121

demonstration from this, but nothing of the things that exist is always in the same state, for it is not uninterrupted, and so the principle of demonstration does not exist; and if the principle does not exist, the end is also gone. Since, then, the Aristotelian demonstration has been shown to be non-existent, how, speaking of what is beyond it, do we comprehend the divine? But does Aristotle not believe what has been written about the heavenly things, both those that have happened and those that are to come? But you say you believe; but still, what faith could he provide, concerning things that happened when he had not yet been born? We, therefore, by believing those who have seen, refute his claims. And what truth did Aristotle discover by means of demonstration as an instrument, and how does he hit upon the mean and the cause, that is, in no way at all, it would be possible to say, but I think I should pass over it for now. And since the philosopher has attempted to help the teacher, we will add these things as well; but having added one thing, we will halt the discourse that has rushed on to many topics.

(p. 586) "A demonstration," he says, "is not contradicted, and what is contradicted is not a demonstration." Since, therefore, the heterodox contradict our positions, it is impossible for our positions to be a demonstration. What then? Does not "every argument contend with an argument," that is, is also contended against, and is a demonstration an argument? You, therefore, your so-called demonstration, either accept that it is an absurdity or an argument and not a demonstration; for every argument is contradicted. Therefore do not compare what is non-existent to what is existent, to our demonstration concerning divine things from the oracles of truth, the demonstration according to Aristotle and what is beyond it.

3. TO AKINDYNOS (P. 588)

The fact that the malevolent Barlaam calls us ditheists is a concise proof of our

piety and of his heterodoxy, since even Basil the Great was called a tritheist by those who blasphemed against the Son and the Holy Spirit. Is this not, therefore, a great sign of the sound theology of the great one, that he spoke of the one God as three in hypostases? And what could be a greater proof of the heterodoxy of those who for this reason called him a tritheist? And against Gregory, surnamed the Theologian, the faction of Apollinarius both cast stones and dragged him to court, calling him a ditheist, as one who conceived of the God-man Word as perfect in both respects. And of Maximus, the wise in divine things, the followers of Sergius and Pyrrhus mercilessly cut off both his hand and his tongue, attributing to him the crime of ditheism and polytheism, as one who preached two wills and energies in Christ, that is, created and uncreated, in correspondence with the natures, since according to him the uncreated is not the natural energies of the divine nature, which are not natures, but movements befitting God, as he himself presents in many places in his discourses. This is the reason for which we too are now being slandered.

But as I was saying, this accusation is a great sign of the sound theology of the saints, and no less a clear demonstration of the heterodoxy of those who for this reason (p. 590) call them polytheists. Thus, therefore, also against those who have recently unlawfully divided the one divinity into created and uncreated, and say that only the divine essence is uncreated divinity and that everything uncreated is entirely undifferentiated from the divine essence, but that every power and energy, or anything that differs from it in any way, is created, although we have said that He is uncreated also in these, and many in energies, as the one God, omnipotent in essence; (for God is said to be "multiplied" according to the divine Maximus, by His will for the production of each of the beings, being multiplied in providential processions, and in essence indeed

121

ἀποδεικτική ἐκ ταύτης, ἀεί δ᾿ ὡσαύτως ἔχον τῶν ὄντων οὐδέν, οὐ γάρ ἀδιάκοπον, καί ἡ ἀρχή ἄρα τῆς ἀποδείξεως οὐκ ἔστι˙ τῆς ἀρχῆς δέ μή οὔσης καί τό τέλος οἴχεται. Τῆς οὖν ἀριστοτελικῆς ἀποδείξεως μή ὄν φανείσης, πῶς ὑπέρ αὐτήν λέγοντες τό θεῖον συμνυνοῦμεν; Ἀλλ᾿ Ἀριστοτέλης οὐ πιστεύει τοῖς περί τῶν οὐρανίων γεγραμμένοις, γεγενημένοις τε καί μέλλουσιν; Ἀλλά σύ πιστεύειν φῄς˙ πίστιν δ᾿ ὅμως κἀκεῖνος τίνα ἄν παράσχοι, ἐφ᾿ ὧν γεγενημένων οὔπω ἦν γεγεννημένος; Ἡμεῖς οὖν τοῖς ἑωρακόσι πιστεύοντες τά ἐκείνου καταργοῦμεν. Τίνα δέ τήν ἀλήθειαν Ἀριστοτέλης δι᾿ ὀργάνου τῆς ἀποδείξεως ἐξεῦρε καί πῶς τοῦ μέσου καί αἰτίου κατατυγχάνει, τουτέστιν οὐδαμῶς, ἐνῆν μέν εἰπεῖν, παρεῖναι δέ μοι νῦν δοκῶ. Τοῦ δέ φιλοσόφου βοηθεῖν ἐπιχειρήσαντος τῷ διδασκάλῳ καί ταῦτα προσεροῦμεν˙ ἕν δέ προσειπόντες ἐπί πολλά τόν λόγον ὡρμημένον στήσομεν.

(σελ. 586) «Ἡ ἀπόδειξις», φησίν, «οὐκ ἀντιλέγεται, καί τό ἀντιλεγόμενον ἀπόδειξις οὐκ ἔστιν». Ἐπεί τοίνυν ἀντιλέγουσι τοῖς ἡμετέροις οἱ κακόδοξοι, τῶν ἀδυνάτων ἀπόδειξιν εἶναι τά ἡμέτερα. Τί οὖν; οὐ «λόγῳ παλαίει πᾶς λόγος», δηλαδή καί ἀντιπαλαίεται, λόγος δέ ἡ ἀπόδειξις; Σύ τοίνυν τήν σήν ἥν φῄς ἀπόδειξιν ἤ ἀλογίαν εἶναι δέξαι ἤ λόγον καί μή ἀπόδειξιν˙ καί γάρ πᾶς λόγος ἀντιλέγεται. Τό μή ὄν οὐκοῦν τοῖς οὖσι μή παράβαλλε, τῇ καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς ἐπί τῶν θείων ἐκ τῶν τῆς ἀληθείας λογίων ἀποδείξει τήν κατ᾿ Ἀριστοτέλην ἀπόδειξιν καί τό ὑπέρ αὐτήν.

Γ' ΠΡΟΣ ΑΚΙΝ∆ΥΝΟΝ (Σελ. 588)

Τό διθεΐτας ἡμᾶς τόν κακόφρονα Βαρλαάμ λέγειν σύντομός ἐστιν ἀπόδειξις τῆς

ἡμῶν εὐσεβείας καί τῆς ἐκείνου κακοδοξίας, ἐπεί καί ὁ μέγας Βασίλειος τριθεΐτης ἤκουσε παρά τῶν βλασφημούντων εἰς τόν Υἱόν καί τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον. Ἆρ᾿ οὖν οὐ μέγα τοῦτο δεῖγμα τῆς ἀσφαλοῦς τοῦ μεγάλου θεολογίας ὅτι τρία ταῖς ὑποστάσεσειν ἔλεγε τόν ἕνα Θεόν; Τί δ᾿ ἄν εἴη μεῖζον τῆς κακοδοξίας τεκμήριον τῶν διά τοῦτο ἐκεῖνον τριθεΐτην λεγόντων; Ἐπί δέ τόν τῆς θεολογίας ἐπώνυμον Γρηγόριον οἱ τῆς Ἀπολιναρίου συμμορίας καί λίθους ἔβαλον καί πρός τό δικαστήριον εἷλκον διθεΐτην ἀποκαλοῦντες αὐτόν, ὡς τέλειον καί κατ᾿ ἄμφω φρονοῦντα τόν θεάνθρωπον λόγον. Μαξίμου δέ τοῦ τά θεῖα σοφοῦ καί τήν χεῖρα καί τήν γλῶτταν οἱ κατά Σέργιον καί Πύρρον ἀφειδῶς ἀπέτεμον, διθεΐας ἔγκλημα τούτῳ καί πολυθεΐας προσάπτοντες ὡς διττάς ἐπί Χριστοῦ κηρύττοντι θελήσεις καί ἐνεργείας, κτιστάς δηλαδή καί ἀκτίστους, καταλλήλως ταῖς φύσεσιν, ἀκτίστου κατ᾿ αὐτόν οὔσης οὐ τῆς θείας φύσεως φυσικῶν ἐνεργειῶν, αἵ φύσεις οὐκ εἰσίν, ἀλλά κινήσεις θεοπρεπεῖς, ὡς πολλαχοῦ τῶν λόγων αὐτός παρίστησι. Τοῦτό ἐστι καθ᾿ ὅ καί ἡμεῖς διαβαλλόμεθα νῦν.

Ἀλλ᾿ ὅπερ ἔφην, μέγα μέν τό κατηγόρημα τοῦτο γνώρισμα τῆς ἀσφαλοῦς τῶν ἁγίων θεολογίας, οὐδέν δ᾿ ἧττον τῆς κακοδοξίας ἐναργής παράστασις τῶν διά τοῦτο (σελ. 590) ἐκείνους πολυθέους λεγόντων. Οὕτω τοίνυν καί πρός τούς ἀρτίως κατατεμόντας ἀθέσμως εἰς κτιστά καί ἄκτιστα τήν μίαν θεότητα καί τήν μέν θείαν μόνην οὐσίαν ἄκτιστον εἶναι λέγοντας θεότητα καί πᾶν ἄκτιστον τῆς θείας οὐσίας παντάπασιν ἀδιάφορον, κτιστήν δέ πᾶσαν δύναμιν καί ἐνέργειαν ἤ ταύτης ὁπωσδήποτε διενήνοχε, ἄκτιστον ἡμῶν καί κατ᾿ αὐτάς εἰρηκότων καί πολλά ταῖς ἐνεργείαις ὡς παντοδύναμον τόν ἕνα κατ᾿ οὐσίαν Θεόν˙ ("πληθύνεσθαι" γάρ ὁ Θεός λέγεται κατά τόν θεῖον Μάξιμον, τῷ καθ᾿ ἕκαστον εἰς παραγωγήν τῶν ὄντων βουλήματι προνοητικαῖς προόδοις πολλαπλασιαζόμενος καί κατ᾿ οὐσίαν μέν