of the superessential divinity is the Father»; for he did not say, «the only source not 'from a source'», nor «one source rather», nor «the only source simply of all divinity». Therefore they do not follow what they themselves have conceded, but we make our arguments against them from what they themselves have conceded, not slanderously, as you yourself suppose, nor opposing them superficially.

With our example you attack all the things said paradigmatically by the fathers concerning God; for what will be found assimilated to that incomparable nature? But if it were even possible to find one, not even so would that be an example equating everything to the matter at hand; therefore, the example is one thing and that for which it has become an example is another, but not because it is another is it not an example, but if it were not another it would not be an example. But you judge our example from its differences and you again play the part of the Latins, reducing us to the greatest perplexity, as you yourself think, as if it depended on a turn of your tongue whether they theologize rightly or not; but do not think so; for many both before you and in your time, and whatever you may say, will convict them of heterodoxy.

And what of when we say that, if even each of the divine hypostases is separately called a cause and principle of beings, nonetheless the cause and principle of beings is one, but you say that this is true, but that it helps the Latins? Have you not unwittingly testified to the unassailability of their (p. 466) dogmas? For if the truth helps them, who will overturn those who are helped by the truth? For if you were to say, it seems to help, the argument would have some remedy; but now you write so clearly, that it is both true and helps their dogma. And what of when we say again that «since the Father brings forth all things through the Son in the Holy Spirit, the principle of all things is one», you yourself again add that the Latins too would say thus, that since the Father processes the Spirit through the Son, the principle of the divinity is therefore one? Do you grasp how unsound their dogmas are? But put aside your pride and you will be taught what is certain, or rather, you yourself will know this well from yourself; for I praise the one who said that humility is the knowledge of truth.

But how is it that those who say all things came to be from the Father through the Son, for this reason rightly profess one principle of all things, while to those who say the Spirit is from the Father through the Son, we by no means concede that they for this reason speak of one principle? Because in the one case the creative power is common, but in this case the divine generation is not common. But if the Latins say that this too is among the things said in common of the most high Trinity, we will refute them, both by putting forward the divinely-inspired Scriptures and, in addition, by showing that they from this profess two Spirits, in whom and which, and that they make the uncreated Trinity a tetrad; for in that case the hypostases that are brought forth are created, but in this case there will of necessity be a fourth, uncreated hypostasis; and if not, that of the Spirit will again be created, which is more akin to their arguments; for God came to creation through the midst of the divinity, but not to the divinity of the Spirit. And what you say is the most absurd of all, you have understood in an exceedingly strange way; and your firmness has been carried away by the homonymy of monarchy; for the manner of the creative principle and its monarchy (p. 468) is one, and that of the principle and monarchy which is named after the divine generation is another, which is preserved in that the Son and the Spirit have their existence from the Father, just as that one is preserved in that the Father is creator through the Son in the Holy Spirit, as also seems right to the God-wise Maximus and the other fathers, whom you, along with us, shamelessly contradict; be covered in shame; and

ὑπερουσίου θεότητος ὁ Πατήρ»˙ οὐδέ γάρ εἶπε «μόνη πηγή οὐκ "ἐκ πηγῆς", οὐδέ "μία μᾶλλον πηγή", οὐδέ "μόνη ἁπλῶς πάσης θεότητος πηγή". Ὥστε ἐκεῖνοι μέν τοῖς παρ᾿ ἑαυτῶν συγκεχωρημένοις οὐχ ἕπονται, ἡμεῖς δ᾿ ἀπό τῶν αὐτοῖς συγκεχωρημένων πρός αὐτούς τούς λόγους ποιούμεθα, μή συκοφαντικῶς, ὥς γε αὐτός οἴει, μηδέ παρά θύρας ἀπαντῶντες αὐτοῖς.

Τῷ δ᾿ ἡμῶν παραδείγματι συνεπιλαμβάνῃ πάντα τά τῶν πατέρων παραδειγματικῶς εἰρημένα περί Θεοῦ˙ τί γάρ πρός τήν ἀνείκαστον φύσιν ἐκείνην ἀφωμοιωμένον ἐξευρεθήσεται; Εἰ δ᾿ ἦν καί τυχεῖν, οὐδ᾿ οὕτως ἄν ἦν ἐκεῖνο παράδειγμα πάντα ἐξισάζον τῷ προκειμένῳ˙ ἄλλο μέν οὖν ἐστι τό παράδειγμα καί τό δι᾿ ὅ παράδειγμα γέγονεν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐχ ὅτι ἄλλο, οὐδέ παράδειγμα, ἀλλ᾿ εἰ μή ἄλλο οὐδέ παράδειγμα. Σύ δ᾿ ἀπό τῶν ἑτεροτήτων κρίνεις ἡμῖν τό παράδειγμα καί τούς Λατίνους αὖθις ὑποκρίνῃ πρός ἀπορίαν, ὥς γε αὐτός δοκεῖς, τήν μεγίστην καθιστῶντας ἡμᾶς, ὡς ἄν εἰ παρά τήν στροφήν σοι τῆς γλώττης ἦν, κακῶς ἤ μή κακῶς ἐκείνους θεολογεῖν˙ ἀλλά μή οὕτω νόμιζε˙ πολλοί γάρ καί πρό σοῦ καί ἐπί σοῦ καί σοῦ οἱαδήποτε λέγοντος κακοδόξους αὐτούς ἀπελέγξουσι.

Τί δ᾿ ὅταν ἡμεῖς μέν λέγωμεν ὡς, εἰ καί χωρίς ἑκάστη τῶν θεαρχικῶν ὑποστάσεων αἰτία καί ἀρχή λέγεται τῶν ὄντων, ἀλλ᾿ οὐδέν ἧττον μία ἐστίν ἡ αἰτία καί ἀρχή τῶν ὄντων, σύ δέ φῄς ἀληθές μέν εἶναι τοῦτο, τοῖς δέ Λατίνοις βοηθεῖν˙ ἆρ᾿ οὐχί τό ἀπερίτρεπτον τοῖς ἐκείνων (σελ. 466) δόγμασι λαθών ἐμαρτύρησας; Εἰ γάρ τό ἀληθές ἐκείνοις βοηθεῖ, τίς ὁ περιτρέψων τούς ὑπό τοῦ ἀληθοῦς βοηθουμένους; Εἰ μέν γάρ, δοκεῖ βοηθεῖν, ἔλεγες, εἶχεν ἄν τινα θεραπείαν ὁ λόγος˙ νῦν δέ σαφῶς οὑτωσί γράφεις, ὅτι καί ἀληθές ἐστι καί τῷ ἐκείνῳ δόγματι βοηθεῖ. Τί δ᾿ ὅτε πάλιν ἡμῶν λεγόντων ὡς «τοῦ Πατρός διά τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἐν ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι προάγοντος τά πάντα μία πάντων ἡ ἀρχή ἐστιν», αὐτός αὖθις ἐπιφέρεις ὡς καί Λατῖνοι γ᾿ ἄν οὕτω φαῖεν, ὡς τοῦ Πατρός διά τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἐκπορεύοντος τό Πνεῦμα, μία λοιπόν ἐστιν ἡ ἀρχή τῆς θεότητος; Ἆρα τό σαθρόν τῶν κατ᾿ἐκείνους δογμάτων ὅσον κατείληφας; Ἀλλά κατάθου τό φρόνημα καί μεταδιδαχθήσῃ τό ἀσφαλές, μᾶλλον δέ καί σύ παρά σαυτοῦ τοῦτ᾿εἴσῃ καλῶς˙ ἐπαινῶ γάρ τόν εἰπόντα τήν ταπείνωσιν ἀληθείας εἶναι ἐπίγνωσιν.

Ἀλλά πῶς οἱ μέν ἐκ Πατρός δι᾿ Υἱοῦ τά πάντα λέγοντες γενέσθαι, μίαν διά τοῦτο καλῶς δοξάζουσιν ἀρχήν τῶν πάντων, τοῖς δ᾿ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός διά τοῦ Υἱοῦ λέγουσι τό Πνεῦμα, μίαν ἀρχήν ἥκιστα συγχωροῦμεν διά τοῦτο λέγειν; Ὅτι ἐκεῖ μέν ἡ δημιουργική δύναμις κοινή, ἐνταῦθα δέ οὐ κοινόν τό θεογόνον. Εἰ δ᾿ οἱ Λατῖνοι καί τοῦτ᾿ ἐροῦσι τῶν κοινῶς ἐπί τῆς ἀνωτάτω Τριάδος λεγομένων, ἀλλ᾿ ἡμεῖς ἀπελέγξομεν αὐτούς, τάς τε θεοπνεύστους προβαλλόμενοι Γραφάς καί προσέτι δύο Πνεύματα δεικνύντες ἐντεῦθεν δοξάζοντας αὐτούς, ἐν ᾧ τε καί ὅ, καί τετράδα ποιοῦντας τήν ἄκτιστον Τριάδα˙ αἱ μέν γάρ προηγμέναι τῶν ὑποστάσεων ἐκεῖ κτισταί, ἐνταῦθα δ᾿ ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἔσται καί τετάρτη ἄκτιστος ὑπόστασις˙ εἰ δέ μή, κτιστή πάλιν ἔσται ἡ τοῦ Πνεύματος, ὅ καί συγγενέστερον τοῖς τούτων λόγοις˙ ἐπί γάρ τήν κτίσιν ἦλθε διά μέσης ὁ Θεός θεότητος, ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ ἐπί τήν θεότητα τοῦ Πνεύματος. Ὅ δέ φῄς πάντων ἀτοπώτατον, λίαν ἐκτόπως ἐνόησας˙ παρηνέχθη δέ σου ἡ στερρότης τῷ τῆς μοναρχίας ὁμωνύμῳ˙ τρόπῳ γάρ ἕτερος δημιουργικῆς ἐστιν ἀρχῆς καί τῆς κατ᾿ αὐτήν μοναρχίας (σελ. 468) καί τῆς ἀρχῆς καί μοναρχίας ἐκείνης ἕτερος, ἥ τῆς θεογονίας ἐστίν ἐπώνυμον, ὅς καί σώζεται τῷ τόν Υἱόν καί τό Πνεῦμα τήν ὕπαρξιν ἔχειν ἐκ Πατρός, ὥσπερ ἐκεῖνος τῷ δι᾿ Υἱοῦ ἐν ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι δημιουργόν εἶναι τόν Πατέρα, ὡς καί τῷ θεοσόφῳ Μαξίμῳ καί τοῖς ἄλλοις πατράσι συνδοκεῖ, οἷς αὐτός σύν ἡμῖν ἀπηρυθριασμένως ἀντιλέγων ἐγκαλύφθητι˙ καί