And here your error concerns the word, but not there concerning the word, but concerning arguments and many arguments, which you, having done well to remove them, have enumerated the ones that were erased, and you will understand how many. But nevertheless, if indeed the error for you revolved around the word, just as you yourself say, how much gratitude you ought to have known for us, who because of our respect for you and our own reverence, did not declare that you were in error, but by proposing a difficulty, we set you up as a teacher for ourselves, at least as far as it concerned us? But you, instead of teaching, attack and, owing gratitude for our reverence toward you, have repaid us with shamelessness and slander and abuse.

The defense which you propose, although it is feeble and puts forward things refuted in many places and by us ourselves of the Latins as things impossible to have been refuted, we nevertheless accept; for that for whose sake it was made, having been cast out, has served to make up for its deficiency. And as for the things you accuse us of, of slandering your countrymen regarding the two principles, this too was done by us for your sake, you who are ungratefully disposed: for wishing to refute the error clearly—let it be about the word as you yourself say (for it was not possible to be silent, for it was about God)—so that blame would not attach to you, I judged it necessary to divert the arguments to them. For that I know they do not openly say two principles, our first argument against them, which is among you, will testify, responding to them thus: «But what do you say, you who speak of two principles in the divinity? For what if you do not say this openly, but from what you do say this is inferred?» Therefore, saying there that they do not say this openly, how would I now (p. 462) be making the argument against them about this, if I were not intending, as far as possible, to obscure your mistake?

But in fact this argument is not entirely without reason for me, nor is it a complete slander, as you thought, even if it was spoken openly against them: for do not suppose, as being one of the Latins, that we are ignorant of their erroneous words and doctrines; but there are those who even now say this clearly, 'the two are one,' as many as are unpracticed in our writings against them; and for a considerable time this was common even among their most learned men, and their writings among us testify to this, saying the Son is a second principle of the Holy Spirit; therefore, the one who says the Son is not only a principle, but also a second one, does he not openly say two principles? And if now they have abandoned this, thanks be to our refutatory arguments which silenced them, as also to the one who appeared against them, Nicephorus by name; for after his arguments against them, those of them who have some share of understanding no longer dare to speak of us as lost, as we do of them.

And that we must argue against them from what is conceded by them, I myself also agree; but as long as I hear of one fount, one principle, one God-begetting divinity, and those who say these things are also revered among the Latins, I am arguing against them from what is conceded by the Latins; for they have among themselves and honor as divinely-inspired speakers those who say these things about the Father of lights. But if they also say in our presence that the Son is God-begetting, we will tell them that they are not conducting the argument according to what is conceded among them; but for us, arguing from this, the argument will not be outside of what is also conceded by them. But what you say, playing the part of them (p. 464) and contentiously trying to justify them over us, that the Son, even if a fount, is yet from a fount, and is a lesser fount, and is a fount only with respect to the other, these things we will concede neither to you nor to them, who think they speak consistently with themselves, as long as they use as a teacher the one who said 'the only fount of the

κἀνταῦθά σοι τό ἁμάρτημα περί τήν λέξιν ἐστίν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ κἀκεῖ περί λέξιν, περί δέ λόγους καί λόγους πολλούς, οὕς σύ καλῶς ποιήσας ἐξελών κατέλεξον τούς ἀπαληλειμμένους, καί συνήσεις ὁπόσους. Οὐ μήν ἀλλ᾿ εἴπερ ἄρα καί εἰς λέξιν σοι περιίστατο, καθάπερ αὐτός φής, τό ἁμάρτημα, πόσην εἰδέναι σε χάριν ἡμῖν ἐχρῆν, οἵ διά τό πρός σέ σέβας καί τήν γιγνομένην ἡμῖν εὐλάβειαν οὐχί σέ ἁμαρτάνειν ἀπεφηνάμεθα, προβαλλόμενοι δέ ἀπορίαν σέ διδάσκαλον ἡμῖν αὐτοῖς ἐπεστήσαμεν, τό γε εἰς ἡμᾶς ἧκον; Σύ δ᾿ ἀντί τοῦ διδάσκειν ἐπεξέρχῃ καί χάριν ὀφείλων τῆς πρός σέ εὐλαβείας, ἀναίδειαν καί διαβολήν καί λοιδορίαν ἡμῖν ἀνταπέδωκας.

Ἥν δ᾿ ἀπολογίαν προτείνῃ, καίτοι ψυχράν οὖσαν καί τά πολλαχοῦ καί παρ᾿ ἡμῶν αὐτῶν ἐξεληλεγμένα τῶν Λατίνων ὡς ἐξεληλέγχθαι ἀδυνάτως ἔχοντα προβαλλομένην, ὅμως δεχόμεθα˙ τήν γάρ ἔλλειψιν αὐτῆς τό δι᾿ ὅ γέγονεν ἐκβεβλημένον ἀναπληροῦν διαγέγονεν. Ἅ δέ κατηγορεῖς ἡμῶν ὡς τούς ὁμογενεῖς σοι διαβαλλόντων ἐπί τῶν δύο ἀρχῶν, σήν χάριν καί τοῦθ᾿ ἡμῖν γέγονε τόν ἀγνωμόνως διατεθέντα˙ τό γάρ ἡμαρτημένον, ἔστω δέ περί τήν λέξιν ὡς αὐτός φῄς, θέλων ἐξελέγξαι σαφῶς (σιωπᾶν γάρ οὐκ ἦν, περί Θεοῦ γάρ ἦν) ἵνα μή σοι προσάπτηται μέμψις, εἰς ἐκείνους δεῖν ἔγνων περιτρέψαι τούς λόγους. Ὅτι γάρ ἐκεῖνοι μή δύο ἀρχάς αὐτόθεν λέγουσιν εἰδέναι με, μαρτυρήσει παρ᾿ ὑμῖν ὤν ὁ πρῶτος πρός αὐτούς ἡμέτερος λόγος ἀπαντῶν πρός ἐκείνους οὕτως˙ «Ὑμεῖς δέ τί φατε οἱ τάς δύο λέγοντες ἐπί τῆς θεότητος ἀρχάς; Τί γάρ, εἰ μή φανερῶς τοῦτο λέγετε, ἀλλ᾿ ἐξ ὧν λέγετε τοῦτο συνάγεται»; Λέγων οὖν ἐκεῖ μή φανερῶς τοῦτο λέγειν αὐτούς, πῶς ἄν νῦν (σελ. 462) ὑπέρ τούτου πρός αὐτούς ἐποιούμην τόν λόγον, εἰ μή τό σόν βλάβος ὑπολογιζόμενος ὡς ἐνόν συσκιάσαι διενοούμην;

Ἀλλά μέν οὖν οὐδ᾿ ἔξω μοι λόγου παντελῶς οὗτος ὁ λόγος, οὐδέ διαβολή τελεία, ὥς γε ᾠήθης, εἰ καί αὐτόθεν πρός ἐκείνους ἐλέγετο˙ μή γάρ, ὡς ἀπό Λατίνων ὤν, ἀνεπιγνώμονας ἡμᾶς οἴου τῶν ἐκείνοις ἐσφαλμένων ρημάτων τε καί δογμάτων˙ ἀλλ᾿ εἰσί μέν οἵ καί νῦν τοῦτο λέγουσι σαφῶς αἱ δύο μία, ὅσοι τῶν πρός αὐτούς ἀπό τῶν ἡμετέρων ἀμελέτητοι συγγραμμάτων˙ πρός δέ χρόνον ἱκανῶν καί τοῖς ἐλλογιμωτάτοις αὐτῶν ἐπεχωρίαζε τοῦτο, καί μαρτυροῦσι τοῦτο τά παρ᾿ ἡμῖν ἐκείνων συγγράμματα δευτέραν λεγόντων ἀρχήν τόν Υἱόν τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος˙ ὁ τοίνυν λέγων τόν Υἱόν οὐκ ἀρχήν μόνον, ἀλλά καί δευτέραν, ἆρ᾿ οὐ δύο λέγει φανερῶς ἀρχάς; Εἰ δέ νῦν τοῦτ᾿ ἀφῆκαν, χάρις τοῖς κατασιγάσασιν αὐτούς ἀντιρρητικοῖς τῶν ἡμετέρων λόγοις, ὥσπερ καί τῷ κατ᾿ ἐπωνυμίαν Νικηφόρῳ πρός αὐτούς πεφηνότι˙ μετά γάρ τούς ἐκείνου πρός αὐτούς λόγους, οὐκέτι τολμῶσιν οἷς αὐτῶν μέτεστί πως συνέσεως τῆς ἀπωλείας λέγειν ἡμᾶς, ὥσπερ ἡμεῖς ἐκείνους.

Τό δέ ἀπό τῶν ἐκείνοις συγχωρουμένων δεῖν ἡμᾶς πρός αὐτούς διαλέγεσθαι, σύμφημι καί αὐτός˙ μέχρι δ᾿ ἄν μίαν πηγήν ἀκούω, μίαν ἀρχήν, μίαν θεογόνον θεότητα, καί τούς λέγοντας ταῦτα καί παρά Λατίνοις σεπτούς, ἀπό τῶν συγκεχωρημένων Λατίνοις πρός αὐτούς διαλέγομαι˙ παρ᾿ ἑαυτοῖς γάρ ἔχουσι καί τιμῶσι ὡς θεηγόρους τούς ταῦτα λέγοντας περί τοῦ τῶν φώτων Πατρός. Εἰ δέ καί τόν Υἱόν θεογόνον ἐφ᾿ ἡμῶν ἐροῦσιν, ἡμεῖς ἐροῦμεν ἐκείνοις μή κατά τά συγκεχωρημένα σφίσι προάγειν τόν λόγον˙ ἡμῖν δ᾿ ἀπό τούτου κατασκευάζουσιν οὐκ ἔξω τῶν κἀκείνοις συγκεχωρημένων ὁ λόγος ἔσται. Ἅ δέ σύ φῄς, ἐκείνους (σελ. 464) ὑποκρινόμενος κἀκείνους ὑπέρ ἡμᾶς δικαιῶσαι φιλονικῶν, ὡς ὁ Υἱός, εἰ καί πηγή, ἀλλ᾿ ἐκ πηγῆς, καί ὡς ἧττον πηγή καί ὡς πρός θάτερον μόνον πηγή, ταῦθ᾿ ἡμεῖς οὔτε σοί οὔτ᾿ ἐκείνοις συγχωρήσομεν ἀκολούθως ἑαυτόῖς οἰομένοις λέγειν, μέχρις ἄν διδασκάλῳ χρῶνται τῷ εἰπόντι «μόνη πηγή τῆς