Holy Spirit. But those who connect or make pretexts first refute each,

saying that just as the Father is sometimes called the only true God, though the Son is also true God and good, so also the Father alone is the fount and cause of the Godhead as being first; and that there is no impediment to the Son also being a cause of the Godhead. For they do not perceive that from this they drag down the Son, and especially the Holy Spirit, to the level of a creature. For when we say that the Father alone is true God, we do not make a distinction of the uncreated beings from one another, nor simply the Father then, but we distinguish the one nature contemplated in three hypostases from created things. If, therefore, we say thus that the Father is also the only cause of the Godhead, just as we say of him that he alone is good, the Holy Spirit, not being according to them a cause of the Godhead, will be numbered among created things.

And indeed, in those things where the Father is sometimes called "only" as being first and as the primary cause, since the Son is also a joint-cause and shares in those things with the Father, not only is the Father sometimes called the only true God and the only creator and the only good and such like, but sometimes the Son also might be called "only"; and not the Son only, but also the Spirit. For since this "only" distinguishes the uncreated nature from created things, and the uncreated nature is of three hypostases and is contemplated whole and without division in each of the (p. 250) hypostases, from whichever of the three innate hypostases you name it, you speak of the whole nature of three hypostases.

Therefore, just as we piously say that Christ alone is God over all, could one say, or rather, has anyone ever been heard to have said this, that the Son alone is the cause and fount of the Godhead of the Spirit? Or even that the Spirit Itself is the only cause and fount of the Godhead, which even according to the Latins is in no way a cause of the Godhead? And yet this too would have been plausible, if the Father were called the only cause of the Godhead in such a way that the Son was also a joint-cause.

It is clear, then, or rather, perfectly clear, that "only" when said of hypostatic properties does not distinguish created from uncreated things, but distinguishes one of the uncreated hypostases from the others. And who does not know that to be the cause is a hypostatic property in the Godhead? Therefore, if the Father alone is cause and alone is origin and fount of the Godhead, then no other of the divine hypostases is a cause and origin and fount of the Godhead. Nevertheless, if, according to the Latins, the cause is contemplated in two persons in the Godhead, nothing prevents saying that the Father alone is the cause of the Godhead; and if the effect is contemplated in two persons, nothing will prevent saying that the Holy Spirit alone is an effect, or the Son alone, which not one of the heretics ever dared to say.

And yet, if we were to allow the adding of definitions to what was theologized by the saints without definition, this too could easily be constructed by anyone who wished; but immediately such a one, unless he repented, would be subjected to anathema: "for if anyone," it says, "preaches a gospel contrary to what we have preached, let him be anathema." But what do you not say, who say the Spirit is also from the Son and for this reason (p. 252) add a definition to what was theologized without definition by the saints, and who deceitfully oppose with a definition one who theologizes that the Spirit is not also said to be from the Son? Can you show that you are not almost entirely like this guilty one? "I can show you," he says, "many of the theologians who oppose this theology of Damascene and who grant that 'to proceed' can be understood as being from the Son."

Indeed! And is there in general, among the theologians, and that on the most necessary matters on which our whole faith depends, a contradiction? And is it at all possible for there to be of theology the

Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον. Οἱ δέ συνείροντες ἤ προφασιζόμενοι τό πρῶτον ἀνασκευάζουσιν ἑκάτερον,

φάσκοντες, ὅτι καθάπερ μόνος Θεός ἀληθινός ὁ Πατήρ ἔστιν ὅτε λέγεται, καί τοῦ Υἱοῦ ὄντος ἀληθινοῦ Θεοῦ καί ἀγαθοῦ, οὕτω καί μόνος ὁ Πατήρ πηγή καί αἴτιος θεότητος ὡς πρῶτος˙ καί οὐδέν ἐμπόδιον εἶναι καί τόν Υἱόν αἴτιον θεότητος. Οὐ συνορῶσι γάρ, ὡς ἐντεῦθεν καί τόν Υἱόν, μάλιστα δέ τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον εἰς κτίσμα κατασπῶσιν. Ὅταν γάρ λέγωμεν ὅτι μόνος ὁ Πατήρ Θεός ἐστιν ἀληθινός, οὐ τῶν ἀκτίστων πρός ἄλληλα τήν ἀντιδιαστολήν ποιοῦμεν, οὐδ᾿ ἁπλῶς τότε τόν Πατέρα, ἀλλά τήν μόνην ἐν τρισίν ὑποστάσεσι θεωρουμένην φύσιν τῶν κτισμάτων ἀποδιαστέλλομεν. Εἰ τοίνυν οὕτω λέγομεν καί μόνος αἴτιος θεότητος ὁ Πατήρ, ὡς ἐπ᾿ αὐτοῦ λέγομεν ὅτι μόνος ἀγαθός, τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον καί κατ᾿ αὐτούς οὐκ ὄν αἴτιον θεότητος ἐναρίθμιον ἔσται τοῖς κτιστοῖς.

Καί μήν ἐφ᾿ ὧν ὡς πρῶτος καί ὡς προκαταρκτικόν αἴτιον ἔσθ᾿ ὅτε λέγεται μόνος ὁ Πατήρ, ὡς καί τοῦ Υἱοῦ ὄντος συναιτίου καί κοινωνοῦντος κατ᾿ ἐκεῖνα τῷ Πατρί οὐ μόνον ὁ Πατήρ ἔσθ᾿ ὅτε μόνος λέγεται Θεός ἀληθινός καί μόνος δημιουργός καί μόνος ἀγαθός καί τά τοιαῦτα, ἀλλ᾿ ἔσθ᾿ ὅτε καί ὁ Υἱός μόνος ἄν ρηθείη˙ καί οὐχ ὁ Υἱός μόνος, ἀλλά καί τό Πνεῦμα. Ἐπεί γάρ τό "μόνος" τοῦτο τήν ἄκτιστον φύσιν ἀντιδιαστέλλει τῶν κτιστῶν, ἡ δ᾿ ἄκτιστος φύσις τρισυπόστατός ἐστι καί ἀμερῶς ἐφ᾿ ἑκάστης τῶν (σελ. 250) ὑποστάσεων ὅλη θεωρεῖται, ἀφ᾿ ἧς ἄν αὐτήν τῶν τριῶν ἐμφύτων ὑποστάσεων καλέσῃς, ὅλην λέγεις τήν τρισυπόστατον φύσιν.

Ἆρ᾿ οὖν, ὥσπερ λέγομεν εὐσεβῶς ὅτι μόνος ἐστί Χριστός ὁ ἐπί πάντων Θεός, ἔχοι τις ἄν εἰπεῖν, μᾶλλον δέ ἤκουσταί ποτέ τις καί τοῦτο εἰρηκώς, ὡς μόνος ὁ Υἱός αἴτιός τε καί πηγή τῆς θεότητος τοῦ Πνεύματος; Ἤ καί αὐτό τό Πνεῦμα μόνον αἴτιόν τε καί πηγή θεότητος, ὅ καί κατά Λατίνους οὐδαμῶς αἴτιόν ἐστι θεότητος; Καίτοι καί τοῦτο τῶν εἰκότων ἦν, εἶπερ οὕτως ὁ Πατήρ αἴτιος μόνος θεότητος ἐλέγετο, ὡς καί τοῦ Υἱοῦ ὄντος συναιτίου.

∆ῆλον τοίνυν, μᾶλλον δέ κατάδηλον, ὅτι τό «μόνος» ἐπί τῶν ὑποστατικῶν λεγόμενον οὐ τά κτιστά τῶν ἀκτίστων, ἀλλά μίαν τινά τῶν ἀκτίστων ὑποστάσεων πρός τάς ἄλλας διαστέλλει. Τίς δ᾿ οὐκ οἶδεν, ὡς ὑποστατικόν ἐπί τῆς θεότητος τό αἴτιόν ἐστιν; Οὐκοῦν, εἰ μόνος ὁ Πατήρ αἴτιος καί μόνος ἀρχή καί πηγή θεότητος, οὐδεμία ἄρα τῶν θείων ὑποστάσεων ἑτέρα αἰτία κάι ἀρχή καί πηγή θεότητός ἐστιν. Οὐ μήν ἀλλ᾿ εἰ τοῦ αἰτίου ἐν δυσί προσώποις ἐπί τῆς θεότητος θεωρουμένου κατά τούς Λατίνους, οὐδέν κωλύει λέγειν μόνον τόν Πατέρα αἴτιον θεότητος˙ καί τοῦ αἰτιατοῦ θεωρουμένου ἐν δυσί προσώποις, οὐδέν κωλύσει λέγειν μόνον τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον αἰτιατόν ὑπάρχειν ἤ μόνον τόν Υἱόν, ὅ μηδείς ποτε οὐδέν τῶν αἱρετικῶν ἐτόλμησεν εἰπεῖν.

Καίτοι, εἰ προσδιορίζειν δοίημεν τά τεθεολογημένα τοῖς ἁγίοις ἀπροσδιορίστως, καί τοῦτ᾿ ἄν εὐχερῶς κατασκευασθείη παντί τῷ βουλομένῳ˙ ἀλλ᾿ εὐθύς οὗτος, εἰ μή μεταμεληθείη, καθυποβληθήσεται τῷ άναθέματι˙ «εἰ γάρ τις», φησίν, «εὐαγγελίζεται παρ᾿ ὅ εὐηγγελισάμεθα, ἀνάθεμα ἔστω». Τί δέ οὐ φῄς ὁ καί ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα λέγων καί διά τοῦτο (σελ. 252) προσδιορίζων τά ἀπροσδιορίστως τεθεολογημένα τοῖς ἁγίοις καί τῷ θεολογοῦντι μή καί ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα λέγεσθαι τῷ προσδιορισμῷ δολίως ἀντιλέγων; Ἆρ᾿ ἔχεις δεῖξαι, ὡς οὐ σχεδόν πάνθ᾿ ὅμοιος τυγχάνεις ὤν τῷ ὑπευθύνῳ τούτῳ; «Ἔχω σοι», φησί, «δεῖξαι πολλούς τῶν θεολόγων ἐναντιουμένους τῇ τοῦ ∆αμασκηνοῦ θεολογίᾳ ταύτῃ καί τό ἐκπορεύειν νοεῖν διδόντας εἶναι τοῦ Υἱοῦ».

Βαβαί˙ καί ὅλως, ἔστιν ἐν τοῖς θεολόγοις, καί ταῦτ᾿ ἐπί τῶν ἀναγκαιοτάτων καί ὧν ἡ πίστις ἡμῶν ἅπασα ἐξήρτηται, ἐναντιότης; Ἔστι δ᾿ ὅλως καί θεολογίας εἶναι τάς