To Avlavius ​​about the fact that there are not “three Gods”

Composition by St. Gregory of Nyssa “To Aulavius ​​that it is not “three Gods” that is dedicated to the defense of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. This small but very important treatise was written around 390 and addressed to a friend, St. Gregory of Nyssa to the sophist Aulavius, who turned to St. Gregory with the following question: do we not recognize the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as three Gods, talking about them as three individuals participating in one species - the Divinity? St. Gregory of Nyssa is justified from accusations of tritheism, which were brought against his teaching and St. Basil the Great on the relationship between essence and hypostasis. St. Gregory proves that the recognition of the trinity of Persons does not destroy the unity of God. The word "God" refers to essence, not to Persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three Persons, but have one Divine essence. *The title of the work in Greek is Περὶ τοῦ μὴ οἴεσθαι λέϒειν τρεῖς θεούς, πρὸς ᾿Αβλάβιον. *The title of the work in Latin is Ad Ablabium quod non sint tres dei. Although justice demands from you, blossoming in all your strength according to your inner man, to fight the opponents of the truth and not weaken in your labors, so that we, fathers, can rejoice at the valiantly shed sweat of our children; since this is required by the law of nature; however, since, having perverted the order, you send to us the attacks of arrows with which opponents throw at the truth, and you order us, old men, with the shield of faith to extinguish “desert coals” (Psalm 119: 4) and arrows refined by false guidance; then we accept the order, becoming for you a model of obedience, so that you yourself, in the event of similar orders, will reward us in the same way, just as we will soon raise you, the courageous warrior of Christ Aulavius, to similar feats. This question, which you proposed to us, is important and not such that it could only cause minor harm if left without proper research. For, according to the requirement of the main position, it is certainly necessary, in the sense closest to understanding, to agree on one of the opposites, or to assert that there are three Gods (which is impermissible), or not to attribute divinities to the Son and the Holy Spirit (which is impious and absurd). What you affirm is this: Peter, James, John, since their humanity is one, are called three people, and there is nothing absurd in calling those united by nature, if there are many of them, in the plural by the name of their nature. Therefore, if the custom there allows it, and no one forbids calling two two, and if there are more than two, then three; why in the mysterious dogmas, confessing three hypostases, and not noticing in them any difference in nature, we somehow contradict the confession, asserting that the Divinity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is one, while forbidding calling them three Gods? Therefore, as I said before, the question is very difficult. And it would be best for us to find something on which our wavering thought could rely, no longer being led into doubt and bewilderment by mutual absurdity. But if our answer turns out to be weaker than the proposed task, then we will forever keep the tradition that we received from the fathers firm and immovable, but we will seek a protective word for faith from the Lord, and if we find it from anyone who has grace, then we will thank the Giver of grace. And if we do not find it, we will nevertheless have unshakable faith in what we recognize. So, why is it our custom to call those who belong to the same nature, one by one, in the plural: so many people, and not say that they are all one person; But the dogmatic teaching about God’s nature rejects the plurality of Gods, listing the hypostases, but not accepting multiple meanings? It may seem to simple people that he said something sensible to this, who will give in response what first of all comes to his mind, namely: Christian teaching, avoiding similarities with Hellenic polytheism, was careful not to count the Gods in plurality, so that there would be no recognition of community in dogmas, if in our country the Divinity was not single in number, but plural, like the custom of the Hellenes. And this, being said to simple people, may seem to have some meaning; for others, who, as a result of the question, try to establish themselves in something else: either not to confess the Divinity in three persons, or to call those who communicate in the same Divinity three - this answer is not yet such as to serve as a solution to the question. Therefore, it is necessary to answer in more detail, as is proper for those who are looking for traces of the truth; because we are not talking about unimportant things. Therefore, we affirm, firstly, that there is a certain incorrect use of words in this custom, to call those who are not divided by nature in the plural by the same name of nature and to say “many people,” which would be similar if one said “many human natures”; and that this is really so will be obvious to us from the following. When we call someone, we call him not by nature, so that the commonality of the name does not produce any mistake if everyone who hears thinks that they are calling him, because the call is not made by its own name, but by the common name of nature; on the contrary, by pronouncing our own name, which belongs to the one being called, I understand the word by which this particular person is signified, thus distinguishing him from many, so that, although there are many who have this nature, I will put, for example, disciples, apostles, martyrs, but this person is one of all; because, as has been said, man is the name not of each individual, but of the general nature; for both Luke and Stephen are a man, but if someone is a man, then he is certainly no longer both Luke and Stephen. On the contrary, the concept of hypostases, according to the characteristics seen in each, allows for division, and upon addition is represented by a number; but the nature is one, united with itself and exactly an indivisible unit, not increased by addition, not diminished by subtraction; but, just as there is one, so, although it appears in multitude, the existing one is indivisible, unfragmented, whole, not given a special part to each of its participants. And just like the words “people”, “crowd”, “army”, “assembly” - everything is called in the singular, although in each of the names the plurality is implied; So, in the most precise concept, one can actually be called a man, although there are many who turn out to belong to the same nature, so it would be much better to correct this erroneous custom among us, and not extend the name of nature to the multitude, or, having enslaved it, not transfer the resulting error to the Divine dogma. But since the correction of custom is not feasible (for how can anyone be convinced that those who happen to belong to the same nature are not called many people? Because custom is difficult to change in everything); then in the reasoning of the nature of the earth we will err somewhat, without opposing the prevailing custom, since here there is no harm from the erroneous use of names. But the different use of names in Divine dogma is not so safe, because here what is unimportant is no longer unimportant. So, we must confess one God, according to the testimony of Scripture: “Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God, there is one Lord” (Deut. 6:4), although the naming of the Divinity extends to the Holy Trinity. I say this on the basis of what has been taught to us about human nature; from which we learned that the name of nature should not be expanded with the distinctive property of plurality. But we must examine more precisely the very name of the Divine, so that the meaning contained in the word may provide some assistance in clarifying the proposed question. It seems to many that the word “Divinity” is used specifically about nature, and like the sky, or the sun, or any other of the elements of the world, it is designated by special names that distinguish what is named; This is what they say in the discussion of the highest and divine nature; the word “Divinity”, as a kind of properly applied name, naturally fits the signified. But we, following the suggestions of Scripture, learned that the nature of God is unnameable and ineffable, and we affirm that every name, whether it is known from human essence, or taught by Scripture, is an interpretation of something understood about God’s nature, but does not contain the meaning of the nature itself. And to prove that this is really so, no one needs much work. For all other names given to a creature, even without any word production, may be found by others to be accidentally adapted to objects; because we love, no matter how it is, to designate things by their name, so that our knowledge of what is signified becomes unified. Yet all the names that serve as a guide to the comprehension of the Divine are such that each has its own specific meaning contained in it, and among the most magnificent names you will not find a single word without any concept. Therefore, this proves that by any name the Divine nature itself is not signified, but on the contrary, something related to nature is shown by this predicate. For we say, if it so happens, that the Divinity is incorruptible, or powerful, or something else, as we are usually told, but we seek for each name a special meaning that is appropriate to imagine in the mind and express about God’s nature, and by which it does not mean what nature is in essence. For that which has being is incorruptible; and the concept of incorruption is that what exists does not undergo corruption. Therefore, by calling it incorruptible, we affirm that nature does not tolerate corruption; What is it that does not undergo corruption, we cannot imagine. Thus, if we call the Deity life-giving, then, having designated by this name what He creates, by this word we do not provide knowledge of the Creator himself. And according to the same law, from the meaning contained in the divine names, we find everything else that either forbids us to know about the divine nature what we should not know, or teaches us what we should know, but does not contain the interpretation of the nature itself. So, since, noting the various activities of the Supreme Power, we use proper names for each of the activities known to us; then one and precisely that activity, which is supervised and observing, and, as another will say, visual (θεατικὴ), and by which God observes everything and has supervision, seeing thoughts and penetrating with contemplative power even into the invisible, we decided from sight (ἐκ τῆς θέας) to call Divinity ( τὴν Θεότητα), and our Spectator, and, according to the custom and teaching of the Scriptures, call God. If anyone agrees that it is the same thing to be a spectator and to see, and for God, who oversees everything, to be and be called the overseer of the universe; then let him judge about this activity, whether it belongs to one of the Persons confessed in the Holy Trinity, or whether this power extends to all three Persons. For if this interpretation of the word “Divinity” is true, and what is visible and seeing is called God, then there is no longer any reason to deprive any of the Persons of the Trinity of such a name, according to the meaning contained in the word. For Scripture testifies that seeing belongs equally to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. “God is our protector” (Psalm 83:10), says David; and from this we understand that the concept of God, insofar as He is mentally represented by us, is borrowed from special visual activity, according to what was said: “see God.” Yes, and Jesus sees the thoughts of those who condemn, and therefore autocratically forgives the sins of people: for it is said: “Jesus saw their thoughts” (Matthew 9:4). And Peter says about the Spirit to Ananias: “For Satan will cause your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit” (Acts. 5:3), showing that the untruthful witness and observer of what Ananias secretly ventured to do was the Holy Spirit, from Whom there was a revelation of what was hidden to Peter; for Ananias became the target of himself, hiding, as he thought, from everyone and hiding sin; The Holy Spirit was also in Peter, and saw into the thoughts of Ananias, drawing him to self-interest, and from Himself gives Peter the power to see what is hidden; and this, obviously, he would not have done if he had not been a spectator of the secret. But someone will say that the proof given in words is not relevant to the question. For if we assume that the name “Divinity” is common to nature, then this has not yet been proven that we should not say “Gods”, but on the contrary, this rather forces us to say “Gods”; for we find that, according to human custom, they are mentioned, not in the singular, by many, not only having the same general nature, but also belonging to the same class by occupation; why do we talk about many rhetoricians, geometers, farmers, shoemakers, and also those who do everything else? And if the word “Divinity” were the name of nature, then it would be more appropriate, on the basis indicated above, to include the three hypostases into one and call them one God, due to the inseparability and indivisibility of nature. since what was said proved that the name “Divinity” does not mean nature, but activity; then the meaning of the speech turns somehow into the opposite of what is being proven, namely, that all the more should one name three Gods, mentally represented in the same activity; as they say: three philosophers, or rhetoricians, or, if there is another name, taken from the occupation, and many participate in the same thing. I processed all this with greater care, revealing the objections of opponents, so that our dogma would acquire greater firmness, defeating the most difficult oppositions. Therefore, we must begin our speech again. Since we have sufficiently proven by the very course of speech that the word “Divinity” is not a name for nature, but for activity; then, perhaps, to the fact that among people those who are in communication with each other in the same occupations are numbered and named plurally, and the divine, as one God and one Divinity, is named singularly, although the three hypostases do not differ in the meaning found in the word “Divinity”, another will thoroughly present the following reason: people, although many have one type of activity, but each, left to act on his own, leads into the action assigned to him without any communication in his activity with those engaged in anything similar. For even if there are many rhetoricians, then, although the occupation, as a single one, has the same name in many, yet those who devote themselves to this occupation act each on their own, one is a special rhetorician, and another is special. So, since in people, during the same occupations, the activity of each is separate; then in the proper sense they are called many, since each of them, by the uniqueness of their action, is separated from the others into a special district. But what we have learned about the Divine nature is not that the Father of Himself creates something that the Son does not touch, or that the Son again does something separately without the Spirit; but that every action that extends from the Divine to creation and is named according to the many different concepts about Him, comes from the Father, extends through the Son and is accomplished by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the name of action is not divided into many active ones, since there is no special care for anything acquired by everyone. But whatever happens, whether it concerns industry about us, or the economy and composition of the universe, everything is produced by the Three, however, there are not three works. Let us understand what has been said about one particular subject. I begin my speech with the most important of talents; life was improved by everything that became involved in this mercy. So, finding out where this good came from for us, we find, according to the guidance of Scripture, that it is from the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. But on the basis that we posit three Persons and Names, we do not conclude that each of Them has specifically given us three lives; on the contrary, the same life is put into action by the Father, prepared by the Son, and depends on the will of the Spirit. So, like what has been said, the Holy Trinity does not bring into action any activity separately according to the number of hypostases; on the contrary, there is only one movement and order of good will, passing from the Father through the Son to the Spirit. Therefore, just as we do not call those who produce one and the same life three life-giving, nor those contemplated in the same goodness as three good, nor do we express ourselves in plural terms about everything else: so we cannot call three Gods collectively and inseparably through each other, bringing into action on us and on all creatures this Divine (θεϊκὴν), that is, the supervising power and activity. For having learned from Scripture that God judges everyone “of all the earth” (Gen. 18:25), we affirm that He is the judge of the universe through the Son. And hearing again that “the Father judges no one” (John 5:22), we do not think that Scripture contradicts itself; for “the Judge of all the earth” does this through the Son, to whom he gave all judgment. And everything done by the Only Begotten relates to the Father, so that He is the Judge of the universe and judges no one; because, as it is said, he gave all the judgment to the Son, and every judgment of the Son is not alien to the Father’s will; therefore, no one has a good reason to either name two judges, or recognize one in relation to the court as alien to that power and force. So it is with regard to the concept of the Divine, “Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God” (1 Cor. 1:24). And the supervising and visual power, which we call Divinity, the Father brings into action through the Only Begotten, because the Son accomplishes all power by the Holy Spirit, and judges, as Isaiah says, “with the spirit of judgment and the spirit of heat” (Is. 4:4), and acts according to the Gospel word spoken to the Jews; for he says: “If I through the Spirit of God I cast out demons” (Matt. 12:28), under private beneficence, including all types of beneficence, due to unity in relation to action; and those who bring one thing into action through each other, with those the name of action cannot be divided into many. For, as it was said before, there is one law of supervising and visual power in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, from the Father, as coming from a certain source, brought into action by the Son and accomplishing grace by the power of the Spirit; and therefore, not a single action is distinguished by hypostasis, as if each one were performed separately and separately, without being detected in the action by others; on the contrary, all providence, guardianship and vigilance over the universe, in relation to the sensory creature and to the premium nature and protecting beings, and correcting sins, and teaching correctness, is unique, and not threefold, although it is accomplished by the Holy Trinity, however, it is not divided triply according to the number of Persons contemplated by faith, so that each of the actions, considered in itself, was either of one Father, or especially the Only Begotten, or separately the Holy Spirit. But he shares special benefits for everyone, as the Apostle says, “one and the same Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:11). The movement of good from the Spirit is not without beginning; on the contrary, we find that everything is created by the power envisioned mentally in this movement, and this is the only begotten God, without Whom not a single creature comes into being, and this again the Source of good comes from the Father’s will. If every good deed and name, not in time, without interruptions, depending on the beginningless power and will, is brought to completion in the power of the Spirit by the Only Begotten God, and there is no, or is not imagined by the thought of, any extension of time in the movement of the Divine will from the Father through the Son and to the Spirit; One of the good names and concepts is the Divinity; then it would be unfair for this name to be scattered into multitudes, since unity in action prohibits multiple calculation. And as the Apostle calls “one Savior of all men, and especially of the faithful” (1 Tim. 4:10), and on the basis of these words no one will say that either it is not the Son who saves those who believe, or the salvation of those who receive it occurs without the Spirit; on the contrary, the God of all is the savior of all, while the Son accomplishes salvation by the grace of the Spirit; and even more so in Scripture there are not three Saviors named, even if it is confessed that salvation is from the Holy Trinity; so not three Gods, according to the given meaning of the word “Divinity,” although such a name befits the Holy Trinity. To enter into competition with those who object that by the word “Divinity” we should not mean activity, seems to me something not very necessary for the real proof in this word; for, believing that the nature of God is indefinable and incomprehensible, we do not imagine any concept that embraces it, but make it a rule to imagine this nature as limitless in all respects; but the wholly infinite is not such that it is determined by others and not by others; on the contrary, infinity in every sense avoids limit. Therefore, what is beyond the limit is, of course, not determined by the name; why, so that the concept of indefinability remains with the nature of God, we say that the Divine is above every name, and the Divinity is also one of the names. Consequently, it is impossible for one and the same thing to be both a name and recognized as superior to every name. However, if this is what the opponents want, so that the word “Divinity” has the meaning not of activity, but of nature; then let us return to what was said at the beginning, that the name of nature, according to custom, is erroneously used to mean multitude, because neither diminution nor increase in the true sense occurs in nature when it is seen in many or in few. For that one thing is counted as a summand, which is represented in a special outline; By outline we mean the surface of the body, its size, location, difference in appearance and color. And what is seen besides this avoids being outlined by such signs; and what does not have an outline is not countable, but the uncountable cannot be thought of in a multitude; because about gold, although it is crushed into many different types of parts, we say that it is one, and is called one; coins and staters 1 we call many, in the multitude of staters not finding any increase in the nature of gold: that is why it is said about gold that there is a lot of it when considered in a large volume, or in vessels, or in coins, but by the multitude of substances in them it is not said that there are many golden substances, unless someone says so, meaning darics 2 or staters, in which the meaning of multitude is given not to the substance, but to parts of the substance; for in the proper sense it must be said that these are not golden substances, but golden things. Therefore, just as there are many golden staters, but only one gold; So in human nature there are many people taken individually, for example, Peter, James, John, but there is only one person in them. If Scripture expands the name “man” to a plural meaning, saying: “men swear by great things” (Heb. 6:16), and: “sons of mankind” (Psalm 35:8), and the like; then you should know that Scripture, guided by the custom of the dominant dialect, does not legitimize that one should use sayings one way or another, and expresses itself this way, not offering any artificial doctrine about sayings, but uses the word in accordance with the prevailing custom, meaning one thing, so that the word becomes useful for those who receive it, but without entering into subtle studies of expressions, where no harm occurs from the meaning of the sayings. It would take a long time to prove what has been said, to collect all the irregularities of the word composition in Scripture: but in the reasoning of which there is a danger of suffering any harm to the truth, in the sayings of Scripture there is no illegibility and indifference. Therefore, he allows the use of the word “man” in the plural, because from such a way of speech no one will fall into the assumption of a plurality of humanity, and will not think that many human natures are meant, because the name of nature is expressed plurally. But the word “God” is carefully proclaimed by Scripture in a single modification of the word, taking care not to introduce different natures into the Divine essence by the plural meaning of “Gods”. Why does he say: “The Lord God..., there is only one Lord” (Deut. 6:4). But he also preaches the Only Begotten God in the word “Divinity,” and does not split the one into a dual meaning, so as to call the Father and the Son two Gods, although both are preached by the saints as God. But as the Father is God, so the Son is God; there is one God in one and the same sermon, because there is no mental distinction in the Divine, either in nature or in activity. For if, according to the assumption of the deceived, the nature of the Holy Trinity was diverse; then, as a result of this, the number would extend to a multitude of gods, dividing along with the otherness of the essence in the Persons. But since the divine, simple, unchangeable nature rejects from itself any otherness in essence; then, since it is one, it does not admit the meaning of plurality. But just as nature is called one, so everything else is called in the singular: God, the good, the holy, the savior, the righteous, the judge, and if we also mean one of the divine names, about which let another say that it refers either to nature or to activity, we will not argue about it. If anyone begins to slander our word, which, without accepting differences in nature, leads to some kind of confusion and rotation of hypostases, then in defense against such reproach we will say the following: while confessing the indifference of nature, we do not deny the difference of being a cause and coming from a cause, we understand that this is the only difference between one another, precisely because, as we believe, one Person is the cause; and the other from the reason. And in the fact that from the cause, we again imagine another difference; for one is directly from the first, the other from the first through the mediation of what is direct from Him, which is why the only-begottenness undoubtedly remains with the Son, and the Spirit undoubtedly also belongs to being from the Father, because the mediation of the Son preserves the only-begottenness to Him, and does not remove the Spirit from natural rapprochement with the Father. When we say “cause” and “existence from cause,” we do not mean nature by these names (for no one will learn the same concept as the words “cause” and “nature”), but we show the difference in the way of being. For when we say that one is due to a cause, and the other is without a cause, we are not dividing nature by the concept of cause, but we are only showing that the Son is not ungenerate, and the Father is not through generation. First, we need to be convinced of the existence of something, and then we will find out how that which we believe in exists exists; for there is a different concept that something exists, and a different concept about how it exists. Therefore, to say “this exists ungenerately” means to decide how it exists: but this word does not show at the same time what exactly exists. And if you ask a farmer about a tree, whether it was planted or grew by itself, and he answers that either the tree was not planted, or it grew from planting, then with this answer will he show the nature of the tree? No. On the contrary, having said how it exists, he left the concept of nature unknown and unclear. So here too, having heard the word “unborn,” we are taught how He exists, and how we should understand Him; but what He is is not told to us by this word. So, speaking about this difference in the Holy Trinity, namely, that, according to our belief, one Person is the cause, and the other from the cause, we can no longer be accused of as if, due to the commonality of nature, we are confusing the concept of hypostases. Therefore, since the concept of cause distinguishes the hypostases of the Holy Trinity, affirming being without a cause, and being from a cause: the nature of God in every representation is understood to be indispensable and inseparable: therefore, in the proper sense, there is one Deity, one God, and all other divine names are expressed in the singular number. Greek 100 drachma gold coin. Persian gold coin with the image of Darius. You might be interested in: