of the God-befitting and most provident dispensations we render through all things the most concise doxology and thanksgiving and remembrance; not that they are second and third in honor and in worth, for they are of equal honor - nor making the dyad the principle of the one, nor referring the one to the dyad, but for us there is one God, with both Son and Spirit being referred to one cause, from whom alone each of them has its existence; and because there is one principle, the Father, as also Gregory the Wonderworker says, therefore, according to this, there is one God; and because there is one nature in the three, for these two and three and that which is from him and that which is referred to him does not divide the nature, but is divided with respect to it, nor indeed is it properly from it, (p. 160) even if not without it, nor is it referred to it, even if not apart from it; for the one, how could it beget and put forth itself and be referred to itself? Neither, therefore, is the one itself a principle and that which is from it, nor a cause and that which is caused from it. If, therefore, all these things, according to which it is properly divided, are the three hypostases, or rather the three persons of the one deity in nature, when the Latins say the one is from both, they mean from the persons; for according to this they are both, for the one could never be called both.

Since, therefore, they say the one is from the two according to these things, by which the principle and the cause are both conceived and spoken of, they say the one is from two principles, and they introduce two principles and two causes and polytheism. For not only is there one God because there is one nature, but also because that which is from him has its reference to one person, and that which is from the principle is referred to one cause and one principle; not only the two together, but also each of them separately. And for this reason there is one principle of the divinity and one God according to this reference as well; because each is referred to one immediately. For if the Spirit is not also immediately from the Father, this mediation necessarily makes two causes of the Spirit, the mediate and the ultimate, and it is not possible for the three to be one God because of a reference of this kind; or rather, for that which is from the Father through a mediate deity not to be God at all; for according to the theologians, the Father came upon creation through a mediate deity.

For he did not create these things as Father, but as God. But the Son is one God with the Father; and this is why creatures are from the Father through the Son as from one God, and the principle of creatures is one, God. But God begets and causes to proceed as Father of the lights co-eternal with himself. If, then, the Holy Spirit is from the Father through the Son as from one, he will not be from one God, the Father and the Son, but as from one being who is Father, the Father and the Son. And what could be (p. 162) more absurd than this confusion? Wherefore the Latins, fleeing this, say as from one God; which has no place anywhere, as has been shown; and this is because the Spirit also is one God with the Father and the Son.

Therefore, since the Father is in every way and altogether one, not both the Son and the Spirit, but also each separately has one principle and one cause alone, the Father. And thus there is one principle of the divinity, even if those who think in the Latin way, being accused of how they speak of two principles in the divinity, think to defend themselves by asserting that they hold one principle of the Son and of the Spirit; for wishing to outwit us they affirm this, as we said at the beginning. For this very thing is our accusation against them: how is it that they say there is one principle of the Son and of the Spirit, but two principles of the one Spirit? But they, when asked about the one, sophistically give their answer concerning the two; outwitting themselves rather than their questioners.

Father, therefore, and principle and cause in God is in every way and altogether one; for a producer

θεοπρεπῶν καί προμηθεστάτων οἰκονομιῶν συντομωτάτην ἀποδιδῶμεν διά πάντων τήν δοξολογίαν καί τήν εὐχαριστίαν καί τήν ἀνάμνησιν˙ οὐχ ὅτι δεύτερα καί τρίτα τῇ τιμῇ καί τῇ ἀξίᾳ καί γάρ ὁμότιμα - οὐδέ τήν δυάδα ποιοῦντες τοῦ ἑνός ἀρχήν, οὐδ᾿ εἰς τήν δυάδα ἀναφέροντες τό ἕν, ἀλλ᾿ εἷς ἡμῖν Θεός, εἰς ἕν αἴτιον καί Υἱοῦ καί Πνεύματος ἀναφερομένων, ἐξ οὗ μόνου ἔχει τήν ὕπαρξιν ἑκάτερον αὐτῶν˙ καί ὅτι μία ἀρχή, ὁ Πατήρ, ὡς καί ὁ θαυματουργός Γρηγόριος λέγει, κατά τοῦτο τοίνυν εἷς Θεός˙ καί ὅτι μία φύσις τοῖς τρισίν, αὐτά γάρ τά δύο καί τά τρία καί τό ἐξ αὐτοῦ καί τό ἀναφέρεσθαι εἰς αὐτόν οὐ τήν φύσιν διαιρεῖ, ἀλλά περί αὐτήν διαιρεῖται, οὐδέ γοῦν ἐξ αὐτῆς ἐστι κυρίως, (σελ. 160) εἰ καί μή χωρίς αὐτῆς, οὐδ᾿ εἰς αὐτήν ἀναφέρεται, εἰ καί μή ἄνευ ταύτης˙ τό γάρ ἕν, πῶς ἄν αὐτό ἑαυτό γεννήσαι τε καί προβάλοιτο καί εἰς ἑαυτό ἀναφέροιτο; Οὐδ᾿ ἀρχή τοίνυν καί τά ἐξ αὐτῆς, οὐδέ αἴτιον καί αἰτιατόν αὐτό ἑαυτοῦ τό ἕν. Εἰ τοίνυν ταῦθ᾿ ἅπαντα, κατά ταῦτα κυρίως καθ᾿ ἅ καί μερίζεται, ταῦτα δ᾿ ἐστίν αἱ τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις, εἶτ᾿ οὖν τά τρία πρόσωπα τῆς μιᾶς τῇ φύσει θεότητος, ὅταν οἱ Λατῖνοι λέγωσιν ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων τό ἕν, τῶν προσώπων δηλαδή φασι˙ κατά τοῦτο γάρ καί ἀμφότερα, τό γάρ ἕν οὐκ ἄν ρηθείη ποτέ ἀμφότερα.

Ἐπεί τοίνυν κατά ταῦτα λέγουσιν ἐκ τῶν δύο τό ἕν, καθ᾿ ἅ καί ἡ ἀρχή καί τό αἴτιον καί νοεῖται καί λέγεται, ἐκ δύο ἀρχῶν λέγουσι τό ἕν καί δύο ἀρχάς καί δύο αἴτια καί πολυθεΐαν εἰσάγουσιν. Οὐ γάρ μόνον ὅτι μία φύσις εἷς Θεός, ἀλλ᾿ ὅτι καί ἕν πρόσωπον τήν ἀναφοράν ἔχει τά ἐξ αὐτοῦ, καί εἰς ἕν αἴτιον καί μίαν ἀρχήν τά ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἀναφέρεται˙ οὐ τά δύο μόνον ἄμφω, ἀλλά καί ἑκάτερον αὐτῶν χωρίς. Και διά τοῦτο μία τῆς θεότητος ἀρχή καί εἷς Θεός ἐστι καί κατά ταύτην τήν ἀναφοράν˙ ὅτι καί ἑκάτερον ἀναφέρεται εἰς ἕν ἀμέσως. Εἰ γάρ μή ἀμέσως καί τό Πνεῦμα ἐκ Πατρός, τό ἐμμέσως τοῦτο δύο ἐξ ἀνάγκης τά αἴτια ποιεῖ τοῦ Πνεύματος, τό τε μέσον καί τό ἄκρον, καί οὐκ ἔνι διά τήν οὕτως ἔχουσαν ἀναφοράν ἕνα Θεόν τά τρία εἶναι˙ μᾶλλον δέ οὐδέ Θεόν εἶναι τό διά μέσης θεότητος ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός˙ ἐπί γάρ τά κτίσματα ἦλθεν ὁ Πατήρ διά μέσης θεότητος κατά τούς θεολόγους.

Οὐ γάρ ὡς Πατήρ ταῦτ᾿ ἔκτισεν, ἀλλ᾿ ὡς Θεός. Ὁ δέ Υἱός εἷς Θεός μετά Πατρός˙ καί τοῦτο ἐκ Πατρός δι᾿ Υἱοῦ ὡς ἐξ ἑνός Θεοῦ κτίσματα καί μία ἡ ἀρχή τῶν κτισμάτων, ὁ Θεός. Γεννᾷ δέ ὁ Θεός καί ἐκπορεύει ὡς Πατήρ τῶν αὐτῷ συναϊδίων φώτων. Εἰ γοῦν ἐκ Πατρός δι᾿ Υἱοῦ ὡς ἐξ ἑνός ἐστι τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον, οὐχ ὡς ἐξ ἑνός ἔσται Θεοῦ, τοῦ Πατρός καί τοῦ Υἱοῦ, ἀλλ᾿ ὡς ἐξ ἑνός ὄντος Πατρός, τοῦ Πατρός καί τοῦ Υἱοῦ. Καί ταύτης τῆς συγχύσεως τίς ἄν (σελ. 162) ἀτοπωτέρα γένοιτο; ∆ιό καί ταύτην οἱ Λατῖνοι φεύγοντες ὡς ἐξ ἑνός φασι Θεοῦ˙ ὅ χώραν οὐδαμόθεν ἔχει, καθάπερ ἀναπέφηνε˙ καί ταῦθ᾿ ὅτι καί τό Πνεῦμα εἷς Θεός ἐστι μετά Πατρός τε καί Υἱοῦ.

Τοιγαροῦν, ἐπειδήπερ πάντῃ τε καί πάντως εἷς ὑπάρχει ὁ Πατήρ, οὐκ ἄμφω ὁ Υἱός τε καί τό Πνεῦμα, ἀλλά καί χωρίς ἑκάτερον μίαν ἀρχήν καί ἕν αἴτιον ἔχει μόνον, τόν Πατέρα. Καί οὕτω μία τῆς θεότητος ἀρχή, κἄν οἱ λατινικῶς φρονοῦντες ἐγκαλούμενοι, πῶς δύο λέγουσιν ἐπί τῆς θεότητος ἀρχάς, ἀπολογεῖσθαι οἴωνται μίαν ἀρχήν ἰσχυριζόμενοι δοξάζειν τοῦ Υἱοῦ τε καί τοῦ Πνεύματος˙ σοφίζεσθαι γάρ ἡμᾶς βουλόμενοι τοῦτο διαβεβαιοῦνται, ὡς καί τήν ἀρχήν ἔφθημεν εἰπόντες. Αὐτό γάρ τοῦτό ἐστι τό παρ᾿ ἡμῶν ἐγκαλούμενον αὐτοῖς˙ πῶς Υἱοῦ μέν καί τοῦ Πνεύματος μίαν τήν ἀρχήν φασι, τοῦ δέ ἑνός Πνεύματος δύο λέγουσιν ἀρχάς; Ἐκεῖνοι δέ περί τοῦ ἑνός ἐρωτώμενοι, σοφιστικῶς περί τῶν δύο τήν ἀπόκρισιν ποιοῦνται˙ σφῶν αὐτῶν μᾶλλον ἤ τῶν πυνθανομένων κατασοφιζόμενοι.

Πατήρ μέν οὖν καί ἀρχή καί αἴτιον ἐπί Θεοῦ πάντῃ τε καί πάντως ἕν˙ προβολεύς γάρ