GREGORY PALAMAS' TWO APODEICTIC TREATISES CONCERNING THE PROCESSION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

 But O God of all, the only giver and guardian of true theology and of the dogmas and words according to it, the only most monarchical Trinity, not onl

 Since also for this reason, having been taught and enlightened, they were sent forth, that they might teach as they were taught, that they might enlig

 being refuted by those who have recorded the details of all the holy councils, and by the very agreement, from them until now and indeed forever, of t

 hearing that He was begotten of the Father before all ages, and having the word “alone” understood and implied with that which is from the Father, jus

 shall we fall from this? May you not suffer this, or rather, may you not remain incurable having suffered it for the correct way has already become k

 of the Father, is it not understood by necessity? When it has been said so many times, therefore, concerning the Son that He is from the Father, and

 of the Father but the one by adoption is not from him alone but through the Son from the Father, and yet he is not Son only, but also Spirit by grace

 But nowhere did any of the theologians say either two or three. For just as we say that each of those three adorable hypostases is God, and each of th

 They say, therefore, that the one is from the other. What then of Seth? Was he born from one principle, because Eve was from Adam, (p. 106) and are th

 differs in nothing from the hypostatic [properties] therefore neither does the nature from the hypostasis, so that, according to them, God is not of

 and the Son. Therefore without the cause and principle of the divinity understood in the Trinity: the Son therefore has all things of (p. 114) the Fat

 mind, and that the Spirit proceeds from another because of your ignorance concerning 'alone'?

 If it were possible to name these things, such as Father of light or Projector of the Holy Spirit, how would Gregory, the great in theology, not h

 is the union of the Father and the Spirit. How then does the same Gregory, great in theology, say, «the unoriginate and the origin and that which is w

 What of him who exhorts us in measured Epic verse, at once theologically and patristically, that if you should hear concerning the Son and the Spirit,

 apostle. But if this is so, He is not a creature, but rather God, as from God and in God”. And again, “The Spirit therefore is God, existing naturally

 For we heard a little above from the one named for theology, who said that the Father is the source and origin of eternal light, but the Son is in no

 For if you should say that the Spirit is numbered and spoken of after the Son, which seems to you the more secure of arguments, although I would say i

 he brought forth the Word. But what he says in the first book of *Against Eunomius*, that there is a form of order not according to

 has been handed down to be initiated? God and Father, the principle of all things, is Father of the only-begotten Son, who even before being added to

 of the consubstantiality of the Spirit, even if the Latins force the sayings, dragging their meaning into their own malevolence.

 of the God-befitting and most provident economies we render through all things the most concise doxology and eucharist and remembrance not that they

 he was called by none of the apostles or of the evangelists, but instead of this the voice of the Father sufficed for them. And by principle I do not

 unassailable by evildoers and by those who fraudulently corrupt the word of truth by counterfeiting, known to all, both wise and unlearned, and always

 immediately, but not also from the Son. We have additionally demonstrated that, since the Spirit is also called the mind of Christ, just as also of us

 It is said and not from Him, but with Him, begotten from the Father, and the Spirit proceeds.

 Furthermore, after this we speak concerning the principle, and how those who think in the Latin way respond sophistically to those asking them, if the

 they are willing, but to those who offer a hand for correction, the power of the word of truth leading to truth, they, like some truly uneducated peop

 testimonies, not well understood, might be able to assist those who excuse themselves unseasonably or to deliver them from their impiety and the etern

 With God working with us, having refuted them, (p. 192) and as it were having undermined certain foundations, we will show that the whole edifice of t

 John, the son of Zacharias,” according to the divine evangelist Luke, (p. 196) and “as the Lord spoke through His holy prophets to show mercy,” Zachar

 But you see how this inbreathing signifies the Spirit as present and perfecting the renewal for the better of the human soul, which we believe is acco

 there are varieties of service, but the same Lord and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God.” Therefore, the divine powers and en

 shining in part? But concerning what the discourse is now, let us see the promise. But where is the not many days hence? Having advanced a little in

 all that the Father has is mine, he takes from what is mine and will announce it for both the wealth and the gifts are common to us.

 it is fitting to glorify the eternal Spirit but it is necessary for those to whom the manifestation is directed to be co-eternal, and it is added tha

 of him. After him, the Holy Spirit was revealed, itself providing to the apostles by grace the same glories of the same nature,

 sent, having returned whence He came down. But the Son is both God and has become man therefore He was sent also as man the Spirit did not become in

 signified, but not being the inbreathing itself, so as of necessity to have its existence from that from which is the inbreathing and if also sent, i

 of the relation and of the surpassing co-naturality and of the incomprehensible and ineffable perichoresis, we find and proclaim Him again, the Father

 the Holy Spirit? I do not think so, unless he clearly wishes to fight against God. But, he says, the Spirit is also called of the Son Himself and His

 and they set aside the essence and the hypostasis of the all-holy Spirit. Therefore, the conclusion from division of the Latin hypothetical syllogism

 and there by the theologians, as indicative of the Father's hypostasis, but not as of the Son also being a joint-cause with respect to the Godhead.

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

 contradicting, or both theologians in accordance with them? By no means. Therefore, according to you, we shall strike this one or those ones from the

 of creatures, it is by so much more magnificent for the first cause to be the origin of divinity than of creatures and to come to creatures through a

 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,

 of the Father and proceeds from Me? For He was not then speaking more humbly concerning Himself, on which account He would have omitted this alone, c

 proceeds, having this as a distinctive sign of its existence according to its hypostasis: to be known after the Son and with Him, and to subsist from

 the discourse is about the economy?» And a little later: for here he speaks of the grace that came upon the flesh for all grace was poured out into

 according to the principle of its proper cause, that is, that the Son is contemplated as being from the Father, stands in the way, preventing the Spir

 To Ablabius, on why, when we speak of one divinity in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, we forbid speaking of three gods, having set forth t

 to exist, just as the Holy Spirit, caused, however, by generation, and that the Holy Spirit also exists caused, but not by generation.

 to theologians, for the sake of greater clarity. Cain was the son of Adam and his only-begotten before he begot the others, but Eve was a part and sh

 We shall understand and take the preposition through to mean with, with Gregory, who is named for theology, saying, One God for us, the Father wi

 God of all? But I do not speak of him as co-creating, he says, but as co-proceeding. Therefore, the Spirit, by co-proceeding, will perfect (p. 298) hi

 But was not the sending of the Word to us also essential, having come from both the Father and the Spirit? But the sending was not generation for the

 as being of one and the same nature of the Father and of the Son. For so that I might speak according to the divine Cyril himself, as he himself write

 of the Spirit as more manifest and fore-announced and fore-attested˙ “And the Son has naturally in Himself the proper and excellent things of the Fath

 but he entirely and if his energy is immeasurable, much more so his essence. Thus the power of the truth spoken by us conquers all things, of resour

 proclaims Christ as the Son. And the divine Cyril in his Treasures concludes that the Spirit exists naturally in the Son from the Father, and says tha

 the Spirit to proceed from those made like unto the Son by grace: for it is most particularly from the Father, as from Him alone having its pre-eterna

 proceeding from the Father himself that is, each of them immediately and from the Father alone, that is, from the very hypostasis of the Father. But

 of the divine sign from the heavens and the earth was shaken perceptibly. Do you see in such a sign that which proceeds not only being of the Spirit,

 of the Spirit is given the word of wisdom, and to another the word of knowledge.” But Christ also dwells in the hearts of those who are not reprobate,

 COUNTER-INSCRIPTIONS

 generation and procession».

 Spirit, the (p. 352) Father will then no longer be a different person from the Son, nor the Son from the Spirit. Do you see how the sayings of the sai

 Sixth Inscription. Since there are some who say that 'proceeds' and 'is poured forth' and

 Eighth counter-inscription. The present collected Scriptural usages and through examples the toward the

 to discern that the Spirit is also for this reason said to be proper to the Son, because it is from his essence and again for this reason it is said

 somehow has its existence also from that hypostasis, and vice versa for whatever is from that hypostasis is also from that essence. But when somethin

 EPISTLE 1 TO AKINDYNOS (p. 398)

 saying, which would not be the case for the creative principle for that one is the same. (p. 402) Besides, if this signifies the creative [principle]

 falsehood is advanced, so that it is necessary to bring upon their own heads that which is contrary to theology, which is blasphemy. Thus, one must re

 Therefore here, where, even if not one, there is nevertheless the generative capacity of both, it is not possible for the one to be a single principle

 thinking? So much for these things in this way. But we were taught by the fathers to reason in deed concerning such matters

 glorious from glorious things, which is to say plausible from plausible things. For they know nothing certain or secure about God, but became futile

 Spirit of the God-bearing divinity, like flowers and superessential lights,” if someone says the superessential Spirit is by nature from God, and that

 I have wiped away the creeping censure in the inscription, so that it might not be referred to the one praising it. Therefore, in order that I might m

 SECOND [LETTER] TO AKINDYNOS (p. 334)

 we have written back for some time for expected immediately after the return from you to us of the wise and most excellent Thessalian Nilus was the o

 A clear and common, if one must say, purification or precaution, for those still ambitiously occupied with words, with the irrational opinion from wor

 Two letters, therefore, from the same person about the same subject in the same way were delivered to me, having a contrary disposition to one another

 you were overturned, not only in your words against us, but also when discoursing about higher things and you suffered this from inopportune talkativ

 so far were we from thinking or calling ourselves perfect, (p. 456) that we even say that the initial desire to touch upon the path leading to the mys

 And here your error concerns the word, but not there concerning the word, but concerning arguments and many arguments, which you, having done well to

 of the superessential divinity is the Father» for he did not say, «the only source not 'from a source'», nor «one source rather», nor «the only sourc

 Thus in no way is one naturally disposed to harm the other. But that it is not for you to speak of God as “what light is, but rather a source of light

 having testified to the correct view, but having summarized and abridged it in a more moderate and more common and more concise way, as much as possib

 and by this the initial premise is begged through tautology, being advanced in effect. Do you wish that we further scrutinize this syllogism of yours

 by which they also appropriate this and are harmonized with the melody of the Spirit. If you wish to hear what divine proof they speak of, and not sim

 you string together their words which have it thus: “for the vision of things above us, it is necessary to arrive from above and for an intelligible l

 pays attention with his mind as though he is about to be led through it to the knowledge of God, suffers this very thing and is made a fool, though he

 of the soul, has an opportunity among those who are not most attentive and not secured by humility to slip in and mingle with them, the spirit of erro

 of a root (p. 498) a most fruitful tree, but we do not have the perceptive power to adequately reach the richness of the root, come let us look again

 the unholy stains impressed from these things to those enlightened ones they deem worthy to speak? Do you not hear the one who says, cast away for me

 our cooperation towards lack and a falling away from him, and lowest because it is furthest from the highest, and fallen because it was formerly above

 we say that divine things are removed from all things and are completely removed from demonstration, or rather, we do say it, but not of this [demonst

 there is no demonstration concerning any of the divine things, and his entire struggle tends toward no end at all. For if this becomes perfectly clear

 dims and mutilates by the power of those arguments, so that this obstacle might also be removed, I made the argument concerning this. But he, angered

 the Spirit, from the Father alone, and if from the Father alone, not also from the Son, and they are so equally balanced to each other that in all the

 But you, least of all initiated in these things, as it seems, say that of divine things there is neither knowledge nor demonstration, but only faith,

 of regions. Therefore we, through the guidance of the fathers, having found a demonstration of that which is beyond demonstration, something better th

 with the hypocrisy of the heterodox, you proceed against the orthodox and the patristic sayings put forward by us, I know not how, you attempt to do a

 bearing witness? That it both is and is not, in one way and another way and this is what we have said, that some divine things are known and demonstr

 For I see that all things need one and the same will and wisdom and power to come into being from non-being but one will and wisdom and power at the

 He abolished all number. And this is, that we may speak according to his knowledge, a paralogism, the one from ignorance of refutation, which the nobl

 and to all her hymnographers from eternity. Since, therefore, all things are about the thearchic super-essentiality, and those things about it are div

 mocking, he has named them childish lessons. But if there is something useful for us in it, it is no wonder for even from snakes there is a good medi

 I think I will pass over the things with which you boast, exalting yourself with big words as one having power in arguments. For just as above he was

 to encounter a shadow of God» (p. 566) that the God-seers of the fathers encounter, shamelessly rising up against these and that one like some false w

 of knowledge and of the rejected wisdom, as not having known God, he waged war against the teachers. For since they said to him, according to a tradit

 and to call the detailed teachings of the Holy Scriptures images of their intellectual contemplative fulfillment. We shall say, then, from where he, h

 undisputed but there are certain skeptics who also contradict everyone in common. And yet, the common notion that something does not in any way come

 it has a body running under it while it is perpendicular. For when the sky is clear, it is never walled off by another body. They will say these thing

 is wrestled against, but is the demonstration a word? You therefore, either accept your demonstration, which you claim, to be irrationality, or a word

 For to beget is of nature, but to make is of energy and the essence of God is one thing, and the essential energy of God is another and the essence

 He is nameless as He is above every name. As we were saying these and such things against the impious writings and preachings of Barlaam,

 ...which are called a collection and fullness of divinity according to Scripture, being equally contemplated and theologized in each of the holy hypos

 Is the providence which is excelled by that essence as by a cause—this also being called divinity as not being outside the fullness of the one divinit

 good-principality, if you should understand divinity, he says, and goodness as the very thing of the good-making and God-making gift of the so-call

 I say unoriginate, eternal, unceasing, and, to say the same thing, it is called uncreated according to itself. For according to the divine Maximus aga

 we have made in summary against the things written by him against the orthodox, signed by the most holy protos and the hegumens and the chosen elders

 But we will not tolerate being remiss in speaking against their accuser. For know that both the war has been stirred up against the saints and the ins

as being of one and the same nature of the Father and of the Son. For so that I might speak according to the divine Cyril himself, as he himself writes to Hermias, "not

could the Son be conceived as other than the Father, as regards natural identity, and certainly also the Holy Spirit," as the same [author], explaining that passage from the Gospel concerning this, "for he will not speak on his own," says, "the Holy Spirit is nothing other than the Son, as regards identity of nature." "And the divine nature is a fount of life, according to the great Dionysius, poured into itself and standing on itself and always contemplated through itself."

But it is not possible, he says, for the Spirit to be from the substance of the Son and not be from His hypostasis; for they do not perceive that when something is of one substance and hypostasis, that which has its existence in any way from that substance also has it from that hypostasis, and conversely; for whatever is from that hypostasis is also from that substance. But when something is of one substance, but not of one hypostasis, but of several, that which is from that one substance is not from its other hypostases, but from one of them. Since, therefore, the highest and adorable Trinity is for us one nature in three hypostases, that which has its hypostasis from the substance is not from the remaining hypostases, but from one of them, namely the paternal; for it is not possible for it not to be from this one, therefore not from another, but from it alone, if indeed from one.

(p. 308) And this is clear from humans; for each of us is from the substance of Adam, but not also from his hypostasis, because the substance of humans is now one, but the hypostases are many. But since in the beginning human nature was one substance and hypostasis, that of Adam, Eve, being from the substance of Adam, was also from his hypostasis. But also before Cain existed, since there was one male substance and hypostasis, Cain existed from one and the same male substance and hypostasis, that of Adam; but when two men already existed according to hypostasis, Enoch, son of Cain, existed from the substance of Adam, but not also from his hypostasis, but from that of Cain alone.

Therefore, those who think in the Latin manner, by contending that the Spirit is also from the hypostasis of the Son, if indeed He is theologized to be from the nature, are shown to think that there is one hypostasis as well as one substance in God, apart from the divine Spirit, completely setting aside the Father and showing the Son alone to exist according to hypostasis and presenting the Holy Spirit as having existence from the Son alone.

If anyone, therefore, hearing that the Spirit is from the nature of the Son, understands it as from the hypostasis, he makes the Son of the same hypostasis as the Father, since He is consubstantial; or he understands the difference and distinction to be in the divine nature, and not only in the three divine hypostases, not hearing, among other things, the theologian Chrysostom teaching that "the distinguishing order of the divine hypostases has become known to the saints, but the distinguishing of natures in the Holy Trinity is to be rejected." "For the substance was not divided from the Father into the Son, says the great Basil in his canonical letters, nor did it give birth by flowing."

Therefore, it would be well to say that the Spirit is not from the hypostasis of the Son, but from Him naturally and from the substance of the Son (p. 310), because of the Son's being consubstantial with the Father, and the consubstantiality of the divine Spirit with the Father and the Son being shown from this, but not the different existence of the Spirit from the Father, and it is equivalent to say both that the Spirit is from the substance of the Son because of the consubstantiality, and that the Spirit is of the same substance as the Son. And from the Son the consubstantiality is shown

ὡς μιᾶς καί τῆς αὐτῆς φύσεως οὔσης τοῦ Πατρός καί τοῦ Υἱοῦ. Ἵνα γάρ κατ᾿ αὐτόν εἴπω τόν θεῖον Κύριλλον, ὡς αὐτός Πρός Ἑρμείαν γράφει, «οὐχ

ἕτερος ἄν ὁ Υἱός εἶναι νοοῖτο παρά τόν Πατέρα, ὅσον εἰς ταὐτότητα φυσικήν, πάντως δέ καί τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον», ὡς καί περί τούτου ὁ αὐτός ἐξηγούμενος ἐκεῖνο τό εὐαγγελικόν, «οὐ γάρ λαλήσει ἀφ᾿ ἑαυτοῦ», φησίν, «οὐδέν ἕτερον παρά τόν Υἱόν ὑπάρχει τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον, ὅσον εἰς ταὐτότητα φύσεως». «Πηγή δέ ἐστι ζωῆς, κατά τόν μέγαν ∆ιονύσιον, ἡ θεία φύσις εἰς ἑαυτήν χεομένη καί ἐφ᾿ ἑαυτῆς ἑστῶσα καί ἀεί δι᾿ ἑαυτῆς θεωμένη».

Ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ ἔστι, φησίν, ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Υἱοῦ εἶναι τό Πνεῦμα καί ἐκ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ μή εἶναι˙ οὐ γάρ συνορῶσιν, ὡς, ὅταν τι μιᾶς μέν οὐσίας ᾖ καί ὑποστάσεως, τό ἐξ ἐκείνης τῆς οὐσίας ἔχον ὁπωσδήποτε τήν ὕπαρξιν καί ἐκ τῆς ὑποστάσεως ἐκείνης ταύτην ἔχει, καί ἀντιστρόφως˙ ὅ γάρ ἄν ἐκ τῆς ὑποστάσεως ἐκείνης ᾖ καί ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας ἐκείνης ἐστίν, Ὅταν δέ τι μιᾶς μέν οὐσίας ᾖ, οὐ μιᾶς δέ ὑποστάσεως, ἀλλά πλειόνων, τό ἐκ τῆς μιᾶς ἐκείνης οὐσίας οὐκ ἐκ τῶν λοιπῶν αὐτῆς ὑποστάσεών ἐστιν, ἀλλ᾿ ἐκ μιᾶς τινος αὐτῶν. Ἐπεί γοῦν ἡ ἀνωτάτω καί προσκυνητή Τριάς ἡμῖν μία φύσις ἐστίν ἐν ὑποστάσεσι τρισίν, οὐχί τό ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τήν ὑπόστασιν ἔχον ἐκ τῶν ὑπολοίπων ὑποστάσεών ἐστιν, ἀλλ᾿ ἐκ μιᾶς τινος αὐτῶν, δηλαδή τῆς πατρικῆς˙ ἐκ ταύτης γάρ μή εἶναι οὐκ ἐνδέχεται, οὐκοῦν οὐχί καί ἐξ ἑτέρας, ἀλλ᾿ ἐκ μόνης, εἴπερ ἐκ μιᾶς.

(σελ. 308) Καί τοῦτο δῆλον ἀπό τῶν ἀνθρώπων˙ ἕκαστος γάρ ἡμῶν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας μέν ἔστι τοῦ Ἀδάμ, οὐκ ἔστι δέ καί ἐκ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ, διότι μία μέν οὐσία τῶν ἀνθρώπων νῦν, πολλαί δέ ὑποστάσεις. Ἀνθρωπίνης δέ τήν ἀρχήν μιᾶς οὔσης οὐσίας τε καί ὑποστάσεως, τῆς τοῦ Ἀδάμ, ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Ἀδάμ ἡ Εὔα οὖσα, καί ἐκ τῆς ὑποστάσεως ἐκείνου ἦν. Ἀλλά καί πρίν τόν Κάϊν εἶναι, μιᾶς οὔσης ἀνδρικῆς οὐσίας τε καί ὑποστάσεως, ἐκ μιᾶς καί τῆς αὐτῆς ὁ Κάϊν ἀνδρικῆς οὐσίας τε καί ὑποστάσεως ὑπῆρχε, τοῦ Ἀδάμ˙ δυοῖν δέ ἀνδρῶν ἤδη καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν τελούντων, ὁ τοῦ Κάϊν Ἐνώχ ἐκ τοῦ οὐσίας μέν ὑπῆρχε τοῦ Ἀδάμ, ἀλλ᾿ οὐχί καί ἐκ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ, ἀλλ᾿ ἐκ μόνης τῆς τοῦ Κάϊν.

Οἱ γοῦν λατινικῶς φρονοῦντες διατεινόμενοι καί ἐκ τῆς ὑποστάσεως εἶναι τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα, εἴπερ εἶναι θεολογεῖται ἐκ τῆς φύσεως, πλήν τοῦ θείου Πνεύματος, μίαν εἶναι δείκνυνται φρονοῦντες ὥσπερ οὐσίαν οὕτω καί ὑπόστασιν ἐπί Θεοῦ, τόν Πατέρα τελέως ἀθετοῦντες καί τόν Υἱόν εἶναι μόνον καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν δεικνύντες καί τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Υἱοῦ τήν ὕπαρξιν ἔχειν παριστῶντες.

Εἰ τις οὖν ἐκ τῆς φύσεως ἀκούων τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα, ἐκ τῆς ὑποστάσεως νοεῖ, ὁμοϋπόστατον ποιεῖ τῷ Πατρί τόν Υἱόν, ἐπειδήπερ ὁμοούσιος˙ ἤ καί τήν διαφοράν καί τήν διάκρισιν κἄν τῇ θείᾳ φύσει, ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ ἐν μόναις ταῖς τρισί θείαις ὑποστάσεσι νοεῖ, μή πρός τοῖς ἄλλοις καί τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου θεολόγου διδάσκοντος ἀκούων, «ὡς ἡ μέν τῶν θείων ὑποστάσεων διακριτική τάξις, τοῖς ἁγίοις καθέστηκε γνώριμος, ἡ δέ φύσεων διακριτική ἐπί τῆς ἁγίας Τριάδος ἀπόβλητος». «Οὐ γάρ ἐμερίσθη ἡ οὐσία ἀπό τοῦ Πατρός εἰς Υἱόν, πρός τάς κανονικάς φησιν ὁ μέγας Βασίλειος, οὐδέ ρυεῖσα ἐγέννησεν».

Τοιγαροῦν εὖ ἄν ἔχοι λέγειν οὐκ ἐκ τῆς ὑποστάσεως τοῦ Υἱοῦ, ἀλλ᾿ ἐξ αὐτοῦ φυσικῶς κἀκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Υἱοῦ (σελ. 310) τό Πνεῦμα, διά τό τοῦ Υἱοῦ πρός τόν Πατέρα ὁμοούσιον, καί τῆς τοῦ θείου Πνεύματος πρός τόν Πατέρα καί τόν Υἱόν ὁμοουσιότητος ἐντεῦθεν δεικνυμένης, ἀλλ᾿ οὐχί τῆς διαφόρου ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός ὑπάρξεως τοῦ Πνεύματος, ἴσον δέ ἐστιν εἰπεῖν καί ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα διά τήν ὁμοουσιότητα, καί ὅτι τῆς αὐτῆς ἐστιν οὐσίας τῷ Υἱῷ τό Πνεῦμα. Ἐκ δέ τῆς τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἡ ὁμοουσιότης δείκνυται