to exist, just as the Holy Spirit, yet causally by generation, and the Holy Spirit also exists causally, but not by generation.

For when both are spoken of, the Father and what is from the Father, namely 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 being from the Father, but not as proceeding through the Son, (p. 286) saying again, as it were, that thing, that since the Father is and is called the cause and first as cause of lights, that is, of the Son and of the Spirit (for both, not only the Son, are second to the Father, as Gregory the Theologian also says in his *Epics*), since the first is called Father of lights in relation to both of these (for you would not find another name for him from the scriptures), of those things that are from this cause, the light coming forth from light by generation is immediately understood as proximate to the Father, just as he of Nyssa also maintains in the second of his *Against Eunomius*, writing, "that a Father separated from himself would not be conceived of, without the Son being joined through the utterance of 'Father'," and again, "having faith in the Father, upon hearing 'the Father' we at once receive the Son as well in our mind."

The Son, therefore, both is and is conceived of from the Father, but the Holy Spirit in himself would be and would be conceived of from a source of projection, but not from the Father; but through the Son who is proximately conceived of from the Father, the Spirit would also be from the Father, who causes the Spirit itself to proceed, but begets the Son. So how could the unbegotten Spirit be said to be from the one who begets? Is it not through the Son, being only-begotten and for this reason immediately conceived of together with the one who begets, and making his begottenness his own property alone and preserving it, but showing the Spirit as not being from the Father by generation? Through the Son, therefore, the Spirit has its being and is conceived of from the Father; while in itself it is projected immediately from a source of projection. Therefore, as we said, he called the Son not a cause, but only an effect, and likewise an effect with the Spirit; and similarly he distinguished these from the Father with respect to cause, although according to the version of the Latins it should not have been said thus.

But, as we said, to first distinguish the cause through (p. 288) what is for them a medium seen in the hypostases, then proceeding in the argument and having said that the Son is conceived of immediately from the Father and adding the reason, you should have said, if you were thinking according to the Latins, that the Son might appear not only as an effect, but also as a cause; but he says this in no way, but "that," he says, "he might appear as alone being begotten," which is the same as saying an effect in this manner. Where then do you see here the Son, being proclaimed not only as an effect?

And take this to mind, that this great one said that the mediation of the Son is not co-operating, but not excluding, that is, not hindering the Spirit from proceeding immediately from the Father also. Let us make the thought clear, as far as possible, through examples. From fire come forth immediately both the light and the steam; for the one is not through the other. Fire, therefore, having taken hold of matter, is by nature disposed to emit steam and at the same time to give light, begetting the light, as it were, and causing the steam to proceed. From the source of light, therefore, the light is proximately and is conceived of from it through itself; likewise also the steam from the source of steam. But if one were to say the steam is from the source of light, he will say it is because of the light, having conceived of the steam from the source of light through the light, with the mediation of the light both preserving for itself its only-begottenness and not excluding the steam from the relation to the source of light, that is, not obstructing it from being immediately from it.

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

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