proceeds, having this as a distinctive sign of its existence in its hypostasis: to be known after the Son and with Him and to subsist from the Father. But the Son, knowing the Spirit that proceeds from the Father through Himself and with Himself, having alone shone forth uniquely from the unbegotten light, has no community according to the particularity of the distinctive properties with the Father or the Holy Spirit.”

Do you hear the distinctive sign of the hypostasis of the divine Spirit, that it is to be known through the Son, but not to have its hypostasis from Him, but to subsist from the Father? And when the Lord Himself says in the Gospels, “when the Comforter comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father (p. 270),” did He not show that to proceed is the peculiar existing property of the Spirit, and to cause to proceed is of the Father, since each of these is hypostatic, and are not the hypostatic properties peculiar? Therefore, according to the great Basil, the Son, having no community with the peculiar properties of the Father, will not have the power to cause procession either.

For this reason, the same author, in *Against the Eunomians*, says concerning the Spirit: “Son of God, holy fruit from a holy one, eternal from an eternal one, bestower of the Holy Spirit for the subsistence and formation of creation.” Do you see that the Son is the bestower of the Spirit, but not the one who gives it subsistence? And that the bestowing from the Son is for the purpose of giving subsistence to and forming the creation through the Spirit? Pay attention also to what follows: “for he who denies the Son,” he says, “has denied the principle of the creation of all things; for the Word of God, through whom all things were made, is the principle of the subsistence of all things.” Do you see? The Word of God is the principle of the subsistence of all things, but not of the subsistence of the divine Spirit; and He is the principle of the creation of all things, but not of the existence of the Spirit. For how could the great Basil, wishing here to exalt the Son, if he could have said that He was the principle of the divine Spirit, as having its being through Him, have not said it, but instead said He was only its bestower, and the principle only of the creation which received its being through Him?

But Chrysostom, they say, the theologian, says, “Christ came to us, gave us the Spirit from Himself and took up our body”; and again, “because the body of Christ became a temple of the divine power on earth, you too become a temple in His likeness; for you receive the Spirit sent forth from Him; therefore just as, having known Christ, you have known God, so also, having received the Spirit of Christ, you have received God.”

(p. 272) Concerning knowledge, then, it is immediately clear; but concerning the sending and the giving we have also spoken before. It is necessary, however, here also first to understand, what the Father Chrysostom says is the Spirit that is received and taught: the very essence and hypostasis of the Spirit, or its grace and energy? But lest we weary ourselves searching, let us set forth this very golden theologian as the interpreter of what is now being sought by us. For he, in his sermon *On the Spirit*, says, “The gift is sent, the Spirit is not sent forth.” And having heard John the Forerunner and Baptist say concerning Christ that He did not receive the Spirit from the Father by measure, “for the Father,” he says, “does not give the Spirit by measure,” but “has given all things into His hand,” he himself, explaining, says: “By ‘Spirit’ here he means the energy, for this is what is divided. For all of us have received the energy of the Spirit by measure, but He received the whole energy completely; and if His energy is immeasurable, much more so is His essence.” And elsewhere again, setting forth for explanation that passage from the Psalms, “grace is poured out upon your lips,” “do you see,” he says, “that

ἐκπορεύεται, τοῦτο γνωριστικόν τῆς κατά τήν ὑπόσταστιν ὑπάρξεως σημεῖον ἔχον, τό μετά τόν Υἱόν καί σύν αὐτῷ γνωρίζεσθαι καί ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός ὑφεστάναι. Ὁ δέ Υἱός, τό ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός ἐκπορευόμενον Πνεῦμα δι᾿ ἑαυτοῦ καί μεθ᾿ ἑαυτοῦ γνωρίζων, μόνος μονογενῶς ἐκ τοῦ ἀγεννήτου φωτός ἐκλάμψας, οὐδεμίαν κατά τό ἰδιάζον τῶν γνωρισμάτων τήν κοινωνίαν ἔχει πρός τόν πατέρα ἤ τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον».

Ἀκούεις τό γνωριστικόν σημεῖον τῆς τοῦ θείου Πνεύματος ὑποστάσεως, ὅτι τό γνωρίζεσθαι διά τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἐστιν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐχί τό τήν ὑπόστασιν ἔχειν ἐξ αὐτοῦ, ἀλλ᾿ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός ὑφεστάναι; Λέγων δέ καί αὐτός ὁ Κύριος ἐν τοῖς εὐαγγελίοις, «ὅταν ἔλθῃ ὁ Παράκλητος ὅν ἐγώ πέμψω ὑμῖν παρά τοῦ πατρός, τό Πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας, ὅ παρά τοῦ Πατρός (σελ. 270) ἐκπορεύεται», οὐχί τοῦ Πνεύματος μέν ἔδειξεν ἰδιάζον ὑπάρχον γνώρισμα τό ἐκπορεύεσθαι, τό δέ ἐκπορεύειν τοῦ Πατρός, ἐπεί καί ὑποστατικόν τούτων ἑκάτερόν ἐστιν, ἰδιάζοντα δέ ἐστι τά ὑποστατικά; Μηδεμίαν οὖν κατά τόν μέγαν Βασίλειον πρός τά ἰδιάζοντα τῶν γνωρισμάτων τοῦ Πατρός τήν κοινωνίαν ἔχων ὁ Υἱός, οὐδέ τό ἐκπορεύειν ἕξει.

∆ιά τοῦτο πάλιν ὁ αὐτός Πρός τούς Εὐνομιανούς περί τοῦ Πνεύματός φησιν˙ «Υἱός Θεοῦ, καρπός ἅγιος ἐξ ἁγίου, ἀΐδιος ἐξ ἀϊδίου, Πνεύματος ἁγίου χορηγός εἰς ὑπόστασιν καί μόρφωσιν κτίσεως». Ὁρᾷς ὅτι χορηγός τοῦ Πνεύματος, ἀλλ᾿ οὐχ ὑποστάτης ὁ Υἱός; Καί ὡς ἡ ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ χορηγία δι᾿ αἰτίαν, ἵν᾿ ὑποστήσῃ καί μορφώσῃ τήν κτίσιν τῷ Πνεύματι; Πρόσεχε δή καί τοῖς ἑξῆς˙ «ὁ γάρ τόν Υἱόν», φησίν, «ἀναιρῶν, τήν ἀρχήν τῆς τῶν ὅλων δημιουργίας ἀνεῖλεν˙ ἄρχει γάρ τῆς ἁπάντων ὑποστάσεως ὁ τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγος, δι᾿ οὗ τά πάντα γέγονεν». Ὁρᾷς; Τῆς ἁπάντων ὑποστάσεως ὁ τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγος, ἀλλ᾿ οὐχί τῆς τοῦ θείου Πνεύματος ὑποστάσεως ἄρχει˙ καί ἀρχή ἐστι τῆς τῶν ὅλων δημιουργίας, ἀλλ᾿ οὐχί τῆς ὑπάρξεως τοῦ Πνεύματος. Πῶς δ᾿ ἄν ἐνταῦθα τόν Υἱόν ὑπερυψοῦν βουλόμενος ὁ μέγας Βασίλειος, εἴπερ εἶχε λέγειν ἀρχήν τοῦτον τοῦ θείου Πνεύματος, ὡς δι᾿ αὐτοῦ τό εἶναι σχόντος, οὐκ ἄν εἶπεν, ἀλλά χορηγόν μέν αὐτοῦ μόνον, ἀρχήν δέ μόνης τῆς δι᾿ αὐτοῦ τό εἶναι λαβούσης κτίσεως;

Ἀλλ᾿ ὁ Χρυσόστομος, φασί, θεολόγος, «ἦλθε» φησίν «ὁ Χριστός πρός ἡμᾶς, ἔδωκεν ἡμῖν τό ἐξ αὐτοῦ Πνεῦμα καί ἀνέλαβε τό ἡμέτερον σῶμα»˙ καί πάλιν, «διά τό γενέσθαι ναόν τῆς θείας δυνάμεως ἐπί γῆς τό σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ, γίνῃ καί σύ ναός καθ᾿ ὁμοίωσιν αὐτοῦ˙ δέχῃ γάρ ἐκπεμπόμενον παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ τό Πνεῦμα˙ ὥσπερ οὖν Χριστόν ἐπιγνούς ἐπέγνως Θεόν οὕτω δή καί Πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ ἐδέξω Θεόν».

(σελ. 272) Περί μέν οὖν τῆς ἐπιγνώσεως αὐτόθεν δῆλον˙ περί δέ τῆς ἀποστολῆς καί τῆς δόσεως καί πρότερον εἰρήκαμεν. ∆εῖ δ᾿ ὅμως κἀνταῦθα πρῶτον συνιδεῖν, τί ποτ᾿ ἄρα Πνεῦμά φησιν ὁ Χρυσόστομος Πατήρ λαμβανόμενόν τε καί διδασκόμενον, αὐτήν τήν οὐσίαν καί τήν ὑπόστασιν τοῦ Πνεύματος ἤ τήν χάριν καί τήν ἐνέργειαν; Ἀλλ᾿ ἵνα μή κάμνωμεν ἀνερευνῶντες, αὐτόν τοῦτον τόν χρυσοῦν θεολόγον ἑρμηνέα προβαλώμεθα καί τοῦ νῦν ζητουμένου παρ᾿ ἡμῶν˙ οὗτος γάρ ἐν μέν τῷ Περί τοῦ Πνεύματος λόγῳ, «ἡ δωρεά», φησί, «πέμπεται, τό Πνεῦμα οὐκ ἀποστέλλεται». Ἰωάννου δέ τοῦ προδρόμου καί βαπτιστοῦ λέγοντος ἀκηκοώς περί Χριστοῦ, ὡς οὐκ ἐκ τοῦ μέτρου παρά τοῦ Πατρός ἔλαβε τό Πνεῦμα, «οὐ γάρ ἐκ μέτρου», φησί, «δίδωσι τό Πνεῦμα ὁ Πατήρ», ἀλλά πάντα δέδωκεν ἐν τῇ χειρί αὐτοῦ», ἐξηγούμενος αὐτός φησι˙ «Πνεῦμα ἐνταῦθα τήν ἐνέργειαν λέγει˙ αὕτη γάρ ἐστιν ἡ μεριζομένη. Πάντες γάρ ἡμεῖς μέτρῳ τήν ἐνέργειαν τοῦ Πνεύματος ἐλάβομεν, ἐκεῖνος δέ ὁλόκληρον ἔλαβε πᾶσαν τήν ἐνέργειαν˙ εἰ δέ ἡ ἐνέργεια αὐτοῦ ἀμέτρητος, πολλῷ μᾶλλον ἡ οὐσία». Καί ἀλλαχοῦ πάλιν ἐκεῖνο τό ψαλμικόν εἰς ἐξήγησιν προθείς, «ἐξεχύθη χάρις ἐν χείλεσί σου», «ὁρᾷς», φησίν, «ὅτι