Letter XXXVIII.286    This important letter is included as among the works of Gregory of Nyssa, as addressed to Peter, bp. of Sebaste, brother of Basil and Gregory.  The Ben. note says:  “Stylus Basilii fetum esse clamitat.”  It was moreover, referred to at Chalcedon as Basil’s.  [Mansi, T. vii. col. 464.]

To his Brother Gregory, concerning the difference between οὐσία andὑπόστασις.

1.  Many persons, in their study of the sacred dogmas, failing to distinguish between what is common in the essence or substance, and the meaning of the hypostases, arrive at the same notions, and think that it makes no difference whether οὐσία or hypostasis be spoken of.  The result is that some of those who accept statements on these subjects without any enquiry, are pleased to speak of “one hypostasis,” just as they do of one “essence” or “substance;” while on the other hand those who accept three hypostases are under the idea that they are bound in accordance with this confession, to assert also, by numerical analogy, three essences or substances.  Under these circumstances, lest you fall into similar error, I have composed a short treatise for you by way of memorandum.  The meaning of the words, to put it shortly, is as follows:

2.  Of all nouns the sense of some, which are predicated of subjects plural and numerically various, is more general; as for instance man.  When we so say, we employ the noun to indicate the common nature, and do not confine our meaning to any one man in particular who is known by that name.  Peter, for instance is no more man, than Andrew, John, or James.  The predicate therefore being common, and extending to all the individuals ranked under the same name, requires some note of distinction whereby we may understand not man in general, but Peter or John in particular.

Of some nouns on the other hand the denotation is more limited; and by the aid of the limitation we have before our minds not the common nature, but a limitation of anything, having, so far as the peculiarity extends, nothing in common with what is of the same kind; as for instance, Paul or Timothy.  For, in a word, of this kind there is no extension to what is common in the nature; there is a separation of certain circumscribed conceptions from the general idea, and expression of them by means of their names.  Suppose then that two or more are set together, as, for instance, Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, and that an enquiry is made into the essence or substance of humanity; no one will give one definition of essence or substance in the case of Paul, a second in that of Silvanus, and a third in that of Timothy; but the same words which have been employed in setting forth the essence or substance of Paul will apply to the others also.  Those who are described by the same definition of essence or substance are of the same essence or substance287    ὁμοουσιοι. when the enquirer has learned what is common, and turns his attention to the differentiating properties whereby one is distinguished from another, the definition by which each is known will no longer tally in all particulars with the definition of another, even though in some points it be found to agree.

3.  My statement, then, is this.  That which is spoken of in a special and peculiar manner is indicated by the name of the hypostasis.  Suppose we say “a man.”  The indefinite meaning of the word strikes a certain vague sense upon the ears.  The nature is indicated, but what subsists and is specially and peculiarly indicated by the name is not made plain.  Suppose we say “Paul.”  We set forth, by what is indicated by the name, the nature subsisting.288    ὑφεστῶσαν. ὑπόστασις is derivatively that which “stands under” or subsists, ὃ ὑφέστηκε.  cf. my note on Theodoret, p. 36.

This then is the hypostasis, or “understanding;” not the indefinite conception of the essence or substance, which, because what is signified is general, finds no “standing,” but the conception which by means of the expressed peculiarities gives standing and circumscription to the general and uncircumscribed.  It is customary in Scripture to make a distinction of this kind, as well in many other passages as in the History of Job.  When purposing to narrate the events of his life, Job first mentions the common, and says “a man;” then he straightway particularizes by adding “a certain.”289    Job i. 1, LXX.  As to the description of the essence, as having no bearing on the scope of his work, he is silent, but by means of particular notes of identity, mentioning the place and points of character, and such external qualifications as would individualize, and separate from the common and general idea, he specifies the “certain man,” in such a way that from name, place, mental qualities, and outside circumstances, the description of the man whose life is being narrated is made in all particulars perfectly clear.  If he had been giving an account of the essence, there would not in his explanation of the nature have been any mention of these matters.  The same moreover would have been the account that there is in the case of Bildad the Shuhite, and Zophar the Naamathite, and each of the men there mentioned.290    Job ii. 11.  Transfer, then, to the divine dogmas the same standard of difference which you recognise in the case both of essence and of hypostasis in human affairs, and you will not go wrong.  Whatever your thought suggests to you as to the mode of the existence of the Father, you will think also in the case of the Son, and in like manner too of the Holy Ghost.  For it is idle to bait the mind at any detached conception from the conviction that it is beyond all conception.291    The mss. vary as to this parenthetical clause, and are apparently corrupt.  The rendering above is conjectural, but not satisfactory.  For the account of the uncreate and of the incomprehensible is one and the same in the case of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.  For one is not more incomprehensible and uncreate than another.  And since it is necessary, by means of the notes of differentiation, in the case of the Trinity, to keep the distinction unconfounded, we shall not take into consideration, in order to estimate that which differentiates, what is contemplated in common, as the uncreate, or what is beyond all comprehension, or any quality of this nature; we shall only direct our attention to the enquiry by what means each particular conception will be lucidly and distinctly separated from that which is conceived of in common.

4.  Now the proper way to direct our investigation seems to me to be as follows.  We say that every good thing, which by God’s providence befalls us, is an operation, of the Grace which worketh in us all things, as the apostle says, “But all these worketh that one and the self same Spirit dividing to every man severally as he will.”292    1 Cor. xii. 11.  If we ask, if the supply of good things which thus comes to the saints has its origin in the Holy Ghost alone, we are on the other hand guided by Scripture to the belief that of the supply of the good things which are wrought in us through the Holy Ghost, the Originator and Cause is the Only-begotten God;293    ὁ μονογενὴς θεός is the reading of the Sinaitic and Vatican mss. in John i. 18.  The insertion of the words οὐδὲ ὁ υιἰος, adopted by R.V. in Matt. xxiv. 36, but of which St. Basil knows nothing, as appears from his argument on the difference between the statements of St. Matthew and St. Mark on this subject in Letter ccxxxvi., is supported by these same two mss. for we are taught by Holy Scripture that “All things were made by Him,”294    John i. 3. and “by Him consist.”295    Col. i. 17.  When we are exalted to this conception, again, led by God-inspired guidance, we are taught that by that power all things are brought from non-being into being, but yet not by that power to the exclusion of origination.296    ἀνάρχως.  On the other hand there is a certain power subsisting without generation and without origination,297    ἀγεννήτως καὶ ἀνάρχως ὑφεστῶσα. which is the cause of the cause of all things.  For the Son, by whom are all things, and with whom the Holy Ghost is inseparably conceived of, is of the Father.298    For similar statements by St. Basil, cf. De Sp. S. p.  cf. also Cont. Eunom. i:  ἐπειδὴ γὰρ ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς ἡ ἀρχὴ τῷ υἱῷ, κατὰ τοῦτο μείζων ὁ πατὴρ ὡς αἴτιος καὶ ἀρχή.  For it is not possible for any one to conceive of the Son if he be not previously enlightened by the Spirit.  Since, then, the Holy Ghost, from Whom all the supply of good things for creation has its source, is attached to the Son, and with Him is inseparably apprehended, and has Its299    cf. notes, pp. 15, 24. being attached to the Father, as cause, from Whom also It proceeds; It has this note of Its peculiar hypostatic nature, that It is known after the Son300    μετὰ τὸν υἱόν.  So the Benedictine text with four mss. in the Paris Library, and the note.  “μετὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ” is a reading which is inadmissible, repeating as it does the sense of the following clause καὶ σὺν αὐτῷ.  The sense in which the Son is both “after the Son” and “with the Son” is explained further on by St. Basil, where he says that the three Persons are known in consecution of order but in conjunction of nature. and together with the Son, and that It has Its subsistence of the Father.  The Son, Who declares the Spirit proceeding from the Father through Himself and with Himself, shining forth alone and by only-begetting from the unbegotten light, so far as the peculiar notes are concerned, has nothing in common either with the Father or with the Holy Ghost.  He alone is known by the stated signs.  But God, Who is over all, alone has, as one special mark of His own hypostasis, His being Father, and His deriving His hypostasis301    ὑποστῆναι. from no cause; and through this mark He is peculiarly known.  Wherefore in the communion of the substance we maintain that there is no mutual approach or intercommunion of those notes of indication perceived in the Trinity, whereby is set forth the proper peculiarity of the Persons delivered in the faith, each of these being distinctively apprehended by His own notes.  Hence, in accordance with the stated signs of indication, discovery is made of the separation of the hypostases; while so far as relates to the infinite, the incomprehensible, the uncreate, the uncircumscribed, and similar attributes, there is no variableness in the life-giving nature; in that, I mean, of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, but in Them is seen a certain communion indissoluble and continuous.  And by the same considerations, whereby a reflective student could perceive the greatness of any one of the (Persons) believed in in the Holy Trinity, he will proceed without variation.  Beholding the glory in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, his mind all the while recognises no void interval wherein it may travel between Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for there is nothing inserted between Them; nor beyond the divine nature is there anything so subsisting as to be able to divide that nature from itself by the interposition of any foreign matter.  Neither is there any vacuum of interval, void of subsistence, which can make a break in the mutual harmony of the divine essence, and solve the continuity by the interjection of emptiness.  He who perceives the Father, and perceives Him by Himself, has at the same time mental perception of the Son; and he who receives the Son does not divide Him from the Spirit, but, in consecution so far as order is concerned, in conjunction so far as nature is concerned, expresses the faith commingled in himself in the three together.  He who makes mention of the Spirit alone, embraces also in this confession Him of whom He is the Spirit.  And since the Spirit is Christ’s and of God,302    Rom. viii. 9; 1 Cor. ii. 12. as says Paul, then just as he who lays hold on one end of the chain pulls the other to him, so he who “draws the Spirit,”303    Apparently a mistaken interpretation of the LXX. version of Ps. cxix. 131, εἵλκυσα πνεῦμα="I drew breath.”  A.V. and R.V., “I panted.”  Vulg., attraxi spiritum. as says the prophet, by His means draws to him at the same time both the Son and the Father.  And if any one verily receives the Son, he will hold Him on both sides, the Son drawing towards him on the one His own Father, and on the other His own Spirit.  For He who eternally exists in the Father can never be cut off from the Father, nor can He who worketh all things by the Spirit ever be disjoined from His own Spirit.  Likewise moreover he who receives the Father virtually receives at the same time both the Son and the Spirit; for it is in no wise possible to entertain the idea of severance or division, in such a way as that the Son should be thought of apart from the Father, or the Spirit be disjoined from the Son.  But the communion and the distinction apprehended in Them are, in a certain sense, ineffable and inconceivable, the continuity of nature being never rent asunder by the distinction of the hypostases, nor the notes of proper distinction confounded in the community of essence.  Marvel not then at my speaking of the same thing as being both conjoined and parted, and thinking as it were darkly in a riddle, of a certain304    ὥσπερ ἐκ αἰνίγματι.  cf. 1 Cor. xiii. 12.  ἐν αἰνίγματι or ἐξ αἰνιγμάτων, as in Æsch., Ag. 1113=by dark hints.  The bold oxymoron concluding this sentence is illustrated by Ovid’s “impietate pia” (Met. viii. 477), Lucan’s “concordia discors” (Phars. i. 98), or Tennyson’s “faith unfaithful.” new and strange conjoined separation and separated conjunction.  Indeed, even in objects perceptible to the senses, any one who approaches the subject in a candid and uncontentious spirit, may find similar conditions of things.

5.  Yet receive what I say as at best a token and reflexion of the truth; not as the actual truth itself.  For it is not possible that there should be complete correspondence between what is seen in the tokens and the objects in reference to which the use of tokens is adopted.  Why then do I say that an analogy of the separate and the conjoined is found in objects perceptible to the senses?  You have before now, in springtime, beheld the brightness of the bow in the cloud; the bow, I mean, which, in our common parlance, is called Iris, and is said by persons skilled in such matters to be formed when a certain moisture is mingled with the air, and the force of the winds expresses what is dense and moist in the vapour, after it has become cloudy, into rain.  The bow is said to be formed as follows.  When the sunbeam, after traversing obliquely the dense and darkened portion of the cloud-formation, has directly cast its own orb on some cloud, the radiance is then reflected back from what is moist and shining, and the result is a bending and return, as it were, of the light upon itself.  For flame-like flashings are so constituted that if they fall on any smooth surface they are refracted on themselves; and the shape of the sun, which by means of the beam is formed on the moist and smooth part of the air, is round.  The necessary consequence therefore is that the air adjacent to the cloud is marked out by means of the radiant brilliance in conformity with the shape of the sun’s disc.  Now this brilliance is both continuous and divided.  It is of many colours; it is of many forms; it is insensibly steeped in the variegated bright tints of its dye; imperceptibly abstracting from our vision the combination of many coloured things, with the result that no space, mixing or paring within itself the difference of colour, can be discerned either between blue and flame-coloured, or between flame-coloured and red, or between red and amber.  For all the rays, seen at the same time, are far shining, and while they give no signs of their mutual combination, are incapable of being tested, so that it is impossible to discover the limits of the flame-coloured or of the emerald portion of the light, and at what point each originates before it appears as it does in glory.  As then in the token we clearly distinguish the difference of the colours, and yet it is impossible for us to apprehend by our senses any interval between them; so in like manner conclude, I pray you, that you may reason concerning the divine dogmas; that the peculiar properties of the hypostases, like colours seen in the Iris, flash their brightness on each of the Persons Whom we believe to exist in the Holy Trinity; but that of the proper nature no difference can be conceived as existing between one and the other, the peculiar characteristics shining, in community of essence, upon each.  Even in our example, the essence emitting the many-coloured radiance, and refracted by the sunbeam, was one essence; it is the colour of the phænomenon which is multiform.  My argument thus teaches us, even by the aid of the visible creation, not to feel distressed at points of doctrine whenever we meet with questions difficult of solution, and when at the thought of accepting what is proposed to us, our brains begin to reel.  In regard to visible objects experience appears better than theories of causation, and so in matters transcending all knowledge, the apprehension of argument is inferior to the faith which teaches us at once the distinction in hypostasis and the conjunction in essence.  Since then our discussion has included both what is common and what is distinctive in the Holy Trinity, the common is to be understood as referring to the essence; the hypostasis on the other hand is the several distinctive sign.305    The scientific part of the analogy of the rainbow is of course obsolete and valueless.  The general principle holds good that what is beyond comprehension in theology finds its parallel in what is beyond comprehension in the visible world.  We are not to be staggered and turn dizzy in either sphere of thought at the discovery that we have reached a limit beyond which thought cannot go.  We may live in a finite world, though infinite space is beyond our powers of thought:  we may trust in God revealed in the Trinity, though we cannot analyse or define Him.

6.  It may however be thought that the account here given of the hypostasis does not tally with the sense of the Apostle’s words, where he says concerning the Lord that He is “the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His person,”306    Heb. i. 3. for if we have taught hypostasis to be the conflux of the several properties; and if it is confessed that, as in the case of the Father something is contemplated as proper and peculiar, whereby He alone is known, so in the same way is it believed about the Only-begotten; how then does Scripture in this place ascribe the name of the hypostasis to the Father alone, and describes the Son as form of the hypostasis, and designated not by His own proper notes, but by those of the Father?  For if the hypostasis is the sign of several existence, and the property of the Father is confined to the unbegotten being, and the Son is fashioned according to His Father’s properties, then the term unbegotten can no longer be predicated exclusively of the Father, the existence of the Only-begotten being denoted by the distinctive note of the Father.

7.  My opinion is, however, that in this passage the Apostle’s argument is directed to a different end; and it is looking to this that he uses the terms “brightness of glory,” and “express image of person.”  Whoever keeps this carefully in view will find nothing that clashes with what I have said, but that the argument is conducted in a special and peculiar sense.  For the object of the apostolic argument is not the distinction of the hypostases from one another by means of the apparent notes; it is rather the apprehension of the natural, inseparable, and close relationship of the Son to the Father.  He does not say “Who being the glory of the Father” (although in truth He is); he omits this as admitted, and then in the endeavour to teach that we must not think of one form of glory in the case of the Father and of another in that of the Son, He defines the glory of the Only-begotten as the brightness of the glory of the Father, and, by the use of the example of the light, causes the Son to be thought of in indissoluble association with the Father.  For just as the brightness is emitted by the flame, and the brightness is not after the flame, but at one and the same moment the flame shines and the light beams brightly, so does the Apostle mean the Son to be thought of as deriving existence from the Father, and yet the Only-begotten not to be divided from the existence of the Father by any intervening extension in space, but the caused to be always conceived of together with the cause.  Precisely in the same manner, as though by way of interpretation of the meaning of the preceding cause, and with the object of guiding us to the conception of the invisible by means of material examples, he speaks also of “express image of person.”  For as the body is wholly in form, and yet the definition of the body and the definition of the form are distinct, and no one wishing to give the definition of the one would be found in agreement with that of the other; and yet, even if in theory you separate the form from the body, nature does not admit of the distinction, and both are inseparably apprehended; just so the Apostle thinks that even if the doctrine of the faith represents the difference of the hypostases as unconfounded and distinct, he is bound by his language to set forth also the continuous and as it were concrete relation of the Only-begotten to the Father.  And this he states, not as though the Only-begotten had not also a hypostatic being, but in that the union does not admit of anything intervening between the Son and the Father, with the result that he, who with his soul’s eyes fixes his gaze earnestly on the express image of the Only-begotten, is made perceptive also of the hypostasis of the Father.  Yet the proper quality contemplated in them is not subject to change, nor yet to commixture, in such wise as that we should attribute either an origin of generation to the Father or an origin without generation to the Son, but so that if we could compass the impossibility of detaching one from the other, that one might be apprehended severally and alone, for, since the mere name implies the Father, it is not possible that any one should even name the Son without apprehending the Father.307    The simpler explanation of the use of the word hypostasis in the passage under discussion is that it has the earlier sense, equivalent to οὐσία.  cf. Athan., Or. c. Ar. iii. 65, iv. 33, and Ad. Apos. 4.

8.  Since then, as says the Lord in the Gospels,308    John xiv. 9. he that hath seen the Son sees the Father also; on this account he says that the Only-begotten is the express image of His Father’s person.  That this may be made still plainer I will quote also other passages of the apostle in which he calls the Son “the image of the invisible God,”309    Col. i. 15. and again “image of His goodness;”310    This phrase is not in the Epistles, nor indeed does the substantive ἀγαθότης occur in the N.T. at all.  “Image of his goodness” is taken from Wisdom vii. 26, and erroneously included among the “words of the Apostle.” not because the image differs from the Archetype according to the definition of indivisibility and goodness, but that it may be shewn that it is the same as the prototype, even though it be different.  For the idea of the image would be lost were it not to preserve throughout the plain and invariable likeness.  He therefore that has perception of the beauty of the image is made perceptive of the Archetype.  So he, who has, as it were mental apprehension of the form of the Son, prints the express image of the Father’s hypostasis, beholding the latter in the former, not beholding in the reflection the unbegotten being of the Father (for thus there would be complete identity and no distinction), but gazing at the unbegotten beauty in the Begotten.  Just as he who in a polished mirror beholds the reflection of the form as plain knowledge of the represented face, so he, who has knowledge of the Son, through his knowledge of the Son receives in his heart the express image of the Father’s Person.  For all things that are the Father’s are beheld in the Son, and all things that are the Son’s are the Father’s; because the whole Son is in the Father and has all the Father in Himself.311    cf. John xiv. 11.  Thus the hypostasis of the Son becomes as it were form and face of the knowledge of the Father, and the hypostasis of the Father is known in the form of the Son, while the proper quality which is contemplated therein remains for the plain distinction of the hypostases.

ΓΡΗΓΟΡΙῼ ΑΔΕΛΦῼ ΠΕΡΙ ΔΙΑΦΟΡΑΣ ΟΥΣΙΑΣ ΚΑΙ ΥΠΟΣΤΑΣΕΩΣ

[1] Ἐπειδὴ πολλοὶ τὸ κοινὸν τῆς οὐσίας ἐπὶ τῶν μυστικῶν δογμάτων μὴ διακρίνοντες ἀπὸ τοῦ τῶν ὑποστάσεων λόγου ταῖς αὐταῖς συνεμπίπτουσιν ὑπονοίαις, καὶ οἴονται διαφέρειν μηδὲν οὐσίαν ἢ ὑπόστασιν λέγειν (ὅθεν καὶ ἤρεσέ τισι τῶν ἀνεξετάστως τὰ τοιαῦτα προσδεχομένων, ὥσπερ μίαν οὐσίαν, οὕτω καὶ μίαν ὑπόστασιν λέγειν, καὶ τὸ ἔμπαλιν οἱ τὰς τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις παραδεχόμενοι καὶ τὴν τῶν οὐσιῶν διαίρεσιν κατὰ τὸν ἴσον ἀριθμὸν ἐκ τῆς ὁμολογίας ταύτης δογματίζειν οἴονται δεῖν), διὰ τοῦτο, ὡς ἂν μὴ καὶ σὺ τὰ ὅμοια πάθοις, ὑπόμνημά σοι διὰ βραχέων τὸν περὶ τούτου λόγον ἐποιησάμην. Ἔστι τοίνυν, ὡς ἐν ὀλίγῳ παραστῆσαι, τοιαύτη τῶν λεγομένων ἡ ἔννοια.

[2] Πάντων τῶν ὀνομάτων τὰ μὲν ἐπὶ πλειόνων καὶ τῷ ἀριθμῷ διαφερόντων λεγόμενα πραγμάτων καθολικωτέραν τινὰ τὴν σημασίαν ἔχει, οἷον ἄνθρωπος. Ὁ γὰρ τοῦτο εἰπών, τὴν κοινὴν φύσιν διὰ τοῦ ὀνόματος δείξας, οὐ περιέγραψε τῇ φωνῇ τὸν τινὰ ἄνθρωπον, τὸν ἰδίως ὑπὸ τοῦ ὀνόματος γνωριζόμενον. Οὐ γὰρ μᾶλλον Πέτρος ἄνθρωπός ἐστιν ἢ καὶ Ἀνδρέας καὶ Ἰωάννης καὶ Ἰάκωβος. Ἡ οὖν κοινότης τοῦ σημαινομένου, ὁμοίως ἐπὶ πάντας τοὺς ὑπὸ τὸ αὐτὸ ὄνομα τεταγμένους χωροῦσα, χρείαν ἔχει τῆς ὑποδιαστολῆς δι' ἧς οὐ τὸν καθόλου ἄνθρωπον, ἀλλὰ τὸν Πέτρον ἢ τὸν Ἰωάννην ἐπιγνωσόμεθα. Τὰ δὲ τῶν ὀνομάτων ἰδικωτέραν ἔχει τὴν ἔνδειξιν δι' ἧς οὐχ ἡ κοινότης τῆς φύσεως ἐνθεωρεῖται τῷ σημαινομένῳ, ἀλλὰ πράγματός τινος περιγραφὴ μηδεμίαν ἔχουσα πρὸς τὸ ὁμογενές, κατὰ τὸ ἰδιάζον, τὴν κοινωνίαν, οἷον ὁ Παῦλος ἢ ὁ Τιμόθεος. Οὐκέτι γὰρ ἡ τοιαύτη φωνὴ ἐπὶ τὸ κοινὸν τῆς φύσεως φέρεται, ἀλλὰ χωρίσασα τῆς περιληπτικῆς σημασίας περιγεγραμμένων τινῶν πραγμάτων ἔμφασιν διὰ τῶν ὀνομάτων παρίστησιν. Ὅταν οὖν δύο ἢ καὶ πλειόνων κατὰ τὸ αὐτὸ ὄντων, οἷον Παύλου καὶ Σιλουανοῦ καὶ Τιμοθέου, περὶ τῆς οὐσίας τῶν ἀνθρώπων ζητεῖται λόγος, οὐκ ἄλλον τις ἀποδώσει τῆς οὐσίας ἐπὶ τοῦ Παύλου λόγον, ἕτερον δὲ ἐπὶ τοῦ Σιλουανοῦ καὶ ἄλλον ἐπὶ τοῦ Τιμοθέου, ἀλλὰ δι' ὧν ἂν λόγων ἡ οὐσία τοῦ Παύλου δειχθῇ οὗτοι καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις ἐφαρμόσουσι, καί εἰσιν ἀλλήλοις ὁμοούσιοι οἱ τῷ αὐτῷ λόγῳ τῆς οὐσίας ὑπογραφόμενοι. Ἐπειδὰν δέ τις τὸ κοινὸν μαθὼν ἐπὶ τὰ ἰδιάζοντα τρέψῃ τὴν θεωρίαν δι' ὧν χωρίζεται τοῦ ἑτέρου τὸ ἕτερον, οὐκέτι ὁ ἑκάστου γνωριστικὸς λόγος τῷ περὶ τοῦ ἄλλου διὰ πάντων συνενεχθήσεται, κἂν ἔν τισιν εὑρεθῇ τὸ κοινὸν ἔχων.

[3] Τοῦτο τοίνυν φαμέν: τὸ ἰδίως λεγόμενον τῷ τῆς ὑποστάσεως δηλοῦσθαι ῥήματι. Ὁ γὰρ ἄνθρωπον εἰπὼν ἐσκεδασμένην τινὰ διάνοιαν τῷ ἀορίστῳ τῆς σημασίας τῇ ἀκοῇ ἐνεποίησεν, ὥστε τὴν μὲν φύσιν ἐκ τοῦ ὀνόματος δηλωθῆναι, τὸ δὲ ὑφεστὸς καὶ δηλούμενον ἰδίως ὑπὸ τοῦ ὀνόματος πρᾶγμα μὴ σημανθῆναι. Ὁ δὲ Παῦλον εἰπὼν ἔδειξεν ἐν τῷ δηλουμένῳ ὑπὸ τοῦ ὀνόματος πράγματι ὑφεστῶσαν τὴν φύσιν. Τοῦτο οὖν ἐστιν ἡ ὑπόστασις, οὐχ ἡ ἀόριστος τῆς οὐσίας ἔννοια μηδεμίαν ἐκ τῆς κοινότητος τοῦ σημαινομένου στάσιν εὑρίσκουσα, ἀλλ' ἡ τὸ κοινόν τε καὶ ἀπερίγραπτον ἐν τῷ τινὶ πράγματι διὰ τῶν ἐπιφαινομένων ἰδιωμάτων παριστῶσα καὶ περιγράφουσα, ὡς καὶ τῇ Γραφῇ σύνηθες τὸ τοιοῦτο ποιεῖν ἐν ἄλλοις τε πολλοῖς καὶ ἐν τῇ κατὰ τὸν Ἰὼβ ἱστορίᾳ. Ἐπειδὴ γὰρ ἔμελλε τὰ περὶ αὐτοῦ διηγεῖσθαι, πρότερον τοῦ κοινοῦ μνημονεύσασα καὶ εἰποῦσα ἄνθρωπος εὐθὺς ἀποτέμνει τῷ ἰδιάζοντι ἐν τῇ προσθήκῃ τοῦ τίς. Ἀλλὰ τῆς μὲν οὐσίας τὴν ὑπογραφὴν ὡς οὐδὲν φέρουσαν κέρδος πρὸς τὸν προκείμενον τοῦ λόγου σκοπὸν ἐσιώπησε, τὸν δὲ τινὰ διὰ τῶν οἰκείων γνωρισμάτων χαρακτηρίζει καὶ τόπον λέγουσα καὶ τὰ τοῦ ἤθους γνωρίσματα καὶ ὅσα τῶν ἔξωθεν συμπαραληφθέντα χωρίζειν αὐτὸν καὶ ἀφιστᾶν ἤμελλε τῆς κοινῆς σημασίας, ὥστε διὰ πάντων ἐναργῆ τοῦ ἱστορουμένου γενέσθαι τὴν ὑπογραφὴν ἐκ τοῦ ὀνόματος, ἐκ τοῦ τόπου, ἐκ τῶν τῆς ψυχῆς ἰδιωμάτων, ἐκ τῶν ἔξωθεν περὶ αὐτὸν θεωρουμένων. Εἰ δὲ τὸν τῆς οὐσίας ἐδίδου λόγον, οὐδεμία ἂν ἐγένετο τῶν εἰρημένων ἐν τῇ τῆς φύσεως ἑρμηνείᾳ μνήμη. Ὁ γὰρ αὐτὸς ἂν ἦν λόγος ὃς καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ Βαλδὰδ τοῦ Σαυχίτου καὶ Σοφὰρ τοῦ Μιναίου καὶ ἐφ' ἑκάστου τῶν ἐκεῖ μνημονευθέντων ἀνθρώπων. Ὃν τοίνυν ἐν τοῖς καθ' ἡμᾶς ἔγνως διαφορᾶς λόγον ἐπί τε τῆς οὐσίας καὶ τῆς ὑποστάσεως τοῦτον μετατιθεὶς καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν θείων δογμάτων οὐχ ἁμαρτήσει. Πῶς τὸ εἶναι τοῦ Πατρός, ὅ τι ποτὲ ὑποτίθεταί σου ἡ ἔννοια (πρὸς οὐδὲν γὰρ ἔστιν ἀποτεταγμένον νόημα τὴν ψυχὴν ἐπερείδειν, διὰ τὸ πεπεῖσθαι αὐτὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν εἶναι νόημα) τοῦτο καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ νοήσεις, τοῦτο ὡσαύτως καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ Πνεύματος τοῦ Ἁγίου. Ὁ γὰρ τοῦ ἀκτίστου καὶ τοῦ ἀκαταλήπτου λόγος εἷς καὶ ὁ αὐτὸς ἐπί τε τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ Ἁγίου Πνεύματός ἐστιν. Οὐ γὰρ τὸ μὲν μᾶλλον ἀκατάληπτόν τε καὶ ἄκτιστον, τὸ δὲ ἧττον. Ἐπεὶ δὲ χρὴ διὰ τῶν ἰδιαζόντων σημείων ἀσύγχυτον ἐπὶ τῆς Τριάδος τὴν διάκρισιν ἔχειν, τὸ μὲν κοινῶς ἐπιθεωρούμενον, οἷον τὸ ἄκτιστον λέγω, ἢ τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶσαν κατάληψιν ἢ εἴ τι τοιοῦτο οὐ συμπαραληψόμεθα εἰς τὴν τοῦ ἰδιάζοντος κρίσιν, ἐπιζητήσομεν δὲ μόνον δι' ὧν ἡ περὶ ἑκάστου ἔννοια τηλαυγῶς καὶ ἀμίκτως τῆς συνθεωρουμένης ἀφορισθήσεται.

[4] Καλῶς οὖν ἔχειν μοι δοκεῖ οὕτως ἀνιχνεῦσαι τὸν λόγον. Πᾶν ὅπερ ἂν εἰς ἡμᾶς ἐκ θείας δυνάμεως ἀγαθὸν φθάσῃ τῆς πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν ἐνεργούσης χάριτος ἐνέργειαν εἶναί φαμεν, καθώς φησιν ὁ Ἀπόστολος ὅτι: »Ταῦτα δὲ πάντα ἐνεργεῖ τὸ ἓν καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ Πνεῦμα διαιροῦν ἰδίᾳ ἑκάστῳ καθὼς βούλεται«. Ζητοῦντες δὲ εἰ ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος ἡ τῶν ἀγαθῶν χορηγία τὴν ἀρχὴν λαβοῦσα οὕτω παραγίνεται τοῖς ἀξίοις, πάλιν ὑπὸ τῆς Γραφῆς ὁδηγούμεθα εἰς τὸ τῆς χορηγίας τῶν ἀγαθῶν τῶν διὰ τοῦ Πνεύματος ἡμῖν ἐνεργουμένων ἀρχηγὸν καὶ αἴτιον τὸν Μονογενῆ Θεὸν εἶναι πιστεύειν. Πάντα γὰρ δι' αὐτοῦ γεγενῆσθαι καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ συνεστάναι παρὰ τῆς ἁγίας Γραφῆς ἐδιδάχθημεν. Ὅταν τοίνυν καὶ πρὸς ἐκείνην ὑψωθῶμεν τὴν ἔννοιαν, πάλιν ὑπὸ τῆς θεοπνεύστου χειραγωγίας ἀναγόμενοι διδασκόμεθα ὅτι δι' ἐκείνης μὲν πάντα τῆς δυνάμεως ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος εἰς τὸ εἶναι παράγεται, οὐ μὴν οὐδὲ ἐξ ἐκείνης ἀνάρχως, ἀλλά τίς ἐστι δύναμις ἀγεννήτως καὶ ἀνάρχως ὑφεστῶσα ἥτις ἐστὶν αἰτία τῆς ἁπάντων τῶν ὄντων αἰτίας. Ἐκ γὰρ τοῦ Πατρὸς ὁ Υἱὸς δι' οὗ τὰ πάντα, ᾧ πάντοτε τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον ἀχωρίστως συνεπινοεῖται. Οὐ γάρ ἐστιν ἐν περινοίᾳ τοῦ Υἱοῦ γενέσθαι μὴ προκαταυγασθέντα τῷ Πνεύματι. Ἐπειδὴ τοίνυν τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα, ἀφ' οὗ πᾶσα ἐπὶ τὴν κτίσιν ἡ τῶν ἀγαθῶν χορηγία πηγάζει, τοῦ Υἱοῦ μὲν ἤρτηται ᾧ ἀδιαστάτως συγκαταλαμβάνεται, τῆς δὲ τοῦ Πατρὸς αἰτίας ἐξημμένον ἔχει τὸ εἶναι, ὅθεν καὶ ἐκπορεύεται, τοῦτο γνωριστικὸν τῆς κατὰ τὴν ὑπόστασιν ἰδιότητος σημεῖον ἔχει, τὸ μετὰ τὸν Υἱὸν καὶ σὺν αὐτῷ γνωρίζεσθαι καὶ τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ὑφεστάναι. Ὁ δὲ Υἱὸς ὁ τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον Πνεῦμα δι' ἑαυτοῦ καὶ μεθ' ἑαυτοῦ γνωρίζων, μόνος μονογενῶς ἐκ τοῦ ἀγεννήτου φωτὸς ἐκλάμψας, οὐδεμίαν κατὰ τὸ ἰδιάζον τῶν γνωρισμάτων τὴν κοινωνίαν ἔχει πρὸς τὸν Πατέρα ἢ πρὸς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον, ἀλλὰ τοῖς εἰρημένοις σημείοις μόνος γνωρίζεται. Ὁ δὲ ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς ἐξαίρετόν τι γνώρισμα τῆς ἑαυτοῦ ὑποστάσεως τὸ Πατὴρ εἶναι καὶ ἐκ μηδεμιᾶς αἰτίας ὑποστῆναι μόνος ἔχει, καὶ διὰ τούτου πάλιν τοῦ σημείου καὶ αὐτὸς ἰδιαζόντως ἐπιγινώσκεται. Τούτου ἕνεκεν ἐν τῇ τῆς οὐσίας κοινότητι ἀσύμβατά φαμεν εἶναι καὶ ἀκοινώνητα τὰ ἐπιθεωρούμενα τῇ Τριάδι γνωρίσματα δι' ὧν ἡ ἰδιότης παρίσταται τῶν ἐν τῇ πίστει παραδεδομένων προσώπων, ἑκάστου τοῖς ἰδίοις γνωρίσμασι διακεκριμένως καταλαμβανομένου, ὥστε διὰ τῶν εἰρημένων σημείων τὸ κεχωρισμένον τῶν ὑποστάσεων ἐξευρεθῆναι: κατὰ δὲ τὸ ἄπειρον καὶ ἀκατάληπτον καὶ τὸ ἀκτίστως εἶναι καὶ μηδενὶ τόπῳ περιειλῆφθαι καὶ πᾶσι τοῖς τοιούτοις μηδεμίαν εἶναι παραλλαγὴν ἐν τῇ ζωοποιῷ φύσει (ἐπὶ Πατρὸς λέγω καὶ Υἱοῦ καὶ Πνεύματος Ἁγίου), ἀλλά τινα συνεχῆ καὶ ἀδιάσπαστον κοινωνίαν ἐν αὐτοῖς θεωρεῖσθαι. Καὶ δι' ὧν ἄν τις νοημάτων τὸ μεγαλεῖον ἑνός τινος τῶν ἐν τῇ ἁγίᾳ Τριάδι πιστευομένων κατανοήσειε, διὰ τῶν αὐτῶν προσελεύσεται ἀπαραλλάκτως ἐπὶ Πατρὸς καὶ Υἱοῦ καὶ Πνεύματος Ἁγίου τὴν δόξαν βλέπων, ἐν οὐδενὶ διαλείμματι μεταξὺ Πατρὸς καὶ Υἱοῦ καὶ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος τῆς διανοίας κενεμβατούσης. Διότι οὐδέν ἐστι τὸ διὰ μέσου τούτων παρενειρόμενον οὔτε πρᾶγμα ὑφεστὼς ἄλλο τι παρὰ τὴν θείαν φύσιν, ὡς καταμερίζειν αὐτὴν πρὸς ἑαυτὴν διὰ τῆς τοῦ ἀλλοτρίου παρεμπτώσεως δύνασθαι, οὔτε διαστήματός τινος ἀνυποστάτου κενότης ἥτις κεχηνέναι ποιεῖ τῆς θείας οὐσίας τὴν πρὸς ἑαυτὴν ἁρμονίαν, τῇ παρενθήκῃ τοῦ κενοῦ τὸ συνεχὲς διαστέλλουσα. Ἀλλ' ὁ τὸν Πατέρα νοήσας αὐτόν τε ἐφ' ἑαυτοῦ ἐνόησε καὶ τὸν Υἱὸν τῇ διανοίᾳ συμπαρεδέξατο. Ὁ δὲ τοῦτον λαβὼν τοῦ Υἱοῦ τὸ Πνεῦμα οὐκ ἀπεμέρισεν, ἀλλ' ἀκολούθως μὲν κατὰ τὴν τάξιν, συνημμένως δὲ κατὰ τὴν φύσιν, τῶν τριῶν κατὰ ταὐτὸν συγκεκραμένην ἐν ἑαυτῷ τὴν πίστιν ἀνετυπώσατο. Καὶ ὁ τὸ Πνεῦμα μόνον εἰπὼν συμπεριέλαβε τῇ ὁμολογίᾳ ταύτῃ καὶ τὸν οὗ ἐστι τὸ Πνεῦμα. Καὶ ἐπειδὴ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐστι τὸ Πνεῦμα, καὶ ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, καθώς φησιν ὁ Παῦλος: ὥσπερ ἐξ ἁλύσεως ὁ τοῦ ἑνὸς ἄκρου ἁψάμενος καὶ τὸ ἕτερον ἄκρον συνεπεσπάσατο, οὕτως ὁ τὸ Πνεῦμα ἑλκύσας, καθώς φησιν ὁ προφήτης, δι' αὐτοῦ καὶ τὸν Υἱὸν καὶ τὸν Πατέρα συνεφειλκύσατο, Καὶ εἰ τὸν Υἱὸν ἀληθινῶς τις λάβοι, ἕξει αὐτὸν ἑκατέρωθεν, πῆ μὲν τὸν ἑαυτοῦ Πατέρα, πῆ δὲ τὸ ἴδιον Πνεῦμα συνεπαγόμενον. Οὔτε γὰρ τοῦ Πατρὸς ὁ ἀεὶ ἐν τῷ Πατρὶ ὢν ἀποτμηθῆναι δυνήσεται, οὔτε τοῦ Πνεύματός ποτε διαζευχθήσεται τοῦ ἰδίου ὁ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ ἐνεργῶν. Ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ ὁ τὸν Πατέρα δεξάμενος καὶ τὸν Υἱὸν καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα συμπαρεδέξατο τῇ δυνάμει. Οὐ γὰρ ἔστιν ἐπινοῆσαι τομὴν ἢ διαίρεσιν κατ' οὐδένα τρόπον, ὡς ἢ Υἱὸν χωρὶς Πατρὸς νοηθῆναι ἢ τὸ Πνεῦμα τοῦ Υἱοῦ διαζευχθῆναι, ἀλλά τις ἄρρητος καὶ ἀκατανόητος ἐν τούτοις καταλαμβάνεται καὶ ἡ κοινωνία καὶ ἡ διάκρισις, οὔτε τῆς τῶν ὑποστάσεων διαφορᾶς τὸ τῆς φύσεως συνεχὲς διασπώσης οὔτε τῆς κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν κοινότητος τὸ ἰδιάζον τῶν γνωρισμάτων ἀναχεούσης. Μὴ θαυμάσῃς δὲ εἰ τὸ αὐτὸ καὶ συνημμένον καὶ διακεκριμένον εἶναί φαμεν καί τινα ἐπινοοῦμεν, ὥσπερ ἐν αἰνίγματι, καινὴν καὶ παράδοξον διάκρισίν τε συνημμένην καὶ διακεκριμένην συνάφειαν. Εἰ γὰρ μή τις ἐριστικῶς καὶ πρὸς ἐπήρειαν ἀκούοι τοῦ λόγου, καὶ ἐν τοῖς αἰσθητοῖς δυνατόν ἐστι τὸ τοιοῦτον εὑρεῖν.

[5] Καί μου δέξασθε τὸν λόγον ὡς ὑπόδειγμα καὶ σκιὰν ἀληθείας, οὐχ ὡς αὐτὴν τὴν τῶν πραγμάτων ἀλήθειαν. Οὐ γὰρ δυνατόν ἐστι διὰ πάντων ἐφαρμοσθῆναι τὸ ἐν τοῖς ὑποδείγμασι θεωρούμενον τοῖς πρὸς ἃ ἡ τῶν ὑποδειγμάτων χρεία παραλαμβάνεται. Πόθεν οὖν φαμεν τὸ διακεκριμένον ἅμα καὶ συμφυὲς ἐκ τῶν κατὰ τὴν αἴσθησιν ἡμῖν προφαινομένων ἀναλογίζεσθαι; Ἤδη ποτὲ τοῦ ἐν τῇ νεφέλῃ τόξου τὴν λαμπηδόνα κατὰ τὸ ἔαρ τεθέασαι, ἐκεῖνο λέγω τὸ τόξον ὅπερ ὁ κοινὸς λόγος ἴριν εἴωθεν ἐπονομάζειν, ὅ φασιν οἱ περὶ ταῦτα δεινοὶ τότε συνίστασθαι ὅταν ἀνακεκραμένη τις ᾖ πρὸς τὸν ἀέρα νοτίς, τῆς τῶν πνευμάτων βίας τὸ ἐν τοῖς ἀτμοῖς ὑγρὸν καὶ παχὺ νεφῶδες ἤδη γενόμενον εἰς ὑετὸν ἀποθλιβούσης. Συνίστασθαι δὲ λέγουσιν οὕτως. Ἐπειδὰν ἡ τοῦ ἡλίου ἀκτὶς κατὰ τὸ πλάγιον ὑποδραμοῦσα τὸ πυκνόν τε καὶ συνηρεφὲς τῆς νεφώσεως, εἶτα κατὰ τὸ εὐθὺ νέφει τινὶ τὸν ἴδιον κύκλον ἐναπερείσηται, οἷόν τις καμπὴ καὶ ἐπάνοδος τοῦ φωτὸς πρὸς ἑαυτὸ γίνεται, τῆς αὐγῆς πρὸς τὸ ἔμπαλιν ἀπὸ τοῦ ὑγροῦ τε καὶ στίλβοντος ἀναλυούσης. Ἐπειδὴ γὰρ φύσις ἐστὶ ταῖς φλογώδεσι μαρμαρυγαῖς, εἴ τινι λείῳ προσπέσοιεν, πρὸς ἑαυτὰς πάλιν ἐπανακλᾶσθαι, κυκλοτερὲς δὲ τοῦτο τὸ σχῆμα διὰ τῆς ἀκτῖνος ἐν τῷ ὑγρῷ τε καὶ λείῳ τοῦ ἀέρος γινόμενον, ἐξ ἀνάγκης κατὰ τὸ σχῆμα τοῦ ἡλιακοῦ κύκλου καὶ ὁ παρακείμενος τῷ νέφει ἀὴρ διὰ τῆς ἀποστιλβούσης αὐγῆς περιγράφεται. Αὕτη τοίνυν ἡ αὐγὴ καὶ συνεχής ἐστι πρὸς ἑαυτὴν καὶ διῄρηται. Πολύχρωμος γάρ τις οὖσα καὶ πολυειδής, ἀφανῶς τοῖς ποικίλοις ἄνθεσι τῆς βαφῆς πρὸς ἑαυτὴν κατακιρνᾶται, τῶν ἑτεροχροούντων τὴν πρὸς ἄλληλα συμβολὴν ἐκ τῶν ὄψεων ἡμῶν κατὰ τὸ λεληθὸς ὑποκλέπτουσα, ὡς μὴ ἂν ἐπιγνωσθῆναι τοῦ γλαυκοῦ πρὸς τὸ πυραυγὲς τὸν διὰ μέσου τόπον τὸν μιγνύοντα δι' ἑαυτοῦ καὶ χωρίζοντα τὴν τῶν χροῶν ἑτερότητα, ἢ τοῦ πυραυγοῦς πρὸς τὸ πορφύρεον ἢ ἐκείνου πρὸς τὸ ἠλέκτρινον. Πάντων γὰρ αἱ αὐγαὶ κατὰ ταὐτὸν ὁρώμεναι καὶ τηλαυγεῖς εἰσι καὶ τῆς πρὸς ἀλλήλας συναφείας τὰ σημεῖα κλέπτουσαι τοὺς ἐλέγχους ἐκφεύγουσιν, ὡς ἀμήχανον ἐξευρεῖν μέχρι τίνος ἕστηκε τὸ πυρῶδες ἢ τὸ σμαραγδίζον τῆς αἴγλης καὶ ἀπὸ τίνος ἄρχεται μηκέτι τοιοῦτον εἶναι οἷον ἐν τῷ τηλαυγεῖ καθορᾶται. Ὥσπερ τοίνυν ἐν τῷ ὑποδείγματι καὶ τὰς τῶν χρωμάτων διαφορὰς φανερῶς διαγινώσκομεν καὶ διάστασιν ἑτέρου πρὸς τὸ ἕτερον οὐκ ἔστι τῇ αἰσθήσει καταλαβεῖν, οὕτω μοι λόγισαι δυνατὸν εἶναι καὶ περὶ τῶν θείων δογμάτων ἀναλογίσασθαι: τὰς μὲν τῶν ὑποστάσεων ἰδιότητας, ὥσπερ τι ἄνθος τῶν κατὰ τὴν ἴριν φαινομένων, ἐπαστράπτειν ἑκάστῳ τῶν ἐν τῇ Ἁγίᾳ Τριάδι πιστευομένων, τῆς δὲ κατὰ τὴν φύσιν ἰδιότητος μηδεμίαν ἑτέρου πρὸς τὸ ἕτερον ἐπινοεῖσθαι διοφοράν, ἀλλ' ἐν τῇ κοινότητι τῆς οὐσίας τὰς γνωριστικὰς ἰδιότητας ἐπιλάμπειν ἑκάστῳ. Καὶ γὰρ κἀκεῖ ἐν τῷ ὑποδείγματι ἡ ἀπαυγάζουσα τὴν πολύχρωμον ἐκείνην αὐγὴν μία οὐσία ἦν, ἡ διὰ τῆς ἡλιακῆς ἀκτῖνος ἀνακλωμένη, τὸ δὲ ἄνθος τοῦ φαινομένου πολυειδές, παιδεύοντος ἡμᾶς τοῦ λόγου καὶ διὰ τῆς κτίσεως μὴ κενοπαθεῖν τοῖς περὶ τοῦ δόγματος λόγοις, ὅταν εἰς τὸ δυσθεώρητον ἐμπεσόντες πρὸς τὴν τῶν λεγομένων συγκατάθεσιν ἰλιγγιάσωμεν. Ὥσπερ γὰρ ἐπὶ τῶν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς φαινομένων κρείττων ἐφάνη τοῦ λόγου τῆς αἰτίας ἡ πεῖρα, οὕτω καὶ τῶν ὑπεραναβεβηκότων δογμάτων κρείττων ἐστὶ τῆς διὰ λογισμῶν καταλήψεως ἡ πίστις, καὶ τὸ κεχωρισμένον ἐν ὑποστάσει καὶ τὸ συνημμένον ἐν τῇ οὐσίᾳ διδάσκουσα. Ἐπεὶ οὖν τὸ μέν τι κοινὸν ἐν τῇ Ἁγίᾳ Τριάδι, τὸ δὲ ἰδιάζον ὁ λόγος ἐνεθεώρησεν, ὁ μὲν τῆς κοινότητος λόγος εἰς τὴν οὐσίαν ἀνάγεται, ἡ δὲ ὑπόστασις τὸ ἰδιάζον ἑκάστου σημεῖόν ἐστιν.

[6] Ἀλλ' ἴσως οἴεταί τις μὴ συμβαίνειν τὸν ἀποδοθέντα περὶ τῆς ὑποστάσεως λόγον τῇ διανοίᾳ τῆς τοῦ Ἀποστόλου γραφῆς ἐν οἷς φησι περὶ τοῦ Κυρίου ὅτι: »Ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως«. Εἰ γὰρ ὑπόστασιν ἀποδεδώκαμεν εἶναι τὴν συνδρομὴν τῶν περὶ ἕκαστον ἰδιωμάτων, ὁμολογεῖται δὲ ὥσπερ ἐπὶ τοῦ Πατρὸς εἶναί τι τὸ ἰδιαζόντως ἐπιθεωρούμενον δι' οὗ μόνος ἐπιγινώσκεται, κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ τρόπον καὶ περὶ τοῦ Μονογενοῦς τὸ ἴσον πιστεύεται, πῶς ἐνταῦθα τὸ τῆς ὑποστάσεως ὄνομα τῷ Πατρὶ μόνῳ προσμαρτυρεῖ ἡ Γραφή, τὸν δὲ Υἱὸν μορφὴν λέγει τῆς ὑποστάσεως, οὐκ ἐν ἰδίοις, ἀλλ' ἐν τοῖς τοῦ Πατρὸς γνωρίσμασι χαρακτηριζόμενον; Εἰ γὰρ ἡ ὑπόστασις τὸ ἰδιάζον τῆς ἑκάστου ὑπάρξεως σημεῖόν ἐστι, τοῦ δὲ Πατρὸς ἴδιον τὸ ἀγεννήτως εἶναι ὁμολογεῖται, μεμόρφωται δὲ ὁ Υἱὸς τοῖς τοῦ Πατρὸς ἰδιώμασιν, ἄρα οὐκέτι διαμένει τῷ Πατρὶ κατ' ἐξαίρετον ἐπ' αὐτοῦ μόνου τὸ ἀγέννητον λέγεσθαι, εἴπερ τῷ ἰδιάζοντι τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ ἡ τοῦ Μονογενοῦς χαρακτηρίζεται ὕπαρξις.

[7] Ἀλλ' ἡμεῖς τοῦτό φαμεν ὅτι ἕτερον πληροῖ σκοπὸν ἐνταῦθα τῷ Ἀποστόλῳ ὁ λόγος, πρὸς ὃν βλέπων ταύταις ἐχρήσατο ταῖς φωναῖς, δόξης ἀπαύγασμα λέγων καὶ χαρακτῆρα τῆς ὑποστάσεως, ὅνπερ ὁ ἀκριβῶς νοήσας οὐδὲν εὑρήσει τοῖς παρ' ἡμῶν εἰρημένοις μαχόμενον, ἀλλ' ἐπί τινος ἰδιαζούσης ἐννοίας τὸν λόγον διεξαγόμενον. Οὐ γὰρ ὅπως διακριθεῖεν ἀπ' ἀλλήλων αἱ ὑποστάσεις διὰ τῶν ἐπιφαινομένων σημείων ὁ ἀποστολικὸς πραγματεύεται λόγος, ἀλλ' ὅπως τὸ γνήσιόν τε καὶ ἀδιάστατον καὶ συνημμένον τῆς τοῦ Υἱοῦ πρὸς τὸν Πατέρα σχέσεως νοηθείη. Ὡς γὰρ οὐκ εἶπεν: »ὃς ὢν δόξα τοῦ Πατρός«, καίτοιγε τὸ ἀληθὲς οὕτως ἔχει, ἀλλὰ τοῦτο παραλιπὼν ὡς ὁμολογούμενον, τὸ μὴ ἄλλο τι δόξης εἶδος ἐπὶ τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ ἕτερον ἐπὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ νοεῖν διδάσκων, αὐτῆς τῆς τοῦ Πατρὸς δόξης ἀπαύγασμα τὴν τοῦ Μονογενοῦς διορίζεται δόξαν, τὸ ἀδιαστάτως συνεπινοεῖσθαι τῷ Πατρὶ τὸν Υἱὸν κατασκευάζων ἐκ τοῦ κατὰ τὸ φῶς ὑποδείγματος. Ὡς γὰρ ἐκ τῆς φλογὸς μὲν ἡ αὐγή, οὐ μὴν ὑστέρα μετὰ τὴν φλόγα ἐστὶν ἡ αὐγή, ἀλλ' ὁμοῦ τε ἡ φλὸξ ἀνέλαμψε καὶ συναπηυγάσθη τὸ φῶς, οὕτω βούλεται καὶ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς μὲν τὸν Υἱὸν νοεῖσθαι, οὐ μὴν παρατάσει τινὶ διαστηματικῇ τῆς τοῦ Πατρὸς ὑπάρξεως τὸν Μονογενῆ διορίζεσθαι, ἀλλ' ἀεὶ τῷ αἰτίῳ τὸ ἐξ αὐτοῦ συνυπολαμβάνειν. Κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν οὖν τρόπον, ὥσπερ ἐφερμηνεύων τὸν προαποδοθέντα νοῦν, καὶ ὑποστάσεως χαρακτῆρά φησι τοῖς σωματικοῖς ἡμᾶς ὑποδείγμασι πρὸς τὴν τῶν ἀοράτων χειραγωγῶν κατανόησιν. Ὡς γὰρ τὸ σῶμα πάντως ἐστὶν ἐν σχήματι, ἀλλ' ἕτερος μὲν ὁ τοῦ σχήματος, ἕτερος δὲ ὁ τοῦ σώματος λόγος, καὶ οὐκ ἄν τις ἀποδιδοὺς τὸν ἑκατέρου τούτων ὁρισμὸν συνενεχθείη τῷ περὶ τοῦ ἑτέρου, πλὴν ἀλλὰ κἂν λόγῳ διακρίνῃς τὸ σχῆμα τοῦ σώματος, ἡ φύσις οὐ παραδέχεται τὴν διάκρισιν, ἀλλὰ συνημμένως νοεῖται μετὰ τοῦ ἑτέρου τὸ ἕτερον, οὕτως οἴεται δεῖν ὁ Ἀπόστολος: κἂν ὁ τῆς πίστεως λόγος ἀσύγχυτον καὶ διῃρημένην τὴν τῶν ὑποστάσεων διδάσκῃ διαφοράν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ προσεχὲς καὶ οἱονεὶ συμφυὲς τοῦ Μονογενοῦς πρὸς τὸν Πατέρα διὰ τῶν εἰρημένων παρίστησιν, οὐχ ὡς οὐκ ὄντος ἐν ὑποστάσει καὶ τοῦ Μονογενοῦς, ἀλλ' ὡς οὐ παραδεχομένου μεσότητά τινα τῆς ἑαυτοῦ πρὸς τὸν Πατέρα ἑνώσεως: ὥστε τὸν τῷ χαρακτῆρι τοῦ Μονογενοῦς διὰ τῶν τῆς ψυχῆς ὀμμάτων ἐνατενίσαντα καὶ τῆς τοῦ Πατρὸς ὑποστάσεως ἐν περινοίᾳ γενέσθαι, οὐκ ἐπαλλασσομένης οὐδὲ συναναμιγνυμένης τῆς ἐπιθεωρουμένης αὐτοῖς ἰδιότητος, ὡς ἢ τῷ Πατρὶ τὴν γέννησιν ἢ τῷ Υἱῷ τὴν ἀγεννησίαν ἐπιμορφάζειν, ἀλλ' ὡς οὐκ ἐνδεχόμενον τὸ ἕτερον τοῦ ἑτέρου διαζεύξαντας ἐφ' ἑαυτοῦ μόνον καταλαβεῖν τὸ λειπόμενον. Οὐδὲ γάρ ἐστι δυνατὸν Υἱὸν ὀνομάσαντα μὴ καὶ Πατρὸς ἐν περινοίᾳ γενέσθαι, σχετικῶς τῆς προσηγορίας ταύτης καὶ τὸν Πατέρα συνεμφαινούσης.

[8] Ἐπειδὴ τοίνυν ὁ ἑωρακὼς τὸν Υἱὸν ὁρᾷ τὸν Πατέρα, καθώς φησιν ἐν Εὐαγγελίοις ὁ Κύριος, διὰ τοῦτο χαρακτῆρά φησιν εἶναι τὸν Μονογενῆ τῆς τοῦ Πατρὸς ὑποστάσεως. Καὶ ὡς ἂν μᾶλλον ἐπιγνωσθείη τὸ νόημα, καὶ ἄλλας συμπαραληψόμεθα τοῦ Ἀποστόλου φωνὰς ἐν αἷς εἰκόνα τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου καὶ τῆς ἀγαθότητος αὐτοῦ πάλιν εἰκόνα φησίν, οὐχὶ τῷ διαφέρειν τοῦ ἀρχετύπου τὴν εἰκόνα κατὰ τὸν τῆς ἀορασίας καὶ τῆς ἀγαθότητος λόγον, ἀλλ' ἵνα δειχθῇ ὅτι ταὐτὸν τῷ πρωτοτύπῳ ἐστί, κἂν ἕτερον ᾖ. Οὐ γὰρ ἂν ὁ τῆς εἰκόνος διασωθείη λόγος, εἰ μὴ διὰ πάντων τὸ ἐναργὲς ἔχοι καὶ ἀπαράλλακτον. Οὐκοῦν ὁ τὸ τῆς εἰκόνος κατανοήσας κάλλος ἐν περινοίᾳ τοῦ ἀρχετύπου γίνεται. Καὶ ὁ τοῦ Υἱοῦ τὴν οἱονεὶ μορφὴν τῇ διανοίᾳ λαβὼν τῆς πατρικῆς ὑποστάσεως τὸν χαρακτῆρα ἀνετυπώσατο βλέπων διὰ τούτου ἐκεῖνον, οὐ τὴν ἀγεννησίαν τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐν τῷ ἀπεικονίσματι βλέπων (ἦ γὰρ ἂν δι' ὅλου ταὐτὸν ἦν καὶ οὐχ ἕτερον), ἀλλὰ τὸ ἀγέννητον κάλλος ἐν τῷ γεννητῷ κατοπτεύσας. Ὥσπερ ὁ ἐν τῷ καθαρῷ κατόπτρῳ τὴν γενομένην τῆς μορφῆς ἔμφασιν κατονοήσας ἐναργῆ τοῦ ἀπεικονισθέντος προσώπου τὴν γνῶσιν ἔσχεν, οὕτως ὁ τὸν Υἱὸν ἐπιγνοὺς τὸν χαρακτῆρα τῆς πατρικῆς ὑποστάσεως διὰ τῆς τοῦ Υἱοῦ γνώσεως ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ ἐδέξατο. Πάντα γὰρ τὰ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐν τῷ Υἱῷ καθορᾶται καὶ πάντα τὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ τοῦ Πατρός ἐστιν, ἐπειδὴ καὶ ὅλος ὁ Υἱὸς ἐν τῷ Πατρὶ μένει καὶ ὅλον ἔχει πάλιν ἐν ἑαυτῷ τὸν Πατέρα. Ὥστε ἡ τοῦ Υἱοῦ ὑπόστασις οἱονεὶ μορφὴ καὶ πρόσωπον γίνεται τῆς τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐπιγνώσεως, καὶ ἡ τοῦ Πατρὸς ὑπόστασις ἐν τῇ τοῦ Υἱοῦ μορφῇ ἐπιγινώσκεται, μενούσης αὐτοῖς τῆς ἐπιθεωρουμένης ἰδιότητος εἰς διάκρισιν ἐναργῆ τῶν ὑποστάσεων.