De Spiritu Sancto (Orat. 31)
Gregory, of Nazianzus
Gregorius Nazianzenus, The Five Theological Orations, Mason, Cambridge, 1899
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.)
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.)
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).)
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.)
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.’)