72

Fifth Counter-heading. Of insensibility: for the sayings of the saints are equivalent for showing the

affinity to the Father and the Son, that is to say the consubstantiality of the divine Spirit, but they differ in that they do not show its existence as being from both, the Father and the Son. And this is quite clear from these very scriptural testimonies, but he who has collected these is as if deaf to the difference of these sayings.

Sixth Heading. Since there are some who say that 'proceeds' and 'is poured forth' and

'issues forth' differ from one another, the preceding testimonies of Saint Cyril have been selected for an irrefutable proof of their equivalence, and after them the (p. 356) subjoined testimonies of those who theologize that the Spirit proceeds and is sent forth and is poured forth from the Father.

Seventh Counter-heading Since some, hearing that the Holy Spirit is from the Son and gushing forth

and proceeds, monstrously assert that it is not the nature of the Spirit that springs and gushes forth from the essence of the Son, but the spiritual gift that comes upon the worthy, because the indwelling in them of the omnipresent divinity of the Holy Spirit occurs relatively, thus understanding such a gift as if it were conceived as separated from the divine essence of the Spirit, the present scriptural testimonies were collected, from which one can discern, that even if the indwelling of the all-holy Spirit in the worthy is relative, ineffably and beyond reason, yet since the gifts are poured forth there where his divine nature will dwell relatively, the Holy Spirit himself, the one of the Trinity and its complement, who is divine nature and perfect God, as are the Father and the Son, (p. 358) is signified, when one says the Holy Spirit proceeds and gushes forth and is from the Son.

Seventh Counter-heading Truly he does not know what he says, nor about what he is confidently asserting, who also this

heading composed. For no one who has chosen to be pious considers the divine grace and energy to be separated from the divine nature; not, however, that because the divine energy is inseparable from the divine nature, the energy is also nature, differing from it in nothing (for this is the impiety of Barlaam and Akindynos); for the divine energy is from the divine nature and is contemplated in it, according to the theologians, but it does not exist in itself, while the divine nature is not from the energy, it exists in itself and is the source of the divine energies. But we also say that the Holy Spirit is not from the hypostasis of the Son; but this one, by saying it is from the nature, thinks he contradicts us and proves the opposite of our positions, seeing no difference, as it seems,

72

Ἀντεπιγραφή πέμπτη. Τῆς ἀναισθησίας˙ ἰσοδυναμοῦσι γάρ αἱ ρήσεις τῶν ἁγίων εἰς τό δεῖξαι τήν πρός

τόν Πατέρα καί τόν Υἱόν οἰκειότητα, ταὐτό δ᾿εἰπεῖν ὁμοουσιότητα τοῦ θείου Πνεύματος, διαφέρουσι δέ ὡς μή παρ᾿ ἀμφοτέρων, Πατρός τε καί Υἱοῦ, τήν ὕπαρξιν δεικνεῖσαι. Καί τοῦτο κατάδηλον ὑπ᾿ αὐτῶν τούτων τῶν γραφικῶν χρήσεών ἐστι, ὁ δέ συνειλοχώς ταύτας οὗτος πρός τήν διαφοράν τῶν ρήσεων τούτων καθάπερ ἐκκεκώφηται.

Ἐπιγραφή ἕκτη. Ἐπειδή εἰσί τινες λέγοντες διαφέρειν ἀλλήλων τό 'πρόεισι' καί τό 'προχεῖται' καί

τό 'ἐκπορεύεται', ἐξελέγησαν εἰς ἀναντίρρητον ἀπόδειξιν τοῦ ἰσοδυνάμου αὐτῶν αἱ προκείμεναι χρήσεις τοῦ ἁγίου Κυρίλλου καί μετ᾿ αὐτάς αἱ (σελ. 356) ὑποτεταγμέναι χρήσεις τῶν θεολογούντων ἐκ Πατρός προϊέναι τε καί ἐκπέμπεσθαι καί προχεῖσθαι τό Πνεῦμα.

Ἀντεπιγραφή ἑβδόμη Ἐπειδή τινες ἀκούοντες τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ ὑπάρχον καί ἀναβλύζον

καί προϊόν, οὐχί τήν φύσιν τοῦ Πνεύματος ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Υἱοῦ πηγάζειν καί ἀναβλύζειν τερατολογοῦσιν, ἀλλά τό πνευματικόν χάρισμα τό τοῖς ἀξίοις ἐπιγινόμενον, διά τό τήν ἐγγινομένην αὐτοῖς ἐνοίκησιν τῆς πανταχοῦ παρούσης θεότητος τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος σχετικῶς γίνεσθαι, οὕτω τό τοιοῦτον ἐκλαμβάνοντες χάρισμα, ὥσπερ ἄν εἰ ἀποδιῃρημένον τῆς θείας οὐσίας νοοῖτο τοῦ Πνεύματος , συνελέγησαν αἱ παροῦσαι γραφικαί χρήσεις, ἐξ ὧν ἔχει τις διαγνῶναι, ὡς κἄν ἡ ἐγγινομένη τοῖς ἀξίοις ἐνοίκησις τοῦ παναγίου Πνεύματος σχετική ἐστιν ἀρρήτως καί ὑπέρ λόγον, ἀλλ᾿ἐπεί ἐκεῖ τά χαρίσματα προχέονται, ὅπου ἡ θεία φύσις αὐτοῦ σχετικῶς ἐνοικήσει, αὐτό τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον, τό ἕν τῆς Τριάδος καί συμπληρωτικόν, ὅπερ ἐστί θεία φύσις καί τέλειος Θεός, ὡς ὁ Πατήρ καί ὁ Υἱός, (σελ. 358) δηλοῦται, ὅταν τις λέγῃ τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον προϊόν καί ἀναβλύζον καί ὑπάρχον ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ.

Ἀντεπιγραφή ἑβδόμη Ὄντως οὐκ οἶδεν ἅ λέγει οὔτε περί τίνων διαβεβαιοῦται ὁ καί ταύτην τήν

ἐπιγραφήν συνθείς. Οὐδείς γάρ τῶν εὐσεβεῖν ᾐρημένων διεσπαρμένην εἶναι νομίζει τῆς θείας φύσεως τήν θείαν χάριν καί τήν ἐνέργειαν˙ οὐ μήν ὅτι ἀχώριστός ἐστι τῆς θείας φύσεως ἡ θεία ἐνέργεια, παρά τοῦτο καί φύσις ἐστίν ἡ ἐνέργεια ταύτης μηδέν διαφέρουσα (τοῦτο γάρ τῆς Βαρλαάμ καί Ἀκινδύνου δυσσεβείας ἐστίν)˙ ἡ μέν γάρ θεία ἐνέργεια ἐκ τῆς θείας φύσεώς ἐστι καί ἐνθεωρεῖται ταύτῃ κατά τούς θεολόγους, ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ ἔστι καθ᾿ αὑτήν, ἡ δέ θεία φύσις οὐκ ἐκ τῆς ἐνεργείας ἐστί καθ᾿ ἑαυτήν ἐστι καί τῶν θείων ἐνεργειῶν ἐστι πηγή. Ἀλλά καί τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον οὐκ ἐκ τῆς ὑποστάσεως εἶναι τοῦ Υἱοῦ φαμεν˙ οὗτος δέ λέγων εἶναι τοῦτο ἐκ τῆς φύσεως, ἡμῖν ἀντιλέγειν οἴεται καί τἀναντία ἡμῶν κατασκευάζειν, μηδέν διαφέρειν, ὡς ἔοικε,