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 by no means without beginning, but is the beginning of all things. Wherefore also “the Father is the only source of the superessential divinity,” said the great Dionysius the Areopagite; and again “the Father is the fontal Godhead, but the Son and the Spirit are, if one may say so, God-planted shoots and as it were flowers and superessential lights of the God-bearing Godhead”; and again: “but the superessential name and reality of the Father and of the Son and of the Spirit are distinct, with no reversal or community at all being introduced among them.” And in the third book of *On Mystical Theology*, he says, “from the immaterial and indivisible Good the inmost lights of goodness sprang forth, and have remained unproceeding from their co-eternal abiding in it and in themselves and in one another in their sprouting forth (p. 140)”; and again: “the things of the superessential divine generation are not reversed with respect to one another.”

If, therefore, you were to say the Son is the projector, the Father would never be the projector; for he would have in common with the Son that which begets divinity; but this is forbidden. But if you were to say the Father is, as indeed he is, the Son would not be the projector, therefore the Spirit is not from him; for the only divinity that begets divinity is the only one who is begetter and projector; for in this way is he divinity-begetting. Forbidding this communion, the great Basil, writing to his own brother, says, “The Holy Spirit is dependent on the Son, with whom he is inseparably apprehended; but has his being from the cause of the Father, from whence also he proceeds, having this as a sign characteristic of his hypostatic property, to be known after the Son and with him and to subsist from the Father. But the Son, making known through himself and with himself the Spirit who proceeds from the Father, having alone as only-begotten shone forth from the unbegotten light, has no communion in respect to the particularity of the characteristics with the Father or the Holy Spirit.”

Do you see how the Holy Spirit is related to both the Father and the Son and what are the characteristics of the Son and of the Spirit? “Therefore,” he says, “the only-begotten Son of God makes known and reveals to us the Holy Spirit through himself and with himself, but does not cause him to proceed, so that he may not have communion in this particular with the Father. For, he says, the Holy Spirit has his being from the cause of the Father, which is a property of the Father alone: “For all,” says the Theologian, “that the Father has, belongs to the Son, without causality.” Who then from all eternity of the divinely-inspired theologians has been heard to have assigned the properties of each of the three persons of the one divinity to the other two, rather than keeping them unconfused? But that to cause to proceed is the property of the Father is clear: For from his, (p. 142) he says, cause the Spirit is derived, from whence also he proceeds, from whom also he subsists; even if he is known after the Son and with him.

Since what is common in the highest and adorable Trinity is equally present in those to whom it is common, but to be from the Father according to the Latins is not equally present in the Son and in the Holy Spirit, for the one is begotten immediately from him and from the Father alone, but the other proceeds mediately and not immediately and not from the Father alone as they indeed think - if then according to them it is not equally present, neither is being from the Father common to the Son and the Spirit; and if this is not common to them, then neither of them is from the Father at all. For if either one of them is from the Father, the other is cast out for not sharing in it, and both through each other. Thus you who think in the Latin manner would escape none of the absurdities, just as those who said the Son is from the Spirit did not, but whatever arguments you might try to escape with, they too will use the same arguments and through themselves will prove to you that the swarm of absurdities is inescapable.

Ἠκούσαμεν γάρ μικρόν ἀνωτέρω τοῦ τῆς θεολογίας ἐπωνύμου, τόν μέν Πατέρα πηγήν καί ἀρχήν εἰπόντος ἀϊδίου φωτός, τόν δέ Υἱόν ἄναρχον μέν οὐδαμῶς ἀρχήν δέ τῶν ὅλων. ∆ιό καί «μόνη πηγή τῆς ὑπερουσίου θεότητος ὁ Πατήρ», ὁ μέγας εἶπε ∆ιονύσιος ὁ Ἀρεοπαγίτης˙ καί αὖθις «ἔστι πηγαία θεότης ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ δέ Υἱός καί τό Πνεῦμα τῆς θεογόνου θεότητος, εἰ οὕτω χρή φάναι, βλαστοί θεόφυτοι καί οἷον ἄνθη καί ὑπερούσια φῶτα»˙ καί πάλιν˙ «διακεκριμένα δέ ἐστι τό Πατρός ὑπερούσιον ὄνομα καί χρῆμα καί Υἱοῦ καί Πνεύματος, οὐδεμιᾶς ἐν τούτοις ἀντιστροφῆς ἤ ὅλως κοινότητος ἐπεισαγομένης». Κἀν τῷ Περί μυστικῆς θεολογίας τρίτῳ, «ἐκ τοῦ ἀΰλου», φησί, «καί ἀμεροῦς ἀγαθοῦ τά ἐγκάρδια τῆς ἀγαθότητος ἐξέφυ φῶτα, καί τῆς ἐν αὐτῷ καί ἐν ἑαυτοῖς καί ἐν ἀλλήλοις συναϊδίου τῇ ἀναβλαστήσει (σελ. 140) μονῆς ἀπομεμένηκε ἀνεκφοίτητα»˙ καί αὖθις˙ «τά τῆς ὑπερουσίου θεογονίας οὐκ ἀντιστρέφει πρός ἄλληλα».

Εἰ τοίνυν εἴποις προβολέα τόν Υἱόν ὁ Πατήρ οὐδέποτ᾿ ἄν εἴη προβολεύς˙ κοινωνήσει γάρ κατά τό θεογόνον τῷ Υἱῷ˙ ἀλλά τοῦτ᾿ ἀπείρηται. Εἰ δέ τόν Πατέρα φαίης, ὥσπερ οὖν ἐστιν, ὁ Υἱός οὐκ ἄν εἴη προβολεύς, οὐκ ἄρα ἐξ αὐτοῦ τό Πνεῦμα˙ μόνος γάρ θεότης θεογόνος ὁ μόνος γεννήτωρ καί προβολεύς˙ κατά ταῦτα γάρ καί θεογόνος. Ταύτην δή τήν κοινωνίαν καί ὁ μέγας Βασίλειος ἀπαγορεύων πρός τόν ἑαυτοῦ γράφων ἀδελφόν, «τό Πνεῦμα», φησί, «τό ἅγιον τοῦ Υἱοῦ μέν ἤρτηται, ᾧ ἀδιαστάτως συγκαταλαμβάνεται˙ τῆς δέ τοῦ Πατρός αἰτίας ἐξημμένον ἔχει τό εἶναι, ὅθεν καί ἐκπορεύεται, τοῦτο γνωριστικόν τῆς κατά τήν ὑπόστασιν ἰδιότητος σημεῖον ἔχον, τό μετά τόν Υἱόν καί σύν αὐτῷ γνωρίζεσθαι καί ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός ὑφεστάναι. Ὁ δέ Υἱός τό ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός ἐκπορευόμενον Πνεῦμα δι᾿ ἑαυτόῦ καί μεθ᾿ ἑαυτοῦ γνωρίζων, μόνος μονογενῶς ἐκ τοῦ ἀγεννήτου φωτός ἐκλάμψας, οὐδεμίαν κατά τό ἰδιάζον τῶν γνωρισμάτων τήν κοινωνίαν ἔχει πρός τόν Πατέρα ἤ τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον».

Ὁρᾷς ὅπως ἔχει πρός τε τόν Πατέρα καί τόν Υἱόν τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον καί τίνα Υἱοῦ καί Πνεύματος τά γνωρίσματα; «Γνωρίζει τοίνυν ἡμῖν», φησί, «καί φανεροῖ τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον, δι᾿ ἑαυτοῦ καί μεθ᾿ ἑαυτοῦ ὁ τοῦ Θεοῦ μονογενής Υἱός, ἀλλ᾿ οὐχί καί ἐκπορεύει, ἵνα μή κοινωνίαν ἔχῃ κατά τό ἰδιάζον τῷ Πατρί. Τῆς γάρ τοῦ Πατρός, φησίν, αἰτίας ἐξημμένον ἔχει τό εἶναι τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον, ἥτις ἰδιότης μόνου τοῦ Πατρός ἐστι˙ «Πάντα γάρ», φησίν ὁ θεολόγος, «ὅσα ἔχει ὁ Πατήρ, τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἐστιν, ἄνευ τῆς αἰτίας». Τίς οὖν ἐκ τοῦ παντός αἰῶνος τῶν ἐνθέων θεολόγων τά ἴδια ἑκάστου τῶν τριῶν τῆς μιᾶς θεότητος προσώπων τοῖς δυσίν ἤκουσται προσνείμας, ἀλλά μή ἀσύγχυτα φυλάξας; Ὅτι δέ τοῦ Πατρός ἴδιον τό ἐκπορεύειν δῆλον˙ Τῆς γάρ αὐτοῦ, (σελ. 142) φησίν, αἰτίας ἐξῆπται τό Πνεῦμα, ὅθεν καί ἐκπορεύεται, παρ᾿ οὗ καί ὑφέστηκεν˙ εἰ καί μετά τόν Υἱόν καί σύν αὐτῷ γνωρίζεται.

Ἐπεί δέ τά κοινά ἐπί τῆς ἀνωτάτω καί προσκυνητῆς Τριάδος ἐπίστης ἔνεστιν, οἷς ἐστι κοινά, τό δέ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός εἶναι κατά τούς Λατίνους οὐκ ἐπίσης πρόσεστι τῷ Υἱῷ καί τῷ ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι, ὁ μέν γάρ προσεχῶς ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεγέννηται καί ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρός, τό δέ ἐμμέσως καί οὐ προσεχῶς ἐκπορεύεται καί οὐκ ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρός ὥς γε αὐτοί φρονοῦσιν - εἰ οὖν κατ᾿ αὐτούς οὐκ ἐπίσης πρόσεστιν, οὐδέ κοινόν Υἱῷ καί Πνεύματι τό εἶναι ἐκ Πατρός˙ εἰ δέ μή κοινόν τοῦτ᾿ἔστιν αὐτοῖς, οὐδ᾿ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός ὅλως οὐδέτερον αὐτῶν. Θάτερον γάρ ὁποιονοῦν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός ὑπάρχον, θάτερον ἐκβάλλεται μή κοινωνοῦν, καί δι᾿ ἀλλήλων ἀμφότερα. Οὕτως οὐδέν ἄν διαφύγοις τῶν ἀτόπων ὁ λατινικῶς φρονῶν, ὥσπερ οὐδ᾿ οἱ ἐκ τοῦ Πνεύματος εἰπόντες τόν Υἱόν, ἀλλ᾿ οἷς ἄν ἐπιχειρήσῃς διαφεύγειν, τοῖς αὐτοῖς ἐπιχειρήμασι κἀκεῖνοι χρήσονται καί σοι δι᾿ ἑαυτῶν ἄφυκτον ἀποδείξουσι τόν τῶν ἀτόπων ἑσμόν.