is connected and attached to the Father, the
Son would immediately receive the Holy Spirit; for the name Father introduces the Son into the

163
mind; and proceeding again and placing the Son after the Spirit, we necessarily conceive the Father
to be made by the Spirit; for the Son is Father's Son, and will connect the Father in the mind,
however it may be said, and especially the one said before Him unceasingly. Therefore the Son being
theologically spoken of as close to the Father, and being guarded as Only-begotten to Himself, and
not being hindered from being by procession from the Father, [neither is] the Holy Spirit, as
Gregory of Nyssa has explained in the [letter] to Ablabius; and indeed the Spirit being placed after
the Son, also prevents the Son from being thought of as begotten at the same time, and gives the
assurance that He is not unbegotten. And otherwise indeed it is most true both to conceive and to
believe, that the first-begotten of us knew God the Father, and the Father [knew] God; and after
Him the Son was manifested to the world, having appeared to us through the flesh and lived and
conversed with us; and after the Son's ascension, the Holy Spirit visited us, being sent indeed by the
Son, as neither opposed, nor contrary, temporally, and towards some, and with cause; but being
brought forth from the Father both with cause, and not temporally, nor towards some, but simply to
all and absolutely, as being co-divine, and co-glorified, and having the same cause with the Son; and
coming from Himself, as Lord and independent. And there is yet a third reason, why the Spirit is
ranked after the Son, because after the madness of some against the Son was condemned, being
abundantly demonstrated, and the equality of honor and consubstantiality of the Son towards the
Father was most surely established, the war against the Holy Spirit was openly declared; therefore all
the discourse of the theologians is not concerning the order of existence, but concerning the
consubstantiality of the Spirit towards the Son; and all their zeal hastens towards this, and the
purpose looks to this, to show the Spirit to be consubstantial with the Father; believing truly, as
indeed it is right and is shown, that this being shown, no one will dare afterwards not to glorify the
Spirit, equal to the Father and the Son. And there is yet a fourth and fifth reason besides these, why
the Holy Spirit is said after the Father and the Son; and these are, both the procession of the
goodness of God, proceeding from the Father through the Son in the Spirit to us, and the
procession and appropriation of our nature, advancing through the Spirit towards the Son, and
proceeding from the Son towards the Father. And besides the reasons stated, a sixth, lest there be
disorder and confusion concerning the names of the Holy Trinity. For these reasons the Son is said
to be connected with the Spirit to the Father, not in nature, nor in place, nor in time, being separated
from Him.
Paragraph 9: Gregory of Nyssa's saying also holds this same meaning, which he says in the
[book] Against Eunomius; and the passage has thus: "And the same discourse for us is also
concerning the Holy Spirit, having the difference only in the order; for as the Son is connected with
the Father, and having the 'being from Him' does not exceed according to existence, so again also
the Only-begotten is held by the Holy Spirit, being preconceived only in thought according to the
word of cause of the Spirit's hypostasis; but temporal extensions have no place in the pre-eternal
life." But attention must be given to what is said; "For as," he says, "the Son is connected with the
Father, and there is not between them even the smallest instant of time to conceive of, so also the

164
Holy Spirit is held by the Only-begotten"; that is, no temporal extension falls between them, if
indeed according to the word of cause the Son is pre-conceived of the Spirit, not according to the
word of cause which the Son has towards the Holy Spirit, but according to the word of cause of
His own hypostasis in the Father, as He exists by being begotten from the Father; just as also the
Spirit would be pre-conceived of the Son's hypostasis, by the word of His own cause, which is the
proceeding and being brought forth from the Father, not by the word of cause, which He has
towards the Son. For whoever hears "Father," immediately conceives of the Son; and whoever hears
"One and Bringer-forth," then also the Holy Spirit comes into the mind; and whoever hears
"Bringer-forth," immediately conceives of Him as Bringer-forth; and whoever hears "Father," then
also the Son comes into the mind; and by this word the cause both of the Spirit, and the cause of
the Spirit, is pre-conceived in the Son; therefore for the confirmation of this cause the holy one has
expressly stated, "And the same discourse for us is also concerning the Holy Spirit, having the
difference only in the order"; saying that the difference of order is this, of the Spirit, towards the
one always towards the Father, as Father, and the Spirit towards the Bringer-forth only as Bringer-
forth is understood; lest indeed the Spirit [be said to be] from the Father, or the Father from the
Son, or the Son again towards the Bringer-forth, or Bringer-forth, lest there be disorder concerning
the Trinity, the only and αρχή and source of all order. And this which is added is clearly to be
considered, that not simply in thought, but in thought only, he said, the Son is pre-conceived of the
Holy Spirit; but if he thought that the Spirit personally proceeds from the Son, and the Son is
opposed to the Spirit, he would not have added "in thought only," but rather by hypostasis this is
pre-conceived of the Spirit. Then he says that the Holy Spirit is held by the Son, that is, He is at the
same time with the Son from the Father existing, but not from Him proceeding.
Paragraph 10: Besides the things said, it is also to be added, that both in all things, and always,
for the demonstration of consubstantiality, the argument from the cause of hypostasis is more
readily available for proof than that said according to cause; what, for example, do I say? If
someone wished to show concerning a coin, that it belongs to a certain person, instead of simply
saying, that it is of the same essence with him, it is more ready for proof, and more readily received
by all, to clearly affirm, that from him it has received its own hypostasis; but that this proof is
weaker and less compelling, the converse testifies; for if something exists according to hypostasis, it
is necessarily in all ways also related to the essence; but if this is so, not necessarily also the former.
For Solomon, having existence from David according to hypostasis, is necessarily also related to his
kindred Father according to essence; but David, being consubstantial with Solomon, and we [being]
from them, how is it that [Solomon's existence] is from Solomon according to hypostasis? This
being known by all, and thus being the case, why ever against the Pneumatomachoi the holy ones
opposing both synodically and individually for a thousand years, and endeavoring to demonstrate the
consubstantiality of the Spirit, which He has towards the Son, having said this alone and been freed
from troubles, do they nowhere appear saying, that the Spirit also has existence from the Son? Or is
He for this reason consubstantial with the Father and the Son, because He personally, or according

165
to His own hypostasis, proceeds from the Son and the Father? Or is it clear to all those somehow
able to understand, that what they do not know they have kept silent about? So that from all the
things said it is possible to discern the purpose of the sacred teachers, which indeed is the same for
all; for desiring to teach men in many ways that the Holy Spirit is consubstantial and co-divine with
the Father and the Son, they have set forth these and such things.
Paragraph 11: But what is the supposed opposition of those speaking from the earth to these
things? "Just as God," they say, "does not signify a person, nor the one sending, so neither the one
bringing forth"; therefore to bring forth, is not personal; but if it is not personal, it is attributed to
two persons. But that these things are false, is evident; for the Lord says concerning God, "For God
so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not
perish but have eternal life.” And again, "For God sent His only begotten Son into the world, that
the world through Him might be saved." And again, "If God were your Father, you would love Me;
for I proceeded forth and came from God." But indeed also concerning the one sending the same
[says], "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name"; and now, "The
One who sent Me is true, and I what I have heard from Him, these things I speak to the world"; and
now, "But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you." Concerning the one bringing forth,
the Fathers of the Ecumenical Synods, both in decrees and in letters, have most clearly delivered to
all to believe and have handed down, concerning the Holy Spirit as proceeding from the Father.
Paragraph 12: In a more comprehensive discourse, it is possible to say this, that both "God," and
"the one sending," and "the cause," and "the one causing," and simply every name spoken
indefinitely of two or three persons, does not signify a person; but being said with a specification, it
clearly shows that specified person. "The one bringing forth," and "the one bringing forward," and
"the one proceeding," and "the thing brought forth," wherever it is found in Scripture, is found
theologically; as the one with a specification, "Unbegotten and Bringer-forth"; as the property of the
Father, "To bring forth"; as, "Who proceeds from the Father"; and whatever is similar to these; but
the specified are all mixed up with the unspecified. Then, these things being so, does someone dare
to assert that "the one bringing forth" signifies a person, and "to bring forth" is not personal? And
all confess the Father to be bringing forth; therefore the Father is not one person, but two persons,
the Father Himself and the Son. Again, if "to bring forth" is not personal, it will necessarily be
either natural, or energetic. But if indeed natural, of the hypostases from the Father, only the First
has a person, and the others not persons, but only nature; but if energetic concerning the bringing
forth, then the Spirit is an effect. Again, if "to bring forth" is not personal, this will be proper to the
Father, not indeed to the Son, but common to the two persons; but all things common to the Father
and the Son, are all common also to the Spirit; therefore both the Father and the Son and the Spirit
are one Bringer-forth.
Paragraph 13: So many absurdities being gathered from this proposition, I have often wondered
about this myself, and now I am perplexed, how, of so many holy ones, fighting with noble words
and varied oppositions against the Italian conclusion concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit,

166
one of those ranked among us now first utters a strange sophism, thinking to conclude something
great against our doctrine, immediately forgetting all those things, becomes wholly of this! And just
as fluttering birds, just having flown from the nest, so he, shaken from the faith, is carried by every
wind! How does this absurdity happen? From little faith, and from hunting after words, and
philosophizing, and contending, and from seeming to be considered wise by all, and to know alone
things deep and unattainable by the many. Do you wish, O man, to be truly pleasing to God? Stand
unswervingly in the dogmas of the faith, steadfast, firm, unswerving; but if you now indeed hold
this, and now prefer that of the many, you are not far from demonic delusion. And this must be
observed not only in dogmas, but also in all the Lord's commandments; knowing that as long as
each of us lives, he is master of his own choice; but choice, existing freely, implants in our nature
both doctrines, and good and evil thoughts, as it wishes. Rather, the earth of our labor is nature, and
the husbandman is choice, and the Divine Scriptures are counselors and teachers, teaching our
husbandman what weeds of wickedness to root out, and what virtues to implant; that is, faith in
unbelief, hope in hopelessness, love in hatred, and knowledge in ignorance, diligence in negligence,
and glory and praise in ingloriousness, immortality in mortality, and Godhead in humanity.
Paragraph 14: If our nature is clay, and our choice is the potter, then it is not up to us to fashion
from the same clay a vessel of honor or dishonor, worthy of preservation or destruction. Since the
choice is more sovereign than the essence, this rather than that makes a man more of a man; for
neither does the essence cast into birth, nor does it lead into the kingdom itself, but the choice
[does]. Nature does not insult whom choice does not insult, nor does nature destroy whom choice
does not destroy; and the opposite of this [is also true], neither does nature honor whom choice
condemns; nor is nature able to save whom choice destroys. The advantages of nature depict to the
Creator the ambition rather than the possessor of these the virtue. But what the choice has rightly
achieved, both glorifies the Creator, and shows the creature of God worthy of the Creator's
creation. Great is the power of choice! For choice is able to bring to God what even non-being, not
being, could not bring near to Him; and another choice being sluggish for fifty years in fulfilling
[this] and for this we are condemned, because the one able to will, is able also not to will; in the
willing and the not willing lies the all of saving the one willing; but I say willing in deed; will is what
cooperates and prevents towards being saved; have you willed something good? Do it; are you not
able? If you do not try, you will have much recompense, only will the good; for there is nothing else
to do, than the good itself.
Paragraph 15: Because God reckons the actions of each according to the intentions. "For the
Lord," He says, "searches the heart." And just as the becoming evil, is contained in the merely
intending alone, and the thought has often sufficed for the completion of wickedness, so also the
becoming good lies in the willing, and has become the occasion of salvation to many. But for
indecent thoughts not to come upon us is not up to us, but having come not to remain, is up to us;
but to yield to these having come, [is] of our sluggishness; but even to bring the suggestions of the
thoughts to action, [is] of our extreme negligence. Someone conceived evil, agreed with the

167
thoughts, brought it forth through the lips, and was carried away to the deed; these are the four great
elements of destruction. For every absurd action is born from absurd thoughts; but thoughts [arise]
either from sensation, or from preconception, or from nature, or from demons. But there are eight
comprehensive thoughts, which produce all evils; the first [is] of gluttony; the second of fornication;
the third of love of money; the fourth of anger; the fifth of sorrow; the sixth of listlessness; the
seventh of vainglory; and the eighth of pride. For all these thoughts to trouble us indeed, as we have
said, or not, is not in our power; but to remain in us, or to move a passion, or not to move, [is] in
our power.
Paragraph 16: But one thing is suggestion, and another combination, and another struggle, and
another consent, and another captivity, and another passion, and another the energy of passion. And
suggestion indeed is, the simple remembrance made by the enemy; as, do this, or this; as in the case
of Christ and our God, "If you are the Son of God, command that these stones become loaves";
this, as has been said, is not in our power. But combination is the acceptance of the suggested
thought by the enemy, and as it were, the meditation and conversation with it, by our choice. But
struggle is the resistance, for the removal of the thought, which incites to passion, or to consent
itself, as the Apostle says, "The flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and
these are opposed to each other." But consent is the inclination and assent of the thought to the
passion. But captivity is the unceasing adherence of the heart to the passion; and passion is the long-
term impression of the soul, the continuous and long-term meditation of the passion and phantasy.
But the energy of passion is the very action or absurdity. Gluttony indeed is removed by
temperance; but fornication by divine faith, and the desire for future things; but love of money by
compassion towards the needy; but anger by goodness, and love towards all; but worldly sorrow by
spiritual joy; but listlessness by patience and perseverance; but vainglory by the multitude of virtues'
workings, and continual prayer; but cursed pride by not judging anyone, nor despising, and
considering oneself less than all. The man being freed from these aforementioned passions,
henceforth lives a blessed life, receiving the earnest of the Spirit.
Paragraph 17: But that some indeed of men are lost by evil thoughts, and others are saved, both
you yourselves agree, and the very facts bear witness to me; and not least, those especially who have
experienced these things, ascetics; and this is evident from this. For it is said in their writings, that a
brother came to Abba Nilus, dwelling on the holy peak of Sinai alone, and says to him, "What shall I
do, Abba, for the thoughts, as if from a spring, gush into my heart? If I fast, hunger weakens me; if
I keep vigil, sleep consumes me; and when I endure hunger, [I endure] thirst; and I wish to escape
the thoughts of the demons, and grief comes upon me; I am enraged as a king, and I am as a
captive and a slave to desires; I weep soberly, and I laugh foolishly; I fight against the thoughts, and I
am not strong enough to overcome them; and some say to me, that the evil thoughts harm; others
say, that the thoughts are what destroy the monks; and with these things forgetfulness has
overwhelmed me; what then shall I do? How shall I be saved?" The elder says to him, "The
householder is not profited at all, gathering and throwing things into the house, when the thieves

168
and robbers dwell within; but when he scourges the thieves, and drives away the robbers, then he
loses nothing. You have made the house of your soul and the body a four-gated [place], and the
doors of the mind and the reason and of the body have been lifted up; and the windows of the
senses are open; and passers-by, and thieves, and robbers, and dung-carriers, and whatever they may
find, or what pleases them, take; for there is no one who contradicts, or prevents them; for every
house without a door, and without windows, becomes a storehouse of dung; and you know that
where dung and stench, worms and corruption are, and unclean reptiles dwell, no sensible man can
dwell; and reptiles eating dung dwell there, pigs and birds, serpents and scorpions and lizards. But
you, go, cleanse the house, carrying out the dung; and then make it beautiful, sprinkle clean water;
and having closed the door, fasten the windows, and then incense the house; and putting the key, set
a table; and light a lamp; and calling the priests, invite them, that having come they may consecrate
the house for you by prayer; and then set a house-guardian; and when the house-guardian dwells in
it, then put in it whatever you wish, gold and silver, and clothing and food, and you will lose nothing.
Yes, indeed, you must also acquire a perimeter wall, and set a gatekeeper, lest according to custom
the thieves and robbers and dung-carriers coming forth, fill the stench before the door." The house
is the body, the householder the soul, the house-guardian the mind, the door the mouth, the
windows the senses, the key the tongue opening and closing, the passers-by the demons, the robbers
gluttony and carnal rest, the thieves vainglory and pride, the dung and stench the evil thoughts and
the vile intentions, the reptiles and beasts the passions and the sins; the one carrying out and
cleansing the stench is the denunciation; the water sprinkling and watering the plants is the reading;
but the lamp is the conscience, teaching all things profitable, and preventing all vile things; but the
table, the heart; but the food the passing psalms; but the incense the fear of God; but gold and silver
and clothing the virtues; the priests the one receiving the thoughts; the perimeter wall the pure
attention. For as the good thoughts profit the soul, so the evil thoughts harm it.
Paragraph 18: Answering readily to the one asking these things, that house of wisdom showed
how one driving away the evil thoughts is driven away; by whom everyone wishing to be saved being
persuaded, has earnestly endeavored to acquire good deeds; and knowing that the mind bearing a
thought does not cease, he immediately cuts off the evil thoughts, and diligently cultivates the good
ones. For this reason indeed these things have been written by the saints, and have been said by us,
that in every way being moved by these things, we may cleanse ourselves from evil habit, and evil
thoughts. But you, Father Almighty and Sustainer of my life, and you Only-begotten Son of God
and Word, and you Paraclete Spirit, guide us, illuminate us, strengthen us in the truth. Yes, God of
all. Amen.

169
 DISCOURSE XVI. CONCERNING THE TRANSCENDENTAL TRINITY.
Showing that both by herself, and through angels, and through men, the all-causal Trinity is the
Trinity, they have taught us in many ways many times. And it has been said not in the temple of the
divine Apostles.

Paragraph 1: Since the nightingale sings, I also will sing; she indeed irrationally, but I rationally;
she on a branch, but I on a platform; she cries aloud in the grove, but I will discourse about the
Church of Christ; she, sweetly echoing rapid and swift trills, delights the listeners of her songs,
having as an ally towards pleasing both the season of spring and the hour, but I, divine and concise
thoughts, and pleasing utterances fittingly harmonizing, with God being said, will spiritually delight
all of you. The nightingale's first laryngeal sound goes forth differently, and differently the second
utters the trills, and otherwise the third song of this one sweetens the hearing; and all these things,
by being newer than those previously uttered by her, are utterly wondrous, and beloved for their
marvel; and to me, as you will shortly say, even if all the things to be said are directed to one thing
and purpose, the first are said differently, and the middle ones differently, and the last differently;
and by all things differing from each other in beauty, it confirms the praise. Now, Procne, and
Swallow, and Lark, having flown up the air, after a year, if anyone would say or rather, and having
been lifted up for a long time in the air, and being stirred by various impulses, and there indeed
preserving the beautiful for a long time, as it were from a spring, they send forth their own laryngeal
sounds, thus showing their melodies; but I, now having cleansed myself from those of the present,
and having [my mind] keener and sharper than all air, and being lifted up by it towards God, the
Highest of all and Purer, and beginning from there, (since God is the First Mind) I show myself to
your minds who have minds, and let us consider the one.
Paragraph 2: The God of all, the super-essential and worshipful and venerable Trinity Himself,
first taught us the mystery concerning Himself, I mean concerning the Trinity, and through the
creatures, and through words, and through various manifestations, and through angels, and through
men, has variously presented this. Through the creatures thus: in order to make known to us
Himself as Tri-hypostatic, the best of all existing things, and the strongest of all those coming into
being, He has persuaded both to be and to be divided into three. For immediately all things which
He fashioned at the beginning through the world, He did not produce continuous and undivided,
but dividing them into three parts, He created, that is, into heavenly, earthly, and subterranean. The
sweetest of all existing things, the sun, and the most precious of created things, man, He likewise
fashioned; the one indeed according to the νοούµενον, and the Word, and the Spirit, but the other
according to the visible, the ray, the light, and the brightness being provided. And bringing forth all
kinds of bodies from non-being into being, He equally provided three dimensions to all: length,
breadth, and depth. And He divided time into three continuous [parts]; and He designated the parts
of the human soul as three; and both the ancient shadows, and our Church, He ordained to be
divided into three. And I would show thus also concerning the Angels themselves, that having made

170
their orders three from above, He again divided each of them into a triad; that is, He divided them
into three αρχάς; and simply the higher things of the angels, He adorned with three parts; through
all things, as I say, manifesting to us the united Trinity, and the Triadic unity, or Himself in various
ways. But the philanthropic [God] did not neglect to testify to us His Tri-hypostatic [nature] at
various times; and it is evident from there.
Paragraph 3: God the Father testified concerning the Son, both in the Old [Testament] saying to
Him, "You are My Son, today I have begotten You," and, "Sit at My right hand, until I make Your
enemies Your footstool"; and to us concerning Him, "Behold My servant whom I have chosen, My
beloved in whom My soul has delighted; I will put My Spirit upon Him"; "You will be witnesses to
Me, and I am a witness, and the servant whom I have chosen"; "I will be to Him a Father, and He
will be to Me a Son." And in the New [Testament] the same [Father], sometimes answering Him
directly, "Both I have glorified, and I will glorify again"; and sometimes saying concerning Him to us,
"This is My beloved Son in whom I am well pleased, listen to Him." He also testified concerning the
Spirit, both in the Old [Testament] saying, "I will pour out of My Spirit upon all flesh"; and in the
New, as it were encompassing Him, He is shown administering, and descending, and remaining
upon the Son. The Son also bore witness to the Father in the Incarnate Economy; sometimes indeed
saying to Him, "I confess to You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth"; and, "Glorify Me, O Father,
with Yourself, with the glory which I had before the world was with You"; and, "Holy Father, and
the world has not known You"; and as many things are similar to these; sometimes indeed
concerning Him to us, "I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me"; and, "I and the Father are one";
and, "He who has seen Me has seen the Father"; and as many things as this thought contains. The
same [Son] also testified concerning the Spirit saying, "I will ask the Father, and He will give you
another Helper, that He may abide with you forever, the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot
receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him"; and again, "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit,
whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and will remind you of all
things that I said to you"; and again, "When the Helper comes, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds
from the Father, He will testify concerning Me"; moreover, "When He comes, the Spirit of truth,
He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak from Himself, but whatever He hears He
will speak, and He will declare to you the things that are coming." The Holy Spirit also testified to
the Father, crying in the hearts of the faithful, "Abba, Father"; He also testified to the Son, that He
is sent to Him, and through Him, as they have declared to us. And these things indeed have been
testified separately by each person concerning the others.
Paragraph 4: But commonly again, the Father indeed says concerning the divine being Tri-
hypostatic, "Let Us make man according to Our image, and according to Our likeness"; and, "Come,
let Us go down and there confuse their languages"; and, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God, the
Lord is one"; but the Son [says], "The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He has anointed Me";
and the Paraclete [says], "Whom I will send to you from the Father"; and, "Going forth, make
disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy

171
Spirit." The Holy Spirit moreover says through Paul, "There are diversities of gifts, but the same
Spirit"; "And there are differences of ministries, but the same Lord"; "And there are diversities of
activities, but it is the same God who works all in all"; "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the
love of God the Father, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all"; and besides these
things, "And may the Lord," namely the Spirit, "direct your hearts to the love of God," that is, of
the Father, "and to the patience of Christ," that is, of the Son.
Paragraph 5: Therefore God [is] the Father, God [is] the Son, God [is] the Holy Spirit; but this
name "God," is especially applied to the Father. Lord [is] the Father, Lord [is] the Son, Lord [is] the
Holy Spirit; but this name "Lord," as for the most part, looks towards the Son. Spirit [is] the Father,
Spirit [is] the Son, Spirit [is] the Holy Spirit; nevertheless, this name "Spirit," being said of the super-
essential Trinity, refers to the Paraclete. God [is] the Father, according to its signification, each of us
in the symbol of the faith, as we confess, saying, "I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Creator
of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible"; God [is] the Son, according to its
signification, in the beginning of His Gospel the theologian John thus says, "In the beginning was
the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." God [is] the Holy Spirit, according
to its signification, both in the Old [Testament] the divine Elisha, having struck the Jordan waters
with Elijah's mantle, is said to have said, "Where is the God of Elijah also?"; and again, "Has God
of Elijah also been taken up doubly?"; and in the New [Testament] Peter, the chief of Christ's
disciples, said to Ananias, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit? You
have not lied to men but to God"; and the blessed Paul has expressly written, "You are the temple
of God, and the Spirit of God dwells in you." Again, Lord [is] the Father, according to its
signification, the divine David says, "The Lord said to my Lord, 'Sit at My right hand,'" and whatever
follows these. Lord [is] the Son, according to its signification, this is sung by us, "For You alone are
holy, You alone are Lord"; Lord [is] also the Holy Spirit, according to its signification, Paul cries out,
"Wherefore the Lord is the Spirit"; and wherefore, as it were, He posits from the Lord the Spirit;
and also that, "The Lord is at Your right hand; He will shatter kings in the day of His wrath," is said
concerning the person of the Spirit. And again, Spirit [is] the Father, from the image, that is, of the
Spirit thus spoken of; since also the name Lord is called of the Son, just as also there of the Father
[is called] God, and the Spirit [is called] Lord in the Son. Spirit [is] also the Son in the Spirit,
according to its signification, Jeremiah says concerning Him, "The Spirit before our face, Christ the
Lord"; and also the Paraclete Himself, the Holy Spirit, crying out, according to its signification, "We
also beseech you, Lord, Holy Paraclete, the Spirit of truth," etc.
Paragraph 6: Against these things the Holy Trinity Himself, our God, is both Spirit, and is called
Lord, and is God, and exists and is contemplated and is said; the Spirit, and Spirit, and Spirit, lest
there be three Spirits; and Lord, and Lord, and Lord, as if three Lords were there conceived; and
God, and God, and God, lest a triplicity be introduced to us; but as God [is] all by conjunction, and
as Lord [is] all by union, and as Spirit [is] all by indivisible union; the Holy Trinity [is] all Spirit, and
as above all Spirit, [is] Spirit, as being above all matter, and as the partaker of those who partake of

172
body, or rather, of bodies partaking. All the Holy Trinity [is] Lord, according to its signification, as
we say, "One Lord, one faith, one baptism." All the Holy Trinity [is] God, according to its
signification, as the Theologian Gregory says, "But when I say God, I mean Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit; but let no one separate these from the Godhead, lest we introduce a multitude of gods, or lest
we be condemned for the poverty of the Godhead when we define it by these, either obscuring it by
silence, or Judaizing it by monarchy; for the evil is equal in both, even if it appears in opposites."
Paragraph 7: And here indeed through words they made known to us themselves to be Tri-
hypostatic, the only truly God; and through various manifestations, as when the whole same Holy
Trinity appeared to the angels to the patriarch Abraham, at the oak of Mamre; again, when each of
Their persons appeared separately, to Daniel the Father, as the Ancient of Days; to Isaiah, and to
Ezekiel, and to Daniel himself, as the Son of Man Himself the Son; and in the Jordan to the divine
Forerunner, and to the multitudes gathered there of the peoples, as the Spirit in the form of a dove;
and in holy Zion the same, in the form of fiery tongues; both through angels, and through men,
both in the Old and in the New Testament, God has in many ways testified to us Himself as Tri-
hypostatic; for the fearful Seraphim seen by Isaiah, cried out, "Holy, holy, holy"; and the God-
bearing Ignatius says, he had heard the thrice-holy hymn of the angels singing without ceasing; from
where the Church having received this by tradition, until today continues, glorifying the immortal
Father, the immortal Son, and the immortal Holy Spirit, even if this name "immortal" here being
said, refers to the Paraclete; strong [is] the Father, strong [is] the Son, strong [is] the Holy Spirit, even
if the name "strong" there distinctly looks towards the Son; God [is] the Father, God [is] the Son,
God [is] the Holy Spirit, even if the [name] "God" here is appropriated to the Father.
Paragraph 8: Whence if someone would ask us, why, the Father being holy, the Son being holy,
the Holy Spirit being holy, and many others both being and being called holy by participation, we say
with unveiled face, "Holy, holy, holy, Lord Jesus Christ"? Clear and ready is the answer; for neither
saying, "Holy, holy, holy, Lord Jesus Christ," have we kept silent about the Father, but having said "to
the glory of God the Father," we have shown the cause of the Son; and naming Father, and Son, we
have not separated their Spirit; because the appellation of Christ, is a confession of all, as it seems to
the revealer of heaven, Basil; for it signifies both the anointing Father, and the anointed Son, and the
anointing, the Holy Spirit; and he who has conceived of the Father, conceives with Him on either
side, both the Son and the Spirit together; and he who has received the Son, has also the Father and
the Spirit together with Him; and he who has said the Spirit, immediately includes both the Father
and the Son in his mind; just as if several lamps were placed under the sun, all shine with one light,
and emit rays, and give light to many being under them, so truly and inseparably, the one Holy One
being offered to the faithful, appears to many souls, and is shown as many holy ones, and yet is and
is called the only Holy One, not another, to the glory of God the Father; because God no one has
glorified with the glory befitting Him, if not this One.
Paragraph 9: The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit being our God, of these the Father
indeed, as some say, spoke to men in the time before the Incarnate Economy, as the Apostle says,

173
"In many parts and in various ways God spoke of old to the fathers in the prophets"; but the Son, in
the time of the Incarnate Economy; but the Holy Spirit, throughout all time from holy Pentecost
until the consummation speaks to us. But I, agreeing also with these things, add also this, and it is
most true, that just as the Father spoke in the Old [Testament], so indeed also the Son and the Holy
Spirit; and just as the Son Himself spoke to men in the New Testament as God, so also the Father,
through Him, and the Holy Spirit; and that it is true, is evident from this. The Father spoke directly
to us in the New Testament, thus saying, "This is My beloved Son"; the Son also spoke in the Old
[Testament], as it is read by us to Moses in the bush, as He appeared as fire in a form, [and] was
called the Angel of the Father, the Word; the Spirit also spoke in the prophets, as we confess
believing, "And in the Holy Spirit, who spoke through the prophets." Otherwise, this also to think
and believe is altogether true, that these three persons speaking to us, inseparably spoke these and
the rest, certainly also these have spoken, and speak to us; for what the Spirit speaks to each, these
things are spoken to us from the Father through the Word; and what are spoken from the Son in the
Spirit, are of the Father's speaking; and the Father speaking, both the Son and the Spirit bear witness
to the things being spoken; for what each of the two separately [says] is different from the things
said by Him, but all the things divinely spoken, are spoken in the Trinity, from the Father through
the Son and the Holy Spirit, and are from one God. And the Son bears witness, concerning Himself
indeed saying, "For I have not spoken from Myself, but the Father who sent Me, He gave Me
commandment what I should say, and what I should speak; and what I speak, just as the Father has
said to Me, so I speak"; and, "The word which you hear is not Mine, but of the Father who sent
Me." Concerning the Spirit, "For He will not speak from Himself, but whatever He hears He will
speak, and He will declare to you the things that are coming." It is necessary to say similarly from the
beginning the proposition.
Paragraph 10: Of these three persons therefore, I mean of the Father and of the Son and of the
Holy Spirit, what each is, He always is that, and properly He is that, and this is altogether
unchangeably; for the "was" of these, or the "will be," has little place, or none at all. Because for the
created things, if someone takes away the "is," or the "will be," since they are always coming into
being, immediately it follows that these neither come to be, nor will be; but for the eternal things, if
someone posits the "was" at some time, or the "will be," always taking it away, immediately for these
exists the not being. But the only God of all, both always is properly what He is, and was never and
will never be; nor is there when He was, when He came to be; but as He never will be, thus He is
not when He was not; the same and always, whole and everywhere without ceasing; and in Himself,
beyond word and mind and thought, He both is and is moved and lives, wherefore He is also called
the Living God, who is also sought, as to be found more sweetly, and is found, as to be sought more
desirably. For indeed the faith of the believing seeks Him first, and the true knowledge finds Him;
and this again the participation in Him discovers yet more clearly, and here ceases the inquiry of the
seeking.

174
 Paragraph 11: It is to be added again also this, that many things concerning God we conceive,
and these we are able to know as to their nature; and many things concerning God speaking, we are
not able to know these as to their nature, nor are we naturally capable. As that God is everywhere,
and that we know, and that He is unoriginate, and that He begot a Son, and the Holy Spirit
personally proceeds from Him, and such things, we speak indeed, but we are not strong enough to
grasp these as to their nature. Again, there are some things concerning God, which indeed we are
able to conceive of, but we are not strong enough to express these; I mean, for example, as many
things are said ineffable and unspeakable, which even the mind conceives, itself by itself
incomprehensibly, but to transmit these in word, I say, according to their nature, is impossible for us;
for neither as men, is there generation, or bringing forth, or bringing forward in God, but [all these
are] above every comprehension. Because men indeed, having a beginning of generation, produce
according to a mutual inclination of one another, and every one of those coming into being, being
begotten by fathers, necessarily also becomes himself another father, having from a father his own
being, from whom also he came to be; therefore none of these is properly a father, nor properly a
son, nor properly what each is, but either the one who is, or what proceeds from him; for the same
man is both father and son; I mean of several, and some of those from him through someone in
between, are otherwise causes; but father indeed [is said] of the one begotten from him, and son of
the one who begot him once for all, and of the one proceeding from him through someone in
between, is named otherwise at another time. But in the hypostases of the Godhead it is not thus;
since neither as a man is God, which having said I withdraw, but above man, are all the things there;
therefore neither does the Father beget a Son, sometime about to become a Father; for neither is the
Father from a father, that He may bestow on the one begotten from Him, as a Father, what He
Himself has received from a Father; nor does He beget through another, nor through a mediator
does He beget; nor is the Son begotten from some outflow, of a begotten Father; whence neither
has He a beginning; nor does begetting a Son [imply] another [act of begetting]; nor indeed [is He
begotten] from two Fathers, as if [there were] one offspring; nor does the Holy Spirit through the
Son eternally proceed from the Father, as [if] bringing forth another person; nor indeed [is He
begotten] from two bringers-forth, as if [there were] one thing brought forth. For this reason indeed
in the Godhead the Father alone properly is and is called Father, and Bringer-forth; and the Son
alone properly is and is called Son, and Word; and the Holy Spirit alone [is] and [is called] Spirit, and
properly [the] Thing Brought Forth; and in these alone it is established for the Father and Bringer-
forth, to be always Father and Bringer-forth unchangeably; and for the Son and Word, to be always
Son and Word unalterably; and for the Spirit and Thing Brought Forth, to be always Spirit and
Thing Brought Forth unchangeably. Therefore, the one asserting that the Bringer-forth needs a co-
bringer-forth for the procession of the Spirit, or through a person brings forth the Spirit according
to hypostasis, let him assert also that the Father for the begetting of the Son needs some co-
begetter, and through a person unoriginate-ly begets the Son according to hypostasis. And the one
seeking why the Son [is] not begotten by a Son, let him seek why also the Father [does] not have a

175
Father of His own; and the one demanding why also the Spirit [is] not brought forth by a Thing
Brought Forth, let him demand why also the Bringer-forth of the Spirit from a Bringer-forth, is
brought forth. For just as the Father of lights, alone is always Father, and always Bringer-forth; for
He is the cause of two lights, having one, and He would never become Son nor Thing Brought
Forth; so also the Son, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the one, is always Son alone and Word, and
would never become Bringer-forth, nor thing brought forth; and the Spirit always [is] and [is called]
Thing Brought Forth, and would never become Father, nor Son. Therefore also always Father [is]
Father, and always Bringer-forth. For if it is good for the Father, to be the Bringer-forth [and] the
Father Himself, and He is not always Father, nor always Bringer-forth, then not always [is] the good
in Him, but sometime this came to be. But this same thing we are able to say also concerning the
Son, and the Holy Spirit. For if these are called thusly from being thusly, and this is not always, then
the good is not in them; which [is] blasphemous.
Paragraph 12: And indeed it is most necessary and divinely fitting, that the eternally conceived
persons in the Divine Trinity, and those begotten in time, are distinguished; for if the Father were
incarnate, or the Holy Spirit, many absurdities would be introduced, of the Father being the same
also as the Son, or of the Son being the same also as the Thing Brought Forth; and of three Sons
existing in the Trinity, and of the properties of the Father and of the Spirit being immediately
confused; I mean of the unbegottenness, and of the uncausedness, and of the fatherhood, and of
the bringing-forth, both of the Father's own property, and of the Spirit's procession; but now each
of the persons preserves its own property unchangeably, even before the becoming [man] of the
Word taking place; the Father, remaining Father and Bringer-forth; the Son, remaining Son and
Word; the Spirit, remaining Spirit and Thing Brought Forth, in no way do we perceive alteration, or a
shadow of change in the three. So that if we were to show the Holy Spirit, not remaining from the
Father alone, but as personally proceeding from the Father and the Son, it is necessary also for the
Father to be properly only Father, and not properly Bringer-forth; and the Son to be properly only
Son, and not properly Bringer-forth; and the Holy Spirit, sometimes properly Thing Brought Forth,
and sometimes not; but [it is] otherwise from both; but [He is] from one alone, immediately; not
immediately.
Paragraph 13: But someone from Italy recently proposed these things to me, which I will now
relate; "Tell me," he says, "the relationship of the Son and of the Spirit; for there are some things
common to all the persons, because they are also consubstantial; and there are some things said
[specifically of each]; for both begetting and bringing forth, will appear distinct; and to be begotten
and to be brought forth, both distinguish the divine persons fittingly, and distinguish [them]." Since
then you remove the [concept] of bringing forth, because you do not allow the Spirit to proceed also
from the Son, you will either show us another [process], or you will estrange the related [persons],
wishing to distinguish these by the properties; but give a relationship such to the persons, lest a great
absurdity arise in your theology. I therefore to this proposition, thus directly respond: that if indeed
the Father has no relationship to the Spirit, as Bringer-forth to the Thing Brought Forth, and the

176
Spirit is not referred to the Father, as Thing Brought Forth to its own Bringer-forth, this proposition
would offer a great handle to those wishing to have a basis against us, saying illogically, that the Spirit
has no relationship to the Father, or to the Son, but is alien in essence to the Father and the Son; but
since according to the relation towards something, God and Father towards the Spirit, is thus
Bringer-forth of the Thing Brought Forth, just as towards the Son He is Begetter of the Begotten,
and this is confessed by all, it remains in what manner the Begetter [is related] to the Begotten, and
the Begotten to the Begetter [as] consubstantial, in the same manner the Bringer-forth [is related] to
the Thing Brought Forth, and the Thing Brought Forth to the Bringer-forth [as] consubstantial; and
both these persons, I mean the Begotten, and the Thing Brought Forth, because of being from one
person, both to each other, and to the One from whom they both proceed, are consubstantial, and
co-eternal, and of equal honor; since the persons having their being from one person alone, are of
all necessity both consubstantial to each other, and of equal honor, even if not from each other
[they are], or the one has subsisted from the other; for by the sameness of essence, also the
[equality] according to honor follows; just as the Spirit [is] consubstantial and of equal honor to the
Son, even if you do not posit a relationship of cause towards Him; thus also the Son is
consubstantial to the Spirit and of equal honor, even if He does not possess a relationship of cause
towards Him; for sufficient is the Father's relationship to both for the establishment of their
consubstantiality. So that even if we theologize the Spirit [as proceeding] from the Father alone, we
do not separate this from the relationship spoken of as towards something, but in a certain way we
will acknowledge the Son towards the Father, in the same way also the Spirit towards His own
Bringer-forth, according to the things spoken of as towards something; and distinguishing the things
according to the "is" and the "is caused," we are at the same time in the Divine Trinity, and we do
not deny the difference according to the relations. Since also the [phrase], "the Father alone [is] the
cause," being said in this way, does not introduce to us, another person besides Him, the cause of
the Godhead; for if indeed the Father alone [is] the cause in the Trinity, even if the Son [is] the
cause of the Spirit; and the Holy [Fathers] all, when someone asks concerning the Spirit, or rather,
when they connect only the Father being the one from whom He [proceeds], clearly [do this] to
show neither the Son [proceeds] from the Spirit, nor the Spirit personally proceeds from the Son.
Paragraph 14: But who are the holy ones saying, the Father alone [is] the cause of the Son and
of the Holy Spirit? I will enumerate them, and they will be more numerous than sand; but a few
instead of all are sufficient for proof. The divine James, the brother of the Lord; Dionysius the
Areopagite; the much-speaking Sylvester of Rome; and Athanasius the much-suffering; Damasus the
renowned; Basil the revealer of heaven; Jerome the Great; the theologian Gregory; the philosopher
Justin; Gregory of Nyssa; Cyril of Alexandria; and John of Damascus; of whom one says, "Every
good giving, and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights"; and
another, "From the unoriginate and undivided Good, the inmost lights of goodness have sprung
forth, and of the same essence with Him, and co-eternal to Him in the blessedness of abiding, have
received unchangeable existence"; and another, "One God exists, the true Father, having a true Son

177
begotten from Him, [and] a true Holy Spirit proceeding from Him"; and another, "The Father alone
[is] unbegotten, and the only source of the Godhead"; and another, "If anyone does not say that the
Holy Spirit is truly and properly from the Father, as also the Son [is] God from the divine essence,
and the Word God, let him be anathema"; and another, "The Spirit [proceeds] from the Father and
not otherwise"; "The Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father, specifically and truly [proceeds]";
"One [is] God, one [is] the cause of the Son and of the Spirit being referred to"; and another, "Just
as the Son [is] from the Father, so also the Holy Spirit [is] from the Father, except for the manner of
the subsistence"; and another, "One person and the same [is] the Father, from whom the Son is
begotten, and the Holy Spirit proceeds"; and another, "As with us, of both persons the Father [is]
the cause"; and another, "The Father [is] the source and cause of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."
Paragraph 15: These indeed are the relations of the Son and of the Spirit to the Father, as it
seems to the ecclesiastical teachers, whom following, we have our feet safely established. But if it is
necessary also for the Son to bring forth the Spirit, in order that the equality of the Son to the
Father may be shown, it is necessary also for the Spirit to beget the Son, in order that the Spirit's
equality to the Father may be preserved, and lest only in the Divine Trinity the cause of the two
persons falling short may seem to be implied. For if you fear this, lest the Son be shown to be
inferior to the Father, why do you not also fear that the Spirit [is inferior] both to the Father and to
the Son, not partaking of either the begetting, or the bringing-forth power? For just as the Son,
since He shares with the Father, according to you, in the Spirit's existence, for this reason is
consubstantial to Him and of equal honor, thus indeed certainly, either the Spirit will also share in
the [power] of the Son, or He will not be of equal honor, nor indeed consubstantial. But as we may
return to the matter at hand, we believing God [to be] Tri-hypostatic, we have learned this not from
men, but from God Himself, both in many ways, and as one might say, most wisely and divinely,
having called us to His knowledge, and having logical perception; and concerning this to doubt at all
is not for us, nor is it allowed, nor is it right; because doubting and hesitating does not believe; faith
is in the unwavering; and what is once accepted by faith, to examine with yet deeper inquiries, has no
reason nor return; because the simplicity of faith is stronger than logical proofs, and unskillful faiths
are stronger than skillful uncertainties; and the depth of faith being investigated is indeed shaken,
but being contemplated with simple disposition, is calmed. Concerning this we having [something]
firm, altogether and unshakable, that alone remains to seek with all power, and to inquire in every
way; what indeed is this? It is, what then having done, we shall be worthy of salvation; because faith
without works, and work without faith, are equally rejected by God.
Paragraph 16: But come, let us also clearly [show] this from this point of view. For God, having
shown Himself to us as Tri-hypostatic, He also most clearly pointed out to us this path. And indeed
know henceforth, that faith, hope, and love, being preserved by us as a threefold cord, bring about
our salvation. Therefore, since it seems [good], having stopped here from further theologizing, let us
briefly elaborate concerning this triad of virtues. And indeed we say that faith is the substance of
things hoped for, the proof of things not seen; having empowered the impossible to [become]

178
possible, and the weak to [become] strong, and the passible to [become] impassible, and the
corruptible to [become] incorruptible, and the mortal to [become] immortal; this mystery is great.
Hope is the wealth of the unseen, and a treasure in an unsearched treasury. Love is a fountain of
faith, an abyss of longsuffering, a sea of humility, a holy intoxication of the soul, a likeness of God
as far as is attainable for mortals. But that without these three it is impossible to attain salvation,
three very great witnesses having come into the midst, are sufficient to persuade the one speaking.
Come then, O most chief of the venerable apostles, Peter, and you, more loved than all the disciples
by Christ, John, and you, O first bishop of Jerusalem, James the Just, teach us concerning these
things again.
Paragraph 17: For of these Peter indeed, in the first [part] of his second Epistle, thus posits:
"Add to your faith virtue, and to virtue knowledge, and to knowledge self-control, and to self-
control patience, and to patience godliness, and to godliness brotherly kindness, and to brotherly
kindness love; for these things being present in you and abounding, will not make you idle nor
unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For he to whom these things are not present is
blind, short-sighted." And the Son of Thunder, in the first [part] of his first [Epistle], thus says:
"God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk
in the darkness, we lie, and do not practice the truth; but if we walk in the light, as He is in the light,
we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.
He who says he is in the light, and hates his brother, is in the darkness until now. He who loves his
brother abides in the light, and there is no cause for stumbling in him. But he who hates his brother
is in the darkness, and walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the
darkness has blinded his eyes. Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no
murderer has eternal life abiding in him." And in the third [part] of the same [Epistle]: "But whoever
has this world's goods, and sees his brother in need, and shuts up his compassion from him, how
does the love of God abide in him? God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God
in him." And in the fourth [part]: "If someone says, 'I love God,' and hates his brother, he is a liar;
for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not
seen? And this commandment we have from Him, that he who loves God must love his brother
also. And these are evangelical sayings.
Paragraph 18: And the Brother of God, in the second [part] of his own Epistle, says: "What
does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save
him? If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, 'Depart
in peace, be warmed and filled,' but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body,
what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. But someone will say,
'You have faith, and I have works.' Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my
faith by my works. You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe and
tremble. But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? Was not
Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that

179
faith was working together with his works, and by the works faith was made perfect? And the
Scripture was fulfilled which says, 'Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for
righteousness,' and he was called the friend of God. You see then that a man is justified by works,
and not by faith only. For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also."
Paragraph 19: Do you see how truly I said, that through faith, hope, and love, it is possible for
those who are able [to be saved]? For just as we need the bodily eyes for the contemplation of
visible things, so indeed we need faith for the apprehension of divine things; and just as the
knowledge of things comes about according to the proportion of the working of the
commandments, so the knowledge of truth [comes about], according to the measure of the hope in
Christ; and just as it is not fitting to worship anyone besides God, so neither [is it fitting] to hope in
another, than only in God the caretaker of all; and just as accursed [is] the one having hope in man,
so blessed [is] the one being supported by God; and just as memory of fire warms the body, so faith
without love does not benefit the soul, [nor does it provide] the illumination of knowledge; and it is
impossible for love to be found without hope; whence the saints say, "Not permanent is the hope
towards God, but all other things are not by nature, but are considered [so]"; and the one having his
heart established by the power of faith, even when he has nothing, possesses all things through
faith; but the one deprived of love, is separated from God Himself, since God is love; whom may
we all earnestly seek through faith and hope and love, being contemplated in the Father and the Son
and the Holy Spirit; to whom [belongs] power unto the ages. Amen.

180
 DISCOURSE XVII. CONCERNING THE TRANSCENDENTAL TRINITY.
Asserting clearly through logical proofs, by all necessity, that the Spirit does not personally proceed
also from the Son. And it has been said not in the royal chamber expressly thus.

Paragraph 1: Since indeed it is absolutely necessary to say, nor is it permissible to conceive

concerning the super-essential Godhead contrary to what has been divinely declared to us from the
sacred oracles, we, concerning the Holy Spirit, both the Holy One, [following] the dogmas of the
Holy Fathers, in all things and by all means adhering, thus believe, and think, and say; that according
to essence, the Holy Spirit has the all, the establishment, and the permanence, in the Father and in
the Son and in Himself; but according to essential energy, He proceeds from the Father through the
Son to the creation; but according to [His] own hypostasis, He proceeds from the Father alone, and
this, as in a sketch, is our doctrine concerning the all-holy Spirit. Because these three things are
contemplated in Him according to the first consideration: essence, hypostasis, and energy, as has
been said by us more fully elsewhere; and essence indeed is that which is unhypostasized, or rather,
by itself without hypostasis, and hypostasis [is] unenergized, or rather, energy without essence. And
that this is not only ours and more recent, but this also the fathers of the faith had from the
beginning, is clear from many [things], from which they themselves make declarations concerning
His hypostatic procession. For they say that all things common to the Father and the Son, these [are]
also common to the Spirit, and all things whatsoever the Son and the Spirit have, they have from the
Father; and it is proper to the Father to beget the Son, and to bring forth the Holy Spirit; but if all
things which the Son and the Spirit have, even their very being, they have not from elsewhere than
the Father, [this is] the common opinion of all the saints; nor would it be rightly held that the Son
alone is begotten from Him alone, but the Spirit alone personally proceeds from Him alone. Again,
if it is proper to the Father to beget the Son and to bring forth the Holy Spirit, it would not be
rightly believed that the Son alone begets, and the Spirit alone brings forth, but with someone. And
again, if the things common to the Father and the Son, these [are] also common to the Spirit, and it
is granted that the very being [is] common to the Father and the Son, [namely,] bringing forth the
Spirit personally, this will be common also to the Spirit, and He will bring forth Himself according
to hypostasis, and He Himself will be the cause of Himself, and there will be three causes of the
Spirit in the Divine Trinity, which [is] blasphemous. But a little from above the absurdity of the
argument must be made more clearly evident, since I see [some] drowsy [ones]; and pay close
attention to me. Since of the propositions not possessing soundness, it is necessary for the
conclusion to be false; for it is even possible to speak truly, when the propositions do not have the
truth with themselves; but of the conclusion not being sound, it is altogether necessary, that either
both, or one of the propositions be shown to be generated with falsehood. It would be necessary to
investigate concerning this conclusion, being brought forward contrary to the theology of the
ancient Fathers; for then having shown [this], we would have shown at the same time, both that the

181
propositions being brought together are not true, and that what is believed by us is true; and indeed
we say.
Paragraph 2: All things whatsoever are in the Father and the Son communicably and vitally, does
the hierarchal discourse attribute also to the Holy Spirit? The Father and the Son, according to the
Italians, have a common cause, namely, that which [exists] in the bringing-forth power, bringing
forth the Holy Spirit. And the Spirit therefore, communicably and with the Father and the Son,
personally brings forth Himself, and proceeds from Himself ? But [this is] absurd. Therefore, the
Holy Spirit [proceeds] both from Himself, and has the existence [from Himself]? And this absurd
conclusion is concluded by a preposterous proposition.
Paragraph 3: Again: if it is common to the Son and the Spirit [to be] from the Father, would not
the same also the Spirit, having been brought into being with the Son from the Father, also beget
again? But [this is] absurd. Therefore, is it not also absurd, that the one alone according to hypostasis
[proceeds] from the Father and the Son, and He will also be the cause of the Son at the same time,
and co-caused of Himself the same [one]? Is it not also absurd that from one person alone properly
the same [proceeds] with another, and the one alone properly has the same procession? But why is
bringing forth the Holy Spirit common to the Father and the Son? Because the essence [is] common
to both? But the personal [act] of bringing forth [belongs] to the essence, not the personal [aspects]?
But because [it is] a common person of the Father and the Son? But not even this [is so]. For [this
is] Sabellianism. But if not because the essence [is] common, bringing forth [is] common, but a
common person of the Father and the Son [is] absurd to conceive, how [can] bringing forth [be]
common to the Father and the Son, so as for the Father and the Son to be one bringer-forth of the
Spirit? Or perhaps bringing forth the Spirit is personal, as belonging to one person, but bringing
forth the Spirit according to two persons [is] a common essential [act]? Or is bringing forth the
Spirit belonging to the Father and the Son essential, when [it is] personal? Or is something else
besides these inconceivable? Or what is necessary to consider concerning these things?
Paragraph 4: Then why is the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father according to hypostasis,
also proceeding from the Son? Whether because thus it is necessary [for] the Spirit's procession
from the Son, just as [it is] from the Father? Or because [it is] otherwise possible? If indeed [it is]
because thus it is necessary, how [is it that] what [proceeds] from the Father all the theologians have
handed down to us, but what [proceeds] from the Son all have kept silent about such a necessity,
both Christ Himself, and the Holy Spirit, who has also spoken to us through so many saints? But if
[it is] because [it is] otherwise possible, after all those [things] being necessary, and this not being
necessary, it is also necessary to consider, that of every discourse of the saints both the inscription is
considered, and the purpose is shown, and a proem is proposed, and narration, antithesis, and
solution follow these, and moreover an epilogue; and how when none of all these infinite [things]
exist, has it been found that the Holy Spirit, both from the Father and from the Son, proceeds
personally? Or [is it] clear to all, and shall we keep silent, [given] the [Spirit's] not proceeding from
both according to hypostasis? But how [is it] absurd, we say, to say [there are] two bringers-forth, the

182
Father and the Son, because of the multitude of those underlying [them], and now again the same
[are] one in the bringing-forth power? And how, when there are two bringers-forth, the Father and
the Son, does it not follow also [there are] two bringing-forth? Furthermore, no one yet has arrived
at this audacity, so as either to say the bringing-forth power [belongs] to the principle of the Spirit,
or the begetting [power belongs] to the principle of the Son; for we say the hypostasis [is] the cause
of the hypostasis, [and] the power [is the cause] of the power.
Paragraph 5: Again, if the bringing-forth of the Spirit, which is proper to the Father, is common
also to the Son, then the proper [attribute] of one hypostasis will be common to the two, and what
is predicated of one person, [will be predicated] of the two; and for this reason [it is] both common
and not common; and [is] proper of the two and not proper. If you grant to the Son the Father's
property, [it is necessary] that also the Son's [property be granted] to the Father, and if [you grant]
the Spirit's [property] to the Son, let also the begetting be common to the Father and the Son, and
the procession at the same time [be] common to the Son and the Spirit. But if we grant this, so as to
consider the bringing-forth power, [as] the cause of the Spirit, or the begetting principle of the Son,
many absurdities will follow, and a duality of principle will arise, and another indeed [will be] the
power to beget, and otherwise the [power] to bring forth. [It is] necessary that the bringing-forth
power existing in the Father, exist also in the Son. If indeed [there is] one essence of the Father and
the Son, the Holy Spirit will also have this; this having been granted. But if because the Father is not
towards the Son a bringer-forth, the Spirit also will have the begetting power, because the Father is
not a begetter towards Him.
Paragraph 6: Again, if the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, the Father towards the Son
according to this bringing-forth property, will have both communion and difference; communion
indeed because equally the Spirit brings forth with the Son; difference however because the one
[brings forth] indirectly and proximately and from someone, but the other [brings forth] directly and
proximately and has the bringing-forth of the Spirit from the Father, and not from Himself.
Moreover, if the Father and the Son, not as God, nor as Father, but as one in the bringing-forth
power, personally bring forth the Holy Spirit, since the Father in the Divine Trinity is not Son, and
the Son is not Father, and the bringing-forth power of these is not yet Father, it remains by all
necessity, either the Spirit will have one cause alone, this bringing-forth power, which is neither
Father nor Son, or altogether three causes, the Father and the Son and their bringing-forth power;
both of which are least tolerable to the Orthodox.
Paragraph 7: Furthermore, either the bringing-forth power of the Father and the Son is the
same, [belonging] to their two hypostases, or altogether different; if indeed [it is] the same, [it] will
also be the bringing-forth and the begetting [power], and [will be] begotten and unbegotten; that is,
both Father, and Bringer-forth, and Son; but if it is different in these, and not the same in them, it is
of necessity either this is [a] bringing-forth [power], or [a] begetting [power], or begotten, or
unbegotten; and these [things] being so, in no way does the Holy Spirit, as from one cause of the
bringing-forth power of the Father and the Son, proceed.

183
 Paragraph 8: Again, since the Spirit's hypostasis, as from one cause of the bringing-forth power
of the Father and the Son, proceeds, it follows to believe also the Son's hypostasis, as from one
cause of the begetting power of the Father, to be begotten; but the Spirit indeed is brought forth
from the paternal hypostasis; and as it is not by nature to be begotten but by hypostasis, we hear the
divine words saying; but from the bringing-forth power the Spirit to proceed, or from the begetting
[power] the Son to be begotten, no one has yet handed down; and what is silenced by them is
altogether worthy of silence.
Paragraph 9: Again, God and Father in the Divine Trinity does not more beget and less bring
forth, but equally and alike both begets and brings forth; but this will be if [He] alone begets, and
alone brings forth; but if alone, [He] only begets, and alone brings forth, since the only [one] is only,
and the only [one] is only, the one therefore [has] more, but the other less.
Paragraph 10: Again, since as bringers-forth the Father and the Son, I speak according to the
Italians, bring forth only and do not beget; but the one Father both to beget and to bring forth is
confessed by all; and the Son to be begotten only, and not also to proceed; and the Spirit to proceed
only, and not also to be begotten; the much-spoken-of name, the Trinity, is lost to us; and a tetrad
of persons is introduced instead of it.
Paragraph 11: Again, if the Father and the Son, as [existing] in the bringing-forth power, bring
forth the Holy Spirit, all the divine persons will somehow have powers hypostatically; that is, the
Father alone [has] for Himself one unbegottenness, one self-subsistent hypostatic power; and
towards His Son, His begetting power, another hypostatic power; behold, these are two powers.
Again, the same Father with the Son, their bringing-forth power towards the Spirit, but they will
have a hypostatic power; since also the Son's begetting [is] another, separate from this; and again the
Holy Spirit's procession [is] another; so that in the Divine Trinity there are many hypostatic powers.
Paragraph 12: But if someone should say against these things, that nothing absurd follows,
because the begetting power of the Father is the same as the Son's and the Word's begetting, and the
Father's and the Son's bringing-forth power [is] the same as the Spirit's procession; so that these are
reckoned with the Father's unbegottenness [as] being only three hypostatic powers; first, let this one,
whoever he is, who believes the one Father alone to have three hypostatic equal powers, and the Son
alone one common to Himself and the Father bringing-forth power, and the Holy Spirit [as] not
partaking of any hypostatic power; then, if the same [is] begetting and begetting power, procession
and bringing-forth power, since the one is proper to the Son, and the other is proper to the Holy
Spirit, and the begetting power [is] proper to the Father, [it] will also be proper to the Son; and the
bringing-forth power, [will be] the proper [attribute] of the Father and the Spirit; and again the Son's
proper [attribute], the begetting, will be the proper [attribute] also of the Father; and the Spirit's
proper [attribute], the procession, will be the proper [attribute] of the Father and the Son; and all
things will be confused and mixed together, both the common and the proper in the Divine Trinity.
But if the begetting is different from the begetting power, and the bringing-forth from the bringing-
forth power, the procession is not the same; then the Son's begetting will be to Him a begetting

184
power; and the Spirit's procession [will be] to the Spirit a proceeding power; so that the Son [will
have] two powers, one for begetting Himself, and one for being begotten from the Father; as if He
will have the same [power]; so that the Spirit [will have] two powers, one for proceeding Himself,
and one for personally proceeding from the Father [and] the Son; but if [there is] one, a duality of
hypostatic powers will not be accepted in the Trinity; two indeed of these are possessed by the
Spirit, [and] three indeed by the Father and the Son. But may it be pleasing to all, [if] truth and not
falsehood goes before!
Paragraph 13: Again, since bringing forth the Spirit is common to the Father and the Son, if
therefore someone should insist, that the Holy Spirit has all things whatsoever are common to the
Father and the Son, this one in every way and by all means is shown to be contrary to those saying
this. But even this the theologians say; for of these Dionysius the Areopagite, in the chapter
concerning symbolic and divided theology, says, "The hierarchal Word, all things whatsoever
[belong] to the Father and to Himself, attributes communicably and vitally to the hierarchal Spirit";
do you understand what holy witness this one introduces in the saying? The hierarchal Word
Himself; and indeed according to this word also the hierarchal Word Himself is contrary to this
opinion, and Saint Dionysius declares. And the theologian Gregory, in the [treatise] concerning the
establishment of bishops, says, "All things whatsoever [belong] to the Son, [belong] also to the
Spirit, except for the Sonship"; and in the [treatise] on the Holy Pentecost, "All things whatsoever
the Son [has], the Spirit [has], except for the Generation." If therefore someone asserts the Spirit
also to proceed from the Son, he would not say all things whatsoever are in the Son, [are] also in the
Spirit, except for the Sonship, but he would add besides, except for bringing forth, and [for the Son]
to be the cause of the Spirit; but this [is] a clear conflict with the theologians. Moreover, the same
theologian says, "All things whatsoever the Father has, [belong] to the Son, except for the cause";
and here also he spoke accurately; the theologian did not say, except for the cause of begetting, but
simply except for the cause; and this [is] the same as that; for neither does it contradict. For if He
does not have the cause simply, which the theologian has said, neither does He of necessity have the
[power] to beget, nor the [power] to bring forth; if indeed He does not have the [power] to beget,
but has the [power] to bring forth, the one simply saying [He] does not have the cause is altogether
necessarily falsified. Again, if someone believes the Son to be a bringer-forth of the Spirit, he would
not truly declare, all things whatsoever the Son [has belong] to the Spirit, except for the generation;
but he would add, and [except for] being the principle of the Godhead; so that what is said is
impious according to the theology of the Fathers. And the great Basil says in the fourth of the
Ascetic [Constitutions], "All things whatsoever [are] common to the Father and the Son, these [are]
also common to the Spirit"; if indeed bringing forth the Spirit [is] common to the Father and the
Son personally, as has been previously said, this will also [be] common to the Spirit; but [this is]
absurd. Therefore, if bringing forth [is] proper to the Spirit, the one saying the things common to
the Father and the Son, these [are] common also to the Spirit, is falsified, and this [is] absurd. But
what would be the absurdity from both sides? To believe and to say, the Spirit [proceeds] from the

185
Son according to hypostasis. This [is] directly contrary to theology; this dishonors the Son; this
demeans the Paraclete; rather [it] reviles both the causes, and their cause; for the discourse on this
[matter], in the cleansing of the Spirit, and not to say [it] unworthily, leaves the Father without
works.
Paragraph 14: But if someone says, the Father [is] greater than the Son, and the Son [is greater]
than the Spirit; but the greater [is spoken of] according to cause and also [otherwise] is called greater;
but if this [is so] and the Son is a cause of the Spirit; against this, the testimony of two very great
teachers is sufficient, if indeed the one speaking speaks truly, on the testimony of two witnesses
shall every word be established. Gregory of Nyssa says, "If the Father [is] greater than the Son, how
is the greater contained in the lesser? If the Son [is] less than the Father, how is the greater filled by
the deficient one? For both the greater is necessarily constricted in the lesser, and the lesser being
extended to the surpassing [one] is necessarily shown to be deficient; for neither is the Son deficient
to the Father, nor is the Father redundant to the Son; and the one saying 'I [am] in the Father' is
falsified; it is necessary to say, if indeed [He] is less, that 'I [am] in part of the Father, and the Father
[is] in Me'; but if the whole Father [is] in the whole Son, and the whole Son in the whole Father,
what [is there] more, and what [is there] less?" Similar things to this, also the revealer of heaven,
Basil, seems to say; for he says thus: "The greater [is spoken of] either in magnitude, or in time, or in
dignity, or in power, or as a cause [the greater] is said; but in magnitude indeed the Father [is] not
said to be greater than the Son, for [He is] incorporeal; nor indeed in time, for the Son [is] the
creator of times; nor indeed in dignity, for [He] was begotten who [is] from the first; nor indeed in
power, for all things whatsoever the Father does, the Son likewise does; nor as a cause, since
similarly both He and we [are] greater, if indeed [He] is the cause both of Himself and of us;
therefore [what] has been said [by the Son] towards the Father [is spoken] rather for honor, and does
not show a lessening of the one speaking." So that since by all it is confessed [that] the cause,
namely, of the Father, the greater being spoken of, does not signify the cause, but for the sake of
honor it has been said [by the Son] towards the Father, and in no way does it show a lessening of the
dignity, as it seems to the saints, it would be fitting to inquire what else it will signify, than only honor
and equality of the Son towards the Spirit; and Thomas also says in the three hundred and fiftieth
chapter of those [written] against us, expressly thus in the Latin dialect.
Paragraph 15: Which clearly signifies: the divine persons cannot be distinguished by differing
relations of magnitude; for thus the equality of the three persons will be annulled. But also
Athanasius, in the third [discourse] against the Arians, having said the Son [is] greater and equal to
the Spirit, adapts the one to the sending of the Paraclete, and the other to glory, since the Spirit
Himself glorifies the Word, as the Son [glorified] the Father in the world; but not [as] the cause of
the Spirit. Neither does the Son glorify the Father, as [the] greater [glorifies] the lesser, or as [the]
lesser [glorifies] the greater, just as indeed the Spirit, as [the] greater [glorifies] the Word, or as [the]
lesser; but each of these rather, as [He] is equal to each. Thus also the "I have glorified You on the
earth," and the "Glorify Me with the glory which I had before the world was with You," and the "He

186
will glorify Me," and all such things will be understood piously; if not, both the Father [glorifies] the
Son, and the Son the Father, and the Spirit the Word, as [by] those altogether less, [so they glorify],
which [is] blasphemous.
Paragraph 16: But [is] the Spirit's being from the essence of the Father and the Son, and [His]
being from the hypostases of the Father and the Son, the same or different, he says? If indeed the
Holy Spirit's being from the essence of the Father and the Son [is] the church's and our opinion,
then [He proceeds] from the essence of the Father and the Son, as from one cause the Holy Spirit
proceeds. For neither is the essence there unhypostasized, nor is the hypostasis again without
essence. For just as in the Son's being begotten from the essence of the Father, His ineffable
existence is shown, so also the Holy Spirit, since [He] is said to be from the essence of the Father
and the Son, His existence from them is manifested. Whether [is it] because the one essence [is] the
same, of the Father and the Son in their two hypostases? Or because [it is] different? If indeed [it is]
the same, confusion follows in the one essence, and their two hypostases; but if [it is] different, not
only three [are] the causes in the Divine Trinity, but also our God is reckoned as a tetrad instead of a
Trinity. But let us say this more clearly: if from the essence of the Father and the Son, as from one
[source], the Holy Spirit Himself proceeds, of all necessity [He] will also proceed from His own
essence, since one and the same essence [is] of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; but if
not from His own essence, neither will [He proceed] from the essence of the Father and the Son;
just as this [is] impossible, so also that [is] unfeasible.
Paragraph 17: Again, if the Holy Spirit proceeds from the essence of the Father and the Son,
either the Father's and the Son's essence [is] one and undivided, without the essence of the Holy
Spirit, [and] will be the cause of the Spirit, or the Father's and the Son's and the Holy Spirit's one
essence, [existing] only in the Spirit, but will be the cause from another person; so that the same and
one essence in number, [has] part of itself [as] cause, and part not [as] cause; that is, the one half of
it, if it is necessary to say thus, [is] the cause of the rest, but the one third, only caused; and the
undivided [essence] is divided; which [is] absurd. Again, the Son, either [He] has from the Father [the
power] to bring forth the Spirit, or from Himself, or from the common essence; if indeed [He has it]
from the Father, a certain difference follows to be conceived in the bringing forth, that the Father
indeed brings forth from Himself, but the Son not from Himself, but receiving [it] from another; if
from Himself, the statement [is] false; for all the theologians say, all things whatsoever the Son and
the Spirit have, they have from the Father, even their very being; but if from the common essence,
then besides the Father, [there is] also from Himself the bringing-forth power of the Spirit, but [He]
has received [it] from elsewhere; which [is] both impious, and polytheistic, to consider two causes in
the Son; the one indeed [He] has, and the other of His own hypostasis.
Paragraph 18: Besides these things, [does] the Holy Spirit proceed from the hypostases of the
Father and the Son, and their essence, or only from their essence? Or only from the hypostases? If
indeed only from the hypostases, [it is] false [to say He proceeds] from their essence; but if only
from the essence of the Father and the Son, and not also from their hypostases, since the essence is

187
either Father, or Son, it remains altogether in no way, neither from the Father, nor from the Son, nor
from both [does He] proceed; but if [He] proceeds both from the essence of the Father and the
Son, and from their hypostases, since the one essence [is] equally common to the three, but the
hypostases [belong] to each person individually, or rather the persons themselves are the hypostases,
the equally common [thing] to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit [namely] the essence, and
the proper [attributes] of the Father and the Son concurring, bring forth the Holy Spirit; and neither
is the property [still a] property, nor is the common [thing] any longer common; but all things have
become confused and mixed together; and I even say that the Spirit is not found in the Divine
Trinity, after the two hypostases [namely] of His own hypostasis [and] having causes, and the proper
essence [as] the cause of this [hypostasis] possessing.
Paragraph 19: Again, is the Son's essence the same as His own hypostasis, or altogether
different? But if indeed [it is] the same, and moreover His hypostasis [is] different from the Father's
hypostasis, then also His essence will be different from the Father's essence; and then from two
different essences, and two hypostases, the Holy Spirit proceeds; but if the Son's essence is the same
as the Father's, but the Father's person [is] different, and the Son's [is] another, in the same [thing]
therefore and from another, and different principles, the Spirit has obtained existence.
Paragraph 20: Again, if the Holy Spirit proceeds from the essence of the Father and the Son,
because [it] is the same to proceed from this and from their hypostases, either all the persons in the
Divine Trinity will be the same in the three common essence, or the Father's and the Son's existing
persons, or only the Spirit's own person will be the same with this; but if the Spirit's person alone is
the same with the three common essence, and moreover this essence [is] uncaused and not from
anyone, then the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son, will also be from someone,
and from some ones; and the three common essence [will be] both caused, and the same and
uncaused; but if the Father's and the Son's existing persons [are] the same with their own essence,
but the Holy Spirit's essence is different in His own hypostasis, it follows that the Holy Spirit [is] not
of the same essence with the Father and the Son, since [He] does not coincide with their common
essence and [is] not the same with it; but if all the persons [are] the same with the common essence;
and moreover the persons [are] three, but the essence [is] one, either the Trinity will be three [things]
the same, or not only the same, [but] the same [will be] both proceeding, and begotten, and
unbegotten; which [are] blasphemous.
Paragraph 21: Again, every person proceeding from two persons, insofar as they are
distinguished, and not insofar as they are united, has two causes; the Holy Spirit proceeds according
to hypostasis from the Father and the Son, insofar as the Father and the Son are distinct persons,
but not as the creation, insofar as the Father and the Son are one according to essence, as it seems to
Thomas, in the books against the Greeks, or the second [opinion]; therefore the Holy Spirit,
personally proceeding from the distinct persons of the Father and the Son, insofar as they are
distinct, has two causes, according to the third syllogism of the first figure.

188
 Paragraph 22: Again, since difference of essence, and sameness of persons is not believed by us
in the Divine Trinity, but sameness of essence, and difference of persons [is believed] rightly; if
indeed the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, because sameness of essence [exists]
in these, and difference of persons coincides, then the sameness henceforth in them is difference,
and the difference [is] sameness; and all things will be the same with themselves, and different and
many of these [will be] the same, and again not the same; and upon this very thing of the one and
the same, [will follow] confusion, and mixture, and commingling, and all contradiction runs together.
Paragraph 23: Again, since the Father [is] other, and the Son [is] other – for [they are] two
hypostases – and other [is] their common essence – for other [is] essence, and other hypostasis, if
indeed [it is] not synonymous – the Father brings forth the Spirit, and the Son also brings forth this,
as the new dogma wishes; and [He] also proceeds from their essence, which is neither Father, nor
Son; therefore three bringers-forth of the Spirit have arisen for us in the Trinity; but [this is] absurd;
but this absurdity arises from a most absurd opinion.
Paragraph 24: Again, the essence of the blessed Trinity, neither begets nor is begotten, nor
brings forth nor proceeds; but if the opposite is granted, the whole of it begets, and the whole is
begotten, and the whole of it brings forth, and the whole proceeds; but leaving aside the matter at
hand, as I said, the greater part of it brings forth, and the lesser part of it is brought forth; it is the
same to be from the essence of the Father and the Son [that] the Spirit [proceeds], and from their
hypostases [for the Spirit] Himself to be, and to conceive the same [thing] of the Father and the
Son, [namely,] to proceed from the Son; nor [is it] the same; because just as in the Son's being said to
be from the essence of the Father, His existence from there is shown, so also the Holy Spirit, since
[He] is theologically said to be from the essence of the Son, does His existence in the Son appear?
Whether [is it] because the one essence [is] the same, of the Father and the Son in their two
hypostases? Or [is it] different? If indeed [it is] the same, confusion follows in the one essence, and
their two hypostases; but if [it is] different, not only three [are] the causes in the Divine Trinity, but
also our God is reckoned as a tetrad instead of a Trinity. Essence [is] unhypostasized, and hypostasis
[is] unessential, the forefather Adam to all has confessed; Abel and Seth [are] from his essence, and
Christ, and we; but concerning Abel and Seth, who would dare to say, just as in Abel's being said to
be from the essence of Adam, his existence from there is shown, so also Seth, since [he] is said to be
from the essence of Adam, does his existence in Adam appear? But if someone would say these
things thus, as speaking most truly, he will be refuted both by God and by all men; but concerning
Christ and us, if someone wishes to bring forward thus, [that] just as Abel [is said to be] from the
essence of the forefather Adam, their existence is shown, so also Christ and we, since [we] are
likewise said [to be] from the same essence of Adam, [we are] from Adam, both He and we, in a way
[belonging] to Him according to hypostasis, as speaking inconceivable things, he will be rejected;
why? Because [we] all men confess that to be from the essence of Adam both Christ according to
the flesh, and we [exist] according to essence; but to have been begotten from Adam's hypostasis
according to hypostasis, both Greeks and Latins, and barbarians alike, we deny. There is no essence

189
unhypostasized, nor hypostasis unessential. God and Father [is] simple, but the essence of the
Trinity is Father, for this reason also the Father's hypostasis is essence in itself. There is no
hypostasis uncaused, nor unhypostasized essence in itself; I agree; but because the Son is essence
alone in Himself, therefore the essence is Son. There is no uncaused hypostasis, nor unhypostasized
essence [in] the Holy Spirit; [this is] true; nevertheless, since the essence in itself is the Paraclete,
therefore it is only the Spirit's person, [and] is only essence. Therefore, it is not of necessity that
everything said to be from the essence, [is said] also [to be] from the hypostasis, for the word of
those speaking concerning the divine persons allows this, and indeed also concerning human
[persons], and concerning everything by nature receiving these names, essence and hypostasis. And
let these things concerning dogmas be thus said by me.
Paragraph 25: But [it is] time also to lead you to the customary exhortation. It is necessary
therefore [to] know that of God's goodness and philanthropy towards men, that [is] a great sign,
which Christ Himself says in the Gospels: "For thus God loved the world, so that He gave His Son,
the Only-Begotten, that everyone believing in Him should not perish, but have eternal life." This
indeed [is] a very great indication of His love towards man, [a love] truly sincere and unsurpassed.
And secondly, that of so many existing creatures, both cosmic and super-cosmic, neither [is He
called] a lover of angels, nor a lover of the world, nor of those [beings] which it is likely could be
named from His own creatures; but only is He called a lover of mankind, and He rejoices being
called by this name, as υπερloving man. And third [is] in addition to these a proof of His love
towards man, that however men may wish, thus He disposes things concerning them, only if they
truly entrust [themselves] to Him; and indeed [the] greater [proof] of that affection of His towards
us, [is] that often not in afflictions and necessities, when called upon by many for help only, but also
by one, He immediately hearkens, and transforms all things, as it is written, "He will fulfill the desire
of those fearing Him, and He will hear their supplication, and will save them"; and "Call upon Me in
the day of your tribulation, and I will deliver you, and you will glorify Me"; and "I will not leave you,
nor will I utterly forsake [you]"; but "While you are still speaking, I will say, 'Behold, I am here'";
moreover, "If two of you shall agree on earth, concerning every matter whatsoever they shall ask, it
shall be done for them by My Father who [is] in the heavens."
Paragraph 26: But that which surpasses all understanding foolishness [is] this, that not only when
called upon by many righteous [ones], or by one, but also often by many sinners, and by one turning
from the whole soul towards Him, He immediately does [it]; and of these [there are] many
testimonies and many examples from the Scripture; of the many indeed the Ninevites [are] an
example, who, changing [their hearts] within three days, turned the threat into mercy; and this
[happened] through Jonah's great preaching throughout the city, [which foretold] its imminent
destruction; but of one, King Manasseh [is] a readily available narrative; who, after having
embittered the Lord for sixty years, not in a long period of time, but in a single moment having
lifted up [his] eyes to God from a contrite soul, with tears, and He was heard, and was saved. If
indeed of many, and of one, because of the unsurpassable [quality] of His philanthropy, God

190
hearkens, even these [being] inexcusable having provoked Him before the misfortune that befell
them, how will He disregard those trusting in Him continually? He will certainly not disregard, nor
will He overlook [them]; only if they turn away from their former evils; only if with faith unfeigned
they approach Him.
Paragraph 27: Great is the power of faith working [through love]; and the Holy Ones in the Old
[Testament] all bear witness, having accomplished things impossible to the rest of mankind; and in
the New [Testament] Christ above all confirms [it], at one time indeed saying to the Canaanite
woman, "O woman, great [is] your faith"; at another to the woman with the issue of blood, "Be of
good cheer, daughter, your faith has saved you; go in peace"; at another to someone doubting, "If
you can believe, all things [are] possible to the one believing"; and now to the ruler of the
synagogue, "Do not be afraid, only believe, and she will be saved"; and now to the centurion, "Go,
and as you have believed, so let it be done for you." Therefore, believe in God unhesitatingly, and
you will not fear destruction; practice good works believing; for faith without works is dead.
Especially all of you who are advanced in understanding, and advanced in age, and shining in
dignities; until when shall we elders be childishly minded? Honorable old age [is] the long-lived, and
a life unstained by the vices of old age. For indeed we honor the gray-haired, not because we prefer
the pale color to the black, but because it is a proof of a virtuous life, and seeing [it] we infer the
beauty of old age; but if the opposite of gray hair is practiced, on account of these [things] he will
be more despicable. For it is absurd that the body indeed, by the law of nature, successively
undergoes the ages, advancing from childhood to venerable old age, and attaining gray hair worthily,
and becoming bright and desirable in appearance, but the soul does not advance [in] its own
advancement in goodness, nor does it duly traverse the ages advancing in virtue, from one to
another, and thus arriving at the venerable perfection; but remains in the foolish childish state, or in
the [state] after it, rejoicing in youthful desires, and being still young and vigorous in these
condemned pleasures, with which even the sober-minded were not even briefly delighted. But it is
necessary rather for the soul to imitate the [successive] states, than the body the ages; inasmuch as
this indeed serves the necessities of time, and is subject to the laws of nature, not having the power
to transcend what time brings, nor to overpass the approaching [age], and to live the [age] after it, in
a disorderly course; each age providing a determined time for it, and allowing a brief digression to
pass towards the neighboring [age]; but that [one], with choice being extended to the end, until it is
caught up, and passing to another [age], has an unhindered transition whenever it wishes; and even if
it overpasses the intervening [ages], it is possible for it from the beginning to leap to the very end
with its own leap to reach the perfect completeness, changing according to judgment and
unwavering reasoning from whatever it deems [fitting] to whatever it proposes, firmly and
unswervingly. For this reason the God of all has deemed us worthy to reach old age, so that the
things we have sinned in youth, through fasting, and almsgiving, and through humility having
cleansed, we may prepare for salvation; which may He grant us all to attain. Amen.

191
 DISCOURSE XVIII. CONCERNING THE TRANSCENDENTAL TRINITY.
Correcting some opinions of some concerning certain things. And it has been spoken not to the
holy and great Apostles, and those proposing these things and listening to them, and the Senate.

Paragraph 1: The commonly beneficial [words] of those speaking, ought not to be altogether
humble and commonplace, nor altogether lofty and unapproachable by all, but rather observing the
mean between these, the order; so that through the lofty and uncommon [aspect] they may elevate
the attentive listeners to high thoughts and heavenly [things], but through the humble and moderate
[aspect] they may rouse the common people like me to listening, and through being somehow in the
middle of the extremes, and reasonably holding the discourse towards these [ends], towards which
they have simply directed the purpose of the things being said. Which I myself observing, that this
audience requires such a mixture, being composed, as I see, of small and great, and middle
[persons], for the reasons mentioned I will try as much as possible, [with a discourse] fitting for all
these, with God [as my helper] let it be said, to speak a discourse; and indeed be silent.
Paragraph 2: All things, as I think, have order, and of these especially the exceptional things of
the church [are ordered]; wherefore the one Apostle says, "Not all [are] apostles, not all [are]
teachers"; and the other, "Let each of you, brethren, remain in the calling wherein he was called."
Which the Theologian Gregory interpreting adds, "Let no one stretch himself as a head, who is
scarcely a hand, or despise the least of the members of the body." Being therefore properly
shepherds, and not shepherds [in name only], both ruling and being ruled, both legislating and being
legislated, it would be just for us to investigate the most important of the dogmas; but let us not
seem through ignorance being silent, towards the accusations spoken against us, as the discourse
proceeding will say, let us say those things which are known to all, or to the wise, or to the majority,
[things] concise and true and clear. What then indeed do they say against us, accusing [us]
concerning the Holy Spirit's procession? Among many other things, also these.
Paragraph 3: Since not being begotten [is] common to the Father and the Holy Spirit, it remains
of necessity that what [belongs] to the Father, likewise also [belongs] to the Son, [namely,] bringing
forth the Holy Spirit; just as each person possesses one property, so also the two persons [have] one
common property. That indeed not being begotten [is] common to the Father and the Holy Spirit,
[is] true; but instead of this it will be said [to be] common to the Father and the Son [to] bring forth
the Holy Spirit, signifying generative existence, instead of a declarative [one]; but there is another
negative [attribute], instead of not being begotten, which [is] common to the Father and the Son,
[but] does not exist in the Holy Spirit; for neither does the Father proceed from any principle, nor
the Son in this way from the Father, so that the Spirit [does] not proceed, in the way [He] comes
forth; so that as the Holy Spirit proceeds, [is] common to the Father and the Son alone; in the way
that not being begotten, [is common] to the Father and the Holy Spirit alone. But I say these things,
if we altogether concede this, that likewise not being begotten is understood, of the unbegotten
Father, and of the proceeding Spirit; because neither two proceeding, nor two begotten, nor two

192
uncaused, nor two unbegotten persons is it proper to believe in the divine persons; just as indeed [it
is not proper to believe] either two begetting, or two bringing forth, or two causes, or two principles;
for the divine persons all [are] simple and unmingled and unconfused, and unique, not double; and
not more [than three] is piously believed by all. Whoever believes in two unbegotten persons in
these, since also begotten and proceeding persons [exist] in them, this one [believes] a tetrad of
persons, not a Trinity [to be] the one God; and whoever says two begetting, or proceeding, or
causes, or uncaused, or principles, introduces a duality, and rejects the dogma of the Monarchy, and
annuls the three-hypostatic [nature] of the one Godhead. Therefore the great Basil in the third
[book] against Eunomius says, "The Father is the same as the unbegotten"; and again, "But
unbegotten, no one is so utterly devoid of understanding, as to dare to call another besides the God
of all." And Athanasius says in the [letter] to Serapion, and Hilary the Roman, in the book on the
Synod, states, "If anyone should say two unbegotten [beings], he makes two gods." If therefore the
unbegotten [is] equally common to the Father and the Spirit, three blasphemies follow: first, that the
Father's own [attribute], unbegottenness, is common also to the Spirit; secondly, that if the Father is
the same as the unbegotten, and moreover the Spirit [is] equally unbegotten with the Father, then
the Holy Spirit will also be Father; and third, that if two unbegotten [beings exist] in the Trinity, two
Gods [exist] in it.
Paragraph 4: Otherwise, if indeed the Father and the Holy Spirit had in common the [power] to
beget, it would be necessary to grant [it] common to the Father and the Son [to] bring forth the
Spirit then, so that either affirmative [would be] instead of affirmative, and the commonalities would
exist equal to the three pairs; if indeed instead of not being begotten, the Spirit with the Father,
[there is] bringing forth the Spirit with the Father [and] the Son; that is, instead of negative [there is]
affirmative; but I say this here more broadly. Of these three [attributes] believed concerning the
Father, [namely] not being from another principle, and the Son's [being] from Him, and the Holy
Spirit's bringing-forth, the Spirit partakes of none of these; for [He] is neither uncaused, nor
begotten, nor brings forth Himself; but for the Son, if bringing forth exists [as] common to the
Father and the Son, [there are] more common [attributes] of the Father and the Spirit; and
conversely, the differences will be more of the Father towards the Spirit, than towards the Son
Himself; since indeed the Son communicates with the Father in all things in which also the Spirit
[communicates], but also communicates with Him in something else, in which the Spirit by no
means [communicates], the Son has more equality towards the Father, than the Holy Spirit; but if
this [is so], also the Father [has] altogether more difference towards Him. Then if the common
[attributes] of the Father and the Son [are] more than the common [attributes] of the Father and the
Spirit, the commonality of not being begotten, towards the argument [adds] nothing; because this
commonality being personal, besides being considered by us and by them, does not make the Father
and the Holy Spirit one; but they themselves give [it] to the Father and the Son, which, as they say,
shows [them to be] one Father and Son. And if it is necessary to speak concisely, the divine persons
being simply understood in three ways, are seen [as] having only three common [attributes], not

193
more; the Father and the Son [have] not proceeding; the Father and the Spirit [have] not being
begotten; the Son and the Spirit [have] being caused; and to these it is not right either to add, or to
subtract.
Paragraph 5: Again, concerning the thearchic and all-causing Trinity, the difference, they say, is
observed only according to relations and besides this there is no other. But it does not at all seem to
me that the argument stands with truth, and it is clear from here that the Father of Lights, who is
one person, has three certain properties, existing differently from one another in concept, namely, to
be unbegotten, and to beget the Son, and to bring forth the Holy Spirit; and [He] is distinguished
also from the three by the Spirit; for neither does the Spirit beget, nor bring forth, nor is [He]
unbegotten; but only by being a bringer-forth the Father differs from the Spirit according to the
relations, but in the other [attributes He does not differ]; for neither is the Father said to be
uncaused, nor is He the begetter of the Spirit; therefore we have also another distinction, in the
Divine Trinity, not being according to the relations.
Paragraph 6: Again, it is one thing for the Father to be uncaused, and another to be a bringer-
forth; and [He] differs from the Son in all these [attributes]; for neither is the Son uncaused, nor a
bringer-forth, but [He is] begotten in a certain way; but as begetter the Father differs from Him only
according to relation, but as uncaused [and] bringer-forth, [He differs] in two other ways; therefore
other ways of difference are found in the Divine [persons], not being those according to the
relations. Therefore also Dionysius, the very wise in divine things, in the chapter concerning
symbolic and divided theology says, "Thus we both unite and distinguish the divine [things] in the
word, as the divine [things] themselves are both united and distinguished"; and again, "But it is
necessary, I think, having rather undertaken [the task], to set forth the complete manner of divine
union and distinction, so that the whole discourse may become clear to us, all [that is] varied and
unclear being rejected, and defining the proper [things] distinctly and clearly and orderly according
to power." And the divine John of Damascus also, in the ninetieth and forty-second chapter of his
Dogmatics, says that the difference of the divine hypostases is recognized by us not only in three
properties, by the uncaused and paternal, by the caused and filial, and by the caused and
proceeding." These indeed, and all the teachers using the Greek language, theologizing concerning
the distinction in the venerable Trinity, are nowhere found saying, either expressly or unknowingly,
that in the Divine Trinity, the difference is observed only according to the relations. And even if we
should grant this proposition to be true, we also would stand with the truth, and we do not go
against it; by what argument? I will say; because both the Son towards the Father, and the Offspring,
that is the Spirit, towards His own bringer-forth, we refer the difference according to the relations;
and this proposition happens [to be true], and does not contradict us.
Paragraph 7: Besides these things, they bring forward against us, that we slander some of the
saints, because one says, "and the Spirit [proceeds] through the Son," and the other, "Let the
proceeding property remain in the Father alone." And they say, "These [are] ignorant, because the
'through the Son' is said thus due to the prevailing custom, and only [signifies] that the proceeding

194
and the proceeding property of the Spirit [are] the same." But against these [things] it is easy to say:
if indeed we say the Spirit [proceeds] through the Son, due to the prevailing custom thus, but we
understand clearly [Him] Himself to proceed from the Son, even if we do not expressly say this,
then according to them, since not in the same place where we say the Father [is] uncaused, we also
say the Father [is] from the Son, thus we will understand also the things said concerning the Father,
that even if we do not expressly say Him to be from someone, we nevertheless know Him to have
existence from someone, as the Scripture of all says! And who is the "someone," from whom the
God of all [is] and maker, as from a cause, except the Father? But these men, changing their
argument, attempt in another way to defend this proposition; that the "through the Son" is said of
the Spirit, the saint has stated looking to another meaning; that is, not originally, nor properly, [or]
according to the first cause, [does He proceed] from the Son alone, since also in the Father [He] has
the principle; but we understand [Him to proceed] from the Father through the Son, and from the
Father and the Son; and for these [reasons] we conclude, that also from the Son He proceeds;
whence for the confirmation of this understanding, the saint has stated, "and the Spirit [proceeds]
through the Son," with the conjunction "AND" proposing the affirmation, so that he might show,
what you dogmatically affirm, [namely,] that not also from the Son does the Holy Spirit proceed, but
he has manifestly declared something else than this, [namely,] "and the Spirit [proceeds] through the
Son." But [it is] a great wonder, how going through the use of these [words] so many times, being
Greeks [ourselves] and using Greek idioms according to the dialect, you have not yet been able to
understand, looking to what purpose the Damascene has thus set this forth! These indeed [are]
rather bold than strong [arguments] against us; but these your interpretations, someone coming
forward to them might say, the saint who wrote this usage, has already preempted [them], having
first explained himself before all, and having most clearly confirmed [it], υπεραπολογέµενος the choir
of the saints, and showing the purpose for which he says, "and the Spirit [proceeds] through the
Son"; for he immediately adds what follows this saying, "But [He is] the Spirit of the Son, and
indeed of the Father [He is] shown, [and He is] acknowledged to be imparted"; so that he clearly
removes the one [aspect], and posits the other; but they, what he himself denies, these [they] assert,
as [something] received by all; but what he says is to be believed openly to all, they reject; and
putting aside the thing said in silence, they posit the opposite, and prefer the unwritten to the
written. But moreover besides these, also that [must be] known, since it is written in the same place,
"But we do not say the Son [is] from the Spirit," then according to them, [using] the same
qualifications also for this [statement], we will explain all things, which also are said concerning the
Holy Spirit; that is, we do not say the Son [is] from the Spirit, not originally, nor properly, [or]
according to the first cause, [He is] from the Spirit alone, since also from the Father He has the
principle; we understand clearly also this [statement] concerning the Spirit to be begotten, even if we
do not expressly say this; therefore also for the confirmation of this understanding the saint has
stated, "But we do not say the Son [is] from the Spirit," with the conjunction "AND," but having
made the negation without the conjunction, he showed the Son also to be from the Spirit, as [He is]

195
from the Father [He] has existence. So great a calamity and destruction of the soul [it is], having
overlooked all other things, to hunt after a certain theologian's [words], and to think to excel only in
this, not gathering all the thought of the writer from the whole writing.
Paragraph 8: Moreover, if, as you say, the same is the originating property of the Spirit and the
originator, and you wish to show the theologian's intent, instead of saying something clearer about
the originating property, you signify something rather unclear in saying it is the originating property,
and regarding the Son, the same would remain the generating property and the generated, and
indeed there would be no difference in calling the same thing both generated and generating, and the
same Spirit both originating and originated; but the generating is defined by the person of the
Father, and the generated property by the Son; just as, of course, the originating belongs to the
Father as the one who projects, and the originated property to the hypostasis of the Spirit; therefore
the originating property does not signify the same as the procession in the divine persons; far from
it! For just as the generating property, if it did not remain solely with the Father, would not be
glorified, for then He would be thought to have another Son as well, so also the originating property,
if it were not attributed only to the Father, but also to the Spirit, then the Spirit would necessarily be
believed to project either Himself or another Spirit from Himself. And otherwise, a property is most
logically said to belong to a person, by which that person is distinguished from another; but where
there is one property and only one, how can this be said to belong to that person according to
reason? From the testimony of all, it is clear from this also that the holy one says that the originating
property belongs to the Father's person, along with the unbegotten and the generating, but not to
the Spirit who alone has the originated; otherwise, as said, He would be thought to either originate
Himself or another Spirit personally existing. The antiquity of all the books before the schism also
bears witness to my words, declaring the originating property to belong to the Father alone, and
silencing those who contradict, especially those concerning the Spirit; even if some copyists have
dared to say this by mistake, instead of transcribing "only to the Spirit," from the original and first
books, only to the Father is undeviatingly set forth, which is wont to happen concerning the
copyists; either (a) to quickly mix the upper strokes, and (b) to consider that vessel to appear
automatically; which is not reasonable nor does it suitably pertain to the problem the originating
property, which belongs only to the Projector.
Paragraph 9: But Saint Augustine introduces, in many of his own writings, explicitly stating
concerning the Holy Spirit, that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Son, and it is entirely
necessary, either to cast him out from the choir of teachers, or to in every way accept him, as a holy
Father, whom ecumenical councils also hold as a teacher. But in response to these things, let us set
Augustine himself interpreting himself; that he says the Spirit also proceeds from the Son, referring
to the economic procession of the Spirit, about which we differ among ourselves, not about the
personal procession of the Spirit, about which our inquiry is. For if this is shown, and the saint is
thought to be against us in this, he will be thought by all to theologize on our behalf, and to side
with us. But if it seems good, first two or three of his usages must be stated, which seem especially

196
to be against us, and then it must be shown in order what purpose he is looking to, thus he
theologizes. This saint, therefore, in his book "On the Trinity," says in one place: "Indeed, we are
able to say, that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Son; for not without reason is the same Spirit
called both of the Father and of the Son; for I do not see what else he intended to signify, when he
breathed into the face of the disciples and said, 'Receive the Holy Spirit'; for neither did that bodily
breathing signify the essence of the Spirit bodily touching the mouth, but a demonstration through
fitting indication, that the Holy Spirit proceeds not only from the Father, but also from the Son."
And in another place, "Let him who is able understand, let him understand; that as the Father has
within Himself, from whom He projects the Holy Spirit, so He has also given to the Son, that from
Him also should be the same Holy Spirit; and each inseparably and thus it has been said that the
Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, so as to be understood to proceed also from the Son, since
what belongs to the Father belongs also to the Son. For whatever the Son has from the Father, He
certainly also has from the Father that from Him proceeds the Holy Spirit." And in another place, in
the same "On the Trinity," it is said: "Word to God is not said if not the Son, nor gift to God if not
the Holy Spirit, nor from whom the Word was begotten, and from whom the Holy Spirit
archetypically proceeds, if not God and Father; and for this reason he added archetypically, since
also from the Son God, the Holy Spirit is found to be proceeding; but since the Father also gave this
to Him, not to one already subsisting, and not yet having it, but whatever He gave to the only-
begotten Word in begetting He gave, thus therefore He begot Him, so that from Him also the same
gift should proceed." And these and such things, which seem to be against us concerning the
procession of the Holy Spirit, he says in many places; but let us examine accurately, what he intends
by all such things, and if perchance he has found another path alone.
Paragraph 10: This same one, therefore, in his fifteenth book on the Trinity, says thus: "The
Holy Spirit, since it thus proceeded as it was about to be given, was already a gift even before it was
given; for a gift is understood in one way when it is said to be a gift, and in another when it is said to
have been given; for it is possible for something to be a gift even before it is given, but it is in no way
possible for something to be said to have been given before it is given." And again, "The Spirit is a
gift of God in the Scriptures, and it is said to be given in many places, as Christ says in the Gospels,
'If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. He who believes in me, as the Scripture has said,
out of his heart will flow rivers of living water'; and the Evangelist, explaining this, immediately
adds, 'But this he spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him were about to receive;
for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.'" And conversing with the
Samaritan woman, He says thus: "If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, 'Give
me a drink,' you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water," and after a little,
"Whoever drinks of this water will thirst again, but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him
will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a spring of water welling up
to eternal life." And Peter, the chief of the Apostles, in the Acts, says, "Repent and let every one of
you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift

197
of the Holy Spirit." And the circumcised believers were astonished because the gift of the Holy
Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. And "if then God gave them the same gift as He
gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?" And to
Simon the same one says, "Your money perish with you, because you thought that the gift of God
could be purchased with money." And the Evangelist John in his first Epistle, "By this we know that
we abide in Him, and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit." And blessed Paul says, "The
love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us"; and there
are many other testimonies of the Scriptures, which unanimously testify that the Holy Spirit is a gift
of God, insofar as He is given to those who love God; therefore He is a gift of God insofar as He is
given to those to whom He is given; but in Himself He is God, even if He is not given to anyone;
since He is God co-eternal with the Father and the Son before He is given to anyone. But because
He is given to some, and not to all, He is not therefore less than those; for He is spoken of as a gift
to God, so that He even gives Himself; for it must not be said to be outside His own authority;
concerning which it has been said, "The Spirit breathes where He wills," and "all these things are
worked by one and the same Spirit, distributing to each one individually as He wills"; nor is there
submission to the one giving and the ones receiving. And in the sixth and twenty-sixth of the same
Chapters, because through the gift love is poured out in our hearts, this our Lord Jesus Christ
signifies, that He gave the Holy Spirit once on earth for love towards neighbor, and again from
heaven for love towards God; and that which was sent from heaven, on the day of Pentecost, which
after the resurrection from the dead, appearing to the Disciples, He breathed on them and said,
"Receive the Holy Spirit"; for this reason also the Lord Jesus Himself gave the Holy Spirit not only
as Lord, but also received Him as man; whence also it is said, "And Jesus was full of grace and of
the Spirit." And it is written more clearly concerning Him, that God has Him the Holy Spirit, since
the Word of God became flesh. Returning to the matter at hand, consider clearly, that this holy one
makes the statements concerning the transmissive procession of the Spirit, and his whole purpose is
concerning this, not concerning His hypostatic procession.
Paragraph 11: But if someone should bring forward the same holy one saying that just as the
body of flesh is one thing and the gift of flesh another, so also the Holy Spirit is not the same as the
gift of the Holy Spirit; again, even if the one given has the one from whom he is given, it must be
confessed that the Father and the Son are one principle of the Holy Spirit, not two principles; but
just as the Father and the Son are one God because they are referentially towards the Holy Spirit one
principle of the Holy Spirit, being and again, the Spirit proceeds from the Father to the Son, and
with the Son proceeds to sanctify creation, but proceeds together from both. If someone should
bring these things forward, it is nothing against us, because none of us says that the gift of the Spirit
is one person, and again the person of the Spirit himself strictly by himself another; but that the
same Spirit proceeding personally only from the Father, is given according to activity, both by the
Son, and by Himself, having a principle according to the giving, even Himself; and just as the Father
and the Son are one God, so also the Holy Spirit is one God with them; and just as if someone

198
should remove the Father from the Trinity, or the Son, it is no longer God, but both the Monad and
the Trinity are immediately destroyed, so in every way, if the Spirit is separated from this, it is
absolutely no longer God. But neither in local or temporal intervals is the Spirit, who is glorified
with the Father’s person, or with the hypostasis of the Only-Begotten, thought to be given, since
with one common glory He proceeds from there to us, and with one giving and one bestowing He is
provided. And because no one of sound mind thinks that the Spirit’s hypostasis proceeds either
from the Father, or from the Son, or even from both, and visits mankind; since being God by
nature, in addition to being by this invisible to all created nature, He is by nature incomprehensible
even by the Cherubim, He is given neither by Himself, nor by the Son, nor by the Father, either
according to essence, or according to hypostasis, nor in this way does the Holy Spirit visit mankind,
as this same divine teacher also distinguishes in the twenty-fourth chapter of the second book on
the Trinity, saying "In what way the one who begot and the one who is begotten are one, so also the
one who sends and the one who is sent are one; for the Father and the Son are one; so also the Holy
Spirit is one with them; for these three are one"; so that he places both himself, and the Evangelist
John, and the most divine Paul, and Peter the chief, and the Lord Christ Himself with us, and
through all these he signifies, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, according
to the imparted gifts of Him, for the sanctification of creation, not according to hypostasis; which
we promised to show you a little earlier.
Paragraph 12: Regarding the difficulty previously raised by us, how the Holy Fathers call only the
Father the source, and what they mean by calling Him the source of the Spirit, we say that the name
"source" is understood according to two significations readily at hand. For a source is called by all
people the very abyss of water and the spring, that is, the beginning and cause and vein, from which
the gushing water flows and proceeds; and if this activity, that is the energy, were to be removed, the
flowing of the water from it, together with the water, would cease. But a source is also called a
naturally receptive and uninterruptedly holding place of the wellspring, into which the water
naturally first flowing from the abyss finds a lodging and is gathered, and from there as from a
reservoir overflowing, gushing forth it is poured out to all and imparted. Thus, the name of the
source having acquired these different significations, when the word is about the Father with the
holy ones, they say He is the source according to the first signification of the source alone, of the
superessential Godhead the Father, and whatever is similar; but when about the Son, entirely
according to the second, whence "with you is the source of life," and the like they say. The Fathers,
however, who gathered at the first Council of Nicaea, since the philosopher was discoursing about a
source and a river and water, and moreover it is quite evident that the source, that is the wellspring,
is the cause of both the flowing and the water, but the river also seems in a way, to those not
carefully considering, to be a beginning and source of the water, forbidding the incongruous
understanding arising from this word, as if not knowing the Son as the projector of the Spirit, he is
therefore called a source according to this, as being the cause of the Spirit’s hypostasis. Therefore,
they say to the inquiring philosopher, through Bishop Leontius, such things: "One is the nature, but

199
three persons are to be spoken of: a source, a river, water"; so that no one, when he says source,
should think this in order to not consider the Son the source of the Holy Spirit, the Fathers,
anticipating, expressly set forth that no one calls the river a source, nor the source a river. The name
of the source signifies the name of the Father alone, and it signifies the one who projects, so that
the Father is said to be the one source of the Son, not only of the Spirit, for one could reasonably
and strongly say, since the source is denied of the Son, the name of the Father alone is denied, not
only that of the projector; but since the source is said of both, and according to this the Father is
the source of the Godhead, both as generating and as projecting; but the source is most clearly
denied of the Son, for no one rightly calls the river a source, nor the source a river; how is it not
clear according to the Fathers, that it is of the same cause to call the Father both generator and
projector, and the Son, and to call the Son, source and projector, that is, also Father?
Paragraph 13: Using this image, the divine Chrysostom, in his interpretation of the third and
forty-ninth Psalm, calls the Father the source, sometimes of the Spirit, and sometimes the same one
the source of the Son; and this is to hymn the same one now as generating, and now as projecting;
and the usage has this manner: "Do you thirst for living water? Let us seek its source"; "What is the
source?" let Jeremiah say, "Thus says the Lord, 'Heaven was astonished at this and shuddered greatly,
because my people have committed two evils: they have forsaken me, the source of living water.'"
Do you see God as the source of water? And is the living water the Holy Spirit? The Father is the
source of living water, the Son is the river proceeding from the source, the Holy Spirit is the water
of the river. Let the prophet Isaiah say these things about the Son, "And the Lord will come as a
river in a thirsty land." Do you see source, river, living water? Here indeed the teacher clearly
accepted the name of the source both of the projector and of the generator; then he adds thus:
“And sometimes the one called a source is called a river, so that it might not seem that again a river
is a source.” And it is the same to say, sometimes he calls the Father both generator and Son,
sometimes he calls the Son both Word, generator and projector, so that gathering we might know, if
there is not according to hypostasis both projection and generation, of necessity there is also a
source, if there is not a source according to hypostasis, whether there is projection or generation.
This is most clearly established, that the Son is not said to be the source of the Holy Spirit, the cause
being that when the Spirit is said to be living water, and the Son life, it reasonably follows that He
also proceeds from the Son as from a source, simply speaking; because also the name of life is
common equally to the three, Father, Son, and Spirit; and indeed the Scripture does not only call the
Spirit the living one, that is, the very person of the Spirit, but also the grace of the Spirit. For the
divine Cyril says in his interpretation of the Gospel of John, explaining "whoever drinks of this
water will thirst again," that "water here the Savior calls the grace of the Holy Spirit; of which
whoever becomes a partaker, he will have springing up within himself henceforth not of himself
the supply of divine teachings." And the divine Chrysostom in his interpretation says, "Scripture
sometimes calls the grace of the Spirit fire, and sometimes water, showing that these names are not
of essence, but of energy; for the Holy Spirit does not subsist from differing essences, being simple

200
and intelligible." And before these the Evangelist himself sets forth the same saying, that the Lord
said concerning the Spirit, "whom those believing in him were about to receive." It is clear that the
Holy Spirit the Paraclete, is given and received, not according to essence, nor according to
hypostasis, but according to energy alone. And these things are to this extent.
Paragraph 14: Since now is the time of repentance, come, let us speak about repentance, what
the golden tongue will say to us. "For even if," he says, "you have countless good deeds, and do not
have consciousness of your own sins, but think you have boldness, you have fallen from all
boldness; and if you bear a myriad of sins upon your conscience, and only acknowledge yourself in
all things, that you are the least of all, you will have great boldness toward God." And indeed this is
not humility, to consider oneself being a sinner when one is a sinner; for humility is when someone,
conscious of many and great good deeds in himself, does not imagine anything great about himself;
but nevertheless, God, through His ineffable compassion, receives and becomes merciful and long-
suffering and accepts even those who ungratefully speak of their sins, and is reconciled to those so
disposed. Therefore, I exhort and beseech and implore you to confess to God continually; for I do
not lead you into a theater of your own affairs, nor do I compel you to uncover your sins to men;
unfold your conscience before God, and show Him the wounds, and ask from Him the remedies.
Show them to the One who does not reproach, but heals; even if you are silent, He knows all things.
Say therefore, so that having laid down all things here, you may depart there pure, and you will have
release from transgressions, and from that unbearable public exposure. Have you sinned? Say to
God from your whole soul and contrite heart, that you have sinned; and the sins are blotted out; you
first speak your sins, so that you may be justified; speak the sin, and you have dissolved it; there is no
labor in this, nor period of time nor expenditure of money. You have a path of repentance; what is
this? Simply to grieve for the sin; have you sinned? Grieve, and you dissolve it; you also have proof
of this from Scripture; lament, and groan, not because you are about to be punished, but because
you have offended the Master, who so loves you, and on whom your salvation depends, so as even
to give His Son for you. For Rahab was a harlot, but she was saved; and the publican was a tax
collector, but he was shown to be a fellow citizen; and Matthew was a tax collector, but he was
brought forth as an Evangelist; and Paul was a persecutor of the Church, but he was called an
Apostle; so even if they descended into the depths of vice, they also reached the summit of virtue.”
Paragraph 15: Knowing these things, let us neither be despondent when we are in difficulties,
nor remain secure when we are in good fortune; but let us both be sober and stand upright, lest
being confident we fall, and sinning let us repent, so that despair may not prevail over our salvation;
for both of these things are clearly shown in the divine pronouncements, both to be confident
excessively, and to despair are set forth; wherefore Paul, restraining the former, says, “Let him who
thinks he stands, take heed lest he fall”; but restraining the latter, the Prophet says, “Does he who
falls not rise? Or does he who turns away not return?” and in every way, “Return to me, and I will
return to you”; and elsewhere, confirming the salvation through repentance, he says, “As I live,” says
the Lord, “I do not desire the death of the sinner, but that he should turn and live”; and these things

201
are said to the sinner. But to the one in righteousness He says, “If a man does all righteousness, and
all truth, and then sins, I will not remember his righteousness, but he will die in his sins,” O the
excellent economy! He has mercy on the sinner, but makes the righteous afraid, because if he
frightens the one persisting in sins, he sends him to despair, but if he blesses the one practicing
righteousness, he immediately leads him to vanity; and to the one who has fallen he extends a
philanthropic hand, and to the one who stands he brings a saving fear, awakening his inclination
towards good. Therefore, do not say to me, “I am lost, and what shall I do?” do not say, “I have
sinned, what shall I do?” you have a physician willing, able, and desiring to heal. “If we confess our
sins,” says John, the Son of Thunder, “He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us
from all unrighteousness.” “My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin.
And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. And He
Himself is the propitiation for our sins.” To these things I myself would add that no sin is
unforgivable, except the one that is unrepented; having the Paraclete remaining with us we partake
of the Holy Spirit. For if Chrysostom introduces the Father receiving us, and the inspired one the
Son interceding for us, and the one speaking to us says that the Holy Spirit daily cleanses our
lawlessness, let us repent as is necessary and we will certainly be saved. Amen.

202
 DISCOURSE XIX. CONCERNING THE TRANSCENDENTAL TRINITY.
Demonstrating necessarily that if it is supposed that the Holy Spirit also proceeds hypostatically
from the Son, countless absurdities follow. It has been clearly confirmed by the imperial ones, by the
divinely-seen Elijah in the Triclinium of the East.

Paragraph 1: Of the doctrines concerning the Divine Trinity, some we receive having received
them from the mouth of the Word of God, and others we believe having learned them from the
things said explicitly to the Prophets, and Apostles, and Teachers. Of the spurious, however, both
the counterfeit and the dangerous, not only because they are not said purely by the Word of God,
nor are found in the usages of the saints, but also recognizing them from the reduction to absurdity
we avoid them. For the reduction to absurdity resembles a terrible pathless way, and it leads those
going by it to a precipice; whose danger those being saved understanding, turn back to safety; but
the words of Christ, and of His servants, lead by a pure path to the truth itself. Therefore, it is also
written, just as those holding to the faith rest on a secure anchor, so those having fallen from it are
nowhere able to stand, but wandering many wanderings up and down, are finally carried to the very
chasms of perdition. The dogma in Italy concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit, in addition to
not being said explicitly by the Savior, nor being found in the usages of the saints, and being mocked
by reason, is shown to lead to many precipices. And if it seems good today, and nothing great
prevents, let us examine carefully, what this enforced thing leads to. For if it is supposed that the
Holy Spirit proceeds personally also from the Son, many of the confessed dogmas are abolished,
and such a hypothesis is contrary to many pronouncements of the saints, and countless absurdities
follow it. But it is necessary not only to think as it happens that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the
Father and from the Son, but before this to consider the consequence of the things following from
this. However, what dogmas are abolished from this opinion, and to what pronouncements of the
saints it is contrary, has often been said to you through many things; but what of the absurdities
following from it, it is now opportune to speak.
Paragraph 2: For if the Son projects the Spirit personally, many new names would also be and be
called. For He would be not only the Word of God, and Son of the Father, but also co-cause with
Him of the Spirit, and co-projector, and caused by the Father, and co-caused with the Spirit, and
cause of Himself, and immediate cause, and properly cause, and half-projector, and altogether all
things. Again, if the Holy Spirit proceeds according to hypostasis from the Father and the Son, God
and Father in the same blessed Trinity, insofar as He is one and only generator, as cause of the Son
and Word, the same Father with the Son, as one projector, as cause of the Holy Spirit again is; one
cause of the Word, because He alone, and because unbegotten, and because Father, and because
generation is the thing proceeding from Him; and another directly of the Spirit, because two, and
because not unbegotten, and because projector, and because projection is the thing proceeding from
them; another and another you have, but two causes there certainly are; and if this, diarchy, instead
of the monarchy of the Trinity believed by us is believed, that is, one principle of the Son the Father

203
alone, as Father; and another again of the Spirit, the Father and the Son, as projectors. But some
both think and write and proclaim and denounce as schismatics those not thinking this blasphemous
thing. But if even in addition to these the Son is caused, but not only by the Father, and the Spirit is
caused, but by the Father and the Son, two persons in the Trinity are causes; and two persons in it
are caused; and of these two causes, one will be the cause of two persons only, and the other of one
only, and of the two again caused, one will be caused by two persons, and the other caused by one
person only, and the same will be both cause and caused only.
Paragraph 3: Again, if the Holy Spirit, as they say, proceeds both from the Father and the Son,
this will be either as from one God, of necessity, or as from one Father, or as from one Projector;
for besides these there is nothing else; if indeed as from one God, the Spirit is a creature; for of
creatures the Father and the Son are the cause, insofar as they are God; if however as from one
Father, two Fathers and two Sons have arisen for us in the Trinity; if however as from one Projector,
since the "Projector" is personal, only the Father and the Holy Spirit, who are only according to
essence, and the Father and the Son, not only those according to essence, but also according to the
personal; and this is Sabellianism.
Paragraph 4: Moreover, if the Holy Spirit proceeds according to subsistence from the Father and
the Son, the Father will therefore be Father not only of the Son, but also Father of the projector;
and moreover, also generator of the co-projector with Him; and again, not only cause of the caused
Word, but also cause of the Godhead, and co-cause with Him of the same; and the Son also is cause
according to participation, and projector according to grace, and not properly cause. And the divine
Spirit will be and will be called caused from different causes, that is, from uncaused cause, and from
caused cause, caused from cause.
Paragraph 5: Furthermore, when we say the Father and the Son are cause of the Spirit, what
should one consider concerning this cause? Whether, that it is an uncaused cause, having no prior
cause in itself, just as we say the Father is the unoriginate cause of the Son? Or that it is from a cause
having been established beforehand? As if one should say only of the Son, that He is the cause of
the Spirit? Or each in part, and it is both unoriginate, and from a beginning the same? Or now this,
and now that? Or neither of these? But if indeed the first, the Son will inherit the property of the
uncaused; if however the second, we will abolish the Father, taking away from Him the property of
the uncaused, and assigning it to the caused; if however the third, how could the same be both
uncaused and caused? The same to say, both from someone, and not from someone? But also the
fourth is likewise impossible to these.
Paragraph 6: Furthermore, if the Father and the Son are the cause of the Holy Spirit according
to hypostasis, and the Holy Spirit is referred to the Father and Son as caused, not only a Monad and
Trinity is God to us, but also a Dyad; for cause, and caused being one, certainly introduces a Dyad,
and gives occasion for belief in it; but we both know and worship God as Monad and Trinity, but to
call Him Dyad is unbearable to the orthodox.

204
 Paragraph 7: Furthermore, in whatever way the caused being is predicated of two persons, it
gives us in every way two caused persons to understand in the Divine Trinity, in the same way,
therefore, if the cause is predicated of the Father and the Son simultaneously, it would introduce a
dyad of causing persons, and of necessity two persons, the Father and the Son, would be the causes
of the Spirit. For the one person is certainly from the two, and the two persons are causes of the
one; for the Holy Spirit is one, as also the Father is one, and the Son is one; but Father and Spirit are
not one in hypostases; and Son and Spirit are not one in properties; and Father and Son are not one
in persons, but two, even if they are one in nature; for one is one and another is another, even if not
other and other; if however these things, therefore two are the causes of the Spirit; if however a
precipice on either side, which would someone say, both the Father and the Son are two causes of
the Spirit, neither are both persons one cause of the one, in no way therefore is the Son the cause of
the Holy Spirit according to hypostasis. For just as the caused being predicated of two persons does
not make the Son and the Spirit caused, so also the cause predicated of two persons entirely, if this
is entirely conceded, will make the Father and the Son caused, in no way and by no means.
Paragraph 8: Furthermore, if the Holy Spirit, as from one cause of the two persons, Father and
Son, proceeds according to hypostasis, the one generator, that is, the Father alone, in relation to the
one projector, that is, the Father and the Son, will be as the particular to the universal; for the one
generator is certainly also projector, but the one projector is certainly also generator; and moreover,
always the more universal is more principle; therefore the one projecting is certainly first and
principle and source and cause of the Godhead; second however the one generating; consequently
also the person proceeding from the one projector, will be prior to the one generated from the one
generator; therefore the projection is prior to the Father; and the Spirit is prior than the Son; and it
results from these things, that the Son, because He is also projector, is prior to the Spirit, but
because generated, later, not however according to time, but according to mode; for those of the
divine persons one generates, the other is generated, these are certainly two persons; but again for
each of these, both as Father, and as Son, cause of the Spirit, but both of these are the cause of the
Spirit, insofar as projector, of all necessity insofar as more universal cause, more principle.
Paragraph 9: Furthermore, concerning the hypostatic properties of the Godhead, if Father, this
also unbegotten; and if unbegotten, this also Father; likewise also if Son, this also Word of God;
and if Word of God, this also Son; but as also concerning the Spirit, if Holy Spirit proceeding, this
also Projection; and if Projection, this also Holy Spirit proceeding. Since therefore it is predicated of
the Father and the unbegotten to project, if therefore projector, this also unbegotten and Father;
and if unbegotten and Father, this also projector; if therefore also the Son is also projector with the
Father, He will also be unbegotten, and Father of necessity.
Paragraph 10: Furthermore, of all the hypostatic properties of the Trinity, some are uncaused,
and others from a cause; and therefore it is impossible for things diametrically opposed to ever come
together into the same. For the uncaused are proper only to the Father, and those from a cause are
foreign to Him; likewise also conversely, those from a cause are proper to the Son and to the Spirit,

205
and the uncaused are foreign to them; in whatever way, the uncaused would not become caused, in
the same way, therefore, the properties of the caused would not come together with the properties
of the uncaused; and as the common would not become individual, so also the individual to
someone common, and the foreign proper, and the proper foreign; for to mix proper and common,
and foreign and proper, and caused and uncaused, and the thing gathered from these as introducing
a distinguishing characteristic, is both bold, and vain, and superfluous, and equal to a word of
blasphemy, both to divide the persons by the common and uniting ones, and to attempt to join
together the distinguished ones; and to introduce union into the distinction, they are mixing all
things.
Paragraph 11: Furthermore, if the Holy Spirit, as from one cause of the Father and the Son,
proceeds hypostatically, since the one cause is referred to three persons, it is not possible to call God
one because of such a reference of the one to the two; for neither is one man both grandfather, and
father, and son; as Gregory of Nyssa has said; and to us God is one, to whom the one cause is
referred of the Son and of the Spirit, but not one of two, the synonym of this and the name of the
theology; and the Father alone is the cause of Son and Spirit, as it has been said by Damascus, from
the person of all the teachers; and each person, having the defining characteristic of the one alone
established within itself, and as it is fitting, being predicated not of the divine Trinity, this is said to
distinguish it from the remaining two. Just as certainly it does not join together, because the Father
alone is unbegotten, separating Him from Son and Spirit, in the same way also the Father alone
being cause, separates Him from Son and Spirit; just as therefore the Son alone is begotten, and the
Holy Spirit alone proceeding, separates the Son from Father and Spirit, and the Holy Spirit from
Father and Son according to hypostasis.
Paragraph 12: Furthermore, since the Father is greater than the Son according to the reason of
cause, as they themselves say, of necessity also the Son, if He projects the Spirit, is by this very thing
greater than the Spirit; if however this, the Father therefore is not by a greater distance greater than
the Spirit, than than the Son; for the greater of the greater, is much greater; conversely therefore the
Holy Spirit, is not by a greater distance less than the Father, than the Son; for the less of the less, is
much more less; I say however according to the reason of cause.
Paragraph 13: Furthermore, the Father alone is the only principle in the Trinity, and not under a
principle; but the Holy Spirit is under a principle only, but not also a principle; but if the Son
projects the Spirit personally, He is both, that is, both principle and under a principle; thus the
difference of the Father to the Spirit becomes double the difference which He has to the Son. So of
necessity the Son has a greater and higher relation to the Father, than the Holy Spirit; and from this
so many absurdities follow, and this itself is most absurd. We indeed, just as we call each of the
subsistences of the Godhead God, and each from God, speaking concerning the Son and the Spirit,
but not on account of this three, or ever two Gods; because we also say principle and from a
principle the Son, but not ever two principles, both the Father and the Son; for a second principle
we have not yet even today heard from the pious, just as neither a second God; but one God to us,

206
and monarchy is the worshipped one, not from two Gods, nor from two principles, nor from two
causes converging into one; since not even according to these is the worshipped one divided for us.
Paragraph 14: Furthermore, if the Son, the same one, is with the Father according to the
projecting, and this is not essential, but personal, there is then a personal identity of Father and Son;
if however this, the Father and the Son, insofar as one is uncaused being uncaused, and the other is
generated being caused, are two persons; insofar however again they are one projector, they subsist
one person; and moreover also the projected person is other than them, and a tetrad of persons
instead of a Trinity is introduced; if however the projecting of the Spirit is neither essential, nor
personal, besides these however nothing else distinct is believed in the Trinity; therefore in no way
does the Spirit proceed from the Father and the Son together.
Paragraph 15: Furthermore, the one who is the only generator, I say the Father, is not the same
in number as the one who projects, that is, the Father and the Son; for they do not reciprocate; but
those things which are said to be the same in number reciprocate; that they do not reciprocate is
evident; for the one is generator, and of necessity also projector; if however as projector, if there is
one, that is, He is certainly also one generator; the same is certainly another; therefore two in
number are they, not one generator and the one projector; and moreover each of these is a principle
of the Godhead; and these things being thus established, two principles of the Godhead are in the
Trinity, differing from each other in number.
Paragraph 16: Furthermore, if someone should arrive at such madness, so as to say the Son of
God is generated not only from the paternal person alone, but also from the hypostasis of the Holy
Spirit thus possessing some timeless generation, just as of course from God and Father, would it not
seem to all that this is to say two principles? It is entirely clear. Just as he who receives, or introduces,
or says the Father and the Holy Spirit to be two equal generators in word, says certainly these two to
be causes, so also he who thinks therefore the Father and the Son to be two projectors of the Spirit,
introduces two principles of the Spirit; but one is the cause, and one the projector, the Father and
the Son, not two; thus just as he who thinks the one Father and the Holy Spirit to be the cause of
the Word according to them, but the Father alone to be properly the cause of the Spirit, thinks two
causes in the divine Trinity, so also he who believes the Father and the Son to be the cause of the
Spirit, but the Father alone to be properly the cause of the Word according to Himself, of necessity
believes two causes in this.
Paragraph 17: Furthermore, the Father and the Son are two persons; every person, having its
existence from two persons, has two causes; therefore the Holy Spirit, if He proceeds hypostatically
from the Father and the Son, there being two persons, has two causes.
Paragraph 18: Furthermore, if the projection, that is, the Holy Spirit personally, is referred not to
the Father alone as to one principle, but is referred to the Father specifically and to the Son, and the
Son according to Himself is referred to one specific principle the Father alone, His own person
having no other principle, besides the projector of the Spirit according to Himself, it is evident that

207
two principles of one person are introduced in the Divine Trinity; if however this is believed, the
dogma of the monarchy of the Trinity is overthrown.
Paragraph 19: Furthermore, the Father is other and not the same as the Son; just as the Son is
other and not the same as the Father; for one has been incarnate according to hypostasis, and the
other remains unincarnate; every hypostasis subsisting from another and another hypostasis has two
principles; therefore the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit, proceeding from the Father and the Son, has
two principles.
Paragraph 20: Furthermore, if the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son according
to hypostasis, the Theotokos Mary, (and may the Holy Spirit the Comforter be merciful to me!) is
not only Mother of the Word, but also Pro-mother in a way of the Spirit, as having not only given
birth to the Son of the Father, but also to the projector of the Spirit; and how of the so many called
Theotokia, contending in multitude with the sand of the seashore, and of all theologians most
zealous, and with many names hallowing her, has she not been heard by any of them called mother
of the projector? It is entirely evident, that they have all kept silent about that which is not, as not
being.
Paragraph 21: Furthermore, if the Holy Spirit proceeds personally from the Father and the Son,
all the theologians who say that the Holy Spirit has all that He has, the same to be, He has from the
Father, and not from elsewhere, are lying; but if they all speak the truth, therefore according to the
saints it must be concluded thus. All things whatsoever the Son and the Holy Spirit have, even their
very being, they have from the Father alone, and not from elsewhere; of what therefore the Spirit
has from the Father alone and primarily, is the very being according to subsistence, which signifies
the proceeding; therefore the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone.
Paragraph 22: Furthermore, if the Holy Spirit proceeds personally from two persons, from the
uncaused I say and the generated, either perfectly proceeding from one, the procession from the
other is superfluous; or imperfectly proceeding from one, it does not have perfection from the
other; all of which are foreign to God; since perfectly the Spirit proceeds hypostatically from the
Father, therefore not also from the Son personally does He proceed. Nor is it unreasonable also
from the conclusion itself, to reason thus: every one who is cause not only of one person, but also
of the person proceeding from Him, He alone is hypostatically uncaused cause of these two
persons; the Father is not only of the Son, but also of the person proceeding from Him, according
to them, the preceding person, He alone is hypostatically uncaused cause; therefore of the Holy
Spirit He alone is hypostatically cause.
Paragraph 23: Furthermore, every one who is cause of two persons by Himself alone, not one
more, and the other less; or one prior, and the other later; but equally and simultaneously of one of
them, whichever one might say, He Himself alone is cause; the Father by Himself alone, of the two
persons, both Son and Spirit being causes, not of one more, and of the other less, or of one prior,
and of the other later; but of both equally and simultaneously; therefore of the Holy Spirit, He
Himself is the only cause.

208
 Paragraph 24: But of the divine persons, He says, being in all things equal to each other, and
each being that which the others are, according to the individual property of each, according to
which the one is referred to the other, three properties are both said and believed by all the
theologians for the three persons; and these are paternity, sonship, and procession, according to
which Father and Son and Holy Spirit are proclaimed; but besides these they are said either
specifically, or they are said apophatically, as when it signifies not what it is, but what it is not, as the
unbegotten, the unoriginate, the uncaused, and the rest; or being said cataphatically it is said by
comparison as generation to sonship. These things being thus, how does the one saying the Father
alone projector, which signifies neither what the Father is, nor what God is said to be, attach this
projecting property to the other three, and thence a tetrad of properties, and consequently of the
hypostases will be thought? Which is impious and polytheistic.
Paragraph 25: Therefore, not a tetrad of properties is immediately gathered, nor consequently is
it thought, far be it! And it is clear from there. That the Father, one person of the Trinity, has three
properties, by which He differs from the remaining two persons, the uncaused, the generating, and
the projecting; for it is impossible for one person to have many properties; for one property of
many is not admissible, but many of one, no reason prevents; and witnesses Gregory the Great,
saying in his work on the ordination of Bishops, “The properties, however, of the Father alone are
unoriginate and being thought of and being called of a principle, and of a principle as cause, and as
source, and as eternal light; but of the Son unoriginate not at all, but of all things a principle.” Have
you heard of what things the Son is principle? Do not therefore consider Him the principle of the
Godhead; for this is a property of the Father, just as indeed also the source, and the cause, and the
unoriginate. And in his first work on the Son, numbering the properties of Father and Son and Holy
Spirit He says, “This is to us the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; one generating and
projecting;” thus just as the generating, so also the projecting, is proper to the Father alone; so that
each is proper, and not likewise only proper, as some claim; for how could both this and that, the
same both common to two persons at once, and again proper to one, or divided of two, and uniting
of one? And in the second of the Against Eunomius, declaring the greater things of the Father, he
adds, “What other is God than Father? This is the limit of glory, not subtraction;” as also projector
of the Spirit. And elsewhere, “I introduce the Father as principle of the Godhead, timeless and
inseparable and undefined; honoring the principle, and the things from the principle likewise; both,
because He is the principle of such things, and because thus, and such things, and from such.” John
of Damascus also says, “Father source and cause both of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; but Father
of the Son alone and projector of the Holy Spirit.” And Silvester of Rome distinguishes thus in his
prayer: “One God truly existing, Father, having a true Son generated from Thee, a true Holy Spirit
proceeding from Thee.” Moreover also Athanasius in his work on the Trinity says, “God is the
principle of all according to the Apostle saying, ‘One God the Father, from whom are all things’; for
the Word is from Him generatedly, and the Spirit from Him processionally.”

209
 Paragraph 26: Of these three properties, which I mentioned, the Father alone has the uncaused
in Himself, but the remaining two are relations, as He is related to those having existence from Him;
for uncaused is not of another, nor is it said in relation to another, but since He is not of another,
nor is He from another cause that which He is, and has that which He has, just as the Son and the
Holy Spirit, but His very being and having primarily, He is and has; generator however, that is, He is
Father in relation to the Son; projector however, in relation to the Holy Spirit. Again unoriginate and
unbegotten and uncaused, the Father alone is in the divine Trinity; moreover, alone cause, alone
source of the Godhead, alone Father, and alone projector, as has been shown beforehand. Of all
these the theologians say the unbegotten is proper to the Father, and that this is a mode of
existence, with common agreement they declare it of the Father, and they say this to differentiate
Him from Son and Spirit, so that by this word of the unbegotten, all the remaining things are
immediately confirmed of Him, both of principle and unprincipled, of cause and uncaused, and of
Father and projector, and indeed also of source; and these things remaining, the triad of properties
remains undiminished; and no longer a tetrad, nor a hebdomad of subsistences follows. Moreover
Thomas, the teacher of the Latins, not only three properties, but also four to be in the divine
persons he confesses, saying in the second and thirty-second question, of the first of his theological
works: “The cognitions are not in the divine; of these only four are properties.”
Paragraph 27: Again, let us exercise ourselves thus concerning the proposed matter. Is paternity
only the proper property of the Father, and nothing more? Or also by other properties is the Father
called, if indeed He has also others, they do not speak truthfully saying, paternity alone is the proper
property of the Father; if however He does not have, those saying also the unbegottenness, and the
projecting, to be properties of the Father are lying; but this the saints say, but that men; therefore
paternity alone is not the proper property of the Father; whence if someone should say, that the
unbegotten is negation, and signifies not what it is, but what it is not; and it belongs also to the Holy
Spirit, the word is not true, until the theologians give this as proper to the Father, and say it signifies
a mode of existence. For the great Basil himself, not in the first of the Against Eunomius sets forth,
that the Father is the same as the unbegotten; for it signifies the having generated the Son, and it
shows the being from no one. And Gregory the Theologian in his works on the Holy Spirit, “But
the not having been generated, and the having been generated, and the proceeding, he named the
one the Father, the other the Son, and this which is said, the Holy Spirit; so that the unconfused
might be preserved of the three hypostases.” And the divine Justin Martyr in his third chapter on the
Faith says, “The unbegotten,” he says, “and generated, and proceeding, are not indicative of essence,
but are signifying of the hypostases; for they are sufficient for us to distinguish the persons, and to
believe the hypostasis of the Father and of the Holy Spirit.” And πάντες in the same, “The
unbegotten and generated and proceeding, are not names of essence, but the mode of existence is
characterized by these names, so that the difference of the Father to the Son and the Holy Spirit
might be considered according to the mode of existence; for the one has the to be unbegotten, the
other the to be generated, the other the to be proceeding, the differences are naturally

210
contemplated.” And the later of the many theologians John the Syrian, in his On the Doctrines thus
distinguishes, “Through the Father the Spirit also has all things which He has; that is, through the
Father having them, much of the unbegottenness, and of the generation, and of the procession; for
by these hypostatic properties alone, the holy three hypostases differ from each other.” And again,
“All things whatsoever the Father has belong to the Spirit, except the unbegottenness, which
signifies not a difference of essence, nor of dignity, but a mode of existence.” Do you see how all
consider the unbegotten proper to the Father, and a mode of existence, as they establish this by
agreement? For not only by this hypostatic property do they say Him to differ from Son and Spirit,
so that by the word of the unbegotten, both Father and Projector are immediately conceived, as has
been said.
Paragraph 28: It must indeed also be known that the unbegotten being said of the Father, even
if in word it seems privative, but in reality it is most truly subsistent, and more than generated, and
proceeding; and I say here how. For just as the mortal and the immortal have the opposite in reality,
according to being privative or subsistent; for the one privative in word, declares the ever existence,
but the one subsistent in word, declares cutting off and impossibility of such existence; so also the
unbegotten, and the generated, and the proceeding, being said of the divine persons, the unbegotten
indeed declares of the Father, that whatever He has He does not receive from another, nor even the
very being which He is, but He is alone and first Himself from Himself; the generated declares, and
also the proceeding, that the Son and the Holy Spirit are not from themselves, nor do they have all
things which they have from themselves, but from another; for because the Father is, the Son and
the Holy Spirit are; and because the Father has something, the Son has what He has, and the
Paraclete Himself; but the Father Himself is uncaused; since He is not because of another that He
is, nor because of another having does He have Himself, but because He Himself is and has, and is
alone and has, as has been said; therefore rather the unbegotten, than the generated and proceeding
and mortal, signifies position and existence. But if someone should call the generated and
proceeding constitutive and characteristic of the hypostases of the Son and of the Spirit, much
more must one believe and say the unbegotten, as more subsistent, to be constitutive of the
hypostasis of the Father.
Paragraph 29: Thus therefore the unbegotten is shown to be a mode of existence of the Father;
if however this is also conceived of the Holy Spirit, He is also reckoned as proper to Him
beforehand; of course it is necessary for all the heretics to be completely refuted, to be instructed
concerning all things by the God-bearing Fathers, and not to use logical methods illogically, against
the God-taught voice of the saints; “See how you hear,” says the oracle; “and you all know, that
when we call the Father, or the Projector, the Father of lights, we do not declare by these words,
how He is; nor do we show the mode of His existence, but we signify only this, that He gives
existence to others, and He Himself is the cause of being to others;” therefore both paternity, and
the projecting property are constitutive of the Father, but only the unbegotten, as it seems to the
saints; so that he who thinks two persons to be the projector of the Spirit, and joining to this the

211
Son and the Spirit, that one is he who introduces a tetrad of persons in the divine Trinity, whoever
he might be; but the one believing in this, the one being Father, him alone to be also only projector,
and joining to this the things proceeding from Him according to a different mode, namely the
generation and the projection.
Paragraph 30: These things being thus, we do not impiously assign the projecting property to the
Father alone, and not also to the Son; because it is a mode of speaking of the distinguished personal
properties in the divine Trinity, if indeed it is fitting to call these constitutive of them, it is right to
call thus those characterizing the mode of existence, just as the unbegotten of the Father, and the
being generated and being proceeded, the one of the Son, and the other of the Holy Spirit; not the
generating, or the projecting, being only proper, but showing a relation of the Father to those from
Him, namely the generation and the projection; therefore he who believes the Father alone projector
does not introduce polytheism, nor does he attach any property assigned to the other properties to
another at all, which is impious and polytheistic. And these things are thus.
Paragraph 31: It is necessary therefore for us to keep silent about the mystery of the divine
Trinity, to be ignorant first indeed towards the Trinity itself, then also towards the consubstantial,
and not to accuse things illogically, but to know well that of things some are properly good, and
some properly bad and some intermediate, etc. As not in the ethical of the divine Word.

212
 DISCOURSE XX. CONCERNING THE TRANSCENDENTAL TRINITY.
Treating correctly concerning the order observed in the divine persons. Spoken not in the Secret of
the Palace. Which things also the Emperor immediately ordered to be written.

Paragraph 1: Having received our being from the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and
having been baptized into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and living
in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, (for we are also His offspring, which Paul says having
received from those outside; “For in Him we live and move and have our being,”) according to His
own will henceforth we all ought to conduct ourselves; for for this grace we have been brought forth
into the world, and by the providence of all are we preserved, so that having known these things
here, that the one and only God is the Trinity, and having departed from here a portion may be ours,
according to the analogy of each one’s faith, and according to the measure of the working of His
commandments; and this is the true life, and heavenly knowledge, which Christ declared in the
Gospels, saying to His own Father, “And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true
God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent;” saying knowledge here the orthodox faith, the
indwelling of God in men, and the ineffable illumination, of which those becoming worthy of it
partake. But concerning the illumination of the Holy Spirit, and His indwelling in the faithful, giving
the word to us, we have explained more fully in other places; now what occasion we have concerning
the order observed in the divine Trinity urging us to speak, concerning this henceforth let us say
thus, and let us explain the power as if before the eyes of the things being said. Therefore, attend to
me simply, and not perversely, lest by showing with three fingers you seize the uncircumscribed; for
we make the word understandable thus to those speaking to us, not daringly attempting to
circumscribe the incomprehensible and inaccessible. But open the eyes of my soul, O God, and I
shall understand. Save me, O Lord, and I shall be saved.
Paragraph 2: The order of the goodness of God towards us, O men, is shown conversely and
differently, from the path of our knowledge of God towards Him; for that indeed extends from the
Father through the Son to the Spirit, thus also it is imparted to us by the Spirit; but this, beginning
from us, (for we are those desiring to know God,) proceeds from the Spirit through the Son to the
Father, and there it is established. Whence the theologians, showing the mode of that theurgic
procession towards us, make the order of the word as from above downwards; therefore every good
giving, and every perfect gift descending from above towards us, from the Father of lights; but when
treating of the path of the knowledge of God, they place the things as beginning from below, and
ending above, as the word proceeds. But these things from the saints, which, either on account of
the outpouring of goodness from there towards us, or on account of our assimilation to the Father
through the Spirit and the Word, have been written, some, on account of all the order and
arrangement of the divine persons, think to have been explained topically, not tropically; that is, they
seem such sayings to be a demonstration, whatever is found, of how the divine persons are related
to each other, both in being and order; and this especially those from Italy show from us.

213
 Paragraph 3: Because what has been said concerning the procession of goodness towards us,
they think to be said concerning the personal procession of the Spirit; and thence they imagine the
Father to be higher in place than both Son and Spirit, and they reckon the Spirit to be lower than
Father and Son, and they posit the Son as intermediate between both, by the higher then and the
lower; as they seem not knowing, that in the divine persons, not the first generates the second, and
this again the third; or the first and the second both according to essence, or will, personally produce
the third, so that there would be two Fathers, or the later the causes of the earlier; for there is not
there prior and later, or first before all, or in any way second and third according to temporal
numbering, so that one has the primacy, and another the secondary, and another the third rank at a
distance; or the third from the first, and that from that, as by the interposition and mediation of the
second they are clearly separated; but the second near to both, as being established from one, and
having the power to be, both from the first and from itself; nor from the dyad of the persons, is the
proceeding person many and should be; nor is the not having proceeded from it referred to the
dyad; how? nor does the first monad move into a second monad, and the second monad into a third
other monad; but the monad alone has moved divinely into a dyad, according to the great in
Theology Gregory, as we piously know and believe and proclaim.
Paragraph 4: But it is believed by them, that of the uncircumscribed and uncontainable Trinity
the hypostasis of the Father is divided and the Father to be both first and highest of the Spirit, and
first of the Son and higher, and, as supercelestial, most distant from us; but the Son intermediate of
the Father, and descending, first of the Spirit and higher, and in a way nearer to us than the Father,
as mediator; but the Holy Spirit, second of the Son, third of the Father, and again closer to us than
the Son and lower, lowest of the Father, and nearest to us, as the highest inclining to the lower; and
the Father alone to the Son both immediate and proximate cause, immediate indeed as extreme
higher of the Spirit and more distant, and alone, intermediate of Father and Son, and intermediate
of those immediate to each other, and holding a middle position towards those on each side of
Him, both immediate and proximate, extreme indeed as not intermediate at all; the intermediate
however of the Father as extreme, the Holy Spirit alone being seen; but all from above intermediate
of the Son, intermediate below, and successively arranging the divine persons, not in a familial or
lineal or serial manner, depending on each other; for not thus from the right, nor from the left, when
the Father is between Son and Spirit, nor between unbegotten and generated the Holy Spirit, but
whole in whole He is; and the being equal to each other in all things is overthrown; and the
unreasonable reasoning from there is preserved, those not granting the Son to pervade through all
things, nor the Spirit; for it is remembered of the Prophet saying, “Where shall I go from Your
Spirit, and from Your face where shall I flee? If I ascend into heaven, You are there; and if I
descend into Hades, You are present.” What then, will he devise as contradiction and opposition of
the Scriptures? The “sitting at My right hand?” and the “having sat at the right hand of the Majesty
in the highest,” being said of the Son? And the “The Lord at your right hand has shattered kings in
the day of His wrath,” being explained of the Spirit? For the right here does not signify a lower

214
place, as the word of these wishes, but clearly shows the relation to equality, by the honorable names
of the session, presenting the magnificence of the honor concerning the Son and the Spirit by the
word, “For I think the equal session of all, to indicate the stable of the nature, and everywhere
steadfast, but the right place, declaring the coequality of dignity.”
Paragraph 5: But that the purpose to the saints is concerning the graces poured out from there
towards us, or our approach thither, whenever they make such usages, and through the order of the
succession, they extend from the Father through the Son to the Spirit, not concerning the position
of the divine persons, or the order alone, is clear from there. For the great Basil in his eighth chapter
to Amphilochius clearly sets forth thus: “Whenever we understand the supply of good things to us
from the Only-begotten, or our own approach and assimilation to God, we confess this grace to be
worked in us and by Him; so that this voice is exceptional of the things having been given; for the
Apostle gives thanks to God through Jesus Christ. And again, through Him to have received grace,
and apostleship for obedience of faith among all the nations, or also through Him we have had
access into this grace in which we stand and boast,” he presents the workings in us by Him, now of
the grace of good things transmitting from the Father to us, now of us approaching the Father
through Himself. For in saying, “Through whom we have received grace and apostleship,” he shows
the supply of good things from there; but in saying, “Through whom we have had access,” he
presents our reception and assimilation through Christ to God happening; “No one comes to the
Father,” He says, “except through Me.” And again, in the eighteenth of the same, “The path of the
knowledge of God is from the one Spirit, through the one Son, to the one Father; and conversely,
the natural goodness, and the sanctification according to nature, and the royal dignity, extend from
the Father, through the Only-begotten, to the Holy Spirit,” so that thus the pious dogma of the
hypostases is preserved, and the monarchy does not fall. And again, in the twenty-sixth of the same,
“It is impossible to see the image of the invisible God, not in the illumination of the Spirit, and for
the one gazing at the image it is impossible for the light to be separated from the image; for the
cause of seeing is of necessity seen together with the things being seen; so that fittingly and
consequently, through the illumination of the Spirit, we behold the radiance of the glory of God,
but through the character, we are led back to Him who is the character and the equal seal.”
Moreover also in the fourth of the Against the Apologists, both through the Apostle and through
himself, he confirms this doubly saying “And there are distinctions of gifts, but the same Spirit; and
there are distinctions of ministries, and the same Lord; and there are distinctions of workings, but
the same God working all things in all;” but all these things he says the one and the same Spirit
works, distributing to each as He wills. Not because the Apostle first mentioned here the Spirit, and
second the Lord, and third God and Father, it is already necessary to think universally that the order
has been written conversely; for they received the beginning from our relation; since receiving the
gifts, we first encounter the one distributing, then we understand the one sending, then we lead back
the thanksgiving to the source and cause of the good things.

215
 Paragraph 6: Thus therefore the theologians, declaring the God-manifested things, placing the
Son as intermediate between Father and Spirit, say the grace of the good things from the Father to
us, and our assimilation to the Father to be worked through Him, not to show Him to be the cause
of the Spirit. But moreover, giving to the Church of Christ the order both of confession and of
initiation, lest some baptize by a foreign custom, or pronounce the confession of faith disorderly,
concerning the faith and order of the super-essential Trinity, known only thus. For Gregory the
Theologian says in the sixth of the Against Eunomius concerning the divine persons, “Thus we
think, and thus we hold, that however these things are of nature and order, this itself alone must be
conceded to the Trinity; and whatever the Trinity reveals to the purified, either now, or in the future
age,” saying the age beyond this age, the boundless age; how then will we altogether give place to
such an order in the uncontainable Trinity, whom all at once, and each of its persons individually, all
the world, and all the supercelestial space above us, does not contain? Or have we forgotten, that the
Father says concerning Himself, “I fill heaven and earth;” and the Apostle concerning the Son, “He
who ascended is the same who also descended into the lower parts of the earth, so that He might fill
all things?” And the Prophet concerning the Spirit, “The Spirit of the Lord has filled the inhabited
world?” And the Church of the faithful sings this hourly, “The Spirit of truth the everywhere
present, and filling all things?” But if we will bear to imagine a topical order, or position in the
divine persons, it is necessary to conceive these things as circumscribed in places; either, the Father
alone to be supercelestial, as indeed I said having said, but the Son immediately after Him celestial,
but the Spirit closer to the two, which are truly foreign to theology; but let there be order there, but
let it be said of God, the succession of the divine names given to us by the saints, either
arrangement, or order, or whatever someone is pleased to call this; and those are considered to be
disorderly, whoever dares to say thus, “The natural goodness to God, extends from the Spirit
through the Son to the Father, and conversely;” and the path of the knowledge of God, and our
approach and assimilation to God, proceeds from the Father through the Son to the Spirit; or
whoever thus disorderly numbers the divine persons, Spirit Father Son; or, Father Spirit Son; for
thus sometimes it is conceived the Spirit to be the cause of Father and Son, sometimes the Son of
the Spirit Son.
Paragraph 7: But that such an arrangement of the names seems to the saints to be a disorder
contrary to them, and having said this, their numbering itself, they do not consider an order divinely
handed down to the Trinity, they themselves are witnesses: the great Basil, in his Epistle to Canons,
saying now this, “The Holy Spirit is numbered together with the Father and the Son, because He is
also above creation; but He is placed third, as we have been taught in the Gospels by the Lord,
saying, ‘Having gone, baptize them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy
Spirit;’ placing the Spirit before the Son, or saying the Son to be older than the Father, this opposes
the ordinance of God, and preserves ways foreign to the healthy faith, not the received mode of
doxology guarding, but devising a neologism for the pleasing of men;” now this, in the same, “The
innovation concerning the order of the Holy Trinity, has a rejection of the existence itself, and is a

216
denial of the whole faith; and it is likewise impious to bring down the Spirit to creation, and to place
Him above either Son, or Father, either according to time, or according to order;” now this, in the
discourse to Eustathius, “It is necessary to flee also those changing the succession, which the Lord
has handed down to us, as manifestly fighting against impiety, and placing the Son before the Father,
and placing the Holy Spirit before the Son.” Saint Augustine in his book on the Trinity says, “We say
the Holy Spirit of the Father, but not conversely do we say the Father of the Holy Spirit, lest the
Holy Spirit be understood to Him as Son. And again, we say the Holy Spirit of the Son, but we do
not also say the Son of the Spirit, lest the Holy Spirit be understood to Him as Father.” And
Gregory of Nyssa in the Against Eunomius, “The Holy Spirit is contemplated with Father and Son,
and is numbered with Father and Son, and through Himself He bestows the approach to the
superessential light, which is in Father and Son, to all those partaking.” And in the homily on the
Our Father, “The Son of the Spirit is not said, because this relative succession does not reciprocate.”
Cyprian Epiphanius, in a discourse called the Ancoratus, “The Holy Spirit proceeding from the
Father, and receiving from the Son, searches the depths of God, announcing the things of the Son
in the world, sanctifying the saints through the Trinity, third in the naming; for having gone,” he
says, “baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Observe
accurately here the mind of the theologians, that through the succession they say the order, through
the divinely handed down arrangement of the three names, through the confession, through the
doxology, through the initiation; and they introduce the very Truth Christ as witness to the word.
And these things are thus.
Paragraph 8: But lest someone should suppose us to believe order to be only in the divine
names, but not at all in the persons, let us say here from the beginning, both that there is order in the
divine Trinity, and again that there is not, it is not to deny; that indeed according to transcendence,
for not because there is disorder do we say there not to be order there, but as order surpassing the
thing; that however, because they think order to be good, but God to be the fullness of every good;
and we consider order there, according to the ineffable mode indeed, and whatever He might say
concerning Himself through the saints, not what we might give to Him; for it is clear disorder,
seeking concerning that order, not waiting for the sign from there, but for us to be defining, in what
place those things must be arranged there. According to the essence indeed, how would there be
order in the divine? The essence being one and the same, but order demanding prior and later? But
according to the three subsistences being, those, and above all we say order to be, this is to preserve
for each of the divine persons His own property unmixed and unconfused with the others. For
Gregory the Theologian says, in the On the Holy Spirit, “For the properties must remain
unconfused to Father and Son and Holy Spirit, concerning the Godhead, and not confusion also
bring the other things into order;” the great Basil in the third of the Against Eunomius, “Those
saying the Godhead to be according to order and numbering, we will say that it has been written,
‘The first man from the earth earthy, the second man, the Lord from heaven,’ first he says the
psychic, then the pneumatic; if therefore the later is numbered with the first, the numbered is less

217
honorable than the one with whom he has the numbering, the psychic is less honorable according to
you than the pneumatic, and the earthy man than the one from heaven;” and again, the same in the
same, concerning the above-mentioned Eunomius thus distinguishes, “Eunomius indeed glorifies
the Holy Spirit third in dignity and in order, as if indeed having learned this from the saints; but who
are the saints? Or in what words has he made the teaching? He is not able to say.” And Athanasius
the light of Alexandria, “One principle of the Godhead, and not two principles; for properly
monarchy is; and from this very principle is by nature, the Son the Word, not as another principle
subsisting by Himself, nor having become from outside of this, lest by the otherness dyarchy and
polyarchy be generated; therefore to us according to the Apostle, ‘God the Father from whom are all
things’; for the Word is from Him generatedly, and the Spirit from Him processionally.” And the
very wise Dionysius, in the chapter on united and distinct theology, “Theology hands down some
things unitedly, and some things distinctly; and it is not right to divide the united, nor to confuse the
distinct; following it according to power, there is access to the divine illuminations; and having
received from there the divine manifestations, as a certain most beautiful rule of truth, to guard the
things lying there undiminished and unchanged and unadulterated.” And John Chrysostom the
expounder of the tongue, concerning what was said by Abraham to his own servant, “Put your hand
under my thigh, and I will adjure you by the God of heaven and earth,” going through this homily
he says, “Let the Spirit be proclaimed, let the Only-begotten be exalted, let the Father be glorified,
let no one think the dignity to be overturned, if we mention the Spirit first, then Son, then Father; or
Son first, then Spirit, then Father; for God does not have order; not as being disordered, but as
surpassing order; for neither does God have form, not as being formless, but as being unformed;
thus because the divine nature does not have order, not as being disordered, but as surpassing order.
I say Father first, not first in order, but in concept; since He is the generator of the Only-begotten,
since He is the root of the holy fruit, since He is eternal light, cause of eternal light.”
Paragraph 9: Thus therefore the order is preserved of the hypostases by the saints; and not as
some fabricate for themselves, arranging the divine persons from above according to procession, so
that only the problem might seem to them to be solved; but even if we should grant them altogether
what they wish, the arrangement and numbering of the Godhead, and the placing of all the persons
of the super-essential Trinity from above downwards both to be and to be contemplated, even thus
again in every way, and according to every necessity, even if someone says immediately, even if not
immediately, even if proximately even if not proximately, our dogma stands unshaken everywhere
and unchangeable; that the Father alone is cause both of the Son and of the Spirit; and just as not
from the Son alone is the personal procession to be called, but from the Father alone rather the
perpendicular order, or demonstration shows, thus neither from Father and Son does this order and
numbering show the Holy Spirit, but from the Father alone to have His existence, whence also the
Son, not from elsewhere. Whether the divine persons stand according to order and numbering, as I
said, whether these proceed from above downwards having been prayed; whether it progresses from
below upwards, whether according to a lateral order, or the Father being contemplated as

218
intermediate, the things from Him lying on either side, whether extreme and the things following,
whether these separately, whether unitedly being conceived from Him, whether at once and both,
whether one prior and the other later is conceived, whether someone tries to lead back the causes, or
position, or order, or being, or movement, into the Trinity, the Father alone is found to be
hypostatically cause of both Son and Spirit; and this is everywhere evident, because both generator
alone of the Son by the holy Fathers, and projector of the divine Spirit the Father, having been said
in many places is found, but Father of the projector, or cause, is nowhere found having been said;
because both the Son and the Holy Spirit, to whom alone the reference is to cause, not also to
caused, is believed by all; because both of Son and of Spirit at once, one only and not two causes to
be, is the common belief of the whole Church; because both to the Son alone, and to the Spirit
alone, but to the Father alone the things following are led back has been agreed by all; because
indisputably the Spirit proceeds from the Father; because He is believed to be likewise united to
Father and Son; because He is testified to have His existence from the Father alone, not also from
elsewhere; because also the connection of the Father and Son is said to be; because also He is found
intermediate of both persons; and because indifferently the Spirit personally proceeds from God
and Father.
Paragraph 10: But if we should grant altogether the Spirit to be from Father and Son, from the
Father through the Son hypostatically to proceed, the following absurdities from this are evident;
and these things having been said are theologically opposed, and this dogma meets mouth to mouth
all the saints; namely, that not only of the Son, but also of the projector the Father is cause; that the
Son indeed to cause alone, but the Holy Spirit also to caused person is referred; therefore there are
two causes both of Son, and of Spirit; that the things following are not led back to the Father alone,
but also to the Son, of the things following; that indisputably the Spirit does not proceed from the
Father; that He is not believed to be likewise united to Father and Son; that falsely and vainly this
connection is said to be of Father and Son; that the Spirit is not ever contemplated hypostatically
intermediate of both persons, but only lower than Father and Son; and that differently the Spirit
personally proceeds from Father and Son; namely, the same and one person from the Father alone,
but not also through the Father; but from the Son, both through the Son and from the Son.
Paragraph 11: But if because the Son is numbered as intermediate between Father and Spirit,
someone insists that the Spirit also has His existence from the Son, let him remember that the same
things, both are pre-numbered, and are co-numbered, and are sub-numbered, both by the Teachers,
and by the Apostles, and by Christ Himself; and it is clear: for now He says to baptize the Lord into
the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; now this, “When the Paraclete
comes, whom I will send to you from the Father;” now this, “The Spirit of truth, whom the Father
will send in My name.” This also the very wise in theology Gregory sets before us saying, what was
said a little before that the same things both are pre-numbered, and are sub-numbered, and are co-
numbered by Scripture, because of the coequality of the nature. And again, “Let us theologize with
Paul, the one having been caught up to the third heaven, sometimes indeed, co-numbering the three

219
hypostases, and this interchangeably, the one guarding the orders pre-numbering, now the same,
sub-numbering, so that he might show the coequality of the nature.” And again, “To us one God,
because one Godhead, and to one the reference of the things from Him has, even if it is turned
about; for not one more, and one God; nor one prior, and one later; and it is not cut by will, nor is it
divided by power, those things which belong to divisible things, it is possible to receive here.” The
great Basil in the seventeenth to Amphilochius, “For the name of the Father and of the Son and of
the Holy Spirit has been delivered to us; as therefore the Son is related to the Father, thus the Spirit
to the Son, according to the order of the word having been handed down in baptism; if the Spirit is
subordinated to the Son, and the Son to the Father, and the Spirit clearly to the Father; what place
then does it have, both to be co-numbered, and to say to be sub-numbered, the names having been
arranged in one and the same collocation? But what altogether has gone outside of its own nature,
being numbered? Delivering Father and Son and Holy Spirit, the Lord did not also deliver with the
number; for He did not say one first and one second and one third; nor one and two and three; but
He bestowed the knowledge of the holy names of the faith leading to salvation; either let the
ineffable things be honored in silence, or let the holy things be numbered piously.” And in the
eighteenth of the same, placing the sub-numbering to say first and second and third, “Let them
recognize the polytheism of the Hellenic error, bringing it upon the immaculate theology of the
Christians; for the misdeed of the sub-numbering leads to nothing else, than to confess a first and
second God and a third; for they introduce tritheism to us, and now they persuade us to confess the
Spirit third.” Super-admirable heaven-revealed ones! how from many matters you have released us,
by a few words! But if the Spirit being co-numbered only in name third, but sub-numbered, or more
clearly to say, being believed third, is a mark of polytheism, not therefore also from the Son
personally does He proceed, because He is co-numbered third in the Trinity.
Paragraph 12: But here in the fruitful word, that has occurred to me to consider, how with such
clarity of the holy Theologians concerning the Holy Spirit, some have come to such boldness, so as
numbering Him only with Father and Son, and thenceforth to insist, that He has His existence also
from the Son? Whence has such audacity come upon them? I think from recklessness; from empty
glory; from pleasing men; from arrogance, and conceit; from being ambitious to seem superior to all
by all, not only of those now, but also of those ever having obtained a great name in theology. For
nothing thus elevates the soul, and easily destroys, as the conceit of preeminence. This has begotten
every heresy; this has introduced every madness; because the being rejected by oneself from all is
most difficult. For when not even a little is absent, but the deceiver is always present, how is it not
terrible?
Paragraph 13: Therefore, and very reasonably, to those suffering this disease, one of the saints
says, “Why are you lifted up, O man being clay and naturally subject to decay, and lifted up above the
clouds? Consider your nature, that you are earth and ashes, and after a little you dissolve into dust;
now boastful, and after a little a worm; why do you lift up boasting, you who are soon decaying? Are
you a creature of God? Do not reject the One who created you; have you ascended to a height of

220
wisdom? But He guided you; confess the One who raised you up, so that you may remain firm in the
height; do not inquire into deeper things than yourself, and do not examine stronger things than
yourself; do not pursue the unattainable, and do not attempt the impossible to reach; know what
great things a man is able to do, apart from the synergy with God? Recognize your fellow man, that
he is of the same essence as you, and do not through arrogance deny kinship; is that one an
ignoramus and unlearned? But the same Creator fashioned both; do not despise unlearned ones,
only if he does not fight against the sayings of the saints; for thus you will be safer, and the one
falling does not fall quickly; but the one falling from on high will be completely shattered; the one
falling from the ground is easily raised up, but the one falling from on high falls irreparably to ruin.”
Paragraph 14: The word says, “The proud one is scattered as a whirlwind, and as dust he
vanishes, as a bubble he appears, and as smoke he is dissolved;” the excessive spirit, the boastful
boldness, the clay self-willed, the dust greatly boasting, the ash naturally corruptible, is he who the
Unquenchable one burns, the easily extinguished stubble, the easily broken lamp, the one mortal by
nature, and by elevation, as he thinks, eternal.
Paragraph 15: But he reasonably sets forth thus: “Consider, O man, how fleeting everywhere and
utterly changeable is the nature of men; why do you stretch out your neck, tell me? Why do you walk
on tiptoe? Why having stood up, do you puff out your chest? You are not able to make a single hair
white or black, and as if ruling over all, thus you walk on air? Perhaps wings and feathers are needed
for you, so that you might not walk on the earth? What shall I call you, and how shall I refute your
madness? Shall I call you ash and dust and smoke and dust cloud? But I have not yet accurately
grasped the image; you seem to me to be likened to a pumice stone having been burned; for that
also seeming to be something, after compression, and having been scattered, it would not endure a
small touch of the hand, it was poured out entirely, and appeared more complete than all ash; and
just as bubbles being raised up are easily known, so those planted by vainglory are easily destroyed; a
bubble having been raised, having been breathed upon will quickly vanish; and the memory of the
proud one is quickly destroyed; he who separates himself from God suffers from pride, and ascribes
the words and the accomplishments to his own powers; but just as the one stepping on a spider web
having fallen is suddenly poured out, so you fall trusting in your own power; a worm and an ant
having grown wings, and having been raised up to a height, immediately become food for others;
and the boastful and audacious one having been raised up by conceit, is shown as a spectacle to
demons; pride brought down an Archangel from heaven; and a soul having been raised up by pride,
pitifully falls from there into an abyss of destruction, and as it were not to have been at all, it
perishes; ‘The Lord resists the proud,’ and who then will have strength to stand against these? ‘Every
high-minded one is unclean before God,’ and who then will be able to cleanse this one? ‘How the
one exalting himself will be humbled,’ Christ declares, and who will wish to raise up such a one?
And concerning what do you think greatly? Are you strong? And because of this? Therefore and
because of this you ought rather to be humbled, because you think greatly concerning a most
insignificant thing; and a gnat and a fly are bolder than you, and a leopard is stronger; but are you

221
beautiful and handsome? There is a peacock more beautiful than you; do you see? The victory of
the bird is not in its feathers; but are you rich? From where? What do you possess? Gold? Silver?
Precious stones? This is also the boast of robbers and murderers; but do you adorn yourself, and
beautify yourself ? And it is possible to see horses being beautified, and harlot women; but do you
build houses and inhabit high and splendid ones? And what of this? Many jackdaws have more
splendid, and have more venerable dwellings; but are you wise, and through this are you lifted up? It
is not of the wise to be lifted up, but rather of infants, and of those at their own mothers’ breasts;
but do you boast greatly concerning the sweetness of your voice? You will never be able to sing
more melodiously than the Swan and the Nightingale; but concerning the variety of art? And is not
the work of the Bee wiser than this? What variety, what painter, what geometer is able to imitate the
works of this one? But concerning the fineness of your garment? But not thus do spiders conquer
you by a great measure; but concerning the swiftness of your feet? Again the primacy is with the
Deer and the Gazelle; but do you travel far? But not more than the birds; for these make travel
easier for themselves, they do not need provisions, they do not need beasts of burden, but their
flight is sufficient for them for all things; this is both ship, and beast of burden, this is both vehicle,
this is both chariot; but do you see sharply? But not as an Eagle; but do you hear sharply? But the
Hawks hear more sharply; but is your smell sharp? But the Dog surpasses it; but are you resourceful?
But the Ant surpasses you much; but do you store up secretly, but not as the Indian Ants. Of all
men you think greatly of yourself, and of the irrational ones you are not much cheaper. Therefore
know yourself, and believe, that what we share with the irrational ones, these things we have from
Him; what indeed are these? To know God, to recognize His providence, to philosophize
concerning immortality, to be pious, to be temperate, to become gentle, meek, humble, superior to
riches.”
Paragraph 16: These things indeed have been explained rather digressively, but sufficient to
show, whence to us the danger has been introduced. But that we may return to the order of the
word, if indeed this successive order and sub-numbering did not seem rejectable to the saints, but as
a position arose from the dogma, it would certainly be enacted orthodoxly also by us; but what one
of them says, as has been explained a little before, “I say Father first, not first in order, but in
concept; for God does not have order, not as being disordered, but as surpassing order;” and
another concerning the divine persons, “Thus we think and thus we hold, that however these things
are of nature and order, this itself alone must be conceded to the Trinity;” and again, “Not one
more, and one less God; nor one prior, and one later;” and another, “Now delivering Father and Son
and Holy Spirit, the Lord did not deliver with the number; for He did not say, one first and one
second and one third, nor one and two and three;” and those placing the sub-numbering not by
saying first and second and third, “Let them recognize the polytheism of the Hellenic error,
introducing it upon the immaculate theology of the Christians;” and the heretics saying, “To arrange
the Godhead according to order and sub-numbering,” this has been forbidden to the orthodox; and
Eunomius, saying the Spirit third both in dignity and in order, has been driven out of the Church;

222
and the misdeed of the sub-numbering, introduces a first and second God and a third; and another
word, to be prior and later in the divine persons is rejected by the order; how shall we say it, that
which is hateful to the saints?
Paragraph 17: Observe therefore how all the theologians, as looking to the same both of Son
and of Spirit, and guarding the same confession and order, both theologize the Son as intermediate
between Father and Spirit themselves, and enjoin Him to be confessed; not thence immediately
believing Him to be the cause of the Spirit, but lest the Spirit be thought Son of the Father, and to
the Son again this same to be Father, the confession being thus uttered, Spirit, Son, Father; and so
that both the procession of the goodness to God, from the Father through the Son to the Spirit
towards us to be believed to proceed, and the approach and assimilation of our knowledge, from the
Spirit through the Son to the Father to proceed. For just as no one is able to come to the Father,
except through the Son, as the Savior Himself says; for through Him is the approach, and the
access, and the assimilation to Him; so also no one is able either to conceive, or to say, or to know
the Lord Jesus, except by the Holy Spirit; for then partaking we have the love of the Father, and
through the Son the grace, and through the Holy Spirit Himself the communion.
Paragraph 18: These things all having been handed down to us, through the Law and the
Prophets and the Apostles, both Evangelists and Teachers, we both know and hold, not seeking
beyond these. For God being good, and providing for the common good of all, and the benefit of
each of us, the things being, and which it benefited us to know, He clearly revealed, but the things
not being, and which we were not able to bear, He kept silent. Towards these also let fire be kindled,
and let a sword be sharpened, and let a pit be dug, and let a wild beast be brought, and tortures, and
torments be inflicted, and death be awaited upon all; it is no concern of mine. Let the corruptible
body be carried away; and let everything concerning it, let the wind carry all; let only piety be kept
spotless by me. “The Lord is my helper, and I will not fear what man shall do to me;” I will dare to
utter the saying of David. Christ is my helper, and I shall be saved. To Him be the glory,
magnificence, and adoration, with His own Father and the Spirit into the boundless ages. Amen.

223
 DISCOURSE XXI. CONCERNING THE TRANSCENDENTAL TRINITY.
Spoken in the same Palace; and clearly presenting, how one of the caused of these persons is said to
be proximately from the first, and the other through the proximately from the first.

Paragraph 1: It has been reported to me by some, that concerning what has been said here to
you, concerning the order in the Divine Trinity, you have all been well disposed; but some having
come from outside, have disturbed some of you; these indeed proposing this as a great problem,
since in the Divine Scripture the Holy Spirit is placed third among the divine persons, therefore just
as the first, and the second are considered causes of the third, thus certainly both the Father, and the
Son, are said to be causes of the divine Spirit; or just as from the first through the second the third
has its being, thus from the Father the Son has been generated without beginning, but through the
Son timelessly the Holy Spirit has proceeded; thus indeed it has been reported to me. But that these
things have been said vainly by the babblers, both the words having been said here before these days
are most faithful witnesses, and moreover, also those now about to be said. But attend to me with
accuracy of mind, and be persuaded of the truth, that not every first and second is cause of the
third according to existence, nor every third subsists from the first through the second; but neither
does the Holy Spirit of necessity, since some of the beings are said to have their being from the first
through the second, from the Father through the Son also Himself hypostatically proceed; for
neither are the processions of the divine persons subject to natural processions, or orders; but if
through the Son the Father is cause of the Spirit, therefore through the divinity the Father came to
the existence of the Spirit; but the theologians assign such a thing to the creatures.
Paragraph 2: Moreover, both the Father with the Son is called a Monad by Scripture, and the Son
with the Spirit; and not only the Spirit with the Father; but the Godhead itself as a whole according
to nature has been agreed by all to be a Monad, but the whole Trinity according to its persons, of
which neither is the nature the cause of the persons, nor are the persons prior to it, nor are the
persons superior in causality to it; for there was no time, when either the Monad was without the
Trinity, or the Trinity without the Monad, so that either the Monad of the Trinity, or the Trinity of
the Monad, might be shown to be the cause, either wholly, or partially. But if also the Father
according to His own person alone is called a Monad, both the Son and the Spirit a Dyad, because
of their two hypostases, not as if this Dyad had its being from itself is said in relation to something,
but because it possesses this in relation to the one Monad, namely the Father; for all things
whatsoever the Son and the Spirit have, even their very being, they have from the Father, and not
from elsewhere; whence the Monad is theologized, as we hear, cause of monads, before the dyad
having been divided, and the Trinity anticipating the dyad; and through this the Monad from the
beginning, that is the only projector, having moved to the generation of the Only-begotten, and to
the projection of the divine Spirit, extended the existence of the Godhead even to the persons of
the Trinity; and we believe the one God to be both Monad, and Trinity, the Monad indeed having
been moved on account of the plenitude, but the Dyad having been transcended; for He is above

224
matter and form, in which are bodies; but the Trinity having been defined on account of the
perfection, according to the wise in theology and most discerning mind. But if these things are thus,
and no one would deny it; and the Monad indeed is moved, but the Dyad is transcended, but the
Trinity is defined, so that the two might not be believed to be the cause of the one, but the one of
the two, the Son would not at all be cause also of the Spirit; but if so, not in the divine Trinity, not
only the Monad has been moved into a Dyad, but also the Dyad into a Monad again; when indeed
the Trinity before the dyad is divided is only triadized, but also quite the contrary before the
triadizing is dyadized; nor is there only a Monad there cause of monads, but certainly a Dyad of one
Monad; nor is there only a conjunction of those from Him, that is of Son and Spirit to the Father,
but also of one to two, that is of the Father to Son and Spirit; and conversely of two to one, that is
of the Spirit to the Father and the Son; and I pass over the remaining absurdities born from this,
being likened in a small way to the petals of trees.
Paragraph 3: But if someone should also demand the word according to the reason of nature,
first no one having a mind tries to demonstrate the things above nature by natural things, and the
things above reason by the things under reason; then two indeed from one, and three, and twice and
thrice so much could proceed, according to many certain modes; but from two, or more, at the same
time for something to proceed, consubstantial with those from which it proceeded, is not possible;
wherefore also it has been well said by some, for a child to be generated from two Fathers at the
same time is among the impossibilities. But otherwise it is necessary for those choosing to be
orthodox, to refrain, so that not every concept conceived by them, even if seeming quite clear, they
should already embrace as holding the dogma of truth, unless it should happen to have been clearly
declared by the saints; for the reasonings of mortals are timid, and their conceptions are precarious.
But it has been written that the faith of the Christians, having been proclaimed to all the nations
according to the command of the Lord by the disciples, is neither from men, nor by men, but by the
Lord Himself of us Jesus Christ; for He appeared upon the earth and conversed frequently with
men, so that no longer men, according to their own opinions might believe concerning being,
making the suppositions occurring to them from certain conjectures a dogma; but being persuaded,
that truly God was manifested in flesh, they might believe that alone to be the true mystery of piety,
which was handed down to us by the Word and God Himself, having spoken by Himself to the
Apostles.
Paragraph 4: But neither is it necessary to spend all one’s time on the consideration of only the
most transcendent dogmas; since not of all is the knowledge, nor of all the theologizing, nor are we
all required these things, nor only thence does salvation accrue to us; but in fear of God, with the
meditation of death and judgment, spending the greater part of our life especially, knowing that for
this very thing, a natural reason from above and from the beginning has been bestowed upon us by
the all-worker God, according to which we are able to distinguish the living from the non-living, the
sentient from the non-sentient, the rational from the non-rational, the intelligent from the non-
intelligent, the strong from the weak, the just from the unjust, the good from the bad, the immortal

225
from the mortal, the incorruptible from the corruptible, the immutable from the mutable, the
invisible from the visible, the incorporeal from the corporeal, the heavenly from the earthly, the
eternal from the temporal, the blessed from the wretched, and the divine from the human, so that
without any hesitation we may prefer the better things to the lesser. For man, being by nature a
rational living being, having a natural power, the rational desire, which they also call the will of the
intellective soul, desires, and desiring reasons, and reasoning wills—I say wills, not simply a natural
will, but a will concerning something—and reasoning seeks, and seeking considers, and considering
wills, and willing judges, and judging chooses, and choosing rushes, and rushing uses, and using
ceases from the appetitive inclinations towards that. For no one uses, not having first rushed, and no
one rushes not having chosen, and no one chooses not having judged, and no one judges not having
willed, and no one wills not having considered, and no one considers not having sought, and no one
seeks not having willed, and no one wills not being rational, and no one reasons not desiring, and no
one rationally desires, not existing by nature rational.
Paragraph 5: But with the things concerning us unchangeably being thus, since the most ultimate
of desirable things is God of all, and then we all strive to attain Him, no one of all is attained, unless
one knows Him as He is of order, or of nature; but rather we are required the works corresponding
to Him, and through the transgression of these we go to punishment; concerning the first indeed,
we are exhorted by those able to reach the most ultimate; but concerning the second, let it be a
common care to all, both to all and to each individually. For theory indeed unbridled might perhaps
also run down precipices; but the one knowing with practice, or practicing with knowledge, is a
throne and a footstool to God; a throne indeed through knowledge, but a footstool through
practice. Life without word is naturally useful, or word without life. There is need of ways of life,
not of words; of character, not of cleverness; of works, not of sayings; to say, without doing, is
nothing. Those busying themselves with words are many today, but those instructing by works, or
even being instructed, are very few; those indeed even saying the necessary things, do not hear
themselves, just as the lyres sounding beautifully, do not perceive; but this is an irrefutable syllogism,
that through works; since even if we philosophize countless things through words, but do not offer
a life better than those outside, the gain is nothing; for they do not attend to the things being said,
but they examine what things we might do; and they say, first persuade yourself with your words,
and then exhort the others; but if you say countless things to be good in the future, as of things not
being, thus we appear to the children having been deceived, your works are more trustworthy to me
than the words; and even if they do not say these things expressly, but they conceive these things
and revolve them in their mind, and this to prevent the unbelievers from becoming Christians. Let
us therefore hunt them through our conduct, and through their souls let us build the Church always.
Paragraph 6: Nothing is equivalent to a soul, nor the whole world; for even if you should give
countless riches for its acquisition, you will not do such a thing, as to entrust yourself to one soul;
for the one doing this, becomes according to Paul, and is a member of Christ. But great is that
contest, and high the goal, and near to heaven the summit, and are you able to reach to such a great

226
thing? Even of the lesser things possess, and strive for the lower things, and not because you are not
able to save the whole world, despise the few; nor by the desire of the great things, draw yourself
away from the small things; even if you are not able to reach a hundred, take care of ten; and even if
not even one you are strong in, do not despise those ever; even if you are not able to reach five, do
not overlook the one; even if you are not strong in the one, do not thus depart, but eagerly persist;
even if you do not persuade today, you will persuade tomorrow; and even if you never persuade, you
have the reward completed; for God is accustomed to determine the crowns not according to the
end of the accomplishments, but according to the intention of the accomplished things. For even
the Apostles did not persuade all the existing men, but nevertheless they have the full reward for all.
But lest you say that the reason for not being able to save either yourself, nor another, is that gifts
such as were given to the Apostles have not been given to you, come, I will show you a more concise
path.
Paragraph 7: Tell me what seems to you to be greater, a gift of teaching, or to have the gift to
heal diseases? Certainly the latter; and what then? Does this again seem to you to be greater, to give
sight to the blind? And than this, to raise the dead? You will certainly say this; if then I show you,
that by far greater is the gift, which being possible for you to receive you are not justly deprived of
all these? What is this? Love; this word is not mine, but of the most loud-voiced Paul, saying in the
thirteenth of the first to the Corinthians, “But desire the greater gifts;” and further, “And I show you
a yet more excellent way;” and whatever follows this saying next; have you seen the greatest gift?
Desire this gift, and you will need nothing else for the accomplishment of virtue; but all things will
be easy for you, without sweat and labors; this is superior to all the others, as also expelling every
passion of the soul, and introducing every virtue into it; this makes you admirable before all, and
equal to those having raised many dead. So if it is ever necessary to be confident in the correctness
of dogmas, we ought to be bold rather in good works, of which love is the fulfillment of all.
Paragraph 8: Let these things be as you yourself wish, he says, but Gregory of Nyssa, in his
discourse to Ablabius, expressly thus sets forth, “Confessing the unalterable of the nature, we do
not deny the difference according to cause and caused, by which alone we understand the one to be
distinguished from the other; by the one to be believed to be cause, and the other caused; and of
that being from a cause, again we name another difference; for one indeed to be proximately from
the first, but the other through the proximately from the first.” First then I will ask those proposing
this, how do you understand this adverb PROXIMATELY, topically? Or chronologically? Or
tropically? Or not having the establishment of the word in any concept? If indeed topically, all
topical distances, have no place in God; for the divine is infinite, and uncircumscribed; but if
chronologically, the always existing things, the always existing things, do not receive chronological
extension; but all the divine persons are co-unoriginate and co-eternal; there is nothing there prior
chronologically, nor later; if neither topically, nor chronologically, the one indeed to be believed
proximately from the first, but the other through the proximately from the first, it remains then to
conclude, that through the difference of the procession of the persons it has been thus said; for one

227
indeed of the beings from a cause is the Son, but the Spirit is said; for to introduce another
distinction besides these does not exist; I say this more clearly thus.
Paragraph 9: For if, in one way the Son is generated from there, the Spirit also proceeded in that
way, it will also be Son; and if in whatever way the Spirit has its being from the Father, the Son also
proceeded in that way, He will not at all be Son; that is, if the Spirit is immediately and directly
related to the Father, insofar as He is said, or conceived, to be Father, He will immediately be
considered Son and Problem; and if the Son is said, or believed, to be immediately and not
proximately related to the Projector, He will immediately be believed Projector and not Son. Whence
for the confirmation of this concept, the teacher saying this sets forth the following, so that both
the only-begotten might remain unquestionable in the Son, and that the Spirit is from the Father
might not be doubted; with the mediation of the Son both preserving for Himself the only-
begotten, and not excluding the Spirit from the natural relation to the Father. So since the mediation
of the Son does not exclude the Spirit from this natural relation to the Father, or that His being
from the Father is doubted, this usage would offer a great handle to those seeking to grasp, that the
Son alone indeed is proximately from the Father alone, but the Spirit does not proceed proximately
from Him, and through this also from Him; but since no one doubts that the Spirit is from the
Father, as also seems to this teacher, and in this usage, and the mediation of the Son in no way
excludes His natural relation to the Father, it has been shown plainly then, that this "proximately"
confirms the Son's hypostasis to the Father topically, just as the "proximately" confirms the Spirit's
to the Father.
Paragraph 10: But thence the distortion of the usage arises, that this theorem, owed to be
considered only according to mode, some understand according to place, and what is said
concerning the two, I mean Son and Spirit, is believed to be said concerning one person only, the
Son; intentionally as if forgetting, that there are not two causes; and two beings from causes, not
one. But he wishes to show these things, that the Holy Spirit, both by Himself is conceived and
believed to be from the Projector, but not from the Father; but through the proximately begotten
from the Father Son, also from the Father. Just as therefore also the Son, both by Himself is
believed and conceived to be from the Father, but not from the Projector; but through the
proximately proceeding from the Projector Spirit, also from the Projector. So just as the Son is
immediately from the one generating, but not immediately from the one projecting, but through the
projected, so also the Holy Spirit, immediately indeed from the projector, but through the Son also
from the one generating; and in this way also the Holy Spirit is said to be connected through the Son
to the Father, and the Son through the projected to the projector, the Father being said to be
immediately related to the Son, and the Projector being proximately attributed to the projected. For
neither is the Son alone from a cause, and the Holy Spirit not from a cause, so that the proximately
might be understood only concerning the Son, but not also concerning the Spirit; but this phrase of
being from a cause, is said commonly concerning both persons. As therefore the Son is related to
the Father, thus also the Projected is related to His own Projector; immediately indeed each. But if

228
someone also calls the Projected of the Father, he will say it through the Son; and if the Son of the
Projector, certainly through the Spirit. But if not immediately also the Spirit is from the Father, but
mediately, this mediately necessarily makes two causes of the Father, both the mediating, and the
one causing it. For if just as the Spirit is from the Father, thus also from the Son hypostatically
proceeds, it would not be the same, from one indeed, proximately and immediately, but from the
other, not proximately, and immediately; for it will have a distinct causing person, and it is not
indifferently produced this from one; but also from distinct persons, and it will have different
procession. Just as the procession from one alone, by its unalterable nature, witnesses to its own
identity and simplicity, so also the altered procession from two, accuses its own otherness and
duality.
Paragraph 11: Further, if the same is both Father and Projector, the Son indeed of the Father,
but of the divine Spirit Projector, and the Son, Son of the Father; and the Spirit, Projected of the
Projector; and these are names of immediate relation, and simultaneous with the nature; for the
Father is Father of the Son, and the Son Son of the Father, and the Projector Projector of the
Projected, and the Projected Projected of the Projector, and none of the relative terms is said
through some intermediary, how shall we grant the Spirit to be hypostatically projected from the
Father through the Son? Or through the Spirit, the Son to be generated from the Father
hypostatically? But it would have been said according to mode. Whence even if someone should say
perhaps by hypostasis alone, not by place, nor by time, the Spirit does not proximately proceed from
the Father, I know, that this cold apology is infinitely worse than that bold absurdity; and this seems
both to those participating in some way, and to those theologizing to the utmost; for if it is
altogether absurd, to extend the Spirit from the Father according to place, or time, much more is it
most absurd to attribute this by hypostasis. Whether then according to essence, someone will say, or
according to hypostasis, or according to dignity, the Spirit not proximately and immediately
proceeding from the Father, this, he says, distances Him from the Father’s hypostasis, but the Son is
constantly connected to this; and the proof is at hand. For every person, having its being
proximately, and immediately, and by itself from someone, is closer, than the one not proximately,
nor immediately, nor by itself having obtained being from the same person; which is; and the reverse
is evident; that every person not by itself, nor proximately, nor immediately, but through a mediator,
having being from someone, is further, than the one acquiring being immediately, and proximately,
and by itself from the same person; if indeed according to essence further, the insult is referred to
the essence; but if mediately according to dignity, certainly to the dignity; but if in some way
separated by hypostasis, to the hypostasis of the person thus being separated; and there is no other
way to escape the absurdity concluded from this phrase, unless someone only reasonably proposes
the difference of the procession of the caused persons, according to which one indeed of them is
generated from the Father, but the other is projected hypostatically.
Paragraph 12: But it is necessary in addition to these to consider that also, how if the first
distinction among the divine persons is according to cause and the one from a cause, the second

229
demanding another difference, would not be according to the first; it remains therefore according to
the different processions, as I said, for there to be another distinction. For since the name of the
Father, preceding our ears, immediately introduces the Son; but the Spirit not Son, but Projected;
and He does not have a Father, but a Projector, just as therefore also the Son does not have a
Projector, but a Father; it would then be necessary, with the Spirit being conceived as preceding and
mediating, for Him to be referred to the Father; and with the Spirit likewise being conceived as
preceding and mediating, also the Son would be referred to the Projector. Otherwise, either the Holy
Spirit proceeds from Father and Son hypostatically, or indifferently He proceeds from both, or
certainly differently; if indeed you believe Him to proceed not indifferently thence, since according
to you the Father and the Son are the cause of the Spirit indifferently by themselves, cease to say
Him to proceed, from one indeed proximately, but from the other not proximately; but if having
accepted that He exists differently also from the two persons, since you say two causes of the Spirit,
the not proximate, and the proximate, then it is necessary to believe the Spirit also to subsist
differently from these, and proclaim openly to all two personal processions of Him; but if the
precipice is evident from both sides, flee the danger, O man; but one flight from this is, to believe
the Spirit to proceed personally from the Father alone.
Paragraph 13: But according to cause and caused, we confess an order in the divine persons, he
says, by which alone we believe the one to be distinguished from the other, as the Nyssan
theologized; which, since this distinction is said only according to the cause, and the one from the
cause, it is necessary by every means, either for there to be one cause, and two from the cause, as is
believed by the orthodox, or for there to be two causes, considered by themselves, as someone
perhaps might suppose, and those from the cause; since the Trinity is of persons, not a tetrad is
God; but it has been forbidden to all for there to be two causes; if therefore the cause of the Spirit
is the Father, this is what is confessed by us.
Paragraph 14: Again, if according to the cause and the one from the cause the one is
distinguished only from the other, it is altogether necessary neither for the Son to project the Spirit
personally, nor for the Spirit to generate the Son hypostatically; for just as the cause could not
become from a cause, so indeed also the one from a cause could not become cause.
Paragraph 15: Again, if as proper here the cause is assigned to the Father, and the one from the
cause has been defined to the Son, and by these alone these persons have been distinguished from
each other, neither would the Son be cause, as neither is the Father in any way caused; but if this,
neither is He necessarily Projector. But if also the Son with the Father is cause, not therefore is the
being cause a property of the Father and the teacher is shown to be false saying, the Father indeed
to be distinguished by being cause alone, but the Son by being from a cause alone; but if he speaks
truly, as indeed the clear herald of truth speaks truly, those saying, not the Father alone cause, but
with Him also the Son, do not speak truly.
Paragraph 16: Moreover, if the Son, being caused from the Father, is cause of the Spirit, neither
is the being cause only in the divine persons, nor the being caused only caused, but also in the cause

230
there is something caused, and in the caused there is something cause; and there are two different
causes in the divine Trinity, and two immediately differing from this; therefore one is both from the
cause and cause, and the Son also is cause of the Spirit, if He is only from a cause. But if these
things are thus, remove the according to place, and according to form remove the shaped, and the
successive, and the intermediate; and immediately it will be clear to you, the proximately and not
proximately, and the order and sub-numbering according to straight line from above to below, that
all these things are topical, and chronological, and indicative of distances; but the order according to
cause, as I said, is formless in all things, and without arrangement; what necessity is there, that in the
order according to cause, the Father indeed is first in relation to the Son, and the Son second from
the Father, so that also the Son is first in the same order in relation to the Spirit? And the Spirit
second from Him? And two persons first, and two persons second, are confessed in the divine
persons, which is blasphemous?
Paragraph 17: Because also the examples concerning God, according to their weakness, wish not
to be understood according to order in the Trinity; such as the root, the branch, the fruit; the
gushing forth, the spring, the river; the sun, the ray, the light; and such things. But it is entirely vain,
to take the analogy of the things below, for the things above, because also to believe analogically
altogether is not possible. Where in the canonical Scripture, as the beginning of faith, has it been
written thus? Or in what usages of teachers, as the establishment of dogma, that the Holy Spirit
according to the order of the caused and causing in relation to each other proceeds from the Son?
Further, even if we theologize the Spirit as being from the Father alone, the order according to
cause and caused in the divine Trinity, which is proclaimed above all, we do not at all separate from
the relation which is said as to something; but in whatever way we refer the Son to His own Father,
in the same way also we refer the Spirit to His own Projector, or Projected, according to the relation
to something; and asserting the order according to cause and caused, we do not deny the difference
according to the relations to something; and just as according to the order of the causes to those
from them, according to which we say the same God and Father to have been placed before as
Projector of the Spirit, not separating these from each other by distance, but conceiving the cause
before the caused, as concerning the Father also the heaven-revealed one says, in the first against
Eunomius; “Much different is the order of names in God, and different the pre-eternal existence of
the persons; and the so-called innovation whenever it occurs, is concerning the order of names, not
concerning the existence of the persons, being beyond every conception and every innovation.” So
not thence does anyone have to be justified saying, since the Son indeed is said to be immediately
and proximately from the Father, but the Holy Spirit from the Father indeed, but not immediately,
nor proximately, but through the proximate, that is the Son, therefore He is said to proceed
hypostatically from the Father and the Son; since also concerning the theologizing one saying the
proximately, and the others, sometimes indeed the Father is said to be intermediate between the Son
and the Spirit, sometimes indeed the Son intermediate between the Father and the Spirit, sometimes
indeed the Spirit intermediate between Father and Son, now indeed, not being cut off from the

231
Father by any distance, now indeed not being separated from His divinity; and here indeed, He
proceeds proximately and by Himself from the Father, there indeed, He Himself is received second
from the Father; and elsewhere indeed, He is connected indivisibly to the Father, elsewhere indeed,
He is related thus to the Father, not as to be mixed with Him; moreover also, He is subordinated to
the Father, not sub-numbered; and He has His being explained both from the cause, and connection
with Father and Son; for all know the connection of those being connected to be intermediate; and
the intermediacy of the Trinity would be preserved thence also, even without the Son being the
cause of the Spirit.
Paragraph 18: For immediately Gregory of Nyssa himself in the “Against Eunomius,” says, “The
Holy Spirit is not separated from the Father either by distance, or by otherness of nature, or by the
only-begotten.” And in the “On the Divine Names,” all the persons of man do not have their being
from the same person according to the proximate, as there are many and different relations both in
the caused and the causes; but it is not thus in the Holy Trinity. And in the “On the Divine Place”
John of Damascus says, “The Holy Spirit is God; a sanctifying power hypostatically proceeding
indivisibly from the Father, and not resting in the Son.” And in the twelfth chapter of his dogmatic
works, “The Holy Spirit is God, intermediate between the unbegotten and the begotten, and
connected to the Father.” And Gregory, having the surname from theology, in the discourse
concerning the Holy Spirit, “The Holy Spirit,” he says, “proceeds from the Father; insofar as He
proceeds thence, He is not a creature; insofar as He is not begotten, He is not Son; insofar as He is
intermediate between unbegotten and begotten, He is God.” And in his Syncretic discourse, “But
the nature in the three is one, and the union is the Father, from whom and to whom the subsequent
things are referred, not as to be mixed, but as to be connected.” And in his own words, “As if you
hear concerning Son and Spirit, that they have the second things after the Father from God, thus I
bid you to conceive the words of deep wisdom, that it ascends to one root, it does not cut the
Godhead.” Both the great Basil, in his letter to his brother Gregory, “And whoever would truly
receive the Son, will have Him from both sides, on one side indeed His own Father, on the other His
own Spirit, being implied.” And in the chapters to the holy Amphilochius, “The Holy Spirit,” he
says, “is said to be with the Son, with whom He is indivisibly comprehended, but He has His being
explained from the Father’s cause, whence also He proceeds.” And again in the same, “If the Holy
Spirit is subordinated to the Son, and the Son to the Father, also the Spirit obviously to the Father.”
And it is a wonder how also Thomas the teacher of the Latins in the thirty-second question of the
first of his theological works, thus sets forth: “For with the Holy Spirit being removed, who is the
connection of the two, it would not be possible for the unity of connection to be conceived in
Father and Son; therefore all things are said to be connected, through the Holy Spirit; for with the
Holy Spirit being supposed, it is found whence it is possible for the Father and the Son to be said to
be connected.”
Paragraph 19: So not because of the immediately and not immediately, and proximately and not
proximately, and through intermediacy and extremity, the Holy Spirit is said to proceed personally

232
from the Father and through the Son; for beyond all intermediacy and extremity, both the
intermediacy and the extremity are in the divine persons; and the intermediate and the extreme, and
proximate and immediate, and whatever is similar to these, is according to essence in the Godhead;
for there is no difference of essence there, neither according to quantity, for the divine is
immeasurable; nor according to quality, for it is without quality; nor according to glory or power or
energy, for the glory and the power and the energy are one; and there is no difference neither in
these, but not even contrariety, or alteration; nor according to anything else, but only by the
hypostatic properties the divine persons are distinguished from each other, and the three are one,
and the one three; and as the one is three, and the three are one paradoxically and supernaturally, so
also the intermediate in the three is extreme, and the extreme intermediate; wherefore also each is
beyond intermediate and beyond extreme; for also beyond the three, the one and three, both
according to the where and simply, and according to the is and beyond the is, beyond conception,
not according to diminution. For the extreme conceived in these is not thus, as to contend, either
with the other extreme, or with the intermediate of the two, but each of the three is related thus to
each of the other two, as to itself. For whether someone should say the Father, He connects also
both the Son and the Spirit, wherefore also the Father is the union of both, and as union
intermediate; but the Son, both as consubstantial with the Father and the Spirit, and as intermediate
between unbegotten and proceeding, that is as begotten; but the Spirit, intermediate between Father
and Son, both as consubstantial and co-glorified with both, and as intermediate of procession and
begotten; that is as proceeding.
Paragraph 20: And in addition to these, because the Spirit is from the Father, this is the same
with the Son; and because He is not Son, this He has according to the Father; just as therefore also
the Son, because He is from the Father, this He has according to the Spirit; and because He is not
projected, this He has according to the Father; likewise indeed also the Father, because He is not
projected, this is the same with the Son; and because He generates, this He has according to the
Spirit; for all things are connected to each other beyond word, or rather they subsist; because the
one having said the Spirit, has comprehended in his mind both the Father and the Son; and the one
receiving the Son, has not separated the Father and the Spirit; and the one conceiving the Father,
conceives both the Son and the Spirit together with Him. For it is not possible to conceive division,
or separation, or an intermediate between Father and Son, or between Father and Spirit, or between
Son and Spirit; and indeed the intermediacy and extremity conceived in the divine Trinity are more
like the intermediacy and extremity of three circles, of the same containing circle, being inscribed,
and touching its circumference, touching and being connected to each other equally.
Paragraph 21: This theorem has been elaborated by the holy Maximus; which someone saying is
exceptional of the circular theorems, would not err in the appropriate word. And now it is not
possible to find an evident example, or theorem, showing the order, or relation, or even the
hypostatic pre-eternal procession of any of the persons in the super-divine Trinity; but nevertheless
many things dimly, or somehow able to image the thing being said, of which some we gather from

233
Scripture, others from the holy Teachers, just as indeed also the present one; but others also we
discover from the very nature of things or concepts. But if because of some dissimilarity of the
examples someone should try to reject them, no example would ever be possible, much less of the
Trinity above all. These things also you having received from the example as much as is useful, leave
the rest. For leave the form, and the distance, and the topical movement to the formed things, and
those moving circumscribedly in topical distance. Because whatever middle of the circles someone
should take, the remaining are conceived as extremes, of the one having been taken immediately;
and because each of them, both as middle and as extreme is able to be conceived; and because
whatever someone should conceive as middle of the remaining, imagining each, he has not departed
from either. Set these as symbols, of the intermediacy and extremity in the divine Trinity. For taking
each of the three persons of the Godhead as middle, you will immediately find the remaining as
extremes; and each is thus both extreme and middle; and even if you conceive all as extremes, they
do not depart from each other; and even if you consider two as middles, you find the same also as
extremes; and even if you imagine one of these three, also the remaining have shone around you
with Him.
Paragraph 22: Thus then as it is believed, and conceived, and said by the saints, the Father, the
Son, and the Holy Spirit being both middle and extreme in relation to each other, let us hasten to the
purpose of the discourse, that the immediately and mediately, and proximately and not proximately,
and intermediately and extremely, and such things, not as indicative of time, or divisive of nature, or
extending of topical position, or demonstrative of quality, or signifying of quantity, or defining of
distance, or indicative of form, but all things in a manner befitting God, and according to which
way, as I said, it has been theologized by the theologians, and according to how it is most fitting to
be received for the blessed Trinity; and as the holy Augustine has declared concerning this it must be
passed over, saying in the “On the Trinity” “Nor do I understand God insofar as I am able; without
quality, good; without quantity, great; without time, creator; without position, present; without form,
holding all things; without place, wholly everywhere; without time, eternal; without any change in
Himself, making the mutable things.” And correspondingly; “For of the highest Trinity, there is
altogether no position with us, nor removal, but making the positions and removals of the things
after it, we neither posit it, nor remove it; for beyond every position is the perfect and uncaused
cause of all things; and beyond every removal is the superiority of the one simply having been
released from all things, and beyond all things;” to whom be glory, to whom grace, to whom
unoriginate, ineffable, and boundless power. Amen.

234
 DIALOGUE I. CONCERNING THE PROCESSION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.
Joseph Breynnios Dialogue with Maximus the Latin-minded one, of the order of Heralds. It took
place concerning renowned Crete; in the hearing of the whole Metropolis.

MAXIMUS
Paragraph 1: MAXIMUS: Greetings. JOSEPH: May it be so! MAXIMUS: How are you?
JOSEPH: I am consumed by old age. MAXIMUS: I inquire about your soul. JOSEPH: I desire, I
reason, I will, I seek, I consider, I judge, I choose, I rush, and I use. MAXIMUS: What do you do, I
say? JOSEPH: If you say these things, I am silent. MAXIMUS: Instead of asking, I used saying.
JOSEPH: I see, I hear, I speak, you see. MAXIMUS: And what were you doing? JOSEPH: At one
time one thing, at another another. MAXIMUS: Before this present inclination. JOSEPH: I was
meditating. MAXIMUS: Concerning what tell me. JOSEPH: Concerning my departure. MAXIMUS:
What are you saying? JOSEPH: Now I am answering. MAXIMUS: What do you want? JOSEPH: To
be in good condition, to be cheerful, to be fortunate, to be glorified, to be saved. MAXIMUS: And
what do you seek? JOSEPH: Immortality. MAXIMUS: What did you say? JOSEPH: What I
announced. MAXIMUS: What do you possess, I say? JOSEPH: What I have. MAXIMUS: What do
you say? JOSEPH: Word. MAXIMUS: And I say this? JOSEPH: At one time one thing, at another
another, but there are times also the same. MAXIMUS: What is what? JOSEPH: What. MAXIMUS:
What is there? JOSEPH: What is not elsewhere. MAXIMUS: And what is not elsewhere? JOSEPH:
What is in another place. MAXIMUS: From where? JOSEPH: From somewhere. MAXIMUS:
Where? JOSEPH: As with you, or where. MAXIMUS: For what grace? JOSEPH: Of need.
MAXIMUS: How are you? JOSEPH: As I have become. MAXIMUS: Are you healthy? JOSEPH:
You see. MAXIMUS: How did you become? JOSEPH: Having been produced from non-being into
being. MAXIMUS: But now what do you become? Now, how is your holiness? JOSEPH: It is
enslaved by passions. MAXIMUS: Look. JOSEPH: At what? MAXIMUS: Hear. JOSEPH: I have
heard. MAXIMUS: Do you hear? JOSEPH: And I see. MAXIMUS: Do you know? JOSEPH: I
perceive. MAXIMUS: Do you understand? JOSEPH: In part. MAXIMUS: Do you apply yourself to
the things being said? JOSEPH: And these things are clear to all. MAXIMUS: Do you consider what
these things want? JOSEPH: Not least. MAXIMUS: But how does the paternity subsist? JOSEPH:
What is now has been spoken of. MAXIMUS: By whom? JOSEPH: By those having heard.
MAXIMUS: Has anything been announced? JOSEPH: Countless things. MAXIMUS: From where
or whence? JOSEPH: From where it has been. MAXIMUS: From where, or whence? JOSEPH:
Both. MAXIMUS: When? JOSEPH: When. MAXIMUS: What do you define? JOSEPH: And what.
MAXIMUS: Why? JOSEPH: Because. MAXIMUS: Grant pardon. JOSEPH: When did I not release
it? MAXIMUS: Repentance. JOSEPH: May I acquire it! MAXIMUS: Bless. JOSEPH: What shall I
speak evil of ? MAXIMUS: Pray for me. JOSEPH: What ever have I cursed? MAXIMUS: Health to
you. JOSEPH: The giving of this is not yours. MAXIMUS: Go with peace. JOSEPH: What you do
not have, how do you bestow? MAXIMUS: Have you come? JOSEPH: The question of one not

235
seeing. MAXIMUS: Did you not depart there? JOSEPH: Nevertheless elsewhere. MAXIMUS: Are
you going? JOSEPH: The answer is superfluous. MAXIMUS: You have come well. JOSEPH:
Whence do you know? MAXIMUS: May you depart well. JOSEPH: Whether thus, or not, it is not
yours to know. MAXIMUS: I pray this good for you, I do not declare it. JOSEPH: So you say
unclear things. MAXIMUS: Following divine guidance I say thus. JOSEPH: I know, but the future is
clearly not clear. MAXIMUS: Do you command? JOSEPH: Exhort, those clearer things; and both,
to accept, or rather to receive the whole; for the one commanding commands in himself.
MAXIMUS: I entreat. JOSEPH: The one having been entreated? MAXIMUS: How do you stand?
JOSEPH: Uprightly. MAXIMUS: Where do you stand? JOSEPH: On the surface of the earth.
MAXIMUS: Do you sit, or move? JOSEPH: Both. MAXIMUS: In what way? JOSEPH: The one
with the flesh, the other with the soul. MAXIMUS: Is standing first, or movement? JOSEPH:
Abiding. MAXIMUS: Who are you? JOSEPH: I say, for you understand correctly who I am, not all,
nor again no one. MAXIMUS: What then are you, I inquire? JOSEPH: Joseph Bryennius, the one
conversing with the mind. MAXIMUS: You know many things. JOSEPH: More than I know I do
not know. I err. MAXIMUS: When will you die? JOSEPH: When. MAXIMUS: Do you live then
when? JOSEPH: When I do the good. MAXIMUS: You have said most excellently; but tell the one
asking. JOSEPH: What. MAXIMUS: What exists prior to each? JOSEPH: What always exists to
each, that is more. MAXIMUS: Demonstrate. JOSEPH: Not all knowledge is demonstrative.
MAXIMUS: And how do you know what you know? JOSEPH: Some things by demonstration,
others without demonstration; since it is impossible to know all things by demonstration.
MAXIMUS: Would you explain how, or will you leave it to the bare reasonings? JOSEPH: I say, that
just as the sense without demonstration knows the sensible things, and knows these better than by
demonstration, so also the intellect with simple intuitions, applying itself both to these and to the
intelligible things, knows their nature without demonstration, from which it combines the Axioms,
showing the prior things from the later, and the universal things from the particular. MAXIMUS: So
you do not know how to demonstrate, what exists prior to each? JOSEPH: And I know, and I
demonstrated. MAXIMUS: How then did I contradict myself, saying, not all knowledge is
demonstrative? JOSEPH: Because, what is, is not all knowledge. MAXIMUS: What did I ask prior,
and what rather did you answer? Because you did not answer according to reason. JOSEPH: I
signified the prior through the other, leaving it to be understood from outside. MAXIMUS: From
where did you see this? JOSEPH: From the signs. MAXIMUS: Do not many of the things said by
the signs turn out to be false? JOSEPH: No, but what simply is a sign, that it is impossible to be
otherwise. MAXIMUS: Is there knowledge also of what is not? JOSEPH: It is not possible to know
what is not. MAXIMUS: How then do you know what is not, that it is not? And whence? JOSEPH:
From the being and comparison of what is, and not that it is, but that it is not. MAXIMUS: What is
the beginning of knowledge? JOSEPH: Intellect (Nous). MAXIMUS: Which? JOSEPH: Our own.
MAXIMUS: You ought to have answered differently. JOSEPH: And what is this, that I answered not
to what you are considering? For it is always possible to have a response ready for external discourse,

236
but not for internal. MAXIMUS: Who is the external discourse, which you say? JOSEPH: The
uttered (spoken). MAXIMUS: Did you answer then the uttered discourse? JOSEPH: No, but as the
uttered question demanded the answer. MAXIMUS: So are you able, even when asked, to answer?
JOSEPH: No, but only those things well defined according to the inquiry. MAXIMUS: Therefore is
not every question to be asked according to each inquiry? JOSEPH: Certainly; but not everything
being asked is to be answered concerning each. MAXIMUS: For what grace? JOSEPH: Because it is
not possible to demonstrate each primarily, but only from the principles of each. MAXIMUS: Do
not the sciences then share with each other? JOSEPH: Yes; but according to the common things,
which are the axioms, but not according to the subjects. MAXIMUS: If then I should ask you a
geometric theorem musically, will you not answer me musically? JOSEPH: Perhaps I will answer you
according to reason; but dimly, and so to speak analogically. MAXIMUS: Clarify the matter for me.
JOSEPH: I say now even as before. That you said a point added to a point makes nothing more; for
an indivisible added to an indivisible will not have distance, just as if someone should consider
nothing added to nothing; for it makes nothing; and a unit having multiplied itself makes nothing
more than itself; much more a sound seeming to be added to a point, and a beat to a unit, will
readily make a numerical, or musical theorem. MAXIMUS: In what way does the magnet attract
iron? JOSEPH: It is beyond us, and beyond demonstration the explanation. MAXIMUS: Why then?
JOSEPH: Because of the problems some are inherently clear and known, escaping every inquiry, as
why the fire burns, and the water cools; but others are altogether insoluble to men, and known only
to God, or even to angels, as how God, when He did not exist, made Himself; but others have an
intermediate order, as why the chaff preserves the heat thus, and snow the cold? The solution seems
to be of such a kind, and to change more quickly, if someone should make them discuss. Of those
insoluble among us is what you ask; of the necessary questions, of the difficult questions, the
answers are difficult. MAXIMUS: What is the principle of the discourses concerning God?
JOSEPH: The truth. MAXIMUS: Why? JOSEPH: Because this is the queen of the virtues both in
words and in deeds. MAXIMUS: What is the canon outside of the earthly sphere? JOSEPH: If we
barely conjecture the things on the earth, and those we perceive with our hands with labor, how
readily shall we investigate concerning the heavenly things? But also it is necessary to meditate on
the things concerning us. MAXIMUS: What is meditation of death? JOSEPH: To be separated from
vanities at each moment. MAXIMUS: Why do you not write, being able to answer thus readily and
verbatim? JOSEPH: Because as much as I want I am not able, and as much as I am able I do not
want. MAXIMUS: Why do you propose these things as of assumed humility, which almost all those
knowing you esteem you as one of the ancient luminaries of the Church? JOSEPH: I wished to be
something great, and it is very necessary to be that also, and not only to seem. It is indeed very true,
that the ancient teachers of truth, in order to be vessels of the Spirit, spoke and wrote from what
overflowed in them, but we steal from here and there, and patch together. PHOCAS: What are you
saying, Father? God speaks through you believing. JOSEPH: To you being my friend, praising my
things, I do not endure the testimonies from enemies, they are often much more trustworthy.

237
MAXIMUS: Good. JOSEPH: May I find it! MAXIMUS: God knows. JOSEPH: Most true; but
leaving, if it seems good, this contentious discourse, if anything concerning the procession of the
Holy Spirit from the previous meeting has been left behind by you to us, propose it; since today you
yourselves are the cause of my answering you thus, proposing questions unexercised, and foreign,
and befitting to jests, but not having to do with men of reason. PHOCAS: This also has been
decided by you most excellently; therefore immediately let the conversation be concerning this, for
which we have now arrived to you; and first we yield the first place to you; let it be for you to begin,
and ask as you wish.
Paragraph 2: JOSEPH: Therefore, with God being my guide, I first ask you, for what purpose
have you undertaken so long and overseas a journey? Whether to apologize to us for your errors,
and to repent for the past things, or to call us to the same destruction? If indeed the first, you have
come to us well; thanks be to God, that you have recognized the truth; but if the second, know that
you have labored in vain; we will not prefer you to the saints, nor the uncertain to the secure, nor the
Roman to Christ—away with it! SCARANUS: Do you thus immediately answer us with severity,
making the concession of our speaking first a pretext? I said ask about the Spirit, not about the
purpose of our arrival. JOSEPH: Therefore I now inquire concerning the Holy Spirit, and answer:
Is the Father alone the cause of both the Son and the Spirit, or is He not alone? MAXIMUS: Of the
Son indeed alone, but of the Holy Spirit not alone. JOSEPH: I asked one thing, and you answered
another; why do you flee from the first? Come, answer verbatim: Is the Father alone the cause of
both persons, or is He not alone? MAXIMUS: Not alone. JOSEPH: Therefore both the Son and the
Spirit are two causes in the divine Trinity? MAXIMUS: Alone. JOSEPH: Therefore the truth is
understood, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. MAXIMUS: And what prevents us
from believing the one Son alone to be the only cause, God and Father, but of the Spirit not only
Him, but with Him the Son inseparably co-existing according to nature? For we do not say two
Fathers, nor two Projectors, so that we might introduce two causes; but just as we believe God and
Father to be one Father of the one Son, thus we likewise confess the Father and the Son to be one
Projector of the one Spirit. JOSEPH: Therefore another is the one as Projector besides the one
Father, just as another is the one Spirit besides the one Son; and therefore two causing persons in
the divine Trinity, and two caused persons in it are shown. PHOCAS: How do you say this? Tell us
more clearly.
Paragraph 3: JOSEPH: I have already said most clearly, and this my proposition has been
understood by all those having heard; I will not otherwise go through this, unless you propose it, and
answer. Concerning the persons in the divine Trinity, what of these do you confess? That one
person alone is the cause of the two? Or that two persons alone are the causes of one? Or that one
person is the cause of the two, and the two persons are the causes of one? If indeed one person
alone is the cause of the two, write this your confession for me with your own hand, bearing
witnesses present, and so that we may immediately consider you as of one faith; but if two persons
alone are the causes of the one, if indeed you speak truly, those saying theologians concerning the

238
super-divine Trinity, that the Father is one cause, must necessarily be lying; who are these? These:
John of Damascus saying in the eighth of his dogmatic works, “And the Spirit, not as from Himself,
but as through Him proceeding from the Father; for thus alone is the Father;” Cyril of Alexandria in
his discourse concerning the Trinity, “For with us, the Father is the cause of both persons;” and
Gregory the Theologian in his concerning the Holy Spirit, lest I pass over the others, “One God
with us, being referred as cause both of Son and of Spirit;” do you see what the teacher says? “One
cause, to which both Son and Spirit are referred,” as God is with us; and the opposite of this is that
unless both the Son and the Spirit were referred to one cause, the Trinity would not be one God
with us. But so that we may return to the matter at hand, if as you say, not one of the two, but the
two are causes of the one, all these must necessarily be lying, and those leading astray those of
sound mind in the truth; and I say, not only those now present, but also those immediately hearing
these teachers when these things were taught; but injustice has lied to itself; but we being persuaded
by these, reject those saying two causes in the divine Trinity; but truth is dear. I marvel at the race of
the Latins, and more than this, one person only you say is cause of one, and this one again, only
cause of the two, and the two persons of the Trinity are the cause of one. Alas! Whither should one
turn? Where should one flee the force of evils? But we the nation of the Romans, finding the Holy
Spirit countless times in the divine Scripture being brought forth, have nowhere found Him being
said to proceed hypostatically from the Son; but what is silenced by all of divine Scripture, we judge
this to be honored by silence also by all of us; for it is equally absurd and beyond audacity, both to
give a dogma proclaimed by God to silence, and what is silenced by Him from eternity, to be
proclaimed now by us.
Paragraph 4: MAXIMUS: But these things do not seem thus to Thomas Aquinas. JOSEPH: I
see Thomas, (but do not be disturbed) deviating from what is necessary both in many other things,
and especially in those which he concludes concerning the most Holy Spirit, as it seems in his
chapters against us. That also in these he is convicted of blasphemy, and says the divine essence to
be visible, and attaches the Platonic ideas to the divine nature, and defines essence in God to be the
same as power and energy, and again defines essence in God to be the same as person, and believes
four properties to be present in the divine persons, and the Holy Spirit to proceed both immediately
and mediately from the Father, and he inscribes many of the saints from the choir of the saints,
from thence it is clear. For in the twelfth question, of the first of his theological works, he thus says,
“And God is seen only through some illumination of the very shining first principle,” it is directly to
not posit the essence of God to be visible; but we believe the divine essence not to be visible. And
again in the same, “It is necessary to posit ideas in the divine intellect, of all things known by God.”
And in the twenty-sixth of the same, “In God there is no power, or energy, besides His essence.”
And in the thirtieth of the same, “In the divine persons the essence and the person are the same.”
And in the thirty-second of the same, “There are five characteristics in the divine persons,
unbegottenness, fatherhood, sonship, common procession, and procession; of which these four only
are relations; for unbegottenness is not a relation;” and “There are only four properties; for

239
common procession is not a property, being applied to two persons; but there are three personal
characteristics, that is according to which the persons are distinguished, namely fatherhood, sonship,
and procession; for common procession, and unbegottenness, are said to be characteristics of the
persons, but not personal.” And in the thirty-sixth it is found “The Holy Spirit proceeds both
immediately from the Father, insofar as He is from Him, and mediately, insofar as He is from the
Son.” And again in the same, “The Holy Spirit not proceeding from the Son, was first introduced by
the Nestorians; and to this heresy followed the Nestorian Theodoret, and many others with him,
among whom also is Damascene;” thus Thomas sets forth. But to these things, and to every
orthodox person, it is fitting to pay attention.
Paragraph 5: SCARANUS: I confess thanks to the greatest Christ, now first having encountered
your virtue; for having for many years had to inquire concerning our difference, I did not have
anyone to use for the solutions of the interpretations; and therefore first tell me this, does only the
question concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit need correction between us? Or also
concerning certain other things do you differ with us? JOSEPH: And indeed concerning many other
things we are found to differ with you; who could easily go through all things? Especially these
seven. SCARANUS: Alas! But he used to say that only that one was of theology; and when will
these things be corrected? When so much time has not been strong enough to correct one, and how
much for the seven? Or what men will correct them? But desiring to learn how many you would say,
I deem it worthy to announce what these are; and for what reason are you separated from us
because of these? Moreover, also how ever could these obtain the fitting correction, if indeed they
should obtain it?
Paragraph 6: JOSEPH: I will speak these things to you, inquiring with love of truth, both readily
as is possible and clearly and concisely. First: That instead of leavened bread you offer unleavened
bread in your liturgies. Second: That you baptize those being baptized by you with one immersion,
as if it were not necessary. Third: That you believe there to be a purgatorial fire for every sin after
death. Fourth: That you eat strangled animals without fear, and blood, lest I say contentiously or
quarrelsomely. SCARANUS: The fifth? JOSEPH: That you fast on the Sabbath with the Jews
unwillingly, which is unlawful. Sixth: That you plainly alter the canons of the holy Apostles, and the
two of the seven Ecumenical Synods. And Seventh: Above all, that you give with boldness to those
needing every ecclesiastical office, and absolution of every sin, through money. These indeed are the
seven, concerning which we differ most with you; apart from the question concerning the
procession of the Holy Spirit, and the other things, concerning which now it is better to be silent.
And we are separated from you because of these things, neither by autonomy of will, away with it!
nor by contention otherwise, or desire for rule, as someone might happen to suppose, but following
the canons of the all-renowned Apostles, and the traditions of the seven Ecumenical Synods, and if
you would consider this, it would become clear from thence. SCARANUS: From where?
Paragraph 7: JOSEPH: Concerning the first, the seventh Ecumenical Synod thus decrees: “If
anyone introduces into the offering leavened bread and salt, and if anyone offers unleavened bread,

240
let him be anathema.” And the great Basil in the interpretation of the divine liturgy says, “Through
the things being performed here are signified the perfect humanity of our Savior Jesus Christ, and
we show Him to be both perfect God and perfect man; unleavened the flesh, leavened the soul, salt
the mind; and therefore we name the Lord’s body both unleavened and ensouled.” “But also we
fulfill all the senses in the sacred offerings, sight the unleavened, smell the leavened, hearing the fire,
taste the salt, and touch the water.” And the divine Chrysostom, not only in the interpretation of the
Gospel according to John clearly shows this, “That the Lord one day before delivered His own
Passover, keeping His own sacrifice for the preparation when the old Passover was taking place.”
And in the discourse, “There is again a necessary and urgent need,” he says, “Three hundred
Fathers, or even more, having come together into the Bithynian region, legislated these things, and
completed them in deeds, and confirmed them in words; have you not heard Christ Himself saying,
that ‘Where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there I am in the midst of them’?
But if where two or three, Christ is in the midst, how much more where three hundred and much
more were present, did He not much more preside? He Himself typified and legislated all things; but
you condemn not only them, but also the whole inhabited world, which also praised their judgment.
For Christ also underwent circumcision, and kept Sabbaths, and fulfilled feasts, and ate unleavened
bread, He did all these things in Jerusalem; and on the fourteenth of the first month; but we follow
none of these and Paul cries out saying, ‘If you are circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing;’ and
concerning the unleavened bread again, ‘So let us keep the feast, not with the old leaven of malice
and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth;’ for our life being mingled, is
virtuous; but Christ; whoever is in Christ is a new creation; not in old leaven, in unleavened bread,
the unleavened bread is not unleavened; and again, ‘The end of the law is Christ; whoever is under
the law, you have fallen from grace; the old things have passed away, behold all things have become
new;’ of all these is also the mystery according to the Passover; for this is the feast of feasts, and the
assembly of assemblies. And for what reason did Christ do this? Because the old Passover, was a
type of the future things; but it was necessary for the truth to be placed upon the type, before He
introduced the truth; having shown the shadow, then also when the truth was brought in, the
shadow then is hidden, and no longer has time; for what need was there of a type when the truth
had come? What of a shadow, when the realities had arrived? What of a mindless lamb, when the
priest having delivered us from mindlessness had been introduced? But even if the typical one ate
before the true one, and after supper, but it was that one having been made old in time, but this one
said the new one ‘Do this in remembrance of me.’” And in other places, “If anyone offering
unleavened bread keeps the feast with the Jews,” he says, “this is the same, as if also someone
circumcising himself, according to some private purpose, but not being circumcised according to the
understanding of those using this custom, would seem not to think their thoughts.” And in other
places, “The kingdom of the heavens has been likened to leaven,” that is the word of God; leaven is
tropically and without beginning named, because having vital power it is able to move, and increase,

241
and similarly generate; as indeed the dough without leaven, is deprived of such qualities.
MAXIMUS: These things are sufficient concerning the first.
Paragraph 8: JOSEPH: Concerning the second, the divine Apostles in the forty-seventh Canon,
expressly say thus: “If any bishop, or presbyter, does not perform three baptisms of one initiation,
let him be deposed.” And the great Basil, in the twenty-seventh of the chapters to Amphilochius
says, “But that a man is baptized thrice, did we not receive from the mystical tradition?” And the one
with the golden tongue, in the book “To those being illuminated,” in discourse 2, thus sets forth:
“And so that you may learn from hence also, that as one is the essence of Father and Son and Holy
Spirit, so also is the tradition of baptism; for the priest exclaiming, ‘The servant of God is baptized,
in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,’ at the third time he lowers and
raises the head, through this mystical rite preparing him to receive the visitation of the Spirit; for not
only the priest touching the head is present, but also the right hand of Christ, and this is shown
from the very words of the one baptizing; for he does not say ‘I baptize the servant of God,’ but
‘The servant of God is baptized,’ showing, that he himself alone becomes a minister of the grace,
offering his own hand, but the one filling all things is the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.”
MAXIMUS: What then do you have to propose concerning the third?
Paragraph 9: JOSEPH: Concerning this, the Fifth Ecumenical Synod, those believing there to be
an end of punishment after death, it rejects and places them in the catalogue of the Church.
MAXIMUS: What does Paul say, in the third chapter of the first to the Corinthians: “Each one’s
work will become manifest; for the Day will declare it, because it is revealed by fire; and each one’s
work, of what sort it is, the fire will test. If anyone’s work which he has built remains, he will receive
a reward. If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as
through fire.” JOSEPH: The divine teachers interpreting this in many ways, conclude one
understanding: saying “he will suffer loss,” is one punishment; but “he himself will be saved, yet so
as through fire,” into the boundless age, being punished immortally. For it is our custom to say “he
is saved in the fire,” concerning materials not being burned; but saying “he will be saved,” he hinted
at the intensity of the punishment. MAXIMUS: And how does Gregory the Dialogist declare there
to be a purgatorial fire? JOSEPH: One usage of a saint does not establish a catholic dogma; for the
law of the Church is the common usage; since also he himself says this to be for certain sins, not in
all. MAXIMUS: And therefore the prayers for the departed, and the offerings are superfluous.
JOSEPH: They are most necessary rather, if anything else, after death; but these are propitiations to
the Master, and not a purgatorial fire; but concerning this, more will be said in other places.
Paragraph 10: Concerning the fourth, as to speak typically, in the Acts of the Apostles it is
written verbatim thus: “The Apostles, and the elders and brethren, to the believers from the
Gentiles, greetings: It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us, to lay no greater burden on you
than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things
strangled, and from fornication. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.” Following
these ordinances, also the Sixth Synod, in its sixty-seventh canon declares, “If anyone from the

242
temple attempts to eat blood of living beings, in any way, if indeed he is a cleric, let him be deposed;
but if a layman, let him be excommunicated.” MAXIMUS: And concerning the fifth, go through it
concisely; for where Synods and Apostles are witnesses, there is no need to prolong.
Paragraph 11: OSEPH: You have spoken excellently; indeed I will be satisfied with the choir of
the Apostles alone concerning this, that concerning the fifth the same Apostles, thus in the sixty-
third canon decree: “If any cleric is found fasting on the Lord’s Day, or on the Sabbath, except for
one only, let him be deposed; but if a layman, let him be excommunicated.”
Paragraph 12: Concerning the sixth, namely that also seven Ecumenical Synods have taken place
most manifestly, and the Apostles wrote canons, many and from many places are our testimonies.
Concerning the Synods the Chronographers, the Typica, the Menaia, the Nomocanons, and the
struggles and the discourses of the confessors and our Fathers who distinguished themselves in
these [Synods bear witness]. Concerning the Canons, also the Synods themselves are witnesses, and
many of the saints, that the first having been gathered together in Nicaea immediately, in its first
canon, makes mention of the fourth of the Apostolic Canons. And the second also in its second, of
the fourteenth; and the fifth, of the twelfth, and the second and thirtieth. And the third, in the
seventy-fourth, which we used fittingly, deposed the impious Nestorius. And the one in Chalcedon
in its fifth, makes mention of the twelfth, and the sixteenth, and the thirteenth, and the fourteenth.
Besides these the great Basil in his twelfth, makes mention of the seventeenth; Gregory the
Theologian in his words, and Damascene, in the twenty-seventh of his dogmatic works, mentions
all. Especially concerning these and all the ecumenical [canons] the seventh Synod, thus dreadfully
declares with anathema, and alien from the Christian catalogue, whoever dares to alter, or overturn,
or annul any of the sacred canons. PHOCAS: How fearful is this declaration, and full of dread!
Paragraph 13: JOSEPH: Concerning the seventh and last, Leo, the renowned Pope, named the
fourth of the Synods the epitome of Orthodoxy, in the canons concerning those ordained for
money he says, “Grace not being given freely both giving and receiving, is not grace. But those who
receive for the sake of Simon receive freely; therefore they do not receive the grace operating in the
ecclesiastical orders; if they receive ecclesiastical orders, they do not have them; and if they do not
have them, neither freely nor for money are they able to give anything to anyone; what then do they
give? Clearly a false spirit; how? Let us show this. For if the Spirit of truth, with truth itself bearing
witness from whom He proceeds, is given freely, beyond all doubt the spirit not being given freely is
convicted of being false.” Concerning this, lest I pass over the others, in the twenty-eighth canon,
the Apostles speak more weightily. “If any Bishop through money should become master of this
dignity, or presbyter, or deacon, let both he himself be deposed, and the one having ordained him,
and let him be cut off completely from communion, as Simon the Magician was by Peter.” And very
reasonably, anyone would say, these things happen even worse to the wretches; for if that magician,
even having only supposed it to be at all possible to acquire the gift of God with silver, was
immediately cast far away from the Church, those doing this by a way of life, selling all the graces of
the Spirit for gold, how then will they live? Or what justice will they pay? So that we may arrive at

243
the connection of the discourse, for these causes we are separated from you, as doing in all things
with the saints, and not with you, who, that I may speak more euphemistically, proceed as you wish.
PHOCAS: Who is sufficient for these things?
Paragraph 14: JOSEPH: The one correction of all these things will be, with God cooperating, to
handle or to think nothing contrary to the things ordained by the holy Apostles, and the holy
Synods; for the one rightly keeping this boundary will be of one mind with us, of one communion,
and of one faith; but the one contradicting the aforementioned canons, and manifestly proceeding
against the Apostles, and bearing himself shamelessly against the saints, what communion would he
have with us? What portion would he have with us in piety, or what participation in impiety?
Wherefore one of the teachers says, “To those wishing to act impiously, the one speaking contrary
to the things ordained, even if he is trustworthy, even if he fasts, even if he lives in virginity, even if
he performs signs, even if he prophesies, let him appear to you as a wolf, in sheep’s skin, working
the destruction of the sheep.” And, “If anyone of those seeming to think with the God-bearing
Fathers stumbles, this is no longer to be called economy, but transgression, and betrayal of dogma,
and impiety against the divine.” And, “It is necessary for the one having before his eyes the
judgment seat of Christ, knowing the danger of taking away anything, or adding to the things
delivered by the Spirit, not to be contentious in innovating by himself, but to be quiet about the
things proclaimed beforehand by the saints.” And, “We have already once given a type, so that the
one knowing himself to be a Christian, should keep that which was delivered by the holy Apostles,”
the blessed Paul saying, “If anyone preaches to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let him
be anathema.” And besides these the Synods write expressly, now indeed, concerning which the
divine Scripture has most manifestly decreed, it is not necessary to vote, but rather to follow; now
indeed, if anyone annuls every ecclesiastical tradition both written and unwritten; now indeed,
everything innovated and done contrary to the ecclesiastical tradition and instruction of the holy
Fathers, or even those things about to be done, let him be anathema. Therefore so many, and such
[authorities] prohibit believing otherwise, this is one and only correction, and way of salvation, to be
in agreement with the holy Synods, and to follow the canons of the holy Apostles, and through all
things to follow Christ; to whom be thanks for all things.

244
 DIALOGUE II. CONCERNING THE PROCESSION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.
Joseph Breynnios Dialogue with Envoys from Rome, having arrived ostensibly for the Union of the
Church and seeking to receive something else form us.

JOSEPH
Paragraph 1: Paragraph 1
He who has been addressed with reverence in word and form and heart, may he bring to a
conclusion the much-wandered discourse; may peace be in your soul, may peace proceed before
your face; may peace accompany all your steps. PRESBYTER: Thanks be to God that we have
found you living and healthy; but tell me, how does your paternity subsist? Are you firm? Are you
cheerful? JOSEPH: Things are well with me according to the body, but perhaps also the soul will
receive [good], with you interceding for it to the One having died for the condemned.
PRESBYTER: You being known as great in reputation and great, you enjoy many great things.
INTERPRETER: Yes, it is thus as your greatness has declared; he wrongs both sides, both being
silent, and speaking thus; and I say how: being silent now for a third year, he wrongs the Romans,
very thirsty to hear his voice; but speaking, he wrongs both himself and us, slandering some of the
saints, that they do not say the Holy Spirit to proceed also from the Son; a dogma confessed by all.
Paragraph 2
JOSEPH: Concerning these things, I intend to answer little, or nothing; these things belong to
the holy Synods, to the Patriarchs, to the Metropolitans, to the Bishops, to the Cross-bearers, to the
Hegumens, and to those thus called Spiritual ones; but for me, leading a solitary life, the things
concerning myself will be a care; let those reaping the fruits of the land, also uproot the weeds; let
those enjoying the milk and the wool and the meat of the flock, also drive away the wild beasts from
it; or is it permitted for others to enjoy the good things of the flock and of the land, but for me
alone to partake of its terrible things? But if to be considered a teacher, such discourses owe such a
position, it is not at all sufficient to be considered, unless also to be in truth is added; lest a name be
left to me, deprived of the reality! And a glory a servant, and a fruitless reputation, generating fear,
and envy, and hatred, and nothing healthy! I owe it to the super-divine and life-giving Spirit, to keep
in every way inviolate the tradition concerning Him given to me by the saints; but to contend
concerning this, or to discuss, or to dispute, I yield to those wishing [to do so].
Paragraph 3
INTERPRETER: Why do you propose such things? There is no one who would not think you
to be at a loss for an answer to the question, making this yielding a cause for you concerning these
things; and otherwise it is not possible for you to escape being silent, unless you are able to repel our
words with noble words. JOSEPH: God, the Lord being hymned in Trinity, be a faithful witness of
my words; as having readily to answer with reason to what has been said, I postpone the present,
knowing this, that we attempt to lead the children now scattered by God into one, not by violence,
or contention, or strife, but rather to do this by teaching and gentleness and simplicity; for neither

245
from darkness does light proceed, nor from falsehood does truth come to be, nor from conflict
does peace proceed, where the habit of contention prevails; whence in one place Solomon says, “If
you press the nostrils, blood will come out; but if you draw out words, judgments and battles will
come out;” but in another, “Friendship will cover all those not contending;” what does the discourse
secretly gather? That also it surrounds those contending with enmity; which also I being conscious
of, and so that the union being considered by us may proceed in every way, foreseeing from afar, I
advised this with boldness to all of you, and having arrived here, I now first entreat all to keep this.
Paragraph 4: INTERPRETER: What indeed is this? JOSEPH: I will say again: Not for us to
contend with each other before the Synod is gathered; and with the Holy Spirit having deemed it
good, a Synod will be gathered, and union will result, and we all will be one flock of Christ. Behold
the eyes of all of you see me testifying, and your ears are open to my words. For I testify by the
great elements, heaven, and earth, and light; I call to witness the choir of the saints, and the circle of
the angels, that whenever only both races are persuaded by me advising better things, and do not
vainly quarrel with each other before the Synod sits, and this is established, union will take place; but
if not, it will not be into eternity, but the division will become worse. As a demonstration of the
many things, I myself first will attempt not to contend concerning the dogma until then, who seems
to be more contentious than the others concerning this; except by a definition of the Church, or a
command of the Emperor; and I do this, not as anyone might think cleverly evading the force of
the words; for I am altogether inexperienced in contentious words, or defining dogmas; but that
which will result from the contradiction, knowing it very clearly, and avoiding this in every way, I
have declared.
Paragraph 5: INTERPRETER: What is the urgent cause of this? JOSEPH: It is very clear; for if
I at all agree, that dialogues take place here with me and some Italian, before the Synod is gathered,
the Synod will by no means be gathered. And I say how. Behold here today we have gathered
together at the presence of this wonderful man, the greater number having come together; if indeed
at this gathering it should happen, a dialogue not taking place in our midst, but only greetings, and
friendly hearing of words, both all of you, and before going out from here, and after each of you
departing whither he wishes, you will have peace with each other; and those outside receiving you,
will have no cause from you for contradictions; but if a syllogism, or sophism should be proposed
by someone, then wisdom from the opponents should come to be; (which it is necessary to happen)
opposition of opinions will come to be, and even before all of you crossing the threshold of the
chamber, you will be disturbed against each other, and after going out of the great city immediately
from here, you will disturb the men throughout this great city; and the next day again, and those
after it, and those following, not in churches and workshops and assemblies, in marketplaces, and
even in the roads, near and far, nothing else will almost be said, nothing else will be contentiously
given out, but the things altogether said here, being circulated many times; and the Roman will boast
at the things having been said, boldly encroaching, and the Italian against him resisting and
threatening, unless he is silent and lays hands on him. The so-called slanderers and word-mongers, as

246
if having snatched some prey from the contentious discourse, and having transformed it as it seems
good to each, through writings, and through ink, will quickly declare great things to those in Italy;
and this will be nothing else, than to stir up hatred against both races, and to prepare a long division
for them, and for me to become the cause of nothing at all being hoped for of the union of the
Churches; which knowing, I refuse the present to discuss concerning the dogma. There are instead
of this countless things concerning the matter at hand to do, and to wish to meditate both in
common and individually and to consult together with peace, how the union might come to be; and
not through the strife of evil men, or the influence of a destructive demon—but may the Lord not
allow this to happen! which also I dread to announce. INTERPRETER: Indeed!
Paragraph 6: JOSEPH: Besides, since this great man has now arrived here, and has traversed so
long a journey, so as to hold public dialogues, we from the very beginning, as it is said, should not
receive such a Presbyter with such receptions; but this indeed, so as to convey to the Patriarch, and
to the Rulers, embassies of union of the Churches, and with them also the discourses concerning
these things, would be a great desire, concerning which is the purpose; but we, these things being
thus, and he having been sent by so many and such, for such a purpose, will show all fitting honors
with all worthy respects; and there will take place with him, also one dialogue, or perhaps also a
second, and a third; rather a dialogue, concerning which a common consultation is being considered,
not as in secret, but in appointed places, in the renowned Church of the Wisdom of God, or in the
God-protected Palace, or wherever the wise men should choose. Perhaps also I myself (since it is
necessary for the one answering, not only what is necessary, and concerning what is necessary, and
how it is necessary, but also where it is necessary, and when it is necessary to answer) concerning this
henceforth where it is necessary I will answer you such things, if indeed I live, and am called, and am
present. But the boldness to all, and privately to each I have often advised, this also I again enjoin
upon you, upon all of you, to whom, even if a dialogue did not happen to take place here now, you
were about to relate the solutions of the oppositions, so that all both Romans and Latins, foreigners
and natives, from now night and day, from the whole soul and heart might more fervently entreat
the Lord, so that, in whatever ways He knows, He might quickly be pleased to bring about as is
necessary, the union of His own Church; knowing this to be a second economy of God, after the
incarnate presence of Christ.
Paragraph 7: THOSE OF THE CITY: All these things having been said well, look to one
purpose, that of silence; but we all at once deem you worthy, if you do not wish to answer nobly
and directly, to answer moderately. JOSEPH: To what proposition will I answer? PRESBYTER: We
say, as we believe, the Father and the Son, not according to the essence, nor according to the
Godhead, but according to the projecting power, project the Holy Spirit and nothing absurd follows.
JOSEPH: Do not at all think me, O sir, to be inexperienced in the things being said by you; but that
you announce to me, if you possess a doctrine concerning each of the dogmas of the Church, I
know your grace; since many times I have declared these things from the heart, and I have not lived
by these things, and I do not live, and I will not live; but now I was silent, not wishing to give cause

247
to those wishing to contend, that the words hidden in the hearts of men, are like cherries held in
small baskets, from which one pulling one, immediately two are pulled along with it; and to these, a
third comes; and to these, almost all the remaining things are swept along. INTERPRETER: Indeed,
let us begin then with God.
Paragraph 8: JOSEPH: You yourselves have built a tower appearing to be very strong and lofty,
to which you always flee, accusing us of introducing a duality in the divine Trinity, by believing the
Holy Spirit to proceed from the Father and the Son, immediately proposing this reason, as an
unbreakable bulwark: “That the Father and the Son, according to the projecting power, project the
Holy Spirit;” thinking that with this alone having been said, nothing new is now being said, but as if
the thing being sought is immediately understood as confessed. Therefore this tower, on which you
greatly rely, with God permitting me to speak, I will destroy from the foundations with this word,
and pay attention, O men. For none of the theologians up to now among us, has expressly delivered
thus, that the Father and the Son, according to the projecting power, project the Holy Spirit; but
what is silenced by all of them, as not being, has been silenced, either as dividing the flock of Christ,
or as being altogether worthy of silence; and therefore it is fitting also for us to honor this with
silence. For it is equally of boldness and self-will, both to silence the dogma being proclaimed by
them, and what is silenced by them until now, to be proclaimed now by us; but openly proclaiming
what resists their dogmas, what excess of shamelessness does it leave? What according to what, and
on account of what, do you propose, as if a bronze wall? Whether according to two, or whether
according to more, the Father and the Son project the Spirit according to subsistence, even if you
say it without definition, even if you say it with definition, even if commonly, even if individually,
likewise from all sides the divine Spirit is forced to be a person from two persons, namely from the
Father and the Son. However, it is not at all strange if you propose these things from your own
[reasoning], when also with no one accusing you, you proceed manifestly against Christ Himself,
thus shamelessly defending yourselves, that even Christ Himself in the Gospels expressly set forth
that the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, proceeds from the Father alone, not at all from Himself, but you
persuade us to believe the contrary of all, that He proceeds personally also from the Son. THOSE
OF THE CITY: Alas for the greatness of the boldness!
Paragraph 9: JOSEPH: This is both a cutting off according to the word of God, and a manifest
conflict with the theologians, and an implacable war against us; consider, so that we may know both
in part and wholly. THOSE OF THE CITY: Declare with boldness what you wish; we all hang on
your voice. JOSEPH: The saints themselves say, “We do not say the Spirit is from the Son,” but you
say, “We say the Spirit is also from the Son;” they [say], according to essence and hypostasis the
Spirit is with the Son, but not from Him, but you believe the Spirit to be also according to the
essence, and according to the hypostasis from the Son; they write, “But we do not say the Son is a
cause,” you think also the Son to be a cause of the Spirit; they say it is proper to the Father to
project the Spirit, you write this to be common to the Father and the Son; they declare the
projecting property to belong to the Father alone, you say that it does not belong to the Father

248
alone; they confess that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, you proclaim Him to
proceed not only from the Father; again, they alone glorify the Father as the source of the
superessential Godhead, but you consider not only the Father, but also with Him the Son to be a
source of Godhead; they do not expressly posit the Spirit to be also from the Son, you strongly
assert Him to have existence also from the Son; they proclaim the Father alone to be the cause in
the divine Trinity, you teach Him not to be the only cause, but with Him also the Son; they
theologize one person alone to be the cause of two, you proclaim both one and two to be causes of
one. Is this not manifest contradiction and opposition and strife? It is clear to everyone, and
everyone knows. THOSE OF THE CITY: How then is it?
Paragraph 10: JOSEPH: Then if someone should ask you, are you persuaded by the saints, or
not? You say “We are persuaded by all in all;” if therefore you are truly persuaded, why do you
manifestly annul what they clearly declared? But rather why, as wiser than the Apostles, and more
mystical than the Prophets, and more instructive than the Teachers, and more authoritative than the
Lord, do you oppose them diametrically? Then unreasonably you are displeased, how we are not
persuaded in such things, and think the same things as you? I persuade myself, neither any other of
men, nor at all myself; but having said farewell to my wisdom, and to my understanding, and to my
knowledge, and to my discernment, I adhere only to the saints in the theological declarations, and to
the God of all. Do you see how the tower, on which you were greatly confident, has been utterly
destroyed to its very foundations and base? Then are you not ashamed to continually bring forward
this saying, as a greatest proof ? “That according to the projecting power, the Father and the Son are
the cause of the Spirit?” Do you not know that you speak to men having reason, and partaking of
words, and knowing what you say, and understanding your thoughts?
Paragraph 11: PRESBYTER: But also you likewise add to the holy Symbol, even if not in the
wording, yet in the meaning, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. JOSEPH: This
also is a creation of your boldness and this also is an addition of your addition; for unless you had
added “and from the Son” in the divine Symbol, we would not have added “from the Father alone”
in opposition. Therefore it was necessary for you to repent for what for three hundred years you
have divided the Church of Christ, and to curse the one having first dared this, it being necessary
even now to be silent about what you are accused of, you more impudently attack those accusing,
and you make the silent the same as the speaking, and you judge those not having fabricated equal to
those having fabricated. Doing the same, as if someone being accused of betrayal of a city, being
silent about all things he is accused of, would bring forward some pretext for justification
supposedly, that he has done nothing terrible; since also the one leading him, speaks concerning the
King of the same city, that he has an unspeakable treasure in secret places; to whom the judging
word of truth [says], unless someone says otherwise, “You were not called to judge the things of
others, O sir, but to answer for what you are accused of; let go of accusing the things of others, but
defend yourself, that one thing is that, if not something else, concerning the matter at hand, another
thing is to be manifestly a traitor through words and through writings and deeds, of the common

249
fatherland of all, and being accused concerning this to resist, and to say he has done very rightly, and
in every way to avoid both being and being called an eternal traitor; and another thing to reason the
one wishing concerning the ruler, that he is superior to all kings.” Consider, the common fatherland
and city of all of us to be the catholic Church, and the orthodox faith, and the truth, and the one
having made the schism to be confessed a traitor of this, and the King to be God and Father, and an
infinite treasure with Him the hypostatic procession of the Holy Spirit.
Paragraph 12: It is worthy of the narratives also that one, and fitting to the matter at hand. For it
is said that a certain lender once lent to one of those being pressed by necessity, ten coins at a stated
interest; who having received a document from him for security, since the letter signifying the
number ten happened to be there, he himself wickedly placing the letter (ρ), signifying one hundred,
on the upper stroke of that (ι), transformed the one signifying ten. This being concealed, after some
time he came and demanded one hundred instead of ten, showing the document to the debtor; but
he having detected the deceit (for he also seems to have been not at all simple), asking to examine
the document supposedly better and in hand, and having received it, placing the letter (ο) on the
lower end of that having been transformed from (ι) into (ρ), impressed the one shortly before
signifying the number one hundred into (δ), forcing it to signify only two. Being brought to trial with
the lender concerning this, he says to him, having taken the man aside, “If you first remove what
you placed on the upper stroke of the letter (ι), and I removing this having been added on the lower,
immediately it will be (ι), only that will be which was from the beginning; and from thence I will be
seen owing you not one hundred, nor two, but only ten coins.” Thus therefore also we, if it seems
good, must do; remove that having been added by you, and making all the disturbance, from the
midst, and immediately we being silent, and speaking, the addition having been introduced by us will
be removed by itself, and the common dogma of all, to which it was from the beginning, will be
restored. THOSE OF THE CITY: Yes Lord of all, in whatever ways you know, turn us to one.
Paragraph 13: JOSEPH: But let none of you doubt, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the
Father alone, because it is not placed in the symbol of faith, “And in the Holy Spirit proceeding
from the Father alone.” PRESBYTER: Why then? JOSEPH: Because neither of the Romans, nor of
the Greeks, nor of any other language under the sun, is it a custom, or peculiarity, to utter names
with the “alone” definition after them; for neither does any dialect of nations, nor any ancient and
new writing, declaring concerning some personal existence, set forth the word without “alone,”
persuading all those hearing the word, that from the one concerning whom the existence is declared,
the preceding is understood according to the person; when even in common custom we say, “My
own brother is from my Father,” or in the divine Scripture, “Seth is from Adam,” and “From Noah
was born Shem;” thus also in the divine Symbol we confess to believe concerning the Son, in the
one begotten from the Father alone before all ages, thus also we say concerning the Spirit, “In the
Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father alone;” so that the one demanding the Spirit to be said with
the “alone” definition “from the Father,” so that he may persuade the “from alone,” let him demand
also the Son to be confessed with “alone” “from the Father.” Let him further demand that as

250
everything being said from someone must be, unless it is brought forward with “alone,” it is not
believed to be from the one from whom it is called into existence. But if all causes are believed to be
only to those personally proceeding from them, how will this “alone,” in the word, be defined? So
that it is not permitted for you to fabricate definitions when definitions are not placed, or to
condemn the usage of definitions having been placed by holy Synods.
Paragraph 14: PRESBYTER: And how concerning the Son is it said, that the Son is only from
the Father alone, but concerning the Holy Spirit this is silenced in the same place? JOSEPH: It is not
at all strange; for the usage shows, that only the Son of God, is un-mothered from the Father alone,
but all other sons, [are] from both Father and Mother; so that from many places, but rather from all
places you are in danger; that if you only reject concerning the dogma of God, and do not succeed,
and now you divide God, as indeed you believe, again for so many four hundred years you are found
divided from the Church. For neither any of the ancient Synods, nor any of the holy Fathers,
threatened anathema to those not believing the Holy Spirit to proceed also from the Son. But we
moving nothing of the divinely delivered, always succeed, those daring to add [something] are
separation from God and schism is the division, and eternal memory to those keeping the
boundaries of the Fathers.
Paragraph 15: PRESBYTER: We thus believe, that as the name God does not signify a person,
neither the one sending, nor the one breathing signifies a person, thus neither the one projecting
signifies a person; and what is said "to project" of the Father and the Son, is neither hypostatic, nor
does it make the two persons one person; but just as the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,
through the identity of the Godhead are not one person, neither is the Father and the Son one
person through the sending of the Spirit, neither is the Son and the Spirit one person through the
communion of the caused, thus neither is the Father and the Son one person through the projecting
of the Spirit; since projecting is not hypostatic, but is said to be only proper to the Father and the
Son; and such properties, as following the persons, not being hypostatic, do not constitute a person.
Paragraph 16: JOSEPH: How does the name God not signify a person, when even the much-
hymned hymn to God, receives the name God in place of the Father? And the most divine Paul
says, “God to us as the Father from whom are all things?” And all clearly confess to believe in one
God the Father Almighty? And even in the fourth [book] against Eunomius he divinely says, “Even
the Spirit is called God by the Lord, having declared the Father to be incorporeal?” Then, that “the
one projecting does not signify a person,” and “to project is not hypostatic,” are these very things of
yours written from canonical Scripture? Have they been placed as a position of faith? From the
Apostolic writings, or of the saints having come together in the Ecumenical Synods? The Father
through the Prophets spoke to us in many ways; and the Son by Himself, and the Apostles; but the
Holy Spirit—when was it said by any of these to men, that the Father and the Son are one
projector? And that projecting is not personal? That the one projecting does not signify a person?
And how many things you have proposed? For to Christ and Savior, and to His co-eternal Father,
and to the Spirit, as it has been said there is need to be silent concerning some things, thus also there

251
is need for some things to be explained; but both were most befitting to the time; since these things
do not have their beginning from there, but are fabrications of your understanding, let them be cast
into obscurity and oblivion.
Paragraph 17: PRESBYTER: On account of what? JOSEPH: Because it is not permitted for any
of the Patriarchs, or for the Pope, acting alone to dogmatize contrary to the opinion of all; much
less for you. But also there is a decree of the Sixth Ecumenical Synod prescribing to interpret the
divine Scriptures, as the God-bearing Fathers received these, and not to devise by themselves
concerning those wishing to interpret such things. And the saint having collected the works of the
most excellent of the teachers, says, “We do not say the Spirit is from the Son;” and the Father alone
is the cause of the Spirit; “and we do not say the Son is a cause, nor a Father;” that is, for the sake
of clarity, we equally refrain from saying the Son is a cause of the Spirit, as from believing Him to be
a Father of the Spirit; for the discourse does not refer to the Father, or the Son, either as a cause, or
a Father of the Father, or the Son to be considered a Father to Himself, but only concerning the
Holy Spirit to men. For who of men arguing says, “We do not say the Son is a Father, or a cause of
His own Father? Or a Father, or a cause to Himself according to hypostasis?” For to say such things,
is both absurd and superfluous, and contrary to the realities, and contrary to the usage of the word,
and contrary to all likelihood; proposing projecting to be proper to the Father and the Son, you still
strongly assert what is being sought as already confessed by all, forgetting how, that it is necessary
for the one concluding to make use only of the commonly accepted things, not to make things his
own; and this is a common absurdity to all men. And that, “Just as the Son and the Spirit through
the communion of the caused,” does not fit the matter at hand at all; for we all do not say the Son
and the Spirit to be caused on account of this communion, but two, Son indeed and Spirit and
differently caused, namely offspring and projection, if you wish, according to generation and
procession; but you [say] the Father and the Son, on account of projecting, as you say, to be a non-
different cause of the Spirit; but with the leaders having been removed, the necessary does not
belong to those following.
Paragraph 18: LATIN-MINDED: Very well has the Father been theologized by the theologians,
alone source of the superessential Godhead, alone cause of Son and Spirit, and alone beginning of
these; but as pre-causal, and as a non-caused cause; the Son is thus a cause, as from the Father the
first cause, He also Himself is a cause of the Spirit, having received a property, which would also
belong to the Spirit, as having all things of the Father and Son, unless it were impossible for the
Spirit also to proceed from Himself. JOSEPH: But it is very absurd to read independently with
definitions the things being said indefinitely by the theologians, and this is most unjust, and
altogether impious; for neither can the “where,” and simply, be the same; it is easy and possible for
one thinking all true definitions to be false, and to draw all falsehood into truth; and there would be
no one preventing the one thus wishing to say, “The Son was begotten timelessly from the Father,”
that is, as men from each other; “neither is He consubstantial with the Father,” that is, as man;
“neither was He born at all from the Virgin,” that is, according to the uncreated nature; simply with

252
this way prevailing, we will erase every dogma, and every Scripture, honoring the same both as true,
and dishonoring them as false; but it is not thus, unless order is in the realities, and we are also in
mind and understanding.
Paragraph 19: LATIN: Then what seems to be unclear to all will not be clarified by these things.
JOSEPH: Because theology thus delivers, some things distinctly, some things indistinctly; it says it is
lawful neither to divide the united and connected, nor to confuse the distinct; that is, it is equally
bold both to divide the united, and to confuse the distinct; but you confuse the two persons of the
Father and the Son, saying these to be one source, one cause, one beginning, and one projector
according to subsistence of the Spirit; because what is personal is not predicated of two, or three
persons. THOSE OF THE CITY: Very much so. JOSEPH: Whatever God has according to
hypostasis, it is of manifest madness not to properly consider Him both communicating and
differing the Father and the Son; and it is of equal absurdity, the Father being theologized as only
the cause of the Son and Spirit, to deem Him only of the Son; and the Son being only a cause, to
theologize Him as a cause of both Son and Spirit; but what is believed by the saints, and what by
you, you do not therefore conclude with the Spirit. LATIN: I know.
Paragraph 20: JOSEPH: For if the Spirit thus has His existence from the Son, just as He
personally has it from the Father, those saying the Father alone to be the cause of the Spirit do not
of necessity speak truly; and if He is thus a cause as begetting and projecting, but not thus also the
Son is a cause, but in another way, namely as only projecting, how is it not clear that there are two
causes of the Godhead? But if in one way the Son is a cause of the Spirit, and in another way not a
cause, it is altogether necessary for those saying Him to have all things of the Father, except simply
the cause, to lie; and the one saying the Son not to have, what? But not the cause of the Spirit. For
the projecting which you say to be common also to the Spirit, “unless it were impossible for Him to
proceed from Himself,” is sufficient for an apology; for it is thus possible to say and to do all things,
and to avoid all things absurd and to deny them, readily apologizing for each, what seems
supposedly to be fitting to each; for example, “The being projected would also belong to the Father,
unless it were impossible for there to be two projections in the divine;” “The begetting would also
belong to the Son, unless He also were begotten from Himself;” “The being begotten would also
belong to the Spirit, unless it were impossible for there to be two Sons in the divine;” “Such and
such would also belong to such and such, unless this absurdity followed;” and how many things
similar to these. And these things have been said by me more customarily. But if it is necessary also
to use syllogisms for demonstration of the absurdities contained in your conclusion, behold we say,
that the much-hymned persons of the all-holy Trinity, being three, not more, do not receive another
person being added; but the projector according to you, is neither the Father, because He begets; nor
the Son, because He is begotten; nor the Holy Spirit, because He is not projected by anyone; neither
is He Father, nor Son, nor Spirit, as this being outside of the divine Trinity, to be a cause of
Godhead, will be said by those called from Christ; whoever is not a cause of Godhead, is not at all
of necessity according to subsistence one of the projectors; thus with the projector according to you

253
having been removed, all the conclusions according to us concerning the procession of the Holy
Spirit are gone.
Paragraph 21: Again, since one thing is to beget, and another to project in the divine Trinity, just
as another thing is not to be begotten thus, and another to be projected; but the one projector, as
you say, is not a person being undivided, nor the same as the begetting person, nor numbered with
the persons of the Trinity; but as two distinct persons, or one person, or from two persons He
subsists separately by Himself; it is clear, as they say, even to the blind, that neither is He a begetting
person, nor a begotten nor projecting, only the projected; none of these being, therefore the
projector believed by you has been utterly destroyed from the divine Trinity.
Paragraph 22: Again, since the projector is not a person subsisting by Himself, but a hypostatic
power of the Fatherly and Sonly hypostasis, the Son indeed is begotten from one person alone, the
Father namely; but the Holy Spirit proceeds not from some person, but from two persons of one
hypostatic power; and those saying this person to be from a person, or from a hypostasis a
hypostasis, miss the truth; for according to you new theologians, from different processions,
immediately, mediately, the Spirit will not be a person, and will have different persons as causes.
Paragraph 23: Moreover, concerning what is not seen in the divine Trinity, is the Son the same as
the Projector, and the Son another? Is the Projector specifically, and other than the Son Himself ? If
indeed He is the same, both the Projector will be the Son, and the Son the Projector; but if the one
Son of God is other, and other is the Projector of the Spirit, because the Son indeed is begotten
from the Father, but the Projector is not begotten by anyone; therefore as the one Projector is not
the Son, for He is other than the one Son, thus neither is the one Son the Projector; for He is other
than the one Projector; but if other, the Son is by no means the hypostatic Projector of the Spirit.
Paragraph 24: Further, in the divine persons, as the Father is, and as the Son is, and as the one
hypostatic Projector of the divine Spirit is, there are not two Fathers, nor two Sons, nor two
hypostatic Projectors of the Spirit; if indeed these things are confessed by all, and no one
contradicts, I now attempt to answer well that which is being asked, that the one Projector being
believed by you in the divine Trinity, one alone cause, and no other is thus, or besides this one cause,
is there also another cause not the same? If indeed there is also another cause besides this one, there
are two causes in the divine persons; and the theologians proclaiming, “We do not say the Son is a
cause,” are lying; and for us, the Father is the cause of both persons; and the Father alone is the
cause of Son and Spirit; and how many things similar to these. But if there is not also another,
therefore this Projector, will be the only cause of both Son and Spirit; and the Son has His
generation not only from the Father, but also from Himself; and by this same cause, He is co-cause
of His own existence, and both cause and caused, and Father and Son of Himself; and if the
Projector is of two persons, also the Son will be a projection, as being begotten not from the Father,
but from a begotten Projector; and from one person alone, the Trinity appears to us as a duality; that
is, as Projector, and Projected; and not only Projector, but also Father and Son the same and one is

254
said, threefold is also the cause of the Son, and of the Spirit; than which what could be more
absurd?
Paragraph 25: Again, since the Father and the Son have two hypostatic powers, if indeed they
are only powers, the hypostatic powers of these, and not also persons, neither is the Son begotten
from the person of the Father, nor does the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father and the Son; but if
also the powers are persons, and the persons powers, since the persons are three, but the hypostatic
powers in these two are two, how many persons therefore, and how many powers, will be considered
in the Trinity? With this having been given as absurd, many absurdities will follow.
Paragraph 26: Again, if the Holy Spirit proceeds hypostatically in the Father and the Son, the
Son indeed as caused, and from one person alone, and from one hypostatic power, will be only
caused, but the Holy Spirit also from two persons, and from one hypostatic power, will be only
caused; and with these things thus being believed, two causes indeed of the Son, but three of the
Spirit will be glorified; and two persons in the divine Trinity instead of one will be introduced. But
do these things seem absurd to you? But these and countless other things are gathered together,
from believing the Son to be hypostatically the cause of the Spirit; and otherwise it is not possible to
escape the swarm of so many absurdities, except by believing the Father alone to be the cause of the
Son and the Spirit. LATIN: Let it be so; but what other things do you have to accuse us of
concerning dogmas? JOSEPH: If we agree concerning the crucial point, there will be some hope for
us also concerning the other things; but with those not yet agreeing concerning the procession of
the Holy Spirit, I consider it vain to discuss concerning other things. PRESBYTER: I agree with
what you say; and I greatly praise the words of your paternity; for they are truly words of a noble
man, and knowing how to love as is necessary, and powerfully advising what is beneficial, and what
else, than offspring of a good mind? But many things for the coming [occasion], and again we will
converse with you; for this seems necessary to me, and good, and of the most advantageous; and, as
they say, the marrow of honey it is to be with you. JOSEPH: Thanks be to God. Amen.

255
 DIALOGUE III. CONCERNING THE PROCESSION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.
Joseph Breynnios Dialogue with the Latin-minded ones not in Constantinople; whose names have
not been written, as they are still living, and being able to change the things they think.

LATIN-MINDED
Paragraph 1: Greetings, rejoice, be saved. JOSEPH: And may you yourself obtain these things.
LATIN: Tell me now what you were discussing with each other just now? For since I was not
present during the passing of this cell, I did not understand your accustomed words, nor was I able
to comprehend the things being said. JOSEPH: I was speaking simply to this ruler, that as far as our
knowledge extends, it is revealed today, (namely on the eleventh of the month of November,
according to the six thousand five hundred and thirty-first year from the creation of the world, and
from Christ one thousand four hundred and twenty-third, of the first Indiction.) that this great city
of ours is of four hundred and four thousand years; and we, I say Romans and Latins, existed living
for three thousand and three years; and we have been divided for four hundred and twenty years.
For our Lord Jesus Christ was born in the year from the creation of the world five thousand five
hundred and seventh; and He was crucified in the year five thousand five hundred and forty.
Paragraph 2: LATIN: Let these things be as they happened; but since you mentioned schism, tell
me what is the cause of the schism? JOSEPH: That which the Lord kept silent concerning Himself,
you manifestly proclaim, and you introduce an addition, which the divine Fathers did not establish.
LATIN: But for the sake of introducing what you say, the authority of the Roman high priest
sufficed. JOSEPH: For the sake of dissolving rather the union of the churches, the first [cause]
sufficed; but I would never utter anything blasphemous concerning him if I were to be driven to it.
But do you wish to know most clearly, that this addition, concerning which we differ with each
other, is not from God? LATIN: What is it? JOSEPH: That indeed, consider, judge. Everything
from God to us, either through angels, or through men happening, does not harm, but benefits; it
unites the Church of Christ, it does not divide; it saves Christians, it does not destroy; but this
indeed, for so many four hundred years, has harmed all, has benefited no one; it has divided the
Church of Christ, it has not united; and moreover it destroys countless ones, and most clearly
cooperates with the demons. Therefore remove this from the midst, and without any contradiction,
and ambiguities of matters, and periods of times, and cares and labors we will be united; what need
is there of long and unprofitable words?
Paragraph 3: LATIN: But if it is true? JOSEPH: Whether this is true, or false, since in whatever
way it schisms, divides, separates the Church of Christ, let the one destroying so many be cast out.
Further, it is doubted by many, whether it stands with the truth; but let it be silenced without any
argument, most true and indubitable, since it shakes the foundation of the faith; how many dogmas
not from God are silenced? But no Christian is subject to any judgment, unless he proclaims these in
the church, and openly confesses; let this also be cast into the bottomless abyss of those things
hidden from God, and let it remain untouched and unapproached until the day of the revelation of

256
all things; and let it save some those concerning the Son economically because it was added, as you
say, thus let it be well cast out for the sake of economy, so that countless things may happen to the
subjection of Rome. For it is not simply permitted for him to make every addition, but the
advantageous; and consider. If indeed whatever he has, benefits all well; if whatever it is permitted
for him to do, builds up the Church of Christ; if he is commanded to seek for himself, and not the
common benefit of all; if only for the sake of avenging his own greatness, he is established in that
apostolic throne; if whatever he wishes as first, he establishes and destroys, are to be worshipped by
all, and worthy of adoration; but if “all things are permitted to me,” says the vessel of election, “but
not all things are beneficial; all things are permitted to me, but not all things build up,” and he adds,
“Let no one seek his own, but each one the things of his neighbor for the good;” and now
concerning the authority which the Lord gave to us, for building up, and not for destruction; now, “I
have not used,” he says, “the authority, so that we might not give any hindrance to the Gospel of
Christ;” now, “Let a man so consider us, as servants of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of
God;” and “We proclaim Christ as Lord, and ourselves your servants through Christ;” now, “If food
scandalizes my brother, I will not eat meat forever, lest I scandalize my brother;” let him also imitate
the Apostle, and having authority, let him not use this for what does not profit the Gospel, or let
him use it only for building up and not for destruction; as it now is, what profit from this fraternal
arrogance accrues to him? I do not see. How much have each of the Apostles suffered, to gain one
soul? “I have become all things to all,” he says; “Become imitators of me, as I also of Christ,” so
that he might save all, or the more, or certainly some? Did he not shave his head? Did he not
circumcise Timothy? If indeed he himself having Christ not speaking in himself, goes up to the
Apostles before him, and communicates to them the Gospel, lest he runs, or has run in vain? And
indeed the chief of the Apostles Peter, is sent by them to Samaria with John, and endures being
corrected by Paul, and being rebuked he is silent, and follows those being judged by his brother;
even if the whole church comes together and it is revealed to the last, let the first be silent he has
heard, and let him remember the Lord's voice commanding, “Whoever wishes to be first, let him be
last of all, and servant of all;” and if he clearly names himself a servant of God, let him prove the
words by deeds, and let him do all things for the perfecting of the Churches; for thus the Father and
the Son and the Holy Spirit will be glorified.
Paragraph 4: LATIN: To us it seems a small thing, or not at all, to add something for the
supreme High Priest, in whatever he wishes. JOSEPH: You do not know well, that the accusation
concerning addition is equal to this, the boldness concerning subtraction does not fall short of a
change of faith; since the one saying “do not subtract,” by these things he also pre-commands “do
not add.” But also both these things are of the alteration, or difference, of the things having been
handed down, neither a small thing justifies; for addition, or subtraction, or alteration, or corruption,
not only of some dogma, or some faith, but also every matter, to which it is applied, changes and
alters. Therefore for this reason, you yourselves ought to remove this addition from the midst, which
is both just, and possible, and easier, and beneficial, and fitting; since also you yourselves added it;

257
and that neither any of the ancient Synods, nor any of the holy Fathers threatened anathema, or
deposition to those not believing the Holy Spirit to proceed personally also from the Son; but the
reverence having been extended for one thousand four hundred years, and the decrees of the seven
Ecumenical Synods, and the words of the saints prevent us from receiving this. LATIN: Saying the
subtraction to be the same as the addition, how do you advise us to subtract? JOSEPH: What you
added I said; for when we ask for an addition to be made, when again a subtraction, but to that
which has been handed down from the Fathers, to which we all were for one thousand years, we ask
for a restoration.
Paragraph 5: LATIN: And how is it proclaimed by all the theologians, that the Holy Spirit
proceeds from the Father and the Son? JOSEPH: This indeed I myself first desire to learn from
you; is the person of the Spirit the same as the grace of the Spirit, which is sent to us? And is the
procession of the Holy Spirit, the same as the undivided and inseparable existence from the Father,
and is it the same as the divided and different giving of the Spirit to us, so that the person is grace,
and the grace person? And the existence giving, and the giving existence, and all things the same? Or
certainly the person of the Spirit is unhypostatic, and has one cause, but the grace of the Spirit is an
energy proceeding both from the Father and from the Son, and by Him administered to the Spirit?
And is the procession of the Spirit a personal subsisting from the Father Himself, but His going
forth to us, an economy of God towards us and condescension, and impartation? LATIN: You
yourself would know. JOSEPH: If indeed the person of the Spirit is the same, eternally and
inseparably subsisting with the Father, the same is also the grace being given to us temporally and
communicatively, and His pre-eternal existence is the same as His giving of Himself to us, since not
only the Father and the Son give Him, but also He Himself [gives] Himself, and the Spirit Himself
personally proceeds from Himself; but the eternal procession of the divine Spirit is not from the
Spirit; for it is absurd to say the Spirit to proceed personally from Himself; but His giving to us is
also from the Spirit; the testimonies are clear to all; therefore one thing is the person of the Spirit,
and another the grace; one thing the giving of the Spirit, and another the existence. MANY: A
wonder, how this has escaped many! JOSEPH: What causes much deception to many is that,
whenever the saints make mention concerning this giving, or of the grace, of the Spirit, since they
know this to be given not only from the Father, but also from the Son, they therefore posit also
“and from the Son He proceeds,” and “and from the Son He is administered,” and “and from the
Son He is manifested,” and how many such things; hearing which many, and not least those seeking
pretexts, and not keeping silent, as if these things are said not concerning the person of the Spirit,
but concerning the grace, immediately think both the giving [to be] procession, and the grace [to be]
the person of the Spirit and from thence this dogma seems to them to have been fortified, and as a
heaven-high wall, separating them from us.
Paragraph 6: LATIN: It is not permitted for me to contradict these things out of reverence for
the teachers; but why do all the Latin teachers, both ancient and new, teach in many ways that the
Holy Spirit both is and proceeds from the Father and the Son? If you solve this question, I will

258
know that you preside over the truth. JOSEPH: Concerning this I will immediately give you a
threefold explanation, both true, and accurate, and clear, and necessary. For according to my
understanding, in this word, the entire dividing conclusion of Italians and Romans hangs; and
indeed open your mouth, and I will fill it. LATIN: We pay attention with all our power now.
JOSEPH: The Latin language, know this first, on account of its simplicity, or I do not know how I
would more clearly declare it, the name both of essence and of hypostasis, not in two, as the Greek,
but in one thus called by you, “substantia,” by one name, by one word, provides double
understanding to those able to understand; and from thence the schism of the westerners against us
has happened, concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit; these things I remember also having
said elsewhere, that with this name double according to the meaning, using it concerning the Spirit,
as each one wishes to understand, one indeed [uses it] instead of essence, when it signifies
hypostasis; another instead of hypostasis, when it signifies essence; and another thinks this to be the
meaning indifferent of both, and through these things they separate themselves from true theology;
for going through the usages of the theologians, and finding the Spirit to have the “substantia” from
the Father and the Son in many places there, they do not receive the “substantia” according to the
first meaning of this name, namely the essence, but through zeal against us, they immediately lead
the word to the second, namely the hypostasis; and concerning this alone they always try to speak
and this is the arrangement of their concord against us, even if it is not visible to many. For the
Italians say hypostasis, and essence, and person are the same, and you yourselves are witnesses, and
Saint Augustine in the book “On the Trinity,” and the theologian Gregory in the discourse to
Athanasius says.
Paragraph 7: Secondly, that likewise through the simplicity of language among the same Italians
the name “procession” is not found, as the verb “proceeds;” whence instead of saying “procession,”
they say “progress;” and instead of “proceeds,” they say “goes forth;” and what is worse, that they
also think these to be the same as the things said by us; but it is not thus; for to us these words,
being said of the Holy Spirit, “progress” in relation to “procession,” and “goes forth” in relation to
“proceeds,” have such a difference, as the genera have towards the species, or the common towards
the proper, or the universal towards the particular; for progress is common; the progress of the
thearchy, says the great Dionysius; and Augustine, the sending of the divine person, is from the
whole Trinity; and the Lord before these, “I and the Father will come;” but procession is proper; for
it is defined only to the hypostatic existence of the Spirit; and “goes forth” is said commonly,
especially of all the gifts of the Spirit, further also both of the procession itself, and of many other
things; but “proceeds from the Father,” [is said] only of the signifying word of the property of the
Spirit; whence it is impossible to find “proceeds” from the Father and the Son in the usages of the
sacred teachers, whenever they speak concerning the subsisting progress of the Spirit; unless their
purpose is concerning the giving of His gifts; but “going forth” from the Father and the Son, that is,
to be poured out according to His benefactions, is found in many places. Therefore also the ancient
teachers of the Latins, translating the divine Scripture from the Greek language, and our divine

259
teachers, into the Roman language, adhering to this paternal [usage], and otherwise not being able to
say, used this word “goes forth” of the Spirit, both for the meaning signifying His hypostatic
existence from the Father, I mean the procession, and for the meaning signifying His communicative
grace and energy through the Son; not as believing the different processions, the temporal and the
timeless to be the same, may it not be so; but by one word, by the quality of the language,
sometimes indeed signifying this, sometimes that; hearing which the later ones, and not knowing
what “goes forth” sometimes means to them, they thought the word to have been said only for the
meaning of “proceeds;” and from thence the cause of the perversion especially happened, with
many not understanding, or perhaps not wishing to understand, the purpose of those speaking, and
through this unknowingly deviating from the truth. If indeed it were understood, that the Holy
Spirit is said to “go forth” from the Father and the Son but according to His superessential gifts, and
not to “proceed” from the Father and the Son, that is, to have the existence of His hypostasis, the
schism of so many churches would not have such place; but now by these words, all the perversion
took its beginning, and even now it is more dangerous through these, having been extended to all
time.
Paragraph 8: And third in addition to these, that the meaning both of “proceeds” and of “goes
forth,” seeming to signify “goes out,” here also to those not hearing with experience it causes much
deception towards error; for they immediately think of some temporal and local going out of the
hypostasis of the Holy Spirit, from some person to some thing, or place, or person; but it is not
thus. For to us it is impious, that “proceeds from the Father,” being theologized of the Paraclete
Spirit, instead of “subsisting from the Father alone,” is understood as some motion and going forth;
but it signifies a most permanent existence; but “goes forth,” instead of the abundant giving of His
gifts to us from the Father and the Son, and from the Father and through the Son. For in what way
we say the Son to be begotten from the Father, that is inseparably not in time, and eternally to
subsist not in place, but in the Father Himself, not through something, but according to Himself
ineffably and beyond every cause, in the same way we say the Holy Spirit, except the manner of
existence, to proceed from the Father; that is, to subsist personally from Him beyond every
understanding, not transitively proceeding, not for the sake of something, not temporally, not
towards anyone, but according to a permanent existence, and co-eternal with the Word of God. On
account of these reasons having been spoken, therefore both the new and the old teachers of the
Latins, teach in many ways the Holy Spirit both to be and to go forth from the Father and the Son,
to which it is necessary to pay attention more to the intention, not only to the words. MANY: These
things are fitting and unknown to many! JOSEPH: But they are holding to the truth.
Paragraph 9: LATIN: But I myself thought, and perhaps it will be late someday, that if the
Emperor and the Patriarch and this city submits to Rome, and the remaining Emperors of the
nations, and the nations under them will submit to these, and great help will immediately come from
Italy here; but now I see. JOSEPH: O what a word escaped the barrier of your teeth! This is of the
impossible to happen; this is the union of so many Churches and Nations being planned by you for

260
so many years to happen? In this way you supposedly devise to unite us? On such conditions and
devices? With the addition remaining uncorrected, and all things unchanged, which the long and
accursed schism produced? O wondrous contrivance! This is not correction, O man, nor union of
the Churches; but instead of the previous schism, a worse schism, and division, and cutting, and
deception, and our manifest condescension to you, and subjection, and eternal slavery, and
condemnation of the holy Fathers, and behold healthy things. And every heresy, with its customs
and dogmas being kept unchanged, asks, and demands, and insists to be united with all; but then
what is the need of long study, and care, and expense, and writings, and Ambassadors, and Legates,
and Synods, and the dangers following these, if without common discussion, we wish to submit to
you, with one Deacon in the Ambo proclaiming the Roman commemoration openly sufficing
instead of all things? Do not think that our faith is controlled by some Patriarchal or Imperial
person, so that if anyone is strong to change these, he will attempt to persuade the rest through
these; for to think thus, with the honor and love towards you being kept unharmed, is of men not
wise.
Paragraph 10: And experience has shown this many times; that from when we were called
Christians, many Patriarchs, and Emperors with them, have become heretics, and some of those
under them were associated with these; however the faith remained unshaken; why should I speak
of its victories and triumphs? That many times in the same [instance] both Emperors, and Tyrants,
and Satraps, and Toparchs, and wise men and rhetoricians, both strangers to it and relatives, with all
their force rose up against it, but they indeed have become as dung and were dissolved as smoke, but
it [the faith] is unshaken; for our confession is not in the Symbol alone, but also in the voice of
Daniel, and of Gabriel, the one having spoken without falsehood, “Behold, the Son comes bringing
faith.” So that even to swear, it will not fall, and God will not deny His own, whoever of us wishes
to divide himself from the reverence of the whole body of the Orthodox, these indeed will exist,
until the second coming of Christ, resisting against this our faith, Romans, Iberians, Colchians,
Albanians, Alans, Abasgians, Zichs, Pontians, Russians, Dacians, Iazyges, Moesians, Triballi,
Albanians, Islanders, Syrians, and Melchites, of Ethiopians towards seventy Metropolises besides,
and small ones of India. Or what need is there to enumerate crowds of nations, where not in names,
and words, and woven words, but rather in deeds, is impiety towards us?
Paragraph 11: But in order that what I say may become clear, gather together for me all the wise
men, those once, those now, those afterwards, by your authority, into one; and grant to each of
these, if you wish, countless languages together and command all together with all the power of
speech, either to consider the sun darkness, or fire ice, or the world non-existent, the stone soulless
or any of those things which both the human mind, and the senses know without being taught thus
having by nature, it is altogether clear that they will not be able to persuade; then they will be
persuaded, whenever they are strong to change the nature of beings; but this is equally impossible
for all; but if all the wise men are not strong to persuade me concerning the nature of created
things, to believe them to have otherwise than as these are by nature, will anyone be strong to

261
persuade me to believe the maker and master of created things to have in some other way according
to existence, than as He Himself through Himself, and through His saints has explained and handed
down to me both unwritten and written? By no means, it is not possible, away with it.
Paragraph 12: LATIN: And adhering to which usages of theologians, are you so immovable and
untaught? JOSEPH: With the unassailable word of the all-holy Trinity readily granting [it] to me, I
will very much explain this to you; but I ask you to endure with long-suffering until the end of the
discourse, and not frequently to be annoyed, by the asperity and labor of our utterance, wisely
discerning that, which is also clear to all, that none of us here, in the schools of Italy, or those in
Gaul, or those in Britain has learned and practiced the various methods of those here conversing, so
that he may converse with you eristically according to those; but each one simply believes, and
declares as he is able to declare. And indeed we say, we are so immovable, and untaught, because the
saints having spoken in the Holy Spirit concerning the Holy Spirit Himself, did not say indefinitely
that the “proceeding” is proper to the Spirit, but with a clearer definition, they defined the
“proceeding from the Father” to be proper to the Spirit; and very reasonably; for the “begotten”
introduces the Father into the understanding, but the “proceeding” not thus; on account of this,
they say the “proceeding from the Father” to be altogether proper to the Spirit, through this
showing to all whence the Spirit has His existence; and they are not content with this alone; but now
they say, “The Father alone is the cause of the Son and Spirit;” now “The Father alone is
unbegotten, and the Father alone is the source of Godhead;” now, “The Holy Spirit, the one
proceeding from the Father alone;” now, “The Spirit from the Father, and not otherwise;” now,
“The Holy Spirit from the Father alone;” now, “The Holy Spirit is proper and from the Father
alone;” now, “The Holy Spirit is only from the Father alone projected;” now, “Whatever is fitting to
a cause, is fitted to the Father alone;” now, “The power of procession belongs only to the Father;”
now, “The property is only of the Father;” as if the Son and the Spirit had not proceeded from the
Father, so that one God is to us; for the Word is from Him begottenly, and the Spirit proceedingly;
elsewhere, “As all things and the Spirit are from the Father through the Son, so also the Spirit is
from the Father, except the manner of existence;” and thus indeed, even if the Spirit is not as the
Son in the Father, but He is from the same Father; elsewhere, “The from the Father is common to
the Son and the Spirit;” and here indeed, “The Spirit does not have His existence also from the
Son,” elsewhere, “Thus the Spirit, Spirit of the Son, not from Him.” Elsewhere, “According to
essence and hypostasis the Spirit is with the Son, but not from Him;” to this agrees also that
amazing thing, “We say Spirit of the Son, but we do not say the Spirit from the Son.” And
sometimes indeed, “One God is to us, because the Son and the Spirit have their reference to the
Father,” sometimes indeed, “Because the person and the same is not both the Son being begotten,
and the Holy Spirit proceeding;” sometimes indeed, as with us, “Of both persons, the Father is the
cause;” sometimes indeed, “We do not say the Son to be a cause, nor a Father;” sometimes indeed,
“All things whatever the Father has, are of the Son, except the cause;” sometimes indeed, “The
saints know one cause of the Son and of the Spirit, the Father;” sometimes indeed, “As one God,

262
one cause of both Son and Spirit;” sometimes indeed, “Wherefore properly, both Son and Spirit
being referred;” sometimes indeed, “We boldly say one God with His caused ones;” and one indeed,
“Whatever the Son and the Spirit have, they have from the Father, even the very being which they
are;” another, “He calls the Spirit the one proceeding from the Fatherly hypostasis;” another, “I
introducing the Father as the beginning of Godhead, honor the beginning, and equally the things
from the beginning;” some indeed, “Such is the beginning, and such, and such things, and from
such;” another, “Properly the Son is from God, and the Spirit from God; since also the Son
proceeded from the Father, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father;” another, “The Holy Spirit the
one proceeding from the Father properly and truly;” “If anyone does not say the Holy Spirit to be
truly and properly from the Father, as also the Son from the divine essence, and God Word God, let
him be anathema;” another, “One true God existing Father, having a true Son begotten from
Himself, a true Holy Spirit proceeding from Himself.” And these things indeed each one has said
and handed down in different times and places and words, but all the Fathers of the First Synod
together, say to the questioning philosopher, “Receive one Godhead of the Father both having
begotten the Son ineffably, and of the Son having been begotten from Him, and of the Holy Spirit
the one proceeding from the Father;” with these definitions, and their irrefutable pronouncements
overturning every addition.
Paragraph 13: MANY: Absolutely to hear such things from you, or from another, none of us
expected. JOSEPH: Then with these things thus being said, will we still dare to bring forward
syllogisms against them, and persuade ourselves to pay attention to those more than to ourselves? I
do not think so, unless we are completely outside of our own minds, or far from the eyes of God.
MANY: Why? JOSEPH: Because with two choices being proposed to us, either believing the
propositions of the introduced syllogisms concerning divine things to be true, to consider the
sayings of the holy Fathers, those showing the Holy Spirit to proceed personally from the Father
alone, to be false, or considering these to exist as true, to suppose the propositions of the opposing
syllogisms to be false, we will consider it more preferable, having yielded to the sayings of the
victorious saints, through them to refute human reasonings, and to consider them false concerning
divine things, than for the sayings of the saints to be disregarded by believing human follies; for if
everything true, there is nothing contrary to the true; for what is opposed to the true, happens to be
outright falsehood; but it is true according to the usages of the saints, that the Father alone is the
cause of both the Son and the Spirit, and it is proper to the Father to project the Spirit and the Holy
Spirit personally proceeds from the Father alone; this is true and evident, so that no true syllogism
contradicting this will exist; and it is evident, that whatever some have ever made, or now attempt to
make, gathering from this truly concluded [statement], the “from the Father alone” supposedly, all
must be paralogisms and sophisms; therefore let them be given and yield to darkness and oblivion;
for we did not come to impiety through syllogisms, nor were we initiated into the mystery of the
Trinity by them; nor have we learned the manner of any of the sacred rites through them; but not
even if all those who have been greatly named in philosophy were ever Christians, or now happen to

263
be, would they have been able by their knowledge to teach and persuade any of men that the one
and only God is both a Monad and a Triad, or Father and Son and Holy Spirit, another existing of
the Father besides the Son, and another of the Son besides the Father, and another of the Spirit
besides the Father and the Son; and of these the Father was begotten from no one, but the Son
alone was begotten without beginning from the Father, but the Holy Spirit proceeds from the
Father, and is not a Son, but a projection. Is anyone strong to demonstrate these things by
syllogisms? No one; for the weakness of human understanding, both demands God to be a person,
and everything to have being from someone, and everything begotten to have once begun its own
generation, and everything personally proceeding from the Father to be what proceeds. But if these
things and such things are impossible to be demonstrated by syllogisms, truly also the syllogisms of
men are weak, and their inventions are fallible; and reasonably we do not establish our dogma by
syllogisms.
Paragraph 14: PRESBYTER: But not being strong to contradict the arguments establishing our
conclusion with argument, you bring forward the usages of the saints. JOSEPH: And what of this?
It is altogether necessary for you to accept these, being the common judgment of the Church; but it
is not necessary for me to solve your propositions; but lest I seem to be silent from ignorance, or
somehow to evade the attacks of your arguments, come nearer to me, and if there is any power of
argument, show it here. PRESBYTER: Your words are charms to our ears. JOSEPH: You through
every first seeming to gather this, and from the second proposition, I see you imagine to conclude
nothing else, than that the Holy Spirit has His existence thus, just as He [has it] from the Father
through the Son; since therefore all your weight and purpose and mind looks towards this, bring
forward therefore this conclusion gathered from your proposition, most clearly and plainly we will
refute it not to stand with the truth; but if we show this not to be true, we will altogether
demonstrate also that the propositions seeming to gather this are not all true; and that what is
believed by us is true. For if every tree is known from its fruit, as the truth says, if therefore the fruit
is a fig, the tree that produced this is altogether a fig; but if not a fig but a thistle, the root of this
would not be a fig in any way; for a fig bears figs, not thistles; and if the conclusion is false, neither
would both the propositions from which this is gathered be true, but either the one, or both must
stand with falsehood; for falsehood begets falsehood, not truth; and truth does not produce
falsehood; but that this conclusion is not true, namely that the Holy Spirit has His existence thus
also in the Son just as from the Father Himself, is clear from many places to those wishing to
consider. In the divine Trinity the Father is one by Himself, and the Projector is another specifically,
or is He both as Father, and Projector is He both Father?
Paragraph 15: PRESBYTER: The one as Father is one by Himself, and the one as Projector is
another specifically; I speak according to us. JOSEPH: Therefore, the Father is not the Projector,
and the theologians proclaiming the same to be both Father and Projector are lying, and all those
believing this to be the cause of the Son and of the Spirit are being deceived; but if the same is both
Projector and Father, just as He alone is Father, so also He alone is Projector; and the Son just as He

264
is not Father, so also He is not Projector according to hypostasis. PRESBYTER: You said, I heard,
consider, that the Father alone is Father, and alone Projector. JOSEPH: Therefore to be Father
belongs properly and only to Him, but to be Projector, neither only, nor properly; and those
believing Him alone to be properly both Father and Projector do not speak truly. PRESBYTER:
Why do you hunt for words thus? JOSEPH: Because you speak thus loudly; that according to the
Italians the one as Father is another, and the one as Projector is another, is clear; for the one as
Father, is Father only, not also Son; but the one as Projector according to them, is not only Father,
but Father and Son. Again, is the one believed in the divine persons to be Projector, the same as
both Projector and Father and Son? Or is the Father another, and the Son another, and another the
one according to hypostasis of the divine Spirit Projector? Or is He in these alone Father, and only
Father, and only Projector. PRESBYTER: Wait a little while.
Paragraph 16: JOSEPH: Why do you go around from here and there? Answer directly to the
argument word for word; for if the same is both as Projector, and Projector is both Father and Son,
the same therefore will both beget, and be begotten, and project; and He will be three persons, and
one; but if the one as Father is another, and the one as Son another, and the one as Projector
another, neither the one as Son therefore, nor the one as Father projects the Spirit according to
hypostasis, but only that one as Projector, the other besides the one Father and the one Son; and
with this being established, neither from the Father, nor from the Son, but from both the Holy Spirit
proceeds personally; but if He in these alone is Father, and only Father, and only Projector, the
conclusion is clear. PRESBYTER: Wait and you will see.
Paragraph 17: JOSEPH: Again, does the Father alone from Himself beget the Son, and project
the Spirit? Or does He also from another accomplish both the begetting of the Son, and the
projecting of the Spirit? Or does He have the begetting of the Son from Himself alone, but the
procession of the Spirit also from Himself, and from another? PRESBYTER: From Himself alone
personally He accomplishes both these processions from Himself. JOSEPH: Therefore the
conclusion sought by us has been concluded, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone;
but if He accomplishes both the begetting of the Son, and the projecting of the Spirit both from
Himself and from another, the Son therefore has two Fathers, and the Spirit two Projectors, both
the Father Himself, and the co-cause of the Father towards the things proceeding personally from
Him. PRESBYTER: But the Father has the begetting of the Son from Himself alone, but He
possesses the procession of the Spirit, both from Himself, and from another. JOSEPH: Therefore
thus then being believed, since the Son both is what He is and is believed to be Son, and the Spirit’s
being according to you Projector, He has from the Father alone, it is evident that the Father alone is
both specifically and archetypically and properly, the cause both of the Son and at the same time of
the Holy Spirit; because from Himself alone wholly He projects the Spirit, and of the Projector,
namely of the Projector according to participation Son, He alone is both unbegotten, and causeless
and without beginning, and exists according to Himself, and is without beginning and causeless.
PRESBYTER: But how do some of ours say Him to proceed also from the Son? I will solve your

265
difficulties immediately. JOSEPH: You are then arranged with those arranged with us; as long as you
are a champion for the dogma differing from us, we wish you to be perplexed by everything, or
rather by these things. Why do you not answer word for word, but bring forward one thing instead
of another? PRESBYTER: You will hear after a little while.
Paragraph 18: JOSEPH: Further, the one called Projector in the divine persons, is this a person
considered by Himself, or not a person by Himself ? If indeed this is not a person, we have little
concern about a person not existing in the divine Trinity; for the one not being personally subsisting
by Himself will not be a cause of a divine person; but if this is a person, is he the same only with
the Fatherly person, or only with the Sonly, or with both persons, or not the same with any of these?
If indeed with the Fatherly alone, what is sought has been found, if only with the Sonly, the Son
also will be, and Projector the same; but if also the same with both persons, the Father therefore will
be the same both Son, and brother, and uncle; but if not the same with any of these, therefore
neither Father is the same, nor Son; and with this prevailing, the Holy Spirit does not proceed from
the Father and the Son. Further, the one Projector in the divine [persons], either this is a person by
himself, or the same as one alone specifically, are two persons distinguished by themselves, or are
not two persons, but one power common to Father and Son; and lest by speaking at length we seem
burdensome to some, I myself will go through both the things born from the arguments, following
these. If indeed he is also a person himself, since also the Father is a person, and the Son another
person, and the Holy Spirit besides these another person, the divine name the Trinity appears to us a
Tetrad; but if two persons distinguished is the one Projector, as also Thomas thinks, and these are
both the Father and the Son together; since the persons are two, therefore also the causes of the
Spirit are two; but if neither is the one Projector a person, nor two, but one power common to the
Father and the Son; this neither is essence, nor form, nor nature, nor character, nor individual, nor
hypostasis, nor person; therefore neither the Father, nor the Son projects the Holy Spirit, but their
common power. Further, since from the Father alone, insofar as He is Father, the Holy Spirit
proceeds according to hypostasis, lest also the Son be thought by someone to be a brother of the
Father, and a son of the Son, but from His own Projector alone, insofar as He is Projector, lest He
be believed to be only a projection; but the one Projector, is someone else besides the one Father,
and another besides the one Son, since this is according to you a power, not a hypostasis; with one
Son, the Holy Spirit therefore personally subsisting proceeds from the Father and the Son. Further,
is the one believed in the Trinity to be Projector also the person the Son? Or is the Son one thing
specifically, and the Projector another by Himself ? PRESBYTER: The Projector and the Son are the
same. JOSEPH: Consider what you say; see what you say; you have slipped a great slip; for if the
Son is not one thing specifically, and the Projector another by Himself, but the Father and the Son
according to you are one Projector, therefore there are not two in the divine Trinity only Son, and
Projector is both Father and Son and the only Projector, and is both Father and Projector and the
only Father, and Projector is both Son and Father. PRESBYTER: Perhaps a synod will take care to
distinguish these things more clearly, if the God of all wills this to happen sooner.

266
 Paragraph 19: JOSEPH: And if the Son with God is only Son, not also Father; but the Spirit’s
Projector, according to you, is not only Son, but Son and Father; therefore the Son with God is
another, the Spirit’s Projector according to hypostasis is another and those calling the Son Projector
do not speak truly. Further, if the Father alone is the cause of the Son, but not alone of the Spirit,
but with someone; these are two; these two being altogether different from one, introduce two
causes in the divine Trinity; that is, the one Father one cause of the one Son, and the one Projector,
being something other besides the one Father, another cause of the one Spirit; and what follows
from these is clear; that two causes of Godhead. Further, since the one Projector according to you is
neither the Father alone, nor the Son by Himself, but the both of these together, according to union,
or conjunction, or combination, the Father and the Son are one; therefore the same as Projector, will
be two certain things divided according to something, and not again coming together from two;
both three, and two, which is absurd. Further, since in the divine Trinity the Father alone begets, and
is not also begotten; but the Son, the one begotten alone with God is only Son begotten by Him,
but the Father is believed by all to be unbegotten; but if as you say, both are Projectors of the Spirit
according to hypostasis, it is altogether necessary in the divine persons, either for the one Projector
to be one composed of two, or two different Projectors of the Spirit; and the same will both beget
and be Projector at the same time, both begotten and unbegotten, as Father in begetting. Further,
since in the divine Trinity the whole begetting and the whole projecting is believed by all to be of the
Father, but the one Projector, that is the Father and the Son, according to you, neither wholly begets,
nor wholly projects, but the Father alone both begets and projects, but the Son clearly projects alone
by participation; therefore the one begetting is other, and the one not begetting Projector is other;
and if this is so, also two are the causes of the Spirit, and a tetrad is what is professed by you; for in
what way the person proceeding according to hypostasis undifferently from one person, by all means
has the cause of His own procession alone, so by all necessity, the one personally proceeding from
two has two causes; and in what way the Son with God, if He will be begotten from the Father in
two ways, will have two Fathers, if thus also the Spirit, if He proceeds from the Father and the Son,
according to every necessity will have two projecting ones; and in what way if there were two
Fathers in the divine Trinity, there are two Gods in it, in the same way, if there were two projecting
ones in it, also two beginnings, and also two Gods. Further, since the one whom you call Projector
of the Spirit, is neither a person of the Holy Trinity, nor the same as any of its persons, nor is he
altogether included in it, nor is he numbered with it personally, but by bare conceptions is fashioned
by you with only two persons being present; therefore there is no Projector of the Spirit according
to hypostasis in the divine persons.
Paragraph 20: PRESBYTER: But all these things would be said against you, if the persons of
the Projector did not come together with the persons of the Father and the Son; but since by saying
the Projector, he immediately named both the Father and the Son; for the Father and the Son is the
one Projector, and the Spirit being projected is included with these, which introduces the divine
Trinity, unmultiplied by itself and unchangeable, it is clear that the Projector according to us escapes

267
the grasps of arguments, and secretly is numbered with the divine persons. JOSEPH: Whether?
Because this Projector, just as He is the whole Projector, so also the whole is Father, and the whole
Son? Or because each of the divine persons, even if He enters with the others, keeps entirely
unmixed towards the others His own property? If indeed the first, both the persons of the Father
and the Son are Projectors, and both Fathers, and both Sons; but if the second, the much-sung
persons of the Trinity being three, and not more, with each keeping His property unmixed, does not
accept to introduce another person as numbered with them; so that the person of the Projector
according to you does not secretly enter into the persons of the Father and the Son, away with it!
Because the persons are, each being considered by itself, but he, a power of persons, not a person.
PRESBYTER: I am perplexed at so much force and boldness of words.
Paragraph 21: JOSEPH: You do not yet seem to me to have paid attention to the things said
from the beginning; hear the same things more clearly. I indeed, both rejoicing and being at peace
and loving quiet, would have preferred to be silent rather than to speak about the absurdities arising
from the conclusion according to the Italians, concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit; but
since even unwillingly I am carried to speak about them, tell me, does the Father and the Son
together, whom you say to be the cause of the Spirit, by their common essence, or by their one
hypostasis, or by the projecting power alone project the Holy Spirit? If indeed by their common
essence, since Father and Son and Spirit are in this, the undivided essence altogether projects one
from itself, and is projected from itself and the undivided is divided; but if by their one hypostasis,
the Father therefore and the Son will be one hypostasis; but if by the projecting power alone, since
this is neither Father, nor Son, but their common power, the Spirit is in no way projected according
to hypostasis of Father and Son. Again, the Father alone has the generative power belonging to Him
towards the Son, He will have one power, but the Father and the Son have their projecting power
towards the Spirit, they will have another power, already neither the person of the Father, nor that
of the Son is hypostatic in the Trinity; for they will not beget or project a hypostasis from
themselves, but only the unhypostatic powers of these persons; and with these things being granted,
the Holy Spirit is not projected from the persons of the Father and the Son.
Paragraph 22: Again, according to the divine Scripture, the whole divine Trinity is said to be one
power, and each of its persons is specifically and by itself called power; but the Projector of the
Holy Spirit, is nowhere found in it being called projecting power; just as neither the Father is said to
be generative power; but what is silenced by all divine Scripture, is silenced as not existing in the
divine things; that of the things of the Father two existing not being considered, the personal and
proper, and the natural and common, the projecting of the Spirit is of the natural and common,
therefore it is personal and proper; but even if we grant this altogether, the generative power of the
Father, to be the cause of the Son, and the projecting power of the Father and the Son, to be the
cause of the Spirit, the Father will not be immediately, but through the generative power the cause
of the Son, nor the Projector immediately, but through the projecting power the cause of the Spirit;

268
and the Son indeed will proceed from the Father through one medium alone, but the Spirit through
two media, I say the Son, and the projecting power, will proceed from the Father.
Paragraph 23: Further, the Father alone specifically as He is the cause of the Son, but the Father
and the Son the two together, seem to you to be one cause of the Spirit; the one Father is another
cause by Himself, because He is alone, and because [He is the cause] of the Son; and another cause
the Father and the Son the two together, because neither is each alone, and because [they are the
cause] of the Spirit; and besides these two causes existing in the divine persons, also two caused ones
[exist] differently; one caused one specifically from the Father alone the Son, and one caused one
from Him from Father and Son, the other Paraclete; and besides these there exists, another the
generative power of the Father, the cause only of the Son's generation, and another the projecting
power of Father and Son, being specifically the cause of the Holy Spirit's procession; and besides
these two powers, also two caused properties [exist], the Son's generation, and the Paraclete's
procession; and with these things thus being established in the divine Trinity two are the causes, and
two the caused ones; two causal powers, and two caused properties from these; which are foreign to
the wisdom of the Orthodox divine things.
Paragraph 24: Further, if the generative power of the Father begets the Son, and the projecting
power of Father and Son projects the Holy Spirit, the Father indeed insofar as He is cause, will be
cause of two persons, and of two hypostatic powers alone; but the Son insofar as He is cause, will
be cause of one person alone, and of one hypostatic power alone; because everything said to be
from another, has its reference to the first cause, as the great Basil says in the first of the anti-
heretical [works]; but if we grant this altogether, the Father will be the cause of the things from Him
alone, but the Son not alone of the things from Him; and thus, the Son indeed insofar as He is
caused, is from two; but the Spirit insofar as He is caused, from three; from two namely persons, and
one power.
Paragraph 25: Further, if the one as Father in the divine persons is not the Son, and the one as
Son is not the Father, and the Projector, neither is the Father, nor is the Son; because he is not a
person but a power; and the Holy Spirit, neither is the Father, nor is the Son, nor the Projector;
therefore to the Son indeed, the Father alone is one cause; but to the Holy Spirit, three according to
hypostasis causes, the one besides the one Son, and the one Son, being other besides the one Father,
and the one Projector, being other besides the one as the one Father; since this signifies hypostasis,
since this is a person. And with these things thus being, not in the same and one Trinity, both a triad
of projectors, and a tetrad of causal persons are found.
Paragraph 26: Further, if the two persons of one form, the Father and the Son, are causes of
two persons, and of two hypostatic powers, therefore also the two persons of it, the Son and the
Spirit, will not only be caused by two persons, namely Father and Son, but also these caused by two
hypostatic powers; but if these have this manner, a triad of projectors therefore, and a tetrad of
causes, and a tetrad of caused ones is introduced not in the divine persons.

269
 Paragraph 27: PRESBYTER: Have mercy on me, Lord! JOSEPH: That all these things seem
absurd to you, and blasphemous, and intolerable? I understand; but these things and ten thousand
others are gathered from believing also the Son to be a cause of the Spirit, and otherwise there is no
escape from the swarm of so many absurdities, except by believing the Father alone to be the cause
of both Son and Spirit. PRESBYTER: It seems to me, that so many absurdities would not arise,
unless the conclusion, the cause of the arising absurdities, were absurd. JOSEPH: I agree; for you
understand correctly. And these things have been said by me, as briefly as possible; but if God
permits, and the Synod is gathered, many and clear and good things will be said by me concerning
this. Either be silent, or solve as it is necessary these your propositions having been said, or confess
the dogma, or having been refuted depart. But may God, the one granting peace to all the world,
Himself also grant peace to us in whatever ways He knows. Amen.

270
 DIALOGUE I. CONCERNING THE UNION OF THE CHURCHES.
Of the one being planned to happen at that time; but it was not spoken to the Synodal [gathering]
of the Great Church of Christ.

Paragraph 1: God, the One doing all things and transforming [them] to the better, as the
foreseer caring also for this His own flock, it is necessary both for us to consider privately
concerning this planned union, and to deliberate in common, and to strive in every way, how we
might be found superior to the impending conflict, not, as they say, to be shamed in respect to the
weapons by the soldiers, or rather, how the union might happen, and not by the inexperience of
those desiring this, or by the influence of those not desiring [it], might we fall from the purpose. For
truly a thing necessary to us and wise, and of the most advantageous, is to foresee very well the
difficulties, and the assault of the thoughtless deceit, and to attempt quickly to repel those things, by
which if it would happen for us to come to the test, we will be in every way in a bad state. But let us
go now being guided by correct and useful reasoning, towards the examination of what is fitting;
and let your discernment examine to me the accurate and distinct [things], on each of the things to
be said, and if ever I should seem not to speak correctly, either correct this also with kindness, or
understand and justly transform my words, imitating the best of builders; who when the work is
done according to the proper measure, reshape skillfully, towards what seems to have the best
possible state.
Paragraph 2: First indeed it is necessary for us to have this pre-understood in our minds, that the
crucial things to be said here concerning the union, be kept by us as mysteries. Secondly indeed from
us, that this, it is necessary to premeditate with the proper time of our and their coming together,
not one indeed, what is proposed to him, and another, what is proposed to this one, and especially
not in the contests of words to be then; for these things themselves alone, even with no schism
existing, are sufficient to divide all from one another; but that we all may be undivided towards every
impending [matter], as it were one spirit, and not mind, and one purpose of all, that even in
character, or word, or writing, no one from us might encounter [opposition], nor be accused rashly
by anyone, all those of one mind, both present and absent likewise, in all ways to stand by and
correct, and readily to redeem him from the accusation. And these things indeed being premeditated
by us will be from now, so that when [the time] comes, becoming in deed, many from us, or rather
all, may be of one mind towards good.
Paragraph 3: But it is necessary to prepare this in the matters themselves, I say as before God;
since thence a Locum Tenens of Rome and a mediator of the Churches was sent, as it is said, it is
necessary also for us to seek a mediator of this union, whether a Monk, or of those living with
wives, you yourselves would know, and to fortify this one with such and so much power by
Patriarchal and Imperial letters, as that one has been fortified, and to command all the Romans
dwelling there, to cherish and understand this one thus, just as those around him [cherish] the one
coming from there. For I think it to be very terrible and excessive, for the one indeed, to be both

271
very wealthy, and a Cardinal, and to have the power both to bind and to loose and to live with his
own, as they say, and to have a hundred assistants, and to lead ten thousand followers; but the other
to be both stripped of power, and alone, and poor, to be set against him. Whether this one then, is a
Presbyter of our Church towards theirs, whether a Locum Tenens of our Synod towards theirs,
whether of both being mediators, or whatever you would wish to call him, a Righteous one of
Orthodoxy, or whatever of the things pertaining to him you would establish a counselor and steward
and agent of all words and matters. I say, for as long a time as the Locum Tenentes of Rome remain
here, let him announce your words, some indeed by mouth to those, and others by letters, and
indeed also of the things received from there, let him be the presenter; thus by word, that one after
God will fight for us, but you being far off, in word, will sit; this alone he owes to us Orthodox, that
for so many and four hundred years the divided flock of Christ, using a God-pleasing economy, may
be united by him, by the grace of the Holy Spirit; which will altogether be, with our dogmas
remaining unchanged, which to many seems to be the most paradoxical of all, but to God most
ready; and we owing this alone to him, to cooperate with him in all things, to suggest the necessary
things, to counsel the things contributing to the union, to propose the handling both of matters and
of words, and altogether for him alone to have the care, but for the rest, you indeed by hand, but
Christ by mind. And to surround the man with four allied persons: a learned High Priest, a Ruler of
the Church’s chosen ones, an Orthodox Interpreter, and also a wise Secretary; who indeed once or
twice a week, as indeed an avenger of the whole Orthodox Synod, not in the Synodal [chamber] of
the Pantokrator, but with those around him, will judge what is best concerning the dogma; for there,
as it is not done secretly, where also the arriving ones will receive hospitality, and the things to be
said from each side, truthfully, whenever they come together, he will note in ink, so that, in the word
of truth, and in the fear of God, they may be practiced by you privately, and after they are well
practiced, they may be placed in a private Codex.
Paragraph 4: But if perhaps this handling seems otherwise difficult to some, there are many
methods much better than this, of which especially two are better and I myself see; and I will speak
both of them immediately; one indeed, that in an appointed time, the more important of those
coming here, with boldness, or not secretly, may hold peaceful discussions with us; I say according to
order both of the questions, and of the answers being made, and according to the superiority of the
persons, as you are accustomed, for the things being proposed to proceed with order. And the
second, superior to this in all ways, that in summary epitomes, the questions concerning the dogma,
we here separately having conferred in common, after much and accurate deliberation, may write, as
concisely and clearly as possible, and after having placed each of these in writing, as has been
approved, to send the written [document] immediately to them, and the things being written in reply
by those concerning it, to note down wisely in order, and to set these against them with noble
argument, and thus to do until the end; which indeed also before us ever, those in Constance of
Germany, made the seven books of the Latins against each other. For thus both the times, when the
gatherings will be, and the propositions will be said, and most of the things to be done will be

272
unspeakable to many, and all things as divine mysteries with reverence, and with the proper order of
each will be accomplished; for everyone wishing such things, will say whatever he shamelessly
wishes; and much speaking is necessary; for this is the beginning of disorder and strife and
contention; but let only the chosen ones according to word with peace, and long deliberation,
sometimes indeed define this question, sometimes indeed clarify this; and to you yourselves
especially the leaders of the word, not in the power of the word alone will be all the hope, but rather
in the firmness of the dogma, and in the best handling of matters, and especially in the grace of the
Holy Spirit, even if the advantage does not accrue to you from the words themselves, it will
altogether be from the best economy, and the nature of the matters; for our piety is not in woven
words, and woven syllogisms, but in the correctness of thoughts, and in matters by nature
unchangeable. Thus indeed it is necessary to be prepared for these things.
Paragraph 5: But for the following things, from the beginning here I will speak to you, making
God the protector of all and Savior a witness of these my words, that with all understanding and
correct judgment, I speak these things to your holiness. And let no one suspect of the things being
spoken by me to think anything else, but the things making the union of Christ’s Church easier, at
least to the power belonging to me, and fearing the accursed condescension, and believing a loss to
come to the whole fullness of Christ’s Church, if I were to pass these things by in silence; and with
all purpose, and in every way I propose to all the good suggestions; therefore I propose these things
to you Orthodox as mysteries. Since those from Rome, with all our dogmas and the traditions of our
Church both written and unwritten remaining unchanged, ask to be united to us with all their soul,
and confess all our things clearly, and to be from the Fathers, and holy, except this alone they ask
from us, to commemorate the one of Rome as holy in our holy rites; it seems to me to differ by
nothing or little, for me to remind something concerning this, and for the Synod among us to
deliberate in common. And I say my own judgment, not having learned the customs, especially of
all, knowing the customs more accurately, so that pre-meditating irrefutable defenses against their
declared propositions, we may be found ready defenders of the truth in the gatherings with them.
Paragraph 6: For example, let me give an example, if someone of those having deserted from us
to them would propose ten thousand things against us, it would be possible to say to him boldly:
“You seem, O this one, not for the sake of truth, to make this change, not being moved by divine
zeal, but to seem to take vengeance, which you alone previously chose, so that thus you might escape
the accusations concerning the change, and to acquire rather the favor of those with whom you are
aligned, by the most obvious hostility towards us, and pleasing them with daily oppositions; just as
also from the portion of Christians, those changing to the things of the Agarenes, show a certain
unproclaimed and unsparing madness against us, and mock and deride the things of our piety with
an unbridled tongue, and nothing from this, except to be seen to be friendly to those to whom they
have gone.” But if you also propose zeal for God, there are others worse than us concerning
heterodoxy, Jews, and Ishmaelites, and Fire-worshippers; let your zeal be shown against these; but
now enduring those blaspheming the most impious things, do you breathe only against us? For if

273
truly the zeal for Christ moves you to this, it was necessary to be severe against those, to oppose
those, to rush against those, not against us, who worship the same Trinity, and confess the same
Christ. If you saw a house decayed from its very foundations, would you, having left the most
crucial things to be treated, secure the small cracks of the walls? I do not think so. But if you were
also placed under a Emperor, and saw some enemies of him becoming obvious and insulting, but
some of the household only slightly having stumbled, would you having left the obvious enemies,
punish the servants? Perhaps you would not, you would say, but I hasten to treat both; but which
more need treatment, those being sick concerning the crucial things, or those being held together by
some small anomaly of the body?
Paragraph 7: If indeed you have chosen some one of human changes, not being ignorant of the
correctness of our doctrine, I do not think you would refuse the return; for you would not endure to
be separated for long from the better portion; but if you determine to have glory by all means as
secure, and then to hold to it for the sake of it, it is necessary for you to consider, both the easily
deceived nature of human understanding, and how many having boldness by sharpness of mind,
and power of words, nevertheless have missed the correct doctrine concerning God; for they do not
pay attention to the true and first wisdom, but to the psychic and rather to the one concerning
demonic things, unprofitable contentions of words except for destruction. For in what have those
been captured, are they not full of these? And it is ours to lament the wretchedness of those not
hearing; for not all, as many as existed by heretical doctrines according to Greek wisdom, did they
not devise their own apostasy? The magnitude of the loss is ours, to weep, and having lost such a
man who would contribute the greatest things to the world and a boast to it, and he would have the
greatest power through it not by doctrines, and he would most powerfully contend against the
adversaries; he had need of a tongue filled, but now the Church among us, as if it were deprived of
a most fortified weapon, with this one leaping away from it, even if it does not stand unconquered
by the enemies, it seems at least to have suffered a certain loss. But this is the most lamentable, to
have fallen from an alliance, because in addition to this he has acquired an enemy and a great
adversary; who is this? Whom she herself bore, alas! and nourished. And having no regard for the
honor towards his parents, with the greatest recompense being promised, and no less of the penalty
being threatened in the proverb, I do not know what he himself has suffered, and disregarding both,
he rushes headlong to bring the hidden into the light, having exposed his parents; when, even if he
dishonors and blames them for having some blameworthy things concerning them, he should try to
conceal the division altogether, remembering the paternal curse of Ham, for thus justice dealt with
him according to worth. For if your Mother, on account of advanced age, had a duller perception,
and missed something of what is fitting, would you have mocked her? Would you not be
blameworthy both to God and to men for this? This is clear to all. Do you not know, how much the
word has deemed it worthy to honor parents to the invisible Father? And what judgment is attached
to the parricides? By much more it was necessary to honor the one having given birth spiritually, and
having nourished with the divine words, and having led you to this age, and if you know something

274
of the blameworthy things in her; for I know also of the children, to those having covered the
nakedness of Noah, what recompense was measured from the grace of Ham. But thanks to the One
having shed His own blood for this, that not only is this one blameless in nothing, but that she alone
is correct and true and excellent.
Paragraph 8: But if you are altogether attached to the opinion of the Italians, and grant security
to it in no way doubting at all, why do you not love to be attached to this yourself, and not become a
burden to your fellow countrymen, to have yourself also a sharer of the change? But I do not think
you being reasonable are unaware, which of us and those strike according to the aim of truth? And
who are far from the established positions? But the contentiousness itself, and the pride, and the
arrogance and stubbornness, and the not enduring not even deeming to be seen to be conquered,
does not allow you to stand with those rightly dividing, with the truth, but persuades you to attack us
unsparingly, and to say us to be unyielding and unpersuadable because we do not yield to the one of
Rome; a sign of this is the misfortune and disunity of the whole nation; but, with God being my
witness, I will answer you to these things.
Paragraph 9: If you judge the correctness of the dogma from the misfortune according to life,
you will see both Agarenes, and those from us, and Persians, more impious than the Ishmaelites,
daring to think impious things concerning Christ, the small and weak nations, and blaspheming our
God, being corrupted by the mixtures with those, if nature itself does not bring anything else of
good to us, boasting in the faith in Christ, and being perfected in divine baptism. But we see these
being exalted, not as us, who have completely failed, but also as you, who boast greatly in your
prosperity, not least surpassing in blessedness. Therefore, it is not necessary to attack us, when it is
necessary to rejoice in our misfortunes, but rather to pity brotherly; but now, not only do you not
pity those suffering, but also you proceed against us as those justly suffering; but if there is still care
for truth in you, justly consider the matters, and [see] with whom the divine is rather, with us or with
you. We indeed being besieged for so many years, are preserved thus, and still; but you with all your
army, with how much preparation of weapons, once attacking those in Egypt, were defeated
mightily; and the report of that defeat stirred all the West so much, as to make them faint for battle,
and to be numb; and if we being nearer to them, did not undergo all their attack, as it were a small
wall standing between you and those, you would not have resisted even for a little while, but would
have been quickly destroyed, not enduring their assault, as one battle of those made clear.
Paragraph 10: And if our Church has been brought to this misfortune, it has not changed the
established order from the beginning; not only Constantinople, but also Alexandria, and Antioch,
and Palestine, lost their Patriarchs; and the dominion of the impious nations did not prevail to shake
the order of the Churches, or to deprive their presidents; but your Church has been divided, and two
Popes preside over it opposed to each other, and each despises each, and all subject to that one he
rejects, and subjects to a terrible excommunication and anathema; so that all of you are subject to
these extreme penalties, and no one of you is believed to be a Christian sincerely and indisputably.
And to us indeed, with the cities being captured by the impious nations, the Church preserves its

275
unchangeable form, and Archbishops and Priests and Deacons, not among impious nations,
perform the things of their rank unhindered, and everywhere the divine Mysteries are performed;
but of the Archbishops among you, you would not be able to show any at all, having any place in
such captured cities. For the Hebrews also were rejected by God of old, but along with external
freedom, also their divine boasts departed; for the priesthood failed, the kingdom failed, also
sacrifices failed, prophets failed, the declaration of the future failed, the voice of the propitiatory
[offering] failed, and all things following these; but among us the sacred and divine things, as many
as guarantee the nearness of God to us and empower to carry [us] to Him, all and as many as these
are preserved unchanged among us, and thanks to our Master and Guardian, that having fallen from
bodily prosperity into weakness, we have not been deprived of the things leading to salvation.
Paragraph 11: And we indeed even if we are being harmed, we suffer this from the impious
nations; and no small consolation is this to us for this reason, because we suffer these difficult things
being hated on account of piety; which is indeed the greatest sign of God's providence towards us,
and ineffable care, it being necessary justly, to pay the penalty for the transgressions by which our
life is marked, to suffer this from impious nations, who themselves at the same time fight against
both God and us, so that we also might be at war with God, and not simply vengeance for sins are
the things of the harm, but also if not martyrdom, near to martyrdom. For even if God on account
of some debt of sins allows the dominion over us to the impious, but those hate us themselves, and
are hostile to piety; but you suffer also yourselves intolerable things, but not from those from
without, but now from yourselves, raging against each other, and waging wars, and of your own
Popes being arrayed against each other, and raising war against each other, and forcing those under
them to defile their right hands with fraternal blood; according to which you differ in nothing from
madmen, those cutting up their own limbs, seeming to cut up the things of the enemies; what worse
could happen? And this alone is not the terrible thing, that you wound your own limbs, but that also
being killed, those killing thus are liable, and those indeed stand in the judgment of murder, who
slaughter their own fellow citizens and brothers, but those, for the sake of love of rule and tyranny,
have prepared both themselves and many for the slaughter of their fellow countrymen, and are
murderers in intention, even if not having murdered, but murderers in mind, they have already
missed the mark in purpose.
Paragraph 12: And we indeed being broken by the impious nations, and being conquered, have
established hopes, working against the most impious and most differing from God, and acting as
avengers of Christ; and if we fall, the slaughter will be reckoned to us for the sake of martyrdom,
having fallen fighting for Christ; for this very thing to be mad against us by those lawless ones, and
to see the most terrible things, arises for those from the unshaken madness concerning our correct
dogma, and from no other madness. For the one differing from those in nothing else from us,
except opposing and falling in respect to piety towards Christ our God, has fought directly for Christ
Himself; and it is clear; for he, being able to change easily to those impious and godless ones, and to
have them immediately as friends, and rather even to enjoy their ease and rest and honor, setting

276
these things at naught, endures to be hated by those, and to be driven away, and even to be deprived
of life itself, and endures all the things having been said for Christ; but to suffer for Christ, what
then is more blessed? Or what of all things leading to His blessedness is more worthy? But you,
leaving the enemies of your faith to fight, fight with those of the same faith, the co-believers; and
you have suffered the same as if someone being struck by others, leaving to contend with those
striking, would also strike his own limbs.
Paragraph 13: And not by purity of life is it considered, and accuracy of conduct, the portion
among us appears surpassing the portion of you by much; for both in temperance, and self-control,
and humility, and vigilance, and good order of sacred temples, and order in the divine and sacred
rites, and the venerable state of Priests, and the holy-befitting state of Archbishops, even if it is not
necessary to say holy, but in the Church among us having examined accurately, you would find more
than in the one you have joined. For every law and sacred ordinance, introducing self-control and
temperate living, has been neglected among you, and completely set aside, and your life full of
licentiousness and all uncleanness; not only in the common people, but also in those living the
monastic life, and not only in those living the monastic life, but also in those enrolled in the Clergy,
both Deacons and Presbyters; and indeed even those having received the rank of presidency, as it
was necessary even to drive away the unworthy from the people from the sacred ground according
to the divine laws, but they even wallowing openly in fornications and adulteries, approach the divine
altar on the same day; and the terrible, alas, and fearful body of Christ, they both handle and partake
of. These things are sufficient to be said at the proper time to the one having deserted from us to
the things of the Latins, and then thundering with tongue and food of oppositions, if he is able, and
willing.
Paragraph 14: But to those having dared to announce, that help will immediately follow from
Rome, that the union will be immediately and with all the customs and dogmas of our fold
remaining unchanged, or even to propose, that it is not at all disagreeable to commemorate the Pope
as holy, it is necessary to say many things against these also. Is this the union of so many churches
and nations, having been planned by you for so many years? Do you think thus to be united to us,
with the proposition remaining, and all things remaining unchanged, uncorrected, so that the long
and accursed schism may be prolonged? This is not correction, O men, nor union of the Churches,
but schism worse than the former schism, and division, and cutting off, and deceit, and obvious
condescension of us to you, and a bond towards ruin, and a leading to a precipice, and flight from
freedom, and enslavement of holy things, and condemnation of the confessions of the Fathers, not
at all healthy. For how will there be union for us, with ten thousand intervening dogmas between us?
For union is altogether when everything remains undivided, with nothing at all dividing in between;
but if what divides both always remains, the things being divided will in no way be altogether united,
even if it seems perhaps to be united, to those not seeing these things sharply; for union is a
communal joining of things having been divided. But how will this union be true, and unfeigned,
with some indeed with the proposition in all the sacred rites, but others without this proclaiming the

277
Symbol? This is not to unite the Church of Rome to us; away with it! But for the four Churches of
the East to be subjected unreasonably to Rome, having been deceived by empty hopes. Is it not
enough for us to have fallen from East and West? From land and sea? From movable and
immovable possessions? And from nearly all the pleasures of life? But does the enemy try to add
piety? Let this counsel not proceed, and let this not happen to us; even if it seems it will vanish like a
bubble; for this is to be for us, our faith, the patrimonial inheritance—this is our wealth, this is glory,
this is our race, this is our crown, this is our boast: one baptism, one faith to us, one Church, and
one God is glorified in three hypostases; let all those not believing thus perish. Beautiful is it to be at
peace with all, but being of one mind in piety; for peace with what is just and fitting, is the most
beautiful possession and most advantageous, but with evil, or deceit, it brings reproach, and is most
harmful of all; for there is an evil concord, and there is a good disagreement; and it is possible to
agree well, and to agree badly; for to those for whom friendship is the cause of destruction, to these
hatred becomes a basis of virtue, and the disposition for dispassion is better than a passionate
concord. And if that one is holy who is above all impurity, or the one having purified his soul and
body in all ways from what God is displeased with, how will we believe that one is holy who is
defiled with Christian blood unrepentantly for all the time of his priesthood? For if someone having
committed murder even in the sacred precinct according to the laws, as defiled is cast out, even
repenting, the one doing countless murders, and greatly rejoicing in the defilement, how is he placed
with the holy ones?
Paragraph 15: And besides these things, let no one deceive us with deceptive hopes, that help
will come to us after a short time, or after a long one, from the Italians as allies; for even if they
should ever array themselves on our behalf in appearance, they will arm themselves to enslave the
city, and utterly destroy our things, and make our faith, and our race, and our name disappear. For it
is necessary for the [words] to be clearly fulfilled in us, “and you will be hated by all on account of
my name;” and “you will weep and lament, but the world will rejoice;” and “an hour is coming when
everyone who kills you will think he offers service to God.” These things and such things come
upon us, so that the testing of our faith may be found purer than all gold; for if we were judging
ourselves, as the Apostle says, we would not be judged; but being judged we are chastened by the
Lord, so that we may not be condemned with the world; for those sharing in it, to be without
chastening is of the most unjust, the Lord caring for our salvation does not deem it fitting, to
chasten us as Sons for a time, so that we may be numbered with His chastened Sons, and not as
illegitimate children be cast out from the paternal house on account of lack of chastening; but if
you are without chastening, He says, of which all have become partakers, those truly genuine sons
of God, then you are illegitimate children, and alien sons, and not sons; and in this way we are
chastened, since it is not possible for that firstborn and heavenly Church, to be filled from above,
and not from elsewhere, except from this earthly and Orthodox one. For if that one has followers
from various heresies, schism hinders, and no heresy allows to be co-heirs with all the saints, both
the heretics at the same time, and all the schismatics.

278
 Paragraph 16: I indeed, that I may speak more concisely, was very desirous to be present at that
Synod, and to hear the things being said then, and to see the things being done, and to defend the
truth; but since the end of my life arrives even before the Synod perhaps being held, I deem it fitting
for our Patriarch about to be there, to say this final judgment from himself to the Synod thus. In the
name of the holy and super-essential Trinity: this is the first and saving and mightier than mighty
judgment, which the Holy Spirit through our lowliness gives to this gathering today. Since by the
authority of the one and only God every Ecumenical Synod is able to change the things defined by
some of the local Synods, and to establish things to them and to take away from them for a saving
purpose, therefore preferring the seven Ecumenical Synods to one local Synod, judge the division
having separated us for a thousand years, to be altogether confessed henceforth unchanged, and
every schism will depart. To make this change, or alteration, or addition, or whatever someone
wishes to say, is permissible to this Synod, if it is expedient; or if it is not expedient, it is not
permissible; but both is permissible to this one, and is expedient in every way, and is sacred and
saving to those called by Christ, and on account of these things acceptable to God. That proposition
about which we doubt, introduced contention to both concerning the origin, this introduces peace
to all; that divided the Church of Christ, this unites it to undivided union; that diminished the
portion of those being saved, this adds countless things; therefore since this is not a proposition,
nor an alteration, nor a taking away, but only an inviolable keeping of what has been handed down
from the Fathers. First indeed in every way I propose and suggest and entreat this to happen, as
something firm to all, as something undeniable, as something indubitable, as something beyond
suspicion.
Paragraph 17: Secondly, according to a second course of action, the one by reason, and indeed a
bold one, Rome considers this, perhaps due to the harm from those whose immediate successor it
has become; therefore, as supreme High Priest himself, and possessing authority for those under
him, let him change the addition to the Symbol set forth in Latin, which causes controversy, into a
saving one. And I do not speak of some innovation, nor a fabrication of his own, or our
understanding, but what all the theologians most clearly proclaim. And this is: that concerning the
Holy Spirit, the one proceeding from the Father through [διά] the Son—if one syllable, KAI [and],
is removed, and in its place one, ΔΙΑ [through], is added, then all the terrible things will immediately
be resolved.
Paragraph 18: And thirdly, in addition to these things, I advise that this be done, if indeed this
second thing is hindered by someone. Since it is absolutely necessary that both a Definition be
established, and a Tome be written by this holy Synod, before all things, both the Definition and the
Tome should explicitly contain these things: that we, adhering to the Patristic theological traditions,
dogmatize that the Holy Spirit personally proceeds from the Father alone, as having the cause of His
subsistence from the Father alone; we venerate that the same Holy Spirit exists essentially from the
Father and the Son, both as this pertaining to the same essence of both, and as being imparted to
creation from the Father through the Son according to operation; we consign to eternal silence those

279
who from now on dare to dispute concerning the matters already occurring between the Romans
and the Latins.
Paragraph 19: If you desire truth, not pretense, choose one of these three counsels for the
union of the Churches: either the one according to the good pleasure of God's will, which is the
first; or the one worked out according to our economy, I mean the second; or the one according to
concession otherwise, being done in hope of perfect union. But if you do not desire to do any of
these, we in no way tolerate being separated from you. Concerning what I have said about the
procession of the Holy Spirit, let it be said by me thus, in summary.
Paragraph 20: Concerning the unleavened bread, I say this, both clearly as much as possible, and
concisely, although having much to say about this: that according to my understanding, the things
most refuting [the use of unleavened bread], I consider to be Patristic Tradition, that the sacrifice
[Eucharist] is through leavened bread, but the newer one through unleavened bread. These are [the
refutations]: First, that the brother of the Lord, the divine James, the one appointed Bishop of
Jerusalem himself, the great Basil, and John Chrysostom, having described for us in writing the
mystical sacred action, have handed down that it be performed with leavened bread, as also the
words of the prayers of the order [of service] teach, and the practice of the awesome Mysteries
testifies, even though these Mysteries are known to many. Secondly, that even now Romans, and
Melchites, and Syrians, and Ethiopians, Alans, Abasgians, and Iberians, Colchians, Russians, Goths,
Dacians, Paeonians, Mysians, Triballi, and many other nations, diverse in places, and customs, and
languages, offer this sacrifice with leavened bread to the God of all, showing by deed that they did
not come from unleavened to leavened, but from when they submitted to the name of Christ, the
unleavened bread was received by them for this rite. And third, that not in a thousand years, in
which we all were, for the correction of the divine dogmas, the lights of the world often came
together to this part of the earth, where even today all the customs of the Church are preserved
unchanged, and always entirely those dwelling in the same place, both on the notable days
necessarily working together, and even Kings and those of the populace fellow-worshipping with
them, whether those from Italy, or those from Thrace, or those from Egypt, or from Syria, and
Palestine, ever used unleavened bread. But also in Nicea, and in Constantinople, and in Ephesus, and
in Chalcedon, and in Sardica, and in Gangra, and in Laodicea, and in Antioch, and in many other
places, having convened at various times, they all performed one sacred action; whence it did not
occur to any of them to speak against leavened bread, since all performed the divine offering
through it, and all thought and practiced the same things in all the sacred rites. If you are persuaded
by these things, thanks be to God; but if not, no argument will be strong enough to persuade you.
For how [could it be]? Are not so many Fathers? Are not so many Synods? Are not so many
traditions, both written and unwritten, persuasive? Will the argument of one man, dissolving into
thin air, persuade [you]? And these things, the coming Patriarch of ours, not wavering in word, but
weighty in character, and steadfast in mind, will fittingly defend before the Synod, so that our lineage
may not be found undefended on the day of judgment.

280
 Paragraph 21: And beyond all the things said, concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit, I
urge you to also know these things, and to understand well, and not to consider impiously: that each
of the persons of the Holy Trinity possesses, in addition to two of the names. For the Father is
called not only Father, but also Probulos [Projector, Sender]; and the Son not only Son, but also
Logos [Word]; and the Spirit not only Spirit, but also Problema [Procession, Proceeding], is
confessed by all, as also we have said more concisely elsewhere. These things being so among
themselves, and being thus, and being truly believed, not in the same way as the Son is called by the
Orthodox both by us and by you, is the Father said to have these names; I mean the Father and the
Probulos; only; but He, insofar as He is only cause, and only uncaused, each of these He possesses
in relation to only one person; for He is Father only of the Son, and Probulos only of the Spirit, and
both Father of the Son and Probulos of the Spirit; the Son and the Spirit, since they are caused only
from the Father, and not causes of each other, possess one of the names referentially only in
relation to the Father, and in relation to the Father, and the other also in relation to the co-caused
with Him from the Father person. So that what is being said may become clearer to you, the Son,
the name Son, insofar as He is Son, He possesses in relation to the Father only; for He is Son of one
Father only, and not of two; but the name Logos, which alone pertains to the super-essential Trinity,
is not only of the Father insofar as He is, but also of the Spirit, in a different manner, because the
Logos of the Father is Logos, insofar as He is from Him, but of the Spirit not as from Him, but as
He Himself also having being from there, whence also that one [the Spirit] has existence, and as
consubstantial with Him, and co-eternal, and of one essence. Likewise also the Problema, Problema
He is and is called, only of His own Probulos, that is, of the one being and being called person in
relation to the co-caused with Him, the Father; and the Spirit is not only of the Father and is called,
but certainly also of the Son; but of the Father He is and is called Spirit, insofar as He is from Him,
but of the Son He is Spirit, not as having existence from Him, but as through Him, proceeding from
the Father, and as consubstantial with Him and of one glory.
Paragraph 22: But if we do not call the Son Son of the Spirit, nor the Father Father of the Holy
Spirit, the reason is evident, which the blessed Augustine sets forth in his book On the Trinity,
saying thus: “For we call the Holy Spirit of the Father, but we do not conversely call the Father of
the Holy Spirit, lest the Holy Spirit be conceived as His Son; and again, we call the Holy Spirit of the
Son, but we do not call the Son of the Holy Spirit, lest the Holy Spirit be conceived as His Father.”
So that as Son, the Son would not be said of the Spirit for the reasons stated, but as Logos [Word]
He is consubstantial and co-eternal with the Spirit, and altogether; for just as the Logos is
consubstantial with the Spirit, and no one will contradict this, so much more, not less, also the Spirit
is consubstantial with the Logos; and each of the divine persons, being positioned between the
remaining two, is connected to each of them by both essence and relation; but the Father [is cause]
of those proceeding from Him, both according to essence and according to cause; but the Son and
the Spirit [are connected] to each other only according to essence, but to the Father both according
to essence and according to a distinct relation; for the Logos also has a co-eternal Spirit, because no

281
Logos precedes without the Spirit, as Cyril says; and lest He be without a share of the Spirit; and the
Spirit also has a co-natural and co-eternal Logos, lest the Logos be conceived by anyone as foreign
to Him; but also by the Father of lights the Logos and the Spirit are not considered separately, lest
He seem to be somehow without breath and without Logos.
Paragraph 23: But these very things are seen not dimly in the image, but most clearly in the
prototype, by those having eyes of faith. For since man is both said and is an image of God,
according to the formation of the soul, not according to the form of the face, all things which
appear according to grace in this image must necessarily pre-exist in its archetype; but here let us
make an image according to the account of creation; “for,” it says, “let us make man according to
our image and likeness”; there, since there is nothing unoriginate with God, we call these three
unoriginate, and three persons united by one nature. Just as also the nous [mind/intellect] in us has a
co-natural and co-eternal Logos and Spirit together, lest it be without breath and without Logos; and
also the Logos in us has the Spirit with it, lest it be considered without nous, and without breath,
and similarly the spirit [pneuma] of nous and logos, lest it be said to be without nous and without
logos, so, by a much incomparable analogy, all these things must be believed to exist unoriginate in
God. And these things are what we both understand and proclaim and glorify concerning the Father
and the Son and the Holy Spirit from what is according to us, and above us.
Paragraph 24: But if it is necessary also to use syllogisms, against those boasting in their own
syllogisms, we will not use our own for the complete discovery or demonstration of this matter, but
the sacred Hierotheos, the teacher of Dionysius from Areopagus, will suffice for us instead of all for
confirmation. For he, constructing a circle, and making its angles circles, through syllogisms most
wisely demonstrates what is sought by us, setting forth as in a diagram: A. the Father; B. the Son; C.
the Holy Spirit; and the Projector Ω, and the Logos Ψ, and the Problema Χ.

Description of the Diagram and Syllogisms

Therefore, describing such a theorem, in the first circle he constructs a syllogism
thus, saying:
• A belongs to B.
• But B, not insofar as B, but insofar as Ψ, belongs to Γ.
• Therefore, A, not insofar as A, but insofar as Ω, belongs to Γ.
And in the second circle:
• B belongs to A.
• But A, not insofar as A, but insofar as Ω, belongs to Γ.
• Therefore, B, not insofar as B, but insofar as Ψ, belongs to Γ.
And in the third circle:
• Γ belongs to Ψ.
• But Ψ, not insofar as Ψ, but insofar as B, belongs to A.
• Therefore, Γ, not insofar as Γ, but insofar as Χ, belongs to A.

282
And in the fourth circle:
• Ω belongs to Χ.
• But Χ, not insofar as Χ, but insofar as Γ, belongs to B.
• Therefore, Ω, not insofar as Ω, but insofar as A, belongs to B.
And in the fifth circle:
• Ψ belongs to Γ.
• But Γ, not insofar as Γ, but insofar as Χ, belongs to A.
• Therefore, Ψ, not insofar as Ψ, but insofar as B, belongs to A.
And in the sixth circle:
• Χ belongs to Ω.
• But Ω, not insofar as Ω, but insofar as A, belongs to B.
• Therefore, Χ, not insofar as Χ, but insofar as Γ, belongs to B.
But these very things, said concerning the elements as in subjects, when said
concerning the names of the Trinity known to all, show the great purpose more
clearly.

Application of the Syllogism to the Trinity

That is, the first one, being said, is clearly thus:
• The Father belongs to the Son as Father.
• But the Son, not insofar as Son, but insofar as Logos, belongs to the Spirit.
• Therefore, the Father, not insofar as Father, but insofar as Probulos
(Projector), belongs to the Spirit.
And the second thus:
• The Son belongs to the Father as Son.
• But the Father, not insofar as Father, but insofar as Probulos, belongs to the
Spirit.
• Therefore, the Son, not insofar as Son, but insofar as Logos, belongs to the
Spirit.
And the third thus:
• The Spirit belongs to the Logos as Spirit.
• But the Logos, not insofar as Logos, but insofar as Son, belongs to the Father.
• Therefore, the Spirit, not insofar as Spirit, but insofar as Problema
(Proceeding), belongs to the Father.
And the fourth thus:
• The Probulos belongs to the Problema as Probulos.
• But the Problema, not insofar as Problema, but insofar as Spirit, belongs to the
Son.

283
 • Therefore, the Probulos, not insofar as Probulos, but insofar as Father, belongs
to the Son.
And the fifth thus:
• The Logos is Logos of the Spirit. But the Spirit, not insofar as Spirit, but
insofar as Problema, belongs to the Father. Therefore, the Logos, not insofar
as Logos, but insofar as Son, belongs to the Father.
And the sixth thus:
• The Problema is Problema of the Probulos.
• But the Probulos, not insofar as Probulos, but insofar as Father, belongs to the
Son.
• Therefore, the Problema, not insofar as Problema, but insofar as Spirit,
belongs to the Son.

Key points and explanations:

• A, B, Γ (Gamma), Ω, Ψ, Χ: These are symbolic representations used in the syllogisms. When
applied to the Trinity:
• A represents the Father.
• B represents the Son.
• Γ represents the Holy Spirit.
• Ω represents the Father as Probulos (Projector, Sender).
• Ψ represents the Son as Logos (Word).
• Χ represents the Holy Spirit as Problema (Proceeding).
• "Belongs to" (τῷ ἐστιν): This phrase indicates a relationship or connection between the terms.
• "Not insofar as... but insofar as..." (ἐ καθὸ… ἀλλὰ καθὸ…): This crucial phrase is used to
distinguish between the essential being (hypostasis) of each person and their relational properties.
It highlights that the relationships within the Trinity are not simply a matter of essential being but
also of distinct modes of existence and action. For example, the Father is not related to the Spirit
as Father in the same way He is related to the Son as Son. Rather, He is related to the Spirit as
Probulos (Sender). This is essential for Orthodox theology to avoid Modalism (confusing the
persons) or Subordinationism (making one person less than another).
• The purpose of the syllogisms: He uses these complex syllogisms to demonstrate the intricate
relationships within the Trinity while maintaining the distinctness of each person and the
monarchy of the Father. The syllogisms aim to show how each person relates to the others not
only in terms of their shared essence (ousia) but also in terms of their unique roles and relations
(tropoi hyparxeos).

Paragraph 25: And consider, having examined [this] thus, that here three things are shown, at the
same time worthy of wonder to those who pay attention. First, that in such a small theorem, almost

284
the entire union and at the same time the distinction of the divine persons in relation to each other
is clearly beheld. Secondly, [the greatness] concerning the theology of the great Hierotheos is lofty,
and transcendent, and divine. And third, the usefulness of the art of Logic, that it also constantly
clings to those who are most deeply engaged in theology for the accurate comprehension of the
things being sought. But let not this, which lies here most clearly, escape you: that the first shows
how the Father, by reason of this, is Probulos (Projector) of the Spirit, and not Father [of the
Spirit]. The second presents how the Son, by reason of this, is Logos (Word) of the Spirit, and not
Son [of the Spirit]. The third concludes how the Spirit, by reason of this, is not Son of the Father,
but Problema (Proceeding). The fourth explains how the Father, by reason of this, is Father of the
Son, and not Probulos [of the Son]. The fifth clarifies how the Son, by reason of this, not insofar as
Logos, but insofar as Son, is of the Father. And the sixth concludes clearly how the Spirit, by reason
of this, not insofar as Problema, but insofar as Spirit, is of the Son; which also the greater [premise]
of the fourth clearly declares; wherefore, in the way that the Father has the Son as Son to Himself,
but not as Problema; and the Son has the Probulos of the Spirit, not as Probulos to Himself, but as
Father; in the same way also the Spirit does not have the Father of the Son as Father [to Himself],
but as Probulos to Himself; and these things are hidden from many.
Paragraph 26: But if the Son alone has these two names proper to Himself—for the Son alone
in the divine Trinity is both Son and Logos—but the Father, one of His own names is His alone, but
another is not His alone; since everyone who is alone surpasses incomparably everyone who is not
all that he is and has and is called; therefore the Son, insofar as He alone has what He is and has and
is called, surpasses incomparably the Father, who does not alone have all things, or is, or is called,
both according to being, and according to having, and according to being called. And this necessarily
follows from this: just as the Father is only Father and Probulos (Projector), and the Spirit is only
Spirit and Problema (Proceeding), but the Son is not only Son and Logos, but is also called Probulos
of the Spirit according to hypostasis; therefore the Son alone of the divine persons distinctly
possesses three of the names, while the Father and the Spirit have only two. Furthermore, even if
the Father alone in the divine Trinity is only Father, but not alone Probulos; and the Son is both
alone Son, and alone Logos; likewise also the other Paraclete is both alone Spirit personally, and
alone is called Problema; therefore the Father, insofar as one of His own names is His alone,
surpasses the not-alone Son, but also the Spirit. But these things are blasphemous; for the Father
alone is Father, and alone is Probulos in Himself; and the Son alone is Son, and alone is Logos
distinctly; and the Spirit according to His own hypostasis in the divine Trinity, is both alone Spirit,
and alone is called Problema; and equality is not equally found in all the divine persons and no
incongruity follows in any of them.
Paragraph 27: But if the Father alone has one of His own names in relation to the Son alone,
and another in relation to the Spirit alone, but the Son has both names proper to Himself in relation
to the Father alone; but the Holy Spirit has relation neither to one person or another, nor only to
one but also to two, and both [relations] not in all; therefore inequality is found in all the relations of

285
the divine persons; because the Father alone is Father in relation to two persons, the Son and the
Spirit, insofar as they are two, as is given in Scripture; but the Son alone is referred directly to only
one person, the Father, insofar as the Father is a person; but the Holy Spirit alone has the relation to
two persons, but not directly to both, nor immediately, nor insofar as they are two, but insofar as
these things are fabricated by some.
Paragraph 28: But if neither the Logos is said to be of the Spirit, nor the Spirit of the Logos is
clearly proclaimed by the theologians, there is nothing unreasonable; for since according to cause,
neither the Logos is of the Spirit, nor the Spirit is of the Logos, reasonably on account of this it is
not said by all; however, according to the account of essence, since both the Logos is believed by all
to be of the Spirit, and the Spirit of the Logos, just as no account prevents the being, so no account
prevents the being said; for the being is much more certain than the being said; for the being
necessarily implies the being said, but the being said does not necessarily bring about the being; for
neither is the Father said to be of the Spirit, nor the Probulos (Projector) of the Son, nor is the Son
theologically defined as of the Probulos, nor the Logos of the Problema (Proceeding)—away with
that!—neither the Spirit of the Father, nor the Problema of the Son insofar as Problema, as was said
a little before. The Father is related to the Son, and the Probulos to the Problema relatively, and the
Son to the Father, and the Problema to the Probulos are referred causally, and the Logos to the
Spirit, and the Spirit to the Logos, are theologically defined by the theologians by the relation of
essence alone; and on account of this, just as one Spirit, and one Problema, and one Son, and one
Logos, so also one Father, and one Probulos (I speak according to hypostasis) are glorified in the
divine Trinity; not a double Spirit or Problema, nor double Son or Logos, nor double Probulos or
Father; but all duality is banished from there.
Paragraph 29: But if the Father alone has one of His own names only in relation to the Son, and
another only in relation to the Spirit; but the Son has both names proper to Himself only in relation
to the Father; but the Holy Spirit has relation neither to one person or another, nor only to one but
also to two, and both not in all; therefore inequality is found in all the relations of the divine
persons; because the Father alone is Father in relation to two persons, the Son and the Spirit, insofar
as they are two, as is given in Scripture; but the Son alone is referred directly to only one person, the
Father, insofar as the Father is a person; but the Holy Spirit alone has the relation to two persons,
but not directly to both, nor immediately, nor insofar as they are two, but insofar as these things are
fabricated by some. If, of this group of six personal names, some of them are proper to those to
whom they belong, and simple; but one is common to two, and double, namely the Probulos
(Projector); but if also the Holy Spirit, not according to essence, but only according to hypostasis, is
both Spirit and Problema (Proceeding), and the Son likewise, not according to nature, but according
to His own person, is believed to be both Son and Logos, then the Father would not reasonably be
believed to be alone in being Father, but not alone in being Probulos; for thus also the Son would be
said to be alone in being, but not alone in being Logos; and the Spirit likewise, would have being as
Spirit according to His own hypostasis and alone, but being Problema common with another person;

286
for what is common to two hypostases loses its property entirely; but just as the Logos of the
speaker has nowhere been found theologically defined, so neither has the Spirit of the one breathing
been said by our interpreters; but the Logos being of the Father and of the Spirit, of the one as
from a principle, and of the other as consubstantial, and the Spirit of the Father and of the Logos,
of the one as from a cause, and of the other as consubstantial, is believed by all.
Paragraph 30: But let the one saying that the Logos is only of the Father, and not also of the
Spirit, construct a syllogism from the propositions that he himself considers true, and let him show
from them a conclusion, or rather let him show from our conclusion, that it is not true. Let this be
shown by proposing thus from the underlying terms: The Logos is Logos only of the Father, and
not also of the Spirit; but the Father, not insofar as Father, but insofar as Probulos, is of the Spirit;
therefore the Logos not insofar as Logos, but insofar as Son, is of the Spirit; but this is
blasphemous; therefore he must recant, and construct a syllogism according to the second, the fifth
syllogism of this theorem. And again, the one saying that the Logos is only of the Father as Logos,
and not also of the Spirit, by considering the Spirit foreign and entirely without a share of the
unoriginate and consubstantial Logos, will live with Macedonius. Again, the one saying that the
Logos, as Logos, is only of the Father, and not also of the Spirit, denies all those things in this
theorem and subverts both the middle term and the conclusions from them; and this is clear from
this. For in the way that the one saying that the Spirit is only of the Father as Spirit, and not also of
the Logos, removes the middle term of the Father and the Logos, that is, the Holy Spirit, so also the
one saying that the Logos, as Logos, is of the Father, and not also of the Spirit, removes the middle
term of the Father and the Spirit; that is, the Logos of God Himself; but this is to subvert piety.
Paragraph 31: Thus, by defining the terms thus, and not by all the divine persons, and not by all
the divine names, no absurdity is concluded; nevertheless, for a clearer understanding of the truth
hidden in these things, let us set forth the same terms, according to the opinion, or will, of the
Italians.

• The Father is Father to the Son.

• But the Son, neither insofar as Son, nor insofar as Logos, but insofar as Probulos
(Projector), is of the Spirit.
• Therefore, the Father, neither insofar as Father, nor insofar as Probulos, but
according to some inconceivable and unimaginable name, or in no way, is of the
Spirit.

• Again, the Son is Son of the Father.

• But the Father, in some way, or account, is of the Spirit.
• Therefore, the Son, neither insofar as Son, nor insofar as Logos, nor insofar as
Probulos, is of the Spirit.

287
 • Again, the Spirit is Spirit of the Son.
• But the Son, not insofar as Son, but insofar as Logos, is of the Spirit.
• But may God the Logos be merciful! And you, Holy Spirit, Paraclete! Thus here no
one is able to even mutter, nor open his lips, nor say anything sound; thus not only
a syllogism does not arise from this hypothesis, but also a swarm of countless
absurdities immediately follows.

Paragraph 32: But let the Italians see to their own affairs, but we will turn our minds to the
proposed theorem. Since therefore the same is also the Spirit, not only is called Spirit, but also
Problema (Proceeding); and the same, and one, is believed to be not only Son, but also Logos; the
same and one Father is glorified by all as not only Father, but also Probulos; in the way that the one
calling the Holy Spirit the Problema calls the Spirit, and the one calling the Problema calls the Spirit,
and the one theologizing about the Son theologizes about the Logos, and the one discoursing about
the Logos discourses about the Son, in the same way entirely, the one signifying the Father signified
the Probulos, and the one saying the Probulos declared the Father, and especially if even without the
addition of Son, or Spirit, he simply calls Father, or Probulos; for if insofar as Father He is said in
relation to the Son, and insofar as Probulos in relation to the Problema, but still one and the same is
the Father in Himself, and someone else is the Probulos; so neither is one the Son specifically, and
another different from Him the Logos; nor is one thing the Spirit according to existence, and
another thing the Problema, as a person. That these things are true, those setting forth the sacred
Symbol are witnesses, being sufficient to say, “and in the Holy Spirit, the one proceeding from the
Father,” so that the voice of the Father is understood in place of the Probulos, by those not
wickedly interpreting the theological words. This is also what is meant by the Theadelphus [James]
saying, “from the Father of lights every good giving and every perfect gift is descending,”
theologizing. And what do I say of Theadelphus, and the Fathers? When the Savior Himself says in
the Gospels, “the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father,” instead of saying from the
Probulos.
Paragraph 33: So that the same person, the Father, alone in the divine Trinity, is both Father
alone and Probulos (Projector), according to His own hypostasis; and no blasphemy follows if He
alone is spoken of; only impiously, that is, not Father only of the Spirit, but also Probulos; but cause,
the Father alone, and alone of both. Just as indeed the same person, the Son, alone in the same
blessed Trinity, is both Son alone and Logos (Word) according to His own hypostasis; and no
absurdity follows if He alone is spoken of; only correctly, that is, not Son only of the Spirit, but only
Logos of the Spirit; but either Logos of both as has been said before, but Son only of the Father.
Just as therefore, the same person, the Spirit, alone in the same super-essential Trinity, is both Spirit
and Problema (Proceeding) according to hypostasis, and no blasphemy [or ill-repute] follows if He
alone is spoken of, only orthodoxly; that is, it follows if not Problema only of the Son, but only
Spirit of the Father; but either Spirit of both, as has been shown before, but Problema only of the

288
Father. But if according to some, the Spirit personally proceeds not only from the person of the
Father, but from both persons, Father and Son, nothing prevents the one believing thus from saying,
I confess the Father, and the Son to be the same Probuloi, and Co-projectors, and one Probulos of
one Spirit according to hypostasis; but to glorify the Father and the Holy Spirit as Fathers, and Co-
fathers, and one Father of one Son, is foreign to the Church; and therefore to believe the Father and
the Son to be of one person as cause, and two causes, and co-causes of the same according to
hypostasis, is rejected by the Orthodox.
Paragraph 34: But let all these things be said thus in words as they are written; and let it suffice
for those choosing to be Orthodox most gladly; but let it be contemplated more accurately in the
diagram of this theorem, so that not only by hearing, but also through our sight, we may be led from
here to the understanding of the truth. And if anyone dares to alter this, as if it does not belong to
the great Hierotheos, but is mine, or of any of mine, whoever the theorem is, if he remains a
Christian, he is not able to alter any of the names from which it is composed—that is, the Father,
the Probulos, I mean the Son, the Logos, the Spirit, the Problema; for if one removes any of the
terms from which it is composed, by no means can he change any from what they are; for if one
changes any, in addition to the non-syllogistic, immediately blasphemy follows, not being able to
change the terms, he necessarily, even unwillingly, confesses the conclusions following from these;
thus this theorem is constituted in itself and unassailable; on account of this I indeed call this the
theorem of all theological theorems.
Paragraph 35: But lest by dwelling on every arising thought we seem to be showing ourselves off,
and troubling your holiness, let it suffice to say this and stop; that I myself have proposed these
things to you, both in word and in writing; but it is up to you now to complete all things well both in
words and in deeds, so that we may not fall short in anything. But God of all, the Father, and the
Son, and the Holy Spirit, the self-life, and the self-truth, and the self-wisdom, may unite those
separated from each other by schisms, and those far from Him by errors, as He is able in whatever
ways He knows. Amen.

END OF THE FIRST TOME.

289
Diagrams

i
Diagrams

Σχ.Β.

ii
Diagrams

iii
THE END