1

Ad Ablabium quod non sint tres dei

OF GREGORY BISHOP OF NYSSA, ON NOT THINKING TO SAY THREE GODS, TO ABLABIUS

It is right for you, who are in your prime in all power according to the inner man, to contend against the enemies of the truth and not to shrink from the labors, so that we, the fathers, might rejoice in the noble toils of our children; for this is what the law of nature suggests. But since, reversing the order, you turn upon us the attacks of the darts with which the opponents of the truth strike, and you command that by the shield of faith from us, the old men, the desolate coals be quenched and the sharpened arrows of falsely-named knowledge be sent back, we accept the command, becoming for you a model of obedience, so that you yourself may also offer us in return an equal requital upon similar commands, if ever we should rouse you to such contests, O noble soldier of Christ, Ablabius. 3,1.38 And this argument which you have proposed to us is not a small one, nor such as to bring little harm if it should not receive the appropriate examination. For by the force of the question, it is necessary, according to a superficial understanding, to be driven to one of the unseemly alternatives: either to say there are three gods, which is unlawful, or not to confess the divinity of the Son and of the Spirit, which is both impious and absurd. And what is said by you is as follows: Peter and James and John, being in one humanity, are called three men; and it is not at all absurd for those who are united in nature, if they are more than one, to be numbered in the plural from the name of the nature. If, then, in that case, custom allows this, and there is no one who forbids us to say two for two, and three for those more than two, how is it that, in the case of the mystic doctrines, while confessing the three hypostases and conceiving no difference in nature among them, we in a way fight against our confession, by saying that the divinity of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is one, but forbidding to say three gods? The argument, therefore, as I said before, has much that is difficult to handle; but if we should find something of this sort, by which the ambiguity of our thought might be stayed, no longer wavering and shaken toward the dilemma of absurdity, 3,1.39 it would be well. But if our argument should be proved too weak for the problem, we shall guard the tradition which we have received from the fathers, ever firm and unshaken, and we shall seek from the Lord the argument that is the advocate of our faith; which if it should be found from one of those who have the grace, we will give thanks to the Giver of the grace; but if not, we will no less hold our faith unchangeable concerning the things we have known. Why then in our custom, when we enumerate one by one those who are shown to be in the same nature, do we name them in the plural, saying so many men and not one for all, but in the case of the divine nature, the rule of dogma casts out the multitude of gods, both counting the hypostases and not accepting the plural signification?

Now, it is possible at first glance for one saying this to the more simple-minded to seem to say something, that the doctrine, shunning the likeness of Hellenic polytheism, has declined to count gods in a multitude, so that no community of doctrines might be supposed, if the divine were counted by us not singularly but plurally in a similar way to their custom. But this, while it is said to the more guileless, might perhaps seem to be something, yet in the case of those who seek to establish for themselves one of two propositions—either not to confess the divinity in the case of the three, or to name absolutely three of the same

1

Ad Ablabium quod non sint tres dei

ΓΡΗΓΟΡΙΟΥ ΕΠΙΣΚΟΠΟΥ ΝΥΣΣΗΣ ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΜΗ ΟΙΕΣΘΑΙ ΛΕΓΕΙΝ ΤΡΕΙΣ ΘΕΟΥΣ ΠΡΟΣ ΑΒΛΑΒΙΟΝ

Ὑμᾶς μὲν δίκαιόν ἐστι, τοὺς ἀκμάζοντας ἐν πάσῃ δυνάμει κατὰ τὸν ἔσω

ἄνθρωπον, πρὸς τοὺς ἐναντίους τῆς ἀληθείας διαγωνίζεσθαι καὶ μὴ κατοκνεῖν πρὸς τοὺς πόνους, ὅπως ἂν ἡμεῖς οἱ πατέρες τοῖς γενναίοις ἱδρῶσι τῶν τέκνων ἐπευ φραινώμεθα· τοῦτο γὰρ ὁ τῆς φύσεως ὑποτίθεται νόμος· ἐπεὶ δὲ ἀναστρέψας τὴν τάξιν ἐφ' ἡμᾶς τρέπεις τὰς προσ βολὰς τῶν ἀκίδων, αἷς οἱ ἀντικείμενοι τῇ ἀληθείᾳ βάλλουσι, καὶ κελεύεις τῷ θυρεῷ τῆς πίστεως παρ' ἡμῶν τῶν γερόντων κατασβέννυσθαι τοὺς ἐρημικοὺς ἄνθρακας καὶ ἀποπέμπεσθαι τὰ ἠκονημένα τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως βέλη, δεχόμεθα τὸ ἐπίταγμα, σοὶ τύπος τῆς εὐπειθείας γινόμενοι, ὡς ἂν καὶ αὐτὸς ἡμῖν ἀντιπαρέχοις τὴν ἴσην ἐπὶ τῶν ὁμοίων ἐπιταγ μάτων ἀντίδοσιν, εἴ ποτέ σε πρὸς τοὺς τοιούτους ἄθλους διαναστήσαιμεν, ὦ γενναῖε τοῦ Χριστοῦ στρατιῶτα Ἀβλάβιε. 3,1.38 Ἔστι δὲ οὐ μικρὸς οὗτος ὁ λόγος ὃν προέτεινας ἡμῖν οὐδὲ τοιοῦτος ὡς ὀλίγην φέρειν ζημίαν, εἰ μὴ τῆς προσηκούσης ἐξετάσεως τύχοι. ἀνάγκη γὰρ ἐκ τῆς βίας τοῦ ἐρωτήματος ἑνὶ πάντως τῶν ἀπεμφαινόντων συνενεχθῆναι κατὰ τὸν πρόχει ρον νοῦν καὶ ἢ τρεῖς λέγειν θεούς, ὅπερ ἀθέμιτον, ἢ μὴ προσ μαρτυρεῖν τῷ υἱῷ καὶ τῷ πνεύματι τὴν θεότητα, ὅπερ ἀσεβές τε καὶ ἄτοπον. τὸ δὲ λεγόμενον παρὰ σοῦ τοιοῦτόν ἐστιν· Πέτρος καὶ Ἰάκωβος καὶ Ἰωάννης, ἐν μιᾷ ὄντες τῇ ἀνθρωπότητι, τρεῖς ἄνθρωποι λέγονται· καὶ οὐδὲν ἄτοπον τοὺς συνημμένους κατὰ τὴν φύσιν, εἰ πλείους εἶεν, ἐκ τοῦ τῆς φύσεως ὀνόματος πληθυντικῶς ἀριθμεῖσθαι. εἰ οὖν ἐκεῖ τοῦτο δίδωσιν ἡ συνήθεια καὶ ὁ ἀπαγορεύων οὐκ ἔστι δύο λέγειν τοὺς δύο καὶ τρεῖς τοὺς ὑπὲρ δύο, πῶς, ἐπὶ τῶν μυστικῶν δογμάτων τὰς τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις ὁμολογοῦντες καὶ οὐδεμίαν ἐπ' αὐτῶν τὴν κατὰ φύσιν διαφορὰν ἐννοοῦντες, μαχόμεθα τρόπον τινὰ τῇ ὁμολογίᾳ, μίαν μὲν τὴν θεότητα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος λέγοντες, τρεῖς δὲ θεοὺς λέγειν ἀπαγορεύοντες; Ὁ μὲν οὖν λόγος, καθὰ προέφην, πολὺ τὸ δυσμεταχεί ριστον ἔχει· ἡμεῖς δέ, εἰ μέν τι τοιοῦτον εὕροιμεν, δι' οὗ τὸ ἀμφίβολον τῆς διανοίας ἡμῶν ἐρεισθήσεται, μηκέτι πρὸς τὸ διλήμματον τῆς ἀτοπίας ἐπιδιστάζον καὶ κραδαινόμενον, 3,1.39 εὖ ἂν ἔχοι· εἰ δὲ καὶ ἀτονώτερος ἐλεγχθείη τοῦ προβλήματος ὁ ἡμέτερος λόγος, τὴν μὲν παράδοσιν ἣν παρὰ τῶν πατέρων διεδεξάμεθα φυλάξομεν εἰς ἀεὶ βεβαίαν τε καὶ ἀκίνητον, τὸν δὲ συνήγορον τῆς πίστεως λόγον παρὰ τοῦ κυρίου ζητήσομεν· ὃς εἰ μὲν εὑρεθείη παρά τινος τῶν ἐχόντων τὴν χάριν, εὐχαριστήσομεν τῷ δεδωκότι τὴν χάριν· εἰ δὲ μή, οὐδὲν ἧττον ἐπὶ τῶν ἐγνωσμένων τὴν πίστιν ἀμετάθετον ἕξομεν. Τί δήποτε τοίνυν ἐν τῇ καθ' ἡμᾶς συνηθείᾳ καθ' ἕνα τοὺς ἐν τῇ φύσει τῇ αὐτῇ δεικνυμένους ἀπαριθμήσαντες πληθυντι κῶς ὀνομάζομεν, τοσούσδε λέγοντες τοὺς ἀνθρώπους καὶ οὐχὶ ἕνα τοὺς πάντας, ἐπὶ δὲ τῆς θείας φύσεως ἐκβάλλει τὸ πλῆθος τῶν θεῶν ὁ τοῦ δόγματος λόγος, καὶ ἀριθμῶν τὰς ὑποστάσεις καὶ τὴν πληθυντικὴν σημασίαν οὐ προσδεχόμενος;

Ἔστι μὲν οὖν κατὰ τὸ πρόχειρον τοῦτο τοῖς ἁπλουστέροις εἰπόντα δόξαι τι λέγειν, ὅτι φεύγων ὁ λόγος τῆς Ἑλληνικῆς πολυθεΐας τὴν ὁμοιότητα θεοὺς ἐν πλήθει ἀριθμεῖν παρῃτή σατο, ὡς ἂν μή τις καὶ τῶν δογμάτων νομισθείη κοινότης, εἰ μὴ μοναδικῶς ἀλλὰ πληθυντικῶς καὶ παρ' ἡμῶν ἀριθμοῖτο τὸ θεῖον καθ' ὁμοιότητα τῆς παρ' αὐτοῖς συνηθείας. τοῦτο δὲ τοῖς μὲν ἀκεραιοτέροις λεγόμενον ἴσως ἄν τι δόξειε λέγεσθαι, ἐπὶ δέ γε τῶν τὸ ἕτερον αὐτοῖς τῆς προτάσεως στῆναι ζητούντων ἢ μὴ ὁμολογεῖν ἐπὶ τῶν τριῶν τὴν θεότητα ἢ τρεῖς πάντως ὀνομάζειν τοὺς τῆς αὐτῆς