A reliable witness to what has been said is St. John Chrysostom, who in the 15th homily of his moral teachings, properly concerning the Holy Spirit, says the following: "The Holy Spirit is by nature undivided, as proceeding from an inseparable nature; And his names are the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth, the Spirit of God, the Spirit of the Lord, the Spirit of the Father, the Spirit of the Son, the Spirit of Christ, the Spirit of God, the Spirit of life. All these are names of the pure power of the Holy and worshipped Spirit. There are other names that do not refer to nature, but to His action and power, such as His gifts, such as: the Spirit of holiness, faith, promise, wisdom, love, power, meekness, sonship, revelation, counsel, strength, understanding and godliness, the fear of God." Then he says: "This is told to us about the divine lordship of the Holy Spirit, about the difference of actions. But the heretics, not understanding that when the promises of gifts are spoken of the Holy Spirit, they refer this to nature, saying: Do you see that this is a gift of God, that God has given and the Holy Spirit has given? And they honoured the name of the gifts, and ascribed it to nature. They should know which names show nature, and which denote the grace of the Spirit." And again a little later: "One is the Holy Spirit, and another is a gift, as another is a king, and another is the gift of a king." Then, dividing the sayings about the Holy Spirit, he quotes, saying: "If you hear him say, 'I will send you the Holy Spirit,' do not attribute it to the Divinity, for God is not sent; these are names denoting actions." And again, further: "When He says, I will send you the Holy Spirit, then understand the gift of the Spirit, for the gift is sent, but the Spirit is not sent. The Saviour says to the Apostles: "Sit ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye shall be clothed with power from on high" (Luke 24:49), which hath come upon you by the Holy Spirit (Two 1:8). One is the power that is given, and the other is the Spirit that gives." Then, having shown that the Lord was sent from the Father and the Spirit, he concludes by saying: "The Creator of heaven says, The Lord sent Me and His Spirit. Heretics, on the other hand, take the message of the Spirit for annoyance. The Father sent, without departing, the Son sent the Spirit, without dividing or separating. Therefore, the Scriptures say: God poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit. The Divinity is not poured out, but this shows that it is a gift, since what is poured out is not the Holy Spirit, but the grace of the Spirit of God. David says to Christ: "Grace is poured out in Thy mouth" (Psalm 44:3): grace is poured out, and not He who gives grace."

These words of Blessed Chrysostom, most honorable Theodore, are sufficient to drive away every Latin error, and to teach that the Holy Spirit, as consubstantial with the Father and the Son, is not received or poured out by the Son, but His grace, that is, the division of gifts, is both received and sent, and divinely poured out on the worthy. Thus, the Son is the giver of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and not the author of His existence and the emitter of His hypostasis; for the one source of the Godhead is His Father, according to the teaching of the holy Dionysius. The Latins, deceived by the similarity of the name of the gifts, attributed their names to the very hypostasis of the Spirit, acting in this way either with a treacherous purpose, in order to prove their teaching, or not understanding the difference between nature and gifts.

But let the great in the divine Gregory, who has the title of Theologian befitting his dignity, come out on Wednesday, and let him teach us the immutability of immovable nature, that is, hypostases. In one of his theological words, he clearly says the following: "A particularity is something unchangeable, otherwise how can it remain a particularity if it is changed and transformed. The procession of the Spirit does not pass from Father to Son in the sense of the cause of being; if this is common to both, and does not pass through, then even then it cannot be a peculiarity; for that which is general is not particular." What can be clearer or truer than this theology? He says that the procession of the Spirit does not pass from the Father to the Son, so as to be the author of existence, and if the procession of the Spirit is common to both, that is, to the Father and the Son, then this will no longer be a peculiarity. And how will the divinely inspired teaching of the holy theologians about the God-originating hypostases remain true, when Nicholas and his like-minded people very badly and ignorantly unite the unborn and the begotten into one principle? Will they not prove to be following Sabellius, as mixing unmixed peculiarities, attributing them together to the Father and the Son? This is not how one should reason, Nicholas, about the Most High Trinity, not so! You should be ashamed of the dignity of the ancient theologians and fathers, and learn from them the right and infallible path, since their authenticity is testified not only by time and their extreme wisdom, but also by their angelic life and, moreover, by the grace of the Divine Comforter that dwelt in them, which glorified them with innumerable gifts.

But let no one, because of what has been said, think that we understand that the Holy Spirit did not essentially descend upon the holy apostles, or that He was sent from the Son. May we not have such blasphemy! But, wishing to expose the false teaching of those who, by the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the holy disciples in their time, endeavor to prove that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son as well as from the Father, that is, in hypostasis it proceeds in essence and divinity, we say that the tongues (fiery) that appeared at that time did not signify the division of essence, but served as a testimony of various gifts, who are sovereignly shared by the Comforter, and that grace is not poured out by the essence of the Son; for the essence is one of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and by nature it is inseparable and unpoured out. About this again we must ask Nicholas: if it is inseparable, then how does the Son accept that which has in Himself unifying, as was said before? If all the God-originating hypostases are essentially united to one another, then whence is the other position, and how is that which is given received and separated while it is in the hands of the one who has received? What can be more impious than to speak and think in this way, and will not the Arian fury raise its head again, and upset everything? How can it not be utterly foolish to say that the Saviour then received from the Father the essence of the Paraclete and poured it out upon the Apostles, whereas He has in Himself inseparably, as being co-existent with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as we have said many times, that which is said to have received it? How then is it to be understood that the Saviour received, poured out, as Blessed Peter said in Acts? What has been said should be understood piously, most dear Theodore, and not crudely, in a carnal way. The Holy Trinity, indivisible in essence, is divided mysteriously and mentally by hypostatic properties, that is, by unbirth, birth and procession. But just as it is mysteriously divided by hypostases, so it is again united by its essence. The Father was pleased that through the Son the Divine Paraclete should appear to the disciples and fill them with powers and wisdom, as the Saviour had repeatedly promised them, speaking in human form, that they would receive divine instruction, that (the Spirit) would be sent and poured out, and so on. For God, in the words of St. Chrysostom, is not sent or poured out. Where will He go, Who is everywhere with the Father and the Son, and how will He be poured out, Who does not pour out all things and sanctifies them? Let us not think of the Holy Spirit, that He, too, like Gabriel and other ministering spirits, is sent to serve servilely. Away from us such a wicked fabrication! But let us understand that the favor of the Father and the Son is (for the Spirit) a divine message; for He appears and comes autonomously, making blessed and sharing His most honorable gifts with His disciples, and acts in them all according to His Lord's authority, as equal in all things to the Father and the only-begotten Son, and does not receive a command and is not sent as a slave or a lesser one.

Divine Scripture is often expressed in a bodily manner and inconsistent with the greatness of the Godhead, condescending to our weakness, and if we do not understand this properly, we can fall into innumerable inconsistencies. Such is the saying of the Saviour: I will beseech the Father, by which should be understood the expression of His strongest love for us and providence. For if anyone takes this expression literally, as it is read in the Gospel, he will find in it innumerable inappropriate concepts: first, it will turn out that the Father did not want to send the Holy Spirit before, and to speak so dishonestly and contradict Paul and John. For Paul says of the Father: "Who shall not spare His Son" (Rom. 8:32), and so on; And John: "Thus shall God love the world, for He hath also given His only begotten Son to eat for the salvation of the world" (John 3:16). Secondly, there will be such a conception of the Son that He has no power to give the Holy Spirit, which is as impious to think as that the Father and the Son do not have the same will. If He has need of prayer, then it is obvious that either He is not able to fulfill His intention by Himself, and therefore He asks the one who can; or he cannot do it at all by His own power, and therefore turns to him who has the power to do good. For which of these two reasons do we recognize the Only-begotten as praying to the Father for the Comforter to be sent down? Let him who knows speak, for the love of truth, and not for the sake of vain disputes. Let us understand what a fatal abyss opens up for those who do not attentively interpret the utterances of the Divine Scriptures, not according to the reason of the Holy Fathers. Just as by prayer we understand the Saviour's ineffable love for us, so by His acceptance of the Father's promise, by the outpouring or giving and the message, we piously understand that the coming to the disciples of the Comforter was accomplished by the common favor of the Father and the Son.

I consider what has been said sufficient to refute the first two chapters of Nicholas; Now I will deal with the rest of its chapters. But I wonder how Nicholas, recognizing and calling himself Orthodox in all things, was not frightened by the ineffable, incomprehensible, and eternal procession of the One from the uncreated and incomprehensible Trinity—the Most Holy Spirit, Who gives life to all things, to cite a statement which gives to His procession the meaning of creation and creation, and ranks Him (procession) among other creatures, that even to think, let alone speak and commit to Scripture, is the great impiety and offspring of the heresy of Macedon. Trying to prove that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, and finding no proof of this in the Scriptures, he interprets what is said in the Scriptures about something completely different, that is, about certain divine dispensations and creatures, insidiously and perversely, to the deception of ordinary people. He says that the Son can do nothing about Himself, except He sees the Father doing: for what He does, the Son also does (John 5:19). But, he says, the Father creates the procession of the Spirit: therefore also the Son creates; for the Father created all things by the Son, and without Him He creates nothing. Take careful notice, most honest Theodore, of this Macedonian blasphemy, and hate it, and understand that Nicholas clearly acknowledges the procession of the Spirit as created. He says that whatever the Father does, He creates by the Son; for all things, he says, were by Him; consequently the procession of the Spirit is created by Him; but if He does not do it by Him, then it is not all of Him. In this way, the Gospel of John will be false, and the Son will not be equal to the Father in all things. Oh, what an incongruity, not to say blasphemy! Oh, what unspeakable long-suffering is Thy good Comforter! Why, Nicholas, do you pervert the reason of the Gospel? Why do you not confess the truth, and deceive yourself and others with deceptive inventions, and did you not fear to attribute the word "do" spoken by the Gospel about creatures to the uncreated Divinity? Do you not hear that the Holy Scriptures everywhere use this word in relation to creation, and sometimes says: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth; and sometimes: "Thou hast forsaken the God who created thee"; but sometimes: "Make Thy angels spirits" (Psalm 103:4), and again: "Thy hands have created me, and have created me" (Psalm 118:73); and again: "Thou hast created all things in wisdom" (Psalm 103:24), and many other similar things are contained in the Holy Scriptures. If the procession of the Comforter is created by the Son, how do you misinterpret that if the Son does not create, then it does not mean that all of it was, then, according to you, is not the Paraclete recognized as a creature, and is it not numbered among other creatures? You cannot say that the Comforter is different, and His procession is different, even though you, because of a great error, think so. Thus, if the Comforter is created by the Son, then it means that God is not the One Who by nature is co-existent with the Father and the Son, but a certain power created, differing in no way, or very little, from the angelic powers. But let this blasphemy be directed against those who, according to Macedonia, reduce the uncreated nature of the Comforter to the category of creatures. And these, obviously, blaspheme like him. For Macedonius, wishing to prove that the Spirit was created, changed the reading of the words of the Gospel of John, and after the words: "Nothing was," he put a full stop, and then began reading: "If it was, in that life will be." By this he, the wretched one, wanted to show that the Spirit was also created. In the same way, the Latins, wishing to show that the procession of the Spirit was created, assert that it, together with other creatures, was created by the Son. It is written, they say, that all was there, and without Him there was nothing. What can be more wicked or abominable than this? If the Spirit was created by the Son, like everything else, then the Comforter, as created and subject to time, will fully be one of the other creatures, and not God. In addition, he says: since the Apostle calls Him the Spirit of the Son, — if he says that he who does not have the Spirit of Christ, this is none of Him (Rom. 8:9), it means that he proceeds from Him; if He had not been His procession, He would not have said, "His." To this he is answered by His Holiness Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, who, together with His Beatitude Pope John and the other Patriarchs, at an ecumenical council convened in Byzantium for the confirmation of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, gave over to eternal damnation every other heresy, together with the Latin infirmity. He says, "Where does Paul say that the Spirit proceeds from the Son? That he is filial, as not alien to Him, he also says, and the Church of God confesses and knows this. And what comes from the Son did not proceed from his God-speaking lips, and no pious teacher betrayed it. Paul says, "The Spirit of the Son." Why then do you not speak in the same way, but are deceitful, and bring down that which is in the mountain, and turn down the word of the preacher? He says: "The Spirit of His Son," and by this He teaches the indivisibility of nature, but does not in the least indicate the cause of the procession. He knows the union in essence, but that the Son, as one natural with the Father, produced in the hypostasis of the Spirit, he does not say this anywhere, and does not recognize him as the culprit. Is not the Father of the Son theologized by all? Is it for this reason that you will restore His birth to Him? And that the Father is called the Father of the Son, this is not because He was born of Him, but because He is of one essence with Him. And if you want to say that because you were born, then will it not turn out that the Spirit of the Son is the same expression, instead of acknowledging (the Son) as the author and the originator, He is brought down and carried away by you into the position of being tormented and dependent on another cause? The Church thelogizes both the Son, that He is the Son of the Father, and of the Father, that He is the Father of the Son, since They are of one essence, but not because the Son is theologized as begotten of the Father, for the Father is also called the Father of the Son, and vice versa. In the same way, when we theologize the Spirit, calling Him the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of the Son, then by these expressions we manifest the complete consubstantiality of the two. We know that the Spirit is of one essence with the Father, for He proceeds from Him; but that He is of one essence with the Son because He proceeds from Him, we do not admit, for the Son is of one essence with Him, not because He is born of Him, but because both are of one indivisible Guilt before the ages, each according to His order, proceed together."

Indeed, a parable happened to them, that while fleeing from the smoke, they fell into the flames. Avoiding the duality, they introduce a Sabellian confusion, in order only to prove, as they say, that the Son is equal to the Father in all things, not understanding, most wise, that the fact that they are trying to prove about the Son, on the other hand, serves to diminish the Holy Spirit. They say that if we do not confess the Son to give up the Spirit in the same way as the Father, then we will not recognize Him as equal to the Father; for He Himself says: Everything that the Father has is My essence, including that I give up the Spirit. Consequently, the Spirit also proceeds from Him. In this regard, it would be fair to ask Nicholas: Do you also recognize the Holy Spirit in all things as equal to the Father, and do you consider Him in all things equal to Him, and a participant in all that the Father has, on an equal footing with the Son, or not? But I know well that he fully admits it. that He has all these things: as theology says the Father, so is the Son, so is the Holy Spirit. What, then, do you say, is the Holy Spirit recognized as active as the Father? If so, then he must be recognized as begat the Son, that he might be equal in all things to the Father. And if he admits this, will he not introduce two Fathers for the Son? If this is not permitted, then in your opinion the Spirit will be in many ways less than the Father, as having not that which belongs to the Father. But this is obviously inappropriate and alien to the truth. And consequently it is even more inappropriate that what was said somewhere by the Son to the Father: "All My essence is Yours, and Yours is Mine," should be attributed to attributes. The most special attribute of the Son is to beget, and the attribute of the Father is not to beget. What then (according to the words quoted), shall we reverse these attributes, and acknowledge the Father to be begotten, and shall we acknowledge the Son both begotten and unbegotten, and the Father not only unbegotten and begetting, but also begotten? This is what your wisdom introduces, saying: "Everything that the Father has belongs also to the Son, and just as it is characteristic of the Father to send forth the Spirit, so it is characteristic of the Son, and you do not dare to say that this attribute is not common to Them, for the Saviour Himself said: All that is Mine is Yours, and Yours is Mine; this is how clear it is that this attribute is common to Them.

Such is Nicholas's artistic teaching, the kindest Theodore! It is truly like a spider's web and children's games, before which it is very good and very useful to plug one's ears, and to adhere to the words of Gregory the Theologian, spoken by him in answer to the Macedonians, who asked him about the origin of the Son and the Spirit, what could be the way of the origin of both, and how they, proceeding like from the Lord, are of one essence. "Say," he said to them, "how the Father is unbegotten, and then I will prove the birth of the Son and the procession of the Spirit. You have gone mad, striving to penetrate into the mysteries of God, you who do not know for sure what is under your feet." And again: "Give me," he says, "another God and another nature of God, and I will present to you the same Trinity with the same names and appurtenances. And since God is one, and the highest nature is one, where can I get your likeness? Are you looking for it in the lower and in what is around you? But this is very shameful, and not only shameful, but also very insane, to take from the lower an assimilation to the higher, and to investigate the nature of the incomprehensible, such as God, and to search for the living in the dead, that is, to seek that which belongs to the light in darkness."

If Nicholas had seen this and wished to hear it devoutly, the kindest Theodore, he would not have boldly and by means of geometrical formulas to test the incomprehensible, and the apostolic saying: "For His invisible essence from the creation of the world is thought of by the creatures" (Romans 1:20)—he would not have understood it very indecently, as if the Apostle commands us to test the incomprehensible nature by such formulas. And how then does Paul, who has said this, in his Epistle to the Romans denounce the wickedness of the Greeks, that they have deceitfully ascribed the glory of the invisible God to stones and trees and to innumerable animals, and, wishing to show that they have not understood the greatness of God, although God has shown it to them, he says thus: The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who hold the truth in unrighteousness. For the understanding of God is manifest in them: for God hath manifested unto them: for His invisible essence from the creation of the world is thought of by creatures, and His eternal power and divinity (Rom. 1:18-20), and so on. This saying is explained by the divine Chrysostom as follows: "Having said above that the Greeks rejected the mind of God, he now confirms this, saying that the Creator is preached by the well-being of creatures, just as David says: The heavens shall declare the glory of God, but the firmament declares His hand to creation (Ps. 18, 2). Know then that the things of God are incomprehensible as His essence, and the other is understood as everything that surrounds His being, that is, goodness, wisdom, power, divinity, majesty, and the like, His invisible being. Of this Paul says that this can be understood only through the consideration of creatures. And so, to the Greeks He revealed about Himself that which can be understood, that is, that which is around His being, and which is invisible to the eyes of the senses, but comprehensible to the mind from the well-being of creatures." Thus says the divine Chrysostom.

How is Nicholas not ashamed to slander Blessed Paul, as if he advises us by means of geometrical formulas to investigate and search for the ineffable and incomprehensible divine greatness? Where can we find anything like this in his God-speaking words? On the contrary, if you search carefully, you will find that he forbids it. Where? In the same epistle. Contemplating with his mind the divine providences from the beginning of the world, and finding their variety incomprehensible, he exclaimed: O depth of the riches and wisdom and understanding of God! for His judgments have not been tried, and His ways have not been searched (Romans 11:33). He recognizes the destinies of God and His ways as untried and unexplored: will the divine nature allow you, Nicholas, to investigate by earth-measuring forms? How was it that you were not afraid to slander the preacher of the truth so boldly? Which of the divine men from the beginning of the world has studied the Divinity by means of written outlines, and understood, and taught to his successors? Of Abraham and Moses, these divine men, we know that through the contemplation of goodness and the well-being of the visible, they came to know the Creator, believed in Him, and were vouchsafed great blessings and gifts from Him, and Abraham became a patriarch and a model of faith and love for the truly existing God; Moses, on the other hand, is appointed by God as the leader and teacher and lawgiver of the Jewish people, as having come to know the truly existent God and Creator of all things, Who appeared in a new miraculous way in the bush, and not by earth-measuring figures, rectangular and non-rectangular, and by other similar strange inventions introduced by Nicholas, alien to the pious and Orthodox faith, and peculiar to the spiritual and creeping reason and earthly research. And what is higher and beheld above us came to us from whence did it come to us?—By grace, from the Father of lights, as St. Dionysius says. Therefore, it is proper to investigate and explain this not as an intemperate mind desires, but as established by the prophets and apostles taught the mysteries by the divine grace of God, and then by the divinely inspired fathers and teachers.

Teach us to be careful only not to destroy (the well-known teaching) with deceitful words. It is not important to be defeated by words; but to alienate oneself from God is evil, for He is the hope of all. But let (someone) test the meaning of the scripture in relation to the indescribable nature as he wishes. Let us truly see what will come of it, and find that they are beheaded by their own swords, like Goliath David, that is, by the mighty word of truth. Look carefully with your mind, and you will understand that you have lied unrighteously to yourself (Psalm 26:12), according to the divine David.

Nicholas chose the form of a regular triangle, as more appropriate than other outlines to explain the equality of the hypostases of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as having three equilateral angles. And above he places the Father, and below at both corners the Son and the Spirit. Thus, having depicted the three hypostases with three corners and circling their circles, he wants to depict the beginninglessness and infinity of the divine nature, since the circle, according to him, has neither beginning nor end. And he likens the Holy Spirit to the compass, saying that just as the compass, having established itself at a certain point and being turned in a circle, makes a circle, so the Spirit, having departed from the Father, reaches the Son, and if it abides here and does not return to the hypostasis of the Father, then the Trinity will remain imperfect. In this lies all the wisdom of the wondrous Nicholas, which at first seems praiseworthy, since this image well represents the beginninglessness and infinity of God, but a little later, he himself, and no one else, humiliated it, showing that it should, in justice, be recognized as a child's game. Who does not justly admit that it is a child's game, and not a philosophical exercise, to assert that the circle depicted by a human hand and compass, beginning from a point and time, precisely and decently denotes the beginninglessness and incomprehensibility of the Godhead? Who among those who reason will not laugh and say to the inventor of this: "Human! If you have finally decided not to obey the truth and those divine men and faithful servants of God who taught it before you and us, but are more willing to adhere to earth-measuring figures and false teaching, then why do you not learn the truth from these very beloved figures, but also in relation to them you are lawless and need to distort the meaning of the triangle? This triangle and the right-angled form, according to the philosophy of Pythagoras, have the same meaning as the ternary number. They designate the Trinity by numbers, and figuratively by a right-angled triangle they denote the composition of the being of everything, since the right-angled form has the same meaning as the ternary number, as those who experience in this say. The beginning of this number is unity, which therefore has received the upper corner of the triangle. Why do you distort the meaning of your triangle, and turn its lower corners upwards and the upper corners downwards? If God the Father is the fault, the beginning and source of the Godhead for Those Who are from Him, as the divine Dionysius and all the holy teachers and preachers in general say, and the Divinity is believed and glorified by all the pious as one, which is also triune, one in nature, and triune in hypostases, just as the equilateral triangle shows the perfect equality of the God-giving hypostases, equal to each other in everything. Equality we must understand very decently in everything according to nature, except for unbirth, birth, and procession. In these properties alone, the Trinity is inseparably divided, and by them the life-giving hypostases are cognized separately. What need is there to confess that the Spirit, having once departed from the Father, comes to the Son, and moreover again proceeds from the Son and returns to the Father? Is it only so that the Father would not be forsaken from the Spirit? But let us not have such philosophizing about the indivisible Being! Although this blessed and incomprehensible nature is seen to be divided ineffably and above all comprehension by hypostases, it remains in itself essentially inseparably. And how this happens, and why it is so theologianized, is known only to Him, and no created mind can contain it until the knowledge "of the part" ceases and the perfect comes.