of the Father. But the one by adoption is not from him alone but through the Son from the Father, and yet is not Son only, but also spirit by grace: “for he who is joined to the Lord is one Spirit,” says the apostle. But the Holy Spirit is not by grace, but by nature from God, just as the Son and Word of God is from God. And the Spirit, being by nature from God, proceeds by nature from God; and that which proceeds by nature originates from God; and that which originates from God originates from the fontal divinity, which is the Father alone. The Holy Spirit, therefore, is by nature God, originating by procession from God the Father alone.

(p. 98) And if anyone does not confess that this is so, he will be convicted of holding wrong opinions about the Son as well. For bearing joint witness to this proof of the truth, the most theological Gregory says, “what is the Spirit not called of the things that the Son is, except generation?” And, “all that the Son has, the Spirit has also, except sonship.” And the divine Damascene says, “on account of the Father,” that is, “on account of the Father’s being, the Son and the Spirit have all that they have, that is, on account of the Father having these things, except unbegottenness and generation and procession.”

Neither of these, therefore, has the power to beget and to cause procession; and as the Spirit in no way has generation, so the Son in no way has procession. Therefore the same definition is of the Son as of the Spirit, except for being begotten and proceeding, by which alone they differ from each other.

And so this must be maintained in all respects by one who wishes not to blaspheme but to theologize. For as there exists one and only begotten, the Son, for which reason he is also only-begotten, so there exists one and only proceeding, the Holy Spirit; and as the Son is begotten from the Father alone, so also the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone; and as the Son is begotten immediately from the Father, so also the Holy Spirit proceeds immediately from the Father.

Do you see that what is added by us is an elucidation of the truth, spoken jointly because of your setting aside of the truth? For whether present or absent, it gives the same thing to be understood. But yours could not properly be called an addition, but a clear contradiction and subversion of pious thought; for it perverts the mind of the hearers to the contrary and instead of one, it gives two principles to be glorified in the one divinity and provides a way for the polytheistic error. For who, hearing or saying or believing (p. 100) the one from both, could think otherwise?

But there is nothing amiss, he says, if one speaks of two principles, not opposed, however, but one from the other, as Gregory the Theologian also says concerning the Son, “the principle from the principle”; for in this way there will again be one principle and the dogma of the monarchy is preserved. To which we say that we too speak of God from God, but never of two gods.

Besides, when this principle signifies the creative power, one might speak not only of two, though not rightly, but even of more. For this principle is tri-hypostatic; and being by nature, it is also common; and being common, how could the Spirit not also have this principle? And Elihu, discoursing with Job on behalf of God’s righteousness, saying, “The Spirit of the Lord has made me,” does he not say the Spirit is a creative principle? And the divine psalmist David, singing “by the word of the Lord the heavens were established,” and “by the Spirit the powers of the heavens,” does he not attest the creative principle to the Spirit just as to the Son? If, therefore, because it is written “the principle from the principle,” nothing prevents speaking of two principles according to you, then surely because it is also written that the Spirit is a creator, nothing prevents speaking of two creators; or because “by the Word of God and the Spirit creation is established”—which is to say, subsists—it is not at all amiss to speak of three principles.

Πατρός˙ ὁ δέ θέσει οὐκ ἐκ μόνου ἀλλά δι᾿ Υἱοῦ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός, καίτοι οὐχ Υἱός μόνον, ἀλλά καί Πνεῦμα χάριτί ἐστιν˙ «ὁ γάρ κολλώμενος τῷ Κυρίῳ ἕν Πνεῦμα ἐστι», φησίν ὁ ἀπόστολος. Τό δέ Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον οὐ χάριτι, ἀλλά φύσει ἐστίν ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὡς καί ὁ Υἱός καί Λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ. Τό δέ φύσει ὄν Πνεῦμα ἐκ Θεοῦ φύσει ἐκπορεύεται ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ˙ τό δέ φύσει ἐκπορευόμενον πηγάζεται ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ˙ τό δέ πηγαζόμενον ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐκ τῆς πηγαίας θεότητος πηγάζεται, ἥτις ἐστί μόνος ὁ Πατήρ. Τό Πνεῦμα ἄρα τό ἅγιον φύσει Θεός, ἐκ Θεοῦ Πατρός μόνου ἐκπορευτῶς πηγαζόμενον.

(σελ. 98) Εἰ δέ τις τοῦτ᾿ οὕτως ἔχειν οὐχ ὁμολογεῖ, καί περί τοῦ Υἱοῦ κακῶς δοξάζων ἐξελεγχθήσεται. Τῇ γάρ τῆς ἀληθείας ἀποδείξει ταύτῃ συμμαρτυρῶν καί ὁ θεολογικώτατος Γρηγόριος, «τί», φησίν, «οὐ προσαγορεύεται τό Πνεῦμα ὧν ὁ Υἱός, πλήν γεννήσεως»; Καί «πάντα ὅσα τοῦ Υἱοῦ, καί τοῦ Πνεύματος, πλήν τῆς υἱότητος». ∆αμασκηνός δ᾿ ὁ θεῖος, «διά τόν Πατέρα», φησί, «τουτέστι διά τό εἶναι τόν Πατέρα, ἔχει ὁ Υἱός καί τό Πνεῦμα πάντα ἅ ἔχει, τουτέστι διά τό τόν Πατέρα ἔχειν αὐτά, πλήν τῆς ἀγεννησίας καί τῆς γεννήσεως καί τῆς ἐκπορεύσεως».

Ἑκάτερον ἄρα τούτων οὐκ ἔχει τό γεννᾶν καί ἐκπορεύειν˙ καί ὡς τό Πνεῦμα κατ᾿ οὐδένα τρόπον ἔχει τήν γέννησιν, οὕτω ὁ Υἱός κατ᾿ οὐδένα τρόπον ἔχει τήν ἐκπόρευσιν. Τοιγαροῦν ὁ αὐτός Υἱοῦ καθάπερ ὅρος καί τοῦ Πνεύματος, πλήν τοῦ γεννητῶς τε καί ἐκπορευτῶς, καθ᾿ ἅ καί μόνα διενηνόχασιν ἀλλήλων.

Καί τοῦτ᾿ ἄρα τηρητέον ἐφ᾿ ἅπασι τόν μή βλασφημεῖν ἀλλά θεολογεῖν ἐθέλοντα. Ὡς γάρ εἷς καί μόνος γεννητός ὑπάρχει, ὁ Υἱός, διόπερ καί μονογενής, οὕτως ἕν καί μόνον ἐκπορευτόν ὑπάρχει, Πνεῦμα ἅγιον˙ καί ὡς ὁ Υἱός γεννητός ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρός, οὕτω καί τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον ἐκπορευτόν ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρός˙ καί ὡς ὁ Υἱός ἀμέσως ἐκ Πατρός γεννητός, οὕτω καί τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον ἐκπορευτόν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός ἀμέσως.

Ὁρᾷς ὅτι τό μέν παρ᾿ ἡμῶν προσκείμενον ἔκφανσίς ἐστι τῆς ἀληθείας συνεκφωνουμένη διά τήν σήν πρός τήν ἀλήθειαν ἀθέτησιν; Καί γάρ παρόν τε καί ἀπόν τό αὐτό δίδωσι νοεῖν. Τό δέ σόν οὐ προσθήκη λέγοιτ᾿ ἄν κυρίως, ἀλλά σαφής ἐναντιότης καί ἀνατροπή τοῦ εὐσεβοῦς φρονήματος˙ περιτρέπει γάρ τήν τῶν ἀκουόντων διάνοιαν εἰς τοὐναντίον καί ἀντί μιᾶς δύο δίδωσι δοξάζειν ἐπί τῆς μιᾶς θεότητος ἀρχάς καί τῇ πολυθέῳ πλάνῃ πάροδον παρέχει. Τίς γάρ τό (σελ. 100) ἕν ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων ἀκούων ἤ λέγων ἤ πιστεύων ἑτέρως ἄν φρονῆσαι;

Ἀλλ᾿ οὐδέν ἄτοπον, φησίν, εἴ τις δύο μέν ἀρχάς λέγει, οὐκ ἀντιθέτους μέντοι, ἀλλά τήν ἑτέραν ἐκ τῆς ἑτέρας, ὡς καί Γρηγόριος ὁ θεολόγος περί τοῦ Υἱοῦ φησιν, «ἡ ἐκ τῆς ἀρχῆς ἀρχή»˙οὕτω γάρ πάλιν μία ἔσται ἡ ἀρχή καί τό τῆς μοναρχίας δόγμα περισώζεται. Πρός ὅ λέγομεν ἡμεῖς, ὅτι καί Θεόν ἐκ Θεοῦ φαμεν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ δύο ποτέ θεούς.

Ἄλλως τε τό δημιουργικόν ταύτης σημαινούσης τῆς ἀρχῆς οὐ δύο μόνον ἄν εἴποι τις, εἰ καί μή καλῶς, ἀλλά καί πλείους. Τρισυπόστατος γάρ αὕτη ἡ ἀρχή˙ φύσει δέ οὖσα καί κοινή ἐστι˙ κοινήν δέ οὖσαν πῶς οὐκ ἄν ἔχοι καί τό Πνεῦμα ταύτην τήν ἀρχήν; Καί ὁ τῷ Ἰώβ δέ προσδιαλεγόμενος ὑπέρ τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ δικαιοσύνης Ἐλιούς, «Πνεῦμα, λέγων, Κυρίου τό ποιῆσάν με» οὐ ποιητικήν ἀρχήν τό Πνεῦμα λέγει; Καί ὁ θεῖος ᾠδικός ∆αβίδ, «λόγῳ μέν Κυρίου τούς οὐρανούς στερεωθῆναι» ψάλλων, «Πνεύματι δέ τάς τῶν οὐρανῶν δυνάμεις» οὐχ ὥσπερ τῷ Υἱῷ, οὕτω καί τῷ Πνεύματι, τήν δημιουργικήν ἀρχήν προσμαρτυρεῖ; Εἰ τοίνυν διά τό γεγράφθαι «ἡ ἐκ τῆς ἀρχῆς ἀρχή» δύο εἰπεῖν ἀρχάς οὐδέν κωλύει κατά σέ, οὐκοῦν καί διά τό γεγράφθαι καί τό πνεῦμα ποιητήν, δύο ποιητάς εἰπεῖν οὐδέν κωλύει˙ ἤ διά τό «Λόγῳ Θεοῦ καί Πνεύματι τήν κτίσιν στερεοῦσθαι», ταὐτό δ᾿ εἰπεῖν συνίστασθαι, τρεῖς ἀρχάς εἰπεῖν οὐδέν ἄτοπόν ἐστιν.