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, not have preferred them to almost all his other names, although he was striving to show this with respect to the Father? Therefore he says: “if it is a great thing for the Father to have His origin from nowhere, it is no less for the Son to be from such a Father. And there belongs to the Son the great matter of the generation.” If, then, it were added that He is a projector, how would he not have said it is such a great matter, on account of which He would have seemed to be shown even more equal to the Father? But he did not say it; therefore it is not added.

For this great theologian does not simply posit procession as a property of the Spirit, but procession from the Father, foreseeing and overturning your impious addition. For having said a little above, that the Father is begetter and projector, but the Son is not a projector, but only begotten, he goes on to say: “but we, standing on our own terms, introduce the unbegotten and the begotten and that which proceeds from the Father.” He did not say that procession simply is a property of the Spirit, lest anyone should think the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son or also from the Son; for “begotten” brings the Father to mind, but “proceeding” does not do so in the same way. For this reason he established “proceeding from the Father” as a property of the Spirit; “for,” says also Basil the Great, “the Holy Spirit has this as a distinctive sign of its hypostatic property, to be known after the Son and with Him and to subsist from the Father.” But do you see how you are justly driven out by us (p. 124) from communion, not standing upon our terms and piety?

For either you will also call the Son Father, as has also been shown above, in order that the Spirit might proceed for you also from Him, or “to proceed from the Father” would not be a property of the Spirit for you, nor will you consider “to cause to proceed” a property of the Father, and you will theologize contrary to the one who acquired the name “the Theologian” and you will take your stand with the truly opposite party and be excommunicated by us; for we know his words to be revelations of the Holy Spirit. But just as moisture proceeding from moist bodies has this as its property and it is a property of moist bodies to emit moisture, in the same way, the Spirit having as its property “to proceed from the Father,” it is necessarily a property of the Father “to cause the Spirit to proceed.”

Therefore, the procession of the Spirit is from the Father alone; and the Spirit always proceeds from the Father alone in a hypostatic, but not a manifestative, procession. For even in those cases where “from the Father” is not spoken together with “proceeding,” it is always understood by those who listen intelligently, just as it is also understood in the case of the Son with “begotten.” For each one of us is also begotten; but begotten of the Father, which is to say, of God the Father, is the Son alone, so that this connection is His property and is always understood, even if it is not spoken together. In the same way, then, you might also call our spirit “proceeding.” Therefore, not simply “proceeding” is a property of the Holy Spirit, but “proceeding from the Father;” for He is always Father. It is therefore among the impossibilities for it to proceed from the Son, unless the Son were also Father for you. Not only is “from the Father” understood with “proceeding,” but also “from the Father alone,” just as with “begotten;” (p. 126) for as the divinely inspired theologians teach us, which we also stated above, apart from “by generation” and “by procession,” as the Son is from the Father, so also is the Spirit; therefore it is altogether impossible for it to be also from the Son.

Moreover, if the Spirit is also from the Son and has its existence through Him according to you, He himself

Εἰ γοῦν ταῦτ᾿ ἦν ὀνομάσαι, οἷον Πατέρα φωτός ἤ προβολέα τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος, πῶς ἄν οὐχί τῶν ἄλλων αὐτοῦ σχεδόν πάντων ὀνομάτων ὁ μέγας ἐν θεολογίᾳ Γρηγόριος προὔθηκε, καίτοι τό πρός τόν Πατέρα ἀγωνιζόμενος δεικνύναι; ∆ιό φησιν˙ «εἰ μέγα τῷ Πατρί τῷ μηδαμόθεν ὡρμῆσθαι, οὐκ ἔλαττον τῷ Υἱῷ τό ἐκ τοιούτου Πατρός. Καί πρόσεστιν τῷ Υἱῷ τό τῆς γεννήσεως πρᾶγμα τοσοῦτον». Εἰ γοῦν προσῆεν τό προβολέα εἶναι, πῶς οὐκ ἄν εἶπε πρᾶγμα τοσοῦτον, δι᾿ ὅ καί μᾶλλον ἄν δεικύειν ἔδοξεν ἴσον τῷ Πατρί; Ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ εἶπεν˙ οὐκοῦν οὐδέ πρόσεστιν.

Ὁ γάρ μέγας οὗτος θεολόγος οὐδ᾿ ἁπλῶς οὕτω τό ἐκπορευόμενον ἴδιον τίθησι τοῦ Πνεύματος, ἀλλά τό ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός ἐκπορευόμενον, προορῶν δήπου καί προανατρέπων σου τήν δυσσεβῆ προσθήκην. Ἀνωτέρω γάρ μικρόν εἰπών, τόν μέν Πατέρα γεννήτορα καί προβολέα, τόν δέ Υἱόν προβολέα μέν οὐ, γέννημα δέ μόνον, προσϊών, ἡμεῖς δέ, φησίν, «ἐπί τῶν ἡμετέρων ὅρων ἱστάμενοι, τό ἀγέννητον εἰσάγομεν καί τό γεννητόν καί τό ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός ἐκπορευόμενον». Οὐκ εἶπε τό ἐκπορευόμενον ἁπλῶς ἴδιον τοῦ Πνεύματος ὑπάρχειν, ἵνα μή τις ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἤ καί ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἐκπορεύεσθαι νομίσῃ τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον˙ τό μέν γάρ γεννητόν συνεισάγει τῇ διανοίᾳ τόν Πατέρα, τό δέ ἐκπορευτόν οὐχ οὕτω. ∆ιά τοῦτο τό ἐκ Πατρός ἐκπορευόμενον ἴδιον τέθηκε τοῦ Πνεύματος˙ «τοῦτο γάρ», φησί καί Βασίλειος ὁ μέγας, «γνωριστικόν τῆς κατά τήν ὑπόστασιν ἰδιότητος σημεῖον ἔχει τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον, τό μετά τόν Υἱόν καί σύν αὐτῷ γνωρίζεσθαι καί ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός ὑφεστάναι». Ἀλλ᾿ ὁρᾷς, ὅπως παρ᾿ ἡμῶν (σελ. 124) δικαίως ἀπελήλασθε τῆς κοινωνίας, οὐκ ἐπί τῶν ἡμετέρων ὅρων καί τῆς εὐσεβείας ἱστάμενοι;

Ἤ γάρ καί τόν Υἱόν Πατέρα προσερεῖς, ὡς καί ἀνωτέρω δέδεικται, ἵν᾿ ἐκπορευόμενον εἴη σοι καί ἐξ αὐτοῦ τό Πνεῦμα, ἤ τό ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός ἐκπορεύεσθαι οὐκ ἄν ἴδιον εἴη σοι τοῦ Πνεύματος, οὐδέ τό ἐκπορεύειν ἴδιον εἶναι νομίσεις τοῦ Πατρός, καί ἀπ᾿ ἐναντίας θεολογήσεις τοῦ τό θεολογεῖν ἐπωνυμίαν κτησαμένου καί πρός τήν ἐναντίον ὄντως μοῖραν στήσῃ καί παρ᾿ ἡμῶν ἐκκήρυκτος γενήσῃ˙ τάς γάρ αὐτοῦ φωνάς ἐκφαντορίας οὔσας ἴσμεν τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος. Ἀλλά γάρ, ὥσπερ τῆς νοτίδος ἐξ ὑγρῶν σωμάτων ἐκπορευομένης καί τοῦτ᾿ ἴδιον ἐχούσης καί τῶν ὑγρῶν σωμάτων ἴδιόν ἐστι τό νοτίδα ἐκπορεύειν, τόν αὐτόν τρόπον καί τοῦ Πνεύματος ἴδιον ἔχοντος τό ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός ἐκπορεύεσθαι καί τοῦ Πατρός ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἐστι τό τό Πνεῦμα ἐκπορεύειν.

Μόνου ἄρα τοῦ Πατρός ἡ τοῦ Πνεύματος ἐκπόρευσις˙ καί ἀεί ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρός ἐκπορεύεται τό Πνεῦμα καθ᾿ ὑπαρκτικήν ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ ἐκφαντικήν προέλευσιν. Καί ἐν οἷς γάρ τῷ ἐκπορευτῷ μή συνεκφωνεῖται τό ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός, συνυπακουόμενον ἐστιν ἀεί τοῖς συνετῶς ἀκούουσιν, ὥσπερ καί ἐπί τοῦ Υἱοῦ τῷ γεννητῷ συνυπακούεται. Γεννητός γάρ καί ἡμῶν ἁπάντων ἕκαστος˙ γεννητός δέ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός, ταὐτόν δ᾿ εἰπεῖν ἐκ Θεοῦ Πατρός, μόνος ὁ Υἱός, ὥστε τό συννημένον τοῦτ᾿ ἔστιν ἴδιον αὐτοῦ καί ἀεί συννοεῖται, κἄν μή συνεκφωνεῖται. Τόν αὐτόν οὖν τρόπον ἐκπορευτόν ἄν εἴποις καί τό πνεῦμα τό ἡμέτερον. Οὐκοῦν οὐ τό ἁπλῶς ἐκπορευτόν ἴδιον τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος, ἀλλά τό ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός ἐκπορευτόν˙ ἐκεῖνος γάρ ἀεί Πατήρ. Τῶν ἀδυνάτων ἄρ᾿ ἐστίν ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἐκπορευτόν ὑπάρχειν, εἰ μή καί ὁ Υἱός εἴη σοι Πατήρ. Οὐ μόνον δέ τό ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός τῷ ἐκπορευτῷ συνυπακούεται, ἀλλά καί τό ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρός, καθάπερ καί τῷ γεννητῷ˙ (σελ. 126) ὡς γάρ οἱ ἔνθεοι θεολόγοι διδάσκουσιν ἡμᾶς, ὅ καί ἀνωτέρω ἔφημεν, χωρίς τοῦ γεννητῶς τε καί ἐκπορευτῶς, ὡς ὁ Υἱός ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός, οὕτω καί τό Πνεῦμα˙ τοιγαροῦν παντάπασιν ἀδύνατον εἶναι καί ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ.

Πρός δέ, εἰ καί ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα καί δι᾿ αὐτοῦ τήν ὕπαρξιν ἔχει κατά σέ, αὐτός