Ὁ μὲν δὴ περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ λόγος τοιοῦτος· καὶ
οὕτω διαπέφευγε τοὺς λιθάζοντας, διελθὼν διὰ μέσου
αὐτῶν. ὁ λόγος γὰρ οὐ λιθάζεται, λιθοβολεῖ δέ, ὅταν
ἐθέλῃ, καὶ σφενδονᾷ θηρία, λόγους κακῶς τῷ ὄρει προσβαίνοντας.
τί δ’ ἂν εἴποις, φασί, περὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος ;
πόθεν ἡμῖν ἐπεισάγεις ξένον θεὸν καὶ ἄγραφον ; τοῦτο ἤδη
καὶ οἱ περὶ τὸν υἱὸν μετριάζοντες. ὅπερ γὰρ ἐπὶ τῶν ὁδῶν
εὑρεῖν ἐστὶ καὶ τῶν ποταμῶν, σχίζονταί τε ἀπ’ ἀλλήλων,
καὶ εἰς ἄλληλα συνάγονται· τοῦτο κἀνταῦθα συμβαίνει
διὰ τὸν πλοῦτον τῆς ἀσεβείας, καὶ τοὺς τὰ ἄλλα διεστῶτας
ἐν ἄλλοις συμφέρεσθαι, ὥστε μηδὲ γινώσκειν καθαρῶς
δύνασθαι τὸ συμφέρον ἢ τὸ μαχόμενον.
Desunt omnia in a usque ad c. 6 medium1. 1 τοιοῦτος] τοσοῦτος be ’ Or. 1 ’ || 2 om διελθὼν δία μέσου ἀυτῶν d ||6 επεισαξεις d1. So the Son has escaped your
slotting; but even among those who
shrink from extremes in their opposition
to the Son, there are some who
think there is no scriptural authority
for calling the Holy Spirit God.
They part company with the extreme
men, and then rejoin them, like roads
or rivers that divide and then meet
again.2. διελθὼν διὰ μ.] St John viii
59. This ref. should be added to
those given by Tischendorf in loco.3. λιθοβολεῖ] cp. ii. 2.6. ἄγραφον] i.e. not so called in
Scripture.7. περὶ τ. υἱ. μετριάζοντες] Ath.
ad Serap. i 1 makes the same complaint:
ἐξελθόντων μὲν τινῶν ἀπὸ
τῶν Ἀρειανῶν διὰ τὴν κατὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ
τοῦ θεοῦ βλασφημίαν, φρονούντων δὲ
κατὰ τοῦ ἃγ ἴου πνεύματος. See Swete
in Diet. Chr. Biogr., s.v. ‘Holy
Ghost,' p. 121, 122.ib. ἐπὶ τῶν ὁδῶν evp. ἐ.] Roads
and rivers sometimes divide, and
then the divergent portions inert
again lower down. So here, people
differ on most points but agree on
others, so that you never can be sure
where they agree and where they
are at issue.ἔχει μὲν οὖν τι καὶ δυσχερὲς ὁ περὶ τοῦ πνεύματος
λόγος, οὐ μόνον ὅτι ἐν τοῖς περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ λόγοις ἀποκαμόντες
οἱ ἄνθρωποι θερμότερον τῷ πνεύματι προσπαλαίουσι·
χρὴ γάρ τι πάντως αὐτοὺς ἀσεβεῖν, ἢ οὐδὲ
βιωτός ἐστιν αὐτοῖς ὁ βίος· ἀλλ’ ὅτι καὶ ἡμεῖς τῷ πλήθει
τῶν ζητημάτων ἀποκναισθέντες ταὐτὸ πάσχομεν τοῖς
κακοσίτοις, οἱ ἐπειδὰν πρός τι τῶν βρωμάτων ἀηδισθῶσι,
πρὸς πάντα λόγον ὁμοίως, ὥσπερ ἐκεῖνοι πρὸς τροφήν,
δυσχεραίνομεν. ὅμως διδότω τὸ πνεῦμα, καὶ ὁ λόγος
δραμεῖται, καὶ ὁ θεὸς δοξασθήσεται. τὸ μὲν οὖν ἐπιμελῶς
ἐξετάζειν καὶ διαιρεῖσθαι, ποσαχῶς ἢ τὸ πνεῦμα ἢ τὸ
ἅγιον παρὰ τῇ θείᾳ γραφῆ νοεῖται καὶ λέγεται, μετὰ τῶν
προσφόρων τῇ θεωρίᾳ μαρτυριῶν, καὶ ὅ τι παρὰ ταῦτα
2. 2 του υἱοῦ] OM του cd || 3 om οἱ e || 5 αὐτοῖς ἐστιν ce || 7 βρωμάτων]
ζητηματων b
2. The enquiry about the Holy
Ghost is difficult. Controversialists
defeated over the Son attack the Holy
Ghost the more eagerly. Good Christians,
sick of argument, wish the
enquiry left alone. But we must
try. I shall not discuss the meaning
of ‘ holy ’ and of ‘ Spirit, ’ of of the
two words together. That has been
done by others.
3. οἱ ἄνθρωποι] The clause χρὴ
γάρ τι κτλ., as well as the opposed
ἀλλ’ ὅτι καὶ ἡμεῖς, shows that Gr.
does not mean 'men,' including
good Christians who dislike controversy,
but ’the men,' i.e. his
opponents. Their very failure, and
the exhaustion of their arguments
about the Son ἀποκαμόντες), make
them the more keen in their attack
upon the Spirit.
6. ἀποκναισθέντες] Cp. i 2.
7. κακοσίτοις] ’squeamish about
their diet.’
ib. ot ἐπειδὰν κτλ.] The MSS.
appear to give no sign of any other
reading, but the grammar is in hopeless
confusion. The simplest remedy
would be to strike out οἳ before
ἐπειδάν, and to insert it before πρὸς
πάντα. Otherwise we must suppose
that some words have fallen out
after ἀηδισθῶσι, such as πάντα ἀποστρέφονται,
followed by ἡμεῖς οὖν to
begin a new sentence. The required
sense is plain, though it cannot be
got out of the present text : that as
people of delicate stomach, who
have had something offered them
which they dislike, turn against food
in general, so we, disgusted with
the Eunomian arguments about the
Son, are disinclined to listen to
arguments of any kind about the
Spirit, or indeed on any religious
subject.
9. ὁ λόγος δραμεῖται] 1 Thess.
iii 1. As, however, ὁ λόγος is here
’the ’ and not directly ’the
word of ’ Gr. shrinks from
making it the subject of δοξασθήσεται,
as in St Paul.
11. ποσαχῶς] in how many different
senses the words πνεῦμα and
ἄγιος are used in Scripture.
13. μαρτυριῶν] ’ the texts that bear
upon the investigation.’
ἰδιοτρόπως τὸ ἐξ ἀμφοῖν συνημμένον, λέγω δὲ τὸ πνεῦμα
τὸ ἅγιον, ἑτέροις παρήσομεν, οἲ καὶ ἑαυτοῖς καὶ ἡμῖν ταῦτα
πεφιλοσοφήκασιν, ἐπεὶ καὶ ἡμεῖς ταῦτα ἐκείνοις. αὐτοὶ δὲ
πρὸς τὰ ἑξῆς τοῦ λόγου τρεψόμεθα.
Οἱ μὲν οὖν, ὡς ξένον τινὰ θεὸν καὶ παρέγγραπτον
εἰσαγόντων ἡμῶν τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, δυσχεραίνοντες, καὶ
σφόδρα προπολεμοῦντες τοῦ γράμματος, ἴστωσαν ἐκεῖ
φοβούμενοι φόβον, οὗ μὴ ἔστι φόβος, καὶ σαφῶς γινωσκέτωσαν
ὅτι ἔνδυμα τῆς ἀσεβείας ἐστὶν αὐτοῖς ἡ φιλία
τοῦ γράμματος, ὡς δειχθήσεται μικρὸν ὕστερον, ἐπειδὰν
τὰς ἐνστάσεις αὐτῶν εἰς δύναμιν διελέγξωμεν. ἡμεῖς δὲ
τοσοῦτον θαρροῦμεν τῇ θεότητι τοῦ πνεύματος, ὃ πρεσβεύομεν,
ὥστε καὶ τῆς θεολογίας ἐντεῦθεν ἀρξόμεθα, τὰς
αὐτὰς τῇ τριάδι φωνὰς ἐφαρμόζοντες, κἄν τισι δοκῇ
2 ταυτα...ταυτα] ταὐτὰ . . . ταὐτὰ ceg || 4 τρεψώμεθα eg 3. 5 θέον
τινα b || 12 0] ω ‘ Reg. a, Or. 1’
3. ἐπεὶ καὶ ἡμεῖς] The use of
ἐπεί, where perh. we might have
expected ὡς, seems to be in favour
of the reading ταὐτά, which would
thus be taken to mean, ’since we
agree with ’ But the mss.
are not of very great value in matters
of this kind (and it must be remembered
that the principal MS. fails us
at this point) ; and it would be difficult
to supply a verb that would
suit ταὐτά, which the obvious φιλοσοφοῦμεν
would not do. Ἐπεὶ will
therefore indicate that the proposed
division of labour is a fair one : the
ἔτεροι (by whom Gr. prob. means,
not Basil, but students who wer
still living to profit by his labours),
have worked at that particular study
for our advantage as well as their
own, and we will leave it to them,
since we are labouring at this other
for theirs as well as ours.
3. Zeal for the letter ὁ Scripture
is sometimes a cloak for
My confidence in the Godhead
of the Holy Ghost is absolute.
He ἲς the Light that lighteneth every
man, equally with the Father and
the Son. I will fearlessly proclaim
Him.
5. παρέγγραπτον] wrongly entered
on the list ; cp. iii 18.
7. πρόπολεμοῦντες τ. γρ] Gr.
will not say τῆς γραφῆς ; cp. iv 1 οἱ
τοῦ γράμματος ἱερόσυλοι.
ib. ἐκεῖ φοβούμενοι φ.] Ps. Iii 6
(Hii 5).
11. εἰς δύναμιν] ’ to the best ὁ our
power.’
12. θαρροῦμεν τῆ θ.] ‘have such
confidence ’ not merely in the
sense of believing that the thing is
so, but in that of resting upon it for
support.
ib. πρεσβεύομεν] ’revere’; cp. i 5.
13. τῆς θεολογίας] ‘of θὶς account
of the Godhead. ’ For numerous
exx. of the use of the word, see
Suicer s.v.
ib. ἐντεῦθεν] explained by the
clause τὰς αὐτὰς . . . ἐφαρμόζοντες.
τολμηρότερον. ἦν τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινόν, ὃ φωτίζει πάντα
ἄνθρωπον ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον, ὁ πατήρ. ἦν τὸ φῶς
τὸ ἀληθινόν, ὃ φωτίζει πάντα ἄνθρωπον ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν
κόσμον, ὁ υἱός. ἦν τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινόν, ὃ φωτίζει
ἄνθρωπον ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον, ὁ ἄλλος παράκλητος.
ἦν, καὶ ἢν, καὶ ἦν· ἀλλ’ ἓν ἦν. φῶς, καὶ φῶς, καὶ φῶς·
ἀλλ’ ἓν φῶς, εἷς θεός. τοῦτό ἐστιν ὃ καὶ Δαβὶδ
πρότερον, λέγων· Ἐν τῷ φωτί σου ὀψόμεθα φῶς. καὶ
νῦν ἡμεῖς καὶ τεθεάμεθα καὶ κηρύσσομεν, ἐκ φωτὸς τοῦ
πατρὸς φῶς καταλαμβάνοντες τὸν υἱὸν ἐν φωτὶ τῷ
πνεύματι, σύντομον καὶ ἀπέριττον τῆς τριάδος θεολογίαν.
ὁ ἀθετῶν ἀθετείτω, ὁ ἀνομῶν ἀνομείτω · ἡμεῖς ὂ νενοήκαμεν,
καὶ κηρύσσομεν. ἐπ’ ὄρος ὑψηλὸν ἀναβησόμεθα καὶ βοήσομεν,
εἰ μὴ κάτωθεν ἀκουοίμεθα. ὑψώσομεν τὸ πνεῦμα,
οὐ φοβηθησόμεθα. εἰ δὲ καὶ φοβηθησόμεθα, ἡσυχάζοντες,
οὐ κηρύσσοντες·
Εἰ ἦν ὅτε οὐκ ἦν ὁ πατήρ, ἦν ὅτε οὐκ ἦν ὁ υἱός.
7 πρότερον ἐφαντάσθη dg || 11 θεολογίαν] ὁμολογίαν b || 13 καὶ κηρύσσομεν]
om καὶ f || 15 ησυχαζοντες] ἡσυχάσομεν f
1. ἢν τὸ φῶς] John i 9. There
is no need to suppose that Gr. intends
to make ἦν into a mere
copula ; ‘ the true light was the
Father.' Ὁ πατὴρ would more
naturally be in apposition to τὸ
φῶς.
8. ἐν τῷ φωτί σου] Ps. xxxv 10
(xxxvi 9). Both parts of the verse
are frequently quoted by the Fathers
as containing the doctrine of the
Trinity. For the first half cp.
Ambr. de Sp. S. i 15.
9. τεθεάμεθα κτλ.] The passage
is influenced by 1 John i 3, 5.
ib. ἐκ φωτὸς τοῦ πατρός] This is
implied in the word ’Thy ’;
the Holy Ghost is the ’s light,
which implies that the Source from
which He proceeds is light also.
12. ὁ ἀθετῶν κτλ] Is. xxi 2;
with possibly a reminiscence of Ez.
iii 27.
13. ἐπ’ ὄρος ὑψηλόν κτλ.] Is. xl.
9 ἐπ’ ὄρος ὑψ. ἀνάβηθι ὑψώσατε,
μὴ φοβεῖσθε· εἰπόν . . . Ἴδου ὁ θεὸς
ἡμῶν.
14, εἰ μὴ κάτωθεν ἀκ.] Gr. prob.
thinks of his favourite reference to
Moses on Sinai, and of the unpre-
pared people who were forbidden to
go up with him.
15. εἰ δὲ καὶ φοβ.] ’and if we
should be afraid at all, it will be for
holding our peace , not for proclaim-
ing Him?
4. There never was α time when
He was not. No one person of the
Trinity can be imagined to exist or
to have ever existedwithoutthe others ;
for an imperfect Godhead is unthinkable;
able; especially a Godhead
holiness. If He ever began to exist,
He is on a level with us. How
could He raise us, as He does, to
Godhead?
εἰ ἦν ὅτε οὐκ ἦν ὁ υἱός, ἦν ὅτε οὐδὲ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγ ἴον.
εἰ τὸ ἓν ἢν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς, καὶ τὰ τρία. εἰ τὸ ἓν κάτω
βάλλεις, τολμῶ, καὶ λέγω, μηδὲ τὰ δύο θῇς ἄνω. τίς γὰρ
ἀτελοῦς θεότητος ὄνησις ; μᾶλλον δὲ τίς θεότης, εἰ μὴ
τελεία ; τελεία δὲ πῶς, ᾗ λείπει τι πρὸς τελείωσιν ; λείπει
δέ πὼς, μὴ ἐχούσῃ τὸ ἅγ ἴον· ἔχοι δ’ ἂν πῶς, μὴ τοῦτο
ἔχουσα ; ἢ γὰρ ἄλλη τις παρὰ τοῦτο ἡ ἁγιότης ’ καὶ ἥ τις
αὕτη νοεῖται, λεγέτω τις· ἢ εἴπερ ἡ αὐτή, πῶς οὐκ ἀπ’
ἀρχῆς ; ὥσπερ ἄμεινον ὂν τῷ θεῷ εἶναί ποτε ἀτελεῖ,
καὶ δίχα πνεύματος. εἰ μὴ ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς ἢν, μετ’ ἐμοῦ
τέτακται, καὶ εἰ μικρὸν πρὸ ἐμοῦ. χρόνῳ γὰρ ἀπὸ θεοῦ
τεμνόμεθα. εἰ τέτακται μετ’ ἐμοῦ, πῶς ἐμὲ ποιεῖ θεόν,
ἢ πῶς συνάπτει θεότητι;
Μαλλὸν δὲ φιλοσοφήσω σοι περὶ αὐτοῦ μικρὸν
ἄνωθεν. περὶ τριάδος γὰρ καὶ πρότερον διειλήφαμεν. τὸ
πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον Σαδδουκαῖοι μὲν οὐδὲ εἶναι τὸ παράπαν
4. 1 om τὸ ἄγιον cef2g || 1 τρια] + ἢν f || 4 θεότης εἰ μὴ τελεια] θεοτητος
ἡμιτέλεια b : θεότητος εἰ μὴ τέλεια d : θεότης ἦ εἰ suprascr.) μὴ τέλεια c ||
δ’ av] ’δε c || 7 η γαρ] εἰ γὰρ dfg || η αγιοτης] om η e || 8 η αυτη]
αὔτη ceg || 10 δίχα] + TOudfg || 11 ἄπο] + του ’duo Colb.’
3. μηδὲ τὰ δύο θῆς ἄνω] ‘Ι veilture
to tell you not to set the other
two up ’ because it is useless
and illogical to attempt it.
4. εἰ μὴ τελεία] I retain this
reading in the text, as it has most
authority and makes good sense ;
but I have little doubt that the true
reading, which would account for
the variants, is ἡ μὴ τελεία.
6. μὴ τοῦτο ἔχουσα] By τοῦτο
Gr. means the Holy Ghost.
7. ἢ γὰρ ἄλλη τις] Besides the superior
Ms. authority for ἢ, it accords
better with the καἰ before ἤ τις,
which would be unintelligible with
εἰ. It is quite in ’s style to
interpose the question with λαὶ before
passing on to the second horn
of the dilemma. ‘ Either the holiness
of the Godhead is independent
of the Holy Spirit, — and in that case
I should like to be informed what
it is supposed to be; or if ’ etc.
10. μετ’ ἐμοῦ] in company with
creatures like us.
5. The Sadducees denied His existence.
Some of the best Greek
thinkers had glimpses of Him, but
there was no agreement among them
on the point. Christians likewise
are divided. While some believe Him
to be God, some think Him α Divine
operation, or even α creature; some
make nice distinctions between His
nature and those of the Father and
Son.
14. μικρὸν ἄνωθεν] ‘a little farther
back’; the same comparative use
which we observed iu πόρρωθεν ii 2.
15. διειλήφαμεν] ’ have discussed’;
cp. iv 16.
ἐνόμισαν· οὐδὲ γὰρ ἀγγέλους, οὐδὲ ἀνάστασιν· οὐκ οἶδ’
ὅθεν τὰς τοσαύτας περὶ αὐτοῦ μαρτυρίας ἐν τῇ παλαιᾷ
διαπτύσαντες. Ἑλλήνων δὲ οἱ θεολογικώτεροι, καὶ μᾶλλον
ἡμῖν προσεγγίσαντες, ἐφαντάσθησαν μέν, ὡς ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ·
περὶ δὲ τὴν κλῆσιν διηνέχθησαν, νοῦν τοῦ παντός, καὶ τὸν
θύραθεν νοῦν, καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα προσαγορεύσαντες. τῶν δὲ
καθ’ ἡμᾶς σοφῶν οἱ μὲν ἐνέργειαν τοῦτο ὑπέλαβον, οἱ δὲ
κτίσμα, οἱ δὲ θεόν, οἱ δὲ οὐκ ἔγνωσαν ὁπότερον τούτων,
αἰδοῖ τῆς γραφῆς, ὥς φασιν, ὡς οὐδέτερον σαφῶς δηλωσάσης.
καὶ διὰ τοῦτο οὔτε σέβουσιν, οὔτε ἀτιμάζουσι,
μέσως πὼς περὶ αὐτοῦ διακείμενοι, μᾶλλον δὲ καὶ λίαν
ἀθλίως. καὶ τῶν θεὸν ὑπειληφότων οἱ μὲν ἄχρι διανοίας
εἰσὶν εὐσεβεῖς, οἱ δὲ τολμῶσιν εὐσεβεῖν καὶ τοῖς χείλεσιν.
ἄλλων δὲ ἤκουσα μετρούντων θεότητα σοφωτέρων, οἳ τρία
μὲν εἶναι καθ’ ἡμᾶς ὁμολογοῦσι τὰ νοούμενα, τοσοῦτον δὲ
ἀλλήλων διέστησαν, ὡς τὸ μὲν καὶ οὐσία καὶ δυνάμει
5, 9 οὐδέτερον] οὐδὲν ἕτερον f ΙΙ 11 πέρι αὐτοῦ] πέρι αὐτὸ c2 || 14 σοφὼ.
τερῶν] σοφώτερον ’in nonnull.’
1. οὐδὲ γὰρ ἀγγ.] Acts xxiii 8.
Gr.'s remark is not exactly logical
γάρ) ; the denial of angels would
not involve the denial of the Holy
Spirit. It looks as if he had carelessly
taken πνεῦμα in that passage
to = ἅγιον πν.
3. διαπτύσαντες] Cp.
τοσαύτας Gr. prob. means, as De
Billy interprets, tot ac tanta.
id. Ἑλλήνων δὲ οἱ θ.] no doubt
esp. Plato and Aristotle. If the
actual expression νοῦς τοῦ παντός does
not occur in Plato, the thought is
there, and prob. the expression
itself in some of the Neo-
Platonists. The phrase τὸν θύραθεν
νοῦν comes from Arist. de Gen. An.
ii 3.
5. διηνέχθησαν] ’’they differed,'
i.e. from one another.
6. τῶν δέ καθ’ ἤμ’. σ.] ‘of our own
clever people,' as opp. to Ἑλλήνων.
There is an ironical tone in σοφῶν,
because, although orthodox divines
are included in the phrase, Gr. is
thinking most of the heretical
doctors.
11. μέσως πως...διακ.] ‘ hold a kind
of neutral position with regard
Him.’
12. Βy τὰς 12. ἄχρι διανοίας] Like the
μέχρι which has occurred several
times in these Orations, ἄχρι means
‘in thought and no father.’ They
have not the courage to express it.
14. ἄλλων δὲ ἤ·κουσα] 1 1 have heard
others, still cleverer, meting out Godfrequently
head? It is not known whom he
means.
15. τὰ νοούμενα] ‘that our notion is
that of three existences.’ The
is used throughout to avoid undue
handling of personal language.
16. διέστησαν] 1st aor., ‘ they put
them at such a distance from each
other, as to make the first’ etc.
ποιεῖν ἀόριστον· τὸ δὲ δυνάμει μέν, οὐκ οὐσίᾳ δέ· τὸ δὲ
ἀμφοτέροις περιγραπτόν· ἄλλον τρόπον μιμούμενοι τοὺς
δημιουργόν, καὶ συνεργόν, καὶ λειτουργὸν ὀνομάζοντας, καὶ
τὴν ἐν τοῖς ὀνόμασι τάξιν καὶ χάριν τῶν πραγμάτων
ἀκολουθίαν εἶναι νομίζοντας.
Ἡμῖν δὲ πρὸς μὲν τοὺς οὐδὲ εἶναι ὑπειληφότας
οὐδεὶς λόγος, ἢ τοὺς ληροῦντας ἐν Ἕλλησιν. μηδὲ γὰρ
ἁμαρτωλῶν ἐλαίῳ πιανθείημεν εἰς τὸν λόγον. πρὸς δὲ
τοὺς ἄλλους οὕτω διαλεξόμεθα. τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἢ τῶν
καθ’ ἑαυτὸ ὑφεστηκότων πάντως ὑποθετέον, ἢ τῶν ἐν
ἑτέρῳ θεωρουμένων· ὧν τὸ μὲν οὐσίαν καλοῦσιν οἱ περὶ
ταῦτα δεινοί, τὸ δὲ συμβεβηκός. εἰ μὲν οὖν συμβέβηκεν,
ἐνέργεια τοῦτο ἂν εἴη θεοῦ. τί γὰρ ἕτερον, ἢ τίνος ; τοῦτο
5 νομιζοντας] -τες b 6. 7 ουδεις] ουδεις ο b: ουδε εις ce ‘duo Reg.’ ||
9 διαλεξωμεθα b
2. ἄλλον τρόπον μιμ.] ‘imitating,
though in a somewhat different form,
those,‘ etc. He seems to mean
Arius.
4. τάξιν καὶ χάριν] The word
χάρις appears to be used in the sense
which Lidd. and Scott put as iv 2
viz. ‘homage due,’ ‘majesty’; and
τάξις accordingly will be, not exactly
the order in which the names
stand in the Bible, but the rank
which is inherent in each. ‘Who
think that the rank and dignity of
the respective names denotes a gradation
of the realities which they
represent.’ The πράγματα, of course,
are the three Blessed Persons themselves.
6. Against Sadducee and Greek
I shall not indulge myself to argue,
but only against the others. The
Holy Ghost is either a contingent or
a substantive existence. If contingent,
He must be a Divine operation or
influence; but this does not agree
with the personal language of Scripture.
If He is a substantive existence,
He is either God or a creature;
there is no betwixt and between. If
He is a creature, how can we ‘believe
in’ Him? He must be God.
8. ἁμαρτ. ἐλαίῳ] Ps. cxl (cxli) 5.
It may be asked, why it would be
an anointing of himself with the oil
of sinners for his oration to enter into
controversy with such persons, while
he feels himself at liberty to argue
with the Macedonians. The answer
is, that the ἁμαρτωλοὶ are not opponents
(as the Donatists might have
said) too bad even to be argued
with. He means that, although it
might add a richness and profusion
to his discourse, there would be a
kind of sinful self-indulgence in
demolishing opinions with which
he was not practically confronted.
9. τῶν καθ’ ἑατυτὸ ὑφ.] ‘either an
independent subsistence, or a thing
observed in something else.’
12. συμβεβηκός] something contingent,
‘a contingency’; a thing which
happens to be so, but might have
been otherwise.
13. ἐνέργεια τοῦτο ἂν εἴη θ.] ‘it (the
Holy Spirit so conceived of) will be
an operation of God’— an influence,
an inspiration, or the like—‘for
what else could it be, or from whom
besides could it come?’
γάρ πως μᾶλλον καὶ φεύγει σύνθεσιν. καὶ εἰ ἐνέργεια,
ἐνεργηθήσεται δῆλον ὅτι, οὐκ ἐνεργήσει, καὶ ὁμοῦ τῷ ἐνεργηθῆναι
παύσεται. τοιοῦτον γὰρ ἡ ἐνέργεια. πῶς οὖν
ἐνεργεῖ, καὶ τάδε λέγει, καὶ ἀφορίζει, καὶ λυπεῖται, καὶ
παροξύνεται, καὶ ὅσα κινουμένου σαφῶς ἐστίν, οὐ κινήσεως;
εἰ δὲ οὐσία τις, οὐ τῶν περὶ τὴν οὐσίαν, ἤτοι κτίσμα
ὑποληφθήσεται, ἢ θεός. μέσον γάρ τι τούτων, ἤτοι μηδετέρου
μετέχον, ἢ ἐξ ἀμφοῖν σύνθετον, οὐδ’ ἂν οἱ τοὺς
τραγελάφους πλάττοντες ἐννοήσαιεν. ἀλλ᾿ εἰ μὲν κτίσμα,
πῶς εἰς αὐτὸ πιστεύομεν, ἢ ἐν αὐτῷ τελειούμεθα ; οὐ γὰρ
ταὐτόν ἐστι πιστεύειν εἴς τι, καὶ περὶ αὐτοῦ πιστεύειν.
τὸ μὲν γάρ ἐστι θεότητος, τὸ δὲ παντὸς πράγματος. εἰ δὲ
θεός, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ κτίσμα, οὐδὲ ποίημα, οὐδὲ σύνδουλον, οὐδ᾿
ὅλως τι τῶν ταπεινῶν ὀνομάτων.
1 και ει] om ει b || 2 τω] το b || 7 υπολειφθησεται ‘Or. 1’1. φεύγει σύνθεσιν] It is assumed
that all will agree that the simpler
the account, the better.2. ἐνεργηθήσεται . . . παύσεται] The
fut. is logical, not temporal. It is
of the very nature of an ‘operation ’
to be incapable of independent
action, or to continue when the
operator stops.3. πῶς οὖν ἐνεργεῖ] The Bible,
however, attributes to the Holy
Spirit operations of His own, such
as ‘saying’ this and that (τάδε),
‘separating’ (an inexact reminiscence
of Acts xiii 2).4. λυπεῖται] Eph. iv 30.5. παροξύνεται] Is. lxiii 10.ib. κινουμένου] middle voice.
These are notes, Gr. says, not of
a motion in the abstract (such as an
ἐνέργεια is), but of the thing which
is in motion.6. τῶν περὶ τὴν οὐ.] ‘an existence,
and not an attribute of
existence.’9. τραγελάφους] the typical fabulous
compound.10. τελειούμεθα] in baptism; cp.
§ 29.ib. οὐ γὰρ ταὐτόν] ‘it is not the same
thing to believe in anything, and to
believe statements about it; the first
is peculiar to God, the second can be
done with any thing.’ See Pearson
on the Creed I believe in God; who
rightly says that the distinction is
more characteristic of Western than
of Eastern theology.13. οὐδὲ ποίημα] sc. ἐστί. The apodosis
begins at this point, not at ἀλλ᾿
οὐ κτίσμα.7. Now it is your turn. ‘Is He
begotten, or unbegotten? If begotten,
of whom ? If of the Father, there
are two Sons; if of the Son, He is
a grandson.’ Your names do not
terrify me. Because we are obliged
to speak of ‘Sonship’ in the Godhead,
it does not follow that all earthly
nomenclature would apply; or at
that rate you will have to say ali
manner of strange things.Ἑνταῦθα σὸς ὁ λόγος ’ αἱ σφενδόναι πεμπέσθωσαν,
οἱ συλλογισμοὶ πλεκέσθωσαν. ἢ ἀγέννητον πάντως, ἢ
γεννητόν. καὶ εἰ μὲν ἀγέννητον, δύο τὰ ἄναρχα. εἰ δὲ
γεννητόν, ὑποδιαίρει πάλιν· ἢ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦτο, ἢ ἐκ
τοῦ υἱοῦ. καὶ εἰ μὲν ἐκ τοῦ πατρός, υἱοὶ δύο καὶ ἀδελφοί.
σὺ δέ μοι πλάττε καὶ διδύμους, εἰ βούλει, ἢ τὸν μὲν
πρεσβύτερον, τὸν δὲ νεώτερον ’ ἐπειδὴ λίαν εἶ φιλοσώματος.
εἰ δὲ ἐκ τοῦ υἱοῦ, πέφηνέ, φησι, καὶ υἱωνὸς ἡμῖν θεός· οὗ
τί ἂν γένοιτο παραδοξότερον ; ταῦτα μὲν οὖν οἱ σοφοὶ τοῦ
κακοποιῆσαι, τὰ δὲ ἂγ ἀθ’ ἁ γράφειν οὐ θέλοντες. ἐγὼ δὲ εἰ
μὲν ἑώρων ἀναγκαίαν τὴν διαίρεσιν, ἐδεξάμην ἂν τὰ πράγματα,
οὐ φοβηθεὶς τὰ ὀνόματα. οὐ γάρ, ἐπειδὴ κατά τινα
σχέσιν ὑψηλοτέραν υἱὸς ὁ υἱός, οὐ δυνηθέντων ἡμῶν ἄλλως
ἢ οὕτως ἐνδείξασθαι τὸ ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ὁμοούσιον, ἤδη καὶ
πάσας οἰητέον ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι τὰς κάτω κλήσεις, καὶ τῆς
ἡμετέρας συγγενείας, μεταφέρειν ἐπὶ τὸ θεῖον. ἢ τάχα ἃν
σύ γε καὶ ἄρρενα τὸν θεὸν ἡμῖν ὑπολάβοις, κατὰ τὸν λόγον
τοῦτον, ὅτι θεὸς ὀνομάζεται, καὶ πατήρ ; καὶ θῆλύ τι τὴν
θεότητα, ὅσον ἐπὶ ταῖς κλήσεσι ; καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα οὐδέτερον,
ὅτι μὴ γεννητικόν ; εἰ δέ σοι καὶ τοῦτο παιχθείη, τῇ ἑαυτοῦ
7, 4 υποδιαιρησει ’Reg. Copr.' || 15 τῆς] τὰς b ΙΙ 18 omn ’Reg. a’
1. ἐνταῦθα σὸς 6 λ.] ‘now for your
say’ It begins at ἢ ἀγέννητον.
3. δύο τὰ ἄναρχα] viz. the Father
and the Spirit.
6. σὺ δέ μοι πλ.] This is Gr.'s
interpolation into his adversary's
argument.
7. φιλοσώματος] i.e. determined
to refer everything to material standards.
9. σοφοὶ τοῦ κακ’.] Jer. iv 22. It
is hard to see why Gr. balances this
clause by ‘ and will not write what
is good.' It is not a reference to
anything in Scripture. No doubt
the Eunomian literature was as extensive
as its oral polemic.
11. τὰ πράγματα] much as at the
end of § 5. The ’names’ which he
says would not scare him ὅσ’ are
such as that of υἱωνός. Not that he
admits that such a name would
necessarily be applicable, even if
the ‘ facts ’ were as suggested.
is shewn in the next sentence.
12. κατά τινα σχ. ὑψ.] ‘according
to sonic relationship too lofty for us
to understand' the Son is Son. No
other language would express at
once His derivation from the Father
and His being of one substance with
Him. It does not follow, however,
that all the nomenclature of our
earthly relationships is to be trans-
ferred straightway to the Godhead.
20. εἰ δέ σοι κ· τοῦτο π·] ’and if
you like to carry the gamt farther i
cp. iii 7 προσπαιξω τὸν π.
θελήσει τὸν θεὸν συγγενόμενον, κατὰ τοὺς παλαιοὺς λήρους
καὶ μύθους, γεννήσασθαι τὸν υἱόν, εἰσήχθη τις ἡμῖν καὶ
Μαρκίωνος καὶ Οὐαλεντίνου θεὸς ἀρρενόθηλυς, τοῦ τοὺς
καινοὺς αἰῶνας ἀνατυπώσαντος.
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.
4 τῆ] + θεια bdf || 14 ἔπει] ἐπειδὴ dt || 18 ὑπολάβοις c1. ὥσπερ...πραγμάτων] ‘as as if the
realities themselves (i.e. the Persons
of the Trinity) depended upon the
order in which they are named.’3. καὶ προαριθμ. καὶ ὑπαριθμ.]
‘are sometimes enumerated in one
order and sometimes in another’;
e.g. 2 Cor. xiii 14.6. 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.7. τῶν προθέσεων] ‘the prepositions.’8. κατατεχνολογεῖς ἤμ’. τὸ θ.] ‘tie
down the Godhead with your canons.’
Basil de Sp. S. 2 ascribes the canon
to Aetius.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.13. καὶ ταῦτα] ‘even even these things,’
i.e. without going further.14. τῶν χαλεπῶν ἐστίν] ‘is a
difficulty.’15. τῆς φορᾶς σχεθῆναι] ‘to stop
short in your impetus.’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.