9

principles of divinity and provides an entrance for the polytheistic error. For who, (p. 100) hearing or saying or believing the one from both, could think otherwise?

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

Besides, if this principle signifies the creative, one might speak not only of two, though incorrectly, but even of more. For this principle is of three hypostases; and being by nature, it is also common. And since it is common, how would the Spirit not also have this principle? And Elihu, who dialogues with Job on behalf of God’s justice, when he says, "the Spirit of the Lord that made me," does he not call the Spirit a creative principle? And the divine psalmist David, chanting "by the word of the Lord were the heavens made firm," and "by the Spirit the powers of the heavens," does he not attest to the creative principle for the Spirit just as for the Son? If, then, because it is written "the principle from the principle," nothing prevents you from speaking of two principles, therefore because it is written that the spirit is also a creator, nothing prevents you from speaking of two creators; or because "by the Word of God and the Spirit creation is made firm," which is to say established, it is not at all absurd to speak of three principles.

But nowhere did any of the theologians speak of either two or three. For just as we say that each of those three adorable hypostases is God, and each is God from God, but not on this account ever three or two gods, so also we say principle from principle, but never two principles; for we have not heard a second principle spoken of by the pious even to this day, (p. 102) just as we have not heard of a second god. But for us there is one God, and the object of our worship is a monarchy, not coming together into one from two gods, nor from two principles; since the object of our veneration is not divisible in the same respects. And indeed it is not divided and brought together in the same respect; for it is divided by the hypostatic properties, but united by those of the nature. If, then, nothing prevents speaking of two principles, these then are that by which it is divided; it is therefore impossible for them to be united again according to these same things; therefore the two are not one.

Rather, let us take up and give another beginning to our argument and clarify as much as possible the things concerning the most monarchical principle, so that we might show that the one named for theology is aptly named and refute those who dogmatize two principles of the one Holy Spirit, both that they dogmatize this and that it is not right.

The creative principle is one: the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. When, therefore, we speak of the things brought forth from non-being by God, both the goodness through which they received their being, and the innate grace, whence each suitably partook of well-being, and the grace that came later, through which the fallen returned to well-being, when we make our arguments about these things, we say the Son is principle and fount and cause in the Holy Spirit, not another—far from it—but the same as the Father’s, through Him in the Holy Spirit both bringing forth and restoring and well sustaining all things. But the Father, in addition to being the fount of all things through the Son in the Holy Spirit, is also fount and principle of the Godhead, being alone the begetter of God. And this we know better than by demonstration, as it has been clearly expressed through the divinely-inspired oracles.

When, therefore, you hear that the Son is, "the principle from the principle," (p. 104) and "he who calls him from generations a principle," and "with you is the principle in the day of your power," of the

9

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.

Ἀλλ᾿ οὐδαμοῦ τῶν θεολόγων εἶπέ τις οὔτε δύο οὔτε τρεῖς. Ὥσπερ γάρ Θεόν ἑκάστην τῶν τριῶν προσκυνητῶν ἐκείνων ὑποστάσεών φαμε καί Θεόν ἑκατέραν ἐκ Θεοῦ, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ παρά τοῦτο τρεῖς ἤ δύο ποτέ θεούς, οὕτω καί ἀρχήν ἐξ ἀρχῆς φαμεν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ δύο ποτέ ἀρχάς˙ δευτέραν γάρ ἀρχήν οὐδέπω καί τήμερον ὑπό τῶν εὐσεβῶν ἀκηκόαμεν, (σελ. 102) ὥσπερ οὐδέ θεόν δεύτερον. Ἀλλ᾿ εἷς ἡμῖν Θεός καί μοναρχία τό προσκυνούμενον, οὐκ ἐκ δύο θεῶν, οὐδ᾿ ἐκ δύο ἀρχῶν συνιόντα εἰς ἕν˙ ἐπεί μηδέ κατά ταυτά μεριστόν ἡμῖν τό σεβόμενον. Καί μήν οὐδέ κατά τό αὐτό μερίζεταί τε καί συνάγεται˙ διαιρεῖται μέν γάρ ταῖς ὑποστατικαῖς ἰδιότησι, ταῖς δέ κατά τήν φύσιν ἑνοῦται. Εἰ γοῦν δύο ἀρχάς εἰπεῖν οὐδέν κωλύει, λοιπόν αὗταί εἰσι, καθ᾿ ἅς μερίζεται˙ ἑνωθῆναι τοίνυν αὖθις κατ᾿ αὐτάς ἀδύνατον˙ οὐκ ἄρ᾿ αἱ δύο μία.

Μᾶλλον δέ ἀναλαβόντες καί ἑτέραν ἀρχήν τῷ λόγῳ δόντες τά τῆς μοναρχικωτάτης ἀρχῆς εἰς δύναμιν διατρανώσωμεν, ὡς ἄν φερωνύμως ἔχοντά τε δείξωμεν τόν τῆς θεολογίας ἐπώνυμον καί ἀπελέγξωμεν τούς τοῦ ἑνός ἁγίου Πνεύματος δύο δογματίζοντας ἀρχάς, ὅτι τε τοῦτο δογματίζουσι καί ὅτι οὐ καλῶς.

Ἡ δημιουργική ἀρχή μία ἐστίν, ὁ Πατήρ καί ὁ Υἱός καί τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον. Ὅταν οὖν ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ τά ἐκ τοῦ μή ὄντος προηγμένα λέγωμεν, τήν τε ἀγαθότητα, δι᾿ ἥν τό εἶναι ἔσχον, καί τήν ἐγγεγενημένην χάριν, ὅθεν ἕκαστον τοῦ εὖ εἶναι καταλλήλως μετεσχήκασι, καί τήν ἐπιγεγενημένην ὕστερον, δι᾿ ἥν πρός τό εὖ εἶναι τά διαπεπτωκότα ἐπανῆλθον, ὅταν ταῦτά τε καί περί τούτων ποιώμεθα τούς λόγους, ἀρχήν καί πηγήν καί αἴτιον τόν Υἱόν ἐν ἁγίῳ Πνεύματί φαμεν, οὐχ ἑτέραν ἄπαγε, ἀλλά τήν αὐτήν ὡς τοῦ Πατρός δι᾿ αὐτοῦ ἐν ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι καί προάγοντος καί ἐπανάγοντος καί συνέχοντος καλῶς τά πάντα. Ὁ δέ Πατήρ πρός τῷ πηγή τῶν πάντων εἶναι διά τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἐν ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι, καί πηγή καί ἀρχή ἐστι θεότητος μόνος θεογόνος ὤν. Καί τοῦτ᾿ ἐσμέν εἰδότε κρεῖττον ἤ κατά ἀπόδειξιν, διά τῶν θεοπνεύστων λογίων τρανῶς ἐκπεφασμένον.

Ὅταν οὖν ἀκούσῃς ὅτι ὁ Υἱός, «ἡ ἐκ τῆς ἀρχῆς ἀρχήν» (σελ. 104) καί «ὁ καλῶν αὐτόν ἀπό γενεῶν ἀρχήν» καί «μετά σοῦ ἡ ἀρχή ἐν ἡμέρᾳ τῆς δυνάμεώς σου», τῶν