43

(p. 236) But just as the giving or sending of the Son by the Father for the salvation of the world is not a begetting—much less could it be the pre-eternal one, and infinitely so—so also the giving of the Holy Spirit by the Son, or His sending, is not a procession, how much more and beyond measure is it not the procession from the Father before the ages, which did not come into being—perish the thought—but exists even before these things and is co-eternal with the Father.

Does anyone still maintain, on account of the sending, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son? I think not, unless he clearly wishes to fight against God. But, he says, the Spirit is also called the Spirit of the Son Himself and His own. “For God has sent,” says the apostle, “the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father.”

Excellent! For having omitted the “from,” you, whoever you are, the recent opponent, now put forward to us the “His” without it. Or is “from Him” being newly invented and constructed by you out of “His,” with your dialectic about incomprehensible things? Tell me, are you not your own? This, I think, you will not deny us. For you do not seem to me to have heard the one who said, “become your own man.” For if you had heard and obeyed, you would have cherished the traditions about God and things beyond human reason and reality, and you would have least of all attempted these innovations. But if a man is his own, then according to you, a man is from himself. But why do we not, he says, reasonably call the Son “of the Spirit”? For the Spirit would seem to be the Father, since the Son brings the Father to mind. For this reason, then, we do not call the Son “of the Spirit,” lest He seem to be from the Spirit, but we do call the Spirit “of the Son”; but not for this reason also “from the Son.” For He is called His Spirit, not as being from Him, but as being in Him.

(p. 238) And learn this from the apostle, who says, “no one knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him.” Therefore, just as it is called the spirit of a man, not as being from the man, but as being in the man, so also the divine Spirit is called “of the Son,” not as being from the Son, but as being naturally in the Son from eternity and escaping the seemingly inescapable necessities of your syllogisms.

For the one who thinks in the Latin manner, reasoning by division, says: “Since the Spirit is of the Son, it is either as being bestowed through Him, or as consubstantial, or as proceeding from Him. It is not as being bestowed, for the Spirit exists pre-eternally of the Son, whereas bestowing is a later event. Nor is it as consubstantial, for then the Son could also be said to be of the Spirit. It remains, therefore, that the Spirit is and is said to be of the Son as proceeding from Him.” What then, if something should appear outside of this division, according to which the Spirit might be said to be of the Son, would not this hypothetical syllogism of yours from division become altogether an invalid syllogism?

For the Spirit is of the Son as proceeding from the Father from ages and unto ages, and naturally existing and resting in the Son; and for this reason, He is called the Spirit of the Son, but He is not said to be from the Son. For the mind of man also comes from God and exists in him, that is, in the man; and it is called the mind of man, but the man is not called of the mind; nor is the mind, at least in its essence, said to be from man; for the discussion is not now about energy. Therefore, the Spirit is not from the Son, unless you mean grace and energy when you say Spirit; for you might say that the mind, when the name signifies its energy, is from man, as being manifested and imparted.

43

(σελ. 236) Ἀλλά γάρ ὥσπερ ἡ τοῦ Υἱοῦ παρά τοῦ Πατρός ὑπέρ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου σωτηρίας δόσις ἤ ἀποστολή γέννησις οὐκ ἔστι, πολλοῦ γε ἄν δή που δέοι καί ἀπείρου εἶναι ἡ προαιώνιος, οὕτως οὐδ᾿ ἡ παρά τοῦ Υἱοῦ δόσις τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος ἤ ἀποστολή ἐκπόρευσίς ἐστι, πόσῳ γε μᾶλλον καί ὑπέρ τό πόσῳ ἡ πρό τῶν αἰώνων παρά τοῦ Πατρός οὐ γενομένη, ἄπαγε, ἀλλά καί πρό τούτων οὖσα καί τῷ Πατρί συνάναρχος.

Ἔτ᾿ ἔχει τις λέγειν διά τήν ἀποστολήν ὡς ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός καί τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἐκπορεύεται τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον; Οὐκ ἔγωγε οἶμαι, εἰ μή σαφῶς ἐθέλει θεομαχεῖν. Ἀλλά καί αὐτοῦ, φησί, τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα καί ἴδιον αὐτοῦ λέγεται. «Ἐξαπέστειλε γάρ ὁ Θεός», φησίν, ὁ ἀπόστολος, «τό Πνεῦμα τοῦ Υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ἡμῶν, κρᾶζον˙ ἀββά, ὁ Πατήρ».

Ὑπέρευγε˙ τήν "ἐξ" γάρ ἀφείς, σύγε ὅς τίς ποτ᾿ εἶ ὁ πρόσφατος ἀντικείμενος, τό αὐτοῦ νῦν ἡμῖν προβάλλῃ ταύτης χωρίς˙ ἤ σοι κἀκ τοῦ αὐτοῦ τό ἐξ αὐτοῦ νεοεῖταί τε καί κατασκευάζεται, τῷ διαλεκτικῷ τῶν ἀπερινοήτων; Εἰπέ δή μοι, καί σύ αὐτός οὐ σαυτοῦ; Τοῦτό γε, οἶμαι, ἀποδράσεις ἡμῶν. Οὐ γάρ ἔοικάς μοι ἀκοῦσαι τοῦ λέγοντος, «γενοῦ σεαυτοῦ ἄνθρωπε». Εἰ γάρ ἤκουσας καί ὑπήκουσας, ἔστεργες ἄν τά παραδεδομένα περί Θεοῦ καί τοῖς ὑπέρ ἄνθρωπον καί λόγοις καί πράγμασι, καί ταῦτα καινοτομῶν, ἥκιστα ἐπεχείρησας. Ἀλλ᾿ εἰ ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἑαυτοῦ, οὐκοῦν ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ κατά σέ. Τόν Υἱόν δέ τοῦ Πνεύματος πῶς οὐ λέγομεν, φησίν, εἰκότως˙ δόξαι γάρ ἄν Πατήρ τό Πνεῦμα, τοῦ Υἱοῦ συνεισάγοντος τῇ διανοίᾳ τόν Πατέρα˙ διά τοῦτο τοίνυν Υἱόν μέν Πνεύματος οὐ λέγομεν, ἵνα μή δόξῃ ἐκ τοῦ Πνεύματος, Υἱοῦ δέ Πνεῦμα λέγομεν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ παρά τοῦτο καί ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ˙ Πνεῦμα γάρ αὐτοῦ λέγεται, οὐχ ὡς ἐξ αὐτοῦ, ἀλλ᾿ ὡς ἐν αὐτῷ ὄν.

(σελ. 238) Καί τοῦτο διδάσκου παρά τοῦ ἀποστόλου, «οὐδείς οἶδε, λέγοντος, τά τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, εἰ μή τό Πνεῦμα τοῦ ἀνθρώπου τό ἐν αὐτῷ»˙ ὡς οὖν Πνεῦμα μέν ἀνθρώπου λέγεται, ἀλλ᾿ οὐχ ὡς ἐκ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, ἀλλ᾿ ὡς ἐν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ ὄν, οὕτω καί τό θεῖον Πνεῦμα καλεῖται τοῦ Υἱοῦ, ἀλλ᾿ οὐχ ὡς ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ, ἀλλ᾿ ὡς ἐν τῷ Υἱῷ φυσικῶς ἐξ ἀϊδίου ὄν καί τάς ἀφύκτους δοκούσας σοι τῶν συλλογισμῶν ἀνάγκας διαφεῦγον.

Ἐκ διαιρέσεως γάρ ὁ λατινικῶς φρονῶν συλλογιζόμενος φησι˙ «ἐπεί τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἐστι τό Πνεῦμα, ἤ ὡς δι᾿ αὐτοῦ χορηγούμενόν ἐστιν ἤ ὡς ὁμοούσιον ἤ ὡς ἐξ αὐτοῦ ἐκπορευόμενον. Καί ὡς μέν χορηγούμενον οὐκ ἔστι˙ προαιωνίως μέν γάρ ὑπάρχει τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα, τό δέ χορηγεῖσθαι ὑστερογενές. Οὐδ᾿ ὡς ὁμοούσιον˙ λέγοιτο γάρ ἄν καί ὁ Υἱός τοῦ Πνεύματος. Λείπεται τοίνυν τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα εἶναί τε καί λέγεσθαι ὡς ἐξ αὐτοῦ ἐκπορευόμενον». Τί οὖν, ἐάνπερ ἀναφανῇ τι ταύτης τῆς διαιρέσεως ἐκτός, καθ᾿ ὅ τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα λέγοιτ᾿ ἄν, οὐχ ὁ ἐκ διαιρέσεως οὗτός σοι καθ᾿ ὑπόθεσιν συλλογισμός ἀσυλλόγιστος τό παράπαν γένοιτ᾿ ἄν;

Ἔστι γάρ τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα ὡς ἐξ αἰώνων καί εἰς αἰῶνας ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός ἐκπορευόμενον καί ἐν Υἱῷ φυσικῶς ὑπάρχον καί ἀναπαυόμενον˙ καί διά τοῦτο Πνεῦμα μέν Υἱοῦ λέγεται, ἐκ δέ τοῦ Υἱοῦ οὐ λέγεται. Καί ὁ νοῦς γάρ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστι γενόμενος καί ἐν αὐτῷ ὑπάρχων, δηλονότι τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ˙ καί νοῦς μέν ἀνθρώπου λέγεται, ἄνθρωπος δέ τοῦ νοῦ οὐ λέγεται˙ ἀλλ᾿ οὐδ᾿ ἐξ ἀνθρώπου λέγεται ὁ νοῦς, ὅ γε κατ᾿ οὐσίαν˙ οὐ γάρ δή περί ἐνεργείας νῦν ὁ λόγος. Οὐκ ἄρα ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἐστι τό Πνεῦμα, εἰ μή τήν χάριν εἴπῃς Πνεῦμα καί τήν ἐνέργειαν˙ καί τόν νοῦν γάρ, ὅταν τήν ἐνέργειαν σημαίνῃ τοὔνομα, φαίῃς ἄν ἐκ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, ὡς ἐκφαινόμενός τε καί μεταδιδόμενον.