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 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 others are referred, not so as to be confounded, 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 because of the utterance according to the confession, with the Son placed in the middle. And that He would not otherwise be called the Spirit of the Father, if not through the Son. But how could the Father be a union, unless He were immediately related to each, bringing forth each immediately? But also the phrase "not so as to be confounded, but so as to be held together," denotes the immediate and unmediated relation of each to Him.

And what of this: "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 take "through" not incorrectly as "from," but as "with," in harmony with the one surnamed the Theologian. "For we have learned," says the divine Damascene, "that the Spirit accompanies the Word and reveals His energy." (p. 128) And to accompany is to follow together, as he himself 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," as the God-bearing Fathers before him so taught, from whom he was initiated to understand the Spirit through the Son in this way, and he utterly forbade saying that this is from the Son.

But if the great Basil says that there is nothing inconsistent in taking "through" for "from," it is with respect to creatures, which is why he also brought forward the Apostle, saying, "from Him and through Him and to Him are all things," for all beings have been created by Him and are sustained through Him and are returned to Him, but the holy Damascene, even in the seventh of his Theological Chapters, proposing again what we said above, after certain things in harmony with the Catechetical Oration of the divinely inspired Gregory of Nyssa, says that "the Holy Spirit is a substantial power, contemplated in itself in its own hypostasis, and being revelatory of Him, that is, the Word, unable to be separated from God in whom It is and from the Word whom It accompanies," is it not clear from this too that the Holy Spirit is not also from the Son?

Furthermore, since among the theologians sometimes the Father is said to be the middle between the Son and the Spirit, and sometimes the Son is the middle between the Father and the Spirit, and sometimes the Spirit is the middle between the Father and the Son, the Spirit could not be third from the Father, nor could He have His being from the Father through the Son. For with three points in a row, none of the extremes lying on either side could ever be the middle. But the middleness understood in theology seems to resemble the extreme points at the corners of an equilateral triangle; for there each is found to be the middle of the others. And if you also heap up the one having the first middleness in numbers and set it as on a plane, so (p. 130) you will form the first actual triangular number, and whichever of the units in it you take will be the middle of the remaining two. If, therefore, one were to suppose the one to be the principle and cause of the two centers, it of necessity has an immediate and unmediated relationship to each, and surely in the same way in the units.

And what of those who say that each one of them is related to the other no less than to itself? Do they not most clearly represent them as being immediately related to one another?

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.

Εἰ δ᾿ ὁ μέγας Βασίλειος οὐδέν εἶναί φησιν ἀπᾷδον εἰς τήν "ἐκ" τήν "διά" μεταλαμβάνειν, ἀλλ᾿ ἐπί τῶν κτισμάτων, διό καί τόν ἀπόστολον προήγαγεν εἰπόντα, «ἐξ αὐτοῦ καί δι᾿ αὐτοῦ καί εἰς αὐτόν τά πάντα», παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ γάρ δεδημιούργηνται καί δι᾿ αὐτοῦ συνέχονται καί πρός αὐτόν ἐπιστρέφονται τά ὄντα πάντα, ὁ δέ ἱερός ∆αμασκηνός κἀν τῷ ἑβδόμῳ τῶν Θεολογικῶν αὐτοῦ κεφαλαίων προθείς πάλιν ὅ καί ἀνωτέρω ἔφημεν, μετά τινα συνᾴδων τῷ Κατηχητικῷ λόγῳ τοῦ Νύσσης ἐνθέου Γρηγορίου, «τό ἅγιον Πνεῦμα δύναμιν εἶναί φησιν οὐσιώδη, αὐτήν ἐφ᾿ ἑαυτῆς ἐν ἰδιαζούσῃ ὑποστάσει θεωρουμένην καί αὐτοῦ, δηλονότι τοῦ Λόγου, οὖσαν ἐκφαντικήν, οὐ χωρισθῆναι τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν ᾧ ἐστι καί τοῦ Λόγου ᾧ συμπαρομαρτεῖ δυναμένην», ἆρ᾿ οὐ σαφές κἀντεῦθεν, ὡς οὐχί καί ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον;

Οὐ μήν, ἀλλ᾿ ἐπεί παρά τῶν θεολόγων ποτέ μέν ὁ Πατήρ μέσος εἶναι λέγεται Υἱοῦ καί Πνεύματος, ποτέ δέ ὁ Υἱός μέσος τοῦ Πατρός τε καί Πνεύματος, ποτέ δέ τό Πνεῦμα μέσον τοῦ Πατρός τε καί Υἱοῦ, οὐκ ἄν εἴη τό Πνεῦμα τρίτον ἀπό τοῦ Πατρός, οὐδ᾿ ἄν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός διά τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό εἶναι ἔχοι. Τοῖς γάρ ἐφεξῆς τρισί σημείοις, οὐκ ἄν εἴη ποτέ τι τῶν ἑκατέρωθεν κειμένων ἄκρων μέσον˙ ἀλλ᾿ ἔοικεν ἡ ἐπί τῆς θεολογίας μεσότης νοουμένη τοῖς ἐπί τῶν γωνιῶν τοῦ ἰσοπλεύρου τριγώνου σημείοις ἄκροις˙ ἐκεῖ γάρ ἕκαστον μέσον ἑκατέρωθεν εὑρίσκεται. Ἄν δέ καί τόν μεσότητα πρῶτον ἔχοντα ἐν ἀριθμοῖς ἐπισωρεύσας ὡς ἐν ἐπιπέδῳ θῇς, οὕτω (σελ. 130) τόν τε πρῶτον ἐνεργείᾳ τρίγωνον ἀποτελέσεις ἀριθμόν, καί ἥν ἄν λάβοις τῶν ἐν αὐτῷ μονάδων μέση δυσῖν ὑπολοίποιν ἔσται. Εἴ τις οὖν ἀρχήν καί αἴτιον τῶν δύο κέντρων ὑποθοῖτο τό ἕν, προσεχῶς καί ἀμέσως ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἐκεῖνο πρός ἑκάτερον ἔχει κἀν ταῖς μονάσι δήπου τόν αὐτόν τρόπον.

Τί δέ, οἱ λέγοντες ὡς ἕν ἕκαστον αὐτῶν ἔχει πρός τό ἕτερον οὐχ ἧττον ἤ πρός ἑαυτό, ἆρ᾿ οὐκ ἀριδήλως ἀμέσως ἔχειν παριστῶσι πρός ἄλληλα;