Ἠὼς δὲ καὶ σωθήσεται τὸ διὰ πάντων διήκειν καὶ πληροῦν τὰ πάντα θεόν, κατὰ τό· Οὐχὶ τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν ἐγὼ πληρῶ; λέγει κύριος, καί· Ηνεῦμα κυρίου πεπλήρωκε τὴν οἰκουμένην, εἰ τὸ μὲν περιγράφοι, τὸ δὲ περιγράφοιτο; ἢ γὰρ διὰ κενοῦ χωρήσει τοῦ παντός, καὶ τὰ πάντα οἰχήσεται ἡμῖν, ἵν ὑβρισθῇ θεός, καὶ σῶμα γενόμενος, καὶ οὐκ ἔχων ὅσα πεποίηκεν· ἢ σῶμα ἐν σώμασιν ἔσται, ὅπερ ἀδύνατον· ἢ πλακήσεται καὶ ἀντι- 8. 10 περιγραφοι] φει ‘Reg. a’:μη περιγράφοιτο e || 13 om ἔχων e ǁ 14 και] η e 1. λύεσθαι] treated as something further than ἀναλ. The component elements might conceivably be separated and yet something remain; but λ. would be the complete break up of the whole thing. ib. σύνθεσις] The blending of different elements introduces a possibility of conflict, and so of division, and so of destruction; which is unthinkable in connexion with Him who, if He exists at all, must be the πρώτη φύσις, or primary existence, into which no earlierexistence enters. Elias observes that the ‘Platonic’ form of the argument is particularly applicable to the heretical dialecticians whom Gr. has in view. 5. ἐκ τῶν τελ.] In other words, the contention that God is not ‘a body’ is proved by a reductio absurdum. 8. Besides, if God were corporeal, His corporeity must involve either the denial of all other corporeities, or His interpenetration with them. Even on the supposition of a ‘fifth element’ which might be identified with His corporeity, He would be made subject to motion and to space. 8. τὸ Οὐχί] Jer. xxiii 24. 9. πνεῦμα κ.] Wisd. i. 7. The book is treated as authoritative. 10. τὸ μὲν...τὸ δέ] It seems logically best, if grammatically less obvious, to take τὸ μὲν as the direct ace. after περιγράφοι and τὸ δὲ as the indirect ace. after περιγράφοιτο; ‘if God should circumscribeonething and be circumscribed with another.’ This, it is assumed, must be the case if God were ‘a body.’ 11. ἢ γάρ] as often, ‘for otherwise either’etc. ib. διὰ κενοῦ...τ. παντός] ‘the universe which He pervades must be empty.’ 12. ἵν’ ὑβρισθῇ] an answer to the implied rhetorical question, ‘And why must everything perish?’ order that God may be doubly outraged, by being made a body, and by being deprived of all that He has created.’ 14. ἀδύνατον] because ‘bodies’ are mutually exclusive. παρατεθήσεται, ὥσπερ ὅσα τῶν ὑγρῶν μίγνυται, καὶ τὸ μὲν τέμνει, ὑπὸ δὲ τοῦ τμηθήσεται, ὃ καὶ τῶν Ἐπικουρείων ἀτόμων ἀτοπώτερόν τε καὶ γραωδέστερον· καὶ οὕτω διαπεσεῖται ἡμῖν, καὶ σῶμα οὐχ ἕξει, οὐδὲ πῆξίν τινα, ὁ περὶ τοῦ σώματος λόγος. εἰ δὲ ἄυλον φήσομεν, εἰ μὲν τὸ πέμπτον, ὥς τισιν ἔδοξε, καὶ τὴν κύκλῳ φορὰν φερόμενον, ἔστω μὲν ἄυλόν τι καὶ πέμπτον σῶμα, εἰ βούλονται δέ, καὶ ἀσώματον, κατὰ τὴν αὐτόνομον αὐτῶν τοῦ λόγου φορὰν καὶ ἀνάπλασιν· οὐδὲν γὰρ νῦν περὶ τούτου διοίσομαι. 2 τέμνει] τέμει c || 3 γραωδέστερον] + ὡς οἱ πέρι ταύτα ἐσχολακότες εληρησαν bde El ǁ 9 διοίσομαι] μεν ‘Reg. a’ ib. πλακήσεται κτλ.] πλακ. from πλέκω ‘to weave,’ so ‘entangle,’ It is a somewhat strange use of the simple verb; but Gr. has elsewhere θεῷ πλακῆναι καἰ θεὸν γενέσθαι ἐκ τῆς μίξεως. Ἀντιπ. ‘bring into juxtaposition.’ Gr. understands by the two words is explained by the comparison with mixing liquids. 1. τὸ μὲν τέμνει] sc. ὁ θεός; the fut. τμηθ. shews that Gr. is no longer thinking of the liquids, though no doubt it was the comparison with them which caused the pres. τέμνει. The supposed interpenetration of the σῶμα of God with other σώματα necessitates constant breaches of continuity in both. 2. Ἐπικ. ἀτόμων] Cp. p. 19 above. 3. γραωδέστερον] Cp. 1 Tim. iv 7. The words which follow in some authorities must be an ancient gloss. If they belonged to the text at all, they must needs come in after τμηθήσεται, where (apparently) no MS. places them. ib. διαπεσεῖται] ‘fall through,’ ‘come to ’; Plat. Phaed. 80 c. The subject of διαπ. is ὁ π. τ σ. λόγος. 4. σῶμα οὐχ νεῖ] It is difficult in English to keep up the play on the word σῶμα. Gr. means of course that the argument for a corporeal existence of God proves unsubstantail: it has no πῆξιν, ‘solidity’ (cp. πάγιος λόγος in § 5). 5. εἰ δὲ ἄυλον] ἁ priv. and ὕλη. The protasis is broken up into εἰ μὲν τὸ πέμπτον and εἰ δὲ ἄλλο τι παρὰ τὸ πέμπτον. Then the first apodosis is broken up likewise into ἒστω μέν and κατὰ τί δέ. ib τὸ πέμπτον] The reference is to the Aristotelian conception of a “quintessence,” or fifth “element,” besides earth, air, fire and water. Cp. Bas. Hex. 11. 7. ἔστω μέν] Gr. is willing to assume for the moment that there is such a thing as the imagined quintessence: οὐδὲν νῦν διοίσομαι, ‘I will not now differ.’ 8. κατὰ τὴν αὐτόνομον κτλ.] Almost each word here requires annotation. Λόγος is ‘the σῶμα,’ or perhaps ἀσώματον σῶμα Φορὰν at first sight seems to refer to τὴν κύκλῳ φ. just above; but there is prob. no such play upon the word intended. Gr. seems to employ it in the sense of ‘usage.’ Although no other example of the subst. in that sense is at hand, the verb is not infrequently so used. Gr. has διὰ γλώσσης φέρειν ‘to speak of. Ἀναπλάττειν and its derivatives are frequent in Gr. Sometimes the prep. has its full force, ‘re-construction,’ ‘fashioning afresh,’ as for ex. baptism; sometimes it is simply ‘to fashion,’ ‘imagine.’ Thus he of matter ὕλην) as ὑποστᾶσαν ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων, κἄν τινες ἀγέννητον ἀναπλάττωσιν. So here he seems to mean the ‘shaping’ which the Aristotelians put upon the word, with a slight suggestion of its being a factitious and not the legitimate construction. This is further expressed by calling it αὐτόνομον, ‘their inderpendent,’ arbitrary, ‘use and construction of the word.’ κατὰ τί δὲ τῶν κινουμένων ἔσται καὶ φερομένων, ἵνα μὴ λέγω τὴν ὕβριν, εἰ τὰ αὐτὰ τοῖς πεποιημένοις ὁ πεποιηκὼς κινηθήσεται, καὶ τοῖς φερομένοις ὁ φέρων, εἴ γε καὶ τοῦτο δώσουσι; τί δὲ τὸ τοῦτο πάλιν κινοῦν; τί δὲ τὸ τὸ πᾶν κινοῦν; κἀκεῖνο τί; καὶ τί πάλιν ἐκεῖνο; καὶ τοῦτο εἰς ἄπειρον. πῶς δὲ οὐκ ἐν τόπῳ πάντως, εἴ γε φερόμενον; εἰ δὲ ἄλλο τι παρὰ τὸ πέμπτον φήσουσιν, εἰ μὲν ἀγγελικόν, πόθεν ὅτι ἄγγελοι σώματα, καὶ τίνα ταῦτα; καὶ πόσον ὑπὲρ ἄγγελον εἴη θεός, οὗ λειτουργὸς ἄγγελος; εἰ δὲ ὑπὲρ ταῦτα, πάλιν εἰσήχθη σωμάτων ἐσμὸς ἀλόγιστος, καὶ φλυαρίας βυθός, οὐδαμοῦ στῆναι δυνάμενος.

Οὕτω μὲν οὖν οὐ σῶμα ἡμῖν ὁ θεός. οὐδὲ γὰρ ἤδη τις τοῦτο τῶν θεοπνεύστων ἢ εἶπεν ἢ παρεδέξατο, οὐδὲ τῆς ἡμετέρας αὐλῆς ὁ λόγος. λείπεται δὴ ἀσώματον ὑπολαμβάνειν. ἀλλ’ εἰ ἀσώματον, οὔπω μὲν οὐδὲ τοῦτο τῆς οὐσίας παραστατικόν τε καὶ περιεκτικόν, ὥσπερ οὐδὲ τὸ ἀγέννητον, καὶ τὸ ἄναρχον, καὶ τὸ ἀναλλοίωτον, καὶ τὸ ἄφθαρτον, καὶ ὅσα περὶ θεοῦ ἢ περὶ θεὸν εἶναι λέγεται. τί γὰρ ὄντι αὐτῷ κατὰ τὴν φύσιν καὶ τὴν ὑπόστασιν ὑπάρχει τὸ μὴ ἀρχὴν ἔχειν, μηδὲ ἐξίστασθαι, μηδὲ περα- τοῦσθαι ἀλλ᾿ ἀλλ’ ὅλον τὸ εἶναι περιλαμβάνειν λείπεται προσφιλοσοφεῖν τε καὶ προσεξετάζειν τῷ γε νοῦν θεοῦ ἀληθῶς ἔχοντι καὶ τελεωτέρῳ τὴν θεωρίαν. ὡς γὰρ οὐκ ἀρκεῖ τὸ σῶμα εἰπεῖν, ἢ τὸ γεγεννῆσθαι, πρὸς τὸ καὶ τό, περὶ ὃ ταῦτα, παραστῆσαί τε καὶ δηλῶσαι, ἀλλὰ δεῖ καὶ 9. 1 om ουν ac ΙΙ 3 δὴ] δε e ǁ 5 περιεκτικὸν] ’deest in nonnullis codd.’ || 6 ἀγέννητον] ἀγένητον c1 || 8 ὄντι] ὂν e || 11 om θεοῦ f ‘Or. I’ 9. We thus reach a negative truth about God, but a negative truth gives us no positive information. 2. τ. θεοπνεύστων] i.e. it is nowhere taught in the Bible. It is, as Elias says, a heathen and esp. a Stoic speculation. 3. τῆς ἤμ’. αὐλῆς] ‘ does not belong to θίς fold.’ 5. παραστ. τε κ. περιεκτ.] The confession that He is incorporeal does not amount to a positive statement or description of His being. 7. περὶ θεοῦ ἢ περὶ θεόν] The construction with the ace. is the less direct, and therefore suits better the scrupulous εὐλάβεια of Gr.'s language: ‘of God or in connexion with God.’ 8. τί γὰρ ὄντι αὐτῶ The κατὰ τὴν φ. is to be taken with ὑπάρχει, not with ὄντι. The sense is, ‘What substantive element is it in God's being, what light does it throw upon His nature and underlying essence, to say that He has no beginning,’ etc.? Ὑπόστασις is used in its older, untechnical sense, ‘person,’ but ’substance,’ as in Heb. i 3. 9. ἐξίστασθαι...περατοῦσθαι] Ἐξίστ. ‘to be moved out of oneself, so to change: Plat. Rep. 380 D ἐκστῆναι τῆς φύσεως. Περατ. (from πέρας) ‘to be limited’: Arist. de Mund. ii 2. 10. ἀλλ’ δὸν τὸ εἶναι] ‘Nay, the whole of the divine essence is left (untouched by these negative statements) to be conceived of and philosophically treated ated and examined.’ 13. πρὸς τὸ καἰ τό] ‘with regard to this or that object’: περὶ ὃ ‘to which the description applies.’ ib. τὸ ... παραστῆσαί τε κ. δ.] coupled by ἢ to εἰπεῖν. τὸ ὑποκείμενον τούτοις εἰπεῖν, εἰ μέλλοι τελείως καὶ ἀποχρώντως τὸ νοούμενον παραστήσεσθαι· ἢ γὰρ ἄνθρωπος ἢ βοῦς ἢ ἵππος τοῦτο τὸ ἐνσώματον καὶ γεννώμενον καὶ φθειρόμενον· οὕτως οὐδὲ ἐκεῖ στήσεται μέχρι τοῦ εἰπεῖν ἃ μή ἐστιν ὁ τὴν τοῦ ὄντος πολυπραγμονῶν φύσιν, ἀλλὰ δεῖ, πρὸς τῷ εἰπεῖν ἃ μή ἐστι, καὶ ὅ ἐστιν εἰπεῖν, ὅσῳ καὶ ῥᾷον ἕν τι περιλαβεῖν, ἢ τὰ πάντα καθ᾿ ἕκαστον ἀπειπεῖν,—ἵνα ἔκ τε τῆς ἀναιρέσεως ὧν οὔκ ἐστι, καὶ τῆς οὗ ἐστὶ θέσεως, περιληφθῇ τὸ νοούμενον. ὁ δὲ ἃ μὲν οὔκ ἐστι λέγων, σιωπῶν δὲ ὅ ἐστι, ποιεῖ παραπλήσιον, ὥσπερ ἂν εἰ τὰ πέντε δὶς ὅσα ἐστὶν ἐρωτώμενος ὅτι μὲν οὐ δύο λέγοι, οὐδὲ τρεῖς, οὐδὲ τέσσαρες, οὐδὲ πέντε, οὐδὲ εἴκοσιν, οὐδὲ τριάκοντα, οὐδέ τινα, ἵνα συνελὼν εἴπω, τῶν ἐντὸς δεκάδος ἢ δεκαδικῶν ἀριθμῶν· ὅτι δὲ εἴη δέκα μὴ λέγοι, μηδὲ ἐρείδοι τὸν νοῦν τοῦ ἐρωτῶντος εἰς τὸ ζητούμενον. πολλῷ γὰρ ῥᾷον καὶ συντομώτερον ἐκ τοῦ ὅ ἐστιν ὅσα οὔκ ἐστι δηλῶσαι, ἢ ἐκ τοῦ ἀνελεῖν ἃ μή ἐστιν ὅ ἐστιν ἐνδείξασθαι.

Ἢ τοῦτο μὲν παντὶ δῆλον.

ἐπεὶ δέ ἐστιν 1 μελλοι] -λει ‘Reg. a’ || 6 προς το ειπ be || 8 om τε a || 11 om αν ‘Or. 1’ || 12 λεγοι] -ει ‘Reg. a tres Colb. Or. 1’ ut vid || τρεις ουδε τεσσαρες] τρια ουδε -ρα cde : τρεις ουδε -ρας b || 16 om γαρ d || εστιν] + ειπειν c 2. ἀποχρώντως] ‘sufficiently,’ ‘adequately.’ 4. οὐδὲ ἐκεῖ] in the case of incorporeal existences. ib. μέχρι τοῦ εἰπεῖν] In accordance with the double meaning of all such words, μέχρι has here the inclusive sense (‘so long as’), not the exclusive (‘until’). It is much less common when μ. is used prepositionally, as here. Οὐ στήσεται μέχρι τ. εἰ. ‘will not stop short with saying.’ Cp. § 16, 31. 5. πολυπραγμονῶν] ‘inquiring’ The word does not necessarily imply censure, esp. in the later Greek. Cyril Jer. uses it of God (Procat. § 2). The τοῦ ὄντος does not specially refer to God (ὁ ὤν), but quite generally to any existing thing which is under discussion. 8. ἀπειπεῖν] ‘to reject,’ ‘deny.’ ib. ἵνα ἔκ τε] depends on δεὸ. ib. ὧν οὔκ ἐστι] by attraction for τούτων ἃ οὐκ ἑ. ; so directly after, τῆς οὗ ἐστὶ θ. for τῆς τούτου ὅ ἐστι. 11. τὰ πέντε δὶς ὅσα ἑ.] ‘how many twice five is.’ 13. τῶν ἐντὸς δεκάδος ἢ δ. ἀ.] ‘of the numbers below ten or between the multiples of ten.’ 15. ἐρείδοL . . . εἰd] ‘satisfy . . . with’; lit. ‘plant firmly . . . upon.’ 19. ἤ] This elliptical and idio- matic use of ἤ suggests the alternative, ‘deny this if you can; or let us take it as self-evident and pass on.’ The μὲν is strictly answered by ἐπεὶ δέ, and there ought not to be such a break between them as is indicated by the usual division of chapters. ἀσώματον ἡμῖν τὸ θεῖον, μικρόν τι προσεξετάσωμεν. πότερον οὐδαμοῦ τοῦτο, ἢ ἔστιν ὅπου; εἰ μὲν γὰρ οὐδαμοῦ, ζητήσαι τις ἃν τῶν ἄγαν ἐξεταστικῶν, πῶς ἂν καὶ εἴη. εἰ γὰρ τὸ μὴ ὃν οὐδαμοῦ, τὸ μηδαμοῦ τυχὸν οὐδὲ ὄν. εἰ δέ ἐστί που, πάντως ἐπείπερ ἐστὶν ἢ ἐν τῷ παντὶ ἢ ὑπὲρ τὸ πᾶν. ἀλλ’ εἰ μὲν ἐν τῷ παντί, ἤ τινι, ἢ πανταχοῦ. καὶ εἰ μὲν ἔν τινι, ὑπ’ ἐλάττονος περιγραφήσεται τοῦ τινός, εἰ δὲ πανταχοῦ, ὑπὸ πλείονος καὶ ἄλλου πολλοῦ, λέγω δὲ τὸ περιεχόμενον τοῦ περιέχοντος, εἰ τὸ πᾶν ὑπὸ τοῦ παντὸς μέλλοι περισχεθήσεσθαι, καὶ μηδένα τόπον εἶναι περιγραφῆς ἐλεύθερον. ταῦτα μέν 10. 3 τις ἀν’] om ἀν’ d ΙΙ 7 η τινι] ἐν τινι e || 10 μέλλοι] -λει d 10. Gr. makes a digression to enquire how God is related to space. 2. ἐστιν ὅπου] ‘somewhere,’ like ἐστιν ὧν in i 5. 3. πῶς ἂν καἰ εἴη] ‘how it can exist at all.’ 5. πάντως ἐπείπερ ἐστὶν ἢ... ἤ] ‘it must of course be because it is either ...or.’ 7. ἤ τινι, ἢ πανταχοῦ] ‘it must reside either in α section of the universe, or extending throughout the whole: The passage which follows is characterized by Gr. himself (in § 11) as σκολιὸν γριφοειδές. Editors, therefore, and translators may be excused if they have made nonsense of it by wrong punctuation and by impossible renderings. The drift, however, is plain enough. Gr. places his opponent in a dilemma. If the Divine Being is located in a section of the universe, it is circumscribed by something relatively small τοῦ τινός=the supposed section, ἐλάττονος in comparison with τὸ πᾶν); a notion which is manifestly absurd. If on the other hand it is located in the universe at large, yet still (ex hypothesi) within the universe, then, though the thing which circumscribes it is relatively great πλ. καὶ ἄλλου πολλοῦ=‘greater than other great things’), yet none less it is as much circumscribed as in the former case. This follows from the very statement that τὸ θεῖον is ‘in’ the universe, which at once involves the relation of the thing containing to the thing contpined (grammatically τὸ περιεχόμενον is in apposition to the subject of περιγραφήσεται, and τοῦ περιέχοντος to ἐλάττονος τοῦ τινός and to πλείονος respectively). To complete the argument, however, it is necessary to postulate εἰ...μέλλοι) that the universe is not positively infinite but contained within itself if within nothing else, and that as it consists of space-relations it cannot he exempt from the possibility of circumscription. (The grammar of the last clause is apparently irregular, and some word like χρὴ must be supplied from μέλλοι; but it is possible that Gr. intends μέλλοι to stand absolutely and impersonally in both clauses (=‘it is to be a ’), making τό πᾶν περισχ. ace. and inf., like μ. τόπον εἶναι). εἰ ἐν τῷ παντί. καὶ ποῦ πρὶν γενέσθαι τὸ πᾶν; οὐδὲ γὰρ τοῦτο μικρὸν εἰς ἀπορίαν. εἰ δὲ ὑπὲρ τὸ πᾶν, ἆρ᾿ οὐδὲν ἦν τὸ διορίζον αὐτὸ τοῦ παντός; ποῦ δὲ τὸ ὑπὲρ τοῦτο; καὶ πῶς ἐνοήθη τὸ ὑπεραῖρον καὶ ὑπεραιρόμενον, οὐκ ὄντος ὅρου τινὸς τοῦ τέμνοντος ταῦτα καὶ διορίζοντος; ἢ χρὴ πάντως εἶναι τὸ μέσον, καὶ ᾧ περατοῦται τὸ πᾶν καὶ τὸ ὑπὲρ τὸ πᾶν; καὶ τί ἄλλο τοῦτο ἢ τόπος ἐστίν, ὅνπερ ἐφύγομεν; καὶ οὔπω λέγω τὸ περιγραπτὸν πάντως εἶναι τὸ θεῖον, καὶ εἰ διανοίᾳ καταληπτόν· ἓν γὰρ περιγραφῆς εἶδος καὶ ἡ κατάληψις.

τίνος οὖν ἕνεκεν ταῦτα διῆλθον, καὶ περιεργότερον ἴσως ἢ κατὰ τὰς τῶν πολλῶν ἀκοάς, καὶ κατὰ τὸν νῦν κεκρατηκότα τύπον τῶν λόγων, ὃς τὸ γενναῖον καὶ ἁπλοῦν ἀτιμάσας τὸ σκολιὸν καὶ γριφοειδὲς ἐπεισήγαγεν· ὡς ἐκ 2 ει δε] ουδ e || 5 η] ει f || 9 om εἰ ‘Reg. Cypr.’ 11. 12 καὶ om κάτα b 1. καὶ που] ’And, still assuming that τὸ θεῖον is located in the universe, where was it,’ etc. 2. οὐδέν ἢν τὸ δ.] Gr. turns to the other horn of his first dilemma, and asks, What is there (if τὸ θεῖον is above the universe) to divide between tween the universe and it? The past tense ἦν, ἐνοήθη) in the preg- nant Greek idiom refers back to the moment when the opponent is supposed to have adopted the con- clusion. 3. τὸ ὑπὲρ τοῦτο] i.e. ὑπὲρ τὸ πᾶν. 4. τὸ ὑπεραῖρον κ. ὒ.] ὑπεραίρειν ‘to transcend’ (cp. § 3) represents εἶναι ὑπὲρ τὸ πᾶν. The single art., not repeated before ὑπεραιρόμενον, shews, of course, that the difficulty lies not in conceiving of the two things themselves, but in conceiving their relation to each other. 5. ἢ χρή] In English we say, ’Must there not be?’; in Greek there any alternative,) or must there be?’ 6. καὶ ᾧ π.] Καὶ here adds another description of τὸ μέσον, not a separate thing; and in τὸ μ. the art. is used as in τὸ διορίζον just above. 7. τοῦτο] sc. τὸ μέσον. 8. ἐφύγομεν] when we asked ποῦ τὸ ὑπὲρ τὸ πᾶν]. ib. καὶ οὔπω λοῶ κτλ.] ‘And I do not now insist upon the fact that τὸ π. εἶναι).’ 9. ἐν γάρ] ’for comprehension is one form of circumscription.’ 11 The purpose of the digression was to exemplify the barren dialectic of the Eunomians, as well as to shew that God is incomprehensible. He is so, not because He grudges the knowledge to man, whom He loves. 14. γριφοειδές] from γρῖφος, ‘a crab-pot,’ and so ‘a conundrum.’ is a hit at the Eunomian style of argument. ib. ὡς]=ὥστε. The tree is known by its fruits (Matt, vii 20) and the absence of light among the Eunomian theologians by the obscurity of their language. τῶν καρπῶν τὸ δένδρον γινώσκεσθαι, λέγω δὲ τὸ ἐνεργοῦν τὰ τοιαῦτα δόγματα σκότος ἐκ τοῦ ζόφου τῶν λεγομένων; οὐ γὰρ ἵνα καὶ αὐτὸς παράδοξα λέγειν δόξω, καὶ περιττὸς φαίνωμαι τὴν σοφίαν, πλέκων συνδέσμους καὶ διαλύων κρατούμενα· τοῦτο δὴ τὸ μέγα θαῦμα τοῦ Δανιήλ· ἀλλ’ ἵν ἐκεῖνο δηλώσαιμι, ὅ μοι λέγειν ὁ λόγος ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς ὥρμησεν. τοῦτο δὲ ἦν τί; τὸ μὴ ληπτὸν εἶναι ἀνθρωπίνῃ διανοίᾳ τὸ θεῖον, μηδὲ ὅλον ὅσον ἐστὶ φαντάζεσθαι· καὶ τοῦτο οὔτε διὰ φθόνον,—μακρὰν γὰρ τῆς θείας φύσεως φθόνος, τῆς γε ἀπαθοῦς καὶ μόνης ἀγαθῆς καὶ κυρίας, καὶ μάλιστα τῶν ἑαυτοῦ κτισμάτων περὶ τὸ τιμιώτατον· τί γὰρ Λόγῳ πρὸ τῶν λογικῶν; ἐπεὶ καὶ αὐτὸ τὸ ὑποστῆναι τῆς ἄκρας ἀγαθότητος·—οὔτε εἰς τιμὴν ἑαυτοῦ καὶ δόξαν τοῦ πλήρους, ἵνα τῷ ἀνεφίκτῳ τὸ τίμιον ἔχῃ καὶ τὸ σεβάσμιον. τοῦτο γὰρ πάντως σοφιστικὸν καὶ ἀλλότριον, μὴ ὅτι θεοῦ, ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ ἀνθρώπου μετρίως ἐπιεικοῦς, καί τι δεξιὸν ἑαυτῷ συνειδότος, ἐκ τοῦ κωλύειν ἑτέρους τὸ πρωτεῖον πορίζεσθαι.