GREGORY PALAMAS' TWO APODEICTIC TREATISES CONCERNING THE PROCESSION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

 But O God of all, the only giver and guardian of true theology and of the dogmas and words according to it, the only most monarchical Trinity, not onl

 Since also for this reason, having been taught and enlightened, they were sent forth, that they might teach as they were taught, that they might enlig

 being refuted by those who have recorded the details of all the holy councils, and by the very agreement, from them until now and indeed forever, of t

 hearing that He was begotten of the Father before all ages, and having the word “alone” understood and implied with that which is from the Father, jus

 shall we fall from this? May you not suffer this, or rather, may you not remain incurable having suffered it for the correct way has already become k

 of the Father, is it not understood by necessity? When it has been said so many times, therefore, concerning the Son that He is from the Father, and

 of the Father but the one by adoption is not from him alone but through the Son from the Father, and yet he 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 each of th

 They say, therefore, that the one is from the other. What then of Seth? Was he born from one principle, because Eve was from Adam, (p. 106) and are th

 differs in nothing from the hypostatic [properties] therefore neither does the nature from the hypostasis, so that, according to them, God is not of

 and the Son. Therefore without the cause and principle of the divinity understood in the Trinity: the Son therefore has all things of (p. 114) the Fat

 mind, and that the Spirit proceeds from another because of your ignorance concerning 'alone'?

 If 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, not h

 is the 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 w

 What of him who exhorts us in measured Epic verse, at once theologically and patristically, that if you should hear concerning the Son and the Spirit,

 apostle. But if this is so, He is not a creature, but rather God, as from God and in God”. And again, “The Spirit therefore is God, existing naturally

 For we heard a little above from the one named for theology, who said that the Father is the source and origin of eternal light, but the Son is in no

 For if you should say that the Spirit is numbered and spoken of after the Son, which seems to you the more secure of arguments, although I would say i

 he brought forth the Word. But what he says in the first book of *Against Eunomius*, that there is a form of order not according to

 has been handed down to be initiated? God and Father, the principle of all things, is Father of the only-begotten Son, who even before being added to

 of the consubstantiality of the Spirit, even if the Latins force the sayings, dragging their meaning into their own malevolence.

 of the God-befitting and most provident economies we render through all things the most concise doxology and eucharist and remembrance not that they

 he was called by none of the apostles or of the evangelists, but instead of this the voice of the Father sufficed for them. And by principle I do not

 unassailable by evildoers and by those who fraudulently corrupt the word of truth by counterfeiting, known to all, both wise and unlearned, and always

 immediately, but not also from the Son. We have additionally demonstrated that, since the Spirit is also called the mind of Christ, just as also of us

 It is said and not from Him, but with Him, begotten from the Father, and the Spirit proceeds.

 Furthermore, after this we speak concerning the principle, and how those who think in the Latin way respond sophistically to those asking them, if the

 they are willing, but to those who offer a hand for correction, the power of the word of truth leading to truth, they, like some truly uneducated peop

 testimonies, not well understood, might be able to assist those who excuse themselves unseasonably or to deliver them from their impiety and the etern

 With God working with us, having refuted them, (p. 192) and as it were having undermined certain foundations, we will show that the whole edifice of t

 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 you see how this inbreathing signifies the Spirit as present and perfecting the renewal for the better of the human soul, which we believe is acco

 there are varieties of service, but the same Lord and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God.” Therefore, the divine powers and en

 shining in part? But concerning what the discourse is now, let us see the promise. But where is the not many days hence? Having advanced a little in

 all that the Father has is mine, he takes 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 for those to whom the manifestation is directed to be co-eternal, and it is added tha

 of him. After him, the Holy Spirit was revealed, itself providing to the apostles by grace the same glories of the same nature,

 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 did not become in

 signified, but not being the inbreathing itself, so as of necessity to have its existence from that from which is the inbreathing and if also sent, i

 of the relation and of the surpassing co-naturality and of the incomprehensible and ineffable perichoresis, we find and proclaim Him again, the Father

 the Holy Spirit? I do not think so, unless he clearly wishes to fight against God. But, he says, the Spirit is also called of the Son Himself and His

 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 Father's hypostasis, but not as of the Son also being a joint-cause with respect to the Godhead.

 Holy Spirit. But those who connect or make pretexts first refute each,

 contradicting, or both theologians in accordance with them? By no means. Therefore, according to you, we shall strike this one or those ones from the

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

 of the all-working God the Father with respect to the generation and procession of the Son, the creator of all things and who consummates all things,

 of the Father and proceeds from Me? For He was not then speaking more humbly concerning Himself, on which account He would have omitted this alone, c

 proceeds, having this as a distinctive sign of its existence according to its hypostasis: to be known after the Son and with Him, and to subsist from

 the discourse is about the economy?» And a little later: for here he speaks of the grace that came upon the flesh for all grace was poured out into

 according to the principle of its proper cause, that is, that the Son is contemplated as being from the Father, stands in the way, preventing the Spir

 To Ablabius, on why, when we speak of one divinity in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, we forbid speaking of three gods, having set forth t

 to exist, just as the Holy Spirit, caused, however, by generation, and that the Holy Spirit also exists caused, but not by generation.

 to theologians, for the sake of greater clarity. Cain was the son of Adam and his only-begotten before he begot the others, but Eve was a part and sh

 We shall understand and take the preposition through to mean with, with Gregory, who is named for theology, saying, One God for us, the Father wi

 God of all? But I do not speak of him as co-creating, he says, but as co-proceeding. Therefore, the Spirit, by co-proceeding, will perfect (p. 298) hi

 But was not the sending of the Word to us also essential, having come from both the Father and the Spirit? But the sending was not generation for the

 as being of one and the same nature of the Father and of the Son. For so that I might speak according to the divine Cyril himself, as he himself write

 of the Spirit as more manifest and fore-announced and fore-attested˙ “And the Son has naturally in Himself the proper and excellent things of the Fath

 but he entirely and if his energy is immeasurable, much more so his essence. Thus the power of the truth spoken by us conquers all things, of resour

 proclaims Christ as the Son. And the divine Cyril in his Treasures concludes that the Spirit exists naturally in the Son from the Father, and says tha

 the Spirit to proceed from those made like unto the Son by grace: for it is most particularly from the Father, as from Him alone having its pre-eterna

 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 perceptibly. Do you see in such a sign that which proceeds not only being of the Spirit,

 of the Spirit is given the word of wisdom, and to another the word of knowledge.” But Christ also dwells in the hearts of those who are not reprobate,

 COUNTER-INSCRIPTIONS

 generation and procession».

 Spirit, the (p. 352) Father will then no longer be a different person from the Son, nor the Son from the Spirit. Do you see how the sayings of the sai

 Sixth Inscription. Since there are some who say that 'proceeds' and 'is poured forth' and

 Eighth counter-inscription. The present collected Scriptural usages and through examples the toward the

 to discern that the Spirit is also for this reason said to be proper to the Son, because it is from his essence and again for this reason it is said

 somehow has its existence also from that hypostasis, and vice versa for whatever is from that hypostasis is also from that essence. But when somethin

 EPISTLE 1 TO AKINDYNOS (p. 398)

 saying, which would not be the case for the creative principle for that one is the same. (p. 402) Besides, if this signifies the creative [principle]

 falsehood is advanced, so that it is necessary to bring upon their own heads that which is contrary to theology, which is blasphemy. Thus, one must re

 Therefore here, where, even if not one, there is nevertheless the generative capacity of both, it is not possible for the one to be a single principle

 thinking? So much for these things in this way. But we were taught by the fathers to reason in deed concerning such matters

 glorious from glorious things, which is to say plausible from plausible things. For they know nothing certain or secure about God, but became futile

 Spirit of the God-bearing divinity, like flowers and superessential lights,” if someone says the superessential Spirit is by nature from God, and that

 I have wiped away the creeping censure in the inscription, so that it might not be referred to the one praising it. Therefore, in order that I might m

 SECOND [LETTER] TO AKINDYNOS (p. 334)

 we have written back for some time for expected immediately after the return from you to us of the wise and most excellent Thessalian Nilus was the o

 A clear and common, if one must say, purification or precaution, for those still ambitiously occupied with words, with the irrational opinion from wor

 Two letters, therefore, from the same person about the same subject in the same way were delivered to me, having a contrary disposition to one another

 you were overturned, not only in your words against us, but also when discoursing about higher things and you suffered this from inopportune talkativ

 so far were we from thinking or calling ourselves perfect, (p. 456) that we even say that the initial desire to touch upon the path leading to the mys

 And here your error concerns the word, but not there concerning the word, but concerning arguments and many arguments, which you, having done well to

 of the superessential divinity is the Father» for he did not say, «the only source not 'from a source'», nor «one source rather», nor «the only sourc

 Thus in no way is one naturally disposed to harm the other. But that it is not for you to speak of God as “what light is, but rather a source of light

 having testified to the correct view, but having summarized and abridged it in a more moderate and more common and more concise way, as much as possib

 and by this the initial premise is begged through tautology, being advanced in effect. Do you wish that we further scrutinize this syllogism of yours

 by which they also appropriate this and are harmonized with the melody of the Spirit. If you wish to hear what divine proof they speak of, and not sim

 you string together their words which have it thus: “for the vision of things above us, it is necessary to arrive from above and for an intelligible l

 pays attention with his mind as though he is about to be led through it to the knowledge of God, suffers this very thing and is made a fool, though he

 of the soul, has an opportunity among those who are not most attentive and not secured by humility to slip in and mingle with them, the spirit of erro

 of a root (p. 498) a most fruitful tree, but we do not have the perceptive power to adequately reach the richness of the root, come let us look again

 the unholy stains impressed from these things to those enlightened ones they deem worthy to speak? Do you not hear the one who says, cast away for me

 our cooperation towards lack and a falling away from him, and lowest because it is furthest from the highest, and fallen because it was formerly above

 we say that divine things are removed from all things and are completely removed from demonstration, or rather, we do say it, but not of this [demonst

 there is no demonstration concerning any of the divine things, and his entire struggle tends toward no end at all. For if this becomes perfectly clear

 dims and mutilates by the power of those arguments, so that this obstacle might also be removed, I made the argument concerning this. But he, angered

 the Spirit, from the Father alone, and if from the Father alone, not also from the Son, and they are so equally balanced to each other that in all the

 But you, least of all initiated in these things, as it seems, say that of divine things there is neither knowledge nor demonstration, but only faith,

 of regions. Therefore we, through the guidance of the fathers, having found a demonstration of that which is beyond demonstration, something better th

 with the hypocrisy of the heterodox, you proceed against the orthodox and the patristic sayings put forward by us, I know not how, you attempt to do a

 bearing witness? That it both is and is not, in one way and another way and this is what we have said, that some divine things are known and demonstr

 For I see that all things need one and the same will and wisdom and power to come into being from non-being but one will and wisdom and power at the

 He abolished all number. And this is, that we may speak according to his knowledge, a paralogism, the one from ignorance of refutation, which the nobl

 and to all her hymnographers from eternity. Since, therefore, all things are about the thearchic super-essentiality, and those things about it are div

 mocking, he has named them childish lessons. But if there is something useful for us in it, it is no wonder for even from snakes there is a good medi

 I think I will pass over the things with which you boast, exalting yourself with big words as one having power in arguments. For just as above he was

 to encounter a shadow of God» (p. 566) that the God-seers of the fathers encounter, shamelessly rising up against these and that one like some false w

 of knowledge and of the rejected wisdom, as not having known God, he waged war against the teachers. For since they said to him, according to a tradit

 and to call the detailed teachings of the Holy Scriptures images of their intellectual contemplative fulfillment. We shall say, then, from where he, h

 undisputed but there are certain skeptics who also contradict everyone in common. And yet, the common notion that something does not in any way come

 it has a body running under it while it is perpendicular. For when the sky is clear, it is never walled off by another body. They will say these thing

 is wrestled against, but is the demonstration a word? You therefore, either accept your demonstration, which you claim, to be irrationality, or a word

 For to beget is of nature, but to make is of energy and the essence of God is one thing, and the essential energy of God is another and the essence

 He is nameless as He is above every name. As we were saying these and such things against the impious writings and preachings of Barlaam,

 ...which are called a collection and fullness of divinity according to Scripture, being equally contemplated and theologized in each of the holy hypos

 Is the providence which is excelled by that essence as by a cause—this also being called divinity as not being outside the fullness of the one divinit

 good-principality, if you should understand divinity, he says, and goodness as the very thing of the good-making and God-making gift of the so-call

 I say unoriginate, eternal, unceasing, and, to say the same thing, it is called uncreated according to itself. For according to the divine Maximus aga

 we have made in summary against the things written by him against the orthodox, signed by the most holy protos and the hegumens and the chosen elders

 But we will not tolerate being remiss in speaking against their accuser. For know that both the war has been stirred up against the saints and the ins

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 each of the two is God from God, but not for this reason ever three or two gods, so also we say a principle from a principle, but never two principles. For we have never yet to this day heard of a second principle from the pious, (p. 102) just as we have not heard of a second god. But for us there is one God and monarchy which is worshipped, not coming together into one out of two gods, nor out of two principles; since that which we worship is not divisible in the same respects. And indeed it is not divided and brought together in the same respect; for it is divided by the hypostatic properties, but it is united by those of the nature. If, then, nothing prevents speaking of two principles, these, then, are the respects in which it is divided; to be united again, therefore, in these same respects is impossible; therefore, the two are not one.

But rather, taking up and giving another beginning to our discourse, let us clarify as much as possible the things concerning the most monarchical principle, so that we might show that the one named for theology is aptly named and refute those who dogmatize two principles of the one Holy Spirit, both that they dogmatize this and that they do so incorrectly.

The creative principle is one: the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. When, therefore, we speak of the things brought forth from non-being by God, both the goodness through which they received their being, and the innate grace from which each has appropriately partaken of well-being, and the grace that came after, through which the fallen returned to well-being, when we make our discourses about these things, we say the Son in the Holy Spirit is the principle and source and cause, not, God forbid, another, but the same as the Father's, as He brings forth and restores and sustains all things well through Him in the Holy Spirit. But the Father, besides being the source of all things through the Son in the Holy Spirit, is also the source and principle of divinity, being alone the begetter of God. And this we know better than by demonstration, as it has been clearly expressed through the divinely-inspired oracles.

Therefore, when you hear that the Son is, "the principle from the principle," (p. 104) and "He who calls him a principle from generations," and "with you is the principle in the day of your power," understand it to be of created things, just as John also cries out clearly about Him in the Apocalypse, "the beginning of the creation of God," not as a beginning of being, God forbid, for He is God, but as their creator; for He is a partaker of the paternal principle from which these things come, which is also named for the lordship of all.

But how could one say the Son is the principle of the Spirit in this sense, unless the Spirit is also a servant and created? But since the Spirit is God, the Son is not His principle in this respect, unless perhaps as the principle of divinity. But if the Son is the principle of the divinity of the Holy Spirit, and it is impossible for Him to share in this principle with the Father—for the Father alone is theologized as the fount of divinity—then the Son is the principle of another, different divinity, and has torn the Spirit away from the divinity that springs from the Father. Or shall we assign two different divinities to this one, we who confess one divinity for the three?

And how, according to the Latins, are the two principles of the Spirit one principle? For they will not expect us to accept their propositions by faith, but let them not answer sophistically, making one answer for another. For when we ask how, according to them, there are two principles of the one Spirit, they maintain that the principle of the two is one. But we are not asking about the two persons, but about the one; for it is about this that we make our argument with them. Since the principle of the two is rightly one, how will there be two principles of the one, and how, according to them, are the two one?

Ἀλλ᾿ οὐδαμοῦ τῶν θεολόγων εἶπέ τις οὔτε δύο οὔτε τρεῖς. Ὥσπερ γάρ Θεόν ἑκάστην τῶν τριῶν προσκυνητῶν ἐκείνων ὑποστάσεών φαμε καί Θεόν ἑκατέραν ἐκ Θεοῦ, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ παρά τοῦτο τρεῖς ἤ δύο ποτέ θεούς, οὕτω καί ἀρχήν ἐξ ἀρχῆς φαμεν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ δύο ποτέ ἀρχάς˙ δευτέραν γάρ ἀρχήν οὐδέπω καί τήμερον ὑπό τῶν εὐσεβῶν ἀκηκόαμεν, (σελ. 102) ὥσπερ οὐδέ θεόν δεύτερον. Ἀλλ᾿ εἷς ἡμῖν Θεός καί μοναρχία τό προσκυνούμενον, οὐκ ἐκ δύο θεῶν, οὐδ᾿ ἐκ δύο ἀρχῶν συνιόντα εἰς ἕν˙ ἐπεί μηδέ κατά ταυτά μεριστόν ἡμῖν τό σεβόμενον. Καί μήν οὐδέ κατά τό αὐτό μερίζεταί τε καί συνάγεται˙ διαιρεῖται μέν γάρ ταῖς ὑποστατικαῖς ἰδιότησι, ταῖς δέ κατά τήν φύσιν ἑνοῦται. Εἰ γοῦν δύο ἀρχάς εἰπεῖν οὐδέν κωλύει, λοιπόν αὗταί εἰσι, καθ᾿ ἅς μερίζεται˙ ἑνωθῆναι τοίνυν αὖθις κατ᾿ αὐτάς ἀδύνατον˙ οὐκ ἄρ᾿ αἱ δύο μία.

Μᾶλλον δέ ἀναλαβόντες καί ἑτέραν ἀρχήν τῷ λόγῳ δόντες τά τῆς μοναρχικωτάτης ἀρχῆς εἰς δύναμιν διατρανώσωμεν, ὡς ἄν φερωνύμως ἔχοντά τε δείξωμεν τόν τῆς θεολογίας ἐπώνυμον καί ἀπελέγξωμεν τούς τοῦ ἑνός ἁγίου Πνεύματος δύο δογματίζοντας ἀρχάς, ὅτι τε τοῦτο δογματίζουσι καί ὅτι οὐ καλῶς.

Ἡ δημιουργική ἀρχή μία ἐστίν, ὁ Πατήρ καί ὁ Υἱός καί τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον. Ὅταν οὖν ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ τά ἐκ τοῦ μή ὄντος προηγμένα λέγωμεν, τήν τε ἀγαθότητα, δι᾿ ἥν τό εἶναι ἔσχον, καί τήν ἐγγεγενημένην χάριν, ὅθεν ἕκαστον τοῦ εὖ εἶναι καταλλήλως μετεσχήκασι, καί τήν ἐπιγεγενημένην ὕστερον, δι᾿ ἥν πρός τό εὖ εἶναι τά διαπεπτωκότα ἐπανῆλθον, ὅταν ταῦτά τε καί περί τούτων ποιώμεθα τούς λόγους, ἀρχήν καί πηγήν καί αἴτιον τόν Υἱόν ἐν ἁγίῳ Πνεύματί φαμεν, οὐχ ἑτέραν ἄπαγε, ἀλλά τήν αὐτήν ὡς τοῦ Πατρός δι᾿ αὐτοῦ ἐν ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι καί προάγοντος καί ἐπανάγοντος καί συνέχοντος καλῶς τά πάντα. Ὁ δέ Πατήρ πρός τῷ πηγή τῶν πάντων εἶναι διά τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἐν ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι, καί πηγή καί ἀρχή ἐστι θεότητος μόνος θεογόνος ὤν. Καί τοῦτ᾿ ἐσμέν εἰδότε κρεῖττον ἤ κατά ἀπόδειξιν, διά τῶν θεοπνεύστων λογίων τρανῶς ἐκπεφασμένον.

Ὅταν οὖν ἀκούσῃς ὅτι ὁ Υἱός, «ἡ ἐκ τῆς ἀρχῆς ἀρχήν» (σελ. 104) καί «ὁ καλῶν αὐτόν ἀπό γενεῶν ἀρχήν» καί «μετά σοῦ ἡ ἀρχή ἐν ἡμέρᾳ τῆς δυνάμεώς σου», τῶν δημιουργημάτων νόει, καθάπερ καί Ἰωάννης ἀριδήλως ἐν τῇ Ἀποκαλύψει περί αὐτοῦ βοᾷ, «ἡ ἀρχή τῶν κτισμάτων τοῦ Θεοῦ», οὐχ ὡς καταρχή, ἄπαγε, Θεός γάρ, ἀλλ᾿ ὡς δημιουργός αὐτῶν˙ κοινωνός γάρ ἐστι τῆς ἐξ ἧς ταῦτα πατρικῆς ἀρχῆς, ἥ καί τῆς πάντων δεσποτείας ἐστίν ἐπώνυμον.

Τοῦ δέ Πνεύματος τόν Υἱόν ἀρχήν ἐπί τῆς σημασίας ταύτης πῶς ἄν φαίη τις, εἰ μή καί τό Πνεῦμα δοῦλον καί κτιστόν; Ἀλλ᾿ ἐπεί Θεός τό Πνεῦμα, οὐκ ἀρχή αὐτοῦ κατά τοῦτο ὁ Υἱός, εἰ μή ἄρα ὡς θεότητος ἀρχή. Εἰ δέ τῆς τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος θεότητος ὁ Υἱός ἐστιν ἀρχή, κοινωνεῖν δέ κατά ταύτην τήν ἀρχήν τῷ Πατρί ἀμήχανον, μόνος γάρ τεθεολόγηται πηγαία θεότης ὁ Πατήρ, ἑτέρας ἄρα διαφόρου τινός θεότητος ὁ Υἱός ἐστιν ἀρχή καί διέσπασε τό Πνεῦμα τῆς πηγαζούσης ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός θεότητος. Ἤ δύο διαφόρους θεότητας δώσωμεν τούτῳ τῷ ἑνί, οἱ καί τοῖς τρισί μίαν ἀνομολογοῦντες θεότητα;

Πῶς δέ καί αἱ δύο κατά Λατίνους τοῦ Πνεύματος ἀρχαί μία ἐστίν ἀρχή; Οὐ γάρ ἀξιώσουσιν ἡμᾶς πίστει δέχεσθαι τούτων τά προβλήματα, ἀλλά μηδέ σοφιστικῶς ἀποκρινέσθωσαν ἄλλην ἀντ᾿ ἄλλης ποιούμενοι τήν ἀπόκρισιν. Ἡμῶν γάρ ἐρωτώντων, πῶς δύο κατ᾿ αὐτούς τοῦ ἑνός Πνεύματος ἀρχαί, μίαν ἐκεῖνοι διισχυρίζονται τῶν δύο εἶναι τήν ἀρχήν. Ἡμεῖς δέ οὐ περί τῶν δύο προσώπων ἐρωτῶμεν, ἀλλά περί τοῦ ἑνός˙ περί τούτου γάρ πρός αὐτούς ποιούμεθα τόν λόγον. Ὡς ἐπεί τῶν δύο μία ἡ ἀρχή καλῶς, πῶς τοῦ ἑνός δύο ἔσονται ἀρχαί καί πῶς αἱ δύο μία κατ᾿ αὐτούς;