St.

Gennadios Scholarios
(1405-1473)
On the foundation, which those around Scotus put
forward in support of their doctrine, that is, the two
productions

Translated by: Vaeum☦︎︎

OCGS, Tome 2, Pages: 386-390

☦︎︎
On the foundation, which those around
Scotus put forward in support of their
doctrine, that is, the two productions:

1. Since we have already examined the statement of the Nysses

[St. Gregory] and from that point until now have woven together the
argument concerning the preposition, and since we have unsettled
both the foundation which Thomas lays for this doctrine and the
foundation of agreements — they think — of the holy Fathers,
which those who hold the opinion contrary to ours have
discovered, proposing instead another foundation, which will be
further strengthened by what will follow. Those who come from the
school of Scotus also assist us in refuting the foundation of
Thomas; yet they themselves lay down another foundation in favor
of the same doctrine. We must, incidentally, say a little something
about this as well. And what are the grounds for this doctrine
among the followers of Scotus? In some places, they say that the
Holy Spirit is the mutual love of the Father and the Son, and
proceeds from their mutual will, being both given and reciprocated.
Before this, they assert that there are two productions in God the
Father, namely, intellect and volition. For they wish both the
intellect and the volition to be productive toward what is ad intra,
and they establish some order between these productions, giving
precedence or priority to one and subordinating the other. Just as,
they say, in the acts or potencies of fire, heating is by nature prior
to drying, and through it drying always occurs. They apply this
same order, by necessity, to the divine Persons who are brought
forth, which is also found in the productions within the Father; and
from this they assert that the Spirit proceeds also from God [the
Son?]. For they say that, since the Father, being cause, first has the
actuality of the production both of intellect and volition, in that
priority this same production which is in the Father is shared also
with the Son. For at that causal point, in which the Son is produced
through the production of the intellect, this is shared with Him from
the Father, unless it is somehow in conflict with Him; and such is
also the production of the volition. Thus, at the second causal point,
when a different person is produced by the operation of the second
production, ie. the volition, it will proceed from both the Father and
the Son entirely as from one principle, because of the one property
of the productive principle in both. And such things do they say

2. But that the demonstration drawn from the image of the

blessed Trinity within us does not carry much force of necessity;
for it is not required that everything correspond equally. And as
such things are ineffable and must be preserved as ineffable until
the end, the teachers have declared this at the beginning of the
present treatise. And although this foundation of Scotus may seem
to help us somehow and appear more fitting than that earlier one,
it is nonetheless equally dangerous and full of much uncertainty,
as is clear from what follows. First of all, we have heard none of
the authoritative teachers speak of two productions in the Father,
arranged in the way, as they propose. But rather, of one production
the divine Dionysius speaks, saying in his work On Divine Names,
“As a Trinity by reason of the tri-hypostatic manifestation of the
superessential production, from which every family in heaven and
on earth is named.” [PG 8:592A] Where Maximus, explaining, says
“He calls production the paternal procession beyond all conception,
which manifests both the Son and the Holy Spirit.” [PG 4:196B] He
says that this procession is beyond all conception, and indeed it is
so, because, being one within the Father, conceived as an
indivisible and unified power within Him, it produces two offshoots,
arising from it by a distinct way, and according to our reference to
them receives a twofold designation, from here, generation, and
from there, procession as we call it.
Just as one might also understand the creative power in God
according to Cyril in the sixth book of the Thesaurus, that “While
creating many and diverse things, He is not divided in essence into
each of the things coming into being, though He acts diversely in
each; but through one and ineffable power He creates all things.”
[PG 75:81B] And again, “Just as the Holy Spirit, according to him,
does not undergo division with respect to essence, though sending
forth diverse modes in the gifts and distributing to each according
to measure, yet is one and the same, acting in manifold ways,
impassibly, and in all.” For even if the production and the creation
are really distinct, yet as far as the unity of both the productive and
the creative power within God is concerned, it would be fitting to
reflect upon each by reference to the other.

3. But where in Scripture is love expressly said in this way, or,

what is even more worth asking, love between the Father and the
Son? Not even the blessed Augustine can demonstrate this, but
rather he deduces it. This, then, is indeed esteemed by him [Scotus]
alone, and one must recall what was stated at the beginning of this
treatise concerning the teachers. Perhaps, too, as a way to explain
the mystery of the Trinity from the image within us, for those
wishing to expound everything according to their human reasoning,
he devised this concept, and indeed very well and cleverly. But to
apply that analogy to the present or to every doctrinal inquiry is not
altogether necessary for those who tread the well-trodden and
royal road concerning divine dogmas, much less so than in other
matters and far less beneficial. For there is a danger that from
such human conjectures the mystery of the Trinity may fall under
natural necessities, becoming subject to nature and not
transcending the limits of human reason. Yet it is difficult enough
for us simply to understand, by means of natural or some other
method, our own human affairs, to grasp the nature of the intellect
and its conceptions and how they occur, and to know how our
rational volition is ordered with respect to the intellect, to thought,
and to such matters. And even if these things were fully known,
one would still presume to understand the mystery concerning that
blessed Trinity, as if, apart from the difference in nature, all other
things — number, procession, and order — stood alike. And so,
regarding both that ineffable and incomprehensible nature and our
own, we are left almost equally ignorant and knowledgeable at
once.

4. But no one will capture us by these contrivances, for we know

how to distinguish the opinion of a teacher from the common
doctrine, divine revelation from human conjecture, and an
unshakable dogma from a mere comforting explanation of a lofty
and ineffable dogma drawn from some human innovation. And as
for the claim that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the volition of God,
or according to the manner of volition, or from the production of
the volition, or however they wish to explain their argument, who
among us would agree to such a thing? For we believe that both
the Son and the Holy Spirit proceed from the nature of God,
however one may wish to name the production of that nature,
whether as intellect or otherwise. And we hear of volition or will
being distinguished from nature in the principles, both in other
cases and in God Himself, but not as being distinct from intellect or
volition itself. For we recognize that what proceeds from the
intellect proceeds also from the volition in beings that possess
intellect, with volition, so to speak, directing the procession. And
this is the work both of intellect and volition in all beings who act
through intellect; yet the work of their nature is something
altogether distinct from them. And where the nature of the one
who brings forth or acts is intellect itself, it makes no difference;
for that intellect too will produce some things according to its
nature, whatever that nature may be, and others it will actualize
according to its volition. And these things do not come from our
own reasoning, but are taught by the Fathers.

5. For Cyril in the Thesaurus says “The Word who proceeds from
His essence is not by volition, but naturally.” [PG 75:89C] And again
the same “If that is impious (for the essence and hypostasis of the
Father are not by will), then it is absolutely necessary neither to
think nor to say that the Son of God exists by volition.” [PG 75:93B]
And again he says “It is necessary, therefore, that things which
differ so greatly from each other do not have the same principle,
but some things, as works, came into being by volition, but the Son,
as He Himself being the volition, was eternally in the Father.”
[PG75:92D] And the Damascene “Creation is the work of divine
volition, but not divinity itself, perish the thought.” And again the
same “For the eternal and everlasting generation and procession
are not works of volition, but of the divine nature.” And in general
who does not know, that God both wills and knows Himself and the
things belonging to Him, and that as far as intellect and volition are
concerned, all things that proceed from God in any way are
according to nature? Yet now they have been distinguished: for His
Son and the Holy Spirit are brought forth by God the Father by
nature, but creation by will. There, indeed, the divine nature is both
intelligible and willed; here, however, there is some faint
resemblance to the divine nature according to the various
expressions of will. Therefore, God also knows and wills both His
Son and the Spirit by His internal knowing and willing, by which He
also knows and wills Himself. But the distinction between the Son
and the Spirit does not arise from this (for how could it, since both
are equally intelligible and willed?), but it is some other distinction,
which, according to the holy Fathers as has been said, it is neither
possible to find nor pious to attempt to find. For according to them,
it is ineffable and incomprehensible and ought to remain so for us.
But what we must be more cautious of is that Ptolemy and
Valentinus, of whom Athanasius often speaks, used to say that
there are two syzygies in their god, intellect and volition, and that
first, they claim, God intellectualized, and then He willed. And there
is fear lest we seem to agree with them in such a position — those
who were contemptible to the common Church and appeared
erroneous here as in many other matters. But we must return to
the original purpose.