75

Of all, none has said the Holy Spirit is from the hypostasis of the Son, but from that of the Father.

Eleventh Inscription Since some, hearing the Spirit is from the essence of the Son, say that it is one thing

to be from the essence and another to be from the hypostasis, being unable to understand that the name Son is hypostatic and that the one saying "from the essence of the Son" signifies the whole Son, that is, an enhypostatic essence, for the refutation of their notion the present scriptural citations have been collected, which declare that the Son is begotten from the essence of the Father. For since it is confessed that the generation of the Son from the Father is one, how is it possible for that which is from the essence and that which is from the hypostasis to differ, unless someone blaspheming wishes to say one generation of the Son is from the essence, and another is from the hypostasis of the Father? After which are other citations which declare (p. 368) that the Father is called perfect essence and perfect God, and the Son perfect essence, and the Holy Spirit perfect essence.

Eleventh Counter-inscription. Whenever something is of one essence and hypostasis, that which naturally has from that essence

its existence in any way, also has this from that hypostasis, and conversely; for whatever is from that hypostasis is also from that essence. But when something is of one essence, but not of one hypostasis but of several, that which is from that one essence is not from its other hypostases, but from one of them. Since, therefore, the highest and adorable Trinity is for us one nature in three hypostases, not everything that has its hypostasis from the essence is from the other hypostases, but from one of them, that is, 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. And this is clear from humans; for each of us is from the essence of Adam, but no longer from the hypostasis of Adam, because the essence of humans is now one, but the hypostases are many; but in the beginning when the human essence and hypostasis was one, that of Adam, Eve, being from the essence of Adam, was also from his hypostasis. But also before Cain existed, when 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 existing in hypostasis, the son born to Cain was from the essence of Adam, but not also from his hypostasis, but only from that of Cain. (p. 370) But this Latin-minded person, insisting here that the Spirit is also from the hypostasis of the Son, if indeed it is theologized to be from the nature, shows that he thinks there is one hypostasis just as there is one essence in God, the wretch completely abolishing either the Son or the Father, and in addition to this also showing that the existence of the divine Spirit is from the Son alone. But also from the sayings, which theologize that the Father is perfect essence and the Son perfect essence, and likewise the Holy Spirit, not the unity and immutability of the

75

ἁπάντων τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον εἴρηκεν ἐκ τῆς ὑποστάσεως εἶναι τοῦ Υἱοῦ, ἀλλ᾿ ἐκ τῆς τοῦ Πατρός.

Ἐπιγραφή ἑνδεκάτη Ἐπειδή ἀκούοντές τινες τό Πνεῦμα ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Υἱοῦ λέγουσιν ἄλλο εἶναι

τό ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας καί ἄλλο τό ἐκ τῆς ὑποστάσεως, μή δυνάμενοι συνιδεῖν ὡς τό Υἱός ὄνομα ὑποστατικόν ἐστι καί ὁ λέγων ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Υἱοῦ ὅλον δηλοῖ τόν Υἱόν, οὐσίαν δηλαδή ἐνυπόστατον, εἰς ἔλεγχον τῆς αὐτῶν ἐπινοίας συνελέγησαν αἱ παροῦσαι γραφικαί χρήσεις, αἱ δηλοῦσαι ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Πατρός τόν Υἱόν γεννᾶσθαι. Ὡμολογημένου γάρ μίαν εἶναι τήν ἐκ Πατρός γέννησιν τοῦ Υἱοῦ, πῶς ἔστι διαφέρειν τό ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας καί τό ἐκ τῆς ὑποστάσεως, εἰ μή τις βλασφημῶν ἐθέλει λέγειν ἄλλην μέν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας, ἄλλην δ᾿ ἐκ τῆς ὑποστάσεως Πατρός γέννησιν τοῦ Υἱοῦ; Μεθ᾿ ἅς ἕτεραι χρήσεις αἱ δηλοῦσαι (σελ. 368) τελείαν οὐσίαν καί τέλειον Θεόν λέγεσθαι τόν Πατέρα καί τελείαν οὐσίαν τόν Υἱόν καί τελείαν οὐσίαν τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον.

Ἀντεπιγραφή ἑνδεκάτη. Ὅταν τι μιᾶς οὐσίας ᾖ καί ὑποστάσεως, τό ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας ἐκείνης φυσικῶς ἔχον

ὁπωσδήποτε τήν ὕπαρξιν καί ἐκ τῆς ὑποστάσεως ἐκείνης ταύτην ἔχει καί ἀντιστρόφως˙ ὅ γάρ ἄν ἐκ τῆς ὑποστάσεως 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 οὖν ἡ ἀνωτάτω καί προσκυνητή Τριάς ἡμῖν μία φύσις ἐστίν ἐν ὑποστάσεσι τρισίν, οὐ πᾶν τό ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τήν ὑπόστασιν ἔχον ἐκ τῶν λοιπῶν 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, εἶπερ ἐκ μιᾶς. Καί τοῦτο δῆλον ἀπό τῶν ἀνθρώπων˙ ἕκαστος γάρ ἡμῶν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας μέν ἐστι τοῦ Ἀδάμ, οὐκέτι δέ ἐκ τῆς ὑποστάσεως τοῦ Ἀδάμ, διότι μία μέν οὐσία τῶν ἀνθρώπων νῦν, πολλαί δέ ὑποστάσεις˙ ἀνθρωπίνης δέ τήν ἀρχήν μιᾶς οὔσης οὐσίας τε καί ὑποστάσεως, τῆς τοῦ Ἀδάμ, ἐκ τοῦ οὐσία ς 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 τῷ Κάϊν γεννηθείς υἱός ἐκ τοῦς οὐσίας μέν ὑπῆρχε τοῦ Ἀδάμ, ἀλλ᾿ οὐχί καί ἐκ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ, ἀλλ᾿ἐκ μόνης τῆς τοῦ Κάϊν. (σελ. 370) Ὁ δέ λατινόφρων οὗτος διατεινόμενος ἐνταῦθα καί ἐκ τῆς ὑποστάσεως εἶναι τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα, εἴπερ εἶναι θεολογεῖται ἐκ τῆς φύσεως, μίαν δείκνυσι φρονῶν ὥσπερ οὐσίαν οὕτω καί ὑπόστασιν ἐπί Θεοῦ, τόν Υἱόν ἤ τόν Πατέρα τελέως ἀθετῶν ὁ τάλας, πρός δέ τούτῳ καί ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Υἱοῦ τήν ὕπαρξιν εἶναι τοῦ θείου Πνεύματος δεικνύς. Ἀλλά καί ἀπό τῶν ρητῶν, ἅ θεολογοῦσι τελείαν οὐσίαν εἶναι τόν Πατέρα καί τελείαν οὐσίαν τόν Υἱόν, ὡσαύτως καί τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον, οὐ τό ἑνιαῖον καί ἀπαράλλακτον τῆς