of the all-working God the Father with respect to the generation and procession of the Son, the creator of all things and who consummates all things, neither the Son through the Spirit (for he would be imperfect from the Father, if he were begotten through the consummating Spirit) nor the Spirit through the Son; for besides being imperfect from the Father, and this while consummating all things, it would also be one of the created things; for things were made through him, but the Spirit is known through the Son. And in the light of the Spirit we see the Son as light, to speak prophetically and at the same time paternally; so that we might know that they exist not only from one principle, but also that they are inseparably related to each other and inhere in each other and show (p. 262) each other and are revealed through each other, but are not through each other or even from each other or of each other; for the 'from whom' is one.

And so the Theologian has said that the Son has all that belongs to the Father except unbegottenness, that is, except causality, as he also clearly defined thus elsewhere in his writings. But if the Son has all that the Father has except for being the cause, that is, of the Godhead, and the Father is the cause not only by begetting the Son but also by processing the Spirit, the Son has all that the Father has, except for begetting the Son and processing the Spirit; which, being of the Father alone, testify to his unbegottenness. Wherefore also the theologian Damascene in his *On the Holy Trinity*, says, "because of the Father," that is, because the Father exists, the Son and the Spirit have all that they have, that is, because the Father has them, except for unbegottenness, and generation, and procession.

But if unbegottenness denotes that which is in every way and altogether the cause in God, generation will most necessarily declare that the begotten is in no way and by no means the cause of the Godhead, just as procession [declares] that which exists by procession from the Father. But if the Son is in no way and by no means the cause of the Godhead, how could the Spirit be from him? Or how is the Father the first cause, and then the Son after him, as if the Holy Spirit proceeds also from him, as the Latins think one must believe, being out of their minds, as I think, and misunderstanding the patristic sayings? For does not this theologian, so named, [say] thus, "but the Son," he says, "has all that the Father has except unbegottenness," which is the same as to say, without causality, and this is the same as to say, without begetting and processing? For according to these things, the cause is the cause.

And all that the Son has, the Spirit has, except for sonship, or if you will, generation; for we shall not fear it to be uncaused, even if it itself were shown to be a cause, not having generation; for it is not uncaused, even if it is not begotten; for that which, as (p. 264) uncaused, does not have generation, is itself in itself completely uncaused, and in every way the cause of the Godhead. Thus we speak in harmony with those who theologize in the Spirit; and thus we refute those who speak discordantly, showing that they put forth scriptural testimonies against themselves.

For that too, which the tribe of the Latins thinks to bring forward from the same theologian in support of their own doctrine, that the Lord showed his own dignity to the disciples when he said, "I myself will send the Holy Spirit to you," they bring forward against themselves without knowing it. For since in truth the sending of the Spirit is a great thing and beyond great and of God alone (for the Father, having first said he would send the Paraclete, then he says "I will send," showing his own dignity, as if the matter itself would proclaim, as it were letting forth a voice, and the namesake of theology would explain). If the Lord had known that it proceeds and has its existence not from the Father alone, but also from himself, how is it that he did not add, "who from

παντουργοῦ Θεοῦ Πατρός πρός γέννησίν τε καί πρόοδον Υἱοῦ δημιουργοῦ τῶν πάντων καί τά πάντα τελεσιουργοῦντος, οὔθ᾿ ὁ Υἱός διά τοῦ Πνεύματος (ἀτελής γάρ ἦν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός, εἰ διά τοῦ τελεσιουργοῦντος ἐγεννᾶτο Πνεύματος) οὔτε τό Πνεῦμα δι᾿ Υἱοῦ˙ πρός γάρ τῷ ἀτελές εἶναι ἐκ Πατρός, καί ταῦτα τό πάντα τελειοῦν, καί τῶν δεδημιουργημένων ἦν ἄν ἕν˙ τά γάρ δι᾿ ἐκείνου γέγονε, δι᾿ Υἱοῦ δέ τό Πνεῦμα ἔγνωσται. Καί ἐν φωτί τῷ Πνεύματι φῶς ὁρῶμεν τόν Υἱόν προφητικῶς ὁμοῦ καί πατρικῶς εἰπεῖν˙ ὡς ἄν εἰδῶμεν μή μόνον ἐκ μιᾶς ὑπάρχοντα ἀρχῆς, ἀλλά καί ἀδιαστάτως ἔχοντα πρός ἄλληλα καί ἐνυπάρχοντα ἀλλήλοις καί ἄλληλα (σελ. 262) δεικνύντα καί δι᾿ ἀλλήλων προφαινόμενα, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ δι᾿ ἀλλήλων ἤ καί ἐξ ἀλλήλων ἤ ἀλλήλων ὄντα˙ ἕν γτάρ τό ἐξ οὗ.

Καί τοίνυν ὁ θεολογῶν πάντα ἔχειν πλήν τόν Υἱόν τά τοῦ Πατρός πλήν ἀγεννησίας πάντα ἔχειν αἰτίας εἴρηκεν, ὡς καί ἀλλαχοῦ τῶν συγγραμμάτων σαφῶς οὕτω προσδιώρισεν. Εἰ δέ πάντα ἔχει ὁ Υἱός τά τοῦ Πατρός πλήν τοῦ εἶναι αἴτιος, δηλαδή θεότητος, αἴτιος δέ ὁ Πατήρ οὐ γεννῶν μόνον τόν Υἱόν, ἀλλά καί τό Πνεῦμα ἐκπορεύων, πάντα ἔχει ὁ Υἱός τά τοῦ Πατρός, πλήν τοῦ τόν Υἱόν γεννᾶν τε καί τό Πνεῦμα ἐκπορεύειν˙ ἅ μόνου τοῦ Πατρός ὄντα τό ἀγέννητον αὐτῷ προσμαρτυρεῖ. ∆ιό καί ὁ ∆αμασκηνός θεολόγος ἐν τῷ Περί τῆς ἁγίας Τριάδος, «διά τόν Πατέρα», φησί, «τουτέστι διά τό εἶναι τόν Πατέρα, ἔχει ὁ Υἱός καί τό Πνεῦμα πάντα ἅ ἔχει, τουτέστι διά τό τόν Πατέρα ἔχειν αὐτά, πλήν τῆς ἀγεννησίας καί τῆς γεννήσεως καί τῆς ἐκπρορεύσεως».

Εἰ δέ ἡ ἀγεννησία τό πάντῃ τε καί πάντως αἴτιον ἐπί Θεοῦ δηλοῖ, ἡ γέννησις τό μηδαμῇ μηδαμῶς αἴτιον θεότητος εἶναι τό γεννητόν ἀναγκαιότατα δηλώσει, καθάπερ καί ἡ ἐκπόρευσις τό ἐκπορευτῶς ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός ὑπάρχον. Εἰ δέ μή μηδαμῇ μηδαμῶς αἴτιος ὑπάρχει ὁ Υἱός θεότητος, πῶς ἄν εἴη ἐξ αὐτοῦ τό Πνεῦμα; Ἤ πῶς πρῶτον αἴτιον ὁ Πατήρ, εἶται ὁ Υἱός τούτῳ, ὡς καί ἐξ αὐτοῦ τοῦ ἁγίου ἐκπορευομένου Πνεύματος, καθώς φρονεῖν δεῖν οἴονται Λατῖνοι, παραφρονοῦντες, ὡς ἐγᾦμαι, καί τάς πατρικάς παρανοοῦντες ρήσεις; Οὐ γάρ ὁ φερωνύμως θεολόγος οὗτος οὕτως, «ἀλλά πάντα», φησίν, «ἔχει ὁ Υἱός τά τοῦ Πατρός πλήν ἀγεννησίας», ταὐτόν δ᾿ εἰπεῖν, ἄνευ τῆς αἰτίας, τούτῳ δέ ταὐτόν εἰπεῖν, ἄνευ τοῦ γεννᾶν καί ἐκπορεύειν; Κατά ταῦτα γάρ αἴτιον τό αἴτιον.

Καί πάντα, ὅσα ἔχει ὁ Υἱός, τοῦ Πνεύματος, πλήν τῆς υἱότητος, εἰ δέ βούλει τῆς γεννήσεως˙ οὐ γάρ φοβησόμεθα μή ἀναίτιον, εἰ καί αὐτό αἴτιον εἶναι φωραθείη, γέννησιν μή ἔχον˙ οὐδέ γάρ ἀναίτιον, εἰ καί μή γεννητόν˙ τό γάρ ὡς (σελ. 264) ἀναίτιον γέννησιν μή ἔχον, αὐτό τε καθ᾿ ἑαυτό παντάπασιν ἀναίτιον, καί παντί τρόπῳ θεότητος αἴτιον. Οὕτως ἡμεῖς τοῖς ἐν Πνεύματι θεολογοῦσι, συνῳδά φθεγγόμεθα˙ καί οὕτω τούς ἀπᾴδοντα φθεγγομένους ἀπελέγχομεν, καθ᾿ ἑαυτῶν δεικνύντες τάς γραφικάς μαρτυρίας προτιθέντας.

Κἀκεῖνο γάρ, ὅπαρά τοῦ αὐτοῦ θεολόγου προάγειν ὑπέρ τῆς σφῶν αὐτῶν δόξης τῶν Λατίνων οἴονται φῦλον, ὅτι τό οἰκεῖον ἀξίωμα ὁ Κύριος ἔδειξε πρός τούς μύστας εἰπών, «αὐτός ὑμῖν ἐγώ πέμψω τό Πνεῦμα» τό ἅγιον, καθ᾿ ἑαυτῶν ὡς οὐκ ἴσασι προάγουσιν. Ἐπεί γάρ ὡς ἀληθῶς τό πέμπειν τό Πνεῦμα μέγα καί ὑπέρ τό μέγα καί Θεοῦ μόνου (ὁ Πατήρ γάρ εἰπών πρότερον πέμψειν τόν παράκλητον, εἴτ᾿ αὐτό "ἐγώ", φησί, "πέμψω", τό οἰκεῖον ἀξίωμα δεικνύς, ὡς ἀν αὐτό τε τό πρᾶγμα φωνήν ὥσπερ ἀφιέν κηρύττοι καί ὁ τῆς θεολογίας ἐπώνυμος ἐξηγήσαιτο). Εἰ μή παρά τοῦ Πατρός ὁ Κύριος μόνου, ἀλλά καί παρ᾿ ἑαυτοῦ ᾔδει ἐκπορευόμενον καί τήν ὕπαρξιν ἔχον, πῶς οὐ προσθείς εἶπεν, «ὅ παρά