139

those who say three ousiai not also to say three hypostaseis. Therefore, this alone is the accusation: to proclaim in a singular way the names applied to the divine nature. 189.4 But our argument against this is ready and clear. For he who condemns those who speak of one divinity will necessarily agree with the one who speaks of many or with the one who speaks of none. For it is not possible to conceive of anything else besides what has been said. But neither does the divinely-inspired teaching permit us to speak of many, since wherever it makes mention, it mentions the divinity in a singular way: “For in him dwells all the fullness of the divinity.” And elsewhere: “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and divinity.” If, then, to extend the number of divinities to a plurality belongs only to those who are sick with the polytheistic error, and to deny the divinity altogether would be the mark of atheists, what is the argument that slanders us for confessing one divinity? But they reveal the purpose of their argument more clearly: that they accept that the Father is God, and agree that the Son is likewise honored with the name of divinity; but that the Spirit, who is numbered with the Father and the Son, is no longer to be included in the concept of divinity, but that the power of the divinity, extending from the Father to the Son, separates the nature of the Spirit from the divine glory. Therefore we too must make a defense, as briefly as we can, against this notion as well. 189.5 What, then, is our argument? The Lord, when he delivered the saving faith to those who were being made disciples by the word, joined the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son. And we say that what has once been joined has the union throughout all things. For it is not ordered with them in one thing and separated in others, but in the life-giving power by which our nature is refashioned from a corruptible life to immortality, the power of the Spirit having been included with the Father and the Son, and in many other things, such as in the concept of the good, and the holy, and the eternal, wise, upright, ruling, powerful, and everywhere clearly has its inseparability in all the names that are understood to refer to what is superior. Therefore we think it right to hold that what is joined to the Father and the Son in so many lofty and God-befitting concepts is distinguished in none. For we know of no distinction of better and worse among the names conceived concerning the divine nature, so as to think it pious, while granting the Spirit communion in the lesser names, to judge him unworthy of the transcendent ones. For all God-befitting concepts and names are of equal honor with one another, in that they do not differ at all concerning the meaning of the subject. For the title of 'the good' does not lead the mind to one subject, and that of 'the wise' and 'the powerful' and 'the just' to another, but whatever names you may say, the thing signified is one through all of them. And if you say 'God', I will point out the same one whom you understood through the other names. But if all the names applied to the divine nature are equivalent to one another in pointing to the subject, each with its own emphasis guiding our mind to the same thing, what is the argument for one who grants the Spirit communion with the Father and the Son in the other names to separate him from that of divinity alone? For it is absolutely necessary either to grant the communion in this as well, or not to grant it in the others. For if he is worthy in those, he is surely not unworthy in these. But if he is too small, according to their argument, to contain the communion with the Father and the Son in the name of divinity, then he is not worthy to share in any other of the God-befitting names either. For the names, when understood and compared with one another through the emphasis contemplated in each, will be found to have nothing less than the title of God. And a proof is that to this name many

139

τοὺς τρεῖς λέγοντας οὐσίας μὴ καὶ τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις λέγειν. Οὐκοῦν τοῦτο μόνον ἐστὶν ἐν ἐγκλήματι τὸ τὰ ἐπιλεγόμενα τῇ θείᾳ φύσει ὀνόματα μοναδικῶς καταγγέλλειν. 189.4 Ἀλλ' ἕτοιμος ἡμῖν πρὸς τοῦτο καὶ σαφὴς ὁ λόγος. Ὁ γὰρ καταγινώσκων τῶν μίαν λεγόντων θεότητα ἐξ ἀνάγκης τῷ πολλὰς λέγοντι ἢ τῷ μηδεμίαν συνθήσεται. Οὐ γάρ ἐστι δυνατὸν ἕτερόν τι παρὰ τὸ εἰρημένον ἐπι νοῆσαι. Ἀλλ' οὔτε πολλὰς λέγειν ἡ θεόπνευστος συγχωρεῖ διδασκαλία, εἴπου καὶ μέμνηται, μοναχῶς τῆς θεότητος μνημονεύουσα· «Ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ κατοικεῖ πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος.» Καὶ ἑτέρωθι· «Τὰ γὰρ ἀόρατα αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ κτίσεως κόσμου τοῖς ποιήμασι νοούμενα καθορᾶται, ἥ τε ἀΐδιος αὐτοῦ δύναμις καὶ θειότης.» Εἰ οὖν εἰς πλῆθος ἐκτείνειν τὸν ἀριθμὸν τῶν θεοτήτων μόνων τῶν τὴν πολύθεον πλάνην νενοσηκότων ἐστί, τὸ δὲ καθόλου ἀρνεῖσθαι τὴν θεότητα τῶν ἀθέων ἂν εἴη, τίς λόγος ἐστὶν ὁ διαβάλλων ἡμᾶς ἐπὶ τῷ μίαν ὁμολογεῖν τὴν θεότητα; Ἀλλ' ἐκκαλύπτουσι φανερώτερον τὸν τοῦ λόγου σκοπόν· ἐπὶ μὲν τοῦ Πατρὸς καταδέχεσθαι τὸ Θεὸν εἶναι, καὶ τὸν Υἱὸν ὡσαύτως τιμᾶσθαι τῷ τῆς θεότητος ὀνόματι συντιθέμενοι· τὸ δὲ Πνεῦμα Πατρὶ καὶ Υἱῷ συναριθμούμενον μηκέτι καὶ τῇ τῆς θεότητος ἐννοίᾳ συμπαραλαμβάνεσθαι, ἀλλ' ἐκ Πατρὸς μέχρι τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἱσταμένην τὴν τῆς θεότητος δύναμιν, ἀποκρίνειν τῆς θεϊκῆς δόξης τὴν φύσιν τοῦ Πνεύματος. Οὐκοῦν ἀπολογητέον καὶ ἡμῖν, ὡς ἂν οἷοί τε ὦμεν διὰ βραχέων, καὶ πρὸς ταύτην τὴν ἔννοιαν. 189.5 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 δὲ συνημμένον ἅπαξ διὰ πάντων φαμὲν τὴν συνάφειαν ἔχειν. Οὐ γὰρ ἔν τινι συντεταγμένον ἐν ἑτέροις ἀποσχοι νίζεται, ἀλλ' ἐν τῇ ζωοποιῷ δυνάμει, καθ' ἣν ἐκ τοῦ φθαρτοῦ βίου εἰς ἀθανασίαν ἡ φύσις ἡμῶν μετασκευάζεται, συμπαραληφθεῖσα ἡ τοῦ Πνεύματος δύναμις Πατρὶ καὶ Υἱῷ, καὶ ἐν πολλοῖς ἑτέροις, οἷον ἐν τῇ κατὰ τὸ ἀγαθὸν ἐννοίᾳ καὶ τὸ ἅγιόν τε καὶ ἀΐδιον, σοφόν, εὐθές, ἡγεμο νικόν, δυνατόν, καὶ πανταχοῦ δηλονότι τὸ ἀχώριστον ἔχει ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς πρὸς τὸ κρεῖττον ὑπειλημμένοις ὀνόμασιν. Οὐκοῦν ἡγούμεθα καλῶς ἔχειν τὸ ἐν τοσαύταις ἐννοίαις ὑψηλαῖς τε καὶ θεοπρεπέσι συναπτόμενον Πατρὶ καὶ Υἱῷ ἐν οὐδενὶ διακεκρίσθαι νομίζειν. Οὐδὲ γὰρ οἴδαμέν τινα τῶν περὶ τὴν θείαν φύσιν ἐπινοουμένων ὀνομάτων τὴν κατὰ τὸ κρεῖττον καὶ τὸ χεῖρον διαφοράν, ὡς εὐαγὲς εἶναι οἴεσθαι τὴν ἐν τοῖς καταδεεστέροις τῶν ὀνομάτων κοινω νίαν συγχωροῦντας τῷ Πνεύματι τῶν ὑπεραιρόντων κρίνειν ἀνάξιον. Πάντα γὰρ τὰ θεοπρεπῆ νοήματά τε καὶ ὀνόματα ὁμοτίμως ἔχει πρὸς ἄλληλα τῷ μηδὲν περὶ τὴν τοῦ ὑποκειμένου διαφωνεῖν σημασίαν. Οὐ γὰρ ἐπ' ἄλλο τι ὑποκείμενον χειραγωγεῖ τὴν διάνοιαν τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ἡ προση γορία, ἐφ' ἕτερον δὲ ἡ τοῦ σοφοῦ καὶ τοῦ δυνατοῦ καὶ τοῦ δικαίου, ἀλλ' ὅσαπερ ἂν εἴπῃς ὀνόματα, ἓν διὰ πάντων ἐστὶ τὸ σημαινόμενον. Κἂν Θεὸν εἴπῃς, τὸν αὐτὸν ἐνε δείξω ὃν διὰ τῶν λοιπῶν ὀνομάτων ἐνόησας. Εἰ δὲ πάντα τὰ ὀνόματα τῇ θείᾳ φύσει ἐπιλεγόμενα ἰσοδυναμεῖ ἀλλή λοις κατὰ τὴν τοῦ ὑποκειμένου ἔνδειξιν, ἄλλα κατὰ ἄλλην ἔμφασιν ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ τὴν διάνοιαν ἡμῶν ὁδηγοῦντα, τίς ὁ λόγος τὴν ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις ὀνόμασι κοινωνίαν πρὸς Πατέρα τε καὶ Υἱὸν συγχωροῦντα τῷ Πνεύματι μόνης ἀποσχοι νίζειν αὐτὸ τῆς θεότητος; Ἀνάγκη γὰρ πᾶσα ἢ καὶ ἐν τούτῳ διδόναι τὴν κοινωνίαν ἢ μηδὲ τὴν ἐν τοῖς λοιποῖς συγχωρεῖν. Εἰ γὰρ ἐν ἐκείνοις ἄξιον, οὐδὲ ἐν τούτοις πάντως ἀνάξιον. Εἰ δὲ μικρότερον, κατὰ τὸν ἐκείνων λόγον, ἐστὶν ἢ ὥστε τοῦ τῆς θεότητος ὀνόματος πρὸς Πατέρα τε καὶ Υἱὸν τὴν κοινωνίαν χωρῆσαι, οὐδὲ ἄλλου τινὸς τῶν θεοπρεπῶν ὀνομάτων μετέχειν ἄξιον. Κατα μανθανόμενα γὰρ καὶ συγκρινόμενα πρὸς ἄλληλα τὰ ὀνό ματα διὰ τῆς ἑκάστοις ἐνθεωρουμένης ἐμφάσεως εὑρεθή σεται μηδὲν τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ προσηγορίας ἔλαττον ἔχοντα. Τεκμήριον δὲ ὅτι τούτῳ μὲν τῷ ὀνόματι πολλὰ