54

clearer, or more certain, or more inescapable, or more demonstrative than these words, that the Spirit does not also proceed from the Son?

For if also from him, each would not be immediately from one person, nor would we dare to say we worship one principle of the Godhead and maintain that the three persons are one God. If, just as the caused, so also (p. 280) the cause were in two persons, as is also seen among us, the property of causing to proceed would not belong to the Father alone, if the Son also had the power to cause procession; but as it is, Gregory of Nyssa himself confirms that it belongs to the Father alone, and brings forth the God-forefather David as further confirming it, or rather the Holy Spirit who spoke through the prophets.

Do you see that you are clearly thinking things contrary to the Spirit and dogmatizing and fighting against him, but not theologizing the Spirit, having become a wicked arbiter of the God-begetting Godhead and a depriver of the properties of God the Father, moving and transferring the immovable properties and, for your part, stirring up and disturbing the peace that is beyond all understanding and peace itself? What then, do you not shudder on hearing these things and quickly depart from this terrible false doctrine and lament your former life as having been lived impiously?

But let us also see the testimony from Nyssa recently proposed by them, and having reviewed it to the best of our ability, let us clarify for all the difficult point in it, which for them for the most part has produced the error; would that it were possible, by clarifying it for them too, to rescue them from the deception. But I ask you, who will read this now and in the future, to pay attention. For all the words of this man partake of a deep mind, but especially those about God, and of these even more so the one now to be put before us; for writing To Ablabius, why, when we speak of one Godhead in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, we forbid saying three gods, having established the complete unity of the divine nature, he says, "but if someone were to slander the argument as constructing some mixing and confusion of the hypostases from not accepting a difference in nature, we will make this defense concerning such a charge: that while confessing the unchangeableness of the divine nature, we do not deny the difference with respect to cause and caused, in which alone we apprehend that one is distinguished from the other, by believing the one (p. 282) to be the cause, and the other to be from the cause. And again, of that which is from a cause, we conceive another difference. For the one is immediately from the first, and the other is through the one who is immediately from the first; so that both the 'only-begotten' remains doubtless for the Son and that the Spirit is from the Father is not in doubt, the mediation of the Son both preserving for himself the 'only-begotten' and not excluding the Spirit from the natural relation to the Father."

This, then, should first be said here to the Latins: since you think that not only that which is from a cause, but also the cause, is in two persons (for you place the cause of the divine Spirit in two persons, and differently in each of them), if this most brilliant luminary of Nyssa had thought according to you, he would have divided the cause before the caused. But it is clear that he in no way did this nor even took it into mind, which you try to deduce from his words, from which, to one who considers it well, even the opposite of your dogmas appears. For this is what he says, that the Son does not exclude the immediate relation of the Spirit to the Father, even though he alone is Son. Next, one must not fail to see this, that after saying, "we do not deny the difference with respect to cause and caused," caused

54

τούτων τῶν ρημάτων σαφέστερον ἤ βεβαιότερον ἤ ἀλειπτότερον ἤ δεικτικώτερον, ὡς οὐχί καί ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἐκπορεύεται τό Πνεῦμα;

Εἰ γάρ καί ἐξ αὐτοῦ, οὐκ ἄν ἦν ἐξ ἑνός προσώπου κατά τό προσεχές ἑκάτερον, οὐδ᾿ ἄν εἴχομεν θαρρεῖν μίαν λέγειν σέβειν θεότητος ἀρχήν καί ἕνα Θεόν ἰσχυρίζεσθαι τά τρία εἶναι πρόσωπα. Εἰ καθάπερ τό αἰτιατόν, οὕτω καί (σελ. 280) τό αἴτιον ἐν δυσί προσώποις ἦν ὡς καί ἐφ᾿ ἡμῶν ὁρᾶται, οὐδ᾿ ἄν ἦν ἡ ἐκπορευτική ἰδιότης μόνον τοῦ Πατρός, εἰ καί ὁ Υἱός τό ἐκπορεύειν εἶχε˙ νῦν δέ μόνῳ τῷ Πατρί προσοῦσαν αὐτός τε ὁ Νυσσαέων Γρηγόριος πιστοῦται καί τόν θεοπάτορα ∆αβίδ προάγει προσπιστούμενον, μᾶλλον δέ τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον τό διά τῶν προφητῶν λαλῆσαν.

Ὁρᾷς τἀναντία σαφῶς τοῦ Πνεύματος φρονῶν καί ἀπεναντίας ἐκείνου δογματίζων καί μαχόμενος, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ θεολογῶν τό Πνεῦμα, πονηρός διαιτητής θεογόνου θεότητος γενόμενος καί τῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ Πατρός ἰδίων ἀποστερητής, κινῶν καί μεταφέρων τάς ἀκινήτους ἰδιότητας καί τό σαυτοῦ μέρος κυκῶν καί συνταράσσων τήν ὑπέρ πάντα νοῦν καί αὐτόχρημα εἰρήνην; Τί οὖν, οὐ φρίττεις ταῦτ᾿ ἀκούων καί ἀφίστασαι πρός τάχος τῆς δεινῆς κακοδοξίας καί θρηνεῖς τόν πρῴην βίον ὡς μή εὐσεβῶς ἀνύσας;

Ἀλλ᾿ ἴδωμεν καί τήν προτεινομένην ὑπ᾿ αὐτῶν ἀρτίως τοῦ Νύσσης μαρτυρίαν καί πρός δύναμιν ἀναθεωρήσαντες αὐτήν ἀνακαθάρωμεν τοῖς πᾶσι τό ἐν ταύτῃ δύσληπτον, ὅ αὐτοῖς καί τήν πλάνην ὡς ἐπίπαν ἀπειργάσατο˙ εἴθε δ᾿ ἧν καί αὐτούς καθάραντας, ἐξελέσθαι τῆς ἀπάτης. Ἀλλά συντείνατε παρακαλῶ τόν νοῦν οἱ νῦν τε καί αὖθις ἐντευξόμενοι. Πάντα μέν γάρ τ᾿ ἀνδρός τουτουί τά ρήματα βαθείας ἔχεται φρενός, τά δέ περί Θεοῦ ὡς μάλιστα καί τούτων μᾶλλον τό νῦν προτεθησόμενον ἡμῖν˙ γράφων γάρ Πρός Ἀβλάβιον, διά τι, μίαν θεότητα ἐπί Πατρός καί Υἱοῦ καί Πνεύματος ἁγίου λέγοντες, τρεῖς θεούς λέγειν ἀπαγορεύομεν, τό παντάπασιν ἑνιαῖον παραστήσας τῆς θείας φύσεως, «εἰ δέ τις», φησί, «συκοφαντοίη τόν Λόγον ὡς ἐκ τοῦ μή δέχεσθαι τήν κατά φύσιν διαφοράν μίξίν τινα τῶν ὑποστάσεων καί ἀνακύκλησιν κατασκευάζοντα, τοῦτο περί τῆς τοιαύτης ἀπολογησόμεθα μέμψεως˙ ὅτι τό ἀπαράλλακτον τῆς θείας φύσεως ὁμολογοῦντες τήν κατά τό αἴτιον καί αἰτιατόν διαφοράν οὐκ ἀρνούμεθα, ἐν ᾧ μόνῳ διακρίνεσθαι τό ἕτερον τοῦ ἑτέρου καταλαμβάνομεν, τῷ μέν (σελ. 282) αἴτιον πιστεύειν εἶναι, τό δέ ἐκ τοῦ αἰτίου. Καί τοῦ ἐξ αἰτίας ὄντος πάλιν ἄλλην διαφοράν ἐννοοῦμεν. Τό μέν γάρ προσεχῶς ἐκ τοῦ πρώτου, τό δέ διά τοῦ προσεχῶς ἐκ τοῦ πρώτου˙ ὥστε καί τό μονογενές ἀναμφίβολον ἐπί τοῦ Υἱοῦ μένειν καί τό ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός εἶναι τό Πνεῦμα μή ἀμφιβάλλειν, τῆς τοῦ Υἱοῦ μεσιτείας καί ἑαυτῷ τό μονογενές φυλαττούσης καί τό Πνεῦμα τῆς φυσικῆς πρός τόν Πατέρα σχέσεως μή ἀπειργούσης».

Τοῦτο δή πρῶτον ἐνταῦθα λεκτέον ἄν εἴη πρός Λατίνους˙ ἐπειδήπερ ὑμεῖς οὐ τό ἐξ αἰτίας μόνον, ἀλλά καί τό αἴτιον ἐν δυσίν οἴεσθε προσώποις (ἐν γάρ δυσί προσώποις τίθεσθε τήν αἰτίαν τοῦ θείου Πνεύματος καί ἐν ἑκατέρῳ τούτων διαφόρως), εἴπερ ἐφρόνει καθ᾿ ὑμᾶς ὁ τῆς Νύσσης οὗτος φανότατος φωστήρ, διεῖλεν ἄν πρό τοῦ αἰτιατοῦ τό αἴτιον. Τοῦτο δέ ποιήσας οὐδαμῶς δῆλός ἐστι μηδ᾿ εἰς νοῦν λαβών, ὅπερ ὑμεῖς ἐκ τῶν ἐκείνου συνάγειν πειρᾶσθε λόγων, ἀφ᾿ ὧν τῷ καλῶς σκοπουμένῳ καί τἀναντία τῶν ὑμετέρων ἀναφαίνεται δογμάτων. Τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν ὅ φησιν, ὡς ὁ Υἱός οὐκ ἀπείργει τήν ἄμεσον τοῦ Πνεύματος πρός τόν Πατέρα σχέσιν, εἰ καί μόνος αὐτός ἐστιν Υἱός. Ἔπειτα μηδέ τοῦτο παραλειπτέον συνιδεῖν, ὡς μετά τό εἰπεῖν ὅτι «τήν κατά τό αἴτιον καί αἰτιατόν διαφοράν οὐκ ἀρνούμεθα», αἰτιατόν