has it been handed down to be initiated? God and Father, the beginning of all things, is Father of the only-begotten Son, who even before being added to the Father is conceived immediately. How then, leaving aside the one who is conceived most closely to the Father even before being spoken of, should we place the Spirit immediately after the Father? For this reason the Spirit is spoken of after the Son of the Father; for since we cannot utter both at once with our tongue, just as they both proceeded from the Father, if we were to place the Spirit connected 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 conceived as Father. For the Son, being the Son of the Father, also 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 the quality of only-begotten and prevents the Spirit from being from the Father by procession. Which Gregory of Nyssa also says, whose height of thought those thinking in a Latin manner, not having comprehended, believe the Spirit to be far from the Father, O the impiety, but next to the Son. But it is not that because the Father and the Son introduce each other to the mind, being on this account next to each other, that for this reason the Spirit is far from the Father and not immediately from him. But concerning these things, later.

Now, that we may give a second reason, which itself also, that we might make you understand through all things, has come to be because of the aforementioned reason: first our race knew God the Father and the Father as God, his divinity having been revealed and believed dimly, as was expedient for us. For if, being equally Father and Producer, he had then been preached to us not as Father but as Producer or Emitter, how would we have accepted it, being not yet able to comprehend, on account of our still infant-like state, the knowledge of the innate wealth of the divinity? But the name "father" is also from our experience and we have it, as it were, in common with those hypostases which are from him and consubstantial with him, but are lordly to us. Although they have it by nature and in a way beyond us, he deemed us worthy to be called so out of love for mankind - which is why the Jews also said, "We have God as Father" - therefore, very wisely and as if stealing our mind away, or rather stealing us away from the slavery of the evil one and false opinion and false worship to his own lordship towards the knowledge of God and hinting at the only-begotten (p. 154) he introduced divinity, being himself preached as Father. After him the Son was manifested to the world, seen by us and conversing with us in the flesh; who along with himself also showed the Spirit, confirming through all things by words and deeds, that it is joined by nature and of equal honor with himself and with the Father. After the Son the Holy Spirit came upon the world, sent by the Son, as therefore not opposed to God nor opposed to Christ, and sent not simply and absolutely, but temporally and to certain people and for a reason; but proceeding from the Father not for a reason at all, nor temporally or to certain people, but simply and absolutely in every way, as co-divine and consubstantial and attached no less than the Son to the same cause and principle, but coming from himself as lord and self-determining.

And a third reason arose for the theologians, on account of which they present after the Son and from the things of the Son, for the most part, the connected and perfect and consubstantial-with-the-Father divinity of the Spirit: that after the madness of many against the Son was put to rest and transformed, his connaturality and equal honor with the Father having been demonstrated in many ways and revealed and most securely established, the war against the divine Spirit was more openly fanned into flame. For this reason, then, the entire discourse for the theologians is not about the mode of existence, but about the [relation] to the Son

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 καί Υἱός ἄλληλα εἰσάγουσι τῇ διανοίᾳ κατά τοῦτο ὄντα προσεχῆ, διά τοῦτο πόρρω τό Πνεῦμα τοῦ Πατρός καί οὐκ ἀμέσως ἐξ αὐτοῦ. Ἀλλά περί μέν τούτων, ὕστερον.

Νῦν δ᾿ ἵνα καί δευτέραν αἰτίαν ἀποδῶμεν, ἥτις καί αὕτη, ἵνα διά πάντων συνετίσωμέν σε, διά τήν προειρημένην γέγονε˙ πρῶτον ἡμῶν τό γένος Θεόν ἔγνω τόν Πατέρα καί Πατέρα τόν Θεόν, τῆς αὐτοῦ θέοτητος φανερωθείσης τε καί πιστευθείσης ἀμυδρῶς, ὥς γε συνήνεγκεν ἡμῖν. Εἰ γάρ ἐπίσης ὤν Πατήρ καί προβολεύς, τόθ᾿ ἡμῖν οὐ Πατήρ ἀλλά προβολεύς ἤ ἐκπορεύων ἐκηρύττετο, πῶς ἄν παραδεξάμεθα, μή δυνάμενοί πω χωρῆσαι διά τό νηπιῶδες ἔτι, τήν ἐπίγνωσιν τοῦ ἐμφύτου πλούτου τῆς θεότητος; Τό δέ "πατήρ" ὄνομα καί πρός ἡμῶν ἐστι καί οἷον κοινόν ἔχομεν αὐτό ταῖς ἐξ αὐτοῦ ὁμοουσίοις μέν αὐτῷ ἡμῖν δέ δεσποτικαῖς ἐκείναις ὑποστάσεσιν. Εἰ κἀκεῖνοι μέν φύσει καί ὑπέρ ἡμᾶς ἔχουσιν αὐτό, ἡμῶν δ᾿ ὑπό φιλανθρωπίας καλεῖσθαι κατηξίωσε - διό καί Ἰουδαῖοι ἔλεγον, «ἡμεῖς Πατέρα ἔχομεν τόν Θεόν - σοφῶς οὖν ἄγαν καί οἷον ὑποκλέπτων τήν διάνοιαν ἡμῶν, μᾶλλον δέ ἡμᾶς ἀπό τῆς τοῦ πονηροῦ δουλείας καί ψευδοδοξίας καί ψευδολατρίας ἐπί τήν οἰκείαν δεσποτείαν πρός θεογνωσίαν ὑφαιρούμενος καί τήν τοῦ μονογενοῦς ὑπεμφαίνων (σελ. 154) συνεισέφερε θεότητα, Πατήρ κηρυττόμενος αὐτός. Μετ᾿ αὐτόν ὁ Υἱός πεφανέρωται τῷ κόσμῳ, διά σαρκός ἡμῖν ὀφθείς καί συναναστραφείς˙ ὅς σύν ἑαυτῷ καί τό Πνεῦμα ὑπεδείκνυ, λόγοις τε καί ἔργοις διά πάντων πιστούμενος, συνημμένον φύσει καί ὁμότιμον ἑαυτῷ καί τῷ Πατρί. Μετά τόν Υἱόν τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον ἐπεδήμησε τῷ κόσμῳ, παρά μέν τοῦ Υἱοῦ πεμπόμενον, ὡς οὖν ἀντίθεον οὐδέ ἀντίχριστον, καί πεμπόμενον οὐχ ἁπλῶς καί ἀπολύτως, ἀλλά χρονικῶς καί πρός τινας καί δι᾿ αἰτίαν˙ παρά δέ τοῦ Πατρός ἐκπορευόμενον οὐ δι᾿ αἰτίαν ὅλως, οὐδέ χρονικῶς ἤ πρός τινας, ἀλλ᾿ ἁπλῶς καί ἀπολύτως πάντῃ, ὡς ὁμόθεον καί ὁμοούσιον καί τῆς αὐτῆς οὐχ ἧττον ἐξημμένον τῷ Υἱῷ αἰτίας καί ἀρχῆς, παρ᾿ ἑαυτοῦ δέ ἐρχόμενον ὡς κύριον καί αὐτεξούσιον.

Ἐπεγένετο δέ καί τρίτη τις αἰτία τοῖς θεολόγοις, δι᾿ ἥν μετά τόν Υἱόν καί ἐκ τῶν τοῦ Υἱοῦ παριστᾶσιν ὡς ἐπί πλεῖστον τό συναφές καί τέλειον καί ὁμοούσιον Πατρί τῆς θεότητος τοῦ Πνεύματος˙ ὅτι μετά τό κατευνασθῆναι καί μετασκευασθῆναι τήν πλειόντων κατά τοῦ Υἱοῦ μανίαν, πολυειδῶς ἀποδειχθείσης καί ἀναφανείσης καί στηριχθείσης ἀσφαλέστατα τῆς τούτου πρός τόν Πατέρα συμφυΐας καί ὁμοτιμίας ὁ κατά τοῦ θείου Πνεύματος ἐμφανέστερον ἀνερριπίσθη πόλεμος. Ταῦτ᾿ ἄρα καί τοῖς θεολόγοις ὁ λόγος ἅπας, οὐ περί τοῦ τρόπου τῆς ὑπάρξεως, ἀλλά περί τήν πρός τόν Υἱόν