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.

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. "For God sent," says the apostle, "the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father."

Very well; for having omitted the "from," you, whoever you are, the recent opponent, now put forward to us the "of Him" without this; or for you is the "from Him" also newly conceived and constructed out of the "of Him," by the dialectic of the incomprehensible? Tell me now, are you not of yourself? This, I think, you will run away from us. For you do not seem to me to have heard the one who says, "become your own man." For if you had heard and obeyed, you would have cherished the traditions concerning God and things beyond man, both in words and deeds, and you would have least of all attempted to innovate these things. But if man is of himself, then man is from himself, according to you. But why, he says, do we not reasonably call the Son "of the Spirit"? For the Spirit would seem to be the Father, since the Son brings the Father to mind; for this reason, therefore, we do not say Son of the Spirit, lest He seem to be from the Spirit, but we do say Spirit of the Son, but not for this reason also from the Son; for He is called His Spirit, not as being from Him, but as being in Him.

(p. 238) And learn this from the apostle, who says, "no one knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him"; as, therefore, it is called the spirit of man, but not as from man, but as being in man, so also the divine Spirit is called of the Son, but not as from the Son, but as being in the Son naturally from eternity and escaping what seem to you the ineluctable necessities of syllogisms.

For the one who thinks in the Latin manner, reasoning by division, says: "since the Spirit is of the Son, it is either as being bestowed through Him, or as being consubstantial, or as proceeding from Him. And it is not as being bestowed, for the Spirit of the Son exists pre-eternally, but being bestowed is of later origin. Nor as being consubstantial, for then the Son would also be called of the Spirit. It remains, therefore, for the Spirit of the Son to be and to be called as proceeding from Him." What then, if something should appear outside of this division, according to which the Spirit would be called of the Son, would not this hypothetical syllogism of yours from division become altogether an invalid syllogism?

For the Spirit is of the Son as proceeding from the Father from ages and unto ages and existing and resting naturally in the Son; and for this reason it is called Spirit of the Son, but it is not said to be from the Son. For the mind of man also comes into being from God and exists in him, that is, in the man; and it is called mind of man, but man is not called of the mind; but neither is the mind said to be from man, at least according to essence; for the discussion is not now about energy. Therefore the Spirit is not from the Son, unless you should call grace and energy "Spirit"; for you might say that the mind, when the name signifies energy, is from man, as being manifested and imparted.

One might also see the theologians saying that the Holy Spirit is the mind of Christ; for the divine Cyril (p. 240) in the fourth chapter of the Thesauri says, "that being the mind of Christ, He discourses on all things in Him to the disciples." Just as, therefore, in our case the mind is of man both according to essence and according to energy, and according to essence the mind is of him but not from him, but according to energy it is both of him and from him, so also the Holy Spirit is of Christ as God both according to essence and according to energy. But according to essence and hypostasis, it is of Him, but not from Him; but according to energy it is both of Him and from Him. But the Latins, by saying the Spirit is of the Son, and not also 'of the Son, but not from the Son,' abolish the very

τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον; Οὐκ ἔγωγε οἶμαι, εἰ μή σαφῶς ἐθέλει θεομαχεῖν. Ἀλλά καί αὐτοῦ, φησί, τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα καί ἴδιον αὐτοῦ λέγεται. «Ἐξαπέστειλε γάρ ὁ Θεός», φησίν, ὁ ἀπόστολος, «τό Πνεῦμα τοῦ Υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ἡμῶν, κρᾶζον˙ ἀββά, ὁ Πατήρ».

Ὑπέρευγε˙ τήν "ἐξ" γάρ ἀφείς, σύγε ὅς τίς ποτ᾿ εἶ ὁ πρόσφατος ἀντικείμενος, τό αὐτοῦ νῦν ἡμῖν προβάλλῃ ταύτης χωρίς˙ ἤ σοι κἀκ τοῦ αὐτοῦ τό ἐξ αὐτοῦ νεοεῖταί τε καί κατασκευάζεται, τῷ διαλεκτικῷ τῶν ἀπερινοήτων; Εἰπέ δή μοι, καί σύ αὐτός οὐ σαυτοῦ; Τοῦτό γε, οἶμαι, ἀποδράσεις ἡμῶν. Οὐ γάρ ἔοικάς μοι ἀκοῦσαι τοῦ λέγοντος, «γενοῦ σεαυτοῦ ἄνθρωπε». Εἰ γάρ ἤκουσας καί ὑπήκουσας, ἔστεργες ἄν τά παραδεδομένα περί Θεοῦ καί τοῖς ὑπέρ ἄνθρωπον καί λόγοις καί πράγμασι, καί ταῦτα καινοτομῶν, ἥκιστα ἐπεχείρησας. Ἀλλ᾿ εἰ ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἑαυτοῦ, οὐκοῦν ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ κατά σέ. Τόν Υἱόν δέ τοῦ Πνεύματος πῶς οὐ λέγομεν, φησίν, εἰκότως˙ δόξαι γάρ ἄν Πατήρ τό Πνεῦμα, τοῦ Υἱοῦ συνεισάγοντος τῇ διανοίᾳ τόν Πατέρα˙ διά τοῦτο τοίνυν Υἱόν μέν Πνεύματος οὐ λέγομεν, ἵνα μή δόξῃ ἐκ τοῦ Πνεύματος, Υἱοῦ δέ Πνεῦμα λέγομεν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ παρά τοῦτο καί ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ˙ Πνεῦμα γάρ αὐτοῦ λέγεται, οὐχ ὡς ἐξ αὐτοῦ, ἀλλ᾿ ὡς ἐν αὐτῷ ὄν.

(σελ. 238) Καί τοῦτο διδάσκου παρά τοῦ ἀποστόλου, «οὐδείς οἶδε, λέγοντος, τά τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, εἰ μή τό Πνεῦμα τοῦ ἀνθρώπου τό ἐν αὐτῷ»˙ ὡς οὖν Πνεῦμα μέν ἀνθρώπου λέγεται, ἀλλ᾿ οὐχ ὡς ἐκ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, ἀλλ᾿ ὡς ἐν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ ὄν, οὕτω καί τό θεῖον Πνεῦμα καλεῖται τοῦ Υἱοῦ, ἀλλ᾿ οὐχ ὡς ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ, ἀλλ᾿ ὡς ἐν τῷ Υἱῷ φυσικῶς ἐξ ἀϊδίου ὄν καί τάς ἀφύκτους δοκούσας σοι τῶν συλλογισμῶν ἀνάγκας διαφεῦγον.

Ἐκ διαιρέσεως γάρ ὁ λατινικῶς φρονῶν συλλογιζόμενος φησι˙ «ἐπεί τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἐστι τό Πνεῦμα, ἤ ὡς δι᾿ αὐτοῦ χορηγούμενόν ἐστιν ἤ ὡς ὁμοούσιον ἤ ὡς ἐξ αὐτοῦ ἐκπορευόμενον. Καί ὡς μέν χορηγούμενον οὐκ ἔστι˙ προαιωνίως μέν γάρ ὑπάρχει τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα, τό δέ χορηγεῖσθαι ὑστερογενές. Οὐδ᾿ ὡς ὁμοούσιον˙ λέγοιτο γάρ ἄν καί ὁ Υἱός τοῦ Πνεύματος. Λείπεται τοίνυν τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα εἶναί τε καί λέγεσθαι ὡς ἐξ αὐτοῦ ἐκπορευόμενον». Τί οὖν, ἐάνπερ ἀναφανῇ τι ταύτης τῆς διαιρέσεως ἐκτός, καθ᾿ ὅ τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα λέγοιτ᾿ ἄν, οὐχ ὁ ἐκ διαιρέσεως οὗτός σοι καθ᾿ ὑπόθεσιν συλλογισμός ἀσυλλόγιστος τό παράπαν γένοιτ᾿ ἄν;

Ἔστι γάρ τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα ὡς ἐξ αἰώνων καί εἰς αἰῶνας ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός ἐκπορευόμενον καί ἐν Υἱῷ φυσικῶς ὑπάρχον καί ἀναπαυόμενον˙ καί διά τοῦτο Πνεῦμα μέν Υἱοῦ λέγεται, ἐκ δέ τοῦ Υἱοῦ οὐ λέγεται. Καί ὁ νοῦς γάρ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστι γενόμενος καί ἐν αὐτῷ ὑπάρχων, δηλονότι τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ˙ καί νοῦς μέν ἀνθρώπου λέγεται, ἄνθρωπος δέ τοῦ νοῦ οὐ λέγεται˙ ἀλλ᾿ οὐδ᾿ ἐξ ἀνθρώπου λέγεται ὁ νοῦς, ὅ γε κατ᾿ οὐσίαν˙ οὐ γάρ δή περί ἐνεργείας νῦν ὁ λόγος. Οὐκ ἄρα ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἐστι τό Πνεῦμα, εἰ μή τήν χάριν εἴπῃς Πνεῦμα καί τήν ἐνέργειαν˙ καί τόν νοῦν γάρ, ὅταν τήν ἐνέργειαν σημαίνῃ τοὔνομα, φαίῃς ἄν ἐκ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, ὡς ἐκφαινόμενός τε καί μεταδιδόμενον.

Ἴδοι δ᾿ ἄν τις τούς θεολόγους καί νοῦν λέγοντας εἶναι Χριστοῦ τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον˙ ὁ γάρ θεῖος Κύριλλος (σελ. 240) ἐν τετάρτῳ κεφαλαίῳ τῶν Θησαυρῶν φησιν, «ὅτι νοῦς ὑπάρχον τοῦ Χριστοῦ, πάντα τά ἐν αὐτῷ διαλέγεται τοῖς μαθηταῖς». Καθάπερ οὖν ἐφ᾿ ἡμῶν ὁ νοῦς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐστί καί κατ᾿ οὐσίαν καί κατ᾿ ἐνέργειαν, καί κατ᾿ οὐσίαν μέν αὐτοῦ ἐστιν ὁ νοῦς, ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ ἐξ αὐτοῦ, κατ᾿ ἐνέργειαν δέ καί αὐτοῦ ἐστι καί ἐξ αὐτοῦ, οὕτω καί τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐστιν ὡς Θεοῦ καί κατ᾿ οὐσίαν καί κατ᾿ ἐνέργειαν. Ἀλλά κατά μέν τήν οὐσίαν καί τήν ὑπόστασιν αὐτοῦ ἐστιν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ ἐξ αὐτοῦ˙ κατά δέ τήν ἐνέργειαν καί αὐτοῦ ἐστιν καί ἐξ αὐτοῦ. Λατῖνοι δέ τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα λέγοντες, ἀλλ᾿ οὐχί καί τοῦ Υἱοῦ μέν, οὐκ ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ δέ, αὐτήν ἀναιροῦσί τε