51

of good pleasure, these of authority. Since therefore the Holy Spirit, even if He was sent from the Son, yet also came to us from Himself, that one ought to call of good pleasure, this one of authority; but not to innovate from this irrationally the mode of existence of the divine Spirit.

Indeed, in addition to this one surnamed the Theologian (p. 268), not even the great Basil is found anywhere saying that the Spirit is also from the Son; and if in the chapters *Against Eunomius* concerning the divine Spirit he had said this, that He is from the Father through the Son, yet he himself, having become an interpreter of himself in the same chapters, clarified that he said this in reference to the imparting, writing: "The apostle clearly proclaimed that the Spirit is from God, saying that we have received the Spirit who is from God, and he has made it clear that He has been manifested through the Son, having named Him the Spirit of the Son, just as of God, and having previously called Him the mind of Christ, just as also the Spirit of God as of man.

Do you see that He has His being from God, that is, from the Father, but through the Son is imparted and manifested? And that He is called the Spirit and mind of the Son, but not from the Son, just as also of man? For of this one too, his own spirit and his mind exist, but not from him, unless perhaps according to energy.

And making this even clearer elsewhere, this great one says, "The Spirit is dependent on the Son, with whom He is inseparably apprehended, but has His being attached to the cause of the Father, from whom He also proceeds, having this as the identifying sign of His existence according to hypostasis: to be known after the Son and with Him, and to subsist from the Father. But the Son, who makes known the Spirit who proceeds from the Father through Himself and with Himself, being the only one begottenly shining forth from the unbegotten light, has no communion with the Father or the Holy Spirit according to the distinguishing properties."

Do you hear the identifying sign of the divine Spirit's hypostasis, that it is to be known through the Son, but not to have hypostasis from Him, but to subsist from the Father? And the Lord Himself saying 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 distinguishing 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 distinguishing? Therefore, according to the great Basil, the Son, having no communion with the distinguishing properties of the Father, will not possess causing to proceed either.

For this reason, the same one again says in *Against the Eunomians* concerning the Spirit: "Son of God, holy fruit from the holy, eternal from the eternal, 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 His originator? And that the bestowal from the Son is for a cause, that He might give subsistence to and form the creation by the Spirit? Now 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 is the principle of the subsistence of all things, through whom all things were made." 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, when the great Basil wished here to exalt the Son, if he were able to call Him the principle of the divine Spirit, as having His being through Him, would he not have said it, but instead called Him only His bestower, and the principle only of creation, which received its being through Him?

51

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 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;