to exist, just as the Holy Spirit, caused, however, by generation, and that the Holy Spirit also exists caused, but not by generation.

For when both are spoken of, the Father and from the Father, that is, the Son and the Spirit, the great-minded one said the Son is proximate to the Father, and through Him, being proximate to the Father, he said the Spirit is understood as from the Father, but not proceeding through the Son, (p. 286) saying again something like that, that the Father being and being called the cause and first as cause of lights, that is, of the Son and the Spirit (for both, and not the Son alone, are second to the Father, as Gregory the Theologian also says in his *Epics*) the first Father, at any rate, being called of lights in relation to both these (for from the oracles you would not find another name for Him) of those who are from this cause, the light proceeding from light by generation is immediately understood as proximate to the Father, just as he of Nyssa himself also maintains, writing in the second of his *Against Eunomius*, "that the Father could not be understood as separated from Himself without the Son being joined through the utterance of 'Father'," and again, "having faith in the Father, as soon as we hear 'the Father' we also receive the Son together in our mind."

The Son, therefore, both is and is understood from the Father, but the Holy Spirit through Himself might be and might be understood from a projector, but not from the Father, but through the Son who is proximately understood from the Father, the Spirit might also be from the Father, who proceeds the Spirit Himself, but begets the Son. How, then, could the unbegotten Spirit be said to be from the one who begets? Is it not because of the Son, who is only-begotten and for this reason is immediately understood together with the one who begets, and who makes and preserves His own begottenness as His alone, while showing that the Spirit is not from the Father by way of generation? Through the Son, therefore, the Spirit has its being and is understood from the Father; through Himself from the one who projects, being immediately projected Himself. Therefore, as we said, he called the Son not a cause, but only caused, and likewise with the Spirit, caused; and he similarly distinguished these from the Father according to causality, although according to the version of the Latins it should not have been said thus.

But, as we said, to first divide the cause seen in the hypostases through (p. 288) that which is intermediate according to them, then proceeding in the argument and having said that the Son is immediately understood from the Father and adding the reason, it was necessary to say, if he was thinking according to the Latins, so that the Son might appear not only caused, but also a cause; but he in no way says this, but "so that," he says, "He might appear as alone being begotten," which is the same as to say caused in this manner. Where then here do you see the Son proclaimed as being not only caused?

And take this to mind, that this great one did not speak of the mediation of the Son as cooperating, but as not hindering, that is, not preventing the Spirit from proceeding immediately from the Father as well. Let us make the thought clear as possible also through examples. From the fire immediately both the light and the vapor proceed; for not the one through the other. The fire, therefore, having taken hold of matter, is by nature disposed to produce vapor and at the same time to give light, as it were begetting the light, but proceeding the vapor, From the light-giver, then, the light proximately both is and is understood of itself from it; likewise also the vapor from the vapor-producer. But if someone should say the vapor is from the light-giver, he will say it because of the light, having understood the vapor as from the light-giver through the light, with the mediation of the light both guarding for itself its unique-generation and not hindering the vapor's relation to the light-giver, that is, not preventing it from being immediately from it.

But if you wish, let us add another example, not new nor unfamiliar to those

ὑπάρχειν, καθάπερ καί τό πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον, αἰτιατῶς μέντοι γεννητῶς, αἰτιατῶς δέ καί τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον ὑπάρχειν, οὐ γεννητῶς δέ.

Ἀμφοτέρων γάρ λεγομένων, τοῦ Πατρός καί ἐκ Πατρός, Υἱοῦ δηλονότι καί Πνεύματος, τῷ Πατρί προσεχές ὁ μεγαλόνους εἶπε τόν Υἱόν, διά μέσου δέ αὐτοῦ, προσεχοῦς ὄντος τῷ πατρί, ἐκ Πατρός εἴρηκε τό Πνεῦμα νοούμενον, ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ ἐκπορευόμενον διά μέσου τοῦ Υἱοῦ, (σελ. 286) πάλιν οἷον ἐκεῖνο λέγων, ὅτι τοῦ αἰτίου καί πρώτου ὡς αἰτίου Πατρός φώτων ὄντος τε καί λεγομένου, τουτέστιν Υἱοῦ καί Πνεύματος (ἄμφω γάρ, ἀλλ᾿ οὐχ ὁ Υἱός μόνος δευτερεύει τοῦ Πατρός, ὡς καί Γρηγόριος ὁ θεολόγος ἐν τοῖς Ἔπεσι φησι) τοῦ γοῦν πρώτου πρός ἀμφότερα ταῦτα Πατρός τῶν φώτων λεγομένου (ἐκ γάρ τῶν λογίων οὐκ ἄν εὕροις ἑτέραν αὐτοῦ ἐπωνυμίαν) τῶν ἐξ αἰτίου τούτου ὄντων, τό γεννητῶς ἐκ φωτός προερχόμενον φῶς προσεχῶς τῷ Πατρί νοεῖται πάραυτα, καθάπερ καί αὐτός ὁ Νύσσης ἐν τῷ δευτέρῳ τῶν Πρός Εὐνόμιον διατείνεται γράφων, «ὡς οὐκ ἄν Πατήρ κεχωρισμένος ἀφ᾿ ἑαυτοῦ νοηθείη μή υἱοῦ συνημμένου διά τῆς τοῦ Πατρός ἐκφωνήσεως», καί πάλιν, «εἰς τόν Πατέρα τήν πίστιν ἔχοντες, ὁμοῦ τῷ ἀκοῦσαι τόν Πατέρα συμπαραδεξόμεθα τῇ διανοίᾳ καί τόν Υἱόν».

Ὁ μέν οὖν Υἱός ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός καί ἔστι καί νοεῖται, τό δέ Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον δι᾿ ἑαυτό μέν ἐκ προβολέως εἴη ἄν καί νοηθείη, ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ ἐκ Πατρός, διά δέ τοῦ προσεχῶς νοουμένου ἐκ Πατρός Υἱοῦ, καί ἐκ Πατρός εἴη ἄν τό Πνεῦμα, ἐκπορεύοντος μέν αὐτό τό Πνεῦμα, γεννῶντος δέ τόν Υἱόν. Ἐκ γοῦν τοῦ γεννῶντος τό μή γεννητόν Πνεῦμα πῶς ἄν ρηθείη; Οὐ διά τόν Υἱόν μονογενῆ τε ὄντα καί διά τοῦτο προσεχῶς εὐθύς τῷ γεννῶντι συνοούμενον καί τό γεννητόν ἑαυτοῦ ποιοῦντα μόνον ἴδιον καί συντηροῦντα, τό δέ Πνεῦμα δεικνύντα οὐ γεννητῶς ὄν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός; ∆ιά τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἄρ᾿ ἔχει τό εἶναι καί νοεῖσθαι ἐκ Πατρός τό Πνεῦμα˙ δι᾿ ἑαυτοῦ ἐκ προβολέως ἀμέσως καί αὐτό προβαλλομένου. ∆ιό, καθάπερ ἔφημεν, οὐδ᾿ αἴτιον, ἀλλ᾿ αἰτιατόν εἶπε μόνον τόν Υἱόν καί ἐπίσης τῷ Πνεύματι αἰτιατόν˙ καί ὁμοίως κατά τό αἴτιον ταῦτα διέστειλεν ἀπό Πατρός, καίτοι κατά τήν τῶν Λατίων ἐκδοχήν οὐχ οὕτως ἔδει φάναι.

Ἀλλά, καθάπερ ἔφημεν, τό αἴτιον πρῶτον διελεῖν διά (σελ. 288) τοῦ κατ᾿ αὐτούς ἐμμέσου ὑποστάσεσιν ὁρώμενον, εἶτα τῷ λόγῳ προϊών καί ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός εὐθύς νοεῖσθαι τόν Υἱόν εἰπών καί τήν αἰτίαν προστιθείς, ἐχρῆς εἰπεῖν, εἰ κατά Λατίνους ἦν φρονῶν, ἵνα μή μόνον αἰτιατός ὁ Υἱός, ἀλλά καί αἴτιος ἀναφανῇ˙ ὁ δέ, τοῦτο μέν οὐδαμῶς φησιν, ἀλλ᾿ "ἵνα", φησί, "μόνος ὤν γεννητός ἀναφανῇ" ταὐτό δ᾿ εἰπεῖν αἰτιατός τόν τρόπον τοῦτον. Ποῦ τοίνυν ἐνταῦθ᾿ ὁρᾶτε τόν Υἱόν, οὐ μόνον αἰτιατός ὤν ἀνακηρύττεται;

Καί τοῦτο δέ μοι λάβε κατά νοῦν, ὅτι μηδέ συνεργοῦσαν εἴρηκε ὁ μέγας οὗτος τήν μεσιτείαν τοῦ Υἱοῦ, ἀλλά μή ἀπείργουσαν, τουτέστι μή κωλύουσαν ἀμέσως ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός καί τό Πνεῦμα ἐκπορεύεσθαι. Ποιήσωμεν δ᾿ ὡς ἔνι φανεράν καί διά παραδειγμάτων τήν διάνοιαν. Ἐκ τοῦ πυρός ἀμέσως καί τό φῶς καί ὁ ἀτμός προέρχεται˙ οὐ γάρ ἕτερον διά θατέρου. Τό τοίνυν πῦρ ἐπειλημμένον ὕλης ἀτμίζειν ἅμα καί φωτίζειν πέφυκε, τό μέν φῶς οἷα δή γεννῶν, τόν ἀτμόν δέ ἐκπορεῦον, Ἐκ μέν οὖν τοῦ φωτίζοντος τό φῶς προσεχῶς καί ἔστι καί δ᾿ ἑαυτοῦ νοεῖται ἐξ αὐτοῦ˙ ὡσαύτως καί ὁ ἀτμός ἐκ τοῦ ἀτμίζοντος. Εἰ δέ τόν ἀτμόν φαίη τις ἐκ τοῦ φωτίζοντος, διά τό φῶς ἐρεῖ, διά τοῦ φωτός νοήσας τόν ἀτμόν ἐκ τοῦ φωτίζοντος, τῆς μεσιτείας τοῦ φωτός καί ἑαυτῷ τό μονογενές φυλαττούσης καί τόν ἀτμόν μή ἀπειργούσης τῆς πρός τό φωτίζον σχέσεως, τουτέστι μή ἐμποδιζούσης ἀμέσως εἶναι ἐξ αὐτοῦ.

Ἀλλ᾿ εἰ βούλεσθε, καί ἕτερον παράδειγμα προσθῶμεν, οὐ καινόν οὐδ᾿ ἄηθες τοῖς