of the Spirit as more manifest and fore-announced and fore-attested˙ “And the Son has naturally in Himself the proper and excellent things of the Father, the property of the one who begot Him passing naturally into Him”˙ not the hypostatic properties of the Father that are proper and excellent—for He does not have being unoriginate and unbegotten or being a begetter—but the natural and proper glories of the Father’s nature, which the Holy Spirit also has naturally.

And the divine Cyril, taking great care in this, that no one be led astray to believe that the Holy Spirit is from the hypostasis of the Son, as often as he says from His nature and naturally and according to nature, he says that the Holy Spirit also springs forth from His nature, in which He is the same with the Father, but nowhere in his writings from the hypostasis˙ and he always theologizes that He has the properties of the Father naturally and essentially and according to nature.

For when he was slandered as believing that the Spirit has existence also from the hypostasis of the Son, he insisted on this very point, that he was being slandered, arguing that the Spirit is proper to the Son and not alien, but not from the Son. And this stands recorded as a manifest and brilliant refutation of the Latins, who, from the very sources from which they should have rather abstained from their ill-will, deem it right to be led to wrongly think that not only the Father, but also the hypostasis of the Son is the cause of the hypostasis of the divine Spirit. But let him who says that the Spirit is from the hypostasis of the Son, (p. 312) because the divine Cyril said that the property of the one who begot Him passes naturally into the Son, be put to shame by the divine Cyril himself, who writes in the *Treasures*: “How will the Spirit not be God, having wholly in Himself essentially the property of the Father and of the Son, whose Spirit He also is, being supplied to creation through the Son?” For according to their understanding, which they hold in the theologies of the God-bearers, the Spirit will be at once begotten and a begetter; than which what stranger thing could be heard?

But these things have just now been said by us as if out of abundance to those who maintain that the Spirit is from the hypostasis of the Son, since it is said to be from the nature. For the divine Cyril says here to us that what springs up from the nature is not the nature of the Spirit, nor the hypostasis, but the energy, which springs up, according to the Damascene theologian, from one three-hypostasized nature. For that the energy of the divine nature is also uncreated and that it is called natural and essential, the great Athanasius will also establish in a few words, writing in his works *Against the Macedonians*: “The Father and the Son do not work by one and another providence, but by one and the same essential energy of the divinity.”

And that such an energy springs forth not from one of the hypostases, but from the three-hypostasized nature, let the great Dionysius also bear witness, writing in the fourth chapter of his book *On the Celestial Hierarchy*: “all things partake of the providence gushing forth from the all-causative divinity.”

And that the divine Cyril here says that the Spirit given to us from the Father and the Son is not the nature nor the hypostasis of the Spirit, but His uncreated and natural grace and energy, a clear proof, among others (p. 314), is also the mention of the voice of the forerunner and baptist concerning Christ in the Gospel, which says that the Spirit is not given by measure by the Father to the Son. For John Chrysostom, explaining this passage of the Gospel according to John the Theologian, says, “Spirit,” “here he means the energy; for all we received the energy of the Spirit by measure,

τοῦ Πνεύματος ὡς φανερωτέρας καί προκατηγγελμένης καί προπεπιστωμένης˙ «ἔχει τε ὁ Υἱός φυσικῶς ἐν ἑαυτῷ τά τοῦ Πατρός ἴδια καί ἐξαίρετα, διαβαινούσης εἰς αὐτόν φυσικῶς τῆς τοῦ γεννήσαντος ἰδιότητος»˙ οὐ τά ὑποστατικά ἴδια τοῦ Πατρός καί ἐξαίρετα - οὐδέ γάρ τό ἄναρχον ἔχει καί ἀγέννητον ἤ τό γόνιμον ἀλλά τά φυσικά καί ἴδια τῆς τοῦ Πατρός φύσεως αὐχήματα, ἅπερ ἔχει φυσικῶς καί τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον.

Καί τοῦτο διά πολλῆς ποιούμενος σπουδῆς ὁ θεῖος Κύριλλος, τό μηδένα παραχθέντα δοξάζειν ἐκ τῆς ὑποστάσεως τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον, ἐκ τῆς φύσεως αὐτοῦ καί φυσικῶς καί κατά φύσιν ὁσάκις λέγει, τό Πνεῦμά φησι τό ἅγιον καί ἐκ τῆς φύσεως αὐτοῦ πηγάζειν, καθ᾿ ἥν ὁ αὐτός ἐστι μετά Πατρός, ἀλλ᾿ οὐδαμοῦ τῶν λόγων ἐκ τῆς ὑποστάσεως˙ καί τά ἴδια τοῦ Πατρός ἔχειν αὐτόν φυσικῶς τε καί οὐσιωδῶς καί κατά φύσιν ἀεί θεολογεῖ.

Καί συκοφαντηθείς γάρ ὡς καί ἐκ τῆς ὑποστάσεως τοῦ Υἱοῦ δοξάζων τήν ὕπαρξιν τό Πνεῦμα ἔχειν, τοῦτ᾿ αὐτό ὅτι συκοφαντεῖται ἰσχυρίσατο, ἴδιον τοῦ Υἱοῦ καί οὐκ ἀλλότριον εἶναι τό Πνεῦμα διατεινάμενος, ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ. Καί τοῦτ᾿ ἀνάγραπτον κεῖται πρός Λατίνων περιφανῆ τε καί λαμπρόν ἔλεγχον˙ οἵ παρ᾿ ὧν ἔδει μᾶλλον ἀποσχέσθαι τῆς κακονοίας, ἐκ τούτων ἐνάγεσθαι δικαιοῦσιν εἰς τό μή τόν Πατέρα μόνον, ἀλλά καί τήν τοῦ Υἱοῦ ὑπόστασιν αἰτίαν αἶναι κακῶς νομίζειν τῆς τοῦ θείου Πνεύματος ὑποστάσεως. Ὁ δέ λέγων εἶναι ἐκ τῆς τοῦ Υἰοῦ ὑποστάσεως τό Πνεῦμα, (σελ. 312) διά τό εἰπεῖν τόν θεῖον Κύριλλον διαβαίνειν φυσικῶς εἰς τόν Υἰόν τήν τοῦ γεννήσαντος ἰδιότητα παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ τοῦ θείου Κυρίλλου ἐντρεπέσθω, γράφοντος ἐν Θησαυροῖς˙ «πῶς οὐκ ἔσται τό Πνεῦμα ὁ Θεός, ὅλην ἔχον ἐν ἑαυτῷ οὐσιωδῶς τήν ἰδιότητα τοῦ Πατρός καί τοῦ Υἱοῦ, οὗ καί Πνεῦμα ἐστι, δι᾿ Υἱοῦ τῇ κτίσει χορηγούμενον»; Κατά γάρ τήν αὐτῶν σύνεσιν, ἥν ἐν ταῖς τῶν θεοφόρων κέκτηνται θεολογίαις, τό Πνεῦμα γεννητόν τε ἅμα καί γεννήτωρ ἔσται˙ οὗ τί ἀν ἀκουσθείη καινότερον;

Ἀλλά ταῦτα μέν ὥσπερ ἐκ περιουσίας ἡμῖν ἀρτίως εἴρηται πρός τούς διατεινομένους ἐκ τῆς ὑποστάσεως εἶναι τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα, ἐπειδήπερ ἐκ τῆς φύσεως εἴρηται. Ὁ γάρ θεῖος Κύριλλος ἐνταῦθ᾿ ἡμῖν ἀναπηγάζειν ἐκ τῆς φύσεως οὐ τήν φύσιν φησί τοῦ Πνεύματος, οὐδέ τήν ὑπόστασιν, ἀλλά τήν ἐνέργειαν, ἥτις ἀναπηγάζει, κατά τόν ∆αμασκηνόν θεολόγον, ἐκ μιᾶς τρισυποστάτου φύσεως. Ὅτι μέν γάρ ἄκτιστός ἐστι καί ἡ τῆς θείας φύσεως ἐνέργεια καί ὅτι φυσική καί οὐσιώδης λέγεται, παραστήσει δι᾿ ὀλίγων καί ὁ μέγας Ἀθανάσιος ἐν τοῖς Κατά Μακεδονίου γράφων˙ «οὐ κατά ἄλλην καί ἄλλην πρόνοιαν ὁ Πατήρ καί ὁ Υἱός ἐργάζεται, ἀλλά κατά μίαν καί τήν αὐτήν οὐσιώδη τῆς θεότητος ἐνέργειαν».

Ὅτι δέ οὐκ ἐκ μιᾶς τινος τῶν ὑποστάσεων, ἀλλ᾿ ἐκ τῆς τρισυποστάτου φύσεως ἡ τοιαύτη ἐνέργεια πηγάζει προσμαρτυρείτω καί ὁ μέγας ∆ιονύσιος γράφων ἐν κεφαλαίῳ τετάρτῳ τῆς Περί τῆς οὐρανίου ἱεραρχίας βίβλου˙ «πάντα μετέχει προνοίας ἐκ τῆς παναιτίου θεότητος ἐκβλυζομένης». Ὅτι δέ Πνεῦμα ἐνταῦθα ὁ θεῖος Κύριλλος ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός καί τοῦ Υἱοῦ διδόμενον ἡμῖν οὐ τήν φύσιν φησίν οὐδέ τήν ὑπόστασιν τοῦ Πνεύματος, ἀλλά τήν ἄκτιστον αὐτοῦ καί φυσικήν χάριν καί ἐνέργειαν, σαφές δεῖγμα πρός τοῖς ἄλλοις (σελ. 314) καί τό μνησθῆναι τῆς ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ τοῦ προδρόμου καί βαπτιστοῦ περί τοῦ Χριστοῦ φωνῆς, τῆς οὐκ ἐκ μέτρου δίδοσθαι λεγούσης παρά τοῦ Πατρός τό Πνεῦμα τῷ Υἱῷ. Ἰωάννης γάρ ὁ χρυσορρήμων, τό χωρίον τοῦτο τοῦ κατά τόν θεολόγον Ἰωάννην εὐαγγελίου ἐξηγούμενος, «Πνεῦμα», φησίν, «ἐνταῦθα τήν ἐνέργειαν λέγει˙ πάντες γάρ ἡμεῖς μέτρῳ τήν ἐνέργειαν τοῦ Πνεύματος ἐλάβομεν,