as the nature of the Father and the Son is one and the same. For to speak according to the divine Cyril himself, as he himself writes To Hermias, “the Son would not be conceived as other than the Father, as far as natural identity is concerned, and in every way also the Holy Spirit,” as the same [author], explaining that evangelical passage concerning this, “for he will not speak on his own,” says, “the Holy Spirit is nothing other than the Son, as far as identity of nature is concerned.” “And a fount of life, according to the great Dionysius, is the divine nature, pouring into itself and standing on itself and always being contemplated through itself.”

But it is not possible, he says, for the Spirit to be from the substance of the Son and not be from his hypostasis; for they do not comprehend that, when something is of one substance and hypostasis, that which has its existence in any way from that substance also has it from that hypostasis, and conversely; for whatever is from that hypostasis is also from that substance. But when something is of one substance, but not of one hypostasis, but of several, that which is from that one substance is not from the rest of its hypostases, but from some one of them. Since, therefore, for us the highest and adorable Trinity is one nature in three hypostases, that which has its hypostasis from the substance is not from the remaining hypostases, but from some one of them, that is, the paternal one; for it is not possible for it not to be from this one, therefore not also from another, but from it alone, if indeed from one.

(p. 308) And this is clear from humans; for each of us is from the substance of Adam, but not also from his hypostasis, because there is now one substance of humans, but many hypostases. But since in the beginning the human substance and hypostasis, that of Adam, were one, Eve, being from the substance of Adam, was also from his hypostasis. But also before Cain existed, since there was one male substance and hypostasis, Cain existed from one and the same male substance and hypostasis, that of Adam; but when there were now two men in hypostasis, Enoch, the son of Cain, existed from the substance of Adam, but not also from his hypostasis, but from that of Cain alone.

Therefore, those who think in the Latin way, contending that the Spirit is also from the hypostasis of the Son, if he is theologized as being from the nature, are shown to think that there is one hypostasis in God just as there is one substance, apart from the divine Spirit, completely setting aside the Father and showing the Son alone to exist in hypostasis and presenting the Holy Spirit as having its existence from the Son alone.

If someone, therefore, hearing that the Spirit is from the nature of the Son, understands it as from the hypostasis, he makes the Son of the same hypostasis as the Father, since he is of the same substance; or he understands the difference and distinction to be in the divine nature, but not in the three divine hypostases alone, not hearing, in addition to others, the theologian Chrysostom teaching that, “while the distinguishing order of the divine hypostases has become known to the saints, the distinction of natures is to be rejected in the case of the Holy Trinity.” “For the substance was not divided from the Father into the Son,” says the great Basil in his Canonical Letters, “nor did it generate by flowing.”

Therefore, it would be well to say not from the hypostasis of the Son, but from him naturally and from the substance of the Son (p. 310) the Spirit, because of the Son’s being of one substance with the Father, and the consubstantiality of the divine Spirit with the Father and the Son being shown from this, but not the Spirit’s different existence from the Father, and it is the same to say both that the Spirit is from the substance of the Son because of the consubstantiality, and that the Spirit is of the same substance as the Son. But from that of the Son the consubstantiality is shown

ὡς μιᾶς καί τῆς αὐτῆς φύσεως οὔσης τοῦ Πατρός καί τοῦ Υἱοῦ. Ἵνα γάρ κατ᾿ αὐτόν εἴπω τόν θεῖον Κύριλλον, ὡς αὐτός Πρός Ἑρμείαν γράφει, «οὐχ

ἕτερος ἄν ὁ Υἱός εἶναι νοοῖτο παρά τόν Πατέρα, ὅσον εἰς ταὐτότητα φυσικήν, πάντως δέ καί τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον», ὡς καί περί τούτου ὁ αὐτός ἐξηγούμενος ἐκεῖνο τό εὐαγγελικόν, «οὐ γάρ λαλήσει ἀφ᾿ ἑαυτοῦ», φησίν, «οὐδέν ἕτερον παρά τόν Υἱόν ὑπάρχει τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον, ὅσον εἰς ταὐτότητα φύσεως». «Πηγή δέ ἐστι ζωῆς, κατά τόν μέγαν ∆ιονύσιον, ἡ θεία φύσις εἰς ἑαυτήν χεομένη καί ἐφ᾿ ἑαυτῆς ἑστῶσα καί ἀεί δι᾿ ἑαυτῆς θεωμένη».

Ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ ἔστι, φησίν, ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Υἱοῦ εἶναι τό Πνεῦμα καί ἐκ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ μή εἶναι˙ οὐ γάρ συνορῶσιν, ὡς, ὅταν τι μιᾶς μέν οὐσίας ᾖ καί ὑποστάσεως, τό ἐξ ἐκείνης τῆς οὐσίας ἔχον ὁπωσδήποτε τήν ὕπαρξιν καί ἐκ τῆς ὑποστάσεως ἐκείνης ταύτην ἔχει, καί ἀντιστρόφως˙ ὅ γάρ ἄν ἐκ τῆς ὑποστάσεως ἐκείνης ᾖ καί ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας ἐκείνης ἐστίν, Ὅταν δέ τι μιᾶς μέν οὐσίας ᾖ, οὐ μιᾶς δέ ὑποστάσεως, ἀλλά πλειόνων, τό ἐκ τῆς μιᾶς ἐκείνης οὐσίας οὐκ ἐκ τῶν λοιπῶν αὐτῆς ὑποστάσεών ἐστιν, ἀλλ᾿ ἐκ μιᾶς τινος αὐτῶν. Ἐπεί γοῦν ἡ ἀνωτάτω καί προσκυνητή Τριάς ἡμῖν μία φύσις ἐστίν ἐν ὑποστάσεσι τρισίν, οὐχί τό ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τήν ὑπόστασιν ἔχον ἐκ τῶν ὑπολοίπων ὑποστάσεών ἐστιν, ἀλλ᾿ ἐκ μιᾶς τινος αὐτῶν, δηλαδή τῆς πατρικῆς˙ ἐκ ταύτης γάρ μή εἶναι οὐκ ἐνδέχεται, οὐκοῦν οὐχί καί ἐξ ἑτέρας, ἀλλ᾿ ἐκ μόνης, εἴπερ ἐκ μιᾶς.

(σελ. 308) Καί τοῦτο δῆλον ἀπό τῶν ἀνθρώπων˙ ἕκαστος γάρ ἡμῶν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας μέν ἔστι τοῦ Ἀδάμ, οὐκ ἔστι δέ καί ἐκ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ, διότι μία μέν οὐσία τῶν ἀνθρώπων νῦν, πολλαί δέ ὑποστάσεις. Ἀνθρωπίνης δέ τήν ἀρχήν μιᾶς οὔσης οὐσίας τε καί ὑποστάσεως, τῆς τοῦ Ἀδάμ, ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Ἀδάμ ἡ Εὔα οὖσα, καί ἐκ τῆς ὑποστάσεως ἐκείνου ἦν. Ἀλλά καί πρίν τόν Κάϊν εἶναι, μιᾶς οὔσης ἀνδρικῆς οὐσίας τε καί ὑποστάσεως, ἐκ μιᾶς καί τῆς αὐτῆς ὁ Κάϊν ἀνδρικῆς οὐσίας τε καί ὑποστάσεως ὑπῆρχε, τοῦ Ἀδάμ˙ δυοῖν δέ ἀνδρῶν ἤδη καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν τελούντων, ὁ τοῦ Κάϊν Ἐνώχ ἐκ τοῦ οὐσίας μέν ὑπῆρχε τοῦ Ἀδάμ, ἀλλ᾿ οὐχί καί ἐκ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ, ἀλλ᾿ ἐκ μόνης τῆς τοῦ Κάϊν.

Οἱ γοῦν λατινικῶς φρονοῦντες διατεινόμενοι καί ἐκ τῆς ὑποστάσεως εἶναι τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα, εἴπερ εἶναι θεολογεῖται ἐκ τῆς φύσεως, πλήν τοῦ θείου Πνεύματος, μίαν εἶναι δείκνυνται φρονοῦντες ὥσπερ οὐσίαν οὕτω καί ὑπόστασιν ἐπί Θεοῦ, τόν Πατέρα τελέως ἀθετοῦντες καί τόν Υἱόν εἶναι μόνον καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν δεικνύντες καί τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Υἱοῦ τήν ὕπαρξιν ἔχειν παριστῶντες.

Εἰ τις οὖν ἐκ τῆς φύσεως ἀκούων τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα, ἐκ τῆς ὑποστάσεως νοεῖ, ὁμοϋπόστατον ποιεῖ τῷ Πατρί τόν Υἱόν, ἐπειδήπερ ὁμοούσιος˙ ἤ καί τήν διαφοράν καί τήν διάκρισιν κἄν τῇ θείᾳ φύσει, ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ ἐν μόναις ταῖς τρισί θείαις ὑποστάσεσι νοεῖ, μή πρός τοῖς ἄλλοις καί τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου θεολόγου διδάσκοντος ἀκούων, «ὡς ἡ μέν τῶν θείων ὑποστάσεων διακριτική τάξις, τοῖς ἁγίοις καθέστηκε γνώριμος, ἡ δέ φύσεων διακριτική ἐπί τῆς ἁγίας Τριάδος ἀπόβλητος». «Οὐ γάρ ἐμερίσθη ἡ οὐσία ἀπό τοῦ Πατρός εἰς Υἱόν, πρός τάς κανονικάς φησιν ὁ μέγας Βασίλειος, οὐδέ ρυεῖσα ἐγέννησεν».

Τοιγαροῦν εὖ ἄν ἔχοι λέγειν οὐκ ἐκ τῆς ὑποστάσεως τοῦ Υἱοῦ, ἀλλ᾿ ἐξ αὐτοῦ φυσικῶς κἀκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Υἱοῦ (σελ. 310) τό Πνεῦμα, διά τό τοῦ Υἱοῦ πρός τόν Πατέρα ὁμοούσιον, καί τῆς τοῦ θείου Πνεύματος πρός τόν Πατέρα καί τόν Υἱόν ὁμοουσιότητος ἐντεῦθεν δεικνυμένης, ἀλλ᾿ οὐχί τῆς διαφόρου ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός ὑπάρξεως τοῦ Πνεύματος, ἴσον δέ ἐστιν εἰπεῖν καί ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα διά τήν ὁμοουσιότητα, καί ὅτι τῆς αὐτῆς ἐστιν οὐσίας τῷ Υἱῷ τό Πνεῦμα. Ἐκ δέ τῆς τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἡ ὁμοουσιότης δείκνυται