115

theologically also the principles of theology are demonstrated, unless perhaps our argument were with the Greeks.

And concerning these things, having for a short while set forth what is fitting and suitable to them, we will then show forth the necessities of the miracles, from which whatever might be concluded will be theologically demonstrated. The things which you continue to show syllogistically concerning divine matters, if they are from theological principles, then what is shown is a demonstration, for it has been shown from demonstrative principles, even according to you; but if not from the things spoken by the fathers, it will from nowhere have its credibility. So that not only do you not demonstrate demonstratively, but not even dialectically; therefore sophistically, if syllogistically; thus have you contended against yourself.

These things from which you henceforth boast, exalting yourself with vainglorious speeches as one who holds mastery in arguments, I think I will pass over. For just as above he was unaware of suffering things contrary to his own (p. 562) thesis, so indeed also here, wishing to show himself most demonstrative and at the same time most theological, you appeared as one of the uninitiated in such matters. For you were shown to be completely ignorant of the conversion, which of necessity most propositions of theological syllogisms have, with their coextensive terms on account of the most unique nature of the subject; and again, of the causes in demonstrations, however many are simultaneous, even if in another way; and that the lesser of the postulates are not lesser, when they are not also lesser in potential; and that not simply is the demonstration from fewer postulates considered better, but better than it is the one from more, whenever it has more knowable propositions. These things, therefore, and whatever between them you are playing at in no playful matters against yourself, I will pass over; for it would escape, I think, no one's hearing, and even if it should, it is no concern of mine.

Because of this, what would you seem to say? "The demonstrator demonstrates through a middle term, and this being a cause; but it is very faulty to suppose there is some cause through which the Spirit is from the Father alone; how then could you posit being from him by nature as a cause"? This argument, therefore, shows not only the demonstration, but also your syllogisms, O philosopher, and simply all syllogisms about God, both those that are and those that will be, to be non-syllogistic and faulty; for without a middle term, and this being the cause of the conclusion, a syllogism is not sound; but if the middle term is only nominally a middle term, according to you it will be very faulty concerning the divine.

But let us leave this. But I ask you, the only sound speaker on God: we too are from God (“for all things,” he says, “are from God”), and the only-begotten is from God; we too are sons of God (“for I said,” he says, “you are gods and all sons of the most high”), and the only-begotten is the Son of God; but we are from (p. 564) God and sons of God the Father, Son, and Spirit; for in these three the most high has been made known to us. And so we are from these, but the Son is from the Father alone. Is there then some cause for which we are from the tri-hypostatic divinity, but the Son is from the Father alone? If there is not, then we too are causelessly from God; but if it is for a cause, it is the divine goodness, through which is the creation and the grace in created things. But these things are common to the Father, Son, and Spirit; for both to be and to be well are for all from the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit; if therefore we are from God by the grace of God, that which is not by grace, but is from God we are from God, that which is not by grace, but is from God, how else than by nature? And this "by nature" shows nothing other than the Father alone as the cause of those things eternally proceeding from him; how then is it faulty to say this? But if someone should even say this "by nature" is a cause, this is not faulty either; for being joined to the Father, it shows that He Himself is the cause, and to the

115

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 δυνάμει ᾖ ἐλάττω, καί ὅτι οὐχ ἁπλῶς ἡ ἐξ ἐλαττόνων αἰτημάτων ἀπόδειξις φέρεται τό κρεῖττον, ἀλλά βελτίων αὐτῆς ἡ ἐκ πλειόνων, ὅταιν γνωριμωτέρας ἔχῃ τάς προτάσεις. Ταῦτα μέν οὖν καί ὅσα μεταξύ τούτων ἐν οὐ παικτοῖς παίζεις κατά σεαυτοῦ παρήσω˙ κλέψειεν γάρ ἄν οὐδεμίαν, ὡς οἶμαι, ἀκοήν, κἄν κλέψωσιν, οὐδείς μοι λόγος.

∆ι᾿ ὅδε τί δόξειας ἄν λέγειν; «∆ιά μέσου δείκνυσιν ὁ ἀποδεικτικός, καί τούτου αἰτίου˙ πλημμελές δέ λίαν αἴτιον εἶναι οἴεσθαί τι, δι᾿ ὅ τό Πνεῦμα ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρός˙ πῶς οὖν σύ τό φύσει ἐξ αὐτοῦ εἶναι ὡς αἴτιον ἄν θείης»; Οὗτος μέν οὖν ὁ λόγος οὐ τήν ἀπόδειξιν μόνον, ἀλλά καί τούς σούς, ὦ φιλόσοφε, καί πάντας ἁπλῶς τούς τε ὄντας τούς τε ἐσομένους περί Θεοῦ συλλογισμούς ἀσυλλογίστους δείκνυσι καί πλεμμελεῖς˙ χωρίς γάρ μέσου, καί τούτου τοῦ συμπεράσματος αἰτίου, συλλογισμός οὐκ ἔστιν ἀσφαλής˙ ἄν δέ τό μέσον φερωνύμως ἔχῃ μέσον, κατά σέ λίαν ἔσται περί τό θεῖον πλημμελής.

Ἀλλά τοῦτο μέν ἀφῶμεν. Ἐρωτῶ δέ σε τόν μόνον ἀσφαλῆ θεορρήμονα˙ ἐκ Θεοῦ καί ἡμεῖς («τά γάρ πάντα» φησιν «ἐκ Θεοῦ»), ἐκ Θεοῦ καί ὁ μονογενής˙ υἱοί Θεοῦ καί ἡμεῖς («εἶπα γάρ» φησι «θεοί ἐστε καί υἱοί ὑψίστου πάντες») Υἱός Θεοῦ καί ὁ μονογενής˙ ἀλλ᾿ ἡμεῖς μέν ἐκ (σελ. 564) Θεοῦ τε καί υἱοί Θεοῦ Πατρός, Υἱοῦ καί Πνεύματος˙ ἐν γάρ τοῖς τρισί τούτοις ὁ ὕψιστος ἡμῖν ἐγνώσθη˙ καί τοίνυν ἐκ τούτων μέν ἡμεῖς, ὁ δέ Υἱός ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρός˙ ἔστι δή τι αἴτιον δι᾿ ὅ ἡμεῖς μέν ἐκ τῆς τρισυποστάτου θεότητος, ὁ δέ Υἱός ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρός; Εἰ μέν οὐκ ἔστι, καί ἡμεῖς λοιπόν ἀναιτίως ἐκ Θεοῦ, εἰ δέ δι᾿ αἰτίαν, τήν ἀγαθότητα τήν θείαν δι᾿ ἥν ἡ κτίσις καί ἡ ἐν τοῖς κτίσμασι χάρις˙ ταῦτα δέ κοινά Πατρός, Υἱοῦ καί Πνεύματος˙ τό τε γάρ εἶναι καί τό εὖ εἶναι πᾶσιν ἐκ Πατρός δι᾿ Υἱοῦ ἐν ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι˙ εἰ τοίνυν χάριτι Θεοῦ ἠμεῖς ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, τό μή κατά χάριν, ὄν δέ ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμεῖς ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ, τό μή κατά χάριν, ὄν δέ ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, πῶς ἄλλως γε ἤ φύσει; Τό δέ φύσει τοῦτο οὐδέν ἕτερόν τι δείκνυσιν ἤ τόν Πατέρα μόνον αἴτιον τῶν ἀχρόνως ἐξ αὐτοῦ προβαλλομένων˙ πῶς οὖν τοῦτο λέγειν πλημμελές; Ἀλλ᾿ εἰ καί τό φύσει τοῦτο αἴτιόν τις εἴποι, οὐδέ τοῦτο πλημμελές˙ τῷ τε γάρ Πατρί συναπτόμενον, ἐκεῖνον αὐτόν δείκνυσι τό αἴτιον, τῷ τε