[3] ΓΡΗΓΟΡΙΟΥ ΕΠΙΣΚΟΠΟΥ ΝΥΣΣΗΣ ΠΡΟΣ ΕΥΣΤΑΘΙΟΝ ΠΕΡΙ ΤΗΣ ΑΓΙΑΣ ΤΡΙΑΔΟΣ

 Ἔστι μὲν καὶ πᾶσιν ὑμῖν τοῖς τὴν ἰατρικὴν μετιοῦσι φιλάνθρωπον τὸ ἐπιτήδευμα καί μοι δοκεῖ τῶν κατὰ τὸν βίον σπουδαζομένων ἁπάντων ὁ τὴν ὑμετέραν προτ

 Ἔδοξαν οὖν μοι παραπλήσιόν τι ποιεῖν τῷ Αἰσωπείῳ μύθῳ οἱ τὸ ἀπροφάσιστον καθ' ἡμῶν ἀναλαβόντες μῖσος. ὡς γὰρ ἐκεῖνος ἐγκλήματά τινα τῷ ἀρνίῳ τὸν λύκον

 Τί οὖν ἆρα μετὰ τοσαύτας ἐγχειρήσεις ἀποκαμόντες ἡσύχασαν οὐκ ἔστι ταῦτα: ἀλλὰ καινοτομίαν ἡμῖν προφέρουσιν, οὕτως τὸ ἔγκλημα καθ' ἡμῶν συντιθέντες:

 Ἀλλ' ἕτοιμος ἡμῖν πρὸς τοῦτο καὶ σαφὴς ὁ λόγος. ὁ γὰρ καταγινώσκων τῶν μίαν λεγόντων θεότητα ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἢ τῷ πολλὰς λέγοντι ἢ τῷ μηδεμίαν συνθήσεται:

 Τίς οὖν ὁ ἡμέτερος λόγος παραδιδοὺς ὁ κύριος τὴν σωτήριον πίστιν τοῖς μαθητευομένοις τῷ λόγῳ, τῷ πατρὶ καὶ τῷ υἱῷ συνάπτει καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον: τὸ

 Ἀλλὰ λέγουσι φύσεως ἐνδεικτικὴν εἶναι τὴν προσηγορίαν ταύτην, ἀκοινώνητον δὲ εἶναι πρὸς πατέρα καὶ υἱὸν τὴν τοῦ πνεύματος φύσιν, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο μηδὲ τῆ

 ἡ δὲ ὑπὲρ ἡμᾶς οἰκονομία ἔν τε τῇ νοητῇ κτίσει καὶ ἐν τῇ αἰσθητῇ, εἴ τι χρὴ διὰ τῶν γινωσκομένων ἡμῖν καὶ περὶ τῶν ὑπερκειμένων στοχάζεσθαι, οὐδὲ αὐτὴ

 Ἀλλ' οὐκ οἶδα πῶς ἐπὶ τὴν τῆς φύσεως ἔνδειξιν τὴν προσηγορίαν τῆς θεότητος φέρουσιν οἱ πάντα κατασκευάζοντες, ὥσπερ οὐκ ἀκηκοότες παρὰ τῆς θείας γραφῆ

 εἰ δέ τις ἀξίας ἐνδεικτικὴν εἶναι τὴν προσηγορίαν ταύτην ὁρίζοιτο, οὐκ οἶδα μὲν τίνι λόγῳ πρὸς τὴν τοιαύτην σημασίαν ἕλκει τὸ ὄνομα: πλὴν ἐπειδὴ πολλῶ

But I know not how these makers-up of all sorts of arguments bring the appellation of Godhead to be an indication of nature, as though they had not heard from the Scripture that it is a matter of appointment16    Reading ὅτι χειροτονητή, ᾗ φύσις γίνεται. The Paris Edit. and Migne’s S. Basil read ὅτι χειροτονία ἡ φύσις οὐ γίνεται: the Ben. S. Basil and Oehler read ὅτι χειροτονητὴ φύσις οὐ γίνεται. The point of the argument seems to be that “Godhead” is spoken of in Scripture as being given by appointment, which excludes the idea of its being indicative of “nature.” Gregory shows that it is so spoken of; but he does not show that Scripture asserts the distinction between nature and appointment, which the reading of the Benedictine text and Oehler would require him to do., in which way nature does not arise. For Moses was appointed as a god of the Egyptians, since He Who gave him the oracles, &c., spoke thus to him, “I have given thee as a god to Pharaoh17    Ex. vii. 1..” Thus the force of the appellation is the indication of some power, either of oversight or of operation. But the Divine nature itself, as it is, remains unexpressed by all the names that are conceived for it, as our doctrine declares. For in learning that He is beneficent, and a judge, good, and just, and all else of the same kind, we learn diversities of His operations, but we are none the more able to learn by our knowledge of His operations the nature of Him Who works. For when one gives a definition of any one of these attributes, and of the nature to which the names are applied, he will not give the same definition of both: and of things of which the definition is different, the nature also is distinct. Indeed the substance is one thing which no definition has been found to express, and the significance of the names employed concerning it varies, as the names are given from some operation or accident. Now the fact that there is no distinction in the operations we learn from the community of the attributes, but of the difference in respect of nature we find no clear proof, the identity of operations indicating rather, as we said, community of nature. If, then, Godhead is a name derived from operation, as we say that the operation of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit is one, so we say that the Godhead is one: or if, according to the view of the majority, Godhead is indicative of nature, since we cannot find any diversity in their nature, we not unreasonably define the Holy Trinity to be of one Godhead18    The treatise, as it appears in S. Basil’s works, ends here..

Ἀλλ' οὐκ οἶδα πῶς ἐπὶ τὴν τῆς φύσεως ἔνδειξιν τὴν προσηγορίαν τῆς θεότητος φέρουσιν οἱ πάντα κατασκευάζοντες, ὥσπερ οὐκ ἀκηκοότες παρὰ τῆς θείας γραφῆς ὅτι χειροτονητὴ φύσις οὐ γίνεται: Μωυσῆς δὲ τῶν Αἰγυπτίων ἐχειροτονήθη θεός, οὕτω πρὸς αὐτὸν εἰπόντος τοῦ χρηματίζοντος ὅτι Θεόν σε δέδωκα τῷ Φαραώ. οὐκοῦν ἐξουσίας τινὸς εἴτε ἐποπτικῆς εἴτε ἐνεργητικῆς ἔνδειξιν ἡ προσηγορία φέρει, ἡ δὲ θεία φύσις ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς ἐπινοουμένοις ὀνόμασι, καθό ἐστι, μένει ἀσήμαντος, ὡς ὁ ἡμέτερος λόγος. εὐεργέτην γὰρ καὶ κριτήν, ἀγαθόν τε καὶ δίκαιον καὶ ὅσα ἄλλα τοιαῦτα μαθόντες ἐνεργειῶν διαφορὰς ἐδιδάχθημεν, τοῦ δὲ ἐνεργοῦντος τὴν φύσιν οὐδὲν μᾶλλον διὰ τῆς τῶν ἐνεργειῶν κατανοήσεως ἐπιγνῶναι δυνάμεθα. ὅταν γὰρ ἀποδιδῷ τις λόγον ἑκάστου τε τούτων τῶν ὀνομάτων καὶ αὐτῆς τῆς φύσεως περὶ ἣν τὰ ὀνόματα, οὐ τὸν αὐτὸν ἀμφοτέρων ἀποδίδωσι λόγον: ὧν δὲ ὁ λόγος ἕτερος, τούτων καὶ ἡ φύσις διάφορος. οὐκοῦν ἄλλο μέν τί ἐστιν ἡ οὐσία ἧς οὔπω λόγος μηνυτὴς ἐξευρέθη, ἑτέρα δὲ τῶν περὶ αὐτὴν ὀνομάτων ἡ σημασία ἐξ ἐνεργείας τινὸς ἢ ἀξίας ὀνομαζομένων. τὸ μὲν οὖν ἐν ταῖς ἐνεργείαις μηδεμίαν εἶναι διαφορὰν ἐκ τῆς τῶν ὀνομάτων κοινωνίας εὑρίσκομεν, τὸ δὲ κοινὸν τῆς φύσεως ἐναργῶς ἀποδέδεικται διὰ τῆς τῶν ἐνεργειῶν ταυτότητος συνιστάμενον. εἴτε οὖν ἐνεργείας ὄνομα ἡ θεότης, ὡς μίαν ἐνέργειαν πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ καὶ ἁγίου πνεύματος, οὕτω μίαν φαμὲν εἶναι τὴν θεότητα: εἴτε κατὰ τὰς τῶν πολλῶν δόξας φύσεως ἐνδεικτικόν ἐστι τὸ τῆς θεότητος ὄνομα, διὰ τὸ μηδεμίαν εὑρίσκειν ἐν τῇ φύσει παραλλαγὴν ἐκ τῆς τῶν ἐνεργειῶν ταυτότητος οὐκ ἀπεικότως μιᾶς θεότητος τὴν ἁγίαν τριάδα διοριζόμεθα.