EPISTLE ONE

 1. Your sacred Kindness’s letter was delivered to me in the desert. Though the persecution directed against us was indeed bitter, and a great search m

 2. To the Arians indeed this way of thinking is not strange. Having once denied the Word of God, they naturally say the same evil things against his S

 3. Where then do you find excuse for such audacity, so that you do not fear that which was spoken by the Lord, ‘Whosoever shall blaspheme against the

 4. Tell us, then, is there any passage in the divine Scripture where the Holy Spirit is found simply referred to as ‘spirit’ without the addition of ‘

 5. But do you answer the question which has been put to you whether anywhere in the divine Scripture you have found the Holy Spirit called simply ‘spi

 6. But inquire also about the contents of the Gospels and the writings of the Apostles, and you will hear how there also, inasmuch as there is a great

 7. See how the Holy Spirit is denoted in all divine Scripture ! Did you, then, notice anything of this kind in the prophet? The ‘spirit’ of which the

 8. Read the sacred Scriptures, and you will find ‘spirit’ used of the meaning which is in the divine words, as Paul writes: ‘Who also made us sufficie

 9. ‘But’, say they, ‘since the text makes mention of Christ, to be consistent we must take the spirit it speaks of to be none other than the Holy Spir

 10. Accordingly, if created spirit bears this meaning, we can appropriately take the thunder which is established to be the sure word and unshakable l

 11. What is this mighty folly of theirs? Once again, where in the Scriptures have they found the Spirit referred to as an angel? I am obliged to repea

 12. Moses too knew that the angels are creatures and that the Holy Spirit is united with the Son and the Father. For when God said to him, ‘Depart, go

 13. ‘But granting this,’ they say, ‘why did the Apostle after Christ make mention not of the Holy Spirit but of the elect angels?’ In like manner we m

 14. What will they say if they hear also the Lord saying: ‘There was in a certain place a judge who feared not God and regarded not man’? Because, aft

 15. Such, it seems to me, is the meaning of the divine oracles and it refutes the evil which these irrational men speak against the Spirit. But they,

 16. We ought therefore, as I said before, to be silent on these matters and to disregard these people. But lest our silence should furnish an excuse f

 17. For this reason too, it is madness to call him a creature. If he were a creature, he would not be ranked with the Triad. For the whole Triad is on

 18. Let them presume to tell us, as they have a glib answer to everything, how the heavens were formed, and from what material, and what is their comp

 19. Since, therefore, such an attempt is futile madness, nay, more than madness !, let no one ask such questions any more, or else let him learn only

 20. But if there is such co-ordination and unity within the holy Triad, who can separate either the Son from the Father, or the Spirit from the Son or

 21. But if, in regard to order and nature, the Spirit bears the same relation to the Son as the Son to the Father, will not he who calls the Spirit a

 22. The creatures came from nothing, having a beginning from which they came into being. For, ‘In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth’

 23. He, therefore, who is not sanctified by another, nor a partaker of sanctification, but who is himself partaken, and in whom all the creatures are

 24. Further it is through the Spirit that we are all said to be partakers of God. For it says: ‘Know ye not that ye are a temple of God and that the S

 25. The Spirit, therefore, is distinct from the creatures, and is shown rather to be proper to the Son and not alien from God. As for that wise questi

 26. That the Spirit is above the creation, distinct in nature from things originated, and proper to the Godhead, can be seen from the following consid

 27. From what follows, also, we may see how the Holy Spirit is partaken and does not partake. (We must not mind repeating ourselves.) For, ‘It is impo

 28. But, beyond these sayings, let us look at the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave,

 29. Since then the Church has this foundation of faith, let these men tell us once again and let them make answer, Is God triad or dyad? If he is dyad

 30. Such absurdities meet you if you say God is dyad. But if he is triad, as indeed he is and if the Triad has been shown to be indivisible and consi

 31. This consideration also shows that the activity of the Triad is one. The Apostle does not mean that the things which are given are given different

 32. The divine Scriptures, then, consistently show that the Holy Spirit is not a creature, but is proper to the Word and to the Godhead of the Father.

 33. Dwelling as I do in a desert place, yet, because of their effrontery who have turned away from the truth, I have not heeded those who will be glad

 EPISTLE TWO—THREE

 2. This opinion of the Arians is indeed mortal and corruptible. But the argument of truth, which even they ought to ponder, runs like this: If God is

 3. When these points are thus proved, he is impious who says that the Son is a creature. For he will be compelled also to give the name of creature to

 4. Again, all things originate were not and have come into being. For, ‘He made the earth as nothing’ and, ‘Who calleth the things that are not as th

 5. Since these things are true and are written in Scripture, who does not recognize that, inasmuch as the Son has no likeness to the creatures but has

 6. In this way too we can refute the impiety of those who say that the Word of God is a creature. Our faith is in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as the

 7. But as they plead the passage in Proverbs, ‘The Lord created me, a beginning of his ways, for his works’, adding, ‘See, “He created” He is a creatu

 8. This character [of our faith] is from the Apostles through the Fathers. It remains that he who reads Scripture should examine and judge when it spe

 9. Then too there is that other saying, which is indeed well said, but by them ill understood—I mean: ‘Of that day or that hour knoweth no one, not ev

 Letter III. 1. Perhaps you will wonder why, when I was charged to abridge and briefly to explain the letter I had written concerning the Holy Spirit,

 2. These considerations are sufficient to dissuade anyone, be he never so contentious, from continuing to call the Spirit of God a creature, who is in

 3. Again, the Holy Spirit is called, and is, unction and seal. For John writes: ‘And as for you, the unction which ye received of him abideth in you,

 4. This the Apostle knows when he says: ‘All these worketh the one and the same Spirit, dividing to each one severally, even as he will’ and a little

 5. As it is thus written, it is clear that the Spirit is not a creature, but takes part in the act of creation. The Father creates all things through

 6. Assuredly, when he prayed for the Corinthians, he prayed in the Triad, saying: ‘The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the comm

 7. In these terms the Catholic faith is expressed. But as for those who speak evil of the Spirit and call him a creature, if what we have said does no

 Epistle Four

 2. Who, when he hears these things, will still regard them as Christians, and not rather as pagans? For such things the pagans say against us in conve

 3. Once again, in the following way also, it is just for you to be questioned from the questions you ask. If the prophets speak in the Spirit of God,

 4. Thus the Spirit is not a creature but proper to the essence of the Word and proper to God in whom he is said to be. Once more, we must not shrink f

 5. These things being thus proved, he must be mad who asks, Is the Spirit also a son? But neither let any man, because this is not written, separate h

 6. For if you ask, Is the Spirit then a son?, since by our showing he is not a creature so must you ask, Is the Son then a father?, for you have

 7. These things are sufficient to refute your foolish speech. Mock no more at the Godhead. For it is the part of those who mock to ask the questions w

5. These things being thus proved, he must be mad who asks, Is the Spirit also a son? But neither let any man, because this is not written, separate him from the nature of God and from that which is proper to God. As it is written, let him believe and not say, Why thus and not thus? Lest from reasoning about these things he take counsel and say, Where then is God? And lest finally he hear the words: ‘The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.’ The traditions of the faith are not to be known by impertinent scrutiny. When the disciples heard the words, ‘Baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit’, they did not ask impertinently, why the Son comes second and the Spirit third, or why the whole is a Triad. But as they heard, so they believed. They did not ask, as do you, Is the Spirit then a son? Nor, when the Lord spoke of the Spirit after the Son, did they ask, Is the Father then a grandfather? For they did not hear ‘into the name of the grandfather’, but ‘into the name of the Father’. They came to sound conclusions and preached this faith everywhere. For it was not to be put otherwise than as the Saviour put it, that he himself is the Son, and that the other is the Holy Spirit. Nor was it right to change the order in which they have been ranked together. This holds good of the Father also. As it is not lawful to speak of him in any other way than as Father, so it is impious to ask whether the Son is the Spirit or the Spirit a son. For this cause Sabellius was judged a stranger to the Church, because he dared to apply to the Father the title, Son, and to the Son the name of the Father. After this, will anyone still dare to say, when he hears the words son and spirit, Is the Father then a grandfather? Or, Is the Spirit then a son? Yes, they will dare, the Eunomii and the Eudoxii and the Eusebii ! When once they affect the Arian heresy, they will not keep their tongues from impiety. Who delivered these things to them? Who was their teacher? Certainly no one taught them out of the divine Scriptures. It was out of the abundance of their hearts this folly came.

Τούτων οὕτω δεικνυμένων, μαίνοιτ' ἄν τις ἐρω τῶν, Υἱὸς οὖν ἐστι καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα; Μηδὲ, ἐπειδὴ μὴ γέγραπται οὕτω, διὰ τοῦτο ἐξαιρείτω τις αὐτὸ τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ φύσεως καὶ ἰδιότητος· ἀλλ' ὡς γέγραπται, πιστευέτω καὶ μὴ λεγέτω· ∆ιὰ τί οὕτως καὶ μὴ οὕτως; ἵνα μὴ τοιαῦτα διαλογιζόμενος, ἄρξηται με λετᾷν καὶ λέγειν· Ποῦ οὖν ἐστιν ὁ Θεὸς, καὶ πῶς ἐστι; καὶ λοιπὸν ἀκούσει· «Εἶπεν ἄφρων ἐν καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ· Οὐκ ἔστι Θεός.» Τὰ γὰρ τῇ πίστει παραδιδόμενα ἀπεριέργαστον ἔχει τὴν γνῶσιν. Οἱ γοῦν μαθηταὶ, ἀκούσαντες, «βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος,» οὐ περιειργάσαντο, διὰ τί δεύτερον ὁ Υἱὸς, καὶ τρίτον τὸ Πνεῦμα, ἢ διὰ τί ὅλως Τριάς· ἀλλ' ὡς ἤκουσαν, ἐπίστευσαν· καὶ οὐχ ὥσπερ ὑμεῖς ἠρώτησαν· Υἱὸς οὖν ἐστι τὸ Πνεῦμα; Οὐδὲ, εἰπόντος τοῦ Κυρίου μετὰ τὸν Υἱὸν τὸ Πνεῦμα, ἠρώτησαν· Πάπ πος οὖν ὁ Πατήρ; Οὐ γὰρ ἤκουσαν εἰς ὄνομα πάππου, ἀλλ' εἰς ὄνομα Πατρὸς, καὶ ταύτην τὴν πίστιν ἐκήρυξαν πανταχοῦ, λογισάμενοι ὀρθῶς. Οὐ γὰρ ἦν ἄλλως εἰπεῖν, ἢ ὡς εἴρηκεν ὁ Σωτήρ· ἑαυτὸν μὲν Υἱὸν, τὸ δὲ Πνεῦμα ἅγιον· οὐδ' ἐναλλάξαι θέμις ἢ ὡς συντέτακται, ὥσπερ καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ Πατρός. Ὡς γὰρ οὐκ ἔξεστιν ἄλλως εἰπεῖν περὶ αὐτοῦ, ἢ ὅτι Πατὴρ, οὕτως ἀσεβὲς ἐρωτᾷν, εἰ Υἱός ἐστι τὸ Πνεῦμα, ἢ τὸ Πνεῦμα Υἱός. ∆ιὰ τοῦτο Σαβέλλιος ἀλλότριος τῆς Ἐκκλησίας ἐκρίθη, τολμήσας εἰπεῖν ἐπὶ τοῦ Πατρὸς τὸ Υἱὸς, καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ τὸ τοῦ Πατρὸς ὄνομα. Ἆρ' οὖν ἔτι μετὰ ταῦτα τολμήσει τις ἀκούων Υἱὸν καὶ Πνεῦμα εἰπεῖν· Πάππος οὖν ὁ Πατὴρ, ἢ Υἱὸς οὖν τὸ Πνεῦμα; Ναὶ τολμήσουσιν Εὐνόμιοι, καὶ Εὐδόξιοι, καὶ Εὐσέβιοι. Ἅπαξ γὰρ ὑποκρινόμενοι τὴν Ἀρειανὴν αἵρεσιν, οὐ μὴ παύσουσι τὴν ἑαυτῶν γλῶσσαν ἀπὸ ἀσεβείας. Τίς γὰρ αὐτοῖς παρέδωκε ταῦτα; Τίς ὁ διδάξας; Ἀλλ' οὐδεὶς ἐκ τῶν θείων Γραφῶν· ἐκ δὲ τοῦ περισσεύματος τῆς καρδίας αὐτῶν ἐξῆλθεν ἡ τοιαύτη παραφροσύνη.