saying, which would not be the case for the creative principle; for that one is the same. (p. 402) Besides, if this signifies the creative [principle], one might say not only two, even if incorrectly, but even more; for this principle is three-hypostatic; and being by nature, it is also common; and since it is common, how could the Spirit not also have this principle? And does not Elihu, who converses with Job on behalf of God’s justice, when he says, "The Spirit of the Lord made me," call the Spirit a creative principle? And does not the divine psalmist David, when he sings that "by the Word of the Lord the heavens were established," and "by the Spirit the powers of the heavens," bear witness to the creative principle in the Spirit just as in the Son? If, therefore, because it is written "the principle from the principle," nothing prevents one from speaking of two principles, and because it is written that the Spirit is also a creator, nothing prevents one from speaking of two creators; or because "the creation is established by the Word of God and the Spirit," which is to say it subsists, nothing prevents one from speaking of three principles. But nowhere did any of the theologians speak of either two or three; for just as we say that each of those adorable hypostases is God, and each of the two is God from God, but for this reason we never say three or two gods, so also we speak of a principle from a principle, but never of two principles; for to this day we have not yet heard from the pious of a second principle, just as we have not of a second God. But to us there is one God, and what is worshipped is a monarchy, not composed of two gods, nor of two principles, and what is revered by us is one, since it is not divisible according to these things; and indeed it is not divided and united in the same respect; for it is divided by the hypostatic properties, but it is united by those things according to nature. If, then, nothing prevents one from speaking of two principles, then these are the principles according to which it is divided; therefore, it is impossible for them to be united again according to these same principles; therefore the two are not one. Therefore, he who speaks of two principles in God, because the Son is a principle from the principle, if he says this with respect to the creative [power], besides the fact that (p. 404) it is otherwise inconsistent with our confession, he also excludes the Holy Spirit from the creative power, which is the same as to say, also from the divinity; for what is not creative is not God; but if he says it with respect to what begets God, he clearly hands down that the Spirit is from the Father and from the Son.

But since he himself said this in his Orations, I decided not to be completely silent. But you, having asked with the appropriate reasonableness and boldness, or rather, love of learning, learn and teach us by letters both the opinion of the man and the purpose of what was so written. We shall therefore know him, and with pleasure, of course; for what else could be expected by us from a man who, out of a desire for precise piety, left the land that bore him? But know accurately and be unpersuaded about this, that this is the mind of the Latins, and in this lies nearly their strength, and against this the opponent must draw himself up, if he does not wish to exhaust his strength at inopportune times and to be found weaker at the opportune ones. For when they do not make their syllogisms from what is undisputed by us, nor use as principles the divinely-handed-down words and concepts, we should make little or no defense, on the grounds that they are willfully malicious and are holding the discussion for the sake of strife, but not for the sake of truth, and especially because such arguments are nothing to us. For if the musician or the geometer, insofar as each of them is such, should not converse with someone completely unskilled in geometry or unmusical, that is, one not attached to the principles of geometry or music, even if those mathematicians should make their inquiry about the principles themselves and not answer, much more should we not answer, nor converse with one who syllogizes about the properties of God not from theological principles; for his argument is composed (p. 406) of falsehoods, from which what is true is not in every case concluded, but rather not at all. For this very reason also for them and

λέγων, ὅπερ οὐκ ἄν εἴη ἐπί τῆς δημιουργικῆς ἀρχῆς˙ ἡ αὐτή γάρ ἐστιν ἐκείνη. (σελ. 402) Ἄλλως τε, τό δημιουργικόν ταύτης σημαινούσης, οὐ δύο μόνον ἄν εἴποι

τις, εἰ καί μή καλῶς, ἀλλά καί πλείους˙ τρισυπόστατος γάρ αὕτη ἡ ἀρχή˙ φύσει δέ οὖσα καί κοινή ἐστι˙ κοινήν δέ οὖσαν, πῶς οὐκ ἄν ἔχοι καί τό Πνεῦμα ταύτην τήν ἀρχήν; Καί ὁ τῷ Ἰώβ δέ προσδιαλεγόμενος ὑπέρ τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ δικαιοσύνης Ἐλιούς, «Πνεῦμα», λέγων «Κυρίου τό ποιῆσάν με», οὐ ποιητικήν ἀρχήν τό Πνεῦμα λέγει; Καί ὁ θεῖος ᾠδικός ∆αβίδ, «λόγῳ μέν Κυρίου τούς οὐρανούς στερεωθῆναι ψάλλων, «Πνεύματι δέ τάς τῶν οὐρανῶν δυνάμεις», οὐχ ὥσπερ τῷ Υἱῷ, οὕτω καί τῷ Πνεύματι τήν δημιουργικήν ἀρχήν προσμαρτυρεῖ; Εἰ οὖν διά τό γέγραφθαι «ἡ ἐκ τῆς ἀρχῆς ἀρχή», δύο εἰπεῖν ἀρχάς οὐδέν κωλύει, καί διά τό γεγράφθαι καί τό Πνεῦμα ποιητήν, δύο ποιητάς εἰπεῖν οὐδέν κωλύει˙ ἤ διά τό λόγῳ Θεοῦ καί Πνεύματι τήν κτίσιν στερεοῦσθαι», ταὐτόν δ᾿ εἰπεῖν συνίστασθαι, τρεῖς ἀρχάς εἰπεῖν οὐδέν κωλύει. Ἀλλ᾿ οὐδαμοῦ τῶν θεολόγων εἶπέ τις οὔτε δύο οὔτε τρεῖς˙ ὥσπερ γάρ Θεόν ἑκάστην τῶν προσκυνητῶν ἐκείνων ὑποστάσεών φαμεν καί Θεόν ἑκατέραν ἐκ Θεοῦ, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ παρά τοῦτο τρεῖς ἤ δύο ποτέ θεούς, οὕτω καί ἀρχήν ἐξ ἀρχῆς φαμεν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ δύο ποτέ ἀρχάς˙ δευτέραν γάρ ἀρχήν οὐδέπω καί τήμερον ὑπό τῶν εὐσεβῶν ἀκηκόαμεν, ὥσπερ οὐδέ Θεόν δεύτερον. Ἀλλ᾿ εἷς ἡμῖν Θεός καί μοναρχία τό προσκυνούμενον, οὐκ ἐκ δύο θεῶν, οὐδ᾿ ἐκ δύο ἀρχῶν συνιόντα, καί ἕν, ἐπεί μηδέ κατά ταῦτα μεριστόν, ἡμῖν τό σεβόμενον˙ καί μήν οὐδέ κατά τό αὐτό μερίζεταί τε καί συνάγεται˙ διαρεῖται μέν γάρ ταῖς ὑποστατικαῖς ἰδιότησι, τοῖς δέ κατά τήν φύσιν ἑνοῦται. Εἰ γοῦν δύο ἀρχάς εἰπεῖν οὐδέν κωλύει, λοιπόν αὗταί εἰσι καθ᾿ ἅς μερίζεται˙ ἑνωθῆναι τοίνυν αὖθις κατ᾿ αὐτάς ἀδύνατον˙ οὐκ ἄρ᾿ αἱ δύο μία. Ὁ τοίνυν λέγων δύο ἀρχάς ἐπί Θεοῦ, ὅτι ὁ Υἱός ἐκ τῆς ἀρχῆς ἀρχή ἐστιν, εἰ μέν κατά τό δημιουργικόν φησι, πρός τῷ καί (σελ. 404) ἄλλως μή συμβαίνειν τῇ καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς ὁμολογίᾳ, καί τό Πνεῦα τό ἅγιον ἐκβάλλει τῆς δημιουργικῆς δυνάμεως, ταὐτό δέ εἰπεῖν καί τῆς θεότητος˙ τό γάρ μή δημιουργικόν, οὐδέ Θεός˙ εἰ δέ κατά τό θεογόνον, ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός καί ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ σαφῶς τό Πνεῦμα παραδίδωσιν.

Οὐ μή ἀλλά τοῦτο μέν αὐτός ἐν τοῖς Λόγοις εἰρηκώς, σιωπῆσαι τελέως οὐ διέγνων. Σύ δέ ἐρωτήσας μετά τῆς γιγνομένης ἐπιεικείας τε ὁμοῦ καί παρρησίας, μᾶλλον δέ φιλομαθείας, μάθε καί δίδαξον ἡμᾶς διά γραμμάτων τήν τε δόξαν τοῦ ἀνδρός καί τόν σκοπόν τῶν γεγραμμένων οὕτω. Τόν μέν οὖν εἰσόμεθα καί μέθ᾿ ἡδονῆς δήπου˙ τί γάρ ποτ᾿ ἄν ἄλλο προσδόκιμον ἡμῖν εἴη παρ᾿ ἀνδρός ἀκριβοῦς εὐσεβείας πόθῳ τήν ἐνεγκοῦσαν ἀπολιπόντος; Ἴσθι δ᾿ ἀκριβῶς καί ἀμετάπειστος ἴσθι περί τοῦτο, ὅτι τοῦτό ἐστι τό τῶν Λατίνων φρόνημα καί ἐν τούτῳ αὐτοῖς σχεδόν τό ἰσχυρόν καί πρός τοῦτο ἀντιπαράττεσθαι δεῖ τόν ἀντιτεταγμένων, εἰ μή βούλοιτο κενοῦν μέν ἐν τοῖς ἀκαίροις τήν ἴσχύν, ἥττων δ᾿ ἐν τοῖς καιρίοις εὑρίσκεσθαι. Ὅταν γάρ μή ἐκ τῶν ἡμῖν ἀνωμολογημένων ποιῶνται τούς συλλογισμούς, μηδέ ὡς ἀρχαῖς χρῶνται τοῖς θεοπαραδότοις ρήμασί τε καί νοήμασι, μικρόν ἤ οὐδέν ἡμᾶς ἀπολογεῖσθαι χρή, ὡς ἐθελοκακοῦσι καί πρός ἔριν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ πρός ἀλήθειαν ποιουμένοις τήν διάλεξιν, καί μάλισθ᾿ ὅτι μηδέν οἱ τοιοῦτοι λόγοι ἡμᾶς. Εἰ γάρ τόν μουσικόν ἤ τόν γεωμέτρην ᾗ τοιοῦτον ἑκάτερον αὐτῶν οὐ προσδιαλεκτέον ἀγεωμετρήτῳ παντάπασιν ἤ ἀναρμόστῳ, μή ἐξημμένῳ δηλαδή τῶν τῆς γεωμετρίας ἤ τῆς μουσικῆς ἀρχῶν, κἄν περί αὐτῶν τῶν ἀρχῶν τήν ζήτησιν ποιῆσθον τούς μαθηματικούς ἐκείνους μηδέ ἀποκρίνασθαι, πολλῷ μᾶλλον ἡμᾶς οὐκ ἀποκριτέον, οὐδέ διαλεκτέον τῷ περί Θεοῦ ἰδιοτήτων συλλογιζομένῳ μή ἀπό τῶν θεολογικῶν ἀρχῶν˙ ἐκ ψευδῶν γάρ αὐτῷ συντίθεται (σελ. 406) ὁ λόγος, ἐξ ὧν οὐ πάντως ἀληθές συνάγεται, μᾶλλον δέ οὐδόλως. ∆ι᾿ αὐτό γάρ αὐτοῖς καί