91

But the defense which he offers, although it is feeble and puts forward arguments of the Latins that have been refuted in many places and by ourselves as impossible to be refuted, we nevertheless accept it; for that on account of which it was rejected has served to fill its deficiency. But as for what you accuse us of, that we slander your kinsmen regarding the two principles, this too was done by us for your sake, you who are ungratefully disposed; for wishing to refute clearly the error, let it be concerning the wording as you yourself say (for it was not possible to be silent, for it was about God) so that blame might not attach to you, I deemed it necessary to turn the arguments toward them. For that they do not explicitly say two principles, my first discourse 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 it is inferred from what you do say?” Saying there, then, that they do not say this openly, how could I now (p. 462) be making the argument against them on this point, unless I was considering your harm and intending to obscure it as much as possible?

But indeed this argument is not completely without reason for me, nor is it a complete slander, as you thought, even if it were said directly to them; for do not think, as you are one of the Latins, that we are unmindful of their erroneous words and doctrines; but there are those who even now say this clearly, 'the two are one,' all those who are unstudied in our writings against them; and for a considerable time this was customary even for their most learned men, and their writings among us testify to this, saying the Son is a second principle of the Holy Spirit; therefore, one who says the Son is not only a principle, but also a second, does he not openly say two principles? But if they have now abandoned this, thanks be to our refutatory discourses that have silenced them, just as to Nikephoros by name, who appeared against them; for after his arguments against them, those of them who have some share of understanding no longer dare to speak of our perdition, as we speak of theirs.

That we ought to argue with them from what is conceded by them, I myself also agree; but as long as I hear one source, one principle, one God-begetting divinity, and those who say these things are revered also among the Latins, I argue with them from what is conceded by the Latins; for they have among them and honor as divinely inspired those who say these things about the Father of lights. But if they shall say in our presence that the Son is also God-begetting, we shall say to them that they are not advancing the argument according to what is conceded among them; but for us who construct arguments from this, the argument will not be outside of what is also conceded by them. But as for what you say, playing the part of them (p. 464) and contentiously seeking to justify them over us, that the Son, even if He is a source, is yet from a source, and is less of a source, and is a source 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 Father is the sole source of the super-essential divinity;” for he did not say “sole source not ‘from a source’,” nor “one source rather,” nor “sole source simply of all divinity.” So they do not follow what is conceded by themselves, but we make our arguments against them from what is conceded by them, not slanderously, as you think, nor meeting them at the doors.

But with our example you attack all the things said paradigmatically by the fathers concerning God; for what will be found that has been made like to that incomparable nature? But if it were possible to find one, not even so would it be that

91

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 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