40

to consider it a procession, but from (p. 224) this to infer that one, and this surely will be a proof of the Son's generation.

And what is the difference between considering the mission a generation or a procession, and saying that eternally the Spirit has the power to send the Son and the Son the Spirit? For the one sent him later into the world; but the other sent the Spirit to his own disciples, having returned whence he came down. But the Son is both God and has become man; he was sent, therefore, also as man; the Spirit was not incarnate.

Since, therefore, being God, it was sent from the Father, and one must consider this mission to be a good-pleasure, according to the theologians, and good-pleasure is good will, but the Latins consider the mission to be the same as the procession, therefore, according to them, the procession is will; and since the Holy Spirit has his existence by procession, he therefore has his existence by will, according to them. O, the impiety! for he is no longer uncreated; for by willing, and not by nature, God the Father brought him forth, just as he brought forth the creation, if indeed the procession is good-pleasure and will. For according to the theologians, God brought forth creatures not by nature, but by will. For according to them the pre-eternal and everlasting generation is a work of nature; but creation is a work of divine will.

The Arians, then, said that the Son came forth into being by the will of the Father, supposedly arguing this from the fact that he did not receive his being from the Father unwillingly. But the Latins, by considering the procession to be a mission according to good-pleasure and will, show that the Holy Spirit came forth into being by the will of the Father or also of the Son. We shall therefore say to them, what the great Athanasius also said to the Arians, that "what is according to nature (p. 226) is beyond willing, and nature is not subject to will." As, therefore, the generation is not good-pleasure and will, but beyond good-pleasure and will (for it shows the Son is from the Father by nature, as genuine and consubstantial with him, and not by will like the creatures), so also the procession of the Spirit is not a mission and good-pleasure and will; for the procession shows the Holy Spirit is from the Father by nature, as genuine and consubstantial with him, and not by will in the manner of creatures.

The Latins, therefore, by saying that the procession is the same as the mission of the divine Spirit, by all necessity argue that the Spirit is created. And yet, since the mission of the Son as God from the Father and the Spirit, and that of the Spirit from the Father and the Son, is a good-pleasure of the Father, as we have been taught (for when each of these willed at the appointed time to come to us, the Father also approved), this good-pleasure happened for no other reason at all than for love of mankind. Therefore, if according to the Latins the procession is the same as the mission of the Spirit, and the mission is for love of mankind, then according to them the procession from the Father before the ages and the existence of the Spirit is not beyond cause, but for love of mankind. What could be heard more impious and strange than this?

And in addition to this, if mission and procession are the same, then for my sake the Spirit (alas for the false doctrine! for I cannot say these things without shuddering and astonishment) proceeds from the Father; for he was sent for my sake; and if for my sake, then also after me certainly, or not long before me, but under time just as I am, and not co-eternal with the Father and the Son. And not only this, but he is also subject to lordship. Alas, to what is he brought down by ungrateful servants, he who by nature has lordship over all creation! "for the Sabbath," (p. 228) he says, "was for man, not man for the

40

νομίζειν ἐκπόρευσιν, ἀλλ᾿ ἐκ (σελ. 224) ταύτης ἐκείνην τεκμαίρεσθαι, καί τῆς τοῦ Υἱοῦ γεννήσεως αὕτη δήπουθε ὑπάρξει τεκμήριον.

Τί δέ καί διενήνοχε τοῦ τήν ἀποστολήν νομίζειν γέννησιν ἤ ἐκπόρευσιν τό λέγειν ὡς ἀϊδίως ἔχον πέμπειν τό τε Πνεῦμα τόν Υἱόν καί ὁ Υἱός τό Πνεῦμα; Τό μέν καί νῦν αὐτόν ὕστερον εἰς τόν κόσμον ἀπέστειλεν˙ ὁ δέ τό Πνεῦμα τοῖς οἰκείοις μαθηταῖς ἔπεμψεν, ἐπανελθών ὅθεν κατῆλθεν. Ἀλλ᾿ ὁ μέν Υἱός καί Θεός ἐστι καί ἄνθρωπος γέγονεν˙ἀπεστάλη γοῦν καί ὡς ἄνθρωπος˙ τό Πνεῦμα οὐκ ἐνηνθρώπησεν.

Ἐπεί γοῦν Θεός ὄν ἀπεστάλη τοῦτο παρά τοῦ Πατρός, εὐδοκίαν δέ χρή τήν ἀποστολήν ἡγεῖσθαι ταύτην κατά τούς θεολόγους, εὐδοκία δέ ἡ ἀγαθή θέλησίς ἐστι, Λατῖνοι δέ τῇ ἐκπορεύσει ταὐτόν ἡγοῦνται τήν ἀποστολήν, θέλησις οὐκοῦν ἐστι κατ᾿ αὐτούς ἡ ἐκπόρευσις˙ κἀπειδήπερ ἐκπορεύσει τήν ὕπαρξιν ἔχει τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον, θελήσει τοῦτο λοιπόν ἔχει κατ᾿ αὐτούς τήν ὕπαρξιν. Ὤ τῆς δυσσεβείας οὐκέτι γάρ ἄκτιστον˙ τῷ γάρ θέλειν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ τῷ πεφυκέναι τοῦτο προήγαγεν ὁ Θεός καί Πατήρ, καθά καί τήν κτίσιν, εἴπερ ἡ ἐκπόρευσίς ἐστιν εὐδοκία καί θέλησις˙ τά κτίσματα γάρ κατά τούς θεολόγους ἐν τῷ πεφυκέναι, ἀλλά τῷ θέλειν ὁ Θεός προήγαγεν. Ἔργον μέν γάρ φύσεως κατ᾿ αὐτούς ἡ προαίωνιος καί ἀΐδιος γέννησις˙ ἔργον δέ θείας θελήσεως ἡ κτίσις.

Ἀρειανοί μέν οὖν τόν Υἱόν ἔλεγον θελήσει τοῦ Πατρός εἰς τό εἶναι προελθεῖν ἐκ τοῦ μή ἀθελήτως ἐκ Πατρός τό εἶναι λαβεῖν τοῦτο δῆθεν κατασκευάζοντες. Λατῖνοι δέ θελήσει τοῦ Πατρός ἤ καί τοῦ Υἱοῦ προελθεῖν εἰς τό εἶναι δεικνύουσι τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον τοῦ τήν ἐκπόρευσιν εἶναι νομίζειν ἀποστολήν κατ᾿ εὐδοκίαν καί θέλησιν. Ἐροῦμεν οὖν καί ἡμεῖς πρός αὐτούς, ὅπερ καί ὁ μέγας Ἀθανάσιος πρός τούς Ἀρειανούς, ὅτι «τοῦ βούλεσθαι τό κατά φύσιν (σελ.226) ὑπέρκειται˙ καί ἡ φύσις οὐχ ὑπόκειται βουλήσει». Ὡς οὖν ἡ γέννησις εὐδοκία καί θέλησις οὐκ ἔστιν, ἀλλ᾿ ὑπέρ εὐδοκίαν καί θέλησιν (φύσει γάρ δείκνυσιν ἐκ Πατρός ὄντα τόν Υἱόν ὡς αὐτῷ γνήσιον καί ὁμοούσιον, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ θελήσει καθά τά κτίσματα) οὕτως οὐδέ τοῦ Πνεύματος ἡ ἐκπόρευσις ἀποστολή καί εὐδοκία καί θέλησίς ἐστι˙ φύσει γάρ ἡ ἐκπόρευσις δείκνυσι τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός, ὡς αὐτῷ γνήσιον καί ὁμοούσιον, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ θελήσει κατά τά κτίσματα.

Λατῖνοι γοῦν λέγοντες ταὐτόν εἶναι τῇ ἀποστολῇ τοῦ θείου Πνεύματος τήν ἐκπόρευσιν κατά πᾶσαν ἀνάγκην κτιστόν εἶναι τό Πνεῦμα κατασκευάζουσι. Καί μήν ἐπειδήπερ εὐδοκία τοῦ Πατρός ἐστιν, ὡς ἐδιδάχθημεν, ἤ τε τοῦ Υἱοῦ ὡς Θεοῦ παρά Πατρός τε καί Πνεύματος ἀποστολή καί ἡ τοῦ Πνεύματος παρά Πατρός τε καί Υἱοῦ (θελήσαντος γάρ ἑκατέρου τούτων κατά καιρόν ἀφικέσθαι πρός ἡμᾶς καί ὁ Πατήρ εὐδόκησε) δι᾿ οὐδέν ἄλλο πάντως ἤ διά φιλανθρωπίαν ἡ εὐδοκία γέγονεν αὕτη. Τοιγαροῦν, εἰ κατά Λατίνους τῇ ἀποστολῇ τοῦ Πνεύματος ταὐτόν ἡ ἐκπόρευσις, ἡ δέ ἀποστολή διά φιλανθρωπίαν, κατ᾿ αὐτούς οὐκοῦν καί ἡ πρό αἰώνων ἐκ Πατρός ἐκπόρευσίς τε καί ὕπαρξις τοῦ Πνεύματος οὐχ ὑπέρ αἰτίαν, ἀλλά διά φιλανθρωπίαν. Οὗ τί ἄν ἀκουσθείη δυσσεβέστερόν τε καί καινότερον;

Πρός δέ τούτοις, εἰ ταὐτόν ἀποστολή καί ἐκπόρευσις, δι᾿ ἐμέ λοιπόν τό Πνεῦμα (βαβαί τῆς κακοδοξίας˙ οὐ γάρ ἔχω ταῦτα λέγειν ἄνευ φρίκης καί θαύματος) ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός ἐκπορεύεται˙ δι᾿ ἐμέ γάρ ἀπέσταλται˙ εἰ δέ δι᾿ ἐμέ, καί μετ᾿ ἐμέ πάντως ἤ οὐ πολύ πρό ἐμοῦ, ἀλλ᾿ ὑπό χρόνον ὥσπερ ἐγώ, καί οὐχί τῷ Πατρί καί τῷ Υἱῷ συναΐδιον. Καί οὐ τοῦτο μόνον, ἀλλά καί ὑπείκει τῇ δεσποτείᾳ. Φεῦ, ποῦ κατάγεται παρά τῶν ἀγνωμόνων δούλων τό τῇ φύσει τήν δεσποτείαν ἔχον ἁπάσης τῆς κτίσεως˙ «τό γάρ Σάββατον», (σελ. 228) φησί, «διά τόν ἄνθρωπον, οὐχί ὁ ἄνθρωπος διά τό