Theology of Aristotle

...mutilated supplement. And therefore, since young men are not to be imbued with supernatural theorems according to the judgment of Aristotle, they are so much the less to be admitted to a reading of this kind. For divine things, according to Plato also, are not to be learned until an advanced age, in which passions cease, just as the aforementioned Cabalistic [teachings] among the Hebrews were not heard before the fortieth year. The style is for the most part narrative, because supernatural things according to Plato ought rather to be narrated than proven, and thus they are sufficiently known of themselves, among wise men especially who are illuminated by the clear natural light, as axioms or prologues (as Boethius said). But if any proof is asserted which is more Dialectical than Apodictic, it is of such a kind that in subject matter of this sort, demonstrations are rare and Dialectical reasons are frequent, as observed in the seventh book of the Metaphysics by Averroes. Wherefore Plato calls theology "dialectical," i.e., proceeding through dialectical reasons. The proportion of the work to the rest of philosophy is as the end is to those things which are for the sake of the end; to Philosophy, simply as its most powerful part, because it holds the most noble subject, and for that reason is most to be desired. For thus, Aristotle judged it better to speculate upon sublime things with verisimilitude than upon the lowest with Apodictic [certainty]. The benefit of the book is greatest, especially for the Catholic faith, with which it is in very many things consonant, and although in a few things it is discordant, yet as Adamantius, Cyprian, and Lactantius were prudently admitted into Christian schools, so by the counsel of Jerome and Basil, it will contribute greatly to perverse natures, which cannot be drawn to piety unless by the reasons and authorities of outsiders. For here are read, as nowhere else in one Pagan volume, so many Orthodox Theological sentences, that if those few that deviate did not exist among them, we would not at all think Aristotle an ethnic or another, but rather a Christian philosopher (as Dionysius and Philoponus [thought]). For indeed, here is the most singular and most separate unity of God...