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 then is the most precise conclusion from the most precise of syllogisms? "Of the Father and the Son there is one nature and essence"; and it is the same as this (p. 478) to say: "The Father and the Son are one God". And who does not know this, that it is a declaration declared to us by the holy Fathers? And therefore hear your own words against yourself: "what for geometers is a principle and common notion and axiom, this for us is each of the declarations, all the divine ones that have been declared to us by holy men; therefore one must not accept any from a syllogism". Oh, oh, even the most mathematical is as one unlearned; for you who say these things and name us, from what you just heard, as demonstrating by syllogism that the Father alone is the Projector of the Spirit, have yourself attempted to demonstrate by a syllogism that the Father and the Son are one God, a thing which is self-evidently credible above all else and which the fathers have declared; and you say that this is for you the most precise syllogism of all, although this was not first declared by the fathers, but by one of the divine Trinity himself and God of the fathers, Jesus, who says, "I and the Father are one" and "he who has seen me has seen the Father"; and "if you had known me, you would have known my Father also" and "I am in the Father and the Father is in me". But if the declarations of the fathers are credible in themselves, how much more so are those of the Lord of the fathers; therefore to that extent, one who attempts to demonstrate by means of a syllogism is all the more uninstructed, if not something more than uninstructed.

But do not be vexed recognizing your own words, not spoken back to you by us in reply, but proceeding from your own arguments; for what I said at the beginning, you have written against your very self, having attempted by such means to overthrow my positions, by which someone could no less overthrow all your positions as well, and not only yours, so that we may contrive some diversion for you (p. 480), but also simply everything that might seem to be demonstrated logically concerning God and divine things, and all who have spoken and who are going to speak. From nearly the same line of attack the outsiders also proceeded against our positions, but they were in no way strong enough, but "they became futile in their thinking", applying mortal rules, so to speak, to the arguments concerning the immortal, whose champions of their doctrines you admire as having "comprehended the divine transcendence," a thing which is incomprehensible even to the many-eyed cherubim on account of their surpassing intelligence. For this reason it seemed to me now to write in reply as one of the most necessary and most beneficial things, so that you too might become wiser than yourself, taking the opportunity from us who are unwise, and that I might, if I could, remove from danger your positions which are endangered along with mine, and persuade you to pay attention to the simplicity of the fathers rather than to Plato and the son of Nicomachus.

They, with the foolishness of the Gospel, are sure guides of the school of theology, as the Spirit of true wisdom rests upon their spirits and makes those who attend to them "taught by God," who, even if something from outside is not dissonant, also adopt it and harmonize it with the melody of the Spirit. If you wish to hear from them what they call a divine demonstration, and not simply a demonstration but a syllogistic demonstration, take up into your hands the Dogmatic Panoply; for there you will see this inscribed in many places, and having read the argument which contains this title, you will find there everywhere syllogism and you will hear a syllogistic demonstration that God is one, and you will cease accusing us for saying, unless perhaps you accuse them along with us, although "God is one" (p. 482) is more than anything a declaration delivered by God, "for the Lord your God, the Lord is one"; if, at least, it was their wish the declarations simply

ἵν᾿ ἐξελέγξω σε κατά σέ καί εἰς ἔργον ἐκβῇ τό σολομώντειον ἔπος˙ «ὁ ὀρύσσων βόθρον τῷ πλησίον ἐμπεσεῖται εἰς αὐτόν». Τί δή τό ἐκ τοῦ ἀκριβεστάτου τῶν συλλογισμῶν ἀκριβέστατον συμπέρασμα; «Πατρός καί Υἱοῦ μία φύσις καί οὐσία ἐστί»˙ τούτῳ δέ ταὐτόν (σελ. 478) εἰπεῖν˙ «εἷς Θεός ὁ Πατήρ καί ὁ Υἱός». Τοῦτο δέ τίς οὐκ οἶδεν, ὡς ἀπόφανσίς ἐστιν ὑπό τῶν ἁγίων Πατέρων ἡμῖν ἀποφανθεῖσα; Καί τοίνυν ἄκουσον τῶν σαυτοῦ κατά σαυτοῦ λόγων˙ «ὅπερ ἐστί τοῖς γεωμέτραις ἀρχή καί κοινή ἔννοια καί ἀξίωμα, τοῦθ᾿ ἡμῖν ὑπάρχει ἑκάστη τῶν ἀποφάνσεων, ὅσαι ἡμῖν τῶν θείων ὑπό τῶν ἁγίων ἀνδρῶν ἀπεφάνθησαν˙ οὐδεμίαν ἄρα χρή ἐκ συλλογσιμοῦ λαβεῖν». Ἴού, ἰού, καί ὁ μαθηματικώτατος ὡς ἀμαθής˙ ὁ γάρ ταῦτα λέγων σύ καί ἡμᾶς ὀνομάζων ἀφ᾿ ὧν ἀρτίως ἐκούεις τόν Πατέρα μόνον προβολέα Πνεύματος διά συλλογισμοῦ δεικνύντας, ὅτι ὁ Πατήρ καί ὁ Υἱός εἷς ἐστι Θεός, ὅ παντός μᾶλλον αὐτόθεν ἐστί πιστόν καί οἱ πατέρες ἀπεφήναντο, διά συλλογισμοῦ δεῖξαι ἐπειράθης καί τόν ἀκριβέστατον ἁπάντων τοῦτον σοι φῄς συλλογισμόν, καίτοι οὐδ᾿ ὑπό τῶν πατέρων πρώτων ἀπεφάνθη τοῦτο, ἀλλ᾿ ὑπ᾿ αὐτοῦ τοῦ ἑνός τῆς θεαρχικῆς Τριάδος καί Θεοῦ τῶν πατέρων Ἰησοῦ, ὅς φησιν, «ἐγώ καί ὁ Πατήρ ἕν ἐσμεν» καί «ὁ ἑωρακώς ἐμέ ἑώρακε τόν Πατέρα»˙ καί «εἰ ἐμέ ἐγνώκειτε, καί τόν Πατέρα μου ἐγνώκειτε ἄν» καί «ἐγώ ἐν τῷ Πατρί καί ὁ Πατήρ ἐν ἐμοί». Εἰ δ᾿ αἱ τῶν πατέρων ἀποφάνσεις αὐτόπιστοι, πόσῳ μᾶλλον αἱ τοῦ Κυρίου τῶν πατέρων˙ κατά τοσοῦτο τοίνυν, μᾶλλον διά συλλογισμοῦ πειρώμενος δεικνύειν ἀπαίδευτος, εἰ μή τι καί τῶν ἀπαιδεύτων πλέον.

Ἀλλά μή χαλέπαινε τάς σαυτοῦ γνωρίζων φωνάς οὐ παρ᾿ ἡμῶν ἀντιπροσαγομένας ἀνταποδιδόντων, ἀλλ᾿ ἐκ τῶν σῶν λόγων ἐκβαινούσας˙ ὅ γάρ τήν ἀρχήν εἶπον, κατ᾿ αὐτός σαυτοῦ γέγραφας, διά τοιούτων πειραθείς ἀνατρέπειν τά ἐμά, δι᾿ ὧν οὐδέν ἄν ἧττον καί τά σά τις ἀνατρέψειε πάντα, καί οὐ τά σά μόνον, ἵνα σοι καί τινα ψυχαγωγίαν (σελ. 480) ἐπινοήσωμεν, ἀλλά καί πάνθ᾿ ἁπλῶς ἅ ἄν δόξαι τά περί Θεοῦ καί τῶν θείων λογικῶς δεικνύμενα, καί πάντας τούς εἰπόντας καί τούς μέλλοντας ἐρεῖν. Ἀπό τῆς αὐτῆς σχεδόν παρασκευῆς καί οἱ ἔξω κατά τῶν ἡμετέρων ἐχώρησαν, οὐδαμῇ δ᾿ ὅμως ἴσχυσαν, ἀλλ᾿ «ἐματαιώθησαν ἐν τοῖς διαλογισμοῖς αὐτῶν», θνητούς, ἵν᾿ οὕτως εἴπω, κανόνας τοῖς περί τοῦ ἀθανάτου λόγοις προσάγοντες, ὧν σύ τούς προστάτας τῶν κατ᾿ ἐκείνους δογμάτων ὡς «τήν θείαν «ὑπεροχήν κατανενοηκότας» ἄγασαι, τήν καί αὐτοῖς τοῖς διά τό περιόν τῆς νοήσεως πολυομμάτοις χερουβίμ ἀκατανόητον οὖσαν. ∆ιά τοῦτο μοι καί νῦν ἀντιγράψαι τῶν ἀπαραιτήτων ἐφάνη καί λυσιτελεστάτων, ὡς ἄν καί σύ σεαυτοῦ γένοιο σοφώτερος ἐξ ἡμῶν τῶν ἀσόφων ἀφορμήν λαβών, καί τά σά συγκινδυνεύοντα τοῖς ἐμοῖς, εἴπερ ἄρα δυναίμην, ἐξέλωμαι τοῦ κινδύνου καί σέ πείσω τῇ τῶν πατέρων ἰδιωτείᾳ μᾶλλον ἤ Πλάτωνι καί τῷ Νικομάχου τόν νοῦν προσέχειν.

Ἐκεῖνοι μετά τῆς μωρίας τοῦ εὐαγγελίου τοῦ διδασκαλείου τῆς θεολογίας ἀσφαλεῖς προστάται, τοῦ τῆς ἀληθοῦς σοφίας Πνεύματος τοῖς πνεύμασι τούτων ἐφιζάνοντος καί «διδακτικούς Θεοῦ» ποιοῦντος τούς αὐτοῖς φοιτῶντας, οἵ κἄν τῶν θύραθεν οὐκ ἀπηχές ᾖ καί τοῦτ᾿ εἰσποιοῦνται καί ἐναρμόζονται τῇ ἐμμελείᾳ τοῦ Πνεύματος. Ὧν εἰ θέλεις ἀκοῦσαι τίνα λέγουσιν ἀπόδειξιν θείαν, καί οὐχ ἁπλῶς ἀπόδειξιν ἀλλά συλλογιστικήν ἀπόδειξιν, ἀνά χεῖρας λάβε τήν ∆ογματικήν πανοπλίαν˙ ἐκεῖ γάρ ὄψει ταύτην ἐπιγεγραμμένην πολλαχοῦ καί τόν λόγον ὑπαναγνούς ὅς ἐνέχει τουτί τοὐπίγραμμα συλλογισμόν εὑρήσεις ἁπανταχοῦ ἐκεῖ καί συλλογιστικήν ἀποδειξιν ὅτι εἷς ἐστι Θεός ἀκούσῃ καί παύσῃ καταιτιώμενος ἡμᾶς εἰπόντας, εἰ μή ἄρα σύν αὐτοῖς, καίτοι τό «εἷς ἐστι Θεός» παντός (σελ. 482) μᾶλλον θεοπαράδοτός ἐστιν ἀπόφανσις, «Κύριος γάρ», ὁ Θεός σου, Κύριος εἷς ἐστιν»˙ εἰ γοῦν βουλομένοις ἦν αὐτοῖς τάς ἀποφάνσεις ἁπλῶς