Gregory palamas's two demonstrative treatises concerning the procession of the holy spirit

 But o god of all, the sole giver and guardian of true theology and of the dogmas and words according to it, the only most monarchical trinity, not onl

 For because of this, having been both taught and enlightened, they were sent, so that they might teach as they were taught, so that they might enlight

 Being refuted by those who have written down the particulars of all the holy synods, and by the very agreement, from those times until now and rather

 Hearing [him] begotten of the father before all ages and having the [word] alone understood and implied along with [the phrase] from the father, j

 Shall we fall away from this? may you not suffer this, or rather, may you not remain incurable having suffered it for the right has already become kn

 Of the father, not as being necessarily co-understood? therefore, when it is said so many times concerning the son that he is from the father and now

 Of the father. but the one by adoption is not from him alone but through the son from the father, and yet is not son only, but also spirit by grace: “

 But nowhere did any of the theologians say either two or three. for just as we say that each of those three adorable hypostases is god and that each o

 They say, therefore, that the one is from the other. what then of seth? was he begotten from one principle, because eve was from adam, (p. 106) and ar

 Differs in nothing from the hypostatic [properties] therefore also the nature from the hypostasis, so that god, according to them, is not three-hypos

 And the son. therefore without the cause and beginning of the divinity conceived in the trinity therefore the son has all things of (p. 114) the fath

 Understanding, and that the spirit proceeds from another, on account of your ignorance concerning the word “alone”?

 If, indeed, it were possible to name these things, such as father of light or projector of the holy spirit, how would gregory, the great in theology,

 Is a union of the father and the spirit. how then does the same gregory, great in theology, say, the unoriginate and the origin and that which is wit

 And what of the one who exhorts both theologically and patristically in metrical verses, that if you should hear about the son and the spirit, ‘as the

 An apostle: but if this, it is not a creature, but rather god, as from god and in god.” and again, “the spirit therefore is god, existing naturally in

 For we have heard a little above from the one named the theologian, who said that the father is the source and origin of eternal light, but the son is

 For if you say that the spirit is spoken of after the son, being enumerated, which seems to you the safer of arguments—though i would say it is no les

 He brought forth the word. but what he says in the first of his books *against eunomius*, that there is a form of order not according to our arrangem

 Has it been handed down to be initiated? god and father, the beginning of all things, is father of the only-begotten son, who even before being added

 Of the consubstantiality of the spirit, even if the latins force the sayings, dragging their meaning into their own evil-mindedness.

 Of the god-befitting and most provident dispensations we render through all things the most concise doxology and thanksgiving and remembrance not tha

 Was called by none of the apostles or the evangelists, but instead of this the voice of the father was sufficient for them. and by beginning i do not

 Unassailable by those who do evil and who corrupt by counterfeiting the word of truth, known to all, wise and simple alike, and always on their lips.

 Immediately, but not also from the son. we have additionally shown that, since the spirit is called the mind of christ, just as also our own

 It is said and not from him, but with him, who was begotten from the father, the spirit also proceeds.

 Furthermore after this we speak concerning the principle, and how the latin-minded answer sophistically to those who ask them, if they say there are t

 They are willing, but at those who give a hand for correction—the power of the word of truth that leads to truth—they, like some who are truly incorri

 Testimonies, if not rightly understood, would be able to assist those who excuse themselves unseasonably or to deliver them from their impiety and the

 With god assisting us, having refuted them, (p. 192) and as it were undermining certain foundations, we will prove the whole edifice of their impiety

 “john the son of zacharias,” according to the divine evangelist luke, (p. 196) and “as the lord spoke through his holy prophets to show mercy,” zachar

 But do you see how this insufflation hints at the spirit being present and effecting the renewal for the better of the human soul, which we believe is

 Varieties of services, but the same lord and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same god.” the divine powers and the

 Shining in part? but concerning that which is now the subject, let us see the promise: and where is the not many days hence?

 Whatever the father has is mine, he receives from what is mine and will announce it for both the wealth and the gifts are common to us.

 It is fitting to glorify the eternal spirit but it is necessary that those to whom the manifestation is directed also be co-eternal, and in addition,

 His. after him the holy spirit was manifested, the same glories of the same nature and

 He sent, having returned whence he came down. but the son is both god and has become man therefore he was sent also as man the spirit was not incarn

 Being signified, but not being the in-breathing itself, as having its existence by necessity from that from which the in-breathing is and if being se

 Of the relation and of the surpassing connaturality and of the incomprehensible and ineffable perichoresis, we again find and proclaim him the father,

 The holy spirit? i think not, unless he clearly wishes to fight against god. but, he says, it is called the spirit of the son himself and his own. fo

 And they set aside the essence and the hypostasis of the all-holy spirit. therefore, the conclusion from division of the latin hypothetical syllogism

 And there by the theologians, as indicative of the hypostasis of the father, but not as the son also being a co-cause with respect to the godhead.

 The holy spirit. but those who connect or make pretexts first refute each,

 Opposing them or both theologians according to them? by no means. therefore we shall strike this one or those ones from the choir of the orthodox, acc

 Of creatures, it is so much more magnificent for the first cause to be the origin of divinity than of creatures and to come to the creatures through a

 Of the all-working god the father towards the generation and procession of the son, creator of all things and the one perfecting all things, neither t

 Proceeds from the father and from me? for he was not then speaking more humbly of himself, for which reason he would have omitted this alone, conceal

 Proceeds, having this as a distinctive sign of its existence in its hypostasis: to be known after the son and with him and to subsist from the father.

 The discourse is concerning the economy?» and after a little: for he says here the grace that came upon the flesh for all grace was poured out into t

 According to the principle of its proper cause, that is, that the son is contemplated before [the spirit] from the father, stands in the way, preventi

 To ablabius, on why, when we speak of one divinity in the father and the son and the holy spirit, we are forbidden to speak of three gods, having esta

 To exist, just as the holy spirit, yet causally by generation, and the holy spirit also exists causally, but not by generation.

 To theologians, for the sake of greater clarity. cain was the son of adam and his only-begotten before he begat the others, but eve was a part and sh

 We shall understand and take the preposition through as with, along with gregory, who is named for theology, saying, one god for us, the beginnin

 God of all? but i do not speak of him as co-creating, he says, but as co-proceeding. therefore, co-proceeding, the spirit will perfect (p. 298) himsel

 But, was not the mission of the word to us, which proceeded from both the father and the spirit, also essential? but the mission was not a generation

 As the nature of the father and the son is one and the same. for to speak according to the divine cyril himself, as he himself writes to hermias, “the

 Of the spirit as more manifest and foretold and fore-believed and the son has naturally in himself the father's own and exceptional properties, the

 But that one whole. but if his energy is immeasurable, much more his essence». thus the power of the truth spoken by us conquers all things, making yo

 He proclaims christ the son. and the divine cyril in his *treasures* concludes that the spirit exists naturally in the son from the father, and says t

 For the spirit to proceed from those made like unto the son by grace for most particularly from the father, as from him alone having its pre-eternal

 Proceeding from the father himself that is, each of them immediately and from the father alone, that is, from the very hypostasis of the father. but

 Of the divine sign from the heavens and the earth was shaken sensibly. do you see in such a sign that which proceeds not only being of the spirit, but

 The word of wisdom is given by the spirit, and to another the word of knowledge.” but christ also dwells in the hearts of those who are not reprobate,

 Counter-inscriptions

 Second inscription (p. 348) since there are some who contradict the scriptural testimonies, which declare through the son

 The son alongside the spirit. do you see how the sayings of the saints are both pious and good, but when taken up by you, are evil and impious?

 Sixth inscription. since there are some who say that 'proceeds' and 'is poured forth' and the

 They represent the father and the son as consubstantial with the holy spirit as far as is possible for it is not possible to find a perfectly suitabl

 Proper to the son and from the essence of the son, the son would also be proper to the spirit and from the essence of the spirit because of the conver

 Having its hypostasis from the substance is not from the remaining hypostases, but from some one of them, namely the paternal for it is not possible

 You perhaps think we should give an account for not writing more often but we think we must apologize even for writing after so long a time. and what

 Testify to a creative principle? if, therefore, because it is written “the principle from the principle,” nothing prevents us from speaking of two pri

 Let us clarify the power of the most monarchical principle and refute those who dogmatize two principles for the one spirit, both that they dogmatize

 To the cause of the son, for he too is equally a cause of divinity, or in saying it is from the father alone, let them piously grant one principle in

 To think and to call, but never demonstrative, i am far from positing. for the inscriptions of the patristic sayings do not allow us to accept this, a

 Is added to it. for no one, he says, is good, except one, god, the only wise, the blessed and only potentate, who alone has immortality, dwelling

 And they conclude in a most archetypal principle? what then when we make demonstrations from things that are posterior, but prior to us, of the that

 (p. 428) receiving, and that it is divided, even if not in itself, for which reason also in division it remains undivided, and that even in what is di

 Having also written to him to do him this favor as a messenger, that if any discourse were left to us, it should come from us not to another, but to h

 For it behaves indecently and ruins with interest and, know well, forces harsher arguments from us against those who are of a firm mind), but now afte

 First to barlaam (p. 444)

 Shall we cast away both? and how could you declare this, sitting as an arbiter over your own affairs, and not rather force the votes, desiring at leas

 As i am able, i shall make it brief, being least willing to prolong it. besides, since the one who caused the scandal has been removed from our midst,

 To one who clearly lies about things so clearly written? and how could one who does not hold truth in high regard attain to the truth when discoursing

 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 o

 To the subject at hand: therefore, the example is one thing and that for which it became an example is another, but it is not because it is other that

 Arranging them by your own authority, of whom you intemperately accuse? and not only the living, but also those who long ago departed to heaven and ar

 These things would be predicated, not universally». for the super-essential and super-good and super-wise and super-luminous, of what else could it be

 So that i may refute you on your own terms and the saying of solomon may come to pass: he who digs a pit for his neighbor will fall into it. what th

 To speak of demonstrations, to this i would have ascribed the demonstration, not to those things from which i syllogistically deduced it.

 To have become.” what is this you are saying, o man? did those men come to be in communion with an intellectual and divine light?

 Do they bear witness to this? what is this, diogenes? i trample, says diogenes, on the pride of plato. with a different pride, diogenes, plato dec

 The indwelling of grace, of a wonderful kind, almost ineffable and unheard of. for what word could explain how it both pervades everything and in itse

 Nor did the attendant daimonion of socrates, which he obeyed throughout his life, reveal to you, the philosopher of our time, what their illumination

 But let us leave this aside but i would add, telling you, 'cast away not only the ideas, but also the theories and the falsely named lights of this m

 To be knowledge, and sensation would teach. have you seen how far this demonstration is from that which is beyond demonstration? almost as much as

 You bring astronomical science, that is, the geometrical necessities will become weaker than spiderwebs and will fall apart, dissolved by your most de

 Being neither dialectical nor demonstrative but that they are not dialectical was very easy for me to show, by merely indicating that the premises th

 He makes them out to be a wonder, as having understood the divine excellence, and having brought them forward to tell about intelligible light (p. 5

 Of a discourse that has been refuted and unwillingly supports our own arguments. but if the example has been found from that very source, one ought to

 Is, but that also is true, that no one has ever seen god, this is what we said, that some divine things can be contemplated, but others cannot.

 May grant that knowledge is gathered through contact with intelligible things, but divine things are also beyond mind how then could there be a diale

 Gathering himself as much as possible, he uses the power of arguments against us, declaring that nothing of divine matters is knowable or demonstrable

 Is known by knowledge and by unknowing” for that he is and that he is one is both known and demonstrated, but what he is and what sort of one is comp

 I think i should pass over. for on the one hand, no one was ignorant that nothing exists in god by participation, and on the other hand, no one has so

 What is said of other essences in themselves, this also exists for god as what is said concerning him for it is not possible to be and not to be if

 Knowledge of god? for that which belongs to something in itself, it is not possible (p. 554) in any way for this not to be that. what do i mean? to be

 But without proof there will be none. let us then set against plato his own teachings, as he is willingly set in opposition,

 May be weaker in power, and that a demonstration from fewer postulates is not simply held to be superior, but that one from more is better than it, wh

 Among them who have a rational, intelligent soul, do those who have surpassed all their kin in contemplation not even have a 'shadow of a shadow' of g

 Elijah, having rested his head on his knees and thus having gathered his mind more laboriously into himself and into god, loosed that manifold drought

 He transferred the doubling of the shadow from that to this, or rather, he does not even grant this to the observers of invisible things. and having s

 For you yourself declare in your letters to us that a demonstrative principle and premise must be known by nature.

 The universal has been synthesized for me from perceptions. what then, o philosopher? did you perceive the days and periods and eclipses that occurre

 Of our piety and of his false doctrine, since even the great basil was called a tritheist by those who blasphemed against the son and the holy spirit.

 Of him, even if with his lips he allegedly claims he is god. but god has, he says, energies, but they are created for every energy of god, apart f

 Power and energy, from the patristic sayings put forth by us on these matters, he has gathered and composed against us, or rather against the holy fat

 For all such things, passing into one another through one another, proceed towards non-being. but he who affirms that only the essence is uncreated, b

 Of transcendent and most simple holiness and lordship and kingship and divinity is every good providence, beholding and sustaining the objects of its

 Now barlaam proclaims ditheism, supposedly against us for it is clear that he makes this notorious for the sake of slandering the unassailable theolo

 Created, because of which he began to be and ceased, but because of the divine and uncreated grace, and ever-existing beyond all nature and time from

 To breathe a little, lest he become a suicide. for i heard him say in person here, that he often was in danger of bursting from helplessness, i suppo

 Having purposed to obscure that choir and the wonderful harmony, having instilled no small courage in him.

I think I should pass over. For on the one hand, no one was ignorant that nothing exists in God by participation, and on the other hand, no one has sought what God is in respect to existence. But how it is not reasonable to say that God is one in respect to cause, I cannot comprehend, not only how it is not reasonable, but also how he dared to say it, since the saints clearly declare this. But if it is not reasonable to say that God is one in respect to cause, then He will not be the cause of the one, for He has His appellations from those things of which He is the cause; but if God is not the cause of the one, He is the cause of none of the beings; for by the being of the (p. 546) one, all beings are, and each of the beings is one either in genus or in species or in number, and not even could each of these again be many in its own difference, if the one were not; for the one is elemental and cohesive and constitutive of all things. So that he who is not the cause of the one is the cause of nothing.

"But if," he says, "God is one as being the cause of the one, He is not more one than many, for He is also the cause of the many." I forbear, then, to say that the one is not abolished by the many, but the many by the one, and that God, remaining in the one, also brings forth the many, and not only brings them forth, but also knows, the unitary not being multiplied, the differences in the multitudes; but if God is not more one than many, why do we say one God, but not many Gods? And why do we call Him of many names, but do not divide Him along with the names? "But I did not say," he says, "not more one than many, but not more one than not one." If, then, He is, but is not one, He would be many.

"How then," he says, "does Dionysius the Great say concerning God that He is not one either?" But not for the abolition of the one, my good sir; for it is his precept not to think that negations are opposed to affirmations concerning God. But you bring forward "not one" for the abolition of the one, adding that incomparable reason that if He is one in respect to cause, He will not be one in respect to existence, so that he says, "not more one than not one." What then does this "in respect to existence" mean to you, you dialectician and inescapable one? For if it is simply to be, how will that which is one in respect to cause not be again in no way one? For by the very act of being, God is established as one beyond the one in beings and as cause of the one in beings, unswervingly, so to speak, giving Himself and imparting His own unity by goodness and being participated in without participation. But if this "in respect to existence" means to you that the (p. 548) one is not the essence of God and for this reason it is not reasonable to call God one, then neither is the sun one, since the one is not its essence; but if the sun is one by participation in the one-itself, it is not more one than not one, since in respect to existence it is not one.

The same applies also to all things that partake of the one, and very reasonably so. For if the one-itself is not more one than not one according to your wisdom, much more so are all things that are one by partaking of it; not only in the case of the one, but also of two or three and of every numerable thing; for since quantity is never essence, the two are not more two than not two; for even if they are two in number, yet in respect to existence they are by no means two. So the philosopher has not demonstrated that God is not one, but that the one is not being, if indeed it is not more one than not one, and he has simply abolished all number. And this is, that we may speak according to his science, a paralogism, the one from ignorance of refutation, which the noble man also uses when theologizing, by which, having played the sophist, he abolished all number (for it is not in the same respect both one and not one), and in this way one might easily prove that each of the beings is no more being than not being.

However, even if he lied about all other things, for one sun shines on us, but more luminaries, and very many stars, yet on his own account he has not lied; for being one, he is not one in his discussions, but different from and contrary to himself. For he who here insists that God is not one in respect to existence, hear what he says above: "the things that are by the

παρεῖναί μοι δοκῶ˙ τό μέν γάρ οὐδείς ἠγνόησεν ὅτι μή κατά μετοχήν ἔστι τι Θεῷ, τό δέ οὐδείς ἐζήτησε τί ἐστι καθ᾿ ὕπαρξιν Θεός. Κατ᾿ αἰτίαν δέ πῶς οὐκ εὔλογον ἕνα τόν Θεόν λέγεσθαι οὐκ ἔχω συνιδεῖν, οὐ μόνον ὅπως οὐκ εὔλογον, ἀλλ᾿ οὐδ᾿ ὅπως ἐτόλμησεν εἰπεῖν, σαφῶς τοῦτο τῶν ἁγίων διαγορευόντων. Ἀλλ᾿ εἰ κατ᾿ αἰτίαν τόν Θεόν ἕν οὐκ εὔλογον εἰπεῖν, οὐδέ τοῦ ἑνός αἴτιος ἔσται, καί γάρ ὧν ἐστιν αἴτιος, ἀπό τούτων ἔχει τάς προσηγορίας˙ εἰ δέ τοῦ ἑνός οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ Θεός αἴτιος, οὐδενός τῶν ὄντων ἐστίν αἴτιος˙ τῷ γάρ εἶναι τό (σελ. 546) ἕν, πάντα ἐστί τά ὄντα, καί τῶν ὄντων ἕκαστον ἕν ἐστιν ἤ γένει ἤ εἴδει ἤ ἀριθμῷ, καί οὐδ᾿ ἄν πολλά ἕκαστον αὖθις τούτων εἴη τῇ κατ᾿ αὐτά διαφορᾷ, εἰ μή τό ἕν εἴη˙ τό γάρ ἕν ἐστι στοιχειωτικόν καί συνεκτικόν καί συστατικόν ἁπάντων. Ὥσθ᾿ ὁ τοῦ ἑνός μή ὤν αἴτιος οὐδενός ἐστιν αἴτιος.

«Ἀλλ᾿ εἰ ὡς αἴτιός» φησι «τοῦ ἑνός ἕν ἐστιν ὁ Θεός, οὐ μᾶλλον ἕν ἤ πολλά, καί γάρ καί τῶν πολλῶν αἴτιος». Παρίημι τοίνυν λέγειν ὡς τοῖς μέν πολλοῖς οὐ συναιρεῖται τό ἕν, τῷ δέ ἑνί τά πολλά, καί ὡς ὁ Θεός ἐν τῷ ἑνί μένων καί τά πολλά προάγει, καί οὐ προάγει μόνον, ἀλλά καί γινώσκει, τοῦ ἑνιαίου μή πληθυνομένου τάς ἐν τοῖς πλήθεσι διαφορᾶς˙ ἀλλ᾿ εἰ μή μᾶλλον ὁ Θεός ἕν ἤ πολλά, διατί εἷς μέν Θεός λέγομεν, πολλοί δέ οὐ λέγομεν; ∆ιατί δέ πολυώνυμον αὐτόν καλοῦμεν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ τοῖς ὀνόμασι συνδιαιροῦμεν; «Ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ εἶπόν» φησιν «οὐ μᾶλλον ἕν ἤ πολλά, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ μᾶλλον ἕν ἤ οὐχ ἕν». Εἰ οὖν ἔστιν, οὐχ ἕν δέ ἐστι, πολλά ἄν εἴη.

«Πῶς οὖν», φησί, «∆ιονύσιος ὁ μέγας περί τοῦ Θεοῦ φησιν ὡς οὔτε ἕν ἐστιν»; Ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ ἐπ᾿ ἀναιρέσει τοῦ ἑνός, ὦ βέλτιστε˙ παράγγελμα γάρ ἐστιν αὐτοῦ μή οἴεσθαι τάς ἀποφάσεις ἀντικειμένας εἶναι ταῖς καταφάσεσιν ἐπί Θεοῦ. Σύ δ᾿ ἐπ᾿ ἀναιρέσει τοῦ ἑνός προφέρεις τό οὐχ ἕν, τήν ἀσυνείκαστον ἐκείνην αἰτίαν προστιθείς ὡς εἰ κατ᾿ αἰτίαν ἔστιν ἕν, καθ᾿ ὕπαρξιν οὐκ ἔσται ἕν, ὥστε φησίν «οὐ μᾶλλον ἕν ἤ οὐχ ἕν». Τί δή σοι βούλεται τό καθ᾿ ὕπαρξιν τοῦτο, ὦ διαλεκτικέ σύ καί ἄφυκτε; Εἰ μέν γάρ τό ἁπλῶς εἶναι, πῶς τό κατ᾿ αἰτίαν ἕν οὐκ ἔσται αὖθις οὐδαμῶς ἕν; Αὐτῷ γάρ τῷ εἶναι ὁ Θεός ἕν ὑπέρ τό ἐν τοῖς οὖσιν ἕν καί τοῦ ἐν τοῖς οὖσιν ἑνός αἴτιος καθίσταται, ἀκλίτως ἵν᾿ οὕτως εἴπω ἑαυτόν ἐπιδιδούς καί τῆς οἰκείας ἑνότητος ἀγαθότητι μεταδιδούς καί ἀμεθέκτως μετεχόμενος. Εἰ δέ τό καθ᾿ ὕπαρξιν τοῦτό σοι βούλεται ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν οὐσία τοῦ Θεοῦ τό (σελ. 548) ἕν καί διά τοῦτο οὐκ εὔλογον ἕνα λέγειν τόν Θεόν, οὐδ᾿ ὁ ἥλιος λοιπόν εἷς ἐστιν, ἐπεί οὐκ ἔστιν αὐτοῦ τό ἕν οὐσία˙ εἰ δέ κατά μετοχήν τοῦ αὐτοενός εἷς ἐστιν ὁ ἥλιος, οὐ μᾶλλον εἷς ἤ οὐχ εἷς, ἐπεί καθ᾿ ὕπαρξιν οὐκ ἔστιν εἷς.

Τό αὐτό δέ καί ἐπί πάντων ὅσα τοῦ ἑνός μετέχει, καί μάλα γε εἰκότως. Εἰ γάρ τό αὐτοέν οὐ μᾶλλον ἕν ἤ οὐχ ἕν κατά τήν σήν σοφίαν, πολλῷ μᾶλλον ὅσα τῷ μετέχειν τούτου ἕν ἐστιν˙ οὐκ ἐπί τοῦ ἑνός δέ μόνον, ἀλλά κἀπί τῶν δύο ἤ τριῶν καί παντός ἀριθμητοῦ˙ τοῦ γάρ ποσοῦ μηδέποτε οὐσίας ὄντος, τά δύο οὐ μᾶλλον δύο ἤ μή δύο˙ καί γάρ εἰ κατ᾿ ἀριθμόν δύο, ἀλλά καθ᾿ ὕπαρξιν οὐ δύο πάντως. Ὥστε οὐ τόν Θεόν οὐχ ἕν ἀπέδειξεν ὁ φιλόσοφος, ἀλλά τό ἕν οὐκ ὄν, εἴπερ οὐ μᾶλλον ἕν ἤ οὐχ ἕν, καί ἁπλῶς πάντα ἀριθμόν ἀνεῖλε. Τοῦτο δέ ἐστιν, ἵνα κατά τήν αὐτοῦ φῶμεν ἐπιστήμην, παραλογισμός, ὁ παρά τήν τοῦ ἐλέγχου ἄγνοιαν, ᾧ καί θεολογῶν ὁ γεννάδας χρῆται, δι᾿ οὗ καί σοφισάμενος, πάντα ἀριθμόν ἀνεῖλε (οὐ γάρ κατά τό αὐτό ἕν τε καί οὐχ ἕν), ρᾳδίως δ᾿ ἄν οὕτω τις καί ἕκαστον τῶν ὄντων μή μᾶλλον ὄν ἤ μή ὄν ἐλέγξειεν.

Οὐ μήν ἀλλ᾿ εἰ καί τῶν ἄλλων πάντων κατεψεύσατο, εἷς γάρ ἐπιλάμπει ἥλιος ἡμᾶς, πλείου δέ φωστῆρες, πλεῖστοι δέ ἀστέρες, ἀλλ᾿ ἑαυτόῦ γε ἕνεκα οὐκ ἔψευσται˙ εἷς γάρ ὤν, οὐχ εἷς ἐστι ταῖς διαλέξεσιν, ἀλλ᾿ ἄλλος καί ἐναντίος ἑαυτῷ. Ὁ γάρ ἐνταῦθα μή καθ᾿ ὕπαρξιν ἕν εἶναι τόν Θεόν ἰσχυριζόμενος, ἀκούσατε τί λέγει ἀνωτέρω˙ «ἅ ἐστι ταῖς