80

it communicating according to the divine generation. But if the Son does not communicate in this with the Father, and this causing to proceed is not one for them, the procession of the Spirit is by hypostasis for the Son. Therefore, this procession of the Spirit is different from that from the Father; for hypostatic properties are different. How then are different principles one? And indeed, as the great Basil writes in his chapters of refutation Against Eunomius, “all things that are common to the Father and the Son are also common to the Spirit,” if to cause to proceed is common to the Father and the Son, this will also be common to the Spirit, and the Trinity will be a Tetrad; for the Spirit will also cause another Spirit to proceed. But if, according to the Latins, to cause to proceed is not common to the Father and the Son, since, according to them, the Father causes the Spirit to proceed mediately, but the Son immediately, for thus they say that the Son has the projective power hypostatically, is it not then the case according to them that creating and sanctifying and simply all natural properties are not common to the Father and the Son? Since the Father creates and sanctifies through the Son, and creates and sanctifies through the medium of the Son, but the Son does not do so through a Son, therefore, according to them, the Son has the power of creating and sanctifying hypostatically, for He does so immediately and not mediately like the Father, and thus, according to them, the natural properties differ in no way from the hypostatic ones. But if they should say that the Son creates and sanctifies through the Spirit, first, it is not customary for the theologians to say that the Son or the Father is the creator of created things *through* the Spirit, but *in* the Holy Spirit, then, besides not even thus escaping the absurdity demonstrated above, for again the Son is not shown to be creator through a Son as the Father is, it will follow for them that creating and sanctifying are not said to be common also to the Spirit (p. 414), as not acting through another, nor as the Father or even the Son energize these things. According to them, therefore, the Spirit has the power of creating and sanctifying hypostatically, as not creating mediately like the Father, and the natural properties are shown to be indifferent to the hypostatic ones; and if this is so, then nature is also the same and indifferent to the hypostases. Have not those who say and think these things clearly fallen away from the most high Trinity and from the unity of the faith and the communion of the Holy Spirit?

So much for these matters. But we have been taught by the fathers to reason in practice on such matters, and one would not write of the Latins for this reason. And I would say most emphatically that they reason neither demonstratively, as you yourself say, because they do not use the self-evident oracles as principles and axioms and do not follow the God-wise fathers well, nor dialectically, because they do not make their syllogisms from our own premisses. But I am far from positing that there is no demonstration for any of the divine matters and of those sought concerning the most high Trinity, but that one should think and call all reasoning about them dialectical, and never demonstrative. For the inscriptions of the patristic sayings do not allow one to accept this, and even if someone should more contentiously object and reject the inscriptions as spurious, we will show him the sayings themselves testifying to this, “one Father, one Son, one Holy Spirit,” so that this is united to them in so far as a monad has an affinity for a monad; “and not from this,” he says, “is the only demonstration of the communion”; and in one place, after having inferred, shouting "it has been demonstrated," and in another place, the phrase "we demonstrate," and in another, promising (p. 416) “you seek,” he says, “the demonstrations; I am ready to provide them.” And what is brought in after this promise? Some oracle from among those divinely handed down or even divinely inspired, and whatever would follow these and be concluded from them. What then

80

αὐτό κατά τό θεογόνον κοινωνοῦν. Εἰ δέ μή κοινωνεῖ ὁ Υἱός κατά τοῦτο τῷ Πατρί, μηδέ ἕν αὐτοῖς τοῦτο τό προβάλλειν, καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν τῷ Υἱῷ ἡ πρόοδος τοῦ Πνεύματος. ∆ιάφορος ἄρα αὕτη τῆς ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός τοῦ Πνεύματος προόδου˙ τά γάρ ὑποστατικά διάφορα. Πῶς οὖν μία αἱ διάφοροι ἀρχαί; Καί μήν τοῦ μεγάλου Βασιλείου ἐν τοῖς Πρός Εὐνομιανούς ἀντιρρητικοῖς αὐτοῦ κεφαλαίοις γράφοντος, «πάντα τά κοινά Πατρί τε καί Υἱῷ κοινά εἶναι καί τῷ Πνεύματι», εἰ μέν κοινόν ἐστι Πατρί τε καί Υἱῷ τό ἐκπορεύειν, κοινόν ἔσται τοῦτο καί τῷ Πνεύματι καί τετράς ἔσται ἡ Τριάς˙ καί τό Πνεῦμα γάρ ἐκπορεύσει Πνεῦμα ἕτερον. Εἰ δέ μή κοινόν ἐστι κατά Λατίνους τῷ Πατρί καί τῷ Υἱῷ τό ἐκπορεύειν, ὡς τοῦ μέν Πατρός ἐμμέσως κατ᾿ αὐτούς, τοῦ δέ Υἱοῦ ἀμέσως ἐκπορεύοντος τό Πνεῦμα, οὕτω γάρ καί ὑποστατικῶς ἔχειν τόν Υἱόν τό προβλητικόν φασιν, οὐκοῦν κατ᾿ αὐτούς καί τό δημιουργεῖν καί ἁγιάζειν καί ἁπλῶς ἅπαντα τά φυσικά οὐ κοινά Πατρός τε καί Υἱοῦ; Ἐπειδή ὁ μέν Πατήρ διά τοῦ Υἱοῦ κτίζει τε καί ἁγιάζει καί διά μέσου τοῦ Υἱοῦ δημιουργεῖ καί ἁγιάζει, ὁ δέ Υἱός οὐ δι᾿ Υἱοῦ, τοιγαροῦν κατ᾿ αὐτούς ὑποστατικῶς ἔχει τό δημιουργεῖν καί ἁγιάζειν ὁ Υἱός, ἀμέσως γάρ καί οὐχ ὡς ὁ Πατήρ ἐμμέσως, καί οὕτω κατ᾿ αὐτούς τά φυσικά τῶν ὑποστατικῶν διενήνοχεν οὐδέν. Εἰ δ᾿ ἄρα φαῖεν διά τοῦ Πνεύματος τόν Υἱόν δημιουργεῖν καί ἁγιάζειν, ἀλλά πρῶτον μέν οὐ σύνηθες τοῖς θεολόγοις διά τοῦ Πνεύματος τόν Υἱόν ἤ τόν Πατέρα δημιουργόν εἶναι λέγειν τῶν κτισμάτων, ἀλλ᾿ ἐν Πνεύματι ἁγίῳ, ἔπειτα πρός τῷ μηδ᾿ οὕτω τό ἀνωτέρω δεδειγμένον ἄτοπον αὐτούς ἐκφεύγειν, οὐ γάρ δι᾿ Υἱοῦ πάλιν ὁ Υἱός ἀναφαίνεται δημιουργός καθάπερ ὁ Πατήρ, συμβήσεται τούτοις μή κοινόν ε ἶναι λέγειν καί τῷ Πνεύματι (σελ. 414) τό δημιουργεῖν καί ἁγιάζειν, ὡς μή δι᾿ ἑτέρου, μηδέ ὡς ὁ Πατήρ ἤ καί ὁ Υἱός αὐτοῦ ταῦτα ἐνεργοῦντος. Κατ᾿ αὐτούς οὖν ὑποστατικῶς ἔχει τό Πνεῦμα τό δημιουργεῖν καί ἁγιάζειν, ὡς οὐκ ἐμμέσως καθάπερ ὁ Πατήρ κτίζον τε καί ἀδιάφορα δείκνυται τοῖς ὑποστατικοῖς τά φυσικά˙εἰ δέ τοῦτο, καί ἡ φύσις ταῖς ὑποστάσεσι ταὐτόν τε καί ἀδιάφορον. Ἆρ᾿ οὐ σαφῶς τῆς ἀνωτάτω Τριάδος ἐκπεπτώκασι καί τῆς ἑνότητος τῆς πίστεως καί τῆς κοινωνίας τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος οἱ ταῦθ᾿ οὕτω λέγοντές τε καί φρονοῦντες;

Ταῦτα μέν δή ταύτῃ. Συλλογίζεσθαι δέ ἐπί τοῖς τοιούτοις ἔργῳ ὑπό τῶν πατέρων ἐδιδάχθημεν καί οὐδέ τούς Λατίνους γράψαιτ᾿ ἄν τις τούτου χάριν. Μήτε δ᾿ ἀποδεικτικῶς τούτους συλλογίζεσθαι, καθάπερ φῄς αὐτός, παρά τό μή τοῖς αὐτοπίστοις λογίοις ὡς ἀρχαῖς καί ἀξιώμασι χρῆσθαι καί τοῖς θεοσόφοις καλῶς ἕπεσθαι πατράσι, μήτε διαλεκτικῶς, διά τό μή ἐκ τῶν παρ᾿ ἡμῖν λημμάτων ποιεῖσθαι τούς συλλογισμούς, καί πάνυ γ᾿ ἄν φαίην. Μηδεμίαν δέ εἶναι ἀπόδειξιν ἐπ᾿ οὐδενός τῶν θείων καί τῶν ἐν τῇ ἀνωτάτω Τριάδι ζητουμένων, ἀλλά πάντα τόν περί αὐτῶν συλλογισμόν διαλεκτικόν οἴεσθαί τε καί καλεῖν, ἀποδεικτικόν δέ οὐδέποτε, πολλοῦ δέω τίθεσθαι. Αἵ τε γάρ ἐπιγραφαί τῶν πατρικῶν φωνῶν οὐκ ἐῶσι τοῦτο παραδέξασθαι, κἄν τις φιλονεικότερον ἐνιστῆται καί τάς ἐπιγραφάς ὡς παρεγγράπτους παραγράφηται, ἡμεῖς καί αὐτάς δείξομεν αὐτῷ τοῦτο μαρτυρούσας τάς φωνάς, «εἷς Πατήρ, εἷς Υἱός, ἕν Πνεῦμα ἅγιον», ὥστε κατά τοσοῦτον τοῦτο ἐκείνοις ἥνωται, καθόσον ἔχει μονάς πρός μονάδα τήν οἰκειότητα˙ «καί οὐκ ἐντεῦθεν» φησί «μόνον ἡ τῆς κοινωνίας ἀπόδειξις»˙ καί ποῦ μέν, μετά τό συναγαγεῖν, ἀποδέδεικται βοώσας, ποῦ δέ μεταξύ κείμενον, τό ἀποδείκνυμεν, ποῦ δέ καί ἐπαγγελλομένας (σελ. 416) ζητεῖς φησί τάς ἀποδείξεις, ἕτοιμος παρασχεῖν. Καί τί τό μετά τήν ἐπαγγελίαν ταύτην ἐπαγόμενον; Λόγιόν τι τῶν θεοπαραδότων ἤ καί θεοπνεύστων καί πᾶν ὅ,τι ἄν τούτοις ἔποιτο καί ἐκ τούτων συμπεραίνοιτο. Τί μέν