53

And I continue to say, having remembered, after the "to distinguish and cast aside" all that is mythical and of evil opinion in secular wisdom, that knowledge from outside learning "could not in this way be called a spiritual gift, but a natural one, given to us by God through nature and brought to improvement by study, a clear proof of which is that it is a natural, but not a spiritual gift, that it comes to no one at all without study; for theosophy according to us is properly a gift of God given in the Holy Spirit, and not a natural one, which, even if it falls from above upon fishermen, makes them sons of thunder." For just as "the earth is the Lord's and all who dwell in it," but few are God's, even if all are His creatures, in the same way, surely, God is the one who provides knowledge to man, but few are they who have acquired the wisdom of the Spirit, even if all have by nature been made rational by Him and receptive of knowledge. Therefore, does not he who says that to call it a natural gift is to say it is in no way a gift of God, manifestly slander the one who calls it a natural gift? For whose gift is nature? Is it not God's? Why then does he say it is in no way from God, which he says is given from God through nature?

But then he tries to show, or rather asserts without proof, that he himself agrees with the great Dionysius, but we do not. And the slander is immediately at hand, presenting for him certain things which it had no power at all to present: "for this reason you do not agree," he says, "with the divine Dionysius, because you maintain that philosophy appeared from demons and leads to demons (p. 282)." After this again, as if forgetting himself, he says, "concerning this philosophy which we ourselves profess, you have uttered the same words to us." How could anyone better show that he is contradicting himself? But from where did you get this, that I maintain that philosophy appeared from demons and leads to demons? "Because," he says, "you cite the foremost of the Greeks saying most clearly that they received knowledge from the inspiration of demons." What, then, do we conclude from this there? Do you wish that we set forth the very words? "Shall we then say 'you have the wisdom of God' to those who say such things about themselves? No, as long as we are our own selves and servants of true wisdom, which does not enter a soul that is deceitful and friendly to demons; and even if it should have entered before, it flies away when it changes for the worse; For the holy spirit of discipline will rise up from undiscerning thoughts, according to Solomon, who was blessed with the wisdom of God and wrote about it. What is more undiscerning than those who are proud of being initiated by demons and bear witness to them for the provision of their own wisdom? For we are not now speaking simply about philosophy, whatever we are saying, but about the philosophy of such men; for if, according to Paul, one cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons, how could one be able to have the wisdom of God and be inspired by demons?." What is it, then, that we are saying? We declare that those who said their wisdom was from demons are for this reason demonic wise men. But you reproach us with the very thing for which we condemned those who said it. I fear that some envious demon whispers slandering into your tongue as well. We, therefore, called the wisdom of the impious demonic because of the evil opinions in it, but Gregory, surnamed the Theologian (p. 284), called the heterodox creations of the evil one; did he therefore think that these men had their origin from the evil one? Certainly not, but he disparages their wicked opinion through such a name. It is therefore no less clear, if not even more so, that we too do not praise the wicked use, but we do not condemn the thing itself.

And he strings together with these in sequence a second, similar slander, saying that I hold the astronomical method also to be from demons, since I condemn the same things from the same sources, both those philosophers and the astronomers. And many

53

Κἀγώ δέ εἰπών διατελῶ μεμνημένος, μετά τό «διελεῖν καί διαρρίψαι» πᾶν ὅ τι τῆς θύραθεν σοφίας μυθῶδες καί κακόδοξον, ὡς ἡ ἐκ τῆς ἔξω παιδείας γνῶσις «πνευματικόν μέν δῶρον οὐδ᾿ οὕτως ἄν κληθείη, φυσικόν δέ, διά τῆς φύσεως δεδομένον ἡμῖν παρά Θεοῦ καί μελέτῃ πρός ἐπίδοσιν ἀγόμενον, ὅ καί τεκμήριον ἐναργές ὡς φυσικόν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ πνευματικόν ἐστι δῶρον, τό μή μελέτης ἄνευ μηδενί τῶν ἁπάντων παραγίνεσθαι˙ Θεοῦ γάρ κυρίως δῶρον ἐν ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι δεδομένον, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ φυσικόν, ἡ καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς θεοσοφία, ἤ κἄν ἁλιεῦσιν ἄνωθεν ἐπιπτῇ, βροντῆς υἱούς ἀπεργάζεται». Καθάπερ γάρ «τοῦ Κυρίου μέν ἐστιν ἡ γῆ καί πάντες οἱ κατοικοῦντες ἐν αὐτῇ», ὀλίγοι δέ οἱ τοῦ Θεοῦ, εἰ καί πάντες πλάσματα τόν αὐτόν δήπου τρόπον καί Θεός μέν ἐστιν ὁ παρέχων ἀνθρώπῳ γνῶσιν, ὀλίγοι δέ εἰσιν οἱ τήν σοφίαν κτησάμενοι τοῦ Πνεύματος, εἰ καί πάντες ὑπ᾿ αὐτοῦ φύσει λογικοί καί ἐπιστήμης δεκτικοί γεγόνασιν. Ἄρ᾿ οὖν οὐ συκοφαντεῖ περιφανῶς τόν λέγοντα φυσικόν δῶρον ὁ λέγων μηδεμῶς εἶναι λέγειν δόσιν Θεοῦ; Τίνος γάρ ἡ φύσις δόμα; Οὐχί τοῦ Θεοῦ; Τίνος οὖν οὐδαμῶς ἐκ Θεοῦ λέγει, ὅ διά τῆς φύσεως φησιν ἐκ Θεοῦ δεδομένον;

Ἀλλ᾿ ἐκεῖνος ἔπειτα πειρᾶται δεῖξαι, μᾶλλον δέ ἀποδείκτως ἀποφαίνεται, ὡς αὐτός μέν τῷ μεγάλῳ ∆ιονυσίῳ ὁμολογεῖ, ἡμεῖς δ᾿ οὔ. Καί ἡ συκοφαντία εὐθύς ἐγγύς, παριστῶσα αὐτῷ ἄττα παραστῆσαι οὐδαμῶς ἴσχυσε˙ «διά τοῦτο γάρ οὐχ ὁμολογεῖς», φησί, «τῷ θείῳ ∆ιονυσίῳ, ἐπειδή τήν φιλοσοφίαν ἐκ δαιμόνων τε φανῆναι καί εἰς δαίμονας (σελ. 282) φέρειν διισχυρίζῃ». Μετά τοῦτο δ᾿ αὖθις, ὥσπερ ἐπιλαθόμενος αὐτός ἑαυτοῦ, «περί τῆς φιλοσοφίας ταύτης», φησίν, «ἥν αὐτοί πρεσβεύομεν, τάς αὐτάς ἡμῖν ἀφῆκας φωνάς». Πῶς ἄν τις μᾶλλον δείξειεν ἑαυτῷ ἀντικείμενος ὤν; Ἀλλ᾿ ἐκεῖνο πόθεν ἔχεις λαβών, ὡς ἐκ δαιμόνων φανῆναι καί εἰς δαίμονας φέρειν τήν φιλοσοφίαν διισχυρίζομαι; «Ὅτι», φησί, «τῶν Ἑλλήνων τούς ἄκρους παράγεις λέγοντας ἀριδήλως ἐκ δαιμόνων ἐπιπνοίας τήν γνῶσιν δέξασθαι». Τί οὖν δία τούτου συμπεραίνομεν ἐκεῖ; Βούλει προθῶμεν αὐτά τά ρήματα; Ἆρ᾿ οὖν «Θεοῦ σοφίαν ἐροῦμεν ἔχεις τούς τοιαῦτα περί σφῶν αὐτῶν λέγοντας; Οὐχί, ἕως ἄν ἡμῶν αὐτῶν ὦμεν καί τῆς ὄντως σοφίας θεραπευταί, ἥτις εἰς κακότεχνον καί δαίμοσι φίλην οὐκ εἰσέρχεται ψυχήν˙ κἄν εἰσελθοῦσα φθάσῃ, μεταβαλούσης ἐπί τό χεῖρον, ἀφίπταται˙ Πνεῦμα γάρ ἅγιον παιδείας ἐπαναστήσεται ἀπό λογισμῶν ἀσυνέτων, κατά Σολομῶντα τόν Θεοῦ σοφίαν εὐμοιρηκότα καί περί αὐτῆς συγγραψάμενον. Τί δέ ἀσυνετώτερον τῶν μέγα φρονούντων ἐπί τῷ δαίμοσι τελεῖσθαι καί προσμαρτυρούντων ἐκείνοις τήν χορηγίαν τῆς σφετέρας αὐτῶν σοφίας; Οὐ γάρ περί φολοσοφίας ἁπλῶς λέγομεν ἅττα λέγομεν νῦν, ἀλλά περί τῆς τῶν τοιούτων φιλοσοφίας˙ εἰ γάρ καί κατά Παῦλον οὐ δύναταί τις ποτήριον Κυρίου πίνειν καί ποτήριον δαιμονίων, πῶς ἄν δυνηθείη τις Θεοῦ σοφίαν ἔχειν καί ὑπό δαιμόνων ἐμπνεῖσθαι;». Τί οὖν ἐστιν ὅ φαμεν; Τούς ἐκ δαιμόνων τήν ἑαυτῶν σοφίαν εἰπόντας δαιμονιώδεις παρά τοῦτο σοφούς εἶναι ἀποφαινόμεθα. Σύ δέ δι᾿ ὅ τῶν εἰρηκότων κατεψηφισάμεθα, τοῦθ᾿ ἡμῖν προφέρεις. ∆έδοικα μή καί σοῦ τῇ γλώττῃ βάσκανός τις δαίμων τό συκοφαντεῖν ἐνηχεῖ. ∆αιμονιώδη μέν οὖν ἡμεῖς τήν τῶν ἀσεβῶν σοφίαν διά τάς ἐν αὐτῇ κακοδοξίας προσείπομεν, Γρηγόριος δέ ὁ τῆς θεολογίας ἐπώνυμος (σελ. 284) πλάσματα τοῦ πονηροῦ τούς κακοδόξους ὠνόμασεν˙ ἆρ᾿ οὖν ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ τήν γένεσιν ἐσχηκέναι τούτους ἐδόξαζεν; Οὔμενουν, ἀλλ᾿ αὐτῶν τήν πονηράν δόξαν διασύρει διά τοῦ τοιούτου προσρήματος. Φανερόν οὖν οὐδέν ἧττον, ὅτι μή καί μᾶλλον, ὡς καί ἡμεῖς τήν πονηράν χρῆσιν οὐκ ἐπαινοῦμεν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ αὐτό τό πρᾶγμα κακίζομεν.

Συνείρει δέ τούτοις ἐφεξῆς καί δευτέραν συκοφαντίαν ὁμοίαν, ἐκ δαιμόνων εἶναί με λέγων καί τήν ἀστρονομικήν μέθοδον, ἐπειδήπερ ἐκ τῶν αὐτῶν τά αὐτά, τῶν τε φιλοσόφων ἐκείνων καί τῶν ἀστρονόμων, καταψηφίζομαι. Καί πολλά