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

Come now, however, let us attempt to show to be orthodox, in relation to them, the patristic statements proposed by the Latins in favor of what seems right to them. And if we are able to sufficiently resolve the apparent contradiction, thanks be to God, who has granted, even to us who lie in the last extremities of ignorance and are far removed from the passionless life, a knowledge that advocates for the truth contained (p. 254) therein. But if, then, we should not be able to render such an account in all things, let anyone who is perfect in Christ and wise in divine and spiritual things, having accepted our intention, himself teach from himself the better argument, and by filling up what is lacking in us, since we desire and are most eager to learn, let him more sharply put to shame those who try to deduce from these things what is contrary to piety.

Tell me, now, who they are and what are the things said by them; for it is among the impossible things for all the God-bearers not to agree with one another and with Christ the God of the God-bearers, since for them there is one inspiration from the one Spirit of Christ; and in addition to this, this Damascene is also after almost all of them and was taught by all of them, and he himself bears witness 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 is from the Son according to existence. But you seem to me to be unable to grasp the style of their magnanimity, to think such things about them. For the Father is also called the first cause by all, 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 say the Son is the image of the Father, and the Spirit of the Son, but you have heard how we say it; and very many other things, which seem to be on your side, they have clearly revealed as agreeing with us, but not with you. And the Spirit will give us utterance in the opening of our mouth in what follows as well.

But who is it that says that the power to cause procession also belongs to the Son? He himself, they say, Gregory who has the surname of Theologian: "for," he says, "the Son has all the things of the Father, except for unbegottenness." Since, therefore, he has all the things of the Father except for unbegottenness alone, how would he not also have the power to cause procession? Truly they are not of the Spirit who spoke (p. 256) in him; for if they were, they would not have fabricated such things against the saint, who says, "and whatever lesser things are said about the Holy Spirit by the Son must be referred to the first cause, so that the '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 the things of the Father without the cause, that is, without being himself also a cause of divinity." For he always preaches one cause in God and one principle, the unbegotten Father, and he knows the unique one 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 that the Son is from God, and the Holy Spirit is God from God, as from them. But through God from God, he does not glorify a subsisting God—away with the blasphemy!—but created things; for which reason he also posits the Father as the first cause, saying in the second of his Peace Orations that, "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