18

one God, when the Son and the Spirit are referred to one cause, and according to the one and the same movement, so to speak, and will of the divinity, and the identity of substance. But the three hypostases, with no blending or dissolution or confusion being conceived, of the Father being conceived and spoken of as without beginning and as beginning, and as beginning as cause and as source and as eternal light, but of the Son as in no way without beginning, but as the beginning of all things.” If, then, the Son were also the beginning of the Spirit, the Spirit would be one of all things according to you; for the Son is also the beginning of these things. So that I may say again the word of the theologian, “show that the Spirit has come into being and then grant it to the Son,” so as to have its existence through him or even from him, since also the divine Cyril, to those who say that, even if the Spirit is from God, it is not so in a proper or special sense, so that from this He from whom it is might be understood as consubstantial, for it is written that all things are also from God, “there remains,” he says, “for the Holy Spirit in a proper sense the ‘from whom,’ on account of having come from God the Father into being from non-being, but through the Son”—show therefore, that I may say again, that the divine Spirit is from non-being, and then grant to it its hypostasis from the Son, which is to say from both. The Spirit, therefore, existing from both, cannot but be one of all things or what seems perhaps more moderate (p. 138), that it does not have both as one cause and each as a beginning. For just as, since all creation proceeds from both, each is a beginning of all things, so too, if the Spirit proceeds from both, according to those who think in the Latin way, each will be a beginning of the spirit, and hence there will be two beginnings of the one divinity. For if it contributes anything, it has been taken in vain and as from a geometrical corollary the Latin theologians have truly been shown to be foolish; for they cannot say these things. That, just as in the case of created things, though each is a beginning, there is nonetheless one beginning, so here too there will be one, even if it is said to be from both. For there, as we have said, it is natural, but not hypostatic, for this reason the creative power is one and belongs to both; but here the generative is not of both.

For we heard a little above from him who is named for theology, when he said that the Father is the source and beginning of eternal light, but the Son is in no way without beginning, but is the beginning of all things. Wherefore also “the Father is the only source of the super-essential divinity,” said the great Dionysius the Areopagite; and again, “the Father is the fontal divinity, but the Son and the Spirit are, if one may say so, God-grown shoots of the God-begetting divinity, and as it were flowers and super-essential lights”; and again: “But the super-essential name and reality of the Father and of the Son and of the Spirit are distinct, with no reversal or community at all being introduced among them.” And in the third chapter of On the Mystical Theology, “from the immaterial,” he says, “and indivisible good sprung forth the inmost lights of goodness, and they have remained ineffable from the abiding co-eternal with their sprouting (p. 140) in him and in themselves and in each other”; and again: “the things of the super-essential divine generation are not reversed with respect to each other.”

If, therefore, you were to say the Son is the producer, the Father would never be the producer; for he would share in the God-begetting with the Son; but this has been forbidden. But if you were to say the Father is, as indeed he is, the Son would not be the producer, therefore the Spirit is not from him; for the only God-begetting divinity is the only begetter and producer; for according to these things he is also God-begetting. This communion indeed the great Basil also forbids, writing to his own brother, “the Holy,” he says, “Spirit is connected to the Son, with whom it is inseparably comprehended; but has its being dependent on the cause of the Father, from whom it also proceeds, this is the sign that distinguishes the property according to hypostasis

18

μέν Θεός, εἰς ἕν αἴτιον καί Υἱοῦ καί Πνεύματος ἀναφερομένων, καί κατά τό ἕν καί ταὐτόν τῆς θεότητος, ἵν᾿ οὕτως εἴπω, κίνημά τε καί βούλημα καί τήν τῆς οὐσίας ταυτότητα. Αἱ δέ τρεῖε ὑποστάσεις μηδεμιᾶς ἐπινοουμένης συναλοιφῆς ἤ ἀναλύσεως ἤ συγχύσεως, Πατρός μέν ὡς ἀνάρχου καί ἀρχῆς ἐπινοουμένου καί λεγομένου, ἀρχῆς δέ ὡς αἰτίου καί ὡς πηγῆς καί ὡς ἀϊδίου φωτός, Υἱοῦ δέ ἀνάρχου μέν οὐδαμῶς, ἀρχῆς δέ τῶν ὅλων». Εἰ οὖν καί τοῦ Πνεύματος εἴη ἀρχή ὁ Υἱός, ἕν τῶν ὅλων ἔσται κατά σέ τό Πνεῦμα˙ τούτων γάρ ἀρχή καί ὁ Υἱός. Ἵν᾿ οὖν αὖθις εἴπω τό τοῦ θεολόγου, «δεῖξον ὅτι γέγονε τό Πνεῦμα καί τότε τῷ Υἱῷ δός», ὥστε δι᾿ αὐτοῦ ἤ καί ἐξ αὐτοῦ τήν ὕπαρξιν κεκτῆσθαι, ἐπεί καί ὁ θεῖος Κύριλλος πρός τούς λέγοντας ὡς, εἰ καί ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ τό Πνεῦμα, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ κυρίως οὐδ᾿ ἐξῃρημένως, ἵν᾿ ἐντεῦθεν ὁμοούσιον νοῆται τό ἐξ οὗ, γέγραπται γάρ ὅτι καί τά πάντα ἐκ Θεοῦ «μένει», φησί, «τῷ ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι κυρίως τό ἐξ οὗ, διά τό ἐκ Θεοῦ Πατρός πρός τό εἶναι τά οὐκ ὄντα δραμεῖν, δι᾿ Υἱοῦ δέ» δεῖξον οὖν, ἵνα πάλιν εἴπω, τό θεῖον Πνεῦμα ἐκ μή ὄντων, καί τότε καί ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ τήν ὑπόσταστιν αὐτῷ παράσχου, ταὐτό δ᾿ εἰπεῖν παρ᾿ ἀμφοτέρων. Ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων οὖν ὑπάρχον τό Πνεῦμα οὐκ ἔστι μή ἕν τῶν πάντων εἶναι ἤ τό τάχα μετριώτερον (σελ. 138) δοκοῦν, μή καί ἀμφοτέρους τό ἕν αἰτίους ἔχειν καί ἀρχήν ἑκάτερον. Ὡς γάρ ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων τῆς κτίσεως ἁπάσης προηγμένης ἑκάτερός ἐστιν ἀρχή τῶν ὅλων, οὕτως ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων τοῦ Πνεύματος ἐκπορευομένου, κατά τούς λατινικῶς φρονοῦντας, ἑκάτερος ἔσται τοῦ πνεύματος ἀρχή, καί δύο κἀντεῦθεν ἔσονται ἀρχαί τῆς μιᾶς θεότητος. Εἰ γάρ συντελεῖ τι, μάτην εἴληπται καί ὡς ἐκ γεωμετρικοῦ πορίσματος μάταιοι ὄντως ἀνεφάνησαν οἱ λατῖνοι θεολόγοι˙ οὐ γάρ ταῦτ᾿ ἔχουσι λέγειν. Ὡς, καθάπερ ἐπί τῶν δημιουργημάτων ἑκατέρου ὑπάρχοντος ἀρχῆς, μία οὐδέν ἧττόν ἐστιν ἀρχή, οὕτω δή κἀνταῦθα μία ἔσται, κἄν ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων λέγηται. Ἐκεῖ μέν γάρ, καθάπερ ἔφημεν, φυσική ἐστιν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐχ ὑποστατική, διά τοῦτο ἡ δημιουργική δύναμις μία καί ἀμφοῖν˙ ἐνταῦθα δέ οὐχί τό γόνιμον ἀμφοῖν.

Ἠκούσαμεν γάρ μικρόν ἀνωτέρω τοῦ τῆς θεολογίας ἐπωνύμου, τόν μέν Πατέρα πηγήν καί ἀρχήν εἰπόντος ἀϊδίου φωτός, τόν δέ Υἱόν ἄναρχον μέν οὐδαμῶς ἀρχήν δέ τῶν ὅλων. ∆ιό καί «μόνη πηγή τῆς ὑπερουσίου θεότητος ὁ Πατήρ», ὁ μέγας εἶπε ∆ιονύσιος ὁ Ἀρεοπαγίτης˙ καί αὖθις «ἔστι πηγαία θεότης ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ δέ Υἱός καί τό Πνεῦμα τῆς θεογόνου θεότητος, εἰ οὕτω χρή φάναι, βλαστοί θεόφυτοι καί οἷον ἄνθη καί ὑπερούσια φῶτα»˙ καί πάλιν˙ «διακεκριμένα δέ ἐστι τό Πατρός ὑπερούσιον ὄνομα καί χρῆμα καί Υἱοῦ καί Πνεύματος, οὐδεμιᾶς ἐν τούτοις ἀντιστροφῆς ἤ ὅλως κοινότητος ἐπεισαγομένης». Κἀν τῷ Περί μυστικῆς θεολογίας τρίτῳ, «ἐκ τοῦ ἀΰλου», φησί, «καί ἀμεροῦς ἀγαθοῦ τά ἐγκάρδια τῆς ἀγαθότητος ἐξέφυ φῶτα, καί τῆς ἐν αὐτῷ καί ἐν ἑαυτοῖς καί ἐν ἀλλήλοις συναϊδίου τῇ ἀναβλαστήσει (σελ. 140) μονῆς ἀπομεμένηκε ἀνεκφοίτητα»˙ καί αὖθις˙ «τά τῆς ὑπερουσίου θεογονίας οὐκ ἀντιστρέφει πρός ἄλληλα».

Εἰ τοίνυν εἴποις προβολέα τόν Υἱόν ὁ Πατήρ οὐδέποτ᾿ ἄν εἴη προβολεύς˙ κοινωνήσει γάρ κατά τό θεογόνον τῷ Υἱῷ˙ ἀλλά τοῦτ᾿ ἀπείρηται. Εἰ δέ τόν Πατέρα φαίης, ὥσπερ οὖν ἐστιν, ὁ Υἱός οὐκ ἄν εἴη προβολεύς, οὐκ ἄρα ἐξ αὐτοῦ τό Πνεῦμα˙ μόνος γάρ θεότης θεογόνος ὁ μόνος γεννήτωρ καί προβολεύς˙ κατά ταῦτα γάρ καί θεογόνος. Ταύτην δή τήν κοινωνίαν καί ὁ μέγας Βασίλειος ἀπαγορεύων πρός τόν ἑαυτοῦ γράφων ἀδελφόν, «τό Πνεῦμα», φησί, «τό ἅγιον τοῦ Υἱοῦ μέν ἤρτηται, ᾧ ἀδιαστάτως συγκαταλαμβάνεται˙ τῆς δέ τοῦ Πατρός αἰτίας ἐξημμένον ἔχει τό εἶναι, ὅθεν καί ἐκπορεύεται, τοῦτο γνωριστικόν τῆς κατά τήν ὑπόστασιν ἰδιότητος σημεῖον