<GetPassage xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xmlns="http://chs.harvard.edu/xmlns/cts">
            <request>
                <requestName>GetPassage</requestName>
                <requestUrn>urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2022.tlg011.opp-grc1:14-18</requestUrn>
            </request>
            <reply>
                <urn>urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2022.tlg011.opp-grc1:14-18</urn>
                <passage>
                    <TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0"><text><body><div type="edition" n="urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2022.tlg011.opp-grc1" xml:lang="grc"><div type="textpart" subtype="chapter" n="14"><p>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
<lb n="15"/> τὸ μὲν μᾶλλον, τὸ δὲ ἦττον θεός· οὐδὲ τὸ μὲν πρότερον, τὸ
δὲ ὕστερον· οὐδὲ βουλήσει τέμνεται, οὐδὲ δυνάμει μερίζεται,,
<note type="footnote">4 νενεκρωμένων b || 5 ἐρωτήσωμεν ab 14. 13 λόγος] + ἐστιν b ||
14 πιστεύητε a</note>
<note type="footnote">3. φιλάνθρωπ’.] ‘deal tenderly
with you.’</note>
<note type="footnote">6. ὁ λόγος τῆς διθ. ὑμῖν] ‘what
defence do you offer for your ditheism,
if you are charged with it?’</note>
<note type="footnote">7. λόγος συνέσεως] an expression
formed on the model of λόγος σοφίας,
γνώσεως, 1 Cor. xii 8.</note>
<note type="footnote">10. ὑμῖν τοῖς κ. σ. χρ.] ‘by the
of you our accusers.’</note>
<note type="footnote">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.</note>
<note type="footnote">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.</note>
<note type="footnote">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.</note>
<note type="footnote">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.</note>

<pb n="163"/>
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 <lb n="5"/>
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.</p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="chapter" n="15"><p>Τί δέ, οὐχὶ καὶ παρ’ Ἕλλησι, φαῖεν ἄν, μία
θεότης, ὡς οἱ τὰ τελεώτερα παρ’ ἐκείνοις φιλοσοφοῦντες, <lb n="10"/>
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
<note type="footnote">I μεριστοις] μερισταῖς b 15. 12 θέοι πολλοὶ df || δε] δὴ df</note>
<note type="footnote">1. οὐδέ τι τῶν ὅσα] ‘nor are any of
the distinguishing marks of separate
individualities to be found there,’
in the Godhead.</note>
<note type="footnote">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.</note>
<note type="footnote">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.</note>
<note type="footnote">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.</note>
<note type="footnote">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.</note>
<note type="footnote">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.</note>
<note type="footnote">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.</note>

<pb n="164"/>
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,
<lb n="5"/> 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.</p><lb n="10"/></div><div type="textpart" subtype="chapter" n="16"><p>Οἵ τε παρ’ Ἑλλήνων σεβόμενοι θεοί τε καὶ
δαίμονες, ὡς αὐτοὶ λέγουσιν, οὐδὲν ἡμῶν δέονται κατηγόρων,
ἀλλὰ τοῖς σφῶν αὐτῶν ἁλίσκονται θεολόγοις, ὡς
μὲν ἐμπαθεῖς, ὡς δὲ στασιώδεις, ὅσων δὲ κακῶν γέμοντες
καὶ μεταβολῶν, καὶ οὐ πρὸς ἀλλήλους μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ
<lb n="15"/> πρὸς τὰς πρώτας αἰτίας ἀντιθέτως ἔχοντες, οὓς δὴ
᾿Ωκεανούς, καὶ Τηθύας, καὶ Φάνητας, καὶ οὐκ οἶδα οὕς
<note type="footnote">4 καθαρῶς μένοντες οἱ αὐτοὶ df || 7 ἄνω) + καὶ bdf 16. 15 ovs] + καὶ
e || 16 ὠκεανοὺς] + τε b</note>
<note type="footnote">2, οὐ σύνθετοι μόνον] We are
not only composite beings, made up
of body and soul, and each of these
factors again resoluble into different
component parts ; we are beings of
opposite characteristics, — not only
as compared with each other, but as
compared with our own fluctuating
and inconstant selves.</note>
<note type="footnote">5. μὴ ὅτι] Cp. i 4.</note>
<note type="footnote">6. ῥέοντες] Cp. § 10 ῥευστῆς.</note>
<note type="footnote">ib. καὶ ἄγγελοι] They, though
comparatively ἁπλοῖ, not σύνθετοι,
and though less liable than we are
to change and inconsistency, are yet
not one, like the Persons of the
Godhead. They are independent
of each other, and vary in powers
and in character.</note>
<note type="footnote">7. φύσις ἢ ἄνω μετὰ τ. τ.] Cp.
ii 31 ταῖς πρώταις μετὰ θεὸν φύσεσι.
The whole section should be compared
with this passage.</note>
<note type="footnote">16. The divisions among the
many ‘Gods’ of the Greeks are
notorious. They are at shameful
variance. Their empire is partitioned
out. Not so with our God.
Each of the three Persons is absolutely
one with Himself and no less
absolutely one with the others.</note>
<note type="footnote">12. ἁλίσκονται] Cp. ἑ 13 ἁλῶναι,
‘to be convicted. ’</note>
<note type="footnote">ib. θεολόγοις] Cp. ii 4. The
ref. is, no doubt, esp. to Plato’s
denuntiation of the poets in Rep. ii,
iii.</note>
<note type="footnote">15. οὓς δὴ ᾿Ωκ.] The ‘First
Cayses,’ i.e. the original
against which the others turn, are
called Oceanus, and Tethys, and so
on. See Horn. Il. xiv 201.</note>
<note type="footnote">16. φάνητας] “A mystic
in the Orphic rites, representing the
first principle of the world, cf. Orph.
Arg. 15 ” (Lidd. and Sc).</note>

<pb n="165"/>
τινας ὀνομάζουσι· καὶ τελευταῖόν τινα θεὸν μισότεκνον
διὰ φιλαρχίαν, πάντας καταπίνοντα τοὺς ἄλλους ἐξ
ἀπληστίας, ἵνα γένηται πάντων ἀνδρῶν τε θεῶν τε πατήρ,
δυστυχῶς ἐσθιομένων καὶ ἐμουμένων. εἰ δὲ ταῦτα μῦθοι
καὶ ὑπόνοιαί τινες, ὡς αὐτοί φασι, τὸ αἰσχρὸν τοῦ λόγου <lb n="5"/>
διαδιδράσκοντες, τί φήσουσι πρὸς τό, Τριχθὰ δὲ πάντα
δέδασται, καὶ τὸ ἄλλον ἄλλῳ τινὶ τῶν ὄντων ἐπιστατεῖν,
διῃρημένους καὶ ταῖς ὕλαις καὶ τοῖς ἀξιώμασι; τὸ δὲ
ἡμέτερον οὐ τοιοῦτον· οὐδὲ αὕτη μερὶς τῷ Ἰακώβ, φησιν
ὁ ἐμὸς θεολόγος· ἀλλὰ τὸ ἓν ἕκαστον αὐτῶν ἔχει πρὸς τὸ <lb n="10"/>
συγκείμενον οὐχ ἧττον ἢ πρὸς ἑαυτό, τῷ ταὐτῷ τῆς οὐσίας
καὶ τῆς δυνάμεως. καὶ οὗτος ὁ τῆς ἑνώσεως λόγος, ὅσον
ἐφ᾿ οἷς ἡμεῖς κατειλήφαμεν. εἰ μὲν οὖν οὗτος ἰσχυρὸς
ὁ λόγος, τῷ θεῷ χάρις τῆς θεωρίας· εἰ δὲ μή, ζητῶμεν
τὸν ἰσχυρότερον.</p><lb n="15"/></div><div type="textpart" subtype="chapter" n="17"><p>Τοὺς δὲ σοὺς λόγους οὐκ οἶδα πότερον παίζοντος
εἶναι φήσομεν, ἢ σπουδάζοντος, οἷς ἀναιρεῖς ἡμῶν τὴν
ἕνωσιν. τίς γὰρ δὴ καὶ ὁ λόγος ; τὰ ὁμοούσια συναριθμεῖταl,
φησι· συναρίθμησιν λέγων τὴν εἰς ἀριθμὸν ἕνα
<note type="footnote">4 υπονοια (sic) και μυθοι τινες df || 13 εφ οις] εν οις d || ισχυρος ουτος df
17. 17 φησομεν] φησαιμεν b || 19 φησι] φης f</note>
<note type="footnote">1. θεὸν μισότεκνον] Saturn.</note>
<note type="footnote">5. ὑπόνοιαί τινες] ‘a sort of
allegoriest.’</note>
<note type="footnote">6. τριχθὰ δὲ πάντα δ.] Hom.
II. xv 189.</note>
<note type="footnote">8. ταῖς ὕλαις κ. τ. ἀξ.] ‘having
separate elements under them, and
holding different ranks.’</note>
<note type="footnote">ib. τὸ ἡμέτερον] ‘what we believe.’</note>
<note type="footnote">9. μερὶς τῷ Ἰακώβ] Jer. x 16.</note>
<note type="footnote">10. τὸ ἓν ἕκαστον κτλ] ‘but each
of the Three Persons is as entirely
one with Those with whom He is
connected, as He is with Himself,
because of the identity of essence and
of power that is between Them.’</note>
<note type="footnote">14. χάρις τῆς θεωρίας] ‘thanks
be to God for the line of thought.’</note>
<note type="footnote">17. It is said that things of the
same nature are numbered together,
so that if the three Persons are consubstantial
they must be three Gods.
For fear of saying this, you deny
the Godhead of two of them, which
is like cutting your throat for fear
of dying.</note>
<note type="footnote">18. τὰ ὀμ. συναριθμεῖται] Things
of the same nature, like men, trees,
or horses, come under a number	
which sums them up, as three trees,
four horses, five men ; you cannot,
acc. to the disputant, apply them to
heterogeneous things, and class a
tree, a horse, and a man together
as being three. Cp. Bas. de Sp. S.
17.</note>

<pb n="166"/>
συναίρεσιν· οὐ συναριθμεῖται δὲ τὰ μὴ ὁμοούσια· ὥστε
ὑμεῖς μὲν οὐ φεύξεσθε τὸ τρεῖς λέγειν θεοὺς κατὰ τὸν
λόγον τοῦτον· ἡμῖν δὲ οὐδὲ εἷς κίνδυνος· οὐ γὰρ ὁμοούσια
λέγομεν. σὺ μὲν οὖν ἀπήλλαξας σεαυτὸν πραγμάτων μιᾷ
<lb n="5"/> φωνῇ, καὶ τὴν κακὴν νίκην νενίκηκας· ὅμοιόν τι ποιήσας
τοῖς διὰ θανάτου φόβον ἀπαγχομένοις. ἵνα γὰρ μὴ κάμῃς
τῇ μοναρχίᾳ συνιστάμενος, ἠρνήσω θεότητα, καὶ προδέδωκας
τοῖς ἐχθροῖς τὸ ζητούμενον. ἐγὼ δὲ κἄν τι δέῃ καμεῖν, οὐ
προήσομαι τὸ προσκυνούμενον. ἐνταῦθα δὲ οὐδὲ ὁρῶ τίς
<lb n="10"/> ο πόνος.</p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="chapter" n="18"><p>Συναριθμεῖται, φής, τὰ ὁμοούσια· τὰ δὲ μὴ οὕτως
ἔχοντα μοναδικὴν ἔχει τὴν δήλωσιν. πόθεν σοι τοῦτο, καὶ
παρὰ τίνων δουματιστῶν καὶ μυθολόγων ; ἢ ἀγνοεῖς, ὅτι
πᾶς ἀριθμὸς τῆς ποσότητος τῶν ὕπο κε ὑποκειμένων μέν ὢν ἐστὶ δηλωτικός,
<lb n="15"/> οὐ τῆς φύσεως τῶν πραγμάτων ; ἐγὼ δὲ οὕτως
ἀρχαίως ἔχω, μᾶλλον δὲ ἀμαθῶς, ὥστε τρία μὲν ὀνομάζω
τὰ τοσαῦτα τῷ ἀριθμῷ, κἂν διέστηκε τὴν φύσιν· ἓν δέ, καὶ
ἕν, καὶ ἕν, ἄλλως τὰς τοσαύτας μονάδας, κἂν τῇ οὐσία
<note type="footnote">1 λεγειν τρεῖς df. 18. 11 μὴ] οὐχ bdf || 13 καὶ] η b</note>
<note type="footnote">1. ὥστε ὑμεῖς μέν] These are
still the words of the opponent,
down to λέγομεν. On the principle
just laid down, he says, if the
Father, the Son, and the Spirit can
be called three at all, it can only be
as three Gods ; that is, your doctrine
is incurably tritheistic Ours
is not, he adds ; for we deny the
identity of essence, and make no
at bringing those beings
together under a number.</note>
<note type="footnote">4. πραγμάτων] ‘of trouble’; not
τῶν πρ., ‘the facts.’</note>
<note type="footnote">7. τῆ μ. συνιστάμενος] ‘to save
yourself labour in maintaining
monotheism you have denied the
Godhead, and abandoned to the
enemy the very thing which you
are seeking to establish.’</note>
<note type="footnote">18. I do not know zvhere you get
your rule from. To To me, a number
only says how many things there
are, and tells anothing about their
nature. Certainly in the Bible,
things of different natures are
summed up under a common number.</note>
<note type="footnote">12. μοναδικὴν ἔχει τ. δ.] ‘can only
be designated singly’; e.g. a
and a man, and a tree.</note>
<note type="footnote">13. δόγμ’. καὶ μυθ.] a kind of
hendiadys, ‘makers of fabidous deattempt
crees.’</note>
<note type="footnote">14. τῆς πόσ’. τῶν ὑποκ.] ‘denotes
the quantity, or sum, of the
and not their nature.’</note>
<note type="footnote">15. οὕτως ἀρχ’. ἔχω] ‘am am old-
fashioned enough ’ to say ‘three’
when there are three things, even
when they are not of the same
kind, and to name them singly, if
I choose, even when they
thinking only of their number and
not of their nature.</note>
<note type="footnote">18. ἄλλως] carries on the irony of
ἀρχαίως, ἀμαθῶς. It is used in the
idiomatic sense of ‘idlt,’ ‘vainly.’</note>

<pb n="167"/>
συνάπτωνται, οὐ πρὸς τὰ πράγματα μᾶλλον ἀφορῶν, ἢ τὸ
πόσον τῶν πραγμάτων, καθ’ ὧν ἡ ἀρίθμησις. ἐπεὶ δὲ λίαν
περιέχῃ τοῦ γράμματος, καίτοι γε πολεμῶν τῷ γράμματι,
ἐκεῖθέν μοι λάβε τὰς ἀποδείξεις. τρία ἐν ταῖς παροιμίαις
ἐστίν, ἃ εὐόδως πορεύεται, λέων, καὶ τράγος, καὶ ἁλεκτρυών· <lb n="5"/>
καὶ βασιλεὺς δημηγορῶν ἐν ἔθνει τὸ τέταρτον· ἵνα μὴ
λέγω τὰς ἄλλας ἐκεῖ τετράδας ἀριθμουμένας, τῆ φύσει δὲ
διῃρημένας. καὶ δύο τῷ Μωυσεῖ χερουβὶμ εὑρίσκω μοναδικῶς
ἀριθμούμενα. πῶς οὖν ἢ ἐκεῖνα τρία, κατὰ τὴν σὴν
τεχνολογίαν, τοσοῦτον ἀλλήλων ἀπερρηγμένα ταῖς φύσεσιν· <lb n="10"/>
ἢ ταῦτα μοναδικά, τοσοῦτον ἀλλήλοις ὁμοφυῆ καὶ συγκείμενα ;
εἰ γὰρ λέγοιμι θεὸν καὶ μαμωνᾶν δύο κυρίους εἰς ἓν
ἀριθμουμένους, τοσούτῳ μακρὰν ὄντας ἀλλήλων, τάχα ἃν
καὶ μᾶλλον γελασθείην τῆς συναριθμήσεως.</p></div></div></body></text></TEI>
                </passage>
            </reply>
            </GetPassage>