Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit

(St. Photius The Great)

Concerning statements in the sacred teachings which state that as the
Son is begotten of the ather alone! so li"ewise the proper theology
concerning the Holy Spirit is that He proceeds from one and the same
cause# and also concerning the saying that because He is of one
essence with the Son! He therefore proceeds from Him as well.
$. There are %arious arguments! scattered throughout many lengthy
dissertations! which confute the arrogance of those contentious men
who hold fast to unrighteousness and stri%e against the truth. Since
your great &eal and lo%e for God has re'uested that those correcti%e
arguments! furnished by di%ine pro%idence! be gathered into a general
o%er%iew and outline! this goal is indeed not unworthy of your desire
and godly lo%e.
(. )bo%e all else! there is a saying of the *ord which opposes them li"e
a sharp! inescapable arrow! stri"ing down and destroying e%ery wild
beast and fo+ as though with a thunderbolt. ,hat saying- That which
the Son Himself deli%ers# that which states that the Holy Spirit
proceeds from the ather. .e/ecting this compact garment! do you still
see" for the di%ine clothing- ,ould you propagate the fable that the
Spirit proceeds from the Son- 0f you do not cower when sei&ing the
dogmas of our common Sa%iour! Creator! and *awgi%er with a %iolence
that yields only to your insanity! then what other things could one 1nd
by which utterly to confute your impious &eal- 2 0f you despise the
laws of the *ord! what godly man will not e+ecrate your opinion- 2 3ut
what else can raise you from your fall- ,hat other method of healing
will cure your mortal wounds not caused by the word of the Sa%iour!
but by your own self4made sic"ness! which out of disobedience
stubbornly stri%es to transform the medicine of the *ord5s doctrine into
a no+ious poison- The Sa%iour5s doctrine does not simply touch these
wounds! but digs deeply into them and cures the whole body of sores
with care and concern. ,e ha%e not laid the two4edged sword of the
Spirit 6the Holy Scriptures7 against you too often! ne%ertheless because
of the a8ection of our common Master we will ma"e a prompt and
willing proof of our sacred conceptions! and arm oursel%es completely!
preparing a strategy and drawing up an order of battle. )nd thus we
will escape from these wounds of yours without an+iety.
9. or if the Son and the Spirit came forth from the same cause!
namely! the ather (e%en though the Spirit is by procession whilst the
Son is by begetting)# and if 2 as this blasphemy cries out 2 the Spirit
also proceeds from the Son! then why not simply tear up the ,ord
6*ogos7 and propagate the fable that the Spirit also produces the Son!
thereby according the same e'uality of ran" to each hypostasis by
allowing each hypostasis to produce the other hypostasis- or if each
hypostasis is in the other! then of necessity each is the cause and
completion of the other. or reason demands e'uality for each
hypostasis so that each hypostasis e+changes the grace of causality
indistinguishably.
:. Some others recognise that the Son5s generation does not impair the
indescribable simplicity of the ather. 3ut since it is claimed that He
proceeds from two hypostases! the Spirit is brought to a double cause!
thereby obscuring the simplicity of the Most High. ;oes it not follow
from this that the Spirit is therefore composite- How then is the Trinity
simple- 3ut! on the other hand! how shall the Spirit not be blasphemed
if! proceeding from the Son! He in turn has no e'uality by causing the
Son- < impiously bold tongue! corrupting the Spirit5s own proper
dignity=
>. ,ho of our sacred and renowned athers said the Spirit proceeds
from the Son- ;id any synod! ac"nowledged as ecumenical! proclaim
it- ,hich assembly of priests and bishops! inspired of God! a?rmed
this understanding of the Holy Spirit- or these men! ha%ing been
initiated into the ather5s Spirit according to the Master5s teaching!
loudly proclaimed the splendour of the Master5s teaching. These
prophetic writings and boo"s! predetermined from ancient times! are
sources of light! and in accordance with righteousness! anticipate the
composite di%isions and apostasies of this new ungodliness. 0ndeed!
they sub/ected all who belie%ed otherwise to the anathema for being
scorners of the Catholic and )postolic Church# for the second of the
se%en Holy and @cumenical Synods directly dogmatised that the Holy
Spirit proceeds from the ather. The third recei%ed it by tradition# the
fourth con1rmed it# the 1fth supported the same doctrine# the si+th
sealed it# the se%enth sealed it in splendour with contests. )ccordingly!
in each of their luminous proclamations the godly doctrine that the
Spirit proceeds from the ather and not also from the Son is boldly
asserted. ,ould you! then! < godless herd! draw away towards
unlawful teaching and dispute this teaching of the Master-
A. 0f so! then straightaway their profane! self4su?cient contentions
against God are detected. or if each hypostasis is as great as the
others! then the procession is common to all three hypostases by
%irtue of the simple! indi%isible essence. )nd if each hypostasis is as
great as the others! then all share in a common and uni'ue simplicity!
and therefore the Spirit and the ather will be caused by the Son and
the Spirit in a similar manner. 0s this not the same thing as saying that
since the Son e+ists in the ather! He is as great as the ather! since
neither of them is despoiled of Spirit- 3ut! according to the myriad
%oices who piously deli%ered the doctrine of the indescribable Godhead
on high! the Spirit is of the essence4abo%e4essence. His eternal!
incorporeal procession is therefore beyond the powers of reason. 0f
these obser%ations are not so! then no one is a Christian who is not
carried away into diabolical disputations! choosing this new word
6ilio'ue7 that the procession of the Spirit is from the ather and the
Son as from a common source= )nd! if this is so 2 what teaching has
e%er come to a bolder impiety= 2 then the Spirit would participate in
His own processionB on one hand producer! and on the other!
produced# on one hand causing Himself! and on the other as being
caused. 2 )nother great array of blasphemies against God=
C. 3ut concerning the procession of the Spirit from the Son! who
formerly recei%ed it- or the procession of the Spirit from the Son is not
contained in the procession from the ather. 0f we say this! then what
does the Spirit gain which He did not already possess in His procession
from the ather- or if it were possible for the Spirit to recei%e
something and to declare what was gained! was He not imperfect
without it- 0ndeed! He would ha%e been imperfect if He had recei%ed
some increment. Moreo%er! there would be problems of duality and
composite4ness which would contend against the simply uncomposite
nature. 3ut if the Spirit recei%ed no increment! what is the purpose of
the procession 6from the Son7 which is unable to add anything-
D. )nd you should also in%estigate the following argumentB if the Son is
begotten from the ather and the Spirit proceeds from the Son! by
what reason do you not accord the Spirit! ,ho subsists in the same
identical essence! the dignity of another procession from Himself to
produce another hypostasis at the same time- <therwise! you degrade
Him ,ho is worthy of e'ual honour.
E. )nd you should consider thisB if the Spirit proceeds from the ather
and proceeds also from the Son 2 < decei%ing drun"enness of impiety=
2 why do not the ather and the Spirit beget the Son for the %ery
same reasons 2 which will atone for this blasphemous chattering
which turns the monarchy into many principles and causes= 2 and
ma"e common to all three hypostases what uni'uely characterises the
Son as well! combining the other two hypostases into one! in the same
manner- )nd thus! Sabellius 2 or rather some other sort of monstrous
semi4sabellianism would again sprout up among us.
$F. This ill doctrine! not being able to a%oid absurd conclusions about
the Son! goes on to engulf the speci1c hypostatic property of the
ather as well. 0 say that it is now clearly manifest that the procession
of the Spirit from the Son is the reason behind all this! since according
to their godless fables about the Spirit of the Son! those ad%ocating
these ideas confuse each hypostasis5 uni'ue property with the others.
They mutilate each hypostasis both by reason of the di%isibility of the
procession and then by turning around and ma"ing that di%ision
indi%isible. 0f the Spirit5s uni'ue characterising procession may be so
confused! then why is it not /ust as reasonable that more inno%ations of
the same type can come about- 3ut it is dreadful that we ha%e reached
this point by means of their blasphemy.
$$. *ea%ing aside the aforementioned! if two causes are discerned in
the di%ine! so%ereign! and transcendent Trinity! and if the Spirit thus
Gows from two hypostases! then where is the much4hymned! di%ine
ma/esty of the Monarchy- ,ill not the godlessness of polytheism be
noisily reintroduced- 0s this not but a reassertion of the superstitious
ideas of the 6pagan7 Gree"s! under the guise of Christianity-
$(. )nd again! if two causes are promoted in the monarchical Trinity!
why then! on the basis of the same reasoning! should not a third cause
appear- or once the beginningless source! which transcends all
sources! is cast down from its throne by these impious ones and is
di%ided into a duality! the source will proceed more %ehemently to be
di%ided into a trinity! since in the transcendent! inseparable! and
simple nature of the di%inity! the triad is more apparent than the dyad
and also more in harmony with the properties.
$9. Can Christian ears tolerate such things- 0ndeed! are they not really
absurd and lamentable- These bold and impious men are being forced
to come to an absurd and lamentable conclusion! recei%ing manifold
confusion on one hand and lamentation on the other! bringing them to
incurable ruin. 3ut since they pro%o"e the pious to anger! their wailings
cannot be laid aside.
$:. 0t is odious not to see the e+plicit magnitude of this ungodly thing=
or if! according to the principle of anarchy! the paternal principle and
cause is established as common to all! and the Son is therefore a
cause! how can you escape the conclusion that there are two
interchangeable causes in the Trinity- <n one hand! you 1rmly
establish the idea that there is no source 2 anarchy 6anarchos means
both no source and anarchy7 2 in Him! but at the same time you
reintroduce a source and a cause! and then go on simultaneously to
transfer the distinctions of each hypostasis.
$>. 0f the ather is cause of the hypostases produced from Him not by
reason of nature! but by reason of the hypostasis# and if! up to now! no
one has preached the impiety that the Son5s hypostasis consists of the
principle of the ather5s hypostasis 2 for not e%en the monstrous
Sabellius taught the impiety of the fatherhood of the Son= 2 then there
can be no way the Son is cause of any hypostasis in the Trinity.
$A. 0t is also necessary to accompany this conclusion with the following
oneB this impious doctrine also separates the hypostasis of the ather
into two hypostases! since the ungodly doctrine frames laws for itself!
mi+ing the hypostasis of the Son with that of the ather! as parts of the
same thing. 3ut the essence is not the cause of the ,ord# the ather is
the hypostatic cause of the hypostasis of the ,ord. 3ut if! as this
impoius doctrine asserts! the Son is also a cause of the Spirit! then it
must be conceded that either the Son ta"es o%er the ather5s role and
title (recei%ing the hypostatic property of being the cause)! or the
ather5s hypostasis is imperfect! lac"ing completion! and that the Son
supplements the hypostasis of the ather. Since the Son is made a part
of the ather! this truncates the awesome mystery of the Trinity to a
mere dyad.
$C. )nd since many other tares sprout up from this crowd! we should
not rest as we would li"e! but as watchful souls should see" the death
of these fren&ied cancers in order that the noble birth and sal%ation
from abo%e may not be adulterated and cho"ed out by these hateful
tares which struggle for their souls. or truly! anything which is actually
recognised as a proper characteristic of something when it is
predicated of two other things! and it is truly asserted concerning one
of the two but not concerning the other! the two are shown to be of a
di8erent nature (for e+ample! laughter is a proper characteristic of
man). 6) reference to the classic argumentB *aughter is a characteristic
of man"ind# 3oth Socrates and Plato laughB therefore they are of the
same nature. 3ut though Socrates laughs! his image does notB
therefore Socrates and his image are of di8erent natures.7 How! if the
property of being the leader of the people of 0srael belongs to Ioshua!
but does not belong to the archangel of the *ord5s host who appeared
to him! it follows that the leader of the people is not of the same nature
as the archangel! nor indeed consubstantial with him. ,hoe%er
pursues this method in all other matters shall 1nd the same perception
de%eloping clearly and without di?culty. So! if this method is e%er
applicable and preser%es the same sense! then if the procession of the
Spirit is proclaimed to be a property of the ather! and this property is
also asserted of the Son but not of the Spirit 2 such heretical
wantonness= 2 then let what follows fall upon the heads of those who
introduced such great e%ils! for thus far such slander was unthin"able.
0f they clearly a?rm the procession of the Spirit from the ather and
from the Son! then why do they not a?rm a procession from the Spirit-
2 These men ha%e said all the rash impudence there is to say= 2 How
then is the Spirit not separated from the Trinity! if you say that He
proceeds from the ather and the Son! but not in common! either- 0t
must be as"ed then! ,hich one of the hypostases is the di%ine
principle- 0f they say the procession of the Spirit is not a uni'ue
property of the ather! then clearly! it also will not belong to the Son
since it does not belong to the Spirit. *et those who impudently say
anything tell us how that which is not a uni'ue property of any of the
Three! yet also is not common to all! ha%e a place in any of the
hypostases of the di%ine so%ereignty-
$D. 0t amounts to thisB if the uni'ue property of the ather is
transposed into a speci1c property of the Son! then it is clear that the
speci1c property of the Son is also transposed into the speci1c feature
of the ather. ,e must altogether shun this impious notion. or if!
according to the reasonings of the impious! the speci1c properties of
the hypostasis are opposed and transferred to one another! then the
ather 2 < depth of impiety= 2 comes under the property of being
begotten and the Son will beget the ather. This ungodly doctrine can
accommodate all these conclusions because they are of a similar
nature to the original premise! which will not cease in its insu8erable
contentions against God.
$E. 0n general! aside from the properties characteristic of a speci1c
hypostasis! whene%er some property is truly possessed by any
hypostasis other than the one 1rst possessing it! the property shared
by those hypostases belongs to the essence in order to not /oin that
property to a speci1c hypostasis. 0n a word! howe%er! it is really we
men who determine the processions of the essence! and therefore it is
we men who determine which hypostases will not submit themsel%es
to share in the properties of the other hypostases. 3ut if one "nows by
the eyes and ears of the mind that the procession is not from the
ather as a hypostatic source! then one must deny a hypostatic
procession of the Spirit from the Son as well. 2 The hatred of God is
turned to the same sort of goal= 2 0t is opportune to say at this point
that it follows simultaneously that the speci1c features of the
hypostases cannot be imitated either. <therwise! we actually abandon
the di%ine! hypostatic source and cause! and conse'uently lose the
perfections of the hypostases in the essence. *et presumption see!
despite itself! to what conclusion that doctrine hated by God arri%es!
for the lo%ers of falsehood ha%e raged against the characteristic
properties.
(F. 3ut one will say! when the Sa%iour mystically instructed His
disciples! he truly said! the Spirit will recei%e of Mine and will proclaim
Him to you. (Iohn $AB$:) ,ho cannot see that you appeal to the word
of the Sa%iour! not in order to 1nd an ad%ocate for your doctrine! but in
order to fashion brutal and insolent attac"s against the Master Himself!
for you brea" out into insolent disagreement with Him! ,ho is the
ine8able source of truth! because of your rec"less tongue- 0n fact!
howe%er! the Creator and Sustainer of the race teaches that the Spirit
proceeds from the ather and in no way deli%ers to us the doctrine that
He also proceeds from Himself. ,hen mystically initiating us into the
theology that! /ust as the ather! the cause! begets from Himself alone!
so also the Spirit proceeds from that %ery same cause alone. 3ut you
argue that He has! by profound silence! withdrawn the 1rst teaching
that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the ather because He now
announces the Spirit will recei%e from that which is mine. Thus! you
claim that in mentioning the 1rst teaching! He then reconciles the two
opposing theories. 3ut! whilst according to you He has done this! He in
fact did not. Jou say that instead of the procession of the Spirit from
the ather alone! the Son pours Himself into the procession of the Spirit
as well. 0n what manner will you escape being liable to /udgement
since your lawlessness! shutting out the binding usage of the Synods!
disrupts the unalterable truth of the hypostatic procession-
($. Ha%ing said this! howe%er! your audacity did not hinder you from
attempting what e%en children "now is impossible. Jet! certainly now!
e%en if you had not done so before! you must understand that the
radiant word of the *ord and Sa%iour Himself stands against you. or if
by saying! He will recei%e of me! not e%en then is your fable pro%en!
although the deception might ha%e had some e+cuse. He%er! not e%er
can the understanding infer that recei%ing from someone for the sa"e
of another necessity is identical with recei%ing e+istence by procession.
3ut the Sa%iour! foreseeing the magnitude of this impious doctrine!
sent forth His %oice 2 mar" you well= 2 so that your hateful treachery
would not be distributed to many others. How is it that you open your
ears to such teaching and spea" against the absolute rule of the *ord!
not adhering to it! but rather ta"ing refuge in the lo%e of men-
((. The Sa%iour did not say! He will recei%e from me! rather! He will
recei%e from all that which is mine. or He saw and taught the truth to
all! in great harmony and unassailable consistency with HimselfB He will
recei%e from that which is mine. There is a great and profound
di8erence between the words from that which is mine and from me.
The e+pression from me indicates the spea"er of the phrase. 3ut
doubtless! another person is meant than the spea"er. ,hat other
hypostasis! from whom the Spirit is said to recei%e! could be meant
other than the ather- 3ecause it cannot be 2 as has been recently
contended against God 2 that He recei%es from the Son! and it
certainly cannot be from the Spirit who Himself does the recei%ing= ;o
you see how you ha%e not e%en reached the le%el of a child- or e%en
schoolboys who ha%e /ust begun attending school "now the e+pression
from me indicates him who spea"s! whilst the phrase from that which
is mine means another person! bound intimately in union to the
spea"er! but doubtless a di8erent person than the one spea"ing. He
thus guides the minds of schoolchildren unerringly! so that the phrase
to which you Gee for refuge! if it is at all true! will not support your
ungodly doctrine of the faith. 0f you Gee to repentance for refuge! the
phrase will allow you no opportunity to contend against God.
(9. ,hy does this saying! which e%en schoolchildren can see and
understand! not de%our you and your blasphemy- ,hy do you not fear!
li"e criminals hiding your audacious deeds! but instead malign and
falsify the *ord5s words and ma"e Him teach your errors- The *ord
Himself plainly declares that the Spirit proceeds from the ather#
neither will faithlessness to His ,ord! nor the intellect! permit this
insult. 0t is e%ident that He ne%er once uttered the phrase from me.
Though you do not change the words! by stealth you commit the crime
of changing from me to from mine! and by this tric"ery you accuse the
Sa%iour of teaching what you belie%e. Therefore! on account of this
new e+pression! which is only your own opinion! you ha%e charged the
Sa%iour with three falsehoodsB that He said what He did not say# that
He did not say what He did say# and that He taught an idea that does
not e%en follow from His words! but which! rather! His teaching denies#
and fourthly! you suggest He contradicts Himself. ,hat shall we ta"e
1rst- <n one hand He Himself said! He will recei%e from that which is
mine but not from me# on the other hand! you rely on Him to teach the
%ery thing that the phrase from me means! implying that He truly
taught it. So! as you indeed prescribe! you murder the hypostases by
hammering them together 2 truly something He ne%er a?rmed. 2 He
taught the disciples by means of His words! declaring His mind! which
is not at all "nowable through the immaculate dialectic or processions.
)nd He taught us that the concrete! hypostatic procession of the Spirit
is from the ather! so that if! as you say! the Spirit proceeds from the
Son as well as from the 1rst hypostasis! then the Son comes into
discord with Himself. Jou should at least ma"e your theology applicable
to all the hypostases! so as not to slight the *ord. 3ut the *ord Himself
did /ust this by means of the second phrase. He who 1nds in the grace
of theology nothing reliable or consistent will ne%er 1nd abiding
certitude.
(:. The words! commands! and sayings of the *ord are not bound to
time! and thus the intellect must properly interpret obscure phrases. 0t
was on account of their impiety that He described their shamelessness.
)fter saying! 0 am going to the ather (Iohn $:B(D)! He said! 3ut
because 0 ha%e said these things to you! sorrow has 1lled your heart.
3ut the truth 0 spea" to you. 0t bene1ts you that 0 go away# for if 0 do
not go away! the Paraclete will not come to you# but if 0 go! 0 will send
Him to you. (Iohn $ABA) 0 still ha%e many things to say to you! but you
are not now able to understand them. 3ut whene%er that <ne comes!
the Spirit of truth! that <ne will guide you into all truth# for that <ne
shall not spea" from Himself! but whate%er that <ne hears will that
<ne spea"! and the things coming that <ne will announce to you. That
<ne will glorify Me! for that <ne shall recei%e of Mine and shall
announce it to you. )ll things which the ather has are Mine. Therefore!
0 said that <ne shall recei%e of Mine and shall announce it to you. (Iohn
$AB$(4$:) )re these words not sacred! since they are deli%ered from
God- )nd is it not this promise that clearly shows us to be right- or He
"eeps theology pure! puts the dishonesty of your doctrine to shame!
and shuts o8 all occasion for this ungodly doctrine of yours. or He said
that He "new the disciples were falling into despondency because He
announced to them He would no longer be present with them after the
manner of the body! but He would go to the ather. He lifts them up
and encourages them souls with the truth. irst! He teaches it is
bene1cial that He depart! and then He e+plains how it is bene1cialB for
if 0 do not go away! He said! the Paraclete (who comes from the ather)
will not come to you. These "inds of words clearly e+alt the Spirit to
men! /ust as do the words you are not now able to understand. So!
when will they be able to understand- ,hen the Spirit of truth comes!
He will guide you into all truth. Therewith He produced and un%eiled
their minds to ine8able and e+alted thoughts in which the Spirit shone
forth to men! according to the e+ceeding honour due unto Him.
(>. Therefore! what compares to the truths which the *ord taught
concerning the Spirit- 2 )nd Jou were present! < teacher! to teach us!
not to strengthen the abominable burden of heresy= 2 The strong and
superlati%e Paraclete comes upon us in order to prepare us to be better
and stronger in order to bear us upwards with the unburdensome
"nowledge of God. ,hile the *ord unco%ered only part of the truth to
man"ind! He said! The Spirit will guide you into all truth. )fter your
teaching! we still ha%e need of further wisdom! power! and truth! but
when the Spirit comes! He will grant us boundless participation in
wisdom! power! and truth. 0f Jou! the en4hypostatised ,isdom and
Truth! teach these things! we are obligated to not doubt but to grant
the Spirit an e%en greater honour and glory.
(A. Thus! whilst the Sa%iour remo%es the despondency of the disciples
by means of true theology and lofty doctrines concerning the Spirit! it
was only human that their minds were in a turmoil of unhealthy
thoughts. How morbid it is when the soul is consumed with grief and
when /udgement is muddled by the mur" of this condition# then that
which is for sal%ation is distorted and becomes hurtful. Therefore! as
the perfect physician of body and soul! the Son prescribes the sa%ing
medicine beforehand! so that! inasmuch as the Spirit grants greater
gifts! they would not thin" of the Spirit as being greater than the Son!
nor would they be open to any thought which would ma"e them forget
the nature of their pride and tear apart the e'uality of the hypostases
into ine'uality.
(C. 3ut the disciples do not confess such disturbances! nor ha%e they
made such thoughts their companions (perhaps it would be more
respectful to ac"nowledge this sacred choir was superior to such
confusion and trouble). He%ertheless! the in%entor of wic"edness! the
one who puts forth that which is worse under the illusion that it is an
impro%ement 2 thus ha%ing the characteristics of a heretical
in%ention= 2 would ha%e made many the %ictim of his wiles and sown
it in the souls of men. 3ut the Sa%iour! as be1ts God! 'uic"ly frustrates
that sowing and frustrates their in%entions by the onslaught of His
wordsB That <ne will not spea" from Himself! but whate%er that <ne
hears that <ne will spea". (Iohn $AB$9) or concerning Himself He had
saidB for all things which 0 ha%e heard from My ather 0 made "nown to
you. (Iohn $>B$>) 0t as if He had said! 3oth of Ks ha%e recei%ed from
the ather the power to teach and enlighten your minds. Therefore! He
1rst said of the ather! 0 glori1ed Jou upon the earth. (Iohn $CB:) 3ut
the ather also glori1ed the Son! because it is written! 0 ha%e both
glori1ed it and will glorify it again. (Iohn $(B(D) )nd now the Son!
through the pre%iously mentioned and e+alted teaching glori1es the
Spirit and a little later addsB That <ne shall glorify me. (Iohn $AB$:)
@%erywhere He preser%es the Spirit5s e'uality of essence and e'uality
of nature and dignity of e'ual ran" absolutely perfect and
unadulterated. )ccordingly! it is said that He shares the common
essence4abo%e4essence of the more4than4glorious Trinity! in which each
hypostasis glori1es each other hypostasis mutually with ine8able
words. The Son glori1es the ather but the ather also glori1es the Son
and glori1es the Spirit. 0t is easy to see how the wealth of grace to be
disco%ered in the Spirit springs up! because the Spirit glori1es the
ather! since He searches and re%eals 2 rather He "nows 2 the deep
things of God. (see $ Corinthians (B$F) Thus! as far as human nature
was capable! He re%eals these things to those who ha%e prepared
themsel%es as 1tting receptacles for the light of ;i%ine Lnowledge in
the saying! 0 ha%e glori1ed it. or if the Son glori1es the Spirit with
words li"e these and the Spirit glori1es the Son! then as the Lingdom!
the power! and the dominion are common to all! so li"ewise is the glory
they recei%e! not /ust through our worship! but by the glory they
recei%e from each other.
(D. The saying that He will glorify me does not mean that glory is
lac"ing to the Paraclete! because the Paraclete is as great a
manifestation of that which is mine as is the Son. ,ith the phrase He
will glorify me! the Son did not at all mean to ma"e Himself greater in
dignity than the Spirit. He will glorify me means as much of that glory
which is mine because of the ather5s glory is also in Him for you to
contemplate. or /ust as 0 heard from the ather! 0 also taught to you.
Thus! the Spirit will also recei%e from that which is mine and will
li"ewise manifest Him to you. @%erywhere! the Son mystically teaches
e'uality of honour# e%erywhere the terms greater and lesser are
e+cluded. rom the same e%erlasting fount of grace comes bothB the
dignity of the eternal procession of the Spirit from the ather and!
because of this! the e'ual dignity of His essence and nature also. or it
is the ather ,ho initiates all greater and lesser things in e%ery way.
(E. Therefore! when He brightly e+tols the teaching that He will
recei%e! He e+plicitly proclaims the reason why He shall recei%eB not in
order to say that the Spirit will proceed from Himself! nor does He do
so that the di%ine substance may be understood. 2 Consider! < man!
the *ord5s words= 2 rom whom will the Spirit recei%e! so that at His
coming He may announce it unto you- )lthough He had pre%iously
spo"en these words! He con1rms them by saying again! That <ne will
recei%e of Mine and announce it to you. (Iohn $AB$:) He then more
clearly re%eals the meaning of the words That <ne will recei%e of Mine!
he 'uic"ly adds! )ll things which the ather has are Mine (Iohn $AB$>)!
so that the word Mine means That <ne recei%es from the ather! ,ho
is Mine. Howe%er! the Son! not content to stop with /ust the conception
that that <ne will recei%e! goes on to unfold this teaching yet more
perfectly by saying! That <ne recei%es from that which is Mine. (Iohn
$AB$>) )ccording to this line of reasoning! the Mine to which He refers
is the ather because the things that are Mine are in the ather. 0n
other words! the Spirit recei%es from the ather because that which is
from the ather is that which is mine. So 0 say that whene%er that
which is mine is said! it is necessary for us to raise our thoughts to that
which is the Son5s! that is! the ather! and not to turn them to any
other hypostasis. There is no e+cuse for you to hide! wrapping
yoursel%es up in your 'uest! for it was chieGy on your account the
other fantasies were refuted in ad%ance by the words! )ll that the
ather has is mine.
9F. ,hat is more enlightening than these pure teachings- ,hat could
show more clearly that the phrase! He will recei%e from that which is
mine does not mean the Son sends the Spirit in company with the
ather! nor does it in any way imply He recei%es the grace of causality-
,ith sacred words it is proclaimed that the Spirit recei%es the
operation of granting di%ine graces from the ather. ,ith those graces!
the Holy Spirit recounts these holy things in order that the disciples
may recei%e the di%ine gifts by strengthening them to bear with 1rm
and secure thoughts the "nowledge of things to come! with no %isible
or in%isible contradictions! e%en in the ine8able wor"s of creation. Has
not each implication of your impious teaching been destroyed from
e%ery direction- ,ould you yet presume to contri%e your sophisms and
falsehood! to de%ise cle%er schemes against your own sal%ation and
against the truth-
9$. )ccordingly! for my part 0 pay no attention to the rest of your
reGections. 0f you ha%e committed the unforgi%able sin! then 0 must
refute! con%ict! and o%erturn e%ery one of your earthly doctrines. 3ut if
you simply need your sight healed! then 0 must go before you and cure
you from the same chalice of truth! which allays pains and purges
disease. or if 2 < what if you ha%e accosted the Spirit- 2 the
procession from the ather is perfect 2 because Perfect God proceeds
from Perfect God 2 then what speci1c and concrete thing does the
procession from the Son contribute- or if He supplies something
speci1c and concrete! it must also be declared what it is He has
contributed and then the procession from the ather would not be
perfect and complete. 3ut if it is not possible to thin" or spea" of
something that has been added to the di%ine hypostasis of the Spirit!
then why are you determined to insult the Son and the Spirit with your
falsehoods! and by implication! our ather as well-
9(. )nd again! if the Spirit proceeds from the ather and thus the
Spirit5s hypostatic property is discerned# and the Son is begotten of the
ather and thus the Son5s hypostatic property is discerned# then if 2 as
this delirium of theirs would ha%e it= 2 the Spirit also proceeds from
the Son! then the Spirit is di8erentiated from the ather by more
hypostatic properties than the Son of the ather. 3oth issue from the
ather! and e%en though the Son issues forth by begetting and the
Spirit by procession! ne%ertheless! one of two modes e'ually separates
both from the hypostasis of the ather. 3ut if the Spirit is further
di8erentiated by two distinctions brought about by the dual procession!
then the Spirit is not only di8erentiated by more distinctions than the
Son of the ather! but the Son is closer to the ather5s essence and the
Spirit5s e'ual dignity will be blasphemed as being inferior to the Son
with regard to consubstantial "inship with the ather! because of two
speci1c properties which distinguish the Spirit. Thus! the Macedonian
insanity against the Spirit again springs forth# howe%er! its re%i%al will
also recall the defeat of his impiety.
99. )nd if the <ne Spirit comes from multiple sources! how does it not
follow that one could also say that only the Spirit has many origins-
9:. urthermore! if these people who with all temerity ha%e inno%ated
a communion only between the ather and the Son! then they ha%e
e+cluded the Spirit from this. 3ut the ather and the Son are /oined in
communion by essence and not by any hypostatical property.
Conse'uently! they e+clude the consubstantial Spirit from "inship
according to essence with the ather.
9>. 0f the Spirit proceeds from the Son! then is the procession of the
Spirit from the ather the same as the procession from the Son! or is it
opposed to it- 3ecause if they were not so opposed but were the same!
then the hypostatic properties of the three hypostases in the Trinity by
which they are distinguished and worshipped would be eradicated. 3ut
if the procession from the Son is opposed to the procession from the
ather! how is this not li"e dancing in the chorus line of Mani and
Marcion! whose blasphemous chatter and idle words contended against
the ather and Son-
9A. )ccording to this line of reasoning! e%erything not said about the
whole! omnipotent! consubstantial! and super4substantial Trinity is said
about one of the three hypostases. The procession of the Spirit is not
said to be common to the three! conse'uently it must belong to one of
the three. )ccordingly! we say that the procession of the Spirit is from
the ather. 2 ,hy do they assimilate themsel%es to the lo%e of this
inno%ati%e teaching- 2 0f they contend that the Spirit proceeds from
the Son! then why do they lac" the courage to %omit forth all their
poison instead of some of it- or! truly! if they were completely
persuaded by this ungodly doctrine then they ought to perfect their
hatred of the hypostatic 6personal7 source of the processions and
e+clude the ather as a cause of the Spirit. )nd! li"ewise! they should
transpose the begetting and the procession and they ought to remo%e
the generation of the Son from the ather and transfer it to the Son
and thus in%ent the fantastic idea that the ather is from the Son. 3ut
they do not say this because they wish to hide their eternal impiety! so
that they may not be con%icted of the insanity of their heresy.
9C. urthermore! if the Son is begotten from the ather and the Spirit 2
according to this inno%ation 2 proceeds from the ather and the Son!
then li"ewise another hypostasis should proceed from the Spirit! and so
we should ha%e not three but four hypostases= )nd if the fourth
procession is possible! then another procession is possible from that!
and so on to an in1nite number of processions and hypostases! until at
last this doctrine is transformed into a 6pagan7 Gree" polytheism=
9D. 3ut if you say you are against this fourth procession! then what
manner of speech is this- 0f the Son recei%es the property of causing
the procession of the Spirit because He is as great as the ather is! and
therefore has all the ather has! by what reason do you incline to such
fa%ouritism! by which means you thin" the Son co4causes the Spirit!
but by means of which you deny the Spirit! ,ho is li"ewise of e'ual
honour and dignity! since He came forth with e'ual ran" from the same
essence-
9E. )gain! if the ather is a cause and the Son is also a cause! which of
these insu8erable thin"ers will at least clarify their doctrine and tell us
which one of the hypostases has more of the property of being a
cause- 0f they decide for the ather! is not this arrangement a slight on
the dignity and honour of the Son! especially since He already has the
supreme authority and fullness of the ather- 3ut if the Son is also a
cause! they impiously presume to redistribute the ather5s causality
and distribute parts of it to the Son 2 alas for this grie%ous
impudence= 2 0t was not su?cient for them to choose the impiety of
di%iding the ather5s causality and ha%e Him share it with the Son! but
they would ta"e e%en more and would substitute the Son for the ather
as cause of the Spirit.
:F. ,hat do you say- Jou say the Son recei%ed! by His generation from
the ather! the power of also producing another hypostasis of the same
nature. 3ut should not this change one5s opinion of the Spirit! ,ho
proceeds from the same nature as the Son- 0n other words! since He
parta"es of the same dignity and power! why is He not similarly
accorded the power of also producing another hypostasis from the
same nature so that He may also be adorned with being a cause of a
consubstantial hypostasis- )nd! indeed! this turns into hatred of the
Son as well! for if the Spirit5s procession from the Son is not any
di8erent than that from the ather! then this participation by the Son
hypostatic properties of the ather brings the li"eness of the ather
upon the Son.
:$. 3ut 0 will not permit this great absurdity! for the Master5s words
mystically instruct us to consider the 3egetter greater than the
3egotten! although not by nature 2 away with the thought= 2 the
Trinity! which is beyond grasp! is consubstantial because the 3egetter
is cause. )nd the chorus of our Holy athers! teaches the same.
Howhere do the di%ine teachings state the Son is greater than the
Spirit by being a cause 2 you are not paying attention to the words of
God= 2 nor has any pious mind up to now e%er been detected of
ha%ing thought so. 3ut the contentious speech of the enemies of God
not only ma"es the Son greater than the Spirit! but also ma"es the Son
nearer to the ather! and! e%en worse! confused with Him.
:(. Moreo%er! how can you escape the conclusion that if the Son
causes the Spirit! you ha%e found an emergent second cause in the
Trinity! which is beyond nature and causality- ;o not such
machinations do wanton %iolence against not merely the 1rst source!
but also against the second source! for ,hom it was de%ised to
honour- or! if there is no ad%antage to the Spirit! ,ho has no need of
such a procession nor any need for a man to e+hibit such a need! will it
not insult the Son- 0s not the insult more wanton when called an
honour- )nd as for the Spirit! ,ho has an eternal procession from the
ather and therefore is in need of nothing! if He is "nown more fully in
another procession which is also a procession proper to the essence!
then what e+actly does that production by another procession pro%ide-
:9. 0s it possible to a%oid the conclusion that the Spirit has been
di%ided into two- The one part proceeds from the ather! ,ho is the
1rst cause and also unoriginate# the second part proceeds from a
second cause! and this second cause is not underi%ed. This heresy
in%ents a distortion of the Spirit5s distinction! not merely by
arrangement! but also in the category of His origin. 0t ma"es us cast o8
our adoration of the Trinity for a Muaternity. 0ndeed! no e8ort is
neglected to malign e%erything in the plenteously4good Trinity and
Creator of all= ,e will lea%e no rami1cation of this teaching aside.
::. )nd besides! if on one hand the Son is the cause of the Spirit! and
on the other hand the ather is the cause of both! then certainly a new
cause is disco%ered in the most perfect and perfecting Trinity which is
e+cluded from the source and 1rst cause of perfection. Thus! the lordly
perfection of the Spirit is destroyed because it will either be imperfect
and di%ided in two! or it will be a composite. Conse'uently! it is %alid to
%iew this as a mythology which composes the hypostases in
successi%e! corruptible generations! as if imitating the part4horse and
part4man centaurs of old. 2 These impious contentions spea"
absurdities such as a cause either di%ided in two or synthesised from
cause and caused! without shuddering in fear. 2 @%en if each
absurdities pretend to battle with each other 2 for such is the har%est
of impious seeds 2 nonetheless both lead to the same crime of
attributing imperfection to the Spirit. ,hen all is said and done! it
comes down to the same eternal pride.
:>. )ll this aside! if the one Spirit is beyond nature and of a lordly
unity! /ust as the ather and Son are each absolutely and ine8ably one!
then is it not monstrous and impossible to say He is from two causes-
:A. How it was right that you should understand all the implications of
these impious men by means of such perceptions. The Catholic and
)postolic Church! instead of superstitious nonsense! is instructed in
pure godliness to belie%e with the whole mind! and with resolute
understanding! the unchangeable doctrine that each hypostasis of the
consubstantial and di%ine Trinity is ine8ably united to each other in an
inseparable communion of nature! but each maintains His speci1c and
uni'ue characteristic properties by distinction of the hypostases. This
distinction allows no room for confusion 2 away with the thought= 2
Jou are led astray! because the communion of nature does not permit
any se%erance or di%ision! nor are the properties which distinguish
each of the three permitted to be mingled into any fusion. Iust as the
Son is begotten from the ather and remains immutable and
unchanging in Himself! preser%ing the dignity of Sonship! so also the
)ll4Holy Spirit li"ewise proceeds from the ather and remains
unchanging in Himself! preser%ing the property of procession. )nd!
according to the ,ord ,ho is from the ather! the Spirit! being li"ewise
produced (but according to a di8erent type of production) from the
uncaused ather does not assume the di%ine operation of any other
begetting or procession! nor is He made into something new by any
transmutation of His procession! e%en so! by the same analogy! the
Son! ,ho is begotten of the uncaused ather does not assume the
di%ine operation of originating another hypostasis! either by begetting
or by procession. Hor is the di%ine procession sub/ect to participation in
other pri%ileges because of the common nature! because when this is
introduced! it adulterates the Sonship.
:C. 0f you do not see these distinctions rightly! 0 should ha%e to
describe you as wilfully blind. or if the ather produces the Spirit
according to the nature! the %ery nature of the Trinity! then many other
"indred and outrageous acts would certainly result from such an
unreasonable origin. ,hat was your moti%e! then! in in%enting the
fables of your impiety- Hot only would you change the Son into a cause
of the Spirit! but the Spirit would be changed into a cause of the Son!
and the Spirit5s speci1c distinction of procession is di%ided and
distributed to multiple hypostases. 0t is better to let silence conceal the
rest! for e%en if we do not utter the other improprieties to be obser%ed
in this word 6ilio'ue7! those who in%estigate with intelligence and
re%erence will clearly understand. or if this word 6ilio'ue7 is the
e+pression of something about di%ine nature! and not about some
speci1c hypostatic characteristic! then anyone who says the ather
causes the Spirit is thought to be telling a fantastic fable= 0t was told in
sacred dogma that the ather produces the Spirit! in %iew of the fact
that He is the ather# it will not doubted by the godly4minded. 3ut if
this is so! then this word 6ilio'ue7 has introduced an inno%ation into
the dignity of the Sonship! in %iew of the fact that it spea"s of the Son
as producing the Spirit= Heither will the Son mutilate the ather and
transfer to Himself the property of procession! nor will He e%er change
His own submissi%e and changeless generation. or it is not! 0 repeat!
not the nature (that which is common amongst these hypostases)
which is worshipped! but the speci1c hypostatic properties through
which theology discerns the hypostases of the Trinity.
:D. ,ell= 0t is certain the heresies also as"B ,ill you not be con%icted of
changing the meaning of the writings of Paul! the herald of the Church!
the teacher of the ci%ilised world! that truly great and hea%enly man
who cries out! God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts!
crying N)bba! atherN.- (Galatians :BA) 0f Paul who "nows orthodo+
dogmas! therefore says the Spirit proceeds from the Son! why do those
who recei%e the teachings of hea%enly things from him not recei%e this
is as well- ,ho is it that in e%ery opinion impudently smears this Paul!
the ambassador of ine8able thingsB he who stri%es to pro%e that Paul
contradicts his teacher and our common Master! or he who re%erently
maintains and hymns Paul5s agreement with the Master- or if the
Master mystically teaches that the Spirit proceeds from the ather! but
heresy introduces Paul as teaching that He proceeds from the Son! who
would be the slanderer- ,ould it not be the one who attributes to Paul
contradiction of the Master and thus renders himself liable to the
/udgement of impudence- <bser%e how you attempt to isolate the
ecumenical teacher from the assembly of teachers which is a guide
unto godliness. Jou use &eal without "nowledge instead of proceeding
with humility. Heresy always ma"es use of the customary usage of
language. Since it accuses the %ery Son and ,ord of God of falling into
contradiction! it is only being consistent when it argumentati%ely and
contentiously a?rms that His genuine ser%ant and disciple denies and
corrects his teacher.
:E. ,here does Paul supposedly say the Spirit proceeds from the Son-
or it is certainly proper to the Spirit to be of the Son- or 2 God
forbid= 2 He does not belong to anyone else= Together with Paul! the
Church confesses and belie%es it. 3ut the statement that the Spirit
proceeds from the Son surely did not come forth from his di%inely
inspired tongue 2 God forbid= 2 Hor did you write of any of the saints
who ne%er wrote such a thing nor would they ha%e permitted this
blasphemy to be heard. 0nstead! you ac'uired "nowledge of the ill
omen before hearing their statements. Truly! a far4fetched slander.
>F. Though being small of stature! but great in trials and &ealously
protecting the ecumenical aith! Paul said! the Spirit of His Son. ,hy do
you not say the same- 0nstead! you do e%il by dragging down and
distorting the doctrine of the herald 6Paul7! which is from abo%e. 3ut 2
what is more urgent- 2 would you send your distorted and
blasphemous %oice into the mouth of the teacher-
>$. He 6Paul7 said the Spirit of the Son with God4gi%en wisdom. ,hy do
you distort his teaching and say what he did not say! but rather
proclaim 2 without e%en blushing 2 what he ne%er concei%ed as
though he had supposedly said the Spirit of His Son- He certainly could
not ha%e phrased it better. or the Spirit has a nature identical to the
Son! and the Spirit is of one essence with the Son! and possesses the
same glory! dignity! and dominion. Therefore! when Paul says the Spirit
of His Son! he is teaching the identity of the nature! but by no means
indicating the cause of His procession. He ac"nowledges the unity of
the essence! but by no means considers or e+hibits that the Son brings
forth a consubstantial hypostasis. 0ndeed! he does not e%en hint
concerning the origin.
>(. ,hy is this- 0s it not also a di%ine statement that the ather is the
ather of the Son- ,ill you conse'uently re%erse the begetting for this
reason- ,e say the ather is the ather of the Son because the Son is
consubstantial! not because He has been begotten. Howe%er! if you
li"e! let it refer to the fact that the Son has been begotten. Then! gi%en
the phrase! the Spirit of the Son! why ha%e you not called the Spirit the
source of the Son- 0nstead! you mo%e the Spirit to the ran" of caused
and e8ected. 0f it is possible to say there is a procession of the Spirit
from the Son on the basis of the e+pression of the Son! then in the
same way it is possible to ha%e a production of the Son from the Spirit.
Thus! Paul is presumed to teach a wandering principle by means of an
e+ample. 3ut! surely! only deception could ha%e in%ented a procession
from this starting point and e+ample. Jour irrational contentions are
sacrilegious towards God and ri%als only your fondness of
embellishment.
>9. Truly the Church says! the Son of the ather and the ather of the
Son. ,ith these e+pressions she understands they are consubstantial.
0t is theologised that the Son is begotten of the ather! yet we shall
ne%er be misled by the phrase! the ather of the Son and
blasphemously presume to theologise the re%erse. ,hen we sacredly
proclaim the Spirit is of the ather and of the Son! we unambiguously
indicate by these phrases the Spirit5s consubstantiality with both. How!
He is consubstantial with the ather because He proceeds from Him!
and He is consubstantial with the Son! but not because He proceeds 2
God forbid= 2 neither is the Son consubstantial with the Spirit because
He is begotten! but rather because His procession from the same one!
indi%isible! eternal cause brings each of them into the same ran".
>:. The Spirit of His Son. Jour presuppositions only prepare a fatal
poison in you! not the sa%ing word of the herald of di%ine truth and
wisdom. .eturning to your senses is not di?cultB you need not a more
acute or %igorous intelligence for deeply del%ing into formidable
secrets. He 6Paul7 says! the Spirit of His Son! which means one thing!
and elsewhere it is said! the Spirit ,ho proceeds from the ather!
which means something else. ;o not allow the similarity of the
grammatical cases lead you to such incurable error# there are many
e+pressions similar in sound that are not interpreted with a similar
meaning! indeed they are not e%en close. 0 should ha%e collected a list
of many such e+pressions! but your disobedient minds weary me.
>>. @'ually grie%ous is that you are a sla%e to your customary usage
because you ha%e not apostati&ed to the logical absurdity. or it is said
the Son is the e8ulgence of the ather! the *ight from *ight. 3ut He
says as much Himself! 0 am the *ight of the ,orld. OSaint Photius here
suggests that to understand all geniti%es of description as ablati%es of
source! then the *ord Iesus Christ must be the light proceeding from
the world because He is the light of the world.P The phrase! light of
light! shows the consubstantiality of the Son and of the ather. This fact
prepares a noose for your own wisdom and opinion and tongue! not so
that 0 may place it around your nec"s! but to entreat you to search the
perdition of hanging! and to Gee it by any means possible.
>A. The di%ine Paul! in the fullness of the e%angelical proclamation
which went into the whole world! said! God sent forth the Spirit of His
Son (Galatians :BA). 0f you declare what he said we will not bring you to
trial! but if you teach what he did not say as if it were what he
preached! we shall indict you as surely deser%ing punishment for
impiety. That hea%enly man said! the Spirit of His Son. 3ut you! /ust as
if you were caught up to the third hea%en of transcendent and ine8able
e+pressions! a law unto yoursel%es! proclaim of Paul that he was
imperfect in his writings. Thus! you e+clude him from your faith!
perfecting what was imperfect. .ather than saying! the Spirit of His
Son you teach 2 alas= the rashness is not to be outdone= 2 that the
Spirit proceeds from the Son. )nd you will recei%e no one if they do not
subscribe to these drastic compositions and blasphemies! with respect
and harmony to your teaching. 0n%enting defamations! you are not
ashamed to claim as your teacher and ad%ocate him 6Paul7 whom you
ha%e defamed. The no+ious %enom of impiety you ha%e so abundantly
%omited forth truly demonstrates what spirit animates and possesses
you.
>C. 0f you wish! 0 can cite other sacred te+ts by which the bane of your
dementia and madness is ridiculed. He 6Paul7 says many sacred things
about the )ll4Holy SpiritB Spirit of wisdom (0saiah $$B()! Spirit of
understanding (0saiah $$B()! Spirit of "nowledge (0saiah $$B()! Spirit of
lo%e (( Timothy $BC)! Spirit of a sound mind (( Timothy $BC)! Spirit of
adoption unto Sonship (.omans DB$>). He said! or you did not recei%e
a spirit of bondage into fear! but a Spirit of adoption unto Sonship.
(.omans DB$>) This Spirit is the ne%er4setting and uncreated *ight of
Truth in the course of the Sun! and of all the earth. )nd again! or he
has not gi%en you a spirit of bondage! but the Spirit of wisdom! lo%e!
and a sound mind. (( Timothy $BC) )nd! indeed! it is also said! the
Spirit of faith and of power and of prophecy and counsel! of strength
and godliness and of mee"ness. (Cf. ( Corinthians :B$9# ( Timothy $BC#
Humbers $$B(A# )pocalypse $EB$F# 0saiah $$B(# .omans $>B$9# $
Corinthians :B($) 0f a man be o%erta"en in any wrongdoing! you who
are spiritual restore him 6sic7 in the spirit of mee"ness. (Galatians AB$)
Thus teaches Paul! that 1ery tongue of the Spirit. )nd what is more! he
says! the Spirit of perception! for the sacred writings say! 3ehold 0 ha%e
called by name 3eseleel ... 0 ha%e 1lled him with a Spirit of wisdom and
"nowledge and perception. (Cf. @+odus 9$B(49) He is called the Spirit of
humility! as when the children were accompanied in the 1re! being
moistened. ,e underta"e in contriteness of soul and in a Spirit of
humility. (;aniel 9B9D) He is also called the Spirit of /udgement and 1re!
indicating the %engeful and purifying power of the Spirit! /ust as when
0saiah cries! the *ord puri1es them in the Spirit of /udgement and the
Spirit of 1re. (0saiah :B:) He is also called the Spirit of fullness! /ust as
when the prophet Ieremiah says! The way of the daughter of my
people is not holy! nor into the pure Spirit of fullness. 3ut instead the
way of purity and of a Holy Spirit has not been ful1lled. (See Ieremiah
:B$(4$9) ,hy do you frown at these thingsB at the %ery gifts which He
supplies and bestows- 0s it because you would 1ght against a
procession of the )ll4Holy Spirit from each of these as well- Thus! your
ungodly doctrine outwits your own sal%ation by cle%er sophisms! e%en
if you remain under your persuasion. or all that! e%eryone "nows that
the sacred writings proclaim the Son to be the ,ord and ,isdom and
Power and Truth of God# and he who has been granted the mind of
Christ "nows as well that the )ll4Holy Spirit spea"s not only about the
Son! but also about the gifts which He has the authority to distribute.
Thus! ha%ing an e'uality of mind! He acts as super%isor of the honour
of Christ.
>D. This means that your e%il principle will en/oin you! nay rather e%en
compel you! not only to say! the Spirit proceeds from the Son because
it is said of the Son! but also that He proceeds from the understanding!
from the gifts which are distributed! and from innumerable other di%ine
operations and powers. @ach di%ine operation will be "nown and
worshipped as a source and pro%ider of the )ll4Holy Spirit. Mainly! He
will proceed from faith and from re%elation! from the promise and
/udgement and understanding! because your e%il is present in these
statements. 3ut by the %ery same reasoning! it is not %ery possible to
call the Son by name in these sayings either.
>E. 3ut if the name Spirit does not mean the )ll4Holy and
consubstantial Spirit of the ather and Son! but instead indicates spirits
coming from the gifts! then the name of Spirit is distributed to those
gifts which the Spirit o8ers. The prete+t for this supposition is that
since the gifts are referred to the Spirit and the Spirit distributes them!
the gifts therefore assimilate the name of Spirit. How many ha%e said
this 0 cannot now say! but if this proposition is allowed to stand! then
their lawless! inferior enterprise is refuted! because as soon as the gifts
of the Spirit is said! then the new doctrine compels them to preach that
the Spirit can no longer supply grace or understanding or wisdom or
power or adoption to sonship or re%elation or faith or e%en piety.
.ather! they will be compelled to say the e+act opposite! namely that
understanding! re%elation! piety! faith! and a sound mind produce the
giftsB the %ery things which they must call Spirits. )nd they must say
this of each of the gifts separately. How! if indeed it is established
practice to call each of the gifts a spirit! and if in the number of gifts
the fullness of spirits is increased! then your own doctrine di8ers from
Paul! who said simply spirit and gift! because your doctrine re'uires
that the Spirit come forth and proceed from each of those %ery gifts.
Therefore! will you increase each of the gifts or spirits! pre%iously one!
into two in order that one portion would be the dispenser and the other
the dispensed! the one portion the cause and the other the caused-
Then each gift could be caused and causing itself! produced and
proceeding itselfB faith by faith! understanding by understanding! and
intelligence by intelligence. How much of your time will you thus
consume by your nonsense=
AF. This heresy only battles against itself. or the )ll4Holy Spirit grants
gifts to the worthy. 3ut! as it appears! since heresy is not content with
anything! it is also not content with His distribution of gifts! and so
di%ides the gifts into parts! in order that those who are ambitious of
honour may ha%e more numerous and richer gifts. Truly! the agitation
and disorder of their minds undermines them so they o%erthrow and
confound the order and nature of things. This 1rst sowing of the
impious doctrine gi%es birth to countless heresies. 0t has all these
conclusions inherent in it. Jet! although the preceding arguments are
su?cient to persuade these shameless ones who ha%e not gone into
complete impiety! we will not omit the remaining arguments. <ne must
both refute those who ha%e chosen shamelessness and to call bac"
those inclined to error because those who su8er from this sic"ness will
either be set free by one cure or another! or! due to depra%ity of mind!
will choose to remain unhealed e%en though completely refuted.
A$. Therefore! not e%en these points should be omitted. 0f the Son is
begotten from the ather! and the Spirit proceeds from the Son!
according to their own opinion! then how is it that this godless doctrine
does not ma"e the Spirit a grandson and thus dri%e away the
tremendous mysteries of theology with protracted nonsense-
A(. 3ehold the e+cessi%eness of this impiety. 0f the ather is the
immediate cause of the Spirit /ust as He is the immediate cause of the
Son! then the generation and the procession are immediate! because
the Son is not begotten through some intermediary and the Spirit
li"ewise proceeds without an intermediary. 3ut if one says 2 as this
impious and idle chatter does 2 the Spirit also proceeds from the Son
as if from the same cause! the ather would be proclaimed as both the
immediate and remote cause of the Spirit! something which cannot be
imagined e%en in a mutable and changing nature.
A9. ;o you see the manifold absurdity of this ungodly thing- <bser%e it
here. 0n accordance with sacred theology and the laws of the
incorporeal and supernatural essence! the Son is begotten from the
ather simultaneously with the Spirit5s procession from the ather.
Howe%er! if the Spirit were to proceed from both the ather and the
Son simultaneously (for a before and an after are alien to the eternal
Trinity)! then the former procession and the latter procession each
belong to a completely di8erent hypostasis. 3ut if this is the case! then
how are the distinctions of the causes and the di%ine operations
maintained- )nd why is di%ision induced against the indi%isible! simple!
and unitary hypostasis of the Spirit- or the hypostasis comes before
the distinctions in energies and operations! especially because it is
supported by the e%idence of the superior and supernatural ,ord. 0t is
easy to see and accept these many testimonies which refer to a
distinct hypostasis producing %arious operations and %irtues
simultaneously! especially in supernatural things which surpass our
intellect! but it is absolutely impossible to 1nd a hypostasis which is
due to multiple causes without the hypostasis ha%ing within itself the
di8erence of the causes and being di%ided by them.
A:. 3esides all that is said abo%e! if something is said of one thing in
the Godhead! and if this cannot be obser%ed to e+ist in the unity and
consubstantiality of the omnipotent Trinity! then it plainly belongs to
only one of the three hypostases. 3ut the procession of the Spirit is in
no part of the more4than4nature unity which is contemplated in the
Trinity. Therefore! procession is understood to belong to only one of the
Three. 3ut the reasons for holding such a doctrine must be e+amined.
The Spirit proceeds from the Son neither earlier nor later than the Son
is begotten from the ather (for these ad%erbs of time are remo%ed as
far as possible from eternal ;i%inity! for the Son5s generation and the
Spirit5s procession are simultaneous). 0f! at the moment the Son comes
forth by begetting! the Son generates the Spirit by procession! then the
cause comes into e+istence simultaneously with the caused. This is the
fruit of their blasphemous sowing. Thus! while the Son is being
begotten the Spirit would be both begotten together with the Son and
proceeding from the Son. The Spirit will be begotten because He
proceeds simultaneously in the Son5s begetting! but He will be
proceeding! because the dual procession is permanent. ,ho could be
found to be more insane or blasphemous-
A>. 3ehold! your sophisms and abuse of the words of Scripture thrust
you into the pit of error and perdition. Jou see the saying he will
recei%e from Him ,ho is mine and the e+pression God sent forth the
Spirit of His Son! not only disagree with your blasphemous speech! but
totally refute this great impudence! and will ine%itably bring /udgement
upon it. Kntil that time! howe%er! must we de%ote oursel%es to refuting
other displays of "nowledge that may bring forth from their scheming
mind of e%il-
AA. Jou bring forth )mbrose! )ugustine and Ierome as well as certain
other men as witnesses against the dogma of the Church! because you
say they hold the opinion that the Spirit proceeds from the Son. They
say! <ne should not charge the Holy athers with the crime of
ungodlinessB one either agrees with their opinions because they taught
rightly and are ac"nowledged as athers! or they and their teaching
should be re/ected as impious because they introduced impious
doctrines. These things are said by youngsters in fearful desperation!
for the insu8erable conclusions of their unpro1table impudence cannot
escape in the face of "nowledge and &eal. Hot content with distorting
the word of the Master and slandering the herald of piety! they deem
the athers5 &ealous pursuits incomplete and then turn around and
ma"e their athers treat the Master and His herald with wanton
%iolence! and then they celebrate this= Howe%er! the simple word of
truth confounds them! saying! Ta"e care where you are going! how long
will you plunge your destruction into the %itals of your soul.
AC. ,hat sort of poisonous insanity compelled them to produce the
athers! holy and mature men settled and established in the truth! as
protectors of impiety- Thus! which of us sustains their rights as
athers- The one who recei%es them with no contradictions against the
Master! or the one who compels them to establish testimony against
the Master5s word! and who distorts by per%erse sophisms the
admirable teaching by which we theologise that the Spirit proceeds
from the ather- 0s it not e%ident that heresy attributes the name of
ather to those memorable men only in words- or heresy does not
begrudge gi%ing the title of ather stripped of all honour! but through
sophism! heresy chooses to dri%e the athers into the portion of
impious and corrupt men. ;o all of these ungodly men presume to
honour their athers with such pri%ileges-
AD. .ead through )mbrose or )ugustine or whate%er ather you may
chooseB which of them wished to a?rm anything contrary to the
Master5s word- 0f it is 0! then 0 insult your athers. 3ut if you say it
whilst 0 deny it! then you insult them! and 0 condemn you of insolence
towards the athers. 3ut! you retort! they ha%e written so! and the
words the Spirit proceeds from the Son are to be found in their
writings. ,hat of it- 0f those fathers! ha%ing been instructed! did not
alter or change their opinion! if after /ust rebu"es they were not
persuaded 2 again! this is another slander against your athers 2
then you who teach your word 6ilio'ue7 as a dogma introduce your
own stubbornness of opinion into the teachings of those men. )lthough
in other things they are the e'uals of the best 6athers7! what does this
ha%e to do with you- 0f they slipped and fell into error! therefore! by
some negligence or o%ersight 2 for such is the human condition 2
when they were corrected! they neither contradicted nor were they
obstinately disobedient. or they were not! e%en in the slightest
degree! participants in those things in which you abound. Though they
were admirable by reason of many other 'ualities that manifest %irtue
and piety! they professed your teaching either through ignorance or
negligence. 3ut if they in no way shared the bene1t of your
ad%antages 6of being corrected7! why do your introduce their human
fault as a mandate for your blasphemous belief- 3y your mandate! you
attest that men who ne%er imposed anything of this type are ob%ious
transgressors! and so you demand a penalty for the worst blasphemy
under the pretence of bene%olence and a8ection. The results of your
contentions are not good. <bser%e the e+cessi%e impiety and
per%ersity of this fri%olous "nowledge= They claim the Master to be
their ad%ocate! but are disco%ered to be liars. They call upon the
disciples to be their ad%ocates! but are li"ewise disco%ered to be
slanderers. They Ged for refuge to the athers! but are found to cast
down their great honour with blasphemy.
AE. )lthough they call them athers 2 indeed! they do 2 they do not
attribute to them the honour of being athers! but see" to disco%er how
they may become patricides. They do not tremble at the %oice of the
di%inely inspired Paul! whom they turn against the athers with great
wic"edness. or he who had recei%ed the authority to bind and to loose
2 and that authority reaches to the %ery Lingdom of Hea%en itself and
is both fearful and mighty 2 e+claims with a great! mighty and brilliant
%oice! 3ut e%en if we! or an angel from hea%en! preach a gospel to you
other than what we preached to you! let him be anathema. 6Galatians
$BD7 He who is so great a man! Paul! the ne%er4silent trumpet of the
Church! surrenders to anathema anyone who dares to recei%e or
introduce any foreign doctrine to the Gospel! and he sub/ects to great
curses not only others who would dare this! but also says it about
himself# if he were seen to be obstinate! he urged e'ual /udgement. He
sets no limit on this fearful word of /udgement but searches the
hea%ens themsel%es. )nd if he 1nds there an angel with dominion
upon the earth who e%angelises anything contrary to the Gospel
preaching! he suggests e'ual bonds! deli%ering him o%er to the de%il.
)nd you! who bring forth the athers to %iolate the dogmas of the
Master! to %iolate the preaching of which the disciples were heralds! to
%iolate all the @cumenical Synods! to %iolate the godly doctrine
preached throughout the whole world! do you neither shudder nor
tremble nor cower at the threat 6of anathema7- Jou ma"e them your
athers without li%ing their life in yoursel%es. Hot e%en the incorporeal
nature of the angels! nor the fact that as pure minds they stand before
the Master in de%otion! allows occasion for appeal! because they are
reduced to e'uality with earthly things 6in being sub/ect to the
pronounced anathema7. Jou call )mbrose! )ugustine and other good
men your athers 2 alas! such ruinous honour= 2 but does opposing
them to the Master5s teaching ma"e any more tolerable the
condemnation for yoursel%es or on these men- or you neither assign
a good reward to your athers nor repay your forebears properly for
their nurture. The anathema will not pass through you onto those
blessed men! because neither your sophisms nor disobediences nor
impieties will be found with them. Jou bear the anathema on your own
shoulders because you presume they parta"e in your impiety. ,ith
distinguished deeds! howe%er! and with their whole %oice they cry
against the anathema which you would bring on them.
CF. 3ut 0 do not admit that what you assert was so plainly taught by
those blessed men. @%en so! if any among them has fallen into
something unseemly 2 for they were all men and human! and no one
composed of dust and ephemeral nature can a%oid some trace of
de1lement 2 0 would then imitate the sons of Hoah and co%er my
father5s shame with silence and gratitude instead of a garment. 0 would
not ha%e followed Ham as you do. 0ndeed! you follow him with e%en
more shamelessness and impudence than he himself! because you
publish abroad the shame of those whom you call your athers. Ham is
cursed! not because he unco%ered his father! but because he failed to
co%er him. Jou! howe%er! both unco%er your athers and brag about
your audacity. Ham e+poses the secret to his brothers# you tell yours
not to one or two brothers! but in your rash and rec"less abandon!
proclaim the shame of your athers to the whole world! as if it were
your theatre. Jou beha%e lewdly towards the shame of their na"edness
and see" other re%ellers with whom to ma"e more conspicuous
festi%al! re/oicing when you e+pose their na"edness to the light=
C$. )ugustine and Ierome said the Spirit proceeds from the Son. How
why is it that ha%ing said this in faith! in a time great with sayings! that
their treatises did not wor" your e%il- 3ecause it is you who presume
that they! and not /ust yourself! were intent upon this insu8erable
godlessness. )nd it is because of the fact that in those times! these
sayings were not a impediment to anyone. Jou! howe%er! abound in the
resourcefulness of the enemy.
()lternateB)
)ugustine and Ierome said the Spirit proceeds from the Son. How can
one trust or con1dently testify their writings ha%e not been maliciously
altered with the passage of so much time- or do not thin" you are the
only one eager for ungodliness and bold in things that should not be
dared. .ather! from the state of your own mind! realise that nothing
hindered the wily enemy of the human race from 1nding %essels for
such a deed.
C(. )dmittedly! those things were said (by )ugustine and Ierome). 3ut
perhaps they spo"e out of necessity in attac"ing 6pagan7 Gree"
madness! or whilst refuting heresy! or through some condescension to
the wea"ness of their listeners! or due to the necessity of any one of
the many things presented by daily life. 0f! by chance! such a
statement escaped their lips because of one or more of the abo%e
reasons! then why do you still dismiss their testimony! and ta"e as a
necessary dogma what they did not mean as a dogma- ;o you not
realise that you bring irreparable destruction upon yoursel%es by
enlisting those men in your rebellious contention-
C9. ,hat did the preacher of the whole world! the contemplator of
ine8able things! who ennobled nature with his manner of life! what did
he say when he opposed the 6pagan7 Gree"s who were spewing forth
many words- He condescended to their wea"ness and proclaimed! or
as 0 passed by and beheld your ob/ects of worship! 0 found also an altar
with this inscriptionB To the Kn"nown God. ,hom! therefore! you
worship ignorantly! Him 0 declare unto you. ()cts $CB(9) ,hat are we
to ma"e of this- 3y being a teacher e%en of Gree" wisdom! he captured
and guided the impious to the piety of the Church. ,ill you therefore
presume to teach this in%ented dogma of yours to the destroyer of the
Gree" idol called the Kn"nown God- 0t would not be surprising when
we consider the web of your 'uibbling sophisms and the use which you
ma"e of philosophy. The altar was erected in Pani! and the citi&ens of
)thens worshipped for a long time without comprehending the Hame
written upon the altarB To the Kn"nown God. 3ut that e+pert and
hea%enly man saw the 6pagan7 Gree"s were not con%inced by the
sayings of the prophets and the teaching of the Master and recalled
them from their diabolical de%otions to the worship of the Creator. He
used the %ery proclamations of the de%il to condemn the de%il5s
tyranny. rom the de%il5s stronghold! he o%erthrew the might of their
authority. rom deception! he culti%ated godliness and from the
o8spring of perdition he produced sprigs of sal%ation. rom the snares
of the de%il! he urged them on to the race of the Gospel. rom the
summit of apostasy! he made an entrance through which he brought
them into the bridal chamber and to the immaculate nuptials of Christ!
the Church. His mind was so sublime! bearing strength from on high!
wounding and sub/ugating the de%il by the de%il5s own weapons. ,hat
then- 3ecause Paul o%ercame the enemy with the enemy5s own
weapons! will you therefore honour those weapons! call them di%ine!
and use them for your own slaughter- How many similar e+amples can
be found in him who wisely used all things in the strength of the Spirit=
C:. 3ut what need is there of more e+amples- He himself says with a
piercing %oice! 0 became to the Iews as a Iew that 0 might gain Iews# to
them who were under the law that 0 might gain them who were under
the law# to them outside the law! not as being outside the law of God
but in the law of Christ! in order that 0 might gain them who were
outside the law. ($ Corinthians EB(F4($) ,ould you! therefore! re%i%e
Iudaism because of this statement- <r would you legislate lawlessness
instead of being renewed by the di%ine and human laws for the
conduct of our life and shamelessly 2 or! rather! godlessly 2 say that
such are the commandments and such is the preaching of Paul-
C>. 0t is possible to 1nd many other e+amples in our holy and blessed
fathers. 0 ha%e in mind Clement! one of the bishops of 6<ld7 .ome.
Consider the boo"s which are "nown from him as Clementine (0 do not
say write because! according to ancient report! Peter the Coryphaeus
commanded they be written). Consider also ;ionysius of )le+andria!
who in stretching out his hand against Sabellius nearly /oins with )rius.
Consider also the splendour of the sacred4martyr! Methodius the Great
of Patara! who did not re/ect the idea that angels fell into mortal desire
and bodily intercourse! e%en though they are incorporeal and without
passions. 0 shall pass o%er Pantaenos! Clement! Pierios! Pamphilos and
Theognostos! all holy men and teachers of holy disciples whom we
hymn with great honour and a8ection! especially Pamphilos and
Pierios! distinguished by the trials of martyrdom. )lthough we do not
accept all of their statements! we grant them honour for their patient
disposition and goodness of life and for their other doctrines. 0n
addition to those pre%iously mentioned! there is 0renaeus! the bishop of
God! who recei%ed the super%ision of sacred things in *yons and also
Hippolytus! his disciple! the @piscopal martyrB all of these were
admirable in many ways! though at times some of their writings do not
a%oid departing from orthodo+y.
CA. Conse'uently! you should produce this double dilemma and stri%e
against all of these men and! with raised brows! sayB @ither these men
should be honoured and their writings not re/ected! or! if we re/ect
some of their words! we should simultaneously re/ect the men
themsel%es. 3ut will not these more4than4righteous! e+pert men more
fairly turn your facile argument bac" upon you! saying! ,hy! < man! do
you en/oin what is not en/oined- 0f you really call us athers! why do
you not fear to ta"e up arms against the athers and! what is e%en
more prideful! against our common Master! the Creator of all- 3ut once
you decided to beha%e insultingly towards us by being &ealous for your
doctrine! are you not e%idently insane when you simultaneously stretch
patricidal hands towards us- How many ways your sophisms can be
turned against you= 3ut /ust as we passed by the athers pre%iously
named! let us pass by discussion of these points for now.
CC. ,ho does not "now about 3asil the Great! who (whilst preser%ing
the royal garment of pure godliness in the secret chamber of his soul)
was silent about the deity of the Spirit- ) soul burning with di%ine lo%e!
but not Garing into an open Game lest it be e+tinguished by that %ery
progress and open splendour= This man ordered his words with
/udgement and guided the godly with small! gradual increases (for
when it has been gently introduced into men5s souls! the mighty Game
of faith arises more strongly# for the hasty assault of light fre'uently
blinds the spiritual eyes of men as when strong light o%ershadows the
eyes of those who ha%e wea" %ision). or this reason! he is silent!
inGaming them before he proclaims it. He passed o%er it in silence so
that a more seasonable time would come to elo'uently proclaim the
secret. 0f one wished to name all the men and their reasons for often
not re%ealing the blossom of truth! one would ha%e to compose a huge
boo"= Their ultimate concern was how this blossom might bloom more
beautifully and how its fruit might multiply so that an abundant har%est
could be gathered. 3ut we admire those men who had unspea"able
inspiration which surpasses reason and for their /udiciousness of
wisdom. How if any of you would introduce laws and dogmas into the
Church which are hateful to the Holy athers! we would consider him
an enemy of the truth and a destroyer of piety. Since he becomes
guilty by himself! we would condemn him with the /udgements he
himself pro%ides.
CD. Jou cite ,estern athers. 3ut this simply pours the ,est down into
the abyss! because it contends against the whole world. or my part! 0
will "indle for you from the ,est a ne%er4setting and noetic light of
godliness! whose brilliance your dar"ness cannot resist and can only
fade. )mbrose might ha%e saidB The Spirit proceeds from the Son. 3ut
the e%il is wrought by your tongue. 3ut then this is in turn contradicted
by the <rthodo+y of the luminous! thrice4blessed ;amascene and thus
your dar"ness is destroyed before it came to be. or by con1rming the
Second @cumenical Synod! whose dogmas are a?rmed to the ends of
the world! he resplendently confesses and understands that the Spirit
proceeds as *ight from the ather. 3ut then you say that )mbrose or
)ugustine taught otherwise. 3ut again more mur" pours forth from
your tongue because Clement did not say it! nor hear of it! nor assent
to it. <n the contrary! he dissipated the blindness of your statements
by the luminous radiance of <rthodo+y.
CE. ,hat will hinder me from referring to other athers- *eo the Great!
whilst bishop of 6<ld7 .ome! carefully demonstrated di%ine matters in
his inspired and dogmatic Tome. 0n this! he was con1rmed by the
ourth Synod. He con1rmed its decree! and was praised by the sacred!
and God4inspired assembly. He clearly taught that the )ll4Holy Spirit
proceeds from the ather. He thus radiates the %ery same light of
<rthodo+y! not only upon the entire ,est! but also to the ends of the
@ast through his God4inspired and dogmatic epistles! through the
legates who e+ercised his authority! and through the peace with which
he illumined that great assembly collected by God. Moreo%er! he also
said that if anyone set up or teach another doctrine other than that
taught by the Synod! that person should be deposed if he were of the
dignity of the priesthood or anathematised if he were a layperson or
e%en a monastic! religious or ascetic. ,hate%er that God4inspired
Synod decreed! *eo! similarly inspired by God! openly con1rmed
through the holy men Paschasinus! *ucentius and 3oniface (as one
may hear many times from them! indeed not only from them! but from
him who sent them). ;ispatching synodical letters! *eo himself testi1es
and con1rms that the speeches! spirit! and decisions of his delegates
are not theirs! but his own. Still! e%en if there were nothing of this! it is
su?cient that they were his representati%es at the Synod and that
when the Synod ended! he professed to abide by its decisions.
DF. There were some who would not heed their sacred utterances!
because after the e+position of the aith which the irst and Second
Synods deli%ered and established! it goes on to say! Therefore! this
wise and salutary Symbol of di%ine grace is established in perfection of
godliness and "nowledge! of wisdom and sal%ation. How! it says
perfection and not imperfection. 0t is not in need of any addition or
subtraction. )nd how is it perfect- Turn your attention to that which
followsB it says it e+pounds matters concerning the ather and the Son
and the Holy Spirit perfectly. How does it perfectly e+pound these
matters- 3y e+claiming that the Son is begotten from the ather and
that the Spirit proceeds from the ather. )nd shortly thereafter! it says
that one hundred and 1fty fathers! assembled in the 0mperial City!
subse'uently con1rmed the teaching concerning the essence of the
Spirit against those contending against the Holy Spirit. How! how did
they con1rm the essence of the Spirit- 3y plainly stating that the Spirit
proceeds from the ather. Therefore! he who teaches a di8erent
doctrine o%erturns their authority and has come to a point in his
presumption of confounding and confusing the %ery essence of the
Spirit. He+t! consider these wordsB those contending against the Holy
Spirit. ,ho were these men- Then it was those who proclaimed
Macedonius as their teacher in place of the immaculate teachings! but
now! it is those who are against Christ and His doctrine. Thus! 0 will not
hold bac" what needs to be saidB it is the same senseless act of
impiety which rushes towards perdition instead of towards the Sa%iour.
,ith a multi4tongued %oice under the inspiration of the Spirit! the
Synod spo"e clearly# they are con1rmed by all %otes and the all4wise
*eo resoundingly concurs. )pply your mind! therefore! to what follows
towards the end of the entire section of the )cts it says 'uite clearlyB
The Holy and @cumenical Synod 1+es therefore with these men from
e%ery 'uarter! with e+actness and harmony! our e+act e+position! the
meaning of which the chief legate of *eo procured. ,hat did it decree-
That no one is permitted to declare a di8erent faith# that is to say!
neither to write it! nor assent to it! nor thin" it! nor teach it to others.
3ut for those who presume to accept another faith! that is they who
promulgate or teach or deli%er a di8erent Symbol to those who wish to
return to the "nowledge of the truth from Hellenism! or Iudaism! or any
other heresy# and if any are bishops or clergy! let the bishops be
depri%ed of their diocese and the clerics be deposed of their o?ce# but
if they be mon"s or laity! let them be anathema.
D$. *oo" attenti%ely < blind men! and hear"en < deaf men! you who
reside in the heretical ,est and dwell in dar"ness. *oo" attenti%ely to
the e%er4shining light of the Church! and search into the noble mind of
*eo. Gi%e ear to what "ind of trumpet he sounds against your dogma 2
the trumpet of the Spirit= )nd if you will not be ashamed! you should at
least fear your own ather! e%en if you fear no others. Through him
re%erence the other elect athers whose writings found fa%our with
pre%ious synods and are enrolled among the distinguished athers. Jou
call the men )ugustine! Ierome! and others resembling them your
athers. Jou do well in this! but not in the purpose for which you use
them! but because you consider it not praiseworthy to despise their
title of ather. 0ndeed! if your subtle scheming concerning the athers
went no further! then as long as the wic"edness was unful1lled!
inasmuch as it was more moderate! so would ha%e been the
/udgement. 3ut if you begin with an impious opinion! and refuse to
bring this to its completion! then does this in fact mean that the
%iolence of the accursed thing is destroyed- Ho! it only abates and
mitigates the ine%itable punishment. Jou intended to frighten us with
the athers whom you insult. 3ut if there are among the chorus of the
athers those who re/ect your subtle scheming against godly doctrine!
then they are the athers of the athers. )nd! indeed! they are the
athers of those %ery same men whom you ac"nowledge as athers. 0f
you ac"nowledge )mbrose! )ugustine and Ierome! then why do you
not ac"nowledge those others! but indeed! deny them-
D(. Jou should consider the e'ually renowned Qigilius! e'ual in throne
and ran" of glory with those other men! who assisted at the ifth Synod
which is also adorned with holy and ecumenical decrees. *i"e an
unerring rule! this man conformed himself to its true dogmas. He
%oiced agreement in other matters and with e'ual &eal matching those
athers before him and of his own time! proclaiming that the )ll4Holy
and Consubstantial Spirit proceeds from the ather! also saying that if
anyone introduced any de1nition other than the unanimous and
common faith of the pious! then he should be deli%ered to the same
bonds of anathema.
D9. Jou should consider the noble and good )gatho! honoured with the
same %ictorious deeds. Through his legates! he con%ened and made
illustrious the Si+th Synod (which also shines with ecumenical ran")!
being present there! if not bodily! then certainly in will and with all
diligence. He preser%ed the Symbol of our in%iolate! pure! and
unchangeable aith without inno%ation! in accordance with the synods.
Moreo%er! he con1rmed the Synod by placing under an e'ual curse any
so bold as to alter any word taught by it as dogma# these words which
were a?rmed as dogma from the beginning.
D:. )nd why do you pass silently o%er Gregory 6the ;ialogist7 and
Racharias! bishops of 6<ld7 .ome! who were adorned with %irtue! who
increased the Goc" with di%ine wisdom and teaching! and who shone
with miraculous gifts- or although neither of these men were e%er
assembled at a synod accorded ecumenical authority! yet brightly
imitating those who did! they openly and clearly taught that the )ll4
Holy Spirit proceeds from the ather. ,hile Gregory! who wrote *atin!
Gourished not long before the Si+th Synod! Racharias! wrote in Gree"
si+ty years after. These men enshrined the dogma and preaching of the
Master and the athers without de1lement and with purity of soul! as
though in a pure and immaculate bridal chamber. They /oined their
Goc" to godly worship of Christ! the true God and 3ridegroom of our
souls. The wise Racharias! besides the bene1cial writings composed as
dialogues! made other holy writings of the holy Gregory a resounding
trumpet throughout the whole world in the Gree" language. )t the end
of the second dialogue when )rchdeacon Peter (a man lo%ed by God)
'uestioned why the power of miracles is present more in a small
portion of a saint5s relics than in the whole relic! the God4bearing
Gregory and Racharias e+plained that although di%ine grace was
present in both! its operation was rather displayed in the case of a
particle. or no one doubts regarding entire relics that they are the
bodies of the saints they are said to be or that miracles can come from
them by the authority of the %ictorious souls who! together with those
bodies! endured trials and labours# but not a few wea"er persons insult
the particles by doubting that they belong to those saints to whom
they are attributed! or doubting they are 1lled with the same grace and
power. Therefore! where doubt seemed to reign! the enhypostatic and
ine+haustible fountain of good things will spring forth into more
miracles more abundantly! both in number and magnitude. ,hen
these two 6Gregory and Racharias7 had answered the aforementioned
doubt! along with many others under en'uiry! no one amongst them
stood up in argument against them. They added the following words a
little laterB The Paraclete 2 the Spirit 2 proceeds from the ather and
abides in the Son! Gregory in *atin and Racharias by correct translation
into Gree".
D>. The orerunner! in whom godliness was continually %isible and
resplendent! 1rst gathered the faithful from his multitude and then
initiated them into the 1rst mysteries of grace! and so piety is seen as
fore%er possessing the adornment of this doctrine. or he who is
a?rmed to be little less than superhuman! baptised the ountain of
*ife and 0mmortality! the Master and Creator of all! in the world4
purifying streams of the Iordan. Seeing the hea%ens opened 2 a
miracle testi1ed by miracles 2 he saw the )ll4Holy Spirit descending in
the form of a do%e. Thus! seeing the unseeable! the true prophet of the
,ord cried! 0 saw the Spirit descending as a do%e and abiding upon
Him. (Iohn $B9() The Spirit! descending from the ather! abides upon
the Son! and if you wish! in the Son as well! for a change of
prepositions in this passage ma"es no di8erence. )nd the prophet
0saiah! e+pounder of almost e'ual oracles from abo%e and declaring
the prophecy in the person of Christ! saysB The Spirit of the *ord is
upon me! because He has anointed me. (0saiah A$B$# *u"e :B$D) How!
ha%ing pre%iously heard that the renowned Gregory and Racharias
said! The Spirit abides in the Son 2 for perhaps they will be more
suited to change your shamelessness into fear 2 why do you not
immediately thin" of Paul5s phrase! The Spirit of His Son! in this regard-
Had you done this! instead of fashioning that fantastic tale about the
procession! you would ha%e been raised up to understand. 0s this not
the proper meaning of the statement! the Spirit of His Son- or 0 am
persuaded the reason behind the Spirit being said to be of the Son is
not at all uncertain! nor is it said for the same abstruse reasons as your
forced argument. 0t is said because He is in the Son. or which
statement gi%es the meaning closest to that of the apostolic
statementsB the phrase! the Spirit abides in the Son! or the statement!
the Spirit proceeds from the Son- 0ndeed! this latter interpretation is
%ulgar. or the 3aptiser of our common Master trumpets the former!
the Prophet 0saiah long ago foretold it! and the Sa%iour Himself
con1rms the e+act meaning of re%ealed doctrine. Therefore! the godly
recei%e this mystical teaching and faithfully teach what is set forth
from that source. 3ut you! rising from the mur"y gates of ungodliness!
you contend against God by asserting that the Spirit proceeds from the
Son! instead of preaching that the Spirit abides in the Son and upon
the Son. The Spirit remains in the Son. Thus! it is said that the Spirit is
of the Son! as well as for the reasons 0 ha%e pre%iously cited! that the
Spirit is of the same nature! di%inity! glory! "ingdom! and %irtue. )nd! if
you will! the Spirit is in the Son because He anoints Christ as wellB or
the Spirit of the *ord is upon me because He has anointed me. (0saiah
A$B$# *u"e :B$D) 0t is also said because when the ine8able 0ncarnation
came to pass! He o%ershadowed the Qirgin and that ine8able Child
came forth without seed. 0t is also said because He is of the Son
because He also sends ChristB or He has sent me to preach the Gospel
to the poor. (*u"e :B$D) Therefore! by reason of one or more of the
abo%e e+planations! how much better and more consistent were it for
you to thin" and to say what 0 ha%e said 6that He is called the Spirit of
the Son and the Spirit of Christ7 rather than to dismiss such cogent and
consistent reasons and to try to corrupt the dogmas of the Church with
peculiar lies and %acuous fantasies. 3ut let the renowned Gregory and
Racharias again come forward and cooperate with me in rebu"ing your
teaching! for e%en the impost impudent of men ha%e greater respect
for reproof coming from one5s own "indred.
DA. 0f Gregory and Racharias! although many years distant from each
other! did not di8er in the %iews about the procession of the )ll4Holy
Spirit! and if the inter%ening sacred choir of .oman bishops who
o%ersaw the priestly institutions also professed the same doctrines
without inno%ation! being warmed by faith! but rather ad%ocated the
same dogmas! then not only these two poles! but those men between
them "ept! established and directed the same faith. (or by the
e+tremes are the intermediate readily contained and simultaneously
limited# they are thus united and ta"e the same direction.) 0ndeed! if
any of the men who preceded or followed these holy men were found
to ha%e turned aside to an alien doctrine! it is 'uite certain that he
would ha%e cut himself o8 from that choir and throne and high
priesthood inasmuch as he had torn himself from their aith!
Throughout its life! this chorus has maintained the godly statements of
the saints.
DC. )re you ignorant of ancient things- ;o you fear your fathers- ;o
you truly e+amine their doctrine- .ecently (the second generation has
not yet passed)! *eo 6000! pope of 6<ld7 .ome! CE>4D$A7! another
renowned man who was adorned with miracles! remo%ed all prete+t for
heresy from e%eryone. 3ecause the *atin language! fre'uently used by
our holy athers! has inade'uate meanings which do not translate the
Gree" language purely and e+actly! and often render false notions of
the doctrines of the aith! and because it is not supplied with as many
words that can interpret the meaning of a Gree" word in its e+act
sense! that God4inspired man concei%ed an idea (the idea being
concei%ed not only because of what we ha%e /ust said! but also
because of that heresy 6the ilio'ue7 now openly proclaimed without
restraint! but then only being hinted at in the city of 6<ld7 .ome). He
decreed that the people of 6<ld7 .ome should recite the sacred Symbol
of aith in the Gree" tongue. Through these di%inely inspired plans! he
supplemented and redressed the inade'uacy of the *atin tongue and
e+pelled from the pious the suspicion of a di8erence in faith! pulling up
by the roots the pollution then growing in the pro%inces of 6<ld7 .ome.
0n the city of 6<ld7 .ome! he posted notices and decrees that the
sacred Symbol of aith be recited in the same Gree" tongue with which
it had been 1rst proclaimed according to the authoritati%e utterance of
the Synods! e%en by those who used *atin in the mystical and sacred
rites. Hot only for 6<ld7 .ome did he decree it! but also throughout the
pro%inces which deferred to the high priesthood and rule of 6<ld7
.ome. He sent sermons and synodical letters that e%eryone thin" and
do the same! and he ensured the immutability of the doctrine by
anathemas.
DD. This practice was re%erently maintained not only during his reign!
but also during that of the praise4worthy 3enedict! that gentle and
forbearing man (as was be1tting the o?ce of archbishop) who was
radiant with ascetical practices and who succeeded him to that arch4
episcopal throne. 3ut! he 63enedict7 was eager to not be second in
anything to him 6*eo7 in fa%ouring and strengthening this practice!
e%en though he was second in order of time. 3ut! if later! this pious
and useful practice of the Church was halted and undermined by one
pretending piety with a tongue of deceit! he himself would ha%e been
standing prepared for battle. Such a decei%er would certainly ha%e to
hide his true thought and! although unable to endure that the
awesome Symbol of aith was on the lips of all! would not dare to
oppose with bare head the e+cellent and God4belo%ed practice.
Howe%er! it is not my tas" to recount abysmal crimes with detailed
names. He accurately saw the rashness and e+acted punishment for it.
Howe%er (for he was silent! but not unwilling) he re/ected it by his
silence. 0t was not until the di%inely inspired *eo produced these
thoughts by God4mo%ed foresight and action that anything was
e+plicitly said. 3ut they were already to be found stored among the
treasuries of the chief apostles! Peter and Paul! from the most ancient
times when piety Gourished. There were two shields! upon which were
engra%ed with Gree" letters and words the often repeated holy
e+position of our aith 6the Symbol of aith7. He 6*eo7 deemed it right
that these shields be read aloud in the presence of all the multitudes of
6<ld7 .ome and be e+hibited for all to see. Many of those who saw and
read them are still among the li%ing.
DE. Thus! these men shone with piety! attesting that the Spirit
proceeds from the ather! as did my Iohn 6Pope Iohn Q000! DC(4DD(! who
signed the decrees of the @ighth @cumenical Synod that met in
Constantinople! DCE4DDF and agreed to prohibit the ilio'ue from the
Symbol of aith! ending the schism7 2 he is mine because! besides
other reasons! he was more in harmony with others who are our
athers. <ur Iohn! being courageous in mind as well as piety! and
courageous because he abhors and casts down unrighteousness and
e%ery manner of impiety! was able to pre%ail in both the sacred and
the ci%il laws and to transform disorder into order. This man! fa%oured
amongst the .oman archbishops by his more4than4illustrious and God4
ser%ing legates Paul! @ugene and Peter (bishops and priests of God)!
who were with us in the synod 6the @ighth @cumenical Synod that met
at Constantinople! DCE4DDF7! this grace41lled bishop of 6<ld7 .ome
accepted the Symbol of the aith of the Catholic Church of God! as the
bishops of 6<ld7 .ome had done before him. He both con1rmed and
subscribed to it with wondrous and notable sayings! with sacred tongue
and hand through those %ery illustrious and admirable men
aforementioned. Jes! and after that! the holy Hadrian! his successor!
sent us a synodical letter according to the prescription of ancient
custom! sending us the same doctrine! testifying for the same
theology! namely! that the Spirit proceeds from the ather.
Conse'uently! those sacred and blessed bishops of 6<ld7 .ome both
belie%ed and taught thus throughout their life! and they remained in
the same confession until they passed from this perishable life to the
imperishable. ,hich of these bishops of 6<ld7 .ome! by life! thought or
teaching! altered the profession of immortal life by saying the heretical
and diseased word 6ilio'ue7- Can those diseased with heretical
sic"ness claim they dran" the deadly poison of so great an impiety
from any of the aforementioned without immediately becoming
ad%ersaries of those who triumphantly illumined ,estern lands with
<rthodo+y-
EF. )re you still unwilling to renounce this deceitful teaching- 0 ha%e
sung elo'uent canticles ta"en from the utterances of the Holy Spirit.
The )ll4Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of God. )nd the Sa%iour says! 3ut
if 0 by the Spirit of God cast out demons (Matthew $(B(D)! it is by the
Spirit of the ather (see Matthew $FB(F). How we are not the ones who
spea" thus! but it is again the same ountain of Truth that says! the
Spirit of the ather who spea"s in you (Matthew $FB(F) He is called the
Spirit of God! for 0saiah e+claims! The Spirit of God will abide upon Him.
(0saiah $$B() He is called the Spirit ,ho is from God! for Paul! the great
herald of orthodo+ dogmas proclaims! 3ut you ha%e not recei%ed the
Spirit of the world but the Spirit ,ho is from God. ($ Corinthians (B$()
)nd! 3ut if you ha%e been led by the Spirit of God! you are not in the
Gesh. (.omans DBE) He is called the Spirit of the *ord! for 0saiah cries!
the Spirit of the *ord is upon me because he hath anointed me. (0saiah
A$B$) )nd in many places Paul said! the Spirit of the Son (Galatians
:BA)! the Spirit of Christ (.omans DBE# Philippians $B$E! $ Peter $B$$)! or
the the Spirit of Him that raised Christ. (.omans DB$$) )gain! Paul
initiates us into the holy mysteries! saying! God sent forth the Spirit of
His Son into our hearts crying )bba ather= (Galatians :BA) and the
Spirit of Him that raised up Iesus Christ will dwell in you (.omans DB$$)
and Jou are not in the Gesh! but in the Spirit! if the Spirit of God dwells
in you. How if any many does not ha%e the Spirit of Christ! he does not
belong to Him. (.omans DBE) How! when the Spirit is called of God!
from God the ather! of the *ord! of Him that raised up Christ from the
dead! and the Spirit of the ather! is it not clear that the same thing is
meant by them as is meant in the statement that the Spirit proceeds
from the ather- Ho one could be so stupid as to come into such
ignorance concerning such simple e+pressions that he cannot easily
see 2 at a glance 2 that! although each of these phrases refers to the
same hypostasis! yet in the phrase the Spirit proceeds from the ather!
the word Spirit con%eys a di8erent meaning from that in the phrase the
Spirit of God! or of the *ord! or any other similar phrases mentioned.
or by the %erb! the former declares procession! but the latter phrases
do not in any way do so. Though the latter phrases were uttered
because the Spirit proceeds from Him! yet none of the words in these
phrases indicate or supply any procession of the Spirit. This procession
is plainly declared in Scripture! but this new procession is not. These
te+ts! which say that He proceeds from the ather! gi%e no e+planation
of the procession. or to say the Spirit proceeds from the ather is
ob%iously di8erent from what is indicated by the names Spirit of God or
of the *ord and the li"e.
E$. )nd yet! e%en if each of these phrases did signify procession! this
would be in our fa%our also! since the di%ine utterance has certainly
burst forth with the same di%ine words that the Spirit5s procession is
from the ather 2 for myriads presupposed the same thing! accurately
percei%ing that the Spirit proceeds from the ather 2 then why do they
not simultaneously indicate that He proceeds from the Son- 0t is not
possible to pretend these phrases possess such a meaning! for none of
them say this! nor do they e%en imply it! because it is not once spo"en
of in any te+t! neither di%ine te+ts! nor in Spirit4bearing human te+ts!
that the Spirit proceeds from the Son. 0f it is said! the Spirit of God!
then this means that He has e'uality of procession and a 1rst cause.
He is consubstantial because He proceeds from the ather! but He does
not proceed because He is consubstantial. @%en if the phrases of God
and of the *ord or any similar saying originated primarily and
principally by reason of the procession! still other phrases such as
Spirit of the Son or Spirit of Christ and similar phrases are attributed to
%arious other reasonsB that the Spirit is consubstantial with Him! or that
the Spirit anoints Him! or that the Spirit abides upon Him! or that the
Spirit is in Him. Therefore! e%en if we allow that procession is the
principal reason why the Spirit is said to be of God and of the *ord and
the li"e (although these statements still do not plainly declare such a
procession)! how then! is it possible to loo" for procession in the other
phrases- 3ut it is ine%itable that they should see" for causes in these
e+pressions! and thereby ine%itable that the procession should be
di%ided. or the more causes that are percei%ed! then the more they
can sing the praise of the Spirit of the Son and of Christ.
E(. Jou open your ears and mind to ungodly thoughts whene%er you
hear the phrases Spirit of Christ or of the Son. Jou ignored e%erything
that would hinder your fall into perdition! and you ran headlong to what
no one had e%er been con%inced to assert. 0t is said! the Spirit
proceeds from the ather. The Spirit is also called the Spirit of the
ather! and of God! and other similar e+pressions to which our
discourse has fre'uently cited. 3ut none of these former statements!
sa%e the 1rst! indicate the procession. The Spirit is also called the Spirit
of the Son and of Christ and other similar e+pressions! but nowhere is it
stated that the Spirit proceeds from the Son. Since these phrases do
not indicate the procession from the Son in any manner! then are you
not utterly stupid and erroneous to assert these phrases mean that
which no one! nowhere! by no means e%er uttered- 0ndeed! e%en they
who ha%e underta"en to say all the insolence that can be said will not
dare to assert that it is possible to 1nd anywhere that the Spirit
proceeds from the Son in the sacred words of Scripture.
E9. Jou noticed that my writings said! the Spirit of Christ. Truly! it was
said. 0t is not burdensome to be taught by 0saiah! or e%en better! from
the Master5s own %oice and reading of 0saiah5s words that the Spirit is
upon me because He has anointed me. (0saiah A$B(# *u"e :B$D) So is
there one Spirit of the *ord and another Spirit of the Son- 3ut it says
Spirit of the Son! not because of the anointing! but because the Spirit is
consubstantial with the Son. )nd it says! Spirit of Christ (the )nointed
<ne) because the Spirit anoints Him. or the Spirit is upon me! says the
Truth! because He has anointed me. The Spirit anoints Christ! but in
what manner do you understand that! < man- 0s He anointed
according to the humanity of the ,ord ,ho too" its Gesh and blood
and became man! or according to His pre4e+istent ;eity- 0f you say the
second! then 0 suppose that you ha%e said e%ery rash insolence there is
to say= or the Son was not anointed as God 2 away with the thought=
2 therefore! inasmuch as He is man! Christ was anointed by the Spirit.
)ccordingly! since the Spirit anoints Christ! it is said that He is the
Spirit of Christ. 3ut you go on to say! 3ecause He is called the Spirit of
Christ! He certainly also proceeds from Christ. 3ut this in turn means
that the Spirit of Christ proceeds from Him not according to His
;i%inity! but according to His humanity. )nd therefore! the Spirit does
not proceed before the beginning of time! holding e+istence
simultaneously with the ather! but only begins to proceed at the time
when the Son assumed human substance.
E:. Turn your mind and rouse yourself from your deception! < Man! and
do not pro%e your in/ury and wound resistant to all cure. The Spirit is
worshipped as being of Christ because He anoints Christ. 3ut on this
basis! your pernicious precept asserts that He proceeds from Him. Thus
He must proceed from Christ 2 as the doctrine you glory in ma"es
clear 2 not from Christ5s ;i%inity! but from that which He too" from us
and commingled with Himself. Therefore! if the Spirit! as God! proceeds
from the Son! from Christ! according to the humanity which Christ
commingled with us! and the Spirit also proceeds from the Son
according to Christ5s ;i%inity 2 for such is the bidding of your precept
2 and if the Spirit of the Son and the Spirit of Christ are really
consubstantial! then! logically! one must conclude that His human
nature is consubstantial with the Son and indeed of Christ. or you
would ma"e Him proceed both before and after the 0ncarnation! yet not
cast o8 His consubstantiality with either. Therefore! if the Spirit of
Christ is consubstantial with the Spirit of the Son and consubstantial
also with the Son5s assumed nature 2 for you insist the Spirit proceeds
from that which He too" from us and commingled with Himself 2 then
the ;i%inity of Christ is shown to be consubstantial with His humanity
by inescapable logic. 3ut now to pro%e this is to assemble a dogma
against the ather Himself! with ,hom the Gesh of Christ is also
consubstantial by the same reasoning. )nd what could be more
impious than this blasphemy or more wretched than this detestable
error-
E>. 3ut you still do not wish to percei%e o%er what sort of abyss into
which you are cast and into what pits of the soul5s corruption you are
buried because you are not willing to be persuaded by Christ! or His
disciples! or the @cumenical Synods! or a rational method of reasoning!
or by sacred and elo'uent testimonies to humble your mind. Jou are
buried. .ather! you reproach the common *ord. Jou accuse the noble
mind of Paul! but you accuse falsely. Jou incite rebellion against the
Holy and @cumenical Synods. Jou ridicule the athers. Jou banish the
true thoughts and the true intentions of your bishops and athers and
consign them to the de%il. Jou dismiss any remedy! are dumb to
rational thought. 0ndeed! you completely o%erwhelm your sal%ation
with dubious and passionate preconceptions= 3ut! instead of us! let our
di%ine father ;a%id the psalmist and ancestor of God shout the Psalm
to you! Knderstand then! ye mindless ones among the people# and ye
fools! at length be wise. (Psalm E9BD! *SS) <therwise! the common
enemy of our race will cast great snares around you and your o8spring!
for he is li"e a roaring lion! wal"ing about our souls. lee to help! lest
there be no one to deli%er. (See 0saiah >B(E)
EA. So! you ha%e these outlines /ust as you re'uested! most re%erent
and learned of men. 0f the *ord e%er returns the use of our boo"s and
secretaries to us in our e+ile! if the )ll4Holy Spirit inspires and permits
us! soon you will also ha%e the arguments de%eloped by these enemies
of the Spirit! these ra%ing enemies of the more4than4good and Tri4
hypostatic Godhead. ,ithout a doubt! nothing remains which they
ha%e not blasphemed in their madness. Truly! you will ha%e those
whom they cite! from whom they produce the statements and proofs
their writings contain! as well as their own treachery and deception in
these matters. 3ut! abo%e all! you will ha%e the unimpeachable
testimonies of our di%inely wise athers through which these wic"ed
men are confuted and the mindset of apostasy is entirely dri%en away.