to theologians, for the sake of greater clarity. Cain was the son of Adam and his only-begotten before he begat the others, but Eve was a part; and she would have become and been considered then a part of the Father in all truth through Cain, and would be and be conceived and (p. 290) and be called a part of the father, having acquired this through the mediation of this son, which both preserved for himself the state of only-begotten at that time and did not prevent Eve from being a part of the father; but it was not for this reason that Eve was mediately and not immediately taken from Adam in the beginning. Leaving aside, therefore, the temporal beginning and interval and the generation from conjugal union and all else that is not fitting to the divinity, consider the example in relation to the words of the saint and you will understand the truth.

But thus we understand through the Son from the Begetter, which is to say from the Father, the Spirit which is not begotten; for it is through the Son that He is and is called Father. But through the Spirit Himself, who is not begotten but proceeds, we understand immediately from the One who causes Him to proceed, which is to say from the Projector. For why does the renowned theologian, Gregory the Great, call the sole fontal divinity not only Father, but also Projector? Is He not Father of what is begotten, and Projector of what is projected? As, therefore, the begotten is to the begetter, so also will the projected be to its projector, that is, each immediately. But if you speak of the projection of the Father, you will speak on account of the Son.

I wished also to show at greater length concerning "through," but what further need is there of words, when it has been interpreted for us by the Holy Spirit Himself? For I, in investigating who was the first to say the Holy Spirit is through the Son, or rather who through divine inspiration transmitted this to us (for our theology bears no word whose origin is not manifested through divine revelation), I, therefore, investigating who was the first to say this, found that the Holy Spirit Himself revealed and at the same time interpreted this very thing concerning Himself through John, the most theological among the apostles, at the urging of the Mother of God to Gregory the Wonderworker; and the writer of Gregory's wondrous Life and of the revelation in it (p. 292), his namesake and no less noteworthy, for this is Gregory of Nyssa, whose saying we clarified a little above and found the Spirit is understood from the Father through the Son, but not proceeding; who, acting most excellently, set before us that revelation in the very words that in this way briefly elucidate the things of the Spirit: "For," he says, "one Holy Spirit, itself having its existence from the Father and having been manifested through the Son, that is, to men." Do you see how one must understand and say the Spirit is through the Son? Clearly, as manifested to men through Him. Thus, therefore, understand for yourself wherever you may find the Spirit being given and sent from the Father through the Son, if you do not wish to be an opponent of God, but at once both pious and taught by God.

And if you should wish to put the preposition "from" in place of "through," we shall by no means blame you, only thinking and adding what is true, say the Spirit was manifested to us from the Son; but if you say the existence of the Holy Spirit is through the Son, as existing from the Son, we shall place you outside of piety and the church as one who exists outside; for since "we have also learned that the divine Spirit accompanies the Word, being a power considered in itself in a distinct hypostasis, manifesting the Word, unable to be separated from God in whom It is and from the Word whom It accompanies?", as the procession follows the generation without interval and without time, how shall we not sin by changing "through" to "from" in the case of the procession? Piously, therefore, if the Holy Spirit should anywhere be found proceeding through the Son, not to "from," but to the

θεολόγοις, σαφηνείας χάριν πλείονος. Ὁ Κάϊν υἱός ὑπῆρχε τοῦ Ἀδάμ καί μονογενής αὐτῷ πρό τοῦ τεκεῖν τούς ἄλλους, ἡ δέ Εὔα τμῆμα˙ καί ἐγένετο ἄν καί ἐνοεῖτο τότε τμῆμα Πατρός ἐπ᾿ ἀληθείας πάσης διά τοῦ Κάϊν καί εἶναι καί νοεῖσθαι καί (σελ. 290) καί λέγεσθαι πατρός τμῆμα κτησαμένη, τῆς τοῦ υἱοῦ τούτου μεσιτείας καί τό μονογενές ἑαυτῷ τότε φυλαττούσης καί τήν Εὔαν πατρός εἶναι τμῆμα μή κωλυούσης˙ ἀλλ᾿ οὐ διά τοῦτο ἐμμέσως τε καί οὐκ ἀμέσως ἡ Εὔα τήν ἀρχήν ἐκ τοῦ Ἀδάμ ἐτμήθη. Ἀφείς τοίνυν τήν χρονικήν ἀρχήν τε καί διάστασιν καί τήν ἐκ συζυγίας γέννησιν καί τ᾿ ἄλλ᾿ ὅσα μή θεότητι κτάλληλα, σκόπει πρός τούς τοῦ ἁγίου λόγους τό παράδειγμα καί συνήσεις τἀληθές.

Ἀλλ᾿ μέν οὕτω δι᾿ Υἱοῦ νοοῦμεν ἐκ γεννητικοῦ, ταὐτόν δ᾿ εἰπεῖν ἀπό Πατρός, τό μή γεννητόν ὑπάρχον Πνεῦμα˙ διά τόν Υἱόν γάρ ἐστί τε καί λέγεται Πατήρ. ∆ι᾿ αὐτοῦ δέ τοῦ Πνεύματος, οὐ γεννητοῦ ὄντος ἀλλ᾿ ἐκπορευτοῦ, ἀμέσως ἐκ τοῦ ἐκπορεύοντος αὐτό νοοῦμεν, ταὐτόν δ᾿ εἰπεῖν ἐκ προβολέως. ∆ιά τί γάρ καί ὁ φερώνυμος θεολόγος Γρηγόριος ὁ μέγας οὐ Πατέρα μόνον, ἀλλά καί προβολέα τήν μόνην πηγαίαν θεότητα καλεῖ; Οὐ Πατέρα μέν γεννήματος, προβολέα δέ προβλήματος; Ὥσπερ οὖν ἔχει τό γέννημα πρός τόν γεννήσαντα, οὕτως ἕξει καί τό πρόβλημα πρός τόν προβολέα ἑαυτοῦ, ἀμέσως δηλαδή ἑκάτερον. Ἐάν δέ τό πρόβλημα Πατρός λέγῃς, διά τόν Υἱόν ἐρεῖς.

Ἐβουλόμην δέ καί περί τῆς "διά" διά πλειόνων δεῖξαι, ἀλλά τίς ἔτι χρεία λόγων, δι᾿ αὐτοῦ τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος ἡμῖν ἑρμηνευθείσης; Ἐγώ γάρ ἐξετάζων τίς ὁ πρῶτος εἰρηκώς τό ἅγιον Πνεῦμα δι᾿ Υἱοῦ, μᾶλλον δέ τίς ὁ δι᾿ ἐπιπνοίας θείας τοῦτο παραδούς ἡμῖν (οὐδεμίαν γάρ λέξιν ἡ καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς θεολογία φέρει μή διά θείας ἀποκαλύψεως τήν ἀρχήν ἐκπεφασμένην) ἐξετάζων οὖν ἐγώ τίς ὁ πρῶτος οὗτος εἰρηκώς, τοῦτ᾿ αὐτό περί ἑαυτοῦ τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον διά τοῦ θεολογικωτάτου ἐν ἀποστόλοις Ἰωάννου, Γρηγορίῳ τῷ θαυματουργῷ τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ μητρός προτρεψαμένης, ἀποκαλύψαν τε ὁμοῦ καί ἑρμηνεῦσαν εὗρον˙ καί ὁ συγγραφεύς τοῦ Γρηγορίου θαυμασίου Βίου καί τῆς ἐν αὐτῷ (σελ. 292) ἀποκαλύψεως, ὁμώνυμός τε καί ἀξιόλογος οὐχ ἧττον, Γρηγόριος γάρ ἐστιν ὁ Νυσσαέων οὗτος, οὗ μικρόν ἀνωτέρω διευκρινήσαντες τήν ρῆσιν ἐκ Πατρός δι᾿ Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα νοούμενον εὑρήκαμεν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ ἐκπορευόμενον˙ ὅς εὖ ὅτι μάλιστα ποιῶν, αὐτοῖς ρήμασι προὔθηκεν ἡμῖν τήν ἀποκάλυψιν ἐκείνην οὕτω πως ἐν βραχεῖ διατρανοῦσαν τά τοῦ Πνεύματος˙ «ἕν γάρ», φησί, Πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἐκ Πατρός καί αὐτό τήν ὕπαρξιν ἔχον καί δι᾿ Υἱοῦ πεφηνός, δηλαδή τοῖς ἀνθρώποις». Ὁρᾷς πῶς χρή τό Πνεῦμα νοεῖν καί λέγειν δι᾿ Υἱοῦ; ∆ηλονότι φανερωθέν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις δι᾿ αὐτοῦ. Οὕτω τοίνυν νόει καί αὐτός ὅπουπερ ἄν εὕρῃς διά τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός τό Πνεῦμα διδόμενόν τε καί πεμπόμενον, εἴγε μή ἀντίθεος ἐθέλεις εἶναι, ἀλλ᾿ ὁμοῦ καί θεοσεβής καί θεοδίδακτος.

Εἰ δέ καί ἀντί τῆς "διά" τήν "ἐκ" πρόθεσιν τιθέντα βούλοιο, μεμψόμεθά σε οὐδαμῶς, μόνον τἀληθές κάι φρονῶν καί προστιθείς, ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ φανερωθέν ἡμῖν τό Πνεῦμα λέγε˙ ἄν δέ τήν τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος ὕπαρξιν λέγῃς δι᾿ Υἱοῦ, ὡς ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ ὑπάρχουσαν, ὡς ἐκτός ὑπάρχοντα τῆς εὐσεβείας καί τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἔξω στήσομεν˙ ἐπεί γάρ «καί μεμαθήκαμεν Πνεῦμα θεῖον συμπαρομαρτοῦν τῷ λόγῳ, δύναμιν ὄν αὐτήν ἐφ᾿ ἑαυτῆς ἐν ἰδιαζούσῃ ὑποστάσει θεωρουμένην, ἐκφαντικήν τοῦ Λόγου, μή χωρισθῆναι τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν ᾧ ἐστι καί τοῦ Λόγου, ᾧ παρομαρτεῖ δυναμένη;», ὡς συνακολουθούσης ἀδιαστάτως τε καί ἀχρόνως τῇ γεννήσει τῆς ἐκπορεύσεως, πῶς τήν "διά" ἐπί τῆς ἐκπορεύσεως εἰς τήν "ἐκ" μεταλαμβάνοντες οὐχ ἁμαρτήσομεν; Εὐσεβῶς οὖν εἴπουπερ εὑρεθείη διά τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἐκπορευόμενον τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον, οὐκ εἰς τήν "ἐκ", ἀλλ᾿ εἰς τήν