92

an example always equalizing to the subject at hand. The example, then, is one thing, and that for which it has become an example is another; but it is not because it is another that it is not an example, but if it were not another, it would not be an example. But you judge for us the example from its othernesses, and again you play the part of the Latins to [our] confusion, as you yourself seem to think, placing us in the greatest difficulty, as if it were up to a turn of your tongue whether they theologize rightly or wrongly. 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, even if each of the divine hypostases is separately called cause and principle of beings, nonetheless the cause and principle of beings is one, but you say that this is true, but 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 had said, "it seems to help," the argument would have had some remedy; but now you write so clearly that it is both true and helps their dogma. And what of when we say again, "since the Father brings forth all things through the Son in the Holy Spirit, the principle of all things is one," you again add that the Latins too would say thus, that since the Father sends forth the Spirit through the Son, the principle of the Godhead is therefore one? Do you realize how unsound their dogmas are? But lay aside your pride and you will be taught what is secure; or rather, you 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, but to those who say the Spirit is from the Father through the Son, we by no means concede for this reason that they speak of one principle? Because in the former case the creative power is common, but in the latter the divine generation is not common. And if the Latins say this is also among the things commonly said of the highest Trinity, yet we will refute them, both by putting forward the divinely-inspired Scriptures and, in addition, by showing from this that they profess two Spirits, in which and which is, and that they make the uncreated Trinity a quaternity. For in that case the produced hypostases are created, but in this case there will of necessity also be a fourth uncreated hypostasis. And if not, the [hypostasis] of the Spirit will again be created, which is more akin to their arguments. For God came to creation through a mediate divinity, but not to the divinity of the Spirit. And what you say is most absurd of all, you have understood in a very strange way. But your firmness has been carried away by the homonymy of "monarchy". For the manner of the creative principle and its monarchy (p. 468) is different, and the manner of that other principle and monarchy, which is named from the divine generation, is different, and this is preserved by the Son and the Spirit having their existence from the Father, just as that one is preserved by the Father being creator through the Son in the Holy Spirit, as it seems also to the wise in God Maximus and the other fathers, whom you yourself, along with us, shamelessly contradicting, are covered in shame. And so in no way is either manner naturally destructive to the other.

That it is not for you to speak about God as "what light is, or rather a source of intellectual and immaterial light," this you have said truly. But how will you hear, how will you understand, how will you believe, you who in your discourse to us call the pagan wise men marvelous and seers of God and enlightened, and those who believe them marvelous and enviable and reverent, which is why you do not call them pagans but, dignifying them, ancient wise men, while those among us through the keeping of the divine commandments and the

92

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 γοῦν κατ᾿ οὐδέν ἄτερος θατέρῳ τρόπῳ λυμαίνεσθαι πέφυκεν.

Ὅτι δ᾿ οὐ σόν ἐστι περί Θεοῦ λέγειν ὡς «οἷον φῶς ἐστι, μᾶλλον δέ πηγή φωτός νοεροῦ τε καί ἀΰλου», τοῦτο ἀληθές εἴρηκας˙ ἀκούσεις δέ πῶς, συνήσεις δέ πῶς, πιστεύσεις δέ πῶς, ὅς γε τούς μέν ἔξω σοφούς θαυμασίους καί θεόπτας καί πεφωτισμένους ὀνομάζεις ἐν τῷ πρός ἡμᾶς σου λόγῳ καί τούς αὐτοῖς πιστεύοντας θαυμαστούς καί ζηλωτούς καί αἰδήμονας, διό οὐδ᾿ ἔξω, ἀλλά παλαιούς σοφούς ἀποκαλεῖς σεμνύνων, τούς δ᾿ ἐν ἡμῖν διά τῆς φυλακῆς τῶν θείων ἐντολῶν καί τῆς