of the Father and proceeds from Me"? For He was not then speaking more humbly concerning Himself, on which account He would have omitted this alone, concealing it. It is clear then, they say, even to a blind man, that the Holy Spirit does not also proceed from the Son.

It is then a great dignity to have the power to send the divine Spirit, and so great as to show the Son to be of one nature, equal, and of one honor with the Father, just as the fact that the Son is sent not by the Father alone, but also by the Spirit Himself, establishes the Spirit as consubstantial and of one honor with the Father. This dignity is indeed divine and natural, but not hypostatic; for if the sending were hypostatic, it would not be common to the Father, Son, and Spirit. The other Paraclete is therefore true God; how is He (p. 266) who sends Him not true God? And if the Son sends the Paraclete as coming of His own accord, how are they not of one power and will, how would they not also be of one nature?

Do you see how the sending of the divine Spirit shows the unity of will and substance of the sender with the one sent, which is a most great dignity, belonging indeed to the Three in a fitting and God-befitting manner, as also showing the self-authority of those thus sent? But he who says this dignity is not divine, but projective, first shows not only the Son as cause of the divine Spirit, but also the Spirit as cause of the Son. In addition to this, he wrongly denies at one time or another the free self-determination of each of them toward us, dogmatizing that the mission to us is not of will but of nature, and therefore also without beginning. For things that are from God not by willing but by nature, are without beginning before, but not originated.

And indeed he who is named for theology, to those who considered the Son lesser because He was sent by the Father, says that the sending is proof of the Father's good pleasure, but not of His own pre-eternal existence. Madly, therefore, do the Latins consider the sending of the Spirit from the Son as proof of His pre-eternal existence from Him. But it is also written, he says, that He was raised and taken up by the Father, but also that He raised Himself and ascended again; the former of good pleasure, the latter of power. Since, therefore, the Holy Spirit, though sent by the Son, also came to us from Himself, one must call the former of good pleasure, the latter of power; but not illogically innovate from this concerning the mode of existence of the divine Spirit.

Indeed, in addition to this one named for theology (p. 268), not even Basil the Great is found anywhere saying that the Spirit is also from the Son; and if in the chapters of *Against Eunomius* concerning the divine Spirit he had said this is from the Father through the Son, yet he himself, becoming his own interpreter in the same chapters, clarified that he said this with respect to the imparting, writing: "The apostle clearly proclaimed that the Spirit is from God, saying that we have received the Spirit which is from God, and he made it clear that He has been manifested through the Son, naming Him the Spirit of the Son, just as of God, and foretelling Him as the mind of Christ, just as also the Spirit of God is as that of man.

Do you see that from God, that is, the Father, He has His being, but through the Son, His being imparted and manifested? And that He is called the Spirit and mind of the Son, but not from the Son, just as of man? For this one's own spirit and his mind are his, but not from him, unless perhaps according to energy. Making this even more evident elsewhere, this great one, "the Spirit," he says, "is dependent on the Son, with whom He is inseparably comprehended, but from the cause of the Father He has His being, suspended from it, whence also

τοῦ Πατρός καί παρ᾿ ἐμοῦ ἐκπορεύεται»; Οὐ γάρ ἦν ταπεινότερον τηνικαῦτα περί ἑαυτοῦ φθεγγόμενος, δι᾿ ὅπερ ἄν τοῦτο μόνον καί παρῆκεν ἐπικρυψάμενος. ∆ῆλον οὖν καί τυφλῷ, φασίν, ὡς οὐχί καί ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἐκπορεύεται τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον.

Μέγα μέν οὖν ἀξίωμα τό πέμπειν ἔχειν τό θεῖον Πνεῦμα, καί τοσοῦτο μέγα, ὡς ὁμοφυᾶ καί ἴσον καί ὁμότιμον δεικνύναι τῷ Πατρί τόν Υἱόν, καθάπερ καί τό Πνεῦμα ὁμοούσιόν τε καί ὁμότιμον τῷ Πατρί συνίστησι τό μή παρά τοῦ Πατρός μόνου, ἀλλά καί παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ τοῦ Πνεύματος τόν Υἱόν ἀποστέλλεσθαι. Θεϊκόν γε μήν καί φυσικόν ἐστι τουτί τό ἀξίωμα, ἀλλ᾿ οὐχ ὑποστατικόν˙ εἰ γάρ ὑποστατικόν ἦν τό ἀποστέλλειν, οὐκ ἄν ἦν κοινόν Πατρός, Υἱοῦ καί Πνεύματος. Θεός οὖν ἀληθινός ὁ ἄλλος παράκλητος˙ ὁ δή (σελ. 266) τοῦτον ἀποστέλλων πῶς οὐχί Θεός ἀληθινός; Εἰ δέ καί παρ᾿ ἑαυτοῦ ἐρχόμενον ὡς αὐτοκέλευστον ἀποστέλλει τόν παράκλητον ὁ Υἱός, πῶς οὐ μιᾶς ἐστιν ἐξουσίας καί θελήσεως, πῶς οὐχί καί μιᾶς ἄν εἶεν φύσεως;

Ὁρᾷς ὡς ἡ ἀποστολή τοῦ θείου Πνεύματος τήν τοῦ ἀποστέλλοντος πρός τόν ἀποστελλόμενον ὁμοβουλίαν καί ὁμουσιότητα παρίστησιν, ὅ μέγιστόν ἐστιν ἀξίωμα, προσόν μέντοι τοῖς τρισί καλῶς τε καί θεοπρεπῶς, ὡς καί τήν αὐτεξουσιότητα δεικνῦον τῶν ἀποστελλομένων οὕτως; Ὁ δέ λέγων μή θεϊκόν εἶναι τό ἀξίωμα τοῦτο, ἀλλά προβλητικόν, πρῶτον μέν οὐ τόν Υἱόν μόνον αἴτιον δείκνυσι τοῦ θείου Πνεύματος, ἀλλά καί τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα. Πρός δέ τούτῳ καί τῆς πρός ἡμᾶς ἐλεύθερως τήν ἑκατέρου τούτων αὐτοβουλίαν ἄλλοτε ἄλλην ἀθετεῖ κακῶς, μή θελήσεως ἀλλά φύσεως δογματίζων εἶναι τήν πρός ἡμᾶς ἀποστολήν, τοιγαροῦν καί ἄναρχον. Ἅ γάρ μή τῷ θέλειν ἀλλά τῷ πεφυκέναι ἐκ Θεοῦ, προάναρχά ἐστιν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ ἀρκτά.

Καί μήν ὁ τῆς θεολογίας ἐπώνυμος πρός τούς ἐλάττω νομίσαντας τόν Υἱόν, ὅτι ἀπεστάλη παρά τοῦ Πατρός, τεκμήριον εἶναί φησι τήν ἀποστολήν τῆς πατρικῆς εὐδοκίας, ἀλλ᾿ οὐχί τῆς αὐτοῦ προαιωνίου ὑπάρξεως. Φρενοβλαβῶς οὐκοῦν οἱ Λατῖνοι τεκμήριον ἡγοῦνται τήν ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ τοῦ Πνεύματος ἀποστολήν τῆς παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ προαιωνίου ὑπάρξεως. Ἀλλά καί ἐγήγερθαι γέγραπται, φησί, καί ἀνειλῆφθαι παρά τοῦ Πατρός, ἀλλά καί ἑαυτόν ἀνεστακέναι καί ἀνεληλυθέναι πάλιν˙ ἐκεῖνα τῆς εὐδοκίας, ταῦτα τῆς ἐξουσίας. Ἐπεί γοῦν καί τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον εἰ καί παρά τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἀπεστάλη, ἀλλά καί παρ᾿ ἑαυτοῦ πρός ἡμᾶς ἀφίκετο, ἐκεῖνο τῆς εὐδοκίας χρή λέγειν, τοῦτο τῆς ἐξουσίας˙ ἀλλά μή καινοτομεῖν ἐντεῦθεν ἀλόγως τόν τῆς ὑπάρξεως τρόπον τοῦ θείου Πνεύματος.

Πρός μέν δή τῷ τῆς θεολογίας ἐπωνύμῳ τούτῳ (σελ. 268) οὐδ᾿ ὁ μέγας Βασίλειος εὕρηταί που λέγων καί ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα˙ εἰ δ᾿ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός τοῦτο διά τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἐν τοῖς Πρός Εὐνομιανούς περί τοῦ θείου Πνεύματος εἰρήκει κεφαλαίοις, ἀλλ᾿ αὐτός ἑαυτοῦ ἐν τοῖς αὐτοῖς κεφαλαίοις ἑρμηνεύς γενόμενος, ἐπί τῆς μεταδόσεως τοῦτο φάναι διεσάφησε γράφων˙ «τό μέν ἐκ Θεοῦ τό Πνεῦμα εἶναι τρανῶς ἀνεκήρυξεν ὁ ἀπόστολος, λέγων ὅτι τό Πνεῦμα τό ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐλάβομεν, καί τό διά τοῦ Υἱοῦ πεφηνέναι σαφές πεποίηκεν, Υἱοῦ Πνεῦμα ὀνομάσας αὐτό, καθάπερ Θεοῦ, καί νοῦν Χριστοῦ προειπών, καθάπερ καί Θεοῦ Πνεῦμα ὡς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου.

Ὁρᾷς ὅτι ἐκ Θεοῦ μέν, δηλονότι τοῦ Πατρός, ἔχει τό εἶναι, διά δέ τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό μεταδιδόσθαι καί φανεροῦσθαι; Καί ὡς Υἱοῦ Πνεῦμα ὀνομάζεται καί νοῦς, ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ, καθάπερ καί τοῦ ἀνθρώπου; Καί τούτου γάρ τό οἰκεῖον πνεῦμα καί ὁ νοῦς αὐτοῦ ἐστιν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ ἐξ αὐτοῦ, εἰ μή ἄρα κατ᾿ ἐνέργειαν. Τοῦτο δή καί ἀλλαχοῦ ποιῶν ἀριδηλότερον ὁ μέγας οὗτος, «τό Πνεῦμα», φησί, «τοῦ Υἱοῦ μέν ἤρτηται, ᾧ ἀδιαστάτως συγκαταλαμβάνεται, ἐκ δέ τῆς τοῦ Πατρός αἰτίας ἐξημμένον ἔχει τό εἶναι, ὅθεν καί