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.

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.