61

be of that and is of the essence of that, But when something is of one essence, but not of one hypostasis, but of many, that which is from that one essence is not from its other hypostases, but from some one of them. Since, therefore, the most high and adorable Trinity is for us one nature in three hypostases, that which has its hypostasis from the essence is not from the remaining hypostases, but from some one of them, namely 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 essence of Adam, but not also from his hypostasis, because the essence of humans is now one, but the hypostases are many. But since in the beginning the human essence and hypostasis, that of Adam, was one, Eve, being from the essence of Adam, was also from his hypostasis. But also before Cain existed, since there was one male essence and hypostasis, Cain existed from one and the same male essence and hypostasis, that of Adam; but when there were already two men in hypostasis, Enoch, the son of Cain, existed from the essence of Adam, but not also from his hypostasis, but from that of Cain alone.

Those, therefore, who think in the Latin manner, by contending that the Spirit is also from the hypostasis of the Son—if He is theologically defined as being from the nature—are shown to believe that in God there is one hypostasis just as there is one essence, apart from the divine Spirit, completely rejecting the Father and showing that the Son alone exists in hypostasis and representing the Holy Spirit as having existence from the Son alone.

If anyone, therefore, hearing that the Spirit is from the nature of the Son, understands it as from the hypostasis, he makes the Son of one hypostasis with the Father, since He is of one essence; or he understands difference and distinction even in the divine nature, and not only in the three divine hypostases, not hearing, among others, the theologian Chrysostom teaching, "that the order which distinguishes the divine hypostases has been made known to the saints, but the distinction of natures is rejected in the case of the Holy Trinity." "For the essence was not divided from the Father into the Son," says the great Basil in his Canonical Letters, "nor did it beget by flowing forth."

Therefore, it would be well to say that the Spirit is not from the hypostasis of the Son, but from Him naturally and from the essence of the Son (p. 310), because of the Son's consubstantiality with the Father, and because the consubstantiality of the divine Spirit with the Father and the Son is thereby shown, but not the Spirit's distinct existence from the Father; and it is the same to say that the Spirit is from the essence of the Son because of the consubstantiality, and that the Spirit is of the same essence as the Son. But from the Son the consubstantiality of the Spirit is shown as being more manifest and previously announced and previously believed; "and the Son has naturally in Himself the Father's own and excellent properties, as the property of the one who begot passes naturally into Him"; not the Father's own and excellent hypostatic properties—for He does not have being without beginning and unbegottenness or the power to beget—but the natural and own glories of the Father's nature, which the Holy Spirit also has naturally.

And the divine Cyril, making this a matter of great diligence, lest anyone be misled to believe the Holy Spirit is from the hypostasis of the Son, whenever 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

61

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 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