63

It is not necessary to go into. And these things, although we who have now been least inclined to prolong them beyond measure, nevertheless our discourse has been extended to length, being drawn out along with their own objections from ignorance.

But what is the seemingly unshakable foundation of their impiety? Everything, he says, that proceeds from something, proceeds through something and so it is with all things, even if the speaker does not signify it in word; and that which is through something, is also said to be from that through which it is; through what other, then, if not through the Son, does the Spirit proceed? Therefore, the conclusion is clear, that the Spirit proceeds through the Son and from the Son.

What then is our response to these things? We will not grant them the "through" while forbidding the "from", a state many have suffered, ignorant of what they have suffered. For 'through the mouth' is also clearly expressed as 'from the mouth' (p. 316). And in Job it is written that God spoke 'through a cloud' and again 'from the cloud'. But indeed, in the case of created things that proceed according to nature, we will understand the 'through something' even when it is not stated. But not for this reason will we liken the supernatural to the natural. Answer me then, you who tread on things you have not seen: is not every son, being born from someone, born through someone, and is it not thus in all cases, even if the speaker does not signify it in word? Shall we therefore for this reason reject also the earthly and temporal birth of the Only-Begotten, which is beyond nature, from a virgin mother alone, and the pre-eternal birth above from a virgin Father alone, seeking the 'through what' and 'from what' according to your perditious teachings and illogical syllogisms? By no means, but through her who was also manifested on earth we will also recognize the procession of the Holy Spirit as being immediately from the Father and we will reject your addition, as one that ranks the supernatural with things governed by nature.

And do you not understand this, O examiner of the unsearchable, that everything that proceeds, proceeds not only through something, but always also to something? Either, then, you will tell us to what the Holy Spirit proceeds before the ages, and for this reason, instead of the sole pre-eternal and venerable Trinity, you will be shown to worship a Tetrad, the 'from which', the 'through which', the 'to which' and the proceeding itself, or, if you do not grant this, we will not accept that either. For what is the reason whereby, when both follow from everything that proceeds, you accept the one, but not the other?

And yet that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and rests in the Son has both been written by the theologians and was manifested at the Jordan when the Savior was baptized, and we confess that this is so, not conjecturing about things beyond all beings from the (p. 318) things that are, but being taught about things beyond conception from those things that are ineffably accomplished. Where then for you is the 'through the Son' and 'from the Son' in the existence of the divine Spirit, if the Spirit proceeding from the Father clearly comes to the Son and is theologized as resting in Him? Just as the holy Damascene says word for word, and Gregory the Theologian, showing this very thing, proclaims Christ to be the steward of the divine Spirit as the Son of God. And the divine Cyril in his *Thesauri* concludes that the Spirit exists naturally in the Son from the Father and says that the Spirit passes naturally and essentially from the Father into the Son, through whom the Son, anointing, sanctifies all things. Therefore, existing naturally and eternally from the Father in the Son, from the Son to the worthy, how and when it may be necessary, the Holy Spirit goes forth and is manifested.

But no, but treating the present argument more moderately, especially for the sake of those who are about to read with goodwill a more universal manifestation in

63

ἐπαξιέναι οὐκ ἀνάγκη. Καί ταῦθ᾿ ἡμῖν ἀρτίως οἷς πέρα τοῦ μετρίου μηκύνειν ἥκιστα προῃρημένοις, ὅμως εἰς μῆκος ἐκτέταται ὁ λόγος, ταῖς αὐτῶν ἐξ ἀγνοίας ἀπορρίαις συμπαρεκτεινόμενος.

Ἀλλά τί τό δοκοῦν αὐτοῖς ἀκράδαντον τῆς δυσσεβείας ἔρεισμα; Πᾶν, φησί, τό ἐκπορευόμενον ἔκ τινος, διά τινος ἐκπορεύεται καί οὕτως ἐπί πάντων ἐστί, κἄν μή ρήματι ὁ λέγων ἐπισημαίνηται˙ τό δ᾿ αὖ διά τινος, καί ἐξ ἐκείνου δι᾿ οὗ ἐστι λέγεται˙ διά τίνος οὖν ἑτέρου, εἰ μή διά τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα; Σαφές οὐκοῦν τό περαινόμενον, ὅτι διά τοῦ Υἱοῦ καί ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα ἐκπορεύεται.

Τί οὖν ἡμεῖς πρός ταῦτα; Οὐ τήν "διά" μέν αὐτοῖς δώσομεν, τήν δέ "ἐκ" ἀπαγορεύσομεν, ὅ πολλοί πεπόνθασιν, ἀγνοοῦντες ὅ πεπόνθασι. Τό γάρ διά στόματος, καί ἐκ στόματος (σελ. 316) σαφῶς προφέρεται. Καί τῷ Ἰώβ «διά νεφέλης» γέγραπται λαλήσας ὁ Θεός καί αὖθις «ἐκ τοῦ νέφους». Ἀλλ᾿ οὐδ᾿ ἐπί τῶν κτιστῶν καί κατά φύσιν ἐκπορευομένων τό διά τινος οὐ συννοήσομεν καί μή λεγόμενον. Οὐ μήν διά τοῦτο τοῖς κατά φύσιν τά ὑπέρ φύσιν ὁμοιώσομεν. Ἀπόκριναι γάρ δή μοι ὁ ἐμβατεύων ἅ μή ἑώρακας˙ οὐχί καί πᾶς υἱός ἔκ τινος γεννώμενος διά τινος γεννᾶται καί οὕτως ἐπί πάντων ἔχει, κἄν μή ρήματι ὁ λέγων ἐπισημαίνηται; Ἆρ᾿ οὖν διά τοῦτο καί τήν κάτω καί χρονικήν τοῦ μονογενοῦς ὑπέρ φύσιν οὖσαν ἐκ μόνης παρθένου μητρός ἀθετήσομεν γέννησιν καί τήν ἄνω ἐκ μόνου παρθένου Πατρός προαιώνιον, ζητοῦντες τό διά τίνος τε καί ἐκ τίνος κατά τάς ἀπολουμένας σάς ὑποθήκας καί τούς ἀσυλλογίστους συλλογισμούς; Οὔμενουν, ἀλλά δι᾿ αὐτῆς κἀπί γῆς φανερωθείσης καί τήν τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος ἐκπόρευσιν ἀμέσως οὖσαν ἐκ Πατρός ἐπιγνωσόμεθα καί τήν σήν ἀποποιησόμεθα προσθήκην, ὡς τοῖς φυσικῶς διοικουμένοις τά ὑπερφυῆ συντάττουσαν.

Καί τοῦτο δέ οὐ συννοεῖς ὁ τῶν ἀνεξερευνήτων ἐξεταστής, ὅτι τό ἐκπορευόμενον ἅπαν οὐ διά τινος μόνον, ἀλλά καί εἴς τι ἀεί ἐκπορεύεται; Ἤ τοίνυν δώσεις ἡμῖν εἰς τί πρό τῶν αἰώνων τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον ἐκπορεύεται, καί ἀντί τῆς μόνης προαιωνίου καί σεπτῆς διά τοῦτο Τριάδος τετράδα σεβόμενος ἀποδειχθήσῃ, τό ἐξ οὗ, τό δι᾿ οὗ, τό εἰς ὅ καί αὐτό τό ἐκπορευόμενον, ἤ τοῦτο σοῦ μή διδόντος οὐδ᾿ ἐκεῖνο δεξόμεθα. Τίς γάρ ὁ λόγος καθ᾿ ὅν, ἀμφοτέρων ἑπομένων τῷ ἐκπορευομένῳ παντί, τό μέν προσίεσθαι, τό δέ μή;

Καίτοι τό μέν ἐκ Πατρός ἐκπορευέσθαι τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον καί ἐν τῷ Υἱῷ ἀναπαύεσθαι, καί γέγραπται παρά τῶν θεολόγων καί πεφανέρωται ἐν Ἰορδάνῃ τοῦ Σωτῆρος βαπτιζομένου καί τοῦθ᾿ οὕτως ἔχον ὁμολογοῦμεν, οὐκ ἐκ τῶν (σελ. 318) ὄντων τά ὑπέρ πάντα τά ὄντα στοχαζόμενοι, ἀλλ᾿ ἐκ τῶν ἀρρήτως τελουμένων τά ὑπέρ ἔννοιαν διδασκόμενοι. Ποῦ δή σοι τό δι᾿ Υἱοῦ καί ἐξ Υἱοῦ ἐπί τῆς τοῦ θείου Πνεύματος ὑπάρξεως, εἰ ἐκ Πατρός ἐκπορευόμενον τό Πνεῦμα πρός τόν Υἱόν σαφῶς ἔρχεται καί ἐν αὐτῷ ἀναπαύεσθαι τό θεολογεῖται; Καθάπερ ὁ ἱερός ∆αμασκηνός ἐπί λέξεώς φησι καί Γρηγόριος ὁ θεολόγος τοῦτ᾿ αὐτό δεικνύς ταμίαν εἶναι τοῦ θείου Πνεύματος ὡς Θεοῦ Υἱόν καταγγέλλει τόν Χριστόν. Καί ὁ θεῖος Κύριλλος ἐν Θησαυροῖς ἐν Υἱῷ παρά Πατρός φυσικῶς ὑπάρχειν τό Πνεῦμα συμπεραίνει καί παρά Πατρός φυσικῶς τε καί οὐσιωδῶς διήκειν ἐν Υἱῷ τό Πνεῦμα λέγει, δι᾿ οὗ πάντα χρίων ἁγιάζει ὁ Υἱός. Ἐκ γοῦν τοῦ Πατρός ἐν τῷ Υἱῷ ὑπάρχον φυσικῶς καί ἀϊδίως, ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ πρός τούς ἀξίους, ὅπως καί ἡνίκα δέοι, πρόεισι καί φανεροῦται τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον.

Οὐ μήν, ἀλλ᾿ ἐπιεικέστερον τόν προκείμενον μεταχειρίζων λόγον, μάλιστα διά τούς μετ᾿ εὐγνωμοσύνης ἐντυγχάνειν μέλλοντας καθολικωτέραν ἔκφανσιν ἐν