They say, therefore, that 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 man, because the one is from the other? And what of Eve? Is she not a second principle of those from her, because she also had her beginning from Adam? And yet the generative power is in them both, but different and in different hypostases; wherefore these principles are not one, just as we brought forward above the divine prelate of Nyssa saying, even though the one of them is from the other.

If, then, here where even if the generative power is not one, yet it belongs to both, it is not possible for the one to have one principle, how in the case of the most high Trinity are the two, according to them, one principle of the one Holy Spirit, in which there is in no way a communion according to the theogonic power? For the Father alone has been theologized as the theogonic divinity.

Again, Eve, being from Adam alone, is from one principle; but Adam is from the earth. But, it is not on this account that Eve is from the earth and from Adam. For Adam alone is from the earth. Either, therefore, let them also 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 also 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 Himself 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 one who divides sees the hypostases one by one, of necessity two principles clearly arise from the one. But it occurs to me to marvel also at the exceeding folly of those who say and think that these two principles, as they call them (p. 108), are one; for if the Son, putting forth the Spirit, communes with the Father according to the theogonic power, and the theogonic power is one for them and this procession is from them, then this belongs to the nature and there are not two principles, nor are the two one, but simply one, and the Spirit Himself is alienated from the divine nature, not also Himself communing according to the theogonic power. But if the Son does not commune with the Father in this respect, nor is this putting forth one for them, the procession of the Spirit belongs to the Son according to hypostasis; therefore this is different from the procession of the Spirit from the Father; for hypostatic properties are different.

How then are the different principles one, and indeed, when the great Dionysius says in the second chapter of his discourse On the Divine Names, "whatever belongs to the Father and the Son, these things are to be ascribed commonly and unitedly to the Divine Spirit also," and the great Basil writes in his chapters of the Refutations against the Eunomians, "all things common to both Father and Son are common also to the Spirit"? If to proceed is common to both Father and 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 proceed is not common to the Father and the Son, since, according to them, the Father proceeds the Spirit mediately, but the Son immediately, for thus they say the Son has the projective power hypostatically, therefore, according to them, also to create and to sanctify and simply all natural things are not common to both Father and Son, since the Father creates and sanctifies through the Son, and creates and sanctifies by means of the Son, but the Son not through a Son. Therefore, according to them, the Son has the power to create and to sanctify hypostatically; for He does so immediately and not mediately, like the Father; and thus (p. 110) according to them the natural properties

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 ἄρα τοῦτο καί οὐ δύο εἰσίν ἀρχαί, οὐδ᾿ αἱ δύο μία, ἀλλά ἁπλῶς μία, καί ἀπεξένωται τῆς θείας φύσεως αὐτό τό Πνεῦμα, μή καί αὐτό κατά θεογόνον κοινωνοῦν. Εἰ δέ μή κοινωνεῖ ὁ Υἱός κατά τοῦτο τό Πατρί, μηδέ ἕν αὐτοῖς τοῦτο τό προβάλλειν, καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν τῷ Υἱῷ ἡ πρόοδος τοῦ Πνεύματος˙ διάφορος ἄρα αὕτη τῆς ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός τοῦ Πνεύματος προόδου˙ τά γάρ ὑποστατικά διάφορα.

Πῶς οὖν μία αἱ διάφοροι ἀρχαί, καί μήν τοῦ μεγάλου ∆ιονυσίου ἐν δευτέρῳ κεφαλαίῳ τοῦ Περί θείων ὀνομάτων λόγου λέγοντος «ὅσα ἐστί τοῦ Πατρός καί τοῦ Υἱοῦ, ταῦτα καί τῷ θεαρχικῷ Πνεύματι κοινῶς καί ἡνωμένως ἀνατίθεσθαι», καί 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 ἔστι 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 (σελ. 110) κατ᾿ αὐτούς τά φυσικά