77

dogmatizing it. But they say "no," "for God is one and the procession is as from one," alas, healing evil with evil, or rather with a worse one, as will be clear as the argument proceeds. But the one speaking in between adds, perhaps someone defending this opinion, (p. 400) that is, of those who hold two principles of the Holy Spirit, might say that there is nothing absurd, if one speaks of two principles, namely the Father and the Son, not, however, divided against nor opposed to each other, but the one under the other or from the other. And proceeding, he confirms that this opinion is in no way absurd, bringing forward as a witness Gregory, great in theology, who says concerning the Son: "the principle from the principle." And he himself, proving from his own resources the soundness of this opinion, prepares the way by saying: "for thus the dogma of the monarchy is preserved." And having come to that point of the argument, where he lists those things handed down to us concerning God which are relevant to the discussion, presupposing that we confess one nature in God, but three hypostases, and that the natural things are different from the hypostatic, he adds, saying as a hypothesis and this a confessed one, that it is not two principles in such a way that the one does not have its existence from the other, as it is impious to speak thus of two principles in God. For he himself again adds: "perhaps thus nothing prevents" as the Theologian says, "the principle from the principle," and he shows, thinking from such arguments and discoursing through others in between, that it is not impious to say that the Son is also a principle of the Holy Spirit, as He Himself is from a principle, even if He is a principle. And yet not even concerning the creative principle, in which the Son is also clearly called a principle by Scripture, is it pious to speak of two principles; but he does not presuppose this one here, as it contributes nothing to the present investigation. And this, as I think, he shows clearly here, but more clearly in what was written a little above, in which he says He is not only from the principle, but also under the principle, saying "the one under the other," which would not be the case for the creative principle; for that is the same.

(p. 402) Besides, if this signifies the creative [principle], one might say not only two, even if not correctly, but even more; for this principle is three-hypostatic; and being by nature, it is also common; and since it is common, how would the Spirit not also have this principle? And Elihu, conversing with Job on behalf of God's justice, saying, "the Spirit of the Lord that made me," does he not call the Spirit a creative principle? And the divine psalmist David, chanting that "by the word of the Lord the heavens were established," and "by the Spirit the powers of the heavens," does he not testify to the creative principle for the Spirit just as for the Son? If, therefore, because it is written "the principle from the principle," nothing prevents saying two principles, then because it is written that the Spirit is also creator, nothing prevents saying two creators; or because "by the word of God and by the Spirit creation is established"—which is the same as saying is constituted—nothing prevents saying three principles. But nowhere did any of the theologians say either two or three; for just as we say each of those adorable hypostases is God and each is God from God, but never on account of this three or two gods, so also we say principle from principle, but never two principles; for to this day we have not yet heard of a second principle from the pious, just as we have not of a second God. But for us there is one God and the worshipped is a monarchy, not coming together from two gods, nor from two principles, and the revered is one for us, since it is not divisible according to these; and indeed it is not divided and brought together according to the same thing; for it is divided by the hypostatic properties, but united by the things according to nature. If, then, nothing prevents saying two principles, then these are the things by which it is divided; therefore it is impossible for them to be united again according to these; therefore the two are not one. Therefore, the one who says two principles concerning

77

δογματίζοντες αὐτό. Οἱ δ᾿ "οὐ", φασιν, "εἷς γάρ Θεός καί ὡς ἐξ ἑνός ἡ πρόοδος", κακῷ τό κακόν φεῦ ἰώμενοι, μᾶλλον δέ καί χείρονι, ὡς φανερόν ἔσται προϊόντος τοῦ λόγου. Ὁ δέ μεταξύ λέγων ἐπιφέρει, ἴσως ἄν τις ὑπέρ ταύτης ἀπολογούμενος τῆς δόξης, (σελ. 400) τουτέστι τῶν δύο ἀρχάς δοξαζόντων τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος, εἴποι μηδέν ἄτοπον εἶναι, εἴ τις δύο μέν ἀρχάς λέγει, τόν Πατέρα δηλονότι καί τόν Υἱόν, μή μέντοιγε ἀντιδιῃρημένας μηδέ ἀντιθέτους ἀλλήλαις, ἀλλά τήν ἑτέραν ὑπό τήν ἑτέραν ἤ ἐκ τῆς ἑτέρας. Προϊών δέ ἐπιβεβαιοῖ μηδαμόθεν ἔχειν τό ἄτοπον τήν δόξαν ταύτην, μάρτυρα παράγων τόν ἐν θεολογίᾳ πολύν Γρηγόριον λέγοντα περί τοῦ Υἱοῦ˙ «ἡ ἐκ τῆς ἀρχῆς ἀρχή». Καί αὐτός δ᾿ οἴκοθεν ἀποδεικνύς τό τῆς δόξης ταύτης ἀσφαλές, προκατασκευάζει λέγων˙ «σώζεται γάρ οὕτω γε τό τῆς μοναρχίας δόγμα». Καί ἐπ᾿ ἐκεῖνο δέ τοῦ λόγου γενόμενος, ἐφ᾿ ὅ τῶν παραδεδομένων ἡμῖν περί Θεοῦ τά συντείνοντα τῇ διαλέξει καταλέγει, προϋποθέμενος ὡς μίαν φύσιν ἀνομολοῦμεν ἐπί τοῦ Θεοῦ, τρεῖς δέ ὑποστάσεις, καί ὡς ἕτερα τά φυσικά τῶν ὑποστατικῶν, ἐπιφέρει λέγων καθ᾿ ὑπόθεσιν καί τοῦτο ἀνωμολογημένην ὡς οὐ δύο ἀρχαί οὕτως ὡς μή ἔχειν τήν ὑπαρξιν τήν ἑτέραν ἐκ τῆς ἑτέρας, ὡς ἀσεβές ὄν οὕτω δύο λέγειν ἀρχάς ἐπί Θεοῦ. Καί γάρ καί αὐτός αὖθις προστίθησιν˙ «ἴσως οὕτω γε οὐδέν κωλύει» ὥς φησιν ὁ Θεολόγος, «ἡ ἐκ τῆς ἀρχῆς ἀρχή», καί δείκνυσιν οἰόμενος ἐκ τῶν τοιούτων λόγων καί δι᾿ ἄλλων μεταξύ διαλεγόμενος μή δυσσεβές εἶναι λέγειν ἀρχήν καί τόν Υἱόν τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος, ὡς καί αὐτόν ἐξ ἀρχῆς ὄντα, εἰ καί ἀρχή ἐστι. Καί μήν οὐδέ ἐπί τῆς δημιουργικῆς ἀρχῆς, καθ᾿ ἥν καί ὁ Υἱός φανερῶς ἀρχή παρά τῆς Γραφῆς καλεῖται, δύο λέγειν εὐσεβές ἀρχάς˙ ἀλλ᾿ οὐ ταύτην ἐνταυθοῖ προϋποτίθεται, μηδέν συντελοῦσαν πρός τήν προκειμένην σκέψιν. Καί τοῦτο σαφῶς μέν, ὡς ἐγᾦμαι, κἀνταῦθα δείκνυσι, σαφέστερον δέ ἐν τοῖς μικρόν ἀνωτέρω γεγραμμένοις, ἐν οἷς οὐκ ἐκ τῆς ἀρχῆς αὐτόν μόνον λέγει, ἀλλά καί ὑπό τήν ἀρχήν, τήν ἑτέραν ὑπό τήν ἑτέραν 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