65

of the Son, wherever it might be found and in whatever words, as resting upon Him naturally, pre-eternally and everlastingly, since He, according to that ineffable and timeless generation, had the Spirit perfectly in Himself from the Father, the Spirit being of the same essence as Him, but according to the paternal hypostasis. Therefore, His being Spirit is contemplated before His being from Him, even if not in time; and for this reason "from the Son," because "of the Son." Therefore, He does not have His existence from Him.

And the Holy Spirit is said to be "through the Son," sometimes as being understood through Him as the Spirit of the Father and from the Father, since He is not begotten but proceeds, and as proceeding is understood to be immediately from the One who causes Him to proceed; and it is also as accompanying Him timelessly according to the theologians (p. 324) and with Him and together with Him, but not also from Him existing from the Father, as is immediately manifest to the intelligent; for no one of sound mind, upon hearing of a Word pre-eternally begotten from the Father, does not immediately come to the thought of the Spirit who accompanies the Word con-naturally and co-beginninglessly, in which sense one must not even change "through" into "from"; and it is also as being bestowed upon the saints through the Son and from the Son, not however pre-eternally sent or given or sourced from there, or if you will, proceeding, but when He was pleased to be received and manifested and as He was pleased, being given and manifested; for the essence itself and the hypostasis of the divine Spirit is never manifested in itself. But if the Latins say they infer the pre-eternal procession from this, it follows that there too it will not be according to existence. And this proof that they themselves adduce will contribute nothing to their proposition.

But the Holy Spirit is theologized as thus proceeding from the Son and through the Son; for of one and the same essence, there is one and the same will and giving and manifestation. But from those made sons by God, He is given and leaps up and is sourced and is active and appears, as the innate grace and power of the Spirit indeed exists in them and dwells in them, but by grace and not naturally, and having come later, that is, having worked through them, but not resting upon them pre-eternally.

Do you see how great the difference is, as beyond infinity? But do not the Latins in the symbol of faith, saying that the Son was begotten from the Father, but that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, speak clearly about the pre-eternal and hypostatic processions and of the very existence of both the Son and the Spirit? Clearly, therefore, they mix the unmixable: the things above time with the things in time, the things beyond cause with the things through cause. For He is sent from the Son for our sake; but if for our sake, also according to us. But from the Father not because (p. 326) of something, nor after something; away with the blasphemy, unless you also, the all-daring, or rather falsely-named theologian, refashion this, placing the Word as it were nearer to the Father, but the Holy Spirit further away.

Therefore, the divinely-wise Fathers, in handing down to us the confession of faith, just as they theologized the Son as begotten from the Father, so also the Spirit as proceeding from the Father Himself; that is, each of them immediately and from the Father alone, namely from the paternal hypostasis itself. But if, because of the visitation that later came upon us, and these things in opposition to those who alienate the Spirit from the Son, someone said that He is from both, or from the Father through the Son, or that He shines forth from the Son and things similar to these, it was as existing in the Son and being His own and in no way alien.

65

Υἱοῦ, εἴπου εὑρεθείη καί οἷς τισι ρήμασιν, ὡς αὐτῷ φυσικῶς ἐναναπαυόμενον προαιωνίως τε καί ἀϊδίως, ἅτε κατά τήν ἀπόρρητόν τε καί ἄχρονον ἐκείνην γέννησιν τέλειον ἐν ἑαυτῷ σχόντι ἐκ Πατρός τό Πνεῦμα, ἐκ τῆς αὐτῆς ὄν αὐτῷ οὐσίας, καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν μέντοι τήν πατρικήν. Οὐκοῦν ἐπί τοῦ Υἱοῦ προθεωρεῖται τό εἶναι αὐτοῦ Πνεῦμα τοῦ ἐξ αὐτοῦ εἶναι, εἰ καί μή κατά χρόνον˙ καί διά τοῦτο ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ, ὅτι τοῦ Υἱοῦ. Τοιγαροῦν οὐκ ἔχει παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ τήν ὕπαρξιν.

∆ιά δέ τοῦ Υἱοῦ λέγεται τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον, ἔσθ᾿ ὅτε μέν ὡς δι᾿ αὐτοῦ νοούμενον Πνεῦμα Πατρός καί ἐκ Πατρός, ἅτε μή γεννητόν ὑπάρχον ἀλλ᾿ ἐκπορευτόν, καί ὡς ἐκπορευτόν ἀμέσως ἐκ τοῦ ἐκπορευόντος αὐτό νοούμενον˙ ἔστι δέ καί ὡς συμπαρομαρτοῦν ἀχρόνως αὐτῷ κατά τούς θεολόγους (σελ. 324) καί σύν αὐτῷ καί μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ, ἀλλ᾿ οὐχί καί ἐξ αὐτοῦ ἐκ τοῦ πατρός ὑπῆρχον, ὡς καί αὐτόθεν τοῖς συνετοῖς ἐστι κατάδηλον˙ οὐδείς γάρ τῶν εὖ φρονούντων λόγον ἀκούσας προαιωνίως ἐκ Πατρός γεννώμενον οὐκ εἰς ἔννοιαν εὐθύς ἔρχεται τοῦ τῷ λόγῳ συμφυῶς καί συνανάρχως συμπαραμαρτοῦντος Πνεύματος, καθ᾿ ἥν ἔννοιαν οὐδ᾿ εἰς "ἐκ" τήν "διά" χρή μεταλαμβάνειν˙ ἔστι δέ καί ὡς δι᾿ Υἱοῦ καί ἐξ Υἱοῦ τοῖς ἁγίοις χορηγούμενον, οὐ μήν προαιωνίως ἐκεῖθεν πεμπόμενον ἤ διδόμενον ἤ πηγάζον, εἰ δέ βούλει ἐκπορευόμενον, ἀλλ᾿ ἡνίκα ληφθῆναι καί φενερωθῆναι εὐδόκησε καί ὡς εὐδόκησε διδόμενόν τε καί φανερούμενον˙ οὐ γάρ αὐτή καθ᾿ ἑαυτήν ἡ οὐσία καί ἡ ὑπόστασις φανεροῦταί ποτε τοῦ θείου Πνεύματος. Εἰ δέ Λατῖνοί φασιν ἐντεῦθεν στοχάζεσθαι τήν προαιώνιον πρόοδον, ἀκολούθως οὐδ᾿ ἐκεῖ κατά τήν ὕπαρξιν ἔσται. Καί τό τεκμήριον ὅ φασιν αὐτοί τοῦτο, οὐδέν αὐτοῖς συμβαλεῖται πρός τήν πρόθεσιν.

Ἀλλ᾿ ἐκ μέν τοῦ Υἱοῦ καί διά τοῦ Υἱοῦ οὕτω προϊόν θεολογεῖται τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον˙ μιᾶς γάρ καί τῆς αὐτῆς οὐσίας, μία καί ἡ αὐτή καί θέλησις καί δόσις καί φανέρωσις. Ἐκ δέ τῶν υἱοποιήτων τῷ Θεῷ καί διδόμενόν ἐστι καί ἁλλόμενον καί πηγάζον καί ἐνεργοῦν καί φαινόμενον, ὡς ἐνυπαρχούσης μέν αὐτοῖς καί ἐνοικούσης τῆς ἐμφύτου χάριτος καί δυνάμεως τοῦ Πνεύματος, ἀλλά κατά χάριν καί οὐ φυσικῶς καί ὕστερον ἐπιδημησάσης, τουτέστι δι᾿ αὐτῶν ἐνεργησάσης, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ προαιωνίως ἐπαναπαυομένης.

Ὁρᾷς ὅση ἡ διαφορά, ὡς ἀπειρίας ἐπέκεινα; Λατῖνοι δέ ἐν τῷ συμβόλῳ τῆς πίστεως, ἐκ μέν τοῦ Πατρός λέγοντες γεννηθῆναι τόν Υἱόν, ἐκ δέ τοῦ Πατρός καί τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα ἐκπορεύεσθαι, οὐ σαφῶς περί τῶν προαιωνίων καί ὑποστατικῶν φασι προόδων καί αὐτῆς τῆς ὑπάρξεως τοῦ Υἱοῦ τε καί τοῦ Πνεύματος; Σαφῶς τοιγαροῦν μιγνύουσι τά ἄμικτα˙ τοῖς ὑπέρ χρόνον τά ὑπό χρόνον, τοῖς ὑπέρ αἰτίαν τά δι᾿ αἰτίαν. ∆ι᾿ ἡμᾶς γάρ ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ πέμπεται˙ εἰ δέ δι᾿ ἡμᾶς, καί καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς. Ἐκ δέ τοῦ Πατρός οὐ διά (σελ. 326) τι, οὐδέ μετά τι˙ ἄπαγε τῆς βλασφημίας, εἰ μή σύ καί τοῦτ᾿ ἀναπλάσεις ὁ πάντολμος, μᾶλλον δέ ψευδώνυμος θεολόγος, καί τόν λόγον οἷον ἐγγυτέρω τοῦ Πατρός τιθείς, πορρωτέρω δέ τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον.

Ταῦτ᾿ ἄρα καί οἱ θεόσοφοι Πατέρες ἡμῖν μέν παραδιδόντες τήν τῆς πίστεως ὁμολογίαν, ὡς ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός ἐθεολόγησαν γεννηθέντα τόν Υἱόν, οὕτω καί τό Πνεῦμα ἐξ αὐτοῦ τοῦ Πατρός ἐκπορευόμενον˙ δηλονότι ἀμέσως ἑκάτερον αὐτῶν καί ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρός, ἐξ αὐτῆς δηλαδή τῆς πατρικῆς ὑποστάσεως. Εἰ δέ διά τήν γενομένην ἐπιφοίτησιν ὕστερον ἡμῖν, καί ταῦτα πρός τούς ἀλλοτριοῦντας τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα ἐνιστάμενοι, ἐξ ἀμφοῖν εἶπέ τις αὐτό, ἤ ἐκ πατρός δι᾿ Υἱοῦ ἤ ὅτι τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἐκλάμπει καί τά ὅμοια τούτοις, ἀλλ᾿ ὡς καί ἐν τῷ Υἱῷ ὑπάρχον καί ἴδιον αὐτοῦ καί κατ᾿ οὐδέν ἀλλότριον.