but without proof there will be none. Let us then set against Plato his own teachings, as he is willingly set in opposition,

and against Aristotle his own, this philosopher that is, even if he were unwilling. But first let us see how he himself thinks to prove that our discourses concerning divine things are in no way a proof, and first the first point, as the strongest of the others and, as it were, unsubstantial and invincible, put forth freely and with its vehement rush having, like a whirring sound, the abuse echoing underneath: "What for the geometers is a principle and an axiom, this for us," he says, "are the declarations of the fathers; therefore, one must not take any from a syllogism," just as geometers do not take the principles of their own discipline. "But he who does this is ignorant and uneducated." Bravo, O educated one, not again waxing insolent with the excess of your education. But since, according to you, we hold the declarations of the fathers as geometric principles, what is deduced from these is for us a proof, just as what is deduced from geometric principles is for the geometers.

Where then is that point, for which your whole argument is made, that it is in no way possible to speak of proof concerning divine things? But the syllogism not made from these principles is not theological, just as one not from geometric principles is not geometrical. Therefore a theological syllogism is never dialectical, just as a geometrical one is not. Do you see how you have unwittingly sided with us? For the very opposite of your thesis has been shown to result from your own words on behalf of this very thesis (p. 560); thus everything that does not agree with the truth is also inconsistent with itself. But shall we demonstrate geometric principles from non-geometric principles, and theological ones from non-theological ones, or not? For apart from these, nothing is judged trustworthy concerning God by the fullness of the church, and one must enter into it through the courtyard, that is, through Scripture. Therefore we shall show these very principles to be trustworthy from similar ones, and reasonably so even to the heretics who contradict them, because he who inquires about geometric principles disbelieves the geometers, but those who inquire about theological ones, and especially those to whom our argument is addressed, say that they believe the attested theologians, but are in doubt about some of the things said by them. If, therefore, from what has been clearly declared by them and is agreed upon by these people, we consistently deduce the point in question, we have resolved the dispute, and for this reason the principles of theology are also demonstrated theologically, unless perhaps our argument should be with the Greeks.

And in these cases too, having for a little while set forth the probable arguments suitably for them, we shall then demonstrate the necessities of the miracles, from which whatever might be concluded will have been theologically demonstrated. The things which you continually demonstrate syllogistically concerning divine matters, if they are from theological principles, then what is demonstrated is a proof, for it has been demonstrated from demonstrative principles, according to you, but if it is not from what was said by the fathers, it will in no way possess trustworthiness. So that you demonstrate not only not demonstratively, but not even dialectically; sophistically, therefore, if indeed syllogistically. Thus you have yourself contended against yourself.

As for those things from which you boast, exalting yourself with bombastic speeches as one who has mastery in arguments, I think I shall pass over them. For just as above he unwittingly suffered the contrary of his own (p. 562) thesis, so too here, wishing to show himself most demonstrative and at the same time most theological, you have appeared as one of the uninitiated in such matters. For both the conversion, which of necessity most propositions of theological syllogisms have, of which some have equalizing terms on account of the utter uniqueness of the subject, and again, of the causes in demonstrations, however many are simultaneous, even if in a different way, you were shown to be completely ignorant, and that the lesser of the postulates are not lesser, when not also

δέ χωρίς ἀπόδειξις οὐκ ἔσται. Πλάτωνι μέν οὖν ἀντιστήσωμεν κἀκείνου παιδεύματα, ἑκουσίως ἀντιτεταγμένον,

τῷ δ᾿ Ἀριστοτέλει τά οἰκεῖα, τόν φιλόσοφον δηλαδή τοῦτον, εἰ καί μή ἑκόντα εἶναι. Πρῶτον δ᾿ ἴδωμεν πῶς αὐτός τούς ἡμῶν περί τῶν θείων λόγους μηδαμῶς εἶναι ἀπόδειξιν ἀποδεικνύειν οἴεται, καί πρῶτον τό πρῶτον, ὡς τῶν ἄλλων κράτιστον καί οἷον ἀνυπόστατόν τε καί ἄμαχον προβεβλημένον ἀνέδην καί τῇ σφοδρᾷ φορᾷ καθάπερ ροῖζον ἔχον ὑπηχοῦντα τήν λοιδορίαν˙ «ὅπερ τοῖς γεωμέρταις ἀρχή καί ἀξίωμα, τοῦθ᾿ ἡμῖν» φησιν «αἱ τῶν πατέρων ἀποφάνσεις˙ οὐδεμίαν ἄρα χρή ἐκ συλλογισμοῦ λαβεῖν», ὥσπερ οὐδ᾿ οἱ γεωμέτραι τάς τῆς οἰκείας ἕξεως ἀρχάς˙ «ὁ δέ τοῦτο ποιῶν ἀμαθής καί ἀπαίδευτος». Εὖγε, ὁ πεπαιδευμένος οὐ καί αὖθις ἐξυβρίζων τῇ περιουσίᾳ τῆς παιδείας. Ἀλλ᾿ ἐπειδήπερ ὡς γεωμετρικάς ἀρχάς καί κατά σέ τάς τῶν πατέρων ἀποφάνσεις ἔχομεν, τό ἐκ τούτων συναγόμενον ἀπόδειξίς ἐστιν ἡμῖν, ὥσπερ καί τό ἐκ γεωμετρικῶν ἀρχῶν τοῖς γεωμέτραις.

Ποῦ δή ἐκεῖνο ὡς ἐπί τῶν θείων ἀπόδειξιν οὐκ ἔνι λέγειν οὐδαμῶς ὑπέρ οὗ σοι πᾶς ὁ λόγος; Ἀλλ᾿ ὁ μή ἐκ τούτων τῶν ἀρχῶν συλλογισμός γινόμενος οὐ θεολογικός, ὥσπερ οὐδέ γεωμετρικός ὁ μή ἐκ γεωμετρικῶν ἀρχῶν. Ούκοῦν θεολογικός συλλογισμός διαλεκτικός οὐδέποτε, ὥσπερ οὐδέ γεωμετρικός˙ ὁρᾷς πῶς ἔλαθες συνηγορῶν ἡμῖν; Τῆς γάρ σῆς προθέσεως ἅπαν τοὐναντίον ἐξ αὐτῶν τῶν σῶν ὑπέρ αὐτῆς ταύτης τῆς προθέσεως ἐκβαῖνον ἀποδέδεικται (σελ. 560) λόγων˙ οὕτω πᾶν τό μή τῇ ἀληθείᾳ συμβαῖνον καί ἑαυτῷ ἀνακόλουθον. Ἀλλά γεωμετρικάς μέν ἀρχάς δείξομεν ἐξ οὐ γεωμετρικῶν ἀρχῶν, τάς δέ θεολογικάς ἐξ οὐ θεολογικῶν, οὔ; Καί γάρ τούτων ἐκτός οὐδέν ἀξιόπιστον περί Θεοῦ τῷ πληρώματι τῆς ἐκκλησίας κρίνεται, καί εἰσέρχεσθαι δεῖ πρός ταύτην διά τῆς αὐλῆς, τουτέστι τῆς Γραφῆς˙ ἐκ τῶν ὁμοίων ἄρα καί αὐτάς δείξομεν πιστάς, καί αὐτοῖς τοῖς ἀντιλέγουσιν αἱρετικοῖς εἰκότως, ὅτι ὁ μέν περί γεωμετρικῶν ἀρχῶν ζητῶν τοῖς γεωμέτραις ἀπιστεῖ, οἱ δέ περί θεολογικῶν, καί μάλιστα πρός οὕς ἡμῖν ὁ λόγος, πιστεύειν μέν φασι τοῖς μεμαρτυρημένοις θεολόγοις, ἀμφιγνοῦσι δέ τινα τῶν παρ᾿ ἐκείνων εἰρημένων˙ ἄν οὖν ἀπό τῶν φανερῶς αὐτοῖς ἐκπεφασμένων καί τούτοις συνωμολογημένων ἀκολούθως τό ζητούμενον συναγάγωμεν, ἐλύσαμεν τήν ἀμφιστήτησιν καί διά τοῦτο θεολογικῶς καί αἱ ἀρχαί τῆς θεολογίας δείκνυνται, εἰ μή ἄρα πρός Ἕλληνας ἡμῖν ὁ λόγος εἴη.

Κἀπί τούτων δέ ἐπ᾿ ὀλίγον τά εἰκότα καταλλήλως αὐτοῖς προχειρισάμενοι, τάς τῶν θαυμάτων ἔπειτα προδείξομεν ἀνάγκας, ἀφ᾿ ὧν ὅ,τι ἄν συμπερανθείη θεολογικῶς ἔσται ἀποδεδειγμένον. Ἅ δή σύ περί τῶν θείων διατελεῖς συλλογιστικῶς δεικνύων, εἰ μέν ἐκ τῶν θεολογικῶν ἀρχῶν, ἀπόδειξις ἄρα τό δειχθέν, ἐκ γάρ ἀποδεικτικῶν καί κατά σέ δέδεικται ἀρχῶν, εἰ δέ μή ἐκ τῶν τοῖς πατράσιν εἰρημένων, οὐδαμόθεν ἕξει τό πιστόν. Ὥστ᾿ οὐχ ὅπως οὐκ ἀποδεικτικῶς δεικνύεις, ἀλλ᾿ οὐδέ διαλεκτικῶς˙ σοφιστικῶς οὖν εἴπερ συλλογιστικῶς˙ οὕτω κατ᾿ αὐτός σαυτοῦ ἠγωνισμένος ἔχεις.

Ἅ δή τοὐντεῦθεν αὐχεῖς σαυτόν ἐξαίρων ταῖς μαγαληγορίαις ὡς τό ἐν λόγοις κράτος ἔχοντα, παρεῖναί μοι δοκῶ. Καί γάρ ὥσπερ ἀνωτέρω τἀναντία τῆς οἰκείας (σελ. 562) θέσεως ἔλαθεν παθών, οὕτω δή κἀνταῦθα ἀποδεικτικώτατον ἅμα καί θεολογικώτατον θέλων δεῖξαι σεαυτόν, τῶν περί τά τοιαῦτ᾿ ἀμυήτων εἷς ἐφάνης˙ τήν τε γάρ ἀντιστροφήν, ἥν ἐξ ἀνάγκης αἱ πλείους προτάσεις ἔχουσι τῶν θεολογικῶν συλλογισμῶν, ἔστιν ὧν ἐξισαζόντων ὅρων διά τό μοναδικώτατον τοῦ προκειμένου, καί αὖθις τῶν ἐν ταῖς ἀποδείξεσιν αἰτίων ὅσα ἅμα, εἰ καί τρόπον ἕτερον, ἀγνοῶν παντάπασιν ἐδείχθης, καί ὅτι τά ἐλάττω τῶν αἰτημάτων οὐκ ἐλάττω, ὅταν μή καί