28

And by the Spirit being said to be second from the Father, just as the Son also, it was shown that each immediately exists from the Father, with the theological mediation not being like the three points placed in a row, but like those at the corners of a triangle.

(p. 176) After this, with the procession of the Spirit having been shown to be clearly twofold, it was additionally shown that each of the processions has its appropriate cessation. And from this again, that the Holy Spirit does not have its being also from the Son.

Again, by saying that the Son is also a principle of the divine Spirit, those who think in the Latin way have revealed that they rank the divine Spirit with created things.

Furthermore, from the fact that the Father and the Son do not have in common that which begets God, it is established that the Spirit is not also from the Son.

And in addition to these things, from the fact that the common things of the most high Trinity belong equally to each of the divine hypostases, those who think in the Latin way have been revealed as saying neither the Son nor the Spirit is from the Father, nor that God has hypostatic distinctions.

Then, having made our argument concerning the order in God, we additionally demonstrated that it is not known to the saints how the Son and the Holy Spirit stand in relation and order to each other; and we have shown that on this point the great ones, Basil and Gregory and John the golden theologian, are in agreement, and in addition we have presented and clarified the pious and acknowledged order in God. And from this, those who think in the Latin way were refuted, being ignorant of the pious order, and what the theologians confess not to know as being beyond us, they themselves boast that they know these things precisely, and thus speaking novelties, and blaspheming concerning the procession of the all-holy Spirit.

And we have published an account showing in many ways for what reason for the most part the Son after the Father, and the Spirit after the Son is praised in our hymns and is handed down to the initiated.

And how the theologians, rightly following the account of initiation, concerning all things commonly contemplated in the three, say that the Spirit is related to the Son, as the Son is to the Father.

(p. 178) And that not having understood this, both Eunomius earlier and those who have thought in the Latin way later, have taught as dogma that the Holy Spirit is third from the Father; and from this, Eunomius taught that the Spirit is third also in nature, while the Latins additionally taught as dogma that the Spirit has its being also from the Son.

Further we show, that not only both the Son and the Spirit, but also each of them separately, is referred immediately to the Father; and that, if this is not so, there will not be one God.

And in addition to these things, from the fact that God and Father creates as God but not as Father, but begets and causes to proceed as Father, we show that if according to the Latins the Spirit is from the Father and from the Son as from one, it will not be as from one Father, of the Father and of the Son. And so the Latin mindset is completely refuted, which impiously says that the Spirit has its being from both of them, and as from the one God of them both.

Further, after this we speak concerning principle, and how those who think in the Latin way answer sophistically to those asking them, if they say there are two principles of the divinity of the Spirit.

From this again, from the Father being called "Father of lights" by the apostle, and from this those who think in the Latin way, calling the Son "Father"

28

Καί τῷ δεύτερον ἀπό τοῦ Πατρός καί τό Πνεῦμα λέγεσθαι, καθά καί ὁ Υἱός, ἀμέσως ἑκάτερον ὑπάρχον ἐκ Πατρός ἐδείχθη μή ἐοικυίας τῆς θεολογικῆς μεσότητος τοῖς κειμένοις ἐφεξῆς τρισί σημείοις, ἀλλά τοῖς ἐπί τῶν τοῦ τριγώνου γωνιῶν.

(σελ. 176) Μετά τοῦτο διττῆς φανερῶς δειχθείσης τῆς τοῦ Πνεύματος προόδου, προσεδείχθη καί τῶν προόδων ἑκατέραν κατάλληλον τήν παῦλαν ἔχειν. Κἀντεῦθεν πάλιν, ὡς οὐχί καί ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό εἶναι ἔχει τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον.

Πάλιν ἐκ τοῦ λέγειν καί τόν Υἱόν ἀρχήν τοῦ θείου Πνεύματος ἀναπεφήνασιν οἱ λατινικῶς φρονοῦντες τοῖς κτιστοῖς συντάττοντες τό θεῖον Πνεῦμα.

Αὖθις ἐκ τοῦ μή ἔχειν κοινωνίαν κατά τό θεογόνον τόν Πατέρα καί τόν Υἱόν παρίσταται μή εἶναι καί ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα.

Πρός δέ τούτοις, ἐκ τοῦ τά κοινά τῆς ἀνωτάτω Τριάδος ἐπίσης εἶναι τῶν θείων ὑποστάσεων ἑκάστῃ, ἀνεφάνησαν οἱ λατινικῶς φρονοῦντες μήτε τόν Υἱόν μήτε τό Πνεῦμα λέγοντες ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός, μηδ᾿ ὑποστατικάς ἔχειν τόν Θεόν διαφοράς.

Εἶτα περί τῆς ἐν Θεῷ τάξεως ποιησάμενοι τόν λόγον προσαπεδείξαμεν μή γνωστόν εἶναι τοῖς ἁγίοις, ὅπως ἔχει πρός ἄλληλα σχέσεώς τε καί τάξεως ὁ Υἱός τε καί τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον˙ καί συμφωνεῖν κἀν τούτῳ παρεστήσαμεν τούς μεγάλους, Βασίλειον καί Γρηγόριον καί Ἰωάννην τόν χρυθοῦν θεολόγον, πρός δέ καί τήν εὐσεβῆ καί ἀνωμολογημένην ἐπί τοῦ Θεοῦ τάξιν παρεστήσαμέν τε καί διευκρινήσαμεν. Κἀντεῦθεν ἀπηλέγχθησαν οἱ λατινικῶς φρονοῦντες τήν μέν εὐσεβῆ τάξιν ἀγνοοῦντες, ἅ δέ οἱ θεολόγοι μή εἰδέναι ὁμολογοῦσιν ὡς ὑπέρ ἡμᾶς, αὐτοί ταῦτα γινώσκειν ἀκριβῶς αὐχοῦντες καί οὕτω καινοφωνοῦντες, καί βλασφημοῦντες περί τήν ἐκπόρευσιν τοῦ παναγίου Πνεύματος.

Ἡμεῖς δέ καί λόγον ἐκδεδώκαμεν πολυειδῶς δεικνύοντες τίνος ἕνεκεν ὡς ἐπί πλεῖστον ὁ μέν Υἱός μετά τόν Πατέρα, τό δέ Πνεῦμα μετά τόν Υἱόν ἡμῖν ὑμνεῖται καί τοῖς μυουμένοις παραδίδοται.

Καί ὡς ἑπόμενοι καλῶς οἱ θεολόγοι τῷ λόγῳ τῆς μυήσεως, ἐπί πάντων τῶν κοινῶς ἐνθεωρουμένων τοῖς τρισίν , οὕτω φασίν ἔχειν πρός τόν Υἱόν τό Πνεῦμα, ὡς πρός τόν Πατέρα ὁ Υἱός.

(σελ. 178) Καί ὅτι τοῦτο μή συνετῶς ἀκούσαντες Εὐνόμιός τε πρότερον καί οἱ λατινικῶς πεφρονηκότες ὕστερον, τρίτον ἀπό τοῦ Πατρός ἐδογμάτισαν τόν Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον˙ κἀντεῦθεν ὁ μέν Εὐνόμιος τρίτον καί τῇ φύσει, Λατῖνοι δέ καί ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό εἶναι ἔχειν προσεδογμάτισαν.

Ἔτι δείκνυμεν, ὡς οὐκ ἄμφω μόνον ὁ Υἱός τε καί τό Πνεῦμα, ἀλλά καί ἑκάτερον αὐτῶν χωρίς, ἀμέσως ἀναφέρεται πρός τόν Πατέρα˙ καί ὡς, εἰ μή τοῦθ᾿ οὕτως ἔχει, οὐδέ Θεός εἷς ἔσται.

Πρός δέ τούτοις ἐκ τοῦ τόν Θεόν καί Πατέρα ὡς Θεόν ἀλλ᾿ οὐχ ὡς Πατέρα κτίζειν, γεννᾶν δέ καί ἐκπορεύειν ὡς Πατέρα, δείκνυμεν, ὡς εἰ κατά Λατίνους ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός καί ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ ὡς ἐξ ἑνός τό Πνεῦμα, οὐχ ὡς ἐξ ἑνός ἔσται Πατρός, τοῦ Πατρός καί τοῦ Υἱοῦ. Καί οὕτω τό λατινικόν φρόνημα τελέως ἐξελέγχεται καί ὡς ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων αὐτῶν δυσσεβῶς καθ᾿ ὕπαρξιν τό Πνεῦμα λέγον καί ὡς ἐξ ἑνός Θεοῦ τῶν ἀμφοτέρων.

Ἔτι μετά τοῦτο περί ἀρχῆς φαμεν, καί ὡς οἱ λατινικῶς φρονοῦντες σοφιστικῶς ἀποκρίνονται πρός τούς ἐρωτῶντας αὐτούς, εἰ δύο λέγουσιν ἀρχάς τῆς θεότητος τοῦ Πνεύματος.

Ἐντεῦθεν πάλιν ἐκ τοῦ Πατέρα φώτων θεολογεῖσθαι παρά τοῦ ἀποστόλου τόν Πατέρα, καί τόν Υἱόν κἀντεῦθεν Πατέρα λέγοντες οἱ λατινικῶς φρονοῦντες