79

clearly expressed by the divinely-inspired oracles. When, therefore, you hear that the Son is "the beginning from the beginning" and "the one calling him a beginning from generations" (p. 408) and "with you is the beginning in the day of your power," understand this to mean of created things, just as John also clearly cries out concerning him in the Apocalypse, "the beginning of the creatures of God," not as a starting-point, far from it, for He is God, but as their creator; for He is a partaker of the paternal beginning from which these things are, according to which this is also the name of the dominion over all things. But how could one say that the Son is the beginning of the Spirit in this sense, unless the Spirit is also a slave or a creature? But since the Spirit is God, the Son is not His beginning in this respect, unless perhaps as the beginning of divinity. But if the Son is the beginning of the divinity of the Holy Spirit, but it is impossible for Him to share in it with the Father, for "the Father alone" has been theologized as "fount of divinity," then the Son is the beginning of some other, different divinity, and He has torn the Spirit away from the divinity that springs forth from the Father; or shall we assign two different divinities to this one, while confessing one divinity for the three?

And how are the two beginnings of the one Spirit, according to the Latins, one beginning? For they will not demand that we accept their propositions by faith, but let them not answer sophistically either, giving one answer in place of another. For when we ask how, according to them, there are two beginnings of the one Spirit, they insist that the beginning of the two is one. But we are not asking about the two persons, but about the one, and concerning this we rather make our argument to them, that since the beginning of the two is rightly one, how will there be two beginnings of the one, and how are the two one, according to them? So they say: "because the one is from the other." What then of Seth? Was he born from one beginning because Eve was from Adam, and are there not two beginnings of this one, because the one is from the other? And what of Eve? (p. 410) Is she not a second beginning of those from her, because she also had her beginning from Adam? And yet the generative power is in them both, but it is also different and in different hypostases; wherefore these beginnings are not one, even though the one is from the other. If, then, here, where, even if not one, the generative power is nevertheless in both, it is not possible for the beginning of the one to be one, how in the most high Trinity are the two beginnings of the one Holy Spirit one, in which there is in no way a sharing in what is God-begetting? for the Father alone has been theologized as "God-begetting divinity." Again, Eve, being from Adam alone, is from one beginning, but Adam is from the earth, but not because of this is Eve from the earth and from Adam; for Adam alone is from the earth. Either, then, let them also say that the Spirit is from the Son alone, and thus let them say He is from one beginning, but not from the same one from which the Son is, and hence again there are two beginnings in the Godhead and the Father is no longer greater than the Son by cause, for He is equally a cause of divinity, or, saying He is from the Father alone, let them piously grant one beginning 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 beginning of the divinity of the one Spirit. For one who conjoins in such matters, even if he should say the beginning is one, it would be homonymously, so that it is not one; but if one, dividing, looks at the divine hypostases one by one, of the one there are of necessity manifestly two beginnings.

And it occurs to me to marvel also at the exceeding folly of those who both say and suppose that these two beginnings, as they say, are one. For if the Son shares with the Father in what is God-begetting, projecting the Spirit, and what is God-begetting and this procession from them is one for them, then this is of the nature and there are not two beginnings, nor are the two one, (p. 412) but simply one, and the Spirit Itself is alienated from the divine nature, lest also

79

θεοπνεύστων λογίων τρανῶς ἐκπεφασμένον. Ὅταν οὖν ἀκούσῃς ὅτι ὁ Υἱός «ἡ ἐκ τῆς ἀρχῆς ἀρχή» καί «ὁ καλῶν αὐτόν ἀπό γενεῶν ἀρχήν» (σελ. 408) καί «μετά σοῦ ἡ ἀρχή ἐν ἡμέρᾳ τῆς δυνάμεώς σου», τῶν δημιουργημάτων νόει, καθάπερ καί Ἰωάννης ἀριδήλως ἐν τῇ Ἀποκαλύψει περί αὐτοῦ βοᾷ, «ἡ ἀρχή τῶν κτισμάτων τοῦ Θεοῦ», οὐχ ὡς καταρχή, ἄπαγε, Θεός γάρ, ἀλλ᾿ ὡς δημιουργός αὐτῶν˙ κοινωνός γάρ ἐστι τῆς ἐξ ἧς ταῦτα πατρικῆς ἀρχῆς, καθ᾿ ἥν καί τῶν πάντων δεσποτείας αὕτη ἐστίν ἐπώνυμον. Τοῦ δέ Πνεύματος τόν Υἱόν ἀρχήν ἐπί τῆς σημασίας ταύτης, πῶς ἄν φαίη τις, εἰ μή καί τό Πνεῦμα δοῦλον ἤ κτιστόν; Ἀλλ᾿ ἐπεί Θεός τό Πνεῦμα, οὐκ ἀρχή αὐτοῦ κατά τοῦτο ὁ Υἱός, εἰ μή ἄρα ὡς θεοτητος ἀρχή. Εἰ δέ τῆς τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος θεότητος ὁ Υἱός ἐστιν ἀρχή, κοινωνεῖν δέ κατ᾿ αὐτήν τῷ Πατρί ἀμήχανον, «μόνος» γάρ τεθεολόγηται «πηγαία θεότης Πατήρ», ἑτέρας ἄρα διαφόρου τινος θεότητος ὁ Υἰός ἐστιν ἀρχή καί διέσπασε τό Πνεῦμα τῆς παγαζούσης ἐκ Πατρός θεότητος˙ ἤ διά δύο διαφόρους θεότητας δώσωμεν τούτῳ τῷ ἑνί, καί τοῖς τρισί μίαν ἀνομολογοῦντες θεότητα;

Πῶς δέ καί αἱ δύο κατά Λατίνους τοῦ ἑνός Πνεύματος ἀρχαί μία ἐστίν ἀρχή; Οὐ γάρ ἀξιώσουσιν ἡμᾶς πίστει δέχεσθαι τούτων τά προβλήματα, ἀλλά μηδέ σοφιστικῶς ἀποκρινέσθωσαν, ἄλλην ἀντ᾿ ἄλλης ποιούμενοι τήν ἀπόκρισιν. Ἡμῶν γάρ ἐρωτώντων πῶς δύο κατ᾿ αὐτούς τοῦ ἑνός Πνεύματος ἀρχαί, μίαν ἐκεῖνοι διισχυρίζονται τῶν δύο εἶναι τήν ἀρχήν. Ἡμεῖς δέ οὐ περί τῶν δύο προσώπων ἐρωτῶμεν, ἀλλά περί τοῦ ἑνός, καί περί τούτου μᾶλλον πρός αὐτούς ποιούμεθα τόν λόγον ὡς ἐπεί τῶν δύο μία ἡ ἀρχή καλῶς, πῶς τοῦ ἑνός δύο ἔσονται ἀρχαί καί πῶς αἱ δύο μία κατ᾿ αὐτούς; Φασίν οὖν˙ «διότι ἡ μία ἐστίν ἐκ τῆς ἑτέρας». Τί οὖν Σήθ; Ἐκ μιᾶς ἆρα γεγέννηται ἀρχῆς ὅτι ἡ Εὔα ἦν ἐκ τοῦ Ἀδάμ, καί οὐ δύο εἰσί τούτου τοῦ ἑνός ἀρχαί, ὅτι ἡ μία ἐστίν ἐκ τῆς ἑτέρας; Τί δέ ἡ Εὔα; (σελ. 410) Οὐ δευτέρα ἀρχή τῶν ἐξ αὐτῆς, ὅτι καί αὐτή τήν ἀρχήν ἔσχεν ἐξ Ἀδάμ; Καίτοι ἀμφοῖν τό γόνιμον αὐτοῖς, ἀλλά καί διάφορον καί ἐν διαφόροις ὑποστάσεσι˙ διόπερ οὐδέ μία ἐστίν αὗται αἱ ἀρχαί, καίτοι ἡ μία ἐστίν ἐκ τῆς ἑτέρας. Εἰ γοῦν ἐνταῦθα, οὗ, εἰ καί μή ἕν, ὅμως ἐστί τό γόνιμον ἀμφοῖν, οὐκ ἔνι τοῦ ἑνός μίαν εἶναι τήν ἀρχήν, πῶς ἐπί τῆς ἀνωτάτω Τριάδος αἱ δύο τοῦ ἑνός ἁγίου Πνεύματος μία εἰσίν ἀρχαί, ἐν ᾗ μηδαμῶς ἐστι κατά τό θεογόνον κοινωνία; μόνος γάρ τεθεολόγηται «θεότης θεογόνος» ὁ Πατήρ. Πάλιν ἡ Εὔα, ἐκ μόνου οὖσα τοῦ Ἀδάμ, ἐκ μιᾶς ἐστιν ἀρχῆς, ὁ δέ Ἀδάμ ἐκ γῆς ἐστιν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ παρά τοῦτο ἡ Εὔα ἐκ τῆς γῆς καί τοῦ Ἀδάμ˙ ὁ γάρ Ἀδάμ μόνος ἐκ τῆς γῆς. Ἤ τοίνυν καί αὐτοί ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ μόνου λεγέτωσαν τό Πνεῦμα, καί οὕτως αὐτό ἐκ μιᾶς ἀρχῆς λεγέτωσαν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ ἐκ τῆς αὐτῆς, ἀφ᾿ ἧς καί ὁ Υἱός, κἀντεῦθεν πάλιν δύο εἰσίν ἐπί τῆς θεότητος ἀρχαί καί οὐκ ἔτ᾿ ἐστί μείζων ὁ Πατήρ τῷ 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