Gregory palamas's two demonstrative treatises concerning the procession of the holy spirit
But o god of all, the sole giver and guardian of true theology and of the dogmas and words according to it, the only most monarchical trinity, not onl
For because of this, having been both taught and enlightened, they were sent, so that they might teach as they were taught, so that they might enlight
Being refuted by those who have written down the particulars of all the holy synods, and by the very agreement, from those times until now and rather
Hearing [him] begotten of the father before all ages and having the [word] alone understood and implied along with [the phrase] from the father, j
Shall we fall away from this? may you not suffer this, or rather, may you not remain incurable having suffered it for the right has already become kn
Of the father, not as being necessarily co-understood? therefore, when it is said so many times concerning the son that he is from the father and now
Of the father. but the one by adoption is not from him alone but through the son from the father, and yet 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 that each o
They say, therefore, that the one is from the other. what then of seth? was he begotten from one principle, because eve was from adam, (p. 106) and ar
Differs in nothing from the hypostatic [properties] therefore also the nature from the hypostasis, so that god, according to them, is not three-hypos
And the son. therefore without the cause and beginning of the divinity conceived in the trinity therefore the son has all things of (p. 114) the fath
Understanding, and that the spirit proceeds from another, on account of your ignorance concerning the word “alone”?
If, indeed, 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,
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 wit
And what of the one who exhorts both theologically and patristically in metrical verses, that if you should hear about the son and the spirit, ‘as the
An apostle: but if this, it is not a creature, but rather god, as from god and in god.” and again, “the spirit therefore is god, existing naturally in
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
For if you say that the spirit is spoken of after the son, being enumerated, which seems to you the safer of arguments—though i would say it is no les
He brought forth the word. but what he says in the first of his books *against eunomius*, that there is a form of order not according to our arrangem
Has it been handed down to be initiated? god and father, the beginning of all things, is father of the only-begotten son, who even before being added
Of the consubstantiality of the spirit, even if the latins force the sayings, dragging their meaning into their own evil-mindedness.
Of the god-befitting and most provident dispensations we render through all things the most concise doxology and thanksgiving and remembrance not tha
Was called by none of the apostles or the evangelists, but instead of this the voice of the father was sufficient for them. and by beginning i do not
Unassailable by those who do evil and who corrupt by counterfeiting the word of truth, known to all, wise and simple alike, and always on their lips.
Immediately, but not also from the son. we have additionally shown that, since the spirit is called the mind of christ, just as also our own
It is said and not from him, but with him, who was begotten from the father, the spirit also proceeds.
Furthermore after this we speak concerning the principle, and how the latin-minded answer sophistically to those who ask them, if they say there are t
They are willing, but at those who give a hand for correction—the power of the word of truth that leads to truth—they, like some who are truly incorri
Testimonies, if not rightly understood, would be able to assist those who excuse themselves unseasonably or to deliver them from their impiety and the
With god assisting us, having refuted them, (p. 192) and as it were undermining certain foundations, we will prove the whole edifice of their impiety
“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 do you see how this insufflation hints at the spirit being present and effecting the renewal for the better of the human soul, which we believe is
Varieties of services, but the same lord and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same god.” the divine powers and the
Shining in part? but concerning that which is now the subject, let us see the promise: and where is the not many days hence?
Whatever the father has is mine, he receives 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 that those to whom the manifestation is directed also be co-eternal, and in addition,
His. after him the holy spirit was manifested, the same glories of the same nature and
He 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 was not incarn
Being signified, but not being the in-breathing itself, as having its existence by necessity from that from which the in-breathing is and if being se
Of the relation and of the surpassing connaturality and of the incomprehensible and ineffable perichoresis, we again find and proclaim him the father,
The holy spirit? i think not, unless he clearly wishes to fight against god. but, he says, it is called the spirit of the son himself and his own. fo
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 hypostasis of the father, but not as the son also being a co-cause with respect to the godhead.
The holy spirit. but those who connect or make pretexts first refute each,
Opposing them or both theologians according to them? by no means. therefore we shall strike this one or those ones from the choir of the orthodox, acc
Of creatures, it is so much more magnificent for the first cause to be the origin of divinity than of creatures and to come to the creatures through a
Of the all-working god the father towards the generation and procession of the son, creator of all things and the one perfecting all things, neither t
Proceeds from the father and from me? for he was not then speaking more humbly of himself, for which reason he would have omitted this alone, conceal
Proceeds, having this as a distinctive sign of its existence in its hypostasis: to be known after the son and with him and to subsist from the father.
The discourse is concerning the economy?» and after a little: for he says here the grace that came upon the flesh for all grace was poured out into t
According to the principle of its proper cause, that is, that the son is contemplated before [the spirit] from the father, stands in the way, preventi
To ablabius, on why, when we speak of one divinity in the father and the son and the holy spirit, we are forbidden to speak of three gods, having esta
To exist, just as the holy spirit, yet causally by generation, and the holy spirit also exists causally, but not by generation.
To theologians, for the sake of greater clarity. cain was the son of adam and his only-begotten before he begat the others, but eve was a part and sh
We shall understand and take the preposition through as with, along with gregory, who is named for theology, saying, one god for us, the beginnin
God of all? but i do not speak of him as co-creating, he says, but as co-proceeding. therefore, co-proceeding, the spirit will perfect (p. 298) himsel
But, was not the mission of the word to us, which proceeded from both the father and the spirit, also essential? but the mission was not a generation
As the nature of the father and the son is one and the same. for to speak according to the divine cyril himself, as he himself writes to hermias, “the
Of the spirit as more manifest and foretold and fore-believed and the son has naturally in himself the father's own and exceptional properties, the
But that one whole. but if his energy is immeasurable, much more his essence». thus the power of the truth spoken by us conquers all things, making yo
He proclaims christ the son. and the divine cyril in his *treasures* concludes that the spirit exists naturally in the son from the father, and says t
For the spirit to proceed from those made like unto the son by grace for most particularly from the father, as from him alone having its pre-eternal
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 sensibly. do you see in such a sign that which proceeds not only being of the spirit, but
The word of wisdom is given by the spirit, and to another the word of knowledge.” but christ also dwells in the hearts of those who are not reprobate,
Counter-inscriptions
Second inscription (p. 348) since there are some who contradict the scriptural testimonies, which declare through the son
The son alongside the spirit. do you see how the sayings of the saints are both pious and good, but when taken up by you, are evil and impious?
Sixth inscription. since there are some who say that 'proceeds' and 'is poured forth' and the
They represent the father and the son as consubstantial with the holy spirit as far as is possible for it is not possible to find a perfectly suitabl
Proper to the son and from the essence of the son, the son would also be proper to the spirit and from the essence of the spirit because of the conver
Having its hypostasis from the substance is not from the remaining hypostases, but from some one of them, namely the paternal for it is not possible
You perhaps think we should give an account for not writing more often but we think we must apologize even for writing after so long a time. and what
Testify to a creative principle? if, therefore, because it is written “the principle from the principle,” nothing prevents us from speaking of two pri
Let us clarify the power of the most monarchical principle and refute those who dogmatize two principles for the one spirit, both that they dogmatize
To the cause of the son, for he too is equally a cause of divinity, or in saying it is from the father alone, let them piously grant one principle in
To think and to call, but never demonstrative, i am far from positing. for the inscriptions of the patristic sayings do not allow us to accept this, a
Is added to it. for no one, he says, is good, except one, god, the only wise, the blessed and only potentate, who alone has immortality, dwelling
And they conclude in a most archetypal principle? what then when we make demonstrations from things that are posterior, but prior to us, of the that
(p. 428) receiving, and that it is divided, even if not in itself, for which reason also in division it remains undivided, and that even in what is di
Having also written to him to do him this favor as a messenger, that if any discourse were left to us, it should come from us not to another, but to h
For it behaves indecently and ruins with interest and, know well, forces harsher arguments from us against those who are of a firm mind), but now afte
First to barlaam (p. 444)
Shall we cast away both? and how could you declare this, sitting as an arbiter over your own affairs, and not rather force the votes, desiring at leas
As i am able, i shall make it brief, being least willing to prolong it. besides, since the one who caused the scandal has been removed from our midst,
To one who clearly lies about things so clearly written? and how could one who does not hold truth in high regard attain to the truth when discoursing
And what apology he proposes, although it is a cold one and puts forward those things of the latins which have been refuted in many places and by us o
To the subject at hand: therefore, the example is one thing and that for which it became an example is another, but it is not because it is other that
Arranging them by your own authority, of whom you intemperately accuse? and not only the living, but also those who long ago departed to heaven and ar
These things would be predicated, not universally». for the super-essential and super-good and super-wise and super-luminous, of what else could it be
So that i may refute you on your own terms and the saying of solomon may come to pass: he who digs a pit for his neighbor will fall into it. what th
To speak of demonstrations, to this i would have ascribed the demonstration, not to those things from which i syllogistically deduced it.
To have become.” what is this you are saying, o man? did those men come to be in communion with an intellectual and divine light?
Do they bear witness to this? what is this, diogenes? i trample, says diogenes, on the pride of plato. with a different pride, diogenes, plato dec
The indwelling of grace, of a wonderful kind, almost ineffable and unheard of. for what word could explain how it both pervades everything and in itse
Nor did the attendant daimonion of socrates, which he obeyed throughout his life, reveal to you, the philosopher of our time, what their illumination
But let us leave this aside but i would add, telling you, 'cast away not only the ideas, but also the theories and the falsely named lights of this m
To be knowledge, and sensation would teach. have you seen how far this demonstration is from that which is beyond demonstration? almost as much as
You bring astronomical science, that is, the geometrical necessities will become weaker than spiderwebs and will fall apart, dissolved by your most de
Being neither dialectical nor demonstrative but that they are not dialectical was very easy for me to show, by merely indicating that the premises th
He makes them out to be a wonder, as having understood the divine excellence, and having brought them forward to tell about intelligible light (p. 5
Of a discourse that has been refuted and unwillingly supports our own arguments. but if the example has been found from that very source, one ought to
Is, but that also is true, that no one has ever seen god, this is what we said, that some divine things can be contemplated, but others cannot.
May grant that knowledge is gathered through contact with intelligible things, but divine things are also beyond mind how then could there be a diale
Gathering himself as much as possible, he uses the power of arguments against us, declaring that nothing of divine matters is knowable or demonstrable
Is known by knowledge and by unknowing” for that he is and that he is one is both known and demonstrated, but what he is and what sort of one is comp
I think i should pass over. for on the one hand, no one was ignorant that nothing exists in god by participation, and on the other hand, no one has so
What is said of other essences in themselves, this also exists for god as what is said concerning him for it is not possible to be and not to be if
Knowledge of god? for that which belongs to something in itself, it is not possible (p. 554) in any way for this not to be that. what do i mean? to be
But without proof there will be none. let us then set against plato his own teachings, as he is willingly set in opposition,
May be weaker in power, and that a demonstration from fewer postulates is not simply held to be superior, but that one from more is better than it, wh
Among them who have a rational, intelligent soul, do those who have surpassed all their kin in contemplation not even have a 'shadow of a shadow' of g
Elijah, having rested his head on his knees and thus having gathered his mind more laboriously into himself and into god, loosed that manifold drought
He transferred the doubling of the shadow from that to this, or rather, he does not even grant this to the observers of invisible things. and having s
For you yourself declare in your letters to us that a demonstrative principle and premise must be known by nature.
The universal has been synthesized for me from perceptions. what then, o philosopher? did you perceive the days and periods and eclipses that occurre
Of our piety and of his false doctrine, since even the great basil was called a tritheist by those who blasphemed against the son and the holy spirit.
Of him, even if with his lips he allegedly claims he is god. but god has, he says, energies, but they are created for every energy of god, apart f
Power and energy, from the patristic sayings put forth by us on these matters, he has gathered and composed against us, or rather against the holy fat
For all such things, passing into one another through one another, proceed towards non-being. but he who affirms that only the essence is uncreated, b
Of transcendent and most simple holiness and lordship and kingship and divinity is every good providence, beholding and sustaining the objects of its
Now barlaam proclaims ditheism, supposedly against us for it is clear that he makes this notorious for the sake of slandering the unassailable theolo
Created, because of which he began to be and ceased, but because of the divine and uncreated grace, and ever-existing beyond all nature and time from
To breathe a little, lest he become a suicide. for i heard him say in person here, that he often was in danger of bursting from helplessness, i suppo
Having purposed to obscure that choir and the wonderful harmony, having instilled no small courage in him.
shining in part? But concerning that which is now the subject, let us see the promise: and where is the "not many days hence"?
A little further on in his words, he also foretold this then, benevolently 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 he came to the Lord's disciples through the inbreathing before he was taken up? But let it be, he says; for the other Paraclete was not given before the Savior's ascension. Can you also say this, that he himself did not clearly promise the disciples, saying, "whom I will send to you," and "if I go, I will send him to you"?
Well done that you brought this forward after that, one might say to the one who said it; for he has also submitted to the power of the help that seems to you to come from the Scriptures. For even if this is a word of the Word of truth, nevertheless breathing and sending do not equally show what is from oneself; for he who breathes of necessity breathes 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. Wherefore the Lord ((210) making it a point that no one be led astray to believe that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from him, gave the inbreathing, which seemed to show this more, at that time when he had forbidden and postponed the coming of the Spirit; but having said "I will send" beforehand, he added "from the Father." For "though I will send," he says, "yet 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, not to proceed only then when I myself "will send," nor being sent from me without interval, as proceeding from him; for having said "I will send" I did not add "what has proceeded from him," lest the "at some time" be additionally conceived of in the case of the Father. And being about to add "who proceeds from the Father," I said beforehand not "whom I send" but "whom I will send," lest "always" be also conceived of in my case. For to have the Holy Spirit to send to the worthy is common from eternity to the Father and the Son; but each sends in time, or rather both, whenever it is necessary.
These things, therefore, can admit both the appointed time and the future time; but to have the power to proceed in no way precedes the proceeding, nor will it ever lie in the category of a promise, nor would it admit the future, away with the blasphemy, which happens to those who think 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 of later origin than those receiving it, and for a reason, or rather for many reasons: "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 to me" and bear witness with you concerning my affairs, you who have been witnesses from the beginning to the end, (p. 212) "that he may convict the world" as liable for sin, the world that named my righteousness sin; a righteousness which also cast out the ruler of sin and the very rule of sinners, having justly condemned him, because he unjustly brought the truly just one under the same liability as sinners, that he might 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 on my own authority"; since my Father 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
