23

of the Father without uncausedness, and all things of the Son the Spirit has without sonship. For the Son and the Spirit likewise have all things of the Father without causality, both encompassing the existential differences according to hypostasis. Wherefore we also sometimes place the Spirit before the Son, although less often, but most often after the Son and this one after the Father, so that, by keeping a continuous and uninterrupted memory of the three greatest, God-befitting, and most provident economies on our behalf, we may render through all a most concise thanksgiving.

But Eunomius and after him those who think in a Latin way, having not intelligently heard such thanksgiving of the Fathers to God and being unable to comprehend the economy in the refutations against the heterodox, wrongly concluded from this that the Holy Spirit is third from the Father, not comprehending this either, that if this were so and for this reason 'the natural order of the Son to the Father and of the divine Spirit to the Son were demonstrated,' the Son would not sometimes be placed after the Spirit, when the joint declaration of the three worshipful persons is varied in the divine Scripture—that is, with the Holy Spirit numbered before—just as the great Gregory says in theology, that 'the same are both numbered before and numbered after in Scripture because of the equality of nature'; and in the presence of the bishops from Egypt (p. 158) he exhorts us to theologize in this way, saying, 'theologize with Paul, who was caught up to the third heaven, at times enumerating the three hypostases together, and this in a varied manner, not observing the orders, numbering the same before, among, and after.'

But neither is "through whom" assigned by the divine Scripture to the Son alone; for the divine Cyril says in his Thesauri, "the Spirit of Christ, as the Word of God indwells in us through the Spirit." Therefore Eunomius and the race of the Latins, having taken no account of these things, wrongly dogmatized that the Holy Spirit is third in order and dignity, not in the order according to confession but in the natural order. Indeed, Eunomius from this further dogmatized that it is third from the Father also in nature, as differing from both in it, while the Latins construct that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son.

But we, with the holy fathers, most often place the Spirit after the Son and this one after the Father, so that we may render through all a most concise doxology and thanksgiving and remembrance of the three greatest, God-befitting, and most provident economies on our behalf; not that they are second and third in honor and dignity—for they are of equal honor—nor making the dyad the principle of the one, nor referring the one to the dyad, but for us there is one God, with both Son and Spirit being referred to one cause, from which alone each of them has its existence; and that there is one principle, the Father, as Gregory the Wonderworker also says, accordingly therefore one God; and that there is one nature for the three, for these very things—the two and the three and that which is from him and that which is referred to him—do not divide the nature, but are divided with respect to it, nor indeed are they properly from it, (p. 160) even if not without it, nor are they referred to it, even if not without this; for the one, how could it beget and project itself and be referred to itself? Therefore the one is not a principle and the things from it, nor is the one a cause and effect of itself. If, therefore, all these things, according to which it is properly divided, are these three hypostases, or rather the three persons of the one deity in nature, when the Latins say the one is from both, of the

23

Πατρός ἄνευ τῆς ἄνευ τῆς αἰτίας, πάντα δέ τά τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα ἄνευ τῆς υἱότητος. Πάντα γάρ τοῦ Πατρός ὁμοίως ἔχει ὁ Υἱός τε καί τό Πνεῦμα ἄνευ τῆς αἰτίας, συμπεριβαλλούσης ἄμφω τάς ὑπαρκτικάς καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν διαφοράς. ∆ιό καί πρό τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἔστιν οὗ τίθεμεν τό Πνεῦμα, εἰ καί ὡς ἐπ᾿ ἔλαττον, ὡς δέ ἐπί πλεῖστον μετά τόν Υἱόν καί μετά τόν Πατέρα τοῦτον, ἵνα τῶν τριῶν ὑπέρ ἡμῶν μεγίστων ἔργων θεοπρεπῶν καί προμηθεστάτων οἰκονομιῶν, συνεχῆ καί ἀδιάλειπτον τήν μνήνην φέροντες, συντομωτάτην διά πάντων ἀποδιδῶμεν τήν εὐχριστίαν.

Εὐνόμιος δέ καί μετ᾿ αὐτόν οἱ λατινικῶς φρονοῦντες μή συνετῶς ἀκηκοότες τῆς πρός τόν Θεόν τοιαύτης εὐχαριστίας τῶν Πατέρων καί τῆς ἐν ταῖς πρός τούς ἑτεροδόξους ἀντιρρήσεσιν οἰκονομίας μή δυνηθέντες συνιδεῖν, συνήγαγον κακῶς ἐντεῦθεν τρίτον ἀπό Πατρός εἶναι τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον, μηδέ τοῦτο συνιδόντες, ὡς εἴγε τοῦτο ἦν καί διά τοῦτο «ἡ φυσική τάξις τοῦ τε Υἱοῦ πρός τόν Πατέρα καί τοῦ θείου Πνεύματος πρός τόν Υἱόν ἐδείκνυτο, οὐκ ἄν, ἐπαλλαττομένης ἐν τῇ θείᾳ Γραφῇ τῆς συνεκφωνήσεως τῶν τριῶν προσκυνητῶν προσώπων, ἔστιν οὗ μετά τό Πνεῦμα ὁ Υἱός ἐτίθετο, προαριθμουμένου δηλαδή τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος, καθάπερ καί ὁ πολύς ἐν θεολογίᾳ φησί Γρηγόριος, ὅτι «τά αὐτά καί προαριθμεῖται καί ὑπαριθμεῖται παρά τῇ Γραφῇ διά τήν ἰσοτιμίαν τῆς φύσεως»˙ ἐν δέ τῇ παρουσίᾳ τῶν ἀπ᾿ Αἰγύπτου (σελ. 158) ἐπισκόπων καί ἡμᾶς οὕτω παραινεῖ θεολογεῖν, «μετά Παύλου», λέγων, «θεολόγησον, τοῦ πρός τρίτον οὐρανόν ἀναχθέντος, ποτέ μέν συναριθμοῦντος τάς τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις, καί τοῦτο ἐνηλλαγμένως, οὐ τετηρημένως ταῖς τάξεσι, προαριθμοῦντος, ἐναριθμοῦντος, ὑπαριθμοῦντος τό αὐτό».

Ἀλλ᾿ οὐδέ τό "δι᾿ οὗ" μόνῳ τῷ Υἱῷ παρά τῆς θείας ἀπονενέμηται Γραφῆς˙ ὁ γάρ θεῖος Κύριλλος ἐν Θησαυροῖς φησι, «Χριστοῦ τό Πνεῦμα, ὡς τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου διά Πνεύματος ἡμῖν ἐνοικιζομένου». Τούτων οὖν Εὐνόμιός τε καί τό τῶν Λατίνων γένος, μηδένα ποιησάμενοι λόγον, τρίτον εἶναι τῇ τάξει καί τῷ ἀξιώματι τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον ἐδογμάτισαν, οὐ τῇ κατά τήν ὁμολογίαν τάξει ἀλλά τῇ φυσικῇ, κακῶς. Ὅ γε μήν Εὐνόμιος ἐντεῦθεν τρίτον ἀπό τοῦ Πατρός εἶναι καί τῇ φύσει, ὡς ἀμφοτέρων κατ᾿ αὐτήν διαφέρον, προσεδογμάτισεν, οἱ δέ Λατῖνοι καί ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἐκπορεύεσθαι τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον κατασκευάζουσιν.

Ἡμεῖς δέ σύν τοῖς ἱεροῖς πατράσιν ὡς ἐπί τό πλεῖστον τό Πνεῦμα μετά τόν Υἱόν τιθέαμεν καί μετά τόν Πατέρα τοῦτον, ἵνα τῶν τριῶν ὑπέρ ἡμῶν μεγίστων ἔργων καί θεοπρεπῶν καί προμηθεστάτων οἰκονομιῶν συντομωτάτην ἀποδιδῶμεν διά πάντων τήν δοξολογίαν καί τήν εὐχαριστίαν καί τήν ἀνάμνησιν˙ οὐχ ὅτι δεύτερα καί τρίτα τῇ τιμῇ καί τῇ ἀξίᾳ καί γάρ ὁμότιμα - οὐδέ τήν δυάδα ποιοῦντες τοῦ ἑνός ἀρχήν, οὐδ᾿ εἰς τήν δυάδα ἀναφέροντες τό ἕν, ἀλλ᾿ εἷς ἡμῖν Θεός, εἰς ἕν αἴτιον καί Υἱοῦ καί Πνεύματος ἀναφερομένων, ἐξ οὗ μόνου ἔχει τήν ὕπαρξιν ἑκάτερον αὐτῶν˙ καί ὅτι μία ἀρχή, ὁ Πατήρ, ὡς καί ὁ θαυματουργός Γρηγόριος λέγει, κατά τοῦτο τοίνυν εἷς Θεός˙ καί ὅτι μία φύσις τοῖς τρισίν, αὐτά γάρ τά δύο καί τά τρία καί τό ἐξ αὐτοῦ καί τό ἀναφέρεσθαι εἰς αὐτόν οὐ τήν φύσιν διαιρεῖ, ἀλλά περί αὐτήν διαιρεῖται, οὐδέ γοῦν ἐξ αὐτῆς ἐστι κυρίως, (σελ. 160) εἰ καί μή χωρίς αὐτῆς, οὐδ᾿ εἰς αὐτήν ἀναφέρεται, εἰ καί μή ἄνευ ταύτης˙ τό γάρ ἕν, πῶς ἄν αὐτό ἑαυτό γεννήσαι τε καί προβάλοιτο καί εἰς ἑαυτό ἀναφέροιτο; Οὐδ᾿ ἀρχή τοίνυν καί τά ἐξ αὐτῆς, οὐδέ αἴτιον καί αἰτιατόν αὐτό ἑαυτοῦ τό ἕν. Εἰ τοίνυν ταῦθ᾿ ἅπαντα, κατά ταῦτα κυρίως καθ᾿ ἅ καί μερίζεται, ταῦτα δ᾿ ἐστίν αἱ τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις, εἶτ᾿ οὖν τά τρία πρόσωπα τῆς μιᾶς τῇ φύσει θεότητος, ὅταν οἱ Λατῖνοι λέγωσιν ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων τό ἕν, τῶν