10

understand [it] of created things, just as John also clearly proclaims about him in the Revelation, "the beginning of the creatures of God," not as a beginning, far from it, for he is God, but as their creator; for he is a partaker of the paternal principle from which these things are, which is also the namesake of the lordship over all.

But how could one say that the Son is the beginning of the Spirit in this sense, unless the Spirit is also a slave and a creature? But since the Spirit is God, the Son is not his beginning in this respect, unless perhaps as the beginning of divinity. But if the Son is the beginning of the divinity of the Holy Spirit, and it is impossible for him to share in this principle with the Father, for the Father alone has been theologized as the fount of divinity, then the Son is the beginning of another, different divinity, and he has torn the Spirit away from the divinity that springs from the Father. Or shall we assign two different divinities to this one, we who confess one divinity for the three?

And how, according to the Latins, are the two principles of the Spirit one principle? For they will not expect us to accept their problems by faith, but let them not answer sophistically, giving one answer in place of another. For when we ask how, according to them, there are two principles of the one Spirit, they maintain that the principle of the two is one. But we are not asking about the two persons, but about the one; for it is about this that we are making our argument to them. Since the principle of the two is one, well and good, but how will there be two principles of the one, and how are the two one according to them?

They say, then, that it is because the one is from the other. What then of Seth? Was he born from one principle, because Eve was from Adam, (p. 106) and are there not two principles of this one, because the one is from the other? And what of Eve? Is she not a second principle of those from her, because she too had her beginning from Adam? And yet the generative power is in both of them, but it is different and in different hypostases; for which reason these principles are not one, just as we brought forward the divine prelate of Nyssa saying above, even though one of them is from the other.

If, then, here where, even if not one, the generative power is nevertheless in both, it is not possible for the principle of the one to be one, how in the highest Trinity are the two principles, according to them, of the one Holy Spirit one principle, in which there is in no way a sharing in what is God-begetting? For the Father alone has been theologized as the God-begetting divinity.

Again, Eve, being from Adam alone, is from one principle; but Adam is from the earth. But, it is not because of this that Eve is from the earth and from Adam. For Adam alone is from the earth. Either, therefore, let them too say the Spirit is from the Son alone and thus say he is from one principle, consistently with themselves but not piously, for not from the same [principle] from which the Son is, and hence again there are two principles in the divinity and the Father is no longer greater than the Son by cause, for he is equally a cause of divinity, or, saying he is from the Father alone, let them piously grant one principle to the Spirit as also to the Son. For as long as they say from the Son, or from both, but not from the Father alone, it is not possible for there to be one principle of the divinity and of the one Spirit.

For one who conjoins in such matters, even if he should say the principle is one, it is so homonymously, so that it is not one. But if, dividing, he looks at the hypostases one by one, of the one there necessarily and clearly become two principles. But it comes upon me to marvel also at the exceeding folly of those who say and think these two principles, as they call them, (p. 108) are one; for if the Son shares with the Father according to the God-begetting in projecting the Spirit and the God-begetting is one for them and this procession from them, of the nature

10

δημιουργημάτων νόει, καθάπερ καί Ἰωάννης ἀριδήλως ἐν τῇ Ἀποκαλύψει περί αὐτοῦ βοᾷ, «ἡ ἀρχή τῶν κτισμάτων τοῦ Θεοῦ», οὐχ ὡς καταρχή, ἄπαγε, Θεός γάρ, ἀλλ᾿ ὡς δημιουργός αὐτῶν˙ κοινωνός γάρ ἐστι τῆς ἐξ ἧς ταῦτα πατρικῆς ἀρχῆς, ἥ καί τῆς πάντων δεσποτείας ἐστίν ἐπώνυμον.

Τοῦ δέ Πνεύματος τόν Υἱόν ἀρχήν ἐπί τῆς σημασίας ταύτης πῶς ἄν φαίη τις, εἰ μή καί τό Πνεῦμα δοῦλον καί κτιστόν; Ἀλλ᾿ ἐπεί Θεός τό Πνεῦμα, οὐκ ἀρχή αὐτοῦ κατά τοῦτο ὁ Υἱός, εἰ μή ἄρα ὡς θεότητος ἀρχή. Εἰ δέ τῆς τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος θεότητος ὁ Υἱός ἐστιν ἀρχή, κοινωνεῖν δέ κατά ταύτην τήν ἀρχήν τῷ Πατρί ἀμήχανον, μόνος γάρ τεθεολόγηται πηγαία θεότης ὁ Πατήρ, ἑτέρας ἄρα διαφόρου τινός θεότητος ὁ Υἱός ἐστιν ἀρχή καί διέσπασε τό Πνεῦμα τῆς πηγαζούσης ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός θεότητος. Ἤ δύο διαφόρους θεότητας δώσωμεν τούτῳ τῷ ἑνί, οἱ καί τοῖς τρισί μίαν ἀνομολογοῦντες θεότητα;

Πῶς δέ καί αἱ δύο κατά Λατίνους τοῦ Πνεύματος ἀρχαί μία ἐστίν ἀρχή; Οὐ γάρ ἀξιώσουσιν ἡμᾶς πίστει δέχεσθαι τούτων τά προβλήματα, ἀλλά μηδέ σοφιστικῶς ἀποκρινέσθωσαν ἄλλην ἀντ᾿ ἄλλης ποιούμενοι τήν ἀπόκρισιν. Ἡμῶν γάρ ἐρωτώντων, πῶς δύο κατ᾿ αὐτούς τοῦ ἑνός Πνεύματος ἀρχαί, μίαν ἐκεῖνοι διισχυρίζονται τῶν δύο εἶναι τήν ἀρχήν. Ἡμεῖς δέ οὐ περί τῶν δύο προσώπων ἐρωτῶμεν, ἀλλά περί τοῦ ἑνός˙ περί τούτου γάρ πρός αὐτούς ποιούμεθα τόν λόγον. Ὡς ἐπεί τῶν δύο μία ἡ ἀρχή καλῶς, πῶς τοῦ ἑνός δύο ἔσονται ἀρχαί καί πῶς αἱ δύο μία κατ᾿ αὐτούς;

Φασίν οὖν, διότι ἡ μία ἐστίν ἐκ τῆς ἑτέρας. Τί οὖν ὁ Σήθ, ἐκ μιᾶς ἄρα γεγέννηται ἀρχῆς, ὅτι ἡ Εὔα ἦν ἐκ τοῦ Ἀδάμ, (σελ. 106) καί οὐ δύο εἰσί τούτου τοῦ ἑνός ἀρχαί, ὅτι ἡ μία ἐστιν ἐκ τῆς ἑτέρας; Τί δέ ἡ Εὔα, οὐ δευτέρα ἀρχή τῶν ἐξ αὐτῆς, ὅτι καί αὐτή τήν ἀρχήν ἔσχεν ἐξ Ἀδάμ; Καίτοι ἀμφοῖν τό γόνιμον αὐτοῖς, ἀλλά διάφορον καί ἐν διαφόροις ὑποστάσεσι˙ διόπερ οὐδέ μία ἐστίν αὗται αἱ ἀρχαί, καθάπερ καί τόν Νύσσης θεῖον πρόεδρον ἀνωτέρω προηνέγκαμεν εἰπόντα, καίτοι ἡ μία τούτων ἐστίν ἐκ τῆς ἑτέρας.

Εἰ γοῦν ἐνταῦθα οὗ εἰ καί μή ἕν, ὅμως ἐστί τό γόνιμον ἀμφοῖν, οὐκ ἔνι τοῦ ἑνός μίαν τήν ἀρχήν, πῶς ἐπί τῆς ἀνωτάτου Τριάδος αἱ δύο κατ᾿ αὐτούς τοῦ ἑνός ἁγίου Πνεύματος μία εἰσίν ἀρχαί, ἐν ᾗ μηδαμῶς ἐστι κατά τό θεογόνον κοινωνία; Μόνος γάρ τεθεολόγηται θεότης θεογόνος ὁ Πατήρ.

Πάλιν ἡ Εὔα ἐκ μόνου οὖσα τοῦ Ἀδάμ, ἐκ μιᾶς ἐστιν ἀρχῆς˙ ὁ δέ Ἀδάμ ἐκ γῆς ἐστιν Ἀλλ', οὐ παρά τοῦτο ἡ Εὔα ἐκ τῆς γῆς καί τοῦ Ἀδάμ. Ὁ γάρ Ἀδάμ μόνος ἐκ τῆς γῆς. Ἤ τοίνυν καί αὐτοί ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ μόνου λεγέτωσαν τό Πνεῦμα καί οὕτως αὐτό ἐκ μιᾶς ἀρχῆς λεγέτωσαν, ἑαυτοῖς μέν ἀκολούθως ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ εὐσεβῶς, οὐ γάρ ἐκ τῆς αὐτῆς ἀφ᾿ ἧς καί ὁ Υἱός, κἀντεῦθεν πάλιν δύο εἰσίν ἐπί τῆς θεότητος ἀρχαί καί οὐκέτ᾿ ἐστί μείζων ὁ Πατήρ τῷ αἰτίῳ τοῦ Υἱοῦ, ἐπίσης γάρ καί αὐτός αἴτιος θεότητος, ἤ ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρός αὐτό λέγοντες μίαν καί τῷ Πνεύματι ὡς καί τῷ Υἱῷ εὐσεβῶς διδότωσαν ἀρχήν. Μέχρι γάρ ἄν ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ, ἤ ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων λέγωσιν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρός, οὐκ ἔστι μίαν εἶν αι τῆς θεότητος καί ἑνός Πνεύματος ἀρχήν.

Συνάπτων γάρ τις ἐπί τῶν τοιούτων, εἰ καί μίαν φαίη τήν ἀρχήν, ἀλλ᾿ ὁμονύμως, ὥστ᾿ οὐ μία. Εἰ δέ διαιρῶν κατά μίαν ὁρᾷ τάς ὑποστάσεις, τῆς μιᾶς ἐξ ἀνάγκης δύο φανερῶς γίνονται ἀρχαί. Ἐμοί δ᾿ ἔπεισι θαυμάζειν καί τό ὑπερβάλλον τῆς ἀνοίας τῶν τάς δύο ταύτας, ἅς φασιν (σελ. 108) ἀρχάς, μίαν λεγόντων τε καί οἰομένων˙ εἰ μέν γάρ κοινωνεῖ τῷ Πατρί κατά τόν θεογόνον ὁ Υἱός προβαλλόμενος τό Πνεῦμα καί ἕν αὐτοῖς τό θεογόνον καί ἡ ἐκ τούτων αὕτη πρόοδος, τῆς φύσεως