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

asserting that just as the Father is sometimes said to be the only true God, even though the Son is true God and good, so also only the Father is the source and cause of divinity as the first; and there is no impediment to the Son also being a cause of divinity. For they do not perceive that from this they drag down both the Son, and especially the Holy Spirit, to the level of a creature. For when we say that only the Father is true God, we do not make a contrast between the uncreated ones, nor simply the Father then, but we distinguish the one nature, contemplated in three hypostases, from creatures. If, therefore, we say thus also that the Father is the only cause of divinity, as we say of Him that He alone is good, the Holy Spirit, not being a cause of divinity even according to them, will be numbered among created things.

And indeed, concerning those things for which the Father is sometimes called the only one, as the first and as the primary cause, since the Son is also a co-cause and partaker with the Father in those things, not only is the Father sometimes called the only true God and only creator and only good and such things, but sometimes the Son too might be called the only one; and not the Son only, but also the Spirit. For since this "only" contrasts the uncreated nature with created things, and the uncreated nature is tri-hypostatic and is contemplated whole and without division in each of the (p. 250) hypostases, by whichever of the three innate hypostases you call it, you speak of the whole tri-hypostatic nature.

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

It is clear, therefore, or rather perfectly plain, that "only" when said of hypostatic properties does not distinguish created from uncreated, but distinguishes one of the uncreated hypostases from the others. And who does not know that to be a cause is a hypostatic property in the Godhead? Therefore, if only the Father is cause and only He is the principle and source of divinity, then no other of the divine hypostases is a cause and principle and source of divinity. Nevertheless, if the cause in the Godhead is contemplated in two persons according to the Latins, nothing prevents saying that only the Father is the cause of divinity; and with the caused being contemplated in two persons, nothing will prevent saying that only the Holy Spirit is caused, or only the Son, a thing which no one, not even any of the heretics, ever dared to say.

And yet, if we were to allow qualifications to be added to what was spoken of by the saints without qualification, this too could be easily contrived by anyone who wished; but immediately such a one, unless he repented, would be subjected to the anathema; "for if anyone," it says, "preaches a gospel contrary to what we have preached, let him be anathema." But why do you not say this, you who say that the Spirit is also from the Son and for this reason (p. 252) add qualifications to what was spoken of by the saints without qualification, and who deceitfully contradicts with a qualification him who theologizes that the Spirit is not also 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 the Damascene and who grant that 'to proceed' is to be understood as being of the Son."

Good heavens! And is there, in general, among the theologians, and this concerning the most necessary matters on which our whole faith depends, a contradiction? And is it at all possible for the things to be theology which

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