On the Faith.
God commands us by His prophet not to esteem any new God to be God, and not to worship any strange God1 Cf. Ps. lxxxi. 9; Ex. xxxiv. 14.. Now it is clear that that is called new which is not from everlasting, and on the contrary, that is called everlasting which is not new. He, then, who does not believe that the Only-begotten God is from everlasting of the Father does not deny that He is new, for that which is not everlasting is confessedly new; and that which is new is not God, according to the saying of Scripture, “there shall not be in thee any new God2 Cf. Ps. lxxxi. 9; Ex. xxxiv. 14..” Therefore he who says that the Son “once was not3 Reading with Oehler, ὁ λέγων ὅτι ποτε οὐκ ἦν ὁ υἱ& 232·ς; not as the Paris editions, ὁ λέγων ὅτι ποτε οὐκ ἦν, οὗτος.,” denies His Godhead. Again, He Who says “thou shalt never worship a strange God4 Cf. Ex. xx. 3” forbids us to worship another God; and the strange God is so called in contradistinction to our own God. Who, then, is our own God? Clearly, the true God. And who is the strange God? Surely, he who is alien from the nature of the true God. If, therefore, our own God is the true God, and if, as the heretics say, the Only-begotten God is not of the nature of the true God, He is a strange God, and not our God. But the Gospel says, the sheep “will not follow a stranger5 S. John x. 5.” He that says He is created will make Him alien from the nature of the true God. What then will they do, who say that He is created? Do they worship that same created being as God6 Adding to the text of the Paris edit. θεὸν, with Oehler., or do they not? For if they do not worship Him, they follow the Jews in denying the worship of Christ: and if they do worship Him, they are idolaters, for they worship one alien from the true God. But surely it is equally impious not to worship the Son, and to worship the strange God. We must then say that the Son is the true Son of the true Father, that we may both worship Him, and avoid condemnation as worshipping a strange God. But to those who quote from the Proverbs the passage, “the Lord created me7 Prov. viii. 28.,” and think that they hereby produce a strong argument that the Creator and Maker of all things was created, we must answer that the Only-begotten God was made for us many things. For He was the Word, and was made flesh; and He was God, and was made man; and He was without body, and was made a body; and besides, He was made “sin,” and “a curse,” and “a stone,” and “an axe,” and “bread,” and “a lamb,” and “a way,” and “a door,” and “a rock,” and many such things; not being by nature any of these, but being made these things for our sakes, by way of dispensation. As, therefore, being the Word, He was for our sakes made flesh, and as, being God, He was made man, so also, being the Creator, He was made for our sakes a creature; for the flesh is created. As, then, He said by the prophet, “Thus saith the Lord, He that formed me from the womb to be His servant8 Is. xlix. 5.;” so He said also by Solomon, “The Lord created me as the beginning of His ways, for His works9 Prov. viii. 28..” For all creation, as the Apostle says, is in servitude10 Cf. Rom. viii. 21. This clause is omitted in the Paris editions.. Therefore both He Who was formed in the Virgin’s womb, according to the word of the prophet, is the servant, and not the Lord (that is to say, the man according to the flesh, in whom God was manifested), and also, in the other passage, He Who was created as the beginning of His ways is not God, but the man in whom God was manifested to us for the renewing again of the ruined way of man’s salvation. So that, since we recognize two things in Christ, one Divine, the other human (the Divine by nature, but the human in the Incarnation), we accordingly claim for the Godhead that which is eternal, and that which is created we ascribe to His human nature. For as, according to the prophet, He was formed in the womb as a servant, so also, according to Solomon, He was manifested in the flesh by means of this servile creation. But when they say, “if He was, He was not begotten, and if He was begotten He was not,” let them learn that it is not fitting to ascribe to His Divine nature the attributes which belong to His fleshly origin11 Reading γενεσέως with Oehler. The Paris editions read γεννησέως: but Oehler’s reading seems to give a better sense.. For bodies which do not exist, are generated, and God makes those things to be which are not, but does not Himself come into being from that which is not. And for this reason also Paul calls Him “the brightness of glory12 Heb. i. 3.,” that we may learn that as the light from the lamp is of the nature of that which sheds the brightness, and is united with it (for as soon as the lamp appears the light that comes from it shines out simultaneously), so in this place the Apostle would have us consider both that the Son is of the Father, and that the Father is never without the Son; for it is impossible that glory should be without radiance, as it is impossible that the lamp should be without brightness. But it is clear that as His being brightness is a testimony to His being in relation with the glory (for if the glory did not exist, the brightness shed from it would not exist), so, to say that the brightness “once was not13 Reading with Oehler ποτὲ for the τὲ of the Paris Edit.” is a declaration that the glory also was not, when the brightness was not; for it is impossible that the glory should be without the brightness. As therefore it is not possible to say in the case of the brightness, “If it was, it did not come into being, and if it came into being it was not,” so it is in vain to say this of the Son, seeing that the Son is the brightness. Let those also who speak of “less” and “greater,” in the case of the Father and the Son, learn from Paul not to measure things immeasurable. For the Apostle says that the Son is the express image of the Person of the Father14 Heb. i. 3.. It is clear then that however great the Person of the Father is, so great also is the express image of that Person; for it is not possible that the express image should be less than the Person contemplated in it. And this the great John also teaches when he says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God15 S. John i. 1.” For in saying that he was “in the beginning” and not “after the beginning,” he showed that the beginning was never without the Word; and in declaring that “the Word was with God,” he signified the absence of defect in the Son in relation to the Father; for the Word is contemplated as a whole together with the whole being of God. For if the Word were deficient in His own greatness so as not to be capable of relation with the whole being of God, we are compelled to suppose that that part of God which extends beyond the Word is without the Word. But in fact the whole magnitude of the Word is contemplated together with the whole magnitude of God: and consequently in statements concerning the Divine nature, it is not admissible to speak of “greater” and “less.”
As for those who say that the begotten is in its nature unlike the unbegotten, let them learn from the example of Adam and Abel not to talk nonsense. For Adam himself was not begotten according to the natural generation of men; but Abel was begotten of Adam. Now, surely, he who was never begotten is called unbegotten, and he who came into being by generation is called begotten16 Inserting with Oehler the clause, καὶ ὁ γεννηθὲις γεννητός, which is not in the text of the Paris Editt, though a corresponding clause appears in the Latin translation.; yet the fact that he was not begotten did not hinder Adam from being a man, nor did the generation of Abel make him at all different from man’s nature, but both the one and the other were men, although the one existed by being begotten, and the other without generation. So in the case of our statements as to the Divine nature, the fact of not being begotten, and that of being begotten, produce no diversity of nature, but, just as in the case of Adam and Abel the manhood is one, so is the Godhead one in the case of the Father and the Son.
Now touching the Holy Spirit also the blasphemers make the same statement as they do concerning the Lord, saying that He too is created. But the Church believes, as concerning the Son, so equally concerning the Holy Spirit, that He is uncreated, and that the whole creation becomes good by participation in the good which is above it, while the Holy Spirit needs not any to make Him good (seeing that He is good by virtue of His nature, as the Scripture testifies)17 The reference may be to Ps. cxliii. 10.; that the creation is guided by the Spirit, while the Spirit gives guidance; that the creation is governed, while the Spirit governs; that the creation is comforted, while the Spirit comforts; that the creation is in bondage, while the Spirit gives freedom; that the creation is made wise, while the Spirit gives the grace of wisdom; that the creation partakes of the gifts, while the Spirit bestows them at His pleasure: “For all these worketh that one and the self-same Spirit, dividing to every man severally as He will18 1 Cor. xii. 11..” And one may find multitudes of other proofs from the Scriptures that all the supreme and Divine attributes which are applied by the Scriptures to the Father and the Son are also to be contemplated in the Holy Spirit:—immortality, blessedness, goodness, wisdom, power, justice, holiness—every excellent attribute is predicated of the Holy Spirit just as it is predicated of the Father and of the Son, with the exception of those by which the Persons are clearly and distinctly divided from each other; I mean, that the Holy Spirit is not called the Father, or the Son; but all other names by which the Father and the Son are named are applied by Scripture to the Holy Spirit also. By this, then, we apprehend that the Holy Spirit is above creation. Thus, where the Father and the Son are understood to be, there the Holy Spirit also is understood to be; for the Father and the Son are above creation, and this attribute the drift of our argument claims for the Holy Spirit. So it follows, that one who places the Holy Spirit above the creation has received the right and sound doctrine: for he will confess that uncreated nature which we behold in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit to be one.
But since they bring forward as a proof, according to their ideas, of the created nature of the Holy Spirit, that utterance of the prophet, which says, “He that stablisheth the thunder and createth the spirit, and declareth unto man His Christ,19 Cf. Amos iv. 13 (LXX.).” we must consider this, that the prophet speaks of the creation of another Spirit, in the stablishing of the thunder, and not of the Holy Spirit. For the name of “thunder” is given in mystical language to the Gospel. Those, then, in whom arises firm and unshaken faith in the Gospel, pass from being flesh to become spirit, as the Lord says, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit20 S. John iii. 6.” It is God, then, Who by stablishing the voice of the Gospel makes the believer spirit: and he who is born of the Spirit and made spirit by such thunder, “declares” Christ; as the Apostle says, “No man can say that Jesus Christ is Lord but by the Holy Spirit21 1 Cor. xii. 3..”
ΓΡΗΓΟΡΙΟΥ ΕΠΙΣΚΟΠΟΥ ΝΥΣΣΗΣ ΠΡΟΣ ΣΙΜΠΛΙΚΙΟΝ ΠΕΡΙ ΠΙΣΤΕΩΣ Σιμπλικίῳ τριβούνῳ Γρηγόριος περὶ πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ καὶ ἁγίου πνεύματος
Κελεύει ὁ θεὸς διὰ τοῦ προφήτου μηδένα πρόσφατον θεὸν εἶναι νομίζειν μηδὲ προσκυνεῖν θεῷ ἀλλοτρίῳ. οὐκοῦν δῆλόν ἐστιν, ὅτι πρόσφατον λέγεται ὃ μὴ ἐξ ἀϊδίου ἐστίν. καὶ ἐκ τοῦ ἐναντίου πάλιν ἀΐδιον λέγεται ὃ μὴ πρόσφατόν ἐστιν. ὁ τοίνυν μὴ ἐξ ἀϊδίου τὸν μονογενῆ θεὸν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς εἶναι πιστεύων πρόσφατον εἶναι αὐτὸν οὐκ ἀρνεῖται: τὸ γὰρ μὴ ἀΐδιον πρόσφατον πάντως. πᾶν δὲ τὸ πρόσφατον θεὸς οὐκ ἔστιν, καθὼς εἶπεν ἡ γραφὴ ὅτι Οὐκ ἔσται ἐν σοὶ θεὸς πρόσφατος. ἄρα ὁ λέγων ὅτι ποτὲ οὐκ ἦν ὁ υἱὸς ἀρνεῖται αὐτοῦ τὴν θεότητα. πάλιν ἀλλότριον θεὸν προσκυνεῖν κωλύει ὁ λέγων Οὐδὲ προσκυνήσεις θεῷ ἀλλοτρίῳ. ὁ δὲ ἀλλότριος τῇ πρὸς τὸν ἴδιον ἡμῶν θεὸν ἀντιδιαστολῇ θεωρεῖται. τίς οὖν ὁ ἴδιος ἡμῶν ἐστι θεός; δῆλον ὅτι ὁ ἀληθινὸς θεός. τίς δὲ ὁ ἀλλότριος; πάντως ὁ τῆς τοῦ ἀληθινοῦ θεοῦ φύσεως ἀλλοτρίως ἔχων. εἰ οὖν ἴδιος ἡμῶν θεὸς ὁ ἀληθινός ἐστι θεός, ἐὰν μὴ ᾖ τῆς τοῦ ἀληθινοῦ φύσεως ὁ μονογενὴς θεός, καθὼς λέγουσιν οἱ αἱρετικοί, ἀλλότριός ἐστι καὶ οὐχ ἡμέτερος. λέγει δὲ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ὅτι τὰ πρόβατα ἀλλοτρίῳ οὐ μὴ ὑπακούσῃ. ὁ λέγων κτιστὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι ἀλλότριον τῆς τοῦ ἀληθινοῦ θεοῦ φύσεως εἶναι κατασκευάζει. τί οὖν ποιήσουσιν οἱ λέγοντες ὅτι κτιστός ἐστιν; προσκυνοῦσι τὸν κτιστὸν αὐτῶν θεὸν ἢ οὐχί; εἰ μὲν γὰρ οὐ προσκυνοῦσιν, ἰουδαΐζουσιν ἀρνούμενοι τοῦ Χριστοῦ τὴν προσκύνησιν: εἰ δὲ προσκυνοῦσιν, εἰδωλολατροῦσι: τὸν γὰρ ἀλλότριον τοῦ ἀληθινοῦ θεοῦ προσκυνοῦσιν. ἀλλὰ μὴν ἐπίσης ἀσεβὲς καὶ μὴ προσκυνεῖν τὸν υἱὸν καὶ προσκυνεῖν τὸν ἀλλότριον θεόν. χρὴ ἄρα τοῦ ἀληθινοῦ πατρὸς ἀληθινὸν τὸν υἱὸν λέγειν, ἵνα καὶ προσκυνῶμεν αὐτὸν καὶ μὴ κατακριθῶμεν ὡς ἀλλότριον προσκυνοῦντες θεόν.
Πρὸς δὲ τοὺς λέγοντας τὸ ἐκ τῆς παροιμίας ὅτι Κύριος ἔκτισέ με καὶ διὰ τοῦτο νομίζοντας ἰσχυρόν τι λέγειν περὶ τοῦ κτιστὸν εἶναι τὸν πάντων κτίστην καὶ δημιουργὸν ταῦτα προσήκει λέγειν ὅτι πολλὰ δι' ἡμᾶς ἐγένετο ὁ μονογενὴς θεός: καὶ γὰρ καὶ λόγος ὢν σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ θεὸς ὢν ἄνθρωπος ἐγένετο καὶ ἀσώματος ὢν σῶμα ἐγένετο καὶ ἔτι πρὸς τούτοις καὶ ἁμαρτία καὶ κατάρα καὶ λίθος καὶ ἀξίνη καὶ ἄρτος καὶ πρόβατον καὶ ὁδὸς καὶ θύρα καὶ πέτρα καὶ πολλὰ τοιαῦτα ἐγένετο οὐδὲν τούτων τῇ φύσει ὤν, ἀλλὰ δι' ἡμᾶς κατ' οἰκονομίαν γενόμενος. ὥςπερ οὖν λόγος ὢν δι' ἡμᾶς ἐγένετο σὰρξ καὶ θεὸς ὢν ἄνθρωπος ἐγένετο, οὕτω καὶ κτίστης ὢν δι' ἡμᾶς κτίσις ἐγένετο: κτιστὴ γὰρ ἡ σάρξ. ὡς οὖν εἶπε διὰ τοῦ προφήτου ὅτι Οὕτως λέγει κύριος ὁ πλάσας με ἐκ κοιλίας δοῦλον αὐτοῦ, οὕτως εἶπε καὶ διὰ τοῦ Σολομῶντος τὸ Κύριος ἔκτισέ με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ εἰς ἔργα αὐτοῦ: πᾶσα γὰρ [ἡ] κτίσις δουλεύει, καθώς φησιν ὁ ἀπόστολος. οὐκοῦν καὶ ὁ ἐν τῇ κοιλίᾳ τῆς παρθένου πλασθεὶς κατὰ τὸν λόγον τοῦ προφήτου ὁ δοῦλός ἐστιν, οὐχ ὁ κύριος, τουτέστιν ὁ κατὰ σάρκα ἄνθρωπος, ἐν ᾧ ὁ θεὸς ἐφανερώθη, καὶ ἐνταῦθα ὁ κτισθεὶς εἰς ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ οὐχ ὁ θεός ἐστιν ἀλλ' ὁ ἄνθρωπος, ἐν ᾧ ἡμῖν ὁ θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐπὶ τῷ τὴν καταφθαρεῖσαν ὁδὸν τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης σωτηρίας πάλιν ἀνανεώσασθαι. ὥστε ἐπειδὴ δύο περὶ Χριστοῦ γινώσκομεν, τὸ μὲν θεῖον τὸ δὲ ἀνθρώπινον (ἐν μὲν τῇ φύσει τὸ θεῖον, ἐν δὲ τῇ οἰκονομίᾳ τὸ κατὰ ἄνθρωπον), ἀκολούθως τὸ μὲν ἀΐδιον τῇ θεότητι προσμαρτυροῦμεν, τὸ δὲ κτιστὸν τῇ ἀνθρωπίνῃ λογιζόμεθα φύσει. ὡς γὰρ κατὰ τὸν προφήτην ἐν τῇ κοιλίᾳ ἐπλάσθη δοῦλος, οὕτως καὶ κατὰ τὸν Σολομῶντα διὰ τῆς δουλικῆς ταύτης κτίσεως ἐν σαρκὶ ἐφανερώθη.
Ὅταν δὲ λέγωσιν ὅτι εἰ ἦν, οὐκ ἐγεννήθη, καὶ εἰ ἐγεννήθη, οὐκ ἦν, διδαχθήτωσαν ὅτι οὐ χρὴ τὰ τῆς σαρκικῆς γεννήσεως ἰδιώματα ἐφαρμόζειν τῇ θείᾳ φύσει. σώματα μὲν γὰρ μὴ ὄντα γεννᾶται, ὁ δὲ θεὸς τὰ μὴ ὄντα εἶναι ποιεῖ, οὐκ αὐτὸς ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος γίνεται. διὸ καὶ ὁ Παῦλος ἀπαύγασμα δόξης αὐτὸν ὀνομάζει, ἵνα διδαχθῶμεν ὅτι, ὥσπερ τὸ ἐκ τοῦ λύχνου φῶς καὶ ἐκ τῆς φύσεώς ἐστι τοῦ ἀπαυγάζοντος καὶ μετ' ἐκείνου ἐστίν (ὁμοῦ τε γὰρ ἐξεφάνη ὁ λύχνος καὶ τὸ φῶς τὸ ἐξ αὐτοῦ συνεξέλαμψεν), οὕτω κελεύει καὶ ἐνταῦθα νοεῖν ὁ ἀπόστολος, ὅτι καὶ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ὁ υἱὸς καὶ οὐδέποτε χωρὶς τοῦ υἱοῦ ὁ πατήρ: οὐκ ἐγχωρεῖ γὰρ ἀλαμπῆ εἶναι τὴν δόξαν, ὡς οὐκ ἐγχωρεῖ ἄνευ ἀπαυγάσματος εἶναι τὸν λύχνον. δῆλον δὲ ὅτι, ὥσπερ τὸ εἶναι ἀπαύγασμα μαρτυρία ἐστὶ τοῦ καὶ τὴν δόξαν εἶναι (μὴ γὰρ οὔσης τῆς δόξης οὐκ ἂν εἴη τὸ ἐκ ταύτης ἀπαυγαζόμενον), οὕτω τὸ λέγειν μὴ εἶναί ποτε ἀπαύγασμα ἀπόδειξίς ἐστι τοῦ μηδὲ τὴν δόξαν εἶναι, ὅτε οὐκ ἦν τὸ ἀπαύγασμα: τὴν γὰρ δόξαν ἄνευ ἀπαυγάσματος εἶναι ἀμήχανον. ὥσπερ οὖν οὐκ ἔστιν ἐπὶ τοῦ ἀπαυγάσματος λέγειν ὅτι εἰ ἦν, οὐκ ἐγένετο, καὶ εἰ ἐγένετο, οὐκ ἦν, οὕτω μάταιόν ἐστι περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ ταῦτα λέγειν, διότι ὁ υἱός ἐστι τὸ ἀπαύγασμα.
Οἱ δὲ τὸ μικρότερον καὶ τὸ μεῖζον ἐπὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ πατρὸς λέγοντες διδαχθήτωσαν παρὰ τοῦ Παύλου μὴ μετρεῖν τὰ ἀμέτρητα: ὁ γὰρ ἀπόστολος τὸν υἱὸν χαρακτῆρα λέγει τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς ὑποστάσεως. δῆλον οὖν ὅτι, ὅση ἂν ᾖ ἡ ὑπόστασις ἡ τοῦ πατρός, τοσοῦτος καὶ ὁ χαρακτήρ ἐστι τῆς ὑποστάσεως: οὐ γὰρ ἐνδέχεται μικρότερον εἶναι τὸν χαρακτῆρα τῆς θεωρουμένης ἐν αὐτῷ ὑποστάσεως. ἀλλὰ καὶ ὁ μέγας Ἰωάννης τὰ αὐτὰ διδάσκει λέγων ὅτι Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν. ἐκ γὰρ τοῦ εἰπεῖν ὅτι ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν καὶ οὐχὶ μετὰ τὴν ἀρχήν, ἔδειξεν ὅτι οὐδέποτε ἄλογος ἦν ἡ ἀρχή. ἐκ δὲ τοῦ ἀποδεῖξαι, ὅτι καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, τὸ ἀνελλιπὲς τοῦ υἱοῦ ὡς πρὸς τὸν πατέρα ἐσήμανεν: ὅλῳ γὰρ τῷ θεῷ ὅλος συνθεωρεῖται ὁ λόγος. εἰ γὰρ ἐλλιπὴς ἦν ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ μεγέθει ὁ λόγος, ὥστε μὴ δύνασθαι πρὸς ὅλον τὸν θεὸν εἶναι, ἀνάγκη πᾶσα ἄλογον εἶναι τοῦ θεοῦ νομίζειν τὸ ὑπερεκπίπτον τοῦ λόγου. ἀλλὰ μὴν πάσῃ τοῦ θεοῦ τῇ μεγαλειότητι ἡ τοῦ λόγου μεγαλειότης συνθεωρεῖται. ἄρα οὐκ ἔχει χώραν ἐπὶ τῶν θείων δογμάτων τὸ μεῖζον λέγειν καὶ τὸ μικρότερον.
Οἱ δὲ λέγοντες τὸ γεννητὸν τῷ ἀγεννήτῳ εἶναι κατὰ τὴν φύσιν ἀνόμοιον διδαχθήτωσαν μὴ μωραίνειν ἐκ τοῦ κατὰ τὸν Ἄβελ καὶ τὸν Ἀδὰμ ὑποδείγματος: καὶ γὰρ καὶ ὁ Ἀδὰμ κατὰ τὴν φυσικὴν τῶν ἀνθρώπων γέννησιν οὐκ ἐγεννήθη, ὁ δὲ Ἄβελ ἐκ τοῦ Ἀδὰμ ἐγεννήθη. ἀλλὰ μὴν ὁ μὴ γεννηθεὶς ἀγέννητος λέγεται καὶ ὁ γεννηθεὶς γεννητός: οὐδὲν δὲ ἐκώλυσε τὸ μὴ γεγεννῆσθαι τὸν Ἀδὰμ πρὸς τὸ ἄνθρωπον εἶναι. οὐδὲ ἡ γέννησις τὸν Ἄβελ ἄλλο τι παρὰ τὴν ἀνθρωπίνην φύσιν ἐποίησεν, ἀλλὰ καὶ οὗτος ἄνθρωπος κἀκεῖνος, εἰ καὶ ὁ μὲν γεννηθεὶς ἦν, ὁ δὲ δίχα γεννήσεως. ἄρα καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν θείων δογμάτων τὸ μὴ γεννηθῆναι καὶ τὸ γεννηθῆναι διαφορὰν οὐκ ἐξεργάζεται φύσεως, ἀλλ' ὥσπερ ἐπὶ τοῦ Ἀδὰμ καὶ τοῦ Ἄβελ ἀνθρωπότης μία, οὕτω καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ θεότης μία.
Καὶ περὶ τοῦ πνεύματος δὲ τοῦ ἁγίου οἱ βλασφημοῦντες τὸ αὐτὸ λέγουσιν ὃ καὶ περὶ τοῦ κυρίου, ὅτι ἐστὶ καὶ τοῦτο κτιστόν, καὶ ἡ ἐκκλησία ἐπίσης ὡς περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ, οὕτως καὶ περὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος πιστεύει, ὅτι ἐστὶν ἄκτιστον: διότι πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις ἐκ τῆς τοῦ ὑπερκειμένου ἀγαθοῦ μετουσίας γίνεται ἀγαθή, τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον οὐ προσδεές ἐστι τοῦ ἀγαθύνοντος (ἀγαθὸν γὰρ τῇ φύσει ἐστί, καθὼς ἡ γραφὴ μαρτυρεῖ): καὶ ὅτι ἡ κτίσις ὁδηγεῖται παρὰ τοῦ πνεύματος, τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα τὴν ὁδηγίαν χαρίζεται: ἡ κτίσις ἡγεμονεύεται, τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ἡγεμονεύει: ἡ κτίσις παρακαλεῖται, τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα παρακαλεῖ: ἡ κτίσις δουλεύει, τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ἐλευθεροῖ: ἡ κτίσις σοφίζεται, τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα τὴν τῆς σοφίας δίδωσι χάριν: ἡ κτίσις μεταλαμβάνει τῶν χαρισμάτων, τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα κατ' ἐξουσίαν χαρίζεται. Πάντα γὰρ ταῦτα ἐνεργεῖ τὸ ἓν καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ πνεῦμα, διαιροῦν ἰδίᾳ ἑκάστῳ καθὼς βούλεται. καὶ μυρίας ἄλλας ἐκ τῶν γραφῶν ἔστιν ἀποδείξεις εὑρεῖν, ὅτι πάντα τὰ ὑψηλὰ καὶ θεοπρεπῆ ὀνόματα, ὅσα τῷ πατρὶ καὶ τῷ υἱῷ παρὰ τῆς γραφῆς ἐφαρμόζεται, ταῦτα καὶ περὶ τὸ ἅγιον θεωρεῖται πνεῦμα: ἡ ἀφθαρσία, ἡ μακαριότης, τὸ ἀγαθόν, τὸ σοφόν, τὸ δυνατόν, τὸ δίκαιον, ἡ ἁγιότης: πᾶν τίμιον ὄνομα οὕτως λέγεται ἐπὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος, ὡς καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ λέγεται, πλὴν τούτων δι' ὧν αἱ ὑποστάσεις τρανῶς τε καὶ ἀσυγχύτως ἀπ' ἀλλήλων διαχωρίζονται, λέγω δὴ ὅτι οὔτε πατὴρ λέγεται τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον οὔτε υἱός: τὰ δὲ ἄλλα ὅσα ὁ πατὴρ καὶ ὁ υἱὸς ὀνομάζεται, ταῦτα καὶ τῷ ἁγίῳ πνεύματι παρὰ τῆς γραφῆς ἐφαρμόζεται. διὰ τοῦτο οὖν καταλαμβάνομεν ὅτι ἄνω τῆς κτίσεώς ἐστι τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον. οὐκοῦν ὅπου ὁ πατὴρ καὶ ὅπου ὁ υἱὸς νοεῖται, ἐκεῖ νοεῖται καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον: ἄνω γὰρ τῆς κτίσεως καὶ ὁ πατὴρ καὶ ὁ υἱός, ὅπερ καὶ τῷ ἁγίῳ πνεύματι ἀκολουθία τοῦ λόγου προσεμαρτύρησεν. ὁ τοίνυν ὑπερτιθεὶς τῆς κτίσεως τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἀκολούθως τὸν ὀρθόν τε καὶ ὑγιῆ παρεδέξατο λόγον: μίαν γὰρ ὁμολογήσει τὴν ἄκτιστον φύσιν, τὴν ἐν πατρὶ καὶ υἱῷ καὶ πνεύματι ἁγίῳ θεωρουμένην.
Ἐπεὶ δὲ εἰς ἀπόδειξιν, ὡς οἴονται, τοῦ κτιστὸν εἶναι τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον τὴν τοῦ προφήτου φωνὴν ἡμῖν προφέρουσι τὴν λέγουσαν ὅτι Ὁ στερεῶν βροντὴν καὶ κτίζων πνεῦμα καὶ ἀπαγγέλλων εἰς ἀνθρώπους τὸν Χριστὸν αὐτοῦ, τοῦτο προσήκει νοῆσαι, ὅτι ἄλλο κτίζεσθαι πνεῦμα ἐν τῇ στερεότητι τῆς βροντῆς ὁ προφήτης λέγει καὶ οὐχὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα: βροντὴν γὰρ ὁ μυστικὸς λόγος τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ὀνομάζει. ἐν οἷς οὖν γίνεται βεβαία καὶ ἀμετάθετος ἡ εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον πίστις, οὗτοι διὰ τῆς πίστεως μεταβαίνουσιν ἀπὸ τοῦ εἶναι σάρκες εἰς τὸ γίνεσθαι πνεῦμα, καθὼς λέγει ὁ κύριος ὅτι Τὸ γεγεννημένον ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς σάρξ ἐστι, τὸ δὲ γεγεννημένον ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος πνεῦμά ἐστιν. θεὸς οὖν ἐστιν ὁ διὰ τοῦ στερροποιεῖν τὴν εὐαγγελικὴν βροντὴν τοῖς πιστεύουσι πνεῦμα ποιῶν τὸν πιστεύοντα, ὁ δὲ ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος γεννηθεὶς καὶ πνεῦμα διὰ τῆς τοιαύτης βροντῆς γενόμενος ἀπαγγέλλει τὸν Χριστὸν καθὼς ὁ ἀπόστολος λέγει ὅτι Οὐδεὶς δύναται εἰπεῖν κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, εἰ μὴ ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ.