Gregory palamas's two demonstrative treatises concerning the procession of the holy spirit

 But o god of all, the sole giver and guardian of true theology and of the dogmas and words according to it, the only most monarchical trinity, not onl

 For because of this, having been both taught and enlightened, they were sent, so that they might teach as they were taught, so that they might enlight

 Being refuted by those who have written down the particulars of all the holy synods, and by the very agreement, from those times until now and rather

 Hearing [him] begotten of the father before all ages and having the [word] alone understood and implied along with [the phrase] from the father, j

 Shall we fall away from this? may you not suffer this, or rather, may you not remain incurable having suffered it for the right has already become kn

 Of the father, not as being necessarily co-understood? therefore, when it is said so many times concerning the son that he is from the father and now

 Of the father. but the one by adoption is not from him alone but through the son from the father, and yet is not son only, but also spirit by grace: “

 But nowhere did any of the theologians say either two or three. for just as we say that each of those three adorable hypostases is god and that each o

 They say, therefore, that the one is from the other. what then of seth? was he begotten from one principle, because eve was from adam, (p. 106) and ar

 Differs in nothing from the hypostatic [properties] therefore also the nature from the hypostasis, so that god, according to them, is not three-hypos

 And the son. therefore without the cause and beginning of the divinity conceived in the trinity therefore the son has all things of (p. 114) the fath

 Understanding, and that the spirit proceeds from another, on account of your ignorance concerning the word “alone”?

 If, indeed, it were possible to name these things, such as father of light or projector of the holy spirit, how would gregory, the great in theology,

 Is a union of the father and the spirit. how then does the same gregory, great in theology, say, the unoriginate and the origin and that which is wit

 And what of the one who exhorts both theologically and patristically in metrical verses, that if you should hear about the son and the spirit, ‘as the

 An apostle: but if this, it is not a creature, but rather god, as from god and in god.” and again, “the spirit therefore is god, existing naturally in

 For we have heard a little above from the one named the theologian, who said that the father is the source and origin of eternal light, but the son is

 For if you say that the spirit is spoken of after the son, being enumerated, which seems to you the safer of arguments—though i would say it is no les

 He brought forth the word. but what he says in the first of his books *against eunomius*, that there is a form of order not according to our arrangem

 Has it been handed down to be initiated? god and father, the beginning of all things, is father of the only-begotten son, who even before being added

 Of the consubstantiality of the spirit, even if the latins force the sayings, dragging their meaning into their own evil-mindedness.

 Of the god-befitting and most provident dispensations we render through all things the most concise doxology and thanksgiving and remembrance not tha

 Was called by none of the apostles or the evangelists, but instead of this the voice of the father was sufficient for them. and by beginning i do not

 Unassailable by those who do evil and who corrupt by counterfeiting the word of truth, known to all, wise and simple alike, and always on their lips.

 Immediately, but not also from the son. we have additionally shown that, since the spirit is called the mind of christ, just as also our own

 It is said and not from him, but with him, who was begotten from the father, the spirit also proceeds.

 Furthermore after this we speak concerning the principle, and how the latin-minded answer sophistically to those who ask them, if they say there are t

 They are willing, but at those who give a hand for correction—the power of the word of truth that leads to truth—they, like some who are truly incorri

 Testimonies, if not rightly understood, would be able to assist those who excuse themselves unseasonably or to deliver them from their impiety and the

 With god assisting us, having refuted them, (p. 192) and as it were undermining certain foundations, we will prove the whole edifice of their impiety

 “john the son of zacharias,” according to the divine evangelist luke, (p. 196) and “as the lord spoke through his holy prophets to show mercy,” zachar

 But do you see how this insufflation hints at the spirit being present and effecting the renewal for the better of the human soul, which we believe is

 Varieties of services, but the same lord and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same god.” the divine powers and the

 Shining in part? but concerning that which is now the subject, let us see the promise: and where is the not many days hence?

 Whatever the father has is mine, he receives from what is mine and will announce it for both the wealth and the gifts are common to us.

 It is fitting to glorify the eternal spirit but it is necessary that those to whom the manifestation is directed also be co-eternal, and in addition,

 His. after him the holy spirit was manifested, the same glories of the same nature and

 He sent, having returned whence he came down. but the son is both god and has become man therefore he was sent also as man the spirit was not incarn

 Being signified, but not being the in-breathing itself, as having its existence by necessity from that from which the in-breathing is and if being se

 Of the relation and of the surpassing connaturality and of the incomprehensible and ineffable perichoresis, we again find and proclaim him the father,

 The holy spirit? i think not, unless he clearly wishes to fight against god. but, he says, it is called the spirit of the son himself and his own. fo

 And they set aside the essence and the hypostasis of the all-holy spirit. therefore, the conclusion from division of the latin hypothetical syllogism

 And there by the theologians, as indicative of the hypostasis of the father, but not as the son also being a co-cause with respect to the godhead.

 The holy spirit. but those who connect or make pretexts first refute each,

 Opposing them or both theologians according to them? by no means. therefore we shall strike this one or those ones from the choir of the orthodox, acc

 Of creatures, it is so much more magnificent for the first cause to be the origin of divinity than of creatures and to come to the creatures through a

 Of the all-working god the father towards the generation and procession of the son, creator of all things and the one perfecting all things, neither t

 Proceeds from the father and from me? for he was not then speaking more humbly of himself, for which reason he would have omitted this alone, conceal

 Proceeds, having this as a distinctive sign of its existence in its hypostasis: to be known after the son and with him and to subsist from the father.

 The discourse is concerning the economy?» and after a little: for he says here the grace that came upon the flesh for all grace was poured out into t

 According to the principle of its proper cause, that is, that the son is contemplated before [the spirit] from the father, stands in the way, preventi

 To ablabius, on why, when we speak of one divinity in the father and the son and the holy spirit, we are forbidden to speak of three gods, having esta

 To exist, just as the holy spirit, yet causally by generation, and the holy spirit also exists causally, but not by generation.

 To theologians, for the sake of greater clarity. cain was the son of adam and his only-begotten before he begat the others, but eve was a part and sh

 We shall understand and take the preposition through as with, along with gregory, who is named for theology, saying, one god for us, the beginnin

 God of all? but i do not speak of him as co-creating, he says, but as co-proceeding. therefore, co-proceeding, the spirit will perfect (p. 298) himsel

 But, was not the mission of the word to us, which proceeded from both the father and the spirit, also essential? but the mission was not a generation

 As the nature of the father and the son is one and the same. for to speak according to the divine cyril himself, as he himself writes to hermias, “the

 Of the spirit as more manifest and foretold and fore-believed and the son has naturally in himself the father's own and exceptional properties, the

 But that one whole. but if his energy is immeasurable, much more his essence». thus the power of the truth spoken by us conquers all things, making yo

 He proclaims christ the son. and the divine cyril in his *treasures* concludes that the spirit exists naturally in the son from the father, and says t

 For the spirit to proceed from those made like unto the son by grace for most particularly from the father, as from him alone having its pre-eternal

 Proceeding from the father himself that is, each of them immediately and from the father alone, that is, from the very hypostasis of the father. but

 Of the divine sign from the heavens and the earth was shaken sensibly. do you see in such a sign that which proceeds not only being of the spirit, but

 The word of wisdom is given by the spirit, and to another the word of knowledge.” but christ also dwells in the hearts of those who are not reprobate,

 Counter-inscriptions

 Second inscription (p. 348) since there are some who contradict the scriptural testimonies, which declare through the son

 The son alongside the spirit. do you see how the sayings of the saints are both pious and good, but when taken up by you, are evil and impious?

 Sixth inscription. since there are some who say that 'proceeds' and 'is poured forth' and the

 They represent the father and the son as consubstantial with the holy spirit as far as is possible for it is not possible to find a perfectly suitabl

 Proper to the son and from the essence of the son, the son would also be proper to the spirit and from the essence of the spirit because of the conver

 Having its hypostasis from the substance is not from the remaining hypostases, but from some one of them, namely the paternal for it is not possible

 You perhaps think we should give an account for not writing more often but we think we must apologize even for writing after so long a time. and what

 Testify to a creative principle? if, therefore, because it is written “the principle from the principle,” nothing prevents us from speaking of two pri

 Let us clarify the power of the most monarchical principle and refute those who dogmatize two principles for the one spirit, both that they dogmatize

 To the cause of the son, for he too is equally a cause of divinity, or in saying it is from the father alone, let them piously grant one principle in

 To think and to call, but never demonstrative, i am far from positing. for the inscriptions of the patristic sayings do not allow us to accept this, a

 Is added to it. for no one, he says, is good, except one, god, the only wise, the blessed and only potentate, who alone has immortality, dwelling

 And they conclude in a most archetypal principle? what then when we make demonstrations from things that are posterior, but prior to us, of the that

 (p. 428) receiving, and that it is divided, even if not in itself, for which reason also in division it remains undivided, and that even in what is di

 Having also written to him to do him this favor as a messenger, that if any discourse were left to us, it should come from us not to another, but to h

 For it behaves indecently and ruins with interest and, know well, forces harsher arguments from us against those who are of a firm mind), but now afte

 First to barlaam (p. 444)

 Shall we cast away both? and how could you declare this, sitting as an arbiter over your own affairs, and not rather force the votes, desiring at leas

 As i am able, i shall make it brief, being least willing to prolong it. besides, since the one who caused the scandal has been removed from our midst,

 To one who clearly lies about things so clearly written? and how could one who does not hold truth in high regard attain to the truth when discoursing

 And what apology he proposes, although it is a cold one and puts forward those things of the latins which have been refuted in many places and by us o

 To the subject at hand: therefore, the example is one thing and that for which it became an example is another, but it is not because it is other that

 Arranging them by your own authority, of whom you intemperately accuse? and not only the living, but also those who long ago departed to heaven and ar

 These things would be predicated, not universally». for the super-essential and super-good and super-wise and super-luminous, of what else could it be

 So that i may refute you on your own terms and the saying of solomon may come to pass: he who digs a pit for his neighbor will fall into it. what th

 To speak of demonstrations, to this i would have ascribed the demonstration, not to those things from which i syllogistically deduced it.

 To have become.” what is this you are saying, o man? did those men come to be in communion with an intellectual and divine light?

 Do they bear witness to this? what is this, diogenes? i trample, says diogenes, on the pride of plato. with a different pride, diogenes, plato dec

 The indwelling of grace, of a wonderful kind, almost ineffable and unheard of. for what word could explain how it both pervades everything and in itse

 Nor did the attendant daimonion of socrates, which he obeyed throughout his life, reveal to you, the philosopher of our time, what their illumination

 But let us leave this aside but i would add, telling you, 'cast away not only the ideas, but also the theories and the falsely named lights of this m

 To be knowledge, and sensation would teach. have you seen how far this demonstration is from that which is beyond demonstration? almost as much as

 You bring astronomical science, that is, the geometrical necessities will become weaker than spiderwebs and will fall apart, dissolved by your most de

 Being neither dialectical nor demonstrative but that they are not dialectical was very easy for me to show, by merely indicating that the premises th

 He makes them out to be a wonder, as having understood the divine excellence, and having brought them forward to tell about intelligible light (p. 5

 Of a discourse that has been refuted and unwillingly supports our own arguments. but if the example has been found from that very source, one ought to

 Is, but that also is true, that no one has ever seen god, this is what we said, that some divine things can be contemplated, but others cannot.

 May grant that knowledge is gathered through contact with intelligible things, but divine things are also beyond mind how then could there be a diale

 Gathering himself as much as possible, he uses the power of arguments against us, declaring that nothing of divine matters is knowable or demonstrable

 Is known by knowledge and by unknowing” for that he is and that he is one is both known and demonstrated, but what he is and what sort of one is comp

 I think i should pass over. for on the one hand, no one was ignorant that nothing exists in god by participation, and on the other hand, no one has so

 What is said of other essences in themselves, this also exists for god as what is said concerning him for it is not possible to be and not to be if

 Knowledge of god? for that which belongs to something in itself, it is not possible (p. 554) in any way for this not to be that. what do i mean? to be

 But without proof there will be none. let us then set against plato his own teachings, as he is willingly set in opposition,

 May be weaker in power, and that a demonstration from fewer postulates is not simply held to be superior, but that one from more is better than it, wh

 Among them who have a rational, intelligent soul, do those who have surpassed all their kin in contemplation not even have a 'shadow of a shadow' of g

 Elijah, having rested his head on his knees and thus having gathered his mind more laboriously into himself and into god, loosed that manifold drought

 He transferred the doubling of the shadow from that to this, or rather, he does not even grant this to the observers of invisible things. and having s

 For you yourself declare in your letters to us that a demonstrative principle and premise must be known by nature.

 The universal has been synthesized for me from perceptions. what then, o philosopher? did you perceive the days and periods and eclipses that occurre

 Of our piety and of his false doctrine, since even the great basil was called a tritheist by those who blasphemed against the son and the holy spirit.

 Of him, even if with his lips he allegedly claims he is god. but god has, he says, energies, but they are created for every energy of god, apart f

 Power and energy, from the patristic sayings put forth by us on these matters, he has gathered and composed against us, or rather against the holy fat

 For all such things, passing into one another through one another, proceed towards non-being. but he who affirms that only the essence is uncreated, b

 Of transcendent and most simple holiness and lordship and kingship and divinity is every good providence, beholding and sustaining the objects of its

 Now barlaam proclaims ditheism, supposedly against us for it is clear that he makes this notorious for the sake of slandering the unassailable theolo

 Created, because of which he began to be and ceased, but because of the divine and uncreated grace, and ever-existing beyond all nature and time from

 To breathe a little, lest he become a suicide. for i heard him say in person here, that he often was in danger of bursting from helplessness, i suppo

 Having purposed to obscure that choir and the wonderful harmony, having instilled no small courage in him.

shall we fall away from this? May you not suffer this, or rather, may you not remain incurable having suffered it; for the right has already become known to you.

And indeed we say the Son is from the Father, as having been begotten from the divine essence, clearly according to the paternal hypostasis; for the essence of the three is one; so that begetting is suited to the paternal hypostasis and it is not possible for the Son to be from the Spirit. Since therefore the Holy Spirit is also from the Father, proceeding also from the divine essence according to the paternal hypostasis; for the essence is in every way and altogether one for the three. Therefore, to proceed is suited to the paternal hypostasis and it is not possible for the Spirit to be also from the Son, for it is not for the Son to have the properties of the paternal hypostasis.

For according to the sacred Damascene, "we recognize the difference of the divine hypostases in only three properties, in the uncaused and paternal, in the caused and filial, and in the (p. 90) caused and processional." Do you see how the hypostasis of the Son is not also a cause, but only caused? For, he says, it has only this property, just as does that of the Spirit. And do you also see this, that the paternal property, insofar as it is paternal, embraces both begetting and proceeding? Therefore, if the Holy Spirit is also from the Son, the Son would be at once both cause and Father as cause.

Therefore it is possible for the Son to have something of the paternal hypostasis; and if He has, either there will be two causes, since procession is in two hypostases (for thus there are also two caused, since the caused is considered in two hypostases), or the Father and the Son will merge into one hypostasis. Therefore the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, and immediately and directly from the Father, just as the Son is begotten from the Father.

For this reason also Gregory, the divine prelate of Nyssa, says, "all the persons of man do not have their being from the same person immediately, so that the causes are many and different in addition to the caused. But in the case of the Holy Trinity it is not so; for there is one and the same person of the Father, from whom the Son is begotten and the Holy Spirit proceeds. For this reason also we confidently say that the one cause with its caused is properly one God."

Have you then understood, being struck by the word of truth, and are you relearning the truth and are you persuaded by God and the fathers according to God, so that hearing the Spirit is from the Father you understand this to mean from Him alone, and no longer furnish existence to Him from different persons, but to theologize the immediate origin from the one, the Father, not only of the Son, but also of the Holy Spirit, glorifying God as one person, the cause of His caused, but not saying one cause as two persons of the same essence of the one, for thus (p. 92) the causes become many, as it happens in our case, and no longer one God, just as we are not all one man, even if we are of the same essence?

Are you then persuaded according to these things by God and by those who theologize according to God, or do you seek still to have heard through thunder, like those who after the many divine signs of Jesus sought to see a sign from the heavens? Hear then also the thunder, of John, the most theological of the Lord's disciples, who says: "we have seen His glory, the glory as of an only-begotten from the Father." What then, shall we not say the only-begotten is from the Father alone, since "alone" is not added? But also the Lord Himself, speaking to the Jews, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I have come," and again, "not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from God, He has seen the Father," why did he not add "alone," saying 'I came from the Father alone,' or "He who is from the

τοῦτο ἐκπεσούμεθα; Μή σύ γε τοῦτο πάθῃς, μᾶλλον δέ μή διαμείνῃς ἀνίατος παθών˙ γνωστόν γάρ ἤδη γέγονέ σοι τό ὀρθόν.

Καί μήν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός φαμεν εἶναι τόν Υἱόν, ὡς ἐκ τῆς θείας οὐσίας γεννηθέντα, δηλονότι κατά τήν πατρικήν ὑπόστασιν˙ ἡ γάρ οὐσία μία τῶν τριῶν ἐστιν˙ ὥστε τό γεννᾶν τῇ πατρικῇ ὑποστάσει ἐφαρμόζεται καί οὐκ ἔστιν εἶναι τόν Υἱόν ἐκ τοῦ Πνεύματος. Ἐπεί οὖν καί τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός, ἐκ τῆς θείας οὐσίας καί αὐτό κατά τήν πατρικήν ὑπόστασιν ἐκπορευόμενόν ἐστιν˙ ἡ γάρ οὐσία πάντῃ τε καί πάντως μία τῶν τριῶν. Οὐκοῦν τό ἐκπορεύειν τῇ πατρικῇ ὑποστάσει ἐφαρμόζεται καί οὐκ ἔστιν εἶναι τό Πνεῦμα καί ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ, οὐ γάρ ἐστι τά τῆς πατρικῆς ὑποστάσεως ἔχειν τόν Υἱόν.

Κατά γάρ τόν ἱερόν ∆αμασκηνόν, «τήν διαφοράν τῶν θείων ὑποστάσεων ἐν μόναις τρισίν ἰδιότησιν ἐπιγινώσκομεν, τῇ ἀναιτίῳ καί πατρικῇ, τῇ αἰτιατῇ καί υἱϊκῇ, καί τῇ (σελ. 90) αἰτιατῇ καί ἐκπορευτῇ». Ὁρᾷς ὡς ἡ τοῦ Υἱοῦ ὑπόστασις οὐχί καί αἰτία, ἀλλ᾿ αἰτιατή μόνον ἐστί; Μόνην γάρ, φησί, ταύτην ἔχει τήν ἰδιότητα, καθάπερ καί ἡ τοῦ Πνεύματος. Συνορᾷς δέ καί τοῦτο, ὡς ἡ πατρική, καθό πατρική ἰδιότης, ἄμφω τό γεννᾶν καί ἐκπορεύειν συμπεριβάλλει; Τοιγαροῦν, εἰ καί ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον, εἴη ἄν καί ὁ Υἱός αἴτιός τε ἅμα καί Πατήρ ὡς αἴτιος.

Οὐκοῦν ἔνι τι τῶν τῆς πατρικῆς ὑποστάσεως ἔχειν τόν Υἱόν˙ εἰ δ᾿ ἔχει, ἤ δύο ἔσονται τά αἴτια, ὡς ἐν δυσίν ὑποστάσεσι τοῦ ἐκπορεύειν ὄντος (οὕτω γάρ δύο καί τά αἰτιατά, ὡς τοῦ αἰτιατοῦ ἐν δυσίν ὑποστάσεσι θεωρουμένου), ἤ συνδραμοῦνται εἰς μίαν τήν ὑπόστασιν ὁ Πατήρ καί ὁ Υἱός. Ἐκ μόνου ἄρα τοῦ Πατρός ἐκπορεύεται τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον, καί προσεχῶς καί ἀμέσως ἐκ Πατρός, ὡς καί ὁ Υἱός ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός γεννᾶται.

∆ιό καί Γρηγόριος ὁ Νύσσης θεῖος πρόεδρος, «τά τοῦ ἀνθρώπου», φησί, «πρόσωπα πάντα, οὐκ ἀπό τοῦ αὐτοῦ προσώπου κατά τό προσεχές ἔχει τό εἶναι, ὡς πολλά καί διάφορα εἶναι πρός τοῖς αἰτιατοῖς καί τά αἴτια. Ἐπί δέ τῆς ἁγίας Τριάδος οὐχ οὕτως˙ ἕν γάρ πρόσωπον καί τό αὐτό τοῦ Πατρός, ἐξ οὗπερ ὁ Υἱός γεννᾶται καί τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον ἐκπορεύεται. ∆ιό καί κυρίως τό ἕνα αἴτιον μετά τῶν αὐτοῦ αἰτιατῶν ἕνα Θεόν φαμεν τεθαρρηκότως».

Ἆρα νοῦν ἔλαβες πληγείς τῷ τῆς ἀληθείας λόγῳ καί μεταμανθάνεις τήν ἀλήθειαν καί πείθῃ Θεῷ καί τοῖς κατά Θεόν πατράσιν, ὡς ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός ἀκούων τό Πνεῦμα συνυπακούειν τό ἐκ μόνου καί μηκέτ᾿ ἐκ διαφόρων προσώπων τήν ὕπαρξιν αὐτῷ παρέχειν, ἀλλ᾿ ἐκ τοῦ ἑνός, τοῦ Πατρός, κατά τό προσεχές θεολογεῖν, οὐ τόν Υἱόν μόνον, ἀλλά καί τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον ἕν πρόσωπον τό αἴτιον τῶν αὐτοῦ αἰτιατῶν εἶναι δοξάζων τόν Θεόν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐχ ἕν αἴτιον ὡς τῆς αὐτῆς οὐσίας τά δύο πρόσωπα λέγων τοῦ ἑνός, οὕτω γάρ (σελ. 92) πολλά γίνεται τά αἴτια, ὡς ἐφ᾿ ἡμῶν συμβαίνει, καί οὐκέτι Θεός εἷς, ὥσπερ οὐδ᾿ ἡμεῖς εἷς οἱ πάντες ἄνθρωπος, εἰ καί τῆς αὐτῆς ἐσμεν οὐσίας;

Ἆρ᾿ οὖν πείθῃ κατά ταῦτα Θεῷ καί τοῖς κατά Θεόν θεολογοῦσιν ἤ ζητεῖς ἔτι καί διά βροντῆς ἀκηκοέναι κατά τούς μετά τάς πολλάς Ἰησοῦ θεοσημίας σημεῖον ζητοῦντας ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανῶν ἰδεῖν; Ἄκουε δή καί τῆς βροντῆς, Ἰωάννου καί θεολογικωτάτου τῶν τοῦ Κυρίου μαθητῶν, ὅς φησιν˙ «εἴδομεν τήν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρά τοῦ πατρός». Τί οὖν, οὐκ ἐροῦμεν τόν μονογενῆ παρά μόνου τοῦ Πατρός, ἐπεί μή πρόσκειται τοῦ «μόνου»; Ἀλλά καί ὁ Κύριος αὐτός πρός Ἰουδαίους λέγων, «εἰ ὁ Θεός πατήρ ὑμῶν ἦν, ἠγαπᾶτε ἄν ἐμέ, ἐγώ γάρ ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐξῆλθον καί ἥκων», καί πάλιν, «οὐχ ὅτι τις ἑώρακε τόν πατέρα, εἰ μή ὁ ὤν παρά τοῦ Θεοῦ, οὗτος ἑώρακε τόν πατέρα», πῶς οὐ προσέθηκε τό «μόνου» λέγων 'ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός μόνου ἐξῆλθον', ἤ "ὁ ὤν παρά μόνου τοῦ