<TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xmlns:py="http://codespeak.net/lxml/objectify/pytype" py:pytype="TREE"><text><body><div type="edition" n="urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2022.tlg011.1st1K-grc1" xml:lang="grc"><div type="textpart" subtype="chapter" n="16"><p>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
<lb n="15"/> πρὸς τὰς πρώτας αἰτίας ἀντιθέτως ἔχοντες, οὓς δὴ
᾿Ωκεανούς, καὶ Τηθύας, καὶ Φάνητας, καὶ οὐκ οἶδα οὕς
<note type="footnote">4 καθαρῶς μένοντες οἱ αὐτοὶ df || 7 ἄνω) + καὶ bdf 16. 15 ovs] + καὶ
e || 16 ὠκεανοὺς] + τε b</note>
<note type="footnote">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.</note>
<note type="footnote">5. μὴ ὅτι] Cp. i 4.</note>
<note type="footnote">6. ῥέοντες] Cp. § 10 ῥευστῆς.</note>
<note type="footnote">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.</note>
<note type="footnote">7. φύσις ἢ ἄνω μετὰ τ. τ.] Cp.
ii 31 ταῖς πρώταις μετὰ θεὸν φύσεσι.
The whole section should be compared
with this passage.</note>
<note type="footnote">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.</note>
<note type="footnote">12. ἁλίσκονται] Cp. ἑ 13 ἁλῶναι,
‘to be convicted. ’</note>
<note type="footnote">ib. θεολόγοις] Cp. ii 4. The
ref. is, no doubt, esp. to Plato’s
denuntiation of the poets in Rep. ii,
iii.</note>
<note type="footnote">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.</note>
<note type="footnote">16. φάνητας] “A mystic
in the Orphic rites, representing the
first principle of the world, cf. Orph.
Arg. 15 ” (Lidd. and Sc).</note>

<pb n="165"/>
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 <lb n="5"/>
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 <lb n="10"/>
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.</p><lb n="15"/></div><div type="textpart" subtype="chapter" n="17"><p>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
<note type="footnote">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</note>
<note type="footnote">1. θεὸν μισότεκνον] Saturn.</note>
<note type="footnote">5. ὑπόνοιαί τινες] ‘a sort of
allegoriest.’</note>
<note type="footnote">6. τριχθὰ δὲ πάντα δ.] Hom.
II. xv 189.</note>
<note type="footnote">8. ταῖς ὕλαις κ. τ. ἀξ.] ‘having
separate elements under them, and
holding different ranks.’</note>
<note type="footnote">ib. τὸ ἡμέτερον] ‘what we believe.’</note>
<note type="footnote">9. μερὶς τῷ Ἰακώβ] Jer. x 16.</note>
<note type="footnote">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.’</note>
<note type="footnote">14. χάρις τῆς θεωρίας] ‘thanks
be to God for the line of thought.’</note>
<note type="footnote">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.</note>
<note type="footnote">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.</note>

<pb n="166"/>
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
<lb n="5"/> 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
<lb n="10"/> ο πόνος.</p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="chapter" n="18"><p>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,
<lb n="15"/> 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
<note type="footnote">1 λεγειν τρεῖς df. 18. 11 μὴ] οὐχ bdf || 13 καὶ] η b</note>
<note type="footnote">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.</note>
<note type="footnote">4. πραγμάτων] ‘of trouble’; not
τῶν πρ., ‘the facts.’</note>
<note type="footnote">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.’</note>
<note type="footnote">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.</note>
<note type="footnote">12. μοναδικὴν ἔχει τ. δ.] ‘can only
be designated singly’; e.g. a
and a man, and a tree.</note>
<note type="footnote">13. δόγμ’. καὶ μυθ.] a kind of
hendiadys, ‘makers of fabidous deattempt
crees.’</note>
<note type="footnote">14. τῆς πόσ’. τῶν ὑποκ.] ‘denotes
the quantity, or sum, of the
and not their nature.’</note>
<note type="footnote">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.</note>
<note type="footnote">18. ἄλλως] carries on the irony of
ἀρχαίως, ἀμαθῶς. It is used in the
idiomatic sense of ‘idlt,’ ‘vainly.’</note>

<pb n="167"/>
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· <lb n="5"/>
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· <lb n="10"/>
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.</p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="chapter" n="19"><p>Ἀλλ’ ἐμοί, φησιν, ἐκεῖνα συναριθμούμενα λέγεται, <lb n="15"/>
καὶ τῆς αὐτῆς οὐσίας, οἷς συνεκφωνεῖται καταλλήλως καὶ
<note type="footnote">3 γραμματι] πράγματι b || 5 λέων και] om καὶ g || 6 ενδημηγορων e ||
7 τῆ ’δε φύσει bdf</note>
<note type="footnote">3. περιέχῃ τοῦ γρ.] ‘you are so
attached to the letter of Scripture.’
The emendation τῷ πράγματι in the
next clause is ingenious and tempting;
but τῷ γράμματι will mean
that in this instance they have
the very letter of Scripture against
them, — as he proceeds to shew.</note>
<note type="footnote">4. λάβε] seems to be an ironical
invitation to prove the point, not=
δέξαι i.e. ‘listen to my proofs.’</note>
<note type="footnote">5. εὐόδως πορεύεται] Pro v. xxx
29.</note>
<note type="footnote">8. δύο Χερουβὶμ] Ex. xxv 18,
19. If τῷ M. = ‘ by Moses,’ perh.
the ref. is rather to Ex. xxxvii 7 ;
but it may be the strict dat.,
‘reckoned up singly to Moses.’</note>
<note type="footnote">10. ἀπερρηγμένα] ’so completely
severed.’</note>
<note type="footnote">14. καἰ μᾶλλον γελ.] The same
irony continued ; ‘I should be still
more laughed at for my mode of
numbering things together. ’ Matt.
vi 24. Gr. does not observe that
God and Mammon are not actually
described as two masters, and that
if they were, it would be ἃς masters
that they would be numbered together,
in which respect they are
alike.</note>
<note type="footnote">19. If you tell me that numbers
denote things of one nature and those
only, then I will deny that you can
say ‘three men,’ unless each
three is an exact repetition of the
others. St John was certainly not
bound by your rule when he spoke of
the three witnesses nor will it
when you come to speak of things
of different natures but bearing the
same name.</note>
<note type="footnote">16. οἷς συνεκφ. καταλλ. κ. τ. ὀ.]
The opponent explains that
things ranged under a number, because
they are of the same nature.
he means cases where the noun is
expressed and the numeral agrees
with it (oἷς i.e. συναριθμουμένοις
practically = ‘ the numeral’), like
‘three men,’ ‘three God.’ He does
not mean that you can never lump
together under a neuter numeral
heterogeneous objects as so many
‘things.’ This, he says, is not a
connumeration.</note>

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

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

<pb n="170"/>
αἷς σὺ μέγα φρονεῖς, ὥσπερ ἐν τῇ τάξει τῶν ὀνομάτων
κειμένων τῶν πραγμάτων. εἰ γὰρ τοῦτο, τί κωλύει κατὰ
τὸν αὐτὸν λόγον, ἐπειδὴ τὰ αὐτὰ καὶ προαριθμεῖται καὶ
ὑπαριθμεῖται παρὰ τῇ γραφῇ διὰ τὴν ἰσοτιμίαν τῆς
<lb n="5"/> φύσεως, αὐτὰ ἑαυτῶν εἶναι τιμιώτερά τε καὶ ἀτιμότερα ;
ὁ δὲ αὐτός μοι καὶ περὶ τῆς Θεὸς φωνῆς καὶ Κύριος λόγος·
ἔτι δὲ τῶν προθέσεων, τῆς ἐξ οὗ, καὶ δι’ οὗ, καὶ ἐν ᾧ, αἷς
σὺ κατατεχνολογεῖς ἡμῖν τὸ θεῖον, τὴν μὲν τῷ πατρὶ διδούς,
τὴν δὲ τῷ υἱῷ, τὴν δὲ τῷ ἁγίῳ πνεύματι. τί γὰρ ἂν
<lb n="10"/> ἐποίησας, παγίως ἑκάστου τούτων ἑκάστῳ νενεμημένου·
ὁπότε πάντων πᾶσι συντεταγμένων, ὡς δῆλον τοῖς φιλοπόνοις,
τοσαύτην σὺ διὰ τούτων εἰσάγεις καὶ τῆς ἀξίας
καὶ τῆς φύσεως ἀνισότητα; ἀπόχρη καὶ ταῦτα τοῖς μὴ
λίαν ἀγνώμοσιν. ἐπεὶ δέ σε τῶν χαλεπῶν ἐστίν, ἅπαξ
<lb n="15"/> ἐπιπηδήσαντα τῷ πνεύματι, τῆς φορᾶς σχεθῆναι, ἁλλὰ μή,
καθάπερ τῶν συῶν τοὺς θρασυτέρους, εἰς τέλος φιλονεικεῖν,
καὶ πρὸς τὸ ξίφος ὠθίζεσθαι, μέχρις ἂν πᾶσαν εἴσω τὴν
πληγὴν ὑπολάβῃς , φέρε, σκεψώμεθα τίς ἔτι σοι λείπεται
λόγος.</p><note type="footnote">4 τῆ] + θεια bdf || 14 ἔπει] ἐπειδὴ dt || 18 ὑπολάβοις c</note><note type="footnote">1. ὥσπερ...πραγμάτων] ‘as as if the
realities themselves (i.e. the Persons
of the Trinity) depended upon the
order in which they are named.’</note><note type="footnote">3. καὶ προαριθμ. καὶ ὑπαριθμ.]
‘are sometimes enumerated in one
order and sometimes in another’;
e.g. 2 Cor. xiii 14.</note><note type="footnote">6. π. τῆς θεὸς φ. καὶ κύριος]
‘The same observation holds good’
of these, not in regard to the order
in which they are placed, but to the
way in which they are applied to
the Divine Persons as it were indiscriminately.</note><note type="footnote">7. τῶν προθέσεων] ‘the prepositions.’</note><note type="footnote">8. κατατεχνολογεῖς ἤμ’. τὸ θ.] ‘tie
down the Godhead with your canons.’
Basil de Sp. S. 2 ascribes the canon
to Aetius.</note><note type="footnote">9. τί γὰρ ἂγ ἐποίησας] Α very
ironical argument. If, when these
prepositions are used interchangeably,
you contrive to get such inequality
out of them, what would
you not have done if the use of
them had been constant and
able? Ὁπότε is used here like ὅστις
with an inferential shade of meaning.</note><note type="footnote">13. καὶ ταῦτα] ‘even even these things,’
i.e. without going further.</note><note type="footnote">14. τῶν χαλεπῶν ἐστίν] ‘is a
difficulty.’</note><note type="footnote">15. τῆς φορᾶς σχεθῆναι] ‘to stop
short in your impetus.’</note><note type="footnote">21. You speak of the silence of
Scripture on the Godhead of the
Ghost. Scholars have often shown
hoto false this is; but I too will do
my best to help you out of your
difficulty.</note><pb n="171"/></div></div></body></text></TEI>