Georgius Acropolita, Against the Latins

he has established, against which the gates of Hades will never prevail, blasphemous mouths that know nothing but to belch out rotten words.

2.23 Some say the Son works through the Spirit or in the Spirit; if you hold to the thoughts I have mentioned, none of the scriptures will seem difficult to you, and the casting out of demons by the finger of God, since he has been named the arm, will be well known to you, and the giving of living water from the Son will be easily understood, and all such words will be precisely comprehended by you. Do you wish me also to pose a certain small question to you, having also taken the starting points from your own hypotheses? Do you say that the Holy Spirit proceeds in every way from the Father? "Certainly." And do you say this also from the Son? "Most certainly." And is the Father the cause, and the Son the caused? "Yes, certainly." Therefore, has the Spirit been established as a caused from a cause and a caused? "And this, certainly." From a prior and a posterior, then? But if you are annoyed by such terms, since there would not be a prior and a posterior in the Trinity, as the names imply time, but will you then accept the cause and the caused, and the immediate and the mediate? "Yes, very much so." If, then, these have been established as your hypotheses, and you confess and do not doubt at all, pay attention to what follows. Is it not a different statement to say from a cause and from a caused, and another to say from the immediate and from the mediate? It is certainly another, and so different, just as the Father is other and the Son is other, even if they are not one thing and another thing. This, then, we say, that is from a cause and from the immediate and from the first, that is to say from the Father, the Holy Spirit proceeds, ascribing such a term to the first cause, to the uncaused, to the immediate, which the Lord also has spoken. But to the second and caused and mediate, that is to say, to the Son, we do not grant this term, so that we may represent the difference of the persons and of the properties in them, but the other terms, so that we may demonstrate the otherness. Do you see how even according to your hypotheses, the procession with respect to the Son is harmful, and you are tripped up by your own propositions, while my position harms none of the established doctrines. But if you insist that the Spirit proceeds from the two as from one, you introduce a smearing together of the persons, both a contraction and a confusion—and where is such a thing in my statements?—so that both your doctrine of the Spirit from the Son may be preserved and ours not be shaken, I mean, that He does not proceed from him, that is, that He receives existence, being consubstantial with the Son, from the Father.

2.24 For this reason our church has not adopted the broad practice of saying in any way that the Holy Spirit is from the Son, but rather through the Son; for this represents the mediate and the relation, which he has toward him for his own manifestation. For the Holy Spirit would not be manifested otherwise, if not indeed through the Son. For having first from the Father a perfect existence, not with another something nor in another something, but as with the Son and in the Son, from there he has again appeared. The former, therefore, must be called procession, but the latter manifestation. For the Spirit's descent from heaven upon Jesus being baptized represents a great power of the thought. And by speaking thus, we keep the nature unconfused, the order well-formed, and the word of the Lord unchanged, and we come together with your thoughts.

2.25 If, then, among some of those who have theologized in Italy, the procession of the Spirit is found also with respect to the Son, the stumbling block must be resolved in this way, that because of the aforementioned concept, they used the term rather improperly, since if someone had asked them the things said before, they themselves also would have most readily agreed. And if some other, or even one of our own theologians, had spoken thus, he would have no other defense. But I think this also happened in another way. For since our theologians, from whom all have drawn, placed the terms of 'being manifested' and 'being bestowed', and also 'being sent forth' in their own writings, in the translation the trans-

ἐπήξατο, ἧς πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσι πώποτε, βλάσφημα στόματα καὶ μηδὲν εἰδότα ἢ λόγους ἀπερυγγάνειν σαθρούς.

2.23 ∆ιὰ πνεύματος ἄλλοι φησὶν ἐργάζεσθαι τὸν υἱὸν ἢ ἐν πνεύματι· εἰ τῶν εἰρημένων ἐξέχῃ μοι ἐννοιῶν, οὐδέν σοι ἄπορον τῶν λογίων φανήσεται, καὶ τὸ ἐν δακτύλῳ θεοῦ ἐκβάλλειν τὰ δαιμόνια, ἐπεὶ βραχίων ὠνόμασται, καλῶς σοι γνωσθήσεται, καὶ ἡ τοῦ ζῶντος ὕδατος δόσις παρὰ υἱοῦ εὐχερῶς νοηθήσεται, καὶ πάντα τὰ τοιαῦτα τῶν λόγων ἀκρι βῶς σοι καταληφθήσεται. θέλεις προβαλοῦμαί σοι καὶ αὐτὸς μικράν τινα τὴν ἐρώτησιν, ἐκ τῶν σῶν ὑποθέσεων προσει ληφὼς καὶ τὰς ἀφορμάς; φῂς πάντως ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἐκπορεύεσθαι; «πάνυ γε.» φῂς δὲ τοῦτο καὶ ἐκ τοῦ υἱοῦ; «μάλιστα.» αἴτιος δὲ ὁ πατήρ, αἰτιατὸς δὲ ὁ υἱός; «ναὶ πάντως.» οὐκοῦν ἐξ αἰτίου καὶ αἰτιατοῦ αἰτιατὸν τὸ πνεῦμα καθέστηκε; «καὶ τοῦτο πάντως.» ἐκ προτέρου γοῦν καὶ ὑστέρου; εἰ δὲ ταῖς τοιαύταις ἀσχάλλῃ φωναῖς, ἐπεὶ μὴ εἴη πρότερον καὶ ὕστερον ἐν τριάδι ὡς χρόνον τῶν ὀνο μάτων ὑπεμφαινόντων, ἀλλ' οὖν παραδέξῃ τὸ αἴτιον καὶ αἰτιατὸν καὶ τὸ ἄμεσον καὶ τὸ ἔμμεσον; «οὐχ ἥκιστά γε.» εἰ γοῦν ταῦτα ὑποθέσεις σαὶ καθεστήκασι καὶ ὁμολογεῖς καὶ οὐκ ἀμφιβάλλῃ καθάπαξ, πρόσχες τοῖς ἑπομένοις. οὐκ ἔστι διάφορος λόγος ἐξ αἰτίου λέγειν καὶ ἐξ αἰτιατοῦ, ἅτερος δὲ ἐξ ἀμέσου καὶ ἐξ ἐμμέσου; πάντως γε ἄλλος, καὶ τοσοῦτον ἄλλος, ὅσον καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἄλλος καὶ ὁ υἱὸς ἄλλος, κἂν οὐκ ἄλλο καὶ ἄλλο. τοῦτο γοῦν ἡμεῖς τὸ ἐξ αἰτίου καὶ ἐξ ἀμέσου καὶ ἐκ πρώτου, ταὐτὸ δὲ εἰπεῖν ἐκ πατρὸς ἐκπο ρεύεσθαι τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον λέγομεν, τῷ πρώτῳ αἰτίῳ, τῷ μὴ αἰτιατῷ, τῷ ἀμέσῳ τὴν τοιαύτην ἀνατιθέντες φωνήν, ἣν καὶ ὁ κύριος εἴρηκεν. τῷ δὲ δευτέρῳ καὶ αἰτιατῷ καὶ ἐμμέσῳ, ταὐτὸ δ' εἰπεῖν τῷ υἱῷ οὐ διδόαμεν ταύτην, ἵνα τὴν διαφορὰν τῶν προσώπων καὶ τῶν ἐν αὐτοῖς παραστή σωμεν ἰδιωμάτων, ἀλλὰ τὰς ἄλλας φωνάς, ἵνα τὸ ἕτερον ἀποδείξωμεν. ὁρᾷς ὅπως καὶ κατὰ τὰς σὰς ὑποθέσεις ἐπὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ ἡ ἐκπόρευσις βλαβερὰ κἀκ τῶν σῶν περισκελίζῃ προτάσεων, τὸ δὲ ἐμὸν οὐδέν τι τῶν κειμένων λυμαίνεται. εἰ δὲ βιάζῃ ὡς ἐξ ἑνὸς τῶν δύο τὸ πνεῦμα προβάλλει, συναλοιφὴν εἰσάγεις τῶν προσώπων συστολήν τε καὶ σύγχυ σιν-ποῦ δὲ τοιοῦτον ἐν τοῖς ἐμοῖς; -ὥστε καὶ τὸ σὸν φυλάττεσθαι δόγμα τὸ ἐξ υἱοῦ τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ἡμέτερον μὴ σαλεύεσθαι, λέγω δὴ τὸ μὴ ἐξ αὐτοῦ ἐκπορεύεσθαι, ἤγουν λαμβάνειν τοῦτο τὴν ὕπαρξιν ἅμα τῷ υἱῷ συνουσιω μένον ἐκ τοῦ πατρός.

2.24 Τούτου χάριν οὐδ' εἰς πλάτος εἴληφεν ἡ ἡμετέρα ἐκ κλησία ἐξ υἱοῦ ὁπωσοῦν λέγειν τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, ἀλλά γε δὴ δι' υἱοῦ· τοῦτο γὰρ τὸ ἔμμεσον παριστᾷ καὶ τὴν σχέσιν, ἣν ἔσχηκε πρὸς αὐτὸν εἰς οἰκείαν ἔκφανσιν. οὐ γὰρ ἂν ἄλλως ἐκφανήσεται τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον εἰ μὴ ἄρα γε δι' υἱοῦ. πρώτως γὰρ ἐκ πατρὸς τελείαν ἐσχηκὸς ὕπαρξιν οὐ σὺν ἄλλῳ τῳ οὐδ' ἐν ἄλλῳ τῳ ἀλλ' ὡς σὺν υἱῷ τε καὶ ἐν υἱῷ, ἐκεῖθεν αὖθις ἀνέφανεν. ἐκεῖνο μὲν οὖν ὀνο μαστέον ἐκπόρευσιν, τοῦτο δ' ἔκφανσιν. τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ κατιέναι τὸ πνεῦμα εἰς Ἰησοῦν βαπτιζόμενον πολλὴν παρίστησι τοῦ νοήματος τὴν ἐνέργειαν. φυλάττομεν δὲ οὕτω λέγοντες καὶ τὴν φύσιν ἀσύγχυτον καὶ τὴν τάξιν εὐτύ πωτον καὶ τὸν τοῦ κυρίου λόγον ἀμεταποίητον, καὶ τοῖς ὑμετέροις νοήμασι συνερχόμεθα.

2.25 Εἰ γοῦν ἐπί τισι τῶν θεολογησάντων ἐν Ἰταλοῖς εὑρίσ κεται καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ πνεύματος ἡ ἐκπόρευσις, οὕτω διαλυτέον τὸ πρόσκομμα, ὡς διὰ τὴν εἰρημένην ἔννοιαν καταχρηστικωτέρως οὗτοι ἐχρήσαντο τῇ φωνῇ, ἐπείπερ εἰ ἤρετό τις αὐτοὺς τὰ προλελεγμένα, εὐχερέστατα ἂν συνέφησαν καὶ αὐτοί. καὶ ἄλλος δέ τις ἢ καὶ αὐτῶν τῶν ἡμετέρων θεολόγων εἰ οὕτως εἰρήκει, οὐκ ἂν ἔχῃ ἑτέραν ἀπολογίαν. οἶμαι δὲ καὶ ἄλλως τοῦτο συμβῆναι. ἐπεὶ γὰρ οἱ ἡμέτεροι θεολόγοι, ἐξ ὧν οἱ πάντες ἠρύσαντο, τὰς τοῦ ἐκφαίνεσθαι καὶ χορηγεῖσθαι, ἔτι δὲ καὶ προΐεσθαι φωνὰς ἐν τοῖς σφετέ ροις συγγράμμασιν ἔθεντο, ἐν τῇ μεταγλωττήσει οἱ μετα