Ἐπεὶ δέ σου τὴν πρώτην διαίρεσιν οὐ δεχόμεθα, τὴν μηδὲν ἀγεννήτου καὶ γεννητοῦ μέσον ὑπολαμβάνουσαν, αὐτίκα οἰχήσονταί σοι μετὰ τῆς σεμνῆς διαιρέσεως οἱ ἀδελφοὶ καὶ οἱ υἱωνοί, ὥσπερ τινὸς δεσμοῦ πολυπλόκου τῆς πρώτης ἀρχῆς λυθείσης συνδιαλυθέντες, καὶ τῆς θεολογίας ὑποχωρήσαντες. ποῦ γὰρ θήσεις τὸ ἐκπορευτόν. εἰπέ μοι, μέσον ἀναφανὲν τῆς σῆς διαιρέσεως, καὶ παρὰ κρείσσονος ἢ κατὰ σὲ θεολόγου, τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν, εἰσαγόμενον; εἰ μὴ τὴν φωνὴν ἐκείνην τῶν σῶν ἐξεῖλες εὐαγγελίων, διὰ τὴν τρίτην σου διαθήκην, Τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, ὃ παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται· ὃ καθ’ ὅσον μὲν ἐκεῖθεν ἐκπορεύεται, οὐ κτίσμα· καθ’ ὅσον δὲ οὐ γεννητόν, οὐχ 3 om καὶ Οὐαλεντίνου aceg 8, 8 οἱ υἱωνοὶ] om οι df || 9 λυθεισης] διαλυθείσης bdf || 16 om ἐκπορεύεται f 1. συγγενόμενον] ‘ by intercourse with His own ’; cp. iii 6. The ’ancient ’ are prob. those of heathen mythology, not of Gnosticism. 3. Μαρκίωνος] Marcion's system has really nothing to do with Gnosticism and its fantastic inventions, although he is usually reckoned among the Gnostics. Perh. therefore Gr. uses his name with that of Valentinus to denote in contemptuous indifference Gnosticism in general ; or perh. he confuses Marcion with Marcus, the disciple of Val., from whom the Marcosians take their name. ib. θεὸς ἀρρενόθηλυς] Gr. does not mean that Val. taught that God was ἀρρ., but only compares the God who has just been imagined with the bisexual beings of the Valentinian system. See Iren. I i 1 εἶναι γὰρ αὐτῶν ἕκαστον ἀρρενόθηλυν, οὔτως· τως· πρῶτον rbv Προπάτορα ἡνῶσθαι κατὰ συζυγίαν τῆ ἑαυτοῦ Ἐννοίᾳ κτλ. 4. αἰῶνας] ’who devised those strange Acons.’ 8. I do not admit thai He must be either begotten or unbegotten. Christ says that He ’proceeds? You ask what that means. Our powers are insufficient to explain. 9. ἀρχῆς] as in ii 25, an ‘ end? Δεσμός seems to be used in the sense of a hnot. ib. τῆς θ. ὑποχωρήσαντες] ‘retiring ing from your account of the God- head.’ 14. διὰ τὴν τρίτην σ. δ.] ‘ to suit your Third Testament? or, as we might say, ’your Newest Testament.’ ib. τὸ πν.... ἐκπορεύεται] John xv 26. 15. ἐκεῖθεν] from such a source as the Father. υἱός· καθ’ ὅσον δὲ ἀγεννήτου καὶ γεννητοῦ μέσον, θεός. καὶ οὕτω σου τὰς τῶν συλλογισμῶν ἄρκυς διαφυγὸν θεὸς ἀναπέφηνε, τῶν σῶν διαιρέσεων ἰσχυρότερος. τίς οὖν ἡ ἐκπόρευσις; εἰπὲ σὺ τὴν ἀγεννησίαν τοῦ πατρός, κἀγὼ τὴν γέννησιν τοῦ υἱοῦ φυσιολογήσω, καὶ τὴν ἐκπόρευσιν τοῦ πνεύματος, καὶ παραπληκτίσωμεν ἄμφω εἰς θεοῦ μυστήρια παρακύπτοντες· καὶ ταῦτα τίνες; οἱ μηδὲ τὰ ἐν ποσὶν εἰδέναι δυνάμενοι, μηδὲ ψάμμον θαλασσῶν, καὶ σταγόνας ὑετοῦ, καὶ ἡμέρας αἰῶνος ἐξαριθμεῖσθαι, μὴ ὅτι γε θεοῦ βάθεσιν ἐμβατεύειν, καὶ λόγον ὑπέχειν τῆς οὕτως ἀρρήτου καὶ ὑπὲρ λόγον φύσεως.

Τί οὖν ἐστί, φησιν, ὃ λείπει τῷ πνεύματι, πρὸς τὸ εἶναι υἱόν; εἰ γὰρ μὴ λεῖπόν τι ἦν, υἱὸς ἃν ἦν. οὐ λείπειν φαμέν· οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐλλειπὴς θεός· τὸ δὲ τῆς ἐκφάνσεως, ἵν οὕτως εἴπω, ἢ τῆς πρὸς ἄλληλα σχέσεως διάφορον διάφορον αὐτῶν καὶ τὴν κλῆσιν πεποίηκεν. οὐδὲ γὰρ τῷ υἱῷ λείπει τι πρὸς τὸ εἶναι πατέρα, οὐδὲ γὰρ ἔλλειψις ἡ υἱότης, ἀλλ’ οὐ παρὰ τοῦτο πατήρ. ἢ οὕτω γε καὶ τῷ πατρὶ λείψει τι πρὸς τὸ εἶναι υἱόν· οὐ γὰρ υἱὸς ὁ πατήρ. ἀλλ’ οὐκ 2 διαφυγὼν d || 3 ισχυροτεροσ] υφηλοτερος ’tres Colb.' || 6 παραπληκτισομεν bedf 9, 13 υιον] υιω b || 14 ἐλλιπὴς cd2f2 || 15 om διάφορον sec. loco e || 17 om τι b || ουδε] οὐ c || 18 λειψει] λείπει c || 19 υἱὸν] υἱὼ b 1. ἀγενν. κ. γενν. μέσον] Theterm ἐκπορεύεσθαι denotes a relationship to the Unbegotten Father which is at least not more distant than that of Generation, and therefore implies the essential Deity of Him who so proceeds. 5. φυσιολογήσω] ‘ will tell you the natural history of.’ 6. παραπληκriσωμεν] ‘ and let us both go mad for prying into the secrets of God' ; a well-known superstition. 7. καἰ ταῦτα τίνες] ‘ and who are we that we should pry into them ?' 8. ψάμμον θαλασσῶν κτλ.] Ecclus. i 2. 10. θεοῦ βάθεσιν] ι Cor. ii 10. ib. λόγον πἐχειν] ‘ to submit’ ’present an account.’ 9. ‘Where does He come short of being a Son ? yon ask. . It is no defect, any more than it is a defect in the Son not to ἠ’ Father, or in the Father not to be Son. The names ’denote unalterable relationships within a single nature. 14. ἐκφάνσεως] The difference of designation corresponds to B real difference in the mode of Their coming forth into existence, and of Their mutual relation. Ἔκφανσις does not mean Their manifestation to us, but Their eternal issuing forth from the First Source. 19. ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἐλλ. τ. ποθεν] ’but this language does not indicate a in any direction, nor the inferiority of essence.' The ταῦτα not refer only to what has immediately preceded, viz. that the Father is not Son ; this would not suggest any thought of ὕφεσις. It refers also to the ’s not being Father, nor the Spirit Son. ἐλλείψεως ταῦτά ποθεν, οὐδὲ τῆς κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν ὑφέσεως · αὐτὸ δὲ τὸ μὴ γεγεννῆσθαι, καὶ τὸ γεγεννῆσθαι, καὶ τὸ ἐκπορεύεσθαι, τὸν μὲν πατέρα, τὸν δὲ υἱόν, τὸ δὲ τοῦθ’ ὅπερ λέγεται πνεῦμα ἅγιον προσηγόρευσεν, ἵνα τὸ ἀσύγχυτον σώζηται τῶν τριῶν ὑποστάσεων ἐν τῇ μιᾷ φύσει τε καὶ ἀξίᾳ τῆς θεότητος. οὔτε γὰρ ὁ υἱὸς πατήρ, εἷς γὰρ πατήρ, ἀλλ’ ὅπερ ὁ πατήρ· οὔτε τὸ πνεῦμα υἱὸς ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ, εἷς γὰρ ὁ μονογενής, ἀλλ’ ὅπερ ὁ υἱός· ἓν τὰ τρία τῇ θεότητι, καὶ τὸ ἓν τρία ταῖς ἰδιότησιν· ἵνα μήτε τὸ ἓν Σαβέλλιον ᾖ, μήτε τὰ τρία τῆς πονηρᾶς νῦν διαιρέσεως.

Τί οὖν ; θεὸς τὸ πνεῦμα ; πάνυ γε. τί οὖν, ὁμοούσιον ; εἴπερ θεός. δὸς οὖν μοί, φησιν, ἐκ τοῦ αὐτοῦ 2 τὸ γεγεννησθαι] το γεγενῆσθαι a: om καὶ τὸ γεγεννῆσθαι f || 3 εκπεπορευσθαι αἰ ’Reg. Cypr.' || 6 αξια] εξουσια e || 7 ὑίος] ο ὑίος a || 8 o ὑίος] om ο d || om τὰ f || 9 om τῆ bed || 10 νυν] σου νυν b ’Reg. Cypr.' : om νυν c : νυνι e 4. προσηγόρευσεν] The abovementioned facts ’proclaim Them ’ respectively Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The aor. takes us back to the moment when these titles were first assigned in Scripture. 5. ποστάσεων] here used in the recognised ’personal’ sense. 7. δπερ ὁ πατήρ] He is not the Father, but He is all that the Father is. ib. δτι ἐκ τοῦ θ.] The fact that He is of the Father's essence (1 Cor. ii 12) does not make Him Son. 8. ἐν τὰ τρία τῆ θ.] The Three (Gr. again avoids the masc.) are One — an undivided unit — in their nature; the One is Three — a Trinity — in the ineffaceable distinction between the persons. The latter observation removes the Sabellian conception of the unity ; the former removes the Eunomian division of the natures. In the construction of the last clause, τῆς π. ν. διαιρέσεως is the predicate after ἦ understood, like οὐκ ἐλλείψεως above. 10 You are surprised at our calling Him God, consubstantial with the Father. He must be so if there is only God God and one Godhead. I am ashamed to use earthly illustrations; but even in natural history there are very different modes of reproduction which it might help you to consider. 12. δὸς οὖν μοι] The word διδόναι is not used here in its frequent sense of a logical concession ; for it would be no concession to the Eunomians to ’give’ what is here required. It means rather, ’shew me’ ‘convince me that it is so.’ The Eunomian offers, if convinced that two consubstantial persons issue from the same Divine Source, to acknow- ledge each of them to be a God. Gr. illustrates the illogical character of the offer by a counter-paralogism. ‘Shew me,’ he says, ‘that there is than one sort of God, and I will shew you the same Trinity that we now believe in, name and thing.’ It is as unreasonable to deduce ditheism or tritheism from the Catholic doctrine of the relation of the Son and Spirit to the Father, as it would be to deduce the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity from a belief in Godheads of varying quality. τὸ μὲν υἱόν, τὸ δὲ οὐχ υἱόν, εἶτα ὁμοούσια, καὶ δέχομαι θεὸν καὶ θεόν. δός μοι καὶ σὺ θεὸν ἄλλον, καὶ Φύσιν θεοῦ, καὶ δώσω σοι τὴν αὐτὴν τριάδα μετὰ τῶν αὐτῶν ὀνομάτων τε καὶ πραγμάτων. εἰ δὲ εἰς θεὸς μία φύσις ἡ ἀνωτάτω, πόθεν παραστήσω σοι τὴν ὁμοίωσιν; ἢ ζητεῖς πάλιν ἐκ τῶν κάτω καὶ τῶν περὶ σέ; λίαν μὲν αἰσχρόν, καὶ οὐκ αἰσχρὸν μόνον, ἁλλὰ καὶ μάταιον ἐπιεικῶς, ἐκ τῶν κάτω τῶν ἄνω τὴν εἰκασίαν λαμβάνειν, καὶ τῶν ἀκινήτων ἐκ τῆς ῥευστῆς φύσεως, καί, ὅ Φησιν Ἠσαίας, ἐκζητεῖσθαι τὰ ζῶντα ἐν τοῖς νεκροῖς· ὅμως δὲ πειράσομαι, σὴν χάριν, κἀντεῦθεν δοῦναί τινα τῷ λόγῳ βοήθειαν. τὰ μὲν οὖν ἄλλα παρήσειν μοι δοκῶ, πολλὰ ἃν ἔχων ἐκ τῆς περὶ ζώων ἱστορίας εἰπεῖν, τὰ μὲν ἡμῖν γνώριμα, τὰ δὲ τοῖς ὀλίγοις, ὅσα περὶ τὰς τῶν ζώων γενέσεις ἡ Φύσις ἐφιλοτεχνήσατο. γεννᾶσθαι γὰρ λέγεται, οὐκ ἐκ τῶν αὐτῶν τὰ αὐτὰ μόνον, οὐδὲ ἐξ ἑτέρων ἕτερα, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐξ ἑτέρων τὰ αὐτά, καὶ ἐκ τῶν αὐτῶν ἕτερα. εἰ δέ τῳ πιστὸς ὁ λόγος, καὶ ἄλλος ἐστὶ τρόπος γεννήσεως, αὐτό τι ὑφ’ ἑαυτοῦ δαπανώμενον καὶ τικτόμενον. ἔστι δὲ ἃ καὶ 10. 1 δεχομαι] + καὶ c || 2 ἄλλον θέον dfg || 4 εἰς θεὸς μία φυσις] εἰς ο θεὸς καὶ μία φύσις b ’Reg. Cypr.’: εἰς θεὸς καὶ μία φύσις f ‘ plures Reg. et Colb.’: εἰς θεὸς τε καὶ μία Φυσις de || 6 η] εἰ ’δε ‘ Reg. Cypr.’ || το τα ζωντα] τον ὄντα ‘Or. 1’ 9. ῤευστῆς] ‘changeable,’ ‘transitory’ tory’; cp. ii 22 πῶς κάτω μῶ. 10. ἐκζητεῖσθαι τὰ ζ.] Is. viii 19; cp. Luke xxiv 5. 13. ἡμῖν γνώριμα] known to us all by direct observation; opp. to what only few have had the opportunity of noting. Gr.’s lore on subject is derived from Aristotle. 16. ἐξ ἑτέρων τὰ αὐτά κτλ.] instance given by Elias is that of frogs, some of which are the off- spring of frogs, and others the spontaneous product of the marsh, and yet equally frogs. His instance of the converse is more true to nature, but a less exact illustration of his subject. 19.δαπανώμενον] ‘consumed,’ cp. iv 6. The ref. of course is to the phoenix (Herod, ii 73); see Lightfoot's note on Clem, ad cor. § 25. Gr. himself evidently does not quite believe the fable. ἐξίσταταί πὼς ἑαυτῶν, ἐξ ἄλλων ζώων εἰς ἄλλα μεθιστάμενά τε καὶ μεταποιούμενα, Φιλοτιμίᾳ Φιλοτιμίᾳ ἤδη δὲ καὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ, τὸ μὲν οὐ γέννημα, τὸ δὲ γέννημα, πλὴν ὁμοούσια· ὃ καὶ τῷ παρόντι πὼς μᾶλλον προσέοικεν. ἓν δέ τι τῶν ἡμετέρων εἰπών, ὃ καὶ πᾶσι γνώριμον, ἐφ’ ἕτερον μεταβήσομαι λόγον.

Ὁ Ἀδὰμ τί ποτε ἦν ; πλάσμα θεοῦ. τί δὲ ἡ Εὖα; τμῆμα τοῦ πλάσματος. τί δὲ ὁ Σήθ; γέννημα. ἆρ’ οὖν ταὐτόν σοι φαίνεται πλάσμα, καὶ τμῆμα, καὶ γέννημα; πῶς οὔ; ὁμοούσια δὲ ταῦτα, ἢ τί; πῶς δ’ οὔ; ὡμολόγηται οὖν καὶ τὰ διαφόρως ὑποστάντα τῆς αὐτῆς εἶναι οὐσίας ἐνδέχεσθαι. λέγω δὲ ταῦτα, οὐκ ἐπὶ τὴν θεότητα φέρων τὴν πλάσιν, ἢ τὴν τομήν, ἤ τι τῶν ὅσα σώματος, μή μοί τις ἐπιφυέσθω πάλιν τῶν λογομάχων, ἐπὶ δὲ τούτων θεωρῶν, ὡς ἐπὶ σκηνῆς, τὰ νοούμενα. οὐδὲ γὰρ οἷόν τε τῶν εἰκαζομένων οὐδὲν πρὸς πᾶσαν ἐξικνεῖσθαι καθαρῶς τὴν ἀλήθειαν. καὶ τί ταῦτά, φασιν; οὐ γὰρ τοῦ ἑνὸς τὸ μὲν γέννημα, τὸ δὲ ἄλλο τι. τί οὖν; ἡ Eὖα καὶ Σήθ, οὐχὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ τοῦ Ἀδάμ; τίνος γὰρ ἄλλου; ἢ καὶ 11. 9 ταὐτὸν] ταύτα acg || ΙΙ τὰ] τὸ e || 1 7 φασιν] φησιν c 1. εἰς ἄλλα μεθιστάμενα] Elias very properly instances gnats, as out of larvae. It was prob. not known that such larvae invariably developed into gnats, or that all gnats had been such larvae. 2. φιλοτιμίᾳ φ] ‘in nature's eagerness to excel’; cp. ἢ φ. ἐφιλοτεχνήσατο above. ib. ἤδη δὲ καὶ τοῦ αὖ] The same creature produces offspring in more than one way, by generation and otherwise; and both kinds of off- spring have the same nature as the parent. Gr. is prob. thinking of the way in which some low forms of animal life appear (like plants) to be propagated by ‘cuttings’ as well as by ‘seed.’ 4. τῷ παρόντι] ‘the case in point,’ i.e. of the Holy Spirit. 11. Human history, however, presents a better, if still an incomplete, illustration. Adam, Eve, and Seth came into being in very different ways; yet they are consubstantial. 9. ταὐτόν σοι φ.] ‘to have the same nature.’ 14. ἐπιφυέσθω] Cp. i 4. 15. θεωρῶν ὡς ἐπὶ σκ] These earthly illustrations form a kind of stage upon which the higher things are represented for our study. 17. οὐ γὰρ τοῦ ἑνός] This is part of the objection, not of Gr.’s reply. From the one person of the Father, they say, there cannot issue two others, one by generation, the other in some other way. ἀμφότεροι γεννήματα ; οὐδαμῶς. ἀλλὰ τί; τὸ μὲν τμῆμα, τὸ δὲ γέννημα. καἰ μὴν ἀμφότεροι ταὐτὸν ἀλλήλοις· ἄνθρωποι γάρ· οὐδεὶς ἀντερεῖ. παύσῃ οὖν ἀπομαχόμενος πρὸς τὸ πνεῦμα, ὡς ἢ γέννημα πάντως, ἢ μὴ ὁμοούσιον, μηδὲ θεόν, καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων τὸ δυνατὸν λαβὼν τῆς ἡμετέρας ὑπολήψεως; ἐγὼ μὲν οἶ μαί σοι καλῶς ἔχειν, εἰ μὴ λίαν ἔγνωκας φιλονεικεῖν, καὶ πρὸς τὰ δῆλα μάχεσθαι.

Ἀλλὰ τίς προσεκύνησε τῷ πνεύματί, φησιν ; τίς ἢ τῶν παλαιῶν, ἢ τῶν νέων ; τίς δὲ προσηύξατο ; ποῦ δὲ τὸ χρῆναι προσκυνεῖν ἢ προσεύχεσθαι γέγραπται ; καὶ πόθεν τοῦτο ἔχεις λαβών ; τὴν μὲν τελεωτέραν αἰτίαν ἀποδώσομεν ὕστερον, ἡνίκα ἂν περὶ τοῦ ἀγράφου διαλεγώμεθα. νῦν δὲ τοσοῦτον εἰπεῖν ἐξαρκέσει· τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν, ἐν ᾧ προσκυνοῦμεν, καὶ δι’ οὗ προσευχόμεθα. Πνεῦμα γάρ, φησιν, ὁ θεός, καὶ τοὺς προσκυνοῦντας αὐτὸν ἐν πνεύματι καἰ ἀληθείᾳ προσκυνεῖν δεῖ. καὶ πάλιν· Τὸ γὰρ τί προσευξώμεθα, καθ’ ὃ δεῖ, οὐκ οἴδαμεν, ἁλλ’ αὐτὸ τὸ πνεῦμα ὑπερεντυγχάνει ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν στεναγμοῖς ἀλαλήτοις. καί, Προσεύξομαι τῷ πνεύματι, προσεύξομαι δὲ καὶ τῷ νοί, 3 παύση] παύσαι b ‘Or. I’ || 6 σοι] σε ace ‘quinque Reg.’ || 7 τὰ δηλα] ἄδηλα e1. 12. II λαβὼν ἔχεις df || 16 ’δει προσκυνεῖν bdf || 17 προσευξόμεθα acdefg || 18 υπερεντυγχανει] εντυγχ. c || 19 προσεύξομαι primo loco] + δε b: -ξωμαι (et in secundo) a 5. καἰ ἐκ τῶν ἄνθρωπ’] ‘even human experience has shewn you the possibility of what we hold.’ 6. καλώς ἔχειν] ‘that that you had better,’ i.e. leave off contending. 7. ἔγνωκας] ‘have made up your mind.’ 12. You say that the Spirit is not, in Scripture, an object of worship. It is at least ‘in in the spirit’ that we worship, and that which we worship ‘is Spirit.’ He is so entirely one with the object of worship, that worship addressed to the Father is equally addressed to the Holy Ghost. Again, you object that ‘all things were made through the Son,’ and therefore the Holy Ghost among them. No more, I answer, than the Father was. He was made at all. Accept humbly the docmind.’ trine of the unity of the Divine persons. 12. ἀποδώσομεν ὕστερον] in the whole argument, beginning with § 21 and culminating in § 28. 14. πνεῦμα γάρ, φησιν] John iv 24. 16. τὸ γὰρ τί προσευξ.] Kom. viii 26. 19. προσεύξ. τῷ πν.] I Cor. xiv 15. τοῦτ’ ἐστίν, ἐν νοὶ καὶ πνεύματι. τὸ οὖν προσκυνεῖν τῷ πνεύματι, ἢ προσεύχεσθαι, οὐδὲν ἄλλο εἶναί μοι φαίνεται, ἢ αὐτὸ ἑαυτῷ τὴν εὐχὴν προσάγειν καὶ τὴν προσκύνησιν. ὃ τίς οὐκ ἂν ἐπαινέσειε τῶν ἐνθέων, καὶ τῶν εὖ εἰδότων ὅτι καὶ ἡ τοῦ ἑνὸς προσκύνησις τῶν τριῶν ἐστὶ προσκύνησις, διὰ τὸ ἐν τοῖς τρισὶν ὁμότιμον τῆς ἀξίας καὶ τῆς θεότητος ; καὶ μὴν οὐδὲ ἐκεῖνο φοβηθήσομαι τὸ πάντα διὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ γεγονέναι λέγεσθαι, ὡς ἑνὸς τῶν πάντων ὄντος καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος. πάντα γὰρ ὅσα γέγονεν, εἴρηται, οὐχ ἁπλῶς ἅπαντα· οὐδὲ γὰρ ὁ πατήρ, οὐδ’ ὅσα μὴ γέγονεν. δείξας οὖν ὅτι γέγονε, τότε τῷ υἱῷ δός, καὶ τοῖς κτίσμασι συναρίθμησον. ἕως δ’ ἂν μὴ τοῦτο δεικνύῃς, οὐδὲν τῷ περιληπτικῷ βοηθῇ πρὸς ἀσέβειαν. εἰ μὲν γὰρ γέγονε, διὰ χριστοῦ πάντως· οὐδὲ αὐτὸς ἀρνήσομαι. εἰ δὲ οὐ γέγονε, πῶς ἢ τῶν πάντων ἕν, ἢ διὰ χριστοῦ ; παῦσαι οὖν καὶ τὸν πατέρα κακῶς τιμῶν κατὰ τοῦ μονογενοῦς, — κακὴ δὲ τιμὴ κτίσμα διδόντα τὸ τιμιώτερον υἱὸν ἀποστερεῖν, — καὶ τὸν υἱὸν κατὰ τοῦ πνεύματος. οὐ γὰρ ὁμοδούλου δημιουργός, ἀλλ’ ὁμοτίμῳ συνδοξαζόμενος. μηδὲν μετὰ σεαυτοῦ θῇς τῆς τριάδος, μὴ τῆς τριάδος ἐκπέσῃς. μηδενὶ περικόψῃς τὴν μίαν φύσιν καὶ ὁμοίως σεβάσμιον, ὡς ὅ τι ἂν 6 om τοῖς c || 7 φοβήσομαι a || II δείξας] δεῖξον df || τότε] καὶ τότε cdf || 14 ἀρνήσωμαι d || 17 ἀποστερεῖν υἱὸν de2f 1. τὸ προσκ. τῷ πν] Gr. thinks that ‘worshipping or praying in or by the Spirit,’ which are clearly commanded, are in fact the bringing of prayer and worship by the Spirit to Himself. This is based upon the text first quoted, in which the object of the worship πνεῦμά ἐστιν. Not that Gr. definitely takes the first πνεῦμα in that text to be the Holy Ghost ; but on the principle that worship offered to one person of the Trinity is offered to all, his reasoning is correct, if his premisses are accepted. It must be owned, however, that he somewhat begs the question. 7. πάντα διὰ τοῦ υἱ.] John i 3. 11. τῳ υἱῷ δός] ‘assign assign Him to the Son’ as one of the things which were made through Him. 12. τῷ περιληπτικῷ] ‘your comprehensive phrase will not help you.’ 16. κακῶς τιμῶν κατὰ] ‘wrongly honouring the Father at the expense of the Only-begotten.’ 18. οὐ γὰρ ὁμ. δῆμ’.] sc. τοῦ πνεύματος ὁ υἱός. 19. μετὰ σεαυτοῦ] Cp. § 4 μετ’ ἐμοῦ. τῶν τριῶν καθέλῃς, τὸ πᾶν ἔσῃ καθῃρηκώς, μᾶλλον δὲ τοῦ παντὸς ἐκπεπτωκώς. βέλτιον μικρὰν τῆς ἑνώσεως φαντασίαν λαβεῖν, ἢ παντελῆ τολμῆσαι δυσσέβειαν.

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.

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 πρὸς τὰς πρώτας αἰτίας ἀντιθέτως ἔχοντες, οὓς δὴ ᾿Ωκεανούς, καὶ Τηθύας, καὶ Φάνητας, καὶ οὐκ οἶδα οὕς 4 καθαρῶς μένοντες οἱ αὐτοὶ df || 7 ἄνω) + καὶ bdf 16. 15 ovs] + καὶ e || 16 ὠκεανοὺς] + τε b 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. 5. μὴ ὅτι] Cp. i 4. 6. ῥέοντες] Cp. § 10 ῥευστῆς. 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. 7. φύσις ἢ ἄνω μετὰ τ. τ.] Cp. ii 31 ταῖς πρώταις μετὰ θεὸν φύσεσι. The whole section should be compared with this passage. 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. 12. ἁλίσκονται] Cp. ἑ 13 ἁλῶναι, ‘to be convicted. ’ ib. θεολόγοις] Cp. ii 4. The ref. is, no doubt, esp. to Plato’s denuntiation of the poets in Rep. ii, iii. 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. 16. φάνητας] “A mystic in the Orphic rites, representing the first principle of the world, cf. Orph. Arg. 15 ” (Lidd. and Sc). 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 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 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.

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 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 1. θεὸν μισότεκνον] Saturn. 5. ὑπόνοιαί τινες] ‘a sort of allegoriest.’ 6. τριχθὰ δὲ πάντα δ.] Hom. II. xv 189. 8. ταῖς ὕλαις κ. τ. ἀξ.] ‘having separate elements under them, and holding different ranks.’ ib. τὸ ἡμέτερον] ‘what we believe.’ 9. μερὶς τῷ Ἰακώβ] Jer. x 16. 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.’ 14. χάρις τῆς θεωρίας] ‘thanks be to God for the line of thought.’ 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. 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. 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 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 ο πόνος.

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, 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 1 λεγειν τρεῖς df. 18. 11 μὴ] οὐχ bdf || 13 καὶ] η b 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. 4. πραγμάτων] ‘of trouble’; not τῶν πρ., ‘the facts.’ 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.’ 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. 12. μοναδικὴν ἔχει τ. δ.] ‘can only be designated singly’; e.g. a and a man, and a tree. 13. δόγμ’. καὶ μυθ.] a kind of hendiadys, ‘makers of fabidous deattempt crees.’ 14. τῆς πόσ’. τῶν ὑποκ.] ‘denotes the quantity, or sum, of the and not their nature.’ 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. 18. ἄλλως] carries on the irony of ἀρχαίως, ἀμαθῶς. It is used in the idiomatic sense of ‘idlt,’ ‘vainly.’ 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· 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· 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.

Ἀλλ’ ἐμοί, φησιν, ἐκεῖνα συναριθμούμενα λέγεται, καὶ τῆς αὐτῆς οὐσίας, οἷς συνεκφωνεῖται καταλλήλως καὶ 3 γραμματι] πράγματι b || 5 λέων και] om καὶ g || 6 ενδημηγορων e || 7 τῆ ’δε φύσει bdf 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. 4. λάβε] seems to be an ironical invitation to prove the point, not= δέξαι i.e. ‘listen to my proofs.’ 5. εὐόδως πορεύεται] Pro v. xxx 29. 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.’ 10. ἀπερρηγμένα] ’so completely severed.’ 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. 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. 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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!’ 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. 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. 9. τρεῖς εἶναι τοὺς μ.] I John v 8. 13. μὴ καταλλ. ἔχων ἀπ’. ] he coines forward without putting his words in grammatical agreement.’ ᾿Αρρενικῶς, ‘in the ’; οὐδετέρως, ‘in the meut.’ 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 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 ὧν ἐδογμάτισας ;

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, τί συμβαίνει ; τὰ αὐτὰ ὁμοούσιά τε εἶναι καὶ ἑτεροούσια. γελῶ σου καὶ τὰς προαριθμήσεις, καὶ τὰς ὑπαριθμήσεις, 20. 16 om τε f 3. τό τε ὄργανον] a pair of tongs. 8. ἐληλεγμένος] from ἐλέγχω. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 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 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 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.