[3416] Jerem. iv. 3.
[3417] Matt. xiii. 7.
[3418] Isa. xxviii. 25.
[3419] Exod. xxiv. 1.
[3420] Ib. xix. 14.
[3421] Ib. xix. 16-18.
[3422] Jer. xiii. 23.
[3423] 1 Pet. v. 8.
[3424] Matt. vii. 6.
[3425] Arabian: So the LXX. renders the word which in A.V. Jer. v. 6, is translated "of the evening," and in the Vulg. "at evening." R.V. gives as an alternative, "of the deserts."
[3426] The LXX. in Cant. xi. 15, admits of this translation as well as of that followed by A.V.
[3427] Exod. xxxiii. 23.
[3428] This veil of the Mercy Seat, spoken of in Exod. xxvi. 31, signifies in Gregory's sense the denial of contemplation of that Highest Nature.
[3429] Ps. viii. 1.
[3430] The Face of God signifies His Essence and Deity, which were before all worlds: His back parts are Creation and Providence, by which He reveals Himself.
[3431] Exod. iv. 2.
[3432] 2 Cor. xii. 2.
[3433] Plato, Tim., 28 E.
[3434] No one doubts, say the Benedictine Editors, that the Angels do see God, and that men, too, will see Him, when they attain to Eternal Bliss. S. Thomas (Summa I. qu. xii. 4) argues that the Angels have cognition of God's Essence not by nature but by grace: but yet (Ib. qu. lvi. 3) that they have by nature a certain cognition of Him, as represented and as it were mirrored in their own essence; though not the actual vision of His Essence. The Angel, he says again (Ib. qu. lxiv. 1) has a higher cognition of God than man has, on account of the perfection of his intellect; and this cognition remains even in the fallen Angels.
[3435] Phil. iv. 7.
[3436] Isa. lxiv. 4; 1 Cor. ii. 9.
[3437] Ps. viii. 3.
[3438] 1 Cor. xv. 19.
[3439] Ps. cxix. 21.
[3440] 1 Cor. ii. 10.
[3441] Jer. xxiii. 24.
[3442] Wisd. i. 7.
[3443] Epicurus taught that Matter is eternal, and consists of an indefinite number of Atoms or indivisible units, floating about in space, and mutually attracting and repelling each other; and that all that exists is due to some chance meeting and coalition of these atoms.
[3444] This is a speculation of Aristotle, who imagined a Fifth Element, consisting of formless matter.
[3445] Petavius (De Trin. IV. ii. 7) notes that hupostasis seems used here of the Essence and Nature common to the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity.
[3446] Nowhere is in this passage used in an ambiguous sense. As asserted of God, it means that His being is in no way limited by place: not that He has no existence in place, for He is everywhere, and He transcends all place. Before the creation of the Universe He existed, and He created Place, which therefore cannot be the seat of His Being.
[3447] v. 1. Affected. The allusion is especially to the ostentatious dialectics and tedious arguments of Aëtius and his followers, Eunomius and others.
[3448] Luke vi. 44.
[3449] cf. Dan. v. 12.
[3450] Plato, Tim., 10.
[3451] v. 1. Most Akin to Himself. Combefis.
[3452] Isa. i. 11.
[3453] Rom. xi. 33.
[3454] Exod. xiv. 20.
[3455] Ps. xviii. 11.
[3456] Lam. iii. 34.
[3457] Referring to the mythical partition of the Universe, which gave heaven to Zeus, the sea to Poseidon, and the infernal regions to Aidoneus.
[3458] Rom. i. 23.
[3459] It was a very general belief in the early Church that the gods whom the heathen worshipped were in reality actual evil spirits; and this belief is certainly supported by S. Paul's argument about eidolothuton in 1 Cor. x. 19-21.
[3460] 1 Cor. xiii. 12, but with a reading epignosesthe, which is not in the New Testament.
[3461] Gen. iv. 26. The verb has by some been taken as passive, and not middle, "hoped that the Name of the Lord would be called upon."
[3462] Ib. v. 24, Ecclus. xlix. 14.
[3463] Gen. vi. 8.
[3464] Ib. xviii. 18.
[3465] Ib. xxviii. 2.
[3466] Gen. xviii. 2. Elias Cretensis sees in this occurrence a foreshadowing of the Incarnation; and also with many others, a revelation of the Trinity, in that Abraham saw Three and conversed with One.
[3467] Gen. xxxii. 28.
[3468] Ib. ver. 28.
[3469] v. l. The Form of God, which would refer to the occasion cited below. The reading is grammatically easier, as an accusative is required; but in that case we might have expected the wrestling with the Angel to have been mentioned first, as the name Penuel was given by Jacob on the day following the night in which he wrestled, and received his own change of name. The Benedictines, while retaining House in text and version, express a preference for Form, because the subject of the argument is the Vision of God.
[3470] 1 Kings xix. 11, 12. LXX. has a Sound of a Light breeze.
[3471] Judg. xiii. 22.
[3472] Luke v. 8.
[3473] Matt. xvi. 16, 17.
[3474] Isa. vi. 1 sqq.
[3475] Ezek. i. 4-28.
[3476] v. l. Orders, i.e. of angels.
[3477] This is a quotation from the LXX. of Jer. xxiii. 18, where for hupostemati Aquila has aporreto, and Symmachus homilia, (according to Trommius). hupostema properly means a Station of troops, and such is the meaning in the other two places where the word occurs in the LXX., viz.:--2 Sam. xxiii. 14, and 1 Chron. xi. 16. The Hebrew word which it represents in this passage is one of frequent use, and means "a Council," or, in a sense derived from this, Familiar Intercourse. In Job xv. 8 it is rendered in A.V. The Secret of God, where the LXX. has suntagma. The Vulgate in both cases has Concilium Dei; the Benedictines however render it Substance. A.V. has Counsel, and in marg. Secret; while R.V. reads Council, with no marginal alternative.
[3478] 2 Cor. xii. 2.
[3479] 1 Cor. xiii. 9.
[3480] 2 Cor. xi. 6.
[3481] 1 Cor. xiii. 12.
[3482] John xvi. 12.
[3483] S. John xxi. 25. By a curious slip of the tongue S. Gregory here attributes to the Baptist words of the Evangelist.
[3484] cf. Petav. de Deo, iii., c. 7.
[3485] 1 Kings iii. 12.
[3486] Ecc. vii. 23.
[3487] Rom. xi. 23.
[3488] Ps. xxxvi. 7.
[3489] Ib. cxxxix. 6.
[3490] v. l. And how the soul is carried round.
[3491] v. l. Invisible.
[3492] Gregory is not here speaking of the immorality of the individual soul, but of that of the Race, which it shares with other animals, and which is effected by continual succession.
[3493] The Benedictines here insert Some well protected; but it is their own conjecture, and is not found in the Manuscripts.
[3494] Job xxxviii. 36. LXX.
[3495] The allusion is to a group made by Dædalus for Ariadne, representing a chorus of youths and maidens, which seemed to be moving in musical rhythm. It is described by Homer (Il., xviii., 592 sqq.).
[3496] Job xxvi. 10. LXX.
[3497] Exod. xvi. 18.
[3498] Job xxxvii. 9, 10.
[3499] 1 Kings xviii. 44.
[3500] Job xii. 14.
[3501] Ps. xix. 5.
[3502] Plato.
[3503] Job xxxviii. 31.
[3504] Ps. cxlvii. 4.
[3505] 1 Cor. xv. 41.
[3506] Ps. civ. 4.
Oration XXIX.
The Third Theological Oration.
On the Son.
I. This then is what might be said to cut short our opponents' readiness to argue and their hastiness with its consequent insecurity in all matters, but above all in those discussions which relate to God. But since to rebuke others is a matter of no difficulty whatever, but a very easy thing, which any one who likes can do; whereas to substitute one's own belief for theirs is the part of a pious and intelligent man; let us, relying on the Holy Ghost, Who among them is dishonoured, but among us is adored, bring forth to the light our own conceptions about the Godhead, whatever these may be, like some noble and timely birth. Not that I have at other times been silent; for on this subject alone I am full of youthful strength and daring; but the fact is that under present circumstances I am even more bold to declare the truth, that I may not (to use the words of Scripture) by drawing back fall into the condemnation of being displeasing to God. [3507] And since every discourse is of a twofold nature, the one part establishing one's own, and the other overthrowing one's opponents' position; let us first of all state our own position, and then try to controvert that of our opponents;--and both as briefly as possible, so that our arguments may be taken in at a glance (like those of the elementary treatises which they have devised to deceive simple or foolish persons), and that our thoughts may not be scattered by reason of the length of the discourse, like water which is not contained in a channel, but flows to waste over the open land.
II. The three most ancient opinions concerning God are Anarchia, Polyarchia, and Monarchia. The first two are the sport of the children of Hellas, and may they continue to be so. For Anarchy is a thing without order; and the Rule of Many is factious, and thus anarchical, and thus disorderly. For both these tend to the same thing, namely disorder; and this to dissolution, for disorder is the first step to dissolution.
But Monarchy is that which we hold in honour. It is, however, a Monarchy that is not limited to one Person, for it is possible for Unity if at variance with itself to come into a condition of plurality; [3508] but one which is made of an equality of Nature and a Union of mind, and an identity of motion, and a convergence of its elements to unity--a thing which is impossible to the created nature--so that though numerically distinct there is no severance of Essence. Therefore Unity [3509] having from all eternity arrived by motion at Duality, found its rest in Trinity. This is what we mean by Father and Son and Holy Ghost. The Father is the Begetter and the Emitter; [3510] without passion of course, and without reference to time, and not in a corporeal manner. The Son is the Begotten, and the Holy Ghost the Emission; for I know not how this could be expressed in terms altogether excluding visible things. For we shall not venture to speak of "an overflow of goodness," as one of the Greek Philosophers dared to say, as if it were a bowl overflowing, and this in plain words in his Discourse on the First and Second Causes. [3511] Let us not ever look on this Generation as involuntary, like some natural overflow, hard to be retained, and by no means befitting our conception of Deity. Therefore let us confine ourselves within our limits, and speak of the Unbegotten and the Begotten and That which proceeds from the Father, as somewhere God the Word Himself saith.
III. When did these come into being? They are above all "When." But, if I am to speak with something more of boldness,--when the Father did. And when did the Father come into being. There never was a time when He was not. And the same thing is true of the Son and the Holy Ghost. Ask me again, and again I will answer you, When was the Son begotten? When the Father was not begotten. And when did the Holy Ghost proceed? When the Son was, not proceeding but, begotten--beyond the sphere of time, and above the grasp of reason; although we cannot set forth that which is above time, if we avoid as we desire any expression which conveys the idea of time. For such expressions as "when" and "before" and "after" and "from the beginning" are not timeless, however much we may force them; unless indeed we were to take the Æon, that interval which is coextensive with the eternal things, and is not divided or measured by any motion, or by the revolution of the sun, as time is measured.
How then are They not alike unoriginate, if They are coeternal? Because They are from Him, though not after Him. For that which is unoriginate is eternal, but that which is eternal is not necessarily unoriginate, so long as it may be referred to the Father as its origin. Therefore in respect of Cause They are not unoriginate; but it is evident that the Cause is not necessarily prior to its effects, for the sun is not prior to its light. And yet They are in some sense unoriginate, in respect of time, even though you would scare simple minds with your quibbles, for the Sources of Time are not subject to time.
IV. But how can this generation be passionless? In that it is incorporeal. For if corporeal generation involves passion, incorporeal generation excludes it. And I will ask of you in turn, How is He God if He is created? For that which is created is not God. I refrain from reminding you that here too is passion if we take the creation in a bodily sense, as time, desire, imagination, thought, hope, pain, risk, failure, success, all of which and more than all find a place in the creature, as is evident to every one. Nay, I marvel that you do not venture so far as to conceive of marriages and times of pregnancy, and dangers of miscarriage, as if the Father could not have begotten at all if He had not begotten thus; or again, that you did not count up the modes of generation of birds and beasts and fishes, and bring under some one of them the Divine and Ineffable Generation, or even eliminate the Son out of your new hypothesis. And you cannot even see this, that as His Generation according to the flesh differs from all others (for where among men do you know of a Virgin Mother?), so does He differ also in His spiritual Generation; or rather He, Whose Existence is not the same as ours, differs from us also in His Generation.