to the cause of the Son, for he too is equally a cause of divinity, or in saying it is from the Father alone, let them piously grant one principle in the Spirit as also in the Son. For as long as they say from the Son or from both, but not from the Father alone, it is not possible for there to be one principle of the divinity of the one Spirit. For someone uniting these things, even if he should say the principle is one, it would be homonymously, so that it is not one; but if, distinguishing, he sees the divine hypostases as one, of the one, by necessity, two principles manifestly come to be.

It comes to me to marvel at the exceeding foolishness of those who both say and suppose these two principles, as they say, to be one. For if the Son communicates with the Father according to the God-begetting, projecting the Spirit, and the God-begetting is one for them and this procession from them, then this is of the nature and there are not two principles, nor are the two one, (p. 412) but simply one, and the Spirit itself is alienated from the divine nature, not itself also communicating according to the God-begetting. But if the Son does not communicate with the Father in this, and this projecting is not one for them, the procession of the Spirit is according to hypostasis to the Son. Therefore this is different from the procession of the Spirit from the Father; for the hypostatic properties are different. How then are the different principles one? And indeed when the great Basil writes in his chapters of refutation Against Eunomius, "all things that are common to the Father and the Son are also common to the Spirit," if to proceed is common to the Father and the 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 proceed is not common to the Father and the Son, as the Father, according to them, mediately, and the Son immediately causes the Spirit to proceed—for thus they say the Son has the projective power hypostatically—therefore, according to them, are creating and sanctifying and simply all natural things not common to the Father and the Son? Since the Father creates and sanctifies through the Son and creates and sanctifies through the medium of the Son, but the Son does not through a Son, therefore, according to them, the Son has creating and sanctifying hypostatically, for it is immediately and not as the Father mediately, and thus according to them the natural things differ in no way from the hypostatic ones. But if they should say the Son creates and sanctifies through the Spirit, but first, it is not customary for the theologians to say that the Son or the Father is creator of creatures through the Spirit, but in the Holy Spirit, then, besides their not thus escaping the absurdity shown above, for the Son again does not appear as creator through a Son just as the Father, it will happen for them to say that creating and sanctifying is not common to the Spirit (p. 414) also, as not acting through another, nor as the Father or even his Son energizes these things. According to them, therefore, the Spirit has creating and sanctifying hypostatically, as creating not mediately like the Father and the natural things are shown to be indifferent to the hypostatic ones; and if this is so, nature is also the same as and indifferent to the hypostases. Have not those who say and think these things thus clearly fallen away from the most high Trinity and from the unity of the faith and the communion of the Holy Spirit?

These things, then, are so. But we were taught by the fathers to reason in deed concerning such things, and one would not write of the Latins for this reason. That they reason neither demonstratively, as you yourself say, because they do not use the self-evident oracles as principles and axioms and do not follow well the God-wise fathers, nor dialectically, because they do not make their syllogisms from our own premisses, I would certainly say. But that there is no demonstration concerning any of the divine things and the things sought in the most high Trinity, but all syllogism concerning them is dialectical

αἰτίῳ τοῦ Υἱοῦ, ἐπίσης γάρ καί αὐτός αἴτιος θεότητος, ἤ ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρός αὐτό λέγοντες, μίαν ἐν τῷ Πνεύματι ὡς καί τῷ Υἱῷ εὐσεβῶς διδότωσαν ἀρχήν. Μέχρι γάρ ἄν ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἤ ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων λέγωσιν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρός, οὐκ ἔστι μίαν εἶναι τῆς θεότητος τοῦ ἑνός Πνεύματος ἀρχήν. Συνάπτων γάρ τις ἐπί τῶν τοιούτων, εἰ καί μίαν φαίη τήν ἀρχήν, ἀλλ᾿ ὁμωνύμως, ὥστε οὐ μία˙ εἰ δέ διαιρῶν κατά μίαν ὁρᾷ τάς θείας ὑποστάσεις, τῆς μιᾶς ἐξ ἀνάγκης δύο φανερῶς γίνονται ἀρχαί.

Ἐμοί δ᾿ ἔπεισι θαυμάζειν καί τό ὑπερβάλλον τῆς ἀνοίας τῶν τάς δύο ταύτας, ὥς φασιν, ἀρχάς μίαν λεγόντων τε καί οἰομένων. Εἰ μέν γάρ κοινωνεῖ τῷ Πατρί κατά τό θεογόνον ὁ Υἱός, προβαλλόμενος τό Πνεῦμα, καί ἕν αὐτοῖς τό θεογόνον καί ἡ ἐκ τούτων αὕτη πρόοδος, τῆς φύσεως ἄρα τοῦτο καί οὐ δύο εἰσίν ἀρχαί, οὐδ᾿ αἱ δύο μία, (σελ. 412) ἀλλ᾿ ἁπλῶς μία, καί ἀποξένωται τῆς θείας φύσεως αὐτό τό Πνεῦμα, μή καί αὐτό κατά τό θεογόνον κοινωνοῦν. Εἰ δέ μή κοινωνεῖ ὁ Υἱός κατά τοῦτο τῷ Πατρί, μηδέ ἕν αὐτοῖς τοῦτο τό προβάλλειν, καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν τῷ Υἱῷ ἡ πρόοδος τοῦ Πνεύματος. ∆ιάφορος ἄρα αὕτη τῆς ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός τοῦ Πνεύματος προόδου˙ τά γάρ ὑποστατικά διάφορα. Πῶς οὖν μία αἱ διάφοροι ἀρχαί; Καί μήν 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 ἐστι 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 κατ᾿ αὐτούς τά φυσικά τῶν ὑποστατικῶν διενήνοχεν οὐδέν. 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 Πνεύματι ἁγίῳ, 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 μή κοινόν ε ἶναι λέγειν καί τῷ Πνεύματι (σελ. 414) 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 ἀδιάφορα δείκνυται τοῖς ὑποστατικοῖς τά φυσικά˙εἰ δέ τοῦτο, καί ἡ φύσις ταῖς ὑποστάσεσι ταὐτόν τε καί ἀδιάφορον. Ἆρ᾿ οὐ σαφῶς τῆς ἀνωτάτω Τριάδος ἐκπεπτώκασι καί τῆς ἑνότητος τῆς πίστεως καί τῆς κοινωνίας τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος οἱ ταῦθ᾿ οὕτω λέγοντές τε καί φρονοῦντες;

Ταῦτα μέν δή ταύτῃ. Συλλογίζεσθαι δέ ἐπί τοῖς τοιούτοις ἔργῳ ὑπό τῶν πατέρων ἐδιδάχθημεν καί οὐδέ τούς Λατίνους γράψαιτ᾿ ἄν τις τούτου χάριν. Μήτε δ᾿ ἀποδεικτικῶς τούτους συλλογίζεσθαι, καθάπερ φῄς αὐτός, παρά τό μή τοῖς αὐτοπίστοις λογίοις ὡς ἀρχαῖς καί ἀξιώμασι χρῆσθαι καί τοῖς θεοσόφοις καλῶς ἕπεσθαι πατράσι, μήτε διαλεκτικῶς, διά τό μή ἐκ τῶν παρ᾿ ἡμῖν λημμάτων ποιεῖσθαι τούς συλλογισμούς, καί πάνυ γ᾿ ἄν φαίην. Μηδεμίαν δέ εἶναι ἀπόδειξιν ἐπ᾿ οὐδενός τῶν θείων καί τῶν ἐν τῇ ἀνωτάτω Τριάδι ζητουμένων, ἀλλά πάντα τόν περί αὐτῶν συλλογισμόν διαλεκτικόν