Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit.doc

8/10/2019 Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit.doc

1/51

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"ea 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 thelaws 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


2/51


3/51

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! aresources 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 theSpirit 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. 0fthese 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!


4/51

produced# on one hand causing Himself! and on the other as being

caused. 2 nother great array of blasphemies against God=

. 3ut concerning the procession of the Spirit from the Son! whoformerly 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 ofthe 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-


5/51

$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%ocatingthese 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

ows 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


6/51

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- . 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 andtitle (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.


7/51

$. 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 ow! 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 isalso 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%ineprinciple- 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


8/51

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 istransposed 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 insu8erablecontentions 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.


9/51

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. e%er! not e%ercan 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


10/51

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 willrecei%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 itcertainly 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 ee for refuge! if it is at all true! will not support your

ungodly doctrine of the faith. 0f you ee 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


11/51


12/51

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 themanner 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 shoneforth 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


13/51

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 hypostasesinto ine'uality.

. 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). e%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 hereticalin%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


14/51

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 glorythey 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 glorywhich 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%iouslyspo"en these words! He con1rms them by saying again! That


15/51

that that


16/51

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" ofsomething 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 fromthe 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


17/51

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. 3utthey 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.

9. 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


18/51

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 fromthe 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


19/51

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 atherupon 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.

owhere do the di%ine teachings state the Son is greater than theSpirit 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 inanother procession which is also a procession proper to the essence!

then what e+actly does that production by another procession pro%ide-


20/51

: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 byarrangement! but also in the category of His origin. 0t ma"es us cast o8

our adoration of the Trinity for a uaternity. 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 ise+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. ow 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


21/51

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. Thisdistinction 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"ewiseproduced (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. or 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.

:. 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- ot only would you change the Son into a causeof 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


22/51

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 ifthis 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= either 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 Nbba! 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-


23/51

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 or 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 meansindicating 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.


24/51

>. ,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%enthe 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 ofembellishment.

>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. ow!

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!


25/51

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. The phrase! light oflight! 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 ee 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 theSpirit 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


26/51

%omited forth truly demonstrates what spirit animates and possesses

you.

>. 0f you wish! 0 can cite other sacred te+ts by which the bane of yourdementia 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 $B)! Spirit of a sound mind ( Timothy $B)! 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 $B) 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 $B#

umbers $$BA# pocalypse $EB$F# 0saiah $$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$B49) 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 mypeople 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


27/51

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 andworshipped 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 orpower 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. ow! if indeed it is established

practice to call each of the gifts a spirit! and if in the number of gifts


28/51

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 otherthe 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 withanything! 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.


29/51

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 thisimpious 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-


30/51

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 theSpirit5s 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!


31/51

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.

A. ,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 proceedsfrom 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 2then 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


32/51

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 yourad%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.


33/51

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. ot e%en the incorporealnature 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 thoseblessed 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.

F. 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 oah 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 toco%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


34/51

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=

$. ugustine and Ierome said the Spirit proceeds from the Son. owwhy 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.

. 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 byenlisting those men in your rebellious contention-

9. ,hat did the preacher of the whole world! the contemplator of

ine8able things! who ennobled nature with his manner of life! what did


35/51

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 $B9) ,hat are weto 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 ame

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 thesayings 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=

:. 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 EBF4$) ,ould you! therefore! re%i%e


36/51

Iudaism because of this statement- . 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


37/51


38/51

the e%il is wrought by your tongue. 3ut then this is in turn contradicted

by the


39/51


40/51

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 whoreside 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 usethem! 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- o! 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 throneand 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


41/51

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


42/51

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 andpower. 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 isupon me! because He has anointed me. (0saiah A$B$# *u"e :B$D) ow!

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


43/51

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 whichstatement 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 theSon! 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


44/51

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 thee+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.

D. 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 64D$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


45/51

rites. ot only for 6


46/51

signed the decrees of the @ighth @cumenical Synod that met in

Constantinople! DE4DDF 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.


47/51

spea" thus! but it is again the same ountain of Truth that says! the

Spirit of the ather who spea"s in you (Matthew $FBF) 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 theSpirit 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

esh. (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 theSpirit of Him that raised up Iesus Christ will dwell in you (omans DB$$)

and Jou are not in the esh! but in the Spirit! if the Spirit of God dwells

in you. ow if any many does not ha%e the Spirit of Christ! he does not

belong to Him. (omans DBE) ow! 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- o 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.


48/51


49/51

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 thatwhich 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 wassaid. 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


50/51

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"esclear 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 notcast 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 esh 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 areburied. 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


51/51

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! *) BE)

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 Tri4hypostatic 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.

Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit.doc

Documents

Transcript of Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit.doc