105

and being vexed that its beauty is dimmed and marred “by the power of those arguments, so that this impediment might be removed, I made the argument concerning this. But he, being angered at the one cleansing as if he were defiling, stumbling, gave way. I do not think, then, that he suffered this by being forced by the power of his opponents, even if he himself says this, but as one not accurately initiated into divine things and, by wishing to seem to have precedence over everyone in arguments, theologizing from the school of vanity and displaying the evil art of Aristotle's techniques in such arguments.

Hence he treats with admiration Aristotle and Plato, Socrates and Pythagoras and all those like them as having "understood the divine preeminence" and bringing them forward discoursing about noetic light (p. 520) and heavenly vision and simple and indivisible contemplations, he himself confirms things concerning them that no one else of our own approves; for "hearing them say these things," he says, "I cannot but say that they too have been enlightened by God"; each of which has been sharply refuted by argument in my former treatise addressed to him, *Against the Hellenic Noetic Vision*. Hence he refutes the Latins in no other way than by saying that their syllogisms are neither dialectical according to the traditions of Aristotle nor demonstrative, not knowing, as it seems, that all or most syllogisms on divine things are neither dialectical nor demonstrative; for how could they be, when they are not even syllogisms according to the traditions of Aristotle, as we showed in the former discourse and now again, as the argument proceeds and God grants, we shall show?

Hence he tries in every way to invalidate our arguments against the Latins, so that he might seem not only a theologian, but also the only one lately on earth. For concerning demonstration, perhaps he took some occasion, but concerning the other things, what reason does he have to oppose arguments that support piety? For this wise man, hearing us say, that God did not come to divinity by nature through an intermediate divinity, but by adoption and grace, and that, if the things of the Spirit are referred to the first cause just as the things of the Only-Begotten are, therefore the Spirit is referred immediately to the Father, and if he is referred immediately, he also proceeds immediately, and that, if the Son is begotten from the Father alone, the Spirit also proceeds from the Father alone, for these are likewise from the Father, except for the mode of existence, and in addition, from those later things similarly theologized, showing the things that pre-eternally exist similarly in this respect and bringing forward those who said, that, "as the Son is from the Father, so also the Spirit is from (p. 522) the Father, except that the one is by begetting, the other by procession," and again, "why is the Spirit not called what the Son is, except for begetting, and all that belongs to the Son also belongs to the Spirit, except for sonship, and all that the Son is, the Spirit also is, except for begetting," and this must be observed in all things said of him, moreover, and refuting through *reductio ad absurdum* those who dogmatize that the Spirit does not proceed from the Father alone and showing that neither would the Son be from the Father alone, if the Spirit were not also, all these things and many others that resound throughout the entire discourse he considered as nothing and says, "you are begging the question."

How are we begging the question, when we have shown through many and numerous co-witnesses that except for the mode of existence, that is, of procession and of begetting, as the Son is from the Father, so also the Spirit is from the Father, and have thus set forth a clear and irrefutable cause for the conclusion? "But it was necessary," he says,

105

καί ἀνιώμενος ὅτι τό κάλλος ἀμαυροῖ καί λωβᾶται «τῇ δυνάμει τῶν λόγων ἐκείνων, ὡς ἐκποδών γένοιτο καί τοῦτο τό σκῶλον τόν περί τούτου λόγον ἐποιησαίμην. Ὁ δέ, κατά τοῦ καθαίροντος ὡς καθαιροῦντος ὀργισθείς, προσκόπτων ἐπέδωκεν. Οὔκουν ἐκ τῆς τῶν ἀντιτεγμένων βιασθέντα δυνάμεως τοῦτο παθεῖν αὐτόν οἴομαι, κἄν αὐτός τοῦτο λέγῃ, ἀλλ᾿ ὡς τά θεῖα μή μεμυημένον ἀκριβῶς καί τῷ δοκεῖν ἔχειν ἐθέλειν τήν περί λόγους κατά παντός προεδρείαν ἀπό τοῦ διδασκαλείου τῆς ματαιότητος θεολογοῦντα καί τῶν Ἀριστοτέλους τεχνῶν τήν κακοτεχνίαν ἐν τοῖς τοιούτοις λόγοις ἐπιδεικνύμενον.

Ἐντεῦθεν Ἀριστοτέλην τε καί Πλάτωνα, Σωκράτην τε καί Πυθαγόραν καί ὅσοι κατ᾿ αὐτούς διά θαύματος ποιεῖται ὡς «τήν θείαν κατανενοηκότας ὑπεροχήν» καί προαγαγών αὐτούς εἰς μέσον διηγουμένους περί νοεροῦ φωτός (σελ. 520) καί θέας οὐρανίου καί θεωριῶν ἁπλῶν καί ἀμερῶν, αὐτός περί αὐτῶν ἅ οὐδείς που᾿ ἕτερος τῶν ἡμετέρων ἐπιψηφίζεται˙ «ταῦτα» γάρ, φησίν, «ἀκούων αὐτῶν λεγόντων, οὐ δύναμαι μή καί αὐτούς ὑπό Θεοῦ πεφωτίσθαι λέγειν»˙ ὧν ἕκαστον ἐν τῷ πρός αὐτόν μοι προτέρῳ Καθ᾿ ἑλληνικῆς νοερᾶς ἐποψίας διακρῶς ἐξελήλεγκται λόγῳ. Ἐντεῦθεν τούς Λατίνους οὐκ ἄλλως ἐξελέγχει ἤ ἀπό τοῦ λέγειν ὅτι οἱ συλλογισμοί αὐτῶν οὔτε διαλεκτικοί εἰσι κατά τάς Ἀριστοτέλους παραδόσεις οὔτε ἀποδεικτικοί, μή εἰδώς, ὡς ἔοικεν, ὅτι πάντες ἤ οἱ πλεῖστοι συλλογισμοί ἐπί τῶν θείων οὔτε διαλεκτικοί εἰσιν οὔτε ἀποδεικτικοί˙ πῶς γάρ οἵ γε οὐδέ συλλογισμοί εἰσι κατά τάς Ἀριστοτέλους παραδόσεις, ὡς ἐδείξαμεν ἐν τῷ προτέρῳ λόγῳ καί νῦν αὖθις, τοῦ λόγους προϊόντος καί τοῦ θεοῦ διδόντος, δείξομεν;

Ἐντεῦθεν τούς ἡμετέρους κατά Λατίνων λόγους παντί τρόπῳ πειρᾶται ἀκυροῦν, ὡς μή μόνον δοκοίη θεολόγος, ἀλλά καί μόνος ἀρτίως ἐπί γῆς. Περί μέν γάρ ἀποδείξεως ἴσως ἀφορμῆς ἐλάβετό τινος, περί δέ τῶν ἄλλων τίς αὐτῷ λόγος τοῖς τῷ εὐσεβεῖ συνηγοροῦσιν ἀντικείσθαι λόγοις; Ἀκούων γάρ ὁ σοφός οὗτος ἡμῶν λεγόντων, ὡς οὐ διά μέσης θεότητος ἐπί θεότητα ἦλθεν ὁ Θεός τήν φύσει, ἀλλά τήν θέσει τε καί χάριτι, καί ὡς, εἰ πρός τήν πρώτην αἰτίαν ὥσπερ τά τοῦ μονογενοῦς οὕτω καί τά τοῦ Πνεύματος ἀναφέρεται, τοιγαροῦν τό Πνεῦμα ἀμέσως ἀναφέρεται πρός τόν Πατέρα, εἰ δέ ἀμέσως ἀναφέρεται καί ἀμέσως ἐκπορεύεται, καί ὡς, εἰ γεννᾶται ὁ Υἱός ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρός, καί τό Πνεῦμα ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρός ἐκπορεύεται, καί γάρ ὁμοίως ταῦτ᾿ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός, πλήν τοῦ τρόπου τῆς ὑπάρξεως, πρός δέ κἀκ τῶν ὕστερον ὁμοίως τεθεολογημένων τά προαιωνίως κατά τοῦθ᾿ ὁμοίως ὑπάρχοντα δεικνύντων καί προαγαγόντων τούς εἰπόνας, ὅτι, «ὡς ὁ Υἱός ἐστιν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός οὕτω καί τό Πνεῦμα ἐκ (σελ. 522) Πατρός, πλήν τοῦ τόν μέν εἶναι γεννητῶς, τό δέ ἐκπορευτῶς», καί αὖθις, «τί μή προσαγορεύεται τό Πνεῦμα ὧν ὁ Υἱός, πλήν γεννήσεως, καί πάντα ὅσα τοῦ Υἱοῦ, καί τοῦ Πνεύματος, πλήν τῆς υἱότητος, καί πάντα ὅσα ὁ Υἱός, καί τό Πνεῦμα, πλήν γεννήσεως», καί τοῦτο τηρητέον ἐν ἅπασι τοῖς ἐπ᾿ αὐτόν λεγομένοις, προσέτι, καί διά τῆς εἰς ἄτοπον ἀπαγωγῆς ἐξελεγχόντων τούς μή ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρός ἐκπορευόμενον τό Πνεῦμα δογματίζοντας καί δεικνύντων ὡς οὐδέ ὁ Υἱός ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρός ἄν εἴη, εἰ μή καί τό Πνεῦμα, ταῦθ᾿ ἅπαντα καί πλεῖσθ᾿ ἕτερα τῷ λόγῳ παντί περιηχούμενα παρ᾿ οὐδέν ἐκεῖνος θέμενος «τό ζητούμενόν» φησιν «ἀξιοῖς».

Πῶς ἀξιοῦμεν τό ζητούμενον διά πολλῶν καί πολλούς ἡμῖν δείξαντες συμμαρτυροῦντας ὅτι πλήν τοῦ τρόπου τῆς ὑπάρξεως, δηλαδή ἐκπορεύεσεώς τε καί γεννήσεως, ὡς ὁ Υἱός ἐστιν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός οὕτω καί τό Πνεῦμα ἐκ Πατρός, καί οὕτω σαφές καί ἀνεξέλεγκτον προθέντες αἴτιον τοῦ συμπεράσματος; «Ἀλλ᾿ ἔδει», φησί,