contradicting, or both theologians in accordance with them? By no means. Therefore, according to you, we shall strike this one or those ones from the choir of the orthodox. But what, since the evangelical and apostolic sayings are thus and thus clarify the things of the Spirit, as we have demonstrated before, shall we not in every way reconcile what seems to be in disagreement with the concept of piety revealed through them? And if we are unable to restore any of the patristic sayings to that meaning, shall we not leave it aside, as being unable to comprehend it, and continue holding no less to the confessed piety? It is surely clear to everyone that in every way we shall attend to the concepts of piety proclaimed by the evangelical and apostolic sayings.

Come now, let us however attempt to show that the patristic sayings put forth by the Latins in support of their opinions are orthodox with respect to these. And if we are able to sufficiently resolve the apparent contradiction, thanks be to God who has provided even to us, who lie in the extremities of ignorance and are far from the impassive life, knowledge to advocate for the truth in (p. 254). But if we should not be able to render such an account in all respects, may someone who is perfect in Christ and wise in divine and spiritual things, having approved our purpose, himself from himself teach the better argument, desiring and being a disciple as much as possible, and supplying what is lacking in us, may he more eloquently put to shame those who try to deduce from these things what is contrary to piety.

Tell me then, who are they and what are the things said by them; for it is impossible that all the God-bearers should not agree with each other and with Christ the God of the God-bearers, since their inspiration is one from the one Spirit of Christ; and besides this, this Damascene is after almost all of them and was taught by all of them, and he himself witnesses to his agreement with them, saying not "I say" but "we say," and through himself he also presents them to us as nowhere saying that the Spirit exists from the Son. But you seem to me, not grasping the style of their magnanimity, to think such things about them. For indeed the Father is called by all the first cause, but you have heard how it is said; and the great Athanasius said that the Holy Spirit shines forth from the Word, but you have heard how he said it; and we call the Son the image of the Father, and the Spirit the image of the Son, but you have heard how we say it; and they have clearly shown very many other things, which seem to be for you, but are consonant with us, not you. And the Spirit will give us utterance in the opening of our mouth also in what follows.

But who is it that says that the Son also has procession? Gregory himself, they say, who has the epithet of Theologian; "for," he says, "the Son has all things of the Father, except unbegottenness." Since therefore He has all things of the Father except only unbegottenness, how could He not also have procession? Truly they are not of the Spirit speaking in him (p. 256); for if they were, they would not have falsified such things against the saint, who says, "and whatever things are said more humbly by the Son concerning the Holy Spirit must be referred to the first cause, so that 'from whom' may be shown." What then is the first cause? Is it not the Father alone? "But he also says that the Son has all things of the Father without the cause, that is, without His also being a cause of the Godhead." For he always proclaims one cause in God and one principle, the unbegotten Father, and he knows the monadic to be divine. And for this reason he says, "to us there is one God, because the things from Him have their reference to one cause," not saying the Son is from God from them, and the Holy Spirit God from God. And through a median God from God, he does not glorify a subsisting God—away with the blasphemy—but created things; on which account he also posits the Father as the first cause, saying in the second of his Irenics, "inasmuch as God is more honorable

ἐναντιουμένας ἤ τούς κατ᾿ αὐτάς θεολόγους ἀμφοτέρους; Ἥκιστα. Οὐκοῦν τοῦτον ἤ ἐκείνους διαγράψομεν τοῦ χοροῦ τῶν ὀρθοδόξων κατά σέ. Τί δέ, τῶν εὐαγγελικῶν καί ἀποστολικῶν ρημάτων οὕτως ἐχόντων καί οὕτω διευκρινούντων τά τοῦ Πνεύματος, καθά προαπεδείξαμεν, οὐ τῇ δι᾿ αὐτῶν πεφανερωμένῃ τῆς εὐσεβείας ἐννοίᾳ παντί τρόπῳ συμβιβάσομεν τό δοκοῦν διαφωνεῖν; Ἄν δέ τι καί μή δυνηθῶμεν τῶν πατερικῶν ρημάτων πρός ἐκείνην ἀποκαταστῆσαι τήν διάνοιαν, οὐκ αὐτό μέν ἀφῶμεν, ὡς μή συνεῖναι δυνηθέντες, τῆς δέ ἀνωμολογημένης εὐσεβείας οὐδέν ἧττον ἀντεχόμενοι διατελέσωμεν; Παντί που δῆλον, ὡς πᾶσι τρόποις ταῖς ἀνακεκηρυγμέναις ὑπό τῶν εὐαγγελικῶν καί ἀποστολικῶν ρημάτων τῆς εὐσεβείας προσέξομεν ἐννοίαις.

Φέρε δ᾿ ὅμως ὀρθοδόξους ἀναδεῖξαι πρός αὐτάς ἐπιχειρήσωμεν τάς ὑπό Λατίνων ὑπέρ τῶν δοκούντων σφίσι προτεινομένας πατερικάς φωνάς. Κἄν μέν διαρκῶς διαλῦσαι σχῶμεν τήν πρός τό φαινόμενον ἀντίθεσιν, τῷ Θεῷ χάρις τῷ καί τοῖς ἐν ἐσχατιαῖς ἡμῖν κειμένοις τῆς ἀγνοίας καί τῆς ἀπαθοῦς ζωῆς ἀπῳκισμένοις γνῶσιν συνήγορον τῆς ἐν (σελ. 254) τῷ ἀληθείας παρασχόντι. Εἰ δ᾿ ἄρα μή τοιοῦτον ἀποδοῦναι κατά πάντα σχοίημεν τόν λόγον, εἴ τις ἐν Χριστῷ τέλειος καί σοφός τά θεῖα καί πνευματικά, τῆς προαιρέσεως ἡμᾶς ἀποδεξάμενος, αὐτός παρ᾿ ἑαυτοῦ τόν κρείττω λόγον διδασκέτω, ποθοῦντας καί μαθητιῶντας ὅτι μάλιστα καί τό ἐνδέον ἡμῶν ἀναπληρῶν ἐντρεπέτω λεγεώτερον τούς τἀναντία τῇ εὐσεβείᾳ συνάγειν ἐκ τούτων πειρωμένους.

Εἰπέ δη, τίνες καί τί τά παρ᾿ ἐκείνων εἰρημένα˙ τῶν γάρ ἀδυνάτων ἐστί μή ὁμολογεῖν ἀλλήλοις ἅπαντας τούς θεοφόρους καί Χριστῷ τῷ Θεῷ τῶν θεοφόρων, μιᾶς αὐτοῖς ἐκ τοῦ ἑνός Πνεύματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ τῆς ἐπιπνοίας οὔσης˙ πρός δέ τούτῳ καί μετ᾿ ἐκείνους σχεδόν ἅπαντας οὗτος ὁ ∆αμασκηνός ἐστι καί ὑπ᾿ ἐκείνων ἁπάντων ἐδιδάχθη καί αὐτός ἑαυτῷ μαρτυρεῖ τήν πρός ἐκείνους συμφωνίαν, οὐ "λέγω" λέγων, ἀλλά "λέγομεν", καί δι᾿ ἑαυτοῦ κἀκείνους παρίστησιν ἡμῖν οὐδαμοῦ ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα λέγοντας καθ᾿ ὕπαρξιν. Ὑμεῖς δ᾿ ἐοίκατέ μοι τοῦ τῆς αὐτῶν μεγαλονοίας ὕφους μή ἐφικνούμενοι τοιαῦτ᾿ εἴεσθαι περί αὐτῶν. Καί γάρ καί πρῶτον αἴτιον λέγεται παρά πάντων ὁ Πατήρ, ἀλλ᾿ ἤκουσας ὡς λέγεται˙ καί ὁ μέγας Ἀθανάσιος παρά τοῦ Λόγου τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον ἐκλάμπειν εἶπεν, ἀλλ᾿ ἤκουσας ὡς εἶπε˙ καί εἰκόνα Πατρός μέν Υἱόν, Υἱοῦ δέ τό Πνεῦμα λέγομεν, ἀλλ᾿ ἤκουσας ὡς λέγομεν˙ καί πλεῖσθ᾿ ἕτερα, δοκοῦντα πρός ὑμῶν, ἡμῖν ἀλλ᾿ οὐχ ὑμῖν συμβαίνοντα καθαρῶς ἀναπεφήνασι. ∆ώσει δέ τό Πνεῦμα κἀν τοῖς ἑξῆς λόγον ἐν ἀνοίξει τοῦ στόματος ἡμῶν.

Ἀλλά τίς ὁ λέγων ὡς καί τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό ἐκπορεύειν ἔνι; Αὐτός, φασί, Γρηγόριος ὁ τό θεολογεῖν ἐπωνυμίαν ἔχων˙ «πάντα γάρ», φησίν, «ἔχει ὁ Υἱός τά τοῦ Πατρός, πλήν τῆς ἀγεννησίας». Ἐπεί τοίνυν χωρίς μόνης τῆς ἀγεννησίας ἔχει ἅπαντα τά τοῦ Πατρός, πῶς οὐκ ἄν ἔχοι καί τό ἐκπορεύειν; Ὄντως οὐκ εἰσι τοῦ Πνεύματος τοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ (σελ. 256) λαλοῦντος˙ εἰ γάρ ἦσαν, οὐκ ἄν τοῦ ἁγίου τοιαῦτα κατεψεύδοντο, ὅς «καί ὅσα περί τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος», φησί, «ταπεινότερα παρά τοῦ Υἱοῦ λέγεται ἐπί τήν πρώτην αἰτίαν ἀνακτέον, ἵνα τό ἐξ οὗ δειχθῇ». Τίς οὖν ἡ πρώτη αἰτία; Οὐχί μόνος ὁ Πατήρ; «Ἀλλά καί πάντα ἔχειν τόν Υἱόν τά τοῦ Πατρός φησίν ἄνευ τῆς αἰτίας, τοῦ αἴτιον εἶναι δηλονότι καί αὐτόν θεότητος». Ἕν γάρ οὗτος αἴτιον ἐπί Θεοῦ καί μίαν ἀρχήν ἀεί κηρύττει, τόν ἀγέννητον Πατέρα, καί θεϊκόν οἶδε τόν μοναδικόν. Καί διά τοῦτό φησιν, «ἡμῖν εἷς Θεός, ὅτι πρός ἕν αἴτιον τά ἐξ αὐτοῦ τήν ἀναφοράν ἔχει», οὐ τό ἐξ αὐτῶν λέγων ἐκ Θεοῦ τόν Υἱόν, καί Θεόν ἐκ Θεοῦ τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον. ∆ιά μέσου δέ Θεοῦ ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, οὐ Θεόν ὑφιστάμενον δοξάζει, ἄπαγε τῆς βλασφημίας, ἀλλά τά κτιστά˙ καθ᾿ ὅ καί πρῶτον αἴτιον τίθεται τόν Πατέρα λέγων ἐν τῷ δευτέρῳ τῶν Εἰρηνικῶν ὡς, «ὅσῳ τιμιώτερον Θεός