53

And not paying attention to this nor considering it, those who think in a Latin way have misunderstood and badly distorted many things of the great Athanasius and of the divine Cyril.

But what might one say, again such people say, hearing the theologian Gregory of Nyssa saying, “the Son is contemplated before according to the principle of cause of the Spirit's hypostasis”? What then might one say, shall we say something different (p. 276) in proposing in opposition than the truth and what is most familiar to those who pay even a little attention, that the hypostasis of the Son from the Father is contemplated before according to the cause of the Spirit's hypostasis, not according to the principle of cause of the Spirit, but according to the principle of His own hypostasis from the Father, which is to exist from the Father by generation? For when one hears “Father,” one immediately understands Him as Father of an offspring; but when one hears that the offspring is also Word, then one also comes to the notion of the divine Spirit. And for this reason the Son is in no way before the Spirit according to existence. Wherefore this divine prelate of Nyssa says in the first of the *Contra Eunomium* refutations: “as the Son is joined to the Father and though having His being from Him is not posterior in existence, so again the Holy Spirit also depends on the Only-Begotten, with the Son being contemplated before the hypostasis of the Spirit only in thought according to the principle of cause.”

What then is that which is shown from this by the saint? Nothing else at all than that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are together; and neither does the Son's being from the Father present any obstacle to the Son's being eternally together with the Father, nor does His being contemplated before from the Father only in thought according to the principle of His proper cause, that is as Son, present an obstacle to the Spirit's depending on the Son and being together with Him from the Father. And this must also be considered, which is clearly added, that not simply “in thought,” but “only in thought” he said the Son is contemplated before the Spirit; and that he said the Son is from the Father, but says the Holy Spirit depends on the Son, that is, exists together with the Son from the Father, but does not have His being from Him. s

But the same theologian of Nyssa, they say, elsewhere wisely places the Son in the middle of the Father and the Spirit, and through Him, Who is immediately with the Father, also transmits the Spirit (p. 278); for thus, he says, He will also be only-begotten. What then, if we show him testifying that the property of procession belongs to the Father alone, and saying that the Father alone is cause of the Son and the Spirit, and that both the Son and the Holy Spirit are from one and the same person, and both immediately from Him, and showing that one who does not think thus is a polytheist? For teaching how in three persons there is one God, “all the persons of man,” he says, “do not have their being immediately from the same person, so that there are many and different causes in addition to the effects. But in the case of the Holy Trinity it is not so; for there is one and the same person of the Father, from whom the Son is begotten and the Holy Spirit proceeds. Wherefore also we confidently and properly call the one cause with its effects one God.” And he took such great pains to show that the property of procession belongs to the Father alone as even to bring forward as a witness the divine psalmist among kings, David, who says the Holy Spirit proceeds not only from the Father, but from His very hypostasis. For he says in the treatise *On the Knowledge of God*, after having philosophized not a little concerning the Father and the Son, “And the Spirit proceeding from the paternal hypostasis; for on this account David also spoke of ‘the spirit of his mouth,’ so that he might confirm that the property of procession belongs to the Father alone.” What

53

Καί τοῦτο μή προσχόντες μηδ᾿ ἐπιστήσαντες οἱ λατινικῶς φρονοῦντες, πολλά τῶν τοῦ μεγάλου Ἀθανασίου καί τῶν τοῦ θείου Κυρίλλου παρενόησαν καί περιέτρεψαν κακῶς.

Ἀλλά τί ἄν τις εἴπει, πάλιν οἱ τοιοῦτοι λέγουσιν, τοῦ Νύσσης θεηγόρου ἀκούων Γρηγορίου λέγοντος, «προθεωρεῖσθαι τόν Υἱόν κατά τόν τῆς αἰτίας λόγον τῆς τοῦ Πνεύματος ὑποστάσεως»; Τί δ᾿ ἄν τις φαίη, ἕτερον ἡμεῖς ἐροῦμεν (σελ. 276) ἀνθυπενεγκόντες ἤ τό ἀληθές καί τοῖς μικρόν ἐφιστᾶσι γνωριμώτατον, ὅτι προθεωρεῖται ἡ τοῦ Υἱοῦ ὑπόστασις ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός κατά τόν τῆς αἰτίας τοῦ Πνεύματος ὑποστάσεως, οὐ κατά τόν τῆς αἰτίας λόγον τῆς τοῦ Πνεύματος, ἀλλά κατά τόν λόγον τῆς ἑαυτοῦ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός ὑποστάσεως, ὅς ἐστι τό γεννητῶς ὑπάρχειν ἐκ Πατρός; Πατέρα γάρ τις ἀκούων, γννήματος εὐθύς αὐτόν ἐννοεῖ Πατέρα˙ ἡνίκα δ᾿ ἄν ὄντα καί λόγον ἀκούσῃ τό γέννημα, τότε καί τοῦ θείου Πνεύματος εἰς ἔννοιαν ἔρχεται. Καί διά τοῦτο ὁ Υἱός πρό τοῦ Πνεύματός ἐστι καθ᾿ ὕπαρξιν οὐδαμῶς. ∆ιό φησιν ὁ Νύσσης θεῖος οὗτος πρόεδρος ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ τῶν Πρός Εὐνόμιον ἀντιρρητικῶν˙ «ὡς συνάπτεται τῷ Πατρί ὁ Υἱός καί τό ἐξ αὐτοῦ εἶναι ἔχων οὐχ ὑστερίζει κατά τήν ὕπαρξιν, οὕτω πάλιν καί τοῦ μονογενοῦς ἔχεται τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον, ἐπινοίᾳ μόνον κατά τόν τῆς αἰτίας λόγον προθεωρουμένου τῆς τοῦ Πνεύματος ὑποστάσεως».

Τί οὖν ἐστί τό ἐντεῦθεν τῷ ἁγίῳ δεικνύμνον; Οὐδέν ἄλλο πάντως ἤ ὅτι ἅμα ἐστίν ὁ Πατήρ καί ὁ Υἱός καί τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον˙ καί οὔτε τό ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός εἶναι τόν Υἱόν προσίσταταί τι κωλῦον ἅμα τῷ Πατρί ἐξ ἀϊδίου εἶναι τόν Υἱόν, οὔτε τό ἐπινείᾳ μόνῃ κατά τόν τῆς οἰκείας αἰτίας λόγον, τουτέστιν ὡς Υἱόν προθεωρεῖσθαι ἀπό τοῦ Πατρός, προσίσταταί κωλῦον τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἔχεσθαι τό Πνεῦμα καί σύν αὐτῷ ἅμα εἶναι ἀπό τοῦ Πατρός. Σκεπτέον δέ καί τοῦτο φανερῶς προσκείμενον, ὡς οὐδ᾿ ἁπλῶς ἐπινοίᾳ, ἀλλ᾿ ἐπινοίᾳ μόνον ἔφη προθεωρεῖσθαι τόν Υἱόν τοῦ Πνεύματος˙ καί ὅτι τόν μέν Υἱόν εἶπεν ἐκ Πατρός, τό δέ Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον ἔχεσθαί φησι τοῦ Υἱοῦ, τουτέστιν ἅμα σύν τῷ Υἱῷ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός ὑπάρχειν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ ἐξ αὐτοῦ τό εἶναι ἔχειν. σ

Ἀλλ᾿ ὁ αὐτός, φασί, Νύσσης θεηγόρος, ἀλλαχοῦ σοφῶς μέσον τίθησι τόν Υἱόν τοῦ Πατρός καί τοῦ Πνεύματος, καί δι᾿ αὐτοῦ προσεχῶς ὄντος τῷ Πατρί καί τό Πνεῦμα (σελ. 278) παραδίδωσιν˙ οὕτω γάρ, φησίν, ἔσται καί μονογενής. Τί γοῦν, ἄν ἡμεῖς δείξωμεν αὐτόν τήν ἐκπορευτικήν ἰδιότητα μόνῳ τῷ Πατρί προσμαρτυροῦντα καί μόνον αἴτιον Υἱοῦ καί Πνεύματος τόν Πατέρα λέγοντα καί ἐξ ἑνός καί τοῦ αὐτοῦ προσώπου τόν Υἱόν τε καί τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον καί προσεχῶς ἄμφω ἐξ αὐτοῦ καί τόν μή οὕτω φρονοῦντα πολύθεον δεικνύντα; ∆ιδάσκων γάρ, πῶς ἐν τρισί προσώποις εἷς ἐστι Θεός «τά τοῦ ἀνθρώπου», φησί, «πρόσωπα πάντα, οὐκ ἀπό τοῦ αὐτοῦ προσώπου κατά τό προσεχές ἔχει τό εἶναι, ὡς πολλά καί διάφορα εἶναι πρός τοῖς αἰτιατοῖς καί τά αἴτια. Ἐπί δέ τῆς ἁγίας Τριάδος οὐχ οὕτως˙ ἕν γάρ πρόσωπον καί τό αὐτό τοῦ Πατρός, ἐξ οὗπερ ὁ Υἱός γεννᾶται καί τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον ἐκπορεύεται. ∆ιό καί κυρίως τόν ἕνα αἴτιον μετά τῶν αὐτοῦ αἰτιατῶν ἕνα Θεόν φαμεν τεθαρρηκότως». Τήν δέ ἐκπορευτικήν ἰδιότητα μόνῳ προσεῖναι δεῖξαι τῷ Πατρί διά τοσαύτης ἐποιήσατο σπουδῆς, ὡς καί μάρτυρα παραγαγεῖν τόν ἐν βασιλεῦσι θεῖον ᾠδικόν ∆αβίδ, οὐ μόνον ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός ἐκπορευόμενον λέγοντα τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον, ἀλλ᾿ ἐξ αὐτῆς αὐτοῦ τῆς ὑποστάσεως. Φησί γάρ ἐν τῷ Περί θεογνωσίας λόγῳ προφιλοσοφήσας οὐκ ὀλίγα περί Πατρός καί Υἱοῦ, ὡς «Πνεῦμα δέ τό τῆς πατρικῆς ἐκπορευόμενον ὑποστάσεως˙ τούτου γάρ ἕνεκα καί πνεῦμα στόματος ὁ ∆αβίδ εἴρηκεν, ἵνα τήν ἐκπορευτικήν ἰδιότητα τῷ Πατρί μόνῳ προσοῦσαν πιστώσηται». Τί