τοῦ μὲν γὰρ εἶναι θεόν, καὶ τὴν πάντων ποιητικήν
τε καὶ συνεκτικὴν αἰτίαν, καὶ ὄψις διδάσκαλος, καὶ ὁ
φυσικὸς νόμος· ἡ μὲν τοῖς ὁρωμένοις προσβάλλουσα, καὶ 
πεπηγόσι καλῶς καὶ ὁδεύουσι, καὶ ἀκινήτως, ἵνα οὕτως
εἴπω, κινουμένοις καὶ φερομένοις· ὁ δὲ διὰ τῶν ὁρωμένων
καὶ τεταγμένων τὸν ἀρχηγὸν τούτων συλλογιζόμενος.
πῶς γὰρ ἂν καὶ ὑπέστη τόδε τὸ πᾶν, ἢ συνέστη, μὴ θεοῦ
τὰ πάντα καὶ οὐσιώσαντος καὶ συνέχοντος; οὐδὲ γὰρ 
κιθάραν τις ὁρῶν κάλλιστα ἠσκημένην καὶ τὴν ταύτης
εὐαρμοστίαν καὶ εὐταξίαν, ἢ τῆς κιθαρῳδίας αὐτῆς ἀκούων,
ἄλλο τι ἢ τὸν τῆς κιθάρας δημιουργὸν καὶ τὸν κιθαρῳδὸν
ἐννοήσει, καὶ πρὸς αὐτὸν ἀναδραμεῖται τῆ διανοίᾳ, κἂν
ἀγνοῶν τύχη ταῖς ὄψεσιν. οὕτω καὶ ἡμῖν τὸ ποιητικὸν 
 6. 4 αἰτίαν] οὐσίαν f ǁ 6 ὁδεύουσι] -σα c 
 6. Of His existence the order of 
nature assures us. We are forced to
think of a Creator when we look
upon Creation, as the sight of a lyre
makes us think of the lyre-maker.
But beyond that, we have no certainty. 
 4. συνεκτικήν] from συνέχειν, Δ’
maintain in harmony’: cp. Col. i
τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν. So
Xen. Cyrop. 8 p. 140 οἱ θεοὶ] τὴν
τῶν ὅλων τήνδε τάξιν συνέχουσιν
ἀτριβῆ. For the construction, τὴν
π. π. αἰτίαν is strictly (with θεόν)
the subject of εἶναι. The def. art.
is used in the same way as in participial
sentences like εἰσὶν...οἱ τ. ἀκ.
προσκνώμενοι (above, p. 1); where
our idiom rather puts ’a’ than ‘the’;
‘that there is a God and a creative
cause.’ 
 5. ὁ φυσικὸς νόμος] Gr. does not
here mean ‘natural law’ in
modern sense, although such an use
might readily be paralleled. The
explanatory clause below shews that
he does not mean ‘the law which
we observe in the natural order
around us,’ but the natural
upon ourselves of the observations
which we make. Cp.
below ταῖς φυσικαῖς ἀποδείξεσιν. 
 ib. προσβάλλουσα] ‘lighting upon.’ 
 6. κ. πεπηγόσι] πέπηγα (from
πήγνυμι) has the intrans. sense, ‘to
be fixed.’ K. πεπ. κ. ὁδ’. κ. κιν. κ.
are predicates of τοῖς ὁρ.; ‘seeing
them fixed’ ect. 
 8. συλλογιζόμενος] When we see
the order in nature the natural
result upon ourselves is to infer the
existence of an ἀρχηγός i.e. ‘author.’ 
 10. οὐσιώσαντος] οὐσιόω=‘to give
οὐσία,’ ‘bring into being.’ 
 11. κιθάραν...κάιλιστα ἠσκημένην]
Cp. Paley's famous argument about
the watch. Ἀσκεῖν like ἐξασκεῖν, = 
exornare; see Horn. Od. i 439:
‘beautifully and elaborately made.’ 
 15. ταῖς ὄψεσιν] contrasted with
τῆ διανοίᾳ: ‘he will pass ἀναδ. because
higher up, further back, in
the order of thought or causation)
to him in thought, although he may
not be acquainted with him by sight.’
The unusual pl. ταῖς ὄψ. might mean
either ‘by his (the player's) looks,’
or ‘by his (the hearer's) sight.’
latter makes the best parallel to
διαν.; it is also used in this sense by
Herodian 6 (9, 10) ὡς ἐν ὄψεσιν ἢν
’when he came in sight.’ 

 
δῆλον, καὶ τὸ κινοῦν καὶ τηροῦν τὰ πεποιημένα, κἂν μὴ
διανοίᾳ περιλαμβάνηται· καὶ λίαν ἀγνώμων ὁ μὴ μέχρι
τούτων προιὼν ἑκουσίως καὶ ταῖς φυσικαῖς ἑπόμενος ἀποδείξεσιν.
ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ τοῦτο εἶναι θεόν, ὅπερ ἐφαντάσθημεν,
 ἢ ἀνετυπωσάμεθα, ἢ λόγος ὑπέγραψεν. εἰ δέ τις ἐν
περινοίᾳ τούτου ποτὲ κἂν ἐπὶ ποσὸν ἐγένετο, τίς ἡ ἀπόδειξις;
τίς οὕτως εἰς ἔσχατον σοφίας ἀφίκετο; τίς τοσούτου
χαρίσματος ἠξιώθη ποτέ; τίς οὕτω τὸ στόμα τῆς διανοίας
 6 om ποτε ‘Or. 1’ 
 1. τὸ ποιητ δῆλον] ‘the creating
power is plain.’ 
 2. ἀγνώμων] here ‘unreasonable,’
‘deficient in sense.’ 
 3. κ. ταῖς φ. ἐπ’. ἀποδ.] The καὶ
joins ἑπόμενος to ἑκουσίως, not to
προίων. 
 4. ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ τοῦτο] a very difficult
passage. The usual interpretation
makes ἀλλὰ answer to the μὴ
in μὴ προιών, ‘who will not go as far
as this, but (says) that not even this,
which we have imagined, is God.’
But it is harsh to supply the necessary
φάσκων or ὁμολογῶν in order to make
the clause grammatical; and a comparison
with the sentence in § 12
where Gr. resumes his thread after a
long digression, seems to shew that we
must assign an entirely different meaning
to the present sentence,—and
which will accord better with grammatical
requirements. In ἑ 12 Gr.
says that the proposition from which
he had started was τὸ μὴ ληπτὸν
εἶναι ἀνθρωπίνη διανοίᾳ τὸ θεῖον, μηδὲ
ὅλον ὅσον ἐστὶ φαντάζεσθαι. Here,
accordingly, we must suppose, that
it is Gr. himself, and not the λίαν
ἀγνώμων, who denies εἶναι θεὸν ὅπερ
ἔφαντ’. It is, he says, very unreasonable
not to accept the natural proofs
of God's existence, and in following
them we are compelled to form certain
great outlines of a conception
of God (e.g. creative power, rational
method, etc.), which we cannot
doubt to be correct. But even this
is not the same thing as to identify
εἶναι ὅπερ) God with what we have
imagined, or figured to ourselves,
or what our reason has delineated.
τοῦτο is the subject of ἐστὶν understood,
of which εἶναι θ. κτλ. is the
predicate. While we have ἀποδείξεις
for the one belief, we have none
for the other. 
 5. ὑπέγραψεν] Cp. I Pet. ii 21
ὑπογραμμόν ‘a sketch.’ 
 6. ἐν περινοίᾳ τ....ἐγένετο] Gr.
uses the same expression in Or. xlv
§ 11: οὐ γὰρ οἶόν τε ἄλλως ἐν περινοίᾳ
θεοῦ γενέσθαι σώματος ὑλικοῦ καὶ
δεσμίου νοῦ πάχος μὴ βοηθούμενον.
The rare word περίνοια appears to
denote an embracing in thought, a
mental taking in of the subject.
Τούτου sc. θεοῦ ‘If ever anyone in
any degree has attained to an understanding
of Him, what proof is there
of the fact?’ 
 8. τὸ στόμα...πνεῦμα] Ps. cxviii
(cxix) 131. The ἵνα ὥστε,
following as it does upon the οὕτως
and the τοσούτου. 

 
ἤνοιξε καὶ εἵλκυσε πνεῦμα, ἵνα τῷ τὰ πάντα ἐρευνῶντι
καὶ γινώσκοντι καὶ τὰ βάθη τοῦ θεοῦ πνεύματι θεὸν
καταλάβῃ, καὶ μηκέτι τοῦ πρόσω δέηται, τὸ ἔσχατον
ὀρεκτὸν ἔχων ἤδη, καὶ εἰς ὃ πᾶσα σπεύδει καὶ πολιτεία
τοῦ ὑψηλοῦ καὶ διάνοια; Τί γάρ ποτε ὑπολήψῃ τὸ θεῖον, εἴπερ ὅλαις ταῖς
λογικαῖς πιστεύεις ἐφόδοις; ἢ πρὸς τί σε ὁ λόγος ἀνάξει
βασανιζόμενος, ὦ φιλοσοφώτατε σὺ καὶ θεολογικώτατε
καὶ καυχώμενε εἰς τὰ ἄμετρα; πότερον σῶμα; καὶ πῶς
τὸ ἄπειρον, καὶ ἀόριστον, καὶ ἀσχημάτιστον, καὶ ἀναφές, 
καὶ ἀόρατον; ἢ καὶ ταῦτα σώματα; τῆς ἐξουσίας· οὐ
γὰρ αὕτη φύσις σωμάτων. ἢ σῶμα μέν, οὐχὶ ταῦτα δέ;
τῆς παχύτητος· ἵνα μηδὲν πλέον ἡμῶν ἔχη τὸ θεῖον.
πῶς γὰρ σεπτόν, εἰ περιγραπτόν; ἢ πῶς φεύξεται τὸ ἐκ
στοιχείων συγκεῖσθαι καὶ εἰς αὐτὰ πάλιν ἀναλύεσθαι, ἢ 
 4 ορεκτον] -των e 7. 6 ὀλαῖς] ὅλως abde ‘Coisl. 3 Or. ’ ǁ 7 εφοδιες]
’Coisl. 1 ορμαις’ (perperam) || 11 σωματα]+ ω f || 12 αυτη] αὐτή ut vid cef ΙΙ
ταύτα δε] + ω f ΙΙ 15 om η cdef 
 1 τῷ τ. π. ἐρευνῶντι κτλ.] 1
Cor. ii 10., 
 3. τοῦ πρόσω] ‘no longer needs
to advance.’ 
 ib. τὸ ἔσχ. ὀρεκτόν] ‘ the ultimate
object of ’ The phrase comes
originally from Arist. Metaph. xii 7. 
 4. πολιτεία τ. ὑψηλοῦ] ‘all a
high-minded man's life.’ 
 7. to begin with, God cannot be
corporeal; which would involve being
dissoluble. 
 6. ὅλαις τ. λου....ἐφόδοις] The
reading ὅλως (‘if you rely at all’)
would not make so strong an argu-
ment against Eunomian self-confidence.
Ἔφοδος ‘method.’ 
 8. βασανιζόμενος] a logical pa-
rallel to ὅλαις;š—‘however much you
rack it.’ 
 9. καυχ. εἰς τὰ ἄμετρα] ‘boasting of
your command of the infinite.’ 
 ib. σῶμα] of course, a very un-
likely alternative for the Eunomians
to choose; and it must be admitted
that Gr. somewhat begs the question
as against them, in the next clause. 
 ib. καἰ πῶς] sc. σῶμά ἐστιν (or ἄν
εἴη). 
 11. ἢ καἰ ταῦτα σ.] ‘Are bodies
to be so described?’ 
 ib. τ. ἐξουσίας] ‘a stretch of
power,’ to confer such properties
upon a body! 
 12. σῶμα μέν, οὐχὶ τ. δέ] ‘Will
you make Him a body and drop
these attributes?’ This Gr.
terizes as ‘gross.’ For παχύτητος
cp. § 4 τὸ παχὺ τοῦτο σαρκίον. 
 13. ἵνα...ἔχῃ] B good example
that not ‘final’ use of ἴνα which is
familiar in the N.T. 
 14. σεπτόν] from σέβεσθαι, ‘an
object of devotion.’ Gr.
mean that the fact of being περιγραπτόν
would by itself preclude
being σεπτόν, but that all that is
connoted by περιγράπτῳ would. 

 
καὶ ὅλως λύεσθαι; σύνθεσις γὰρ ἀρχὴ μάχης· μάχη δὲ
διαστάσεως· ἡ δὲ λύσεως· λύσις δὲ ἀλλότριον πάντῃ
θεοῦ καὶ τῆς πρώτης φύσεως. οὐκ οὖν διάστασις, ἵνα μὴ
λύσις· οὐδὲ μάχη, ἵνα μὴ διάστασις· οὐδὲ σύνθεσις, ἵνα
 μὴ μάχη· διὰ τοῦτο οὐδὲ σῶμα, ἵνα μὴ σύνθεσις. ἐκ τῶν
τελευταίων ἐπὶ τὰ πρῶτα ὁ λόγος ἀνιὼν οὕτως ἵσταται. 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. 3 καὶ τοῦτο om καὶ e ǁ 4 τὸ τὸ πὰν] τοῦτο τὸ πὰν b: τὸ πὰν aef || 8 οἱ
ἄγγελοι ‘Reg. a’ || αν e ποσον]+αν e ‘duo Colb. Or. 1’ 1. κατὰ τί] Gr. seems to mean
’in what respect,’ ‘by virtue
what part of its being, will this
πέμπτον, which is identified with
the σῶμα of God, take its place
among the things which move and
revolve?’ It is, however, he
a ὕβρις, a wanton affront, to assign
such a place to God at all, whatever
may be the answer to his question. 4. δώσουσι] ‘will grant’:
sc. that God is ὁ φέρων. ib. τί δὲ τὸ τοῦτο π. κινοῦν] τοῦτο
=τὸ πέμπτον: it (viz. God) moves
other things, and itself moves with
them; what then moves it? The τὸ
πᾶν which follows will then include
the thing which sets τὸ πέμπτον in
motion. 6. ἐν τόπῳ] Motion is a change
of space- relations, and therefore implies
a local position. 7. εἰ δὲ ἄλλο τι] The other alternative
(viz. that the σῶμα of God
is not the πέμπτον) is again confronted
with a dilemma; εἰ μὲν ἀγγελ.,
εἰ δὲ ὑπὲρ ταῦτα. 8. πόθεν ὅτι] ’xvhence comes the
belief ’ ’how do they know
that?’ ib. πδσον...εἴη] In better Greek
there would of course be an ἄν:
‘how far far would God excel an angel? 10. εἰσήχθη] The aor. gives a
liveliness to the argument: the logical
consequences are represented as
having taken actual effect; as in i 2. id. ἐσμός] ‘a swarm,’ said to
derived from ἵημι. Ἀλόγιστος= ‘innumerable,’
though its possible sense
of ‘irrational’ may perh. have suggested
to Gr. the ’abyss of nonsense’
which follows. Στῆναι, ‘to stop.’
is not clear why the notion that
God's (supposed) σῶμα is superior to
angelic bodies should ‘again introduce
a countless swarm of bodies.
Perhaps by πάλιν. only means
that this notion is in that respect no
better than the former one, because
it also implies that the angels have
bodies. Otherwise he must mean
that the supposition of a body far
superior to angelic bodies leaves
room for the invention of swarms of
intermediate bodies between the angelic
bodies and it. 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.