57

having delivered to us (for our theology brings forth no word whose origin is not made manifest through divine revelation), I, therefore, examining who was the first to have said this, found that the Holy Spirit Itself, concerning Itself, through the most theological among the apostles, John, at the urging of the Mother of God to Gregory the Wonderworker, both revealed and interpreted it at the same time; and the writer of Gregory's wondrous Life and of the revelation in it (p. 292), his namesake and no less remarkable, for this is Gregory of Nyssa, whose saying we, having clarified it a little above, found the Spirit to be understood as from the Father through the Son, but not proceeding; who, acting very well, set before us in the very words that revelation, which thus in brief makes clear the things of the Spirit: «For,» he says, «one Holy Spirit, also 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 speak of the Spirit through the Son? Clearly, as having been made manifest to men through Him. Thus, therefore, you yourself also understand, wherever you may find the Spirit being given and sent from the Father through the Son, if you do not wish to be an adversary of God, but at once both God-fearing and taught by God.

But if you should also wish to place the preposition "from" instead of "through", we will in no way blame you, only, both thinking and adding the truth, say that 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 will place you outside, as one existing outside piety and the Church; since, for, «we have also learned of a divine Spirit accompanying the Word, being a power itself contemplated in its own 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 timelessly, how, by changing "through" to "from" with respect to the procession, shall we not sin? Piously, therefore, if the Holy Spirit should be found anywhere proceeding through the Son, we will understand and take "through" not as the preposition "from", but as "with", along with Gregory, the Theologian by name, who says, «For us there is one God, the Father without beginning; the Son, the beginning of all things, and the Holy Spirit, not from the beginning, but with the beginning and after the beginning from the Father». Wherefore, also, the divine Cyril (p. 294) himself, in his *Thesauri*, concludes through many proofs that the Spirit exists naturally in the Son from the Father and writes that the Spirit passes through naturally and essentially from the Father in the Son, through whom this one, anointing all things, sanctifies; therefore, it passes eternally from the Father in the Son, and it comes to be from the Father through the Son in those being sanctified, whenever it may be necessary.

And it is most necessary to consider this: that when it makes no difference to say 'from the Father through the Son' and 'from the Father and from the Son', and in this way, in theology, 'from' and 'through' are equivalent to one another, they do not represent the division nor the difference of the Holy Trinity, but the union and the invariability, which is according to the natural properties, showing the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit to be of one and the same energy and will.

But the Latins attempt to show the difference of the divine hypostases from these prepositions, and how the Spirit has its hypostasis from the two hypostases and from each of these in different ways. It is clear, therefore, that among the saints the prepositions are used piously and well, but these are taken by the Latins badly and impiously. That such a

57

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 "σύν" πρόθεσιν τήν "διά" νοήσομέν τε καί μεταληψόμεθα, μετά τοῦ τῆς θεολογίας ἐπωνύμου Γρηγορίου λέγοντος, «εἷς ἡμῖν Θεός, ὁ ἄναρχος Πατήρ˙ ἡ ἀρχή τῶν πάντων, ὁ Υἱός καί τό οὐκ ἐκ τῆς ἀρχῆς, ἀλλά σύν τῇ ἀρχῇ καί μετά τῆς ἀρχῆς ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός Πνεῦμα ἅγιον». ∆ιό καί αὐτός ὁ (σελ. 294) θεῖος Κύριλλος ἐν Θησαυροῖς ἐν Υἱῷ παρά Πατρός φυσικῶς ὑπάρχειν διά πολλῶν τό Πνεῦμα συμπεραίνει καί παρά Πατρός φυσικῶς τε καί οὐσιωδῶς διήκειν ἐν Υἱῷ τό Πνεῦμα γράφει, δι᾿ οὗ πάντα χρίων οὗτος ἁγιάζει˙ἐκ μέν οὖν τοῦ Πατρός ἐν τῷ Υἱῷ διήκει ἀϊδίως, ἐκ δέ τοῦ Πατρός διά τοῦ Υἱοῦ τοῖς ἁγιαζομένοις ἐγγίνεται, ἡνικ᾿ ἄν δέοι.

Καί τοῦτο δέ σκοπεῖν τῶν ἀναγκαιοτάτων, ὡς ὅταν μηδέν διαφέρῃ φάναι ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός διά τοῦ Υἱοῦ, καί ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός καί ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ, καί τοῦτον τόν τρόπον ἐπί τῆς θεολογίας ἰσοδυναμῶσιν ἀλλήλαις ἡ "ἐκ" καί ἡ "διά", οὐ τήν διαίρεσιν οὐδέ τήν διαφοράν παριστῶσι τῆς ἁγίας Τριάδος, ἀλλά τήν ἕνωσιν καί τήν ἀπαραλλαξίαν, ἥτις ἐστί κατά τά φυσικά ἰδιώματα, δεικνῦσα μιᾶς καί τῆς αὐτῆς ἐνεργείας καί θελήσεως εἶναι τόν Πατέρα καί τόν Υἱόν καί τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον.

Λατῖνοι δέ τήν διαφοράν τῶν θείων ὑποστάσεων ἐκ τούτων ἐπιχειροῦσι δεικνύναι τῶν προθέσεων, καί ὡς ἐκ τῶν δύο ὑποστάσεων καί παρ᾿ ἑκατέρας τούτων διαφόρως ἔχει τήν ὑπόστασιν τό Πνεῦμα. Φανερόν οὖν ὡς ἐν μέν τοῖς ἁγίοις αἱ προθέσεις ἔχουσιν εὐσεβῶς τε καί καλῶς, ἐκλαμβάνονται δ᾿ αὗται παρά τῶν Λατίνων κακῶς καί δυσσεβῶς. Ὅτι δέ τήν ἕνωσιν καί τό ἀπαράλλακτον ἡ τοιαύτη