73

thinking the nature of the hypostasis, or even foolishly introducing a difference of nature in the Holy Trinity, since there is a difference of hypostases.

Eighth Inscription For a proof that the Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son were also collected

the present scriptural solutions, which declare it to be a quality of the essence of the Father and of the Son, and also a fragrance, breath, and scent of the Father and of the Son, after which are other testimonies, which also (p. 360) theologize the Father as a fount of the Spirit and the Son as a fount of the Spirit.

Eighth Counter-Inscription The present collected scriptural testimonies also through examples the with regard to the

Father and the Son represent the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit, as far as possible; for it is not possible to find a perfectly suitable example in the case of God. And since the Holy Spirit is also called living water according to grace and energy, of this water the Son with the Father is also called a fount, and sometimes the Holy Spirit itself, but he who has brought forward these sayings here has omitted some of these, and misuses others, and thus through them he thinks to beguile those who encounter them toward his own malevolence.

Ninth Inscription. The present scriptural testimonies, in which the fathers theologized that all things of the

Father's own properties naturally pass over to the Son begotten from him, were set down for a proof that the Spirit subsists and proceeds and springs forth also from the Son, just as, of course, also from the Father, according to Saint Cyril. For if only paternity and begetting are taken away from the Son by the definitions of the testimonies, it is clear that a Son will not be from the Son, but the Spirit which gushes forth from the paternal essence will also be gushing forth and poured out from the non-begetting essence of the Son.

(p. 362) Ninth Counter-Inscription. Truly illogical is impiety; for this Latin-minded one, hearing pass over

the Father's own properties to the Son both naturally and essentially, thought them the properties of the paternal hypostasis, but not those of the nature. Therefore, according to his understanding, which he has in the theologies of the God-bearers, when the divine Cyril writes in the *Thesauri*, “how will the Spirit not be God, possessing essentially the whole property of the Father and of the Son,” the Spirit will have the hypostatic properties of the Father and of the Son, and it will be both begotten and begetter, and Father of lights, possessing begetting and procession; of which what could be heard more impious and more novel? And he will suffer almost the same thing again, both he and those who think like him, also when they hear the sacred Damascene saying in the eighth of the dogmatics, “all that the Father has

73

νομίζων τήν φύσιν τῆς ὑποστάσεως, ἤ καί διαφοράν ἀφρόνως εἰσάγων φύσεως ἐπί τῆς ἁγίας Τριάδος, ἐπεί διαφοράν ἐστιν ὑποστάσεων.

Ἐπιγραφή ὀγδόη Εἰς ἀπόδειξιν τοῦ εἶναι τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον ἐκ Πατρός καί Υἱοῦ συνελέγησαν καί

αἱ παροῦσαι γραφικαί λύσεις, αἱ δηλοῦσαι εἶναι αὐτό ποιότητα τῆς τοῦ Πατρός καί τοῦ Υἱοῦ οὐσίας, ἔτι δέ εὐωδίαν, πνοήν καί ὀσμήν τοῦ Πατρός καί τοῦ Υἱοῦ, μεθ᾿ ἅς ἕτεραι χρήσεις, αἵτινες καί τόν (σελ. 360) Πατέρα πηγήν τοῦ Πνεύματος καί τόν Υἱόν πηγήν θεολογοῦσι τοῦ Πνεύματος.

Ἀντεπιγραφή ὀγδόη Αἱ συνειλεγμέναι παροῦσαι γραφικαί χρήσεις καί διά παραδειγμάτων τό πρός τόν

Πατέρα καί τόν Υἱόν ὁμοούσιον παριστῶσι τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος κατά τό ἐγχωροῦν˙ οὐ γάρ ἔστιν εὑρεῖν ἐπί Θεοῦ παράδειγμα πάντῃ κατάλληλον. Ἐπεί δέ καί ὕδωρ ζῶν καλεῖται τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον κατά τήν χάριν καί τήν ἐνέργειαν, τούτου τοῦ ὕδατος καλεῖται πηγή καί ὁ Υἱός μετά Πατρός, ἔστι δ᾿ ὅτε καί αὐτό τό ἅγιον Πνεῦμα, ὁ δέ τάς ρήσεις ταύτας προενεγκών ἐνταῦθα τάς μέν παρῆκε τούτων, ταῖς δέ παραχρῆται καί οὕτω δι᾿ αὐτῶν κλέπτειν οἴεται τούς ἐντυγχάνοντας πρός τήν οἰκείαν κακόνοιαν.

Ἐπιγραφή ἐνάτη. Αἱ παροῦσαι γραφικαί χρήσεις, ἐν αἷς οἱ πατέρες ἐθεολόγησαν πάντα τά τοῦ

Πατρός ἴδια φυσικῶς διαβαίνειν ἐπί τόν ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεννηθέντα Υἱόν, κατεστρώθησαν εἰς ἀπόδειξιν τοῦ ὑπάρχειν καί προϊέναι καί πηγάζειν τό Πνεῦμα καί ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ, καθάπερ ἀμέλει καί ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός, κατά τόν ἅγιον Κύριλλον. Εἰ γάρ τήν πατρότητα καί τό γεννᾶν μόνον ἀφαιροῦνται ἀπό τοῦ Υἱοῦ οἱ προσδιορισμοί τῶν χρήσεων, εὔδηλον ὡς Υἱός μέν ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ οὐκ ἔσται, Πνεῦμα δέ τό ἐκ τῆς πατρικῆς ἀναβλύζον οὐσίας καί ἐκ τῆς μή γεννώσης οὐσίας τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἀναβλύζον ἔσται καί προχεόμενον.

(σελ. 362) Ἀντεπιγραφή ἐνάτη. Ὄντως ἀσυλλόγιστον ἡ δυσσέβεια˙ διαβαίνειν γάρ ἀκούων ὁ λατινόφρων οὗτος

ἐπί τόν Υἱόν τά τοῦ Πατρός ἴδια φυσικῶς τε καί οὐσιωδῶς, τά τῆς πατρικῆς ὑποστάσεως ἐνόμισεν ἴδια, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ τά τῆς φύσεως. Οὐκοῦν κατά τήν αὐτοῦ σύνεσιν, ἥν ἐν ταῖς τῶν θεοφόρων κέκτηται θελογίαις, τοῦ θείου Κυρίλλου γράφοντος ἐν θησαυροῖς «πῶς οὐκ ἔσται Θεός τό Πνεῦμα, ὅλην ἔχον οὐσιωδῶς τήν ἰδιότητα τοῦ Πατρός καί τοῦ Υἱοῦ», τά ὑποστατικά τοῦ Πατρός καί τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα ἕξει, γέννημά τε καί γεννήτωρ ἔσται καί Πατήρ τῶν φώτων τό γεννᾶν καί ἐκπορεύειν ἔχον˙ οὗ τί ἄν ἀκουσθείη δυσσεβέστερόν τε καί καινότερον; Τό αὐτό δέ σχεδόν πείσεται πάλιν αὐτός τε καί οἱ κατ᾿ αὐτόν φρονοῦντες καί ὅταν ἀκούσωσι τοῦ μέν ἱεροῦ ∆αμασκηνοῦ λέγοντος ἐν τῷ ὀγδόῳ τῶν δογματικῶν «πάντα ὅσα ἔχει ὁ Πατήρ