27

And from this, the Latins have appeared, adding even conceptually to the symbol of faith; but we (p. 172) have appeared adding nothing even in outward speech to the pious meaning according to the divine symbol.

We accused the Latins of dogmatizing those things from which two principles of the one Spirit are introduced. But they said that nothing prevents these from being one, since the one is from the other; and they were shown to be blaspheming in this as well.

Then again, we, taking up the argument concerning the principle, showed that in no way are there two principles of the one Spirit.

We demonstrated from the fact that the things common to the Father and the Son are testified to be common also to the Spirit, that the power to cause procession is not also the Son’s; for this would also belong to the Spirit; in which we further refuted them, for making the hypostatic properties indifferent to the natural properties. And if this is so, also the divine nature to the adorable hypostases.

From the fact that it is impious not to say that creation, which has its being creatively through the Son, is from the Son, but to give the creative property to the Father alone, we concluded by necessary consequence that, if the Spirit also had its being processorily through the Son, it would be impious to say that we do not say the Spirit is from the Son and that the processory property belongs to the Father alone. But since those who say this are not only pious, but also God-bearers, therefore those who say the Spirit is also from the Son are impious.

And that, if the Spirit is through the Son, each would be called Father and Producer, both together and separately, as also in the case of creation, both Maker and Father.

From the fact that the Son is theologized as having all things of the Father except causality, which could not be that of creatures, (p. 174) and therefore is that of the Son and of the Spirit, we demonstrated again that the Spirit does not proceed also from the Son.

And we brought forward witnesses forbidding the Latin addition. We showed again from the fact that the Son does not exist also from the Spirit, that the Spirit also does not have its being from the Son. Then, from the names of the Son enumerated and contemplated by the saints,

we demonstrated that the Holy Spirit is not also from the Son. Again from the fact that not simply 'proceeding', but 'proceeding from the Father' is the property of the divine Spirit, we presented the theologians as testifying that the Holy Spirit is from the Father alone.

And from the fact that the Father is the union of the Son and the Spirit; for the mean between each of the others lies in the names.

And from the fact that the Spirit is not said to be from the Principle, but with the Principle, the Son being theologized as Principle.

And that he who says the Spirit is through the Son according to existence, and who changes 'through' into 'from,' sins. For as accompanying the Word, the Spirit is said to be through him and not from him, but with him, who was begotten of the Father, the Spirit also proceeds.

Again from the fact that each of the three persons is theologized as the mean of the other two according to hypostasis.

And that they are related to one another as each is to himself.

27

Κἀντεῦθεν ἀναπεφήνασιν οἱ μέν Λατῖνοι προστιθέντες καί κατά διάνοιαν ἐν τῷ τῆς πίστεως συμβόλῳ˙ ἡμεῖς δέ (σελ. 172) ἀναπεφήναμεν μηδέ κατά τόν ἔξω λόγον τῇ κατά τό θεῖον σύμβολον εὐσεβεῖ διανοίᾳ προστιθέντες.

Κατηγορήσαμεν τῶν Λατίνων ὡς ἐκεῖνα δογματιζόντων, ἐξ ὧν δύο ἀναφέρονται τοῦ ἑνός Πνεύματος ἀρχαί. Οἱ δέ μηδέν κωλύειν πρός τό μίαν εἶναι ταύτας ἔφησαν, ἐπειδήπερ ἡ μία ἐστίν ἐκ τῆς ἑτέρας˙ καί ἀπεδείχθησαν καί κατά τοῦτο βλασφημοῦντες.

Εἶτ᾿ αὖθις ἡμεῖς ἀναλαβόντες τόν περί τῆς ἀρχῆς λόγον, ἐδείξαμεν κατ᾿ οὐδέν τρόπον δύο εἶναι τοῦ ἑνός Πνεύματος ἀρχάς.

Παρεστήσαμεν ἐκ τοῦ τά κοινά Πατρί τε καί Υἱῷ, καί τῷ Πνεύματι κοινά εἶναι μαρτυρεῖσθαι, ὅτι οὐχί καί τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό ἐκπορεύειν˙ ἦν γάρ ἄν τοῦτο καί τοῦ Πνεύματος˙ ἐν ᾧ προσεξηλέγξαμεν αὐτούς, ἀδιάφορα τοῖς φυσικοῖς τά ὑποστατικά ποιοῦντας. Εἰ δέ τοῦτο, καί ταῖς προσκυνηταῖς ὑποστάσεσι τήν θείαν φύσιν.

Ἐκ τοῦ ἀσεβές εἶναι τήν δημιουργικῶς διά τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό εἶναι σχοῦσαν κτίσιν ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ μή λέγειν, ἀλλά τήν δημιουργικήν ἰδιότητα μόνῳ διδόναι τῷ Πατρί, κατ᾿ ἀνάγκην ἀκολούθως συνηγάγομεν, ὡς, εἰ καί ἐκπορευτῶς τό Πνεῦμα δι᾿ Υἱοῦ τό εἶναι εἶχε, δυσσεβοῦς ἦν ἄν λέγειν, ὅτι Πνεῦμα ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ οὐ λέγομεν καί ὡς ἡ ἐκπορευτική ἰδιότης μόνον τοῦ Πατρός ἐστιν. Ἐπεί δ᾿ οἱ τοῦθ᾿ οὕτω λέγοντες οὐκ εὐσεβεῖς μόνον, ἀλλά καί θεοφόροι, δυσσεβεῖς οὐκοῦν οἱ λέγοντες καί ἐξ Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα.

Καί ὡς, εἰ δι᾿ Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα, ὁμοῦ τε καί χωρίς ἑκάτερος Πατήρ ἄν λέγοιτο καί προβολεύς, ὡς καί ἐπί τῆς κτίσεως, ποιητής τε καί Πατήρ.

Ἐκ τοῦ πάντα ἔχειν θεολογεῖσθαι τόν Υἱόν τά τοῦ Πατρός ἄνευ τῆς αἰτίας, ἥτις οὐκ ἄν ἡ τῶν κτισμάτων εἴη, (σελ. 174) τοιγαροῦν ἡ τοῦ Υἱοῦ καί τοῦ Πνεύματός ἐστιν, ἀπεδείξαμεν αὖθις οὐχί καί ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα ἐκπορεύεσθαι.

Καί μάρτυρας παρηγάγομεν ἀπαγορεύοντας τήν λατινικήν προσθήκην. Ἐδείξαμεν αὖθις ἐκ τοῦ μή τόν Υἱόν καί ἐκ τοῦ Πνεύματος ὑπάρχειν, ὅτι καί τό

Πνεῦμα οὐχί καί ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό εἶναι ἔχει. Εἶτα, ἐκ τῶν ἀπηριθμημένων καί τεθεωρημένων τοῖς ἁγίοις ὀνομάτων τοῦ Υἱοῦ,

παρεστήσαμεν ὡς οὐχί καί ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιόν ἐστι. Πάλιν ἐκ τοῦ μή ἐκπορευτόν ἁπλῶς, ἀλλά τό ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός ἐκπορευτόν ἴδιον

εἶναι τοῦ θείου Πνεύματος, τούς θεολόγους μαρτυρεῖν παρεστήσαμεν ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρός τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον.

Καί ἀπό τοῦ ἕνωσιν Υἱοῦ καί Πνεύματος εἶναι τόν Πατέρα˙ ἡ γάρ τῶν ἄλλων ἑκατέρου μεσότης ἐν τοῖς ὀνόμασι κεῖται.

Καί ἀπό τοῦ μή ἐκ τῆς ἀρχῆς τό Πνεῦμα λέγεσθαι, ἀλλά μετά τῆς ἀρχῆς, ἀρχῆς εἶναι θεολογουμένου τοῦ Υἱοῦ.

Καί ὡς ὁ δι᾿ Υἱοῦ καθ᾿ ὕπαρξιν τό Πνεῦμα λέγων καί εἰς τήν 'ἐκ' τήν 'διά' μεταλαμβάνων ἁμαρτάνει. Ὡς γάρ συμπαρομαρτοῦν τῷ λόγῳ δι᾿ αὐτοῦ τό Πνεῦμα λέγεται καί οὐκ ἐξ ἐκείνου, ἀλλά σύν ἐκείνῳ, γεννηθέντι ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός, καί τό Πνεῦμα ἐκπορεύεται.

Αὖθις ἐκ τοῦ θεολογεῖσθαι τῶν τριῶν προσώπων ἕκαστον, τῶν καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν ἑτέρων δύο μέσον.

Καί πρός ἄλληλα ἔχειν ὡς ἕκαστον πρός ἑαυτό.