15

of the Father, and you will theologize contrary to the one who acquired the name of 'Theologian' and you will truly stand with the opposing side and be proclaimed an outcast by us; for we know that his words are manifestations of the Holy Spirit. But just as moisture proceeds from wet bodies, and this is its property, and it is the property of wet bodies to send forth moisture, in the same way, since it is the property of the Spirit to proceed from the Father, it is of necessity the property of the Father to send forth the Spirit.

Therefore, the procession of the Spirit is from the Father alone; and the Spirit always proceeds from the Father alone in a process of existence but not of manifestation. For even in those cases where 'from the Father' is not spoken together with 'what proceeds', it is always implied for those who listen with understanding, just as with the Son, it is implied with 'what is begotten'. For each one of us is also begotten; but begotten of the Father—which is the same as to say, of God the Father—is the Son alone, so that this which is connected is his own property and is always understood, even if it is not spoken together. In the same way, then, you might also call our own spirit something that proceeds. Therefore, not simply 'what proceeds' is a property of the Holy Spirit, but 'what proceeds from the Father'; for He is always Father. Thus it is among the impossibilities for it to exist as proceeding from the Son, unless the Son were also Father to you. And not only is 'from the Father' implied with 'what proceeds', but also 'from the Father alone', just as with 'what is begotten'; (p. 126) for as the divinely-inspired theologians teach us, which we also said above, apart from by way of generation and by way of procession, as the Son is from the Father, so also is the Spirit; therefore it is utterly impossible for it to be also from the Son.

Moreover, if the Spirit is also from the Son and, according to you, has his existence through him, he 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 with the origin is one God," and, "the nature of the three is one; but the union is the Father, from whom and to whom the subsequent ones are referred, not so as to be coalesced, but so as to be held together"?

For someone hearing that the Spirit is joined to the Father through the Son might understand this to be said on account of the utterance according to the confession, with the Son being placed in the middle. And that he would not otherwise be called the Spirit of the Father, if not for the Son. But how could the Father be the union, unless he is immediately related to each, projecting each without an intermediary? But also the phrase 'not so as to be coalesced, but so as to be held together' indicates the immediate and unmediated relation of each to him.

What about the fact that "the unoriginate and the origin and that which is with the origin is one God"? For if he had known the Spirit to be from the Son, he would have said 'from the origin', not 'with the origin'.

Therefore, when you hear that the Spirit proceeds through the Son, understand it as accompanying the Word. For thus you will interpret "through" not wrongly as "from", but as "with", in harmony with the one named Theologian. "For we have learned," says the divine Damascene, "that the Spirit is what accompanies the Word and reveals his energy." (p. 128) And to accompany is to follow along with, as the same man says there; so that the Spirit is not also from the Son, but with the Son from the Father, the procession following the generation without interval and without time. And he said 'we have learned' because the God-bearing fathers before him taught thus, from whom he was initiated to understand 'the Spirit through the Son' in this way, and he completely forbade saying 'from the Son'.

15

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 ἐστιν ἕνωσις Πατρός καί Πνεύματος. Πῶς οὖν ὁ αὐτός μέγας ἐν θεολογίᾳ Γρηγόριός φησιν, «ἄναρχον καί ἀρχή καί τό μετά τῆς ἀρχῆς εἷς Θεός», «φύσις δε τοῖς τρισί μία˙ ἕνωσις δέ ὁ Πατήρ, ἐξ οὗ καί πρός ὅν ἀνάγεται τά ἑξῆς, οὐχ ὡς συναλείφεσθαι, ἀλλ᾿ ὡς ἔχεσθαι»;

Ἀκούων γάρ τις διά τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα τῷ Πατρί συναπτόμενον, νοεῖν ἄν ἔχοι τοῦτο λεγόμενον, διά τήν κατά τήν ὁμολογίαν ἐκφώνησιν, μέσου κειμένου τοῦ Υἱοῦ. Καί ὅτι Πατρός Πνεῦμα οὐκ ἄν ἄλλως λέγοιτο, εἰ μή διά τόν Υἱόν. Ἕνωσις δέ ὁ Πατήρ πῶς ἄν εἴη, εἰ μή προσεχῶς ἔχει πρός ἑκάτερον ἀμέσως προβαλλόμενος ἑκάτερον; Ἀλλά καί τό οὐχ ὡς συναλείφεσθαι δέ, ἀλλ᾿ ὡς ἔχεσθαι, τήν προσεχῆ καί ἄμεσον ἑκατέρου σχέσιν πρός αὐτόν δηλοῖ.

Τί δέ, ὅτι «τό ἄναρχον καί ἡ ἀρχή καί τό μετά τῆς ἀρχῆς εἷς Θεός»; Εἰ γάρ ἐξ Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα ᾔδει, τό ἐκ τῆς ἀρχῆς ἄν εἶπεν, οὐ τό μετά τῆς ἀρχῆς.

Οὐκοῦν ὅταν ἀκούσῃς διά τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα ἐκπορεύεσθαι, ὡς συμπαρομαρτοῦν τῷ λόγῳ νόησον. Οὕτω γάρ καί τήν "διά" οὐκ εἰς τήν "ἐκ" κακῶς, ἀλλ᾿ εἰς τήν "μετά", τῷ τῆς θεολογίας ἐπωνύμῳ συνᾴδων μεταλήψῃ. «Πνεῦμα γάρ», φησί, «μεμαθήκαμεν», ∆αμασκηνός ὁ θεῖος, «τό συμπαρομαρτοῦν τῷ λόγῳ καί φανεροῦν αὐτοῦ τήν ἐνέργειαν». (σελ. 128) Συμπαρομαρτεῖν δέ ἐστι τό συνακολουθεῖν, ὡς ὁ αὐτός ἐκεῖ φησιν ὥστε οὐχί καί ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ, ἀλλά σύν τῷ Υἱῷ τό Πνεῦμα ἐκ Πατρός, συνακολουθούσης ἀδιαστάτως τε καί ἀχρόνως τῇ γεννήσει τῆς ἐκπορεύσεως. Μεμαθήκαμεν δέ εἶπεν, ὡς τῶν πρό αὐτοῦ θεοφόρων οὕτω διδασκόντων, παρ᾿ ὧν μυηθείς οὕτω νοεῖν τό Πνεῦμα δι᾿ Υἱοῦ, τό ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ τοῦτο λέγειν παντάπασιν ἀπηγόρευσεν.