to be knowledge, and sensation would teach. Have you seen how far this demonstration is from that which is beyond demonstration? Almost as much as

truth from falsehood, and knowledge from ignorance, and light from darkness, if indeed it is of a false and foolish and dark mind to say and to think that the demons are above us, but of a true and enlightened knowledge to know the worth given to us «to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and upon all the power of the enemy»; What then when it also leads up to the sure and clear and true opinion, concerning Self-Truth itself, of the first and only and absolute of all and simply and unlimitedly and self-superessentially existing one? (p. 508) What then is this demonstration to us, when it also bestows the unerring opinion concerning this? Who, preferring or even placing on an equal footing with it that which is according to Aristotle, as you yourself say, beyond demonstration, does not bend heaven to earth and rank the holy things with the profane?

For we too will grant that you speak of the divine as being beyond demonstration, not, however, so long as you say this according to Aristotle, as you now claim to say it; for, my good sir, the man's opinion about divine things is base and, so to speak, inglorious; for how could it not be, he who, that I may speak in the apostolic manner, knowing God, did not glorify or worship Him as God, but having become futile in his own reasonings, he ascribed divinity to demons, and to certain creatures he testified the uncreated, and from our souls, as far as it depended on him, he stripped away immortality? For the intellect from without is nothing to us; and the one in potentiality without this, according to him, is again nothing.

Have you understood where a love of evil leads, that is, not to follow in all things the divinely-inspired Scriptures, but to wish to refute even those who use them against them, and to seek for himself a piety beyond the fathers? For from this you were exalted to think that it is necessary to write down the foolish wise men as enlightened, who have also made God subject to their own understanding, saying that it is difficult, but not impossible, to understand God; they were initiated into these secrets by him who appeared to them through light. But I was unaware that I was carried away by zeal and by the argument into long discourses against them, contrary to our present intention. I will return, then, and though I still have many things to say about many things, I will leave most of them out; and having added a few things, I will then seal my discourse with the beautiful address of love (p. 512) (for in this way I know I will have you repentant), having ceased from continuing with ill-omened words.

Those men, therefore, whom it is customary in our church to call the wise men outside, as being, that is, outside the sacred knowledge of God, those men, therefore, did not even conceive that God is incomprehensible to men, saying that he is difficult to comprehend; but we, not only with our mind, but even with those created minds that are exempt from all pedestrian remission and because of the transcendence of those who approach and minister to the divine majesty, which are called thrones, know God to be incomprehensible. We do not say that because divine things are removed from all things, they are also completely removed from demonstration, or rather, we do say so, but not of that [demonstration] which you, although wishing most of all to dignify it, nevertheless call so easily overturned that, being contradicted by even one chance person, it stands refuted and can no longer be a demonstration.

For the demonstrative syllogism, as you yourself say, «seems to all to be simply true, and no dispute about it arises». And you did not even consider this, that, if nothing else, on account of the Pyrrhonian suspensions of judgment, at least, such a demonstration will henceforth not exist at all, and through which, having bound the harmonic reasoning and

ἐπιστήμην εἶναι, καί ἡ αἴσθησις ἄν διδάξειεν. Εἶδες πόσον ἀπέχει τοῦ ὑπέρ ἀπόδειξιν ἐκείνου ἡ ἀπόδειξις αὕτη; Σχεδόν ὅσον

ψεύδους ἀλήθεια καί γνῶσις ἀγνοίας καί τοῦ σκότους τό φῶς, εἴπερ ψευδοῦς μέν καί ἀνοήτου καί σκοτεινῆς διανοίας ὑπέρ ἡμᾶς τούς δαίμονας λέγειν τε καί λογίζεσθαι, γνώσεως δ᾿ ἀληθοῦς καί πεφωτισμένης εἰδέναι τήν δεδομένην ἡμῖν ἀξίαν «πατεῖν ἐπάνω ὄφεων καί σκορπίων καί ἐπί πᾶσαν τήν δύναμιν τοῦ ἐχθροῦ»˙ Τί δ᾿ ὅταν καί πρός τήν ἀσφαλῆ καί τρανήν καί ἀληθῆ δίξαν, τήν περί αὐτῆς τῆς αὐτοαληθείας, ἀναβιβάζῃ, τοῦ πρώτου καί μόνου καί ἀπολελυμένου τοῦ παντός καί ἁπλῶς καί ἀπεριορίστως καί αὐθυπερουσίως ὄντος; (σελ. 508) Τί τοίνυν ἡ ἀπόδειξις ἡμῖν αὕτη, ὅτε καί τήν ἁπλανῆ περί τούτου χαρίζεται δόξαν; Τίς αὐτῆς προτιμῶν ἤ καί εἰς ἴσον ταύτῃ τιθείς τό κατ᾿ Ἀριστοτέλην, ὡς αὐτός φῄς, ὑπέρ ἀπόδειξιν, οὐ τόν οὐρανόν εἰς γῆν κλίνει καί τά ἅγια συντάττει τοῖς ἐναγέσιν;

Ὑπέρ ἀπόδεξιν μέν γάρ λέγειν σε τό θεῖον καί ἡμεῖς συγχωρήσομεν, οὐχ ἕως μέντοι κατ᾿ Ἀριστοτέλην τοῦτο λέγεις, ὡς νῦν τοῦτο φῄς λέγειν˙ χαμερπής γάρ, ὦ τάν, ἡ περί τῶν θείων τοῦ ἀνδρός δόξα καί ὡς εἰπεῖν ἄδοξος˙ πῶς γάρ οὐ, ὅς ἵνα κατά τό ἀποστολικόν εἴπω, γνούς τόν Θεόν, οὐχ ὡς Θεόν ἐδόξασεν ἤ ἐσεβάσθη, ματαιωθείς δ᾿ ἐν τοῖς οἰκείοις διαλογισμοῖς, δαίμοσι μέν ἐπεφήμισε τό θεῖον, κτίσμασι δ᾿ἔστιν οἷς προσεμαρτύρησε τό ἀγένητον, ψυχῶν δέ τῶν ἡμετέρων, τό γε εἰς αὐτόν ἧκον, ἀπεσύλησε τό ἀθάνατον; Ὁ γάρ θύραθεν νοῦς οὐδέν πρός ἡμᾶς˙ ὁ δέ δυνάμει τούτου χωρίς καί κατ᾿ ἐκεῖνον αὖθις οὐδέν.

Συνῆκας ᾗ κακοῦ φέρει φιλότης, τό μή πάντα στοιχεῖν ταῖς θεοπνεύσταις Γραφαῖς, ἀλλά καί τούς ἐπ᾿ αὐτάς αὐταῖς χρωμένους ἐξελέγχειν ἐθέλειν αὐτόν δέ ζητεῖν τήν ὑπέρ τούς πατέρας εὐσέβειαν; Ἐντεῦθεν γάρ τούς μεμωραμένους σοφούς δεῖν οἴεσθαι πεφωτισμένους ἀναγράφην ἐπήρθης, οἵ καί τόν Θεόν ὑπό τήν σφῶν αὐτῶν πεποίηνται νόησιν, χαλεπόν εἶναι λέγοντες, ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ ἀδύνατον, νοῆσαι Θεόν˙ ταῦτ᾿ ἐμυήθησαν τά ἀπόρρητα ὑπό τοῦ διά φωτός ἐπιφανέντος αὐτοῖς. Ἀλλά γάρ ἔλαθον ὑπό τοῦ ζήλου καί τοῦ λόγου συναρπασθείς πρός τούς κατ᾿ αὐτῶν μακρούς λόγους παρά τήν ἡμετέραν ἀρτίως πρόθεσιν. Ἐπάνειμι τοίνυν, καί πολλά καί περί πολλῶν ἔτ᾿ ἔχων λέγειν καταλείψω τά πλείω˙ μικρά δέ προσειπών, ἔπειτα τῷ καλῷ τῆς ἀγάπης προσρήματι τόν λόγον ἐπισφραγίσομαι (σελ. 512) (ταύτῃ γάρ οἶδα καί σέ μετάμελον ἐσόμενον ἕξων), τοῦ λήγειν ἔτ᾿ ἐπί δυσφήμων ἀφέμενον.

Ἐκεῖνοι μέν οὖν, οὕς ἔξω σοφούς τῇ καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς ἐκκλησίᾳ νενομισμένον καλεῖν, ὡς ἔξω δηλαδή καθεστῶτας τῆς ἱερᾶς περί Θεοῦ γνώσεως, ἐκεῖνοι τοίνυν, οὐδ᾿ ὅτι τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἀκατάληπτος ὁ Θεός ἐνενόησαν, δυσκατάληπτον εἰπόντες αὐτόν˙ ἡμεῖς δέ, μή ὅτι τῷ καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς νῷ, ἀλλά καί αὐτοῖς τοῖς ἀπεξῃρημένης πάσης περιπεζίας ὑφέσεως καί διά τό ὑπεναναβεβηκός τῶν ἐγγιζόντων καί λειτουργούντων τῇ θείᾳ μεγαλειότητι κτισμάτων νοῖς, θρόνοις ὀνομαζομένοις, ἀκατάληπτον ἴσμεν τόν Θεόν. Οὐ μή τῷ πάντων ὑπεξῃρῆσθαι τά θεῖα καί ἀποδείξεως τελέως ὑπεξῃρῆσθαι λέγομεν, μᾶλλον μέν οὖν λέγομεν μέν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ ταύτης ἥν σύ, καίτοι θέλων ἐς τά μάλιστα ἀποσεμνύνειν, ὅμως ἐπί τοσοῦτο λέγεις εὐπερίτρεπτον ὡς ὑφ᾿ ἑνός καί τοῦ τυχόντος ἀντιλεγομένην ἀνίστασθαι καί μηκέτ᾿ ἀπόδειξιν εἶναι δύνασθαι.

Ὁ γάρ ἀποδεικτικός, καθάπερ αὐτός φῄς, συλλογισμός «πᾶσιν ἁπλῶς δοκεῖ εἶναι ἀληθής καί ἀμφισβήτησις περί αὐτοῦ οὐδεμία συνίσταται». Καί οὐδ᾿ ἐκεῖνο ἐνεθυμήθης, ὡς, εἰ μηδέν ἄλλο, διά γοῦν τάς πυρωνείους ἐποχάς, ἀπόδειξις λοιπόν τοιαύτη παντάπασιν οὐκ ἔσται, καί δι᾿ ὧν καταδησάμενος τήν λογιστικήν ἁρμονικήν καί