<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-grc1:19-21</requestUrn>
            </request>
            <reply>
                <urn>urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2022.tlg011.opp-grc1:19-21</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="19"><p>Ἀλλ’ ἐμοί, φησιν, ἐκεῖνα συναριθμούμενα λέγεται, <lb n="15"/>
καὶ τῆς αὐτῆς οὐσίας, οἷς συνεκφωνεῖται καταλλήλως καὶ
<note type="footnote">3 γραμματι] πράγματι b || 5 λέων και] om καὶ g || 6 ενδημηγορων e ||
7 τῆ ’δε φύσει bdf</note>
<note type="footnote">3. περιέχῃ τοῦ γρ.] ‘you are so
attached to the letter of Scripture.’
The emendation τῷ πράγματι in the
next clause is ingenious and tempting;
but τῷ γράμματι will mean
that in this instance they have
the very letter of Scripture against
them, — as he proceeds to shew.</note>
<note type="footnote">4. λάβε] seems to be an ironical
invitation to prove the point, not=
δέξαι i.e. ‘listen to my proofs.’</note>
<note type="footnote">5. εὐόδως πορεύεται] Pro v. xxx
29.</note>
<note type="footnote">8. δύο Χερουβὶμ] Ex. xxv 18,
19. If τῷ M. = ‘ by Moses,’ perh.
the ref. is rather to Ex. xxxvii 7 ;
but it may be the strict dat.,
‘reckoned up singly to Moses.’</note>
<note type="footnote">10. ἀπερρηγμένα] ’so completely
severed.’</note>
<note type="footnote">14. καἰ μᾶλλον γελ.] The same
irony continued ; ‘I should be still
more laughed at for my mode of
numbering things together. ’ Matt.
vi 24. Gr. does not observe that
God and Mammon are not actually
described as two masters, and that
if they were, it would be ἃς masters
that they would be numbered together,
in which respect they are
alike.</note>
<note type="footnote">19. If you tell me that numbers
denote things of one nature and those
only, then I will deny that you can
say ‘three men,’ unless each
three is an exact repetition of the
others. St John was certainly not
bound by your rule when he spoke of
the three witnesses nor will it
when you come to speak of things
of different natures but bearing the
same name.</note>
<note type="footnote">16. οἷς συνεκφ. καταλλ. κ. τ. ὀ.]
The opponent explains that
things ranged under a number, because
they are of the same nature.
he means cases where the noun is
expressed and the numeral agrees
with it (oἷς i.e. συναριθμουμένοις
practically = ‘ the numeral’), like
‘three men,’ ‘three God.’ He does
not mean that you can never lump
together under a neuter numeral
heterogeneous objects as so many
‘things.’ This, he says, is not a
connumeration.</note>

<pb n="168"/>
τὰ ὀνόματα· οἷον, ἄνθρωποι τρεῖς, καὶ θεοὶ τρεῖς, οὐχὶ τρία
τάδε καὶ τάδε. τίς γὰρ ἢ ἀντίδοσις ; τοῦτο νομοθετοῦντός
ἐστι τοῖς ὀνόμασιν, οὐκ ἀληθεύοντος. ἐπεὶ κἀμοὶ Πέτρος,
καὶ Παῦλος, καὶ Ἰωάννης, οὐ τρεῖς, οὐδὲ ὁμοούσιοι, ἕως ἂν
<lb n="5"/> μὴ τρεῖς Παῦλοι, καὶ τρεῖς Πέτροι, καὶ Ἰωάνναι τοσοῦτοι
λέγωνται. ὃ γὰρ σὺ τετήρηκας ἐπὶ τῶν γενικωτέρων ὀνομάτων,
τοῦτο καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀπαιτήσομεν ἐπὶ τῶν εἰδικωτέρων
κατὰ τὴν σὴν ἀνάπλασιν. ἢ ἀδικήσεις, μὴ διδοὺς ὅπερ
εἴληφας ; τί δὲ ὁ Ἰωάννης, τρεῖς εἶναι τοὺς μαρτυροῦντας
<lb n="10"/> λέγων ἐν ταῖς καθολικαῖς, τὸ πνεῦμα, τὸ ὕδωρ, τὸ αἷμα ;
ἆρά σοι ληρεῖν φαίνεται, πρῶτον μὲν ὅτι τὰ μὴ ὁμοούσια
συναριθμῆσαι τετόλμηκεν, ὃ τοῖς ὁμοουσίοις σὺ δίδως, — τίς
γὰρ ἂν εἴποι ταῦτα μιᾶς οὐσίασ ; — δεύτερον δὲ ὅτι μὴ
καταλλήλως ἔχων ἀπήντησεν, ἀλλὰ τὸ τρεῖς ἀρρενικῶς
<lb n="15"/> προθείς, τὰ τρία οὐδετέρως ἐπήνεγκε, παρὰ τοὺς σοὺς καὶ
τῆς σῆς γραμματικῆς ὅρους καὶ νόμους ; καίτοι τί διαφέρει,
ἢ τρεῖς προθέντα ἓν καὶ ἓν καὶ ἓν ἐπενεγκεῖν, ἢ ἕνα καὶ
<note type="footnote">19. 1 καὶ θεοι] om καὶ b || 5 παυλοι... πέτροι transp. def || 6 λέγονται
ace || 7 ἀπαιτήσωμεν a || 10 ἐν] ἔπι f || πνεῦμα] + καὶ b || ὕδωρ] + καὶ b ||
15 προθεις] προσθεὶς e || 16 om σὴς aeg</note>
<note type="footnote">2. τίς γὰρ ἢ ἀντίδοσις;] This is
explained by the words below,
ἀδικήσεις, μὴ διδοὺς ὅπερ εἴληφας;
It is Gr.’s reply to the objector.
‘What,’ he asks, ‘shall I make you
give me in return?’ The γὰρ
implies a suppressed ‘Take care!’</note>
<note type="footnote">ib. τοῦτο νομοθ. ἐστι] ‘This,’
Gr. retorts, ‘is to legislate for Ian-
guage, not to state the facts with
regard to it.’ At that rate, he can
refuse to admit that Peter and Paul
and John are three beings of the
same nature ; he may say that
unless all the peculiarities of
are exactly reproduced, so that
there are three Peters, there is not
sufficient correspondence between
Peter and the others to warrant
their being brought under a single
number as three men.</note>
<note type="footnote">6. γενικωτέρων] ‘generic’ as opexplanied
posed to εἰδικός ‘specific.’ Gr. puts
both words in the comp., because
he does not use them in a
strict sense.</note>
<note type="footnote">9. τρεῖς εἶναι τοὺς μ.] I John v 8.</note>
<note type="footnote">13. μὴ καταλλ. ἔχων ἀπ’. ]
he coines forward without putting his
words in grammatical agreement.’
᾿Αρρενικῶς, ‘in the ’; οὐδετέρως,
‘in the meut.’</note>

<pb n="169"/>
ἕνα καὶ ἕνα λέγοντα μὴ τρεῖς ἀλλὰ τρία προσαγορεύειν ;
ὅπερ αὐτὸς ἀπαξιοῖς ἐπὶ τῆς θεότητος. τί δέ σοι ὁ καρκίνος
τό τε ζῶον, τό τε ὄργανον, ὅ τε ἀστήρ ; τί δὲ ὁ κύων,
ὅ τε χερσαῖος, καὶ ὁ ἔνυδρος, καὶ ὁ οὐράνιος ; οὐ τρεῖς
λέγεσθαί σοι δοκοῦσι καρκίνοι καὶ κύνες ; πάντως γε. ἆρα <lb n="5"/>
οὖν παρὰ τοῦτο καὶ ὁμοούσιοι ; τίς φήσει τῶν νοῦν ἐχόντων ;
ὁρᾷς ὅπως σοι διαπέπτωκεν ὁ περὶ τῆς συναριθμήσεως
λόγος, τοσούτοις ἐληλεγμένος ; εἰ γὰρ μήτε τὰ ὁμοούσια
πάντως συναριθμεῖται, καὶ συναριθμεῖται τὰ μὴ ὁμοούσια,
ἥ τε τῶν ὀνομάτων συνεκφώνησις ἐπ’ ἀμφοῖν, τί σοι πλέον <lb n="10"/>
ὧν ἐδογμάτισας ;</p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="chapter" n="20"><p>Σκοπῶ δὲ κἀκεῖνο, καὶ ἴσως οὐκ ἔξω λόγου. τὸ
ἓν καὶ τὸ ἓν οὐκ εἰς δύο συντίθεται ; τὰ δύο δὲ οὐκ εἰς ἓν
καὶ ἓν ἀναλύεται ; δῆλον ὅτι. εἰ οὖν ὁμοούσια μὲν τὰ συντιθέμενα
κατὰ τὸν σὸν λόγον, ἑτεροούσια δὲ τὰ τεμνόμενα, <lb n="15"/>
τί συμβαίνει ; τὰ αὐτὰ ὁμοούσιά τε εἶναι καὶ ἑτεροούσια.
γελῶ σου καὶ τὰς προαριθμήσεις, καὶ τὰς ὑπαριθμήσεις,
<note type="footnote">20. 16 om τε f</note>
<note type="footnote">3. τό τε ὄργανον] a pair of tongs.</note>
<note type="footnote">8. ἐληλεγμένος] from ἐλέγχω.</note>
<note type="footnote">10. ἢ τε τῶν ὁ. συνεκφ.] ‘and the
nouns are expressed in both cases,
along with the numeral,’ i.e. not
merely ‘understood.’ Or. means
both in the case of ὁμοούσια which
are not numbered together, and in
that of οὐχ ὁμοούσια which are.</note>
<note type="footnote">20. It will not bear the simplest
test of addition or division. Your
rules about the order of enumeration,
and about the use of prepositions,
are just as ridiculous. We will
now proceed to give you the coup de
grace.</note>
<note type="footnote">13. οὐκ εἰς δύο συντ.] ‘one and
one make two,’ although ace. to the
heretic’s logic ‘one and one’ would
only be said of things of different
nature, such as could never be
united under a common numeral.
Conversely ‘two is divided into one
and οne,’ although ‘two’ can only
be said of things of the same nature,
which it would be unnatural to
describe in that single fashion. The
upshot is that the same things
proved to be of the same nature and
of different natures. Of course the
argument is more or less of a piece
of banter.</note>
<note type="footnote">17. προαριθμ. κ. ὑπαριθμ.] Elias
says, probably without historical
grounds, that this system of numbering
(δεύτερος θεός, τρίτος θεός)
was derived from the way in which
the Neoplatonic writers arranged
existences according to a scale, from
the First Cause to the lowest. The
phraseology is fully discussed by
Basil l. c. (de Sp. S. 17.)῾Υπαριθμεῖν’,
as distinguished from συναριθμ.,
is to reckon in a secondary position.</note>

<pb n="170"/>
αἷς σὺ μέγα φρονεῖς, ὥσπερ ἐν τῇ τάξει τῶν ὀνομάτων
κειμένων τῶν πραγμάτων. εἰ γὰρ τοῦτο, τί κωλύει κατὰ
τὸν αὐτὸν λόγον, ἐπειδὴ τὰ αὐτὰ καὶ προαριθμεῖται καὶ
ὑπαριθμεῖται παρὰ τῇ γραφῇ διὰ τὴν ἰσοτιμίαν τῆς
<lb n="5"/> φύσεως, αὐτὰ ἑαυτῶν εἶναι τιμιώτερά τε καὶ ἀτιμότερα ;
ὁ δὲ αὐτός μοι καὶ περὶ τῆς Θεὸς φωνῆς καὶ Κύριος λόγος·
ἔτι δὲ τῶν προθέσεων, τῆς ἐξ οὗ, καὶ δι’ οὗ, καὶ ἐν ᾧ, αἷς
σὺ κατατεχνολογεῖς ἡμῖν τὸ θεῖον, τὴν μὲν τῷ πατρὶ διδούς,
τὴν δὲ τῷ υἱῷ, τὴν δὲ τῷ ἁγίῳ πνεύματι. τί γὰρ ἂν
<lb n="10"/> ἐποίησας, παγίως ἑκάστου τούτων ἑκάστῳ νενεμημένου·
ὁπότε πάντων πᾶσι συντεταγμένων, ὡς δῆλον τοῖς φιλοπόνοις,
τοσαύτην σὺ διὰ τούτων εἰσάγεις καὶ τῆς ἀξίας
καὶ τῆς φύσεως ἀνισότητα; ἀπόχρη καὶ ταῦτα τοῖς μὴ
λίαν ἀγνώμοσιν. ἐπεὶ δέ σε τῶν χαλεπῶν ἐστίν, ἅπαξ
<lb n="15"/> ἐπιπηδήσαντα τῷ πνεύματι, τῆς φορᾶς σχεθῆναι, ἁλλὰ μή,
καθάπερ τῶν συῶν τοὺς θρασυτέρους, εἰς τέλος φιλονεικεῖν,
καὶ πρὸς τὸ ξίφος ὠθίζεσθαι, μέχρις ἂν πᾶσαν εἴσω τὴν
πληγὴν ὑπολάβῃς , φέρε, σκεψώμεθα τίς ἔτι σοι λείπεται
λόγος.</p><note type="footnote">4 τῆ] + θεια bdf || 14 ἔπει] ἐπειδὴ dt || 18 ὑπολάβοις c</note><note type="footnote">1. ὥσπερ...πραγμάτων] ‘as as if the
realities themselves (i.e. the Persons
of the Trinity) depended upon the
order in which they are named.’</note><note type="footnote">3. καὶ προαριθμ. καὶ ὑπαριθμ.]
‘are sometimes enumerated in one
order and sometimes in another’;
e.g. 2 Cor. xiii 14.</note><note type="footnote">6. π. τῆς θεὸς φ. καὶ κύριος]
‘The same observation holds good’
of these, not in regard to the order
in which they are placed, but to the
way in which they are applied to
the Divine Persons as it were indiscriminately.</note><note type="footnote">7. τῶν προθέσεων] ‘the prepositions.’</note><note type="footnote">8. κατατεχνολογεῖς ἤμ’. τὸ θ.] ‘tie
down the Godhead with your canons.’
Basil de Sp. S. 2 ascribes the canon
to Aetius.</note><note type="footnote">9. τί γὰρ ἂγ ἐποίησας] Α very
ironical argument. If, when these
prepositions are used interchangeably,
you contrive to get such inequality
out of them, what would
you not have done if the use of
them had been constant and
able? Ὁπότε is used here like ὅστις
with an inferential shade of meaning.</note><note type="footnote">13. καὶ ταῦτα] ‘even even these things,’
i.e. without going further.</note><note type="footnote">14. τῶν χαλεπῶν ἐστίν] ‘is a
difficulty.’</note><note type="footnote">15. τῆς φορᾶς σχεθῆναι] ‘to stop
short in your impetus.’</note><note type="footnote">21. You speak of the silence of
Scripture on the Godhead of the
Ghost. Scholars have often shown
hoto false this is; but I too will do
my best to help you out of your
difficulty.</note><pb n="171"/></div><div type="textpart" subtype="chapter" n="21"><p>Πάλιν καὶ πολλάκις ἀνακυκλεῖς ἡμῖν τὸ ἄγραφον.
ὅτι μὲν οὖν οὐ ξένον τοῦτο, οὐδὲ παρείσακτον, ἀλλὰ καὶ
τοῖς πάλαι καὶ τοῖς νῦν γνωριζόμενον καὶ παραγυμνούμενον,
δέδεικται μὲν ἤδη πολλοῖς τῶν περὶ τούτου διειληφότων,
ὅσοι μὴ ῥᾳθύμως μηδὲ παρέργως ταῖς θείαις γραφαῖς ἐντυχόντες, <lb n="5"/>
ἀλλὰ διασχόντες τὸ γράμμα καὶ εἴσω παρακύψαντες,
τὸ ἀπόθετον κάλλος ἰδεῖν ἠξιώθησαν, καὶ τῷ
φωτισμῷ τῆς γνώσεως κατηυγάσθησαν. δηλώσομεν δὲ
καἰ ἡμεῖς ἐξ ἐπιδρομῆς, ὅσον ἐνδέχεται, τοῦ μὴ δοκεῖν εἶναι
περιττοί τινες, μηδὲ φιλοτιμότεροι τοῦ δέοντος, ἐποικοδομοῦντες <lb n="10"/>
ἐπὶ θεμέλιον ἀλλότριον. εἰ δὲ τὸ μὴ λίαν σαφῶς
γεγράφθαι θεὸν μηδὲ πολλάκις ὀνομαστί, ὥσπερ τὸν
πατέρα πρότερον καὶ τὸν υἱὸν ὕστερον, αἴτιόν σοι γίνεται
βλασφημίας, καὶ τῆς περιττῆς ταύτης γλωσσαλγίας καὶ
ἀσεβείας, ἡμεῖς σοι λύσομεν ταύτην τὴν βλάβην, μικρὰ <lb n="15"/>
περὶ πραγμάτων καὶ ὀνομάτων καὶ μάλιστα παρὰ τῆ τῆς
γραφῆς συνηθείᾳ φιλοσοφήσαντες.</p><note type="footnote">21. 1 ανακυκλοις b ‘Reg. b’ || 5 εντυχοντες] ἐντυγχάνοντες b ‘Colb.
3’ || 8 δηλώσωμεν aef || 10 εποικοδομουντες] οἰκοδομοῦντες acg</note><note type="footnote">1. τὸ ἄγραφον] Cp. § 1.</note><note type="footnote">2. οὐ ξένον τοῦτο] τοῦτο seems
by comparison with § 1 to mean the
Holy Spirit Himself, not the doctrine
of His Godhead. So also περὶ τού.
του below.</note><note type="footnote">3. τοῖς πάλαι] the O.T. writers;
τοῖς νῦν, the Christian Church.</note><note type="footnote">ib. παραγυμνούμενον] ‘revealed,’
‘disclosed.’</note><note type="footnote">4. διειληφότων] ‘have discussed.’
Cp. iv 16, v 5.</note><note type="footnote">5. ἐντυχόντες] to ‘meet with,’
‘come across’; so to ‘read.’ The
word does not necessarily imply a
casual, hasty perusal; cp. § 26.</note><note type="footnote">6. διασχόντες] Cp. ii 3, 31,
‘have penetrated beyond the letter.’</note><note type="footnote">7. ἀπόθετον] ‘put away,’ so
‘hidden’ like a treasure, = ἀπόκρυφον.
See Thompson’s note on Plat.
Phaedr. 252 B.</note><note type="footnote">9. ἐξ ἐπιδρομῆς] lit. ‘at a rush,’
i.e. ‘hastily.’</note><note type="footnote">ib. τοῦ μὴ δοκεῖν] explains why
Gr. will not attempt to go into the
question at greater length.</note><note type="footnote">11. ἐπὶ θέμ’. ἀλλ’] Rom. xv 20.
Because Basil and others had gone
over the ground before.</note><note type="footnote">12. ὀνομαστί] The word appears
to belong to both σαφῶς and πολλά.
κὶς, and to qualify the word
not τὸ ἄγ. πνεῦμα understood; ‘the
fact that He is not very clearly,
often, described in Scripture by
title of “God”.’ But the expression
is somewhat redundant.</note><note type="footnote">13. πρότερρον] under the earlier
dispensation; ὕστ., under the later.</note><note type="footnote">15. λύσομεν…βλάβην] ‘will remove
this disadvantage’; said
a kind of irony, as if the opponent
would recognise that it was a βλάβη.</note><pb n="172"/></div></div></body></text></TEI>
                </passage>
            </reply>
            </GetPassage>