48

they have clearly revealed. And the Spirit will give a word in the opening of our mouth also in what follows.

But who is it that says that the Son also has the power to cause procession? Gregory himself, they say, who has the title of Theologian: "For," he says, "the Son has all that the Father has, except unbegottenness." Since, therefore, He has all that the Father has, apart from unbegottenness alone, how would He not also have the power to cause procession? Truly they are not of the Spirit speaking in him (p. 256); for if they were, they would not have uttered such falsehoods against the saint, who says, "and whatever humbler things are said of the Holy Spirit by the Son must be referred to the first cause, that it might be shown from whom He is." What then is the first cause? Is it not the Father alone? "But he also says that the Son has all that the Father has without being the cause, that is, without being Himself also the cause of the Godhead." For he always preaches one cause and one principle in God, the unbegotten Father, and he knows the unique one to be divine. And for this reason he says, "to us there is one God, because those things which are from Him have their reference to one cause," not saying the Son is from them from God, and the Holy Spirit is God from God. But through the midst of God from God, he does not glorify a subsisting God, away with the blasphemy, but created things; on which account he also posits the Father as the first cause, saying in the second of his *Irenics* that, "inasmuch as God is more honorable than creatures, so much more magnificent is it for the first cause of the Godhead to be the principle than for it to be the principle of creatures and to come to the creatures through the medium of the Godhead."

But you, O the blasphemy, who think in the Latin way, say that the Father comes through the Son, which is the same as to say through the medium of the Son's Godhead, to bring forth the Holy Spirit, and your novelties do not even stop at this point, but you also say that the Spirit is from the Son, that the causing of procession is common to the Father and the Son, because this Theologian says to those who sailed down from Egypt that the Son has all that the Father has, without unbegottenness alone. For here you must accept the word "alone," even if it is not spoken along with it; and for this reason I too write this for you openly.

But tell me, does not this same theologian add in writing, "and all that the Son has, the Spirit has also, except for sonship"? If, therefore, the Son also has the power to cause procession, this (p. 258) will also belong to the Spirit; for causing procession is not of sonship; for He would be both Son and Father, since He also has the power to cause procession. And the same man, in his own Oration on the Holy Spirit, also says concerning the Holy Spirit Himself: "What great thing is there that God can do that He cannot? And what is He not called that God is, except unbegottenness and begottenness?" Therefore we shall also call the Spirit Projector. And according to you, He has the power to cause procession similarly to the Son and from that source even doubly more than He; for He will have it not only from the Father, but also from the Son according to the doctrine concerning the Son. Do you see into how many absurdities he falls who hears that the Son has all that the Father has and does not understand it to be only the things of the nature, but connects some of the hypostatic properties with the natural ones?

It is not necessary, therefore, to carry the argument concerning this further, since you have been refuted, but for the sake of what is good and so that no one might attach blame to the blameless one, we will show in what follows that the saying of the saint is correct, but through the ignorance of those who think in the Latin way it is taken wrongly. And I think the argument will contribute not a little to the matter at hand. And one must pay the utmost attention.

To say "unbegotten" and "uncaused" concerning God is the same thing; wherefore even if you search through all the theological books, you will nowhere find the Holy Spirit said to be unbegotten, and this being not begotten. But the God-bearing Damascene, having said in the eighth of his

48

καθαρῶς ἀναπεφήνασι. ∆ώσει δέ τό Πνεῦμα κἀν τοῖς ἑξῆς λόγον ἐν ἀνοίξει τοῦ στόματος ἡμῶν.

Ἀλλά τίς ὁ λέγων ὡς καί τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό ἐκπορεύειν ἔνι; Αὐτός, φασί, Γρηγόριος ὁ τό θεολογεῖν ἐπωνυμίαν ἔχων˙ «πάντα γάρ», φησίν, «ἔχει ὁ Υἱός τά τοῦ Πατρός, πλήν τῆς ἀγεννησίας». Ἐπεί τοίνυν χωρίς μόνης τῆς ἀγεννησίας ἔχει ἅπαντα τά τοῦ Πατρός, πῶς οὐκ ἄν ἔχοι καί τό ἐκπορεύειν; Ὄντως οὐκ εἰσι τοῦ Πνεύματος τοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ (σελ. 256) λαλοῦντος˙ εἰ γάρ ἦσαν, οὐκ ἄν τοῦ ἁγίου τοιαῦτα κατεψεύδοντο, ὅς «καί ὅσα περί τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος», φησί, «ταπεινότερα παρά τοῦ Υἱοῦ λέγεται ἐπί τήν πρώτην αἰτίαν ἀνακτέον, ἵνα τό ἐξ οὗ δειχθῇ». Τίς οὖν ἡ πρώτη αἰτία; Οὐχί μόνος ὁ Πατήρ; «Ἀλλά καί πάντα ἔχειν τόν Υἱόν τά τοῦ Πατρός φησίν ἄνευ τῆς αἰτίας, τοῦ αἴτιον εἶναι δηλονότι καί αὐτόν θεότητος». Ἕν γάρ οὗτος αἴτιον ἐπί Θεοῦ καί μίαν ἀρχήν ἀεί κηρύττει, τόν ἀγέννητον Πατέρα, καί θεϊκόν οἶδε τόν μοναδικόν. Καί διά τοῦτό φησιν, «ἡμῖν εἷς Θεός, ὅτι πρός ἕν αἴτιον τά ἐξ αὐτοῦ τήν ἀναφοράν ἔχει», οὐ τό ἐξ αὐτῶν λέγων ἐκ Θεοῦ τόν Υἱόν, καί Θεόν ἐκ Θεοῦ τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον. ∆ιά μέσου δέ Θεοῦ ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, οὐ Θεόν ὑφιστάμενον δοξάζει, ἄπαγε τῆς βλασφημίας, ἀλλά τά κτιστά˙ καθ᾿ ὅ καί πρῶτον αἴτιον τίθεται τόν Πατέρα λέγων ἐν τῷ δευτέρῳ τῶν Εἰρηνικῶν ὡς, «ὅσῳ τιμιώτερον Θεός κτισμάτων, τοσούτῳ μεγαλοπρεπέστερον τῇ πρώτῃ αἰτίᾳ θεότητος εἶναι ἀρχήν ἤ κτισμάτων καί διά θεότητος μέσης ἐλθεῖν ἐπί τά κτίσματα».

Σύ δέ, ὤ τῆς βλασφημίας, ὁ λατινικῶς φρονῶν διά μέσου τοῦ Υἱοῦ, ταὐτό δ᾿ εἰπεῖν διά μέσης τῆς τοῦ Υἱοῦ θεότητος, ἐλθεῖν φῄς τόν Πατέρα ἐπί τό προενεγκεῖν τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον, καί οὐδέ μέχρι τούτου σοι τά τῆς καινοφωνίας ἵσταται, ἀλλά καί ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα λέγεις κοινόν εἶναι Πατρός καί Υἱοῦ τό ἐκπορεύειν, διά τό τοῦ τουτονί τόν θεολόγον λέγειν πρός τούς ἀπ᾿ Αἰγύπτου καταπλεύσαντας ἔχειν τόν Υἱόν ἅπαντα τά τοῦ Πατρός ἄνευ τῆς ἀγεννησίας μόνης. Ἐνταῦτα γάρ δεκτέον σοι τό «μόνης», κἄν μή συνεκφωνῆται˙ καί διά τοῦτό σοι κἀγώ τοῦτο προγράφω φανερῶς.

Ἀλλ᾿ εἰπέ μοι, οὐκ αὐτός οὗτος ὁ θεολόγος προσεπάγει γράφων, «πάντα δέ ὅσα τοῦ Υἱοῦ, καί τοῦ Πνεύματος, πλήν τῆς υἱότητος»; Εἴπερ οὖν καί τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό ἐκπορεύειν, ἔσται (σελ. 258) τοῦτο καί τοῦ Πνεύματος˙ οὐ γάρ υἱότητος τό ἐκπορεύειν˙ ἦν γάρ ἄν Υἱός καί Πατήρ, ἐπεί καί τό ἐκπορεύειν ἔχει. Ὁ αὐτός δέ κἄν τῷ Περί τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος οἰκείῳ λόγῳ καί περί τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος αὐτοῦ φησι˙ «τί οὐ δύναται τῶν μεγάλων καί ὧν Θεός; Τί δέ οὐ προσηγόρευται ὧν Θεός, πλήν ἀγεννησίας καί γεννήσεως»; Οὐκοῦν καί προβολέα ὀνομάσομεν τό Πνεῦμα. Καί τό ἐκπορεύειν δέ κατά σέ ὁμοίως ἔχει τῷ Υἱῷ κἀντεῦθεν καί διπλασίως ἤ ἐκεῖνος˙ ἕξει γάρ οὐ τό τοῦ Πατρός μόνον, ἀλλά καί τό τοῦ Υἱοῦ κατά τήν περί τοῦ Υἱοῦ δόξαν. Ὁρᾷς ὅσοις ἀτόποις περιπίπτει ὁ πάντα ἔχειν τόν Υἱόν τά τοῦ Πατρός ἀκούων καί μή μόνα τά τῆς φύσεως νοῶν, ἀλλ᾿ ἔστιν ἅ καί τῶν ὑποστατικῶν τοῖς φυσικοῖς συνείρων;

Προάγειν μέν οὖν τόν περί τούτου λόγον περαιτέρω οὐκ ἐπάναγκες, σοῦ γε ἐξεληλεγμένου, ἀλλά τοῦ καλοῦ γε ἕνεκα καί ἵνα μή προστρίψαιτό τις μέμψιν τῷ ἀμωμήτῳ, δείξομεν ἑξῆς ὡς ἔχειν μέν καλῶς ἡ τοῦ ἁγίου ρῆσις, ἀγνοίᾳ δέ τῶν λατινικῶς φρονούντων ἐκλαμβάνεται κακῶς. Συντελέσει δ᾿ οἶμαι καί πρός αὐτό τό προκείμενον ὁ λόγος οὐκ ἐλάχιστα. Προσεκτέον δ᾿ ὅτι μάλιστα τόν νοῦν.

Ταὐτόν εἰπεῖν ἐπί Θεοῦ ἀγέννητον καί ἀναίτιον˙ διό κἄν πάσας ἐναλίξῃς τάς θεολογούσας βίβλους, οὐδαμοῦ τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον ἀγέννητον εὑρήσεις εἰρημένον καί ταῦτ᾿ ὄν τοῦ γεννητόν. ∆αμασκηνός δέ ὁ θεοφόρος εἰπών ἐν ὀγδόῳ τῶν