In the city (Constantinople) there are also many untruths: accurate information about all these untruths could be reported only by those persons who have to endure from them; For my part, I will briefly tell only about one such case, which has recently occurred, having chosen for a trial out of many others.

When we were approaching the walls of the city, and the road from the side of the Hellespont was already terminating, a certain cattle dealer (κρεωπώλης), who was driving a flock of sheep, according to him, about 600 of them (and, as it turned out, there were really so many of them), was moving along the same road ahead of us, trying to get into the city as soon as possible. But this haste did not serve him well: no sooner had he reached the gate, than he was attacked in a crowd by the baker, the dining-servant, and the cook of the despot John [24] and, out of six hundred sheep, having separated a fourth, drove him to the house of the despot. The rumor of this incident reached the prefect and forced him to send one of his own (officials) to the scene of the incident, in order to try to save the sheep of the unfortunate butchers; The mission took place, but it did not achieve the intended goal so little that some of the police officers sent by him (ὑπηρέτας) were pretty much beaten by the despot's servants. Moreover, it almost came to the breaking of the city gates with axes and halberds, and this is why: since the dump (μάχη) took place outside the gates, the gatekeepers had the happy idea of locking the gates and thus preventing the predators of the sheep outside the city walls from carrying out their criminal intention. They cried out for help to their comrades (who were within the city), and from the despot's house they sprang out with various iron implements, with the intention of breaking down the gates: and probably this intention would have been carried out, if, at our invitation, the prefect had not hastened to the scene of the accident and stopped the zeal of those armed with something that caught the slaughter. It would seem that after this the sheep will also be returned to the butchers; but they were not returned, as it turned out the next day. Before the dawn was in order, and the sunbeam had not yet gilded the surroundings, when the happy despot, who had made so many people miserable, rose from his bed earlier than usual, and immediately went out of the gate to the place where the sheep had spent the night, and instead of the hundred and fifty pieces, which had been separated the day before by his footmen, he deigned to separate two hundred of them, and ordered them to be driven to his house. It would not be timely to tell how the unfortunate owners of animals wept and died, how they lay at our feet, how much we asked for them the culprit of their misfortune. And this is not his only feat: carried away by his wild instincts (ἀλόγοις ἔικων ὀρμαῖς), he does many similar things, and (as a consequence of this) your city is involuntarily weakened in love for you, your master, being given over to the mercy (of people like you); — murmuring and indignation are heard everywhere; I also grieve over all these things, and am tormented in the most cruel manner; the governor of the city, the prefect, is also grieving on the other side; but none of us can give satisfaction to an offended city: I because I preach to deaf ears, he because he has no military force at hand, which, in case of need, could restrain even against the will of the hunters to violence. Therefore, if your city is dear to you (and it is undoubtedly very dear), send here a military command (τάγμα στρατιωτικόν), so that the hunters may be restrained by the prefect to troubles and violence: then the evil beginnings will cease of their own accord.

His Holiness Patriarch Gregory (of Cyprus) is the strongest apology against the attacks on his scroll

I used to marvel at those people who talk a lot about God, wondered what this mass of words served them for, and it seemed to me that they should have expressed themselves briefly, and, having thus declared their pious understanding, calmed down and kept silent, for the very reason that God Himself does not allow much talk about Himself, since He is above nature and word, and all understanding. And now I am not in the least amazed at theologians of this kind. Now I realized that it was not ambition, but necessity that forced me to be so prolific in words. Some were prompted to do so by the lust of heretics, who raised more and more objections against the right teaching, like waves on the sea; the insolence of ignorant and envious men, who have a natural inclination to disgrace all that is good, and to give a completely opposite meaning to what is said in a pious sense, so that it was imperative to address words and rebukes to both, and those who wished to satisfactorily solve their problem with regard to the representatives of both categories, had to, as I have said, speak of God at great length, just as extensive. The same thing happened to us, as anyone will easily see from our present work. Resolutely preferring silence to reasoning about God, and being content with what the men of the Spirit have said, on the ground that it is impossible to say better than them, we are drawn into these discourses against our will; moreover, thinking at first to confine ourselves to a few words, we now expand, compelled to do so by extreme necessity. How is this? And this is how: first of all, John Veccus began to write and speak corrupt things. It is clear that it was necessary to rebuff him. It was impossible to put his hand on his lips and open up full scope for the spread of harm by his silence. For, although old people talk about the safety of silence, one can hardly expect reliable fruit from mere silence. As a result, we rebuffed him, and, with God's help, put an end to this man's lengthy absurd rantings about dogmas. Vecca was replaced by another, and this one, out of ambition, also began to compose books full of words and expressions with which he wanted to express something, but I don't know what exactly. And he also rebelled against us, accusing us of being the first to dare to enter into battle with Veccus, and not to grant him this honor, since he alone (in his opinion) is strong in speech. In consequence of this, he attacked the scroll which we had drawn up against Veccus, according to the thought of the whole church, and began to condemn in it as not good that which he had previously not only extolled to the heavens and praised, but also signed, acknowledging it as a scroll of piety, and moreover without any challenge or compulsion from any side. With the help of God our Saviour, we have fulfilled our duty with regard to Vekkus in other writings, and, among other things, in the scroll just mentioned. In the hope of the same divine intercession, it remains to say a few words against our other adversary: we shall prove that his attacks on the scroll fall rather on the author himself than on the one against whom they are directed. But I want to bring my speech to a proper beginning, in order to give it the right staging and direction. Veccu, who shared the opinions of the Italians and followed them in the doctrine of God, had first of all to prove that neither he nor they had any absurd ideas and did not deviate from the right teaching. The opinions of the Italians, in short, consisted of the following: first, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son; secondly, that He is descended from both, that is, from the Father and from the Son, and thirdly, that both of these Persons constitute the one author of His hypostasis. In all these points, there seems to be no difference between the opinions of Vecca and the opinions and dogmas of the Orthodox Church. Why and in what manner the Italians arrived at these opinions, and who were the founders of this dogma, let them themselves and those who have time to study all that pertains to them know this. As for Veccus, when asked why he voluntarily left his fathers and fled to strangers, and threw himself into such a pit of blasphemy, he answered, as impudently as ignorantly, that he had been carried away by the saints. What are the saints? The Most Wise Maximus the Confessor, the famous John of Damascus and the great adornment of bishops Tarasius. These three [Fathers], whom the Church has as teachers of piety, and whom he himself constantly loved to receive as such, they three, according to him [Note: from here to the end of the paragraph there is an exposition of the ideas of Veccus as if in his name], theologizing that "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son," in a miraculous way by this one of their sayings persuaded him not to defame, In your opinion, the piety of the Italians, but on the contrary, to honor and love, as the piety of the Holy Fathers. I believe that under their guidance, if you had only wished, you would easily have come to the same conviction, banishing all perplexity from your souls. What this guidance consists of is something that anyone who does not want to voluntarily give up the use of his head will easily understand from the following. All of you, of course, adhere to one and the same confession, and, by the way, all of you confess in agreement, and, of course, no one will contradict the fact that the procession (εκπορευσιν) of the Holy Spirit signifies nothing else than the very manner of His origin (υπάρξεως). And since it really signifies the same thing, and you are in perfect agreement with it, see what necessarily follows from it. Since some persons, of whom it cannot be said that they speak incorrectly, say that the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son, and the procession denotes the mode of origin, everyone is justified in concluding that those who say, "The Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son," also accept as a dogma that His very origin is through the Son. And if the origin of the Holy Spirit through the Son is to be admitted, then it is evident that His descent from the Son is also necessary, not only because in some utterances these prepositions (δια and εκ) are sometimes used indifferently, so that one is replaced by the other, but also because by nature there is no obstacle to think of the origin of a perfect person through another who is also perfect, although it is not properly from that person, through which it is considered to be of origin. Thus, he says, guided by these sayings of the Fathers, we admit, and quite rightly so, the Italians to be pious, as well as their dogma, since we are not ashamed of the opinion of the Divine Fathers, who say that the Holy Spirit proceeds — I repeat again for the sake of clarity — has a hypostasis origin from the Son, and has the same Son as His culprit: He has Him as the culprit because He [has] origin from Him; and from Him [has] origin because through Him it is natural (φυσικως), being perfect through the perfect, which is called personal (προσωπικη). And through Him [has] origin, inasmuch as it proceeds through Him, and the proceeding is indisputably [denotes] the mode of origin. And since two causes cannot be admitted for the same [subject] on the same grounds, then, of course, the Father and the Son constitute one author of the Spirit, while the unity of origin is ensured by the indifference of both.

This and many other things of the same kind are said by Weccus, trying to justify himself in his own injustices and to convince others [of his innocence] orally and in writing. But the answer to all this is set forth in the scroll, as stated above, where his unbridled arrogance and enthusiasm are sufficiently knocked down, so that there is no need for us to return to him again - now we will speak exclusively to the swindler of the scroll.

This one says that only a full fool and ignoramus can fail to praise and recognize everything in the scroll as excellent, with the exception of one point, which seems to him not only not blameless and indisputable, but, on the contrary, in need of careful correction. Here is this point: refuting the proposition of Vecca, that from the saying of the saints [the Fathers] that "the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son" it must necessarily follow that, according to their conception, He also has an origin through the Son, you said in your scroll, in order to refute together with this proposition the absurd conclusions that are drawn from it, that this saying signifies the passage (πρόοδον) into the eternal radiance of the Spirit through the Son, and not merely into being, since He is of perfect descent from the Father. In saying this, he continues, you do not mean by the word "procession" (εκπόρευσιν) the mode of origin (υπάρξεως), as everyone has accepted from ancient times to the present time. In view of such an accusation, it seems to me quite opportune to present our rebuke to our accuser, in the form of questions and answers, not for anything else, but solely for the sake of clarity of objections and a better assimilation of arguments. So, let's get down to business.

Do you believe, my beloved, in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? And he was even baptized, he answers, into One God, into this One alone, and into no more; for besides this One Trinity I know no other God. Since you know all this, and well at that, how would you answer the following questions: Do you confess the One God the Father alone to be without beginning, without guilt and unborn? How else can I confess, you answer. Do you also consider the Son and the Holy Spirit to be innocent, or do they come into being from anyone? Of course, from the Father. That is, the Father alone is the culprit, and the beginning, and the root of these Persons? Of course, not someone else, but the Father. Perhaps in the same way as [every] creature? No, not like a creature. And how? And so that He is from His essence, and through this of one and the same nature with Him. And do you consider Them co-eternal with the Father, or is the Father before Them by birth? Yes, co-eternal, for though they are from Him, they are also with Him. And how is the one called and believed as the Spirit, and the other as the Son, and are not both the other, though both are of the same Father? And I say this, and everyone has his own way of being: for the Holy Spirit, as we have been taught, proceeds from the Father, and the Son is born. And one means "to proceed" and the other means "to be born"; the latter we use of the Son, and the former of the Holy Spirit. Let it be so, you confess it well. But please answer me the following. Do you confess that the Son is born of the Father perfect, or will you say that the Only-begotten needs someone else in order to be perfect? I would be more foolish than a fool if I did not confess Him perfect at this very moment. And what about the Holy Spirit? Does His proceeding from the Father seem to you perfect in the same sense as the birth of the Son, or in some other way? Not at all, but completely. And yet, are not the Son and the Holy Spirit equal in honor of the same One? What do you mean by that? And this: Is the Son God? God. The Holy Spirit, God? Just like the Father? Yes, as perfect and from the same essence. So, God, God and God? Quite rightly. So, three Gods? By no means, but One, absolutely One. And how could it be otherwise, when there is one nature, essence, force, action, will, and there is no difference between them in anything. But what of it? Don't you see where all these questions are going? Tell me again, is not the origin of the Holy Spirit from the Father, as well as from the Son? Yes, from the Father, as I said before and now I repeat again, and how else? And what do you say He has from the Son? Certainly not origin, since He is perfect (υφεστάναι) from the Father, just like the Son. And consequently the Father is the one author and the one source of the Godhead, and at the same time the beginning and root of the Son and the Spirit, and all that He has belongs also to the Son, except causality. But let us suppose that He is not of the Son, so perhaps through the Son? No, and not through the Son, for the Spirit is a perfect hypostasis, and the perfect has existence from the Father. And the perfect hypostasis is also the Son, so that if through Him there had been an origin in the Spirit of one essence and one nature, it would obviously have been from Him. And if the Son were the author of the Holy Spirit, then we could not piously glorify the Father, neither as the One Author, nor as the only source of the Godhead, nor the beginning, nor the root, nor attribute to Him anything that could befit Him as the One Author. Thus, obviously, not from Him, but, naturally, therefore, not through Him. For does it not follow from the foregoing that, since the Spirit of the Comforter is not descended from the Son, it is not through the Son? Should. And if this is so, that is, if neither from the Son nor through the Son, since otherwise the way to inappropriate conclusions would be opened, then how can he be accused of contradiction and distortion of the truth who does not want to understand the saying "The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son" in the sense of the origin of the Holy Spirit into being through the Son? The Spirit having its origin from the Father—is it not more likely that he deserves this reproach who, not wishing to hear for himself of the origin of the Spirit through the Son, at the same time finds it possible to reproach the former with inappropriate speeches for having taken the liberty of saying that the said saying does not signify the origin of the Holy Spirit into existence through the Son? One of two things, either admit with danger to yourself that it is possible to confess the origin of the Spirit through the Son, and then you will be plunged into the abyss of blasphemy; or, not allowing Him to be descended from the Son, for fear of incurring even greater danger, you will certainly not confess the first, and in the end you will renounce all your accusations. One necessarily follows from the other. Yes, you speak the perfect truth. Thus I think it is sufficiently clear that the Fathers, who say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, did not mean by this that the Spirit is born through the Son. For they called the Father the only author, and the root, and the source, and the beginning of the Son and the Spirit, and other similar names, which exclude any thought of the origin of the Spirit from the Son and through the Son, but, on the contrary, clearly show that the Father is the author of the Son and the Spirit. Besides the fact that they [the Fathers] said that the Spirit proceeds through the Son, we know this very well, but at the same time no one has heard them say that the origin of the Spirit is through the Son. However, I will not add anything to what I have already said, namely, that the Fathers, in the above and other similar sayings, never thought or thought of assimilating to the Holy Spirit the origin through the Son, since it is clear even to children that otherwise they would contradict themselves and the truth. Moreover, with the obvious clarity of this saying, what else could these expressions mean in the mouths of the speakers? In fact, what would it be? But before answering this question as it should be, it is necessary to consider what interpretation you give to the saying "The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son." You say that the preposition δια (through) in this case must be understood in the sense of the prepositions συν © and μετα © and the adverbs αμα (together) and όμου (together), so that, according to you, the saying "The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son" is identical with the saying that "He proceeds with the Son or together with the Son from the Father." But such an interpretation is as ridiculous as it is impious, and even contains something worse than the blasphemous speeches of Veccus, which, I believe, does not need much explanation. Such an interpretation is ridiculous because such a substitution is so strange and unusual that even schoolchildren and the common people who speak Greek do not know about it. For how do you know that the preposition δια can be replaced by the prepositions συν and μετα, and the like? It is impious because it will follow from your interpretation that the Son, begotten of the Father, at the same time proceeds from the Father together with the Holy Spirit; This will follow, because all these and similar conjunctive and subjunctive particles, which are attached to many subjects, usually agree with the subordinate verbs to them, however many there may be. Thus, for example, if someone is said to be running with so-and-so, we all understand these words in the sense that they are both running, since the particle "s" establishes the connection of the verb with the nouns. Or, for example, if you hear that so-and-so eats with so-and-so, then, of course, the thought would arise in your mind that they both eat, or so-and-so philosophizing with so-and-so, etc., so that when you say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father with the Son, or together with the Son, you do not mean anything else, as the Son Himself proceeds from the Father as precisely as the Spirit. And if so, then, no matter how ignorant you are, you will hardly realize that this leads to a confusion of personal qualities in the Holy Trinity and threatens with the greatest danger. Then, wishing to cure this blasphemy, you rush into another interpretation, and, piling up stupidity upon stupidity, and gathering from the other a string of words that do not have the right of citizenship here, you command us exactly what kind of master of the art of words is on the basis of this exclusively self-appropriated dignity. "I say that the saying: the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son is used instead of: the Holy Spirit with the Son, or together with the Son, receives existence (υφεστάναι δέχεσφαι) and has its origin from the Father. And that the Holy Spirit comes into existence and proceeds from the Father together with the Son, this has not yet been denied even by persons who have become known for their impiety, since this is perfectly true." Yes, this is indeed a perfect truth, but it is a truth in itself, and not at all as a deduction from the premises, or a result obtained from your propositions and interpretations, so that, although your last words are not only true, but wholly true, they do not follow from anywhere, and deviate too far from the premises.

I know that you will argue against this, and in no way will you allow yourself to be convinced by these words; But see where your wonderful passion for argument leads you. In your opinion, the saying, "The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son," means nothing else than that the Holy Spirit, together with or together with the Son, proceeds from the Father, for, as you say, the preposition δια in this case has the force of the prepositions συν and μετα, and the adverb αμα. Why, however, do you struggle to turn the preposition δια into the above-mentioned prepositions and adverbs? Let it be according to you, let it have the power of those particles as you want. Now try to put in combination with this preposition, understood in the sense you desire, what you put in a certain combination with those particles, and you will at once understand and hate your ignorance and senselessness. You will immediately be forced to confess what you, according to your own consciousness, which you have recently declared, avoided as blasphemy.

That is the state of your affairs.

Now look at ours. In the first place, I declare to one and all, that if no one had ever uttered a single word as to the meaning of the Fathers of the Church using the saying of which we are speaking, it would have sufficed to prove the falsity of the foundation on which he had built his conclusion in order to denounce Veccu. To say that the Holy Spirit proceeds (εκπορευεσθαι) through the Son does not at all mean the same as to say: the Holy Spirit has an origin (υπαρξιν εχειν) through the Son. Meanwhile, on this very proposition, which he took as the basis of his reasoning, Veccus built a high tower of his blasphemy. It is clear that with the elimination of this identity, the most serious of his propositions, the basis of his syllogisms, is removed, and at the same time all those irrelevant conclusions which he draws are eliminated. There is no great need to investigate the meaning of this saying. And without this, it is possible to achieve the pious goal we have set for ourselves – the destruction of the strongholds erected by Veccus. And in case you wish to engage in such studies later, I will say that explanations of the incomprehensible passages found in the writers of earlier times, who had acquired a great name for themselves in theology, should be sought from the saints of the preceding time; That is, the expressions used by the holy writers of later times must be interpreted according to the thoughts of the most ancient Fathers.

And they, enlightened by the Spirit, said that the Holy Spirit is through the Son, but it did not occur to any of them to say that He proceeds through the Son (εκπορευεσθαι), but [all said] that He shines through the Son, appears, reveals (πεφηνεναι), is sent (προιεναι), is known, and the like, which indicates simply a revelation or shine through the Son, but by no means an origin which the Holy Spirit has solely from the Father, how everyone confesses it. You want proof of this. I am ready to present them to you at once. Here is what the glorious and great Basil literally says in the fourth word of his Αντιρρητικων: "That the Spirit is from God, the Apostle clearly declared, saying: "As the Spirit which is from God, I have received" (1 Corinthians 2:12). And that He is sent through the Son, and this He revealed, calling Him 'the Son' (Galatians 4:6)." Likewise, in a letter to his brother Gregory, discussing the difference between essence and hypostasis, he writes thus: "The Son, knowing through Himself and together with Himself, the Spirit proceeding from the Father, is one, having shone forth from the unborn light, having shone no communion, according to the difference of signs, either with the Father or with the Holy Spirit, but alone is known by the aforesaid signs." And in his canonical epistles you will find the following words in him: "The Holy Spirit is not before the Only-begotten, for there is nothing mediating (ουδεν μέσον) between the Son and the Father. If it is not from God, but through Christ, then it is not at all." His brother also speaks in agreement with Basil, and what he says is distinguished by special clarity in comparison with other similar sayings. Here are his words: "Confessing the indifference of nature, we do not deny the difference in guilt and guilt; In this one thing to distinguish one from the other, we have accepted that we believe in the one as the culprit, and in the other as the culprit and the cause. And again, we think of another difference: one directly from the first, and the other through the one who is directly from the first."

In the same way, in a letter to Aulavius, in the twenty-second chapter of his books against Eunomius, also in the twenty-sixth and thirty-sixth chapters of the same books, he says the following: "The Holy Spirit, who is numbered with the Son by uncreatedness, and in [the relation] that it has the cause of its origin from the God of all things, is departed by the peculiarity that, on the one hand, it does not proceed only begotten from the Father, and on the other, through Him (the Only-begotten) appears." And again: "The Father is thought of as the beginningless, unbegotten, and ever-born Father. And from Him directly, without interval, the Only-begotten Son is conformed to the Father. And through Him and with Him, the Holy Spirit is immediately implied in connection, before He has time to appear in the interval between Them any empty and empty idea, not following the Son in existence, so that the Only-begotten is ever thought of without the Spirit, but as having the cause of existence from the God of all, whence also the Only-begotten is light, and through the true light has shone, neither by distance nor difference of nature is he separated from the Father and from the Only-begotten." Again: "From the unborn sun we again think of another sun, together with the thought of the first (αμα τη προτω επινόια) shining to Him through birth and resembling Him in everything, in beauty, power, brilliance, majesty — in a word, everything contemplated in relation to the sun." And again: "another light of the same kind, in the same way, not separated from the born light by any temporal distance, but shining through it, having the guilt of the hypostasis from the primordial Light." This is what these fathers say.

And here is what St. Gregory the Wonderworker and Athanasius say with him. The first of them, expounding the confession of faith revealed to him from above, says, among other things: "And there is one Holy Spirit, having origin from God and appearing through the Son, that is, to men." And in another place: "[I believe] also in the perfect Holy Spirit, from God through the Son given to those who are adopted." In another place: "The Father is not begotten, the Son is begotten of the Father, and the Spirit from the essence of the Son is eternally sent." St. Athanasius, on the one hand, in his denunciation of the hypocrisy of the adherents of Meletius and [Paul] of Samosata, and on the other hand, in a letter to Serapion, writes in the first: "It would be impossible for the Spirit to participate in the glory of the Trinity, if He did not proceed from God through the Son (μη προοδικως ον εκ Θεου δι Υιου)", in the second: "The Spirit, given and sent from the Father, is Himself one, and not many, and not of many, one, but only the Spirit; for since there is one Son, the living Word, there must be one full and perfect, sanctifying and enlightening life, representing His action and gift, of which it is said that it proceeds from the Father, inasmuch as from the Word, which is from the Father, it undoubtedly shines, is sent, and is given." And whoever counts the sayings of St. Confirming all this? This, by the way, is what he says in his work to Hermias: "Moreover, you also call the Holy Spirit, which is poured out naturally from God the Father through the Son (φυσικως)." And again he says, asking: "To whom do you consider the Holy Spirit to be your own? Is it to God alone to the Father, or also to His Son? Or in part to each and both, as one from the Father through the Son, according to the identity of essence (δια την ταυτοτητα της ουσιας)." He is also in the commentary on the Evangelist John: "Though the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (πρόεισι), yet through the Son He comes (ερχεται), and is His own (ιδιον εστι αυτου)." In the same interpretations: "We firmly believe that the Holy Spirit is not alien to the Son, but is of one essence with Him, and through Him proceeds (προιον) from the Father."

But it would be long to cite here all the further testimonies of this Father of the Church, as well as of all the other testimonies in which the teaching is set forth that the Spirit does not proceed through the Son, but does not proceed (εκπορευεσθαι) — no one speaks of this — but takes place (υπαρχειν), and the like. And those who dared to say that He also proceeds through the Son, in the simplicity of their souls, seem to have dared to say this, and by virtue of their agreement in all things with the teachers [of the Church] who preceded them. For this reason, they do not expect the interpreters of these words from any other side, but they will serve themselves for this purpose, since with the change of what was transmitted they did not change their thoughts, but only expounded in a different way the sound understanding of the father. This is clearly seen in their scriptures. Thus, for example, the wise Maximus says in his chapters: "There is one God, the one Son, the parent and Father, and the source of the Holy Spirit, the unmerged Unity, and the indivisible Trinity: the Mind without beginning, the one one, essentially (ουσιωδως) of the beginningless Word, the parent, and of the one eternal life, the Holy Spirit, the source." And in his commentaries on the great Dionysius the Areopagite, speaking of Dionysius that he now extends his theology even to the passage (προοδου) of the three Hypostases, he says the following about the incorruptible Trinity: "God the Father, moved in time and lovingly, flowed into the distinction of the Hypostases, remaining undivided and unchangeably in the entirety of His own reflection that occurred into being, προσκυνητως και υπεραενναως as a living image, as well as the all-holy Spirit, proceeding from the Father, as the Lord secretly leads. Filled with goodness in the triune principle of God is the Cause of all things and the Source." And in the commentaries on the Lord's Prayer "Our Father" he expresses himself in the following way: "The Son and the Holy Spirit essentially exist together with the Father, from Whom and in Whom They are naturally above cause and reason." Thus says St. Maxim. And in the divine John of Damascus one can find even more, and moreover, much clearer sayings than in Blessed Maximus. "The Holy Spirit," he says, "is also from the Father, but not in the manner of birth, but in the manner of procession." This he says in the chapter περι της διακεκριμένης και ηνομένης θεολογιας, and in the same chapter, a few lines later, he says the following: "As the birth of the Son is from the Father, so is the procession of the Holy Spirit, and all that the Son and the Spirit have, they have from the Father, and existence itself." And again a few lines later: "We do not call the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit three gods, but rather the Holy Trinity [call] One God, since the Son and the Holy Spirit are elevated to one guilt (εις εν αιτιον αναφερομένων), but they are not mixed and merged." And again a few lines later: "It is fitting to know that we do not say that the Father is from anyone, but say that He is the Father of the Son, but we do not say that the Son is either the Father or the Beginningless, but we say that He is both from the Father and the Son of the Father. As for the Holy Spirit, we say that He is from the Father and call [Him] the Father's Spirit, but that the Spirit was from the Son, we do not say this, although we call it the Son Spirit, for the Apostle says: "If any man do not have the Spirit of Christ..." We also confess that He appears and is given to us through the Son. For it is said: "I breathe and said" to the disciples: "Receive the Holy Spirit." As from the sun is both a ray and a radiance, for it is the source of both the ray and the radiance, through the ray radiance is given to us; it sanctifies us and is received (μετεχομένη) by us. But we do not call the Son the Son of the Spirit, [nor do we say] that He is also of the Spirit."