In addition, we know that in numbers, one gives birth to two, while two gives birth to four, not one. By what sense do you say that two serve as producers of one? How then will the equality of all three God-originating hypostases endure, if the Spirit proceeds from origins greater than the Son? Both in essence and in the fact that the Most Blessed Trinity is equal in the vicinity of the being, so in the sequence of the God-originating hypostases they are equal, and only in one way is each hypostasis composed: the Father by not being born of anyone, the Son by being born of the Father, the Spirit by proceeding also from the Father; but if also from the Son, as you say, where

For he (Arius), grossly deceived by the meaning of birth, said that if he was born, it means that he was not born before his birth, and if he were not before his birth, he is therefore not eternal. He did not understand that in the case of God the birth is understood to be without beginning, eternal and indivisible, just as the procession of the Spirit is ineffable and not transitory, in which you, having stumbled, came up with the idea that if it proceeds from the Father, then it comes to the Son, and from there again to the Father, and thus, moving in a circle, completes the Holy Trinity, Which you were not afraid to liken to a circle. And there will be, in your opinion, first, the distance between the divine hypostases that are apart; for to move towards this, and then from that to pass on to the first, gives an idea of the distance in place, although you do not want to confess this folly, being ashamed of your teaching. Secondly, it turns out no less than that the Spirit, having separated from the Father, makes a great movement towards the Son, and therefore the Father remains without the Spirit during this time. Thirdly, it turns out that the Son is not essentially and inseparably united with the Father, since it is necessary to pass to Him. Oh, what a delusion these inappropriate fabrications represent!

This is not how you should have understood and reasoned about the highest glory, the kindest Nicholas! But it would be necessary, having understood only one difference between the incomprehensible and inscrutable divine majesty and our weakness, which we crawl on the earth like ants and food like a mosquito, to seek our salvation with all diligence, and to accept the divine in silence, and to keep it intact, as we received from the divine apostles and our divinely inspired fathers, experiencing nothing more, what they have taught us, as our holy father Basil, who is called the Great by the loftiness of his teaching and infallible theology, commands us, saying: "We beseech you in every way not to seek from us what you want to hear, but to accept that which is pleasing to the Lord and in accordance with the Holy Fathers." Do you hear the divine teacher who says that we should not experience what we please? Would it be pleasing to the Lord, and in accordance with the Scriptures, to philosophize contrary to the teaching of the Lord, who theologizes in the Gospel of John, that the Spirit proceeds from the Father? And is not your teaching, which you invented yesterday and recently and added to the sacred confession of faith, contrary to the Holy Fathers? But it is also good to listen to how again (St. Basil the Great) teaches us to reason about the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit: "What you have said about the Son, that one should confess His special Person, the same must be said about the Holy Spirit, for the Father and the Spirit are not one and the same, although it is written that God is the Spirit, nor is the Son and the Spirit one and the same Person, although it is said: "If any man have the Spirit of Christ, he is none of Him" (Rom. 8:9). By this some were deceived and thought that the Spirit and Christ were one and the same. But we assert that this proves the commonality of natures, and not the confusion of persons." Do you hear how this blessed one understands that by words, if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to him, it is signified and confessed that the Spirit has a personal attribute and that He is of the same nature with the Only-begotten, and not, as you say, philosophizing the opposite, that He proceeds from Him? Hear also his theology: "The Father is perfect in Himself, and He is the inexhaustible root and source of the Son and the Holy Spirit." Here again he recognizes only the Father as the root and source of Those Who are from Him. If he had known that the Son is also the source of the Godhead, he would have mentioned Him together with the Father, but he did not learn this from Christ and His disciples. Hear also about the Son: "In the fullness of the Godhead is the living Word, and the perfect offspring of the Father, so also the Spirit is perfect, not a part of another, but Himself is seen as perfect and whole." This is how he honestly theologizes the Spirit, who proceeds from the Father perfect and complete, contemplated not as a part of another, but in all things equal to the Son. By the expression, "not a part of another," what else does he mean to say but that which has a hypostasis of no other than that which is of the Father, perfect as the Son, and which does not require generation from another guilt, since he who gives Him forth is perfect and inexhaustible, but is also united, says the Son to the Father, such is the union that admits of no distance and separation and of the Spirit, not cut off from the connection with the eternal. This blessed man recognizes the union of the life-giving hypostases without separation. But when you assert that the Spirit circumambulates the circle from the Father to the Son, and from Him again to the Father, do you not clearly make it clear that there is a distance between the hypostases, either in place or in time?

It would be necessary, as I said before, to follow the Fathers and not to invent anything more established, and not to select the sayings of Scripture in such a way as to attribute what is said about others with a stretch to another meaning, in order only to insist on one's own will, as Nicholas does, who, as soon as he catches any teaching either about the union of the Spirit with the Son, or showing that He is His own, as consubstantial, he immediately draws the conclusion, without further consideration, that it is precisely so (as it appears to him). Thus, having found in the holy Gospel of Luke what is written: "And Jesus returned from the Jordan with the Holy Spirit" (Luke 4:1), he clung to this saying and concludes, saying: "If Jesus was filled with the Holy Spirit, it means that He is giving Him out." Look, most good Theodore, what recklessness and imprudence Nicholas has! If, because Luke said that Jesus returned from the Jordan full of the Spirit, he wants Him to proceed from Him, then, according to Nicholas's false wisdom, He should also come from Stephen the First-Martyr. For the same Evangelist says in the Acts of Stephen: "And she chose Stephen as a man, full of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 6:5); and again about him: "And Stephen was filled with the Holy Spirit, having looked up to heaven, and beheld the glory of God" (7:55). What, then, because of this little saying, will he say that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from Stephen? Wouldn't it be inappropriate? But let no one, because of what I have said, think that I put Jesus on a par with Stephen in the communion of the Spirit. May such blasphemy depart from us! I know and believe that Jesus is filled with the Spirit substantially, in the fullness, and always by nature, not just when He returned from the Jordan. As for Stephen, who, though in part like Him in grace, as a partaker of the all-sanctifying Spirit, that is, of the divine gift, I have said this in order to show the senselessness of Nicholas, as he indiscreetly concludes, as he is in all his philosophies. He says that by acknowledging the Holy Spirit to proceed from the Father and the Son, he thereby introduces the inseparability of persons, not so that He proceeds from two principles, but as from one principle of two united hypostases. To this we ask Nicholas, let him answer in truth, and not only for the sake of arguments: are the two God-originating hypostases essentially united into one principle, which creates the procession of the Spirit, or does he establish union according to hypostasis? It is necessary for him to admit one of two things: either in essence or in hypostasis. II, if He says that in essence there is this special hypostatic principle of the procession of the Spirit, then in this case the Spirit Himself, as consubstantial and indivisible, gives Himself out together with Them, and He will prove to be a partner of the Father in the birth of the Son, and will be the Father of the Only-begotten, giving Himself off also, for the Most Holy Spirit is equal in all things to the Father and the Son, except in the attribute, As I have said many times. From Nicholas's proposal, it necessarily follows that the Spirit, in order to be, in his words, no less than the Father and the Son, must be partaker of the Father in the birth of the Son. But let such satanic blasphemy be directed at the heads of the ignorant, that the Holy Trinity should confess the difference in the essence of the hypostases! If Nicholas imagines the union of hypostases into one principle, then look again, most honorable Theodore, what great impiety this is! And will not the heresy of the accursed Sabellius, who in the triune reign recognized one three-named hypostasis, vegetate again in secret? But how is it possible to unite that which is understood to exist without confusion, that is, to the hypostases? If they unite and converge into one principle, then it is necessary to confess that they are either pre-eternal, or temporary, united and converge. And if it is said that the hypostases of the Father and the Son are eternally united, then they will necessarily show this one hypostasis to be complex, and thus it will not be the Trinity, but an unequal two, having one hypostasis greater and composed of two, and the other simple and smaller, and thus there will be an unequal two, distinguishing between the majority and the minority. What can be more wicked than this? If Nicholas says that this union is temporary, then look again in your mind's eye at the impiety that is secretly preached. If, out of necessity, the Filial Hypostasis comes together with the Father for the release of the Spirit, will not this be imputed to the Father as powerlessness, as if He were unable to give up the Spirit without the assistance of the Son? In this way the Father will be like a flint, which, unless struck with iron, cannot emit fire. At the same time, it will turn out that the procession of the Spirit is temporary, and not pre-eternal. All this is inappropriate and far removed from piety. Moreover, if two hypostases converge to produce one, then this proves that the hypostasis of the Spirit dwells somewhere outside them and especially from those who produce, and the question arises, which Nicholas poses: that, having produced from them, where does the Spirit go? However, Nicholas has already said in part that he is going to the Son, although he came together from the Father and the Son, as from one principle, united in hypostasis, as Nicholas desires. If we admit that the Spirit dwells somewhere outside of them and separately, then how can we believe in His eternal union with them? For in essence the Divine hypostases are united with each other and equal in everything. But Nicholas is perplexed as to what to say to this, and there is no possibility, in justice, to answer anything, for even before this the supreme divine powers —

Wishing to prove this, they seemed to cover their feet, thus divinationly signifying the lowest and later various and incomprehensible dispensations, and that it was not possible for the created nature to fully comprehend the manifold wisdom of God contained in them, for the understanding contained in them is ineffable and untested, as the divine Apostle exclaimed, saying: "O depth of the riches and wisdom and understanding of God" (Romans 11:11). 34). But Isaiah also cried out before him, saying, "Who will understand the mind of the Lord, and who will be His counselor" (Isash 40:13). If, however, Paul recognizes the reason of what He builds for our sake and in relation to us to be untested and unsearchable, then how is it possible, and would it not be manifest madness, to dare to test the terrible and incomprehensible mysteries of Divine incomprehension and concealment, to invent figures for the incomprehensible, and to liken the uncreated, indescribable, all-perfect, and supreme of all perfection to the Trinity, to the sun's appearance and ray and warmth? — to these created objects, imperfect, and subject to description, and to exert themselves thereby to explain the incomprehensible nature, the highest of all word and reason?

But it is enough for you, Nicholas, for a cautious and infallible theology, to give you the above indications of so many and so glorious God-bearing Fathers, who preach the Holy Spirit proceeding alone from the Father, so that you too may be vouchsafed with them, as a true disciple, to glorify in the heavenly Jerusalem the Father without beginning, the Son co-originating with the Father, and the Spirit co-existent with the Father and the Son, proceeding from the Father and resting in the Son, as consubstantial with Him and proceeding from the same source. Tell me: What hinders you from obeying the theology of the Holy Spirit, which is contained in the Gospel, where it is said that He proceeds from the Father?—Do you suggest ignorance and ignorance of the writer of the Holy Gospel, or ill-temper and hatred? For if someone disobeys someone, it is for one of these two reasons. But it is not pious to think that the divine John did not know the truth concerning this, or that he who is the preacher and teacher of all truth deceived and lied. But even then again it is unseemly to think that the Evangelist, with a special intention, wrote thus for the sake of the other apostles, who still had imperfect concepts, as you unsuccessfully assert that the other disciples did not yet have a perfect conception of the Father, and that for this reason he said that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, that is, in order to convince them. This wisdom is not only false, but also blasphemous, and contains in itself a strong slander, first, against the Son, Who first made them all wise and enlightened them with teaching, and then against the Holy Spirit, Who came after Him (descended upon them), and Who equally gave them all the knowledge of the sacraments and revealed to them the theological teaching about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. How can you not call this deceit on your part, for it was impossible for you not to know that Philip's question about the Father was before the Lord's sufferings and before the disciples' perfection in the understanding of the mysteries of the Holy Trinity—that this question was made at the Last Supper, when all were still equally imperfect, senseless, and stagnant in heart, as the Saviour said to them—when the Gospel had not yet been written. For the Gospel of John was written on the island of Patmos, thirty-two years after the ascension of the Saviour.

But let us suppose, as you say, that the evangelist did so prudently, that is, in order to show the apostles that the Spirit proceeds not only from the Son, but also from the Father. Why, knowing this for certain, do you not change this in the holy Gospel, in order to avoid reproof from there? But you dare not do this, since your very conscience convicts you that your wisdom is false. If you hoped that you were right, you would have done it a long time ago. If you were not afraid to say that many were deceived by this Gospel saying, and shamelessly slander the blessed and banner-bearing Fathers of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, who taught us the sacred confession of faith, which we still preserve by the grace of Christ, then all the more would you have made a change in the Gospel long ago. But you do not dare to do this, knowing that, indeed, a heretic is one who, even if it is a little, will change anything contained in the Gospel.

And just as by the likeness of the sun I am compelled to prove the mystery of the Holy Trinity, which is incomprehensible to every created nature, then I would undertake this too, if it were not forbidden by theologians to liken to it the mystery of the Trinitarian unity, which surpasses all words, — I would undertake this not in the way that Nicholas investigates, but as far as this can serve as an indication of the three hypostases recognized in the Trinity, and not that how they exist one from the other and among themselves. This word of mine is confirmed by Gregory, great in divine dogmas, in his discourse on the Holy Spirit, speaking clearly thus: "Again I thought of the sun and of a ray of light; but even here I feared, first, lest any complexity should be admitted in a simple nature, like the sun, and that which is in the sun: secondly, by this example we will prove the existence of the Father, but the others are not, but we will only point out the powers of God that are in him, and not independent beings; for neither ray nor light constitutes another sun, but only certain solar outpourings, not the essence of a being, and thus let us represent this likeness of God, both existing and non-existent; but this is inappropriate in relation to this subject." And a little further: "At last I became convinced that it would be more correct to abandon perishable images altogether, as deceptive and, for the most part, far removed from the truth, and therefore, holding to a pious mind and being established in brief words, having the Spirit as my guide, I received from here enlightenment, which I observe to the end, as a true fellowship, which does not allow me to walk in communion with this world, and urges me to advise others to worship the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, according to my strength, to the one Divinity and power."

Thus says the divine Gregory. And from what did Nicholas get that the image of the sun decently and perfectly depicts the incomprehensible pre-existent Being, and therefore affirms another heaven, and to the warmth of the sun he, as if according to the divine Gregory, likens the Spirit. I don't know where I found it written. If, because the Saviour said: "Thou hast come to bring fire upon the earth," and therefore Nicholas says that the Holy Spirit is understood here, then let him know that the name of fire is spoken of the entire Divinity in general, and not of the Holy Spirit proper. If the divine Paul is an authentic witness, and he says, Our God is a consuming fire,

Эта выдумка, Николай, не имеет никакого удостоверения и не подтверждается она ни Евангелием, ни диалектическим твоим искусством, но из ложного предложения ты вывел и заключение ложное, как будет по­казано, при помощи Божией. Ты говоришь, что в Писании сказано: и Сын любит Отца. Это иначе находится в божественном Евангелии, и иначе ты приводишь, или по незнанию, или по какому-нибудь лукавству, как и в других местах. Блаженный Иоанн в трех местах, пиша об этом, свидетельствует, что Отец любит Сына, и вся даде в руце Его, а не как ты говоришь, лю­бит Отца. Опять в другом месте, показывая причину, по которой Спаситель любим Отцем Своим, говорит: сего ради Мя Отец любит, яко Аз душу Мою полагаю, и прочее. Вот и здесь не устыдился ты извратить слова Евангелия, чтобы только соткать паутинную ткань своего обманчивого учения. Если же ты намеревался это сделать, то следовало бы тебе предложить евангельский текст, который Спаситель говорит о Себе и которым, желая показать Свое повиновение Отцу Своему и Свое единомыслие с ним, говорит: грядет бо сего мира князь, и во Мне не имать ничесоже. Но да разумеет мир, яко люблю Отца, и якоже заповеда Мне Отец, тако творю (Иоан. 14, 80). Но пусть будет так. Где же вы, новые учители, нашли, чтобы было написано, что собственно любовь есть Дух Святый, и потому вы утверждаете, что Он исходит от Сына? Что слово „любовь" свойственно говорится о Бог Отце, свидетельствует тот же блаженный Иоанн в первом соборном послании, в главе 4й, говоря так: яко любы от Бога есть; и опять: не любяй, не позна Бога, яко Бог любы есть. О семь явися любы Божия в нас, яко Сына Своего Единородного посла Бог в мир (I. Иоан. 4, 7—9). Здесь ясно говорится о любви Отчей и о послании к нам Сына, а не об исхождении Духа, как ты гово­ришь. А что и Сыну боле, нежели Духу приличествует наименование любви,—явствует из вышеприведенных месте, где свидетельствуется, что Отец любит Сына. И опять: Бог любы есть, и пребываяй в любви, в Бозе пре­бывает, и Бог в нем пребывает (I. Иоан. 4, 16). Вот везде любовь относится к Отцу, а не к Духу, как ты мудрствуешь.

Как же вы, свойственное вообще всем, приписываете одному Духу? Бог любы есть, гово­рит Иоанн Богослов; наименование же Бог есть общее Святой Троицы. К тому же, тот же евангелист везде говорит: Отец любит Сына, чем показывает, что Отец есть источник любви, как и прочего. Любовь же есть не существо и не ипостась, но действие, свойственное су­ществу, также, как и мудрость, и правда, и прочие силы. Но чтобы любовью в особенности именовался Дух, этого нигде нет. Итак, положения твои ложны, и заключение, выводимое из них, есть пустословие и явный обман. Известно также, что блаженный Павел говорит; ведяще, яко скорбь терпение соделовает, терпение же искусство, искусство же упование: упование же не посрамит, яко любы Божия излияся в сердца наша Духом Святым данным нам (Рим. 5, 3. 4). Вот как ясно блаженный Павел показывает, что любовь Отца есть нечто другое, а не Самый Дух, как говорите. Если бы это был Дух, то он сказал бы, что любовь Божия, которая есть Дух Его, излияся в сердца наша. Затем, как бы показывая, в чем заключается любовь к нам Бога Отца, объяс­няет несколько ниже, говоря: составляет же Свою любовь к нам Бог, яко еще грешником сущим нам, Христос за ны умре (Рим. 5, 8). Смотри, если можешь, Николай, и узнай, что такое любовь к нам Бога Отца, познав же, что это не существо и не ипостась, но действие и каче­ство, то есть, человеколюбие и кротость неизреченная, усматриваемая в Божественном и блаженном естестве, как и мудрость, и правда, и прочее,—оставь препира­тельство и возлюби непогрешительную истину блаженных отцев.

Но достаточно уже словом истины обличили мы устремление лжи, и так как слово это направлено к человеку, украшенному разумом и православием, то пора прекратить труд, причиняемый любителю молчания,—с одной стороны потому, как было сказано ранее, что не имею времени заниматься этим, а с другой потому, что обращаю слово к такому человеку, как ты, честнейший Феодор. Познав же от самовидцев и служителей Слова и от прочих вообще блаженных отцев, от века просиявших всякою премудростью духовною и чудотворениями, что не следует изменять что-либо в вере, ни малое, ни великое, но должно со всяким усердием и вниманием хранить это и лобызать от всей души и подвизаться ради сего, если бы встретилась надобность, даже до крови,—будем уклоняться от всякого излишнего и ухищренного суесловия, каковым, в особенности, является глумление итальянцев, которые не страшатся весьма дерзко испытывать непостижимое посредством примеров и обманчивых слов. Возлюбим же то, что нам открыто, как сказал божественный Златоуст, бу­дем подражать блаженному естеству шестокрылатых, и крылами страха и крайнейшего благоговения прикроем пытливость нашего разума, когда, или устремимся к высотепревосходящего всякое созданное естество величия Божества, или захотим возвести ум к рассмотрению Его промышлений, которые также неисследованы. Если же будет потребность летать, то употребим полученные для сего два крыла, которые с обеих сторон, однако с великим вниманием будем употреблять и это летание. Этими крылами обозначаются неизреченная милость и не­сравненная любовь Божия и правда, излиянная на весь род человеческий, от конца неба и до конца его. Если же кто без благого расположения и осторожности будет рассматривать это, в особенности же, как объяснили отцы, если с жестокосердием и братоненавидением, то впадет напоследок или во враждебное действие, или в Оригенову пропасть, признав, по их ложному учению, и бесов спасаемыми. Но да будет нам дано, дей­