114

we know him, as he knows himself; thus the philosopher, striving to enclose us in speechlessness from the one established above all and the incomprehensible and ineffable divine super-essentiality, was unaware that he was ranking this with the essences below.

It would be timely also to bring forward and examine his demonstrative canons, the demonstration itself, or rather the self-demonstration, which he put forth from the wisdom of Aristotle against our arguments; for perhaps this too might appear to be one of the "twitterings," as Aristotle himself called Plato's ideas, mocking his teachings. But if there is something useful for us in this, it is not at all surprising; for even from serpents there is some good medicine for us, but for those who kill them and cut them up and prepare them and use them with reason against their bites. Therefore, against Plato and his kind of demonstration, Aristotle will suffice for us; for he says: if the universal is prior to the many, as Plato said, then demonstration (p. 558) will not be, for it is not possible for that which subsists as a unity, and this before all other things, to be predicated of the many, and without a predicate there is no demonstration; nor will there be a middle term, for it will be subject to that which is before all others, but this is impossible, and without a middle term there will be no demonstration.

Let us then oppose to Plato his own teachings, willingly set in opposition, and to Aristotle his own, namely this philosopher, even if not willingly. But first let us see how he himself thinks he proves that our arguments concerning divine things are in no way a demonstration, and first, the first argument, as the strongest of the others and, as it were, insubstantial and invincible, put forward freely and with its violent rush having, like a whirring sound, the abuse echoing underneath: “What is a principle and axiom for geometers,” he says, “this for us are the declarations of the Fathers; therefore one must not accept any from a syllogism,” just as geometers do not accept the principles of their own discipline; “but he who does this is ignorant and uneducated.” Bravo, the educated one, who is not once again being insolent with the abundance of his education. But since, according to you, we have the declarations of the Fathers as geometric principles, that which is deduced from these is a demonstration for us, just as that from geometric principles is for geometers.

Where then is that point for which your whole argument is made, that it is in no way possible to speak of demonstration in divine matters? But the syllogism not made from these principles is not theological, just as the 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 argued on our side? For the very opposite of your thesis has been demonstrated (p. 560) to follow from your own arguments in favor of this very thesis; thus everything that does not agree with the truth is also inconsistent with itself. But we shall prove geometric principles from non-geometric principles, and theological ones from non-theological ones, shall we not? For apart from these, nothing is judged trustworthy concerning God by the fullness of the Church, and one must enter into this through the courtyard, that is, of Scripture; therefore we shall show these very principles to be trustworthy from similar ones, and rightly so even to the heretics who contradict, because he who questions geometric principles disbelieves geometers, but those who question theological ones, and especially those with whom our argument is concerned, say they believe the attested theologians, but they are doubtful about some of the things said by them; if, therefore, from the things clearly declared by them and agreed upon by these people, we consistently deduce what is sought, we have resolved the dispute and for this reason

114

αὐτόν γινώσκομεν, ὡς αὐτός γινώσκει ἑαυτόν˙ οὕτως ὁ φιλόσοφος ἀπό τῦ ὑπερανιδρυμένου τοῦ παντός καί ἀλήπτου καί ἀφθέγκτου τῆς θεαρχικῆς ὑπερουσιότητος εἰς ἀφασίαν ἡμᾶς περικλεῖσαι φιλονεικῶν, ἔλαθεν ἑαυτόν ταῖς κάτω ταύτην οὐσίαις συντεταχώς.

Καιρών δ᾿ ἄν εἴη καί τούς ἀποδεικτούς αὐτῷ κανόνας, αὐτήν τήν ἀπόδειξιν, μᾶλλον δέ τήν αὐτοαπόδειξιν, ἥν ἐκ τῆς Ἀριστοτέλους σοφίας κατά τῶν ἡμετέρων λόγων προεχειρίσατο παραγαγεῖν εἰς μέσον καί διασκέψασθαι˙ τάχα γάρ ἄν καί αὕτη τῶν τερεττισμάτων φανείη, ὅ τάς πλατωνικάς ἰδέας ὁ Ἀριστοτέλης αὐτός τά ἐκείνου παιδεύματα ἐπισκώπτων ὠνόμασεν. Εἰ δέ τῶν ἐν ταύτῃ τι χρήσιμον ἡμῖν, θαυμαστόν οὐδέν˙ καί παρά τῶν ὄφεων γάρ ἔστι τι χρηστόν φάρμακον ἡμῖν, ἀλλ᾿ ἀνελοῦσι καί διελοῦσι καί συσκευασμένοις καί χρησαμένοις σύν λόγῳ κατά τῶν ἐκείνων δηγμάτων. Πρός μέν οὖν Πλάτωνα καί τήν κατ᾿ ἐκεῖνον ἀπόδειξιν Ἀροστοτέλης ἡμῖν ἀρκέσει˙ καί γάρ φησιν˙ εἰ τό καθόλου πρό τῶν πολλῶν, ὡς ὁ Πλάτων ἔλεγεν, ἀπόδειξις (σελ. 558) λοιπόν οὐ κ ἔσται, οὐδέ γάρ δυνατόν κατηγορεῖσθαι τῶν πολλῶν τό ἑνιαίως ὑφεστώς καί ταῦτα πρό τῶν ἄλλων πάντων, κατηγορουμένου δέ χωρίς ἀπόδειξις οὐκ ἔστιν˙ ἀλλ᾿ οὐδέ μέσος ἔσται ὅρος, ὑποκείσεται γάρ τῷ πρό τῶν ἄλλων, ἀλλά τοῦτ᾿ ἀδύνατον, μέσου 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