11

Therefore this, and there are not two principles, nor are the two one, but simply one, and the Spirit itself is alienated from the divine nature, lest it too should participate in divine generation. But if the Son does not share in this with the Father, nor is this projecting one for them, the procession of the Spirit belongs to the Son by hypostasis; therefore this procession is different from the procession of the Spirit from the Father; for hypostatic properties are different.

How then are the different principles one, when indeed the great Dionysius, in the second chapter of his work *On the Divine Names*, says "whatever belongs to the Father and the Son, these things are also to be ascribed to the divinely-ruling Spirit in common and in unity", and the great Basil, in his chapters of the *Refutations against the Eunomians*, writes, "all things that are common to the Father and the Son are common also to the Spirit"? If "to cause 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 cause to proceed" is not common to the Father and the Son, since, according to them, the Father causes the Spirit to proceed mediately, and the Son immediately—for thus they also say that the Son possesses the power of projecting hypostatically—then, according to them, creating and sanctifying and simply all natural things are not common to the Father and the Son, since the Father creates and sanctifies through the Son, and creates and sanctifies by means of the Son, but the Son does not do so through a Son. Therefore, according to them, the Son possesses creating and sanctifying hypostatically; for He does so immediately and not mediately like the Father; and so (p. 110) according to them the natural properties differ in no way from the hypostatic ones; therefore neither does nature from hypostasis, so that according to them God is neither three-hypostased nor three-natured.

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 creatures *through* the Spirit, but *in* the Holy Spirit. Then, in addition to their 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 common to the Spirit either, since it does not work these things through another, nor as the Father or the Son does. Therefore, according to them, the Spirit possesses creating and sanctifying hypostatically, since it creates and sanctifies not mediately like the Father. Hence, again according to them, the natural properties are shown to be the same and undifferentiated from the hypostatic ones. But if this is so, the nature is also the same and undifferentiated from the hypostases. Have not those who say and think these things in this way clearly fallen away from the Trinity above, and from the unity of the faith, and from the communion of the Holy Spirit?

But let us return to the point from which we digressed. For who, hearing or saying or believing that the Holy Spirit has its existence from both Son and Father, and from the Son immediately, but from the Father mediately, and their much-rumored and oft-repeated phrases like 'proximately' and 'consequently' and 'distantly'—who, hearing and believing these things, will not profess two principles for the one Spirit? And how would the Son not be a co-cause with the Father, if it is not said in vain 'and from him'? And how would the Spirit not be a creature? For in the case of creatures he is a co-cause with the Father, if it is not said in vain 'and from him'? And how would the Spirit not be a creature? For in the case of creatures, the Son is a co-cause with the Father.

(p. 112) And yet in the case of creation, for which the Son is manifestly also a cause and a co-cause with the Father, since it received its being from the Father through him and from him, it is utterly impious to say that we do not say creation is from the Son and that the creative

11

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 τῶν ὑποστατικῶν διενήνοχεν οὐδέν˙ οὐκοῦν καί ἡ φύσις τῆς ὑποστάσεως, ὡς μή τρισυπόστατον ἤ τριφυᾶ κατ᾿ αὐτούς εἶναι τόν Θεόν.

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 ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι. 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 μηδέ κοινόν εἶναι λέγειν καί τῷ Πνεύματι 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 ἁγιάζον. Ἐντεῦθεν δή πάλιν κατ᾿ αὐτούς, ταῦτά τε εἶναι καί ἀδιάφορα δείκνυται τοῖς ὑποστατικοῖς τά φυσικά. Εἰ δέ τοῦτο, καί ἡ φύσις ταῖς ὑποστάσεσι ταὐτόν τε καί ἀδιάφορον. Ἆρ᾿ οὐ σαφῶς τῆς ἀνωτέρω Τριάδος ἐκπεπτώκασι καί τῆς ἑνότητος τῆς πίστεως καί τῆς κοινωνίας τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος οἱ ταῦθ᾿ οὕτω λέγοντες τε καί φρονοῦντες;

Ἀλλά γάρ ἐπανέλθωμεν ὅθεν ἐξέβημεν. Τίς γάρ τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον τήν ὕπαρξιν ἔχειν ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων Υἱοῦ τε καί Πατρός ἀκούων ἤ λέγων ἤ πιστεύων καί παρά μέν τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἀμέσως, παρά δέ τοῦ Πατρός ἐμμέσως καί τά παρ᾿ αὐτῶν θρυλλούμενά τε καί περιᾳδόμενα προσεχῆ τε καί ἐφεξῆς καί πόρρω, τίς ταῦτ᾿ ἀκούων καί πιστεύων οὐ δύο δοξάσει τοῦ ἑνός Πνεύματος ἀρχάς; Πῶς δέ οὐκ ἄν εἴη ὁ Υἱός τῷ Πατρί συναίτιος, εἰ μή μάτην λέγεται καί ἐξ αὐτοῦ; Πῶς δέ οὐκ ἄν τό Πνεῦμα εἴη κτίσμα; Ἐπί γάρ τῶν κτισμάτων τῷ Πατρί συναίτιος, εἰ μή μάτην λέγεται καί ἐξ αὐτοῦ; Πῶς δέ οὐκ ἄν τό Πνεῦμα εἴη κτίσμα; Ἐπί γάρ τῶν κτισμάτων τῷ Πατρί ὁ Υἱός συναίτιος.

(σελ. 112) Καί μήν ἐπί τῆς κτίσεως, ἐφ᾿ ἧς φανερῶς αἴτιός ἐστι καί ὁ Υἱός καί τῷ Πατρί συναίτιος, ὡς ἐκ Πατρός δι᾿ αὐτοῦ καί ἐξ αὐτοῦ τό εἶναι λαβούσης, ἀσεβές παντάπασιν εἰπεῖν ὅτι τήν κτίσιν ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ οὐ λέγομεν καί ὅτι τό δημιουργικόν