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