66

explaining, says this: "Essence and hypostasis have this difference, which the common has in relation to the particular. For instance, as an animal has in relation to a specific man." And after other things: "But those who say essence and hypostasis are the same are forced to confess only different persons." And again, teaching a certain canon, he sent a letter explaining the meaning of the homoousion: "And this term corrects the evil of Sabellius. For it does away with the identity of the hypostasis, and introduces the perfect notion of the persons; for a thing is not homoousion with itself, but one thing with another. So it is well and piously said, defining both the particularity of the hypostases and presenting the unchangeableness of the nature." And again in the second [epistle] to the Neocaesareans he teaches, saying: "For one must know that just as he who does not confess the commonality of the essence falls into polytheism, so he who does not grant the particularities of the hypostases is carried away into Judaism." And again in those [writings] in which he made Eustathius the Armenian subscribe, he is seen writing expressly. "It is fitting, therefore, to confess clearly that they believe according to the words set forth by our Fathers in Nicaea, and according to the meaning soundly conveyed by the words. For there are some who, even in this faith, corrupt the word of truth, and draw the sense of the words therein to their own will. Wherein even Marcellus dared to be impious against the hypostasis of our Lord Jesus Christ, and explaining him as a mere word, to pretend to have taken his beginnings from thence, by wrongly interpreting the meaning of the homoousion. And some from the impiety of the Libyan Sabellius, supposing hypostasis and essence to be the same, draw from thence the starting points for the construction of their own blasphemy, from its being written in the creed, 'But if anyone says the Son of God is of another essence or hypostasis, him (15B_284> the holy and catholic Church anathematizes.' For they did not say essence and hypostasis are the same. For if the terms signified one and the same [notion], what need was there of both? But it is clear that since some denied [Him to be] from the 0548 essence, while others said [He was] of some other hypostasis; they thus forbade both as foreign to the ecclesiastical mind. For where they declared their own mind, they said the Son is from the essence of the Father, no longer adding 'from the hypostasis.' So that the former is set down for the refutation of the evil opinion, while the latter is a manifestation of the saving dogma."

And in harmony with this, Gregory, surnamed the theologian, in his first theological oration is seen saying this: "But when I say a mean, I mean the truth, which alone it is good to look to, shunning both the wicked contraction and the more absurd division; so as not, for fear of polytheism, to have the doctrine contracted into one hypostasis, leaving us with bare names, supposing the same to be Father and Son and Holy Spirit." And after a little again: " Since it is necessary both to maintain the one God and to confess the three hypostases, or three persons, and each with its own particularity. And the one God would be maintained, according to my argument, by referring the Son and the Spirit to one cause, not being composed or blended; and the three hypostases, with no blending or dissolution or confusion being conceived, lest the whole be destroyed by means through which the one is magnified more than is right. And according to the one and the same motion and will of the Godhead, if I may so name it, and the identity of essence." And in the Farewell Oration again: "We believe in Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit, of one essence and one glory, in whom also baptism has its perfection; you know, O initiated, which is a denial (15B_286> of atheism and a confession of Godhead; and thus we are perfected, acknowledging the one by the essence, and by the indivisibility of worship; and the three, by the hypostases, or persons." And indeed in the oration on the Lights, the same one says these things, "Of God

66

διεξιών, τάδε φησίν· "Οὐσία δέ καί ὑπόστασις ταύτην ἔχει τήν διαφοράν, ἥν ἔχει τό κοινόν πρός τό καθέκαστον. Οἷον, ὡς ἔχει τό ζῶον πρός τόν δεῖνα ἄνθρωπον." Καί μεθ᾿ ἕτερα· "Οἱ δέ ταὐτόν λέγοντες οὐσίαν καί ὑπόστασιν, ἀναγκάζονται πρόσωπα μόνον ὁμολογεῖν διάφορα." Καί πάλιν κανονικήν τινα διδάσκων ἐπέστελλεν ἑρμηνεύων τήν τοῦ ὁμοουσίου διάνοιαν· "Αὕτη δέ ἡ φωνή, καί τοῦ Σαβελλίου κακόν ἐπανορθοῦται. Ἀναιρεῖ γάρ τήν ταυτότητα τῆς ὑποστάσεως, καί εἰσάγει τελείαν τῶν προσώπων τήν ἔννοιαν· οὐ γάρ αὐτό τί ἐστιν ὁμοούσιον ἑαυτῷ, ἀλλ᾿ ἕτερον ἑτέρῳ. Ὥστε καλῶς ἔχει, καί εὐσεβῶς, τῶν τε ὑποστάσεων τήν ἰδιότητα διορίζουσα, καί τῆς φύσεως τό ἀπαράλλακτον παριστῶσα." Καί πάλιν ἐν τῇ δευτέρᾳ πρός Νεοκαισαρεῖς διδάσκει φάσκων· "Καί γάρ εἰδέναι χρή, ὅτι ὥσπερ ὁ τό κοινόν τῆς οὐσίας μή ὁμολογῶν εἰς πολυθεΐαν ἐκπίπτει· οὕτως ὁ τά ἴδια τῶν ὑποστάσεων μή διδούς, εἰς τόν Ἰουδαϊσμόν ἀποφέρεται." Καί πάλιν ἐν οἷς Εὐστάθιον τόν Ἀρμένιον ὑπογράψαι πεποίηκε, διαῤῥήδην γράφων φαίνεται. "Προσήκει τοίνυν ἐναργῶς ὁμολογεῖν, ὅτι πιστεύουσι κατά τά ῥήματα τά ὑπό τῶν ἡμετέρων Πατέρων ἐκτεθέντα ἐν τῇ Νικαίᾳ, καί κατά τήν ὑγιῶς ὑπό τῶν ῥημάτων ἐμφερομένην διάνοιαν. Εἰσί γάρ τινες, οἵ καί ἐν ταύτῃ τῇ πίστει δολοῦντες τόν λόγον τῆς ἀληθείας, καί πρός τό ἑαυτῶν βούλημα, τόν νοῦν τῶν ἐν αὐτῇ ῥημάτων ἕλκοντες. Ὅπου γε καί Μάρκελλος ἐτόλμησεν ἀσεβῶν εἰς τήν ὑπόστασιν τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, καί ψιλόν αὐτόν ἐξηγούμενος λόγον, ἐκεῖθεν προφασίσασθαι τάς ἀρχάς εἰληφέναι, τοῦ ὁμοουσίου τήν διάνοιαν κακῶς ἐξηγούμενος. Καί τινες τῶν ἀπό τῆς δυσσεβείας τοῦ Λίβυος Σαβελλίου ὑπόστασιν καί οὐσίαν ταυτόν εἶναι ὑπολαμβάνοντες, ἐκεῖθεν ἕλκουσι τάς ἀφορμάς πρός τήν κατασκευήν τῆς ἑαυτῶν βλασφημίας, ἐκ τοῦ ἐγγεγράφθαι τῇ πίστει, Ἐάν δέ τις λέγῃ ἐξ ἑτέρας οὐσίας ἤ ὑποστάσεως τόν Υἱόν τοῦ Θεοῦ, τοῦτον (15Β_284> ἀναθεματίζει ἡ ἁγία καί καθολική Ἐκκλησία. Οὐ γάρ ταυτόν εἶπον ἐκεῖνοι οὐσίαν καί ὑπόστασιν. Εἰ γάρ μίαν καί τήν αὐτήν ἐδήλουν [ἔννοιαν] αἱ φωναί, τίς χρεία ἦν ἑκατέρων; Ἀλλά δῆλον, ὡς τῶν μέν ἀρνουμένων τό ἐκ τῆς 0548 οὐσίας ἄλλων δέ λεγόντων ἐν ἄλλης τινός ὑποστάσεως· οὕτως ἀμφότερα ὡς ἀλλότρια τοῦ ἐκκλησιαστικοῦ φρονήματος ἀπηγόρευσαν. Ἐπεί ὅπου γε τό ἑαυτῶν ἐδήλουν φρόνημα, εἶπον ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Πατρός εἶναι τόν Υἱόν, οὐκέτι προσθέντες τό, ἐκ τῆς ὑποστάσεως. Ὥστε ἐκεῖνο μέν κεῖται ἐπ᾿ ἀναιρέσει τοῦ πονηροῦ φρονήματος· τοῦτο δέ φανέρωσιν ἔχει τοῦ σωτηρίου δόγματος."

Συνῳδά δέ τούτῳ καί Γρηγόριος ὁ τῆς θεολογίας ἐπώνυμος ἐν τῷ θεολογικῷ προτέρῳ λόγῳ τάδε φαίνεται φάσκων· "Μεσότητα δέ ὅτ᾿ ἄν εἴπω, τήν ἀλήθειαν λέγω· πρός ἥν βλέπειν, καλῶς ἔχει μόνον, καί τήν φαύλην συναίρεσιν παραιτουμένους , καί τήν ἀτοπωτέραν διαίρεσιν· ὡς μήτε εἰς μίαν ὑπόστασιν συναιρεθέντα τόν λόγον, δέει πολυθεΐας, ψιλά ἡμῖν καταλιπεῖν τά ὀνόματα, τόν αὐτόν Πατέρα καί Υἱόν καί ἅγιον Πνεῦμα ὑπολαμβάνουσι." Καί μετ᾿ ὀλίγα πάλιν· " Ἐπειδή χρή καί τόν ἕνα Θεόν τηρεῖν, καί τάς τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις ὁμολογεῖν· ἤγουν τρία πρόσωπα, καί ἑκάστην μετά τῆς ἰδιότητος. Τηροῖτο δ᾿ ἄν, ὡς ὁ ἐμός λόγος, εἷς μέν Θεόν, εἰς ἕν αἴτιον Υἱοῦ καί Πνεύματος ἀναφερομένων, οὐ συντιθεμένων, οὐδέ συναλειφομένων· αἱ δέ τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις, μηδεμιᾶς ἐπινοουμένης συναλοιφῆς ἤ ἀναλύσεως ἤ συγχύσεως· ἵνα μή τό πᾶν καταλυθῇ, δι᾿ ὧν τό ἕν σεμνύνεται πλέον, ἤ καλῶς ἔχει. Καί κατά τό ἕν καί ταὐτόν τῆς θεότητος, ἵνα οὔτως ὀνομάσω, κίνημά τε καί βούλημα, καί τήν τῆς οὐσίας ταυτότητα." Καί ἐν τῷ Συντακτηρίῳ λόγῳ πάλιν· "Πιστεύομεν εἰς Πατέρα, καί Υἱόν, καί ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· ὁμοούσιά τε καί ὁμόδοξα, ἐν οἷς καί τό βάπτισμα τήν τελείωσιν ἔχει· οἶδας, ὁ μυηθείς, ἄρνησις ὅν (15Β_286> ἀθεΐας καί ὁμολογία θεότητος· καί οὕτω καταρτιζόμεθα, τό μέν ἕν τῇ οὐσίᾳ γνωρίζοντες, καί τῷ ἀμερίστῳ τῆς προσκυνήσεως· τά δέ τρία, ταῖς ὑποστάσεσιν, ἤγουν προσώποις." Καί μέντοι κἀν τῷ εἰς τά φῶτα λόγῳ ταῦτά φησιν ὁ αὐτός, "Θεοῦ