83

of the star rather than of the one gazing. But neither is the cone-shaped shadow homogeneous with that which illuminates, through which it is shown to be greater than that which is illuminated, nor is the illumination homogeneous with the sphere; but if they are homogeneous in another way, because what is far off and what glitters and what is not on either, and the other things very similar to these are contemplated concerning the same thing, there too that which is shown and that through which it is shown would rightly be contemplated concerning the same thing.

Those who are purified in heart know, through the proof of the sacred manifestation of light that comes to be in them, that God exists and what kind of light he is, or rather, a source of intelligible and immaterial light. Therefore, they are grateful not to themselves, but to the one who illuminates, just as there is no grace in the air that is perceptibly illuminated, for its brightness is not its own, but belongs to the illuminating sun, while of the air only its transparency is graceful, just as for the God-bearers the capacity to show the intelligible illumination through purity of heart is. Even those who have not ascended to this level of contemplation are able, from the providence concerning all things, to perceive the common provider; from those who are made good, goodness itself; from those who are given life, life itself; from those who are made wise, wisdom itself; and simply from all things, the one who is all things and is excepted and established above all things, that many-named and unnamable supersubstantial substance. What then, are not all these things contemplated immaterially concerning that one thing, (p. 426) whatever that thing may be? And what, is it not through these, as if through unerring proofs, that there comes to be an irrefutable demonstration that there is some producer and provider, without beginning before all things, all-powerful, all-seeing, all-good, all-causing, supernatural? I for my part think so, and very much think so, and I do not think I could speak against it. So then, we too in like manner, when it has been theologized in the symbol of the faith concerning both the Son and the Holy Spirit, and the one is proclaimed to be begotten of the Father, and the other to proceed from the Father, we conclude that "from the Father alone" is applicable to both, showing from things similarly theologized later the things that pre-eternally exist similarly in this respect.

However, although we have written so much to you about this, we shall not much differ whether one calls such arguments simply a showing or a demonstration; let him only cherish the truth that is manifested through them more clearly than light. But for your sake we have advocated for "demonstration," as if making a defense on its behalf. For when you highly praised in letters my arguments against the Latins, I, suspecting the censure that was subtly present in the title, even if illogical, disclaimed it, so that it might not be referred back to the one praising. Therefore, so that I might make you a worthy judge of this name, I will set forth the differences between the demonstrative and the dialectical syllogism. And it is your task to consider and judge impartially to which they are more fittingly applied, the arguments composed concerning divine dogmas, and especially when we set forth our own pious and unswerving doctrine concerning God. The one, then, concerns the necessary and what is always and is true and is always in the same state, while the dialectical concerns the reputable and the plausible and what is by nature at different times in different states, and now is, but now is not, and sometimes is true, but sometimes not. Where then, receiving divine things (p. 428), and that it is divided, even if not in itself, for which reason also in the division it remains undivided, and that even in what is divided it has one and undivided origin, for which reason also in this there is one God, and that He is creator and that He is provider and that He is sustainer and the other things that are similar to these, it is possible, as it is necessary, for those seeking the causes, which would also be among those things concerning God, to attain to the discovery, and having attained it, with God, no longer to be in a state of questioning, that is, dialectically, but to know demonstratively and to channel the divine through reason to others

83

ἀστέρος μᾶλλον ἤ τοῦ ἀτενίζοντος. Ἀλλ᾿ οὐδ᾿ ἡ κωνοειδής σκιά τῷ φωτίζοντι ὁμογενές, δι᾿ ἧς μεῖζον τοῦ φωτιζομένου δείκνυται, οὐδέ ὁ φωτισμός τῇ σφαίρᾳ ἐστίν ὁμογενής˙ εἰ δ᾿ ἕτερον τρόπον εἰσίν ὁμογενῆ, ὅτι περί τό αὐτό θεωρεῖται τό πόρρω καί τό στίλβειν καί τό μή ἐφ᾿ ἑκατέρου καί τά ἄλλα τούτοις γε παραπλησίως, κἀκεῖ θεωροῖτο ἄν περί τό αὐτό καλῶς τό τε δεικνύμενον καί δι᾿ οὗ ἐκεῖνο δείκνυται.

Ἴσασιν οἱ κεκαθαρμένοι τήν καρδίαν διά τεκμηρίου τῆς ἐγγινομένης ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ἱερᾶς φωτοφανείας ὅτι ἔστι Θεός καί οἷον φῶς ἐστι, μᾶλλον δέ πηγή φωτός νοεροῦ τε καί ἀΰλου. ∆ιό καί χάριν ἴσασιν οὐχ ἑαυτοῖς, ἀλλά τῷ φωτίζοντι, ὥσπερ οὐδέ τῷ ἀέρι χάρις αἰσθητῶς πεφωτισμένῳ, οὐ γάρ ἡ λαμπρότης ἐστίν αὐτοῦ, ἀλλά τοῦ φωτίζοντος ἡλίου, τοῦ δ᾿ ἀέρος μόνον τό διαφανές ἐπίχαρι, ὡς καί τοῖς θεοφόροις τό διά καθαρότητα καρδίας δεικτικόν τῆς νοερᾶς ἐλλάμψεως. ∆ύνανται καί οἱ μή πρός τοῦτο θεωρίας ἀναβεβηκότες ἐκ τῆς περί πάντα προμηθείας τόν κοινόν προμηθέα συνορᾶν, ἐκ τῶν ἀγαθυνομένων τήν αὐτοαγαθότητα, ἐκ τῶν ζωοποιουμένων τήν αὐτοζωήν, ἐκ τῶν σοφιζομένων τήν αὐτοσοφίαν καί ἁπλῶς ἐκ πάντων τόν τά πάντα ὄντα καί ὑπεξῃρημένον καί ὑπερανιδρυμένον πάντων, τήν πολυώνυμον ἐκείνην καί ἀκατανόμαστον ὑπερούσιον οὐσίαν. Τί οὖν, οὐ ταῦτα πάντα περί ἕν ἐκεῖνο ἀΰλως θεωρεῖται, (σελ. 426) ὅ,τι ποτέ ἐστιν ἐκεῖνο; Τί δέ, οὐ διά τούτων οἷα τεκμηρίων ἀψευδής γίνεται ἀπόδειξις ὅτι ἔστι τις προαγωγεύς καί προμηθεύς προάναρχον ἁπάντων, παντοδύναμος, παντεπίσκοπος, πανάγαθος, παναίτιος, ὑπερφυής; Ἐγώ μέν οἶμαι καί πάνυ γε οἴομαι καί οὐδ᾿ ἄν οἶμαι ἔχειν ἀντειπεῖν. Οὕτω τοίνυν καί ἡμεῖς ὁμοίως, τεθεολογημένον ἐπί τοῦ τῆς πίστεως συμβόλου περί τε τοῦ Υἱοῦ καί τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος, καί τοῦ μέν γεγεννῆσθαι ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός κηρυττομένου, τοῦ δέ ἐκπορεύεσθαι ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός, ἀμφοτέροις τό ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρός ἐφαρμόζεσθαι συνάγομεν, ἐκ τῶν ὕστερον ὁμοίως τεθεολογημένων τά προαιωνίως κατά τοῦθ᾿ ὁμοίως ὑπάρχοντα δεικνύντες.

Οὐ μήν ἀλλ᾿ εἰ καί τοσαῦτα περί τούτου σοι γεγράφαμεν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ πάνυ διοισόμεθα εἴθ᾿ ἁπλῶς δεῖξιν εἴτε ἀπόδειξιν τούς τοιούτους λόγους λέγει τις˙ μόνον στεργέτω τήν δι᾿ αὐτῶν φωτός τρανότερον ἐκφαινομένην ἀλήθειαν˙ σοῦ δ᾿ ἕνεκα συνηγορήσαμεν τῇ ἀποδείξει, οἷον ἀπολογίαν ὑπέρ ταύτης ποιησάμενοι˙ τούς γάρ ἐμούς κατά Λατίνων διά γραμμάτων λίαν ἐπανοῦντος λόγους, ὑπειδόμενος τήν εἰ καί μή κατά λόγον ὅμως ὑφέρπουσαν μέμψιν τῇ ἐπιγραφῇ, ὡς ἄν μή πρός τόν ἐπαινέτην ἀναφέροιτο ἀπετριψάμην. Ἵν᾿ οὖν καί σέ κριτήν ἀξιόχρεων τούτου τοῦ ὀνόματος ποιήσωμαι παραθήσομαι τάς διαφοράς τοῦ τε ἀποδεικτικοῦ καί διαλεκτικοῦ συλλογισμοῦ. Σόν δ᾿ ἔστι σκοπεῖν καί ἀδεκάστως κρίνειν τίνι μᾶλλον προσήκουσιν οἱ περί θείων δογμάτων συντιθέμενοι, καί μάλισθ᾿ ὅταν τήν ἡμῶν αὐτῶν εὐσεβῆ καί ἀκλινῆ περί Θεοῦ δόξαν ἐκτιθώμεθα. Ὁ μέν οὖν περί τό ἀναγκαῖον καί ἀεί ὄν καί ἀληθές ὄν καί ἀεί ὡσαύτως ἔχον, ὁ δέ διαλεκτικός περί τό ἔνδοξον καί πιθανόν καί πεφυκός ἄλλοτε ἄλλως ἔχειν καί νῦν μέν ὄν, νῦν δ᾿ οὐκ ὄν, καί ποτέ μέν ἀληθές, ποτέ δέ μή. Ποῦ ποτ᾿ ἄρα τά θεῖα (σελ. 428) δεχομένη, καί ὅτι διαιρεῖται, κἄν μή καθ᾿ ἑαυτήν, διό καί ἐν τῇ διαιρέσει μένει ἀδιαίρετος, καί ὅτι κἀν τῷ διαιρετῷ μίαν καί ἀδιαίρετον ἔχει τήν ἀρχήν, διό κἀν τούτῳ εἷς Θεός, καί ὅτι δημιουργός καί ὅτι προνοητής καί ὅτι συνοχεύς καί τ᾿ ἄλλα ὅσα τούτοις ὅμοια, ἔστιν ὡς δέον εἶναι ζητοῦντας τάς αἰτίας, αἵ καί αὗται τῶν περί Θεοῦ ἄν εἶεν, ἐφικέσθαι τῆς εὑρέσεως, σύν Θεῷ δ᾿ ἐφικομένους, οὐ διαπορητικῶς ἔτ᾿ ἔχειν ἤτοι διαλεκτικῶς, ἀλλ᾿ ἀποδεικτικῶς ἐπίστασθαι καί πρός ἑτέρους τήν θείαν διά λόγου μετοχετεύειν