Part 2
§ 15. And some of those who were most subject to passion deified their passions or honoured them among their gods – anger and blood-thirstiness, lust and drunkenness, and every similar wickedness – and made out of this an ignoble and unjust excuse for their own sins. And some they left on earth, and some they hid beneath the earth (this being the only sign of wisdom about them), and some they raised to heaven. What a ridiculous partitioning! Then they gave to each of these concepts the name of some god or demon by the authority and arbitrary license of their error, and set up statues whose costliness is a snare. And they thought to honour them with sacrifices of blood and fat, and sometimes even by most shameful actions, frenzies and manslaughter. For such honours were the fitting due of such gods. And before
Gregory of Nazianzus
now people have insulted themselves by worshipping monsters, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things – and those of the very vilest and most absurd – and have made an offering to them of the glory of God, so that it is not easy to decide whether we ought most to despise the worshippers or the objects of their worship. Probably the worshippers are by far the most contemptible, for though they are of a rational nature and have received grace from God, they have set up the worse as the better. And this was the trick of the Evil One, who abused good to an evil purpose, as in most of his evil deeds. For he laid hold of their desire as it wandered in search of God, in order to seize the power for himself and steal the desire, leading it by the hand like a blind man asking a road; and he hurled down and scattered some in one direction and some in another, into the one pit of death and destruction.
§ 16. This was their course. In our case, however, reason has welcomed our desire for God and recognised our inability to go forward without a leader and guide. Then, applying itself to things that can be seen and observing the things which have been since the beginning, reason doe not stop even there. For it was not reason's wish to grant the sovereignty to things which are subject to the senses as much as we are. By these things, then, it leads us to what is above them, and by which these things are given being. For what ordained things in heaven and things on earth, and those things which pass through air, and those which live in water – or rather the things which were before these, heaven and earth, air and water? Who mingled these, and who separated them? What is this community that they have with each other, this mutual dependence, this harmony? For I commend the person, though a heathen, who said, "What gave movement to these and drives their ceaseless and unhindered motion?"47
Is it not their artisan, the one who implanted reason in them all, in accordance with which the universe is moved and controlled? But who is this artisan? Is it not the One who made them and brought them into being? For we clearly cannot attribute such a power to a chance accident. For, suppose that its existence is accidental, to what will you let us ascribe its order? And if you like we will grant you this point; but then, to what then will you ascribe its preservation and protection in accordance with the terms of its first creation. Do these belong to chance, or to something else? Surely not to chance. And what can this "something else" be but God? Thus, reason that proceeds from God – the reason that is implanted in all from the beginning and is the first law in us, and is bound up in all, leads us up to God through visible things. Let us begin again, and reason this out.
§ 17. What God is in nature and essence, no human ever yet has discovered or can discover. Whether it will ever be discovered is a question that whoever wishes may examine and decide. In my opinion, it will be discovered when
47 Cf. Plato, Laws 896a – 897c.
Theological Orations 2
that within us which is godlike and divine – I mean our mind and reason – has mingled with its Like, and the image has ascended to the Archetype, of which it now has the desire. And this, I think, is the whole of philosophy, that we shall know even as we are known.48 But for the time being, all that comes to us is a little emanation and, as it were, a small reflection of a great Light.49
So that if anyone has known God, or has had the testimony of Scripture to their knowledge of God, we are to understand such a person to have possessed a degree of knowledge which gave them the appearance of being more fully enlightened than another who did not enjoy the same degree of illumination. This relative superiority is spoken of as if it were absolute knowledge, not because it is really such, but by comparison with the power of that other person.
50 He ended up only hoping – and even so, it was not a hope of knowing but only of calling upon God.. And Enoch was taken up,51 but it is not clear whether it was because he already comprehended the divine nature or in order that he might comprehend it. And Noah's glory was that he was pleasing to God;52 he was entrusted with saving the whole world, or rather the seeds of the world, in a small ark which escaped the deluge.53 And Abraham, great Patriarch though he was, was justified by faith54 and offered a strange victim, the prefiguration of the Great Sacrifice.55
§ 18. Thus Enosh hoped to call upon the Name of the Lord.
He saw God, but not as God – he fed God as if God had
48 1 Corinthians 13.12.
49 Cf. Wisdom 7.26: "For she [sc. wisdom] is a reflection of eternal light, a spotless mirror of the working of God, and an image of his goodness." Hebrews 1.3: "He [sc. the Son of God] is the reflection of God's glory and the exact imprint of God's very being."
50 Genesis 4.24 according to the Septuagint. Enosh was the son of Seth, the third child of Adam and Eve.
51 Genesis 5.24.
52 Genesis 6.8.
53 Genesis 6.13 – 7.19.
54 Genesis 15.6; Romans 4.3.
55 Genesis 22.1-14. This is the story of Abraham's readiness to sacrifice his son Isaac in obedience to God, and how God provided a ram to take
Gregory of Nazianzus
been a human.56 Nevertheless, he was approved because he worshipped God as far as he understood. And Jacob saw a vision of a high-reaching ladder with angels ascending it, and in a mystery he anointed a pillar – perhaps to signify the Rock that was anointed for our sake – and gave that place the name of the House of God in honour of the Lord whom he saw.57 Jacob also wrestled with God as with a human being.58 Whatever this wrestling of God with a mortal may mean – possibly a comparison of human virtue with God's – Jacob bore on his body the marks of the struggle,59 which shows the defeat of the created nature; and as a reward of his reverence he received a change of his name; from Jacob to Israel – that great, that honourable name.60
Yet
Isaac's place. Gregory probably saw the substitute-ram, rather than Isaac, as the "type," or prefiguring, of Christ's sacrifice on the cross.
56 Genesis 18.1-8: "The LORD appeared to Abraham by the oaks of Mamre, as he sat at the entrance of his tent in the heat of the day. He looked up and saw three men standing near him. When he saw them, he ran from the tent entrance to meet them, and bowed down to the ground. He said, 'My lord, if I find favour with you, do not pass by your servant. Let a little water be brought, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree. Let me bring a little bread, that you may refresh yourselves, and after that you may pass on – since you have come to your servant.' So they said, 'Do as you have said.' And Abraham hastened into the tent to Sarah, and said, 'Make ready quickly three measures of choice flour, knead it, and make cakes.' Abraham ran to the herd, and took a calf, tender and good, and gave it to the servant, who hastened to prepare it. Then he took curds and milk and the calf that he had prepared, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree while they ate."
57 Genesis 28.12-18. he anointed a pillar – perhaps to signify the Rock that was anointed for our sake. I.e. Christ, considered as "the chief cornerstone" (Psalm 118.22; Matthew 21.42, Mark 12.10; Luke 20.17).
58 Genesis 32.24-30.
59 Genesis 32.25: "When the man saw that he did not prevail against Jacob, he struck him on the hip socket; and Jacob's hip was put out of joint as he wrestled with him."
60 Genesis 32.27-28: "So he said to him, 'What is your name?' And he said, 'Jacob.' Then the man said, 'You shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel [i.e. The one who strives with God or God strives], for you have striven with God and with humans, and have prevailed.' "
Theological Orations 2
neither he nor, after him, any member of all the twelve tribes who where his children could boast of having taken in the nature or seen the totality of God.
§ 19. To Elijah, as you learn from the story,61 neither the strong wind, nor the fire, nor the earthquake, but a light breath of wind indicated the presence of God – and even this did not reveal the divine nature. And who was this Elijah? The man whom a chariot of fire took up to heaven,62
signifying the superhuman excellency of his righteousness.
63 and, later, at the disciple Peter? The one could not endure the vision even of an angel who manifested God, and said, "We are undone, O wife, for we have seen God!"64 – speaking as though even a vision of God, let alone the nature of God, could not be grasped by human beings. And the other, the disciple Peter, could not endure the presence of Christ in his boat and therefore begged him to depart65 – and this though Peter was more zealous than the others for the knowledge of Christ, and for this reason he was called "blessed"66 and was entrusted with the greatest gifts. What would you say of Isaiah or Ezekiel, who witnessed very great mysteries, and of the other prophets? For the first of these saw the Lord of hosts sitting on the throne of glory, and encircled and praised and hidden by the six-wingèd seraphs, and was himself purged by the live coal and equipped for his prophetic office.67 And the second describes the cherubim who are the chariot of God, and the throne which is on top of them, and the heavens above the throne, and the One who appeared in the heavens, and voices, and forces, and actions.68
And are you not amazed at the judge Manoah
And whether this was an appearance by day,
61 1 Kings 19.11-12.
62 2 Kings 2.11-12.
63 Manoah was the father of Samson; see Judges 13.2-23.
64 Cf. Judges 13.22: "And Manoah said to his wife, 'We shall surely die, for we have seen God.' "
65 Luke 5.1-10. Beholding the awesome catch of fish that Jesus had afforded, "Simon Peter… fell down at Jesus' knees, saying, 'Go away from me, Lord, for I am a sinful man!' "
66 Matthew 16.17: "And Jesus answered him, 'Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven.' "
67 Isaiah 6.1-8.
Gregory of Nazianzus
visible only to saints, or an unerring vision of the night, or an impression on the mind holding converse with the future as if it were the present; or some other ineffable form of prophecy, I cannot say – the God of the prophets knows, and so do they who are the object of such inspirations. But neither these of whom I am speaking, nor any of those who are like them, ever (as it is written)"stood in the council" – that is, the substance – "of the Lord," or saw or proclaimed the nature of God.69
70 and what his own advance, or ascension, or assumption there involved, perhaps we should know something more about God, if this was the mystery of the rapture. But since it was not to be told,71 we too will honour it by silence. We will hear Paul say this much about it, that we know only in part and we prophesy only in part.72 This and similar statements are the confessions of one who is not untrained in knowledge,73 who threatens to give proof of Christ speaking in him, the great defender and teacher of the truth. That is why he judges all knowledge on earth to be nothing but seen in a mirror, dimly,74 for it rests upon weak images of the truth. Now, unless I appear to anyone too careful and over-anxious about the examination of this matter, perhaps it was of this and nothing else that the Word himself intimated that there were things which could not now be endured, but which should be endured and cleared up hereafter,75
§ 20. If Paul had been permitted to utter what the third heaven contained
and which John, the forerunner of the
68 Ezekiel 1.4-28.
69 Cf. Jeremiah 23.18: "For who has stood in the council of the LORD so as to see and to hear his word? Who has given heed to his word so as to proclaim it?" In the Greek text of the Septuagint, the word for "council" is hupostemas, whose root is the verb huphistemi, "to undergird, to shore up". That seems to be Gregory's justification for interpreting "council" in the sense of "substance" (hupostasis).
70 2 Corinthians 12.2-4.
71 Cf. 2 Corinthians 12.4: He "heard things that are not to be told, that no mortal is permitted to repeat." 72 1 Corinthians 13.9.
73 2 Corinthians 11.6: "I may be untrained in speech, but not in knowledge."
74 1 Corinthians 13.12.
Theological Orations 2
Word and great voice of the Truth declared even the whole world could not contain.76
§ 21. The truth in its totality, then, and every effort to give an account of it are hard to work out and difficult to contemplate. We seek to perform a great work with a puny instrument when we pursue knowledge of reality with merely human wisdom, and when we approach with the senses – or not without the senses, which carry us away and mislead us – those realities which are only to be grasped by the mind. Unable to encounter naked reality with the naked mind, we can draw no nearer to the truth and have our minds formed by what they perceive.
When it comes to discourse about God, the more perfect it would be, the harder it is to get a grip on the subject. It is open to more criticisms, and answering them takes more work. For every criticism, however small, stops the discussion in its tracks and cuts off its further advance. It is just like those who suddenly pull the reins of horses in full career and turn them right around by the unexpected shock. Thus Solomon, who was the wisest of all mortals, whether before him or in his own time,77 to whom God gave breadth of heart and a power of contemplation more abundant than the sands on the seashore78 – even he, the more he entered into the depth,79 the more dizzy he became; he declared the furthest point of Wisdom to be the discovery of how very far off she was from him.80
Paul also tries to arrive at, I will not say the nature of God – for this he knew was utterly impossible – but only the judgements of God. And since he
75 Cf. John 16.12: "I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now."
76 John 21.25: "There are also many other things that Jesus did; if every one of them were written down, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written." Gregory oddly confuses St John the evangelist with St John the Baptist.
77 Cf. 1 Kings 3.11-12: "God said to [Solomon]…, 'I give you a wise and discerning mind; no one like you has been before you and no one like you shall arise after you.' "
78 1 Kings 4.29: "God gave Solomon very great wisdom, discernment, and breadth of understanding as vast as the sand on the seashore."
79 Romans 11.33: "O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God!"
80 Cf. Ecclesiastes 7.23: "All this I have tested by wisdom; I said, 'I will be wise,' but it was far from me."
Gregory of Nazianzus
finds no way out and no halting place in the ascent, and since the earnest searching of his mind after knowledge does not end in any definite conclusion, because some fresh unattained point is being continually disclosed to him – O marvel, that I have a like experience! – he closes his discourse with astonishment, and calls this the riches and the depth of God, and confesses the incomprehensibility of the judgements of God,81 in almost the same words as David, who at one point calls God's judgements the great deep whose foundations cannot be reached by measure or sense,82 and at another says that such knowledge is too wonderful for him and for his nature and too strong for his own power or grasp.83
§ 22. Indeed, David says, if I leave everything else alone to consider myself and the whole of human nature and its constitution, what is this mixture that makes us what we are?
84 What is this movement which animates us? How has the mortal been mingled with the immortal, and how it is that I flow downwards and yet am borne upwards? How does the soul circulate through the body? How does it give life to the body and share in its feelings? How does it come about that the spirit is at once subject to limitations and unlimited, dwelling in us and yet traversing all things in swift motion and flow? How is it both received and imparted by means of speech, and how does it pass through the air and enters with the things around us? How does it share in the senses, and enshroud itself away from the senses? And even before these questions – how were we fashioned and constituted at first in the workshop of nature,85
and what form and fulfilment will we receive at the end? How do we have the instinct for nourishment, and how it is
81 Romans 11.33: "O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgements and how inscrutable his ways!"
82 Psalm 36.7.
83 Psalm 139.6: "Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is so high that I cannot attain to it."
84 Cf. Psalm 139.12-15: "You yourself created my inward parts; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I will thank you because I am marvellously made; your works are wonderful, and I know it well. My body was not hidden from you, while I was being made in secret and woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes beheld my limbs, yet unfinished in the womb; all of them were written in your book; they were fashioned day by day, when as yet there was none of them."
85 the workshop of nature. I.e. the mother's womb.
Theological Orations 2
provisioned? Who brought us spontaneously to those first springs and sources of life?86
How is the body nourished by food, and the soul by reason? What is the propensity of nature, the mutual relation between parents and children, that it should be held together by a spell of love? How is it that species are constant, and are different in their characteristics, although there are so many that their individual marks cannot be described? How is it that the same animal is both mortal and immortal – mortal because it dies, immortal because it reproduces? For one departs, and another takes its place, just like the flow of a river, which is never still, yet ever constant. And you might ponder many more points concerning our members and parts, how they are co-ordinated and differentiated with a view both to usefulness and to beauty – how some are connected and others disjoined, some are more excellent and others less comely, some are united and others divided, some contain and others are contained, according to the law and reason of nature. Much too might be said about voices and ears. How is it that the voice is carried by the vocal organs and received by the ears, and both are joined by the vibration and resonance of the intermediate air? Much too could be said about the eyes, which have an indescribable communion with visible objects, and which are moved by the will alone and along with it, and enjoy the same privilege as the mind. For with equal speed the mind is joined to the objects of thought, the eye to those of sight. Much too might be said concerning the other senses, which are like receptacles of external objects, but are not subject to the reason. And much concerning our rest in sleep, and the figments of dreams, and of memory and remembrance; of calculation, and anger, and desire – in a word, all by which this little world called humanity is swayed.
§ 23. Do you wish me to enumerate the differences of the other animals, both from us and from each other – differences of nature, and of production, and of nourishment, and of region, and of temper, and as it were of social life? How is it that some are gregarious and others solitary, some are herbivores and others carnivores, some fierce and others tame, some fond of humans and domesticated, others untameable and free? And some, we might say, border on reason and power of learning, while others are altogether destitute of reason and incapable of being taught. Some are provided with numerous senses, others have fewer; some are attached to a place, and some are apt to migrate. Some are very swift, and some very slow; some are remarkable for their size and beauty, or for one or another of these traits; others are very small or very ugly, or both. Some are strong, others weak; some are skilful in defending themselves, others timid and crafty, and still others are unguarded. Some are laborious and thrifty, others altogether idle and improvident. And before we come to such points as these, how is it that
86 those first springs and sources of life. I.e. the mother's breasts, and the milk which they provides the infant.
Gregory of Nazianzus
some are crawling things, and others upright; that some are attached to their habitat, while others are amphibious; that some are fond of adorning themselves, and others take no such care; that some are married and others single; that some are temperate and others intemperate; that some have numerous offspring and others do not; that some are long-lived and others live only a short while? It would be a weary discourse to go through all the details.
§ 24. Look also at the swimming tribe gliding through the waters, and as it were flying through the liquid element, and breathing its own air, but in danger when in contact with ours, as we are in the waters. Mark their habits and dispositions, their intercourse and their births, their size and their beauty, and their affection for places and their wanderings, and their gatherings and scatterings, and their features which so nearly resemble those of the animals that dwell on land – in some cases held in common, in other cases peculiar to themselves, both in name and shape.
And consider the tribes of birds, and their varieties of form and colour, both of those which are voiceless and of songbirds. What is the reason of their melody, and from whom did it come? Who gave to the grasshopper the lute in his breast, and the songs and chirruping on the branches, when they are moved by the sun to make their midday music, and sing among the groves, and escort the wayfarer with their voices? Who wove the song for the swan when it spreads its wings to the breezes and turns its hissing into a melody? For I will not speak of the forced voices,87 and all the rest that art contrives against the truth. From where does the peacock, that boastful bird of Media, get his love of beauty and of praise (for it is fully conscious of his own beauty), so that when it sees any one approaching, or when he shows off (as they say) before his peahens, he raises his neck and spreads his tail in circle around him, glittering like gold and studded with stars, and makes a spectacle of his beauty to his lovers with pompous strides? Now holy Scripture admires the cleverness of women in weaving, saying, Who gave to woman skill in weaving and cleverness in the art of embroidery?88
This belongs to a living creature who has reason and abounds in wisdom and who reaches even as far as the things of heaven.
§ 25. I would also have you marvel at the natural intelligence even of irrational creatures and explain, if you can, its cause. How is it that birds have for nests rocks and trees and roofs, and adapt them both for safety and beauty and for the comfort of their little ones? From where do bees and spiders get their love of work and art? Bees plan their honeycombs and join them
87 forced voices. Gregory means the sounds made by parrots and other birds which can be trained to speak or whistle.
88 Job 38.36, according to the Septuagint.
Theological Orations 2
together by hexagonal cells set one beside the other, and secure the fabric by means of the dividing wall and the alternation of angles with straight lines – and this is done in such dark hives, that the structure itself is invisible. And spiders weave their intricate webs by such light and almost airy threads stretched in various ways from almost invisible beginnings, to make a precious dwelling and at the same time a trap for weaker creatures with a view to enjoyment of food. What Euclid ever imitated these creatures, while pursuing philosophical enquiries with lines that have no real existence, and wearying himself with proofs? What Palamedes89 ever drew up tactics to rival the movements and groupings of cranes which, we are told, go through the same drill-like movements without breaking rank, in such complicated patterns of flight? Who were their Phidias, Zeuxis, and Polygnotos, who were the Parrhasios and Aglaophon who knew how to draw and fashion excessively beautiful things?90 What harmonious dance of Knossos, the work of Dædalos, wrought for a girl and attaining the highest pitch of beauty? What Cretan labyrinth, hard to get through, hard to unravel (to express myself in the manner of the poets), and continually intersecting itself through the tricks of its construction?91
I will not speak of the ants' storehouses and storekeepers, and of their collections of wood in quantities corresponding to the time for which it is wanted, and all the other details which we know are told of their marches and leaders and of the good order which prevails in their works.
§ 26. If the explanation of all these things is within your reach, and if you have understood what they show, look as well at the diversity of plants, and especially at the artistic skill displayed in the leaves, which is adapted to give so much pleasure to the eye as well as so much protection to the fruit. Look, too, at the variety and lavish abundance of fruits, and most of all at the
89 Palamedes was a king who took part in the Trojan War. Legend credited him with inventing the tactical manœuvre of armies on the battlefield.
90 Phidias was the most famous sculptor of Athens during its "Golden Age" (5th century B.C.E.). Zeuxis, Polygnotos, Parrhasios, and Aglaophon were Greek painters of the 5th – 4th centuries B.C.E.
91 Dædalos (Daedalus) was a figure of Greek mythology. He was supposed to have made statues of young men and maidens, and then made them move as if to music; this was done for Ariadne, the daughter of King Minos of Crete. (Homer refers to this story in Iliad 18, 592.) He also constructed the Labyrinth in the royal palace of Minos at Knossos; this house the Minotaur, a monster half-human and half-bull. Dædalos is perhaps best known for having built wings for his son Ikaros (Icarus) so that he could fly away from Crete; but Ikaros flew too close to the sun, which melted the wings, and he plummeted into the sea.
Gregory of Nazianzus
amazing beauty of such as are most necessary. And consider the power of the roots,92
the juices, the flowers, and the scents – not only so very sweet, but also good as medicines – and the grace and qualities of colours; and again the costly value and the brilliance of precious stones. For nature has set all things in front of you, as in a banquet offered to all, both what is necessary for living and what gives us pleasure, in order that, if nothing else, you may know God by His benefits, and by your own sense of want be made wiser than you were.
Next, travel the length and breadth of the earth, the common mother of all, and the bays of the sea connected together with one another and with the land,
and the beau-tiful forests, and the rivers and springs abundant and perennial – not only of waters fresh and fit for drinking, which run on the surface of the earth; but also such as run beneath the earth and flow under caverns, then are forced up and out by a violent blast and, filled with heat by the intensity of struggle and resistance, burst out by little and little wherever they get a chance, and hence supply our need of hot baths in many parts of the earth, and in conjunction with the cold give us a healing which is without cost and spontaneous. Tell me how these things happen and where they come from! What is this immense network wrought without a worker? These things are no less worthy of admiration, in respect of their mutual relations than when considered separately.
How is it that the earth stands solid and unswerving? On what is it supported? What is it that props it up, and on what does that rest? For indeed even reason knows nothing for the earth to rest upon, but only the will of God. And how is it that part of it is drawn up into mountain summits and part laid down in plains – and this, in various and different ways, with the landscape modifying itself by degrees? And How is it that the earth is both more fertile our needs and more beautiful by its variety; part being distributed
92 Cf. Wisdom 7.17, 20: "For it is [God] who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements…, the natures of animals and the tempers of wild animals, the powers of spirits and the thoughts of human beings, THE VARIETIES OF PLANTS AND THE VIRTUES OF ROOTS."
93 the bays of the sea connected together with one another and with the land. It is easy to understand how the bays of the sea are con-nected… with the land, but not how they are connected together with one another. A. J. Mason notes that Gregory "is no doubt thinking of the deeply indented coast of the Aegean. [Its bays] are connected with each other, apparently, because the coasting vessels pass along from bay to bay, rounding the headlands, and plying between the towns that lie in the gulfs."
Theological Orations 2
into habitations and part left uninhabited – that is, all the great heights of mountains and the various clefts of its coast line cut off from it. Is not this the clearest sign of the majestic working of God?
§ 27. And with respect to the sea, even if I did not marvel at its greatness, I should have marvelled at its gentleness and way in which, although unbound, it remains within its boundaries;94 and if I did not marvel at its gentleness, surely I should marvel at its greatness. But since I marvel at both, I will praise the power that is in both. What gathered it? What bounded it? How is it raised and lulled to rest, as though respecting its neighbour earth? How, moreover, does it receive all the rivers and yet remain the same?95 If it is not through the very abundance of its mass, I do not know what else can be said. How is the boundary of it, though an element of such magnitude, only sand?96 Have your natural philosophers with their knowledge of useless details anything to tell us? – I mean those who are really trying to "measure the sea with a wineglass"97 and such mighty works by their own conceptions. Or shall I explain it from Scripture, in a way that is concise and yet more convincing and more true than the longest discussions? God has traced a command on the face of the water 98
– this is the bond which enchains the liquid element. And how does this element convey the land mariner in a small vessel and with a little breeze (do you not wonder at the sight of this? is your mind not astonished?), that earth and sea may be bound together by needs and commerce, and that things so widely separated by nature should be thus brought together into one for human beings?
94 Cf. Job 38.8-11: "[Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind….:] 'Who shut in the sea with doors when it burst out from the womb? – when I made the clouds its garment, and thick darkness its swaddling band, and prescribed bounds for it, and set bars and doors, and said, "Thus far shall you come, and no farther, and here shall your proud waves be stopped"?' "
95 Cf. Ecclesiastes 1.7: "All streams run to the sea, but the sea is not full; to the place where the streams flow, there they continue to flow." 96 Cf. Jeremiah 5.22: "Do you not fear me? says the LORD; do you not tremble before me? I placed the sand as a boundary for the sea, a perpetual barrier that it cannot pass; though the waves toss, they cannot prevail, though they roar, they cannot pass over it." 97 Apparently a proverbial expression, though this one passage is the sole evidence of it. The expression appears nowhere else in the surviving ancient Greek literature, whether classical or Christian.
98 Job 26.10, according to the Septuagint.
Gregory of Nazianzus
What are the first fountains of springs? Mortal, see if you can trace out or find any of these things. And who was it who cleft the plains and the mountains for the rivers, and gave them an unhindered course? And what about the marvel on the other side, that the sea never overflows and the rivers never cease to flow? And how are the waters fed, and why in different ways, some being fed from above, while others drink with their roots? – if I may luxuriate a little in my language when speaking of the luxuriant gifts of God.99
§ 28. And now, leaving the earth and the things of earth, soar into the air on the wings of thought, that our discussion may proceed methodically; and from there I will take you up to heavenly things, and to heaven itself, and to things which are above heaven. My discourse hesitates to ascend to that which lies beyond, but still it shall ascend as far as possible.
Who poured forth the air, that great and abundant wealth which is not measured out to humans according to their rank or circumstances, is not restrained by boundaries, is not divided out according to people's ages? Instead, like the distribution of the manna, each person receives enough, and it is valued for its equal distribution.100
It is the chariot of the wingèd creation, the seat of the winds, the moderator of the seasons, the animator of living things – or rather it maintains the soul in union with the body. In it bodies have their being, and by it we speak; in it is the light and all that it illumines, as well as the external aspect of things which light transmits through the air? And mark, if you will, what follows. I cannot give to the air the whole empire of all that is thought to belong to the air. What are the storehouses of the
99 And how are the waters fed …. if I may luxuriate a little in my language when speaking of the luxuriant gifts of God. Both the English translation of Browne and Swallow and the French translation of Gallay take this passage to be a reference to the power of water to nurture plant-life. But such a mundane reference makes nonsense of Gregory's closing apology for luxuriating in his language. As A. J. Mason points out, Gregory is not talking about how water nourishes plants, but about how the waters themselves get their "nourishment". Some waters, he says, are fed from above, i.e. by rain-fall; other waters drink with their roots, i.e. are fed by underground springs.
100 Cf. Exodus 16.17-18: "The Israelites [gathered the manna], some gathering more, some less. But when they measured it with an omer, those who gathered much had nothing over, and those who gathered little had no shortage; they gathered as much as each of them needed."
Theological Orations 2
winds?101 What are the treasuries of the snow?102 as Scripture says: Who has begotten the drops of dew,103 and from whose womb did the ice come forth?
104 Who is it that binds up the waters in the clouds,105 who sometimes holds back part of the moisture in the clouds by means of the Word106 – what a wonder! – and at other times pours it out on the face of all the earth;107 who sheds it at the right time and in equal measure, without permitting the moisture's whole substance to go out free and uncontrolled – for just enough rain fell to cleanse the world in the days of Noah, and the One who cannot lie is not forgetful of His own covenant108 – but without holding it back entirely so that we should never again need an Elijah to bring the drought to an end?109 If God shuts up the heavens, it says,110
who will open them? If God
101 Cf. Psalm 135.7: "[The LORD] bring up rain clouds from the ends of the earth; he sends out lightning with the rain, and bring the winds out of his storehouse."
102 Cf. Job 38.22: "[Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind:] 'Have you entered the storehouses of the snow, or have you seen the storehouses of the hail?' "
103 Job 38.28.
104 Job 38.29.
105 Job 26.8.
106 Cf. Sirach 48.3: "By the word of the Lord [Elijah] shut up the heavens."
107 Cf. Job 5.10: "[The LORD] gives rain on the earth and sends waters on the fields."
108 Cf. Genesis 9.12-15: "God said, 'This is the sign of the covenant that I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all future generations: I have set my bow in the clouds, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth. When I bring clouds over the earth and the bow is seen in the clouds, I will remember my covenant that is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh.' "
109 Cf. 1 Kings 18.41-46.
110 2 Chronicles 7.13.
Gregory of Nazianzus
opens the windows of heaven,111 who will shut them? Who could endure too much or too little rain from the One who makes it fall,112 unless God govern the universe with His own measures and balances?113
What speculations will you dream up concerning thunder and lightning – you who thunder from the earth and cannot shine with even little sparks of truth? To what mists rising from earth will you attribute the creation of thunderclouds? Is it due to some thickening of the air, or some compression or bumping together of thin clouds, so as to make you think that the compression causes the lightning, and the bumping together makes the thunder? Or what wind, finding itself constrained and having no outlet, will produce the lightning by its compression, and the thunder by its bursting out?
If you have travelled with your thought through the air and all the things of air, now reach out with me to heaven and the things of heaven. And let faith lead us rather than reason, if you have truly learnt the weakness of the latter in matters nearer to you, and know reason by knowing the things that are above reason, so as not to be completely of the earth or attached to the earth, because you are ignorant even of your ignorance.
§ 29. Who spread the sky around us, and set the stars in their place? Or rather, before that, what are the sky and the stars? Can you tell me, O exalted one? – you who do not know what lies at your very feet, and cannot even take the measure of yourself, and yet must busy yourself with what is above your nature and stand open-mouthed before that which has no limit? Granted, you understand the stars, their orbits and periods, their waxings and wanings, their settings and risings, some parts of the zodiac, and all the other things which make you so proud of your wonderful knowledge. But you have not arrived at a comprehension of the realities themselves, only at an observation of a certain movement which, confirmed by long practice and collecting the observations of many others into a systematic explanation, has acquired the name of "science". Likewise, the phases of the moon are known to most people, but it is due to observation with the eyes that they are so well known. If you, however, are very learned in this subject and have a just claim to admiration, tell me what is the cause of this order and this movement! How did the sun come to be like a beacon to the whole world, and to all eyes like the leader of some chorus, whose brightness conceals all the stars more
111 Malachi 3.10.
112 Cf. Matthew 5.45: "Your Father in heaven [who] makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous."
113 Cf. Job 28.25: "He gave to the wind its weight, and apportioned out the waters by measure."
Theological Orations 2
completely than some of them conceal others. The proof of this is that, if they shine against it, the sun outshines them and does not even allow us to perceive that they rose simultaneously with it, fair like a bridegroom, swift and large as a giant 114 -- for I will not let the sun's praises be sung from any other source but my own Scriptures. It so powerful that from one end of the world to the other it embraces all things in its heat, and nothing is hidden from its heat.115
The sun fills every eye with light, and every bodily creature with heat; it warms, but does not burn, thanks to the gentleness of its temper and the order of its movement; it is present to all and embraces all equally.
§ 30. And what do you have to say about this (if you have noticed it): "The sun holds the same position in the realm of the senses as God holds in the realm of the Ideas," as someone who is not one of ours has said
116 For the one gives light to the eyes as the Other enlightens the mind; and as the one is the most beautiful object in the visible world, so is the Other the most beautiful object in the intelligible world.117 But who gave the sun its movement at first? And what is it keeps it moving in its orbit,118
though in its nature it is stable and immovable, truly untiring, the giver and sustainer of life, and all the other titles that the poets justly sing of it, and never resting in its course or its benefits? How does it come to be the creator of day when above the earth, and of night when below it – or whatever may be the right expression when one contemplates the sun? What are the increase and decrease of day and night in relation to one another, and their regular irregularities – to use a somewhat paradoxical expression? How does the sun happen to be the maker and divider of the seasons which arrive and depart in regular order, and as in
114 Psalm 19.5.
115 Psalm 19.6.
116 Plato, Republic 508 c.
117 the intelligible world. The order of reality which can only be apprehended by pure thought. In Platonic and Neo-Platonic philosophies, this meant that the intelligible order was the "most real" reality. By contrast, the sensible order (the dimension of reality which can be apprehended by the senses) is a world of shadows, transient, changeable, and finite.
118 Copernicus and Galileo were still more than a thousand years in the future when Gregory wrote; he and his contemporaries took for granted the astronomical system of Ptolemy (2nd century C.E.), according to which the earth was the centre of the universe and the sun orbited around it.
Gregory of Nazianzus
a dance interweave with each other, or stand apart by a law of love on the one hand, and of order on the other, and mingle little by little, and steal on their neighbour, just as nights and days do, so as not to give us pain by their suddenness. But now we will let the sun follow its own course.119
As for you, do you know the nature and phases of the moon, the measure of its light, its courses, and how it is that the sun bears rule over the day and the moon presides over the night? How is it that the moon gives confidence to wild beasts, while the sun rouses humans to do their work, raising or lowering itself as may be most serviceable?
120 Do you know the chains of the Pleiades or the cords of Orion121 as the One who counts the number of the stars and calls them all by their names?122 Do you know the differences of the glory of each123 and the order of their movement, that I should trust you when you use them to weave the web of human concerns and arm the creature against the Creator?124
§ 31. What do you say? Shall we stop here, limiting our discussion to matter and visible things? Or, since our mind knows the tabernacle of Moses to be a figure of the whole creation
– I mean the entire system of things visible and
119 I.e. Enough said about the sun.
120 Cf. Psalm 104.20-24: "You appointed the moon to mark the seasons, and the sun knows the time of its setting. You make darkness that it may be night, in which the beasts of the forest prowl. The lions roar after their prey and seek their food from God. The sun rises, and they slip away and lay themselves down in their dens. Mortals go forth to their work and to their labour until the evening."
121 Cf. Job 38.31: "Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades, or loose the cords of Orion?"
122 Psalm 147.4.
123 Cf. 1 Corinthians 15.41: "There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; indeed, star differs from star in glory."
124 Here Gregory is targeting astrology.
125 Cf. Wisdom 9.8: "You have given command to build a temple on your holy mountain, and an altar in the city of your habitation, a copy of the holy tent that you prepared from the beginning." Also Hebrews 9.24: "For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made by human hands, a mere copy of the true one, but he entered into heaven itself."
Theological Orations 2
invisible 126 – shall we pass through the first veil and, stepping beyond the realm of the senses, shall we look into the Holy Place – that is to say, into spiritual and heavenly nature?127 But we cannot see even this in an incorporeal way, although it is incorporeal itself. This spiritual and heavenly nature is called – or is – "fire" and "wind". For it is said that God makes the winds His messengers and flames of fire His servants128 – {a curious turn of phrase,] unless to make means preserving them in the law of their original creation.129 The angelic nature, then, is called "wind" and "fire" – wind, to signify that part of their nature that is pure intelligence, and fire, to signify that part of their nature that purifies; for I know that the same names are appropriate to the First Nature. But we must reckon the angelic nature incorporeal, at least in comparison with our nature, or as nearly so as possible. You see how this subject makes our heads swim and how we are able to advance only so far. All we know is that there are Angels and Archangels,130 Thrones, Dominions, Rulers, Powers,131 Splendours, Ascensions,132 Spiritual Powers or Spirits,133
126 Colossians 1.16.
127 nature (phusis) has a collective sense here; it refers to all created beings, such as angels, who are spiritual and heavenly in nature. 128 Psalm 104.4.
129 A. J. Mason comments: "To 'make' the angels winds suggests a change in their mode of existence; but Gregory thinks that it may denote what is contained in the original act of creation, and not something subsequent." By the way, the word angel is derived from the Greek word αγγελος, which means "messenger".
130 Romans 8.38; Daniel 10.13, 1 Thessalonians 4.16; Jude 9.
131 Colossians 1.16.
132 This seems to be the only place in all of Greek patristic literature where Splendours and Ascensions are named as part of the heavenly hierarchy. With respect to Ascensions (αναβασεις, anabaseis), Mason remarks that Gregory may have been thinking of what Jacob saw in his dream (Genesis 28.12): "And he dreamed that there was a ladder set up on the earth, the top of it reaching to heaven; and the angels of God were ascending and descending on it." Cf. John 1.51: "And [Jesus] said to [Nathanael], 'Very truly, I tell you, you will see heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man.' "
133 Cf. Ephesians 1.21, Revelation 4.5.
Gregory of Nazianzus
natures pure and unalloyed, incapable (or hardly capable) of turning to evil, ever circling in chorus round the First Cause – else, how could we sing their praises, these beings who shine with brilliance drawn from the purest Splendour, or one in one degree and one in another, according to their nature and rank? They are so marked and formed by God's beauty, that they become secondary Lights, and can enlighten others by shining the First Light on them and thereby communicate their own selves. They are servants of God's will,134
powerful by their innate strength and by that which was imparted to them, traversing the universe, readily present to all at any place through their zeal for service and the agility of their nature. Some of them have received as their portion one part of the world, and others are put in charge of some other part of the universe, as He decided who ordered and distributed them. They bring all things into unity, with a view to the approval of the Creator of all things; for which alone they care. They hymn the divine majesty and eternally contemplate the eternal glory. This is not that God may be increased in glory – for nothing can be added to that which is full or to the One who supplies good things to all others – but that even these natures, who are the first after God, may never cease to receive blessings.
If I have sung these things fittingly, thanks should be given to the Trinity and to the one divinity in the Three. If the result has been less adequate than I desired, even so my discourse has gained its purpose. For this is what I was labouring to show – that if even the secondary natures surpass the power of our intellect, by how much more, then, does the First and Only Nature – for I hesitate to say merely "that which is above all".
134 Cf. Hebrews 1.14: "Are not all angels spirits in the divine service, sent to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation?"
The Third Theological Oration
Oration 29
On the Son,
HIS, then, is what can be said to check our opponents' propensity to engage in debate at the drop of a hat, with the consequent danger of over-hasty judgement in all matters but above all in discussions which have to do with God. But rebuking others is a matter of no difficulty at all – it is the easiest thing in the world, and any one so disposed can do it – whereas establishing one's own position in exchange for theirs is what a pious and intelligent person should do. So let us rely on the Holy Spirit – who among our opponents is dishonoured but among us is adored1 – and bring out into the light of public view our own opinions (whatever they may be) concerning the divine nature, like some well-born and well-bred child. Not that on other occasions I have been silent, for concerning this one subject I am full of strength and daring. But in the present circum-stances I am even bolder to declare the truth, lest by shrinking back (as it is written) I should be condemned as displeasing to God.2
And since every discourse has two parts, the one establishing one's own position, and the other overthrowing the position of one's opponents, let me first of all state the teaching of our side, and then try to refute that of our opponents. I will do both as briefly as possible, so that my arguments may be taken in at a glance – as in the elementary treatises which our opponents have devised to deceive simple or foolish persons. Besides, a lengthy discourse makes it all too easy to lose the train of thought, like water which is not contained in a channel but spreading over open land, goes to waste.
§ 2. The three most ancient opinions concerning God are Anarchy, Polyarchy, and Monarchy.3
The first two are the sport of the children of the
1 A reference to the fact that Arians in general, and Eunomius and his disciples in particular, denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit.
2 Cf. Hebrews 10.38-39: " 'My soul takes no pleasure in anyone who shrinks back' [Habakkuk 2.4, acc. to Septuagint]. But we are not among those who shrink back and so are lost, but among those who have faith and so are saved." 3 Anarchy means "without (a-, an-) sovereignty" or "a condition where nobody and nothing rules," in effect, atheism; Polyarchy, "sovereignty
Gregory of Nazianzus
Greeks, and may they continue to be so. For Anarchy is, in effect, pure disorder. Polyarchy is a state of discord, and thus anarchy, and thus disorder. For both these tend to the same thing, namely disorder – and disorder leads to disintegration, for disorder is the prelude to disintegration.
It is Monarchy that we hold in honour – but not a Monarchy that is contained in one single person.4 For it is possible for this one person, if at variance with itself, to become a plurality of persons. But it is a plurality which consists of an equality of nature, a unanimity of will, and an identity of action, and which converges back into the One from which they come – a thing unheard of among created natures. In this case, though the sovereignty is distinct with respect to number, yet it is not divided with respect to substance. Thus from the beginning 5 the One, moving toward the Twofold, found its rest in the Threefold. This is what we mean by Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Father begets and produces – to be sure, without passion,6 and without reference to time, and not in a physical manner. The Son is begotten, and the Holy Spirit is produced -- I do not know how to express this in terms which exclude all reference to things that can be seen. For we certainly do not have the audacity to speak of "an overflow of goodness," as some Greek philosophers dared to speak of "an overflowing bowl" in his discussion of "the First Cause" and "the Second Cause".7
Let us take care never to look on this
exercised by many (polus)," in effect, polytheism; Monarchy, "sovereignty exercised by one (monos)," in effect, monotheism. These terms make it clear that Gregory is thinking of divinity primarily the sense of rulership or mastery over the community of creation.
4 This is the first time that Gregory uses the term person – προσωπον (PROSOPON) – in connexion with God. The word originally designated the mask worn by an actor while playing a part in the ancient Greek theatre, whether drama or comedy. (Two such masks – one laughing, the other frowning – still represent acting and the theatre.) Hence, prosopon came to refer to one's presence to others – as in T. S. Eliot's line, "To prepare a face to meet the faces that you meet" ("The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock"). 5 1 John 1.1: "We declare to you what was from the beginning…." 6 Without passion. That is to say, not in a way that subjects the Father to change, alteration, or modification. 7 This is a disparaging reference to Plotinus, Enneads V, 1.6, where Plotinus defined the First Cause as "the One" and the Second Cause as "Being".
Theological Orations 3: On the Son, 1
generation8 as involuntary, like some natural overflow, hard to hold back, and by no means befitting our conception of divinity. Therefore let us abide within our own bounds and speak of "the one who is unbegotten," "the one who is begotten," and "the one who proceeds from the Father," as God the Word says somewhere.9
§ 3. When did the one who is begotten and the one who proceeds from the Father come into being? They are above and beyond the notion of a "when". Indeed, if I may speak somewhat more boldly – they came into being when the Father did. And when did the Father come into being? There never was a time when the Father did not exist. And the same thing is true of the Son and the Holy Spirit. Ask me again: "When was the Son begotten?" And again I will answer you: When the Father was unbegotten. – "And when did the Holy Spirit proceed?" When the Son was, not proceeding, but begotten beyond the sphere of time and in a manner which cannot be expressed – although we cannot avoid the imagery of time when we wish to express what is above time. For such expressions as when and before and after and from the beginning are not timeless, however much we twist their meaning. It will be necessary for us to adopt the standard of Eternity, that interval which extends through all things above and beyond time, and which is not divided or measured by any movement, nor by the revolution of the sun, as time is measured.
8 this generation – γεννησις (gennesis). This term means "this begetting," as in the siring or the breeding of offspring, thus (by extension) the act by which one causes another to exist. The Nicene movement insisted on this term, when speaking of the Son's origin from (and relation to) the Father, because Arians insisted that the Son came from the Father by way of γενεσις (genesis) – literally, "beginning of life," "creation".
9 John 15.26: "When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth WHO COMES FROM THE FATHER, he will testify on my behalf." 10 Eternity appears to be a temporal concept, insofar as we tend to think of it as the endless extension of time. This much Gregory concedes when he speaks of that interval which extends through all things above and beyond time. But he immediately qualifies the character of this interval in the following clauses. The truth is, eternity does not have to do with time so much as with the transcendence of time. For eternity is not simply time in unending extension; it is a condition in which time has literally ceased to be countable. In a sense, eternity is other-than-time, time's opposite.
Gregory of Nazianzus
How then can the one who is begotten and the one who proceeds not be "without beginning," if they are eternal? It is because they are from the Father, but not after the Father.11
For whatever is without beginning is eternal, though whatever is eternal is not necessarily without beginning, so long as it may be referred to the Father as its origin. So the begotten one and the one who proceeds are not without beginning with respect to causation. But it is evident that the cause does not necessarily come before its effects, for the sun is not prior to its light. And yet the begotten one and the one who proceeds are in some sense without beginning with respect to time, even though you would scare simple minds with your quibbles; for the sources of time are not subject to time.
12 Because it is incorporeal. For if corporeal generation involves passion, incorporeal generation excludes it. And I in my turn will ask you: How can the Son be God if He is created?13
§ 4. But how can this generation of the Son be without passion?
For that which is created is not God. I refrain from reminding you that, if we take "creation" in a corporeal sense, passions are present here, too – such as time, desire, imagination, thought, hope, pain, risk, failure, success, all of which and many more affect the creature, as is clear to every one. Indeed, I am amazed that you do not venture so far as to think of carnal couplings, terms of pregnancy and the dangers of miscarriage – as if the Father could not have begotten at all if He had not begotten thus. Or again, I am surprised that you did not count up the various ways in which birds and mammals and fishes generate themselves, and classify under one of these
11 This paragraph is directed against the teaching of Eunomius, who maintained that an cause must be prior to the thing it causes. Since the Unbegotten (the Father) caused or originated the Begotten (the Son), the Unbegotten must come before the Begotten, both in the order of time and in the order of being. Gregory concedes that the Unbegotten originates the Begotten, but points out that a cause need not precede its effect. As we shall see later on in this Oration, it is possible to conceive of a cause which would not be a cause, or even be at all, without the presence of its effects.
12 without passion. See footnote 6, page 34 – though, as Gregory's exposition here makes clear, he is also thinking of passion in the sense sexual intercourse. 13 Arians generally asserted that the Son is created, but not all Arians agreed that this meant the Son was not divine – divinity, such Arians opined, was delegated to the Son by the Father. Eunomius and his disciples had no truck with this latter view – since the Son was created, they asserted, he was not divine, and not God.
Theological Orations 3: On the Son, 1
modes of generation the divine and unspeakable mode of generation – or else, as a result of your novel hypothesis, get rid of the Son altogether. And you cannot even see this, that as the Son's generation according to the flesh differs from all others – for where among humans have you known of a Godbearing virgin?14
– 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.
§ 5. What Father, then, is this who never had a beginning as a father? – One whose very existence had no beginning; for one whose existence had a beginning must also have begun to be a Father. He did not become a Father at some point after He began to be, because His being had no beginning. And He is Father in the proper sense of the word, for He is not at the same time Son; just as the Son is Son in the proper sense of the word, because He is not at the same time Father. These names do not belong to us in the proper sense, because we are both parent and child, and not one more than the other. And we come from two parents, not from only one, with the result that there is a division in us. Moreover, we become human by degrees, and perhaps not quite human but such as our parents did not desire;
we leave our parents and they leave us, so that only the relations remain, without the underlying reality.
"But," say our opponents, "do not the very expressions begot and was begotten imply a beginning of generation?"
16 Well, then, suppose we do not use these expressions but say that "the Son was begotten from the beginning"? This allows us easily to evade your far-fetched and time-loving objections.17
14 God-bearing virgin – θεοτοκος παρθηενος (theotokos parthenos). Gregory already uses the title of the blessed Virgin Mary – theotokos, "God-bearer" – which would precipitate the council of Ephesus (431).
15 Gregory is referring to our gradual development both in the womb and through infancy, childhood, adolescence, and adulthood. Even so, some children fail to attain the full maturity as human beings, through handicaps of mind or body, so that (as Mason comments) "the wishes of human parents for their offspring are often far from realised." 16 The Eunomian objection, as Gregory frames it, now moves beyond (or rather behind) the fact of generation and how it happens, to consider the grammar of the terms used to express it. The term begot is past tense, the term was begotten is passive perfect tense – and verb-tenses necessarily imply the idea of a moment when. 17 Gregory solves the Eunomian objection by proposing a formula which sets the "moment" of the Son's being begotten before the beginning of
Gregory of Nazianzus
Will you file a charge against us as if we were forging something contrary to Scripture and the truth? Why, every one knows that in practice we very often find tenses interchanged when time is spoken of. This is especially so in the holy Scriptures, not only with respect to the past tense and the present tense, but even with respect to the future tense – for instance, Why have the nations raged together? 18 when it is clear that they had not yet raged; and they shall pass through the river on foot,19
where the meaning is they did cross over. It would take too long to cite all the expressions of this kind which have been noticed by the diligent.
§ 6. So much for this point. What is their next objection, contentious and impudent as ever? "How did the Father beget the Son," they ask, " – was it willingly or unwillingly?" Then they bind us on both sides with cords – or so they think. But these cords are not strong, indeed they are quite flimsy. For if the Father begot the Son unwillingly, they say, the Father was under compulsion – and who could compel the Father? And how could the One so compelled be God? But if the Father begot the Son willingly, the Son is offspring of the will – and how then is He the Son of the Father? They have recast the will as some new kind of mother in place of the Father. One thing, however, is delightful about the way they talk – that they set aside the notion of passion [in the Father's begetting of the Son], and take refuge in the will. For the will is not a passion.
Next, let us look at what they consider their strong point. And it is best to grapple with them at close quarters. – You yourself, who so recklessly assert whatever takes your fancy; were you begotten willingly or unwillingly by your father? If unwillingly, then he was under compulsion. What violence! And who did the compelling? You will hardly say it was nature, for nature admits of self-restraint. If you were begotten willingly, then your father disappears by a few syllables, for you are shown to be a child of the will and not of your father. But I move on to the relation between God and creatures, and I put your question to your own wisdom. Did God create all things willingly, or under compulsion? If under compulsion, here also is the tyranny and one who played the tyrant. If God created willingly, the creatures also are deprived of their God – and, before other creatures, you who invent such arguments and tricks of logic. For a partition is set up between the Creator and the creatures in the shape of the will. And yet I think that the person who wills is distinct from the act of willing, the one who begets from the act of
time – that is to say, the Son was already begotten when the beginning began. 18 Psalm 2.1 (according to the Septuagint). 19 Psalm 66.6 (according to the Septuagint).