24

of persons, that is, they say; for according to this, [it is] also both, for the one could never be called both.

Since, therefore, according to these things they say the one from the two, according to which both the principle and the cause is both conceived and spoken of, they say the one is from two principles and they posit two principles and two causes and they introduce polytheism. For not only because one nature is one God, but also because the things from him have their reference to one person, and the things from the principle are referred to one cause and one principle; not only the two as 'both', but also each of them separately. And for this reason there is one principle of the divinity and one God according to this reference; because each is referred to one immediately. For if the Spirit is not also immediately from the Father, this 'mediately' of necessity makes two causes of the Spirit, both the intermediate and the ultimate, and it is not possible, on account of a reference so constituted, for the three to be one God; or rather, for that which is from the Father through an intermediate divinity not even to be God; for the Father came upon created things through an intermediate divinity, according to the theologians.

For he did not create these things as Father, but as God. But the Son is one God with the Father; and this, from the Father through the Son as from one God, [created] created things, and the principle of created things is one, God. But God begets and causes to proceed as Father of the lights co-eternal with him. If, at any rate, the Holy Spirit is from the Father through the Son as from one, it will not be as 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 more absurd than this confusion? (p. 162) Therefore, the Latins, fleeing this, say as from one God; which has no place from anywhere, as has been shown; and this because the Spirit is also one God with both the Father and the Son.

Therefore, since the Father is in every way and entirely one, not both the Son and the Spirit, but also each separately has only one principle and one cause, 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 claiming to profess one principle of both the Son and the Spirit; for wishing to deceive us with sophistry, they affirm this, as we said at the beginning. For this very thing is our accusation against them: how is it that they say the principle of the Son and of the Spirit is one, but of the one Spirit they speak of two principles? But they, being asked about the one, sophistically give their answer concerning the two, outwitting themselves rather than their questioners.

Therefore, Father and principle and cause in God is in every way and entirely one; for he was called 'projector' by none of the apostles or the evangelists, but instead of this the term 'Father' was sufficient for them. And by 'principle' I do not mean the beginning, nor the creative one, nor that by which there is the epithet of lordship.

And therefore God and Father, insofar as he is Father, is principle and cause; and insofar as he is principle, he is Father of the lights, that is, of the Son and of the Spirit; and insofar as he is cause, he is cause, and principle and Father. If, therefore, the Son is also cause of the Spirit, he will of necessity be also principle and Father, as cause; for just as with man, insofar as he is a man capable of knowledge, it is not possible for one capable of knowledge not also to be a man, so also in the case of God; since the Father, insofar as he is Father, is principle and cause, it is not possible for one who is a cause not also to be a principle and a Father, although Gregory the Theologian writes, (p. 164) "The Son is thus properly Son, because he is not also Father".

Do you see the monarchy clearly set aside and the hypostatic oneness of the Father by those who say the Spirit is also from the Son and do not refer each

24

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 παρ᾿ οὐδενός τῶν ἀποστόλων ἤ τῶν εὐαγγελιστῶν ἐκλήθη, ἀλλά καί ἀντί τούτου ἡ τοῦ Πατρός ἀπέχρησεν αὐτοῖς φωνή. Ἀρχήν δέ λέγω οὐ τήν καταρχήν, οὐδέ τήν δημιουργικήν, οὐδ᾿ ᾗ τό τῆς δεσποτείας ἐστίν ἐπώνυμον.

Καί τοίνυν ὁ Θεός καί Πατήρ, καθό Πατήρ, ἀρχή καί αἴτιός ἐστι˙ καί καθό ἀρχή, Πατήρ τῶν φώτων, δηλαδή Υἱοῦ καί Πνεύματος˙ καί καθό αἴτιος, αἴτιος, ἀρχή τε καί Πατήρ. Εἰ οὖν καί ὁ Υἱός αἴτιός ἐστι τοῦ Πνεύματος, ἐξ ἀνάγκη ἔσται καί ἀρχή καί Πατήρ ὡς αἴτιος˙ ὡς γάρ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, καθό ἀνθρώπου ἐπιστήμης δεκτικοῦ ὑπάρχοντος, τόν ἐπιστήμης δεκτικόν οὐκ ἔνι μή καί ἄνθρωπον ὑπάρχει, οὕτω καί ἐπί Θεοῦ˙ ἐπεί ὁ Πατήρ, καθό Πατήρ, ἀρχή καί αἴτιός ἐστι, τόν αἴτιον ὑπάρχοντα οὐκ ἔνι μή καί ἀρχήν εἶναι καί Πατέρα, καίτοι τοῦ θεολόγου Γρηγορίου γράφοντος, (σελ. 164) «οὕτως εἶναι Υἱόν κυρίως τόν Υἱόν, ὅτι μή ἔστιν οὗτος καί Πατήρ».

Ὁρᾷς ἀθετουμένην σαφῶς τήν μοναρχίαν καί τό καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν ἑνιαῖον τοῦ Πατρός ὑπό τῶν λεγόντων καί ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα καί μή ἀναγόντων ἑκάτερον