50

Is it the same thing to say, without the cause, and is this the same thing to say, without begetting and proceeding? For according to these things, the cause is cause.

And all things that the Son has, the Spirit has, except for sonship, or if you will, begottenness; for we shall not fear that it is uncaused, even if it itself should be found to be a cause, not having generation; nor is it uncaused, even if it is not begotten; for that which, as (p. 264) uncaused, does not have generation, is both entirely uncaused in itself, and in every way the cause of divinity. Thus do we, who theologize in the Spirit, speak in harmony; and thus do we refute those who speak discordantly, showing them putting forth the scriptural testimonies against themselves.

For that also, which the tribe of the Latins think they bring forward from the same theologian in favor of their own doctrine, that the Lord showed his own dignity to the initiates by saying, "I myself will send you the Holy Spirit," they bring forward against themselves, though they know it not. For since in truth the sending of the Spirit is great and beyond great and of God alone (for the Father, having said before that he would send the Paraclete, then he himself says, "I will send," showing his own dignity, just as if the thing itself, as it were emitting a voice, were to proclaim it, and as the one surnamed of theology would explain). If the Lord knew that it proceeds not from the Father alone, but also from himself and has its existence, why did he not add and say, "who proceeds from the Father and from me"? For he was not then speaking more humbly about himself, for which reason he would have omitted and concealed this alone. It is clear, therefore, even to a blind man, they say, that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son also.

To have the power to send the divine Spirit is a great dignity, so great as to show the Son to be of the same nature and equal and of the same 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 that the Spirit is consubstantial and of the same honor with the Father. This dignity is indeed divine and natural, but not hypostatic; for if sending were hypostatic, it would not be common to the Father, Son, and Spirit. The other Paraclete is therefore true God; how is he who (p. 266) sends him not true God? If the Son sends the Paraclete who also comes of himself, as by his own command, how is he 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 demonstrates the identity of will and substance of the sender toward the one sent, which is the greatest dignity, belonging moreover to the three in a good and God-befitting manner, so as also to show the self-authority of those who are thus sent? But he who says that this dignity is not divine, but productive, first shows not only the Son to be the cause of the divine Spirit, but also the Spirit to be the cause of the Son. And in addition to this, he wrongly rejects the free self-determination of each of them toward us, which is different at different times, by dogmatizing that the sending to us is of nature and not of will, and therefore also without beginning. For what things are from God not by will but by nature are pre-eternal, but not things that have a beginning.

And indeed the one surnamed of theology says to those who thought the Son lesser because he was sent by the Father, that the sending is proof of the Father's good pleasure, but not of his pre-eternal existence. Therefore the Latins senselessly consider the sending of the Spirit from the Son to be 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; those things of the

50

ταὐτόν δ᾿ εἰπεῖν, ἄνευ τῆς αἰτίας, τούτῳ δέ ταὐτόν εἰπεῖν, ἄνευ τοῦ γεννᾶν καί ἐκπορεύειν; Κατά ταῦτα γάρ αἴτιον τό αἴτιον.

Καί πάντα, ὅσα ἔχει ὁ Υἱός, τοῦ Πνεύματος, πλήν τῆς υἱότητος, εἰ δέ βούλει τῆς γεννήσεως˙ οὐ γάρ φοβησόμεθα μή ἀναίτιον, εἰ καί αὐτό αἴτιον εἶναι φωραθείη, γέννησιν μή ἔχον˙ οὐδέ γάρ ἀναίτιον, εἰ καί μή γεννητόν˙ τό γάρ ὡς (σελ. 264) ἀναίτιον γέννησιν μή ἔχον, αὐτό τε καθ᾿ ἑαυτό παντάπασιν ἀναίτιον, καί παντί τρόπῳ θεότητος αἴτιον. Οὕτως ἡμεῖς τοῖς ἐν Πνεύματι θεολογοῦσι, συνῳδά φθεγγόμεθα˙ καί οὕτω τούς ἀπᾴδοντα φθεγγομένους ἀπελέγχομεν, καθ᾿ ἑαυτῶν δεικνύντες τάς γραφικάς μαρτυρίας προτιθέντας.

Κἀκεῖνο γάρ, ὅπαρά τοῦ αὐτοῦ θεολόγου προάγειν ὑπέρ τῆς σφῶν αὐτῶν δόξης τῶν Λατίνων οἴονται φῦλον, ὅτι τό οἰκεῖον ἀξίωμα ὁ Κύριος ἔδειξε πρός τούς μύστας εἰπών, «αὐτός ὑμῖν ἐγώ πέμψω τό Πνεῦμα» τό ἅγιον, καθ᾿ ἑαυτῶν ὡς οὐκ ἴσασι προάγουσιν. Ἐπεί γάρ ὡς ἀληθῶς τό πέμπειν τό Πνεῦμα μέγα καί ὑπέρ τό μέγα καί Θεοῦ μόνου (ὁ Πατήρ γάρ εἰπών πρότερον πέμψειν τόν παράκλητον, εἴτ᾿ αὐτό "ἐγώ", φησί, "πέμψω", τό οἰκεῖον ἀξίωμα δεικνύς, ὡς ἀν αὐτό τε τό πρᾶγμα φωνήν ὥσπερ ἀφιέν κηρύττοι καί ὁ τῆς θεολογίας ἐπώνυμος ἐξηγήσαιτο). Εἰ μή παρά τοῦ Πατρός ὁ Κύριος μόνου, ἀλλά καί παρ᾿ ἑαυτοῦ ᾔδει ἐκπορευόμενον καί τήν ὕπαρξιν ἔχον, πῶς οὐ προσθείς εἶπεν, «ὅ παρά 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