95

But if this syllogism of yours, so exceedingly elaborated for precision, though tested for a short while, has been revealed to be contentious and illogical, what would those withstand that have not attained this precision for you, when they are submitted to a precise test? But for your sake, for the time being let them lie unexamined. Do you see how many things I again grant to you, the ungrateful one? But let us consider a little further the conclusion of this, your most precise [syllogism] of all, so that I may refute you by your own standards 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? “The Father and the Son are one nature and substance”; and it is the same (p. 478) to say: “The Father and the Son are one God.” And who does not know that this is a declaration declared to us by the holy Fathers? And so, hear your own words against yourself: “Whatever is for geometers a principle and common notion and axiom, this for us is each of the declarations, as many as have been declared to us concerning divine things by holy men; therefore, it is not right to derive any from a syllogism.” Alas, alas, even the most mathematical is as an ignoramus; for you who say these things and call us—from whom you just heard us demonstrating by syllogism that the Father alone is the Projector of the Spirit—[you] have attempted to show by syllogism that the Father and the Son are one God, a thing which is of all things most self-evidently credible 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 Jesus himself, the one of the divine Trinity and God of the fathers, 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 self-evidently credible, how much more so are those of the Lord of the fathers; to that extent, therefore, you who attempt to demonstrate them by syllogism are all the more uneducated, if not even more than the uneducated.

But do not be angry recognizing your own words, not retorted by us in response, but proceeding from your own arguments; for what I said at the beginning, you have written against yourself, having attempted by such means to overturn my points, by which one could no less overturn all of yours as well, and not only yours, so that we might devise (p. 480) some amusement for you, but also simply all things that might seem to be logically demonstrated concerning God and divine things, and all those who have spoken and who are going to speak. From almost the same preparation the pagans also proceeded against our teachings, but in no way did they prevail, but “they became futile in their thinking,” applying mortal rules, so to speak, to arguments concerning the immortal, whose champions of their doctrines you admire as having “comprehended the divine pre-eminence,” which is incomprehensible even to the many-eyed Cherubim on account of their surpassing intelligence. For this reason it seemed to me necessary and most profitable to write in reply now, so that you too might become wiser than yourself, taking the occasion from us the unwise, and that I might, if I were able, rescue your arguments, which are in the same danger as mine, from the danger, and persuade you to pay attention to the plain speech of the fathers rather than to Plato and the son of Nicomachus.

Those men, 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 “taught by God” those who attend to them, who, even if something from the outside is not dissonant, they both adopt it and harmonize it with the melody of the Spirit. Of whom if you wish to hear what divine demonstration they speak, and not simply

95

ἀλλ᾿ εἴπερ ὁ πρός ἀκρίβειαν οὗτος λίαν ἐκπεπονημένος σοι συλλογισμός, καίτοι πρός ὀλίγον βεβασανισμένος ἐριστικός ἀναπέφηνε καί ἀσυλλόγιστος, τί γ᾿ ἄν ὑποσταῖεν οἱ μή πρός τοῦτο σοι ἀκριβείας ἥκοντες, ἀκριβεῖ βασάνῳ παραδεδομένοι; Σήν δ᾿ ὅπως χάριν τό νῦν ἔχον ἀνεξέταστοι κείσθωσαν. Ὅρᾷς ὅσα σοι πάλιν ἐγώ τῷ ἀχαρίστῳ χαρίζομαι; Τό δέ συμπέρασμά σοι τοῦ παντός μᾶλλον ἠκριβωμένου τουτουί μικρόν ἔτι προσθεωρήσωμεν, 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