44

One might see the theologians also saying that the Holy Spirit is the mind of Christ; for the divine Cyril (p. 240) in the fourth chapter of the *Thesauri* says, “that being the mind of Christ, He discourses on all things in Him to the disciples.” Just as, therefore, in our case the mind is of man both according to essence and according to energy, and according to essence the mind is of him, but not from him, while according to energy it is both of him and from him, so also the Holy Spirit is of Christ as God both according to essence and according to energy. But according to essence and hypostasis He is of Him, but not from Him; whereas according to energy He is both of Him and from Him. But the Latins, saying that the Spirit is of the Son, but not that He is of the Son but not from the Son, both deny and set aside the very essence and hypostasis of the all-holy Spirit.

The conclusion, therefore, from the division of the hypothetical Latin syllogism has been completely dissolved and has proceeded to non-being; or rather, to the complete opposite. And if one should see also the things denied by the Latin himself, so that by necessity the one proposition might be shown to be unalterable, he will see him to be manifestly opposed to the saints; for “the Spirit,” he says, “is and is called of the Son, not as being bestowed or manifested through Him (since the Spirit is of the Son without beginning, but bestowing is not without beginning), nor as consubstantial; for then the Son would also be called of the Spirit.”

But the great Basil, whose unadorned saying is preeminently more powerful than the Latin syllogisms and divisions, he, therefore, in his discourse *On the Holy Spirit*, says, “that the Spirit has been manifested through the Son the apostle has made clear, by naming Him the Spirit of the Son.” Do you see that the Spirit is called of Christ as being bestowed and manifested by Him? The Spirit, therefore, is and is called of the Son without beginning; but the Son also has the power to bestow without beginning; for there is no addition or subtraction (p. 242) there, but since those who receive exist under time, they received the bestowal in time.

But the Spirit might also be called of the Son as being of the same nature and consubstantial, as the same great Basil says in the eighteenth chapter of *To Amphilochius*, “He is called the Spirit of Christ, as being by nature proper to Him.” And the divine Cyril in his controversial discourse *On the Holy Spirit* says: “the Holy Spirit, just as He exists according to essence of God and the Father, so also is He according to essence of the Son, as proceeding ineffably from the Father with the essentially begotten Son;” and in his commentary on the Gospel according to Luke, “just as,” he says, “the finger is attached to the hand, not being alien to it, but naturally in it, so also the Holy Spirit, by the principle of consubstantiality, is joined in union with the Son, but proceeds from God and the Father.” The Spirit of the Son, therefore, might also be called such as being of the same nature; but the Son is not also called of the Spirit, lest the Spirit seem to be the Father.

It occurs to me, therefore, to marvel at the excess of the Latin argument, considering that while the Spirit is said to be of the Son in all the aforementioned ways, and in one way alone not at all, they have impiously both ignored and set aside all those ways, and adhering impiously to that which is in no way said, they have both dogmatized and set aside that the Spirit has His existence from the Son; and adhering impiously to that which is in no way said, He is and is said to be from the Son. But that we may establish upon a firm foundation those things concerning this

44

Ἴδοι δ᾿ ἄν τις τούς θεολόγους καί νοῦν λέγοντας εἶναι Χριστοῦ τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον˙ ὁ γάρ θεῖος Κύριλλος (σελ. 240) ἐν τετάρτῳ κεφαλαίῳ τῶν Θησαυρῶν φησιν, «ὅτι νοῦς ὑπάρχον τοῦ Χριστοῦ, πάντα τά ἐν αὐτῷ διαλέγεται τοῖς μαθηταῖς». Καθάπερ οὖν ἐφ᾿ ἡμῶν ὁ νοῦς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐστί καί κατ᾿ οὐσίαν καί κατ᾿ ἐνέργειαν, καί κατ᾿ οὐσίαν μέν αὐτοῦ ἐστιν ὁ νοῦς, ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ ἐξ αὐτοῦ, κατ᾿ ἐνέργειαν δέ καί αὐτοῦ ἐστι καί ἐξ αὐτοῦ, οὕτω καί τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐστιν ὡς Θεοῦ καί κατ᾿ οὐσίαν καί κατ᾿ ἐνέργειαν. Ἀλλά κατά μέν τήν οὐσίαν καί τήν ὑπόστασιν αὐτοῦ ἐστιν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ ἐξ αὐτοῦ˙ κατά δέ τήν ἐνέργειαν καί αὐτοῦ ἐστιν καί ἐξ αὐτοῦ. Λατῖνοι δέ τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα λέγοντες, ἀλλ᾿ οὐχί καί τοῦ Υἱοῦ μέν, οὐκ ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ δέ, αὐτήν ἀναιροῦσί τε καί ἀθετοῦσι τήν οὐσίαν καί τήν ὑπόστασιν τοῦ παναγίου Πνεύματος.

Τό μέν οὖν ἐκ διαιρέσεως συμπέρασμα τοῦ λατινικοῦ καθ᾿ ὑπόθεσιν συλλογισμοῦ διαλέλυται τελέως καί πρός τό μή ὄν κεχώρηκε˙ μᾶλλον δέ πρός ἅπαν τοὐναντίον. Ἄν δέ τις ἴδῃ καί τά παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ τοῦ Λατίνου ἀναιρούμενα, ἵνα ἐξ ἀνάγκης τό ἕν ἀπερίτρεπτον δειχθῇ, τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῦτον ὄψεται φανερῶς ἀντίθετον˙ «τοῦ γάρ Υἱοῦ», φησίν, «ἔστι τε καί λέγεται τό Πνεῦμα, οὐχ ὡς δι᾿ αὐτοῦ χορηγούμενον ἤ φαινόμενον (ἐπειδήπερ ἀνάρχως μέν τό Πνεῦμα τοῦ Υἱοῦ, τό δέ χορηγεῖν οὐκ ἄναρχον) οὐδ᾿ ὡς ὁμοούσιον˙ λέγοιτο γάρ ἄν καί ὁ Υἱός τοῦ Πνεύματος».

Ἀλλ᾿ ὁ μέγας Βασίλειος, οὗ καί ἀκατάσκευος ἡ ρῆσις διαφερόντως ἐστίν ἰσχυροτέρα τῶν λατινικῶν συλλογισμῶν τε καί διαιρέσεων, οὗτος οὖν ἐν τῷ Περί τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος λόγῳ, «τό δι᾿ Υἱοῦ», φησί, «πεφηνέναι τό Πνεῦμα σαφές πεποίηκεν ὁ ἀπόστολος, Υἱοῦ Πνεῦμα ὀνομάσας αὐτόν. Ὁρᾷς ὅτι Χριστοῦ τό Πνεῦμα λέγεται ὡς παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ χορηγούμενόν τε καί φαινόμενον; Πνεῦμα μέν οὖν Υἱοῦ ἀνάρχως ἐστί τε καί λέγεται˙ ἀλλά καί αὐτό τό χορηγεῖν ἔχειν ἀνάρχως ἔχει ὁ Υἱός˙ οὐδεμία γάρ πρόσληψις ἤ ἀφαίρεσις (σελ. 242) ἐκεῖ, ὡς δ᾿ ὑπό χρόνον ὄντα τά λαμβάνοντα, χρονικῶς ἔλαβον τήν χορηγίαν.

Ἀλλά καί ὡς ὁμοφυές καί ὁμοούσιον λέγοιτ᾿ ἄν τό Πνεῦμα τοῦ Υἱοῦ, ὡς ὁ αὐτός μέγας Βασίλειος ἐν τῷ Πρός Ἀμφιλόχιον ὀκτωκαιδεκάτῳ κεφαλαίῳ «Πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ», φησί, «λέγεται, ὡς κατά φύσιν ᾠκειωμένον αὐτῷ». Καί ὁ θεῖος Κύριλλος ἐν τῷ Περί τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος ἀγωνιστικῷ φησί λόγῳ˙ «τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον, ὥσπερ κατ᾿ οὐσίαν ὑπάρχει τοῦ Θεοῦ καί Πατρός, οὕτω καί τοῦ Υἱοῦ κατ᾿ οὐσίαν ἐστίν, ὡς μετά τοῦ Υἱοῦ οὐσιωδῶς γεννηθέντος, ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός ἀφράστως ἐκπορευόμενον»˙ κἀν τῇ τοῦ Κατά Λουκᾶν εὐαγγελίου ἐξηγήσει, «ὥσπερ», φησίν, «ὁ δάκτυλος ἀπήρτηται τῆς χειρός, οὐκ ἀλλότριος ὤν αὐτῆς, ἀλλ᾿ ἐν αὐτῇ φυσικῶς, οὕτω καί τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον τῷ τῆς ὁμοουσιότητος λόγῳ συνῆπται μέν πρός ἕνωσιν τῷ Υἱῷ, ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ δέ καί Πατρός ἐκπορεύεται». Πνεῦμα μέν οὖν Υἱοῦ καί ὡς ὁμοφυές λέγοιτ᾿ ἄν˙ οὐ λέγεται δέ καί ὁ Υἱός τοῦ Πνεύματος, ὡς ἄν μή Πατήρ τό Πνεῦμα δόξῃ.

Ἔπεισί μοι τοιγαροῦν θαυμάζειν τό τῆς λατινικῆς παρουσίας ὑπερβάλλον, ἀναλογιζομένῳ ὅτι τοῦ Πνεύματος κατά τούς εἰρημένους πάντας τρόπους λεγομένου τοῦ Υἱοῦ, καθ᾿ ἕνα δέ μόνον οὐδαμῶς, αὐτοί πάντας μέν ἐκείνους δυσσεβῶς ἠγνόησάν τε καί ἠθέτησαν, τῷ δέ μηδαμῶς εἰρημένῳ προσχόντες καί τοῦτο δυσσεβῶς, ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ τήν ὕπαρξιν ἔχειν τό Πνεῦμα ἐδογμάτησάν τε καί ἠθέτησαν, τῷ δέ μηδαμῶς εἰρημένῳ προσχόντες καί τοῦτο δυσσεβῶς, ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἐστί τε καί λέγεται. Ἀλλ᾿ ἵν᾿ ἐπί βεβαίαν ἕδραν στηρίξωμεν τούς περί τούτου