Ἥκει δὲ ἡμῖν ὁ λόγος ἐπ’ αὐτὸ τὸ κεφάλαιον· καὶ στένω μέν, ὅτι πάλαι τεθνηκὸς ζήτημα, καὶ τῆ πίστει παραχωρῆσαν, νῦν ἀνακαινίζεται· στῆναι δὲ ὅμως ἀναγκαῖον πρὸς τοὺς λογολέσχας, καὶ μὴ ἐρήμην ἁλῶναι, λόγον ἔχοντας, καὶ συνηγοροῦντας πνεύματι. εἰ θεός, φησι, καὶ θεός, καὶ θεός, πῶς οὐχὶ τρεῖς θεοί; ἢ πῶς οὐ πολυαρχία τὸ δοξαζόμενον ; ταῦτα τίνες; οἱ τελεώτεροι τὴν ἀσέβειαν, ἢ καὶ οἱ τῆς δευτέρας μερίδος, λέγω δὲ τοὺς περὶ τὸν υἱόν πὼς εὐγνώμονας ; ὁ μὲν γὰρ κοινός μοι πρὸς ἀμφοτέρους λόγος, ὁ δὲ πρὸς τούτους ἴδιος. ὁ μὲν οὖν πρὸς τούτους τοιοῦτος. τί φατε τοῖς τριθείταις ἡμῖν οἱ τὸν υἱὸν σέβοντες, 13, 8 φησι] φασι cdf 1. τὸ πᾶν ἔσῃ καθ’.] Cp. § 4. 2. βέλτιον μικράν] ‘Better to have a notion of the union, incomplete, than to venture upon such thorough-going ungodliness.’ 13. It is painful to revive a long-dead controversy; but I must defend myself against the charge of Tritheism. It is brought against us both by those who go all lengths in unbelief, and by some who are fairly orthodox with regard to the Son. To the latter I would say that they are equally open to the charge of Ditheism. 4. ἐπ’ αὐτὸ κεφ.] ‘to the fundamental question itself,’ viz. how reconcile the Godhead of the Three Persons with the unity of God. 5. τῆ πίστει παραχ.] ‘that had yielded to faith.’ 7. λογολέσχας] like ἀδολέσχας, ‘praters.’ ib. μὴ ἐρ. ἁλῶναι] a law term, freq. in Demosth., ‘to have judgment given against us by default.’ agrees with δίκην understood, which is a kind of cognate ace. alter ἁλῶναι. ib. λόγον ἔχ.] used m a kind of double sense, which after all is but one; ‘to have the Word,’ and have reason.’ 9. πολυαρχία τὸ δ.] ‘how can the object which you glorify not be polytheistic?’ Cp. iii 2. 10. ταῦτα τίνες·] ‘who is it that says this? Is it those who go the whole length of ungodliness?’ i.e. Arians and the Eunomians? ‘or is it, as may well be the case (καί), who belong to the second division, and are more or less right-minded with regard to the Son?’ Cp. § 1 περὶ τὸν υἱὸν μετριάζοντες. Gr. asks, because part of his argument will apply to both sections, and part — that which comes next — only to the latter. 14. τί φατε] ‘What do you say to us Tritheists?’ i.e. What argument can you urge against us, whom you call Tritheists, which will not equally apply to yourselves, who worship the Son, even if you have departed from the Spirit? εἰ καὶ τοῦ πνεύματος ἀφεστήκατε ; ὑμεῖς δὲ οὐ διθεῖται ; εἰ μὲν γὰρ ἀρνεῖσθε καὶ τοῦ μονογενοῦς τὴν προσκύνησιν, σαφῶς τέταχθε μετὰ τῶν ἐναντίων· καὶ τί φιλανθρωπευόμεθα πρὸς ὑμᾶς ὡς οὐ πάντῃ νενεκρωμένους ; εἰ δὲ σέβεσθε, καὶ μέχρι τούτου διάκεισθε σωτηρίως, ὑμᾶς ἐρωτήσομεν· τίς ὁ λόγος τῆς διθείασ ὑμῖν, ἂν τοῦτο ἐγκαλῆσθε ; εἰ ἔστι λόγος συνέσεως, ἀποκρίθητε, δότε καὶ ἡμῖν ὁδὸν ἀποκρίσεως. οἷς γὰρ ἂν ὑμεῖς τὴν διθείαν ἀποκρούσησθε λόγοις, οὗτοι καὶ ἡμῖν κατὰ τῆς τριθείασ ἀρκέσουσι. καὶ οὕτω νικῶμεν, ὑμῖν τοῖς κατηγόροις συνηγόροις χρώμενοι· οὗ τί γενναιοτερον ;

Ὁ δὲ κοινὸς ἡμῖν πρὸς ἀμφοτέρους τίς ἀγών τε καὶ λόγος; ἡμῖν εἷς θεός, ὅτι μία θεότης· καὶ πρὸς ἓν τὰ ἐξ αὐτοῦ τὴν ἀναφορὰν ἔχει, κἂν τρία πιστεύηται. οὐ γὰρ τὸ μὲν μᾶλλον, τὸ δὲ ἦττον θεός· οὐδὲ τὸ μὲν πρότερον, τὸ δὲ ὕστερον· οὐδὲ βουλήσει τέμνεται, οὐδὲ δυνάμει μερίζεται,, 4 νενεκρωμένων b || 5 ἐρωτήσωμεν ab 14. 13 λόγος] + ἐστιν b || 14 πιστεύητε a 3. φιλάνθρωπ’.] ‘deal tenderly with you.’ 6. ὁ λόγος τῆς διθ. ὑμῖν] ‘what defence do you offer for your ditheism, if you are charged with it?’ 7. λόγος συνέσεως] an expression formed on the model of λόγος σοφίας, γνώσεως, 1 Cor. xii 8. 10. ὑμῖν τοῖς κ. σ. χρ.] ‘by the of you our accusers.’ 14. To both parties I answer thus. There is but one God, and one Godhead; and though there are three Persons, there is but one Source from which all that belongs to the Godhead issues. Between these three Persons there is no kind οἱ division or inequality, as there is between the specimens of a limited class. 13. εἷς θεός, ὅτι μ. θ.] ‘There is but one God, because there is only one thing that can be called Godhead.’ If there could be different kinds of Godhead, we might imagine many Gods; but as the thing is necessarily unique, we cannot conceive of it as the possession of several personages independent each other. This argument, of course, is based on philosophical grounds, not on divine revelation ; but it bears witness to the reasonadvocacy ableness of that revelation. ib. πρὸς ἐν τὰ ἐξ αὐτοῦ] Cp. iii 2 πρὸς τὸ ἐν τῶν ἐξ αὐτοῦ σύννευσις. The personalities issuing from a single source are referred back to that source so as to be but one with it, although we recognise that they are three. The αὐτοῦ is neuter. It refers to ἔν. 15. τὸ μὲν μᾶλλον] The Benedictine editors compare Leo Serm. viii in Nat. Chr. ‘gradus in uera diuinitate esse non possunt. quidquid deo minus est, deus non est. οὐδέ τι τῶν ὅσα τοῖς μεριστοῖς ὑπάρχει, κἀνταῦθα λαβεῖν ἐστίν· ἀλλὰ ἀμέριστος ἐν μεμερισμένοις, εἰ δεῖ συντόμως εἰπεῖν, ἡ θεότης· καὶ οἷον ἐν ἡλίοις τρισὶν ἐχομένοις ἀλλήλων, μία τοῦ φωτὸς σύγκρασις. ὅταν μὲν οὖν πρὸς τὴν θεότητα βλέψωμεν, καὶ τὴν πρώτην αἰτίαν, καὶ τὴν μοναρχίαν, ἓν ἡμῖν τὸ φανταζόμενον· ὅταν δὲ πρὸς τὰ ἐν οἷς ἡ θεότης, καὶ τὰ ἐκ τῆς πρώτης αἰτίας ἀχρόνως ἐκεῖθεν ὄντα καὶ ὁμοδόξως, τρία τὰ προσκυνούμενα.

Τί δέ, οὐχὶ καὶ παρ’ Ἕλλησι, φαῖεν ἄν, μία θεότης, ὡς οἱ τὰ τελεώτερα παρ’ ἐκείνοις φιλοσοφοῦντες, καὶ παρ’ ἡμῖν ἀνθρωπότης μία, τὸ γένος ἅπαν ; ἀλλ’ ὅμως πολλοὶ θεοί, καὶ οὐχ εἷς, ὡς δὲ καὶ ἄνθρωποι; ἀλλ’ ἐκεῖ μὲν ἡ κοινότης τὸ ἓν ἔχει μόνον ἐπινοίᾳ θεωρητόν· τὰ δὲ I μεριστοις] μερισταῖς b 15. 12 θέοι πολλοὶ df || δε] δὴ df 1. οὐδέ τι τῶν ὅσα] ‘nor are any of the distinguishing marks of separate individualities to be found there,’ in the Godhead. 2. ἀμέριστος ἐν μεμ.] ‘ but as the Persons are, the entire and undivided Godhead is in each. ’ The passage is incorporated without comment by Jo. Damasc. de Fide Orth. viii. 3. ἐν ἡλίοις τρίσιν] The illustration tration only shews the impossibility of illustration. ‘There suns joined to each other’ might appear to us one, but their relation to each other would be very different from that of the Three Divine Persons. 6. τὸ φανταζόμενον] The word does not imply that our observation is untrue, but only that it is (necessarily) inadequate. Cp. e.g. ii 6 18, 19. ib. πρὸς τὰ ἐν οἷς ἢ θ.] ‘ at the Persons in which the Divine nature resides, and which issue from the First Cause, deriving from it Their existence above all time and with an equality of glory, there are Three objects for our adoration.’ avoids saying τρεῖς οἱ προσκ., not only, as so freq., for the sake of reverence, but because it sounds at first as if the three were ‘separate individualities’ like ourselves. also has its dangers, as possibly suggesting differences of nature ; but in the context this danger is removed. It is possible that Gr. here means to speak of the Father Himself as ἐκ τῆς πρώτης αἰτίας; but. if so, that πρώτη αἰτία is within Himself. He is the source of His own being. 15. The Greeks, it is true, spoke of α single Divine nature, compatible with plurality ; ἃς is the case also with human nature. But in these cases, each individual has but a fragment of the whole nature, varies, not only from all other partakers of it, but from himself also, by change. This holds true even of angels. 13. μόνον ἐπινοίᾳ θ.] In the case of the heathen polytheism, the common Godhead exists only as a conception or generalisation of the philosopher; it has no existence in fact. Each individual deity differs greatly from the other in history, and character, and capacities. The same holds true of the specimen man in relation to the human genus. καθ’ ἕκαστον πλεῖστον ἀλλήλων καὶ τῷ χρόνῳ καὶ τοῖς πάθεσι καὶ τῇ δυνάμει μεμερισμένα. ἡμεῖς τε γὰρ οὐ σύνθετοι μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀντίθετοι καὶ ἀλλήλοις καὶ ἡμῖν αὐτοῖς, οὐδὲ ἐπὶ μιᾶς ἡμέρας οἱ αὐτοὶ καθαρῶς μένοντες, μὴ ὅτι τὸν ἅπαντα βίον, ἀλλὰ καὶ σώμασι καὶ ψυχαῖς ἀεὶ ῥέοντές τε καὶ μεταπίπτοντες. οὐκ οἶδα δέ, εἰ μὴ καὶ ἄγγελοι καὶ πᾶσα φύσις ἡ ἄνω μετὰ τὴν τριάδα, κἂν ἁπλοῖ τινὲς ὦσι, καὶ πρὸς τὸ καλὸν παγιώτεροι τῆ πρὸς τὸ ἄκρον καλὸν ἐγγύτητι.