81

is God, for no one of sound mind has ever said or sought or conceived. But that He is and that He is one and that He is not a unit and that He has not gone beyond the Trinity and many other things contemplated concerning Him, it is possible both to seek and to demonstrate. For if not these things, it is not possible to learn at all about God. But if we learn and seek this from those who know well and have understanding, then some things of God are known, others are sought, and there are some that are also demonstrated, but others are in every way incomprehensible and unsearchable: the manner of generation, of procession, of a coming forth at once perfect and without departing, of a division at once indivisible and perfect, and the other things which we possess with knowledge through faith. “For just as sense perception in things perceptible by the senses does not require logical proof, so also faith in such matters does not require demonstration.” And it is an evil nearly equal and no less, both to suppose one knows things that are beyond the mind and not to declare “what is knowable of God” to be such, and likewise what is subject to inquiry or demonstration. For it is possible to be at a loss concerning not a few common notions and axioms, which, by providing knowledge in a way superior to demonstration, become demonstrative principles for the one who knows how to use them.

For it is known and acknowledged by all that God is perfect and not without Logos, from which it is demonstrated that he is one and not a unit. Therefore, when we say that God is perfect, the perfect one is one, and intend to connect the other things in harmony with the fathers, how the perfect one is one, if someone ignorant of these demonstrative methods should approach saying that there is no demonstration for singulars, he will at once hear from us that there is not a universal one; for how could there be for things that are not universal? (p. 418) But it is no less an unerring demonstration, for this demonstration is both necessary and, in the case of singulars, more free from deceit. For in the case of universals, deceit would more likely occur, since such demonstration is pursued through imagination, with all the subjects being difficult to compare and difficult to comprehend. But nevertheless, even in cases where the common term is nameless, in the same way demonstration could occur both for some species of the universal and for each one of the particulars demonstrations do occur, not universal ones, for how could they? but unerring and necessary ones. For the Greeks, therefore, theology is probable reasoning, for which reason every syllogism that seems theological to them is dialectical, from reputable opinions to a reputable one, which is the same as saying, plausible from plausible premises. For they know nothing certain or secure about God, “but they became futile in their thinking.” But we do not start from reputable opinions as principles for theologizing, but we hold immovably to these, since they are taught by God. How then shall we call such a syllogism dialectical and not demonstrative? And indeed, if someone among those who introduce dialectic into the things said about God—which is expressly forbidden by the theologian fathers—if, I say, one of these should analyze their well-formed syllogisms, he will least of all find the universal in them: for the subject at hand is singular, and everything that belongs to Him belongs to Him alone in the proper sense. “For no one,” He says, “is good except God alone,” the only wise, the blessed and only Sovereign, “who alone has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light.” Therefore, none of the things that follow would apply to more than Him, so that each of them is also singular, and whatever might be predicated of these is not universal. How then could they form a syllogism without the universal? But if, on account of the particularity of the subject, they proceed to accept their (p. 410) own syllogisms in their entirety, with much more reason, on account of the singularity of the subject, they will accept demonstration, doing what is just. And if again someone should say, 'Demonstration is from prior things, but nothing is prior to God,' we shall say to him, 'We are not examining the things of His essence, my good sir, but what pertains to Him.' The

81

γάρ ἐστι Θεός, οὐδείς πώποτε τῶν εὖ φρονούντων οὔτ᾿ εἶπεν οὔτ᾿ ἐζήτησεν, οὔτ᾿ ἐνενόησεν. Ὅτι δέ ἔστι καί ὅτι εἷς ἐστι καί ὅτι οὐχ ἕν ἐστι καί ὅτι τήν Τριάδα οὐχ ὑπερβέβηκε καί πολλ᾿ ἕτερα τῶν περί αὐτόν θεωρουμένων, ἔστι ζητῆσαί τε καί ἀποδεῖξαι. Εἰ γάρ μή ταῦτα, οὐδέ μαθεῖν ὅλως ἔστι τό περί Θεοῦ. Εἰ δέ μανθάνομεν καί ζητοῦμεν καί τοῦτο παρά τῶν εὖ εἰδότων καί ἐπισταμένων, τά μέν ἄρα τοῦ Θεοῦ γινώσκεται, τά δέ ζητεῖται, ἔστι δ᾿ ἅ καί ἀποδείκνυται, ἕτερα δέ εἰσιν ἀπερινόητα πάντῃ καί ἀνεξερεύνητα˙ τρόπος γεννήσεως, ἐκπορεύσεως, τελείας ἅμα καί ἀνεκφοιτήτου προελεύσεως, ἀδιαιρέτου τε ἅμα καί τελείας διαιρέσεως, καί τ᾿ ἄλλ᾿ ὧν διά πίστεως ἐπιστημόνως ἔχομεν. «Ὥς γάρ αἴσθησις ἐν τοῖς ὑπ᾿αἴσθησιν λογικῆς οὐ δεῖται δείξεως, οὕτως οὐδέ πίστις ἐν τοῖς τοιούτοις ἀποδείξεως. Μικροῦ δ᾿ ἴσον καί οὐδέν ἔλαττόν ἐστι κακόν, τά τε ὑπέρ νοῦν οἴεσθαι εἰδέναι καί «τό τοῦ Θεοῦ γνωστόν» μή τοιοῦτον ἀποφαίνεσθαι, ὡσαύτως καί τό ζητητόν ἤ ἀποδεκτόν. Ἔστι γάρ κοινῶν ἐννοιῶν καί ἀξιωμάτων ἀπορῆσαι οὐκ ὀλίγων, ἅ κρείττω ἤ κατά ἀπόδειξιν παρεχόμενα τήν ἐπιστήμην ἀποδεικτικαί τῷ ἐπισταμένῳ χρήσασθαι γίνονται ἀρχαί.

Πᾶσι γάρ ἐστιν ἐγνωσμένον τε καί ἀνωμολογημένον ὅτι ὁ Θεός τέλειός ἐστι καί οὐκ ἄλογος, ἐξ ὧν εἷς καί οὐχ ἕν ἀποδείκνυται. Λεγόντων οὖν ἡμῶν ὅτι ὁ Θεός τέλειος, ὁ τέλειος εἷς, καί τ᾿ ἄλλα συνείρειν διανοουμένων συμφώνως τοῖς πατράσιν, ὅπως εἷς ὁ τέλειος, εἴ τις τῶν ἀνεπιστημόνων τούτων ἀποδεικτικῶν προσίσταιτο λέγων ἐπί τῶν μοναδικῶν ἀπόδειξιν μή εἶναι, παρ᾿ ἡμῶν εὐθύς ἀκούσεται ὡς καθόλου μέν οὐκ ἔστι˙ πῶς γάρ ἐπί τῶν μή καθόλου; (σελ. 418) Ἀψευδής δέ οὐδέν ἧττον ἀπόδειξίς ἐστι, καί γάρ ἀναγκαία καί ἐπί τῶν μοναδικῶν καί ἀνεξαπάτητος μᾶλλον αὕτη ἡ ἀπόδειξις. Ἐπί γάρ τῶν καθόλου γένοιτ᾿ ἄν μᾶλλον ἡ ἀπάτη, διά τῆς φαντασίας θηρωμένης τῆς τοιαύτης ἀποδείξεως, δυσξυμβλήτων τε καί δυσπεριλήπτων ὄντων πάντων τῶν ὑποκειμένων. Οὐ μήν ἀλλά καί ἐφ᾿ ὧν τό κοινόν ἀνώνυμον, τόν αὐτόν τρόπον γένοιτ᾿ ἄν ἀπόδειξις καί ἐπί τινος εἴδους τοῦ καθόλου καί ἐφ᾿ ἑνός ἑκάστου γε τῶν μερικῶν ἀποδείξεις γίνονται, καθόλου μέν οὔ, πῶς γάρ; ἀψευδεῖς δέ καί ἀναγκαῖαι. Ἕλλησι μέν οὖν πιθανολογία ἡ θεολογία, διό καί διαλεκτικός ἅπας ὁ δοκῶν αὐτοῖς θεολογικός συλλογισμός, ἐξ ἐνδόξων ἔνδοξος, ταὐτόν δέ εἰπεῖν πιθανός ἐκ πιθανῶν. Οὐδέν γάρ ἴσασι περί Θεοῦ βέβαιον οὐδ᾿ ἀσφαλές, «ἀλλ᾿ ἐματαιώθησαν ἐν τοῖς διαλογισμοῖς αὐτῶν». Ἡμεῖς δέ οὐκ ἐξ ἐνδόξων ἐπί τό θεολογεῖν ὁρμώμεθα ἀρχῶν, ἀλλ᾿ ἀμεταπείστως περί ταύτας ἔχομεν, θεοδιδάκτους οὔσας. Πῶς οὖν οὐκ ἀποδεικτικόν, ἀλλά διαλεκτικόν τόν τοιοῦτον συλλογισμόν ἐροῦμεν; Καί μήν εἴ τις τῶν τήν διαλεκτικήν ἐν τοῖς περί Θεοῦ λεγομένοις εἰσαγόντων, ὅ παρά τῶν θεολόγων ρητῶς ἀπηγόρευται πατέρων, εἴ τις τοίνυν καί τούτων τούς εὖ ἔχοντας ἀναλύσειε συλλογισμούς, ἥκιστ᾿ ἐν τούτοις εὑρήσει τό καθόλου˙ τό τε γάρ προκείμενον μοναδικόν ἐστι καί πᾶν ὅ,τι τῶν αὐτῷ προσόντων μόνῳ κυρίως πρόσεστιν αὐτῷ. «Οὐδείς γάρ» φησίν «ἀγαθός, εἰ μή εἷς ὁ Θεός», ὁ μόνος σοφός, ὁ μακάριος καί μόνος δυνάστης, «ὁ μόνος ἔχων ἀθανασίαν, φῶς οἰκῶν ἀπρόσιτον». Οὐδέν οὖν τῶν ἑπομένων ἐπί πλέον εἴη ἄν αὐτοῦ, ὥστε καί αὐτῶν ἕκαστον μοναδικόν καί πᾶν ὅ,τι κατηγοροῖτο τούτων οὐ καθόλου. Πῶς οὖν συλλογίσαιντ᾿ ἄν ἄνευ τοῦ καθόλου; Εἰ δέ διά τήν τοῦ προκειμένου ἰδιότητα προάγοντες ἐν ὅλῳ τούς (σελ. 410) οἰκείους δέχονται συλλογισμούς, πολλῷ μᾶλλον διά τό μοναδικόν τοῦ προκειμένου τήν ἀπόδειξιν προσήσονται δίκαια ποιοῦντες. Ἄν δ᾿ αὖθις λέγῃ τις 'ἡ ἀπόδειξις ἐκ τῶν προτέρων, οὐδέν δέ πρότερον Θεοῦ', 'οὐ τά κατ᾿ αὐτόν ἐξετάζομεν, ὦ βέλτιστε', ἐροῦμεν πρός αὐτόν, 'ἀλλά τί τῶν περί αὐτόν'. Τό