GREGORY PALAMAS' TWO APODEICTIC TREATISES CONCERNING THE PROCESSION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT
But O God of all, the only giver and guardian of true theology and of the dogmas and words according to it, the only most monarchical Trinity, not onl
Since also for this reason, having been taught and enlightened, they were sent forth, that they might teach as they were taught, that they might enlig
being refuted by those who have recorded the details of all the holy councils, and by the very agreement, from them until now and indeed forever, of t
hearing that He was begotten of the Father before all ages, and having the word “alone” understood and implied with that which is from the Father, jus
shall we fall from this? May you not suffer this, or rather, may you not remain incurable having suffered it for the correct way has already become k
of the Father, is it not understood by necessity? When it has been said so many times, therefore, concerning the Son that He is from the Father, and
of the Father but the one by adoption is not from him alone but through the Son from the Father, and yet he is not Son only, but also Spirit by grace
But nowhere did any of the theologians say either two or three. For just as we say that each of those three adorable hypostases is God, and each of th
They say, therefore, that the one is from the other. What then of Seth? Was he born from one principle, because Eve was from Adam, (p. 106) and are th
differs in nothing from the hypostatic [properties] therefore neither does the nature from the hypostasis, so that, according to them, God is not of
and the Son. Therefore without the cause and principle of the divinity understood in the Trinity: the Son therefore has all things of (p. 114) the Fat
mind, and that the Spirit proceeds from another because of your ignorance concerning 'alone'?
If 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 h
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 w
What of him who exhorts us in measured Epic verse, at once theologically and patristically, that if you should hear concerning the Son and the Spirit,
apostle. But if this is so, He is not a creature, but rather God, as from God and in God”. And again, “The Spirit therefore is God, existing naturally
For we heard a little above from the one named for theology, who said that the Father is the source and origin of eternal light, but the Son is in no
For if you should say that the Spirit is numbered and spoken of after the Son, which seems to you the more secure of arguments, although I would say i
he brought forth the Word. But what he says in the first book of *Against Eunomius*, that there is a form of order not according to
has been handed down to be initiated? God and Father, the principle of all things, is Father of the only-begotten Son, who even before being added to
of the consubstantiality of the Spirit, even if the Latins force the sayings, dragging their meaning into their own malevolence.
of the God-befitting and most provident economies we render through all things the most concise doxology and eucharist and remembrance not that they
he was called by none of the apostles or of the evangelists, but instead of this the voice of the Father sufficed for them. And by principle I do not
unassailable by evildoers and by those who fraudulently corrupt the word of truth by counterfeiting, known to all, both wise and unlearned, and always
immediately, but not also from the Son. We have additionally demonstrated that, since the Spirit is also called the mind of Christ, just as also of us
It is said and not from Him, but with Him, begotten from the Father, and the Spirit proceeds.
Furthermore, after this we speak concerning the principle, and how those who think in the Latin way respond sophistically to those asking them, if the
they are willing, but to those who offer a hand for correction, the power of the word of truth leading to truth, they, like some truly uneducated peop
testimonies, not well understood, might be able to assist those who excuse themselves unseasonably or to deliver them from their impiety and the etern
With God working with us, having refuted them, (p. 192) and as it were having undermined certain foundations, we will show that the whole edifice of t
John, the son of Zacharias,” according to the divine evangelist Luke, (p. 196) and “as the Lord spoke through His holy prophets to show mercy,” Zachar
But you see how this inbreathing signifies the Spirit as present and perfecting the renewal for the better of the human soul, which we believe is acco
there are varieties of service, but the same Lord and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God.” Therefore, the divine powers and en
shining in part? But concerning what the discourse is now, let us see the promise. But where is the not many days hence? Having advanced a little in
all that the Father has is mine, he takes from what is mine and will announce it for both the wealth and the gifts are common to us.
it is fitting to glorify the eternal Spirit but it is necessary for those to whom the manifestation is directed to be co-eternal, and it is added tha
of him. After him, the Holy Spirit was revealed, itself providing to the apostles by grace the same glories of the same nature,
sent, having returned whence He came down. But the Son is both God and has become man therefore He was sent also as man the Spirit did not become in
signified, but not being the inbreathing itself, so as of necessity to have its existence from that from which is the inbreathing and if also sent, i
of the relation and of the surpassing co-naturality and of the incomprehensible and ineffable perichoresis, we find and proclaim Him again, the Father
the Holy Spirit? I do not think so, unless he clearly wishes to fight against God. But, he says, the Spirit is also called of the Son Himself and His
and they set aside the essence and the hypostasis of the all-holy Spirit. Therefore, the conclusion from division of the Latin hypothetical syllogism
and there by the theologians, as indicative of the Father's hypostasis, but not as of the Son also being a joint-cause with respect to the Godhead.
Holy Spirit. But those who connect or make pretexts first refute each,
contradicting, or both theologians in accordance with them? By no means. Therefore, according to you, we shall strike this one or those ones from the
of creatures, it is by so much more magnificent for the first cause to be the origin of divinity than of creatures and to come to creatures through a
of the all-working God the Father with respect to the generation and procession of the Son, the creator of all things and who consummates all things,
of the Father and proceeds from Me? For He was not then speaking more humbly concerning Himself, on which account He would have omitted this alone, c
proceeds, having this as a distinctive sign of its existence according to its hypostasis: to be known after the Son and with Him, and to subsist from
the discourse is about the economy?» And a little later: for here he speaks of the grace that came upon the flesh for all grace was poured out into
according to the principle of its proper cause, that is, that the Son is contemplated as being from the Father, stands in the way, preventing the Spir
To Ablabius, on why, when we speak of one divinity in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, we forbid speaking of three gods, having set forth t
to exist, just as the Holy Spirit, caused, however, by generation, and that the Holy Spirit also exists caused, but not by generation.
to theologians, for the sake of greater clarity. Cain was the son of Adam and his only-begotten before he begot the others, but Eve was a part and sh
We shall understand and take the preposition through to mean with, with Gregory, who is named for theology, saying, One God for us, the Father wi
God of all? But I do not speak of him as co-creating, he says, but as co-proceeding. Therefore, the Spirit, by co-proceeding, will perfect (p. 298) hi
But was not the sending of the Word to us also essential, having come from both the Father and the Spirit? But the sending was not generation for the
as being of one and the same nature of the Father and of the Son. For so that I might speak according to the divine Cyril himself, as he himself write
of the Spirit as more manifest and fore-announced and fore-attested˙ “And the Son has naturally in Himself the proper and excellent things of the Fath
but he entirely and if his energy is immeasurable, much more so his essence. Thus the power of the truth spoken by us conquers all things, of resour
proclaims Christ as the Son. And the divine Cyril in his Treasures concludes that the Spirit exists naturally in the Son from the Father, and says tha
the Spirit to proceed from those made like unto the Son by grace: for it is most particularly from the Father, as from Him alone having its pre-eterna
proceeding from the Father himself that is, each of them immediately and from the Father alone, that is, from the very hypostasis of the Father. But
of the divine sign from the heavens and the earth was shaken perceptibly. Do you see in such a sign that which proceeds not only being of the Spirit,
of the Spirit is given the word of wisdom, and to another the word of knowledge.” But Christ also dwells in the hearts of those who are not reprobate,
COUNTER-INSCRIPTIONS
generation and procession».
Spirit, the (p. 352) Father will then no longer be a different person from the Son, nor the Son from the Spirit. Do you see how the sayings of the sai
Sixth Inscription. Since there are some who say that 'proceeds' and 'is poured forth' and
Eighth counter-inscription. The present collected Scriptural usages and through examples the toward the
to discern that the Spirit is also for this reason said to be proper to the Son, because it is from his essence and again for this reason it is said
somehow has its existence also from that hypostasis, and vice versa for whatever is from that hypostasis is also from that essence. But when somethin
EPISTLE 1 TO AKINDYNOS (p. 398)
saying, which would not be the case for the creative principle for that one is the same. (p. 402) Besides, if this signifies the creative [principle]
falsehood is advanced, so that it is necessary to bring upon their own heads that which is contrary to theology, which is blasphemy. Thus, one must re
Therefore here, where, even if not one, there is nevertheless the generative capacity of both, it is not possible for the one to be a single principle
thinking? So much for these things in this way. But we were taught by the fathers to reason in deed concerning such matters
glorious from glorious things, which is to say plausible from plausible things. For they know nothing certain or secure about God, but became futile
Spirit of the God-bearing divinity, like flowers and superessential lights,” if someone says the superessential Spirit is by nature from God, and that
I have wiped away the creeping censure in the inscription, so that it might not be referred to the one praising it. Therefore, in order that I might m
SECOND [LETTER] TO AKINDYNOS (p. 334)
we have written back for some time for expected immediately after the return from you to us of the wise and most excellent Thessalian Nilus was the o
A clear and common, if one must say, purification or precaution, for those still ambitiously occupied with words, with the irrational opinion from wor
Two letters, therefore, from the same person about the same subject in the same way were delivered to me, having a contrary disposition to one another
you were overturned, not only in your words against us, but also when discoursing about higher things and you suffered this from inopportune talkativ
so far were we from thinking or calling ourselves perfect, (p. 456) that we even say that the initial desire to touch upon the path leading to the mys
And here your error concerns the word, but not there concerning the word, but concerning arguments and many arguments, which you, having done well to
of the superessential divinity is the Father» for he did not say, «the only source not 'from a source'», nor «one source rather», nor «the only sourc
Thus in no way is one naturally disposed to harm the other. But that it is not for you to speak of God as “what light is, but rather a source of light
having testified to the correct view, but having summarized and abridged it in a more moderate and more common and more concise way, as much as possib
and by this the initial premise is begged through tautology, being advanced in effect. Do you wish that we further scrutinize this syllogism of yours
by which they also appropriate this and are harmonized with the melody of the Spirit. If you wish to hear what divine proof they speak of, and not sim
you string together their words which have it thus: “for the vision of things above us, it is necessary to arrive from above and for an intelligible l
pays attention with his mind as though he is about to be led through it to the knowledge of God, suffers this very thing and is made a fool, though he
of the soul, has an opportunity among those who are not most attentive and not secured by humility to slip in and mingle with them, the spirit of erro
of a root (p. 498) a most fruitful tree, but we do not have the perceptive power to adequately reach the richness of the root, come let us look again
the unholy stains impressed from these things to those enlightened ones they deem worthy to speak? Do you not hear the one who says, cast away for me
our cooperation towards lack and a falling away from him, and lowest because it is furthest from the highest, and fallen because it was formerly above
we say that divine things are removed from all things and are completely removed from demonstration, or rather, we do say it, but not of this [demonst
there is no demonstration concerning any of the divine things, and his entire struggle tends toward no end at all. For if this becomes perfectly clear
dims and mutilates by the power of those arguments, so that this obstacle might also be removed, I made the argument concerning this. But he, angered
the Spirit, from the Father alone, and if from the Father alone, not also from the Son, and they are so equally balanced to each other that in all the
But you, least of all initiated in these things, as it seems, say that of divine things there is neither knowledge nor demonstration, but only faith,
of regions. Therefore we, through the guidance of the fathers, having found a demonstration of that which is beyond demonstration, something better th
with the hypocrisy of the heterodox, you proceed against the orthodox and the patristic sayings put forward by us, I know not how, you attempt to do a
bearing witness? That it both is and is not, in one way and another way and this is what we have said, that some divine things are known and demonstr
For I see that all things need one and the same will and wisdom and power to come into being from non-being but one will and wisdom and power at the
He abolished all number. And this is, that we may speak according to his knowledge, a paralogism, the one from ignorance of refutation, which the nobl
and to all her hymnographers from eternity. Since, therefore, all things are about the thearchic super-essentiality, and those things about it are div
mocking, he has named them childish lessons. But if there is something useful for us in it, it is no wonder for even from snakes there is a good medi
I think I will pass over the things with which you boast, exalting yourself with big words as one having power in arguments. For just as above he was
to encounter a shadow of God» (p. 566) that the God-seers of the fathers encounter, shamelessly rising up against these and that one like some false w
of knowledge and of the rejected wisdom, as not having known God, he waged war against the teachers. For since they said to him, according to a tradit
and to call the detailed teachings of the Holy Scriptures images of their intellectual contemplative fulfillment. We shall say, then, from where he, h
undisputed but there are certain skeptics who also contradict everyone in common. And yet, the common notion that something does not in any way come
it has a body running under it while it is perpendicular. For when the sky is clear, it is never walled off by another body. They will say these thing
is wrestled against, but is the demonstration a word? You therefore, either accept your demonstration, which you claim, to be irrationality, or a word
For to beget is of nature, but to make is of energy and the essence of God is one thing, and the essential energy of God is another and the essence
He is nameless as He is above every name. As we were saying these and such things against the impious writings and preachings of Barlaam,
...which are called a collection and fullness of divinity according to Scripture, being equally contemplated and theologized in each of the holy hypos
Is the providence which is excelled by that essence as by a cause—this also being called divinity as not being outside the fullness of the one divinit
good-principality, if you should understand divinity, he says, and goodness as the very thing of the good-making and God-making gift of the so-call
I say unoriginate, eternal, unceasing, and, to say the same thing, it is called uncreated according to itself. For according to the divine Maximus aga
we have made in summary against the things written by him against the orthodox, signed by the most holy protos and the hegumens and the chosen elders
But we will not tolerate being remiss in speaking against their accuser. For know that both the war has been stirred up against the saints and the ins
shining in part? But concerning what the discourse is now, let us see the promise. But where is the "not many days hence"? Having advanced a little in His words, He then foretold this also, lovingly comforting His own with the greatest things: "For it is to your advantage," He says, "that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Paraclete will not come to you." How then does anyone dare to say that through the inbreathing He came to the disciples of the Lord before He was taken up? But let it be so, he says; for the other Paraclete was not given before the ascension of the Savior. Can you also say this, that He Himself did not clearly promise to the disciples, saying, "whom I will send to you," and "if I go, I will send him to you"?
Well done that you have brought this forward after that, one might say to the one who said it; for it has also yielded to the power of the support which seems to you to come from the Scriptures. For even if this is a word of the Word of truth, nevertheless to inbreathe and to send do not in the same way show that which is from oneself; for he who inbreathes of all necessity inbreathes from himself with the spirit from himself; which is the same as to say with the inbreathing proceeding from himself. But not everyone who sends, sends that which is from himself and proceeds from himself, but also that which has come to him from another. Therefore the Lord also, ((210) being careful that no one be led astray to suppose that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Him also, gave the inbreathing, which seemed to represent this more, at the time when He forbad and postponed the coming of the Spirit; but having said beforehand "I will send", He added "from the Father". For even if "I will send," He says, it is not from Myself, but having received from the Father, from whom He proceeds. For He alone sends from Himself, as having this proceeding from Himself, and always having this proceeding from Himself, not proceeding only at that time when I Myself "will send," nor being sent from Me without interval, as it proceeds from Him. For in saying "I will send" I did not add "having proceeded from Him", so that "at some time" should not be additionally conceived of the Father. And when I was about to add "who proceeds from the Father," I first said, not "whom I send," but "whom I will send," so that "always" might not be conceived of Me as well. For to have the power to send the Holy Spirit to the worthy is common from eternity to the Father and the Son; but each sends in time, or rather both, whenever it may be necessary.
This, therefore, can admit both a set time and a future time; but having the power to proceed in no way precedes the act of proceeding, nor will it ever be a matter of promise, nor would it admit of futurity, away with the blasphemy, as happens to those who think that the sending forth of the Spirit from the Son is eternal. For He was sent to some and was given to the disciples from the Son, who received it from the Father in time, the mission itself being subsequent to those who received it, and for a cause, or rather for many causes: "that he may abide," he says, "with you forever," "that he may teach you and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you," "that he may bear witness about me" and may bear witness with you concerning me, who bear witness from the beginning to the end, (p. 212) "that he may convict the world" as liable to sin, which called My righteousness sin; a righteousness which justly condemned and cast out the very ruler of sin and of the rule of sinners, because he unjustly brought the truly righteous one under the same accountability as sinners, that He may glorify Me, having guided you into all the truth. For He is the "Spirit of truth," and "He does not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears from the Father," just as I also "spoke nothing from Myself"; and since the Father is mine and "all things
κατά μέρος ἐλλάμποντας; Ἀλλ᾿ ὑπέρ οὗ νῦν ὁ λόγος, ἴδωμεν τήν ἐπαγγελίαν˙ τό δ᾿ «οὐ μετά πολλάς ταύτας
ἡμέρας» ποῦ; Αὐτοῦ τῶν λόγων μικρόν προελθών καί τοῦτο τότε προείρηκεν ἐκ τῶν μεγίστων τούς οἰκείους φιλανθρώπως παραμυθούμενος˙
«συμφέρει γάρ», φησίν, ὑμῖν, «ἵνα ἐγώ ἀπέλθω˙ ἐάν γάρ ἐγώ μή ἀπέλθω, ὁ παράκλητος οὐκ ἐλεύσεται πρός ὑμᾶς». Πῶς οὖν τις τολμᾷ
λέγειν, ὅτι διά τοῦ ἐμφυσήματος ἦλθε πρός τούς μαθητάς τοῦ Κυρίου πρίν ἀναληφθῆναι αὐτόν; Ἀλλ᾿ ἔστω, φησίν˙ οὐ γάρ ἐδόθη πρό
τῆς ἀναλήψεως τοῦ Σωτῆρος ὁ ἄλλος παράκλητος. Ἔχεις καί τοῦτο λέγειν, ὡς οὐκ αὐτός σαφῶς τοῖς μαθηταῖς ἐπηγγείλατο λέγων,
«ὅν ἐγώ πέμψω ὑμῖν», καί «ἐάν ἐγώ πορευθῶ, πέμψω αὐτόν πρός ὑμᾶς»;
Εὖγέ σοι τοῦτο μετ᾿ ἐκεῖνο προήχθη, πρός τόν εἰπόντα φαίη τις ἄν˙ ὑποβέβηκε γάρ καί τῇ δυνάμει τοῦ δοκοῦντος ὑμῖν παρά τῶν
Γραφῶν βοηθήματος. Εἰ γάρ καί τοῦτο λόγος τοῦ Λόγου τῆς ἀληθείας, ἀλλ᾿ οὐχ ὁμοίως τό ἐμφυσᾶν καί τό πέμπειν τό παρ᾿ ἑαυτοῦ
δείκνυσιν˙ ὁ μέν γάρ ἐμφυσῶν κατά πᾶσαν ἀνάγκην ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ ἐμφυσᾷ τῷ παρ᾿ ἑαυτοῦ πνεύματι˙ ταὐτόν δ᾿ εἰπεῖν τῷ παρ᾿ ἑαυτοῦ
ἐκπορευομένῳ ἐμφυσήματι. Οὐ μήν δέ καί πᾶς ὁ πέμπων τό παρ᾿ ἑαυτοῦ ὄν τε καί ἐκπορευόμενον πέμπει, ἀλλά καί τό παρ᾿ ἑτέρου
πρός αὐτόν ἧκον. ∆ιό καί σπουδήν ὁ Κύριος ((210) θέμενος τοῦ μηδένα παραχθέντα δοξάζειν, ὅτι τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον καί ἐξ αὐτοῦ
ἐκπορεύεται, τό μέν ἐμφύσημα, ὅ τοῦτ᾿ ἐδόκει μᾶλλον παριστᾶν, τότ᾿ ἔδωκεν, ὅτε ἀπείρηκε καί ὑπερέθετο τήν ἐπιδημίαν τοῦ Πνεύματος˙
τό δέ «πέμψω» προειπών, προσέηκε τό «παρά τοῦ Πατρός». Εἰ γάρ καί «πέμψω», φησίν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ παρ᾿ ἐμαυτοῦ, ἀλλά παρά τοῦ Πατρός
λαβών, ἀφ᾿ οὗ ἐκπορεύεται˙ ἐκεῖνος γάρ μόνος πέμπει παρ᾿ ἑαυτοῦ, ὡς παρ᾿ ἑαυτοῦ τοῦτ᾿ ἔχων ἐκπορευόμενον, καί ἀεί τοῦτ᾿ ἔχων
ἐκπορευόμενον, οὐ τότε μόνον ἐκπορευθησόμενον ὅτε καί αὐτός ἐγώ «πέμψω», οὐδέ παρ᾿ ἐμοῦ ἀδιαστάτως πεμπόμενον, ὥσπερ παρ᾿
ἐκείνου ἐκπορευόμενον˙ οὐ γάρ εἰπών «πέμψω» τό "παρ᾿ ἐκείνου ἐκπορευθέν" προσεπήγαγον, ἵνα μή ἐπί τοῦ Πατρός προσεπινοηθῇ
τό "ποτέ". Καί ἐπιφέρειν μέλλων «ὅ παρά τοῦ Πατρός ἐκπορεύεται», φθάσας εἶπον, οὐχ "ὅ ἐγώ πέμπω", ἀλλ᾿ «ὅ ἐγώ πέμψω», ἵνα
μή συνεπινοηθῇ καί ἐπ᾿ ἐμοῦ τό ἀεί. Τό μέν γάρ πέμπειν ἔχειν τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον πρός τούς ἀξίους κοινόν ἐστιν ἐξ ἀϊδίου τῷ
Πατρί καί τῷ Υἱῷ˙ πέμπει δέ χρονικῶς ἑκάτερος, ἀμφότεροι δέ μᾶλλον, ὁπότε δέοι.
Ταῦτ᾿ ἄρα καί τήν προθεσμίαν καί τόν μέλλοντα χρόνον ἐπιδέχεσθαι δύναται˙ τοῦ δέ ἐκπορεύειν τό ἐκπορεύειν ἔχειν οὐδαμῶς προηγεῖται,
οὐδ᾿ ἐν ἐπαγγελίας μοίρᾳ κείσεταί ποτε, οὐδέ τό μελλειν ἐπιδέξαιτ᾿ ἄν, ἄπαγε τῆς βλασφημίας, ἤ συμβαίνει τοῖς οἰομένοις ἀΐδιον
εἶναι τήν παρά τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἔκπεμψιν τοῦ Πνεύματος. Ἐπέμφη γάρ τισι καί ἐδόθη πρός τούς μαθητάς ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ, λαβόντος παρά τοῦ
Πατρός χρονικῶς καί αὐτῶν τῶν λαμβανόντων ὑστερογενεστέρας οὔσης τῆς ἀποστολῆς, καί δι᾿ αἰτίαν, μᾶλλον δέ διά πολλάς αἰτίας˙
«ἵνα μένῃ», φησί, «μεθ᾿ ὑμῶν εἰς τόν αἰῶνα», «ἵνα ὑμᾶς διδάξῃ καί ὑπομνήσῃ πάντα ἅ εἶπον ὑμῖν», «ἵνα μαρτυρήσῃ περί ἐμοῦ»
καί ὑμῖν συμμαρτυρήσῃ τά κατ᾿ ἐμέ, ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς μέχρι τέλους μαρτυροῦσιν, (σελ. 212) «ἵνα ἐλέγξῃ τόν κόσμον» ὑπεύθυνον τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ,
τόν ἁμαρτίν ὀνομάσαντα τήν ἐμήν δικαιοσύνην˙ δικαιοσύνην ἥ καί αὐτόν τόν ἄρχοντα τῆς ἁμαρτίας καί αὐτῆς τῆς τῶν ἁμαρτωλῶν
ἐξέβαλεν ἀρχῆς κατακρίνασα δικαίως, ὅτι τόν ὄντως δίκαιον ἀδίκως ὑπό τήν αὐτήν τοῖς ἁμαρτωλοῖς ἤγαγεν εὐθύνην, ἵν᾿ ἐμέ δοξάσῃ,
ὁδηγῆσαν ὑμᾶς πρός πᾶσαν τήν ἀλήθειαν. Καί γάρ «Πνεῦμα ἀληθείας» ἐστί, καί «οὐκ ἀφ᾿ ἑαυτοῦ λαλεῖ, ἀλλ᾿ ὅσα ἀν ἀκούῃ παρά τοῦ
Πατρός», ὥσπερ κἀγώ οὐδέν ἐλάλησα ἀπ᾿ ἐμαυτοῦ»˙ ἐπεί δέ ὁ Πατήρ ἐμός καί «πάντα
