21

that the Holy Spirit is third in order from the Father; but not even when Eunomius said this did he become very displeased. And besides these things, also that the Spirit is second to the Son, with much doubt and hypothetically, but not accepting it as his own opinion, he is shown to not even know himself, how the Son and the Spirit are related to one another in terms of relation and order.

For that the Son and the Holy Spirit are together from eternity, being in one another and connected to one another and passing through one another without confusion and without mixture, and that each of these is a form of order and relation, and how the Son and the Holy Spirit are from the Father together, even if not in the same way, and that they are of equal honor from one of equal honor, and that to cause to proceed, being a property of the paternal hypostasis, cannot belong to the Son, and how he who says that the Son also possesses the power to cause to proceed creates a confusion of the divine hypostases, impiously setting aside the acknowledged order in God — "For it is necessary," says Gregory, surnamed the Theologian, "that the properties remain to the Father and to the Son, so that there may be no confusion in the Godhead which brings all other things into order" — this acknowledged order in God we too know; but the one that places the Holy Spirit second from the Son and third from the Father (p. 150), neither we know nor the teachers and champions of the Church.

But the Latins, O what folly and desperation, set aside that pious and acknowledged order in God, and what things Basil the Great and Gregory the Theologian confess to be beyond their own knowledge as being ineffable and beyond us, they themselves boast to comprehend and innovate in language concerning the unutterable and incomprehensible procession of the Spirit, or more properly to say, they blaspheme, calling it mediate and immediate and near and far, through which they risk dragging down the Holy Spirit even to a creature. Therefore the Holy Spirit is not necessarily nor always placed after the Son by the divinely-inspired Scripture.

For this happens to the Latins, who say the one is from the two, a first cause and a second, and do not in all things cherish the divinely-inspired Scripture, but according to their own authority add and remove whatever they wish; but to us who piously-mindedly worship the two as from the one and refer them to the one, not at all.

But that we may give you an account, or rather, deem it worthy to teach you: for what reason for the most part is the Son hymned by us after the Father, and the Spirit after the Son, and it is handed down to be initiated so? God and Father, the principle of all things, is Father of the only-begotten Son, who even before being joined to the Father is immediately conceived with him. How then, leaving aside him who is conceived most closely to the Father even before he is spoken of, should we immediately place the Spirit after the Father? For this reason the Spirit is spoken of after the Son of the Father; for since we are unable to utter both at the same time with the tongue, as indeed they proceeded from the Father, if we were to place the Spirit joined to the Father before the Son, the Spirit would seem to be the Son; for the name "Father" immediately introduces the Son to the mind; (p. 152) and proceeding again and placing the Son immediately after the Spirit, we would cause the Spirit to be thought of as the Father. For the Son is Son of a Father and introduces the Father to the mind, and especially the one spoken of before him; but the Son, being placed next to the Father, both preserves for himself his only-begottenness and prevents the Spirit from being from the Father by way of procession. Which is also what Gregory of Nyssa says, whose height of thought those who think in the Latin way have not grasped, and so they hold that the Spirit is far from the Father, O the impiety, but near to the Son. But not that the Father and

21

τρίτον εἶναι τῇ τάξει ἀπό τοῦ Πατρός τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον˙ ἀλλ᾿ οὐδέ κατά τοῦ Εὐνομίου καί τοῦτ᾿ εἰπόντος λίαν ἐδυσχέραινε. Πρός δέ τούτοις καί τό δευτερεύειν τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα σύν ἀμφιβολίᾳ πολλῇ καί καθ᾿ ὑπόθεσιν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐχ ὡς αὐτός δοξάζων παραδεξάμενος, δείκνυται μηδ᾿ αὐτός εἰδέναι, ὅπως ἔχουσι πρός ἄλληλα ὁ Υἱός τε καί τό Πνεῦμα σχέσεώς τε καί τάξεως.

Ὅτι μέν γάρ ἅμα ἐξ ἀϊδίου ὁ Υἱός τε καί τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον, ἐν ἀλλήλοις τε ὄντα καί ἀλλήλων ἐχόμενα καί δι᾿ ἀλλήλων ἀφύρτως τε καί ἀμιγῶς χωροῦντα, καί ὅτι τούτων ἕκαστον τάξεώς τε καί σχέσεως εἶδος, καί ὡς ὁ Υἱός τε καί τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός ἅμα, εἰ καί οὐχ ὡσαύτως, καί ὅτι ὁμότιμα ἐξ ὁμοτίμου, καί ὅτι τό ἐκπορεύειν ἰδιότης ὄν τῆς πατρικῆς ὑποστάσεως οὐκ ἔστιν εἶναι τοῦ Υἱοῦ, καί ὡς ὁ λέγων καί τόν Υἱόν τό ἐκπορεύειν ἔχειν σύγχυσιν ποιεῖ τῶν θείων ὑποστάσεων, δυσσεβῶς ἀθετῶν τήν ἀνωμολογημένην τάξιν ἐπί τοῦ Θεοῦ «δεῖ γάρ», φησί καί Γρηγόριος ὁ τῆς θεολογίας ἐπώνυμος, «τάς ἰδιότητας μένειν Πατρί καί Υἱῷ, ἵνα μή σύγχυσις ᾖ παρά θεότητι τῇ καί τά ἄλλα εἰς τάξιν ἀγούσῃ» ταύτην μέν οὖν τήν ἀνωμολογημένην τάξιν ἐπί τοῦ Θεοῦ καί ἡμεῖς ἴσμεν˙ τήν δέ δεύτερον μέν ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ, τρίτον δέ ἀπό Πατρός τιθεῖσαν (σελ. 150) τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον οὔθ᾿ ἡμεῖς ἴσμεν οὔτε οἱ διδάσκαλοι καί προασπισταί τῆς Ἐκκλησίας.

Λατῖνοι δέ, ὤ τῆς ἀνοίας ὁμοῦ καί ἀπονοίας, τήν μέν εὐσεβῆ καί ἀνωμολογημένην ἐκείνην ἐπί τοῦ Θεοῦ τάξιν ἀθετοῦσιν, ἅ δέ Βασίλειος ὁ μέγας καί Γρηγόριος ὁ θεολόγος ὑπέρ τήν οἰκείαν γνῶσιν ὁμολογοῦσιν εἶναι ὡς ἀπόρρητα ὄντα καί ὑπέρ ἡμᾶς, αὐτοί καταλαβεῖν αὐχοῦσι καί περί τήν ἄφραστόν τε καί ἀπερινόητον ἐκπόρευσιν τοῦ Πνεύματος καινοφωνοῦσι, βλασφημοῦσι δέ εἰπεῖν οἰκειότερον, ἔμμεσόν τε καί ἄμεσον αὐτήν λέγοντες καί προσεχῆ καί πόρρω, δι᾿ ὧν κινδυνεύουσι καί εἰς κτίσμα κατασπᾶν τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον. ∆ιό οὐκ ἀναγκαίως οὐδ᾿ ἀεί μετά τόν Υἱόν παρά τῆς θεοπνεύστου τίθεται Γραφῆς τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον.

Τοῦτο γάρ Λατίνοις συμβαίνει, τοῖς ἐκ τῶν δύο, πρώτου αἰτίου καί δευτέρου, λέγουσι τό ἕν καί μή κατά πάντα στέργουσι τήν θεόπνευστον Γραφήν, ἀλλά κατ᾿ ἐξουσίαν ἅττα βούλονται προστιθεῖσί τε καί ἀφαιροῦσιν˙ ἡμῖν δέ τοῖς ἐκ τοῦ ἑνός εὐσεβοφρόνως σέβουσι καί εἰς ἕν ἀναφέρουσι τά δύο, ἥκιστα.

Ἵνα δέ σοι καί λόγον δῶμεν, μᾶλλον δέ καταξιώσωμεν διδάξαι˙ τίνος ἕνεκεν ὡς ἐπί πλεῖστον ὁ μέν Υἱός μετά τόν Πατέρα, τό δέ Πνεῦμα μετά τόν Υἱόν ἡμῖν ὑμνεῖται, καί μυεῖσθαι παραδέδοται; Ὁ Θεός καί Πατήρ, ἡ πάντων ἀρχή, Υἱοῦ Πατήρ ἐστι μονογενοῦς, ὅς καί πρίν ἤ προστεθῆναι τῷ Πατρί συννοεῖται πάραυτα. Πῶς οὖν ἀφέντες τόν καί πρίν ἤ λεχθῆναι προσεχέστατα τῷ Πατρί νοούμενον, εὐθύς ἄν τό Πνεῦμα μετά τόν Πατέρα θείημεν; ∆ιά τοῦτο μετά τόν τοῦ Πατρός Υἱόν λέγεται τό Πνεῦμα˙ μή δυναμένων γάρ ἡμῶν ἄμφω προφέρειν διά γλώττης ἅμα, ὥσπερ ἄρα καί ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός προῆλθον, εἰ πρό τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα τῷ Πατρί συννημένον θείημεν, δόξαι ἄν Υἱός τό Πνεῦμα˙ τό γάρ "Πατήρ" ὄνομα εὐθύς συνεισάγεται τῇ διανοίᾳ τόν Υἱόν˙ (σελ. 152) προϊόντες δ᾿ αὖθις καί μετά τό Πνεῦμα προσεχῶς εὐθύς τιθέντες τόν Υἱόν, Πατέρα τό Πνεῦμα ποιήσομεν νοεῖσθαι. Ὁ γάρ Υἱός, Πατρός Υἱός καί συνεισάγει τῇ διανοίᾳ τόν Πατέρα καί μάλιστα τόν πρό αὐτοῦ λεγόμενον˙ ὁ δέ Υἱός προσεχῶς τῷ Πατρί τιθέμενος καί τό μονογενές ἑαυτῷ φυλάττει καί τό ἐκπορευτῶς ἐκ Πατρός εἶναι τό Πνεῦμα κωλύει. Ὅ καί ὁ Νυσσαέων Γρηγόριός φησιν, οὗτινος οἱ λατινικῶς φρονοῦντες τό ὕψος τῆς διανοίας μή χωρήσαντες, πόρρω μέν τοῦ Πατρός, ὤ τῆς ἀσεβείας, δοξάζουσι τό Πνεῦμα, προσεχές δέ τοῦ Υἱοῦ. Ἀλλ᾿ οὐχ ὅτι ὁ Πατήρ τε