96

demonstration but syllogistic demonstration, take in hand the Dogmatic Panoply; for there you will see this inscribed in many places and having read the argument which contains this very title, you will find a syllogism everywhere there and you will hear a syllogistic demonstration that God is one and you will cease accusing us for saying it, unless perhaps along with them, although the statement "God is one" is (p. 482) above all divinely handed down, "For the Lord", your God, "is one Lord"; if, then, they wished to call statements simply demonstrations, they would have inscribed the demonstration with this, not with those things from which they syllogistically deduced it.

There, then, for I am not eager to attack you, although you have summoned me to this by many necessities, I have decided to bring you up to the school of the fathers; there, therefore, you will know both how and what things pertain to God and in what way you will not be forced to say that all things are of the divine essence, which is what you have now suffered, choosing to say that you escape the accidental in God and not knowing the way of escape; there you will also find faith differing from knowledge and knowledge of faith in another way; there also you will know the "knowable of God," which is least of all understood in faith, as also the great Paul says that "the knowable of God" has been made manifest even to those outside the faith, which, when we say it, you thought we were saying that to believe is to know. Therefore, with the collected voices of the ancients there, I will not cease both thinking and speaking in harmony; and these speak very effectively in the titles, as we said, unless perhaps with some qualification, not the statement as a self-evident demonstration, but the argument that is brought forth syllogistically, as the syllogism has something more akin to demonstration; for if this were not so, they would have inscribed every statement as a demonstration; for we who follow the fathers are unshakeably disposed toward them.

The divine, then, O admirable one, being better than all mind and reason, is also beyond dialectic, for it is pre-eminently removed from imagination and opinion, and beyond demonstration; for contact with it is not knowledge, and it is altogether beyond every syllogistic approach; but we have been taught in practice by the fathers (p. 484) to reason syllogistically about divine things. How then should we address these syllogisms? As those who taught, certainly, if not in persuasive words of human wisdom; but we approach divine things in a divine manner from the Spirit-moved power of the theologians; and they called them demonstrative, as has been shown above. What then am I doing that is out of place, friend, if, choosing to do what is dear to the fathers, I gather from all sides, as far as possible, the argument that helps, not ignorant that this does not seem right to Aristotle and to the follower of Ariston, but preferring what seemed right to the fathers over their idle talk and knowing that the knowledge in them about divine things is not safe, even if, know well, this does not seem right to you in your error, although you are ranked with us and hold to the same faith?

For in these very arguments of yours against us, it occurred to you to go through these things about them; for having admired them as "having forbidden demonstration concerning divine things" and as "having understood the divine pre-eminence" and having elevated them "above all partitive and discursive knowledge and all that is rational in the soul" and of the things constituted according to it, that is to say, of every kind of argument and all philosophy, and placing them somewhere on high among the things beyond all sensation and mind and reason, you next string together their words, which are as follows: "but for the vision of things above us, it is necessary to come from above and for an intelligible light to shine forth, through which it is possible to be yoked with divine things, and, better than by demonstration, the unified and simple

96

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 λέγειν ἀποδείξεις, τούτῳ ἄν τήν ἀπόδειξιν ἐπέγραφον, οὐ τοῖς ἐξ ὧν αὐτό συλλογιστικῶς συνήγαγον.

Ἐκεῖ τοίνυν μηδέ γάρ ἐπιτίθεσθαί σοι προθυμούμενος, καίτοι πολλαῖς ἀνάγκαις ἐκκαλεσαμένῳ νῦν εἰς τοῦτο πρός τό παιδαγωγεῖον τῶν πατέρων ἀναβιβάσαι σε διενοήθην˙ ἐκεῖ τοιγαροῦν εἴσῃ καί πῶς καί τίνα τά περί Θεόν καί τίνι τρόπῳ μή πάντα λέγειν θείας οὐσίας βιασθήσῃ, ὅ νῦν ἔπαθες, συβεβηκός ἐπί Θεοῦ ἐκφεύγειν λέγειν προαιρούμενος καί τήν τῆς ἀποφυγῆς ὁδόν μή ἐπιστάμενος˙ ἐκεῖ καί πίστιν εὑρήσεις διαφέρουσαν ἐπιστήμης καί γνῶσιν πίστεως ἕτερον τρόπον˙ ἐκεῖ καί γνωστόν γνώσῃ Θεοῦ ἥκιστ᾿ ἐπί πίστεως ἐκλαμβανόμενον, ὡς καί Παῦλος ὁ μέγας καί τοῖς ἐκτός πίστεως πεφανερῶσθαι λέγει «τό γνωστόν τοῦ Θεοῦ», ὅ λεγόντων ἡμῶν, σύ τό πιστεύειν λέγειν ᾠήθης ἐπίστασθαι. Ταῖς οὖν ἐκεῖ συνειλεγμέναις τῶν προτέρων φωναῖς οὐκ ἀνήσω καί φρονῶν καί λέγων συνῳδά˙ λέγουσι δ᾿ αὗται λίαν ἐνεργῶς ἐν τοῖς ἐπιγράμμασιν, ὡς ἔφημεν, εἰ μή ἄρα μετά προσδιορισμοῦ τινος οὐ τήν ἀπόφανσιν ὡς αὐτόπιστον ἀπόδειξιν, ἀλλά τόν συλλελογισμένως προαγόμενον λόγον, ὡς ἔχοντός τι τοῦ συλλογισμοῦ καί πρός τήν ἀπόδειξιν οἰκειότερον˙ εἰ γάρ μή τοῦτ᾿ ἦν, καί πᾶσαν ἀπόφανσιν ἀπόδειξιν ἄν ἐπέγραφον˙ ἀμεταπείστως γάρ καί πρός αὐτάς ἔχομεν οἱ τοῖς πατράσιν ἑπόμενοι.

Τό γοῦν θεῖον, ὦ θαυμάσιε, κρεῖττον παντός ὑπάρχον νοῦ καί λόγου, καί ὑπέρ τήν διαλεκτικήν ἐστιν, ὑπεροχικῶς γάρ ἐξῄρηται φαντασίας τε καί δόξης, κάι ὑπέρ τήν ἀποδεικτικήν˙ ἐπαφή γάρ αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔστιν οὔτε ἐπιστήμη, καί ὅλως ὑπέρ τήν συλλογιστικήν πᾶσαν ἔφοδόν ἐστιν˙ ἀλλά συλλογίζεσθαι περί τῶν θείων ἔργῳ ὑπό τῶν πατέρων (σελ. 484) ἐδιδάχθημεν. Πῶς οὖν τούτους τούς συλλογισμούς προσαγορεύσωμεν; Ὡς οἱ διδάξαντες πάντως, εἰ μή ἐν πειθοῖς ἀνθρωπίνης σοφίας λόγοις˙ ἀλλά θειωδῶς τά θεῖα μέτιμεν ἐκ τῆς πνευματοκινήτου τῶν θεολόγων δυνάμεως˙ ἀποδεικτικούς δ᾿ ὠνόμασαν ἐκεῖνοι, καθάπερ ἀνωτέρω δέδεικται. Τί τοιγαροῦν ἔκτοπον ἐργάζομαι, φίλος, εἰ τά φίλα τοῖς πατράσι προαιρούμενος πράττειν τόν βοηθοῦντα πανταχόθεν ὡς ἐνόν ἐρανίζομαι λόγον, οὐκ ἀγνοῶν ὡς Ἀριστοτέλει καί τῷ τοῦ Ἀρίστωνος οὐ συνδοκεῖ, ἀλλά προτιθείς τά τοῖς πατράσι δόξαντα τῆς ἐκείνων λογολεσχίας καί εἰδώς ὡς ἡ ἐν ἐκείνοις γνῶσις περί τῶν θείων οὐκ ἀσφαλής, εἰ καί σοί κακῶς εὖ ἴσθι μή τοῦτο συνδοκεῖ, καίτοι μεθ᾿ ἡμῶν τεταγμένῳ καί τῆς αὐτῆς ἀντεχομένῳ πίστεως;

Ἐν γάρ τοῖς πρός ἡμᾶς σου τουτοισί λόγοις ταῦτά σοι περί αὐτῶν διεξελθεῖν ἐπῆλθε˙ θαυμάσας γάρ αὐτούς ὡς «ἀπαγορεύσαντας τήν ἀπόδειξιν ἐπί τῶν θείων» καί ὡς «τήν θείαν ὑπεροχήν κατανενοηκότας» καί ὑπεραναβιβάσας αὐτγούς «τῆς μεριστῆς καί μεταβατικῆς πάσης ἐπιστήμης καί παντός τοῦ λογιζομένου τῆς ψυχῆς» καί τῶν κατ᾿ ἐκεῖνο συνεστώτων, ταὐτόν δ᾿ εἰπεῖν παντοίου λόγων εἴδους καί φιλοσοφίας πάσης, καί ὑψοῦ που θέμενος αὐτούς ἐν τοῖς ὑπέρ πᾶσαν αἴσθησιν καί νοῦν καί λόγον, ἐφεξῆς συνείρεις τούς ἐκείνων λόγους ἔχοντας οὕτως˙ «ἐπί δέ τῶν ὑπέρ ἡμᾶς θέαν δεῖν ἄνωθεν παραγενέσθαι καί φῶς ἀναλάμψαι νοερόν, δι᾿ οὗ ἔστι τοῖς θείοις συζυγεῖν, καί κρεῖττον ἤ κατά ἀπόδειξιν τάς συνεπτυγμένας καί ἁπλᾶς