And what apology he proposes, although it is a cold one and puts forward those things of the Latins which have been refuted in many places and by us ourselves as impossible to be refuted, nevertheless we accept it; for that which was cast out, on account of which it came to be, has happened to make up for its deficiency. And what you accuse us of, as slandering your countrymen concerning the two principles, this too was done by us for your sake, you who are ungratefully disposed; for wishing to refute clearly what was in error—let it be concerning the phrasing as you yourself say (for it was not possible to be silent, for it was concerning God)—so that no blame might attach to you, I deemed it necessary to turn the arguments to them. For that I know they do not openly say two principles, our first discourse against them, which is among you, will testify, responding to them thus: «And 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 say this is inferred?» Saying there, therefore, that they do not say this openly, how could I now (p. 462) be making the argument against them concerning this, unless I was considering your harm and thinking to obscure it as far as possible?

But indeed this argument is not entirely without reason for me, nor is it a complete slander, as you thought, even if it were said openly against them; for do not think, as if coming from the Latins, that we are unmindful of their erroneous words and dogmas; 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 prevalent even among their most learned men, and their writings among us testify to this, saying that the Son is a second principle of the Holy Spirit; he therefore who says the Son is not only a principle, but also a second one, does he not openly say two principles? But if they have now abandoned this, thanks be to our refutatory arguments that have silenced them, as also to him who was famously revealed against them, Nicephorus; for after his arguments against them, those of them who have some share of understanding no longer dare to call us 'of perdition', as we call them.

And that we must dispute with 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 that those who say these things are also revered among the Latins, I am disputing with them from what is conceded by the Latins; for they have among themselves and honor as God-inspired speakers those who say these things concerning the Father of lights. But if they will also say in our presence that the Son is God-begetting, we will say to them that they are not advancing the argument according to what is conceded among them; but for us who are constructing an argument 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 less of a fount and 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 Father alone is the fount of the superessential divinity»; for he did not say «the only fount not 'from a fount'», nor «one fount more so», nor «the only fount simply of all divinity». So that 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 addressing them superficially.

But with our example, you criticize all things said by the fathers by way of example concerning God; for what will be found made like unto that incomparable nature? But even if it were possible to find one, not even so would that be an example that makes all things equal

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 παράδειγμα πάντα ἐξισάζον